i v
PB-218 672
levelopment of Construction and
Use Criteria for Sanitary Landfills
Los Angeles Department of County Engineer
tared for
mmental Protection Agency
Distributed By
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
EPA-SW-19D-73
DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND USE CRITERIA
FOR SANITARY LANDFILLS
Final Report on a Solid Waste Management Demonstration Grant
This final report (SW-19d) on work performed under
solid waste management demonstration grant no. G06-EC-00046
to the County of Los Angeles, Californiat was prepared by
the DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER, County of Los Angeles,
and ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA !• RcPort No- 2-
SHEET EPA-SW-19D-73
3. Recipient's Accession No.
PE 218-672
4. Title and Subtitle
Development of Construction and Use Criteria for Sanitary
Landfills; Final Report on a Solid Waste Management
Demonstration Grant
5. Report Date
1973
6.
7. Auihor(s)
Department of County Engineer and Engineering-Science, Inc.
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
County of Los Angeles
Department of County Engineer
108 West Second Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. gttUttWGraOT No.
G06-EC-000A6
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20^60
13. Type of Report 8t Period
Covered
F lnal
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
The report details the results of a three-year project intended to formulate
construction criteria for sanitary landfills and improvements that would lead to
optimum land development and maximum use. The investigation of landfills that had
been built in an uncontrolled fashion led to the conclusion that the movement of
gas away from landfills can be minimized and that ultimate subsidence can be
predicted. In addition, a leachate pollution index was established, a model
ordinance for locating, constructing, and operating sanitary landfills was drawn
up, and research suggestions were developed.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
*Waste disposal, Urban areas, Design criteria, Leaching, Differential settlement,
Land reclamation
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
* Solid waste disposal, "Sanitary landfill,
17c. COSAT! Field/Group 1 3B
18. Availability Statement
Release to public
"ORM N TIS-33 (REV. 3-721
Los Angeles, Gas formation tests
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
511
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
Z2- Price
USCOMM-(^C '4932-P72
-------
NOTE TO THE READER
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Agency, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the'CLS.
Government.
Except for the insertion of a new title page, this Report
has been reproduced as received from the grantee.
The results of this project are not considered to be
and most of the field investigations were made at landfills in
the County. As a general rule, sanitary landfills in the study
area are large; many are very deep. The criteria developed
herein reflect the requirements of this type of disposal
operation and are, therefore, not necessarily applicable to
smaller and/or shallower landfills common in other parts of the
country.
Before utilizing information developed by this project the
reader is cautioned to consider how specific conditions in his
area may relate to, or differ from, those of the study area.
Such factors as climate, topography, geology, and hydrolpgy, as
well as the characteristics and quantities of wastes received,
should be evaluated, because each may influence the design of a
sanitary landfill operation.
generally applicable in all locations outside the Los Angeles
area. The Dro.iect was conducted bv the Countv of Los Anaeles
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Program Objectives
Background
Management of the Study
Acknowledgments
Site Selection
Gas Barriers and Control Devices
Field Subsidence Monitoring and Laboratory
Experiment Program
Predictions of Ultimate Subsidence
Effects of Sanitary Landfills on Ground-
water Quality
Available Information on Uses and Problems
Associated With Sanitary Landfills
Development of "Standard Specifications
for Good Practice"
CHAPTER II MONITORING LANDFILL SUBSIDENCE AND LABORATORY
DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSIDENCE PREDICTIONS
Monitoring Landfill Subsidence
Settlement Analyses
Laboratory Studies on Prediction of
Landfill Subsidence
Laboratory Procedure
Subsidence During Decomposition
Results
Prediction of Landfill Settlement
CHAPTER III GAS MOVEMENT AND CONTROL
General
Basic Objectives
Results of Gas Sampling and Analyses
Program
Gas Control Systems
Gas Trap Explosion Unit
CHAPTER IV GROUNDWATER POLLUTION
Causes
Leachate Experiment
Carbon Dioxide
Groundwater Monitoring
CHAPTER V CRITERIA FOR THE LOCATION, DESIGN, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
Location
Design
Construction
Page
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
II-l
II-l
II-4
II-6
11-14
11-19
II-2L
11-33
III-l
III-l
III-l
III-7
111-13
111-26
IV-1
IV-1
IV-4
IV-11
IV-12
V-l
V-l
V-3
V-10
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
CHAPTER VI
CRITERIA FOR THE INSPECTION, SUPERVISION,
AND MAINTENANCE OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
Inspection
Supervision
Maintenance
VI-1
VI-1
VI-2
VI-4
CHAPTER VII
CHAPTER VIII
CRITERIA FOR THE USES OF LAND ON AND
ADJACENT TO SANITARY LANDFILLS VII-1
The General PLan VII-1
Uses of Completed Sanitary Landfills VII-1
Uses of Lands Adjacent to Sanitary
Landfills or Dumps VII-2
CRITERIA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION,
AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS ON, IN, AND
ADJACENT TO SANITARY LANDFILLS VIII-1
Introduction VIII-1
Functional Requirements VIII-1
Improvements VIII-2
Maintenance VIII-9
CHAPTER IX
CHAPTER X
SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH IX-1
Three Year Project Proposals IX-1
Secondary Research Requirements IX-2
Current Status of Proposed Research IX-4
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS X-l
Summary X-l
Conclusions X-26
Recommendations X-28
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
LIST OF REFERENCES CITED
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LITERATURE REVIEWED
CONSULTANT'S REPORTS
TABLES
GAS ANALYSIS DATA SHEETS
FIGURES
SANITARY LANDFILL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR
GOOD PRACTICE
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1-1 Response to Short-Form Questionnaire D-l
1-2 Site Investigations D-2
I-3 Response to Long-Form Questionnaire D-7
II-l Settlement Record at Site 2-B D-17
II-2 Settlement Record at Site 3 D-18
II-3 Settlement Record at Site 5 D-20
II-4 Settlement and Lateral Movement
Record at Site 7 D-25
II-5 Settlement Record at Site 9 D-26
II-6 Settlement Record at Site 10 D-30
II-7 Settlement Record at Site 11 D-31
II-8 Site 5: Settlement/Depth of Fill D-33
II-9 Site 11, Area 1: Settlement/Depth of Fill D-34
11-10 Site 11, Area 3: Settlement/Depth of Fill D-35
11-11 Depth of Fill Comparisons with Percentages:
Settlement/Depth D-36
11-12 Composition and Analysis of Experimental
Refuse Mixture D-37
11-13 Estimated Carbon and Nitrogen Content of
Experimental Refuse Mixtures D-38
11-14 Effect of Compaction Effort on Dry Refuse Cells D-39
11-15 Effect of Water Addition on Refuse Unit Weight D-40
11-16 Porosity, Voids Ratio, and Unit Weight of
Dry Compacted Refuse D-41
11-17 Subsidence During Aerobic Decomposition D-42
11-18 Subsidence During Anaerobic Decomposition D-48
11-19 Consolidation Test Data Aerobic Refuse - Dry D-57
11-20 Consolidation Test Data Aerobic Refuse - 65
Percent Saturated D-58
11-21 Consolidation Test Data Anaerobic Refuse - Dry D-59
11-22 Consolidation Test Data Anaerobic Refuse - 65
Percent Saturated D-60
11-23 Consolidation Test Data Anaerobic Refuse -
Saturated D-61
11-24 Unit Weight of Aerobic Refuse After
Consolidation D-62
11-25 Unit Weight of Anaerobic Refuse After
Consolidation D-63
11-26 Time - Deformation Data D-64
11-27 Time - Deformation Data D-67
11-28 Constants for Equation of Secondary Compaction D-71
II-29 Prediction of Landfill Subsidence
Simulated Landfill D-72
III-l Site 6 Methane Concentrations
27 August 1969 D-73
III-2 Diffusion-Dispersion Coefficients for Methane
in Various Porous Media D-74
III-3 Diffusion-Dispersion Coefficients for Methane
Through Silty Clay Soil D-75
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Page
III-4
Site 1 Control System, 1969
Test
1:
Methane Concentrations
D-76
III-5
Site 1 Control System, 1969
Test
2:
Methane Concentrations
D-77
III-6
Site 1 Control System, 1969
Test
3:
Methane Concentrations
D-78
III-7
Site 1 Control System, 1969
Test
4:
Methane Concentrations
D-79
III-8
Site 1 Control System, 1969
Test
5:
Methane Concentrations
D-80
III-9
Site 1 Control System, 1969
Test
6:
Methane Concentrations
D-81
111-10
Site 1 Control System, 1969
Test
7:
Methane Concentrations
D-82
III-ll
Site 1 Control System, 1969
Test
8:
Methane Concentrations
D-84
111-12
Site 1 Control System, 1969
Test
10:
Methane Concentrations
D-86
111-13
Site 5 Control System - Gas
Analysis
Data Sheet
D-88
111-14
Site 5 Control System - Gas
Analysis
Data Sheet
D-89
111-15
Site 5 Control System - Gas
Analysis
Data Sheet
D-90
111-16
Site 5 Control System - Gas
Analysis
Data Sheet
D-91
111-17
Site 8 Control System, 1969
Test
1:
Methane Concentrations
D-92
111-18
Gas Explosion Unit Test 2
D-94
111-19
Gas Explosion Unit Test 3
D-96
111-20
Gas Explosion Unit Test 4
D-99
IV-1
Composition of Synthetic Refuse Used in
the Leachate Experiment
D-101
IV-2
Moisture and Volatile Matter
Content in
Synthetic Refuse Ingredients
D-101
IV-3
Moisture and Volatile Matter
Content in
Test Samples
D-102
IV-4
Weight of Leached Samples and Volumes
of Added Water
D-102
IV-5
Relation Between Refuse Specific
Gravity
and Required Water for Immersion
D-103
IV-6
Experimental Results of Series 1 Analysis
of Leachate Samples After One Day
D-103
IV-7
Experimental Results of Series 1 Analysis
of Leachate Samples After Eight Days
Drl04
IV-8
Experimental Results of Series 1 Analysis
of Leachate Samples After 40 Days D-104
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
IV-9
IV-10
IV-11
IV-12
IV-13
IV-14
1V-15
IV-16
IV-17
IV-18
IV-19
IV-20
IV-21
IV-22
IV-23
IV-24
Number
1-1
II-l
II-2
II-3
II-4
II-5
II-6
II-7
11-8
II-9
11-10
11-11
Title Page
Experimental Results of Series 2 Analysis of
Leachate Samples After One Day D-105
Experimental Results of Series 2 Analysis of
Leachate Samples After Eight Days D-105
Experimental Results of Series 2 Analysis of
Leachate Samples After 40 Days D-106
Experimental Results of Series 3 Analysis of
Leachate Samples After One Day D-107
Experimental Results of Series 3 Analysis of
Leachate Samples After Eight Days D-107
Experimental Results of Series 3 Analysis of
Leachate Samples After 23 Days D-108
Experimental Results of Series 3 Analysis of
Leachate Samples After 40 Days D-108
Concentrations of CI, S0^, and NO^, and
Leachates From Series 2 and 3 D-109
Amount of Leached Material, Series 1 D-110
C0D/TDS Ratio During Decomposition for Series 1 D-lll
Total Leachable Materials in Tons/Acre Ft for
Series 1 D-lll
Amount of Leached Material, Series 2 D-112
Leachable Chlorides, Sulfates, and Nitrates
From Series 1 and 2 D-113
Amount of Leached Material, Series 3 D-114
Variation of Leachable TDS With Time Obtained
From Series 1 D-115
Expected TDS Leachates by Landfill Watering D-115
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
General Location of Research Sites in Los Angeles F'-l
County
Settlement Record Site 5 F-2
Settlement Record Area 1 Site 11 F-3
Depth of Fill Curves Area 1 Site 11 F-4
Cumulative Settlement Curves Area 1 Site 11 F-5
Depth of Fill Curves Area 3 Site 11 F-6
Cumulative Settlement Curves Area 3 Site 11 F-7
Experimental Test Units F_g
Consolidation Test Apparatus p-9
Initial Compaction of Synthetic Refuse Cells F-10
Effect of Composition and Size on Compacted Unit F-ll
Weight
Effect of Composition and Size on Porosity of F-12
Compacted Refuse
vii
-------
LIST.OF FIGURES (Continued),
Number
Title
11-12
Effect of Water Added on Unit Weight of Compacted
F-13
Refuse
F-14
11-13
Weight Loss During Decomposition and Subsidence
Aerobic, Dry Refuse Cells
F-15
11-14
Weight Loss During Decomposition and Subsidence
Anaerobic, Dry Refuse Cells
F-16
11-15
Weight Loss During Decomposition and Subsidence
Aerobic, 65 Percent Saturated Refuse Cells
F-17
11-16
Weight Loss During Decomposition and Subsidence
Anaerobic, 65 Percent Saturated Refuse Cells
F-18
11-17
Weight Loss During Decomposition and Subsidence
Anaerobic, Saturated Refuse Cells
F-19
11-18
Unit Weight During Decomposition and Subsidence
Aerobic, Dry Refuse Cells
F-20
11-19
Unit Weight During Decomposition and Subsidence
Anaerobic, Dry Refuse Cells
11-20
Unit Weight During Decomposition and Subsidence
F-21
Aerobic, 65 Percent Saturated Refuse Cells
11-21
Unit Weight During Decomposition and Subsidence
F-22
Anaerobic, 65 Percent Saturated Refuse Cells
11-22
Unit Weight During Decomposition and Subsidence
F-23
Anaerobic, Saturated Refuse Cells
11-23
Subsidence of Aerobic, Dry Refuse Cells
F-24
11-24
Subsidence of Anaerobic, Dry Refuse Cells
F-25
11-25
Subsidence of Aerobic, 65 Percent Saturated Refuse
F-26
Cells
11-26
Subsidence of Anaerobic, 65 Percent Saturated
F-27
Refuse Cells
11-27
Subsidence of Anaerobic, Saturated Refuse Cells
F-28
11-28
Average Annual Subsidence Rates at 180 Days
F-29
Size of Refuse: Fine
11-29
Average Annual Subsidence Rates at 180 Days
F-30
Size of Refuse: Mixed
11-30
Average Annual Subsidence Rates at 180 Days
F-31
Size of Refuse: Coarse
11-31
Ultimate Subsidence (End of 200-Day Test Period)
of
F-32
Aerobic, Dry Refuse Cells
11-32
Ultimate Subsidence (End of 200-Day Test Period)
of
F-33
Anaerobic, Dry Refuse Cells
11-33
Ultimate Subsidence (End of 200-Day Test Period)
of
F-34
Aerobic, 65 Percent Saturated Refuse Cells
11-34
Ultimate Subsidence (End of 200-Day Test Period)
of
F-35
Anaerobic, 65 Percent Saturated Refuse Cells
11-35
Ultimate Subsidence (End of 200-Day Test Period)
of
F-36
Anaerobic, Saturated Refuse Cells
11-36
Consolidation of Anaerobic Saturated Refuse Cell,
F-37
30 Percent Paper, Coarse Size Materials
11-37
Consolidation of Anaerobic Refuse Cell, 20 Percent
F-38
Paper, Coarse Size Materials, 25 Percent Saturated
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title
11-38 Consolidation of Aerobic Refuse Cell, 60 Percent F-39
Paper, Coarse Size Materials, 15 Percent Saturated
11-39 Stress-Strain Curves: Dry Aerobic Refuse Cells F-40
11-40 Stiess-Strain Curves: Anaerobic Dry Refuse Cells F-41
11-41 Stress-Strain Curves: Aerobic Refuse Cells, 65 F-42
Percent Saturated
11-42 Stress-Strain Curves: Anaerobic Refuse Cells, 65 F-43
percent Saturated
11-43 Stress-Strain CurveB: Anaerobic Saturated Refuse F-44
Cells
11-44 Variation of Initial Compaction With Paper Content F-45
11-45 Relationship Between Unit Weight Ratio and Initial p-46
Compaction
11-46 Unit Weight at Compaction Stress of 1,260 Lbs/Square F-47
Feet for Refuse Cells
11-47 Time Variation of Subsidence Rate Due to F-48
Decomposition
II-48 Cumulative Subsidence Due to Decomposition F-49
III-l Methane Concentrations 28 May 1969 Site 1 F-50
III-2 Probe Locations Site 6 F-51
III-3 Methane Concentrations 17 September 1969 Site 8 F-52
III-4 Schematic Diagram of Laboratory Unit for Study of F-53
Gas Diffusion in Porous Media
III-5 Control System Plan and Probe Location Site 1 F-54
III-6 Gas Control System Typical Vent Well Site 1 f-55
III-7 Gas Control System Tee to Manifold Connection Site 1 f-56
III-8 Probe Locations Control System Site 5 f-57
III-9 Methane Concentrations 9 May 1967 Site 8 f-58
111-10 Methane Concentrations 13 September 1967 Site 8 F-59
III-ll Methane Concentrations 18 November 1968 Site 8 F-60
111-12 Plan-Control System and Probe Locations Site 8
111-13 Typical Vent Well Site 8 F-62
111-14 Burnoff Device Site 8 F-63
111-15 Public Agency Test 2 Area of Influence for Zero F-64
Methane Concentration Site 1
111-16 Public Agency Test 3 Area of Influence for Zero F-65
Methane Concentration Site 1
111-17 Public Agency Test 5 Area of Influence for Zero F-66
Methane Concentration Site 1
111-18 Public Agency Test 6 Area of Influence for Zero F-67
Methane Concentration Site 1
111-19 Methane Concentrations Probe 19, 10 December 1968
Site 1
111-20 New Trench Probes Site 5 F-69
111-21 Explosion Unit Schematic F-70
111-22 Explosion Box Details F-71
111-23 Gas Explosion Unit Components F-72
III-24 Gas Explosion Unit, Detonation at Site 5 f-73
ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number
Title
IV-1
Adopted Experimental Leaching Systems
F-74
IV-2
Hypothetical Variation of Released COD and TDS in
F-75
Solution From Decomposing Refuse
IV-3
Variation of COD/TDS Ratios in Series 1
F-76
VIII-1
Design Example - Foundation Vent
F-77
VIII-2
Design Example - Barriers Under Slabs
F-78
viii-3
Design Example - Under£loor Vents
F-79
VIII-4
Design Example - Entry Conduits
F-80
VIII-5
Design Example - Footings
F-81
VIII-6
Design Example - Structures Other Than Buildings
F-82
VIII-7
Design Example - Utility Bedding
F-83
x
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The County of Los Angeles, State of California, in order to formu-
late construction criteria for sanitary landfills and improvements which
would lead to optimum land development and maximum use, conducted a
three-year program of Investigation and demonstration into the problems
associated with land disposal of refuse. This program was developed in
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, formerly the Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
United States Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, and was funded in part through Solid Wastes Disposal Study and
Investigation Grant No. G06-EC-00046. Engineering-Science, Inc. was
retained by the County of Los Angeles on 7 March 1967 to serve as the
principal consultant to Los Angeles County for the study.
BACKGROUND
Landfilling of municipal refuse is expected to continue for many
years to be the most economical and principal means of ultimate disposal
in many areas of the United States. Present alternative methods such as
incineration offer interesting challenges but are either too impractical
or too costly. There are problems associated with disposal on the land;
however, open dumps and burning must be prohibited throughout the nation
in the interest of health and safety.
Over the years, communities have developed, surrounded, and
encroached upon many completed disposal sites, often resulting in unat-
tractive, potentially hazardous conditions within highly populated areas.
Proper sanitary landfilling procedures and controls can result in the
creation of land surfaces suitable for useful purposes. Also, certain
existing less desirable topographical features, such as useless pits,
ravines, and canyons may be eliminated by strategic landfill location and
landscaping. During the program Los Angeles County, Department of County
Engineer, and Engineering-Science, Inc. were engaged in the study of the
1-1
-------
subjects of gas movement, groundwater pollution, fire hazard, construc-
tion of landfills, maintenance of completed sanitary landfills, and con-
st-ruction on and adjacent to completed sanitary landfills.
The problem of landfill control within highly populated areas has
two facets; (1) that concerned with existing and completed landfills
which were built in an uncontrolled fashion without close regard for gas
and leachate movement; and (2) that concerned with prospective landfills
for which control devices and procedures can become part of the process
of operating and constructing the sanitary landfill. In existing and
completed landfills, gas and leachate migrations may be difficult to
control. For new landfills, however, it will be possible to provide
built-in gas and leachate control. Gas control devices or systems in-
clude properly placed well points, wells, gas ventilation mechanisms,
burn-off devices, and monitoring apparatus.
The major factors affecting the integrity of improvements on top of,
within, and adjacent to sanitary landfills are gas movement and settle-
ment of the fill. These factors are interrelated because both are influ-
enced by the amount of the decomposition in the refuse.
Significant results of the study include: (I) favorable conclusions
regarding methods for minimizing gas movement away front landfills;
(2)', establishment of a leachate pollution index; (3) a method of pre-
dicting ultimate landfill subsidence under controlled conditions;
(4) criteria 'for a model ordinance and uniform standards for locating,
planning, designing, operating, and constructing sanitary landfills and
subsequent improvements on or adjacent to landfills; and (5) suggestions
for future research.
MANAGEMENT OF THE STUDY
Mr. John A. Lambie, County Engineer, served as Project Director.
The study wa& under the direct supervision.of Mr. Carroll D. Smith, for-
mer Division Engineer, Industrial Wastes Division; and Mr; J. K." Bryant,
Division Engineer, Project Planning and Pollution Control Division.*
Assisting Mr. Smith and Mr. Bryant, were. Mr. Charles G. Brisley, Jr.,
Assistant Division Engineer, Project Planning and Pollution Control-
Division; Mr; Kenneth Harvey, Civil Engineer; and other County stafif
1-2 *
-------
members. Engineering-Science, Inc. personnel who participated in the
project under the direction of Mr. Robert L. White were Mr. Myron Ellis
Nosanov, Mr. Rail C. CjrLer, Dr. William E. Gates, Dr. Houahang Esmaili,
Dr. Timothy CI. Slica, and Mr. G. Scott Robertson.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Los Angeles County Sanitation District; the City of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation; the Orange County Road
Department; numerous public agencies; and private owners of landfill
sites made valuable contributions to the study. Their cooperation is
sincerely appreciated.
A special expression of gratitude is extended to the following indi-
viduals for their contributions and assistance:
Mr. L. Leroy Crandall, Principal, Leroy Crandall & Associates,
Consulting Foundation Engineers, Los Angeles, California
Mr. Wallace Koster, Engineer and Geologist, Natifmal Disposal
Contractors Company, Barrington, Illinois
Mr. Robert N. Farvolden, Professor ol Geology, University of
Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada
Mr. W. C. Hubbard, Superintendent of Streets and Engineering,
City of Springfield, Massachusetts
SITE SELECTION
During the first year of the study, 1967, local sanitary landfills
were inventoried, examined, and evaluated. Activities included the
measurement of the extent of migration of refuse produced gases in sani-
tary landfills, investigation of the geometry of existing sanitary land-
fills, preliminary identification of the properties of the soil affecting
gas movements, the introduction of gas control devices into the existing
landfills, and the establishment of gas and subsidence monitoring con-
trols at strategic locations on existing landfills. Sites selected for
study during the first year were located within Los Angeles County,
Orange County, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Within Los Angeles County,
76 landfill sites were considered and screened for compliance with cri-
teria formulated for the selection of the study sites. These criteria
1-3
-------
weio as follows: (1) the fill should have been completed or be avail-
able without modifications over the planned three-year study period;
(2) original ground topography should be known; (3) the type, quantity,
and method of refuse placement should tie known; (4) the thickness and
type of final cover materials should be known; (5) hisLoric data relative
Lo past r;ct clement or gas movement would be valuable, but not essential;
(6) local geology should be known or subject to reasonable assessments;
and (!) where private property is involved, cooperation of the landowner
must be reasonably assured. Eight sites were selected for study under
the first-year work program, and were assigned numbers (figure 1-1).
Settlement surveys performed by another public agency were reported for
a ninth site. Twenty-seven waste disposal sites in the San Francisco
Bay area were reviewed for suitability for studying gas production and
settlement in landfills subject to tidal action. Legal problems of
jurisdiction and the continued operation of the sites for the disposal
of excavated material from the Bay Area Rapid Transit Project limited
the final selection to one site. This site is in an area reclaimed from
San Francisco Bay and is surrounded by dikes keeping sea water from over-
flowing the fill. A site in Orange County was also studied.
GAS BARRIERS AMD CONTROL DEVICES
A major obiecLive of this study was to design and implement various
types of gas barriers and control devices to effectively retard subsur-
face gas migration. Trenches, wells, and exhaust systems were considered.
The excavation of a cutoff trench backfilled with highly permeable gravel
and rock proved to be an effective method for the control of gas movement.
Two other gas control systems were developed. One of these systems con-
sisted oE five wells located about 100 feet from the completed latidfill.
Each well was excavated to the equivalent depth of the refuse and operates
on the basis of combined gas suction and air flushing. The objective of
this control system is to reduce the flow of gases beyond the plane pass-
ing through the axes of the wells. Suction is developed by an electri-
cally powered blower. Another control system consisted of an asphalt
type membrane installed under a greenhouse constructed directly upqn a
fill. This barrier is designed to prevent gases from moving through the
fill cover into the confinement of the greenhouse. Perforated pipes were
Ir4
-------
placed in gravel vents at each end of the membrane to prevent gas pres-
sure under the membrane. In all cases probes were installed and the
results of the sampling programs indicated all systems were effective.
A total of 388 gas probes at depths varying from two to eight feet
were used to sample, analyze, and provide data for U3e in plotting con-
tours of equal methane or carbon dioxide concentrations around each land-
fill. Correlations were developed between the pattern and extent of
methane movements, the nature of soil, including permeability and limited
data on the formations, and the effect of existing gas control devices.
Natural soils were tested for suitability as gas barrier membranes
in a series of laboratory experiments. Four soils with different parti-
cle size distributions were independently tested in a laboratory diffu-
sion column at two levels of moisture content and three conditions of
gas inflow pressure. Diffusion-dispersion coefficients for each soil
were determined by an analytical solution of the differential equation
governing the flow of gases through porous media. This resulted in a
basis for calculating the flow rate of gases through these soils under
different conditions of soil moisture, compaction, and gas pressure,
thus establishing the relative degree of effectiveness of the soils
tested as gas barrier membranes.
Gas production studies during the project indicated and verified
the need for tracing the movement of gases from many existing sanitary
landfill sites. The results indicated that potentially hazardous situa-
tions may be identified, observed, and controlled.
FIELD SUBSIDENCE MONITORING AND LABORATORY EXPERIMENT PROGRAM
Measuring the subsidence of monuments and survey points, established
at six selected sites during the first year of the project study, was
continued throughout the study period to determine optimum frenuencies
and minimum-maximum time requirements for field subsidence monitoring.
Cumulative settlement-time relationships were developed for the monuments
being monitored to correlate with cumulative settlement expressed as a
percentage of depth versus time.
In order to interpret known field conditions at one site, equal-depth-
of-fill lines were compared with equal-cumulative-settlement lines.
1-5
-------
Parameters of subsidence were analyzed during a laboratory experi-
ment for investigating subsidence characteristics of decomposing refuse
materials. The parameters investigated included the nature of the
refuse, initial and subsequent compaction, and volume reduction caused
by biological decomposition, saturation, and leaching. The experiment
introduced these and other variables under aerobic and anaerobic condi-
tions. The' materials (paper, garbage, garden waste and wood, metal,
glass, ceramics, rags, plastics, and inert soil) were synthesized into
typical refuse samples and compacted in the programmed sequence.
Weights, temperatures, and subsidence of decomposing materials were
monitored and compaction tests were made when decomposition of the
organic materials became negligible. The results of this program,were
input to the task of predicting ultimate landfill subsidence.
PREDICTIONS OF ULTIMATE SUBSIDENCE
Ultimate subsidence in sanitary landfills is analogous to that in
soils with respect to the consolidation ratio and the coefficienti of
compressibility. Consolidation ratio is frequently called consolidation
and is expressed in a percent and is referred to as the percent consoli-
dation. The coefficient of compressibility is the stress-strain ratio
of the soil, numerically equal to the slope of the curve on the natural
scale plot of pressure versus void ratio. The theoretical study of con-
solidation utilizes an equation from which the pressure and void ratio
values may be known at any point and at any time in a stratum of con-
solidating soil of any thickness. The change in overall thickness of
the strata after any interval of time may be determined from the equa-
tion. This is known as the Terzaghi consolidation theory. A major
portion of the theory is the idealized pressure versus void ratio and
homogeneous materials leading to a limitation upon the application of
the theory. To apply the assumption of homogeneity, any analyses of
ultimate subsidence must be accompanied by maximum control over the
materials within the landfill. An additional limitation is that the
Terzaghi theory assumes complete saturation of the materials.
The hypothesis upon which the theory is founded is important' to any
engineer using the theory to predict settlements. The coefficient of
consolidation determined by laboratory data involves a varying number of
1-6
-------
variates at each moment of Lime. The method of fitting a curve to
plotted laboratory data is critical to precise determinations but not
necessarily to practical determinations.
It should also be noted that plastic time lag and plastic struc-
tural resistance to compression are phenomena not considered in the
Terzaghi theory. These, too, are variables and are complicated by eco-
logical processes such as decomposition, gas production, leachate pro-
duction, and accompanying production of internal voids.
Direct use of the maximum ultimate subsidence anticipated in a sani-
tary landfill based upon the theory developed under laboratory test con-
ditions is a meaningful first step in the direction of developing neces-
sary technology. The next step is to determine a means of predicting
the time required for ultimate subsidence. Subsequently, it may be pos-
sible to predict intermediate time-subsidence relationships.
EFFECTS OF SANITARY LANDFILLS ON GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Groundwater quality degradation as a result of sanitary landfilling
may occur through: (1) percolating water carrying away liquids of unde-
sirable quality; (2) percolating water dissolving undesirable waste
fractions; and (3) gases generated within the fill diffusing downward
and outward to be dissolved in the groundwater. A detailed study of
leachate production characteristics, as a function of the stage of decom-
position of typical refuse materials, was conducted in the laboratory.
During the experiment the rate of leachate production and the total quan-
tity of leachate expected for a given volume of refuse were examined.
Samples were systematically leached in the laboratory, and leachates were
analyzed for total dissolved solids, chemical oxygen demand, hardness,
alkalinity, pH, organic and ammonia nitrogen, chlorides, sulfates, and
nitrates. Total dissolved solids was used as an index for determining
the quantity of solutes leachable from refuse fills. Filtration, ion
exchange, and adsorption are among the major processes affecting the com-
position of leachates which percolate through soil formations causing
change in the leachate concentrations.
1-7
-------
AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON USES AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SANITARY
LANDFILLS
Available information on landfills throughout the United States was
obtained by mailed questionnaires, visits to completed sanitary land-
fills, and interviews with selected experts. The completed sanitary
landfills visited were those upon which improvements had been con-
structed. A total of 272 short-form questionnaires and 41 long-form
questionnaires were returned. Nineteen completed and reused sanitary
landfill sites were visited and seven experts were formally interviewed,
four of whom have been quoted with their permission. Numerous ordinances
controlling sanitary landfills throughout the nation wete reviewed.. The
scope of control was evaluated and formatted for input into "Model jOrdi-
nance Criteria." During the three years of the project all obtainable
literature was reviewed and examined for project applicability.
The use, as developable real estate, of completed sanitary landfills
was widely reported. Reports on the suitability of sanitary landfills
for development included favorable comments and opinions but emphasized
the need for detailed attention to design for controlling the problems.
Factors affecting problems reportedly associated with sanitary landfills
are: (1) percentage of organic debris; (2) moisture content; (3) daily
soil cover; (4) weather conditions; (5) final soil cover; and (6) age of
fill (Tables 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3).
Land uses on completed landfills include athletic fields, botanical
gardens, golf courses, parks, parking lots, playgrounds, salvage and
storage areas, mobile home parks, residential, and commercial and indus-
trial uses. Many of the completed landfills have provided beneficial
uses for che completed landfill property. Severe damage to some surface
structures and subsurface improvements was observed.
Most building codes do not recognize the need to protect structures
located adjacent to refuse fills from the possible hazards of landfill
produced gases; however, gas control measures should be incorporated
before or during construction of the landfill. Also, buildings, surface
improvements, and subsurface structures will be damaged if constructed
on sanitary landfills without proper regard for potential differential
settlement.
1-8
-------
Materials and methods for safe construction of surface structures
on or near sanitary landfills were evaluated. Observations made during
site investigations and information obtained from the data survey, indi-
cated that u variety of structural materials and construction techniques
have been utilized in structures built on sanitary landfills. The sur-
face requirements of a sanitary landfill were correlated with the struc-
tural requirements of improvements. The effects upon stability were
considered and design alternatives were evaluated. In addition, mate-
rials and methods were analyzed for safe construction of underground
installations in sanitary landfills.
Subsurface improvements were broadly categorized and actual and
potential causes of damage were examined. The most commonly reported
locations of breaks in utility lines were at building walls or footings
and at joints or fittings. Buildings founded on piles may not settle as
much as utilities which enter the building. In other cases the building
or structure may settle more than the utility. Thus, differential settle-
ment has contributed to ruptures of utility lines and has been the cause
of additional settlement problems as a result of the admission of unex-
pected liquid into the landfill.
Recommendations were developed for design and construction tech-
niques to minimize the effects of differential settlement and to maximize
the stability of buildings, curbs, walkways, drainage ditches, culverts,
driveways, streets, and underground installations on and In sanitary
land fills.
DEVELOPMENT OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GOOD PRACTICE"
Information assimilated during the project was collated for use in
developing criteria for materials and methods for safe construction of
surface structures, surface improvements, and subsurface improvements on,
in, or adjacent to sanitary landfills. Previous recommendations were
reevaluated on the basis of latest information and analyzed for means of
implementation. "Standard Specifications for Good Practice" were
developed from a compilation of the organized criteria into four separate
documents (Appendix G), The "Standard Specifications" provide for
1-9
-------
administration and regulation of planning, design, construction, and
maintenance of sanitary landfills; and improvements on, in, and adjacent
to*sanitary landfills.
The criteria may be summarized briefly as:
(1) Landfill locations should be a function of community need,
general planning, and water pollution prevention.
(2) Landfill planning should include use of the completed surface
in a manner compatible with the community general plan.
(3) Landfill design should implement planning and gas control on
and adjacent to the site, and subsidence and settlement con-
trol on the site.
(4) Landfill materials should be controlled to a maximum practical
limit, maximizing available reprocessing procedures.
(5) Landfill operation should be neat and sanitary.
(6) Landfill maintenance should be assured by funding or legal
recourse.
(7) The design of an improvement on or in a sanitary landfill
should be preceded by acquisition of the as-built plans, or a
log of construction of the sanitary landfill and logs of borings.
(8) Plans for improvements should be prepared by, or under the
supervision of, a registered professional engineer, a licensed
architect, a soil foundation engineer, or a geologist, acting
within the scope of their responsibilities.
(9) Differential settlement and horizontal displacement effects
must be anticipated. The choices of methods, materials, and
applications should conservatively exercise cognizance of and
correlate with the service and structural requirements.
(10) Detailed precautions are necessary to prevent the intrusion of
gases into confined or occupied areas of buildings. Utility
installations may create pathways for gases to follow. These
pathways should be sealed-off or vented at manholes, vaults,
basements, and other floor areas.
1-10
-------
(11) The finished product of construction should not be used until
certified for use under conditions which guarantee funding for
possible repairs and maintenance for a specified project life.
1-11
-------
FIGURE 1-1
M&m
0U*S*N*
3£^>£fiLY
L //'LIS
^5. SA*rA
s M0N'CA
CJLV£*
e^c/rr
IMP /HOLt
EL SI: GUN DO
MAN HA TtAH
BEACH
HfftMOi,
\BtACH
TOQfiA.'.
1-12
-------
FIGURE 1-1 (Cont'd)
M O J A V E
D E *»> K T
v-.
V \ : : r. 1
ft
/r'- * v >
H
A/OALF
A40MH0V/A J , v c- -
G* AOS UK r"V-A,~
^a—2* /
\nt/**rg / ,N ~
ARCADiA
'S ¦->$** *A9iNO
v*w u
£01/
-*»w*'SSKf
fa -.<«*rv
l/DAHY
wH/rrt£R
SOUTH
GATL
SANTA Ft
SPRINGS
pOWHEf
LYN WOOD
^3
£QMPTQN £
&IRADa \ a v S "' < ^ '
v \ . -< x ' c y > * .
e£/ros V"*
PARAMOUNT \
¦\ J/jru^cw*
C/VM
SITE 6
^iwr
rrs/^
1 LAKE WOOD
-------
CHAPTER II
MONITORING LANDFILL SUBSIDENCE AND LABORATORY
DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSIDENCE PREDICTIONS
MONITORING LANDFILL SUBSIDENCE
During the first year of the study, certain completed landfill
sites, or completed portions of active sites, were selected for monitor-
ing surface subsidence, differential settlement5 and lateral surface
displacement. Control survey lines and monuments were established at
four sites for continuous accumulation of settlement data throughout the
course of the study. Additionally, .settlement data on three landfill
sites maintained by other agencies were periodically collected. A sum-
mary of all settlement data recorded during the project study period is
presented herewith. Site descriptions are given in Reference 2.
Site 2B
Monuments and control points were established on a completed por-
tion of active landfill Site 2. Two profile lines, approximately at
right angles to each other, were staked. One line, 730 feet in length,
was set with nine monuments; the other, 350 feet in length, was set with
five monuments. Each monument, a standard Los Angeles County Engineer
concrete bench mark, was set so that both vertical and lateral movement
could be measured. Table II-l presents settlement and lateral movement
data measured during the study. Available depth data are also included.
Site 3
Site 3, completed in 1962, is a shallow fill constructed in a low
slough area. Development on the site consisted of a planted and irri-
gated athletic field, four service buildings, and a large asphalt-surfaced
parking area. Two survey lines were staked with control monuments at ejeh
end of the line and onc-inch diameter iron pipes at approximately 100-
foot intervals to monitor settlement. No pipes were set in the grass
playing field. The surface of the Lurf was contour plotted for compari-
sons of settlement. In addition, several elevation points were estab-
lished on the concrete floor slabs of the buildings. No lateral movement
determinations were made at this site.
II-l
-------
During the study, several survey points were disturbed or lost,
necessitating the setting of new points or the use of surface improve-
ments as elevation points for monitoring. Elevation and settlement data
measured during the study are presented in Table II-2.
Site 4
Site 4, completed in 1961, is in a canyon from 100 to 200 feet deep.
A mobile home park and a mobile home manufacturing company adjoin the
site. The site over the years has experienced extensive settlement, par-
ticularly in the areas where sewage leaching fields were constructed for
the mobile home park and the manufacturing company. During the study
four survey lines were staked to monitor settlement, but construction
work, regrading, and repaving at the site made it impractical to maintain
monumentation and/or a continuous record of settlement data. Annual sur-
veys were made, and each year new points were set; however, the data
obtained from the surveys are of questionable value. Therefore, a sum-
mary of the settlement data at this site is not presented.
Site 5
Site 5, began in 1957 and completed in 1966, is from 25 to 130 feet
deep and is being utilized as a botanic garden. During the study three
survey lines were established. Several monuments were set on each line
for monitoring both lateral movement and vertical settlement. Te.pporary
monuments were set on the profile lines at approximately 100-foot ,inter-
vals or at points of abrupt surface change for settlement measurements
only. The public agency that constructed the landfill set monuments
shortly after the fill was completed. These were monitored during the
study.
Two comfort stations were constructed on the site during the-study.
Reference points were established on the floor slabs of these buildings
so that any settlement data could be included as part of the subsidence
monitoring program for the site.
Elevations, available depth data, and settlement data for these pro-
file lines, monuments, and building reference points are presented in
Table 11-3.
II-2
-------
Site 7
Site 7 is an active landfill under construction by a public agency.
The continuing use and reuse of completed areas for stockpiling cover
material prevented the establishment of a satisfactory grid system of
monuments, hence no specific settlement monitoring program was estab-
lished for the site. The public agency, however, did establish random
monuments upon completed portions of the fill which are checked at least
annually for elevation change and lateral movement. A summary of the,
cumulative settlement and lateral displacement, and available depth data,
for these monuments since establishment through June 1969 is presented
in Table II-4.
Site 9
Site 9 is a filled gravel pit constructed by a public agency and
completed in 1966. The average depth is reported to be 80 feet. A grid
system of profile lines, spaced 100 feet in each direction, was estab-
lished on the completed surface for maintaining a continuous record of
settlement. The elevation at each grid point for each year of record
and the cumulative settlement of each point for the total period are pre-
sented in Table II-5.
Site 10
Landfill Site 10, located in the San Francisco Bay area, is operated
by a private entity and was constructed by erecting levees around low-
lying bay land. The landfill, which has been operating continuously
since 1945, averages 25 to 30 feet in depth in the area that was monitored.
Only one survey could be made during the study period for the determina-
tion of the rate of settlement. One section of the fill was selected, in
study year 1967, for which elevation readings had been obtained in 1957
and where no additional filling had been carried out since that time.
Twelve survey points uere reestablished and the elevations obtained on
this section of the fill. Cumulative settlement of these points for the
ten-year period (1957-1967) is presented in Table II-6. In general, the
survey points located at the edge of the fill next to the levee have
settled less than the other points which are located on the landfill.
II-3
-------
Site 11
Site 11 is still being filled, but certain porLions of the fill have
ib.cen completed. Two of these completed areas were monumented and sur-
veyed to record settlement prior to this sLudy. The first survey wis
imade in 1957.
Scries 100 monuments were set in December 1964 and have been peri-
odically surveyed for elevation changes since that time. Table II-7
presents the original elevations of the points, the elevations recorded
during 1969, and the total settlement of the monument points since
establishment.
Series 300 monuments were set in July of 1965 and were subsequently
monitored. The original elevations of these points, the 1969 elevations,
and the total settlement of the monuments since establishment are also
presented in Table II-7.
SETTLEMENT ANALYSES
Settlement records at Site 5 for selected monuments were plottfed
with cumulative settlement in feet as the ordinate and time in years as
the abscissa (Figure II-l). The plots of settlement at Monument 116 and
at Monument 120 indicate that the rate of subsidence is decreasing. The
depths of the landfills at those points are 130 feet and 85 feet respec-
tively. Subsidence at other monuments continues and the subsidence rate
during the latter period of measurement appears to be uniform. Subsidence
as a percentage of depth is shown in Table II-8.
At most of the stations plotted the settlement rate was highest dur-
ing the first one and one-half years. After a one-year delay the settle-
ment increased at an approximately constant rate. During the period of
five and one-»half years that measurements were made, it appears that at
Monument 107 approximately 40 percent of the subsidence took place in 30
percent of the time; and at Monument 120 approximately 45 percent of the
subsidence took place in about 30 percent of the time. At these two
monuments a trend appears to be developing. If this trend is exhibited
in the future at other locations within the landfill, an extrapolation of
the curves plotted on an appropriate log base could yield a prediction of
II-4
-------
the time at which subsidence may be expected to be significantly small
and not a deterrent to use of the site.
At Site 11 subsidence data was plotted for nine monuments with cumu-
lative settlement in feet as the ordinate and time in years as the
abscissa. The rate of settlement at the monuments appears constant. The
curves show no significant breaks in slope that would indicate what per-
centage of total settlement may have taken place or allow any prediction
of the duration of the settlement period (Figure II-2). However, the
information indicated on Figure II-2 raises some interesting questions
if used with the isopachous and settlement contours shown on Figures II-3
and II-4. On Figure II-2, three groups appear to be discernible, each
showing approximately the same amount of cumulative settlement. The
cumulative settlement does not seem to bear a direct ratio to the thick-
ness of the fill. This may be observed by comparing Figures 11-3 and
II-4. However, in comparing these two figures, it may be observed that
the greater amount of settlement appears to occur in the topographically
lower portion of the fill area and this may be a function of the movement,
and possible retention, of fluid in that direction. In another area at
Site 11 the surface drainage appears to be from north to south, roughly
across the center of the fill. The greatest thickness of fill and also
the greatest amount of cumulative settlement are along a north/south line
through the center of the fill with the greatest amount of settlement at
the southerly end (Tables 11-9 and 11-10 and Figures II-5 and II-6).
This appears to credit the theory that fill thickness is a factor in sub-
sidence but is not the completely governing factor (Table 11-11).
With the limitation of available field data, it is not practical to
attempt to formulate predictions of the rate or ultimate amount of sub-
sidence in a sanitary landfill. However, the field study program has
developed the following conclusions, some of which may help to correlate, -
at some future time, with predictions developed in the laboratory:
(1) even though¦a cursory study of the refuse brought to a fill may yield
useful data, segregation of the various materials prior to placement is
generally not accomplished. Consequently, the lack of homogeneity in a
fill may preclude the determination of a predictable settlement rate until
characteristics of individual locations are observed over a long period of
II-5
-------
time; (2) The principal obstacle in formulating a prediction oL" settle-
ment on the basis of field observations is the lack of historical field
observations; (3) Fills which may be ultimately^used for purposes to
which settlement is detrimental should h.>ve a greater homogeneiLy and
maximum possible initial compaction; and (4) Data obtained from a few
ismall demonstration fills over a period of several years is an 'inadequate
sampling of inadequate duration. Additional observations are needed at
more landfills over a much longer period of time.
LABORATORY STUDIES ON PREDICTION OF LANDFILL SUBSIDENCE
This study has been directed to laboratory evaluation of the subsi-
dence and compaction characteristics of synthetic refuse landfills under
laboratory conditions'. The objective of the study was to investigate the
subsidence characteristics of decomposing refuse materials of varying
composition under different conditions of moisture content and surcharg-
ing and varying levels of aerobiosis.
The rate, extent, and magnitude of landfill subsidence and ths load-
bearing characteristics of fill areas are factors of first concern affect-
ing future landfill use. To date, the technology available for predicting
subsidence and compaction of landfills is comprised almost totally of con-
ventional and'largely empirical procedures. In many instances, because
of a lack of adequate technology, the preplanning and engineering ot land-
fill development has been nonexistent, with the attendant result that in
many cases it is not even possible to describe the types and amounts' of
materials comprising a fill.
The increasing demand for reclamation of landfill sites has accel-
erated the need for the development of a rational framework of technology
for prediction of the subsidence and load-bearing characteristics of the
heterogeneous soil systems found in landfills. Prerequisite to the
development of rational predictor equations is an evaluation of the fun-
damental mechanisms active in landfill subsidence. Landfill subsidence
can be related to the following generic factors: initial compaction;
compaction of refuse material due to surcharge loads by overlying mate-
rials; and- degree of biodegradation of the organic components in the* fill.
A considerable body of technology exists to explain the mechanisms and
Il-b
-------
cause-effect relationship active with each of these factors in ihe
homogeneous, but not the heterogeneous environment; however, little
effort has been made to examine the utility of this knowledge for pre-
dicting landfill behavior.
As an initial level of inquiry, this study is directed toward the
development of relationships for prediction of the overall behavior of
landfills experiencing consolidation. The primary premise of the study
is that the mechanisms explaining the action of consolidating soils and
of organic matter undergoing biological decomposition provide a basis
for developing relationships to describe the behavior of landfills under
controlled conditions and for deriving rational relationships describing
these phenomena.
Controlling Factors in Subsidence and Compaction of Landfills
The overall settlement of a landfill can be caused by several mecha-
nisms acting independently or simultaneously to alter the integrity of
the landfill soil column, viz:
(1) Biological decomposition of organic matter in the fill, related
to the nature and type of fill material, water conLent, size of
material, etc., and resulting in the conversion of solid mate-
rial to liquid or gaseous matter; and
(2) Compaction, during placement and due to surcharge? loads exerted
by overlying materials, taking place by compression of solids,
compression of water and air in the voids, and by the escape of
water and air from the voids.
Each of these factors must be related to corresponding functional effects
on the supportive structure in a landfill before behavioral prediction is
possible. Fundamental to an understanding of either of these factors is
a knowledge of landfill composition.
Composition of Landfills
The general components of landfills and their significance on the
settlement processes in landfills are as follows (Reference 1):
II-7
-------
(1) Garbage: organic, putrescible, with formation oC organic acids
upon biodegradation; usually very wet; will partially compact
but will continue to subside as decomposition progresses over
long time periods;
(2) Fibrous organics, e.g., wood, paper, and fibrous wastes, will
compact and decay very slowly over long time periods;
(3) Metal, e.g., cans and scrap metals, will rust and settle but
can be compacted;
(A) Old tires will not decay readily and unless they are segregated
or cut and shredded can cause problems if received in large
numbers;
(5) Large organic materials, such as tree trunks, are slow to decay
and prevent compaction of surrounding material;
(6) Large metal objects, such as auto bodies and refrigerators, are
loose, somewhat compressible, and will rust but are difficult
to compact and will inhibit compaction of adjacent materials;
(7) Demolition wastes, such as concrete, brick, and stone, when
placed in large pieces may prevent compaction of adjacent mate-
rials and may create large voids; and
(8) Ash is fluffy and will settle, may become cemented, and can
initiate corrosion of other materials.
Solid waste materials can be more broadly classified as rubbish,
food wastes, and noncombustibles. Rubbish is comprised of cellulosic,
plastic, rubber, oil and paint, linoleum, street sweepings, etc. Food
wastes are comprised of garbage (vegetable food wastes, citrus rinds and
seeds, etc.) and fats. Noncombustibles is a general classification for
metals, glass and ceramics, ashes, and similar materials. The relative
significance of each generic component in solid waste is related tp the
domestic, commercial, and industrial activities in the source area. A
typical municipal refuse may contain 45 percent paper, 15 percent ^leaves,
10 percent garbage, five percent plastics, rags, oil', and paint, and 10
percent moisture (percent dry weight). Particle sizes of refuse cpm-
ponents may vary from less than one inch to ten feet or more in a given
II-8
-------
lciad, and tho characteristics of refuse collected may vary widely from
load to load and day to day in a given area.
Biodegradation Processes
Biodegradation can be defined as the general process whereby or-
ganic matter is metabolized by biological agents with the production of
energy for growth of the organism or organisms involved and the genera-
tion of by-product materials. The rate of progression of the biodegrad-
ation process is a function of the type of organism present, the type of
substrate available for conversion, the quantity of essential nutrient
materials available to the organism, and the rate at which substrate and
essential nutrient materials are transported to, and by-product materials
are removed from, the vicinity of the microorganisms. This succession
of biodegradation can take place within two subtypes of energy-yielding
metabolism, aerobiosis, or anaerobiosis, each type of which is charac-
terized by type and rate of by-product and energy formation. The suc-
cession of substrates available can vary from all forms of soluble and
insoluble matter. Microorganisms, without exception, will proliferate
on the type and form of substrate most readily available for metabolism
to exhaustion of that substrate before proceeding to the next most readily
available form of organic matter.
The components of sanitary landfills provide a diverse pool of sub-
strates and essential nutrients supporting a ubiquity of aerobic or
anaerobic activity. The degree of aerobiosis or anaerobiosis which can
take place is a function of the availability of oxygen in either gaseous
or dissolved form; in the heterogeneous environment of a fill both
aerobic and anaerobic microenvironments can be sustained. Water, a
vital element in supporting biodegradation in a fill, serves as a vehicle
for transport of essential nutrients, seed microorganisms, by-products,
and gases into and through the fill. Water also provides a continuous
medium for the succession of biodegradation reactions by which insoluble
organic material is converted to soluble organic matter and microorganism
cells, and subsequently to gases and other products. Temperature is a
second vital element and the rate at which microorganisms metabolize in-
creases rapidly with rising temperature up to limiting values lethal to
the organisms.
11-9
-------
The above observations have several relationships to subsidence as
a result of biodegradation. Biodegradation processes directly attack
many of the components in a landfill which provide structural strength
to the fill mass. Organic acids arc typical metabolic by-products which
destroy materials providing integrity to the fill structure. The genera-
tion of voids, as biodegradation progresses, promotes consolidation1under
the weight of the fill and creates the opportunity l'or sporadic movement
of finer materials into the open voida.
A final factor of biodegradation related to subsidence is the rate
at which decomposition of the biologically available materials progresses.
Microbial growth is inherently an autocatalytic process in which the
amount of living substance increases in geometric progression with time,
as long as substrate and essential nutrients arc available. Thus (in an
aggregate sense, and in a soil solution at a reasonably constant tempera-
ture) the rate of decomposition of readily available organic matter would
be expected to increase exponentially to a point at which continued'
decomposition is limited by substrate exhaustion. It it is assumed that
the rate of subsidence caused by decomposition processes is proportional
to the rate of decomposition, then subsidence would be expected to pro-
gress at an exponentially increasing rate to the point of substrate'deple-
tion. It is expected that the actual rate of subsidence due Lo decomposi-
tion will be attenuated or amplified by such environmental factors as
frictional lags in the soil column, water content, and by overburden.
Compaction Processes
A considerable body of information has been developed in the field
of soil mechanics to describe the physical and other properties of dif-
ferent types of soils and the behavior of these soils under varying con-
ditions of overburden and presence of water. Literature on soil mechanics
has been thoroughly reviewed in order to develop analogies that may exist
between "pure" soils and the heterogeneous mass of materials found in
landfills. Applicable theories of consolidation are extensive and have
been condensed and summarized herein.
Soil Properties
A soil mass is commonly considered to consist ot a network or skele-
ton of solid particles enclosing voids or interstices of varying sizes.
11-10
-------
The voids may be filled with air, water, or partly with air and water.
Three volume ratios are used to describe the interrelationships between
solid, liquid, and air in the soil mass. These are: porosity, the
ratio of the voids volume to the total volume of the mass; void ratio,
ratio of volume of voids to volume of solid; and degree of saturation,
ratio of volume of water to volume of voids. Two weight ratios are
useful in describing soil masses on this basis: water content of a
sample is defined as the ratio of weight of water to weight of dry
solid matter; unit weight or weight per unit volume can be defined in
terms of the soil mass as a whole, the unit weight of solids, and the
unit weight of water.
Structure of Soil Aggregates
Three structural types of soils exist which may be defined to illus-
trate the heterogeneity expected in refuse. Single-grained structure is
observed in coarser materials having little or no cohesion, such as sand
and gravel. Single-grained soils may have a wide range of porosities
depending on the manner in which the material is aggregated. Honeycomb
structure occurs in materials fine enough to have cohesion, i.e., parti-
cles small enough to be affected by intermolecular cohesion. Soils with
a honeycomb structure are porous and contain large voids. Flocculent
structure occurs only in fine soils and is derived from colloidal sus-
pensions which have been destabilized, resulting in formation of a honey-
comb structure made up of small soil particles.
Effects of Pore Water on Soil Aggregate
The melange of inorganic and organic materials in a landfill
responds to pore water with significant, often dramatic, changes in soil
column behavior. Pore water can generate the solution of materials from
the solid matrix of the soil, resulting in the eventual transport of
materials from the source zone and enhancing permeability, or plugging
pore passages and reducing permeability. As a result the properties of
landfill materials are expected tjo depend to a large degree on the
amounts of pore water in the soil. From the viewpoint of biological
degradation, pore water has the additional positive effect of accelerating
the development of voids.
11-11
-------
Stress-Strain Characteristics
Stress-strain relationships are the mechanical properties of soils
which determine the settlement that a given overburden will cause. The
simplest of these relationships is for elastic materials in which stress
and strain are proportional and independent of time. Stress-strain rela-
tionships for soils are not linear and change over time; also, soils are
acted upon by lateral pressures due to overburden and other loads sup-
ported by soil.
Analogically, landfill material may be considered as a skeleton of
solid grains enclosing voids which may be filled with gas, liquid, or a
combination of gas and liquid. As such matter is placed under stress in
such a way that its volume is decreased, three factors may contribute to
compression: compression of solid matter; compression of water and air
in the voids; and escape of water and air from the voids. Under load, a
decrease in the volume of soil mass is probably due entirely to escape
of water from pores and/or compression of gas in pores. With the com-
pressible types of materials often found in landfills, some of the volume
decrease may relate to compression of the matter itself in addition to
escape of pore water or compression of gas in the pores. However, com-
pressibility phenomena in a landfill, because of the heterogeneous nature
of the material, are primarily a function of the extent to which landfill
elements can shift positions. As compression progresses, a point is
reached where the decrease in void volume must result in the escape of
pore water. If the material under compression has a low coefficient of
permeability, compression may occur as a gradual process over a time
period prolonged by the slow escape of water.
Compression of Sand and Clay
Sands and clays represent the behavioral boundary conditions of most
materials found in landfills. Sand is generally unsaturated and its
stress-strain characteristics depend primarily on the relative density
of the material and to a much lesser extent on particle shape and size.
In clay essentially two phenomena take place which cause a long lag in
subsidence: escape of pore water, limited by permeability controlling
the flow of water; and plastic lag, due to plastic action of water
adsorbed near grain to grain contacts or points of nearest approach to
contact.
11-12
-------
A major portion of the compression in sands occurs almost instantly
after a load is applied and is affected little by the degree of satura-
tion of the sand. The time lag during compression of sand is largely
frictional and is caused by successive, irregular, localized build-up and
breakdown of stresses in grain groups.
Compression cannot occur instantly or rapidly in clay because the
pore water cannot escape immediately. Hydrostatic pressure, developed
in the pore waters of clay by imposition of an overburden on the clay,
forces the pore water out. As pore water moves out, grains of clay move
closer together, allowing subsidence to occur and increasing the resist-
ance of the soil mass to outflow.
Summary
Soil mechanics provides a framework for considering the probable
phenomena which cause subsidence in landfills. Refuse, compared with
most soils, has heterogeneous and low-density characteristics upon
emplacement and Initial compaction. Biological decomposition adds to
voids resulting in the weakening of many of the structural elements in a
landfill mass, facilitating the reformation of the material by subsidence
under an overburden. In the Interacting sequence of events causing sub-
sidence in a landfill, the above theoretical concepts lead to the follow-
ing sequence of events in the subsidence of landfills:
(1) An increase in the relative density of the refuse material is
effected immediately by compaction of the material upon
emplacement.
(2) A gradually increasing rate of biological decomposition occurs
over time, enhanced by the autocatalytic increase of micro-
organisms, by ingress of water to the fill, and by increasing
temperature.
(3) Development of voids filled with gases and water occurs as
biological decomposition progresses, leading to a decrease of
density and additional subsidence of the weakening structural
elements of the landfill.
(4) Continued iteration of decomposition, subsidence, decomposition,
etc. takes pLace to an extent that ultimately a rigid structural
11-13
-------
skeleton Is formed or that a saturated soil condition evolves
In which the escape of water becomes time dependent and limited.
In either case, increased density may result.
iaboratory: procedure
Mixtures of refuse were prepared using different amounts of'differ-
ent sizes of paper, garbage (fresh green vegetable cuttings), garden
wastes (leaves, etc.)* noneombustiblea (metal, glass, ceramic), and sand
as an inert filler. Each of these components was shredded into two sizes
(1/2-lnch and two-inch) designated as fine and coarse. Three types of
refuse were prepared on the basis of high, medium, and low paper*content,
and each of these types was subtyped as fine, mixed, or coarse as related
to the sizes of stock material used (fine, coarse, or a 50-50 mixture of
each). The composition of the nine mixtures is shown in Table 11-12.
The"51 test cells (each approximately 10 Inches high by eight inches in
diameter) developed from the nine mixtures as follows:
(1) A series of preliminary compaction tests was conducted-with
the dry refuse to determine maximum density of the refuse cells
and their porosity at maximum density.
(2) Based on the porosity of each stock mixture, the water quan-
tities required to establish 65 percent and 100 percent satura-
tion were established.
(3) Eighteen aerobic and duplicate anaerobic test cells (36 total)
were prepared, nine of each type in the dry state and nine of
each type at 65 percent saturation at time of preparation.
(4) Nine cells (one from each stock mixture) were prepared) at 100
percent saturation at time of preparation.
(5) After about 120 days of monitoring, six new cells were set up,
all of which contained coarse-size material. Two each of the
six units were prepared with low paper content, two with medium,
and two with high paper compositions. Three were set up as
anaerobic and three as aerobic cells; all were set up at a
saturation level of approximately 20 percent at time of
preparation.
11-14
-------
Synthetic refuse mixtures were prepared using paper, garbage (vege-
table greens), garden wastes (green leaves, wooden stems, and grass),
metal, glass, ceramics, rags, plastics, leather, and sand in three dis-
crete mixtures and with three particle size ranges. The principal vari-
ant in the composition of the mixtures was the paper content, which was
selected at 20, 30, and 60 percent levels. All the above refuse com-
ponents were shredded into two sizes, 1/2-inch and two-inch. Three
categories of high, medium, and low paper content refuse were prepared
using: (1) all 1/2-inch materials (fine); (2) all two-inch materials
(coarse); and (3) a 50-50 mixture of 1/2-inch and two-inch materials
(medium). Thus, on the bases of size and composition, nine different
types of synthetic refuse mixtures were developed.
The following is a brief description of the components used in the
refuse mixtures:
(1) Paper: coarse paper was prepared by shredding laboratory
paper towels to a size of approximately two inches. The fine
paper material consisted of the waste materials from the
punching of computer cards.
(2) Garbage: fresh lettuce, cabbage, and celery mixtures consti-
tuted the garbage fraction of the experimental refuse. These
items were cut to the coarse and fine sizes in the laboratory.
(3) Garden Waste: a mixture of green leaves, wooden stems, and
grass comprised the garden waste. These materials were cut in
the laboratory to the fine and coarse sizes.
(4) Metal, Glass, and Ceramics: two sizes of nails, small and
large pieces of broken glass, and pottery were mixed in equal
portions to form fine and coarse stock mixtures of these
noncombustibles.
(5) Rags, Plastics, and Leather; leather clippings and shredded
polyethylene Bheets of various thicknesses were mixed together
in two sizes to develop stock mixtures of this component.
(6) Inert Soil: a dry sand was added as inert soil in all of the
refuse mixtures.
11-15
-------
The composition and analysis of the nine experimental refuse mix-
tures are summarized in Table 11-12. The principal variants in thie com-
position of the high, medium, and low paper refuse mixtures were (besides
paper) garbage, garden waste, and metal-glass ceramics. The garbage and
garden waste contents varied from 10 percent in the high paper mixture
to 30 percent in the low paper mixtures. The metal, glass, and ceramic
content varied from 10 percent in the high paper mixtures to 20 percent
in the medium and low paper mixtures. On a weight basis, the water con-
tent of the mixture varied from 13 percent in the high paper mixture to
34 percent in the low paper mixture. The volatile matter content varied
from 81 percent in the high paper mixture to 58 percent in the low paper
mixture.
The estimated carbon and nitrogen contents of the experimental refuse
mixtures are summarized in Table 11-13. The high paper mixture was found
to contain 34 percent carbon and 0.4 percent nitrogen; the mediuth paper
mixture 26 percent carbon and 0.7 percent nitrogen; and the low £aper
mixture, 23 percent carbon and 0.9 percent nitrogen. Therefore, the C/N
ratio varied from over 90 percent in the high paper to approximately 25
percent in the low paper.
Experimental Test Units
A graphical representation of the two types of test units uded in
this experiment Is shown In Figure II-7. Each test unit consisted of a
PVC pipe of a nominal eight-inch inside diameter and a 12-inch length.
A perforated 1/2-inch ID PVC pipe of 13-inch length was placed irt the
center of the larger pipe. The 1/2-inch pipe was used as a guiding shaft
for compaction operations as well as for supplying air to the aerobic
units. In the decomposition studies, a thermometer was placed in the
center pipe to permit monitoring of the temperature variations iA the
decomposing refuse materials. A 10-pound concrete weight, cast to fit
inside the eight-inch PVC pipe, was placed on top of the refuse material
in each test unit. Measurements from the top of the center pipe to the
top of the weight provided a measure of subsidence of the refuse in the
test unit under this condition of surcharge. Each unit was held in a
metal container and supported on a wire mesh which allowed the leachate
to waste.
11-16
-------
Compaction of Refuse Cells
Two sets of refuse compaction experiments were conducted; the first
set established the maximum densities and minimum porosities of the nine
types of refuse materials, the porosities providing a base for adjustment
of the water content of the stock materials; and the second set, simu-
lated the degree of compaction realized by the movement of bulldozers or
other equipment over the fill 3ite. The second set of compactions was
conducted after adjustment of moisture content of the refuse mixtures and
prior to decomposition studies.
A wide variety of equipment is used for refuse and earth-moving
operations at fill sites, commonly used pieces of equipment being crawler
tractors and wheeled scrapers. A typical scraper used in large landfill
operations is the TEREX TS-32 scraper. A TEREX TS-32 scraper can produce
a static stress of 70 psi on a contact area of 22 by 33 inches. If it is
assumed that refuse is compacted in three-foot lifts and that surface
stress is distributed downward at a 45-degree angle, then compaction
stress at the middle plane of the refuse lift would be approximately 13
psi. This value was considered as the average static stress that can be
applied in the field during the construction of a sanitary landfill. A
compaction stress of 13 psi was applied to the tested refuse in the
laboratory by the impact of 57.4-pound weight falling freely from a
height of 21 inches above the refuse surface. If it is assumed that the
falling weight would come to complete rest one second after initial con-
tact with the refuse material, this procedure would also produce an
approximate static compaction stress of 13 psi.
The first set of compaction experiments was carried out using the
nine stock materials (high, medium, and low paper stock, each in coarse,
medium, and fine sizes) with no water addition. The eight-inch experi-
mental test units were filled with hand-packed refuse to a height of five
inches. The refuse was compacted by the dropping weight and the depth of
the refuse was recorded after each drop. Compaction continued until two
successive drops produced no apparent change in the refuse height. At
this point, compacted refuse was considered to be in equilibrium with the
stress applied by the dropping weight. The number of drops required to
establish equilibrium for each of the nine stock mixtures was used later
11-17
-------
in preparation of duplicate cells of each mixture (18 in all), one set
of which w&s used for aerobic decomposition studies and the other for
anaerobic studies.
After the number of weight drops to establish maximum density was
obtained, the compacted cells were weighed and then immersed in a known
water volume in a graduated 10-liter container. The observed increase
in water volume was recorded as the volume of refuse solids*. With this
informatio'h it was possible to determine the porosity and the unit weight
of each of the compacted stock mixtures of refuse.
It was possible using the porosities of each type of dry compacted
stock mixture to estimate the amounts of water required to achieve se-
lected degrees of saturation. Actual measurements, made after compaction
to equilibrium, of the set of nine stock mixtures at various levels of
water addition showed that a maximum unit weight of wet refuse corres-
ponded to about 65 percent water saturation. This level of saturation
was selected in the preparation of two sets of partially saturated cells,
nine for aerobic and nine for anaerobic decomposition studies.
In addition to the 18 dry and 18 partially saturated cells,, nine
additional cells were prepared by saturation of each of the stock mix-
tures.
The compaction procedures used in preparation of the above 45 dry,
partially-saturated, and saturated refuse cells (second set of compaction
experiment's) are as follows:
(1) Sufficient quantities of each of the stock refuse mixtures
were transferred to fill about 5 inches of the 8-inch ID
polyvinyl chloride pipes.
(2) The compaction weight was dropped the number of times deter-
mined in the first set of tests for the specific refuse mix-
ture to attain maximum compaction.
(3) Steps (1) and (2) were repeated until the compacted.refuse
reached a height of 10 inches in the test unit.
(4) Each experimental test unit was weighed before and after the
compaction operation and the weight of refuse content,' obtained
by the difference, was recorded.
11-18
-------
(5) Each unit was placed on top of a wire mesh in a separate con-
tainer. A thermometer was inserted in the central pipe and
the ten pound concrete weight was fitted on top of the refuse
in the test unit.
(6) All containers were transferred to a constant temperature room
with adequate ventilation to prevent accumulation of hazardous
gases resulting from decomposition of refuse materials. The
room temperature was maintained first at 25°C (77°F) and later
at 30°C (86°F) (to accelerate the decomposition process).
(7) All test units were ventilated by tubes from the units con-
nected to a suction purap outside the constant temperature room.
In addition the aerobic test units were connected to an air
supply line which was connected to a compressed air unit outside
the constant temperature room. Compressed air was blown j,nto
the aerobic units for several hours every other day. (The rate
of flow was not recorded.)
SUBSIDENCE DURING DECOMPOSITION
The compacted refuse cells were allowed to decompose and subside in
the constant temperature room over a period of nearly 200 days. Records
of weight, temperature, and subsidence of the decomposing refuse were
made during the course of this period. Subsidence was measured as the
drop of the weight in relation to the central pipe In the experimental
test units. Leachates were drained from the units before weight measure-
ments were taken. At first, records were kept daily, eventually the in-
terval was decreased to twice a week and then to once a week toward the
end of the monitoring period.
After about four months of monitoring, some of the units containing
refuse with 60 percent paper showed little progress in subsidence. For
this reason these units were replaced by six new cells, all of which con-
tained coarse-size material, 30 percent water (weight basis). Two of the
six units each were prepared with low paper content, two with medium, and
two with high paper compositions. Three units were established as anaer-
obic cells and three as aerobic cells.
11-19
-------
Consolidation of Decomposed Refuse
In this, test experimental stage, the decomposed refuse cells were
systematically subjected to confined compression tests in order to^deter-
mine stress-strain characteristics of the refuse material. At this stage
of the experimentation, the refuse cells had been allowed to decompose
for seven months. In the case of the low paper cells, the level, of de-
composition was less. The consolidation tests were conducted using the
beam apparatus shown in Figure II-8. The apparatus was designed for
operation with preconsolidated refuse samples 8 inches in diameter;and
4 inches thick. These dimensions were considered the minimal acceptable
for testing iof slices of the refuse cells inasmuch as the coarse particles
were adjusted to a 2-inch size and the composition of the cells was rela-
tively heterogeneous. As shown in Figure II-8, the compression marine
was basically a second degree lever with a ratio of 10:1 for the applied
load. With exception of the loading hook, tension rods with turnbuckle,
the compression rod, and the stiffeners, the unit was fabricated with
wood •
The following is a brief description of the procedures used in
carrying out the consolidation test:
(1) The refuse sample was preconsolidated overnight by in-
creasing the weight on each refuse cell from 10 to 90 lbs,
i.e., from 30 to approximately 270 lb/sq ft. The stress, of
270 lb/sq ft is approximately equal to the stresses imposed
on the top refuse layer in a landfill due to the final fill
cover.
(2) Measurements of the sample height and weight were recorded
before and after preconsolidation.
(3) A<4-inch slice of each refuse cell, and the length of PVC
pipe holding the slice intact, was sawed from the total refuse
cell; in this manner an "undisturbed," preconsolidated slice
of each cell was obtained for the consolidation tests.
(4) The sliced sample was then placed on the sample base of the
compression apparatus and consolidated by progressively increas-
ing loads.
11-20
-------
(5) The first load applied to the refuse sample was the dead
weight of the mechanical lever, which produced a stress of
1,257 lb/sq ft at the refuse surface. Subsequent load incre-
ments produced stress increments equal to 600 to 800 lb/sq ft
of stress.
(6) Settlement of the sample was recorded after approximately one
hour of application of each load and then the additional load
was applied. One hour was used because the majority of the
compaction had taken place at that time.
Consolidation progressed at an extremely low rate after the first
few seconds of loading. Because of this phenomenon, only a limiLed num-
ber of time-deformation curves were developed; most of the later tests
were monitored by making a single observation of settlement after one
hour. Rebound was not measured.
RESULTS
A synthesis of all results obtained in the various phases of Lhe
study is presented in this section. Detailed data sheets for each experi-
mental area of the study are presented in Tables 11-14 to 11-27.
Compaction of Refuse Cells
The results of the first set of compaction tests are presented in
Figures II-9 through 11-12. Figure II-9 illustrates the relationship
between density (unit weight) and unit energy input (weight drops). From
five to seven unit energy inputs of 1,200 lb-inch were required to obtain
maximum unit weights in the unwetted test cells. The greatest unit
weights were achieved in cells with the lowest paper content (28 to 42
lb/cu ft) and in cells with fine-size refuse particles (29 to 42 lb/cu ft),
as shown in Figures II-9 and 11-10. The least unit weight value (18 lb/
cu ft) was obtained in the cell containing 60 percent paper and coarse
particle sizes.
Figure 11-11 indicates the relationships between porosity, composi-
tion, and paper content for the nine stock mixtures after compaction to
maximum dry density. The porosity relationships were increased to the
unit weight relationships; the cells containing low paper content and
71-21
-------
fine-size particles had the lower porosities. The porosities of the
test cells varied from 35 percent, for the cell with fine-size particles
and 20 percent paper, to nearly 70 percent, for the high-paper coarse-
particle cell.
The effect of water addition on the unit weight of the compacted
refuse is shown in Figure 11-12. Maximum unit weights varied from-60
lb/cu ft for the 30 percent paper, coarse-particle cell to under 50
lb/cu ft for the 20 percent paper, fine-particle cell. Maximum unit
^weights occurred at levels of, or in excess of, 65 percent saturation.
,Decomposition and Subsidence
Observations were made on the time variation of weight loss and
subsidence -for the 45 refuse cells in the constant temperature room over
a period of study. Unit weight change has been estimated from these
data on the basis of the following formula:
%
1 + SD
"W
lOOd-wp j
(II-l)
where:
y^ = final unit weight, lb/cu ft
y^ = initial unit weight, lb/cu ft
Sp = subsidence due to decomposition, percent
= final weight of cell, lb
= initial weight of cell, lb
It is assumed in Equation II-l that no water is lost as subsidence occurs,
a situation, which did not obtain in the saturated and partially-saiturated
cells. For, this reason final unit weight observations presented subse-
quently represent approximate estimates of the true final unit wetght of
the saturated and partially-saturated cells after decomposition.
Weight .Loss and Unit Weight Change
Weight loss observations for the 45 refuse cells are summarized in
Figures 11-13 to 11-17 for the aerobic-dry (A/D), anaerobic-dry (An/D),
11-22
-------
aerobic - 65 percent saturated (A/65), anaerobic - C5 percent saturated
(An/05), and anaerobic saturated (An/S) cells, respectively.
The greatest weight losses with decomposition in the A/D cells
(Figure 11-13) were observed with the low-paper cells and varied from
20 to 33 percent. The least weight losses in the A/D cells were about
15 percent and occurred in the high-paper cells. Weight losses in the
An/D cells (Figure 11-14) were greatest in the low-paper cells (12 to 20
percent) and least in the high-paper cells (<10 percent). Generally the
percent of weight losses were greater after decomposition in the A'D
cells than in the An/D cells.
The most significant weight losses in the A/65 ceils (Figure 11-15)
was observed in the low-paper cells, the weight loss varying from 33 to
50 percent. The least weight losses in the A/b5 cells were observed in
the high-paper cells. Overall weight losses for the A/G5 cells were 50
to 100 percent greater than observed with the A/D cells. The greatest
weight losses observed in the An/65 cells were found in the low-paper
cells, the weight losses were 35 to 40 percent, and the least weight
losses occurred in the high-paper cells (Figure 11-16). As a rule weight
losses in the An/65 cells were 15 to 25 percent less than that observed
in the A/65 cells.
Figure 11-17 illustrates the weight loss observations for the An/S
cells. It is apparent that the greatest weight decreases (40 to 50 per-
cent) occurred in the low-paper cells and the least weight losses in the
high-paper cells. The rate at which weight loss was incurred was much
greater initially (first 20 days ol the experiment) in the An/S cells
than in all of the other cells; after the initial 20-day period, the
rates of weight loss in the An/S cells were similar to those in the 65
percent saturated cells.
It can be concluded from the weight loss data that the greatest
weight losses occurred in the low-paper cells, varying from 12 percent
in the dry cells to 50 percent in the saturated cells. Weight losses
were generally greater in the aerobic than in the anaerobic cells by 10
to 20 percent, and tended to increase with increasing parLicle size.
The change in unit weight of a refuse cell is a function of the
degree of compaction which occurs in the structure of the fill material,
11-23
-------
and is related to the degree of breakdown of the structure of the fill
material and the decree to which water can escape from the fill. The
decomposition studios were conducted with an overburden of 30 lb/sq ft.
Unit weights were estimated from weight loss and subsidence data using
Equation II-l and arc presented in Figures 11-18 to 11-22.
Unit weight changes in the A/D cells are presented in Figure 11-18.
The greatest changes occurred in the low-paper cells: about 15 to 25
percent increases to final uriiL weights between 45 and 50 lb/cu ft. The
higher-paper cells tended to decrease slightly in unit weight to final
levels between 20 and 30 lb/cu ft. Unit weight changes in the An/D
cells are'presented in Figure 11-19. Trends in unit weight changes in
the An/D cells were similar to those in the A/Li cells in that the greatest
increases t'ere in the low-paper cells.
Figure 11-20 illustrates unit weight changes in the A/65 cells,
which did not follow the trends of increasing over time as observed in
the dry cells. With exception of the fine-size, 20 percent paper cell
(which increased 20 percent in unit weight), five to ten percent decreases
were observed in the unit weights of the A/65 cells. An unverified
explanation for this phenomenon is the loss of water as leachate^ during
the decomposition process. An analogous pattern of unit weight change
was observed in the An/65 cells (Figure 11-21).
Unit weight changes in the An/S cells are presented in Figure 11-22.
Generally minimal weight changes occurred after initial unit weight
decreases from 10 to 25 percent. The initial weight losses are believed
to be attributable to water losses from the cell as leachate. The final
unit weights of the An/S cells varied from 55 to 65 lb/cu ft and-, at
these levels, the An/S cells were more dense than the partially-saturated
cells.
The unit weight estimates in Figures 11-18 to 11-22 can be summarized
as follows:
(1) There was a general increase in final unit weight with increas-
ing water content.
11-24
-------
(2) The highest unit weights were observed with the low-paper
cells arid the differences in unit weight between low-paper and
other cells decreased as decree of saturation increased.
Subsidence Rates
The day-to-day observations of subsidence in the five sets of test
cells are presented in Figures 11-23 to 11-27; final subsidence rates
from these observations are presented in Figures 11-28 to 11-30. Iso-
metric drawings of the ultimate subsidence levels (end of 200-day test
period) in the five sets of cells are presented in Figures 11-31 to
11-35.
The day-to-day observations of subsidence in Figures 11-23 to 11-27
show essentially four modes of subsidence to be occurring:
(1) High initial rate of subsidence followed by a diminished rate
or total cessation of subsidence;
(2) Low initial rate followed by increasing subsequent rate;
(3) Steady high rate of subsidence for the duration of the experi-
ment; and
(4) Steady low rate of subsidence for the duration of the
experiment.
The first case is exemplified by the A/D cells comprised of coarse
materials and containing 30 to 60 percent paper (Figure 11-23), in which
a high initial rate of subsidence dropped off to minimal levels after
approximately 100 days of study. The second case is exemplified by
several A/65 cells (Figure 11-25) in which the rate of subsidence
increased as the experiement progressed. Case (3) is exemplified by the
A/D cell containing coarse-size materials and 20 percent paper (Figure
11-23), where subsidence proceeded at a significant rate for the entire
study. The fourth case is typified by the subsidence rateu of the fine
and mixed-size, 60 percent paper cells.
Because of the several modes of subsidences discussed above, it is
apparent that the rate of subsidence of a cell may vary widely with com-
position, particle size, degree of biodegradability of material, etc.
As a basis for comparing the relative rates of subsidence of the different
11-25
-------
types of cells it was necessary to select a common reference time in
which rates could be determined from curves in Figures 11-23 to 11-27 for
comparanive purposes. The time frame selected for this purpose was the
last 20 days of observations; this selection was made on the basis that
the six months of experiements leading to the last 20 days of subsidence
observations world provide sufficient time for development of micro-t
organism cultures and the initiation of decomposition of the biodegrad-
able material in the cells. The percent rate of subsidence (annual
basis) during the last 20 days of observation in Figures 11-23 to 11-27
are illustrated in Figures 11-28 to 11-30.
The average annual subsidence rates for all cells with fineysize
refuse materials are shown in Figure 11-28. There was, a generally
decreasing trend in the value of the subsidence rate as the,paper con-
tent increases, viz., from 45 to 75 percent per year at low paper con-
tent to five to ten percent per year at high paper content. At high
paper content, the subsidence rates for all five types of cells with
fine materials tended to converge. At low paper content, the highest
rates of subsidence (75 percent per year) were observed for the An/S and
A/65 cells and the lowest rate (45 percent per year) for the An/D cell.
In all cases but for the An/65 cells, the subsidence rate at 30 percent
paper content was much lower than the rates for the same respective cells
at 20 percent paper content.
Average annual subsidence rates for all cells with mixed-size refuse
materials are shown in Figure 11-29. The same trend of decreasing sub-
sidence rate with increasing paper content was apparent for the mixed
cells as it was for the fine cells. The rates decreased from 50 to 80
percent per year at low paper content to five to 20 percent por year at
high paper content. There was a lesser convergence of the subsidence
rates at high-paper content with the mixed cells than with the fine cells.
As a general rule for all paper contents, the rates decreased in the
following order: An/D > An/S > A/65 > An/65 > A/D. That the subsidence
rates for the An/D cells were greater than for all other cells was an
unexpected result; other than this anomaly, the general trend of increas-
ing subsidence rates with increasing degree of saturation was observed
for the mixed cells as it was for the fine cells. In all cases the, general
span of rates for the mixed cells was similar to that for the fine cells.
IIt26
-------
The average annual subsidence rates for all cells with coarse-size
refuse materials are shown in Figure 11-30. There was a generally
decreasing value of the subsidence rate as the paper content increased,
as was observed for the fine and mixed cells. The rate decreased from
50 to 85 percent per year at low-paper content to eight to 20 percent
per year at the high-paper content. The rates decreased in the following
order over all paper content: A/D > A/65 > An/S > An/D > An/65. In all
cases the rates at 30 percent, paper content were less than the rates for
the same respective cells at the 20 percent paper content. There is a
broader range of rates for the coarse cells at all paper content than was
observed for the mixed or fine cells.
It can be concluded that there is a trend of decreasing rates of
subsidence as the paper content increases; the rates at 60 percent paper
content are one-third to one-fifth those at the 20 percent paper content.
The highest subsidence rates were observed generally with the An/S and
A/65 cells. The rates of subsidence tend to converge toward a value of
about 10 percent per year as the paper content increases t3 60 percent.
Ultimate Subsidence
Ultimate subsidence observations (at the end of the 200-day study-
period) are presented isometrically in Figures 11-31 r.o 11-35 for each
of the five types of cells. The isometric drawings permit the repre-
sentation of the ultimate subsidence surface as the function of refuse
size and paper content. The ultimate subsidence surface for the A/D
cells is shown in Figure 11-31; the surface decreases as refuse size
decreases and as paper content increases. The ultimate subsidence
response surface for the An/D cells is shown in Figure 11-32; the sur-
face decreases as refuse size increases or decreases from the mixed size
and as the paper content decreases. Figure 11-33 shows the ultimate sub-
sidence surface for the A/65 cells. The greatest subsidence was observed
at the 30 percent paper level for the coarse and mixed sizes, and at (.he
20 percent paper level for the mixed size. The subsidence surface
decreases from the 30 percent paper level sharply to the 60 percent paper
level. The ultimate subsidence surface of the An/65 cells is shown in
Figure 11-34. The surface of ultimate subsidence decreases from coarse
to mixed and from fine to mixed and as paper content increases. Figure
11-27
-------
11-35 shows the ultimate subsidence surface for the An/S cells; little
trend can be soon in the surface with size variation, but the surface
decreases with increasing paper.
The ultimate subsidence observations after 180 days of decomposi-
tion showed that subsidence levels decreased with increasing paper content
but showed no consistent trend with size of refuse material. In evalua-
tion of these observations it should be noted that time constraints!pre-
cluded tracking the degree of decomposition which had taken place in the
cells or of the amount of leachate which had been lost from the cebls
over the experimental time period. Nonetheless, the results presented
above verify that the higher the garbage content or the lower the paper
content in a composite refuse, the greater wiLl be the subsidence due to
dccompositioh processes.
Consolidation Studies1
The approach to the consolidation studies was to ascertain what mode
of consolidation (time-dependent and/or pressure-dependent) took place
during surcharging slices of the test refuse cells and to define what
parameters could be used to describe these phenomena.
Time-Deiormation Curves
Time-deformation curves were prepared for a series of samples with
the beam consolidation apparatus to determine the time dependency of
refuse consolidation and to what extent analogies could be considered
between refuse consolidation and sand and clay consolidation. Time-
deformation ^curves were developed for samples having the following .charac-
teristics: An/S, 30 percent paper, and coarse-size materials; An/25
(percent saturated), 20 percent paper, and coarse-size materials; and
A/15, 60 percent paper, and coarse-size materials. Time-deformation
curves for each of these refuse mixes are shown in Figures 11-36 to II-
38. The pattern of increasing pressures used for the studies was initi-
ated with a stress of 1,260 lb/sqft (beam dead load) and increased in
varying increments to maximum stresses in the range of 4,000 lb/sq ft.
Observations were made at each pressure increment for durations in excess
of 15 minutes.
11-23
-------
The general pattern of the time-deformation curves for all three
types of refuse and for most of the pressure increments can be described
as an initial sudden compaction occurring in the first 0.1 minute, after
which a gradual compaction continued to take place. The gradual subsi-
dence taking place thereafter can be described by the equation:
C = k.ln (t/t ) (II-2)
l o
where: C = compaction
k^ = slope of each time-
deformation curve
t = 0.1 minute
o
t = time, minutes
A phenomenon typical of sand is that initial compaction occurs in less
than 0.1 minute. However, the cells did not appear no attain maximum
compaction levels in time periods of less than 10 minutes, thus exhibit-
ing a behavior atypical to sand.
The time-deformation curves in Figure 11-36 manifest several types
of behavior. A significant initial compaction took place as the initial
pressure increment was added and did not recur as additional increments
were imposed. During the time interval in which the cell was consoli-
dating under the first increment, the slope of the time-deformation curve
approached a steady exponential rate which appeared to be maintained as
pressure increments were added. The sample did not approach equilib-
rium during the 15-minute intervals in which each increment was added.
In contrast with the curves shown in Figure 11-36, the results pre-
sented in Figure 11-37 indicate that the rate of settlement of the sample
decreased significantly with increasing pressure. After 1-1/2 hours of
observations at a pressure of 3,285 lb/sq ft, the rate of settlement was
about one-seventh that at the pressure increment of 1,260 lb/Bq ft.
The third set of time-deformation curves (Figure 11-38) illustrates
neither the slackening rate of settlement of the cells described in Figure
11-37 nor as great a rate of settlement as the results for the cells shown
in Figure 11-36.
11-29
-------
The Limc.-dc formation curves provide an insight to several aspects
of Llie behavior of consolidating refuse materials. It is apparent thai
the refuse cells do not consolidate in a manner uniquely identifiable
with the settlement of sand or clay under similar circumstances. How-
ever, the time-deformation carves of the refuse cells did resemble sand
in the type of rapid initial adjustment of unit weight of the cells; and
resembled clay in the type of continuing plastic subsidence, observed as
the testing progressed. It is unknown whether the latter behavior was
related to the escape of pore water and relief of an excess hydrostatic
pressure or to the continuing localized buildup and breakdown of stresses
in materials In the cells, or a combination of both of these or other
factors. However, it was apparent from these studies that a significant
fraction of the cumulative settlement took place within the first few
minutes after application of pressure and that the cells tended to assume
a pseudo-equilibrium rate of settlement after the first few minutes of
consolidation which tended to diminish as the pressure increment increased.
Because of the pseudo-equilibrium rate of settlement which occurred as
time and pressure increased, it was assumed that the stress-strain studies
could be carried out by making single observations oi the degree of settle-
ment which had occurred after approximately one hour of consolidation.
Stress-Strain Studies
Stress-strain data were developed for the 45 test cells described in
the decomposition studies, using as strain measurements the settlement
occurring in the test cells after one hour on the beam consolidation
apparatus. The results of the stress-strain observations for each of the
five sets of refuse cells are summarized in Figures 11-39 to 11-43,
respectively. The data were developed using the beam dead weight stress
of 1,260 lb/sq ft as the base stress, and five pressure increments (added
sequentially to a maximum stress level of about 4,000 lb/so ft). The
application of the base stress of 1,260 lb/so ft represented a positive
pressure increment of 990 lb/sq ft over the preconsolidation stress of
270 lb/sq ft imposed on the test cells, and caused a sudden initial com-
paction of the test cells (Figures 11-39 to 11-43).
It can be seen from the linear relationships (semilogarithmijc basis)
in Figures 11-39 to 11-43 that the initial compaction effected by the base
11-30
-------
stress was disproportionately larger than compaction affected by subsequent
stress increments. The disproportionate initial compaction indicates
that imposition of the base stress caused a significant adjustment of
the unit weight of the test cells toward a unit weight at which the cell
was in or approached equilibrium with the base stress. Ik contrast
with initial compaction, the secondary compaction (taking place as the
stress is increased gradually from base stress) occurs in a manner which
permits the cell to adjust itself continually toward a unit weight in
equilibrium with the compaction stress applied.
A basis for evaluating the factors affecting initial compaction
was established by an analysis of the strain at the base stress of 1,260
lb/sq ft vs the paper content of the cells. The results of this evalua-
tion are plotted in Figure 11-44, wherein two groups of initial compac-
tion values can be identified, one group consisting of the initial com-
paction data for saturated and partially-saturated cells, and the other
for the dry cells. Initial compaction levels for the dry cells varied
from averages of 20 percent at 60 percent paper content to 27 percent
at 30 percent paper content, to 23 percent at 20 percent paper
content. The average initial compaction levels for the saturated and
partially-saturated cells was 29 percent at 20 and 60 percent paper con-
tent and 32 percent at 30 percent paper content. Thus it can be con-
cluded that under the experimental conditions of this study, the water
content and the paper content of the cells were factors in the process
of initial compaction.
The relationship between unit weight and initial compaction^was also
evaluated in the stress-strain studies. Figure 11-45 illustrates the
theoretical relationship, assuming no loss of water from the cell upon
initial compaction:
Wl
Ci = 100 "X
(II-3)
where:
= initial compaction, percent
y^ = final unit weight, lb/cu ft
= initial unit weight, lb/cu ft
11-31
-------
The values o1 these parameters will vary widely from one type of material
to the next, and initial compaction of a refuse of known initial unit
weight can he predicted only after field or laboratory testing. The unit
weights achieved after compaction of the 45 test cells under a stress of
1,260 lb/sq ft are shown in Figure 11-46, where it may be observed that
unit weight at a stress of 1,260 lb/sq ft varied between 80 and 120
lb/cu ft for the partially-saturated and saturated cells, but varied
between 20 and 100 lb/cu ft for the dry cells.
Secondary compaction has been defined previously as that strain
occurring subsequent to initial compaction and as depicted by the semi-
logarithmic relationship between strain and pressure in Figures 11-39 to
11-43. It must be assumed that secondary compaction occurs relatively
independently of initial compaction. On this premise the strain scales
delimiting the portion of the stress-strain curves in Figures 11-39 to
11-43 attributable to secondary compaction were normalized to 100 percent
scale so that secondary compaction could be expressed as a percent of
full sample height independent of initial compaction. Secondary compac-
tion can then be described by the equation:
Cs = ks ln (II-4)
where: Cg = secondary compaction, percent
kg = secondary compaction constant, units of percent
p = stress, lb/sq ft
Pq = base stress (1,260 lb/sq ft in this study)
Equation II-4 has been used to establish the secondary compaction con-
stant, kg, for all of the linear relationships shown in Figures 11-39 to
11-43, the ,kg value for each of these cells is presented in Table 11-28.
The secondary compaction constants (kg) presented in Table 11-28
vary from 12.9 to 17.1 percent for the A/D cells, and average 14.4 per-
cent. This parameter varies from 11.2 to 22.5 percent for the An/D cells
and averages 13.7 percent; kg varies from 12.6 to 17.3 percent for the
A/65 and An'o5 cells and averages 14.7 percent; and kg varies frofn 3.2 to
15.2 percent for the An/S cells, averaging 13.4 percent. On an overall
basis the secondary compaction constant averages 14.3 percent for all
five types of cells, and it is apparent from consideration of the
11-32
-------
average values of the constants for each of the five sets of cells that
there is little departure from the overall average in the entire set of
observations. For this reason, the value of 14.3 percent was selected
as the secondary compaction constant to be used in conjunction with ap-
plication of Equation II-4.
PREDICTION OF LANDFILL SETTLEMENT
Mechanisms in Settlement
The foregoing section has provided the bases for describing three
discrete mechanisms active in the process of settlement In a landfill,
viz., decomposition, initial compaction, and secondary compaction. The
functional independence of each of these mechanisms from the others in the
course of the analysis has been assumed but not verified. The assumption
that each mechanism is independent functionally of the others allows each
mechanism to be treated as a unit process occurring without regard to se-
quence and as a separate element in the mathematical description of land-
fill settlement.
There are several implications from the findings of the foregoing
section on these mechanisms. Decomposition has been described as a time-
dependent but not pressure-dependent mechanism. The rate of progress of
settlement due to decomposition is assumed to vary not with the age of the
fill but with the age of the lift in the fill. The degree of subsidence
due to initial and secondary compaction was^ treated as primarily pressure-
dependent and due to imposition of an overburden. In normal landfill
operation the overburden is increased periodically with the addition of
a new lift; thus over a period of time an additional amount of subsidence
is expected from the same lift due simply to the increasing overburden
pressures of the overlying lifts. In this context a landiill can be de-
scribed as a multilayer amalgam of individual layers of decomposable and
compactable material, each layer with a specific history of accumulation
of overburden and a specific age. Each of the mechanisms, reviewed in
detail below, must be evaluated in terms of how it contributes to over-
all settlement in a fill.
Decomposition
The laboratory studies have demonstrated the transient character of
decomposition as a factor in settlement, the rate of readily degradable
11-33
-------
substrate decreasing to lower levels as less readily degradable sub-
strates are successively used.
The transient effect of decomposition on the rate of settlement has
(¦often been observed in the field and many cases have been cited in the
literature where a completed fill has undergone a rapid rate of settle-
ment in its first year and a rapidly diminishing rate of settlement in
the second year. These observations provide a basis for establishing the
time variation of the rate of subsidence of a lift due to decomposition
which reflects an increasing rate of settlement during the early portion,
and a decreasing rate during the later portion, of a two-year period.
Figure 11-47 shows the pattern of variation selected in this study as a
basis for placing a time scale on the rate of subsidence. The relation-
ship shown in Figure 11-47 depicts the subsidence rate as a function of
k, where k is defined as the average annual rate of subsidence observed
at 180 days in the laboratory studies and presented in Figures 11-28 and
11-30. The subsidence rate depicted in Figure 11-47 increases to a maxi-
mum value of 1,0 k at six months, then decreases to a value of 0.1 k at
12 months, and to zero at two years. At the present level of definition
of subsidence rates due to decomposition, constant slopes (straight lines)
have been used to connect the rates of subsidence at time zero, six
months, one year, and two years in Figure 11-47.
The cumulative subsidence or settlement due to decomposition over
time can be estimated by integrating the subsidence rate in Figure 11-47
over time, i.e.,
A
/o,5 ri.o r
Ztdt + k I (1.9-1.8t)dt + k /(
JO.5 A
S = k / 2tdt + kf (1.9-1.8t)dt + k /(0.2-0.lt)dt (II-
J0 JO.5 1
which is integrated over the two-year period to:
SD = 0.575 k (II-6)
where = settlement due to decomposition, percent
A
k - average annual subsidence rate observed after
180 days of decomposition, percent per year
By integration of Equation II-5 over time, it is possible to predict the
percent of the maximum settlement of a lift due to decomposition at any
11-34
-------
point in the two-year period. Figure 11-48 shows the relationship between
cumulative subsidence and time which is obtained by this integration.
Approximately 45 percent of the cumulative or total subsidence occurs
after six months, 91 percent after one year, 97 percent after 18 months,
A
and 100 percent after two years. For example, at a k rate of 72 percent
per year (as observed for a low-paper 65 percent saturated cell) the cum-
ulative settlement after six months will be (0.45)(0.575)(72), or 18,6
percent of the height of the lift.
The relationships shown in Figures 11-47 and 11-48 provide a defini-
tive means for estimating cumulative settlement over time due to decom-
position and represent a direct initial step toward describing the behavior
of settlement in landfills over time.
Initial Compaction
The degree of initial compaction of a test cell was predicted to be
a function of the divergency of the unit weight of the sample from the
equilibrium weight of the sample under the compaction stress of concern.
In this study a base compaction stress of 1,260 lb/sq ft was used. Both
the initial and final (equilibrium) unit weights of a refuse cell are
functions of the individual type of refuse being considered and must be
ascertained by appropriate testing. If these weights are known it is
possible to predict the initial compaction using Equation II-3. In this
study, typical initial compaction values of 20 percent were observed with
dry refuse materials and 30 percent with partially-saturated or saturated
materials.
Secondary Compaction
The secondary compaction phenomena observed in the study were found
to be primarily pressure-dependent and, to a lesser extent, time-dependent.
Within the scope of the study it was not possible to establish definitively
the time dependency of secondary compaction. The degree of settlement
due to secondary compaction in the laboratory studies could be described
by a single relationship,
Cs = ks In (p/po) (II-4)
Equation II-4 is the basic statement evolving from this study for de-
scribing the phenomenon of secondary compaction.
11-35
-------
A Method of Prediction of Settlement
The settlement effected on a specific lift in a fill by each of the
threermechanisms studied in the laboratory can be described by the, ex-
pression,,
SL = 100 |V (1-0.01 SD) (1-0.01 C.)(l-0.01 Cg)] (H-7)
where
S = settlement in a lift, percent
1j 1
Sp = settlement due to decomposition, percent
C = initial compaction, percent
C = secondary compaction, percent
s
The determinations of Sp, C^, and Cg haye been discussed. It is important
to noteithat, because of the assumption that each of these mechanisms is
independent ,of the other, all of the above parameters (S^, Sp, C^, and Cg)
are expressed in units of percent of original fill height.
Equatiojn II-7 can be reformulated to summarize'the settlement over a
multiple-lift landfill by the expression:
S^, = _ 1 S. H.
t i.Pi i 1 (II-8)
n
2 H.
1
where = the settlement of the total fill due to decomposi-
t tion, initial compaction, and secondary compaction
at time t, percent of total fill height
= settlement which has occurred in lift i over time
i t^ and pressure p^, percent of lift height
t^ = age of lift in fill at time t
p^ = compaction stress on lift i at time t
= initial emplacement height of lift i
Equation II-7 represents the summation of the effects of decomposition
and compactipn on landfill settlement as investigated in this study, and
provides a basis for predicting landfill settlement using the laboratory-
developed relationships of this study.
11-36
-------
Example Calculation - Prediction of Landfill Settlement
The relationships reported in this chapter have been used to develop
an example calculation predicting landfill settlement. The following
conditions were assumed for the example:
(1) The till was comprised of three 3-foot lifts of partially-
saturated refuse, each lift being emplaced at i80-day inter-
vals and compacted initially at 1,260 lb/sq ft;
A
(2) The average subsidence rate k was taken as 72 percent per year;
(3) The average weight loss in each lift was assumed to be 25 per-
cent over the Initial six months after emplacement and nil
thereafter;
(4) The elevation at the base of the fill was assumed to be 500.00
ft;
(5) The in-place fill density was assumed for ease of calculation
no be a constant maximum of 100 lb/cu ft;
(6) Each lift waB assumed to be covered with a non-compactible
overburden equivalent to 300 lb/sq ft; and
(7) Three years after start of the first lift, an overburden of
2,000 lb/sq ft was added above the three fill lifts.
The resulting data for the time-phased prediction of subsidence of
the above landfill and landfilling conditions are summarized in Table
11-29. The elevation of the topmost layer of the fill is predicted to
decrease to an elevation of 509.38 after three years. The total in-place
height of the three lifts plus two intermediate layers of cover material
added in this time period is 15 feet, 40 percent of which (the cover
material) was postulated to be non-compactible. The total settlement of
the refuse material (exclusive of the two 3-ft layers of cover material
between the three lifts) over the three-year period equalled 5.62 ft of
the original 9-ft height of the three lifts, or 62.5 percent. In reference
A
to Equation II-6, 0.57k or 41.4 percent of the settlement relative to the
original 9-ft fill height can be attributed to decomposition. That is,
settlement due to decomposition accounted for two-thirds of the total
settlement. The remaining one-third of the total settlement was attrib-
utable to initial and secondary compaction processes.
11-37
-------
CHAPTER III
GAS MOVEMENT AMD CONTROL
GENERAL
The fact that sanitary landfilling is the simplest, most economical
procedure for the disposal of increasing quantities of wastes often con-
tributes to a too frequently mistaken philosophy: "out-of-sight out-of
mind." It is often forgotten that the nature of the disposed material
can create environmental problems whether burled or not, and that the
apparent simplicity of the sanitary landfill method of disposal does not
obviate the need for competent planning, investigation, and control of
the operation in order to avoid such potential problems.
Inside sanitary landfilLs, biological decomposition of organic
matter occurs resulting in the production of gases. These gases
primarily methane and carbon dioxide, may create problems which can re-
strict beneficial use of completed landfills by contributing to potential
fire hazards and causing impairment of groundwater quality.
BASIC OBJECTIVES
Because of the importance of knowledge about gas generation, move-
ment, and control for formulating construction criteria for sanitary
landfills and optimum land development and use, basic objectives of the
study included:
(1) The analysis and evaluation of the directions and extent of
gas movement;
(2) The correlation between the direction and extent of gas move-
ment and the surrounding soil characteristics;
(3) The performance of laboratory experiments for testing the
effectiveness of various natural soils in reducing movement
of gases from sanitary landfills; and
(4) The development of practical methods for controlling the
movement of gases.
III-l
-------
During the three years of the study, a major portion of the work effort
was directed toward the accomplishment of these basic objectives.
Gas MovemenL
During the first year of the study, teri completed sanitary landfill
sites were 'selected for conducting detailed gas movement studies. At
nine of the sites, a soil sampling program was executed to obtain.a
knowledge of the nature of the soil material adjacent to the fills for
use in interpreting the pattern of gas movement. Samples of soil were
analyzed for determination of grain size distribution, soil classifica-
tion, specific gravity, dry density, and moisture content. Field inves-
tigations were made to measure in-placc density of the soils around the
refuse sites and to visually survey the soil patterns in the inmediate
vicinity of the fills. A brief description of each research site'is pre-
sented as follows (Reference 2):
Site 1
Site 1 was constructed in a worked out sand and gravel pit. Fill
material consists of ordinary residential and commercial refuse and inert
solid materials. Surrounding soils consist of gravelly sand witn cobbles
and small boulders. No reuse of the fill has been made. The adjacent
land use is generally industrial in nature.
Site 2
Site 2 is located in a steep ravine in relatively isolated inland
hills composed of medium-to-coarse-grained sandstone and conglomerate
with lesser amounts of interbedded shales. The sandstone is generally
well cemented with low porosity and low permeability. Both liquid and
solid wasted were deposited at the site with minimal limitation as to
their nature or source. No development on or adjacent to the site, has
occurred.
Site 3
Site 3 is located in a low lying, poorly drained, slough area, previ-
ously unsuitable for development. Surrounding soils are classified as
silty clay underlain by silty sands and sandy silts. Solid wastes
deposited in this site consists of ordinary household and commercial
refuse and/or rubbish and garbage, and nondecomposable inert wastes.
III.-2
-------
Development in the vicinity of the site includes residential and
industrial Land uses. Development on the site includes an athletic
field, parking areas, and commercial buildings.
Site 4
Site 4 was constructed in a small canyon in the inland foothills.
The soils in the canyon generally consist of interbedded sandstone,
shale, and silLstone. Wastes deposited at the site consist of residen-
tial and commercial refuse, industrial wastes, and tree stumps and limbs
from clearing operations in the area.
Developments adjacent to the site consist of a mobile home park and
a mobile home manufacturing firm. Improvements on the site proper are
access roads and paved parking areas.
Site 5
Site 5 is located in coastal hills and was formerly mined for diato-
maceous earth. Surrounding soils consist of silty clay, diatomite, diato-
maceous mudstone, and shale. Fill material consisted of ordinary house-
hold and commercial refuse, rubbish, garbage, and other decomposable
inert solids.
Surrounding development is primarily residential. The site surface
is being developed as a botanical garden.
Site 6
Site 6 is one of several in a low-lying, poorly-drained, slough area,
underlain by a thin layer of alluvial deposits consisting essentially of
clay, silt, and fine sand. The landfill was a cut and cover operation
and the walls of the excavation consisted of silty clay, sandy silts, and
silty sands. Fill material consists oT ordinary household and commercial
refuse and/or rubbish, garbage, some liquid wastes, and other decomposable
organic refuse and nondecomposable inert solids.
Development adjacent to the site is industrial in nature. No use of
the site surface has as yet been made.
Site 7
Site 7 is located in a large canyon in hills situated in the central
part of the Los Angeles area. The fill is being constructed as a park
III-3
-------
reclamation project and is entirely surrounded by park grounds. Final
use of the site will be for recreational purposes.
Soils in the canyon are composed mostly of sandstone, decomposed
granite, and gravelly and silty sards. Fill material consists of normal
residential and commercial wastes and solid inert wastes.
Site 8
Site 8 was constructed in a worked out sand and gravel pit, adjacent
to a groundwater recharge basin operated by a public agency. An inert,
permeable fill levee was constructed to separate the spreading basin from
the fill area-. The pit had an average depth of approximately 50 feet.
The exact nature of the material deposited in the site is not known, but
apparently consisted primarily of organic decomposable material from many
sources, and some solid inert wastes. Adjacent soils consist of gravelly
sand with some silt, cobbles, and boulders.
A residential development is located adjacent to one side of the
site. A mobile home park was constructed on a portion of the fill area.
Because of differential settlement and subsidence of the surface, the
mobile home park was abandoned, demolished, and cleared away. Salvage
yards and a truck maintenance yard are now located on the site.
Site 9
Site 9 is also located in an abandoned gravel pit, with gravel and
sand mining operations still in progress in areas adjacent to the site.
Fill material consisted of ordinary household and commercial wastes and/or
rubbish and garbage, and nondecomposable inert solids.
A residential development is located adjacent to one side of the
site, with gravel mining operations on the other sides. The surface of
the fill is p'lanned to be a park. Soils in the area consist generally of
silty sand and gravel.
Site 10
Site 10 is located in the San Francisco Bay area, and is one of many
in that area which is reclaiming tidal lands. Site 10 was constructed by
erecting impermeable solid fill levees around low-lying tidal lands and
subsequent pUmping of water from the area enclosed by the levees. Filling
III-4
-------
operations utilized a cell type fill and cover method Cor disposing of
residential, commercial, and industrial solid wastes.
Monitoring Program
Gas may move in soils (porous media) by means of molecular diffu-
sion or by convective flow (pressure gradient). The driving force causing
movement of gas from one location to another by means of molecular diffu-
sion is the concentration gradient of the gas between the two locations.
At sites that are surrounded by dry permeable soils, where little concen-
tration gradient exists at the refuse-soil interface, gases will slowly
move out of the fill by molecular diffusion. A soil that is saturated
with water produces an effective gas barrier; and if a fill is thus com-
pleted with a moist soil layer over the surface, or an impervious surface
of any nature, such a barrier over the fill could cause gradient in the
fill, and gas may move into surrounding soils (Reference 3).
To sLudy this gas movement phenomena a monitoring program, comprised
of installation of gas probes followed by gas sampling, was undertaken at
the selected sites to measure gas concentrations in the soil atmosphere
at various locations around the landfills. The gas sampling probes were
made of 1/8-inch inside diameter (ID) plastic tubing with 1/16-inch wall
thickness. The bottom (j-l/2-inch section of each probe was perforated,
covered with a perforated plastic tube of 3/8-inch ID, and covered with a
piece of burlap cloth to prevent clogging of the perforations.
The majority of the probes were installed at depths varying from two
to three feet from ground surface; some were placed deeper because of
soil conditions; and some were installed in the soil surrounding sewer
manholes to get samples at deeper depths for comparison with samples taken
at shallow depths.
Over the three-year period of the study, some of the probes were
destroyed or lost, necessitating replacement or the installation of addi-
tional probes at new locations to facilitate the particular analysis
being made at the time.
Sampling Prccedure
The gas sampling procedure was based on the principle of displacing
air in a sampling bottle by gases existing in the soil at the level of
1II-5
-------
the probe. Two methods proved satisfactory: (1) liquid displacement,
and (2) vacuum displacement. The vacuum method proved most efficient
and was used for the majority of the gas samples taken. The liquid
method is slower and has insufficient suction to draw a good sample
through a partially blocked probe.
The procedure was to first evacuate the sampling bottles using a
vacuum pump. Stop-cocks on the bottles were then made air tight to
preserve the vacuum during travel from the laboratory to probe locations
in the field. To sample each probe, the gas and air contained in the
probe and its lead were first evacuated by the use of a hand aspirator
to insure that a representative sample of refuse gas would be obtained.
The probe was then connected to the sample bottle and the gas allowed to
fill the vacuum in the bottle.
Gas Analyses
Analysis of the gas collected from each probe was performed using
a gas chromatograph. Samples were analyzed in percent by volume for
carbon dioxide (CC^), oxygen (0^), nitrogen (N^), methane (CH^), and
in some cases, hydrogen sulfide (l^S). The extent of the gas movement,
primarily QH^, from each landfill was pictorially demonstrated where pos-
sible by plotting contours of equal concentrations.
Methane gas is readily detected by an instrument which, when properly
calibrated, will register the percent by volume of the combustible gas.
Because of the many analyses desired for methane detection, particularly
in conjunction with the monitoring of the testing of control devices, a
Johnson-Williams Sniffer, Combustible Gas Indicator, Model G, fitted with
a range multiplier unit was utilized. This unit is capable of measuring
approximate methane concentration from 0 to 100 percent by volume. It
proved to be reliable in the lower ranges and expedient for collecting
large numbers of samples quickly. In addition, a Bacharach Instrument
Company Gastron Gas Detector, Model 282, was purchased for use in measur-
ing the concentration of methane gas. This particular detector, used
extensively by natural gas companies for use in detecting gas leaks, is a
sensitive instrument capable of detecting minute quantities of natural
gas. The Gastron proved to be very useful in determining the presence of
III-6
-------
methane in buildings adjacent to landfills but is net built for use in
measuring concentrations above approximately 20 percent by volume.
RESULTS OF GAS SAMPLING AND ANALYSES PROGRAM
Over the three-year period of the study, numerous gas samples were
collected and analyzed at each site. The first-year program involved
primarily a determination of the extent, if any, of gas movement away
from the research sites. The results indicated which sites warranted
additional study and where gas control systems could be installed and
tested. The second-year program involved continuing analysis, at selected
sites, to determine possible changes in gas concentrations and movement
caused by rain, temperature, wind, and humidity. The third-year monitor-
ing program continued the analyses for the purpose of determining change
in concentration due to time lapse and any other determinable factors.
Tables showing a summary of the gas analyses made during the study are
included as Appendix E.
Site 1
Throughout the study period, the sampling and analyzing of gases in
the surrounding soils were the most extensive at Site 1, particularly in
conjunction with the testing of the control system. Plots of methane
concentration contours consistently indicated continued production of
methane within the fill. Gas movement was generally constant during the
course of the study. The cover material over the fill is quite thick and
of a material which allows little upward diffusion of gases; therefore,
the gases move laterally into adjacent areas. A plot of methane concen-
tration contours, derived from the results of the analyses of samples
taken on 28 May 1969, is presented in Figure II1-1. The benefits of con-
trol device testing are evidenced by the reduced concentration levels in
the Gas Company parking lot across the street from the fill.
Site 2
Nineteen probes were placed in the earth iill across the axis of the
canyon at Site 2. The probes were all placed in one horizontal plane at
various distances from the refuse face. A review of the summary of the
gas analysis data for this site in Appendix E indicates, for many of the
1II-7
-------
probes, an early "bloom" of COj with a following gradual decrease, accom-
panied with a later indication of CH^; however, there was no consistency
in.the gas, concentrations and movement of the gases through the earth
fill. Water, oftcr\ present in the probes, may be attributed to the water-
ing of slope-protection plants on the earth fill.
Many of the probes at Site 2 were quite long and it was difficult to
obtain.samples from the probes because of plugging. Some ,inconsistence
in the readings may also be due to the inability of obtaining a repre-
sentative tsample each time. No conclusive evaluation of the movement of
gases at this site can be made with the data obtained.
Site 3
Sampling and analysis of gases at Site 3 were performed only during
the first year of the project. Development activity and limitedjgas pro-
duction indicated that continued investigation was not warranted.
Site 4
Gas movement studies at Site 4 were conducted for a period of one
year and provided little information that could be utilized for compre-
hensive evaluation. The site has subsided causing many cracks and fis-
sures in the surface of the fill from which gases vent to the atmosphere.
Many gas probes on and adjacent to the site were destroyed by subsequent
filling and construction.
Site 5
Site 5 was found to be producing gases; however, analyses of the
samples taken adjacent to the filled area were inconclusive, indicating
no significant migration of methane or carbon dioxide. Sampling.and
analysis of gases from probes installed in and on both sides of a barrier
gravel trench, constructed prior to this study, showed that the trench is
venting gases and inhibiting movement of gases across the plane of the
trench.
Site 6
Analysis of samples collected from the probes at Site 6 over the
study period indicated an irregular pattern of subsurface gas movement.
Methane concentrations have been increasing indicating that the landfill
III-8
-------
is producing large quantities of methane. High methane concentration
levels are isolated, however, and readings were sporadic, preventing the
establishment of a definite pattern of movement. Natural soil formations
at the site are stratified and heterogeneous, with alternating layers and
pockets of coarse grained material and fine grained material, thus proba-
bly accounting for the irregular movement pattern.
During the last year of the study, movement of gases to the north of
the fill was indicated when methane, surfacing through a cr ck in the
floor of an industrial building, was accidently ignited. Probe sampling
indicated spotted areas of high concentration levels, but no extensive
movement. Figure I1I-2 indicates the locations of the probes closest to
the site. Other probes located farther from the site, which showed no
methane when sampled, are not shown. The percent of methane by volume
for samples taken from these probes on 27 August 1969 is presented in
Table 111-1.
The north bank of this cut and cover landfill is stratified, much
like the east edge, with deep layers of sand and/or sandy silt overlaid
and underlaid with fine grained clays and silty clay material. These
coarse grained layers are acting as "chimneys" for the transfer of the
gases from the fill into adjoining soils where it escapes to the surface,
under or around the building areas.
S ite 7
No particular pattern of lateral gas movement was established during
the probe sampling and analyses at Site 7.
Site 8
Sampling and analysis of gases from the probes at Site 3 were taken
numerous times. Plots of the methane concentration contours for various
periods, although similar in pattern, indicate a slight decrease in the
extent of lateral gas movement into the adjacent area. A plot for the
analyses of 17 September 1969 is presented in Figure 1II-3,
Site 9
Gas analyses of samples from the probes at Site 9 continue to show
extensive movement of gases and high methane concentrations. There is no
III-9
-------
indication that a natural draft system constructed by the local govern-
mental agency is reducing movement into an adjacent residential area.
All of the sampling probes installed on the west and east sides of the
site were destroyed by gravel extraction operations. Mining of gravel
on these two sides of the landfill has now exposed three sides of -the
landfill and gases from the fill should begin to pass into the•atmosphere
causing a reduction of gas movement to the south. Analyses made of sam-
ples taken on 29 October 1969, however, do not reflect any decrease.
Site 10
Only two sets of samples were taken at Site 10 during the study.
Continued work at the site precluded further monitoring of gases at the
fill. Traces of hydrogen sulfide were found in many of the samples,
indicating the intrusion of salt water into the fill from an adjacent
ocean bay.
Gas Permeability Experiments
Duringi the course of the study extensive laboratory experiments were
conducted on a limited range of soils to determine the gas permeability
characteristics of the soils under a range of no moisture content and gas
pressure conditions, with the objective of studying the suitability of
various soils as gas barrier membranes by determining methane diffusion-
dispersion coefficients for such soils. Calculations for the coefficients
were based on an analytical solution of the fundamental differential
equation governing the flow of gases through porous media, and utilizing
methane concentration history curves derived from each experimental test.
Theoretical discussion of gas flow through porous media, derivation of
the basic equation utilized to calculate the diffusion-dispersion coeffi-
cient, details of the design of the laboratory experiment, and the experi-
mental procedure are presented in Reference 2.
Basically, the experimental test unit consisted of a plexiglass
column, with a four-inch inside diameter and a three-foot length. At one
end of the column were inlets for injection of a carrier gas (nitrogen)
and a tracer gas (methane), a flow meter, and a manometer. At the other
end, outlet pipes were provided for connection to a gas chromatogiaph and
for exhausting gases. A drawing of the test column is presented in Figure
II1-4.
111-10
-------
For each test the soil (porous medium) was compacted in the column
in 4-inch lifts using a 5-pound hammer with a 12-inch drop. After com-
paction, the column was flushed with nitrogen to displace all air in the
column. A known volume of methane, 0.5 to 1 percent of the void space
in the column, was then injected at the rate of 1 milliliter per minute.
Immediately after methane injection, the flow of nitrogen was restored
at a predetermined rate and maintained at that rate during the remainder
of the test period. Samples were obtained from the outlet end of the
column and were analyzed to construct the concentration history curve
which formed the basis for determining the diffusion-dispersion coeffi-
cient correlative to the soil. History curves present the methane con-
centration at the low pressure end of the porous media as a function of
time elapsed following release of the pulse discharge (injection of
methane).
Coefficients of diffusion-dispersion of methane through the porous
media (soil being tested) were calculated using the following formula:
D =
¦£
ifir
cdt
-177
c t
m m
(III-D
2
Where D = Coefficient of diffusion-dispersion in ft /sec
L = Length of the column in feet
c = Methane concentration in percent
t = Time in seconds
c - Methane concentration at mean flow through time
m
t = Mean flow through time
m °
rco
The term JQ cdt is obtained by integrating the concentration history
curve. For the purpose of these experiments, the point on the history
curve corresponding to mean residence time was used for all calculations
of the coefficient. Other necessary data measured or calculated for each
test for each soil type were moisture content, porosity, density, inflow
gas pressure, inflow rate, and degree of compaction. Mean flow through
time, t^, was evaluated by determing the centroid of the area under each
concentration history curve; c was then determined for corresponding
m
values of t .
IT.
III-ll
-------
Test Results
During 1967 four soils with different particle size distributions
were independently tested at two levels of moisture content for each of
three conditions of gas inflow pressure. Calculated values of diffusion-
dispersion coefficients of methane for these tests are presented in Table
III-2.
During 1968 a test was made of gas flow through a local soil sample
where construction of a sanitary landfill had been proposed. Due to the
long period of time required for tests under small inflow gas pressure
conditions, no tests were conducted on this soil at inflow pressures less
than four inches of water, as had been done on the other soils. Values
of coefficients which were calculated for this soil are given in Table
III-3.
Analysis of Results
The results of these experiments clearly indicate that the rate of
movement of methane by diffusion-dispersion is slower through soils with
fine particles than those with coarser particles, for both air-dry; and
optimum' moisture conditions and under all conditions of inflow gas pres-
sure. The diffusion-dispersion coefficients determined by these experi-
ments represent the combined effect of molecular diffusion and convective
dispersion. Because of the limitation on available instrumentation, it
was not possible to conduct static molecular diffusion tests in this
experiment, so it is not possible to distinguish between the molecular
and dispersive components of the calculated coefficients. However, the
high convective movement of gases in coarse grained soils is undoubtedly
responsible for the high diffusion-dispersion coefficients of methane in
these soils.
Gas also passes through the medium by convective flow when a pres-
sure gradient is present. For determining the relative gas flow rate for
a medium and its suitability as a gas barrier, this convective flow com-
ponent should be considered. This flow component may be significant for
the case of highly permeable media such as sand and gravel, whereas it
will be rather insignificant for fine soils and when subject to small
pressure gradients. No attempt was made to measure the gas permeability
111-12
-------
(coefficient of permeability) of the various media used in the experi-
ment; however, when a fine soil is compacted under optimum moisture con-
ditions to 90 percent or more of the maximum density, the gas permeability
of the medium will be so small that the flow by pressure gradient will be
reduced to inappreciable amounts. Total combined flow of methane, due to
dispersion-diffusion and pressure gradient across a hypothetical membrane
was calculated as part of the experiment and the results substantiate the
presumption that fine textured soils, such as sandy clay, silty clay, or
clay, form an effective barrier to gas movement even at low moisture con-
tent. When compacted at optimum moisture content, as discussed, these
Soils prevent any appreciable flow of methane or other gases under dif-
ferential pressures of one or more atmospheres.
GAS CONTROL SYSTEMS
It has been demonstrated in many studies and extensively explored
during the course of this study that gases generated by decomposition of
refuse in a sanitary landfill can, under certain conditions and in par-
ticular soil types, move significant lateral distances from the landfill
into adjacent soils. This phenomenon can be a matter of g»reat concern,
where methane gas is involved, if adequate measures are not taken to
dissipate the gas and prevent such subsurface movement. Fires and explo-
sions have resulted from accumulation of methane gas in confined spaces
of structures on or adjacent to landfills after the gas became trapped
and concentrations reached inflammable levels.
Measures which have been taken to prevent the movement of gases into
adjacent soils (discussed in detail in Reference 2) include physical
barrier and ventilation devices. The barrier device involves the place-
ment of some membrane or other substance between the refuse in the land-
fill and the adjacent soils. A barrier may consist of a bitumastic mate-
rial, such as asphalt impregnated jute; polyvinylchloride sheets or other
plastic materials; gunite; bulkheading or sheet piling (although not a
continuous barrier, may provide a barrier effect); or fine grained com-
pacted and/or saturated soils. The ventilation device for controlling
gas movement involves the release and venting of gases from beneath a
building. When gases can escape through vent pipes or surface gravel-
trenches, situated on or around the landfill, the gradient normally
111-13
-------
responsible for the movement can he lessened, thereby decreasing migra-
tion. Venting devices will often need to he constructed in conjunction
with a barrier device to relieve the buildup of gas pressures within a
fill. Examples of simple ventilation devices arc: (1) "Tiki" burlier
pipes installed near the periphery of or directly on the landfill 'allow-
ing the gases to be collected through the pipe and burned at the olitlet
on top of the pipe; (2) a more complex arrangement of perforated pftpes,
buried in a shallow gravel-filled trench on or around the landfill for
collection of gases and venting at some central location; (3) vertical
perforated pipes placed at the interface of the filled area and connected
to a header pipe for conveyance to a central burner pipe or vent p^Lpe;
(4) a gravel trench around the landfill formed during filling operations
for the full depth of the fill and left exposed at the surface for vent-
ing; (5) a series of gravel filled wells in which perforated pipes are
placed for gas collection and conveyance; and (6) a layer of gravel with
vent pipes under a building. A ventilation system may be composed of
variations and combinations of the foregoing.
Project Control Systems
During this study, gas control devices were designed and constructed
lor three e-isting completed sites. These were sites where the gas move-
ment monitoring program indicated an extensive migration of methane gas
was occurring either into adjacent noils or through the fill cover.
Control System at Site 1
Site 1 is a completed landfill constructed in an abandoned gravel
pit. The natural soil at the site consists of sand and gravel, with
high-methane diffusion-dispersion coefficients. Gas movement studies at
the site confirmed extensive migration of methane into adjacent areas.
The device chosen for this site consisted of five wells, each! 30
inches in diameter and 60-feeL deep, spaced at approximately 40-foot
inlervals. Each well was divided into three horizontal sections, with
each section filled with No. 2 gravel and topped with a one-Coot layer
of concrete. Three six-inch diameter pipes (one for each section)' were
installed in each well. The bottom portion of each pipe was perforated
along its appropriate length for collecting the gases separately from
111-14
-------
each section of the well. The vent pipes were connected to an 18-inch
diameter header pipe, by a six-inch diameter flexible, reinforced, neo-
prene hose; which was in turn connected to the suction side of a 25 HP
blower. This blower was used primarily because it was owned by the
public agency. Gases entering each vent pipe may be vented directly to
the atmosphere or pumped by connection to the manifold system (Reference
2). A plan view and details of this system are shown in Figures III-5
through III-7.
Control System at Site 5
Site 5 is a completed landfill constructed in a large depression
created by diatomite mining operations. Most of the soil at this site
is composed of a silty clay with varying contents ot diatomite. This
soil is fine-grained, and generally effective in providing a natural
barrier to the movement of gases laterally into adjacent areas. This
was confirmed by the general lack of CO2 and CH^ in che soil atmosphere
at the probes installed in the interior area of the fill. However,
upward movement of gases through the fill cover was detected, and analy-
ses indicated the presence of methane in the atmosphere within a green-
house partially constructed on the landfill.
The site is being developed as a botanic garden and another green-
house was planned for construction. Arrangements were made to install
an asphalt-type membrane beneath the floor of the new structure to test
the effectiveness of such a barrier in preventing gases from moving
through the fill cover into the confines of the structure. The membrane
consisted of a multiple layer, fiber reinforced, asphalt laminate fabri-
cated in place.
The area within the foundation of the greenhouse, approximately 12
feet wide by 25 feet long, was excavated to a depth of 13 inches. A
four-inch layer of gravel was placed at the bottom of the excavated area.
Two three-inch diameter perforated pipes were placed in the gravel, one
at each end of the area, to provide for venting of the gravel layer and
to prevent excessive buildup of gas concentration under the membrane.
A layer of sand was placed on top of the gravel to provide a base for
the liner. The asphalt lining was constructed in place and extended
over the structure footing to seal around the perimeter of the structure.
111-15
-------
A layer of pea-gravel was placed on top ol the liner to form the floor
of the greenhouse (Reference 2).
To .test the effectiveness of the linor as a barrier to the upward
movement of gases, sampling probes were placed as lollows:
(J) 1'hree probes were placed at a depth of 3.3 feet under* the
floor of Lhc. greenhouse.
(2) Five probes were placed on top of the si?*-inch layer ¦beneath
the liner.
(3) Five probes were placed on top of the asphalt liner i
-------
The two we Lis were drilled directly below the Lrench and Jlso
filled with gravel. Each well is 24 inches in diameter and 30-feet deep.
One four-inch diameter perforated pipe was placed in each well, extending
to the surface and capped, to provide venting for future experimental
purposes. Each vertical well pipe is connected to a horizontal perfor-
ated pipe in the trench to provide a complete system of gas collector
pipes. The vertical well pipes are also cross-connected to a nonperfor-
ated horizontal pipe to be used as a header pipe for future experimental
pumping of gas from the wells. Shut-off valves are provided between the
trench pipe and the well pipes. The trench was filled with gravel and
capped with a layer of concrete to prevent any water from entering tho
trench. The vertical vent-burner pipe was provided with a metal hood to
facilitate air flow around the opening. A cap, perforated with several
1/8-inch diameter orifices, was installed on the pipe to prevent the
flash-back of any flame down the pipe. Details of the control system
are shown in Figures 111-12 through 111-14.
Testing of Gas Control Devices
During the second and third year of study for this project, detailed
testing and monitoring was conducted to examine the relaLive effective-
ness of the control devices in reducing or stopping gas migration.
Reference 4 reported in detail on the testing programs during the second
year of the project for Sites 1 and 5. A summary of that work and the
third year monitoring follows:
Site 1
The objective of experimentation at Site 1 was to identify the best
operating procedure, in terms of sequence and duration of pumping from
one or more of the five wells, to prevent the flow of gases produced in
the landfill beyond the line of control wells. The probes installed at
the site for the monitoring of gas movement were utilized for sampling,
analysis, and evaluation of the testing results (Figure III-5). Typical
gas concentrations found before testing began are shown in Figure III-l.
Second Year Testing - Site 1
Test 1: TesL 1 consisted of connecting all pipes in Wells 1,
3, and 5 to the suction pump with Wells 2 and 4 open to Lhe
111-17
-------
atmosphere. Duration of pumping was 28 hours. Gas analyses made
price to and after the pumping indicated that the system is capable
of effectively preventing the flow of methane into Lhe area .immedi-
ately across t'rctn the line of wells and that complete remuva,! of
methane in the soil atmosphere could be achieved.
Test 2: Test 2 of the system consisted of pumping all the
vent pipes of Well 3 for one hour each day while all the other
wells were sealed. This schedule was maintained for three consecu-
tive days with monitoring of the sample points each day. Plumping
at this rate was continued for three more days, the pump was^ shut
down, and a full set of readings was made at the sampling po,ints.
The rate of decrease in the concentration of methane was very small
during this test, indicating that sustained pumping under such a
schedule would not achieve the desired results.
Test 3: Test 3 consisted of the same well pumping arrangement
as Test 2, but the duration of the pumping was increased to three
hours a day. This schedule was maintained for four consecutive
Jays. The results from this test were similar to Test 2, with
gradual reduction of methane concentrations in the test area but at
a faster rate than that realized in Test 2.
Third Year Testing - Site 1
During tlic first few months of the third year of the project, the
public agency which operated the landfill and which had constructed the
gas control system conducted a series of experiments, the results of
which would be used as the basis for design of a similar installation at
another landfill site with similar soil characteristics also experiencing
gas migration problems. The basic objective of the experiments was to
determine Lhe maximum spacing for wells which would prevent gas movement
and the minimum rate of pumping necessary Cor adequate control.
Test 1: Test 1 of the series began on 25 March 1969 and was
continued for four consecutive days. The test consisted of merely
venting (opening) all pipes in all wells to the atmosphere with no
pumping. The sampling probes were checked once daily. Readings of
concentration levels are shown in Tabic III-4 (Test 1). From the
111-18
-------
results of this test it can be concluded that simple venting of
the wells produces no significant change in the methane concentra-
tions and that the flow of gas into the adjacent area is not being
impeded.
Test 2: Test 2 consisted of pumping from pipe "A" of the mid-
dle well (Well 3). The other two vent pipes in Well 3 and all
other wells were sealed. Pipe 3A (Figure III-6) is the most shallow
pipe in the well but has the most perforations and influences a zone
from the surface of the ground to a depth of approximately 34 feet.
The pumping schedule was set for five hours per day, and the system
was tested for four consecutive days beginning on 1 April 1969.
Methane concentration readings were made before and after pump-
ing each day. These readings are shown in Table III-5. Air flow
measurements were made at the blower and at the vent pipe. Flow
from the vent pipe measured 650 cfm (cubic feet per minute) and
1,900 cfm from the blower (the difference being due to leaks in the
surface piping). Static pressure measurements and methane concen-
tration readings were also made at all well pipes during all tests.
The results of Test 2 indicated that significant reduction in
gas concentrations at the probes occurred after each pumping period,
but that the concentrations returned to normal by the next morning
and the zone of influence of complete methane evacuation in the area
across from the fill was rather small (Figure 111-15), indicating
that the petiod of pumping should be increased for complete control.
Negative static pressures were registered at all well pipes, indi-
cating that pumping from just one pipe in the center well was
creating an influence across the whole well plane.
Test 3: The third test involved the same pumping arrangement
as Test 2, but the duration of pumping was increased from five hours
a day to a continuous pumping rate (24 hours per day), at a flow
rate of 650 cfm from the well pipe. The test began on 7 April 1969
and ran for four consecutive days. After the first day of opera-
tion the gas concentrations levels were significantly reduced, with
many probes showing readings of zero methane. The next two days of
pumping did not show any apparent increase in blower effectiveness,
111-19
-------
and the blower was shut oil after; the fourth day and all wells were
capped. Continued monitoring oi the probes showed a slow return of
methane concentration levels, with a rapid return to pretest levels
occurring at the wells. Table 111-0 presents the methane concen-
tration levels at the wells and probes during and subsequent' to
this tost. Figure 111-16 shows the area of influence where methane
concentration was reduced to zero.
From the results of this test it can be readily concluded that
continuous pumping (forced ventilation) from just one well of this
system would provide a satisfactory gas migration barrier for the
area under study. Static pressure readings indicate that the span
of influence across the well plane is at least 170 feet, indicating
that wclL spacings of 150 to 200 feet may be sufficient for satis-
factory results.
Test 4: The fourth test by the public agency was made to
determine the minimum flow rate from the vent pipe that would pro-
vide maximum barrier results. The speed of the blower could mot be
changed; therefore, in order to reduce the volume of gas being
pumped from the well pipe, it was necessary to reduce the size of
the pipe by placing a plate partially across the outlet end of the
teej between the tee and the flexhose connection to the header pipe.
The point of flow measurement on the vent pipe was some distance
down from this connection.
The flow rate obtained for this test was 118 cfm, with 'the same
pumping arrangement as lest 2 being used. Testing began on 16 April
L959 and conrinued for three days. No significant reduction in. gas
concentrations at the probes was achieved at this reduced rat'e of
pumping, and static pressure readings in most adjacent wells were
positive, indicating that very little influence was being made in
the well plane. Table III-7 presents the results of this test.
Test 5: The poor results of Test 4 indicated that a somewhat
higher rate of flow than was developed during that test would be
necessary to achieve the desired results. Outing Test 5 the rate o£
flow from the pipe was 315 cfm. Again, all pipes from all wells,
except vent pipe 3A, were sealed. Pumping on pipe 3A at the above
111-20
-------
rate began on 21 April 1969 and continued for Jour days. Tablo
III-8 presents the monitoring results for this test. The general
conclusion that can be drawn from this test is that adequate stop-
page of gas movement into the area across from the well plane can
be achieved at this rate of flow from one pipe and one well, if
pumped on a continuous basis. The area of influence (Figure 111-17)
was very similar to that achieved during Test 3 where the rate of
flow from the well was 650 cfm.
Test 6: The previous tests, showing positive results, had all
been conducted utilizing the mid-well of the control system. To
better determine what spacing of wells would be satisfactory at
other locations with similar soil characteristics, Test 6 was con-
ducted using Well 1, the most southerly well. Again, only vent pipe
"A" was connected to the blower, with all other well pipes capped.
The primary purpose of the test was to determine if Well 5, 170 feet
from Well 1, would be affected by pumping at Well 1, and also if the
zone of influence in the adjacenL area would be altered to any great
extent. Figure 111-18 indicates the area of influence for zero
methane concentrations at the test probes as presented in Table
II1-9.
Test 6 began on 25 April 1969 and was conducted on a continuous
basis at a pumping rate of 650 cfm for three days. Static pressure
readings, also included in Table III-9, indicate that Well 5 vent
pipes were affected by pumping from Well 1, confirming that the
spacing of wells could be approximately 150 to 200 feet and still
be effective for areas with similar soil characteristics as Site 1.
After the conclusion of Test 6, all well pipes were left open
to vent to the atmosphere. Periodic monitoring of the probes were
made for four weeks to check on the rate of buildup of gas concen-
tration levels, and to determine if simple ventilation would serve
to impede flow once the area has been evacuated of methane. Build-
up of concentration levels was slow (Table 1II-9), but it may be
concluded from the data that some forced ventilation across the
plane of the wells is necessary in order to stop gas migration into
the adjacent areas.
111-21
-------
Alter tho public agency had concluded it^ testing of the control
system at Sire 1, all vent pipes from the wells were again capped to
allow concentration levels of methane in the area to build up so that
testing could be continued, utilizing lo some extent the knowledge gained
from the prior testing. It had been demonstrated that pumping from the
center well on a continuous basis (24 hours per day) would effectively
control movement of gases across the plane of the wells into adjacent
areas (Figure 111-19). Knowledge as Lo minimum pumping time necessary
for the same result was still needed. Therefore, tests with different
pumping frequencies were scheduled. Discussion of these tests are pre-
sented below, continuing numerically from the tests conducted previously:
Tost 7: Test 7 consisted of pumping from vent pipe 3A of the
middle well with all other vent pipes capped. An automatic time
clock on the blower was set for an on-olf cycle of three hours on
and three hours off, on a 24-hour basis, as follows:
ON OFF
0530-0830 0830-1130
1130-1430 1430-1730
1730-2030 2030-2330
2330-0230 0230-0530
The blower was started at 1130 on 11 June 1969 and the above pumping
cycle was maintained through 23 June. Periodic readings were made
at Lhc probes and wells during this period. Pumping rate from well
pipe 3A was measured to be 650 cfm. Table 111-10 presents the
results of the monitoring program for this test.
Results of the monitoring indicate that this pumping schedule
does(impede the flow of gas across the plane of the wells and that
concentrations remained fairly stable during the period of the test.
Concentrations at the well plane, although not completely reduced to
zero, are less than at pretest level, indicating that positive
results can be achieved using an on-off pumping schedule.
Test 8: Test 8 made use of the same pumping arrangement as
Test 7, but the sequence of pumping was changed to a cycle of 1-1/2
hours on and 4-1/2 hours off, on a 24-hour basis as follows:
111-22
-------
ON (hrs)
OFF (hrs)
0700-0830
0330-1300
1300-1430
1430-1900
1900-2030
2030-0100
0100-0230
0230-0700
Again, the rate of flow from well pipe 3A was measured to be 650
cfm.
This test began at 1300 hours on 23 June 1969. The test con-
tinued on the set cycle through 28 July. Table III-ll presents the
results of the monitoring program during this test.
During Test 8 methane concentrations at the wells uniformly
increased at first but appeared to remain fairly stable for the
remainder of the test. The level of concentrations at the sampling
probes did not vary to any great degree from the levels that had
been reached at the conclusion of Test 7, proving that the tested
pumping cycle was capable of maintaining a barrier to any further
movement across the plane of the wells. Readings at the deeper
probes, those installed in manholes, were higher than those for the
shallow probes in the same general vicinity, indicating that gas
concentration at depth was not as effectively altered. However, the
change in readings, even at depth, was minimal, demonstrating the
ability of the control system to prevent the movement of gas into
the adjacent area.
Test 9: During earlier tests, it was observed that the level
of methane concentration at certain probes, even at shallow depth,
remained fairly high and were not appreciably affected by the pumping
schedule. This was true even of the tests conducted by the public
agency; and, as mentioned above, the concentration of methane in the
deeper probes continued on the high side.
Test 9 was initiated, therefore, in an attempt to completely
evacuate the test area of methane, so that subsequent tests could be
made to measure the effectiveness of the control system by monitor-
ing the buildup of gas concentrations, rather than by reduction in
concentrations. All pipes in all five wells were connected to the
111-23
-------
blower on 28 July 19G9, afLer the conclusion of Test 5. Pumping
was conducted on a continuous basis, 24 hours per day, continuing
through 5 August, a period oT eight days.
Readings of methane levels at the probes were made twice during
the period and indicated that the gases in the area had been com-
pletely evacuated, even at depth. Readings at all previously high-
reading probes were zero, except in the one manhole farthest from
the well plane.
Test 10: On 5 August 1969, well pipes 1A and 5A, the two end
wells of the system, were connected to the blower and a pumping
cycle of 1-1/2 hours on and 4-1/2 hours oLT was set, identical with
Test 8. The purpose of this test was to measure the effect of pump-
ing from the two end wells in lieu of the middle well, check the
zone of influence if possible, and check on the effectiveness of
reading for increase in concentrations rather than decreases. The
results of the sampling are presented in Table 111-12. Pumping
rates were measured to be 592 cfm from well pipe 1A and 674 ,cfm
from pipe 5A.
The results of these tests indicate that the pumping arrangement
and cycle was very effective in providing for the control of the move-
ment of gases across the plane of the wells and the area of influence
was extensive. The pump and blower system, selected primarily because
of availability, were of excess capacity to accomplish the objective of
interrupting gas migration to the Gas Company property.
Site 5
The testing program for the barrier membrane at Site 5 consisted
solely of periodic sampling of the gases in the probes for monitoring
the effects of the barrier on the concentration levels of methane below,
above, and adjacent to the greenhouse. Monitoring was performed four
times during 1969. Analyses of the samples were made using a gas chro-
matograph; Tables 111-13 to 111-16 present the results of these analyses.
In order to test the effectiveness of the ventilation device of the
sand and gravel layer below the asphalt membrane, the vent pipes, in-
stalled at either end of the greenhouse, were sealed on 18 August 1969
111-24
-------
so that the gases accumulated in this layer had no way of escaping.
There was some question as to the validity of the results being obtained
by the probes above the membrane because gas was not being allowed to
accumulate direcLly below the membrane thus eliminating the possibility
of gas penetrating the membrane. Also, there was some doubt as to
whether or not gas was even reaching the gravel layer. Analyses subse-
quent to closing the vent pipes proved that the ventilating system did
work and that gases would accumulate in the gravel layer but not pene-
trate the barrier to the probes above. Immediately upon reestablishmont
of the ventilation system, concentrations of gases in the layer again
became zero. The results of all analyses indicated that the control sys-
tem at Site 5 effectively prevents methane flow from entering the interior
of the building being tested.
Tests were also conducted to determine whether a gravel-filled
trench, installed by a public agency at Site 5 many years ago, was still
effective as a barrier to the movement of gases from the fill into adja-
cent soils (Reference 2). Probes were installed.at several locations
along the trench (Figure 111-20) both on the fill side of the trench and
on the side opposite from the fill. Analyses of the gases (Appendix E)
taken from these probes indicate that the trench is generally still
acting as a good barrier.
Site 3
The construction of the control device at Site 8 was completed late
in the third year of the project. During construction of the device 14
new probes were installed in the bottom of the gravel trench (six feet
deep). One new probe was placed at the bottom of each of the two wells,
and several probes were placed throughout the residential area adjacent
to the fill, to replace those which had been destroyed during the course
of the project. A plan view of this site showing the probe layout is
presented in Figure 111-12.
Construction of the control system was completed in November 1969.
The gas emerging from the vent pipe for the system was ignited on that
date, constituting the beginning of Test 1. Results of the gas analyses
of the samples from the probes in the area are presented in Table 111-17,
covering a period of one month. Early evaluation of the results derived
111-25
-------
from the probe sampling would seem to indicate the ventilation utilizing
only one vent pipe is insufficient to reduce the flow of gas into the
adjacent area.
GAS TRAP EXPLOSION UNIT
Pacific Telephone Company has instituted a training course,, and
manual entitled "Training Course, Manhole Atmosphere Testing and Manhole
Demonstration (Provisional)." A part of the course is a demonstration
of the characteristics of toxic and flammable gases.
Every flammable gas has a lower explosive limit (LEL). Thijs is the
percentage by volume of that gas which must be present in air to. consti-
tute an explosive mixture. Percentages below this amount do not contain
sufficient gas to propagate combustion. Every flammable gas also has an
upper explosive limit (UEL). Gas mixtures of higher concentrations than
the UEL will not explode due to insufficient oxygen. For some gases the
range of explosibility is rather narrow while for others it is quite
wide. There is a prevailing opinion that any commercial gas having in
it one or more gases with a low LEL is quite likely to be more explosive
than one which has gases with higher values of LEL (Reference 5)/.
Natural gas contains about 85 percent methane, 12 percent ethane,
and three percent propane. The lower explosion limit of ethane is about
three percent in air, and of methane about five percent in air. The upper
explosion limits of methane and ethane are 15 and 12.5 percent respec-
tively. A model manhole was built by the staff of the Training Division
of Pacific Telephone Company, consisting of a model forced-ventilation
blower, a control box, tanks of prepared gas simulating natural gas, a
pressure regulator, and other appurtenances. The model manhole is made
of plywood with a plexiglass front for observation, with a mounted cover
attached by means of rubber bands which help absorb the force of explo-
sions. An opening in the cover represents the entrance to the manhole
and cover. This small cover is attached to the box by means of a string
and rubber band. Six spark plugs are mounted in the back panel of the
box and are fired individually or as a group by the use of a control box
housing a rheostat switch for controlling the spark plugs. There is a
spark coil in the control box which is powered by a six-volt battery.
111-26
-------
After observing the operation of the model manhole unit it was
decided to develop a similar unit to investigate the explosive charac-
teristics of gases collected on the surface at selected research sites.
The purpose was to measure the time it took to fill such a unit with
flammable concentrations of gases and measure the concentrations prior
to the time of ignition. It was also hoped to approximate the force
delivered by known volumes and concentrations of landfill produced
gases.
A "gas explosion unit" was designed and constructed consisting of
two separate boxes. Carrying cases were made for each. The box in
which the detonations occur is called an "explosion box" and it is con-
trolled by an "explosion unit control" (Figure III-2J). The explosion
box simulates a confined space, such as a substructure or underfloor
area of a building. It is made of plywood, held together with aluminum
angles and has a plexiglass window, an opening in the bottom, and a
small hole in the top. Six spark plugs are mounted in the back panel of
the box near the bottom, the center, or the top of the boy and may be
fired in pairs or concurrently. Three outlets for sampling gas concen-
trations are mounted in the side of the box; one near the bottom, one
near the middle, and one near the top. The explosion unit control box
contains the source of power, a heavy duty 12-volt automobile battery,
a 40,000-volt marine transformer coil, and a distributor driven by an
automobile electric window motor. Switches mounted inside the control
box provide for selection of the pair of spark plugs to be fired
(Figure 111-22).
The explosion box is placed in a shallow depression, one or two
inches deep, framed by an opening in a 50 mil thick gas barrier membrane,
six feet wide by six feet long. The control box is located about six
feet from the explosion unit, connected by the cables between them. The
surface of the ground under the control box on which the operators stand
is covered by a rubber insulating mat, three feet wide by six feet long.
Two operators perform the tests (Figure 111-23).
The operators test the methane concentration near the bottom, the
center, and the top of the box and record the readings. The chief opera-
tor selects the concentration at which he prefers to detonate, determines
111-27
-------
that observers are safely positioned, that the assistant operator is on
the insulating mat, and authorizes actuation of the power switch (Figure
111-24).
On Thursday, 24 July 1969, at Site 5, the gas explosion unit was
field tested on landfill gas. Concentrations of less than 5 percent
did not explode. Concentrations ranging between 5 and 10 percent were
read immediately prior to explosions. These concentrations were reached
within 10 minutes after previous explosions had resulted in complete
evacuation of gases from the explosion box.
Subsequent experimentation at Site 5 with the gas explosion unit
occurred on 1 October 1969, 8 October 1969, and 16 October 1969. On
those days the operators were equipped with a form entitled "Gas Trap
Demonstration Unit, Test Log, Installation Data." This log consists of
two sheets. The test results of 8 October 1969 accompany those of 1
October 1969 in Tables 111-18, 111-19, and 111-20. On 8 October 1969
the range of gases exploded successfully appear to be from 3.7 to 5
percent. On 16 October the range of cases exploded successfully appear
to be from 3 to 5 percent.
The results of these tests indicate that: (1) the presence of gases
other than methane, such as CO2, may affect the explosion limits of the
mixture being trapped; (2) the probes in the side of the box may not ex-
tend deeply enough into the box to obtain representative readings; or
(3) the readings being obtained at this range of concentration are suf-
ficiently inaccurate due to a lack of sensitivity of the instrument.
However, it has been demonstrated that the use of this apparatus can
effectively provide practical support for the theory of landfill gas
flammability and potential enforcement of any future "Sanitary Landfill
Ordinance."
111-28
-------
CHAPTER IV
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION
CAUSES
Analyses of waters which have been in contact with solid wastes,
such as refuse, have shown that both chemical and biological pollutants
may be present. The liquids that result when water comes into contact
with refuse cither by percolation or immersion are generally termed
leachatcs. The amount of leachate and its composition in a specific
situation is dependent upon the material in the fill (organic or inor-
ganic, soluble or insoluble), conditions in the fill (temperature, pH,
moisture content), soil conditions (chemical characteristics, permea-
bility), and volume and source of percolating water.
There are two primary ways portions of a fill may become saturated:
(1) a fill can be in contact with groundwater or surface water, result-
ing in direct leaching through the fill material; and (2) capillary water
may enter the fill. A considerable amount of water is required for the
second condition.
In arid climates the normal incident rainfall is usually insuffici-
ent to saturate a fill. In climates with higher amounts of rainfall,
saturation may occur. During the construction of a fill, saturation may
occur due to evolution of poor drainage conditions. Unsatisfactory
drainage and the successive application of large quantities of water to
the surface, such as irrigating agricultural crops and watering of parks
and golf courses, can cause leachate in and adjacent to completed fills.
Groundwater in the immediate vicinity of a disposal site may become
polluted and unsuitable for domestic and/or irrigation use if the solid
wastes intercept the zone of saturation and come into contact with the
groundwater or if the leachate reaches the groundwater. Concentrations
of common mineral constituents such as hardness and total dissolved solids
in leachate contaminated groundwater may be many times greater than those
normally found in groundwater. The profile of pollutants in the ground-
water is controlled by the pattern of groundwater movements and chemical
and biological interactions within the groundwater environments.
IV-1
-------
Pollutants leached from solid wastes will be transported in the same
general direction as the direction of the groundwater flow excepting
deviation:- duo to macromolecular trunsport phenomena. VerLical trans-
port or diffusion is due to minimum mixing conditions in the aquifer.
Exceptions to this concepL may occur as the result of vertical density
gradients and in the vicinity of a well; as a consequence, the natural
pattern of water movement may be changed by pumping (Reference 6).
Permeability of the soil is the property of transmitting water.
Velocity of water through material is dependent upon the permeability.
Tho retention within the material in the cell is a function of the
velocity and therefore a function of the permeability. Ideally a-sani-
tary landfill should be located above an impermeable horizontal forma-
tion with the top of any groundwater or phreatic surface a considerable
distance below the base of the fill. The surface drainage should be
directed away from the fill area. These conditions are ideal but rarely
exist. Frequently, sanitary landfills are located in areas underlain by
a permeable formation. Often the water table is close to the ground
surface and surface conditions are such that much precipitation percolates
to the groundwater. Often surface drainage and groundwater flow move in
tho same direction. The eastern foothills of the Los Angeles Basin, where
a number of gravel pits have been used for waste disposal sites, are an
excellent example of such conditions. These gravel deposits form the
large alluvial fans found at the mouth of the streams draining the San
Gabriel Mountains. These deposits consist largely of uncemented sands,
gravels, and coarser materials forming good aquifers and are extensively
drilled to furnish water supplies for various communities.
Indices of groundwater pollution were determined in laboratory
experiments during this project. Leachates were analyzed for total dis-
solved solids, chemical oxygen demand, hardness, alkalinity, pH, organic
and ammonia nitrogen, fluorides, sulfates, and nitrates. An analysis of
these leachate production characteristics was conducted in the laboratory.
These characteristics were studied at varying stages of decomposition of
typical refuse materials. A leachate pollution index enabling predictions
of the expected quantity of leachate from a given landfill area, under
known conditions, was developed and is described herein (Reference 4).
IV-2
-------
The major gases normally produced within a sanitary landfill are
carbon dioxide and methane. Since methane is relatively insoluble in
water, it is not expected to contribute materially to groundwater pollu-
tion. Carbon dioxide gas is highly soluble in water and may contribute
to increased mineralization in groundwater. Carbon dioxide may combine
with water to form carbonic acid which in the presence of calcium or
magnesium salts, present in many soils, releases calcium and magnesium
ions. Other compounds such as sulfates, chlorides, and silicates may
also leach from landfills into the groundwater.
Because of tlio multitude of questions which have been raised regard-
ing the impairment of groundwater by carbon dioxide, all available data
was collated in 1960 by Engineering-Science, Inc. (Reference 8). This
report recommended Lhac a number of specific research projects be con-
ducted. One of the specific recommended projects was concerned with
water pollution by carbon dioxide generated by refuse decomposition
(Reference 6). During this project, a pilot scale landfill was con-
structed in an unused gravel pit with sufficient monitoring devices to
study the generation and movement of refuse-produced gases into the sur-
rounding soil and outside atmosphere. This project clearly demonstrated
the concentrations of carbon dioxide which can be generated in a sanitary
landfill. The results are summarized:
(1) Comparative rates of movement of refuse-produced gases into
the surrounding soil and free atmosphere were established.
(2) From 15 to 20 times more CO2 passed upward through the one-
foot silt cover than passed into the soil, indicating the
importance of the nature of the fill cover in allowing refuse
gases to escape.
(3) Carbon dioxide was found in significant quantities in the adja-
cent soil.
(4) Sizable concentrations of carbon dioxide may be expected to be
held at the bottom refuse-soil interface for many years, with
CO2 passing into the ground.
(5) Effects of carbon dioxide on a particular groundwater depend
on several factors still being studied. Through analysis of
IV-3
-------
the gaseous atmonphcre within and surrounding operating land-
fills, it is possible that predictions can ho made regarding
groundwater pickup.
Because oi l.lie amount oL' carbon dioxide gene raced wiLhin a sanitary
landfill and because if is the only gas generated in • uantiLy which is
readily soluble in water, carbon dioxide should be considered as a ground-
water pollutant. However, water that has been impaired by carbon dioxide
will be diluted in varying degrees within the groundwater body.
LEACHATE EXPERIMENT
Boring samples from sanitary landfill Sites 1 and 12 were tested
during thp leachate experiment. These samples were obtained j-. - part of
the drilling program described in Appendix C, "Field Investigation by
Converse, Davis & Associates." The material removed from the borings was
placed in 55-gal]on steel drums, weights were determined, and the samples
were then thoroughly mixed. During the mixing operation, rocks larger
than three-quarter inch diameter and meLals were removed by hand. Mois-
ture content of the refuse was determined by drying representative sam-
ples in an electric oven. After mixing and moisture content sampling,
the bulk sample was quartered and loaded into a polyethylene bag con-
tained inside a heavy-walled paper bag. The bags were sealed Lo prevent
loss of moisture. Individual bulk samples were pulverized in a hammer-
mill in which the material was graded to a maximum size of about one-
quarter inch. Approximately one-half cubic foot of each sample was
retained, sealed in a sturdy polyethylene bag, and shipped to the
Engineering-Science, Inc. Laboratory at Oakland, California.
Two synthetic samples were prepared based on guidelines established
by the American Public Works Association (Reference f). These refuse
samples are referred to as typical refuse (TR) and refuse high in garbage
(RH). These samples were leached simultaneously under the same procedure
as the field samples to provide a comparison. Moisture and volatile con-
tent were determined and each ingredient of the synthetic refuse was
analyzed separately. The composition of the synthetic refuse is indicated
in Table IV-1. Moisture and volatile matter content, determined as loss
on ignition, are presented in Table IV-2. Three different leaching
IV-4
-------
systems were applied concurrently with time to each tested sample. These
arc referred to as Series 1, 2, and 3 (Figure IV-1). Moisture and vola-
tile matter content in the test samples are shown in Table IV-3.
Series 1
A six-liter container was filled with uncompacted refuse samples
which were weighed and transferred to leaching jars. The sample in each
jar was completely immersed in water and an additional 1,500 milliliters
(mis) was added. During the experiment no water was added. After one,
eight, and 40 days leachate samples of 250 mis were withdrawn and analyzed
for chemical oxygen demand (COD), Lotal dissolved solids (TDS), Kjeldahl
ammonical and organic nitrogen (N), hardness (HRD), alkalinity (ALK), and
pH (Reference 9).
Series 2
Distilled water was added to completely immerse the samples. After
one, eight, and 40 days, 250 mis of loachate were withdrawn to provide
continuous immersion.
Series 3
The refuse samples were saturated as in Series. 1 and 2. After one,
eight, 23, and 40 days they were drained completely and the drain volumes
were replaced by equal volumes of distilled water.
Table IV-4 indicates the initial refuse weights and water volumes
used in the three scries. Because the refuse samples were loosely placed
into the leaching jars, the weights (W) and the specific gravities (7)
represent the loosely placed conditions. W and y are inversely propor-
tional to the paper content of the samples. The smaller Lhe specific
gravity of the refuse the more volume of waLer was reauired for complete
immersion. Table IV-5 indicates the calculated volumes of water required
per unit weighL of the test samples. During the last sampling period,
leachates from Series 2 and 3 were analyzed for chlorines, sulfates, and
nitrates (Table IV-16).
Test Results
The results of the experiment indicate several general trends.
Tables IV-6, IV-7, and IV-8 contain the results of analyses of the
IV-5
-------
lcachalcs obtained from Series 1. There appears to be a definite corre-
lation between the COD and TDS in Lhe leachates. During the experiment,
leachates of SiLc 1 samples exhibited a considerable increase in COD and
TDS couccntrauLous, This increase is attributed to the existence of
organic maLLcr and the seeding in of anaerobic organisms during the
experiment. The drop in pll of the Site 1 samples is an indication of
the first stage of anaerobic decomposition. In the Site 12 sample CC 2-3,
lhe release of COD and TDS practically stopped alter the eighth day. A
relatively constant pH value of 6.5 was measured during the first eight
days and 5.3'j after 40 days. This sample exhibited the highest COD, TDS,
and HRD together with the lowest pH at Lhe beginning of the experiment,
indicating the existence of large amounts of partially decomposed organic
material Lliat became readily decomposable under favorable moisture
conditions.
The same correlation between COD and TDS was observed in the synthe-
tic refuse. However, Lhe COD of the leachate decreased toward the end of
the experiment, probably because the sample contained less organic matter.
Although hardness and alkalinity exhibited a general trend of increased
concentrations, a correlation with other properties was not distinct.
Series 1 changes in the Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations were not
significant; however, the landfill samples were considered to be defici-
ent in organic nitrogen. Series 2 experimental results supplement the
observations made during Series 1 testing. Tables IV-9, IV-10, and IV-11
present the Series 2 data. Because the weights of refuse and volumes of
leaching water are dLEferent, a comparison with the concentrations ob-
tained for Series 1 is not possible. Although the correlation between
COD and TDS is satisfactory, the TDS and COD for the CC 2-3 sample
started to decrease. Hence, in Series 1 by obtaining a constant concen-
tration and in Series 2 where a constant concentration was exhibited when
fresh solvent was added, sample CC 2-3 appeared to be approaching stabil-
ization. The general reduction in the Kjeldahl nitrogen of all the land-
fill sample1; correlates with the conclusion in Series 1 that they are
deficient in organic nitrogen.
Series 3 testing more closely represents the typical extraction
process of soluble materials by leaching. This process was simulated
IV-6
-------
four times during the Series 3 tests. The data is presented in Tables
IV-12 through IV-15. In all the samples only the Kjeldahl nitrogen was
depleted steadily. Conversely, in the landfill samples alkalinity gen-
erally increased. In the synthetic refuse samples alkalinity remained
practically unchanged. Although COD and TDS behaved similarly, varia-
tions in the behavior in different samples were observed. Only sample
CC 2-3 was steadily depleted of COD, TDS, and HRD, further indicating
that decomposition of this sample was attenuating.
In the other landfill samples a temporary reduction in soluble
materials was noticed after each draining. This was due to the extrac-
tion of previously formed metabolic products. This was followed by a
recovery in which COD, TDS, and HRD increased, thus demonstrating con-
tinuity of release of the solubles.
The synthetic refuse did not demonstrate the initial reductions
expected of a partially decomposed refuse. At incipient decomposition,
increased leachate concentrations were observed. Due to a reduction in
the rate of decomposition toward the end of the experiment, a gradual
decrease in leachate concentrations were observed.
The total amount of leachable materials present during the period
of the experiment was calculated as follows:
For Series 1
h - "o °tl + (v0 - °-250) + (Vo - °-500> (Ct3 - Ct2>
(IV-2)
and For Series 3
(IV-3)
IV-7
-------
where:
L^, = is the total amount (or load) of leached material, in gms,
including all the material in solution in both the withdrawn
samples and the remaining water in contact with the solids;
Vq = Volume of water initially added to the refuse sample, in liters;
C J, Cfc2 .. etc. = concentrations of leached material after times tl,
t2, etc. in gms/liter. In Series 1 and 2 each time a volume of
250 ml was extracted for chemical analyses; and
V^, V2«..etc. = are the water volumes drained in Series 3 at times
tl, t2..etc., which were replaced by equivalent volumes of
distilled water.
Equations (IV-1), (IV-2), and (IV-3) were developed on the basis of
the ideal or the equilibrium stage concept in which the solution adhering
to the solids has the same composition as that in the overflow (withdrawn)
sample. Series 1 approaches this condition more than the other two series
due to the presence of excess solvent. The amount of material released
in solution may be expressed as ppm (or gms/ton) of the refuse sample as:
\ fi
St = ~~x 10 (IV-4)
and W are in grams or similar weight units.
The application of Equation (IV-1) to Series 1 provides the varia-
tion of leachable solutes with time in the presence of excess solvent.
In a given climatological environment this variation depends upon the com-
position of the sample and its stage or degree of decomposition and, thus,
it is an important and unique characteristic. Sample calculations for
this variation in Series 1 are presented in Table IV-17.
In addition to the general similarity between the patterns of in-
crease of COD, TDS, and HRD, a reduced rate of increase of COD is noted
more distinctly. During decomposition, TDS and HRD. increase until a
stable maximum value is reached. However, COD may be expected to in-
crease and then decline as the released organic material stabilizes in
the liquid phase. Figure IV-2 presents a suggested hypothetical vari-
ation of leached COD and TDS.
IV-8
-------
The ratio of COD/TDS increases during active decomposition. This
ratio then declines slowly and approaches zero as decomposition tends to
ccasc. Plots of this ratio from the experimental observations in Series
1, Table 1V-18 and Figure IV-3 show that after 40 days of contact with
the solvent water these three stages were found in the following samples:
(1) Sample (TR), the typical synthetic refuse with liLLle garbage
content has completed stage 2 and is well into stage 3;
(2) Sample (RH), the synthetic refuse high in garbage content, and
sample CC 2-3, the landfill sample, exhibited characteristics
of stages 1 and 2; and
(3) Samples BR 1-8, BR 2-4, and CC 1-2, landfill samples were still
in stage 1 with similar variation patterns at the end of 40
days.
The amounts of materials released during Series 1 are presented in
Table IV-19 as tons per acre foot based on a refuse density of 500 lbs/cu
yd.
Less lcachate was separated in Series 2 than in Series 1. Water
adhering to the solids in Series 2 had higher concentrations than those
of the withdrawn samples and there was less excess water in Series 2 than
in Series 1. This demonstrates the direct relationship between the
volume of excess water and of the quantity of removable material in the
solvent medium, i.e. the rate of leaching is significantly dependent upon
the rate of application of the solvent. Table IV-20 is a sample calcula-
tion sheet of Series 2 and Table IV-21 indicates the approximate leachable
quantities of chlorides, sulfates, and nitrates in Series 1 and 2 samples
after 40 days. The observed variation of the leached amounts of chlorides
in the different samples is apparently independent of the pollution index
of the refuse or the amounts of other leachates. Leachable sulfates and
nitrates generally, but minutely, vary with the degree of decomposition.
Sample CC 2-3 had a high volatile matter content and exhibited the
fastest rate of decomposition. Based on the release of leached nitrogen
versus time it may be concluded that the reason for the accelerated decom-
position of this sample is the existence of adequate nitrogen content and
that the rate of decomposition is considerably affected by the availability
IV-9
-------
of the necessary nutrients for bacterial activity, indicating that to
achieve the optimum rate of decomposition, mixing of the various ingredi-
ents of refuse would be advisable.
It is proposed that the total dissolved solids (TDS) be chosen as
the index for leaching from refuse landfills. Variations in quantities
of leached TDS appear to be directly comparable to those of leached COD.
During the leaching process, TDS reaches an upper limit and does not
undergo further significant change. Until this upper limit is reached,
decomposition continues to release more dissolved solids into the solvent
medium. The process of refuse leaching may be described as two concurrent
events:
(1) Removal of solutes by leachingj and
(2) Replenishment of solutes due to decomposition of refuse
materials. Sample chemical analyses and other pertinent cal-
culations made during Series 3 sampling verify this. Substan-
tiating data is presented in Table IV-22.
The amount of solute in the initial "underflow" is obtained by mul-
tiplying TDS in parts per million from Table IV-23 by the weight of the
refuse sample. The amount of solute in the "overflow" is the weight of
the drained volume multiplied by the measured TDS concentration given in
Tables IV-12, IV-13, and IV-14. The amount of solute remaining in the
"underflow" at any point in time is calculated as the difference between
these two values. The total amount of solvents in the overflow
and underflow is equal to the amount originally added to immerse the
sample. The variation of leachable TDS with time obtained from Series
1 is presented in Table IV-23.
The best possible method for predicting the chemical composition
of leachates produced as a result of inundating a landfill is by leach-
ing representative samples in the laboratory and applying the measured
concentrations of solutes to a field scale without extrapolation. Table
IV-24 indicates the expected TDS leachate load if an inundation program
similar to the Series 3 experiment was applied to a landfill with an
average unit weight of 500 pounds per cubic yard.
IV-10
-------
During the leachate experiment the following observations were
made:
(1) The degree of compaction of refuse material affects the volume
of water required to saturate and, therefore, the quantity of
leached materials.
(2) The permeability of the refuse material affects the contact
time between water and the refuse solids.
(3) The rate of decomposition is affected by climatic conditions,
thereby affecting the quantity of leachable solutes.
(A) The tendency of solids to disintegrate will be less in the
compacted refuse in actual landfill conditions.
CARBON DIOXIDE
Free carbon dioxide is undesirable in water supplies. It will
increase the corrosiveness and aggressiveness of water (Rsference 10).
The process by which gases are dissolved in water is known as absorption
and involves the transfer of gas into a liquid, in which it is more or
loss soluble (Reference 11). Nearly all gases are soluble in water to
some degree. The rate at which the gaseous constituent of a mixture will
dissolve in an absorbent liquid depends upon the extent ot departure from
equilibrium, the manner in which the liquid and gas are brought into con-
tact with oach other, and the degree of chemical reaction between the gas
and liquid. Carbon dioxide has a high degree of solubility and is found
in large quantities in landfills.
Dissolved carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid,
co2 + h2o—h2co3
which in turn dissociates to form bicarbonate ions,
h2co3^zth+ + hco3~
If solid calcium carbonate is present within the soil, carbonic acid
will react with it to form soluble calcium bicarbonate. The overall
reaction would be:
CaC03 + C02 + H20—Ca4^" + 2HC03"
IV-11
-------
When this reaction Lake1: place in Lite presence of free carbon dicrcide,
the carbon dioxide removed from the water leaves room for more to dis-
solve and the process continues until an equilibrium is obtained. The
resulting increase in calcium hardness is the principal undesirable
effect associated with carbon dioxide in groundwater. The process will
reverse itself when the groundwater flows to a region where the soil
atmosphere is low in carbon dioxide.
The actual mechanism by which carbon dioxide is absorbed into water
from a gas stream moving to the groundwater table is complex. Onej would
expect, however, that water percolating through a refuse landfill „which
produces leachates would also contact large amounts of carbon dioxide
within the fill and absorb it. The ability of the leachate to absorb
carbon dioxide may be reduced by the presence of leached salts already
in solutionbut the capacity reduction would diminish as salts were re-
moved from the fill. Because of dilution and the potential number of
sources of contaminants it is difficult to determine the origin of water
impairment.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
There have been very few complaints regarding the quality of ,the
groundwater in the Los Angeles Basin area which can be related to pos-
sible pollution from a landfill. Several aspects of one such complaint
were carefully investigated and fully documented. The results of these
efforts are>of interest because they indicate a particular problem which
may be prevalent in existing landfills but which can be avoided by
appropriate practice in the future.
Landfill Site 8 was located in an abandoned gravel pit situated in
a broad alluvial cone extending from nearby mountains. It is 400 feet
from a water well having a history of impaired water quality. The site
had been thought to be responsible for the water quality impairment and
had been the subject of a number of studies.
In 1955 the operator of the landfill was issued a permit on condi-
tion that the pit be filled with inert solid fill to an elevation of
5 feet above anticipated high groundwater. Active material was then
IV-12
-------
permitted above this elevation. In 1958 taste and odor problems
developed within the water system of the local water company. Investi-
gation of complaints by the water company indicated intermittent musty
taste and odor problems within the service area of the well. After dis-
continuing use of this well no further complaints were received.
The water company then contacted the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and an investigation was undertaken to determine the source of the
contamination. The localized nature of the groundwater impairment indi-
cated a local source--the presence of both recent and historic dumps in
the vicinity were potential causes. The Site 8 operation was the closest.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board then requested the Califor-
nia State Department of Water Resources to investigate this problem
(Reference 12). It was found that the groundwaters of the water basin
were generally of excellent mineral quality but there was a history of
water quality impairment by carbon dioxide in some wells within the
basin. Carbon dioxide was found in the alluvium above the impaired
groundwaters. The investigation concluded that the impairment of the
well water quality was primarily due to a solution of carbon dioxide gas
and that the major source of carbon dioxide in the vicinity ot the well
was decomposing refuse in the Site 8 landfill. These findings and con-
clusions developed by the Department of Water Resources were based on
the assumption that the filling operation at Site 8 had been carried out
as prescribed in the permit requirements. These conclusions of the
Department of Water Resources have been a significant factor in decisions
to inhibit the installation of new filling operations in areas with
similar geology.
Subsequent to the above activities a private engineering geologist
made several test borings within the site. All of the borings, with one
exception, showed large amounts of water within the rubbish. All of the
test borings located decomposable rubbish below the allowable elevation.
Conclusions based on this information indicated that the degradation of
the well water quality was caused by one or more of the following:
(1) Surface water from adjoining areas was allowed to flow onto
the rubbish fill and percolate through the fill to the under-
ground water supply.
IV-13
-------
Rubbish placed below the high groundwater elevation wjs satu-
rated by an adjacent, spreading ground and the resulting leach-
ate was forced in the direction of the well.
The high moisture content of the rubbish caused rapid decom-
position resulting in excessive amounts of carbon dioxide
which then mixed with the underground water.
IV-14
-------
CHAPTER V
CRITERIA FOR THE LOCATION. DESIGN,
AND CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
LOCATION
Ideally, planning for use of a completed sanitary landfill should
result in the highest and best- use of the land. The selection of a loca-
tion for a sanitary landfill should be based on benefit to the community
while assuring maximum personal safety and security of any adjacent
properLy. A sanitary landfill site should conform to the general plan
of the community. Those components of the general plan which are most
affected by the selection of a location are the land use plan, the solid
waste plan, the sLreet and highway plan, and in many cases the recrea-
tional plan. The general plan may be importantly aliected by a correla-
tion between the recreational plan and the solid waste plan. Designating
a site for recreational reuse could greatly improve public acceptance,
thus lessening the problem of locating a landfill. The monetary values
of a proposed landfill site, as well as neighboring properties, may
increase if a proposed development is kept compatible with the community
and presented in a manner to which properly owners may react optimistically.
Where planning includes the reclamation of otherwise unusable lands and
provides for a land use higher than that existing prior to reclamation,
landfilling should be encouraged.
The suitability of any potential location is a function of the local
topography and geology. Existing depressions in lands, such as old
grave 1 quarries, normally useless gullies, and under certain circumstances
abandoned coal strip mines may be suitable for landfill sites. The prime
physical considerations of a potential location are the practicality of
preventing water pollution and gas migration. The location of the ground-
water and the permeability of the native soils should be determining geo-
logical factors. If a proposed site is in permeable soils and a gas con-
trol system is not provided, permission to locate a landfill should be
withheld. Sites subjcrL to uncontrolled flooding such as river beds,
stream beds, swales, flood plains, or washes should not be used. Tn many
V-1
-------
parts of the country, landfills arc not permitted within a horizontal
distance 50 Lo 100 feet of the official-right-of-way of any water course
or proposed drainage channel.
To minimize water pollution from leachates and gases, sanitary land-
fills would be most ideally located above native soils of low permeability,
if over a water supply. Among the most common materials with low permea-
bility and those which are also most effective in filtering out biologic
organisms arc'clay, shale, silt, and glacial till. Sites, where sand and
gravel, limestone, or dolomitic rock occur offer no such advantage
because these materials have a high permeability and would require
installing barriers to prevent water pollution.
Decomposable solid waste in sea water, salt water, or waters with
high sulfate content often reacts to form hydrogen sulfide gas. Hydro-
gen sulfide gas is exceedingly toxic and dangerous. Therefore, sanitary
landfills should not be permitted in sea water, salt water, or waters
with high sulfate content.
General planning should provide for a reasonable separation distance
between sanitary landfills and adjacent incompatible land uses. Consider-
ation must be given to the observed distances that significant concentra-
tions of explosive and toxic gases have migrated. A reasonable minimum
separation distance between a sanitary landfill interface and adjacent-
closed habitable structures is recommended as 1,000 feet. In general, it
would not be practical to allow variances to this requirement, because of
uncertainties with respect to geological and engineering potentials at the
time of planning. Chapter VII gives possible conditions for varying the
separation distance from adjacent land uses after specific knowledge about
individual landfill sites has been determined.
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board of the State of
California undertook a major study of groundwater storage basins and* the
effect upon them by the disposal of wastes onto land. As a result of
this study, disposal sites were classified into three general classes.
A Location, Class I Site, is a site located on nonwater-bearing,
rocks or underlain by isolated bodies or normally unusable groundwater,
which arc protected from surface runoff and where surface drainage can be
V-2
-------
restricted to the site or discharged to a suitable wasteway, and where
safe limits exist with respect to the potential radius of percolation.
Location, Class II, is a site underlain by normally uBable, con-
fined, or free groundwater when the minimum elevation of the landfill
can be maintained above anticipated high groundwater elevations, which
are protected from surface runoff and where surface drainage can be
restricted to the site or discharged to a suitable wasteway.
Location, Class III, is a site so located as to afford little or no
protection to normally usable underground waters.
DESIGN
Water Pollution Prevention
Gases or leachates from landfills may migrate or be carried by
intruding waters into contact with underlying groundwaters resulting in
pollution. This pollution may be prevented by keeping the potential
pollutants from reaching the waters.
One means of separating water and pollutants is by requiring a ver-
tical separation distance between the bottom of the landfill and the high
water surface of underlying groundwaters. In soils of low permeability
the required vertical separation distance varies from state to state.
In California the requirement has been 10 feet. In Illinois 30 feet is
required unless studies indicate a lesser depth is satisfactory
(Reference 13).
In permeable soils, the results of extensive studies of groundwater
contamination indicated that in pollution from sanitary waste, regression
of quantities of E. Coli accompanied an increased solids accumulation.
Ultimate bacteria travel during a wet season was rated as about 80 feet
in a sandy soil (Reference 14). Although the densities of leachate may
be different from sanitary waste there is reason to anticipate a corollary
in the phenomena of straining and sedimentation resulting in clogging and
ultimate barrier formation. Until results of testing under control con-
ditions yield satisfactory distances, landfills located in permeable soils
less than 30 feet above groundwater should be underlain with barriers to
lessen the chance of pollution.
V-3
-------
A drainage gallery may be required to keep underground waters from
flowing across the interface between the landfill and natural soil, where
several aquifers separated by impervious soil would be intersected by a
proposed landfill. The drainage gallery could consist of closely spaced
vertical drainage wells interconnected by tunnels at the bottom, with
suitable outlets, and either horizontal drains or pipes placed in
trenches. Interconnection between the vertical wells may be accomplished
by horizontal drains. Vertical wells should be backfilled with permeable
material and may be augmented by a perforated pipe installed vertically
in the center of each vertical drainage well. All subsurface drainage
design should consider the damming effect of heavy embankments and the
possible raising of the groundwater table.
In addition to subsurface controls and setbacks—ditches, piping,
and dikes should be used, where necessary, to keep surface waters from
flowing across the interface of the landfill and natural soil. This
will minimize erosion of the earth cover and water intrusion, thereby
minimizing leachate production. All such diverted waters should be
guided to properly operating drains.
The means for accomplishing the separation of water and pollutants
requires planning for the construction of the landfill. Original con-
struction plans should show the proposed means of controlling the basic
types of water intrusion: (1) surface water percolating through the
soil cover; (2) adjacent water moving horizontally through the side of
the fill; (3) water entering from beneath the fill due to a rise in the
groundwater level; and (4) water present in the site prior to or at the
time of refuse placement.
Gas Control
Gases originating within a sanitary landfill which escape directly
through the soil cover into the atmosphere are normally dispersed.
Gases migrating to confined spaces may create explosion hazards.
Gas production in landfills containing active materials is considered
to be inevitable; hence, control should be a matter of properly convey-
ing the gases to points of safe disposal.
V-4
-------
Methane concentrations of from four to 15 percent in air are flam-
mable. Hydrogen sulfide concentrations of 10 to 20 parts per million
(ppm) are considered to be threshold limit values for humans, with a
concentration of about 600 ppm reported to result in rapid death
(Reference IS). Legal controls should be established and lower limits
based on the hazards of a concentration of four percent for methane and
10 ppm for hydrogen sulfide. Proposed legal controls are detailed in
"Sanitary Landfill Standard Specifications for Good Practice."
The salient parameters affecting gas production and gas control are
the percentage of organic material, the permeability and thickness of
soil cover, temperature variation, density, and moisture content. Con-
trol efforts will also be affected by factors such as the'permeability
of the soils underlying and adjacent to the landfill and subsidence.
At this time, the control of the passage of gases is considered to be
the most practical method of gas control. This can be most effectively
accomplished by optimum exercise of the principles of diffusion-
dispersion-convection theories. Selected materials, strategically
placed, can block, direct, and cause gases to vent to the atmosphere.
The selection and arrangements of systems of materials and methods
for gas control have been classified as: (1) peripheral; (2) central;
(3) natural; (4) mechanical; (5) internal; (6) external; and (7) combi-
nation. Each system should be comprised of a basic and an auxiliary
device.
A peripheral system may contain: (1) a trench around the boundary,
backfilled with gravel or granular materials; (2) a series of vertical
wells spaced around the perimeter; or (3) a combination of trenches, ver
tical wells, and horizontal perforated pipes, A central system may con-
sist of: (1) a large centrally located granular vent; (2) a system of
vertical wells located near the center; (3) a series of trenches located
near the center; or (4) a combination of the first three with or without
the addition of perforated pipe drains. A natural system could consist
of a relatively granular soil cover in comparison to a very tightly
grained natural soil beyond the interface. A mechanical system may con-
sist of wells and pipes augmented by power operated exhaust blowers. An
internal system is one in which all gases are completely contained and
V-5
-------
vented within the boundaries. An external system is one in which the
gases are not completely contained within the landfill. A combination
system is one which is common to at least two of the above. Most sys-
tems will be composed of vents, barriers, burners, and blowers.
A vent is a path of minimal tortuosity permitting gas to escape.
It may be horizontal or vertical and consists of a ditch or well, back-
filled with gravel, or perforated pipe embedded in gravel, if located
in a less permeable environment.
A barrier, as the name implies, is an obstruction placed to-hinder
or totally prevent the movement of gas across a surface, A barrier must
either extend far enough so the gas will flow elsewhere or it must be
sealed by other barriers in such a manner as to most beneficially direct
it. In the design and construction of barriers, the choice of materials
is important. The material should be economical, available, easy to
install, impervious to moisture and gas, sufficiently inert to maintain
its quality under the conditions of the fill throughout alternate wet
and dry seasons, capable of meeting the same corrosion requirements as
all other underground facilities, and should not be a secondary source
of contamination. Soils, especially if available on or near the site,
may be economically ideal for barriers. Soil with a large percentage of
its grains less than five microns in diameter that has been compacted to
90 percent of its maximum density at optimum moisture content should make
a satisfactory gas barrier.
A variety of manufactured materials are available for use as bar-
riers but most have not been tested for impermeability, inertness, and
endurance. These materials include polyvinyl chloride sheeting, neoprene,
butyl, or synthetic rubber, laminated hot-asphalt-mopped building paper,
and others. The softer materials may be damaged during installation and
special handling will be required. All sharp sticks, stones, and trash
should be removed or covered with fine soil prior to the installation of
any flexible barrier. Areas containing grass should be sterilized to
prevent vegetation. The area to be covered should be compacted and
smoothed to reduce stresses in the membrane, and mechanical equipment
should not be driven directly onto the liners unless it is proven that
damage will not result.
V-6
-------
Ventilation systems can consist of a series of vents connected to
a header. For example, at one site a blower was installed resulting in
control of the movement of gases within the area of influence of the
system. A burner can be installed to control the odors accompanying the
gases. Because natural gas, which contains approximately 80 percent
methane, will not propagate flame back to the gas supply through a hole
less than 0.142 inches in diameter (Reference 16), the burner cover
should be drilled with many holes 0.125 inches in diameter.
A gas monitoring program is essential to the proper evaluation of
gas production, gas movement, and the degree of success of the gas con-
trol system. To facilitate this program, all landfills should have
probes at selected locations in sufficient numbers to facilitate a com-
prehensive testing program.
Subsidence and Differential Settlement
Subsidence is a function of consolidation resulting from the initial
compaction of refuse materials, compaction of refuse materials due to
overburden, volume reduction caused by decomposition of the refuse,
volume reduction caused by saturation with water, the compressible nature
of the refuse materials, and volume reduction resulting from removal of
leachable materials.
Differential settlement may be defined as nonuniform settlement in
the area adjacent to a structure or surface improvement due to consoli-
dation of underlying strata caused by dead and live loads and other
phenomena (Reference 17). It differs from subsidence, in that it is
less uniform, and is caused by applied forces in addition to overburden
of the fill.
The effectiveness with which a sanitary landfill supports its
improvements will be a function of the magnitude and timing of its ulti-
mate consolidation and the reliability of any settlement predictions.
These may affect the economic life of the development. Engineering con-
trol is therefore imperative during the construction of the landfill if
a reasonably usable and dependable surface is to result. Minimization
of subsidence or differential settlement is dependent on the character,
source, and placement of the materials.
V-7
-------
Before any portion of a completed surface of a sanitary landfill
is used, a certified report should be filed by a soils engineer giving
the estimated ultimate subsidence, supporting calculations, and an esti-
mated safety factor. One method would be to require continued subsidence
monitoring to generate a subsidence curve from which ultimate consolida-
tion could be estimated. If accurate enough to give the general order
of subsidence (e.g. 12 inches or 24 inches or 48 inches), this should
be adequate for the purposes of funding for maintenance or repair (Chap-
ter VI). Another method of approximating ultimate subsidence would be
to synthesize the landfill, if built under controlled conditions., to a
laboratory scale and performing the ultimate subsidence prediction
experiment (Chapter II).
The condition of the finished surface of the landfill will be depend-
ent upon conditions at each finished surface at the top of each lift
within the landfill. If compaction of the intermediate lifts is not maxi-
mized this will have an effect on the ultimate use of the landfill. Any
daily cover which is not properly compacted should be recompacted prior
to subsequent filling. The most successful minimum thickness of daily
cover reportedly minimizing odors and vectors appears to be about one
foot. A firm recommendation of daily earth cover should be based on indi-
vidual characteristics of the selected cover soil and its moisture con-
tent. At this time, one foot is recommended as a desirable compacted
thickness for cover with inert material at the end of each working day.
However, operations occasionally filling to depths of less than three
feet may be jeopardized by the economic feasibility of a ratio of three
feet of lift to one foot of daily cover. For this reason, operations
filling to a compacted depth of less than three feet daily could be
allowed to proportionately reduce the daily earth cover, but the daily
earth cover should under no circumstance be less than six inches.
The minimum final cover for the entire landfill is recommended to be
three feet. In no case should any permanent excavation reduce the cover
to less than three feet.
Maximized initial compaction coupled with minimized heterogeneity
should result in the earliest ultimate consolidation. Surcharge loading
applied to sanitary landfills will accelerate early consolidation. Volume
V-8
-------
reduction caused by biological decomposition may be expected to result
from wetting of the refuse (Reference 7). The addition of water, to an
appropriate moisture content, to refuse and cover material may be expected
to provide the earliest ultimate consolidation. However, the addition of
water to a sanitary landfill should be carefully controlled. Excess
water in the interstices may be avoided by providing for drainage over
finished cells, intercepting surface waters adjacent to the cells, and
installation of subsurface drainage facilities.
The installation of sumps, septic tanks, and leaching systems,
because they depend on dissipation of liquids within the landfill, should
be prohibited. All sanitary facilities, with the exception of approved
chemical toilets, should be connected to an approved closed sewer system.
Side slopes normally considered to be adequate in inert material
should be considered as excessive where underlain by active material.
The danger of sloughing may affect the security of buildings or struc-
tures in the path of the sloughed material. This is most likely to occur
where structures parallel the toe of the slope or the top of the slope of
a sanitary landfill.
To minimize sloughing, which would result in removal of lateral sup-
port from the landfill cover, a desirable average slope should be three
(horizontal) to one (vertical). Where the horizontal distance from the
footing to the top of the slope is less than three times the depth of the
final cover, sloughing should be expected and protection should be
required. If a projected line of the slope past the toe of the slope
extends beyond a building line near the toe of the slope, slough protec-
tion should also be required. This slough protection may be provided
within the landfill by the placement of inert embankment or masonry cut-
off walls.
The construction of a sanitary landfill should be recorded or logged.
Topographic control within a few tenths of a foot, after each lift opera-
tion, would ascertain the elevation and slope of each daily cover.
If special areas within the landfill have been set aside and approved
for nonconstruction areas, special items that would be otherwise inadmis-
sible should be acceptable. A special record should be kept of the refuse
V-9
-------
deposited in that area. For example, large solid items, such as con-
struction residue and heavy metal objects in excess of 36 inches in
dimension, should not be accepted within any portion of a landfill that
has been designated for future structures requiring piling foundation.
Monitoring of the vertical movement of the individual levels of
daily cover could be of benefit to eventual determination of the utility
of the site. During construction of the landfill, risers could be in-
stalled that could be extended to the completed surface for subsidence
monitoring surveys. Irrespective of the methods for providing - for it,
subsidence monitoring of the finish grade should be conducted and referred
to at least two permanent bench marks coordinated to a control loop of the
United States Geological Survey. Each subsidence monument should be
located within a vertical loop and a horizontal coordinate system, mapped,
and checked at regularly prescribed intervals. The maximum distance
between monuments within the sanitary landfill boundaries is suggested
as 200 feet and in lieu of the possibility of a regular pattern a system
of four per acre should be satisfactory. A meaningful subsidence program
can be established by measurement of subsidence monuments at periodic
intervals of three to six months, depending upon the rate of subsidence.
CONSTRUCTION
Permitted Materials
Materials, Class I are defined as any solid or liquid waste. Mate-
rials, Class II are defined as any solid waste that contains no hazardous
substances but is comprised solely of ordinary household and commercial
refuse and/or rubbish, garbage, other decomposable organic refuse, and
scrap metal of the nature of the following general materials: (1) empty
tin cans; (2) metals; (3) paper and paper products; (4) cloth and clothing;
(5) wood and wood products; (6) lawn clippings, sod, and shrubberies;
(7) hair, hides, and bones; (8) small dead animals; (9) roofing paper and
tar paper; (1) unquenched ashes mixed with refuse; (11) market refuse;
(12) garbage; and (13) all materials, Class III. Hazardous substances
are defined as those wastes such as, but not limited to, toxic materials,
explosives, and highly flammable wastes which require special handling to
avoid illness or injury to persons or damage to property. Materials,
V-10
-------
Class III are defined as solid waste that contains no hazardous sub-
stances comprised solely of nonwater soluble, nondecomposable, inert
solids of the nature indicated by the following general materials:
(1) earth, rock, gravel, and concrete; (2) asphalt paving fragments;
(3) glass, ceramics, and inert plastics; (4) plaster; (5) manufactured
rubber products; (6) steel mill slags; (7) clay and clay products; and
(8) asbestos shingles. Most materials, Class I should be acceptable at
any Class I site. However, hazardous substances should be excluded
unless approved disposal methods are employed. Radioactive wastes should
not be accepted at any sanitary landfill. Materials, Class II should be
acceptable at Location, Class I and Class II sites. Class III materials
should be acceptable at all sites.
Nonhazardous liquids should be acceptable at Location, Class II
sites, if utilized as a moisture ingredient to aid in solid waste compac-
tion and spread in that manner.
Some of the purposes of the cover are to control noxious odors,
inhibit access of pests and vectors, and improve the appearance of the
landfill. The cover should be free from putrescible matter or large
objects, be well compacted, and not subject to excessive cracking or
erosion. When sandy loam soil is used, a tight cover can be provided and
economically maintained. Materials considered to be less suitable for
sanitary landfill covers are silts, clay loam, sandy clay, silLy clay,
sand, organic soil, incinerator residue, fly ash, and diatomaceous earth.
Certain materials require special handling to be acceptable for use
in landfills upon which the construction of improvements may be included.
These materials include sewage wastes, large dead animals, products of
abattoirs, wastes from poultry hatcheries, and significant quantities of
semi-solids or semi-liquids .from any commercial or industrial operation.
Water softening residues and abandoned vehicles could be permitted under
limited conditions that include no risk to usable waters. Other limits
to inclusion of abandoned vehicles should be to locations planned as green
space, and to areas upon which no improvements are planned or will be
built. The interspersion of solid water softening residues with normal
sanitary landfill wastes may be acceptable; however, if the water consti-
tutes a major proportion of this type of waste, it should also be set
V-1I
-------
aside in an area Cor future nonimprovoment. Because of the riammahility
of oils, greases, and laLs these wastes slumLd not he .iccepLcd In aban-
doned coal mines or coal pits. Hazardous ni.iLeri.iLs in geiier.il should lie
excluded.
The sizes of objects in sanitary landfills may be important. The
major objection to a large solid nondecomposable object would he that it
may represent an obstacle lo subsurface exploration or drilling for deep
foundations. If the same size object is highly decomposable then it
would represent a potential anomaly in the prediction oi ultimate sub-
sidence of the landfill. Uniformity of settlement requires a limit on
the size of acceptable materials. This limit may be arbitrarily iset at
36 inches maximum dimension for any one object placed at random within a
portion of the sanitary landfill. However, an exception should be pro-
vided for portions of landfills planned to be utilized only as green
space or in deep canyon landfills. Raling operations providing packages
72 inches in Lhe largest dimension are acceptable but there should be a
limit on the largest object in the bale and it is proposed to limit this
size to 36 inches. Bulky, heavy materials, such as concrete or bricks,
should be placed at the bottom of the the fill and not in the top or
sides where they may provide an unwanted surcharge effect, create in-
creased heterogeneity, and provide harborage for rodents.
Excavation. Grading, and Drainage
As rapidly as solid waste is admitted to the site it should be
spread and' compacted in layers so that after track or roller compaction
the layer should not exceed two feet in depth. This is not possible in
all cases in Class III Materials. The rubble comes in much larger sizes
and should, be permitted to be deposited deeper than 50 feet below pro-
posed finish surface or in an area approved for future nonimprovement.
In deep canyon fills larger objects should be permissible. Any portion
of a deep fill deeper than 200 feet below proposed finish surface should
accommodate objects such as tree trunks and relatively decomposable mate-
rials without causing or contributing to future problems.
The surfaces of completed shallow landfills in urban areas may be
reasonably expected to be more in demand for use than the surfaces of
completed deep canyon landfills. The difference between subsidence of
V-12
-------
a refuse landfill and an ordinary inert fill is due to the ratio of inert
material to active material. As the proportion of active material in-
creases subsidence will increase. In deeper landfills the overburden
will contribute to consolidation of the materials placed near the bottom.
Nearer the top the overburden will be less. Based on this premise, the
maximum lift height of active materials should be a function of the
remaining fill depth or height. For depths of from 0 to 20 feet to the
bottom of the final cover, a lift height of more than three feet would
create an inordinately large proportion of active material to inert mate-
rial for a shallow landfill. From the following table, for a maximum
lift height (h), for each remaining fill depth or height (H), it can be
seen that the ratio of active material (based on one foot intermediate
cover between lifts) to inert material varies from three to one in the
shallowest landfill to 20 to 1 in the deepest landfill. The least per-
centage of lift height to remaining fill height varies uniformly from 15
percent in the shallowest landfill to five percent in the deeper land-
fills. On this basis, the following maximum allowable lift depths should
be considered:
Minimum
Percent
H (feet) h (feet) (h/H)
0-20.0 3 15
20.1-50.0 4 8
50.1-75.0 6 8
75.1-100.0 8 8
100.1-200.0 10 5
200.1-300.0 15 5
deeper than 300.0 20 5 (if H = 400)
In order to minimize blowing papers and attraction for pests and
vectors the working face should be limited to 150 feet in length per
bulldozer and should be no wider than is necessary for the proper and
convenient operation of the spreading and compacting equipment. The
daily cover should be placed to form a completely enclosed cell contain-
ing the compacted refuse during a single day's operations. A daily cover
should not be allowed to remain more than 120 days unless a final cover
has been applied.
V-13
-------
The final cover should be in place and compacted over any completed
portion of the landfill prior to a rainy period, if possible. During
periods of precipitation, cover should be applied as rapidly as possible
after refuse filling. Due to subsidence and its effect on drainage, two
percent should be the minimum final slope upward "from the point of mini-
mum elevation. Four percent is the recommended maximum slope.
All finished slopes should be analyzed by a soils engineer for sta-
bility. Until research, testing, and evaluation proves otherwise, the
steepest average side slope on a sanitary landfill should be 3 (horizontal)
to 1 (vertical). This average slope includes the beaches characteristic
of this type of grading. The resultant maximum side slope of any finished
surface will vary between 2.4 to 1 and 2.7 to 1.
Finished landfill surfaces will require drainage protection in the
form of benches, interceptors, and planting. Ordinary construction
equipment requires a minimum width of eight feet. Paved interceptor
terraces in filled slopes should have a minimum width of eight feet at
intervals not to exceed 25 feet measured vertically. Filled slopes
higher than 50 feet, measured vertically, should be provided with hori-
zontal benches with a minimum width of 15 feet. Terrace drainage should
be provided with slopes adequate to drain under most subsidence conditions
but with slopes less than that which would contribute to erosion. These
slopes should be designed for the tributary drainage area with a flow of
not less than four feet per second nor more than eight feet per second.
In a landfill comprised of combined cut and fill slopes exceeding 25 feet
in height, the required drainage interceptor should be placed at the top
of the cut slope.
All finished slopes should be planted and irrigated to promote the
growth of ground cover plants to protect the slopes against erosion.
Preparation of the fill slopes may be accomplished in one of three ways:
(1) The slope surface of the fill may be prepared by placing top
soil over the slope surface. A top soil layer of three inches
should be adequate in most cases.
(2) The slope surface may be scarified to a depth of approximately
three inches.
V-14
-------
(3) Loose earth, in a depth not to exceed three inches, may be
left on the slope.
The most dependable water system is considered to be the sprinkler
system but this is not practical in all cases. In some cases hand water-
ing may be practical. If adequate water lines are installed to conveni-
ently located hose bibs and if hoses are not longer than 100 feet then
sprinkler systems may not be necessary.
Operations
In general, it is more practical for the operator to be represented
during filling operations than for the local governing authority. There-
fore, the operator should assume all responsibility for operation and
security. In order to accomplish this, a responsible representative
should be available at all times.
In order to respond to proper authority, a daily log of all opera-
tions should be maintained. The log should include: the quantities and
types of refuse accepted each day, placement, and lift heights; unusual
occurrences; all applications of water, precipitation, and chemicals;
the numbers and responsibilities of employees on the job; and the type
and use of equipment used on the site. In order to communicate with the
representatives of the local governmental authority it may be necessary
to provide for the submittal of periodic reports. This should be the
prerogative of the local governmental authority.
Precautions should be instituted to prevent the ignition of any
material on or in sanitary landfills. In the event of a fire there should
be a means of communication between the employees and the site office and
the local fire department in the form of radio and/or telephone communi-
cations. Standard safety equipment on vehicles should include Fire Under-
writer's approved hand extinguishers.
Because the public will be dependent upon the landfill, all legally
qualified refuse that is brought lo the site which is not in excess of
capacity should be accepted. Reclamation and reprocessing operations
(away from the sanitary landfilling site) should be encouraged to enhance
the economic desirability of landfilling. Metals can be reclaimed for
their reuse. Paper, fibreboards, and rags may be reprocessed into paper
V-15
-------
forms of lower economic value. Glass salvaging potential on a mass com-
mercial basis is currently being investigated. These and other reclaim-
able items that may be removed will tend to diminish heterogeneity and
minimize.separation and bulk problems. Reclamation or reprocessing should
not be a he.alth or operational hazard.
All weather, dust free access roads from the point of entry to the
face of the landfill and staging areas should be provided and maintained
so that vehicles waiting to enter the landfill area will not impede the
flow of traffic on public streets. There should be a space provided for
turn arounds to reroute vehicles not authorized to enter the landfill.
Clearly marked directional signs should be at all times located promi-
nently to properly direct traffic. "No Smoking" signs should be posted
at all entrances to and within the facility.
Where trucks deposit rubbish at the working face by backing to the
top of a grade of a slope of 2 to 1 or steeper, a bumper, curb, or
tiedown, sufficient to give warning of the approaching edge and impede
the motion.of the truck should be installed.
Clean,sanitary toilet facilities should be provided on the premises
for all employees. A first aid kit, equipped with sterile bandages,
antiseptic,solutions, tourniquets, splints, and other necessary supplies
should also be available. All operations which extend beyond daylight
hours should be equipped with night lights. Common shelter and heating
should be provided as necessary.
V-16
-------
CHAPTER VI
CRITERIA FOR THE INSPECTION. SUPERVISION.
AND MAINTENANCE OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
INSPECTION
Inspection of sanitary landfills and improvements by a qualified
deputy authorized by the local governmental agency is necessary to
implement regulatory requirements. The inspector should have the
authority to determine the effects of the completed work upon the
planned objectives and the likelihood of danger or inconvenience to
any person or property. He should have authority to order work stopped
if he detects a dangerous or illegal condition. This should be done
in a manner that is fair to the involved parties and because of the
nature of dependency of the public upon the landfill and for administra-
tive reasons all work stop orders upon landfilling operations should
be written. If adequate precautions or corrections to hazardous con-
ditions can be taken, work should be allowed to proceed.
During the course of any construction project various interpreta-
tions may be placed upon the plans and specifications. Depending upon
the magnitude of the conflict with the approved plans either immediate
corrective action or corrected plans may be necessary. Cautious judg-
ment should be exercised but if danger impends, the inspector should
have the authority to order the work stopped until it is corrected or
until revised plans have been submitted and approved. If the operator
or permittee fails to submit the required plans, or to provide pro-
tective measures then action should be taken. If an applicable bond
exists, action upon the bond may be taken. If no bond exists to
cover the situation, the governmental authority may have to resort to
available civil recourse.
Sanitary landfill operations should be inspected as often as
necessary to accomplish regulatory objectives. However, continuous
inspection by a public agency is uneconomical and may be avoided if
clearly defined permit requirements are established. The data flow
pertaining to the operations can be somewhat continuous if a daily
log is kept by the operator. If a violation is detected the pertinent
VI-1
-------
facts should be recorded on a report form and a copy left with the
landfill supervisor. A copy should also be filed in the inspector's
office and, after an appropriate and reasonable time, a second inspec-
tion should be made to determine if the violation has been corrected.
In the event of continuation of the violation then an action may be
required to suspend or revoke the permit, or if necessary, take a legal
action upon the bond. Records of the operations should be required
and accessible to the inspector at normal times. Should the need arise
the inspector should have authorization to copy these records.
Structures on and adjacent to a sanitary landfill should be
inspected to secure compliance with or to prevent violation of pro-
visions of any applicable ordinance. Additionally, the owner or.his
authorized agent should be allowed to enter the building when necessary,
to carry out any instructions, or to perform any work necessary to
assure compliance with any code. During the absence of the occupant,
entry should be effected only with a court order. To obviate the pos-
sibility of unnecessarily enforced inconveniences upon the occupants
of the building reasonable hours should be established for access.
Surface improvements on a sanitary landfill should be inspected
as often as necessary during or subsequent to construction. Survey
markings, rough and finish grades, construction procedures, materials,
and safety procedures or equipment are critical items that will affect
the construction and operation of streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters,
drainage ditches, driveways, or works constructed to be of service at
grade. Access to surface improvements is not normally a special
problem but should be guaranteed by regulation.
Subsurface improvements in or adjacent to a sanitary landfill
should be inspected as often as necessary during and after construction
to ascertain whether such facilities are properly constructed, operated,
or maintained.
SUPERVISION
All construction activities on a sanitary landfill site should be
responsibly and continuously supervised. Sanitary landfill operators
should provide sufficient supervisory control during grading and filling
VI-2
-------
operations to assure safe, prompt, and economical compliance with the
approved plans and applicable laws and regulations. At times, supple-
mentary engineering or geological services will be required. These
services should be provided at the expense of the landfill operator.
Special conditions may require the submission of reports. These
should be provided and certified by the supervisor responsible for the
particular work item. Certification for that portion of the work con-
cerning the preparation of an existing ground surface and placing and
compacting of required inert fills should be made by a soils engineer.
Geological conditions should be reported by a geologist and the assur-
ance that all geological conditions have been adequately considered and
recommended measures taken should be so certified. The coordination of
all reports and facture during the landfilling operations should be the
responsibility of the operator or his designee. It is also incumbent
upon the supervisor, when finding that major work is not being done in
conformance with the requirements, that he immediately notify the person
doing the work and the proper authority in writing of the noncompliance
and of the corrective measures that were taken or recommended.
Structures designed under special provisions of applicable local
building codes may require continuous supervision due to special tech-
niques, provisions, or utilization of maximum range stresses. It is
also possible that the landfill official and the Chief Building Official
may have bilateral responsibilities for construction on sanitary land-
fill surfaces. If so, the architect or engineer responsible for such
design should provide written certification to the landfill official
that each structure or portion thereof requiring continuous supervision
was constructed in conformity with the approved design. Certification
should include the dates of the supervision, the name and professional
designation of the supervisor, and descriptions of the work requiring
continuous supervision.
The design of surface improvements should include the responsibility
for supervision by the engineer who prepared the plans and specifications.
The engineer should certify in writing to the landfill official that the
surface improvements were constructed in conformity with the approved
design.
VI-3
-------
Subsurface improvements are of varied character and generally may
be designed by either a civil engineer, mechanical engineer, or an
electrical engineer. The design engineer should certify in writing
that the construction is in conformity with the approved design. Cer-
tification should include the name and professional designations of
supervisory personnel, the dates of supervisory activity, the descrip-
tion of the subsurface improvements, and problems that were encountered
during the construction of the subsurface improvements, and on the
disposition or solution of the problems encountered.
MAINTENANCE
Landfill slopes should be constructed to drain water and all cover
should be as impermeable as possible after compaction. During opera-
tion of the landfill, the materials within the lifts should be protected
from intrusion by surface waters and the neighborhood can be protected
from emission of odors and attraction to pests and vectors if a tight
cover is maintained over each lift. The final cover may be expected to
subside and endure cracks, thus impairing drainage slopes and possibly
resulting in ponding. Filling and scraping of the affected surfaces
will be necessary to alleviate or prevent ponding and maintain the integ-
rity of the cover.
Ground cover vegetation is required to stabilize the surface. The
effects of erosion on ground cover vegetation may be minimized by re-
planting similar or more stable species. Monitoring devices may also
be affected and these should be protected as much as possible and
repaired or replaced as they become damaged, lost, or destroyed.
Records should be kept of the disposition of all monitoring equipment.
An up-to-daLu map is the most convenient and informative record for
bench marks, subsidence monuments, gas probes, and well points.
Motorized equipment on the landfill site should be kept in func-
tional condition. Auxiliary equipment should be available for peak
loads or•emergencies during all operating hours. Noises and fumes from
motorized equipment should be minimized. Maintenance activity should
be located and timed to improve operational efficiency. In many
Vl-4
-------
communities sheds for storage and maintenance of equipment will be
required because of climate, security, or even aesthetic desideratum.
The integrity of each gas control device should be maintained to
effectively perform its required function. Gas barriers may be im-
paired by stretching or breaking due to strains induced from a variety
of causes including subsidence and differential settlement. Patching
may be feasible in some instances. Gas vents may be infiltrated by
materials reducing the areas at flow sections thereby decreasing effec-
tive flow. Corrective measures may include flushing with water or
blowing out with compressed air. Exhaust fans and circuitry may be
affected by dust and corrosive influences. Parts may need replacement.
Monitoring and analysis of gas concentrations should be required
until gas production declines to a safe level and remains safe over a
measured period of time. The results will be an indicator of the
effectiveness of the design, construction, and maintenance but more
important, will be fundamental in causing corrective action. The
monitoring should be done under supervision of a qualified engineer.
Odors may be masked chemically or the cause may be corrected.
Chemicals applied to landfills should be cautiously evaluated prior to
approval for their use. Active material should seldom, if ever, vent
directly to the atmosphere. Odors resulting from this condition may be
sealed off by placement of a compacted soil cover.
Regular periodic inspections should be made for signs of rodents
and winged pests. Appropriate steps should be taken, if necessary, to
improve or correct conditions fostering their presence. Rodenticides
and insecticides should be used as necessary as part of a program but
their use should be supervised and subject to approval from health
authorities prior to application.
VI-5
-------
CHAPTER VII
CRITERIA FOR THE USES OF LAND
ON AND ADJACENT TO SANITARY LANDFILLS
THE GENERAL PLAN
The uses of all lands should remain principally a function of the
general plan of each individual community. However, landfilling and its
associated phenomena should be considered when preparing the general
plan. Land uses concentrating people in confined spaces on or near land-
fills should be avoided if the possibility exists that accumulating gas
concentrations (1) measurably reduce breathable oxygen-in-air percentages;
or (2) poison the air to human, animal, or vegetable life; or (3) result
in explosive or flammable atmospheric conditions. Engineering and con-
struction feasibility should also affect land use planning.
Tho best possible completed landfill surface cannot be expected to
provide the stability required for heavy structural and traffic loadings.
However, properly planned, completed landfills in the future can be use-
ful for heavier loadings than would have been possible without exercise
of meaningful criteria.
The street and highway plan is a component of the general plan that
could remain unaffected by the reuse of the sanitary landfill. The use
of the completed landfill surface can comply with the street and highway
plan by planning for essential rights-of-way and improvements as parL of
the landfill construction (Chapter VIII).
Codification will provide legal implementation. Use of a sanitary
landfill code will assure that the necessary precautions will be properly
determined and implemented to reserve and utilize completed landfill areas
in conformity with the general plan.
USES OF COMPLETED SANITARY LANDFILLS
The surfaces of those existing or completed landfills, upon which
there is no prospect for successful development requiring extensive
improvements, should be controlled by statute law to facilitate compati-
ble uses. The potential uses for these landfills should be limited to
VII-1
-------
park and recreation use, open assembly areas, temporary heliports, or
other uses with minimal or no improvements.
Some exist Lng completed sanitary landfills may have been planned
and constructed to minimize the problems due to settlement and subsidence.
Such landfills may be acceptable for planned use, if they can be provided
with suitable gas controls. They should, of course, be subject to all
engineering and governmental regulations and should not be used for any
purpose not allowed on proposed landfills.
A gas monitoring and analysis program is the best practical method
of determining the existence and extent of hazard from gases. If gas
concentration histories and refuse core sample analyses indicate a long-
term decrease in methane production potential, construction of enclosed
occupancies without gas control systems may be permissible. However,
detection of hydrogen sulfide in amounts of 10 parts per million or
greater should be sufficient to restrict human habitation on the property.
Where there is the remotest possibility that gases may migrate to
and concentrate in confined areas or rooms, human use should be prohibited
or the building should be designed to prevent the entry of gases.
USES OF LANDS ADJACENT TO SANITARY LANDFILLS OR DUMPS
Uses of lands adjacent to existing sanitary landfills or dumps may
be subject to considerations different from those for future landfills.
An indefinite number of uses encroach upon lands adjacent to existing
dumps and sanitary landfills. The degree of conformity to safe standards
can be determined by monitoring gas concentrations. Residents of lands
adjoining existing landfills should be made aware of the potential hazards,
if any, and the degree of hazard, if determinable. Closed habitable con-
struction on adjoining undeveloped and uninhabited lands should be subject
to a minimum separation distance.^ A reasonable minimum separation distance
beLwccn a sanitary landfill interface and adjacent closed habitable struc-
tures is recommended as 1,000 feet.j
Because of uncertainties with respect to geological and engineering
potential at the time of planning it may not be practical to exercise
exceptions in many cases. However, as time passes and more is known about
individual sites and the development potential in the vicinity, the highest
VII-2
-------
and the best use of the land adjacent to existing landfills may be deter-
mined. In highly paved areas or in areas where grading operations have
tightly compacted the soil surfaces surrounding the landfill, gases may
be forced to move even greater lateral distances in order to escape Lo
the atmosphere. Knowledge of these conditions might warrant increasing
the required separation distance. Knowledge of favorable soil permea-
bility and geologic conditions or of the construction of adequate yas
control devices may favor the relaxation of the separation restriction
at the Lime that planning is implemented or at the time a permit is
sought.
VII-3
-------
CHAPTER VIII
CRITERIA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. CONSTRUCTION,
AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS ON. IN. AND
ADJACENT TO SANITARY LANDFILLS
INTRODUCTION
Although each site should be planned on the basis of specific merit,
it is generally best to plan for the use of a completed sanitary landfill
as a park, a golf course, or an open space. However, in the event that
construction on a sanitary landfill is being considered, this chapter pre-
sents suggested criteria for the designer of the landfill improvements.
The following construction techniques and precautionary measures are
not intended to be complete solutions to landfill problems, but are pre-
sented to provide a basis upon which further specialized engineering
thinking can be applied. It should be noted that the precautions and
special techniques necessary for building on a sanitary landfill will
increase the cost of the construction accordingly.
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Gases generated within a sanitary landfill migrate horizontally,
upward, and downward, often intruding into adjacent properties, accumu-
lating in confined spaces, and causing health and fire hazards. The
design of any improvement on, in, or adjacent to the sanitary landfill
should exercise cognizance of this situation. This may be accomplished
by constructing barriers, vents, or a combination barrier and ventila-
tion system to inhibit the intrusion of gases in specific locations and
selectively provide for their emission.
Regulation is necessary to control gases during and after landfill
construction. Those mechanics by which gas migration can be prevented
prior to landfill construction are described in Chapter V, "Location"
(of Sanitary Landfills). During landfill construction, gas control may
be accomplished as described in Chapter V. After landfilling, minimiza-
tion of confined spaces may be effected during the design of the
improvement.
VIII-1
-------
The behavior of the ground surface upon which the structure is
placed affects the capability of the foundation and consequently its
service performance. Service performance estimates may critically affect
economic feasibility determinations.
IMPROVEMENTS
Gases may be prevented from entering improvements by utilizing gas
control barriers and vents of proper material in propitious locations.
Acceptable alternatives for barrier materials include: vinyls, copoly-
mers, terpolymers, building paper, and water stop materials. Gas vents
may be required around the periphery of the structure, in plumbing access
spaces, and electrical panels. A gas control system around the building
may be comprised of trenches filled with granular material, perforated
pipe drains, combination vent stacks, and holes in the foundation walls.
Figures VIII-1, VIII-2, and VIII-3 show the respective design examples
of a foundation vent, barriers under slabs, and underfloor vents.
Utility entries should be especially protected to prevent gases from
following permeable trench bedding and venting into confined spaces.
Collars and connectors to seal off gases may be fabricated from film
and adhesive which can be glued to liners. Figure VIII-A shows design
examples of entry conduits.
The most pronounced differential settlement generally will occur
under buildings founded partially on inert material and partially on
sanitary landfills. Any building thus designed for this condition
should be analyzed for differential consolidation and its anticipated
time, bearing capacity, and the maximum shear value at the interface.
The major effect of differential settlement on surface requirements
of structures is to impair the initial conditions of level and vertical
alignment and to produce corresponding horizontal loadings. Although
the most effective controls on landfill construction will not produce
a surface over a sanitary landfill cell as stable as a surface over an
inert fill or on natural ground, certain alternative foundation choices
exist which aid in maximizing structural stability. These alternative
foundation choices, in order of preference for structural stability,
are: (1) piling; (2) raft foundations; (3) continuous footings; and
VII [-?
-------
(4) spread footings. Major parameters in design considerations are two-
fold: consolidation-time-settlement relationships; and load and bearing
capacities, developable from field and laboratory tests.
Under buildings located totally on a sanitary landfill, prediction
01 the plane at which differential settlement will occur is more complex
because this plane might locate anywhere under the foundation wall. To
anticipate this problem, the magnitudes, locations, and directions of
additional stresses, due to these distortions, should be predicted and
resisted.
The bearing capacity, determined as a maximum over a sanitary land-
fill cell, should be divided by a factor of not less than 1.75 to calcu-
late a recommended working bearing capacity for design of foundations.
This is because, over a period of time, the relative vertical movements
of identifiable fill volumes, with respect to each other (when combined
with relative horizontal movements), may ultimately result in stress
concentrations to foundation soils, greater than the initial design and
construction conditions. Under no circumstances should occupancy be per-
mitted in structures where the ratio of allowable working stress to actual
stress decreases to less than 1.0.
Foundation design incorporating differential settlement at any poten-
tial location may be simplified by assuming that the removal of support
at selected locations may occur in the following variations: (1) the ends
settle more than the middle and humping causes tension stresses in the
top accompanying shear stresses, and resultant moment effect; (2) the
center settles more than the ends and sagging causes tension stresses at
the bottom, compression stresses at the top, and resultant shear and
moment stresses; (3) support under one end ceases to exist and a canti-
lever effect causes tension stresses at the top, compression stresses at
the bottom, and resultant shear and moment effects; and (4) gradually
increasing settlement from one side of the structure to the other tilts
the entire structure altering the stress paths and combinations.
Proper structural design must, of course, include the assessment of
all potential loading. These loads will be transmitted to the sanitary
landfill by the foundation and may be classified into vertical and hori-
zontal loads. Vertical loads are those imposed through gravity by the
VII1-3
-------
weight of the structure itself, and those loads which are imposed by the
conditions of use. Horizontal loads, also called lateral loads, may be
the result of a force effect induced by vertical loads asymmetrical with
the elastic center of resistance incurred by differential settlement.
Foundations with low internal shearing stress may thus be subject to
lateral loading as a direct result of vertical loading.
The primary structural components which will be affected by the
foregoing phenomena are slabs, piling, raft foundations, walls, connec-
tions, and, in the case of rigid structures, the total structure concept.
A slab installed over a sanitary landfill cell and transmitting loads
directly to it may behave more as a membrane than as a slab. To elimi-
nate this, slabs poured directly on the surface should be stiffened by
engineering monolithically cast beams in two horizontal directions at
right angles to each other forming a two-way ribbed mat. Two-way ribbed
mats on sanitary landfills should be designed for the worse cases of
settlement such as the settlement of two adjacent column lines with the
slab spanning the clear distance.
The floor slab design should also include the possibility that the
slab will tilt and, although expensive, provisions should be made for
jacking, grouting, or otherwise releveling the slab. Any releveling
devices that are incorporated into the mechanical or structural design
should also be designed for the potential vertical and horizontal loads.
Slabs bearing directly against the final cover adjacent to piling will
transmit loads directly to the fill and add to the piling loading.
Piling penetrating the active portion of the sanitary landfill should
be designed for all vertical and horizontal loading, the down drag effects
of frictional resistance to subsidence and settlement, and any floor loads
transmitted directly to the fill adjacent to piling. The vertical loads
can be resisted by bearing at and/or friction in the soils underlying the
landfill. The possible effect of leachate, reducing the allowable fric-
tion value in clay-like soils, should be considered. Horizontal loading
can be resisted by developing a horizontal load resistance in battered
piles or in moment connections at the tops of the piles. Dead-man design
is not recommended, as it may induce gross horizontal displacements.
Figure VIII-5 is a design example of footings.
VIII-4
-------
Raft foundations upon which the total stability of the structure is
dependent are less desirable than piling foundations, but may be per-
missible. If a selected foundation site has satisfactorily demonstrated
a capacity to support the necessary dead and live loads it should be
acceptable for a raft foundation. This may be demonstrated by surcharg-
ing the site and monitoring the subsidence after decomposition has effec-
tively ceased.
An increase in shear results fron the horizontal torsion caused by
eccentricity between the center of mass and the center of rigidity.
These shears should be resisted. A symmetrical structure which settles
differentially could cause this eccentricity. The shear resisting
elements should be capable of resisting a torsional moment assumed to be
equivalent to the story shear acting with an eccentricity of not less
than 5 percent of the dimension from exterior bearing to exterior bearing.
Spread footings and pads should not be permitted to rotate. Rota-
tion can be inhibited by monolithical struts. Continuous and spread
footing designs should be proportioned for slow, long-time settlement.
This may be done by balancing a principal footing design for the maximum
calculable allowable soil pressure (based on the minimum allowable foot-
ing size for full live and dead loads) then designing all other footings
for that maximum allowable soil pressure when loaded with full dead load
plus one-half live load (Reference 18).
Under select span and width conditions, it would be advantageous to
utilize rigid building walls as deep girder foundation elements.
For the purposes of the following discussion, a surface improvement
is a street, driveway, sidewalk, curb, gutter, open ditch, or open chan-
nel, or any portion thereof constructed to be of service at grade. Sur-
face improvements are not likely to trap gas; nevertheless, a complete
criteria would dictate that gases should not be allowed to concentrate
in confined areas of surface improvements. Inherent in the previous
statement is the assumption that manholes be classified as subsurface
improvements. Unless they are damaged it is not likely that catch basins
which are open to the surface could become anything more than a vent
providing for the release of gases.
VIII-5
-------
Surface improvements are more likely to be damaged by the effects
of differential settlement or subsidence. Surface channels, ditches,
and drains that might settle unevenly will have their hydraulic charac-
teristics impaired. Design alternatives include either design for the
conditions accruing from subsidence or differential settlement or design
to prevent differential settlement. In the first instance, flow lines
may be designed at the steepest subcritical slope, that slope above
which critical velocity occurs. Subsequent flattening of the grade might
result in uneven deposition of solids but need not impair the overall
function of the drain. It should be recognized in the design that slopes
may become supercritical and therefore freeboard should be provided
in the event that hydraulic jump occurs. Overlapping sections of rein-
forced concrete or flexible metal may represent an acceptable settlement
provision. The alternatives, of course, are to provide inert or struc-
tural support or span between such supports. Alternatives which accept
settlement or provide for mitigating the results thereof should be backed
up with maintenance funding.
Drainage channels which are provided with overlapping sections may
be undercut by eddying currents. At the points of overlap, subsurface
cuttoffs or checks should be provided at right angles to the flow line
and also parallel to the flow line. This design may be incorporated to
provide supports for the drainage channel sections.
Swimming pools on completed landfills were found to be a special
problem unless founded on piling. Swimming pools should be founded on
piling if not constructed on inert material but in the event that sur-
charge loading has been applied and subsequent testing indicates the
ultimate consolidation would have little or no adverse effect, then a
swimming pool founded on an approved raft foundation or a two-way ribbed
ma! may be acceptable.
When possible, streets should be founded on inert material. This
can be accomplished by means of preplanning if the cost of building a
high inert embankmont docs not render a landfill operation uneconomical.
Streets built on a landfill with an optimized ratio of solid waste to
inert material should be of asphalt concrete thus flexible and able to
sjsLain lighL automobile traffic loadings.
Vlll-b
-------
The "Design Traffic Number" is the average number of equivalent
18,000 lbs single axle loads per day expected in the heaviest traffic
lanes during a period ot about 20 years (Reference 19). A design traffic
number of 4.8 or less, if applied to standard road bed design, would
result in a suitable structural cross section. However, single axle
loads of 18,000 pounds should be prevented from actually driving on the
road so that the service life of the roadway may accommodate the equiva-
lent in light traffic loading. The design for all traffic loads should
be based on the strength value of the supporting materials. It is there-
fore reasonable to exclude heavy traffic design loads from surfaces over
sanitary landfills unless the results of comprehensive borings and con-
solidation testing determine that such loadings are feasible. In the
absence of scientific criteria, streets which carry traffic loads heavier
than a "Design Traffic Number" of 4.8 should be built on inert material.
The design of concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks may be modified
to provide horizontal spans with maximized resistance to horizontal and
vertical loading. If constructed monolithically, an edge beam at the
edge of the sidewalk opposite to the curb at the other side of the side-
walk could approximate a symmetrical load carrying member that may be
analyzed as a horizontal beam and diaphragm. Vertical and battered piles
might be used to deliver the horizontal and vertical forces to the
original ground.
During the data survey phase of the study it was discovered that
surface improvements such as utility poles, fences, street signs, and
similar improvements lost their plumb due to subsidence. Utility poles
set in concrete bases with adjustable anchor bolts and nuts are common.
This releveling device is recommended. Some poles may be releveled by
the use of adjustable turnbuckles and cables, but individual ingenuity
may also be required in certain design situations (Figure VIII-6).
A building not founded on piles probably will settle more than the
surface improvements. A building founded on piles will settle less than
surface improvements over landfill cells. In both cases, flexible con-
nections should be required between the building and the surface
improvement.
VIII-7
-------
Subsurface improvements in juxtaposition to surface improvements
and structure improvements will be subject to the same peculiarities of
gas control and subsidence and differential settlement. The requirement
for control of gases of various origins in subsurface improvements is
historical and is attested to by numerous utility companies and munici-
palities. ii[Within 1,000 feet of the boundary of a sanitary landfill per-
sons preparing to enter a substructure should first test for the presence
of gas.
Particular attention should be directed toward the design of pipe
bedding. Granular materials convey gases but may be acceptable if ver-
( tical barriers are built into the bedding between manholes, in the form
Jot concrete saddles or cradles. Plain or reinforced concrete bedding
is effective for gas control but it imposes an additional load on the
\ supporting landfill (Figure VIII-7).
Subsurface improvements are susceptible to the effects of differ-
ential settlement under conditions which are usually difficult to detect.
Placing utility lines in an openable trench may be one solution to the
inspection problem. The lines could be supported on adjustable shims on
the bottom of a paved trench and the cover could be optional. Utility
lines might be protected from overburden loading by placing a metal cor-
rugated arch over and to the sides of them and backfilling over the arch.
When a line sags it lengthens. Electrical and fluid carriers not
dependent on alignment but whose impairment is incurred by stretching
or breaking might be placed in a horizontal zigzag manner up to maximum
allowable manufacturer joint deflection. Ball and socket joints of cast
iron pipe are expensive but they might also be used to accommodate dif-
ferential settlement.
At the entry of utility lines through foundation walls, hangers
and turnbuckles could be installed to support the utility lines and
allow for adjustment within the limits of the sleeves. Flexible sections
at such interfaces have also been successfully used. As with surface
improvements designed to carry liquids, underground gravity lines could
be designed at the steepest subcritical slopes with freeboard which might
include additional diameter or pressure-momentum design capacity.
VIII-8
-------
The design for all underground piping should be conservative. Upon
experiencing subsidence or differential settlement it is possible Lhat the
the factor of safety will diminish, but as long as the ratio of allowable
stress to working stress remains greater than 1.0 the lines can be con-
sidered eminently serviceable.
Monitoring of the subsidence of underground lines can be facilitated
by the provision of risers, to the ground surface, marked with permanent
brass caps upon which are inscribed the purpose of the monumentation.
Lines in openable trenches or lines fitted with automatic shutoff valves
in the event of service interruption could be exempted from this pro-
vision.
Prior to placement in the sanitary landfill any subsurface improve-
ment that might come in contact with active materials should be protec-
tively coated. Subsurface improvements should be backfilled with graded
rock to provide a gas vent to separate the outside face of the substruc-
ture and the active material by a minimum of 18 inches.
Access manholes in sanitary sewer lines will provide a means for
monitoring the line profile. Covered sanitary sewer lines less than 18
inches in diameter are difficult to examine at the standard manhole
spacing of 300 feet. Detection of problems due to settlement will be
facilitated if manholes are placed at a maximum distance of 200 feet.
Drop manholes should have easily removable plugs to facilitate visual
inspection.
Natural gas mains should be provided with valves near and exterior
to the interface if automatic shutoff instrumentation has not been pro-
vided. Individual gas services should be provided with shutoff valves
next to the mains.
MAINTENANCE
Maintenance requirements on sanitary landfills should be stringent.
Gas control devices or safeguards should be maintained at all times in
good working order. The occupancy or service requirement of any improve-
ment should be maintained functionally and aesthetically. Enforcement oi
aesthetic provisions is not practicable but the correction of functional
and sanitary deficiencies can be made by legal regulations.
VIII-9
-------
Detection of incipienL structural deficiency in an architectural or
structural component is usually visual. Misalignment or disorientation
of a doorway or window may be a clue. Upon noticing a deficiency, the
connections of the strucLure should be suspected and reference should be
made to the original building plans and design calculations, if any. For
this reason the owner of the structure on a sanitary landfill, for his
own benefit, should retain a permanent set of plans and calculations.
Structures or parts of structures which have tilted may be allowed occu-
pancy if the ratio of allowable stress to working stress is greater than
1.0. If not, they should be repaired prior to further occupancy or use,
or condemned. Prior to much reduction of the allowable safety factor it
might be feasible to rclevel the structure by jacking, grouting, or
adjusting previously installed mechanical devices.
Surface improvements should aLso be maintained in good condition.
Changes in slope of ditches and culverts may occur, resulting in exces-
sive silting, scouring, or permitting water to enter the landfill.
Damaged improvements intended to transport water should be repaired or
replaced to prevent water from entering Lhe landfill.
Subsurface improvements installed within a sanitary landfill will
experience a decrease in the structural factor of safety from the original
design condition. When the ratio of allowable stress to working stress
is less than 1.0, with respect to basic allowable stresses or stains, they
should be repaired or replaced. A good maintenance program may be expected
to delay critical diminishment of the factor of safety.
Vlll-iO
-------
CHAPTER IX
SPEC I F I C PROPOSALS FOR ADDFTIONAL RESEARCH
THREE YEAR PROJECT PROPOSALS
During the first year program, diffusion-dispersion coefficients
having practical significance for soils within a narrow range of appli-
cation were developed at the Engineering-Science Laboratory (Reference
2). Further laboratory study was recommended to identify and evaluate
additional parameters, such as surface absorption, grain size distri-
bution, grain size uniformity, porosity, inlet pressure ranges, and
pressure gradient characteristics. Results of such study would enable
applicable predictions of gas movement through most types of soils.
Lenchates contaminate groundwater. Carbon dioxide is believed to
pollute groundwater and the results of an early study indicate that such
pollution could be of major magnitude (Reference 6). During the first
year of the study it was recommended that a sanitary landfill over an
aquifer be constructed under controlled conditions, and that full field
investigations be carried out in order to define and evaluate all para-
meters of CO2 pollution so that such pollution may be quantitatively
predicted.
During the first study year two tests of the effectiveness of gas
control systems and barriers were recommended. The construction of two
small sanitary landfills, one in a gravel pit or a depression surrounded
by highly permeable soils, and another in an area of impermeable soils,
together with complete gas monitoring, gas barrier, and gas venting
systems was proposed.
During the second study year it was proposed to plan, design, and
construct an engineered sanitary landfill model with the following
objectives:
(1) To monitor actual movement of underground utility lines due to
differential settlement;
(2) To observe the effects of movement on the functional ability
of the utility lines and to evaluate possibilities for
repairs; and
IX-1
-------
(3) To evaluate the effects of preplanning for acceptable refuse
materials, cells, and inert material as it affects utility
lines, streets, landfill boundary interfaces, and simulated
building locations.
During the second year a request for additional research to study
gas movement through porous media was submitted to the U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Solid Waste
Program. The objectives were to develop quantifying data on the be-
havior of gas flow through a variety of porous media to enable prediction
and prevention of future trouble areas due to migration of gases.
SECONDARY RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide hazard is high for acute exposures and moderate for
chronic exposures. It may cause irritation to the eyes at concentrations
above 10 parts per million and to the lungs and mucous membranes at
levels only moderately above 20 parts per million. Because of the
rapid occurrence of olfactory fatigue, its odor is an unreliable indi-
cator of its level of exposure. Death may occur rapidly with exposures
above 600 parts per million (Reference 15). Dumping refuse directly into
large bodies of deep water such as ponds and quarries often causes bio-
chemical activity of the putrescible component of the refuse. Hydrogen
sulfide may be given off during the process of decomposition (Reference
13). Hydrogen sulfide is not ordinarily a problem on dry landfills,
however, a similar problem may arise if a sulfate-containing stream of
water passes under or through the fill.
The entrance and exit of seawater high in sulfates into tidal
marsh fills may lead to a serious problem from the action of sul-
fates which reduce bacteria and which in turn produce sulfides (Refer-
ence 13). The incidence of problems seems to be rare but one incident
reported that workmen in a trench being excavated in a sanitary land-
fill were asphyxiated by hydrogen sulfide in the fill. The hydrogen
sulfide was so strong that silver coins in the pockets of the workmen
turned black (Reference 1).
IX-2
-------
Hydrogen sulfide has received less attention than methane produc-
tion but it could be important to know more about the causes and prop-
erties of hydrogen sulfide produced in landfills. Under what conditions
is it produced or controlled? What are its diffusion properties through
soil? How does it affect groundwater? What is its effect on microbial
populations that cause decomposition?
Landfill Additives
The addition of water to a landfill is reported to markedly increase
the production of methane and to increase about 20 percent the initial
in-place density of refuse (Reference 7). There may be other possibili-
ties that have not been investigated which might include harmless chemi-
cals that would be conducive to hastening decomposition, chemicals that
would prevent decomposition, or special types of wastes that would be
beneficial to mix with ordinary refuse to accomplish hastening or pre-
vention of decomposition.
Encouragement of the natural ecology might facilitate a hastened
decomposition and earlier utilization of the sanitary landfill. Are
there microorganisms that could be planted to augment natural decomposi-
tion? Are there strains of safe microorganisms that would increase or
decrease gas production? Would it be possible to distribute such micro-
organisms within a landfill? Would it be possible to find such life
forms among natural mold, fungi, safe viruses, or other forms that would
not ordinarily occur in a landfill but could thrive and hasten decomposi-
tion? Would this be advisable?
Integral Landfill and Cas Control Design
Landfill design for the control of gases and the earliest utiliza-
tion of the landfill may be a function of cell arrangements within the
landfills, barrier materials and application techniques, and the gas con-
trol system. Alternative cell arrangement designs could include compact
soil barriers, and plastic-type sheeting. One that has not yet been
investigated is a semiliquid that could be injected into the soil.
Gases formed in a landfill apparently will escape in spite of all
preventative action. The choice of location of vents during the construc-
tion of a landfill will facilitate the release of gases in a preplanned
IX-3
-------
location. These combinations of alternatives would include vertical
wells, horizontal permeable blankets, horizontal header pipes, vertical
permeable blankets, horizontal and vertical impermeable harriers, and
burnoff devices.
CURRENT STATUS OF PROPOSED RESEARCH
A review of the data compiled and the experience gained during the
project has lead to cognizance of the need to satisfy the following
objoc tives:
(1) Alleviate potential hazards from gases adjacent to existing
landfills In Los Angeles County;
(2) Establish engineering data bases for design of gas movement
control devices;
(3) Implement Los Angeles County scientific and engineering
capability;
(4) Evaluate behavior characteristics of improvements on engineered
sanitary landfills; and
(5) Implement regional technical data dissemination and legal
control.
These objectives can be attained by continuous efforts of Los Angeles
County, Department of County Engineer, selected consultants, and regional
representatives of public and private agencies involved with landfilling.
IX-4
-------
CHAPTER X
SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
Chapter I - Introduction
The County of Los Angeles, State of California, in order to formu-
late construction criteria for sanitary landfills and improvements which
would lead to optimum land development and use, has conducted a three -
year program of investigation and demonstration into the problems asso-
ciated with solid waste disposal by sanitary landfilling. Landfilling
of municipal refuse is expected to continue for many years to be the
principal means of disposal in many areas of the United States. Com-
munity development over the years has surrounded and encroached upon
many completed landfills resulting in unattractive, potentially hazardous
areas within some populated areas. During the study, Los Angeles County,
Department of County Engineer, and Engineering-Science, Inc. have been
engaged in the study of the subjects of gas movement, groundwater pollu-
tion, fire hazard, construction of landfills, maintenance of completed
landfills, and construction on and adjacent to completed landfills.
Landfill control within highly populated areas has two facets:
(1) existing and completed landfills built without close regard for gas
and leachate movements; and (2) prospective landfills for which control
devices and procedures can become part of the process of operating and
constructing a sanitary landfill. Major factors affecting the integrity
of improvements on top of, within, and adjacent to sanitary landfills
are gas movement and settlement of the fill. These factors are inter-
related because both are influenced by the amount of the decomposition
of the refuse. The objectives of the study were to:
(1) Alleviate or eliminate existing problems of adjacent property
owners because of proximity to existing sanitary landfills; and
(2) Establish a basis for regulating the various facets related to
sanitary landfilling.
The objectives were met through the performance of the following
tasks:
X-l
-------
(1) The study of the existing state-of-the-art in sanitary land-
fill construction and operation;
(2) An evaluation of gas movement in certain existing sites;
(3) Review of literature regarding possible effects of sanitary
landfills on groundwater quality;
(4) Laboratory experiments for testing flow rate of gas through
various soils;
(5) Development of solutions for controlling gases generated in
sanitary landfills;
(6) In-situ gas sampling and settlement surveying;
(7) Collection of pertinent information on subsidence, odors, and
nuisances in existing sanitary landfills;
(8) Evaluation of the uses of completed sanitary landfills in
terms of the conditions of surface and subsurface structures,
vegetative growth, and prevalence of odors and nuisance;
(9) Correlation of subsidence to the method of construction and
composition of sanitary landfills and the stage of decomposi-
tion of refuse materials;
(10) Development of solutions to odor and nuisance problems in com-
pleted sanitary landfills;
(11) Evaluation of materials and methods of safe construction of:
(a) Surface structures on or near sanitary landfills, and
(b) Subsurface structures in sanitary landfills;
(12) Review and evaluate the scope of existing ordinances, codes,
and regulations throughout che United States for control of
sanitary landfills;
(13) Formulate criteria for the design and construction of sanitary
landfills;
(14) Formulate criteria for inspection, control, and maintenance of
sanitary landfills;
X-2
-------
(15) Formulate criteria for the uses of lands on and adjacent to
sanitary landfills;
(16) Formulate criteria for the design and construction of struc-
tures on, and substructures in, sanitary landfills; and
(17) Prepare "Sanitary Landfill Standard Specifications for Good
Practice."
During the first year of this study, 1967, local sanitary landfills
were inventoried, examined, and evaluated. The extent of migration of
refuse produced gases in local sanitary landfills was measured; the
geometry of existing sanitary landfills was investigated; the properties
of the soil affecting gas movements were identified; gas control devices
at existing landfills were designed; and gas and subsidence monitoring
controls were Installed at strategic locations on existing landfills.
Various types of gas barriers and control devices to retard sub-
surface gas migration were evaluated. The excavation of a cutoff trench
backfilled with highly permeable gravel and rock proved to be an effec-
tive method for control of gas movement. Two other gas control systems
were developed. One of these systems consisted of five wells located
about 100 feet from the completed landfill. Each well was excavated to
the equivalent depth of the refuse and operated on the basis of combined
gas suction and air flushing. Another control system consisted of an
asphalt-type membrane installed under a greenhouse constructed directly
upon a fill. This barrier was designed to prevent gases from moving
through the fill cover into the confinement of the greenhouse. Gas
monitoring indicated all systems were effective.
Subsidence of monuments and survey points that were established at
six selected sites during the first year of the project study was meas-
ured throughout the study period. The resulting data were examined for
correlation between subsidence and other construction parameters. A
laboratory experiment for investigating subsidence characteristics was
correlated with the field data. Formulae were developed for predicting
ultimate subsidence of completed sanitary landfill surfaces under a
range of specific material and moisture controls.
X-3
-------
Groundwater quality degradation was studied and analyzed. A de-
tailed study of leachate production characteristics as a function of the
stage of decomposition of typical refuse materials was conducted in the
laboratory. A leachate pollution index was developed based on total
dissolved solids to determine the quantity of solutes leachable from
refuse fills.
Available information on landfills throughout the United States,
was obtained by mailed questionnaires, visits to completed sanitary
landfills, and interviews with selected experts. All data were collated
for the development of criteria for materials and methods for safe con-
struction of surface structures, surface improvements, and subsurface
improvements on, in, or adjacent to the sanitary landfills. Previous
recommendations were reviewed and reevaluated on the basis of latest
information and analyzed for means of implementation.
"Standard Specifications for Good Practice" were developed into
two sections providing for administration and regulation of planning,
design, construction, and maintenance of: (1) sanitary landfills; and
(2) improvements on, in, and adjacent to sanitary landfills.
Chapter II - Monitoring Landfill Subsidence and Laboratory Development
of Subsidence Predictions
Surface subsidence, differential settlement and lateral surface
displacement were monitored at certain completed landfills. Settlement
records were maintained, plotted, and selectively analyzed.
Subsidence rates at Site 5 were larger during earlier observations
and during the 1968-1969 rainy season. At Site 11, subsidence curves
showed no significant slope changes. Cumulative settlement appears to
be independent of fill depth in this case, but apparently it is a func-
tion of the water content.
The number of landfills observed did not represent an adequate
statistical sampling, but the program was useful in determining the
reliability of future correlations. Lack of material control will hin-
der accuracy of any predictive methodology except in unusual cases. One
such case showed two monuments on Site 5 settling in a manner that could
X-4
-------
result in an asymptotic extrapolation that could represent a field pre-
diction of ultimate subsidence for the landfill beneath the two monuments
(Figure 11-1).
Future full-scale field test data should include: (1) measurement
of subsidence at various depths within the fill; (2) indices of compac-
tion, moisture content, and homogeneity; and (3) instrumentation to
measure the response to seismic disturbance.
Laboratory studies, on the other hand, may more viably reflect
stochastic sampling conditions. To date, the technology available for
predicting subsidence and compaction of landfills is comprised almost
totally of empirical procedures. The fundamental mechanisms active in
sanitary landfill subsidence predictor equations require observation of
the effects of varying generic factors such as initial compaction, com-
paction due to overburden, and biodegradation of organic fill components.
Required preparatory activities include: (1) identifying physical,
chemical, and biological phenomena of decomposing refuse; (2) defining
analogous principles of soil mechanics; (3) evaluating landfill experi-
ence; (4) generating a laboratory program; and (5) establishing and
documenting the predictive relationships.
The general components of landfills include garbage, fibrous
organics, metal, old tires, glass, objects of varying biodegradability
and density, demolition wastes, and ashes. Biodegradation may be gener-
ally defined as the process whereby organic material is metabolized by
microorganisms. In a landfill essential nutrients for biodegradation are
usually present.
The primary premise of this study was that the mechanisms explaining
the action of consolidating soils and of organic matter undergoing bio-
logical decomposition provide a basis for developing relationships to
describe the behavior of landfills under controlled conditions and for
deriving rational relationships describing these phenomena.
The laboratory program was divided into successive efforts dealing
with compaction and with decomposition as separate and sequential unit
processes. Stock mixtures of nine varied compositions were subjected to
initial compaction analogous to conditions at a landfill.
X-5
-------
The composition of the components was classified and documented.
Two sets of refuse compaction experiments were conducted, one set to
establish maximum densities and minimum porosities and one set to simu-
late the compaction by earthmoving equipment at a landfill. The compacted
cells were allowed to decompose and subside in a constant temperature
room for 193 days. Records were kept of weight, temperature, and subsi-
dence. At seven months time, confined compression tests were made. The
refuse compaction tests were then conducted.
Observations were made on the time variation of weight loss and
subsidence. Unit weight changes were then calculated and analyzed as a
function of its parameters for selected paper contents, water contents,
and refuse texture. Average annual subsidence rates for all cells were
established and analyzed.
Subsidence observations at the end of the study period were pic-
torialized and analyzed (Figures 11-31 to 11-35). Formula II-2 was then
developed by fitting an interpolated consolidation curve between the
boundary indices.
Stress-strain data were developed and used to: (1) evaluate the
factors affecting initial compaction, and (2) correlate unit weight,
voids ratio, and initial compaction (Figure 11-45). Initial compaction
was then formulated as:
C = k^ln (t/tQ)
(11-2)
where: C = compaction
k^ = slope of each time-deformation curve
tQ = 0.1 minute
t = time, minutes
C. = 100
(II-3)
where: = initial compaction, percent
)£ = final unit weight, lb/cu ft
)c = initial unit weight, lb/cu ft
X-6
-------
Secondary compaction, the strain occurring subsequent to initial
compaction, is assumed to be independent of initial compaction. Equa-
tion II-4 was formulated by normalizing the strain scales to enable ex-
pression of secondary compaction as a percent of full sample height
independent of initial compaction.
C = k In (p/p ) (II-4)
s s o
where: C = secondary compaction, percent
s
k = secondary compaction constant, units of percent
s
p = stress, lb/sq ft
p = base stress (1,260 lb/sq ft in this study)
o
A landfill can be described as a multilayer amalgam of individual
layers of decomposable compactable material, each layer with a specific
history of overburden and each with a specific age. Decomposition is
transient in character, and settlement related to it is rapid in
early stages. It may be assumed to reach an early maximum rate. For a
maximum at one-half year and rate changes at one-half year and one year,
terminating at two years, the following may be used to estimate subsi-
dence due to decomposition:
f 0.5 fi.o r
J0 2tdt + kj0>5(1.9-1.8t)dt + kL
2
SD = k |n 2tdt + k/n_s(1.9-1.8t)dt + kf, (0.2-0.lt)dt (II-5)
which is integrated over the 2-year period to:
SD = 0.575 k (II-6)
where: = settlement due to decomposition, percent
A
k = average annual subsidence rate observed after
180 days of decomposition, percent per year
The settlement of a specific lift in a fill by each of the three
mechanisms studied in the laboratory is described by the following aggre-
gated statement:
SL = 100 [l- (1-0.01 SD) (1-0.01 C.) (1-0.01 Cg)] (II-7)
X-7
-------
where: S = settlement in a lift, percent
L
Sp = settlement due to decomposition, percent
C = initial compaction, percent
i
C = secondary compaction, percent
s
Which, when reformulated for a number of lifts, then summarizes subsi-
dence over a multilift landfill as:
= X S. H.
Ft C1 P1 Li 1 (II-8)
£»i
where: S = the settlement of the total fill due to decomposition,
t initial compaction, and secondary compaction at time t,
percent of total fill height
SL = settlement which has occurred in lift i over time t^
i and pressure p^, percent of lift height
t^ = age of lift in fill at time t
p^ = compaction stress on lift i at time t
<= initial emplacement height of lift i
Chapter III - Gas Movement and Control
Inside sanitary landfills, biological decomposition of organic
matter takes place resulting in the production of gases. These gases,
primarily methane and carbon dioxide, may create problems which restrict
beneficial use for completed landfills by contributing to potential fire
hazards, and causing impairment of groundwater quality.
The basic objectives of the study included: (1) the analysis and
evaluation of the directions and extent of the gas movement; (2) the
correlation between the direction and extent of gas movement and the
surrounding soil characteristics; (3) the performance of laboratory ex-
periments for testing the effectiveness of various natural soils in re-
ducing movement of gases from sanitary landfills; and (4) the develop-
ment of practical methods for controlling the movement of gases.
Ten completed sanitary landfill sites were considered for conduct-
ing detailed gas movement studies. A soil sampling program was executed
X-S
-------
to obtain a knowledge of the nature of the soil material adjacent to the
fills. Indigenous soils were analyzed for determination of grain size
distribution, soil classification, specific gravity, dry density, and
moisture content. In-place density of the soils was measured.
A monitoring program of gas concentrations adjacent to selected
landfills was instituted. Gas probes were installed and samples were
collected and analyzed in percent by volume for carbon dioxide, oxygen,
nitrogen, methane, and in some cases hydrogen sulfide. The extent of
the gas movement, primarily methane, from each landfill was demonstrated
where possible by plotting contours of equal concentration.
At Site 1 a gas control system was installed. Testing indicated
that the gas concentrations in a parking lot across the street from the
fill were reduced. Site 2 produced carbon dioxide and methane in quan-
tities not consistently measurable. Site 3 was monitored early during
the study. Limited gas production was observed. Analyses of the samples
taken adjacent to the filled areas indicated no significant migration
of methane and carbon dioxide. At Site 5 sampling of gases from probes
installed in and on both sides of the barrier gravel trench, constructed
prior to this study, showed that the trench is venting gases and inhibit-
ing movement of gases across the plane of the trench. At Site 6 an
irregular pattern of subsurface gas movement was detected. Movement of
gases to the north of Site 6 was indicated when methane surfacing through
a crack in the floor of an industrial building was accidentally ignited.
Further investigation detected intermittently located areas of high con-
centration levels. At Site 7 no particular pattern of lateral gas move-
ment could be established. At Site 8 plots of methane concentration con-
tours indicated a slight decrease in the extent of lateral gas movement
into adjacent areas. At Site 9 gas analyses of samples continued to in-
dicate extensive movement of gases and high methane concentrations. A
gas control system was constructed by the local governmental agency.
There was no indication that gas movement into an adjacent residential
area was being reduced. However, recent grading operations have now
exposed three sides of the landfill to the atmosphere, and it is expected
that gases from the fill will begin to pass from the exposed sides with
the resulting reduction in gas movement to the residential area. At
X-9
-------
SiLe 10 continued work on the site precluded taking more than two sets
of samples. Traces of hydrogen sulfide were found, indicating the pos-
sible existence of salt water intrusion in the fill from the adjacent
bay.
Laboratory experiments were conducted on various natural soils to
determine the gas permeability characteristics under a range of moisture
content and the gas pressure conditions. The objective was to study the
suitability of various soils for gas barrier membranes. Coefficients
were calculated based on an analytical solution of a fundamental differ-
ential equation governing the flow of gases through porous media and
utilizing methane concentration history curves derived from each experi-
ment (Reference 2). The results of these experiments indicate that the
rate of movement of methane by diffusion-dispersion is slower through
soils with fine particles than those with coarser particles, for both
air-dry and optimum moisture conditions and under all conditions of in-
flow gas pressure. Molecular and dispersive components of the calculated
coefficients were not distinguished. However, the high convective move-
ment of gases in coarse grained soils is undoubtedly responsible for the
high diffusion-dispersion coefficients of methane in these soils. The
convective flow component of gas migration may be significant for the
case of highly permeable media such as the sand and gravel, whereas it
will be rather insignificant for fine soils and when subject to small
pressure gradients. The coefficient of gas permeability of the various
media was not determined; however, when a fine soil is compacted under
optimum moisture conditions to 90 percent or more of the maximum density,
the gas permeability of the medium will be so small that the flow by
pressure gradient will be reduced to inappreciable amounts. The results
substantiated the presumption that fine textured soils, such as sandy
clay, silty clay, or clay, form an effective barrier to gas movement even
at low moisture content. When compacted at optimum moisture content
these soils prevent any appreciable flow of methane or other gases under
differential pressures of one or more atmospheres.
Fires and explosions have resulted from the accumulation of methane
gas in confined spaces on or adjacent to landfills after the gas became
trapped and concentrations reached flammable levels. Measures which have
X-10
-------
been taken to prevent the movement of gases into adjacent soils include
barrier and ventilation devices.
During this study, three gas control devices were designed and con-
structed at existing completed sites where the gas movement monitoring
program indicated extensive migration of methane gas into adjacent soils
or through the fill cover. At Site 1 a device was constructed consisting
of five wells, each 30 inches in diameter and 60 feet deep, spaced at
approximately 40-foot intervals. Each well was divided into three sec-
tions, filled with gravel, and topped with concrete. Three six-inch
pipes are installed in each well and connected to a 12-inch header pipe
by a six-inch flexible, reinforced, neoprene hose, which is connected to
the suction side of a 25 horsepower blower. Gas that is entering each
six-inch pipe may be vented directly to the atmosphere or pumped.
At Site 5 an asphalt type membrane was installed beneath the floor
of a greenhouse. The membrane consisted of a multiple layer, fiber rein-
forced, asphalt laminate fabricated in place. This was constructed over
a four-inch layer of gravel in which were placed two three-inch perforated
pipes, one at each end of the area, to vent the gravel layer and prevent
excessive buildup of gas concentration beneath the membrane. A layer of
pea gravel was placed on top of the liner to form the floor of the green-
house. Sampling probes were placed to test the effectiveness of the
device.
At Site 8, privately owned, a gas control system consisting of a
trench, two wells, and a burnoff device was installed. The trench was
located between the refuse fill and the property line near the interface
in the area of the greatest movement of gases. Two wells were located
200 feet apart in the center of the area where the methane concentration
levels appeared to be the greatest. Surface drainage was provided. The
two wells were drilled directly below the trench and filled with gravel.
Each well is 24 inches in diameter and 50 feet deep. The wells and trench
are fitted with pipes and headers and vents directly to the burner. A
cap, perforated with several 1/8-inch diameter orifices, was installed on
the pipe to prevent the flashback of any flame down the pipe. Turnoff
valves are provided between the trench pipe and the well pipes. The
trench was filled with gravel and capped with a layer of concrete to
X-ll
-------
prevent water from entering the trench and the gas and odors from
exhausting through the trench. One four-inch perforated pipe was placed
in each well, extending to the surface and capped to provide venting for
future experimental purposes. In the future, monitoring of existing and
newly installed probes will allow a determination of the effectiveness
of this control system and provide information of the arrangement of
vent pipes under which the system will be most effective in intercepting
the flow of gases beyond the device.
During the latter stages of the study, detailed testing and monitor-
ing was performed in order to examine the relative effectiveness of the
control devices in reducing or stopping gas migration. At Site 1, experi-
mentation was developed to identify the optimal sequence and duration of
pumping for one or more of the five wells. Initial testing indicated that
the system is capable of effectively preventing the flow of methane into
the area immediately across from the line of wells and that complete
removal of methane in the soil atmosphere could be achieved. Continued
testing to develop the maximum spacing of wells which would prevent gas
movement and the minimum rate of pumping necessary for adequate control
was attempted during the third year. Simple venting without pumping pro-
duced no significant change and did not impede the flow of gas. It was
determined that pumping from just one pipe in the center well created an
influence across the plane of all the wells. Further testing indicated
that continuous forced ventilation from just one well would provide a
satisfactory gas migration barrier to a distance of from 150 to 200 feet.
It was concluded that adequate stoppage of gas movement into the area
across from the well plane could be achieved by pumping 315 cfm continu-
ously from one pipe and one well. Subsequent tests confirmed that spacing
of wells with similar suction characteristics could be approximately 150
to 200 feet apart and be effective for areas with similar soil charac-
teristics as Site 1.
The testing program at Site 5, the greenhouse, consisted of periodi-
cally sampling gases in the probes to monitor the effects of the barrier
on the concentration levels of the methane beneath, above, and adjacent
to the floor of the greenhouse. Monitoring was performed four times
during 1969. This device appeared to effectively prevent methane flow
from entering the interior of the building. Tests were also conducted to
X-12
-------
determine whether or not the gravel filled trench was still effective
as a barrier. Analyses of gases taken from probes adjacent to the
trench showed that the trench was generally still acting as a good
barrier.
At Site 8, the privately owned site, the construction of the con-
trol device was not completed until late in 1969, the third and final
year of this study. Gas emerging from the vent pipe was ignited on the
day of completion. The system was not in operation long enough to fully
evaluate its effectiveness; however, early evaluation of the results
derived from the probe sampling indicated that ventilating with one vent
pipe was insufficient to reduce the flow of gas into the adjacent area.
Part of a training course conducted by Pacific Telephone Company is
a demonstration of the characteristics of toxic and flammable gases. The
Training Division uses a model manhole, consisting of a forced ventila-
tion blower, a control box, and appurtenances to supply, regulate, and
explode prepared gases simulating natural gas.
A similar apparatus was designed and built to investigate the explo-
sive characteristics of gases on selected research sites. The unit con-
sisted of two separate boxes: one simulating a confined space such as a
substructure or under-floor area of a building; the other, a control unit
containing a source of power, connected to the box in which the explosions
occur. Methane concentrations were tested near the bottom, the center,
and top of the explosion box and recorded. Detonation may be induced at
any selected level at tested concentrations. The explosion unit was
field tested on landfill gas. Methane concentrations were sampled. Con-
centrations ranging between five and seven percent were read prior to
explosions. Concentrations of less than five percent did not explode.
In some instances explosive concentrations were rapidly reached within
minutes after previous explosions had resulted in complete evacuation of
gases from the explosion box. A log, consisting of two sheets, was kept
to provide the necessary information regarding sites and site characteris-
tics, soil characteristics, weather, insulation data, detonation data,
etc. Other pertinent and necessary information was then developed and
used for further testing. The use of this apparatus demonstrates a
X-13
-------
transition between the theory of landfill gas flammability and potential
enforcement of any future Sanitary Landfill Ordinance.
Chapter IVi - Groundwater Pollution
Analyses of waters which have been in contact with solid wastes have
shown that both chemical and biological pollutants may be present. The
liquids that result when water comes into contact with refuse either by
percolation or immersion are generally termed leachates. A fill may be
in contact with groundwater or surface water resulting in direct leach-
ing through the fill material; or water originating in another location
may drain through the fill. Groundwater in the immediate vicinity of a
disposal site may become polluted and unsuitable for domestic and/or
irrigation use if the solid wastes intercept the zone of saturation and
come into contact with the groundwater or if the leachate reaches the
groundwater. The velocity of water through the material is dependent
upon the permeability.
Indices of groundwater pollution were determined in laboratory
experiments during this study. Leachates were analyzed for total dis-
solved solids, chemical oxygen demand, hardness, alkalinity, pH, organic
and ammonia nitrogen, fluorides, sulfates, and nitrates.
The major gases normally produced within a sanitary landfill are
carbon dioxide and methane. Since methane is relatively insoluble in
water and lighter than air, it is not expected to contribute materially
to groundwater pollution. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and
highly soluble in water and may contribute to increased mineralization
in groundwater. However, water that has been impaired by carbon dioxide
will be diluted within the groundwater body.
During the leachate experiments samples from two sanitary landfills,
Site 1 and Site 12, were tested. Two synthetic sample series were pre-
pared. All samples were leached simultaneously under the same procedures
to provide comparisons. The results of the experiment define a correla-
tion between chemical oxygen demand and total dissolved solids in the
field samples and in the synthetic refuse. A Leachate Pollution Index was
proposed based on total dissolved solids.
X-14
-------
Site 8 was a known source of carbon dioxide and methane. Site 8
was originally thought to have been placed five above above anticipated
high groundwater. Borings later determined that Site 8 waste material
was, in fact, below groundwater. An earlier investigation based on the
first assumption concluded that the impairment of well water quality 400
feet from the site was primarily due to a solution of carbon dioxide gas
and that the major source of carbon dioxide in the vicinity of the well
was decomposing refuse in the Site 8 landfill. This conclusion was a
significant factor in decisions by regulatory agencies to inhibit the
installation of new filling operations in areas with similar geologic
strata. Since it was later found that the waste material was placed
below high groundwater, additional information concerning water degrada-
tion by gases is needed.
Chapter V - Criteria for the Location. Design, and the Construction of
Sanitary Landfills
The selection of a location for a sanitary landfill should be based
on benefit to the community while assuring maximum personal safety and
security of property of its neighbors, and a function of the local
topography and geology. Under certain circumstances existing depressions
in lands, such as old gravel quarries, normally useless gullies, and
abandoned strip mines may be suitable for landfill sites. The prime
physical considerations of a potential location are the practicality of
preventing water pollution and gas migration. To minimize water pollu-
tion, sanitary landfills would be most ideally located above native soils
of low permeability if over a usable water supply.
Decomposable solid wastes should not be placed in seawater, salt
water, or waters with high sulfate content since they may react to form
hydrogen sulfide gas. Hydrogen sulfide gas is exceedingly toxic and
dangerous to animal life.
General planning should provide for a horizontal separation distance
between sanitary landfills and adjacent incompatible land vses to allow
for the possibility of explosive gas migration. Engineering and geologic
data may not be available at this stage of community planning. A hori-
zontal separation distance of 1,000 feet is recommended for this purpose.
Chapter VII gives possible conditions for varying the separation distance.
X-15
-------
The means for accomplishing the separation of water and pollutants
requires planning for the construction of the landfill. Original con-
struction plans should show the proposed means of controlling the basic
types of water intrusion. Periodic maintenance and monitoring may affect
the success or failure of pollution defenses. A groundwater monitoring
program should be developed at the planning stage and implemented during
construction of the landfill.
One means of separating water and pollutants is by requiring a ver-
tical separation distance between the bottom of the landfill and of the
high water surface of underlying groundwaters. In soils of low permea-
bility the required vertical separation distance varies from state to
state. Until results of testing under controlled conditions yield satis-
factory distances, landfills located in permeable soils less than 30 feet
above groundwater should be underlain with barriers to lessen the chance
of pollution.
Drainage galleries may be required to keep underground waters from
flowing across the interface between the landfill and natural soils, where
several aquifers separated by impervious soil would be intersected by a
proposed landfill. In addition to subsurface controls and setbacks-
ditches, piping, and dikes should be used to keep surface waters from
flowing across the interface of the landfill and natural soil.
Gases originating within a sanitary landfill which escape directly
through the soil cover into the atmosphere are quickly diffuse^. Gases
migrating to confined spaces produce explosion hazards in addition to
water pollution. Controls should be a matter of properly directing the
gases to harmless points of disposal. The major factors affecting gas
production and control are the percentage of organic material, the per-
meability and thickness of soil cover, temperature variation, and moisture
content. Control efforts will also be affected by factors such as the
permeability of the soils underlying and adjacent to the landfill and
subsidence.
The selection and arrangements of systems of materials and methods
for gas control have been classified as: (1) peripheral; (2) central;
(3) natural; (4) mechanical; (5) internal; (6) external; and (7) combina-
tion. A variety of materials are available for use as barriers but most
X-16
-------
have not been tested for impermeability, inertness, and endurance. In
addition to na' ural soils these materials include polyvinyl chloride
sheeting, neoprene, butyl or synthetic rubber, laminated hot-asphalt-
mopped building paper, and others. A gas monitoring program is essen-
tial to the proper evaluation of gas production, gas movement, and gas
control systems.
Subsidence is a function of consolidation resulting from initial
compaction of refuse materials, compaction of refuse materials due to
overburden, volume reduction caused by decomposition of the refuse,
volume reduction caused by saturation with water, and volume reduction
resulting from removal of leachable materials.
Differential settlement may be defined as nonuniform settlement in
the area adjacent to a structure or surface inq>rovement due to consoli-
dation of underlying strata caused by dead and live loads and other
phenomena (Reference 17). It differs from subsidence in that it is less
uniform and is caused by applied forces in addition to overburden of the
fill. A major factor which will affect the economic life of a develop-
ment on a completed sanitary landfill surface is the effectiveness with
which a sanitary landfill supports its improvements. This will be a
function of the magnitude and timing of its ultimate consolidation and
the reliability of predictions which affect cash flow funding for mainte-
nance. Engineering control is, therefore, imperative during the construc-
tion of the landfill if a usable and dependable surface is to result.
The condition of the finished surface of the landfill is also depend-
ent upon conditions at each finished surface at the top of each lift
within the landfill. If compaction of the intermediate Lifts is not
maximized, this will have an effect on the ultimate use of the landfill.
Where adequate material is available, one foot is recommended as the
compacted thickness for the daily cover. The minimum final cover for
the entire landfill is recommended to be three feet. In no case should
any permanent excavation be made to reduce the cover *:o less than three
feet.
The major purposes of the daily earth cover are to control noxious
odors, inhibit access of pests and vectors, and improve the appearance
of the landfill. The cover should be free from putrescible matter or
X-17
-------
large objects, be well compacted, and not subject to excessive cracking
or erosion. The cells also provide a degree of Eire protection.
Maximized initial compaction coupled with minimized heterogeneity
should result in the earliest ultimate consolidation. Surcharge loading
applied to sanitary landfills will accelerate earlier consolidation.
Volume reduction caused by biological decomposition may be expected to
result from wetting of the refuse. The addition of water, to an appro-
priate moisture content, for refuse material and cover material may be
expected to provide the earliest ultimate consolidation. However, the
addition of water to a sanitary landfill should be carefully controlled.
Excess water in the interstices may be avoided by providing for drainage
over finished cells and installation of surface and subsurface drainage
facilities.
Side slopes should be designed to minimize potential sloughing. A
desirable average side slope should be 3 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical).
This average side slope includes required benching and interceptors.
Under certain conditions sloughing should be anticipated and slough pro-
tection should be required. Slough protection may be provided by the
placement of inert embankment or cutoff walls.
Monitoring of the vertical movement of the individual level of daily
cover could be of benefit to eventual determination of the utility of the
site. Topographic control within a few tenths of a foot, after each lift
operation, would facilitate monitoring; or, risers could be installed during
construction of the landfill and extended to the completed surface for
subsidence monitoring surveys. Close vertical survey controls should be
provided for the subsidence monument system.
Materials should be selectively classified and placed in predefined
sanitary* landfill site locations. Each site should receive two classi-
fications, a location classification and a materials classification. The
location classification is based on the unmodified and unprotected geoLogy
and configuration of the site. A site having received its location clas-
sification may, with the installation of suitable protection, receive a
materials classification of greater groundwater hazard than the unmodified
location- classification and consequently would accept all materials of
greater or lesser hazard !han the materials classification.
X-18
-------
Uniformity of settlement requires a limit on the size of acceptable
materials. However, exceptions should be provided for portions of land-
fills planned to be utilized only as green space or in cleep canyon land-
fills. Bulky, heavy materials, such as concrete or bricks or large
diameter logs should be placed at the bottom of the fill and not in the
top or sides where they may provide an unwanted surcharge effect, create
increased heterogeneity, and provide rodent harborage.
In deeper landfills the overburden will contribute to consolidation
of the materials placed near the bottom. Although the extent of this
consolidation is variable, some adjustment of the active material lift
heights would be appropriate. Therefore, the following table was
developed on this premise using maximum lift height .-s a function of the
remaining fill depth or height. For depths of 0 to 20 feet to the bottom
of the final cover, a lift height of more than three feet would create an
inordinately large proportion of active material to inert material. From
the following table, for a maximum lift height (h), for each remaining
fill depth or height (H), it may be observed that the ratio of active
material to inert material (based on one foot intermediate cover between
lifts) varies from 3 to 1 in the shallowest landfill to 20 to 1 in the
deepest landfill. The least percentage of lift height to remaining fill
height varies uniformly from 15 percent in the shallowest landfill to
five percent in the deeper landfills. The following maximum allowable
lift depths should be considered:
MJ nimum
Percent
H (feet') h (feet) (h/K)
0-20.0 3 15
20.1-50.0 4 8
50.1-75.0 6 8
75.1-100.0 8 8
100.-200.0 10 5
200,1-300.0 15 5
deeper than 300.0 20 5 (if H = 400)
Daily cover should be in place and compacted by the end of each work-
ing day. The daily cover should be placed to form a completely enclosed
X-19
-------
cell. The final cover should be in place and compacted wr.thin not more
than 120 days alter t 'ie final daily cover and prior to a rainy period.
During-periods of precipitation, cover should be applied as rapidly as
possible. Two pcrccnL should be the minimum final slope. Four percent
is recommended as a maximum, where possible.
Finished landfill surfaces require drainage protection. Terrace
drainage should be provided with slopes adequate to drain as subsidence
occurs. The slopes should be designed Tor the tributary drainage area
and a flow of not less than 4 feet per second nor more than 8 feet per
second. All finished slopes should be planted and irrigated to promote
the growth of ground cover. Planting requirements vary for differences
in side slope. The most dependable water system is considered to be the
sprinkler system, but this is not always practical. In some cases hand
watering may be adequate.
A responsible representative of the landfill operator should be
available at all times. A daily log of all operations should be main-
tained and include the quantities and types of refuse accepted each day,
placement and lift heights, unusual occurrences, the numbers and respon-
sibilities of employees on the job, and the type and u".e of equipment
used on the site. Precautions should be instituted to prevent fire.
Communication between the employees and site office and the local fire
department should be provided in addition to standard safety equipment.
Reclamation and reprocessing operations (away from the sanitary
landfill site) should be encouraged to enhance the economic desirability
of landfilling. Metal„, papers, fiberboards, rags, and glass have vari-
able economic values ir different locations. The removal of reclaimable
items will toncl to diminish heterogeneity.
All weather, dust free access roads, turnaround space, clearly marked
directional signs, and no smoking signs should be provided. Clean sani-
tary toilet facilities and a first aid kit should be provided on the
premises for all employees. Operations which extend beyond daylight hours
should he provided wiLh night lights. Common shelter and heating should
be provided as necessary.
X-20
-------
Chapter VI - Criteria for the Inspection. Supervision, and Maintenance
of Sanitary Landfills
Inspection by a qualified deputy of the local governmental agency
is necessary tc determine the effects of the completed work upon the
plan objectives and the likelihood of danger or inconvenience to any
person or property. During the course of any construction project,
various interpretations may be placed upon the plans and specifications.
Appropriate remedy should be available. Sanitary landfill operations
should be inspected as often as necessary to accomplish regulatory ob-
jectives; however, continuous inspection by a public agency is uneco-
nomical and may be avoided.
Structures on and adjacent to a sanitary landfill should be in-
spected to assure compliance with legal regulations. Surface improve-
ments on a sanitary landfill and the subsurface improvements in or ad-
jacent to a sanitary landfill should be inspected as often as necessary
during and after construction. Access to structures, surface improve-
ments, and subsurface improvements should always be available.
All construction activities on a landfill site should be continuously
supervised by a responsible representative of the operator, the con-
structor, or a subcontractor. If none are available, an inspector cer-
tified by an officer of the local governmental agency should be provided.
Special conditions may require that reports be submitted. These
should be certified by the supervisor responsible for the particular
work item. Structures designed under special provisions of the applic-
able local building code may require continuous supervision due to spe-
cial conditions. It is possible that the administrative officer and the
chief building official may have bilateral responsibilities for construc-
tion on sanitary landfill surfaces. If so, the architect or engineer
responsible for such design should provide written certification to the
administrative officer that each structure or portion thereof requiring
continuous supervision was constructed in conformity with the approved
design and applicable regulation. The designer of surface improvements
and subsurface improvements may be either a civil ensineer, mechanical
engineer, or an electrical engineer, who should certify in writing that
the construction is in conformity with the approved design and applicable
regulations.
X-21
-------
The final cover on a landfill may be expected to subside and crack,
thus impairing drainage slopes and possibly resulting in ponding. Fill-
ing and scraping of the# affected surfaces will be necessary to alleviate
or prevent ponding and maintain the integrity of the cover. Ground
cover vegetation should be required to stabilize the surface. The ef-
fects of erosion on ground cover vegetation may be minimized by replant-
ing similar or more stable species. Maintenance of monitoring devices
may be facilitated by well kept records. The integrity of each gas con-
trol device should be maintained. Patching of membranes may be required
and feasible in some instances. Gas vents may be infiltrated by mate-
rials reducing cross sectional area. Corrective measures may require
flushing out with water or blowing out with compressed air. Monitoring
and analysis of gas concentrations should be required until gas produc-
tion declines to a safe level and remains safe over a measured period
of time. Control of odors may occasionally be required. Regular peri-
odic inspections should be made for signs of rodents and winged pests
and appropriate steps taken as necessary.
Chapter VII - Criteria for the Uses of Land On and Adjacent to Sanitary
Landfills
The uses of all the lands should remain principally a function of
the general plan of each individual community which should recognize
that landfilling and its associated phenomena should be considered. The
best possible completed landfill surface can not be expected to provide
the stability required for heavy structural and traffic loadings; how-
ever, properly planned, completed landfills in the future may be used
for heavier loadings if planned and engineered for them.
A general plan may be importantly affected by a correlation between
the recreation plan and the solid waste plan. The street and highway
plan is a component of the general plan that could remain unaffected by
the reuse of the sanitary landfill, if the landfill is planned to comply
with the street and highway plan by providing for central rights-of-way
as part of the landfill construction.
The surfaces of existing or completed landfills, upon which there
is no' prospect for successful development requiring extensive improve-
ments, should be controlled by statute law to facilitate compatible uses.
X-22
-------
which may include park and recreational use, open assembly area, tempo-
rary heliports, or other uses with minimal or no improvements.
Some existing completed landfills may have been planned and con-
structed to minimize the problems due to settlement and subsidence.
Such landfills may be acceptable for planned use if they can be provided
with suitable gas controls. They should be subject to applicable engi-
neering and governmental regulations and should not be used for any pur-
pose not allowed on proposed landfills. Future sanitary landfills may
be engineered and constructed to be suitable for a viriety of uses. If
the landfill is planned to minimize subsidence effects by reserving inert
strips and areas and by increasing the ratio of earth to active material,
loadings from traffic and building uses will be more acceptable.
A gas monitoring and analysis program is the best practical means of
determining the existence and extent of hazards from gases. If gas con-
centration histories and refuse core sample analyses indicate a long-term
decrease in methane production potential, construction of enclosed occu-
pancies without gas control systems may be permissible, unless hydrogen
sulfide is present.
Where there is the remotest possibility that gases may migrate to
and concentrate in confined areas or rooms, human use 3hould be pro-
hibited. Closet? habitable construction on adjoining undeveloped and unin-
habited lands should be subject to a minimum separation distance of 1,000
feet, if engineering and geologic data is not available to indicate
otherwise.
Under controlled conditions the selection of a location for a land-
fill may be a function of adjacent existing uses. An indefinite number
of uses encroach upon lands adjacent to existing dumps and sanitary land-
fills. The degree of safety can be determined by monitoring gas concen-
trations. Residents of land adjoining existing landfills should be made
aware of the potential hazards, if any, and of the degree of hazard, if
determinable.
Chapter VIII - Criteria for the Development. Construction, and Maintenance
of Improvements On. In. and Adjacent to Sanitary Landfills
The use oi each completed landfill site should be planned on the
basis of specifi: merit. Although construction on sanitary landfilling
X-23
-------
is not generally advocated, the following construction techniques and
precautionary measures are offered. They are not intended Lo be complete
solutions to landfill problems, but are presented to provide a basis upon
which further specialized engineering thinking can be applied.
Cases may be prevented from entering improvements by utilizing gas
control barriers and vents of proper material. Acceptable alternatives
for barrier materials include: vinyls, copolymers, terpolymers, build-
ing paper, and water stop materials. Gas vents may be required around
the periphery of a structure, in plumbing access spaces, and electrical
panels. The gas control system around a building may be comprised of
trenches filled with granular material, perforated pipe drains, combina-
tion vent stacks, and fiundation drains. Utility entries should be pro-
tected to prevent gases from following permeable trench bedding and
venting into confined spaces. Collars and connectors to seal off gases
may be fabricated.
The most pronounced differential settlement generally will occur
under buildings founded partially on inert material and partially on
sanitary landfills. Under buildings located totally on a sanitary land-
fill, prediction of the locations at which differential settlement will
occur is more complex. It should be anticipated that this might locate
anywhere under a foundarion wall. The magnitudes, locations, and direc-
tions of additional stresses, due to resulting distortions, should be
predicted and resisted. Proper structural design should include the
assessment of all potential loading. Safety factors should be conserva-
tive and analyses intensified. The primary structural components which
will be affected are slabs, piling, raft foundations, walls, and the
total structure concept which includes connections. Piling should be
designed for all vertical and horizontal loading, the down drag effects
of frictional resistance to subsidence and settlement, and any floor
loads transmitted directly to the fill adjacent to piling. Raft founda-
tions upon which the total stability of the structure is dependent are
less desirable than piling foundations, but may be permissible. Spread
footings and pads should not be permitted to rotate. Rotation can be
inhibited by monolithical struts. Under select span and width conditions
it would be advantageous to utilize rigid building walls as deep girder
foundation elements.
X-24
-------
Surface improvements are more likely to be damaged by the effects of
differential settlement or subsidence. Surface channels, ditches, and
drains that might settle unevenly will have their hydraulic characteris-
tics impaired. Design alternatives include either design for the con-
ditions accruing from subsidence or differential settlement or design to
prevent differential settlement. In the first instance, flow lines may
be designed at the steepest subcritical slope. Subsequent flattening of
the grade might result in uneven deposition of solids but need not impair
the overall function of the drain. It should be recognized in the design
that slopes may become supercritical; therefore, freeboard should be pro-
vided. Drainage channels which are provided with overlapping sections
may be undercut by eddying currents. At the points of overlap, subsur-
face cutoffs or checks should be provided at right angles to the flow
line and also parallel to the flow line.
When possible streets should be founded on inert material. This
can be accomplished by means of preplanning if the cost cf building a
high inner embankment does not render a landfill operation uneconomical.
Streets built on a landfill with an optimized ratio of solid wastes to
inert material should be of asphalt concrete, thus flexible and able to
sustain light automobile traffic loadings.
The design of concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks may be modified
to provide horizontal spans with maximized resistance to horizontal and
vertical loading. During the data survey phase of this study it was dis-
covered that surface improvements such as utility poles, fences, street
signs, and simpler improvements lost their plumb due to subsidence.
Utility poles may be set in concrete bases with adjustable anchor bolts
and some poles may be releveled by the use of adjustable turnbuckles and
cables, but individual ingenuity may also be required in specific design
situat ions.
A building not founded on piles probably will settle more than the
surface improvctiients. A building founded on piles will settle less than
surface improvements over landfill cells. In both cases flexible connec-
tions should be required between the building and the surface improvement.
Subsurface improvements in juxtaposition to surface improvements and
structure improvements will be subject to the same peculiarities of gas
control.
X-25
-------
Particular attention should be directed toward the design of pipe
bedding. Granular materials convey gases but may be acceptable if ver-
tical barriers are built into the bedding between manholes, in the form
of.concreteisaddles or cradles. Plain or reinforced concrete bedding is
effective for gas control but it imposes an additional load on the sup-
porting landfill.
Subsurface improvements are susceptible to the effects of differen-
tial settlement under-conditions which are usually difficult to detect.
Placing utility lines ¦'n an openable trench may be one solution to the
inspection problem. The design for underground piping should be
conservative.
Monitoring subsidence of underground utility lines can be facili-
tated by providing risers to the ground surface. Prior to placement in
a sanitary landfill any subsurface improvement that might ccme into con-
tact with active materials should be protectively coated. Access man-
holes in sanitary sewer lines should provide a means for monitoring the
line profile. Natural gas mains should be provided with valves near and
exterior to the landfill interface if automatic shutoff instrumentation
has not been provided. Individual gas services should be provided by
shutoff valves next to the mains.
Maintenance requirements on sanitary landfills should be stringent.
Gas control devices or safeguards should be maintained at all times in
good working order.
Detection of incipient structural deficiency in an architectural or
structural component is usually visual. Upon noticing a deficiency, the
connections of the structure should be suspected and reference should be
made to the original building plans and design calculations, if any.
Surface improvements should be maintained in good condition and subsur-
face improvements installed within a sanitary landfill shoulo be repaired
or replaced when the structural factor of safety is less than 1.0.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Landfill gases may migrate a considerable distance (700 feet has
been recorded) from the fill, depending on the nature of the
soil formations around the fill.
X-26
-------
Gas movement from sanitary landfills takes place by molecular
diffusion and convective gas transport mechanisms. The rate
of t! is transfer is determined by the permeability charac-
teristics of the soil formations around the fill.
Landfill produced gase9 can and should be controlled and
directed to areas of harmless dispersal.
Control systems installed during this stucy have proven effec-
tive in interrupting the flow of migrating gases. Natural and
mechanical barriers may be provided, ventilation devices have
been demonstrated to be effective, and special design tech-
niques are logically promising.
Landfills are potential sources of pollutants to usable under-
ground waters. Water pollution from landfill sources may be
prevented by means other than prohibiting landfills over under-
ground usable water. The Leachate Pollution Index, developed
during the study, is a new and effective means of quantifying
and predicting the leachate pollution potential from sanitary
landfills.
Subsidence of the surfaces of sanitary landfills and dumps is
a prime inhibitor in planning for future use of completed sites.
Subsidence occurs in three phases: (a) initial subsidence;
(b) intermediate subsidence; and (c) ultimate subsidence. The
three phases of subsidence are subject to control. Initial
subsidence and ultimate subsidence investigations have resulted
in delineation of control parameters and formulation of a method
of quantification to predict ultimate subsidence under con-
trolled conditions.
Differential settlement may be incurred as a result of
loading the landfill surface. Buildings, surface improvements,
and subsurface structures can suffer damage or destruction if
constructed on sanitary landfills without proper regard for the
potential differential settlement.
The most frequently reported use of completed sanitary landfills
has bean recreational. A significant number of uses as indus-
trial, commercial, and residential were also reported.
X-27
-------
Planning, prior to landfilling, ior use of the completed
landfill surfaces has been reported to vary from nonexistent to
almost comprehensive, with corresponding successes. Planning
which included gas control was not reported. Planning for water
pollution prevention has been effective. Planning as a function
of subsidence and subsequent differential settlement generally
appears to be inherently cognizant of initial subsidence only,
in many instances.
(8) Many existing building codes do not provide Cor protection of
structures, located adjacent to, or on, refuse fills, frcm the
fire and toxic aazards of landfill produced gases. However,
some Building Officials are providing for this protection by
enforcing policy memoranda.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) Landfill locations should be selected to be compatible with
relevant elemen's of a functional general plan which includes:
(a) a land use plan, solid waste plan, and street and highway
plan; and (b) community ordinances which include a sanitary
landfill code, water pollution laws, building code, plumbing
code, electrical code, excavation and grading code, and engineer-
ing regulations and standard specifications. A recreational plan
could be beneficially included in (a) above for many communities.
Many landfills could be designed and constructed as an
engineered product with concern for the future property value,
manifesting the potential of the completed site.
(2) Gas movement, if any, adjacent to existing sanitary landfills
should be detected and traced. Gas monitoring programs should
be established. Local governmental agencies should implement
staff technical capabilities. Gas control system economics
should be quantified to develop optimally costed systems.
Improved gas control technology can result from further
research. Broader application can result from dissemination of
available knowledge to educators, engineers, and public officials.
X-28
-------
(3) Leac1 ate pollution prevention studies should be conducted, in
cooperation with State water pollution officials, to establish
the conditions under which selected manufactured leachate pol-
lution barriers may be utilized over strata bearing usable
jwaters.
Leachate characteristics should be examined as a function
of permeability through a variety of porous media to establish
capacities to prevent pollution of usable underground water.
(4) In order to minimize subsidence and related effects, the ratio
o£ inert cover material to biodegradable material can be
increased without detrimental effects on the economics of
"landfilling only" as compared to the next cheapest alterna-
tive, "incineration and residue landfilling."
The technical benefits of materials control will also
diminish subsidence effects but is probably not politically
attainable. Materials control should be continuous during
collection, transfer, and disposal to minimize heterogeneity.
Segregation by organic content and bulk reprocessing and recla-
mation, and pulverization such as hammermilling and comminuting
will also aid to minimize heterogeneity.
Any landfill that is in the path of urban development and
expected to be used within the next 20 years should be periodi-
cally monitored for subsidence.
(5) "Model Ordinance For Control of Sanitary Landfills" is now
available. This should be adopted in ordinance or code form
and used in concert with "Uniform Standards for Location,
design, Construction, and Maintenance of Sanitary Landfills
Subject to Sanitary Landfill Code" or other local or regional
standards.
X-29
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF REFERENCES CITED
A-
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF REFERENCES CITED
1. Sowers, G. F. Foundation problems in sanitary landfills. Journal of
the Sanitary Eng: neering Division, Proceedings, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 94(SA1):103-116, Feb. 1968.
2. Engineering-Science, Inc. Development of construction and use criteria
for sanitary landfills; first annual report. Los Angeles, County of
Los Angeles, and the Department of County Engineer, Oct. 1968.
3. Engineering-Science, Inc. Investigation on movement of combustible gases
from sanitary refuse landfills; final report. Los Angeles, Department of
County Engineer, July 1966.
4. Engineering-Science, Inc. Development of construction and use criteria
for sanitary landfills; second annual report. Los Angeles3 County of
Los Angeles, and Department of County Engineer, 1969. 400 p.
5. [Training coarse. Manhole atmosphere testing and manhole demonstration.
Unpublished data.]
6. Bishop, W. D., R. C. Carter, and H. F. Ludwig. Water pollution hazards
from refuse-produced carbon dioxide. Paper No. 10. Presented at Third
International Conference on Water Pollution Research, Munich, Germany,
Sept. 5-9, 1966.
7. Merz, R. C., and R. Stone. Factors controlling utilizatior of sanitary
landfill site; final report to Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Institutes of Health, United States Public Health
Service. Los Angeles, University of Southern California, [1963]. 125 p.
8. Engineering-Science, Inc. Effects of refuse dumps on ground-water quality.
California Water Pollution Control Board Publication No. 24. Sacramento,
1961. 107 p.
9. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard methods for the examination
of water and wastewater; including bottom sediments and sludges. 12th ed.
New York, American Public Health Association, Inc., 1965. 769 p.
10. McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf, eds. Water quality criteria. 2d ed.
California State Water Quality Control Board Publication No. 3-A.
Sacramento, 1963. 548 p.
11. Perry, J. H., ed. Chemical engineers' handbook. 2d ed. New York,
.McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1941. 3029 p.
A-1
-------
12. Investigation of the ground water quality impairment near Live Oak
Avenue and Peck Road in main San Gabriel Basin. A report to Los
Angeles Regional Water Pollution Control Board, No. 4. State of
California, Department of Water Resources, Southern District, 1961.
13. American Public Works Association. Municipal refuse disposal.
2d ed. Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1966. 526 p.
14. 'Krone, R. B., G. T. Orlob, and C. Hodgkinson. Movement of coliforra
bacteria through porous media. Sewage and Industrial Wastes Journal,
30(1):1-13, Jan. 1958.
15. Hygienic guide series; hydrogen sulfide. Detroit, American Industrial
Hygiene Association, 1962.
16. Gas engineeis handbook. 1st ed. New York, Industrial Press, 1966.
[1472 p.]
17. Ktynine,- D. P., and W. R. Judd. Principles of engineering geology and
'ge'otechnics. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1957. 730 p.
18. Ferguson, P. M. -Reinforced concrete fundamentals with emphasis on
ultimate strength. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965. 718 p.
19. The asphalt handbook. April 1965 ed. College Park, Md., Asphalt
^Institute, Mar. 1966. (Manual Series No. 4, MS-4.)
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LITERATURE REVIEWED
(3
-------
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LITERATURE REVIEWED
1. Sanitary land fill tests investigating; refuse volume reduction and
other phenomena. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, 84(SA6):1853(1-3),
Nov. 1958.
2. Sowers, G. F. Foundation problems in sanitary landfills. Journal
of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings, American Society
of Civil Engineers, 94(SA1):103-116, Feb. 1968.
3. A survey of sanitary landfill practices. Journal of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers,
87(SA4):65-84, July 1961.
4. Vincenz, J. L., P. T. Mitchell, T. E. Winkler, and J. R. Snell. A
survey of sanitary landfill practices; discussion. Journal of the
Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 88(1):43-49, Jan. 1962.
5. A survey of sanitary landfill practices. Journal of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers.
88(SA3):169-171, May 1962.
6. Status of refuse collection and disposal; SED research report no. 11.
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 83(SA1):1176(1-7). Feb. 1957.
7. Refuse volume reduction in a sanitary landfill. Journal of the
Sanitary Engineering, Division, Proceedings of the Americar Society
of Civil Engineers, 85(SA6):37-50, Nov. 1959.
8. Mitchel, D. T. Refuse volume reduction in a sanitary landfill;
discussion. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 86(SA3):165-166, May 1960.
9. Refuse volume reduction in a sanitary landfill; closure by Solid Waste
Engineering Section, of the Sanitary Engineering Research Committee, of
the Sanitary Engineering Division. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers. 86(SA6):85,
Nov. 1960.
10. Merz, R. C., and R. Stone. Factors controlling utilization of sanitary
landfill site; first progress report to United States Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institutes of Health, Public
Health Service. Los Angeles, University of Southern California, [1964].
32 p.
B-l
-------
11. [Ralph Storie and Company, Inc. Land reclamation by accelerated
stabilization; first annual progress report, June 1966 to May 31,
1967. City of Santa Clara.]
12. American Public Works Association. Municipal refuse disposal. 2d
ed. Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1966. 528 p.
13. American Public Works Association. Refuse collection practice. 3d
ed. Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1966. 525 p.
14. Vanderveld, J. J.j. Design and operation of sanitary landfills. In
APWA yearbook, 1964. Chicago, American Public Works Association,
p.242-246.
15. Anderson, R. L. Refuse collection equipment and manpower requirements.
In APWA yearbook, 1964. Chicago, American Public Works Association.
p.149-152.
16. Mossey, E. A. Metropolitan approach to refuse disposal. In APWA
yearbook, 1964. Chicago, American Public Works Association, p.108-127.
17. Cannella, A. A. The refuse disposal problem. Public Works, 99(2):116-121,
Feb. 1968.
18. An analysis of refuse collection and sanitary landfill disposal. Sanitary
Engineering Research Project, Technical Bulletin No. 8, Series 37.
[Richmond], University of California, Dec. 1952. 133 p.
19. Medley, G. H. When streets and buildings settle. American City,
81(3):32, Mar. 1966.
20. Smith, C. D. A sanitary fill inside the city. American City,
83(4):90-92, Apr. 1968.
21. McElwee, W. From landfills to streets. American City. 81f4):24,
Apr. 1966.
22. Stone, R., and M. Israel. Determining effects of recompaction on a
landfill. Public Works, 99(1):72-73, Jan. 1968.
23. Eliassen, R., F. N. O'Hara, and E. C. Monahan. Sanitary landfill gas
control; how Arlington, Mass. discovered and corrected a danger spot
in its sanitary landfill. American City, 72(12):115-117, Dec. 1957.
24. First, M. W., F. J. Viles, and S. Levin. Control of toxic and
explosive hazards in buildings erected on landfills. Public Health
Reports, 81(5):4l9-428, May 1966.
25. Disposal company serves 600 contractors and 50 municipalities. Solid
Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 11(5):28, 76, May 1968.
B-2
-------
26. Haw to use your completed sanitary landfills. American City.
80(8):91-94, Aug. 1965.
27. [Liebman, H« Marine park. American City. Jan. 1966.]
28. Fleming, R. R. Solid waste disposal. Part 1. Sanitary landfills.
American City, 81(1);101-104, Jan, 1966.
29. Landfill and hospital live in harmony. American City, 81(5):38,
May 1966.
30. McKinley, D. Field observation of structures damaged by settlement.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 90(SM5);249-268. Sept. 1964.
31. Feld, J. Tolerance of structures to settlement. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 91(SM3):63-77, May 1965.
32. Fife, J. A. European refuse disposal. American City, 81(9):125-128,
Sept. 1966.
33. Golueke, C. G., and P. H. McGauhey. Comprehensive studies of solid
waste management.- Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory Report
No. 67-7. Berkeley, University of California, May 1967. 202 p.
34. Zabetakis, M. G. Flammability characteristics of combustible gases
and vapors. U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 627. [Washington],
U.S. Department of the Interior, [1965]. 121 p.
35. Resolution No. 55-1. State of California, Regional Water Pollution
Control Board No. 4. Los Angeles, Jan. 1955, 5 p.
36. [John A. Lambie. Procedure for establishment and regulations for
operation of wastr disposal facilities. Los Angeles, Los Angeles
County Engineer, Nov. 1964.]
37. [Minimum regulations for dumps in the City of Los Angeles. Los
Angeles, Board of Public Works, Aug. 1959 as amended March 1965.]
38. Ordinance No. 9671. [An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1494, the
Zoning Ordinance...]. Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Nov. 1968.
1 p.
39. Ordinance No. 9689. [An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1494, the
Zoning Ordinance], Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Dec. 1968.
1 p.
40. Ordinance No. 9205 [An ordinance amending Sections 259.3 and 744 of
Ordinance No. 1494, the Zoning Ordinance...]. Los Angeles, County of
Los Angeles, Dec. 1966.
B-3
-------
41. Black, R. J. Recommended standards for sanitary lanrifill operations.
Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Sept.
1961. 45 p.
42; National-Solid Wastes Management Association and Bureau of Solid Waste
Management. Sanitary landfill operation agreement and recommended
standards for sanitary landfill design and construction. [Cincinnati],
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969. 44 p.
43. ifRSntucky Solid Waste Disposal. Laws and Regulations. [Acts of the
General Assembly.] Frankfort, Kentucky State Department of Health,
1968. 17 p.
44. Engrossed House Bill No. 596. 41st Regular session. Olympia, Wash.,
Feb. 18, 1969.
45. [Air pollution' control laws of New York State. Air Pollution Control
Board, 1966.]
46. Water pollution control. In McKinney's consolidated laws of New York;
annotated. Book 44. Public health law. Article 12. St. Paul, West
Publishing Company, [1954], p.292-263.
47. [Classifications and standards of quality and purity for waters of
New York State. Water Resources Commission, New York State Department
of>Health, 1967.]
48. [An ordinance providing for the health and welfare of [name of
municipality] by regulating the storage; collection, and disposal of
refuse, the -licenring of refuse collectors, and the providing penalties
fot the violation thereof. New York, New York State Health Department.]
49. Municipal refuse collection & disposal. New York, Office for Local
Government, Sept. 1964. 69 p.
50. [Ordinance No. 4845-66. South Bend, City of South Ben>l, Ind.]
51. Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act. Act No. 241. In Purdon's
Pennsylvania-legislative service. Laws; general, special and local
acts 227 to 318. 152nd General Assembly, 1968 Regular session,
recessed July 17, 1968. Philadelphia, George T. Bisel Company.
p.630-635.
52. Refuse disposal methods. Boston, Massachusetts Department of Public
Health, Division of Sanitary Engineering, 1965. 24 p.
53. Rules and regulations for the operation and maintenance of licensed
waste disposal areas. Harrisburg, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Mines and Mineral Industries, 1967. 16 p.
54. Ordinance No. 343. City of Livermore, California, Aug. 1956. 6 p.
B-4
-------
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
Ordinance No. 447. City of Livermore, California, Aug. 1956. 1 p.
The clean streams law of Pennsylvania. [Harrisburg], Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, 1966.
Vermont health regulations, chap. 11. [Montpelier], State Department
of Health, Apr. 17, 1969. 4 p.
Sanitary code of the State of Florida. Garbage and rubbish, [chap.
170 c-10.] Jacksonville, Florida State Board of Health, [1966],
Solid waste disposal rules and regulations; sanitary landfill area
no. 1 and 2. Port Huron, Mich., City of Port Huron, 1967.
[Ordinance S-99. South Bend, St. Joseph County, Ind., Aug. 1967.]
Sanitary landfill bulletin. Colorado Department of Health, [Denver],
Aug. 1969. 14 p.
Water, ice and sewerage laws of Maryland. Baltimore, State Department
of Health, Environmental Health Service, 1967. p.252-289.
Solid Waste Disposal Act; Act 87 of the Public Acts o.c 1965 and
Regulations. Lansing, Michigan Department of Public Health,
June 28, 1965. 10 p.
[Plan for disposal of waste chemicals; excluding all radioactive wastes.
Trenton, New Jersey State Department of Health, Feb. 1968.]
Elements of solid waste management [Training course manual]. Cincinnati,
Ohio, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Nov. 1969.
[Restricted distribution.]
Black, R. J.k A. J. Muhich, A. J. Klee, H. L. Hickman, Jr., and R. D.
Vaughan. The national solid wastes survey; an interim report.
[Cincinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education, ar.d Welfare,
[1968]. 53 p.
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
AT
SELECTED LANDFILL SITES
C-
-------
APPENDIX C
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Introduction
Pursuant to authorization from Engineering-Science, Inc., a subsurface
investigation was cor ducted by Converse, Davis and Associates at four sanitary
landfills identified as: (1) Site 1; (2) Site 3; (3) Site 12; and (4) Site 13.
The purpose of this investigation was to log the materials encountered dur-
ing subsurface exploration, to determine the in situ unit weights and moisture
contents, and to obtain bulk samples for laboratory analysis. Representative
samples of the materials encountered in the borings were obtained in the field
and subsequently pulverized. Representative samples of about one-half cubic
foot were shipped to the Engineering-Science, Inc. Research and Development
Laboratory in Oakland, California.
Two borings were drilled at each of the sites noted above and penetrated
through the sanitary landfill except at Site 12 where massive concrete was en-
countered at a depth of about 55 feet in each boring and could not be penetrated
with the drilling equipment. The locations of the borings made at each site are
shown on Drawing No. 1, "Location of Borings."
Summary of Data
The results of our investigation are presented in Table I, "Summary of
Data" and shows the computed in situ wet density, in situ dry density, moisture
contents, and the weight of rocks and metal removed from the samples.
C-l
-------
Continuous logs of the materials encountered in the borings were obtained
in the field by one of our field engineers. The boring logs are presented on
attached drawings. The depth that ground water was encountered in the borings
is also shown on the various drawings of the boring logs.
Field Equipment
The borings were advanced by utilizing a truck-mounted bucket auger rig
equipped with a 13-inch diameter drilling bucket especially designed and con-
structed for drilling sanitary landfill.
In some cases and to prevent sloughing in of material from the sides of
the boring above the sanple increment, the boring was advanced from one samp-
ling depth to another by utilizing either a conventional 16-inch diameter earth-
type drilling bucket or a 16-inch diameter rock-type drilling bucket. In most
cases, the sample itself was excavated with the special 13-inch diameter drill-
ing bucket. The sample locations are shown on the boring logs.
Field Density Determinations
The field density of the refuse was obtained by sampling and weighing all
material collected from a measured sample interval. The iample volume was
determined by measuring the depth of the sample increment with a weighted
steel tape referenced to a fixed point at the ground surface. The diameter of
the boring was visually estimated by use of a 12-inch long bar fixed at right
angles to the steel tape.
The materia] removed from the boring was dumped into 55-gallon steel
drums with the use of a plywood hopper. The weight of the materials was
C-2
-------
determined to the nearest 0. 1 pound, and the samples were then dumped onto
plywood sheets and thoroughly mixed. During the mixing operation, rocks lar-
ger than 3/4 inches in diameter and metals were removed by hand.
Moisture content of the refuse was determined by obtaining from one to
three representative samples and drying in an electric oven at 80 degrees Centi-
grade for a minimum period of 12 hours.
After mixing and moisture content sampling, the bulk sample was quartered
and loaded into a polyethylene bag contained inside a heavy wall, paper bag. The
bags were sealed to prevent loss of moisture.
The samples were then shipped to our laboratory in Pasadena where they
were stored for processing. Processing consisted of pulverizing the individual
bulk samples in a hammermill in which the material was graded to a maximum
size of about 1/4 inch. Approximately one-half cubic foot of each sample was re-
tained, sealed in a heavy wall, polyethylene bag and shipped to the Engineering-
Science, Inc. laboratories in Oakland, California.
Accuracy of Density Results
Field measurements, related to density determinations, were accurate to
the extent of reliably measuring the volume of the sample interval. It is con-
sidered that the diameter and depth of the sample wei e measured to an accuracy
of between 10 an<> 15 percent. Determination of moisture content was also sub-
ject to error in view of the variation in type of refuse encountered. In total, the
calculated dry density of the sampled material should have an accuracy of 1 5 to
20 percent.
C-3
-------
Sheet 1 of 3
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF DATA
Site
Boring
No.
n
¦t-
In Situ
No. of
Moisture
In Situ
Weight of
Sample
Wet Weight
W et
Mois-
Content
Dr y
G ravel
Sample
Depth
of Sample
Density
ture
Percent
Density
and Metals
No.
(feet)
(pounds)
(pcf)
Tests
Min. Max. Avg.
(pcf)
Removed(lbs^
1
13. 0-15. 0
274. 3
149.0
1
53.4
97.2
_
2
17. 0-18. 0
92.0
100. 0
1
37.0
73.0
4
3
23.0-26.0
370.2
134. 0
2
28.5 54.4 30.4
102.9
1
4
26. 5-29. 3
218.8
83. 6
1
20.9
69. 3
1
5
33.2-34.8
119.3
86. 5
1
70.8
50. 6
10
6
35. 2-36. 8
96. 3
69. 7
1
16.5
59.8
0
7
40. 0-41. 5
111.2
85. 0
1
64.5
51.7
0
8
45. 0-50. 0
460. 9
99.8
2
16.5 80.5 48.5
67.2
0
9
56. 5-60. 0
425.2
131. 7
2
19.5 25.2 22.4
107. 5
17
10
63. 5-64.8
159.0
129. 3
2
29.6 70.3 50.0
86.3
2
11*
68. 5-70. 0
288. 6
140. 0
1
24.5
112.3
15
12
71. 0-75. 5
463.2
111.0
3
28.6 38.0 33.8
83.0
10
Percent by
Wt. ofGravel
and Metals
Removed
4. 3
0.3
0.4
8.4
0
0
0
4.0
1.2
5.2
2.2
1 2
1
17. 0-22. 2
419.3
86. 6
2
56.3 104.9
80.6
47.9
23
5.5
2
2*
27. 0-28. 7
308. 3
200. 0
2
1 5 29.6
24. 6
161.0
12
3. 9
2
3
30.0-32.0
138. 0
74. 7
2
65.4 87.7
76.6
42. 3
8
5.8
2
4
35. 0-40. 0
501. 7
111.3
2
57.9 67.2
67.. 6
68. 6
15
3.0
* Density data invalid due to caving and raveling during sampling.
-------
Sheet 2 of 3
TABLE I (Cont'd.)
SUMMARY OF DATA
Sample
Boring Sample Depth
Site T'o. No. (feet)
In Situ No. of Moisture
Wet Weight Wet Mois- Content
of Sample Density ture Percent
(pounds) (pcf; Tests Min. Max. Avg.
In Situ Weight of Percent by
Dry Gravel Wt. ofGravel
Density and Metals and Metals
(pcf) Removedflbs.) Removed
2
5
45. 8-49. 0
306. 7
104.0
2
21.5
33.8
27. 7
81. 7
9
2.9
2
6
55. 0-57. 7
186.6
75.8
2
22.3
32.9
27.6
59. 5
8
4. 3
2
7
60. 0-65. 0
91.5
31.7
2
31.7
37.8
34.8
67.8
5
1.2
2
8
70.2-75. 1
434.4
97.5
3
17.8
67.0
41.3
68.8
11.5
2. 6
2
9
80. 0-81.3
100.8
82.0
2
30.9
40.0
35.4
60. 5
11
10.9
n
Ln
3
1
1
10. 0-15.2
264.9
54.8
2
26.9
27.4
27.2
43. 1
12
4.5
1
2
20. 0-25. 0
240. 9
52. 3
2
34.6
50.6
42.6
36. 7
11
4. 6
1
3
30.0-31.8
92.6
54. 7
2
61.3
97.4
79.3
30.4
5
5.4
3
2
1
3.0- 7.3
239. 3
cr
o
o
2
33.7
33.9
33.8
44. 9
21
8.8
2
2
13.0-18.0
232.9
50. 5
3
22.6
39.4
28.5
39.3
11
4.7
2
3
23. 0-28. 0
313.9
68. 0
2
?6. 1
32.8
29.4
52.5
12. 5
4.0
12
1
14. 0-15.8
128. 3
75.8
2
56.4
59.7
58.0
47. 5
5.5
4.3
2
Ul
•
00
1
•
o
99.6
92.5
2
34.4
34.8
34.6
o
00
•
2.5
2.5
3
17. 0-22.0
311.3
67. 5
2
29.5
43.6
36.6
49.4
8
2.6
4*
28.0-28.5
108. 1
-
2
46. 4
48.4
47.6
-
5
4. 6
5*
30.0-35. 1
1063.8
-
-
-
-
-
30
2.8
Hole caved and ravelled during sampling.
-------
Sheet 3 of 3
TABLE I (Cont'd.)
SUMMARY OF DATA
n
I
o\
In Situ
No. of
Moisture
In Situ
Weight of
Percent by
Sample
Wet Weight
Wet
Mois-
Content
Dry
Gravel
Wt. ©fGravel
Boring
Sample
Depth
of Sample
Density
ture
Percent
Density
and Metals
and Metals
Site
No.
No.
(feet)
(pounds)
(pcf)
Tests
Min. M»x.
Avg.
(pcf)
R emcved(lbs.)
Removed
12
2
1
8. 0-13. 0
226.9
49.0
2
19.8 45.9
32.8
36.9
8
3. 5
2
2
18. 0-22, 0
217. 3
70.2
2
35.4 54.1
44.8
48. 5
15
6.9
2
3
27. 0-32. 0
224.4
48.6
2
38.9 52.1
45.5
33.4
16
7. 1
2
4
37. 0-41. 2
418.9
109.2
2
9.4 12.1
10.8
98.6
77
18.4
2
5
41.2-46.2
370.4
80.0
2
27.0 35.1
31.0
61. 1
16
4.3
13
1
1
o
•
o
H
1
o
•
in
247. 3
53.5
2
40.9 60.1
50.5
35. 6
28. 5
11.5
1
2
o
•
1
o
•
H
231.3
75.3
2
40. 7 73.4
57.0
47. 9
12
5.2
13
2
1
5. 0-10. 3
238. 6
48.5
2
14.6 83.2
48.9
32. 6
23
9.6
-------
«BORI NG 2
ELEV 980'
30'
BORING 1
ELEV 101.r
o>
-------
LOG OF BORING 1
ELEVATION 101. 1 '
DATEDR.LLED Sepf# 23,1968
SAMPLES
DEPTH
IN
FEET eV C°
O-i
F
3-
lO-
IS-
L
20—
L
25-
30-
rN
1
S->1
2
• wl
rN!
4
11
55&i
&
fi
moist
very
moist
moist
very
't moist
moist
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
dense
loose
dense
very
soft
&
loose
dense
gray
brown
dark
gray
black
gray
brown
&
black
&
gray
& 25% gravel,
cobbles &
boulders to 15"
& concrete
& occ. organic
(grass, twigs &
palm leaves)
SILTY
& 40% rubble
(concrete tc 20"
asphalt piec es
& length of 2"
pipe )
SAND,
fine to
coarse
& 10% gravel
to 3"
&25% orgaric
(paper, twigs, etc)
& 30% gravel
& cobbles to 6"
REFUSE & 25% si I ty sand
& 5% gravel to 3"
(paper, plastic, wood,
grass twigs, leaves, glass,
metal, etc. )
2121.
SILTY SAND, &30% gr.to3
(continued!
REMARKS
very
difficult
drilling
difficult
drilling
No ground water encountered.
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 1
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C-g
-------
LOG OF BORING 1
(continued)
dati drilled Sept. 23 8. 24,1968
DEPTH
SAMPLES
„*$¦
rirr
-------
LOG OF BORING 1
(continued)
DATE DRILLED Sept. 24 & 25,1968
SAMPLES
DEPTH
FEET IT
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
REMARKS
F
65-
L 70-
L
75-
80-
wef
•VMciiS?
11
12
very
moist
very
loose
dense
very
loose
dense
v. soft
dense
&
very
loose
very
loose
moist
dense
black
gray
REFUSE &10% silty sand
& 5% gravel to 3" & metol
black
SILTY SAND, fine to cr.
&25% gravel & cbl to 6"
REFUSE &15% silty sand
& 5% gravel to 3" & metal
gray
black
gray_
&
black
SILTY
SAND,
- refuse
fine to
coarse
& 25% gravel &
occasional
cobbles to 6"
& 50% refuse
& 20% gravel &
occ. cobbles to9*
black
REFUSE
& 5% silty sand
& 5% gravel to 3"
& metal
gray
SAND, fine to coarse &
silty 30% gravel
sand & cobbles to 6"
small amounts of water
formed overnight at64>5
difficult
drilling-
slight
caving
Slight seepage below 40'- small amount of
water formed overnight at 64.5'- slight caving
from wet rands below 65' to 76.5'.
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 1
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C - io
-------
LOG OF BORING 2
ELEVATION
98.0'
date drilled Sept. 26,1968
SAMPLES
DEPTH
FEET 0°
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
o—I
F
10-
13-
L
20-
L
25-
30-
r>#
2
1) <>
3 c >
OA
;M§
i»V,vrV
.Cla2*vI
lis
WA
9?
i.vAV/.
dry
slightly
moist
moist
very
moist
wet
medium
Jense
very
loose
gray
brown
&
& 30% gravel
& cobbles
to 6"
dark
gray
SILTY
SAND,
fine to
coares
& alt.
silty sand
, & 30% rubble
(chunks of
concrete &
a. c. to 12",
& occasional
trash, wood,
etc. )
black
&
gray
REFUSE
& 10% silty sand streaks
& 5% gravel to 3"
& metal
REMARKS
slow
drilling
'perched water- seepage
(continued)
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 1
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C- 11
-------
LOG OF BORING 2
(continued)
date drilled Sept. 26 & 27,1968
DEPTH
,N 0
feet or
30-p-
OESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
REMARKS
T/.YM7,
^ «T • 4
V
x£>;*
F
3b
40
45-
L
50-
L
55-
60-
tvA-jy.
1V.W.V
u/i/r
VaV*'
*WAT/
^Wava
. . pngti
s^--/ Lv.VA'A'
ta:
TAViVr.*
'VvrAj
Ja$7a
&2&jI
to
&&&
UVA
very
loose
•Jense
very
moist
moist
very
loose
dense
very
loose
dense
"ery
loose
black
&
gray
gray
REFUSE &5% gravel to 3"
&]Q% silty sand stk. &inetal
black
&
gray
brown
&
gray
SILTY SAND, fine to cr.
& 30% gr. & cbl. to 6"
REFUSE
& 10% silty sand streak;
& 5% gravel to 3"
& metal
gray
SILTY SAND, fine to cr.
&30% gr. & cbl. tp 6"
black
&
gray
brown
&
gray
REFUSE
&10% silty sand streaks
& gravel to 3"
& metal
gray SILTY SAND, fine to cr.
brown &30% gr. & elh. to 9"
black 8
gr. brn.
REFUSE
& occ. gravel to 3" & metal
6" water formed
overnight at 52'
from seepage
at 24' to 30'
*6" water formed overnight at 52' (continued)
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 1
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C-/2
-------
LOG OF BORING 2
(continued)
DATE DRILLED Sept. 27 & 28,1968
DEPTH
IN .
FEET
SAMPLES
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
60-1
F
65-
70
L
75-
L
80-
85-
ffirxfZi
8
fX&TlA
fT?ATii
M*w
m?avSm
wZvJai
$$4
te-r*a
&»atA
-»WrWyJ
!&&
IP
titil
*,ViW
moist
very
loose
&
dense
de
nse
black
&
gray
brown
&
gray
& occasional
gravel to 3"
& metal
REFUSE
& 15% silty
sand streaks
to 3" with
30% gravel
to 3"
very
loose
dense
black
&
gray
brown
SILTY SAND 6.30% gr.to3"
REFUSE & metal
pieces to 5%
& occasional gravel to 3"
gray
SILTY
SAND,
fine to
coarse
& 30% gravel
SAND, & cobbles to 9"
fine to coarse
Only small amount of water above 52' encountered.
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 1
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C- 13
-------
SOCCER FIELD
f
FENCE
BORING 2 £
BORING Iffs
elev.^oT^
ELEV 29 6
street
LOCATION OF BORINGS
SITE 3
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
DATE Oct. 21,1968
scale 1 •' = 100"
c - 14-
-------
LOG OF BORING 1
ELEVATION 30.7'
DATE DRILLED Sept 28,1968
SAMPLES
DEPTH
,N .0--
moist
moist
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
REMARKS
30-J
light
brown
SANDY
& 1
stiff
gray
brown
SILT
& clayey silt
blue
gray
&
black
& alt. silty
clay & silty
sand
& occ. refuse
black
difficult
very
& 10%
slow drilling
Joose
&
gray
REFUSE
& 5%
rubble
clayey silt
in refuse
(metal &
brick )
&
& 5% silt
white
No ground water encountered.
(continued)
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 3
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C-/if
-------
LOG OF BORING 1
(continued)
Sept. 28,196R
DEPTH
IN
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
REMARKS
30
~
FILL
_i
35
very
moist
very
loose
stiff
black &
gr. & wh.
dark
gray
REFUSE & 5% silt
&5% rubble &30% silty cla)
SI LTV CLAY
No grounJ water encountered.
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 3
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
-------
LOG OF BORING 2
riON
29.6'
OATS DMILLCD Sept. 30,1968 & Oct. 1,1968
SAMPLES
IN -*<-
Ferr cP
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
F
J- 1
10-
m.
H
moist
15-
L
20—
L
stiff
very
loose
stiff
very
loose
gray
&
brown
SILT & SILTY CLAY
black
& 20%
silty sand
&
REFUSE
gray
&
white
& 5%
rubble
(metal &
concrete )
& sandy silt
blu gr.
black
&
gray
&
white
— sandy silt
& 20%
sandy silt &
clayey silt
No ground water encountered.
REMARKS
slow drilling
in refuse
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 3
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C- / 7
-------
LOG OF BORING 2
(continued)
Oct. 1,1968
DEPTH
,N 0
PECT
SAMPLES
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
REMARKS
moist
very
loose
stiff
medium
dense
black
& gra
& whi
I
REFUSE & 5% rubble
&30% sandy silt & clayey
silt
gr. brn. SANDY SILT &
&dk. or.I SILTY CLAY
ight
brown
SILTY SAND, fine
No ground water encountered.
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 3
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C-18
-------
1620' ALONG PROJECTED Q. OF
STREET TO
-------
LOG OF BORING 1
ELEVATION 96. 8'
DATE DRILLED Oct. 2, 1968
SAMPLES
DEPTH
FEET C°
o-
F
5-
10-
15-
L
20-
L
25-
30-1
1
k-Lviv*
W4*r "
H
w
'SjiM
v3?S
-
WAiv
SSSSfl
AVXSvt
wti
moist
very
moist
wet
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
stiff
very
soft
very
soft
firm
very
soft
firm
& soft
brown
&
SANDY
SILT
9r°y to
dark
blue
jroy
CLAYEY
SILT
& occasional
refuse
ak gray
& white
blue jr.
& black
REFUSE & 5% rubble
i&j5% sandy silt & clayey
SANDY SILT & CLAYEY"
Sill &.JSC% refuse
black
&
gray
&
white
REFUSE
~-sandy silt
& 20% sandy
5111
& 5% rubble
black
& 50% silt
& organic stain
& occ. rubble
seepage below 23'
(continued)
REMARKS
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 12
Subsuiface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
c-zo
-------
LOG OF BORING 1
(continued)
Oct. 2 & 3,1968
DEPTH
IN
FEET
SAMPLES
0V
30
mmnmwi
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
F
35
40 -
45 -
L
50
JjjftWr
%»•••4 •
NxJkV
"frl**;
.W2M
MJTATA'
KWAW
ZVVW.*
.yAVj
M« Wlk*
.VAf'
XTjl
||i
v\^Wj
Hv«M
¦&&?<
iTir.A
f.VAT.V."
OWv»
'' »¦« »•'
wet
very
soft
hard
black
REFUSE
& 50% silt
& occasional rubble
(metal, concrete, etc. )
gray
CONCRETE slab **
*could not break through
2' of water formed overnight with hole open to 34'
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 12
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C-Zl
-------
LOG OF BORING 2
elevation 106.4'
DATE DRILLED Oct . 4,1968
DEPTH
IN
FEET
SAMPLES
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
REMARKS
F
3-
lO-
15-
L
20—
L
25-
30-J
i>AVV,
fflVW,
M.Y«yi
WiW
itryA^
ww/V
[?.—
• -
M-!
UTAYaJ
m4
Vivtvw
\v.vAv
r/xr^TM
y •>d\» w,£
SSWS
dry
to
slightly
moist
to
moist
very
moist
firm
very
soft
moist
fi
rm
very
soft
light
gray
brown
& _
blue
gray
SANDY
SILT,
SILT &
SILTY
SAND,
fine
& 10% refuse
black
&
gray
&
white
REFUSE
& 20%
sandy silt
streaks to 6'
& 5%
rubble
black
& 50% silt,
organic stained
gray
black
&
gray
&
white
SILT & occasional refuse
REFUSE
& 5% silt
& 5% rubble
slightly
decomposed
very
decomposed
very decomposed
No rjround water encountered. (continued)
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 12
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
L
C - 22
-------
LOG OF BORING 2
(continued)
Oct. 4,1968
DEPTH
IN
rtiT
30-i
^ 0°^
DESCRIPTION OP MATERIAL
REMARKS
r/ivW,
35-
L
40-
L
m
>Sj«
SufcV*
moist
very
soft
soft
very
soft
black
& gray
& white
REFUSE
& 5%
rubble
& 5% silt
& 20% silt
& 40% silt
black
black
&
light
gray
SANDY SILT
& 5% refuse
& 20% rubble
(concrete to 12", brick,
a. c., metal, etc. )
REFUSE
& 10% silt
& rubble
slightly
decomposed
50 -
No ground water encountered.
SOIL INVESTIGATION
S I IE 1 2
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C-23
-------
STREET
^,R » SPIKE a SHINER
ASSUMED ELEV 100 O'
to
*
WIRE FENCE -
BORING t
99.3' ELEV
mi
3:
144
2
1-1
BORING 2
101.1'ELEV.
LOCATION OF BORINGS
SITE 13
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfil
OATE Oct. 21,1968
SCALE 1 » _
1 "= 50'
C-24
-------
LOG OF BORING 1
ELEVATION 95.3'
DATE DRILLED Oct. 1,1968
SAMPLES
DEPTH
IN 0V*
FEET C°
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
REMARK9
F
3-
10-
L
15-
20-
¦AW
m
M
MS®,
Jr.vi.V.V
HiS?yiu
dry
moist
very
moist
moist
soft
very
loose
stiff
dense
gray
brown
black
& brown
& gray
SANDY SILT,
CLAYEY SILT &
SILTY CLAY
REFUSE
& 30% sandy silt
black & 10% rubble
(metal, concrete, etc. )
dark
gray
SANDY SILT
SILTY SAND, fine
25-
SO-I
No ground water encountered.
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 13
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C-Z5
-------
LOG OF BORING 2
riON 101 • 1 '
DATS DRILLED Oct. 1,1968
SAMPLES
DEPTH
IN
feet e1
kOv*
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
REMARKS
L
io-
L
19-
IVA'l
Z^Vv.,
r*zz£.
wm:
H
dry
to
moist
very
moist
moist
firm
very
loose
stiff
gray
brown
to
light
brown
SANDY SILT,
SILT &
CLAYEY SILT
REFUSE
black & 10% Mndysilt
& 10% rubble
(metal, concrete, etc. )
blue
gray
brown
SILT
& occa-
sional
alkali
streaks
sandy
clayey
sandy
20-
25-
No ground water encountered.
30—1
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 13
Subsurface Investigation of Sanitary Landfill
C
-------
APPENDIX D
TABLES
D
-------
TABLE 1-1
RESPONSE TO SHORT FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
Land Use Number Reporting Use
Undetermined
10
Parks and Recreation
103
Industrial
31
Consnerclal
31
Agriculture
14
Home Sites
24
Airports
5
Sewage Treatment Facilities
3
School Facilities
12
Parking Lots
19
Storage Yards
20
Roads
5
Snow Dumps
3
Municipal Facilities
11
Fire Training Facilities
2
Mobile Home Park
2
Pistol Range
1
Arbore turn
1
Military Facilities
1
D-l
-------
T/y-'. :"J X- 2
SITE INVESTIGATIONS
Site
No.
Physical
Characteristics
of Site
Present Use
Adjacent
Property Use
Types of
Structures
on Landfills
Physical Conditions
of Improvements
Problems and Solutions
I
Depth: 20 ft
Age: 20 years
Class II refuse
golf course
restaurant
garages and
parking area
industrial,
recreational
wood frame
conventional
foundation
restaurant
supported on
caissons
uneven settlement
at garages, walk-
ways and paved
areas, light poles
out of plumb
some odors reported around
garages and golf course, poor
drainage in parking area,
trouble growing grass on golf
course, subsidence of garages,
parking area and golf course
2
Depth: 100 ft
Age: 7 years
Class II refuse
recreational
(ball park)
vacant
residential
none
lawn areas appear
to be in good
condition
No odors, settlement of ball
park and parking area
3
Depth: 19 ft
Age: 15 years
trap and
skeet range
industrial
wood frame
clubhouse -
rubbish re-
placed under
structure by
earth fill
excellent
none observed, plant growth
reported Inhibited
4
Depth: 28 ft
Age: 20 years
Class II refuse
trailer park
residential
wood frame
on slabs,
post and
be cons on
piles,
swimming
pool
some settlement,
gas service line
to trailer reported
broken
some settlement of trailer
spaces and minor settlement
of roads, gases controlled by
Tiki burners, Vinyl barrier
under slab over gravel
5
Depth: 110 ft
Age: 11 years
Class II refuse
Botanic
Garden
residential
concrete
block office
and green-
houses ,
office build-
ing on float-
ing slab
foundation
cracks around front
of office building-
improvements are
filled periodically.
Temperature affects
plant growth
gas seepage to adjacent pro-
perty, gas found in green-
houses, cracks developed
along edge of fill. Membrane
installed under one greenhouse
with vent system
-------
TABLE 1-2
SITE INVESTIGATIONS (Continued)
Site
No.
Physical
Characteristics
of Site
Present Use
Adjacent
Property Use
Types of
Structures
on Landfills
Physical Conditions
of Improvements
Problems and Solutions
6
#
Depth: 80 ft
Age: 10 yeara
Class II refuse
department
"tore
commercial
residential
one story
L-rick on a
floating slab>
grade beams on
piles
floor has settled
unevenly, minor
cracking of build-
ing wall, settle-
ment of parking
area
no gas problems, settlement
of structure and parking area
causing breaks in utility
lines. Light poles out of
plumb. Grade in drainage
channel lost
7
Depth: 14 ft
Age: 6 years
residential
and commercial
refuse
18 hole golf
course
airport
light
industries
wood frame
club house on
floating foun-
dation, park-
ing lot and
road
no problems
none
8
Depth; 25 ft
Age: 30 years
residential and
commercial re-
fuse, construc-
tion and demo-
lition debris
parking lots
marina, boat
ramp
small build-
ing-marina
administra-
tion, rest
rooms, bait
shop, and
club houses
wood frame on
piles
uneven roads,
shifting of build-
ing, rupture of
utility pipes
some odor but not serious,
subsidence of structures
9
Depth: 25 ft
Age: 20 years
residential and
commercial re-
fuse, sewage
sludge
none
vacant,
light in-
dustry,
ocean
none
subsidence, restricts
construction potential
-------
TABLE 1-2
SITE INVESTIGATIONS (Continued)
Site
No.
Physical
Characteristics
of Site
Present Use
Adjacent
Property Use
Types of
Structures
on Landfills
Physical Conditions
of Improvements
Problems and Solutions
10
Depth: 12 ft
Age: One year
residential and
commerical
refuse
none
vacant,
evaporation
ponds, ocean
none
none
11
Depth: 40 ft
Age: 7 months
residential,
commercial and
institutional
refuse
roadway
residential
none
no problem
none
12
Depth: 4-5 ft
Age: 2 years
domestic
garbage
grazing
farming
steel frame
equipment,
shade
no response
odors, from decaying organict
13
Depth: 20 ft
Age: 8 years
Class II refuse
industrial
building,
railroad
spur and
auto parking
park, free-
way, indus-
trial
one story wood
frame on con-
crete floor
slab, piles to
natural ground
building.is in ex-
cellent condition
railroad spur settles where
railroad cars stand. Plan-
ters and walks cracked.
Landscape sprinkler broken
due to settlement. Fire
sprinkler line broken due to
settlement. Utility tren-
ches filled with sand are
acting as gas vents
-------
TABLE 1-2
SITE INVESTIGATIONS (Continued)
Site
No.
Physical
Characteristics
of Site
Present Use
Adjacent
Property Use
Types of
Structures
on Landfills
Physical Conditions
of Improvements
Problems and Solutions
14
Depth: 20-40
Age: 6 years
ft
industrial
industrial
tilt up con-
crete, float-
ing floor,
piles and
grade beams
building partly on
fill. Utilities
not in fill. All
good condition,
few floor cracks
gas and odors, now con-
trolled by vents through
floor to roof. Explo-
sive concentrations
found by "Explosimeter"
15
Depth: 20 ft
Age: 12 years
mobile
home park
residential,
commercial
wood frame
on concrete
8 lab
roads settled,
swimming pool lost.
Wash rooms settled.
Electrical conduit
is o.k.
sewers need perpetual
maintenance, manholes
settled. Roads repaved
often. Surveyed peri-
odically.
16
Depth: 20 ft
Age; 8 years
park
residential,
agricultural
steel, pre-
fabricated
building
concrete
pier
maintenance re-
quired
settlement of building,
was raised, asphalt
floor installed
17
Depth: 60 ft
Age: 6 years
rubbish
transfer
station
pistol range
steel frame,
reinforced
concrete re-
taining
walls
maintenance
required
- floor crack allows gas,
odors to enter. Utili-
ty lines break occa-
sionally. Odors and
gases have given em-
ployees headaches
18
Depth: 10-30
Age: 8 years
ft
park
industrial
buildings
under con-
struction
spread foot -
ings on
natural
grade
under construc-
tion
none
-------
TABLE 1-2
SITE INVESTIGATIONS (Continued)
Site
No.
Physical
Characteristics
of Site
Present Use
Adjacent
Property Use
Types of
Structures
on Landfill!
Physical Conditions
of Improvements
Problems and Solutions
19
Depth: 20-60 ft
ball park,
concession
stand,
rest rooms
pistol range,
residential
frame and
plywood;
sheathing
floating
slab,
spread
footings
buildings look good
. leaning light standards
Sane pavement separation
at buildings due to
settlement
-------
TABLE 1-3
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
3
I
ATM
Ho.
Sis* of
Fill
¦*y»» o*
nil
Dally
tlfuM
Lift
riMi
Earth
Coiar
-------
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
Arti
Ho.
SIM Of
Pill
Type of
Fill
Oaily
UfuM
Lift
(ft)
Daily
Earth
Covir
(ft)
Pinal
&arth
Cover
lock,r«lo-
forcod con-
MU|bricL<
8
47
tooa
Nona
Rodent aad pest
control progra
facial nalntenaaca oo
structures. Periodic
filllot of grr*=d near
structures. Football
flald la settling.
7
63 ac(«i
M ft
dmm*
(1ml
iri< and
pit)
JX garti|i
4®X nbfelih
in yard
tr 1—Inia
151 bulk
nfoM
201 COBStRK*
tloa aad
dooll*
lltieo
debris
4
0.)
2
Vacant
ComrUI
(Airpert)
Mood (r«a»
•taol froaa.
concrete
block OB
concrete
slab 14 inch
pipeline
10
14*7
low disposed io
vlstar offaito
runoff (1) acres
draioaia uta)
additional 206
It/yt applied
ground watar at
6 (t.
Rone
Controlled by
Daily cover
Hart leal wvooot haa
boaa recorded.
8
6 «eiM
14 ft
(opto
im)
to
UlpOBM
to
fcoSfKMJO
Ho
ItlpOQM
to
hifw
Kasidontiai
CoMreitl
Concrete
block oo
concrete
alab. 8ani-
tcry aaaari
and water
liaai
6
16
Offsite runoff
(120 aero drain-
age araa)
HO
Response
Ho
Rospooee
(facial Maintenance of
utilities and periodic
leveling of structure
9
15 aerii
6 ft
iSLmm
OpOB
INI,
aad
caayoa)
25X |«xt«|a
601 cubbish
101 yaxd
51 ladw
trial
' 6
0.5
2
Vacant
torn
to
aeeponse
18-20
Offslte runoff
(30 aero drain-
««a araa)
tona
Bo
teeponae
Operating under U. S.
Public Health Great»
requested to contact
U.8.P.B.5.
-------
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
Araa
Ma.
Sin of
rui
TT9* «*
rtu
Otilf
S*foM
Lift
«t)
telly
Urtii
Cow
(ft)
f lul
Kcrth
COMI
(•«• imr laid la
na*mtta>y fill
14
It «cm
(Iml,
pit tad
Wf >
_ So data
NO
Uifoeti
toi^nii
3*
ltil4tfltUl
Mod fraoa ,m-
laforcod (o»>
•rata oo pll»
log od coo-
erst* «lak,
i«wn, iton
Irtlni, and
nut lUai
10
no
btpoMe
Groundwater at
• ft
Yea
Varr little
•tor
Ortvavar* tUi, all
•wan, iraln, pi
Uaai era oo pltaa
-------
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
I
Area
(to.
Sis* of
Fill
Type of
Ftll
Daily
lafuu
Life
(ft)
Dally
Earth
lover
(ft)
y Inal
Earth
Cover
(ft)
Adjacent
Property
Use
Typa of
Structures
on mi
Age Whan
Structures
Vera Built
(years)
Annual
Rainfall
(Inches)
Other Water
Sources
Groundwater
Sources
Odor and
Nuisance
Prodtau
Other Problems
or
Selvclrsf
15
120 acres
25 ft
dMp
3
*0
Rasponse
2
Bona
Horn
"
16
Offslte runoff
(10 acre drain-
age area)
No
Response
No
Response
Vertical aovaaot
has bean recorded.
ie
22 «cm
2S-30 ft
d««p
(open
cna ud
—|ii)
SI |izb«|i
by raljM
Mil iU«d
with rubbish
lo rttlo of
1 to 4
3
Bo
Biipofut
2
Nona
Nona
IS
Nona
Bo
Response
No
Response
ttsrtleal aovannt has
boon recorded.
19
1ft acres
22-113 ft
dttp
(canyon)
471 houMbold
121 ladus-
trl«l
61 liatar
41 |nd«a
MUUI
231 solid
fill
61
15- 20
0.73
2-3
hma
^ona
16.S
None
Ho
Rasponaa
No
Raspoeaa
Wa. ct ".ai sonant has
been recorded.
-------
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
0
1
Am
Me.
tin of
Pill
Tyf of
Pill
Dally
hf«iM
Uft
(ft)
Dally
Inch
Cover
(ft)
Pinol
Korth
Cowr
(ft)
Adjacent
Property
UN
Tm of
Structures
on Pill
Age When
Structures
Mara Built
(years)
Annual
Rainfall
(Inchon)
Otter Ujcar
Souicai
Groundwater
tourcas
Odor and
Muiaoace
Probleas
Other Problems
or
Solutions
20
*0 acm
(ccayoo)
771 rvbbtib
231 itmt
rafoN
9
1
2
lOM
kpcm
—
IS
No
Response
HO
Response
Vertical an nooin
has boon racordad
21
)) Mm
110 ft
doo»
(»tt)
)0t houMhold
in igdui-
trlol
tn lootoar
)t gardan
vuUi
in miu
fill
91 OlSCsl-
Itatout
13-20
0.79
2-y
Bono
None
is
Nona
NO
Response
No
Response
Uardcel Boveaent
has boon rocordod
22
IS acrvi
» ft
dMp
(canyon)
MR garbage
51 jiird
trlaio|s
31 itmt
rtfuM
261 Indus-
trial
141 construc-
tloo and
daeli*
tloa
dabrls
12
1
i
Mitdsnttcl
HODO
23
Offslte surface
runoff
Hons
No
Response
2)
10 MM*
15 ft
imp (pit)
Ml |utt|a
51 hard u(«<
lo|i
SI It Ht
r«(uM
261 laduitiul
141 cowtrvc*
tioo and
J—oil*
tloa
dabrls
12
1
i
Industrial
Brick on con-
crata alab
or piling,
••war* and
itm drains
3
23
Offsftto surface
runoff (10 acra
-------
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
a
I
Art*
Ho.
Six* of
Fill
Typa of
Ftll
Mly
fcafuaa
Lilt
-------
T*ftTfK T~~* (Continued)
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
a
I
CO
Am
Ho.
Sin «f
fill
Type of
Pill
Daily
tofuse
Lift
(ft)
Dolly
earth
Cowr
(ft)
Final
Berth
Ctfwr
(ft)
Mjecont
Property
Uoo
Type of
Structures
w- nil
f|i Whoa
Structures
Here BoftU
(yoara)
H»l
Bolnfetl
(lacbea)
Other Uator
fourcoa
Groundwater
Sources
Odor ad
RuiMoea
Probloa
Othar fnlla>
or
loUtiSBS
27
IS acrti
20 (t
d^a
(tidal
•ra«)
Ml |ota|i
40t rubbish
St jr«rd
irtwlnn
3t balhy
nfuN
It itmt
refuao
It construe*
11m «ad
dew> 11-
tlon
detorla
6
I
2
Soy waters
Wood frane oa
|UiB|. »«al-
ttfy MMri
3
10
tea vatar
Tidol fill
ao probln
Gas fndoetloD
to garbage fill
Speclei Mlatsana
on itroetima,
tilcod pi Los
It
•0 eerei
18 ft
doap
(lM«)
HO
lUtpOflM
4
0.3
2
Cemmtc lal
Hood (roM oo
ceocrtM a lab,
severs and
water Hoot
O.S
31
tone
Hone
Controlled by
ortbol dlsio-
factaat
29
Mo
UtfOBM
(canyon)
101 vard
C(l«tB|l
«Ol bulky
ttfttS*
1SI street
nfuM
131 lodus*
trial
6 too per day
n—p trtat*
MM mldai
Ho
UipOBM
l.S
3
Vacant
Hood fraM,
water lines
0.5
Ho
Response;
Hon
Noao
Shoot fulls and
rodoats and
syray with
chnicali
*"Dsn plenty of equip-
30
10 Mires
19ft
»eep
tOpOB
UOa)
501
»: nbtlih
101 yard trl»
alo|s
lOt balk refiM
20t urMt
n(oa«
SX Industrial
St cooMtrvc
tloo cod
dtMll<
tioa
debrta
5
3
3
Residential
Industrial
Vaceat
Coaerato
block oo
fUtai
s
40
Hone
Hone
H0
Mipoou
Special ¦elniaaaia a
and pvr iodic lanlUg
-------
TABU 1-3 (Continotd)
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
0
1
Arti
No.
Sis* of
Pill
Type of
Pill
Dally
Bafuu
Lift
(fe>
Dally
Earth
Cover
(ft)
Final
Earth
Coiif
(ft)
Adjaeant
Property
Use
Typo of
Structures
on Pill
Ago Whao
Structuros
Were Built
l«b.
NNri and
atom drains
3
36
Ho
fcasponse
None
No
blpOOM
"Gat good ii^ntlan"
32
8 ac ras
10 ft
dMp
(tVMpt)
9)1 |arbi|i
5% yard
6
0.3
2
Residential
Wood fr«s on
coacnta a lab*
•mri and
water ltoaa
2
34
6 ft
none
Pip* laying axcarttioa
tmta* odera
33
t40 acrai
13 ft
dMP
(Open
¦n<)
231 garbage
10% rukbiah
101 lodus-
trial
901 construc-
tion and
Mi-
tlon
dtbrli
4.5t im««i
trtintat
r«ildu««
751 avg. aols-
ture
1
1
So
kaaponao
Taduatrial
r iMircial
Uatar
Wood frane,
coneroto
block,on con*
crota slabs
and struc-
tural floatioj
slab
6
Bo
Kaappose
Groundwater at
3 ft
"Polio* landfill
ylmlaa"
34
HO
tOlpOOM
(OpOO
uu and
napD
100% garbage
4
No
totpensa
2
Raaideotlal
Brick
6
Ho
RtlpOdM
Nona
No
kaaponae
NO
Boapoaaa
-------
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
0
1
Dally
Dally
i iaal
«(• fee*
Annual
lafuM
Earth
Earth
Adjacent
Ty»» of
(tructarti
Rainfall
Other Vaier
Groundwater
Odor and
Other Preble**
Ani
Site of
Type of
Lift
Cover
Cover
Property
Structures
Kara Sullt
• Inches)
Sources
Sources
•ulaaace
or
Ho.
rui
Fill
*
15 acraa
Mtkdtndal
n-is
One
2
hitol
ka inferced
Constructed
14
Jacking, filling with
60 ft
gsrbaga and
rant*.
concrete.
(Mediately
block* and trout*
deep
rubb1sh
Residential
conventional
aftar coapla*
broken Boners end vater
-------
...JLE 1-3 (Com limed)
RESPONSE TO LONG-FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
a
I
Art*
Ho.
Sit* of
Fill
Type of
Mil
Daily
Refute
Lift
(ft)
Daily
Eittli
Cover
tf«>
t lnel
Eert*i
Cov«r
(ft)
Adjacent
Proftrtjr
UM
Trpa of
Struttares
on Fill
Afa Vboa
Structural
Vere tuftlt
(yoere)
Aanual
Rainfall
(inches)
other water
Sources
Gromdvatar
Source a
Odor aad
hlttaea
Problem
Other rrofcleaa
or
Solutions
)8
He
laspooM
NO
Rosponge
NO
Respoao*
No
KeapacM
No
teipoaae
Ko
HO spoil It
no
Heapocac
No
Response
(to
Response
KO
Response
tto
MipcaM
Seagulls are a
haaard to Air-
craft
Response was a 136 P*ge
booklet of Indigenous
recoMendations.
39
23 «cr«i
78 U
bolcw
vitir
table
Garbage
brush and
garden rafuac
70.000 ton/
year
Residential
Light poles,
fenc»t,
butball
back*top,
clubhouse,
obaervat ion
tower. pave-
aent.
Watar tabli
4»ove botcob
of fill.
HjS do* to da*
caafMltlwe of
otfialci under
the «at«r.
Fill cMio«r«d luiftu,
udlua nitrate reduced
BjS froa ) ppm to 0 ppa
In Mo week. DO than
was 4 pfa. "Cheeper than
eerstloa".
40
19 acraa
20 to 30
ft.
Co lis of
20-30 ft
dlnor
105 sub-
division
lota
)SZ of roads
craversa
fill, sani-
tary land-
fill cells
and 63 lota
90 calls.
Groundwater
4'-12< below
aurfoco.
Toxic, (iMlbll
S*mi.
Sett Icaent * najor pro*
|taa reccwonded In 12
page report (or surface
and subturfece recon-
struction, venting and
seeding.
61
16-18 ft
dttp,
35 ft
deep at
cm* end.
Racraatlon
•Ml.
30O x tOO ft
bull41q
with con-
crete slab,
water. gas.
••vara la
(round.
Electrical
on aurfaca.
Asphalt
Incineration
Fire free goto* Ignited,
pasting through crock*
in the slab* Went ln-
atolled later (Building)
Settlement at Incinerator
-------
TABLE II-l
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 2-B
Depth
Settle-
Lateral Movement
of Fill
Elevations
ment
(ft)
Monument
(ft)
5/22/67
12/11/67
6/10/G9
12/02/68
5/14/69
10/23/69
(ft)
North
East
CL
1
24
1078.80
1078.80
1078.80
1078.80
1078.80
1078.80
0.00
0.01
0.00
CL
2
104
1139.07
1138.71
1138.46
1138.23
1137.98
1137.82
1.25
0.16
0.33
CL
3
92
1141.53
1141.21
1140.98
1140.77
1140.55
1140.45
1.08
0.20
0.36
CL
4
73
1143.32
1143.05
1142.85
1142.67
1142.49
1142.43
0.89
0.20
0.27
CL
5
78
1143.98
1143.70
1143.51
1143.33
1143.15
1143.08
0.90
0.19
0.23
CL
6
112
1145.88
1145.55
1145.30
1145.09
1144.89
1144.78
1.10
0.13
0.22
CL
7
113
1145.97
1145.57
1145.29
1145.03
1144.80
1144.66
1.31
-0.03
0.20
CL
8
104
1147.05
1146.68
1146.40
1146.16
1145.87
1145.71
1.34
0.04
0.20
CL
9*
-
1180.01
-
-
-
-
-
0.00
0.00
-0.02
CL
10
54
1138.24
1138.01
1137.85
1137.70
1137.51
1137.44
0.80
0.07
0.24
CL
11
22
1134.76
1134.66
1134.59
1134.51
1134.41
1134.39
0.37
-0.09
0.05
CL
12
53
1131.15
1131.02
1130.93
1130.82
1130.67
1130.61
0.54
-0.06
0.11
CL
13
-
1128.81
1128.75
1128.71
1128.65
1128.60
1128.55
0.26
-0.01
0.00
CL
14*
-
1126.98
1126.98
1126.98
1126.98
1126.98
1126.98
0.00
-0.01
-0.03
* Control monuments on ground adjacent to fill.
-------
TABLE II-2
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 3
Depth Elevations Change in Elevation
of Fill (ft)
Station (ft) 8/03/67 1/29/68 6/12/68 12/03/68 5/19/69 10/22/69 +
Line A:
1+00
-
29.37
29.26
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
0.11
2+00
-
30.23
30.13
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
0.10
2+00 Grnd.
-
-
-
28.4
28.5
28.4
-
0.0
0.0
2+57.3
-
-
-
-
29.50
29.5
29.47
0.03
3+00
29
29.54
29.55
29.54
29.47
29.35
29.34
0.20
4+00
29
29.42
29.36
29.34
29.27
29.24
29.20
0.22
5+00
29
29.78
29.69
29.63
29.52
29.46
29.40
0.38
5+61
30.5
31.04
31.05
31.03
30.97
30.95
30.93
0.11
5+86.7
-
30.7
30.8
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
0.0
0.0
6+00
-
30.5
30.5
30.5
30.5
30.5
30.5
0.0
0.0
7400
-
30.0
29.9
30.0
30.3
30.2
30.2
0.2
7+90.6
-
30.1
30.1
30.0
30.1
30.0
30.1
0.0
0.0
8+00
29.5
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.1
30.0
30.1
0.1
9+00
29
29.6
29.7
-
29.9
29.5
29.7
0.1
10+01.
29
29.31
39.30
29.27
29.19
29.14
29.12
0.19
Line B:
1+00
28.17
28.22
28.16
28.13
28.12
28.13
0.04
1+75
-
-
-
29.51
29.50
29.46
29.47
0.04
2+00
29
29.24
29.20
29.40
29.36
29.31
29.28
0.12
2+19
-
-
-
29.6
29.55
29.4
29.37
0.23
2+82
_
-
-
30.0
30.01
30.0
29.94
0.06
3400
28.5
29.96
29.92
30.05
30.02
29.96
29.94
0.11
-------
TABLE II-2 (Continued)
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 3
Depth Elevations Change in Elevation
of Fill (ft)
Station (ft) 8/03/67 1/29/68 6/12/68 12/03/68 5/19/69 10/22/69 +
Line B
3444.4
-
-
-
30.1
30.06
30.0
29.90
0.20
3+5L.5
-
30.13
30.03
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
0.10
3+51.8
-
-
-
30.0
29.85
29.8
29.70
0.30
4400
29.7
30.15
30.14
30.08
30.05
30.03
29.97
0.18
44-39.4
-
-
-
-
30.72
30.67
30.65
0.07
4454
30
30.76
30.70
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
0.06
4+64.7
-
-
-
30.77
30.72
30.65
30.62
0.15
5+00
30
30.4
30.7
30.0
30.5
30.5
30.4
-
-
6+00
30
30.3
30.2
30.2
30.3
30.2
30.3
-
-
7400
29
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.7
29.6
29.7
f-l
*
o
8+00
29
29.1
29.0
29.0
28.9
28.7
28.7
0.4
8+14.8
28
28.59
28.32
28.20
28.05
27.89
27.71
0.78
Fioor-H.T. DR
-
30.28
30.13
29.94
29.83
29.63
29.43
0.85
Floor-V.T. DR
-
30.39
30.27
30.18
30.05
29.92
29.81
0.58
Tloor-Off. DR
-
30.83
30.8i
-
-
-
-
0.02
Floor-L. Rm.
-
30.86
30.85
30.75
30.70
30.69
30.65
0.21
Floor-M-RR
-
-
-
30.70
30.65
30.57
30.53
0.17
Floor-S.B.
-
30.86
30.76
30.59
-
30.46
30.31
0.55
Slab S.B. NW
-
30.85
, 30.80
30.69
30.64
30.58
-
0.27
Slab S.B. NE
-
30.51
30.34
30.49
30.38
30.25
30.16
0.35
-------
TABLE II-3
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 5
Monument
Settle-
Elevations ment
4/27/65 6/30/67 1/30/68 6/13/68 12/04/68 5/19/69 10/24/69 (ft)
Lateral Movement
(ft)
North East
Comfort Stations:
North Station:
9/03/68
S. Corner
W. Corner
375.60
375.55
375.52
375.47
375.36
375.27
375.26
375.16
0.34
0.39
South Station:
NW Corner
SW Corner
6 FT N of SW Cr.
SE Corner
NE Corner
416.63
416.62
416.61
416.63
416.59
416.57
416.56
416.54
416.56
416.54
416.42
416.41
416.40
416.38
416.35
416.38
416.36
416.32
416.29
0.25
0.26
0.21
0.31
0.30
Monument
Depth
of Fill
(ft)
Elevations
4/4/64 10/28/66 12/04/68 5/19/69 10/24/69
Settlement
(ft)
Since 4/4/64
101
80
382.37
381.85
381.53
381.41
381.38
0.99
103
100
382.36
381.63
380.92
376.11
6.25
104
90
387.57
387.28
386.98
386.99
386.82
0.75
105
95
382.46
381.76
381.34
381.29
381.19
1.27
106
120
287.91
386.60
385.78
385.64
385.48
2.43
107
130
390.08
387.02
388.32
388.23
388.12
1.96
108
130
386.64
385.77
385.15
385.05
384.89
1.75
109
95
382.20
381.31
380.86
380.72
380.58
1.62
-------
TABLE II-3 (Continued)
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 5
Monument
Depth
of Fill
(ft)
Elevations
4/4/64 10/28/66 12/04/68 5/19/69 10/24/69
Settlement
(ft)
Since 4/4/64
110
95
375.53
374.46
373.97
373.89
373.80
1.73
111
115
387.28
386.55
386.17
386.12
386.06
1.22
112
125
393.86
392.64
391.97
391.86
391.75
2.11
113
120
392.69
392.06
391.80
391.77
391.75
0.94
114
95
378.26
377.54
376.91
376.72
-
1.54
116
90
388.86
386.99
386.13
386.04
386.00
2.86
117
90
386.00
384.13
383.47
383.36
382.32
2.68
118
75
370.10
367.85
367.16
387.03
-
3.07
120
85
374.10
371.98
371.10
371.00
-
3.10
121
46
356.81
355.55
355.12
355.05
-
1.76
-------
TABLE II-3 (Continued)
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 5
Settle- Lateral Movement
Elevations ment (ft)
North East
Monument
4/27/65
6/30/67
1/30/68
6/13/68
12/04/68
5/19/69
10/24/69
(ft)
Line A
N3000/E2900
406.L9
406.12
406.77
406.75
406.50
406.46
+0.27
N3000/E3000
388.89
388.54
388.50
388.47
388.49
388.37
388.31
0.58
N3000/E3100
372.65
372.62
372.61
372.66
372.51
372.43
0.22
N3000/E3200
351.13
351.13
351.10
351.18
350.97
350.90
0.23
N3000/E3300
343.17
343.17
343.15
343.22
343.23
-
+0.06
M3000/E3400
355.89
355.49
355.47
355.53
355.53
355.48
0.41
N3000/E3500
361.39
361.33
361.33
361.27
361.30
361.29
361.21
0.18
N3000/E3600
369.96
369.88
369.83
369.80
369.73
369.62
0.34
N3000/E3700
371.77
371.71
371.67
371.65
371.58
371.52
0.25
N3000/E3800
378.89
378.83
378.75
378.76
378.66
378.59
0.30
N3000/E3900
384.27
384.13
384.07
384.01
383.90
383.80
0.47
N3000/E4100
384.06
384.00
383.94
383.87
383.79
383.68
0.38
N3000/E4200
384.07
383.98
383.90
383.89
383.79
383.70
0.37
N3000/E4300
364.68
364.40
364.25
364.11
363.79
363.43
1.25
N3000/E4382.89
344.09
-
344.08
344.10
344.12
344.08
0.0L
Line B:
N3500/E2016
409.82
409.80
409.81
409.82
409.81
0.01
N3500/E2121
409.39
409.34
409.39
409.33
409.33
409.32
0.07
N3500/E23C6
408.86
408.82
408.87
408.81
408.86
408.86
0.00
N3500/E2500
410.84
410.83
410.85
410.81
410.85
410.85
¦W.01
N3500/E2666
408.55
408.48
408.52
408.42
408.43
408.42
0.13
N3500/E2815
399.40
399.30
399.32
399.23
399.15
399.06
0.34
-------
TABLE II-3 (Continued)
SETTLEMENT RECCRD AT SITE 5
Settle- Lateral Movement
Elevations
ment
Monument 4/27/65
6/30/67
1/30/68
6/13/68
12/04/68
5/19/69
10/24/69
(ft)
Line B
N3500/E3000
387.50
387.33
387.29
387.16
386.96
386.87
0.63
N3500/E3120
380.31
380.16
380.14
380.05
379.94
379.90
0.41
N3500/E3257
343.23
343.00
342.98
-
-
-
0.25
N3500/E3317
-
327.29
327.21
-
-
-
0.08
N3500/E3361
-
325.85
325.66
325.41
-
-
0.44
N3500/E3447
345.73
345.21
344.87
344.38
343.52
342.57
3.16
N3500/E3500 357.51
355.97
355.64
355.45
355.10
354.52
353.84
3.67
N3500/E3600
371.01
370.81
370.71
370.53
370.40
370.17
0.84
N3500/E3700
379.51
379.29
379.20
379.04
378.90
378.69
0.82
N3500/E3800
386.94
3B6.70
386.61
386.45
386.34
386.19
0.75
N3500/E3900
391.24
391.04
390.96
390.82
390.73
390.60
0.64
N3500/E4100
392.81
392.58
392.45
392.33
392.17
392.03
0.78
N3500/E42Q0
390.89
390.65
390.52
390.37
390.26
390.18
0.71
N3500/E4300
386.57
386.41
-
386.23
386.17
386.05
0.52
N3500/E4400
382.53
382.39
382.30
382.14
381.90
381.79
0.74
N3500/E4500
3/2.79
372.72
372.70
372.64
372.56
372.56
0.23
N3500/E4600
342.39
342.38
-
342.40
342.39
342.41
-tO. 02
N3500/E4635
333.58
333.57
333.57
333.58
333.57
333.61
+0.03
Comfort Stations:
North Station:
9/03/68
N. Corner
375.47
375.38
375.13
-
0.34
6 Ft SE of N Cor.
375.47
375.40
375.15
375.01
0.46
E. Corner
375.4*
375.41
375.19
375.07
0.42
(ft)
North
East
fsj
-------
TABLE II-3 (Continued)
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 5
Settle- Lateral Movement
Elevations ment (ft)
Monument
4/27/65
6/30/67
1/30/68
6/13/68
12/04/68
5/19/69
10/24/69
-------
TABLE I1-4
SETTLEMENT AND LATERAL MOVEMENT
RECORD AT SITE 7
Depth
Monument Designation, of Fill
Date Established (ft)
"Sterns" (Oct. 1964) 285
"L" (Aug. 1960) 70
"SN" (Dec. 1963) 280
* Lateral Movement
Settlement (ft)
(ft) Easterly Northerly
22.81 1.774 -1.738
7.96 2.19 0.77
30.51** Not Available
* As of June 1969.
** Stockpiling of clear earth cover material adjacent to
bench mark commenced in Jan. 1965 and is now approxi-
mately 40 feet deep, 150 feet wide, and 700 feet long.
-------
TABLE II-5
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 9
Monument
Designation Settlement
East North 9/66 9/67 9/68 9/69 (ft)
O-MDO
1+00
2+00
o+oo
380.8
378.2
377.0
377.6
3.2
1+00
380.6
.378.7
378.2
378.7
1.9
2+00
380.4
379.1
378.9
378.1
2.3
3+00
380.2
378.6
378.5
378.4
1.8
4+00
380.0
377.8
377.4
378.2
1.8
5+00
379.8
379.2
379.2
378.9
0.9
6+00
379.6
379.0
379.1
378.2
1.4
7+00
379.4
379.4
-
378.5
0.9
0+00
381.0
377.6
377.5
377.5
3.5
1+00
380.8
378.7
377.8
375.9
4.9
2+00
380.6
378.2
377.0
374.4
6.2
3400
380.4
378.3
377.4
375.9
4.5
4+00
380.2
378.0
377.2
376.2
4.0
5+00
380.0
378.0
377.4
376.5
3.5
6+00
379.8
378.4
377.9
377.3
2.5
7+00
379.6
377.7
376.8
375.8
3.8
8+00
379.4
378.0
376.4
375.3
4.1
8+88
-
378.4
377.5
377.6
0.8
0+00
381.2
378.0
377.9
3-78.0
3.2
1+00
381.0
378.6
377.0
375.6
5.4
2+00
380.8
378.5
377.2
374.6
6.2
3+00
380.6
378.4
377.4
375.1
5.5
4+00
380.4
378.1
377.0
375.3
5.1
-------
TABLE II-5 (Continued)
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 9
Monument
Designation
East North 9/66 9/67 9/68
2+00
5+00 380.2 378.4 377.5
6+00 380.0 379.2 378.1
7+00 379.8 378.1 376.9
8+00 379.6 378.1 376.5
8+83 - 378.6 377.2
3+00 1+00 381.2 379.7 378.9
? 2+00 381.0 379.3 378.5
^ 3400 380.8 378.8 377.6
4+00 380.6 378.3 377.6
5+00 380.4 378.9 377.7
6+00 380.2 378.8 378.1
7+00 380.0 378.4 377.4
8+00 379.8 378.2 376.9
8+85 - 378.7 378.1
4+00 1+00 381.4 381.3 381.0
2+00 381.2 380.8 380.5
3+00 381.0 379.4 378.5
4+00 380.8 379.0 378.1
5+00 380.6 378.7 377.8
6+00 380.4 378.2 376.7
7+00 380.2 373.3 376.5
8+00 380.0 379.1 378.4
8+78 - 378.5 378.5
0/69
Settlement
(ft)
376.6
3.6
377.1
2.9
376.1
3.7
375.4
4.2
376.9
1.7
377.5
3.7
377.0
4.0
375.5
5.3
375,7
4.9
376.4
4.0
377.3
2.9
376.8
3.2
376.0
3.8
377.3
1.4
380.8
0.6
380.1
1.1
377.3
3.7
376.9
3.9
376.7
3.9
375.2
5.2
375.7
4.5
378.0
2.0
378.1
0.4
-------
TABLE II-5 (Continued)
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 9
Monument
Designation
East North
9/66
9/67
y/68
9/69
Sett lenient
(ft)
4+47
1+00
•
382.0
382.1
381.8
0.2
2+00
381.3
381.6
381.4
381.1
0.2
3+00
381.1
380.3
379.4
378.2
2.9
4+00
380.9
379.8
379.2
378.4
2.5
5+00
380.7
379.8
379.0
378.1
2.6
6400
380.5
379.0
376.8
375.0
5.5
7+00
380.3
379.1
378.1
377.4
2.9
8+00
-
379.7
379.6
-
0.1
5+00
2+07
384.1
383.5
383.0
382.6
1.5
3400
385.0
383.0
382.1
383.1
1.9
4+00
386.0
383.9
383.3
382.3
3.7
5+00
387.0
385.0
384.4
383.2
3.8
6400
388.0
385.9
383.9
382.6
5.4
6+73
388.9
386.9
386.3
-
2.6
6+00
2+23
385.2
384.5
384.7
383.5
1.7
3+00
386.0
383.8
382.9
381.4
4.6
4+00
387.0
384.8
384.1
382.6
4.4
5+00
388.0
386.0
385.1
383.9
4.1
6+00
389.0
387.3
386.4
385.5
3.5
6+51
389.6
387.8
387.3
386.6
3.0
7+00
2+36
386.4
385.7
385.4
384.8
1.6
3+00
387.0
385.1
384.3
383.6
3.4
4+00
388.0
386.3
385.6
384.4
3.6
-------
TABLE II-5 (Continued)
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 9
Monument
Designation Settlement
East North 9/66 9/67 9/68 9/69 (ft)
7+00
5+00
389.0
387.1
386.7
385.5
3.5
6+00
390.0
388.3
387.7
387.0
3.0
6+47
390.6
388.9
388.4
387.9
2.7
8+00
2+52
387.5
386.6
385.9
385.6
1.9
3+00
388.0
386.8
386.1
385.4
2.6
4+00
389.0
387.7
387.1
386.0
3.0
5+00
390.0
388.6
388.0
387.1
2.9
6+00
391.0
389.2
388.8
388.0
3.0
6+50
391.6
390.2
390.0
389.6
2.0
9+00
2+68
388.7
387.6
387.5
387.3
1.4
3+00
389.0
388.0
387.6
387.0
2.0
4+00
39*0.0
389.1
388.6
387.7
2.3
5+00
391.0
389.9
389.4
388.6
2.4
6+00
392.0
390.2
389.9
389.2
2.8
6+60
392.7
390.9
391.4
390.8
1.9
9+48
6+00
392.5
391.0
390.0
390.2
2.3
9+57
5+00
391.6
390.7
390.6
389.9
1.7
9+64
4+00
390.6
389.9
389.4
388.9
1.7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TABLE II-6
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE 10
Settlement
(ft)
5.4
0.8
5.-7
3.9
1.8
3.6
3.9
2.8
0.-6
2.8
1.0
5.3
D-30
-------
TABLE II-7
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE II
Depth
Monument of Fill Elevations Settlement
(ft) 12/7/64 12/11/68 5/20/69 (ft)
100 Series Monuments
101
25
1328.07
1328.10
1328.11
(On inert
102
60
1330.52
1329.84
1329.74
0.78
103
55
1332.75
1332.07
1331.96
0.79
104
75
1336.25
1335.44
1335.26
0.99
105
60
1339.76
1339.19
1339.13
0.63
106
125
1343.59
1341.82
1341.60
1.99
107
25
1329.67
1329.69
1329.74
(On inert
108
65
1331.66
1330.31
1330.15
1.51
109
95
1335.30
1332.41
1332.09
3.21
110
115
1338.07
1334.34
1333.80
4.27
111
150
1341.39
1338.24
1337.89
3.50
112
175
1344.89
1339.25
1338.66
6.23
113
100
1339.55
1331.42
1330.66
8.89
114
100
1343.21
1334.11
1333.32
9.89
7/15/65
300 Series Monuments
301
140
1358.85
1355.73
1355.50
3.35
302
155
1363.95
1358.97
1358.37
5.58
303
90
1368.98
1366.26
1365.95
3.03
304
70
1374.04
1373.30
1373.31
0.73
305
55
1359.88
1357.97
1357.87
2.01
-------
TABLE II—7 (Continued)
SETTLEMENT RECORD AT SITE II
Depth
Monument of Fill Elevations Settlement
(ft)
7/15/65
12/11/68
5/20/69
(ft)
300 Series Monumeuts
306
160
1372.48
1368.66
1368.31
4.17
307
100
1377.92
1375.25
1375.10
2.82
308
40
138169
1381.16
1381.18
0.51
309
30
1357.65
1357.24
1357.19
0.46
310
135
1369.56
1366.01
1365.56
4.00
311
50
1380.79
1379.36
1379.19
1.60
312
25
1358.92
1358.86
1358.88
0.04
313
105
1366.58
1362.77
1362.54
4.04
314
70
1373.25
1371.77
1371.69
1.56
315
40
1366.77
1365.94
1365.87
0.90
-------
TABLE II-8
SITE 5: SETTLEMENT/DEPTH-OF-FILL
Monument
Fii.1
Depth (ft)
Years
Elapsed
Cumulative
Settlement (ft)
Percentage
Settlement/Depth
105
95
5.5
1.27
1.34
106
120
5.5
2.A3
2.02
107
130
5.5
1.96
1.51
112
125
5.5
2.11
1.69
116
90
5.5
2.86
3.18
118
75
5
3.07
4.1
120
85
5
3.10
3.64
D-33
-------
TABLE II-9
SITE 11: AREA 1: SETTLEMENT/DEPTH-OF-FILL
Fill Years Cumulative Percentage
Monument Depth Elapsed Settlement Settlement/Depth
109 95 4.4 3.21 3.38
110 115 4.4 4.27 3.71
111 -150 4.4 3.50 2.33
112 175 4.4 6.23 3.56
113 100 4.4 8.89 8.89
114 100 4.4 9.89 -9.89
D-34
-------
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
TABLE 11-10
SITE 11. AREA 3: SETTLEMENT/PEPTH-OF-FILL
Fill Years Cumulative Percentage
Depth Elapsed Settlement Settlement/Depth
140
3.8
3.35
2.39
155
3.8
5.58
3.77
90
3.8
3.03
3.40
70
3.8
.73
1.04
55
3.8
2.01
3.60
160
3.8
4.17
2.61
100
3.8
2.82
2.82
40
3.8
.51
1.28
30
3.8
.46
1.53
135
3.8
4.00
2.96
50
3.8
1.60
3.20
25
3.8
.04 ¦
1.6
105
3.8
4.04
3.86
70
3.8
1.56
2.22
40
3.8
0.90
2.25
D-35
-------
TABLE 11-11
DEPTH-OF-FILL COMPARISONS WITH PERCENTAGES; SETTLEMENT/DEPTH
Percentage:
Settlement/Depth (Approximate)
Depth of Fill
Site 5
Site 11, Area 1
Site 11, Area 3
25
1.6
30
1.5
40
2.3
50
3.2
55
3.7
70
2.2
75
4.1
85
3.6
90
3.2
3.4
95
1.3
3.4
100
9.10
2.8
105
3.9
115
3.7
120
2.0
125
1.7
130
1.5
135
3.0
140
2.4
150
2.3
155
3.8
160
2.6
175
3.6
D-36
-------
TABLE 11-12
COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
OF EXPERIMENTAL REFUSE MIXTURES
Analys
By Wei
is
jht
Weight Percent in Mixture
Component
7. Water
% Vm
High Paper
Medium Paper
Low Paper
Paper
1.16
>99.3
60
30
20
Garbage
96.20
75.3
10
20
30
Garden Waste
22.6
83.5
10
20
20
Metal, Glass, Ceramics
10
20
20
Rags, Plastics, Leather
1.04
>99.0
5
5
5
Inert Soil
5
5
5
Calculated 7. water in refuse
12.63
24.16
33.66
Calculated % Vm refuse solids
80.70
63.2
57.70
D-37
-------
TABLE 11-13
ESTIMATED CARBON AND NITROGEN CONTENT OF
EXPERIMENTAL REFUSE MIXTURES
Composition^
Weight Percent in Mixture
Component
7. C
% N
C/N
High Paper
Medium Paper
Low Paper
Paper
43.9
0.103
426
60
30
20
Garbage
41.5
1.92
21.6
10
20
30
Garden Waste
39.1
2.44
16.1
10
20
20
% Carbon
33.6
25.7
22.9
% Nitrogen
0.4
0.7
0.9
C/N ratio
90.8
35.0
24.6
NOTES: 1 Reference 25 (dry weight basis).
^ Calculated on dry weight basis.
D-38
-------
TABLE 11-14
EFFECT OF COMPACTICW EFFORT ON
DRY REFUSE CELLS
Refuse Size
Fine
Mixed
Coarse
Paper Content, %
20
30
60
20
30
60
20
30
60
Initial Refuse Height,
h inches
o
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Refuse Weight, lb
2.69
3.25
3.375
1.56
1.50
2.38
1.13
1.25
1.25
Initial Unit Weight,
lb/ft^
18.70
22.6
23.5
10.86
10.40
16.50
7.80
8.68
8.68
Height after n drops
hl
3.3
3.80
4.4
2.5
2.6
3.6
1.9
2.6
2.6
h2
3.10
3.50
4.15
2.0
2.3
3.35
1.4
2.2
2.25
h3
2.80
3.30
4.10
1.9
2.1
3.25
1.45
2.1
2.2
"4
2.60
3.20
4.00
1.8
2.0
3.1
1.4
2.0
2.1
h5
2.5
3.1
4.0
1.7
2.0
3.0
1.4
1.8
2.1
*6
2.4
3.1
-
1.7
-
3.0
-
-
-
h7' h8
2.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
TABLE 11-15
EFFECT OF WATER ADDITION ON
REFUSE UNIT WEIGHT
Refuse Size
Fine
Mixed
Coarse
Paper Content, %
20
30
30
30
Water Added, 7. Saturation
25
50
75
25
50
75
25
50
75
25
50
75
7o Dry Weight
12
24
3b
17.6
35.2
53.0
28.2
56.4
84.6
34
68
102
Initial Refuse Height,
inches
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Weight of Dry Refuse, lb
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.67
1.67
1.67
Weight of Compacted Wet
Refuse, lb
3.31
3.69
3.94
3.38
3.56
3.88
2.5
3.125
3.562
2.19
2.69
2.69
Water Content after
Compaction,
% Dry Weight
11.2
23.0
31.4
12.65
18.65
29.3
25.0
56.3
78.2
31.2 ,
61.0
61.0
7, Saturation
24.0
48.0
65.0
18.0
26.00
41.0
22.5
50.0
69.0
23.0
45.0
45.0
Equilibrium Characteristic
of Refuse Cells*
s
Refuse Height
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.0
2.1
2.2
1.5
1.6
1.6
Dry Unit Weig
lb/ft3
it,
38.7
38.7
37.3
37.4
40.2
38.7
34.8
33.2
31.7
38.7
36.3
36.3
Wet Unit Weig
lb/ft3
it,
42.8
47.7
48.8
42.2
47.5
50.0
43.8
52.0
56.5
51.0
58.5
58.5
NOTE: After six drops of free falling weight on refuse mixtures.
-------
TABLE 11-16
POROSITY, VOIDS RATIO, AND UNIT WEIGHT
OF DRY COMPACTED REFUSE
¦
Refuse Size
and Paper
Content
Weight
lb
Gross
Volume
10-3 ft3
Solids
Volume
10-3 ft3
Voids
Volume
10~3 ft3
Porosity
%
Voids
Ratio
%
Gross
Ur.it Weight
lb/ft3
Solids
Unit Weight.
lb/ft3
Fine - 207.
2.69 •
66.2
45.4
20.8
31.4
45.8
40.6
59.3
30%
3.25
89.4
52.6
36.8
41.2
70.0
36.4
61.8
60%
3.38
115.1
57.6
57.5
50.0
99.8
29.3
58.7
Mixed- 20%
1.56
49.0
25.25
23.7
48.4
94.0
31.9
61.7
30%
1.56
57.3
26.70
30.6
53.4
114.6
26.2
56.2
60%
2.38
86.1
38.80
47.3
55.0
122.0
27.6
61.4
Coarse-20%
1.13
40.3
17.65
22.6
56.1
128.0
28.1
64.0
30%
1.25
51.5
24.55
27.0
52.4
110.0
24.2
51.0
60%
1.25
60.3
18.73
41.6
69.0
222.0
20.7
66.6
-------
TABLE 11-17
5 »
SUBSIDENCE DURING AEROBIC DECOMPOSITION
Sampl<*
Code
Time ,
Days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
14
16
18
32
33
41
46
4B
52
55
59
66
73
80
94
102
108
2.0
2.5
3.5
4.0
5.0
7.0
8.0
8.5
9.5
10.0
11.5
13.5
14.5
16.0
16.5
17.5
F-20-0
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.19
11.69
11.69
11.69
11.44
11.44
11.31
11.31
11.19
11.06
10.88
10.81
10.81
10.44
10.25
44.3
44.3
44.3
44.3
44.3
44.3
44.3
45.2
45.5
45.9
46.2
44.1
42.7
43.7
44.1
43.4
43.9
43.7
43.7
43.2
43.4
43.7
43.9
44.7
43.A
43.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.5
T-30-0
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.75
10.75
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.31
10.31
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.06
10.06
9.94
9.75
9.75
9.19
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37,6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.3
37.3
?6.3
36.7
36.7
36.6
36.6
36.4
36.4
36.4
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.6
35.6
33.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
F-60-0
8.69
8.69
8.69
8.69
8.69
8.69
8.69
8.69
8.69
8.69
8.56
8.56
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.44
8.44
8.44
8.44
8.44
8.31
8.31
8.13
8.13
7.94
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
29.7
29.7
29.5
29.8
29.8
29.9
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.9
29.6
29.7
29.1
29.1
28.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0
3.0
3.0
7.0
7.5
8.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.5
14.0
15.5
17.0
17.0
20.0
20.0
20.5
M-20-0
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.19
10.19
10.19
9.94
9.94
9.94
9.94
9.94
9.81
9.69
9.69
9.38
9.38
9.38
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
38.3
38.3
38.3
38.1
38.3
38.5
39.2
39.2
39.2
39.4
40.1
40.2
40.5
40.5
40.7
40.7
41.0
M-30-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
8.0
8.0
9.5
9.5
11.0
11.0
11.0
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.50
9.50
9.37
9.31
9.31
9.31
9.31
9.19
9.13
9.06
9.06
8.63
8.56
8.50
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
34.3
34.3
34.3
34.3
34.3
34.0
34.4
34.4
34.4
34.6
34.7
34.5
34.8
34.8
33.6
33.4
33.1
M-60-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.44
7.44
7.44
7.44
7.37
7.37
7.25
7.19
7.13
7.13
26.2
26.2
26.2
26.2
2b. 2
26.2
26. 2
26.2
25.2
26.2
26.2
26.2
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
25.8
25.S
25.8
25.B
25.9
25.9
25.9
25.5
25.4
25.4
-------
TABLE 11-17 (Continued)
0
1
u>
Sample
Code
Time,
Days
115
122
129
136
144
152
159
166
173
ISO
187
194
17.5
17.5
19.0
20.0
22.0
23.0
25.0
25.5
26.5
28.5
29.0
34.0
F-20-0
10.25
10.06
9.94
9.94
9.69
9.56
9.56
9.56
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50
43.1
42.3
42.6
43.1
43.1
43.1
44.2
44.5
46.1
46.1
46.5
49.9
5.5
6.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
F-30-0
9.19
9.06
9.06
9.06
8.94
8.87
8.87
8.81
8.81
8.75
8.69
8.56
33.7
33.4
33.8
33.8
33.4
33.3
33.3
33.0
33.2
33.2
33.2
32.8
U
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
P-60-0
7.94
7.87
7.87
7.87
7.81
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.63
7.56
7.56
7.56
28.5
28.3
28.3
28.4
28.2
28.0
28.0
28.0
27.9
27.9
27.9
27.9
21.0
22.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
24.5
25.5
26.5
M-20-0
9.31
9.25
9.25
9.25
9.13
9.13
9.13
9.13
8.56
8.56
8.44
40.9
41.3
41.9
41.9
41.4
41.4
41.4
41.4
39.4
39.8
39.9
M-30-0
11.0
8.44
11.0
8.44
11.0
8.44
11.5
8.38
11.5
8.31
11.5
8.31
11.5
8.19
13.0
8.13
13.5
7.88
14.5
7.75
16.5
7.56
32.9
32.9
32.9
32.9
32.6
32.6
32.1
32.4
31.6
31.5
31.4
U
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
M-60-0
7.06
7.06
7.06
7.06
7.06
7.06
7.00
7.00
6.88
6.75
6.69
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
24. 9
24.9
24.6
24.2
24.2
NOTES: (1) Sample Code: F-20-0,...refuse material size-paper concent, percent-water saturation,percent.
(2) U: Percent subsidence
(3) W: Cell weight, lb
(4) Vi Cell unit weight, lb/cu ft
-------
TABLE 11-17 (Continued)
, Ss?p le
Cede
Time,
Days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
14
16
13
32
3S
£1
46
43
51
55
59
66
73
30
92
102
108
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0
4.0
5.5
8.0
8.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
14.0
17.0
17.5
17.5
19.0
21.0
23.0
23.0
27.0
29.0
30.0
C -20-0
9.81
9.81
9.81
9.81
9.81
9.81
9.81
9.81
9.81
9.81
9.81
9.63
9.25
9.13
9.13
9.00
9.00
8.94
8.94
8.81
8.75
8.63
8.56
8.56
8.13
8.00
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
35.1
35.4
36.0
37.0
36.3
37.4
36.0
36.9
35.3
37.7
37.6
37.6
36.8
38.4
38.9
38.6
40.7
39.7
39.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
8.5
10.5
12.0
1'..5
15.0
15.0
16.0
C-30-0
9.13
9.13
9.13
9.13
9.13
9.13
9.13
9.13
9.13
9.13
9.06
9.06
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.81
8.69
8.69
8.69
•8.69
8.63
8.50
8.44
8.19
8.19
8.19
31.7
31.7
31.7
31.7
31.7
31.7
31.7
32.0
32.2
32.7
32.4
32.4
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.4
32.6
32.6
32.6
33.0
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.9
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.5
5.5
6.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
3.5
10.0
11.0
11.0
C-60-0
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.88
5.81
5.81
5.75
5.75
5.69
5.69
5.69
5.69
5.69
5.56
5.56
5.19
5.06
4.94
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.7
20.7
21.0
21.1
21.3
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.3
21.3
21.1
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.5
21.0
2M
20.0
19.7
19.3
P -20-65
P -30-65
F-60-65
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
10.0
11.5
12.5
12.5
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.2 5
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
13.88
13.75
13.75
13.56
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.44
13.25
13.13
12.83
12.50
12.44
12.31
49.5
49.5
49.5
49.5
49.5
50.0
50.0
50.3
50.3
50.8
50. S
49.9
49.5
49.5
43.8
43.6
48.8
48.8
48.8
50.5
50.0
49.8
49.7
49.0
49.5
43.8
Y ! »
I
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.5
10.0
13.0
14.5
16.0
17.5
19.0
20.0
20.5
14.81
14.81
14.31
14.31
14.81
14.81
14.81
14.81
14.81
14.69
14.69
14.50
14.33
14.33
14.25
14.13
14.13
14.13
14.13
14.06
13.8B
13.75
13.44
13.19
13.06
13.00
51.5
51.5
51.5
51.5
51. 5
52.6
53.1
53.7
54.2
53.7
53.7
54.1
54.3
54.9
54.3
53.9
53.9
54.2
54.5
56.0
56.3
56.9
56.5
56.5
56.6
56.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
13. 50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.31
13.31
13.31
12.94
12.94
12.94
12.88
12.88
12.88
12.88
12.81
12.75
12.63
12.50
12.31
12.31
12.25
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.2
46.2
46.2
4i.9
44.9
UL. 9
44.7
44.7
4i. 7
44.7
44.8
44.7
44.5
44.0
43.3
43.6
43.4
-------
TABLE 11-17 (Continued)
Saeple
Code
Time,
Days
115
122
129
136
144
149
155
163
170
177
134
191
30.5
31.0
32.5
34.5.
35.0
36.0
37.5
39.5
40.0
41.0
43.5
45.5
C-2D-0
3.00
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.68
7.63
7.50
7.36
7.31
7.06
6.94
6.56
40.0
33.9
40.8
42.0
42.1
41.4
41.6
42.2
42.3
41.5
42.6
41.6
C-3O-0
C-60-0
F-20-65
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
8.06
6.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.75
7.69
7.50
7.50
33.3
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.2
31.8
31.0
31.0
U
11.5
11.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.5
12.5
13.0
13.0
13.5
13.5
14.0
4.94
4.94
4.94
4.94
4.94
4.81
4.81
4.75
4.75
4.69
4.69
4.69
19.4
19.4
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.1
19.1
18.9
18.9
18.8
18.8
18.9
U
14.5
16.0
18.0
19.5
21.0
22.5
24.0
25.0
26.5
30.0
34.0
34.0
U
11.94
11.83
11.88
11.50
11.25
11.00
10.85
10.75
10.69
10.19
9.88
9.69
48.5
49.2
50.3
49.7
49.5
49.3
49.7
49.8
50.5
50.6
52.0
51.0
7-30-65
F-60-64
U
22.5
24.5
25.0
27.5
28.5
30.0
31.0
32.5
35.0
33.5
38.5
42.0
W
12.50
12.44
12.38
12.25
12.06
11.94
11.75
11.63
11.25
10.94
10.94
10.63
56.0
57.2
57.3
58.7
53.6
59.2
59.2
59.8
60.1
61.7
61.7
63.6
y ,
2.0 12.19 43.1 '
NOTES: (1) Sample Code: P-20-0, ..
(2) U: Percent subsidence.
(3) V: Cell weight, lb.
(4) y: Cell unit weight, lb/cu ft
refuse material size-paper content, percent,-water saturation, percent.
-------
TABU 11-17 (Continued)
Sample
Code
Time,
Days
0
13
19
22
27
29
32
36
AO
47
54
61
75
84
89
96
103
110
117
125
131
138
145
152
159
166
173
H-20-65
0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.5
9.5
11.5
12.0
13.0
13.5
13.5
14.0
15.0
15.5
16.5
16.5
17.5
20.0
21.5
23.5
26.0
29.0
16.06
15.56
15.31
15.31
15.25
15.25
14.75
14.75
14.56
14.44
14.25"
14.13
13.88
13.44
13.44
13.38
13.25
12.68
12.75
12.50
12,25
12.00
11.56
11.25
10.61
10.13
9.50
55.7
56.0
55.0
55.0
55.0
55.3
53.3
53.3
52.7
54.2
54.7
55.4
54.8
53.6
54.0
53.7
53.5
52.6
5*. 3
52.0
51.0
50.5
50.2
49.8
49.1
47.6
46.4
M-30-65
0
2.0
7.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
6.0
6.5
8.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
10.5
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.5
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.5
27.0
16.63
16.31
16.13
16.13
16.00
15.00
15.83
15.83
15.81
15.75
15.69
15.50
15.31
15.31
15.06
15.06
14.81
14.63
14.19
13.88
13.56
13.50
13.13
12.88
12.31
11.69
11.06
57.7
'57.7
57. i
57.5
57.0
57.0
56.6
56.6
56.3
58.2
58.2
58.5
58.3
59.1
58.4
58.4
57.7
57.8
56.7
56.0
55.4
56.1
55.6
55.9
54.7
53.8
52.61
M-60-65
C-2C-65
0
13.81
43.0
0
13.75
47.7
0
13.44
46.7
0
13.44
46.7
0
13.44
46.7
0
13.31
46.2
0
13.31
46.2
0
13.25
46.0
0
13.25
46.0
2.0
13.19
46.7
3.0
13.13
47.0
3.0
13.00
46.5
3.5
12.81
46.0
3.5
12.75
45.9
3.5
12.75
45.9
3.5
12.75
45.9
3.5
12.75
45.9
0
3.5
3.5
3.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
7.0
11.0
16.0
18.0
| 18.0
19.0
20.5
20.5
21.5
22.5
24.0
25.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
35.5
\l
15.88
15.56
14.00
13.75
13.75
13.69
13.69
13.50
13.31
13.31
13.00
12.69
12.69
12.44
11.63
10.88
10.88
10.38
10.38
10.13
9.88
9.69
9.56
9.38
9.13
8.63
55.1
56.0
50.5
49.7
49.7
50.5
50.5
50.1
49.4
49.7
50.7
52.4
53.7
52.7
49.8
47.5
47.5
45.9
46.4
46.3
45.7
45.4
46.0
46.5
46.6
45.3
C-30-65
U
0
0
2.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
8.5
12.0
14.0
16.00
14.88
14.63
14.63
14.50
14.31
14.25
14.25
14.13
13.81
13.75
55.5
51.6
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
52.4
52.4
51.7
51.5
51.7
53.6
54.5
55.5
C-60-65
0
15.25
53.0
0
15.06
52.2
0
15.06
52.2
0
52.2
0
14.81
51.4
0
51.4
0
14.56
50.5
0
50.5
0
14.50
50.3
0
14.33
49.8
0
14.25
49.4
2.0
14.25
50.5
3.5
14.19
51.0
5.0
14.06
51.4
5.0
14.05
51.4
5.0
14.05
51.4
5.0
13.81
50.5
5.0
13.81
50.5
5.0
13.56
49.6
5.5
13.50
49.5
5.5
13.44
49.4
5.5
13.33
49.1
5.5
13.31
48.9
6.0
13.31
49.1
6.5
13.19
49.0
6.5
13.13
48.8
b.5
12.94
48.0
-------
TABLE 11-17 (Continued)
Sample
Code
M-20-65
M-30-65
M-60-65 | C-20-65
1
C-30-65
C-60-65 |
Time,
Days
u w y
u w y
u v y
u w y
u v y
U W y ;
i
1
1 179
1S6
39.0 8.38 67.6
40.5 7.94 46.3
I
1
i
i
i
KOTES:
(1) Sample Code: F-20-0
(2} U: Percent subside:
(3) V: Cell weight, lb
(4) Vi Cell unit weigh
...refuse material si
ice
lb/cu ft
1
se-paper content, percen
t-water saturation, pei
cent
i
i
1
i
|
I
i
1
|
i
!
i
-------
TABLE 11-18
SUBSIDENCE DURING ANAEROBIC DECOMPOSITION
Sample
Code
Time,
Days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
16
18
32
33
41
46
48
51
55
59
66
73
80
92
F-20-G
F-30-0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
1.0
3.0
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
6.5
7.0
7.0
10.0
10.5
11.0
13.0
12.28
12.28
12.28
12.28
12.23
12.28
12.28
12.28
12.28
12.28
12.23
12.28
12.28
12.28
12.28
12.28
12.16
12.16
12.16
12.16
12.09
12.09
12.09
12.03
12.03
11.97
11.97
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
43.1
43.1
43.1
43.1
44.0
44.0
44.3
44.7
44. 7
44.7
44.8
44.3
44.8
44.8
44.9
45.1
45.1
46.5
46.7
46.8
47.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
2.0
2.0
4.0
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.81
10.75
10.50
10.50
10.44
10.38
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.4
37.0
37.2
37.0
37.5
F-60-0
M-20-0
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
1.5
V
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8,75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.69
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.7
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
5.5
9.5
9.5
10.0
11.0
17.0
W
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10 69
10.69
10.69
10.69
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.38
10.31
10.25
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.9
37.9
37.9
37.6
37.8
37.8
38.0
33.0
38.0
38.4
40.1
40.1
40.1
40.3
42.9
M-30-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
10.0
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9,00
9.00
9.00
8.81
8.69
8.69
8.69
8.69
6.69
B. 69
8.62
0.62
8.56
8.56
8,44
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.3
31.2
30.8
30.9
30.9
30.9
31.1
31.1
30.8
31.8
31.6
31.8
32.5
M-60-0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
6.38
6.38
6.38
6.38
6.38
6.36
6.38
6.38
6.38
6.38
6.38
6.33
6.38
6.38
6.38
6.38
6.33
6.38
6.33
6.38
6.38
6.38
6.33
6.38
6.25
6.19
6.06
22.2;
22.2!
22.2!
i.1. 2 j
22 2
22! 2 ¦
22.2;
22.2|
22.2!
22.2'
22.2!
22.4;
22.4|
22.4!
22.4|
22.7,
22.7.
22.7.
22. 7 j
22.7,
22.7 I
22.7'
22. 7'
22.9;
22.4'
22.1,"
22. l'
-------
TABLE 11-18 (Continued)
Sample
Code
Time, I
Days I
T
103 j
ioe
115
122
129
136
144
151
157
165
172
179
186
193
F-20-0
14.0
14.0
14.0
15.0
17.0
18.0
19.5
20.5
22.0
22.5
23.5
25.0
25.5
27.0
11.84
11.84
11.84
11. 66
11.59
11.53
11.41
11.41
11.22
11.09
11.09
10.91
10.91
10.78
47.9
47.9
47.9
47.6
48.5
48.8
49.2
49.9
50.0
49.7
50.3
50.6
50.9
51.4
F-30-0
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.5
7.5
B.5
8.5
9.0
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.13
10.13
10.13
10.13
10.00
9.88
9.75
9.75
9.63
9.56
9.56
9.56
9.44
9.38
37.0
37.0
37.3
37.3
36.9
36.7
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.3
36.5
36.5
36,2
36.2
F-60-0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.50
8.44
8.44
8.31
8.31
8.25
e.25
8.25
8.13
8.13
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.75
30.3
30.1
30.1
29.6
29.6
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.1
29„1
M-20-0
17.0
18.5
22.0
24.0
27.5
29.5
32.5
35.0
37.0
38.5
40.0
41.5
43.5
45.0
9.94
9.75
9.75
9.56
9.25
9.19
9.13
8.54
8.94
8.88
8.69
8.50
8.38
8.19
41.5
41.5
43.3
43.6
41.4
45.2
46.9
47.7
49.2
50.1
50.3
50.4
51.5
51.7
H -30-0
11.0
11.5
11.5
11.5
12.6
12.5
12.5
12.5
17.0
22.5
32.0
36.5
39.5
41. S
8.19
7.94
7.87
7.56
7.45
7.45
7*45
7.31
7.06
6.94
6.94
6.81
6,69
6.69
31.9
31.2
30.8
29.6
29.4
29.5
29.5
29.0
29.5
27.5
35.4
37.9
38.3
39.7
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
M-60-0
6.06
5.94
5.94
5.81
NOTES: (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Sample Code: P-20-0, .... refuse material sire-paper content, percent,-water saturation, percent.
Percent subsidence.
Cell weight, lb.
Cell unit weight, lb/cu ft.
r I
22.3 ;
21.8 •
21.8 |
21.3 i
-------
TABLE 11-18 (Continued)
Samp le
Code
Time,
Days
0
1
5
6
8
9
10
11
14
16
18
32
38
41
46
43
51
55
59
66
73
80
92
103
108
115
122
C-20-0
0
0
0
JO
0
0
2.0
2.0
4.0
6.5
6.5
7.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.0
11.0
11.5
12.0
14.0
16.0
17.0
17.5
19.5
10.19
10.19
10.10
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.19
10.06
10.06
10.06
10.06
10.06
10.06
10.06
10.00
9.88
9.88
9.69
9.56
9.44
35.4
35.4
35.4
35.4
35.4
35.4
36.1
36.1
36.9
37.9
37.9
38.3
38.5
38.5
38.0
38.0
38.2
38.4
38..4
39.3
39.5
39.5
39.9
40.8
40.5
40.2
40.7
C-30-0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.5
6.0
6.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.5
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.56
9.56
9.56
9.56
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.44
9.44
9.44
9.19
9.13
9.13
9.06
33.4
33.4
31-4
33.4
33.4
33.8
33.8
33.8
33.8
33.8
34.1
34.4
34.4
34.6
34.6
34.3
34.3
34.3
34.3
34.9
34.9
34.9
36.0
35.4
35.2
35.2
35.1
C-60-0
U
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.5
5.5
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
6.13
5.94
5.94
5.88
5.31
5.81
5.81
5.81
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.8
21.9
21.9
21.9
21.9
21.9
21.9
21.9
21.9
21.9
21.9
22.1
22.2
21.3
21.4
21.5
21.3
21.4
21.4
21.4
F-20-65
0
0
3.5
4.5
4.5
5.5
5.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
7.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.5
9.0
10.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
18.0
20.0
20.0
20.5
22.0
23.0
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.81
13.75
13.69
1J.69
13.63
13.44
13.44
13.44
13.25
12.94
12.88
12.75
12.75
12.56
12.44
12.31
12.31
11.81
48.0
48.0
49.7
50.3
50.3
50.8
50.8
51.4
51.4
51.4
51.0
51.7
52.0
51.5
50.7
51.0
51.3
51.1
51.1
51.3
50.7
54.0
54.5
54.0
53.8
54.9
53.3
F-30-65
F-60-65
U
0
0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
8.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
11.5
13.5
16.0
16.5
19.0
21.5
l
14.31
14.31
14.31
14.31
14.31
14.31
14.31
14.31
14.31
14.31
13.94
13.94
13.94
13.88
13.63
13.63
13.63
13.63
13.50
13.44
13.31
13.31
13.13
12.31
11.94
11.81
11.31
49.7
49.7
51.2
51.8
51.8
52.0
52.0
52.3
52.3
52.3
50.9
51.5
51.5
51.5
51.1
51.1
51.1
51.4
52r.3
52.4
52.2
52.2
52.7
50.8
49.7
50.6
50. C
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•o
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
14.13
14.13
14.13
14.13
14.13
14.13
14.13
14.13
14.06
14.06
14.06
13.38
13.88
13.81
13.61
13.31
13.81
13.81
13.75
13.75
13.75
13.63
13.50
13.50
13.44
12.94
49.0 •
49.0 ;
49.0 I
49.0 I
49.0 i
49.0 j
49.0 I
49.0 j
48. 8 I
45.5
43.3 '
46.2 j
48.2 ;
48.0 ;
48.0 1
48.0 :
4E. 0 :
48.0 i
48.2 J
48.2 |
48.2 '
47.7 j
47.6
47.8
47.6 i
45.8 1
-------
TABLE 11-18 (Continued)
sample
Code
Time,
Days
129
136
144
151
158
165
172
179
186
193
20.5
22.0
24.0
25.5 .
27.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
35.0
36.5
C-20-0
W
9.44
9.19
9.06
9.00
9.00
8.94
8.88
8.69
8.56
8.56
41.2
40.8
41.3
41.9
42.6
43.0
44.0
44.3
45.7
46.8
C-30-0
u
12.0
12.5
13.0
14.0
14.5
15.0
16.0
16.5
16.5
17.5
W
9.06
9.00
8.94
8.81
8.81
8.81
B. 81
6.63
8.56
8.56
35.7
'35.6
35.6
35.S
35.8
36.0
36.4
35.9
35.5
36.0
U
5.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
C-60-0
5.75
5.75
5.69
5.69
5.69
5.63
5.63
5.56
5.56
5.56
21.2
21.2
21.0
21.0
21.1
20.9
20.9
20.6
20.6
20.6
U
23.5
25.0
26.5
27.5
28.5
29.5
31.0
31.0
33.0
33.5
F-20-65
11.69
11.63
11.50
11.44
11.31
11.25
10.94
10.81
10.81
10.75
F-30-65
F-61-65
53.0
53.9
54.3
54.8
54.9
55.4
55.0
54.4
56.0
56.2
U
22.5
23.0
24.5
25.5
26; 5
27.0
28.5
29.5
Sl.O
W
11.31
11.31
11.19
11.19
11.06
10.94
10.81
10.81
10 69
50.7
51.0
51.4
52.1
52.0
52.1
52.5
53.2
53.8
y 1
NOTES: (1) Sample Code: F-20-0, ....refuse material size-paper content, percent,-water saturation, percent.
(2) U: Percent subsidence.
(3) W: Cell weight, lb.
(4) X: Cell unit weight, lb/cu ft.
-------
TABLE 11-18 (Continued)
Sample
Code
Time,
Days
M-20-65
M-30-65
M-60-65
C-20-65
0
0
15.19
52.7
8
0
15.19
52.7
13
1.5
15.00
53.2
19
2*0
14.50
51.3
22
2.5
14.50
51.7
27
2.5
14.50
51.7
29
2.5
14.50
51.7
32
2.5
14.50
51.7
36
2.5
14.50
51.7
40
4.0
14.13
51.1
47
6.5
13.94
51.7
54
7.0
13.88
51.8
61
7.5
13.75
51.7
75
11.0
13.31
51.9
84
12.5
12.56
49.9
89
13.0
12.38
49.4
96
14.0
11.94
48.2
103
15.0
11.81
48.3
110
16.0
11.75
48.6
117
17.5
11.75
49.5
125
19.0
11.63
49.9
131
20.0
11.50
49.9
138
21.0
11.38
50.0
145
21.5
11.25
49.8
152
22.5
11.00
49.2
159
24.0
10.69
48.9
166
25.0
10.50
48.7
0
15.63
54.3
0
i15.63
54.3
0
15.06
52.3
0
14.38
49.8
0
14.38
49.8
0
14.38
49.8
0
14.38
49.8
0
14.38
49.8
0
14.38
49.8
0
14.19
49.2
4.0
14.19
51.2
4.0
14.00
50.7
4.0
13.88
50.2
6.0
13.88
51.2
6.0
13.38
49.4
6.5
13.31
49.3
6.5
13.31
49.3
6.5
13.19
49.0
7.5
13.13
49.3
8.0
13.06
49.3
9.0
12.69
48.4
9.5
12.56
48.0
10.0
12.44
48.0
10.5
12.31
47.8
11.0
12.06
47.0
12.0
11.88
46.8
13.0
11.63
46.4
U
V
y
0
14.0
48.6
0
14.0
48.6
0
14.0
48.6
0
13.88
48.2
0
13.88
48.2
0
13.81
48.0
0
13.81
48.0
0
13.81
48.0
0
13.81
48.0
0
13.81
48.0
0
13.81
48.0
0
13.75
47.7
0
13.75
47.7
0
13.75
47.7
1.0
13.69
48.0
1.0
13.63
47.8
1.0
13.50
47.3
1.0
13.44
47.1
U
0
0
1.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
9.0
9.5
9.5
12.0
13.0
13.5
14.0
15.0
15.5
16.0
17.0
18.5
20.0
20.5
21.5
16.0
14.69
13.94
13.88
13.88
13.88
13.88
13.88
13.88
13.81
13.56
13.44
13.00
12.75
12.31
12.25
12.00
11.75
11.56
11.25
11.19
10.88
10.69
10.50
10.25
55.5
51.0
49.2
50.1
49.9
49.9
49.9
50.2
50.2
50.5
50.5
49.5
51.3
49.9
49.9
50.3
49.2
49.2
48.5
48.0
47.5
46.5
46.8
46.3
46.3
45.8
45.4
Cr30-65
C-60-65
U
0
2.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.0
7.0
11.5
12.0
15.0
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
18.0
W
16.31
16.13
16.00
16.00
15.94
15.94
15.94
15.50
15.30
15.50
15.50
15.25
15.06
14.88
14.88
14.60
14.19
14.19
13.69
13.69
13.69
13.56
13.38
13.19
13.06
13.00
12.94
56.7
57.1
57.3
57.3
57.0
58.3
58.3
56.6
56.9
57.3
57.3
57.0
59.1
58.7
58.7
59.2
57.9
58.3
56.6
56.6
56.6
56.0
55.2
54.8
54.6
54.7
54.7
0
15.38
53.4
0
15.38
53.4
0
15.13
52.6 !
0
15.13
52.6
0
15.13
52.6
0
15.06
52.3
0
15.06
52.3
0
14.75
51.2
0
14.75
51.2
0
14.75
51.2
0
14.69
51.0
0
14.69
51.0
1.0
14.69
51.5
1.0
14.69
51.5
1.0
14.69
51.5
3.0
14.56
52.0
3.5
14.31
51.4
3.5
14.19
50.9
3.5
14.00
50.3
3.5
13.88
49.8
4.0
13.88
50.1
4.0
13.75
49.7
4.5
13.75
50.0
4.5
13.56
49.2
5.0
13.56
49.5
5.5
13.44
49.3
6.0
13.38
49.4
-------
TABLE 11-18 (Continued)
M-30-65
K- 60-65
C-20-65
C-30-65
, (
C-60-65
2S- i » » y
a w y
v « y
u v y
u w y j i1 w y
173
180
186
25.5 10.38 48.5
13.5 11.5 .46.2
23.5 10.00 45.3
25.0 9.75 45.1
26.0 9.56 44.8
19.5 12.63 54.6
20.5 12.56 54.8
22.0 12.44 55.4
6.5 -13.38 49.7 |
6.5 13.31 49.4 |
6.5 13.19 48.9 j
1
1
1
t
BOTES: (1) Sample Code: F-20-0, .... refuse material alee-paper content, percent,-water saturation, percent.
(2) U: Percent subsidence.
(3) V: Cell weight, lb.
(ft) V: Cell unit weight, lb/cu ft.
-------
TABLE 11-18 (Continued)
Sample
Code
F-20-100
y-30-100
F-60-100
M-20-100
M-30-100
M-60-100
Time,
Day9
y ! «
0
11
17
20
25
27
30
34
38
45
52
59
73
82
87
94
101
108
115
123
129
136
143
150
157
164
0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.5
21.5
22.0
22.0
25.0
25.0
26.5
26.5
27.5
28.5
29.5
30.5
32.5
32.5
33.5
34.0
35.0
36.0
15.88
13.14
12.26
I2.2o
12.26
12.26
12.26
12.26
12.26
12.08
12.01
12.01
11.76
11.70
11.51
11.51
11.80
11.08
10.89
10.64
10.£5
10.45
10.26
10.01
9.76
9.58
55.1
54.3
51.3
51.9
52.5
52.5
52.5
52.5
52.8
53.4
53.3
53.3
54.4
54.2
54.4
54.4
56.4
53.8
53.6
53.2
53.7
53.7
53.6
52.6
52.1
5?.0
0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.5
8.0
8.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
18.5
16.94
15.63
15.32
15.32
15.32
15.32
15.32
15.32
15.32
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.07
14.69
14.69
14.69
14.57
14. 50
14.44
14.32
14.19
14.00
14.00
13.94
13.74
13.59
63.5
56.5
56.0
56.0
56.0
56.0
56.0
56.0
56.0
57.3
57.6
57.6
57.7
56.6
57.0
57.2
57.2
57.2
57.3
57.2
57.2
57.1
56.5
58.3
58.1
58.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
18.31
16.88
16.25
16.13
16.13
16.13
16.13
16.13
16.13
16.13
16.06
16.06
15.88
15.81
15.63
15.63
15.63
63.6
58.5
56.4
56.0
56.0
56.0
56.0
56.0
56.5
56.9
56.6
56.6
56.0
56.0
55.3
55.3
55.3
0
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
13.0
14.5
15.5
16.5
18.5
20.5
21.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.5
27.5
30.0
31.5
19.13
14.88
14.88
14.88
14.88
14.88
14.81
14.81
14.75
14.56
14.44
14.38
13.06
12.63
12.19
11.81
11.69
11.50
11.31
11.00
10.88
10.75
10.56
10.38
10.06
9.81
66.4
55.0
55.2
55.5
55.5
55.5
55.3
55.6
55.3
56.2
56.1
56.1
52.1
51.3
50.0
49.1
49.8
50.2
49.7
49.6
49.7
49.8
49.8
49.7
49.5
49.6
0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
8.5
9.5
10.5
11.0
12.0
13.5
21.06
16.25
16.?5
16.25
16.25
16.25
16.25
16.25
16.06
16.06
16.00
16.00
15.75
15.25
15.06
14.63
14.50
14.44
14.13
13.75
13.75
13.44
13.25
13.13
12.88
12.69
73.1
57.6
57.6
57.6
57.6
57.6
57.6
57.6
56.9
57.8
57.6
57.6
57.6
55.7
55.7
51.0
50.4
50.2
52.7
51.9
52.2
51.6
51.4
51.3
50.8
50.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
16.88
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15,75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.56
15.56
15.38
58.7 1
54.7 j
54.7 '
54.7 !
54.7
54.7
54.7
54.7
54.7 !
55.5 I
55.5 )
55.3
55.8
56.1
55.7
55.7
55.0
-------
TABLE 11-18 (Continued)
a
Ul
U1
Sample
¦
Sample
Code
C-20-100
C-30-100
C-60-100
Code
C-20-(30)
C-30-(30)
C-60-(30)
Time,
Days
U
W
y
U
V
y
U
w
y
Time,
Days
U
w
y
U
H
y
U
w
y
0
0
23.63
62.0
0
21.13
73.3
0
20.81
72.3
0
0
12.19
42.3
0
10.25
35.6
0
7.75
26.9
13
8.0
-
-
3.0
-
-
1.0
-
-
7
0
12.19
42.3
0
10.25
0
7.75
26.9
19
e.5
16.94
64.3
3.5
15.00
54.0
1.0
15.81
55.4
15
0
12.19
42.3
0
10.25
5.0
7.69
22
9.0
16.94
64.5
3.5
15.00
54.0
1.5
15.81
55.7
21
0
12.13
0
10.19
5.0
7.69
27
9.0
16.81
64.2
4.0
14.94
53.8
1.5
15.61
55.7
26
0.5
12.06
0
10.06
5.5
7.63
29
9.5
16.81
64.5
4.0
14.94
53.8
1.5
15.81
55.7
35
0.5
11.94
0
10.06
5.5
7.63
32
9.5
16.81
64.5
4.0
14.75
53.3
1.5
15.81
55.7
42
1.5
11.8B
1.0
10.06
6.0
7.63
36
1C.0
16.81
64.9
4.0
14.75
53.3
1.5
15.81
55.7
49
2.5
11.75
2.0
10.00
6.0
7.50
40
1C.0
16.56
63.8
4.5
14.63
53.2
2.0
15.81
56.0
56
3.5
11.56
2.0
10.00
6.0
7.50
47
15.0
16.19
66.1
8.0
14.44
54.5
2.5
15.81
56.2
63
5.0
11.38
2-.0
10.00
6.0
7.38
54
15.0
16.00
65.4
8.0
14.31
54.0
2.5
15.81
56.2
61
15.0
15.88
64.8
8.5
14.25
54.1
2.5
15.81
56.2
75
lc.O
15.38
65.0
11.0
14.06
54.8
2.5
15.81
56.2
84
20.0
15.19
65.9
12.0
13.63
53.7
3.0
15.69
56.2
89
20.5
15.13
66.0
12.5
13.56
53.8
3.0
15.63
55.8
96
20.5
14.75
64.5
12.5
13.56
53.8
3.0
15.13
54.1
103
22.0
14.63
65.0
12.5
13.56
53.8
3.0
15.06
53.8
110
23.0
14.25
64.3
12.5
13.56
53.8
3.0
15.06
53.8
117
23..5
14.00
63.6
12.5
13.44
53.3
3.0
14.94
53.3
125
25.0
13.88
64.2
12.5
13.06
51.8
3.0
14.88
53.1
131
26.5
13.63
64.3
13.0
13.06
52.1
3.5
14.88
53.5
138
27.5
13.38
64.0
13.5
12.94
52.0
3.5
14.81
53.1
145
29.0
13.31
65.1
14.0
12.94
52.1
3.5
14.81
53.1
-------
TABU 11-18 (Continued)
a
i
m
CTN
Sample
Code
C-20-100
C-30-100
0
©
1
o
o
Time,
Days
U
H
y
U
U
y
u
w
y
152
29.5
13.13
64.7
14.0
12.94
52.1
3.5
14.81
53.1
159
30.0
12.88
63.9
15.0
12.69
52.1
3.5
14.75
52.8
166
31.5
12.81
65.0
16.0
12.69
52.4
4.0
14.63
52.8
173
34.5
12.69
67.2
17.5
12.50
49.5
4.0
14.63
52.8
NOTES: (1) Sample Code: F-20-0, ....refuse material sise-paper content,
percent,-water saturation, percent.
(2) 0: Percent subsidence
(3) W: Cell weight, lb
(4) % Cell unit weight, lb/cu ft
-------
TABLE 11-19
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA*
AEROBIC REFUSE - DRY
Paper Content -
Percent
20
Percent
30
Percent
60 Percent
Refuse
Size
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain,
%
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain,
%
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain
%
Fine
1,257
1.00
25.0
1,257
1.00
25.0
1,257
0.80
20.0
2,212
1.15
28.7
1,902
1.05
26.2
1.902
1.05
26.2
3,130
1.30
32.5
3,115
1.30
32.5
2,509
1.10
27.5
4,047
1.40
35.0
4,047
1.43
35.8
3,426
4,047
1.25
1.35
31.2
33.7
Mixed
1,257
0.65
19.7
1,257
0.55
13.8
1,257
0.80
20.0
1,902
0.75
22.7
1,902
1.20
30.0
2,205
1.10
27.5
2,819
0.90
27.2
2,819
1.45
36.2
2,812
1.25
31.2
4,047
1.05
31.8
3,426
1.48
37.0
3,426
1.40
35.0
4,047
1.55
39.0
4,047
1.45
36.2
Coarse
1,257
1.30
36.0
1,257
1.25
30.^
1,257
0.55
13.8
1,902
1.40
39.0
1,902
1.55
37.3
2,509
1.50
42.0
2,509
1.55
37.3
1,864
0.65
16.2
3,426
1.60
44.0
3,426
1.65
39.7
2,175
2,478
0. 70
0.85
17.5
21.2
4,046
1.70
47.0
4,047
1.75
42.1
3,092
3,403
0.90
0.95
22.3
23.7
NOTES: Sample height 3.6 inches.
(k) Sample height 4.15 inches.
* Unwetted, see Table 11-12.
D-57
-------
TABLE 11-20
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA
AEROBIC REFUSE - 65 PERCENT SATURATED
Paper Content - Percent
20 Percent
30 Percent
60 Percent
Refuse
Stress,
Strain,
Strain,
Stress,
Strain,
Strain,
Stress,
Strain,
Strain
Size
lb/ft2
Inch
7.
lb/ft2
Inch
%
lb/ft2
Inch
%
Fine
1,257
1.15
28.7
1,257
0.85
22.4
1,902
1.30
32.5
1,902
1.00
26.3
2,509
1.40
35.0
2,509
1.10
29.0
3,115
1.50
37.5
3,123
1.20
31.6
4,047
1.65
41.2
4,047
1.25
33.0
Mixed
1,257
1.20
30.0
1,257
1.40
35.0
1,879
1.30
32.5
1,902
1.50
37.5
2,507
1.40
35.0
2,509
1.65
41.2
3,121
1.40
35.0
3,115
1.75
43.7
3,721
1.55
38.7
4,047
1.80
45.0
Coarse
1,257
1.20
33.7(b)
1,257
1.25
31.2
1,257
1.25
31.2
1,902
1.35
38.4
1,902
1.40
35.0
2,212
1.40
35.0
2,509
1.40
39.4
2,509
1.60
40.0
3,130
1.50
37.5
3,115
1.45
40.8
3,115
1.65
41.2
4,047
1.65
41.2
4,047
1.55
43.6
4,047
1.75
43.7
(a)
NOTES: Sample height, 3.8 inches.
^ Sample height, 3.55 inches.
D-58
-------
TABLE 11-21
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA*
ANAEROBIC REFUSE - DRY
Paper
Content
- Percent
20 Percent
30 Percent
60 Percent
Refuse
Size
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain,
%
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain,
%
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain
%
Fine
1,257
0.90
22.5
1,257
1.10
27.5
1,257
0.90
22.5
1,902
0°.95
23.7
1,902
1.20
30.0
1,902
1.05
26.3
3,123
1.25
31.0
2,509
1.35
33.8
2,509
1.15
28.8
4,046
1.35
33.8
3,115
1.40
35.0
3,115
1.25
31.3
4,047
1.50
37,5
4,047
1.45
36.2
Mixed
(1)
1,257
1.00
27.4
(2!
1,257
0.80
21.3
1,257
1.35
33.8
1,902
1.05
28.8
1,561
0.85
22.7
1,902
1.55
38.8
2,819
1.20
32.9
2,182
0.95
25.3
2,509
1.75
43.8
3,426
1.25
34.3
2,803
1.10
29.3
3,115
1.90
47.5
4,047
1.35
37.0
3,403
1.20
32.0
4,047
2.05
51.3
Coarse
1,257
0.85
21.3
1,257
1.15
28.8
1,257(3
1.00
23.5
1,902
1.10
27.5
1,902
1.40
35.0
1,902
1.30
30.6
2,509
1.20
30.0
2,509
1.55
38.8
2,819
1.55
36.5
3,115
1.30
32.5
3,115
1.60
40.0
3,426
1.60
37.6
4,047
1.45
36.3
4,047
1.80
45.0
4,047
1.75
41.2
NOTES: ^ Sample height, 3.65 inches.
(2)
(3)
Sample height, 3.75 inches.
Sample height, 4.25 inchea.
Unwetted, see Table 11-12.
D-59
-------
TABLE 11-22
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA
ANAEROBIC REFUSE - 65 PERCENT SATURATED
Paper Content - Percent
20 Percent
3U Percent
bl) Percent
Refuse
Size
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain,
%
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain,
%
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain
%
Fine
1,257
1.10
27.5
1,257
1.20
30.0
1,902 .
1.20
30.0
1,902
1.40
35.0
2,509
1.35
33.8
2,509
1.45
36.3
3,115
1.43
35.8
3,115
1.60
40.0
4,047
1.55
38.8
4,047
1.60
40.0
Mixed
1,257
1.20
30.0
1,257
1.20
30.0
2,509
1.40
35.0
1,902
1.50
37.5
3,115
1.55
38.8
2,509
3,115
1.65
1.75
41.3
43.8
4,047
1.70
42.5
4,047
1.80
45.0
Coarse
1,257(1
1.55
34.4
1,257*2)
1.35
32.1
1,257
1.20
30.0
1,902
1.75
3(5.9
1,902
1.60
38.1
1,902
1.30
32.5
2,509
1.95
43.3
2,509
1.70
40.5
2,509
1.40
35.0
3,115
2.00
44.4
3,115
1.85
44.0
3,115
1.60
40.0
4,047
2.15
47.8
4,047
1.90
45.2
4,047
1.65
41.3
NOTES: Sample height, 4.5 inches.
(2)
Sample height, 4.2 inches.
D-60
-------
TABLE II-23
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA
ANAEROBIC REFUSE - SATURATED
Paper
Content
- Percent
20 Percent
30 Percent
60 Percent
Refuse
Size
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain,
%
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain,
7.
Stress,
lb/ft2
Strain,
Inch
Strain
%
Fine
1,257^
1,257
1.25
31.3
1,902
1.3
31.7
1,902
1.35
33.8
2,509
1.4
34.1
2,509
1.45
36.3
3,115
1.5
36.6
3,115
1.55
38.8
4,047
1.55
37.8
4,047
1.65
41.3
Mixed
1,257
1.20
30.0
1,257(2
1.20
31.2
2,509
1.40
34.0
1,879
1.25
32.5
3,115
1.55
38.7
2,501
1.25
32.5
4,047
1.70
42.5
4,047
1.30
33.8
Coarse
1,257
1.2
30.0
1,257
1.2
30.0
1,902
1.3
32.5
2,205
1.37
34.2
2,509
1.5
37.5
3,115
1.59
39.7
3,115
1.5
37.5
4,047
1.79
44.8
4,047
1.6
40.0
NOTES: ^ Sample height, 4.10 inches.
(2)
Sample height, 3.25 inches.
D-61
-------
TABLE 11-24
UNIT WEIGHT OF AEROBIC REFUSE AFTER CONSOLIDATION
Refuse
F ine
Mixed
Coarae
Size
Paper
Content
20
30
60
20
30
60
20
30
60
Percent
P
y
P
y
P
y
P
y
P
Y
P
y
P
y
P
y
P
y
0
60.8
0
41.7
0
29.9
0
69.3
0
34.6
0
23.6
0
70.0
0
42.0
0
20.5
1,257
78.5
1,257
57.5
1,257
38.6
1,257
95.5
1,257
44.0
1,257
35.6
1,257
89.0
1,257
59.0
1,257
26.8
Dry *
1,902
79.8
1,902
59.5
1,902
40.6
1,902
97.5
1,561
44.8
1,902
38.5
1,902
96.5
1,902
64.7
1,902
29.5
3,123
B8.0
2,509
63.0
2,509
42.0
2,819
103.0
2,181
46.3
2,509
42.0
2,509
100.0
2,509
68.7
2,819
32.3
4,046
92.0
3,115
64.0
3,115
43.5
3.426
105. S
2,803
49.0
3,115
45.0
3,115
104.0
3,115
70.0
3,426
32.S
4,047
66.7
4,047
46.8
4,047
110.0
3,403
51.0
4,047
48.5
4,047
110.0
4,047
76.4
4,047
34.9
0
78.7
0
58.2
0
66.0
0
68.0
0
69.4
0
76.2
0
58.0
- 65
1,257
108.5
1,257
83.2
1,257
94.3
1,257
97.2
1,257
105.6
1,257
112.0
1,257
82.8
Percent
1,902
112.5
1,902
89.5
2,509
105.5
1,902
109.0
1,902
113.0
1,902
123.0
1,902
86.0
Saturated
2,509
119.0
2.509
91.4
3,115
108.0
2,509
116.0
2,509
122.0
2,509
128.0
2,509
89.3
3,115
122.5
3,115
97.0
4,047
115.0
3,115
121.0
3,115
125.0
3,115
136.0
3,115
96.7
4,047
129.6
4,047
97.0
4,047
123.5
4,047
133.0
4,047
139.0
4,047
99.0
0
57.7
0
69.7
0
72.6
0
64.3
0
82.8
0
73.5
1,257
-
1.257
101.0
1,257
103.6
1,257
93.6
1,257
118.0
1,257
105.0
- 100
1,902
84.5
1,902
105.0
2,509
110.0
1,879
95.3
1,902
122.5
2,205
112.0
Percent
2.509
87.6
2,509
109.0
3,115
118.0
2,501
95.3
2,509
132.0
3,115
122.0
Saturated
3,115
91.0
3,115
114.0
4,047
126.0
4,047
97.2
3,115
132.0
4,047
133.0
4,047
92.7
4,047
118.5
4,047
138.0
MOTES: (1) P " stress, Ib/sq fc.
(2) "Y " cell unit weight, lb/cu ft.
* Umretted, see Table 11-12.
-------
TABLE 11-25
UNIT WEIGHT OF ANAEROBIC REFUSE AFTER CONSOLIDATION
Refuse
Fine
Mixed
Coarse
Size
Paper
Content
20
30
60
20
30
60
20
3d
60
Percent
P
y
P
y
P
y
P
y
P
y
P
y
P
y
P
y
P
y
0
49.6
0
33.0
0
25.2
0
58.5
0
58.2
0
24.3
0
53.0
0
38.7
0
19.25
1,257
66.1
1,257
44.0
1,257
31.5
1,257
73.0
1,257
67.5
1,257
30.4
1,257
82.8
1,257
55.3
1,257
22.3
Dry *
2,212
69.5
1,902
44.7
1.902
34.2
1,902
75.7
1.902
83.2
2,205
33.5
1,902
86.8
1,902
61.7
1,864
23.0
3.130
73.5
3,115
49.0
2,509
34.8
2,819
80.5
2,819
91.2
2,812
35.4
2,509
91.3
2,509
61. 7
2,478
24.4
4,047
76.3
4,047
51.5
3,426
36.7
4,047
85.8
3,426
92.4
3,426
37.4
3,426
94. 7
3,426
64.2
3,090
24.8
-
-
-
-
4,046
38.0
-
-
4,047
95.5
4,047
38.1
4,046
100.0
4,047
66.9
3,403
25.2
0
57.5
0
87.8
0
63.7
0
75.5
0
66.9
0
67.4
0
50.4
~ 65
1,257
80.7
1,257
113.0
1,257
91.1
1,257
116.0
1,257
101.0
1,257
98.0
1,257
73.2
Percent
1,902
85.2
1,902
119.0
1,879
94.4
1,902
120.8
1,902
108.4
1,902
103.6
2.212
77.5
Saturated
2,509
88.5
2,509
123.5
2,507
98.0
2,509
128.4
2,509
110.0
2,509
112.2
3,130
80.6
3,115
92.0
3,123
12B.3
3,121
98.0
3,115
134.0
3,115
113.0
3,115
114. 5
4,047
85.7
4.047
98.3
4,047
131.0
3,721
104.0
4,047
137.2
4,047
118.4
4,047
119.6
-
I
NOTES. (1) P - stress, Ib/sq ft.
(2) y ¦ cell unit weight, Ib/cu ft.
* Umretted, see Table 11-12.
-------
TABLE 11-26
TIME - DEFORMATION DATA
Stress, lb/sq ft
1.
257
1,
575
2,205
3,
115
4,
050
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
Time"
sec.
Strain
inches
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
0.870
3
0.020
3
0.040
11
0.130
2
0.040
6
0.932
7
0.022
5
0.042
15
0.135
9
0.045
11
1.000
19
0.030
8
0.050
20
0.140
15
0.060
15
1.030
27
0.040
11
0.060
30
0.149
20
0.065
21
1.060
42
0.040
15
0.070
37
0.160
33
0.070
27
1.070
79
0.060
19
0.075
41
0.166
60
0.100
33
1.086
24
0.080
51
0.175
90
0.120
37
1.090
30
0.090
58
0.180
300
0.140
i
47
1.109
42
0.100
69
0.186
480
0.160
60
1.110
45
0.105
92
0.200
1,080
0.200
75
1.125
53
0.110
105
0.210
1,800
0.220
90
1.140
60
0.120
135
0.220
72,000
0.290
120
1.160
75
0.125
150
1.170
90
0.130
360
1.180
105
0.140
420
1.195
122
0.150
630
1.200
150
0.160
710
1.215
NOTES: Initial sample height, 4.0 inches.
Sample Characteristics: Coarse - 30% paper - 100% saturated -
anaerobic.
D-64
-------
TABLE 11-26 (Cont'd)
TIME - DEFORMATION DATA
Stress
, lb/sq ft
1.
257
2,
210
3,940
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.575
3
0.055
9
0.065
7
0.640
7
0.060
15
0.071
13
0.645
15
0.075
30
0.080
17
0.650
28
0.080
60
0.090
21
0.660
40
0.085
120
0.108
27
0.665
58
0.090
195
0.120
32
0.670
83
0.100
360
0.125
42
0.675
113
0.110
930
0.160
54
0.685
155
0.115
1,500
0.170
71
0.690
195
0.120
3,625
0.190
87
0.695
600
0.140
110
0.705
900
0.150
133
0.710
2,040
0.170
187
0.715
294
0.730
420
0.735
522
0.740
1,320
0.765
2,220
0.780
4,800
0.800
5,700
0.810
NOTES: Initial sample height, 4.0 inches.
Sample characteristics: Coarse - 60"% paper - 30% water
added by weicht - anaerobic.
D-65
-------
TABLE II-26 (Cont'd)
TIME - DEFORMATION DATA
Stress,
lb/sq ft
1.
257
2,
990
3
,890
Tine
sec.
Strain
inches
Time
sec.
Strain
Inches
Time
sec.
Strain
Inches
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
5
0.860
5
0.225
5
0.041
9
0.910
10
0.260
13
0.055
12
0.940
15
0.275
20
0.060
17
0.950
30
0.290
30
0.062
23
0.965
45
0.300
45
0.065
30
0.970
60
0.310
60
0.070
40
0.982
90
0.320
120
0.071
60
1.000
120
0.330
180
0.080
75
1.010
180
0.345
300
0.081
120
1.020
300
0.356
600
0.100
150
1.030
900
0.390
1,200
0.102
180
1.035
2,700
0.415
1,800
0.110
300
1.050
3,600
0.420
1,020
1.080
1,800
1.100
3,600
1.110
NOTES: Initial sample height, 4.0 inches.
Sample Characteristics: Coarse - 20% paper - 30% water
added by weight - aerobic.
D-66
-------
TABLE 11-27
TIME - DEFORMATION DATA
Stress
, lb/sq ft
1,257
2,
990
3
,900
Time
Strain
Time
Strain
Time
Strain
sec.
Inches
sec.
inches
sec.
inches
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
0.710
3
0.210
3,600
0.36
9
0.735
5
0.220
15
0.750
9
0.230
20
0.760
12
0.240
27
0.760
18
0.250
42
0.772
30
0.260
54
0.780
36
0.265
75
0.790
44
0.270
120
0.805
71
0.285
180
0.820
90
0.290
5,100
0.880
150
0.295
300
0.310
NOTES: Initial sample height, 4.0 inches.
Sample Characteristics: Coarse - 30% paper - 30% water
added by weight - aerobic.
D-67
-------
TABLE H-27 (Cont'd)
TIME - DEFORMATION DATA
Stress, lb/sq ft
l,2bu
2,990
3,885
4,
770
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
Time
sec.
Strain
inches
Time
aec.
Strain
inches
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
0.830
3
0.256
7
0.055
9
0.335
9
0.850
7
0.282
21
0.060
15
0.385
15
0.870
11
0.290
60
0.062
30
0.415
21
0.875
15
0.300
120
0.070
60
0.455
27
0.880
20
0.302
480
0.080
120
0.500
34
0.890
30
0.315
900
0.082
300
0.580
50
0.895
40
0.320
1,800
0.090
900
0.680
63
0.900
60
0.330
4,500
0.100
1,800
0.780
87
0.910
90
0.340
2,700
0.830
120
0.915
120
0.345
150
0.920
180
0.355
255
0.932
1,200
0.395
480
0.945
2,100
0.405
900
0.955
NOTES: Initial sample height, 4.0 inches.
Sample Characteristics: Coarse - 207. paper - 30% water
added by weight - anaerobic.
D-68
-------
TABLE 11-27 (Cont'd)
TIME - DEFORMATION DATA
Stress,
lb/sq ft
1.
257
2
990
3,960
Time
Strain
Time
Strain
Time
Strain
sec.
inches
sec.
inches
sec.
inches
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
7
0.140
3
0.255
5
0.070
15
0.165
13
0.290
15
0.080
30
0.170
23
0.300
45
0.085
60
0.180
45
0.310
90
0.090
90
0.185
65
0.320
150
0.100
120
0.190
120
0.332
300
0.110
180
0. 195
180
0.340
600
0.120
300
0.200
300
0.352
1,200
0.125
600
0.210
600
0.366
1,200
0.220
1,200
0.380
1,800
0.230
4,800
0.415
3,600
0.250
NOTES: Initial sample height, 4.0 inches.
Sample Characteristics; Coarse - 607. paper - 30% water
added by weight - aerobic.
D-69
-------
TABLE 11-27 (Cont'd)
TIME - DEFORMATION DATA
Stress,
lb/sq ft
1.257
2,990.
Time
Strain
Time
Strain
sec.
inches
sec.
Inches
0
0.0
0
0.0
J
0.540
3
0.210
5
0.570
7
0.240
10
0.580
11
0.246
15
0.585
15
0.260
20
0.592
30
0.271
30
0.600
45
0.280
45
0.610
60
0.288
60
0.612
120
0.290
90
0.615
180
0.300
120
0.620
300
0.330
180
0.621
300
0.630
600
0.640
1,200
0.642
2,400
0.652
3,600
0.658
NOTES: Initial sample height, 4,0 Inches.
Sample Characteristics: Coarse - 30% paper -
30% water added by weight -
anaerobic.
D-70
-------
TABLE 11-28
CONSTANTS FOR EQUATION OF SECONDARY COMPACTION
Size Percent Value of
Type of Cell of Material Paper kg
Aerobic-dry F 20 13.4
30 13.4
60 14.4
M 20 14.8
30 12.9
60 17.1
C 20 14.8
30 14.9
60 13.1
Anaerobic-dry F 20 11.2
30 12.5
60 11.2
M 20 13.4
30 11.8
60 22.5
C 20 12.7
30 18.6
60 19.6
Aerobic-65% saturated F 20 15.6
30 12.3
M 20 12.6
30 14.5
C 20 14.1
30 16.1
60 13.6
Anaerobic-65% saturated F 20 13.1
30 15.0
M 20 14.3
30 14.9
C 20 17.3
30 15.0
60 14.8
Anaerobic-saturated F 20 11.5
30 14.5
M 20
30 3.2
C 20 12.2
30 15.2
- kg In (p/pQ)
=• 7. secondary compaction
= 1,250 lb/sq ft
° constant
NOTE:
-------
TABLE 11-29
PREDICTION OF LANDFILL SUBSIDENCE
SIMULATED LANDFILL
Lift
Age
of
Fill
(Years)
Time
after Lift
Emplacement
(Year^)
Overburden
Pressure
(lb/sq ft)
Increments
(lb/sq ft)
Components
(%)
s„ c c
D i s
SL
<%)
Elevation
at top of
Lift
(ft)
1
0
0
300
+300,+300
0 25 0
25.0
502.25
(Bottom)
1/2
1/2
900
+300,+300,-75
18.6 25 0
39.0
501.83
1
1
1,425
-75
37.6 25 1.9
54.2
501.37
1 1/2
1 1/2
1,350
40.0 25 1.1
55.5
501.34
2
2
1,350
41.4 1.1
56.7
501.30
2 1/2
2 1/2
1,350
+2,000
41.4 25 1.1
56.7
501.30
3
3
3,350
41.4 25 13.7
62.1
501.14
2
1/2
0
300
+300,+300
0 25 0
25.0
507.08
(Middle)
1
1/2
900
-75
18.6 25 0
39.0
506.20
1 1/2
1
825
37.6 25 0
54.8
505.70
2
1 1/2
825
40.0 25 0
56.2
505.61
2 1/2
2
825
+2,000
41.4 25 0
56.2
505.61
3
2 1/2
2,825
41.4 25 11.6
61.2
505.17
3
1
0
300
0 25 0
25.0
511.45
(Top)
1 1/2
1/2
300
18.6 25 0
39.0
510.53
2
1
300
37.6 25 0
54.8
509.97
2 1/2
1 1/2
300
+2,000
40.0 25 0
56.2
509.92
3
2
2,300
41.4 .25 8.7
59.8
509.38
Assumptions: (1) Three three-ft lifts of partially-saturated xefus>e emplaced at 180-day
intervals and compacted @ 1,250 lb/sq ft.
(2) Average subsidence rate at 180 days: 727>/year.
(3) Average weight loss in each lift: 25% in first six months; nil thereafter.
(4) Elevation at base of fill: assume 500.00 ft.
(5) In-place fill density: assume 100 lb/cu ft.
(6) Each lift covered with an overburden of 300 lb/sq ft.
(7) After three years an overburden of 2,000 lb/sq ft is added.
-------
TABLE III-l
SITE 6 METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
27 AUGUST 1969
(Percent by Volume)
Probe Percent CH^
17
0
18
13.2
19
2.4
20
10.0
21
13.7
22
30.3
23
9.8
24
0
25
0
26
0
27
53.5
28
2.4
29
0
30
0
31
0
32
41.0
33
0.7
D-73
-------
TABLE III-2
DIFFUSION-filSPERSION COEFFICIENTS FOR METHANE
IN VARIOPS POROUS MEDIA
(Soils Rested in 1967)
D (cm per second)
Moisture Content
Porous Media Air Dry Optimum
In Flow Gas Pressure
0.25 in
4.0 in
12.0 in
Compaction
4.25
5.0
20
Compaction
H2°
h2o
H2°
Percent
psi
psi
psi
Percent
Sand
0.0575
0.578
4.58
72
-
-
-
-
Sandy Silt
0.0317
0.152
0.239
62
0.033
0.035
-
84
Silty Clay
0.026
0.088
0.093
67
N.D.F.
N.D.F.
0.026
90
Kaolin Clay
N.F.
N.F.
0.012x10"
3 41
N.D.F.
N.D.F.
0.012xl0"3
90
psi = 27.673 inches of 1^0 (4°C)
N.F. = no detectable flow
-------
TABLE III-3
DIFFUSION-DISPERSION COEFFICIENT FOR METHANE
THROUGH SILTY CLAY SOIL
(Soil Tested In 1968)
D (cra^ Per Second)
Moisture Content
Field Condition^-) Optimum ^
(20 percent) (28 percent)
Porous Inflow Gas Pressure
Medium 1 1
4 in H20 12 in H20 24 in H20 4 in H20 12 in H20 24 in H20
Sand,
Silty Clay
0.224 0.282 0.690 0.20 0.236 0.296
(1) Percent compaction = 77
(2) Percent compaction = 87
D-75
-------
1A
IB
1C
2A
26
2C
3A
3B
3C
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
5C
obe
3
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
29
31
32
45
52
55
56
63
TABLE III-4
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 1
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
Before Static Eressure
Test (inches of water)
3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/25
40
40
42
+0.08
40
34
37
+0.10
37
44
37
+0.10
42
29
46
0
38
39
37
0
49
33
33
0
50
50
46
+0.08
40
41
35
+0.08
46
55
40
+0.07
32
100
47
0
35
56
39
0
35
47
40
0
48
52
50
37
+0.05
42
46
49
45
+0.07
32
55
60
33
+0.06
17
14
17
18
34
36
37
36
48
56
36
41
37
28
38
37
38
35
40
42
27
31
35
35
13
13
18
18
18
23
20
10
10
12
8
14
20
15
19
32
26
39
39
37
49
39
28
29
22
20
29
12
15
17
14
26
36
37
24
20
13
19
14
38
42
39
33
10
10
15
10
14
7
9
8
28
34
33
30
44
40
30
27
30
42
33-
39
D-76
-------
1A
IB
1C
2A
26
2C
3A
3B
3C
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
5C
ob
3
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
29
31
32
45
52
55
56
63
TABLE III-5
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 2
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 Static Pressure (In. of Water)
AM AM PM AM PM AM PM 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4
¦0.23 -0.26 -0.25 -0.27
¦0.23 -0.30 -0.24 -0.27
.0.20 -0.25 -0.27 -0.30
-0.44 -0.60 -0.65 -0.55
-0.44 -0.50 -0.50 -0.46
-0.33 -0.40 -0.45 -0.45
-5.0 -5.0 -5.0 -5.0
-1.9 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0
-1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1
-0.60 -0.75 -0.70 -0.70
-0.60 -0.72 -0.65 -0.75
-0.38 -0.47 -0.43 -0.46
-0.10 -0.20 -0.20 -0.19
-0.08 -0.19 -0.20 -0.19
-0.08 -0.18 -0.19 -0.20
AM = Reading before
pump on
PM = Reading after
pump off
39
48
20
46
0
52
4
39
44
9
51
9
42
0
44
44
19
46
5
42
10
36
55
32
61
17
43
NR
38
38
19
35
10
34
NR
38
44
9
59
0
49
NR
45
47
30
48
32
38
NR
42
20
0
22
0
19
NR
28
30
0
21
4
26
NR
40
46
30
46
13
45
NR
36
34
0
30
0
30
NR
31
42
44
51
41
43
NR
40
40
24
43
10
32
NR
47
42
10
52
0
43
NR
37
34
20
37
14
28
NR
23
17
5
22
0
24
5
36
32
32
43
39
38
31
42
34
32
42
31
40
35
34
39
35
47
35
44
45
41
32
15
31
0
27
12
38
33
4
37
0
29
7
19
23
30
22
22
17
10
22
20
11
19
7
18
10
12
11
9
12
0
12
17
18
16
13
20
22
20
10
31
14
0
7
0
11
0
32
41
0
37
0
37
0
26
22
8
30
8
32
0
11
11
6
0
0
8
0
29
29
35
34
30
32
15
15
17
20
14
10
18
9
36
38
25
36
10
42
7
10
18
14
12
9
8
19
7
7
25
10
7
9
15
33
34
31
35
30
36
40
34
36
34
42
35
34
40
42
34
40
46
40
40
48
D-77
-------
TABLE II1-6
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 3
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
Static Pressure
Before (Inches of Water)
Sample Test Blower On Blower Off Blower Off Blower On
Point 4/7 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/14 4/15 4/7 4/8 4/9
Well
1A
48
0
0
0
51
45
42
+0.04
-0.30 -0.40
IB
50
0
0
0
50
39
45
-K).06
-0.34 -0.38
1C
67
8
4
5
47
55
50
+0.04
-0.30 -0.35
2A
62
0
. 0
0
39,
43
40
+0.05
-0.65 -0.60
2B
40
17
25
11
30
45
40
40.05
-0.55 -0.50
2C
80
0
0
0
51
65
50
+0.04
-0.49 -0.50
3A
51
0
0
0
55
45
43
0
-5.0 -5.0
3B
48
0
0
0
42
50
40
+0.02
-2.0 -2.1
3C
39
2
3
7
30
49
40
+0.02
-1.3 -1.2
4A
47
0
0
0
50
52
46
+0.04
-0.80 -0.75
4B
53
0
0
0
50
50
50
+0.06
-0.B0 -0.65
4C
64
0
0
0
60
49
44
+0.04
-0.50 -0.50
5A
48
0
0
0
57
50
42
+0.02
-0.23 -0.26
5B
57
0
0
0
55
54
41
+0.04
-0.25 -0.28
5C
45
7
0
0
35
39
30
+0.03
-0.25 -0.29
Probe
3
11
0
3
15
7
10
13
7
30
35
32
25
40
40
35
8
25
27
19
18
35
32
36
9
35
20
22
16
21
32
34
13
30
0
0
0
0
11
15
14
21
0
0
0
7
15
15
15
12
3
0
0
0
20
20
16
10
0
0
0
0
11
20
17
10
0
0
0
0
14
11
18
18
10
4
7
11
19
21
19
35
0
0
0
0
19
22
22
44
0
0
0
21
29
30
23
17
0
0
0
10
16
12
24
3
3
0
2
3
11
7
29
28
15
15
16
25
36
24
31
6
17
15
15
26
14
11
32
55
0
0
0
14
20
25
45
11
10
10
10
11
16
11
52
16
5
1
4
8
10
18
55
31
20
11
30
34
37
32
56
35
17
17
30
32
42
25
63
46
30
34
35
37
35
32
D-78
-------
1A
IB
1C
2A
2B
2C
3A
3B
3C
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
5C
obe
3
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
29
31
32
45
52
55
56
63
TABLE III-7
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 4
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
Before Static Pressure
Test Blower On (Inches of Water)
4/16 4/17 4/18 4/17 4/18
40
40
42
40
42
45
45
45
49
40
45
40
40
40
33
30
28
27
0
29
21
19
14
25
25
20
0
38
35
38
45
40
40
0
35
28
11
12
27
22
11
0
35
35
45
+0.06
40.04
+0.05
0
+0.01
+0.01
-0.}0
-0.23
-0.12
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
40.02
+0.02
40.02
+0.05
+0.06
+0.06
+0.01
+0.04
+0.04
-0.47
-0.20
-0.08
-0.01
+0.01
+0.01
+0.04
+0.06
+0.07
10
14
18
25
20
20
24
20
17
14
23
30
18
7
20
14
35
38
30
17
15
20
19
13
19
10
19
17
5
23
14
30
21
25
12
16
21
30
22
20
9
22
15
7
20
25
20
5
14
30
37
18
11
12
35
20
28
25
13
19
33
28
26
D-79
-------
TABLE III-8
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 5
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by -Volume)
Static Preesure
(In. o
f Water)
Before
Blower
Blower
Sample
Test
Blower
On
Off
Off
Blower On
Point
4/21
4/22
4/23
4/24
4/25
4/21
4/22
4/23
4/24
Well
1A
40
0
0
0
37
+0.08
-0.20
-0.20
-0.19
IB
45
0
0
0
33
+0.10
-0.20
-0.23
-0.22
1C
35
5
3
0
20
+0.09
-0.20
-0.27
-0.21
2A
42
--
--
0
30
+0.10
-0.40
-0.40
-0.40
2B
45
--
--
0
15
+0.09
-0.33
-0.39
-0.35
2C
55
--
--
0
38
+0.09
-0.30
-0.30
-0.30
3A
47
--
--
15
30
+0.05
-3.40
-3:60
-3.40
3B
47
--
--
0
30
+0.07
-1.40
-1.40
-1.40
3C
47
--
--
4
45
+0.08
-0.90
-0.85
-0.85
4A
50
--
0
40
+0.09
-0.50
-0.50
-0.45
4B
40
0
40
+0.10
-0.45
-0.49
-0.49
4C
50
0
45
+0.07
-0.30
-0.37
-0.32
5A
42
0
0
0
35
+0.08
-0.15
-0.15
-0.17
5B
47
0
1
0
35
+0.08
-0.15
-0.17
-0.15
5C
52
4
12
0
30
+0.10
-0.15
-0.12
-0.17
Probe
3
17
9
7
0
10
7
30
38
28
8
22
8
35
25
16
40
14
9
27
35
14
39
20
13
22
0
0
0
0
14
27
0
0
0
5
15
15
10
0
0
0
16
33
0
0
0
0
17
18
0
0
0
0
18
21
25
10
3
10
19
27
0
0
0
0
22
26
0
0
0
14
23
30
0
0
0
0
24
4
2
0
0
0
29
36
14
12
14
14
31
32
32
0
0
0
23
45
12
14
3
4
15
52
7
4
0
4
3
55
32
34
30
12
15
56
30
20
0
0
0
63
32
45
42
11
30
D-80
-------
TABLE III-9
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 6
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
Static Pressure
Blower (Inches of Water)
Sample Off All Well Pipes Open Blower On
Point 4/25 4/28 4/29 5/1 5/5 5/8 5/12 5/16 5/20 5/28 4/25 4/28
Well
,
1A
37
15
13
4
30
36
46
47
-5.0 -5.0
IB
33
5
20
27
30
38
55
50
52
-1.5 -2.0
1C
20
8
32
36
30
35
44
50
50
-1.1 -1.5
2A
30
2
0
0
0
17
23
34
-0.70 -0.90
2B
15
6
20
31
29
30
40
55
55
-0.55 -0.75
2C
38
0
31
29
23
30
45
65
47 .
47
-0.45 -0.60
3A
30
0
0
0
0
25
40
45
-0.27 -0.40
3B
30
0
18
34
25
39
46
50
60
-0.30 -0.45
3C
45
11
15
20
27
35
32
35
40
30
-0.22 -0.35
4A
40
0
0
0
5
20
40
47
-0.10 -0.26
4B
40
0
16
35
30
30
44
55
-0.12 -0.26
4C
45
3
19
30
27
30
37
38
37
55
-0.10 -0.20
5A
35
0
0
24
35
33
49
50
37
-0.02 -0.09
5B
35
0
26
34
35
39
44
50
42
-0.02 -0.09
5C
30
0
16
29
17
32
45
50
38
60
-0.03 -0.06
Probe
3
10
-
-
17
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
22
21
27
38
15
29
30
32
37
-
Note; All readingt
8
14
16
28
42
15
35
30
35
36
63
made using a J.W.
9
20
11
19
32
12
32
32
38
39
60
Sniffer
13
0
0
0
3
4
9
17
21
12
21
14
5
0
0
1
0
6
9
20
20
15
TR = Trace
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
5
5
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tr
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tr
Tr
Tr
18
10
-
10
15
-
18
16
20
17
24
19
0
0
0
0
3
3
10
23
28
18
22
14
0
14
18
6
20
15
25
-
-
23
0
0
0
7
-
30
23
15
-
-
24
0
-
-
13
-
25
-
-
-
-
29
14
-
16
28
-
29
26
30
-
-
31
-
-
-
9
-
-
20
12
-
-
32
23
0
0
4
4
7
11
19
23
15
45
15
8
18
10
8
7
7
12
-
-
52
3
0"
7
5
3
4
5
5
-
-
55
15
12
20
40
17
28
27
32
-
-
56
0
0
16
39
20
25
23
28
30
-
63
30
0
0
16
10
20
23
32
37
43
D-81
-------
TABLE' 111-10
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 7
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
6/10 6/11 6/12 6/17'6/23
Blower Blower Blower Blower
off oil off off
Sample Time Time Time Time .Time
Point - 1050 1145 1215 1245 1315'1345 1430 0845 0940 1020'1100 1045'1030
Well
1A
43
19
28
IB
42
5
5
1C
44
10
8
2A
40
22
29
2B
40'
14
16
2C
39
28
40
3A
40
40
28
3B
41
28
7
3C
38
42
39
4A
37
27
23
4B
42
5
5
4C
60
45
40
5A
43
21
31
5B
45
5
4
5C
47
6
16
Probe
3
20
11
18
4
57
43
-
5
33
41
-
6
28
26
-
7
37
29
34
8
42
19
20
9
52
39
46
33
32
17
12
10
35
0
-
11
37
23
-
12
37
4
-
13
27
32
6
0
0
0
0
14
26
26
2
0
1
0
0
15
13
8
6
0
1
0
0
16
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
17
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
27
26
19
15
16
11
16
19
31
27
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
32
32
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
4
7
23
22
14
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
0
0
24
17
13
11
10
9
13
11
11
8
13
14
11
0
6
27
24
23
4
2
4
0
0
D-82
-------
TABLE III-10 (Continued)
-—
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 7
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
6/10 6/11 6/12 6/17 6/23
Blower Blower Blower Blower
off on off off
Sample Time Time Time Time Time
Point - 1050 1145 1215 1245 1315 1345 1430 0845 0940 1020 1100 1045 1030
29
34
29
18
14
19
19
20
31
10
8
7
7
11
7
11
32
10
28
4
0
1
0
0
34
15
5
-
35
27
28
-
36
25
41
-
45
1
0
-
52
3
1
3
55
4
19
27
56
23
-
-
63
28
13
12
D-83
-------
TABLE III-11
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 8
METHANE"CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by•Volume)
6/23 6/27 7/1 7/10 7/28
Blower Blower Blower Blower Blower
off off off off off
Sample Time Time Time Time Time
Point 1030 1045 1045 • 1045 1040
Well
1A
IB
1C„
2A
2B •
2C i
3A A
3B i
3C
4A 4
4B
4C
5A
5B .
5C ;
28
5
8
29
16
40
28
7
39
23
5
40
31
4
16
26,
17
13
32
21
33
34
27
42
29
10
45
37
5
13
33
16
11
43
25
40
37
29
40
35
15
50
35
8
22
38
19
17
37
12
50
35
30
37
31
12
40
39
10
22
Probe
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
27
18
34
20
12
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
7
0
6
0
13
37
31
18
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
4
0
6
3
10
40
37
17
35
24
12
0
11
5
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
12
0
3
4
52
38
20
0
0
0
0
20
0
14
0
10
5
12
48
27
19
27
20
11
0
18
17
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
2
0
5
0
D-84
-------
TABLE III-11 (Continued)
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 8
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
6/23
6/27
7/1
7/10
7/28
Blower
Blower
Blower
Blower
Blower
off
off
off
off
off
Sample
Time
Time
Time
Time
Time
Point
1030
1045
1045
1045
1040
29
20
24
16
28
18
31
11
5
10
12
11
32
0
3
3
3
34
-
6
20
35
-
35
20
36
-
45
32
45
-
52
3
55
27
56
-
63
12
13
15
23
D-85
-------
TABLE 111-12
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST LP
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
8/20
9/3
Blower
Blower
off
off
Sample
Time
Time
9/3
Point
1030
1115
Static Pressure (in of'l^O)
Well
1A
31
-4.95
IB
7
-1.64
1C
24
-1.23
2A
36
-0.82
2B
33
-0.75
2C
42
-0.68
3A .
32
-0.43
3B
12
-0.55
3C
23
-0.58
4A
42
-0.70
4B .
21
-0.70
4C .
37
-0.65
5A
31
-5.0*
5B
3
-1.8
5C
5
-1.3
Probe
3
0
0
4
22
5
23
6
21
* Maximum vacuum reading
7
2
3
possible by Velometer = -5.0
8
0
0
9
0
0
10
0
11
0
12
0
13
0
0
14
0
0
15
0
0
16
0
0
17
0
0
18
0
0
19
0
0
22
0
0
23
0
0
24
0
0
27
0
0
D-86
-------
TABLE 111-12 (Continued)
SITE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 10
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
8/20
9/3
Blower
Blower
off
off
Sample
Time
Time
9/3
Point
1030
1115
Static Pressure
(in of 1^0)
29
0
0
31
0
0
32
0
0
34
0
35
0
36
0
D-87
-------
TABLE III-13
SITE 5 CONTROL SYSTEM
-GAS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
(Percent)
Greenhouse Temperature
: 65°F Weather:
Overcast
Date Sample Taken:
21 May 1969
Date Sample Analyzed:
22 May 1969
Probe
C°2
°2
N2
CH.
4
23
22.3
3.7
51.3
20.8
24
7.3
10.8
83.3
0
25A
0
21.2
80.9
0
25B
0
18.0
80.4
0
25D
25.9
4.3
37.1
32.3
26A
Tr
21.4
80.8
0
26B
0.5
19.4
82.0
0
27A
0
. 22.4
81.9
0
27B
1.0
20.3
82.0
0
27C
43.2
1.9
21.5
36.6
28A
Tr
22.5
81.7
0
28B
Tr
22.5
82.3
0
29A
0
22.6
81.6
0
29B
6.7
15.1
82.5
0
29C
29.1
2.3
49.5
21.6
30
29.5
6.1
43.9
24.8
31
18.7
12.5
54.1
19.1
D-88
-------
TABLE III-14
SITE'5 CONTROL SYSTEM
GAS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
(Percent)
Greenhouse Temperature: 70°F Weather: Clear
Date Sample Taken: 27 August 1969
Date Sample Analyzed: 29 August 1969
Probe CO^ 0£
N2
CH,
4
23
7.9
17.8
70.4
3.1
24
9.9
12.5
79.3
0
25A
0
21.3
81.0
0
25B
7.6
12.6
81.4
0
25D
35.3
4.6
27.5
35.6
26A
0
13.9
81.3
0
26B
21.7
2.1
74.5
3.6
27A
Tr
21.8
80.5
0
27B
18.5
1.4
78.7
1.3
27C
Tr
20.9
79.7
0
28A
£r
21.2
80.0
0
28B
16.1
1.9
81.5
0
29A
Tr
20.8
80.5
0
29B
22.5
1.7
73.0
3.5
29C
36.3
1.6
37.9
25.5
NOTE:
Vent pipes in gravel beneath barrier
on 18 August 1969.
were sealed
D-89
-------
TABLE III-15
SITE 5 CONTROL SYSTEM
GAS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
(Percent)
Greenhouse Temperature:
75°F Weather:
Warm-Hazy
Date Sample Taken: 8
October 1969
Date Sample Analyzed: 9
October 1969
Probe
co2
°2
N2
OT4
23
24.9
1.7
58.3
11.0
24
LI.3
8.5
76.7
0
25A
0
16.3
80.6
0
25B
10.9
7.4
78.7
0
25D
41.3
1.8
19.1
37.4
26A
0
20.8
78.8
0
26B
25.0
2.0
55.0
15.0
27 A
Tr
20.6
79.1
0
27B
3.1
16.6
73.7
1.7
27C
40.7
1.8
19.9
36.6
28A
Tr
21.5
76.3
0
28B
1.5
18.2
75.9
0.8
29A
0
20.4
77.4
0
29B
26.5
2.5
49.5
20.6
29C
23.3
7.2
47.0
19.1
30
27.3
1.9
47.8
20.1
31
23.3
7.6
44.7
22.2
NOTE: Vent pipes in gravel beneath barrier have been sealed
since 18 August 1969.
D-90
-------
TABLE 111-16
SITE 5 CONTROL SYSTEM
GAS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
(Percent)
Greenhouse Temperature
: 75°F Weather:
Clear
Date Sample Taken:
16 October 1969
Date Sample Analyzed:
17 October 1969
Probe
C02
°2
N2
CH,
4
23
23.9
1.8
64.8
6.7
24
2.5
16.3
76.9
0
25A
0
20.8
78.2
0
25B
0
20.4
78.1
0
25D
33.7
4.6
28.7
31.4
26A
0
20.7
80.7
0
26B
0.5
19.9
78.7
0
27A
0
21.0
78.6
0
27B
2.1
23.2
78.3
0
27C
10.6
19.1
66.9
8.3
28A
Tr
23.0
77.4
0
28B
0
22.9
77.9
0
29A
Tr
23.8
78.4
0
29B
4.7
20.3
77.4
0
29C
29.7
6.0
46.8
20.0
30
17.2
11.1
65.3
8.3
31
29.9
6.8
35.9
30.9
NOTE: Vent pipea in gravel beneath barrier which had been sealed
since 18 August were opened again, allowing ventilation of
gravel base, on 8 October 1969.
D-91
-------
TABLE 111-17
SITE 8 CONTROL SYSTEM
1969 TEST 1
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
9/17
11/5
12/5
Pre-Test
Ch JW
Ch
JW
Ch JW
2B
_
20.4
37
41
2C
25.0
29.9
23
35
3A
40.3
26.8
22
32
3B
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
6A
0
0
0
0
7A
42.8
20.4
28
24
7C
44.4
35.8
32
47
8
15.7
10.8
12
23
8B
9.3
8.6
10
25
9C
31.0
7.3
7
28
10
8.4
0
0
0
10A
16.8
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
13A
1.4
3
0
13C
0
0
0
0
14A
14.6
20.9
26
32
15A
0
16.4
31
8
16A ..
0
0
0
0
18B -
0
0
0
Lost
19A
0
0
0
0
19B
0
0
0
0
22A
0
0
0
0
23A
0
0
0
0
25
43.7
44.0
50
50
26
40.0
41.8
43
39
27
1.5
0
0
0
28
4.5
6.0
7
3
T-l
14.8
32
57
T-2
41.8
40
45
T-3
52.2
50
46
T-4
44.3
46
53
T-5
42.3
42
32
T-6
33.3
35
41
T-7
1.2
2
14
T-8
0.5
0
11
T-9
2.7
3
7
T-10
0.7
2
6
T-ll
14.8
12
22
T-12
11.0
12
20
D-92
-------
TABLE 111-17 (Continued)
SITE 8 CONTROL SYSTEM ,
1969 TEST I
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
(Percent by Volume)
9/17
11/5
12/5
Pre-Test
Probe Ch JW
Ch
JW
Ch JW
T-13
0.6
6
10
T-14
1.2
4
15
W-l
50.4
50
50
W-2
60.0
50
50
NOTE: Ch = Chromatograph
JW = Johnson-Williams Explosion Meter
D-93
-------
TABLE 111-18
GAS EXPLOSION UNIT
INSTALLATION DATA TEST 2
1. Test Site: South Coast Botanic Garden
2. Installation Location:
ROLLING HILLS ROAD
WWW
v
A X " * "
A R A
FENCE
A
PATH
II 11/
AREA OF SLIPPAGE /
II///
__IOP_OF SLO_PE _
TEST 2-
OVER 4X8
2' DEEP HOLE
3. Character of Soil:
Eh— LOCATION OF TEST
h— 50'± —
Dry, Fine, Diatomaceous Earth
4. General State of FiJl: Test Over Area of Subsidence Problems
Weather
Prior to Installation:
Clear
and
Warm
Weather
at Time of Installation:
Clear
and
Warm
Light Breeze Toward West
7. Date of Installation: 1 October 1969
8. Time of Installation: 11:35 A.M.
9. Remarks: Sniffer showed 16% just after installation
(All Openings Closed). Hole tested 30% methane concentration
prior to installation.
10, Installed By: CWS and MP
D-94 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
-------
/ / / % METHANE /tGNITION POINT/ DET'N / / /REMARKS s
/ / / / / / / ^ /
/////&///^ /&///
/ & /& /, /o / £ /« /o /£ / $ /§ /&i/§i7$/£ /
10/1
12:50
44
48
46
X
X
. X
X
Cork removed
TABLE III-18 (Continued) 1
GAS EXPLOSION UKIT 1
DETONATION DATA TEST 2 |
12:57
20
—
13
X
X
X
X
Cork replaced for test
13:05
25
--
--
At
top
Put out flame w/cork
13:11
20
--
--
X
X
Replaced cork
13:13
5
—
7
X
X
It
•
11
X
X
11
ti
X
X
II
11
X
X'
X
X
Ignition with cork out
13:22
4
--
--
X
X
13:25
4
5.0
4
X
X
0
0
Rock under bottom edge
Whole works caught
on fire; extinguished.
13:27
—
—
10
X
X
One
up
edge
1/2"
of cc
and st
rk we
uck
it
Rork under hnfl-mn nf hn*
1
-------
TABLE 111-19
GAS EXPLOSION UNIT
INSTALLATION DATA
TEST 3
1. Test Site: South Coast Botanic Garden
2. Installation Location:
Same as Test 2
3. Character of Soil: Same as Test 2
4. General State of Fill: Same as Test 2
5. Weather Prior to Installation: Warm and Clear
6. Weather at Time of Installation: Warm and Clear
Light Breeze
7. Date of Installation: 8 October 1969
8. Time of Installation: 13:00
9. Remarks: Hole partly filled with dirt
10. Installed By: CWS and MP
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC
-------
/ % METHANE
/ignition
point/ det'n
/ CORK
/ height
/ # / /REMARKS >
^v#/
/I
/ $
Y /& / <*
A
/i/
'/&/ S
A
/
/ ^
/<#
$ /<¥ /
/$/$£/?&/>
/ <3 / ^ ~
/£/£/
/a? / ^ /
/ $ / & /
////
y/y
10/8
13:27
22
14
17
X
X
11
It
It
X
X
!
tl
II
II
X
Zork removed, air wafted
13:31
5
X
X
3/4"
1"
Sniffer on 10:1
w
H P H
O >< l"1
z Q m
13:33
4.2
X
X
1"
1"
Dust blew out bottom of
>ox. Sniffer on 1:1
> t-4 1
H O ^
O M
z in
® §
c rt
13:35
4.3
X
X
Sniffer on 1:1
13:37
5
X
X
Sniffer on 10:1
H Z JX
>H?
B
a.
II
X
X
II
X
X
13:39
3.7
2.4
2.3
X
X
II
IV
If
X
X
II
II
II
X
X
0"
0"
Dust blew out of bottom
of box
13:52
14
15
20
X
X
Sniffer on 10:1
H
W
C/>
H
X
X
U>
X
X
Cork removed, air wafted
-------
a
i
\o
00
m
z
o
z
m
n
73
Z
O
o
m
z
o
n
z
o
10/8
13:54
5
X
X
Cork replaced just
before test
13:57
4.5
X
X
1"
1"
Sniffer on 1:1
14:00
5.0
X
X
Sniffer on 1:1
14:02
3.5
3.8
2.7
X
X
X
X
Cork out, replaced
after test
14:05
7
X
X
IV
1"
Sniffer on 10:1
14:07
8
X
X
14:08
X
X
0
0
14:10
4.7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L4:13
16
12
14
X
X
X
X
X
X
L4:15
10
X
X
H
O 15
& R
M
t- •
O
CO VO
M
O
2 &
c: a
2 ft
M £
g
ft
P.
3
cn
H
-------
TABLE III-20
GAS EXPLOSION UNIT
INSTALLATION DATA TEST *
1. Test Site: South Coast Botanic Garden
2. Installation Location:
Same as Test 2
3. Character of Soil: Same
4. General State of Fill: Same
5. Weather Prior to Installation: Clear and Warm
6. Weather at Time of Installation: Clear and Warm
slight breeze from west
7. Date of Installation: 16 October 1967
8. Time of Installation: 10:45 A.M.
9. Remarks: Bottle samples taken as shown in log.
Photographs taken this day.
10. Installed By: CWS and MP
D-99
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC
-------
CORK
HEIGHT
% METHANE
REMARKS
IGNITION POINT
10/16
.1:00
15
18
17
X
X
X
X
X
X
After initial test,
X
X
X
X
cork removed, air
wafted, cork replaced
LI: 07
4.0
X
X
1/2"
2"
Delayed reaction
LI: 10
4.5
X
X
3/4"
1"
Bottle 21 from top point
Delayed reaction
LI: 12
5.0
X
X
1"
1"
LI: 15
4.7
X
X
0
0
Dirt blown from around
bottom
LI: 30
4.6
X
X
1/2"
3/4"
Bottle 22 from mid
Doint
L2:45
3.0
X
X
X
X
Bottle 23 from top
strong breeze blown
H
o §>
o £ E
&
h n w
o x m
Z M H
> t- J,
H O ^
M W O
O M
z § O
Ss!
M c
CD
o.
H
PJ
cn
H
-------
TABLE IV-1
COMPOSITION OF SYNTHETIC REFUSE
USED IN THE LEACHATE EXPERIMENT
(Percent by Weight)
Ingredient
TR*
RH**
Paper
50
30
Garden waste, wood
10
20
Garbage
10
20
Metals, glass, ceramics
20
20
Leather, rags, plastics
5
5
Dirt, sweepings
5
5
100
100
* TR = Typical refuse.
** RH = Refuse high in garbage.
TABLE IV-2
MOISTURE AND VOLATILE MATTER CONTENT
IN SYNTHETIC REFUSE INGREDIENTS
(Percent)
Ingredient H2O VM
Paper
1.16
>99.3
Garden waste
22.60
83.5
Vegetable waste
96.20
75.3
Rags and plastics
1.04
>99.
D-101
-------
TABLE IV-3
MOISTURE AND VOLATILE MATTER CONTENT
IN TEST SAMPLES
(Percent)
Sample VM
BR 1-8 83.7 - 102.5 41.5 - 45.5
BR 2-4 69.8 - 72 30.8 - 37.4
CC 1-2 29.5 - 45.0 13.7 - 29.6
CC 2-3 29.4 - 34.2 48.6 - 50.2
Typical Synthetic Refuse* 7.95 69.2**
Synthetic Refuse High 16.1 64.7**
in Garbage*
* Values were calculated on the basis of percent moisture and volatile
matters in ingredients of these samples.
** Since the volatile matter is measured as loss on ignition, the refuse
higher in paper seems to have a high VM ratio than the refuse higher
in garbage. If the volatile matter is calculated on the basis of
garbage and garden wastes only the % VM would be 11.5 and 38.5%
respectively.
TABLE IV-4
WEIGHTS OF LEACHED SAMPLES AND VOLUMES OF ADDED WATER
Series 1 Series 2 Series 3
ample
W
vo
W
Vo
W
Vo
gms
r
mis
gms
V
mis
gms
7
mis
BR 1-8
2,612
0.435
5,500
1,394
0.455
1,700
1,202
0.400
1,800
BR 2-4
1,735
0.289
6,000
926
0.309
1,800
862
0.285
2,000
CC 1-2
2,765
0.461
4,500
1,304
0.434
1,400
1,666
0.555
900
CC 2-3
1,168
0.193
6,300
624
0.208
2,000
560
0.187
2,000
TR
362
0.0603
4,750
208
0.0693
1,710
169
0.0563
1,690
RH
696
0.116
5,500
422
0.141
1,965
' 296
0.099
2,000
D-102
-------
TABLE IV-5
RELATION BETWEEN REFUSE SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND
REQUIRED WATER FOR IMMERSION
Sample
Series
Weight
Water Volume
Added
10-2 ft3
Water Volume/
lbs Refuse
10-2 ftVlb
Initial sp.
gr. of Refuse
y
BR 1-8
2
3.06
6.00
1.96
0.465
BR 1-8
3
2.64
6.35
2.40
0.400
BR 2-4
2
2.02
6.35
3.14
0.309
BR 2-4
3
1.90
7.05
3.71
0.285
CC 1-2
2
2.87
4.94
1.78
0.434
CC 1-2
3
3.68
3.18
0.865
0.555
CC 2-3
2
1.37
7.06
5.16
0.208
CC 2-3
3
1.23
7.06
5.74
0.187
TO „
2
0.458
6.04
13.20
0.0693
TR
3
0.372
5.97
16.00
0.0563
RH
2
0.930
6.94
7.45
0.141
RH
3
0.650
7.06
10.85
0.099
TABLE IV-6
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES 1
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER ONE DAY
Samples
Test
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
COD mg/1
2,200
4,150
975
5,970
294
532
Kjeld-N mg/1
214
220
23.8
234
7.0
14.3
Hardness mg/1
235
500
395
1,175
120
230
ALK mg/1
528
961
420
957
58
100
TDS mg/1
3,696
4,260
2,452
3,524
280
635
pH
7.5
7.3
7.4
6.5
6.6
6.4
,D-103
-------
TABLE IV-7
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES 1
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER EIGHT DAYS
Samples
Test
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
COD mg/1
2,815
5,025
1,205
7,450
785
2,140
Kjeld-N mg/1
244
238
22
259
13.3
46.3
Hardness mg/1
380
820
700
1,500
300
512
ALK mg/1
835
1,480
780
1,130
165
290
TDS mg/1
4,215
5,380
2,400
6,965
790
1,990
pH
7.5
6.8
6.9
6.5
5.7
5.4
TABLE IV-8
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES I
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER 40 DAYS
Samples
Test
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
COD mg/1
5,300
9,640
4,520
7,840
662
2,835
Kjeld-N mg/1
235
225
18.2
210
13.0
61.7
Hardness mg/1
1,220
2,300
2,060
2,460
540
806
ALK mg/1
1,850
2,500
2,070
1,870
536
400
TDS mg/1
6,282
8,168
6,076
7,168
2,072
3,124
PH
6.5
5.75
6.30
5.35
7.0
5.15
D-104
-------
TABLE IV-9
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES 2
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER ONE DAY
Samples
Test
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
COD mg/1
2,060
2,060
717
7,940
385
660
Kjeld-N mg/1
187
160
23.5
305
9.4
18.9
Hardness mg/1
230
350
290
2,300
220
310
ALK mg/1
525
790
378
915
78
136
TDS mg/1
3,056
5,892
2,230
8,045
625
980
PH
7.5
7.4
7.3
6.5
6.5
6.4
TABLE IV-10
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES 2
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER EIGHT DAYS
Samples
Test
3R 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
COD mg/1
2,615
3,120
985
8,250
865
2,635
Kjeld-N mg/1
187
155
17
284
16.5
52.6
Hardness mg/1
310
472
530
2,500
362
612
ALK mg/1
719
1,152
660
1,274
162
376
TDS mg/1
3,085
3,345
2,200
7,675
395
1,965
PH
7.4
7.0
7.2
6.7
5.8
5.5
D-105
-------
TABLE IV-11
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES 2
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER 40 DAYS
Samples
Test
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
COD mg/1
4,440
5,725
3,590
6,050
1,125
2,450
Kjeld-N mg/1
163
119
13.0
225
16.5
51.5
Hardness mg/1
720
1,780
1,720
2,460
460
705
ALK mg/1
1,450
1,790
1,500
1,600
312
560
TDS mg/1
5,200
6,756
4,976
6,830
1,956
2,928
PH
6.8
6.15
6.4
6.5
5.75
5.35
D-106
-------
TABLE IV-12
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES 3
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER ONE DAY
Samples
Test
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
Volume drained
mis
1,290
1,435
135
1,420
1,200
1,400
COD mg/1
2,590
2,900
2,520
6,860
330
760
Kjeld-N mg/1
205
192
91.6
272
7.3
17.9
Hardness mg/1
CaCO^
212
442
600
1,950
140
260
ALK mg/1 CaC03
570
932
593
978
56
112
TDS mg/1
2,992
3,864
3,130
6,888
510
770
PH
7.5
7.4
7.5
6.4
6.4
6.2
TABLE IV-13
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES 3
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER EIGHT DAYS
Samples
Test
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
Volume drained
mis
1,175
1,310
160
1,255
1,205
1,480
COD mg/1
2,110
2,370
2,010
3,620
432
1,590
Kjeld-N mg/1
135
98
48
121
8.1
84.0
Hardness mg/1
CaCO^
280
510
642
960
148
330
ALK mg/1 CaC03
590
785
832
680
104
200
TDS mg/1
1,980
2,500
2,950
3,305
365
950
pH
7.4
6.7
7.5
6.5
6.1
5.5
D-107
-------
TABLE IV-14
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES 3
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER 23 DAYS
Samples
Test
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
Volume drained mis
1,120
1,235
160
1,100
1,170
1,420
COD mg/1
1,790
2,710
1,940
2,330
345
976
Kjeld-N mg/1
90.5
46.8
42.7
45.8
5.3
21,0
Hardness mg/1
370
770
750
780
150
215
ALK mg/1
718
814
1,118
541
76
95
TDS mg/1
1,805
2,845
2,960
2,295
300
620
PH
6.9
6.2
7.3
6.3
5.7
5.1
TABLE IV-15
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SERIES 3
ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE SAMPLES AFTER 40 DAYS
Test
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
TR
RH
Volume drained mis
1,100
1,200
210
1,075
1,150
1,400
COD mg/1
2,650
3,570
4,280
1,985
284
615
Kjeld-N mg/1
36.4
37.1
28.7
22.8
4.75
16.4
Hardness mg/1
CaCO^
1,050
1,420
1,820
820
76
144
ALK mg/1 CaC03
1,040
1,230
1,750
700
43
94
TDS mg/1
3,863
3,805
5,492
2,152
456
1,123
RH
6.45
6.0
6.7
6.25
5.45
5.15
D-108
-------
TABLE IV-16
CONCENTRATIONS OF CL. SOa AND NOi
IN LEACHATES FROM SERIES 2 AND 3
Sample
Chlorides
ma/1
Sulfates
i mg/1
Nitrates
he/1
Series 2
Series 3
2
3
2
3
BR 1-8
510
710
0
10.0
1.5
2.3
BR 2-4
475
605
0
0
3.25
2.0
CC 1-2
375
560
9
2.0
1.3
1.0
CC 2-3
275
310
336
400
1.9
1.1
TR
75
107
9
44
3.45
0.6
RH
125
128
8
200
0.7
0.5
D-109
-------
TABLE IV-17
AMOUNT OF LEACHED MATERIAL
SERIES 1
Sample: BR 1-8
Total Water added VQ: 5,500 mis
Sample wt. WQ: 2,612 gms
COD
TDS
N
HRD
ALK
Cone, after 1 day, Ctj, g/1
2.200
3.696
0.214
0.235
0.528
Amount Leached Lt^, gm
12.100
20.300
1.180
1.290
2.900
Stl, PPm
4,630
7,760
452
492
1, no
Amount Withdravm, gms
0.550
0.925
0.054
0.059
0. 132
Amount Remaining, gms
11.550
19.375
1.126
0.231
2.768
Cone, after 8 days, Ct2> g 1
2.815
4.215
0.244
0.380
0.835
Leachates Existing, gms
14.750
22.300
1.280
2.000
4.380
Leachates Withdravm, gms
0.716
1.053
0.061
0.096
0.209
Remaining, gms
14.034
20.247
1.219
1.904
4.171
Produced 1-8 days, gms
3.200
2.925
0.154
1.769
1.612
Produced 0-8, Lt2> gm
15.300
23.225
1.334
3.059
4.512
St2. PPm
5,850
8.900
510
1,175
1,730
Cone, after 40 days,
5.300
6.232
0.235
1.220
1.880
Ct3. S/1
Leachate Existing, gms
26.500
31.200
1.180
6. 100
9.400
Leachates Withdrawn, gm
1.325
1.550
0.059
0.305
0.471
Remaining, gms
25.175
29.640
1.121
5.795
8.929
Produced (8-40), gms
12.466
10.953
0.0
4.196
5.229
Produced (0-40), Lt3, gms
27.766
34.178
1.334
7.255
9.741
St3, PPm
10,600
13,100
510
2,780
3,730
-------
TABLE IV-18
COD/TPS RATIO DURING DECOMPOSITION FOR SERIES 1
COD/TPS Ratio
^ 6 I Day 8 Day 40 Day
BR 1-8 0.595 0.617 0.85
BR 2-4 0.973 0.935 1.180
CC 1-2 0.398 0.503 0.744
CC 2-3 1.700 1.070 1.090
TR 1.05 0.993 0.326
RH 0.837 1.075 0.907
TABLE IV-19
TOTAL LEACHABLE MATERIALS IN TONS/ACRE FT*
FOR SERIES 1
Sample
COD
TDS
HRD
ALK
N
BR 1-8
4.27
5.28
1.12
1.50
0.205
BR 2-4
13.40
11.20
3.00
3.37
0.331
CC 1-2
2.87
3.87
2.19
1.31
0.015
CC 2-3
17.00
15.00
5.10
4.00
0.561
TR
4.02
10.16
2.68
2.60
0.069
RH
8.70
9.47
2.47
1.22
0.248
* Assuming refuse unit weight of 500 lbs/cubic yard.
D-lll
-------
TABLE IV-20
AMOUNT OF LEACHED MATERIAL
SERIES 2
Sample: 1-8
Sample wt. WQ: 1,394 gms
Water added for immersion: VQ = 1,700 mis
COD
TDS
N
HRD
ALK
Coric. after I day, C^ gm/1
Amount of Leachate, gm/ton
Cone, after 8 days, C2 gm/1
Total amount of Leachate,
gm/ton
Cone, after 40 days, gm/1
2.060
2,510
2.615
3,560
4.440
3.056
3,740
3.085
4,340
5.200
0.187
228
0.187
262
0.163
0.230
281
0.310
419
0.920
0.525
640
0.719
970
1.450
Total amount of Leachate,
gm/ton
6,260
7,470
268
1,220
1,990
-------
TABLE IV-21
LEACHABLE CHLORIDES. SULFATES. AND NITRATES
FROM SERIES 1 AND 2*
Sample
CI tons/
acre ft
S04 tons/acre ft
NO-} tons/acre ft
Series L
Series 2
Series 1
Series 2
Series 1
Series 2
BR 1-8
0.603
0.252
0.0085
0
0.002
0.00074
BR 2-4
0.843
0.373
0
0
0.003
0.00255
CC 1-2
0.368
0.164
0.00131
0.00393
0.00066
0.00057
CC 2-3
0.675
0.356
0.87
0.434
0.0024
0.00246
TR
0.565
0.248
0.333
0.0297
0.0032
0.0114
RH
0.408
0.235
0.637
0.015
0.0016
'0.00132
* Approximate values since these analyses were carried out only at the
end of the experimental period.
D-113
-------
TABLE IV-22
AMOUNT OF LEACHED MATERIAL
SERIES 3
Sample: BR 1-8
VQ: 1,800
WQ: 1,202 gms
COD
TDS
N
HRD
ALK
Volume drained after I day, mis
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Concentration, g/1
2.590
2.992
0. 205
0.212
0.570
Amount withdrawn, gm
3.340
3.860
0.265
0.273
0.735
Vol drained after 8 days, mis
1,175
1,175
1,175
1,175
1,175
Concentration, g/1
2.110
1.980
0.135
0.230
0.590
Amount withdrawn, gm
2.480
2.330
0.159
0.270
0.694
Vol drained after 20 days, mis
1,120
1,120
1,120
1,120
1,120
Concentration, gm/1
1.790
1.805
0.091
0.370
0.718
Amount withdrawn, gms
2.000
2.020
0.102
0.414
0.205
Volume drained after 40 days
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
Concentration, gm/1
2.650
3.868
0.036
1.050
1.040
Amount withdrawn, gms
2.920
4.260
0.040
1.155
1.144
-------
TABLE IV-23
VARIATION OF LEACHABLE TPS WITH
TIME OBTAINED FROM SERIES 1 (Fig.IV-3)
Sample
ppm TDS of
Refuse Material
1 Day
8 Days
23 Days
40 Days
BR 1-8
7,760
8,900
10,700
13,100
BR 2-4
14,700
19,000
23,000
27,800
CC 1-2
3,980
3,980
6,500
9,600
CC 2-3
19,000
35,900
36,500
37,180
TR
3,670
10,030
17,000
25,150
RH
5,030
15,250
19,000
23,500
TABLE
IV-24
EXPECTED
TDS LEACHATES
BY LANDFILL WATERING
(Based on Data from Series
3) '
BR 1-8
BR 2-4
CC 1-2
CC 2-3
After first
inundation:
Leached TDS
tons/acre
ft
1.306
2.59
0.103
6.85
Inundation,
8 days later:
Leached TDS
ton9/acre
ft
0.781
1.53
0.112
2.98
Inundation.
22
1 days later:
-
Leached TDS
tons/acre
ft
0.675
1.64
0.114
1.82
Inundation,
40 days later;
Leached TDS
tons/acre
ft
1.426
2.13
0.28
1.67
D-115
-------
APPENDIX E
GAS ANALYSIS DATA SHEETS
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE I
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Date
Temp
°F
Weather
C02
°2
N2
ch4
Remarks
1
7/26/67
80-90
Clear-Hot
6.2
15.6
78.2
0.1
10/24/67
75 -85
Clear-Warm
6.9
15.4
78.0
0.1
6/19/68
80-90
Hot-Clear
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
Warm
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
85
Clear
3.1
16.0
82.1
0
2
7/26/67
17.8
4.0
78.2
Trace
10/24/67
17.1
2.9
80.0
0.3
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
13.5
6.8
82.1
0
3
7/26/67
36.3
0.9
33.2
29.6
10/24/67
33.0
0.9
35.5
32.3
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
Trace
20.4
79.4
0.5
4
7/26/67
43.5
0.4
8.0
46.5
In Manhole
10/24/67
35.5
0.5
17.7
45.8
6/19/68
48.5
0.5
7.5
44.1
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
42.5
2.3
12.7
46.5
5
7/26/67
39.7
2.2
11.9
43.8
In Manhole
10/24/67
38.6
1.4
8.1
51.5
6/19/68
47.8
1.5
8.3
42.0
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
"29.1
7.9
31.6
30.0
6
7/26/67
42.0
1.8
9.3
45.3
In Manhole
10/24/67
40.5
0.5
6.4
54.0
6/19/68
48.9
0.6
3.4
44.5
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
32.3
6.9
26.7
37.7
7
7/26/67
36.7
2.8
24.4
35.0
10/24/67
38.4
0.5
17.0
43.1
6/19/68
44.8
0.6
16.0
35.5
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
43.2
1.1
13.1
42.3
E-l
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 1
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe
Date °P
Weather
C°2
°2
N2
CH.
4
8
7/26/67
43.0
0.5
7.1
46.5
10/24/67
39.4
0.5
10.7
46.6
6/19/68
47.1
0.3
5.5
43.5
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
42.2
2.0
12.6
44.1
9
7/26/67
38.2
0.8
25.0
34.0
10/24/67
42.3
0.4
3.8
52.0
6/19/68
46.8
0.3
4.1
43.5
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
41.8
1.2
13.7
45.7
10
7/26/67
46.2
0.3
1.7
49.3
10/24/67
40.5
0.5
6.6
52.0
6/19/68
49.2
0.3
2.0
45.4
9/27/68
40.9
0.7
8.0
49.8
5/28/69
41.6
2.5
18.9
41.7
11
7/26/67
45.3
0.5
2.2
48.8
10/24/67
41.4
0.6-
2.8
53.0
6/19/68
48.2
0.5
2.5
45.0
9/27/68
43.6
0.1
4.9
50.9
5/28/69
45.1
0.9
9.6
46.5
12
7/26/67
28.2
8.9
33.8
28.7
10/24/67
42.5
0.8
5.5
54.0
6/19/68
49.2
0.2
1.6
45.8
9/27/68
37.5
2.7
17.2
42.9
5/28/69
44.5
1.4
8.3
48.8
13
7/26/67
43.0
0.5
7.2
45.7
10/24/67
42.3
0.2
3.6
51.1
6/19/68
47.8
0.4
4.0
44.5
9/27/68
33.8
2.4
23.4
37.7
5/28/69
34.4
1.8
42.4
22.8
14
7/26/67
42.3
0.5
11.3
42.5
10/24/67
35.3
1.6
21.2
39.4
6/19/68
47.5
0.4
5.6
42.6
9/27/68
45.3
0
11.6
47.5
5/28/69
34.3
1.6
42.8
19.6
Remarks
In Manhole
In Manhole
E-2
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 1
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO2 Ng CH^ Remarks
15
7/26/67
45.3
0.5
6.5
44.8
10/24/67
40.5
0.2
3.4
52.0
6/19/68
43.5
2.5
14.1
35.8
9/27/68
-
-
-
5/28/69
12.1
12.2
69.7
5.9
16
7/26/67.
38.6
0.7
25.2
32.6
10/24/67
34.2
0.9
37.3
31.9
6/19/68
46.3
0.6
6.9
42.6
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
21.4
3.1
77.0
0.8
17
7/26/67
26.7
4.3
44.0
20.9
10/24/67
26.6
1.3
59.0
16.6
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
9.8
13.1
78.6
0.2
18
7/26/67
20.7
0.7
63.5
11.8
10/24/67
17.9
1.3
68.8
9.2
6/19/68
33.3
0.8
38.0
24.3
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
27.5
2.4
43.9
28.5
19
7/26/67
43.7
0.4
3.4
47.4
10/24/67
44.2
0.5
2.9
52.2
6/19/68
47.8
0.4
2.4
45.C
9/27/68
46.0
0.1
9.2
46.1
5/28/69
18.9
10.6
58.4
13.9
20
7/26/67
Flooded
10/24/67
-
-
-
-
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
5/28/69
Trace
22.2
81.0
0
21
7/26/67
10.7
13.2
69.8
2.0
10/24/67
-
-
-
-
6/19/68
10.6
13.6
64.0
7.1
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
8.2
12.8
82.3
0
E-3
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 1
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe
Date °F
Weather
co2
°2
N2
CH,
4
22
7/26/67
41.2
1.0
16.2
37.6
10/24/67
-
-
-
-
6/19/68
47.8
0.8
2.9
45.8
9/27/68
39.2
1.0
18.0
42.4
5/28/69
35.0
3.2
29.0
34.4
23
7/26/67
43.4
0.5
5.5
45.7
10/24/67
44.5
0.2
1.3
54.9
6/19/68
48.5
0.3
2.0
47.2
9/27/68
46.3
0
4.1
49.7
5/28/69
8.9
17.2
68.6
7.6
24
7/26/67
39.7
2.1
25.8
27.6
10/24/67
39.3
1.1
16.0
47.7
6/19/68
46.3
0.6
13.5
37.7
9/27/68
42.9
0.05
12.9
44.9
5/28/69
35.5
3.1
33.1
31.2
25
7/26/67
3.3
19.4
72.4
Trace
10/24/67
0.7
21.9
77.2
Trace
6/19/68
2.0
19.9
74.8
Trace
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
0.6
21.9
80.4
Trace
26
7/26/67
7.5
15.3
75.5
Nil
10/24/67
1.1
21.9
75.0
0
6/19/68
3.8
18.9
76.0
Nil
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
0
20.7
79.4
0
27
7/26/67
43.7
0.8
14.9
40.2
10/24/67
38.5
0.6
16.0
43.6
6/19/68
38.6
2.8
29.9
28.3
9/27/68
34.6
1.3
23.9
39.5
28
7/26/67
7.0
17.2
73.5
0.9
10/24/67
8.3
15.6
72.6
2.8
6/19/68
4.6
18.6
74.0
Trace
9/27/68
2.4
19.6
78.7
Trace
29
7/26/67
42.3
0.4
10.2
43.8
10/24/67
40.4
0.7
6.5
49.5
6/19/68
43.5
0.5
10.8
43.1
9/27/68
Trace
20.7
79.2
0
E-4
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 1
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe
Date °F
Weather
C°2
°2
N2
CH.
4
30
7/26/67
4.9
18.3
75.8
Trace
10/24/67
2.9
24.0
74.0
Trace
6/19/68
5.6
17.6
74.8
Trace
9/27/68
39.1
0.7
11.6
49.5
31
7/26/67
29.1
1.0
41.0
25.3
10/24/67
28.5
1.2
45.0
24.2
6/19/68
27.9
4.4
43.8
21.3
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
15.9
9.6
59.9
13.0
32
7/26/67
38.6
0.3
19.2
38.7
10/24/67
37.9
0.6
15.4
44.0
6/19/68
41.9
0.6
14.3
40.9
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
17.3
10.2
61.0
13.0
33
7/26/67
39.2
0.3
17.5
39.0
10/24/67
36.3
0.8
24.0
37.6
34
7/26/67
46.2
0.1
1.1
51.1
10/24/67
-
-
-
-
6/19/68
48.5
0.3
2.8
46.6
9/27/68
35.6
0.8
9.6
54.5
5/28/69
32.3
3.9
32.3
30.9
35
7/26/67
45.3
0.5
2.6
49.8
10/24/67
-
-
-
-
6/19/68
47.5
0.3
2.2
46.6
9/27/68
38.7
0.2
5.4
55.1
5/28/69
39.2
1.6
21.2
39.1
36
7/26/67
46.2
0.6
2.7
49.8
10/24/67
-
-
-
-
6/19/68
48.2
0.3
2.0
47.2
9/27/68
43.5
Trace
3.4
53.4
5/28/69
1.7
21.1
77.9
2.2
37
7/26/67
42.3
0.4
2.3
49.3
38
7/26/67
4.1
18.0
74.0
Trace
10/24/67
3.3
18.5
79.0
Trace
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
Remarks
In Manhole
E-5
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 1
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CC^ 0^ CH^ Remarks
38
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
4.6
16.9
80.2
0
39
7/26/67
10.3
12.3
73.5
0.1
10/24/67
8.7
12.7
75.0
0.8
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27768
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
17.2
7.4
77.4
0.5
'40
7/26/67
13.3
10.5
71.3
1.0
10/24/67
16.2
7.1
73.0
Trace
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
28.5
3.9
53.2
16.8
41
7/26/67
5.2
17.5
71.3
1.4
10/24/67
11.1
11.3
74.0
Trace
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
37.7
1.9
29.9
31.5
42
7/26/67
3.0
19.1
73.5
Trace
10/24/67
2.9
20.9
77.0
0
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
2.9
19.3
80.7
0
43
7/26/67
26.7
3.9
53.5
12.8
44
7/26/67
14.4
12.0
72.6
Trace
10/24/67
-
-
-
-
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
1.5
20.5
81.1
0
45
7/26/67
9.7
13.9
77.0
Trace
10/24/67
21.9
4.4
71.0
2.3
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
27.7
1.9
62.7
8.9
46
7/26/67
29.4
4.2
51.8
14.2
10/24/67
24.2
4.1
65.0
9.3
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 1
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather C0o (L N0 CH. Remarks
2 2 2 4
46
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
34.6
2.4
20.3
37.9
47
7/26/67
30.0
1.4
56.2
12.2
10/24/67
23.5
1.8
66.0
7.9
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
3.9
19.6
74.4
4.7
48
7/26/67
25.8
1.3
69.5
3.7
10/24/67
23.5
1.3
68.0
6.2
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
32.1
4.9
•
00
25.6
49
7/26/67
9.2
14.2
75.8
Trace
10/24/67
9.5
14.7
79.0
Trace
6/19/68
-
-
-
-
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
22.2
4.4
76.1
1.1
50
7/26/67
32.6
1.0
50.2
16.0
51
7/26/67
31.1
1.3
53.5
14.4
52
7/26/67
26.4
3.3
61.8
8.6
10/24/67
22.8
2.9
72.0
4.1
6/19/68
28.5
1.2
62.9
6.2
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
24.2
4.9
60.4
5.8
53
7/26/67
25.3
2.1
67.7
4.5
10/24/67
15.7
6.9
78.0
0.2
6/19/68
33.0
0.9
46.0
16.9
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
35.5
1.8
38.1
25.4
54
7/26/67
33.3
1.6
39.8
23.7
10/24/67
30.2
2.9
45.0
22.0
6/19/68
37.0
0.7
34.7
24.4
E-7
-------
55
56
57
58
59
60
6L
62
63
64
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 1
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Date °F Weather COg 0£ CH^ Remarks
7/26/67
34.8
1.0
44.3
20.5
10/24/67
32.9
0.9
45.5
20.4
6/19/68
41.2
0.7
28.9
27.7
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
42.6
1.4
13.2
43.4
7/26/67
40.4
0.6
19.0
40.2
10/24/67
36.6
0.8
31.9
31.0
6/19/68
41.2
0.6
26.0
29.5
9/27/68
-
-
-
-
5/28/69
41.5
1.5
21.2
36.9
7/26/67
42.3
0.5
11.4
43.8
10/24/67
38.8
1.6
18.5
41.0
6/19/68
44.2
0.5
12.0
39.5
7/26/67
44.9
0.3
1.2
49.8
LO/24/67
47.6
0.3
1.6
51.2
6/19/68
46.8
0.5
2.1
45.8
7/26/67
40.7
0.7
20.4
37.5
10/24/67
42.4
0.7
15.5
44.0
6/19/68
20.7
10.1
50.1
15.9
7/26/67
34.5
0.9
42.5
20.7
10/24/67
37.3
0.9
26.7
35.0
6/19/68
35.6
0.8
39.5
20.3
7/26/67
36.0
0.8
31.7
29.4
10/24/67
32.5
5.5
32.5
33.0
6/19/68
37.0
0.7
36.0
23.6
7/26/67
43.0
0.3
4.7
47.8
10/24/67
35.8
7.0
19.0
42.5
6/19/68
Nil
20.7
76.5
Nil
7/26/67
43.1
0.8
11.6
44.3
10/24/67
44.0
0.3
9.1
48.5
6/19/68
44.1
0.4
18.2
35.8
7/26/67
47.6
0.3
1.3
49.8 In Deep Well
10/24/67
47.6
0.4
1.8
53.0
6/19/68
47.8
0.2
0.9
48.8
9/27/68
43.6
0.1
4.2
51.9
E-8
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 1
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe
Date °F
Weather
/
co2
°2
N2
CH.
4
Remarks
65
7/26/67
i
47.2
0.3
1.3
50.5
In Deep Well
10/24/67
48.4
0.2
0.8
53.0
6/19/68
48.9
0.2
1.2
47.2
9/27/68
44.3
Trace
4.2
51.7
66
7/26/67
46.2
0.3
1.3
51.4
In Deep Well
10/24/67
47.6
0.2
0.6
54.0
6/19/68
50.4
0.2
1.1
47.6
9/27/68
40.1
0.2
3.9
55.7
67
7/26/67
43.8
1.4
5.7
48.4
In Deep Well
10/24/67
47.6
0.2
0.7
54.0
6/19/68
48.5
0.2
1.0
48.5
9/27/68
45.4
0.1
3.8
55.4
E-9
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 2A
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Date
Temp
°F
Weather
co2
°2
N2
CH.
4
3/16/67
.
Clear-Hot
44.5
1.4
50.6
Trace
7/7/67
90
Clear
68.1
1.0
29.5
0.3
10/12/67
85
Clear-Warm
57.0
2.1
41.5
0.7
12/6/68
70
Clear
75.4
0
3.2
19.5
2/21/69
60
Cloudy
73.0
0.8
4.4
25.7
6/11/69
65
Cloudy
35.7
9.5
37.5
13.3
8/6/69
80
Clear
35.2
9.4
38.5
13.1
10/23/69
70
Overcast
52.3
2.8
8.5
36.4
12/3/69
80
Clear
52.1
2.5
7.9
35.7
3/16/67
51.8
2.3
50.6
Trace
7/7/67
60.2
2.4
34.0
0.3
10/12/67
81.0
0.7
18.2
2.0
12/6/68
5.0
20.9
74.5
0.6
2/21/69
4.2
21.0
76.8
1.3
6/11/69
12.3
16.7
64.7
4.5
8/6/69
Trace
21.0
77.4
0
10/23/69
0
22.1
77.2
0
12/3/69
1.4
21.4
74.6
0.4
3/16/67
Plugged
7/7/67
-
-
-
-
10/12/67
68.0
2.3
31.0
Trace
12/6/68
4.6
18.2
76.0
0
2/21/69
1.6
20.4
81.5
0
6/11/69
0
21.5
71.2
0
8/6/69
0
21.0
77.7
0
10/23/69
Trace
22.2
77.2
0
12/3/69
0
21.8
76.2
0 1
3/16/67
Plugged
7/7/67
-
-
-
-
10/12/67
24.0
11.8
62.5
Trace
12/6/68
1.1
18.4
77.9
0
2/21/69
1.8
20.0
82.7
o :
6/11/69
Trace
20.6
80.0
0
8/6/69
7.2
15.8
75.4
0
10/23/69
3.8
19.0
78.0
0
12/3/69
5.1
17.2
75.8
0
3/16/67
32.5
7.7
62.3
Nil
7/7/67
53.1
1.7
43.2
Trace
10/12/67
65.0
3.6
32.5
0.0
Remarks
Possibly Plugged
E-10
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 2A
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Temp
Date "F Weather
co2
°2
N2
CH, :
4
12/6/68
Trace
20.5
77.1
0
2/21/69
Trace
22.8
81.0
0 '
6/11/69
0
21.0
79.6
0
8/6/69
0
21.0
78.4
0
10/23/69
0
21.4
74.6
0
12/3/69
Water
in Probe
3/16/67
29.8
3.2
69.5
Nil
7/7/67
37.8
2.5
57.0
Trace
10/12/67
48.4
3.1
48.5
0.4
12/6/68
1.8
19.9
74.9
0
2/21/69
0
23.1
81.2
0 i
6/11/69
0
21.3
79.6
0
8/6/69
0
21.0
78.3
0
10/23/69
0
23.8
77.6
0
12/3/69
Trace
22.3
75.4
0
3/16/67
31.2
1.5
68.3
Nil
7/7/67
-
-
-
-
10/12/67
56.6
1.2
42.0
0.3
12/6/68
Trace
23.0
76.6
0
2/21/69
Trace
21.9
81.8
0 '
6/11/69
0
21.8
81.3
0
8/6/69
0
20.6
78.6
0
10/23/69
0
22.8
77.4
0
12/3/69
Water
in Probe
3/16/67
24.0
2.2
70.2
Nil
7/7/67
35.3
1.5
60.5
Trace
10/12/67
59.3
1.1
39.0
0.6
12/6/68
66.3
2.0
18.8
9.1
2/21/69
78.1
1.0
7.2
17.7
6/11/69
30.4
12.5
49.7
9.1
8/6/69
0.2
18.5
77.7
0
10/23/69
0
22.2
78.2
0
12/3/69
0
23.1
76.2
0 1
3/16/67
24.7
1.6
71.5
Nil
7/7/67
36.1
1.5
59.4
Trace
10/12/67
-
-
-
-
12/6/68
77.2
0.4
7.7
10.6
2/21/69
76.6
0.8
16.8
9.0
6/11/69
2.3
19.8
77.2
0
Remarks
Water in Probe
Water in Probe
Water in Probe
Water in Probe
E-ll
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 2A
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Date
Temp
°F
Weather
COr
N„
CH, Remarks
4
10
11
8/6/69
10/23/69
12/3/69
3/16/67
7/7/67
10/12/67
12/6/68
2/21/69
6/11/69
8/6/69
10/23/69
12/3/69
3/16/67
7/7/67
10/12/67
12/6/68
2/21/69
6/11/69
8/6/69
10/23/69
12/3/69
0
0
Trace
20.2
23.6
21.8
26.7
31.4
37.9
Trace
Trace
Trace
0
0
0
76.9
77.4
75.4
1.5
1.7
2.1
20.8
22.6
21.8
20.4
23.5
21.8
0
0
0
26.6 1.7 72.3
29.6 1.8 66.4
55.8 1.5 45.0
66.9 3.1 15.2
79.1 1.1 7.8
32.0 12.2 48.0
0 19.9 77.7
0 22.6 77.4
4.2 21.0 74;6
Water in Probe
69.5
63.5
56.5
77.0
80.5
80.4
78.0
77.4
77.0
Nil
Trace
0.3
11.A
15.4 Water in Probe
8.0
0
0
0 Water in Probe
Nil
Trace
Trace
0
0
0
0
0
0 Plugged
12
13
3/16/67
24.7
3.0
70.0
Nil
7/7/67
30.8
2.2
64.0
Trace
10/12/67
43.6
2.1
55.0
Trace
12/6/68
60.6
2.7
27.4
7.4
2/21/69
66.0
1.9
26.0
6.8 ;
6/11/69
38.1
11.0
46.0
5.6
8/6/69
28.7
12.7
45.2
8.3
10/23/69
4.6
21.4
73.4
2.1
12/3/69
Plugged
3/16/67
15.5
10.2
74.0
Nil
7/7/67
30.4
1.8
65.7
Trace
10/12/67
40.6
1.5
58.0
Trace
12/6/68
65.1
1.8
27.6
3.3
2/21/69
61.9
2.3
29.3
5.9 ]
6/11/69
54.4
6.9
33.5
6.9
8/6/69
0
24.4
77.6
0
10/23/69
59.7
6.8
25.4
10.9
12/3/69
49.3
8.4
33.3
8.2
E-12
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 2A
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe
Date °F
Weather
°2
N2
CH,
4
3/16/67
9.0
16.8
72.4
Nil
7/7/67
42.3
2.9
53.0
Trace
10/12/67
52.8
2.0
46.6
Trace
12/6/68
62.4
3.4
27.7
4.6
2/21/69
30.5
13.3
54.8
3.2
6/11/69
70.5
3.1
19.6
8.3
8/6/69
24.1
14.2
52.7
4.8
10/23/69
66.7
4.8
18.5
10.5
12/3/69
63.7
5.0
19.8
10.6
3/16/67
25.4
3.4
69.5
Nil
7/7/67
31.0
2.3
64.0
Trace
10/12/67
33.5
5.1
60.0
0.0
12/6/68
52.6
3.5
41.4
0.5
2/21/69
19.9
15.7
66.0
0 1
6/11/69
0.4
20.4
79.4
0
8/6/69
6.4
18.5
71.6
1.0
10/23/69
39.9
10.7
44.4
5.1
12/3/69
65.1
5.0
21.4
7.6
3/16/67
36.7
1.9
59.0
Nil
7/7/67
-
-
-
-
10/12/67
58.3
1.1
41.7
0.0
12/6/68
Trace
20.0
76.9
0
2/21/69
Trace
22.2
82.3
0
6/11/69
0
20.9
79.7
0
8/6/69
0
20.8
77.9
0
10/23/69
0
22.2
77.4
0
12/3/69
Water
in Probe
3/16/67
13.1
14.2
69.0
Nil
7/7/67
-
-
-
-
10/12/67
46.2
3.7
49.5
0.0
12/6/68
40.0
7.3
48.0
0
2/21/69
40.6
8.6
52.7
0
6/11/69
0
21.5
80.5
0
8/6/69
0
21.5
78.4
0
10/23/69
0
23.1
77.8
0
12/3/69
0
21.8
76.2
0
3/16/67
47.0
2.2
48.5
Nil
7/7/67
-
-
-
-
10/12/67
65.3
1.4
31.4
0.0
Remarks
14
15
16
17
18
Possibly Plugged
E-13
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 2A
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CC^ ^ CH^ Remarks
12/6/68
53.9
4.4
38.0
0.2
2/21/69
35.7
10.4
56.3
0
6/11/69
2.3
20.4
77.5
0
8/6/69
0
21.9
79.2
0
10/23/69
17.0
18.4
67.3
0
12/3/69
58.2
6.7
31.0
3.9
3/16/67
29.8
6.2
61.6
Nil
7/7/67
-
-
-
-
10/12/67
60.5
1.5
37.0
Trace
12/6/68
Trace
20.6
76.3
0
2/21/69
Trace
22.6
81.6
0
6/11/69
0
21.5
80.4
0
8/6/69
0
22.4
80.0
0
10/23/69
0
23.1
77.4
0
12/3/69
Water
in Probe
E-14
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 3
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Date °F Weather CO. 0o N. CH, Remarks
2 2 2 4
7/14/67
1/24/68
80
75-80
Clear
Clear-Warm
19.8
22.3
1.2
1.3
75.3
68.5
2.8
6.9
7/14/67
1/24/68
4.0
3.4
18.9
18.2
75.3
77.0
Nil
Trace
7/14/67
3.9
18.9
74.8
Nil
7/14/67
3.1
19.6
75.5
Trace
7/14/67
1/24/68
2.5
2.5
19.8
18.5
74.0
77.8
Trace
Nil
7/14/67
2.7
19.8
74.8
Nil
7/14/67
2.4
20.0
74.0
Nil
7/14/67
1/24/68
40.0
39.7
0.2
0.3
21.9
8.2
34.3
46.5
7/14/67
1/24/68
38.2
36.1
0.3
0.6
18.0
20.7
39.0
39.0
7/14/67
1/24/68
24.2
28.2
1.8
1.0
63.5
52.5
7.3
16.5
7/14/67
1/24/68
27.5
30.5
1.1
0.8
54.6
43.9
14.0
21.8
7/14/67
1/24/68
26.4
28.8
1.2
1.1
60.0
54.1
7.1
14.1
7/14/67
1/24/68
23.5
26.0
1.4
1.2
70.4
65.0
1.3
7.5
7/14/67
1/24/68
4.8
5.4
17.9
15.6
73.3
78.5
Nil
Trace
7/14/67
1/24/68
19.2
14.8
3.3
6.3
73.3
79.9
0.6
Nil
7/14/67
1/24/68
4.8
2.7
17.9
18.2
72.8
79.2
Nil
Nil
E-15
-------
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 3
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Date °F Weather C02 02 N2 CH4 Remarks
7/14/67
5.0
18.1
72.8
Nil
1/24/68
-
-
-
-
7/14/67
7.7
15.6
72.8
Nil
1/24/68
2.0
19.6
77.4
Nil
7/14/67
10.2
14.7
71.1
Nil
1/24/68
4.6
18.3
77.0
Nil
7/14/67
19.8
3.8
71.6
0.8
1/24/68
12.2
11.6
76.6
Nil
7/14/67
22.7
4.3
65.2
6.0
1/24/68
23.5
1.4
58.1
16.7
7/14/67
_
1/24/68
26.1
1.2
55.5
16.1
7/14/67
5.8
16.0
73.3
Nil
1/24/68
0.5
20.5
76.3
Trace
7/14/67
0.3
20.8
78.2
Nil
1/24/68
0.6
20.5
75.7
Nil
7/14/67
1.5
20.7
76.9
Nil
1/24/68
0.15
20.5
75.9
Nil
7/14/67
2.5
20.8
76.9
Nil
1/24/68
2.5
18.6
75.7
Nil
7/14/67
33.1
1.0
43.0
23.4
1/24/68
26.8
5.6
33.5
29.8
7/14/67
27.5
1.2
46.9
23.0
1/24/68
9.6
14.3
62.8
9.1
7/14/67
19.5
3.4
74.8
0.3
7/14/67
9.4
15.2
73.3
Trace
1/24/68
14.0
8.0
72.4
¦3.8
7/14/67
8.8
14.5
74.8
Trace
7/14/67
16.7
7.5
73.3
0.4
E-16
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 3
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Temp
Date °F Weather
co2
°2
N2
CH. Remarks
4
33
7/14/67
23.2
1.9
72.5
0.7
34
7/14/67
33.8
0.8
31.5
31.7
35
7/14/67
31.8
0.9
47.5
17.0
E-17
-------
Probe
2
202
205
3
302
304
4
402
406
5
503
504
6
602
603
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 4
(Percent by Volume
Temp
Date °F Weather C0o 0. N CH. Remarks
2 2 2 4
7/6/67
85
Clear-Smoggy 33.2
2.0
53.3
14.0
2/21/68
65
Overcast 34.8
0.8
41.0
19.8
7/6/67
23.6
4.5
73.3
Nil
2/21/68
30.4
1.2
53.5
12.5
7/6/67
3.4
19.6
76.8
Nil
2/21/68
4.8
16.3
74.8
Nil
7/6/67
6.6
17.5
74.5
0.3
2/21/68
5.8
17.0
73.4
Trace
7/6/67
10.0
14.5
75.4
Nil
2/21/68
10.3
11.9
74.8
Trace
7/6/67
31.0
1.6
60.0
8.3
2/21/68
31.7
1.8
50.7
14.0
7/6/67
4.3
18.9
75.0
Nil
2/21/68
4.7
17.6
73.4
Trace
7/6/67
45.6
0.3
6.4
46.5
2/21/68
44.5
1.3
6.8
41.7
7/6/67
6.9
16.0
75.0
Trace
2/21/68
6.9
15.3
72.9
0.1
7/6/67
13.8
10.6
73.8
Nil
2/21/68
27.4
1.2
57.4
7.6
7/6/67
37.5
0.7
40.5
21.5
2/21/68
43.8
1.0
6.8
42.3
7/6/67
46.7
0.2
3.0
48.2
2/21/68
44.5
0.3
2.3
45.9
7/6/67
4.5
18.6
73.8
Trace
2/21/68
5.0
17.5
72.9
0.1
7/6/67
5.5
17.8
73.3
Trace
2/21/68
15.9
4.4
74.8
0.1
7/6/67
45.3
0.2
1.2
50.5
2/21/68
45.2
0.3
1.8
46.8
E-18
-------
Probe
605
7
702
703
705
8
801
803
9
901
902
10
100 IN
100 IS
1002
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 4
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Date °F Weather C0„ 0„ N_ CH. Remarks
2 2 2 4
7/6/67
-31.1
0.9
46.0
21.3
2/21/68
36.3
0.6
10.8
46.3
7/6/67
4.2
18.6
73.3
0.3
2/21/68
3.9
18.3 '
72.9
0.2
7/6/67
42.6
0.7
28.5
27.2
2/21/68
31.3
0.9
36.3
26.7
7/6/67
22.5
3.4
72.4
Nil
2/21/68
5.1
17.5
70.4
2.1
7/6/67
8.8
14.8
72.9
Nil
2/21/68
8.2
11.3
75.4
0.1
7/6/67
19.7
6.2
66.8
7.2
2/21/68
7.8
11.5
77.0
2.8
7/6/67
24.7
0.8
40.2
25.1
2/21/68
44.2
0.5
2.8
48.5
7/6/67
38.6
0.5
20.0
39.3
2/21/68
43.4
0.6
10.5
42.7
7/6/67
43.3
0.2
0.6
52.3
2/21/68
44.5
0.4
1.9
49.4
7/6/67
32.7
4.7
31.9
28.6
2/21/68
46.3
0.4
2.5
46.3
7/6/67
5.0
17.3
74.5
0.3
2/21/68
34.2
0.8
27.2
33.2
7/6/67
22.7
6.4
56.7
11.7
2/21/68
40.7
0.3
4.0
49.4
7/6/67
45.6
0.3
0.8
49.8
2/21/68
46.3
0.4
1.8
47.2
7/6/67
Trace
20.2
73.8
Trace
2/21/68
47.2
0.6
2.3
46.3
7/6/67
12.5
10.3
74.5
0.7
2/21/68
21.7
3.6
56.1
15.2
E-19
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 4
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F- Weather C0o 0. N. CH. Remarks
1 2 L 4
1101
7/6/67
2/21/68
30.9
40.7
2.3
0.3
46.9
12.5
17.5
42.9
1102
7/6/67
2/21/68
27.3
44.2
7.9
0.4
33.0
2.5
29.3
47.2
1L
7/6/67
2/21/68
21.6.
34.3
9.0
4.3
45.5
18.6
20.7
35.8
2L
7/6/67
2/21/68
3.7
10.0
18.1
1.7
74.5
81.9
Trace
2.2
3L
7/6/67
36.7
2.0
13.0
45.5
4L
7/6/67
2/21/68
30.0
22.0
0.4
1.1
22.5
38.2
43.0
32.6
FBI
7/6/67
2/21/68
44.2
0.9
7.7
43.0
FB2
7/6/67
2/21/68
34.2
4.8
20.0
37.5
FB3
7/6/67
32.6
4.2
32.5
27.4
FB4
7/6/67
26.7
4.3
51.0
15.2
FB5
7/6/67
36.8
4.0
16.8
40.2
FB6
7/6/67
18.8
8.0
59.5
12.4
FB7
7/6/67
27.2
6.5
46.0
19.7
FB8
7/6/67
28.5
6.8
37.5
26.0
FB9
7/6/67
2/21/68
26.3
31.1
6.2
0.8
48.5
32.7
17.0
29.8
FB10
7/6/67
2/21/68
3.6
3.9
18.6
16.6
75.5
74.8
0.2
0.1
FB11
7/6/67
2/21/68
4.1
6.1
17.2
13.1
77.0
75.9
Trace
Trace
E-20
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 4
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe
Date °F
Weather
co2
°2
N2
CH.
4
FB12
7/6/67
41.9
3.1
15.0
41.5
2/21/68
44.2
0.4
3.3
46.3
FB13
7/6/67
46.0
0.2
1.6
50.5
2/21/68
43.5
0.4
1.8
46.7
E-21
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 5 ' -
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Date
Temp
°F
Weather
C°2
°2
N2
CH. Remarks
4
LA
7/14/67
1/24/68
80
75-80
Clear
Warm-Clear
9.0
5.2
14.2
13.7
75.3
79.7
Nil
Nil
IB
7/14/67
1/24/68
9.8
8.0
13.7
13.6
74.8
76.0
Nil
Nil
1C
7/14/67
1/24/68
4.8
3.0
18.1
17.7
75.5
79.9
Nil
Nil
ID
7/14/67
1/24/68
2.5
0.2
20.0
21.2
75.5
79.2
Nil
Nil
2D
7/14/67
2.5
20.0
75.5
Nil
3E
7/14/67
2.4
20.3
75.5
Nil
4E
7/14/67
1/24/68
3.0
1.1
19.8
20.8
75.5
78.6
Nil
Nil
4F
7/14/67
1/24/68
4.5
1.7
19.4
20.0
75.5
78.5
Trace
Nil
3F
7/14/67
1/24/68
2.9
0.8
19.8
21.1
75.5
78.0
Nil
Nil
4G
7/14/67
1/24/68
12.0
11.9
11.3
10.4
75.3
77.4
Nil
Nil
3G
7/14/67
1/24/68
3.6
1.8
18.9
19.9
75.3
78.5
Trace
Nil
3H
7/14/67
10.8
11.8
74.8
Trace
2H
7/14/67
1/24/68
3.5
1.1
18.7
20.5
75.3
79.4
Trace
Nil
1J
7/14/67
8.5
14.2
74.8
Nil
6
7/14/67
1/24/68
2.8
0.7
19.7
21.2
75.3
79.4
Nil
Nil
7
7/14/67
1/24/68
5.7
5.6
15.5
12.7
75.5
83.0
Nil
Nil
E-22
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 5
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO- 0 N_ CH. Remarks
2 2 2 4
8
7/14/67
8.3
13.8
75.3
Nil
9C
7/14/67
1/24/68
21.2
22.2
4.2
1.2,
63.5
66.5
7.3
9.0
9B
7/14/67
1/24/68
34.8
34.2
0.7
1.3
24.7
26.8
35.8
34.6
10B
7/14/67
1/24/68
33.9
30.0
1.2
0.9
32.5
45.7
29.3
22.0
IOC
7/14/67
22.5
1.9
73.8
0.3
9A
7/14/67
1/24/68
37.5
35.7
1.2
0.5
21.8
21.2
38.4
39.4
10A
7/14/67
1/24/68
36.7
32.2
1.0
1.4
22.5
32.5
38.1
31.2
11
7/14/67
26.4
1.5
61.1
10.2
12
7/14/67
15.5
8.3
75.5
1.2
13A
7/14/67
20.2
5.3
56.2
18.8
13B
7/14/67
12.5
14.0
60.8
11.5
13C
7/14/67
11.8
14.3
62.2
10.2
13D
7/14/67
12.7
14.2
61.9
10.0
13E
7/14/67
32.4
3.8
31.9
31.8
14
7/14/67
30.3
0.9
41.8
25.7
15E
7/14/67
26.2
4.3
56.2
12.3
17B
7/14/67
5.1
17.7
74.7
Trace
17C
7/14/67
4.6
18.3
74.7
Nil
17D
7/14/67
2.8
19.6
74.7
Nil
17E
7/14/67
4.3
17.1
74.0
Nil
E-23
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 5
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe
Date °F
Weather
co2
°2
N2
CH. .Remarks
4
18
7/14/67
4.2
16.0
68.2
Trace
19
7/14/67
4.3
17.9
71.8
1.0
20
7/14/67
Trace
19.7
73.5
Nil
21A
7/14/67
1/24/68
10,6
9.3
7.0
8.1
79.6
83.5
Nil
Nil
2 IB
7/.14/67
1/24/68
7.2
6,0
6.9
10.0
83.0
84.8
Nil
Nil
21C
7/14/67
1/24/68
7.2
6.7
8.9
5.6
81.3
89.0
Nil
Nil
2 ID
7/14/67
1/24/68
3.2
6.9
18.5
6.3
74.7
88.0
Nil
Nil
22
7/14/67
4.5
17.7
74.7
Nil
E-24
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 5
(Percent by Volume)
Date Sample Taken: 27 August 1969
Temperature: 70°F
Weather:
Clear
Date Sample Analyzed:
29 August
1969
Trench
Probe
co2
°2
N2
CH.
4
9A
34.6
2.1
30.7
34.7
9B
31.6
1.5
37.4
30.6
32
14.8
8.5
53.0
18.6
33
4.4
16.9
79.7
0
34
25.4
4.2
52.4
17.7
35
5.2
15.7
79.6
0
36
11.5
10.2
78.8
0
37
1.1
19.0
78.9
0
38
4.0
16.9
78.8
0
39
11.1
8.7
77.0
0
Date Sample Taken:
8 October
1969
Temperature: 75°F
Weather:
Warm-Hazy
Date Sample Analyzed:
9 October
1969
Trench
Probe
C02
°2
N2
CH4
32
30.9
0.9
34.3
30.9
33
3.0
16.2
76.5
0
34
26.4
2.8
44.1
22.5
35
3.7
15.7
77.8
0
36*
Trace
19.0
77.6
0
37
1.5
17.7
76.7
0
38
6.8
11.8
76.8
0
39
5.1
13.9
76.3
0
* Water in Probe
E-25
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 6
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Date
Temp'
°F
Weather
CO,
CH. Remarks
4
1A
IB
6/15/67 70
8/23/67 85
2/8/68 55
1/3/69 78
1/31/69 55
6/15/67
8/23/67
2/8/68
1/3/69
1/31/69
Clear & Warm 4.0 18.2 78.0 Nil
Clear & Hot -
Cool-Cloudy 1.5 19.6 72.8 Trace
Clear
Clear
Trace 20.1 77.8
2.9
0.6
Trace
19.3
20.0
20.1
73.5
73.3
79.0
0 Rain of
1.65 in. in
month pre-
ceding
Nil
Trace
0
1C 6/15/67
8/23/67
2.3
18.6
68.2
Trace
2/8/68
8.5
8.2
79.7
Trace
1/3/69
0.6
16.9
81.4
0
2A
6/15/67
1.1
19.2
78.6
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
0.6
18.9
73.9
Trace
1/3/69
0
20.5
78.3
0
1/31/69
0
7.3
88.2
0
2B
6/15/67
1.5
20.2
78.2
Nil
8/23/67
2.8
19.4
73.5
Trace
2/8/68
1.4
18.9
73.9
Trace
1/3/69
Trace
20.4
78.7
0
1/31/69
-
-
-
-
2C
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
2.4
18.5
68.2
Trace
2/8/68
4.7
15.1
75.7
0.1
1/3/69
Trace
20.2
79.5
0
3A
6/15/67
1.8
19.4
79.5
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
0.8
19.3
73.3
Trace
1/3/69
0
20.7
79.3
0
1/31/69
Trace
4.8
85.2
4.6
E-26
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 6
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather 0^ CH^ Remarks
3B
6/15/67
2.3
19.2
78.0
Nil
8/23/67
2.4
20.0
73.5
Nil
2/8/68
1.0
19.7
75.4
Nil
1/3/69
Trace
19.7
79.0
0
1/31/69
-
-
-
-
3C
6/15/67
_
.
-
.
8/23/67
3.2
17.8
65.8
1.4
2/8/68
42.3
0.7
3.6
47.6
1/3/69
-
-
-
-
1/31/69
-
-
-
-
4A
6/15/67
1.2
20.4
78.2
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
-
-
-
-
4B
6/15/67
_
-
-
_
8/23/67
5.0
16.0
70.7
1.8
2/8/68
29.5
0.6
16.1
47.2
1/3/69
5.9
8.2
83.4
0
1/31/69
-
-
-
-
4C
6/15/67
-
.
-
-
8/23/67
21.4
10.0
38.2
27.2
2/8/68
40.7
0.9
4.0
48.4
1/3/69
39.7
0.7
3.1
55.8
1/31/69
41.0
0
0
55.3
5A
6/15/67
0.6
16.6
81.9
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
28.5
3.4
25.9
37.0
1/3/69
31.8
1.4
21.9
45.8
1/31/69
-
-
-
-
5B
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
38.9
0.5
5.9
55.0
2/8/68
40.5
0.8
4.1
49.8
1/3/69
39.1
0.8
4.0
57.9
1/31/69
32.9
0
Trace
62.9
5C
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
32.8
4.0
18.0
42.5
2/8/68
26.1
7.5
28.4
32.7
1/3/69
40.5
0.4
1.9
58.2
E-27
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 6
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Temp
Date °F Weather
co2
°2
N2
CH, Remarks
4
6A.
6/15/67
Trace
20.2
78.6
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
12.7
1.5
76.9
5.0
1/3/69
3.6
14.9
76.5
0.9
6B
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
24.3
9.0
36.3
30.3
2/8/68
38.6
1.1
4.8
48.8
1/3/69
35.8
2.6
13.4
47.5
1/31/69
25.0
5.9
28.0
35.9
6C
6/15/67
-
-
-
8/23/67
8.7
16.0
69.5
3.0
2/8/68
8.3
15.5
71.0
0.1
7A
6/15/67
0.6
20.4
77.5
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
9.0
7.3
79.4
0.4
1/3/69
5.1
12.5
79.3
0
1/31/69
12.4
1.7
33.7
49.1
7B
6/15/67
•
-
-
-
8/23/67
0.5
20.3
77.8
0.4
2/8/68
8.6
11.4
56.7
18.0
1/3/69
2.4
16.0
79.0
0
1/31/69
30.2
Trace
5.6
59.7
7C
6/15/67
-
.
-
8/23/67
43.0
0.2
0.6
53.8
2/8/68
41.2
0.5
2.4
49.8
1/3/69
40.8
0.4
2.2
57.2
1/31/69
41.5
0
Trace
. 55.1
8A
6/15/67
1.1
20.1
77.2
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
0.3
20.3
72.8
Nil
1/3/69
0
20.2
78.1
0
1/31/69
0
21.4
76.7
0
SB
6/15/67
-
•
_
8/23/67
2.4
19.5
77.0
1.3
2/8/68
0.6
19.2
74.7
0.5
1/3/69
Trace
19.7
80.5
0
1/31/69
17.1
0.4
32.3
47.6
E-28
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 6
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO^ O2 ^2 ^4 Remarks
8C
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
26.1
8.3
33.5
30.7
2/8/68
39.3
0.5
16.8
39.3
9A
6/15/67
0.1
20.7
77.0
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
Nil
20.7
75.3
Nil
1/3/69
0
20.4
78.2
0
1/31/69
Trace
15.1
83.5
0
9B
6/15/67
3.6
16.6
79.5
0.2
8/23/67
3.0
19.5
77.0
Nil
2/8/68
10.3
10.4
74.7
0.4
1/3/69
Trace
19.3
79.8
0
1/31/69
19.5
4.5
29.6
43.7
9C
6/15/67
-
-
-
•
8/23/67
28.3
0.8
68.2
2.2
2/8/68
36.2
0.6
27.2
32.7
10A
6/15/67
0.2
20.8
77.5
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
Nil
20.2
73.3
Nil
1/3/69
0
20.3
78.8
0
1/31/69
0
21.9
79.0
0
10B
6/15/67
40.0
0.5
23.4
38.0
8/23/67
16.5
7.6
75.3
0.6
2/8/68
38.6
0.3
2.3
51.1
IOC
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23-/67
9.0
14.8
75.8
Trace
2/8/68
11.3
13.6
'71.0
1.0
11A
6/15/67
0.9
18.9
79.0
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
11.0
5.2
69.8
9.3
1/3/69
Trace
18.4
78.9
0
1/31/69
Trace
12.2
83.7
0.7
UB
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
29.6
6.2
29.5
33.7
2/8/68
41.2
0.2
1.1
52.8
1/3/69
26.7
2.3
35.8
34.1
E-29
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 6
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather C0_ 0o N„ CH. Remarks
L I 2 4
11C 6/15/67
8/23/67
13.4
11.6
73.5
0.5
2/8/68
20.1
9.4
56.2
10.9
12A
6/15/67
3.1
18.6
76.3
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
0.9
19.1
75.7
Nil
1/3/69
0.9
17.7
79.2
0
12B
6/15/67
21.6
0.7
49.0
30.8
8/23/67
11.0
10.8
76.5
Trace
2/8/68
16.9
6.3
33.0
37.2
1/3/69
0
19.4
79.0
0
13A
6/15/67
4.0
19.1
75.6
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
6.5
8.1
78.7
1.6
1/3/69
0.3
17.2
79.7
0
13B
•6/15/67
7.7
15.9
79.0
Nil
8/23/67
2.6
20.0
75.8
Nil
2/8/68
27.2
0.5
10.0
54.2
13C
6/15/67
14.2
12.8
48.0
24.0
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
41.9
0.3
1.5
52.2
14A
6/15/67
1.5
19.3
75.6
Nil
8/23/67
-
-
-
-
2/8/68
1.3
19.3
75.7
Nil
14B
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
3.5
18.9
75.3
Nil-
2/8/68
15.2
2.0
53.9
23.3
1/3/69
1.8
15.0
80.9
0
14C
6/15/67
-
-
_
-
8/23/67
3.8
19.1
71.0
4.7
15A
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
5.7
16.0
76.5
Trace
2/8/68
2.9
16.2
76.9
Nil
1/3/69
0.3
17.6
80.6
0
E-30
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 6
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO. 0o N- CH. Remarks
L I _ L 4
15B
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
4.5
18.1
75.3
Nil
2/8/68
1.5
18.9
73.3
0.1
1/3/69
Trace
19.9
77.6
0
1/31/69
0.2
14.7
82.6
0
15C
6/15/67
-
-
•
•
8/23/67
17.2
7.1
75.8
Trace
2/8/68
30.7
0.7
34.5
32.6
1/3/69
3.9
15.7
79.4
0
I6A
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
4.7
17.3
75.3
Nil
2/8/68
2.7
17.2
76.5
Nil
1/3/69
0.3
18.7
78.1
0
1/31/69
0.6
18.7
76.9
0
16B
6/15/67
_
-
-
-
8/23/67
35.2
0.7
29.0
33.7
2/8/68
37.5
0.4
8.7
47.2
1/3/69
17.3
4.2
64.6
13.7
16C
6/15/67
-
-
-
-
8/23/67
35.3
0.8
33.0
31.7
2/8/68
37.6
0.8
14.3
44.2
1/3/69
30.0
1.1
36.5
32.0
1/31/69
30.4
4.1
17.2
46.8
E-31
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 7
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO^ 0^ ^ CH^ Remarks
1
8/8/67 80-95 Clear-Hot
5.3
16.8
74.0
Nil
2/21/67
5.4
17.0
74.8
Nil
2
8/8/67
28.5
1.2
55.0
12.4
2/21/67
38.6
0.9
16.3
41.0
3
8/8/67
5.9
16.3
74.0
Nil
2/21/67
6.6
16.1
73.4
0.2
4
8/8/67
39.3
1.0
36.3
23.4
2/21/67
44.9
0.5
7.2
43.8
5
8/8/67
17.2
7.0
73.5
0.2
2/21/67
26.7
1.6
60.7
7.7
6
8/8/67
2.8
19.5
73.5
Nil
2/21/67
4.1
17.6
75.4
Nil
7
8/8/67
7.5
14.1
76.6
Nil
8
8/8/67
2.5
20.2
75.3
Nil
9
8/8/67
2.5
20.0
74.6
Nil
2/21/67
2.2
19.6
74.8
Nil
10
8/8/67
2.7
19.8
74.6
Nil
2/21/67
3.0
19.4
74.8
Nil
E-32
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 8
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe
Date
°F
Weather
co2
°2
N2
CH.
4
Remarks
1A
5/9/67
65
Warm-Cloudy
41.9
0.9
4.0
52.6
9/13/67
75
Warm-Cloudy
18.4
10.6
48.8
22.2
11/18/68
75
Smoggy-Warm
31.3
0
35.0
32.0
12/17/68
60
Clear
34.4
0.7
29.3
35.5
1/15/69
70
Clear
19.7
0.4
52.9
24.3
Rain of 1.74
in. on 1/13-
14/69
2/28/69
60
Cloudy
43.2
0.3
3.9
53.2
Rain totally
34.5 in. in
two months
preceding
9/17/69
75
Clear
Destroyed
11/5/69
60
Cloudy
IB
5/9/67
29.7
0.5
27.9
44.8
9/13/67
33.9
0.7
28.2
45.0
11/18/68
6.4
3.3
80.6
Trace
12/17/68
9.6
8.9
77.5
0
1/15/69
10.7
7.7
79.8
0
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
-
-
-
-
11/5/69
Destroyed
1C
5/9/67
34.8
0.7
19.3
47.5
9/13/67
36.0
0.4
30.7
42.7
11/18/68
4.2
6.7
80.8
0
12/17/68
8.7
10.3
78.5
0
1/15/69
4.3
15.5
78.4
0
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
-
-
-
-
11/5/69
Destroyed
2A
5/9/67
4.3
19.9
78.5
Nil
9/13/67
-
-
-
-
11/18/68
0.9
16.2
75.7
0
12/17/68
1.0
19.8
76.9
0
1/15/69
1.0
20.9
78.4
0
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
Trace
20.6
79.0
0
11/5/69
Destroyed
2B
5/9/67
38.8
0.3
1.1
55.4
9/13/67
36.7
0.4
17.7
43.9
11/18/68
31.6
0
24.6
44.0
E-
-33
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
Site 8
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather C0o 0. N_ CH. Remarks
2 2 2 4 -
12/17/68
32.8
0.5
23.8
40.9
1/15/69
17.9
10.4
46.3
23.9
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
Destroyed
11/15/69
16.6
13.6
52.0
20.4
5/9/67
43.7
0.2
0.9
56.8
9/13/67
36.0
0.8
26.4
42.7
11/18/68
24.7
0
50.0
21.6
12/17/68
27.2
1.4
44.0
23.8
1/15/69
-
-
-
-
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
22.4
5.4
46.3
25,0
11/5/69
28.8
3.8
38.0
29.9
5/9/67
41.4
0.4
3.6
54.2
9/13/67
31.3
1.1
38.3
29.3
11/18/68
5.3
7.9
66.0
12.7
12/17/68
30.6
0.5
29.8
37.4
1/15/69
19.0
6.3
47.9
25.0
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
31.1
0.9
30.5
35.7
11/5/69
Destroyed
5/9/67
44.5
0.5
2.5
5i.:
9/13/67
37.8
0.7
17.6
43.9
11/18/68
25.7
0
45.2
30.4
12/17/68
30.2
1.7
31.4
34.5
1/15/69
27.4
2.2
39.8
27.9
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
29.4
3.1
29.9
40.3
11/5/69
22.9
7.7
46.8
26.8
5/9/67
42.3
0.3
6.3
50.5
9/13/67
27.7
1.3
57.5
13.5
11/18/68
4.0
0
81.7
0
12/17/68
5.4
14.5
77.0
0
1/15/69
5.7
14.5
77.3
0
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
3.0
17.3
80.0
- 0
11/5/69
3.8
18.8
79.0
0
E-34
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 8
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather C0„ 0„ N_ CH. Remarks
2 2 2 4
5/9/67
39.3
0.4 ¦
14.8
45.3
9/13/67
25.5
l.l
58.9
14.5
11/18/68
23.7
0
58.5
17.2
12/17/68
22.5
0.4
60.6
11.6
1/15/69
24.7
0.7
59.7
14.6
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
Destroyed
11/5/69
Destroyed
5/9/67
3.2
20.1
76.8
Nil
9/13/67
1.3
18.7
75.6
Trace
11/18/68
Trace
20.6
82.3
0
12/17/68
0.2
19.4
75.7
0
1/15/69
-
-
-
-
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
-
-
-
-
11/5/69
Destroyed
5/9/67
15.4
4.7
66.S
10.6
9/13/67
5.5
17.5
80.0
0.0
11/18/68
0.6
18.5
82.3
0
12/17/68
1.1
20.4
74.0
0
1/15/69
0.6
20.4
77.0
0
2/28/69
2.5
14.7
84.8
0
9/17/69
1.6
18.1
79.5
0
11/5/69
1.4
20.9
75.0
0
5/9/67
19.5
1.2
56.4
22.5
9/13/67
9.5
13.0
78.0
Trace
11/18/68
1.1
15.4
81.9
0
12/17/68.
2.8
19.5
74.2
0
1/15/69
1.6
19.9
78.0
0
2/28/69
3.2
12.9
85.5
0
9/17/69
5.3
15.2
79.7
0
11/5/69
4.9
19.2
75.8
0
5/9/67
39.5
0.4
9.9
49.7
9/13/67
34.5
0.7
19.0
47.5
11/18/68
26.4
o •
57.7
17.6
12/17/68
14.4
8.5
68.4
6.3
1/15/69
18.1
2.7
72.0
5.0
2/28/69
25.7
0.7
47.1
25.5
9/17/69
35.8
2.2
21.7
42.8
11/5/69
25.3
4.3
50.0
20.4
E-35
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 8
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather, C0o 0- N. CH. Remarks
2 2 Z 4
7B
5/9/67
43.0
0.3
2.4
56.0
9/13/67
29.0
4.5
21.9
46.0
11/18/68
10.0
3.0
60.3
18.2
7C
9/17/69
34.8
1.1
15.5
44.4
11/5/69
27.4
6.4
34.3
35.8
8
5/9/67
42.3
0.5
3.7
55.8
9/13/67
38.0
0.6
6.4
54.5
11/18/68
22.7
0
57.7
19.1
12/17/68
5.2
17.6
74.7
0
1/15/69
-
-
-
-
2/28/69
Flooded
9/17/69
18.0
5.6
57.1
15.7
11/5/69
18.7
7.7
62.7
10.8
8A
5/9/67
41.5
0.2
2.2
57.4
9/13/67
37.0
0.7
5.1
56.6
11/18/68
7.2
6.9
70.6
13.2
12/17/68
18.9
10.5
54.5
14.0
8B
9/17/69
11.1
14.2
63.5
9.3
11/5/69
15.3
12.4
63.7
8.6
9A
5/9/67
47.2
0.2
9.6
45.8
9/13/67
37.0
0.7
19.0
44.5
11/18/68
21.7
0
61.9
14.4
12/17/68
21.8
10.2
66.4
6.8
1/15/69
22.9
0.9
66.5
10.3
2/28/69
21.6
3.6
45.0
25.6
9/17/69
Destroyed
9B
5/9/67
41.2
0.2
3.7
55.0
9/13/67
37.9
0.5
11.6
50.0
9C
9/17/69
31.1
2.6
37.6
31.0
11/5/69
20.1
6.4
66.1
7.3
10
5/9/67
35.2
1.0
34.8
30.3
9/13/67
-
-
-
-
11/18/68
24.1
0
44.9
29.7
12/17/68
17.3
7.6
57.0
14.3
1/15/69
24.9
1.1
50.0
23.3
2/28/69
25.0
0.5
28.1
42.1
E-36
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 8
(Percent by Volume)
J
Temp
Probe Date °f Weather °2 N2 ^4 Remarks
10
9/17/69
20.5
1.9
69.2
8.4
11/5/69
7.6
15.4
75.8
0
10A
5/9/67
43.5
0.1
1.2
54.2
9/13/67
39.1
0.3
7.6
52.0
11/18/68
22.4
0
32.3
37.9
12/17/68
20.4
8.6
42.0
26.2
1/15/69
28.8
3.9
34.7
33.2
2/28/69
29.1
2.5
26.2
37.5
9/17/69
18.4
7.4
57.4
16.8
11/5/69
21.9
3.0
62.1
13.0
11A
5/9/67
36.5
0.3
12.4
48.7
9/13/67
26.2
12.6
49.7
12.0
11/18/68
2.4
6.6
80.9
2.3
12/17/68
1.2
20.1
77.0
0
1/15/69
2.6
15.2
81.3
0
2/28/69
5.9
8.7
84.3
0.7
9/17/69
Destroyed
11/5/69
Destroyed
12
5/9/67
3.7
19.0
75.2
Trace
9/13/67
3.0
21.2
76.8
Trace
13
5/9/67
23.9
2.5
69.0
2.4
9/13/67
18.8
5.3
74.0
0.2
11/18/68
1.4
12.0
80.0
0
12/17/68
1.4
20.4
76.5
0
1/15/69
4.7
15.8
79.0
0
2/28/69
Flooded
9/17/69
0.3
19.8
81.4
0
11/5/69
6.9
18.4
76.2
0
13A
5/9/67
35.5
0.5
15.2
45.0
9/13/67
31.0
1.2
37.5
31.4
11/18/68
0.8
15.8
79.6
0
12/17/68
4.7
17.0
76.0
0
1/15/69
7.8
14.7
76.6
0
2/28/69
Flooded
9/17/69
Plugged
11/5/69
18.8
8.5
71.8
1.4
13B
5/9/67
24.1
5.8
41.0
27.3
9/13/67
15.9
7.4
75.5
Trace
E-37
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 8
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather C0„ 0„ N„ CH, Remarks
I 2 2 4
13 B
11/18/68
0
20.8
81.2
0
12/17/68
1.8
19.3
75.7
0
13C
9/17/69
2.7
16.7
80.4
0
11/5/69
2.3
19.7
76.0
0
14
5/9/67
28.8
5.7
24.7
38.5
9/13/67
22.6
5.0
32.2
40.5
14A
9/17/69
9.5
15.0
59.7
14.6
11/5/69
24.3
5.1
50.8
20.9
15A
5/9/67
36.7
0.2
5.2
54.5
9/13/67
33.4
0.3
13.3
52.5
11/18/68
29.6
0
25.8
42.9
12/17/68
27.0
7.0
29.9
35.5
1/15/69
29.4
1.7
31.8
39.3
2/28/69
36.9
Trace
12.0
46.8
9/17/69
Trace
21.7
80.7
0
11/5/69
23.6
3.0
56.9
16.4
16A
5/9/67
23.2
1.0
69.8
4.3
9/13/67
7.9
14.7
76.0
0.0
11/18/68
-
-
-
-
12/17/68
0.1
20.0
76.5
0
1/15/69
0.5
20.4
78.7
0
2/28/69
3.2
13.3
84.0
0
9/17/69
2.0
19.0
79.0
0
11/5/69
2.8
20.9
76.6
0
17
5/9/67
8.2
13.7
75.0
Trace
9/13/67
5.9
17.5
75.0
0.0
11/18/68
-
-
-
-
12/17/68
1.2
20.5
76.4
0
1/15/69
Trace
21.8
79.1
0
18B
5/9/67
7.0
9.9
80.5
Trace
9/13/67
6.7
17.7
75.0
Trace
U/18/68
0.4
16.5
79.6
0
12/17/68
2.1
20.0
77.1
0
1/15/69
0.4
21.3
78.8
0
2/28/69
1.4
17.9
81.5
0
9/17/69
0
21.7
80.0
0
11/5/69
3.8
20.5
77.8
0
E-38
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 8
(Percent by Volume)
19A
19B
2 OA
20B
22A
Temp
Date CF Weather
C02
°2
N2
CH. :
4
5/9/67
28.6
0.8
41.3
30.2
9/13/67
8.3
15.5
75.0
Trace
11/18/68
Trace
18.9
81.6
0
12/17/68
4.2
15.4
77.6
0
1/15/69
4.1
16.1
79.4
0
2/28/69
8.8
3.2
91.5
0
9/17/69
0
20.4
77.4
0
11/5/69
4.9
19.2
76.6
0
5/9/67
30.2
0.7
30.7
39.5
9/13/67
12.8
12.0
73.5
0.0
11/18/68
1.1
14.5
80.9
0
12/17/68
2.6
19.0
76.8
0
1/15/69
6.2
15.3
79.1
0
2/28/69
7.5
6.8
85.6
0.7
9/17/69
5.6
18.5
77.6
0
11/5/69
6.3
17.9
75.8
0
5/9/67
27.4
1.2
47.0
24.5
9/13/67
12.6
9.8
73.5
0.1
11/18/68
2.3
9.3
82.3
0
12/17/68
1.7
19.3
76.5
0
1/15/69
3.5
17.8
80.2
0
2/28/69
10.5
1.0
88.0
1.1
9/17/69
-
-
-
-
11/5/69
Destroyed
5/9/67
27.2
0.8
44.3
27.0
9/13/67
15.9
7.0
74.0
0.0
11/18/68
3.6
7.4
81.3
0
12/17/68
4.2
16.8
76.2
0
1/15/69
3.4
17.7
79.1
0
2/28/69
10.4
4.1
84.9
2.0
9/17/69
-
-
-
-
11/5/69
Destroyed
5/9/67
5.8
15.5
76.3
Nil
9/13/67
6.2
17.9
74.0
Trace
11/18/68
0.3
18.5
80.0
0
12/17/68
2.4
20.5
76.4
0
1/15/69
1.3
20.2
79.2
0
2/28/69
0.8
18.3
81.5
0
9/17/69
0.4
19.7
78.9
0
11/5/69
4.9
17.9
75.8
0
Remarks
E-39
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 8
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Temp
Date °F Weather
c°2
°2
N2
CH. Remarks
4
23A
5/9/67
7.5
13.8
77.5
Trace
9/13/67
8.8
15.2
75.0
0.0
11/18/68
Trace
18.5
81.8
0
12/17/68
4.2
17.7
76.4
0
1/15/69
3.0
17.9
78.8
0
2/28/69
3.4
15.7
83.6
0
9/17/69
5.5
13.9
78.0
0
11/5/69
0
22.2
75.8
0
24A
5/9/67
6.8
14.3
75.5
Nil
9/13/67
7.2
16.3
75.5
0.0
11/18/68
-
-
-
-
12/17/68
-
-
-
-
1/15/69
-
-
-
-
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
-
-
-
-
11/5/69
Destroyed
25
5/9/67
39.0
0.3
4.1
57.2 In Manhole
9/13/67
38.0
0.4
5.6
55.5
-11/18/68
37.7
0
13.1
50.5
12/17/68
-
-
-
-
1/15/69
-
-
-
-
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
31.3
4.4
21.0
43.7
11/5/69
31.9
5.1
21.0
44.0
26
5/9/67
44.6
0.2
2.0
54.0 In Manhole
9/13/67
-
-
-
-
11/18/68
-
-
-
-
12/17/68
-
-
-
-
1/15/69
-
-
-
-
2/28/69
-
-
-
-
9/17/69
33.3
2.8
20.3
40.0
11/5/69
32.6
4.1
22.6
41.8
27
5/9/67
26.0
5.3
27.3
42.3 In Manhole
9/13/67
8.4
15.4
69.0
5.7
11/18/68
0.4
17.0
78.7
1.0
12/17/68
2.5
19.5
76.0 '
0
1/15/69
3.7
17.3
79.8
0
2/28/69
13.3
12.6
63.5
13.3
9/17/69
7.3
14.2
75.0
1.5
11/5/69
1.4
19.7
83.4
0
E-40
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 8
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Date
Temp
oF
Weather
CO,
N„ CH. Remarks
28
5/9/67
9/13/67
11/18/68
12/17/68
1/15/69
2/28/69
9/17/69
11/5/69
30.7 0.6 24.4 44.0 In Manhole
11.5 10.1 69.7 4.5
21.5 2.1 68.5 6.0
E-41
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CC^ Nj CH^ Remarks
1 7/24/67 82 Windy,Clear
Warm
15 12
71
0
11/28/67
55
Cloudy-Showers
7 11
81
0
6/28/68
-
Warm
3.2 19
78
0
1/13/69
61
Light Rain
1.9 18
79
0
7/28/69
78
Clear
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
2
7/24/67
21 6
73
0
11/28/67
14 8
76
0
6/28/68
3.6 17
78
0
1/13/69
3.4 17
79
0
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
3
7/24/67
23 2
72
0.8
11/28/67
15 7
76
0
6/28/68
5 16
78
0
1/13/69
7 15
79
0
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
4
7/24/67
26 1.1
65
5
11/28/67
26 1.5
44
28
6/28/68
10 12
76
0
1/13/69
14 9
79
0
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
5
7/24/67
33 0.8
48
17
11/28/67
30 0.3
10
58
6/28/68
13 8
78
0
1/13/69
24 1.0
70
7
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
6
7/24/67
40 0.3
19
42
11/28/67
26 3.0
22
50
6/28/68
27 0.4
38
34
1/13/69
29 0.5
37
36
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
E-42
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO^ 0^ CR^ Remarks
7
7/24/67
38
0.4
24
37
11/28/67
31
0.3
7
61
6/28/68
12
7
79
1
1/13/69
31
0.6
41
28
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
8
7/24/67
34
1.0
47
19
11/28/67
31
0.3
28
40
6/28/68
33
0.5
45
22
1/13/69
32
1.4
48
20
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
9
7/24/67
36
0.4
33
30
Ll/28/67
33
0.4
21
45
6/28/68
34
0.5
40
26
1/13/69
29
3.7
43
23
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
10
7/24/67
44
0.5
11
45
11/28/67
35
0.1
5.6
60
6/28/68
38
0.2
13
49
1/13/69
37
0.3
12
50
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
11
7/24/67
32
0.6
42
27
11/28/67
32
0.1
7
63
6/28/68
29
0.4
31
39
1/13/69
27
0.4
29
45
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
12
7/24/67
42
0.4
19
41
11/28/67
31
0.2
17
54
6/28/68
31
0.4
33
36
1/13/69
30
0.4
37
34
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
13
7/24/67
Plugged
11/28/67
Plugged
E-43
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO2 02 ^ CH^ Remarks
13
6/28/68
Plugged
1/13/69
Plugged
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
14
7/24/67
37 0.6
35
26
11/28/67
29 0.1
22
48
6/28/68
28 0.8
56
16
1/13/69
27 0.9
54
20
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
15
7/24/67
12 11
76
I
11/28/67
25 0.6
42
32
6/28/68
Lost
1/13/69
Lost
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
16
7/24/67
34 0.8
46
20
11/28/67
29 0.2
21
52
6/28/68
27 0.6
50
23
1/13/69
22 1.5
51
24
7/28/69
59 0.7
22
18
10/29/69
Destroyed
17
7/24/67
39 0.4
24
37
11/28/67
27 0.3
12
63
6/28/68
32 0.4
30
39
1/13/69
30 0.2
17
51
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
18
7/24/67
39 0.3
15
46
11/28/67
28 0.1
10
64
6/28/68
32. 0.2
13
55
1/13/69
29 0.3
20
51
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
19
7/24/67
39 0.5
17
45
11/28/67
29 0.1
13
58
6/28/68
34 0.4
28
40
E-44
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO^ 0^ ^ CH^ Remarks
19
1/13/69
30
0.4
33
39
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
20
7/24/67
38
0.4
26
33
11/28/67
31
0.3
10
61
6/28/68
33
0.3
24
44
1/13/69
33
0.3
18
48
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
21
7/24/67
37
0.3
18
43
11/28/67
34
0.2
7
59
6/28/68
35
0.2
16
50
1/13/69
32
0.5
24
45
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
22
7/24/67
35
0.2
, 7
58
11/28/67
20
3.3
22
53
6/28/68
31
0.2
16
55
1/13/69
28
0.5
25
46
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
23
7/24/67
39
0.4
3
57
11/28/67
37
0.1
1.2
61
6/28/68
41
0.1
2.3
57
1/13/69
41
0.2
3.6
53
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
24
7/24/67
38
0.5
31
29
11/28/67
33
0.5
18
48
6/28/68
33
0.7
42
25
1/13/69
34
1.1
40
26
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
25
7/24/67
44
0.1
1.5
55
11/28/67
38
0.1
3.9
57
6/28/68
43
0.1
5
51
1/13/69
40
1.9
10
46
E-45
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO. 0 N_ CH. Remarks
L L L 4
25
7/28/69
53
1.4
12
34
10/29/69
43
0.8
7.0
51
26
7/24/67
38
0.4
20
40
11/28/67
34
0.8
11
56
6/28/68
37
0.3
19
45
1/13/69
40
0.2
10
50
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
27
7/24/67
31
0.7
38
28
11/28/67
29
0.4
20
51
6/28/68
28
0.5
36
35
1/13/69
32
0.2
22
'46
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
28
7/24/67
37
0.4
19
42
11/28/67
30
0.3
27
44
6/28/68
36
0.4
27
39
1/13/69
36
0.3
25
38
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
29
7/24/67
36
0.5
29
32
11/28/67
29
0.5
23
49
6/28/68
35
0.4
34
33
1/13/69
37
0.4
28
37
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
30
7/24/67
34
0.6
35
29
11/28/67
33
0.3
17
51
6/28/68
34
0.6
34
33
1/13/69
37
0.2
18
44
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
31
7/24/67
39
0.3
18
43
11/28/67
34
0.1
7
60
6/28/68
34
0.4
25
43
1/13/69
35
0.2
11
53
7/28/69
57
0.8
15
29
10/29/69
38
1.1
6.6
52
E-46
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
, Temp
Probe
Date °F
Weather
C02
°2
N2
CH. Remarks
A
32
7/24/67
34
0.5
35
30
11/28/67
34
0.1
7
60
6/28/68
34
0.4
25
43
1/13/69
Lost
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
33
7/24/67
-
-
-
-
11/28/67
33
0.3
18
51
6/28/68
30
0.5
45
27
1/13/69
35
0.3
26
40
7/28/69
34
0.6
17
46
10/29/69
35
1.6
20
43
34
7/24/67
-
-
-
-
11/28/67
35
0.2
7
58
6/28/68
37
0.2
14
50
1/13/69
41
0.1
6
51
7/28/69
29
4.5
21
47
10/29/69
42
1.6
2.9
53
35
7/24/67
-
-
-
-
11/28/67
35
0.1
9
57
6/28/68
36
0.2
17
47
1/13/69
39
0.2
14
46
7/28/69
33
2.9
27
36
10/29/69
37
3.0
13
46
36
7/24/67
-
-
-
-
11/28/67
34
0.1
9
57
6/28/68
36
0.3
21
44
1/13/69
37
0.2
16
45
7/28/69
31
1.0
13
54
10/29/69
37
2.3
20
41
37
7/24/67
-
-
-
-
11/28/67
-
-
-
-
6/28/68
35
0.3
30
37
1/13/69
38
0.2
18
44
7/28/69
31
0.7
18
51
10/29/69
39
1.4
17
43
E-47
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Temp
Date °F Weather
co2
°2
N2
CH.
4
Remarks
38
7/24/67
.
11/28/67
32
0.1
5.2
62
6/28/68
34
0.2
17
48
1/13/69
33
0.5
23
43
7/28/69
28
0.8
5.8
66
10/29/69
Lost
39
7/24/67
.
-
_
11/28/67
28
0.1
8
66
6728/68
26
0.4
32
44
1/13/69
27
0.4
37
37
7/28/69
20
8.8
39
34
10/29/69
29
2.9
13
53
Contained
Water
40
7/24/67
.
_
-
•
11/28/67
27
0.2
14
59
6/28/68
25
0.6
46
30
1/13/69
26
0.4
40
34
7/28/69
33
0.4
5.5
63
10/29/69
36
0.7
5.6
59
41
7/24/67
-
-
-
-
11/28/67
27
0.4
23
50
6/28/68
Lost
1/13/69
Lost
7/28/69
38
0.8
10
49
10/29/69
-
-
-
-
42
7/24/67
-
-
-
-
11/28/67
26
0.4
29
47
6/28/68
21
0.8
69
9
1/13/69
6
15
79
0
7/28/69
31
0.9
12
58
10/29/69
31
2.3
10
56
47
7/24/67
33
0.6
26
39
11/28/67
27
0.3
20
55
6/28/68
27
0.6
43
31
1/13/69
24
0.4
53
24
7/28/69
10/29/69
Destroyed
Destroyed
E-48
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO ^ ^2 ^4 Remarks
48
7/24/67
36 0.4
24
40
11/28/67
31 0.2
12
59
6/28/68
29 0.7
34
38
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
49
7/24/67
33 0.6
32
33
11/28/67
30 0.2
14
57
6/28/68
26 0.6
50
25
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
50
7/24/67
37 0.4
21
41
11/28/67
30 0.2
5.4
65
6/28/68
31 0.4
30
40
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
51
7/24/67
30 0.5
29
41
11/28/67
28 0.4
15
56
6/28/68
22 0.6
42
37
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
52
7/24/67
36 0.3
19
46
11/28/67
26 0.4
29
46
6/28/68
24 0.7
54
23
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
53
7/24/67
38 0.3
11
52
11/28/67
29 0.2
17
55
6/28/68
28 0.6
35
38
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
54
7/24/67
30 0.5
28
41
11/28/67
26 0.4
26
48
E-49
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CCL 0- N„ CH. Remarks
. L L 2 4
54
6/28/68
22 0.9
64
12
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
55
7/24/67
34 0.4
17
50
11/28/67
22 0.5
41
36
6/28/68
7 12
79
0
1/13/69
2.1 21
75
0
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
56
7/24/67
35 0.3
16
48
11/28/67
22 0.5
41
37
6/28/68
10 11
77
0
1/13/69
2.2 20
76
0
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
\
57
7/24/67
31 0.5
30
38
11/28/67
16 1.0
68
14
6/28/68
8 13
77
0
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
58
7/24/67
29 0.7
47
22
11/28/67
20 0.9
62
17
6/28/68
5 15
79
0
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
59
7/24/67
36 0.4
25
39
11/28/67
25 0.5
35
41
6/28/68
12 9
79
0
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
60
7/24/67
37 0.3
18
45
11/28/67
23 0.6
48
28
6/28/68
4.1 18
77
0
E-50
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Probe Date °F Weather CO, 0- N„ CH. Remarks
Z Z Z 4
60
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
61
7/24/67
28 0.9
56
17
11/28/67
17 3.4
78
0.
6/28/68
3.2 19
77
0
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
62
7/24/67
4.8 17
77
0
11/28/67
4.5 18
77
0
6/28/68
Lost
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
63
7/24/67
2.3 20
76
0
11/28/67
3.6 18
77
0
6/28/68
0.9 20
78
0
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
64
7/24/67
1.2 20
76
0
11/28/67
1.6 19
79
0
6/28/68
Lost
1/13/69
Destroyed
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
65
7/24/67
-
-
-
11/28/67
-
-
-
6/28/68
Plugged
1/13/69
Plugged
7/28/69
Destroyed
10/29/69
Destroyed
66
7/24/67
-
-
-
11/28/67
25 0.5
33
44
6/28/68
22 0.9
60
15
1/13/69
Plugged
E-51
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Date
Temp
°F
Weather
CO,
CH. Remarks
4
66
67
68
69
70
7/28/69
10/29/69
7/24/67
11/28/67
6/28/68
L/13/69
7/28/69
10/29/69
7/24/67
11/28/67
6/28/68
1/13/69
7/28/69
10/29/69
7/24/67
11/28/67
6/28/68
1/13/69
7/28/69
10/29/69
7/24/67
11/28/67
6/28/68
1/13/69
7/28/69
10/29/69
0.5 21
0 20
18
34
36
77
79
0.4 61
0.6 20 78
0.2 '21 78
Destroyed
Destroyed
5.3 14 79
Plugged
Plugged
Destroyed
Destroyed
27 2.6 57
Lost
0.6 18 81
36 0.4
Plugged
0.8
2.0
0
0
20
0
0
15
20
3.6
9.1
46
60
51
Water in
Probe
71
72
7/24/67
11/28/67
6/28/68
1/13/69
7/24/67
11/28/67
6/28/68
1/13/69
7/28/69
10/29/69
39
40
39
31
26
41
0.2 13
0.1 6
0.2
0.2
1.7
1.0
11
18
4.8
1.0
49
52
51
49
66
59
E-52
-------
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 9
(Percent by Volume)
Probe
Date
Temp
Heather
CO,
N„
CH. Remarks;
4
73
74
75
7/24/67
11/28/67
6/28/68
1/13/69
7/28/69
10/29/69
7/24/67
11/28/67
6/28/68
1/13/69
7/28/69
10/29/69
7/24/67
11/28/67
6/28/68
1/13/69
7/28/69
10/29/69
33
26
30
35
27
12
30
0.3
0.6
1.1
1.3
25
45
4.6
1.9
0.7 54
6 80
3.7
44
27
65
60
Water in
Probe
19
1.0
9.8 56
24 0.8 62 14
23 0.8 61 14
38 1.2 4.5 54 Water in
Probe
E-53
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
GAS ANALYSIS DATA
PROJECT SUMMARY
SITE 10
(Percent by Volume)
Temp
Date °F Weather C0o CL N CH. H_S
L L 2 4 2
10/15/67 70 Clear
32.4
0.5
24.7
43.3
0.1
10.2
6.0
74.5
0.1
0.1
34.9
0.1
3.9
59.3
0.1
32.0
2.3
23.2
42.3
Trace
7.8
15.0
74.0
0.7
0.0
20.9
1.0
70.5
6.2
Trace
15.9
6.7
75.5
Trace
Trace
23.0
5.2
47.0
23.4
Trace
11/4/67 67 Clear
31.4
0.5
30.0
40.5
0.0
10.1
11.8
79.0
Trace
0.0
35.9
0.3
8.1
59.5
0.0
16.6
9.0
58.0
14.9
0.0
5.3
16.0
77.0
0.8
0.0
19.8
1.3
73.0
5.5
0.0
17.0
4.6
77.0
0.2
0.0
E-54
-------
APPENDIX P
FIGURES
-------
FIGURE 1-1
^^^^ESSSmZgggJlt''- Jl'- '"-
<«• t.*.>j . •r' .. T r« • .•! - —- - - - -
. ' •¦¦ *^~—^ J J Hi-*- cTa' -
BUfSA**
\»tffio
SITE 2
OS A^
11 v r 1
• '* ••.'¦•, W -
\«W'N
\ .«> c '•
SITE 5
GENERAL LOCATION OF
RESEARCH SITES IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
VA**
' aSs5
-------
FIGURE 1-1 (Con
\
M O ,J A V f
I. £ K I- K
\
'-jru:. ¦
\
V,.
¦%y.
\
>? -
A
V \
£g££g3^Kdfe»**
\
wG&rm
«lx." v{ vW»*a**n*ix {J • r\. ••
\ r v^«ova j—- -site (?v^
-> ;*-vv-' V * '.w-M.i*' :,\ . "\ 1
'• j ¦ ¦-¦., ¦. ,\o-, -.t*: .a,}-'X
IG£L£$
r( •'.
- -
.! .'.rHWOO:
'-' ' - v— ¦ /
1 \ >«¦>' »• - \ •-.
'..«, ILFtOmiK "¦ \ "~ \ \Y - TV
¦: XT'V'«.'^rA
. rx.. . xarisiA \
SITE 6
lake w< xji-
• • 3lTE 3
k «4A<'/.n
V ,,A ?."•/ A-.,
*3W,.
W'.
LQN'j BtA^H
GENERAL LOCATION OF
RESEARCH SITES IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
F-/A
-------
FIGURE D-l
SETTLEMENT RECORD
SITE 5
05-
MON. 105 [95*
M0N.I07 N30'
20
MON. 106
M0N.II2
MON 118 —
3 0
MON 120 85
125'
90
120'
a>
a>
h-
Z
UJ
2
UJ
UJ
CO
UJ
>
13
2
O
O
3 5
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
YEAR
LEGEND Depth of Fill, feet [s£
F-2
-------
riounc _u. — c
SETTLEMENT RECORD
AREA I
SITE II
MON.III [iS^P
MON.no
UJ 5.0
MON. I
MON. 113 100
MON. 114 1100
1
YEAR
MON. 109
LEGEND: Depth of Fill,feet 55
F-3
-------
LEGEND
Monument Location o
Depth of Fill
60*
Contour Interval 5
DEPTH OF FILL CURVES
AREA 1
SITE 11
F- 4
-------
FIGURE 1-4
/
SCALE I :200
\\\\\\v{w
M\W
' 1 ' 'Wt1
11 in hii a'i'ii
i inia a
LEGEND
Monument Locotion o
Cumulative Setlement Cp^)
Contour Interval 0 2'
CUMULATIVE SETTLEMENT
CURVES
AREA 1
SITE 11
r-5
-------
FIGURE H-5
I
SCALE I = 200
\\ u \
\ \ 1\\\
! I//
l/MM
Bfisoi!
, MM*
/11 « I
13T
f"0l
LEGEND
Monument Localion a
Depth of Fill: 1 so' |
Contour Interval• 5*
DEPTH OF FILL CURVES
AREA 3
SITE 11
F-
-------
FIGURE H-6
SCALE l"s 200'
|SI5
P-90
512
1.56'
Id .04
[no
1.60'
4.00'
P. 46"
JOS
307
306
SOS
P5I"
2 82
4.17'
2.01"
304
SOS
302
SOI
.0.73'
3.03
.5.58'
.3.35
200'
LEGEND
Monument Location. a3i5
Cumulative Settlement Curves' (o^)
Contour Interval' O.l'
CUMULATIVE SETTLEMENT
CURVES
AREA 3
SITE II
c-7
-------
FIGURE E-7
EXPERIMENTAL TEST UNITS
VENT
10 lbs R.C WEIGHT —
SUBSIDENCE
TINNEO CONTAINER-
S-
THERMOMETER
7 981
COMPACTED
REFUSE
1/2"PERFORATED
PVC PIPE
8 PVC PIPE--
ANAEROBIC
VENT
COMPRESSED AIR
s
COMPACTED
REFUSE
(b) AEROBIC
F ~ 8
-------
12'
I PRECONSOLIDATED SAMPLE
? LOADING CYLINDER
3 LOADING HOOK
4 LEVER BEAM
5 BASE BEAM
6 TURNBUCKLE
7 PUSHING ROD
8 SAMPLE BASE
9 STIFFENERS
10 GUIDES
11 TENSION RODS
CONSOLIDATION TEST APPARATUS
-------
FIGURE E-9
INITIAL COMPACTION OF SYNTHETIC REFUSE CELLS
in
LU
a:
MIXED
PAPER CONTENT-20%
NOTE
Energy input per unit
weight drop 1200 lb-In
I
o
UJ
$
10
MIXED
COARSE
FINE
L/
t
/ .X
PAPER CONTENT-30%
20
15 -
A-'
.-A
or
-a*
-x-
-i-
¦x-
FINE
MIXED
COARSE
10
PAPER CONTENT-60%
I I I L
0 12345678
UNIT ENERGY INPUT (WEIGHT DROPS)
*See Table II-12 for Percent Water in Refuse
F-/o
-------
FIGURE H-IO
EFFECT OF COMPOSITION AND SIZE
ON COMPACTED UNIT WEIGHT
UNWETTED REFUSE MIXTURES*
MIXED
COARSE
PAPER CONTENT, °/<
See Table H-12 for Percent Water in Refuse
F'l/
-------
FIGURE H— 11
EFFECT OF COMPOSITION AND SIZE ON POROSITY
OF COMPACTED REFUSE
COARSE
MIXED
PAPER CONTENT, 7<
F-IZ
-------
FIGURE 11-12
EFFECT OF WATER ADDED ON UNIT
WEIGHT OF COMPACTED REFUSE
65
60
55
50
UJ
01
45
40
35
30
20
0
20 30 40
10
50 60
70 80 90
100
WATER ADDED, percent saturation
F- 13
-------
FIGURE H-13
WEIGHT LOSS DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE
AEROBIC, DRY REFUSE CELLS
%= PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
FINE SIZE "F
A 60%
MIXED SIZES "M'
Ll
O
t-
X
o
Ld
$
20%
'* 30%
A- —
A 60%
COARSE SIZE "C
30%
20%
J L
_I_
J I I
60%
40
80
120
TIME .days
160
200
f- 14-
-------
FIGURE II-
WEIGHT LOSS DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE =
ANAEROBIC, DRY REFUSE CELLS
13
1 r
FINE SIZE F
—i 1 1 r
% = PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
10
"x"—
•x-x.
' i—& a—• a—- a a..
20%
* — x-x— 30%
*a— a—a^.6— 60o/o
MIXED SIZES "M
x
o
u
20%
*-*- 30%
60%
COARSE SIZE C
-x-
30%
lz—a a—a
-a
60%
J I
40
80 120
TIME, doys
160
200
F' IS
-------
FIGURE 11-15
WEIGHT LOSS DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE^
AEROBIC, 65% SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
in
LkJ
O
LU
CO
D
u_
Ld
$
10
i r
% - PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
FINE SIZE F
x 30°/
io
x
o
13
12
MIXED SIZES M
30%
20%
COARSE SIZE C'
•A 60%
J L
20%
J I
40
80
120
TIME , days
160
200
F - 16
-------
FIGURE 11-16
WEIGHT LOSS DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE
ANAEROBIC, 65% SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
if— —
n 1 1 1 r
FINE SIZE "F"
10
i r
% = PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
-x-
MIXED SIZES M
V)
JO
LlI
U
UJ
(/)
Z>
U.
UJ
o:
Li.
O
X
o
UJ
10
20%
COARSE SIZE "C
» . a
^
L A ".
x- A— 60%
30%
120
TIME, days
f- n
-------
FIGURE E-17
WEIGHT LOSS DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE*
ANAEROBIC, SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
FINE SIZE "F
»/0 = PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
A"~a—a-a— 60 °u
MIXED SIZES "M
_i
_i
UJ
cj
LU
to
~D
u_
UJ
oc
-X
30°/e
Ll_
O
H
X
o
UJ
$
COARSE SIZE "C
24
22
20
20%
0
40
80
160
200
TIME-days
F-f8
-------
RGUREII-18
UNIT WEIGHT DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE::
AEROBIC, DRY*REFUSE CELLS
FINE SIZE "F
20%
30
40
rO
4 -4-4-4—a - 60 %
(/>
_o
%= PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
20
_J
_l
UJ
o
MIXED SIZES "M
UJ
V)
ZD 40
li_
UJ
01
o o
o
UJ
* 30%
I-
I-
UJ
£
z
3
it-
CD
20
f—
X
CD
LU
$
COARSE SIZE "C
40
\-
30
20
'4—4—4 60 %
40
SO
120
160
200
0
TIME , days
*UNWETTED, See Table E-12 for Percent Water in Refuse
F-/?
-------
FIGURE H-19
UNIT WEIGHT DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE
ANAEROBIC, DRY* REFUSE CELLS
•
«
o o
1 I l I I i i i i i I
FINE SIZE "F" 20%
-o.o-o—*c~ 0 °r°
% = PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
* x—-x *—*—x- 30%
30
1 a—a^. _
4—a—a-A-i 60%
IO
lbs/ft
cn
O
_ MIXED SIZES "M" # 2°%
REFUSE CELL,
O
^x* 30%
* w ^ X
x x x V vx_»JL.X-X—— X ,
Q 30
UJ
H
h
UJ
$
z
3 20
lL
O
- X x x x xx
* X
*¦" 60%
h-
X
o
~ 50
5
H
z
Z5
40
_ COARSE SIZE "C"
0 20%
""" ^ ^ w-v-y -—*-*—x-x-x-x-x-x -x-X-2- x-x-x 30<>/o
x— x-xx-x X "X X X
30
-
20
4—4-4— 4-4-6-4—4-4-4-4-4-4 60%
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 40 60 120 160 200
TIME , days
*UNWETTED, See Table H-12 for Percent Water in Refuse
f-LO
-------
FIGURE 11-20
UNIT WEIGHT DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE
AEROBIC, 65% SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
x
g
UJ
$
60
«/
x-x"'' 30 %
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—73T T
FINE SIZE "F"
* * * X * *
(/>
— 40
UJ
o
UJ
u_
LlI
a:
o
UJ
H-
<
cr
ID
h-
<
CO
55
in
Ll
O
20%
% = PERCENT PAPER'
CONTENT
MIXED SIZES M
I o * * *x
40
60
COARSE SIZE "C"
30%
A l 0
* 4 - A>A A
50
40
x—
O o
60%
20%
' i I I I L
J L
40
80 120
Tl ME, days
160
200
f-
-------
FIGURE n-21
UNIT WEIGHT DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE!
ANAEROBIC, 65% SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
60
30
IO
^ 40
(A
.O
ts>
_l
_l
UJ
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
_ FINE SIZE "F"
2 0%
,= " 0 ""—30%
60%
% = PERCENT PAPER "
CONTENT
o
UJ
to 60
=3
U.
UJ
tr
Q
W 50
MIXED SIZES "M"
'N.0
OF 65% SATURA
A
O
60% 30%
UNIT WEIGHT
c*
-------
FIGURE H-22
UNIT WEIGHT DURING DECOMPOSITION AND SUBSIDENCE^
ANAEROBIC, SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
(0
JO
CO
UJ
o
UJ
CO
u.
Ul
a:
Q
UJ
K-
<
a:
»-
<
v>
u.
O
X
S2
UJ
5:
70
40
i—r
FINE SIZE F'
* K *
.x—* 8 -
-30%
— 1°'° o...B p-Q-O.o
o o " o
-o—o-o-
j.20%
o o
%= PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
MIXED SIZE "M*
60%
0^v 30%
0 o o §-o—
20%
COARSE SIZE "C"
50
o__ o o
O ° __Q O
o o ° ° ° o 5
20%
AAA
^.-L,r!:ta:fcE-r.M eo%
i i I i I " *1
40
80 100
TIME, days
120
140
F-Z3
-------
FIGURE H-23
SUBSIDENCE OF AEROBIC, DRY REFUSE CELLS
FINE SIZE
30
25
'/„ = PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
20
30%
x-x
20%
MIXED SIZES
25
20
Q.
60%
COARSE SIZE "C
40
35
30
25
20
30%
,4-4-A L
0
40
eo
120
200
160
*UNWETTED, See Table H-12 TIME ,days
-------
FIGURE n-24
SUBSIDENCE OF ANAEROBIC, DRY*REFUSE CELLS
FINE SIZE "F
30
25
20
oo
Vo= PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
MIXED SIZES "M
60
50
c
12
f'ZS
-------
FIGURE H-25
SUBSIDENCE OF AEROBIC, 65% SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
FINE SIZE "F
50
40
30
20
PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
MIXED SIZES "M
20%
30
25
20
60 °/c
COARSE SIZE "C
50
40
30
20
120
80
160
0
40
200
TIME ,days
F- 26
-------
FIGURE 11-26
SUBSIDENCE OF ANAEROBIC, 65% SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
20%
FINE SIZE1
30
30% "
25
20
% -¦ PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
20%
MIXED SIZES "M
25
20
0)
a.
LlI
U
z
LU
9
CO
CD
D
to
60%
COARSE SIZE "C
20%
20
0
40
80
120
200
160
TIME , days
F- 2 7
-------
FIGURE 11-27
SUBSIDENCE OF ANAEROBIC, SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
FINE SIZE "F
35
30
23
20
% - PERCENT PAPER
CONTENT
XX KXXx
60°/«
20%
MIXED SIZES M
30
20
30%
UJ
,*•
00
**¦
COARSE SIZE "C
25
20
oo
60%
x**
40
eo
120
TIME ,doys
160
200
F- Z8
-------
FIGURE 11-28
AVERAGE ANNUAL SUBSIDENCE
RATES AT 180 DAYS
SIZE OF REFUSE ! FINE
100
80
o
0)
>»
c
«
o
k_
<
60
40
20
o ANAEROBIC - DRY
A AEROBIC - DRY
x ANAEROBIC - 65% WATER
+ AEROBIC - 65 % WATER
a ANAEROBIC - SATURATED
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PERCENT PAPER
F- 29
-------
FIGURE H- 29
AVERAGE ANNUAL SUBSIDENCE
RATES AT 180 DAYS ¦
SIZE OF REFUSE ! MIXED
100
o
N
S
c
0)
u
cu
CL
UJ
u
Z
UJ
Q
CO
CD
z>
to
UJ
o
<
oc
UJ
>
<
o ANAEROBIC - DRY
A AEROBIC - DRY
* ANAEROBIC -65% WATER
+ AEROBIC-65% WATER
D ANAEROBIC-SATURATED
PERCENT PAPER
F-30
-------
FIGURE IT- 30
AVERAGE ANNUAL SUBSIDENCE
RATES AT 180 DAYS
SIZE OF REFUSE COARSE
100
o
O)
c
a
LU
<
ac
u
o
z
UJ
o
CO
CD
D
CO
(JL)
CD
<
cc
u
>
<
80
€0
o ANAEROBIC - DRY
A AEROBIC - DRY
x AMAEROBIC-65 % WATER
+ AEROBIC-65% WATER
a ANAEROBIC - SATURATED
40
20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PERCENT PAPER
F-31
-------
ULTIMATE SUBSIDENCE- (END OF 200 DAY TEST PERIOD) OF AEROBIC, DRY REFUSE CELLS
-------
O 6.0
Q aO
*
ULTIMATE SUBSIDENCE (END OF 200 DAY TEST PERIOD) OF ANAEROBIC, DRY REFUSE CELLS
-------
ULTIMATE SUBSIDENCE (END OF 200 DAY TEST PERIOD) OF
AEROBIC, 65% SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
-------
ULTIMATE SUBSIDENCE (END OF 200 DAY TEST PERIOD) OF
ANAEROBIC, 65% SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
-------
\0'
*0
c
a> ftO
o
w
a>
a.
- -*>
UJ
o
2
UJ oO
Q %
CO
GO
=> \0
CO
&
vS>-
/ \
V |
'-"G
•0-
,c^
®o
ULTIMATE SUBSIDENCE (END OF 200 DAY TEST PERIOD) OF
ANAEROBIC, SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
-------
CONSOLIDATION OF ANAEROBIC, SATURATED REFUSE CELL,
30 PERCENT PAPER, COARSE SIZE MATERIALS
0.8
SAMPLE SIZE ' 4 IN HEIGHT X 8 IN DIAMETER
1260 LB/SQ. FT
o
c
1260 TO 1575 LB /SO FT.
i-
z
UJ
S
UJ
_i
1575 TO 2205 LB/SQ. FT.
UJ
>
i-
<
_j
2205 TO 3115 LB/SO.FT.
u
o
3115 TO 4050 LB/SQ FT
5
100
0 5
10
0 01
0 05
0.1
0.005
I 0
50
TIME , minutes
-------
O 6
CONSOLIDATION OF ANAEROBIC REFUSE CELL,
20 PERCENT PAPER,COARSE SIZE MATERIALS, 25 PERCENT SATURATED
i—r~n 1 1—i i 111111 1—r~r
SAMPLE SIZE! 4 IN. HEIGHT X 8 IN. DIAMETER
TT
0 8
10
4>
JO
o
c
h-"
Z
UJ
2
UJ
_l
\-
»-
Ul
<0
LU
>
K
<
_l
S
=>
o
I 2
1.6
I I I
1260 LB/SQ. FT
-1260 TO 2990 LB/SO FT.
2990 TO 3285 LB/SQ.FT.
o ©
J I I I I I I
J I I I
I i I I I I
I
0 005 0 01
0 05 0 1
0.5 I 0
TIME , minutes
10
50 100
-------
CONSOLIDATION OF AEROBIC REFUSE CELL,
60 PERCENT PAPER, COARSE SIZE MATERIALS, 15 PERCENT SATURATED
SAMPLE SIZE! 4 IN. HEIGHT X 8 IN. DIAMETER
1260 L8/SQ.FT.
0 4
1260 TO 2990 LB/SO. FT.
0 6
2990 TO 3960 LB/SO FT.
0.8
0 05
05
5
100
0 01
0 I
I 0
10
50
0005
TIME, minutes
-------
STRESS-STRAIN CURVES! DRY AEROBIC REFUSE CELLS
IOOOO
9000
C= COARSE
M= MIXED
F= FINE
TWO DIGITS = % PAPER CONTENT
8000
7000
6000
5000
cvj
tn
-0
4000
CO
{/)
UJ
cr
3000
t-
co
Q
UJ
_l
2000
CL
CL
<
1000
50
20
35
25
30
40
4 5
STRAIN , percent
-------
STRESS-STRAIN CURVES'. ANAEROBIC DRY REFUSE CELLS
IOOOO
9 0 00
C = COARSE
M=MIXED
F= FINE
TWO DIGITS = % PAPER CONTENT
8 000
7 O OO
6000
50 00
4000
3000
2000 -
1000
STRAIN, percent
-------
STRESS-STRAIN CURVES! AEROBIC REFUSE CELLS, 65 PERCENT SATURATED
lOOOO
9000
C= COARSE
M= MIXED
F = FINE
8000
7000
6000
TWO DIGITS = % PAPER CONTENT
5000
to
UJ
a:
3000
o
UJ
_i
Q.
o_
<
2000
1000
55
15
20.
35
25
30
40.
50
STRAIN, percent
-------
STRESS-STRAIN CURVES! ANAEROBIC REFUSE CELLS, 65 PERCENT SATURATED
IOOOO
9000
C =COARSE
M= MIXED
F= FINE
TWO DIGITS = % PAPER CONTENT
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
*
2000
1000
55
30
40
45
20
25
35
50
15
STRAIN, percent
-------
STRESS-STRAIN CURVES: ANAEROBIC SATURATED REFUSE CELLS
IOOOO
9000
8000
70O0
6000
5000
-o 4000
3000
2000
1000
15
_i ( r
C- COARSE
M= MIXED
F = FINE
TWO DIGITS = % PAPER CONTENT
20
25
30 35
STRAIN, percent
40
45
50
55
-------
VARIATION OF INITIAL COMPACTION WITH PAPER CONTENT
T
T
° ANAEROBIC- DRY
A AEROBIC-DRY
X ANAEROBIC-65% WATER
+ AEROBIC-65% WATER
A ANAEROBIC-SATURATED
$C
M
+ M XC ^
MX
f c .F AC F
*F X
.M
o F 0C
A A A X
c
M
AVERAGE-SATURATED AND
PARTIALLY SATURATED CELLS
M
XC
F C
o o
AVERAGE DRY CELLS
a m
M
_L
. c
_E
10
20
30
40 50
PERCENT PAPER
60
70
NOTE Initial Surcharge 1260 Ib/sq ft.
-------
FIGURE H-45
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNIT WEIGHT
RATIO AND INITIAL COMPACTION
y y
c, =100 ! 1
70
Cj = INITIAL COMPACTION, %
- FINAL UNIT WEIGHT, Ib/cu ft
yt= INITIAL UNIT WEIGHT, Ib/cu ft
60 -
50 -
c
4)
o
40
o
t/i
.O
Se
— if)
I— CVI
<1
Q. O
0° 30
ow
_)
<
»-
z
20
I 2
I 5
0
I 3
I 4
I 6
I 7
I I
y£/x
F- 46
-------
figure n-46
UNIT WEIGHT AT COMPACTION STRESS OF
1260 LB/SQ. FT. FOR REFUSE CELLS
AEROBIC F M C
DRY
F CM
C M ,F
J
ANAEROBIC
20%
30%
60%
AEROBIC F M C
65% SATURATED
20%
C-J!-F 30%
60%
ANAEROBIC F c M 20°/(
DRY
o
M C, F
CMF
I I
30%
ANAEROBIC M F,C
65% SATURATED
F M C
C
I I I I I I
20%
30%
60%,
M
100% SATURATED —— 20°/<
F,C M
30%
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
PERCENT PAPER CONTENT, F: FINE SIZE ; MIXED SIZE, C = COARSE SIZE
F-47
-------
FIGURE H-47
TIME VARIATION OF SUBSIDENCE RATE
DUE TO DECOMPOSITION
Ll
O
O
<
ce
u.
(/)
<
Ql
<
LlI
>
or
LlI
Q.
UJ
U
2
UJ
Q
Lf)
CD
rs
in
O.I k/Yr
2 0
TIME, years
NOTE k = Avetoge annual rate of subsidence observed at
180 days, % per year
F~ 48
-------
CUMULATIVE SUBSIDENCE
DUE TO DECOMPOSITION
EQUATION"
yO.5
c Zkidt
/
I 9 k -1.8 ktdt
20
TIME, years
NOTE k - Average annual rate of subsidence observed al
180 days, % per year.
f - 4?
-------
FIGURE HI- I
SCALE I"> 200'
ROAD
.39
43
40
42
44
48
49
S3
TANK
.66
S«
BLDG.
23
60
VACANT LOT
» 32
62
*
NOTE! See Figures II-15,11-16, and M-17
PROBE LOCATION
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
28 MAY 1969
SITE 1
PROBE IN MANHOLE •
PROBE LOST
F-so
-------
figure in-2
Bldg (Typ)
27
33
26
30'
Street
n
20
25
24
SUMP J
I
' 2B
2A,
AREA UNIT 3B
3A,
3B
3C,
4B
4C,
5 A,
58
6 A,
6B
6C,
78
AREA UNIT 3A
8A,
SB
9B
9C.
I0A,
IOB
IOC,
II A
MB
IIC,
EASEMENT
AREA UNIT 2
I3A,
I3B
I3C,
143
14 C,
I5B
ISC,
ISA
I6B
16A.
16 C
LEGEND
Fill Limits ——
Probe Locotion o
Building
PROBE LOCATIONS
SITE 6
l" = 200'
F- St
-------
FIGURE HI-3
LEGEND
Fill Limits —
Probe Location
Probe in Manhole
Gas Concentration
Contour
SCALC I e 300'
JUNK YARD
TRUCK
YARD
TRAILER YARD
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
17 SEPTEMBER 1969
SITE 8
-------
DRAIN
CARRIER GAS INLET
RUBBER GASKET
WIRE MESH
POROUS MEDIUM
1 pi
RUBBER GASKET
SAMPLING OUTLET
EXHAUST
WIRE MESH
TRACER GAS INLET
DETAIL "A"
Mb"
DETAIL "B
FLOW METER
CARRIER
GAS
DETAIL
DETAIL
MANOMETER
TO GAS CHROMATOGRAPH
EXHAUST
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF LABORATORY UNIT
FOR STUDY OF GAS DIFFUSION IN POROUS MEDIA
-------
FIGURE m-5
SCALE I"- 200'
ROAD
,38
39
40
42
43
46
46
47
48
49
00
52
S3
54
TANK
96
CONTROL OEVICE
BLDG
EACH WELL CONTAINS THREE
VENT PIPES PERFORATED
A8 FOLLOWS'
067
x 08
AIR PUMP
C° PIPE 62'-60"
WELL 6
BLDG.
GAS COMPANY
20
WELL 4
26
WELL
23
25
24
DEEP WELL PROSES 64,65.66 8 67
WELL,2
WELL/ I
22
30
29
28
VACANT LOT
32
34,35 a 36
63
TRUCK YARD
FILL LIMITS
PROBE LOCATION
CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN
a PROBE LOCATION
PROBE IN MANHOLE
-------
FIGURE m-6
A B
-GROUND SURFACE
CONCRETE PLUG
No 2 GRAVEL
BACKFILL
(VI
CONCRETE PLUG
No 2 GRAVEL
BACKFILL
CONCRETE PLUG
No 2 GRAVEL
BACKFILL
ui
30" DIA
GAS CONTROL SYSTEM
TYPICAL VENT WELL
( No Scale ) SITE I
r_ c
-------
Fl CURE m-7
FLEXHOSE
rTTTT
4-
GAS CONTROL SYSTEM
TEE TO MANIFOLD CONNECTION
SITE I
C- c/.
-------
FIGURE HI-8
Retaining Wall
Concrete Slab
<8
»
Probe Li
J
&
®23
Air Intake
q 11 Foundation
24® fcl Probe Box-
Air Exhaust
Pea Gravel
Probes
Sand
I 1/2" Gravel
Drain
PLAN
Top Seal
Jute S Slurry
Bottom Seal
•Barr1er
BARRIER DETAIL
Barrier
Probes—' Cover Material
Probes
GAS PROBE LOCATIONS =®
A - Probe above barrier
B - Probe below barrier
C - Probe in cover material
D - Probe in rubbish
SECTION A-A
PROBE LOCATIONS
CONTROL SYSTEM
SITE 5
-------
FIGURE m-9
SCALE I >300
LEGEND
Fill Limits -
Probe Locolion o
Probe m Manhole •
Gas Concentration
Contour
20% —
JUNK YARD
TRUCK
YARD
TRAILER PARK
*
\
vZ0BO°®oa
METHANE
CONCENTRATIONS
9 MAY 1967
SITE 8
«=" - era
-------
FIGURE EI-10
LEGEND
Fill Limits —— —
Probe Location q
Probe in Manhole •
Gas Concentration
Contour
9CAIE I >300
JUNK YARO
TRUCK
rARD
TRAILER PARK
METHANE
CONCENTRATIONS
3 SEPTEMBER 1967
SITE 8
-------
FIGURE IH- II
LEGEND
FILL LIMITS ——
PROBE LOCATION O
PROBE IN MANHOLE •
OAS CONCENTRATION
CONTOUR
BO (%>
^ JUNK YARD
v
\
TRUCK
YARD
TRAILER PARK
19 AOo
I9B
METHANE CONCENTRATIONS
18 NOVEMBER 1968
SITE 8
-------
LEGENO
Fill l.imits
Probe Locolion
Probe in Manhole
New Probe
JUNK YARD
TRUCK
YARD
TRAILER PARK
BURN OFF DEVICE
750 FT. LONG,
2 FT X 6 FT.,
GRAVEL FILLED
TRENCH
VENT WELLS
OOl3B
STUB FOR
FUTURE DEVICES
PLAN-CONTROL SYSTEM
NEW PROBE LOCATIONS
SITE 8
F-
-------
009
Concrete Cover
To Second Weil
To Burner
750' Trench
{Gravel Filled)
fA\eQi
^/// ^//5
-------
FIGURE HI-14
5 Dia. Cover
i
4" Schedule 40
Plastic Pipe (Perforated)
3/8" Cylindrical Shield-
Drill 1/8 Holes in
1/4" Thick Plate
4 Schedule 40
Iron Pipe
Concrete
£71
J
1/2x1 x 6
Plate (2)
J
I
BURNOFF device
SITE 8
F-
-------
FIGURE EL- 15
\
SCALE I" ¦ 200'
R R
t l
-I 1-
ROAD
^-^TANK
438 6
CONTROL OEVICE
BLDG
EACH WELL CONTAINS THREE
VENT PIPES PERFORATED
AS FOLLOWS
* A" PIPE I' - 33'
" B" PIPE 34' -81
"C" PIPE 52'-60"
10,11 ft 12
/
WELL 5
GAS COMPANY BLDG
WELL 4
WELL
WELL PROBES 64,66,66 ft 67
WELL.2
VACANT LOT
AREA OF INFLUENCE -
x x
34.35 a 36
1
TRUCK YARD
LEGEND
FILL LIMITS
PROBE LOCATION O
PROBE IN MANHOLE •
PUBLIC AGENCY TEST 2
AREA OF INFLUENCE FOR
ZERO METHANE
CONCENTRATION
SITE 1
F- £4
-------
FIGURE HE-16
\
8CALE I • 200
ROAD
TANK
4.3 a «
*-38
CONTROL DEVICE
8LDG
EACH WELL CONTAINS THREE
VENT PIPES PERFORATED
AS FOLLOWS
" A" PIPE I' - 33'
B" PIPE 34' -61
C" PIPE 52' -60'
10.11 tt 12
/
WELL 8
GAS^COMPANY BLDG
WELL 4
WELL
ELL PROBES 64,68.66 A 67
WELL.2
VACANT LOT
34,33 A 36
AREA OF INFLUENCE
x X *
TRUCK YARD
LEGEND
PUBLIC AGENCY TEST 3
AREA OF INFLUENCE FOR
ZERO METHANE
CONCENTRATION
SITE 1
FILL LIMITS
PROBE LOCATION O
PROBE IN MANHOLE •
F'Q>S
-------
FIGURE IE-17
\
SCALE 1-200
ROAD
^^TANK
CONTROL DEVICE
BLDG
EACH WELL CONTAINS THREE
VENT PIPES PERFORATED
AS FOLLOWS
'o
10,11 ft 12
/
WELL 5
GAS^COMPANY BLDG
WELL 4
WELL
DEEP WELL PROBES 64,60,66 ft 67
I
WELL.2
VACANT LOT
34,35 ft 36
AREA OF INFLUENCE
x x *
TRUCK YARD
L E 0 E N D
PUBLIC AGENCY TEST 5
AREA OF INFLUENCE FOR
ZERO METHANE
CONCENTRATION
SITE 1
FILL LIMITS
PROBE LOCATION O
PROBE IN MANHOLE •
-------
\
SCALE l" • 200'
R R
ROAD
TANK
4,3 ft 6
CONTROL DEVICE
BLD6
EACH WELL CONTAINS THREE
VENT PIPES PERFORATED
AS FOLLOWS
A* PIPE I' - 33'
B" PIPE 34' -51'
C" PIPE 62" -60
O 57
io.ii a
R PUMP
/
WELL 5
GAS COMPANY BLDG
WELL 4
WELL
WELL PROBES 64,66.«6 ft 67
WELL.2
VACANT LOT
34.3S a 36
AREA OF INFLUENCE-1
x X
1
TRUCK YARD
L E 0 E N D
FILL LIMITS
PROBE LOCATION O
PROBE IN MANHOLE •
PUBLIC AGENCY TEST 6
AREA OF INFLUENCE FOR
ZERO METHANE
CONCENTRATION
SITE 1
-------
METHANE CONCENTRATION, PROBE 19, 10 DECEMBER 1968
SITE I
AIR PUMP . ¦
ON WELLS tj
3A.B.C
•/
PROBE 19
J~BLDG
i 19
¦ 100 .
n
&
&
&
&
(
/
o
900
_L
1000
100
1200 1300
Tl ME, hours
1400
1500
-------
SCALE l"»2£X>'
9A
33
LEGEND
Fill Limits
Probe Locotlon
NEW TRENCH PROBES
SITE 5
F- (,?
-------
FIGURE HI-21
CONTROL BOX
EXPLOSION BOX
PLEXIGLAS® WINDOW
6FT X 6FT. 50 MIL
€ FT. X 6 FT. RUBBER INSULATING
POLYMER MEMBRANE
MAT
SET UP
1500-2000 RPM
DC MOTOR
12 VOLT BATTERf
6 POINT
DISTRIBUTOR
AMMETER
GROUNO
I
_L
HIGH TENSION LEAD
LOW TENSION LEAD
SPARK PLUG (6)
MARINE COIL
WIRING
EXPLOSION UNIT
SCHEMATIC
F-70
-------
FIGURE HE-22
T
DRILL 5/32" FOR TYPICAL
l/6"BOLT NUT WASHER
±
GROUND LEAD
BRAZE GROUND
WIRE STUDS (3)
1-6"
2-6"
2'X2"X3/I6"X 2-0"
DRILL AND SLEEVE (6)
FOR SPARK PLUGS
BACK WALL OUTSIDE
3"
JL
¦DRILL FOR PROBE
INSERT 1/8" X 2 1/2"
COPPER TUBING
o
t,
RIGHT SIDE WALL
— I 1/2"
EXPLOSION BOX
DETAILS
F- 7/
-------
FIGURE UI-23
U34r.
This page is reproduced again at the bark of
this report L>y a different reproduction rnathud
»o as to furnish the bt " potsibife detail fo the
GAS EXPLOSION UNIT
COMPONENTS
UNIT CONTROL AND INSULATING MAT
EXPLOSION BOX AND BARRIER MEMBRANE
F-7Z
-------
FIGURE IE-24
Th.s page is reproduced again at 'he back oi
this report by a ditferer.l reproduction methoo
so as to furnish the btit possible detail to (ha
user.
GAS EXPLOSION UNIT
DETONATION AT
SITE 5
F-7J
-------
FIGURE EZ-I
Vo
DAY
8 DAYS
40 DAYS
250 mis
250 mis
250 mis
Wo
SERIES I
Vo 250 mis 250 mis 250 mis
I DAY
8 DAYS
40 DAYS
250 mis
250 mis
250
Wo
SERIES 2
Vo Vi V 2 V s V*
23 DAYS
40 DAYS
8 DAYS
I DAY
Wo
SERIES 3
F- 14
ADOPTED EXPERIMENTAL
LEACHING SYSTEMS
-------
FIGURE EL-2
HYPOTHETICAL VARIATION OF
RELEASED COD AND TDS IN SOLUTION
FROM DECOMPOSING REFUSE
STAGE HI
STAGE 0
STAGE I
COD
TDS
Q
U
TIME
F-7S
-------
VARIATION OF COD/TDS RATIOS IN SERIES I
O
O
O
in
O
3 2
30
28
26
24
22
20
I 8
I 6
I 4
I 2
I 0
08
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
BR
1 -8
A
CC
2-3
o
BR
2-4
X
SYN
REF
RH
CC
1 -2
~
SYN
REF
TR
I
10 12 14 16 16 20 22
TIME, days
24 26 28 30
32
34
36 38 40
-------
FIGURE m-l
Coarse Gravel -
Foundation Wall
Mastic
Plastic or
Bituminous
Barrier
4 I. D. Schedule 40
PVC Pipe Drill 3 Holes at 120'
5/8" Dia. a1 4"0.C.
Footing
Vent outside the building to ten feet above grade
or 2 feet above building if within 10 feet of building.
DESIGN EXAMPLE
FOUNDATION VENT
F-77
-------
FIGURE 3ZHL-2
Slab
Barrier
8 Min.
Gravel
Base Course
Compacted Fill
Pier
6 Bearing at 3 intervals
FRAME WALL CONSTRUCTION
Perimeter
Insulation
Duct
ft-
2 Min.
Finish Grade
Barrier
8 Min
3 >11
lot3' intervals
> . ^
Barrier
Finish Grade
' //M&///'
VENEER WALL CONSTRUCTION
WITH DUCT IN SLAB
DESIGN EXAMPLE
BARRIERS UNDER SLABS
f -7a
-------
FIGURE m-3
6" Bearing at 3" intervals
v— Barrier
Vent
m
u •—
a S
a.
«
6 Min.
i.H>
a -t
Pier —
(Optional)
Panel
STRUCTURAL SLAB FLOOR
Floor Joists
Vent
Barrier
6 Min.
Note: Vent area to be 4% of Floor area
or install mechanical blowers under
the floor. WOOD FRAME FLOOR
DESIGN EXAMPLE
UNDERFLOOR VENTS
r~ 79
-------
FIGURE 3Zm-4
Perimeter insulation
Wall type not shown
Barrier
6" Bearing at 3* intervals
Slab
8"Min.
Finish Grade
Gravel
>oe'
=itl
Hanger
Utility
Entry Conduit
Insulators
Sleeve and Casing
Casing Seal
(Zipper optional)
Note: Foundation Drain not shown.
SLEEVED ENTRY
Perimeter
Insulation
Flexible Carrier
Barrier
Gravel
'00'
Finish Grade
ade——1
FLEXIBLE ENTRY
DESIGN EXAMPLE
ENTRY CONDUITS
F~80
-------
FIGURE 3ZHI-5
£
/WW
Roof-
-Wall or Column
Slab-
Grade Beam
Final Cover
Landfill Strafa
25W—
PILE FOUNDATION
Roof-
Original Ground
-Wall or Column
Slab-
'«•« 1 a1 ¦J.-'?1.¦ '?* #¦,*
V
Beam
IF
Final Cover
Landfill Strata
RAFT FOUNDATION
Original Ground
DESIGN EXAMPLE
FOOTINGS
Fm 81
-------
FIGURE 3ZEEL— 6
Tower
Provide for Jacking if
not Pile Supported
Pole
Adjustable
Guy Wires,
Turn buckles
and Locks
Tank
Fence
Bottom
Concrete Ring
Foundation
Inert Cover
—Solid Waste
Original Ground Surface
TYPICAL SECTIONS
DESIGN LOADS
As required by Use or Codes
DESIGN
Major structures or heavily loaded structures should be on Piles
Minor structures or light loads may be placed on compacted
fill as determined by a Soils Engineer.
Settlement Criteria to be determined for each structure individually
depending on Use and Type of structure
DESIGN PROCEDURES
Design Foundation for specific conditions with special attention
to future settlement
DESIGN EXAMPLE
STRUCTURES
OTHER THAN
BUILDINGS
F' ez
-------
Utility Entry Conduit
Cover (Optional) Entry
Utility Trench (Shape
and Material Optional)
Shim Wedges
UTILITY TRENCH
First Clas6 Sand Bedding
Carrier
Saddle (Barrier)
COMBINATION GAS BARRIER PIPE SADDLE
DESIGN EXAMPLE
UTILITY BEDDING
F'83
-------
APPENDIX G
SANITARY LANDFILL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
FOR GOOD PRACTICE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX G
SANITARY
LANDFILL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GOOD PRACTICE
PaRe
PREFACE
G-l
MODEL ORDINANCE FOR CONTROL OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
G-5
CHAPTER
1
TITLE AND SCOPE
G-5
Sec.
101
Title
G-5
Sec.
102
Purpose
G-5
Sec.
103
Scope
G-5
CHAPTER
2
ORGANIZATION
G-5
Sec.
201
Administrative Officer
G-5
a.
General
G-5
b.
Rules and Regulations
G-5
c.
Deputies
G-6
Sec.
202
Board of Appeals
G-G
Sec.
203
Severability
G-6
Sec.
204
Violations and Penalties
G-7
CHAPTER
3
DEFINITIONS
G-7
Sec.
301
Genera1
G-7
Sec.
302
Terms
G-7
CHAPTER
4
PERMITS AND FEES
G-14
Sec.
401
Permits for Sanitary Landfill Construction
and Operation
G-14
a.
Permit Required
G-14
b.
Preliminary Application for Sanitary
Landfill Permit
G-14
c.
Notice of Disqualification for Sanitary
Landfill Permit
G-14
d.
Application for Sanitary Landfill Permit and
Annual Renewal Permit
G-14
e.
Sanitary Landfill Faithful Performance Bond
G-16
£.
Issuance or Denial of Sanitary Landfill Permit
and Annual Renewal Permit
G-17
g.
Amendments to Permit
G-17
Gr- '
-------
Page
h. Validity G-18
i. Expiration G-18
j. Fees G-18
k. Costs G-19
CHAPTER 5 SUPERVISION OF SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS G-19
Sec. 501 Supervision by Permittee G-19
Sec. 502 Inspection of Sanitary Landfills G-19
CHAPTER 6 ENFORCEMENT G-20
Sec. 601 Right of Entry G-20
Sec. 602 Liability G-20
Sec. 603 Cooperation of Other Officials G-21
Sec. 604 Violation Deemed Nuisance G-21
Sec. 605 Notice of Violation G-21
Sec. 606 Abatement G-22
Sec, 607 Abatement Costs G-22
Sec. 608 Appeals of Notices of Violation and G-22
Abatement Costs
Sec. 609 Revocation of Suspension of Permit G-24
Sec. 610 Service G-25
Sec. 611 Emergency or Dangerous Conditions G-25
CHAPTER 7 CERTIFICATIONS G-25
Sec. 701 Certificate of Completion G-25
a. Certificate Required G-25
b. Application G-25
c. Issuance G-25
d. Release of Faithful Performance Bonds G-26
e. Costs G-26
f. Partial Completion G-26
Sec. 702 Revocation or Suspension of Certificate of G-26
Completion
UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR LOCATIONS, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF SANITARY LANDFILLS SUBJECT TO SANITARY LANDFILL CODE
Standard 1. Permitted Locations G-27
-------
Page
a. General G-27
b. Conformities with General Plan G-27
c. Access G-27
Standard 2. Operation Regulations G-28
a. General G-28
b. Burning G-29
c. Salvage G-29
Standard 3. Permitted Materials G-29
a. Waste Materials G-29
b. Cover Materials G-29
Standard 4. Water Pollution G-30
a. Location Requirements G-30
b. Engineering Requirements G-30
c. Installation Requirements G-31
Standard 5. Gas Control G-31
a. Function Requirements G-31
b. Gas Monitoring G-32
c. Gas Control Systems G-32
d. Installation Requirements G-32
Standard 6. Subsidence Monitoring G-33
Standard 7. Excavation, Grading, Landfilling and Drainage G-33
of a Sanitary Landfill
a. Supervision G-33
b. Refuse Placement G-34
c. Daily Covering G-34
d. Final Covering G-34
e. Slope Stability Requirements G-34
f. Drainage G-35
g. Miscellaneous G-35
Standard 8. Requirements for Health and Safety G-35
a. Fire Prevention G-35
b. Sanitary Facilities G-36
c. Vectors G-36
d. First Aid G-37
e. Utilities G-37
f. Fencing G-37
(r- <"
-------
Page
Standard 9> Landscaping and Erosion Control Planting G-37
Where Soil Conditions Permit
Standard 10. Maintenance G-37
a. Surface and Slope G-37
b. Equipment G-38
SUGGESTED ADDENDA TO BUILDING CODES RE: DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ON,
AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SANITARY LANDFILLS G-39
1. Regulation of Building on Sanitary Landfills or G-39
Existing Dumps
a. General G-39
b. Foundation Support G-39
c. Gas Control G-40
2. Regulation of Buildings on Solid or Compacted G-41
Soil Immediately Adjacent to a Sanitary
Landfill but Within the Site Boundary
a. General G-41
b. Gas Control G-41
SUGGESTED ADDENDA TO LOCAL ENGINEERING REGULATIONS RE:
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE IMPROVEMENTS G-42
Sec. 1 Surface Improvements G-42
a. Gas Control G-42
b. Subsidence and Differential Settlement Control G-42
Sec. 2 Subsurface Improvements G-43
a. Gas Control G-43
b. Subsidence and Differential Settlement Control G-43
Sec. 3 Maintenance G-*43
-------
PREFACE
For years man has disposed of much of his waste materials by pLacing
it on the land. As his knowledge grew and heavy equipment became avail-
able, disposal techniques slowly changed. The present method of sanitary
landfilling finally evolved. However, in some areas, improperly operated
and maintained completed dump sites are a blight on the land.
The primary goal of the following pages is to utilize sound
engineering principles to establish guidelines, standards and specifi-
cations leading to an improved method of landfilling with a thought
toward future site utilization, i.e., planning for the "ultimate use" of
the completed site before commencing the waste disposal operations. This
concept in practice can truly become a land reclamation process not only
providing space for waste disposal, but restoring steep canyons and other
marginal lands to usable sites.
This Appendix G, "Sanitary Landfill Standard Specifications For Good
Practice" is separated into four parts: Model Ordinance For The Control
of Sanitary Landfills; Uniform Standards For Location, Design, Construction,
and Maintenance of Sanitary Landfills Subject to Sanitary Landfill Code;
Suggested Addenda to Building Codes Re: Design and Construction of
Structural Improvements on and Immediately Adjacent to Sanitary Landfills;
and Suggested Addenda to Local Engineering Regulations Re: Design and
Construction of Surface and Subsurface Improvements.
The initial draft of these four sections was inclusively entitled
"Model Sanitary Landfill Code." As such, it was reviewed by a "Code
Review Committee" consisting of representatives of the following govern-
mental agencies and private enterprises: Universal, By-Products, Inc.;
Los Angeles By-Products Company; Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency; California Department of
Public Health; California Department of Water Resources; Orange County
Road Department; Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts; Los Angeles
County Health Department; Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission;
City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works; and City of Los Angeles
Department of Building and Safety.
G-l
-------
The committee met and drafted written comments. These comments
were reviewed, resulting in changing the format to present the informa-
tion as four separate documents which may be codified at more than one
level of detail.
The first document, "Model Ordinance for the Control of Sanitary
Landfills," is designed as a Sanitary Landfill Code to be adopted by
communities who do not have adequate legislation to control public and
private landfilling practices. The ordinance contains only provisions
which would not require regular amending. It does have an enabling
section, Sec. 201 b., which authorizes the Administrative Officer to
write, revise, revoke, and enforce additional rules and regulations
(the second document) which may be subject to change, but are necessary
for the prevention of nuisances or hazards to public health and safety.
It is anticipated that any community before adopting the "Model
Ordinance" will review it and make any necessary changes to tailor it
to their individual needs. This ordinance does not prohibit other
types of landfilling or indiscriminate dumping, so a community that
adopts this ordinance may wish to adopt additional measures to prohibit
those activities. An adopting agency will also have to determine what
position or individual should be appointed to serve as the Administrative
Officer, what type of individuals should be appointed to serve on the
Board of Appeals, etc.
The responsibilities of the Administrative Officer will involve
numerous technically complex decisions for successful implementation of
the regulations. He should therefore be either a registered or licensed
engineer, or an administrator, such as a city manager with technical
competence provided by his staff or consultants.
The responsibilities of the Board of Appeals will also require its
members to make technically complex decisions. Therefore, they should
be qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters pertaining
to the provisions and objectives of the "Model Ordinance." The size of
the adopting community may have a direct bearing on the number and type
of qualified individuals available to serve on the Board of Appeals.
G-2
-------
The second document, "Uniform Standards for Location, Design,
Construction, and Maintenance of Sanitary Landfills Subject to Sanitary
Landfill. Code," contains the rules and regulations or standards for the
construction and operation of sanitary landfills. The document is not,
intended to be a legally adopted ordinance, but can be legally enforced
and revised by the Administrative Officer through an enabling provision,
Sec. 201 b., in the "Model Ordinance." This provision allows the
Administrative Officer to develop and enforce ruleB which are necessary
for the prevention of nuisances or hazards to public health and safety,
but may be subject to change. Rules that are subject to change should
not be placed in an ordinance. Changes and revisions to ordinances are
subject to the legislative process which is deliberate and sometimes
slow to act.
"Uniform Standards" is not intended as a design specification or
instruction manual. The provisions of the Uniform Standards are not
intended to prevent the use of any sound design or practice not specifi-
cally prescribed, provided that any such alternate is approved by the
Administrative Officer.
i
Although the "Uniform Standards" can be easily revised by the
Administrative Officer, certain material and dimension limitations or
requirements have not been specified, but the word "approved" has been
used in lieu thereof. The "Model Ordinance" contains a definition for
"approved." This normally occurs where absolute limitations or require-
ments can not be established. This is not meant to imply that specified
dimensions are absolute. The determination of such limitations or
requirements may vary from site to site depending on many factors, such
as native site soil, cover material, site geology and hydrology, risk,
etc. Much research is being done on these subjects in many areas of
the county and it is necessary that an Administrative Officer or his
staff stay abreast of new developments.
The third and fourth documents, "Suggested Addenda to Building
Codes Re: Design and Construction of Structural Improvements On, and
Immediately Adjacent to Sanitary Landfills" and "Suggested Addenda to
G-3
-------
Local Engineering Regulations Re: Design and Construction of Surface
and Subsurface Improvements," are designed for input into existing
building codes or public works specifications of communities that have
such a need. It is emphasized that these documents are not a part of
the "Model Ordinance" or "Uniform Standards."
G-4
-------
MODEL ORDINANCE FOR CONTROL OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
CHAPTER 1. TITLE AND SCOPE
Sec. 101 Title
This ordinance shall be known as the "Sanitary Landfill Code," and
may be cited as such.
Sec. 102 Purpose
The purpose of this Code is to provide for the administration and
enforcement of minimum standards to prevent nuisances and to safeguard
life or limb, health, property, and public welfare from sanitary land-
filling operations and any effects resulting therefrom.
Sec. 103 Scope
The provisions of this Code shall apply to: (1) administration and
enforcement procedures for the location, design, construction, operation,
and maintenance of Sanitary Landfills; (2) issuance of permits, and the
collection of all fees therefor; (3) checking plans; (4) initial and
regular inspection; (5) making record plans of the facilities provided
hereunder; (6) administrative procedures for implemenLation and enforce-
ment of this ordinance; and (7) providing penalties for violation thereof.
In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Code, they shall
be deemed to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public
health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare.
CHAPTER 2. ORGANIZATION
Sec. 201 Administrative Officer
a. General. The Administrative Officer hereby is authorized and
directed to enforce all of the provisions of this Code.
b. Rules and Regulations. The Administrative OtTjcer hereby is
authorized and directed to write, revise, revoke, and enforce other rules and
regulations for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of
Sanitary Landfills in addition to the provisions of this Code, whether
G-!>
-------
of general or specific application, thac are deemed necessary fot the
prevention of nuisances or hazards to public health and safety. ;Those
rules and regulations shall be known as the "Uniform Standards For
Location, Design, Construction, And Maintenance of Sanitary Landfills
Subject To Sanitary Landfill Code" and be referred to herein as the
"Uniform Standards."
The Administrative Officer is also authorized and directed to
enforce'any and all other rules and regulations in addition to the
provisions of this Code, whether of general or specific application
that are deemed necessary for the administration and enforcement of
this Code.
c. Deputies. The Administrative Officer may deputize such
officers, assistants, inspectors and employees as may be necessary to
carry out the functions of the Administrative Officer, in accordance
with the procedure and with the approval of the Adopting Agency.
Sec, 202 Board of Appeals
In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and
methods and to provide for the reasonable application of the provisions
of this Code, including but not limited to the processing of appeals,
theie hereby is created a Board of Appeals, consisting of five (5)
members who are qualified by experience and training to pass upon
matters pertaining to the provisions and objectives of this Code. The
Administrative Officer shall be an ex-officio member and shall act as
secretary of the Board, The Board of Appeals shall be appointed by the
Adopting Agency, and shall hold office at its pleasure. The Board of
Appeals shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting its
investigations and shall render all decisions and findings in writing
to the Administrative Officer, with a duplicate copy to the appellant,
and may recommend to the Adopting Agency such new legislation as is
consistent therewith.
Sec. 203 Severability
If any provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Code, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance,
G-6
-------
is held invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such a decision shall not affect the validity
and the application of the remaining portions of this Code to other
persons or circumstances.
Sec. 204 Violations and Penalties
Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of
this Code shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and each such person
shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or
portion thereof during which any violation of the provisions of this
Code is committed, continued, or permitted, and upon conviction of any
such violation such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more
than $500.00, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by
both such fine and imprisonment.
CHAPTER 3. DEFINITIONS
Sec. 301 General
For the purposes of this Code, the terms defined in this chapter
shall have the meaning stated therein.
Sec. 302 Terms
Active Material. Any biodegradable material or wholly or partially
water soluble material within a Sanitary Landfill.
Administrative Officer. The individual official, board, depart-
ment, or agency established and authorized by the Adopting Agency to
administer and enforce the provisions of this Code.
Adopting Agency. The county, city or other governmental agency
which adopts the provisions of this Code pursuant to its legislative
powers.
Applicant. Any person, corporation, firm, governmental agency, or
other entity filing a preliminary application or application for permit
under the provisions of this Code.
G-7
-------
Approved. Accepted by the Administrative Officer or the Board of
Appeals as complying with an application specification stated or cited
in this Code, or as otherwise found suitable for the proposed use.
Approved Soil Testing Agency. An approved agency regularly engaged
in the testing of soils under the direction of a Soils Engineer.
Benchmark. A mark affixed to a permanent object to furnish a datum
for vertical survey control.
Board of Appeals. That Board appointed by the Adopting Agency to
carry out the powers and duties of the Board of Appeals as provided
herein.
Building. Any structure built for the shelter or enclosure of
persons, animals, or property of any kind.
Building, Existing. A building erected or one for which a valid
building permit has been issued prior to the effective date of adoption
of this Code.
Cell, Refuse. Compacted refuse completely enclosed by approved
cover material.
Code. The provisions of this Sanitary Landfill Code and all
subsequent amendments thereto.
Combustible Waste. Waste substances capable of burning, but not
explosive.
Compaction. The process of achieving a denser state in a material
by applications of repeated loading such as by passages with a heavy
roller or a series of heavy impacts.
Cover Material. An approved soil or equivalent material which is
used to cover compacted solid waste in a Sanitary Landfill and is free
of large objects and material that would be conductive to vector
harborage, feeding and/or breeding.
Decomposition. Aerobic. The degradation caused by oxygen
supported bacteria.
Decomposition, Anaerobic. The degradation caused by bacteria not
requiring oxygen.
G-8
-------
Differential Settlement. Non-uniform settlement.
Drainage System, All the piping within public or private premises,
which conveys sewage, leachate, storm water, surface runoff, or liquid
wastes to a legal point of disposal, other than the mains of a public
sewer system, or a public sewage-treatment or disposal plant.
Dump. For the purposes of this Code a dump Is a site upon which
solid waste was placed in a manner not in compliance with this Code.
Engineer. A professional Engineer In the branch of civil engineer-
ing holding a valid certificate of registration issued by the State.
Garbage. Processing, animal, fruit, or vegetable residue resulting
from handling, preparation, or cooking of foods.
Gas Barrier. A natural or constructed device serving as an
obstacle to the passage of gases.
Gas Control Device. A part of a gas control system altering the
volume, direction, and disposal of gasses.
Gas Control System. A combination of gas control devices.
Gas Control System, Peripheral. A gas control system such as a
trench around the Sanitary Landfill boundary, backfilled with gravel or
granular materials, or a series of vertical wells spaced around the
perimeter of the Sanitary Landfill, or a combination of trenches, verti-
cal wells, horizontal perforated pipes, or barriers, or any combination
therof or other approved system.
Gas Control System. Central. A gas control system such as a large
centrally located granular core to vent Sanitary Landfill produced gases;
a system of vertical wells located near the center of the Sanitary
Landfill; a series of trenches located near the center of the Sanitary
Landfill, or a combination of the first three with or without the addi-
tion of perforated pipe drains, or barriers, or any combination thereof
or other approved system.
Gas Control System. Natural. A gas control system consisting of a
selectjvely placed, relatively granular soil cover in comparison with
the varied tightly grained natural soil.
G-9
-------
Gas Control System, Mechanical. A gas control system such as a
scries of Horizontal or vertical, perforated pipes, or barriers, or any
combination thereof, augmented by mechanically operated exhaust blowers
or electricity, designed to prevent Lhe migration of gases between the
Sanitary Landfill and the boundary at all interfaces.
Gas Control System, Combination. A gas control system with at
least two of the peripheral, central, natural, mechanical, internal or
external gas control systems.
Gas Control System, External. A gas control system in which gases
produced within the Sanitary Landfill are not completely contained
within the boundaries of the Sanitary Landfill.
Gas Control System, Internal. A gas control system in which all
t,at.es produced by the Sanitary Landfill are completely contained within
the boundaries of that Sanitary Landfill.
Geologic Hazard. A condition of the site geology inimical to
standard construction practice.
Geologist. An approved Geologist duly qualified to make the
investigations and prepare the geology reports required by this Code
and capable of applying the geological sciences to engineering practice.
Grading. The act of excavating or filling or any combination
t hereof.
Ground Water. Any supply of water beneath the phreatic surface
(waLe-. table).
Hazardous Substances. Highly flammables, toxic materials, and
explos Lves.
Improvement. A structure, surface improvement, or subsurface
improvement.
Incineration. A process of reducing the volume of combustible
wastes by burning.
Inert. Earth, rock, gravel and other materials with inactive
chemical properties.
G-10
-------
Interface. The surface or surfaces common to the Sanitary
Landfill and the original site or inert fill.
Leachate. The liquid that results when water comes into contact
with refuse either by percolation or immersion.
Location. Class I. Sites located on non-water-bearing rocks,
Isolated from potable ground water by impermeable formations, or under-
lain by isolated bodies or normally unusable ground water, which are
protected from surface runoff, and where safe limitations exist with
respect to the potential radius of percolation.
Location, Class II. Sites underlain by normally usable, confined,
or free ground water when an approved elevation of the landfill can be
maintained above anticipated high ground water elevations, and which
are protected from surface runoff and where surface waters can be
restricted to the site or discharged to a suitable wasteway.
Location. Class III. Sites so located as to afford little or no
protection to normally usable underground waters.
Materials. Class I. Any solid waste or liquid waste.
Materials, Class II. Solid waste that contains no hazardous
substances but is comprised of such waste as ordinary household and
commercial refuse and/or rubbish, garbage, other decomposable organic
refuse, and demolition waste. Class II wastes may include, but are not
limited to such materials as: (1) tin cans; (2) metals; (3) paper and
paper products; (4) cloth and clothing; (5) wood and wood products;
(6) lawn clippings, sod, and shrubbery; (7) hair, hide, and bones;
(8) small dead animals; (9) roofing paper and tar paper; (10) unquenched
ashes mixed with refuse; (11) market refuse; (12) garbage; and (13) all
Materials, Class III.
Materials, Class III. Solid waste that contains no hazardous
substances but also is comprised solely of non-water soluble, non-
decomposable inert solids of the nature indicated by the following
general materials; (1) earth, rock, gravel, and concrete; (2) asphalt
paving fragments; (3) glass, ceramics, and inert plastics; (4) plaster
and fluster board; (5) manufactured rubber products; (6) steel mill
slag; (7) clay and clay products; and (8) asbestos shingles.
G-ll
-------
Noncombustible Waste. All solid waste not capable of incineration
or burning, such as ashes, glass, metal, and earthenware.
Permittee. Any person, corporation, firm, governmental agency, or
other entity to whom a permit has been issued under this Code.
Person. A natural person, his heirs, executors, administrators or
assigns, and also includes a firm, partnership, or corporation, its or
their successors or assigns, or the agent of any of the aforesaid.
Refuse. Any and all solid wastes.
Relief Vent. A vent, the primary function of which is to provide
circulation of air between drainage and vent systems.
Reuse. To use over again or to make use of again.
Sanitary Landfill. A place where Sanitary Landfilling is practiced.
Sanitary Landfilling. A method of disposing of refuse on land
without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety, by
utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the
smallest practical volume, and to cover it with a layer of earth at the
conclusion of each day's operation or at such more frequent intervals as
may be necessary.
Seepage Pit. A lined excavation in the ground which receives the
discharge of a drainage system or part thereof, so designed as to retain
the organic matter and solids discharging therein, but permitting the
liquids to seep Lhrough the bottom and sides.
Settlement. Downward movement of a structure due to consolidation
of underlying materials caused by dead and live loads and other forces and
phenomena.
Shear Wall. A wall designed to resist lateral forces parallel to the
wall, including, but not limited to braced frames subjected primarily to
axial stresses.
Site. Any parcel of land or contiguous combination thereof shown on
the last equalized assessment roll on which grading or Sanitary LandfilLing
construction is proposed or performed.
G-12
-------
Site Classifications. See Location, Class I, II, and III.
Soils Engineer. An approved Engineer who is experienced in soil
mechanics, investigating and reporting on the stability of existing or
proposed slopes, controlling the installation and compaction of fills,
determining soil bearing values, and providing design criteria and
calculations for special earth structures.
Solid Waste. All solid or semi-solid materials, that the possessor
considers of insufficient value to retain and for which he can find no
market.
Stack. The vertical main of a system of soil^ waste or vent piping
extending through one or more stories.
Structural Improvements. That which is built or constructed, an
edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built
up or composed of parts jointed together in some definite manner and
attached to the land.
Subsidence. Downward movement of the ground surface on which no
external loads have been imposed.
Subsurface Improvement. That portion of a structure, pipeline,
conduit, vault, manhole, or improvement constructed below grade.
Sump. An approved airtight tank or pit which receives sewage or
liquid waste, and which is located below the normal grade of the gravity
system, and which must be emptied by mechanical means.
Surface Improvement. A street, driveway, sidewalk, curb, gutter,
open ditch, channel, pipeline, or conduit or any portion thereof con-
structed to be of service at grade.
Ultimate Use. Utilization of a completed Sanitary Landfill for any
purpose.
Vector. An animal or insect which transmits infectious diseases;
from one person or animal to another by biting the skin or by a mucous
membrane or by depositing infected material on the skin, on food, or on
another object.
G-13
-------
Vent Stack. A vertical vent pipe installed primarily for the
purpose of providing circulation of air or gas to or from any part of
the drainage system or vent system.
Water Pollution. Any degradation of the quality of a usable surface
or groundwater body.
CHAPTER 4. PERMITS, CERTIFICATES AND FEES
Sec. 401 Permits for Sanitary Landfill Construction and Operation
a. PermLt Required. A permit shall be required for the construc-
tion, or operation of any Sanitary Landfill or portion thereof.
b. Preliminary Application for Sanitary Landfill Permit. A pre-
liminary application, briefly describing the construction and operation
of the Sanitary Landfill for which the permit is requested, and accom-
panied by a United States Geological Survey quadrangle map with the
proposed Sanitary Landfill delineated thereon, shall be submitted to the
Administrative Officer by the Applicant. After receiving the application,
a preliminary site investigation will be made by the Administrative
Officer. Preliminary approval of any concerned public or private agency
or official, regarding the proposed construction, alteration, excavation,
repair, or operation of a Sanitary Landfill upon such site shall be
required by the Administrative Officer.
c. Notice of Disqualification for Sanitary Landfill Permit. The
Administrative Officer shall notify the Applicant in writing, as to
whether there is any apparent cause for summary disapproval. The
involved agencies may recommend conditions for approval of the permit
for which such preliminary application was filed. In the event such
conditions are recommended, the Administrative Officer shall state such
condition in such notice. In thg event that the Applicant is advised
that there is no apparent cause for summary disapproval, he then may
file an application for a Sanitary Landfill permit.
d. Application for Sanitary Landfill Permit and Annual Renewal Permit.
The Applicant for a permit to construct or operate a Sanitary Landfill
shall submit to the Administrative Officer an application in the form and
G-14
-------
with the content prescribed by the Administrative Officer, and complete
plans, drawings and operational procedures for the proposed facility
including: (1) legal description of the site; (2) proof of ownership,
lease, or permission of owner; (3) indication or statement of intent of
compliance with all other affected ordinances and agencies and appli-
cation for permits required by these agencies; (4) all maps, plans,
drawings, specifications and reports required and previously submitted
for the procurement of said permits; (5) the name, address, and tele-
phone number of the Applicant and his principal officers; (6) the
estimated dates for state and final completion of the project;
(7) detailed drawings of all special constructions required herein;
(8) an operating plan, including earth moving calculations showing the
amount and type of available cover material using an approved soil
classification systems terminology and the estimated daily and final
cover material amounts needed; (9) a description of the types, probable
quantities, and sources of materials and wastes to be received; (10) calcu-
lations arriving at the life expectancy of the site; (11) general plans
showing approximate final grading, foliage, and drainage of the completed
site; and (12) operating procedures to include hours and methods of
operation, provisions for screening and for the prevention of blowing
paper, and methods of collecting and reporting data on the quantities
and types of refuse received, and other required information.
The Applicant also shall submit to the Administrative Officer
an engineering feasibility report and contour map prepared by an Engineer.
The contour map shall be at a scale of not over 200 feet to the inch
with contour intervals of 5 feet for ground slopes between level and 50
percent; or 25 feet for ground slopes exceeding 50 percent. The report
and map shall show: (1) the site and area surrounding the Sanitary
Landfill; (2) the present contours, and proposed final contours;
(3) contiguous waterways or surface drains; (4) existing capped or
uncapped wellsand available well logs, springs; (5) hydrological
information; (6) intended points of ingress or egress; (7) access road;
(8) location and types of fences and other provisions for controlling
entry; (9) location of proposed final drainage structure, walls, cribbing,
surface protection, and all other special constructions required by this
ordinance; (10) fire protection provisions; and (11) decorative screening.
G-15
-------
The Applicant also shall, if required by the Administrative
Officer, submit a report prepared by a Geologist as to the allowable
steepness of cut slopes at the boundaries of the site.
The Applicant also shall submit to the Administrative Officer
a Geologist's report covering the general geology of the proposed site and
the adjacent area one half mile beyond the site boundaries. This report
will define the geologic structural conditions, surface and subsurface
formations, the elevation of the present or anticipated groundwater level,
and the direction of flow of groundwater.
Permits shall be renewed annually. A renewal application noting
any operational changes for the following year's work shall be submitted
to the Administrative Officer one month prior to expiration of the permit
in effect.
e. Sanitary Landfill Faithful Performance Bond. The Applicant, as
a condition of the issuance of a Sanitary Landfill permit, shall post a
Faithful Performance bond with the Administrative Officer adequate to
defray necessary expenses, in the amount that the Administrative Officer
determines that is necessary to undertake corrective measures to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare.
The bond may contain a provision giving the surety the option to
cancel the bond upon first giving notice in writing not less than thirty
days before the effective date of the cancellation to the Administrative
Officer, providing that such cancellation shall not impair any right of the
Adopting Agency to reimbursement for correction of conditions resulting
from violations of such terms, conditions, laws, statues, ordinances or
regulations, which violations occurred before the effective date of cancel-
lation of the bond, whether the work of correction was performed before or
after such effective date.
The Faithful Performance bond shall remain in effect until
issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
The required bond may be in the form of bond from a corporation
qualified to do business as a surety within the state, cash, or an approved
letter of credit from a financial institution regulated by the Federal or
State government.
G-16
-------
f. Issuance or Denial of Sanitary Landfill Permit and Annual
Renewal Permits. A permit shall be issued when the Administrative
Officer finds that the work as proposed by the Applicant is not likely
to adversely affect the stability of adjoining property or result in the
deposition of debris on any public way or interfere with any existing
drainage course or be in an area determined to be subject to geologic
hazard, and the proposed uses shown on the plans for the site comply
with all provisions of any applicable zoning ordinance, and further that
all conditions and provisions contained herein for a Sanitary Landfill
have been or will be met, fees paid, bonds posted, and proofs submitted.
Annual renewal permits will be issued when the Administrative
Officer finds that the current work and any operational changes for the
following year comply with the conditions of this Code,
If the Administrative Officer determines that a high water
table elevation reasonably may be anticipated to rise, he may establish
a new high water table elevation for the purpose of administration of
this Code.
The Administrative Officer may condition the issuance of any
permit upon any requirement deemed reasonably necessary to secure com-
pliance with the provisions of this Code, including but not limited to,
the recordation of documentation, in an approved form, guaranteeing the
continuing responsibility for gas control and maintenance of a completed
Sanitary Landfill.
An Applicant will be notified in writing if an application for
a permit.or renewal permit has been denied. The notification will state
the basis for the denial.
g. Amendments to Permit. No major alterations of location,
design, construction, or required appurtenances of a Sanitary Landfill
for which a permit has been issued hereunder may be made until an amend-
ment to such permit is issued by the Administrative Officer.
Application for such an amendment shall require;
(1) Proof of the concurrence of all other affected agencies;
and,
G-17
-------
(2) Submission of any plans, maps, drawings, specifications or
on-site tests necessary to show that such alteration will
continue Lo comply with all of the provisions of this Code.
The Administrative Officer shall issue such an amendment when he
determines that such alteration will comply with all of the provisions of
this Code.
li, Validity. The issuance or granting of a permit hereunder shall
not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of
any of the piovisions of this Code or any other Code. No permit presuming
to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this Code shall
be va1jd.
The issuance of a permit based upon plans and specifications
shall not prevent the Administrative Officer from thereafter requiring
the correction of errors in said plans and specifications or from pre-
venting construction, modification, alteration, repair or operations
being carried on thereunder when in violation of this Code.
i. Expiration. Every permit issued by the Administrative Officer
under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become
null and void one year after the daLe of issuance, or if the construction,
alteration, repair, or operation authorized by such permit is not commenced
within 120 days or authorized extension thereof from the date of such
permit, ov if the construction, alteration, repair or operation authorized
'>y such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is
commenced for a period of 120 days. Before abandoned or suspended work
can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained so to do, and the
fee therefor shall be 1/2 the amount required for a new permit for such
work, provided no changes have been or will be made in the original plans
and specifications for such work; and provided, further, that such
suspension or abandonment has not lasted beyond the permit renewal date.
j. Fees. A fee for each preliminary application, application,
permit, and permit renewal hereunder shall be paid to the Administrative
Officer, as follows:
(To be established by local agency.)
G-18
-------
Where work for which a permit is required by this Code is
started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit, the fees above
specified shall be doubled, but the payment of such double fees shall
not relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirement of
1
this Code in the execution of the work nor from any other penalties
prescribed herein.
k. Costs, All expenses or costs of testing, monitoring, sampling,
boring, gas control systems, subsidence monitoring devices, subsidence
monitoring surveying, and all other actions required to be taken by the
Permittee or Applicant hereunder, shall be borne by such Applicant or
Permittee.
CHAPTER 5. SUPERVISION OF SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
Sec. 501 Supervision by Permittee
The Permittee shall provide responsible supervisory control during
grading and landfilling operations to insure compliance with approved
plans and with all applicable codes. When required by the Administrative
Officer, the Permittee shall secure: (1) engineering and/or (2) geo-
logical and/or (3) foundation engineering services to implement super-
visory control. The Engineers or Geologists shall be qualified as
specified in this Code.
The Permittee shall submit periodic progress reports as required by
the Administrative Officer and shall certify in writing to the satisfactory
completion of the various stages of the work. The Administrative Officer
may require sufficient inspections by the Geologist to assure that all
geological conditions have been adequately considered and necessary cor-
rective measures incorporated•in the work. All necessary reports, soil
compaction data, and soils engineering or engineering geological recom-
mendations made during the filling operations shall be submitted to the
Administrative Officer,
Sec, 502 Inspection of Sanitary Landfills
The Administrative Officer will inspect every Sanitary Landfill
located within his jurisdiction. In case the Administrative Officer
G-19
-------
discovers a violation of any item pertinent to the provisions of this
Code, he shall issue a Notice of Violation as provided in Section 605
hereof. After issuance of any such Notice of Violation, the Administra-
tive Officer shall make such further inspections as he may deem necessary
to determine whether all violations which are the cause for such Notice
of Violation have been corrected. After the lapse of 10 days or other
such time as the Administrative Officer has specified on the Notice of
Violation for such violations to be remedied, such violations shall be
deemed a willful failure to comply with the provisions of this Code or
condition of such permit, and cause for suspension or revocation of permit,
or action upon the bond.
One copy of the inspection report, on which violations of any item of
sanitation pertinent to the provisions of this Code shall be inscribed,
shall be left at the landfill site by the Administrative Officer. Another
copy of the aforementioned inspection report shall be filed by the
Administrative Officer with the records of the Adopting Agency and be
available to the public during regular business hours.
CHAPTER 6. ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 601 Right of Entry
Upon presentation of proper credentials the Administrative Officer
or his duly authorized representative or deputy may enter at reasonable
times any part of any Sanitary Landfill or improvement to perform any
duty imposed upon him by this Code. No person, firm or corporation shall
deny or prevent, obstruct, or attempt to deny, prevent, or obstruct such
entry.
Sec. 602 Liability
The Administrative Officer or any of his duly authorized represen-
tatives or deputies charged with the enforcement of this Code, acting in
good faith and without malice, in the discharge of his duties, shall not
thereby render himself personally liable and he hereby is relieved from
all personal liability for any damage that may accrue to persons or
property as a result of any act required or by reason of any act or
G-20
-------
omission in the discharge of his duties. Any suit brought against the
Administrative Officer or his duly authorized representative or deputy,
because of such act or omission performed by him in the enforcement of
any provision of this Code, shall be defended by the legal counsel ior
the Adopting Agency.
Sec. 603 Cooperation of Other Officials
The Administrative Officer may request, and shall receive, so far
as may be necessary for the discharge of his duties, the assistance and
cooperation of other officials of the Adopting Agency.
Sec, 604 Violation Deemed Nuisance
The construction, alteration, repair, operation or use of any
Sanitary Landfill or improvement in violation of any of the provisions
of this Code or the conditions or any permit or certificate hereunder,
hereby are declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by alter-
ation, repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal, in accordance
with the procedures specified in this Chapter.
Sec. 605 Notice of Violation
If at any stage of the work, the Administrative Officer determines
by inspection that;
(1) Work is being done contrary to this Code, the permits/certifi-
cates issued hereunder or approved plans; or,
(2) Further work as authorized is likely to endanger any person,
property (public or private), or water course or result in the
deposition of debris on any public way; then,
he may order the work stopped by a written Notice of Violation served on
any person(s) engaged in doing or causing such work to be done. The
person(s) shall forthwith stop such work'immediately after the receipt
of this notice. The conditions shall be corrected by prescribed and
stated methods of abatement within 10 days or other such time limit
prescribed on the Notice of Violation. The Administrative Officer shall
authorize the work to proceed if he finds adequate corrective measures
have been taken.
G-21
-------
Sec. 606 Abatement
After Notice of Violation has been served upon the owner or person
in charge or control of a Sanitary Landfill or improvement and the viola-
tion has not been corrected within the time limit prescribed on the
Notice of Violation, and no appeal has been taken, the Administrative
Officer may abate the public nuisance by the methods described in the
Notice of Violation.
Sec. 607 Abatement Costs
The entire costs to the Adopting Agency of abatement pursuant to the
provisions of the preceding section may become a special assessment
against the property upon which the abatement occurred as hereinbelow
described. The Administrative Officer shall notify, in writing, all
parties concerned of the amount of such assessment resulting from such
wor';. If the total assessment determined as provided for in this sub-
section is not paid in full within ten (10) days after receipt of such
notice from the Administrative Officer or the Board of Appeals, as the
case may be, the Administrative Officer shall record in the Office of the
County Recorder a statement of the total balance still due and the legal
description of the property. From the date of such recording, such halance
due shall be a special assessment against the property.
The assessment shall be collected at the time and in the same manner
as ordinary taxes of the Adopting Agency are collected, and shall be
subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of
delinquency as provided for ordinary taxes of the Adopting Agency. All
the laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of the taxes
of the Adopting Agency shall be applicable to such special assessment.
Sec. 608 Appeals of Notices of Violation and Abatement Costs
Within ten (10) days after receipt of a Notice of Violation, the
Permittee may file an appeal, in writing, with the Administrative Officer
and Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals, upon the giving of ten (10)
days written notice to the appellant and the Administrative Officer,
shall hold a public hearing to determine the question of whether the
alleged violation has occurred, and whether the proposed methods of
abatement are reasonable.
G-22
-------
All interested parties who desire to be heard may appear before the
Board of Appeals to show cause why the Sanitary Landfill or improvement
construction, alteration, repair, maintenance or operation is not in
violation of this Code, the permit therefor, or any rule or regulation
of the Administrative Officer or why the proposed method of abatement is
not reasonable.
Not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing the Board of
Appeals shall serve a notice of hearing upon every party concerned, and
post same in a conspicuous place on the premises of the facility involved.
The notice of hearing shall state:
(1) The street address and a legal description sufficient for the
identification of the premises upon which the Sanitary Landfill
or improvement is located.
(2) The conditions because of which the Administrative Officer
believed that the Sanitary Landfill or improvement was a viola-
tion of a provision of this Code, a condition of the permit
for such Sanitary Landfill or improvement, or the rules and
regulations of the Administrative Officer adapted pursuant
hereto.
(3) The proposed method of abatement of the 'alleged violation.
(4) The date, hour and place of the hearing.
The Board of Appeals shall hold a public hearing and consider all
competent pertinent evidence offered by any person pertaining to the
questions to be decided by the Board of Appeals.
The Board of Appeals shall make written findings of fact as to
whether or not the Sanitary Landfill or improvement is in violation of
a provision of this Code, the permit or certificate issued hereunder for
such Sanitary Landfill or improvement, or the rules and regulations of
the Administrative Officer adopted pursuant hereto.
If the Board of Appeals finds that the Sanitary Landfill or
improvement is in violation of this Code or such permit, certificate,
G-23
-------
or rules and regulations, it shall make an order based upon its findings
that such a violation has occurred and also shall determine and order the
reasonable abatement thereof.
The order shall state the time within which the work required must
be commenced, which shall not be less than ten (10) nor later than thirty
(30) days after service of the order. The order shall state a reasonable
time within which the work shall be completed. The Board of Appeals for
good cause may extend the time for completion in writing.
The order shall be served upon the same parties and in the same
manner as is required for the notice of hearing. It also shall be con-
spicuously posted on or about the Sanitary Landfill or improvement.
Within five (5) days of receipt of a notice of assessment for abate-
ment costs, any party concerned may file with the Board of Appeals a
written request for a hearing on the correctness or reasonableness, or
both, of such assessment. Any party concerned who did not receive such a
notice and who has not had a hearing on the necessity of the demolition or
repairs, in such request for hearing also may ask that such necessity be
reviewed. The Board of Appeals shall thereupon set the matter for hearing,
give such party concerned ten (10) days' written notice thereof, hold such
hearing and determine the reasonableness or correctness of the assessment.
The Board of Appeals, in writing, shall notify such party concerned of its
decisions.
Sec. 609 Revocation or Suspension of Permit
The Administrative Officer, after notice and hearing as provided
for appeals in this Chapter, may revoke or suspend any permit or approval
issued hereunder upon his finding that:
(1) Such permit was issued in error or was issued on the basis of
false information furnished to the Administrative Officer by
the Permittee, and no substantial reliance in good faith to the
Permittee has occurred; or,
(2) Such permit was secured by the fraud of the Permittee; or,
G-24
-------
(3) The Permittee or party to whom such permit was issued has
willfully failed to comply with any provisions of this Code
or condition of such permit.
Sec» 610 Service
Whenever in this Chapter a notice is required to be served, such
notice shall be served by registered or certified mail addressed to the
Permittee or party to whom a certificate was issued hereunder at the
address shown on the application for such permit or certificate or
subsequent written notification of change of address of such Permittee
or party delivered to the Administrative Officer.
Sec. 611 Emergency Dangerous Conditions
Whenever any Sanitary Landfill or improvement or portion thereof
constitutes an immediate hazard to life or property, and in the-opinion
of the Administrative Officer the conditions are such that abatement of
such a condition must be undertaken within less than the period designated
for perfection of Notice of Violation and appeal, he may order the
Permittee to abate or he may make such an abatement as is necessary to
protect life or property, or both, after giving such notice to the
parties concerned, as the circumstances will permit, or without any
notice whatever when, in his opinion, immediate action is necessary.
CHAPTER 7. CERTIFICATIONS
Sec. 701 Certificate of Completion
a. Certificate Required. No use of a completed Sanitary Landfill
may be made until a Certificate of Completion has been issued by the
Administrative Officer.
b. Application. Whenever any Sanitary Landfill has been completed
and is proposed for use, the owner of such Sanitary Landfill shall file an
application for a Certificate of Completion with the Administrative Officer.
c. Issuance. A Certificate of Completion shall be issued to the
owner of a Sanitary Landfill for which a permit has been issued hereunder,
when the Administrative Officer determines that all conditions o£ such
permit have been fulfilled.
G-25
-------
d. Release of Faithful Performance Bonds. Upon the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion hereunder the Faithful Performance bond required
hereunder shall be released.
e. Costs. All expenses and costs for testing, monitoring, sampling,
boring, gas control systems, subsidence monitoring devices, subsidence
monitoring surveying, and all other tests, surveys, or requirements deter-
mined to be necessary by the Administrative Officer for issuance of the
Certificate of Completion hereunder shall be paid by the Applicant for
such Certificate of Completion, prior to issuance thereof.
f. Partial Completion. Application may be submitted for a
Certificate of Completion for a portion of a completed Sanitary Landfill.
Sec. 702 Revocation or Suspension of Certificate of Completion
The Administrative Officer, after notice and hearing as provided for
appeals in this Chapter, may revoke or suspend any certificate issued
hereunder upon his finding that:
(1) Such certificate was issued in error or was issued on the basis
of false information furnished to the Administrative Officer by
the Permittee, and no substantial reliance in good faith to the
detriment of the Permittee has occurred; or,
(2) Such certificate was secured by the fraud of the Permittee; or,
(3) The Permittee or party to whom such certificate was issued has
willfully failed to comply with any provisions of this Code or
condition of such permit.
G-26
-------
UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR LOCATION, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF SANITARY LANDFILLS SUBJECT TO SANITARY LANDFILL CODE
The short title 'of this document shall bey"Uniform Standards."
Standard 1. Permitted Location
a. General. A Sanitary Landfill shall be permitted only at a
location meeting the following requirements:
(1) A Sanitary Landfill at such location will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or to other
property located in the vicinity;
(2) A Sanitary Landfill at such location will not adversely
affect the provisions of any community general plan
regarding facilities for solid waste management; and,
(3) A Sanitary Landfill at such location conforms to all
applicable state and local health, safety and zoning
laws.
b. Conformity With General Plan. The development of a completed
Sanitary Landfill, or planning or dedication of land for streets, high-
ways, alleys or other public use, shall conform with all applicable
community general plans of streets and highways, and shall make pro-
vision for the continuation of principal existing streets.
Sanitary Landfills with fills no deeper than 50 feet, shall be
designed and constructed in such a way that at finish grade they shall
have inert fill bases for roadways provided by general plan and, if
required by appropriate agency, building pads for future buildings.
c. Access. The Administrative Officer may designate the routes'
of ingress and egress to or from a Sanitary Landfill site, when it Ls
determined to be necessary for the interest of the public health, safety,
and welfare. Such designation of routes shall take into consideration
the most practical means of access.
Access roads and staging areas shall be provided so that
vehicles waiting to enter the Sanitary Landfill area shall not impede
the flow of traffic on public streets.
G-27
-------
Dust-free access roads, negotiable at all times by loaded
refuse collection vehicles, shall be provided and maintained to the
face of the Sanitary Landfill. They shall be sprayed, filled, repaired,
regraded, and relocated as necessary.
Clearly marked directional signs shall be prominently located at
all times along the Sanitary Landfill road leading to the unloading area.
Standard 2. Operation Regulations
a. General. The disposal of all solid waste shall be by the
method commonly known as the "Sanitary Land filling" method, by means of
either a "fill and cover" or "cut and cover" type of operation, in which
the dumped material is compacted and completely enclosed daily with an
earth cover in compliance with these Uniform Standards.
A Sanitary Landfill shall be operated only in accordance with
the pldns, drawings, and specifications which are a condition of the
Sanitary Landfill permit.
Any change in such approved plans, drawings and specifications
must be requested in writing by the Permittee and approved. If any such
changes are approved, notice thereof will be given in writing to such
Permittee by the Administrative Officer.
The Permittee shall accept only materials permitted by this
Code for the Sanitary Landfill classification of the site and which are
submitted for disposal during his posted hours of operation.
The Permittee shall not permit any violation of any applicable
dumping regulations, and the Permittee shall maintain such patrols or
policing services as aie necessary to prevent violations.
No Sanitary Landfill shall willfully terminate operations for
any period longer than 48 hours without advance notice of 2k hours to
the Administrative Officer, and approval.
All operators of Sanitary Landfills shall keep and maintain
records of their operations and shall, if requested by the Administrative
Officer, 3ubmit periodic reports on such operations. The records shall
contain: (1) the number of loads of refuse daily; (2) total weight of
refuse received v/hen scale9 arc available; and (3) abnormal occurrences
in the operation of the site.
G-28
-------
b. Burning. Burning shall not be allowed in or upon a Sanitary
Landfill. Also, the Permittee shall prevent the ignition of the
Sanitary Landfill or any other flammable material, surface or subsurface
on the site.
c. Salvage. Salvage and reclamation operations may be established
at designated locations away from the working face, if the Administrative
Officer determines that such operations are compatible with the purposes
and objectives of this Code. Design, operation, and maintenance plans
for such operations must first be approved by the Administrative Officer.
Standard 3. Permitted Materials
a. Waste Materials. Approved materials, Class 1 may be accepted
only at Location, Class 1 sites. Materials,Class II may be accepted
only at Location, Class I and Location, Class II sites. Materials,
Class III may be accepted at Location, Class I, II, or III sites.
Approved liquids may be accepted at Location, Class II sites
only if utilized as a moisture Ingredient to aid in solid waste
compaction.
Approved liquid cannery wastes, large dead animals, treated
semi-solid wastes from sewerage and water processing systems, poultry
hatchery wastes, meat packing and similar wastes may be acceptable if
approved handling and spreading techniques are continuously employed.
Liquids from septic tanks, seepage pits, or sumps shall not be
accepted at or be allowed to drain onto or into a Sanitary Landfill
except at Location, Class I sites and then only if approved disposal
methods are employed.
Hazardous substances shall not be accepted except at Location,
Class I sites and then only if approved disposal methods are employed.
Radioactive materials shall not be accepted at Sanitary
Landfills.
b. Cover Materials. Cover materials shall be inert, and shall be
free of putrescible materials, large objects, and combustible materials.
The following types of soil as defined by an approved soil
classification system and materials shall not be used as final cover
materials:
G-29
-------
(1) Clay;
(2) Organic soil; and,
(3) Incinerator residue.
EXCEPTION: The Administrative Officer may authorize an excep-
tion to the above requirements if he determines that such an exception
would not create a hazard or nuisance.
Standard 4. Water Pollution
a. Location Requirements. A Sanitary Landfill located upon a soil
of relatively low permeability shall be separated vertically from the
high water surface of underlying normally usable ground water by a minimum
distance which the Administrative Officer approves or determines is neces-
sary to prevent pollution of such underlying normally usable ground water.
A Sanitary Landfill shall not be located in an area where the
adjacent or underlying soils are highly permeable and underlain by
normally usable ground water.
EXCEPTION: The Administrative Officer may authorize an excep-
tion to such requirement, if the governmental agency responsible for
ground water protection approves a method of protection.
A Sanitary Landfill site subject to intrusion of fresh waters,
sea water, or waters of high sulfate content, shall be limited to deposit
of Materials, Class III.
b. Engineerinft Requirements. Construction plans shall show
methods of minimizing or preventing:
(1) Water draining upon or otherwise applied to the surface
and percolating vertically through the soil cover;
(2) Water from an adjacent source moving horizontally through
the side of the fill;
(3) Water entering from the bottom of the fill due to a rise
in the ground water table or capillary action;
(4) Water being present in the fill site prior or during
placement of refuse material; and,
(5) Leachates.
G-30
-------
Periodic sampling and laboratory testing of water from a
representative well or wells located in the area adjacent to the
Sanitary Landfill site may be required by the Administrative Office*
at any time.
c. Installation Requirements. Off site surface waters shall be
diverted or conveyed from the site so as to prevent percolation through
any of the dumped material or erosion of the cut sections of the Sanitary
Landfill.
A Sanitary Landfill bounded by highly permeable soils may be
required to have well points located at selected points along or beyond
the Sanitary Landfill boundaries. Well points outside the boundary of
the Sanitary Landfill will not be required if established wells in the
area are approved, or if suitable locations cannot be obtained for
establishing the well points.
Standard 5. Gas Control
a. Function Requirements. Migration of gases into property
adjacent to a Sanitary Landfill site shall be prevented. All plans and
data for the construction of Sanitary Landfills Location, Class II and
Location, Class I shall specify, and show by drawings, methods proposed
to prevent the off site movement of gases.
The Applicant shall submit data, prepared by an Engineer,
showing the predictability of gas movement, including but not limited
to density, porosity, particle size distribution, and moisture content
of soils on the site, and adjacent to the site.
EXCEPTION: Ihe Administrative Officer may authorize an
exception to such requirements if he determines that monitoring or
other data available or presented is sufficient to show the predicta-
bility of such gas movement; or where the owner of the site files a
covenant with the land limiting the use of that portion of the property
within (1000) one thousand feet of the interface to non-occupant type
construction.
G-31
-------
b. Gas Monitoring. An approved gas monitoring system shall be
installed along the boundary o£ the landfill to Insure that gas is not
allowed to migrate from the site.
Gas monitoring shall be done during construction of the
Sanitary Landfill at periodic intervals not to exceed six months.
All completed Location, Class I and Location, Class II Sanitary
Landfills shall be monitored for gas production and migration not less
than once annually, except those showing no gas production for five
consecutive years. All data collected shall be permanently recorded
by the operator. Copies shall be submitted to the Administrative
Officer after each test. If gas migration is considered excessive, the
Administrative Officer shall require that the operator or owner in the
case of a completed landfill, immediately provide such gas control
measures as are necessary to prevent further gas migration from the site.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for a
completed Sanitary Landfill, the Administrative Officer shall determine
that the approved monitoring system is in working order. The landfill
operator or subsequent owner shall continue routine monitoring of the
system after completion of the landfill and this requirement shall be
binding on and recorded so as to run with the land.
c. Gas Control Systems. Materials utilized for gas barriers
shall: (1) be inert and impervious to moisture and gas; (2) maintain
continuous qualities under conditions encountered in the fill including
alternate wet and dry cycles; and (3) be located to be effective as a
cutoff.
Gas control systems, barriers, seals and required installations
shall not be covered prior to inspection and approval of the Installation.
d. Installation Requirements. Gas control seal barriers shall be
designed to be minimally affected by subsidence.
All sharp sticks, stones, and trash shall be removed or
covered with soil prior to the installation of a flexible gas barrier.
Areas containing grass shall be sterilized. The area to be covered
G-32
-------
shall be compacted and smoothed to reduce stresses in the membrane.
Mechanical equipment shall not be driven directly onto the linera
unless it is proven to the Administrative Officer, on the job site,
that damage will not result.
Torch type refuse gas burners shall be fitted with a flash-
back prevention device. Combustion air openings within the gas pipe
shall not be located below the burner but may be located above the
cover plate.
Standard 6. Subsidence Monitoring
Before a Certificate of Completion is issued, the site shall be
provided with benchmarks for determination of subsidence of the land-
fill area.
A minimum of two permanent benchmarks shall be established at
approved locations outside the perimeter of the Sanitary Landfill,
unless benchmarks established by a Federal, State, County, or City
agency are available.
For measurement of the amount of vertical subsidence, approved
benchmarks shall be established on the Sanitary Landfill site approxi-
mately 200 feet apart in a rectangular pattern.
The elevations of all the benchmarks shall be determined upon
completion of the fill and a record of these elevations shall be
furnished the Administrative Officer. The owner of a completed
Sanitary Landfill shall protect and maintain the benchmarks and shall
cause the elevations of the benchmarks to be determined at periodic
intervals not to exceed two years. A record of these periodic surveys
shall be furnished to the Administrative Officer.
Standard 7. Excavation, Grading, Landfilling, and Drainage of a
Sanitary Landfill
a. Supervision. The Permittee, or his authorized representative,
shall be present during all operations and shall control and supervise
activities.
G-33
-------
b. Refuse Placement. As rapidly as solid waste is admitted to
the site it shall be spread and compacted in layers not to exceed two
feet in depth after track or roller compaction.
The working face shall be kept as confined as possible
consistent with providing sufficient dumping area for the incoming
vehicle. In no event shall the open face exceed 10 feet in length for
each 100 tons per day except that small sites handling less than 500 tons
per day will be allowed fifty feet of open face.
c. Daily Covering. Both the exposed refuse surface and the face
of all Sanitary Landfills shall be covered an approved depth with a layer
of earth at the end of each working day so that no refuse is exposed
thereby making a closed cell of each day's deposit.
d. Final Covering. The final cover for any Sanitary Landfill
shall be a minimum depth of three feet. In no case shall any permanent
excavation reduce the cover to less than three feet. Operations on an
interim surface or any portion of the Sanitary Landfill shall not be
suspended more than 120 days unless a final cover has been applied.
e. Slope Stability Requirements. No final fill slope shall exceed
a vertical height of 50 feet unless horizontal benches "with a minimum
width of 15 feet are installed at each 50 feet of vertical height.
No fill shall be made which creates a finished surface steeper
in average slope that two horizontal to one vertical. The fill slopes
abutting and above public property shall be so placed that no portion of
the fill lies above a plane through a public property line extending
upward at an average slope of two horizontal to one vertical.
Tops of cut slopes in natural ground shall not be made nearer
to a property line than three feet, or 1/5 the height of the cut,
whichever is greater, but need not exceed a horizontal distance of ten
feet.
Toes of fill slopes shall not be made nearer to a Sanitary
Landfill boundary line than 1/3 the height of the fill, but need not
exceed a horizontal distance of 20 feet.
G-34
-------
Where the excavation exposes strata above the top of the cut
which will permit the entry of water along bedding planes, this area
shall be sealed with a relatively impervious compacted soil blanket
having a minimum thickness of two feet, designed by a Soils Engineer,
and subject to approval.
If the material of the slope is of such composition and
character as to be unstable under the anticipated maximum moisture
content, the slope angle shall be reduced to a stable value. This
requirement shall be confirmed by the Soils Engineer's written
certification.
f. Drainage. Permanent drainage facilities on operating and
completed sites shall be designed for a flooding hazard frequency of
once in fifty (50) years.
The daily and final surface of a Sanitary Landfill shall
have a graded slope of no less than 2 percent to prevent ponding of
water.
g. Miscellaneous. A Sanitary Landfill in an abandoned strip
coal mine shall comply with the following: (1) the coal vein shall be
covered an approved depth with an insulating blanket of non-combustible
material; and (2) no rider veins shall be exposed.
Swamp areas shall be diked, drained and inspected prior to
commencement of operations.
Sanitary Landfilling methods employing the trench system may
be approved if successive parallel trenches are at least three feet
apart.
Standard 8. Requirements for Health and Safety
a. Fire Prevention. A water supply, capable of flowing not less
than 250 gallons per minute at a minimum of 20 psi residual pressure
for a period of not less than 1-1/2 hours, shall be provided on the site.
Water mains, not less than A inches in diameter, shall be
installed with fire hydrants having a 2-1/2 inch outlet attached thereto
G-35
-------
with a 4 inch riser. Water mains and hydrant locations shall meet the
approval of the Fire Department of the public agency within whose
jurisdiction the Sanitary Landfill is located.
Hydrants, pipes, and standpipes shall be protected from
mechanical injury, and adequate shutoff valves shall be provided to
control the system.
A firebreak or clearance of all dry weeds and grass shall be
provided around the dumping areas, and secondary firebreaks as required
by the Fire Department of the public agency within whose jurisdiction
the Sanitary Landfill is located, shall be provided and maintained, in
order to prevent the spread of fire beyond the facility. Such secondary
firebreaks shall be the width specified by the Fire Department.
Weeds, grass, and combustible vegetation shall be removed
for a distance of 15 feet on both sides of all access roads used by
rubbish trucks or the public.
"NO SMOKING" signs shall be posted on the Sanitary Landfill
and at all entrances to such Sanitary Landfill, and smoking regulations
as required by the Fire Department of the public agency within whose
jurisdiction the Sanitary Landfill is located shall be strictly complied
with.
Any fire which occurs on the premises shall be reported
immediately to the Fire Department of the public agency within whose
jurisdiction the Sanitary Landfill is located, and it shall be the
responsibility of the Permittee to immediately extinguish any such fire.
Refueling operations and installations shall be in accordance
with any applicable Fire Code or regulation.
b. Sanitary Facilities. Separate sanitary facilities shall be
provided on the Sanitary Landfill site for employed personnel as
required by the Health Department.
c. Vectors. Monitoring of pests and vectors shall be made by
the Permittee at least once a week for rodent burrows, droppings, or
other evidence of rodents or insect breeding. Any infestation shall be
controlled as necessary by approved methods.
G-36
-------
d. First Aid, A first aid kit, equipped with sterile bandages,
snake bite kits, antiseptic solutions, tourniquets, splints, and other
necessary supplies shall be at the site.
e. Utilities. Telephone or radio communication facilities shall
be provided which are readily accessible to the employees in the event
of an emergency.
Lights shall be provided for any approved night operations.
f. Fencing. A Sanitary Landfill site shall be fenced and pro-
vided with lockable gates, to prevent access by unauthorized persons
during non-working hours.
EXCEPTION: Areas to which access is limited by topography
or other natural barriers to one route, are not required to be fully
fenced, if a lockable gate which controls access is provided.
Standard 9. Landscaping and Erosion Control Planting Where Soil
Conditions Permit
All finished fill or cut slopes in Sanitary Landfills shall be
planted and irrigated with a sprinkler system to provide a growth of
approved grass or ground cover plants to protect the slopes against
erosion.
Sprinkler systems shall be designed to provide a uniform water
coverage at a rate of precipitation of not less than 1/10 inch per hour
nor more than 3/10 inch per hour on the planted slope. In no event
shall the sprinkling be permitted to create a saturated condition and
cause an erosion problem or allow the discharge of excess water into
any public or private street.
A check valve and balance cock shall be installed in the system
where drainage from sprinkler heads would create an erosion problem.
Standard 10. Maintenance
a. Surface and Slope. Daily, interim and final cover shall be
maintained by the Permittee during construction and after completion of
the Sanitary Landfill. The slope of the daily and final cover shall be
maintained to prevent ponding prior to successive lift operations.
Depressions which form and trap surface water shall be filled within
G-37
-------
72 hours after weather conditions permit. Surplus cover material shall
be available at the completed fill for regrading and filling surface
cracks which may develop in the finished fill. Slopes which have been
seeded as a requirement of this Code shall be reseeded by the Permittee
when required to establish uniform continuous cover, erosion resistant
drainage, and green foliage.
b. Equipment. The Sanitary Landfill operator shall maintain his
working equipment in good mechanical condition, and all internal combus-
tion motors must have adequate mufflers to minimize noise.
Required equipment, or a suitable substitute therefore, shall
be ready for operation during all permitted dumping hours. Operational
maintenance shall be scheduled to comply with this requirement.
Auxiliary equipment shall be of sufficient capacity to insure continuous
and proper operation of the Sanitary Landfill during critical and peak- "
load periods.
G-38
-------
SUGGESTED ADDENDA TO BUILDING CODES RE: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ON, AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SANITARY LANDFILLS
1. Regulation of Building on Sanitary Landfill or Existing Dumps
a. General. No permanent building or structure shall be con-
structed on any Sanitary Landfill unless provisions are made to support
it on pilings or in such other manner that it does' not depend on the
Sanitary Landfill for any portion of its support. In addition, where
buildings or structures are constructed on Sanitary Landfills and such
alternate support is provided, adequate provision shall be made to pre-
vent the at cumulation of decomposition gases within or under enclosed
portions of such buildings or structures and to prevent damage to
structure, floors, underground piping and utilities due to uneven
settlement of the fill.
Where the depths of Sanitary Landfills are too great to allow
the installation of piling or the means of independent support, the use
of the complete Sanitary Landfill shall be limited to such open space '
uses as parks, golf courses, parking areas, storage yards, truck termi-
nals, nurseries or similar uses not requiring closed buildings.
The installation of mobile buildings will be permitted on
Sanitary Landfills provided adequate ventilation systems are provided,
and utility systems can be installed in compliance with local engineering
regulations relating to the construction of subsurface improvements on
a Sanitary Landfill,
Prohibited uses and construction on a Sanitary Landfill also
are prohibited on an existing dump.
b0 Foundation Support. Piling which penetrates the active portion
of the Sanitary Landfill shall be designed for the applicable horizontal
loads due to: (1) seismic; (2) wind loads; and (3) equivalent hydro-
static pressure. Stresses which are induced by acceptable pile displace-
ments shall be considered in the design of struts, grade beams, and slabs
to which each may be connected.
G-39
-------
Piling penetrating the active portion of a Sanitary Landfill
shall be designed for the down-drag effects of frictional resistance to
subsidence and settlement from the surface to the bottom of the pile.
Floor loads shall be transmitted directly to piling which
penetrates the active portion of the Sanitary Landfill. Floor loading
calculated for this purpose shall include dead load plus one-half live
load. Warehouse type loading shall be considered as dead load for this
purpose.
Non-habitable one-story light-frame accessory structures not
exceeding 400 square feet in area nor 12 feet in height may be constructed
without special provision for foundation stability.
c. Gas Control. Gases shall not be allowed to concentrate in con-
fined areas in improvements. Approved methods of preventing this condi-
tion include barriers, vents, and mechanical ventilation systems.
Structures built upon a Sanitary Landfill shall be equipped with gas
control systems.
Utilities entering a structure below grade through holes,
openings or casings and which do not fill the space, shall be fitted
with approved gas barriers.
Interior plumbing systems shall be vented to prevent the
intrusion of Sanitary Landfill gases into buildings constructed on a
Sanitary Landfill. The vent system may be designed in approved combina-
tion with the internal system, or shall be vented by an independent vent
stack, exterior to the building.
All electrical switching and instrumentation installed in
ground vaults or in unventilated spaces within a building constructed
on a Sanitary Landfill shall be vented to prevent accumulation of gases
or shall be explosion-proof.
G-40
-------
2. Regulation of Building on Solid or Compacted Soil Immediately
Adjacent to a Sanitary Landfill but Within thfe Site Boundary
a. General. Buildings and other structures built on original or
compacted earth within the boundaries of a landfill site shall conform
with all applicable requirements of the Building Regulations of the
Adopting Agency, Such buildings or structures shall also be provided
with such gas monitoring or control systems as are required herein.
b. Gas Control. If a building or structure is to be located
within the landfill site on solid ground, it shall be equipped with a
gas control system unless there is a sufficient barrier of impermeable
soil between the proposed structure and the Sanitary Landfill to prevent
gas from migrating to the building.
G-41
-------
SUGGESTED ADDENDA TO LOCAL ENGINEERING REGULATIONS RE:
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SURFACE AMD SUBSURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
Sec. 1 Surface Improvements
a. Gas Control. Gases shall not be allowed to concentrate in
confined areas of surface improvements. Approved methods for pre-
venting this condition include barriers, vents, and mechanical
ventilation systems.
b. Subsidence and Differential Settlement Control. Surface
improvements having drainage requirements shall be designed to minimize
the effects of differential settlement by approved methods.
Funding for maintenance of all improvements not located on
inert or structural foundations shall be provided.
Drainage channels which are provided with overlapping sections
shall have supports at the points of overlap deep enough to function as
subsurface cutoff walls.
Surface improvements intended to transport surface waters shall
be replaced if cracked or otherwise damaged in such a manner as to per-
mit surface water to enter the Sanitary Landfill.
Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks traversing the waste
filled portion of a Sanitary Landfill shall be designed of flexible
paving materials.
Fences and walls constructed on a Sanitary Landfill shall be of
a design that will tolerate substantial settlement without failing.
Rigid masonry or concrete construction will not be permitted.
Surface and subsurface improvements in juxtaposition with pile
founded structures shall be provided with approved methods of accom-
modating differential settlement.
G-42
-------
Sec. 2 Subsurface Improvements
a. Gas Control, Gases shall not be allowed to concentrate in
confined areas in subsurface improvements. Approved methods for pre-
venting this condition include barriers, vents, and mechanical
ventilation systems.
The intrusion of gases into substructures such as manholes,
vaults, and underfloor areas shall be prevented by the use of approved
barriers or ventilation. Substructures built upon a Sanitary Landfill
shall be equipped with gas control systems.
b. Subsidence and Differential Settlement Control. All subsurface
improvements shall be designed to minimize the effects of differential
settlement by approved methods.
Underground natural gas mains in a Sanitary Landfill shall be
provided with valves near the interface and not on the Sanitary Landfill.
Individual gas services shall be provided with shutoff valves at the
mains.
Sec. 3 Maintenance
Required slopes, separation distances and decorative landscaping
on a Sanitary Landfill shall be maintained by the Permittee,
All permanent and temporary structures located on a Sanitary
Landfill shall be maintained in compliance with the provisions of all
legal requirements for sanitation, safety and appearance, and all other
applicable laws. Structures on an operating Sanitary Landfill shall be
maintained in good repair.
A permanent set of building plans and design calculations, if
any, for any structure founded fully or partially on a Sanitary Landfill
shall be retained by the owner for the economic life of the structure.
Separation of any portion of a structure, dock, stoop, or other
facility resting at grade on a Sanitary Landfill in excess of 1-1/2
inches vertically or 1 inch horizontally shall be repaired or replaced.
Surface improvements shall be maintained in good condition.
Damaged ditches, culverts, or gutters on a Sanitary Landfill which have
G-A3
-------
f
been subjected to changes in slope resulting in excessive silting,' ,
scouring, or permitting water to enter the Sanitary Landfill, shall
repaired or replaced. Gutters with-cracks which permit water to jntj
the subgrade shall be repaired or replaced, $ C
Curbs or gutters with cracks in excess of 1/2 inch vertical 2
difference and 1 inch horizontal difference shall be repaired or
replaced.
Streets with cracks in excess of 1/2 inch vertical difference
or 1/2 inch horizontal displacement shall be repaired or replaced.
Sidewalks which have settled differentially to a cross slope of
1/2 inch per foot or which have cracks in excess of 1/4 inch vertical
difference or 1/2 inch horizontal displacement shall be repaired or
replaced.
Underground gravity or pressure lines which rupture and admit
liquid or gas into the Sanitary Landfill shall be taken out of service
and excavated to locate the rupture. Softened or washed out areas
below the bedding shall be excavated and backfilled to the bedding
plane prior to further inspection and backfilling. All softened and
disturbed material shall be excavated prior to final backfill, rough
grading and finish grading.
Gas control devices and systems shall be maintained. Cracks,
fissures, washouts, or other failures, or the presence of unusual gas
concentrations, shall require reparative or preventive maintenance.
Installations which are intended as alternatives to maintenance shall
be subject to approval.
Subsurface utility lines or pipes entering through openings in
structure foundation walls or substructure foundation walls, on a
Sanitary Landfill, which have been subjected to excessive loading as a
result of differential settlement, shall be relocated, repaired, or
replaced.
r*-
cr>
©
Or
£
J
/>
z
0
MO72102
G-44
-------
THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE DUPLICATES OF
ILLUSTRATIONS APPEARING ELSEWHERE IN THIS
REPORT. THEY HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED HERE BY
A DIFFERENT METHOD TO PROVIDE BETTER DETAIL.
-------
FIGURE m-23
UNIT CONTROL AND INSULATING MAT
EXPLOSION BOX AND BARRIER MEMBRANE
GAS EXPLOSION UNIT
COMPONENTS
F - 12.
-------
FIGURE IH-23
UNIT CONTROL AND INSULATING MAT
EXPLOSION BOX AND BARRIER MEMBRANE
GAS EXPLOSION UNIT
COMPONENTS
F- 12.
-------
FIGURE UT-24
GAS EXPLOSION UNIT
DETONATION AT
SITE 5
F-7J
------- |