TA^

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
-------
>1 '"I intergovernmental methane tasx rone*
IflffTlF 7475 DAKIN • SUITE 401
» * OEMVEfl, COLORADO 80221
R**T GJLS9 MAJL
UJ. PC3TAC4
MiO 1 OX. '
BRIOMTCM.Ca
POtMfT XX 2
PRESORTED FIRST CLASS
METHANE FROM LANDFILLS:
HAZARDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
J A WORKING SYMPOSIUM
vyEPA
-VflRO*MEHTAL Moncnow
Miner
raiofi viii, socio vast*
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH

IWTZJWOVMHMtMTM.
MCTHAMC TASX FOIICt
MARCH 21,22,23,1979
COLORADO WOMEN'S COLLEGE
DENVER, COLO.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF exepar
QlVISION or BUILDIHO
ANO
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ARQONNE NATIONAL
LABORATORY
TRI-COONTT OlSTHtCT
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
AOAMS COUNTY
1**1
'11=
vM
*bJ
if!'
* I JA
ill!
* y c t
ill
c3 a <5 >
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CmES
Ir
li
li
]I
l7
l!
• 2
i 2
??
;sn
i-ji i
i.iz i
th e
JOHNS HOPKINS
UNIVERSITY
APPllCO PHYSICS
LABORATORY
5544
? sss;
fu?:
I
• ^
/ 5 = - =
5 3 5 5
•; Ni4
J £££4
3 Isii
-id
- t ~
J si/
*'¦, iI
iJii
-------
SW05»UH C* haAN0 CP^CRrOilTlSS
HAflOf 2I-2J. 1979
vx
QO^ANT/ASSHOr .
AOCRCSS
TILSTKHt *X6CT .
P05ITIO4
CiPr
STATE

*IU. TO) STAY AT CStCRAOC *0«tV5 3U.ESc? "S2 SO MXG* 0' MIGHTS _ * Sl6.J0/II8.00 • _____
tfiu. rcu atoc rx sa-sojCT cm TMjasoA* _"ts ho (inciuawt .*« ^ijtnTi«»
^ICL tOU SO ON TMC SKI TOUft? TSS *3 *>«£» Cf ?COCHS __ * SU.SO • ___
41U» *OJ *MX TO *CTiCN m scjjjq t
SKI TOU*
QC H0UJIM/8OAW
TOTAL SOJ3SJD
nawiCAc 1 n ' i t) 11 10
annua w*>u.«eKlt ST. SUIT! *01
ceact^ ;sic*»oo jcui

* :
i rJgfllHt
lil'F
*
mmm
; n urn
ip
II
*9
ffillfffli I if
3
I
if« 1 3
iinq
ipm
if=?;£
»=*[U
c!if
Ii***
Miil
lf!U
Hh1
is'llfjl,
!i!$nn
ji m'-1#
r»i
tV? ?wOri
H!n iniMH.l
nnm
iiiii
?.- ii* , H
vifM
i i ii
3 ij- .11
I
I
::>w
•rM'
HI Hi*
lilnu
iHSfl
tf'iU
Sill'.;
f.'iui
H.'IH
11 ra- =
r»iM
mil*
pii{5
* 771 S
ltt*r:
Tllf:i
Tif
= : in
ip ; S5iii
fij l?r}K ¦ n
-il jiiU 1 ul
rn '! n} ill
U,
H!
Fji
1H
ii*
\v
} i;
i «L 1
S r
I U
1 ]'
«}I
J '-4
h
? •
t;
• 4
ii
• <. • - - *
- .4 » *<
rli ii
-------
^ INTERGOVERNMENTAL METHANE TASK FORCE
ROOM 400
450 SOUTH 4TH AVENUE
if BRIGHTON, COLORADO 80601
STATUS OF WORKBOOK
The Workbook has been prepared from a variety of source documents which
are identified 1n the Appendix.
Due to the time constraints of the individuals involved 1n the develop-
ment of this text, no technical editing was accomplished prior to the Symposium.
Chapters 1, 2, and 3 are basically In their final form, while Chapters 4, 5,
and 6 will require major revision.
Please bear 1n mind that this is an instructional text and the Symposium
is being used as a major critique for the document.
It is requested that each of you fill out the attached critique and pro-
vide this to my attention at 8AH-WM, Region VIII EPA, 1860 Lincoln Street,
Denver, Colorado 80295.
(S Sary P. Morgan
Technical Assistance Panels
Program Manager
Region VIII
Workbook Coordinator
-------
1
CRITIQUE
REGION VIII TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATORS' GUIQE:
.METHANE ON THE iSOVE: YOUR LANOfILL'S SILENT PARTNER
We are interested in your comments. Please complete this form ana return
it to the registration desk, or mall to: Gary P. Morgan, 8AH-WM,•I860 Lincoln
Street, Denver, Colorado S0295.
1. TYPE OF ORGANIZATION: Consulting Engineers: Planning/Administration:
Federal Agency: "State Agency:
Municipal Agency: Industry - (State Type):
2. Evaluate the following Chapters according to the criteria listed:
1 - Excellent 2 - Satisfactory 3 - Unsatisfactory
COVERAGE OF
SUBJECT MATERIAL READABILITY FIGURES TA3L-S
Chapter 1
Introduction
Liked .'•lost:
01 si iked Most:
Chapter 2
Methane Generation
Like Most:
Oi si iked Most:
Chapter 3
Public Impact
Liked Most:
Oisliked Most:
-------
SUBJECT MATERIAL READABILITY
FIGURES
TABLES
Chapter 4
Recovery Material
Liked Most:
Oislikea Most:
Chapter 5
Planning
Liked Most:
Disliked Most:
Chapter 6
Decision
Liked Most:
Disliked Most:
Were the Topics Appropriate?<
What Would You Change?.
Who Would Benefit Most from the Use of this Text?
-------
METHANE ON THE MOVE -YOUR LANOF11L'S SILENT PARTNER
An Administrator Guide
developed by the
Intergovernmental Methane Task Forca
U.S. EPA Region VIII
Compile and Edited ay
Gary P. Morgan
REGION VIII
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PWES
program mm
-------
DISCLAIMER
. This administrators guidebook for local decision makers was developed
under the Environmental Protection Agency (£?A) Technical Assistance Panels
Program. Neither the EPA, the National League of Cities, or the
Intergovemmetal Methane Task Force (IMTF) or any of their employee's nor any
or their subcontractors or any of their employee's acting on behalf of either:
a) makes any warranty expressed or implied as to the
accuracy, completeness, usefulness of any information
apparatus product or process disclosed or represents
that it's use -would not infringe privately own rights or
b) assumes any liablility with respect to the use of or for
damages resulting for the use of any information method
or process disclosed in this quidebook.
c) The Information within this text was extracted and compiled from-many
sources and individual experiences. Credit to those sources are
identified in the Acknowledgement and Chapter 1.
-------
AC
-------
Forward
This Workbook was designed for city and state officials who have little
or no experience with landfill generated methane gas.
The objectives of the Workbook are to reach those persons who will have
to deal with landfill issues in their communities. Included are:
(1) Sharing of Intergovernmental Methane Task Force (IMTF) experiences
in dealing with methane-related problems.
(2) Addressing both' institutional and technology related problems
focusing on control and recovery/utilization of methane gas.
(3) Effecting technology transfer relative to the recovery/utilization
of landfill gas.
The Workbook is, therefore, structured to define the issues related to
the production of methane in landfills and the necessary preliminary concerns
that must be resolved prior to entering into a possible recovery stage.
We solicited comments on this potentially serious problem through the
participants of the Symposium: Methane from Landfills: Hazards and
Opportunities.
Should you have comments on the content or format please follow the
directions in Chapter 1.
-------
0 iscla iiner
FOREWARD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1.0 Introduction of Methane Management
1.1 Why a Decision Makers Guide (Objectives)
1.2 The Problem Oefined (Regional/National)
1.2.1 Lack of Control - The Symptoms
1.2.2 00£ Seminar held at Jchn Hopkins Applied Physics Lab
1.3 The Potential Accident
1.3.1 Safeguards and Response
1.3.1.1 The Initial Response
1.3.1.2 Who Responds
1.3.1.3 Emergency Equipment
1.3.1.4 Communication/Notification
1.3.1.5 Protective Action Guides
1.4 The IMTF
1.4.1 IMTF Goals and Fuctions
1.4.2 IMTF Accomplishments
1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination
1.6 Assignment of Responsibilities
1.6.1 Role of State
1.6.2 Role of Local County Governments
1.6.3 Role of Cities
1.6.4 Role of County Health Departments
1.6.5 Role of Building and Planning Department
1.6.6 The Task Force Approach
1.7 Organization and Content of Guidebook
1.6 Ccmnents and Updates
f-
2.0 Technical Explantion of Methane Generation
2.1 What Is It
2.1.1 Why is Methane Dangerous
2.1.2 What Takes Place in a Landfill (the problem)
2.1.2.1 Aerobic - Anaerobic Decomposition
2.1.2.2 Composition
2.1.2.3 Movement - Laterial Migration
-------
2.1.3 Environmental Impact
2.1*3.1 Leachate Formation and Migration
2.1.3.2 Gas From Leachate
2.1.3.3 Water
2.1.3.4 Land Use
.2 How Do We Find It (Investigative Techniques)
2.2.1 Administrative Planning Guide for Surveys
2.2.2 Site Evaluation Plan
2.2.3 Field Equipment Investigation
2.2.3.1 Equipment and Procedures
2.2.3.2 Sascope
2.2.3.3 Bar Hole Punch
2.2.4 Desirability of Lab Techniques/Testing
2.2.4.1 Significance of Analytical Lab Work
2.2.4.2 Quality Assurance
2.2.4.3 Trace Elements (Leachate)
2.2.5.1 Remote Sensing Techniques
- Seismic
- Map Permeability Zones
- Infrared Scanning
- Thermal Measurements
- PH & EH Measurements
- Self-Potential Resistivity Measurements
- CO2 4 Hgso
- Presence of Microbial Presence of Psuedomonas
- Methanica
3 What Do You Oo With It (controls)
2.3.1 Methane Movement
2.3.1.1 Cover Material
2.3.1.2 Surrounding Soil
2.3.1.3 Gas Pressure and Generation Rate
2.3.1.4 Ambient Air Temperatures
2.3.1.5 Precipitation
2.3.1.6 Barometric Pressure
2.3.1.7 Natural Conduits of Laterial Migration
2.3.1.8 Man Made Conduits of Laterial Migration
2.3.2 Gas Control Technology
2.3.2.1 Barriers
2.3.2.2 Passive Static Vents
2.3.2.3 Power Vents
-------
2.3.3
Buildings and Structures
2.3.4 Success
2.3.4.1 Effectiveness
2.3.4.2 Managability
2.3.5 Criteria for Selection
2.3.6 Impacts
2.3.6.1 Environmental
2.3.6.2 Compatibility
2.3.6.3 Construction
3.0 Public Impacts
3.1 Public Involvement
3.1.1 Notification
3.1.2 Public Meetings
3.2 Training/Information Oissemination Techniques
3.2.1 The Methane Audience
3.2.2 Information Types
3.2.3 The Ccrmnunication Media
3.2.3.1 Slide Presentation
3.2.3.2 Films
3.2.3.3 Video Tape
3.2.3.4 Press Releases (samples)
3.2.3.5 Training Exercises/Oemonstrations
3.2.4 Demonstrations/Training Exercises
3.2.5 Technology Transfer
3.3 Political and Social Controls
3.3.1 Landfill Gas Hazard Liability
3.3.2 Legal Liability - Who Is Responsible
3.3.3 Statutes and Regulations
3.3.4 State Health Regulations
3.3.5 Local Ordinances
3.3.6 Who Owns Gas
3.3.7 Oeed Restrictions
3.3.8 RCRA Legal
3.3.9 Fire Safety Codes
3.3.10 Building Cedes and Standards
3.3.11 Planning/Zoning
4.0 Recovery
4.1 Incentives
4.2 The Feasibility Study
-------
4.2.1 Gas Quantity
4.2.2 Gas Quality
4.2.3 Economic Feasibility
4.2.4 Gas Pricing and Regulatory Constraints
4.2.5 Extraction Testing Program
4.3 Legal Constraints
4.4 The Low BTU Process Choices
4.5 High BTU Process Choices
5.0 Planning Objectives and Guidance
5.1 Planning for the Future
5.2 Environmental Assessment
5.3 Legal Questions Summary
5.4 Responsibility in Government
5.5 Public Involvement
5.6 Plan for New Landfill Sites
5.7 Hazardous Waste Overlay
6.0 Oecision Process (Conclusions/Recommendations)
6.1 Alternatives
6.1.1 Where Do You Stand?
6.1.2 But First - How Oo You Find It?
6.1.2.1 Inventory
6.1.2.2 Consultant Services
6.1.2.3 Oata Acquisition
6.1.3 Cost of Services
6.2 Selecting a Consultant
6.2.1 Responsibilities of a Consultant
6.2.2 Project Manager Responsibility
6.3 End Uses
6.4 Financing Alternatives
6.5 Prevention and Control
List of References (Appendix)
Papers Presented at Workshop
Reference of Companies Working on Methane
IMTF
Source Documents (Publication Listing)
-------
Tables
1.1 Landfill Accident Histories
1.2 List of Methane Institutional and Technical Problems
2.1 Optional Conditons for Anaerobic Decomposition
2.2 Measured Gas Composition at Mountain View, California
2.3 Measured Gas Composition at 52nd and Dahlia, Commerce City, Colorado
2.4 Site Evaluation Outline
2.5 Field Instrumentation
2.6 Leachate Analysis
2.7 Control Alternatives
3.1 Methane Fact Sheet
3.2 Construction Safety
3.3 Gas Atmosphere Safety
3.4 L.A. County Latter
3.5a&b Richmond, VA Letter
3.5 L.A. Code
3.7 Sheridan, Colorado Code
3.8 Model Solid Waste
3.9 Health Department Regulation
-------
.1
.2
.3
.4
,5
.6
,7
,8
9
,10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I?
Explosive Range of Methane Gas
Flamability of Methane Gas
Landfill Gas Production vs. Time
Sanitary Landfill
Methane Pathways
Aerial Site Review Techniques
Meter Readings Methane, in Air
Relationship pf LEL to Combustible Gas Concentrations
8arometer/Gas'Chromot i graph/Gascope
Barrier System
Trench Barrier System
Power Extraction
Building Site Plan
Building Gas Control System
Conceptual Air Exchange for Ambient Control
Gas Alarm System
-------
p(
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TOr „„
MEIAANE MANAGEMENT
-------
1.0 Introduction of Methane Management
1.1 Why a Decision Makers Guide (Objectives)
1.2 The Problem Defined (Regional/National)
1.2.1 Lack of Control - The Symptoms
1.2.2 DOE Seminar held at John Hopkins Applied Physics Lab
1.3 The Potential Accidenjt
1.3.1 Safeguards and Response
1.3.1.1 The Initial Response
1.3.1.2 Who Responds
1.3.1.3 Emergency Ecjuioment
1.3.1.4 Comnunication/Notification
1.3.1.5 Protective Action Guides
1.4 The IMTF
1.4.1 IMTF Goals and Functions
1.4.2 IMTF Accomplishments
1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination
1.6 Assignment of Responsibllities
1.6.1 Role of State
1.6.2 Role of Local County Governments
1.6.3 Role of Cities
1.6.4 Role of County Health Departments
1.6.5 Role of Building and Planning Department
1.6.6 The Task Force Approach
1.7
1.8
Organization and Content of Guidebook
Comments and Updates
-------
p
Chapter I - Introduction
1.0 Why a Decision Maker's Guide?
Ouring the past decade there has been increasing concern about the
environmental and safety impacts of methane gas migrating from open dumps
and/or sanitary landfills. In response to these concerns, improved
methods have been developed to reduce or mitigate this undesirable
migration from the site boundaries as well as protecting those buildings
built on closed or abandoned sites. The Administrator's Guide is
intended to meet the need of a single document that provides current
information about these concerns and developments; particularly with
respect to new landfill sitings and current operation of sanitary
landfills. Abandoned sites are the ones that cause the most concern in
dealing with liability issues as well as being able to take corrective
actions to mitigate any undesirable migration. This text will focus on
factors that require adoption of methods, requlations, operating
procedures to prevent an undesirable safety hazard in and around sanitary
landfills and address those social economic impacts of having to put in a
control or recovery system.
1.1 Objectives
The objectives of the handbook Administrator's Guide is the same as those
presented in the Methane Symposium, "Methane from Landfills - Hazards and
Opportunities.. Those objectives are to reach those persons at the local and
state levels who have to deal with landfill issues in their communities.
Included are:
(1) Sharing of Intergovernmental Methane Task Force (IMTF) experiences
in dealing with methane related
problems 1n abandoned and new landfill sitings;
(2) Addressing both Institutional and technology related problems,
focusing on control and recovery/utilization of methane generated
gas;
(3) Affecting a technology transfer relative to the
recovery/utlllzation/control of landfill gas.
The text is therefore, structured to define the issues related to the
production of methane in landfills and those preliminary concerns that must be
resolved prior to entering into a possible recovery stage. The text will
address the technical economics, social, and environmental factors that
influence landfill siting and future land planning in the Denver metropolitan
area that can be applied in areas throughout the continental United States.
The Guide is not meant to be a regulatory document; however, the information
should be useful to local, state and federal administrators, legislators,
policy makers, planners, and other local decision makers Involved in the
review or approval for siting landfills or controlling the zoning after the
landfill sites are closed. This information should also be of interest to
citizens who -would be affected by any new land development or any proposed new
landfill siting.
/-/
-------
The guide identifies and highlights information that is considered by
industry during their site evaluation process. For example, the sites
specific aspects of a landfill are receiving increasing attention from
requlators and industry and is particularly affected by the raquiremens
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and some earlier
disposal practices from municipal solid waste are no longer acceptable.
To assure that the guide will be useful to local decision makers,
comments from a steering committee at the symposium were considered for
final publication.
1.2 The Problem Oefined (Regional or National)
Methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and other gases are produced by
the decomposition of organic wastes in a landfill. The use of trenches,
cells, and cover material in landfills tends to cause lateral migration
of these gases from the sites. A sanitary landfill provides vents such
as gravel trenches or pipes to enable the gases to escape into the air.
On the other hand, drainage tile, utility pipes, and other conduits from
buildings enhance the migration of these gases into nearby buildings.
When concentrated in enclosed buildings these gases may accumulate to
combustion, explosive or toxic (asphyxiation) levels. The migrating
gases also frequently poison or asphyxiate vegetation near the disposal
site.
1.2.1 Lack of Control - The Symptoms
The problem associated with landfill gas is not in its generation but in
its migration or movement. The migration of the gas past the perimeter of the
landfill jpsr has occurred in many parts of the U.S. and represents a potential
health and safety hazard in the form of a fire, explosion or asphyxiation.
This explosive nature of the gas has been documented in such cases as:
Winston-Salem, North Carolina (September 1969) - methane
migrated from a nearby dump to the basement of an armory where
it exploded when a cigarette was lit, killing three men and
seriously injuring five others;
Montreal, Canada (1968) - methane gas from a dump ripped apart a
swimming pool under construction near the EXPO 67 site; a
parking lot built on top of the dump had lamps designed to allow
the gas to escape into the air;
Oenver, Colorado (1977) - Two men were killed in a storm drain
that was under construction some 600 feet from an old landfill
that was designated for future development as a light industrial
park
(See Table 1.2 for list of some additional documented cases.)
These incidents point out that methane migration from closed,
abandoned, or existing landfills are, on a national scale, potentially
dangerous gas and leachate generators.
-------
The problem is not, however, limited to the potential fire and
explosions, but to the other byproducts:
(A) Odor due to organic acids in gaseous form;
(8) Vegetation destruction due to root kill;
(C) Leachates due to carbonic acids which decrease pH and increase
corrosivity;
(0) Differential settlement on or near perimeter of landfill;
(E) Asphyxiation due to atmospheric oxygen displacement by methane
(CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2)•"
/-J
-------
Table 1.2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF GAScS FROM SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
1. Winston-Salem, North Carolina (September 1969) - methane migrated from an
adjacent dump to the basement of an armory where it exploded when a
cigarette was lit, killing 3 men and seriously injuring 5 others.
2. Atlanta, Georgia (December 1967) - methane gas from decaying wastes in an
adjacent landfill concentrated in the sealed basement of a single story
recreation center building (90 ft. X 40 ft. with 50 ft. X 30 ft.
addition); a lighted cigarette caused the methane to explode killing 2
workmen, seriously injuring 2 others, causing minor injuries to 4 others,
and completely demolishing the building.
3. Montreal Canada (1568) - methane gas from a dump ripped apart a swimming
pool under construction near the EXPO 57 site; a parking lot built on top
of the dump had lamps designed to allow the gas to escape into the air.
4. Rockford Illinois (1966-67) - methane gas from the Peoples Avenue
Landfill migrated to tne basement of the Quaker Oats Company production
plant necessitating the development of vents to prevent methane to
accumulate (methane seeping into the basement would support a flame).
5. Southeast Oakland County, Michigan (1974-75) - methane from a landfill
operated by the Southeast Oakland County Incinerator Authority (SOCIA)
migrated to nearby hemes and accumulated to explosive levels,
necessitating the development of a gravel filled trench at the landfill
perimeter to enable the gas to vent.
6. Richmond, Virginia (1975) - An apartment next to a landfill exploded as a
result of methane accumulations (January 8, 1975). The door and two
windows in the living room were blown out, and a 'woman suffered first
degree burns of her hands, while her husband's hair was singed. A
subsequent chain of two elementary schools built on landffills showed
hazardous concentrations of methane gas and resulted in closure of these
schools, j About 1000 families living near the landfills were also
threatened, but only one was found to have methane concentrations. All
home, however, were advised to keep their windows and closet doors open
year-round.
7. Louisville, Kentucky (1975) - explosive concentrations of methane in
homes near a landfill resulted in the evacuation of 8 families unitl
appropriate venting could be developed.
8. Baltimore-County, Maryland - small flash fires at a transfer station
construction site resulted from gases from a nearby landfill.
9. Hopkins, Minnesota - explosive concentrations of methane gas from the
Hopkins Landfill accumulated in and threatened nearby condominiums and
apartments.
¦Z- +
-------
71
10. Anne Arrundel County, Maryland (1975 or 76) - gases from the old Schtnuck
(?) Dump injured 5 persons, resulting in 4 days hospitalization for two
of them.
11. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - section of the city built on old landfill
caused venting problems for homes.
12. Palos Verdes Landfill (L.A. Sanitation Districts) California - major
expenditures to prevent migration of gases to adjacent homes.
13. Sheldon-Arietta Landfill (City of L.A.) California - major expenditures
to prevent migration of gases to adjacent homes.
14. Shelbyville, Indiana (1976) - Incinerator built on landfill is getting
explosive concentrations or methane.
15. Sheridan, Colorado (1975) - An explosion occurred in a drainage pipe
under construction. The explosion was caused by methane gas from a
landfill, ignited by a welding torch. One workman was burned and another
injured by flying debris.
16. Sheridan, Colorado (1975) - An explosion occurred in a storm drain pipe
that ran through a landfill. The explosion occurred when several
children in the storm sewer lit a candle. The resultant explosion burned
four of the boys seriously resulting in extensive hospitalization.
17. Commerce City, Colorado (1977) - an explosion occurred In a tunnel being
drilled under a railroad right-of-way. The explosion was caused when a
worker lit a cigarette which touched off the explosion, j Both of the
workmen were killed and four firement were injured.
ASPHYXIATIONS
1. Springfield. Missouri (1973) - a man, working in a shed on a landfill,
died as a result of asphyxiation by carbon monoxide produced by
decomposing wasdtes; several other employees became ill.
2. Vancouver, British Columbia - two men working in a manhole died from
asphyxiation from gases from a landfill.
-------
What complicates the issue is that methane and its associated
components are not predictable and are site specific due to
geological conditions, landfill operation and other environmental
variables. In addition to its unp-edictab Uity in production, the
gases' migration and movement can change without warning to create
a hazardous situation following Murphy's Law.
1.2.2 DOE Seminar at John Hopkins Applied Physics Lab
A methane workshop held at John Hopkins Applied Physics Lab
produced the following list of methane associated problems:
(1) A problem exists with respect to the transfer of the
technology. Relatively few people are aware of its
possibilities. It is recommended that the federal government
fund the production of a short (10-15 minute) methane recovery
education film. (00E will complete in early 1979)
(2) Local governmental units have a problem deciding whether or
not the technology is appropriate for them. It is recommended
that the federal government produce a "decision-makers guide"
which provides background information and guidelines to assist
local governmental units in their decision making process.
Included should be a summary of each landfill methane
utilization project currently operating or planned. (This text)
(3) Uncertainty exists with respect to how to optimize methane
production from landfills. It is recommended that one or mora
demonstration projects be funded, hopefully on a
federal-state-local cooperative basis, to investigate
optimization techniques; (See Appendix A)
(4) Little correlation exists between the laboratory studies which
have been completed and the numerous field tests which have
been carried out nation-wide. A unifying theory 1s needed to
tie these two areas together. It is recommended that a
federal program be implemented to correlate laboratory study
results with observed gas generation data; (EPA Cincinnati
funding modeling research to tie the two together, 1979)
(5) A problem exists with respect to the design of landfill gas
gathering systems. Many designs currently exist, employing
different materials and techniques. It is recommended that a
series of case histories be written for individual projects.
It is further reco»miended that these case histories be used as
one input for the eventual formulation of design guidelines
and standards; (Being developed in Headquarters EPA/OSW for
publication in late 1979)
-------
(6) A problem exists with respect to overall landfill design and
siting. Landfills will be required, in some parts of the
United States, for many more years; they must-be made better.
It is recommended that efforts be undertaken to improve the
design and operation of landfills. Recommended approaches
include the preparation of a dec is ion-makers guide,
implementation of improved civil engineering standards and
uniform building codes, and the standardization of conditional
use permits which recognize the viability of landfill methane
recovery; (Addressed partially in this text and EPA Cincinnati
Lab modeling work)
(7) Regulatory restrictions in such areas as health standards, and
landfill site utilization do not currently recognize the
viability of landfill methane utilization. It is recommended
that a systematic identification and evaluation of the
relevent restictions be carried out at the local, state, and
federal levels; (This Text)
(8) The financing mechanisms for landfill methane utilization
projects are currently highly uncertain. This stems largely
from the fact that the economics of the technology are not
well defined. It is recommended that studies to better define
the economics of both low-BTU and high-BTU gas utilization be
undertaken. One goal of these studies should be to identify
appropriate incentives which can be initiated to accelerate
the utilization of the technology; (DOE Workbook)
(9) The transfer of information among people currently working
with the technology is inadequate. It is recommended that
some sort of relatively informal publication, such as a
newsletter published quarterly, be started. It Is also
recommended that the formalization of a technical group,
perhaps affiliated with an existing professional society, be
examined; (Possible for such an. organization as the American
Public Works Association, the National League of Cities or the
Government Refuse Collection and Disposal Association)
(10) Many unresolved issues currently surround gas ownership and
legal liabilities at landfill methane projects. It is
recommended that these issues be more clearly defined, and
that methods for resolving them be determined. (Partially
addressed in this text)
In addition to the preceedlng specific problem areas, the, workshop
produced a list, Table 1.2 of methane problems divided Into
institutional and technical problems.
1-7
-------
TABLE 1.2
Technical and Institutional Factors Related
to the Utilization of Landfill Methane
TECHNICAL FACTORS
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
Need for special drilling equipment
~Modelling of generation process
High 3TU gas processing technology
~Gas processing technology
~Modelling of recovery rate
~Field vs. theoretical data
industry
Well design
geographical
~Gathering system
~Landfill design (optimize CH4)
agencies
Gas enhancement
Control technology
Other withdrawal technology
Operational costs and procedure
ownership
Cost estimating
~Marketing
Comparison with other resource
recovery techniques
Health aspects
~Environmental aspects
~Testing criteria
~Selection
Dynamics of withdrawal
Waterwell technology
Net energy balance
Risk analysis
Marketing products (COj)
Hazard aspect
Ultimate use of landfill
How long will gas last?
Product liability (warranties)
Co-generation (with sludge)
Agricultural waste
~Financing
~Who owns gas?
~Regulating restrictions
~Educating public
~Public relations
~Technology transfer,
to industry and
Define agencies' roles
Ourisdication of federal
Pricing
Role of utilities
~Contracting
Recovery system and
Resistance to use
~Economics
Legal precedents
~Marketing
~Incentives
Politics
Institutional dis-incantIves
Siting problem
Social impact
Agency fragmentation -
coordination
Environmental impacts
Minor nature of this - where
this fits in overall energy
picture
Institutional risk
Training needs
Interplay with RCRA
Building codes and zoning
restrictions
Use of landfill
Labor
~Liab ility
Revenue prediction
Getting financial support
Finding good consulting firm
Note: Asterisks denote higher priority items.
/-a
-------
The Potential Accident
1.3.1 Safeguards and Response
The facts are quite clear that the methane is generated from all
landfills at some level. The question then is, is it in my
backyard? The sites listed in the preceeding Table 1.2
demonstrates the need for proper action to be taken in the event
of such a disaster. Although seemingly out of context with the
guide, this subject is addressed in Chapter I to coincide with its
criticality.
1.3.1.1 The Initial Response.
The initial response depends largely on who first
discovers the methane problem. Generally the problem is
first discovered by the building owner, who detects a
strange odor. Although the odor detected is not methane
gas, it is landfill generatd companion gases. The common
complaint received from building owners is that they smell
sewer gas.
The first reaction of the building owner is to notify
their public utility company to investigate for a natyral
gas leak. After Investigation by the utility company, it
is soon discovered that the odor is not pipeline natural
gas. Generally this is where the line of communication
breaks down. The proper emergency response people, i.e.,
fire department or building department, are seldom
notified of the problem.
1.3.1.2 Who responds.
Ideally who responds should depend on what agency within
local government is best equipped and trained to deal with
the problem. Normally the fire department, fire
prevention. bur*feau and/or the building department personnel
are best qualified to deal wilih hazardous conditions
within a structure.
1.3.1.3 Emergency Equipment.
Out of necessity, the responding agency must be equipped
with the basic amount of proper emergency equipment. That
equipment should Include:
1. Flammable Gas Oetector;
2. Low Oxygen Oetector;
3. Self-contained Breathing Apparatus;
4. Ventilation equipment;
5. Individual personal safety alarm.
-------
Flanmable gas detection equipment is basic and self
explanatory (See Chapter 2 for further discussion),
however, one must keep in mind that landfill generated gas
also travels with 40% to 50% carbon dioxide gas. The
volume of both gases together will displace oxygen in
sub-surface or confined areas to a very dangerous low
level. Therefore, a low oxygen level detector is
mandatory in any landfill generated gas investigation. In
fact, a Tri-tector is strongly recommended for personal
safety! A Tri-teeter is designed to detect flammable gas,
low oxygen and hydrogen sulfide, all at once and all are
landfill generated gases.
Self-contained breathing apparatus is necessary for any
sub-surface investigation in order to provide basic
personal safety. Oxygen deficient atmospheres have been
found in crawl spaces of buildings and in valve and meter
vaults.
Ventilation equipment is used to evacuate these
sub-surface and confined space once flammable gas
atmospheres are found. This equipment should be in the
form of explosion proof ventilation fans. Thesa types of
fans are normally part of any fire department inventory
and are classed as Class I, Oivision II, Group 0 explosion
proof.
1.3.1.4 Communication/Notification.
Once a methane gas problem has been identified, it becomes
necessary to notify the appropriate people. That
notification should be proper and legal in form. The
burden of notification rests with that governmental unit
having jurisdiction. A multiple jurisdictional situation
can and sometimes does exist. If that be the case a
coordinated notification plan should be established.
Governmental units having jurisdiction in a methane gas
problem can be in the following forms:
1. Municipal or county fire department;
2. Municipal or county building department;
3. Municipal or county health department;
4. State health department;
5. State fire marshal;
6. Federal or state occupational, safety, and health
administration.
The people to be notified should include the owners,
operators or le.asees of the landfill generating the
problem. (See Chapter 3 for examples)
,-tO
-------
1.3.1.5 Protective Action Guide.
Protective action for the safety of the occupants of any
structure subjected to lateral migration of landfill
generated methane gas should begin immediately. Each
structure must be dealt with on an individual basis, as no
two structures are constructed alike. Because of the
unpredictable characteristics of landfill generated
methane gas a complete survey of each building must be
done. Conditions that should be taken into consideration
are as follows:
1. Geological and soil conditions;
2. Footing and foundation design;
3. Building ventilation requirements;
4. Meterological conditions;
5. 8uilding occupant requirements.
After the above conditions have been identified, the
methane gas problem can be dealt with using sound
engineering consideration. Such methods of control
utilizing physical barriers, or sub-surface ventilation or
monitoring, detection, ventilation and alarm systems, have
recently proven successful in methane gas control.
Ideally, new construction is the most economically dealt
with. However, existing structures are the most common
problems found.
The most common system used in the protection of existing
buildings is a monitoring and detection, tied to a
ventilation and alarm system. Although this type of a
system is not 100* building protection, it is primarily
used for occupant safety. By setting alarm levels at 10%
Lower Explosive Limit (L.E.L.) for ventilation actuation
and 20% L.E.L. for alarm, you have insured occupant
evacuation prior to reaching dangerous explosive levels.
Only after the methane gas level has been reduced below
10X L.E.L., is it safe for the occupants to return to the
structure.
The Intergovernmental Methane Task Force, Oenver, Colorado
The Intergovernmental Task Force (IMTF) is an ad hoc committee comprised
of representatives from 20 Colorado agencies and five federal agencies
interested in landfill associated methane, its control and recovery. The
group was formed shortly after two workmen were killed in June 16, 1977,
by an explosion of landfill-generated methane inside a large water
conduit in Commerce City, Colorado. The agencies involved in the ensuing
investigation quickly discovered that little was known about the nature
of this hazard and, more importantly, where other potential methane
hazards might be located within the State.
As a result, a workshop, sponsored by the Tri-County Oistrict Health
Department, Adams County and the National Association of Counties,
(through an EPA grant), was conducted September 28, and 29, 1977.
Persons from fire, safety, planning, health, and other interested
agencies met to discuss the situation. Five experts
/-//
-------
from other parts of the United States were invited to the workshop to
help identify the most pertinent issues surrounding the methane prooiem
and to provide guidance in the development of solutions to the problem as
it exists in Colorado.
Tne primary function of the IMTF, which evolved from the September
workshop, has been to address the methane migration problems in the
immediate metropolitan Oenver area.
In addressing the problem the Task Force sought to:
(1) Joint agency efforts to survey all past and present landfill sites
within the State"of Colorado for the presence of methane and
provide notification of all affected parties as to the presence of
the gas and institution of control measures to protect life and
property;
(2) The scope of this ad hoc committee has become increasingly larger as
it progresses into the depths of the problem. It is with the larger
problem of methane migration nationwide that the IMTF has become
more involved in due to the numerous requests for assistance from
other cities;
(3) The goal then of the IMTF is to provide an information exchange;
focused on the hazard and the control of gas migration and the
development of new techniques to achieve economic identification and
control. An example of this cooperative effort is meetings y#ith
officials from the City of Winnepeg, Manitoba, Canada, and
Louisville, Kentucky, to discuss methods of control and liabilities
arising from the migration of the methane gas;
(4) Bringing together diverse groups of Interdisciplinary talent to
focus in on the problem; and finally, and perhaps the most important;
(5) Obtaining the cooperation of methane impacted property owners in
installing control devices without going through lengthy court
actions.
1.4.1 IMTF Goals and Functions
The IMTF primarily through the EPA Region VIII Technical
Assistance Panel Program has also been instrumental in soliciting
federal and state monies for methane landfill assessments, and
control recovery projects. To date, over $448,000 has been
granted to various Colorado agencies for use in methane surveys
and projects. In addition, the IMTF members have been involved in
developing model methane legislation for local and state
governments. This includes building and zoning codes, as well as,
landfill design and operation criteria.
/-/2
-------
The IMTF succeeded in its goals by dividing into subcommittees
to address the major specific issues of the gas problem. A
listing of these committee members are provided in the Appendix
C, for your future reference. The major committees are:
1. Legislation (National, State, Local);
2. Research and Technical Aspects;
3. Fire Safety;
4. Building Codes and Standards;
5. Planning and Zoning;
6. Funding;
7. Public Relations;
8. Presentations;
9. Analytical and Monitoring Techniques.
Through these subcommittees the IMTF accomplished the following
in one year of effort. Note that the task force meets once a
month at various local, state, and federal conference rooms:
1.4.2 IMTF Accomplishments
Chapters 2 and 3 will provide the necessary detail on each of the
items listed below.
(A) ISSUE: Construction safety in and around landfills.
OUTPUT: Developed a checklist of safety precautions and
worksheet for distribution to local construction companies.
(B) ISSUE: Question of safety in buildings affected by gas
migrations.
OUTPUT: Oeveloped an instruction sheet for use by building
occupants, on detection and alarm equipment and safety
precautions to be observed 1n methane affected structures.
(C) ISSUES: Lack of knowledge on methane migration.
OUTPUT: A 45-minute slide presentation on the hazard and
control of landfill gas was developed and has been presented
to various public and private groups (40 occasions).
(0) ISSUE: Lack of State Legislation on landfill gas.
OUTPUT: Developed a comprehensive revision to the Colorado
State Solid Waste Act to provide several necessary actions:
(1) Define who is responsible;
(2) Put control 1n State Health Department vs. County;
(3) Restriction placed on deed to land.
I'll
-------
{£) ISSUE: Question of Government responsibility for control of
gas migration.
OUTPUT: To take agressive positive action, use the Fire
Marshals authority to abate hazards to protect building and
occupants. This action is mora immediate than that of the
Colorado State Health Department.
(F) ISSUE: Lack of funding at state level.
OUTPUT: With inputs from the IMTF, members of the Colorado
State Health Department prepared a budget to perform a survey
for identifying landfills that have a methane gas problem.
The health department almost lost this appropriation twice
had it not been for the testimony of IMTF members before the
HEW Budget Committees. As a result, S200.000 was set aside
to investigate the problem.
(G) ISSUE: No funds available for remedial action at local sites.
OUTPUT: The IMTF prepared a work scope for corrective
actions at fccfo sites using innovative technology which was
also low in cost. The Colorado State Health Department then
forwarded a grant application to OSW through Region VIII.
The funds, $50,000 has been committed to but not allocated.
Additionally some private industries have incorporated alarm
systems following notification which they should be applauded
for their morale responsiveness.
(H) ISSUE: Building codes do not address landfill problems or
precautions.
OUTPUT: Presentation was made to the International Council
of Building Official (IC80). As a result, the building code
will be amended for the 1980 edition to address landfill
associated problems when building on or near such a
development.

-------
1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination
We have observed that the production and movement of landfill gas is
recognized as an environmental problem but not understood. That the
control and recovery systems are both straight forward yet costly and not
without problems. The solution to the associated methane gas problem is
as complex as the problem itself and will requie all the cooperation any
coirmunity can master in bringing about an equitable resolution.
Intergovernmental coordination is a very important aspect of methane gas
management. No one single problem involves so much interplay between the
different^functions and levels of government. 8ecause of the magnitude
of the problem, duplication of effort must be avoided.
Coordination should be done at the local level. The local official,
whether municipal or county, has the prime responsibility for
preservation of health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of that
jurisdiction. He therefore has the primary duty to deal with the methane
gas problem. However, out of necessity his actions will involve federal,
state, and local units of government. By strict coordination of all of
these units of government, conflicting statements and requirements
concerning management of a methane gas problem will be avoided.
A committee such as the Intergovernmental Methane Task Force is a
representative example of what community cooperation is all about.
1.6 Assignment of Responsibilities
These problems of landfill gas migration frequently transcend
governmental boundaries, which suggest that an Intergovernmental approach
be used. Care must be exercised 1n this unification to pull together
this fragmentation of authority and responsibility which becomes of such
a critical importance, in that this awareness of Ingenuity doesn't
flounder 1n the sea of special district authorities, utilities, and joint
power agreements. Thus, the overall unification should be an
organization that is capable of responding to the migration problem.
It becomes very evident early in the process that there are voids in
state regulations and local ordinances In directing attention to
methane. Some of the voids that were addressed in the Denver, Colorado
area by agencies are outlined in the following presentation.
Following is an outline of the responsiblities necessary to adequately
address the methane gas migration problem and its associated symptoms.
1.6.1 State
1. Review of landfill plans based on a solid waste act.
2. Has power to disapprove a landfill if it doesn't meet
* criteria.
3. Enforces stats solid waste act.
4. State Health Department has no criteria for methane control at
landfills.
/-/>
-------
5. The state should provde better guidance for county officials
regarding the operation and maintenance of landfills,
(regulations, guidance, standards, etc.)
1.6.2 County
1. County commissi oners have primary responsibility to approve
sites in their own county.
2. Has authority to take action against non-compliance sites.
3. Presently most landfill areas are either MC or industrially
zoned.
a. Need to zone areas appropriately with hazards involved
4. The County Commissioners should be more informed relative to
landfill/methane gas problems.
1.6.3 City
1. City council has authority over landfills 1n city only.
2. Under a dual enforcement system county/city and the State
Health Department should determine enforcement procedures.
1.6.4 County Health Department
1. Acts in surveillance only for county, city and state
2. Enforcement procedures are usually slow at the county level.
3. How do we notify contractors of methane hazards if they intend
to dig in a landfill area?
4. How do we deal with the hazrds associated with methane from
existing landfills?
5. Continuation of TCOHO (Tri-County Health) methane
investigation to determine sitas affected by methane, areal
extent of movement from fills, etc. in order to carry out the
investigation, the following are needs:
1.6.5 Building and Planning Departments
8u1lding and planning departments take into consideration the
hazards of methane from landfills in any land use or building
decision.
1. To accomplish this'goal TCOHO and appropriate fire officials to
inventory on buildings around landfills for the city and
provide guidance to monitor and/or control the gas.
2. 8uilding codes do not have requirements for structures on or
near landfills (no allowance for methane).
f-/6
-------
1.6.6 Task Force Approach
A task force be formed to deal with the problem and to evaluate
the available data.
1. Evaluate and establish criteria identifying hazard conditions
in and around landfills.
2. Investigate and identify enforcement responsibilities and
authorities.
1.6.7 Federal (EPA)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 which is developing
inventory criteria for sanitary landfills from an environmental
standpoint.
1.7 Organization and Content
The material is organized as follows:
Chapter 2. Technical Explanation of Methane Generation
This chapter discusses what takes place in a landfill through aerobic and
anaerobic decomposition. It also discusses the migration and movement of
landfill gas due to geological and soil conditions. Included in the
discussion are the state-of-the art in dealing with both laboratory vs.
field equipment in examing the actual vs. the theoretical data that can
be accumulated. In addition, the impacts on air, water, and land use
will be briefly discussed. Mr. Russ Herman, Raymond Vail Associates, Or.
Oavid Updegraff, Colorado School of Mines, Clarence Lott, Chemist,
Colorado State Health Department provided input to this portion of the
text.
A look into Investigative techniques deals with the methodology in
determing in the field the types of equipment used to determine whether
gas 1s present within the boundaries and without the boundaries of a
landfill. It deals with simple techniques for evaluating the basic
problem and will go into more detail making detailed analysis of the
gases. In addition, remote sensing techniques will be discussed and what
their limitations presently are and what the projected outlook entails.
This chapter will also deal with the laboratory equipment - why the use
of laboratory equipment is necessary, how to identify landfill gas from
natural gas, and will discuss the trace elements that will be present in
landfill gas which may be an Inhibitor to a successful recovery process.
Chapter 2 Physical Control -
Additionally, observations of landfill gas hazards and liabilities will
be discussed 1n the context of how we control that hazard by use of
passover active systems and how these systems are to be. designed and what
are the characteristics of these systems. A detailed look at movement of
the gas will be analyzed as to natural conduits of migration and as to
manmade conduits of lateral migration.

-------
Chapter 3 Methane Management - Training Information Dissemination
The outputs of the Intergovernmental Methane Task Force. These outputs
will show how the Task Force, which is an Ad hoc commvttae, attempted to
affect the technology transfer in allowing or disseminating gas
information to other local decision makers through the use of slide
presentations and training exercises and demonstrations. Principle input
was received from Bruce Wilson, Tri-County Health Department, Jeanne
Vanoy, Denver Research Tnstitute, Don Kennerson, Raymond Vail and
Associates, and Terry Marone, Legal Clerk.
Public involvement on an old site discusses the issues of public
relations, notification, presentations, and information dissemination
that may be utilized to identify abandoned or closed sites as being
health or environmental problems.
Political and social discusses the issues of landfill gas liability as it
applies to the fire safety codes, building codes, planning and zoning.
This chapter will also investigate state statutes, local regulations, and
local ordinances as they apply to the issues of gas generation from
iandfil 1.
Chapter 4 Methane Management Recovery
In this chapter we will discuss the markets, the feasibility studies, the
incentives, the generation products, and the impacts and barriers to
recovering landfill gas as opposed to natural gas. Oiscussion of the
political barriers, sales agreements, the product warranties and
liabilities of the by-products in recovering landfill gas. Principle
Input was from a report supplied by Mr. John Pacey, EMCON Associates, to
the IMTF\.
Chapter 5 Methane Management Planning Objectives and Guidance
The New Site
The overall emphasis of this chapter will be planning for the future the
final end use, and deal with the environmental and legal assessment in
establishing new landfill sites. A discussion
/-/r
-------
of federal envrionmental impacts as to federal regulatory
requirements apply to, such as air, water, solid waste, as well
as, OSHA and HUO developments. Discussion of the potential impact
and control requirements that may be imposed on a new landfill
site. Input supplied by Jim Considine and Oanamarie Schmitt,
Adams County Planners, and Charles Brinkman, EPA Region VIII.
Chapter 6 The Oecision Products Conclusions.
Finished context of this chapter will take a look at the
alternatives of the previous chapters, taking a look at the risks
involved, and the institutional evaluations. An attempt to
provide a decision flow chart for decision makers to utilize in
determining which course of action they should attempt to take in
dealing with their local landfill gas problem.
Appendix. List of References
The Appendix will include all papers presented at the gas
symposium in March, as well as, the consultants working on
methane, consultants, the Intergovernmental Methane Task Force
experiences in Colorado sites, and source documents of the
publications referenced in this Handbook.
1.8 Comments and Updating
The information in this handbook was compiled from many sources.
It has been carefully reviewed by representatives of government,
industry and public interest groups, to eliminate to the greatest
possible extent errors or inconsistencies, and to update
information obtained from the literature when appropriate.
Readers are invited to submit comments to National League of
Cities, 1620 I St., Washington, O.C., or U.S. EPA Region VIII,
1860 Lincoln Street, Oenver, Colorado 80295,, Attn: Mr. Gary P.
Morgan. In the future, significant progress is expected to
improve waste disposal practices in the impact and mitigation
techniques for sitirfg disposal sites. Additionally, the
techniques for evaluating and determining the migration patterns
of methane gas are inspected to improve. This quide is 1n loose
leaf form so that Its usefulness may be extended by future
revisions to reflect the results of such progress.
t-tf
-------
CHAPTER 2
TECHNICAL EXPLANATION
Of METHANE GENERATION
-------
2.0 Technical Explanation of Methane Generation
2.1 What Is It
2.1.1 Why is Methane Dangerous
2.1.2 What Takes Place in a Landfill (the Droblem)
2.1.2.1 Aerobic - Anaerobic OeccmDosition
2.1.2.2 Composition
2.1.2.3 Movement - Laterial Migration
2.1.3 Environmental Impact
2.1.3.1 Leachate Formation and Miqration
2.1.3.2 Gas From Lsachate
2.1.3.3 Water
2.1.3.4 Land Use
2.2 How do We Find It (Investigative Techniques)
2.2.1 Administrative Planning Guide for Surveys
2.2.2 Site Evaluation Plan
2.2.3 Field Equipment Investigation
2.2.3.1 Equipment and Procedures
2.2.3.2 Gascope
2.2.3.3 Bar Hole Punch
2.2.4 Oeslrability of Lab Techniques/Testinq
2.2.4.1 S1qn1f1cance of Analytical Lab Work
2.2.4.2 Ouallty Assurance
2.2.4.3 Trace jpements (Leachate)
2.2.S.1 Remote Sensing Techniques
- Seismic
- Map Permeability Zones
- Infrared Scanning
- Thermal Measurements
- PH & EH Measurements
- Self-Potential Resistivity Measurements
• as h2S
- Presence of Microbial Presence of Psuedomonas
- Methanlca
2.3 What Oo You Oo With'It (controls)
-------
2.3.1
Methane Movement
2.3.1.1 Cover Material,.
2.3.1.2 Surrounding Soil
2.3.1.3 Gas Pressure arid Generation Rate
2.3.1.4 Anfaient A1r Teaioeratures
2.3.1.5 Precipitation
2.3.1.6 8arometr1c Pressure
2.3.1.7 Natural Conduits of Laterlal Migration
2.3.1.8 Man Made Conduits of Latsrlal Mlqration
2.3.2 Gas Control Technology
2.3.2.1 Barriers
2.3.2.2 Passive Static Vents
2.3.2.3 Power Vents
2.3.3 Buildings and Structures
2.3.4 Success
2.3.4.1 Effectiveness
2.3.4.2 Managab1l1ty
2.3.5 Criteria for Selection
2.3.6 Impacts
2.3.6.1 Environmental
2.3.6.2 Compatibility
2.3.6.3 Construction
-------
2.0 The Methane
Fermentation: UpcJegraff
Technical explanation of methane generation
2.1 What is it?
2.1.1 Why is Methane Oanqerous?
Methane is highly explosive 1n concentrations between 5 and 15 percent by
volume in air. However, this is only a general range and varies with
site specific conditions. Some of the more important parameters include
the amount of oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (COg) in the surrounding
atmosphere. In laboratory tests conducted by the U.S. 8ureau of Mines,
the methane explosive range varied appreciably within the accepted range
of 5 to 15 percent as illustrated in Figure 2.
The atmosphere is primarily composed of a mixture of nitrogen (78%),
oxygen (21%), and very small (IX) amounts of other gases. From
laboratory test results,2 it has been shown that an explosive boundary
or envelope can be experimentally established. Figure 3 illustrates the
relation between quantitative composition and flammability of mixtures of
methane, air, and nitrogen. It shows, for example, that the mixture
Percent
Methane 12
Oxygen 2
Nitrogen 86
cannot form an explosive mixture with air, whatever the proportions used,
whereas, the mixture,
Percent
Methane 9
Oxygen 12
Nitrogen 79
although not itself explosive, may form a series of explosive mixtures
with air. This envelope of exploslvity is very small as shown on the
graph.
Tn addition to the impacts of the surrounding atmosphere's composition,
the possible influence of pressure, temperature and large amounts of
water vapor on the explosive limits of methane in air cause the
predictability of hazards difficult In this dynamic state of affairs.^
The question of why more methane explosions are not evident at landfills,
in summary, remains at this time.
2.1.2 What takes place in a landfill?
-------
Lcac>.»:o .-noniioring well
Fig, l.i Typical Sanitary Fill
-------
METHANE
NOT \ LOWED UPPER NOT
EXPLOSIVE\ EXPLOSIVE EXPLOSIVE EXPLOSIVE
\ LIMIT LIMIT
BUREAU OF MINES STANDARD
OXYGEN
DEAD DYING UNCONSJOUS NI 0 S H STANDARD 19.5 £

-------
fifvtc 2.2 4
Oi IN OiUCrNAL ATMOSPHERE, PERCEKV
30 I* )t 11 u 11
rrri p-iT'! 'pn r»-g¦n rr
/e-tCrCjCJE'CS 2* Z
LIMITS of individual gases and vapors
s
u
5
6. \
vi
X
<
13-
I« .....

13 \

•*
k

)i ¦v// ,

K
/j
>s
k.

c /
Y/
/
s
• /'

Z'
mfu
*
,/wrrs
sic
X

V -
.~
/

y
V

y
/
/
f
s
/
y
y
s
v ¦

CAHbOhi bioxiot IN ATMOSPHCKC. J*£ftCSKT
METHANE, PERCENT
Relation 6«tw««n Quantitative Composition pocfrfon and FtammobiJ/fy of Mixtures of JUorhant, Afr, an
Nitropon
-------
2.1.2.1 Aerobic and anaerobic decomposition.
Whenever natural organic matter is buried it is transformed by the
action of microorganisms into a variety of simpler organic
materials. Organics that decompose to methane include solid
waste, refuse, sawdust, wood, and agricultural residues, in either
landfills or natural sources such as peat bogs, tar pits, coal or
oil deposits. The final stage in the anaerobic degradation of
organic materials is methanogenesis, and the products of this
reaction are methane and carbon dioxide. This was well known long
before the development of the sanitary landfill as a means of
disposing of solid wastes. Methane is produced in organic rich
sediments beneath the sea as well as in freshwater marshes, ponds
and lakes. The ghostly will-o-the-w1sp, known to our prehistoric
ancestors, was due to the burning of marsh gas bubbling up from
swamp sediments. The bacteria causing methane production, a group
called the methanogens are perhaps the most strictly anaerobic
bacteria know. Thus, no methane can be produced except in
strictly anaerobic environments, meaning a complete absence of
oxygen.
Since municipal solid waste, even when compacted into a landfill,
1s extremely porous, a freshly filled, compacted and covered
landfill contains a large amount of air which is 21% oxygen. No
methane production can take place until this oxygen is removed.
The removal is carried out by aerobic and facultative microbes.
Since municipal solid waste contains garbage, which 1s rich in all
kinds of microorganisms as well as water and all of the nutrients
required for their growth, microbial growth will begin at once.
Approximately half of the total dry weight of municipal solid
waste 1s paper, which is nearly pure cellulose. Cellulose is an
excellent nutrient for several species of fungi and bactrla.
Cellulose 1s a polymer of glucose, and the decomposition of the
insoluble, fibrous cellulose leads to the production of the water
soluble sugar, glucose. Glucose is an excellent nutrient and
energy souce for a much wider assemblage of microorganisms that
cellulose, and it is readily degraded under either aerobic or
anaerobic conditions. Under aerobic conditions it may be
completely oxidized to carbon dioxide and water, according to the
equation:
^6^12^6 + 602 *++ 6CO2 6H2O
glucose oxygen carbon water
dioxide
This type of reaction explains what happens to the oxygen in a
landfill. Assuming that the waste Is well compacted and well
covered with an impermeable clay soil, and that the bottom and
sides of the landfill are also of relatively Impermeable clay
sediment there will be little migration of either gases or liquids
into or out of the landfill.
-------
The composition of landfill gas undergoes an evolutionary process
as the waste experiences, first aerobic decomposition
(characterized by the presence of free oxygen), and then anaerobic
decomposition (lack of oxygen) environments. This evolution
develops in four phases as discussed below.
Aerobic
This phase, may take from a few months to a year. Eventually the
landfill becomes completely anaerobic, and contains not only a great
deal of cellulose, since only a small portion of the cellulose will
have been decomposed by aerobic organisms, but will also contain an
enormous variety of breakdown products of cellulose glucose and other
organic materials.
The phase of anaerobic digestion, carried out by many kinds of
bacteria working together now begins. The process may be divided
into three phases.
Anaerobic Non-Methanoqenic
The digestion of high molecular weight insoluble materials and their
conversion into simpler water-soluble materials. For example,
cellulose is converted into glucose, proteins are converted into
amino acids, and fats into glycerol and fatty acids. In this stage,
significant amounts of carbon dioxide and some nitrogen and hydrogen
are produced.
Anaerobic Methanogenic - Unsteady
During this stage gas production and composition approach
steady-state conditions. Ouring this steady-state condition, the
percentage of methane gas may range from 50 to 60 percent; carbon
dioxide, from 40 to 50 percent-with^traces of other gases. Figure
2.3 depicts landfill gas production vs. time. The methanogens
convert these materials into carbon dioxide and methane, as
Illustrated 1n the following equations:
CH3COOH C02 + CH4
acetic carbon methane (1)
acid dioxide
C02 + 4H2 -+* CH4 + 2H2O (2)
carbon hydrogen methane water
dioxide
How propionate and acetate get converted into methane and carbon
dioxide remains largely unknown, but the may be converted first to
carbon dioxide and hydrogen, since all methanogens are able to carry
out the formation of methane from carbon dioxide and hydrogen.
-------
100
90
80
70
o
— v
¦ c
— a
-
O JO
•«*
o
60
SO
HO
30
20
10
I j II
m |
IV

(

1
1

1
/
i

1
\j
>c
W-

/
/
\
s
y

i /
\ /
\/
•
•
•
•
•
•S,. /
\

A
' •
•
¦* .
' •
r——
•
1
1
1
1
«
5*
TIME AFTER PLACEMENT
(after Farquhar)
I. Aerobic
II. Anaerobic, Hon-Methanogenic
III. Anaerobic, Methanogenic, Unsteady
IY. Anaerobic, Methanogenic, Steady
pT/Qu/ftT 2.3*
/O
£m
-------
TIME INTERVAL
VOLUME %
MONTHS
N, CO, CH.
0-3
52 88 5
3-6
38 76 21
6-12
0.4 65 29
12-18
1.1 52 40
18-24
.4 53 47
24-30
2 52 48
30-36
13 46 51
/~tf* + & ^
-------
The methanogens are very sensitive to temperature, and prefer a warm
environment. Some have an optimum growth temperature of 35 to
45°C, while others, the thermophiles grow best at 60 to 70OC.
Thus, the landfill environment is ideal, because the aerobic
decomposition phase preceding the anaerobic digestion phase produces
a great deal of heat. This is due to the oxidation of organic
materials by the aerobic organisms, and may cause the temperature to
350C or more. Table 2.1 shows optimal conditions for decomposition.
-------
TABLE 2.1
OPTIMAL CONDITIONS FOR ANER08IC DECOMPOSITION
Anaerobic Conditions No Oxygen (Air)
Temperature 85 - 100° F (29 - 370 c)
pH 6.8 - 7.2
Moisture Content Greater Than 40 Percent
Toxic Materials None
Production .05 - 7.0 SCF/pond
-------
2.1.2.2 COMPOS I TON
As observed, biological decomposition of the organic matter in
refuse results in the production of gaseous products. The major
constituents of landfill decomposition gas ar carbon dioxide and
methane with lesser amounts of nitrogen, and traces of ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide may also be produced. Carbon dioxide is a
colorless, odorless, non-combustible gas, highly soluble in
water. Carbon dioxide can be dissolved in water and can cause
increased hardness or corrosive conditions.5 Several studies
have been made of gas production from reguse landfills in the Los
Angeles area following suspicion that COj dissolving in the
groundwater degraded the quality of the groundwater underlying a
disposal area. Sufficient information is not yet available to
indicate the specific conditions (size of the disposal area,
porosity of underlying soils and proximity to groundwater leading
to the absence or presence of this problem). Average landfill gas
compositions are identified in Table 2.2 and 2.3:
-------
TASLE 2.2
AVERAGE LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION
(percent by Volume)
Component Range From Mountainview, CA Site
Methane 50.50-
Carbon Dioxide 35.70
Nitrogen 9.52
Oxygen and Argon 2.74
Oxygen 0.03
Water Vapor 1.50
Hydrogen 0.04
Ethane Trace
54.17
44.04
1.52
Not Reported
0.23
0.01
-------
LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION AT
EAST 52nd & DAHLIA
OFF SITE ppm ON SITE ppm
| METHANE 6i,306(6.i«) METHANE 491,055^9.1%)
- CARBON DIOXIDE 45.ooo(4.5«) CARBON DIOXIDE 495,000^9.5%)
ETHANE
42
ETHANE
264
ETHYLENE
13.2
ETHYLENE
50.0
PROPYLENE
0.6
PROPYLENE
24.4
PROPANE
Q5
PROPANE
4.6
-------
0
2.1.2.3 METHANE GAS MIGRATION
The migration of gas beyond the landfills and into the surrounding
soils or overlying structures occurs by two basic processes;
convection, movement in response to pressure gradients; and
diffusion, movement from areas of higher gas concentration to
regions of lower concentration. Gas flow is greater through
materials with large voids and soils having high permeability such
as: sands; gravels; and lesser through soils of low permeability.
(See Figure 2.5)
Gas migration from landfills, therefore, is partly dependent on
the geological environment of the site. In general, a landfill
constructed in a sand-gravel environment experiences greater
vertical and lateral movement of gases than one built in a clay
environment. Gas migration is also restricted by methane's
relative insolubility in water. The. presence of a groundwater
table beneath a disposal site may Inhibit the depth of gas
migration. Being lighter than air, methane gas tends to rise and
exit through a landfill cover. A cover of clay, which is
relatively impermeable, restricts vertical gas migration and
increases lateral migration potential.
Climatic conditions may reduce the permeability of the soil, thus,
restricting the passage Of gas through the cover. For example,
sufficient rain or frost will render any type of soil less
permeable, encouraging the lateral migration of the gas. In
addition to decreasing the permeability of surface soils,
rainwater and melted snow may infiltrate the refuse and stimulate
the rate of waste decomposition and gas production. The
combination of decreased permeability of the cover and increased
gas production can cause a significant increase in lateral
migration of the gas during the rainy season.
The gas produced within a landfill must escape through vertical or
lateral migration. The Sydrogeologic environment and construction
of a particular site determines the direction in which the gas
will exit.
2.1.3 Environmental Impacts
Landfill construction, until very recently, was carried out with little
or no consideration for pollution hazards. For example, old gravel pits
on the banks of streams and rivers are often used as landfill sites. The
sediments beneath and surrounding these landfills were highly porous and
permeable sands and gravels. Thus, leachate could migrate freely
downward into the groundwater supply, and laterally into surface
streams. The toxic hazards of such leachate migration remain unknown,
but may be considerable and will interfere with the lands end use.
Groundwater pollution surely represents a hazard to the many families who
derive their drinking water from shallow wells.
-------
VIRGIN
GROUND
CLAY SOIL
VIRGIN
GROUND
GRAVEL
SOIL

/-
flClJAl:
-------
bl
The most obvious problems, however, are those attendant upon building on
top of or adjacent to landfill. Earth subsidence offers a major problem
to builders, and the fire and explosion hazards from migrating methane
ire ever present. Means of dealing with these problems will be discussed
In detail elsewhere.
2.-1.3.1 Leachate Formation and Migration.
Landfill leachate is a foul-smelling dark-colored water solution
resulting from aerobic and anaerobic decomposition of substances
originally present in the landfill, and from gradual solution of
other organic and inorganic materials in the resulting liquid.
Leachate may be strongly acidic as a result of microbial ly
produced acids such as acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid
and valerric acid. Such an acidic solution is capable of
dissolving many materials which will not dissolve in ordinary
groundwater. The few chemical analyses which are available
indicate that leachates contain a wide variety of organic
materials derived from industrial products, some of which may by
dangerously toxic. Toxic concentrations of heavy metals, mercury,
cadmium and copper for example, have been detected in some
leachates. Microbes present in soils and sediments have been
shown to produce methylmercury (CH3Hg+) from mercury,
mercurous ions or mercuric ions, a more toxic form of mercury
which concentrates in fish to levels toxic to humans who consume
the fish. A similar microbial methylation process probably also
takes place with cadmium, lead and tin.
The pollution of groundwater from leachate, discussed above,
surely represents a hazard which should be investigated whether
gas is, or is not detected.
2.1.3.2 Production of Gas from Leachate.
Another problem caused by leachate migration is microbial methane
formation from leachate at a distance from the original landfill.
The methanogens are very sensitive to acid, and will not produce
methane from highly acid leachate. The acid will be neutralized
if the leachate migrates through rocks containing calcareous
sediments, and the methanogens will then grow and produce gas.
This gas may reach the surface at some area where it will
constitute a fire or explosion hazard, for example in the
basement of a building.
Odor may present a nuisance rather than a hazard, since hydrogen
sulfide concentrations would not be expected to reach toxic levels.
2.1.3.3 Air
-------
2.1.3.4 Land Use
On a level of lesser concern from the safety point of view,
migrating landfill gas may cause significant damage to
vegetation. Both carbon dioxide and methane may harm vegetation
by high gas temperatures (up to 150 F) and by displacing oxygen
from the root zone. The specific effects of landfill gas on
vegetation will depend on the plant's sensitivity to carbon
dioxide and methane, oxygen depletion, and elevated temperatures.
2.2 INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES - HOW 00 WE FIND IT
Until recently, the real, and/or potential hazards of landfill disposal sites
to land utilization and public health have been largely ignored. However, the
increasing number of documented Incidents linking landfill disposal sites to
groundwater contamination by leachate and the numerous fires and explosions
attributed to gas migration has stirred widespread concern over the health and
safety aspects of disposal sites.
It is the purpose of this discussion to address the problem of assessing the
magnitude and extent of gas migration from landfill disposal sites. The
suggestions and guides provided herein are intended to assist those engaged in
or planning such investigations. In addition, these guides and suggestions
should find application in the evaluation of the effectiveness of systems
employed to limit, control, or eliminate gas migration.
2.2.1 ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNING GUIDE FOR SURVEYS
The assessment of real or potential gas migration from landfill disposal
sites is a problem of unsuspected complexity. It is vitally important
that administrators and staff planners have a genuine understanding and
appreciation for the magnitude of the problem in terms of:
1. Manpower requirements;
2. Technical support requirements;
3. Investigation costs;
4. Hazards of gas migration;
5. Equipment requirements;
6. Time involvement;
7. Expertise requirements.
All too often gas migration investigations are arbitrarily and
haphazardly initiated and terminated as a result of a lack of
understanding and appreciation of these factors. Investigations handled
in such a manner usually result in the insufficient, inaccurate, or
Irrelevant data and information for the purpose intended.
Investigations of landfill disposal sites are either of two fundamental
types:
-------

1. Disclosure investigations, which determine:
(a) presence or absence of gas production;
(b) presence or absence of gas migration;
(c) source of gas present
2. Interpretative investigations, which determine:
(a) magnitude and extent of gas migration;
(b) magnitude of gas production;
(c) effectiveness of control systems;
(d) establish real or potential hazards;
(e) enforcement or compliance studies.
The selection of the type of investigation to be conducted must be made
carefully. The type of investigation selected will have a profound
effect on the scientific and economic impact of the data and information
collected and the budgetary requirements for supporting the investigation.
Before any site investigation is instituted, the following criteria
should be established:
1. Oef^ne need for investigation;
2. Define type of investigation;
3. Establish priorities for each site;
in terms of health and safety hazards.
Once these criteria have been determined, an assessment of the available
resources should be completed. An inventory of both personnel and
technical capabilities is in order and should include the following
information:
1. Inventory of Personnel
a. Number available
b. Training and experience
c. In-house of field capability
2. Inventory of Technical Capabilities
a. Capability for desired analysis
b. Equipment status
c. Field operation capabilities
d. Other sources of desired capabilities
2.2.2 SITE EVALUATION PLAN
The assessment of the magnitude and extent of gas migration at existing
landfill disposal sites is a difficult task. Although gas migration is
known to occur, the parameters influencing this phenomenon ar poorly
understood and have not been extensively studied. Therefore, while a
CG0K800K approach might seem to be desirable, it cannot be justified at
the present time in view of the lack of knowledge concerning the various
parameters and the site specific characteristics of landfill disposal
sites.
-------
A very general outline of a model plan for the evalution cf a disposal
site is presented on the next page. (Table 2.4) This model is designed
for alteration or modification in accordance with site information, site
specific characteristics, or investigation objectives to yield the most
cost-effective study possible.
-------
TABLE 2.4
SITE EVACUATION "OUT!. INE
I. Objectives
1. Type of investigation
2. Scope of investigation
3. Purpose of investigation
II. Site Evaluation
1. initial assessment
a. Nature of waste
b. Physical extent of site
c. Waste treatments
d. Fill procedures
e. Rate of fill
f. Age of fill
g. Liners and covers
h. Topography and geology
i. Local land use
j. Hydrology of the area
2. Detailed technial evaluation
a. Sample site selection
b. Sample site preparation
c. Sampling equipment
d. Sample collection
e. Sample analysis
III. Oata Evaluation
1. Hazard potential
2. Monitoring requirements
3. Effectiveness of controls
-------
The initial assessment of a disposal site involves the collection of a
considerable amount of general information regarding the location, use,
and status of the site. This data base is quite useful for the
classification as to the type cf disposal site, present or future
potential hazards, likely hazardous materials present, priority
assignment for study, and guides the selection of sample collection
points.
The types of wastes disposed of in landfill sites vary widely from site
to site. Among the major determinants of the waste types accepted at any
individual disposal site are waste types generated in the general locale,
the regulatory agency involved, the landfill operator, and the economics
of the operation.
As the contaminants to be derived from the disposal of wastes is
dependent upon the types of wastes, a determination should be made to
ascertain, both current and historically, the types of wastes accepted at
the site. The waste types can range from reactive hazardous industrial
wastes to essentially inert glass.
Although there is no consistent system of classification of waste types,
a number of general types are recognized. First, residential wastes
which contain food, paper, cans, bottles, etc. Secondly, industrial
wastes which contain chemicals, oils, cleaners, process by- products,
reactive materials, etc. Agricultural wastes which contain pesticides,
manure, agricultural chemicals, etc. Fourthly, another large volume
waste material is sewage sludge. Oetails on the probably source of the
wastes, such as a refinery, chemical plant, pesticide facility, food
processor, etc., is quite helpful in determining the contaminants to be
expected from the disposal site.
Another important factor in assessing the magnitude and extent of
contaminants either as gases or leachate is the physical size of the
disposal site. This information is essential in the selection of both
the number and location of sample sites.
The type of treatment given to the wastes at a disposal site is important
in assessing the contaminants to be expected from the wastes. For
example, a site at which most of the combustibles are incinerated, such
as wood, paper, and solvents, would not be expected to be a major gas
generator. While a disposal site at which such materials are simply
buried would be expected to generate methane and carbon dioxide in
significant quantities.
The procedures used at a fill are another important consideration. The
segregation of waste types both prior to disposal or in placement in the
fill area are examples. The procedures used at a disposal site and the
treatment of wastes are intimately related and must be considered when
evaluating potential contaminants.
The rate of fill Is important from the economic standpoint to the fill
oviner cr operator. Of equal importance; however, is the contribution of
the fill rate to estimating or anticipating gas migration problems.
-------
vf
The age of the fill in a disposal site is of interest for several
reasons. First, the composition of gases generated by a disposal site
varies with its age. Secondly, the time over which a site will generate
gases can be estimated. Thirdly, the age of the fill will determine to
some extent the scope and type of monitoring necessary.
The topography and geology of a disposal site are major factors in the
magnitude and extent of gas migration and generation. The types of soils
determine the case with which the gases can migrate vertically or
laterally. Surface topography determines to some extent the quantity of
water which reaches the burled materials and thereby influence the rate
and volume of gases generated.
O.ata on the present or anticipated use of a landfill disposal site
shopuld be collected in the initial assessment. This Information is
useful in determining the type of monitoring needed, the extent of
monitoring required and an estimation of the hazard to health and safety
of the occupants or users of the site.
The technical evaluation of a landfill disposal site involves careful
planning and attention to detail at each stage of the investigation.
While the type of investigation can be classified as being either a
qualitative or quantitive study, this is only an indicator of the breadth
of the data to be collected. These types will not be discussed
separately as the techniques used are common to both types and are
readily exchangeable. It should be pointed out that despite the level of
technology available, NO RESULT IS ANY BETTER THAN THE SAMPLE COLLECTED.
Sites to be used for the collection of samples must be selected with
considerable care to insure that a representative picture of the
magnitude and extent of any gas migration is obtained. Potential
sampling sites include surface loctlons, subsurface sites, buildings,
excavations, and manholes. These sampling sites may be on-site,
off-site, and/or.perimeter locations. Other site selection criteria
include the geology, topography, man-made structures and utilities, soil
conditions, watertable, and climatic conditions.
The major portion of sample site preparation is directed at obtaining
truly representative samples of the gases in or migrating from a disposal
site. The preparation 1s directed at obtaining truly representative
samples of the gases in or migrating from a disposal site. The
preparation techniques range from the relatively simple bar-hole punch to
that of a rotary drilling rig with the subsequent placement of drill hole
casings. The choice of techniques will significantly influence the
economics of the study. 8y the same token, the extent of site
preparation influences the reliability of collecting a representative
sample of the gases.
2.2.3 Field Investigation
After becoming involved with a landfill generated methane gas problem ft
becomes evident that all old landfill sites must be identified. This is
a tremendous task, as very little is known about abandoned or closed
-------
landfill sites, one must rely on older residents of the community in
order to establish the boundaries, depth, or type of refuse that had bean
placed in those sites. Another method of locating these old sites is by
use of aerial photographs, one can plot the formation, use, and
abandonment of these landfill sites. A complete flammable gas survey
must be made, not only of the site itself, but any area covering 1,000
feet beyond the perimeter of the site. The extent and amount of methane
gas migration must be established in order to safeguard any structures
that are subjected to the gas problem. After these closed sites and
their approximate boundaries have been established, construction
activities on and surrounding these sites should be regulated. The
reasons for construction regulations are very apparent. A mechanism
should be designed to alert the public that may be planning such
construction activities. A good focal point for this alerting mechanism
could be the county or municipal building and zoning departments. In
this manner the methane gas problem can be brought to the attention of
the responsible people prior to any construction activity.
A study should consist of two general approaches - a survey and a field
investigation.
To complete the landfill methane gas survey, the following procedures
were followed as closely as possible:
1. Visually inspect site for signs of litter, differential settlement
and odor, to attempt to define the landfill limits (boundaries).
2. Discuss site with residents in the area as an aid to establish
landfill location, period of operation, and operational practices.
3. Review aerial photographs taken at various time periods to determine
surface changes (see Figure 2.6 as an example).
4. Interview the landfill operator, 1f possible, to obtain information
such as: type of refuse deposited; water table elevation, depth of
refuse; compaction methods; cover material placed; etc.
5. Interview local planning and health department personnel to determine
conditions of approval and complaint history.
6. Obtain tax assessor maps to establish previous owners and existing
owners.
7. Interview public service agencies and utility companies to determine
utility line locations and any additional site data.
After available site information gathering was completed, the landfill
boundary established, and major utilities located, the following, field
investigation procedures were established:
1. Survey on-site structures at foundations, in basements, in crawl
spaces under floors, and at cracks in the structures to determine
possible gas concentrations.
-------
yl
Cr^^cMU;;
*nr
IrijW'
LW.
¦i_ ,'d(i .'.^
1949 - SHOWING GRAVEL
PITS S. PLATT RIYER

196 3 - SITE CLOSED
(S. PLATT STREAM BED
MODIFIED BY 1-25)
1974 - RIVERSIDE BAPTIST
CHURCH BUILT DIRECTLY
OVER FORMER LANDFILL
r.f
V
AERIAL SITE REVIEW TECHNIQUE
SAY MONO VAIL AND ASSvVIA
-------
2. Survey utility tranches, manholes, drain inlets, and valve boxes.
3. Measure and record methane gas readings at locations indicated with
bar-punch or hand-auger holes for measurement through the landfill
cover, parking lot pavements, and at the site boundaries.
2.2.3.1 EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES
Gas measuring instruments such as the MSA Gascope have eliminated
much of the guesswork in detecting the presence of flammable gases
or vapors. 8efore the development of these sampling devices, it
is necessary to collect a sample of the suspected atmosphere and
return it to a laboratory for analysis. This required the
services of experienced technicians and a considerable investment
in laboratory equipment. 8y the time the analysis is completed,
the concentration of the suspected atmosphere can change
considerably.
Today's compact and simplified combustible gas indicators - both
the portable and the continuous or permanently installed type have
a wide field of application. They are used for measuring hazards
created by the presence of flammable gases with air; in oil
refinery service, public utility operations, distilleries, paint
and varnish plants, iron and steel mills, marine service, as well
as, for use by municipalities in investigating fire hazards,
testing sewers and manholes, and checking for gas hazards in
sewage disposal plants. The sampling devices can be classified
according to their function of measuring either combustible gases,
toxic gases, or oxygen. More than 225,000 combustible gas
analyzers are currently in use. (List of field equipment Table 2.5)
2.2.3.2 MSA GASCOPE
To identify the presence of methane gas, migration patterns and
pathways and the hazards to public health and safety, the Mine
Safety Appliances (MSA) Gascope, Model 53, was selected. This
gascope is essentially two instruments built into a common case.
Meter readings are given in two ranges, 0 to 100JS LEL (lower
explosive limit) and 0 to 100% gas. When in the X LEL position,
the measurement is accomplished by catalytic combustion on the
surface of a catalytic (hot wire) filament. As heat generated by
. combustion on the hot wire takes place, it provides variable
resistance to a dual readout. The hoter the wire becomes, the
higher the LEL reading. Figure 2.7 shows meter reading various
methane in air concentrations. The LEL, as the name implies, is
the lowest point at which methane will explode (approximately 5%
methane gas). The explosive range of methane gas is 5 to 15% by
volume in air as described in Figure 2.8.
For mixtures above the-LEI, the measurement is made by measuring
the relative thermal conductivity of the sample compared with air
by means of a thermal conductivity meter.
-------

GAS INSTRUMENTATION AMD tqUIPMLNT
Cmcon Associates maintains a variety of gas instrumentation used in
detecting and continuously monitoring «jas generation in the field, as well
as in measuring relevant parameters, including composition, temperature,
and pressure of the landfill gas. Gas instrumentation and equipment include
the following:
FIELO INSTRUMENTATION
Johnson - Williams (Bacharach Instrument Co.) Oxygen/Combustible Indicators
Model MHPK
Oxygen
Combustible Gas
OX to 25X*
02 to 5%
OX to 100X
Joh_nson - Williams Gas-Pointers
Model H
Combustible Gas
OX to 5X*
OX to 100X
Johnson - Williams Super Sensitive Combustible Gas..Oj^tectors
Model SS-P
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Combustible Gas
0 ta 1,000 ppm:
OX to 52
Johnson - Williams Combustible Gas Indicators
Model TLV Sniffer
Combustible Gas
0 to 100 ppm
0 to 1,000 ppm
0 to 10,000 ppm
8ajr jlole Oriyers and Fibcrglass. Probes
- For shallow field surveys with the above instruments
* Percent refers to percent by volume in air
-------
y-Vf^/V 3. _
Tost Caps
- For use viith permanent gns monitoring probes
Fyrite Carbon Dioxide Indicators
Owyor Magncholic Differential Pressure Hngos
Inclined Manometer
- For measuring internal landfill gas pressures, relative to
atmospheric pressure.
Electronic Digital Thermometers
- For measuring gas temperature within probes and wells
Portable Gas Chromatograph.
- For analyzing gas composition
Gas Sampling Pottles
Hand Vacuum Pumps
- For gas sampling
Battery-Operated Pump
- For gas sampling
Pi tot Tubes
- For measuring gas velocity in well casings ar.d pipes
Portable Motors and Blowers
- For gas extraction testing
Various Hand
-------

Fnmet Portable Cos Detectors
Model CG5-10
- Personal safety monitoring equipment with visible and audible
alarms - for detecting combustible (methane) and toxic (hydrocjen-
sulfide and carbon monoxide) gases and oxygen deficiency.
t^l30_RAT0_RY EQUIPMENT
Varian 90-P Gas Chromatograph with strip chart recorder
- For analyzing gas composition
.l.nXla_"_^A Industries 70? Hondispersive_Analy 7_er
- For methane and carbon dioxide deterinination
-------
LEL. 5%
UEL. 15%
NO METHANE
0 V.
BELOW LEL
0.5 V.
IN EXPLOSIVE RANGE A30VE UEL
5 TO 15 % OVER 15 %
8
METES READINGS AT VARIOUS METHANE IN AIR CONCENTRATIONS
-------
HOT WIRE GAS DETECTOR RESPONSE TO METHANE
METER GOES
UPSCALE WITH GAS
o
z
5
<
Ui
DC
OC
UI
»-
UJ
2
100
METER ABOVE 100
METER ON SCALE
AFTER BEING ABOVE 100
5.3% IOV. 14%
I EXPLOSIVE I
h" RANGE :
LEL UEL
METER BELOW ZERO
AFTER BEING ABOVE 100
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN L. E. L. METER READING
AND COMBUSTIBLE GAS CONCENTRATION
EXPLOSIVE LIMITS
LEL
UEL
•* • I . v.* •>• ...i-:^* ?'-x. • ' ¦
OV.GAS
100% AIR
100% GAS
0% AIR
11HHP00%
I I UlLkllU—
0%
GAS
. I 1.
100%
—nnii U I
I air
0%
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN XEAN AND RICH GAS MIXTURES
2.*
FROM PUBLICATIONS
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES
HAyMONO VAIL AND ASSOCl/MLS
-------
Measurement of the combustibles in the atmosphere is direct for
the full range of the instrument without resorting to dilution of
the sample with air. The MSA Gascope was precalibrated by the
manufacturer and checked several times with the use of a gas
chromatograph to determine the effects of various gas
concentrations (CO2N2O2) on the explosivity of methane and
the monitoring meter. Figure 2.6 illustrates on a representative
basis for this instrument that N2 and 0^ decreases while CO2
increases with a corresponding increase in CH4 as the pressure
drops. This figure also illustrates the relationship between
direct meter readings of methane and gas chromatograph analysis.
As depicted, the difference in readings is minor up to about 25X
gas. This difference increases as the MSA Gascope measured
methane 10 to 15!S higher at 30X methane gas concentratins and
above.
LIMITATIONS
The full range of the Gascope is limited to those combustibles
which are in the gaseous state at the temperature of the
instrument, such as hydrogen, natural gas, methane, and
manufactured gas.
The Gascope is specifically calibrated for the gas with which it
is to be used.
The Gascope is unsafe fcr use on acetylene or hydrogen in pure
oxygen. !t is, however, suitable for use in detecting hydrogen or
acetylene in air mixtures.
The Gascope is not suitable for testing high boiling point
hydrocarbons which have vaporized in ovens, and will condense in
the instrument flow system at room temperature.
When an atmosphere contaminated with leaded gasoline is tested
with a Gascope, the lead produces a solid product of combustion
which upon repeated exposure, may develop a coating upon the
catalytic filament resulting in a loss of sensitvity. To reduce
this possibility, an inhibitor-filter is available for insertion
in place of the normal cotton filter in the instrument.
Silanes, silicones, silicates, and other compounds containing
silicon in the tested atmosphere may seriously impair the response
of the instrument. Some of these materials rapidly poison the
detector filament so that it will not function properly. When
such materials are even suspected to be in the atmosphere being
tested, the instruments must be checked frequently.
2.2.3.3 BAR HOLE PUNCH
The bar-hole punch is a simple device consisting of a solid metal
rod to which is attached a weighted sleeve for driving the rod
-------
into the ground and extracting the same. This device is
relatively small and easily handled by a two-member team.
However, the sampling site prepared by this device has a number cf
disadvantages.
First, the depth of penetration is seldom greater than three feet
and the diameter of the hole if limited to a maximum of
approximately one inch. The resulting volume available for sample
col lectin is quite small.
Secondly, atmospheric contamintion of any sample is highly likely
due to the collection of too large of sample volume.
Thirdly, the sampling site 1s only temporary due to no casing and
subsequent wall crumbling and hole closure.
The use of a drilling rig has many advantages over a bar-hole
punch.
First, The diameter of the hole can range to several inches and
the depth can be extended to the bottom of the fill.
Secondly, The hole can be protected with casing and the casing
capped to prevent atmospheric contamination.
Thirdly. The diameter and depth of the hole allows a greatly
increased sample volume. The disadvantages of a drilling rig
include a larger crew, higher per sampling site costs, relatively
large physical size, and lower rate of sample site preparation.
The sampling equipment available for the collection of gas samples
can be divided into three basic types. See Figure 2.8-1.
Although there are numerous variations available in the equipment
design, the classlfication Is based on the sample container
preparation before sampling and the pressure at which the sample
1s collected and maintained. These types are:
Category Preparation Pressure
Type I Non-evacuated Atmospheric
Type 2 Evacuated Atmospheric
Type 3 Evacuated Above Atmospheric
Type 1 devices utilize the flushing of the sample container with
the sample gases to displace the air or previous sample contained
therein. After displacement has been completed, the container is
then sealed to retain the sampled gases. Advantages of Type 1
devices include simple operation; minimal power required, such as
hand-operated pump; and relatively low per unit cost. The
disadvantages of Type, i devices include large volumes of sample
gases are required for flushing; small sample volume available for
analysis; and potential of incomplete flushing of sample device.
-------
Type 2 devices are commonly used to collect gas samples for
subsequent laboratory analysis. The use of this sampling device
involves the prior evacuation of the container by a vacuum pump,
and the opening of the sampling port at the sampling site to draw
in the sample gases. The sampling port is then closed. This
sampling device has the advantage of no external power
requirements; simple operation; sample volume required is equal to
volume of the container; and relatively low per unit cost. A major
disadvantage is that a small sample volume is available for
analysis.
Type 3 devices utilize an evacuated sample container connected to a
pump capable of producing pressures in excess of atmospheric. This
type of device has the advantage of providing a large volume of
sample for analysis. The disadvantages include a required external
electrical power source, transportation of pressurized containers,
and a higher per unit cost.
All of the aforementioned devices can be and are fabricated from a
wide variety of materials. Consideration must be given to the type
of container material preferred based on parameters such as
potential alteration of sample compositon due to diffusion through
the container walls or reactivity of the gases with the materials
of construction. The ruggedness required of the sampling device
must also be considered in terms of mode of transportation,
storage, field use, and analysis.
One of the major points on which the technical evaluation of the
disposal site hinges is the collection of truly representative
samples. The collection of gas samples is difficult due to the
case with which the sample can be contaminated with atmospheric
gases and the colorless state of most gases. Therefore, the
individual collecting gas samples must be very aware of the points
of potential contamination and adhere strictly to an established
collection procedures. This same individual must readily recognize
the consequences of using devices which require sample volumes in
excess of that available, such as found in a bar punched hole.
The analysis of samples 1s a subject requiring far more detail than
can be made available here. A general discussion will be made
concerning the techniques available and the technical expertise
required for data interpretation. The.field analysis of samples
can be completed using either gross monitoring instruments such as
explosimeters or by employing highly sophisticated analytical
instruments such as a gas chromatograph or gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer. The degree of information detail required for the
study will dictate the techniques employed. The more common
analytical techniques used 1n the analysis of gases included
Infrared analysis, gas chromatography,and anumber of cider
techniques such as the Qrsat method. The operation of instruments
such as explosimeters, 131 meters, etc., require a minimum of
training while the more highly sophisticated instruments require a
highly trained chemist both to operate and interpretace the data
obtained from such instruments.
-------
The data evaluation following a site evaluation should allow a
reasonable definition of the hazard potential from gas migration.
This definition of the potential hazard will by the nature of the
problem be based on the gas composition data. The composition dat.i
must be evaluated very carefully as to the hazard it presents based
on observations of the hazards presented or known for similar qas
compositions.
The finding of significant gas migration from a landfill disposal
site will almost always mandate some degree of monitoring. This
monitoring will be necessitated by either protecting human life or
evaluating the controls being employed to control the gas
migration. Each site will require its own unique monitoing system
which may range from periodic samples to a continuous sampling
system.
2.2.4 LABORATORY DESIRABILITY
The technical investigation of a landfill disposal site is confronted with
a number of unique questions which cannot be readily answered by using
field portable equipment. If a laboratory is not readily available, it is
suggested that the necessary capabilities be secured for detailed analysis
through contract services, etc.
The source of the gas is the first question which must be answered. The
prewsence of natural gas pipelines passing near or through a fill area
must be eliminated as a possible source of methane. The identification of
the source of the gas requires analyses for compounds unique to the
source, many of which are present at trace levels. Other potential
sources of gas include sewer lines, marshes, chemical processing, and
other industrial sources.
The question of whether the landfill gases contain other gases which are
hazardous such as hydrogen sulfide, phosgene, vinyl chloride, and numerous
others, require the analyte capabilities usually only found in a
laboratory. This question becomes rather important when investigating a
disposal site where industrial chemicals or processing wastes are/or are
thought to be internal.
2.2.4.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF ANALYTICAL LAB WORK (TRACE ELEMENTS)
The analytical^procedures and techniques presently employed in the
laboratory for the determination of the hydrocarbons and fixed
gases in the landfill gas samples are being prepared for review and
comments by the subcommittee.
The analyses presently being determined on a semi-routine basis
include methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, i-butane, ethylene,
propylene, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and
oxygen/argon combined. Although some technical difficulties were
experienced in the first attempts to determine the fixed gases,
these have been rectified and the techniques are undergoing a
continual refinement.
-------
The chemist should be thoroughly trained in the techniques and
instrumentation of gas analysis.
The list of compounds to be alerted for in analyzing landfill gas
are as follows:
Hydrocarbons:
Ethane
N. Butane
Hexane
Nonane
Benzene
Propane
ISO Pentane
Heptane
Delane
Toluene
Other Compunds of Interest:
Ethylene Chloride
Trichlor Ethylene
Oichlorobenzene
Carbonyl Sulfide
Perchlor Ethylene
ISO. Butane
N. Pentane
Octane
Undecane
Xylene
Sulfur Dioxide
Chlorobenzene
-------
Table 2.6
LEACHATE ANALYSIS
Time requirement:
Into laboratory within 24 hours of sampling. Keep sample cool at all
times.
Bottle Requirements;
1 - 1/2 gallon plastic
1-1 liter with nitric acid preservative
1 - 250 ml with sulfuric acid preservative
Sample will be analyzed for:
B005
COO
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Ortho-phosphate
Conductance
Total Alkalinity
Free carbon dioxide
Potassium
Cadiurn
Copper
line
Baron chlorine
Other parameters as situatiorr dicates by discussion'with laboratory.
-------
2.2.4.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The data collected during the hours of a disposal site
investigation must bring with it a reasonable degree of assurance
of relibility. This assurance can only be provided through a
quality assurance progrtn. Such a program need not be a highly
involved and expensive situation. The program used for quality
assurance should test both the function and response of the
.equipment. The equipment should be checked using standards which
closely approximate the actual samples encountered. Further, the
equipment should be checked under conditions as close to the
actual use conditions as possible. It must be pointed out that
such a program is prone to overkill and such must be prevented.
2.2.4.3 Trace Elements (Importance of)
2.2.5 REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES
A variety of remote sensing techniques have been investigated as to their
value and application to the problems of locating old, active disposal
sites and assessing the magnitude and extent of gas or leachate
migration. These techniques have met with varying degrees of success due
undoubtedly, at least in part, to the site specific characteristics of
the fill.
•These techniques which may have application to defining the magnitude and
extent of gas migration include infrared scanning, multi-spectral
photography, presence of Pseudomonas Methanica, and vegetation stress.
There are undoubtedly other techniques which are worthy of consideration.
Infrared scanning offers some potential in that this technique will
locate the areas showing significant thermal radiation. It should find
application, especially, in those loctions in which there is a low
density of man-made structures. Such structures may. present difficulties
due to their thermal radiation masking tht of the fill area.
Multi-spectral photography offers potential application to the gas
migration problem and fill area definition. The use of IR film will ,
delineate any thermal radiating areas. Other spectral film types allows
the identification of vegetation types and vegetation stress.
The testing of surface soils for the presence of Pseudomonas Methanica
may prove to be another technique for definfng the migration of landfill
gases. This aerobe requires the presence of methane for its metabalism.
Vegetation stress study is an approach which is easiy overlooked by the
usual technical personnel. Yet, this technique may prove to be one of
the more productive. A number of studies have been done in which the
effects of gas migration are seen In terms of vegetation stress and
vegetation kill. This technique does; however, stand in need of further
refinement if it is to be applied in a general sense.
-------
2.3 METHANE GAS - WHAT 00 YOU 00 WITH IT
In landfills, methane is usually produced in concentrations above the
explosive range; therefore, it almost always passes through the explosive
range when diluted with air. Fortunately, in most cases, an energizer such as
an open flame is not present as methane gas passes through
combustion/explosive ranges, and combustion is averted. Nevertheless, the
numerous instances on record of fires and explosions resulting from landfill
produced methane serves to warn that gas migration can lead to tragic
consequences.
Fire and explosion can be the tragic results of uncontrolled methane
combustion. The potential for hazard is heightened by the ease with which
methane may migrate subterraneously, often to significant distances, through
permeable media such as porous soils, trench backfills, and utility or
drainage corridors. Public safety may be endangered if migrating methane
accumulates in a poorly ventilated area and subsequently achieves combustible
or explosive concentrations.
2.3.1 Methane Movement
Methane from landfills will normally migrate upward through the
decomposing organics and outward through the cover soil, diffusing into
the atmosphere; but when upward movement is impaired, the gas will
diffuse laterally along subsurface paths of least resistance until it
finds a vertical path to the atmosphere.
The factors affecting the movement of methane are quite varied. Some of
the factors identified to date are:
A. The type of cover placed on the landfill;
8. The type of surrounding soil;
C. The amount of gas produced by the landfill;
D. The ambient air temperature;
E. The precipitation;
F. 8arometric pressure;
G. The presence of natural or man-made conduits;
H. The presence of natural or man-made barriers.
2.3.1.1 Cover Material
During the sanitary landfilling process, soil layers 6 in. (15 cm)
or more thick are compacted over the accumulated refuse; as the
fill progresses, alternate layers of solid waste and soil cover
are built up. When the soil layers consist of compacted clays and
silts, they present a substantial barrier to the vertical passage
of methane; this relative impermeability 1s increased when the
compacted soil becomes saturated with water. The resistance of an
overlying layer of fine-graned soil can be sufficient to cause the
methane generated beneath it to migrate" 1 aterarlTy;
-------
Many of our landfills have a clayey, well compacted cover with
surrounding soils of gravel. This forces more of the methane
laterally since less can leave through the surface of the fill.
Natural phenomia may also make the landfill cover less permeable
to the gas by saturating the surface with water or freezing the
surface over.
When sub-freezing temperatures occur, water that has percolated
into the pore spaces between grains of sediment may freeze,
forming an additional barrier to the upward passage of landfill
gases and encouraging lateral subsurface gas movement.
2.3.1.2 Surrounding Soil
Highly permeable soil (clean sands and gravels) adjacent to a
landfill can provide paths of least resistance for gas migration
when overlain by layers that restrict the gas's upward flow.
Similarly, the gas can travel toward areas of lower pressure,
moving through jointing and weathering cracks in apparently solid
bedrock.
2.3.1.3 Gas Pressure and Generation Rate
Since methanogens can produce high gas pressures by the generation
of methane, it 1s not feasible to solve the problem by
constructing a gas-tight landfill. Although no research has been
done to determine the maximum pressures exerted, it is not
unlikely that pressures sufficient to lift the soil overburden
might be produced.
2.3.1.4 Ambient Air Temperature
We have also found increasing amounts of methane in our lateral
probes during hot weather as well as low barometric pressure
situations. The reasons for this phenomia are not fully
understood since air temperature should not substantially affect
the internal temperature of the fill. Optimal anaerobic gas
production ocurs when landfill tempeatures are between 90 and
95°F. Lower temperatures will reduce the metabolic rates of the
methanogenic bacteria while higher temperatures may provide
non-methanogenic bacteria a selective edge. As a result,
generation rates are almost always less than maximum, especially
for fills located in colder climates. In addition, seasonal
fluctuations in temperatures may also produce variations in gas
production rates. There is some supposition that the increase may
be due to a heating of the grounds surface and thereby causing
more gas migration on the grounds surface.
2.3.1.5 Precipitation
The gas production rate of most solid wastes generally increases
with an increase in moisture content. The methane content of
gases produced has also been observed to increase with increases
-------
moisture content. Studies have shown that methane concentrations
can vary from almost negligible in fills without water to greater
than 50 percent in fills that are saturated. It should be noted
that even though higher moisture contents generally promote
methane generation, rapid application of large quantities of water
may hamper methanogenic activity.
2.3.1.6 Barometric Pressure (See Figure 2.9)
2.3.1.7 , Natural or Man-made Conduits
Natural and man-made conduits are frequently present around our
landfills. In fact, most injurious explosions that have been
reported, were caused by these methane pathways. In one case, a
storm sewer carried the gas from the landfill which was Ignited by
a candle. Another methane conduit was formed by a water conduit
and another by a steel drain culvert. Any such man-made structure
placed near or In a landfill may carry the methane gas substantial
distances from the landfill. In fact, many of our higher
concentrations of gas found on our survey were found in water
meter pits by houses. This poses definite dangers to utility
companies that run pipes near landfill areas. These pipes must be
sealed with a gas tight collar upon leaving the fill in order to
prevent this migration.
Cracks or leaks in subsurface utility structures or tunnels can
provide migration routes for landfill gases. Significant methane
concentrations are common in sanitary sewer manholes, catch
basins, and other subsurface utility structures near sanitary
1andf ills.
Manmade structures can provide a conduit for methane gas
migration. Asphalt pavement, concrete foundations and floor
slabs, storm drains and sanitary sewer lines, lawns and other
surface structures can confine gases and promote lateral migration.
Natural conduits may be formed by gravel lenses or more porous
soils radiating out from the landfill. These lenses may cause
higher gas concentrations in specific areas.
Cracks, fissures, and voids resulting from sanitary landfill
differential settlement can reduce subsurface gas pressures in
their immediate vicinity. Not only do these cracks and structural
discontinuities provide avenues-along which methane jnay migrate,
they also promote migration of gases to areas of reduced
pressure. Further, gases can become concentrated in such areas,
thereby creating an underground fire hazard at the landfill.
2.3.1.8 PH
Another environmental factor which affects landfill gas production
is pH. Methanogenic bacteria are highly specialized organisms
-------
1
motes:
1. Probes in rafuse use 2* Sch. 40
PVC »ip«.
2. Solvent weld all PVC connections
except top cap.
3. Perforations are field slotted with a
saw to • depth of 1/4 to 1/3 the pipe
diameter. Perforations on opposite
sides of the probe are staggered 3*
lonaitud ina11».

PROJECT No. 309-1.1 I PLATE
z.r~i
-------
*1
E. :£TER (INS )
Tlf.Tt
SOV.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
30.36 30-35
(9:51AM) (10-SZ AM)
3 33 30.27 30.25
(II-57AW) (1:50 PM) (2:55 PM)
mr-

z 3 4 5 © 7
lO'OZC.V »0;30Af/. ||:OOAM ll:33AM l|:45AM 2 OOP:/ 2 ?W.
/ OAS CHSON'.ATlCGPAPH / GASCOPE (N'.SA 53) CORSELATiGN 5
-------
which need a pH near 7.0 to produce optimal amounts of methane.
These organisms are severely inhibited when the pH is outside the
range of 6 to 8, while non-methanogenic bacteria can tolerate more
acidic conditions, down to about pH 5.2.
2.3.1.9 Natural or Manmade Barriers
Natural and man-made barriers may be formed from clay deposits,
railroad tracks, etc., that present a more dense soil condition
between the landfill and the virgin soil. These barriers may vary
however and tend to mask the problem. For instance the barrier
may show little methane on the surface near the barrier, but have
a high methane concentration at ten feet down. This gas may again
come to the surface well beyond the barrier.
We are sure that many other factors that affect the lateral
movement of methane gas exist and have not yet been identified.
We have found however that the largest amounts of methane are
found on hot summer days immediately following a storm. The
highest readings are also found next to a landfill with a tightly
compacted top and natural gravel soils surrounding it.
2.3.2 Gas Control Technology
There are two basic approaches to controlling the migration of methane
from closed, abandoned or operating landfill: impermeable barriers and
ventilation systems. Each system or combination of systems is effective,
but adequate control depends upon the many site specific conditions.
There are many different types of landfill gas control systems in use
today. These systems fall into fairly distinct groups or combinations
thereof. They are:
A. Sarrier Systems - Placement of impervious liner materials to block or
seal flow of gas.
Located: a) at landfill boundary
b) beyond landfill boundary
Material: a) impervious liner material
b) granular materials
8. Passive ventilation systems - Placement of granular materials in a
trench for either gas venting or collection
Located: a) at landfill boundary
b) beyond landfill boundary
C. Power extraction systems - Evacuation and venting of gas through use
of wells and gas piping systems.
Located: a) within boundary of landfill
b) at and beyond boundary of landfill
c) combination of a) and b)
-------
In the establishment of new sites, accurate data on gas production rates
and gas migration patterns will not be readily available. The
qualitative nature of the assumptions made with respect to these factors
suggest that monitoring of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures
employed would be advisable. Oesign of a gas control system should
contain provision for modification should the system prove ineffective
because of inadequate design data.
The potential hazards created by migrating landfill gas may not always
warrant the installation of an elaborate control system. For example,
only a portion of the landfill surface or its adjacent area may require
control measures. In such cases, specific features may be incorporated
into the designs of structures, utility lines or other facilities, often
at a cost lower than that of a large-scale landfill control system.
2.3.2.1 Barrier Systems (See Figure 2.10)
Barrier systems are most frequently utilized on landfills that are
in the process of being filled. They may be constructed of
natural substances or manmade substances.
A combination of gravel-filled trench (refer to Figure 5) and
barrier membrane provide an effective passive system if the trench
depth is reasonable. In this instance, the trench is dug, and a
membrane is placed across the bottom and up the wall away from the
landfill. Gravel; is then used to backfill the trench; a vent
pipe may or may not be included. A shallow depth landfill and
high water table typify conditions for this fairly common system.
These barrier systems are normally installed prior to, or during
the actual filling of the site. Subsequent installations are
often costly, less extensive than required, and occasionally
impossible to accomplish. Installation after fill completion
might be limited to trenching 1n the area requiring protection and
to inserting a membrane into the trench, followed by backfilling.
In order to effectively stop gas movement the barrier must extend
from an impermeable layer such as groundwater, bedrock, etc. to
the surface of the ground, or be a continuous liner covering the
entire area to be filled.
The Installation of a barrier system must be carefully carried out
so as not allow any breaks or tears in the barrier. This is
especially important in Installing man-made liners since sharp
objects and mishandling can cause numerous breaks and tears.
Natural soil barriers such as a saturated clay may furnish a
highly efficient barrier to gas migration, provided the soil is
kept saturated. The natural substances may also leave portals for
the passage of gas 1f they are installed incorrectly or allowed to
dry and form cracks across the surface or perimeter of the fill.
The effectiveness of barrier systems seems to vary from site to
site. One site in the Oenver area shows low-level gas penetration
beyond the limits of the landfill (clay, streams, etc.) show no
-------
IMPERMEABLE
^ BARRIER
FINAL COVER MATERIAL
' i
VSWNWW"
Uv. GROUND
• •••
« %v%\n%hs>q • * ;•?,•• •••. *
I fcnnn^Jr, .i'.. ¦' . i. ¦¦ !¦¦, i
BEDROCX OR WATER TABLE
?iSb"e ~2-10
-------
LANDFILL VENT CONTROL SYSTEMS
-------
gas movement that we can detect. We feel that gas penetration
studies should be conducted on any material considered for a
barrier system before installation.
The relative cost of a barrier system varies with the stage of the
operation, the substances utilized, and geology of the site.
Generally speaking, if the system is installed before or during
operation of a reasonably shallow fill, it is the least expensive
method. This is especially true when one considers the
maintenanca and upkeep of the other types of control systems. On
a landfill that has already been filled, however, the cost of
excavation may make this type of system far more expensive and
therefore as a remedial system, it probably will be less feasible
than the otHer two types.
2.3.2.2 Passive Ventilation Systems (See Figure )
Passive ventilation systems have been utilized on existing and
proposed landfills include: gravel filled trenches, perimeter
rubble vent stacks and combinations thereof. Passive venting
systems rely on naturally occurring pressure or diffusion
gradients to induce exhaust. The passive systems rely on highly
permeable material, such as gravel, placed in the path of the gas
flow. Since the permeable material offers a path mora conducive
for gas .flow than that of the surrounding medium, flow is
redirected to a point of controlled release. Passive systems can
be effective in controlling convective gas flow, less so in
Instances of diffusive flow; and there are instances of their
being ineffective.
This type of system consists of a layer of more permeable material
between the landfill and the surrounding soils. This material may
be crushed rock, gravel, sand, etc., or it may consist of
perforated pipe put into the ground at specific intervals or
both. Our experiene with this type of system has proven it to be
far less efficient in stopping the movement of landfill gas than
the other systems. Since the gas moves by convectin as well as
pressure, it appears to move right through the material via
diffusion and into the surrounding soils. If snad is used as the
porous material, relatively few fines should be included, to
insure ease of gas flow (e.g., not more than 5% passing No. 100
sieve). Well rounded pea gravel can be used for the passive vent
if the trench is excavated in and backfilled with refuse, because
refuse would not ravel into the pea gravel as natural soil would.
However, anyone intending to excavate in refuse should be aware of
and take precautions against potential hazards from fire or toxic
gases, and the likelihood of malodors. A 4-inch PVC schedule 40
perforated pipe would be laid in the porous material at a depth of
five feet below ground surface. To protect against plugging of
the passive vent during freezing conditions, the synthetic
membrane would be folded over the top of the sand or gravel near
the surface. Hooded vent stacks would extend through the membrane
at 200-foot intervals and would be connected to the underground
perforated header pipe. The vent/barrier trench method of gas
-------

minrAt-ion control was considered whenever practicable (i.e., whenever
groundwater was within 25 feet of the surface) .Such factors as ram, snow,
itc may clog the surface of the passive vent and stop gas migrating upwards
thereby allowing the gas to continue on through the surrounding sol..
Due to this low-level of efficiency, the passive vent system is
frequently combined with a barrier system. In this case the
oermeable material is placed between a barrier system and the
fill The vent/barrier trench system would consist.ot a trench
alonq or just outside the perimeter of a landfill, dug to a depth
sufficient to key the system into the groundwater table,
unfissured bedrock, or some other material impermeable to the flow
of methane gas. A barrier membrane would then be laid across the
bottom of the trench and up the trench side opposite the landfill.
(See Figure 2.11)
Our experience with this type of system suggests that it is onlj/
as qood as the barrier system. We therefore do not recommenra
ventilation system without at least a good barrier system
to suoDort it. Construction of such a system utilizes a control
trench which is limited by the backhoe equipment. In this
the trench is dug and a membrane is placed across the
JSS S2 w 11 away from the landfill. Gravel Is then
used to backfill the trench; a vent pipe may or may not
beincluded. A shallow depth landfill and high water table typify
conditions for this fairly common system.
2.3.2.3 Power Extraction (See Figure 2.12)
Power extraction systems appear to be the most efficient system to
oreviously filled on late life operating landfills.
Active systems almost always include wells placed at intervals and
connected to a manifold which is 1n turn connected to a pump. The
oumo creates a negative pressure in the system which develops into
a^oradlent" barrier. The main advantage of this type of system
is that It provides a positive displacement of gases and thereby
prevents the buildup of adverse pressures.
Tn manv cases a final system which utilizes one or more of the
features listed in the prior discussion has been installed. This
orovides a system of maximum efficiency with a minimum of
disadvantages. Systems can be installed prior to completion of
the fill as a preventative measure or after completion in response
to the development of a particular problem. Most systems
installed to date are intended to alleviate or prevent a
oartleuIar problem which had already developed. However, more and
more systems are being installed as part of the original design.
This is due in part to the increasing technology which is making
t easier to predict potential problems prior to their actually
occurring. Very few of these systems have as yet been proven in
actual field use. Systems containing only passive elements have
the advantage of being low in cost, both in the initial capital
expenditure and in the annual maintenance and operation costs.
-------
-------
BARPIER MATERIALS
-BACKFILL WITH NATIVE MATE-HAL
-------
while systems which utilize active elements are probably more
effective. In either case, each system should be designed to be
the most effective while still providing adequate protection under
the site specific conditions.
Gases collected by exhaust systems ar generally disposed of by
direct stacking, by incineration, or by passage through various
sorption media. Gases from passive vent systems usually are
allowed to discharge directly to the atmosphere; in certain cases,
the gases are combusted, as in "tiki torches". In all instances
uncombusted gas must be exhausted at a location where it is not
subject to careless ignition, generally in a protected enclosure
or above normal reach. Malodors associated with uncombusted gas
may distate some form of odor control; ignition represents the
simplest and most effective malodor control.
This type of system consists of a number of wells put into the
landfill into which a vacuum is induced. The vacuum pulls the gas
out of the wells and into a manifold system and then to a
discharge point. The wells themselves are made by drilling a hole
into the landfill or the surrounding soil with an auger, caisson,
or bucket drill. A perforated pipe is then lowered into the hole
to a depth of from 2/3 to 3/4 of the depth of the fill, and the
rest of the hole filled with a fairly porous material (gravel or
rock). The top of the hole around the pipe is sealed with cement
or clay and the pipe connected to a manifold system with a valve.
The manifold system then goes to a vacuum punp and into a flaring
system.
The number of wells necessary for any particular landfill depends
on many different factors such as: The density of the fill or
surrounding soils, the number of acres of landfill, the depth of
the fill, etc. It«is therefore a site specific number that must
be designed for the particular fill in question. Some sites have
used a radius of influence of 150 feet and others greater or
lesser distances and achieved relatively good results. The wells
arre spaced at intervals along the perimeter margin of the
landfill. Wells are located either interior to the edge of ill or
external to it, in the surrounding native soils. Selection of
location is site-specific and dependent upon cost, benefit and
perrformance criteria. The wells are connected by manifolding to
an exhaust blower which creates a vacuum drawing gas from thewell
field. The gas flow direction in the volume of refuse or soil
influenced by eac well is toward the well, effectively controlling
migration. Alternatively, to enhance the control ability of a
trench system, a collection pipe can be placed in a gravel-filed
trench and then connected to a vacuum exhaust system. A pipe
would be installed with perforations from the bottom of the casing
to within 10 feet of ground surface. Coarse rock backfill would
be placed around the perforations, and the upper 10 feet would be
sealed from surface inflow of air by placing a concrete seal and
impermeable backfill material. The wells would be connected by a
header system. A centrifugal blower would apply a partial vacuum
-------
to the header system and wells, drawing gas through the soil or
refuse surrounding the wells and collecting it in the header.
Exhaust from the blower would be ignited in a flare to control
malodors.
Another factor determining the number of wells is whether or not
gas recovery is considered. Since the power extraction system
removes the gas from the landfill in a controlled manner, recovery
of the gas for energy purposes is possible. In a recovery system
the operator wants to extract as much landfill gas as possible
without pulling air into the system, therefore a large number of
wells is necessary.
The power extraction system is one of the most efficient systems
if properly designed and installed. It is especially important as
a remedial device used on abandoned landfills. Our experience
shows that within a very short time after activation of the
system, methane levels in the surrounding soils decrease
dramatically. The cost of this system is also extremely
competitive with the other systems. This type of system does,
however, require more maintenance than the other systems.
2.3.3 Building and Structures Protection on the Landfill
For buildings and other structures such as the one depicted in close
proximity to a landfill with lateral methane gas migration in Figure
2.1.3, protective design features may range from simple to fairly
complex. An example of one such gas control system is illustrated in
Figure 14. A very basic feature of this example, 1s the impervious
membrane between the slab and subgrade in buildings with slab on grade
floors. A more effective system 1s provided by a permeable blanket with
exhaust pipes between membrane and subgrade, permitting passive or active
exhaust venting of the Intercepted gas. Utility lines entering a
structure must always be properly sealed. A broken drain line could be a
direct connection of the landfill gas.
An additional feature which further adds to system credibility is a thin
layer of permeable material between the membrane and slab with methane
gas probes and an automatic methane gas sensors alarm system. The probes
can be monitored and the alarm can trigger an event when the methane gas
concentration exceeds a selected value.
Building codes generally Incorporate requirements for good ventilatin and
undoubtedly have precluded many methane-related Incidents from
happening. Nevertheless, many homeowners or building operators are
unaware of the potential problem and unknowingly block the vent system,
thereby creating a gas hazard. Suildings immediately over the landfill
are particularly suspect, as cracks in the soil cover, settlement of the
building, and resultant rupture or cracking of slabs may allow oas to
flow into the building. 8u11ding codes should require that developments
adjacent to a landfill require a predetermined distance dependent largely
on the gas perrmeability of the soils in the buffer zone to provide
adequate safeguards for the life of the structure nd include operation,
maintenance, and monitoring of any protective system.
-------
-------
FRONT VIEW
EXHAUST
SIDE VIEW
INTAKE
SIDE VIEW
POSITIVE BUILDING GAS CONTROL SYSTEM
ON LANDFILL WITH DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
-------
2.3.4 Success
The success of any of the migration control systems described must be
continuously appraised throughout the gas production life of the
landfill. In installed protection systems, probes may be permanently
placed at suitable locations in the interval between the migration
control system and the facilities to be protected. These probes may be
monitored on a frequent schedule either by gas sampling and analysis, or
by in-site gas detectors connected to an alarm system. Subfloor
protection systems also must incorprate similar apartatus for measurement
of gas concentrations above the protective layers.
Alarm systems are considered as to the type of environment for which
their protection will be designed. The main component of these alarm
systems will be a combustible gas sensor. These sensors would function
by detecting methane gas concentrations at a present leve. When this
present level is achieved, the sensor would then complete either an alarm
circuit, a ventilation circuit or both (refer to Figure 2.15). Most of
the combustible gas sensors on the market today are set at a threshold of
either 10 to 20 perrcent of the lower explosive level (0.52 to 1.0X gas
by volume in air), thereby, reducing the possibility of explosive levels
in the immediate vicinity of the sensor. A system flow chart as
represented by Figure 2.16 depicts the more sophisticated systems being
utilized in larger buildings in the top frame and in the bottom frame, a
less sophisticated system being for use in residential units.
2.3.4.1 Effectiveness
Effectiveness in controllabi1ity refers to the reliability and
ability to control gas migration. This evaluation distinguishes
between initial and future effectiveness. Future effectiveness of
a control method is related to the system's maintainability.
Generally simple systems are the most maintainable; so the
impermeable barrier and natural ventilation systems are given the
highest ratings. The trench with impermeable barrier systems
receives the best rating because the impermeable barrier would
probably provide an acceptable level of methane control even if
the porous material in the trench-became clogged with sediment
from surface drainage.
Two additional factors should be taken into account, however.
First, ease of detecting and repairing failures is an important
consideration. In this regard, the natural ventilatin and
impermeable barriers systems rank lower than the forced
ventilation system. Second, short periods of down-time, likely
with mechanical forced-ventilation system, would not be
significant interms of effectiveness. Conversely, with the other
systems the longer poerlads of undetected partial failure would
cause a greater reduction in effectiveness.
-------
CONCEPTUAL AIR EXCHANGE FOR
AMBIENT METHANE CONTROL
-------
4tr
-rtr
,Floor of structure
rvr'
rnxxxrrr
Air intake
oir
!0%/20%L£L
Gos sensing probes
(radius of influence as per supplier)
octive gos oreo
(craw! spoce, basement, etc.)
Sensor activity
lights
Control panelJ
ac/dc
4

High
' volume
exhaust
fan
Methane
gos .
Methane_v>>
gas :;s.

GAS ALARM SYSTEM W/AIR EXCHANGE
S

Floor of structure

A-l

Control ponet-
ac/dc
Sensor

b=^
v
Alorm
Areo of influence
as per supplier
Elin
Methane
gas .
//WV/AW/AV
SELF-CONTAINED RESIDENTIAL ALARM SYSTEM
-------
2.3.4.2 Manageability
Manageability of a gas control system can be thought of as its
adaptability to modification of operations as required by changes
in gas migration monitoring data. Manageability is a measure of a
system's flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. This
flexibility can be thought of in two ways:
First, as controllability in operating the system as initially
installed;
Second, as the availability of contingency plans for physical
modification of the initial system should it prove inadequate to
control gas migration.
Manageability, therefore, is the system's ability to be
operator-adjusted for maximum effectiveness. Substantial cost
savings will result if a system can be controlled to maintain
maximun effectiveness with reduced gas flow rates.
High controllability 1s inherent in forced ventilation systems.
Natural ventilation systems and impermeable barriers offer little
or no controllability (after initial installation) and therefore
require costly renovation should they be ineffective.
2.3.5 Criteria for Selection
Subjectivity necessarily enters into the selection of factors to be
considered in evaluating conrol alternatives, the weighting of those
factors, and the scoring of alternative control methods under each
factor. Each of the gas migration control alternatives considered can be
evaluated on the basis of several factors. The factors were weighted
according to the importance each should have in influencing the choice of
a control plan. For a given landfill, each control alternative can be
assigned a score under each factor; the score reflects the degree to
which the control alternative meets the objective of the factor. The
factor weight represents the maximum score that any alternative could
receive under that factor. The total of all factor weights (therefore,
the maximum possible total score for any control alternative) was
arbitrarily made to equal 100 points. The following is a list of factors
that may be considered in evaluating control alternative, together with
their factor weight:
-------
Factor
Factor
Weight
Cost 30
Effectiveness 28
Initial 22
Future 16
Manageability 20
Controllabi1ity 8
Availability of Contingency
Plans 12
Environmental Impact 10
Maiodor 4
Noise 2
Aesthetics 4
Compatability with Surroundings 10
On Site 5
Off Site 5
Disturbance Ouring Construction 2
TOTAL 100
You can make your own list with your subjective ratings. The point is
you need such a list to narow down the choices.
2.3.6 Impacts
2.3.6.1 Environmental Impacts of Control Systems
Environmental effects being considered in this evaluation include
malodor, noise, and aesthetics. A vent/barrier trench system
would be completely silent. Some odorous gases would issue from
the vent stacks of this system, and aesthetically, the
vent/barrier trench system is very unobtrusive; the vent stacks
are the only manifestation of its presence.
With a control well system there are noises associated with
operation of the blower/burner facility. Ignition of the exhaust
gases effectively controls malodors, and aesthetically, the well
control system is also fairly unobtrusive, but the blower/burner
facility is obvious and might be considered unsightly.
2.3.6.2 Compatibi1ity with Surroundings
Compatibility of a gas control system with its on-site and
off-site surroundings includes its impact on future land use and
on property values. In addition, compatibility with the on-site
surroundings includes the effects the control system may have on
-------
existing landfill operations. Impact on property values would be
the same for either a well control system or a vent/barrier trench
system. Effect on the value of on-site land is negligible since
individual structures would have to include protection from
landfill gas even if a perimeter control system were installed.
Any system could cause an increase in the value of off-site land
by eliminating the landfill gas hazard; but since both systems
effectively control off-site migration, the potential increase in
property values should be equal.
2.3.6.3 Disturbance During Construction
Installation of a vent/barrier trench system requires extensive
excavation and backfilling, and this system was awarded no points
for minimizing disturbance during construction. A control well
system requires well drilling operations, some excavation for
protection of the header pipe, and may require some earthwork
during site preparation.
-------
Control Sys. .. Description
Trench with granu- Along all boundaries to
lar backfill completely enclose each
site. Gravel backfill great-
er than 1/4 inch. Depth: 20
feet or to groundwater ta-
ble or bedrock, whichever
is less
Trench with imper- Along all boundaries to
vlous membrane completely enclose each
site. Impervious mem-
brane. 30 mil. thickness
Depth: to groundwater or
unfissured bedrock.
Natural induction
wells with subsur-
face collector pipes
Perimeter and interior
spaced sme as foced In-
duction wells. Depth: same
as above.
At.. -.ttages
Low cost at depths up to
12 feet. Little maintenance
1s required. The granular
backfill provides a highly
permeable region with
venting to the air to allow
low resistance passage of
gas.
Disadvantages
Costs escalate rapidly at
depths over 20 feet. The bar-
rier may not be effective if
pervious natural soil layers
exist on the outside of the
membrane. Gas could mi-
grate and/or diffuse across
the barrier. Difficult to con-
struct at depths over 30 feet,
and Impractical to construct
over 45 feet. Not controll-
able.
Low costs at depths be-
tween 12 and 30 feet. The
membrane cvan provide a
positle seal and be a bar-
rier against gas and lea-
chate. Little maintenance
1s required. Granular back-
fill on the landfill side of
the membrane allows meth-
ane gas to vent to the
air.
Costs become exceptionally
high below 30 foot depth.
The barrier my not be effec-
tive unless 1t extends into the
groundwater table to elimi-
nate gas migration beneath
the membrane. Difficult to
construct at depths over 30
feet, and impractical at over
45 feet. Not controllable.
Can Install wells to depths
over 100 feet. Can install
collector pipes at varying
depths. Can cover a large
area of landfill surface us-
ing Interconnecting col-
lectors between wells.
Negligible maintenance
and operating costs.
Extensive piping and well
systtem Is needed at high
cost. Reliability and effec-
tiveness may be unsatisfac-
tory since this system basi-
cally combines the trench
and well systems. Not con-
trollable
-------
Control Sj .em
Natural induction
wells
Description
Perimeter and interior
spaced same as forced in-
duction wells. Depth: same
as above
Low-flow and high
flow forced induc-
tion wells with sur-
face collection
ducts
perimeter wells—space
100 feet on center. Interior
wells—space 200 feet on
centers. Duct collectors,
blowers for forced induc-
tion burner for odor con-
trol. Depth: 20 feet or to
groundwater or to bed-
rock, whichever is least.
/antages
Can Install at depths over
100 feet. Can cover a large
area. Negligible mainte-
nance and comparatively
low operating costs.
Very reliable and effective
at controlling gas migra-
tion from landfills, pro-
vides positive controlled
removal of methane gas.
Can be used as a barrier
around the landfill perim-
eter by spacing close
enough to provide over-
lapping negative pres-
sures.
Disadvantages
Localized venting of meth-
ane. Large number re-
quired to achieve control of
migration. Is uneconomical.
Reliability and effectiveness
have been Inadequate. Not
controllable.
Relatively costly. Requires
maintenance and periodic In-
spection. High-flow has
greater power and mainte-
nance cost than lOw-flow
system.
-------
I'l
CHAPTER. 3
PJISUC IMPACTS
-------
3.0
3.1
Public Tmpacts
Public Involvement
3.1.1 Notification
3.1.2 Public Meetings
3.2 Training/Information Dissemination Techniaues
3.2.1 The Methane Audience
3.2.2 Information Types
3.2.3 The Ccronunication Media
3.2.3.1 Slide Presentation
3.2.3.2 Films
3.2.3.3 Video Tape
3.2.3.4 Press Releases (samples)
3.2.3.5 Training Exercises/Demonstrations
3.2.4 Demonstrations/Training Exercises
3.2.5 Technology Transfer
3.3 Political and Social Controls
3.3.1 Landfill Gas Hazard Liability
3.3.2 Legal Liability - Who Is Responsible
3.3.3 Statutes and Regulations
3.3.4 State Health Regulations
3.3.5 Local Ordinances
3.3.5 Who Owns Gas
3.3.7 Oeed Restrictions
3.3.S RCRA Legal
3.3.9 Firs Safety Codes
3.3.10 5u11d1ng Codes and Standards
3.3.11 Planning/Zoning
-------
3.0 Public Impact
Without a doubt the public will be impacted by the discoveries of methane
movement in close proximity to residences, schools, industrial and commercial
buildings. It is important that the publics' involvement be well founded
based on logical and technical facts and not a reactionary movement based upon
fear. It fs essential that public officials identify the hazard as to its
magnitude and true dangers. To avoid such fear, public officials must
undertake a very positive notification and information dissemination campaign.
3.1 Public Involvement
Public relations plays an important part in any methane management program.
The public roust be Informed of the problem using sound documented
Information. The problem should be presented as to its cause, origin, life
expectancy, potential and corrective measures in dealing with the problem.
The purpose of a public relations program is to negate any panic that may
arise in the public's point of view. The fact that there is methane gas in,
under and around a building, does not necessarily mean that an explosion
potential exists and that required physical precautions must be taken in order
to preclude the possibility for an explosion or fire.
A public relations program should be aimed at both the private and public
sector of a given community. It should be pointed out that methane gas
generated from solid waste landfill sites were created by the public at large
from their own waste generation and therefore Is a public health and safety
concern.
3.1.1 Notification
Public awareness of the total problem is essential to an effective
accident prevention program. The one thing to avoid is mass hysteria on
the part of the public by misinformation and scare tactics. Tables
and reflect forms of official notification used by some local government
agencies to notify the public.
3.1.2 Public Meetings
By conducting open informative meetings the general public can be
infonned of the total problem. Part of the misconception surrounding
landfill generated gases is a complete understanding of how the gases
travel and collect. This kind of information must be given to the public
in order that they fully understand the explosive fire and aphyxiation
potential possessed by the gas.
There are many vehicles for assembling public meetings. One of the roost
available, but seldom used, are the communities service clubs, suqh as
Kawanls Club, Lion's Clubs and Rotary Clubs. These service organizations
often present community special interest programs and would welcome such
a safety oriented informational program.
Other areas of public involvement are civic oriented groups such as
P.T.A.'s and senior citizen groups. These types of groups are always
looking for community involvement type of programs'.
-------
Last, but not least, are public meetings involving the political
community. These meetings include city council and boards of county
commissioners. It is most important to keep legislative authorities of
any community informed as to the extent of the landfill problem. It is
they who will fund the necessary programs and pass the required
legislation that will control the problems.
3.2 Training/Information Dissemination Techniques
The need has been identified and illustrated in the previous sections, that
the information gathered from research or investigations into
landfill-Associated methane be disseminated quickly, accurately, and by the
most effective communication medium. This 1s Important in order to create
and/or maintain a positive attitude about Investigative control and recovery
efforts, to promote new technology as 1t develops so that others may share the
benefits, and to enable Individuals and communities effected by the
Investigations to take appropriate action.
This Section will identify potential Information users, explore what type of
information 1s pertinent, and will suggest ways that this information can be
best presented.
3.2.1 The Methane Audience
There are six primary users of information concerning methane generated
by domestic landfills:
(1) Public Officials; (discussed In 3.1.2)
(2) Elected Officials;
(3) Landfill Owners/Operators;
(4) Methane-affected Individuals/Property Owners;
(5) Professionals, eg., Consultants, Engineers;
(6) Researchers/Academicians;
(7) News Media (for redistribution to the general public)^
Public officials who might request or need information concerning
landfill-associated methane Include individuals from local, state, and
federal departments of health, safety, land-use planning, and others.
They need information to determine the best way to Investigate methane
accidents, to develop methane-related legislation, to assess liabilities
associated with methane from landfills, or to help Interpret newly
generated data.
Elected officials at all levels of government could also use this
Information to find the most suitable administrative and legislative
remedies for the methane problem.
-------
Landfill owners and operators will be especially interested in methane
survey data generated from their particular site. Not only will this
give the owner/operator a better idea of the risk involved at his or her
facility, but also, in the surrounding area. Survey information can also
be used to assist in the design of methane control and methods to
safeguard life and property.
Those individuals who own methane-affected, property adjacent to the
landfill will need accurate and up-to-date information so that
preventative measures can be taken to protect their interests and
potential liability.
Engineering/consulting firms need the information to effectively design
control and monitoring systems that will help to protect life and
property now and in the future.
The researcher/academician may be interested in the information for use
1n developing new methods of methane control and recovery or possibly to
better understand the methane phenomenon.
Information may be transmitted to the newsroedia {broadcast and print) in
two ways:
(1) By the controlled release of information through a press release
or press conference by an agency or firm for a specific reason.
Usually such a release will Include Information which requires wide
dissemination to a large audience. For example, notifying the public
about methane problems which can develop near landfills would be
necessary to protect property owners, builders, contractors,
maintenance workers, etc.;
(2) Information may be released when the media Initiates its own
Investigation into a particular site or problem.
3.2.2 Information Types
The basic types of Information to be disseminated are:
(1) General information about landfill associated methane, potential or
actual hazards, and methane control and recovery;
(2) Information derived from investigations at specific sites;
(3) Proprietary information regarding control or recovery techniques.
General Information
It 1s not reconmended or warranted that the general public be given
Information that is too technical. Specific Investigative data that the
public cannot interpret could be confusing and might cause unnecessary fear
and a negative reaction. General descriptions defining methane-generation,
investigations and control and recovery methods would be appropriate.
Whereas, a more knowledgeable audience would expect and appreciate more
detailed data. It should be remembered that any information release could
-------
lead to an unfavorable reaction by the public and/or other persons involved.
It should also be remembered that no matter how much care has been taken to
prepare the communication and information- flow, there will probably be someone
who is not satisfied, or will misinterpret the-basic facts. Therefore, it is
important that whoever is chosen to disseminate the information anticipates
all possible negative and positive reactions that could occur from the release
of the information and is prepared to handle them properly, if they should
occur.
Investigative Information
In presenting investigative data regarding a specific site it is best to
notify those parties directly involved (property owners, site
owners/operators) first, if possible, so they may take appropriate action.
Then, if there 1s a specific request for the Information by someone else
(e.g., the media) 1t will not come as a surprise to those affected. In some
cases, it may be possible to refer any Inquiries to the affected parties so
that they may release the Information as they choose.
Proprietary Information
Proprietary information provided by private engineering/consulting firms
should.never be discussed without prior approval of the firm. In most cases
this agreement is worked out during contractual negotiations. This is of
special importance 1n the newly evolving field of methane recovery since
development of new recovery systems can cost a firm millions of dollars to
develop. Every effort should be made to protect this confidential
information. Examples of written comnunlcatlons are given 1n Tables 3.1,
2,3,4 and 5.
3.2.3 The Communication Media
A variety of communication mediums can be utilized to disseminate
Information to individuals, groups, or the public in general. If used
efficiently they can be effective tools to carry out public relations
efforts and technology transfer. Each medium has unique qualities and
applications. Some of the more coononly used methods include:
1. Slide presentations (35 ran);
2. Film (16 mm, 8 mm, and Super 8 mm);
3. Video tape;
4. Press release;
5. Training^ exercises/demonstrations.
In the following discussion each technique will be briefly analyzed as to
its advantages and disadvantages and recommendations will be given for
-1 ts use. No matter- what method A s-chosen,- the -mess age shoul d be
presented 1n a clear and concise manner and should be designed to meet
the needs and technical background of the particular audience members.
-------
3.2.3.1 Slide Presentations
Slide presentations can he an effective way of presenting
information to large or small audiences and can be used in a
television broadcast as well. Individual or a series of 35 mm
slides can be used to illustrate points in an oral presentation
which are normally difficult to describe. Helping the audience to
visualize the inner workings of a methane extraction system, for
example, can be easily accomplished with a slide showing a
cross-section of the system; or, comparison of gas composition
data from several extraction wells can be better understood when
presented In slide form than with a lengthy verbal explanation.
A slide show is a flexible presentation technique that can be
tailored to the individual audience. Shots of local landfills,
for example, can be inserted to bring a show "home'1 to a
particular audience. Depending upon the situation, the speaker
can shorten or lengthen the presentation by simply increasing or
decreasing delivery speed and detail. Recordings can be made to
accompany your own show and at very little cost. But, a taped
message is less flexible than a speaker's verbal accompaniment.
A do-it-yourself slide show 1s fairly inexpensive once the basic
equipment (i.e., 35 mm camera, projector and screen) has been
purchased. The cost of the film, flash, and developing is
minimal. And, if necessary, the show itself can be reproduced at
a very low cost for use by others. In contrast, professionally
made slide shows with accompanying sound track and narration on
tape and which require special projection equipment can be very
expensive costing as much or more than a professionally produced
short film.
By following a few simple rules, your slide show can be an
effective communication tool. In developing a slide presentation
It is reconmended that it be kept to the point and should be
interesting to the viewer throughout. It is wise to write a basic
script prior to taking pictures to Insure that there is continuity
to the Information dissemination goals of the speaker rather than
trying to fit a presentation to whatever slides might be
available. The slides should not duplicate what is said, but
should complement or accentuate specific points expressed
verbally. The slide show should be carefully edited and only
those slides that are pertinent to the presentation should be
included. Resist adding those unique shots that are exciting to
look at, but don't really relate to the subject.
The use of charts and graphs make data presentation easier while a
few carefully selected newspaper pictures and articles can add
reality to a presentation. A newspaper headline, "Two Men Killed
in Landfill Associated Methane Accident" would help to dramatize
the potential gravity of the problem. Avoid putting too much data
"on one slide. It Ts better To "divide the data^on two or three
slides in order to give-Jthe viewer the feeling that the
-------
information is not too complicated. Blank (exposed) slides can be
inserted between slides so that as the speaker talks on areas that
do not require illustration, the audience will not be distracted
by a previous slide.
Most slide shows should be relatively short as audience members
tend to lose interest if a presentation is longer than 15
minutes. A question and answer period iks usually appropriate
after such a presentation.
To help make the slide show run smoothly, the speaker should take
the time to practice with the equipment and to perfect timing. Be
sure that there is an extra bulb for the projector and that
extension cords are available. Extra long projector control
switches are also helpful if the speaker must be away from the
projector during the presentation.
A slide presentation has been developed by the Intergovernmental
Methane Task Force regarding the methane hazard as 1t exists in
the Denver Metropolitan area. The information to be presented
about a methane gas problem should be technically correct, but not
too technical 1n nature. All aspects of the problem should be
presented; starting with how methane gas 1s produced, how methane
gas migrates, and how to control the problem.
A slide program using local landfills and buildings that have
experienced a methane gas problem, seen to work best. By
utilizing local conditions, the public seems to identify more
rapidly with the problem. Another method of Information
dissemination 1s sharing of Information and experience by holding
joint meetings with other authorities having jurisdiction such as
Colorado's Intergovernmental Methane Task Force (IMTFJ. An
aggressive, informed, combined activity 1s the quickest way to
solve a problem* Information about this slide show is available
from:
Chairman
Intergovernmental Methane Task Force
450 S. 4th Avenue
Brighton, Colorado 80601
3.2.3.2 Films
A film, whether it be 16 urn, 8mm, or super 8 combines the impact
of sight, sound, and movement with added dimensions of color music
and drama to encourage audience response. Other than a live
presentation, film and video tape productions are the only mediums
that can provide all of these life-like effects and extras. Film
can illustrate time and sequence factors that are necessary to -
perform specific actions. For example, a film can show actual
wethanejnonitoring and survey techntques-wbil* *jLlide or series
of slides can only show a portion of the event
-------
As opposed to a slide show and many other audio-visual techniques,
film presents a message that cannot be compromised by the
presenter's mood, delivery, technique, or knowledge of the
subject. A film can attract the sustained, exclusive attention of
the audience for the length of the message.
While film is usually the first and most desirable choice of many
persons with an information dissemination purpose, the presenter
must weigh carefully the benefits of film - its potential use, and
audience and budget allowance - before deciding on this unique
medium.
Producing a film is very expensive, requires an experienced and
creative team to produce an effective product and takes a much
longer time to make than a slide show. In most cases a film
company must be hired to write a script, do the filming, editing,
and sound recording of narration, background music, and special
effects. A film may take months to produce and cost SI,000 or
more per minute of film.
Once a film is complete it cannot be easily changed or modified.
If the subject of the film is, new methane recovery techniques, it
may be outdated before the film is even finished.
It is recommended that any film produced be adaptable for tele-
vision presentation. Local television stations will frequently
use short films or film clips on subjects of local interest. The
tele- vision medium offers the opportunity for much broader
exposure of the filmed message. If a film is to be used by
television broadcastors, be sure to have extra copies of the film
for this purpose. If 1t 1s to be used for public service
announcements via television, cassettes can be prepared in timed
sequence (30, 60 second, etc.), to meet the station's individual
public service announcement requirements. These can also be made
on video tape.
•
3.2.3.3 Video tape
Video tape 1s fast becoming one of the most popular ways of
disseminating information and entertainment to the public. The
recent dramatic increase 1n the availability of low-cost video
tape-recordings equipment has made it much easier for individuals
and public and private groups to own and operate this valuable
communication tool.
At this time, a video tape camera can- be rented for approximately
S250/day for color and purchased for $2,000. A black and white
camera costs $o5/day and purchased for $1,500 Video tape
cassette players can be rented for $65 per day and purchased for
approxl matety $1,000 - $1,500 (Rental - pr leer-are- -reduced for
multi-day use). This price range would allow individuals or
groups to make use of this type of equipment.
-------
Video tape, like film, incorporates the benefits of sound, color,
motion, and drama, but produces an instant product that can be
edited, if desired, in a short time and that can be very effective
in delivering certain types of messages. Video tape is somewhat
less polished than fill", but it can be produced at much less cost,
is easily reproduced, and can be erased and reused.
For certain applications, a script should be followed so that the
presentation is smooth and has a "professional" look. Following a
script can also eliminate unnecessary editing.
Because video tape recording is so versatile and easy to use, it
can be very effective 1n both controlled or uncontrolled
productions. It Is an excellent tool for use in training sessions
where participants can see instantly how well they have performed
certain tasks. Improve- ments can be made and actions retaped
with the option of allowing com- parisons between the two
sequence. Because tape 1s fairly inexpensive, used tape can be
saved or erased and be used again at a later time. Video tape
equipment can record lectures, speeches, panel discussions, and
demonstrations for reshowing at a later date to participants and
other interested parties.
Video tape recording equipment Is very simple to operate and can
be used by almost anyone following a few simple instructions. It
should be noted that editing equipment does require considerable
experience to make smooth and fast changes to a completed tape.
The Environmental Protection Agency is In the process of
developing a video tape which will be available in the near future
on the landfill-associated methane problem. Please contact the
Solid Waste Program of the Region VIII Office of EPA for further
Information regarding this tape (telephone 303/837-2221).
3.2.3.4 Press Releases.
A press release is a written message that 1s used to disseminate
Information to the news media - newspapers, radio, and television,
for redistribution to the public. . Information regarding an
important meeting, demonstration projects and their results, new
policies,, or a new grant are commonly announced in this way.
If used by the media, a news 1ten may get wide distribution to the
public where slide presentations, films, and video tapes may not.
A press release allows for tight control over the information
released which is an important advantage 1f you are releasing
results of a methane survey of a landfill 1n an especially
sensitive area.
A press release does not have the same type of impact as a film
with its sound and sights, but a press release can be very
effective- in a number of waysT espee1al4y 1* -a relevant-photograph
Is included. A picture of a methane recovery system, for example,
can h* to complete"* a short release on a new recovery
-------
technique. Photographs should have appropriate captions and
identifications taped to the back. Most newspapers prefer 8" x
10" black and white glossy prints. Television stations prefer
photographs with a matt finish. Check with the news editor of the
newspapers and television stations you will be sending your
photographs to in order to find out what their special
requirements might be.
In using a press release it is recommended that you:
(1) Have an up-to-date list of local news editors;
(2) Know when to release the information. 8e aware of press and
broadcast deadlines;
(3) Ee sure the release is timely, Interesting, and above all,
newsworthy;
(4) Oo not overuse the press release;
(5) Follow-up with a phone call to the media representatives to
remind them of the meeting date, etc. Oo not ask when or if
the release will be used;
(6) Be familiar with the content and format of each outlet.
Tailor the release to the medium - write news stories for
newspapers and articles for publication, etc.;
A press release can be used to create a positive public attitude
about an organization, project, or conwunity effort so that if
future problems should occur, the public will frequently have a
more confident attitude regarding the capabilities and credibility
of a group or projects worthiness. Frequently, concern about
public image 1s not considered until after a problem arises. By
providing the public or interested parties information 1n advance
through responsible use of the press release, negative reactions
may be diminished or avoided entirely should a sensitive situation
occur.
r
3.2.4 Demonstrations/Training Exercises
One of the most effective training methods to transfer information or
technology to others Is to conduct a demonstration or training exercise
where a process Is witnessed first- hand,, or where participants actually
take part 1n the event.
While this technique can be very successful, it requires time and effort
to properly prepare for each session. One must arrange for equipment, a
meeting place, transportation, provide equipment and other supplies,
extend invitations and follow-up, arrange for sufficient support staff
and a proficient communicator and-technology expert- to_conduct the
Jam /*%• 41 M 4 n a CO
-------
But, despite the effort, hands-on experience is often the quickest
and most efficient way to communicate specific Information. For
example, methane survey techniques can be demonstrated easily and
successfully in the field using a gas meter to monitor the methane
levels at various locations. The on-site demonstration enables
the trainee to use proper equipment in a natural environment under
supervised and controlled conditions.
3.2.5 Technology Transfer
This .exchange of information will allow others with common interests
to proceed 'from the most current standpoint, saving man-hours and
dollars that would have been expended to discover an answer that was
already known.
There are many ways that technology transfer can occur: through
published reports in industry periodicals; fn the mass media; through
organization newsletters, seminars, workshops, demonstrations; and by
word of mouth on an individual basis. But, no matter what way is
used, it is the process of exchanging ideas that perpetuates the
growth of technology and stimulates further communication.
This workbook, which will be used during the first national working
synposlum entitled, "Methane from Landfills - Hazards and
Opportunities," is a technology transfer effort by the IMTF with
contributions by symposium participants. The symposium will bring
people together to discuss the many aspects of the methane situation,
to complete this workbook and, at the same time, a communication
network will begin to build naturally as the symposium takes place.
Names will be exchanged, and interests will be aroused regarding
projects in other areas. Technology transfer will occur during the
workshop and will continue as correspondence and reports are
exchanged between participants.
Technology transfer 1s being promoted heavily by state and local
governments, Industry and business, universities, special interest
f roups, and individuals who recognize the need for a sharing of
nformation. The federal government has taken a very active
leadership role in the promotion of technology transfer.
It 1s our hope that this workbook will help to eliminate repetitive
research and stimulate continued advancements in methane control and
recovery process.
3.3 Political and Social Controls
3.3.1 Landfill Gas Hazardous Liability
The liability question of landfill-associated methane gas fires and
explosions is not clear. To our knowledge no case has been allowed to
-------
complete the judicial process due to out-of-court settlements, etc. We
do know, however, that several of the law suits filed on accidents
occuring in the Denver area were directed to almost everyone connected
with the landfill.
In the suit filed due to the death of one of the workmen at the 48th and
Holly landfill, the suit named the following entities:
A. The landfill owner(s);
8. The landfill filler;
C. The city with jurisdiction.
0. The pipeline construction company.
E. The Colorado Occuptation Health and Safety
Ado1n1strati on.
These entities cover about every agency having any jurisdiction or
ownership on the property.
These suits have also been for extremely large amounts of money. The
suit at 48th and Holly asks for $4.5 million in damages and penalities.
Another suit has asked for about S15 million for the injury of four
children in an explosion.
The Attorney•General's office of Colorado has stated that the
responsiblity for the methane generation of a fill is the responsiblity
of the present owner of the fill. This becomes quite confused as the
number of owners increases. In some areas, a subdivision has been placed
on the fill, resulting 1n many owners for one landfill area. In these
cases attaching liability 1n a court of law may be impossible.
We feel that the liability attached to government agencies 1s primarily
that of Identification of the problem coupled with notification of those
parties affected. If government does not adequately warn individuals of
a problem that they know exists a definite liability exists. We also
feel that orders to correct the situation and follow-up visits to insure
that these orders are adhered to must be given in order to prevent
government from becoming involved 1n future lawsuits.
3.3.2 Legal Liability - Who's Responsible
Methane from landfill sites can cause both personal Injuries and property
damage. The determination of who 1s responsible for methane related
hazards can aid in resolving what legislative and regulatory controls are
needed to ensure that the danger 1s being controlled and that the burden
for such control is allocated equitably.
Responsibility for methane hazards when a landfill is _tn operation rests
primarily with the landfill operator. When damage or injury occurs the
operator can be held liable for the negligent operation of the landfill.
-------
Under this theory the operator is not liable for all damage resulting
from methane but is only liable when the damage results from a failure to
use reasonable car in the operation of the landfill. Whether or not
reasonable car is used depends on such factors as the foreseeability to
the operator that such damage might result. Practices 1n the Industry
relating to methane control may indicate the standard of care which will
be imposed on the landfill operator although courts will often impose a
higher standard if they feel industry customs are not reasonable in light
of the danger the industry presents. Government regulations can also be
an indication of the care required of a landfill operator although courts
may impose a higher standard or care if they find the operator should
have knowledge of additional dangers.
There are certain circumstances under which a landfill operator can be
held absolutely liable for damages resulting from methane. Under the
theory of nuisance the landfill operator can be held responsible for
damage regardless of any lack of care in the operation of the landfill.
A nuisance is a condition on land which unreasonably Interferes with the
rights of another. An action for private nuisance Is usually brought by
one whose property rights are Interfered with. If personal Injury occurs
rather than property damage, an action for public nuisance can be brought
by the injured person against the landfill owner or operator. Since
nuisances usually involve conditions on land, a nuisance action 1s often
brought against the owner of the property on which the nuisance 1s
located. However, if the landfill operator rather than the landowner is
responsible for the creation of a nuisance, the operator can also be held
liable.
Negligence need not be proven In a nuisance action. Rather the value of
the competing interests are weighted to determine if the offensive
condition is unreasonable considering such factors as the location of the
landfill In relation to populated areas. In the absence of proof of
negligence, the acts creating the nuisance must be Intentional. In most
jurisdictions, the act 1s intentional if there 1s knowledge that it has
caused harm in the past and nothing was done to abate the harm.
Once a landfill has been closed, responsibility for landfill gas hazards
rests primarily with the owner of the land which was previously used as a
landfill. If ownership of the landfill has changed hands after the
landfill has been closed It is difficult to hold the present landowner
liable for any damage caused by landfill gases which have migrated from
the landfill site. The present landowner would have to be negligent in
some respect and this would be difficult to prove since the landowner
probably has little knowledge of landfill gas hazards.
There is a possibility that'the landfill operator or owner could still be
held liable for any methane related damage once the landfill has been
closed on the basis that the owner or operator created a dangerous
condition that Is a nuisance. If the closed landfill could still be
considered a nuisance, the creator of the nuisance could be held liable
even though the landfill site ownership has been transferred.
-------
Government has legal responsibility of the to control methane hazards
whether the landfill is publicly or privately owned, the nature of
government regulation of landfills and the extent to which the sovereign
Immunity doctrine applies in the state where the landfill is located.
In most jurisdictions a municipality or county has the responsibility of
operating a publicly owned landfill without creating a nuisance. The
liability of a local governmental entity for creating or maintaining a
nuisance is usually the same as that of a private operator. The landfill
must be operated withoy.t causing an unreasonable invasion to the rights
of others.
Whether or not a state, county or municipality can be sued for negligence
depends on whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity has been abrogated
in a particular state. Sovereign irrmunity is the doctrine which
prohibits state governments from being sued without their consent.
Counties are also immune from suit under this doctrine. However, the
doctrine only applies to municipalities when they are performing
functions which are deemed to be governmental. Generally the operation
of a landfill is considered to be a governmental function. This is
especially true if a state statute specifically gives a municipality the
duty to operate solid waste disposal facilities.
If a municipality is assuming this duty voluntarily and if substantial
revenue 1s derived from the disposal of solid waste, courts are more
Ulcely to find that the muncipality 1s not performing a governmental
function but rather that the function is proprietary. In Koontz v.
Winston-Salem. 280 N.C. 513, 186 S.E. 2d 897 (1972), a North Carolina
case which involved injuries resulting from a methane-related explosion,
the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the operation of a landfill
by the city was a proprietary function for which the city could be held
liable for negligence in the landfill's operation and maintenance. The
North Carolina court found that the operation of the landfill was a
proprietary function largely because the city was receiving payment from
the use of Its landfill by users outside the city and that this- extra use
of the city's landfill was a duty the city had assumed for its own
benefit and which was not imposed on the city by the state statute.
In approximately 23 states the sovereign Immunity doctrine has been
abrogated. In these states governmental liability for the operation an
maintenance of a publicly owned landfill is close to that of an operator
of a privately owned landfill. In many of these states, however, the
courts will refuse to Impose negligence liability on state and local
governments when the only duty owed by the governmental unit is a duty to
the general public. The duty to ensure that landfills are being operated
safely is usually a duty to the general public and unless a special duty
of the governmental unit 1s found toward a particular person, there will
be no governmental liability for negligence. A special duty to a
particular person is not easily found and will depend on factors such as
whether the area in which the injury occurred was open to the general
public and whether any special protection was expressly promised.
-------
Liability Is usually not imposed for a failure to enact regulations or
pass legislation dealing with methane hazards. Governmental actions
which Involve discretion and basic policy decisions are usually not
reviewable by the courts. There is an argument, however, that the state
has a duty under Its police power to enact legislation protecting the
health of the public. Once legislation or regulations dealing with solid
waste disposal sites are enacted, courts are more likely to impose a duty
upon local governments to see that such sites do not constitute a hazard
to the public health. However, when local government officials have
discretion as to whether or not to take any action regarding methane
hazards, ,j:here is probably not a legal duty to take such action.
3.3.3 Statutes and Regulations
Many problems related to landfill gases are dealt with ineffectively
without any methane specific legislation or government regulation. Legal
liability only results when damage or injury occurs. Knowledge of this
liability will often cause landfill owners and operators to take action
to prevent methane damage but there is no assurance that such action will
be taken. Methane also continues to be a problem after a landfill 1s
closed. Since the landfill 1s no longer 1n use it 1s very difficult to
hold any person llahle for any damage. Purchasers of land which was
previously used as a landfill often have no notice of the previous use.
Without any notice of methane dangers, 1t is impossible to hold anyone
liable for damage. The purchasers of the land themselves may be In
danger 1f they have no notice of methane hazards. If a subdivision is
built on or near a closed landfill site, each Individual landowner has
the responsibility of protecting his own property from damage but there
may be no way for any Individual landowner to effectively vent his own
tract of land to prevent any danger to himself from methane.
Many states have enacted statutes which give state agencies some control
over solid waste disposal sites. Usually a state agency, such as the
department of health or environmental conservation, is given authority to
promulgate regulations concerning solid waste disposal. However,-few
statutes deal specifically with methane control. Ideally state statutes
should deal with control of landfill decomposition gases to provide for
some uniformity throughout the state and to make certain that all
landfills in the state are subject to some type of control. Statutes or
regulations should provide for the monitoring of landfill sites for
methane and should also give state or local agencies the power to require
that landfill operators and owners alleviate any methane hazards. The
following Is a model state provision dealing with methane control. It
could also be adapted to state regulations If legislative authority
already exists giving a state agency power to enact such regulations.
MOOa STATUTORY PROVISION FOR THE CONTROL OF LANDFILL
DECOMPOSITION GASES
(!) The state department of health shall have the power to determine
which solid waste disposal sites present a potential danger to
surrounding areas from the presence and movement of landfill
-------
decomposition gases. The state department of health shall initially
monitor such solid waste disposal sites to determine if an actual hazard
from the gases exists.
(2) If the state department of health finds levels of landfill
decomposition gases which it deems to be hazardous, it shall require the
landfill operator and owner to take such measures as determined necessary
by the state health department to alleviate the danger.
(3) The solid waste disposal site operator and owner shall provide for
the continued monitoring of the site after the state health department
determines an actual hazard exists and the monitoring shall continue
until the state health department determines that the monitoring is no
longer necessary. Periodic reports of the monitoring shall be submitted
to the state health department at intervals determined by the department.
(4) No person shall establish or continue to operate a solid waste
disposal site without the submission of a plan to provide for the
venting, control and monitoring of landfill decomposition gases should
such measures be required by the state health department.
(5) All persons seeking approval of an application for the operation of
a solid waste disposal site shall submit a proposed plan for the ultimate
use of the site to the municipal and county officials in which the site
is located. The operator shall operate the site in a manner consistent
with the goals of the plan. Such a plan shall Include a proposed methane
control system which will prevent hazards from methane to any foreseen
development within the area surrounding the landfill site.
(6) The design and location of a proposed solid waste disposal site
shall be based on the consideration of geological data so as to minimize
the off-site migration of landfill decompostlon gases.
In addition to the requirements for the monitoring of landfills sites and
future planning for landfill sites, some provision is necessary to ensure
that someone is responsible for site care in the long term. Methane
barriers or ventlngs systems can fall to work properly years after the
site has been closed. A provision should be included which will hold the
landfill owner responsible for any hazards resulting from methane after
the landfill site is closed and for a reasonable time after the closure.
Oifferent problems are posed when develpment has already occured on or in
dangerous proximity to a closed or operating landfill. States can enact
provisions under their police power which give them power to regulate
-closed landfill sites or require that some measures be taken to abate any
hazards from methane. Certain areas where the hazards are particularly
dangerous and where individual, landowners do not have the financial
resources to alleviate the dangers can be condemned. However, a less
expensive and perhaps more efficient means to deal with this problem may
be to establish a tax assessment district with powers to acquire rights
of way and to control the methane. In this way the cost can be spread
out in the area that needs to abate methane hazards and the efforts will
be concentrated in one entity.
-------
3.3.4 Proposed State Health Department Regulations
(a) No person shall establish or continue to operate a solid waste
disposal site without the submission of a plan to provide for the
venting, control and monitoring of landfill decomposition gases
should such measures be required by the state health department.
(b) All persons seeking approval of an application for the operation of a
solid waste disposal site shall submit a proposed plan for the
ultimate use of the site. If the site is located within a
municipality the plan shall be submitted to the municipal officials.
If the site is located in the unincorporated areas of a county the
plan shall be submitted to the county commissioners. The operator
shall operate the site 1n a manner consistent with the goals of the
plan. Such a plan shall include a proposed methane control system
which will prevent hazards from methane to any foreseen development
within 1000 feet of the solid waste site.
(c) The design and location of the proposed solid waste disposal site
shall be based on the consideration of geological data so as to
minimize the off-site migration of landfill decomposition gases.
Proposed legislation to Grant Health Department Authority Over Closed and
Abandoned Landfill Sites.
(a) The state health department shall have authority over closed and
abandoned solid waste disposal sites to monitor for the presence and
movement of landfill decomposition gases. The state department of
health may also require that the owner of the closed or abandoned
landfill site take measures deemed necessary by the state department
of health to prevent the hazardous off-site migration of such gases.
3.3.5 Local Ordinance
The local health departments may assume the authority of the state health
department, upon approval of the state health department, over closed and
abandoned solid waste disposal sites as set out In paragraph (a).
3.3.6 Who. Owns the Gas?
Methane is produced natural.ly from the decomposition of waste material.
Consequently traditional oil and gas theories apply to methane produced
from landfill sites. Whoever owns the mineral rights to a piece of land
also owns the rights to the methane under that tract of land. This is
true unless the gas rights to a tract of land are expressly excluded from
the grant of the mineral rights. There are two different theories
dealing with the ownership of gas. The ownership in place theory puts
the ownership of the gas in whomever owns the land under which the gas
lies. The ownership of the gas can be transferred just as mineral rights
are transferred. Under, the nonownership theory the gas does not belong
to anyone until someone gains possession of it. Therefore, there is no
ownership of the gas until 1t is taken from the ground. However, a right
to search for the gas and reduce it to possession can be transferred.
Under, either theory the rule of capture applies^ This provides that no
-------
matter if the gas migrated off of someones else's land, whoever reduces
the gas to possession owns it. As applied to methane, in order to
convert the methane gas to use, the mineral rights to the landfill or a
portion of the landfill must be acquired.
A provision should also be included providing that a notation of the
existence of a landfill site be recorded in the office of the register of
deeds in the county recording office where the site is located. This
would provide notice to subsequent purchasers of possible hazards from
the landfill site which would have to be taken into account in developing
the land. Such notice could also be used to alert public utilities to
the danger of placing utility lines in some areas.
3.3.7 Deed Restrictions
Proposed Legislation to Provide for Notice on the Deed and Contract of
Sale of Solid Wste Disposal Site
(a) The deed to any parcel of land which has been previously used as a
solid waste disposal sfte shall contain notice that the parcel of
land has been used as a solid wst disposal site.
(b) The contract for the sale of any land which has been previously used
as a solid waste disposal site shall contain notice that the parcel
of land has been used as a solid wste disposal site and that the land
1s subject to the authority of the state health department for the
purposes of the control of landfill decomposition gases.
3.3.8 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 states in
Section 7003 (IMMINENT HA2M0):
"...upon recept of evidence that the...
disposal of any solid waste...is presenting
an imminent and substantial endangerment to
health...the A1n1strator may bring suit on
behalf of the United States...or...take such
other action as may be necessary*.
Should steps to remedy the hazardous situations not follow expeditiously,
it may be incumbent upon the Agency to act in accordance with this
provision of the Law.
3.3.9 F1re Sifety Codes
3.3.10 Building Codes and Standards
3.3.11 Planning/Zoning
-------
7*-^ 3-- '
INTERGOVERNMENTAL METHANE TASK FORCE
LANDFILL - ASSOCIATED METHANE
FACT SHEET
BACKGROUND
In 1968, the Stace o£ Colorado tanned the burning o£ trash to alleviate the
air pollution^roblem. The resulting trash was then buried in landfill sites
unburned. Frota the decomposition of this trash came another environmental
problem - methane.
THE METHANE PROBLEM
Methane is the byproduct of anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of
organic material by certain aethanogenic organisms. In a landfill situation,
this gas builds up in high concentrations, disperses into the surrounding
environment and can pose severe safety and health problems. If trapped in
a confined space with sufficient oxygen present and a source of ignition, an
explosion can occur. Another hazard involves asphyxiation. In high
concentrations, the gas can displace oxygen and cause suffocation of those
individuals exposed to it.
METHANE RELATED ACCIDENTS
In the metro Denver area, methane migration from landfills has caused tua
deaths and several serious injuries.
1. March 26, 1974, Englewood, Colorado, 3 workmen seriously injured in
methane gas explosion while constructing a storm sewer adjacent to
dumping area.
2. August 18, 1976, Sheridan, Colorado, 6 children seriously burned in
methane blast while exploring a storm sewer culvert located near a
landfill site.
3. June 16, 1977, Coaaserce City, Colorado, 2 killed, 4 injured in a
methane gas explosion while constructing a water conduit line near
landfill site.
LANDFILL CAS COMPOSITION
MAJOR COMPONENTS:
1. Methane
2. Carbon Dioxide
MINOR COMPONENTS: 1. Hydrogen Sulfide
2. Ethylene
3. Propylene
CH4 - odorless - non-toxic
COj - odorless - non-toxic
H2S rotten egg odor - toxic
In landfills, methane concentrations as high as 60% are concionly found.
EXPLOSIVE LEVELS
1. 5-15Z methane by volume in air is the explosive range.
-------
MIGRATION
1. Methane (landtill gas) can migrate vertically through the soil and
dissipate into atmosphere.
2. Methane (landfill gas) can migrate laterally through porous soil
(sand, gravel) around a fill and leave Che fills boundaries.
WHERE CAN IT BE FOUND
1. Buildings
2. Pipes
3. Excavations
4. ManhoLes
5. lip to 1,000 feee from a fill area in non~fill soil
HOW TO CONTROL IT
Major controlling techniques include:
1. Trench Vents - trenches are continuously cut around the landfill and
filled with course gravel. Such vents stay vent naturally to the
atmosphere or may undergo forced convection by mechanical pumping
into or out of the trench.
2. Pipe Vents - similar to trenches except that they are placed at
intervals around the landfills, normally some type of convective
flow must lie used if such pipe vents are Co be effective.
3. Barriers - constructed similarly to trench vents except that the
trenches are filled with saturated compacted clays or other impervious
liner materials.
4. Hybird Systems - a combination of trench vents backed by icipervious
barriers. The trench vent may or may not involve forced flew.
The costs involved in the construction, maintainance and operation of these
control devices vary widely and it is important to optimise design to reduce
cost and increase effectiveness.
BOTTOM LINE
landfill gas (methane) can become a tragedy or become an untapped potential
source of energy, helping man.
REV:3/l/78
-------

CONSTRICTION SAFETY It? A!sT) AROUND ARA\UO:i LAOT:-TtLS
For cons truce ion mi a known Landfill area, the following seeps should be cnk«.*n
co prevenc injury:
L. A combustible gas inuiracor musit be utilized ;it all ;iraes during trenching oc
drilling, or whet; construction occurs' wi cii in 10 f;.~ t oi .in open e:-i on.
I. When thi-enchinj; -,>r ''.rilling iS-.eper than 2 1 inco tli<- fill, or in ch«* prnsuiic..
of detectable concentrations of methane, tlu* soils arc r.(> be wetted and the
operating equLpmyrt •"¦iuill bo provided with spark-proor c.thausts.
3. roara fire cxtinguljIv.ts will be provided on alL equipment working in the landfILL.
4. Personnel within or near an open trenca or drill hole will;
a) Be fully clothed
b) Wear shoe:; with non-metallie soles
i:) WVar an organic vapor mask
d) Wear a hard hat and safety goggles or glasses.
5. Exhaust blowers should be o:i hand to be used in case* where trenches may show
a build-up of methane or a lack of oxygen.
5. Smoking should not be permitted in any area within 500 faet of the excavation.
7. An attempt should be nado to keep personnel away 'Jror; a downwind proximity
of any open trench, unless the trench is conscintly monitored and declared
safe.
8. The operator o: trenching -qiiipwenc should wuar an organic vapor and aci i
gas respirator while op^ratin^ the equipment in or astride any trench.
9. Before personnel are pcraittei to enter an op>r. t > :¦ t ¦.•mm- if mth.ine i : t* tin- i.
1. Any i*:cc.:v.»j. ion ; ;-0:-;d to:* methane and oxv^ir. deficiency if personnel
arc c.o be sent in, r.i.st be carried out .•ontinitoi:? ly unless the presence
or -.ethane in t:i-j ;ir. a can definitely rtiUi our.
3. Should m«ti>ane gas found in '.he area, tlioso precatj-:i.ms applicable co digging
in the landfill s.-.all also apply o this situation.
-------
7-3
Safety procedures tu adhere to wiicn working in landfill generated
gas atmospheres.
1. Personal monitoring equipment.
(a) Tri-techtors.a must
flamable gns
low O2
toxic gas
2. At least one monitor for each work party.
3. All appliances used in landfill generated gas
atmospheres, must he explosion proof, i.e., class I,
Division I, group C, ord, as per the 1978 NEC.
4. Ventilation a must/minimum of 2500 CFM. Should be
increased as excavation of area becomes larger.
S. Entrance into utility .line access manhole covers should
be done with extreme caution. Sparks can occur from jnetal
manhole covers and ring:..
6. Always sample the air in a manhole or confined space
with a detector, before entering.
7. If flammable vapors or low oxygen atmosphere conditions
prevail, ventilate before entering.
8. Never allow smoking, or open lights in or near
excavations or confined spaces.
-------
TA3LE 3.4
Gentlemen:
MONITORING OF LANDFILL GAS PROBES FOR PRIVATE SITES
Please be informed that Section III-O-l of the Minimum Regulations for
Sanitary Landfills in the City of Los Angeles as amended by the Board of
Public Works on December 7, 1973, states:
Permittee shall furnish monthly a report signed by a responsible testing
company of readings at each of the test holes placed at 200-foot
intervals around perimeter of site Indicating the amounts of gas or gases
present. Said test holes shall be made accessible to authorized
representatives of the Board of Public Works for any tests considered
necessary and the expense thereof shall be borne by the Permittee."
In conformance with said Regulation, it is your responsibility to ensure that:
1. Monthly gas analyses are performed. You may contract for this
service directly with the City's 8ureau of Standards or have it
performed by a responsible State approved testing laboratory.
Reports shall be submitted by the l5th*of the following month.
2. you receive a copy of the test results directly from your testing
laboratory, and *
3. You forward a copy of these results with your monthly report as
described In your 1978 permit conditions, to the Bureau of
Sanitation, Room 1410, City Hall East, 200 North Main Street, Los
Angeles, 90012.
The first reports will be due no later than April 15. 1978. Should you have
any questions concerning this request, please contact Mr. Kenneth Kasner on
485-5347.
-------
City of Richmond
Department of Public Safety
Office of ihc Director
flc-combtic 5, 1075
Dear Resident:
As you are aware, notices were distributed in your neighborhood
in July and August advising residents to take ptecautions
against the possible accumulation of methane gas. Although wq
know of no change in the general migration of methane «jas in
the area, this is to remind you that the need for ventilation
is even greater during cold weather. Accordingly, you are
again advised to take the following precautions:
]_m bcisomonts and crawl Gp3c-os shouId opo.iccJ Hoc*
natural ventilation.
2. All living areas should be ventilated. Where forced ale
ventilation is not provided, our consultant's staff
advises that windows should be opened at least one inch,
preferably from the top. Storm windows should also be
opened at least one inch. Closet doors should be left
open as well.
3. Should you have any questions concerning methane gas in
your building, or should you note any unusual odors,
please call 649-1111 immediately.
Concentrations of methane gas may be odorless and are not
usually dangerous in a well vented area. According to the
independent-consultant, it is most important that your home,
apartment, dwelling or other structure be kept well ventilated
at all times.
As a steD to alleviate the problem. City Council has authorizes
initial funding for the establishment of a gas control system.
In the meantime, we sincerely appreciate your cooperation in
the following the above safety precautions.
-------
£ IWO
?'rn n-'cTt'' ^ ' ' •'C ' 501 North9th Slrccl, Richmond; Virginia 23219
,1 of Pubhc Safety • • j\ w3.Ma.SG21
Department of Public Safety , > . 703.C10.SG21
Office of the Director " >7? \
• W, '• —* I

July 3,197 5
Dear Resident:
According to information furnished by an independent
consulting firm, there appears to be reasonable evidence
of concentrations of methane gas in an area of approx-
imately tv/o blocks outside o£ the perimeter of the Foils
Street Landfill.
Therefore, you are advised to take the following pre-
cautions:
1. All basements and/or crawl spaces should be
Opened for natural ventilation.
• 2. Any unusual odors sho'uld be reported immed-
iately to 649-9111.
3. All living areas should be ventilated. This
means that windows should be left open and
closet doors should also be left open.
Concentrations of methane gas are not usually dangerous
in a well vented area, according to the independent
consultant. Therefore, it is most important that your home
or apartment be kept well ventilated at all times.
Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated.
Jack M. Fulton
Director
°Wwji " '

-------
•'C; d* » <-*'
sm, m (c«o—aa ' imuw ccot—>»t i a
parr suvcuix* sot tnticdrd or rwad {or Snman aceapasey "«t
sot cxcMdla* too aqrars •'*« la is*a. aor 13 .'«« la btijflt.
t. wbaa taa worX tsroivaa !ia rapatlr oi alalia fantly •"**•
Idaacaa aad uctwrT bnlldla^ *»« c&a eoa* o< roca ripair
ocmti a parent at tile vain* e{ tha editing baildla* ar la-
veiraa tha rwvUettoat at *ach nractsra* *a«rt tia loaj ta ba
rrplaead «ru doa to nuitt ottar thia lasdailda. sattjamaat, or
»Uppaj*. Saiera 4 ptrait La laaaod (ha owna* artaJl:
(1) 2Uea*d la tfco atfSea o< tha DrparSJant o< Sifjcw
JUcordar (1) a stuamtat tim ha La tha awcar uul that ha U
twin that tha rreordj at tha Cauaty £a«iaaor ted Inn tixl
tha tHMwwt/ tJ jobjae* to a yiiyi/<*»l hinrd at « i*eJo*ic*i satora
aad (31 ia t{ntot« raUavta? tha Cauaty aad >4 o
eonatraerlon prrpand Sy a rtpiUrH civil aa«ia»*r aad danfaad
to sialsUxa duu(i wtiila ac
aMa martini ualaa Ui» 311 U laolatad by aeprwad saaral ar
caaa taaria precaettw lystasu or nnlaaa daai«sa4 xgnrtlay r»
tha raeoBxaaadaxlm rnnriinart la » iatw»t pnn«r«
ra^lfirlna. stady uut Tarnmmaniitrtiwi ta ainmnia ia» paaaibta
latraaMxa. u4 t» prartat Um aocwmnlartoa of tzpiaarra no-
caacraxlcai ai daeaepeoitiea pin wiuua ar im4ar mdnwg
porttoaa a< lueA btdldlar ttruxar*. At tSa tiao o< ^a Caai
aupaaKaa. da ctvU tspaaar ihall fa*airt a stfaod jtataauat
anaxla* s&u tha ?*all
tanai laiaaa ,iumioa L» »ada ta ?n»«m 4mrr.ar» U (cracatra.
2aar* aadariroead ^piay tad imimaa dna ta t»*«aa satt!*.
suae at 2UL Osa uoir itcst fraxsa aceaaaorr itracnrra aot
wrraortlnt too >quara (m la arm aor S .'xt la !wt«2t say b«
bwui i lictad wttaoat tapetai pravtalaa ior foordstSoa naoUlty. -•
4d) "niHtlniial Ua* TTark :»MuUad by taia Santos aa 4 coo.
dMleai 2ar tbo as* at *bo Jtta Jkall bo paefwrnad pilor to tdo «•*>
aaatMt a< Um ffllinaa or uiiimpiuaj it tba brttMIn^.
SXC. M — CZOLOGKUZ, ZSrCSTSBSOa B290BT3
Tia 3aUdla< OfSctai sigr raqatn a j(aeio«leai ar «aartay
rrpart, or beta. *b«ro la hit cytcioa joca nporta in
tsr t3« «*aiaasaa et ta« txtnr ct i0» tui, A .iwt
null bo ^rapafad by 4 ««t!3«4 aaiTnaaiirir noio^ut UaaoMd
by tao 3uu ot Caitfatsia. 7ha ;ipg»8 uail isataaa 4 "--'-f
ra^ardtav uu *a*«7 e( 'JM Smldlaf xtta :ar Him ^mpmad Jtroe>
tara fun baard rron '.«n«i»iltla. s^t^aaat. or siippa^o ud
4 Ssdiat r**»rala* tba «£aes Oat iSa „iupu.
*rcy oatsda al Aa bqiMlw
-------
Necessary Changes to SWD S&F Regulations for
Methane Lindf111 Gas Control and-
Hazardous Vases Disposal Control
I. Section 2(2)N. Redefine "Hazardous aaeerial sad eoxle substances"
eo read "are liquids, gases, or solids vhich can be dangerous Co oaa,
~~ animal, and planelife."
II. Section 4, add,
I. "The design of s solid vases disposal facility shall be such as eo
mialaisa dangers from ehs production and migration of landfill
decomposition gases. No person shall operate a solid uasee disposal
sice and/or facility without the sub mission to the Department and
subsequent approval of a plan eo provide for the monitoring and con-
trol of landfill decomposition gases. The design and location of
any proposed solid vases disposal site or that portion of an existing
site noe utilized shall b« based on the consideration of geological
and hydrologlcal data so as to minimize the uncontrolled off-site
aigrstlos'of landfill -decomposition gases. The design of a control
.system shall limit off-site migration of flamsable gas noe to exceed
the applicable LZL standard..
III. Seceloa 6.w Five nev subsections with reletteriag.
6h. A landfill decomposition gas nonitorlng ayseem vhich will indicate
the presence or absence, of. uncontrolled off-site migration of land-
fill decomposition gases.
6i. A list of all naterials that will be accspeed for disposal at
thasite or facility; including types of industrial hazardous materials
and toxic substances, and their estimated voluaes (annual)•
6j. Segregation of materials for disposal vhich are not conpatlble
or require special handling due to their chemical or physical nature.
61c. Procedures for iapleaenelag other aspects of the design.
61. Other matears vhich the Departseqe determines are important for the
protection of public health* ..safety, and the environment.
17. Seceloa 7. Add new aubeeceiou.
C. Bpon closure of a site used for solid vasts disposal, the County
Clerk and Zecorder should note on the appropriate property records
-------
ehae eh* parcel of lud hu been used as a solid vast* disposal
site. Any contract for sala of any land which has b««n previously
used as a (olid vute disposal alts, for It Co b« duly recorded
la Cha county files, should contain a notice ehae eh* parcel of
land has been used ss a solid vasea disposal site. Such notation in
both cha contract for sale and Cha county records should state that
•pedal precautions say be required due to decomposition gas pro-
duction and algratlon and the storage of potentially hazardous
materials or toxic substances.
Section 8. Completely rewritten.
8a. Upon a determination chat a solid yaace disposal site or facility
is not bain® operated la compliance with cha Engineering Baport
Design Criteria, the approved Operational Plan, or these regulations,
the operator shall be informed of the nature of Che alleged violation
or violations by registered nail. Within 30 days of the receipt
of the letter of citation the operator shall submit a written response
to the Departnent specifying the actions taken or a plan of action
to be taken to bring the site or facility into compliance with
.regulatory requlrsmaaes stated herein.
8b. In the case vfaere a variance from the provisions of these regulationa
is requested and deesed appropriate and where the protection of
public health, safety or the environment is not Jeopardized, a
variance may be granted by the Department.
8c. In the case vfcere a variance from the regulatory requirements is not
authorized by the'Department, an administrative hearing shall be
scheduled. If an operator fails eo bring the solid waste disposal
site or facility Into substantial compliance with cha regulatory
provisions of chase regulations and 30*20, Part 1, CSS, 1973, the
operaeor shall be deeased to be In violation of the law and thesa
regulations and the "Certificate of Designation" shall be eubject
to suspension, revocation or injunction as provided in 30-20-113,
CSS, 1973, and other such penalities as provided in 30-20-LL4,
cas, 1973. The Department shall keep eh* Certificate of Designation
issuing authority informed on the compliance scaeua of all solid
waste disposal sites and facilities within their respective Juris-
dictions. Upon a determination as provided for in 4), above,
Section 9 of these regulationa, or In the case of violations
of 30-20-102, CIS, 1973, the Department eh*11 officially request
the local government at latsrese to eaka the appropriate action
under cha provisions of Title 30, Article 20, ?art 1, CSS, 1973.
-------
71. Section 9. Complete new section.
Section 9. Dateraina tlona.
9a. Hiae wastes disposal sites, new or abandoned, shall ba evaluated
for a determination of the existence of a public nuisance upon a
complaint or Indication by the state or local government that a
public nuisance might exist. Significant degradation o£ the en~
Yironnent under the environmental regulations of the state shall
ba due and justifiable reason for declaration, of a public nuisance
by the Department.
9b. Landfill decomposition gases in an occuplable structure or appur-
tenance in excess of 20Z of the Lover Explosive Laval (LZL) aa
indicated by appropriately calibrated measuring devices shall
constitute a determination of a potential health hacard warranting
notification by state and local government, or aunlcipal agencies
to the parties responsible for caking corrective or preventative
measures to preclude existence of the potential hazard for that
structure or appurtenance.
31: bw
1-5-79
- 3 -
-------
I MI
shehidan code
I ft-70
See. 6-61. Barbed wire.
Barbed wire or similar materials may be used at a height
of not less than six (6) feet above grade within commercial
or Industrial districts, as defined by the city zoning ordinance,
within the city. (Ord. No. 8-1959, 3 4. S-lg-59)
Sees. 6 62 8-69. Reserved.
Article IV. Building on FMa*
See. 8*70, Permit required; application; contents; plana and
specifications.
(a) Ptrmil rtquired. No person, Arm, partnership, or cor-
poration shall erect, construct, enlarge or alter any building
or structure In the dty on land previously used for a sani-
tary landfm or on fills containing rubbish -or other decom-
posable material, or caase the same to be done, without first
obtaining a special permit for construction on a fill from
the building official.
(b) AppUiation. To obtain a permit for construction on
a fill, the applicant shall first flie an application therefor
in -writing on a form furnished for that purpose^ Every such
application shall:
(1) Identify and describe the work to be covered by the
permit for which application is made;
(2) Describe the land on which the proposed work la to
be done, by lot, block, tract, and house and street ad»
dress, or similar description that will readily identify
and definitely locate the proposed building or work;
(3) Indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed
work is intended;
(4) Be accompanied by plans and specifications as re-
quired in subsection (c) of this section;
'iaialwwt nat» Ord. No. &.19TS, I It adopted Anil 10, 1972,
¦wiwtrfod tfcia Cad* by tddla# Aft. IV, J| &-7Q a 12. E/faetlre dlta
previaieaa w«ce oaittod Itom codification,
aiipp. No. X
168
-------
I ft.70
BUILD INC
| 6-70
(5) Stat* the valuation of the proposed work;
(6) Be signed by the permittee, or his authorized agent,
who may be requited to submit evidence to indicate
such authority ;
(7) Give such other information as reasonably may be re-
quired by the building official.
(e) Plans end rp*cification» riqzrired. With each applica-
tion for a permit for construction on a £01, two (2) sets of
plans and specifications, prepared and designed by an engineer
or architect licensed by the State of Colorado to practice as
such, shall be submitted.
(d) Information on -plana and specification*. Plana and
specifications shall b« drawn to scale upon substantial paper
or doth and shall be of sufficient clarify to indicate the nature
and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will
conform to the provisions of the building cod# of the City of
Sheridan, and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regula-
tions. The first sheet of each set of plans shall give the house
and street address of the work and the name and address of
the owner ud person who prepared them. Plana shall include
a plot plan showing the location of the proposed building and
of every existing building on the property. Computations,
stress diagrams, and other data sufficient to show the correct*
ness of the plans, shall be submitted when required by the
building official.
(e) Enginttrhtff reports, la order to evaluate the poten-
tial hazard to a structure from landslide, a settlement, slip*
page, gas production or ga* movement from a fill, an engineer-
ing report prepared by a licensed professional engineer shall
be submitted evaluating the safety of the site. This report
shall iaduda:
(1) A gas movement survey conducted at the site of the
fin assessing th« present gas penetration and the poten-
tial gaa penetration as well as the possibility of occur-
rence of say gas hazards;
-------
J «-70 S8ESXDAM CODE } «-Tl
(2) Recommendations for preventing tb« accumulation of
decomposition sues within or under enclosed portions
a{ the proposed building? or structure;
(3) Recommendations for preventing damage to structure,
floors, underground piping and utilities due to uneven
settlement of the filL (Ord. No. 6-1972, | 1, 4-10-72)
See. 6>71* Review o£ application, plans and specifications;
Issuance, duration of permit.
(a) IssuencM of jnemtiL The application^ plana, specifica-
tions and reports filed by an applicant for a permit shall be
checked by the building official. Such plans may be reviewed
by other departments of the cit7 ta cheek compliance with the
laws and ordinances under their jurisdiction. If the building
offlrfal is satisfied that the work described ia an application
for permit and the plana filed therewith conform to the
requirements of other pertinent laws and ordinances, and that
the structure is designed ta provide proper ventilation be-
neath and in the structure, or constructed on a foundation
either naturally Impervious or so created through design and
construction, so that explosive gases can not be trapped or
accmaolated In or under the structure, and the structure can
not be damaged by asms settlement of the fill, he shall issue
a permit therefor to the applicant.
When the building official issues the permit, he shall
endorse ia writing or stamp on both sets of plana and speci-
fications "APPROVED'". Such approved plans and specifica-
tions shall not be changed, modified or altered without au-
thorization from the building official, and all work shall be
done In accordance with the approved plans.
(b) Expiration. Every permit isseed by the building of.
fldal under the provisions of this Code frrtlcle] shall expire
bjr limitation and become null and void if the building or
work authorized by such permit is not commenced vvithia
sixty (60) days from the date of such permit, or if the build-
lag or work .authorized by such penult is suspended or
abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a
period of one hundred and twenty (120) days. Before such
Za9% Ne. 1
-------
I 6»71
BtnUHNG
i (40
work can b« recommenced, a new permit shall be first ob-
tained so to-do and the iea therefor shall be one-half (%)
the amount required for a new permit for such work, provided
ao changes have been made or will be nude in the original
plans and spedfiaUtoos for sods work; and provided, farther,
that such suspension or abandonment has* not exceeded one
year. (Ord. Ho. 6-1972, 3 1, 4-10-72)
See. 6*72. Permit fee.
A fee for a permit for construction on a fill is one hundred
dollars ($100.00), and shall be paid to the building official
upon filing of the application. TOie fee is nonrefundable and
is in addition to a building permit fee. (Ord. No. 6-1972, § 1,
4-10-72)
Sees. S-73—S-79. Reserved.'
ARTICLE V. MECHANICAL CODE*
See. (40i Adoption of code.
The Uniform Mechanical Code, 1973 Edition thereof, pub-
lished by the International Association, of Plumbing sad Me-
chanical Officials, at least three (3) copies of which have
bees certified as true copies by the mayor and dty dork, and
are now oa file la the office of the dty deck, is hereby en-
acted and adopted by reference as the mechanical code of the
City of Sheridan, and the same is hereby incorporated herein,
la the event of conflict between the provisions of such me-
chantcal code and the provisions of this Code of Ordinances,
state law and dty ordinances, rules and regulations, the pro-
visions at this Code of Ordinances, state law and city ordi-
nances, rules and regulations shall prevail and be coatroUlag.
(Ord. No. 6-1974, $ 1,2-26.74)
•Kilter's ««<•—Ord. No. *.1974, ) 1, «act«4 Tifc. 29, 1*7*. utwUi
Cfc. • by attte* Art. V. U 4 l> ItT. u Wain m( oat.
SiWkHnJ
171
-------
CQLG3AS0 DS?A2SiS2rr 0? 32ALI3
Water Quality Control Cecals ion
4210 Euc 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Adopead: tfovenuser 21, 197$
soraae changed: January X, 1977
7.1.0 CTID2LISZS ASD C2ITSL1A FOS RT7TZV
ujj'^ilu WASIS DISPOSAL FACILITIES
for <3UaLlK
-------
ales vlll, therefore, depend upon the conditiona unique to
each site. Each sice vlll b« evaluated on 1ts ova series,
caking accoxmt of the protective features of the dasijn.
(4) If an applicant presents to the Deparraeat an application
for a landfill alt* which, while not specifically coaplying
with all aandatory liaitationa herein contained, coop lias
vlth the objectives of theae criteria, the Division say
approve rfuch sice with such conditions as the Division nay
consider appropriate. Although applicants are encouraged
to develop innovative approaches to the dealgn of the facility,
practices which have stood the test of tise are preferred.
Sob* of theae are:
(a) Locating the aite outside the flood plain at a safe dis-
tance froa atresas, lakes, wells, and other water sourees;
(fc) Avoiding aitea above aubaurface foraationa that nay con-
duct leachatte froa the landfill to water sources, i.e.,
fractured linestone;
(e) Using an earth cover that is nearly iapervioua;
(d) Providing surface drainage facilities to prevent surface
water entering the site.
7.1.3 SITZ ASALTSIS AND UNDttLL DESIGN:
Technical ittforaation on aite conditions and detaila of landfill
dealgn accoapanying a aite application ahall be prepared by a
professional person qualified by training and experience who shall
atteat, by signature, to the accuracy of data subsisted, and the
competency of asalyaea and designs proposed.
7.1.4 IS70RM&TI0S OS SITS:
Data ta be submitted shall include but not be Halted to:
(1) The general cliaatalogy of the area, including but not United
to: average sTTaual precipitation, nonthly distribution of
precipitation, frost depth and average snow depth and water
content.
(2) A scaled sap of the area shoving surface contours (2 ft.
interval), location of streaaa, lakes, reservoirs, interaistenc
streaaa, roads, water vella And buildings vlth 1/2 sile of the
proposed aite and the location of the proposed aite.
-------
(3) Geological iaforsaeioa shall include a leg aad physical des-
cripcioa of che soil dava ea eh* bedrock foraaeioa, depeh
aad ehickaesa of all fotsaeioas froax eh* surface co acd
^Irf ch* firsc aquifer, asouae asd direcsioa o£ dip of
surface and subsurface foraacioas, faults or fraesures.
(4) Surface wacar hydrology shall iaelude bus aoe b« liaised co:
estiaased aMTclrrra rac* asd direceioa of surface runoff
Chrough che sic* oa 50-year frequency; historical flov of
surface scruu, dleches, drains, canals within. 1/2. alia of
cha sis*; and p«rtla*ac hydrolcgic daca oa lakas or ocher
sari ace wacer bodies wichia one half all* of cha ale*.
(5) Gcouadwaear hydrology shall Include daca oa vaeer eabla
eiavacioa aad lea annual fluccuacioos; plescstecrlc svrfac«
aad gradlaacs la viciaicy of cha slea; aad hydraulic con-
ductivity of all cajor scraca between the laad surface aad
bedrock (or eo 30 feet depeh).
7.1.3 OESICT CTTOgKAXIOT AND C&ITBLZA:
(1) Sanitary laadfills shall be canseracsed la such a way u co
pr*v*ae surface or groundwater from eaeerlag or leaving cha
landfill. Procectiv* works for surface vacars shall be designed
for peak discharge espaceed vieh filfcy-year frequency.
(2) Desiga shall show chac sacuracloa will aoe occur la cha forma-
tion ac Cha boccom of cha landfill. Ocherviae, aa laparaaabla
barrier shall b« provided.
(3) Landfills shall aoe b* locacad adjaeaae Co scram, lakes,
reservoirs, ualass proeective dikes are provided or natural
barriers exist ea prevaac washing of che sacerlal into Che
v*c«T3 of eh* State.
(4) Where dry arroyoa are selected for disposal sizes, cha desiga
oust provide a positive aeaos of preventing washing of eh*
solid vase as downs tra» la periods of ruaofi baaed oa che £if ty*»
year peak discharge. Where dry arrayos are used, che disposal
slsa should ha la. eh* tipper end of cha dralsaga basis.
(3) Caaaerueaioa dacalis shall show che alavadoa of eh* bocssa of
eha fill slea la ralaeloa ea eh* first aquifer; ch* praaest
surface coaeaurs, cha final cover aad surface rsaoff diversions
durisg operaslaa aad afsar conpiaciaa aad closlsg of eha slsa.
If xa artificial seal (aaabraaa, clay, asphale Users, ass.) is
proposed, desallad specifications oa aacarlals asd isscallasloa
-------
shall be provided. Construction and Qp«racicn procedures
shell b« given, which preclude pure curing by hydrostatic
pressures or equipment or hydrostatic uplift daaage.
(6> Where a water table exists vichia. 7.0 feec of Che bottsa
of che disposal sits, a mcaieorlag veil for ground tracer
stapling shall be provided within ICO feec 4avpscreaa froa
eh* alee is relation ca the direction of flew of groundwater.
The well shall be eased vich non-corrosive cacerlal, perfaraced
through les contact with groundwater, and with a lock cover
provided. The casing shall be a »¦«'*¦« <¦-»»» of four laches la
diameter.
(7) Construction and operation shall be such that flow of water
through fill is prevented. Cover aaterlal shall be £2?«rvlcus
and compacted Co provide a eight surface seal of saterlal which
will not crack when dry. Ic shall be free of pusrescible
materials and large rocks, stones or other objects, final
surface grade shall compensate far expected secrlesent of che
fill, provide runoff of surface water and prevesc ponding on
Che fill area. Diversion ditehes and dikes shall be provided
on the upslope sides of ehe disposal area to divert surface
runoff around ehe sice both during operacioa and after ehe
sisa Is closed.
-------
Port 254
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1977
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste
PRIOR NOTICE
OF
CITIZEN SUITS
£6360-01 ]
nNMfRii t—omcx or mus waste
inn. ko-ti
wurr 2S4—mtan namcz. or cmzcN
surra
AOCfCT: rartnramoattl Prqtoettoa
A««aey.
ACTIOK: Itaai r*«uUticas.
SOaotART: Ths SoUd Waat* OtsQoni
Act. u aacndcd br t&o JUsoure* Cou-
utmtlaa mad Rteawwrr Act at 1319.
OMrizn suits br ?rtr»to cittttao to «n-
(ereo tho Act Titw rults axj b« brou*lit
vbcrt Uwro Si *H«*«d to S« * twUuob
by any P«noa (tfceludlni t!i« Cslto*
sums, aad fbi W ot&tr WTtnmtnqj
tastramtnaUty or mocr. to tto rxtc&t
ptfsittud by tb« rlmmt
to Uii Coastitatioa) at ur poratlt.
staodazd. r*riLaiion. condition. require
sunt, or order whleJx has bocoat *Cac-
tin uadsr Uia Act. or a talluro ot 'Jxm
Adalnistntor to nrfona aay aet or
duty usd.
roR rwiwitot cflraa!uno.v con-
tact:
Mr. Jsffrtr t» Himvw. da. osw.
Maaattmcat aad tafoR&atioa 3US
•WH-442). Ml SJ Strtft 5W.. Waa&.
lattoa. O.C. 204W, 232-TJV-Jin.
srpyLi^tzxT.vRY anronatATrosr:
Oa pact ot too ristMi. Htesrti ct
July 20.191T. ttao SavtroBBuaui ?ntoe»
tton Accncy published prap«Md r?fuU«
tioaa for Mectoa T002 o< &a Solid Vut«
Disposal Act. u aacadtd Sy t&# Xo»
sourca ConMrvatioa iod Rscovtnr Act c;
-------
JtUtIS ANO REGUUTIONS
56115
1878 <40 Cm Ptn 334). "Hits* regula-
tions an intended to advise prospective
litigants of the procedure to be followed
ta noaXring alleged violators of ur of
the provisions of the Act. The noCflca-
Oon requirements of section 7003 in la-
tended ta provide alleged nolaton a time
period withia which to rectify say
tlons of the Act kj Our but avoid Uttia-
ttoa if at all possible.
The three comments which wm re-
ceived advocated either additional lau-
reate or nvtsloa of existing language.
Aj discussed below, two of these wittt*
ttoni wen rejected as requiring too itrln-
reat ft. notification procsdun and tha
third was adopted due to its clarifying
nature.
Dacvxsrew or Cosoenrta
On* eommenter requested that the
words "sit* manager" be substituted for
the words "managing tcenf la IZS4J
(I), iiae 4. since this phrase Is more
descriptive of the individual to whom
notice should be delivered than the pro-
posed language. the recommended
chan*e was made.
The same eommenter further requested
that a new | 334.4ta) be added as
fallows:
(•I With napecs to any aottte east per-
nim to II aiJItlli) aad SUlJl a C*?T
ot that aotw* *aau also be saiie* to the
prtTM* or eorpefsueetsl
uom ta or effected *y the nonet. or allege*
in nicaaat!e*cob«rw?oasihit for aay viola-
ttoa. ¦
This suggestion wm rejected tor the
msoa that It would be unduly burden-
some to require a complainant under sec-
tion 7003 of the Act to determine an per*
sons who might be affected by an aliased
violation of tha Act. and to notify then.
A second eommenter suggested that
the following words be inserted ta
f 2S4J(aJ:
MM met *b> and «ei ot Section 7003 as a prereq-
uisite . to the commencement of such
actions.
|3313 SerrfceofiMMirr.
of tha Act shall be
served upon an alleged violator of any
permit, standard, regulation, condition,
requirement, or order which ha« become
effective under this Act Ln the foUowiag
CKUUUlCXt
i U If the alleged violator Is a private
Individual or corporation, service of
notice shaa be accomplished by regis-
tered aaiL return receipt requested, ad-
dressed to. or by personal service upon,
tha owner or sue maaagar of tha build-
inc. plant, installation, or facility alleged
to be in violation. A copy of the notice
shall be mailed to the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Acency.
tne itisioaal Adajoiitnisr of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency .'or the
region in wliicn the notation is alleged
to have occurred, and the chief adminis-
trative oOeer of the solid waste man-
agement agency for the State la which .
the violation is alleged to have occurred.
If the -alleged violator Is a corporation,
a copy of tha notice shall also be mailed
ta the registered agent, if any. of that
corporation la tha State la which such
vto'attcn it aliaved to have occurred.
(3) a tha alleged violator is a State
or local agency, service of notice shall be
accomplished by registered mail, return
receipt requested, addressed to. or by
personal service upon, the head ot that
agaacy. A copy of the notice shall be
mailed » the chief administrator of the
solid waste management agency tor th«
State ta which the violation is alleged to
have occurred, the Administrator of the
Savlronmental Protection Agency, and
the Regional Administrator of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency for the
region In which the violation Is alleged
to have occurred.
<3> If U» alleged violator is a Federal
agency, service of notice shall be accom-
plished by registered mail, return receipt
requested, addressed to. or by personal
service upon, the head of the agency. A
copy of the notice shall be mailed to the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Regional Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protection
Acency for the region in which the viola-
tion la alleged to have occurred, the
Attorney Ocneral of the United State*,
and tiie chief administrative oOcer ot
the solid waste management agency for
the State in which the violation is al-
tered to have occurred.
Service of notice of latent to Ale
suit under subsection T003'a>i3> of the
Act shall be accomplished by registered
moil, rrtum rrrC-i»t rrq«*vsted. adflpswed
to. or by pcrsouai service upon, the Ad-
ministrator. Environmental Protection
Aartwy. Washington. O.C. 30440. A copy
of the notice shall be mailed to the
Attorney General ot the United States.
• ci Nottce given in accordance- -wun
Ute provisions of this part ohall be con-
sidered to have been served on tit* date
of receipt. If service w.xt accomplished
by mail, the date of receipt will be con-
sidered to be the date nutcd on the return
receipt card.
{ S3U Chwimi of notirr,
• a> Violation ot permit, tlantlart. rrq~
n'atiin, condition, requirement, nr nr-itr.
Notice regarding an altered violation of
a permit, standard, regulation, condition,
reouircment. or order t«-hi£h baa tecctne
effective under this Act shall Include
n(Sclent Information ta permit the re-
cipient to identify the rpcelfic permit,
standard, regulation. (.ondlUon. require-
ment. or order which hx* allegedly been
violated, the activity all tried to commute
a violation, the person or persons respon-
sible for the aUesed v.ofa'ilon. the dat«
or dates of the vtolatirui. and tltc full
name, address, and teisiihono nutni*r oi
the nerson giving notice.
' b> ftalare to ect. Notice rcsr.rdtnc an
alleged tailun of the Atltnint- (rttor tc
perform an aet or duty ahirf. ix rot dls-
entionary under tha Act shall identify
the provisions of the Act which requin
such act or ertate such duty, shall de-
scribe with reasonable specificity thi
action takea or not takea by the Ad
nunutrator which is elafcned to eonstt
tutei fatlun to perform the act or duty
aad shall state the .'ill name, addreu
and telephone number of the iiersen fiv
tog the notice.
let lientiAcctian ot rnmtL The no
tice shall state Ute nanie. address, anc
telephone numoer of the legal counsel, l
any. representing the serson givmg thi
notice.
Bated: October 17.1977.
Sonus M. Corns.
Aimiiustratai
int Doe.T?-3ffT:i rutd to-io-n-.s-.u *mi
hsum 'Hunt, vol 4j. ma :»<—«iaAr, ocrosa u, \irr
ualSI2
£V-o40
-------
CHAPTER 4
RECOVERY
-------
4.0 Recovery
4.1 Incentives
4.2 The Feasibility Study
4.2.1 Gas Ouantlty
4.2.2 Gas Quality
4.2.3 Economic Feasibility
4.2.4 Gas Pricing and Regulatory Constraints
4.2.5 Extraction Testlnq Program
4.3 Legal Constraints
4.4 The Low BTU Process Choices
4.5 High 3TU Process Choices
-------
4.0 Recovery*
The energy recovery process og gas withdrawal from constructed sanitary
landfills promises to produce only 10 to 15% of the energy available by direct
burning of municipal waste. This decomposition gas is a resource which is now
being completely wasted and which contributes to air and water pollution; it
still offers a potential economical source of fuel which is worth considering.
In earlier years when dumps were undergoing the conversion to sanitary
landfills, there was some reluctance on the part of disposal site operators to
discuss or acknowledge the existence of landfill generated gas. The gas,
however, can be controlled by properly engineered systems and combined with
the national energy situation, has awakened much interest in the industry for
turning this dubious characteristic of sanitary landfills into a useful asset.
Gas generation in landfills is site specific and production may range from a
few years to hundreds of years in certain environments which carries with it a
joint liability. Potential gas production quantity alone does not determine
whether the effect of gas production will be significant, however, the
quantity of gases present at a given time will be more dependent upon the rate
of the decomposition process. This rate can be generally expressed as: rate
• (k) x (organice content of wastes). The magnitude of the proportionally
constant, k,' is dependent on several factors. The most important factors
which affect this term are the moisture content of a landfill and temperature.
~Principal input to this section taken from papers presented to IMTF from Mr.
John Pacey, EMCON Associates.
Recovery of methane from landfills is feasible but practical engineering
considerations may limit production to only a fraction of the theoretical
maximum. The practical engineering problems occur both in the collection and
refinlng must be resolved in exploratlng this waste produced fuel gas. Many
variables occur in the operation and those facilities in operation have
produced less than the design capacity of the facility.
4.1 Incentives
Some would say that recovery is the current approach to dealing with an
undesirable product such as solid wastes. Recovery should not only be
considered in its own merits but on the economy of the cost of the control
systems for the hazardous liability vs. that portion necessary to recover the
gas. The positive view proposed 1s that the cost of a control system must be
considered as a sunk cost to cover liabilities. Thus the incremental cost to
recover the gas should be an important factor in the decision because it is a
supplemental to the initial investment in the control system, to receive
income from the sale of the collected gas.
This incremental cost as a minimum would include an increase in the gas
collection system, a processing plant and a direct use or gas transmission
system, and most important factor, a long-term contract.
The success of such a project, of course, hinges on a number of factors
including, but not limited to, the following:
y-z
-------
)
(1) obtaining a buyer for the gas;
(2) securing an adequate sales contact;
(3) obtaining sufficient capital and an adequate line of credit;
(4) obtaining pipeline right-of-way;
(5) meeting regulatory requirements for environmental security and
legal actions;
6} having gas sales rights;
7) comprehensive testing for the quantity and quality of gas;
(8) obtain permits;
(9) public support.
Landfill gas has many variables associated with 1t which will result in a need
for a compliance feasibility study and mandate analysis.
4.2 The feasibility Study
4.2.1 6as Quantity
Experts In the field of gas recovery differ 1n their assessment of the
quantity of gas recoverable from a given volume of refuse. The rate of
gas recovery from operating as well as rwently closed land fills ranges
from a low of 0.02 cubic feet of methane per year per pound of refuse (40
cubic feet per year per ton) to a high of 0.12 cubic feet per year per
pound (200 cubic feet per year per ton)
For comparative purposes, the pertinent data for other recovery projects
are presented 1n Table .
As previously noted, the Important parameters affecting methane
production Include refuse composition, moisture content, level of oxygen
present, environmental pH, nutrient availability, alkalinity,
temperature, toxicity. The ability to enhance production 1s related to
successful management of these parameters In a practical and
cost-beneficial manner.
One means of increasing production 1s to change the composition mix by
increasing the organic content of its waste. This may be achieved by
sewage sludge addition, removal of ferrous ad nonferrous metals,
separation of heavy and light material, and use of less cover soil; the
total theoretical production per unit volume will increase accordingly.
Although a gas ehancement program may require additional management and
Increased costs, 1t offers some significant advantages, including (1)
increases quantity of methane per unit volume of refuse, and (2) shorter
time frame of production. This latter feature correlates with a shorter
decomposition time, therefore, earlier end-use potential of the land, and
shorter time frame for a hazard control program.
The need for methane enhancement relates to the community need for
natural gas; as the supply of gas dwindles, the demand will Increase.
Thus, gas enhancement programs will depend o community need and the
public's willingness to supprt the concept.

-------
4.2.2 Gas Quality Incentives
Moisture content, level of oxygen and availability of nutrients affect
the efficiency and time-rate of decomposition and, hence, the gas
production and gas quality. The most efficient moisture content for
methane production is achieved when the landfill is near saturation;
therefore, moisture management 1s very important. Certain heavy metals
are toxic to bacteria, and oxygen is toxic to all methane-forming
bacteria and to some organic acid-forming bacteria; hence, exclusion of
these substances must be managed. Nutrient availability, although
usually adequate, is far more effective if constantly circulated, such as
occurs 1n a recirculation program.
The recovered gas should be nearly saturated, and consist of 40% to 50*
methane; 40X to 50X carbon dioxide; and contain less than 5X of other
gases, principally nitrogen and oxygen. This flow stream- should be valid
for 15 years or more following steady state methane production.
Carbon dioxide 1s generated 1n the landfill in approximately the same
percentage as methane 45 to 55 percent); therefore, one of the major
efforts In upgrading methane gas quality Is to separate the carbon
d1 oxide from the methane. "
A number of solvent treatment systems are available, Including Methyl
Ethanol Amine - 01ethanol Amine Absorption (MEA-DEA), 01 glycol amine
(OGA), Hot Potassium Carbonate, propylene Carbonate, Seloxol, and Fluor
Solvent. All of these systems utilize a liquid solvent that has an
affinity for carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and, 1n some instances,
water. The solvent has minimal affinity for methane; thus the methane Is
effectively separated from the other gases.
Dry adsorbent systems can also be used where molecular sieve, activated
charcoal or other appropriate adsorbents remove the contaminants. As an
example, the molecular sieve has a microscopic honeycomb structure that
traps (adsorbs) molecules according to their size and polarity. Some
molecules, including carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and water, are more
readily adsorbed than othrs such as methane, thus allowing the landfill
gas contaminants to be selectively removed. In all instances, the
solvent or adsorbent is regenerated and rcycled, the latter being
regenerated through vacuum evacuation and/or thermal regeneration. The
resulting contaminated gas or solvent 1s freed and discharged in an
environmentally safe manner. Each of the process should be evaluated on
Its own merit, with special consideration for the economics, environment
constraints and process reliability. For each individual prospective
project this, 1n turn, must be weighed against other utilization mode
alternatives. Research is presently ongoing in this area to build a
cheaper efficient CO2 filter.
4.2.3 Economic Feasibility
One of the major factors 1n the search for a buyer is questions of low
STL) vs. high BTU. There is much to be said for the low 8TU
considerations. The low 8TU has much in its favor such as:
-------
1. The modular low 8TU gas facility Is the lowest capital investment
alternative.
2. Gas sales can be negotiated strictly on supply and demand.
3. Landfill gas recovery projects operating at this time are
overcapitalized and/or over-designed for the available gas that can
be recovered.
4. The collection system and other components of the modular unit can be
designed for much higher capacity at a minimun cost. Such a system
could be easily modified for higher capacity or conversion to a gas
purification facility or some combination of the two.
5. The modular unit could be skid-mounted and would thus have a high
salvage/resale value should unforeseen events necessitate termination
of the project.
6. Higher capital cost programs such as the expanded low BTU program or
a pipeline quality purification facility could be negotiated at a
time when natural gas prices are much higher (and hence demand
greater).
7. The modular approach to developing recovery facilities shoudl more
than pay for Itself within a relatively short period of time.
What are the alternatives to the problem methane, generating landfill with
regards to operation? Some of the major options are:
a. Establish your own recovery progran based on the preliminary findings
of the feasibility study.
b. Entertain a parternshlp-type arrangement.
c. Lease the landfill for commercial gas extraction.
-------
TAb'-ti 1
LANDFILL GAS kL-*ERY COMPARISON DATA
i
Landfill
Home
Year
Fill
Began
Year
Fill
Completed
1
Refuse
mPlace
(tonsxlO6)
Surface
Area
. (Acres)
Average
Thickness
of Refuse
(ft)
Predicted
Methane
Extraction
Rate
(cfm)
Annual
Methane
Production
per Pound
of refuse*
(ft3/lb/yr)
Azuza Western
Azuza, CA
1953
Still
Filling
6.6
55
120
900
0.04
Bradley
Sun Valley, Ca
1960
Still
Filling
8.3
60
120
1300
0.04
Coyote Canyon
Irvine, CA
1964
1981 (est.)
21.6
400*
NA
3300
0.04
Hewitt
Los Angeles, CA
1962
1975
6.2
60
100
1000
0.04
Mountain View
Mountain View, CA
1975*
1975*
0.8
20
40
350
0.12
Palos Verdes
Rolling till Is Estates, CA
1957
1975
3.8
31.5
100
700
0.05
Scholl Canyon
Glendale, CA
1963
1974
4.7
45
90
400
0.02
Sheldon Arleta
Los Angeles, CA
1962
1974
3.0
36.4
85
1000
0.09
•figures based on published or latest available data, including personal comnunication.
-------
|>4 wfr/W * J* ft
c*fK./'w*. w*a**€o
****?<
**r. av *
#•
* i*'«i«#
i***f
90 Mr ¦
r4'4
/i'V
llM^
nr«f««* if
«#/«
*«e«p J»f«l
«*
o^xdu-
Ml JrltdlL
N» UAiS
-------
tjl a
COMPARATIVE GAS RECOVERY DATA
DENVER AREA LANDFILLS
Landfill
Surface
Area
(Acres)
Average
Depth
(ft)
Volume ,
(cu.ydsxlO )
Refuse
.In Place
(tonsxlO6)
Predicted
Methane
Extraction Rate
(cfm)
Estimated
Annua! Methane
Production Rate j
Per Pound of Refuse
(ft3/lb/yr)
Adams County
6olL-
72
16
2.0
1.1
165
.04
Uestern Paving
30
25
1.2
0.7
105
.04
P.l.I.-4lK<<
45
25
1.8
1.0
150
.04
B.F. 1.-64*1
65
25
3.4*
1.9 2
285
.04
48th & Holly
100
40
6.4
3.5
525
.04
Arapco
104
30
5.0
2.8
420
.04
Mile High
90
35
5.0
2.8
420
.04
1. Production rate might be as much as 2 to 3 times that Indicated depending on many factors. P.I.I,
apparently can yield on a sustained basis In excess of 350 cfm.
2. Anticipated volume and tonnage.
-------
LANDFILL
Azuza Western
Azuza, CA
Bradley
Los Angeles, CA
Hewitt
Los Angeles, CA
Mountain View
Mountain View, CA
Palos Verdes,
Rolling Hills, CA
Scholl Canyon
Glendale, CA
Sheldon Arleta
Los Angeles, CA
P.I.I.
Denver, CO
G.R.O.W.S.
Morrlstown, PA
TABLE A-l
LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION OATA
Carbon
Methane 01oxide Nitrogen Oxygen
50
50
45
44
53
40
55"
45
46
50
50
55
34
43
51
45
55
53
21
3
7
Other
V
A-2
-------
established at 2 percent.
With the above findings and control criteria in mind, a number of
alternatives were reviewed. The three most promising were then selected for
comparison purposes. The three candidate systems are graphically shown in
Figures 9-11 and Include: (1) control well system, (2) combined control well-
vent/barrler trench system, and (3) an extraction well-process-sale system.
These three systems were then analyzed on a matrix basis, whereby they were
compared on numerous parameters. A discussion of the matrix evaluation system
1s presented in Appendix E. While the system is somewhat subjective, it
nevertheless addresses many of the relevant considerations.
-18-
-------
TABLE .1
i
COST OF GAS CONTROL ALTERNATIVES

COST(S)
48 th ai
Control
Alt. I
iki Holly - S
Control
Alt.11
te A
Control
Alt. Ill
48th & Ho
Control
Alt. I
lly-Slte 8
Control
Alt. !I
Arap
Control
Alt. I
CO
Control
Alt. 11
Engineering
Office
Field
Construction
Contingencies (202)
10,000
21,000
207,000
48.000
15,000
31,000
306,000
70,000
11,000
23,000
229,000
53,000
1,000
3,000
25,000
6,000
3.000
6.000
62.000
14.000
5.000
10.000
104.000
24,000
6,000
12,000
124,000
28,000
TOTAL CAPITAL
206,000
422.000
316,000
35,000
85.000
143.000
170,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance^
Annual Monitoring
39,000
3,000
29.000
3,0 00
26,000
3,000
7,000
500
500
24.000
3,000
18,000
3,000
Present Worth of Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Present Worth of Annual Monitoring
239.6002
18.4002
170.2002
10.4002
235.4003
18.4002
43.0002
3.1002
3,1002
147,5002
18.4002
162.9003
18.4002
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH4
544,000
619.000
570,000
81,000
88.000
309.000
351,000
1. Current cost of annual operation and maintenance.
2. Based on uniform annual costs over a ten year period and a 102 annual interest rate (assumes cost inflation Is
balanced by decrease In operation and maintenance cost due to slowing irate of landfill settlenent. and by decrease
in monitoring cost due to lessening frequency of monitoring as background data Is established and gas production
rale diminishes).
3. Based on a ten year period,10% annual Interest rate, and 0% annual cost escalation.
4. Total capital cost plus present worth of annual 0 & M plus present worth of annual monitoring.
-------
32
APPENDIX I - STATES WITH POLLUTION CONTROL
REVENUE BONO ENABLING LEGISLATION
1.
ALABAMA - Allows for Industry, not public utility
2.
ARIZONA
3.
ARKANSAS
4.
CALIFORNIA
5.
COLORADO
6.
CONNECTICUT
7.
DELAWARE
8.
FLORIDA
9.
GEORGIA
10.
HAWAII
11.
ILLINOIS
12.
INDIANA
13.
IOWA
14.
KENTUCKY - May need special Inclusion for public utility
IS.
LOUISIANA
16.
MAINE - Public utility not specifically included
17.
MARYLAND
18.
MASSACHUSETTS - public utility not specifically included
19.
MICHIGAN
20.
MINNESOTA
21.
MISSISSIPPI
22.
MISSOURI
23.
MONTANA
24.
NEVADA
25.
NEW HAMPSHIRE - Public utility not included
26.
NEW JERSEY - Allows for solid waste facilities
27.
NEW MEXICO
28.
•NEW YORK - Public utility not specifically authorized
29.
NORTH DAKOTA
30.
OHIO
31.
OKLAHOMA
32.
OREGON - Questionably possible for public utility
33.
PENNSYLVANIA
34.
RKCOE ISLAND
35.
SOUTH CAROLINA
36.
SOUTH 0AK0TA
37.
TENNESSEE
38.
TEXAS
39.
UTAH
40.
VERMONT - Public utility not included
41.
VIRGINIA - Public utility not authorized
42.
WASHINGTON
43.
WEST VIRGINIA
44.
WYOMING
-------
• COMC.VALVE E>9*

v L-valvs
V/RAP AU. J0i>4Ta W\TU
&URLA? TO PSWv'SNT
<3RAVSU SNJTRT-
RU&S5R COUPLINGS
TO PROVIDE R.=*tS\UTY
fTv.c. ycA&sa,
PlPS -^ls£
.StST£Mr> PU^-.V
4" D1A.P.V.C PIPE
V 6CLT
/—PM.C. RlW<5
/ CSSASUTSO Tr
>,/ VFlFS
GrtO»A. f^G. ?\rl
COUPLSK.-PSTAII.
GnDlA.
PS.R.FOf**TeD RV.C. PIPS
N*| GSJ.A.N/SL
WELL a*q TELESCOPING
PIPE CONFIGURATION
pywiRir ^
-------
INFLUENCE AREA STUDY
MONITORING WSLL LOCATIONS AT PALOS VERDES LANDF/LL
345
Z6S'
L
-Sf
wvjfbJ
BLOy/ER
15
KTRXTION
mL
fZS
no
55'
ss&y-ir
-7m
'/<&
REMOTi
OAS
WELL"
'MONITOR/NO
WELL Af£ /
(REFUSE J
*A
1
•TOP OF
PzFUSB
FILL

MOMTQRlNG
WELL Nt Z
APPARENT
TERM/NATtON FOR
THE ZONE OP
/A'FU/ENCE
i>r — •
M0NIT0RIN6 •>
— mu. mat*
J
)
1£i» '?
3C?** • *
MONITORING
h'—V1&LLNZ5
monitoring y
WELL A/£. 6^
(REFUSE. )
NOTES
( 0F S20 CF/TT f L ALL MONITORING WELLS ARE
' -V „ IZ INCHES IN DWMETER DU3
£LrTJtF^ TO 36 FEET BELOW SURFJCS
ELEVATION.
Z' f^E MONITORING WELL CASINOS M i
UNDISTURBED
GROUND (scale: /"* 40')
2 -INCH P. V. C. PERFORATED P/PE.
EXHIBIT 5
<5T
-------

iMMwnat
*<¦
-------
If
CHAPTER S

-------
5.0 Planning Objectives and Guidance
5.1 Planning for the Future
5.2 Environmental Assessment
5.3 Legal Questions Sununary
5.4 Responsibility 1n Government
5.5 Public Involvement
5.6 Plan for New Landfill Sites
5.7 Hazardous Waste Overlay
-------
5.0 Methane Managements Planning Perspectives
Sanitary landfllllng has been, and continues to be, the primary method for
disposing of solid wastes 1n this country. Once landfills have been utilized
for their primary purpose of concealing discarded materials, 1t 1s cannon to
reapply the land to a variety of uses such as recreation sites, gardens, green
belts, and farming; or for warrehouses, truck storage locations, and trailer
parks. Oftervtlmes.the reuse of such land parcels has been incidental,
haphazard, and sometimes the land has actually been misused. Recently,
however, the dilemma faced by pubic officials and professionals associated
with landfills relative to the planning for, and reuse of, former landfills
has been compounded by imnlnent environmental hazards caused by the production
of flannable gas, primarily methane. This is particularly the case In light
of the recently-enacted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. The
purpose of this presentation is to capsullze problems associated with
flammable gas generation from former landfills, summarize potential landuse
planning and implementation strategies, and present recommendations.
Problems Associated with Flammable Gas Generation From Former Landfills
Since 1966 no less than 20 cases have been documented involving precautionary
actions, adverse environmental Impacts, Injuries, or death resulting from
flannable gases that were emitted frcm solid waste disposal sites 1n the
United States and Canada. Deaths associated with concentrations and
explosions of landflUnrelated flammable gas were recorded 1n North Carrollna,
Colorado, Missouri, and British Columbia; while effected prophylactic
-------
measures, Injuries, and property damages occurred in such places as Illinois,
Michigan, Virginia, Minnesota, California, Colorado, and Montreal. An
increased number of landfills, additional developmental pressures, and the
general lack of understanding about landfill-related flammable gas contribute
to a geographically widespread problem that should be dealt with from a
planning perspective, as well as, from many other viewpoints.
As result of the Inherent dangers associated with flammable gas production
from former landfills, efficient and safe uses of any such sites have been
negatively undermined. Many past reuses of former landfill sites have been
experiencing gas migration and land settlement problems associated with
flammable gas generation, while future reuses of such pacels have not
occurred. In many cases, development of such land has remained dormant as a
result of self-imposed owner moratorla due to potential legal liabilities for
Instances of calamity. To avoid future situations of this sort, a program of
Intensive Investigation for future solutions to solid waste disposal and
successive land use can be initiated and implemented.
Land Use Planning Implementation Strategies
Energy efficient commercial/industrial sites with associated public services
are at a premium. In the past, due to 1mpercept1b111t1es of the constraints
necessarily placed on developmental reuse of former landfill sites that
generate flammable gas and a lack of adequate planning, Insufficient
forethought was given to the end use of landfill sites. With the advent of
flammable gases from many former landfills and a greater realization of the
possible impacts associated with the production of potentially dangerous gas,
greater concern for those problems can be manifested by responsible
-------
governmental personnel.
Although planning for landfills frequently Is done on an as-needed basis by
various staff members, the situation- can evolve Into a prescriptive rather
than reactive process. For example, shortly after a June 1977 explosion near
a former landfill, Adans County, Colorado developed strategies to possibly
avoid any similar occurrences In the future. At about the same time, an
Intergovernmental Methane Task Force (IMTF) was formed by a group of
interested individuals from local, state, federal agencies, and others that
had become concerned with the problems of landfill-associated methane gas,
migration, and the resulting health hazards. The IMTF has successfully served
as a forum for methane and flammable gases-related data exchange on the local,
state, national, and international levels-
Strategy for dealing with land use planning for former, present, and future
landfill sites can focus on the following two primary aspects: 1) Research
to effectively deal with the excistlng problem of flammable gas generation
from former landfill sites, and 2) Advance planning for future solid wast
disposal facilities and land reuse.
Reserch relative to former landfill sites that are generating flammable gas
should Include, In chronological order; l) Inventory and survey of sites
that are generating gas, 2) prioritization of any discovered sites for
possible future in-depth analysis, and 3) completion of studies for high
priority sites. Once Individual landfills are examined, recommendations can
be made Regarding feslble control alternatives. Some possible controls
Include, Uner placement to serrve as a gas mlgrtlon barrier, off-site
granular placement for venting, vacuun extraction systems designed to vent
potentially harmful gases, and resource recovery alternatives.
Advance planning for future solid waste disposal facilities and successive
-------
land uses 1s a cardinal point. Developing a plan for a landfill and Its end
use is a complicated process. Environmental engineers* hydrologlsts,
hydrogeologists, planners, and ecologists all play prominent roles 1n the
preliminary base studies that are needed before site selection can be made.
Before any excavation or construction should being, questions Involving
zoning, land use restrictions, anticipated waste disposal volumes, economics
of operations, geology, soils, groundwater hydrogeology and facility design
capability should be resolved.
To estimate the capacity and life span of the landffll, specific essential
studies should be performed. Waste generation rates, both for the residential
arid commercial districts, should be calculated. The area to be serviced
should be defined. Finally, a breakdown of the solid waste components and/or
the type of wastes generated should be Identified. If resource recovery,
shredders, or balers are to be utilized to any extent, this will have a
positive effect on the capacity and lifespan of the landfill. An 1n-depth
market analysis of recycled goods should be performed in order to determine
projected fill capacity and lifespan.
Once environmentally sound sites are Identified the next step 1s to proceed to
determine the most economically and politically acceptable and feasible solid
waste option. The Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste
suggests that factors such as public opposition, proximity to major hul
routes, assessment of highway load limitations, haul dlstancs, and potential
acts of God also be strongly considered.
Once a plan for a landfill is completed and the implementation process
commences, two other adjunct elements should be considered and possibly
Implemented. Each one relates to the planning process for control of
development and exclusion of incompatible land uses on former landfills.
-------
First, building codes to insure that building on any designated former
landfill site will Include considerations and designs that are structured to
alleviate the problems of migrating flammable gas, should be adopted. Second,
to assure "the protection of life and property from such related hazards as
flaninable gas, gas migration, asphyxiation, settlement, and explosion," the
establishment of a zone overlay district should strongly be considered. Each
of these tactics can greatly assist 1n mitigating potentially dangerous land
\
use and building-related problems 1n the future.
Reconmendatlons and Summary
As available land parcels for development grow scarcer, planning for end uses
of landfills becomes increasingly Important. The time to begin such
investigations 1s well before the landfill Is completed. Former landfill
sites should be Inventoried, and once that task 1s accomplished, technical
assistance should be acquired from local health departments or other qualified
Individuals for the purpose of inspecting each site for possible flammable gas
generation. Whenever potentially hazadous situations are discovered, adequate
safeguards, such as a zoning overlay, should be prepared to Insure that any
such use of the land 1n question 1s both safe and calculated to protectt
against adverse environmental Impacts. As an added measure of protection to
the health and general welfare of the public, sufficient building codes should
be implemented for construction on former landfill sites.
Although flammable gas generation from former landfill sites 1s a problem that
evidently is in its embryonic stages, 1t is one that coincidentally exists
almost everywhere landfills are found. Identlficatlon of any such hazardous
sites should be done by Individuals from responsible agencies. Appropriate
safeguards should be implemented in order to avoid adverse environmental and
health situations. Advance planning for landfills and their end land uses
-------
should be accomplished to maximize potential land use alternatives. Landfill
sites are an excellent example of successive land usas, and coupled with the
recent "1n vogue" aspect of methane recovery, perhaps sanitary landfills will
become the gas wells of the future - relinquishing valuable commercial gases
while serving as examples of multiple land uses.
-------
1*1
11.400 Flammable Gas (G) Overlay Zone District
11.410 Purpose
It is the purpose of this Overlay District to establish
reasonable and uniform limitations, safeguards, and
controls over uses of land designated as and/or adjacent
to, an operating or former solid waste disposal site.
Any building, excavation, construction, or other use
proposed in this zone distTict shall require flammable
gas testing and approval as indicated in this section
prior to commencing operations. The requirements of this
section are intended to assure the protection of life,
and property from such related hazards as flammable gas
gas migration, asphyxiation, settlement, and explosion.
11.420 Permitted Use Requirements
11.421 Review of Proposed Construction on Landfill Site:
(1) For any parcel.of land which is,or has been a
solid waste disposal site; no construction of structures
or other land uses shall be allowed until the proposed
action is referred to the Planning Department,
the local tire department, and Tri-County Health
Department.
(2) Tri-County District Health Department and the local
fire department will be primarily responsible for ob-
taining flammable gas readings from the site and
supply safety information related to construction on
a landfill.
(3) The Pla&aJ-Bff Department's primary responsibility
shall be to deal with the proposed land use and the
engineering design.
-------
(4) All comments and recommendations shall be pre-
sented to the Chief Building Inspector for his revif
and decision as per Section 11.422 and 11.423.
11.422 Building Permits and Construction on a Former
Landfill Site:
The Chief Buildiag Inspector shall issue a permit on
any such proposed development only after determining
that the following criteria has been met based on the
20$ lower explosive limit standard formulated by the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Sealth
of the Bureau of Mines of the U.S. Department of
the Interior:
(1) Flammable gas testing shall be conducted at the
proposed site in order to determine if flammable gas
la present in concentrations of 5.0% or more by volu_
(9.0% flammable gas is the lower explosive limit -L2L)
(2) All new construction shall be designed by a
registered professional engineer to exclude and protect
against build up of over 1.0% of flammable gas in
the building.
(3) For construction on a known landfill area, the
following' steps shall be taken during the construction
activity:
a. A flammable gas indicator shall be utilized
at all times during trenching, excavating,
drilling, or when working within ten
feet of an open excavation.
b. Then trenching, excavating, or drilling deep,
than 2 feet into the fill, or in the presence
-------
t
of detectable concentrations of 1.0% flammable
gas; the soils shall be wetted and the operating
equipment shall be provided with spark proof
exhausts.
c. A dry chemical lire extinguisher, ABC rated,
shall be provided on all equipment used in the
landfill.
d. Personnel within or near an open trench or drill
hole shall, be fully clothed, wear shoes with
non-metallic soles, wear a hard hat and wear
safety goggles or glasses.
e. Exhaust blowers shall be used in instances where
trenches may show a build up of flammable gas
of 1.0% or less than 18.0% oxygen.
f. Smoking shall not be permitted in any area
within 100 feet of the excavation.
g. Personnel shall be kept upwind of any open
trench unless the trench is continuously mon-
itored.
h. Before personnel are permitted to enter an
open trench, the trench shall be monitored for
flammable gas and at least an 18.0% oxygen
sufficiency. When in the excavation, each work
party shall be working no more than five feet
from a continuous flammable gas and oxygen
monitor.
(4) The applicant shall have a registered professional
engineer submit an affidavit to the Chief Building
Official stating as follows:
-------
a. That all new construction Is in compliance
with these regulations, that all testing
and monitoring has been done and is being done'
pursuant to these regulations; and the result
of such testing and monitoring be submitted
to the Chief Building Official.
(5) All construction or excavation sites shall be
subject to inspection by the local fire department.
11.423 Building Permits and Construction within 1000
Feet of a Known Landfill Area.
The Chief Building Inspector shall issue a permit.on any
proposed development only after determining that the
following safety precautions have been taken:
(1) The area under construction shall be checked with
a flammable gas Indicator before excavation in order
to determine if flammable gas is .in the area.
(2) Any excavation shall be monitored for the presence
of flammable gas reading of a maximum of 1% and oxygen
deficiency reading of a minimum 18%. This shall be
carried out continuously unless there is no presence
of flanmable gas in the area.
(3) Should flammable gas of 1.0% or oxygen of less than
18% occur, those precautions applicable to excavating
the landfill as outlined in Section 11.221 and 11.222
also apply to this situation.
(4) The applicant shall submit an affidavit by a register
ed professional engineer stating that all testing and
monitoring as required by these regulations has been
conducted and stating the result of the testing and
monitoring.
-------
it
(5) Any construction or excavation sites shall be
subject to inspection by the local fire department.
11.424 In cases where a building permit has been granted
the uses, restrictions, and standards of the under-
lying zone district shall apply.
11.430 Flammable Gas Hazard Areas:
1. Those areas identified in the report dated April
19, 1978 titled LANDFILLS IN WHICH METHANE GENERATION
HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED, prepared by Tri-County District
Health Department, as well as the surrounding property
to within 1000 feet shall receive the Flammable Gas
Hazard (G) areas these areas are defined as:
(a) Berkeley Village-
The hazardous area is bounded by the Adams County line
on the south and west, Clear Creek on the north, and
the north-south line 500' east of*the centerline of
Tennyson Street. This area corresponds to number 1
on the Zoning Restriction Map: Overlay Restriction -
Flammable -Gas hereinafter called Zoning Restriction Map.
(b) Adams County Landfill:
The hazardous area is bounded beginning at the inter-
section of .Federal Blvd. and .the Denver Salt Lake
Railroad Crossing Tracks thence 6 375' East along the
Denver Salt Lake Railroad Tracks, thence North 1800'
thence West 2250' thence South 1000' thence W 3330»
thence North 200* to Clear Creek thence West along
Clear Creek to the centerline of Federal Blvd. thence
South to the poiat of beginning. This area corres-
ponds to number 2 on the Zoning Restriction Map.
-------
-------
1-25 thence West along Clear Creek 4100' thence
South 150* thence East 3300' thence South 650'
thence East 300' thence North. 2500' to the point of
beginning. This area corresponds to number 6 on
the Zoning Restriction Map.
(g) Western Paving:
The hazardous area Is bounded beginning at a point
900' East from the centerline of Pecos Street at
Clear Creek thence West 2100' along Clear Creek
thence South 1100' thence East 1750* thence North
2300' to the point of beginning. This area corres-
ponds to number 7 on the Zoning Restriction Map.
(h) Flore & Sons:
The hazardous area is bounded by the area beginning
at a point at the intersection of West 62nd Avenue
and Huron, thence 700' East, thence 950' South,
thence 1000' East on 60th thence 1050' South,
thence 2700' West, thence 1000' North, thence 1000'
East thence 950' North to the point of beginning.
This area corresponds to number 8 on the Zoning
Restriction Map.
(i) Property Iaprovements Inc.:
The hazardous area is bounded by the area beginning
at the intersection of the Brantner Ditch and East
144th Avenue, thence North 2300 * along the Brantner
Ditch, thence West 3000', thence South 2350', thence
1700' East to the Brantner Ditch, thence North 500'
to the point of beginning. This area corresponds to
number 13 on the Zoning Restriction Map.
-------
2. Boundaries of the Flammable Gas Hazard Overlay
&rea may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment
based on technical information. The Planning Depart*
sent shall designate flammable gas- overlay areas as
per Section 3.110 and 3.120 on the official zoning
maps.,
3. Appeals of the Chief Building Official's decisions
as per Section 11.420 may be made to the Board of
Adjustment as per Section 7,540.
4. The above restrictions shall also apply to any
site discovered to have been a solid waste disposal
area.
-------

CHAPTER 6
DECISION PROCESS
ICOM.CUJSIOXS
/ RECQMME MdATIOMS)
-------
SJJ Decision Process CGonclusfons/Reconmendattans)
SL1 Alternatives
6.1.1 Where Oo You Stand?
6.1.2: But First - How Oo You Find It?
6.1.2.1 Inventory
6.1.2.2 Consultant Services
6.3*2.3 Data Acquisition
6.1.3 Cast of Services
£.2 Selecting a Consultant
6»2JL~ Responsfb11 ftfes of a Consultant.
6.7.7" Project Manager Responsibility
SJk End Uses
6bm4L Financing Alternatives
fi.5 Praraotloir amt Control
-------
)V
6.0 Decision Process (ConcT''*ions/Rec0fl1menda't*ons)
"The ultimate disposal of solid waste on the land in an environmentally
sound manner is a rapidly increasing problem. The environmental and
economic impact of impropSHy located, designed, operated, monitored and
controlled disposal sites is certain to increase on a national level and
to be quite severe on local a/id regional levels."
"There is a general lack of control of solid waste facilities in the
United States, especially for gas migration and water protection. There
1s very little monitoring of solid waste disposal sites."
Since methanogens can produce high gas pressures by the generation of
methane, 1t 1s not feasible to solve the problem by constructing a
aas-tioht landfill. Although no research has been done to detennine the
maximum pressures exerted, 1t Is 'not unlikely that pressures sufficient
to lift the soil overburden might be produced. Thus the logical cure for
the problem of methane migration from landfills Is to supply the landfill
with a number of vents or gas wells to prevent pressure build up.
Furthermore, as shown by the fuc««ful gas recovey projects at Palos
Verdes and at Mountain View, in California, the landfill gas may contain
up to 60X methane, which may readily be cleaned to produce pipeline
quality natural gas. The issue becomes a choice between control vs.
recovery, because the liabilty question must be answered. The choice
even among control alternatives Is complex due to the site history and
locality.
6.1 Alternatives
Which alternative or alternatives should the local or regional agency
select to accomplish the objectives that it has set forth for solving its
methane gas from solid waste problems?
The agency's decision-making is subject to many Influences that
must be considered when developing the local or regional gas management
plan. Such Influences may be both constraints and resources and Include
political, legal, social and financial factors, and available
technology. Basic among these are technical and political influences.
Because of the technical nature of the decisions, a specialized
interdisciplinary staff—the one wbich has been developing the methane
plan to this point—should continue to play a role in supplying
information and evaluating alternative solutions and 1n implementing the
plan. Evaluating existing state, regional, or local regulation 1s a
particularly Important part of this step.
Those alternative solutions that appear feasible on the basis of
political exigencies, specialized technical analysis and existing laws,
should be submitted to the appointed and elected public officials and to
the public itself for review and possible adoption, but not without
adequate preparation. This means a
6-Z
-------
program of education For both officials and the public—a vital and
integral part of the entire process. The planning agency or task force
should have initiated such an information and education program in the
early stages of the plan formulation, and
the public information progrm should continue throughout implementation
of the entire landfill methane plan. News releases, films, articles, and
speakers, for example, cart help promote puiblic awareness and aid in
approval of gas management plans and programs.
6.1.1 Where do you Start7
The methane problem exists with landfills, including sanitary landfills,
open dumps, burning dumps, construction and demolition debris dumps and
sanitary sludge burials. Subsequent to 1967, open burning of trash in dumps
has ceased due to environmental efforts, however, this allowed a greater
inventory of organic materials in the landfills. Additfoally, procedures for
compaction also used water spraying which increases bacteria action resulting
in increased gas generation.
Several areas of Interest were identified in this text as needing further
investigation for determining the extent of gas migration,
I. Inventory
There 1s a need to identify and evaluate all of the potential gas
problems from abandoned, operating and future waste disposal sites.
II. Land Use
There is a need to Identify the potential land uses of abandoned and
current landfill sites. Utility transmission line systems should also tie
reviewed for intrusions into the landfill Impact areas.
¦'III. Measurement
Models for gas generation in landfills should be reviewed for
applicability. Measurements should be made of volatiles under static
condition, i.e., as the landfill currrently exists, and under dynamic
construction related situations.
IV. Prevention and Control
Current and Future Site Designations should be done with the greatest of
care with particular attention to reclamation practices and gas
elimination procedures. The generated gas must either be vented to the
surface and properly disposed of or collected and used for an energy
source. For those locations having existing structures and utilities
associated within the impact area, those entities shojld be appropriately
ventilated.
-------

6.1.2 But First - How do you find It?
As in any project of a large scope an aggressive management team
is needed to inventigate the gas problem because it involves the
integration of various disciplines. It 1s Imperative that
thorough project management techniques be applied throughout the
course of the effort. The key to effective project management is
centralized management resposn1b1T1ty and authority—the project
manager approach—which provides a single point of contact and
liaison between a consultant team and the client. The government
agency responsible should develop an 1n-house 11st of resources
and an overall schedule prior to selecting a consultant. What are
the components of such an undertaking? The Investigation can be
Identified into five parts.
Part 1 - Field Reconnaissance and Review of Available Reports and
Oata
Part 2 - Analysis of Data and Evaluation of Alternative Control
Technologies by Site
Part 3 - Recommendation of the Most Effective Gas Control Strateqy
by Site
Part 4 - Development of Methane Gas Monitoring Program
Part 5 - Summary of Findings and Recommendations
a) Feasibility for Gas Control
b) Criteria for Gas Control
. Part 6 - Preparation of Engineering Details and Drawings
Part 7 - Supervision of Construction Facilities
The following 1s a discussion of those parts of a survey and their
specific activities:
Minimum Tasking List for Gas Survey
In-House Tasking Effort
1. Compile List of Site with Known Problems
2. Assemble and Organize Data on Sites
3. Compile List of Sites with Known and Probable Problems Due to
Gas Movement
6-3
-------
4. Analyze All Data and Develop Urgency Ranked High Priority
List of Sites
5. Flnalyze and Approve List of High Priority Sites
6. Perform Data Acquisition on Selected Sites
7. Identify Significant Oata Deficiencies for Each Site
Part 1 - Site Reconnaissance and Review of Available Reports and Data
(In-house and Consultant)
1.1 Collect and review available published and unpublished
background reports on the subject site and its immediate
environs.
1.2 Interview persons knowledgeable about the site.
1.3 Obtain available air photos and maps of the site and its
vicinity.
1.4 Conduct a site reconnaissance, including gas monitoring of
selected locations to determine present levels of methane gas
concentration.
1.5 Establish additional investigation, as required.
Review existing test boring information and recommend specific
sites for futher borings.
Review all available geological Informatln including geology
reports for.nearby buildings.
Review rain and snowfall records
Review Soil Conservation Service Soils Maps
Review State Department of Mater Resources report on groundwate
movement
Review existing Information on gas movement
Part 2 - Analysis of Oata and Evaluation of Alternative Control Technologies
I Consultant} ¦
2.1 Identify Significant Oata Deficiencies and Develop Field
Investigation program
2.2 Perform Field Investigations or Reconnaissance; Recommend type
and location of gas sample lines within test boring holes for
further data collection
s-y
-------
2.3 Analyze and correlate all data obtained from field and
laboratory test programs.
Evaluation of field data
A. Gas production
B. Migration
C. Hazard
D. Special conditions
2.4 Prepare a Site Specific Reconnaissance Report
A. Amounts of methane generated
8. Seneral threat to the public safety
C. Conceptualize Site Specific Mitigation Programs
0. Prepare Cost Estimates for Conceptualized Mitigation Programs
Part 3 - Recommendation of the Most Effective Gas Control Strategy
(Consultant;
3.1 Evaluate the technical and economic aspects of the alternatie
control technologies.
3.2 Recommend the best control technology to ensure public safety
and protection of the site environment.
A. Control of gas
B. Structure protection (on and off site)
C. Alarm system(s)
Part 4 - Development of Methane 6as Monitoring Program
4.1 Develop a gas monitoring system to verify the effectiveness of
the recommended gas containment system.
Part 5 - Summary of Flndinos and Recommendations
5.1 Prpare a report summarizing findings and recommendations for an
effective gas control system for all sites.
6.1.2.1 Inventory - In-house Effort
The inventory should have a specific plan and can be
accomplished partially by the government agency in charge.
The components of such a study would be:
A. Objective of Investigation
B. Scope of Investigation
C. Selection of sites for priority 11st
The agency may want to use the following 11st of items to
establish a priority list.
6-*~
-------
In additfon to the prioritizing of the sites, the
responsible agency should prepare for each site
Typical of ATI Sites
1. Description of site
A. Location, city, township/range
S. Physiography
C. Operation and history
1. Period of operation
2. Owner
3. Type landfill (size, depth, type of material deposited)
4. Present use
It. Geological and hydrologlcal data
A. Regional geology
8. Site geology
C* Soil condition
0. Groundwater conditions
The first task will Identify the high priority sites and a background for
the follow on Investigate by a consultant. The Initial data search should
also include a seach for old aerial photographs or topograph maps for each
site within their jurisdiction. Coordinate contacting adjacent property
owners, building occupants, and utility companies that are affected by the
landfill site.
6.1.2.2 Consultant Services
The primary function of a consultant would be to perform a
data analysis and develop recommendation for control based
on end use of the landfill and/or surrounding structures.
Data analysis will determine the extent of gas production
and migration 1n the landfill and Its Immediately
surrounding area.s The analysis should indicate if there is
a correlation between rainfall and/or snowfall and gas
production. It should also indicate the predominant
subsurface gas movement pattern. Follwoing this data
review, a field Investigation program would be developed for
each site to Include preliminary locatins for test borings,
bar punch holes, foundatin surveys, samplIn points, and
combustible gas surveys.

-------
Table
Factors for Prioritizing Landfill Sites
(methane gas hazards)
A. Generation Factors
1. Organic material (do not continue rating If site 1s only used as a
Rubble dump)
2. ' Sewage sludge or septic pumplngs received at site
3. Burning
4. Final cover (tightness, depth, etc.); no cover
5. Size (A)
6. Moisture (depth to groundwater, sprinkling, liquid wastes, surface
ponding) if saturated fill (worst case) below water table is
presumptive evidence of saturation, dry fill
B. Migration Factors
1. Liners or barriers
effective liner
no liner
2. Soil type or geology on a surrounding fill
for pure clay (best case)
sand and gravel (worst case)
3. Distance to utility lines (B)
C. Physiocultural Factors
1. Predominant land use (present)
heavy residential or comnercial
agricultural
2. Planned Future land use (site and surrounding) 15 yr.
residential or commercial
agricultural or recreational (parks, etc.)
3. Existing structures near or on site
4. Other items of special Importance
£-7
-------
6,1,2.3 Data Acquisition
The government agency in an effort to reduce cost should
prepare a site data package for each suspected site which
establishes the relevant site characteristics, including
site area, refuse depth, refuse characteristics, local
geology and hydrogeology, history of site operations,
location of adjacent building, and records of man-made
installations and activities within 1000 feet of the
landfill perimeter.
In any landfill gas generation occurrence, two elements are
involved: organics and moisture. Background information on
both of these materials needs to be gathered.
First, the exact location of the landfill, boundaries and
its contents should be obtained. This can be done in
several ways. HistoricaMnformation can be gathered from
individuals who have lived in this area for some time, from
the fill site land ownere or fill operator, and from other
Individuals who are knowledgeable about the area. The
precise boundary locations can be verified by drilling bore
holes at or near the suspeted boundaries.
The nature of the material deposited in the fill and its
location can also be obtained from the above cited
individuals or drilling. J Once this preliminary information
is known the theoretical biodegradeability of the organics
can be estimated and the amount of potential methane
generation can be calculated.
Second, the extent and rate of biodegradation is controlled
by the moisture content. Therefore, further information
needs to be gathered on the water influence of the area.
Water may enter the area either by vertical movement through
the surface or by horizontal movement of groundwater beneath
the surface. Rain and snowfall records need to be
investigated to determine the extent of direct vertical
moisture penetration, the groundwater level fluctuation and
dirction of flow should be determined in order to
characterize its influence on gas generation as well as
directional movement.
In addition to the nature and extent of gas generated in the
landfill, information on subsurface gas movement needs to be
gathered. This data can be obtained in two ways: 1) the
geological formation of the area should be investigated to
determine the lay
6-3
-------
down pattern of various soils; and 2) gas sample lines
should be Installed in a number of bore holes throughout the
landfill site, primarily along and outside the fill
periphery.
Baseline for climatology, hydrology, geology, soils, type of
wastes, and the presence or absence of methane gas conditins
would be required for every site. If existing data 1s
unavailable (and 1t 1s anticipated that this will be the
case for the majority of sites), this phase of the work
would include the collection of additional information.
Additional subsurface 1nvest1gatin by the consultant and/or
gas monitoring may be necessary to devlop adequate knowledge
of the landfill (gas generator) and its environs. The
extent of this investigative effort will be partially
dictated by the end use of the landfill or if the report of
survey 1s to be used in a court of law. Monitoring holes
would be permanently installed for the purpose of collecting
methane gas samples. A brief description of each hole type
Is as follows:
1. Monitoring Holes. These holes will be drillec using a 4
inch continuous flight auger or 7 1/2 O.D. hollow flight
auger powered by a CME 45 or 55 drilling rig. j The holes
will be advanced to the sampling depth and a relatively
undisturbed sample will be taken. Typically, samples
will be taken at 5 foot Intervals unless closer sampling
will be needed due to the type of materials encountered.
The hole will penetrate to at least the bottom of the
fill.
"After bottoming the hole, 2 Inch diameter P.V.C. pipe
hand slotted will be installed full depth. The pipe will
be cut off at ground surface, capped, and the top 2 feet
of the pipe sealed with soil or concrete. The pipes will
be covered w.1th soil for vandalism protection. In
populated areas, steel vandal proof caps will be provided.
Profile Holes. These will be advanced using a 4 inch
diameter continuous fHqht auger powered by a CME 45 or
55 drilling rig. Visual classification of the soil
cuttings will be made and general log of the soils
encountered will be recorded. No plastic pipe will be
Installed.
A small portable vacuum pump with flow meter would be
utilized to collect gas samples froffl the monitoring
holes. Gas would be pumped through small charcoal
absorption tubes and sent to the
-------
lab for analysis. An alternative method would be to
utilize a portable gas chromatograph unit for on-site
analyses. It Is anticipated that either or both methods
could be rquired for specific sites on a case-by-case
basis. A mass spectrophotometer would be utilized to
calibrate the gas chromatograph. "Bomb" or vacuum bottle
samples would be utilized In a few cases to collect
samples, they have the disadvantage of being such a
small quantity that they would only be utilized to detect
the presence or absence of methane but not for
quantitative purposes. We would outline for the state
health laboratory the preparation of absorption tubes and
would utilize to the maximum extent possible the portable
gas chromatograph that the department has on order. It
is anticipated that the services and equipment of the A1r
Quality Control Olvlsion could be utilized to some degree
for gas collection and monitoring.
6.1.3 Cost for Such Services by a Consultant are: (See Table )

-------
//o«rly /a~^r
Personnel fa
Principal Engineer 40.00 - 50.00
Principal Engineer 33.00 - 40.00
Senior Engineer (Civil, Sanitary, Hydraulic) 25.00 - 30.00
Engineer (Civil, Sanitary, Hydraulic) 21.00 - 25.00
Senior Engineering Designer 21.00 - 25.00
Water Resources Analyst 20.00 - 25.00
Senior Draftsman 15.00 - 20.00
Resident Engineer 15.00 - 20.00
Engineering Draftsman 12.50 - 18.00
Senior Resident Inspector 12.50 - 18.00
Resident Inspector 8.50 - 13.50
Engineering Technician 7.00 - 12.50
Technician/Secretarial 7.00-10.00
Automobile at 15-20* per mile
Four-wheel Drive Vehicle at 25-304 per mile
Mon1tor1no Holes. We estimate about 1.5 hours of drilling time will be
required for a 30 foot dieep hole. The drill rig cost for hollow augers
1s S50.00-65.00 per hour. An engineer should be used to log the hole,
obtain samples, install the pipe and generally assist with the work. We
estimate two hours of engineer's time will be needed to accomplish the
work at each site. There also be the cost for plastic pipe and a
vandal proof cap. Including some cost for typing up the data we believe
a cost of 5200-300 per hole can be expected.
Profile Holes. The profile holes will be relatively Inexpensive. We
estimate at least two an hour could be drilled. The drilling cost for
these holes is S45-65 per hour with the engineer's cost, the data; for a
total per hole cost of S55-80 can be expected.
3. Analyze Oata
This phase of the work would be on-going from the time a site is
identified for investigation. It would include the review of existing
data complied by the loca health departments and the compilatln and
analysis of the data from laboratory findings and field Investigations.
Field investigation would consist of a comprehensive detection survey of
the landfill perimeters to identify the presence of combustible gases,
migration patterns and pathways, and the hazards to public health and
safety.
This survey would be conducted by taking explosivlty readlnos with
combustible gas indicators in test borings, punch holes, perimeter
utility trenches, and foundations of adjacent structures. We

-------
anticipate that one field engineer or geologist would supervise one or
more field crews consisting of two field technicians each. Every effort
would be made to cover as many sites as possible with the available
budget. This task assignment would! also include collection and analysis
of samples of conjbustlble gas and of selected soil samples to determine
pertinent combustible concentrations and engineering properties.
Oata collected during the field investigate and laboratory testing
program would be evaluated and a report prepared indicating, wherever
possible, the existence of combustible methane gas> its pathway of
migration, and an assessment of the associated hazards to public health
and safety. Based upon our findings, a hazard priority would be assigned
to those sites covered, and ecoontendations would be developed pertaining
to appropriate remedial actions necessary to abate the hazard. If
sufficient data on landfill wast volumes are available, additional
recommendations would be made pertaining to the potential for methane gas
recovery. Whenever possible, within the available budget, conceptual
designs for containment facilities would be prepared.
4. Prepare Engineering Report. The data and analysis for each site would be
compiled and presented in an engineering report. The report will include
a summary of baseline conditions, at least one map of each site Indicting
hold locations, topography and other data, at least one representative
cross section, logs of the holes and a discussion of the types.of
materials enountered. The laboratory results will be included. We would
present alternatives, including preliminary cost estimates for the
initiation of remedial action at each site. This would include a final
recommendation for a prevention or correction plan. We propose to
discuss recovery and utilization of the methane gas at sites where
conditions are favorable.
5. Determine Responsible Parties. At each site the legally responsible
party or parties for corrective measures will be determined. In
cooperation with the State Health Department, we would agree to meet with
the responsible party to review the results of our investigation in order
to pursue implementation of the remedial action.
6. Implement Corrective Measures. It 1s understood that the State Health
Department, as a part of this contract, wishes to follow through with the
initiation of remedial action required at each site. We would agree to
commit time for an initial meeting with the responsible party designing
or constructing the corrective measures. Field supervision or on-site
Inspection of the measures would not be part of this contract.
6.2 Selecting a Consultant
6.2.1 Responsibilities of Consultant

-------

6.2.2 Project Manager Responsibilities
The project manager consultant 1s responsible for planning,
implementing, and directing all aspects of the total project. The
project manager:
- Translates all requirements Into an effective and efficient work
program, establishes concrete objectives 1n quantitative,
qualitative, and schedule terms, and handles changes in the same
manner.
- Interacts with client representatives to see that all
requirements and guidelines are set forth to all technical
groups .and are complied with fully.
- Delineates all technical and administrative respoons1bl1t1es
within each technical group working on the project to provide
full coordination and Integration of all activities.
- Establishes operating procedures and sees that they are properly,
and fully applied.
- Coordinates and integrates all project personnel and work tasks,
including those of subcontractors and consultants, so that
1nter-d1sc1pl1nar.y Interactions, data and Information exchange,
and feedback of iterative results take place appropriately.
- Conducts continuous progress review of all work results and
outputs. Procedures provide for maintaining continuity of work,
Integration, and cross-fertllizatln among Individual
professionals and technical groups, and for internal technical
and client review. They also provide for adequate flexibility
among major tasks and subtasks to avoid serious delays and
Inefficiencies, as well as overexpendltures.
6.3 End Uses
Closing a landfill does not make It go away. This point seems obvious,
but 1t is seldom treated that way. Recent years saw increased interest
in what to do with landfills before they open; how to design and engineer
them. Currently, Industry interest focuses on what to do with landfills
while they operate; how to prevent or contain pollutants, whether to
monitor, and so on. The next trend should be concern with what happens
after the landfill closes it gates and covers Its faces.
Past landfllllng practices have caused many problems which are not
revealed until years after the landfill closes. Sites located above sand
and gravel aquifers, for Instance, have gradually polluted groundwater
until 1t became unusable for long periods. Poorly planned or operated
landfills have caused methane gas
4-'3
-------
generation. Fires, explosions, property damage, even deaths have
resulted from this environmental hazad. Yet when the landfills closed
and those financially responsible for them departed, the potential for
such problems was not addressed.
Landfills present a special problem because they are in a class of
business or municipal activities which never "go away." When the owner
of a building decides to close out, he either sells the structure and
thus attaches responsbility to a new owner, or the building is torn down
and disappears. When a landfill closes, the buried wastes remain and the
new site owner, if there is one, considers himself responsible only for
what is above the cover material.
Most state agencies have little history on the past uses of closed
landfills because its present identlflcatin does not carry with it any
scar of a ravaged and destroyed land and certainly no legal
Identification 1n the way of restriction. Most agencies would also
report that the "planned" end use would be "open space" or "recreation."
This end use planning should be an essential part of the science of waste
control design.
Some preliminary conclusions on end uses can be made:
1. Public landfill operators tend to use the completed fill for public
purposes, at the very least the land Is claimed as recreation or
openspace.
2. Private landfill operators tend to convert completed fills to
profit-oriented uses or Intend to do so at some future date.
3. End uses of land disposal sites are as varied as are the uses of
almost any other land. The exception 1s a completed landfill which
surely rules out using the site as a landfill.
There are many innovative end uses that show design is limited only by
the designer's 1mag1nat1n. There is a windmill atop a landfill In
Holland, Michigan, a heliport and pistol range in Huntington Beach,
California, a marina In Beaumont, Texas, and a cemetery in Fulton County,
Georgia.
Certain municipalities have had significant success with specific end use
types. New York City hs numerous parks and golf courses on completed
fills, as well as the World's Fair site (1939 and 1964)
The municipality, however, must be aware of those problems which have
resulted from building on landfills such as differential settlement, gas
entrapment, utility continuity (pipelines, cables, and drainage surfaces)
and landscaping.
Landfill Gas Utilization Modes
The final end use may choose to incorporate the gas being generated on
site. There are several categories of use for methane from landfills.

-------
-Injection Into an existing transmission line (upgrade to pipeline
standards)
-Direct sale to an 1nterrupt1ble customer (Low BTU heating value)
-On-site conversion to LNG (liquified natural gas (methane))
-Onrsite conversion to methanol (methyl alcohol)
-On-site steam generation as a source of heat or for electrical generation
-Conversion of landfill gas to ammonia ad ammonia products
-Direct combustion for space heating
-Compression
In addition, three different levels of gas clean-up are possible:
dehydration; dehydratln and CO2 removal; HgO, C02» and Ng removal.
Another idea proposed by John Pacey of EMCON Associates is a
self-sufficient greenhouse on a landfill.
A greenhouse environment 1s most enhanced when moderated controlled heat,
comblneed with artiflcal light, and low cost land Is available. Landfills can
supply all of these Ingredients at very low cost (although the landfill owner
would conceivably charge a royalty). The compatibility of greenhouse/landf111
appears idela as the greenhouse structure 1s simple, flexible, low cost,
temporary, and well adapted to the large settlements. Additionally, the heat
and fuel value of the landfill are available for heat and electricity for
greenhouse needs. Greenhouse use can be practical during and after landfill
construction, one of the few beneflcal early uses of landfills.
Of Important concern here is the decreasing avallabllty of low cost
greenhouse land 1n proximity to urban areas and the Increasing
interruptability of energy supply to this Industry.
6.4 Financing Alternatives
Numerous financing options available for proposed gas recovery facility,
Including contractor financing, either complete or partial, revenue
bonds, general obligation bonds, and various hybrid arrangements
Involving several sources of funds.
TABLE ONE GOES IN HERE (FINANCING OPTIONS)
Prevention and Control
The following provides a synopsis of the activities needed by your local
agencies:

-------
a) A Department of Health under the general public health laws and the
solid wste regulations could preclude new sites from causing the
problem, and cause action could be taken to remedy existing known
hazard situations.
b) County Commissioners could restrict land use within the impact zone
of such disposal sites and select more appropriate sites for
landfills.
c) Zoning and building departments could restrict construction and
require preventive measures at new facilities.
d) COSH and the Fire Marshalls could regulate the workplace when it is
in the impact zone of such sites.
e) Public Service Company may wish to use this source of energy if
economically feasible.
f) Construction Industry and the landfill operator representatives could
make the agencies' concerns known along with the identification of
known completed site locations. Landfill operators might take a snoe
positive approach to proper operation If legal suits are anticipated.
g) A Task Force could function as an interagency committee to address
the problem with the anticipation of positive action by those with
authority.
h) Local 01str1ct Health Department and appropriate fire officials
Inventory buildings around existing landfills for methane. If
methane is found, then appropriate monitoring, control, or evacuation
procedures Mill be Implemented at the direction of these agencies.
In an effort to advise Building and Planning Departments of the
hazards from landfills in any land use or building decision local
health departments will:
1. Propose to the planning departments that they designate the
affected sites on their master plan as hazardous areas.
2. Inform all building department of the areas Involved and the
hazardous conditions associated with methane in relation to
building structures and their placement.
In order to prevent future hazards from landfill associated metHane we
suggest the following:
a) That the state health department promulgate more specific and
enforceable rules, regulations and guidelines on the operation of
landfills requiring the following:
6-16
-------

1. The Installation of barriers, vents, or other devices designed by
a professional engineer to eliminate the migration of methane or
other gases off the landfill property 1n amounts greater than
fifty (50) percent of L.E.L.
2. Development of a comprehensive monitoring system designed to give
warning of gases penetrating the barriers and leaving the landfill
area.
3. Oellneation of specific responsibilities and actions to be taken
by the operator 1f the gas barriers are breached, including
financial responsibility assured by escrow.
4. A plan for the development of the landfill after filling with
considerations of safety and the needs of the community.
b) That local county district health department conduct frequent
inspections of operational landfills in order to insure that:
1. The rules and regulations of state health department are being
complied with.
2. The monitoring system provided by the operator is functioning
properly and the results are being reported.
c) That city and county building departments place stringent standards
on the issuance of building permits on or within one-thousand (1000)
feet of landfills. At a minimum these standards should include:
1. Plans submitted by a professional engineer designed to protect the
building from the entrance of methane.
2. A monitoring system that samples continuously and sounds an alarm
1f eighty percent (80) of the L.E.L. 1s reached in any room of the
building.
d) That city and county zoning departments designate landfill sites as
hazardous areas which require added safeguards against methane
accidents, leachate runoff or othr potentially hazadous conditions.
SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SAFETY DISCUSSION GROUP
1. There are many problems associated with methane from landfills.
a. The methane produced 1n landfills may be unpredictable 1n Its
movement and present explosion hazards 1n several areas.
b. Many of our completed landfills do have methane problems, yet they
are up for sale and ready to be utilized.
6-/7
-------
c. Many of our newer fills may present methane problems due to a lack of
regulation and Improper construction, allowing methane migration.
d. There may be a time interval between the completion of the landfill
and the generation of methane. The methane may also persist for 100
years or more.
e. There 1s a lack of agencies with specific responsibility and control
over future or completed landfills.
f. Most of our landfills are privately owned and operated and in many
cases the owner of the land and the operator of the landfill are
separate.
g. Information on the potential dangers of methane from landfills has
not been adequately provided to those contractors or agencies faced
with these dangers.
2. The responsibility for future landfills must rest with several agencies.
a. The guidelines for the operation of landfills should be developed by
the state health department enabling uniformity throughout the state.
b. The major inspectfonal and enforcement effort should be wit local
governmental bodies since more frequent Inspections can be made and
the power of the law can be utilized faster.
c. The routine inspections should be the responsibility of the local
health department, as well as, monitoring checks to assure the
methane Is not moving off of the fill area.
d. The City or county should require that before Issuance of a landfill
permit, a plan for utilization of the site after filling 1s safe and
compatible with their future plans.
e. The landfill operator should be responsible for the installation of
barriers or other devices to prevent methane from leaving the site.
The landfill operator should also be required to conduct a monitoring
program that Is s1te-spec1f1c and was capable of detection of the
lateral travel of methane. This system would depend on the geologic,
topographic, and demographic conditions surrounding the fill area.
f. Due to the fact that the system may take several years to fail, the
operator may be required to establish a trust fund, based on surtaxes
or other charges, that could be utilized for methane or leachate
control. This trust fund may run from $100,000 to SI,000,000.
3. . Those landfills that have already been filled must be equipped with
devices to protect the surrounding structures.
a. If the property owners are held responsible for these remedial
measures there will undoubtedly be lengthy lawsuits and court battles.
b. Although the governmental agencies involved may not be legally
responsible, they maybe morally responsible. If these agencies or
governments are sued, the cost of the defense may be more costly than
the remedial measures necessary.
t-/r
-------

c A governmental entity may *>e able to act faster. They may be able to
condemn the land or file suit in orderto regain some of the money
spent on control measures. The gas present may also be able to be
utilized and thereby offset ttie costs,
d. The cost of remedial measures could be fairly large and therefore
only within the fiscal reach of the larger governmental entities such
as the state or federal government.
4. New/buildings that are to be built on or near existing landfill areas
must be closely scrutinized.
a. These buildings may be able to be controlled by the local
governmental agencies through the use of building permits. This may
be effected by the building departments through the denial of these
permits or through the fire marshals.
b. Before building in these areas an engineering plan for methane
control should be submitted by the developer. This plan should
include methods for keeping methane out of the building, as well as,
a monitoring system to warn them if methane does enter the building.
Adequate ventilation must also be provided.
c. The city itself must closely review any plans for buildings on
landfills since even 1f a professional engineer states that the
system will work, 1t may not. If someone 1s hurt due to a system
failure, the city may still be held responsible 1f they had approved
the plans.
d. In some cases 1t may be better,for the land to be acquired by the
government and utilized for open space rather than being built on.
These open space areas may become even more important as the area
becomes more urbanized. In some casies, however, present landfills
are in industrial areas not conductive to parks, etc.
5. Buildings that are presently on xuvjiear .landfill areas must also be
considered.
a. The owners of buildings that way t>e 1n danger must be notified of the
seriousness of the problem. This notification should be made in
writing whether or not methane has-been found in the building. It is
felt that any building within 1000 feet of a landfill that is
producing methane may be 1n danger.
b. In those buildings where a methane hazard may exist, monitoring and
ventilation systems must be proflced. The monitoring system must be
of a continuous typ« to the variability of methane gas migration.
c. These controls may be forced on the building owners by either
condemnation of the building by the fire marshal or by removal of
Public Service Comply utilities. This could not normally be
accomplished unless methane was detected wltMn the building.
6. There are several types of control -systems available for both new and old
landfill areas..

-------
The passive vent system is the least expensive system, although it
may lack the reliability of the other systems since ft relys on the
pressure of methane within the fill which 1s fairly low. They may
also be Ineffective if they do not extend down to the water table or
bedrock.
Barrier systems may be fairly effective 1f they are extended down to
the water table or bedrock. The barrier, however, must be installed
properly and for a vapor barrier. This type of system may also be
relatively short-lived as the barrier may deteriorate within several
years.
A combination of a passive vent and barrier may be utilized and be
more effective than either one used alone.
The power vent system is probably the most effective system when
properly designed. This type of system also allows the possibility
of gas utilization for other persons. This system 1s also the most
expensive system.
&-20
-------
211
LIST or REFERENCES
-------
5fclcr7F^
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackenheil and Associates
1973 Newsletter, Denver, Colorado, Ackenheail and Associates.
Considiae, James L. and Schmltt, D&namarie
1978 Land Use Planning and Implementation for the Flammable
Gas Problem: Adams County, Colorado, Adams County Plan-
ning Department.
International City Managers Association
1977 Refuse Report - Summaries of the Latest Happenings in
Solid Waste, Washington D.C. International City Managers
Association.
Pacyy, John G.
1978 Greenhouse-Landfill Land Use, San Jose, Emcon Associates.
ToTLnur, Richard 0.
1973 Developing A Local and Regional Solid Waste Management
Plan, Washington D.C. United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
Toftner, Richard 0. and Clark, Robert M.
1971 Intergovernmental Approaches to Solid Waste Management,
Washington, D.C., Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1976 ^ Decision - Makers Guide In Solid Waste Management,
* Washington, D.C., United Stated Environmental Protection
Agency.
-------
Vegetation Grovch aid Sanitary Landfill Puilica-sions
Cook Collage, Ru-garc V:iivsrsi-y
Hew Sir^n-viok. "iv Jersey
Arthur, J.J. TSi* Zffect of Simulated Stcdtary Landfill Ges.era.ted Gas
(Carbon Dioxide and C3ntar.ir.atlon of the Soot Zone of Tona-so
Plants and Two Mapli apsciii. 1-13. -aaiis, Rutgers "nirersity, rev
Jersey. 1578.
Flower, 7.3. Gases is. ^he soil and How -o la-sect Then. Proceedings -—¦•¦»'.
meeting Efew Jersey Shade -rae 0~ . jslos. 1972.
Flcvar, 7.3. Case History of Gii 1-ioveren- Through Soils. C-2.S and Lsaohate
7rca Landfills. "Forrsation, Collection and Treatnes-s" Conference, 2f«r
3ruaswici, H.J. March, 1575.
Tlower, F.3., I.A. Leone, Z. 7. Gilraa and J. J. Arthur. Landfill Gases
and Scsa Zffecss en Tegeta-cioc, Proceedings of she Conference on
Xetrcpolitaa Physical SaYlroasent, (L"3DA Jorest Service Technical
Report SZ-25» 1977), Syracuse, S.Y. August 1575.
Tlsver, 7.3., I.A. Leone, 2.7. Gilnan and J.J. Arthur. "Vegetation Sills
in ranrtftM Environs." Proceedings of the Third Annual Research
ayggo «ti> gegent of Gas and Leacha;ta in. landfills, at. Louis, Missou
March lU-l6, 1577.
Flower, 7.3. and I.A. Leone. "Da~ig* to Tegesarion 'ay Landfill Gases", Ji*
Annual Meeting of the Hew Jersey Federation of Shade Tree Cosnissions;
Cherry Hill, IT. J., 11/12/76} published in Vol. 50, So. <5 & 7, The Shade
Tree. June-July 1977.
Flower, 7.3., I.A. Leone, 1.7. Giisaa and J.J. Arthur. A Ssudy of Vegetiti
Problems Associated with Refuse Landfills. IPA publication £CC/S-~2-C^.
May 1578. ' '
Flower, F.3. and L.A. Miller. Report of Investigasion Sills Adjacent so
Landfill. Extension Field Report. l'>-£?.
Gilnan, 2.7. Screening of Voody Species and Plan-sing Techniques for
Suitability is. Vegeta-sing Cospleted =ini»ary Refuse Landfills. lis.
thesis, Rutgers Vnirersity, a.J. 1573.
Gilsaa, 2.7., I.A. Leone and 7.3. Flower. Screening of Species and Plan-iz.
Techniques for Suitability in Vegeta-sing Cospla-sad Sanitary Refuis ~*-4-
fills. Proceedings of The First Annual Conference of Applied Rea-sarch""
and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Vas-sa, Xsdizon, Wisconsin.
Sept. 10-13, 1578.
-------
APPENDIX
-------
CONSULTANTS HAVING EXPERIENCE IN
LANOFlLL-SENERATEO METHANE PRQ8LEHS*
EMCON Associates
326 Conmercial Street
San Jose, California 95112
Engineering - Science, Co.
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
Heath Consultants, Inc.
100 Tosca Orive
Stoughton, Massachusetts 02072
Lockman and Associates
249 East Pomona Blvd.
Monterey Park, California
Mandeville and Associates
26981 Escondido Lane
Mission Viejo, California 92675
Montgomery Engineers of Virginia, Inc.
Reston International Center
11800 Sunrise Valley Orive
Reston, V1rgi nla 22091
SCS Engineers
11800 Sunrise Valley Orive
Reston, Virginia 22091
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
10954 Santa Monica Blvd.
U>s Angeles, California 90025
Leonard S. Wegraan and Associates
New York City Area
Address not known
~This list consists of consultants known to the City
Richmond to have methane gas experience and is not
intended to be otherwise complete.
-------
ora pt
/HA*. 71
Flux Box Measurement of. Methane Emanation from Landfills
C. Kunz and A.K. Lu
Division of Laboratories and Research
New York State Department of Health
Empire State Plaza
Albany, Slew York 12201
A simple# inexpensive technique has been developed to measure
the rate of methane emanation from the surface of landfills, these
measurements were made at the Fresh Kills Landfill test site on
Staten Island. A methane recovery and utilization study at this
site is being funded by the New York State Energy Research and Devel-
opment Authority. The Brooklyn Union. Gas Company, the Hew York City
Resource Recovery Task Force, the Leonard S. Wegman Company, Inc.,
and the New York State Department of Health are taking part in this
study. Four production wells and a number of pressure probes have
been installed and gas production studies are under way.^
The methane emanation measurements were made using flux "boxes",
consisting of halves of S3-gallon metal drums. The function of the
drum is to trap gases leaving the landfill surface during the period
of measurement (normally about 20 minutes). To prevent mixing with
outside air, the open end of the drum was imbedded about *tN into the
surface of the landfill. Care was taken to be sure there were no
gaps between-the surface and the edge of the imbedded drum. The
closed end of the drum was fitted with two ports of o.d. metal
tubing. During measurements, one port was left open so that the gas
pressure in the drum was always in equilibrium with that of the
(1) A.J. Guiliani, tletharse Recovery From a Shallow Landfill, 2xperien.
at the Fresh Sills, Staten Island, H.Y., Intergovernmental Methane
Task Force Symposium, Denver, CO, 21-22 March 1.373.
-------
art
-2-
atmosphere. The other port was used to extract samples for measure-
ment of CH4 concentration, usincr a portable methanometer of the type
used extensively in nines. These hand held methanoneters are
battery operated and contain a pump for drawing samples from the
flux box. Methane concentrations in the range of 0.1* to 5% in air
can be measured, and about 300 measurements can be made with a fully
charged battery. Mass spectrometer analyses performed on several
samples collected separately agreed to within ±5* of the methanometer
readings.
Once the drum was in place, • measurements of the C3^ concentra-
tion were made every two minutes for twenty minutes. Knowing the
enclosed landfill surface area and the volume of the flux box, the
rate of CH^ emanation was calculated.
Flux box measurements were made at 21 different locations in
the vicinity of the wells during 5 days in September and October 1978
(Fig. 1). The methane emanation rate varied considerably from loca-
tion to location. The gases being generated throughout the landfill
will vent through the most porous, fractured areas. The measured
eaanation rates show a number of locations with little or no methane
being released, whereas a few locations were found to be venting
methane at more than three times the average rate.
Variations will also occur with changing atmospheric pressure.
Decreasing atmospheric pressure will cause landfill gas to vent at a
faster rate, while increasing atmospheric pressure will slow the rate
of emanation. To obtain a reasonably accurate measure of the methane
emanation rate, measurements must be made at a number of locations
-------
-3-
during periods of relatively constant atmospheric pressure, or the
study should be conducted over the course of several days to average
out the effects of atmospheric pressure changes.
The average rate of methane emanation determined for the Fresh
Kills site was 26 ft3/min/acre. Vie assume the average value deter-
mined for the rate of emanation is a good approximation for the pro-
duction rate. Mass scectrometric analysis of flux-box gas samples
showed that the average concentration of C02 was the same as CH^.
Therefore/ the C02 emanation and production rates are similar to
that for CH^ resulting in a total gas production of 52 ft3/niin/acre.
(2)
The total gas production rate estimated from pressure measurements
and gas flow modeling was 45 ftVmin/acre.
Figure 2 shows the effect of pumping on the methane emanation
rate. One drum was placed 30.7 ft from one. of the wells and another
64.3 ft from the same well. Both locations showed a relatively high
rate of methane emanation when gas was not being pumped from the
well. When gas was pumped at 170 cfn, the rate of emanation ob-
served for the flux box at 64.3 ft from the well decreased from
3 2
3.3 ft /ft -day to 0.9 while for the flux box closer to the well the
3 2
emanation rate went from 2.2 ft /ft -day to -0.3. The negative result
shows that the pumping causes air to b« drawn into the landfill in
the area near the pump.
In conclusion, the flux tibx measurements can be' used to give a
good approximation of the rate for methane production and car. be used
to evaluate the extent to which air intrudes into the landfill during
punping.
(2) A.m.. Lu and C.O. Kunz, "Transducer Measurement of Landfill (las
Pressure", Intergovernmental Methane Task Force Symoosium, Denver,
CO, 21-23 March L979.
-------
KHThAHE E>\AMJ\Ttf»>4
V.ua p.
© © ©
0.4 0.3 0
© © 0 ©
0 *1 © e. 7 c r c>.2
© ol
Zi
e
0.7
>Wca*i
©
0
o.r
©
1.3
a
c»
©
*xx
\weu- 2
ES
0
. '-7
2.9
V^EU J
©
e
0.7
Weu",4-
m
©
©
0,7
j#a*
©
O.I
©
/.2
ri/r- :i
v
V
-------
I# ij < .• ro rut cchriMCii'i
rX -i.wf«tk »c.wnco «...*• •
¦lb 1512
fid- 1
i
-------
~ MM. 7*
Transducer Measurement of Landfill Gas Pressure
A. H. Lu and C. Kunz
New York State Department of Health
Division of Laboratories and Research
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12201
The New York State Department of Health is participating in
a methane recovery project at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten
Island (1). Our primary objectives are to (1) estimate the current
rate of production of methane for the entire site; (2) determine the
permeability of the fill for gas movement; (3) estimate the volume
of the gas reservoir in the landfill; and C4) to project an optimum
pumping rate and well configuration. The Brooklyn Union Gas Company,
the New York City Resource Recovery Task Force, and the Leonard S.
Wegman Co., Inc. are also participating in this study, funded by the
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
The gas production rate can be computed by studying pressure
changes of gas in the landfill. The gas pressure in the landfill wii
be influenced by changes in atmospheric pressure, the rate at which
gas is generated in the landfill, and the rate at which gas is pumped
out of the landfill. This dynamic study requires accurate measurenen
of small pressure differentials. Six electrically-operated pressure-
differential transducers are installed in well-points driven into the
wastes at various locations from the production wells in order to mea-
sure the small pressure differentials between atmospheric pressure
and landfill gas pressure. The atmospheric pressure at the site is
also recorded with an "absolute-pressure" transducer. The differen-
tial transducers have a pressure range of three inches of water with
-------
an accuracy of ±0.25% and a repeatability of £0.02% of the range.
The effect of temperature is less than 0.009% per degree centigrade.
The associated erjiipment includes a constant voltage transformer and
a d-c. power supply. Insulated, wires up to 200 feet long are used
to connect all the transducers to a data logger. The output from ail
transducers is recorded every one to ten minutes depending on the
dynamics of the particular experiment.
Figure 1 shows a plot of atmospheric pressure measured with the
absolute transducer and a plot of landfill gas pressure measured, with
a differential transducer. Pressure values were recorded every ten
minutes. The changes in atmospheric pressure were closely followed
by the landfill gas pressure, demonstrating the highly permeable
nature of the landfill. During the morning of October 27, atmo-
spheric pressure increased rapidly and the positive pressure differ-
ential existing between landfill gas and the atmosphere decreased
from approximately 0.4 inches of water to 0.1 inches of water.
During periods of rapidly increasing atmospheric pressure most of
the gas being generated in the landfill merely increases the pressure
of the void volume of the landfill. This has the effect of decreasing
the loss of landfill gas to the atmosphere via pressure-induced
venting through the covering soil.
Figure 2 shows a plot of atmospheric pressure and landfill gas
pressure measured with three pressure probes at various distances
from one of the production wells. With the pump off the three pres-
sure probes show a positive pressure of between 0.3 inches and 0.4
inches of water. Pumping at 165 cfm caused the pressure in the land-
fill at 2515" frcre the well to decrease to about -0.25 inches of
water. Negative pressure will cause air to be drawn- into the landfill
-------
At 70'5" and 111' from the well the landfill pressure decreased but
remained positive at about 0.1 inches and 0.2 inches of water, re-
spectively.
Measurements such as those illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 are
being used to develop a model which will describe the flow of land-
fill gas, allowing estimation of the gas production rate, void
volume, and landfill permeability. A paper describing the model
and results is being prepared for publication.
Reference
(1) A. J. Guiliani, "Methane Recovery from, a Shallow Landfill,
Experience at the Fresh Kills, Staten Island, N. Y.",
Intergovernmental Task Force Symposium, Denver CO.,
21-23 March 1979.
-------
C.J 7 1^79
-------
Pit-is* ot4
I PtA H? O FF
I0:^o
-t-
|| „o

I2 00
»3rOO
Tif+F

-------

REFSRSSC5S
1) "Final Saviromaeatal Impact Report for NUG NuFuel Co.'s
landfill gas processing system. City of Rolling Hills
Estates" by VST Consolidated, Inc., January 1975.
2) "Methane Proa Landfills - Survey of Sxisting 3ay Area Sites"
by J.W. Van Zee for PGandS, August 1974.
3) "Mathan* Recovery Demonstration Project - Engine Generator
Set Operation Report" by the L.A. Departaent of Water end
Power, October 1975.
4) "Traatsent and Utilization of Landfill Gas - Mountain View
Feasibility Study" {SW-383) prepared by PGandS for SPA, 1977.
5) "Recovery of Landfill Gas at Mountain View/Engineering Site
Study" prepared for 2?A for the City of Mountain View,
E?A/530/SW-587d, May 1977.
6) "Fuel Gas Recovery from Controlled Landfilling of Municipal
Wastes", technical proposal (PCS-1152) made to PGandS by
Oynataeh R/D Company, January 3, 1577.
12
-------
¦ ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
ABSTRACT
CONDUCTING A LANDFILL
CAS JNVKSTICATION
*>y.
J. A. Ollger, Senior Project Engineer,
Engineering-Science, Inc.
ES
This paper discusses Che elements of conducting an investigation
of landfill produced gases in and around a sanitary landfill. These
elements described Include preliminary investigative work, preparation
for field work, field sampling and monitoring in and adjacent to dle
landfill, and analyses of data developed during the preliminary office
and field work.
-------
ENGiMEERlNG-SCtENCE
ABSTRACT
STATE OF THE ART OF THE
DESIGN OF SYSTEMS TO CONTROL
LANDFILL PRODUCED GASES
by
Terence E. Franklin, Project Engineer
Engineering-Science, Inc.
ES
This paper discusser the state-of-the-art o£ the tk-sLjjn of systems to
eliminate or mitigate this potencta.l hazards associated with l.utdfill |>rf>ftiirecJ
gases. The major Copies to be discussed include the predominant methods «f
gas transport, an
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE ES
AKSTKAf.T
SANITAKY l-ANOKM.I. HITIIANI".
RECOVERY PIPINC DESIGN
by
Frank E. Teeplc, Sr. Mechanical Engineer
Engineering-Science, Inc.
Methane gas contained in sanitary landfills is a large and valuable-
source of gaseous fuel. The recovery of this resource by methane mining
Is technically practical and where a market for the gas exists can be
profitable. Systems for mining sanitary landfills consist of gas recovery
wells drilled into the landfill, collector piping. Mow controls, pumping
subsystem iind j'.as tri'.iimcnt ns rrquireil by the* *ul>»ir<|m»nt. use oC ilu-
This pnper discusses* some clement.#: of mediauc nin inf. Nystvm dcsij;n in-
cluding well spacing and depth, collector piping, and materials of
construction.
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE ES
ABSTRACT
1
HOW TO SELECT A
CONSULTING ENGINEER TO PERFORM
GAS CONTROL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Myron Ellis Nosanov, Associate,
Engineering-Science, Inc.
This paper discusses elements of the objectives and responsibilities of
the client, the elements of a potentially successful gas control program,
the responsibilities of the engineering consultant, impediments to success of
a gas control program, and the potentially litigious nature of the use of
works influenced by the presence of landfill gases.
-------
nOW TO SELECT A
CONSULTING ENGINEER TO PERFORM
GAS CONTROL ENGINEERING SERVICES
by
Myron Ellis Nosanov, Associate
and
Gordon S. Magnuson, Vice President
Engineering-Science, Inc.
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses elements of the objectives and rcsponsibiJities
of the client, the elements of n potentially successful r.as control
program, the responsibilities or the engineering consultant, imped intents
CO a success of a gas control program, and the potentially litigious
nature of the use of works influenced by the presence of landfill gases.
INTRODUCTION
The selection of the consulting engineering firm to provide land-
fill gas control related services can be a function of that scope per-
ceived by the clienC and will be a function of the extent of the clients
precognition of Che extent of services to be provided.
A contractual agreement between an entity requiring services, for
gas control, and a consulting engineer Is most likely to satisfy nil
project objectives when both the cliunt and the engineer arc qualified.
Not all such entities which seek gas control engineering services are,
in fact, qualified, and it has been demonstrated that not all engineers
and geologists which offer the said services are likewise qualified.
There are only a limited number of objectives for entitles which would
retain an engineer to provide gas control consulting engineering services.
They include identification of existing hazards, elimination or mitigation
of existing hazards, and either avoidance, eliaination or mitigation of
the possibilities of future hazards. These objecdves become the client's
responsibilities when that entity elects to assume the risks implied in
the above described factors. When cognizance of these factors is mani-
fested by the entity requiring service, that entity is a qualified client.
1
-------
A qualified client has a greater probability (than one who is not) of re-
taining an engineering consultant most qualified to address Uk> jirojfi-t
objectives. This article is intended to
(1) Assist the reader to become a qualified client, and
(2) Assist the qualified client to determine which prospective
engineering consultant, among those available and qualified
to satisfy the required objectives, should be retained.
In the opinion of the authors, the selection of a consultant should
be based on evaluation of the sua total of each candidates experience
in gas control, subsidence and settlement analysis, process engineering,
and odor control, In each of the potential disciplines. The potential
range of engineering services Includes civil, structural, geologic,
sanitary, mechanical, electrical, combustion, and control systems.
Further, infra-red optical and heac scanning services may be required in
rare instances when landfill fires occur.
THE ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL LANDFILL CAS CONTROL PROGRAM
A successful landfill gas control program can be defined as one
which defines and either corrects, eliminates, or mitigates existing,
potential, and future landfill gas related hazards or nuisances. The
gas control hardware should be compatible with elements of construction
of the development which the gas control system is to help to protect.
In many cases where an existing hazard has been identified others may
not yet have been detected. Additionally, a carelessly conceived con-
trol system nay introduce new or secondary hazards. Therefore, careful
examination of the proposed system hardware and Its operating character-
istics is appropriate. Naturally, existing or proposed elements of con-
struction should be reviewed as secondary sources of potential leakage,
migration, or hazard. Further, because the soils or substrate beneath
which development Is or is proposed and in which substructures or
utilities may repose, could contain combustible gases, the terminology,
"hazardous below grade" is a significant designation within the National
K] cctric.il Code.
After di>sl|
-------
and the nnture of rej»i>ruiny established. Construction procedures re-
quired to prevent explosions, toxic reactions, nnusca and accidents
should be thoroughly discussed with the client and any contractors, sub-
contractors, and field superintendents prior to ordering material or
equipment and again prior to breaking ground. Al the latter mectiiiK
the contractor's proposed construction techniques, monitoring, and
safety equipment should be discussed. During construction, all signifi-
cant activity should be logged. All passive subsystem installations
should be observed for conformity with Che drawings and specifications
by the design engineer and so certified. After construction, a report of
construction should be Issued and dynamic systems activated, performance
tested, and balanced.
A monitoring and maintenance program should be prepared in con-
Junction vith design, construction, and post-construction system opera-
tions. The monitoring program should contain a scenario which would
occur at the time of potential failure of discrete elements of the gas
control system and describe recommended corrective or precautionary
action. This program should be fully reviewed, understood and approved
by the client and all agencies possessed with governmental jurisdiction.
Monitoring should be performed, extending over a predetermined
period of time, with a predetermined frequency. Copies of all moni-
toring data sheets, together with engineering analyses should be sub-
mitted to an appropriate agency.
The maintenance program should be funded and contracted for annually.
Possible damage or impairment of system elements, caused by differential
settlement, should be considered. The entity responsible therefore
should be elenrly Identified. That entity should not be the engineerli»£
consultant.
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CAS CONTROL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
The responsibilities of the gas control engineering consultant in-
clude continuous manifestation of cognizance of the objectives and re-
sponsibilities of the client and elements of a potentially successful
3
-------
gas control system. Cas control rtiRincering can be described as Che
application of, by the preparation of calculations, drawings, and speci-
fications, the results of scientific research, analysis and experience
involving the disciplines of geology, civil engineering, mechanical
engineering, electrical engineering, combustion engineering, and process
and control systems applications. The gas control engineer should be
responsible for only those system components for which the engineer
would be contractually oblicated, bearing consideration of the fact
that the engineer did not cause the gas and therefore, (1) unless ex-
acerbating the situation, is not responsible for its existence, and
(2) unless authorized to perform construction or charged with opera-
tions, maintenance, and security of the system, cannot accept responsi-
bility for those matters. Hot addressed hereinabove, are the services
of contract administration and technical observation. The former
service nay not be essential but may be of significant value to the
client; the technical observation is, in almost all cases, an imperative
service, if construction is to take place in the presence of either
potentially combustible, toxic, or noxious gases. Mote chat the cerm
used Is technical observation, not inspection. When and because Che
contract for construction is between the client and the contractor, the
engineer has no authority and can provide, or be, only an observer. An
observer reports, without authority and chore fore .nana responsibility,
on only tlmno matter* which tlu» olmrrvor ts pr I v 11 ej-.otl u> view.
THE POTENTIALLY LITIGIOUS NATURE OF THE USE OF WORKS AS INFLUENCED BY
THE PRESENCE OF LANDFILL GASES
There probably is no risk-free gas concrol project, only those
which represent a risk acceptable to the client and local agencies of
Jurisdiction. When the risks have been deemed acceptable, and when,
each party to a contract becomes involved in a &as control program, then
a new potential liability of both parties begins.
Previous liabilities for potential hazards from landfill gases
may extend back to the original landfill operator or landowner and
may be a function of, or depend on, the state of the art and contracts,
previous or extant. Many dctrnnin.itions of liability undoubtedly havo
yet to be made in the civil courts.
4
-------
Till.* primary r.-msi's for ;u-tl»n rotild Include: (I) lUmiruBltmunt of
property value; (2) nt'ctdcnr botvwso of l|inlt Ift of romhusr Ih 1 «•
(3) toxlcolo&ical or biological effects produced by odorous components
of landfill gas, including nausea, illness, or facalicy. Generally,
these Incidents could occur prior to the Institution of mitigating
neasures or, with possibly scarcer frequency in spite of mitigating
measures or, because of the lack of security for mitigating measures.
Once an active system Is Installed It may not function during all
planned periods of operation. Further, the design and construction of
passive systems, in conjunction with developer's schedules and practical
construction limitations is not 100 percent efficient. Additionally,
the existence of hardware systems is often a special enticement or
attractive nuisance to a variety of Individuals, varying from Che child-
like inquisitor to the malicious vandal.
Well, you the reader or listener might ask, "what has all this
to do with me?" And you might say, "All I plan to do is hire an engi-
neer and pay liia to solve the problem". There are several responses to
this. First, its your problem and it will probably succeed you and the
engineer and his assignees or heirs. Second, there is a growing tendency
to initiate legal action against all visible entitles when damages are
brought so the "buck" cannot be passed that readily and If It could be,
third, errors and omissions insurance, for those engineers who carry it,
is extremely costly so that many engineers no longer thereby indemnify
themselves. Among those who do, the threat of withdrawing of coverage
for this type of activity is significantly present.
SUMMARY
The client who is most likely to be assured of a successful p.as
control program Is one who understand* the total scope of the work and
the nature of the services which should be expected from the gns control
engineer. In the presence of a significant hazard, proposed protection or
mitigation systems should Include active and passive systems where and
when possible; their design should be based on a comprehensive landfill
, gas invc»elf-at ion. Construction of nil facilities hardware, subject
to and impacted by gas hazard should be subject to either periodic
5
-------
or continuous technical observation and a report and as-built drawings-
should be prepared. Excavation and development components constructed
below grade, where methane has been detected, should comply with ap-
plicable codes and procedures for .irons that arc "hazardous below j«rau«'."
A monitoring program should be prepared and Implemented, compatible with
the project objectives gas control hardware.
Maintenance should be scheduled, funded and performed. Security of
facility components should be provided against accidents or intentional
interference with active or passive system hardware. Responsibility
for maintenance and operations should not h»- delegated lo the consulting
engineer.
CONCLUSIONS
Gas control engineering projects of significant scope and
therefore, significant risks are, in fact, total concept engineering
projects in that a wide variety of construction is being proposed on,
in, or adjacent to properties wherein one may encounter free toxic or
combustible gases. Undesirable foundation characteristics abound. The
development of these projects in a manner which optimally nitlgatex the
ever present risks involved requires engineering services which include
civil, structural, geologic, mechanical, combustion, electrical, and
sanitary engineering. Infra-red scanning services may also be required.
The firm which is selected should be one with a history of successful ex-
perience in these disciplines.
It would benefit both the client and the consultant if each would
communicate with each other, (1) regarding the client's basic objective;
(2) that program which if Ideally performed would provide ^he "safest
possible situation", and (3) potentially circumstances which could
liait, hamper, or impair achievement of the mutual objective of the
client and consultant.
6
-------
Leone, I.A., ?.B. Flower, J.J-. Arthur arc. 2.?. Gilrar. "landfill Gajes:
A Source of Plant 2ara.se." (Abstr.) Proceedings of ITS Div. Acer. See
of Phytcpath. Ar.nu.il 'AeezLzz, Jtephaville, y.arch 157^.
Leone, I.A., J.3. 71ower, J.J. Arthur aid 1.7. Jil=an. Dasase to Sew
Jersey Crops by Lasdfill C-ASis, Plant Lisease Beoorter, Vol. 6l, :io.
295-299» 1977.
Leone, I.A., ?.3. Flower, 2.?. ani J. J". Arthur. Darage to Woody
Speeies by Anaerobic Landfill C-aies, presented at the Dececber 1976
ncctlr.g of the Rational Arbcriits Association, published in the
Journal of Arboriculture, Vol. 3, ITo. 12, 221-226, 1S77.
-------
REFERENCES
1} "Final Environmental lisp act Report for NRG NuFuel Co.'s
landfill gas processing system. City of Rolling Sills
Estates" by VT2J Consolidated, Inc., January 1975.
2) "Methane From Landfills - Survey of Existing Bay Area Sites"
by J.W. Van Zee for PGandE, August 1974.
3) "Methane Recovery Demonstration Project - Engine Generator
Set Operation Report" by the L.A. Department of Water and
Power, October 1973.
4) "Treatment and Utilization of Landfill Gas - Mountain View
Feasibility Study" (SW-383) prepared by PGandE for EPA, 1977.
5) "Recovery of Landfill Gas at Mountain View/Engineering Site
Study" preoared for EPA tor the City of Mountain View,
EPA/530/SW-5B7d, May 1977.
6) "Fuel Gas Recovery from Controlled Landfilling of Municipal
Wastes", technical proposal (PCH-1152.) made to PGandE by
Oynatech R/D Company, January 3, 197-7.
-------
,ffcicr7Ftf
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackenheil and Associates
1978 Newsletter, Denver, Colorado, Ackenheail and Associates.
Considine, James L. and Schmitt, Danamarie
1978 Land Use Planning and Implementation for the Flammable
Gas Problem: Adams County, Colorado, Adams County Plan-
ning Department.
International City Managers Association
1977 Refuse Report - Summaries of the Latest Happenings in
Solid Waste, Washington D.C. International City Managers
Association.
P:tc:uy . John O.
I'J7i> Greenhouse-Landfill Land Use, San Jose, Emcon Associates.
To liner. Richard 0.
1973 Developing A Local and Regional Solid Waste Management
Plan, Washington D.C. United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ToI'Lnur, Richard 0. and Clark, Robert M.
L971 Intergovernmental Approaches to Solid Waste Management,
Washington, D.C,, Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1976 - Decision - Makers Guide In Solid Waste Management,
^ Washington, D.C., United Stated Environmental Protection
Agency.
-------
Vegetation Graven and 3-nitnry landfill Publications
tTOS.
Cccx 'Jcllor;o. l.-.ivsrsity
Arthur, J.J". Thi Effect of SL-ulj.ced =i*ii~ary lan if ill Generated Gs.s
(Carbon Sicxiie and «l»5.~s^.in:i~io2. zf she Scot Zone of Tosato
Plants and Two Hiple izccLiz. 113. c-iaais, Rutgers University, ITev
Jersey. 1978.
Plover, P.3. Gs.sea in lie ioil sni. Hew to Then. Proceedings Anr.ual
Heeting Sew Jersey Shade Tree remission. 1572.
Plcuar, J. 3. Case Hi a-cry if Gas :-Lave=«nt Through Soils. Gas and Liachi-A
Jrcc, landfills. "Poraa-ion, Collection and Treatnent" Conference, ii'ev
Srunsvick, X.J. March 1975.
Plover, F.3., I.A. Leone, Z.7. Gilnan and J.J. Arzhur. Landfill Cases
and Scse effects on Vegetation, Proceedings of one Conference on
Metropolitan Physical Environment, (USDA Porsst Service Technical
Report HS-25, 1977), Syracuse, !I.Y. August 1975.
Plover, P.3., I.A. Leone, 3.?. Gilnan and J.J. Arthur. "Vegetation "rlill-
in Landfill Environs." Proceedings of the Third Annual Research
Synposius-Maaagenent of Gas and Leachate in Landfills, St. Louis, Mi-iscuri.
March 1W-16, 1977.
Plover, 7.3. and I.A. Lecne. "Parage to Vegetation by Landfill Casej", 51-»w
Annual Meeting of the }rev Jersey federation of Shade Tree Ccr*r. saions;
Cherry Hill, N.J., 11/12/76; published in Vol. 50, So. 6 3c 7, The Shade
Tree. June-July 1977.
Plover, P.3., I.A. Leone, 2.?. Gilsaa and J.J. Arthur. A Study of "eseti-icu
Problems Associated vith Refuse landfills: ZPA publication oCG/2-Ti-cjv.
May 1573.
Plover, P.3. and L.A. Miller. Report of Investigation Sills Adjacent to a
Landfill. Extension Pield Report. 15=9.
Gilsan, Z.F. Screening of Woody Species and Planting Techniques for
Suitability in Vegetating Conplito- izzLztjry Refuse Landfill*. M 3.
thesis, Rutgers University, X.J. 1973.
Cilnan, 2.P., I.A. Lecne and P.3. Plover, Scraening of Species and ?l-ir.':ir_J
Techniques for Suite's ility in Vegetating Ccnjieted sanitary Refuse l^n-i-
fills. Proceeding* of the First Annual Conference of Applied Research
and Practice on '.municipal and Industrial Wzzza, ^adison, Wisconsin.
Sept. 10-13, 1978.
-------
Leone, Z.k. , F.3. Flower, J.J. Artiar and S.F. Gilrsr. "landfill Gases:
A Source o* Plant Sanas*-" (A'ostr.) Proceedings of :7Z Div. Aner. Sec.
of Phytcpath. Annual Mee-sing, Staphs villa, jr. Y. Inarch. 1S7&-
Leone, I.A., ?.3. Jlover, J.J. Arti:ur and 2.7. Jilzan. Sana^e to Sew
Jersey Crops by Landfill C-as<±s, Plan- Zlsexse Reporter, Vol. 6l, :
-------
9. Roger T. Pelote
M. E. Associate
L. A. Oept. of Water and Power
111 fl. Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 90051
10. Joel W. Scofield
M. E. Associate
L. A. Oept. of Mater and Power
111 N. Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 90051
11. Kevin R. Boyer
Project Engineer
SCS Engineers
11800 Sunrise Valley Orive
Reston, Va. 22091
t 12. Ken Mesch
Boulder County Health Oepartaisnt
3450 8roadway
Boulder* Colorado 80302
13. Joan Sowinski
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
14. Charles A. Porter
Supervisor, Solid Waste Mgt.
Department of Environmental Quality
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
15. Franklin B. Flower
Extension Specialist
Cook College, Rutgers University
P. 0. Box 231
New Brunswick, N. J. 08903
J IS. Paul H. Grant
Planner
Logan County Planning Office
Logan County Courthouse
Sterling, Colorado 80751
17. Charles J. Finley
Implementation Planner
Pueblo Regional Planning Commission
#1 City Hall Place
Pueblo, Colorado 81CG3
(213)481-7729
(213)431-7729
(603) 620-3677
(303) 441-3582
(303) 320-8333 X 4166
(307) 777-7752
(201) 932-9443
(303) "522-0880
(303) 543-6005
-------
IS. Harcharan Singh Patheja
Public Works Engineer VI
City of Baltimore
222 E. Redwood Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (301) 396-3175
7 19. Joseph V. Seruto
Plant Manager
Watson Energy Systems, Inc.
343S Uilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles* California 90010 (213) 386-5930
20. M. Robert Howard
Vice President/General Manager
Watson Energy Systems, Inc.
3435 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 386-5930
21. Oavid A. Blacksran
Senior Sanitary Engineer
New York State Dept. of Environ. Conserv.
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233 (518) 457-6607
22. Wayne TumacHff
Project Engineer
BIO-GAS of Colorado
5620 Kendall Court
Arvada, Colorado 80002 (303) 422-4354
23. Charles 6. Brtsley
Emcon Associates
1420 Koll Circle
San Jose, California 95112 (408) 275-1444
24. John G. Pacey
President
Encon Associates
1420 Koll Circle
San Jose, California 95112 (408) 275-1444
7 25. Laurence Johnston
Director of Environmental Health
Larimer County Health Departaent
Fort Coll ins , Colorado 80524 (303 ) 221-2100 X 596
26. Terry G. Ayers
Environmental Protection Engineer III
Illinois E. P. A.
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706 (217) 782-6760
-------
27 W. Alex Cross
Supt. of Technical Services
City of Winnipeg
280 William Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B0RI
23. Nestor 0. Bodnarchuk
Solicitor
City of Winnipeg
510 Main Street
Winnipeg* Manitoba R3S0RI
29. T. J. Kuluk
Special Projects Engineer
City of Winnipeg
100 Main Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3S0RI
7 30. Anthony J. Giuliani
Staff Engineer
Brooklyn Union Gas .
195 Mantague Street
Brooklyn, N. W. 11201
31. Stephen 01x
Engineer
Larimer County Health Department
363 Jefferson Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
32. Allan Ud1n
Office Manager
Engineering Science
2695 Alcott Street
Denver, Colorado 80211
33. Jack E. McCollough
President
Beta Associates
326 Comnercial Street
San Jose, California 95112
.34. John J. Retnhardt, P. E.
Principal
Residuals Management Technology
Suite 122
1406 E. Washington
Madison, Wisconsin 53716
(204) 947-0171
(204) 946-0290
(204) 985-5098
(212)643-4357
(303) 221-2100 X 596
(303) 455-4427
(408) 295-7433
(608) 222-5392
-------
35. Albert 0. Hazle
Division Director
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220 (303) 320-8333
36. Harold F. Wlngler
Public Works Commissioner
City of Sioux Falls
224 W. "9th Street
Sioux Fall, S. Dakota 57102 (60S) 339-7100
37. A. L. Oveson
Supervisor of Public Works
City of Sioux Falls
224 W. 9th Street
Sioux Falls, S. Dakota 57102 (605) 339-7008
38. Todd J. Bookter
Civil Engineer
Warzyn Engineering, Inc.
1409 Em1l Street
Madison, Wisconsin, 53713 (608) 257-4848
39. Hike Wilkey
Environmental Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439 (312) 972-3397
40. Bruce W. Wilson
Environmentalist
Trl-County District Health Department
15400 E. 14th Place •
Aurora, Colorado (303) 341-9370
41. Raymond 0. Nordstrom
Special Consultant
El Paso County Health Oeparfcaent
501 N. Foote
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909 (203) 636-0134
42. Ken Williams
Inspections Administrator
Denver Building Oept.
3840 H. York Street
Qenver, Colorado (303) 575-2441
43. Charles Kunz
Research Scientist
New York State Health Department
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12201 (513) 474-6071
-------
44. Thomas B. Barton
Director of Environmental Health
South West Washington Health District
2000 Vancouver Way
Vancouver, Washington 98665 (206) 695-9215
45. Robert P. Steams.
President
SCS Engineers
4014 Long Beach 81vd.
Long Beach, California (213) 426-9544
•
46. Or. Sam Ghosh
Manager, 8ioeng1neer1ng Research
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 S. State Street
Chicago, Illinois 60616 (312). 567-3724
47. R. Ross Howard, Jr.
Staff Engineer
City of Oallas
2721 A Municipal Street
Dallas, Texas 75215 (214) 670-8137
Nr 4a. Oennls DeNIro
Engineering Section Chief
Ohio E. P. A.
Office of.Land Pollution
361 E. Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216 (614) 466-8934
49. Nincy A. Wolf
Executive Director
Environmental Action Coalition
156 Fifth Avenue
Mew York, New York 10010 (212) 929-8481
50. J. J. Lawson
President
Resource Industries Intl. Ltd.
4155 E. Jewell
Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 759-3700
51. D. M. Updegraff
Professor
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, Colorado 80401 ' (303) 279-0300 X 2633
\ 52. Salvatore Carlomagno
Junior Engineer
New York State Oepartment of Env. Cons.
50 Wolf Rd.
Albany, flew York 12233 (518) 457-6610
-------
S. N. Gupta
Asst. Yice President
Century Engineering, Inc.
32 West Rd.
Towson, Md. 21203
Elmer Leichnler
President
Leichnes Bros. Land Rec. Corp.
P. 0. Box 1060
Vancouver, Washington 98666
Lorry Lelchner
Secretary Treasurer
Lelchner Bros. Land Rec. Corp.
P. 0. Box 1060
Vancouver, Washington 98666
Bob Moody
General Manager
Lelchner Bros. Land Rec. Corp.
P.. 0. Box 1060
Vancouver, Washington 98666
Gerald W. Knudsen
Olrector
North Dakota State Health Department
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
Lon Revall
Environmental Quality Specialist
North Dakota State Health Department
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
Russell Herman
Waste Managment Specialist
Raymond.ValV and Associates
11049 U. 44th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80023
Peter L. Huff
Director, Solid Waste Management
Raymond Vail and Associates
1410 Ethan Way
Sacramento, California 95823
Don Kennerson
Waste Managment Specialist
Raymond Vail and Associates
11049 W. 44th Avenue
Wheatrfdge, Colorado 80023
(301) 823-8070
(206) 892-5370
(206) 892-5370
(206) 892-5370
(701) 224-2382
(701) 224-2382
(303) 425-4216
(916) 929-3323
(303) 425-4216
-------
62. James Elder
Vice President
Raymond Vail 5 Associates
1410 Ethan Way
Sacramento, California 95823 (916) 929-3323
63. Ralph R. Rule
President
Azusa Land Reclamation Co.
3055 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 487-4930
64. Frank T. Sheets III
Adm. Manager
Azusa Land Reclamation Company
1201 West Gladstone,
Azusa. California 91702 (213) 334-0511
X 65. Robert F. Harrison
Consulting Engineer
P. 0. Box 349
Rye, Colorado 8106* (303) 489-3311
66. Paul S. Wood
Student, M.S.C.
66 Pearl #202
Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 744-7726
. 67. Donald L. Wise, Ph. 0.
Manager, B1o Engineering
Dynatecft R/0 Co.
99 Erie Street
Cambridge, Mass. 02139 (617) 868-8050
A^63. Richard Grunlnger
Foreman
City and County of Oenver Public Works
1390 Decatur Street
Oenver, Colorado 30204 (303) 575-2136
Ab-69. Jerry Benallo
Foreman
City and.County Oenver Public Works
1390 Oecatur Street'
Oenver, Colorado 80204- (303) 575-2136
70. Richard T. Mandevllie
President
Mandevl 11 e- & Associates
550 rt. Rosemead 31 vd.. Suite 201
Pasadena, California 91107 (213) 351-9643
-------
71. Felix_C._Lee
Building Inspector
City of Commerce City
6015 Forest Orive
Commerce City, Colorado 80022 (303) 287-0151 X 232
72. Gregg Clements
Code Administrator
City of Cooraerce City
6015 Forest Drive
Commerce City, Colorado 80022 (303) 287-0151 X 236
73. W. Lynn Baird
Public Works Director
City of Raleigh
110 S. McDowell
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 755-6470
74. Lloyd K. Shinsato
City Attorney-Oept. of Law
353 City and County Building
Oenver, Colorado 80202 (303) 575-2931
75. Hike Adams
Vice President, Landfill Operations & Engineering
BFI, Inc.
P. 0. Box 3151 , ,
Houston, Texas 77001 (713) 790-1611
76. Michael P. Lawlor
Vice President
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
P. 0. Box 3151 , . , ,
Houston, Texas 77001 (713) 790-1611
77. L. C. Bevlngton
Director Public Works
City of Coropton
205 So. Willow Drive
Coupton, California 90220 (213) 537-8000 X 230
78. Ralph E. Williams
Associate Head of LAM
Denver Research Institute
P: 0. Box-* 10127 • , ,
Oenver* Colorado 80203 (303) 753-2891
79. Jeanne K. Vannoy
Research Associate
Oenver Research Institute
P. 0. Box 10127
Oenver, Colorado 80203 (303) 753-2891
-------
80. John D. Beck
Geologist
Baltimore County O.P.W.
County Office Building
Towson, Maryland, 21204 (301) 494-3447
81. Tom El 11s
Environmental Engineer
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 1368
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 (314) 751-3241 X 253
82. Richard Shafer
Civil Engineer
U.S.A.E. Waterways Exp. Station
P. 0. Box 631
V1cksburg,MS 39180 (601) 636-3111 X 3943
w 83. n. D. "Ken" Kedare
City Engineer
City of Rachelle
City Hall
Rachel!e, Illinois 61068 (815) 562-2411
84. Janes L. Consldine
Senior Planner
Adams County Planning
450 S. 4th Street
Brighton, Colorado 80601 (303) 659-2120 X 217
85. Oanamarle Schmitt
Solid Waste Technician
Adams.County Planning
450 S. 4th Street
Brighton, Colorado 80601 (303) 659-2120 X 217
86. Robert K. Han
Professor
University of Wisconsin
3232 Engineering Building
Madison, Wisconsin (608) 262-1776
87. Jean E. Bogner
Geologist
Argonne Nations? Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois, 60439 (312) 97Z-33S?
88. Percy Saddorls
Plumbing Inspector
City of Arvada
8101 Ralston Road
Ar/ada, Colorado 80002 (303) 421-2550 X 256
-------
89. Norm Fillmore
Engineer
City of Arvada
8101 Ralston Road
Arvada, Colorado 80002 (303) 421-2550 X 263
Vr 90. Ed Fennel i a
PE & L5 - Landfill Manager
Johnson-Fennelia & Crank Inc.
Box 1633
Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901 (307) 362-7519
91. Robert E. Johnson
PE & LS - Landfill Manager
Johnson-Fermelia & Crank, Inc.
8ox 1633
Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901 (307) 362-7519
/V- 92. Curtis 0. Se&ly
Engineer
Chen and Associates
96 S. Zunl
Denver, Colorado (303) 744-7105
93. William Hancuff, Ph. 0
Vice President
James M. Montgomery Consulting Eng. Inc.
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, Virginia 22091 (703) 860-2400
94. Kishore T. Ajmera
Project Engineer
Texas Oepartment of Health
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin, Texas 78756 (512) 458-7717
95. John P. Byrne
Director of Emergency Prepardness
City and County of Denver
City and County Building, Room 3
Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 575-2616
96. Myron Ellis Nosanov
Chief Civil Engineer
Engineerlng-Sc1ence
150 N. Santa Anita
Arcadia, California 91006 (213) 445-7560
97. Joseph F. Schultz
Solid Waste Specialist
Oregon Oepartaent of Environmental Quality
P. 0. Box 1760
Portland, Oregon 97207 (503) 229-6237
-------
98. Robert W. Gorden
President
Robert Gorden Association
1494 29th Lane
Pueblo, Colorado 81006
1 99. William A. Trine
Lawyer
Williams, Trine 4 Greenstein
1435 Arapahoe
Boulder, Colorado 80302
t 100. Oavld W. Griffith
Lawyer
Williams, Trine & Greenstein
1435 Arapahoe
Boulder, Colorado 80302
101. Glenn F. Spachman
Village Administrator
Village of Hillside
30 H. Wolf Road
Hillside. Illinois 60162
102. Alex G. Brown
Technical Services Coordinator
Colorado Municipal League
4800 Wadsworth, #204
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
T 103. Steven R. Hofftnan
CH2H Hill, Inc.
1500 114th Avenue S. E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Am-104. Bradford C. White
Councilman
East Providence City Council
44 Lunn Street
East Providence, Rhode Island 02914
7 105. Robert H. Collins, III
President
Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc
2738 Signal Parkway
Signal Hill,. California 90806
\ 106. o. L. Wise, Ph. 0.
Manager, Biochemical Engineering
Dynatech R/D Co.
99 Erie Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
(303) 948-2397
(303) 442-0173
(303) 442-0173
(312) 449-6450
(303) 421-8630
(206) 453-5000
(401) 433-1222
(213) 595-4964
(617) 868-3050
-------

Raymond Huitrlc
Civil Engineer
L. A. County Sanitation District
P. 0. Box 4993 , _
Whittler, California 90607 (213) 699-7411
7 103. John 0. Beck
Geologist
Baltimore County O.P.U.
County Office Building
Towson, Maryland 21204 (301) 49
-------
'109. Carol Winston
Environmental Tech.
Broomfleld, Co.
#6 Garden Office Center
Broomfleld, Colorado 80020
; > 110. Stanley Reno
Reglnal Consultant OSH
USPHS, OHEM
19S1 Stout Street, Rm. 1194
Denver, Colorado 80294
111. Charles A. Moore
Professor
Ohio State University
2070 Nell Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43210
ri 112. Tom Stauch
Public Health Sanitation
Oenver Health Department
60S Bannock
Oenver, Colorado 80204
t 113. 6. Glrouard
Project Engineer
Environment Canada
3S1 St. Joseph Blvd.
Hull, Canada XIA ICS
\ 114. Richard Zanotti
Project Engineer
Johnson & Anderson, Inc.
Box 1166
Pontlac, Michigan 48056
N 115. Herbert L. Harger
Vice President-Engineering
Ccnrock Co.
P. 0. Box 2950, T. A.
Los Angeles, California 90051
7. 116. S. H. Weber •
V1ct President
Reliance Land Company
3200 San Fernando Road
Los Angelas, California 90C65
(303) 469-3301 X 62
(303) 837-3979
(614) 422-2307
(303) 893-6241
(819)997-4334
(313) 334-9901
(213) 258-2777 X 251
(213) 258-2777
-------
•i!7. Michel Iskarous
Adm. Ass't t6 V. P.
Reliance Land Company
3200 San Fernando Road
Los Angeles, California 90065 (213)258-2777
'*'118. Fred Sebesta
Environmental Engineer II
Dept. of Env. Control, Nebr.
P. 0. Box 94877 (402) 471-2186
X 119. Thomas I. Peabody
Public Health Engineer
Denver Health Department
605 Bannock
Denver, Colorado 80227 (303) 893-6241
V 120. Robert Bruce Eacott
Govt. Western Australia
27 Eaton V11la PI.
San Carlos, California 94070 (403) 275-1444
121. Calvin B. Smart
Municipal Engineer II
Lexington-Fayette Urban Co. Gov't.
121 Walnut Street - 4th Floor
Lexington, Ky. 40507 (606) 253-1164
N122. J. C. Peck
Sanitary Engineering Asst.
Bureau Sanitation Dept. Public Works
Rra. 1410 L. A. City Hall East
Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 485-5347
123. W. J. Loctenan
Chairman, Board of Directors
Lockman and Associates
249 E. Pamona Blvd.
Monterey Park, California 91754 (213) 724-0250
K 124. Ouane L. Robertson
Chief, SaJfd Waste Management Bureau
Montana Oept. of Health
1400 llth Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601 (406) 449-2821
-------
.125. Byron L. Howell
Environmental Haalth Specialist
We'd County Health.Department
1515 Hospital Road
Greeley, Colorado 80631
125. Ronald K. Stow
Supervisor, Environmental Health Services
Held County Health Department
1515 Hospital Road
Greeley, Colorado 86631
"MZ7. Richard Haughey
Resident Engineer
City of Mountain View
P. 0. Box 10
Mountain View, California 94042
VI28. Edward Llnd, Jr.
President
Lind-Ayres & Assoc., Inc.
17 N. 12th Avenue
Brighton, Colorado 80601
Clancy Stoffel
Oesign Engineer
Owen Ayres & Associates
P. 0. Box 1188
Eau Claire, WI S4701
y130. Eril Zinsnerraan
President
Escor Inc.
820 Oavls Street
Evanston, 111. 60201
Y 131. Arendr Lender! nk
% General Manager (Landfills)
Colorado Olsposal Inc.
3925 So. Kalamath
Englewood, Colorado 80110
(303) 353-0540 X 274
(303) 353-0540 X 277
(415) 967-7211
(303) 659-1157
(715) 834-3161
(312) 491-1264
(303) 761-2841
-------
132. Pete Mirelez
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Adams County •
450 S. 4th Street
Brighton, Colorado 80601 (303) 659-2120
133. Bob F1 enuring
Planning Director
Adams County
450 S. 4th Street
Brighton, Colorado 80601 (303) 659-2120
134. Oanlel J. Hickman
Chemist (Solid & Hazardous Haste)
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
1712 S. W» 11th
Portland, Oregon 97201 (503) 229-5983
135. Clarence Lott
Public Health Chemist •
Colorado Dept. of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
. Denver, Colorado 80220 (303) 320-8333 X 3058
136. Lynn Wflkerson
Gas Supply Manager
Public Service Company
550 15th Street
Denver* Colorado 80202 (303)571-7997
137. Tom Stamm
Planner II
Arapahoe County
5334 S. Prince
Littleton, Colorado'80166 (303) 795-4450
133. John W. Martyny
Environmentalist
Tr1-County District Health Oepartment
7475 Oakln
Denver, Colorado 80221 (303) 428-8543
139. Gary Morgan
Region VIII, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
11850 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 8029S (303) 837-2221
-------
Bob Cochran
Geologist
Versar Inc.
6621 Electronic Orive
Springfield, Va. 22151
Kenneth L. Waesche
Geologist
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue '
Denver, Colorado 80135
Carroll E. Ball
Mechanical Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
440 Commerce Union Bank Bu1 Idling
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Terry EU1
Lane Use Student
Metropolitan State CoTTege
122S So. 8ella1re #210
Denver, Colorado 80222
Leon 8rych
Senior Kydrogeologlst
Hydrology Consultants Ltd.
1125 Oundas Street, Suite 13
M1ss1ssanga. Ont. L4Y2C4
(703) 750-3000
(303) 320-8333 X 4164
(615) 755-3571
(303) 755-9705
(415) 279-1611
-------