PB-225 362
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN A SANITARY LANDFILL
VOLUME II, DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AND TECHNICAL DATA
Oceanside , California
1973
Distributed By:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA !• Rl-P°" No- 2-
sheet iiPA/ 530/SW-61d
'• PB 22'i 3M
4. Title and Subtitle
Sewage sludge disposal in a sanitary landfill
Volume II description of study and technical data
5. Report Dale
1973 -
6.
7. Author(s)
Ralph Stone and Companv, Inc.
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
Performing Organization Name and Address
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard
Oceanside, California 90025
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. KdtiX3£lfGrant No.
S 801582
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Interim-197 2
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
Abstracts This two volume report describes the results of work conducted
during the first two years (January 1971-December 1972) of a three-
year demonstration grant study of the disposal of liquid sewage sludge
and septic tank pumpings into solid waste at a sanitary landfill.
Pilot plant lysimeters were used to investigate the effects of sewage
and septic tank sludges on solid waste temperature, decomposition,
leachate, settlement, insects, gases, and odors. Three large field
lysimeters were monitored for leachate, temperature, gas, compaction,
settlement, and waste decomposition (as determined by core sampling).
The full-scale disposal of sludge was monitored for runoff, leachate,
equipment operating efficiency (time and motion studies), odors,
vectors, blowing litter, and weather conditions (rainfall, temperature,
wind, and evaporation).
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
Waste disposal, urban areas, leaching, differential settlement, sewage
disposal, sanitary engineering, water pollution, swwage treatment,
effluents, septic tanks, sludge disposal, spreaders
; 17b. Idcntifiers/Open-F.nded Terms
Solid waste disposal,
sanitary landfill, Oceanside, California
17c. COSATI Fie Id /Group 13g
Reproduced by
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U S Department of Comm.rc.
Springfield VA 22151
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
22. Price
">PM NTIS-33 IREV. 3-72) USCOMM/dC 4952-P72
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication, Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-61d)
in the solid waste management series
»«
II.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Oceonside demonstration work reported herein was performed under
Environmental Protection Agency Grant No. S801582 (formerly 1 G06-EC-00285-01A1)
from the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. The Year 01 work was conducted
under the direction of Mr. Kent Anderson, former Project Officer; Mr. Leonard Lion,
Project Officer, is reviewing the Year 02 and 03 work.
The Demonstration Grant was awarded to the City of Oceonside, California; Mr.
Alton Ruden, Director of Public Works, serves as the Project Director and provided
guidance necessary for the successful completion of this program. Mr. Richard Aldrich,
Superintendent, Water and Sewage Department, Messrs. James Reed and John Calzada,
Superintendent, and Assistant Superintendent, respectively, Waste Disposal Department,
pro/ided continuing assistance in performing the field work and collecting appropriate
demonstration information.
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. are the project consultants responsible for the detailed
studies described in the report. Staff personnel include: Ralph Stone, Technical
Supervisor; Richard Kahle, Project Coordinator; James Rowlands, Field Engineer, as
v/ell as many other Company professionals.
Valuable assistance in vector control and fly emergence studies was provided by the
following agencies and individuals: State of California Department of Public Health,
Bureau of Vector Control and Solid Waste Management - Mr. Harvey Magy, Southern
California Area Representative; Dr. John Pootbaugh, Jr., Ph. D., Vector Ecologist
and Mr. Don Andres, Senior Sanitary Engineer; San Diego County Department of Public
Health - Mr. Daniel Bergman, Vector Ecologist. Mr. Dennis O'Leary, Executive
Officer, San Diego Region, State Water Quality Control Board, cooperated in author-
izing the leachate and groundwater quality tests. Many other Federal, State, County,
local and private agencies and individuals have provided information to the program.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This two-volume report describes the results of two years' work
(January 1971—December 1972) of a three-year demonstration study
of the disposal of liquid sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings
into solid waste at a sanitary landfill. Basic laboratory studies
were conducted to determine the moisture absorbing capacity of
typical solid waste constituents and to establish the leaching and
other characteristics with various sludges. The composition and
quantity of solid waste produced in the City of Oceanside were de-
termined by first year quarterly waste samplings and waste collec-
tion vehicle weighings.
Pilot plant lysimeters were employed to investigate the effects of
sewage and septic lank sludges on solid waste temperature, decom-
position, leachate, settlement, insects, odor and gas characteris-
tics. Three large field lysimeters were built at the City of Ocean-
side, California, municipal landfill, each holding one week's pro-
duction of all municipal solid waste and sewage sludge. The field
test cells were lined with a JO-mil polyethylene membrane to collect
the lenciiate for measuring and sampling. Full scale demonstration
landfill operations studies were conducted at the City landfills —
initially with limited sludge disposal one day per week during Year
01, and with 100 percent sIikL.p disposal during Years 02 and 03.
The large field lysimeters were monitored for leachate, tempera-
ture, gas, compaction, settlement and waste decomposition (as
determined by core sampling). The full scale landfill disposal of
sludge was monitored for runoff, leachate, equipment operating
efficiency (time and motion studies), odor, vector problems, blow-
ing litter, and weaiher conditions (rainfall, temperature, wind and
evaporation).
Volume I consists of a 22-page summary, conclusions, and recom-
mendations. Volume II is a !i7G-page description of the study on the
sanitary landfill operating and design lactors for disposing digested
sludge and its effects on the; s.uiil.ary landfill and environment. The
demonstration study was supported in part by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency tinder Grand Number S801582.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Objectives and Scope of the Investigation
A three-year investigation of the economic and environmental effects of
disposing of liquid sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings into a sanitary landfill is in
progress. This report presents and discusses the results of the second phase (24 months)
of the investigation. The objectives which are to be achieved during the study consist
of the following:
1. Determine the capacity of solid waste to assimilate the water in digested
liquid sludge and septic tank pumpings.
2. Identify the parameters affecting the capacity of solid waste to absorb
water from liquid sludge and septic tank pumpings.
3. Determine optimum means for nuisance-free admixture of liquid sewage
sludge with solid waste in a sanitary landfill.
4. Investigate and monitor sanitary landfill environmental effects following
combined liquid sludge-solid waste disposal, i.e., temperature, odor,
gas composition, settlement, flies, birds, other vectors, landfill leachate,
groundwater contamination, and runoff.
5. Define the landfill effects of liquid sludge on solid waste compaction,
decomposition rates, blowing dust and paper.
6. Determine effects of liquid sludge application on operating efficiencies
of landfill equipment and personnel.
7. Investigate alternative means for dewatering, handling, and disposal of
liquid sludge and establish cost comparisons.
The three-year demonstration program consists of the following areas of effort:
a) establishing the water absorption characteristics of Oceanside sewage sludge and
solid waste, b) pilot-scale landfill simulation experiments, c) large-scale field
experiments under controlled conditions (field test cells), d) full-scale field demon-
stration, and e) special laboratory and/or field studies to eliminate or define sanitary
landfill re uirements. The work on the laboratory evaluation of water absorption by
solid waste has been completed. The work on other tasks was initiated during the first
year and is currently in progress. Three special studies which have been undertaken
and completed are: a) laboratory evaluation of water absorption by solid waste, b) two
nationwide postal surveys of landfill disposal of municipal sewage and septic tank sludges,
and c) a literature search concerning digested sewage sludge and septic tank pathogens
and vectors.
All the solid waste and sewage sludge used in the field demonstration study were
obtained from the City of Oceanside. The full-scale Oceanside field demonstration
disposed of the City's entire generation of liquid digested sludge into the solid waste at
the City landfill.
1
-------
B. Study Area Description
1. The City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside, California is located
within Northern San Diego County, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. The City of Oceanside
had a population of 40,494 in 1970. The City Planning Department has projected.a
1980 population of 75,000, and a year 2000 population of 109,000. The year 2000
population is the maximum level for Oceanside in accordance with the proposed land
uses. Residential density averaged 2.98 persons per household in the 1970 census. Of
the total of 14,594 housing units, 9,139 were single dwelling residences, 4,307 were
multi-unit residences, and 1,111 were mobile homes or trailers. Camp Pendleton, a
major United States Marine Corps Base supporting about 35,000 Marine and Navy
personnel, is located along the northern boundary of the City. Many of the Gamp
Pendleton personnel shop and visit in Oceanside.
The major land use categories in the City limits are given in Table 1-1 . The
average residential zoning density was about 19 persons per acre in 1970.
Selected Oceanside climatological data for 1971 and part of 1972 are given in
Table 1-2. The U. S. Weather station at the nearby Palomar Airport reports a mean
112-year historical precipitation average of about 12 inches.
2. Sewage Treatment Plants. The City of Oceanside has three existing sewage
treatment plants; two are activated sludge plants named La Salina and Buena Vista.
A third is a primary type plant named San Luis Rey. Detailed description of these
sewage plants and a discussion of the quantity, and characteristics of the sludge
produced in each plant aro presented in Chapter IV. The plant sites are shown in
Figure 1-2.
3. Sanitary Landfills. During the first year of the study, all preliminary
demonstration field tests were made at the old City sanitary landfill (see Figure 1-2)
located southerly of Mission Avenue and easterly of the San Diego Freeway (Interstate
5). The old site was completely filled and a new City sanitary fill site was prepared
including 3 test cells for the second and third year demonstration work. The new site,
shown in Figure 1-2,is in a canyon located northerly of Mission Avenue and easterly of
Cape Glouchester Street. A Marine Corps housing project and primary and elementary
schools are the neighbors on the canyon rim abutting the new site. The Oceanside land-
fill receives primarily commercial and residential waste from within the City. As will be
discussed in detail in Chapter IV, relatively little industrial waste is received at the new
landfill. The local soils are coarse to fine sand over well-consolidated sandstone.
Geology, soil and groundwater conditions are described in Appendix G. Prior to
September 9, 1972, the Oceanside landfili did not receive daily cover soil on the
v/orking face. In order to comply with EPA sanitary landfill requirements, a six-inch
minimum compacted cover soil was applied daily to the landfill working face after
September 9, 1972.
2
-------
TABLE 1-1
MAJOR CLASSES OF LAND USE IN OCEANSIDE— NOVEMBER 1967
Percentage of
Total city Developed area
Residential
2,131.70
10
38
Industrial
465.54
3
8
Commercial
461.23
3
8
Highways—streets
1,607.84
7
28
Public & semi-public
1,050.10
5
18
Subtotal
Developed area
5,716.41
28
100
Agriculture
3,447.13
15
Vacant
12,660.58
57
Total area
21,824.12
100
From: Oceanside Planning Department
3
-------
TABLE 1-2
OCEANSIDE CUMATOLOGICAL DATA
Temperature (F)
Avg
Avg
Precipitation (in.)
Month max
mi n Avg
High/low
Total 24 hr max
Jan
64
43
57
78/30
0.39
0.36
Feb
64
44
58
81/35
1.34
0.68
Mar
64
47
59
74/34
0.10
0.10
Apr
69
49
62
84/42
0.89
0.66
May
66
51
63
78/48
0.69
0.32
June
71
58
68
78/49
0
0
Jul
76
61
71
80/46
0
0
Aug
82
66
77
86/60
0.
0
Sept
78
61
73
85/80
0
0
Oct
74
52
69
98/36
0.67
0.47
Nov
66
46
59
75/41
0.13
0.8
Dec
61
41
54
69/34
3.37
0.81
1971 Total precipitation
—
7.58
1972
Jan
62
41
55
80/35
0
0
Feb
64
41
57
71/37
0.11
0.11
Mar
65
50
59
73/41
0
0
Apr
68
49
63
72/40
0.05
0.03
May
70
54
66
76/47
0.16
0.10
June
73
60
69
77/54
0.20
0.11
Juiy
78
62
73
83/51
0
0
Aug
79
63
75
87/49
0.03
0.3
From: Oceanside fire station
4
-------
Ul
CITY OF OCEANS1DE/E.P.A.
FIGURE 1-1
STUDY AREA LOCATION
-------
0 2000 4000
SCALE ! N FEET
FIGURE I - 2
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. OCEANSIDE MUNICIPAL
= LANDFILL SITE
6
-------
II. SLUDGE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
A. General Aspects of Sludae Disposal in the United States
Currently, sludge processing, handling and disposal represent about 25 to 50
percent of the total capital and operating cost of municipal sewage treatment plants.
Sludge disposal involves the ultimate complex phase of wastewater treatment and
plant management. While sewage sludge has some limited fuel and soil conditioning
value, it is generally a liability at treatment plants due to a lack of markets for these
latter uses. Commercial chemical fertilizers are less expensive to handle; they do
not present potential environmental problems from odors or public health hazards from
pathogenic organisms and vectors associated with poorly digested sewage sludges.
A number of sludge treatment and disposal methods are utilized which include:
anaerobic and aerobic digestion, composting, drying, wet burning, chlorination,
incineration, landfilling or burial, reclamation as a soil conditioner, lagooning, deep
well injuection and discharge to water bodies. A study completed in 1968 by
Burd^ summarized the costs for alternative handling and disposal methods for municipal
sewage sludge. These costs are given in Tables 11-1 and 11-2. Lagooning and land-
filling were indicated as the least costly handling and processing methods (Table 11-1).
As a means for ultimate disposal, landfilling with dewatered sludge is more costly than
lagooning, barging to sea, and pipeline to sea (Table 11-2). In many cases, ultimate
sludge disposal jrequires pretreatment for dewatering. The cost of dewatering often
accounts for a significant fraction of the total disposal cost.
The Marine Protection and Sanctuaries Act of 1972(PL 92-532) sets strict require-
ments on the ocean disposal of sewage sludge; the Federal Water Quality Act (PL 92-500)
as amended in 1972, sets strict requirements on pipeline discharges into the ocean.
These regulations may eventually force many municipalities to seek alternative methods
for sludge processing and disposal. The need for environmentally desirable and economic
methods of sludge processing and disposal is particularly acute in some urban areas where
current methods are unacceptable (e.g., elimination of sludge burning due to air
pollution, or removal of sludge discharges from receiving waters and prohibitively high costs
of sludge handling due to the unavailability of suitable nearby disposal sites). One
method of sludge disposal which has received some attention in recent years and which
appears to be of considerable promise is the admixture of liquid digested sludges to
solid waste in a landfill. As will be discussed later, certain advantages are inherent
in this combination approach to the solution of sludge and refuse disposal problems,
which may make the method very appealing to some communities.
B. Nationwide Surveys of Sludge Disposal to Landfills
In 1971, Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. independently undertook a nationwide
survey of State Public Health Departments and local landfill managers to assess the
prevalence of sludge disposal to landfills and explore any problem(s) which may be
associated with this method of sludge disposal. Copies of the questionnaires are
included in Appendix B.
-------
TABLE ll-l
SLUDGE HANDLING AND PROCESSING COSTS (1968)*
System
Capital and operating costs
($/dry ton)
Average Range
A .
Thickening
(1) gravity
-
1.50
- 5
(2) air flotation+
-
6
-15
(3) centrifugation+
-
3
-20
B.
Dewaterlng
(1) vacuum filtration
15
8
-50
(2) centrifugation
12
5
-35
(3) sand bed drying
-
3
-20
C.
Anaerobic digestion
-
4
-18
D.
Elutriation
-
2
- 5
E.
Lagoon ing
2
1
- 5
F.
Landfilling
-
1
- 5#
G.
Pipeline transportation
5
**
H.
Liquid sludge disposal on land
10
4
-30
as a soil conditioner
1.
Heat drying
35
25
-40
J.
Incineration
20
8
-40
K.
Barging to sea
10
4
-25
* From: Burd, R.S. A study of sludge handling and disposal. FWPCA
Publication No. WP-20-4, 1968, p. 320
+ Varies tremendously depending on the need for chemicals.
^ Long hauls would be higher.
** Moderate distances, cost varies with length.
8
-------
TABLE 11-2
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL COSTS FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE (1968)*
System
Capital and operating costs
($/dry ton)
Average
Range
A. Composting
B. Heat drying^
C. Incineration
(1) v/et combustion
(2) multiple hearth and
fluidized bed
D. Landfilling dewatered sludge
E. Disposal as a soil conditioner
w/o heat drying (dewatered)
F. Disposal on land as a liquid
soil conditioner
G. Lagooning
H. Barging to sea
I. Underground disposal
J. Pipeline to sea
Not accurately known
50
42
30
25
25
15
12
12
40-55
10-50
10-50
10-50
8-50
6-25
5-25
Unknown, potentially inexpensive
11
* From: Burd, R.S. A study of sludge handling and disposal. FWPCA
Publication No. WP-20-4, 1968, p. 320.
+ Includes cost of preparation, such as dewatering, digestion, etc. given in
Table II -1.
^ Gross cost, does not account for money received from sale of sludge.
9
-------
1. Health Departments Survey. The questionnaire (see Appendix) was
designed to survey prevailing nationwide practice and opinion concerning sewage sludge
and septic tank sludge landfill disposal. The sanitary engineers/environmental health
officers in the 50 State Departments of Public Health were sent questionnaires. A
total of 26 states responded; 24 provided answers to all or most questions. The follow-
ing is a summary of the survey results.
a. Sludge Disposal Regulations. Landfill disposal of sewage and/or septic-
tank sludge was permitted by 80 percent of reporting states. The responses for
municipal sewage sludge were: permitted, 16; prohibited, 4; and for septic tank sludge:
permitted, 17; prohibited, 4. Most of the states had the same disposal policy for both
types of sludge. One state, however, restricted landfill sludge disposal to municipal
sludge only, and two states limited such disposal to septic tank sludge.
Regulation of landfill disposal of municipal sewage sludge was reported by
10 states; of septic tank sludge, by 11 states. State inspection was reported by six
states; two of these prohibited all sludge disposal, three permitted both municipal
and septic tank sludge disposal, and one of the inspecting states permitted only septic
tank sludge disposal. Several states indicated that municipal sewage sludge accepted
for landfill disposal had to be dried and/or dewatered.
b. Problems Associated with Landfill Disposal. Most of the states which
permitted municipal-sewage and/or sep'.ic-tank sludge disposal to landfill also permitted
landfill disposal of industrial, other liquid, and/or hazardous wastes. It was, therefore,
not always possible to determine which type of sludge was responsible for associated
environmental difficulties. The following list of comments ori adverse sludge-related
problems was compiled:
High water content of sludge makes landfilling almost impossible.
Adverse public opinion, damage to equipment.
Increased potential lecchate problem.
Excessive leachate production, inefficient and sloppy operation, flash
fires, probable ground water pollution (being investigated on one site).
Increased probability of spread of disease by vectors.
Creation of a nuisance because of disposal in an unsafe manner and in
unregulated places.
Odor problems when regulations not complied with.
Difficulty in compacting liquid wastes prior to daily cover.
Difficulty in burying sewage (vacuum filtered) sludge. (Improved mixing
with solid waste not a problem.)
Four states reported no known problems to date; two states indicated a lack of
information; and the remainder either failed to respond to the question, or specified
the problems were caused by other types of liquid/hazardous wastes.
10
-------
c. Recommended or Existing AItematives to Landfill Disposal. Incineration,
treatment, and recycling (especially as fertilizer by direct land application) were the
most commonly listed alternatives to landfill disposal of municipal-sewage/septic-tank
sludge. The following are respondents' comments concerning recommended or existing
alternatives:
Incinerate sludge; provide tertiary treatment of the liquid from sludge
dewatering.
Incineration and pretreatment prior to discharge.
Incineration, recycling, ;or recovery.
Incineration, higher degree of neutralization or chemical treatment.
Combustion where applicable.
Recycling, incineration conversion to solids.
Better treatment plants; recycling or finding new uses for the wastes.
Treatment when available, sludge drying and land disposal, special burial
areas.
Anaerobic or aerobic digestion or treatment.
Dispose liquid or dry digested sludge on flat farm land, and plow under.
Dispose of municipal sewage sludge on farm land.
Drying bed, then use as fertilizer (sewage sludge from municipal plants).
Ground sludge used for municipal parks, septic tank wastes discharged
to central sewage treatment plants.
Land spreading, lagooning, incineration, or "purifying".
Deposit in slit trench and allow moisture to leach away into soil. Cover
periodically.
Sand drying beds or lagoons.
Lagoons.
Written permission now required; cease and desist orders on existing sites
with problems; no approval for sites with leachate or potential groundwater
problems.
Methods should be according to conditions.
d. Environmental Impact. Respondents were asked to evaluate on a scale
of 0 (none) to 10 (very great) the severity of hazards and problems anticipated from
landfill disposal of sewage sludge. Table 11-3 summarizes the information.
The median and the mode are values indicating central tendency. The
median is the middle value, or that rating value which divides the ranked data into
two equal parts. The mode is the value of greatest frequency, or that rating value
which received the largest number of responses. The medians were: municipal sewage
sludge, 3; septic tank sludge, 4—indicating respective clusters of consensus at the very
little and very moderate levels of anticipated environmental hazard. The modes were
1 (6 out of 24 responses) for sewage sludge and 4 (7 out of 24 responses) for septic tank
pumpings.
In the no-to-little hazard categories (0 through 3), the number of responses
were: municipal sewage sludge, 13; septic tank sludge, 7. Responses in the moderate
11
-------
TABLE 11-3
ANTICIPATED LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL
DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL SEWAGE/SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE
(Scale of 0 to 1 0; 0 = none, 10 = great hazard)
Rating
level
of hazards/problems by number of responses
None
Little
Moderate Great
Type of
sewage
0
1
2
3
Sub-
total
4 5
6
Sub-
7 total 8 9 10
Sub-
total
Total
Municipal sewage
1
6
2
4
13
1 5
0
4-1/2* 10-1/2 1/2* 0 0
1/2
24
Septic tank
0
2
3
2
7
7 4
2
2-1/2* 15-1/2 1-1/2* 0 0
1-1/2
24
*Two respondents gave range of 7-8
-------
rating range (4 through 7) reversed these proportions: municipal sewage sludge, 10 1/2
responses; septic tank sludge, 15 1/2. The only responses in the category of great
anticipated hazard (8 through 10) were municipal sewage sludge, 1/2; and septic tank
sludge, 1 1/2. (Fractions result from two 7-8 rating responses.)
In general, therefore, the responding state department of health officials
anticipated only little or moderate environmental hazard as the result of landfill
disposal of either type of sludge; more serious difficulties, however, were expected for
septic tank than for municipal sewage sludge.
2. Detailed Description of Survey of Landfill Managers. The postal question-
naire (see Appendix) was designed to survey prevailing practices and opinions concerning the
disposal to sanitary landfills of sewage and septic-tank sludge. The questionnaire was dis-
tributed nationwide to the City Engineers or Directors of Public Works of 475
cities with minimum populations of 10,000 (19.2 percent coverage). A total of 174
cities and two counties responded; of these, 44 had no operating landfills under their direct
jurisdiction. The questionnaires were, therefore, answered, in whole or in part, by
officials of 132 jurisdictions. Incomplete responses are responsible for the wide variations
in totals which, for any one question, were usually below the possible maximum.
a. Landfill Sludge Disposal. The majority of 122 landfills reporting on
whether sludge disposal was permitted did not permit disposal of any sludge (sewage/
septic tank/industrial, liquid, or hazardous wastes). The responses were: disposal
permitted, 36 (30 percent); prohibited, 86 (70 percent). Twenty-nine of the landfills which
permitted sludge disposal identified the waste as sewage and/or septic tank sludge: sewage
sludge only, 19; septic tank sludge only, 3; sewage and septic tank sludge, 7.
b. Service Population. The service population distribution for the 29 cities
permitting sewage/septic tank landfill sludge disposal was:
Population Number of Cities
10.000 - 50,000 11
50.001 - 100,000 7
100,001 - 500,000 8
more than 500,000 3_
Total 4,622,000 29
c. Distance from Nearest Residential Area. Of 27 reporting sewage/septic,
tank disposal landfills, 25 were 1/4 mile or more from the nearest residential area. The
most commonly identified distance was 1/2 mile (nine landfills). The two landfills in
close proximity to residential areas were about 200 ft from the nearest housing.
d. Public Versus Private Operation. Of a total of 118 responding landfills,
99 (85 percent) were public, and the remaining 19 (15 percent) were private operations.
Of the 29 landfills permitting sewage/septic tank sludge disposal, 23 (79 percent) were
13
-------
public, 5 (17 percent) were private, and 1 (4 percent) was unidentified.
e. Future Landfill Use. The 28 responses received concerning the future
land use of the landfills accepting sewage/septic tank sludge were: park/recreation/
golf course/landscaping, 15; agriculture, 5 (farm/crops, 3, and grazing, 2);
agriculture or recreation, 1; storage area for digested sludge to be used as soil conditioner,
1; return to landowner, 1; not known, 4; and no future use planned, 1.
f. Type of Landfill Operation. The distribution of responses received from
the 29 landfills permitting sewage/septic tank sludge disposal was: cut and cover, 13;
canyon or ravine, 5; pit or quarry, 3; unidentified, 2; and the remaining 6 were variously
described as sludge harvest, diked flood plain area, spread and dry, diked in marshland,
trench, and area fill. One of the cut and cover operations was identified as an old strip
mine.
g. Size of Landfill. Most of the 18 sites reporting sewage/septic tank sludge
disposal into landfills were 100 acres or less in area. The area size distribution was:
Acres No. of Landfills
¦less than
50
8
51
100
4
101
150
0
151
200
5
more than 2,500 1
Total 18
For 21 landfills reporting sewage/septic tank sludge disposal, the distribution
of final depth of fill was:
Final Depth (ft) No. of Landfills
ess than
10
5
11
20
7
21
30
5
50
100
4
Total
21
h. Quantities of Sewage/Septic Tank Sludge Disposed. Septic tank
pumpings represented less than one-half of one percent of the total sewage sludge
disposed at reporting landfills. Table 11-4 summarizes the data.
i. Sludge Disposal Methods. The following are the responses to the inquiry
concerning the methods of applying sewage/septic tank sludge at landfills:
Dumped in sand and gravel within open pits previously dug by bulldozer;
pits then filled to control odor and other problems.
14
-------
TABLE 11-4
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF SEWAGE AND SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE DISPOSED
AT REPORTING LANDFILLS
Quantity disposed
Sludge
solids content
Avg.
annual
Type
No. of
quan-
No. of
of
report-
tity
report-
sludge
ing
Total
per
ing
land-
annual
land-
land-
fills*
quantity
fill
fills*
Range Median
1000
1000
gal/
Per-
gal/
Percent
y
cent
yr
d ry weight
Municipal sewage
16
534,945
99.6
33,434
24
0.5-97+ 8
Septic tank
8
2,461
0.4
308
7
2-85 10
Total
537,406
100.0
Some landfills allow both municipal and septic tank sludges.
* Probably contains appreciable amounts of sand and other inert solids.
Note: Liquid sludge solids are generally in the range of 1.5 to 6 percent
dry weight. Dried sludge, of course, has far less water.
15
-------
Dumped at site and leveled.
Dumped on top of fill and mixed with refuse during compaction.
Dumped into pit.
Dewatered by vacuum filtration: moved to landfill, dumped, and immediately
buried.
Only air-dried digested sludge accepted.
City landfill disposal of sludge unregulated.
All sludges incinerated (ashes disposed to landfill, presumably).
Six-percent solids sludge pumped to area, liquid discharged daily to
sloped drying beds; separated clear supernatant decanted to sewer
system; and remaining solids drained, dried, and harvested for park
fertilizer use.
Spread and tilled into the soil.
Spread on field where no other waste allowed; tilled and mixed with field
dirt.
Allowed to air-dry, then shredded and used for lawn fertilizer.
j. Environmental Protection. Table 11-5 summarizes the responses to key
questions related to the existing environmental protection procedures (use of daily
refuse cover, compaction, etc.) at landfills which accept municipal sewage sludge
and septic tank pumpings.
k. Anticipated Hazards and Problems. All respondents, irrespective of
local sewage-sludge disposal practice, were asked to evaluate on a scale of 0 (none)
to 10 (very great), the potential severity of hazards and problems which might result
from landfill disposal of sewage and septic tank sludge. The data is summarized in
Table 11-6.
The median ratings for municipal sewage sludge and septic tank sludge were
2 and 5, respectively. This indicates that the respondents believed that the
municipal sewage sludge (presumably well digested) is considerably less hazardous
than septic tank sludge. The modal values were zero (22 out of 99 responses) and 8
(13 out of 92 responses) for the municipal sewage sludge and septic tank sludge,
respectively. There was a considerable divergence of opinion on hazards of septic
tank sludge; rating values ranging from zero to 10 were reported by 12 of the
respondents. The results thus indicated that septic tank pumpings were considered
potentially more hazardous than municipal sewage sludge.
t. Special Comments. Practical experience with septic tank pumpings has
demonstrated that they are both odoriferous and contain pathogenic type micro-
organisms.^ Nevertheless, the septic tank pumpings may be satisfactorily disposed
within sanitary landfills if special precautions are taken to assure proper spreading,
absorption into solid waste, soil cover, leachate control and sanitation. Good
sanitation practices would include isolation of operating personnel and vectors from
contact with the pumpings. Isolation of personnel may require restricting their access
to areas where septic tank pumpings are disposed (except for equipment operators),
16
-------
TABLE 11-5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROCEDURES AT
LANDFILLS ACCEPTING SEWAGE/SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE
Questions
Do procedures exist for:
No. of
responses
Yes No
Responses
Desc ri pti on/Comments
Catching drainage from sludge 13 12
overflow?
Isolating landfill from contact 14 12
with groundwater?
Isolating landfill from surface 15 10
drainage?
Daily cover of refuse?
Compaction?
22
12 10
Reservoirs; no overflow; mix
sludge with refuse; dikes and
decant beds.
Compact base prior to filling;
trenches lined with clay: clay
liner is used; contained inside
diked area; pumped; lagooned:
seepage to bay.
Storm sewer system around the
site; bury before contact:
berms; dikes and levees: diked;
lagooned; landfill not located
in natural drainage channel;
little surface drainage; only
rainfall enters.
One reporting landfill plans to establish procedure in the future.
17
-------
TABLE 11-6
OPINION RATINGS OF ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS/HAZARDS ASSOCIATED
WITH LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE AND SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE
(scale of 0 to 10; 0 = no hazard, 10 = very great hazard)
oo
Problem/hazard rating value responses in percent
_ . None Little Moderate Great Mean Mode
Type of waste 0 1 -3 4-7 8-10
Municipal digested sewage 22 39 26 12 2 0
sludge
Septic tank pumpings 12 21 38 28 5 8+
* Of 99 responses, 22 were at zero.
+ Of 92 responses, 13 were at eight.
-------
wearing face masks and protective clothing. Effective operating supervision is needed
to assure prompt soil cover of the fill, thereby eliminating odor nuisance, protecting
against pathogens and restricting vectors.
The Great Britain Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution presented two re-
ports to Parliament in February 1971 and March 1972 which identified wastes disposed into
landfills in England that were considered "toxic". No mention of sewage sludge as
being toxic or otherwise hazardous was made in either report.
3. 1 962 Survey Comparison. A separate survey completed in 1962 by Ralph Stone
for the ASCE^ indicated that 19 percent of reporting landfill operators permitted the
disposal of sewage and septic tank sludges. The lower rate of permitted disposal was
given by respondents as resulting from disposal sites being located too near usable waters.
The risk of contamir.ation from leachate was considered too high for septic tank sludge
disposal into many reporting landfills.
Comparing the results of the 1962 and 1971 Ralph Stone and Company, Inc., surveys,
the percentage of respondents in 1971 that indicated landfill disposal of digested liquid
sewage and septic tank, sludges was permitted was 50 percent greater than the number
respondents indicating such permission in the 1962 survey. This comparison assumes that
the respondents in both surveys were equally representative of all landfill operations.
The cause of any trend could result from increasingly more stringent water quality
standards preventing disposal to water bodies and high costs of alternative sludge disposal
methods. Also, many, if not most, of the landfills now probably receive some partially
dried sludges. In regard to the high risk of water contamination, only about 50 percent
of landfills permitting sewage sludge disposal in the 1971 survey had established pro-
cedures to catch drainage from sludge overflow and to isolate the leachate from ground
water contact; 60 percent had procedures for isolating their landfill from surface drainage.
Thus, while protection of receiving waters is of major problematic concern from a public
health and water quality standpoint, operating practices do not appear to fully reflect
this concern.
19
-------
III. OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE
AND SEWAGE SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
A . Solid Waste Characteristics
In order to determine the feasibility of disposing all of the liquid digested
sewage sludge generated in the City of Oceanside into the Oceanside landfill, a
study was undertaken to establish the quantity, general make-up, organic content, and
moisture percentage of the Oceanside solid waste. The description and the results of
this study are presented below.
I. Sampling Methodology. The City's Waste Disposal Department collects
once a week from single family and small apartment residential units, and two to
three times per week from large apartment buildings, commercial and industrial sites.
No private collectors operated in the City as of 1972. The collectors completed a
special census to determine the number and type of collection stops during a one-week
period in February 1971. The resulting information concerning the distribution of
collection stops serviced each day of the week and the type of stops (residential,
apartment, commercial/industrial) are given in Table II1—1.
A one percent solid waste sample size based on the total number of stops
collected per week was selected; based on a total of 12,430 stops, the one percent
sample size (133 stops) should provide a statistical confidence level of 95 percent at
about 9 percent precision (prro-). The stops used for sampling solid waste were
selected using random number tables and then counting down the City Sewer
Department billing list and recording the address each time a specified random number
was reached. The number of stops for sampling were stratified by type of stop and
day of the week as shown on Table IIM .
One waste collection truck operated by a two-man crew was accompanied
by a member of the Consultant's staff to test-sample the solid vaste. The
vehicle preceded the regular collection trucks each day Monday through Friday once
each seasonal quarter of the first year demonstration to obtain four separate
representative solid waste samplings from the same randomly selected collection
stops, .-'ill vai.e scrapie vehicles wer^ weighed ar.d then the -crrplcs "xro {*..!<."?;, to
the City's landfill for hand sorting into the standard nine mcjc; ca'ego'^es defined by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams (OSWMP).Several of the nine major categories were further broken down by
sorting into sub-categories to separate wastes that absorb mr: i.,re from thos^ that are
non-absorbent ns fo'low.v: paper—newsprint,cr. dboard, and -niscellaneous paper;
garden wastes—tree and shrub prunings, leaves ,and grass; plastic, rubber, and
leather--tc-m ma'ierials and solid materials; dir'., oji c 1
-------
TABLE III—1
SOLID WASTE SAMPLING*
Feb.
Collection stops (no.) Sample stops (no.)
week
Day
Res.
Apt.
Com. &
indus.
Total
Res.
Apt.
Com. &
indus.
Total
Mon
1,332
428
540
2,300
14
5
7
26
Tue
1,823
116
367
2,306
19
2
4
25
Wed
1,329
140
586
2,055
15
3
7
25
Thu
1,729
269
364
2,362
18
3
4
25
Fri
2,282
213
442
2,937
23
3
6
32
Sat
64
151
255
470
0
0
0
0
Totals
8,559
1,317
2,554
12,430
89
16
28
133
*
Sample size is 1 percent of the total number of stops
in the City of Oceanside, California.
21
-------
In addition to sampling wastes quarterly, all of the waste collection vehicle
loads collected during a one-week period each quarter of the first year demonstration
were weighed prior to unloading at the landfill. One week each month the vehicles
disposing to the City landfill were tabulated daily by type of vehicle and type of
solid waste.. A designated landfill equipment operator was trained to perform this
latter categorization. The landfill vehicle tabulation data sheet is shown in
Appendix B.
2. Waste Characteristics. The solid waste sampling procedure described in
the preceding section yielded the results shown on Table 111—2 for the four sampling
periods of 1971. The percentages in the total column are based on the combined
weights of each component for all four sampling periods.
Moisture analyses of the samples selected as representative of each component
are given in Table 111—3. It should be kept in mind that these analyses represent the
moisture content of solid waste as received at the landfill site. During the April
sampling period, one day of rainfall occurred. There was rainfall as the truck traversed
the route collecting the sample for at least one day's sorting. This rainfall is probably
reflected in the notably higher moisture content of papers, textiles, and foam plastics
during the latter period than was found in the other three sampling periods.
The organic content of the various components is presented in Table 111—4,
and shows relatively little seasonal variation. Of possible significance may be the
greater organic content of the dirt, ash and sand category in July (summer) which
may be attributed to the greater grass cutting during the warm growing season. Methods
used to determine moisture and organic content are described in Appendix A.
During 1971 the Boys' Club conducted a newspaper drive and the Girl Scouts
sponsored an aluminum can salvage program. A comparison of the C'ty of Oceanside
solid waste composition with that of the City of Los Angeles in Table 111—5 shows less
newsprint, but more metals/for Oceanside. Apparently, the aluminum can salvage
had little effect on metals content in the solid waste, but the newsprint salvage
program which was highly publicized with special collection bins in shopping center
parking 1.its significantly reduced its presence in the solid wastes. Other reported
solid waste contents are also described in Table II1-5 for compoiison pu,poses.
During the first year, a portion of the old Oceanside municipal landfill was
excavated as part of a construction project. Several samples of solid waste materials
were obtained and analyzed from the excavation to a depth of 15 to 20 feer. The
samples were analyzed for total solids and organic content. Vhe resuiis a.'<= ihown in
Table 111-6. A comparison of the materials stained from the excavation which were
placed in Jcnuary 1963 with those sampled in 1971 shows ve:y little difference in
organic cc..tent, rhus indicating that the deconpc.^tK • -,vas neg'*^r'>!?. T.
excavated ..agazines and newspapers were easily read, and tree, shrub, and grass
leaves were still green. The sampled wastes exhibited negligible degradation
after almost nine years of sanitGry landfill burial. The opened landfill was extremely
odoriferous and the old waste was quickly reburied and covered with earth.
22.
-------
TABLE 111-2
COMPOSITION OF OCEANSIDE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
027!1
Category of waste
April
July
Oct.
Dec.
"Weighted
average*
Newspaper
6.1
4.9
8.6
10.3
7.2
Cardboard (corrugated &
solid) 6.3
8.5
9.3
9.8
8.3
Miscellaneous paper
24.4
28.2
17.4
23.8
23.6
Total paper
36.8
41.6
35.2
43.9
39.1
Food waste
9.5
9.5
7.5
9.7
9.2
Glass & ceramics
15.5
9.9
12.1
15.5
13.3
Metals
8.3
8.4
9.6
9.4
CO
•
00
Trees & shrub prunings
Leaves
9.7
6.3
4.8
3.1
6.3
Grass
2.0
7.9
1.8
1.7
3.8
Total garden waste
11.7
14.2
6.6
4.8
10.1
Textiles
1.9
2.7
2.6
2.1
2.3
Total Rubber, Plastics
and Leather
7.9
2.7
5.7
4.4
5.3
Wood
1.9
1.8
2.9
1.8
2.1
Dirt, ash, & sand
0.5
CO
•
©
0.8
0.4
0.5
Concrete & rock
0.1
1.3
0.4
Neg
0.4
Other (unclassifiable)
5.9
5.6+
16.5 +
8.0+
8.9
Grease
0
0.4
0
0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
'Obtained by summing the weight of quarterly samples for each category of waste,
and then calculating the weighted average based on the total 14.5 tons dry weight
of all samples.
+ All material passing through 2-inch sieve.
23
-------
TABLE 111-3
MOISTURE CONTENT OF OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE
(1971)
One week's average (percent dry weight)
Category of waste
April
July
Oct.
Dec.
Weighted,
Average*
Garbage
58.1
79.7
73.2
72.8
70.9
Textiles
24.9
11.2
19.8
9.9
16.4
Grass
57.1
51.3
65.6
56.3
57.6
Wood
17.6
11.1
14.0
15.5
14.6
Newsprint
43.4
27.6
27.3
15.7
28.5
Cardboard
34.4
14.9
26.1
21.3
24.2
Misc. paper
35.6
17.9
21.6
17.4
23.1
Prunings, leaves
—
58.7
29.5
42.4
43.5
Foe?. plaslic, rubber
51.9
4.6
17.8
—
24.8
Hard plastic, rubber
and leather
9.4
4.9
—
10.4
8.2
Dirt, ash, & sand
23.8
30.8
8.4
2.0
16.2
Mhc. (2" sieve)
28.3
26.9
35.0
37.0
31 .8
Total
29.8
26.3
23.4
21 .0
25.1
*Cb'n].-;3d by stuniing f!:C; w^l^hf of moisture >n each week's samples by
categc-y of waste, and calculating percentages of the total weight of
samples jv waste category.
24
-------
TABLE 111-4
SEASONAL EFFECT ON
ORGANIC CONTENT OF OCEANS1DE SOLID WASTE
0 971)
One week's average (percent dry weight)
Category of waste
April
July
Oct.
Dec.
Weighted
Average*
Garbage
87.8
85.7
83.6
74.4
82.9
Textiles
97.2
89.5
86.0
86.2
89.7
Grass
74.8
89.3
81.0
84.6
82.4
Wood
98.4
90.4
87.5
82.7
89.8
Newsprint
99.2
80.5
92.8
85.7
89.6
Cardboard
94.8
91.3
91 .8
86.8
91.2
Misc. paper
93.3
88.7
88.4
86.1
89.1
Prunings, leaves
92.6
89.7
88.0
84.5
88.7
Foam plastic, rubber
—
96.8
73.3
98.3
89.5
Hard plastic, rubber
and leather
—
89.5
—
96.0
92.8
Dirt, ash, & sand
4.1
30.5
13.4
8.6
14.2
Misc. (2" sieve)
—
61 .7
31.3
66.8
53.3
Total
57.3
69.6
55.8
61.9
61.2
Obtained by summing the weight of organics in each week's samples by
category of waste, and calculating percentages of the total weight of
samples by waste category.
25
-------
TABLE II1-5
COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES
Percent,
wet weight
#
Category
+
Santa
Long **
National
of waste Oceanside*
Los Angeles
Clara
Island
Average
Newsprint
7.4
10.7
-
14.0
-
Cardboard
8.2
3.6
-
25.0
Miscellaneous paper
23.3
27.0
-
7.0
-
Total paper
38.9
41.3
55.0
46.0
48.0
Food
12.3
5.3
0.0
12.0
19.0
Glass & ceramics
10.6
7.3
0.0
10.0
8.0
Metals
7.1
6.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
Total vegetation (tree and
12.4
33.1
34.0
10.0
4.0
shrub-prunings, grass & leaves)
Textiles
2.2
2.0
0.0
5.0
3.0
Hard rubber, 1 eather,plastic
4.3
-
-
_
-
Foam rubber & plastic
0.2
-
-
-
-
Total rubber, leather,
4.5
2.6
3.0
4.0
4.0
plastic
Wood
1.7
1.6
0.0
5.0
2.0
Dirt, sand, ash
0.5
0
3.0
Concrete, rock
0.4
0.8
0
0
Total soil, concrete,
0.9
0.8
0.0
0
3.0
roc k, ash
Other (2" sieve)
9.4
-
-
-
* Composited from four quarterly samples taken during 1971 .
+Los Angeles, California (wet wt) as received 1/14/71 (88 loads).
Santa Clara, California, From:. Underground incineration of solid wastes.
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc., U. S. Public Health Service Grant
No. 1 GO6-EC-00190-01, July 1970.
** Long Island, New York (suburban, similar to Oceanside). Kaiser, Elmer.
Thermal Processes for Refuse Reduction, presented at APWA, Institute for Solid
Wastes, Annual Meeting, Boston, Mass. , Oct. 1-5, 1967.
++ Hickman, Lanier, Jr. Characteristics of municipal solid wastes. Scrap Age,
Feb. 1969.
26
-------
TABLE 111—6
MOISTURE AND VOLATILE SOLIDS CONTENT
OF OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE FROM OLD LANDFILL SITE
(PLACED IN LANDFILL JANUARY 1963, SAMPLED SEPTEMBER 1971)
Category of waste
Content,
Moisture*
percent dry weight
Volatile solids+
Newsprint
47.3
95.2
Cardboard
3 5.5
84.5
Grass
62.1
83.9
Leaves
61.7
83.9
Textiles
18.0
82.4
* Moisture content1 is the difference between sample after drying at 103C (dry weight)
and as received total (wet) weight.
+ Volatile solids is the difference in weight between sample after drying at 103C and
after burning at 600C.
27
-------
3. Waste Generation. The quantity of solid waste produced in the City
of Oceanside during four seasons of the year is given in Table 111-7. The quantity
generated during June exceeds the average of the quantities for January, March,
and October, possibly due to increased summer tourist population and greater garden
and other plant growth. The reason for variations in daily quantities between each
season is not known. The solid waste daily average production was about 85 tons
Monday through Friday, and about 25 tons on Saturdays.
A summary of the landfill vehicle counts is given in Table 111—8. Loads of
demolition wastes are tabulated separately as these materials were largely from
highway construction and other special sources. The data for December was taken
at the new City landfill which initiated operation on November 15, 1972. Private
householders are generally not allowed to dispose at the new landfill site; commercial
gardeners and those that deliver cover materials may unload at the fill. Of the total
of 3,175 loads counted during 1971, 1,153 or 36.4 percent were delivered by private
vehicles, and the Oceanside Waste Disposal Department accounted for 38.7 percent
of the loads. The remainder of the vehicles were operated by the other City Departments.
The types of solid wastes varied from normal "household, commercial and industrial
wastes to black top, dirt, gravel, street sweepings, brush, demolition, stoves,
refrigerators, etc. Of course, the major solid waste volume and weight were
delivered by the large Waste Disposal Department collection vehicles, rather than in
the smaller vehicles of the other disposers.
B. Characteristics of Sewage Sludge and Septic Tank Pumpings
1. Types of Sewage Sludges. The Oceanside sewage treatment system
employs three separate wastewater treatment works: the La Salina, Buena Vista,
and San Luis Rey plants.
The La Salina Plant hcs a flow capacity of 5 mgd and provides primary
settlement followed by secondary activated sludge units. The plant process units
consist of primary clarifiers, aeration tanks, secondary c!arifiers, heated two-stage
sludge digesters. The dige:ters produce a final sludge with a total solids content
varying between 3.9 to 5.4 percent, wet weight.
The San Lu;s Rey Plant has a design flow of 1.85 mgd (in 1971 it operated
at around 50 percent of its design capacity). It provides treatment in a grit removal
chamber, primary settling tanks, and a single-stage heated sludge digester. This
plant also serves the limited but significant industrial wastes from plants in the City.
The total solids contend of the primary digested sludge varies from 3.3 to 8 percent, wet
weight. The large variations are probably partially due to the variable flows from
the industrial plants. The digested sludge from this plant tends to be more odoriferous
than the digested activated sludges from rhe other two plants.
28
-------
TABLE 111-7
TOTAL WET WEIGHT OF SOLID WASTE
PRODUCED IN OCEANSIDE
(1971)
Day
January
Weight,
March
tons *
June
October
Average
Monday
104.71
84.54
93.45
104.45
96.79
Tuesday
76.37
87.52
100.45
55.47
79.95
Wednesday
56.81
60.07
82.82
76.88
69.15
Thursday
78.03
84.65
88.83
65.71
79.31
Friday
103.29
99.24
130.62
109.27
110.61
Saturday
25.60
28.31
26.54
21.95
25.60
Total weight
for the week
444.81
444.33
522.71
433.73
461 .41+
* Wet weight as received.
+ Estimated quantity of waste for 52 weeks is 23,992.8 tons per year.
29
-------
TABLE 111-8
OCEANSIDE LANDFILL VEHICLE LOAD COUNT
0971)
Week
total
(1971)
Auto/trailer/ Truck,
st. wagon pick-
No. of
r 1 /4-1 ton
¦up/ van
loads by vehtc
Truck,
over 1 ton
le type
Oceanside
waste disp.
Municipal
other
Total
February
21
69
40
(49) *
117
14
261
(31 Of
March
3
38
25
(4)
136
47
249
(253)
April
14
83
77
(129)
134
28
336
(465)
May
12
81
86
(21)
135
14
328
(349)
June
4
48
74
(127)
91
0
217
(344)
July
7
106
52
(13)
125
1
291
(304)
August
9
83
8
(55)
121
7
228
(283)
October
18
110
74
(6)
126
3
331
(337)
November
8
71
36
(27)
123
12
250
(277)
December
0
91
29
(0)
121
12
253
(253)
Total veh.
loads
96
780
501
(431)
1,229
138
2,744
(3,175)
* ( ) = Loads of demolition waste.
+ ( ) = Total including demolition waste.
30
-------
The Buena Vista Plant Is the smallest of the three plants with a design flow
of 0.5 mgd, and it provides activated sludge treatment and sludge digestion similar
to the La Salina Plant. The treatment process consists of a combination primary
clarifier-aeration tank (Clarator), a secondary clarifier, and a heated sludge digester.
The total solids content of the single stage digested sludge varies widely from 2.3 to
11.2 percent, wet weight.
Both the old San Luis Rey and Buena Vista Plants are scheduled to be closed
down by 1975 when construction of a new San Luis Rey Plant should be completed to
provide integrated tertiary treatment.
2. Sewage Sludge Characteristics and Quantities. Routine analyses were
performed on sludge samples from all three treatment plants by both the City of
Oceanside and Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. All of these tests have been plotted
to show trends since the inception of the project; the plotting of the sludge data will
continue throughout the remainder of the study. The results of these analyses are
discussed below. All analytical methods used for sludge analyses were in accordance
with Standard Methods, ^ 13th Edition,where applicable (see Appendix A).
The data on total solids and volatile solids for each of the treatment plants
are shown in Figures IIM through 111—6. The data in these figures indicate a range of
about 2 to 10 percent for over one year operation, with about 30 to 70 percent
volatile solids based on dry weight; there was lesser variation in total solids or volatile
solids content in the La Salina and San Luis Rey Plants' sludges.
The quantities of sewage sludge hauled for disposal from the three municipal
sewage treatment plants are summarized in Table 111-9. The sludge production was
projected based on estimated raw sewage volumes and characteristics for the existing
and planned sewage treatment plants providing activated sludge treatment of the
total wastewater flow with normal sludge digestion efficiency. The projections are
given in Table 111-10.
3. Characteristics of Septic Tank Pumpings. The differences and
similarities between septic tank pumpings and digested liquid sewage sludges are of
importance from the standpoint of landfill disposal. Septic tank pumpings may be
expected to show a far wider variability in their composition thandigested municipal
sludges. Septic tank pumpings were used in the present study in connection with the
pilot-plant landfill simulation experiments (see Chapter VI)- The pouring and
penetrating properties of these pumpings were noted to be significantly different
from those of digested municipal sewage sludges. One of the septic tank samples
analyzed was thin, having a BOD,. of only 130 mg/l and flow viscosity character-
istics essentially the same as water. A thicker sample showed a BOD_ of 1,630 mg/l,.
which would be fairly low for a municipal sludge, and about 2 percent total solids.
Most significant was the nature of the solids: they were more granular and faster-
settling than the solids of municipal sludge, having negligible effect on the flow
characteristics of the liquid.
31
-------
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-C
VOLATILE SOLIDS
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SALINA
ANALYSIS BY: ° CITY OF OCEANS1DE
* o • . e ° RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
° °
' ° o ° °\oO0O o ®o 8$k
°5 °°oooO%° o 0 O Z Q
ITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE IIH
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
o
VOLATILE SOLIDS
80
1 70
"D
§ 6G
o
« e
Cu ®
.8.
Q
ou oo °00
o oQ o- °
O o o ° o
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
ANALYSIS BY: o CITY OF OCEANSIDE
• RALPH STONE AND CO., INC.
• o
o<2°° o
509- >Qo
o •
o •
ouo
2 40
Iu
5 30
o
>
20
10
0
o o o o
o o
o
o
o •
o*
o o
J L
_L
X
J I L.
JL
J I I I L
J L
§ 2
o_ ^ 3 3 D uj a -r 1X1
" Z _i O
^ a U- ^ < —>—>¦< «/>
sis
5 - < £ ^ z
? S ! < :
= 3 = a
—i —i
-------
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VOLATILE SOLIDS
e
o
• O « Or °
o s?op-
TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY
ANALYSIS BY: o CITY OF OCEANSIDE
• RALPH STONE AND CO., INC.
°o°o o °%o0«\ • e.
° oo o o°% OqO ° °
r>u ocroa
o° o O &
Q°Ofi . ? • o ° ® ^cP
o°e • o °
e
e
ITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE 111-3
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
1 4 r
12
o
B 10
14-
0
1 8
8.
£ 6
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SAUNA
A CITY OF OCEANSIDE
ANALYSIS BY:
A RALPH STONE & CO., INC,
O fA
CO . A A
_i 4 -
<
»—
O
h
£T
« 5 Z ^ a.
<. —> -» •< CO
sis
2«
E 2 2
o
Z> _
< i/i
°- G o y
O Z Q
¦
1971
1972.
a; _ >- 7
'* < Sf < 3 3 3
< ^ -c 2? <
—> U- ^ 5
« o.
-> UJ
<. to
.1973.
8 I
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE III—4
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
.13
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
C
?r '
A*
A
~
At-
~
A
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
A CITY OF OCEANSIDE
ANALYSIS BY:
A RALPH STONE AND CO., INC.
A
A
A V
^ AAA A *
A A
~
~
A
A
-A
A ^
A
A 1
1 I I I ¦
oi > Z —1 O ^
Or < ±: 3 X ^ u
< ^ ^ ^ 5 o
OF QCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE 111-5
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
c
V
u
i_
-------
TABLE 111-9
SLUDGE HAULED FOR DISPOSAL
Gallons per plant
Month
La Salina
Buena Vista
San Luis Rey
Total
1977
Jan
133,000
49,000
21,000
203,000
Feb
162,000
52,000
24,000
238,000
Mar
108,000
68,000
35,000
211,000
Apr
63,000
78,200
45,500
186,700
May
56,000
84,000
52,500
192,500
June
59,500
66,500
50,750
176,750
July
63,000
63,000
59,500
185,500
Aug
68,250
70,000
64,750
203,000
Sep
56,000
56,000
63,000
175,000
Oct
81,000
71,500
45,500
198,000
Nov
91,000
59,500
45,500
196,000
Dee
59,500
21,000
35,000
115,500
Total
1,000,250
738,700
542,000
2,280,950
1972
Jan
91,000
56,000
38,500
185,500
Feb
66,500
101,500
35,000
203,000
Mar
101,500
31,500
38,500
171,500
Apr
178,500
17,500
42,000
238,000
May
210,000
38,500
85,500
334,000
June
188,000
83,500
36,500
308,000
July
234,500
80,500
31,500
346,500
Aug
234,500
77,000
38,500
350,000
Sep
220,500
91,000
56,000
367,500
Oct
102,000
75,500
50,000
227,500
38
-------
TABLE 111-10
PROJECTED TOTAL SLUDGE QUANTITIES
REQUIRING DISPOSAL
, . , x Year 1985 Year 2000
® e'^ 0 ,000 gal/day) (million gal/yr)(l,000 gal/day) (million gal/yr)
Fresh sludge
3.5-4.5 percent solids
60
22.0
80
29.2
Digested sludge
5.0-6.0 percent solids
29
10.6
38
13.9
39
-------
Conductivities of the particular septic tank pumpings from outlying areas were 1,900
and 1,200 ^umhos for the thick and thin pumpings, respectively, whereas the Ocean-
side sewage sludge was considerably more saline with 3,190 to 4,200 /tmhos.
4. Analysis of a Composite Sewage Sludge Sample for Heavy Metals. A
knowledge of the concentrations of various trace metals present in sewage sludge is
essential for proper evaluation of the potential for groundwater pollution through
leaching or pollution of surface waters through runoff ,o Since these analyses were
too costly for numerous individual samples, a composite sample was made by taking
50 ml portions from all bi-weekly sludge samples received from the three Oceanside
treatment plants during 1971 (see also Chapter VI ). . The ratio of the sludge production
from the three plants' contributions to the composite were approximated for the
La Salina, Buena Vista, and San Luis Rey sites, respectively. The results of these
analyses are presented in Table 111-11. Other composited samples are being analyzed
for 1972 and also for 1973.
The concentrations for lead, chromium, and mercury (toxic heavy metals) were
less than 0.1, 0.01 and 0.1 mg/l respectively. It should be noted that these
concentration levels represent the detection limits of the analytical techniques used and
not the actual concentrations of the heavy metals. It is entirely possible that the actual
concentrations were significantly lower than the indicated detection limits. Heavy metals
in sewage sludges usually originate in industrial wastes discharged into the municipal
sewerage systems. Since industrial wastes do not account for a significant portion pf the
total wastewater flow in Oceanside, the sludges from Oceanside plants would not be
expected to contain significant quantities of heavy metals. (Sludges from certain
municipal plants serving highly industrialized urban centers often contain appreciable
amounts of heavy metals.) Even if a sludge does contain high concentrations of heavy
metals, not all the heavy metals may be leached out from the landfill. Considerable
heavy metal content may also be present in normal or industrial solid waste disposed
into a landfill.
40
-------
TABLE 111-11
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE COMPOSITE*
SAMPLE, FROM OCEANSIDE TREATMENT PLANTS
(1971)
Element Concentration
present (mg/l)
Copper
3.0+
Iron
0.16+
Fl uorldes
1.1*
Lead
<0.1 +
Mercury
<0.1 +
Chromium
<0.01 +
Chlorides
400*
Hardness as calcium carbonate
CO
Calcium
CO
00
+
* Composite was compiled from 100 ml portions taken from bi-weekly
samples of sewage sludge from each of the three Oceanside treatment
plants.
Analyses by atomic absorption per Standard Methods, 13th Edition.
U
Analyses as follows per Standard Methods, 13th Edition: flourides -
SPADNS Method, Sec. 121C, p. 174.; chlorides - Argentometric
Method, Sec. 112 A, p. 96; calcium carbonate-calculation method,
Sec. 122A, p. 179.
41
-------
IV. SOLID WASTE WATER ABSORPTION STUDIES
A . Purpose and Scope
The water retention or field capacity of municipal solid waste in a landfill is
of considerable importance in that it determines the amount of leachate that may result
from a given amount of rainfall, or other source of water. Sanitary landfills may offer
convenient and environmentally preferable disposal sites for liquid digested sewage sludge,
particularly in.dry climates. Some of the major factors to be considered in the design
and operation of a combined sludge-solid waste landfill disposal system include: the
quantity, and characteristics of solid waste and sewage sludge generated by a community,
the annual rainfall, and the maximum storm intensity. The composition range of
municipal solid waste may be ascertained by standard sampling techniques; the
results of such analyses are available for several communities. Similarly, the tonnage
of solid waste and sewage sludge produced and the pertinent rainfall data can be
determined or estimated for each community. To predict the quantity of sludge that
could be applied to a landfill without exceeding its water retention capacity, data
are needed on the absorptive capacities of the various component waste substances.
Since such data have been heretofore lacking, laboratory tests were conducted to
obtain data on absorption for substances commonly found in municipal solid waste.
The physical properties evaluated were the saturation capacity, expressed as grams
of water per gram of dry weight sample material, and the rate of absorption, expressed
as the time required for an immersed sample to approach saturation. As discussed in
subsequent chapters of this report, the laboratory test results were later evaluated in
pilot-scale and field demonstration landfill tests.
B. Factors Affecting Absorption
The absorption of water from liquid sludge by the solid waste is affected by' the
physical and chemical (material) properties of both !"he sludge and the solid waste
components. The important physical properties of a solid waste component are surface
characteristics, shape, and size (dimensions). In general, the saturation capacity is
a property of each solid waste component material, independent of size or shape,
whereas the rate of absorption is affected by the material properties, the internal
structure of the sample particle, and its minimum dimension. In the case of cloth, paper,
and grass, the minimum dimension (i.e., thickness) is negligible with respect to water
passage, therefore, the rare of absorption may be effectively treated as a material
property. For wood or soil, however, the rate at which a sample approaches saturation
varies over a wide range, depending upon the minimum dimensions of the wooden object
or depth of the mass of soil considered. In other words, the time required for the center
of a piece of wood or soil sample to approach saturation is roughly proportional to the
minimum distance to be traveled by the water soaking through it, while a sample of
cioth or paper, being of negligible thickness, will become saturated in a fixed and
characteristic time interval regardless of the area of the sample. Wetted materials that
are hydroscopic, permeable and with a large surface area to volume ratio wiU*Feach
field capacity more quickly than materials with contrary characteristics. This distinction
should be kept in mind when comparing the water absorption properties of different materials.
42
-------
The nature and arrangement of the solid waste components also affect the rates of
travel and absorption of water and the quality of the leachate. A small but unpredictable
amount of water may be retained through interstitial entrainment of liquid in voids between
particles. The extent of liquid entrainment is a function of the size, shape, and arrange-
ment of solid waste component particles, and the viscosity of the liquid. The rate of
travel of the liquid through solid waste depends on three factors, the hydraulic pressure,
the size of the voids between particles and the capillary action. The liquid flows via
gravity fairly rapidly through large voids and thus can by-pass absorption onto surfaces;
it also moves by capillary action through the materials at a slower rate dependent on the
intercellular structure of the materials. When a liquid wets a solid, there exists a
greater attraction between the liquid and the solid than between particles of the liquid;
e.g., adhesion is stronger than cohesion. The adhesive attraction of water and liquid
sludge for the majority of solid waste components provides the capillary mechanism by
which these liquids travel and disperse through a landfill.
C. Laboratory Test Procedures
To determine the field capacity of the municipal solid waste materials for absorption
of water, representative samples of typical solid waste components were immersed separately
in water for varying lengths of time. The following substances were used: pulp and paper
products (toilet tissue, paper towel, newsprint, corrugated cardboard,
solid cardboard, and glossy magazine paper); wood (plywood, sticks and blocks);,
textile and related products (cotton, wool, synthetics, hemp, nylon, and leather);
vegetation (garden trimmings such as live leaves, dead leaves, twigs from branches), and
kitchen garbage (orange, banana and grapefruit peels).
Except for some plant samples which were immersed enclosed in a wire mesh basket,
all test samples were immersed by suspending them from wire hangers into one-liter beakers
filled with water. All tests were performed at ambient temperature (20±. 2 C). For each
material and immersion interval, three separate identical samples were used. The three
samples were immersed in water as received; e.g., the samples were in the wet weight
condition as normally received in a landfill. A fourth sample was dried overnight at 100C
and weighed to determine initial moisture content and dry weight. The amount of water
absorbed by each test specimen was determined by subtracting the as-received (wet)
weight from the weight after immersion. The moisture absorbed on a dry weight basis was
calculated by dividing the water absorbed by the dry weight of each sample material.
The "after-immersion" weights for the paper samples were determined after the samples
were drip-dried for a sufficient length of time so that no water drop would occur after
one minute. In the case of cloth samples, the specimens were weighed after they were
lightly wrung between rolls to the extent that they slightly wetted the fingers when
touched, but did-not drip. Following immersion, the garden trimmings' samples were
shaken and slightly blotted to dry their surfaces before weighing.
43
-------
In the laboratory tests, less-absorbent waste constituents such as rock, concrete,
metal, glass, hard plastic, ceramics, and rubber were not tested for moisture absorp-
tion. Soil, (dirt, sand, ashes, etc.) which may be considered an inert material (ana
which is used to cover the consecutive strata of solid waste in a landfill), was tested For
its capacity to entrain water in its pore, and for water percolation rates.
The following types of soil and soil-related materials were used in the laboratory
tests: loam, clay (of marine sedimentary origin), Ottawa sand, humus (domestic garden
compost), and charcoal ash (from barbecue charcoal briquettes). The maximum water-
holding capacity of each sample was determined as follows. A small plastic cup con-
taining the sample saturated with water, was allowed to stand until the rate of dripping
from an orifice in the bottom became negligible. The moist sample was then weighed,
dried for 24 hrs at 200 F and weighed again. The saturated sample weight loss was re-
ported as a percent of the final (oven-dry) weight.
The soil percolation experiments were conducted on loam and clay only. Prior
tests have been completed with sandy soils which, obviously, have higher permeability.
(Loam and clay account for typical common soils available at municipal landfill sites.)
The loam samples were pulverized to varying fineness in order to obtain samples having
a wide range of bulk specific gravities. The percolation experiments involved measuring
the time required for downward movement of water through a 7 1/2-inch column of soil,
1-inch in diameter, under a constant head of 2-inches above the top of the column.
The escape of the first drop of water from a screen at the bottom of the column was re-
corded to establish the percolation rate.
D. Results and Discussion
1. Water Absorption by Solid Waste Components. Figures IV— 1 through IV-5,
and Table IV— 1 show the laboratory test data for the absorption of water by a variety of
waste components. In these figures, ihe quantity of water absorbed expressed as percent
of oven-dry weight above the initial as-received wet weight of the samples is plotted as a
function of the immersion time. In cases where the spread in data for several samples was
great, the envelope curves were drawn through the lowest absorption value, thus providing
conservative absorption ranges. As indicated in Figure IV-1, the rate of absorption of
water and the maximum absorption capacity varied widely with different types of paper
products. For the camples testcJ, the water absorbed varied from 120 percent for the
glossy magazine paper to more than 700 percent for the toilet tissue. The rate of water
absorption was also higher for the toilet tissue than for any other type of paper tested.
In all cases, however, maximum or equilibrium absorption capacity was attained in, less
t;nar» 40 minutes. Except for paper towel samples, which showed some variation in their
absorption capacity, the results were consistently reproducible for similar paper products"
tested.
44
-------
MATERIAL
0 5 10
TOILET TISSUE
(SELDOM FOUND
IIS SOLID WASTE)
PAPER TOWEL
NEWSPRINT
CORRUGATED
CARDBOARD
SOLID CARDBOARD
GLOSSY MAGAZINE
PAPER
INITIAL MOISTURE
CONTENT (percent
dry wt) *
3.6
4.0
4.7
5.8
5.4
4.2
* Equal to wet weight.
+ Water absorbed in addition to as~received
wet weight(initial moisture content).
W
"V"
I
20 40
IMMERSION TIME (min)
60
80
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E. P.A.
FIGURE IV-1
WATER ABSORPTION
OF PAPERS
45
-------
SYMBOLS MATERIAL
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT
(percent dry weight)
~
GRASS, 2 DAYS OLD
78
o
GRASS, FRESH CUT
548
BANANA LEAF:
A
CUT ACROSS VEINS
135
V
CUT ALONG VEINS
135
0
BIRD-OF-PARADISE
287
LEAVES
* Water absorbed in addition to
as-received wet weight (initial
moisture content).
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
40 60 80
IMMERSION TIME (min)
FIGURE IV-2
WATER ABSORPTION OF
PLANT TRIMMINGS (GRASS AND
~ OTHER MONOCOTYLEDONS)
46
-------
751
NOTE: LEGEND
ON NEXT PAGE
* Water abosrbed in addition to
as-received wet weight (initial
moisture content).
IMMERSION TIME (min)
CITY OF OCEANSID^/E.P.A.
FIGURE IV-3
WATER ABSORPTION
6F PLANT TRIMMINGS
(WOODY SHRUBS)
47
-------
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT
SYMBOLS MATERIAL (percent dry weight)
MAX
MIN
o
PRIVET EVERGREEN: 190
NEW GROWTH ON.LY.
RANGE OF FOLLOWING:
BAY TREE: 4
DEAD LEAVES ONLY.
TWIGS ONLY 35
~ IVY 296
V JUNIPER 96
A PODOCARPUS 179
* Water absorbed in addition to as-received wet weight
(initial moisture content).
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
48
FIGURE IV-3
(LEGEND)
-------
150 ¦
SYMBOLS
•
MAX
MIN
A
o
MATERIAL
BANANA PEEL
|RANGE OF:
ORANGE PEEL
GRAPEFRUIT PEEL
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT
(percent dry weight)
698
* Water absorbed in addition to
as-received wet weight (initial
moisture content).
€
314
408
A
o
o
o
20 40
IMMERSION TIME (min)
60
80
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE IV-4
WATER ABSORPTION
KITCHEN GARBAGE
(VEGETABLE)
49
-------
10 20 30 40 50
100 150
IMMERSION TIME (hr )
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE IV-5
WATER ABSORPTION
IN WOOD
50
-------
TABLE IV-1
MOISTURE ABSORPTION BY TEXTILES AND LEATHER
Water absorbed
Item
Average*
(percent dry weight)
Maximum Variation
from average
percent
Cotton (T-shirt)
313
+23
Cotton (towel)
409
+18
Wool
185
+ 3
Acetate or simil
ar synthetic
Wool-like,
double-knit
194
+13
Silk-like,
light weight
165
+ 8
Hemp rope
129
+40
Nylon rope
41
+14
Leather
42
+15
* Average of three or more replicate measurements. Saturation was
reached in 10 minutes or less, thus no characteristic curve was
generated. Water absorbed in addition to as-received wet weight
(initial moisture content). Initial moisture content of these materials
(less than 3 percent dry weight) was less than the data variation and,
therefore, the average water absorbed is the total absorption capacity.
51
-------
Figures IV-2 and IV-3 present the absorption test results for plant trimmings
(monocotyledons and woody shrubs, respectively). As with the paper products, different
plant materials appear to have a range of capacities for water absorption. For example,
with an immersion time of 40 minutes the quantities of water absorbed were 5, 50 and
100 percent for juniper trimmings, freshly cut grass, and 2-day-old cut grass, respectively.
Cutting along banana leaf veins on one sample produced little difference in absorption
from cutting across the veins,* thus the samples cut across veins were used as representative
of banana leaf. Considering that the lawn clippings are among the most common plant
components in municipal solid waste, and that plant cuttings may account for as much as
35 percent of the residential solid waste, the significance of storage time (drying) in
relation to overall water holding capacity of solid waste becomes apparent. The data
in Figures IV-2 and IV-3 indicate a lack of good reproducibility for experiments with
woody shrub trimmings and 2-day-old cut grass. This lack of reproducibility may be
due (in part) to some degree of non-homogeneity in the drying of the vegetation.
Figure IV-4 indicates a range of water absorption capacities for the common fruit
components of kitchen garbage (banana, orange and grapefruit peels). The water ab-
sorption data for five different wood specimens are presented in Figure IV-5. The data
in this figure indicate that in contrast to plant trimmings and fruit waste (Figures IV— 1
through IV-4) which become saturated with water fairly quickly, an immersion time of
greater than 200 hr was required for the saturation of the wood specimens tested. The
data in Figure IV-5 indicate that on a percent dry-weight basis cind for a contact time
less than that required for complete saturation, the quantity of water absorbed by a
piece of wood is affected both by the type and the dimensions of the specimen. For
example, for an immersion time of 50 hr, a 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 x 1/4—in. piece of plywood
holds approximately 46 percent more water per unit dry weight than a 3 x 3 x 1/4-in
plywood specimen. Because of the slow rate of water absorption, the ultimate absorption
capacity of wood will require a considerable number of days' exposure in a combined
liquid sludge-solid waste landfill operation. The water in the liquid sludge added to
fresh lumber waste would tend to percolate down or be absorbed by other more absorbent
components of the solid waste at a faster rate than it could be absorbed by bulky wood
waste components.
Absorption experiments with cotton and wool samples indicated no significant change
in the quantity of water absorbed when the immersion time was increased from 10 to-20
minutes. This indicates that textile materials such cs cotton and wool saturate more rapidly
than other waste components. Table IV— 1 presents absorption data (20-minute immersion)
for leather and various textile products tested. Due to the short time to reach moisture
saturation for items in Table IV— 1 (10 minutes), a time-absorption characteristic curve was
not generated. On a dry-weight basis, the quantity of water absorbed ranged from 41
percent for nylon rope to 409 percent for cotton toweling.
The rate of absorption of water by an isotropic water-absorbing substance may be
approximated heuristically by a first-order reaction equation y- ym (l-e where ym =
saturation (maximum) moisture content, y = moisture content at time t, and k is a constant
the magnitude of which is dependent on the type of material, the liquid properties,'the
surface area of the material and the grain or fiber direction relative to surface area.
The experimental data presented above for paper products follow a curve characteristically
52
-------
described by the exponential absorption equation. For other wastes tested, however,
the conformity Is not very good and this may be attributed to the non-isotropic nature of
the test specimen (e.g., in the case of wood) and to non-homogeneity of the sample
(e.g., In the case of plant trimmings).
2, Water-Holding Capacities of Soil and Related Materials. Table IV-2 presents
data on the water-holding capacities of loam, humus, sand, charcoal ash, and clay.
The samples show minor variation in the three replication runs for each material.
The data in Table IV-2 Indicate significant differences in the water-holding cap-
acity of various soils. Based on average values, the water-holding capacity ranged from
15.7 percent for sand to 94.5 percent for humus. The relatively high water-holding
capacity of the soil humus may be attributed to its small pores and high organic/cellulose
characteristics.
The results of percolation tests for fine loam, fine clay, and coarse clay are pre-
sented in Table IV— 3. The data in Table IV-3 indicate a significantly larger percolation
rate for the fine loam samples than for either of the clay specimens. The percolation rates
ranged from 0.94 to 1.58 inches/minute for loams and from 0.19 to 0.554 inches/minute
for clay. For each test specimen a rate factor was calculated by dividing the observed
percolation rate by its bulk specific gravity. The rate factor was used to determine if a
correlation existed between bulk specific gravity and percolation rates for a given soil.
None was found. For the two types of soil used and for the range of bulk specific gravities
considered, the nature of the soil appears to have a greater influence on the percolation rate
than its bulk specific gravity.
From the data in Table IV-3, it is apparent that the difference between clay and
loam is significant, but the permeability of either cannot be controlled appreciably by
the degree of compaction, beyond assuring that all large void channels are eliminated.
In-house studies, not presented.here, have shown that downward percolation through
lightly compacted solid waste, sand or gravel may easily be more than an order of mag-
nitude greater than the above figures for loam.
The soil cover strata in a landfill would be expected to provide three important
hydrological functions: 1) Generous layers of loam or clay would significantly increase
the liquid retention capacity per volume of completed landfill; 2) These layers with even
poor compaction may retard the downward percolation, thereby increasing the time
available to each layer of refuse to absorb the maximum possible amount of liquid; 3)
The solids in sludge, that may flow through the interstices of municipal refuse, would be
effectively stopped by filtration through layers of soil, and reduce the soil permeability
still further by filling the intergranular pores. These phenomena could turn into a liability
under some conditions. For example, if a heavy rain and sludge application occurred on
a sloping landfill face, especially if the cover soil is clay, the relatively impermeable
strata could force lateral, or diagonal percolation of thin sludge and rain water to the
bottom of the working face, instead of downward through lower strata of the fill.
53
-------
TABLE IV—2
WATER-HOLDING CAPACITY OF TYPICAL SOILS
Material
Fine, sandy
loam
Natural
humus
Ottawa
sand
Charcoal
ashes
Clay
Organic content
(% of dry weight)
4.87
17.65
-
-
5.77
Saturation
moisture content
44.3
104.0
15.3
71 .8
31.5
(% of dry weight)
40.4
87.6
15.6
71.2
32.5
42.5
92.0
16.1
69.5
31.0
Average
42.3
94.5
15.7
70.8
31.7
TABLE IV-3
SOIL PERCOLATION RATE CORRELATIONS
Bulk
Percolation
Rate
Soil sample
specific gravity
rate (inches/min.)
factor*
Fine loam
0.991
1 .15
1.16
(moisture content,
1 .084
0.98
0.90
14.9% dry wt)
1 .142
0.94
0.82
1 .166
1 .25
1 .08
1.196
1.58
1.33
1.240
0.83
0,67
1 .336
1 .16
0,87
Fine clay
0.19±
(moisture content,
1.486
-
5.; 19% dry wt)
Clods of clay
1.407
0.554
0.39
(moisture content, 5.19%
1 .340
0.25±
0.19
dry wt)
*
Rate factor =
percolation rate/tulk
specific gravity.
54
-------
3. Prediction of Sludge Retention Capacity for Oceanside Solid Waste.
Based on the aforementioned laboratory results for the absorption of water by
various solid waste components, rough estimates may be made of the liquid sludge
capacity of municipal solid wastes of known compositions.
A review of the data in Figures IV—1 through IV-5, and Table IV—1 indicates that
for newsprint, cardboard, miscellaneous paper and textiles the as-received (initial dry
weight) moisture content of the samples was less than the variation in absorption between
samples of the same material. Thus, for the above named solid waste constituents, the
available absorptive capacity is given as equal to the moisture absorption capacity
determined in the laboratory tests. The absorption capacities are summarized in Table 1V-4.
The moisture absorbed by grass, plant, leaves, shrubbery, tree prunings and food waste
in the laboratory tests was less than the as-received (initial) moisture contents of these
materials. This occurred because vegetation and food contain mostly water (up to 90
percent wet weight). In order to arrive at a meaningful estimate of the absorption
capacity of waste vegetation and food in solid waste, it was assumed that the laboratory-
determined moisture absorption plus an average as-received moisture content would equal
the total moisture holding capacity of vegetation and food waste components. The total
moisture absorption capacity of vegetation and food waste is given in Table IV-4. A
minimum value of zero is given for food waste because it often enters the landfill in a
saturated moisture condition.
The data may be applied to any landfill as illustrated in the following examples.
If the composition of solid waste entering a landfill is known but the moisture content
is unknown, the water absorption capability given in Table IV-4 can be used to estimate
the available moisture absorption capacity. Applying this method to the composition of
solid waste determined for Oceanside in April 1971 (given in Table IV-5), the maximum
(180 percent dry weight) and minimum (60 percent dry weight) available absorption
capacities were determined as shown in Figures IV-6 and IV-7.The data in Figures IV-6
and IV-7 assumed that no moisture was added to the solid waste; e.g. that the solid waste
components were in their "natural" as-received condition. Rainfall and soaking with
discarded household liquids would, of course, increase the as-received moisture content
and decrease the available absorptive capacity.
If the moisture content of solid waste as-received at a landfill was known in addition
to the dry weight solid waste composition, the data in Table IV-4 for total moisture holding
capacity would be used to determine the available field moisture absorption capacity.
Thus, in wet climates (>30 inches year) the available field capacity may be less than the
water absorption and evaporation capability of a landfill.
4. Application of the Laboratory Test Data to Joint Sludge-Solid Waste Disposal at
Oceanside] The available field moisture absorption capacity of solid waste as-received
at the Oceanside landfill was calculated for the averaged annual solid waste composition
and moisture content (see Table 111 —2, 111—3). The results are presented in Table IV-6.
The range of field absorptive capacities in Oceanside were estimated as from 60 to 178
55
-------
TABLE IV-4
WATER ABSORPTION RANGES FOR SOLID WASTE COMPONENTS
Moisture contents, percent dry weight
Water absorption capability Total moisture holding capacity *
Component Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum
Newsprint +
290
290#
Cardboard (solid and corrugated) +
170
170#
Other miscellaneous paper
400
100
400#
100#
Lawn clippings (grass and leaves)
200
60
370
140
Shrubbery, tree prunings
100
10
250
0
Food waste (kitchen garbage)
100
0
300
0
Textiles (cloth of all types, rope)
300
100
300#
100#
Wood, plastic, glass, metal (all inorganics)
0
0
* Calculated from water absorption plus initial moisture content in as-received samples. Initial moisture
content from Figure VI-1 through VI-5.
+ Sample variation was negligible.
# Initial moisture contents as-received were l^ss than 6 percent in the laboratory tests, therefore, they were
considered negligible compared to the variation in moisture absorbed.
-------
TABLE IV-5
CITY OF OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
(PERCENT DRY WT BASIS)
Category of waste
One week average
Maximum daily variation
April 1971
(percent dry wt)
(percent of one week avg)
Newsprint
6.73
+106
Cardboard
6.50
- 34
Miscellaneous paper
25.45
+ 84
Total paper
(38.68)*
+ 42
Food waste
11.62
+ 89
Glass & ceramics
11.97
- 52
Metals
6.40
- 19
Tree and shrub prunings
1.85
-100
Leaves
10.47
-100
Grass
2.40
+480
Total garden waste
(14.72)*
+100
Textiles
1.79
+ 45
Tires
3.76
-100
Foam plastic & rubber
0.24
+138
Other rubber & plastic
2.74
+ 38
Total rubber & plastic
(6.74)*
+300
Wood
1.69
+131
Dirt, sand, ash
0.44
+ 43
Concrete and rock
0.10
+480
Other (unclassifiable)
5.82
+ 75
Total
100.0
-
* Sub-totals; not included in total.
57
-------
FIGURE IV-6
MAXIMUM ABSORPTION OF WATER IN
CITY. OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. MUNICIPAL REFUSE (EQUIVALENT DATA ON
SOIL (LOAM) PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON)
58
-------
FIGURE IV-7
MINIMUM ABSORPTION OF WATER
CITY OF OCEANS1DE/E.P.A. IN MUNICIPAL REFUSE (EQUIVALENT DATA
*" FOR SOIL (CLAY) PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON)
59
-------
percent dry weight basis. The close agreement between the absorptive capacity data in
Table IV-6 (60 to 178 percent) and Figures IV—6 and IV-7 (60 to 180 percent) is attributed
to the Oceanside as-received solid waste moisture content consisting of primarily natural
moisture in the solid waste components. There was little rainfall during the periods
when the Oceanside solid waste samples were taken; thus the only source of moisture
would be from discarded household waste liquids and normal content, as received.
5. Summary of Moisture Absorption Capacity. The composite curves in Figures
IV-6 and IV-7 (e.g./Total Solid Waste) indicate the ultimate saturation values that may
be reached if the solid waste layers and associated cover soil layers are sufficiently
compacted so that applied fluids remain in contact with the waste mass for approximately
one hour before excess water drains through to lower strata. If the weight ratio of cover
and admixed soil to waste were known, the ultimate absorption capacity of the soil would
be included with those of waste components in estimating the total capacity for an operating
landfill.
The data in Figures IV-6 and IV-7 and Table IV-6 indicate 'hat 0.6 to 1 .8 lb of
liquid could be added for every 1 .0 lb of dry weight solid waste before complete saturation
is reached. As will be discussed in Chapter VI, subsequent larner-scale water absorption
studies ("drum" tests), conducted in April 1971 Oceanside-type refuse corrDosition in-
dicated an average saturation value of 1 .74 lb of liquid per 1 .0 lb of dry weight solid
waste. For the 13 drums tested , the spread in lb per 1 .0 lb dry weight was from 0.57
to 2.72, with only three points outside the 1 .0-2.2 range and e'^ht points In ! 2 1 .0-
1 .9 range.
The City of Oceanside produces approximately 0.6 lb of sludge for every 1 .00 |b
dry weight of municipal refuse. Theoretically, therefore, the solid wa; ss generated by
the City should have adequate capacity to absorb all the water in the liquid sludge. This
was verified in a number of field tests at the Oceanside landfill in which sewage sludge
was applied to solid waste at a rate of 0.35-0.6 lb of sludge per 1 .0 lb of solid waste
wet weight. A total of 35 applications were made (one day pf r week for 35 weeks over a
ten-month period). No leachate that could be attributed to landfill moisture saturation
(field capacity) was observed during this period. In cases where minor sludge runoff
occurred, it was the result of an inappropriate spreading technique and the runoff was
absorbed into the fill cover.
The above data ir.Jicate that the water retention capacity of Oceanside municipal
solid waste falls above the upper half of the range predicted by the sum of the specified
absorptivities of its major identifiable components. The increase in retention capacity
may be attributed to entrainment of some fluid between particles (in addition to the
amount absorbed). The drum having the lowest absorptivity (0.57 lb liquid per 1 .0 lb
solid waste) received very thin (watery) septic tank pumpings. In this particular test,;,
there were also indications that the applied fluid percolated rapidly through the sdlid
waste and, hence, there was little absorption time which reduced the amount absorbed.
The high drum absorptivity reading (2.72 (b per 1 .0 lb drum solid waste) occurred with
the thickest sewage sludge. Due to its relatively high viscosity, a thick sludge cannot
percolate through the solid waste particles very rapidly,and hence a higher absorptivity'
60
-------
TABLE IV-6
PREDICTED RANGE OF ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY OF MUNICIPA L REFUSE AS RECEIVED AT OCEANSIDE LANDFILL
Component
Total moisture holding
capacity as determined
in laboratory tests*
Available field absorption
capacity of
waste components +
Average
composition ^
(percent)
Field absorptive
capacity**
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Newsprint
290
262
7.2
19
Cardboard
170
146
8.3
12
Miscellaneous paper
400
100
397
97
23.6
94
23
Leaves and grass
370
140
312
92
3.8
12
4
Prunings
250
10
207
0
6.3
13
0
Garbage (food waste)
300
0
229
0
9.2
21
0
Textiles
300
100
284
84
2.3
7
2
No n-a bso rbe n ts++
0
0
0
0
39.3
0
0
Total
100.0
178
60
* Oven-dried samples, from Table IV-4, percent dry wt basis.
+ The absorptive capacities determined in laboratory tests reduced by the measured moisture contents from
Oceanside waste samples, percent dry wt basis.
^Average of year's (four quarters) composition of collected refuse arriving at Oceanside municipal landfill site.
** Pounds water per 100 pounds of average mixed refuse as received at the landfill; derived from product of avail-
able absorptive capacity and average composition for each component.
++ Includes wood (absorption very slow), foam plastic (insignificant quantity), and dirt, sand, and ashes (which
entrain but do not absorb).
-------
was obtained. The aforementioned water-absorption to solid waste weight ratios indicate
that the retention capacity of a municipal solid waste can be predicted fairly accurately
when the composition of the solid waste and the water-absorption capacities of its com-
ponents are known. The required data can be generated by field sampling and laboratory
tests such as those used in this study.
62
-------
V. SEPTIC TANK PUMPINGS EVALUATION
A. Purpose and Scope
A literature survey and pilot test drum evaluation of septic tank pumpings admixed
with solid wastes was undertaken. Since septic tank pumpings consist of raw or partially
stored sewage, they are known to contain pathogenic organisms. The study scope was
proposed by the E.P.A. Project Officer in lieu of demonstration landfill tests to evaluate
the potential hazards that might be created if septic tank pumpings were disposed into
the Oceanside sanitary landfill. The demonstration full scale tests were avoided because
of the limited available septic tank pumpings and also concern about the possible health
hazards and noxious odors. The results of this evaluation provide the basis for determining
if landfill disposal of septic tank pumpings will be field-tested during Year 03 of this
demonstration grant.
B. Pathogenic Organisms in Septic Tank Pumpings
1 . Types of Organisms. The types of pathogenic organisms associated with muni-
cipal sewage, sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings are identical. Septic tank pump-
ings are basically raw or partially digested fecal waste and are similar to raw sewage
in pathogenic organism types and populations. However, well digested treatment plant
sludges contain far fewer pathogenic organisms than the "raw" sewage and septic tank
pumpings.
The pathogens in human fecal waste and raw sewage have been well-documented.
In a review of the literature, Hanks^ has identified the disease agents associated with
fecal waste including septic tank pumpings as follows:
a. Bacterial Infections. Typhoid fever, paratyphoid fevers A and B, cholera,
and shigellosis are enteric bacterial diseases in man. The pathogenicity of E. coli
organisms is not entirely clear.
The viability of these bacteria in the environment is summarized as follows. Shigella
can remain viable in tap water for as long as 6 months and in sea water for 2 to 5 months.
Shigella can be destroyed by pasteurization and chlorination. The viability of Salmonella
typhi is from 2 to 3 weeks in ground water, 1 to 2 months for fecal matter in privies, and
at least 3 months in ice or snow. E. coli, Salmonella and Shigella can be killed by
pasteurization at 66C for 30 minutes or by chlorination with 0.5 to 1 .0 mg/l concentra-
tions.
b. Viruses. The major viruses commonly found in human excrement are adeno,
reo, poliomyelitis, coxsackie and infectious hepatitis. Poliomyelitus and coxsackie
are viable in sewage and septic tank pumpings.
63
-------
Most viruses ma^jpe destroyed by extreme temperatures greater than 100°C.
Recently, Shell and Boyd determined in composting dewatered sewage sludge that
poliovirus type 1 was destroyed by temperatures as low as 50°C (122°F). Chlorination
can prevent the spread of infectious hepatitis, and most adinoviruses and enteroviruses
are destroyed after remaining a period of 10 minutes in contact with residual chlorine
levels of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/l.
c. Protozoal Infections. The most significant protozoa disease agent is Entamoeba
histolytica which is the only specie found in the United States. Cysts of Entamoeba,
histolytica are destroyed by dessication, sunlight and heat. Thus, it would appear
that protozoa would not likely survive in the landfill environment.
d. Helminthiasis. This type of pathogen consists of worm infestations of human
fecal origin. The most common are the tapeworms including Diphyllobothrium latum
(fish tapeworm), Taenia saginata (beef tapeworm), Taenia solium (pork tapeworm) and
Enterolines vermiculorTs (pinworm). Also included are the human roundworm (Ascaris
lumbriocoldes), the whipworm (Trichuris trichiura), and the human hookworms (Necator
americanus and Ancylostoma duodinale).
2. Vectors . Either direct or indirect contact with infected fecal matter must occur
before an infection or disease can result. The four major disease routes are vector-borne,
soil-borne, direct contact,and waterbome; air-borne is a secondary pathway.
A major mode of disease transmission is by direct contact wivh biological vectors
(houseflies, cockroaches and domestic mosquitoes). The diseases transmitted by these
vectors are amoebic dysentery, cholera, coxsackie (disease), infectious hepatitis, polio-
myelitis, shigellosis, typhoid and paratyphoid fevers,and worm (helminth) infections.
Disease transmission routes related to septic tank pumpings disposal into a landfill
would include: direct contact during disposal or while working solid waste; transmission
by water (surface and ground water contumination from runoff and leachate); contact by
vectors such as houseflies foraging in infected wastes; and by contamination of other fora-
ging wildlife (birds, dogs, rats, etc.) that could come into contact with humans. The
methods of transmitting coxsackie and polio viruses are not well-defined; viruses have
been found in water and in flies having access to infected feces.^ Also there is data
suggesting polio virus can survive in contaminated water, i.e. the disease may be water-
borne. Infectious hepatitis is transferred chiefl y through direct contact or fecal con-
tamination of water supplier. There is evidence that municipal sewage treatment plaits
do not effectively remove the hepatitis virus. This, is substantiated by higher hepatitis
morbidity in communities where treated sewage is discharged into streams or estuaries.
Hazards may be expected to hold for septic tank pumpings.
The primary route of typhoid propogation is the human typhoid carrier. Typhoid
infected fecal waste has been associated with the direct contamination of well water
by septic tanks and privies as well as other water supplies, and milk or food not properly
protected.
64
-------
Worm infestations of human feces are common. Sewage sludges have been found
to contain eggs of pathogenic helminths. The use of untreated (tow) sewage sludge as
soil conditioners for food crops is not recommended in order to protect against worm in-
festations through direct contact.^'
3. Pathogenic Characteristics of Septic Tank Pumpings and Sewage Sludge.
Concentrations of pathogenic organisms in septic tank pumpings would be about as great
as in raw sewage due to: the continual daily addition and admixture of fresh raw sewage;
and the low degree of biological treatment in comparison to sewage plant sludge treat-
ment and digestion. Laboratory analyses have shown that between 90 and 98 percent of
coxsackie and polio virus are removed by the activated sludge process. The primary
sedimentation sewage treatment process which is similar to the septic tank process is
relatively ineffective in virus removal.^ The same rate of removal noted above for
virus can also be achieved for pathogenic bacteria by the activated sludge process.
Chlorination may be used for disinfection to produce virus - and bacteria-free
sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings. Long contact periods with high chlorine
residua! concentrations are necessary to insure destruction of pathogens.® Heat-dried
sludge has been considered to be free from disease agents.'' ®
C. Potential Pathogenic Effects of Disposing
Septic Tank Pumpings Into Sanitary Landfills.
1. Viability and Survival of Pathogens in Landfills. As discussed above, the
pathogenic bacteria can be killed by pasteurization at 66 C for 30 minutes: virus
destruction requires exposure to temperatures of 50 C or greater. Gotaas and Golueke
and Gotaas^ have shown that a temperature of 60 C for one hour should kill all non-
spore-bearing pathogens. The upper range of temperatures generally found in sanitary
landfills with and without sewage sludge admixture are 45 C to 65 C. The higher end
of the landfill temperature range in combination with the greatly increased time of
exposure to the high landfill temperatures appears to be sufficient to destroy bacteria
and virus.
Samples taken after six months at four-and twelve-foot depths in the three Ocean-
side field test cells (one of which received raw primary sludge) were analyzed for fecal
coliform, feca! streptococci and Pseudomonas aeruginosa; at depths of 12 feet (see Table
VI1-21) none of these fecal bacteria were detected. The viability and survival period
for viruses in the landfill environment is not known. It appears, however, that
anaerobic landfill temperatures will destroy some viruses. Virus generally require host
animal cells for survival. Since biodegradation of food (including animal cells) is fairly
rapid in landfills, the survival of virus maybe limited. However, no definitive statement
is possible on virus viability in landfills until studies are made to determine the potential
health hazards.
65
-------
An average of 5 to 10 million bacteria and fungi, and 740,000 coliform bacteria
have each been measured in one gram of solid waste.'J Leachate analyses from other
studies have shown concentrations as high as 9,500 cotiforms per ml,^ and coliform
counts (MPN) up to 100,000 per mg,have been measured experimentally.'^
E. coli in oven-dry fresh solid waste has been found In densities over 5,000 MPN
organisms per gram. This value was reduced to 0 to 100 MPN organisms per. gram after
a storage period of three years. Corresponding values for Streptococcus faecalis were
2,500 and 0 to 60 organisms per gram of dry refuse, respectively. '6 Thus, solid waste
as well as septic tank pumpings are a source of pathogenic organisms, particularly during
the material handling and landfilling process.
2. Pathogen Transmission. Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. found in pilot test
drums receiving septic tank pumpings that the pumpings settled our to form distinct
separable liquid and solid phases. Also the spread septic tank liquid behaved like
water and rapidly penetrated into the solid waste interstices leaving a layer of solids
on the solid waste surface. The rapid liquid percolation produced instant drainage.
The raw primary sewage sludge applied to field test Cell 1 also produced immediate
leachate drainage; Cell 1 was the only one of three test cells to have minor leachate
drainage (until heavy rainfall when some short circuiting occurred). It was noted that
the odor, appearance, consistency, viscosity, and low total solids content (2.5%) of
the raw primary sludge disposed into Ceil 1 were similar to septic tank pumpings applied
to the pilot test Drums 3 and lo (compare Tables VI-4 and Vll~4). Thus, if septic tank
pumpings were disposed Into a sanitary landfill, leachate would more readily occur
unless carefully controlled disposal techniques were used.
Analyses made of Cell 1 leachate Indicated an E. col? count of over 3,000 MPN
in a sample taken eight days after Cell 1 filling was completed. On leachate samples
taken after 15 days E. coli was 300 MPN, and after 28 days E. Coli counts were less
than 3 MPN.
It is apparent from the pilot- test drum and field test Cell 1 data that a potential
hazard could exist from septic tank pumpings disposal into a sanitary landfill unless
adequate runoff and leachate control facilities are constructed.
3. Leachate Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters. Most pathogens die
naturally as they are filtered by the soil before or after reaching ground water systems.
E. coll has been shown to be viable for 31 months in polluted ground water.^ One
study shows that some viruses are more resistant to chlorination than E. coll since more
chlorine is needed to kill thase viruses than similar populations of E. coll. ^
While pathogenic organisms may be present in runoff and leachate, a public health
hazard does not necessarily exist. Soils have the capability of filtering out pathogens
in leachate, and it has been reported that coliforms are seldom found below the four-
foot levei, and never below seven feet, even in highly permeable soils." If bacteria
happens to penetrate the ground water system, it is reported that the bacteria will not
66
-------
20
survive more than 50 yards in the direction of ground water flow.
One study has shown that shallow landfills may leach the bulk of pollution in a
relatively short period of time and thereby exceed the dilution capacity of the receiving
ground waters. The rate of bio-oxidation with septic tank pumpings admixed into
solid waste in pilot test drums appeared to be less than for sludge admixed .waste and
watered solid waste. A lower bio-oxidation rate may reduce the strength of leachates
during the first six months after disposal while most pathogens are likely to be alive.
The data on Drums 3 and 16 (septic tank pumpings admixed) show settlements at the low
end of the range of pilot test drum settlements (50 to 53 percent), lower peak BOD5
values (about 1,000 mg/l) than all but two other drums, and low percentages of CO^
(Drum 16) and negligible CH4 (Drum 3) (see Appendix D and Figures VI-7 to Vl-ll).
4. Odors and Fly Problems. A ma|or nuisance accompanying septic tank pumpings
(and also anaerobically digested sludge) is odors. Foul septic odors can annoy residents
near landfills. Odors attract flies which contact wastes resulting in an increased risk
of disease spread by fiy transmission. Daily covering of the landfill working face can
control fly and odor problems.^
Fly problems are usually only associated with open dumps or inadequately covered
landfills. Flies may migrate up to five miles from an open dump imposing a disease threat
on residents within the five-mile radius. Disease transmission via rodents and other bio-
logical vectors make open dumps unacceptable from a public health standpoint. A
properly maintained sanitary landfill eliminates rodents and flies by removing their food
and shelter with a compacted soil cover. Six inches or more of compacted earth will
prevent the emergence of flies covered by the soil; in contrast, flies can emerge through
five feet of uncompacted soil.
D. Existing Practices for Disposal of Septic Tank
Pumpings Into Sanitary Landfills
At present some communities have reservations about discharging septic sludge
directly into landfills and have passed legislation prohibiting the processing of untreated
sludges at landfills. A 1 968 survey of California disposal sites showed that 37 percent
of the open dumps and 44 percent of the sanitary landfills were operating under ordinances
banning sewage treatment residues.
The 1971 national survey completed by Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. (see Section II
of this report) indicated disposal of septic tank and liquid sewage sludges was prohibited
by 70 percent of responding landfills. Respondents cited odors and pathogenic organisms
as major hazards.
67
-------
E. Management of Landfill Hazards from
Septic Tank Pumplngs Disposal
The public health hazard from septic tank sludge disposal can be minimized if a
properly located and operated landfill is employed. Landfills should generally be sloped
to provide runoff away from surface waters and located to avoid local water supply con"
tamination. Mixing liquid sludge with dried sludge can also inhibit the leaching process.23
Similarly admixing liquid sludge with solid waste can prevent leaching. Of course a fill
area may be eventually saturated by sufficient rain or irrigated water to cause leaching.
Thus, an impermeable seal or landfill underdrain system, runoff and storm drain facilities
are necessary to control and collect leachate to avoid public health hazards. The
collected leachate may then be treated on-»site(by oxidation) or returned to nearby
sewers if available.
The ratio of septic tank pumpings to solid waste may be reduced below the minimum
expected moisture absorption ratio of the local solid waste (0.6 for the City of Oceanside)
to increase the probability of complete absorption without runoff or leaching. Other
techniques include reducing the slope of the landfill working face, constructing soil
dikes at the toe of the working face and uniform spreading of septic tank pumpings onto
the surface of solid waste fill. Continuous fresh earth cover of the liquid pumpings, ad=
mixed to the solid waste must be carefully applied with a minimum daily final cover of
6 in. of clean compacted earth to control odor, pathogen and vector problems.
F. Summary
Given the results of the previous discissions, it appears rhai the major identifiable
health hazard associated with disposal of septic tank pumpings into a sanitary landfill
wiil occur during the disposal operation. This will result due to the following: existing
pathogenic organisms will be at their peak, virulent populations; the fresh septic tank
pumpings will be exposed and, therefore, readily accessible to flies, other insects, birds
and vermin such as rats; the landfill operating personnel wiii be in closest contact with
the septic tank pumpings; and the potential for runoff due to short-circuiting through land"
filled solid v;aste interstitial passages will exist. The potential health hazards will de-
crease and eventually become negligible with increasing time after disposal. If the land"
fill operating techniques, protective clothing, runoff and leacnare control facilities
described in the pre^edinc, sec'.ion are uHi'zed, landfill disposal of septic tank pumpings
could be feasible.
68
-------
VI. PILOT-SCALE SIMULATION OF LANDFILL CONDITIONS
A. Purpose and Scope
The objectives of the pilot tests were to simulate, under controlled conditions,
the behavior of a representative mass of municipal solid waste in a landfill to which
liquid sewage sludge and water are applied to: a) determine the quantity of sewage
sludge, water, and septic tank pumpings that can be absorbed by solid waste,
b) assess the environmental effects that might result from such sludge disposal, and
c) evaluate the potential For groundwater pollution from leachates.
The control parameters held constant were the amount and composition of
solid waste and the degree of compaction. The variable parameters were the kind,
amount, and sequence of liquids applied, and the sequence of compaction. The
measured variables of primary interest were the time-variation of BOD5 value of the
leachates and the rate of subsidence. Other measured variables were the rate of
leachate emission, temperature, gas composition, and chemical properties of the
leachates, including conductivity, pH, turbidity, and total nitrogen. Qualitative
observations were made for odor, color of leachates, apparent degree of
decomposition of solid wastes, population and types of insects, and microorganism
growths.
Based on the premise that the tests adequately simulated the operation of a
landfill, the resulting data provided an indication of the results to be expected from
the ]oint solid waste-sludge landfill disposal operation.
6. Description of the Study
1 . Pilot Test Facilities Configuration. The pilot test facilities were
installed at the Los Angeles, California, home office of the Consultant, Ralph Stone
and Company, Inc. (in regard to temperature and rainfall, the weather in Los
Angeles is very similar to that in Oceanside). The pilot test facilities consisted of
eighteen 55-gallon drums as illustrated in Figure VI—1 . Seven of the drums were
35 in. in height, whereas the remaining eleven drums were 33? in. in height.
Each drum was provided with a leachate drain and a gas sample port. Two drums
were aerated intermittently through an air supply port located on the top of the
drums (see Figure Vl-l). The leachate drain hole in each aerated drum remained
open throughout the test period to provide an air exit after passage through the
solid waste. Anaerobic conditions were attempted in the remaining 16 drums by
providing a polyethylene air barrier and sealing the drum lids. (See Photograph
Vl-lc and Figure Vi-1 .)
2. Solid Waste Characteristics. The drums were filled with solid waste of
a composition approximating that of Oceanside, California (as established by hand
sorting of statistically valid samples). The actual composition of the wastes placed
69
-------
NOTE: DRUMS OF TWO HEIGHTS
WERE USED - 7 DRUMS AT
35", 11 AT 33-1/2"
(STEEL DRUMS WERE
ASPHALT COATED)
FIGURE Vl-1
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. PILOT TEST DRUM
CONFIGURATION
70
-------
a. PHOT DRUM FILLED WITH
SOLID WASTE.
b. ADMIXING SEWAGE SLUDGE
INTO PILOT DRUM.
c. POLYETHYLENE MEMBRANE AIR
(OXYGEN) BARRIER TO SIMULATE
ANAEROBIC LANDFILL CONDITIONS.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. PHOTOGRAPH Vl-l
PILOT TEST DRUMS
71
-------
in each drum, plus the Oceanside standard sample composition, is given in Table Vl-1 .
Of course, there was minor variance within each of the categories of Table VJ—1 of the
drum materials filled on different dates. Efforts were made, however, to insure maximum
random conformity within each waste category from the variety of materials available
at the time. (See Photograph Vl-la.)
The weighed quantities of each component were placed in each drum by hand,
taking reasonable care to avoid excessive concentrations of any one component in a
single location. No effort was made to achieve completely random mixing, such as
by tumbling in a large container. Instead, it was attempted to duplicate visually the
appearance of waste materials lying in a landfill.
3. Filling and Compaction Procedures. The purpose of the first test (Drum No. 1)
was to establish the maximum amount of sludge that can be absorbed by a known quantity
and composition of solid waste. In the pilot plant the sequence of solid waste and sludge
additions, mixing, and compacting was intended to simulate landfill operating con-
ditions. Half of the total charge of TOO lb of solid waste was first placed in the drum,
compacted, and then sludge was added. The mass was then stirred several times to
promote complete admixture, and compacted a second time. Small amounts (about 10
lbs) of solid waste was applied daily until 100 lbs was in the test drum. Liquid sewage
sludge was admixed daily with the solid waste, and added after 10 lbs of solid waste
was in the drum, until leachate started to drip from the bottom drain, .at which time it
was assumed that saturation conditions were reached. Due to the high viscosity of
applied sludge and careful arrangement of solid waste to prevent channeling, it was
assumed that the leachate represented the excess liquid sludge that percolated through
the saturated mass of refuse. Due to the method of filling (compaction), Drum No. 1
initially contained 100 lb (wet weight) of solid waste at about 22 Ib/cu ft wet density.
(594 Ib/cu yd). All other drums contained 80 lb of solid waste, each at initial wet
densities ranging from 12.4 to 22.1 Ib/cu ft (see Table VI-2). (See Photograph Vl-lb,)
The initial compcction for Drums 2 fhrough 5 consisted of dropping a 200—lb
weight two times, from approximately 1 ft above the solid waste surface. Drums
6 through 18 were subjected to continuous manual tamping of solid waste layers with
a shovel during packing. This resulted in a more thorough and uniform compaction
throughout the waste charge. The difference in initial compaction procedures simulated
two sets of landfill conditions: a) compaction of each fill layer (Drums 6-18); and b)
compaction of a complete fill (Drums 2-5). The variation in initial density of waste
material in the drums is given in Table VI-2.
4. Liquid Application. Liquids were applied to all but one (Drum No. 18) of the
18 drums as shown in Table VI-3. Raw sludge, digested primary and activated sludges,
nnjxed sludge, septic tank pumpings, and water were used in these tests to achieve
saturation during either primary or secondary application as indicated in Table Vl-3.
The term "Primary Application" in Table Vl-3 refers toan initial phase of the liquid
addition, in which sludge was poured into the newly filled drums of solid waste
in the amounts indicated. The ratio of 0.61 ib of liquid sludge per pound of
solid waste^ wet wt^used in most drums reflects the higher ratio of sewage sludge
72
-------
TABLE Vl-l
COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE IN TEST DRUMS
Composition (percent wet wt)
Drum number Oceonside
waste
Constituent 1 2 3 4 5 6 thro"gh 18 standard*
Newsprint
13.1
8.8
11.3
12.3
12.9
7.5
6.73
Cardboard
5.4
2.5
0.1
3.9
5.1
7.5
6.50
Misc. paper^
22.8
21.3
19.7
23.8
18.4
25.0
25.45
Total paper
41.3
32.6
31.1
40.0
36.4
40.0
38.68
Prunings
21.0
2.5
4.0
4.5
4.2
1.9
1.85
Leaves & grass
13.4
29.8
21.3
22.5
28.2
13.1
12.87
Total yard waste
34.4
32.3
25.3
27.0
32.4
15.0
14.72
Food waste
0
18.8
12.5
8.8
9.1
12.5
11.62
Cans & bottles
0
16.3
16.7
9.6
9.2
18.8
18.37
Wood
1.9
2.5
2.5
4.7
3.5
2.5
1.69
Cloth
0.5
0
3.2
1.8
0
2.5
1.79
Gravel ^
Film or foam plastic
11.3
0
0
0
Trace
2.5
0.10
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
6.73
Miscellaneous**
10.6
7.5
8.7
8.1
9.4
6.2
6.30
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
*Typical municipal solid waste of Oceanside, California , based on April 1971 hand sorting of statistically valid
+Not included in totals. representative samples .
#
Visually conspicuous, but of insignificant weight.
** Mostly dirt in test drums, and unclassifiables in standard.
-------
TABLE VI-2
INITIAL DENSITY OF SOLID
WASTE IN TEST DRUMS*
Drum Wet wt of solid Initial wet density
number waste (lb) (Ib/cu ft) (Ib/cu yd)
1
100
22.0
594
2
80
13.5
365
3
II
14.6
394
4
II
13.0
351
5
II
14.1
381
6
II
15.6
421
7
II
12.4
335
8
II
14.1
381
9
II
20.3
548
10
II
17.4
470
11
II
15.2
410
12
II
12.8
346
13
II
14.9
402
14
II
20.3
548
15
II
16.6
448
16
II
22.1
597
17
II
16.6
448
18
II
15.9
429
*Before admixture of liquid.
74
-------
J •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TABLE VI-3
APPLICATION OF SLUDGE AND WATER TO TEST DRUMS
Initial application
Second application
Sludge Water
Saturated with mixed municipal sludges, digested
activated sludge (La Salina) and digested primary
sludge (San Luis Rey).
Water only.
Domestic septic tank pumpings.
Ratio *: 0.61 .
Dry control with single water application.
Mixed digested sludges (La Salina, San Luis Rey).
Ratio: 0.61.
Digested activated sludge. (La Salina).
Ratio: 0.61.
Digested activated sludge.
(La Salina)
Ratio: 0.61.
Saturated with thinner digested activated
sludge (La Salina).
Saturated with thicker digested activated
sludge (La Salina).
Raw primary sludge (San Luis Rey).
Ratio: 0.61.
Raw primary sludge (San Luis Rey).
Ratio: 0.61.
Digested primary sludge (San Luis Rey)
Ratio: 0.61.
La Salina
Left dry
La Salina
La Salina
La Salina
San Luis Rey
(raw)
San Luis Rey
(digested)
X
Cont'd
75
-------
TABLE VI-3 (CONT.)
Drum
no.
Initial application
Second Application
Sludge Water
13 Digested primary sludge (San Luis Rey).
Ratio: 0.61.
14 Digested activated sludge; drum aerated
(La Salina).
Ratio: 0.61.
15 Digested activated sludge; drum aerated
(La Salina)
Ratio: 0.61.
16 Domestic septic tank pumpings
Ratio: 0.61.
17 Water only
18 Dry control
La Salina
Septic tank
pumpings
Left dry
* Ratio = lb liquid per lb solid waste in each drum.
76
-------
to municipal solid waste generated by the community of Oceanside over recent years.
These drums thus simulate the absorptive capacity that would be required for sludge
disposal for the community of Oceanside.
Drums in which the solid waste was "saturated" with liquid sludge simulate sanitary
landfills of comparable solids composition used at their maximum capacity for sludge
absorption. "Saturation" refers to the maximum amount of liquid (sludge or water) that
the contents of the drums could absorb without producing leachate, as evidenced by
prolonged slow dripping from the leachate drain hole in the bottom. In several cases,
it was observed that rapid "run-through" (run-off) of applied liquid occurred due to
short-circuiting through voids and channeling along the drum walls prior to reaching the
0.61 ratio or saturation. In these cases, the effluent was caught and poured back in the
drum until the leakage ceased. In cases where the leachate flow decreased to a slow drip
that lasted for over 16 hours, the contents were assumed to be saturated.
During the "primary water application" program, Drums 1, 8 and 9 were selected for
saturation tests with liquid sewage sludge. Drum 1 reached saturation in six days,
Drum 8 in nine days and Drum 9 in ten days.
After "primary water applications," initial determinations were made of subsidence
under compaction, quality of leachate (where leachates were formed), temperature rise,
and attractiveness to flies and other vectors. A program of "secondary water applications"
was then started. Secondary liquid sludge and water applications were made to the drums
at a rate of 1 gal per day, 5 days per week, until each pilot drum was saturated, after
which only water was applied to each drum at approximately the same rate for a total of 59
working days. The total quantity of water added (59 gallons per drum) is equivalent to
36 in. of cumulative rair.fall on the surface area of the test drums. An annual rainfall
of 36 in. is equal to a maximum rainfall condition for the City of Oceanside. However,
since one year of "rainfall" was applied during a period of only 59 days, the experiment
may be regarded as a simulation of a very wet period.
Initially, the addition of water at a rate of 1 gal/day consisted of actual addition
of 1 gal of water to each drum, except 4 and 18 (dry controls), once every working day.
This procedure, however, was found somewhat time-consuming and hence was modified
to involve addition of 2 or 3 gallons of water at one time every 2 or 3 days. Thus, an
"average" rate of 1 gal/day was maintained throughout the period of "heavy rainfall"
simulation.
To simulate an intermediate rainfall, the rate of water addition was later reduced
to three gallons once every week for a total quantity of 21.6 inches. The rate of water
addition was continued until January 1972, since which time the rate has been further
reduced to simulate light rainfall, 3 gal once a month for a total of about 21.6 in. of
rainfall per year.
Since the contents of most of the drums were at or near saturation at all times
(generally as a result of secondary applications), the liquid would drip continuously
when the drain holes were left open. This created some anaerobic odor nuisance
in the immediate vicini.ty, as well as major losses of leachate due to
77
-------
overflowing and evaporation from leachate collection pans. Thus, about 60 days
after beginning of the study, the leachate drain holes were kept corked, except when
leachates were collected. As a result, most of the drums accumulated small amounts
of free leachate in their bottoms.
5. Forced Aeration Conditions. Two of the test drums, 14 and 15, were
provided with forced aeration from a blower. The hoses entered via connections
through the lids of the drums (see Figure VI —1); these lids were provided with gaskets
in insure an airtight seal. Unlike the other drums, the gas sampling holes on these ,
two drums were left uncorked, allowing the air from the blower to percolate
downward through the solid waste and out the holes. The leachate drains were
initially kept corked, as with the other drums, and then opened to allow the air to
flow through the bottom of the waste charge. The blower was activated by a timer,
which operated it for 5 min each hour, at a divided flow providing approximately
5 SCFM to each drum. This aeration sequence was believed adequate to prevent
any significant accumulation of carbon dioxide or methane, thus maintaining
aerobic conditions, while not causing excessive drying.
6. Monitoring Program. The following is a brief description of sample
collection and monitoring procedures employed in connection with the drum tests.
a. Leachate Collection and Analysis. In general, the leachates obtained
from each drum were of two types: an occasional residual leachate accumulated in
the interim between water additions, and a drainage leachate obtained during the
first 24 hr after liquid addition. These leachates were collected and their
respective volumes were measured. After adding liquids, the leachaies were also
analyzed for biological oxygen demand (BOD5), pH, conductivity, and turbidity.
For each drum, a composite leachate sample was collected by accumulating some
of the individual leachate samples. The composite samples were analyzed for pH,
conductivity, nitrate, chloride, total phosphate, sulfate, fluoride, organic nitrogen
(Kjeldahl), iron, copper, lead, mercury, chromium, and barium. With some
exceptions (see Appendix A) all analytical procedures were in accordance with
Standard Methods.^* (See Photograph Vl-2a for leachate collection method.)
b. Sludge Analysis. The sludge used in each application to a drum was a
composite of several samples, collected over a period of up to a month. Each
composite sludge was analyzed for BOD5, pH, organic nitrogen, total volatile
acids, total organic content, total phosphate, and conductivity. In addition to
these composites of individual sludge types, a mixed composite sample was
accumulated of digested sludge samples obtained every two weeks from the three
treatment plants at Oceanside. This composite sample consisted of some samples
taken in the proportion of 2:1:1 from biweekly collected digested sludge samples
from La Salina, Buena Vista, and San Luis Rey treatment plants, respectively. The
proportion was approximately the relative quantities of digested sludges generated by
each plant. The mixed composite sample was analyzed for copper, lead, mercury,
chromium, iron, barium, calcium, total hardness, and chloride.
78
-------
C. HYPODERMIC GAS SAMPLER.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
PHOTOGRAPH VI-2
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. TEST DRUM
MONITORING EQUIPMENT
79
-------
c. Gas Sampling. At- various intervals during the period of study, samples
of gas were drawn from an intermediate point (see Figure VI-1) within the mass of-
solid waste in each drum and analyzed by gas chromatography (using a Varian
Aerograph Model A90 P3) for carbon dioxide, methane, oxygen, and nitrogen.
Both holes were kept plugged with corks except when gas or leachate samples were
being drawn. All gas samples were taken at times just prior to removing the drum'
lids (for liquid addition) or drain hole corks (for leachate collection). The gas
sampling technique involved the insertion of a 16-in.-long hypodermic needle into the
refuse via the gas sample port with provision for an airtight seal. A polyethylene
bag was placed inside the barrel over the solid waste in order to further minimize
air movement. The gas samples may thus be presumed representative of the gases
present in the interstitial cavities in the lower portion of each drum, plus any of the
head space gases that may have been pulled down through open channels during the
drawing of the sample, but relatively free of air that may have entered during
placement of the sample hose. (See Photograph Vl-2b and c for gas sampling methods.)
d. Vectors and Microorganisms. Qualitative visual observations were made
of the presence of insects and breeding colonies in the various drums. In some, the
major species of the insects present were also identified.
e. Temperature Measurements. Temperature was measured prior to water
application/leachate sampling. Temperatures measured were those of ambient air,
air inside a special empty drum, and the solid waste. Solid waste temperatures were
obtained by implanting a Weston Model 2265 (0 to 120 F scale) bimetal element
thermometer with an 8-in. stem into the top center of the waste mass.
f. Settlement Analysis. Settlement was determined by dropping a 200— lb
weight twice from a height of 1 ft, then measuring the distance of the waste surface
below a reference point at the top of the drum with a ruler.
g. Odor Tests. Bach time t'ne drums were opened, an observer noted the v
strength and type of odor detected.
h. Check on Moisture Content. Moisture content in the drums was checked
once within the first 20 to 127 days, once within 79 to 155 days after filling
with solid waste, and monthly aiter one year since filling. Three methods were used
for the determination of moisture content. The first method consisted of weighing the
drums before and after each liquid addition and dividing the difference by the weight
of the solid waste initially placed in the drums. The second method was based on the
difference in weight between Hie ;otal amount of liquid added and the total amount of
kachate obtained. The thiid method consisted of determining the dry and wet weights
of .he representative waste samples from each drum.
i. Sample Handling. Gas samples were analyzed immediately after they were
obtained. Drum leachate samples were stored in a refrigerator immediately after they were
obtained. Leachate composite samples were stored at ambient temperature (70°F).
80
-------
C. Results and Discussion
1 . Liquid Application and Leachate Flow. The characteristics of sewage sludge
and septic tank pumpings applied to the pilot test drums are shown in Table VI-4. Table VI-
5 presents the pounds of liquid applied per 100 lb of solid waste to reach saturation in
each drum. Except for the high dry weight values of 213, 272, 201 and 204, the drum
saturation values are in good agreement with the laboratory test results which predicted
a range of 60 to 180 lb of liquid per 100 lb dry weight solid waste based on both April
1971 Oceanside solid waste composition and annual data given in Tables IV-5 and lV-6,
respectively. The drum saturation levels were clustered in the high end of the predicted
absorption range; this was attributed to entrainment of liquid in the drum solid waste void
spaces.
The ratio of the lb of water per lb of dry weight of solid waste and sewage sludge
solids added to each of the 1 6 wet drums is shown in Figure VI-2. The rapid initial rise
represents the high rate of water application during the first six months (3-gal per day)
after which applications of 3-gal per month were made.
Table VI-6 presents actual water contents of the drums as found by weighing on two
different occasions. The data in this table indicate that with the exception of only a few
drums, there was a reduction in the water content of the drums during the period between
the two water determinations. Comparison of the data in Table VI-6 with the data in
Table VI-5 indicates that, with the exception of Drum 16, the actual water content of the
waste in each drum was considerably less than the saturation value. This may be attributed
to the loss of water during leachate sampling and unmeasured drain leakage.
2. Leachate Characteristics.
a. BOD5 Content. The data on changes in the BOD5 content of the fresh leachate
are presented in the Appendix for each individual drum. Unless otherwise stated, the
leachates referred to in this section are the "fresh" leachates from the drums. Fresh leachate
is the leachate obtained within the first hour after each addition of water. "Residual"
leachate is the leachate removed prior to leach water addition that had accumulated be-
tween water additions.
Figure VI-3 is a composite plot containing the BOD5 values for all the drums. The
three curves in this figure represent the maximum, the minimum, and the arithmetic average
(20-day increments) of all the data points. The data in Figure VI-3 indicate that the BOD5
increased to a peak sometime within the first 100 days of sludge application, and gradually
decreased to become asymptotic thereafter. The initial increase in BOD5 may be attributed
to the breakdown and solubilization of complex organics in the solid waste and sludge; The
liquid applications to drums were started between April 16 and July 17, with the majority
of them (Drums 6 through 15, and 17) started in mid-June. The hot summer temperature thus
might have contributed to some extent to the observed high initial BOD5 levels. The sub-
sequent decrease in BOD5 may represent a gradual depletion of the more readily soluble
organics due to bacterial oxidation.
81
-------
TABLE VI-4
CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AND
SEPTIC TANK PUMPINGS APPLIED TO PILOT TEST DRUMS
Sample
by source
Drum Conduc-
application tivity
Primary Secondary (mhos)
BOD5
(ppm)
Total
solids
.(%)
Total
organ ics
(% dry wt)
Total
nitrogen
(%)
Total
phosphate
(ppm)
Total
vol. acids
(ppm)
Mixed sludges
1 21
5l
3800
3050
110
La Salina:
Digested
activated
sludge
6 6
7 7
8 8
9
3800
3200
1.4
60.7
1.68
370
216
14 14
15
4200
4.5
53.2
1.77
80
46
San Luis Rey:
Primary raw
10 10
11
4000
-
1.2
61.6
-
-
-
Digested
Primary
12 12 1
13 - 1
3190
3.4
45.3
•
Septic tank
pumpings:
Thick
3
1900
1630
2.0
40.5
Thin
16 16
1200
130
-
-
-
-
-
*
Indicates not applicable or analyses not completed.
-------
TABLE VI-5
MOISTURE ABSORPTION TO SATURATE
SOLID WASTE SAMPLES
Lb liquid/100 lb solid waste
Drum no. Dry wt Wet vrt
I 213 164
6 188 145
7 188 145
8 151 116
9 272 210
10 188 145
II 201 155
12 92 71
13 161 124
14 204 158
15 169 130
16 57 43
17 175 135
Avg 174 dry wt 134 wet wt
83
-------
25 _
"D
Z o
Ti 20
2 .
I— CD
< "2
if
Q£ 0>
11 i ¦/)
Irf "°
5?- c
£ n
ui £
>«/>
D
K ?
3lE
=> ~
3f
t/> J
i *
—J -n
a: w
Q =£
V)
<~>
15
10
5
25
20
15
10
5
A A
X4
100
200
300
400
500
600
« a 2?
ft
2 <£
100
J.
200
DRUM
1415 16 17
700 800
DRUM
10 11 12 13
a e ~ a
900
300 400 500 600
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
700
800
900
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE VI-2A
TEST DRUM WEIGHT
RATIO OF WATER TO SOLIDS
ADDITIONS
-------
DRUM
Q_
a.
<
mm- V*
Z -o
I- *•
< ®
(J O)
"O
I _3
V)
©
CD
a; o
iu ?
»— *»
A^3
25
20
15
10
5
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
DRUM
1 2 3
a • a
5
A
a °*
V aa
9* A *A
A
2
I
to
a
o$ A
900
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE VI-2B
CITY OF OCEANS1DE/E.P.A. _ TEST DRUM WEIGHT
RATIO OF WATER TO SOLIDS
ADDITIONS
-------
TABLE VI-6
TEST DRUM WATER CONTENT DETERMINATIONS
Drum 8/11/71 9/8/71
no.* Wt (lb) Percent wet wt Wt (lb) Percent wet wt
1
103
103
91
86
2
65
81
57
72
3
63
79
63
79
4
+
mm
-
23
29
5
102
128
94
117
6
60
76
54
67
7
20
29
36
45
8
33
42
25
33
9
62
77
45
56
10
47
59
50
62
11
-
-
41
51
12
30
38
24
30
13
20
26
18
23
14
46
58
23
29
15
-
-
20
25
16
33
41
34
42
17
32
40
30
37
18
-0.4
0
3
4
~
Initial wet weight of solid waste placed in drums was: Drum 1 - 100 lb;
Pryms 2 through I 8 - 80 lb.
Not weighed.
86
-------
5,000
4,000
3,000
DAYS SINCE FIRST LIQUID
APPLICATION
ARITHMETIC AVERAGE
BY 20 DAY INCREMENTS
MAX. & MIN.
DRUMS 14 AND 15
INCLUDES ALL DRUMS
EXCEPT DRY CONTROL
DRUMS 4 AND 18
900
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE VI-3
BOD5 LEVELS OF TEST DRUM
LEACHATES—DRUMS 14 AND 15
VS. COMPOSITE TRENDS
-------
The data presented in Appendix D for individual drums indicate maximum BOD5
values ranging from 350 mg/l for Drum 5 (charged with mixed digested sludge) to about
4,000 mg/l for Drum 13 (charged with digested primary sludge). Drum 12, which was
a replicate of Drum 13, showed a maximum BOD5 value of 2,500 mg/l. In general,
with the exception of Drum 5, all drums (including those which had received water
only) had maximum BOD5 values of close to or in excess of 1,000 mg/l. This would
indicate that, if BOD5 can be considered a valid measure of the organic content
of the liquid wastes, the quantity of organics discharged in the leachate would be
primarily affected by the type and composition of the solid waste, and not so much by
the kind of sludge applied during primary and secondary applications, or the weight
ratio of sludge to solid waste used.
Figure VI-3 indicates the leachate BOD5 trends of Drums 14 and 15 with the
composite BOD5 trend for all the drums. Drums 14 and 15 were the only two test
drums which had been provided with forced aeration. Figure VI-3 indicates that, after
reaching maximum values, the BOD5 for Drums 14 and 15 dropped off initially at a
faster rate than for most other drums,5 and then fell near the average for all drums.
This would be expected since oxidation of organics generally proceeds at a faster rate
under aerobic than anaerobic oxidation.
b. Color. The color observed in the leachates was initially black in seven,
drums, grey in five drums, and yellow or tea color in three drums. Most of the
leachates were opaque in appearance. No relation was observed between the type
of liquid applied and color; for example, leachates from drums which received water
only were also black. The color changed with time to green, olive and yellow, to a
straw color, and after 190 to 250 days, the colors were generally yellow or straw, clear
or brownish.
In an actual landfill, the color of the leachate may be somewhat weaker
than those observed in the test drums, since part of the color may be removed when
the leachate percolates through the soil cover. (Two samples of leachate were
obtained from the Oceanside landfill during May 1971; one sample was grey in color
and the second was clear.)
c. Turbidity. The results of turbidity measurements on leachate samples are
presented in Appendix D. In aenera!, the changes in turbidity with time followed
a pattern much similar to that of the BOD5. To explore any correlation which may
exist between the BOD5 and turbidity of a leachate, the turbidity and BOD5 values
were plotted on a log-log paper. The results presented in Figure VI-4 indicate a
iack of simple correlation between the two variables. This is not surprising since
turbidity is a light-scattering phenomenon whose value is affected by the size, shape,
and concentration of the particulate matter, whereas BODc is only a measure of the
biodegradable constituents (dissolved or particulate matter)"* of the waste sample.
Hence, inorganic particulate matter such as silt and iron oxide which contribute to
turbidity do not exert BCDr demand. Similarly, soluble organic or reduced inorganic
compounds which constitute BOD5, do not register as turbidity.
88
-------
TURBIDITY (JTU)
FIGURE VI-4
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. CORRELATION OF TEST DRUM
LEACHATE BOD5 WITH TURBIDITY
89
-------
d. Electrical Conductance (Conductivity). Electrical conductance is a
measure of the capacity of a liquid to conduct electrical current. It is affected by
the nature and concentration of charged species (mainly dissolved inorganic salts) in
solution. A correlation exists between electrical conductivity and total dissolved
solids of a liquid sample.
The dissolved inorganic content of solid waste leachates is important from the
standpoint of its potential effect on groundwater quality. When leachates containing
high salts content gain entrance to the groundwater, they may cause an appreciable
increase in the salinity of the ground water and/or impart other undesirable properties
to it.
The data on the conductivity of the leachate samples are presented in Appendix
D. Figure VI-5 is a composite plot of conductivity values for Drums 6 through 17. A
composite curve for Drums 2, 3 and 5 (see Appendix D) indicate similar peaks and
asymptotically decreasing values for conductivity. They occur within roughly similar
periods about 120 days after filling versus about 70 days as shown on Figure VI-5.
Drums 2, 3 and 5 were filled about 50 days earlier than the other drums, which accounts
for the different periods of sampling since filling to reach peak values. Drum 1 behaved
differently in that its peak conductivity value occurred 30 days after filling which "was
90 days prior to peaks on all other drums. The data in this figure and those
presented in Appendix D indicate that the variation of conductivity with time is very
similar to those of BOD^ and turbidity, i.e., rising to a maximum within the first
100 days, decreasing and then becoming fairly constant. As with BOD5 and turbidity,
the pattern of change in conductivity may reflect variations in the rate of biodegrada"
tion and solubilization of the organic waste material. The conductivity data also
indicate that, under the conditions of the experiments, the quality of the leachate
was relatively insensitive to the kind and amount of liquid originally applied to the
drums.
The second small peak occurring around 140 days on Figure VI-5 corresponded
to a two-week period of increasing ambient air temperatures (see Figures VI— 13 through
VI— 16). This indicates the temperature-dependence of the biological activity in the
test drums.
In an exploratory effort to investigate any correlation which may exist between
the conductivity and turbidity of a leachate samp le, the conductivity values for the
leachate samples were plotted against the corresponding turbidities on an arithmetic
paper. The results presented in Figure VI-6 do not appear to indicate any simple
direct correlation between the two variables. This is very understandable since turbidity
is a measure of particulate matter in water whereas conductivity merely reflects the
concentration of the charged species.
e. pH. The pH of the leachates are plotted individually for each drum in
the Appendix D. In general, the changes in pH were fairly small and the pH values
were all in the 5 to 8 range. In most cases, the pH dropped initially, reaching a
minimum value within the first 100 days. The decrease in pH is probably due to the
90
-------
o
_c
E
£
>
K
u
3
Q
z
o
u
5,000 r
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
DRUM NO.: 6 THROUGH 17
7far
s6o 8& 9do
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
650
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A.
750
DAYS SINCE INITIAL SLUDGE APPLICATION FIGURE VI-5
CONDUCTIVITY OF LEACHATES
COMPOSITE FOR
DRUMS 6 THROUGH 17
-------
5,000
4,000
O
D
e 3,000
200 300
TURBIDITY (JTU)
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE VI-6
CORRELATION OF CONDUCTIVITY
WITH TURBIDITY
92
-------
formation of acidic end products resulting from the anaerobic 'biodegradation of organic
wastes. Following the initial drop, the pH gradually increased, reaching values in the
6.2 to 7.2 range after 250 days. The increase in pH may reflect a slowdown in the rate
of biodegradation of organics or reflect growth of methane producing bacteria which oxi-
dize organic acids.
f. Comparison of Test Drum Leachate Characteristics With Landfill and Test Cell
Leachates. Table VI-7 presents comparisons of test drum, test cell and landfill leachate
characteristics for different ages of solid waste fill. Where ranges of values are given
they represent maximum and minimum values for different samples (test cell and landfill)
and different test drums. The data in Table VI-7 indicate that the test cell leachates
were significantly stronger in BOD5 than the test drum and landfill leachates. The high
BOD5, low pH,and foul odor of the test cell leachate are indications that extensive
water to organic contact existed during or prior to the time of drainage and sampling.
The data indicate that the leached soluble organics in Cell 1 were significantly greater
than in the test drums during comparable time periods after filling. The low test drum
BOD5 range is attributed to the high rate of water application (12 to 15 lb water per lb
dry wt solid waste) compared to Cell 1 which received 0.45 lb liquid per lb dry wt solid
waste. The test drum water, having less contact time than liquid in Cell 1, apparently
produced a diluted leachate and thus lower BOD5.
g. Characteristics of "Fresh" and "Residual" Leachates. As it was described above
in Section C.2., two types of leachates were obtained from each test drum: the "residual"
(old) leachate collected at the bottom of drums due to the preceding liquid addition, and
the "fresh" (new) leachate resulting immediately following each water addition. Table
VI-8 presents typical data on quantity and quality of the residual and fresh leachates
for the first sampling run. Additional residual leachate analyses are plotted in Appendix
D with the fresh leachates. In the first sampling the old leachates appear to contain more
turbidity and show higher conductivity and lower pH levels, but the BOD5 data do not
indicate any consistent pattern. In subsequent residual leachate analyses where there is
complete data, BOD5 and turbidities were greater for "residual" than for corresponding
fresh leachates, but conductivity and pH were the same (see Appendix D). Based on
BOD5 and turbidity results, the residual leachate appears to have higher content of
dissolved organic material than the fresh leachate. This may be due to the significantly
longer solid-liquid contact time for the old leachate.
h. Specific Dissolved Salts. On several random occasions during the pilot drum
tests, spot checks were made on free carbon dioxide, chloride, phosphate, calcium and
nitrogen content of the leachates. The results are presented in Table VI-9. A running
composite was kept of some portions of all leachate samples obtained from each drum.
After the last sampling for 1971 in December, each composite sample was similarly
analyzed. These results are given in Table VI-10.
The data in Tables VI-9 and VI—1 0 indicate no significant differences between the
leachates from the various drums, thus confirming the general conclusion presented
earlier that, in the drum tests, the leachate characteristics did not appear
93
-------
TABLE VI-7
COMPARISON OF NATURAL AND SIMULATED LEACHATES
Measured
variable
Field test cell 1,
days since filling
1st 57 211
Pilot test drums,
days since filling
1st 50 365 (1 yr)
Old Oceanside
landfill
Leachate age over 1 year
BOD
(mg/l)
5,450- 11,850 19,600
60 - 4,300
o
0
CM
1
o
250 - 380
Turbidity
(JTU)
53-210
74+
40 - 510
0-100
#
Conductivity
( /" mhos)
2,750 - 4,400
4,000 - 6,500+ 1,400 - 5,000
0- 1,300
4,700 - 4,800
pH
4.6 - 5.5
5.9
5.0 - 8.6
5.0- 7.8
5.1 - 5.2
Odor
Very sour
Very sour
Septic sulfide
Earthy
Sour
* Grab samples of leachate taken from small pools in cover soil on the side of the completed landfill about 20 feet below
the top of.the fill.
+ From samples taken 11/29/72 and 12/1/72, 294 and 296 days since filling, respectively. These are included for com-
parison .
^ Not enough sample volume to complete analyses.
-------
TABLE VI-8
COMPARISON OF FRESH AND RESIDUAL LEACHATES
Residual leachate* Fresh leachate
Drum Qty
no. (gal)
Turbidity
(JTU)
Conduc-
tivity
(fmhos)
PH
BOD5 Qty
(mg/l) (gal)
Turbidity
(JTU)
Conduc-
tivity
(/*mhos)
pH
BODc
(mg/f)
1
0
-
-
-
-
. J
0.6
Negl
65
. 54
2175
1170
8.01
7.28
60
2
0.1
61
800
6.51
0
1.6
14
535
6.89
0
3
0.7
160
1550
7.01
6
1.7
17
595
6.75
16
5
0.3
155
1450
6.80
240
1 .4
29
675
6.82
45
6
0
-
-
-
-
1.^
6
610
7.36
0
7
Negl
.** 35
1300
6.72
200
1.0
22
320
7.70
6
8
Negl
48
1075
6.72
48
0.9
65
427
6.93
0
9
0
-
tm
-
0.6#
70
1700
7.93
0
10
0.3
250
1600
6.56
0
2.0
52
505
6.63
285
11
0.8
230
2100
6.78
150
2.2
35
980
6.97
105
12
Negl
. 125
1800
7.01
149
1.7
42
730
6.73
26
13
Negl
. 170
2500
5.78
0
1.0
47
565
7.0
0
14
0
-
-
-
-
1.9
18
693
7.07
0
15
0
-
-
-
-
2.1
7.2
379
7.74
0
16
0.8
190
1600
6.79
150
1.6
33
725
7.00
45
17
1.4
180
2200
6.76
135
2.4
34
1030
7.01
150
* Samples of April 13, 1972 leachate remaining from last water application 40 days earlier.
+ Leachate occurring within about 1/2 hour of water application.
a >
Leachate collected 3 days later from drums that did not drip measurable amounts
within several hours of water application.
** Quantity of leachate enough for analyses, but insignificant in gallons.
95
-------
TABLE VI-9
ANALYSES FOR SPECIFIC SOLUBLE COMPONENTS*
All data in units ctf mg/l Organic $
Drum Dissolved Calcium Total Nitrate^ nitrogen
no. COj"1" Chloride"1" Phosphate+ Nitrogen"1"
1
30
130
5
257
26.3
1.94
1.73
2
75
270
4
329
16.9
1.73
-
3
210
185
3
312
53.0
1.94
0.45
5
105
200
4
178
61.6
0.45
0.91
6
340
267
5
164
-
0.69
-
7
45
293
4
297
30.8
1.25
0.45
8
255
221
5
209
81.2
1.25
1.25
9
60
86
4
304
52.6
0.91
0.69
10
90
205
3
369
54.2
0.69
0.45
11
210
167
4
226
-
1.60
1.25
12
565
258
4
259
-
1.14
-
13
90
245
3
230
14.8
1.60
1 .60
14
240
262
3
208
31.4
1.60
1 .25
15
330
336
5
329
44.8
0.69
0.45
16
120
145
4
262
22.0
1.25
-
17
225
190
4
176
17.8
1 .'94
1.94
*
Samples taken on dates as follows: + 9/10/7l; * 9/14/71; and $ 9/54/71 .
96
-------
TABLE VI-10
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF 1971 LEACHATE COMPOSITES *
Drum
no.
F
Fe
so4
PO4
CI
Ca
NO3
Conductivity
Total
Organic
Nitrogen
pH
Turbidity
1
0.10
0.12
100
1.0
225
74
0.30
1650
34
6.80
5
2
0.75
0.17
170
1.0
205
46
0.60
1150
45
7.35
14
3
0.50
0.21
42
0.80
200
81
0.90
1250
56
7.35
26
5
0.10
0.12
50
0.70
195
107
28.0
1300
62
7.00
18
6
0.35
0.10
96
0.45
140
116
0.70
1050
73
7.80
16
7
0.40
0.21
72
0.50
200
68
0.19
1400
72
7.90
24
8
0.50
0.21
86
0.45
190
78
0.83
1350
79
7.15
6
9
0.75
0.17
55
0.20
190
149
23.2
1350
17
7.15
13
10
0.67
0.21
56
1.00
220
129
2.00
1400
95
6.90
7
11
0.90
0.15
28
1.20
107
111
1.04
100
15
7.50
10
12
0.75
0.20
40
0.80
192
76
2.25
1500
60
7.85
45
13
1.00
0.12
34
0.80
182
111
1.37
1300
26
8.10
22
14
0.70
0.10
48
1.00
180
166
3.00
1150
31
7.40
8
15
0.65
0.23
78
1.00
110
57
1.16
875
46
7.80
9
16
0.50
0.25
72
0.50
190
73
20.0
1450
50
7.55
24
17
0.40
0.21
58
0.70
140
106
16.6
1250
41
7.05
25
*AII values in mg/l; except pH, conductivity ( //mhos/cm), and turbidity (JTU).
-------
to be materially affected by the kind and amount of the liquid applied to the solid waste.
Some differences which have been observed may in fact be related, at least partially,
to differences which may have existed in the makeup of the solid waste placed in each
drum. The fact that the nitrate(nitrogen oxide) values are significantly lower than the
total organic nitrogen values suggests that oxidation of nitrogenous compounds which
usually follows oxidation of carbonaceous material had not been advanced to any
appreciable extent.
Analyses were also completed for heavy metals on the 1971 leachate
composite, and a leachate composite accumulated in 1972. The results are given on
Tables VI-11 and 12. Concentrations of lead, chromium, copper and manganese were
all below 1 mg/l, or negligible. Concentrations of zinc and iron were generally slightly
higher in the 1972 composite while magnesium was slightly lower. Apparently some
zinc coatings on metals in the waste and perhaps some corrosion of the steel drums
affected the results for zinc and iron.
3. Gas Generation. Table VI— 13 presents the results of gas analysis for the
18 test drums. The analyses indicate extremely variable gas composition. Many of the
drums indicated primarily air (Drums 2, 14 and 15). Drums 14 and 15 were aerated and,
therefore, an air gas composition was expected. The remaining 15 drums showed
varying amounts of carbon dioxide and several showed significant amounts of methane
(Drums 1, 8, 9 and 13). The presence of COj in all of the 15 drums is a good indication
that aerobic decomposition occurred in the drums.
The variation in gas analyses resulted primarily from the existence of a
comparatively large air space above the solid waste oxygenating each drum. The air
space volume increased during each compaction/decomposition cycle, however, since
the drums were opened at the top during water application, fresh air was introduced,
and methane which is a lighter-than-air gas was easily lost. It was also suspected
that taking gas samples from sidewall ports that did not extend into the waste mass
allowed aeration via short-circuiting of the gas samples; the sample drew gases from
along the sidewall gap and perhaps from the air mixture above.
Two methods were adopted in June 1972 in an attempt to better replicate
landfill gas sampling conditions. Rubber septums were placed over the gas sample ports
and samples were drawn using a 12-inch long hypodermic needle that was inserted into
the middle of the solid waste mass. Also, polyethylene bag covers were loosely placed
over the tops of the solid waste mass and sealed at the drum lid to minimize the drum
air pocket. The gas analyses after June 1972 show increase in methane in Drums 8, 9,
10, 12, 13 and 17. Air contamination still remained a problem in the drums due to
the need to remove the polyethylene bag seals to apply water. Tne drums other than
the aforementioned drums had greater aeration occurring probably due io sealing failures;,
slight leaks can cause significant aeration in small test containers. Special high vacuum
seals must be used to avoid air leaks.
93
-------
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
TABLE VI - II
HEAVY METAL ANALYSIS OF 1971 LEACHATE COMPOSITES
Concentration, mg /I
Pb Cr Mg Cu Mn Zn
<0^7 T03 T5J5 05
-------
TABLE VI - 12
HEAVY METAL ANALYSIS OF 1972 LEACHATE COMPOSITES
Concentration, mg /I
Drum
Fe
Pb
Cr
Mg
Cu
Mn
Zn
No.
1
2.2
0.6
<0.03
12.00
0.10
<0.02
0.80
2
25.0
<0.07
<0.03
5.00
0.05
0.10
0.85
3
2.2
<0.07
<0.03
6.00
<
0.015
<0.02
0.25
5
2.2
0.4
<0.03
8.50
<
0.015
<0.02
0.80
6
1.8
0.2
<0.03
13.40
<
0.015
<0.02
0.30
7
2.4
0.4
<0.03
6.80
<
0.015
<0.02
0.20
8
2.0
0.4
<0.03
6.20
<
0.015
<0.02
0.30
9
3.0
<0.07
<0.03
14.10
<
0.015
0.10
0.45
10
1.8
<0.07
<0.03
3.80
0.05
<0.02
0.20
11
8.2
< 0.07
<0.03
15.00
0.05
<0.02
0.25
12
2.2
< 0.07
<0.03
12.80
<
0.015
0.20
1.75
13
2.0
0.2
<0.03
6.80
<
0.015
<0.02
0.30
14
2.2
0.07
<0.03
9.00
<
0.015
0.20
1 .75
15
2.2
< 0.07
<0.03
1.10
<
0.015
<0.02
0.30
16
4.4
0.6
<0.03
10.00
<
0.015
<0.02
1.55
17
2;2
0.4
<0.03
11.70
<
0.015
<0.02
0.53
100
-------
TABLE VI—13
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS @
Gas composition (percent by volume) Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum * C09 O N CH Drum CO O N CH
no. Date Day * no. Date Day *
" 1971 ~ 1971
1+' "875" 122 0 18.1 82.1 0 2# ~W5 98 0 21.0 79.0 0
8/11 127 42.5 3.8 25.9 27.8 8/11 103 0.4 20.6 79.0 0
8/26 142 32.2 4.6 44.6 18.6 8/26 118 0.1 20.9 79.0 0
9/14 161 7.9 0.5 59.2 32.4 9/14 137 0 19.9 80.1 0
11/17 224 2.3 20.0 77.7 0 11/17 200 1.8 20.1 78.1 0
12/29 265 9.0 14.1 60.9 16.0 12/29 224 0 18.1 81.9 0
1972
T7T9 286 12.1 14.5 62.7 10.7 1972
6/28 447 12,0 0.3 87.7 0 6/28 Inaccurate - Air leak Into drum.
8/14 513 8.8 6.0 85.2 0
9/18 548 12.0 6.5 81.3 0.2 9/18 488 30 14.4 82.6 0
® For key to footnotes see page 110
-------
TABLE VM3
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS @
Gos composition (percent by volume)
Goscomposition (percent by volume)
Drum
no.
CO„ O,
N,
CH
Date
1971
8/6
8/11
8/26
9/14
11/17
12/29
1972
1/19
6/28
8/14
9/18
Day *
98
103
118
137
200
239
260
421
468
499
19.0
25.5
5.6
2.8
4.6
9.5
17.3
14.6
21.0 79.0
21.0 79.0
4.2
3.3
17.0
17.6
16.8
7.6
0.3
4.2
76.8
71.2
77.4
79.6
78.6
82.9
82.4
81.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Drum
no.
Date Day
1971
8/6
8/11
8/26
9/14
11/17
12/29
1972
1/19
6/28
8/14
9/18
95
100
115
137
200
241
262
423
470
501
CO,
0
0
8.2
21.5
5.9
5.2
5.2
2.2
2.9
6.5
O,
20.0
21.4
16.2
10.5
16.5
18.0
16.3
13.1
17.1
12.4
N.
80.0
78.6
76.6
60.2
77.6
76.8
78.1
84.7
80.0
81.1
CH.
0
0
0
7.8
0
0
0.4
0
0
0
® For key to footnotes see page 110
-------
TABLE VH3
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Gas composition {percent by volume) Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum
CO,
o7
N9
CH4
Drum
C°9
o9
N9
CH4
no.
Date
Day *
2
I
l
no.
Date
Day
* 2
2
I
a
1971
n
1971
5
8/11
103
6.8
15.7
77.5
0
6
8/6
52
31.2
2.6
59.5
6.7
8/26
118
7.4
17.6
75.0
0
8/11
57
12.0
12.0
76.0
0
9/14
137
9.8
8.0
82.2
0
8/26
73
10.2
11.5
78.3
0
11/17
200
6.9
14.9
78.2
0
9/14
92
9.3
14.7
76.0
0
12/29
239
7.7
17.0
74.9
0.4
11/17
155
12.2
10.3
77.5
0
1972
12/29
196
3.0
18.0
79.0
0
1/19
260
7.6
14.0
78.4
0
1972
1/19
217
12.6
9.2
78.2
0
6/28
421
4.5
9.2
86.3
0
6/28
378
Inaccurate
- Air leak into drum.
8/14
468
11.2
7.3
81.5
0
8/14
425
11.2
7.3
81.5
0
9/18
499
9.5
9.1
81.4
0
9/18
456
8.5
11.3
80.2
0
^ For key to footnotes see page 110
-------
TABLE VI-)3
COMPOSITION OF TEST SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS @
Drum
no.
Date
Day
Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum
no.
Date
Day
Gas compos
ition (|
percent by volume)
C02
* A
°2
N2
-<3-
X
u
C°2
* ^
°2
N2
CH4
1971
1971
8/6
51
3.5
17.8
78,7
0
8
8/11
51
0
21.0
79.0
0
8/11
56
0
20.7
79.3
0
8/26
66
3.4
19.4
77.2
0
8/26
72
2.7
20.3
77.0
0
9/14
85
0
21.1
78.9
0
9/14
93
11.5
11.5
77.0
0
11/17
148
13.0
10.2
74.8
2.0
11/17
155
4.7
17.2
78.1
0
12/29
195
5.8
14.5
79.7
0.3
1972
1972
1/19
211
12.3
9.4
77. 1
1.2
1/19
216
6.8
14.6
78.6
0
6/28
377
Inaccurate -
Air leak into drum.
6/28
372
19.3
0.1
66.2
14.4
8/18
428
5.2
12.2
82.6
0
8/18
423
24.5
0.1
55.4
20.0
9/18
459
2.8
15.7
81.6
0
9/18
454
22.7
1.9
60.6
14.8
(9? For key to footnotes see page 110
-------
TABLE VI—13
COMPOSITION OF TEST SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS ®
Gas composition percent by volume) Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum COj Oj CH^ Drum COj Oj CH^
no. Date Day * no. Date Day
1971
1971
8/11
51
7.2
17.0
75.8
0
10 8/6
56
29.6
3.4
65.8
1.2
8/26
66
31.2
4.7
54.0
10.1
8/11
61
12.8
12.4
74.8
0
9/14
85
7.5
17.2
75.3
0
8/26
76
25.1
2.4
72.5
0
11/17
148
3.5
19.3
75.8
1.3
9/14
95
25.9
2.1
72.0
0
12/29
178
4.1
17.8
77.4
0.7
11/17
158
13.3
10.4
76.3
0
1972
1972
1/19
199
3.6
17.9
76.5
2.0
l/l9
221
9.8
12.7
77.5
0
6/28
360
27.2
1.0
24.5
47.4
6/28
382
12.4
1.1
85.9
0.6
8/18
411
48.8
0.3
41.5
9.4
8/18
433
20.3
1.0
76.2
2.5
9/18
442
33.4
0
26.4
40.2
9/18
464
23.1
0.4
74.8
1.7
^ For key to footnotes see page 110
-------
TABLE Vl-13
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS @
Drum
no.
11
Gas composition (percent by vol.ume)
Gos composition (percent by volume)
Date
Day
co2
*
°2
N2
CH4
Drum
no.
Date
Day
. C°2
°2
N2
X |
u 1
1971
1971
8/6
56
0
20.8
79.2
0
12
8/11
61
0
21.8
78.2
0
8/11
61
1.7
22.6
75.7
0
8/26
76
20.0
6.0
74.0
0
8/26
76
19.0
9.0
72.0
0
9/14
95
13.5
9.5
77.0
0
9/14
95
3.9
18.9
77.2
0
11/17
158
5.5
16.1
78.4
0
11/17
158
5.4
16.6
78.0
0
1972
12/29
200
5.6
18.9
75.5
0
1/19
179
3.5
18.1
78.4
0
1972
1/19
221
8.2
14.1
77.7
0
6/29
383
4.3
12.0
83.7
0
6/29
341
20.2
1.8
41.6
36.4
8/18
433
20.0
0.4
79.0
0.6
8/18
391
15.8
0.5
83.7
0
9/18
464
18.5
0.9
80.6
0
9/18
421
40.0
2.7
17.0
40.3
@ For key to footnotes see page 110
-------
TABLE VI—13
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS ®
Gas composition (percent by volume) Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum CO, O, N CH, Drum CO O N CH.
no. Date Day * no. Date Day *
1971
1971
8/6
56
4.0
19.2
76.8
0
14++ 8/6
46
27.2
12.0
48.4
12.4
8/11
61
3.7
19.4
76.9
0
8/11
51
5.0
17.2
77.8
0
8/26
76
8.2
16.2
76.6
0
8/26
66
8.0
18.8
67.7
5.3
9/14
95
26.5
3.0
70.5
0
9/14
75
0
20.9
79.1
0
11/17
158
5.2
16.0
77.9
0.9
11/17
148
0
19.0
81.0
0
12/29
200
5.2
15.2
79.0
0.6
1972
221
3.8
17.6
76.4
2.2
1972
6/29
383
26.3
0.3
47.8
25.6
6/29
310
0
21.1
78.9
0
8/18
433
25.8
0.1
36.1
38.0
8/18
423
2.4
16.7
80.9
0
9/18
464
39.1
0.1
10.0
50.8
9/18
454
0
20.3
79.7
0
®For key to footnotes see page 110
-------
TABLE VI-13
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS C
Gos composition (percent by volume) Gos composition (percent by volume)
'rum CO. O N CH - Drum
_ _ * 2 2 2 4
no. Date Day no.
1971
15^ 8/11 51 0 20.0 80.0 0 16
8/26 66 18.0 11.0 66.0 5.0
9/14 75 0 18.5 81.5 0
11/17 148 0 18.9 81.1 0
12/29 180 0 20.0 80.0 0
1972
"6729 342 0 20.8 79.2 0
8/14 409 3.2 16.1 80.7 0
9/18 434 0 20.4 79.6 0
Date
Day *
2
2
2
4
1971
8/11
28
8.2
10.6
76.8
4.4
8/26
43
0
20.8
79.2
0
9/14
62
3.5
17.3
79.2
0
11/17
125
6.2
15.9
77.9
0
12/29
165
4.5
17.2
78.3
0
1972
T7T9
186
10.4
12.1
77.5
0
6/29
348
4.8
10.0
85.2
0
8/18
398
12.4
1.5
86.1
0
9/18
429
10.3
8.2
81.5
0
For key to footnotes see page 110
-------
TABLE VI-13
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS @
Gas
compos
ition percent by volume)
Gas compos it
Ion (p
ercent by
volume)
Drum
co0
o2
N2
ch4
Drum
C°2
o2
N2
CH4
no.
Date
Day *
z
no.
Date
Day
* 1
z
z
1971
1971
17
8/6
50
0
19.2
80.8
0
18
8/11
63
12.0
12.0
76.0
0
8/11
55
0
20.7
79.3
0
8/26
78
25.5
1.5
73.0
0
8/26
70
0.5
15.1
84.4
0
9/14
97
27.7
1.8
70.5
0
9/14
89
0
20.0
80.0
0
11/17
160
8.5
14.1
77.4
0
11/17
152
2.1
19.6
78.3
0
12/29
202
5.4
15.2
79.4
0
12/29
194
1.7
19.7
78.6
0
1972
1972
1/19
223
8.8
14.0
77.2
0
6/29
354
6.7
10.1
83.2
0
6/29
385
11.2
6.4
82.4
0
8/14
423
40.7
0.2
30.8
28.3
8/14
431
15.8
0.5
83.7
0
9/18
458
30.0
3.3
47.5
19.2
9/18
466
19.7
0.4
79.9
0
@ For key to footnotes see page 110
-------
TABLE VI -13
KEY TO FOOTNOTES
~ ——————
Days since initial sludge, septic tank pumpings or water application.
Solid waste and sludge mixture;.older, denser, and more compact than other drums.
#
These drums suspected of air leakage.
* *
Dry control drum. No liquids applied.
Forced aeration, through drum from top to bottom. Blower operating cycle five
minutes every two hours.
8#
Aeration blower temporarily out of operation at this time.
-------
4. Compaction. The material in the drums was compacted prior to each
water application to simulate the preload found at landfills from cover soil and vehicular
travel. The degree of settlement after compaction, expressed as percent reduction in the
depth of solid waste, is plotted against days since filling in Figures VI-7 through VI— 11 •
The curves included in Figure VI-8 were generally somewhat steeper and show greater
settlement than those included on Figures VI-7, VI-9, VI-10 and Vl-ll.
Figure VI-9 contains settlement curves which, because of the special
conditions in the drums, exhibited characteristics somewhat different from those
included in Figures VI-7, VI-8, Vl-lOand VI—11. Drum 1, for example, was com-
pacted to a greater initial density, contained 32.5 percent more solid waste, and was
more thoroughly saturated with sludge than all other drums. The upper layers in the
drum were also arranged in such a way as to prevent run-through. These initial
conditions resulted in a relatively dense mass and hence a smaller degree of settlement.
As indicated in Figure VI-9, Drums 14 and 15, with forced aeration, showed slower
settling rates than the dry control Drums 4 and 18. Comparison of Drums 14 and 15
with the others, as grouped in Figures VI-7 through Vl-ll, indicates no significant
correlation between settlement rates with forced aeration and without. Also, the
rates of settlement in the dry control Drums 4 and 18 were actually faster than several
of those receiving liquid applications.
It may, therefore, be concluded that any variation in settlement rate
resulting from the kind or quantity of liquid application was relatively insignificant and
was masked by random factors affecting the rate of settlement. The random factors are
presumably related to the size, shape, and arrangement of the relatively larger
objects used in the solid waste composition. For example, a thick magazine, a
folded newspaper, or a piece of corrugated cardboard standing vertically will resist
compression far differently than if it were lying flat or torn apart and crumbled. A
heavy can, bottle, or piece of wood remains relatively incompressible when cushioned
by paper and food waste, while a handful of lettuce leaves essentially turns to liquid
after a few days of decomposition, leaving a void. In an actual landfill, the effects of
the above differences in material properties may be averaged out because of the better
breakage and compaction; also, the maximum dimensions of the various objects are
negligible in comparison with the minimum horizontal or vertical dimensions of the
landfill. Thus solid waste in a landfill may tend to behave as a more uniform substance,
and result in uniform settlement curves. The solid waste used in these pilot drum tests,
on the other hand, although carefully selected with regard to composition and
representative kinds of objects, because of the limiting boundary conditions due to the
small ratio of drum dimensions to the size of the solid waste objects , lacked the effective
structural homogeneity of the same blend of compacted materials on a large scale in a
landfill. Nevertheless, in spite of these physical factors, the pilot plant settlement
curves still exhibit the same general form as those of actual landfills (see Test Cell
settlement, Section VII).
Somewhat related to the compaction experiments were some permeability
tests conducted on December 15, 1971, in which the rate of leachate flow was
111
-------
ro
0 r
10
5 20
Q.
0>
"D
"B 30
Z 40
o
c
0)
u
k_
-------
90 -
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
TIME (d°>") FIGURE VI-8
PILOT TEST DRUM
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT
HIGH RATE
-------
¦ ' I I I
50 100 150 200 250
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
DRUM CONDITION
DENSE
| DRY CONTROL
I FORCED AERATION
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 '
TIME (days)
FIGURE VI-9
PILOT TEST DRUM
COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1
4
18
14
15
-------
cn
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
DRUM
18
¦ » ¦ « » « i i 1 J •
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
TIME (days)
FIGURE VI-10
PILOT TEST DRUM
COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT
LOW RATE
-------
Q.
0>
"D
C
o
a
E
*/>
0
10
20
•4= 30
40
© 50
3r
60
70
80
90
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A.
DRUM
2
16
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
TIME (days)
FIGURE Vl-ll
PILOT TEST DRUM
COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT
LOW RATE
-------
measured following the application of 3 gallons of water to each test drum. Some
additional permeability tests were completed in March and from July through September,
1972. The results are presented in Figure VI—12. As expected, Drum 1, which had the
highest initial density (greatest compaction), showed a far lower permeability than each
of the other drums. In the case of Drum 9, however, the low observed permeability
may be attributed to a relatively impervious zone around the vicinity of the drain hole.
With the exception of Drums 1 and 9, all drums exhibited similar permeabilities, except
that the data varied more widely at each succeeding test.
5. Temperature. Plots of temperature trends are presented in Figures
VI— 13 through VI—16. The data are grouped by similarity and presented as envelopes,
which are compared with ambient temperatures taken at the same hours as the drum
temperatures. In general, the variation in temperature closely followed that of
ambient air. The bands in Figures VI-13 through VI-16 represent only the best
approximation of weekly temperature data, but in part at least reflect temperature
conditions of a day or two prior to the time of measurement. The temperature peaks
occurring in late October and early November 1971 each coincide with short periods
of exceptionally hot days, as verified by the U. S. Weather Bureau. Some of the
variation between drums is attributed to the fraction of the day during which different
drums were shaded by a building, and the extent to which some were shielded from
the wind by the building and each other.
Ambient temperatures were only intermittently recorded, but were always
below the temperatures of solid waste in the drums. In all cases, the temperatures
were taken between mid-morning and 6:00 P. M. The daytime air temperature in a
closed but empty drum, comparable in size to those filled with solid waste, was also
observed intermittently, and was invariably well above that of the solid waste in the
other drums. Since this drum was subject to the same wind and sun conditions as the
others, the observation is of value to indicate that the temperature rise may be
attributed to rapid solar heating of air in the drums with no detectable contributions
from bacterial action.
Under the conditions of the experiments, any temperature rise due to
bacterial action would be limited because of the relatively higher rates of heat
transfer between the drums and their surroundings through radiation and convection.
In one instance, during sampling in the upper part of the contents of Drum 1, wisps
of steam were seen. However, this was a local phenomenon presumably occurring only
in relatively small pockets, so the heat generated was distributed through the contents
of the drums with a negligible overall temperature rise.
The test drums are not thermally analogous to any landfill conditions,
because of their high surface to volume ratio and short (1 ft) minimum path for heat
conduction to the outside. The same solid waste and sludge buried in a landfill
would be better insulated and less affected by sun, wind or ambient air temperatures
and the heat generated could result in higher temperatures.
117
-------
r
d
MM
fa-:*;
::• • '.v.v. •
DRUM NO. SYMBOL
60 90 120 150
MINUTES SINCE WATER APPLICATION
180 1,260 1 ,440
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE Vi-12
LEAS-HATE FLOW RATES
ne
-------
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
DRUM TEMPERATURE
120 180 240
300 360 420
1 480 540 600
1 660 720 780
840 900 960
DAYS SINCE FILLING WITH WASTE
JUL-
OCT-
JAN-
APR-
JUL-
OCT-
JAN-
APR-
JUL-
OCT-
SEP
DEC
MAR
JUN
SEP
DEC
MAR
JUN
SEP
DEC
FIGURE VI-13
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. TEST DRUM 1
TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE
-------
FIGURE VI—14
CITY OF OCEANS! DE/E.P.A. TEST DRUMS.2, 3, 4, 5
TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE
-------
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
— —DRUM TEMPERATURE
50
JUL-
SEP
no 170
OCT-
DEC
230
JAN-
MAR
290 350 j 410 470 5301 590 650
DAYS SINCE FILLING WITH WASTE
710 770 830 890
APR-
JUN
nr^rm
JUL-
SEP
OCT-
DEC
JAN-
MAR
APR-
JUN
JUL-
SEP
OCT-
DEC
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE VI-15
TEST DRUMS 7,8,9,14,15,17,18
TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE
-------
FIGURE VI- 16
CITY OF OCE'ANSIDE/E.P.A. TEST DRUMS6, TO, 11, 12, 13, 16
TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE
-------
6. Qualitative and Other Miscellaneous Observations. When the drums were
periodically opened for compaction and water addition, they were inspected for odor,
insects, and mold growths. The results are summarized as follows.
a. Odor. Odors followed a predictable pattern. Drums filled only with solid
waste rapidly developed the characteristic rotting garbage smell associated with land-
fills. Odors lessened as dryinp occurred in Drums 4 and 18, which were
the dry controls, and were intensified in Drum 17 by the application of water. In
most other drums, this scent was not quite masked by the characteristic septic sulfide
smell of the sludges applied to them. The strongest and most noxious initial odors were
from Drums 1 0 and 11, to which raw primary sewage sludge was applied. This scent of
septic sewage sludge was identifiable as a separate component, and the intensity was
sufficient to mask the garbage scent from these two drums. This scent was even detect-
able for several days in the first few samples of leachate collected from Drum 11 , which
had its solid waste saturated with raw primary sludge. Drum 10, which had received 0.61
lb of sludge per lb of solid waste (wet weight) had less odor.
During the first 90 to 110 days after the initial sludge or water applications, the
odors from all of the drums remained relatively intense and became increasingly similar.
After 130 to 170 days, however, the odor in the drums, with one exception, was greatly
reduced and was not very unpleasant. This final odor could best be described as a
barnyard or compost heap "earthy" odor, similar to wet leaves and dirt. After 150 to
205 days, all the pilot drum odors were very weak and of the earthy or compost type.
The odors of leachates more or less paralleled those observed in the drums, al-
though their evolution to the final earthy type scent progressed slightly faster. While
the solid waste initially released essentially the same scent as a conventional landfill,
the comparison fails with regard to leachates. Natural leachates, obtained from the
Oceanside municipal landfill and from the test cells described in Chapter VII, had a
characteristic putrid scent similar to acetic acid that was more sour, stronger, and much
more unpleasant than that observed from the drum leachates.
b. Molds and Plant Growths. Molds were the first surface growth observed on
the solid waste; they occurred in Drum 1 (saturated mixed sludges) within the first
month after applying sewage sludge. The molds developed a bright red color and
grew profusely over a two week period until they covered about 30 percent of the
surface area of the waste in the drum. The mold color changed to grey and the mold
diminished until a second cycle of growth started at the end of the third month. The
color became white and the mold surface growth continued in Drum 1 until the end
of the seventh month after which no growths were observed through month 12. No mold
growths were observed at any time in Drums 4 (dry control), and Drums 6 and 7 (digested
La Salina sewage sludge). Molds were observed in the other drums on one or at most,
two occasions during the first 11 months. After the first year, few molds were observed
in any of the drums.
123
-------
Small plant growths were observed in Drums 3, 8, 11,13, and 1 6 on one
occasion each during the first 11 months, and in Drum 8 on two occasions. Only
small sprouts developed less than 1/16 inch in height.
c. Flies, Ants, and Other Insects. Flies, spiders, ants, and a few other
insects were observed on the pilot drum surfaces at various times during the first 12
months; of these, flies were by far the most numerous and were observed in every
drum. The flies observed were small and resembled fruit flies; 24 specimens were ob?-
tained and identified* as follows:
Family SCATOPSIDAE, The Minute Black Scavengers, seven specimens:
Small, shiny, black flies. Breed in decaying vegetable and animal matter and excre-
ment. "They often breed in sewers and privies and frequently become very numerous in
houses, where they cause more anxiety than harm."
Family MYCETOPHILIDAE, The Fungus Gnats, nine specimens:
"Moderately small, brown, elongated coxae (basal segment of leg)." Breed in "soil,
wood, fungi, probably feeding on fungus growth." "Adults are found in moist places,
especially about decaying wood. . .moist humus and prefers dark places." Often a
pest in houses after fertilizing lawns.
Family PSYCHODIDAE, The Moth Fly or Filter Fly, seven specimens:
Smallest of specimens submitted. Light brown. "Thickly haired small flies, wings
covered with hairs on sides and folds web-like over the back." Presence of adults
in homes indicated breeding in drain pipes or nearby septic condition.
Larva Diptera; Suborder Cyclorrahapha, 1 specimen:
Division—Schizophora; Section—Acalyptrate; probably a member of the Family Droso-
phididae.
7. Production of Leachate Constituents. The quantities of leachate constituents
that leached from the pilot test drums per lb of dry solid waste and sludge solid are
given in Tables VI— 14 to VI-17.. No consistent pattern is evident between different
drums that might be related to the type or quantity of sludge added, or the quantity
of water added.
The cumulative quantity of water added per lb of dry solid waste plus sludge
solids up to the day when BOD5 became negligible (less than 60 mg/l) were as given
on Table VI —18. The wet control Drum 17 required a high quantity of water and the
next longest time before BOD5 appeared to stabilize at negligible values. The cause of
the long time for Drum 12 to stabilize is unknown. The aerated Drums 14 and 15 re-
ceived larger applications of water and required less time to stabilize their BOD5 than
the ptner drums.
*TFi2 identification of flies was made by Mr. Harvey !. Magy, Southern California
Area Representative, California State Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vector
Control and Solid Waste Management, Los Angeles, California. Quotations were tuken
f.pm Curran, C.H., The families and genera of Norrh American diptera, The Ballan
Prgss, New York, l
124
-------
TABLE VI-14
TOTAL BOD5 IN TEST
DRUM LEACHATK DURING 1971
Quantity, lbs BOD5 per lb dry wt solid waste
(plus sludge solids where applicable)
Days since
Equivalent-
bod5*
Drum
filling
rainfall, in.
x 10 *
1
265
52.4
2.66
2
183
35.8
3.37
3
198
41.6
2.95
5
218
41.1
1.55
6
175
41.1
4.16
7
188
51.8
3.30
8
169
47.6
9.24
9
155
58.2
6.88
10
306
40.5
11.1
11
171
45.8
6.37
12
221
58.4
1.01
13
165
52.2
8.25
14
138
35.1
4.31
15
124
35.7
9.21
16
109
31.0
3.75
17
153
38.1
7.80
* Fresh and residual leachate BOD5 were added in weighted proportion
to the volumetric quantity of each obtained from the test drums.
125
-------
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
TABLE VI-15
TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES DURING 1971-72
Quantity, lbs metals per lb dry wt solid waste
(plus sludge solids where applicable)
Days
after filling
Equivalent
rainfall, in.
^-4
x 10 4
Fe-6
x 10 6
Zni .
x 10"6
450
64.3
1.46
3.19
6.24
424
61.3
1.33
8.54
6.17
424
66.0
1.59
5.39
2.84
424
60.1
1.63
4.15
4.34
381
60.1
1.48
3.33
6.36
379
66.0
1.83
4.67
2.7.4
375
66.6
1.83
4.07
2.92
375
67.2
2.04
6.17
3.74
375
61.6
1.63
4.58
4.76
375
66.0
2.10
14.21
3.42
384
66.6
0.92
5.03
5.15
384
66.0
1.72
3.95
2.86
383
61.3
1.39
3.74
4.81
373
66.6
0.90
5.38
6.20
360
62.5
1.55
9.25
11.70
379
66.0
1.67
5.63
7.35
126
-------
TABLE VI-16
TOTAL CONSTITUENTS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES DURING 1971
Drum
Days
after filling
Equivalent
rainfall, in.
S°4
x 10"4
Quantity,
(pli
P°46
x 10 6
lbs constituents per lb dry wt solid waste
us sludge solids where applicable)
NOt CI Ca
x 10-6 x 10"J x 10"4
X
sz
1
1
260
52.4
6.33
8.80
1.92
1.86
4.40
2.99
2
234
49.4
15.40
11.20
5.82
2.14
2.46
5.03
3
234
54.1
1.71
9.75
10,00
2.27
6.95
6.83
5
234
48.2
2.24
7.13
285.00
1.85
8.45
6.32
6
191
48.2
7.27
5.82
7.25
1.46
9.83
7.80
7
189
54.1
5.31
6.05
1.33
2.25
2.90
8.70
8
185
54.7
7.07
5.49
9.14
2.09
6.58
9.63
9
185
55.3
3.26
2.42
280.00
2.07
1.51
2.06
10
195
49.7
3.11
11.10
21.30
2.28
1.07
1.05
11
195
54.1
-0
1.45
1.16
1.0
1.05
1.82
12
195
54.7
1.45
0.97
2.62
2.15
0.63
7.26
13
194
54.1
7.14
0.95
1.53
2.00
1.04
3.10
14
193
49.4
2.06
1 .03
3.00
1.71
1.46
3.19
15
198
54.7
5.95
1.19
1.29
1.04
0.39
5.47
16
170
50.6
5.06
0.57
22.90
2.02
0.56
5.75
17
189
54.1
2.69
0.86
19.1
1.55
1.01
5.05
-------
TABLE VI-17
TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES DURING 1971
Quantity, lbs metals per lb dry wt solid waste
(plus sludge solids where applicable)
Drum
Days
after Filling
Equivalent
rainfall, in.
i
|>o
X
Fe
x 10~6
Zn
x 10~6
Cu
X 10"5
Ba
x 10~3
F
xl0_<
1
260
52.4
1.32
0.615
5.28
1.41
1.23
1.68
2
234
49.4
1.31
1.34
5.94
1.85
1.68
~ 0
3
234
54.1
1.49
1.95
2.44
2.26
2.14
~ 0
5
234
48.2
1.49
0.71
3.06
1.99
1.63
~ 0
6
191
48.2
1.27
0.53
5.88
1.60
1.60
~ 0
7
189
54.1
1.72
1.92
2.42
1.81
2.06
~ 0
6
185
54.7
1.73
1.95
2.44
1.95
1.65
- 0
9
185
55.3
1.82
1.45
3.02
1.81
1.94
2.3
10
195
49.7
1.57
1.78
4.44
1.78
1.78
1.22
11
195
54.1
1.86
1.21
3.02
1.70
1.82
4.12
12
195
54.7
0.72
1.81
2.42
1.39
1.63
2.30
13
194
54.1
1.61
0.83
2.38
1.90
1.67
5.24
14
193
49.4
1.25
0.51
2.06
1.70
1.55
1.44
15
198
54.7
0.73
2.16
2.98
2.68
1.67
1.18
16
170
50.6
1.39
2.30
5.75
2.36
1.90
~ 0
; 17
189
54.1
1.47
1.97
3.69
2.40
2.15
1 ~ 0
-------
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
TABLE VI-18
QUANTITY OF WATER ADDED TO DRUMS
TO COMPLETE BIO-OXIDATION
Water addition
Days to BODg lb water per lb dry solid
less than 60 mg/l waste and sludge solids
360 10
300 10
300 12
360 12
360 11.5
360 13.5
360 13
300 12
360 12
360 13
500 13.5
360 12.5
300 14
300 14.7
300 14.5
400 14.5
129
-------
A comparison of Table VI-14 with VI-18 indicates no relationship between total
BOD5 produced and the quantity of water added or the number of days passed until
BOD5 stabilized at reasonably low values (60+ mg/l).
8. Comparative Summary of Test Drum Parameters. The following discussion
summarizes variations in parameters between the control test drums and drums receiving
sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings. The control test drums and conditions are
as follows (see Table VI-3):
Drum Condition
4 Dry control with single water application
17 Water applied-no sludge
18 Dry control - no water applied
a. Leachate Generation. Control Drum 17 absorbed 1 .75 lb of water per 1 .0
lb dry weight solid waste to saturation. This absorption capacity for water fill is about
the average lb per lb saturation levels of the drums receiving sewage sludge and septic
tank pumpings. It appears, therefore, that the water absorption capacity is a valid
indicator of liquid sewage sludge absorption capacity in solid waste.
Test drum water retention (Table VI-6) indicated thatControl Drum 17 retained
about the average for drums receiving sludge and septic tank pumpings. It would
appear that sludge solids do not effect the moisture holding capacity of solid waste.
b. Leachate Characteristics. Again, Drum 17,being a wet contro^was the
only control that produced leachate.
The BOD5 of leachate from Drum 17 followed the general trend indicated by the
average value line shown in Figure VI-3 . The maximum BOD5 in Drum 17 was 3500
mg/l, which occurred 40 days after initial water application; this peak coincided in
time with BOD5 peaks of the other drums receiving sludge.and septic tank pumpings.
The Drum 17 BOD5 maximum was exceeded only by Drums 13 (digested primary sludge)
and 15 (digested activated sludge, mechanically aerated). A comparison of total
BOD5 removed from drums receiving sewage sludge, septic tank pumpings,and water
only is given in Table VI—19. The quantity of BOD5 removed from the water control
Drum 17 per lb of dry solid waste was more than double the quantity of BOD5 removed
from the drums receiving sludge and septic tank pumpings. The weight of dry sludge
soYids added to Drums 3 and 7 are not sufficient to account for the greater quantity
BOD5 removed from Drum 17. Drum 17 did require a longer time and more water
ddditions to remove the BOD5 (see Table VI-14), but this or.iy indicates the above
results.
130
-------
TABLE VI-19
TOTAL BODc IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES DURING 1972
Quantity, lbs BOD5 per lb dry wt solid waste
(plus sludge solids where applicable)
Days since Equivalent ®®^5
Drum filling rainfall, in. x 10"^
3 * 149 30.4 3.14
198 41.6 2.95
239 54.1 2.20
540 68.5 2.11
7+ 105 29.2 3.39
188 51.8 3.30
301 60.2 2.96
496 68.4 2.77
17# 104 29.2 7.95
153 38.1 7.80
193 54.1 7.04
483 64.9 6.93
* Domestic septic tank pumpings.
+ Digested activated sludge.
^ Water only.
131
-------
Turbidity, color, conductivity and total dissolved salts of Drum 17 leachate
showed no variation from trends followed by other drums.
The Drum 17 pH ranged between 6.3 and 7.2 (0.9 units), whereas the pH in
other drums ranged from 5 to 8.6 (1.5 or greater units), Drum 17 pH indicated the
smallest variation and the second highest average (6.9) pH values. Drums 6 and 7
exhibited average pH values of about 7.1 (both received digested activated sludge).
Apparently, the addition of sludge to solid waste generally produced a more acidic
leachate, which varied over a wider range of acidic values than might be expected
from a normal solid waste landfill. This stable pH characteristic was also observed in
leachate from the old Oceanside landfill (pH 5.1 to 5.2) as compared to the leachate
from test cell 1 (pH 4.6 to 5.9) (see Table Vl-7). The Oceanside landfill and test
cell pH values were, however, much more acidic than the test drum pH; this probably
reflects the highly anaerobic fill and lack of leachate dilution whereas the test drums
were somewhat aerated and there was a higher pH (8.4) in the water added.
A comparison of "fresh" and "residual" leachates(Table VI-8) and chemical
analyses of 1971 leachate composites (Table VI—10) indicates that Drum 17 corresponded
to many of the drums with sludge. Due to wide variations in data, no conclusive
trend is apparent.
c. Gas Generation.. Gas analyses presented in Table VI—13 indicate
concentrations of ^-^2 anc* ^"^4 'n 'ow enc^ ran9e concentra-
tions for all of the drums. The gas sampling is not considered accurate enpugh,
however, to indicate significant differences between individual drums.
d. Settlement Settlement curves (Figures Vl-7 to Vl-l Vindicate that
settlement in Drums 4 and 18 (dry controls) followed nearly identical trends, and had
settled about 60 percent within the first year. Drum 17 also was similar in settlement
after one year, (63 percent), but showed a higher rate during the first half-year (60
percent) and then levelled off (3 percent during the second half-year period). The
three control drum settlement rates did not vary from the settlement rates observed in
the majority of drums receiving sludge.
e. Other Observations. Temperature, odor, mold,fungi,and plant growths,
in the control drums followed the same trend and values as in the other drums. Drum
17 contained the greatest number and frequency of fly counts. It is hypothesized that
the flies preferred Drum 17 due to the presence of food particles that were not con-
taminated with sewage sludge.
f. Summary. It appears from the above discussion that the major effect of
disposing sewage sludge or septic tank pumpings into solid waste consists of lowering
and causing wider variations in the pH of resulting leachates. Since CO2 tends to
'lower the pH of water when its concentration in water increases, the generally lower
CO2 in the gas analysis for the control drums would indicate a relatively higher pH
should be expected. If higher rates of bio-oxidation result from admixing sludge with
132
-------
solid waste, then the pH of the leachate and CO2 in the gas analyses would provide
a good indication of these effects. Also, a somewhat lower pH might be expected
in normal solid waste landfills without admixed sludge or septic tank pumpings due
to the lower pH of rain water (7.0) as compared to the tap water used in the test
drums (pH=8.4).
133
-------
VII. SIMULATION OF SANITARY LANDFILL IN FIELD TEST CELLS
A. Purpose
In order to evaluate the disposal of liquid sludge to a landfill under large-scale
controlled conditions, three test cells (described below) were constructed in the City
of Oceanside at the new municipal landfill site. These test cells were built so that
they permit evaluation of such parameters as landfill settlement, waste decomposition,
gas generation, leachate flow, equipment operation, odor development, and attraction
of vermin, birds, etc. The test cells have been under observation since filling in
February 1972. This chapter presents a general description of the test cells and dis-
cusses the preliminary results obtained to date. The monitoring of the test cells is
expected to continue through the one year of the remaining program.
B. Method of Study
1 . Site Location. The three test cells were constructed adjacent to the new
municipal sanitary landfill site that opened November 15, 1971 . The landfill site
plan noting location of the three test cells is shown on Figure VI1—1 • The test cells
are about 50 feet north of the landfill access road on the rim of the fill canyon. The
cells are within observation range of the landfill operator (80 feet) and yet distant
enough from the landfill access road traffic so as to remain undisturbed by daily
activities. The land area underlying the three test cells is stable and the surrounding
surface area has a one to two percent grade sloping away from the test cells, thus
minimizing the effects of external drainage. The site is in an exposed position to
wind and other normal local weather conditions. It is accessible for routine monitoring.
2. Cell Design Configuration. Figure VI1-2 presents the approximate dimen-
sions'ofTKeTFIreFl^sF~ceTIs~[ The cells (numbered 1,2, and 3) are located adjacent
to each other so as to utilize a common berm between them. Each cell holds solid
waste and sewage sludge in volumes equal to the total quantities of each produced
in the City during a one-week period. Each cell bottom and side wall is lined with
a continuous 10-mil polyethylene membrane with an 8-inch sandy soil overlay to pro-
tect the membrane from damage during waste filling. The membrane and cell construc-
tion details are shown in Figure VII —3 and Photograph VI1—1 . A porous sump is installed
to accumulate the leachate. The collected leachate is removed through a 1-inch
diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drain pipe which extends through the wall of the
test cell and is equipped with a valve at its outer end. Air cannot enter through the
drain. A concrete valve box is installed over each leachate drain valve to prevent
disturbance of the equipment. The leachate collection system is shown in Photograph
Vir-2.
134
-------
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. FIGURE VIM
LOCATION OF TEST CELLS
135
-------
PLAN VIEW
HORIZONTAL LAYERS
RAMPED LAYERS
HORIZONTAL LAYERS
SOLID WASTE-
SLUDGE FILL
CELL 3
MIXED PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY DIGESTED
SLUDGE (LA SALINA,
BUENA VISTA, AND SAN
LUIS REY PLANTS)
SECTION A-A
CELL 2
MIXED PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY DIGESTED
SLUDGE (LA SAUNA,
BUENA VISTA, AND SAN
LUIS REY PLANTS)
777WF-
EXISTING GRADE
CELL 1
RAW PRIMARY
SLUDGE (SAN
LUIS REY PLANT)
NO SCALE. LINEAR DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND VARY ± 5
FEET BETWEEN CELLS.
NOTE: FOR DETAILS OF CELL STRUCTURE SEE FIGURE VII-3.
CITY OF OCEANS ID E/E. P. A.
FIGURE VII—2
CELL DESIGN CONFIGURATION
136
-------
TEST CELL PROFILE
.EARTH BERM
SOIL
COVER
1
SOLID WASTE-
SLUDGE FILL
^ i I i i I i i i i I i i i I i i r i i I i i i u I I M i J I I I 11 I
8" CLEAN SANDY SOI
10 MIL POLYETHYLENE
MEMBRANE
2" CLEAN SOIL
IMPERVIOUS
BACKFILL
NATURAL
GROUND
LEACH COLLECTION
SUMP WITH RIVERBED
GRAVEL FILL
EARTH
BERM
NATURAL
ROUND
BOX &
vVALVE
LE AC HATE
DRAINS 1 " DIAMETER PVC
PIPE
SEALED JOINT BETWEEN
PIPE AND MEMBRANE
LANDFILL CANYON WAL
SECTION A-A
NO SCALE.
10 MIL POLYETHYLENE
MEMBRANE
NOTE: FORCELL DIMENSIONS, SEE FIGURE VII-2.
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE VII-3
TEST CELL MEMBRANE
AND LEACHATE
COLLECTION INSTALLATIONS
137
-------
c. =!NISHED GRADED TEST CELL
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
PHOTOGRAPH VI1-1
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. FIELD TEST
CELL PREPARATION
138
-------
AND VALVE.
PHOTOGRAPH VII-2
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. TEST CELL LEACHATE
COLLECTION SYSTEM
139
-------
•3. Filling of the Test Cells. Each cell was filled with solid waste and sewage
sludge over a period of seven days (Cell 1: February 9-15, 1972; Cell 2: February 3-9,
1972; Cell 3: January 26-February 2, 1972). As shown in Figure VII-2, Cell 1 was
filled in horizontal layers with the application of raw primary sludge from San Luis Rey
plant. Cell 2 was filled in ramped layers and Cell 3 was built up in horizontal layers
each with the application of mixed primary-secondary digested sludge from the three
treatment plants. The test cell filling sequence is illustrated in Photograph VI1-3.
The sewage sludge was admixed evenly by pumping into each cell in the ratio of one
3,500-gallon truck load for every seven solid waste collection truck loads. This one-
to-seven truck load ratio is equivalent to the 1 971 ratio of generation of sewage sludge
to solid waste in the City of Oceanside. Two methods of sludge application are shown
in Photograph VII-4. The actual quantities of solid waste and sludge placed in each
cell are given in Tables VIl—l , VII-2, and VI1—3. The solid waste loads deposited in
Cell 3 were all weighed; and the number of full truck loads deposited in Cells 1 and 2
were counted during the filling. The average weight per load deposited in Cell 3 was
used to estimate the total solid waste placed in Cells 1 and 2. The filling of each cell
was completed under continuous supervision to assure proper admixture of liquid sewage
sludge. The average sludge to solid waste ratio was 0.6 lb per 1 .0 lb (dry wt).
During filling of each cell representative daily samples of sewage sludge and solid
waste were taken. A composite sludge sample was made by combining 1 00-ml portions
of separate sludge samples in the ratio of the number of loads from the individual sludge
source deposited into each cell. Table VI1-4 presents partial analysis of the composite
sludge samples. Random grab samples of the solid waste deposited in each cell were also
taken daily. These samples were sorted into standard categories to determine their com-
positions. The samples were tested for moisture and organic content. Table VI1-5 pre-
sents data on the in-place volumes of the waste and initial densities of the solid waste
and combined sludge-solid waste for each cell.
4. Monitoring of the Test Cells. The monitoring program for the test cells included
the following: a] measurement of ambient temperature, b) measurement of alI tempera-
tures at three different depths (near surface, mid-depth, and bottom—see Figure VII-4),
c) analysis of gas samples from the cell bottom and from a depth of about 6 to 7\ ft.
d) leachate characterization, e) settlement measurements, and f) analysis of periodic
core samples from each cell. The frequency of each measurement and the agency respon-
sible for each test are listed in Table VII —6. The placement of monitoring probes is
shown in Photograph VII-5. The following is a brief description of each measurement.
a. Cell Temperature: Measurement of test cell temperatures is accomplished by
lowering a glass test tube filled with water to the bottom of each temperature probe by
means of a string. When the water temperature reaches a constant value, it is recorded
as'fh'e cell temperature at that particular depth. (Fifteen years prior experience with all
types of devices monitoring solid waste landfills has indicated that sophisticated measuring
devices such as thermocouples and thermisters failed eventually in the highly corrosive
landfill environment.) Temperature probes are shown in Photograph VII-6.
140
-------
c. PLACING SOIL COVER ON TEST CELL.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
PHOTOGRAPH VI1-3
CITY OF OCEANSID^E.P.A. PLACING SOLID WASTE
IN TEST CELLS
141
-------
a. SPREADING PUMPED SLUDGE FROM
A DOZER BLADE.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
b. SPREADING PUMPED SLUDGE BY
MANUAL TIE-LINE.
PHOTOGRAPH VIM
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. APPLICATION OF SEWAGE
fi.UDGE TO TEST CELLS
142
-------
TABLE Vll-l
SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE PLACED
IN TEST CELL 1
Waste Percent dry wt
category
Composition*
Moisture
Organics
Newsprint
17.7
10.4
98.0
Cardboard
4.7
6.7
98.3
Misc. paper
24.9
15.6
92.5
Food
2.5
233.0
91.0
Glass
5.0
-
-
Metals
7.9
-
-
Tree & shrub prunings
11.5
-
-
Textiles
3.9
4.9
90.0
Plastic, solid
6.4
3.5
98.5
Plastic, soft
0.3
0.0
97.5
Wood
0.9
-
-
Fines, pass a 2" sieve
14.3
11.4
50.2
Total
100.0
13.9
64.5
Sewage sludge applied: 45,500 gallons of raw primary Ratio of liquid sludge
from San Luis Rey Plant to solid waste: 0.46
lb/lb dry wt solid waste
*Total solid waste: 473 tons.
NOTE: Total dry weight of solids - 412 tons; solid waste - 407 tons;
dry sludge solids - 5 tons.
143
-------
TABLE VI1-2
SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE PLACED
IN TEST CELL 2
Waste Percent dry wt
category
Composition*
Moisture
Organics
Newsprint
11.1
16.0
88.0
Cardboard
4.7
15.1
90.5
Misc. paper
37.9
12.5
87.5
Food
0.8
352.0
88.2
Glass
9.4
-
-
Metals
9.3
-
-
Leaves
1.1
309.0
90.2
Textiles
1.5
14.4
97.6
Plastic, solid
2.2
1.0
99.2
Plastic, soft
0.1
©
•
o
96.3
Fines, pass a 2" sieve
21.9
56.8
67.2
Total
100.0
26.4
64.3
Sewage sludge applied from La Sailna 17,500 gallons Ratio of sludge
treatment plant: Buena Vista 14,000 gallons to solid waste:
San Luis Rey 7,000 gallons 0.55 lb/lb dry wt
Total 38,500 gallons solid waste
*Totai solid waste: 394 tons.
NOTE: Total dry weight of solids - 299 tons; solid waste - 290 tons;
dry sludge solids - 9 tons.
144
-------
TABLE VI1-3
SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE PLACED
IN TEST CELL 3
Waste Percent dry wt
category Composition * Moisture Organics
Newsprint
15.3
1.1
85.6
Cardboard
3.7
15.2
87.8
Misc. paper
23.4
15.0
91.0
Food
1.2
632.0
87.0
Glass
7.2
-
-
Metals
7.8
-
-
Tree & shrub prunings
•
CO
640.0
88.8
Grass
0.9
116.5
70.6
Textiles
2.1
2.3
94.5
Plastic, solid
4.0
1.8
99.0
Plastic, soft
0.1
4.7
98.1
Fines, pass a 2" sieve
30.8
10.2
26.7
Total
100.0
37.9
56.6
Sewage sludge applied from La Salina 31,500 gallons Ratio of sludge
treatment plant: Buena Vista 7,000 gallons to solid waste:
San Luis Rey 17,500 gallons 0.77 lb/lb dry wt
solid waste
Total 56,000 gallons
* Total solid waste: 486 tons
NOTE: Total dry weight of solids - 312 tons; solid waste - 302 tons;
dry sludge solids ~ 10 tons.
145
-------
TABLE VII-4
ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES OF SLUDGES APPLIED TO TEST CELLS*
Characteristic
Test cell
1
2
3
PH
6.70
6.80
6.85
Electrical conductivity
(micromhos/cm)
1200
1950
2300
Total solids (% wet wt)
2.48
5.45
4.42
Total organics dry wt)
69.7
47.8
45.2
Chloride (mg/l)
220
350
385
Phosphate (mg/l)
400
85
94
BOD5 (mg/l)
7220
1900
4300
Organic Kjeldahl nitrogen
2.2
1.06
1.20
(% dry wt)
* Analyses made on composite sample representative of all sludge
added to a single test cell.
146
-------
TABLE VI1-5
TEST CELL IN-PLACE WASTE/SLUDGE DENSITIES
Measurement
1
Test- Cell
2
3
Cell volume (cu yd) *
1,512
1,231
1,560
Density solid waste
(Ib/cu yd)
626
640
623
Density solid waste and
sewage sludge
(Ib/cu yd)
876
902
923
* Excludes earth cover.
147
-------
DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
MARKER
SETTLEMENT MARKER
GAS PROBES
SOLID WASTE
SLUDGE FlLlT4
SAND
1 0-mil
POLYETHYLENE
MEMBRANE
TEMPERATURE PROBES
vTOP OF
TEST CELL CROSS SECTION (SCHEMATIC)
NO SCALE
1" 0 LE AC HATE
DRAIN
NOTE: INSTRUMENTATION FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD YEAR LANDFILL
OPERATION TESTS.
FIGURE VII-4
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. TEST CELL
iN " :'JMENTAT(GN
148
-------
TABLE VI1-6
FIELD TEST CELL MONITORING SCHEDULE
Monitoring parameter
Frequency
Performed by
Temperature
Daily - 1st month
Weekly - 2nd month and after
Gas sampling and analysis Weekly - 1st Quarter
Monthly - thereafter
Leachate - quantity
Standard analyses
Special analysis
Composite
Settlement measurements
Weekly (or after rainfall)
Weekly - 1st month
Monthly - thereafter
Quarterly composite
Bi-yearly
Monthly
Core samples of solid waste Quarterly
Waste Disposal Department*
Ralph Stone & Company, Inc.
Sewer Department*
Sewer Department*
Sewer Department*
Ralph Stone & Company, Inc.
Waste Disposal Department*
Ralph Stone & Company, Inc.
City of Oceanside municipal departments
149
-------
c- FINISHED CELL WITH MONITORING
PROBES AND BENCH MARK.
PHOTOGRAPH VII-5
PLACING SETTLEMENT
CITY OF GCEANSIDE/E.P.A. MAn""RS, TEMPERATURE
AND GAS PROBES
' r0
-------
a. MID-DEPTH SETTLEMENT BENCH b. GAS AND TEMPERATURE PROBE
A/ARK PLATE. SENSOR ENDS.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
c. GAS SAMPLING FOR METHANE. d. GAS SAMPLING FOR GAS
ANALYSIS.
PHOTOGRAPH VI1-6
CITY OF OCEANSiDE/E.P.A. TEST CELL
MONITORING APPARATUS
151
-------
b. Gas Sampling and Analysis. The gas sampling procedure used was that
developed by Ralph Stone and Company, Inc., in previous landfill studies. Basically,
the procedure consists of evacuating a 250- or 500-ml sample bottle and connecting
it to the test cell gas sample probe and utilizing a hand-operated suction-pressure
pump. The actual equipment sequence is as follows:
gas sample moisture vacuum-pressure gas sample
probe ®"" trap ^ pump bottle
Prior to sample taking, the valved probe is opened, then the probe and clean evacuated
bottle is purged by passing approximately 2,500 ml of sample gas through. The bottle
is then pressurized by additional pumping. Special methane and sulfide field tests
were also run in-situ. The gas probes and gas sampling bottle are then resealed;
Photograph VI1—6 illustrates the sampling apparatus.
The gas samples were analyzed for C02, 02, N2, CH4, and CO on a Varian
Aerograph Model A90-P3 Gas Chromatograph in the Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
laboratory.
c. Leachate Characterization. The leachate sampling was as follows: when
leachate had been found, the leachate valve was opened until the leachate ceased
running out and began slow dripping. The leachate quantity was measured, then -
mixed thoroughly, and a one-quart sample was taken for chemical analysis. The
refrigerated weekly/monthly samples were tested for BOD5, total dissolved solids,
coliform (MPN),chlorides, nitrogen, and conductivity. The quarterly leachate samples
were analyzed for heavy metals (Cr, Hg, Zn, Pb, and Cu). Composite samples,
accumulated from 100-ml portions of the weekly/monthly samples from each test cell,
were tested for calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, iron, fluoride, BOD5, total
dissolved solids, and pesticides/herbicides.
d. Settlement Measurements. Monthly surface and differential settlement
measurements were made for each test cell. The test cell bench mark elevations
were determined immediately after filling for base points; the bench mark elevations
were then checked relative to the natural ground reference bench mark using standard
surveying equipment. The bench mark plate is shown in Photograph VI1—6.
5. Core Sampling and Testing. Three bore hole drillings were completed in 1972
at each test cell to obtain core samples of the soil and sludge/solid waste admixture.
Care was taken to avoid drilling and puncturing the cell membrane. Core samples
were taken of surface soils, and sludge/solid waste at two-foot intervals
to u depth of 10 feet below the waste fill surface (about 12 feet below the cover soil
surface). The bore holes were drilled a minimum of 10 feet distance from the gas and
temperature probes in each test cell. Starting in the easterly quadrants, holes were
drilled about 10 feet apart in successive quarters proceeding in a clockwise direction
around the probes.
152
-------
A 12-inch auger drill bit mounted on a 40-foot Texoma Drill Rig was used to drill
the bore holes. The drilling equipment is illustrated in Photograph VI1-7.
Soil, sludge/waste admixed, and solid waste samples were taken in one-quart sealed
mason sample jars and returned to the Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. laboratory to de-
termine moisture and organic content, and the remaining moisture absorption capacity.
The first quarterly core samples at the 2 and 1 0-foot depths into the waste were taken in
sterile mason jars for subsequent analyses for fecal coliform, fecal streptococci and
Psuedomonas aeruginosa. Analytical methods used to determine the bacterial content
of the core samples are described in Appendix A.
During sampling at 2-foot depth intervals, observations were made of weather, air
temperature, waste temperature, odor, color, readability, appearance and biodegrada-
bility. A copy of the core sample data sheet is included in Appendix B, and sample
observation procedures are described in Appendix A.
Core samples from each hole with the highest and lowest moisture contents were
selected for saturation and leaching tests. The saturation and leaching methods are
described in Appendix A.
C. Results and Discussion
The field test cells were placed in operation in February 1972 and have been con-
tinuously monitored at least once each week.
1 . Leachates. During the period from February 1972 through November 1972,
cumulative rainfall in Oceanside was 4.2 inches onto each cell. Total rainfall onto
each cell calculated from surface areas was: Cells 1 and 3 - 18,090 gallons; Cell 2 -
16,690 gallons. These quantities are not adjusted for drainage off of the cells (little
drainage occurred since most of the cell surface area will not drain). Similarly, there
is no correction for evapotranspiration (there is insignificant plant growth on the cells)
or evaporation of surface water. Daily and cumulative rainfall onto Cells 1 and 3 are
given in Figure Vll-5, and onto Cell 2 in Figure VI1—6. Cells 1 and 3 have the same
surface area and therefore receive equal rainfall. Cell 2 has a smaller surface area and
therefore receives less volume of rainfall.
In addition to rainfall, the following quantities of water in the liquid sludge were
applied to each cell during filling: Cell 1 - 44,370 gallons; Cell 2 - 36,400 gallons;
and Cell 3 - 53,530 gallons.
Total water into each cell (sludge liquid plus rainfall) from February 1972 through
November 1972 was: Cell 1 - 62,460 gallons; Cell 2 - 53,090 gallons; and Cell 3 -
71,620 gallons.
The calculated ratio of lb water (sludge plus rainfall) to lb dry weight solid waste
and dry sludge solids in each cell through November 1972 were: Cell 1 - 0.45; Cell 2 -
0.51; and Cell 3 - 0.71 . All were in the low end of the laboratory-estimated saturation
range of 0.6 to 1 .8 lb per lb for the solid waste, dry weight.
153
-------
a. DRILL RIG.
b. AUGER BIT - 12 INCH
DIAMETER.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
c. MEASURING TEMPERATURE AND
SAMPLING CORED MATERIAL.
CITY CF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
PHOTOGRAPH VII-7
CORE DRILLING EQUIPMENT
154
-------
^ 4
c
_o
"5
CD
O
O
O
3
5
o
DATE FILLED:
CELL 1 2/15/72
CELL 3 2/2/72
~ DAILY RAINFALL QUANTITY IN GALLONS
CUMULATIVE RAINFALL QUANTITY IN GALLONS
t INDICATES TRACE OF RAIN
NOTE: RAINFALL IN INCHES CONVERTED TO GALLONS
FALLING ON CELL SURFACE AREAS OF 6,800 SQ FT
A m —2o'ow si?
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
0 550 *00 ?50 500"
DA YS SINCE 2/2/72
j.
JL
80
70
60
n
c
2:
c
5
50 <
rn
o
40 z
30 -
8
o
•8
20 =
o
3
M
10
550 600 650 700
FIGURE VI1-5
TEST CELLS 1 AND 3
DAILY AND CUMULATIVE RAINFALL
-------
-i 80
5 r
c
_o
~o
O)
o
o
o
o
h
2
DATE FILLED:
2/9/72
V DAILY RAINFALL QUANTITY IN GALLONS
-— CUMULATIVE RAINFALL QUANTITY IN GALLONS
t INDICATES TRACE OF RAIN
NOTE: RAINFALL IN INCHES CONVERTED TO GALLONS
FALLING ON CELL SURFACE AREA OF 6,375 SQ FT
±
70
60
n
c
c
£
50 <
40
250 300 350 400 450
DAYS SINCE 2/2/72
500 550 600 650 700
O
5
30 -
o
o
o
CO
Q
20 =
3
l/i
10
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A.
FIGURE VII-6
TEST CELL 2
DAILY AND CUMULATIVE RAINFALL
-------
The daily and cumulative quantities of leachate obtained from Cells 1 and 3
are given in Figures VI1-7 and VI1-8, respectively. No leachate was obtained from
Cell 2. leachate has been obtained from Cell 1 since the cell was filled, although
only in trace amounts (less than 10 ml) since 80 days after filling. The raw primary
sludge applied to Cell 1 had relatively non-viscous# fast settling solids (non-homogenous).
This permits the liquid to separate from the solid fraction and percolate through the
solid waste. The observation that the test cell with the raw primary sludge tended to
produce more leachate than the cells with admixed secondary digested sludges is in
agreement with the results of pilot drum tests (see Chapter VI). The total quantity
of leachate obtained from Cell 1 through November 30 was 44.8 gallons, which is
negligible when compared with the 45,500 gallons of raw primary sludge put into Cell 1.
The first leachate was obtained from Cell 3 after 2.63 inches of rainfall during
the period November 8 through 18, 1972. A total of 1,403 gallons of leachate were
obtained from Cell 3 through November 29, 1973. Since no change in leachate
production was observed during the same period in Cells 1 or 2, a short-circuit in
Cell 3 was suspected. It was observed that the surface of Cell 3 had settled to form
a shallow bowl. An eight-inch deep, two-by-two-foot depression was found near the
Cell 3 gas and temperature probes through which the storm drainage short-circuiting
was thought to have occurred. The depression was subsequently filled with compacted
soil and this eliminated the short-circuiting.
The analyses of the weekly/monthly leachate samples from Cell 1 ore given in
Figures VI1—9 through VI1—16. Except for the sample collected on day 43, all leachate
samples were fairly similar in physical and chemical characteristics. The day 43 sample
had a straw color, and had higher TDS and conductivity, and a lower turbidity content.
No explanation is available for the atypical characteristics of this sample.
The data in Figure VI1—9 indicates an acidic pH for all leachate samples. The
acidic pH may be attributed to the anaerobic decomposition of the sludge and solid waste
organic acids. The data also indicate that after the third sample a small but noticeable
rise in pH occurred. Figure VII—19 indicates initial BOD5 levels of 5,000-6,000 mg/l.
After the second sample, however,the BOD5 rose to a level of 19,600 mg/l. A relative-
ly low level of initial BOD5 and a subsequent rise in BOD5 has also been observed in the
pilot drum tests (see Chapter VI). The initial low BOD5 levels may correspond to an
"acclimation" period during which the proper biological community becomes established.
After the biological organism acclimates (the growth/"lag" phase), the degradation of
organics proceeds at a faster rate and, hence, more nutrients and microorganisms enter
into solution in the leachate, producing a rise in the leachate BOD5 levels.
Organic Kjeldahl nitrogen levels given in Figure VI1—11 show an initial level
trend followed by a rise corresponding to the BOD5 increase. Chlorides (Figure VII-12)
have remained fairly constant between 1160 and 1630 m 9/1 with a slightly increasing trend
with time. Analyses vary for turbidity, total dissolved salts, and conductivity (Figures
VI1—13 to VII-16); they show no consistent trends. Analyses for coliform
157
-------
'98
80
70
60
50
40
30
S 20
10
9
8-
7-
6-
4-
3-
2
DATE FILLED:
CELL 1 2/15/72
v DAILY LEACHATE QUANTITY
CUMULATIVE LEACHATE QUANTITY
» INDICATES TRACE OF LEACHATES
WVW
i »t I L_t—I—
50 100 150
jliJL
200 250
_L
300 350 400 450
DAYS SINCE 2/2/72
500
1
550
1
600
650 700
CITY OF PCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE VI1-7
TEST CELL 1
DA ILY A N D CUMULATIVE
LEACHATE QUANTITIES
-------
2.0
1.5
c
o
o
o>
o
8
£ i.o
>-
h-
H-
z
2
o
0.5
DATE FILLED
CELL 3 2/2/72
o DAILY LEACHATE QUANTITY
CUMULATIVE LEACHATE QUANTITY
—
o -
0
i I i i i
k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
50 100 150 200 250
300 350 400 450
DAYS SINCE 2/2/72
500 550 600 650 700
n
c
c
S
O
5
z
2 -
8
o
CO
Q_
3
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A,
FIGURE VII-8
TEST CELL 3
DAILY AND CUMULATIVE
LEACHATE QUANTITIES
-------
o
o
T
©
-0
©
X
o.
® ® © °o
0
100
X
±
200 300 400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
CITY OF OCEANSID^/E.P.A.
CELL FILLED
2/15/72
600
700
FIGURE VII-?
pH OF
TEST CEIL 1 LEACHATE
-------
2?
oO
o
o
o
100
200
300
CITY OF OCEANS1D5/E. P. A.
CELL FILLED
2/15/72
400 500 600 *700 * 800 *900
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VIMO
BOD5 OF
TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE
-------
300
CELL FILLED
2/) 5/72
o>
E
o
o
ae.
200
X
<
Q
— V
o
ro
U
z
<
o
o
100
o qpo
50
100
150
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
I 1 i i i i
200 250 300 350 400 450
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VII-11
ORGANIC KJELDAHL NITROGEN
OF TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE
-------
i8oor
CELL FILLED
2/15/72
o
1200
o>
E
Q
O
O
O
Q£
O
_i
x
u
600
50
100
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC
O
O
—I i I I 1 1
200 250 300 350 400 450
TIME SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-12
CHLORIDE OF
TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE
-------
o
200 r
150
• o o
G
*
>-
^ 100
CO
OS
z>
50
£>
o
J-
-L
100
200 300 400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
CELL FILLED
2/15/72
-J l I
500 600 700
FIGURE VI1-13
TURBIDITY OF
TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE'
-------
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
-O
18 - OG
17
O
O
16
-O
X.
_J
100
_J
200
_L
_L
300 400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
ff""
CITYaQF oceansip^/e.p.a.
CELL FILLED
2/15/72
_J 1 ?
500 600 700
FIGURE VI1-14
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS OF
TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE
-------
44
43
—
42
—
J 41
—
"E 40
—
* 39
-
o
2 38
jO
£37
-
> 36
•
U 35
-o
ID
Q 34
—
Z
o 33
—
u
-j 32
2 31
as.
& 30
^ 29
UJ
28
27 >
3,
t;
0 100 200 300 400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
CITY OFOCEANSID^/E.P.A.
CELL FILLED
2/15/72
500 600 700
FIGURE VI I-15
CONDUCTIVITY OF
TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE
-------
$
z
a.
2
o
o
o
O
5 i
o
u
0.3
.003
O
<£D
in
i
100
±
200 300 400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
CELL FILLED
2/15/72
_J J 1
500 600 700
FIGURE VII—16
COLIFORM
TEST CELL I LEACHATE
-------
(Figure VI1-16) showed an initial MPN greater than 3,000, with subsequent MPN less
than 0.3.
Table Vll-7 presents the comprehensive anal/sis for a quarterly composite leachate
sample from Cell 1 . Of particular interest is the very low concentration of heavy
metals (chromium,copper, and lead) in the leachate. These elements were at such
low concentrations that they could not be detected by the analytical techniques
used. The pesticide aldrin was found to be present in the leachate at a level of
0.015 mg/l. The presence of pesticide in the leachate is not surprising since many
pesticides are fairly resistant toward biological oxidation and would be expected
to survive the anaerobic landfill environment.
Analyses of leachate samples from Cell 3 are given in Table VII-8. These
analyses show the leachate to be acidic, as in Cell 1 . Of note are the chlorides
and turbidity which were significantly less than the values obtained for the Cell 1
leachate. This would result from the rain water short circuiting and dilution of
leachate from Cell 3. The more soluble ionic components of the sludge/solid waste
fill were easily leached by the rainwater as evidenced by the higher conductivity in
Cell 3 leachate over Cell 1 . The BOD5 for Cell 3 was an order of magnitude lower
than for Cell 1, which was attributed to the dilution resulting from the short-circuit
path through Cell 3.
2. Temperature. A summary of temperature data collected at three different
depths within each cell is given in Table VI1-9. The temperature trends are plotted
in Figures VI1-17 to VI1-19.
The average temperatures and maximum variations from average in each test
cell since filling through November 28, 1972 were as follows:
Temperature, deg. F
Depth, ft. Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3
Avg Max var Avg Max var Avg Max var
7-8
84
+6
81
-11
84"
-U
8-10.5
78
+4
80
-5
83
-23
15-17.8
70
-5
70
-6
72
+20
The temperature variations in Cell 1 and 2 were small and tended to follow
embient temperatures at the 7 to 8-foot depth. Variations in Cell 3 temperature
were large, with the greatest variances (shown above and in Figure VI1—19) occurring
in November 1972 (day 250 plus) when 2.63 inches of rainfall short-circuited through
Cell 3 in the vicinity of the temperature probes.
168
-------
TABLE V11-7 *
CELL 1 COMPREHENSIVE QUARTERLY LEACHATE ANALYSES
Concentration
Concentration
Constituent
(mg/l)
Constituent
(mg/l)
Cations:
Metals:
Calcium
1,380
Boron
17
Magnesium
425
Iron
4.7
Sodium
1,320
Manganese
0
Potassium
700
Hexavalent chromium
<0.05
Arsenic
0
Anions:
Lead
<0.05
Hydroxide
0
Copper
<0.05
Carbonate
0
Bicarbonate
6,771
Others:
Sulfate
1,047
Phenols
0.01
Chloride
1,600
Silica
93
Nitrate, NO3
3.2
Ortho phosphate
0.37
Nitrate, N
0.71
Oxygen consumed
25,000
Total alkalinity (Ca CO3)
5,550
Herbicide
None
Total hardness (CCJCO3)
5,200
Pesticide - aldrin
0.015
Dissolved solids
17,956
pH
6.1
Conductivity Gumhos/cm )
18,000
*Composite sample taken April 6, 1972. Analyses performed by Environmental
Engineering Laboratory, San Diego, California at the request of the City of Oceanside.
Metals analyses were done by atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
169
-------
TABLE VI1-8
CELL 3 LEACHATE ANALYSIS
Analysis
Days since Riling *
296 301
Color
Dark grey
Yellow, partially translucent
when sampled; turned dark grey,
opaque, after 4 hours.
pH
5.12
5.35
Conductivity
(a-mhos
4,000
6,500
Turbidity (JTU)
42
74
BOD5 (mg/l)
1,050
1,400
Chlorides (mg/l)
595
740
Organic Kjehdahl
nitrogen (mg/l)
107
70.3
* Cell 3 completed filling February 2, 1972.
170
-------
TABLE VI1-9
OCEANSIDE TEST CELL TEMPERATURE RECORD
Date
A mbi en t
max/min
Days
since
filling
C
ell 1 -
depth
Days
since
Cell 2 -
¦ depth
Days
since
filling
Cell 3-
depth
00
1
10'-
¦6" 15'-
2" filling
7'-0"
9'—5
.. 17'-9"
6,-0"
8'-4
" 15'-
1972
80
66
1723
64/50
8
79
74
66
14
70
75
64
21
78
2/24
59/45
9
80
76
68
15
78
77
-
22
81
84
66
2/25
60/41
10
80
74
65
16
70
77
-
23
80
84
66
2/28
58/47
13
82
76
65
19
72
76
64
26
80
80
™"
2/29
65/51
14
82
76
66
20
74
78
68
27
80
84
66
3/7
61/52
21
82
76
67
27
74
78
70
34
79
83
68
3/14
62/54
28
83
76
66
34
74
78
66
41
80
82
67
3/21
68/55
35
84
78
68
41
76
78
72
48
79
82
-68
3/30
67/42
44
82
78
68
50
78
78
69
57
81
82
69
4/4
70/53
49
82
76
68
55
78
78
70
62
80
84
69
4/11
68/49
56
83
76
68
62
80
78
70
69
86
84
68
4/18
63/52
63
82
76
68
69
78
78
70
76
82
84
70
4/25
68/51
70
82
76
68
76
78
78
70
83
82
82
70
5/2
71/54
77
82
76
69
83
80
78
72
90
82
82
70
5/9
71/52
84
82
76
68
90
80
78
72
97
82
82
70
5/16
71/58
91
82
76
69
97
80
78
68
104
84
82
72
5/23
71/52
98
83
76
70
104
80
78
68
111
84
83
71
5/30
76/60
105
84
76
70
111
82
80
69
118
86
84
72
6/6
73/63
112
84
76
70
118
82
80
69
125
86
84
72
6/13
74/61
119
84
76
70
125
82
NR
* 70
132
86
80
72
6/20
75/62
126
84
76
70
132
82
80
70
139
86
84
72
6/27
74/56
133
84
76
70
139
82
NR
* 70
146
88
86
74
7/5
75/56
141
85
78
70
147
84
80
70
154
88
86
74
7/11
77/61
147
84
78
70
153
84
80
70
.160
88
86
74
7/18
80/67
154
86
78
72
160
85
80
70
167
90
88
74
-------
TABLE VI1-9
OCEANSIDE TEST CELL TEMPERATURE RECORD
Temperature, degrees F by day since filling
Date
Ambient
rr.ax/min
Days
since
fil ling
Cell
1 - depth
Days
since
filling
Cel
1 2 -
depth
Days
since
filling
Cell 3-
depth
7'-8"
10'-6"
15'-2"
7'-0" 9'-5"
17'-9"
6'-0"
8'-4
¦" 15*-5
7/25
80/68
161
86
78
72
167
86
80
70
174
90
88
74
8/1
86/65
168
86
78
72
174
86
82
70
181
92
88
76
8/8
79/66
175
88
80
72
181
88
82
72
188
94
90
76
8/15
80/64
182
88
78
72
188
88
82
72
195
96
90
76
8/22
87/62
189
88
78
72
195
88
82
72
202
92
90
78
8/29
78/65
196
88
78
72
202
88
82
72
209
90
90
76
9/5
82/64
203
88
78
72
209
88
82
72
216
94
90
74
9/12
76/55
210
84
80
74
216
83
83
73
223
94
88
74
9/19
76/57
217
88
80
72
223
83
82
73
230
94
90
74
9/26
76/54
224
86
80
72
230
84
82
72
237
92
88
74
10/3
77/53
231
84
80
74
237
84
82
74
244
92
74
78
10/10
75/57
238
90
82
72
244
84
84
72
251
86
90
92
10/17
70/55
245
88
80
72
251
84
82
72
258
90
86
79
10/24
82/54
252
86
80
74
258
82
80
72
265
78
76
74
10/31
69/47
259
86
80
74
265
82
80
72
272
80
80
74
11/7
67/51
266
84
80
74
272
80
82
73
279
80
80
74
11/14
62/47
273
84
80
74
279
78
80
72
286
60
60
70
11/21
72/43
280
82
80
74
286
76
80
72
293
62
62
68
11/28
73/50
287
80
80
74
293
74
78
72
300
64
62
70
* NR = not recorded due to broken thermometer.
-------
FIGURE VII-17
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A. OCEANSIDE TEST
CELL 1 TEMPERATURE
-------
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
CELL DEPTH
2 7'-0"
2 9,-5"
2 17'-9"
SYMBOL
/
50 joo 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-18
' OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. OCEANSIDE TEST
CELL 2 TEMPERATURE
-------
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A.
FIGURE VII-19
OCEANSIDE TEST
CELL 3 TEMPERATURE
-------
3. Gas Analyses. Gas analysis results are presented in Figures VI1—20
through VI1—25. The methane and carbon dioxide concentrations at mid-depth and
bottom probes in Cell 1 show generally increasing trends. Methane data on Cells 2
and 3 show trends similar to Cell 1. Carbon dioxide content in Cell 2 differs from
trends in Cells 1 and 3 in that the CO2 level did not drop to a low of two percent
after the initial peak. The low two percent CO2 readings in Cell 1 and 3 were
probably erroneous gas samples. Data collected prior to May 1972 were considered
less accurate than subsequent data due to problems in field sampling procedures.
These problems were minimized after the end of May 1972 by replacing plastic tape
gas probe seals with airtight screw plastic caps and plastic valves to eliminate air
contamination.
Reports were received from personnel taking temperature measurements that
odors were emitted from the temperature probes when opened. Several tests were
made for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas in June and July 1972. Hydrogen sulfide was
detected in the following concentrations on days since filling as shown below:
Days since
filling
135-148
141-154
155-168
Cell 1
Mi d-depth Bottom
25 750
5 9
10 100
Concentration, m a/I
Cell 2
Mi d-depth Bottom
25 10
5 5
8 8
Cell 3
Mid-depth Bottom
5 1
5 8
5 5
The HoS concentration in Cell 1 is significantly greater than found in Cells 2
and 3, probably as a result of the raw primary sludge admixed in Cell 1. The H2S
odor was not detectable when the gas and temperature probes were sealed. Some fine
cracks 1/8 in. by 6 in. were observed in the cell soil cover during June, 1972 but no
odors were detected escaping through these cracks.
4. Settlement. Settlement curves are given for the three test cells in Figure
VI1-26. Settlement occurred at the following rates during the first 300 dayst Cell 1 -
1.1 percent; Cell 2- 1.8 percent; and Cell 3 - 2.7 percent. The cause of tha wide
variations in settlement between the cells Is probably due to the variable compaction
during placement and the rainfall infiltration; the in-place initial densities (Table
VI1-5) do not indicate overall variations in cell densities sufficient to account for the
settlement difference.
5. Core Sampling. The results of the test cell core sampling completed on
July 26, October 2 and available data from November 29, 1972 are discussed in the
following paragraphs. The cell corings were delayed due to unforeseen funding and
scheduling factors.
a. Temperature Profiles. The temperature profiles by depth, and ambient air
temperatures are given in Tables VII-10 through VII— 12 for Cells 1 through 3, respect-
ively. The low ambient air temperature for the first sampling is due to the faj'
that the drilling was done in the morning; the later two drillings were performed in
176
-------
FIGURE VII - 20
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. GAS ANALYSIS
TEST CELL 1
177
-------
DEPTH 15' - 3"
A—-g°2
O 2
~ CH4
(EXCLUDES N2)
CELL FILLED
2/15/72
i
700
300 400
TIME SINCE FILLING
500
600
CITY OF OCEANSIDg/E.P.A.
FIGURE VII -21
GAS ANALYSIS
TEST CELL 1
178
-------
90
80
5 60
3
_i
o
>
>
eo
U
ac
LU
Q.
40
20
A
A
' \
/ &
_..^a-ET a
DEPTH 6' - 8"
A CO.
O o2
D CH4
(EXCLUDES N2)
CELL 2 FILLED
2/9/72
100 200 ~ 300 400 500 6(X) 7^0
TIME SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-22
CITY OF OCEANS!D^/E.P.A. GAS ANALYSIS
- TEST CELL 2
179
-------
TIME SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-23
CITY OF OCEANS1DE/E.P.A. GAS AMALYSIS
TEST CELL 2
1,80
-------
FIGURE VI1-24
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. _ GAS ANALYSIS
~~ " TEST CELL 3
181
-------
4>
VII3-25
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/ E.P.A. Ga.> nJALYSIS
TEST CtLL 3
182
-------
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A '
9
B
INITIAL
CELL DEPTH, FT. SYMBOL FILLED
1
13
•—•—• 2/15/72
2
12
a—a—A 2/9/72
3
13
-¦ 2/2/72
i i i i i l i i i i i i 1 1
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
>r,.klfmr/pnl FIGURE VII-26
)CEANSID^/E.P.A. OCEANSIDE TEST CELL
SETTLEMENT
-------
TABLE VII-10
TEST CELL 1 BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE
Depth, Temperature, deg.F
ft below Days since filling was completed *
soil surface 162 230 288
Ambient air
75
81
74
Soil
0
2
90
82
59
Solid waste/
sludge
4
94
87
73
6
102
84
82
8
104
84
84
10
89
75
83
12
103
83
83
Average +
98
83
81
* Cell filling completed February 15, 1972.
+ Average for solid waste/sludge.
-------
TABLE VII-11
TEST CELL 2 BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE
Depth,
Temperature, deg F
ft below
Days since filling was completed *
soil
surface
168
236
294
Ambient air
75
80
76
Soil
0
86
82
67
2
90
Solid waste/
90
84
77
sludge
4
6
90
83
8
92
82
81
10
82
81
85
12
84
86
79
Average +
88
83
80
* Cell filling completed February 9, 1972.
+ Average for solid waste/sludge.
-------
TABLE VII-12
TEST CELL 3 BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE
Depth,
Temperature, deg F
ft below
Days since filling was completed *
soil
surface
175
243
301
Ambient air
78
83
78
Soi 1
0
72
82
67
2
84
Solid waste/
4
85
84
76
sludge
6
90
85
82
8
89
88
87
10
87
86
85
12
93
80
83
Average +
89
84
83
* Cell filling completed February 2, J972.
+ Average for solid waste sludge.
-------
the afternoon when higher air temperatures prevailed. The average temperature in
each cell tended to follow ambient temperatures in the upper six feet of the cell fill;
they decreased from July to November (first to third column). Temperatures in Cell 1
during July were significantly higher than in Cells 2 and 3 on the same day; on later
samplings average temperatures were nearly equal in all three cells. Cell 1 received
raw primary sludge which may have undergone more active bio-degradation than the
digested sludges applied to Cells 2 and 3.
b. Organic Content. Organic analysis by depth are given in Tables VI1—13
through VI1—15. No trend is visible, thus variations in organic contents of the solid
waste/sludge are attributable to sample variations. Of interest, however, is the cover
soil organic content which increased significantly in the November samples. One
week prior to sampling in November, 2.63 inches of rain fell, which probably provided
a soil environment more hospitable for growth of organisms. The original cover soil was
clean,inert fill with minimum organic content. Various yellow and reddish organisms
were observed in proximity to soil cover cracks, which apparently developed using
landfill gases as nutrients. The identity of the organisms was not established.
c. Moisture Content. Moisture content of corings from the three test cells
are given in Tables VII-16 through VI1-18. The cover soil moisture content increase
in the November sampling indicates the effect of the previously mentioned rainfall.
The average moisture content in all cells increased significantly after the rainfall
compared to the previous samplings. Generally the moisture was greater in the lower
part of the fill than on top - indicating some capillary movement as well as evaporation.
d. Moisture Absorption. Special laboratory tests to determine remaining mois-
ture capacities were done on core samples from each cell having the highest and lowest
moisture contents, and representative of organic contents. The results, given in
Table VI1—19, include the initial as-received sample moisture content, the moisture
added to reach saturation and the total moisture content at saturation. The data is
given in percent, which is convertible to lb water per lb dry weight solid waste when
divided by 100. The additional moisture absorbed varied from 9.2 percent to 54.7
percent dry weight, which was well below the laboratory estimate of 60 percent
minimum as-received absorptive capacity. All but two samples had final saturation
values between 51 and 114 percent moisture content which corresponds well with the
60 to 180 percent saturation range estimated from the laboratory moisture absorption
studies (see Table IV-6). The two samples below this range had considerably lower
as-received moisture contents than all the other samples tested. Apparently the
material in these two samples consisted of less absorbent solid waste constituents.
e. Core Sample Leachate BOD^. The samples used in the moisture saturation
tests described above were also used to generate leachate for BOD,- analysis. The
BODg for the Ieachates are given in Table VI1—20. The BOD5 values dropped
considrably during the 58~day period between the two core samplings.
187
-------
TABLE VII-13
TEST CELL 1 CORE SAMPLE ORGANIC CONTENT
Sample depth,
ft below
soil surface
162
230
288
Organic content, percent dry wt
Days since filling was completed *
Soil 0
2
1.7
1.7
3.6
Solid waste/ ^
sludge
38.0
32.6
75.2
6
41.9
6.7
59.2
8
18.4
44.7
55.8
10
44.2
30.7
5.5
12
20.4
37.7
34.3
Average +
32.6
30.5
46.0
* Cell filling completed February 15, 1972.
+ Average for solid waste/sludge.
-------
TABLE VI1-14
TEST CELL 2 CORE SAMPLE ORGANIC CONTENT
Sample depth,
ft below
soil surface
168
236
294
Organic content, percent dry wt
Days since filling was completed *
Soil 0
' 2
Solid waste/ ^
sludge
6
1.2
33.5
29.3
1.2
22.0
48.0
3.0
26.3
8
57.5
19.1
40.5
10
36.6
66.5
22.4
12
30.3
53.4
68.2
Average +
37.4
41.8
39.4
* Cell filling completed February 9, 1972.
+ Average for solid waste/sludge.
-------
TABLE VII-15
TEST CELL 3 CORE SAMPLE ORGANIC CONTENT
Sample depth,
ft below
soil surface
175
243
301
Organic content, percent dry wt
Days since filling was completed *
Soi 1 0
2
1.8
1.8
4.0
Solid waste/ ^
sludge
22.8
76.0
65.7
6
28.6
21.0
46.8
8
34.0
61.3
86.8
10
27.2
65.2
63.6
12
38.9
56.5
51.1
Average +
30.3
56.0
62.8
* Cell filling completed February 2, 1972.
Average for solid waste/sludge.
-------
TABLE VII—16
TEST CELL 1 CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT
Sample depth, Moisture content, percent dry wt
ft below Days since Riling was completed *
soil surface 162 230 288
Soil
0
2
7.6
7.6
9.5
Solid waste/
sludge
4
16.1
33.1
44.0
6
19.2
15.0
46.0
8
13.5
56.8
39.5
10
28.4
46.8
70.5
12
34.5
28.1
62.5
Average +
22.3
35.9
52.5
* Cell filling completed on February 15, 1972.
Average for solid waste/sludge.
-------
TABLE VI1—17
TEST CELL 2 CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT
Sample depth,
ft below
soil surface
168
236
294
Moisture content, percent dry wt
Days since filling was completed *
Soil 0
2
3.8
3.8
11.7
Solid waste/ 4
sludge
6
67.1
38.0
33.6
42.1
24.5
8
24.2
17.8
44.0
10
68.3
47.9
50.5
12
69.0
27.0
58.7
Average
53.3
33.6
44.4
* Ceil filling completed February 9, 1972.
+'
Average for solid waste/sludge.
-------
TABLE VII-18
TEST CELL 3 CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT
Sample depth,
ft below
soil surface
175
243
301
Moisture content, percent dry wt
Days since filling was completed *
Soil
0
2
9.8
9.8
12.9
Solid wo
sludge
*W 4
6
25.0
46.3
13.6
43.3
61.5
46.0
8
70.5
36.3
66.3
10
92.1
52.5
32.2
12
94.3
49.6
69.5
Average
~
65.6
39.1
55.1
* Cell filling completed February 2, 1972.
* Average for solid wasN/sludge.
-------
TABLE VII-19
MOISTURE ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF SELECTED CORE SAMPLES
Moisture content, percent dry wt *
Days since filling completed/depth, ft
230
288
Cell 1
4 8
o
CO
o
Sample moisture
15.0 46.8
39.5 70.5 62.5
content
Additional moisture
9.2 54.7
30.6 11.8 51.7
absorbed
Total moisture
24.2 101.5
70.1 82.3 114.2
at saturation
236
294
Cell 2
6 8
3.5 10
Sample moisture
17.8 47.9
24.5 58.7
content
Additional moisture
21.2 39.2
26.7 50.4
absorbed
Total moisture
39.0 87.1
51.2 109.1
at saturation
243
301
Cell 3
6 8
B 9
Sample moisture
36.3 52.5
32.2 69.5
content
Additional moisture
absorbed
15.0 51.3
23.2 27.8
Total moisture
51.3 104.8
55.4 97.3
at saturation
* Percent Sry wt is equivalent to lb of water per 100 lb of dry wt solid waste.
-------
TABLE VI1-20
BOD5 OF LEACHATES FROM SELECTED *TEST CELL CORE SAMPLES
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Days
since
filling
Depth
ft
BOD ,
mg/l
Days
since
filling
Depth,
ft
BOD ,
mg/l
Days
since
filling
Depth
ft
BOD
mg/l
230
4
680
236
6
660
243
6
170
8
1,170
8
4,250
8
3,070
288
6
106
294
3.5
28
301
8
138
8
133
10
92
9
67
10
561
* Samples used to determine moisture absorption were leached to obtain about
157 ml of leachate for BOD^ analysis.
195
-------
f. Bacteriological Anal/sis. During the July 2, 1972 core sampling, core
samples at the 4 and 10-foot depths were taken in sterile containers using aseptic
collection techniques. Analyses made in duplicate for fecal coliform, fecal
streptococci andPseudomonas aeruginosa on these samples are presented in Table VII-
21 . The analyses detected fecal coliform and pseudomonas at 4-foot depths, and none
at 12-foot depths. No fecal streptococci were detected at either depth. One hypo-
thesis for the difference in results between the 4 and 12-foot depths is that the test'cell
environment at 4 feet may be aerobic, and at 12 feet anaerobic. The absence of fecal
streptococci may be due to a lack of fecal material in the samples or a shorter survival
time (sampling occurred 5.5 months after sludge and solid waste placement). Also,
the core samples were extracted for analysis in liquid form; the sample extract
appearance for 4-foot depths was earthy yellow, and blackish grey for 12-foot depths.
These results are similar to findings in another report^on bacteria survival
in soil. Coliform bacteria were reported to be seldom found below 4-foot depths in
soil, and were never found below 7 feet.
g. Odor. Odor was determined in terms of strength and type at each 2-foot
core sample depth. Odors were generally strong to moderate on the first core
sampling (July 1972), and then became moderate to weak on the two subsequent core
samplings. Odor in Cell 1 was predominantly strong, and was stronger than for Cells
2 and 3 on the first sampling. This was attributed to the more oderiferous raw primary
sludge placed in Cell 1 . No difference in odor strength was detected on subsequent
samplings.
The type of odor predominating during the first borings was a strong,sweet,septic
condition in Cell 1 and putrid, pig pen,or normal landfill in Cells 2 and 3. Odors
in subsequent samplings were identified as strong sour smells in all cells.
h. Core Sample Appearance. Appearance of samples was observed to be
agglomerated when highly moist and when mixed with large quantities of sludge.
The agglomerated material required a screwdriver or similar probe to remove strongly
adhering samples from the large 12 inch diameter auger drill bit. The majority of"the
samples were moderately to highly agglomerated in all three cells each time they were
sampled. Occasionally, lumps of moist sludge were identified in the solid waste.
i. Color. Colors in metals, plastic, rubber, glass, ceramics, leather, textiles
and wood were similar to those originally disposed except that they were obviously
dirvy. Paper appeared unchanged in all three cells during the first sampling, but was
faded or bleached white in Cells 1 and 2 in subsequent samplings. Grass, leaves,
tree and shrub prunings rate of decomposition varied considerably between samples;
there was no consislent pattern. Vegetation colors observed included light to dark 9
green, faded green, faded yellow, yellowish-green, yellowish-brown and brown.
j. Readability. The core samples were observed to see if printed paper arid
container labels were readable. In general, newsprint, and paper printing, glass, metal
and plastic labels were readable. Wet paper with printing tended to be blurred. No
variations between cells or depth were detected.
196
-------
TABLE VI1-21
SUMMARY OF bacteriological analysis of test cell samples
Sample
Test cell Depth,
B.H^ no. ft
Replicate
Standard
plate count
per gram
Fecal coliform
MPN/g %
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
MPN/g %
Fecal Streptococci
MPN/g %
Appearance
of sample
extract
1 4
A
B
3.0 x 10*
2.0 x 10
3.3x10* .011
3.3x10 .017
40 «0
70 *0
10.2
<0.2
0
0
Earthy
yel low
1 12
A
B
1.4 x loj!
1.3 x ur
<0.2 0
*0.2 0
<0.2 0
y0.2 0
<0.2
0.2
0
0
Blackish
gray
2 4
A
B
2.0 x \(Z
1.8 x ur
9.2 x 10? 0.46
5.4 x 10 0.3
2.4 x 10? .012
2.4 x 10 .013
<0.2
<0.2
0
0
Earthy
yellow
2 11
A
B
1.3 x lot
1.4* 10°
<0.2 0
<0.2 0
<0.2 0
<0.2 0
\0.2
<0.2
0
0
Blackish
gray
3 4
A
B
7.5 x 10*
8.0 x 10°
4.6 x 10* .0061
4.6 x 10 .0058
3.3 x 10? .0044 <0.2
3.3x 10 . 0041 <0.2
0
0
Earthy
yellow
3 12
A
B
4.0 x 10*
3.0 x 10°
<0.2 0
<0.2 0
<0.2 0
<0.2 0
<0.2
<0.2
0
0
Blackish
gray
Note: Any piece of paper in all samples shredded into tiny fibers of cellulose upon manual
shaking in dilution bottles.
* B.H. ¦ Bore hale number
-------
k. Biodegrodcbility. During the first sampling, the sample materials were
observed to be none or slightly degraded. In subsequent samplings, the core materials
were observed to be none to moderately degraded. Food wastes were detected fn
about 10 percent of fihe samples, and consisted of fruit peelings and isolated fragments.
The peelings were not noticeably degraded.
6. Comparison of Sludge Admixed Solid Waste With Normal Solid Waste. The
three field test cells (lysimeters) at Oceanside closely simulate conditions in a landfill'.
Other studies on laige test cells under conditions comparable in scope and data
collected were conducted by Ralph Stone and Robert C. Merz during 1964-1966 at the
Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Spadra Landfill in Walnut, California.^ Three
test cells were initially constructed, one of which simulated a golf course irrigation,
the second simulated heavy (Seattle, Washington) rainfalls, and the third which was
aerated. The Spadro cells were larger in size (19-foot depth of solid waste, two-foot,
soil cover, and 70-foot by 130-foot in surface area) than the Oceanside cells. They
were in a similar climate, and therefore suitable for comparison with Oceanside test
cell data. Data frost the two anaerobic Spadra cells will be used for comparison.
9ft
A study by Fungaroli on landfill leachate pollution of subsurface water consisted
of monitoring a laboratory lysimeter and landfill test plot in Pennsylvania during the
period 1966 through 1968. The landfill test plot contained eight feet of solid waste,
a two-foot soil cover, and was 50 feet by 50 feet in surface area (similar in size to the
Oceanside cells). This test plot provides comparative data for different (Pennsylvania)
climatic conditions.
Data from other landfills studied by Ralph Stone and Company, Inc., will also be
cited for comparison.
A summary of landfill leachate analyses from several literature sources is used for
comparative discussions of leachate quality.
a. Leachate Generation. The quantity of leachate obtained from the Oceanside
test cells and estimated quantity of rain into the cells was shown on Figures VI1—5 through
VII-8. The insignificant amount of leachate obtained during the first 300 days since
filling is similar to results reported by Fungaroli. During the first 400 days, he ob-
tained 17 gallons of leachate which was significantly less than the 383 gallons of
water added to his lysimeter. The initial moisture content of Fungaroli's lysimeter was
26.6 percent wet weight (36.2 percent dry weight), which was in the range for the
three Oceanside field test cells. The leachate obtained from Oceanside test cells as'a
percentage of total moisture (solid waste moisture plus liquid in the sludge) was for
Cell 1-0.07 percent, for Cell 3-1.9 percent, and for Cell 2 - zero. This is less
than the 4.4 percent leachate recovered from water added to solid waste by Fungaroli.
The ratio's of weight of water added to dry weight of solid waste were: Fungaroli -
2.9; Cell 1 - 0.45; and Cell 3 - 0.71. This accounts for the greater percentage of
leachate obtained by Fungaroli. Fungaroli attributed leachate production to the
following landfill behavior characteristics.
1). Leachate from Solid Waste - The source is moist organic matter and other
liquids in the waste released by decormx>sition and compaction.
198
-------
2 ). Leachate from Channeling - Water running through interstitial channels
thus short-circuiting the absorption mechanism.
3). Differential Advancement of the Wetting Front - The more absorptive areas
of solid waste become saturated with moisture and then leachate may develop before
the entire waste fill is saturated.
4). Saturated Wetting Front - When the entire waste fill reaches field moisture
saturation capacity, water application and leachate quantities then become nearly equal.
It was probable that leachate from the Oceanside Cell 1 resulted from a combination
of sludge/waste initic! moisture and sludge channeling, and that leachate from Cell 3
resulted from subsequent differential settlement enabling rainfall drainage channeling to
occur.
The leachate production from sludge admixed solid waste does not appear to differ
in mechanism or quantity from that of normal solid waste leachate without sludge.
b). Leachate Characteristics. The range of landfill leachate characteristics
reported from 11 landfills and lysimeters in California are given in Table VI1—22. The
climatic conditions and solid waste characteristics of the landfills in Table VII —22 are
somewhat similar to those in Oceanside and will therefore serve as the primary basis of
assessing the effects of sludge admixture. The Sonoma cells in Table VII —22 received
high quantities of water, and septic tank pumpings and therefore should behave similar
to the Oceanside test cells.
The range of pH values for landfill leachates given in Table VI1—22 (excluding
Sonoma) is 5.6 to 7.8, and for Oceanside Cells 1 and 3 the leachate pH ranged from
4.6 to 5.9. The Sonoma cells leachate pH value was also low (4.6 to 6.5). It appears
that admixing sewage sludge (and septic tank pumpings) into solid waste can produce
a more acidic leachate. The ages of the fills which data in Table VII—22 covers varies
considerably from the age of the Oceanside test cells. Fungaroli reported lysimeter
leachate studies at Drexel University with a fill age similar to the Oceanside cells. He
obtained leachate pH values in the range 5.1 to 7.1 . This agrees with the above higher
pH values for normal landfills. The pilot test drum leachate analyses (see Section VI.C.7)
agree with these results.
The range of BOD5 values for leachate from normal landfills given in Table VII —22#
except for the high range at Riverside, is significantly lower than the Oceanside Cells
1 and 3, and the Sonoma cells.
199
-------
TABLE VI1-22 SUMMARY OF LANDFILL LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS
Puente Canyon
Landfill*
(2-13-62) (3-5-62)
PH
5.60-7.63
7.1-7.8
6.0
7.2
BOD (5 day)
81-33,100
97-1200
2200
9200
Nitrogen - Kjeldahl
2.4-550
Copper
3.3-24
TDS
1452-2664
18,154
12,530
Alkalinity (CaC03)
730-9500
1259-2516
3260
5730
Calcium
115-5570
95-567
1340
560
Chloride
96-2350
67-344
1100
1330
Hardness (CaCOg)
650-8120
1085-2075
5600
3260
Iron - Total
6.5-305
5.4-260
135
150
Lead
3.3-5.0
.125
Magnesium
64-410
30-265
547
455
Manganese
200-1400
18
13
Nitrogen - NO3
0-4.0
4.5
Potassium
28-1860
6.5-13
340
700
Sodium
85-1805
87-115
620
810
Sulfate
39-730
1.0-40
1370
Total Phosphate
.16-29
Zinc
20-1000
20
Landfill site location
Riverside ^nyon
Leachate Landfill Landfill
Components (Bin'l)
Note: All figures in mg/l unless otherwise noted on Page 202. Footnotes explained on Page 202.
-------
TABLE VI1-22 SUMMARY OF LANDFILL LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS (cont.)
Landfill site location
Leachate Mission Carbon Central Disposal Site, Sonoma, California**
Components Landfill - Range of
3-18-68 3-24-71 Cell B Cell C Cell D Cell E Values
PH
5.75
7.4
4.2-4.5
4.9-5.2
4.6-5.2
5.8-6.5
4.2-7.8
BOD (5 day)
10,900
908
13,500-32,400
14,700-28,200
19,800-33,600
1020-1730
908-33,600
Nitrogen - Kjeldahl
104
92.4
20-170
174-800
182-864
350-558
2.4-864
Chloride
660
2355
998-1800
530-1200
920-1210
170-210
67-2350
TDS
44,900
13,409
15,970-42,270
9180-19,336
14,196-21,010
2186-2948
1452-44,900
Alkalinity (CaC03)
9860
8677
0-2360
0-5480
3050-5950
626-704
0-9860
Calcium
7200
216
200-2950
700-1600
900-1800
170-200
81-2950
Copper
3.6
0-0.6
0-0.4
.45
0-24
Hardness (CaC O3)
22,800
8930
650-22,800
Iron - Total
2820
4.75
4.75-2820
Lead
3.0
0-0.8
0-2.0
2.0
0-5
Magnesium
15,600
8714
320-924
200-760
360-600
120-150
30-15,600
Manganese
13-1,400
Nitrogen - NO3
2.5-66
1.8-4.6
1.90-6.34
.87-1.0
0-66
Potassium
68
440
1500
560-845
727-910
24
6.5-1860
Sodium
767
1160
1325
550-950
860-1020
115
85-1805
Sulfate
1190
19
340-880
794-1040
1-1370
Total Phosphate
CM
•
.65
0-83
9.8-41.9
17.8-79.2
.35-2.3
0-83
Zinc
140
22-42
30-95
.15
0.15-1000
Note: Alt figures fn mg/l unless otherwise noted on page 202. Footnotes explained on Page 202.
-------
TABLE VII-22 FOOTNOTES
*Report on the Investigation of leaching of a sanitary landfill. California
State Vater Pollution Control Board Publication No. 10. Sacramento, 1954.
92 p.
+Sanitary landfill studies; Appendix A; summary of selected previous
investigations. California Department of Vater Resources Bulletin No.
147-5. Sacramento, The Resources Agency, July 1969. 115 p.
#Meichtry, T. M. Leachate control systems. Presented at the Los Angeles
Regional Forum on Solid Waste Management, May 25, 1971.
**Central Sonoma County sanitary landfill [test cells demonstration grant].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency demonstration grant no. G06-EC-00351,
1971.
202
-------
The quarterly comprehensive analyses of leachate from Oceanside Cell 1 taken
two months after filling is given in Table VI1—7. The Oceanside Cell 1 analyses show
values of copper, iron (total), lead, and manganese generally well below the lower
limits of the data ranges for landfills shown in Table VII—22. Values of other leachate
components showed no discernible difference. The low value noted for iron indicates
that the Oceanside Cell 1 pH value of 6.1 (Table VII-7) was too great for ferric ions
to remain in solution. Fungaroli's data showed little iron or copper in leachate during
the first 11 0 to 120 days after filling (analyses were not made for lead and manganese).
Also, the relatively young age of Cell 1 and the small quantity of leachate may not
have provided sufficient opportunity and liquid carrier to dissolve large quantities of
metals into solution.
c.) Gas Composition. A comparison of gas composition in the Oceanside test
cells with gas compositions reported by Merz and Stone is given in Figure VII —27.
The CO2 trends are quite similar, but CH4 concentrations in the Oceanside test cells
lag the concentrations reported by Merz and Stone. An extension of the Oceanside
trend indicates that it should coincide with the Merz and Stone trend at about 350
days after filling. The gas concentrations in the Oceanside test cells appear to follow
typical trends for normal landfills. Fungaroli obtained similar patterns,but significantly
lower concentrations: CO2 increased to 45 percent at the lysimeter bottom and to 75
percent at mid-depth within 40 days after filling, and then decreased to 15 and 30
percent, respectively. Fungaroli obtained little CH4, generally less than one percent
by volume.
d.) Temperature. Initial peak temperatures in landfills have been shown to be
a linear function of the solid waste (and weather) temperature at the time of placement
of the solid waste. This relationship, as illustrated by Farquhar, is given in Figure VII-
28, which shows the Oceanside test cells and the Spadra (California) cells. The three
Oceanside test cells fit the landfill temperature curve well, thus indicating that the
liquid sewage sludge did not significantly affect the peak temperature behavior.
Comparisons of temperature trends in the Oceanside test cells with the Merz and Stone
Spadra cells are given in Figures VII —29 and VI1-30. The temperature trends from the
Oceanside cells are converging with the trends reported by Merz and Stone.
e. ) Settlement. A comparison of surface settlement trends as a percentage of
initial depth is given in Figure VII-31 for the Oceanside and Spadra test cells.
Settlement rates in the Oceanside cells were greater than in the Spadra cell during
the first 100 days after filling. These different initial settlement rates are attributable
to the original differences in the density of the Oceanside cells (623 to 640 lb per cu yd),
and the Spadra cell (1 ,200 lb per cu yd). The total settlement during the first 300 days
for the Oceanside and Spadra cells were all within the range of 1 .3 to 2.8 percent
of initial depth. A review of landfill settlement at Coyote Canyon landfill in Orange
County, California (about 30 miles north of Oceanside) indicated average annual
settlements of 1 .0 to 1 .1 percent. Compaction density at Coyote Canyon is reported
to be 1200 lb per cu yd, which is identical to the Spadra cell. The Spadra cell
203
-------
100
80
4
I ^
i ^
1 X\x-x
H \ x-
I V.
£ 60
40
i/i
<
O 20
/
/
100
200
CITY OF OCEANS1D5/E.P.A.
CELL DEPTH
GAS SYMBOL
A * 13 CO,
A * 13 CHT
1,2,3** 15'-3" to 15'-11" CO,
1,2,3** 15'-3" to 15'-11" CH^
* Merz and Stone
** Composite of Oceanside
\ /\ Test Cells 1, 2 and 3
\r—' * V—""v
! \ ¦
-J
j i i i i
300 400 500 600 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-27
COMPARISON OF GAS
COMPOSITION 2N OCEANSIDE
TEST GE0LS WITH NORMAL SOLID WASTE
-------
140
130
120
C 110
6
2
3 100
in
2 90
§
| 80
*-
k
$ 70
a.
I
-------
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
CELL
A*
A*
1
1
DEPTH SYMBOL CELL DEPTH SYMBOL
10
16
10'-6"
15'-2"
2
2
3
3
9,-5"
17*-9"
8'-4"
W-5*
* Cell A - Merz and Stone
1 I I _i i i I 1 1 1 i i i I
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE Vlh29
OF OCEflNStDE/E.P.A. COMPARISON OF
TEMPERATURES
-------
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
io r)o r&J ZD6 250 300 350 400 450 5(X) 550 600 650 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-30
OF oceanside/e.p.a. comparison of
TEMPERATURES
-------
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
INITIAL
CELL DEPTH, FT SYMBOL
1*
2*
3*
A+
A+
*
\
13 ®
12 A
13 a
21
10
Oceanside test cells.
Merz and Stone. Spadra test cell.
i i i i I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 J
I 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-31
COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT
OCEANS1DE/E. P.A. OCEANSIDE TEST CELLS AND NORMAL
* LANDFILL CELLS
-------
received water at a rate triple the normal rainfall experienced at Coyote Canyon,
thus the higher settlement at Spodra resulted.
f. )Summary. The significant differences noted between sludge admixed
with solid waste (Oceanside cells) and normal landfills were that sludge odmixed
waste had lower leachate pH, higher leachate BOD5 values and higher Kjeldahl
organic nitrogen. The higher BOD5 values of Oceanside test cell leachate could
be attributable to a high soluble organic content In the liquid sewage sludges odmixed
into the test cell solid waste. The moist or dried sludge organics would be readily
soluble in rainfall or other liquid passing through the fill. The higher Kjeldahl organic
nitrogen in the Oceanside cell leachate obviously resulted from the high concentra-
tion of nitrogen compounds and ammonia In the sludge.
The lack of significant short-term differences in temperature, settlement and
gas composition between sludge admixed solid waste and normal landfill solid waste
indicates that the effects of the sludge on these parameters ore minimal. Additional
monitoring to be completed during Year 03 will further differentiate any effects of
the sludge on landfill behaviors
209
-------
VIII. FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF LANDFILL
OPERATIONS A ND LIQUID SLUDGE DISPOSA L
A. Purpose
The disposal of liquid digested sewage sludge into a sanitary landfill may
not only create certain environmental difficulties but it may also present certain
operational opportunities and challenges. Operational aspects to be considered are
related to equipment, personnel, landfiiling methods, soil cover techniques, compocrton,
drainage, leachate discharge, gas generation, etc. Landfill environmental nuisances
which must be controlled include odors, litter, dust, flies (and other insect vectors)#
birds, rats (and other vermin), and fires.
The operational aspects of sludge disposal into a sanitary landfill were
evaluated in special demonstration field studies conducted at the Oceanside landfills*
These studies have not yet been completed and are expected to continue through the
remaining third year of the present 3-yr program. The results which have been
obtained ond the problems observed to date are presented and discussed in the
following text. Site geology, soil and groundwater conditions are described in
Appendix G.
B. Method of Study
1. Landfill Site. The preliminary landfill studies were conducted in a
selected area at the old Oceanside sanitary landfill. These preliminary studies
with liquid sludge were initiated in May 1971 and were continued through November
15 at which time the City closed its old landfill site and opened a new landfill site.
The field study was interrupted for three weeks until sufficient deposited solid waste
spreading area became available at the new landfill site. In February 1972 (at the
start of the second year demonstration program), the City commenced disposing of
all digested liquid sewage sludge generated at its three treatment plants into the
municipal landfill. This full-scale demonstration operation permitted a comprehensive
evaluation of the practical aspects of liquid sludge-solid waste landfill disposal.
2. Parameters Evaluated. The parameters evaluated in the field tests
included: sludge and solid waste composition, sludge application techniques, solid
waste fill/sludge admixture, personnel, equipment operation and maintenance,
odois, gas emissions, blowing of litter and dust, presence of flies, birds, rats, and
¦other vectors and waste bio-degradation. Table VIII— 1 is a summary of the landfill
operation monitoring. The landfill monitoring data sheets are sho«vn in Appendix B.
A brief description of the various tasks performed through June 1972 is presented.
/A sample of seagulls at the landfill is shown in Photograph VIII—la.
The sludge application methods evaluated included the use of different
spreading techniques, application of different weight ratios of sludge to solid waste,
210
-------
TABLE VI11-1
LANDFILL OPERATIONS MONITORING SCHEDULE
Task
Frequency Performed by
Performance:
time and motion studies Weekly
analysis of sludge application Weekly
effects
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Landfill equipment O & M (time) Weekly Waste Disposal Department''
Environmental effects:
blowing litter and dust,
odor, flies, vermin, birds
operating hazards
Waste core samples
(moisture content,
decomposition)
Sludge Application studies:
spreading sludge with and without
soil and refuse cover
spreading sludge on compacted/
uncompacted waste
evaluations of different methods
sludge application (pumping,
gravity feed, single nozzle
hose, splash plates, etc.)
Temperature, gas sampling (h^S)
Daily Waste Disposal Department*
Weekly Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Quarterly Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Continuously Waste Disposal and Sewer Depts?
during the year
Continuously Waste Disposal and Sewer Depts*
during the year
Continuously Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
during the year
Periodically Sewer Department*and Ralph
during land- Stone and Company, Inc.
fill studies
City of Oceanside municipal departments.
211
-------
a. SEA GULLS FORAGING ON
SLUDGE-FREE SOLID WASTE.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
b. TRUCK APPLYING LIQUID SLUDGE
TO FLAT TEST AREA. NOTE
SPREADING PLATES.
c. DOZER MOVING SLUDGE/WASTE
ADMIXTURE.
CITY OF OCEANS1DE/E.P.A.
PHOTOGRAPH Vlll-l
INITIAL SLUDGE-
SOLID WASTE FIELD TESTS
Mill
212
-------
and deposition of various thicknesses of sludge on different solid waste landfill surfaces.
Relatively simple, inexpensive methods for spreading trucked sludge over solid waste
were demonstrated using direct discharge from the transportation truck. These were:
gravity flow from a single 4-in. diameter pipe, gravity flow from similar piping using
single and double splash plates, mechanical pumping through a standard fire hose to
improve distribution and gravity flow from a 4-in. diameter flexible hose mounted on
an 8-foot boom.
The effect of fill construction on sludge handling capacity was evaluated
through: a) application of liquid sludge to uncompacted and compacted waste, and
completed landfill, b) varying the slope of the fill surface from 1:2 to level,
and c) building up the waste and earth cover into dikes to pool the sludge so that the
solid waste could be directly discharged into the sludge pool. The effects of excessive
moisture were determined by conducting operating tests during rainfalls.
Landfill equipment studies involved reviewing the records for operation and
maintenance of the landfill tractor dozers. The City of Oceanside Waste Disposal
Department operates two tractor dozers with straight buckets at its landfill, a CAT 977
and a 977 K. The 977 K serves as a backup. Random time and motion studies were
conducted to determine the efficiency of the dozer in working the solid waste-sludge
mixture under various disposal methods used. The major operating parameters
considered were traction and load moving capability on the waste fill surface.
Samples of equipment data sheets used in the field are presented in Appendix B.
In addition to monitoring dozers, tests were made to evaluate the driving performance
of a rubber-tired sludge tank truck while spreading sludge on the fill surface. In order
to determine the effects of admixing sludge into solid waste on personnel health and
safety, records of illness and accidents from the City of Oceanside were analyzed.
3. Filling and Spreading Operations. The demonstration operations at the
old landfill consisted of an initial trial run and a subsequent "extended" operation.
In the trial run, three truck loads of solid waste (about 25,000 lb) were unloaded in a
flat section at the foot of the landfill working face. The wastes were worked by a
CAT 977 K tractor dozer to a 1.5 fopt depth within a 60 by 80 foot diked rectangular
test area. A 1,250 gallon rubber-tired tank truck was used to apply the secondary
digested sludge from the Buena Vista treatment plant by gravity feed through a double
nozzle splash plate. The ratio of 1,250 gallons of sludge to three truck loads of waste
was slightly less than the proportion in which these wastes are generated in Oceanside
(1,750 gallons of liquid sludge per three truck loads of solid wastes). Photographs
VIII- lb and cshow sludge application and waste/sludge working.
The "extended" field demonstration operation was conducted for seven months
at the old landfill and for two months at the new landfill. A total of 30 days (about
one p^r week) of sludge disposal operations were made, 11 of which were at the new
landfill. During the tests, the temperature ranged from a low of 46 F to a high of
92 F,-and the wind intensity ranged from "calm" to "moderate". The temperature
remained obove 70 F until October 26, 1971; thereafter it was 70 F or lower until the
213
-------
end of the test program in January 1972. During this period, only one day of rainfall
occurred when liquid sludge was disposed.
Initially, 1,250 gallons of sludge and two truck loads (32 cu yd capacity)
of solid waste were applied to the test site once every week. After an additional
two weeks, the weekly demonstration quantities were increased to 1,750 gallons of
sludge and three truck loads of solid waste. These quantities were further increased
to 3/500 gallons of sludge and six truck loads of solid waste per week.
Figure VIII-1 schematically describes the solid waste placement and sludge
application. The solid waste was unloaded at the top of the fill slope, pushed onto
the face of the slope, and worked by the dozer to a depth of about 2 ft. A variation
of this procedure was also tested. It consisted of pushing the waste onto the slope
without working to compact it. In all cases, the sludge was applied evenly across
the top of the slope. A daily soil cover of about 6 in. was applied to the fill slope
and a 1- to 2— ft soil cover was provided at the top of the slope on the flat portion of
the fill lift.
During the full scale operation at the new landfill site, sludge handling was
initially on a two-day per week basis. This was later increased first to three days per
week, and then to five days per week. During the test period, the temperature ranged
from 60 F to 78 F, the wind intensity varied from "calm" to "moderate," and showers
occurred on four days. Other information pertaining to the operation at the new land*
fill is discussed below in connection with the results.
4. Core Sampling. Quarterly bore hole drilling was completed at the exists
ing Oceanside demonstration landfill in areas representing three conditions: (1) the
current working face with fresh admixed sludge/solid waste; (2) an older fill area that
had received admixed sludge/solid waste; and (3) an older area that had received only
solid waste. For the latter two fill conditions, areas were selected that were filled at
about the same time as the three test cells. Each time drilling was conducted, bore
holes for the latter two landfill conditions were drilled in the same place to obtain
continuous data. Bore holes were drilled to a depth of 20-feet or to the bottom of the
fill wherever feasible. The bore hole locations for 1972 are shown in Figure VIII—2.
Ssqples were taken at two-foot depth intervals. The drilling equipment, scmpling
methodology, sample analyses and coring observations were done as described in
Section VII. B. 5. and Appendix A. Prior to backfilling the bore holes with the waste
material removed/ 10-foot long 0.25-inch I. D. polyethylene gas sample probes were
(placed into the holes as shown in Photograph VI11-2 c.
5. Vector Studies. Special studies of fly emergence were begun in August
1972. Dr. John H. Poorbaugh, Jr., Ph. D., Vector Control Specialist of the State
of California Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vector Control and Solid Waste
Management assisted in providing guidelines by which to conduct the fly emergence
studies. Mr. Harvey I. Magy, Southern California Region, of the same State Department,
also assisted in the fly test program and provided 14 modified eye-gnat emergence traps
214
-------
7C
f '
EQUIPMENT YARD
¦X * X * * X x
12 ft LIFT
2' THICK WASTE
APPLY THE SEWAGE SLUDGE ACROSS THE TOP OF THE WASTE SURFACE.
WORK THE WASTE UNTIL IT IS 2 FT THICK ON THE SLOPE AS SHOWN.
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE Vlll-1
SOLID WASTE AND
SLUDGE PLACEMENT
215
-------
•*'*WU:.7lb -X
\v:. \ WWXl) 1) >
. • ^'.WATEl
' \ .. V - ' A V\ \
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE VIII-2
LANDFILL SITE
BORING LOCATIONS
1972
216
-------
a. CORED SLUDGE/WASTE ADMIXED
FILL MATERIAL.
b. CORED SOLID WASTE FILL MATERIAL
(NO SLUDGE).
PHOTOGRAPH VIII-2
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A. CORE MATERIALS AND
GAS PROBE
c. PLACING GAS PROBE
IN BORE HOLE.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
217
-------
to conduct the study. Mr. Daniel Bergman, Vector Ecologist with the San Diego
County Department of Public Health assisted in setting up the fly emergence test plots
and traps, and helped monitor and identify flies on the first two tests completed fn
August and September 1972. The routine monthly tests were conducted by Ralph Stone
and Company, Inc. and Oceanside Waste Disposal Department personnel thereafter.
To conduct the studies, two separate test plots were prepared each month,
approximately 15 feet by 15 feet in area,with a three-foot depth of solid waste. One
area received digested liquid sewage sludge, the second area contained only solid
waste. A six-to twelve-inch moist cover soil layer was applied and compacted as Is
done on the regular landfill. Four fly emergence traps, each three feet by three feet,
wide and one foot high, were placed three to five feet apart on each of the two test
plots (eight traps total). A schematic of the fly emergence traps is shown in Rgure
VIII—3. The emerging flies were attracted to the light in the glass jar in which they
were trapped and collected daily, counted and identified by species. Fliej entering
the jar were prevented from leaving by the screen. A tightly packed two-inch seal
of soil was placed along the bottom edges of each trap to prevent light entrance and
fly escape. Emergence tests were conducted for two-week periods to cover the maximum
possible time for egg hatching, larvae stages and emergence as adult flies.
C. Results and Discussion
1. Initial Trial Run at the Old Landfill. The following are highlights of
the results of the initial trial run at the old landfill:
a. It was impractical to drive a heavy rubber-tired tank truck over newly
deposited solid wastes to distribute sewage sludge. The truck had difficulty
traversing the waste and broke a rear axle on its third pass. It was towed through the
waste thereafter by the CAT 977 K until it unloaded the 1,250 gallons of sludge. A
total of two passes was made in each of three paths across the waste.
b. It was observed that approximately 50 sea gulls were feeding on the
exposed solid waste prior to applying the sludge. After application none of the sea
gulls would feed on or traverse the wastes coated with digested sewage sludge. Some
sparrows approached the sludge but did not appear to feed in the sludge admixture.
c. The earthy odor of well-digested sewage sludge was observed during
sludge disposal and for approximately 30 minutes thereafter within 30 feet of the area-.
When the liquid soaked into the solid waste and the sludge surface dried, the odor was.
reduced until it was noticeable only when standing next to the waste. The normal
solid waste landfill pig-pen odor was apparently masked by the earthy odor of the
digested sludge.
d. The test area was subsequently worked into the face of the regular landrf
fill by pushing and working up the slope of the fill face.
218
-------
rri
CANVAS
COVER
BLACK PAINTED
CANVAS COVER
2-INCH
PACKED
SOIL SEAL
SCREEN
1-QUART
FLY TRAP
BOTTLE
FIGURE VIII-3
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E. P. A. SCHEMATIC OF FLY
EMERGENCE TRAPS
219
-------
e. When the test waste/sludge mixture was removed from the test area it
was observed that about 70 percent of the surface area was dry. Very little sludge
bypass drainage or run-through had occurred.
2. "Extended" Field Tests. The results of the extended demonstration testis
are presented below in summary form.
a. Equipment Operation. The CAT 977K Dozer landfill equipment operator
reported it appeared easier to work the solid waste/liquid sludge mixture than regular
waste. It compacted better and gave off less dust. Some slippage of the dozer tracks
occurred occasionally when working on the slope face in areas where sludge pools had
formed. 9
b. Sludge Disposal. It was difficult to achieve uniform liquid sludge
spreading from the single 4-in. gravity-feed tank truck discharge pipe. The
concentrated high velocity flow discharge tended to channelize the solid waste,and
the sludge bypassed along to the bottom of the new lift-old lift interface/creating
minor runoff. A new splash plate assembly was ordered for the large 3,500 gallon
, tank truck,but it did not arrive until full-scale sludge disposal was under way. At
times as much as 50 or 60 gallons of sludge bypass runoff was observed from one
3,500 gallon tank truck sludge load. The runoff was contained by earthen dikes along
the foot of the new fill face. (See Photograph VIII-3 a,)
In order to prevent runoff, solid waste dikes were formed on the sloped base
of the working face of the fill. The dikes proved effective if the sludge was worked
into the solid waste by the tractor dozer to achieve suitable admixture and compaction.
Additional solid waste was admixed into the sludge pools behind the dikes. It was
found difficult to work the solid waste immediately with pooled sludge due to poor
dozer traction. After the liquid sludge soaked into the solid waste for about one hour,
however, it was easily worked.
After spreading the liquid sludge, steam was observed in an uncovered area
one to two feet below the landfill surface. Routine observations were made once a
week for 33 days during the seven month preliminary field demonstrations. The
landfill operator's observations are tabulated in Appendix E and summarized below.
c. Odor. Earthy sewage sludge odors were noted 5 days (17 percent);
normal landfill odors, 13 days (43 percent); and no odors, 12 days (40 percent) of th&
time.
d. Blowing Litter. Windy days in Oceanside are rare. Slowing litter was
reported during only one day (3 percent of the observed period) in the landfill site.
It occurred during a day when a moderate wind was blowing. The sludge which covered
the surface of the test area apparently held the waste down. Water truck irrigation
was used to restrain litter from blowing in the regular landfill area. It appears that the
sludge can provide an effective control for blowing litter in the working landfill face,
but not for the truck roadway and dumping access areas.
220
-------
c. SOLID WASTE DIKES FOR
SLUDGE CONTAINMENT.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
PHOTOGRAPH VI11-3
FIELD DEMONSTRATION
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/'E.P.A. SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN THE LANDFILL
SLUDGE APPLICATION METHODOLOGIES
221
-------
e. Animals and Flies. Sea gulls were the most- abundant animals observed
foraging in the solid waste. They were observed in the sludge test area on five ocoas*
ions, but only on wastes that were not coated with sludge. A few small birds were
noted in the sludged area on two days and lizards on one day. Flies were always
present in the sludged-solid waste admixtures.
f. Sludge Spreading. Poor spreading and solid waste admixing were noted
on two days (6 percent) and some sludge runoff occurred on six days (18 percent of
the observations over the seven-month period).
3. Full-Scale Demonstration at the New Landfill. The major problems
encountered in the full-scale demonstration wherein all of the city's liquid digested
sludge was disposed into the available solid waste were those of sludge admixture and
operator acceptance. The field observation data is included in Appendix F and
summarized below.
a. Sludge Runoff. Initially when the sludge was hauled and spread on a
two-days per week basis, some appreciable runoff occurred. Significantly smaller
quantities of runoff, however, resulted when better admixture was provided by a
5-days per week sludge spreading schedule. The use of solid waste diking to
prevent sludge runoff was tested. The effort, however, did not prove completely
satisfactory since it was difficult to work the pooled sludge-solid waste mixture
until most of the liquid had been absorbed by the solid waste. When the runoff
volume was large (50 to 100 gallons) an earth dike was maintained below the foot
of the new fill face slope to contain runoff and allow it to be absorbed into the
older lift. (See Photographs VIII—3c, and VI11-4 a, b, and c.)
A third approach to the problem of runoff control which was investigated In
June 1972 was that of reducing the slope of the fill working face. It appeared,
however, very difficult to get adequate spreading of the sludge onto a flat surface
with gravity discharge unless the truck is actually driven over the fill surface. This
is not practical with normal truck equipment and, hence, provides an added cost. A
modification of the flat-spreading approach which was also tested (and found undesirable)
consisted of digging trenches through the soil cover on top of the completed fill lift.
The sludge was discharged into these trenches, and the trenches were subsequently
ripped through to allow for sludge spreading. This procedure, however, resulted Ino
severe odor nuisance and complaints were received from a school 300 feet away. Diretf
liquid sludge spreading on the flat surface of a completed fill using small berms worked
well with a 3- to 6-in. depth sludge application drying in a day or less. (See
Photograph VI11-5.) Pumping was found to be a superior way of spreading sludge on
flat or other surfaces. It was used for the test cells, but it costs more than gravity,
feed.
222
-------
a. LANDFILL FACE SLUDGE b. SLUDGE RUNOFF.
SPREADING FLOW PATTERN.
c. FLIES AND FLY MAGGOTS d. SLUDGE/SOLID WASTE
ENTRAPPED IN SLUDGE RUNOFF. ACCUMULATION IN DOZER
TRACK DRIVE.
PHOTOGRAPH VIII-4
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
223
-------
a. DOZER RIPPING LANDFILL LIFT b. SLUDGE APPLIED TO COVER SOIL
COVER SOIL PRIOR TO SLUDGE OF LANDFILL LIFT.
APPLICATION.
c. LIQUID SLUDGE ON LANDFILL LIFT d. DRIED SLUDGE ON LANDFILL LIFT
COVER SOIL. COVER SOIL.
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
PHOTOGRAPH VIII-5
SPECIAL TESTS OF SLUDGE
CITY OF OCEANSID^/E.P.A. ADMIXTURE INTO FILL COVER
SOIL FOR DRYING
224
-------
During July and August of 1972, an eight-foot truck boom suspending a four-
inch diameter eight-foot long flexible hose was used to spread sludge by gravity feed.
Although the spreading was improved over single nozzle discharge, handling the hose
was found to be troublesome due to sludge spillage. Also, sludge odor emanated from
the hose after disposal. During 10 days of observation in July 1972, runoff occurred
on seven days in quantities of 20 gallons or less.
In September 1972 and thereafter, a double splash-plate assembly was used
for gravity spreading of sludge. The double splash-plate distributed sludge over an
estimated area about 12 feet wide and six feet deep. The double splash-plate assembly
was superior in spreading sludge more uniformly over the surface of the working face
of the solid waste fill. The truck had to be moved a minimum of three times across
the top of the working face to avoid channeling and resultant runoff when using the
double splash-plates.
Prior to September 1972, when cover soil was not placed on the working face
at the end of each day the sludge truck began disposal at about 6 A.M. With the
initiation of daily cover soil placement on the working face in September 1972, there
was no longer any exposed solid waste to admix with the sludge until the first load of
solid waste was disposed. This resulted in a change in the sludge disposal schedule.
During operation without daily soil cover no external environmental problems with
odor or public health were encountered, although a large fly population was observed.
Initially, the sludge disposal truck operated from 5:30 A.M. to about 1 P.M.
It was found that all of the sludge was disposed onto one-third to one-half the daily
solid waste quantities. Daily solid waste disposal began primarily after 10 A.M. and
continued up to 7 P.M. On the revised sludge disposal schedule, sludge was taken to
the landfill after 10 A.M. after the first several loads of solid waste were disposed.
A reduction in sludge runoff was noted in that runoff quantities generally never exceed-
ed 50 gallons.
Other steps taken to minimize sludge runoff, control vectors and conserve
cover soil included the following: (1) providing better solid waste compaction and
(2) reaucing the width of the landfill working face by up to one-third. The working
tace was normally 150 to 200 feet wide on a side; this was reduced to about a 30?-foot
width, 70 to 80 foot length and 12 to 15-foot lift. The resultant proportionally thicker
and denser solid waste layers provided additional absorptive capacity and better dozer
footing conditions. Sludge runoff has been negligible with the smaller working face.
Four tank-truck loads of sludge (14,000 gallons) can be readily disposed daily without
significant runoff if scheduled for unloading in proportion (about 0.6 lb sludge per lb
solia wasre) to solid waste deliveries. The few gallons of sludge runoff at the toe of
the workina face, if present, are easily covered with refuse or dirt as part of the norma!
sanitary landfill activity. Since the working face is on a prior lift,for runoff into
around or surface water to occur, liquid must pass through the absorbent solid waste
in lower lifts. A working face slope of from 25 to 30 percent was considered best for
minimizing runoff and providing suitable dozer traction.
225
-------
b. Sludge Disposal During Rainfall. On November 7, 1972, 0.21 inches
of rain fell at the Oceanside landfill. Sludge was deposited on the uncovered factf'of
solid waste which had been thoroughly wetted by the rainfall. Within a couple of
minutes after sludge unloading began (800 gallons unloaded), some sludge runoff was
observed at the toe of the working face. Sludge unloading was suspended and the truck
moved to a newly started working face to unload the remaining 2700 gallons. No
runoff occurred from the new working face.
On December 4, 1972, 0.36 inches of rain fell. The landfill was inspected
for runoff. It was observed that rainfall drainage from two storm drain pipes, one from
the adjacent elementary school and another from the adjacent junior high school track
field, flowed uncontrolled over the landfill access roads and onto the fill working face.
It is not uncommon to have a "design" storm in the semi-arid Oceanside area which
floods but the normally dry San Luis Rey River. The point of this discussion is that even
though the Oceanside annual rainfall is relatively low (12 in./year), the individual
storm intensity periods may be excessive and, hence, a very fair test of the sludge
absorption problems during wet weather was obtained. Corrective action was
subsequently taken by grading to re-route the runoff along earthen channels paralleling
"¦he endge of the canyon and away from the landfill. Three loads of sludge were
disposed on December 4. Some runoff was observed along the toe of the working face
toward the end of the third unloading operation. The runoff consisted of a diluted
mixture of sludge and rain water.
Obviously, if the solid waste fill is saturated with enough rainfall the liquid
sludge runs off more easily. Since runoff didn't occur on December 4, 1972 until the
third load of sludge, it appears that the solid waste must be saturated to near its moisturfe
absorption capacity before runoff resulb.
A number of solid waste disposal trucks became stuck in the unexpected
heavy rain, and mud on the landfill unloading area during the rain, but no problems
occurred with the sludge truck.
c. Odors. Dai ly surveillance for odor during the period from May 1 through
July 31, 1972 indicated the in-situ presence of normal refuse odors for 36 percent of
the time and the presence of earthy digested sludge odor for 19 percent of the time.
No specific odors were identified during the remaining 45 percent of the observations
(see Appendix F for data). During a warm period in the last week of October, 1972,
the landfill working face was in a position about 80 feet directly below the adjacent
Mission Elementary School cafeteria (see Figure VI11-2). A complaint was received
'by the Oceanside Public Works Director from the school authorities that a "musty odor
of old unwashed dirty clothes" pervaded the cafeteria. The landfill working face was
promptly moved to another section of the canyon site; no other public complaints^have
been received before or afterwards. The area below the school cafeteria was filled'
with solid waste thereafter only when school was not in session. Observations by the
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. Field Engineer verified the existence of a strongs
"pig pen" type of odor from restaurant garbage, etc. at the landfill when the complaint
was received.
226
-------
d. Operator Problems. Durinlg April and May, 1972 (second and third months of
the demonstration) the dozer operator continually reported strong noxious odors being
emitted from the sludge admixed fill. These reports were investigated by the Consultant's
field engineer and other staff personnel who conducted qualitative and quantitative tests.
Hydrogen sulfide field tests were made, and gas samples were collected for analysis by gas
chromatography. The field tests and gas chromatographic analysis for hydrogen sulfide
proved negative. It is possible that the odors noted by the dozer operator may have been
from a load(s) of partially digested sludge which had been inadvertently disposed. Also,
the operator routinely ate his lunch directly in the fill face area and he was advised to
eat away from the fill. The dozer operator was examined by medical doctors and found fro
be healthy. The operator was offered the opportunity to transfer his work and be a truck
driver in the refuse collection system. He has elected to continue to operate the dozer
tractor full time on the demonstration landfill. The experience with the dozer operator
illustrates a key factor in liquid sludge disposal into a sanitary landfill. Special training
and further incentives are required to obtain employee acceptance of any new work activity.
e. Blowing of Litter. Small amounts of blowing litter were reported at the landfill
on three days (7 percent of the observations made from May 1 to July 31 , 1972). Water
was applied to the fill working face and over unloaded solid waste primarily when sludge
was not being spread. Water application during full scale sludge disposal in 1972 averaged
8,318 gallons per week (34.7 tons per week), or 1 ,540 gallons per day (6.4 tons per day
based on 5.4 days per week). Water application in 1971 prior to sludge disposal into the
landfill averaged 22,360 gallons per week, which indicated a 63 percent reduction in the
amount of water used in conjunction with full-scale sludge disposal. Water application
rates showed no relationship to weather. Sludge was deemed unacceptable for controlling
litter and dust on the access road and solid waste unloading areas. Thus, some use of
water is necessary on these latter areas, especially toward the end of the working day
after the daily sludge quantity is disposed.
f. Observations of Birds and Animals. Sea gulls were the most common animal life
observed at the landfill, being sighted on 16 observation days (36 percent); up to 100
gulls were observed on two occasions. Pigeons, blackbirds, sparrows, rabbits, rats and
squirrels were also occasionally sighted; up to 30 pigeons and a like number of crows were
observed on separate days. The birds and other animal life initially avoided foraging on
solid waste areas covered with wet sewage sludge. It was observed after about seven
months of full-scale sludge disposal (about mid-September 1972) that sea gulls and other
birds had adapted and were foraging in the wet sludge/waste admixture after the dozer
had worked the waste. While foraging, the birds appeared to avoid the particles of
waste that were completely covered with wet sludge. After working the refuse, the
dozer exposed underlying solid waste that was not covered with wet sludge, thus providing
the birds with unoffensive foraging areas. On one occasion, four sea gulls were observed
walking in pooled sludge. The sea gulls by December 1972 had overcome their initial
aversion to foraging in the wet sewage sludge.
g. Fly Studies. Flies are not usually associated with digested wet sewage sludge
per se, but it was observed that they will forage in solid waste wetted with sludge. See
Photograph VI11—4 c which illustrates flies and maggots entrapped in sludge runoff. Ob-
servations indicate that houseflies and their larvae don't prefer sludge, but they forage in it
227
-------
and thereby are exposed. Counts of the density of flies in the sludge/solid waste
fill indicated densities of five to ten flies per square foot. Since the entire landfill
was used for sludge disposal, data on solid waste fill was not obtained.
Special inquiries indicate that no increase in flies were observed or reported from
the adjacent school or residential housing projects. No migration of flies was observed,
but further fly studies are planned. It is known that houseflies are attracted by the
odors of food, and in this case the landfill appeared to maintain their attention. Blow-
flies and houseflies are reportedly wide-ranging (1/2 to 6 miles) and, therefore, the
potential for migration may exist if there is a lack of suitable food items at the landfill.
Daily compacted earth cover is needed to maintain sanitary landfill conditions.
Fly emergence studies conducted in test plots with and without sludge admixture
were initiated in August 1972. After the initial 14-day test it was observed that dirt
seals around the base of three traps were destroyed. Flies collected from the jar traps
during the study were identified by State of California Department of Public Health
Vector Ecologisfs to be:
Cochliomyia macellaria, three specimens; Phaenicia sericata, five specimens;
Phaenicia cuprlno. 10 specimens; Ophyra leucostoma. two specimens; and Sepsidae,
one specimen.
These species were different from the flies found in the test drums (see Section VI).
No large domestic houseflies were found in the test drums, only varieties of small flies
the size of gnats.
On the first test, a substantial number of flies emerged through the partially com-
pacted soil covers from both test plots, with and without sludge, into the traps. This
large emergence was not anticipated, and no provision was made to kill flies when they
entered the collection jars, nor were they collected daily. It was suspected that ants
may have removed flies that died in the collection jars, and that flies escaped through
the disturbed dirt seals. As a result of the above, no quantitative comparisons should
be made between the two test plots.
In theory, a six-inch layer of well-compacted soil will prevent fly emergence from
solid waste fill irrespective of the composition of the waste fill (in this case admixture
with wet sewage sludge). The efficacy of the cover, however, may vary with local soil
type, compaction technique and soil moisture content.^'
Based on the results of the initial study, subsequent fly emergence tests were designed
to determine the following:
1) Soil cover compaction effects on fly emergence.
2) The adequacy of the type of cover soil available at the site (coarse to fine sand
to provide a barrier to fly emergence).
228
-------
3) The effect of climatic conditions.
4) The influence of sewoge sludge admixed with solid waste on fly propaga-
tion and emergence.
The initial test verified that the one square meter modified eye-gnat traps were suitable
to study emergence of muscoid flies from landfill cover soil.
Additional fly emergence tests conducted in November and December 1972
with eight to twelve inches of cover soil resulted In no fly emergence. It was observed
that fly larvae were in the solid waste disposed during these tests, although the fly
population at the landfill was several orders of magnitude less than during the August-
September 1972 tests (the peak fly season). The lack of emergence was attributed to a
combination of better compacted soil cover, and a more hostile (cooler) landfill
environment that was less conducive to propagation of fly larvae and adults.
h. Landfill Accidents. A summary of observed accidents and injuries
incurred by Waste Disposal Department personnel and otheis at the Oeeanside landfill
is given in Table VII I—2. It is apparent from the nature and causes of Injuries that
none were attributable to the disposal of sewage sludge.
i. Disinfection. ' Sewage sludge can be disinfected by storage as well as
by various physical, chemical and biological processes. Heating, chemical addition,
and drying of raw sludge con also provide disinfection. Pathogenle organisms include
bacteria, viruses, protozoa, worms, and other microorganisms. (The following paragraph
is quoted from Reference 1.)
"A study of the survival of E. coll In digested primary sludge showed that
they survived for 7 weeks at 37 C and for 2 weeks at 22 C. The collform organisms
apparently disappeared because of competition from other microorganisms better
adapted to the digestion environment. Disease organisms such as typhoid-dysentery
bacilli / polio virus, anthrax, ova of parasitic worms, and brucella have been
thought to have a rapid mortality rate due to their sensitivity to the unacceptable
digestion environment. One study where raw and digested sludge was exposed to
55 C for two hours ^suited in 100 percent destruction or Inactivation of Ascarls
lumbricoides ova. Keller reported that thermophilic digestion destroyed all ova
of parasitic worms and cysts of amoebae parasitic to man In 24 hours.
Studies completed to determine pathogenic bacteria counts present in solid
waste without sewage sludge have indicated that bacteria populations vjary widely
between samples. Total viable collform densities ranged from 3.4 (10) to 5.1 (10)
organisms per gram of solid waste, and fecal coliform in the same samples ranged from
1.5 (10y* to 8.1 (10)^ organisms per gram in samples from eight solid waste disposal
systems studied by Environmental Protection Agency personnel. The presence of fecal
coliform groups in large numbers indicates extensive noaool contamination of solid
waste by fecal matter of either human or animal origin.
229
-------
TABLE VI11-2
LANDFILL OPERATING PERSONNEL INJURIES
Date Nature of injury
1969
Oct Sprain right arm and shoulder.
1970
Aug Twisted right ankle.
Oct Stepped on nail (left foot).
Oct Injured right knee.
Oct Sprained ankle.
1971
Jan Sprained knee.
Apr Blow on side of head (right),
(sludge disposal initiated).
Nov Pulled muscle of left shoulder.
Nov Twisted right knee.
Dec Injured back of right hand.
1972
Apr Pain in lower abdomen (right).
May Mashed little finger (left).
July Sprain right thumb.
Aug Chest.
Cause of injury
Stepped on end of can in a trash pile
and other end of can tripped Kim.
Stepped on ridge at landfill and
twisted ankle.
Guiding truck back to dump
and stepped on nail.
After washing dozer he started to
climb on, slipped on step hitting
knee on tracks.
Sprained ankle getting off dozer;
Sprained knee getting on and off dozer.
Hit on side of head with lever of rear
truck door when opening it.
Pulling cables and wires from
dozer track*.
While doing some plumbing, wrench
slipped and he fell on knee, twisting It.
Injured hand while closing gate at end
of day.
Hit himself on right lower abdomen
with lever of tailgate on dump truck.
Caught little finger between throttle
lever and spring on dozer (he is befog
trained on dozer).
Opening door of truck, lever hit tftun^V
injuring it.
Pressure caused door to hit him in chest
while opening back door of truck.
230
-------
TABLE Vfll-2 (Cont.)
LANDFILL OPERATING PERSONNEL INJURIES
Cause of injury
While operating dozer ran over some
steel cable and piece of cable hit
him on left hand.
Cleaning out track and stepped on
nail.
Left his post at gate and climbed on
dozer to see operator service it.
Slipped off track bruising left leg.
(Sludge not noted as cause of slip).
Date
Nature of injury
1972
Aug Bruised 2 fingers (left hand).
Aug Stepped on nail (right foot).
Oct Bruised skin (left leg).
231
-------
While the existence of pathogenic bacteria In solid waste is generally,
known, the exposure of landfill personnel to the pathogens has not been quantified.
It is not known if pathogenic bacteria or viral densities in Oceanside municipal solid
waste are in the range of the high densities noted above. In the absence of quantitative
data, an indicator of hazard may be illnesses incurred by landfill operating personnel
due to exposure to solid waste-borne pathogens.
No illnesses of landfill personnel have been attributed to the landfill disposal
of sewage sludge and solid waste through Year 02. No illnesses were reported in the
literature or in the Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. nationwide survey on sludge disposal
into landfills.
A supplemental demonstration grant was proposed to conduct investigations to
determine if pathogenic enteric virus and bacteria are present and survive in the
Oceanside demonstration landfill. EPA indicated a separate study would be planned.
4. Core Sampling. The results of core sampling programs completed on
July 26, October 2, and November 29, 1972 are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Each core sampling program provided one bore hole each in: freshly placed sludge/solid
waste up to 14 days old; sludge/solid waste placed within one month of the test cell
completion; and solid waste only placed within one month of test cell completion.
a. Temperature Profiles. The temperature profiles by depth from the cover
soil surface are given in Tables VI11-3 through VI11—5. The average temperatures in the
freshly placed sludge/solid waste bore hole were significantly higher than the other bore
holes during the first two drilling periods. The relatively shallow depth of freshly
placed fill on the November 29 drilling is thought to have resulted in the lower average
temperature. Steam was observed escaping from the bore holes in freshly placed fill
during the first two drillings. Average temperatures in the older fill without sludge.
(Table VI11—5) were higher than in older fill with sludge (Table VIII-4). One
explanation for this may be that the higher moisture (see Tables VIII—9 through
VIII- 11) In the fill with sludge tended to keep temperatures lower. In Table VI11—5,
during the November 1972 drilling, the first 12 feet of fill was newly filled with sludge;'
the 12-to 20-foot depths were old fill without sludge. The old fill had a higher average
temperature than the newer fill above. Under each waste-fill condition, it is evident
from Tables VI11-3 through VIII-5 that ambient temperatures had influenced the fill
temperatures down to a depth of four to six feet. Even so, the average temperature in
the two bore holes in the older fill did not decrease with ambient temperature.
This,indicates the effect of temperatures of the solid waste when placed on subsequent
landfill temperatures.
b. Organic Content. The organic contents by depth are given in Tables
VI11—6 through VI11—8. The average organic content in the freshly placed sludge/waste
bore hole fill was generally greater than for the two older fill bore holes. No trends were
evident over time or by depth in the fill material.
232
-------
TABLE VIII—3
LANDFILL BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE - FRESH SLUDGE/
Waste fill (o - 2 weeks old)
Depth,
ft below
soil surface
Jul 72
0-7
Oct 72
0-7
Temperature, deg F
Days since landfllllng completed *
Nov 72
14
Ambient air
81
77
80
mi ;
89
86
68
WMmV j
tittup*
103
OS
60
6
m
104
72
0
122
109
79
to
104
100
00
It
II?
114
n
M
124
112
to;'
16
10P
its
18
110
It)
20
116
109
22
116
111
25
109
Average"**
115
108
75
* Approximate number of days,
t Average for solid waste/sludge.
BOF ® bottom.of fill.
-------
TABLE VIIM
LANDFILL BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE - SLUDGE/WASTE
FILLED MARCH 1972
Temperature, deg F
Depth,
Days since landfilling completed *
ft below
Jul 72
Oct 72
Nov 72
soil surface
140
208
276
Ambient air
77
72
66
Soil °
88
71
59
Solid waste/ ^
92
86
62
sludge
6
89
84
69
8
78
88
81
10
82
87
86
12
71
86
89
14
74
88
92
16
BOF 9
74
81
18
75
79
20
BOF *
73
Average +
79
82
79
* Approximate number of days.
* Average for solid waste/sludge.
9 BOF* bottom of fill.
-------
TABLE VIII-5
LANDFILL BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE-SOLID WASTE FILLED
JANUARY 1972
Depth,
ft below
soil surface
Jul 72
195
Oct 72
263
Temperature, deg F
Days since landfilling completed *
Nov 72
321
Ambient
air
78
74
80
Soil
0
2
84
2
S. 71
V) ' ¦
Solid waste
4
89
86
76
oT
f 87
6
90
82
8
96
86
j 88
10
12
95
77
80
BOF '
0)
2 87
91
14
16
106
BOF '
83
18
92
20
94
Refusal
Average +
92
83
85/90 **
* Approximate number of days.
+ Average for solid waste/sludge.
* BOF = bottom of fill.
** Sludge waste temp/waste only temp.
-------
TABLE VIII-6
LANDFILL BORE HOLE ORGANIC CONTENT -
FILL (0-2 WEEKS OLD)
FRESH SLUDGE/WASTE
Organic content, percent dry wt
Sample depth, Days since landfilling completed *
ft below
Jul 72
Oct 72
Nov 72
soil surface
0-7
0-7
14
Soil
0
2
2.0
2.0
5.9
Solid waste/
sludge
4
6
29.4
36.3
63.0
56.1
50.7
56.2
8
50.0
59.7
32.5
10
45.6
21.5
33.8
12
16.2
50.3
40.9
14
26.2
63.4
7.4 **
BOF *
16
34.7
18.4
18
28.9
55.8
20
26.5
60.0
22
26.9
31.7
25
27.0
Average +
32.1
46.0
36.9
* Approximate number of days.
+ Average for solid waste/sludge.
' BOF = bottom of fi 11.
Bottom soil under fill.
-------
TABLE VIII-7
LANDFILL BORE HOLE ORGANIC CONTENT - SLUDGE/WASTE
FILLED MARCH 1972
Sample depth,
ft below
soil surface
140
208
Organic content, percent dry wt
Days since landfilling completed *
276
Soil
0
2
3.2
3.2
2.4
Solid waste/
sludge
4
6
30.5
23.8
6.9
19.2
44.2
13.8
8
25.0
19.4
50.3
10
27.0
30.4
48.0
12
25.3
30.1
55.7
14
16
18.3
29.3
45.6
36.8
13.3
R5F'
18
20
38.2
BOM
8.0
6.1*
h
Average +
27.2
22.5
37.6
* Approximate number of days.
* Average for solid waste/sludge.
BOF = bottom of fill.
Bottom toil wider fill.
-------
TABLE VIII-8
LANDFILL BORE HOLE ORGANIC CONTENT - SOLID WASTE
FILLED JANUARY 1972
Sample depth,
ft below
soil surface
195
263
Organic content, percent dry wt
Days since landfilling completed *
321
Soil
0
2
1.9
1.9
3.7
Solid waste/
sludge
4
6
8
43.2
42.6
36.2
45.6
33.7
20.7
f 58.8
J
>56.7
jf 79.6
w
29.7
10
39.9
7.3
12
14
31.5
30.7
7.3++
BOF *
19.1
8.7**
16
18
31.1
BOF *
40.4
42.5
20
Refusal
Average +
36.4
22.9
56.2/
' 27.7
* Approximate number of days.
+ Average for solid waste/sludge.
' BQF 3 bottom of fill.
** Soil-intermediate left cover soil.
Bottom soil under fill.
-------
The organic content of the cover soil increased significantly on two holes
and decreased significantly on one hole in November. This occurred after 2.63 inches
of rainfall fell one week prior to the November 29 borings. The decrease in organic
content in the old sludge/waste fill (Table Vlll-7) was contrary to the increases found
in the three test cell and two landfill bore holes. Apparently few organics were in this
cover soil, or they were washed out or diluted by the rainfall.
Soil samples from the landfill bottom and an intermediate lift (see Tables
VI11-6 to VII1-8) indicate organic contents significantly greater than found in the
respective cover soils. Also, bottom soil organic content (Table VI11—8, day 263 at the
12 foot depth) showed this same characteristic. This could have resulted from leaching
of organic materials from the overlaying sludge/waste fill, or sludge runoff during
landfilling.
c. Moisture Content. Moisture contents in the core samples are given in
Tables VIII- 9 through VI11—11 . The average moisture content in each bore hole
increased significantly on the November post-rain sampling over the October sampling;
the November average moisture contents were the highest of the three drilling periods.
No consistent trend in moisture content by depth was evident.
Moisture contents in the cover soils increased as a result of rainfall in the
week prior to sampling in November. Moisture contents in bottom soil under solid
waste only (Table VIII—11 , at 263 days since filling), and intermediate lift soil under
sludge/waste fill (Table VI11—11, at 321 days) were both well below moisture saturation
levels for fine sandy soils of 42.3 percent dry weight (Table IV-2). Bottom soil in fresh
sludge/waste had a moisture content of 28.4 percent, which indicates that some moisture
had entered. Since this occurred after the November rainfall, and the average moisture
content for the bore hole was higher than during previous sampling in fresh sludge/waste,
it appears that rain water infiltration occurred. Since the bottom soil was not saturated
in any of the abov§ cases, it also appears that no significant leachate has resulted at
these bore holes.
d. Moisture Absorption. Moisture absorption capacities remaining in core
samples having the highest and lowest in~situ moisture content, and representative of
the range of organic contents, are given in Table VI11—12. The data in Table VI11—12
are given in percent dry weight which is convertible to pounds of water per pound of
solid waste by dividing by 100. The additional absorption capacity remaining in the
July samples was greater than the other two sample sets. The data appear to be
random in that additional moisture absorption was not apparently influenced by in-situ
moisture contents, type of fill material, or depth of the sample.
The additional moisture absorbed varied from a low of 0.104 lb water per 1 lb
of solid waste (dry wt) to a high of 1.45 lb per lb. The low value falls below the
laboratory predicted range of 0.6 to 1 .8 lb per lb (dry weight).
239
-------
TABLE VI11-9
LANDFILL BORE HOLE MOISTURE CONTENT - FRESH SLUDGE/WASTE
FILL (0-2 WEEKS OLD)
Sampl
ft be
e depth,
(low
Jul 72
Oct 72
Moisture content, percent dry wt
Days since landfilling completed *
Nov 72
soil surface
0-7
0-7
14
0
Soil
2
6.1
6.1
14.5
Solid waste/
sludge
4
6
36.4
26.9
9.9
55.6
46.7
52.7
8
20.3
48.6
68.1
10
14.3
25.8
52.1
12
25.3
47.3
35.0
14
59.2
33.3
28.4 **
16
55.7
32.6
BOF *
18
70.6
39.1
20
65.5
27.0
22
63.1
24.5
25
22.2
Average +
43.7
33.3
47.2 Ava. = 41.4
* Approximate number of days.
+ Average for solid waste/sludge.
' BQF ~ bottom of fill.
Bottom soil under fill.
-------
TABLE VIII-10
LANDFILL BORE HOLE MOISTURE CONTENT -
FILLED MARCH 1972
SLUDGE/WASTE
Moisture content, percent dry wt
Sample depth, Days since landfilling completed *
ft below
soil surface
140
208
276
0
Soil ,
7.1
7.1
15.3
Solid wask/ A
ilvrfje
36.8
13.9
90.4
6
67.2
16.8
25.9
8
67.9
16.1
75.3
10
55.5
28.4
62.2
12
92.6
19.9
59.4
14
59.9
34.8
98.8
16
56.3
37.5
18
25.1
•nem
22.4
20
BOF 9
14.5
Average +
57.8
22.7
68.7
Avg.« 50
* Approximate number of days.
* Average for solid waste/sludge.
' BOF a bottom of fill.
-------
TABLE VI11-11
LANDFILL BORE HOLE MOISTURE CONTENT -
FILLED JANUARY 1972
SOLID WASTE
Moisture content/ percent dry wt
Sample
depth>
Days since landfilling completed *
ft below
soil surface
195
263
321
0
Soil
o
6.2
6.2
ui 7.8
t/>
Solid waste
4
42,0
24.1
^43.0
6
19.4
30.4
$ 35.1
o
8
23.3
24.8
3 54.1
to
10
36.0
13.2
22,8
12
15.3
6.5++
7.6
14
21.3
BOF 9
31.7
16
21.2
17.7
18
BOF *
28.4
20
Refusal
Average +
25.5
19.8
38-8/2i .4 Avg. =22
* Approximate number of days.
+ Average for solid waste/sludge.
' BOF = bottom of fill.
** Soil"Intermediate lift cover soil.
^ Bottom soil undet fill.
-------
TABLE VIII- 12
MOISTURE ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF SELECTED CORE SAMPLES
Moisture content, percent dry wt
Days since iandfilling completed/depth, ft
Fresh sludge/waste
0-7
0-7
14
4
8
14
16
20
4
6
22
6
12
Sample moisture
26.9
14.3
55.7
70.6
63.1
9.9
55.6
24.5
68.1
28.4
content
Additional moisture
55.9
71.4
75.1
65.5
90.6
64.3
32.5
15.9
27.3
30.7
absorbed
Total moisture
82.8
85.7
130.8
136.1
123.7
74.2
88.1
40.4
95.4
69.1
at saturation
Sludge/waste -
140
208
276
old fill
4
10
12
18
4
10
16
4
12
Sample moisture
36.8
55.5
93.6
25.1
13.9
28.4
37.5
25.9
98.8
content
Additional moisture
95.8
60.0
70.7
56.8
30.5
27.1
23.1
10.4
36.7
absorbed
Total moisture
132.6
115.5
164.3
81.9
44.4
56.0
60.6
36.3
135.0
at saturation
Solid waste only
195
263
321
4
8
12
4-
10
6
8
12
Sample moisture
42.0
23.3
15.3
30.4
6.6
54.1
7.6
31.7
content
Additional moisture 136.9
81.4
145.0
20.4
35.3
21.2
29.1
28.9
absorbed
Total moisture
178.9
104.7
160.3
50.8
41.8
75.3
36.8
60.6
at saturation
-------
e. Core Sample Leachate BOD . The samples used to determine the
moisture absorption capacities in Table VI1M2 were used to generate leachate for,
the analyses presented in Table VIIM3 The values apparently vary
according to the type of organic material and bacteria present, but are not correlated
with organic content (see Tables VI11-6 through 8).
f. Odor. Odors were determined during drilling in terms of strength and
type at each two~foot sample depth interval. Odors were generally moderate to strong
in fresh sludge fill, and weak to moderate in old fill with and without sludge. Odors
in both the old fill areas generally became weaker with increasing fill age (on each
subseque nt sampling).
The most prevalent type of odor detected was classified as sour, the second
most common was sweet and the third major odor was of normal landfill. The landfill
odor was predominant in the area without sludge, as might be expected.
g. Appearance. In general, the material in fill with sludge was partially
or highly agglomerated and required a screwdriver or other sharp probe to dislodge
samples from the auger drill bit. The fill material that did not receive sludge was
found to be loose and powdery; waste constituents were easily separated and identified;
The agglomeration in bore holes with sludge appeared to result from the sludge which
was slightly to moderately moist and tended to form a pasty bond with soil and waste
particles. Occasionally, random lumps of moist black sludge were encountered.
h. Color. The color of materials in freshly placed fill was, perhaps dirty,
but natural (as-received). The color of textiles, plastic, rubber, leather, wood,
metal, glass and ceramics were natural; e.g., unaffected by the landfill environment.
Food and paper at times appeared bleached or otherwise altered in color in the fill with
sludge. Grass, leaves and tree and shrub prunings were often bleached or more intense
in color. Since these color changes often occur when vegetation is stored other than in
a landfill, it is not certain what changes in vegetation could be attributed to the landfill.
i. Readability. The readability of printed matter (newsprint, paper
container labels, can labels, glass labels, etc.) was not significantly altered. In
some cases, newsprint and paper print was blurred due to moisture.
j. Biodegradeability. No evidence of biodegradation nor oxidation was
observed for textiles, plastic, leather, wood, metal, glass and ceramics. Newsprint,
Gdi'dboard and miscellaneous paper exhibited a slight to moderate decrease in strength
when pulled by hand. Grass, leaves and tree and shrub prunings showed slight to
moderate biodegradation. Food was seldom found and was deteriorated when observed.
No observable difference was detected in biodegradation between bore holes with
different fill materials.
244
-------
TAB LE VI11-13
BOD OF LEACHATES FROM SELECTED LANDFILL
5 CORE SAMPLES
Fresh sludge/waste
Sludge/waste-old fill
Solid waste only
Days
Sample
Days
Sample
Days
Sample
since
depth,
BOD
since
depth,
BOD.
since
depth,
BOD-
landfllled
ft
mg/l
landfllled ft
mg/l
landfllled
ft
mg/l
0-7
4
498
140
4
37 '
195
4
407
8
173
10
207
8
283
14
253
12
234
12
253
16
70 •
18
215
20
399+
0-7
4
m
208
4
450
263
4
380
6
500
10
300
10
750
22
400
16
900
14
6
133
276
4
116
321
6
28
12
68
12
31
8
106
12
49
* Sample had weak odor. Material consisted of paper, grass end twigs.
^Sample has strong, sweet odor. Contained large amount of sludge and mixed dirt.
Sample was dry and had negligible odor.
-------
k. Gas Analyses. Analyses of gas samples taken from landfill boreholes
(until the probes were destroyed during filling) are given in Table VI11—14. The freshly
plqced
-------
TABLE VIII- 14
LANDFILL BORE HOLE GAS ANALYSES
Concentration, percent by volume *
Fresh sludge waste fill Old sludge/waste fill Old solid waste fill
Days Days Days
Date since „ _ since since
sampled placing 2 2 2 4 placing ^2 ^2 ^4 placing ^2 ^2 ^2 ^4
HI! ftll+ fill+
1972
7- 26*
0-7
75.6 1.6 6.9 15.0 140
42.2
6.6
49.0
2.2
195
28.6
4.6
66.4
0.4
8-11
Probe destroyed 156
63.4
4.8
28.6
3.2
211
45.1
0.8
53.2
0.9
8-18
163
70.7
0.6
20.4
8.3
218
44.6
1.6
52.2
1.6
9-1
177
66.5
2.5
23.6
7.4
232
50.2
2.0
43.2
4.6
9-15
191
70.2
0.4
17.4
12.0
246
52.0
2.9
34.1
11.0
10-2
208
70.3
0.0
13.7
16.0
263
Probe destroyed
10-27
233
57.1
4.4
19.4
19.1
*
+
All samples taken from a depth of 10 feet below the cover soil surface.
Estimated.
Probes placed July 26, 1972.
-------
TABLE VIII-15
OVERALLTIME/TASK PERFORMANCE
Dozer/
driver
no. *
Non-
productive
Percentage of time spent on
Working refuse
Working
refuse Travel
each task
Placing
soil cover
Moving soil
Moving
soil
Travel
CAT 977
A
49
22 13
1
8
7
B
19
28 23
6
12
13
CAT 977 K
A
49
33 13
neg
4
1
B
21
29 19
3
16
11
* Driver A is the principal dozer operator.
-------
TABLE VI11-16
TIME/TASK PERFORMANCE EXCLUDING NON-PRODUCTIVE
Dozer/
driver
no.
Working
refuse
Working refuse
Travel
Percent- of time spent on each task
Placing
soil cover
Moving soil
Moving
soil
Travel
CAT 977
A
68
32
5
54
41
B
60
40
17
40
43
CAT 977 K
A
76
24
11
71
18
B
60
40
9
54
37
-------
TABLE VIII-17
TIME/TASK PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS
Percent of time *
Landfill
Dozer/
Working
condition
driver
refuse
Travel
A.
Normal solid waste
CAT 977
landfilling
A
52
48
(no sludge)
B
56
44
avg
55
45
CAT 977 K
A
58
42
B
60
40
avg
59
41
B.
Sludge admixed
CAT 977
with solid waste
A
52
48
(0.5 to 0.6 lb per lb)
CAT 977 K
A
79
21
B
59
41
C.
Double sludge
CAT 977
admixture (1.0 to 1.2
A
67
33
lb per lb)
CAT 977 K
A
69
31
.* Based on time for working refuse and travel related to working refuse*
Excludes non-productive time and time associated with moving soil.
250
-------
b. Sludge Admixed With Solid Waste. The admixture of sludge with solid
waste at the ratio of 0.5 to 0.6 lb sludge per lb dry weight solid waste is presented in
Table VIII- 17. There does not appear to be any difference in percentage of time actually
spent working the refuse except for driver A using the CAT 977 K, It is not apparent
why there is a significant increase in percentage of time spent by driver A, CAT 977 K
working refuse, except that the driver may have been doing more compacting than he
normally does.
c. Double Sludge Admixture. Special tests were conducted with double
the normal sludge to waste ratio (1.0 to 1.2 lb per lb). As indicated in Table VIII-17/
the time spent in working refuse increased significantly over normal solid waste landfilling,
and over sludge admixed at 0.5 to 0.6 lb per lb. It is apparent that a loss in dozer
efficiency occurs with increasing sludge to solid waste admixture ratios. Further field
tests will be conducted during Year 03 to approximate the sludge/waste ratio where
efficiency is significantly affected. The installation of the landfill truck scale will
provide accurate sludge and solid waste weight data that previously was unavailable.
6. Landfill Disposal Costs. The cost of landfill disposal operations with
and without sludge were estimated for 1971 without sludge, and for the first eight months
of 1972 for which cost data on full scale sludge disposal was available. These costs on a
ton of solid waste disposed basis are estimated from quarterly waste disposal vehicle
weighings completed during 1971. The cost in 1971 was estimated at $1.23 per ton
disposed, and for 1972 $1.33 per ton of solid waste (wet wt). The increase in cost for
1972 does not account for a probable increase in solid waste disposed. A comparison
will be made between 1971 with no sludge, and 1973 with sludge. The quarterly waste
weighings from 1971, and the daily weighings using the new landfill truck scale in 1973
will provide a more accurate cost comparison.
7. Sludge Disposal Costs. The cost of full scale truck haul disposal of liquid
sewage sludge into the landfill was estimated for the period of full-scale sludge disposal
(February 1972 to August 1972) for which cost data was available. Truck costs were
based on the purchase price of the 3,500 gallon tank truck ($12,247.20) amortized over
a 10-year life at six percent ($1,664 per year or $139 per month). Labor, repairs, fuel,
etc. costs were obtained from the Oceanside Sewer Department. The costs were estimated
at $2.85 per 1,000 gallons of liquid sludge or $12.64 per ton of dry sludge solids.
8. Summary. Since large quantities of sewage sludge are used throughout
the country as a soil conditioner, numerous people are exposed to it. Much of this
sludge is known to contain some raw waste material and pathogens. There is no record of
disease transmission to humans as a result of sludge treatment plant activities and use of
the sludge as a fertilizer. Burd points out that this may be due to existing health depart-
ment regulations and operator precautions. There does not appear to be an urgent apparent
problem regarding disinfection.
The preliminary field demonstration results presented in this chapter indicate
that the joint disposal of Oceanside's digested sewage sludge and solid waste into a
251
-------
sanitary landfill can be accomplished successfully without major operational cost
increase or difficulties. From the standpoint of landfill operation, the addition of
digested sewage sludge to refuse could be beneficial in at least three respects. First,
the refuse-sludge mixture could be better compacted by heavy equipment than the solid
waste alone. This will be studied during Year 03. Second, the presence of sludge
essentially prevents blowing of the litter which normally occurs in a refuse landfill and
which may be otherwise controlled by addition of water. Third, digested sludge may
possibly provide a deterrent to rodents which ordinarily abound in a refuse landfill.
The demonstration work conducted to date at Oceanside has indicated the need for
improved sludge-spreading techniques. Further effort is being directed toward this
objective. Other aspects of sludge disposal which will be studied in the remainder of
this demonstration program will include evaluation of the potential health hazards of
digested sludge arising from the presence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses and fly
emergence.
When undigested or partially digested liquid sewage sludge was disposed into the land-
fill severe odor problems resulted. By immediately covering the non-digested sludge with
solid waste and a minimum 6-inches of cover soil, the odors can be controlled. Other
iriethods of controlling odors will also be investigated during the third year.
252
-------
IX. ECONOMIC ANA LYSIS OF
SLUDGE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
Liquid sludge handling and disposal into a sanitary landfill consists of two
steps: transportation from the sewage treatment plant to the landfill, and spreading
the sludge onto the waste fill. Two feasible transportation alternatives for Oceanside
are via pipeline or tank truck haul. The following is a preliminary economic analysis
of the two transportation systems for future sludge disposal from two plants.
A. Basic Assumptions and Considerations
Figure IX— 1 shows the locations of the landfills, the three existing sewage
treatment facilities, and a new planned sewage treatment facility. When constructed,
the new treatment plant will replace the San Luis Rey and Buena Vista (belittles.
Therefore, sludge transport from these two plants was not considered In cost determina-
tions. The sludge from this plant and from the La Salina Plant will be transported to
the new landfill. The most direct potential truck routes are Indicated in Rgure IX—1 •
It is assumed that a pipeline would follow these routes very closely, within the existing
municipal right-of-way, so that no costs are incurred for additional right-of-way
acquisition. Data on present and projected future sludge quantities from each plant
are presented in Table IX-1 along with information on sludge solids content and trans-
portation distances.
B. Truck Transportation
Three types of trucks were considered in the economic analysis. These are
"spreader","Vefueler", and "vacuum pumper". The first two types of trucks ere
manufactured by the Vendoro Company (Los Angeles, California) which produces
a wide variety of vehicles for hauling water and fuel. The "spreader" model is a
standard water truck whereas the "refueler" is a fuel truck. Both of these vehicles
have to be slightly modified for sludge trucking. The modification would consist of
replacing the standard water or {et fuel pump with a heavy duty sludge pump, and
providing multiple spreading nozzles. The costs of spreading nozzles and pumps (or
elimination of pumps, if gravity loading and dumping are employed) are small compared
to the total cost and, hence, were disregarded in this preliminary economic analysis.
Currently, there are some 3,000 "vacuum pumper" trucks in operation across the nation,
with approximately 150 in Los Angeles County, California, alone.^ These trucks are
used primarily to haul industrial waste type liquid residues.
Table IX-2 presents a summary of estimated sludge hauling costs for the
three types of trucks considered. A hauling time of 1 hr was assumed (10 min each
for loading and unloading, and 40 min for an average round-trip from either the
.^Salina or the new San Luis Rey treatment plant to the new landfill). As indicated
in Table IX-2, the total estimated annual capital and operating costs for sludge
transportation with "spreader", "refueler", and "vacuum pumper" trucks are about
$36,400, $14,000, and $19,500, respectively. The use of a refueler truck thus appears
to be economically most advantageous.
253
-------
LEGEND
© EXISTING SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
NjC
MAJOR ROAD
PROPOSED ROUTE OF TRUCK
HAUL OR PIPEUNES
WINDMILL LAKE
NEW SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANTl
WHELAN LAKE
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E. P;A.
FIGURE IX-1
POSSIBLE ROUTINGS FOR SLUDGE
PIPELINE OR TRUCK HAUL
254
-------
TABLE IX-1
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES FOR TRUCKING OR PIPELINING
LIQUID DIGESTED SLUDGE IN OCEANS1DE*
Digested sludge
San Luis Re/
and
La Salina plant Buena Vista New plant
Total
1968-1969
Million gallons/year 1.8%
% Solids
Average 3.0
Range 2.2-3.5
Projected, 1985
Million gallons/year 2.2
% Solids
Average 3.0
Range
Tons/year, solids 277.
j
GaI Ions/day, liquid 8,420
Approximate miles to
landfill site 2
Ton- mi les/ year
(dry-weight basis) 554
**
.7353
4.9
1.9-14.7
0
0
8.4
5.5
1,940**
32,300*"
2.627
10.6
5.0-6.0
2,217
9,700
10,254
* From reference 7.
+ Present capacity, increased by 15%, rounded off.
if
By difference.
** Based on average % solids and assumed liquid weight of 8.4 lbs/gal.
| |
Based on 5 days/week, 52 weeks/year.
255
-------
TABLE IX—2
COST OF TRUCKING SLUDGE - OCEANSIDE
Spreader'
Refueler *
Vacuum pumper"*"
Capacity 'gallons^ 3,300
Cost range ($1,000)
Truck 18-25
Tank & modification 10
Total 28-35
High average 32
10,000
50
50
7,000
40-50
45
Loads/Day
La Sallna (8,420
gallons/day)
New plant (32,300
gallons/day)
Total
3-
14-
I
4i
2-
5-
7-
No. of trucks required
h
Annual costs ($1,000)
Depreciation (10-year
basis) ** 6.4
Fuel & maintenance ** 6.0
Driver's salary & fringe,
& overhead(5)++ 24.0
Total annual cost 36.4
5.0
3.0
6.0
14.0
4.5
3.0
12.0
19.5
(Cont'd)
256
-------
TABLE JX-2 (CONT.)
Spreader * Hofooloc* Vacuum pumper'*'
Average cost/ton, $
of liquid as hauled
Average cost/ton, $
of solids/ton, dry
basis "
0.81
18.10
.32
6.32
0.43
8.80
Average cost/Jon-mile,
dry basis ***
3.90
1.38
1.90
* Characteristic truck data from Klein products*
+ From Reference 8.
M
It is assumed that the total depreciation on the truck will be charged to the sludge
hauling operation, while the driver's salary will only apply lor the half of the time
that the truck is used to haul sludge.
** Basis: $3,050 annual average for Oceanside refose collection trucks, which Is
probably high due to the larger number of moving parts than on a liquid tanker,
and assumed applicable to all sixes of tankers.
** Basis: $l0,000/man-yeor + 20% fringe and overhead.
##
Basis: 2,217 tons/year of dry solids.
*** Weighted average haul of 277 tens x 2 miles and 1,940 Ions x 5 miles is 4.63
mi les.
257
-------
C. Pipelines
Table IX—3 presents a summary of the estimated costs for sludge transportation
by pipelines. Due to the smaller flow from the La Salina plant, the cost of the 2-ml
pipeline from this plant has been considered separately from that of the 5-mi line from
the new plant.
The following assumptions were made:
a) The pipeline follows the same route as the truck hauls (see Figure IX-1).
b) The pipeline will be 8-in. in diameter.
c) The entire daily sludge production will be pumped to the landfill over a
sufficiently short period of time (less than 10 percent of the time)-so that
adequate flow velocities can be maintained to avoid deposition of sludge
solids in the pipeline.
d) Sludges from the La Salina and the new plant will contain about 3.0 and
5.5.percent solids, respectively.
e) The trucks and the pumping system (pipes and associated pumps) would have
useful lives of 10 and 30 years, respectively.
f) The maintenance cost for the pipeline would be negligible. The maintenance
cost for the pumps was included in the treatment cost at the sewage treatment
plants.
g) The pipeline ana the pumping station first costs were about $10 per running
foot and $50,000, respectively.
h) Sludge would be applied directly to the solid waste without storage at the
landfill.
The data in Table IX-3 indicate that the sludge transportation by pipeline!
would cost $1.08 and $9.37 per ton of dry solids per mile for the new plant and La
Salina, respectively. Comparison of these values with the corresponding estimates
for truck transportation ($1.38-$3.90 per ton of dry solid per mile), indicates that
the pipeline from the La Salina plant is decidedly not economical, while the pipeline
from the new plant is competitive with trucking. This would suggest that the optimum
economy may involve a pipeline service to the new treatment plant and sludge hauling for
the La Salina plant.
It should be emphasized that the economic analysis presented here is only
preliminary and was based on a large number of assumptions, the validity of which
have hot been fully established. For example, sludge transportation cost is affected;
significantly by the sludge solids content and at the present time the solids content of
the sludge which will result from the operation in the new plant is not specifically known1,
it is estimated that an increase in the sludge solids content from 2.2 to 6 percent would
reduce the transportation cost (by either trucking or pipeline) by approximately 63
percent.
258
-------
TABLE IX-3
COSTS OF PIPEUNE TRANSPORTATION - OCEANS!DE
La Salina New plant
Distance from landfill (miles) 2 5
Annual sludge production
Million gallons 2.2 8.4
Tons (liquid) 9,230 35,300
Tons (solids only) 277. 1,940
Cost of pipeline ($) 105,600 264,000
Cost of pumping station .{$) 50,000 50,000
Total 155,600 314,000
Annual depreciation (30-year basis) ($) 5,186 10,466
Cost per ton ($)
Liquid sludge basis .56 .295
Dry solids basis 18,75 5.40
Cost per ton-mile ($) solids only. 9.37 1.08
259
-------
In recent years several studies have been reported in the literature on sludge
transportation costs. One study^ reports a long-term pipeline transportation cost of
$3 to $7 per ton of dry solids of which $1 to $2 is charged to operation and maintenance.
This study assumes pipe lengths of 4 to 17 miles and diameters of 8 to 24 inches. A study of
sludge transportation in the Chicago area3^ndicates costs of $37.50 and $6.80 per ton
of dry solids for truck hauling and pipeline respectively. The Chicago study was based
on employing 14- and 24-in. pipelines flowing at their optimum capacity for 95
percent of the time. Although the sludge quantities and conditions assumed in these
studies are significantly different from those used in the preliminary analysis for Ocean-
side, the reported data are generally in reasonable agreement with those for Oceanside
(especially the pipeline transportation costs).
In conclusion, the preliminary economic analysis reported here for Oceanside
indicates that a pipeline from the new San Luis Rey treatment plant to the new landfill
site may be economically justified in lieu of truck transportation of sludge. In the case
of the La Salina plant, however, truck hauling appears more economical than pipeline
transportation. As conditions change with time, further analysis should precede the
final selection of an appropriate sludge transportation system for Oceanside.
260
-------
REFERENCES
1. Burd, R. S. A study of sludge handling and disposal. Uater Pollution
Control Research Series, FWPCA Publication No. WP-20-4. Washington,
U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1968. 326 p.
2. Black, R. J. Combined disposal of sewage sludge and refuse. Cogpoat
Science, 2(4):16—17, Winter 1962.
3. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 13th ed.
New York, American Public Health Association, 1971. 874 p.
4. Hanks, T. G. Solid waste/disease relationships, a literature survey.
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-UIH-6. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1967. p.50-51.
5. Smith, D. T., N. F. Conant, H. P. Willett, J. W. Beard, et al. Zinsser
Micriobology. 14th ed. New York, Appleton-Centure-Crofts, 19M.
1,281 p.
6. Hanks, Solid waste/disease relationships, p.51 and p.73-74.
*7. Clarke, op. cit. p.249.
8. Brezenski, F. T., R. Russomanno, and P. DeFalco, Jr. The occurrence
of salmonella and shigella in post-chlorinated and non-chlorinated
sewage effluents and receiving waters. Health Laboratory Science.
2(1):40-47, 1965.
9. Klein, L. River pollution. III. Control. London, Butterworth & Company,
1966. 484 p.
10. Anderson, M. S. Fertilizing characteristics of sewage sludge. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, 31(6):678-682, June 1959.
11. Gotaas, H. B. Composting; sanitary disposal and reclamation of organic
waste. Monograph Series No. 31. Geneva, World Health Organisation,
1956. 205 p.
12. Golueke, C. G. Public health aspects of waste disposal by composting.
American Journal of Public Health, 44:339-348, Mar. 1954.
13. Stone, R., and R. K. Gupta. Aerobic and anaerobic landfill stabilisation
process. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division. Proc^^^p,
American Society of Civil Engineers. 96(SA6):1,399-1.414. Dec. 19/0.
14. Zanoni, A. E. Ground water pollution from sanitary landfills and refuse
dump grounds; a critical review. Research Report 69. Madison,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1971. 43 p.
261
-------
15. Qaslm, S. R., and J. C. Burchlnal. Leaching from simulated landfills.
Water Pollution Control Federal Journal, 42(3) ;371-379, Mar. 1970.
16. Cook, H. A., D. L. Cromwell, and H. A. Wilson. Microorganisms In
household refuse and seepage water from sanitary landfills. Proceeding,
West Virginia Academy of Sciences, 39:107-114, 1967.
17. Huebner, R. J., W. J. Jellison, and C. Pomerantz. Rickettsialpox: a
newly recognized rickettsial disease, part 4. Public Health Reports.
61(47):1,677-1,682, Nov. 22, 1946.
18. Clarke, N. A., and P. W. Kabler. The inactivation of purified coxsackle
virus in water by chlorine. American Journal of Hygiene, 59:119-127.
1954.
19. American Public Works Association. Municipal refuse disposal. 3d ed.
Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1970. 538 p.
20. Cummins, R. L. Effects of land disposal of solid waste on water quality.
Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968.
29 p.
21. Qaslm, and Burchlnal, Leaching from simulated landfills, p.379.
22. Anderson, op. cit., p.30.
23. Rules and regulations for administration of the Pennsylvania Solid Waste
Management Act of July 31, 1968 [Act 24]. Title 25 of rules and
regulations, sub-part C, article I. [Harrisburg], Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Aug. 2, 1971. [19 p.]
24. Status of solid waste management in California, v.l. Interim report.
California State Department of Public Health, 1968.
25. Andersen, R. L., et al. Utilization of municipal wastewater sludge.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 29, 1971.
26. American Public Works Association, Municipal refuse disposal, 1970.
27. Merz, R. C., and R. Stone. Factors controlling utilization of sanitary
landfill site; final report to U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Jan. 1964 to Dec. 31, 1965. Los Angeles, University
of Southern California. (Limited distribution).
28. Fungaroli, A. A. Pollution of subsurface water by sanitary landfills.
v.l. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. [2Q0 p.]
262
-------
29. Black, R. J., and A. M. Barnes. Effect of earth cover on fly emergence
fron sanitary landfills. Public Works, 89(2):91-94, Feb. 1958.
30. Fuller, J. E., and W. Litsky. Escherichia coli in digested sludge.
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 22:853-859, 1950.
*31. Keller, P. Sterilization of sewage sludges. Public Health, (South Africa)
15(1):11, 1951.
32. Keller, P. Part 2—the influence of heat treatment on the ova of Ascaris
lumbricoides in sewage. Journal and Proceedings, Institute of Sewage
Purification, Part 1:100-109, 1951.
33. Peterson, M. L. Pathogens associated with solid waste processing; a
progress report. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1971. 24 p.
34. Stone, R. Sanitary landfill disposal of chemical and petroleum waste.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, 68(122):
35-59, 1972.
35. Harza Engineering Company. Land reclamation project; interim report.
Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968.
[338 p.]
36. Shell, G. L., and J. L. Boyd. Composting dewatered sewage sludge.
Public Health Service Publication No. 1936. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1970. 28 p.
263
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, M. S. Sewage sludge for soil improvement. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Circular No. 972. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Nov. 1955. 27 p.
Andersson, A. Mercury in decayed sludge. Grundforbattring, 20(3-4):
149-150, 1967'. (Chemical Abstracts, 69:45867d, 1968.)
Bacon, V. W., and F. E. Dalton. Professionalism and water pollution control
in greater Chicago. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation,
40(9) :1,586-1,600, Sept. 1968.
Blosser, R. 0., and A. L. Caron. Recent progress in land disposal of mill
effl,2nts. Tappi, 48(5) :43A-46A, May 1965.
Brisbin, S. G. Flow of concentrated raw sewage sludges in pipes. Journal
of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 83(SA3):paper 1274, June 1957.
Bucksteeg, W. Disposal of inorganic contaminants. Requirements and their
fulfillment. Gas- und Wasserfach, 108(34):962-965; (36):1,018-1,021,
1967. (Chemical Abstracts, 68:33010k, 1968.)
Burd, R. S. A study of sludge handling and disposal. Water Pollution
Control Research Series, FWPCA Publication No. WP-20-4. Washington, U.S.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1968. 326 p.
Canham, R. A. Comminuted solids inclusion with spray irrigated canning
waste. Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 30(8):1,028-1,049, Aug. 1958.
Carpenter, W. L., and J. Grossman. Relationship of flow characteristics
to changes in sludge consistency. Tappi, 53(1):64-66, Jan. 1970.
Cheng, D. C.-H. The flow of non-Newtonian slurries and suspensions in
pipeline systems. Filtration & Separation, 7(4):434-440, July/Aug. 1970.
Chou, T.-L. Resistance of sewage sludge to flow in pipes. Journal of the
Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 84(SA5):paper 1780, Sept. 1958.
Continued study of wastewater reclamation utilization. California State
Water Pollution Control Board Publication No. 15. Sacramento, 1956.
Cotton, P. A survey of some sewage treatment and allied problems at Norwich,
1963-68. Water Pollution Control, 68(6):627-634, 1969.
264
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont.)
Dalton, F. B., J. G. Stein, and B. T. Lynam. Land reclamation—a complete
solution of the sludge and solids disposal problem. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 40(5):789-804, May 1968.
Dodson, R. E., and R. Stone. Advances in sludge disposal. Journal of the
Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings, American Society of Civil
Engineers. 88(SA4):71-72, July 1962.
*Dotson, G. K. Sludge disposal by landspreading; summary outline. Personal
communication, 1971.
*Dotson, G. K., R. B. Dean, W. B. Cooke, and B. A. Kennar, Land spreading,
a conserving and non-polluting method of disposing of oily wastes.
Presented at 5th International Water Pollution Research Conference, San
Francisco, July 21-Aug. 1, 1970.
Evans, J. 0. Ultimate sludge disposal and soil improvement. Water and Wastes
Engineering, 6(6):45-47, June 1969.
Ewing, B. B., and R. I. Dick. Disposal of sludge on land. In E. F. Gloyna,
and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr. Water quality improvement by physical and
chemical processes. Austin, University of Texas, 1970. p.394-408.
Fisichelli, A. P. Raw sludge pumping—problems and interdisciplinary solutions.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 42(11):1,916-1,921,
Nov. 1970.
~Fleming, J. R. Sludge utilization and disposal. Proceedings of the 8th
Southern Municipal and Industrial Waste Conference, p.198-218, 1959.
IWPCA waste management study, v.l. The waste management concept; inland and
ocean disposal of selected wastes. San Francisco, Bechtel, Incorporated,
1969. 167 p.
Gothard, S. A. Garbage processing in Jersey, British Isles. Compost Science.
2(1):7-11, Spring 1961.
Habs, H. Should sewage sludge be treated hyglenlcally. Staedtehygiene.
21:185-161, 1970. (Water Pollution Abstracts, 43:1770. Sept. 1970.)
Hajek, B. F. Chemical interactions of wastewater in a soil environment.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 41(10):1,775-1,786,
Oct. 1969.
Hinesly, T. D., and B. Sosewitz. Digested sludge disposal on crop land.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 41(5):822-830, May 1969.
Hornig, G. Gegenwaertiger Stand der Bemessungsverfahren fuer den hydraullschen
Schlammtransport im Hinblick auf die landwirtschaftliche Verwertung.
[Present status of methods for dimensioning hydraulic sludge transportation
with respect to agricultural uses.] Wasserwirtschaft-Wassertechnlk.
18(3):94-99, 1968.
265
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont.)
*Jansson, S. L. On the humus properties of organic manures. I. Actual
humus properties. Lantbrukshogskolans Annaler, 26:51, 1969.
*Jansson, S. L. On the humus properties of organic manures. II. Potential
humus properties. Lantbrukshogskolans Annaler, 26:135, 1969.
Increased income from sludge spraying. Water & Waste Treatment Journal.
12(1):32, May/June 1968.
Krups'kli, M. K., and P. A. Gasan. Prevention of filtration of industrial
waste waters from settlers by the method of coagulation colmatage.
Agrokhimiya i Gruntoznavstvo. no.2:141-148, 1966. (Chemical Abstracts.
68:6016k, 1968.)
Kumke, G. W., J. F. Hall, and R. W. Oeben. Conversion to activated sludge
at Union Carbide's Institute plant. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation. 40(8):1.408-1,422. Aug. 1968.
Lunt, H. A. Digested sewage sludge for soil improvement. Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 622. New Haven, Apr. 1959. 30 p.
*MacLaren, J. W. Evaluation of sludge treatment and disposal. Canadian
Municipal Utilities. 23-33, 51-59, May 1961. '
Merkel, W. The flow characteristics of sewage sludge and other thick
materials. Physics, 5:355-361, Nov. 1934.
Nusbau, I., and L. Cook, Jr. Making topsoil with wet sludge. Wastes
Engineering. 31(8):438-440. Aug. 1960.
*Premi, P. R., and A. H. Cornfield. Incubation study of nitrification of
digested sewage sludge added to soil. Soil Biology and Biochpurlstry.
1:1, 1969.
Raynes, B. C. Economic transport of digested sludge slurries. Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation, 42(7):1,379-1.386. July 1970.
Riddell, M. D. R., and J. W. Cormack. Selection of disposal methods for
wastewater treatment plants. In Waste Disposal from Water and Wastewater
Treatment Processes; Proceedings; 10th*Sanitary Engineering- Conference,
University of Illinois Department of Civil Engineering, 1968. p.131.
Rose B. A. Sanitary district puts sludge to work in land reclamation.
Water & Sewage Works, 115(9):393-399. Sept. 1968.
Rudolfs, W., and L. E. West. Properties of sludge which affect its
discharge through 24-inch pipe. Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
12(1):60-72, Jan. 1940.
266
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont.)
Scanlon, A. J. Utilization of sewage sludge for the production of topsoil.
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 29(8):944-950, Aug. 1957.
Scott, R. H. Disposal of high organic content wastes on land. Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation, 34(9):932-950, Sept. 1962.
Sharp, A. N. Trade effluent disposal by long-distance pressure pipeline
system (Discussion). Institution of Civil Engineers Proceedings,
45:701-708, Apr. 1970.
Sironen, E. R., and D. Lee. Sludge density control by ultrasonics. Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 42(2):298-301, Feb. 1970.
*Smith, J. C., Jr. Ultimate disposal of sludges. Technical Seminar Workshop
on Advanced Waste Treatment, Chapel Hill, N.C., Feb. 9-10, 1971.
*Sparr, A. E. Pumping sludge long distances. Alexander Potter Associates,
1971.
Survey of design trends and developments for small sewage treatment plants
in past decade. Wastes Engineering, 34:520-523, Oct. 1962.
Szucs, J. Use of radioisotopes for determination of the sludge level.
Vodnl Hospodarstvi, B 19(3):76-79, 1969. (Chemical Abstracts,
72 :70395t, 1970.)
Third report on the study of waste water reclamation and utilization.
California State Water Pollution Control Board Publication No. 18.
Scramento, 1957. 102 p.
Thomas, R. E., and T. W. Bendixen. Degradation of wastewater organlcs
in soil. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 41(5):
808-813, May 1969.
Tigges, R. The disposal of sludges from neutralization and detoxification
plants in the urban area of Duesseldorf-Mettman. Industrieabwasser,
p.22-24, 1965. (Water Pollution Abstracts, 41:649, Apr. 1968.)
Troemper, A. P. Discussion of how serious is the problem. In Waste disposal
from Water and Wastewater Treatment Processes; Proceedings; 10th Sanitary
Engineering Conference, University of Illinois Department of Civil
Engineering, 1968. p.7.
Viitasalo, I. Plant experiments with sewage sludge from Helsingfors.
Grundfoerbaettring, 22(1-2):22-23, 1969. (Chemical Abstracts,f
71:104965a, 1969.)
267
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont.1)
Wirts, J. J. Pipe line transportation and disposal of digested sludge*
Sewage and Industrial Wastea. 28(2)t121-131, F4b. 1956.
Wirts, J. J. Sludge pumping through long force sains. Water ft Sewage
Works. 95(10):345-351, Oct. 1948.
Wolfs, J. R. Factors affecting sludge force mains. Same sad Industrial
Wastes. 22(1):1-10, Jan. 1950.
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL AND LABORATORY TEST PROGRAMS
268
-------
TABLE A
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Parameter
Analytical Method (or instrument)
Reference* (page)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD)
pH value
Specific Conductance
Turbidity
Metals
Arsenic
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Zinc
Manometric BOD,
Dichromate Reflux
Glass Electrode Method- Analytical
Measurements Model 700
Conductivity Bridge Method-
Yellow Springs Instrument
Model 31
Nephelometric Method -
Hach Turbidimeter - Model 2100
Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy - Perkin-Elmer Model 290 B
Hach Manometric
BOD Apparatus
Hach Chemical Co.
(p. 495)
(p. 276)
(p.323)
(p.349)
Analytical Methods
for Atomic Absorption
Spec trophotome try
Perkin-Elmer Corp.
1968
(also)
(p.211 Standard Methods)
-------
TABLE A (Cont.)
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Parameter
Analytical Method (or instrument)
Reference* (page)
Barium
Hach DR-colorimeter
Turbidimetric Method
Hach Colorimeter
Methods Manual
Hach Chemical Co.
1971
Nitrate
Brucine Method
(p. 461)
Phosphate (Total)
Stannous Chloride Method
(p. 530)
Sulfate
Turbidimetric Method
(p. 334)
Chloride
Argentometric Method
(p. 96)
Total Nitrogen (Organic)
Kjeldahl Method
(p. 244)
Total Dissolved Solids
Filtrable Residue, Difference Method
(p. 539)
Total Solids %
Total Residue (%)
(p. 540)
Total Organics
Volatile Residue (%)
(p. 540)
Total Volatile Acids
Column - Partition
Chromatographic Method
(p. 577
Total Coliforms
Standard Total Coliform- MPN Tests
(p. 664)
Fecal Coliforms
Fecal Coliform MPN Procedure
(p. 669)
Fecal Streptococci
Multiple Tube Technic
(p. 689)
H2S - Gas
Mine Safety Appliances -
Universal Testing Kit ^83500 with detector
tubes for f^S *87414
Mine Safety Appliances Co.
-------
TABLE A (Cont.)
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Parameter
Analytical Method (or instrument)
Re fe re nc e *(pa ge)
Gas: CO,
CH4
o2
n2
Hardness
Fluoride
CO„
Nitrogen (Ammonia)
Gas Chromatographic Method (p. 546)
Varian Aerograph
Model A90P3
EDTA Titrimetric Method (p. 179)
SPA DNS Method (p. 174)
Nomographic Determination of Free Carbon (p. 86)
Dioxide and the three forms of Alkalinity
Nesslerization Method (p. 226)
~Standard Methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 13th Edition, APHA, AWWA, WPCF,
American Public Health Association, Washington, D C. 1971.
-------
TEST PROCEDURE FOR
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION
Samples are received in plastic bags with ties to seal airtight.
1. Remove bag tie and tag and obtain weight of sample and bag.
2. If sample is tightly packed, loosen to facilitate drying.
3. Place bag with sample in oven and dry at 102 C for approximately 24 hours.
4. Remove bag from oven and place in dessicator to cool.
5. After bag and sample have cooled (about 30 minutes), remove from dessicator
and obtain weight of the dried sample and bag.
6. Remove sample from bag making sure ail of sample is removed.
Save sample to determine organic content.
7. Determine tare weight of bag.
8. Calculate moisture content using the following formulas:
Moisture Content, percent by dry weight13
(tore + wet sample) - (tare + dry sample)
(tare + dry sample) - ( (tare) X
Moisture Content, percent by wet weight®
(tare + wet sample) - (tare + dry sample) ^
(tare + wet sample) - (tare)
272
-------
CITY OF OCEANSID^E. P. A. BORE HOLE DRILLING PROGRAM
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Drilling Instructions
1. Drill Site Location. Three sites will be selected on the landfill to include the
following conditions: (1) freshly placed sludge/solid waste, 0 to 2 weeks old; (2)
older sludge/solid waste placed about the same time as the test cells; and (3) old solid
waste without sludge placed about the same time as the test cells. Condition (1) will be
on the top of the current working face; conditions (2) and (3) will be selected on the
first drilling period and first drilling period and drilling will be done in the same area
in subsequent quarterly drilling periods.
One hole in each tesr cell to be drilled at least 15 feet from the gas and temperature
probes. Bore holes to be drilled in a clockwise direction each time starting on the west
side of the probes.
a. Test Cells. Drill to a 12-foot depth (10-foot depth excluding soil cover) to stay at
least 3 feet above the bottom of each test cell.
b. LandfilI. Locate the drill at least 15 feet from nearest canyon wall where feasible.
Drill to a 20-foot depth into the waste fill or until either refusal or the bottom of the fill
is encountered.
2. Drill Rig. A 12~inch auger drill bit on a 40-foot rig.
3. If obstacles are encountered while drilling in any hole, move the drill rig 5 to 10
feet and drill again.
B. Core Sampling Observations
1. Temperature. Insert thermometer into fresh waste on auger bit at two-foot intervals
as bit is withdrawn in two-foot increments.
2. Odor. Describe odor at two-foot intervals as:
a. Strength. Strong, medium, weak, none.
b. Type. Earthy, pig pen, sweet, grassy, sour.
3. Color. Describe components natural if no change has occurred or as they appear
if changed (faded, bleached, brighter, dulled, etc.).
4. Readability. Describe if newsprint, paper labels, etc. are readable, blurred, or
unreadable.
273
-------
5. Bio-degradability. Note components (cans, glass, grass, newsprint, polyethylene,
sticks, etc.) degradability.
6. Appearance. Describe if waste components are dry, moist, powdery and crumbling,
compact and agglomerated.
7. Samples. Fill a 1-quart sample bottle with representative wastes at two-foot
intervals and check off on data sheet.
C. Backfilling
Backfill the core holes with the solid waste and soil removed from the same hole. If
additional backfill material is needed, use solid waste from the existing fill face;
Cover the hole with the original cover soil.
D. Core Sample Removal
The procedure to be followed is to drill into the solid waste a distance of 2 feet and
remove the bit for sampling and observation of the material as described under item B,
above. Clean off the drill bit and drill into the waste and remove the drill for sampling,
etc. Mark the auger drill bit with emery cloth at 2-foot intervals (allow for soil cover)
so that drill depth can be measured.
E. Gas Detection Tests
Gas detection tests for hydrogen sulfide and methane will be made at the 10-foot depth
in the test cell bore holes and the 20-foot depth in the landfill bore holes. A plastic
tube with a permeable material on one end will be lowered to the bottom of the hole
and the hydrogen sulfide and methane tests made as done on the test cells.
274
-------
ANALYSIS OF TEST CELL BORE HOLE SAMPLES FOR BACTERIA
COLIFORM (E. COLI), FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS, PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA
Preparation of Sample for Bacterial Analysis:
Thirty grams of solid sample was withdrawn from the jar aseptically and added to a
sterile 500 ml capacity bottle containing 270 ml of 0.067M cold phosphate buffer,
pH 7.2. Contents of the bottle were mixed thoroughly by vigorous shaking of the
bottle 50 times. The suspension was then filtered through a four layered sterile
cheese cloth into another sterile empty bottle. This filtrate was used to prepare a series
of decimal dilutions.
Preparation of Decimal Dilutions:
The filtered suspension prepared as noted above was diluted 1:10. Ten ml of thfs
suspension was transferred to a dilution bottle containing 90 ml of phosphate buffer.
The bottle was stoppered and shaken vigorously 25 times. This gave a 1:100 dilution.
Further dilutions were made in a similar fashion up to 1:1,000,000 by transferring
10 ml portions into 90 ml sterile phosphate buffer for each subsequent dilution. These
dilutions were used to inoculate a series of selected culture media for detecting various
specific microorganisms as well as standard bacterial plate counts.
Bacterial, Count by Pour Plate:
Each dilution bottle containing an appropriate dilution of the test sample was shaken
vigorously 25 times and 1 ml portions were pipetted into each of the appropriately
marked duplicate Petri plates. Fifteen mi of molten agar (Difco) prepared in accordance
with Standard Methods was held at 45° C. The test sample was added to the agar In the
Petri plate and mixed thoroughly with the agar by rotating and tilting the plate. The
plates were allowed to solidify soon after mixing and incubated at 35 + 0.5° C for
24 hours in an inverted position.
The bacterial colonies developed after incubation were counted and the bacterial
content for each sample was computed from the plates containing 20 to 300 colonies*
The colony count was computed per gram of the sample (wet weight).
Determination of Total Coliform Group by MPN Method:
Presumptive Test:
One ml portions of each decimal dilutions of each sample were inoculated Into 5 lac*
tose broth tubes in identical fermentation m^dia (10 ijal medium per tube).
The range of decimal dilutions used was 10 to 10 for each test sample. The
fermentation tubes were incubated at 35 + 0.5 C for 24 hours and examined for the
presence of gas. If no gas was present the tubes were incubated for another 24-hour
period. Tubes showing the presence of gas were recorded as being positive In the
275
-------
presumptive test.
Confirmed Test:
All tubes showing a positive presumptive test were submitted to a confirmation test.
For this purpose a loopful (3 mm in diameter)of the culture in the presumptive
fermentation tube was transferred to another fermentation tube containing brilliant
green lactose bile broth. These tubes were marked appropriately and incubated at
35 + 0.5 C. They were examined periodically for the production of gas. NTubes which
did not show any gas production after 48 hours of incubation were considered negative
(i.e. coliform were absent) and discarded.
Completed Test:
All brilliant green lactose bile fermentation tubes giving positive reactions within
48 hours were submitted to the confirmation test. A loopful of the culture from the
confirmed test tube was streaked onto appropriately marked eosin methylene blue agar
(Levine) plate soon after the production of gas. The plates were incubated in an
inverted position for 24 hours at 35 + 0.5 C and examined for the presence of typical
colonies showing a green metallic sheen; atypical colonies were transferred put from
the plate and inoculated into appropriately marked lactose broth fermentation tubes
and nutrient agar slants. The tubes and the agar slants were incubated at 35 + 0.5 C
for 24 to 48 hours. Gram stained smears were prepared from the agar slants if any
amount of gas was produced in the corresponding lactose broth fermentation tubes.
If no gas was produced in lactose broth fermentation tubes after 48 hours of
incubation the coliform group was considered to be absent in those tubes and no gram
stained smears were prepared from corresponding tubes. The gram stained smears
prepared from the agar slants were examined in oil immersion under a suitable microscope
for the presence or absence of spores. If the smear contained gram negative rods and
no spores the test was considered to be completed, i.e. positively present coliform
in the tube. If spores or gram positive rods were found on the smear the test was
considered to be negative, i.e. absence of coliform bacteria in the tube. If both
gram positive and gram negative rods and/or spores were found on the smear the test
was considered indecisive and the procedure beginning from eosin methylene blue agar
(Levine).plate was repeated.
Differential Test:
A small portion from the bacterial growth on nutrient agar slant whose smear showed
grarmnegative rods only was inoculated into appropriately marked tubes in duplicate
containing 5 ml of buffered glucose broth and incubated at 35 + 0.5° C for 3 to 5 days.
After incubation one of the duplicated tubes was treated with 5 drops of methyl red
indicator solution (0.1 gram methyl red in 300 ml of 95% ethyl alcohol and diluted to
500 ml with distilled water). Development of a red color was considered as methyl
red positive and development of yellow color was considered as methyl red negative.
276
-------
Sample
{
oduced.
+ 24
Lactose broth fermentation tube, 35-0.5 C for hrs
\ ' 48
Gas pr<
Brilliant 'green lactose bile broth,
24 to 48 hrs at 35-0.5 C
1
No gas produced;
coliform absent.
No gas;
coliform absent.
J
Gas produced.
Eosin methylene blus agar plate, 35-0.5 C for 24 hrs
Typical colonies
1
>ical
Atypical colonies
)
Nutrient agar slant,
35-0.5 C for 24 to 48 hrs
|
Gram stain
T
Negative colonies;
coli form absent.
Lactose broth fermentation tube,
35*0.5 C for 24 to 48 hrs
Gram nigative rods;
Coli form present
positively. Both
gram positive and
negative—go to
eosin methylene
blue agar plate.
No gram Tiegative
rods but spores or
gram positive rods
present; Coli form
absent.
Gas produced;
examine the
slants by gram
stain.
1
No gas; coli form
absent; discard
agar slant.
Buffered glucose broth
f
"I
MR +1 E. coli i*i
wo | . . ... . . J Aerobacter aerogenes present
VP - I or intermediates present +1 or
From: Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Analysis,
13th Edition, AWWA, WPCF, etal, 1971.
FIGURE 1
CITY OF OCEANS1DE/E.P.A. BACTERIAL ANALYSIS
FLOW SHEET
277
-------
The other duplicate tube of the buffered glucose broth was incubated for 3 days and
tested by the Voges - Proskauer test by adding 3 ml of fresh a -naphthol solution
(5g in 100 ml absolute ethanol) and 1.0 ml of 40% KOH solution and incubating at
room temperature for 2 to 4 hours. Development of a pink to crimson color in the
culture indicated positive V-P test, otherwise the test was considered as negative.
A combination of positive methyl red (MR) and negative V-P tests indicated the presence
of E. coli and/or its intermediates in the tube. (The flow sheet is shown in Figure 1,)
Quantitative Analysis for Pseudomonas Aeruginosa:
Presumptive Test:
One ml portions from each decimal dilutions of each sample were inoculated into
duplicate sets of 5 tubes of asparagine enrichment broth. The tubes were incubated at
35 + 0.5 C for 48 hours. The tubes were examined for development of turbidity and/
or green or blue green color. The tubes showing such characteristics wei e considered
as positive presumptive. The negative presumptive tubes were discarded.
Confi rmation Test:
The asparagine enrichment tubes, which gave positive presumptive tests were used to
inoculate appropriately marked acetamide broth tubes. The acetamide broth tubes
were incubated at 35 + 0.5 C for 48 hours. Development of violet color in the medium
indicated a positive confirmed test for Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Completed Test:
Culture from positive acetamide broth (confirmation test) tubes was streaked onto
appropriately marked "TECH" agar plates for isolated colonies. The plates were
incubated at 35 + 0.^ C for 24 hours. Development of diffusible blue-green color
indicated the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Gram stained smears were
prepared from one of these colonies and viewed in oil immersion under microscope for
the presence of gram negative rods to further confirm the presence of Pseudomonas
aeruginosa.
Quantitative Analysis for Fecal Streptococci:
Presumptive Test:
One ml portions of each decimal dilutions were inoculated into a series of appropriately
marked azide dextrose broth tubes containing 10 ml of the medium. The tubes were
incubated for 24 to 48 hours at 35 + 0.5 C and examined for growth indicated by
turbidity.
278
-------
Confirmation Test:
Two drops of culture from all positive presumptive test tubes was Inoculated Into
appropriately marked tubes containing 10 ml of ethyl violet azide broth using sterile
Pasteur pipets. The tubes were incubated at 35 + O.S°C for 24 hours and examined
for the formation of a purple button at the bottom (positive confirmation test)* If
tubes showed a negative confirmation test at this point, they were inoculated with an
additional two drops of culture from positive presumptive test tubes, which were
always saved. The confirmed test tubes were incubated again at 35 + for 34
hours and examined for positive or negative reactions.
Completed Test:
Tubes of brain heart infusion broth supplemented with 6.5% sodium chloride were
inoculated with three loopfuls of culture from positive presumptive tubes corresponding
to positively confirmed test tubes. The completed test tubes were incubated at
35 + 0.5°C for 48 hours and examined for growth. Turbidity In 6.5% NoCI broth
constituted a completed test.
As a check, gram stained smears were prepared from 6.5% NoCI broth and viewed
under a microscope.
279
-------
CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE SATURATION
AND LEACHATE GENERATION METHODOLOGY
1. After determination of moisture and organic content in the core samples was
completed/ the core samples in each bore hole having the highest and lowest
moisture contents were selected for saturation and leaching tests.
2. A representative sub-sample of materials in each selected core sample was
obtained and weighed.
3. The weighed sub-sample was packed into a 2-inch diameter transparent polyethylene
column on top of a 1/8-inch square mesh screen support. The column system was
capped at the top and bottom to close the system. A 1/16-inch I. D. glass drain
tube was installed through the bottom cap. A 200-ml buret with a stop-cock
control was positioned above the column with its nozzle extending through the
top cap. A 200 ml graduated flask was placed below the column with the glass
column drain tube passing through a rubber stopper in the top of the flask.
4. The buret was filled with 200 ml of distilled water and the stop-cock was opened
to allow the water to drip into the column onto the packed solid waste material.
The optimum rate of water application was determined in p.eliminary tests to be
about 400 ml per hour. Additional distilled water was added to the buret in
100-ml portions as required to maintain a minimum of 50 ml head in the buret.
Water addition required about 30 to 50 minutes to reach saturation. Saturation was
indicated when prolonged dripping of water from the bottom of the sample began as
determined by observation. The volume of water added to saturation (less any
leachate) was determined to calculate the percent dry weight of water absorbed.
5. The water application was continued after saturation until at least 157 ml of
leachate was collected in the 100 ml flask.
6. The 157 ml of leachate was used to determine BOD5 on the HACH Manometric
BOD5 apparatus.
280
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA SHEETS
281
-------
Newsprint
1 . Paper
Cardboard
(Solid and
Corrugated)
Misc. Paper
Food
to
Glass,
Ceramic
CO
Metals
Tree & Shrub
Prunnings
5. Garden
Leaves
Grass
Textiles
o
Plastic, Rubber
Leather - Solid
7. Plastic
Rubber
Leather
Plastic, Rubber-
Foam
Wood
00
•
Dirt, Ash,
Sand
•
Concrete, Rock
2 Inch Sieve
Other
n
%
CO
—I >
m ts)
O m
£ 5
rn >
S z
o >
2 DO
-h£
m m
<
-o
pa
o
o
iSt
-------
Date:
Observer:
Title:
LANDFILL VEHICLE COUNT TALLY SHEET
Type and Size of Vehicle
/ehicles
Type of Waste Load
Auto/
Station
Wagon
Pick-up
Truck Van
1/4-? ton
Truck
Over
1 ton
Waste Collection >
Domestic
Household
Industrial
list Wastes &
Comments
Private/
Industrial
Oceanside
Municipal
Other
Municipal
1
Enter check W) or volume Sn cu yd if known. Check W) appropriate column(»).
-------
TABLE 2
OCEANSIDE TEST CELL TEMPERATURE RECORD
Date
emperature, Deg
Ambient
Cell No. 1
Cell No. 2
Cell No. 3
$¦
M-D 1
B 1
S
M-D
B
S
M-D
6
- surface probe temp; M-D = mid-depth probe temp; and B = bottom probe temp.
284
-------
TABLE 3
MONTHLY OCEANS1DE TEST CELL LEACHATE SAMPLING1
Date
Sample No.
Quantity
(gal)
BOD
(mg/l)
CI
(mg/l)
TDS
(mg/l)
N
(mg/l)
Col i form
(MPN)
EC
(/J mhos)
Return each data sheet with the listed samples. 285
-------
LANDFILL EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
Observer CITY OF OCEAN SIDE Driver
Date Dozer"
Weather
Equipment Tim
e/Task, Min.(VlOO)
Flies,
Time
Temp.
°F
Con-
dition *
Non-pro-
ductive +
Working
Refuse
Placing
Soil Cover
Moving
Earth
Travel
Rotjr
Birds 1
|
Describe weather as* (a) sunny: (b) cloudy; (c) rain; (d) wet ground (not raining).
+lnclude equipment maintenance, coffee/lunch breaks, breakdown /stuck, talk, etc.
286
-------
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weather
Birds, Rats, Other, No.
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind
Condition +
Odor >
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
•
.
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Shower*, or Rain
-------
Date/time
Temp. _ Wsather
Check-off when fa,ken: Photo ( ) Sample ( )
CORE SAMPLE DATA SHEET
Observer
Bore hole no.
(Take at bottom of 10 or 20 ft hole: CH^(mg/l)
Depth (ft)
H_S (mg/l)
Waste material
category
Temp.
(F)
Odor
Color
Readability
Appearance
Biodegradability
Newsprint
Miscellaneous
paper
Cardboard
Food
-
Textiles
Grass
Leaves
Tree & shrub
prunings
Plastic, rubber
Leather
Wood
Metal
Glass & ceramics
Dirt, ash, sand
|Sewage sludge
1
Comments
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer
Date
&
time
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Est. qty, gallons
Solid
waste
by type*
Sludge
load by
type+
Temp.
°F
Wind^
Con-
dition**
Runoff
Leachate
(sample when
observed)
*
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no.loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no. loads"
Indicate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(galIons/load); and-for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD), primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Example* LS - 3 (3,500) (SD).
&
Enter - calm, low, moderate or high. **Eriter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer
Date
&
time
Sludqe test area: ft x ft
(No sludge) Regular landfill area; ft x ft
Blowing
litter,
no. items*
Animals and insects, no/PA+
Odor^
Blowing
litter
no. items*
Animals and insects, no/PA+
Odor*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Othersi
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.1
*
Estimate the number of items travelling In the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end.
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all solid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation. PA = populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population is foraging.
Estimate the area covered by flies and the number of flies, maggots.
Earthy, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc.
] Indicate rats, cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
Observer
Date/Day
DS-3: LANDFILL EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
Driver
Dozer
Clock
Time
'wait)
Temp
(deg F)
Con-
dition*
Task time, min/100
Refuse condition, describe
Equipment
Apply
water*''
Unload
sludge
Nonpro-
ductive
Travel
Moving
refuse
Working
refuse
Moving
soil
Placing
soil cover
As received, dry or wet;
sludge admixed, dry or wet)
*Describe weather as: sunny; cloudy; showers; rain, overcast; wet ground.
Nonproductive equipment time includes any time dozer motor is running, but dozer is not moving
such as: equipment, repair,stuck, driver doing other tasks.
#
Note if dozer driver (D) or handyman is watering refuse.
-------
CONFIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE NATIONWIDE SURVEY
OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL TO SANITARY LANDFILLS
We are conducting special studies on disposal of sludges and hazardous wastes.
Please complete and return to: Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. Phone:
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard (213) 478-1501
Los Angeles, California 90025
For your cooperation in completing this questionnaire, you will receive a summary of
the national results.
Landfill Location(s) Operator (name)
Check one: ( ) Public ( ) Private Approx.population served
Address
1. Are any sludges, liquid wastes, or hazardous wastes disposed to the landfill?
( ) Yes (Please complete all questions.) ( ) No (Please complete questions
2, 6, 7, and 8.)
2. Is disposal of sludge, liquid wastes, or hazardous wastes to landfills regulated or
inspected? ( ) Locally; ( ) State (Please enclose regulations); ( ) Unregulated;
( ) Seasonal; ( ) Routinely Performed
Comments:
3. Please estimate the following quantities:
Type
of
Sludge
Quantity
Disposed
(gal/yr)
Rate of
Disposal
(gal/yr)
Sludge Solids
Content
(%, dry weight)
Solid Waste
Disposed
(tons/yr)
Municipal Sewage Sludge
Septic Tank Pumpings
Industrial* Sludge/Liquid Waste
Hazardous Waste *
* Identify types, quantities of waste, and disposal locations, for radioactive, pesticides/
herbicide chemicals, industrial acids and chemicals, hospital, explosives, combustibles
in the space at the bottom of this page.
4. Please describe the method for applying sludge to the landfill on the back of this
questionnaire.
5. Do procedures exist for the following (describe where applicable):
a. Catching drainage from sludge overflow ( ) Yes ( ) No
b. Compaction ( ) Yes ( ) No
c. Isolating landfill from contact with groundwater
d. Isolating landfill from surface drainage
o. Type of landfill operation:
Cut and Cover ( ) Other type Remaining Capacity in Fill (%)
Canyon or ravine ( ) FiiI site area (acres) Avg. Annual Rainfall(in.)
Pit or Quarry ( ) Fill final depth (avg. ft.)
292
-------
6. (Cont.)
Is refuse covered daily? ( ) Yes Depth of Cover (ft) ( ) No
Do regulations exist on types of solid wastes accepted for landfill disposal?
( ) Yes (enclose copy) ( ) No
Is waste weighed as received at the landfill? ( ) Yes ( ) No
Approximate daily tonnage
Has the landfill caused local water pollution problems? ( ) Yes ( ) No
Comments:
Have tests for leachate drainage from the landfill been made? ( ) Yes ( ) No
Describe quantity (gpd):
7. Landfill use:
a. Is the landfill open to the public: ( ) Yes ( ) No b. How close is the
nearest residential area c. What is the planned use for the landfill site
after filling is completed?
8. Landfill Operation Opinion Question
NOTE: If sludge js_ disposed to your landfill, rate the effects as requested. If
sludge is not disposed to your landfill, give your opinion of the effects you would
expect if it was disposed. Your opinion is being solicited to learn the prevailing
attitudes of landfill operators in the 50 states as a whole.
a. Environmental Impact of Hazardous Waste Disposal
Please rate, in your opinion, the seriousness of problems and hazards associated with
handling, transporting, and disposing of the following waste materials:
Type of.Waste Material
Anticipated Environmental Problem/
Hazard in Transportation and
Disposal Via Landfill
None Little
Moderate
Great
0
1 "
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a. Municipal Sewage Sludge
b. Septic Tank Sludge
c. Radioactive Waste
d. Pesticide/Herbicide, etc.
e. Indus. Petro,chemicals
f. Hospital Waste
g. Combustibles
h. Explosives
293
-------
b. Anticipated Sanitary Landfill Effect
Please rate municipal sludge, septic tank sludge, and other liquid and hazardous
waste disposal to sanitary landfill relative to sanitary land fl 11 ing without disposal
of these materials for each of the following conditions'
Rating
Landfill Conditions/Factors
Much
Worse
Slightly
Worse
Same
Slightly
Improved
Greatly
Improved
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+ 1
+2
+3
+4
+5
Fires
Settlement
Ease of Equipment Operation
Ease of Compaction
Compaction Density
Operating Cost
Biowing Dust and Litter
Leachate Quantity
Ground Water Quality
Local Surface Water Pollution
Flies
Vermin
j&irds
[Gas Production
Odors
Fill Operator Health & Safety
Public Attitudes
'
Thank you very much for your assistance. Please use File No. 219-0
the space below for additional comments. Attach
available reports when returning questionnaire.
294
-------
CONFIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE SURVEY OF FIFTY STATES ON DISPOSAL OF
SLUDGE, LIQUID OR HAZARDOUS WASTES TO SANITARY LANDFILLS
Please complete and return to: Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. Phone:
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard (213) 478-1501
Los Angeles, California 90025
Wp are conducting special studies on disposal of sludge and hazardous wastes to land"
fills. The study objectives include determining public health policy on handling and
disposing of sewage sludge, septic tank pumpings, and industrial sludge, liquid and
hazardous wastes. Your response to this questionnaire would, therefore, be most
helpful. In return for your cooperation, a summary of the questionnaire results will be
mailed to your agency upon completion of the study.
Name of State
Optional: Name Title Address
1. Does your state permit () regulate ( ) inspect ( ) or prohibit ( ) disposal of the
following liquid wastes to landfills:
Municipal Sewage Sludge Industrial Sludge/Liquid Waste *
Septic Tank Pumping Hazardous Waste*
2. Estimate.number of landfill sites disposing of sludge, liquid and hazardous* waste*:
3. What problems, if any, have occurred in your state because of disposing any of the
waste listed in item 1 into landfills? ^
4i. Recommended or existing alternative sludge/liquid waste disposal methods'
5fr Confident rat personal Opinion Question
NOTE: Only your personal opinion is being solicited. ALL REPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. Only summary results-
will be published. It is understood that your rating will be a subjective, educated
guess. We are primarily interested in learning the prevailing attitudes of know ledger
able Public Health/Sanitary Engineers in the 50 States as a whole.
ah: Environmental Impact of Hazardous Waste Disposal
Please rate, "iti your opinion, the degree of problems and hazards associated with
handling and disposing of the following waste materials:
295
-------
Type of Waste Material
Anticipated Environmental Problems/Hazard
None Little
Moc
erate
Great
0
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
a. Municipal Sewage Sludge
b. Septic Tank Sludge
c. Radioactive Waste
d. Pesticide/Herbicide
Chemicals
¦
e. Industrial Acids,
Chemicals, etc.
f. Hospital Waste
g. Combustibles
h. Explosives
* Identify types: radioactive, pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, industrial acids,
hospital, explosives, or combustibles.
Anticipated Sanitary Landfill Effect
Please rate, in your opinion, the effects of disposing domestic sewage sludge, septic
tank pumpings, industrial sludges*, liquid and hazardous* waste to landfills on each
of the listed landfill factors.
Sanitary Landfill
Condi tions/Fac tors
Anticipated Effects of Sludge,Etc. Disposal
Much Slightly
Worse Worse
No
Change
Slightly
Improved
Greatly
Improved
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
i+l
+2
+3
+4.
+5
Leachate Quantity
Ground Water Quality
Local Surface Water Pollution
Gas Production
Odors
Flies
Vermin
Birds
Mil Operator Health & Safety
Public Attitudes
Aquatic Life (fish)
* We will appreciate receiving a copy of your applicable State, Health and Safety Code
Regulations regarding sanitary landfills, sewage sludge, septic tank and hazardous waste
disposal. Thank you very much for your assistance.
296
-------
APPENDIX C
ANALYSES OF SEWAGE SLUDGES FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
297
-------
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SAUNA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
A A
A A
A A
Q£
a.
<
>-
Z O
3 3 5
—> —» <
1971
S I s
ITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
j I I « i i i L
>-7.0 1—^,1
z „ 3 «
in 3
u_
—1 —1
z o
=) 3 5
^ ^ 5 <£ 1/1
1973
85
FIGURE CI
„ PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-jr—
-------
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
AttAtYStSdiY RA±PttST0NE~&CO., INC.
A *
A A
A
1 -
A
FIGURE C2
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/EiP.A. PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
~ FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
JL TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY a7J, ,
A h. I A I w r> w ... « *6.4
,9.1
L ANA LYSIS BY: RALPH STONE &
CO., INC.
a ti
A A
A
A
A A
0.5
CIT Y .OF OCEANSIDE/E. P. A.
FIGURE C3
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
8.Or
7.5
7.0
6.5
° o°oo
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SALINA
ANALYSIS BY- ° CITY OCEANSIDE
k °o° o # RALPH STONE&CO., INC,
r n o O o ooo ooo o oo ^0€HD<^P€>
oo
O O ¦ o o o
o o o
o o
X
a
6.0|-
*
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
• ®
a
e " •
• S f
AS •
e>
• ® ®
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE C4
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
o o
o o
O O <
^ o
L ° n °O ° ooo cP
J Ooo cP*hxr o o o
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
r ANALYSIS BY: O CITY OF OCEANS IDE
® RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
03
00 °°0ct>0
OO
O OOO oooo
O O
o o
o
X
Q-
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
«
o
e es
• o
e o
® o
oo a
o
o e
» i i i » i i i
J L.
J 1 L
J I L
J I I I t i i . « .
3D-3 luX ¥ *—
< 5: —i —i r z
o
3 3 3
<£ (st
§1
1973
-%=»
FIGURE C5
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANS! DE, CALIFORNIA
-------
z
o.
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY
o riTY of nrfanside
ArWYSIS^BY m rao»h jfONE & CO., INC.
c
CP O o
° Oi ° ?
ocnocficP&G0 ° y ° o
88
©
00.
oo o o aoo ooo
00 " o
1° O «JO°0Q© oe so
o
O o,
• •
• • ••
I I I « I I I L
' 1 1 .«»»•'«
1 a -i
z> id a jj § ^
-» ^ i/i U ^ Q
U ^
-« 1973
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE C6
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CAUFORNIA
-------
:l~
800 r
700
600
a>
£ 500
i/)
o
^ 400
200
100
- INDICATES RANGE OF
VOLATILE ACIDS
ACCORDING TO CITY OF
OCEANSIDE ANALYSES
A
A A A
A A
A
A A A
A A A A
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SAUNA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND CO., INC.
J 1 I I I I I L
J I L
J I L
J L
J L
o£ >- 7 —i O a. ~— >ii
1971
^u-2<55-»io0O§Q
£i5>
-«¦
¦1972
-1973
city of oceansiqe/e.p.a.
FIGURE C7
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
280 p
240
CD
E
200
oo
Q 160
u
<
UJ
=f 120
i—
S
O
> 80
40
a
AA A
A
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SAUNA
ANALYSIS BY: CITY OF OCEANSIDE
A*.
A. A
A
A
A
A AA A —
44A4M A ^AA a A A
A
A A
A A
A. A AA . A A A A
A A A
A a &
A A
o-t- >u
1971
eft—
7 CQQ£Q£ >- 7 —1 Q. t— > I )
^ -> ' <
1972
7 co o; oi >-7
t: u-i < Q- S £-
< u- ^ < 3 13
(I) OL I- >
§*89
1973
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE C8
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
180
160
l
140
¦120
100
80
60
40
20
0
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
ANALYSIS BY: CITY OF OCEANSIDE
~ ~ o
QOO CD
~
a ~ a
a cnti ~ °
a CD CD
~ CD
n
~
a
~ ,a
~
DD
a
0
~
a q
D CD Q ~ oa
~ a ~ ~
a ~ o
Y OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE C9
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
18Gr
160
140
1^0
S^oo
3 80
O 60
40
20
TREATMENT PLANT: iAN LUIS REY
ANALYSIS BY: CITY OF OCEANSIDE
CZ3
o o
oQ)
o qj o a
b „ o ao
° °« o
o o o "
aana d o a c
°
'¦***«' ¦
a
o a
a
a a
a a o
s
a
o ao 0 q
a en
* ¦ * ¦
5 <°
< ffi
a.
<
3 3 ? S S z a
£ z o
I 3
1972
Z -
< UJ
OS ^ Z
S :
1973
O _
d d 5 2:
n -l < w
81
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/lE.P.A.
FIGURE C10
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SAUNA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC.
o •©
• •
« •
» •
# •
' ' ' ¦ I I I L
J L.
' ¦ ' I I L
J I I I I I I I I I
a.
<
^ z O
5 d d 9
< -i -i < w
1971 —
o y
8 S g
ax ^ J ^ o. n O V
^ D 3 5 ^ A 7 £
—) n s t/) U ^ Q
Z „ £ g > 2
3 E S <
-* 1972
Z m ^ ^ Z ^ O 5
U ^
1973 B
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE CI 1
•ROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM CfcEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC.
• ©
•• •
o •
» •
£ Z _J o ^ J-
5 I => => 5 & X
< < —i —> < 10 U
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
ji
O
=> => 2 & 8
-i n < W U
FIGURE C12
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC.
"o3
o
-JC
E
5J.
^ >
° i=
3
O
§'
u
« o «
® e
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE C13
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SALINA
AMtYSIS BY: & INC.
8r
• •• ••••*
Jl I L
J L.
J—I I I I L
I I I
' « 1 » '
I I
«
-------
u
K>
8
o 7
CD
O
f 6
c
«
8.5
_c
J
.2. 4
Z :
Uj _
O 3
O
oc
t—
Z 2
i
<
i—
P 1
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SALINA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE &CO., INC,
e
e
e •
a A
• © « ® ®
o
o • e ee • o
0
CITY OF OCEANSK>E/E.P.A.
FIGURE C15
nP-ROPJRTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA?
-------
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES
FROM PILOT SCALE TEST DRUMS
313
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
JlOO
in
a
2 50
40
30
20
oll
RESIDUAL LEACHATE O
FRESH LEACHATE @
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
DAYS ROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(MIXED MUNICIPAL DIGESTED SLUDGE—SATURATED)
FIGURE D1
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 1
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
|100
8 50
2 40
30
20
oll
*
START DATE 5/3/71
FRESH LEACHATE •
RESIDUAL IfEACHATE O
100 200 30fy YEaSt™ 500 600 700(2 ^EARS?00
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(WATER)
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 2
-------
4,000
3/000
2,000
i,ooo
500
^ 400
J 300
g 200
O
CD
100
50
40
30
20
~
~
START DATE 5/3/71
FRESH LEACHATE ®
RESIDUAL LEACHATE ~
ot 1— »—®—i- j——m-* .
100 200 300,, vxl- A, 400 500 600 700„ A o-800 900
9
~
i I l-tft i W i i i . i
'0 YEA^) 4^ ^ 700(2 yIaRS?00
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(SEPTIC TANK PUMPINGS—0.61)
FIGURE D3
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. LEACHATE;BOD5 VS. TIME
" - DRUM NO. 3
-------
CO
VJ
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
ml 00
«o
a
O 50
00 40
30
20
£>
oil
START DATE 5/3/71
FRESH LEACHATE
RESIDUAL LEACHATE O
O
O
GO
100
200
3°°0 ye/}r)400
0#-
00
600
700A
CITY OF OCEANS1DE/E.P.A.
"(2^ EARS?00
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(MIXED SLUDGE—0.61)
FIGURE D4
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 5
900
-------
CO
oo
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
o>
E
100
«n
a
O
CD
50
40
30
20 -
otl
START DATE 6/15/71
FRESH LEACHATE
RESIDUAL LEACHATE O
O
OO
100
200
500
"600 700(2 IeARS f00 900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED AC—0.61)
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/fc.P.A.
FIGURE D5
LEACHATE BOD- VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 6
-------
u
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
~100
«o
Q
O
CO
50
40
30
20
° oo°
©
START DATE 6/21/71
FRESH LEACHATE @
RESIDUAL LEACHATE O
qC 1 J '3
6
—i lj .. iq? fX) 'I © J 1 t 1 » i
100 200 300p YEA^400 ~ 500 700(2^EARSr 900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED AC SLUDGE—SATURATE)
FIGURE D7
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P .A. LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
" DRUM NO. 8
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
100
o>
"40
Q 40
2 30
20
3
START DATE 6/21/71
FRESH LEACHATE ©
RESIDUAL LEACHATE O
O
OO
O
pf 1 1 iM— ©———x 1 1 1 1 '
100 200 30(j^ ySSrT00 500 600 YEAR^00 900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED SATURATE THICK)
FIGURE D8
.CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 9
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
o>
— 100
in
o
O
~ '50
40
30
20
oo
8 o
o
START DATE 6/11/71
FRESH LEACHATE @
RESIDUAL LEACHATE O
!00 200 3& (1 V W 7??yUs) 800 "°
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(RAW PRIMARY—0.61)
FIGURE D9
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
'DRUM NO. 10
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
|ioo
L
* 40
30
20
ot-
©
oo
e
o
START DATE 6/11/71
FRESH; LEACHATE ®
RESIDUAL LEACHATE O
—i ¦— » op -J—Q » ¦ 1—, i—
m 200 300p Y^jMo u 555 55^oo
900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(RAW PRIMARY—-0.61)
FIGURE D10
CITY .OFOCEANSIDEA.P.A. LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 1?
-------
4f0CCr START DATE 6/12/71
3,000
FRESH LEACHATE @
RESIDUAL LEACHATE ~
~ ~
a
~
~
n
0X i 1—.—.— t , im » i » ¦ »—i « »
100 200 300(1 YE/Jr^4500 600 700(2 YEARS?00 900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED PRIMARY—0.61)
FIGURE Dll
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P..A. LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 12
-------
4,000,- ¦ START DATE 6/14/71
3,000 -
500
400
30011
FRESH LEACHATE
RESIDUAL LEACHATE
~
~~~
ot —» »¦ <§ m ¦ m— ¦ «—i ¦
100 200 300(1 year) 400 500 600 700(2 YEARS?00
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED PRIMARY—0.61)
FIGURE D12
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 13
-------
4'000 r START DATE 6/21/71
3,000 "
2,000'
1,000
500
400
300
200
^100 r ™ n
o> - 1_J
J.
o 50
2 40
30
20
0t iw 200 Sorfe#*®
FRESH LEACHATE m
RESIDUAL LEACHATE ~
^^,403—^ 500 600 700p ^^00 WO
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED AC—0.61 AERATED)
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
* ¦ 1 ¦ ¦
FIGURE D13
LEACHATE BOD5 VS . TIME
DRUM NO. 14
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000*
1,000
500
400
300
200
J
$ ;
100
50
40
30
20
oH
~
100
200
-»-gS-
500
600
0 YEAR)
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPUCATION
START DATE 6/21/7!
FRESH LEACHATE ©
RESIDUAL LEACHATE ~
700.
Wsf"
900
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE D14
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 15
-------
4,000
3 >000'
2,000
1,000 ?
500
400
300
200
100
$ 50
J 40
«o 30
l20
~
~
H B
~
CD
START DATE 6/14/71
FRESH LEACHATE M
RESIDUAL LEACHATE ~
0< 1 1 . I m * 5-4- «- -»¦ T rJ
100 200 3°tji YEASV400 500 600 700(2 YEARS?00 900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(SEPTIC TANK--0.61)
FIGURE D15
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 16
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
_200
CD
E
~100
lO
o
O
40 50
40
30
20
~
~
B ~
~ a
START DATE 6/17/71
FRESH LEACHATE M
RESIDUAL LEACHATE ~
(H————JI—•——jL——•——L—r——JUh-_———4—I—_——J—_____—.1—mm———l_____—i—J
100 200 300(1 YEA^)400 500 600 700^ ^EARS^0 900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(WATER ONLY)
FIGURE D16
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. LEACHATE BOD^ VS. TIME
- DRUM NO. 17
-------
800
700
600
CO
CO
o
co
oe.
ID
500
400
300
200
,100
G>
• ©
0—sb iriS
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E. P.A.
' - I
LEGEND
DRUM NO. 1 3
START DATE 4/6 5/3/71
SYMBOL a ® FRESH
a oRESIDUAL
D
O
O
° flo o D
50" 3bfi "3%0 §68 °^0 6^0 760 860 8jo
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D17
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
800
700
600
S 500
3
£ 400
O
9
5 300
200
100
0
DRUM NO.
START DATE,
SYMBOL
5 2
5/3/7]
a •FRESH
oRESIDUAL
• • -
50 100
'« '*« f1 » 1 m I T Ml
00 150 200 250 300 350
;.»o
OOq
OO
o ,
450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSIPE/E.P.A.
FIGURE D18
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
DRUM NO. 6 7
START DATE 6/15 6/16
SYMBOL a eFRESH
~ o RESIDUAL
¦
1
I 8
-L.
O.°0
-BjiSr. a
50 100 150
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
DAYS SINGE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
650 700 750 800 850
OTY OF QCEANS1PE/E.P;A>
FIGURE D19
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
DRUM NO. 8 9
START DATE6/21 6/21
SYMBOL e ®FRESH
~ oRESIDUAL
o
o
¦
o
9
e
a
s
¦In afo-rann I n I >
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A.
FIGURE &20
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
DRUM NO. 10 11
START DATE 6/116/11
SYMBOL a « FRESH
~ o RESIDUAL
e
e
B
~
O
~
O
O
o
o
~
8
• 0
a
_a_
a
. e
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE D21
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
800 *
700
LEGEND;
DRUM NO. 12 13
START DATE 6/11 6/14
SYMBOL a • FRESH
o oKtSIDUAL
600
500
£
a
400
£ 300
200
i
o
a
100
o
a
•«-4-
50
10*
100 ISO
• •
6
fl
8
uSL
J
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550600
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
650 700 750 800 850
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E. P.A.
FIGURE D7Z
TURBIDITY O? UEA&HATES
-------
LEGEND
800
700
600
=> 500
3-
£
a
b 400
Cj3 3
£ 2 300
200
100
0
DRUM NO. 14 15
START DATE 6/21 6/21
SYMBOL « • FRESH
~ oRESIDUAL
e
• a
®*A0
¦ « ' « ¦
50 100 150 200 250
3of) 35ffi6o *%$} sk iio 6iO '7bO 9so Bbo «j>0
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF QCEANSID^E. P.A.
FIGURE D23
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
800
700
600
LEGEND
DRUM NO. 16 17
START DATE 6/14 6/T7
SYMBOL m ®FRESH
o oRESIDUAL
500
400
300
200
100
0
•a
0
o
~
6
8
50 100 150 200
* a.F fito 1—s o 1
X
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
650 700 750 800 850
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P. A.
FIGURE D24
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
8
a
DRUM NO.:
SYMBOL:
START:
1
a
FRESH
4/6 5/3
g v RESIDUAL
7 -
6
B
a
a
~ I B*f5IV MW B BWTCg I
-1q-
50 100 150 200 250 300
Qi-I Vrtl I
X
_L
DRUM NO. 1
SYMBOL:
START:
SYMBOL:
X
J
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
3 5
b * FRESH
5A 5/3
a v RESIDUAL
x
a.
7
6
B
v
~
_EL
v a
a
~
m
~
x
x
X
~
X
~
v
~
XE ZL
~
X
X
X
I
X
X
J
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
750 800 850 900
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE D25
pH OF LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
?_
8
DRUM NO.:
SYMBOL:
START:
SYMBOL:
6 7
n * FRESH
6/15 6/16
° * RESIDUAL
a
9 f
aT
5
a
v
v
£
e
~
"so" 100 150 *00 iio 4t»0 °4fe shb 6l>0 tko 7bo 7io Bio flio ?i)0
DRUM NO. 1
SYMBOL:
START:
SYMBOL:
8 9
« * FRESH
6/21 6/21
a v RESIDUAL
a
•'V
a
¦
o
a o
a
o
Jz t rtgvir I T yi
L
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE D26
pH OF LEAC HATES
-------
LEGEND
x
CL
9
8
7
6
a
~ V
q^b V
~
a
* o
a v v
~
v
~
DRUM NO.:
SYMBOL:
START:
SYMBOL:
10 11
~ A
6/11 6/11
~ a
FRESH
RESIDUAL
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
_ ~ v
V v_
B
H
-q M
Id
DBQ
~
OV
JSL
I O o I ^H-
DRUM NO.:
SYMBOL:
START:
SYMBOL:
-L.
JL
12
13
A
6/11
~
6/14
a
_L
FRESH
RESIDUAL
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
750 800 850 900
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE D27
pH OF LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
DRUM NO.: 14
SYMBOL: b
START: 6/21
SYMBOL: °
15
• FRESH
6/21
* RESIDUAL
x
a.
e
©
J 0R3 9 I ft
—a..mp
50 1 00 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550, 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
8 r
B B
a s o b o
r_ ©s Es. i
°o gP
©
Q 0®
e
B
a
a
DRUM NO.:
SYMBOL:
START:
SYMBOL:
16 17
a « FRESH
6/14 6/17
° a RESIDUAL
x
X
X
X
bub I
X
50 1 00 1 50 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
FIGURE DZ8
pH OF LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
DRUM NO.: 12 3 5
J 9f START DATE: 4/6 5/3 5/3 5/3
E FRESH:
a 8[- RESIDUAL:
o
o
£7
4-
'>
4-
8
"D
C
o
V
c
JB
o
>
"5 i
O"
«
©
Z
1.2 r » g
^ ® w ° s
o
© aL® a B o
% A 4 °
" n 7
s i
I I I I I I I I I I'll 'I'll
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D29
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
IN LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
DRUM NO.: 6 7 9 16
8r START DATE i 6/15 6/16 6/21 7/14
FRESH: ¦
RESIDUAL a
6
5
A •
* A k ft
A
* ¦ 4l o «
-------
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
o
. o
©
o
LEG&vJD
DRUM NO. 12 8
START DATE 6/11 6/21
SYMBOL o • FRESH
P bRESIDUAL
o
o efo 0 0
* *o o g °o
Q
o
J, I r-l—, 1 OO I 1 1 1 1 L
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D31
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A. TOTAL DlSSOLVED SAITS
IN LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
9,000
J 8,000
DRUM NO. 11 13
START DATE 6/11 6/11
SYMBOL o 9
17
6/17
AFRESH
vRESIDUAL
.S 7,000
x
U 6,000
~o
C
" 5,000
c
«
•5 4,000
- 3,000
a
Z
SL 2,000
a
A A o
e. °©V
a° A
o
o <
AAA
AA
£ 1,000
¦ JL.
50
&>
&
*
w
JL-EO-
100 150 200
I OS I '
450
250 300 350 400 450 500 550
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
600 650 700 750 800 850
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A.
FIGURE D32
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
IN LEACHATES
-------
9,000
8,000
7,000
Z 6,000
"TJ
C 5,000
a* 4,000
0)
u 3,000
z
| 2,000
1,000
0
LEGEND
DRUM NO 10 14 15
START DATE 6/11 6/21 6/21
SYMBOL v e oFRESH
~ a oRESIDUAL
OA
©
O A
A
A
©
g (fi
®
o
3*
*
'TV V
50 100 150 200
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
750 800 850
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A.
FIGURE D33
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
IN LEACHATES
-------
4.
£
x
J
J
3
8"
in
O
4,500 r
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
• • «
• N«
• •
• »
I
• •
• •
0
• •
O «
«
S
4
•v
• «•
« •
£ k I •
••
ft ••
4
J-
-L.
DRUM NO. 11,13,17
6, 7, 9, 16
FRESHLEACHATES
_L
JL
_1_
-i
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSIP6/E.P.A.
FIGURE D34
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
(COMPOSITE) IN LEACHATES
-------
4,500
J 4,000
E
c 3,500
£
*| 3,000
3
-o
§ 2,500
*•
c
_o
o
•| 2,000
2 1,500
u
o
z
E 1,000
a. '
a.
ISi
£ 500
0
LEGEND
DRUM NO. 2, 3, 5
START DATE 5/3/71
o
©
«
car
b °
• o®
e
•/
• e «6»
• •
9
_J i « ' « i | | | I I I 1 1 1 1 1
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSIDl/E.P.A.
FIGURE D35
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
(COMPOSITE) IN LEACHATES
-------
4,500 r
LEGEND
DRUM NO. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16
J 4,000
E
c 3,500
9
£
*| 3,000
3
TJ
C
2 2,500
c
_a»
o
•| 2,000
CT
a>
u-
5 1,500
o
Z
i. i/Ooo
3.
CO
£ 500
0
e
®o
© o
\
e
©
9
€
e
%
_L
_L
50 100 150 200
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
650 700 750 800 850
CITY OF OCEANSIDfr/E.P.A.
FIGURE D36
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
(COMPOSITE) IN LEACHATES
-------
LEGEND
DRUM NO. 8, 10f 12, 14
8,000r
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000-
0-
e®
a 9
so
® ©8
O
® © o
o
a
Jl.
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSID5/E.P.A.
FIGURE D37
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
(COMPOSITE) IN LEACHATES
-------
o-7
^ •« •
• ••
8r
71 *
'• • ••
• •
6
•j
=5.6- . • • - •
• * t *' l I L.
• •
c
-I 1 ¦ i - « i
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
DRUM NO.: 1,2,3,5,6,
7,11,13
DRUM NO.: 10,12
DRUM NO.: 14,15
FIGURE D38
pH OF LEACHATES—COMPOSITES
-------
' -J I I I— t I
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
CITY OF OCEANSIPE/E.P.A.
DRUM NO.: 8,9,11,16,17
FIGURE D39
pH OF LEACHATES—COMPOSITES
-------
TABLE D1
TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES DURING 1972
Quantity/ lbs metals per lb dry wt solid waste
(plus sludge solids where applicable)
Drum
Days since
filling *
Mg.
X 10 °
Zn
X 10"7
Fe
x 10-6
1
267-450
1.44
9.60
2.58
2
241-424
0.15
2.25
7.20
3
241-424
0.96
4.00
3.44
5
241-424
1.36
12.80
3.44
6
198-381
2.14
4.80
2.80
7
196-379
1.09
3.20
2.75
8
192-375
0.99
4.80
3.12
9
192-375
2.24
7.20
4.72
10
192-375
0.61
3.20
2.80
11
192-375
2.40
4.00
13.00
12
201-384
1.92
2.73
3.22
13
201-384
1.09
4.80
3.12
14
200-383
1.35
27.50
3.22
15
192-373
1.65
4.50
3.22
16
177-360
1.60
24.70
6.95
17
196-379
1.99
9.00
3.66
* The amount of equivalent annual rainfall on all the drums during this
time period was 11.9 inches.
Water only - this is representative of ordinary landfills.
353
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
354
-------
field; test of sludge disposal
Solid
Sewage
Weather
Bi rds, Rats, Other, No.
1971
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
"Temp
°F
Wind
Condition +
Odor>
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Tesr Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
6/25
CONSUL
96 cu yd
ANT
1,750
70±
Low.
Overcast
Septic,
sulfide
At regular
landfill
None
birds
Sludge ran into
fill OK
7/13
3 loads
5,250
83
Calm
Sunny
No
None
small birds
small birds
After 1 j days
uncovered test
area begins to
give odors. Can't
identify otherthar
decaying garbage
7/20
7/20
§
3 loads
CONSUL
96 cu yd
1,750
ANT
1,750
80
70
Calm
Easterly
breeze
Overcast
Cool'
Yes,garbag<
Slight
iNone
None or
very lirtle
6 seagulls
flies walk-
ing on refus
and sludge
None
|
Sludge is not be-
ing spread evenly
over trash.
Counted at least
50 flies. Sludge
ran down incline
in rivulets and
settled in pools
at base.
^Sludge & solid
waste already
placed
7/17
3 loads
1 >750
84
Calm
Sunny
No
None
None
None
Sludge spread
better this time.
No run off.
w
.Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weather
Birds, Rats, Of her, No.
'
Waste,
Sludge,
Temp
*
Odor >
Blowing
Regular
Date
Lb
Gal
°F
Wind
Condition
Describe
Litter
Test Area
Landfill
Comments
7/27
CONSUl
TANT
96 cu yd
1,750
70
Moderate
Overcast
Downwind
No
None
50 birds
Ran sludge out in
Sulfide,
3 locations from 2
septic
pipes at rear of
tank. Some poo lee
in refuse, most
percolated in very
fast. Cat operator
says bottom layer
holds better; top
layer runs off
faster; lower plat-
form holds sludge
best. Also thinks
less pressure in 2
openings than
before with 1 openi-
ing in tank.
8/3
3 loads
1,750
88
Calm
Sunny
Slight
^one
vlone
seagulls
Test area does not
sewage odoi
small birds
seem to attract
anything but flies
8/10
3 loads
1,750
86
Calm
Sunny
Negligible
slone
Mone
slone
8/10
CONSUt
1"ANT
88
sAoderate
Sunny
No
No
6 seagulls
6 seagulls
Slight leachate
8/17
3 loads
1,750
73
sAoderate
Overcast
negligible
Some plastic
^lone
>irds
Out of room at
bags |
brooks St. land-
I
111. Dumped |
.Enter-Calm, Low, Moderate, or High
Enter - Sunny, Cloud/, Overcast, Showers, or Rain
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
1971
)ate
Solid
Sewage
Weather
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No.
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind*
Condition +
Odor i
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
these loads at new
landfill off
Mission Drive
8/23
CONSUL
96 cu yd
ANT
1,750
80
Westerly
Low
Sunny
Digested
sludge
None
flies
1 seagull
Leachate from
refuse
8/24
3 loads
1,750
92
Calm
Overcast
Negligible
None
None
few birds
Birds have not yet
located new site.
8/30
CONSUl
TANT
1,700
85
Westerly
Low
Sunny
Slight
No
seagulls
No upper level
leachate. Water
below landfill
was clear.
8/31
6 loads
3,500
87
Calm
Sunny
Negligible
None
None
birds
Location-West
bank. Cannot
get to East wall
of canyon yet.
9/7
6 loads
3,500
87
Calm
Sunny
None
vlone
vlone
None
Everything quiet
today. Sludge was
emptied before
trash was spread
9/13
Canceilec
this week -
dozer b
•oke dowr
9/21
9/21
6 loads
CONSUl
7 trucks
3,500
rANT
3,500
78
75
Calm
Low
Cool
Overcast
None
Slight
slone
^o
;lies
lies before
sludge
applied
None
None
Quiet
dumped Tuesday
morning. I
rhousands of flies 1
*
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High
Enter - Sunn/, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain
-------
appendix e
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weather
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No.
1971
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind*
Condition*
Odor ,
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
(green blow flies
and large hous<
fly type) were on
the solid waste,
with or without
sludge on its sur-
face. Flies didn't
discriminate
between sludge
and regular waste.
9/28
Cancel le
i this week
- dozer
>roke dovi
n
10/4
6 loads
3,500
86
Calm
Sunny
None
None
flies
izards
seagulls
None
10/12
6 loads
3,500
81
Calm
Cloudy
Negligible
No
None
seagulls
10/19
6 loads
3,500
74
Calm
Sunny
Negligible
No
Mone
seagulls &
other birds
Thin sludges, lots
of runoff 3250 gal
10/26
6 loads
3,500
63
Moderate
Sunny
Mone
Mo
Mone
seagulls &
other birds
Regular landfill
blowing litter.
11/2
6 .loads
3,500
63
Moderate
Sunny
Slight sew-
age odor for
5 minutes
Mone
Mone
seagulls &
other birds
Some litter blow-
ing at regular
andfill
11/9
4
6 loads
35,000
64
Calm
Sunny
Mo
Mone
Mone
iirds
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High
Enter - Sunny, Cloud/, Overcast, Showers, or Rain
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weather
Bi rds, Rats, Other, No.
1971
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind*
Condition*
Odor>
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
.
Regular
Landfill
Comments
11/16
6 loads
35,000
70
Low
Sunny
No
None
None
Closed
Old landfill
closed 11-13-71
all dumping at
new location.
11/22
6 loads
35,000
68
Low
Sunny
No
None
None
Closed
Used shot gun witl
bird dispursing
shells.
11/3C
6 loads
35,000
64
Calm
Sunny
None
None
None
Closed
12/7
12/14
12/ZI
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
35,000=
35,000
35,000
63
64
55
Calm
Low
Calm
Sunny
Sunny
Overcast
No
No
No
None
None
None.
seagulls
seagulls
seagulls
Closed
Closed
Closed
Just a few sea-
gulls. Do not
settle down as
they did at old
fill site, but fly
high and land
wh£n area is un-
occupied by men
and equipment.
12/21
CONSUl
formal
rANT
3,500
60
Calm
Overcast
Musty, light
No
^o
Sludge was
unloaded at 1 spot
only and flooded
2/3 down face of
fill, went below
refuse and exited
onto canyon floor
( 200 gals ±)
tt .
.Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High
Enter *» Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
}ate
Solid
Waste,
Lb
Sewage
Sludge,
Gal
Weather
Temp
°F
Wind
Condition
Odor ,
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Birds, Rats, Ot her. No
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
12/28
1972
1/4/
1/11
1/18
1/25
2/1
2/15
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
All sludge being dum;
All test calls filled w
54
55
62
46
52
ed on tc
th trash
Calm
Low
Calm
Calm
Calm
p in test
Rain
Sunny
Sunny
Overcast
Sunny
cells (7 to 1
No
Very slight
No
No
None
few birds
and sludce and coverec
No No None
No No seagulls
No No
rjatio)
. Sludge ncjw being durrjped with tra
Sludge not being
spread over trash
Poor coverage
h in botton
of canyon.
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain
-------
APPENDIX F
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
¦361
-------
APPENDIX F
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
j-wage
Weathe
r
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No.
1972
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind
Condition*
Odor j
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
5/1
(truck avg
3? ton/ea
33 loads
(10,500
small truck
8,500
Hazy
Norma 1
No
seagulls
fl ies
blackbird
seagulls
5/2
22 loads
5/3
22 loads
7,500
70
Slight
Good
Normal
trash smell
No
seagulls
seagulls
blackbird
5/4
22 loads
10,000
78
None
Overcast
No
seagulls
seagulls
blackbird
5/5
33 loads
21,000
(big truck)
76
seagulls
pigeons
5/8
5/8
25 loads
CONSUL
10,500
ANT
60
67
Slight
Low
Clear
Cloudy
Normal
None
No
No
30 seagulls
20 crows
25 pigeons
1 squirrel
1 00 birds
seagulls
squirrels
Morning sludge
dumped on top of
fill soil from Sat.
Birds avoid sludge
covered areas.
1 jack rabbit, 4
squirrels not in
test area.
5/9
20 loads
17,500
62
Slight
Clear
Normal
No
seagulls
squirrels
seagulls
No litter when use
water. 1
5/10
20 loads
14,000
None
Cloudy
No
seagulls
blackbird
Soto on dozer for !
a few days. j
.Enter-Calm, Low, Moderate, or High Page 1 of 4
Enter - Sunny, Cloud/, Overcast, Showers, or Rein
-------
APPENDIX^
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weather
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No.
j
1972
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind*
Condition+
Odor>
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments j
5/11
5/11
22 loads
CONSUL
14,000
ANT
63
75
None
Low to
moderate
Sunny
Normal
No
None,using
water
seagulls
100 seagulls
chipmunk
30 pigeons
20misc birds
seagulls
Using water on jj
litter |
2 walking on sludgq
5/12
33 loads
10,500
64
Cloudy
Normal
No
seagulls
5/15
30 loads
63
Calm
Sunny
Normal
None
None
None
At 10:30 a.m.
quiet and calm
5/16
20 loads
21,000
64
Calm
Sunny
Normal
None
None
seagulls
5/17
5/17
22 loads
CONSUL
21,000
rANT
63
68
Moderate
Low
Overcast
Sunny
Normal
trash smell
Normal
No
None
None
seagulls
blackbird
A couple sludge
loads brought a.m
No sludge visible
on face of refuse.
Small amount
visible on plateau
below face in two
streamers. Took
5/18
20 loads
17,500
62
Calm
Sunny
Normal
No
None
squirrel I
seagulls j
photos
5/19
31 loads 1
17,500
60 j
Moderate
Showers {
1
Normal
No
birds I
seagulls J
+Enter » Calm,, Low, Moderate, or High ^ Page 2 of 4
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain
-------
appendix f
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weathe
r
| Birds,Rats,Other,No.
)
1972
Date
Waste ,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind
Condition*
Odor >
Describe
Blowing
Litter
1 Test Area
1 Regular
Landfill
j Comments
5/22
33 loads
17,500
60
Low
Showers
Normal
A little
seagulls
seagulls
Some litter becausi
of wind
5/23
20 loads
21,000
63
Calm
Overcast
Normal
trash odor
No
seagulls
birds, flies
seagulls
5/24
20 loads
31,500
65
Low
Sunny
Normal
No
seagulls
seagulls
5/25
5/26
21 loads
33 loads
10,500
21,000
62
Moderate
Overcast
Sewer and
trash odor
Some
None
blackbirds
seagulls
Litter because of
wind coming up
canyon.
5/29
8 loads
' None
65
Calm
Sunny
Normal
sewer odor
None
None
seagulls
squirrel
blackbirds
Only 4 trucks as
holiday
5/30
20 loads
24,500
Sunny
None
seagulls
squirrel
birds
5/31
22 loads
7,000
68
Calm
Sunny
6/1
30 loads
67
sAoderate
Cloudy,
Sunny
Sewer odor
None
birds
seagulls
flies
squirrels
Biding,this lift
and will have
trouble when start
the next level
6/2
30 loads
63
Trash and
sewer odor..
None
birds j
seagulls
seagulls
squirrels
birds j
m .
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High pagQ 3 of 4
Enter " Sunny, Cloud/, Overcast, Showers, or Rain
-------
APPENDIX F
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
1972
Date
Solid
Waste,
Lb
Sewage
Sludge,
Gal
6/3
6/5
6/6
6/7
40 loads
30 loads
20 loads
22 loads
None
Weather
Temp
°F
66
69
63
62
Wind
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Condition
Overcast,
Hazy
Cloudy
Overcast,
Rain
Showers
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High
Enter - Sunny, Clovdy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain
Odor >
Describe
Normal
Normal
Normal
Sewer odor
Blowing
Litter
None
None
None
None
Birds, Rats, Other, No
Test Area
seagulls
birds
Regular
Landfill
seagulls
birds
seagulls
squirrels
birds
seagulls
squirrel
birds
seagulls
Make up day fx>r
loliday -trash on I)
Some litter. Short
of help to clean up
— J
Page 4 of 4
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Observer JIM RcED
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Est. qty, gallons
Date
&
time
Solid
waste
by type*
Sludge
load by
type+
Temp.
°F
Wind^1
Con- .
dition**
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Runoff
Leachate
(sample wher
observed)
7/17
WD-6
Other-1
1-LS(2500)
79
Low
Sunny
Truck, gravity feed; single hose w/flat
head; truck no motion; wet; slope 45%
approximate. Sludge worked in after
spreading by use of tractor.
0
7/18
7/19
mm
(No report) no sludge -
k, truck broke down
VNo report)
7/20
0915
WD-3
Other - 3
2- LS(3500)
2-BV(3500)
77
Low
Cloudy
0
1330
WD-7
Other - 8
2-LS(3500)
81
Low
Sunny
5.
7/21
0930
WD-2
4-LS(3500)
75
Low
Cloudy
20
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no. loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no. loads"
indicate type of sludge as: SLR~no.(galIons/load); and for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD), primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. b
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Observer JIM. REED
Date
&
time
j Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Est* qty, gallons
Solid
waste
by type*
5lUdge
load by
type+
Temp.
°F
Wind#
Con-
dition**
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Runoff
Leachate
(sample wher
observed)
7/21
1230
WD-6
Other-4
4-L5(3500)
6-BV(3500)
81
Low
Sunny
10
7/2 4
1230
WD-4
Other-3
4-LS(3500)
2+BV05OO)
89
Mod
Sunny
20
7/2 5
0850
WD-2
Other-1
4~LS(3500)i
2-SLR(3aD)
80
Low
Overcast
10
7/25
7/26
1100
WD-3
Other-3 -
4-LS(3500)
2-BV(3500)
80
Low
Sunny
20
7/26
1300
WD-6
Other-4
81
Low
Sunny
0
7/27
1100
WD-3
Other-2
4rLS
2-SLR
82
Low
Sunny
0
i
1400
WD-7
Other-4
2-SLR
84
Low
Sunny
5
*
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-na. loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no. loads'
Indicate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(gallons/load); and for. Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD)^primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Examples 3-LS (3,500) (SD).
• &iter - calm, low,, moderate or high. **6iter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-1: SPJDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Observer JIM REED
Date
&
time
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Est. qty, gallons
^olid
waste
by type*
kludge
load by
type+
Temp.
°F
Wind*
Con-
dition**
Runoff
Leachote
(sample vher
observed)
7/28
WD-1
4- LS(3500)
85
Low
Sunny
0900
Other - 3
2-BV(3500)
1400
WD-4
87
Low
Sunny
7/31
WD-3
1000
Other - 2
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no. loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no. loati
4.
Indicate type of sludge as: SLR~no.(gal Ions/load); and for Buena Vista (BV) and Lo-SalJna (LS) note primary digested
(PD),.primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Bcample? 3-LS (3,500) (S D).
8
Enter - calm, low, moderate.or high. **Er>ter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showera or rain.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer Jfm Reed
Sludge test area: 150 ft x 200 ft
(No sludge) Regular landfill area: 200 ft x 200 ft
Date
&
Blowing
litter,
PA = 30,000 ft
Animals and insects,
nc/PA+
Blowing
litter
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
time
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.1
Odor*
nOi items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.'
Odor^
7/17
1100
7/18
7/19
0
No sludge
0
disposed
0
100
None
Earthy
0
0/
40.000
ft.5
0/ ,
100/9
ft .2
7/20
7/20
7/21
0930
7/21
1230
7/24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
0
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
4
3
None
None
*
Estimate the number of items travelling in the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end.
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all solid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation. PA - populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population is foraging.
$
Estimate the area covered by fifes and the number of flies, maggots.
^Earthy, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc.
11ndicate rats, cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer Jjm Reed
Sludge test area: 200 ft x 200 ft
(No sludge) Regular landfill area:
ft X
ft
Date
&
Blowing
litter,
PA = 40,000 ft .2
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
Blowing
litter
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
time
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.1
Odor^
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others)
Odor^
7/25
0850
0
0
0
50/9
0
None
7/25
7/26
0
0
0
0
None
7/27
1100
0
0
0
50/9
None
1400
7/2Q
0900
1400
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
20/5
None
None
7/31
1000
0
0
2
100/9
Earthy
1—n—
Estimate the number of items travelling in the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end.
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all solid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation. PA = populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population is foraging.
§
Estimate the area covered by flies and the number of flies, maggots.
^Earthy, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc.
I Indicate fajs> cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
AfKNDIXO
OCIANSOf LANDFILL »TI GCOLOOV
ANDQCOUNDWATO CONDITIONS
m
-------
APPENDIX G
Oceonside Demonstration Landfill Site Geology
The can/on designated for landfill is underlain by resistant, impermeable bedrock
with a layer of fine alluvial deposits of relatively low permeability and undetermined
thickness lining the canyon floor. Underground seepage may occur in the bedrock along
bedding planes which slope to the southwest (see sketch on Figure Gl), or through the
tine alluvium. Marine terrace deposits along the top of the canyon walls are permeable.
Landfill cover soils are coarse to fine sand cut primarily from loose areas of the
landfill canyon walls. Additional cover soils are imported. Sieve analysis of cover
soil samples from the three test cells and the landfill given in Figures G2 and G3
indicate that the soils are coarse to fine sand.
No landslide, mud flow, other mass movements or soil creep were evident at the
landfill site. The canyon walls consist of well-consolidated sandstone in the upper*
canyon areas, some of which has been difficult to remove for use as landfill cover soil.
Groundwater
No natural groundwater spring or seepage was observed in the landfill canyon.
A test well installed approximately two-thirds of the distance from the upper canyon
wall to the downstream San Luis Rey River basin (see Figure Gl) indicated a groundwater
level of 14 to 17 feet below the surface. Analyses of well water samples are given in
Table Gl. The well water quality is not suitable for human or animal consumption due
to the presence of coliform. Also, the dissolved solids and sulfate concentrations exceed
drinking water standards. The coliform presence may be due to well contamination
rather than being from seepage of bacteria into the groundwater aquifer by percolation.
No other wells exist in the canyon and therefore no groundwater problems are expected.
372
-------
TABLE G1
OCEANSIDE LANDFILL WELL WATER ANALYSES
IN MG/L EXCEPT AS NOTED
r m * Sample date
Constituents 3/1/72
pH
7.6
Coliform
43
Total solids
740
Suspended solids
14
Dissolved solids
726
Volatile suspended solids
14
Calcium
104
Sodium
102
Ammonia (NH^)
0.61
Carbonate (CO^)
0
Bicarbonate (H CO^)
37
Sulfate (SO^)
429
Chloride
80
Fjouride
0.04
Total phosphate
1.9
Nitrite
0.008
Nitrate
0.01
Ammonia (N)
0.47
Total alkalinity (Ca CO^)
412
Total hardness (Ca CO^)
298
*AII analyses Jre in units of mg/l except pH and coliform
(MPN/100 ml).
37$
-------
CO
£
Ki&l FINE ALLUVIUM
CITY OF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A.
g§| MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS
w/i
ONr>F S BRECCIA
FIGURE g
GEOLOGIC
OF>\NDrlLL Sisc
-------
X
2
>
to
100
90
80
70
60
ffi 50
E 40
30
20
10
0
u
e
GRAIN SIZE ACCUMULATION CURVE
MJ.T.
CLASS
SAND
COARSE MED HNE
10
1.0
I
SILT
COARSE MED FINE
COARSE MED
CLAY
0.1 1 0.01
DIAMETER M
0.001
0.0001
CITY Of OCEANSIDfj/E.P.A.
FIGURE G2
FIELD TEST CELL
COVER SOIL COMPOSITE
SAMPLE
-------
100
90
80
70
60
&
50
40
O 30
£
20
10
0
GRAIN SIZE ACCUMULATION CURVE
M.l.T.
CLASS
10
\
SAND
COARSE MED FINE
1.0
\
COARSE MED. FINE
SILT
COARSE MED FI|^4E
CLAY
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
DIAMETER (mm)
FIGURE G3
CfrTY QF OCEANSIDE/E.P.A. LANDFILL COVER SOIL
COMPOSITE SAMPLE
------- |