Landfills as
Research at the Outer Loop
Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky
First Interim Report
-------
EPA/600/R-03/097
September 2003
Landfills as Bioreactors:
Research at the Outer Loop
Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky
First Interim Report
By
Gary Hater and Roger Green
Waste Management, Inc.
BioSites Program
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211
Gregory Vogt
SCS Engineers
Reston, Virginia 20190
Wendy Davis-Hoover1, David Carson1, Susan Thorneloe2 and Fran Kremer1
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 452681 and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 277112
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement No. 0189-00
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
Certain data presented in this Interim Report did not meet the stated quality assurance objectives.
While these data are presented without flags in the body of the report, the reader is directed to
Appendix C - Data Validation Reports which specifically identifies the parameters and data
sets were certain objectives were not met. The Final Report for this project will include a data
validation section and accordingly, data points of questionable quality will be flagged in that
report at the conclusion of the project.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and
water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources
wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human
health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-
effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water
quality in public
water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air
pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster
technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the
environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is published and
made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
Hugh W. McKinnon, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ill
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
Interim Findings 1-2
Landfill Operations 1-2
Trends in Physical, Chemical and Biological Parameters 1-2
2 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES 2-1
Project Overview 2-1
Rationale for Facultative Landfill Bioreactor 2-1
Rationale for Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor 2-2
Project Setting 2-3
Project Ownership 2-3
State Approval 2-4
Project Objectives 2-6
QA/QC procedures 2-6
Reporting 2-7
3 PROGRAM DESIGN 3-1
Landfill Unit Descriptions 3-3
MSW Landfill Control (Control) 3-3
FLB Process Description 3-6
AALB Process Description 3-9
Bioreactor Treatment Strategies 3-13
Moisture Addition 3-13
Air Addition 3-13
Timeline and Data Comparisons 3-13
Critical and Non-Critical Parameters 3-15
Trend Monitoring 3-16
Settlement 3-16
Leachate 3-16
Municipal Solid Waste 3-17
Landfill Gas 3-17
Methane Surface Emissions: Regulatory Monitoring 3-17
Fugitive Gas Emissions Study 3-17
4 METHODS 4-1
Operational Methods 4-1
Moisture Addition 4-1
Air Addition 4-2
IV
-------
Sampling and Analytical Methods 4-2
Sampling Frequency 4-3
Field Sampling Techniques 4-3
Preservation and Handling 4-5
Analytical Methods 4-7
Field Measurements 4-8
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5-1
Data Validation 5-1
Statistical Analysis 5-1
Summary of Periods of Leachate and Air Additions 5-2
Waste Volumes and Settlement 5-2
Summary of Waste Volume 5-3
Summary of Waste Settlement 5-7
Airspace Utilization factor (AUF) 5-12
Leachate Quality and Characteristics 5-14
Summary of Leachate Head on Liner 5-14
Summary of Leachate Production 5-21
Summary of Leachate Temperature 5-25
Summary of Leachate pH 5-25
Summary of Leachate COD 5-26
Summary of Leachate BOD 5-26
Summary of Leachate Conductance 5-31
Summary of Leachate Ammonia-Nitrogen (NHs-N) Levels 5-31
Summary of Leachate Nitrate-Nitrogen (NOs-N) Levels 5-31
Summary of Leachate Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2-N) Levels 5-32
Summary of Leachate o-Phosphate 5-37
Summary of Leachate Total Phosphorus 5-37
Summary of Leachate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 5-38
Summary of Leachate Total Dissolved Solids 5-38
Summary of Leachate Sulfate 5-43
Summary of Leachate Chloride 5-43
Summary of Leachate Total Potassium 5-44
Summary of Leachate Volatile Organic Acids 5-44
Summary of Leachate Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 5-55
Summary of Leachate Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) 5-62
Summary of RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate 5-78
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Characteristics 5-80
Summary of Organic Solids in MSW 5-80
Summary of Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) in MSW 5-81
Summary of (Cellulose + Hemicellulose)/Lignin Ratio in MSW 5-84
Summary of Lignin Content of MSW 5-86
Summary of Hemicellulose Content of MSW 5-88
Summary of Cellulose Content of MSW 5-90
Summary of Moisture Content of MSW 5-92
v
-------
Summary of Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) of MSW 5-94
Summary of Average Temperature of MSW 5-95
Landfill Gas (LFG) Characteristics 5-96
Summary of Landfill Gas Flow 5-96
Summary of Landfill Gas Temperature 5-108
Summary of Landfill Gas Composition 5-111
Summary of Landfill Gas Non-Methane Organic
Compounds (NMOCs) 5-115
Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) 5-118
Landfill Gas Surface Emissions 5-122
Moisture Balance 5-123
Fugitive Gas Emissions 5-123
6 FIELD OBSERVATIONS 6-1
Tire Chips as Part of Cell Construction 6-1
Air Addition to Enhance Aerobic Degradation 6-2
Landfill Gas Collection Performance 6-3
Moisture Addition Amounts 6-3
7 REFERENCES 7-1
APPENDICES 8-1
Appendix A: Project Photographs A-l
Leachate Storage Tank A-l
Waste Sampling A-l
Trenching Layout AALB Unit A-2
Waste Temperature Monitoring A-2
SBR Leachate Treatment Facility A-3
Waste Temperature Measurements A-3
Leachate Storage-Force Main A-4
Waste Sampling A-4
Unit 5 (FLB) Aerial Photograph A-5
Unit 7 (Control + AALB) Aerial Photograph A-5
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Project Plan for Landfill Bioreactor Studies
At Outer Loop Landfill Louisville, Kentucky B-l
Appendix C: Data Validation Reports C-l
Appendix D: Statistical Analysis D-l
Appendix E: Surface Emissions, Remote Monitoring Studies E-1
VI
-------
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table Page
2-1 Project Participants, Affiliations and Responsibilities 2-4
3-1 Summary Table of Cells Under Investigation 3-2
3-2 In-Place Cubic Yards in Control Over Time 3-6
4-1 Sampling Frequencies in Matrices of Interest 4-3
4-2 Containerization, Preservation and Holding Times 4-6
4-3 Analytical Methods for Leachate 4-7
4-4 Analytical Methods for Municipal Solid Waste 4-7
4-5 Analytical Methods for Landfill Gas 4-8
4-6 Number of GPS Points per Location 4-10
5-1 Timetable of Leachate and Air Addition 5-2
5-2 Summary of Leachate Temperature 5-25
5-3 Summary of Leachate pH 5-25
5-4 Summary of Leachate COD 5-26
5-5 Summary of Leachate BOD 5-26
5-6 Summary of Leachate Ammonia-Nitrogen Levels 5-31
5-7 Summary of Leachate Nitrate-Nitrogen 5-32
5-8 Summary of Leachate Nitrite-Nitrogen 5-32
5-9 Summary of Leachate o-Phosphate 5-37
5-10 Summary of Leachate Total Phosphorous 5-37
5-11 Summary of Leachate TKN 5-38
5-12 Summary of Leachate Chloride 5-43
5-13 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: Control 7.3A 5-55
5-14 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: Control 7.3B 5-56
5-15 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: FLB 5.1 A 5-57
5-16 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: FLB 5.2B 5-59
5-17 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: AALB 7.4A 5-60
5-18 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: AALB 7.4B 5-61
5-19 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: Control 7.3A 5-63
5-20 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: Control 7.3B 5-65
5-21 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: FLB 5.1 A 5-68
5-22 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: FLB 5.2B 5-70
5-23 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: AALB 7.4A 5-73
5-24 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: AALB 7.4B 5-75
5-25 RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate: Control 7.3A and 7.3B 5-78
5-26 RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate: FLB 5.1Aand5.2D 5-79
5-27 RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate: AALB 7.4A and 7.4B 5-79
5-28 Summary of Organic Solids in MSW 5-80
5-29 Summary of BMP in MSW 5-81
5-30 Summary of (Cellulose + Hermicellulose)/Lignin Ratio of MSW 5-84
vn
-------
5-31 Summary of Lignin Content of MSW 5-86
5-32 Summary of Hemicellulose in MSW 5-88
5-33 Summary of Cellulose Content of MSW 5-90
5-34 Summary of Moisture Content of MSW 5-92
5-35 Summary of ORP Data for FLB, Control and AALB Cells 5-94
5-36 Summary of Average Temperature of MSW 5-95
5-37 Summary of Landfill Gas Temperatures 5-108
5-38 Summary of Landfill Gas Composition in the Control 5-111
5-39 Summary of Landfill Gas Composition in FLB 5.1 5-111
5-40 Summary of Landfill Gas Composition in FLB 5.2 5-111
5-41 Summary of Landfill GasNMOCs 5-115
5-42 Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants: Control 7.3A 5-118
5-43 Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants: Control 7.3B 5-119
5-44 Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants: FLB 5.1 (Gas Well 1) 5-120
5-45 Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants: FLB 5.2 (Gas Well 2) 5-121
Figure Page
2-1 Project Site Location Map 2-5
3-1 Final Projected Grade of Control Unit 3-4
3-2 Grade of Control Unit, September 1998 3-5
3-3 Unit 5 North-South Cross Section 3-7
3-4 Unit 5 East-West Cross Section 3-8
3-5 Unit 5 Piping Configuration Within Trench 3-10
3-6 Unit 5 Gas Extraction Well and Temperature Probe Placement 3-11
3-7 Unit 7 North-South Cross Section 3-12
3-8 Timeline of Events at Outer Loop 3-14
4-1 UnitS GPS Point and Settlement Plate Locations 4-12
4-2 Unit 7 GPS Point and Settlement Plate Locations 4-13
5-1 Waste Volume vs. Time for Control Cells 5-4
5-2 Waste Volume vs. Time for FLB Cells 5-5
5-3 Waste Volume vs. Time for AALB Cells 5-6
5-4 GPS Settlement Data for Control 5-8
5-5 GPS Settlement Data for FLB 5-9
5-6 Plan View Contour Plot of Settlement for FLB GPS Monitoring Points 5-10
5-7 GPS Settlement Data for AALB 5-11
5-8 Airspace Utilization Factor (AUF) vs. Time for FLB and AALB 5-13
5-9 Daily Mean Head Level for Control-A Cell 5-15
5-10 Daily Mean Head Level for Control-B Cell 5-16
5-11 Daily Mean Head Level for FLB-A Cell 5-17
5-12 Daily Mean Head Level for FLB-D Cell 5-18
5-13 Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-A Cell 5-19
vin
-------
5-14 Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-B Cell 5-20
5-15 Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: Control Cells 5-22
5-16 Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: FLB Cells 5-23
5-17 Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: AALB Cells 5-24
5-18 Leachate Temperature vs. Time 5-27
5-19 Leachate pH vs. Time 5-28
5-20 Leachate COD vs. Time 5-29
5-21 Leachate BOD vs. Time 5-30
5-22 Leachate Conductance vs. Time 5-33
5-23 Leachate NH3-N vs. Time 5-34
5-24 Leachate NO3-N vs. Time 5-35
5-25 Leachate NO2-N vs. Time 5-36
5-26 Leachate o-Phosphate vs. Time 5-39
5-27 Leachate Total Phosphorus vs. Time 5-40
5-28 Leachate TKN vs. Time 5-41
5-29 Leachate Total Dissolved Solids vs. Time 5-42
5-30 Leachate Sulfate vs. Time 5-45
5-31 Leachate Chloride vs. Time 5-46
5-32 Leachate Total Potassium vs. Time 5-47
5-33 Leachate Acetic Acid vs. Time 5-49
5-34 Leachate Butyric Acid vs. Time 5-50
5-35 Leachate Formic Acid vs. Time 5-51
5-36 Leachate Lactic Acid vs. Time 5-52
5-37 Leachate Propionic Acid vs. Time 5-53
5-38 Leachate Pyruvic Acid vs. Time 5-54
5-39 Solid Waste Organic Solids Content Summary for FLB, Control and AALB 5-82
5-40 Solid Waste BMP Summary for FLB, Control and AALB Cells 5-83
5-41 Solid Waste (Cellulose+Hemicellulose)/Lignin Ratio Summary
for FLB, Control and AALB Cells 5-85
5-42 Solid Waste Lignin Content Summary for FLB, Control and AALB Cells 5-87
5-43 Solid Waste Hemicellulose Content Summary for FLB, Control and AALB 5-89
5-44 Solid Waste Cellulose Summary for FLB, Control and AALB Cells 5-91
5-45 Solid Waste Moisture Content Summary for FLB, Control and AALB 5-93
5-46 Box Plot of Control Cell Waste Thermocouple Readings 5-97
5-47 FLB (5.1 A) Waste Thermocouple Readings 5-98
5-48 FLB (5.2D) Waste Thermocouple Readings 5-99
5-49 AALB (7.4A) Lift 1 Waste Thermocouple Readings 5-100
5-50 AALB (7.4A) Lift 2 Waste Thermocouple Readings 5-101
5-51 AALB (7.4A) Lift 3 Waste Thermocouple Readings 5-102
5-52 AALB (7.4B) Lift 1 Waste Thermocouple Readings 5-103
5-53 AALB (7.4B) Lift 2 Waste Thermocouple Readings 5-104
5-54 AALB (7.4B) Lift 3 Waste Thermocouple Readings 5-105
5-55 Landfill Gas Flow vs. Time for Control (7.3) A and B 5-106
5-56 Landfill Gas Flow vs. Time for FLB 5.1Aand5.2D 5-107
5-57 Landfill Gas Temperature vs. Time for Control 7.3A and 7.3B 5-109
5-58 Landfill Gas Temperature vs. Time for FLB 5.1A and 5.2D 5-110
IX
-------
5-59 Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for Control 7.3A 5-112
5-60 Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for Control 7.3B 5-113
5-61 Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for FLB 5.1Aand5.2D 5-114
5-62 Total NMOCs vs. Time for Control (7.3 A & B) 5-116
5-63 Total NMOCs vs. Time for FLB (5.1 A and 5.2D) 5-117
6-1 Water Addition Based on Density and Footprint 6-4
x
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was submitted by SCS Engineers, Reston, Virginia, in fulfillment of Contract No.
68-W-OO-l 10, Task Order 0015 with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division. Work was performed under
the overall sponsorship and direction of the EPA Office of Research and Development, with the
Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division in cooperation with the Air Pollution
Prevention and Control Division. This report covers a contract period of August 2003 to
September 2003, and covers work performed under a Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement initiated in 2000 between U.S. EPA and Waste Management, Inc.
The authors acknowledge substantial collaborative input to this research:
Dr. Helen Swenson, SCS Engineers
Dr. Doug Goldsmith, Alternative Natural Technologies, Inc.
Dr. Morton Barlaz, North Carolina State University
Dr. Jim Markweise, Neptune and Company, Inc.
Mr. John F. Martin, US EPA
Ms. Jennifer Goetz, US EPA
Mr. Bruce Harris, US EPA
Mr. Richard Shores, US EPA
Dr. Timothy Looper, US EPA
Mr. Mark Kemper, US EPA
Mr. Derrick Allen, US EPA
Ms. Cherie LaFleur, US EPA
Mr. Lawrence Wetzel, US EPA
Dr. David Slomczynski, University of Cincinnati
Dr. Rathi Kavanaugh, University of Cincinnati
Dr. Robert Grosser, University of Cincinnati
The authors acknowledge technical reviewers Anne M. Germain, P.E., DEE, Delaware Solid
Waste Authority and Michael Houlihan, P.E. GeoSyntec Consultants. We are grateful for their
interest in and review of this research.
XI
-------
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Interim Report is presented to summarize data collected as part of a multi-year cooperative
research and development agreement (CRADA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), examining two techniques of landfill
bioreactor construction and operation. The project is underway at the Outer Loop Landfill
located in Louisville, Kentucky, operated by WMI. Data presented here follow a quality
assurance project plan (QAPP) established by the researchers prior to commencement of the
project. The QAPP, appended herein, contains testing parameters, prescribed monitoring
frequencies, and required quality control procedures.
The purpose of the research effort is to assess which monitoring parameters provide superior
indicators or measurements at a municipal waste landfill operated as a bioreactor, and to the
extent possible, determine if this operational technique represents an improvement over
conventional landfill management. The QAPP contains a prioritized list of monitoring
parameters assembled by researchers, based on previous bioreactor research and understanding
of landfill operation. This landfill research is designed to operate within the existing regulatory
requirements, and the experiment has the regulatory approval of The Commonwealth of
Kentucky.
The experiment contains three key components as described in Table 3-1:
• a conventional RCRA Subtitle D landfill which serves as the experimental Control
(Area 7.3);
• a bioreactor operational technique applied to an existing landfill cell, termed
"facultative landfill bioreactor," (FLB), also called "retrofit" (Area 5); and,
• a new bioreactor landfill cell called the aerobic/anaerobic landfill bioreactor (AALB),
also called "as-built"(Area 7.4).
Each treatment and control (the control is considered a treatment for statistical purposes) is
replicated with subcells to enhance comparisons and statistical understanding of data and
trends.
As is common with full-scale research, there are several challenges associated with testing the
behavior of operating landfills. In addition to the variability of waste composition for each
vehicle load of refuse discharged at the site, other variable are present as part of this research
investigation. For example, waste age, density, moisture content, and waste volume within
each cell differ by treatments. Waste was first disposed in the FLB, three and half years later in
the Control, and another year later in the AALB (see Section 3). Other confounding factors
exist, including dissimilar cell geometries, and the inability to split incoming waste loads into
the replicate cells. These differences in time sequence will need to be taken into account so as
to interpret the superior performance of certain monitoring parameters.
1-1
-------
As the project progresses, it is envisioned that the treatments and resulting data can be aligned
according to time, geometry and amount of waste. Moreover, municipal solid waste is a highly
heterogeneous material, and the purpose of this research is to observe the response and range of
parameter trends that occur within landfill bioreactors when compared with 'normal',
conventional landfill treatment. This research provides an opportunity to study and compare
the performance of new landfill designs in the manner of controlled experiment. The results are
expected to be variable but in kind with the variances typically seen with landfill research.
INTERIM FINDINGS
Based on results compiled through April 2003, there are already important and striking results
at this stage of research. These are summarized below.
Landfill Operations
The bioreactor landfills have operated within RCRA Subtitle D and Clean Air Act requirements
of a state-of-the-art municipal waste landfill. Leachate head on liner levels between control
(conventional) and bioreactor treatment cells remain similar. Determination of leachate
injection rate has been reasonably event free with minor operational issues addressed early on.
There have been no slope stability issues associated with bioreactor or control treatments. The
landfill gas extraction system has successfully used horizontal collection piping. Fugitive
surface emissions were routine and corrected within the regulatory time requirements and have
remained below methane concentration requirements. Waste and leachate temperatures are
elevated as expected, indicating waste degradation. The AALB shows the highest mean
temperatures at 28°C and 27°C, compared to the FLB at 20.0°C and 28.2°C, respectively. The
Control cell had waste and leachate temperatures of 16.6°C and 16.6°C, respectively.
Trends in Physical, Chemical and Biological Parameters
Waste Settlement in the AALB is greater than in the other two treatments. This is probably
due to the addition of leachate and resulting consolidation from seepage force. However, it is
not statistically conclusive at this point in time (see Appendix D). There is more surface
settlement in the FLB in the south east corner. This is consistent with the fact that this is where
the new waste was added after sampling baseline solids sampling in June 2000 (See Figures 3-
1, 3-2, and 5-6.)
Air space utilization values (AUF) have increased significantly for both treatments when
compared to the Control cells, with the AALB approaching a calculated in-place waste density
of 1,900 Ibs/yd3. This may be partially explained by enhanced physical settlement due to
moisture addition but it also represents the effect of biological decay based on the MSW solids
data discussed below. (See Figure 5-8).
MSW Solids Data indicate that the changes in degradable organics are occurring in each of the
treatment and control cells. In general, the AALB cells have shown the highest rate of change
followed by the Control and then FLB cells. These data are shown with BMP, cellulose,
cellulose+hemicellulose/ lignin ratio. This result was expected as the AALB treatment cell is
1-2
-------
the most highly engineered and represents the most aggressive treatment of the experiment.
(See Figures 5-40 through 5-44).
In the trend summary, (Appendix D), the Leachate Ammonia and TKN values tend to trend
downward for FLB cells as was expected with this treatment. This was not seen in the control
or AALB cells. (See Figures 5-23 and 5-28).
Fugitive Gas Emissions measurements were conducted for the FLB, AALB, and Control cells.
Measurements were conducted using optical remote sensing. Radial and vertical scanning
measurements using open-path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (OP-FTIR) were
conducted above surface and downwind from the sites.
The AALB was found to have 160 g/s of methane, considered a conservative estimate because
complete capture of the gas plume was not possible. Additional sampling is being conducted.
This report provides data for sampling conducted in September 2002. A description of the
measurements and analysis of the results are presented in Appendix E.
The Final Report with help clarify more of these issues with a larger data set over a longer
period of time. It is anticipated that this will be achieved at the end of this research effort. Our
intent is to study other landfill sites to evaluate bioreactors under different conditions in the
United States.
i-:
-------
SECTION 2
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES
PROJECT OVERVIEW
In concept bioreactor landfills are designed to accelerate the biological stabilization of
landfilled waste through increased moisture addition and other management techniques or
procedures so as to enhance the microbial decomposition of organic matter. (Reinhart and
Townsend, 1998). If the waste mass (or portions thereof) stabilizes more quickly than it would
under conventional landfill operations, then certain benefits are anticipated.
Anticipated benefits include, that the receiving cell might accept more waste sooner and
therefore the overall bioreactor landfill capacity should be greater. Enhanced waste
stabilization should reduce the potential for future environmental problems because the
generation and subsequent removal of high-strength leachates occurs earlier in the life of the
leachate collection system and landfill liner. Landfill bioreactors may also improve the capture
performance for landfill gas energy recovery projects through compressing the time during
which methane generation is suitable for energy recovery concurrent with increased methane
yields per unit of time. (Green, et al. 2000). Potential concerns of bioreactor technology
currently include: the method of fluid addition; whether conventional landfill cell liners can
sufficiently contain the increased fluid content; the amount of air space within these landfills;
methods of determination of both moisture content and air space; and the effect on any fugitive
gas emissions. Considering the potential environmental and economic benefits of bioreactor
operations, there is great interest in this technology.
The purpose of this project is to test two types of landfills as bioreactors through the design,
construction, and long-term operation of full-scale landfill cells. These two types of landfill,
termed Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) and the Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor
(AALB), will each be compared to conventional landfilling techniques (Control). The initial
objective of the project was to assess which parameters should be monitored in addition to
those already monitored in conventional Subtitle D landfills, should either of these models, or a
derivative thereof, be adopted as a standard method for landfill operation.
Rationale for Facultative Landfill Bioreactor
The Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) is based on a patent held by Waste Management,
Inc. (U.S. Patent No.: US 6,398,958 Bl, June 4, 2002). The patented process is a method by
which the ammonia in the landfill leachate collected from the FLB is sequentially nitrified ex
situ and then returned to the landfill where it is denitrified, resulting in a net loss of nitrogen
from the landfill. The methodology was developed to control the cycling of inorganic nitrogen
present in the landfill waste material and leachate. This aspect of control typically has not been
addressed in previous bioreactor studies and has resulted in high concentrations of ammonia in
2-1
-------
the leachate, leading to disposal problems and potential microorganism poisoning where the
leachate is recirculated.
The process includes a method to manage the nitrogen cycle in the bioreactor landfill by the
biological conversion of ammonia in the leachate to nitrate and nitrite. The nitrate/nitrite-rich
leachate is returned to the landfill, thus promoting landfill biological stabilization and reducing
or eliminating the need for ex-situ leachate disposal.
The reduction in leachate ammonia levels is achieved by withdrawing the leachate from the
landfill and directing it into an attached growth nitrification unit. There the leachate will remain
in contact with nitrification microorganisms, attached to fixed organic or inorganic substrates,
for sufficient time to nitrify a minimum of 50 percent of the ammonia. The nitrified aqueous
product is then returned to the landfill or to another landfill where it is biologically denitrified
in situ, producing nitrogen gas. The denitrification step occurs in landfills undergoing either
aerobic or anaerobic decomposition.
As discussed herein, this project is designed to test and compare the FLB method through the
traditional existing landfill by injecting nitrate-containing leachate into landfill cells. This
approach is based on two premises. The first is that the addition of leachate will moisten and
promote degradation of the waste. The second is that microorganisms present in the landfill
waste use nitrate in the leachate as a terminal electron acceptor for anaerobic metabolism. As
nitrate containing liquid moves through the upper sections of the FLB, denitrifying bacteria will
convert nitrate to dinitrogen gas. This transformation of nitrate-nitrogen to gaseous nitrogen
should result in the net loss of gaseous nitrogen from the landfill. Comparisons will be made to
a conventional landfill cell not receiving moisture addition (i.e., this project has no
representative control where leachate addition is made under conditions of no enhancement of
the leachate with nitrate).
Rationale for Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor
The Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) is based on a patent held by Waste
Management, Inc. (U.S. Patent No.: US 6,283,676 Bl, September 4, 2001). This patent (titled
"The Sequential Aerobic/Anaerobic Solid Waste Landfill Operation Patent") includes the
design and apparatus used to build the AALB with the primary objective of increasing
degradation of municipal solid waste to increase landfill density and hence capacity. The
method design also aims to improve the quality of the degradation by-products including
leachate and landfill gas, and reduce landfill gas fugitive emissions. The patented process
described the method for constructing the AALB and applying sequential aerobic and/or
anaerobic operations to the waste mass in sequential waste lifts.
In brief, the design involves placement of the first lift of waste material on top of the leachate
withdrawal piping, followed by placement of the first piping layer on the top surface of the first
lift; then placement of a second lift of waste on top of the first piping layer, followed by a
second lift having a second lift top surface and placement of a second piping layer on the top
surface of the second lift; and finally introducing air into the second lift using the first piping
layer. Operation of this method is described in the patent.
2-2
-------
As discussed herein, the project is designed to test and compare the AALB approach through
the use of new landfilled wastes. The newly placed waste is treated aerobically, similar to
composting, by injecting air into the waste for approximately 30 to 60 days. After aeration is
discontinued, the waste is moistened with liquids, and anaerobic conditions are rapidly
established. In Section 4, comparisons are made to Unit 7.3, a conventional landfill cell not
receiving air addition or moisture addition (Control).
Project Setting
The Outer Loop Recycling and Disposal Facility (OLDRF) is located in Louisville, Jefferson
County, Kentucky. The site, which has a total property area of approximately 782 acres, is
located on the north side of Outer Loop Road, immediately west of Interstate Highway 65. The
OLDRF is comprised of seven individual and separate landfill units, designated Units 1 through
7. Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 6 are inactive landfill units that are not receiving waste.
Unit 4 is permitted as a construction and demolition debris (CD/D) landfill, and is an active
unit. Unit 5 and Unit 7 are active permitted landfills and are the units of focus for this
Bioreactor study. The Outer Loop Landfill is operated by Waste Management Inc. (WMI), and
has been used for waste disposal for approximately 35 years. See Figure 2-1: Project Site
Location Map.
The site is situated within the alluvial valley of the Ohio River, approximately nine miles
southwest of river mile 614. The area is generally flat with elevations averaging 455 feet Mean
Sea Level (MSL). The region is effectively enclosed by topographically elevated areas on the
west, east and south. Elevations range up to 750 feet MSL in areas surrounding the site.
Topography and stream development in the area have been modified by construction and
development activities of the region. Due to the flat topography, the clayey nature of the soil,
and the relatively low elevation, the area is naturally poorly drained. To enhance surface
drainage for the development of the region, several engineered drainage channels have been
constructed in the area of the landfill. The channels drain toward the southwest, eventually
discharging into the Ohio River. It has been observed that seepage of groundwater into the
landfill occurs.
The average regional temperature is 14°C, ranging from -4 to 31°C. Average annual
precipitation consists of 44.39 inches of rainfall, plus approximately 17.4 inches of snow. The
number of precipitation days averages 125 per year, with 47 days being thunderstorms.
Prevailing wind is from the south. Relative humidity varies throughout the day at an annual
average of 58 to 76 percent. (Source: US Department of Commerce, National Climatic Data
Center).
Project Ownership
The projects are under joint investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and Waste Management, Inc. through a 5-year Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement (CRADA). The overall project is being managed, analyzed and operated by Waste
2-:
-------
Management, Inc. at the Outer Loop Landfill located in Louisville, Kentucky. Personnel are
made up of individuals from Outer Loop and the WMI BioSites program in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The U.S. EPA is contributing to the management, oversight and analysis of the project. Table
2-1 provides a listing of the project participants and related project responsibilities.
TABLE 2-1. PROJECT PARTICIPANTS, AFFILIATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
NAME
Tony Barbush
Morton Barlaz
David Hurt
David Carson
Greg Cekander
Wendy Davis-Hoover
Charles Huber
Douglas Goldsmith
Michael Goodrich
Roger Green
Amy Haag
Gary Hater
Scott Jacobs
Fran Kremer
Jim Markwiese
John Martin
Susan Thorneloe
Chuck Williams
AFFILIATION
WMI
North Carolina State University
WMI
EPA
WMI
EPA
Severn Trent Labs
Alternative Natural
Technologies
Microbial Insights
WMI
Severn Trent Labs
WMI
EPA
EPA
Neptune & Company, Inc.
EPA
EPA
WMI
RESPONSIBILITY
Co-Principal Investigator; on-site operations
Analytical measurements, quality assurance
Oversight and quality assurance
Co-Principal Investigator; project oversight
Program Owner; project oversight
Co-Principal Investigator; project oversight
Laboratory quality assurance
Senior Scientist; sampling and analysis
Manager; laboratory analyses
Co-Principal Investigator, field sampling
oversight and database management.
Manager; laboratory analyses
Project Manager
Quality Assurance Manager
Project coordination
Data validation
Branch Chief; project oversight
Scientist; landfill gas and air emissions
Program Owner
State Approval
Approval for the AALB (constructed in Unit 7.4 A and B), and the FLB (retrofitted in Unit 5)
was received from Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet, Department for Environmental Protection in 2001 (Permit
No. 056-00028). Approval for the FLB study was issued in January 2001. Approval for the
AALB study was issued in October 2001.
2-4
-------
GENEIiAL NFOHMATIOf,
THE SITE CONTAINS 7B2.15 ocna
NUMBER OF TRUCKS DELIVERING
WASTE TO SI'S DAILY - 600-TOO
NUMBER OF MIL£5 OF INTERNAL ROADS - 11-87
NUMBER Cf VISITORS ANNUALLY - SCO
NUMBER Of TREES PLANTED - 430 PER oc
COUNTIES PERMITTED IN KENTUCKY TD DISPOSE OF «SW IB
COUNTIES PERMITTED IN INDIANA TO DISPOSE OT MS* 4
AREA ZONING: M-3 INDUSTRIAL
MATERIAL ACCEPTED FOR DISPOSAL IN 2001
TONS CF COD/SOLID WA.5TE/5PECAIL WASTE - 1,049,869
TONS OF NON-HAZARDDUS LIQUID/SLUDGE SOLIDIFIED - 19.793
TONS Of COMFCST F9CKESSED - 34.993
TONS Cf PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SOIL
BIOLOGICALLY TREATED - 58.955
METHANE SAS-2001;
TOTAL NUMBER OF CAS WELLS - 127
NUMBER Of FLARES - 2
CUBIC FEET OF GAS GENERATED DAILY - 6.48O.OOO
MILLION CUBC FEET SOLO TO GENERAL ELECTRIC - 1.122,BOB
LEACHATE - 2001
GALLONS Or LEACHATE PRETHEATED AND DlSCHAflCEO
TD USD - 36.842.124 GMJ-ON5 t-
GALLONS OT NON HAZARDOUS LIQUID COMMERCIAL WASTE
TREATED AT THE SBR AND DISCHARGED TO MSO
- 1.498.528 GALLONS
FLOODPLAIN • 3001
FLOODPLAIN CONSUMED - 1.4M.391 fi.y.
rLOOCPLAIN COMPENSATED - 1.955.618 c.y.
MONITORING-2001:
TOTAL NUMBER Cf GROUNOWATER *ELLS - 45
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNDERDRAWS - 8
WETLANDS-2001:
CM-SITE WTTLANDS PERMITTED
TO IMPACT - 190 oc.
CM-SITE WETLANDS (~\
MITIGATION - 135.6 oc. u'
OFF-SITE KETLANOS Tl
UITGATTON - SWARTZ 20,4 oe.
BOSTON 2»0 oc. ^
HARNED « oc.
D
EASEMENI3:
LOUISVILLE GAS 4 ELECTRIC CO.: ' ' '
27.8 pcr.i
TEXAS CAS TRANSMISSION CO.: I—
14.8 OCTEH ^,^
LOUISVILLE WATER CO.: ^
2 5 op'ss ^9
METROPOLITAN 5E«ER DISTRICT: ^>
SEWER t DRAINAGE 3.8 acres m
SEWER 2.3 gcr«
DRAINAGE 24,1 ocres
INGRESS & ESRESS O.B8 ocros
BELLSOUTH TELECOM;
0.32 acres
INDUSTRIAL PIPELINES:
Q.B8 acres
GROUNOWATER MONITORING WELLS
EASEMENT LINES
MITIGATION AREA
BIOREACTOR RESEARCH 4 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS)
SOLIDIFICATION
BIOREMEOIATION COVER
PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED
SOIL BIOREWEDIATION AREA
PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED
SOIL BICREMEDIATION AREA
CAS I
FLAR£J
(NON-ACTIVE)
-LOUISVILLE HAULING
UNIT 4
PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION AND
DEMOLITION DEBRIS LANDFILL
93.5 oc.
7,141,136 B.C.Y,
(VOLUME REMAINING - IE,750 S.C.Y.
+5 GAS WELLS
UNIT 7 (4)
PERMITTED CONTAINED LANDFILL
75. B DC.
8.36D.9DO B.C.Y.
VOLUME REMAINING - 3.363,»85 S.C.Y,
17 GAS WHS
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF KENTUCKY, L.L.C.
OUTER LOOP RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL FACILITY
2673 OUlrK LOO"
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40219
(602) 96WI272
May 12
Figure 2-1. Project Site Location Map
2-5
-------
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The landfill research described herein involves two multi-year landfill bioreactor studies in
comparison with control landfill cells. The FLB and AALB studies are underway and consist of
separate and distinct landfill units, each composed of two paired cells. In contrast to most
landfill bioreactor research conducted at the bench or laboratory scale, this demonstration
project is a full-scale application of the stated bioreactor approaches and methods.
The overall project objectives for the landfill bioreactor studies at the Outer Loop Landfill
Facility can be stated as:
• To engineer and install two alternative designs of large-scale bioreactors.
• To monitor sufficient parameters to understand the physical, chemical and biological
activities and changes over time within the landfill bioreactors, with particular emphasis
given to waste settlement, as well as the characteristics for in-place solid waste, leachate,
and landfill gas.
• To compare and contrast the measured information with that of a conventional Subtitle D
MSW landfill (dry entombment methodology) in order to evaluate differences due to the
bioreactor treatments. But not necessarily to compare the two alternative designs.
• To incorporate statistical techniques to assess the effectiveness and protectiveness of the
landfill bioreactor operational technique.
• To establish best practices and procedures required to operate landfill bioreactors.
• To establish the important and indicative parameters that should be monitored with respect
to landfill bioreactor operations. (See discussion in Section 3 on Critical and Non-critical
measurements).
• To obtain sufficient research data to enable improvements that might be applied to future
bioreactors, both in an experimental capacity and ultimately as an alternative design and
management method for future MSW landfills.
OA/QC Procedures
Quality assurance and quality control procedures are designed and incorporated into this
investigation to ensure reliable analytical measurements of environmental samples in terms of
typical data quality indicators. Required controls for precision, accuracy, method detection
limits, completeness, comparability and representativeness are presented in Appendix C, the
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). This document should be referred to for descriptions
of QA/QC procedures.
2-6
-------
Neptune and Company, Inc. was retained to performed data validation on selected sets of
laboratory data for leachate and gas samples, including laboratory-generated data included in
this report. As presented in Appendix C, observations and discrepancies in the project data
were identified on a systematic basis. Subsequently, corrective steps were taken as warranted
by the laboratory, Waste Management, and the EPA project team so as to make necessary
adjustments and/or flag certain data points.
REPORTING
This Interim Report covers the period from the treatment cell initiations through April 2003.
Monitoring is scheduled for a minimum period of the five-year contract life. A final report will
be prepared and submitted at the conclusion of the project.
2-7
-------
SECTION 3
PROGRAM DESIGN
The program design of the bioreactor project has been outlined in the Quality Assurance
Project Plan for Landfill Bioreactor Studies (included herein as Appendix ?). The Outer Loop
project is under joint investigation by the EPA and Waste Management, Inc., through a five-
year Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA).
The Outer Loop Landfill is owned and operated by Waste Management, Inc., and has been used
for waste disposal for approximately 35 years. The project's two multi-year studies are
underway at the site, including the Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) study, and an
Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) study. At Outer Loop, operation variables
differ by separate and distinct landfill units, each composed of two paired (duplicate or
replicate) cells.
In contrast to other bioreactor research, these demonstrations are large-scale research efforts at
a full-scale operational landfill. The FLB study covers approximately 26.4 acres (total) in
paired landfill cells; these cells are four to six years of age. The AALB study covers 12 acres
(total) in paired one-year old landfill cells. The FLB cells were retrofitted for bioreactor
operation whereas the bioreactor infrastructure in the AALB cells is constructed as waste is
added. A separate unit of paired cells, containing approximately two to three year old waste, is
used as the control for the FLB and AALB studies. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the cells
under investigation.
5-1
-------
TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY TABLE OF CELLS UNDER INVESTIGATION
LANDFILL
UNIT
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
SUBUNIT
1
2
1
2
O
3
4
4
SUBCELL
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
B
TITLE
FLB
FLB
Duplicate
FLB
FLB
Duplicate
CONTROL
CONTROL
Duplicate
AALB
AALB
Duplicate
OPERATIONAL VARIABLES
Addition of nitrate/nitrite enriched leachate from the SBR Unit through series of
retrofit surface trenches.
Addition of nitrate/nitrite enriched leachate from the SBR Unit through series of
retrofit surface trenches.
Addition of nitrate/nitrite enriched leachate from the SBR Unit through a series of
retrofit surface trenches. Although subject to the FLB operation, participation in the
study is restricted to a limited section of the sampling strategy and landfill gas
collection.
Addition of nitrate/nitrite enriched leachate from the SBR Unit through a series of
retrofit surface trenches. Although subject to the FLB operation, participation in the
study is restricted to a limited section of the sampling strategy and landfill gas
collection.
Operated as a traditional Subtitle D landfill Unit.
Operated as a traditional Subtitle D landfill Unit.
Air injected through a series of pipes constructed on the surface of each lift during
waste placement, for a period of 30-60 days per lift. Moisture, primarily leachate,
added after aeration is complete through the piping network.
Air injected through a series of pipes constructed on the surface of each lift during
waste placement, for a period of 30-60 days per lift. Moisture, primarily leachate,
added after aeration is complete through the piping network.
5-2
-------
LANDFILL UNIT DESCRIPTIONS
MSW Landfill Control (Control)
The conventional MSW landfill Unit 7.3 has been designated as the Control for the project.
Unit 7.3 has been operated as a conventional RCRA Subtitle D landfill with no moisture or air
addition, but is monitored and sampled in a similar manner to the FLB and AALB units to
provide comparison data for the study. The Unit is located in the southeast corner of Unit 7.
Unit 7 is located in the western portion of the Outer Loop Landfill complex, as shown on the
Project Site Location Map in Figure 2-1.
Unit 7.3 consists of two-paired landfill cells, 7.3 A and 7.3B. The Control unit is directly
adjacent to Unit 7.4, which is the Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) portion of
this study. A barrier layer is installed between units 7.3 and 7.4 (the Control and AALB) to
prevent migration of leachate/moisture quantities, as well as landfill gas. This barrier layer
consists of an impermeable clay along with an additional layer of permeable tire chips (to allow
preferential movement of moisture and/or landfill gas at the unit edge).
The Control cells for this research project were selected as the best nearby representation of a
Subtitle D waste mass. Prime attributes includes no past or ongoing moisture addition to the
waste, and the filled areas had standard vertical landfill gas wells, common to the majority of
U.S. Subtitle D sites. The Control area was originally filled starting in 1998. At the start of the
project in 2001, solid waste in the control cells was nearing three years old, while the
comparison bioreactor Unit 5, was approximately five years old, and the Unit 7.4 was at age
zero.
In early 2001, WMI began processing a permit application for a facility horizontal expansion.
In part, due to a recent federal rule by the Federal Aviation Administration about landfill citing
and required distances from airports, the approval for the expansion was delayed for several
quarters. Currently, this expansion is scheduled for Summer 2004.
The permit delays resulted in a significant decrease in available space to dispose of solid waste
which, in turn, impacted the construction of Unit 7.4. Specifically, to complete the "as Built
Bioreactors" in cells 7.4A and B, the vertical height for the remainder of Unit 7 (including the
Control) had to be raised to final grades before the end of the project. At the beginning of the
project, the initial volume in cell 7.3A was 822,387 in-place cubic yards and in cell 7.3B,
692,139 in-place cubic yards (ipcy). Over the remaining life of the project there will be a slight
increase in both of these cells in order to bring the cells to final grade and allow for the
completion of the "as Built" cells on the western slopes (see overall site plan given in Figure 2-
1). The net result will be an increase of 7.3 percent in ipcy for cell 7.3A and 10.7 percent for
cell 7.3B. Final grades are illustrated in Figure 3-1.
Volume changes in the Control are documented quarterly. Figure 3-2 illustrates the grading of
the Control unit from September 1998. Below, in Table 3-2, is the surveyor's geometric
calculation of airspace in place at various times over the life of the project
-------
GRAPHI
^^^S
120
SCALE:
Z SCALE
^^.^^
D 120
1" = 120'
PERMITTED FMAL GRADES BASED ON
MINOR PEFMT MQDIFIOICnON AREA 4
EXPANSION TECHMCM. APPUCATION DOTED
JMtURY tWB, AS PREPARED BY FUIT
ENVnONvENTAL ft NFRASTHUCTURE.
II,
1
HI.
u £*:
E s!i
Figure 3-1. Final Projected Grade of Control Unit
5-4
-------
GRAPHIC
: SCALE
^^^^^^^•^^
120 0 120
SCALE: 1"= 120'
CONTOURS GENERATED Of TOPOGRAPHC
SURVEV AND CEU } CERTIFICATION
COMPLETED BT BIRCH. TRAUTWBN *
HNS. INC. SEPTEMBER 7, 1«0.
NOTES,
1. CONTOURS SHOWN DEPICT WEST SIDE
OF UNTT 7 PRIOR TO FLL MATERIAL
• i fe
1 «S
Figure 3-2. Grade of Control Unit, September 1998
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2 IN-PLACE CUBIC YARDS IN CONTROL OVER TIME
DATE
Fall 2001
April 28, 2003
Aug. 8, 2003
Final, winter 04
7.3A
822,387
856,873
874,514
882,908
% CHANGE
4.1%
6.3%
7.3%
7.3B
692,139
730,021
747,662
766,310
% CHANGE
5.4
8.0
10.7
Concurrent with the waste additions to the Control, settlement plates are being placed on the
slopes that are now being filled and three landfill gas wells may be added (the LFG wells are
scheduled for Fall 2004). The settlement plates and new LFG wells will be monitored as part
of the Control portion of the project to assess the benefits/impacts of this new loading on the
Control cells.
Resampling of the waste mass is scheduled for 2004. For the control, the 1998-2000 waste
mass and the 2003 - 2004 mass will be tracked separately. This may yield subsequent project
comparisons between portions of the Control and the AALB that are of essentially the same
age.
Leachate quantities from the Control will be affected from the opening of the southeast long-
term cover until at such time the cell is re-covered. This opening is scheduled for about August
2003 until Spring 2004. During this period, the project may observe related changes in leachate
cell volume and possibly leachate quality on account of periods of heavy precipitation.
FLB Process Description
Landfill Unit 5 has been designated the FLB for this portion of the study. The FLB Unit 5 is
located in the northern portion of the Outer Loop Landfill complex, as shown on the Project
Site Location Map in Figure 2-1. Unit 5 consists of four separate landfill cells, 5.1 A, 5.2A,
5.IB and 5.2B, with Unit 5.1 A (the most southern cell) and Unit 5.2B (the most northern cell)
being the two primary FLB cells in the study.
Landfill Unit 5 began accepting waste in July 1995, a total of approximately 1,930,825 tons of
waste was in place by October 1997. Retrofit activities took place in March through May 2001.
Retrofitting the landfill unit was conducted by modifying it to become a bioreactor cell.
Retrofit activities included installing trenches, moisture distribution and gas collection piping,
thermocouples, and Oxygen Reduction Potential (ORP) probes. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the
north-south cross-section and east-west cross section, respectively.
A series of horizontal trenches were installed up to 18 feet below the surface in Cells 5.1 and
5.2. Each trench contains a perforated pipe and was back-filled with a permeable material. The
trenches were spaced approximately 60 feet apart. Six vertical gas extraction wells (twelve
total) also were constructed in cells 5.1 and 5.2. The gas wells serve a dual purpose of
collecting landfill gas and penetrating layers of soil cover placed during landfilling. Probes for
measuring temperature and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) were installed during vertical
gas well installation in 2000. Additional thermocouples and ORP probes were installed during
the 2001 retrofitting with the gas collection and liquid distribution piping. These probes were
5-6
-------
-ain-r
\^-.jr-x—..
7
//
\
:X
\
-4
NORTH-SOUTH CROSS SEC'ION AT 6+QQ
mw rtai i w*
TOPO nn BID
TEH rm ao:
^ff c rvip wen
GRAPHIC SCME
•RBJ
k - aw (
GRAPHIC SCALE
C I*
( H Jtft J
&*«» R
Ill
FIGURE 2
I ';:;
:, -,
•'• :
Figure 3-3. Unit 5 North-South Cross Section
5-7
-------
EAST-WEST PROFIL
GRAPHIC SCALE
i m rerr)
1 u»h - «» tt
( M mti i
L ftui - SO rt
ItHtlCiL
Tim raw ara
TUD RIK 2201
7!M HHM ISfQ
FiGURE 3
1
ii
Figure 3-4. Unit 5 East-West Cross Section
-------
placed in the trenches. Similar installations were made for the 7.3A and 7.3B Control cells.
Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the trenching system as well as the gas extraction well temperature
probe placement.
Changes in the state of degradation in the waste mass, for example, the impact of nitrified
effluent applied to the landfill in Unit 5 and subsequent denitrification, should impact the
overall mass balance of nitrogen as the nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas. The data collected
for COD, BOD, ammonia nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen, as well as leachate
quantification are examined in Section 5-Results.
AALB Process Description
Landfill Unit 7.4 has been designated the AALB for this portion of the study. Unit 7.4 is
located in the southwestern portion of landfill Unit 7. Landfill Unit 7 is located in the western
portion of the Outer Loop Landfill complex as shown on the project site location map in Figure
2-1.
Unit 7.4A began receiving waste in July 2001 and 7.4B began receiving waste in September
2001. Units 7.4A and 7.4B are currently accepting waste, with approximately 959,993 cubic
yards of waste in place as of March 2003.
Construction of the AALB features occurred concurrently with waste placement in Units 7.4A
and 7.4B. The base layer of the unit consists of an initial, uncompacted layer of waste which
serves as liner protection. AALB cells 7.4A and 7.4B were constructed in 15-foot vertical lifts.
This shallow lift system results from grading waste to promote homogenization of the incoming
solid waste. As each lift was completed, water was added to increase the moisture content of
the waste. Perforated pipes then were placed at regular intervals across the top of the waste.
The pipes were covered with a permeable media. Each lift of piping was then connected via a
common manifold. The next lift of waste was then placed over the installed piping, and the
construction sequence was then completed for each successive lift of waste. The buried piping
system serves the three-fold purpose of aeration, moisture distribution, and gas collection.
Figure 3-7 shows the end view of the north-south cross section of Unit 7.
As of April 2003, waste was no longer being accepted into the AALB study unit. Waste will be
added again starting in late 2003 or early 2004.
5-9
-------
TYPICAL LATERAL CROSS SECTION
THERMOCOUPLE
MONITORING WELL
3 " HOPE SOLID
LEACHA
DISTRIBUTION PIPE
VALVE VAULT (12 " CCP)
VALVE
RISER TO
GAS HEADER
GAS
COLLECTION
PIPE
<&
THERMOCOUPLE
MONITORING
WELL
3"LEACHATE
RISER PIPE (SOLID)
PIEZOMETER
GAS HEADER
PIPE (SOLID)
3 " HOPE PERFORATED DISTRIBUTION PIPE
Figure 3-5. Unit 5 Piping Configuration Within Trench
3-10
-------
TOCPS-6A —
'•
• ,-
i
1
/' ^501
f' f— _
"—^Tl ^^ ~ — i _
CDL-T^*iy,w». m _ ^
SOUTH - 4- • ^ ™
METERING
' STATION 6'
i
: u ! . L__
•
•
•
i
•
•
i
i
•
v...
1 ,
; / ; CELL'IA
^rJ '
1 - Y- 1
;w-sw
*& : -
f f i
V
W — ^7--
/• !
V^ ABANDONED-
W-423T
^^ • • ^BB • • ••
A ^^^_
~" — " — i • LCR-2
1 J ""=;
• — -jt-LCR-3
' -j— . Jfav^^rrr^—- ^
1?1 • MFTFPIWrc ! " 1 ~ ^^^^
-"^1?^; " "TrT
fyn-se& T Twos" '
i ! I
!r 'r '
if
I T^i'
(^W-52S «• /
. L
STATION j F ft
T" ^ 1 "J- — - J£T-fe-" v *
>^ 8" VMM ,»• V X .
«*« i ^ -r— "'1 f
, f • -; ^w^06 .*• (gwawi |
Bf 12- ^l ,' ''-ABANDONED ~ " 7 - 1 I
'*' / *
CB12A / iCELLffl . / I
— ' J ' i ' iy I
8-1 ,' ' i ' 1 ' . f
« W«L -L8*. ; ' / •
I " "n'"®? 1
«'Jj^_^ , •' ' ^ ',
T^"^" p
''W-SWT
W-S4QT t •" Ig. -
* r W«ST; : 1
ABANDONED '' 1 8" -
•
I
. . . — . . . _ . 1 _ . . _ . . — i . _ D U . -^ a Q L.
JEGEND
-t^-LCf
M IEACHAT6 COLLECTION RISER
& WS4ZT GAS WELL
0 CDL-1 OOW3SNSAT10N DRIP LEG
MI CONTROL VALVE
-
p
'I';i'
REDUCER
PIPE DIAMETER
METER]NSSTATK)N
i | • • "^"" ooNSTRcuTEDUNn-LiMrrs UMIT 5 LANDFILL GAS
C6LLUMITS
. COLLECTtON SYSTEM
. GAS HEADER "OSCM£
Figure 3-6. Unit 5 Gas Extraction Well and Temperature Probe Placement
3-11
-------
UNIT 7
N.T.S,
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IH
i (noli » n-
HOREOUTAl,
GRAPHIC SCALE
- SO ft.
VERTICAL
Figure 3-7. Unit 7 North-South Cross Section
5-12
-------
BIOREACTOR TREATMENT STRATEGIES
Moisture Addition
Moisture addition is made to the FLB and AALB cells and not the Control cells. This moisture
is primarily recirculated leachate, along with various other on-site moisture sources. For the
AALB, the recirculated leachate is not treated prior to return to the waste mass.
For the FLB, recirculated leachate is treated through use of a chemolithropic bacteria to take
NFLt+ to NCb ~ in the aerobic Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR). In concept, the denitrifying
bacteria under anaerobic conditions in the landfill will use the NOs ~ as a terminal electron
acceptor to form both N2O and N2 gasses. This nitrified leachate is introduced to the waste
through the series of horizontal trenches that were installed in cells 5.1 and 5.2. The treated
SBR effluent is monitored on a monthly basis for COD, BOD, ammonia-nitrogen, nitrite-
nitrate nitrogen and phosphorous.
The treated leachate is pumped to a holding tank and distributed to the trenches via a force
main and manifold for distribution to the FLB. Moisture sources other than the leachate, such
as water from Outer Loop underdrain or sedimentation pond, or other liquid waste streams as
permitted by regulation, may be used to augment the supply of leachate. These liquid sources
are monitored in the same way as the SBR effluent in order to follow nitrogen dynamics.
Moisture volumes additions are performed by the landfill operator and are dependent, in part,
on precipitation, moisture levels in the waste, and other factors. Operator judgment is used as
necessary to achieve and maintain the in-place waste at desired moisture levels, as discussed in
Section 6. .
Air Addition
Aeration in the AALB study also is designed to achieve accelerated stabilization of solid waste.
The purpose of the aeration process is to biodegrade organic matter in the waste in an initial
aerobic composting stage prior to establishing the typical anaerobic conditions. Theoretically,
by rapidly degrading the organic waste, the acid or lag phase (see below) of the landfill
degradation process will be reduced significantly, resulting in a more rapid progression toward
methane generation in the anaerobic stage. In addition, the accelerated degradation of easily
degradable organic waste may result in improved leachate quality and a reduction in gaseous
non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) emissions. Aerating the uppermost lifts of the
landfill should also establish conditions conducive to the biological oxidation of methane gas
that is generated in the lower anaerobic lifts, thus reducing methane emissions. During and
after aeration, moisture is added to control the temperature in the waste.
TIMELINE AND DATA COMPARISONS
Landfill units are filled sequentially (placement of waste in a particular cell is only initiated
after the current waste-receiving cell is completely filled), therefore individual units in this
study are not directly comparable with respect to time. The Control cells provide an adequate
treatment reference by considering them as temporally offset from the treatment cells. For
example, consider the comparison between FLB cells and the Control. As mentioned, FLB
5-13
-------
waste is generally four to six years old and control waste is about two to three years old. In
three years, Control waste will be approximately the same age as present-day FLB waste.
Therefore, Control samples collected three years following the initiation of the FLB treatment
should be comparable to FLB cell data from when leachate was first introduced. Figure 3-8
provides a timeline for comparison of significant events for this project.
FIGURE 3-8. TIMELINE OF EVENTS AT OUTER LOOP
Control 7.3A&B start receiving waste
CRADA approved and signed
FLB retrofit began
FLB retrofit complete
AALB A starts receiving waste
Aeration commenced within 30 days
of completing each new lift
State approval received for
AALB construction
Addition of liquids to FLB Unit ceased
1995
JULY
1996
1997
OCT
1998
NOV
1999
2000
JUL
OCT
2001
JAN
MAR
MAY
JUL
SEPT
OCT
2002
JAN
MAR
SEPT
2003
SEPT
FLB A & B start receiving waste
FLB stopped receiving waste
FLB A&B start receiving waste
State approval received for FLB retrofit
FLB stopped receiving waste
SBR Treatment construction began
AALB B starts receiving waste
Aeration commenced within 30 days
of completing each new lift
SBR Treatment Unit complete
Addition of liquids to FLB Unit began
First interim report due for submission
5-14
-------
CRITICAL AND NON-CRITICAL PARAMETERS
Landfilled waste typically progresses through five phases of degradation, including:
(1) adjustment or acclimation; (2) transition; (3) acidogenesis; (4) methanogenesis; and
(5) maturation (Reinhart and Townsend 1998). This degradation process can be collectively
considered as waste stabilization. At any given time, landfill cells may be characterized as
experiencing one of the above phases. But because waste is deposited in a landfill cell over
time (months to years), waste-stabilization phases tend to overlap and sharp boundaries
between phases are not typical.
1. Acclimation. During acclimation, microbial populations are in a state of adjustment.
Waste moisture tends to increase and available oxygen is consumed during this phase. The
atmospheric-oxygen supply to the buried waste is diffusion limited and outpaced by the
oxygen demand of bacterial respiration; consequently the concentration of oxygen in the
landfill cell begins to decrease.
2. Transition In the transition phase, conditions turn anaerobic as the available oxygen is
consumed through the metabolism of readily degradable wastes. Complex organic matter is
broken into simpler forms (e.g., organic acids) and energy that is not captured by cells
during respiration is given off as heat. Waste and leachate temperature concomitantly
increase during organic-matter degradation. Other respiration by-products (carbon dioxide
and volatile organic acids) begin to increase in leachate.
3. Acidogenesis. During acidogenesis the accumulation of volatile organic acids reaches its
peak due to metabolism and fermentation of organic matter. The increase in chemical
oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand indirectly reflects this increase in
degradable metabolites. In addition, the high concentration of acids increases hydrogen ion
activity, reflected by decreased waste and leachate pH. In the near absence of oxygen,
metabolism shifts to anaerobic bacteria capable of utilizing alternate electron acceptors
(e.g., nitrate and sulfate).
4. Methanogenesis. In the methanogenic phase, the supply of most electron acceptors is
exhausted. Methanogenic bacteria ferment organic acids to methane and carbon dioxide
while other methanogens utilize CO2 as their terminal electron acceptor. Consequently, gas
(methane and CO2) volume and production rates increase. Anaerobic respiration is a
proton-consuming process and this is reflected by an increase in pH values in the waste and
leachate.
5. Maturation The maturation phase represents the end-point of landfill settlement (surface
GPS measurements). The overall conversion of complex wastes to teachable organic acids
and gaseous products also serves to reduce the waste volume and organic solids and to
increase waste density. Maturation occurs when degradable organic matter, and
consequently microbial growth, is limited. This is reflected by decreases in the biochemical
methane potential and gaseous metabolic by-products methane and CO2. Concentrations of
organics in leachate remain steady but at substantially reduced levels relative to earlier
phases.
It is expected, that the bioreactor treatments will increase the rate of transition through the
various phases relative to the control. It is further expected that this enhanced transition to
stabilized waste will be discernable with trend analyses.
5-15
-------
The parameters selected for study for this project were divided into two basic groups termed
critical and non-critical. The rationale for the parameter selection and grouping was based
firstly on what parameters are currently monitored in conventional Subtitle D landfills and are
useful indictors for optimal daily running of a landfill. Additional parameters were selected for
research interest, based on previous landfill bioreactor study findings, ultimately cost
evaluation also played a determining factor in the selection.
The critical measurements were selected as the best means to capture aspects of waste
stabilization over time. The extend of parameters selected was designed to meet the initial
objective to determine which parameters should be monitored in addition to those already
monitored in conventional Subtitle D landfills, should either of these models be adopted as a
standard method for landfill operation. Ultimately it is anticipated that a combination of the
critical and non-critical grouped parameters will provide sufficient information over the life of
the project to understand and evaluate these bioreactor designs, as compared with conventional
landfilling techniques, and meet the objectives set for this research project.
TREND MONITORING
Settlement
Settlement of the fill is monitored quarterly through GPS measurements of elevation as an
indication of biological stability. The numerous GPS sample points provide a data set with
which to evaluate waste settlement. In addition to GPS measurements and survey data,
settlement plates have been installed to measure settlement and stability of the landfill test
cells.
Pneumatic settlement cells and conventional settlement plates were installed to help define the
limits of the test cells in areas they are laid over existing waste. It is expected that the
pneumatic settlement cells will provide accurate measurement of settlement at depths greater
than that of conventional settlement plates in operating landfills.
A total of eight settlement plates were installed in Unit 5; seven of these plates remain in place
to date. Unit 7.4 currently has two settlement plates in place. A total of three plates have been
located in the control area to measure the settlement rates as a comparison. The top elevation
of each plate was surveyed prior to the start of liquid injection.
Leachate
Leachate is collected from each of the cells in the study. The design of the landfill units (paired
cells) is such that, with exception of Unit 5, each cell is separated from the surrounding cells.
With respect to Unit 5, 1,000 feet of waste separate sample locations for cells 5.1A and 5.2B.
The median of the two treatment cell observations from each sampling event will be calculated,
resulting in a single time series for each treatment and control. These time series are used to
assess trends, or lack thereof, for those characteristics and analytes measured in the leachate.
5-16
-------
Municipal Solid Waste
Incoming solid waste is weighed on scales as it enters the landfill and prior to disposal in
certain cells. In addition to weight, waste volume is calculated based on quarterly survey events
using global positioning system on a fixed GPS grid. In addition, changes in surveyed slope
points and an annual aerial photometric survey are used to supplement volume calculations.
Waste composition is recorded according to the type of incoming waste: municipal solid waste;
special waste; solidification waste; biosolids; asbestos; and construction and demolition debris.
Along with the two-dimensional analyses outlined for the leachate and the landfill gas, three-
dimensional analyses are done for the municipal solid waste. If the treatment is more effective
at one depth than another, incorporating depth into the MSW data assessment may identify it.
Settlement and fill are monitored quarterly through GPS measurements of elevation as an
indication of stability. The numerous GPS sample points provide a data set with which to
evaluate waste settlement. Specific techniques on the employed technique of GPS surveying
are provided in Section 4.
Landfill Gas
Gas sampling for CO2, O2 and CH4 are performed weekly. NMOC, HAPs and methane
surface emissions monitoring are performed quarterly. Similar to leachate, gas sampling occurs
at one point per cell where the gas extraction wells come to the collection point. The gas
extraction wells are located systematically, approximately equidistant from one another. The
number and location are selected to be representative of the cell. A description of the gas
sampling procedure and analyses are given in Section 4.
Methane Surface Emissions: Regulatory Monitoring
Surface emissions are monitored on a quarterly basis in accordance with the requirements
specified by the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG) for
municipal solid waste landfills in 40 CFR 60.755. Methane concentrations are measured within
5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in.) of the landfill surface using the CEC-Landtec SEM 500. Methane
surface concentrations are monitored around the perimeter of the collection area along a pattern
that traverses the landfill at 30-meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevate
concentrations of landfill gas.
Fugitive Gas Emissions Study
Fugitive gas emissions are those gaseous emissions that are not captured through the
engineered LFG collection system. Optical remote sensing (ORS) was used to evaluate
fugitive gas emissions (primarily methane) for the FLB, AALB, and Control study units. At
least three rounds of fugitive gas emissions testing are to be conducted at this site to estimate
impacts on fugitive emissions from landfill bioreactors when compared to controls. Three
rounds of testing will be completed by Fall 2003, with final results available in the Spring
2004. The most recent available set of measurements is presented in Appendix E.
5-17
-------
SECTION 4
METHODS
This section provides a summary of both operational and sampling/analysis methods used
during this investigation at the FLB, AALB and Control sites (Quality Assurance Project Plan,
2003).
OPERATIONAL METHODS
Moisture Addition
Moisture addition for this project was primarily leachate addition to the FLB and AALB test
cells. It was achieved via gravity- fed injection through the horizontal piping or trench systems
so as to increase significantly the moisture content of theses wastes when compared to the
control cells. Rates of gravity-fed moisture addition varied from approximately 5 to 80 gallons
per minute.
Excessive moisture addition can result in leachate seeps or breakouts, and reduced performance
of landfill gas collection wells and trenches. Consequently, moisture addition events included
site monitoring by the landfill operator. Similarly, operator judgment was used to reduce such
moisture additions during periods of precipitation or to increase moisture addition quantities
during periods when the waste mass appeared to be drier. The amount and timing of moisture
addition were established through a series of trial events so as to increase volumes added to the
waste mass without compromising the leachate containment or landfill gas collection systems.
Field procedures and practices used for moisture addition at Outer Loop are discussed in
Section 6 - Field Observations.
Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) -
Leachate collected from Unit 5 is recirculated through an on-site Sequential Batch Reactor
(SBR) containing fixed chemolithotrophic bacteria that reduce the ammonium level by
converting it to nitrate/nitrite. The leachate remains in contact with nitrification
microorganisms for sufficient time to nitrify to achieve an ammonia concentration of less than
50 mg/L. The nitrified aqueous product is then pumped to a holding tank before being returned
to the FLB through a series of gravity-fed horizontal trenches. These trenches were constructed
in the surface of the landfill after waste placement was complete. Other sources of liquid may
be used to supplement the leachate, including water from the under drain or sediment pond, or
other liquid sources permitted by the landfill facility permit.
Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) ~
Leachate and other moisture quantities are applied to the surface of the Unit 7 AALB units and
through perforated piping manifolds connected to four tanks used to accumulate liquids from
various sources. These sources have included Unit 7 leachate, various commercial liquids,
surface water, and under drain water. The tanks' gravity feed to both the surface and buried
manifolds; the surface manifold was moved on an ongoing basis to different locations of the
4-1
-------
waste mass so as distribute moisture more evenly onto the waste (as determined by the landfill
operator). In practice, moisture quantities were added to the lift of waste immediately below
the lift of waste being aerated.
Air Addition
Aeration of the AALB unit was initiated within 30 days of completing a new lift of waste and
was accomplished on an intermittent basis. Prior to commencing, moisture was added to the
working face of the lift to be aerated. Aeration was performed after a lift of waste was placed
to cover the aeration piping and the prescribed moisture addition was completed. Air addition
was achieved through the horizontal piping installed between the lifts of the landfill, primarily
using a blower at a pre-established rate between 200 to 1,000 scfm (Hater et al. 2001),
supplemented on occasion with an air compressor. The rate and duration of air addition was
dependent on the waste lift and, in particular, waste temperature. The air pressure across the
header was balanced using a pressure gauge once the blower had been operational for 24 hours.
The aeration face was watered on an approximate weekly basis.
Aeration was performed over a period of approximately 30 to 60 days or until waste
temperature reached 60°C. Aeration times generally varied with:
• food content of waste;
• moisture content of incoming waste and evaporation rate; and
• ambient air and blower air temperature.
To assess the progress of the aerobic composting stage, ongoing monitoring was performed for
odors (subjective), landfill gas composition (field instrument), and waste temperature (in situ
probes). These parameters provide both information on when to reduce or terminate the air
addition, and also as a safety procedure to avoid subsurface fires. For example, changes in
landfill gas composition, meaning a decrease in methane content and/or a rise in carbon
monoxide content, could be indicative of subsurface fire conditions.
Waste temperature rise was used as the key measure to stop or reduce air addition. If a waste
temperature probe reached 80°C, or if after reaching 60°C, a temperature probe increases by
10°C or more during any 48-hour period, air addition would be terminated. See also Section 6 -
Field Observations.
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
The following sampling and analysis methods were applied to all of the tested landfill cells.
Methods used during this investigation were concordant with EPA Standard methods contained
within SW 846.
4-2
-------
Sampling Frequency
An extensive program for sampling was developed for this project. A summary of sampling
frequency is provided below, one sample was taken for each parameter at the given frequency
from each of the locations: FLB 5.1, FLB 5.2, Control 7.3 A, Control 7.3B, AALB 7.4A and
AALB 7.4B, with the exception of those taken from the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). See
Field Measurements section for further discussion of the Waste Settlement protocol.
Sampling locations are discussed herein and were intended to reflect representativeness over
the entire cells under investigation. For example, each cell's leachate drains to a central sump,
samples collected at sumps were therefore assumed to be representative of the entire cell.
Similarly, sampling from landfill gas extraction wells and soil boring locations were assumed
to represent cell and subcell on an ongoing basis. Generally, samples were taken from central
locations within cells so as to avoid edge effects.
TABLE 4-1. SAMPLING FREQUENCIES IN MATRICES OF INTEREST
MATRIX: Leachate
PARAMETER
Head on Liner
Leachate Production
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Ammonia-nitrogen
o-Phosphate
Total Phosphorus
Nitrate-nitrogen
Nitrite -nitrogen
Total volatile organic acids
Temperature
pH
Conductance
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semi-Volatile Organic Cmpds
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Dissolved Solids
Sulfate
Chloride
Potassium
RCRA Hazardous Metals
FREQUENCY
Continuous
Continuous
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
MATRIX: Municipal Solid Waste
PARAMETER
Oxygen Reduction Potential
Temperature
Waste Settlement
Cellulose/lignin
Organic Solids
Biochemical Methane
Potential
Waste Moisture
Appearance
pH
FREQUENCY
Daily (up to 250)
Daily (up to 250)
See Field
Measurements
30 samples annually
30 samples annually
30 samples annually
30 samples annually
30 samples annually
30 samples annually
MATRIX: Landfill Gas
LFG flow/production
CLL,, C02, 02 Field
CLL;, CO2, C>2 Summa
Non-methane organic
compounds
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Surface emission monitoring
Weekly
Weekly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Twice Quarterly
Field Sampling Techniques
Specific sampling procedures have been developed by the EPA and vary with the sample
matrices and specific analyses. The types of containers, methods of preservation and holding
times are identified in Table 4.2.
4-:
-------
Leachate —
Leachate samples were taken at the drain sump areas for Units 5.1 and 5.2, 7.3A and 7.3B,
7.4A and 7.4B. Samples were obtained at regular time intervals at one sampling location.
Leachate samples were collected directly from the tap or port on the riser pipe. This port is
located at the point near where the leachate riser daylights to surface. Leachate was pumped
from the sump through the riser pipe and collected from the valved port. Switching the riser
pump from automatic mode to hand mode (essentially turning the pump off) prior to sampling
was shown in subsequent sampling events to be an effective procedure for obtaining an
adequate volume of leachate.
Leachate samples were collected in the following sequence: COD, BOD, volatile organic acids,
pH, temperature, VOCs, SVOCs, TKN, ammonia-N, nitrate-N, nitrite-N, total metals
(including potassium), o-phosphate, total phosphate, chloride, sulfate, IDS and conductance.
To obtain a representative sample, effluent was purged prior to collecting the actual sample.
The purge volume was estimated by multiplying the time the sample line was open by leachate
flow rate (30 gal/min) and recorded on the Leachate Sampling Information Form.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) -
Solid waste samples were collected annually at systematically chosen boring locations. The cell
was divided into six sections; each section was divided into 3x3 square meter grids and a
square randomly chosen within a grid as the boring location for that section. The equivalent
boring location was used for sampling in the remaining sections. The edges of the cell were not
sampled. When drilling could not be initiated or completed for whatever reason in a selected
location, a randomly selected square adjacent to the original location was selected, but only for
that section where drilling was incomplete.
A drill rig equipped with a 3-foot diameter bucket auger was used to sample each location in
10-foot vertical sections. One representative sample, consisting of a 10 to 20 gallon
composited aliquot, was collected for each section. The initial 10 feet of material generally was
discarded as it usually contained significant quantities of soil. As the boring advanced, each 10
-foot section was extracted from the auger and the appearance and temperature of the waste
recorded. At least 30 baseline waste samples were collected from cells in Unit 5 and Unit 7.3 in
2000. Six baseline samples were collected from 7.4A in November 2001 and six from 7.4B in
February 2002. Additional samples were collected from all cells in October 2002. More than
30 for Unit 5 cells 5.1A and 5.2B, only 23 for cells 7.4A and 7.4B, and more than 30 for cells
7.3. The reason for this is six borings are placed in each cell. Waste samples are collected for
each 10-ft increase in depth as the boring is advanced. The number of samples was dependent
on the depth of the boring.
The composite waste samples were sealed in plastic bags and placed in a cooler for shipment to
the laboratory. These included samples for organic solids, pH, moisture content, biochemical
methane potential, and cellulose/lignin ratio at the frequency designated.
4-4
-------
Temperature and ORP of the in-place MSW were monitored by type K-thermocouples (Hanna
Model No. HI 766 Cl). The data communications/gathering system that the probes are
connected to currently record the temperature or ORP reading for each probe, once every 30
minutes. Probes returning erratic temperature readings, based on historic temperature control
charts, were investigated and the erratic results flagged.
Landfill Gas —
Gas monitoring was done at the installed gas monitoring point within each cell to monitor
activity within the landfill bioreactors and control areas. Information recorded for gas sampling
was logged on a Gas Sampling Information Form.
Field monitoring was performed using a GEM 2000 instrument (see Field Measurements) on a
weekly basis (see Field Measurements below). Samples were collected for laboratory analysis
of methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen by EPA Method 3, non -methane organic compounds
(NMOCs), by EPA Method 25C, and volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs;
Appendix J) by Compendium Method TO -14 on a quarterly basis. These samples were
collected in 6-liter SUMMA® passivated stainless steel canisters at the gas monitoring point.
Preservation and Handling
Samples collected for laboratory analysis were transported to the lab within 24 hours via an
overnight shipping company. Samples requiring cooling for purposes of preservation were
packaged in coolers and maintained at 4°C using crushed ice. Ice was packaged in large Ziploc
baggies to prevent leakage onto sample containers. The laboratory was contacted prior to the
day of shipment. The laboratory recorded the shipment temperature (of a temperature blank)
upon arrival and significant variances in temperature (i.e. greater than 4°C) were immediately
reported to the WMI project Co-Principal Investigator responsible for field activities.
Project personnel for field activities completed a sample collection narrative form, a record of
activities carried out by the sampling team. The team member responsible for the sampling
project completed the narrative and it traveled with the Chain of Custody (COC). The
instructions laid out in the Project QAPP for the completion of the COC, sample handling and
storage, and the transfer of sample custody were adhered to at all times. The sample collection
information was also recorded on an analytical data sheet for field-testing parameters such as
pH, specific conductance, gas surveys etc.
Samples collected for laboratory analysis were identified with standard labels attached to the
sample containers. The standard format detailed in the Project QAPP was utilized to uniquely
identify all samples. All field documentation and project logbooks were maintained according
to the QAPP (Quality Assurance Project Plan, 2003), which is included as Appendix B.
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-2. CONTAINERIZATION, PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIMES
PARAMETER
SAMPLE
VOLUME &
CONTAINER
PRESERVATION
MAX. HOLDING
TIME
Inorganic Tests
Ammonia-nitrogen
BOD
COD
Conductance (leachate)
Chloride
Potassium
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
RCRA Metals
Nitrate -nitrogen
Nitrite -nitrogen
o-Phosphate
Total phosphorous
Total dissolved solids
Temperature (leachate)
pH (leachate)
pH (waste)
Moisture (MSW)
Sulfate
Specific Conductance
500ml*, P, G.1
1000ml, P, G.
1 000ml, P, G.1
P, G.
500ml, P, G.
500ml, P, G.
1 000ml, RG.1
1 000ml, RG.1
1000ml, P, G.
1000ml, P, G.
500ml, P, G.
500ml, P, G.1
500 ml, P, G.
P, G.
P, G.
1000ml wide-mouth,
P, G.
1000ml wide-mouth,
P, G.
50ml, T, P, G.
500ml, P, G.
Cool40C,H9S04topH<2
Cool 4°C
Cool40C,H9S04topH<2
None required.
None required
Field acidified to pH<2 with HNO,
Cool40C,H9S04topH<2
Field acidified to pH<2 with HNO3
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C, filter in lab if necessary
Cool4°C,H2S04topH<2
Cool 4°C
None required.
None required.
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
28 davs
48 hours
28 davs
Analyze immediately.
28 days
28 days
28 days
6 months
(Hg 28 days)
48 hours
48 hours
48 hours
28 days
7 days
Analyze immediately.
Analyze immediately.
7 days
28 days
28 days
28 days
Organic Tests
Organic solids
Cellulose:lignin
BMP
Volatile organic acids
VOC
SVOC
Microbial studies
Double-wrapped
plastic garbage bag.
Double-wrapped
plastic garbage bag. 2
Double-wrapped
plastic garbage bag. 2
8oz. Amber glass,
Teflon-lined septa
3x40ml glass, Teflon-
lined septa
2x11 Amber glass,
Teflon-lines septa
500ml P, G
Sterile bag
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C, no headspace
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
21 days
28 days
21 days
10 days
7 days
Extract - 7 days
Analyze -21-40 days
24 hours
CFL), CO;, 02
6-liter, summa
Not required
7 days
* ammonia sample taken from COD bottle
1 Sample bottles will be sufficient volume to prevent sample loss due to effervescence upon acidification.
2Wrapped samples placed in polyethylene trays with lids and these filled trays are then placed in a (un-cooled)
plastic bin.
This study was performed in addition to the requirements of the QAPP.
P-Plastic
G - Glass
T - Teflon
Sources: SW 846 Methods, 40 CFR 136, and Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
4-6
-------
Analytical Methods
A set of critical and non-critical parameters was established for each matrix. The methods used
to measure each of these are presented in the following tables (Analytical Method References
14 to 18).
TABLE 4-3. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR LEACHATE
CRITICAL
PARAMETER
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Temperature
PH
Volatile Organic Acids
METHOD
410.4 (C)
405.1 (C)
Cole-Parmer
Thermocouple*
Field electrode*
Microbial Insights SOP
NON-CRITICAL
PARAMETER
voc
svoc
o-Phosphate
Total Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Chloride
Potassium
Conductance
RCRA Haz. Metals
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
Head on Liner
Leachate Production
METHOD
8260 (B)
8270 (B)
365.2 (C)
365.2 (C)
351.2 (C)
160.1 (C)
300.0 (A)
300.0 (A)
6010 (B) (prepared
according to 3005)
Field electrode*
6010/7470 (B)
(prepared per 3005)
350.1 (C)
353.2 (C)
353.2 (C)
Pressure Transducer*
Totalizing Flow Meter*
TABLE 4-4. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
CRITICAL
PARAMETER
Waste Temperature
Waste Settlement
Organic Acids
Moisture Content
pH
Biochemical Methane
Production
METHOD
Cole Farmer
Thermocouple*
GPS survey*
Barlaz R&D Method
Barlaz R&D Method
US EPA 9045C
Barlaz R&D Method
NON-CRITICAL
PARAMETER
Oxidation-reduction Potential
Cellulose:lignin ratio
Appearance of Waste
METHOD
Field ORP Electrode*
ASTME-1758-95/Barlaz
(R&D Method)
Field Observation*
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-5. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR LANDFILL GAS
CRITICAL
PARAMETER
CtL,, C02, 02
CH4, C02, 02
Gas Collection
Gas Volume
METHOD
GEM 2000*
Method 3C
Orifice plate*
GEM 2000*
NON-CRITICAL
PARAMETER
Surface Emission Monitoring
Non-Methane Organic Carbon
Hazardous Air Pollutants
METHOD
NSPS/FID mod. Method 21*
EPA Method 25C
Compendium Method TO- 1 4
* Field Measurements.
Field Measurements
Equipment used for field measurements was calibrated according to manufacturers'
instructions.
In-Situ Municipal Solid Waste Temperature and ORP —
Temperature and Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) of the in-place waste were monitored
by type K thermocouples (Hanna Model No. HI 766 CI) wire connected to a standard Cole-
Parmer thermocouple panel meter on the surface. Temperature and ORP readings were made
on a daily basis per cell. No calibration was required.
Leachate Temperature, pH and Conductance —
Leachate temperature was measured using a Hanna Instruments Model HI 991301
pH/conductance/temperature probe on a monthly basis. Calibrations were performed per the
manufacturer's specifications.
A 500-ml or other suitable, clean, container was used to collect a sample of leachate from the
same sampling port used for leachate quality sampling, immediately after collection of the
quality samples. Each parameter was measured from the same sample.
The pH meter was capable of measuring pH to +/- 0.002 units. The probe was calibrated before
use each time using three buffer solutions that bracketed the expected pH. Accuracy was
determined by re-measuring one of the three buffer solutions as a sample. The instrument had
a temperature accuracy of + 0.2°C and resolution of 0.1°C. Though the measurement was not
in-situ, it was typically made within 30 minutes of sample collection.
An Accumet conductivity cell (Fisher Scientific, Cat No. 13-620-166) with a measurement
range of 1000 to 200,000|iS/cm, a cell constant (K) of 10.0cm"1 and accuracy of+/-0.5 percent
was used to make the measurements. The probe was calibrated with standard solution of
12,880 |iS/cm (|imho/cm) @ 25 degrees C (Hanna Instruments, Cat No. HI 8030L). The cell
had a one point automatic calibration, though several standard solutions were used to check the
range. Leachate conductivity measurements typically fell in the 4-18 mS/cm range.
4-8
-------
Head on Liner and Leachate Production —
An in-place pressure transducer measured the head on the landfill liner and leachate production
was quantified with a factory-calibrated totalizing flow meter (one per cell).
Landfill Gas Composition and Volume --
A factory-calibrated orifice plate was used to measure the volume of gas collected by the
landfill gas collection system. Gas temperature was measured using a Reotemp bimetal
thermometer permanently fixed to the gas header, metering station piping, or gas well near the
orifice plate. The thermometer is of stainless steel construction, approximately 3-inch
diameter, with a dial direct read face.
Gas field analyses were performed for methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen using a GEM
2000, and in accordance with procedures given in EPA Method 3C. This instrument is a
portable field gas analyzer and uses a self -compensating infrared detector. The instrument was
calibrated prior to use per manufacturer specifications using 50:35:0:15 CH4:CO2:O2:N2 and
0:0:4:96 CH4:CO2:O2:N2 gas mixtures. Additionally, the calibration was checked again after
sample measurements with these gas mixture standards. Calibration gases for the GEM 2000
were obtained from CES Landtec and included concentrations that bracket the expected
measured concentration and a "zero" gas (e.g. nitrogen). Concentration readings for carbon
dioxide and methane had to be within 15 percent of the actual concentration or sample
duplicate; the tolerance for oxygen was ±30 percent. Zero gases registered at no greater than 5
percent of the span of the instrument.
After calibration, the instrument was connected to a gas sampling port using flexible plastic
tubing. Gas was drawn into the instrument by an internal pump and analyzed. Results were date
and time stamped and data logged by the instrument. Gas standards for CJi, CCh and O2 were
analyzed twice daily on the day of sampling to evaluate accuracy objectives. Gas volume
measurements were made by electronically logging three consecutive measurements of gas
quality (methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and balance gas) and flow (differential pressure,
static pressure, gas temperature, and flow rate) to the GEM 2000 for each sample point. The
mean value for each of these measurements was recorded as the value for each parameter of
interest.
Surface Emissions Monitoring —
Surface emissions monitoring was performed for methane using the field instrument CEC -
Landtec SEM-500. This is a hand held portable flame ionization detector used to monitor
surface emissions at landfills. The instrument was calibrated prior to use according to the
manufacturer's specifications.
Surface emissions monitoring was performed in accordance with the requirements specified by
the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG) for municipal
solid waste landfills in 40 CFR 60.755. Methane concentrations were measured within 5 to 10
cm (2 to 4 in) of the landfill surface using the field instrument. Methane concentrations were
measured following the procedures in EPA Method 21, except that "methane" replaced all
4-9
-------
references to "volatile organic compounds" (VOC) and the calibration gas was 500-ppm
methane in air [§ 60.755(d)]. Methane surface concentrations were monitored around the
perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 -meter
intervals. In addition, prescribed monitoring included taking measurements where visual
observations indicated elevated concentrations of landfill gas (e.g., distressed vegetation, cracks
or seeps in the cover).
Waste Settlement —
Surface settlement of the fill was monitored quarterly through Global Positioning Survey (GPS)
measurements of elevation. The number of measurements taken per quarter is tabulated below.
Unit 5 cells 5.1 and 5.2 are each comprised of two subcells, with each subcell having 20 GPS
points.
TABLE 4-6. NUMBER OF GPS POINTS PER LOCATION
LOCATION
FBL5.1 (A&B)
FBL 5.2 (C&D)
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
NUMBER OF GPS
POINTS
40
40
20
20
20
20
GPS measurements were performed using the Trimble model 4800. Sampling points within a
cell were selected according to the following criteria:
1. Every sampling event was initialized from a known point and within a + 5 cm span
for the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the known point. If sampling within a
cell was interrupted, the system was reinitialized from the known point before
sampling was resumed.
2. Sampling was initiated if the root mean square reading from the system was less
than or equal to 10.
3. The positional dilution of precision (a measure of the relative dispersion of satellites
in the sky) reading was less than or equal to 6 before the system was initialized.
In addition to the plots described above, standard high and low points and contours were
measured. One of every 20 points measured by GPS was randomly selected and re-sampled.
These methods were used to confirm that the positional accuracy of the GPS readings was
sufficient to meet the analytical needs of the investigation (including conformance with the
QAPP), and that the GPS measurements made were accurate, reliable, and comparable.
In addition to GPS measurements and survey data, settlement plates were installed to provide a
localized indication for refuse settlement within the landfill test cells. Settlement plates were
placed in the proximity of wells and trenches to measure the surface movements during the
study. The top elevation of each plate was surveyed prior to initiation of moisture addition.
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 provide GPS and settlement plate locations for Units 5 and 7, respectively.
4-10
-------
Fugitive Gas Emissions Study --
Sampling and analytical methods involved with measuring fugitive gas emissions at the Outer
Loop Landfill are presented in Appendix E.
4-11
-------
GRID PT.
NUMBER
81
59
50
27
21
NORTHING
240152.5430
239710.9990
239602.5140
239204.9610
239080.8130
EASTING
1576875.7340
1577252.8080
1576977.8270
1576895.6480
1576997.2400
ELEV.
503.40
523.99
531.27
525,53
527.96
QAQC PT.
NUMBER
QAQC-81
QAQC-59
QAQC-50
QAQC-27
QAQC-21
•8" PVC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE
EX. GROUND
•STOCKPILE MATERIAL
•STEEL REINFORCEMENTS
WASTE
2' DIA. SETTLEMENT PLATE
SETTLEMENT PLATE DETAIL
• BIOREMEDIATION GRID POINT
* SETTUNG PLATE
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 200
FEET )
1 inch = 200 ft
UNIT 5 VOLUME REDUCTION FROM JUNE TO OCTOBER 2001 = 5,327 C.Y.
UNIT 5 VOLUME REDUCTION FROM OCTOBER 2001 TO JANUARY 2002 = 11,911 C.Y.
UNIT 5 VOLUME REDUCTION FROM JANUARY 2002 TO MARCH 2002 = 14,361 C.Y.
UNIT 5 VOLUME REDUCTION FROM MARCH 2002 TO JULY 2002 = 14,633 C.Y.
UNIT 5 VOLUME REDUCTION FROM JULY 2002 TO OCTOBER 10, 2002 = 7,350 C.Y.
UNIT 5 VOLUME REDUCTION FROM OCTOBER 2002 TO JANUARY 2003 = 15,926 C.Y.
UNIT 5 VOLUME REDUCTION FROM JANUARY 2003 TO APRIL 2003 = 12,431 C.Y.
UNIT 5 VOLUME OF TRASH STORED AS OF JUNE 2001 = 2,568,877 C.Y.
Figure 4-1. Unit 5 GPS Point and Settlement Plate Locations
4-12
-------
wWwwmK'
-•
J
. '•!>«-« fTi»-4l JNMi-r--j(tajST.; .:.*r*i'_^E!^ ^fcT^gjJ^.:™^* .*; !
:l ..• >J II..i.
/.'i- r 3 -^ii
.-.:..-
SETTLEMENT PLATE DETAIL
NORTH-SOUTH VOLUME
SHFAXDOWM SCHEMATIC
I '.,:-! i :.,- :i /;:i II1.'
BREAKDOlftN SCHEMATIC
Figure 4-2. Unit 7 GPS Point and Settlement Plate Locations
4-13
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section summarizes the sampling and field monitoring results for the Control, FLB and
AALB study units. Discussion of these results is provided herein, with supporting statistical
analysis included as Appendix C. Monitoring activities began in June 2001 in accordance with
the methods described previously in Section 4. The data documented herein are for the period
from cell initiation through April 2003.
DATA VALIDATION
Three independent Data Validations have been performed for all critical and non-critical
analysis of leachate, landfill gas (LFG), Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and settlement
parameters. On the basis of these audits, the data was amended as necessary. The data included
in this report has been subject to this independent validation, all observations and findings
documented in the validation reports have been addressed in the data presented.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
It is the intention of this project to use statistical methods to evaluate and compare data trends
identified by the extensive parameter monitoring program. Given the immature status of the
project and the present temporal non-correlation discussed previously, it would be premature to
fully explore any apparent trends observed in the data collected so far for the purposes of this
interim report. However, various statistical techniques were investigated and applied to some of
the data collected to date, in order to assess the most appropriate method of displaying the
results and evaluate the techniques for future application.
For a full account of the statistical techniques applied see Appendix C. In summary, data was
expressed in Time Plots or, where more appropriate, Box Plots or Histograms. Although not
applied in the following section, best fit curves were provided in the statistical evaluation of the
leachate Time Plots. Levelplot of Settling Height Change (LOESS) or "contour" plots were
applied to the GPS settlement data for qualitative purposes only, no rigorous statistical analysis
was performed on this.
Statistical methods were then evaluated as a means to detect any statistically significant trends
and slope estimates. For the leachate parameters the Mann-Kendall test was applied, and for the
waste settlement the Shapiro Wilk Normality Test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test were
evaluated.
Analysis of covariance was performed for the leachate data between replicate pair cells. Each
unit consists of two cells that are considered duplicates or replicates of each other.
5-1
-------
• Control 7.3 A is a replicate of Control 7.3B
• FLB 5.1 A is a replicate of Control 5.2B
• FLB 5. IB is a replicate of Control 5.2A
• AALB 7.4A is a replicate of AALB 7.4B
This set-up ensures that any apparent trend seen in a given cell can be evaluated against that
seen in a similar, duplicate cell exposed to similar operational conditions, which theoretically
therefore should behave in the same manner.
The statistical analysis techniques applied here did not reveal any statistically significant
trends, it did, however, identify significant outliers which affected the statistical analyses.
These results were not unexpected and supported the assertion that it was somewhat premature
to assume a model structure for the many parameters given the limited data currently available.
The heterogeneous nature of the patterns seen for many of the parameters do not yet give rise to
a common model that can be used to make comparisons. The following section presents and
summarized the data so far, without offering in depth statistical evaluation.
SUMMARY OF PERIODS OF LEACHATE AND AIR ADDITIONS
The following Table 5-1 provides a timetable of the periods of leachate and air addition to the
bioreactor treatment cells. Although included in this report for reference purposes only, this
information will be used in future analysis of the data to correlate with any data trends
identified and improve understanding of these systems.
TABLE 5-1. TIMETABLE OF LEACHATE AND AIR ADDITION
PERIOD
3/21/02 to 10/1 1/02
2/16/02 to 10/1 1/02
6/1 8/02 to 7/4/02
7/1 5/02 to 7/27/02
7/30/02 to 8/12/02
2/4/02 to 2/14/03
2/1 8/02 to 3/27/03
FLB 5.1
Fluid
Addition
Fluid
Addition
FLB 5.2
Fluid
Addition
AALB 7.4A
Air Addition
Air Addition
Air Addition
Air Addition
Air Addition
AALB 7.4B
Air Addition
Air Addition
Air Addition
Air Addition
Note: Liquid Addition to the AALB cells is essentially continuous beginning with
installation of the first lift of waste in each cell.
WASTE VOLUMES AND SETTLEMENT
Various parameters were measured to monitor waste volume changes over time and ultimately,
waste settlement in each of the cells under investigation. The results documented in this report
apply the Control Unit (7.3 A and B), the FLB (Unit 5.1 A and 5.2B) and the AALB (Unit 7.4 A
and B).
5-2
-------
Summary of Waste Volume
Gross volume for in-place waste and other materials was measured for each of the cells on a
quarterly basis using surveying techniques. This has been graphically represented in Figures
5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 for the Control, FLB and AALB, respectively.
Waste deposition in Control Cells 7.3 A and B began in late 1998. Both cells have been filled at
approximately the same rate with 7.3A presently having the slightly greater volume of
655,165 m3 versus 558,174 m3. Initially the waste volume in both increased rapidly as waste
was deposited, bringing the total waste volume in both cells to 1,022,136 m3 by March 1999.
Additional waste has continued to be deposited in both 7.3 A and 7.3 B resulting in a gradual
increase in volume. By end of March 2003 there was 1,213,339 m3 of waste in place. The trend
is a result of the frequency and volume of waste deposited versus the rate of settlement and
degradation of the waste, hence over certain periods a drop in volume is observed as the rate of
settlement is greater than the rate of deposition. See Figure 5-1.
Waste deposition in FLB Cells 5.1 and 5.2 began in July of 1995. This landfill received a total
of 1,930,825 tons of waste by October 1997. An additional 154,924 tons of waste were added
between July 2000 and March 2001. No further waste has been deposited since that time and
waste volume measurements for the period June 2001 through December 2002 show a steady
decrease in each of the four subcells A, B, C and D. The volume reduction over the period
represents a 2.5 percent decrease in A, 2.6 percent in B, 2.5 percent in C and 3.4 percent in D.
See Figure 5-2.
Waste deposition in AALB units 7.4A and 7.4B began in July and September 2001,
respectively. The waste volumes in place for both AALB units are showing an increase in
waste volume over time because each continues to receive waste on a daily basis. By end 2001
there was 22,3971m3 total waste in place in both cells, 680,947m3 by end 2002, and 734,011m3
by March 2003. See Figure 5-3.
5-:
-------
Figure 5-1. Waste Volume vs. Time for Control Cells
700000
600000 -
500000 -
E 400000
_3
O
> 300000
3
V)
i 200000
100000 -
0
o-o
a-a—-a-a
CONTROL (7.3A)
CONTROL (7.3B)
1/1998
1/1999
1/2000
1/2001
1/2002
1/2003
1/2004
5-4
-------
600000
550000 -
CO
CD 500000
E
_g
g
0) 450000
i
400000 -I
350000
Figure 5-2. Waste Volume vs. Time for FLB Cells
D-
D--
-D-
-D-
-O— FLB-A
-D- FLB-B
-D- FLB-C
-D-- FLB-D
-O-
-o o-
-O
-Q
1/2001 5/2001 9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003
5-5
-------
Figure 5-3. Waste Volume vs. Time for AALB Cells
500000
O
(0
ro
400000 -
300000 -
200000 -
100000 -]
0
—O— AALB (7.4A)
--D- AALB (7.4B)
3/2001 6/2001 9/2001 12/2001 3/2002 6/2002 9/2002 12/2002 3/2003 6/2003
5-6
-------
Summary of Waste Settlement
The surface elevation was measured using GPS technology for each of the Control, AALB and
FLB units. The results are displayed in the form of a contour plot of total settlement for the
period in the FLB, and box plots in Figures 5-4 through 5-7.
There are relatively fewer data points for Units 7.3 and 7.4 compared with Unit 5, with only
three measuring events versus eight for Unit 5 FLB. In addition the significance of the GPS
data relative to the objectives of this investigation for Units 7.3 and 7.4 is limited at this point
owing to soil covering and active waste placement.
Unit 5 is not actively accepting waste. The last waste addition was made in 2000-2001.
Relatively more of this waste was placed in the southeastern part of this Unit compared with
the northern half. The GPS data for this region of Unit 5 shows a generally greater settlement
(decrease in surface height) over the period, as would be expected. The box plot for FLB 5.1A
also demonstrates a greater rate of settlement, decreasing with time, compared with FLB 5.2B
that shows a much more consistent and lower degree of settlement.
The maximum average settlement displayed in the box plots is approximately 0.2m. When this
is compared with the data spread of approximately 0.3m for that period, it can be concluded
that a greater degree of settlement is required to derive meaningful results from this
measurement. Longer-term elevation measurements should provide greater clarity and
confidence in this parameter.
Interpretation of the Box Plot:
Median-
o
I
T
O
-95th Percent!le
-90th Percent!le
-75th Percent!le
-Mean
-25th Percent!le
-10th Percent!le
-5th Percent!le
Insufficient data, overlap in waste age, and continued disturbance of the landfill surface may
confound conclusive trends at this interim stage.
5-7
-------
Figure 5-4. GPS Settlement Data for Control
Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Monitoring Point Settlement for Control-A Cell
2.0
CD
E
_CD
*
CD
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.0 -
sep 02-jan 03 jan 03-mar 03 mar 03-aug 03
Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Monitoring Point Settlement for Control-B Cell
2.0
1.5 -
c
CD
E
0)
% 1.0 -
o
.2
c 0.5 -
o.o -
i
i
sep 02-jan 03 jan 03-mar 03 mar 03-aug 03
5-8
-------
Figure 5-5. GPS Settlement Data for FLB
Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Settlement Monitoring Points for FLB-A
0.4 •
0.3 -
c
0)
J 0.2
0.0 -
-0.1
o
T
i
0
o
T T T
01 ° n
-i- 1 T
T 0 JL
-T- i ^
x T 9
^ v 1 5 y v T
o o
o
o
Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Settlement Monitoring Points for FLB-C
0.4
0.3 -
-------
Figure 5-6. Plan View Contour Plot of Settlement for FLB GPS Monitoring Points
(6/2001 -6/2003)
240000
O)
O 239500
-0.18 -0.82 -0.80 -0.69 -0.82 -0.82 -0.85
FLB-D
-0.74 -0.66 -0.72 -0.92 -0.94 -0.89 -0.88
-0.25 -0.48 -0.69 -0.82 -1.05 -1.01 -0.13
-0.36 -0.46 -0.80 -0.97 -1.09 -1.13 0.79
FLB-C
-0.37 -0.44 -1.20 -1.32 L -1.36
-0.28 -0.55 -0.74 -0.88 -0.99 -1.40 -1.28
.
239000
-0.45 -0.50 -0.72 -0.95 -0.91 -1.10 -1.12 -0.:
FLB-B
-0.71 -0.64 -1.09 -1.14 -1.88
-0.53 -0.65 -0.86 -1.13 -1.13 -1.44 -1.64 -1.
0.27-0.55 -0.94 -1.31 -1.56 -1.62 -1.42 -1.24 -1.05
FLB-A
-0.77 -1.09 -1.31 -1.10 -1.16 -1.12 -1.40 -1.72
-0.32-0.90 -0.90 -0.94 -0.91 -0.99 -1.02 -1.14 -1.33
-0.45 -0.52 -0.47 -0.37
meters
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
I I I I
1576700 1576800 1576900 1577000 1577100 1577200
Easting
5-10
-------
Figure 5-7. GPS Settlement Data for AALB
Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Monitoring Point Settlement for AALB-A Cell
1.0
0.8 -
CD 0.6 -
E
^D
"CD
—
O
2
0.4 H
0.2 -
0.0 -
-0.2
sep 02-jan 03 jan 03-mar 03 mar 03-aug 03
Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Monitoring Point Settlement for AALB-B Cell
1.0
0.8 -
0.6 -
E
0)
CD
« 0.4 -\
CD
o> 0.2 -|
0.0 -
-0.2
sep 02-jan 03 jan 03-mar 03 mar 03-aug 03
5-11
-------
Airspace Utilization Factor (AUF)
In addition to waste settlement data, landfill operators use comparisons of calculated densities
as a means to benchmark the use of the airspace created during development and filling of the
landfill cells over time. Such comparisons require volume or weight data to calculate an in-
place density of as-received materials. Depending on the calculation desired, these materials
may be limited to simply waste, or other materials may be added in as well, such as cover
materials, construction materials, moisture additions, and the like. At the Outer Loop facility,
these comparisons are termed the Airspace Utilization Factor (AUF) and are calculated as
follows:
Calculated In-Place Cell Density (weight, as received waste Ibs/cell volume, yd3)
AUF=
Target cell Density (set at 2000 Ibs/cubic yard)
Where
the weight of as-received waste materials is from scalehouse data
the overall volume of the cell is estimated using GPS or other periodic survey
methods
Target Cell Density is a constant
AUF is unit-less.
Figure 5-8 depicts changes in the AUF values as calculated for the FLB and AALB cells
(combined) over time. Note that the AUF for the FLB is somewhat constant, rising slowly with
time, as opposed to significant rises in AUF shown for the AALB. The FLB no longer receives
waste materials; however, its cell volume is decreasing with time due to settlement. This
accounts for the increase in the calculated in-place density. The rising plot for AALB is a
function of the ongoing receipt of wastes and the likely occurrence of waste settlement.
5-12
-------
Figure 5-8. Airspace Utilization Factor (AUF) vs. Time for
FLB and AALB
0.95
0.90 -
0.85 -
0.80 -
0.75 -
0.70
o-
AALB
FLB
3/2001 6/2001 9/2001 12/2001 3/2002 6/2002 9/2002 12/2002 3/2003 6/2003
5-13
-------
LEACHATE QUALITY AND CHARACTERISTICS
As described in previous sections, leachate analyses have been taken to evaluate changes in
leachate quality with respect to the program design treatments. Changes in leachate
parameters are expected to broadly represent the changes in the MSW. For example, the
impact of nitrified effluent applied to the FLB Landfill in Unit 5 and subsequent denitrification
should impact the overall mass balance of nitrogen as the nitrogen is converted to nitrogen gas.
The data collected for COD, BOD, ammonia nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrogen, as
well as leachate quantification (e.g., production, and head on liner), will be examined further as
the project progresses. The following represent summaries of the leachate data collected to
date for the Control, FLB, and AALB units.
Summary of Leachate Head on Liner
The head on liner values for the period March 2002 through March 2003 for the AALB, FLB
and Control Units are presented in Figures 5-9 through 5-14. This parameter was included in
this investigation to examine measured head on liner for both control and treatment cells. The
data are presented in the form of scatter plots with running average lines, box plots, and
histograms.
In general, mean head levels varied on an approximate seasonal basis, with significant changes
occurring as a result of precipitation events. In addition, mean head levels remained at or
below the permitted 12-inch level for the majority of the monitoring program. The exceptions
to this were:
• "spikes" due to specific rainfall events;
• pumping impediments with Unit 5 relative to an apparent under capacity of the SBR;
and
• pumping impediments with Unit 7 relative to an apparent under capacity of the leachate
force main.
Elevated head levels attributable to precipitation events were managed with time with increased
leachate pumping. With regard to the apparent under capacity of landfill bioreactor system
elements, the need for increased pumping capacity was noted and examined in 2002. Design
changes were determined and approved as part of the facility permit, including a planned
expansion of the SBR tank and landfill cell pumping capacities. These improvements were
under construction during early 2003 and are planned for completion in Autumn 2003.
5-14
-------
Figure 5-9. Daily Mean Head Level for Control-A Cell
36"
-------
Figure 5-10. Daily Mean Head Level for Control-B Cell
20
$
0)
-a
(0
0)
.c
.2
ro
15-
10 -
5-
Running Average
12" Above Liner
1/1/2002
5/1/2002
9/1/2002
1/1/2003
5/1/2003
Box Plot of Daily Mean Head Level for Control-B Cell
20 •
in
0)
o
c
T3
ro
0)
^
j)
15
^
o
ro
0)
15 -
10 -
5 -
CONTROL-B
5-16
0)
JS
0)
Q.
Histogram of Daily Mean Head Level for Control-B Cell
70
60 -
50 -
40 -
o 30 -
D)
I
8
20 -
10 -
<0" 0-12" 12-24" 24-36"
range of head level
>36"
-------
Figure 5-11. Daily Mean Head Level for FLB-A Cell
100
T3
CO
CD
O
CD
0)
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
-20 -
Running Average
12" Above Liner
-40
1/1/2002
5/1/2002
9/1/2002
1/1/2003
5/1/2003
Histogram of Daily Mean Leachate Head Level for FLB-A
Histogram of Daily Mean Leachate Head Level for FLB-A Cell
60
T3
ro
0)
0)
15
o
(0
36"
-------
Figure 5-12. Daily Mean Head Level for FLB-D Cell
in
0)
o
c
T3
ro
0)
_
o
ro
100
80
60
40
20
-20
-40
1/1/2002
Running Average
12" Above Liner
5/1/2002
9/1/2002
1/1/2003
5/1/2003
Histogram of Daily Mean Leachate Head Level for FLB-D
Histogram of Daily Mean Leachate Head Level for FLB-D Cell
60
in
0)
o
c
JD
15
SI
O
ro
0)
40 -
-20
-40
100
FLB-D
o
S
B
"o
0)
D)
'E
0)
o
36"
-------
Figure 5-13. Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-A Cell
o
c
CD
s
T3
CD
CD
I
CD
-i—i
CD
O
CD
CD
14
12
8 -
6 -
4 -
Running Average
12" Above Liner
01/01/02
05/01/02
09/01/02
01/01/03
05/01/03
25-
20 -
15-
10 -
T3
CO
CD
_c
.2
"co
o
CO
— 5 -
Box Plot of Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-A Cell
AALB-A
5-19
80
CO
c
= 60 -
_Q
O
"ro
•g 40 -
D)
S
'E
CD on J
o 20 •
CD
a.
Histogram of Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-A Cell
<0" 0-12" 12-24" 24-36"
head level range
>36"
-------
Figure 5-14. Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-B Cell
Running Average
12" Above Liner
1/1/02
5/1/02
9/1/02
1/1/03
5/1/03
25-
36"
-------
Summary of Leachate Production
Cumulative leachate production is measured for each of the study cells, Control, FLB, and
AALB. Measurements are taken on a continuous basis at half-hour intervals via a totalizer flow
meter. The cumulative leachate production with time for each of the Units is presented in
Figures 5-15 through 5-17.
The Control cells are operated as a conventional Subtitle D landfill with no additional fluids
added. The rate of accumulation of leachate in Control 7.3 A remained relatively steady over the
period March 2002 through March 2003 averaging approximately 700m3/month, with a total
accumulated volume over the period of ~9,000m3. Spikes in the rate of accumulation represent
significant rain events. Control 7.3B showed a much lower rate of leachate production,
accumulating only approximately 400m3 for that same period. One potential explanation for
this difference is that Control A has significantly less surface area exposed than Control B.
Therefore it has a much smaller precipitation catchment area relative to the footprint of that cell
compared with Control B.
The FLB Unit 5 is not currently active with the last waste received in March 2001. Nitrate
enriched leachate addition was initiated in March 2002 and ceased in September 2002.
Leachate production in these cells is lower than that of both the AALB and the Control. Both
cells 5.1A and 5.2B showed a relatively steady rate of leachate production from January 2002
until mid-September 2002, at approximately 100 and 155m3/month respectively. From mid-
September through October 2002 a dramatic increase in leachate production was seen with
~1100m3 produced in 5.1A and ~ 1400m3 produced in 5.2B. From November through March
2003, there was a relatively constant rate of leachate production in both cells of 240m3/month.
One potential explanation for the increase in leachate production from mid-September through
October 2002 may be a time lag on the order of approximately six months for the additional
fluids added to permeate through the landfill. These moisture quantities did not start appearing
at the collection point until mid-September. The additional leachate produced at that time may
have been a combination of both the additional fluids added and a consequence of heavy
rainfall during the Spring period. One other explanation, or an additional part of the
explanation, was that boring samples were taken in September 2002. The bore holes were back
filled with permeable tire chips in order to create direct conduits for fluid to pass through the
landfill and avoid perched liquids as were observed during the boring activity.
The AALB units are currently receiving waste and contain the youngest waste of all three units
in the study. Additional fluids are added to this bioreactor on an ongoing basis as successive
lifts of waste are placed. Both cells showed a steady rate of leachate production for the period
March 2002 through March 2003. In both cells, the rate of leachate production was an order of
magnitude higher than either the FLB or control at 4000m3/month for 7.4A and
2500m3/month for 7.4B. The total leachate accumulate over the period was 52000m3 in 7.4A
and 30000m3 in 7.4B.
5-21
-------
Figure 5-15. Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: Control Cells
12000
10000 -
8000 -
E 6000 -
4000 -
2000 -
0
CONTROL (7.3A)
CONTROL (7.3B)
3/2002
, J
6/2002
9/2002
12/2002
3/2003
6/2003
5-22
-------
Figure 5-16. Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: FLB Cells
5000
4000 -
3000 -
2000 -
1000 -
0
1/2002
— FLB (5.1A)
— FLB (5.2D)
4/2002
7/2002
10/2002
1/2003
4/2003
5-23
-------
Figure 5-17. Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: AALB Cells
70000
60000 -
50000 -
40000 -
30000 -
20000 -
10000 -
0
AALB (7.4A)
AALB (7.4B)
3/2002
6/2002
9/2002
12/2002
3/2003
6/2003
5-24
-------
Summary of Leachate Temperature
Leachate temperature was measured for each of the study units using a Hanna Instruments
Model HI 991301 pH/conductance/temperature probe. Figure 5-18 shows the temperature of
leachate from each of these units. The temperature of the FLB and Control units remained
relatively consistent over the period monitored, with the variation seen in both Control Cells
attributable to seasonal variations. The temperature in both AALB units appear to show a slight
upward trend over the period January 2001 through July 2002, before leveling off for the
remaining period at a temperature closer to that recorded for the FLB unit versus the Control.
Both cells in each unit display similar trends. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the
data are provided below In Table 5-2.
TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE TEMPERATURE
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Minimum
Temperature
23.0
21.1
9.5
6.8
19.8
15.3
Maximum
Temperature
34.6
31.1
25.3
25.1
34.7
33.8
Mean
Temperature
29.58
25.82
16.24
16.99
29.08
24.96
Standard
Deviation
3.4048
2.5980
4.9550
5.2618
4.6699
5.4191
Summary of Leachate pH
Leachate pH readings were collected and analyzed on a monthly basis using field electrodes,
results are shown graphically in Figure 5-19. From the graph, the Control and FLB units show
relatively constant pH measurements averaging a pH 7 over the June 2001 through April 2003
time period. By comparison, measurements for the AALB study unit did not begin until
December 2002 and showed a greater degree of variation, ranging from a pH of below 6 in
AALB-B to over 7.5. The AALB pH levels stabilized over the course of the six-month period,
with current pH averaging approximately 7. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the
data are provided below in Table 5-3.
TABLE 5-3. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE pH
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Minimum pH
Measured
6.92
6.84
6.38
6.14
6.31
5.89
Maximum pH
Measured
7.56
7.33
7.31
7.20
7.40
7.57
MeanpH
7.22
7.16
6.83
6.75
7.07
6.96
Standard
Deviation
0.15513
0.13203
0.29601
0.33671
0.27369
0.50964
5-25
-------
Summary of Leachate COD
The COD concentration from the Control units and the AALB units are variable.
Concentrations range from under 100 mg/1 to approximately 6,000 mg/1, in Control 7.3B, and
approximately 1,000 to 30,000 mg/1 in the AALB 7.4A. These ranges are comparable with
those of the duplicate cells in those units. This variation in the COD concentration corresponds
to the addition or presence of newer waste to the landfill units. COD measurements in the FLB
study unit remain more constant, with the exception of a sharp dip in COD concentrations
recorded for FLB 5.2 in March 2002. COD measurements following the March 2002 reading
in FLB 5.2 stabilize and average approximately 1000 mg/1 for the remaining period of
measurement, as represented graphically in Figure 5-20. Basic statistical parameters calculated
from the data are provided below in Table 5-4.
TABLE 5-4. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE COD
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Minimum COD
Measured
882.0
114.0
114.0
60.3
916.0
1840.0
Maximum COD
Measured
2620
3560
3170
5720
30900
26000
Mean COD
1848.0
1366.0
667.2
963.8
5282.0
7222.0
Standard
Deviation
449.1
640.7
721.0
1297.2
7488.5
7039.3
Summary of Leachate BOD
Sampling for BOD began in June 2001 for both the Control and FLB units. Sampling for BOD
in the AALB began in December 2001. Results of the BOD analysis are shown graphically in
Figure 5-21. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are also provided below in
Table 5-5.
BOD levels showed considerable variation early in the sampling process in the Control and
AALB units. Levels in the Control showed values ranging from below 50 mg/1 to greater than
5,000 mg/1 in the first 13 months of sampling. The AALB indicated similar values, but has
continued to show varied readings through the most recently reported sampling events. BOD
results for the FLB show less varied results with values ranging from approximately 100 mg/1
to 1,000 mg/1.
TABLE 5-5. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE BOD
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Minimum BOD
Measured
32.9
24.9
14.6
9.2
20.0
142.0
Maximum BOD
Measured
1060
783
1820
31400
15000
54400
Mean BOD
189.0
156.0
155.6
1784.0
1967.0
6233.0
Standard
Deviation
228.7
185.7
395.4
6805.0
3427.1
12546.6
5-26
-------
Figure 5-18. Leachate Temperature vs. Time
o
o^
(U
-I—•
CO
(U
Q.
E
cu
40
30 -
20 -
10 -
CONTROL-A
CONTROL-B
D-O-
0
40
30 J
20-
10 -
0
40
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 --
6/01
-O— FLB-A
•-D- FLB-D
-O— AALB-A
—a- AALB-B
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-27
-------
Figure 5-19. Leachate pH vs. Time
8
7 -
6 -
8
CONTROL-A
CONTROL-B
zs
tti
r 7 -
6 -
FLB-A
FLB-D
8
7 -
6 -
6/01
-O- AALB-A
•-D— AALB-B
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-28
-------
Figure 5-20. Leachate COD vs. Time
100000
10000 -
1000 -
100 -
10
-O— CONTROL-A
•-D- CONTROL-B
rvO
O)
100000
10000 -
1000 J
100 -
10
100000
10000 -
1000 -
100 -
10
6/01
-O— AALB-A
--D— AALB-B
10/01
zS^feft^
-O— FLB-A
--D— FLB-D
—D
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-29
-------
Figure 5-21. Leachate BOD vs. Time
100000
10000 -
1000 -
100 -
-O- CONTROL-A
•-D- CONTROL-B
10
100000
10000 H
o-o-
D-O-
-O- FLB-A
--0- FLB-D
100000
10000 -
1000 -
100 -
10
-O— AALB-A
-O- AALB-B
•O
--O
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-30
-------
Summary of Leachate Conductance
The leachate conductance for each of the three study units is shown graphically in Figure 5-22.
Conductance was measured on a monthly basis using a field electrode.
Conductance levels in the FLB and AALB were considerably higher than those levels found in
the Control unit. Results in the FLB ranged from approximately 9,000 umhos/cm to
15,000 umhos/cm. Results for the AALB showed readings that varied between
6,000 umhos/cm to nearly 17,000 umhos/cm. Levels for the Control unit indicated relatively
stable reading that averaged 3,000 umhos/cm, with a spike in the September 2002 sampling of
12,000 umhos/cm, levels returned to the 3,000 umhos/cm range following this sampling event.
Summary of Leachate Ammonia-Nitrogen (NEfa-N) Levels
Ammonia Nitrogen Levels in leachate were analyzed in samples taken on a monthly basis.
Results of Ammonia Nitrogen levels in leachate are shown graphically in Figure 5-23. Basic
statistical parameters calculated from the data are provided below in Table 5-6.
Sampling began in June 2001 for the Control and FLB units and in December 2001 for the
AALB unit. Samples for all three of the study units show relatively consistent results
averaging approximately 500 mg/1 in the Control and AALB units. The FLB unit showed a
higher average of approximately 1000 mg/1.
TABLE 5-6. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE AMMONIA-NITROGEN LEVELS
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Min [NH4-N]
Measured
551
432
67
49
162
97
Max [NH4-N]
Measured
19200
7010
1420
1410
2720
1540
Mean [NH4-N]
2445
1291
460
376
922
921
Standard
Deviation
4410
1393
432
406
653
463
Summary of Leachate Nitrate-Nitrogen (NOs-N) Levels
Nitrate-Nitrogen levels (NOs-N) were analyzed from samples taken on a monthly basis in the
laboratory using EPA Method 353.2. Sample results for the three study units are displayed in
Figure 5-24. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are provided below in
Table 5-7.
Both the Control and FLB units showed a relatively stable nitrate level over the period 6/01
through 4/03, typically in the 0.01 to O.lmg/L range. The AALB unit showed greater variability
over the period of measurement, 12/01 through 4/03, in both A and B cells. AALB A showed
concentrations typically in the same, to one order of magnitude higher, range as the Control and
FLB units. AALB B, however, showed overall higher nitrate levels, typically one order of
magnitude but reaching levels of >10mg/L.
5-31
-------
TABLE 5-7. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE NITRATE-NITROGEN
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Min [NO3-N]
Measured
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Max [NO3-N]
Measured
0.13
0.20
0.20
0.26
1.70
26.50
Mean [NO3-N]
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.22
2.31
Standard
Deviation
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.40
6.38
Summary of Leachate Nitrite-Nitrogen (NOz-N) Levels
Leachate nitrite-nitrogen (NCVN) measurements are taken on a monthly basis for all three of
the study units, plots showing the concentrations vs. time are shown in Figure 5-25. Sample
collection started in 6/01 for the FLB and Control units, and 12/01 for the AALB unit. Basic
statistical parameters calculated from the data are provided below in Table 5-8.
Trends for nitrite-nitrogen have remained relatively steady for the FLB and Control units with
measurements averaging in both cases approximately O.lmg/L (typical range 0.05 - 0.5mg/L).
The measurements for the AALB A cell were comparable with the Control and FLB. AALB B
showed greater fluctuation with measurements varying between 0.1 to 10mg/l in the first eight
to nine months of measurement. AALB B nitrite levels showed indications of stabilization
around August 2002, with readings averaging 0.1 mg/1.
TABLE 5-8. SUMMARY OF NITRITE-NITROGEN
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Min [NO2-N]
Measured
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.09
Max [NO2-N]
Measured
0.28
0.24
0.28
2.00
0.65
10.70
Mean [NO2-N]
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.19
0.24
1.30
Standard
Deviation
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.45
0.18
2.78
5-32
-------
Figure 5-22. Leachate Conductance vs. Time
E
o
o
18000
15000
12000 :
9000 :
6000 :
3000 :
0
18000
15000 -
12000 -
9000 -
6000 -
3000 -
0
18000
15000 -
12000 -
9000 -
6000 -
3000 -
0
—-Q-
CONTROL-A
CONTROL-B
-•O—
FLB-A
FLB-D
--O-
AALB-A
AALB-B
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-33
-------
Figure 5-23. Leachate NH,-N vs. Time
10000 -
1000 -
100 -
10 -
10000 -
1000 -
100 -
10 -
AALB-A
AALB-B
6/01
10/01
CONTROL-A
—0- CONTROL-B
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-34
-------
Figure 5-24. Leachate NO3-N vs. Time
10 -
1 -
0.1 -
0.01 -
CO
O
Control A
Control B
r—ir—g
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-35
-------
10 -
1 -
0.1 -
0.01 -
10 -
1 -
O)
E
CN
O 0.01 H
10 -
1 -
0.1 -
0.01 -
Figure 5-25. Leachate NO2-N vs. Time
Control A Detect —D—
Control A Non-Detect •
Control B Detect
Control B Non-Detect
-O— FLB A Detect
• FLB A Non-Detect
-•D— FLB B Detect
• FLB B Non-Detect
—O— AALB A Detect
• AALB A Non-Detect
-d— AALB B Detect
• AALB B Non-Detect
D
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-36
-------
Summary of Leachate O-Phosphate
Leachate o-phosphate measurements were taken on a monthly basis and are displayed
graphically in Figure 5-26. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are also
provided below in Table 5-9. Measurements for total o-Phosphate commenced for the FLB and
Control units in June 2001, with AALB measurements beginning in December 2001.
Measurements for the Control and FLB remain relatively stable with results averaging 1 to 3
mg/1. An increase in level to 7 mg/1 for FLB 5.2B was recorded in February 2002. A similar
increase in the Control unit was recorded in August 2002. o-Phosphate levels in the AALB unit
indicate levels ranging between 1 mg/1 to 15 mg/1.
TABLE 5-9. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE o-PHOSPHATE
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Minimum
[o-Phosphate]
1.6
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.8
1.2
Maximum
[o-Phosphate]
4.6
6.8
3.4
4.8
15.4
8.2
Mean [o-
Phosphate]
2.9
2.0
1.1
1.1
3.4
3.7
Standard
Deviation
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.0
3.5
2.0
Summary of Leachate Total Phosphorus
Total phosphorous in leachate was measured for the three study units beginning in June 2001
for the Control and FLB, and in December 2001 for the AALB. Total phosphorous
measurements are shown graphically in Figure 5-27. Basic statistical parameters calculated
from the data are also provided below in Table 5-10.
Total phosphorous results show stable readings for both the Control and FLB units. Readings
averaged approximately 2 to 3 mg/1 for both of these units. The AALB results fluctuated more
in comparison with the Control and FLB units, with measurements from near 0 mg/1 to 10 mg/1,
with the highest results recorded from July 2002 to August 2002.
TABLE 5-10. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Minimum
[Total P]
0.77
1.00
0.11
0.11
0.92
0.33
Maximum
[Total P]
5.3
14.2
5.3
5.6
21.6
10.5
Mean [Total P]
2.9
3.3
1.5
1.8
5.4
3.8
Standard
Deviation
1.2
2.9
1.3
1.5
5.1
3.2
5-37
-------
Summary of Leachate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Total TKN in leachate is taken on a quarterly basis for each of the study units. A summary of
the total TKN in leachate vs. time are shown in Figure 5-28. Measurements for Total TKN in
the Control and FLB study units began in June 2001. From the Figure, total TKN in the
Control unit maintains relatively stable measurements with time, averaging approximately
200 mg/1 in unit A and 100 mg/1 in unit B. Measurements for total TKN in the FLB study cells
show a greater degree of variation than displayed in the control unit, with cells 5.1 A and 5.2B
ranging in concentrations from approximately 75 mg/1 to 1100 mg/1. Sampling for the total
TKN in the AALB study units began in March 2002, and showed concentrations varying
between near 0 mg/1 to over 700 mg/1. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are
also provided below in Table 5-11.
TABLE 5-11. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE TKN
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Minimum
fTKNJ
189
89.2
91.9
12.6
26.5
100
Maximum
fTKNJ
1160
1040
371
390
434
721
Mean fTKNJ
812.7
585.2
194.1
94.7
246.7
298.6
Standard
Deviation
348.8
365.6
94.1
123.1
174.9
251.0
Summary of Leachate Total Dissolved Solids
Results are shown graphically in Figure 5-29. Sampling for the Control and FLB units began
in June 2002 and sampling for total dissolved solids for the AALB began in March 2002.
Results for the Control unit show consistent readings for total dissolved solids averaging
2,500 mg/1 through the sampling event in April 2003. Results for the FLB indicate stable
readings averaging 5,500 mg/1. An increase to 25,000 mg/1 indicated for the January 2003
sample for FLB 5.1, results returned to 5,500 mg/1 for the February 2003. Sample results for
the AALB unit range between 5,000 mg/1 to 10,000 mg/1.
5-38
-------
Figure 5-26. Leachate o-Phosphate vs. Time
20
O
°r
o
-O— CONTROL-A
••Q- CONTROL-B
20 -r
15 -
10 -
5 -
0 —
6/01
-O— AALB-A
--Q- AALB-B
D
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-39
-------
Figure 5-27. Leachate Total Phosphorus vs. Time
20
15 -
10 -
5 -
0
-O— CONTROL-A
•-Q- CONTROL-B
O)
20
15 -
10 -
5 -
0
-O— AALB-A
--D- AALB-B
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-40
-------
Figure 5-28. Leachate TKN vs. Time
O)
E
1400
1200 -
1000 :
800 -
600 :
400 -
200 :
0
1400
-O— CONTROL-A
•-D— CONTROL-B
1400
1200 -
1000 :
800 -
600 :
400 -
200 :
0
—a—
AALB-A
AALB-B
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-41
-------
Figure 5-29. Leachate Total Dissolved Solids vs. Time
25000
20000 -
15000 -
10000 -
5000 -
0
-O— CONTROL-A
•-D- CONTROL-B
as-
^=Br
o
CO
Q
£3
H
25000
20000 -
15000 -
10000 -
5000 -
0
-O- FLB-A
•-D— FLB-D
•--a—j
25000
20000 -
15000 -
10000 -
5000 -
0
6/01
-O— AALB-A
-•D- AALB-B
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-42
-------
Summary of Leachate Sulfate
Sulfate was measured in leachate beginning in June 2001 for both the Control and FLB, and
beginning in March 2002 for the AALB. The results for concentrations of sulfate in leachate
are shown graphically in Figure 5-30.
Sulfate was detected in all three of the study units, but at low concentrations. Sulfate levels in
the Control indicate consistent measurements with readings averaging <100 mg/1. Sulfate
levels for the control steadily increase with measurements averaging approximately 200 mg/1
by March 2003. A sharp spike of 900 mg/1 was noted for the March 2003 sampling event.
Sulfate in the FLB remains consistent with readings averaging <100 mg/1. An increase to
approximately 200 mg/1 was recorded in March 2002, but returned to previous levels the
following sampling event. Sulfate measurements in leachate for the AALB indicated similar
values to measurements recorded for the FLB, with results averaging <100 mg/1.
Summary of Leachate Chloride
Chloride was measured in leachate beginning in June 2001 for both the Control and FLB units,
and beginning in March 2002 for the AALB. Results of the Chloride in leachate are displayed
graphically in Figure 5-31.
Chloride was detected in the leachate samples for the Control units within a range of close to
0 mg/1 up to approximately 750 mg/1, with results remaining consistent. Samples for the FLB
show chloride typically ranging in concentration from approximately 1000mg/l to 2,300 mg/1,
with one atypical value at close to 0 mg/1. Chloride levels in the FLB unit were consistently
higher than those of the Control. Samples for the AALB show good consistency between the
AALB 7.4A and AALB 7.4B units, with concentrations ranging between approximately
500 mg/1 to 1,250 mg/1. Results are summarized below in Table 5-12.
TABLE 5-12. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE CHLORIDE
Cell
FLB 5.1 A
FLB 5.2B
Control 7. 3 A
Control 7.3B
AALB 7.4A
AALB 7.4B
Minimum
[Chloride]
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.9
Maximum
[Chloride]
2350
2340
389
1010
1650
2580
Mean [Chloride]
163.0
150.1
24.1
109.3
484.2
582.1
Standard
Deviation
552.31
548.46
91.14
263.81
554.73
845.87
5-43
-------
Summary of Leachate Total Potassium
Total potassium in leachate was measured for the three study units beginning in June 2001 for
the Control and FLB units, and in March 2002 for the AALB unit. Figure 5-32 shows results
for the three study units.
Total potassium measurements for the Control sample indicate relatively consistent results with
readings averaging 100 mg/1. The FLB unit indicates more varied results with results ranging
from 400 mg/1 to nearly 1,000 mg/1. The AALB unit indicates more consistent readings with
results averaging 500 mg/1.
Summary of Leachate Volatile Organic Acids
Samples of volatile organic acids (VOAs) in leachate are collected on a monthly basis.
Samples are collected for acetic, butyric, formic, and lactic acids. Sample results are shown
graphically for each representative acid and can be found in Figures 5-33 through 5-38.
Samples were collected for the three study units beginning November 2001 for the Control and
FLB, and in December 2001 for the AALB.
Acetic Acid —
Acetic acid in leachate was typically detected in the Control and FLB at levels near 0 mg/1.
The Control unit showed the odd spike early in the sampling program up to approximately
1,000 mg/1. The FLB showed spikes of up to approximately 2,500 mg/1. Acetic acid levels in
both the Control and FLB returned to near 0 mg/1 following the elevated readings.
Acetic acid in leachate in the AALB unit shows much more varied readings over the same
period from near 0 mg/1 up to near 2,500 mg/1. These varied results continue throughout the
period to date. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are also provided below.
Butyric Acid ~
Butyric acid in leachate was detected in the Control and FLB units at levels near 0 mg/1. The
Control and FLB results indicate relatively stable measurements with occasional peaks that
range between 0 mg/1 and 2,000 mg/1. In the cases of the elevated readings, levels returned to
near 0 mg/1 in the subsequent sampling events.
Levels of butyric acid in the AALB showed varied results in comparison to the Control and
FLB units. Measurements indicate ranges between 0 mg/1 and to 1,000 mg/1.
5-44
-------
Figure 5-30. Leachate Sulfate vs. Time
O)
(U
CO
1000
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
1000
Control A Detect
Control A Non-Detect
Control B Detect
Control B Non-Detect
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
1000
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
6/01
-O— FLB-A Detect
• FLB A Non-Detect
FLB B Detect
FLB B Non-Detect
-O— AALB A Detect
• AALB A Non-Detect
D— AALB B Detect
• AALB B Non-Detect
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-45
-------
Figure 5-31. Leachate Chloride vs. Time
2500
O)
(U
;g
's_
_g
.c
O
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0
2500
2000
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0
CONTROL-A
CONTROL-B
So-
V
2500
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0
AALB-A
AALB-B
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-46
-------
Figure 5-32. Leachate Total Potassium vs. Time
O)
CO
-5
Q_
.2
1000
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
1000
--D-
CONTROL-A
CONTROL-B
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
1000
J3,
-O- FLB-A
--D- FLB-D
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
AALB-A
AALB-B
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-47
-------
Formic Acid —
Formic acid in leachate was detected in the three study units, with sampling beginning in
December 2001. Figure 5-35 shows the graphical results of formic acid levels in leachate for
the three study units.
Levels of formic acid for all three of the study units showed varying results ranging from near 0
mg/1 to nearly 25 mg/1. Results for the Control and FLB units showed stabilization near 0 mg/1
beginning in the August 2002 sampling event, while the AALB began stabilizing to near 0 mg/1
in the February 2003 sampling period.
Lactic Acid —
Results for lactic acid in leachate samples are shown graphically in Figure 5-36. Sampling for
lactic acid began in November 2002 for the Control and FLB units, and in December 2002 for
the AALB unit. Results indicate non-detects for a majority of the sampling events.
Propionic Acid —
Propionic acid samples were collected in the three study units beginning in November 2001 for
the Control and FLB units, and in December 2001 for the AALB. Sample results are shown
graphically in Figure 5-37.
Levels of propionic acid in the Control and FLB units were relatively stable with results
averaging 0 mg/1. The FLB unit showed two spikes in the results with values near 3,000 mg/1
in April and November 2002, levels returned to near 0 mg/1 in the following sampling event.
The AALB unit showed more varied results with reading ranging from 0 mg/1 to 2000 mg/1.
Pyruvic Acid —
Pyruvic acid samples were collected for all three units of study beginning in December 2002.
Results are shown graphically in Figure 5-38.
Pyruvic acid levels show varied results in the all three of the study units. Results for the three
units' range in concentration from near Omg/1 to 175 mg/1 in the FLB. Similar results were
found for the Control and AALB.
5-48
-------
Figure 5-33. Leachate Acetic Acid vs. Time
3000
2500 -
2000 :
1500 :
1000 :
500 :
0
Control A Detect
Control A Non-Detect
Control B Detect
Control B Non-Detect
^o<^tf:
-G—.^3—>—cK-ifl —^o-i—a*-*-
-O-r-O-
— 3000
o) 2500 -
— 2000 :
E 1500 -
o 1000 :
'g 500 :
< 0
— D-
FLB A Detect
FLB A Non-Detect
FLB B Detect
FLB B Non-Detect
-D_i
3000
2500 -
2000 :
1500 :
1000 :
500 :
0
AALB A Detect
AALB A Non-Detect
/
-•D- AALB B Detect
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-49
-------
Figure 5-34. Leachate Butyric Acid vs. Time
B)
E
Jutyric Acid
LLJ
^.OUU
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
H
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
^
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
—i
6/0
— O— Control A Detect
• Control A Non-Detect
— -Q— Control B Detect
• Control B Non-Detect
-O- FLB A Detect O
• FLB A Non-Detect A
-•D- FLB B Detect / \
• FLB B Non-Detect
A
— O— AALB A Detect
• AALB A Non-Detect
— D- AALB B Detect n
D-*0"" \
1 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 6/0
5-50
-------
Figure 5-35. Leachate Formic Acid vs. Time
30
25 -
20 :
15 :
10 :
5 :
0
--D-
Control A Detect
Control A Non-Dete
Control B Detect
Control B Non-Detect
A
1
F*
o
0
<
0
E
o
1 1
ou
25 -
90 -
16 -
1U -
5 -
n
-O- FLB A Detect
Q
--D- FLB B Detect \
• FLB B Non-Detect \
>
\
P
/\
/ \
1 \
.' ^
\i . . 1 t/^*^^, m rS£>°— m m m
30
25 -
20 :
15 :
10 :
5 :
0
—D-
AALB A Detect
AALB A Non-Detect
AALB B Detect
AALb B Non-Detect
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-51
-------
Figure 5-36. Leachate Lactic Acid vs. Time
300 -
200 -
100 -
0
—-D-
Control A Detect
Control A Non-Detect
Control B Detect
Control B Non-Detect
300 -
P 200 H
o
o 100 -
0
o
CO
-O- FLB A Detect
• FLB A Non-Detect
•-D- FLB B Detect
• FLB B Non-Detect
300 -
200 -
100 -
0
AALB A Detect
AALB A Non-Detect
AALB B Detect
AALB B Non-Detect
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-52
-------
Figure 5-37. Leachate Propionic Acid vs. Time
3000 -
2000 -
1000 -
n
— O— Control A Detect
• Control A Non-Detect
— -D— Control B Detect
• Control B Non-Detect
.n^
. . . . ^cr f* m , n— — D*« — frxt
r","gV>n— — n— J3— - , — TU- - - - - _TI— -^ .
O)
E
**~'
-o
'0
<
0
'c
o
'o.
o
s_
Q_
3000 -
_
2000 -
1000 -
-
3000 -
2000 -
-
1000 -
n _
-O— AALB A Detect
• AALB A Non-Detect
-•D- AALB B Detect -
• AALB B Non-Detect ^^\
* X /°\
- — -° W^n^&^ !^O^° ^V^ */-r^* /_
6/01
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-53
-------
Figure 5-38. Leachate Pyruvic Acid vs. Time
200
150 -
100 -
50 -
0
200
••— Control A Non-Detect
I— Control B Non-Detect
150 -
100 -
50 -
0
FLB A Non-Detect
FLB B Non-Detect
200
150 -
100 -
50 -
0
6/01
•— AALB A Non-Detect
I— AALB B Non-Detect
10/01
2/02
6/02
10/02
2/03
6/03
5-54
-------
Summary of Leachate Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in leachate are summarized in a series of detection
frequency tables shown in Tables 5-13 through 5-18. The tables include a list of the VOC
constituents that were analyzed as well as the number of samples taken for each study cell, the
number of non-detects, number of readings between 1.0 and 100 (ig/1, and number of readings
greater than 100 (ig/1 for each compound analyzed. Samples were analyzed using EPA Method
8260.
VOC constituents that were present in the Control, FLB and AALB units include benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, 1,4-dichlorobenzene and methylene chloride. These VOC
constituents were detected in all of the study units. A total of 9 percent of the samples were
within the 1.0-100 ug/1 range, with 4 percent of the samples are levels greater than 100 ug/1.
TABLE 5-13. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE
CONTROL 7.3A, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
VOC Compounds
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2-Hexanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
8
8
5
8
8
0
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 U£/l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-55
-------
VOC Compounds
Dibromomethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Total
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
408
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
0
8
5
6
2
8
6
3
0
8
8
8
6
8
8
6
348
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
0
6
0
2
3
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
46
Number of
Readings
>100 U£/l
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
14
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B)
TABLE 5-14. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE
CONTROL 7.3B, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
VOC Compounds
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2-Hexanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Number of
Readings
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
7
7
3
7
7
2
7
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
5-56
-------
VOC Compounds
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Total
Number of
Readings
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
357
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
4
6
5
7
7
2
0
7
7
7
7
7
7
3
313
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
30
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B)
TABLE 5-15. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE
FLB 5.1A, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
VOC Compounds
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Number of
Readings
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 jig/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 U£/l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-57
-------
VOC Compounds
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2-Hexanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
Trans- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Total
Number of
Readings
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
459
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
9
9
9
1
9
8
7
0
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
9
4
7
4
9
9
1
0
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
408
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
3
2
5
0
0
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
40
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B)
5-58
-------
TABLE 5-16. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE
FLB 5.2B, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
VOC Compounds
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2-Hexanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
7
8
1
8
8
3
8
8
2
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
5
7
5
8
8
2
0
8
8
8
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
7
0
0
3
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
1
3
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 U£/l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
5-59
-------
VOC Compounds
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Total
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
408
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
7
356
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
1
40
Number of
Readings
>100 U£/l
0
0
0
0
12
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B)
TABLE 5-17. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE
AALB 7.4A, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
VOC Compounds
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2-Hexanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Number of
Readings
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
o
J
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-60
-------
VOC Compounds
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Total
Number of
Readings
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
204
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
0
4
1
0
3
4
4
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
178
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
4
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
15
Number of
Readings
>100 U£/l
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B)
TABLE 5-18. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE
AALB-7.4B, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
VOC Compounds
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1, 1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
DBCP
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2-Hexanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Number of
Readings
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
0
6
6
2
6
6
6
6
6
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-61
-------
VOC Compounds
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Total
Number of
Readings
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
306
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
0
2
5
6
0
0
6
6
6
5
6
6
2
261
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
23
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B)
Summary of Leachate Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Tables 5-19 through 5-24 provide a summary of the semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
in leachate. Detection frequency tables showing the SVOC compounds that were analyzed
using EPA Method 8270.
Common constituents for the three units of study include diethyl phthalate, phenol, 1,4-
dioxane, naphthalene, cresol, m, o and p. Approximately 1 percent of the samples had
concentrations within the 1.0-100 ug/1 range. Less than 1 percent of the samples were at
concentrations greater than 100 ug/1.
5-62
-------
TABLE 5-19. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE
CONTROL 7.3A, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
SVOC Compounds
0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dioxane
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthylamine
2,2'-Oxybis(l-Chloropropane)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2 - Acety laminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2 -Naphthy lamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
3 ,3 '-Dimethy Ibenzidine
3 -Methy Icholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4 - Aminobipheny 1
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
8
3
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 jig/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-63
-------
SVOC Compounds
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlorobenzilate
Chrysene
Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O-
Cresol, m-
Cresol, o-
Cresol, p-
Cresol, p-Chloro-m-
Diallate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
m-Dinitrobenzene
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl parathion
Naphthalene
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
6
8
6
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 jig/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-64
-------
SVOC Compounds
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitro sodi -n-buty 1 amine
N-Nitroso-Di-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o-Toluidine
Parathion
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p -Pheny lenedi amine
Pronamide
Pyrene
Safrole
Sym-Trinitrobenzene
Thionazin
Total
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
456
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
443
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Number of
Readings
>100 jig/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270
TABLE 5-20. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE:
CONTROL 7.3B, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER16, 2003
SVOC Compounds
0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dioxane
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthylamine
2,2'-Oxybis(l-Chloropropane)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Number of
Readings
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
7
7
7
7
7
o
J
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-65
-------
SVOC Compounds
2,4-Dimethvlphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2 -Naphthyl amine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
3 ,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
3 ,3 '-Dimethy Ibenzidine
3 -Methy Icholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
7,1 2-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Anthracene
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlorobenzilate
Chrysene
Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O-
Cresol, m-
Cresol, o-
Cresol, p-
Cresol, p-Chloro-m-
Diallate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Number of
Readings
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-66
-------
SVOC Compounds
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indenofl ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
m-Dinitrobenzene
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl parathion
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitro sodimethy 1 amine
N-Nitro sodi -n-buty lamine
N-Nitroso-Di-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethy lamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o-Toluidine
Parathion
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylenediamine
Pronamide
Pyrene
Safrole
Number of
Readings
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
o
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-67
-------
SVOC Compounds
Sym-Trinitrobenzene
Thionazin
Total
Number of
Readings
7
7
798
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
7
7
788
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
10
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270
TABLE 5-21. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE
FLB 5.1A, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
SVOC Compounds
0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3 -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthy lamine
2,2'-Oxybis(l-Chloropropane)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2- Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Naphthy 1 amine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
3,3' -Dimethy Ibenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
Number of
Readings
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
9
9
9
9
9
9
4
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-68
-------
SVOC Compounds
4-Nitrophenol
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
7, 1 2-Dimethy lbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlorobenzilate
Chrysene
Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O-
Cresol, m-
Cresol, o-
Cresol, p-
Cresol, p-Chloro-m-
Diallate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
m-Dinitrobenzene
Number of
Readings
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
6
9
6
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-69
-------
SVOC Compounds
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl parathion
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitro sodimethy 1 amine
N-Nitro sodi -n-butyl amine
N-Nitro so -Di -n-propy 1 amine
N-nitro sodipheny 1 amine
N-Nitro somethy lethyl amine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o-Toluidine
Parathion
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylenediamine
Pronamide
Pyrene
Safrole
Sym-Trinitrobenzene
Thionazin
Total
Number of
Readings
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1026
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
9
9
9
6
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1006
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270
TABLE 5-22. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE
FLB 5.2B, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
SVOC Compounds
0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3 -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthy 1 amine
2,2'-Oxybis(l-Chloropropane)
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
8
6
2
8
8
8
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-70
-------
SVOC Compounds
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2- Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Naphthy 1 amine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
3,3' -Dimethy Ibenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
7, 1 2 -Dimethy lbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlorobenzilate
Chrysene
Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O-
Cresol, m-
Cresol, o-
Cresol, p-
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
5
8
5
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
5-71
-------
SVOC Compounds
Cresol, p-Chloro-m-
Diallate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethvl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indenofl ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
m-Dinitrobenzene
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl parathion
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitro sodimethy 1 amine
N-Nitro sodi -n-butyl amine
N-Nitro so -Di -n-propy 1 amine
N-nitro sodipheny 1 amine
N-Nitro somethy lethyl amine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o-Toluidine
Parathion
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-72
-------
SVOC Compounds
p-Phenylenediamine
Pronamide
Pyrene
Safrole
Sym-Trinitrobenzene
Thionazin
Total
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
912
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
8
8
8
8
8
8
893
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270
TABLE 5-23. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE
AALB 7.4A, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
SVOC Compounds
0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3 -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthy lamine
2,2'-Oxybis(l-Chloropropane)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2- Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Naphthy 1 amine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
3,3' -Dimethy Ibenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4-Aminobiphenyl
Number of
Readings
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-73
-------
SVOC Compounds
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
7, 1 2-Dimethy lbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlorobenzilate
Chrysene
Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O-
Cresol, m-
Cresol, o-
Cresol, p-
Cresol, p-Chloro-m-
Diallate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Number of
Readings
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
o
J
4
4
4
4
1
2
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-74
-------
SVOC Compounds
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
m-Dinitrobenzene
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl parathion
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitro sodimethy 1 amine
N-Nitro sodi -n-butyl amine
N-Nitro so -Di -n-propy 1 amine
N-nitro sodipheny 1 amine
N-Nitro somethy lethyl amine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o-Toluidine
Parathion
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylenediamine
Pronamide
Pyrene
Safrole
Sym-Trinitrobenzene
Thionazin
Total
Number of
Readings
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
456
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
o
J
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
443
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270
TABLE 5-24. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE:
AALB 7.4B, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
SVOC Compounds
0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3 -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Number of
Readings
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-75
-------
SVOC Compounds
1,4-Dioxane
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthy lamine
2,2'-Oxybis(l-Chloropropane)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2- Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Naphthy 1 amine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
3,3' -Dimethy Ibenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
7, 1 2 -Dimethy lbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlorobenzilate
Chrysene
Number of
Readings
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-76
-------
SVOC Compounds
Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O-
Cresol, m-
Cresol, o-
Cresol, p-
Cresol, p-Chloro-m-
Diallate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethvl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indenofl ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
m-Dinitrobenzene
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl parathion
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitro sodimethy 1 amine
N-Nitro sodi -n-butyl amine
N-Nitro so -Di -n-propy 1 amine
N-nitro sodipheny 1 amine
N-Nitro somethy lethyl amine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o-Toluidine
Parathion
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Number of
Readings
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
4
0
2
0
4
4
4
o
J
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
4
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-77
-------
SVOC Compounds
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylenediamine
Pronamide
Pyrene
Safrole
Sym-Trinitrobenzene
Thionazin
Total
Number of
Readings
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
456
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
440
Number of
Readings
1.0-100 ug/1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270
Summary of RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate
Sampling for RCRA hazardous metals, which are presented in Tables 5-25 through 5-27, were
collected for all three of the study units. Sampling began for the Control and FLB units in June
2001, while sampling for the AALB began in March 2002. Samples, which are collected on a
quarterly basis, are analyzed using EPA Method 6010 (B) except for mercury, which is
analyzed using EPA Method 7470 (B).
For all three of the study units, potassium was detected at levels greater than 1.0 mg/1. Other
common metals detected are arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead. Ninety percent of
these detected constituents were detected in ranges less than 1.0 mg/1.
TABLE 5-25. RCRA HAZARDOUS METALS IN LEACHATE
CONTROL 7.3A AND 7.3B, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
Metals
Arsenic, Total
Barium, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Lead, Total
Potassium, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Mercury, Total
Total
Number of
Readings
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
126
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
14
0
14
2
11
0
14
14
14
83
Number of
Readings Between
0.001 - 1.0 mg/1
0
14
0
12
3
0
0
0
0
29
Number of
Readings
>1.0 mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
14
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 6010 (B) except for mercury, which was analyzed
using EPA Method 7470(B)
5-78
-------
TABLE 5-26. RCRA HAZARDOUS METALS IN LEACHATE
FLB 5.1A AND 5.2B, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
Metals
Arsenic, Total
Barium, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Lead, Total
Potassium, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Mercury, Total
Total
Number of
Readings
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
144
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
0
0
14
0
9
0
16
16
16
71
Number of
Readings Between
0.001 - 1.0 mg/1
16
11
2
16
7
0
0
0
0
52
Number of
Readings
>1.0 mg/1
0
5
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
21
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 6010 (B) except for mercury, which was analyzed
using EPA Method 7470(B)
TABLE 5-27. RCRA HAZARDOUS METALS IN LEACHATE
AALB 7.4A AND 7.4B, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002
Metals
Arsenic, Total
Barium, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Lead, Total
Potassium, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Mercury, Total
Total
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
72
Number of
Non-Detects
(ND)
0
0
2
0
0
0
8
8
8
24
Number of
Readings Between
0.001 - 1.0 mg/1
8
8
6
8
8
0
0
0
0
40
Number of
Readings
>1.0 mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
8
Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 6010 (B) except for mercury, which was analyzed
using EPA Method 7470(B)
5-79
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) CHARACTERISTICS
Municipal solid waste (MSW) parameters were measured both on-site using permanent
monitoring probes installed at various locations in each cell on a daily basis, and by sample
collection of a minimum of 30 boring samples per cell for off-site lab analysis on an annual
basis. The results documented in this report apply to the Control Unit (7.3 A and B), the FLB
(Unit 5.1 and 5.2) and the AALB (Unit 7.4 A and B).
Summary of Organic Solids in MSW
The organic solids have been measured for all cells under investigation. Two sampling events
have occurred for each cell, the first is represented by the shaded bar and the second by the
white bar in Figure 5-39. The first sampling event is referred to in the Figures as the baseline
2000/2001, and occurred at different times for the different cells. The baseline-sampling event
for the FLB and Control Units occurred in June 2000. However, no waste was in place in either
AALB 7.4 A or 7.4B cell, these were sampled in the summer and fall of 2001, respectively,
after waste placement had commenced. The second sampling event took place in October 2002
for all cells.
Each sampling event required a minimum of 30 MSW samples to be taken per cell. Note that
the two cells of the FLB (5.1 and 5.2) are each made up of two sub-cells, the results from these
are combined in the Figure.
The top surface of each bar in Figure 5-39 corresponds to the mean value of all samples taken
in that sampling event. The standard deviation from that mean is also displayed. The data has
been further summarized in the table below in Table 5-28.
TABLE 5-28. SUMMARY OF ORGANIC SOLIDS IN MSW
DATE
AVERAGE
STD. DEVIATION
FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
43.57
33.06
15.81
10.43
%Difference between sampling events = 24% decrease
FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
36.38
32.90
12.75
10.40
Difference between sampling events = 10% decrease
Control 7.3A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
67.19
41.67
16.35
11.61
Difference between sampling events = 38% decrease
Control 7.3B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
63.54
45.96
16.84
15.82
Difference between sampling events = 28% decrease
AALB 7.4A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
62.46
41.94
12.07
5.96
5-80
-------
DATE
AVERAGE
STD. DEVIATION
Difference between sampling events = 33% decrease
AALB 7 .46
2000/2001
Oct 2002
82.55
37.78
4.19
8.84
Difference between sampling events = 55% decrease
In all cells, values for percent volatile solids show a decrease between 2000/2001 and October
2002.
Summary of Biochemical Methane Production (BMP) in MSW
A summary Biochemical Methane Production (BMP) is displayed graphically in Figure 5-40.
The Figure is expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this
representation provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the
same two sampling events and is an average of the same samples.
The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-29.
TABLE 5-29. SUMMARY OF BMP IN MSW
DATE
AVERAGE
STD. DEVIATION
FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
41.81
27.64
33.49
20.57
% Difference between sampling events = 34% decrease*
FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
29.95
24.28
19.66
15.77
Difference between sampling events = 19% decrease*
Control 7.3A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
102.38
37.22
37.35
22.89
Difference between sampling events = 64% decrease
Control 7.3B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
97.15
40.40
39.53
19.73
Difference between sampling events = 58% decrease
AALB 7.4A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
57.68
28.77
18.49
14.17
Difference between sampling events = 50% decrease
AALB 7.4B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
84.22
26.70
22.32
20.70
Difference between sampling events = 68% decrease
Overall, the BMP shows a decrease between 2000/2001 and October 2002 in all cells. *The
smallest decrease is seen in the FLB cells where the standard deviation is significantly greater
than the apparent difference, hence therefore no detectable difference can be claimed.
5-81
-------
100
Figure 5-39. Solid Waste Organic Solids Content Summary for
FLB, Control and AALB Cells
O)
1
"o
c/)
(D
g
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
5-82
-------
Figure 5-40. Solid Waste BMP Summary for
FLB, Control and AALB Cells
160
O)
1
^
•Q
5
E
140 -
120 -
V
"o
Q.
(U
_C
0)
E
"(0
o
E
(U
^
0
g
^
80
60
40
20
0
Baseline 2000/2001
10/2002
5-83
-------
Summary of (Cellulose + HemicelluloseVLignin Ratio of MSW
A summary (Cellulose + Hemicellulose)/Lignin Ratio is displayed graphically in Figure 5-41.
The Figure is expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this
representation provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the
same two sampling events and is an average of the same samples.
The data have been further summarized in the table below In Table 5-30.
TABLE 5-30. SUMMARY OF (CELLULOSE + HEMICELLULOSE)/
LIGNIN RATIO OF MSW
DATE
AVERAGE
STD. DEVIATION
FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
1.31
1.19
.0.88
0.65
% Difference between sampling events = 9% decrease
FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
1.15
1.12
0.64
0.46
Difference between sampling events = 3% decrease
Control 7.3A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
2.36
1.34
0.93
0.58
Difference between sampling events = 43% decrease
Control 7.3B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
2.52
1.74
1.10
0.77
Difference between sampling events = 31% decrease
A ALB 7.4A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
1.54
0.96
0.77
0.39
Difference between sampling events = 38% decrease
AALB 7.4B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
3.10
1.09
0.66
0.52
Difference between sampling events = 65% decrease
Overall, a decrease in the (Cellulose + Hemicellulose)/Lignin ratio is seen in the Control and
AALB cells. The FLB values have remained essentially constant between 2000/2001 and
October 2002, with the standard deviation in the measurements significantly outweighing any
apparent change.
This ratio is affected by the rate of decay of the hemicellulose and cellulose versus that of
lignin. These plant polymers make up a large percentage of the biodegradable fraction of
landfill waste and hence provide indicators of the waste degradation. Cellulose and
hemicellulose are readily biodegradable in the landfill environment, whereas lignin has a much
slower rate of decay. Monitoring of this ratio can provide a measure of waste degradation
independent of the quantity of different materials present in the landfill, allowing comparisons
over time and across samples.
5-84
-------
Figure 5-41. Solid Waste (Cellulose + Hemicellulose)/l_ignin Ratio Summary
for FLB, Control and AALB Cells
(U
_g
_g
1
E
cu
(U
(/)
_o
_3
8
3 -
£= 9
O) ^
1 -
0
Baseline 2000/2001
10/2002
5-85
-------
Summary of Lignin Content of MSW
A summary of lignin content is displayed graphically in Figure 5-42. The Figure is expressed in
a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this representation provided above for
volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the same two sampling events and is an
average of the same samples.
The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-31.
TABLE 5-31. SUMMARY OF LIGNIN CONTENT OF MSW
DATE
AVERAGE
STD. DEVIATION
FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
18.56
15.50
5.64
6.65
%Difference between sampling events = 16% decrease
FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells B and C)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
17.11
14.95
6.79
5.80
Difference between sampling events = 13% decrease
Control 7.3A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
18.24
17.83
4.08
5.94
Difference between sampling events = 2% decrease
Control 7.3B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
19.01
18.79
5.99
6.72
Difference between sampling events = 1% decrease
A ALB 7.4A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
27.00
19.24
9.23
4.69
Difference between sampling events = 29% decrease
AALB 7.4B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
18.12
15.35
3.15
4.21
Difference between sampling events = 15% decrease
Overall, a decrease is seen in the lignin content in the treated cells FLB and AALB, while the
lignin content in the control cells has remained constant over the period. However, in all cases
the standard deviation is significantly greater than the observed differences.
5-86
-------
Figure 5-42. Solid Waste Lignin Content Summary for
FLB, Control and AALB Cells
30 -
O)
1
c
'c
O)
20 -
10 -
0
Baseline 2000/2001
10/2002
5-87
-------
Summary of Hemicellulose Content of MSW
A summary of the hemicellulose content is displayed graphically in Figure 5-43. The Figure is
expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this representation
provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the same two sampling
events and is an average of the same samples.
The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-32.
TABLE 5-32. SUMMARY OF HEMICELLULOSE IN MSW
DATE
AVERAGE
STD. DEVIATION
FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
4.56
4.04
2.51
2.13
%Difference between sampling events = 11% decrease
FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
4.00
3.72
2.52
2.03
Difference between sampling events = 7% decrease
Control 7.3A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
8.38
5.10
1.96
2.15
Difference between sampling events = 39% decrease
Control 7.3B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
7.80
6.28
2.47
0.66
Difference between sampling events = 19% decrease
A ALB 7.4A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
6.92
4.31
1.52
1.20
Difference between sampling events = 38% decrease
AALB 7.4B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
11.09
4.03
1.06
1.60
Difference between sampling events = 64% decrease
Overall, a decrease in the hemicellulose content is seen for all cells over the period. The largest
decrease is seen in the AALB B cell. The smallest decrease is seen in the FLB cells, where the
standard deviation is significantly greater than the observed difference.
5-88
-------
Figure 5-43. Solid Waste Hemicellulose Content Summary for
FLB, Control and AALB Cells
14
12 -
£ 10
o^
(D
O
(D
O
cu
8
6
4
2
0
Baseline 2000/2001
10/2002
5-89
-------
Summary of Cellulose Content of MSW
A summary of cellulose content is displayed graphically in Figure 5-44. The Figure is
expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this representation
provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the same two sampling
events and is an average of the same samples.
The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-33.
TABLE 5-33. SUMMARY OF CELLULOSE CONTENT OF MSW
DATE
AVERAGE
STD. DEVIATION
FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
19.84
14.20
12.48
9.00
%Difference between sampling events = 28% decrease
FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
Difference
16.02
13.53
10.52
7.93
between sampling events = 16% decrease
Control 7.3A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
Difference
37.06
18.13
9.51
9.89
between sampling events = 51% decrease
Control 7.3B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
Difference
36.18
23.91
11.09
2.08
between sampling events = 34% decrease
A ALB 7.4A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
Difference
29.03
13.40
6.74
4.56
between sampling events = 54% decrease
AALB 7.4B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
Difference
43.28
12.14
3.85
6.34
between sampling events = 72% decrease
Overall, a decrease in the cellulose content is seen in all cells over the period. The standard
deviation associated with the FLB data is significantly greater than the difference observed.
The largest decrease was seen in the AALB B cell.
5-90
-------
Figure 5-44. Solid Waste Cellulose Content Summary for
FLB, Control and AALB Cells
50
O)
'cu
40 -
30 -
(U
(/)
O
10 -
0
Baseline 2000/2001
10/2002
I
5-91
-------
Summary of Moisture Content of MSW
A summary of the moisture content is displayed graphically in Figure 5-45. The Figure is
expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this representation
provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the same two sampling
events and is an average of the same samples.
The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-34.
TABLE 5-34. SUMMARY OF MOISTURE CONTENT OF MSW
DATE
AVERAGE
STD. DEVIATION
FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
34.95
37.69
6.01
7.47
%Difference between sampling events = 8% increase
FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B)
2000/2001
Oct 2002
34.52
36.81
6.12
7.64
Difference between sampling events = 7% increase
Control 7.3A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
35.34
32.39
6.81
5.27
Difference between sampling events = 8% decrease
Control 7.3B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
33.90
32.63
6.15
4.57
Difference between sampling events = 4% decrease
A ALB 7.4A
2000/2001
Oct 2002
39.97
41.91
4.46
9.19
Difference between sampling events = 5% increase
AALB 7.4B
2000/2001
Oct 2002
45.78
40.55
7.01
9.21
Difference between sampling events = 11% decrease
Overall, the moisture content of the waste has remained consistent over the period for each cell,
and is overall comparable between cells.
5-92
-------
Figure 5-45. Solid Waste Moisture Content Summary for
FLB, Control and AALB Cells
c
v
o
o
-------
Summary of Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) of MSW
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) probes were installed in the waste in the FLB, Control and
AALB cells in to assess their usefulness as qualitative indicators of the redox state of the waste
during treatment (aerobic or anaerobic). A summary of the mean, maximum and minimum
readings for the installed probes in the FLB, Control and AALB cells is provided in the
following table.
No clear trends in the ORP measurements over time or in response to various treatments that
would be expected to influence the ORP of the waste, such as aeration in the AALB, were
observed for these probes. In general the readings are characterized by large fluctuations in
ORP spanning a wide range of values.
TABLE 5-35. SUMMARY OF ORP DATA FOR FLB, CONTROL AND AALB CELLS
Probe ID
51AO01
51AO02
51AO03
51AO04
51BO01
52AO01
52B O01
52B O02
52B O03
52B O04
73AO01
73B O01
74AO01
74A O02
74B O01
74B O02
IR
Nomenclature
FLB-ANo.l
FLB-ANo.2
FLB-ANo.3
FLB-ANo.4
FLB-BNo.l
FLB-C No. 1
FLB-D No. 1
FLB-D No. 2
FLB-D No. 3
FLB-D No. 4
Control -A No. 1
Control-B No. 1
AALB-ANo.l
AALB-A No.2
AALB-BNo.l
AALB-B No.2
Mean
(mV)
21.5929
-336.4054
183.2729
285.4352
346.7713
10.4687
2.1590
160.9255
-36.0699
85.6895
293.4921
44.1649
101.5301
-577.4400
-135.0144
305.9152
Maximum
(mV)
203.0000
168.0000
546.0000
363.0000
564.0000
634.0000
132.0000
806.0000
115.0000
958.0000
537.0000
367.0000
547.0000
261.0000
1049.0000
1145.0000
Minimum
(mV)
-88.0000
-511.0000
-159.0000
0.0000
-270.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-518.0000
-640.0000
-211.0000
-136.0000
-497.0000
-1373.0000
-1422.0000
-526.0000
0.0000
5-94
-------
Summary of Average Temperature of MSW
Temperature readings of the MSW were made on a daily basis via multiple thermocouple
probes permanently installed in the waste. These data are captured and graphically represented
in the form of box plots for FLB 5.1, FLB 5.2, AALB 7.4A Lifts 1-3, AALB 7.4B Lifts 1-3,
and the Control, in Figures 5-46 through 5-54.
Interpretation of the box plot:
Median-
o
I
T
O
-95th Percentile
-90th Percentile
-75th Percentile
-Mean
-25th Percentile
-10th Percentile
-5th Percentile
Multiple factors affect the recorded temperature within the landfill, including the location of the
probe, depth of probe, atmospheric temperature, and volume and temperature of liquids added.
Variability between the probes across a given cell is therefore not unexpected as seen in FLB
5.1. FLB 5.2 shows a relatively stable temperature across probes T03 to T14, with a range of
~5-40°C, though averaging ~20°C.
Each lift of the AALB cells shows there to be a relatively good temperature correlation across
the lift. This is summarized below in Table 5-36.
TABLE 5-36. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF MSW
LIFT
Lift 1
Lift 2
LiftS
APPROX. AVERAGE
10-90™ PERCENTILE
TEMPERATURE RANGE (°C)
AALB 7.4A
15-45
15-45
12-23
APPROX. MEAN
TEMPERATURE
ACROSS PROBES (°C)
25
27
18
AALB 7.4B
Lift 1
Lift 2
LiftS
14-45
10-45
15-35
28
28
25
The Control Unit temperature readings are not divided into the subcells A and B but are
combined to represent the entire Control Unit 7.3. It should be noted that several of the
thermocouple probes in the Control unit produced erroneous readings. Consequently, the
results required a significant degree of censoring. In addition, although the data span the period
5-95
-------
March 2002 through April 2003, there were large time gaps for several of the probes that
biased the readings. The available data from the probes across the landfill are variable and
exhibit large temperature differentials. The average mean temperature for the site can be
estimated as approximately 17°C.
LANDFILL GAS (LFG) CHARACTERISTICS
Landfill gas parameters were measured both on-site using a GEM 200 field instrument on a
weekly basis, and by sample collection in a 6-liter SUMMA® canister for off-site lab analysis
on a quarterly basis. The results documented in this report apply only to the Control Unit (7.3 A
and B) and the FLB (Unit 5.1 and 5.2) as these units contain waste of sufficient age to be
generating LFG (methanogenis phase).
Summary of Landfill Gas Flow
The collected landfill gas flow rate was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B and the
FLB cells 5.1 and 5.2. The rate of flow was measured weekly using a calibrated orifice plate at
the installed gas monitoring wells within each cell. Control cells 7.3 A and B both have two
monitoring wells (referred to as 1 and 2), while each of the FLB cells, 5.1 and 5.2, has one. The
results are graphically displayed in Figures 5-55 and 5-56.
The results available for this report span approximately 16 months from January 2002 until
May 2003. Landfill gas flow rate has remained steady throughout this period in both Control
cells, as shown by the relatively level plots at each of the four monitoring points. In Control
cell A, the mean value measured was in the range 47 to 49 scfm at well 1, and 29 to 31 scfm at
well 2. In Control cell B, the mean value measured was in the range 45 to 47 scfm at well 1,
and 32 to 34 scfm at well 2.
The results for the FLB, over approximately the same period, show a flow of between
approximately 300 to 500 scfm in both cells until approximately June 2002 when a significant
drop in the flow rate occurred. This steady drop occurred between approximately May and July
for FLB 5.1, and between July and September 2002 in FLB 5.2. The production rate then
remained relatively constant in a range of 50 to 250 scfm in both cells until May 2003.
5-96
-------
Figure 5-46. Box Plot of Control Cell Waste Thermocouple Readings
(3/2002 - 4/2003)
60
50 -
O 40
o
CD
Q.
E
CD
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
O
0
O
1
O
O
O
73T01 73T03 73T04 73 T06 73 TO7 73 T08
5-97
-------
Figure 5-47. FLB (5.1A) Waste Thermocouple Readings
(3/12/2002 -4/1/2003)
80
60 -
O
o
0)
3
•+->
5
CD
Q.
0)
40 -
20 H
0 -
o
o
o
o
o
I
O ° -Q- °
Thermocouple ID
5-98
-------
Figure 5-48. FLB (5.2D) Waste Themocouple Readings
(3/12/2002 -4/1/2003)
80
60 -
o
o
| 40 -\
1
0)
Q.
0)
"- 20 H
0 -
o o
00°
nil
o o
o o
o o
o -5-I o
Thermocouple ID
5-99
-------
Figure 5-49. AALB (7.4A) Lift 1 Waste Thermocouple Readings
(3/13/2002-4/1/2003)
80
60 -
O
o
2 40
0)
Q.
E
0)
20 -
0
o
o
o
o o
o o
IIIIIIITII
0 o o -£• o o
o
Thermocouple ID
5-100
-------
Figure 5-50. AALB (7.4A) Lift 2 Waste Thermocouple Readings
(5/29/2002-4/1/2003)
80
60 -
O
o
2 40
0)
Q.
E
0)
20 -
0
o o ° o o o o
o o
o
o
o
___
o o ° o oooo o o o o~o
\ i r
Thermocouple ID
5-101
-------
Figure 5-51. AALB (7.4A) Lift 3 Waste Thermocouple Readings
(11/4/2002-4/1/2003)
80
60 -
O
o
2 40
0)
Q.
E
0)
20 -
0
O
o o
O O
o
o
00°0
o o o
o
\ i r
Thermocouple ID
5-102
-------
Figure 5-52. AALB (7.4B) Lift 1 Waste Thermocouple Readings
(3/13/2002-4/1/2003)
80
60 -
O
o
2 40
0)
Q.
E
0)
20 -
0
ooo0°o°ooooooo
o
TTI
O
\ i i r
Thermocouple ID
5-103
-------
Figure 5-53. AALB (7.4B) Lift 2 Waste Thermocouple Readings
(7/1/2002-4/1/2003)
80
60 -
O
o
0)
Q.
E
0)
40 -
20 H
0 -
oo
o
T
o
JL
o
°
o
0000O0OO0
i r
\ i r
Thermocouple ID
5-104
-------
Figure 5-54. AALB (7.4B) Lift 3 Waste Thermocouple Readings
(2/3/2003-4/1/2003)
80
60 -
O
o
5
0)
Q.
0)
40 -
20 H
0 -
_2_ o o o
o o
°
o
TTTTff
JL
O
JL JL
o o
o o
Thermocouple ID
5-105
-------
100
re
80 -\
60
40 H
20
"5 0
(0
100
Figure 5-55. Landfill Gas Flow vs. Time for
Control (7.3) A and B
Control A-1
Control A-2
80 -
60 -
40
20 -
0 -
9/2001
Control B-1
Control B-2
1/2002
5/2002
9/2002
1/2003
5/2003
5-106
-------
Figure 5-56. Landfill Gas Flow vs. Time for
FLB5.1Aand5.2D
600
500 -
£ 400
o
I 300 H
° 200
LJ_
100 H
FLB5.1A
FLB 5.2D
9/2001
1/2002
5/2002
9/2002
1/2003
5/2003
5-107
-------
Summary of Landfill Gas Temperature
The landfill gas temperature was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B and the FLB
cells 5.1 and 5.2. The temperature was measured weekly using a bimetal thermometer
permanently installed at either the gas header, metering station piping or gas well within each
cell. Control cells 7.3 A and B both have two monitoring wells (referred to as 1 and 2), while
each of the FLB cells, 5.1 and 5.2, has one. The results are graphically displayed in Figures 5-
57 and 5-58.
The results available for this report span approximately 16 months from January 2002 until
May 2003. Landfill gas temperature has remained steady throughout this period in both Control
cells, as shown by the relatively level plots at each of the four monitoring points. The mean
temperature varied between the monitoring wells, see Table 5-37.
TABLE 5-37. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS TEMPERATURES
Location
Approx. Mean
Temperature (°F)
Max Temperature
(°F)
Min Temperature
(°F)
Control Cell A
Monitoring Well 1
Monitoring Well 2
111
101
120
120* (108 typical)
98
95
Control Cell B
Monitoring Well 1
Monitoring Well 2
102
94
110
102
98
75* (90 typical)
Atypical value.
The results for the FLB, over approximately the same period, showed considerable variation in
both cells throughout the period, although the overall trend for both cells was similar. Both
cells showed a gradual decline in temperature until March 2002 from over 90°F to
approximately 75-80°F. From March until September 2002, there was a gradual increase in
LFG temperature to a maximum of about 95°F. This pattern was repeated with a decline in
temperature over the Winter period until March 2003, when the temperature began to rise
again. The minimum temperature reached in FLB 5.1 was approximately 72°F in January 2003
and 60°F in FLB 5.2 in February/March 2003.
5-108
-------
Figure 5-57. Landfill Gas Temperature vs. Time for
Control 7.3A and 7.3B
130
120 -
110 -
100 -
90
^ 80 -
LJ_
O
r 70
0)
5
0)
Q.
—O— Control 7.3A-1
-D- Control 7.3A-2
130
120
110
100
90 -
80 -
70
9/2001
-O— Control 7.3B-1
-O— Control 7.3B-2
\ I
\ i
\i
\i
iirf\JnDnmnDn'DdD-nDD
1/2002
5/2002
9/2002
1/2003
5/2003
5-109
-------
Figure 5-58. Landfill Gas Temperature vs. Time for
FLB5.1Aand5.2D
100
90
g) 80 :
3
5
0)
S- 70
0)
60 -I
50
9/2001
FLB (5.1 A) LFG Temperature
FLB (5.2D) LFG Temperature
1/2002
5/2002
9/2002
1/2003
5/2003
5-110
-------
Summary of Landfill Gas Composition
The landfill gas composition was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B and the FLB
cells 5.1 and 5.2. The composition was measured weekly using the GEM 200 at the installed
gas monitoring wells within each cell. Control cells 7.3 A and B both have two monitoring
wells (referred to as 1 and 2), while each of the FLB cells, 5.1 and 5.2, has one. The results are
graphically displayed in Figures 5-59, 5-60 and 5-61.
The bulk gas compositions for both Control Units, at both gas wells, remained constant for the
period January 2002 until May 2003. The following table gives the approximate mean values
for each component at each location. Results are summarized below in Table 5-38.
TABLE 5-38. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION IN THE
CONTROL
Location
% Methane (v/v)
% Carbon Dioxide (v/v)
% Oxygen (v/v)
Control Unit A
Monitoring Well 1
Monitoring Well 2
60
60
40
40
0
0
Control Unit B
Monitoring Well 1
Monitoring Well 2
59
59
41
40
0
0
The bulk gas compositions in the FLB units showed greater variability over the period
September 2001 until May 2003. However, results from Unit 5.1 were sufficiently consistent to
justify calculating approximate mean values for the period. Gas composition is summarized
below in Table 5-39.
TABLE 5-39. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITON IN FLB5.1
FLB Unit 5.1: Approximate Mean Gas Composition
% Methane (v/v)
% Carbon Dioxide (v/v)
% Oxygen (v/v)
52
36
2
FLB Unit 5.2 bulk gas composition values were too variable after May 2002 to draw a
meaningful average. The following table provides the maximum and minimum value recorded
for each component over the period. Results are summarized below in Table 5-40.
TABLE 5-40. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION IN FLB 5.2
FLB Unit 5.2: Max and Min Gas Com
Component
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
Oxygen
Maximum % (v/v)
62
47
17
position Values
Minimum % (v/v)
20
4
0
5-111
-------
Figure 5-59. Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for
Control 7.3A
ou
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
•• «•*•• _
• • ••••••§••••• •••••• ••••*•«•!
ooo ooooOgg @ ooooooogoooo *oa aoao 8<->o s> «aoa«
• ^l_i w y ^? ** *^ WW**WB
wn^ ^
0 C02 °
T 02
TTT TTT TTT T T TTTT TTTTTTTT TTTTTT TTT W TTTT*
Gas Well No. 1
• • §1 •• • • ••• •••
•
00 in Qg O O OO© Ogo
o
T
T
?> TTTT TT TTT TTT
C
O
^5
5
•*-•
0)
o
c
o
o
OU
60 -
40 -
20 -
o -
•
• CH4
0 CO2
T ^2
•
oeo ooo oOo o o goo g ooOggoogOggO oOo g5 coOO0 0 Ooggcgg ooo ooo
TTT TTT TTTT TTTT T TTTT TTT TTTT* TTT W TTrTT T TTTTWT TTT TTT
Gas Well No. 2
9/2001
1/2002
5/2002
9/2002
1/2003
5/2003
5-112
-------
Figure 5-60. Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for
Control 7.3B
80 -i
60 -
40 -
20 -
T 0-
>
£
c
o
Concentrati
J^ 0> 00
o o o
20 -
0 -
(
• CH4
0 C02
T 02
• 0
3as Well No 1 T T
TTT TTYTTTV TT^TTT TTTTTT TTT TTT T? TTT w TTTTT TT TTTTWT TTTTTT
• CH4
0 CO2
T 02
Gas Well
*•• * § ***
_ TTT TfT TTTT T TTTTTT TTTTTT TTT TTT T? TTT W TTTTT T TTTTWT TTTTTT
No. 2
9/2001
1/2002
5/2002
9/2002
1/2003
5/2003
5-113
-------
Figure 5-61. Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for
FLB5.1Aand5.2D
80
60 -\
40
20 -\
• •
o
FLB5.1A
c
o
5
B
c
0)
o
c
o
J
i
:%
•••••§ «•*••!
@
w
80
60
40
20 -\
CH4
CO^
o
o
FLB5.2D
I
•:. * .•••'.
OgO\.# 0°°00|
0©OQ§ °*0
0
^ w ^TT vr? v?w
9/2001
1/2002
5/2002 9/2002
5-114
1/2003
5/2003
-------
Summary of Landfill Gas Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOCs)
The landfill gas total NMOC content was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B and the
FLB cells 5.1 and 5.2. The NMOC content was measured quarterly by extracting a LFG
sample into a 6-liter SUMMA® canister from the installed gas monitoring wells within each
cell, and submitting for off-site lab analysis. The results are displayed as bar charts in Figures
5-62 and 5-63.
Four samples were taken from each of the four monitoring wells in the Control units in March,
June, November and December 2002. Five samples were taken from both monitoring wells in
the FLB in December 2001, March, June, November and December 2002. The NMOC levels
remained relatively constant, with significantly lower values seen in the FLB units. Results are
summarized below in Table 5-41.
TABLE 5-41. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS NMOCS
Maximum and Minimum Total NMOC Values Seen in Control and FLB Units
Location
Maximum Cone.
(ppm-C, as hexane)
Minimum Cone.
(ppm-C, as hexane)
Control Unit 7. 3 A
Gas Monitoring Well 1
Gas Monitoring Well 2
1383
1833
883
1333
Control Unit 7.3B
Gas Monitoring Well 1
Gas Monitoring Well 2
883
850
583
517
FLB Unit 5.1
Gas Monitoring Well
350
200
FLB Unit 5.2
Gas Monitoring Well
383
183
5-115
-------
Figure 5-62. Total NMOCs vs. Time for
Control (7.3A & B)
12000
10000
8000
I. 6000
Q.
2000 -
D73AG01
• 73AG02
D73BG01
D73BG02
5-116
-------
Figure 5-63. Total NMOCs vs. Time for
FLB(5.1Aand5.2D)
^OUU
onnn
£.\J\J\J
Q.
*-* 1 ^nn
I OUU
0
1
•+•»
m ^ nnn
jU I UUU
c
0
o
Rnn
OUU
n
.
rj
.
"
.
"
"
"
• 51 G01
• 52G01
—
<
Date
5-117
-------
Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
The presence of HAPs in LFG was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B, and the FLB
cells 5.1 and 5.2. HAPs were measured quarterly by extracting a LFG sample into a 6-liter
SUMMA® canister from the installed gas monitoring wells within each cell, and submitting for
off-site lab analysis. The results are displayed as tables in Tables 5-42 through 5-45.
The readings for the Control units cover the period March 21, 2002 through December 19,
2002. The readings for the FLB units cover the period December 19, 2001 through December
19, 2002. For Control and FLB samples, HAPs were below detection limits in at least 64
percent of the samples.
TABLE 5-42. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
CONTROL 7.3A (GAS WELL 1 AND GAS WELL 2), MARCH 21, 2002 THROUGH
DECEMBER 19, 2002
HAPs Compounds
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloro- 1 , 1 ,2,2-tetrafluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Carbon disulfide
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoroethane
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Vinyl acetate
Cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
2-Butanone (MEK)
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
Cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Toluene
Trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2-Hexanone
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of Non-
Detects (ND)
0
8
6
7
8
8
8
6
8
8
0
4
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
0
8
1
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
0
8
Number of
Readings
1-1000 ug/1
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
8
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Number of
Readings
>1000 ug/1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
2
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
5
0
5-118
-------
HAPs Compounds
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
Styrene
Bromoform
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Benzyl chloride
4-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Total
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
392
Number of Non-
Detects (ND)
8
8
8
0
0
0
8
8
8
0
0
0
8
4
8
8
8
260
Number of
Readings
1-1000 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
38
Number of
Readings
>1000 ug/1
0
0
0
8
8
8
0
0
0
8
6
8
0
2
0
0
0
94
TABLE 5-43. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
CONTROL 7.3B (GAS WELL 1 AND GAS WELL 2), MARCH 21, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER
19,2002
HAPs Compounds
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloro- 1 , 1 ,2,2-tetrafluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Carbon disulfide
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoroethane
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Vinyl acetate
Cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
2-Butanone (MEK)
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of Non-
Detects (ND)
8
8
6
1
8
8
7
8
8
8
0
8
8
5
8
0
0
8
8
8
0
8
0
8
Number of
Readings
1-1000 ug/1
2
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
5
0
8
0
Number of
Readings
>1000 ug/1
6
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
4
8
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
5-119
-------
HAPs Compounds
Bromodichloromethane
Cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Toluene
Trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2-Hexanone
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
Styrene
Bromoform
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Benzyl chloride
4-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Total
Number of
Readings
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
392
Number of Non-
Detects (ND)
8
8
1
0
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
8
8
8
0
0
0
8
6
8
8
8
258
Number of
Readings
1-1000 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
41
Number of
Readings
>1000 ug/1
0
0
7
8
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
8
8
5
0
0
0
8
3
8
0
1
0
0
0
93
TABLE 5-44. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FLB 5.1(GAS WELL 1), DECEMBER 19, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 19, 2002
HAPs Compounds
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloro- 1 , 1 ,2,2-tetrafluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Carbon disulfide
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoroethane
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Vinyl acetate
Cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
2-Butanone (MEK)
Number of
Readings
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number of Non-
Detects (ND)
0
5
4
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
3
5
4
5
0
0
Number of
Readings
1-100 jig/1
5
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
5
0
Number of
Readings
>100 jig/1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
5-120
-------
HAPs Compounds
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
Cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Toluene
Trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2-Hexanone
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
Styrene
Bromoform
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Benzyl chloride
4-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Total
Number of
Readings
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
245
Number of Non-
Detects (ND)
5
5
5
0
5
2
5
5
5
0
0
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
0
5
3
5
5
5
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
5
167
Number of
Readings
1-100 ug/1
0
0
0
5
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
46
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
32
TABLE 5-45. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FLB 5.2(GAS WELL 2), DECEMBER 19, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 19
HAPs Compounds
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloro- 1 , 1 ,2,2-tetrafluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Carbon disulfide
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoroethane
Number of
Readings
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number of Non-
Detects (ND)
0
5
4
0
5
5
4
5
5
5
Number of
Readings
1-100 jig/1
5
0
1
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
Number of
Readings
>100 jig/1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-121
-------
HAPs Compounds
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Vinyl acetate
Cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
2-Butanone (MEK)
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
Cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Toluene
Trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2-Hexanone
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
Styrene
Bromoform
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Benzyl chloride
4-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Total
Number of
Readings
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
245
Number of Non-
Detects (ND)
0
3
5
4
5
0
0
5
5
5
0
5
1
5
5
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
5
5
0
0
3
5
5
5
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
5
158
Number of
Readings
1-100 ug/1
1
2
0
1
0
5
1
0
0
0
5
0
4
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
51
Number of
Readings
>100 ug/1
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
36
LANDFILL GAS SURFACE EMISSIONS
Methane emissions were measured on a twice-quarterly basis using a CEC-Landtec SEM-500
field instrument. Surface concentrations were monitored around the perimeter of the collection
area and along a pattern that traversed the landfill at 30m intervals and where visual
observations indicated elevated concentrations of landfill gas. Emissions were monitored and
recorded separately for Unit 5 and 7.
5-122
-------
The climatic conditions and the background methane concentration up and downwind were
recorded for each sampling event. Background concentrations averaged 8.4 ppm upwind and
11.8 ppm downwind for Unit 5, and 5.0 ppm upwind and 8.2 ppm downwind for Unit 7, for the
period December 2001 to July 2003.
Permit requirements necessitate a methane concentration greater than SOOppm above the
measured background level to be marked, adjustments made to reduce the surface emissions at
that location, and the location to be reanalyzed within 10 days. If an exceedance exists on
reanalysis, additional adjustments and/or cover maintenance must be performed and the
location reanalyzed within 10 days. On a third exceedance, the Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) must be notified, and either a new well installed within 120 days of the initial
exceedance, or an alternative remedy submitted for approval to the APCD.
During the period from December 2001 to July 2003, Unit 5 recorded the following permit
response actions:
• Reported three occasions of exceedances which were resolved within 10 days via
adjustment of the gas collection system;
• Five locations where additional soil cover was added; and
• Installation of one new gas collection well.
During the same monitoring period, Unit 7 recorded the following permit response actions:
• Seven locations where additional soil cover was added; and
• One occasion that required maintenance of the leachate risers to resolve the issue.
MOISTURE BALANCE
The moisture balance within the landfill is dependent on several factors, not all of which are
known precisely. In conventional landfills, the primary moisture sources are precipitation and
storm water runoff, along with other additions such leachate recirculation, LFG condensate,
and waste moisture. The rate of percolation through the landfill, and ultimately the volume of
leachate generated, is dependent in part on the nature of waste in the landfill and its field
capacity. A moisture balance analysis will be performed for each of the test cells in the Final
Report of this research investigation.
FUGITIVE GAS EMISSIONS
The AALB was found to have 160 g/s of methane, while the FLB unit was 39 g/s of methane.
The AALB estimate is considered to be conservative since complete capture of the entire plume
was not possible. Additional sampling is being conducted and will be combined with the
September 2002 results. An overview of the fugitive gas emissions study is included in
Appendix D.
5-123
-------
SECTION 6
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
The purpose of this section is to summarize interim field observations made during the
construction and operation of the Unit 5 and Unit 7 landfill bioreactor cells. These
observations are from Mr. Tony Barbush, co-Principal Investigator, and Mr. Gary Hater,
Project Manager, each an WMI employee with responsibilities for permitting, construction,
and ongoing operations at the Outer Loop Facility. Selected photographs are provided in
Appendix A to provide the reader with some insight of the site conditions and construction of
project elements.
It is recognized that these observations are general in nature and are not supported by
experimental field data as might be presented in a technical or scientific manner. Moreover,
such observations may not be applicable at other landfill sites due to many variables.
Lack of supporting documentation and applicability might suggest that such observations
should be excluded from this interim research report. However, full-scale trials of landfill
bioreactor technologies are not common in the United States or in the published literature.
Landfill owners and operators in the industry have little guidance as to what field techniques,
practices, and procedures have merit with respect to the objectives of this and similar projects.
As a result, this section has been included to contribute to the knowledge base of landfill
operators seeking to explore the use of landfill bioreactor techniques and practices.
Four topics for field observation are discussed herein:
• Tire chips as part of cell construction
• Air addition to enhance aerobic degradation
• Landfill gas collection performance
• Moisture Addition Amounts
TIRE CHIPS AS PART OF CELL CONSTRUCTION
The use of tire chips was integrated into the construction of landfill bioreactor cells Units 5 and
7, generally for purposes of aggregate and replacement of gravel or stone where practical.
During the cell construction period, WMI received over 20,000 tons of tire chips (less than 3-
inch [1.935 mm2] pieces), equivalent to some 2.4 million tires, for pipe bedding, hydraulic
separation of adjacent cells, and as part of a protection layer atop the leachate collection
system.
As pipe bedding, the tire chips were placed into trenches as part of the installation of perforated
pipe used for the reintroduction of air, leachate or other moisture, and for landfill gas
collection. Depending on the cell, trenches were either 3-feet or 15-feet deep, with varying
bedding layers, piping runs, and instrumentation installations. Field observations suggest that
these tire chips work well for pipe bedding in terms of the intended design. Performance of the
6-1
-------
tire chips may be reduced if there is significant vertical height of waste above the piping and
subsequent compression loading. Field observations suggest that HDPE pipe SDR 17
(standard dimension ratio) performance is better when bedded in tire chips with less than
approximately 75 feet of vertical waste height. This performance was confirmed, at least in
part, through television inspection of such pipes (4-inch diameter) at the Outer Loop facility.
At greater vertical waste heights, field observations suggest that either the bedding material
must be changed (e.g., to gravel or glass cullet) or the piping must be changed to SDR 11.
In lieu of geomembranes or other impermeable materials, a 6- toll-inch tire chip layer was
used in conjunction with a 12-inch clay layer to construct hydraulic separation barriers between
research cells. As the various cells were filled, this barrier was installed to retain leachate and
infiltration moisture within the test cells, and to reduce/prevent landfill gas migration from
other cells into the test cells.
A one-foot thick layer of tire chips was placed atop the leachate collection system as a
protective material. This allowed the overall protective layer of placed refuse to be reduced to
four feet from 10 feet.
AIR ADDITION TO ENHANCE AEROBIC DEGRADATION
The addition of air into Unit 7.4 was accomplished on an intermittent basis during the air
addition phase of the program design. Landfill gas blowers were used primarily, along with an
air compressor (or both) on some occasions. Rates of air addition into buried perforated pipe
varied from approximately 200 scfm to 1,000 scfm, dependent on the waste lift and waste
temperature, as well as on waste moisture and air permeability. For example, during the period
of April 18, 2002 through April 1, 2003, lifts in Cell 7.4A were aerated for over 2,000 hours;
lifts in Cell 7.4B were aerated for just over 600 hours, using only the blowers.
As discussed earlier in this report, significant attention was given to the placement and number
of temperature probes. Even so, some 10 percent of the installed probes appeared to fail with
time.
Waste temperature rise was used as a key measure to stop or reduce air addition. Field
procedures called for evaluating continued air in the cells if any waste temperature probe
reached 80° C, or if after reaching 60° C, a temperature probe increased by 10° C or more
during any 48-hour period. Moisture additions were to be used, where warranted, to cool the
in-place waste. Field observations and measurements suggested that these procedures avoided
excessive temperatures that might lead to a subsurface fire situation. Over the period of
treatment discussed herein, waste temperature exceedances did not occur and thus, aeration
was not suspended nor was moisture addition prescribed for cooling the waste.
With the introduction of air into the landfill, no impacts were observed on fugitive landfill gas
emissions. That is, no exceedances of regulatory thresholds were encountered before or after
the period of aeration treatment from surface emissions monitoring.
6-2
-------
LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION AND PERFORMANCE
Moisture additions called for in the program design appeared to have an impact on landfill gas
collection performance. Significant LFG generation was able to be captured in the leachate
risers, leading to the need to valve the riser vaults and cleanouts and improve overall
collection. Horizontal landfill gas collectors appeared to work as designed; the exception to
this was during rain surges where on occasion, the piping and bedding materials flooded
temporarily. In Unit 5 where vertical wells were used, field experience indicated that the
installation of in-place pumps was useful to prevent watering out of some landfill gas wells.
MOISTURE ADDITION AMOUNTS
Moisture additions called for in the program design were accomplished on an intermittent
basis, dependent on several daily and seasonal factors, as well as operator judgments. Apparent
moisture content of the as-received waste, moisture content of expected waste loads, received
and forecasted precipitation, recent moisture additions (including leachate) and other
considerations, were taken into account so as to achieve good waste infiltration while avoiding
leachate outbreaks, seeps, and reduced performance of landfill gas collection wells due to
excessive moisture.
Field observations on this project suggest that the removal of low permeability cover layers
and paved haul roads prior to moisture addition can reduce or minimize sideslope seepage. In
addition, placement of large volumes of non-permeable waste soils or similar materials should
be directed away from the center of an operating cell, where practical, so as to manage
moisture flow away from sideslopes.
Conceptually, a lower in-place waste density will allow greater volumes of moisture addition
than a higher initial waste in-place density, other factors being equal. Field observations on
this project suggest that this basic relationship holds. Consequently, basic guidance can be
developed for moisture addition to in-place refuse when the initial in-place density can be
calculated and the approximate area (footprint) of the cell is known.
This guidance is summarized in the below Figure 6-1, and provides a general calculated
approach to the amount of moisture that can be added initially on a daily basis, relative to the
surface area of the landfill cell. Based on field observations at the Outer Loop facility, moisture
addition is an approximate linear relationship and not necessarily depth dependent. Note that a
performance benchmark can be developed (termed the Airspace Utilization Factor, as
discussed in Section 5) based on the calculated in-place waste density (wet) compared to the
desired or target density (wet) to be achieved.
6-:
-------
Water Addition Based on Density and
Footprint
1800
Q 1300
1200
0.6
6000 4000 3000 2000
gal/acre/day
Figure 6-1. Water Addition Based on Density and Footprint
For example, suppose an operator intends to operate a new 10-acre landfill cell as a bioreactor
through moisture addition and wetting of the waste at the working face. At the time of initial
moisture addition, the calculated in-place density is approximately 1,400 Ibs of refuse per cubic
yard. Based on the above table, approximately 4,000 gallons per acre per day (or 40,000
gallons per day), can be added during dry working conditions at the onset. The field experience
at the Outer Loop facility suggests this amount would not/did not result in leachate seeps or
outbreaks. Moisture addition would be limited to the working face area, the operating deck,
and/or, if installed, subsurface piping of some kind.
6-4
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
1. Reinhart, D.R., Townsend, T.G. 1998. Landfill Bioreactor Design and Operation Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
2. Green, R.B., Vogt, W.G., Sullivan PS. 2000. Comparison of Emissions from Bioreactor and
Conventional Subtitle D Landfills. Presented at Wastecon 2000.
3. For References on previous Bioreactor Studies, go to http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/landfill/bioreactors.htm.
4. Markwiese, J.T., Vega, A.M., Green, R., Black, P. 2002. "Evaluation Plan for Two Large-
Scale Landfill Bioreactor Technologies". MSW Management
(http://www.forester.net/msw:html). Online publication, November/December Issue: 66-70.
5. Saint-Fort, R. 2002. "Assessing Sanitary Landfill Stabilization Using Winter and Summer
Waste Streams in Simulated Landfill Cells". Journal of Environmental Science and Health
A37:237-259.
6. Tammemagi, H. 1999. The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators and the Search for a
Sustainable Future. Oxford University Press, New York.
7. Hater, G.R., Green, R., Hamblin, G. Sequential Aerobic/Anaerobic Solid Waste Landfill
Operation Sept. 4, 2001. United States Patent US 6,238,676 Bl.
8. EPA. 1988. "Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)."
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. Revised March 1988.
EPA-600/4-79-020.
9. EPA. 1986. "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods.
Laboratory Manual, Volume 1A through 1C and Field Manual, Volume 2. SW-846 Third
Edition, Final (Promulgated) Update III." Office of Solid Waste. EPA Document Control
No. 955-001-00000-1, December. (Referred to as SW-845 throughout this document).
10. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (Appendix A), Parts 136 and 29 CFR, and
Parts 1910, 120, 1200 and 1450 as updated.
11. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, 1996.
12. EPA. 1996. "Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Compounds in
Ambient Air." EPA-625/R-96-010b.
7-1
-------
APPENDIX A
PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
-------
Photo 1: Leachate Storage Tank
Photo 2: Drill Rig Equipped With a 3-foot Diameter Bucket Auger-Samples of Waste
Are Collected in 10-foot Vertical Sections
A-l
-------
Photo 3: Fresh Waste Sample Collected from Drill Rig Using a 3-foot Bucket Auger
Photo 4: Trenching Layout AALB Unit
A-2
-------
Photo 5: Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) Leachate Treatment Facility
Photo 6: Waste Temperature Measurements
A-3
-------
Photo 7: Leachate pH/Temperature /Conductance Sampling Using a Bench Top
Accumet AR20 Instrument
Photo 8: Waste Sampling
A-4
-------
Photo 9: Unit 5(FLB) Aerial Photograph
s
Photo 10: Unit 7 (AALB + Control) Aerial Photograph
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR LANDFILL
BIOREACTOR STUDIES AT OUTER LOOP LANDFILL
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
Draft Final
November 2002
Prepared by:
Waste Management, Inc.
WMI Biosites Group
2956 Montana Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45211
and
Neptune and Company, Inc.
1505 15th Street, Suite B
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544
B-l
-------
Revision: 0
Date: 11/25/02 Page:
2ofiv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables iii of iv
Quality Assurance Project Plan Distribution List iv of iv
1.0 Project Description 1 of 4
1.1 Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) Study 1 of 4
1.1.1 FLB Primary Obj ective 1 of 4
1.1.2 FLB Secondary Objective 1 of 4
1.1.3 FLB Proj ect Description 2 of 4
1.1.4 FLB Process Description 2 of 4
1.2 Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) Study 3 of 4
1.2.1 AALB Primary Objective 3 of 4
1.2.2 AALB Secondary Objective 3 of 4
1.2.3 AALB Proj ect Description 3 of 4
1.2.4 AALB Process Description 3 of 4
1.3 Landfill Bioreactor Schedule 4 of 4
1.4 Overview of Data Collection 4 of 4
2.0 Project Organization 1 of 3
2.1 Quality Assurance Management Team 1 of 3
2.2 Responsibilities of Other Proj ect Participants 1 of 3
3.0 Experimental Approach 1 of 8
3.1 Sampling Strategy 1 of 8
3.2 Critical and Non-Critical Measurements 3 of 8
3.3 Data Evaluation 5 of 8
3.3.1 Leachate 6 of 8
3.3.2 Gases 7 of 8
3.3.3 MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) 8 of 8
4.0 Sampling Procedures 1 of 10
4.1 General 1 of 10
4.2 Site Specific Factors Affecting Sampling 2 of 10
4.3 Site Preparation Required for Sampling Activities 2 of 10
4.4 Sampling/Monitoring Procedures 2 of 10
4.4.1 Leachate 2 of 10
4.4.2 Gases 2 of 10
4.4.2.1 Field Analyses (daily/weekly monitoring) 3 of 10
4.4.2.2 Laboratory Analyses (quarterly monitoring) 3 of 10
4.4.2.3 Surface Emission Monitoring 3 of 10
4.4.3 MSW 4 of 10
4.4.4 Sampling Strategy 5 of 10
4.5 Laboratory Responsibilities 5 of 10
4.6 Field and In-situ Equipment 5 of 10
4.7 Sample Management 5 of 10
4.7.1 Sample Identification 6 of 10
4.7.1.1 MSW Samples 6 of 10
4.7.2 Containerization, Preservation and Holding Times 7 of 10
4.7.3 Sample Handling and Shipment 7 of 10
4.8 Field Documentation 9 of 10
4.8.1 Project Logbooks 9 of 10
4.8.2 Corrections to Documentation 10 of 10
B-2
-------
Revision: 0
Date: 11/25/02 Page:
3 of iv
5.0 Testing and Measurement Protocols 1 of 2
5.1 Method References 1 of 2
5.2 Procedures for Analytical Equipment and Test Methods 2 of 2
6.0 QA/QC Controls 1 of 8
6.1 Definitions 1 of 8
6.2 Types of QC Samples 2 of 8
6.3 Field Quality Control 3 of 8
6.4 Laboratory Quality Control 4 of 8
6.5 Failure to Meet Data Quality Indicators 7 of 8
6.6 Retained Sample Storage 8 of 8
7.0 Data Reporting, Data Reduction and Data Validation 1 of 4
7.1 Laboratory Data Reduction Reporting 1 of 4
7.1.1 Laboratory Data Reduction 1 of 4
7.1.2 Laboratory Data Validation 1 of 4
7.1.3 Laboratory Reporting and Data Retention Requirements 2 of 4
7.2 Project Data Reporting 3 of 4
7.3 Reporting 4 of 4
7.3.1 Schedule 4 of 4
7.3.2 Final Report 4 of 4
8.0 Audits Iof3
8.1 Performance Audits 1 of 3
8.2 System Audits 1 of 3
8.3 Corrective Action 2 of 3
8.4 Initiation of Corrective Action 2 of 3
8.5 Documentation of Corrective Action 3 of 3
9.0 References 1 of 1
Appendix A: Timeline for Outer Loop Landfill Bioreactor Studies 1 of 1
Appendix B: Microbial Ecology of Nitrogen Transformations 1 of 1
Appendix C: Methane, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Measurements 1 of 1
Appendix D: Organic Solids 1 of 1
Appendix E: Biochemical Methane Potential 1 of 3
Appendix F: Moisture Content 1 of 1
Appendix G: Waste pH 1 of 1
Appendix H: Sampling diagrams (provided separately by WMI on an "as needed" basis) 1 of 1
Appendix I: Examples of Exploratory Data Analysis Plots and the Mann-Kendall Test 1 of 1
Appendix J: Hazardous Air Pollutants to be Analyzed 1 of 9
Appendix K: Field Sampling Forms, see attached PDF files
-------
Revision: 0
Date: 11/25/02 Page:
4 of iv
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 Quality Assurance Management Team 4
2-2 Project Participant List 5
2-3 Contact Information for Key Project Personnel 5
3-1 Leachate Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies 7
3-2 Municipal Solid Waste Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies 8
3-3 Gas Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies 8
3-4 Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Leachate 10
3-5 Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Municipal Solid Waste 10
3-6 Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Gas 11
4-1 Proper containers, preservatives and holding times for landfill bioreactor studies 19
5-1 Method References 23
6-1 Field Quality Control Samples 27
6-1-1 pH 27
6-1-2 Waste Density 28
6-1-3 Gases 28
6-1-4 Waste Settlement 28
6-2 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: COD 29
6-3 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: BOD 29
6-4 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Volatile Organic Acids 30
6-5 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Organic Solids 30
6-6 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Waste Moisture 30
6-7 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Waste pH 30
6-8 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Biochemical Methane Potential 31
6-9 Quality Assurance Objectives 31
7-1 Reporting Units for Critical Measurements 33
B-4
-------
Revision:
Date:
5 of iv
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN DISTRIBUTION LIST
o
11/25/02 Page:
Wendy Davis-Hoover
Dave Carson
John Martin
Fran Kremer
Susan Thorneloe
Ann Vega/Scott Jacobs
Gary Hater
Roger Green
Tony Barbush
Greg Cekander
David Burt
Nancy Grams
Morton Barlaz
Amy Haag
Charles Huber
Michael Goodrich
James Markwiese
EPA Project Co-Principal Investigator
EPA Project Co-Principal Investigator
EPA Project Manager
EPA Coordinator
EPA Scientist
EPA Quality Assurance Managers
WMI Project Manager
WMI Co-Principal Investigator
WMI Co-Principal Investigator
WMI Senior Engineer
WMI Contract Lab Quality Coordinator
WMI Quality Assurance
NC State Scientist
Severn Trent Project Manager
Severn Trent QA Manager
Microbial Insights Laboratory Manager
Neptune and Company, Inc. QAPP Oversight
B-5
-------
Section: 1.0
Revision: 0
Date: 11/25/02
Page: 6 of 4
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
There are growing concerns about our ability to effectively manage municipal solid wastes.
More wastes are being generated while it is becoming increasingly difficult to site space for new
landfills (Tammemagi 1999). And wastes landfilled in the past are the source of many present-
day human health and ecological concerns. We need innovative technologies to ensure that
future waste management practices are sustainable and environmentally sound. Greater
economical use of landfill space and more efficient gas and leachate management would be a
positive step in this direction.
In large part, bacteria mediate waste degradation. This process is often moisture limited in a
conventional landfill. Bioreactor landfills are designed to accelerate the biological stabilization
of landfilled waste through leachate recirculation, thus enhancing the microbial decomposition of
organic matter. Because waste stabilizes more quickly and likely to a greater extent than it
would under conventional landfill operation, the receiving cell can accept more waste sooner and
overall bioreactor landfill capacity should be greater. Enhanced waste stabilization should also
reduce the potential for future environmental problems because the generation and subsequent
attenuation of high-strength leachate occurs sooner than it would through conventional
landfilling. In addition, bioreactor technology can reduce long-term requirements for monitoring
gas migration and cover maintenance while minimizing the time required for profitable energy
production through gas recovery (Arner 2002). Considering the potential environmental and
economic benefits of bioreactor operations, there is great interest in this technology.
The bioreactor quality assurance project plan discussed here is under joint investigation by EPA
and Waste Management, Inc., through a 5-year Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement. The project is currently in its second year. The Outer Loop Landfill operated by
Waste Management Inc., has been used for waste disposal for approximately 35 years. Two
multi-year projects are underway at the site, including a Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB)
Study, and an Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) Study. At Outer Loop, treatment
and control groups consist of separate and distinct landfill units, each composed of two paired
cells. In contrast to many bioreactor demonstrations, these are large-scale projects. The FLB
study covers approximately 19 ha (47 acres) in paired landfill cells that are generally 4 to 6 years
of age and the AALB study covers 5 ha (12 acres) in paired one-year old landfill cells. The FLB
cells are being retrofit for bioreactor operation whereas the bioreactor infrastructure in the AALB
cells is constructed as waste is added. A separate unit of paired cells containing approximately 2-
to 3- year old waste is used as the control for the FLB and AALB studies.
Because landfill units are filled sequentially (placement of waste in a particular cell is only
initiated after the current waste-receiving cell is completely filled), individual units in this study
are not directly comparable with respect to time. It is assumed that the control cells will provide
an adequate treatment reference by considering them as temporally offset from the treatment
cells. For example, consider the comparison between FLB cells and the control. As mentioned,
FLB waste is generally 4-6 years old and control waste is about 2-3 years old. In three years,
control waste will be approximately the same age as present-day FLB waste. Therefore, control
B-6
-------
Section: 1.0
Revision: 0
Date: 11/25/02
Page: 7 of 4
samples collected three years following the initiation of the FLB treatment should represent the
FLB cells as they were when leachate was first introduced.
1.1 Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) Study
1.1.1 FLB Primary Objective The primary objective is to evaluate waste stabilization and
settlement resulting from nitrate-enriched leachate application to test cells 5 North and 5 South
relative to waste stabilization in control cells 7.3A and 7.3B. Details on the evaluation of this
Primary Objective are presented in Section 3.2.
1.1.2 FLB Secondary Objective The secondary objective is to assess nitrogen dynamics
associated with the application of nitrate-enriched leachate to an existing landfill. Because there
is no representative control for evaluating the effects of nitrate in isolation (i.e., an equivalent
system receiving leachate that has not been enhanced with nitrate), these results will be recorded
for potential use in future studies.
1.1.3 FLB Project Description Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) proposes to test the efficacy of
accelerating the stabilization of waste within the landfill by injecting nitrate-containing leachate
into an existing landfill cell. This approach is based on two premises. The first, which is
generally accepted, is that the addition of leachate will moisten and promote degradation of the
waste. The second is that microorganisms present in the landfill waste will use nitrate in the
leachate as a terminal electron acceptor for anaerobic metabolism. As nitrate containing liquid
moves through the upper sections of the FLB, denitrifying bacteria convert nitrate to dinitrogen
gas (Appendix B). This transformation of nitrate-nitrogen to gaseous nitrogen should result in a
net loss of nitrogen from the landfill.
1.1.4 FLB Process Description A series of horizontal trenches will be installed up to 18 feet
below the surface in cells 5 North and 5 South. Each trench will contain a perforated pipe and
will be back filled with a permeable material (e.g., tire chips). The trenches will be spaced
approximately sixty feet apart. Six vertical gas extraction wells (twelve total) will also be
constructed in cells 5 North and in 5 South. The gas wells will serve the dual purpose of
collecting landfill gas and penetrating layers of soil cover placed during landfilling. Probes for
measuring temperature and oxidation-reduction potential will be installed during gas well
construction. Similar installations will be made for the 7.3A and 7.3B control cells.
The FLB will be enhanced with leachate that has used chemolithotrophic bacteria to take NHt+
to NOs" in the aerobic Sequential Batch Reactor, then the denitrifying bacteria under anaerobic
conditions in the landfill will use the MV as a terminal electron acceptor to form both NzO and
N2 gasses. This nitrified leachate will be introduced to the waste through the series of horizontal
trenches that will be installed in cell 5 North and in cell 5 South. The treated SBR effluent is
monitored on a monthly basis for COD, BOD, ammonia-nitrogen, nitrite/nitrate nitrogen and
phosphorus. The treated leachate will be pumped to a holding tank and distributed to the
trenches via a force main and manifold for distribution to the FLB. Liquid sources other than
B-7
-------
Section: 1.0
Revision: 0
Date: 11/25/02
Page: 8 of 4
leachate, such as water from the Outer Loop under drain or sedimentation pond, or other liquid
waste streams as permitted by regulation, may be used to augment the supply of leachate. These
liquid sources will be monitored in the same way as the SBR effluent in order to follow nitrogen
dynamics. Liquid will be added in the volume necessary to achieve and maintain the in-place
waste at a moisture level of 35-55%.
Leachate analyses will be taken to evaluate the effect of liquid addition on the MSW. Changes
in leachate parameters are expected to broadly represent the changes in the MSW. Specifically,
the impact of nitrified effluent applied to the landfill in Area 5 and subsequent denitrification
should impact the overall mass balance of nitrogen as the nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas.
The data collected for COD, BOD, ammonia nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen, as
well as leachate quantification (e.g., production, head on liner; Table 3-1) will be examined as
the project progresses.
1.2 Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) Study
1.2.1 AALB Primary Objective The primary objective is to evaluate waste-stabilization
enhancement resulting from the sequential establishment of aerobic and anaerobic conditions in
cells 7.4A and 7.4B relative to waste stabilization in the control cells 7.3A and 7.3B. Details on
the evaluation of this Primary Objective are presented in Section 3.2.
1.2.2 AALB Secondary Objective The secondary objective is to demonstrate the feasibility of
implementing an AALB on a commercially viable operating scale. Details on the evaluation of
this Secondary Objective are presented in Section 3.2.
1.2.3 AALB Project Description The proposed Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor
(AALB) study will examine the impact that establishing sequential aerobic and anaerobic
conditions has on accelerating waste stabilization. In this scheme waste is treated aerobically,
similar to composting, by injecting air into the waste for approximately 45 days. After aeration is
discontinued, the waste is moistened with liquids, and anaerobic conditions are rapidly
established. The rationale behind this sequential approach is to promote the rapid decomposition
of food waste and other easily degradable organic matter in the aerobic stage of treatment with
the intent of reducing the amount of fermentable organic matter entering the anaerobic stage.
This could shorten the acid generating phase of anaerobic waste decomposition and result in a
more rapid onset of methanogenesis. WMI has operated an experimental AALB at its Metro
RDF landfill located in Franklin, Wisconsin since October 1999. The Metro RDF experience
suggests that waste density (i.e., waste compaction) increases relatively rapidly as a result of
aeration.
1.2.4 AALB Process Description The base layer of waste will be a liner protection layer (loose
waste) placed in cells 7.4A and 7.4B that is not compacted. Cells 7.4A and 7.4B will be
constructed in fifteen-foot vertical lifts. This shallow lift system results from grading the waste to
promote homogenization of the incoming solid waste (shearing of large materials and breaking
open trash bags). As each lift is completed, water is added to increase the moisture content of the
waste. Perforated pipes are placed at regular intervals across the top surface of the waste. The
-------
Section: 1.0
Revision: 0
Date: 11/25/02
Page: 9 of 4
pipes are covered with a permeable media such as tire chips or aggregate. Each lift of piping is
connected via a common manifold. The next lift of waste is then placed over the installed
piping. This construction sequence is repeated for successive lifts of waste.
The installed piping serves three functions: the injection of air; the injection of water; and the
extraction of gas. In the proposed configuration, the uppermost lift of the landfill is aerated. The
lift immediately below this lift receives water, while landfill gas is extracted from all deeper lifts.
Probes for measuring temperature and oxidation-reduction potential will be installed during the
construction of cells 7.4A and 7.4B. Settlement of the test and control cells will be measured
using global positioning system (GPS; Trimble model 4800) equipment and taking quarterly
surveys of 20 (or 40 in cells 5N and 5S) survey points in each cell.
1.3 Landfill Bioreactor Study Schedule The FLB areas will be monitored for a period of 5
years. The AALB study area (7.4A and 7.4B) is scheduled for 3 years of monitoring. The
installation of the horizontal trenches and in-place monitoring equipment should be complete by
the end of 2001. The time line for the Outer Loop Landfill bioreactor studies is presented in
Appendix A.
1.4 Overview of Data Collection Measurements will be collected from three media for each
study: liquid (leachate), gas, and solid waste. Depending upon the medium and analyte or
characteristic, samples will be collected on an annual, monthly, quarterly, weekly, or daily basis.
Leachate will be collected from a sump for each cell. Gas will be collected from a gas collection
point in a cell. The solid waste in each cell will be sampled through boring and GPS
measurements of elevation. Field measurements of rainfall and temperature will be recorded
regularly and historical records will also be consulted to account for inter-year variability of
parameters such as rainfall and temperature.
B-9
-------
Section: 2.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 10 of 3
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Key personnel for this project are identified along with their roles and responsibilities in Tables
2-1 and 2-2. The overall project is being managed, analyzed and operated by Waste
Management, Inc. at the Outer Loop Landfill located in Louisville, KY. The personnel will be
made up of individuals from Outer Loop and the WMI BioSites program in Cincinnati, OH. The
U.S. EPA is contributing to the oversight and analysis of the project. Details on the parties
responsible for analytical measurements are presented in Section 5.1, Table 5-1.
2.1 Quality Assurance Management Team David Burt manages the formal audit and quality
assurance program for WMI contract labs. David Burt will model field wet chemistry analysis
and university analyses to match the corporate contract lab testing protocols. Nancy Grams will
function as the QA manager for this project and serve as a laboratory auditor and data validator.
Ann Vega, EPA's quality assurance manager, is responsible for endorsing the QAPP for the
quality assurance branch, while David Carson and Wendy Davis-Hoover are responsible for
approving the QAPP. Jim Markwiese is responsible for tracking revisions to the QAPP and for
keeping the QAPP current.
Table 2-1. QA Management Team
Personnel, title Phone Email
David Burt, WMI contract lab quality coordinator (713)5335000 dburt(5),wm.com
Nancy Grams, WMI quality assurance, data validation (847)464-1123 nancy gramsfSlaol.com
Ann Vega, EPA quality assurance manager (513) 569-7635 vega.ann (Slepa.gov
Scoot Jacobs, EPA quality assurance manager (513) 569-7223 iacobs.scottfSlepa. gov
David Carson, EPA Co-Principal Investigator (513)569-7527 carson.davidfS.epa. gov
Wendy Davis-Hoover, EPA Co-Principal Investigator (513)569-7206 davis-hoover. wendvfS.epa. gov
Jim Markwiese, Neptune and Company, Inc. (505) 662-2121 i immfSjneptunenandco. com
In addition to this QAPP, USEPA is performing microbial analyses on the waste and biocover
research is underway at this site. Both of these efforts are addressed in addenda to this QAPP.
2.2 Responsibilities of Other Project Participants
Table 2-2. Project Participant List
Name
Wendy Davis-Hoover*
Dave Carson*
John Martin*
Fran Kremer*
Susan Thorneloe*
Project Title
EPA Project Co-Principal
Investigator
EPA Project Co-Principal
Investigator
EPA Branch Chief
EPA Coordinator
EPA Scientist
Responsibilities
EPA Project Investigator
EPA Project Investigator
Project Oversight/Management
Project Coordination
Technical Consultation, Air
B-10
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
Table 2-2. Project Participant List, con't.
2J)
0
9-21-01
11 of 3
Name
Gary Hater*
Tony Barbush*
Douglas Goldsmith*
Greg Cekander*
Chuck Williams
Jim Norstrom
Roger Green*
David Hurt
Amy Haag
Charles Huber
Morton Barlaz
Michael Goodrich
Jim Markwiese*
Project Title
WMI Project Manager
WMI Co-Principal Investigator
WMI Senior Scientist
WMI Senior Engineer
WMI Program Owner
WMI Program Administrator
WMI Co-Principal Investigator
WMI contract lab quality
coordinator
Severn Trent Project Manager
Severn Trent QA mgr.
North Carolina State University
Scientist
Microbial Insights
Neptune & Company Scientist
Responsibilities
Manage Project for WMI
Permits & Construction
Sampling and Analysis of Waste
Matrices
Engineering and Design Issues
Program Owner
Goal Manager and Owner
Field Sampling Oversight &
Database Management
Quality Assurance Oversight for
Barlaz Lab
Leachate and Select Gas
Analyses
Quality Assurance Oversight for
Severn- Trent Laboratory
Solid Waste Analytical
Measurements and Laboratory
Quality Assurance
Laboratory Mgr.
EPA QAPP Coordinator
* Primary participants
There are eleven primary participants and two participating laboratories in this project. WMI
plans to have a minimum of one Bioreactor meeting a year at Outer Loop and participation by
Primary Participants will be at least at the 80% level. Quarterly review meetings are also
planned by WMI.
Table 2-3. Contact Information: Primary Project, Quality Assurance and Contract
Laboratory Personnel
Name
Wendy Davis-
Hoover
Dave Carson
John Martin
Fran Kremer
Susan
Thorneloe
Title
EPA Project Co-
Lead
EPA Project Co-
Lead
EPA Branch Chief
EPA Coordinator
EPA Scientist
Address
US EPA
5995 Center Hill Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45224
US EPA
5995 Center Hill Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45224
US EPA
5995 Center Hill Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45224
US EPA
26 West MLK Dr
Cincinnati, OH 45224
US EPA
AAPCD Mail Drop 63
Research Triangle Park, NC
27711
Phone
(513) 569-7206
(513) 569-7527
(513) 569-7758
(513) 569-7346
(919) 541-2709
E-mail
davis-hoover.wendv
@.epamail.epa. gov
carson.david
(Sjepamail.epa. gov
martin.johnf
(gtepamail.epa. gov
kremer.fran
(g),epamail.epa. gov
thorneloe.susan
(Slepamail.epa. gov
B-ll
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
2J)
0
9-21-01
12 of 3
Table 2-3. Contact Information: Primary Project, Quality Assurance and Contract
Laboratory Personnel, con't.
Name
Tony Barbush
Gary Hater
Roger Green
David Hurt
Greg Cekander
Douglas
Goldsmith
Nancy Grams
Morton Barlaz
Charles Huber
Amy Haag
Michael
Goodrich
Jim Markwiese
Title
WMI District
Engineer
Co-Principal
Investigator
WMI BioSites
Program
Director/Project
Manager
WMI Senior
Scientist/Co-
Principal
Investigator
WMILabQAMgr
WMI Senior
Engineer
ANT
President/WMI
Senior Scientist
WMI QA Mgr, Lab
Auditor
North Carolina
State University
Scientist/ QA mgr.
Severn Trent QA
mgr.
Severn Trent
Project Manager
Microbial Insights
Laboratory mgr.
Neptune &
Company Scientist
Address
Waste Management
7501 Grade Lane
Louisville, KY
40219-3547
Waste Management
2956 Montana Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45211
Waste Management
2956 Montana AveCincinnati,
OH 45211
155 N Redwood Dr.; Suite
250; San Rafael, CA 94903
Waste Management
1001 Fanmn, Suite 4000
Houston, Texas 77002
Alternative Natural Technology
1847 Whittaker Hollow Rd.
Blacksburg, VA 24060
40 W. 840 Rosebend
Elgin, IL 60123
Dept. Civil Engineering
203-B Mann Hall, Box 7908
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695
Severn Trent Services-STL
10 Hazelwood Dr., Suite 106
Amherst, NY 14228
Severn Trent Services-STL
10 Hazelwood Dr., Suite 106
Amherst, NY 14228
Microbial Insights
2340 Stock Creek Blvd.
Rockford, TN 37853-3044
Neptune and Company, Inc.
1505 1 5th Street, Suite B
Los Alamos, NM 87544
Phone
(502) 962-5069
(513) 389-7370
ext. 19
(513) 389-7370
ext. 18
FAX
(513) 389-7374
(415)479-3700
(713) 533-5004
(540) 552-3684
(847)464-1123
(919) 515-7676
(716) 691-2600
(716) 691-2600
(865) 573-8188
(505) 662-2121
E-mail
tbarbush@wm.com
ghater@wm.com
rgreen2@wm.com
dburt@wm.com
gcekander@wm. com
dougg@infi.net
nancy grams@aol . com
barlaz@eos.ncsu.edu
chuber@stl-inc.com
ahaag@stl-inc.com
gooch@microbe.com
i imm@neptuneinc.org
B-12
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
10
0
9-21-01
13 of 8
3.0 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
3.1 Sampling Strategy The primary objective of sampling the control, FLB, and AALB is to
determine the impact of waste stabilization as a result of treatment applications relative to an
untreated control. The number and type of each analysis is extensive and presented in Tables 3-
1, 3-2 and 3-3 for leachate, municipal solid waste and gas, respectively, for year one. Leachate
samples for control areas 7.3A and 7.3B are taken from under the drain sump area. The landfill
study areas (5N and 5S) and (7.4A and 7.4B) are sampled similarly. Diagrams of sampling
locations for each matrix will be provided as a separate attachment from WMI on an "as needed"
basis (Appendix H). Justification for the sample parameters is presented in Sections 1 and 3.2.
Table 3-1. Leachate Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies
Collection Frequency
and Parameter
Number of Samples to be Collected During the
FLB
5N
FLB
5S
Control
7.3A
Control
7.3B
First Year per Cell
AALB
7.4A
AALB
7.4B
Continuous
Head on liner
Leachate production
Monthly
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand
Ammonia-nitrogen (NHs-N)
Ortho P / Total P
Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N)
Nitrite -nitrogen (NC^-N)
Total volatile organic acids
Temperature
pH
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Quarterly
voc
svoc
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Chloride
Potassium
Conductance
RCRA hazardous metals
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
B-13
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
10
0
9-21-01
14 of 8
Table 3-2. Municipal Solid Waste Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies*
Collection Frequency and
Parameter
Number of Samples to be Collected During the First Year per Cell
FLB
5N
FLB
5S
Control
7.3A
Control
7.3B
AALB
7.4A
AALB
7.4B
Daily
Oxidation Reduction Potential
Temperature
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
Quarterly
Waste Settlement (GPS)
40pts**
40pts**
20pts
20pts
20pts
20pts
Annually
Cellulose/lignin
Organic solids
Biochemical Methane Potential
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Annually
Waste Moisture
Waste Density
Appearance
pH
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
* Given the extension of the originally anticipated start date of the project, solid waste sampling will not
begin until 2002.
** 5 North and 5 South are each comprised of two subcells, with each subcell having 20 GPS points.
Table 3-3. Gas Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies
Collection Frequency
and Parameter
Number of Samples to
FLB
5N
FLB
5S
be Collected During the First Year per Cell
Control
7.3A
Control
7.3B
AALB
7.4A
AALB
7.4B
Weekly
Landfill gas flow/production
CLL,, CC>2, O2
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
Quarterly
CLL;, CC>2, C>2, Summa canister
Nonmethane organic carbon
(NMOC)
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Surface emission monitoring (CtLi)1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Surface emission monitoring will be performed twice quarterly .
While the sampling schedule (Tables 3-1 through 3-3) is presented in a maximum time frame of
one year, the proposed research will extend for many years. As shown in Appendix A, data
collection activities are planned well beyond 2003. After the first year, the QAPP may be
modified (with agreement from all parties) in an effort to utilize resources more efficiently.
Unless strong justification can be made for changing the frequency of sampling and other
research issues, however, the plan outlined in the QAPP will hold from year to year.
B-14
-------
Section: 3.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 15 of 8
3.2 Critical and Non-Critical Measurements Landfilled waste typically progresses through
five phases of degradation, including: (1) adjustment or acclimation; (2) transition; (3)
acidogenesis; (4) methanogenesis; and (5) maturation (Reinhart and Townsend 1998). This
degradation process can be collectively considered as waste stabilization. At any given time,
landfill cells may be characterized as experiencing one of the above phases. But because waste
is deposited in a landfill cell over time (months to years), waste-stabilization phases tend to
overlap and sharp boundaries between phases are not typical. It is expected, however, that the
bioreactor treatments will increase the rate of transition through the various phases relative to the
control. It is further expected that this enhanced transition to stabilized waste will be discernable
with trend analyses. The critical measurements (italicized) employed in this study were selected
to capture aspects of waste stabilization over time.
2. Acclimation. During acclimation, microbial populations are in a state of adjustment. Waste
moisture tends to increase and available oxygen is consumed during this phase. The
atmospheric-oxygen supply to the buried waste is diffusion limited and outpaced by the
oxygen demand of bacterial respiration; consequently the concentration of oxygen in the
landfill cell begins to decrease.
6. Transition In the transition phase, conditions turn anaerobic as the available oxygen is
consumed through the metabolism of readily degradable wastes. Complex organic matter is
broken into simpler forms (e.g., organic acids) and energy that is not captured by cells during
respiration is given off as heat. Waste and leachate temperature concomitantly increase
during organic-matter degradation. Other respiration by-products (carbon dioxide and
volatile organic acids) begin to increase in leachate.
7. Acidogenesis. During acidogenesis the accumulation of volatile organic acids reaches its
peak due to metabolism and fermentation of organic matter. The increase in chemical
oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand indirectly reflects this increase in
degradable metabolites. In addition, the high concentration of acids increases hydrogen ion
activity, reflected by decreased waste and leachate pH. In the near absence of oxygen,
metabolism shifts to anaerobic bacteria capable of utilizing alternate electron acceptors (e.g.,
nitrate and sulfate).
8. Methanogenesis. In the methanogenic phase, the supply of most electron acceptors is
exhausted. Methanogenic bacteria ferment organic acids to methane and carbon dioxide
while other methanogens utilize CO2 as their terminal electron acceptor. Consequently, gas
(methane and CO2) volume and production rates increase. Anaerobic respiration is a proton-
consuming process and this is reflected by an increase in pH values in the waste and leachate.
9. Maturation The maturation phase represents the end-point of landfill settlement (surface
GPS measurements). The overall conversion of complex wastes to teachable organic acids
and gaseous products also serves to reduce the waste volume and organic solids and to
increase waste density. Maturation occurs when degradable organic matter, and
consequently microbial growth, is limited. This is reflected by decreases in the biochemical
methane potential and gaseous metabolic by-products methane and CO2. Concentrations of
organics in leachate remain steady but at substantially reduced levels relative to earlier
phases.
B-15
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
10
0
9-21-01
16 of 8
In addition to the biological and chemical parameters listed, settlement of the test and control
cells will be measured by a professional surveying team by taking quarterly readings of 40 to 80
global positioning system points in each treatment. The critical measurements listed above
directly support the primary project objective of evaluating waste stabilization.
There are also many secondary measurements for each matrix including 17 additional parameters
for leachate, 3 for solid waste and 3 for gas. These non-critical measurements primarily support
secondary project objectives (e.g., documentation of nitrogen dynamics, Section 1.1.2) and
tangentially support primary project objectives. The FLB Secondary Objective is described in
Section 1.1.2. To address the AALB Secondary Objective (Section 1.2.2), information on
estimated investment, operating revenue, and operating costs will be collected on the AALB
process in cells 7.4A and 7.4B. Once the information-gathering stage is complete, data will be
analyzed in an economic model previously created in Microsoft Excel. The functionality and
format of the model allows for estimations of life-of-site income statements, statements of cash
flow, and financial-ratio calculations to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the AALB
process at a commercially viable operating scale. Critical and non-critical parameters are
identified in Tables 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6.
Table 3-4. Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Leachate
CRITICAL
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand
Temperature
pH (field)
Volatile organic acids
NON-CRITICAL
VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds)
SVOC (Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds)
Ortho-phosphate
Total phosphorous
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Chloride
Potassium
Conductance (laboratory and field analyses)
RCRA hazardous metals
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
Head on liner
Leachate production
B-16
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
10
0
9-21-01
17 of 8
Table 3-5. Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Municipal Solid Waste
CRITICAL
Waste temperature
Waste settlement (GPS)
Organic solids
Moisture content
pH
Biochemical methane potential (BMP)
NON-CRITICAL
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)
Cellulose:lignin ratio
Appearance of waste (e.g., color, texture,
type)
Table 3-6. Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Gas
CRITICAL
Methane, field, lab (Summa)
Carbon dioxide, field, lab (Summa)
Oxygen, field, lab (Summa)
Gas volume
NON-CRITICAL
Surface emission monitoring
Non-methane organic carbon
Hazardous air pollutants
3.3 Data Evaluation Given the difference in age between the treatment and control landfill cells
and the small number of cells available for the investigation, there is a concern about the
comparability and the validity of drawing inferences from such a small number of experimental
units. Due to these concerns, more robust statistical methods will be employed when
appropriate. Typically non-parametric methods are more robust than parametric ones, hence they
are recommended here. While both parametric and non-parametric statistical methods require
the data to be comparable and meet specific assumptions, most non-parametric methods require
fewer assumptions to provide probabilistic, quantitative statements about the conditions being
tested.
Comparability of treatment and control data (i.e., comparability among landfill cells) will be
carefully examined before performing any statistical analyses. The time lag between treatment
and control for this project could introduce several factors that may affect comparability that
cannot be controlled in the design; e.g., weather and the type of waste contained in each cell.
There may be other issues that cannot necessarily be identified until the data are examined. If
the treatment and control data resulting from this project are determined to be incomparable, the
recommendations and conclusions will focus on the weight of evidence provided by exploratory
data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment. These techniques include calculation
of summary statistics and investigation of the data using pictures and graphs. Regardless of the
method of statistical analysis, graphs and pictures of the data will be used to increase
understanding of treatment and control behaviors.
Summary statistics, including number of samples, number of detects, minimums, means,
medians, maximums, and standard deviations of detected values will be presented. Because time
is a key variable in this project, the time frame over which summary statistics are provided
becomes important. For an overall difference between treatment and control, the data from the
start to end of the project will be grouped into summary statistics. For differences over time, the
B-17
-------
Section: 3.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 18 of 8
summary statistics will be calculated from the data corresponding to the time frame of interest;
for example, quarterly, yearly, or seasonally.
In all cases, the data will be plotted. Graphical data-analysis tools that will be implemented
include time plots, bubble plots, box plots, 3D color plots, and isopleth maps. These types of
plots will provide an understanding of possible time dependencies and the potential differences
between treatments and the control. Time plots show time on the x-axis and the dependent
variable on the y-axis. Box plots give an indication of the frequency distribution of the data and
help validate assumptions of statistical tests that are under consideration. Bubble plots provide
an indication of the spatial distribution of results; data are plotted on maps as bubbles, with the
size of the bubble proportional to the concentration. These will be used to make, between and
within, treatment and control comparisons over time. Examples these types of plots are
presented in Appendix I.
Assuming the data from treatment and control are comparable, there are several statistical
analyses that will be performed; these are discussed in the following sections. Part of the data
assessment will include verifying the assumptions of the statistical analyses to ascertain whether
conclusions based on the analyses are valid. For most of the time series analyses, the
recommended test is the non-parametric Mann-Kendall test. The Mann-Kendall test for trend
uses the relationship between time-adjacent results to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to detect an increasing or decreasing trend. To perform the Mann-Kendall test, data are
ordered by sample date and the sign (positive or negative) of all sequential differences is
recorded. The test statistic is the sum of the number of positives minus the number of negatives.
If the sum is close to zero, then no trend is assumed. If the sum is large and positive (negative)
then a positive (negative) trend can be assumed. Note that the test statistic is a function of the
relationship between values rather than the values themselves, as is the case with most non-
parametric tests (Hollander and Wolfe, 1973). An example of the Mann-Kendall test is
presented in Appendix I.
3.3.1 Leachate As stated above, leachate will be collected from each of the cells in the study.
The design of the landfill units (paired cells) is such that, with the exception of Unit 5, each cell
is separated from the surrounding cells. Regarding Unit 5, sample locations for subunits 5 North
and 5 South are separated by ca. 1,000 feet of waste; a distance judged to be adequate for
separation by EPA's Office of Research and Development landfill expert, Dave Carson. The
median of the two treatment cell observations from each sampling event will be calculated,
resulting in a single time series for each treatment and control. These time series will be used to
determine trends, or lack thereof, for those characteristics and analytes measured in the leachate.
Because these data will be collected over a period of months, there is the potential for seasonal
variations in the time series, at least with regard to moisture. And because the Mann-Kendall test
for trend evaluates monotonic trends (overall increasing or decreasing), seasonal variations must
be considered. There are two possible ways to account for seasonal variation; one is to perform a
Mann-Kendall test on the differences between treatment and control series, another is to
parametrically model each time series individually and perform a Mann-Kendall test on the
residuals from each.
B-18
-------
Section: 3.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 19 of 8
If the data from treatment and control cells can be paired (i.e., they are comparable), their
differences can be subjected to a Mann-Kendall test. The assumption is that the treatment and
control will follow the same trend for a given measure, but the time period over which the trend
occurs may be different, with the trend in the treatment cell being accelerated over time
compared with the control cell. In this case, the differences between treatment and control will
get larger over time, hence the differences will show an increasing trend, even if seasonal
fluctuations are present. If this approach is to be taken, the treatment and control observations
that are combined (through differences) will be as comparable as possible. For instance, if the
treatment data are collected monthly over time starting in January, then the control samples will
be paired over time accordingly. In other words, the treatment data will be collected monthly
and the differences will be calculated on the same months.
Although research has indicated that seasonal variability in stabilization is likely (Saint-Fort
2002), both control and treatment data can be parametrically modeled as a time series to account
for seasonal differences by a Mann-Kendall test on the residuals. The residuals are the
differences between the modeled results and the actual results. Diggle (1990) provides a good
basic discussion of parametric time series modeling. A parametric time series model will
identify the autocorrelation (time dependence) present in a given series. This could provide
information about whether the treatment is accelerated over the control as well as account for
seasonal variations. One element of parametric time series modeling is to identify the lag,
otherwise known as the time period between correlated observations.
Parametric time series modeling is capable of identifying many different lags in a time series.
For this project, a seasonal lag might be expected, but also a lag due to the stabilization process
itself. Depending upon the data, each of these lags may be identified by the model. If the
stabilization process lag for the treatment series is shorter than the lag for the control series, there
is evidence that the treatment is effective. If the process lag is not evident in the model, but the
seasonal lag is, the residuals can be tested separately to find the process lag, if there is one.
These residuals should have no seasonal variation, and, if an underlying trend is present, it will
be evident in the residuals. The results of the Mann-Kendall tests will then be used, along with
time plots, to compare the treatment and control trends. For instance, if the Mann-Kendall test
indicates that both residual series show an increasing trend, time plots will confirm that the
treatment trend is accelerated over the control trend.
3.3.2 Gases Gas sampling for critical measurements (CO2, QI and CFLj) will be performed
weekly. Non-critical measures (NMOC and HAPs) and methane surface emissions monitoring
will be performed quarterly (Table 3-3). Similar to leachate, gas sampling will occur at one
point per cell where the cell's gas extraction wells come to the collection point. The extraction
wells will be located systematically, approximately equidistant from one-another. The number
and location will be chosen such that the variation within a cell is adequately characterized.
Exploratory data analysis, time series modeling, and trend testing will be performed on a location
or a cell basis. Spatial patterns in the data will be considered before combining the data within a
cell to compare with another cell. If the data are adequate, spatial analyses, such as block kriging
or linear interpolation, will be used to compare patterns of gas generation in the treatment and
B-19
-------
Section: 3.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 20 of 8
control cells. Isopleths of gas volumes over time will be created for each cell and their
magnitudes and shapes compared visually. This will give an indication of treatment
effectiveness when the plots are placed side-by-side for the same time frames. If the spatial
patterns of gas volume remain homogeneous over time, the data from a given time frame will be
combined into a median or mean for treatment control comparisons.
3.3.3 MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) Solid waste samples will be collected annually through
systematic boring locations. Dividing the cell into six sections, dividing a section in 3x3 square
meter grids and randomly choosing a square within a grid will identify the boring location within
a section. The equivalent boring location will be used for sampling in the remaining sections.
This sampling plan will exclude sampling on the edges of the cell. In addition, if drilling cannot
be initiated (e.g., known asbestos deposit underneath) or completed (e.g., impenetrable object
encountered) in a potential location, a randomly selected square adjacent to the original location
will be selected (only for that section where drilling was incomplete). Along with the two
dimensional analyses outlined for leachate and gas, three-dimensional analyses will be done for
municipal solid waste. That is, because borings will be collected and depth samples collected,
the trend and spatial analyses will incorporate depth. If, for some reason, the treatment is more
effective at one depth than at others, incorporating depth into the MSW data assessment might
identify it. Because the number of locations for collecting MSW is much less than for gases,
spatial patterns and/or time trends in the MSW (e.g., waste density) will be more difficult to
identify, but it may be possible. For example, typical p-value tables for the Mann-Kendall test
require at least 4 samples, so the MSW data will meet the minimum requirements of the test, as
long as no data are rejected or lost.
Settlement of the fill will be monitored quarterly through GPS measurements of elevation as a
indication of stability. The numerous GPS sample points will provide a data set with which to
evaluate waste settlement. Specific details on the employed technique, global positioning (GPS)
surveying, are provided in Section 4.4.3.
B-20
-------
Section: 4.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 21 of 10
4.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES
4.1 General Specific sampling procedures have been developed by the EPA and vary with the
sample matrices and specific analyses. The types of containers, methods of preservation and
holding times are identified in Table 4-1. These meet specifications for EPA approved
methodology, and are appropriate for the parameter and matrix of interest. EPA documents
specify techniques for field sampling and this QAPP lists methods to be used for this
demonstration. Specifics have been included for critical measurements including type of sample,
sampling location, field sample preparation techniques, and sample handling requirements. The
EPA provides guidelines for sample collection as part of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. WMI personnel will refer to the procedures found in SW
846 for all sampling protocols used as part of this demonstration. Equipment used for field
sampling is calibrated and maintained according to manufacturer's guidelines. Solid-waste
probes (Temperature and ORP) will be employed with enough redundancy to compensate for
potential failure in the field.
For example, A pH meter with automatic temperature compensation capable of measuring pH at
the demonstration site to ± 0.1 pH units will be used. The pH probe will be calibrated each time
the instrument is set up using two buffer solutions that bracket the expected pH. Precision will
be determined by analyzing a duplicate during each sampling event. The results must agree
within ±0.1 pH units or the instrument will be recalibrated and the results reanalyzed. Accuracy
will be determined by measuring a third buffer solution as if it were a sample. The results must
agree within ±0.1 pH units or the instrument will be recalibrated. A standard Cole-Parmer
Thermocouple will be used for field temperature measurements. Because standard
thermocoulples are themselves considered the industry standard, no calibration procedures will
be required. In addition, Standard Methods for the Examination Water and Wastewater and
individual analyte methods provide valuable information for ensuring that samples are properly
collected, stored and preserved. Laboratories used during the course of this study for sample
analyses will be required to follow these guidelines.
The method of shipping depends on the sample type and the common carrier available. It is
anticipated that all samples will arrive within 24 hours of collection. An overnight shipping
company will be used for this purpose. Samples requiring cooling for purposes of preservation
will be packaged in coolers and maintained at 4°C using commercially available crushed ice. Ice
will be packaged in large Ziploc baggies to prevent leakage onto sample containers. Shipping
samples by overnight carrier will help to ensure samples arrive at the laboratory at 4 °C. In
addition, overnight delivery will be critical for nitrate, nitrite, BOD and ortho-phosphate
measurements that need to be measured within 48 hours. The laboratory will be contacted prior
to the day of shipment to ensure sample analysis can be expedited upon arrival. The laboratory
will record the shipment temperature (of a temperature blank) upon arrival and significant
variances in temperature (i.e. greater than 4 °C) will be immediately reported to the WMI project
Co-Principal Investigator responsible for field activities (i.e., Roger Green).
Under the supervision of Roger Green or Douglas Goldsmith, all project personnel for field
activities will complete a sample collection narrative form. The team member responsible for
B-21
-------
Section: 4.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 22 of 10
the sampling project completes the narrative and it travels with the Chain of Custody. It is a
record of all activities carried out by the sampling team. The sample collection information is
also recorded on an analytical data sheet for field-testing parameters such as pH, specific
conductance, gas surveys etc. To maintain sample integrity and to assure the validity of results,
well-documented Chain of Custody (COC) records are essential (Section 4.7.3).
4.2 Site Specific Factors Affecting Sampling The only two factors that have impacted the
sampling of a landfill in the past have been inclement weather and equipment failure. If these
situations should occur, alternate sampling periods will be specified by the WMI Project
Manager and Co-Principal Investigators and the EPA Project Co-leaders in order to
accommodate the collection of critical information.
4.3 Site Preparation Required for Sampling Activities Each sampling location will be
appropriately marked with stakes and identification codes. The WMI Project Manager, Gary
Hater, will conduct a review of the sampling points before each sampling event for leachate,
MSW or gases.
4.4 Sampling/Monitoring Procedures
4.4.1 Leachate Samples will be taken at the sump areas for Units 5N and 5S, 7.3A and 7.3B,
7.4A and 7.4B. Samples are obtained at regular time intervals at one sampling location.
Leachate samples will be collected directly from the tap on the riser pipe. Switching the riser
pump from automatic mode to hand mode (essentially turning the pump off) prior to sampling
has been shown in subsequent sampling events to be an effective procedure for obtaining an
adequate volume of leachate sample. Leachate sample bottles will be collected in the following
sequence: COD, BOD, volatile organic acids, pH, temperature, VOCs, SVOCs, TKN, ammonia-
N, nitrate-N, nitrite-N, total metals (including potassium), ortho phosphate, total phosphate,
chloride, sulfate and TDS. This sequence is also specified on the attached Leachate Sampling
Information Form. To obtain a representative sample, effluent will be purged prior to collecting
the actual sample. The purge volume will also be recorded on the Leachate Sampling
Information Form.
4.4.2 Gases Gas monitoring will be done at the installed gas monitoring point within a cell to
monitor activity within the landfill bioreactors and control areas. Information recorded for gas
sampling will be logged on the attached Gas Sampling Information Form. Gas analyses will be
performed for methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen using a GEM 2000 (Appendix C). This
instrument is a portable field gas analyzer and uses a self-compensating infrared detector. Gas
volume measurements will be made by electronically logging three consecutive measurements
(one measurement per minute) of gas quality (methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and balance gas)
and flow (differential pressure, static pressure, gas temperature, and flow rate) to the GEM 2000
for each sample point. The mean value for each of these measurements will be recorded as the
value for each parameter of interest.
Surface emissions monitoring will also be performed for methane using the field instrument
CEC-Landtec SEM-500. This is a hand held portable flame ionization detector used to monitor
B-22
-------
Section: 4.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 23 of 10
surface emissions at landfills. Both instruments will be calibrated prior to use per manufacturer
specifications. In addition, for the landfill gas analyses routine field checks will be made using
each of the three critical gases listed. Certified gas mixtures will be obtained from a reputable
distributor (e.g. Scott Specialty Gases). This will include two concentrations that bracket the
expected measured concentration and a "zero" gas (e.g. nitrogen). The instrument reading will
be checked against the calibration gases twice daily on the day of sampling. Concentrations will
be checked prior to instrument use and at the end of the day after field measurements are
completed. Concentration readings for carbon dioxide and methane are to be within 15% of the
actual concentration or sample duplicate; the tolerance for oxygen is ± 30% (Table 6-1-3). Zero
gases should register no greater than 5% of the span of the instrument. Atmospheric oxygen
(20.9%) can be used as one of the oxygen reference gases. See below for specific information
regarding field instrument specifications.
4.4.2.1 Field Analyses (weekly monitoring) Landfill gas will be sampled and analyzed to
determine the composition of the gas. The majority of the samples and analyses performed will
be made for the determination of methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen concentration using a
portable landfill gas analyzer (GEM 2000). After calibration according to the manufacturer's
instructions, the instrument is connected to a gas sampling port using flexible plastic tubing. Gas
is drawn into the instrument by an internal pump and analyzed. Results are date and time
stamped and datalogged by the instrument. Gas standards for CH4, CO2 and Ch will be analyzed
twice daily on the day of sampling (Table 6-1-3) to evaluate accuracy objectives (Table 6-9).
One sample duplicate will be collected in a Tedlar bag on each day of sampling and the sample
location will be rotated through the various units under study. The sample duplicate will be used
to assess precision objectives (Table 6-1-3). Gas volume measurements will be made by
electronically logging three consecutive measurements of gas quality (methane, carbon dioxide,
oxygen, and balance gas) and flow (differential pressure, static pressure, gas temperature, and
flow rate) to the GEM 2000 for each sample point. The mean value for each of these
measurements will be recorded as the value for each parameter of interest.
4.4.2.2 Laboratory Analyses (quarterly monitoring) Landfill gas samples will also be
collected for laboratory analysis of methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen by EPA Method 3,
non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), by EPA Method 25C, and volatile organic
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs; Appendix J) by Compendium Method TO-14. These samples
will be collected in 6-liter SUMMA passivated stainless steel canisters at the gas monitoring
point.
4.4.2.3 SURFACE EMISSIONS MONITORING (TWICE QUARTERLY) SURFACE
EMISSIONS MONITORING WILL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED BY THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
AND EMISSION GUIDELINES (EG) FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS IN 40 CFR
60.755. METHANE CONCENTRATIONS ARE MEASURED WITHIN 5 TO 10 CM (2 TO 4 IN)
OF THE LANDFILL SURFACE USING A CEC-LANDTEC SEM-500. METHANE
CONCENTRATIONS ARE MEASURED FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES IN EPA METHOD
21, EXCEPT THAT "METHANE" REPLACES ALL REFERENCES TO "VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS" (VOC) AND THE CALIBRATION GAS IS 500 PPM METHANE IN AIR [§
B-23
-------
Section: 4.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 24 of 10
60.755(D)]. METHANE SURFACE CONCENTRATIONS ARE MONITORED AROUND THE
PERIMETER OF THE COLLECTION AREA AND ALONG A PATTERN THAT TRAVERSES
THE LANDFILL AT 30-METER INTERVALS AND WHERE VISUAL OBSERVATIONS
INDICATE ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS OF LANDFILL GAS (E.G., DISTRESSED
VEGETATION, CRACKS OR SEEPS IN THE COVER).
4.4.3 MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) Municipal solid waste sampling procedures will
essentially follow those traditionally used in the industry. A drill rig equipped with a 3' bucket
auger will be used. As indicated in Section 3.3.3, six locations on the surface will be sampled.
Each location is sampled with the bucket auger in 10' vertical sections with one representative
sample collected for each section. The initial 10 feet of material is generally discarded as it
predominantly contains soil and not MSW. As the boring advances, each 10-foot sample is
extracted from the auger and the appearance of the waste is observed and recorded. It is
anticipated that at least five 10' increments will be collected from each of the six sampling
locations. As such, a minimum of 30 solid-waste samples will be collected for each cell on an
annual basis (Table 3-2).
The 10-foot waste sample is sealed in a plastic bag and placed in cooler for shipment to the
laboratory. This includes samples for organic solids, pH, moisture content, biochemical methane
potential, and cellulose/lignin ratio at the frequency designated in Table 3-2.
Temperature and ORP of the in-place MSW will be monitored by type T-thermocouple probes
connected to a PC-driven data collection system. The data communications/gathering system
that the probes are connected to currently record the temperature or ORP reading for each probe
once every 30 minutes. These data will be used to construct a control chart for each probe.
Probes returning erratic temperature readings, based on the historic temperature control charts
will be investigated. For most probes in Unit 5, this will involve removal, inspection of
connections and the probe and if necessary replacement. The probes to be installed in 7.4 A and
B will be permanent and not replaceable. Erratic results from these probes will be flagged.
Global positioning (GPS) surveying with the Trimble model 4800 will be performed on sampling
points within a cell as follows: 1) Every sampling event will be initialized from a known point
and will agree to + 5 cm for the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the known point — if
sampling within a cell is interrupted, the system will be reinitialized from the known point before
sampling resumes; 2) sampling will not be initiated if the root mean square reading from the
system is less than 15; and, 3) the positional dilution of precision (a measure of the relative
dispersion of satellites in the sky) reading will be six or less before the system is initialized. In
addition, one of every 20 points measured by GPS will be randomly selected and resampled.
The results will be compared to Table 6-1-4. If these conditions are met, the positional accuracy
of the GPS readings will be sufficient to meet the analytical needs of this QAPP.
4.4.4 Sampling Strategy Several parameters were considered when developing a sampling
strategy to represent the chemical, biological and physical status of a landfill in the best way
possible. Because each cell's leachate drains to a central sump, samples collected at sumps
should be representative of the entire cell. Systematic locations for the gas extraction wells and
B-24
-------
Section: 4.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 25 of 10
soil boring locations were chosen to maximize the coverage within the zone of maximum vertical
resolution (i.e., away from the sides of the cell). Matrices will be sampled according to the
schedule provided in Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 to provide a "snapshot" of the historical contents of
the landfill. The goal is to effectively choose enough points on the landfill to get a complete
picture upon combining the information from each snapshot.
4.5 Laboratory Responsibilities Outer Loop personnel will be conducting leachate and gas
sampling under the supervision of Roger Green. Subcontracted laboratories will be conducting
leachate, gas and MSW analyses. Severn Trent Laboratories will be responsible for leachate and
gas and North Carolina State University will conduct MSW testing (Table 5-1).
4.6 Field and In-Situ Equipment Temperature and ORP of the in-place MSW will be
monitored by type T thermocouple (see above) wire connected to a Cole-Parmer thermocouple
panel meter on the surface. One temperature and ORP reading will be made on a daily basis per
cell. A submersible in-line electrode fitted in a PVC casing for protection will measure the
temperature and pH of the leachate. The signal will be boosted by a preamplifier, due to the
amount of cable required, to a pH controller box with LED readout on the landfill surface.
Calibrations will be performed per manufacturer specifications. The pH calibrations will be
performed using standardized pH solutions of 7 and one other solution to bracket the pH of the
measured leachate. An in-place pressure transducer measures the head on the landfill liner and
leachate production is quantified with a factory-calibrated totalizing flow meter (1 per cell).
A factory-calibrated orifice plate (certified prior to project initiation) is used to measure gas
production. All other field gas measurements (methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen) will be
measured using the GEM 2000. Calibration and QC specifications are noted above. Waste
settlement is measured using a Trimble 4800 GPS system through quarterly monitoring.
Measurements taken on a quarterly basis will be compared to pre-demonstration measurements
for determination of waste settlement over time. The system has a vertical resolution of + 2 cm
when employed in a kinematic (walking) survey (versus a stationary survey vertical resolution of
+ 5 mm). Positioning accuracy is determined by methods outlined in Section 4.4.3.
4.7 Sample Management The following are procedures for identifying samples and ensuring
that data can be correctly identified at a later date.
4.7.1 Sample Identification
4.7.1.1 Samples collected for laboratory analysis are identified with standard labels attached to
the sample containers. The following information will be included on the sample labels (using
waterproof ink), in the order indicated: unit number, cell number, cell letter (if applicable),
sample matrix/sample type, sampling location number (within this cell), sample depth or depth
interval in feet below ground surface elevation (if applicable). The label also will list the date
and time the sample was collected. The sample should be identified using the following format.
[#J [#] |XJ [£j [#][#] [#] [#J - [#J [#J
B-25
-------
Unit
No.
Cell
No.
Cell
Letter
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
Sample Sample
Matrix/ Location
Type No.
4J)
0
9-21-01
26 of 10
Sample Depth or Depth
Interval
Valid unit numbers are 5 or 7. Valid cell numbers are 1,2,3, or 4. Valid cell letters are A or B.
The sample matrix or sample type will be indicated using a single letter according to the
following table.
Sample Matrix/Type
Leachate
Gas
Solid waste
Waste Temperature
Waste ORP
Surface Emissions
Sample Matrix/Type Code
L
G
W
T
O
E
For example a solid waste sample collected from the AALB in cell 7.4A at sampling location 1
from a depth interval of 10 to 20 feet below ground surface would be identified as 74A W01 10-
20. Notice that a space is left between the cell letter and the sample matrix/type code and
between the sample location number and the sample depth.
Iw| |o||i| lillol-
Sample Sample
Matrix/ Location
Type No.
Unit
No.
Cell
No.
Cell
Letter
Sample Depth or Depth
Interval
Note that not all combinations of unit numbers, cell numbers, and cell letters are valid. For the
FLB the combinations 51 A, 5 IB, 52A, or 52B will be used; for the AALB the combinations 74A
and 74B will be used; and for the Control the combinations used will be 73 A, and 73B. Gas
volume and quality measurements for the FLB are collected from two gas metering stations.
One of these stations represents cells 5.1 A and 5. IB, while the other represents cells 5.2A and
5.2B. Therefore, the identification for these samples will not include the cell letter. For example
samples collected from the metering station representing cells 5.1 A and 5.IB will be identified as
51 G01.
4.7.2 Containerization, Preservation and Holding Times
Table 4-1. Proper containers, preservatives and holding times for landfill bioreactor
studies
Parameter
Sample volume & container
Preservation
Max. Holding Time
Inorganic Tests
Ammoni a-nitro gen
BOD
COD
Chloride
Potassium
500 ml, P,G!
1000ml,P,G
500 ml, P,G!
500 ml, P,G
500 ml, P,G
Cool4°C,H,S04topH<2
Cool 4° C
Cool4°C,H,S04topH<2
None required
Field acidified to pH<2 with
28 days
48 hours
28 days
28 days
28 days
B-26
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
4J)
0
9-21-01
27 of 10
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
RCRA Metals
Nitrate -nitrogen
Nitrite-nitrogen
ortho-phosphate
Total phosphorous
Total Dissolved Solids
Temperature (leachate)
pH (leachate)
pH (waste)
Moisture (MSW)
Density (MSW)
Sulfate
Specific Conductance
1000 ml, P,Gl
1000 ml, P,Gl
1000ml,P,G
1000ml,P,G
500 ml, P,G
500 ml, P,G'
500 ml, P,G
P,G
P,G
1000 ml wide-mouth, P,G
1000 ml wide-mouth, P,G
Volumetric box
50 ml, T,P,G
500 ml, P,G
HNO,
Cool4°C,H,SO4topH<2
Field acidified to pH<2 with
HNOs
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C, filter in lab if
necessary
Cool4°C,H2S04topH<2
Cool 4° C
None required
None required
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C
None required
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C
28 days
6 months
(Hg = 28 days)
48 hours
48 hours
48 hours
28 days
7 days
Analyze
Immediately
Analyze
Immediately
7 days
28 days
Field measurement
28 days
28 days
Organic Tests
Organic solids
Cellulose:lignin
BMP
Volatile Organic Acids
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Semi-volatile Organic
Compounds
CFL,, CO,, 0,
Double-wrapped plastic garbage bag2
Double-wrapped plastic garbage bag2
Double-wrapped plastic garbage bag2
8 oz. amber glass, Teflon-lined septa
3x40 ml glass, Teflon-lined septa
2x1 L Amber glass, Teflon-lined
septa
6 liters, S
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C
Cool 4° C, no headspace
Cool 4° C
None required
21 Days
28 Days
21 Days
10 days
7 days
Extract - 7 days
Analyze - 40 days
7 days
Sample bottles will be of sufficient volume to prevent sample loss due to effervescence upon acidification
wrapped samples placed in polyethylene trays with lids and these filled trays are then placed in a (un-cooled) plastic bin
P - Plastic Sources: SW 846 Methods
G - Glass 40 CFR 136
T - Teflon Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
S- Summa canister
4.7.3 Sample Handling and Shipment The WMI senior scientist in charge of field activities
will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate chain-of-custody procedures are followed for
each sample from the time it is collected until it is analyzed in the laboratory. Samples will be
retained at all times in the custody of the sampler, field manager (if a different individual), or
designated field sample custodian, until shipment. Transfer of custody between field personnel
will be documented on the custody form. The field manager will ship collected leachate and gas
samples to Severn Trent Laboratories and MSW samples to North Carolina State, Raleigh, NC,
laboratories at the end of each sampling day. The following information will be required on the
chain-of custody form:
Project No.:
Project Name:
Sample Number:
Date:
Time:
Enter the complete project number
WMI/EPA Landfill Bioreactor Project
Enter the sample ID number
Enter the date of sample collection
Enter the time of sample collection
B-27
-------
Section: 4.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 28 of 10
Sample
Description/Type: Enter the sampling location and matrix type
Analysis Required: List the parameters to be analyzed and QC requirements (MS/MSD)
Preservation: Provide description of preservation
Each container should be labeled at the time it is filled with the sample description, number,
date, time, and sampler's initials. Waterproof ink or marker will be used to ensure that the
information can be read after shipping. In addition, each sample label will be wrapped with clear
packaging tape at the time of collection in order to prevent loss of sample information. When
sampling is complete, the sampler should retain or make a copy of the completed COC. The
original COC should be protected by sealing in a Ziploc baggie and placed in the cooler with
samples for transport. Field personnel will verify this documentation for accuracy before placing
it in the cooler with samples. When all line items are completed and before shipping, the field
manager will sign and date the chain-of-custody form, list the time, and confirm that all
descriptive information contained on the form is complete.
All samples will be packaged and labeled for shipment in compliance with current regulations.
Laboratory and WM specifications for sample packaging and shipment will be followed for each
type of sample and for each laboratory. For example, ice chests used to ship aqueous samples
will be lined with two plastic bags; twisting the tip and securely taping the bag closed to prevent
leaks will seal the plastic bags around the aqueous samples. Styrofoam, bubble wrap, or other
packing materials will be used to absorb shock for all breakable sample containers. Samplers
will place ample absorbent material in coolers for the case of possible sample jar breakage
during shipment. Chain-of-custody record forms and any other shipping and sample
documentation will accompany the shipment. These documents will be enclosed in a waterproof
plastic bag and taped to the underside of the cooler lid. Each ice chest prepared for shipment
will be securely taped shut. Reinforced or other suitable tape (such as duct tape) will be used
and wrapped at least twice around the ice chest near each end where the hinges are located. Two
custody seals will be placed on the cooler. Sample shipping containers will be marked in
accordance with U.S. regulations for airborne shipping. When selecting means of shipping
samples, field personnel will ensure that the method chosen will not cause the sample to exceed
allowable holding times. When commercial common carriers are used to ship samples, all
samples will be shipped for overnight delivery.
In accordance with laboratory regulatory requirements and the standard written procedures of the
laboratory, the laboratory sample custodian or designated alternate will receive and assume
custody of samples until the samples have been properly logged in to the laboratory and stored in
a secured area. When a sample shipment is received at the laboratory, the shipping container
will be inspected for warning labels and security breaches before it is opened. The sample
custodian will open the container and carefully check the contents for evidence of breakage or
leaking. Preservation requirements regarding pH and temperature will be verified, as appropriate
for aqueous samples at the time samples are received. Deviations will be reported to the WMI
senior scientist in charge of field collection immediately and will be noted in the case narrative
report based on chain-of-custody records.
B-28
-------
Section: 4.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 29 of 10
The contents of the container will be inspected for chain-of-custody record forms and other
information or instructions. The sample custodian will record the date and time on the chain-of-
custody record form. The sample custodian will verify that all information on the sample
container labels is correct and correlates with the information on the chain-of-custody record,
and will sign the chain-of-custody record. The chain-of-custody record form will be retained in
the project file and a copy returned to the WMI senior scientist in charge of field activities to
verify receipt. Any discrepancy between the samples and the chain-of-custody information, any
broken or leaking sample bottles or any other abnormal situation will be reported to the WMI
contract laboratory quality coordinator. The WMI project manager will be informed of any
problem, and corrective action will be discussed and implemented. The problem and its
resolution will be documented, initialed and dated by the sample custodian.
In accordance with regulatory laboratory certification requirements and the standard written
procedures of the laboratory, samples will be handled, stored and processed in the required way
and so as to minimize errors and degradation of sample integrity. Each shipment of samples
received at each laboratory will be assigned a work order number. Each sample in the shipment
will be given a unique laboratory sample number that includes the work order number and an
identifying code. A laboratory sample label specifying the unique identifier will be attached to
each container. The work order will specify the samples to be analyzed, the analysis required,
the project-required QC, and any other necessary information. Bench sheets, initiated at the first
point of sample preparation, are to accompany the samples throughout the analytical sequence.
4.8 Field Documentation All handwritten documentation must be legible and completed in
permanent waterproof ink. Corrections must be marked with single line, dated, and initialed.
All documentation including voided entries must be maintained within project files.
4.8.1 Project Logbooks Field personnel will record all information pertinent to the sampling
and measurement program in a consecutively numbered field logbook. The information will be
entered into the field logbook at the time of sampling. At a minimum, the logbook will contain
the following.
Documentation of Calibration of Field Equipment
- Date and time of calibration
Calibration data
Instrument identification, including manufacturer and model
Background Information
Date and time of the sampling activities
Personnel on site
- Weather conditions
- Purpose of sampling
Chronology of Sampling
- Description of sampling points and sampling methodology
Number and volume of samples collected
- Date and time of collection
Sample identification number
B-29
-------
Section: 4.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 30 of 10
- Field observations about any problems encountered and deviation from the QAPP
Sample Distribution
Sample distribution and method of transport (name of laboratory where samples were
sent, overnight courier service used, air bill number, and other information)
Signature of sampler or field sample custodian
Each page will be dated and signed by the person making the entries. Logbooks are accountable
field documents and serve as a chronological representation of the sampling and measurement
program. Sufficient detail will be included in the logbook to provide a summary of sampling and
measurement activities. Observations or measurements taken in the area where contamination of
the field notebook may occur may be recorded in a separate bound and numbered logbook before
being transferred to the project notebook. The original records will be retained, and the delayed
entry will be noted as such. Field notebooks are intended to provide sufficient data and
observations to enable participants to reconstruct events that occur during project field activities.
4.8.2 Corrections to Documentation All original data recorded in the field notebooks and on
sample identification tags, chain-of-custody records, and receipt-for-sample forms will be written
in waterproof ink. These accountable, serialized documents are not to be destroyed or thrown
away, even if they are illegible or contain inaccuracies that require a replacement document. If
an error is made on an accountable document assigned to one person, that individual may make
corrections simply by crossing out the error and entering the correct information. The erroneous
information should not be obliterated. The person who made the entry should correct any error
discovered on an accountable document and provide a brief explanation for the correction. All
corrections must be initialed and dated.
B-30
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
5.0 TESTING AND MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS
10
0
9-21-01
31 of 2
5.1 Method References
Table 5-1. Method References
Monitoring Parameter
Analyst
Method (Source)
Leachate
Head on Liner
Leachate Production
Temperature
Leachate pH, field
Leachate pH, laboratory
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Conductance, field
Ammonia-nitrogen (MLj-N)
Nitrate-nitrogen (NOj-N)
Nitrite -nitrogen (NC^-N)
Volatile organic acids
VOC
SVOC
ortho P / Total P
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Chloride
Potassium
RCRA hazardous metals*
Waste Management
Waste Management
Waste Management
Waste Management
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Waste Management
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Microbial Insights
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Pressure transducer
Totalizing Flow Meter (1 meter per cell)
Cole-Parmer Thermocouple, field electrode
Field electrode (C/A)
US EPA 9045C
410.4 (C)
405.1 (C)
Field electrode (C/A)
350.1 (C)
353.2 (C)
353.2 (C)
Microbial Insights SOP
8260B (B)
8270C (B)
365.2 (C)
351.2 (C)
160.1 (C)
300.0 (A)
300.0 (A)
6010 (B) (prepared according to 3005)
6010/7470 (B) (prepared according to 3005)
MSW
Oxidation Reduction Potential
Waste temperature
Waste settlement
Waste pH (field)
Cellulose:lignin ratio
Organic solids
Biochemical Methane Potential
(BMP)
Moisture content
Density
Waste Management
Waste Management
Waste Management
Waste Management
North Carolina State
Univ.
North Carolina State
Univ.
North Carolina State
Univ.
North Carolina State
Univ.
North Carolina State
Univ.
Field ORP electrode (C/A)
Cole Farmer Thermocouple
GPS survey (Trimble model 4800)
Field electrode (C/A) (Appendix G)
ASTM E-1758-95/Barlaz (R&D Method)
Barlaz R&D Method (Appendix D)
Barlaz R&D Method (Appendix E)
Barlaz R&D Method (Appendix F)
Borehole Sampling (field)
Gas
Landfill gas flow/production
CLL,, CO2, O2
CH,, C02, 02, SUMMA Canister
Non Methane Organic Carbon
(NMOC) (SUMMA Canister)
Waste Management
Waste Management
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Orifice plate, Earth Tech
GEM 2000. See Section 4.4.2, Table 6-9 and
Appendix C
3C
25C (C)
B-31
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
10
0
9-21-01
32 of 2
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs;
Appendix J) (SUMMA Canister)
Surface emission monitoring (SEM)
Severn Trent
Waste Management
TO- 14 (Appendix!)
NSPS/FID modified method 21
*RCRA hazardous metals include As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag and potassium. Mercury prepared and analyzed according to
7470.
5.2 Procedures For Analytical Equipment and Test Methods This section references
calibration procedures, frequencies of calibration and required detection limits for each sampling
and analytical system to be used. Calibration requirements for standard, EPA-approved methods
are described in the reference methods.
A. EPA, 1988, Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW).
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, Revised March
1988. EPA-600/4-79-020
B. EPA, 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,
Laboratory Manual, Volume 1A through 1C, and Field Manual, Volume 2. SW-846
Third Edition, Final (Promulgated) Update III, Office of Solid Waste, EPA Document
Control No. 955-001-00000-1, December. [Note: For convenience, this reference is
referred to as "SW-846" throughout this document.]
C. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (Appendix A), Parts 136 and 29 CFR, and
Parts 1910, 120, 1200 and 1450 as updated.
D. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, 1996.
E. EPA, 1996. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Compounds in
Ambient Air. EPA-625/R-96-010b.
B-32
-------
Section: 6.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 33 of 8
6.0 QA/QC CONTROLS Reliable analytical measurements of environmental samples require
continuous monitoring and evaluation of the analytical process involved, i.e. quality assurance.
To ensure optimum generation of valid data, a scientifically sound and strictly followed quality
control program must be incorporated into the sample collection and analytical program. Quality
assurance objectives for this demonstration have been established based upon specific project
requirements and are designed to ensure that data generated are of known and acceptable quality.
The critical and non-critical measurements for leachate, MSW and gas have been previously
listed in Tables 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6. This section of the QAPP summarizes the QA objectives for
the critical measurements in terms of the data quality indicators: precision, accuracy, method
detection limits, completeness, comparability and representativeness.
6.1 Definitions Accuracy and precision are two measures of the reliability of an analytical
result. Accuracy is the degree with which the obtained result agrees with the true value
(recovery). Accuracy may be described as the average of the results from repeated analysis of
the same sample, compared to the actual amount of analyte in a specific sample. Precision is the
degree of agreement among repeated tests of the same sample. By mathematical definition,
precision is the percent difference of the results from reanalysis of a sample.
For this project, precision will be evaluated for parameters by the analysis of laboratory
duplicates for laboratory measurements and field duplicates for parameters analyzed in the field.
Precision between duplicates will be quantified as their relative percent difference (RPD). Field
duplicates will not be collected for MSW samples. Accuracy will be assessed by the analysis of
matrix spikes for laboratory samples. Field analyses will require comparison to a known
standard (pH and gas analysis). For matrix spike analyses, a known quantity of the target analyte
is added to an aliquot of a field sample and the percent recovery is determined. Accuracy is
further assessed through the analysis of laboratory control samples (LCSs), also called spiked
blanks, and through the use of second source standards, (performance evaluation samples).
While the results for the LCSs will be evaluated and reported, the spiked sample results are those
that will be used to assess QA objectives. Second-source standard analysis will be used to
verify the accuracy of the calibration standards as well as tracking long-term accuracy over the
duration of the project by assessing shifts in the bias.
Reporting detection limits (RDLs) are established by the lowest standard analyzed which meets
the calibration curve linearity requirements. Method detection limits (MDLs) are established as
per 40 CFR 136 Appendix B and are usually 3-5 times below the RDL. These limits will be
adjusted as necessary based on contaminant levels, which may require higher dilutions.
Completeness is the ratio of the total number of valid sample measurements generated compared
to the number of measurements statistically determined to be necessary. Representativeness is
ensured by a well-defined sampling strategy designed to collect samples, which exhibit average
properties of the site. Field collection procedures ensure that the sample sent to the laboratory
represents the entire interval of interest. Comparability is generally achieved by the use of
standard EPA methods. Reporting the data in standard units of measure and adhering to the
specified calibration procedures all contribute to comparability of the data.
B-33
-------
Section: 6.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 34 of 8
6.2 Types of QC Samples Equipment Field Blank - All reusable sampling tools will be
decontaminated by the appropriate washing/rinsing methods as given in SW 846 Chapter 9.
Equipment blanks will be collected using DI water for all sampling equipment requiring
decontamination.
Trip Blank - VOA-grade laboratory reagent water is placed in VOA vials by the laboratory and
the vials are packaged and shipped with the sample VOA vials to the samplers; trip blanks
remain with the sample bottles until use, then packaged and shipped with the samples for that
day. A trip blank will be included in each cooler containing VOC samples
Sample Temperature - The bottles are kept at air temperature then placed in the cooler or
shipping container at the same time as the refrigerant medium. At the laboratory the sample
cooler and sample temperatures are checked with an infrared gun to assess whether the samples
have been kept at a low enough temperature during shipment. Samples with temperatures above
4°C are flagged.
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate - Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD) are
used to assure that recovery of target compounds is acceptable for the sample matrices involved.
The spike duplicates are also used to demonstrate the relative precision of each method. The
Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between spike values is calculated and noted. These values
generally are calculated, recorded and compared to internal control charts to monitor system
performance. Samples may be split during analysis to determine possible matrix interferences.
Data quality indicators associated with MS/MSD samples include both accuracy and precision.
Precision of the analytical technique can be estimated using the relative percent difference (RPD)
between the analytes of interest in the samples, and can be calculated as follows:
RPD = ^ ^MSD x 100%
0.5 (CMS + CMSD )
Where:
CMS
= Concentration in MS
CMSD = Concentration in MSD
Accuracy for organic analytes will be estimated by calculating percent recovery (%R) for
laboratory MS samples using the following equation:
(C -C )
%R=( u* u"y xlOO%
Ca
Where:
Cs = Concentration in spiked aliquot
Cu = Concentration in unspiked aliquot
Ca = Actual concentration of spike added
B-34
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
6J)
0
9-21-01
35 of 8
Surrogate Spike - Surrogates, specified in certain methods, are compounds added to each sample
before extraction to measure the efficiency of the extraction. Surrogates are selected according
to protocol given in the reference methods and instrument guidelines. Recoveries are determined
and reported with sample data on the final report. If recovery is outside the range established by
the laboratory, then the results are reported with a qualifying statement identifying the matrix
problems encountered.
Method Blank - Laboratory generated sample that is carried through all cleanup and analytical
steps to check for contamination during this part of the work. The method blank is generally
deionized water for most routine testing, but can be a gas or sand (e.g., if samples are a gaseous
or a solid matrix).
6.3 Field Quality Control There are several testing/calibration activities and a number of
types of samples that are used to track the field sampling and testing processes to ensure that
these processes produce data of satisfactory quality. The QC sample types, frequency,
acceptance criteria, and corrective actions are listed in Table 6-1 and associated Field QC Tables.
Table 6-1. Field Quality Control Samples
QC Sample
Equipment field blank
Trip blank
Frequency
1 per day of sampling
1 per day of VOC
sampling
Acceptance Criteria
Below established
reporting limits
VOC < RDL
Corrective Action
Modify equipment decon
procedures
Flag data and modify
shipping procedures
Field Quality Control Activities for Critical Measurements Not Specified in the Above Table
Table 6-1-1. Field Quality Control Samples: pH
QC Sample
Calibration standard (pH
7 and other standard to
bracket sample pH)
Sample duplicate
Standard check (pH 7)
Frequency
Start of each
measurement period
Twice daily on day of
sampling, beginning and
end of day
At the end of the
sampling day
Acceptance Criteria
pH within +0.1 pH units
+ 0.1pH units
+ 0.1pH units
Corrective Action
Re-calibrate
Re-calibrate; flag data;
contact project manager
flag data
Temperature
The thermocouple will be evaluated annually (e.g., with regard to potential erratic performance)
by checking against a second NIST traceable thermocouple. If the readings do not agree within +
1°C, the use of the defective, in-place thermocouple will be discontinued and readings from an
alternate thermocouple (in the given cell) will be used instead.
B-35
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
Table 6-1-2. Field Quality Control Samples: Waste Density
6J)
0
9-21-01
36 of 8
QC Sample
Calibration weight series
for balance check (4,000
to 24,000 Ibs, 3,000 Ib
increments)
Frequency
monthly
Acceptance Criteria
+ 1% true weight for each
calibration standard
Corrective Action
Re-calibrate balance
Table 6-1-3. Field Quality Control Samples: Gases
QC Sample
Calibration check
certified gas standard for
CH4, CCh, and O2
Sample duplicate for
CH,, CCh, and O2
Span gas (zero gas)
Frequency
Twice daily on day of
sampling, beginning and
end of day
One sample duplicate
collected in Tedlar bag on
sampling day.
Twice daily on day of
sampling, beginning and
end of day
Acceptance Criteria
Within +15%
Table 6-9
Not greater than 5% of
instrument span
Corrective Action
Re -calibrate instrument;
flag data; contact project
manager
Re -calibrate instrument;
flag data; contact project
manager
Re-calibrate instrument,
flag data, contact project
manager
Table 6-1-4 Field Quality Control Samples: Waste Settlement
QC Sample
Precision evaluation
Initial calibration from
known point
Frequency
For every 20 measures,
randomly select one of
the previous 20 points
and resample.
At the initialization of
each sampling period
Acceptance Criteria
Within + 5 cm of last
recorded horizontal and
vertical position
Within + 5 cm of known
horizontal and vertical
position
Corrective Action
Re-initialize, redo
precision evaluation, re-
record previous 20
samples.
Re-initialize
6.4 Laboratory Quality Control Several types of QC samples will be analyzed in the
laboratory, including calibration standards. Corrective actions for critical parameters in these
samples not meeting QC criteria and for analytical operations are summarized in Table 6-2
through 6-8. Note that other actions may be taken upon review of the analytical results based on
considerations such as limited sample volumes, holding time and other technical issues.
B-36
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
6J)
0
9-21-01
37 of 8
Table 6-2 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Chemical Oxygen Demand
Event or sample type
Initial 5 point calibration
curve with potassium
hydrogen phthalate
standards (5 mg/L - 425
mg/L)
Continuing calibration
check (CCC)
Laboratory control
sample
(Second source check)
Matrix spike with
potassium hydrogen
phthalate standard
Laboratory blank
Laboratory duplicate
Minimum Frequency
Initially and when CCC
exceeds criterion. (Every
three months at a
minimum.)
Run mid-point standard
with each analytical batch
(<20 samples)
Each analytical batch
(<20)
Each analytical batch
(<20 samples)
1 in every set of 1 0
samples
Run duplicates with each
batch (<20 samples)
Acceptance Criteria
R2> 0.995 and visual
confirmation of linearity
(e.g., data points fall
close to and on both
sides of the line)
+ 10% of actual
concentration
100 +20% recovery
100 +20% recovery
Below Detection Limit
+ 20% RPD
Corrective Action
Re-calibrate
Re-calibrate and re-
analyze affected samples.
Re -run LCS; check
calculation of compounds;
Re -run samples as
required; contact project
manager
Re -run spike; check
calculation of compounds;
Re -run samples as
required; contact project
manager
Investigate problem, check
other batch blanks for
sample carry over.
Eliminate contamination,
rerun.
Re-do duplicate: contact
client if consecutive
duplicates fail.
Table 6-3 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Event or sample type
Accuracy check
Glucose/glutamic acid
standards (5 dilutions)
Dilution blank (method
blank)
Seed control
Laboratory duplicate
Minimum Frequency
Prior to running samples
and every 20 samples
Each batch or every 20
samples
Each batch or every 20
samples
Run duplicates with each
batch or every 20 samples
Acceptance Criteria
198 + 30.5
0. 2 mg/L difference
initial DO and final DO
DO uptake between 0.6
and 1 mg/L, adjust to
meet glucose/glutamic
acid acceptance criteria
Compare to project QA
objectives (Table 6-9)
Corrective Action
Reevaluate control limit
and investigate, reject tests
made with that seed and
dilution water
Investigate problem, check
other batch blanks;
eliminate contamination,
rerun.
Investigate problem and
reject tests made with that
seed
Re-do duplicate: contact
client if consecutive
duplicates fail
B-37
-------
Section: 6.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 38 of 8
Table 6-4 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Volatile Organic Acids
QC Sample
Initial 5-point calibration
curve
Continuing calibration
standard (2nd Source)
Method Blank
Matrix spike
Laboratory Control
Sample
Laboratory duplicate
Minimum Frequency
Initially and as needed
Every sample batch.
Every sample batch
Every sample batch (<
20)
Every sample batch (<
20)
Run duplicates with each
batch or every 20 samples
Acceptance Criteria | Corrective Action
R2>0.99
Standard reads within
20% of true value
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
6J)
0
9-21-01
39 of 8
Table 6-8 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Biochemical Methane Potential
QC Sample
Triplicate matrix
(cellulose) spike (spiked
at 30% of est. methane
potential)
Triplicate subsamples
Minimum Frequency
Once, pending acceptable
results
Every sample
Acceptance Criteria
100 +20% recovery
+ 20% (RSD)
Corrective Action
Re -run spike; check
calculation of compounds;
Re -run samples as
required; contact project
manager
Investigate problem; Re-do
sample: flag data
6.5 Failure to Meet Data Quality Indicators The QA objectives presented in Table 6-9
represent the data quality necessary to establish the characteristics of the site during the various
sampling/analysis events and to generate data of sufficient quality to meet the project's technical
objectives. The QA/QC efforts discussed in this QAPP focus on controlling measurement error
within the precision, accuracy, and completeness (100% completeness is the target for all
analyses) objectives given and provide a database for estimating uncertainty in the measurement
data for the project. QA objectives for precision and accuracy will be evaluated during each
sampling/analysis episode to see if the overall results for the project meet the stated objectives.
If these objectives are not met the precision and/or accuracy of the results may be affected.
Reanalysis of the samples will be conducted when it can be done. Corrective actions taken in
response to non-compliant data will be documented and summarized in the project's final report
and the impact on project objectives will be evaluated and discussed.
Of all the objectives listed in Table 6-9 the MSW sampling is most likely to fall short of 100%
completeness. Previous landfill sampling has repeatedly shown discrete samples that will be all
one type of material, such as wood, plastic, etc. as opposed to normal heterogeneous trash. At
each sampling location three MSW samples will be taken per 10' vertical increment. If one of
these samples is lost, the analytical results from the other two samples will be used to estimate
the average concentration for that location. If more than one sample is lost at a single location,
then the location will be re-sampled as near as possible to the location if the drilling equipment is
still on site. Otherwise it will be noted in the data report.
Table 6-9. Quality Assurance Objectives for Critical Measurements
Measurement
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
Leachate
temperature (d)
PH
Volatile Org Acids
Matrix
Leachate
Leachate
Leachate
Leachate
Leachate
Method
410.4
405.1
Thermocoupl
e
Field
electrode
Microbial
Insights SOP
Grab/Field
Electrode/
Time Point*
G
G
FE
FE
G
Precision
a
+ 20%
+ 20%
+ 1°C
+ 0.1
+ 20%
Accuracy
b
100 +
20%
100 +
30%
+ 1°C
+ 0.1
100 +
30%
RDLs
c
5
2
N/A
N/A
0.1
Units
mg/L
mg/L
°C
-log H+
mg/L
B-39
-------
Section: 6.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 40 of 8
Table 6-9. Quality Assurance Objectives for Critical Measurements con't
Measurement
Waste Temperature
(d)
Waste
Settlement (e)
Organic Solids (f)
Moisture
Content (f)
pH(g)
Biochemical
Methane Potential
Waste Density
CH4, C02, 02
CH4, CO2,O2
Gas Volume (k)
Matrix
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
Gas
Gas
Gas
Method
Thermocoupl
e
GPS Survey
Appendix D
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix E
Field
Calibration
See Section
4.4.2
Summa, lab
See Section
4.6
Grab/Field
Electrode/
Time Point*
FE
TP
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Precision
a
+ 1°C
+ 5 cm
+ 25%
+ 2%
+ 0.1
+ 20%
N/A
(i)
+ 10%
+ 5%
Accuracy
b
+ 1°C
+ 5 cm
+ 0.1%
+ 0.1%
+ 0.1
100 +
20%
(h)
(i)
+ 10%
100 +
5%
RDLs
c
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
Appendix
C
(j)
N/A
Units
°C
cm
%
%
-log H+
ml/g
kg/m3
% (vol)
% (vol)
m3
* Samples are collected as a grab at the point of collection. GPS measures represent unique temporal/spatial sampling points.
(a) Precision expressed as the relative percent difference (RPD) between spiked duplicates and/or lab duplicates
(biochemical methane potential precision assessed with the relative standard deviation [RSD] of triplicate
samples)
(b) Accuracy is expressed as the % recovery of matrix spikes or as the measurement of a known standard
(c) RDLs are the reporting detection limits as devised by the lowest calibration standard or weight.
(d) Precision and accuracy objectives for temperature are based upon thermocouple specifications
(e) Precision and accuracy objectives for GPS are based upon manufacturer specifications (Trimble model 4800),
positioning accuracy determination outlined in section 4.4.3.
(f) Precision and accuracy objectives for moisture and organic solids are based upon calibration requirements for
analytical balances and duplicate weight measures of the same sample.
(g) Accuracy for pH is based upon known standards. Precision is based on sample duplicate readings.
(h) Balance is calibrated monthly and must be accurate to + 1% of true weight.
(i) Gas composition precision (sample duplicate) and accuracy (certified gas standard) are as follows: methane and
carbon dioxide precision, ± 10% (RPD), accuracy, 100 ± 10%; oxygen precision 30% (RPD), accuracy 30%.
0 Reporting detection limits for the gases are: CO2=0.02%; CH4=0.0004%; O2=0.2%.
(k) Gas volume precision and accuracy are based upon manufacturer specifications and factory certification of the
flow meter used.
6.6 Retained Sample Storage Outer Loop subcontracted laboratories will store all residual
samples and sample preparations until disposal is authorized by WML Disposal will be
authorized following data review by Nancy Grams for WML While waiting for data review and
validation, the samples will be stored in the following manner. The residual samples and their
preparations will be stored in a refrigerator at 4°C or in a specified storage area at room
temperature, depending on the analysis required, for 60 days.
B-40
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
B-41
-------
Section: 7.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 42 of 4
7.0 DATA REPORTING, DATA REDUCTION AND DATA VALIDATION
For analytical data to be scientifically valid, defensible, and comparable, the correct equations
and procedures must be used to prepare the data. Evaluation of measurements is a systematic
process of reviewing a body of data to provide assurance that the data are adequate for their
intended use. The process includes the following activities:
Auditing measurement system calibration and calibration verification;
Auditing QC activities;
Screening data sets for outliers;
Reviewing data for technical credibility vs. the sample site setting;
Checking intermediate calculations; and
Certifying the above process.
7.1 Laboratory Data Reduction and Reporting This section discusses laboratory data
reduction, laboratory data validation, and laboratory-reporting requirements that will be
implemented by Outer Loop subcontracted laboratories.
7.1.1 Laboratory Data Reduction The analytical methods to be used for this full-scale
applied research project contain detailed instructions and equations for calculating compound
concentrations and other parameters. Data for critical parameters will be reduced to the units
presented in Table 7-1. The established Reporting Limit (RL; determined by the lowest
calibration standard) will be used in reporting results. All results between the RL and method
detection limit (MDL) will be reported and flagged as "estimated". All calculable results that fall
below the MDL will be flagged signifying that the calculated result was below the MDL and the
MDL will be reported. The qualifier indicates the laboratory's judgement as to the limits of the
data usability.
The analysts responsible for the measurements will enter raw data into logbooks or onto data
sheets. In accordance with standard document control procedures, original copies of all data
sheets and logbooks containing raw data - signed and dated by the responsible analyst - will be
maintained on file. Separate instrument logs will also be maintained to enable reconstruction of
the run sequence for individual instruments.
7.1.2 Laboratory Data Validation Individual analysts will review the data generated each day
to determine the need for corrective action or rework. Data reviewed will include calibration and
QC data. Individual analysts will also review data for completeness. Data will also undergo a
second review process conducted by one of three independent reviewers (under some conditions,
this second review may be conducted by an analyst that was not responsible for generating the
data he or she reviewed). This second review is typically conducted within several days after the
data are generated. The reviewers also review laboratory logbooks and notebooks on a monthly
basis. Data books will be initialed and dated when evaluated. Data validation separate from that
performed by the laboratories will be performed on 10% of all data.
B-42
-------
Section:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
Table 7-1. Reporting Units For Critical Measurements
o
9-21-01
43 of 4
Parameter
Units
Leachate
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand
Volatile organic acids
Temperature
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
°C
Leachate
PH
-logH+
MSW
Waste Temperature
Waste settlement (GPS)
Organic Solids
Biochemical methane potential
Waste density
pH
Moisture content
°C
Height decrease (-cm) relative to fixed
reference
%
ml/g
kg/m*
-log H+
%
Gases
Methane
Carbon dioxide
Oxygen
Gas volume
%
%
%
m3
7.1.3 Laboratory Reporting and Data Retention Requirements All laboratories will provide a
spreadsheet or other electronic database information showing the laboratory data, and general
calculations used to determine the final concentration in each parameter/fraction/test. The
laboratory will supply the following information in the form of a Level II Report:
• Case narrative including a list of samples reviewed with field name and laboratory
names crossed-referenced, discussion of any deviations from the QAPP and any other
non-conformances and the associated corrective actions, discussion of any analytical or
procedural problems encountered and corrective actions, and an explanation of the data
qualifiers used
• Completed chain-of-custody forms
• Sample result summary forms for all samples, field QC samples, and method blanks
• Spreadsheet containing any positive or negative results that are between the RL and
MDL will be flagged as "estimated"; calculable results below the MDL will be flagged
signifying that the calculated result was below the MDL (with MDL reported)
• QC summary forms for MS/MSD samples and other lab QC
• Sample preparation logs and run logs
B-43
-------
Section: 7.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 44 of 4
Original copies of all data sheets and logbooks containing raw data will be signed and dated by
the responsible analyst reviewer(s) and will be maintained on file in accordance with standard
document control procedures. The laboratory will maintain separate instrument logs to enable
the run sequences to be reconstructed for individual instruments. The laboratory will maintain
all data on file for 5 years in a secure archive warehouse accessible only to designated laboratory
personnel. The data will be disposed of in the interim only after instructions to do so have been
received from WMI and EPA. After 5 years, the data will be distributed to EPA and to WML
7.2 Project Data Reporting Following the baseline sampling, WMI will prepare a data report.
The report will consist of all analytical data. The report will be delivered to EPA 90 days after
the pretreatment sampling is completed.
Laboratory validated analytical data submitted by WMI will be used by EPA to prepare reports
that evaluate the landfill bioreactor technologies and assess the potential applications. The report
will include, at a minimum, the following information:
• A discussion of the procedures used to define data quality and usability and the results of
these procedures. Summary tables of the QC data obtained during the demonstration will
be included. Results will be compared to the quality assurance objectives set forth in this
QAPP to provide an assessment of the factors that contributed to the overall quality of
the data.
• The results of any technical system and/or performance audits performed during the
course of the project will be documented, including corrective actions initiated as a result
of these audits and any possible impact on the associated data. If any internal audits
were performed, these too will be reviewed.
• All changes to the original QAPP will be documented regardless of when they were
made. The rationale for the changes will be discussed with any consequences of these
changes.
• The identification and resolution of significant QA/QC problems will be discussed.
Where it was possible to take corrective action, the action taken and the result of that
action will be documented. If it was not possible to take corrective action (for example,
a sample bottle was broken on transit), this, too, will be documented.
• A discussion of any special studies initiated as a result of QA/QC issues and/or
corrective actions, including why the studies were undertaken, how they were performed,
and how the results impacted the project data.
• A summary of any limitations on the use of the data will be provided including
conclusions on how these constraints affect project objectives.
• The QA section will provide sufficient narrative concerning factors that could affect
data (e.g., weather events) used in the evaluation of the landfill bioreactor technology.
WMI project personnel will review this section to assess the assumptions made in
evaluating the data and the conclusions drawn.
7.3 Reporting The quality-related results, actions, and decisions required by this Quality
Assurance Project Plan necessitate a reporting mechanism to keep project management informed
as to the project status. These reports, discussed below, represent the minimum requirement to
B-44
-------
Section: 7.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 45 of 4
provide management with the information necessary to assess the adequacy and success of the
QA program.
7.3.1 Schedule A detailed report on quality-related activities will be prepared after each sample
set analysis by Nancy Grams and submitted to the Technical EPA Project Co-Managers.
Information submitted in this report will include summary laboratory QA/QC activities and an
overall tentative assessment of data quality to date. The report will discuss any problem
conditions and corrective actions, audit events and results, sampling and analysis QA/QC status,
and a general review of the achievement of data objectives for the project.
7.3.2 Final Report The final demonstration report will include a separate QA section that
documents the QA/QC activities that support a determination of the credibility and validity of the
data. A summary of the data quality information will be provided, including an assessment of the
QA objectives which were achieved, those which were not and why, and the expected impact on
the project.
B-45
-------
Section: 8.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 46 of 3
8.0 AUDITS Audits are an independent means of confirming the operation or capability of a
measurement system, and of independently documenting the use of QC measures designed to
generate valid data of known and acceptable quality. An audit is, by necessity, performed by a
technically qualified person who is not directly involved with the measurement system being
evaluated. A performance evaluation is generally an objective audit of a quantitative nature, and
a systems audit is a qualitative evaluation of the capability of a measurement system to produce
data of known and acceptable quality. Both types of audits will be performed for the laboratory
and the field portions of this full-scale landfill bioreactor demonstration as discussed below.
8.1 Performance Audits For all tests/methods conducted by laboratories, the performance
evaluation samples received and processed by the laboratories (just prior to, during, and
immediately following their involvement in the project) for purposes of compliance with
laboratory certification requirements relating to these analyses (or where the laboratory is not
regulated, PE samples submitted blind to analysts by laboratory management) will be provided to
WML For all failed PE results the laboratory will institute remedial actions and where valid
performance of the measurement system cannot be established, the laboratory will establish
corrective actions. These corrective actions will include evaluation of testing data that may have
been affected, notification to WMI if project data may have been affected, and amended reports
with data appropriately qualified if and when the laboratory determines that data have been
affected.
Lab data validation procedures are required to employ an independent analyst to review all
aspects of data generation, including the calculation steps used to generate sample
concentrations. Outer Loop subcontracted laboratories will conduct this activity as part of their
normal operations. Upon request to the laboratory, complete data sets (which document the
laboratories' data reduction and data review/validation) will be provided to EPA project
personnel at no charge by the laboratory. EPA will spot-check these data for compliance with
requirements and correctness of results. Results of these performance audits will be reported to
the WMI QA Manager and made available for review.
8.2 System Audits A system audit is a qualitative determination of the overall ability of a
measurement system to produce data of known and acceptable quality, by an evaluation of all
procedures, personnel, equipment, etc. utilized to generate the data. It is an evaluation of
whether adequate QC measures, policies, protocols, safeguards, and instructions are inherent in
the measurement system to enable valid data generation and subsequent actions. EPA QA
personnel will conduct biannual (every two years) field systems audits during this field test.
The field systems audit will review the project organization and technical personnel involved,
including the following:
Use of proper sampling equipment
Procedures for equipment maintenance and decontamination
Acceptable sampling protocol
Calibration procedures for field measurements
Proper sample handling
B-46
-------
Section: 8.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 47 of 3
Storage and shipping procedures
Adequate field documentation and record-keeping procedures
Data reduction and reporting procedures (to final databases)
Laboratory systems audits of Outer Loop subcontracted laboratories for the methods and analytes
critical to the project will be reviewed by WMI where laboratory certification agencies have
audited these activities, or audits will conducted by WMI and by EPA. These audits will be
performed on a biannual basis. In addition, the technical abilities of the lab personnel involved
with the analysis of demonstration (randomly selected) samples will be reviewed. Regulatory or
WMI audits will evaluate instrumentation respect to technical acceptability, maintenance
procedures and records, availability of spare replacement parts (and/or service contracts), and
general upkeep. Analytical methodology for all critical measurements of the project will be
reviewed, including all:
Extraction/preparation steps
Analysis steps
Data reduction and validation procedures
Applicable QC sample analysis records
Calibration records
General record-keeping/documentation practices
Additionally, sample handling and tracking procedures would be evaluated including:
Sample receipt
Chain-of-custody
Sample storage
Sample/standard segregation
Results reporting
8.3 Corrective Action Strictly defined sample and handling procedures, calibration
procedures, QC sample analyses, and all associated acceptance criteria are part of the
comprehensive QA program designed to identify situations which do not meet specific QA/QC
requirements. The specific corrective action steps to be taken in response to failed criteria are
discussed in Section 6.0. This section outlines general principles and procedures for identifying
and responding to QA problems. Analytical QA and associated corrective actions are conducted
by WMI and their analytical subcontractor.
8.4 Initiation of Corrective Action The need for corrective action comes from several sources:
• Equipment malfunction
• Internal QA/QC checks outside of acceptance criteria
• Deficiencies noted during performance or system audits
• Non-compliance with sampling/analysis/QA requirements
In all instances, except for responding to audit findings, personnel (field and laboratory) directly
performing the measurement task are responsible for identifying any non-conformance or
B-47
-------
Section: 8.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 48 of 3
potential problem with the protocols, equipment, or method. The responsible individual must
immediately notify the appropriate supervisor that a problem exists. If the individual identifying
the problem can correct it independently, such corrective action must take place before any
further sample collection or analysis occurs. Depending upon the circumstances, the specific
steps to be taken and the initiation of the corrective action can be decided by the field/laboratory
technician, WMI management, or the laboratory QA Manager.
8.5 Documentation of Corrective Action If, at any time immediate actions do not bring the
system into control and without affecting any project data, formal corrective action shall be taken
and documented with regard to:
• Actions taken to bring the process back into control.
• Actions taken to prevent recurrences of the out-of-control situation.
• The fate of data obtained while the process was out of control.
The documentation is accomplished by filing a corrective action report (WMI) or a memo to the
file (EPA). Field or laboratory personnel, the appropriate supervisor, or the Laboratory QA
Manager, depending on where the problem is recognized, initiates this documentation. The
documentation will include as much of the following information as is appropriate to the
problem:
• Nature of problem
• Parameter affected
• Sample lot affected
• Personnel responsible for identifying the problem
• Corrective action measure(s) taken and final disposition/resolution of problem
• Dates
• Initials of the field personnel, analyst, or data reviewer
B-48
-------
Section: 9.0
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 49 of 1
9.0 REFERENCES
ArnerR. 2002. Perspectives in landfill gas-to-energy: a snapshot of the current state of the
industry. MSW Management March/April 2002.
http://www.forester.net/mw_0203_perspectives.html
Diggle PJ. 1990. Time Series: A Biostatistical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
England.
Hollander M, Wolfe DA. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, pp. 185-208.
Reinhart DR, Townsend TG. 1998. Landfill Bioreactor Design and Operation. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Saint-Fort R. 2002. Assessing sanitary landfill stabilization using winter and summer waste
streams in simulated landfill cells. Journal of Environmental Science and Health A37:237-
259.
Tammemagi H. 1999. The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators and the Search for a Sustainable
Future. Oxford University Press, New York.
B-49
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
A
0
9-21-01
SOofl
Appendix A. Time Line for Outer Loop Landfill Bioreactor Studies
Start FLB TRT
FLB 5N&S
5 North (TRT) d
5 South (TRT)
AALB
7.4 A (TRT)
7.4 B (TRT)
FLB + AALB CTL*
7.3 A (CTL)
7.3 B (CTL)
_!
FLB To
Start 7.4 A and 7.4B TRT AALB
! !
AALB To
Start AALB CTL data collection
I
7.3 A&B AALB
opened; CTL T
AALB To
Start FLB CTL data collection
I
FLB
CTL
To
YEAR
1996
1999 2000
2002 2003
FLB: Facultative Landfill Bioreactor
AALB: Aerobic/Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor
CTL: Control
TRT: Experimental Treatment
* Because the control cells are, for the most part, younger than FLB cells, the control needs to be monitored longer than the FLB
cells.
B-50
-------
Appendix: B
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 51 of 1
Appendix B. Microbial Ecology of Nitrogen Transformations
Nitrification is a biological process that converts ammonia ions to nitrite ions and then to
nitrate ions. The groups of bacteria that perform this conversion are chemolithotrophic
nitrifies. The conversion occurs according to the overall equation:
NK,+ + 2O2 > NOs + 2H+ + H2O
The process takes place in two steps and each step is carried out by a distinct group of
nitrifying organisms. These organisms are Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter. The reactions
are as follows.
2NH,+ + 3O2 > 2N(Y + 4H+ + 2H2O
Nitrosomonas (also Nitrospira sp., Nirtrococcus sp. andNitrosolobus sp.)
2NO2 +O2 >2N(V
Nitrobacter (also Nitrospira sp. And Nirtrococcus sp.)
Nitrosomonas (and other genera) performs the first step of the conversion by oxidizing
ammonium to nitrite. Nitrobacter (and other genera) completes the oxidation by
converting the nitrite to nitrate.
For more information, the reader is referred to Atlas and Bartha (1987):
Atlas RM, Bartha R. 1987. Microbial Ecology: Fundamentals and Applications, Second
Edition Benjamin /Cummings Menlo Park, CA pp. 333-342.
B-51
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
C
0
9-21-01
52 of 1
Appendix C.
Measurements
Field Methane, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide
Landtec GEM 2000
The GEM 2000 is part of LANDTEC's family of products developed specifically for the landfill industry.
These products are based on a decade of operating and regulatory experience at multiple landfill gas to
energy sites by LANDTEC's parent, Pacific Energy.
How it works
A high vacuum sample pump draws a quantity of gas through the sample hose, in-line water trap and a user
replaceable particulate filter, into a sample chamber. An infrared beam is projected, via sapphire windows,
through the gas sample. On the other side of the chamber the beam is sensed by methane and carbon
dioxide detectors. A microprocessor calculates the amount of infrared light absorbed at different
wavelengths and determines the various gas concentrations.
The oxygen concentration is measured by the Galvanic Cell method. The oxygen molecules diffuse through
a Teflon membrane into a cell containing a gold electrode. The molecules are reduced and a current flows
between the gold electrode and a lead electrode. The resulting cell output is measured as a voltage which is
proportional to the oxygen concentration. The entire system has a very high resistance to poisoning caused
by the presence of other gases, such as carbon dioxide or hydrogen sulfide. When a sufficient amount of
gas has entered the sample chamber, gas concentration levels shown on the display will stabilize. Data will
be stored electronically GEM 2000 memory with ID. code, date and time in addition to being recorded in
the field log. Scott gases or a similar reputable dealer will be used for the gas standards.
sample resolution
Methane - CH4*
Carbon dioxide - CO2*
Oxygen - O2*
Static pressure*
Barometric pressure*
* Optional features
Sensor Range
0 - 100%
0 - 60%
0 - 25%
0 - 100" H2O
±0.15"Hg
Resolution
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.01" H2O%
0.1" Hg
Accuracy
Concentration
5% (LEL CH4)
60%
100%
%CH4 by
Volume
±0.3%
±1.9%
±1.9%
%CO2 by
Volume
±0.5%
±3.0%
n.a.
%O2 by
Volume
±0.25%
n.a.
n.a.
B-52
-------
Appendix: D
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 53 of 1
Appendix D. Determination of the Organic Solids Content of
Refuse
The methodology for Organic Solids is presented below:
1. The procedure begins with samples that have been ground in a wiley mill to pass a 1mm
screen. If the dryness of a ground refuse sample is suspect, then re-dry it for one day in a
65°C oven. To re-dry ground refuse samples in Mason jars, do the following: Remove the
jar lid and cover the mouth of the jar with aluminum foil. Replace the threaded outer ring.
Using a disposable 18-gauge needle, punch lots of holes in the aluminum foil. Put the jar
into a 65°C oven for at least one day. When the refuse is dry, remove the jar from the
oven. Work quickly, as the dried refuse will immediately begin to absorb moisture from
the air. Unscrew the threaded outer ring and replace the aluminum foil with the metal lid.
Replace the threaded outer ring, screwing it down tightly.
2. Prepare Gooch crucibles and filters by inserting a glass fiber filter (Whatman 934AH) into
a crucible. Rinse the crucible with deionized water and place the crucible and filter in the
furnace at 550°C for one hour. Allow crucibles to cool in a desiccator. After cooling, store
the crucibles in a place where they will protected from dust and dirt. A clean box with a
secure lid, or a tray lined with paper towels and covered with aluminum foil, is ideal for
this purpose. NOTE: Once crucibles have been cleaned in this way, do NOT handle them
with your fingers; use tongs or a clean, gloved hand only.
3. Place approximately 1 gram of sample in a Gooch crucible. Dry the sample in the crucible
at 75°C for at least 24 hours. Carefully stir the refuse approximately 6 hours into drying
time. After drying, allow 2 hours to cool in a desiccator. Then, weigh the crucible and
dried solids to 4 decimal places. When weighing, work quickly and with one crucible at a
time because the dried solids will immediately begin to absorb moisture from the air upon
removal from the desiccator.
4. Place the Gooch crucible containing the solids in a 105°C furnace. Increase the furnace
temperature to 550°C. Allow the furnace to remain at 550°C for 2 hours, then reduce the
temperature to 105°C. After the oven cools to 105°C, remove the Gooch crucible and allow
2 hours to cool in a desiccator.
Weigh the crucible again. When weighing, work quickly and with one crucible at a time
because the dried solids will immediately begin to absorb moisture from the air upon
removal from the desiccator. The percent weight loss on ignition represents total organic
matter.
B-53
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
E
0
9-21-01
54 of 3
Appendix E. Biochemical Methane Potential Medium
The BMP procedure was modified from previously developed procedures [5, 23]. Tests are
conducted in 125 mL serum bottles (Wheaton, Millville, NJ) sealed with black butyl rubber stoppers
(Bellco Biotechnology, Vineland, NJ) and aluminum crimps. Medium composition is presented in Table 1.
The N2/CC>2 (80/20) gas mixture is passed over a hot copper column to remove traces of oxygen.
The carbon source in the BMP test was Wiley-milled refuse obtained as described above. Sufficient
refuse is used in each BMP test so that the theoretical methane potential, based on complete cellulose and
hemicellulose conversion to methane, was 50 mL. Theoretical methane potential is calculated using the
stoichiometry presented in equation 1 [7]. Using equation 1, the calculated methane potential of cellulose
(CeHioOs) and hemicellulose (CsHgO/i) is 415 and 424 mL CLL; at STP per dry g of cellulose and
hemicellulose, respectively.
[n-(a/4)-(b/2)]H2O II [(n/2)-(a/8)+(b/4)]CO2+ [(n/2)+(a/8)-(b/4)]CH4
(1)
BMP tests are inoculated with 15 mL of anaerobically digested sludge (obtained just before use) at a
gassing station (using the Oxygen-scrubbed N2/CC>2 gas mixture) with the stopper off. Tests are conducted
in triplicate and incubated at 37°C. Background methane production associated with the inoculum is
measured in a set of five controls.
To measure gas production, we vent the serum bottle to a gas bag and then measure the volume in
the gas bag by using a syringe. Gas volumes are corrected to dry gas at STP. Gas production was
measured after 28 days and again after 43 days. (We now are incubating for 60 days based on the
behavior in most recent tests in which gas production did not stop at day 43.) The absence of
additional methane production on Day 43, after correction for background, suggests that biodegradation of
the refuse samples was essentially complete.
Additional Notes
With respect to the amount of solids to add, we are adding 1 gm for samples where we have cellulose,
hemicellulose data and know that the theoretical gas potential is <170 ml/gm. For all other samples, we are
adding 0.5 gm. The volumes to add are based on the size of your serum bottle and the headspace. We use a
160 ml serum bottles with about a 60 mL headspace. As a rule, I would like to keep the overpressure to 60-
100 mL. Remember also that there will be some background methane production from the inoculum that
must be measured. We do tests in triplicate plus 5 inoculum blanks.
TABLE 1. BMP MEDIUM COMPOSITION
Component
PO4 solution
M3 solution
Mineral solution
Vitamin solution
Resazurin(0.1%)
Distilled water
Refuse
NaHCO3fl
Cysteine hydrochloride (5%)a
per liter
100 mL
100 mL
10 mL
10 mL
2mL
768 mL
50 mL CLL, potential
(see text)
3.5 g
10 mL
"Added after adjustment of the media to pH 7.2 and boiling under
an 80/20 mixture of N2/CO2.
B-54
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
Phosphate Solution
Component per liter
KH2P04 16. Ig
Na2HP04'7H20 31.89g
Prepare in carbonate-free water and store under N2 at 4 C.
M3 Solution
E
0
9-21-01
55 of 3
Component per liter
MitCl 10 g
NaCl 9 g
MgCl2'6H20 2 g
CaCl2'2H2O 1 g
Store solution at 4° C.
Trace Mineral Solution
Component 1 liter
Nitrilotriacetic Acid 1.5 g
FeS04'7H20 0.1 g
MnCl2'4H20 O.lg
CoCl2«6H2O 0.17g
CaCl2«2H2O O.lg
ZnCl2 O.lg
CuCl2«2H20 0.02 g
H3BO3 0.01 g
NaMoO4'2H2O 0.01 g
NaCl l.Og
Na2Se03 0.017 g
NiS04«6H20 0.026 g
Na2WO4'2H2O 0.033 g
B-55
-------
Appendix: E
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 56 of 3
Dissolve the nitrilotriacetic acid in 200 mL of hot distilled H^O and then adjust the pH to 6.5 with KOH.
Add this solution to about 600 mL of distilled water and dissolve the components in the order listed. Dilute
to one liter. Store in the refrigerator under nitrogen.
Vitamin Solution
Vitamin g per liter
Biotin 0.002
Folic Acid 0.002
B6 (pyndoxme) HC1 0.01
B! (thiamine) HC1 0.005
B2 (riboflavin) 0.005
Nicotinic Acid (niacin) 0.005
Pantothenic Acid 0.005
612 (cyanocobalamin) crystaline 0.0001
PABA (P-ammobenzoic acid) 0.005
Lipoic Acid (thioctic) 0.005
Distilled Water 1000 mL
Add ingredients in the order given and let dissolve. Store in a dark container in the refrigerator under
nitrogen.
Resazurin Solution
Prepare a 0.1% Resazurin solution (by weight) and store at 4°C.
Cysteine Solution
1) Prepare a 5.0% Cysteine Hydrochloride Monohydrate solution (by weight) by first boiling the DI
water in a round bottom flask under N2 (g).
2) Add preweighed amount of Cysteine to the round bottom flask.
3) Transfer the solution to a serum bottle. Cap the bottle with a butyl rubber stopper and aluminum
crimp.
4) Autoclave the serum bottle. Let the solution cool before using.
B-56
-------
Appendix: F
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 57 of 1
Appendix F. Procedure for Moisture Content Analysis
1. Mix sample in a large container.
2. Label and weigh a dry empty baking pan.
3. Place one to two kilograms of sample into the pan. It may be necessary to dry a sample in
more than one pan. Weigh pan(s) and sample(s).
4. Subtract pan weight from total weight for the initial refuse weight.
5. Cover the pan with aluminum foil and poke several holes in the foil using an 18-gage needle
or something similar. The holes allow moisture to escape
6. Dry in oven at 65°C.
7. Remove pan from oven and weigh daily until the moisture content weight difference is less
than one percent. (Weightn-i - Weightn)/(Weightdayo - Weightn)*100%. N=day.
8. Subtract recorded pan weight from total dry weight for the final refuse dry weight.
9. Calculate the percent moisture:
(initial wet refuse wt. - final refuse dry weight)/(initial refuse wet weight)* 100%
8. Remove the dried sample and place it in a labeled plastic bag.
B-57
-------
Appendix: G
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 58 of 1
Appendix G. Procedure for Waste pH
1. Make a slurry of the waste with approximately 250 mis deionized water to 100 g
waste. The ratio of water to waste will vary depending on the initial waste moisture
(waste will become progressively more moist over time and will require less diluent)
2. Calibrate pH meter with pH 7 standard and another standard (e.g., pH 3) expected to
bracket slurry pH.
3. Record the slurry pH
4. Verify that pH is bracketed within the standards used.
5. If slurry pH is outside of range, recalibrate pH meter with appropriate standards and
renanalyze.
B-58
-------
Appendix: H
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 59 of 1
Appendix H. Sampling Diagrams (provided as a separate
attachment by WMI on an "as needed" basis)
B-59
-------
Appendix: I
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 60 of 9
Appendix I. Examples of Exploratory Data Analysis Plots and the
Mann-Kendall Test
What follows is a brief summary of the types of exploratory plots recommended in
Section 3.3, along with an example of each type of plot. An example of the Mann-
Kendall test with contrived data sets is also included to show how two time series might
be compared. These lines of evidence can be combined to present a compelling visual
and quantitative argument for or against the efficacy of a treatment.
Time plot: Figure I.I shows an example time plot. The x-axis represents time and the y-
axis represents concentration. Individual results are plotted and connected with a line.
Detects and non-detects may be plotted as different symbols. When two or more sites are
being compared, they are often shown on the same time scale - one on top of the other to
facilitate visual comparisons. Horizontal lines can be drawn at concentrations of interest,
such as the zero, the overall mean, or some comparison value, such as a regulatory limit.
Box plot: Figure 1.2 shows an example of side-by-side box plots. Box plots summarize
information about the shape and spread of the distribution of concentrations from a data
set. Box plots consist of a box, a (median) line across the box, whiskers (lines extended
beyond the box and terminated with a perpendicular line segment), and points outside the
whiskers. The y-axis displays the observed concentrations of the data in the appropriate
units. The area enclosed by the box shows the concentration range containing the middle
half of the data; that is, the lower box edge is at the first or lower quartile of the data (Ql,
also called the 25th percentile, 25% of the data fall below Ql), and the upper box edge is
at the third or upper quartile of the data (Q3, the 75th percentile; 25% of the
concentrations fall above Q3). The height of the box (the interquartile range, Q3-Q1) is a
measure of the spread of the concentrations. The horizontal line across the box represents
the median (50th percentile or second quartile) of the data, a measure of the center of the
concentration distribution. If the median line divides the box into two approximately
equal parts, this indicates that the shape of the distribution of concentrations symmetric;
if not, it indicates that the distribution is skewed or nonsymmetric. Frequently, the full set
of concentrations is plotted as points overlaying the boxplot. When a data set contains
results for both detects (detected chemical concentrations) and nondetects (nondetected
chemicals reported as less than a sample specific detection limit), it is standard to use
different plotting symbols for the detects and the nondetects.
Bubble plot: Figure 1.3 shows an example bubble plot. A 2-dimensional bubble plot is
one in which the results are classified based on detect status and/or matrix. A different
color or line type represents each class. The circles, or bubbles, are different sizes based
on concentrations and these bubbles are plotted on a map of the site. The size of the
bubble is directly proportional to the relative concentrations in the data set; in other
words, the relatively smaller concentrations get smaller bubbles and the relatively larger
concentrations get larger bubbles. Refer to the legend of the figure for the classes
(including associated color or line type) and bubble size.
B-60
-------
Appendix: I
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 61 of 9
3D Color Scale Plot: Figure 1.4 shows an example of a color scale plot. A color scale
plot is one in which the color associated with a result is based on the analyte
concentration. In these figures, the color scale ranges from aqua to magenta, with aqua
representing relatively lower concentrations and magenta representing relatively higher
concentrations. Refer to the legend of the figure for the color/concentration relationship.
This figure provides a 3-dimensional perspective of the core data; a basic cube is plotted
on each figure, with the shoreline represented by a bold solid blue line and the land
surface approximated using a spline fit on the surface elevation data. The depths of
samples are shown relative to surface elevation information provided in the data. One
must picture the north-south/east-west plane as going into the page and the surface/depth
plane from the top to bottom of the page. A vertical line located inside the cube
represents each core. The results are plotted along the vertical line at the corresponding
depth at which aliquots from the core were analyzed; the color provides an indication of
concentration.
B-61
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
I
0
9-21-01
62 of 9
0.02-
0.01 -
0.0 -
0.02-
0.01 -
0.0 -
0.02-
0.01 -
0.0 -
0.02-
0.01
0.0 —I
1/74
I
4/78
I
1/82
I
3/86
I
8/90
I
6/94
I
(S): Pajarito @ SR-4
(S): Pajarito @ Rio Grande
(S): G-5
(S): Canada del Buey @ SR-4
1/74
4/78
1/82
3/86
8/90
6/94
5/98
I
-0.02
-0.01
- 0.0
-0.02
-0.01
0.0
-0.02
-0.01
- 0.0
5/98
(S): statistically significant increasing trend p<=0.10
Figure LI Example Time Plot
B-62
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
I
0
9-21-01
63 of 9
Figure 1.2 Example Boxplot.
z
o
Soil Detect
Soil Non-Detect
Sediment Detect
Sediment Non-Detect
Ambient Detect
Ambient Non-Detect
ECO = NA
HH = 23000 HG/KG
*
i
I
Coastal
Margin
Interior
Margin
B-63
-------
Figure 1.3 Example Bubble Plot.
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
I
0
9-21-01
64 of 9
o
IRON
KEY
SEDIMENT samples
52800 MG/KG
O
30800 MG/KG
median
7450 MG/KG
SO\L samples
67800 MG/KG
O 15400 MG/KG
median
PRG Reference
23000 MG/KG
ESL Reference
Not Available
B-64
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
I
0
9-21-01
65 of 9
Figure 1.4 Example Color Scale Plot
IRON
West Beach Landfill
B-65
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
I
0
9-21-01
66 of 9
For the example of the Mann-Kendall test, the following data sets were contrived.
Suppose that the variable measured is one that increases with time. If the treatment were
effective, the rate at which concentrations increase would be greater for the treatment
than for the control. The treatment and control data sets were generated from a linear
equation with random noise added. The treatment data set used the equation:
concentration=20+4*(time step)+s, where s is a realization from a N(0,5) distribution.
The control data set used the equation: concentration=20+2*(time step)+s, where s is a
realization form a N(0,5) distribution. So, the treatment concentrations are increasing at
twice the rate of the control concentrations. Table I.I shows the data sets and the
differences between them.
Figure 1.5 shows a time plot of the treatment and the control on the same plot, with linear
regression lines drawn for each. Figure 1.6 shows a time plot of the differences
(treatment-control). The Mann-Kendall test was performed on each data set individually,
as well as on the differences between them. The null hypothesis for the Mann-Kendall
test is that there is no trend. If the p-value is small (less than 0.05), there is evidence that
the null hypothesis is false and that there is a trend. The resulting p-values are shown in
Table 1.2. Notice that each data set shows an increasing trend, but the differences also
show an increasing trend, which is what one might expect if the treatment was effective.
If the treatment was not effective, the treatment and control concentrations might both
still increase, but at similar rates. Consequently, the differences would not show any
trend.
Table 1.1 Example Data Set for Mann-Kendall Test.
Time Step
1
2
o
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Treatment
16
34
40
40
37
48
36
58
50
63
65
69
77
77
82
84
95
80
100
100
98
110
110
130
120
Control
18
27
22
23
37
39
45
30
39
52
34
51
43
46
55
49
61
52
49
53
66
63
62
72
75
Treatment-
Control
-1.3
6.9
18
17
0.32
9.6
-9
29
11
10
31
19
34
31
27
35
35
28
51
50
32
48
53
56
44
B-66
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
Figure 1.5 Time Plots of Example Data.
I
0
9-21-01
67 of 9
'a co
° Treatment
A Control
10 15
time period
20
25
Figure 1.6 Time Plots of Differences of Example Data.
o _
in ^
O
0
§ °-
O o
I
10
15
time period
B-67
i
20
25
-------
Appendix:
Revision:
Date:
Page:
I
0
9-21-01
68 of 9
Table 1.2 Mann-Kendall Trend Test
P-values for Example Data Set
Treatment
Control
Treatment-Control
P-value
2.46e-010
5.27e-008
1.68e-006
B-68
-------
Appendix: J
Revision: 0
Date: 9-21-01
Page: 69 of 1
Appendix J. Hazardous Air Pollutants to be Analyzed
Freon 12 (Dichlorodifluoromethane)
Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
Freon 114 (l,2-Dichloro-l,l,2,2-tetrafluoroethane)
Vinyl chloride (Chloroethylene)
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
Freon 11 (Trichlorofluoromethane)
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethene)
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)
Freon 113 (l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane)
1,1 -Dichloroethane (Ethylidene chloride)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethy lene
Chloroform (Trichloromethane)
1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)
Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)
Benzene (Cyclohexatriene)
Carbon tetrachloride (Tetrachloromethane)
1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride)
Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene)
cis-1,3 -Dichloropropene (cis-1,3 -dichloropropylene)
trans-1,3 -Dichloropropene (trans-1,3 -dichloropropylene)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (Vinyl trichloride)
Toluene (Methyl benzene)
1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide)
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
Chlorobenzene (Phenyl chloride)
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene (1,3-Dimethylbenzene)
p-Xylene (1,4-Dimethylbenzene)
Styrene (Vinyl benzene)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene (1,2-Dimethylbenzene)
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (Mesitylene)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (Pseudocumene)
m-Dichlorobenzene (1,3-Dichlorobenzene)
Benzyl chloride ( -Chlorotoluene)
o-Dichlorobenzene (1,2-dichlorobenzene)
p-Dichlorobenzene (1,4-dichlorobenzene)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene (1,1,2,3,4,4-Hexachloro-1,3 -butadiene)
Hexane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Acrylonitrile
B-69
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA VALIDATION REPORTS
-------
USEPA/Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
INDEPENDENT DATA VALIDATION
Independent Data Validation of
Outer Loop Landfill Baseline Data
Performed by:
Neptune and Company
Date of Review: 4/30/2002
Baseline Data: 4th Quarter 2001
Data Packages Dates:
STL-Buffalo 12/12/2001
STL-Los Angeles 1/4/2002
NCSU Sample Collection Dates: 6/6/2000-6/30/2000
Waste Settlement Measurements: 7/2001, 10/2001, 1/2002
Task No: 39
EPA Task Order Manager: Ann Vega
c-i
-------
Introduction: Baseline data collection is in progress for the Landfill Bioreactor Studies at the
Outer Loop Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky. These activities are guided by the Quality Assurance
Project Plan, latest revision (Draft Final) dated September 21, 2001. The purpose of this task is
to review and validate the data obtained in this project. To accomplish this, data were obtained
from Roger Green, Waste Management Incorporated. The data packages included results from
Severn Trent Services (STL Buffalo) for leachate sampling performed on November 15, 2001.
This report included analysis for Volatile Organic Acids that was subcontracted to Microbial
Insights; Severn Trent Services (STL Los Angeles) for gas sampling performed on December
19,2001; electronic data for MSW analysis (NCSU), and settlement data (WMI). The data
represent at least one full set of quarterly results (see QAPP Section 3.0 for sampling schedule).
This validation process reviewed all critical and non-critical analyses included in the data
packages and outlined in the QAPP Section 3.2, tables 3-4 to 3-6. The results of the data
validation are outlined below and categorized by Medium and Laboratory/Analyst data package.
Data packages were evaluated (where appropriate) for Sample Identification (QAPP Section
4.7.1), Chain of Custody (QAPP Section 4.7.3), Correct Analytical Methods (QAPP Table 5.1),
Container Preservation and Holding Times (Table 4-1), Detection/Reporting Limits (QAPP
Table 6-9) and Laboratory Quality Control for Critical Measurements, QAPP Section 6.4 (Tables
6-2 to 6-9).
Due to the limited amount of QC information provided in the standard (e.g. Level II) data
packages, STL-Buffalo, STL-Los Angeles, and Microbial Insights were contacted to obtain raw
data for the critical measurements. Data were obtained from all three laboratories and the
validation results are included. Additional raw data were not requested from North Carolina
State University as this laboratory had been audited, and data evaluated on April 11, 2001.
Overall the results from data validation indicate most laboratory analyses are in compliance with
the QAPP quality control requirements. Findings, Observations, and Additional Technical
Comments are provided in the section relevant to the issue.
Leachate Samples:
Severn Trent Services-Buffalo. Quote NY95-481. Samples Received 11/16/01. Sample
Date 11/15/01. Program Manager: Amy L. Haag.
C-2
-------
Client Sample ID
51AL01
51BL01
52AL01
52BL01
73AL01
73BL01
Laboratory Sample ID
A1B44001
A1B44002
A1B44003
A1B44004
A1B44005
A1B44006
General:
The Chain of Custody lists the bottle types but not preservative information as specified
in Section 4.7.3 of the QAPP. The samples were grouped consistent with the expected
preservatives (e.g. TKN, NH3, COD, total-P were in a single container consistent with
sulfuric acid preservation). The COC does not list the required BOD analysis that was
performed.
OBSERVATION (1): The Chain of Custody (COC) should include the preservatives per the
QAPP. BOD analysis should be included on the COC.
Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (QAPP QC Activities Table 6-2): Method 410.4, STL SOP
No. AWC-COD-44:
All six samples were found above the RDL (Table 6-9). But the only sample with no
dilution, 73B 101, had a RL of 10 mg/L. The QAPP specified RDL is 5 mg/L. To
evaluate the QC requirements specified in Table 6-2 and 6-9 (precision, accuracy) and the
Lab SOP, copies of the logbooks were obtained separately from the data package. The
log book shows that the QC requirements for ICV, CCV, ICB, second source standard,
reactor temperature and dilutions met the requirements and reported data. It was noted
that the matrix spike was not performed on the OLL samples but on one other sample
from the analytical batch. Blanks on the log book are noted as "< 5", indicating that an
RDL of 5 mg/L can be obtained if necessary.
OBSERVATION (2) COD reporting detection limit must be met as specified in the QAPP.
Matrix spikes should be performed on OLL samples in future analyses.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5, QAPP QC Activities Table 6-3): Method 405.1,
STL SOP No. AWC-405.1-14:
C-3
-------
All six samples were analyzed for BOD. QAPP requirements outlined in Table 6-3 were
met with the exception of sample duplicates (see Finding 1.0). The data package
narrative states that samples 51A L01 and 5 IB 101 were initially analyzed within the
holding time, however all the oxygen was depleted. These samples were re-analyzed
outside of the holding times and both sets of data were reported. The reported results for
these samples were reported as follows:
51A L01 (detection limit 20) 384 mg/L (flagged as an estimate)
51A L01 (detection limit 2) 221 mg/L (second analysis, out of hold, no flag on report
page)
5 IB L01 (detection limit 20) 384 mg/L (flagged as an estimate)
5 IB L01 (detection limit 2) 303 mg/L (second analysis, out of hold, no flag on report
page).
Review of the logbook (additional raw data requested from STL) shows that the initial
analysis resulted in insufficient oxygen depletion (difference between the initial DO and
final DO must be greater than 2 mg/L) for the test. This is in contrast to the data package
narrative which states oxygen was depleted on the first analysis. The results of the re-
analysis in triplicate (raw data, three different dilutions) varied widely:
51A L01: 87.3 mg/L, 154 mg/L, 422 mg/L, average = 221 mg/L
5 IB L01: 184 mg/L, 422 mg/L, average, = 303 mg/L (With the third sample the final
DO value was less than 1 making the analysis invalid)
FINDING (1): Two BOD samples required re-analysis past the holding times. The missed
holding times is a concern. Fortunately, in discussion with Roger Green it was learned this
was not a common occurrence. The 48 hour holding time criterion means any sample that
does not have a valid analysis completed at the end of the 5 day test will fail this holding time.
With such variation in BOD, the laboratory is apparently meeting the holding times by setting
up several sample dilutions in the first analysis. However, there is concern that the variability
observed in the BOD analysis will make comparison between cells difficult. Inspection of the
raw data allowed comparison of replicate samples. No "sample duplicates" at the same
dilution was performed in this batch. BOD analysis on this organic rich and microbiologically
active matrix can be challenging. The project participants should contact STL-Buffalo and
discuss the variability in BOD results to see if improvements can be made. Sample duplicates
with OLL samples needs to be performed. It may be useful to analyze these samples for
CBOD5 (nitrogenous oxygen demand inhibited) as an evaluation of this matrix effect.
Non-Critical Measurements:
Volatile Organic Compounds, Method 8260:
All six samples were analyzed for VOCs. Due to excessive foaming in the purge
vessel all samples were diluted at a ratio of at least 1:10. The blank samples met the
C-4
-------
criteria for contamination, surrogate and internal standard recoveries. Surrogate and
internal standard recoveries were not reported for the test samples and therefore not
reviewed. Surrogate and internal standard recoveries will be requested for data
validation in future data packages.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Method 8270:
All six samples were analyzed for SVOCs. Dilution, due to the matrix effects, was
performed on three of the samples. The data package narrative states, "Samples 5 IB L01
and 52A L01 exhibited surrogate recovery results below quality control limits for all
surrogates. However, the internal standard results were compliant." QC data containing
the surrogate and internal standard results were obtained directly from STL. Surrogate
recoveries for these two samples were very low (0-18%) indicating a large matrix effect
(not due to dilution). This indicates results for these samples are probably biased low (in
fact 52A L01 was reported as ND for all 8270 analytes).
OBSERVATION (3): Surrogate recoveries for two leachate samples analyzed by 8270 had
very poor results. This indicates matrix effects, probably occurring during the extraction
procedure. The potentially poor extraction could be the reason no analytes were observed in
52A L01. It is recommended that matrix spike analysis be performed on these samples to
evaluate the extent of matrix effects. In general, matrix spikes should be performed on the
OLL samples for all tests that are amendable, especially COD (critical measurement).
RCRA Metals, Methods 6010B, 7470 (mercury):
All six samples were analyzed for RCRA metals. The report included all metals reported
as specified on bottom of QAPP Table 5.1. Potassium analyses required dilution for 5IB
and 52A (noted in data package narrative). However, all samples were reported with the
same detection limit (5 mg/L) even though dilutions were required for some samples.
Blank results were all reported as ND.
OBSERVATION (4): The Detection Limits reported for the RCRA metals are not easily
derived from a comparison of samples that have different dilutions. This potential discrepancy
should be clarified with STL-Buffalo.
C-5
-------
Wet Chemistry Analysis:
Analysis
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Electrical Conductance (Field)
Nitrite (as N)
Nitrate (as N)
pH (Field)
Ortho Phosphate
Total Phosphate
Sulfate
Temperature (Field)
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Analytical Method
350.1
300.0
120.1
353.2*
353.2
150.1
365.2
365.2
300.0
170.1
160.1
351.2
The method used for nitrite analysis is 353.2. This is correct per the STL audit
conducted July 18, 19, 2001. The QAPP lists method 354.1. This needs to be
corrected.
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL COMMENT (1): The QAPP needs to be modified to include
the correct method (353.2) for nitrite analysis.
All six samples were analyzed for the complete suite of wet chemistry analytes.
Ammonia, chloride, ortho and total phosphate, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen required
dilutions in all samples with the exception of 73B L01 due to high concentrations.
The QAPP specified holding time for nitrite and nitrate is 48 hours. Sampling occurred
from 11:35- 15:09 on 11/15/2001. Technically, all the nitrate and nitrite analysis have
missed the holding time as the analysis was performed at 15:45 on 11/17/2001. The
report indicates the holding time was met.
C-6
-------
OBSERVATION (5): The holding times issue identified with nitrite/nitrate should be
reviewed with STL-Buffalo.
No lab pH measurements reported.
OBSERVATION (6): STL-Buffalo is not performing pH measurement of the leachate (non-
critical). Roger Green indicated that a decision was made to only do pH in the field and
conductance would be done both in the field and in the laboratory. Review of the Technical
System Audit report from STL-Buffalo, QAPP Modifications item #2 indicates the agreement
was to perform pH both in the field and lab and only do conductance in the field. Only
electrical conductance from the field is reported in the STL data package. It is reasonable to
expect conductance to be more stable than pH from field to laboratory but this issue should be
resolved and the QAPP modified if necessary.
Microbial Insights, Rockford TN. Point of Contact: Michael Goodrich.
Sample Date 11/15/2001, Analysis Date 11/16/2001.
Client Sample ID
51AL01
51BL01
52AL01
52BL01
73AL01
73BL01
Laboratory Sample ID
A1B63901
A1B63902
A1B63903
A1B63904
A1B63905
A1B63906
Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9)
Volatile Organic Acids, Microbial Insights, Point of Contact: Michael Goodrich. SOP
No. VFA, Revision 1. (QAPP Table 6-4)
Raw QA/QC data were obtained for samples analyzed on November 15, 2001. The
initial calibration data and blank met the requirements outlined in Table 6-4. The CCV
and LCS samples have low recovery for Pyruvic acid (40-50% at 4 ppm). The laboratory
has since started using the midpoint level (40 ppm) for CCV. The low recovery for
Pyruvic acid indicates results for this analyte may be biased low, however no pyruvic
acid was detected above the reporting limits found in the STL report (this work is
subcontracted to Microbial Insights). However, the QAPP lists the RDL of 0.1 (Table 6-
9) yet the lowest standard run is 1 mg/L. The project participants should decide if an
C-7
-------
RDL of 1 mg/L is sufficient for the project objectives. Michael Goodrich indicated they
had not performed matrix spikes this day. Michael Goodrich submitted a spreadsheet
with 32 days of MS/MSD (using OLL samples) and LCS results obtained after
November 15, 2001. The LCSs met the criteria (70-130% recovery) for all compounds
with the exception of 12/19/2001. On this day acetic acid recovery was 69.8%. Matrix
problems were indicated on several days due to spike recoveries outside the limits.
OBSERVATION (7): The project participants should decide if the reporting limits from
Microbial Insights is sufficient and modify the QAPP as necessary. The QAPP (Table 6-4)
requires re-analysis of spike and samples if necessary to resolve matrix problems. This should
be done in future analyses to determine if the results can be improved. Microbial Insights
should contact Roger Green for guidance if re-analysis results in recoveries outside the limits.
Gas Samples:
Severn Trent Services- Los Angeles. STL Lot Number M1L200214. Samples Received
12/20/2001, Date Sampled: 12/19/2001. Project Manager: Marisol Tabirara.
Client Sample ID
51 G01
52G01
Laboratory Sample ID
51 G01
52G01
Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9)
Fixed Gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Oxygen): Method 3C (QAPP Table 6-9).
Review of the data package for Method 3C indicates the data met the QC requirements
for precision and accuracy for the LCS and LCS duplicate. LCS samples had a recovery
of 102 and 104% for carbon dioxide and 101 and 101 for methane. Extended raw data
and sample QC data was obtained from STL-Los Angeles. Table 6-9 QA objectives for
this test are listed as "To be determined." The raw data show compliance with Method
3C requirements for initial and ongoing calibration. Sample results and RDLs are
provided below for reference in determining QC objectives.
Compound
CO2
CH4
51G01
38%
52%
52G01
39%
54%
Reporting Limit
0.017%
0.00034%
C-8
-------
O2
N2 (not analyte
per QAPP)
1.7%
7.2%
1.1%
4.6%
0.17%
1.7%
Non-Critical Measurements:
Total Non-Methane Hydrocarbons: Method 25C Modified
The data package from Roger Green was reviewed and no QA/QC issues were found out
of compliance. Method blank wasND at 30 ppm-c**. Laboratory Control Samples had
91 and 94% recovery with RPD of 2.4%. Spike amount was 3030 ppm-c. Sample results
were 2100 ppm-c (51 G01) and 2300 ppm-c (52 G01) .
** ppm-c is parts per million equivalent carbon atoms. The analytical method separates
each analyte, reduces the compound to CO2 which is then oxidized to CH4 and measured
by a flame ionization detector. Hexane would produce six methane molecules (or carbon
atoms), 1 ppm hexane is equivalent to 6 ppm-c hydrocarbon.
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Method TO-14A
The data package from Roger Green was reviewed and no QA/QC issues were found out
of compliance. Method Blank was ND for all target analytes at low ppbv concentration.
Laboratory Control Samples for 1-1-Dichloroethene, Methylene Chloride,
Trichloroethene, Toluene and 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane had recoveries of 99-109% (met
limit of method) and RPD values of less than 2%.
Municipal Solid Waste Samples:
North Carolina State University. Sampling Dates: 6/6/2000 - 6/9/2000, 6/12/200-6/15/2000,
6/20/2000-6/23/2000, 6/26/2000, 6/27/2000, 6/29/2000, 6/30/2000. Approximately 170
samples from varying depths and locations.
Roger Green provided an Excel Spreadsheet containing the results from NCSU.
Approximately 170 samples (representing 26 separate horizontal sample locations) were
analyzed for Organic Solids, Moisture Content, BMP, Cellulose, Lignin, and
Hemicellulose. The spreadsheet contained average and RPD values.
Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9)
Organic Solids (QAPP Table 6-5):
C-9
-------
The average Relative Percent Difference (RPD) was 2.04% well below the 25%
objective. No result was above 10% RPD (maximum value was 9.6%)
Moisture Content (QAPP Table 6-6):
No replicate (precision estimates) data were found in the spreadsheet. Results from the
Technical System Audit at NCSU indicated the precision objectives in Table 6-6 were
unrealistic and should be removed.
Biochemical Methane Potential (QAPP Table 6-8):
The average RPD equaled 6.98%, well below the objective of 20%. Three of the 170
samples exceeded the 20% limit (29.82%, 30.34%, 41.67%). No matrix spike data
were found in the spreadsheet. This should be reported for future validations.
OBSERVATION (8): NCSU should include the matrix spike results for BMP in future
reports. The balance calibration records will be requested in the next data package for
validation.
Non-Critical Measurements:
% Cellulose: The average RPD equaled 4.31%, only four samples (4/170) exceeded 20%.
%Lignin: The average RPD equaled 3.74%, only one sample (1/170) exceeded 20%.
%Hemicellulose: The average RPD equaled 4.52%, five samples (5/170) exceeded 20%.
Waste Management, Incorporated. GPS readings for Waste Settlement.
Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9)
Waste Settlement
Roger Green provided the settlement data in an Excel spreadsheet (monthly report). The
spreadsheet contained data for July and October 2001, and January 2002. Five grid point
QA/QC checks were included for each month. These grid points contain duplicate
measurement of an individual location. Each location is characterized by the northing
and easting coordinates carried to 1/100th. The maximum variation in replicate
measurements in feet found in the data is 0.03, this corresponds to less than 1 cm. The
criteria outlined in the QAPP is precision of V 5cm. The data meet these precision
requirements.
C-10
-------
Waste Density (critical, field)
Measurement and calculation of waste density is based on GPS and contour information
with the mass of waste put in the landfill (weight of each truck). Therefore, Waste
Density measurement quality is based on the GPS data obtained for settlement and the
weight calibration performed prior to truck weight measurements.
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL COMMENT (2):Weight calibration data should be provided
by WMI in the next data package.
C-11
-------
USEPA/Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
INDEPENDENT DATA VALIDATION
Independent Data Validation of
Outer Loop Landfill Experimental Data
Performed by:
Neptune and Company
Date of Review: 11/27/2002
Experimental Data: 2nd - 3rd Quarters 2002
Data Packages Dates:
STL-Buffalo 10/01/2002
STL-Los Angeles 7/1/2002
STL-Los Angeles 7/23/2002
TaskNo:39TD8L
EPA Task Order Manager: Ann Vega
C-12
-------
Introduction: Experimental data collection is in progress for the Landfill Bioreactor Studies at
the Outer Loop Landfill (OLL), Louisville, Kentucky. These activities are guided by the Quality
Assurance Project Plan, latest revision (Draft Final) dated July, 2002. The purpose of this task is
to review and validate the data obtained in this project. To accomplish this, data were obtained
from Roger Green, Waste Management Incorporated. The data packages included results from
Severn Trent Services (STL Buffalo) for leachate sampling performed on September 16, 2002.
This report of leachate samples included analysis for Volatile Organic Acids that was
subcontracted to Microbial Insights. In addition, two data packages (STL Los Angeles) for gas
analysis were received from Mr. Green. The gas sampling was performed on June 28, and June
13, 2002. No new MSW data is currently available. This validation process reviewed all critical
and non-critical analyses included in the data packages and outlined in the QAPP Section 3.2,
tables 3-4 to 3-6. The results of the data validation are outlined below and categorized by
Matrix, importance of parameter in the project objectives and then by Analyte(s).
Data packages were evaluated (where appropriate) for Sample Identification (QAPP Section
4.7.1), Chain of Custody (QAPP Section 4.7.3), Correct Analytical Methods (QAPP Table 5.1),
Container Preservation and Holding Times (QAPP Section 4.1, Table 4-1), Detection/Reporting
Limits (QAPP Table 6-9) and Laboratory Quality Control for Critical Measurements, QAPP
Section 6.4 (Tables 6-2 to 6-9).
Due to the limited amount of QC information provided in the standard data packages, STL-
Buffalo was contacted to obtain raw data for the anions (including sulfate) and Volatile Organic
(Metabolic) Acids analyses.
Overall the results from data validation indicate most laboratory analyses are in
compliance with the QAPP quality control requirements. Only three Observations were
noted with this report. However, as discussed in the previous data validation report, it is
necessary to obtain matrix spike and/or duplicate analysis using the OLL matrix, especially
for COD and BOD which are critical parameters. A discussion of reporting limits is
included in the wet chemistry section. It is understood that analyzing a sample that
contains high concentrations of analytes or other components can potentially compromise
the integrity of an instrument. However, any steps that can be take to achieve detection
status is extremely important for this project. The need to obtain results for all analytes so
that each treatment cell can be compared should be emphasized to the laboratories.
Included in this report are the data for selected analytes received in this data validation project.
There appears to be some evidence of differences in some of the analytes between the control
cells and experimental cells, though direct comparison is not valid due to the offset in age
between the cells.
C-13
-------
Leachate Samples:
Severn Trent Services-Buffalo. Job # A02-9192, A02-9196. Samples Received 9/17/02.
Sample Date 9/16/02. Program Manager: Amy L. Haag.
Client Sample ID
51AL01
51BL01
52AL01
52B L01
73AL01
73B L01
74AL01
74B L01
Laboratory Sample ID
A29 19201
A29 19202
A29 19203
A29 19204
A29 19205
A29 19206
A29 19207
A29 19208
C-14
-------
Table 1. Selected Analyte Results for Leachate.
Sample
51AL01
51BL01
52AL01
52B L01
73AL01
73B L01
74AL01
74B L01
Sulfate
(mg/L)
120
41.8
32.2
80.6
127
57.4
100U
100U
BOD
(mg/L)
204
97.3
106
480
156
158
2340
3540
COD
(mg/L)
2130
1420
1040
1280
675
641
6030
11500
TDS
(mg/L)
5800
5020
4520
4260
2920
2640
8500
10800
Temp.
(EC)
32.9
32.9
34.2
30.0
24.0
24.1
33.7
33.8
Conductivity
(UMHOS/CM)
14500
14000
8620
9620
6760
5660
15100
16600
VGA*
(mg/L-C)
159
7
8
202
0
4
4328
8193
Sample
51AL01
51BL01
52AL01
52B L01
73AL01
73B L01
74AL01
74B L01
NH3
(mg/L)
1170
1720
1420
1240
1160
736
2720
1420
TKN
(mg/L)
836
846
946
438
371
41.9
26.5
100U
Nitrite
(mg/L)
0.19
0.020U
0.053
0.020U
0.078
0.10
0.061
0.11
Ortho-P
(mgP/L)
3.0
6.4
2.8
2.4
1.4
1.1
7.6
6.9
Tot-P
(mgP/L)
4.1
17.8
3.4
3.9
2.5
2.0
9.0
10.5
Cl-
(mg/L)
1460
1650
1110
1010
569
506
1400
1360
K+
(mg/L)
426
388
340
307
237
219
533
565
* Volatile Organic Acids normalized on a carbon basis.
General:
The two sample coolers were received at 3EC with all samples in good condition. The
Chain of Custody lists the bottle types but not preservative information as specified in
Section 4.7.3 of the QAPP. The samples were grouped consistent with the expected
preservatives (e.g. TKN, NH3, COD, total-P were in a single container consistent with
sulfuric acid preservation) however neither preservative nor container type key is used,
the numbers refer to number of bottles.
OBSERVATION (1): The Chain of Custody (COC) should include the preservatives as
specified in the QAPP.
C-15
-------
Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (QAPP QC Activities Table 6-2): Method 410.4, STL SOP
No. AWC-COD-44:
All eight samples were found above the RDL (Table 6-9). Samples 74A L01 and 74B
L02 had very high COD concentrations (6030 and 11,500 mg/L respectively). No COD
matrix spike was performed on the OLL samples, however a batch matrix spike was
performed.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5; QAPP QC Activities Table 6-3): Method 405.1,
STL SOP No. AWC-405.1-14:
All eight samples were analyzed for BOD. Samples 74A L01 and 74B L02 had very high
BOD concentrations (2340 and 3540 mg/L respectively). Batch QC met the QAPP
limits.
Non-Critical Measurements:
Volatile Organic Compounds, Method 8260:
All eight samples were analyzed for VOCs, the laboratory narrative indicated that no
deviations from analytical protocol were encountered. The samples were diluted at a
ratio of 1:10. This was done to prevent excessive foaming in the purge and trap
instrument or due to high analyte concentrations. The batch blank and matrix spike
samples met the criteria for surrogate and internal standard recoveries and lack of
contamination. Holding times were also met.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Method 8270:
All eight samples were analyzed for SVOCs. Sample 73 A L01 had one low internal
standard (Perylene d-12) due to visible matrix interference (background, non-analyte
compounds that produced the ion used to quantify d-12 Perylene), however no analytes
were detected that use this internal standard for quantification. Sample 74B L01 had low
recovery of surrogate 2-fluorophenol due to dilution. Dilution, due to the matrix effects
or high analyte concentrations, was performed on seven of the samples. Holding times
for extraction and analysis was achieved. Batch blanks and matrix spikes met the QAPP
limits for recovery and lack of contamination.
RCRA Metals, Methods 6010B, 7470 (mercury):
All eight samples were analyzed for RCRA metals, no deviations from the protocol were
encountered. Potassium analyses required dilution for all samples due to high
C-16
-------
concentration. Preparation and analysis holding times were achieved. Batch blank and
spike samples met the QAPP limits for lack of contamination and analyte recovery.
Wet Chemistry Analysis:
All eight samples were analyzed for the complete suite of wet chemistry analytes.
Sample 52A L01 was originally analyzed for total dissolved solids within holding time
but the result (1650 mg/L) was inconsistent with previous data. The sample was re-
analyzed past the holding time but the result was in-line with previous data (4520 mg/L).
Previous IDS results for this sample are provided in Table 2. Ammonia, chloride, ortho
and total phosphate, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) required dilutions in all samples
due to matrix effects or high analyte concentrations. Sample 74B L01 was diluted by
1:1000 due to matrix effect for the TKN analysis resulting in a not detected (100 mg/L)
status.
Table 2. Historical Total Dissolved Solids Results
Sample 52A
Minimum:
Maximum:
Median:
Mean:
Standard Deviation:
L01 TDS
4540
10400
8800
8356
2292
(Markwiese, et al, August 19, 2002)
The issue of high detection limits for sulfate in some samples has recently been under
discussion between project participants. The exploratory data analysis report
(Markwiese, et al) shows non-detect status for cells 51 and 52 at approximately 100
mg/L, previous reporting limits have been 10 mg/L. Raw data for this data package
(September 16, 2002 sampling) was obtained from STL-Buffalo for the anion analytical
method (300.0). Sulfate was detected in all samples above the RL of 10 mg/L with the
exception of samples 74A L01 and 74B L02 which are reported as not-detected at 100
mg/L. All samples were run initially at 10% (1:10). All the sample analyses at a 10%
dilution were inspected for the presence of large peaks. The chromatograms for the two
samples that were reported as not detected (and therefore, not re-analyzed without
dilution) do not appear significantly different from the other samples. STL-buffalo was
contacted for information on why these two samples were only analyzed at 10% dilution.
Amy Haag of STL-Buffalo reiterated that the matrix required diluting but she provided
no further information as to why the analyst diluted only these two samples.
C-17
-------
OBSERVATION (2). The reason for the dilution of samples 74A L01 and 74B L02 that
resulted in non-detect status for sulfate should be fully resolved. It is unclear from the raw
data why these samples could not be re-analyzed without dilution. One suggestion for
preventing ND results would be to initially analyze all of the samples at a ratio of 1:5 instead
of 1:10. It appears this dilution ratio would have resulted in detection of sulfate for these two
samples without compromising the instrument.
Microbial Insights, Rockford TN. Point of Contact: Michael Goodrich.
Sample Date 09/16/2002, Analysis Date 09/18/2002.
Client Sample ID
51AL01
51BL01
52AL01
52B L01
73AL01
73B L01
74AL01
74B L01
Laboratory Sample ID
A29 19201
A29 19202
A29 19203
A29 19204
A29 19205
A29 19206
A29 19207
A29 19208
Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9)
Volatile Organic Acids, Microbial Insights, Point of Contact: Michael Goodrich. SOP
No. VFA, Revision 1. (QAPP Table 6-4)
Raw QA/QC data were obtained for samples analyzed on September 18, 2002. The
initial calibration and blank data met the requirements outlined in the QAPP, Table 6-4.
The CCV and LCS standards are now run at 40 ppm and are within the method required
limits. Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate data met the project requirements for
recovery, the relative percent difference was less than 20% for all six analytes. There
appears to be a slight error in the reported value for propionic acid in sample 52B L01.
The raw data indicates the correct value is 14 mg/L, the final STL-Buffalo report has a
value of 16.9 mg/L. STL- Buffalo is reviewing the data to determine the correct value.
Sample reporting limits are 1 mg/L for all acids with the exception of pyruvic which is at
4 mg/L. Observation 2 is repeated in this report.
C-18
-------
OBSERVATION (3): The project participants should decide if the reporting limits from
Microbial Insights are sufficient and modify the QAPP as necessary.
Gas Samples:
Severn Trent Services- Los Angeles. STL Lot Number E2G020329 Amended and STL Lot
Number E2F180191. Samples (E2G020329 Amended) Received 07/01/2002, Date Sampled:
06/28/2002. Samples (E2F180191) Received 06/17/2002, Date Sampled: 06/13/2002. Project
Manager: Marisol Tabirara.
Four samples (E2F180191) were received June 17, 2002. Two additional gas samples
(E2G020329) were received by STL-LA on July 1, 2002. The chain-of-custody and canister
field data records indicate both sets of samples were received in good condition.
Table 3. Gas Analysis Results
Sample
51 G01
52G01
73AG01
73AG02
73BG01
73BG02
CO2 (%)
36
20
41
41
40
46
CFf4 (%)
49
25
53
53
53
55
N2 (%)
16
49
2.7
1.8
2.1
ND(1.8)
O2 (%)
2.9
11
0.40
ND(0.18)
ND(0.18)
ND(0.18)
NMOC
(ppm-C)
2000
1500
8300
11000
5300
5100
Toluene*
(ppb, TO- 14)
13000
10000
46000
52000
51000
38000
Toluene concentration provided from TO-14 analysis as an indication of HAP levels.
Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9)
Fixed Gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Oxygen): Method 3C (QAPP Table 6-9).
Review of the data packages for Method 3C indicates the data met the QC requirements
for accuracy and precision for the LCS and LCS duplicate. LCS samples had a recovery
range of 106 to 111% for carbon dioxide (spike at 1%) and 106 and 112% for methane
(spike at 0.0500%). Precision of the samples was well within the limit of 0-20%. The
blanks were also found to be free from contamination.
C-19
-------
Non-Critical Measurements:
Total Non-Methane Hydrocarbons: Method 25C Modified
Both data packages from Roger Green were reviewed and no QA/QC issues
were found out of compliance. Method blank was ND at 30 ppm-c.
Laboratory Control Samples had recoveries ranging from 108 to 100%
recovery with the highest RPD of 2.3%. Spike amount was 600 ppm-c.
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Method TO-14A
Both data packages from Roger Green were reviewed and no QA/QC issues were found
out of compliance. Method Blank was ND for all target analytes at low ppbv
concentration. Laboratory Control Samples (50 ppb for 1-1-Dichloroethene, Methylene
Chloride, Trichloroethene, Toluene and 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane) had recoveries of 88-
110% and RPD values of less than 6%, both QA indicators are within the limits specified
in the QAPP.
C-20
-------
USEPA/Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Independent Data Validation
Independent Data Validation of
Outer Loop Landfill Experimental Data
Performed by:
David A. Gratson
Neptune and Company
Date of Report: 8/21/2003
Experimental Data: 3rd Quarter 2002, 1st & 2nd Quarters 2003
Task No: 05 WO Seq. No. 07b
EPA Task Order Manager: Scott Jacobs
C-21
-------
Introduction: Data collection is in progress for the Landfill Bioreactor Studies at the
Outer Loop Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky. These activities are guided by the Quality
Assurance Project Plan, latest revision (Draft Final) dated May 6, 2003. The purpose of
this task is to review and validate the data obtained in this project. To accomplish this,
data were obtained from Roger Green, Waste Management Incorporated and from
Morton Barlaz, NCSU during a Technical Systems Audit at his laboratory in August,
2003. The data packages from Roger Green included results from Severn Trent
Laboratory - Buffalo (STL-Buffalo) for leachate and Severn Trent Laboratory- Los
Angeles (STL-LA) for gas samples. The STL-Buffalo reports included analysis for
Volatile Organic Acids that was subcontracted to Microbial Insights. This validation
process reviewed all critical parameters and a few of the non-critical analyses included in
the data packages and outlined in the QAPP Section 3.2, tables 3-4 to 3-6. The results of
the data validation are outlined below and categorized by medium.
Data packages were evaluated (where appropriate) for Sample Identification (QAPP
Section 4.7.1), Chain of Custody (QAPP Section 4.7.3), Correct Analytical Methods
(QAPP Table 5.1), Container Preservation and Holding Times (Table 4-1),
Detection/Reporting Limits (QAPP Table 6-9) and Laboratory Quality Control for
Critical Measurements, QAPP Section 6.4 (Tables 6-2 to 6-9).
Limited amount of QC information is provided in the standard (Level II) data packages,
however matrix and laboratory control spikes were included in the leachate data packages
and QC requirements for the MSW data were reviewed in a recently completed audit.
Overall the results from data validation indicate most laboratory analyses are in
compliance with the QAPP quality control requirements. ALL CRITICAL DATA
REVIEWED CAN BE USED in project reports. Some data has been qualified due to
quality control issues identified and should be used with caution. The use of the data is
context specific. For example, Volatile Organic Acids with low spike recoveries may
indicate negative bias. However, one might assume all samples had similar bias and are
thus comparable. More caution may be in order when comparing samples for BOD
where one or more were analyzed out of holding times.
Leachate Samples: STL-Buffalo
Critical Leachate Parameters: BOD, COD, Volatile Organic Acids (Microbial Insights).
Some of the files also contained field data for pH (critical) and conductivity.
Eleven Acrobat (pdf) files were obtained from STL-Buffalo with results for leachate
analysis. The files were associated with samples collected from November 2002 to July,
2003. Acrobat Files: A02-A447, A02-B373, A02-C503, A03-0709, A03-1405, A03-
2498, A03-3377, A03-5054, A03-5431, A03-5975, A03-7170.
C-22
-------
Excel spreadsheets (with the same name as the Acrobat files) with the summary data
were also received and validated for data qualifiers.
QA Evaluation:
File A02-A447, samples 51 A, 5 IB, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 10/21/02:
The pH check (using a 7.0 buffer solution) reading was 7.28. The QC requirements for
verification of pH are 7.00 ±0.1 units (Table 6-1-1). These data are qualified at
potentially biased high (J+) due to the results of this QC check. Butyric acid had low
recovery (60.7 and 74.7%) in the matrix spike and duplicate. All samples were ND for
butyric acid (1 mg/L limit), there is potential for false negative results due to this low
recovery.
File A02-B373, samples 51 A, 5IB, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 11/14/2002:
One set of samples (51A L01, 51B L01, 52A L01, 52B L01) was not preserved for COD
when received (within 24 hours, good condition), the laboratory added sulfuric acid to
achieve the required pH.
File A02-C503, samples 51 A, 5IB, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 12/16/2002:
Acetic and propionic acid (Volatile Organic Acids) had very high matrix spike recoveries
(300-400%). All samples (especially 74A L01, 74B L01) are qualified as potentially
biased high (J+).
File A03-0709, samples 51 A, 5IB, 52A, 52B, 73A, 74A, 74B, sampled 1/22/03: 74A
L01 BOD results were qualified by the laboratory as estimated (E) because the holding
time was out of compliance (the initial dilution resulted in oxygen concentration that did
not meet the method criteria). These BOD results should be used with caution.
File A03-1405, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 2/12/2003:
All samples for COD/ammonia/total phosphate were received unpreserved. The
laboratory added sulfuric acid to achieve the desired pH (within 24 hours of sampling).
The initial BOD analysis for sample 73B L01 was depleted in oxygen; the reanalysis was
performed out of holding times. Both results were reported, the first is qualified as
estimated (72.OE), the second results was 74.7 mg/L. These BOD results should be used
with caution.
File A03-3377, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 4/10/03:
Samples 74A L01 and 74B L01 were received unpreserved. The laboratory added
sulfuric acid to achieve the desired pH.
File A03-5054, samples 51 A, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 5/23/2003: The
initial BOD analysis for sample 74A L01 was depleted in oxygen; the reanalysis was out
of holding times. Both results were reported (without qualification): ND (reporting limit
1800), reanalysis 216 mg/L. The reanalysis result should be qualified as estimated (E)
and used with caution.
C-23
-------
File A03-5431, samples 51 A, 5IB, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, sampled 6/5/2003: The pH
check (using a 7.0 buffer solution) reading was 7.13. The samples are qualified as
potentially biased high (J+) due to the results of this QC check. The RPD results for
propionic and butyric acid are greater than the 20% limit; the LCS meet the QC
requirements for all acids. Matrix spike recovery for pyruvic acid is low (56.8%, 54.7%).
All samples were ND for pyruvic acid (4 mg/L limit), there is potential for false negative
results due to this low recovery.
File A03-5975, samples 74A and 74B, sampled 7/14/2003: The matrix spike recovery
for pyruvic acid was 51.8 and 52.0%. Pyruvic acid is ND in both samples, there is
potential for false negative due to this low recovery.
File A03-7170, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 7/25/2003:
The pH check (using a 7.0 buffer solution) reading was 7.16. The samples are qualified
as potentially biased high (J+) due to the results of this QC check.
A number of sample reports indicated interference with the non-critical parameter nitrite.
These data should be used with caution since bias is likely. All results with an estimated
(E) qualifier from the laboratory (e.g. BOD) should be used with caution. BOD, in
particular, is susceptible to degradation and negative bias if analysis is not started within
24 hours.
MSW Samples: NCSU
Critical MSW Parameters: Moisture, Organic (Volatile) Solids, BMP.
Excel Files: BMP_1_08_04_03, BMP_2_08_04_03, Lablogbook, LablandfillsMoistures,
OL#3 data 081903, Volatiles-OL Set 3.
QA Evaluation:
Moisture and Organic (Volatile) Solids data was evaluated by reviewing the excel
spreadsheets provided. The parameters are obtained by weighing samples before and
after drying (65°C) or oxidation (550°C). Data validation is performed by ensuring the
spreadsheets are correctly calculating the parameter using the entered data. This data is
entered into the spreadsheet by the analysts and spot checked by peers, and/or Dr. Barlaz
at NCSU. No problems were identified with the Moisture or Organic Solids data.
BMP data was evaluated from two spreadsheets that contain MSW samples from the
November, 2002 sampling period. The spreadsheets contain daily calibration information
along with the calculations for methane (corrected for STP and inoculum blanks),
nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. The precision (RSD/CV) is calculated for each set
of triplicate samples (each sample undergoes the complete incubation and gas analysis
process) and evaluated against the 20% criterion. Samples that exceed this criterion are
re-analyzed (complete process) until the metric is achieved. A few minor mistakes in
C-24
-------
formulas within the spreadsheet were noted and discussed with Dr. Barlaz. These errors
have been corrected and a consistent model is now used to calculate methane. There are
six sets of data in which the lowest calibration standard (10% methane) was unavailable.
The SOP for calibration requires at least three calibration levels. However, after
evaluating the calibration data I believe these data are valid. The slope of the calibration
model for these six sets is very similar to that obtained using a full calibration. There is
3.1% difference in the average slope between the calibrations with three levels versus the
calibration with two levels. This potential error level is within the precision of this
analytical method. However, all future analyses should follow the method that requires
at least three calibration levels*.
Gas Samples: STL-LA
Critical Parameters: Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen via Summa Canisters.
Acrobat Files: E2K250218, E12300222, E2L300223, E3D160263, E3F100284,
M2C260265, E2F180191, E2G026329, M1C200280, M1L200214. Excel Files with the
same names were also obtained, these contain summary data.
QA Evaluation:
The only quality issue noted for the critical parameters for the gas samples is holding
times. A number of samples were analyzed between 7 and 14 days after collection. The
QAPP specifies a holding time of 7 days (Table 4-1). There is no reason to believe the
composition of the gas samples (methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen) are compromised
when analysis is performed within 14 days of collection (using Summa Canisters). For
reference, Method 3C does not list a holding time and Method TO-14A has a 30 day
holding time. All other QA/QC issues met the method and/or QAPP specifications.
* While evaluating the methane calibration data received with the BMP results two issues arose that could
potentially improve the current method. These ideas came out of a meeting held with David Gratson and
Vicki Lancaster of Neptune and Company, Inc. and Morton Barlaz. The current calibration method is
acceptable; however improved calibration precision may be achieved through the use of a weighted least
squares regression model. The idea of using a single calibration slope that is acquired on a single day, then
verified during daily calibrations is also being considered. NCSU is currently performing additional
calibration to test these ideas.
C-25
-------
APPENDIX D
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
-------
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
2031 Kerr Gulch Road
Evergreen, CO 80439
Phone: 720.746.1803
Fax: 720.746.1605
pblack@.neptuneinc.org
MEMORANDUM
From: Jim Markwiese, Paul Black, Tom Stockton, Doug Bronson, Andrew Schuh
To: Scott Jacobs, Ann Vega
Date: 24 September 2003
Subject: Statistical Analysis for Bioreactor Study
Some preliminary data analyses, replicate analyses, and trend analyses are presented in the
attached document for the data collected from the bioreactor experiments for WML Data have
been provided by WMI for leachate for the 3 units, FLB, AALB, and control, and for solids, field
gas, and landfill gas for the 2 units, FLB, and control (see attachment on data sources). The data
are limited, reflecting the early stages of data collection for this 5-year project. The statistical
analyses follow. Interpretation of the plots should consider the following notes:
1. The time plots presented below have different y-axis scales, so some care should be
taken during interpretation. The x-axis scales are the same for each set of plots.
2. Lines drawn on the time plots are smoothed regression lines (using the LOESS
function) when there are sufficient data (including detections).
D-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
II. BIOREACTOR CELL TIMELINES
This plots give the reader some sense of the date of activity of the landfills as well
as the dates for which data is available for them.
III. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR LEACHATE AND GAS DATA
These are the basic statistics for the field gas and leachate including mean,
median, quantiles, min, max, and standard deviation for data subset out by cell
and replicate (A/B).
IV. LEACHATE TIME PLOTS
This is a good place to start for the leachate data as it gives the reader a good
overall feeling for the behavior of the data. Rigorous statistical analysis of trends
and replicates is left to sections VI. and IX.
V. LEACHATE REPLICATE ANALYSIS
This section investigates the differences between the replicates of each of the cells
(FLB cell 5.1, FLB cell 5.2, Control cell 7.3, and 7.4). Also included is an analysis of
some alternative replicate configurations based upon "after the fact" knowledge of
the geometry and location of the cells and their replicates. Essentially, different
polynomial models are fit to the data, a best model form chosen, and then the
parameters are tested for significant differences.
VI. FIELD GAS TIME PLOTS
This section includes time plots of the field gas data and is a good place to start
when trying to understand this data.
VII. FIELD GAS BOX PLOTS
This section contains boxplots of the field gas data with the Date variable being
"collapsed". Essentially these are additional diagnostic plots that provides a visual
picture of overall concentrations.
D-2
-------
VIII. TREND TESTS
This section tracks our attempts to detect statistically significant trends in the
leachate data. It also includes some slope estimates which may be useful when a
significant trend is evident.
IX. LEVELPLOT OF SETTLING HEIGHT CHANGE
This is a simple "contour" style LOESS plot of the settling height change. No
rigorous statistical tests are performed on this data and this plot is included for
qualitative purposes only.
X. DATA SUMMARY
This is a summary of the data we have received up until this point in time.
D-:
-------
Summary
At this point in the CRADA there is a major difficulty in comparing the treatment cells
(FLB and AALB) to the control cells due to several confounding factors. As time
progresses and more data become available, some of these confounding factors (e.g., non-
overlapping aged waste between cells) are expected to become less of a hindrance to
statistical analysis. For now, however, if a difference is found between types of cells, it is
challenging to determine if the difference is due to treatment or age. Confounding factors
that could have an effect on critical parameters are:
• geometry of cell
• amount of waste disposed in cell
• type of waste disposed in cell
• time of waste disposal in cell
As further data are collected, these factors can be addressed.
Because of the difficulties above, the main focus of this document will be on: exploratory
data analysis of critical leachate and field gas parameter along with the comparison of the
A and B pairs of cells. The comparison is important because the pairs are intended to be
replicates, but have been subjected to different conditions. Other topics include trend
analysis of critical parameters and initial exploratory data analysis of the solids and
settling data.
Leachate data has been collected quarterly, so sample sizes are approximately 20 within
each cell. Also, data values are highly variable and there are many confounding variables.
These factors make modeling or comparing cells very difficult. Still, visual inspection of
LOESS smooths of the time plots and analysis of covariance F-tests demonstrate that the
A and B pairs within cells are similar.
Field Gas data has been collected weekly and values are far less variable than the leachate data.
Time plots indicate that concentrations in control and FLB cell 5.1 are quite similar.
Concentrations are flat and linear. On the contrary, concentrations in FLB cell 5.2 follow a
definite non-linear trend. Time plots and box-plots indicate concentrations in FLB cells are
higher in variability than in the control cells.
D-4
-------
BIOREACTOR CELL TIMELINES
D-5
-------
CELL AGE AND DATA TIMELINE
FLB
5 North and
5 South open
actual date =
Control Cells
FLB
5 North and
5 South
treatment
begins
actual date=
AALB Cell
AALB Cell
7.4B opens and
treatment
begins
10/18/01
leachate.txt (approx. monthly collection)
FLB 6/01 •
AALB 12/01 •
CTRL 6/01 •
-• 4/03
-• 4/03
field.gas.txt (approx. weekly collection)
FLB 11/16/01 •
AALB
CTRL 1/10/02 •—
• 4/11/03
-• 4/11/03
D-6
solids.txt (annual collection)
FLB • 6/00
AALB none
CTRL • 6/00
-------
Data Available versus Age of Cell
FLB leachate
CTRL leachate
AALB Leachate
FLB field qas
CTRL field gas
AALB Field Gas
FLB solids
CTRL solids
AALB solids
<
Q
v 1 s
-. \ ,
m
\ lx
* •
^
A
• Data
•*• Treatment Start Point
i i i i i
02468
Age of Cell
D-7
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS
FOR LEACHATE AND GAS FIELD DATA
(data thru Spring 2003)
D-8
-------
LEACHATE
Acetic
Acid
cell
FLB5.1
FLB5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
17
min
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.9
Qi
1.6
2.1
2.5
1.6
1.0
1.9
10.0
23.0
median
3.3
3.4
3.8
2.3
1.9
11.0
243.0
151.0
mean
163.0
10.9
5.6
150.1
24.1
109.3
484.2
582.1
Q3
5.0
7.0
8.0
22.3
2.5
44.0
1010.0
539.0
max
2350
80
20
2340
389
1010
1650
2580
Sd
552.31
19.24
4.89
548.46
91.14
263.81
554.73
845.87
Ammonia
(AsN,
MG/L)
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
21
21
20
21
20
19
17
17
min
551
468
291
432
67.1
48.6
162
97.3
Ql
831.0
707.0
865.0
723.0
108.5
114.5
545.0
650.0
median
1070.0
976.0
1325.0
877.0
298.0
239.0
741.0
1040.0
mean
2444.5
1168.8
1278.1
1290.5
459.8
376.1
922.1
920.7
Q3
1590.0
1410.0
1570.0
1250.0
585.8
409.5
942.0
1320.0
max
19200
3100
2580
7010
1420
1410
2720
1540
Sd
4410.3
678.7
551.6
1392.5
432.3
406.1
653.4
462.8
BOD
(MG/
L)
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
22
23
20
21
20
21
20
18
min
32.9
21.7
19.8
24.9
14.6
9.2
20.0
142.0
Ql
61.8
74.3
52.2
58.7
34.0
45.5
182.3
517.8
median
95.5
119.0
127.0
84.5
49.9
158.0
469.0
2085.0
mean
189.0
165.4
138.0
156.0
155.6
1784.0
1967.0
6233.0
Q3
216.8
228.0
181.3
159.0
99.0
198.0
2378.0
6280.0
max
1060
629
414
783
1820
31400
15000
54400
Sd
228.7
145.2
100.1
185.7
395.4
6805.0
3427.1
12546.6
Chlorid
e
(MG/L)
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
9
8
7
9
9
8
7
9
min
818
955
1110
10
818
955
1110
10
Ql
1460.0
1570.0
1355.0
860.0
1460.0
1570.0
1355.0
860.0
median
1850.0
2485.0
1920.0
1180.0
1850.0
2485.0
1920.0
1180.0
mean
1694.2
2154.4
2027.1
1072.1
1694.2
2154.4
2027.1
1072.1
Q3
2060.0
2732.5
2700.0
1390.0
2060.0
2732.5
2700.0
1390.0
max
2250
2840
3050
1930
2250
2840
3050
1930
Sd
467.2
736.0
794.4
547.2
467.2
736.0
794.4
547.2
D-9
-------
COD
(MG/
L)
cell
FLB5.1
FLB5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
21
21
20
21
20
19
17
17
min
882.0
1000.0
10.0
114.0
114.0
60.3
916.0
1840.0
Ql
1790
1250
1035
1200
259
235
1580
2250
median
1890
1560
1595
1350
435
618
2290
4220
mean
1848.0
1659.0
1638.0
1366.0
667.2
963.8
5282.0
7222.0
Q3
1970.0
1960.0
2140.0
1440.0
687.3
992.0
6030.0
9330.0
max
2620
2530
3840
3560
3170
5720
30900
26000
Sd
449.1
486.8
1054.1
640.7
721.0
1297.2
7488.5
7039. 3
Nitrite
(AsN,
MG/L)
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
21
20
19
21
20
19
17
17
min
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.09
Ql
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.12
0.12
median
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.19
0.17
mean
0.08
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.19
0.24
1.30
Q3
0.10
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.32
0.44
max
0.28
0.71
0.38
0.24
0.28
2.00
0.65
10.70
Sd
0.07
0.17
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.45
0.18
2.78
Nitrogen
(Nitrate,
MG/L)
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
21
20
19
21
20
19
17
17
min
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Ql
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
median
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.10
0.18
mean
0.06
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.22
2.31
Q3
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.19
1.00
max
0.13
0.57
0.28
0.20
0.20
0.26
1.70
26.50
Sd
0.04
0.13
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.40
6.38
PH
(S.U.)
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
21
21
20
21
20
19
17
17
min
6.92
6.95
6.65
6.84
6.38
6.14
6.31
5.89
Ql
7.14
7.17
7.15
7.10
6.55
6.42
7.01
6.64
median
7 22
7.30
7.28
7.16
6.88
6.85
7.13
7.11
mean
7.222
7.255
7.244
7.161
6.834
6.752
7.072
6.964
Q3
7.34
7.36
7.36
7.28
7.05
7.05
7.20
7.37
max
7.56
7.51
7.62
7.33
7.31
7.20
7.40
7.57
Sd
0.15513
0.16046
0.20671
0.13203
0.29601
0.33671
0.27369
0.50964
D-10
-------
Phosphate,
Ortho (MG
P/L)
cell
FLB5.1
FLB5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
21
20
19
21
20
19
17
17
min
1.6
0.98
1.4
0.54
0.08
0.27
0.8
1.2
Ql
2.5
1.6
2.9
1.2
0.7
0.6
1.7
2.1
median
2.7
2.3
3.4
1.9
0.9
0.8
1.9
3.4
mean
2.9
2.6
4.0
2.0
1.1
1.1
3.4
3.7
Q3
3.4
3.2
4.7
2.3
1.4
1.2
3.6
4.7
max
4.6
6.4
7.8
6.8
3.4
4.8
15.4
8.2
Sd
0.8
1.3
1.9
1.3
0.8
1.0
3.5
2.0
Phosphorous,
Total
(MG P/L)
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
21
21
20
21
20
19
17
17
min
0.77
0.12
1.3
1
0.11
0.11
0.92
0.33
Ql
2.4
1.6
3.1
1.5
0.7
0.8
2.8
1.7
median
2.7
2.0
4.4
2.3
0.9
1.4
3.5
3.1
mean
2.9
3.0
4.7
3.2
1.5
1.8
5.4
3.8
Q3
3.5
2.9
6.8
3.2
1.9
2.3
8.3
4.2
max
5.3
17.8
9.9
14.2
5.3
5.6
21.6
10.5
sd
1.2
3.7
2.4
2.9
1.3
1.5
5.1
3.2
Temperat
ure (°C)
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
21
21
20
20
20
19
17
17
min
23.0
23.5
19.0
21.1
9.5
6.8
19.8
15.3
Ql
26.8
26.1
27.9
24.5
11.9
12.3
24.8
21.9
median
30.5
27.0
30.3
25.7
15.1
18.2
30.6
26.3
mean
29.58
27.91
29.28
25.82
16.24
16.99
29.08
24.96
Q3
31.4
29.7
31.9
27.0
19.1
20.1
33.0
28.6
max
34.6
32.9
35.3
31.1
25.3
25.1
34.7
33.8
sd
3.4048
2.6107
4.6443
2.5980
4.9550
5.2618
4.6699
5.4191
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(TKN)
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
n
9
9
8
9
8
8
5
5
min
189
362
445
89.2
91.9
12.6
26.5
100
Ql
612.0
526.0
643.3
394.0
123.8
36.5
118.0
169.0
median
955.0
1030.0
1088.0
505.0
179.0
55.3
260.0
171.0
mean
812.7
882.8
1032.0
585.2
194.1
94.7
246.7
298.6
Q3
1040.0
1200.0
1355.0
1010.0
236.8
83.0
395.0
332.0
max
1160
1250
1580
1040
371
390
434
721
sd
348.8
370.6
432.2
365.6
94.1
123.1
174.9
251.0
D-ll
-------
FIELD GAS
CH4
cell
FLB5.1
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
n
207
208
334
353
4
o
J
min
3.9
3.9
44.4
51.0
54.5
54.7
Ql
47.0
26.3
56.7
56.4
54.5
54.8
median
52.2
39. 5
57.4
57.6
54.7
54.8
mean
49.43
38.04
58.32
57.27
54.65
54.80
Q3
55.3
53.9
58.6
58.4
54.8
54.9
max
99.9
61.9
69.1
62.7
54.8
54.9
Sd
11.2770
16.6666
3.3828
1.9394
0.1732
0.1000
CO2
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
n
207
208
334
353
4
3
min
3.2
3.1
29.2
36.6
41.7
42.2
Ql
33.0
19.9
41.7
40.2
41.7
42.2
median
36.8
29. 5
42.5
41.3
41.7
42.2
mean
34.79
28.16
42.19
41.11
41.73
42.23
Q3
38.7
39.4
43.1
42.0
41.7
42.3
max
45.7
46.8
45.2
44.7
41.8
42.3
Sd
7.3830
11.9248
1.6187
1.2481
0.0500
0.0577
02
cell
FLB 5.1
FLB 5.2
Control 7.3
Control 7.3
AALB 7.4
AALB 7.4
id
A
B
A
B
n
207
208
334
353
4
o
J
min
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.8
Ql
1.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.9
median
2.1
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
mean
3.436
6.641
0.273
0.331
0.850
0.867
Q3
4.3
10.0
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.9
max
18.7
18.9
12.9
8.4
1.0
0.9
Sd
3.5951
5.4264
0.9682
0.7174
0.1732
0.0577
D-12
-------
LEACHATE TIME PLOTS
D-13
-------
Acetic Acid
2500-
2000-
1500-
1000-
500-
0 -
2500-
2000-
1500-
^1000-
| 500-
Jg 0 -
o
o
g 1000-
"^ 800-
600-
400-
200-
0
FLB cell 5.2
* *—«
FLBcell 5.1
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
03/04/02
08/01/02
12/29/02
A
B
detect
non-detectsmooth
D-14
-------
Ammonia (as N)
o
6000-
4000-
2000-
0 -
20000-
15000
10000
5000-
0
TO
'c
O
E
1500
1000-
500 -
0 -
2500
0 H
FLBcell 5.2
FLBcell 5.1
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02
detect non-detectsmooth
A
B
o
A
D-15
-------
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
o
CO
O)
X
O
800
600
400
200
0
1000
800
600
400
200
0
ra 30000-
E
o
o
in
20000 -
10000-
50000 -
40000 -
30000 -
20000 -
10000-
0
FLBcell 5.2
FLBcell 5.1
06/27/01
A
B
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
12/19/01
detect
06/12/02
12/04/02
non-detectsmooth
o -
A -
D-16
-------
Chloride
FLB cell 5.2
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
A •
FLB cell 5.1
1000
_o
.c
O
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
06/27/01 11/24/01 04/23/02 09/20/02
detect non-detectsmooth
02/17/03
A
B
o
A
D-17
-------
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
4000-
3000
2000-
1000-
0 -
2500-
O
^ 2000-
S"
O
0^ 1500-
| 1000-
O)
>>
8
8
'
6
6000-
5000-
4000-
3000'
2000'
1000-
0 •
30000-
25000-
20000-
15000-
10000-
5000-
0 '
06/27/01
FLBcell 5.2
FLBcell 5.1
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
A
B
12/19/01
detect
06/12/02
12/04/02
non-detectsmooth
D-18
-------
Nitrate (as N)
0.4--
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0
FLBcell 5.2
FLBcell 5.1
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0 -
0)
••E 2
Control cell 7.3
1.5-
0.5-
10
8
6
4
2
0
AALB cell 7.4
06/27/01
12/19/01
A
B
06/12/02
12/04/02
detect non-detectsmooth
• o
A A
D-19
-------
Nitrogen (Nitrate)
FLBcell 5.2
0.25-
0.2-
0.15-
0.1 -
0.05-
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1 -
0 -
0.25-
0.2-
0.15-
0.1 -
0.05-
FLBcell 5.1
o
0)
O)
o
25
20
15
10
5
0
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
06/27/01
A
B
12/19/01
detect
06/12/02
12/04/02
non-detectsmooth
D-20
-------
Phosphate, Ortho
Control cell 7.3
06/27/01
12/19/01
06/12/02
12/04/02
A
B
detect non-detectsmooth
• o
A A
D-21
-------
Phosphorous, Total
15-
FLB cell 5.2
FLBcell 5.1
15-
10-
5-
CL
O
Q.
8
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
20-
06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02
detect non-detectsmooth
A
B
D-22
-------
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
FLB cell 5.2
500
Z 400-
CD
£ 300
FLB cell 5.1
Control cell 7.3
CD
P 200
100
0
600
400
200
AALB cell 7.4
06/27/01 11/24/01 04/23/02 09/20/02 02/17/03
detect non-detectsmooth
A
B
o
A
D-23
-------
Temperature
FLB cell 5.2
35-
30-
25-
20-
FLBcell 5.1
o>
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
35-
30-
25-
20-
15-
06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02
detect non-detectsmooth
A
B
o
A
D-24
-------
pH
FLBcell 5.2
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
7.5-
06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02
detect non-detectsmooth
A
B
o
A
D-25
-------
Summary
These time plots of the leachate data, in our opinion, give the most representative look into
the leachate data. It can be seen that the replicate data (A/B) does not seem to be tightly
grouped as would be hoped. It appears, in hindsight, that the (FLB cell 5.1A,FLB cell 5.2B)
and (FLB cell 5.1B,FLB cell 5.2A) pairs may be more similar due to similar geometries.
Even furthermore, (FLB cell 5.1B,FLB cell 5.2A) could be considered replicates and (FLB
cell 5.1A,FLB cell 5.2B) could be considered two independent samples since they share no
common boundary and are in somewhat different locations. There is evidence of these
kinds of relationships in most of the leachate time plots. Due to this fact, we may try to re-
group these samples, in terms of "replicate" status, in future analyses.
Locally weighted regression lines (LOESS) were included to assist the reader in viewing the
data. The temporal correlation seems very adequate to justify including smoothed
estimates of the data. Statistical tests will still be performed upon the actual data and these
lines are only included to help the reader get a qualitative feel for the patterns in the plots.
There are two substantial BOD results, replicates in Control cell 7.3B and AALB cell 7.4B
for 12/18/2001. These have been included in the exploratory data analysis and other
analyses in lieu of any explanation or reason to disregard them. Although they are
influential observations, their removal would probably not have much of an effect on model
fitting efforts due to the overall variability of the data.
D-26
-------
Influential Data Points to Validate
The following two tables list concentrations that are either extremely large when compared
to all cells or large compared to the source cell. These values can have a large influence on
statistical analyses and should be investigated further to determine whether they are data
entry errors, outliers, or if events can be identified to explain their size.
Parameter
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD)
Phosphorous, Total
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN)
Ammonia (As N)
Result
1.50E+04
5.44E+04
1.82E+03
3.14E+04
1.85E+03
1.71E+03
1.06E+03
4.80E+02
4.11E+02
3.09E+04
3.17E+03
5.72E+03
2.49E+03
2.16E+01
4.00E+00
5.30E+00
7.90E+00
7.21E+02
3.71E+02
3.90E+02
2.72E+03
1.42E+03
1.38E+03
1.16E+03
1.41E+03
1.38E+03
1.92E+04
1.09E+04
Cell
AALB cell 7.4
AALB cell 7.4
Control cell 7. 3
Control cell 7. 3
Control cell 7.3
Control cell 7. 3
FLB cell 5. 1
FLB cell 5.2
FLB cell 5.2
AALB cell 7.4
Control cell 7. 3
Control cell 7. 3
Control cell 7.3
AALB cell 7.4
Control cell 7.3
Control cell 7. 3
FLB cell 5. 1
AALB cell 7.4
Control cell 7. 3
Control cell 7. 3
AALB cell 7.4
Control cell 7. 3
Control cell 7. 3
Control cell 7. 3
Control cell 7. 3
Control cell 7. 3
FLB cell 5. 1
FLB cell 5.1
AorB
A
B
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
Sampdate
11/14/2002
12/18/2001
3/20/2002
12/18/2001
12/18/2001
5/14/2002
5/13/2002
9/16/2002
10/21/2002
11/14/2002
3/20/2002
12/18/2001
5/14/2002
4/10/2003
7/16/2002
8/7/2002
3/18/2003
6/10/2002
9/16/2002
6/10/2002
9/16/2002
7/11/2001
7/16/2002
9/16/2002
7/16/2002
11/14/2002
6/25/2001
12/17/2001
Large Relative To
all cells
all cells
rest of cell
all cells
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
all cells
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
all cells
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
rest of cell
all cells
all cells
The following parameter/cell combinations have many large values when compared to the rest of
the cells.
Parameter
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Cell
AALB cell 7.4
AALB cell 7.4
AALB cell 7.4
AALB cell 7.4
AorB
A
B
A
B
D-27
-------
LEACHATE REPLICATE ANALYSIS
D-28
-------
Analysis of Covariance
An analysis of covariance is performed to compare the A and B pairs of each cell for 5 critical
parameters. The comparison of A and B pairs has been performed because the pairs are intended
to be replicates within a treatment. However, the A and B pairs are subjected to differing factors
like type and amount of waste disposed along with cell geometry. It was discovered that the pairs
(FLB cell 5.1 A, FLB cell 5.2B) and (FLB cell 5.IB, FLB cell 5.2A) have similar geometries so
these pairs were also compared. In future analyses, comparisons may change based upon
conclusions about which "replicate" grouping seems most appropriate (see comments in
Summary for Leachate Time Plots).
The first step is to fit a polynomial (degree < 3) regression model to all cells. Note that other
non-linear models could have been utilized, but for simplicity only polynomial regression was
attempted. Next, compare the model fits for A and B within a cell and chose a model that fits
both well. Note that this choice may not be the model that fits each one best. However, a
common model choice is necessary to perform an analysis of covariance. All model fits and the
chosen models (in bold) are shown in the tables following the time and model plots. Many of the
model fits are poor with insignificant parameters. The data are, in general, highly variable with
small sample sizes. Also, there are many confounding factors that cannot be accounted for
directly. These included geometry of cells, age of cells, type of waste in the cells and when the
waste was placed in the cells.
Statistical model comparison is shown in the table below. F-test p-values are provided in the
right-side of the table. If all of the p-values are greater than 0.05, then the models are considered
to coincide. Models with p-values between 0.05 and 0.10 have also been highlighted as
marginally similar. Since many of the model fits are poor, models may be found to be
statistically similar when the corresponding model plots look quite different.
Following the analysis of covariance table are time and model plots. The plots provide a means
of visually comparing the two models. Note that the chosen model that is plotted may contain
insignificant parameters.
D-29
-------
Analysis of Covariance Table
Paramete
r
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
Total
Phosphorous
Cells
FLB
cell
5.1A
FLB
cell
5.2A
FLB
cell
5.1A
FLB
cell
5.2a
Control
cell
7.3A
AALB
cell
7.4A
FLB
cell
5.1 A
FLB
cell
5.2A
FLB
cell
5.1 A
FLB
cell
5.2a
Control
cell
7.3A
AALB
cell
7.4A
FLB
cell
5.1A
FLB
cell
5. 2 A
FLB
cell
5.1A
FLB
cell
5. IB
FLB
cell
5.2B
FLB
cell
5.2B
FLB
cell
5. IB
Control
cell
7.3B
AALB
cell
7.4B
FLB
cell
5.1B
FLB
cell
5.2B
FLB
cell
5.2B
FLB
cell
5.1B
Control
cell
7.3B
AALB
cell
7.4B
FLB
cell
5. IB
FLB
cell
5.2B
FLB
cell
5.2B
Model
quadratic
quadratic
quadratic
quadratic
linear
linear
quadratic
quadratic
quadratic
quadratic
quadratic
linear
linear
linear
linear
Statistically
Similar?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Term
Cubic
Quadratic
0.4285
0.3123
0.6442
0.3412
0.0071
0.2199
0.8913
0.0057
0.6555
Linear
0.4120
0.1218
0.8135
0.7124
0.3466
0.0051
0.0539
0.8931
0.8475
0.4406
0.4681
0.0006
0.1490
0.4358
0.5734
Intercept
0.5936
0.5612
0.5925
0.3570
0.3014
0.1577
0.1670
0.3836
0.0048
0.8481
0.3949
0.4461
0.8750
0.0710
0.7361
D-30
-------
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Ammonia
(AsN)
FLB
cell
5.2a
Control
cell
7.3A
AALB
cell
7.4A
FLB
cell
5.1A
FLB
cell
5.2A
FLB
cell
5.1 A
FLB
cell
5.2a
Control
cell
7. 3 A
AALB
cell
7.4A
FLB
cell
5.1 A
FLB
cell
5.2A
FLB
cell
5.1A
FLB
cell
5.2a
Control
cell
7.3A
AALB
cell
7.4A
FLB
cell
5.1B
Control
cell
7.3B
AALB
cell
7.4B
FLB
cell
5. IB
FLB
cell
5.2B
FLB
cell
5.2B
FLB
cell
5. IB
Control
cell
7.3B
AALB
cell
7.4B
FLB
cell
5. IB
FLB
cell
5.2B
FLB
cell
5.2B
FLB
cell
5. IB
Control
cell
7.3B
AALB
cell
7.4B
linear
quadratic
linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
cubic
linear
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
0.4256
0.7175
0.2347
0.0235
0.5782
0.3446
0.7447
0.4873
0.6420
0.5512
0.8292
0.5332
0.0841
0.9638
0.1232
0.5407
0.2270
0.8530
0.1021
0.4107
0.2134
0.4744
0.0028
0.0374
0.2042
0.0965
0.7070
0.1729
0.9366
0.2320
0.5333
0.5138
0.9939
D-31
-------
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 5.1
• 5.1A 5.1A Model
0 5.1B 5.1B Model
5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002
Date
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 5.2
8.
• 5.2A 5.2A Model
= 5.2B 5.2B Model
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle)
8.
8-
• 5.1A 5.1A Model
n 5.2B 5.2B Model
5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002
8.
8_
- 5.2A 5.2A Model
n 5.1B 5.1B Model
13Aug2001 1 Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 7.3
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 7.4
S-
8-
A
7.3B Model
\
13Aug2001 1 Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr200;
Date
1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr200;
Date
D-32
-------
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 5.1
5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002
Date
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 5.2
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle)
,_.V^.. ——Q
5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002
Date
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 7.3
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 7.4
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003
Date
D-33
-------
Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 5.1
5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002
Date
Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 5.2
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends)
Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle)
..-6 =
5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002
Date
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 7.3
Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 7.4
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003
Date
D-34
-------
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 5.1
13Aug2001
1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 5.2
13Aug2001
1Mar2002 9Jun2002
Date
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle)
13Aug2001
1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
13Aug2001
1Mar2002 9Jun2002
Date
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 7.3
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 7.4
8-
13Aug2001
1Mar2002 9Jun2002
Date
9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002
Date
D-35
-------
Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 5.1
5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002
Date
Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 5.2
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends)
Am monia (As N) Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle)
5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002
Date
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 7.3
Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 7.4
O 7.4B
g •
13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003
Date
1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003
Date
D-36
-------
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLBcellS.lALOl
coefficient
2.152412e+02
-7.337726e-02
1.827701e+01
1.696082e+00
-2.576048e-03
3.154714e+01
1.379486e+00
-1.338671e-03
-1.231015e-06
p-value
0.04552217
0.76794800
0.88736979
0.05274789
0.03722919
0.83555604
0.48586123
0.84888488
0.85813385
FLBcellS.lBLOl
coefficient
2.682627e+02
-2.890203e-01
1.473795e+02
7.663082e-01
-1.532262e-03
7.426527e+01
2.510360e+00
-8.369213e-03
6.814990e-06
p-value
0.0001481634
0.0553831481
0.0584492734
0.1151858269
0.0284958364
0.3593276353
0.0232186664
0.0334183914
0.0727081641
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLB cell 5.2A L01
coefficient
2.588700e+02
-3.346164e-01
2.024532e+02
1.5876 10e-01
-7.296590e-04
1.642517e+02
1.146506e+00
-4.744217e-03
4.138439e-06
p-value
1.675535e-06
1.732076e-03
8.140932e-04
6.2327 15e-01
1.242635e-01
6.746645e-03
1.061819e-01
7.238006e-02
1.177996e-01
FLB cell 5.2B L01
coefficient
1.559619e+02
2.602369e-05
1.455682e+01
1.285332e+00
-1.876052e-03
6.282264e+01
3.714552e-02
3.008179e-03
-4.841674e-06
p-value
0.08466699
0.99989973
0.89427285
0.07736977
0.06691669
0.61710203
0.98229640
0.61900326
0.41606637
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
Control cell 7. 3 A L01
coefficient
2.436908e+02
-2.445069e-01
3.965700e+01
1.546337e+00
-2.654637e-03
-1.974563e+01
3.095429e+00
-8.968965e-03
6.522872e-06
p-value
0.2221977
0.6113035
0.8840587
0.3780156
0.2907304
0.9491376
0.4358343
0.5394232
0.6598928
Control cell 7. 3BL01
coefficient
4.552255e+03
-7.852682e+00
3.376253e+03
2.273288e+00
-1.487198e-02
4.574563e+02
7.216667e+01
-2.989309e-01
2.936991e-04
p-value
0.1593952
0.3235841
0.4712576
0.9395064
0.7260773
0.9293698
0.2679709
0.2127126
0.2281026
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
AALBcell7.4AL01
coefficient
-1.494479e+02
8.9377 10e+00
-6.318798e+02
1.520903e+01
-1.291843e-02
3.850463e+02
-1.322407e+01
1.423817e-01
-2.197728e-04
p-value
0.9146097
0.0867887
0.7647328
0.4677170
0.7557589
0.8816165
0.7722729
0.5294259
0.4856335
AALB cell 7.4B L01
coefficient
1.567017e+04
-4.169637e+01
2.076381e+04
-1.227301e+02
1.756980e-01
2.311238e+04
-2.170226e+02
7.182375e-01
-7.7671 12e-04
p-value
0.003388943
0.023164682
0.002358366
0.055485451
0.174735767
0.003205906
0.132124827
0.330033545
0.451624289
D-37
-------
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLBcellS.lALOl
coefficient
1.960465e+03
-3.061233e-01
1.615873e+03
2.834956e+00
-4.588793e-03
1.825067e+03
-2.632638e+00
1.684489e-02
-2.126205e-05
p-value
1.081922e-08
5.386668e-01
6.124507e-06
9.905660e-02
6.006205e-02
4.699406e-06
4.884627e-01
2.259622e-01
1.235399e-01
FLB cell 5. IB L01
coefficient
2.235893e+03
-1.573900e+00
2.520544e+03
-4.168465e+00
3.790489e-03
2.365736e+03
-1.195621e-01
-1.208195e-02
1.574490e-05
p-value
3.552959e-ll
8.013883e-04
3.802319e-10
5.202 189e-03
5.415787e-02
7.849645e-09
9.689652e-01
2.840335e-01
1.590089e-01
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLB cell 5.2A L01
coefficient
1. 84046 le+03
-5.616490e-01
8.047374e+02
8.495986e+00
-1.339539e-02
5.576066e+01
2.786167e+01
-9.210465e-02
8.113807e-05
p-value
0.002178118
0.661432084
0.232099393
0.055486304
0.035815796
0.928185709
0.002354332
0.005135538
0.012548053
FLB cell 5.2B L01
coefficient
1.536272e+03
-4.643965e-01
1.147920e+03
3.065543e+00
-5.152352e-03
1.139109e+03
3.293389e+00
-6.043928e-03
8.838069e-07
p-value
4.519746e-05
5.132532e-01
7.569550e-03
2.223960e-01
1.471131e-01
2.025952e-02
5.870335e-01
7.811988e-01
9.668344e-01
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
Control cell 7. 3 A L01
coefficient
7.102012e+02
-1.193484e-01
2.456 102e+02
3.958456e+00
-6.044686e-03
3.643681e+02
8.615070e-01
6.578941e-03
-1.304055e-05
p-value
0.05999102
0.89215459
0.61726719
0.21549391
0.18588644
0.51560667
0.90310030
0.80137794
0.62496324
Control cell 7. 3BL01
coefficient
1.428613e+03
-1.331828e+00
6.683 128e+02
5.385694e+00
-1.005476e-02
1.432952e+02
1.911237e+01
-6.599695e-02
5.766683e-05
p-value
0.03666348
0.41302080
0.44712134
0.33984764
0.21877505
0.88009151
0.12987300
0.15513754
0.21701552
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
AALB cell 7.4A L01
coefficient
2.72882 le+02
2.090255e+01
2.807360e+02
2.079518e+01
2.239602e-04
2.533684e+03
-4.896104e+01
3.802693e-01
-5.314646e-04
p-value
0.93308625
0.08442847
0.95199798
0.65019472
0.99805724
0.65754826
0.65094440
0.48384465
0.47747192
AALB cell 7.4B L01
coefficient
1.500991e+04
-3.249839e+01
1.775043e+04
-6.996677e+01
7.814792e-02
1.702006e+04
-4.735300e+01
-4.505629e-02
1.722917e-04
p-value
1.144936e-05
1.337 172e-03
6.699188e-05
4.120704e-02
2.328388e-01
8.242883e-04
5.360385e-01
9.053947e-01
7.418435e-01
D-38
-------
Phosphorous, Total
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLBcellS.lALOl
coefficient
2.707463e+00
5.626 158e-04
2.883 161e+00
-1.038930e-03
2.339693e-06
2.928984e+00
-2.236583e-03
7.034650e-06
-4.657362e-09
p-value
0.0001475468
0.6850799049
0.0018398618
0.8384629711
0.7437386096
0.0053724566
0.8579301840
0.8759199590
0.9158594354
FLBcellS.lBLOl
coefficient
6.418077e-01
6.557450e-03
1.223737e-01
1.129205e-02
-6.916933e-06
6.105435e-01
-1.475719e-03
4.313505e-05
-4.964979e-08
p-value
0.6942815
0.1034484
0.9565856
0.4332161
0.7304152
0.8146521
0.9662528
0.7321341
0.6874593
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLBcell5.2AL01
coefficient
6.426692e+00
-4.754063e-03
6.755890e+00
-7.632967e-03
4.257629e-06
6.001566e+00
1.187098e-02
-7.501358e-05
8.171736e-08
p-value
1.403425e-05
9.184472e-02
4.716200e-04
4.543398e-01
7.675323e-01
3.341393e-03
5.984809e-01
3.703287e-01
3.372653e-01
FLB cell 5.2B L01
coefficient
3.672043e+00
-1.416524e-03
2.188115e+00
1.207169e-02
-1.968761e-05
1.493954e+00
3.002315e-02
-8.993276e-05
6.963309e-08
p-value
0.01329640
0.66363669
0.23744612
0.30265865
0.23295379
0.47723110
0.28994542
0.37618268
0.48161812
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
Control cell 7. 3 A L01
coefficient
1.290169e+00
5.324213e-04
1.013494e-01
1.096692e-02
-1.546745e-05
8.479099e-01
-8.501764e-03
6.388979e-05
-8.197817e-08
p-value
0.05730722
0.73655511
0.90247044
0.04991549
0.05206245
0.32103152
0.43097181
0.11964919
0.05458430
Control cell 7. 3BL01
coefficient
1.1 7802 le+00
1.886232e-03
3.305437e-01
9.373992e-03
-1.120765e-05
3.526714e-01
8.795457e-03
-8.849872e-06
-2.430469e-09
p-value
0.1229711
0.3167403
0.7430964
0.1579260
0.2348907
0.7608092
0.5539467
0.8713087
0.9650235
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
AALB cell 7.4A L01
coefficient
9.293295e-01
1.855459e-02
2.915159e+00
-8.595683e-03
5.662741e-05
1.563474e-01
7.682319e-02
-4.08751 le-04
6.507966e-07
p-value
0.65199414
0.02026386
0.31396703
0.75786922
0.32110025
0.96156958
0.22462179
0.19715947
0.14004323
AALB cell 7.4B L01
coefficient
1.273296e+00
1.034462e-02
2.56573 le+00
-7.325562e-03
3.685475e-05
2.235548e+00
2.897617e-03
-1. 88431 le-05
7.788924e-08
p-value
0.35193662
0.04345766
0.18332603
0.68945135
0.32528984
0.34352471
0.94735924
0.93144676
0.79646740
D-39
-------
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLBcellS.lALOl
coefficient
1.186743e+03
-1.301889e+00
1.101968e+03
-1.408898e-02
-2.098476e-03
1.104722e+03
-1.180686e-01
-1.667458e-03
-4.381939e-07
p-value
1.545508e-06
5.516811e-04
8.686775e-06
9.838737e-01
9.224937e-02
9.831374e-05
9.527674e-01
8.293180e-01
9.549029e-01
FLBcellS.lBLOl
coefficient
1.216155e+03
-1.160246e+00
1.170280e+03
-4.633607e-01
-1.135579e-03
1.052960e+03
3.964969e+00
-1.949198e-02
1.866199e-05
p-value
4.280723e-05
1.584045e-02
4.503441e-04
7.560703e-01
6.293948e-01
1.960242e-03
2.992721e-01
2.014800e-01
2.199153e-01
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLBcell5.2AL01
coefficient
1.482229e+03
-1.504524e+00
1.451165e+03
-1.054577e+00
-7.506798e-04
1.334024e+03
4.289159e+00
-2.419000e-02
2.491795e-05
p-value
8.902959e-05
1.2894 19e-02
8.7331 19e-04
5.503233e-01
7.872231e-01
2.082921e-03
2.813821e-01
1.588921e-01
1.648856e-01
FLB cell 5.2B L01
coefficient
8.991622e+02
-1.091677e+00
9.819408e+02
-2.340766e+00
2.033163e-03
1.148830e+03
-8.540944e+00
2.769309e-02
-2.607333e-05
p-value
0.0003929878
0.0252868669
0.0012002987
0.1544070832
0.4011545800
0.0004901504
0.0266411505
0.0478667655
0.0582659710
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
Control cell 7. 3 A L01
coefficient
2.329992e+02
-1.302736e-01
2.193082e+02
6.935795e-02
-3.339230e-04
2.629507e+02
-1.954824e+00
8.569131e-03
-9.482668e-06
p-value
0.006583895
0.431311936
0.029986841
0.910668726
0.737619354
0.014521089
0.171120388
0.147270229
0.132005299
Control cell 7. 3BL01
coefficient
1.163771e+02
-7.249440e-02
6.413407e+01
6.892750e-01
-1.274209e-03
7.794385e+01
4.8763 17e-02
1.542984e-03
-3.000600e-06
p-value
0.1885619
0.7436343
0.5132520
0.3908422
0.3284838
0.5094423
0.9815769
0.8578281
0.7416922
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
AALB cell 7.4A L01
coefficient
2.9683 19e+02
-2.797538e-01
2.820791e+02
5.367207e-02
-9.208126e-04
3.072219e+02
-1.790548e+00
1.309786e-02
-2.561497e-05
p-value
0.1422521
0.7078643
0.3322031
0.9872122
0.9175455
0.5206202
0.8795787
0.8730695
0.8625165
AALB cell 7.4B L01
coefficient
4.751919e+02
-9.854460e-01
4.7460 16e+02
-9.721032e-01
-3.684848e-05
3.737667e+02
6.424 126e+00
-5.625863e-02
1.027286e-04
p-value
0.07980778
0.31771615
0.22190046
0.81326064
0.99728299
0.42000641
0.57964067
0.50601183
0.50167999
D-40
-------
Ammonia (As N)
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLBcellS.lALOl
coefficient
5.891555e+03
-9.398683e+00
7.657295e+03
-2.549405e+01
2.351368e-02
7.502048e+03
-2.143644e+01
7.607298e-03
1.577901e-05
p- value
0.004380627
0.043475747
0.005736417
0.117999149
0.294740536
0.017110290
0.580445833
0.956424707
0.907820805
FLBcellS.lBLOl
coefficient
1.757537e+03
-1.605124e+00
1.985035e+03
-3.678752e+00
3.029433e-03
1.870821e+03
-6.915495e-01
-8.680947e-03
1.161628e-05
p-value
3.485958e-06
2.306600e-02
4.008765e-05
1.332392e-01
3.682352e-01
3.792349e-04
9.045288e-01
6.770770e-01
5.699373e-01
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
FLBcell5.2AL01
coefficient
2.037352e+03
-2.102609e+00
1.861285e+03
-5.628595e-01
-2.277145e-03
1.805746e+03
8.731488e-01
-8.113609e-03
6.016566e-06
p-value
1.323264e-09
1.555545e-04
1.087967e-06
7.303572e-01
3.327963e-01
1.100234e-05
8.137686e-01
5.541618e-01
6.648267e-01
FLB cell 5.2B L01
coefficient
2.088572e+03
-2.175365e+00
1. 64625 le+03
1.845129e+00
-5.868373e-03
1.036460e+03
1.761472e+01
-6.757577e-02
6.116972e-05
p-value
0.002769706
0.149737373
0.062300131
0.729955954
0.436791548
0.271721227
0.166983484
0.142364982
0.172571765
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
Control cell 7. 3 A L01
coefficient
4.919822e+02
-8.922344e-02
5.113659e+02
-2.593578e-01
2.521967e-04
8.705869e+02
-9.627064e+00
3.843636e-02
-3.944528e-05
p-value
0.032316700
0.865743229
0.111779808
0.895440894
0.928534768
0.006949358
0.015995287
0.010191162
0.009657178
Control cell 7. 3BL01
coefficient
1.471974e+02
6.5591 15e-01
-1.258665e+02
3.068528e+00
-3.611196e-03
9.829742e+01
-2.792277e+00
2.0274 14e-02
-2.462 170e-05
p-value
0.45166176
0.19081172
0.62786942
0.07740272
0.14120338
0.71117510
0.41441411
0.11997870
0.06724930
linear
quadratic
cubic
intercept
date
intercept
date
dateA2
intercept
date
dateA2
dateA3
AALB cell 7.4A L01
coefficient
5.9068 13e+02
1.383019e+00
2.714398e+02
5.747689e+00
-9.103408e-03
8.731 121e+02
-1.288140e+01
9.239150e-02
-1.419329e-04
p-value
0.06133527
0.20084230
0.50847802
0.16455342
0.26791563
0.04565582
0.10869700
0.02785519
0.01618144
AALB cell 7.4B L01
coefficient
5.34504 le+02
1.611618e+00
2.40052 le+02
5.637367e+00
-8.396519e-03
1.866690e+02
7.290225e+00
-1.740161e-02
1.259294e-05
p-value
0.01109482
0.02616511
0.33197643
0.03033601
0.09642544
0.53913615
0.21575358
0.54445124
0.74881839
D-41
-------
FIELD GAS TIME PLOTS
D-42
-------
Summary
The field gas plots for the control cells and FLB cell 5.1 are very similar in nature. Compositions
are the same with all exhibiting a flat linear behavior in time. FLB cell 5.1 shows a slightly
higher degree of variability than the control cells.
FLB cell 5.2 is quite different than the other cells. At the beginning of observation, gas
composition is quite similar to the other cells. Then on approximately March 1, 2002 after a
period of flat linear behavior, there is a dip in methane and carbon dioxide (with a corresponding
increase in oxygen) concentration levels for a period of approximately 10 months. Finally, on
approximately January 1, 2003, field gas levels return to those of the other cells.
D-43
-------
Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 5.1 G01
o
CO
o o
i "
o
.
CP. °o
T i i i i r
21Nov2001 1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003
Date
Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 5.2 G01
o
CO ^
o
(O ^
> o
•• H
•:«"
21Nov2001 1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003
Date
*5.1=FLBcell5S
5.2=FLB cell 5N
D-44
-------
Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 7.3A G01
o
', - e°e
• o °
^ * ^*
i i i i r
1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003
Date
o
CO
o
CD
o _
Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 7.3A G02
.^g«„
A.** A**i**. A
1Mar2002
9Jun2002
17Sep2002
Date
26Dec2002 5Apr2003
D-45
-------
Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 7.3B G01
o
CO ^
o
CD
> o _
o
!>" ' V,1-'1*11 v-i i* • v •" ^" *1-
8°
o o
AM
AA AAAA A
1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003
Date
Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 7.3B G02
o _
O
8%
A AAAA.AVA *" A*A
1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003
Date
'.3=Control cell 7.3
D-46
-------
FIELD GAS BOX-PLOTS
D-47
-------
Summary
The first tool we use to investigate the dataset are boxplots, or box and whiskers plots. A box and
whiskers plot is composed of a central box divided by a line and two lines extending out from the
box called whiskers. The length of the central box indicates the spread of the bulk of the data
(the central 50%) while the length of the whiskers show how stretched the tails of the distribution
are. The width of the box has no particular meaning; the plot can be made quite narrow without
affecting its visual impact. The sample median is displayed as a line through the box. Any
unusually small/large data points are displayed by a circle on the plot. A box and whiskers plot
can be used to assess the symmetry of the data. If the distribution is symmetrical, then the box is
divided in two equal halves by the median, the whiskers will be the same length and the number
of extreme data points will be distributed equally on either end of the plot. A boxplot is a way to
visually analyze a dataset's distribution. The 25th and 75th quantile are the endpoints that
encompass the filled box. The whiskers extend out to the largest(smallest) data points that lie
more than 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR, the 75th quantile minus the 25th quantile) on
each side of the median, a common non-parametric measure to distinguish possible outliers.
Potential outliers are then plotted as circles outside of this range. These plots are very useful in
making general decisions regarding the distributional form of the data. For example,
assumptions of normality imply symmetrical data and if the data do not appear symmetric
according to the boxplots there will most likely be problems with assuming normality.
The box-plots for the three field gases demonstrate that the FLB cells contain slightly smaller
concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide overall and slightly higher concentrations of
oxygen. Also, the control cells contain far less variability in concentration levels. FLB cell 5.2
has a larger variability because of the 10 month decrease in methane and carbon dioxide levels
(10 month increase in oxygen levels).
D-48
-------
CH4
o
o
o
CD
c
0)
o
o §
O
I I I I I I
5.1 G01 5.2 G01 7.3AG01 7.3A G02 7.3B G01 7.3B G02
*5.\(2):FLB Cell 5.1(2) 7.3 : Control Cell 7.3
D-49
-------
CO2
E o
O CM
O
O _
5.1 G01 5.2 G01 7.3AG01 7.3A G02 7.3B G01 7.3B G02
O2
o _
5.1 G01
I I I I I
5.2 G01 7.3AG01 7.3A G02 7.3B G01 7.3B G02
*5.1(2) :FLB Cell 5.1(2) 7.3 : Control Cell 7.3
D-50
-------
TREND TESTS
D-51
-------
Summary
The Mann-Kendall results must be considered with caution. Well-constructed data sets will be
evenly collected over time and must not exhibit any obvious temporal correlation. Both of the
assumptions seem to be violated by the data in areas, particularly temporal correlation.
Therefore, the results here are strictly qualitative and hopefully will help the reader reconstruct
the statistical nature of the data. The Mann-Kendall test attempts to test for the existence of a
trend by comparing the signs of pair-wise differences in the data. The null hypothesis is that
there is no trend. In our case, the alternative is that there exists a trend, either positive or
negative. A low p-value will reject "randomness" in favor of the existence of a trend. Further
information can then be extracted by viewing the slope estimates. For n data points, the slope
estimate is created by computing the n(n-l)!2 different slopes estimates between individual
points and then selecting the median as the overall estimate. Details can be found in Hollander &
Wolfe, pp 416-420, 1973.
LEACHATE - Mann-Kendall Test
p-values (values below 0.05 in bold)
Cell
Control cell
7.3A
Control cell
7.3B
AALB cell
7.4A
AALB cell
7.4B
FLB cell
5.1A
FLB cell
5. IB
FLB cell
5. 2 A
FLB cell
5.2B
BOD
0.112
0.0372
0.035
0.0000817
0.337
0.000958
0.000246
0.291
COD
1
0.576
0.029
0.00114
0.607
0.0122
0.381
0.131
Ammonia
(AsN)
0.922
0.0252
0.127
0.0529
0.0399
0.0907
0.000147
0.00152
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(TKN)
0.108
0.0635
1
0.806
0.00915
0.251
0.108
0.0476
Phosphorous,
Total
0.697
0.441
0.0134
0.127
0.627
0.00591
0.0512
0.952
Slope Estimate
(change/day, pos. in red, neg. in blue, significant slopes "grayed")
Cell
BOD
COD
Ammonia
(AsN)
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN)
Phosphorous,
Total
D-52
-------
Control cell
7.3A
Control cell
7.3B
AALB cell
7.4A
AALB cell
7.4B
FLB cell
5.1A
FLB cell
5. IB
FLB cell
5. 2 A
FLB cell
5.2B
-0.0628
-0.502
5.79
-17.1
-0.0631
-0.23
-0.411
-0.0764
0.00208
-0.593
9.28
0.167
^H
-1.76
-0.476
0.0234
0.785
1.66
^H
^H
^H
^H
-0.641
-0.267
-1.58
-3.75
-2.94
-3.5
0.00016
0.00256
0.0123
0.00803
0.000789
0.005
-0.00683
0.000152
FIELD GAS - Mann-Kendall Test
p-values (values below 0.05 in bold)
Cell
Control cell
7.3AG01
Control cell
7.3A G02
Control cell
7.3B G01
Control cell
7.3B G02
FLB cell 5.1
G01
FLB cell 5.2
G01
CH4
1.481e-08
4.613e-06
0.0559
0.1992
0.0853
0.0037
CO2
2.387e-08
0.0006
0.0100
1.179e-08
0.0385
0.0010
O2
0.0137
0.4653
0.0022
0.1485
0.0391
0.0004
Slope Estimate
(change/day, pos. in red, neg. in blue, significant slopes "grayed")
Cell
Control cell
7.3AG01
Control cell
7.3A G02
Control cell
7.3B G01
CH4
-0.006667
-0.006452
0.002083
CO2
-0.003187
-0.001832
0.001875
O2
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
D-53
-------
Control cell
7.3B G02
FLB cell 5.1
G01
FLB cell 5.2
G01
-0.001049
-0.005424
-0.021591
0.003704
-0.004786
-0.014725
0.000000
0.001550
0.007919532
Interpretation
A good example to start with is the AALB 7.4 data, which appears to be trended strongly for
both 'replicates' in most parameters that were analyzed. A review of the time plots shows that
this indeed seems to be the case and regardless of any violations of the assumptions, there
appears to be trends present. This is most likely a function of the relatively young age of the
landfill cell. FLB cell 5. IB illustrates some of the hazards of applying a simple trend test to data
that shows serial correlation. There does not seem to be an overall positive/negative trend for
most parameters but it appears that a trend exists according to the test. This could be caused by
the obvious temporal correlation in the data and the fact that this is normally a major violation of
the Mann Kendall assumptions. If this correlation continues to be evident with increased data
then a time series model will most likely need to be fitted to the data in order to remove the
temporal correlation that is being seen. Although it is possible, it is somewhat premature at this
point to assume a model structure for the many of these parameters given only a couple of years
of data. The heterogeneous nature of the patterns seen (in the time leachate plots) do not yet give
rise to a common model that will be needed to make comparisons.
D-54
-------
SETTLING DATA
D-55
-------
Levelplot of Settling Height in FLB Cell
(7/01/2001 thru 6/1/2003)
240000-
O)
c
r 239500-
0
239000-
1.1 2.5 0.8!
1.5 5.1 5.3 4.6
Area 52B
1.7 4.6 5.6 3.2
1.5 1.2 1.4 1
3.8
1.4 3.7 4.6
17 Are352A 12
2.9
1.4 3.7
1.5 1.2
4.3 3.6 0.89
4.6 5.6
1.4
29 Area 51 B36 °89
0.89 1.8 3.1
2.5 3.6 4.
1.1 2.9 2.9
15 1Area
4.3 5.1 5.:
3 3.6 3.8
3.1 3 3.;
511A __^^^^
I i
1576700 1576750 1576800
1576850 1576900
Easting
1576950 1577000
NOTE:
The procedure for this analysis is as follows. A local multi-variate regression model is fit to the spatial
parameters (Easting and Northing). The local least squares criterion is then minimized to produce
estimates of the coefficients, and the resulting plane estimate from which the estimate at the point is
created. The proceedure is repeated for each point of estimation. The amount of smoothing that is done to
the data is highly dependent upon the value ofh chosen. A large bandwidth h leads to a lot of smoothing
since many data points are used in the smoothing. A small h leads to a very noisy estimate since only
points right in the vicinity of the fitting point are being used for the estimate. In this model, the variable
bandwidth h represents a nearest-neighbor based bandwidth that utilizes the closest 50% of the data points
D-56
-------
which is a somewhat average bandwidth.
Care must be taken in interpreting these plots. First and foremost, the map is only really applicable within
the confines of the sampling, the area in which the sampling was done. In addition to this, it must be
realized that smoothing estimates near the edge of the sampled area may not be as reliable as those near
the middle. Confidence bounds on the contours were not attempted here and would probably take a serious
effort to creat, assuming we could find a method for which the assumptions were satisfied.
Summary of FLB cell 5.1/FLB cell 5.2 Levelplot
Settling heights do not appear to be strongly correlated although there does appear to be
some mild correlation. A few anomalies seem to exist, one in particular in the east section
of Area FLB cell 5. IB where there is a 1.4 ft. and a 0.89 ft. result that are amidst much
higher results. Bigger differences seem to exist towards the center/east portions of the
cells. As more data becomes available, it may be useful to attempt other modeling
strategies.
The data available for settling in Control cell 7.3 and AALB cell 7.4 was too sparse and
discontinuous to warrant a spatial smoothing plot. We hope that in future the data
collected will be less impacted by earth moving equipment and perhaps give us additional
insight into the spatial nature of the settling in the control and ALLB cells.
D-57
-------
Boxplot of Mean Annual Differences in Height
An explanation of what a boxplot is can be found in the previous section on FIELD GAS BOX PLOTS.
O)
'CD
-2
B
I . I
o
o
FLB5.1A FLB5.1B FLB 5.2A FLB 5.2B Control 7.3A Control 7.3B AALB 7.4A AALB 7.4B
Cell
D-58
-------
A formal definition of normality can be found in any introductory statistics book. For our
purposes, one can assume we are testing for the special 'bell' shape that defines it
(empirical density estimate from Normal distribution shown below).
Density Estimate from 100,000 Normal Observations (mean=0,sd=1)
CO
o
-------
multiple comparison approach, makes it very difficult for the test to show a significant
difference.
Tukey contrasts
CellFLB5.1B-CellFLB5.1A
CellFLB5.2A-CellFLB5.1A
CellFLB5.2B-CellFLB5.1A
Cell Control 7.3A-Cell FLB 5.1A
Cell Control 7.3B-Cell FLB 5.1A
Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell FLB 5.1 A
Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell FLB 5.1 A
Cell FLB 5.2A-Cell FLB 5.1 B
CellFLB5.2B-CellFLB5.1B
Cell Control 7.3A-Cell FLB 5.1B
Cell Control 7.SB-Cell FLB 5.1B
CellAALB7.4A-CellFLB5.1B
Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell FLB 5.1 B
Cell FLB 5.2B-Cell FLB 5.2A
Cell Control 7.3A-Cell FLB 5.2A
Cell Control 7.3B-Cell FLB 5.2A
Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell FLB 5.2A
Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell FLB 5.2A
Cell Control 7.3A-Cell FLB 5.2B
Cell Control 7.SB-Cell FLB 5.2B
Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell FLB 5.2B
Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell FLB 5.2B
Cell Control 7.SB-Cell Control 7.3A
Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell Control 7.3A
Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell Control 7.3A
Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell Control 7.3B
Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell Control 7.3B
Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell AALB 7.4A
e-
e-
e v
e
e-
e-
e-
e
e—•
e—
e
e
e-
t-
-2-1012
95 % two-sided confidence intervals
Since this procedure depends upon the normality of each individual data set, we will also
include some simple non-parametric pair-wise comparisons, which do not necessarily
account for the multiple comparisons. In lieu of being a multiple comparison procedure,
they should still provide additional evidence for the analysis. In particular, the Wilcoxon
Rank Sum Test tests for a difference between the locations of two similarly shaped
distributions. The null hypothesis is that the two variables, for instance FLB cell 5.IB
and FLB cell 5.1 A, have the same unspecified probability distribution. The alternative is
that one variable tends to be larger'/(smaller) than the other. A common way to visualize
this is that one variable's distribution is the same as the other except shifted to the left
(smaller) or right (larger). Therefore, an assumption of the test is that both variables'
distributions are similarly shaped, which can't be stated conclusively here and upon
further review might even be stated as unlikely. Nevertheless, it provides a bit more
support for what we see in the boxplots.
D-60
-------
Individual Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests
Cell Difference p-value
FLBcell5.1B-FLBcell5.1A 0.631
FLB cell 5.2A-FLB cell 5.1A 0.717
FLB cell 5.2B-FLB cell 5.1 A 0.016
Control cell 7.3A-FLB cell 5.1A 0.323
Control cell 7.3B-FLB cell 5.1A 0.296
AALB cell 7.4A-FLB cell 5.1A 0.131
AALB cell 7.4B-FLB cell 5.1A 0.014
FLB cell 5.2A-FLB cell 5.1 B 0.527
FLB cell 5.2B-FLB cell 5.1B 0.006
Control cell 7.3A-FLB cell 5.1 B 0.349
Control cell 7.3B-FLB cell 5.1 B 0.057
AALB cell 7.4A-FLB cell 5.1B 0.199
AALB cell 7.4B-FLB cell 5.1B 0.013
FLB cell 5.2B-FLB cell 5.2A 0.166
Control cell 7.3A-FLB cell 5.2A 0.554
Control cell 7.3B-FLB cell 5.2A 0.501
AALB cell 7.4A-FLB cell 5.2A 0.125
AALB cell 7.4B-FLB cell 5.2A 0.012
Control cell 7.3A-FLB cell 5.2B 0.907
Control cell 7.3B-FLB cell 5.2B 0.291
AALB cell 7.4A-FLB cell 5.28 0.007
AALB cell 7.4B-FLB cell 5.26 0.000
Control cell 7.3B-Control cell 7.3A 0.445
AALB cell 7.4A-Control cell 7.3A 0.138
AALB cell 7.4B-Control cell 7.3A 0.026
AALB cell 7.4A-Control cell 7.3B 0.102
AALB cell 7.4B-Control cell 7.36 0.021
AALB cell 7.4B-AALB cell 7.4A 0.949
The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests seem to pull
out AALB cell 7.4B in particular as one with
increased settling differences, relative to the
others. However, there is a large difference in
running these non-parametric tests
individually (not as a multiple comparison)
and the confidence level of the overall set of
comparisons would be much lower than that
of the Tukey multiple comparison test. This
is far from conclusive evidence, however,
qualitatively with all evidence combined, it
does appear that AALB cell 7.4B does exhibit
larger settling values in general.
D-61
-------
OUTER LOOP LANDFILL BIOREACTOR DATA
This document summarizes the data that Neptune has received to date from WMI and/or
EPA/NRMRL. The data fall into 4 groups which might be labeled:
1. Leachate (monthly and quarterly data collected from all disposal cells)
2. Solids (weekly data collected from the control and FLB cells)
3. Landfill Gas (quarterly data collected from the control and FLB cells)
4. Field Gas (weekly data collected from the control and FLB cells)
The disposal cells have been labeled somewhat differently in the data files received. We
will use the following denotation:
A. 73A and 73B - two control disposal cells
B. 74A and 74B - two AALB treatment disposal cells
C. 51 A, 5 S-, 52A, 52B - four FLB treatment disposal cells
1. The leachate data are labeled this way with an "L01" extension.
2. The solids data are labeled this way for the control disposal cells with extensions
that identify specific locations (e.g., 7.3A-1). For the FLB treatment cells, the
solids data have been labeled 5N-x and 5S-x indicating north and south disposal
cells and with x denoting a specific location. The locations also indicate which
FLB treatment disposal cell applies: x in the range 1-6 for 5N implies 52B, in the
range 21-26 for 5N implies 52A; x in the range 1-6 for 5S implies 51 A, in the
range 21-26 for 5S implies 5 S-. Locations for the solids data have been
provided for the FLB treatment and control cells in terms of (x,y) coordinates in
hard copy form and have been entered electronically into the database.
3. The landfill gas data are labeled 73 A and 73B for the control cells. For the FLB
treatment cells the labels are 51 and 52, implying that landfill gas data were not
collected on a more refined level (e.g., 51A and 5 S- separately), with an
extension of "GO 1".
4. The field gas data are labeled 73 A and 73B for the control cells. For the FLB
treatment cells the labels are 51 and 52, implying that landfill gas data were not
collected on a more refined level (e.g., 51A and 5 S- separately), with an
extension of "G01" or "G02".
One other attribute of the data that will be relevant for data analysis is the temporal
information. Different data were collected at different times and with different
periodicity, as follows:
D-62
-------
1. The leachate data were provided in 27 data files that cover the following dates,
with the corresponding number of data rows in each file:
6/1/01 - (615) 6/25/01 - (801) 6/26/01 - (615)
7/11/01-(1042) 7/12/01-(188) 11/15/01 - (1217)
12/17/01-(36) 12/18/01-(86) 1/10/02 - (120)
2/11/02 - (120) 3/19/02 - (752) 3/20/02 - (1067)
4/11/02-(106) 4/12/02-(24) 5/13/02-(63)
5/14/02-(61) 6/10/02-(1603) 7/16/02 - (120)
8/7/02-(128) 9/16/02-(1553) 10/21/02 - (128)
11/14/02-(128) 12/16/02-(1408) 1/22/03 - (113)
2/12/2003-(121) 3/18/03-(1552) 4/10/03 - (120)
The number of data points in each data set depends on the number of parameters
measured. The leachate data are recorded monthly for some parameters and quarterly for
many more. Hence, when the number of data rows is around 1,000, the data include
quarterly results (7/11/01, 11/15/01, 3/20/02, 6/10/02, 9/16/02, 12/16/02, and 3/18/03).
The data from June 2001 represent the first rounds of data collected. It appears as though
the data collection regime has stabilized since that time, and that more recent data have
been collected on a more regular schedule.
2. The solids data are available for 4 days a week in each full week of the month of
June 2000. In general, only one or two of those days were used to sample solids
from a given location in a given disposal cell (for example, 18 samples were taken
from location 73A-1 on 6/6/00, 6 samples were taken from 5N21 on 6/22/00).
Samples were taken at each 3 inch depth interval, presumably to the bottom of the
samples location bore hole. In total, 171 data points are available from 25
locations from the FLB treatment and control disposal cells.
3. The landfill gas data have been collected quarterly in the following months or
dates (with number of data rows in parentheses):
12/19/01-(178) 3/21/02-(453) 6/13/02-6/28/02 - (466)
Only a few samples have been collected in each case (e.g., 2 samples on 12/19/02,
6 samples on 3/21/02, and 6 samples on June 2002).
4. The field gas data have been collected approximately weekly since 11/16/01 for
the FLB treatment disposal cell, and from 1/10/02 for the control disposal cell.
For the control cells approximately 6 samples are included weekly for each cell
(73 A and 73B). There are a total of 687 data rows for this cell. For the FLB
treatment disposal cells approximately 3 samples are included weekly for cell 51
and again for cell 52. There are a total of 207 and 208 data rows for cell 51 and
for cell 52, respectively.
D-63
-------
APPENDIX E
SURFACE EMISSIONS,
REMOTE MONITORING STUDIES
-------
SURFACE EMISSIONS, REMOTE MONITORING STUDIES
Prepared/or:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Air Pollution Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Contract No. 68-C99-201
Work Assignment No. 4-003
Project No. RN992014.0003
Prepared by:
ARCADIS-Geraghty and Miller
P.O. Box 13109
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
September 16, 2003
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1. Optical Remote Sensing and Overview of Calculation of Emission Flux E-2
1.1 Surface Radial Plume Mapping E-4
1.2 Vertical Scanning E-5
1.3 Virtual Flux Box. E-8
2. Data Quality Objectives and Criteria E-ll
3. Round 1 D-14
3.1 Field Activities and Data Collection E-14
3.1.1 As-Built Area E-14
3.1.3 Control Area E-18
3.1.4 Biocover Area E-18
3.1.5 Compost Area E-19
3.2 Data Analysis and Results E-20
3.2.1 As-Built Area E-21
3.2.2 Retrofit Area E-24
3.2.3 Control Area E-27
3.2.4 Biocover Area E-28
3.2.5 Compost Area E-31
3.2.6 Upwind Measurements E-31
3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Control E-33
3.3.1 Assessment of DQI Goals E-33
3.3.2 Meteorological/Theodolite Data E-33
3.3.3 OP-FTIR Measurements E-34
3.3.4 Problems Encountered and Data Limitations E-39
4 Conclusions
5 ReferencesE-41
Appendices
A Site Configurations
B Methane, Ammonia, and VOC Concentrations
CONTENTS (Continued)
E-ii
-------
TABLES
Page
1 DQI Goals for Critical Measurements E-ll
2 Detection Limits for Target Compounds E-12
3 Schedule of ORS Measurements for Round 1 E-14
4 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and
Wind Direction for the As-Built Area E-21
5 Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane
For As-Built Vertical Scan-Run 1 E-23
6 Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs for As-Built Vertical
Scan-Run 2 E-23
7 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and
Wind Direction for the Retrofit North Area E-25
8 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and
Wind Direction for the Retrofit South Area E-26
9 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and
Wind Direction for the Background Vertical Scan of the Control Area E-27
10. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane
For Control Area Vertical Scan-Run 1 E-29
11. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of NMOCs for Control Area
Vertical Scan-Run 2 E-29
12. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind
Direction for the Downwind Vertical Scan of the Biocover Area E-3 0
13 Average Calculated Methane Flux (g/s) Found at Each Survey Area E-40
FIGURES
Figure
No. Page
1 Waste Management, Inc. Outer Loop Facility Louisville, KY E-3
2 Example of a Typical Radial Scanning Configuration E-6
3 Example Vertical Scanning Configuration E-9
4 Example of Virtual Flux Box Configuration E-10
5 Map of As-Built Area showing Location of Vertical Plane, Surface Scanning,
Background Measurements, and possible "Hot Spot" E-15
6 Map of Retrofit Area (North and South) showing Location of Vertical Planes and
Background Measurements E-16
CONTENTS (Continued)
-------
FIGURES
Figure
No. Page
7. Map of Retrofit Area (North and South) showing Location of Mirrors for Radial
Scanning and Gas Extraction Pipes E-17
8. Map of Control Area showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background
Measurements E-18
9. Map of Biocover Area showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background
Measurements E-19
10. Map of Compost Area showing Location of Vertical Planes and Location of
Background Measurements E-20
11. Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Moving Average of Loops
1 to 4 of the As-Built Vertical Scanning Survey. E-22
12. Reconstructed Methane Concentrations (in ppm) for the Retrofit North and
South Areas E-24
13 Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Moving Average of Loops
1 to 4 of the Retrofit North Vertical Scanning Survey. E-26
14 Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Moving Average of Loops
5 to 8 of the Retrofit North Vertical Scanning Survey. E-27
15 Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Control Area Vertical
Scanning Survey. E-28
16. Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Moving Average of Loops
20 to 23 of the Biocover Vertical Scanning Survey. E-31
17. Time Series of Calculated Methane Flux vs. Measured Wind Direction for the
Biocover (using moving average of 4 loops) E-32
18. Calculated Average Methane Flux and Average CCF from the Retrofit
South Vertical Scanning E-36
19. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average
CCF for the Retrofit North Area Radial Scanning Survey E-37
20. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and the Average
CCF for the Retrofit South Area Radial Scanning Survey. E-38
E-iv
-------
Fugitive Gas Emission Measurements
Landfill gas emissions have been found to be a concern to human health and the environment
due to the explosive potential of the gas, emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), emissions of methane that contribute to climate change, and
odor nuisance associated with landfill gas. Landfills emit more than 100 nonmethane organic
compounds (NMOCs) (EPA 1997 a and b). The majority of the NMOCs are VOCs which
contribute to urban smog. Over thirty of the landfill gas NMOCs are classified as HAPs (EPA
2003). As a result, landfills are listed as a source as part of the Urban Air Toxic Strategy.
Due to the concerns for human health and the environment, Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations
have been promulgated that require landfill gas collection and control at landfills that (1) contain
at least 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) or 2.5 million cubic meters of waste and (2) emit 50 Mg per
year or more of NMOCs (EPA, 1998) The landfill evaluated in this study has gas collection and
control and a portion of the gas is used at a near-by industrial plant as boiler fuel (offsetting
fossil fuel). The measurements presented in this section are part of a larger effect by EPA's
Office of Research and Development to obtain necessary data needed to update the existing set
of landfill gas emissions factors (Thorneloe, 2003). These data will also be used to update the
existing set of landfill gas emission factors and as input to the evaluation of residual risk from
MSW landfills as required by CAA Section 112 (f).
Fugitive gas emissions are those emissions that are not captured for collection and control.
Differences in how a site may be operated can contribute to the level of fugitive emissions.
Optical remote sensing (ORS) was used to evaluate fugitive gas emissions for the retrofit and as-
built bioreactors. Fugitive gas emissions have been identified as a potential concern because of
the rapid increase in emissions when wet or bioreactor landfills are operated. The data collected
through these field test measurements will help to evaluate these concerns and hopefully provide
needed data to compare emissions from the as-built and retrofit bioreactors to the control site.
Measurements were also conducted at the biocover units (where compost is used as a cover
material) and compost facility.
At least 3 rounds of fugitive emissions testing are being conducted at this site to help evaluate
any increase or decrease in emissions from bioreactors (as compared to conventional landfilling
practice). This section provides the results from the first round of testing. The second and third
rounds will be completed by the fall of 2003 with results available by spring of 2004. The data
resulting from these field tests will be used along with other available data from operating
bioreactors to update existing EPA emissions factors. Current factors do not consider operation
under wet or bioreactor conditions. Sites that are not subject to CAA regulations either due to
their size or mass emission rate are not required by federal regulations to collect and control
landfill gas emissions. There has been a marked increased in interest and operation of landfills
with leachate recirculation and other liquid additions. Many of these sites do not have gas
collection and control. Data from this site will help to provide data needed to estimate emissions
at sites without controls in place and determine what level of fugitives may exist for this type of
operation.
Data from this site will also be used in EPA's MSW Decision Support Tool (DST) to quantify
total emissions for both conventional and bioreactor operations to help provide perspective of the
total emissions released to the environment over the length of time that emissions are released.
E-l
-------
(Thorneloe, 2003) Offsets for landfill gas energy utilization will be accounted for along with
emissions associated with the design, construction, operation, and monitoring of the landfill. The
result will be an evaluation of the life-cycle environmental tradeoffs to compare wet landfills
versus conventional landfills.
Figure 1 identifies each of the areas included in this study. The following tasks were conducted
in September 2002 for the as-built and retrofit bioreactors and the control, bio-cover, and
composting facility:
• Conduct background measurements using the bistatic open path-Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectroscopy (OP-FTIR).
• Collect OP-FTIR data in order to identify major emissions hot spots by generating surface concentration
maps in the horizontal plane using OP-FTIR spectrometer;
• Conduct vertical scans to determine the emission fluxes of detectable compounds downwind from major
hot spots
• Collect ancillary data needed for calculating mass emissions rates for pollutants of concern including
methane, VOCs, and HAPs. Data for ammonia emissions were collected for the compost facility and
other areas.
• The following sections present an overview of:
1. Optical remote sensing and calculation of emission flux;
2. Data quality objectives and criteria;
3. Round 1 field activities and data collection/analysis;
4. Data Quality Assurance and Control; and
5. Conclusions.
Optical Remote Sensing and Overview of Calculation of Emission Flux
The application of optical remote sensing (ORS) to quantify fugitive gas emissions has seen
dramatic improvements over the last year partly due to the partnership between EPA's Emissions
Measurement Center and the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL). In
addition, EPA's Environmental Technology Initiative has tested different instrument types to
provide additional validation of new ORS instruments. Because of the advancements made with
this technology, the Agency recommends that this be used for evaluating large area sources.
ASTM procedures are available for application of open-path Fourier Transform Infrared (OP-
FTIR) (ASTM E 1865-97, Re-approved 2002). The EPA's Emissions Measurement Center is
working to develop an EPA test method for ORS to be available by fall 2004.
E-2
-------
oum LOOP MorcuNo
A DISPOSAL FAOLJTY
LOUISVILLE, (CENTUOCY
Figure 1. Waste Management, Inc. Outer Loop Facility Louisville, KY
E-3
-------
The ORS improvements include an innovative method [Yost and Hashmonay, 2003] designed to
obtain detailed spatial information from path-integrated ORD measurements by the use of
optimization algorithms. The method uses a novel configuration of non-overlapping radial beam
geometry to map the concentration distributions in a plane. This method, Radial Plume Mapping
(RPM), is also applied to the vertical plane, downwind from the area source to map the
crosswind and vertical profiles of a plume. The flux rate is calculated using wind data and other
meteorological data. Measurements of any background emissions are also accounted for in these
calculations through use of a bistatic Open-Path Fourier Transform Infra-red (OP-FTIR)
instrument which can accurately measure the concentrations of a multitude of infrared absorbing
gaseous chemicals with high temporal resolution. The chemical vapor, emitted from an emission
source, forms a plume, which is carried by the wind across the multiple infrared beams. The
beam measurements avoid some of the uncertainties that are inherent in the traditional point
measurements. More information on these methods can be found in Hashmonay and Yost
[1999B], and Hashmonay et al. [1999].
The OP-FTIR Spectrometer combined with the RPM method is designed for both fence-line
monitoring applications, and real-time, on-site, remediation monitoring and source
characterization. The OP-FTIR can be operated in either a monostatic, or bistatic configuration.
In the monostatic configuration, an infrared light beam, modulated by a Michelson
interferometer is transmitted from a single telescope to a retro reflector (mirror) target, which is
usually set up at a range of 100 to 500 meters. The returned light signal is received by the single
telescope and directed to a detector. The light is absorbed by the molecules in the beam path as
the light propagates to the retro reflector and again as the light is reflected back to the analyzer.
Thus, the round-trip path of the light doubles the chemical absorption signal.
In the bistatic configuration, the OP-FTIR detector, interferometer, and receiving optics are set
up at one end of the path length being surveyed, and an infrared light source is set up at the other
end of the path length. Generally, the path length is between 100 to 300 meters. In this
configuration, light is absorbed by gas molecules as the light travels from the infrared source to
the detector (once through the plume). The use of retro reflectors is not required when operating
a bistatic OP-FTIR. A theodolite is used to make the survey measurement of the azimuth and
elevation angles and the radial distances to the retro reflectors, relative to the OP-FTIR sensor.
Surface Radial Plume Mapping
This technique yields information on the two-dimensional distribution of the concentrations in
the form of chemical-concentration contour maps (Hashmonay et al., 1999; Wu et al., 1999;
Hashmonay et al., 2002). Horizontal radial scanning was performed with the ORS beams located
as close to the ground as practical. This enhances the ability to detect minor constituents emitted
from the ground, since the emitted plumes dilute significantly at higher levels above the ground.
The survey area is divided into a Cartesian grid of 'n' times 'm' rectangular cells. A retro
reflector is located in each of these cells and the OP-FTIR sensor scans to each of these retro
reflectors, dwelling on each for a set measurement-time (30 seconds was used for this study).
The system scans to the retro reflectors in the order of either increasing or decreasing azimuth
angle. The path-integrated concentrations measured at each retro reflector are averaged over a
several scanning cycles to produce time-averagedconcentration maps. Meteorological
measurements were made concurrent to the scanning measurements.
For the first stage of reconstructing the average cell concentrations, an iterative algebraic
deconvolution algorithm is used. The path-integrated concentration (PIC), as a function of the
field of concentration, is given by:
E-4
-------
PICk =
where K is a Kernel matrix that incorporates the specific beam geometry with the cell
dimensions; k is the number index for the beam paths and m is the number index for the cells;
and c is the average concentration in the mth cell. Each value in the Kernel matrix K is the length
of the kth beam in the mth cell; therefore, the matrix is specific to the beam geometry. To solve for
the average concentrations (one for each cell) the Non Negative Least Squares (NNLS) was
applied. The NNLS is similar to a classical least square optimization algorithm, but is
constrained to provide the best fit of non-negative values. The NNLS algorithm was tested and
compared to the relaxation multiplicative algebraic reconstruction technique (MART) program
previously developed and used. Both algorithms gave very similar results when reached to the
same maximal level of fit between the predicted PIC and the observed PIC but the NNLS was
much faster. Therefore, the NNLS algorithm will be applied in this study. This iterative
procedure proceeds until the difference of the criteria parameter between sequential steps drops
below a very small threshold value (tolerance). Multiplying the resulted vertical vector of
averaged concentration by the matrix K, yields the end vector of predicted PIC data.
The second stage of the plume reconstruction is interpolation among the nine points, providing a
peak concentration not limited only to the center of the cells. We will use the triangle-based
cubic interpolation procedure. To extrapolate data values beyond the peripheral cell centers and
within the rectangle measurement domain, we will assign the concentration of each corner cell to
the corresponding corner of the domain.
Figure 2 represents a typical horizontal RPM configuration. In this particular case, n = m = 3.
The orange lines define the nine cells in the matrix. The blue lines represent the 9 optical paths,
each terminating at a retroreflector (Hashmonay et al., 2002). The red spot represents a point
source. The enclosed areas represent the calculated plume, transported downwind by the wind.
The numbers associated with the contour lines (isopleths) are the determined values for the
concentrations.
Vertical Scanning
The RPM method maps the concentrations in the plane of the measurement. By scanning in a
vertical plane downwind from an area source, plume concentration profiles can be obtained, and
plane-integrated concentrations can be calculated. The Smooth Beam Function Minimization
(SBFM) reconstruction approach is used with a two-dimensional smooth basis function
(bivariate Gaussian) in order to reconstruct the smoothed mass equivalent concentration map.
The smoothed mass equivalent concentration map is reconstructed using Matlab (MathWorks).
In the SBFM approach, a smooth basis function is assumed to describe the distribution of
concentrations, and the search is for the unknown parameters of the basis function. Since our
interest is in the plane integrated concentration and not the exact map of concentrations in the
plane, we fit only one smoothed basis function (one bivariate Gaussian) to reconstruct the
smoothed map.
E-5
-------
Dislocation Distance = 2.4 m; CCF =1.0
10 20
X Distance [m]
Figure 2. Example of a Typical Radial Scanning Configuration
E-6
-------
However, this methodology does not assume that the true distribution of concentration in the
vertical plane is a bivariate Gaussian. Earlier computational studies showed that one might fit a
single bivariate Gaussian function to many kinds of skewed distribu-tions and still retrieve a
reasonably good estimate of the plane-integrated concentration. The fit of a single bivariate
Gaussian function to a multiple mode distribution was also examined and found that the
reconstructed plane integrated concentration conserved fairly well the test input plane integrated
concentration.
In each iterative step of the SBFM search procedure, the measured PIC values are compared with
assumed PIC values, calculated from the new set of parameters. In order to compute the assumed
PIC values, the basis function is integrated along the beam path's direction and path-length.
In our beam geometry, it is convenient to express the smooth basis function G in polar
coordinates r and e.
1
4!-A)
(r-ccsO-n^,)2
-------
One also can fix the peak location in the vertical direction to the ground level when ground level
emissions are known to exist, as in our field experiment. However, in this methodology, there is
no requirement to apply a priori information on the source location and configuration.
Once the parameters of the function were found for a specific run, the concentration values are
calculated for every square elementary unit in a vertical domain. These values are integrated
incorporating wind speed data at each height level to compute the flux. In this stage, the
concentration values are converted from parts per million by volume to grams per cubic meter,
considering the molecular weight of the target gas and ambient temperature. The flux is
calculated in grams per second, using wind speed data in meters per second. The flux leads
directly to a determination of the emission rate (Hashmonay et al., 1998; Hashmonay and Yost,
1999A, Hashmonay et al., 2001). Thus, vertical scan leads to a direct measurement-based
determination of the upwind source emission rate.
The Concordance Correlation Factor (CCF) is used to represent the level of fit for the
reconstruction in the path-integrated domain (predicted vs. observed PIC). The CCF is similar to
the Pearson correlation coefficient, but is adjusted to account for shifts in location and scale.
Like the Pearson correlation, CCF values are bounded between -1 and 1, yet the CCF can never
exceed the absolute value of the Pearson correlation factor. For example, the CCF will be equal
to the Pearson correlation when the linear regression line intercepts the ordinate at 0, its slope
equals 1. Its absolute value will be lower than the Pearson correlation when the above conditions
are not met. For the purposes of this report, the closer the CCF value is to 1, the better the fit for
the reconstruction in the path-integrated domain.
Figure 3 shows a schematic of the experimental setup used for vertical scanning. Several retro
reflectors are placed in various locations on a vertical plane in-line with the scanning OP FTIR.
The location of the vertical plane is selected so that it intersects the mean wind direction close to
perpendicular as practical.
Virtual Flux Box
In concert with wind direction and speed data, the virtual flux box is an alternative ORS
technique that yields emission fluxes. This technique is not as well developed as the vertical
scanning technique. Conceptually, the virtual flux box may be regarded as three vertical planes
(two beams per plane) such that
E-8
-------
Figure 3. Example Vertical Scanning Configuration
the end points define the corners of the area under test. The virtual flux box was used at the
Retrofit Area as backup data in case the vertical scanning configuration did not yield acceptable
results (unfavorable wind directions).
Figure 4 illustrates the experimental setup for establishing a virtual flux box. This figure
represents the installation of the scanning OP-FTIR in a virtual flux box configuration at an
elevated site. The instrument, represented by the circle, is set up in the "southeast" corner. It
scans to the retroreflectors (small square symbols) at six of the other seven corners of the virtual
cubical box. The red lines represent the optical paths. By analogy to the vertical scanning
configuration described previously, three small vertical planes are defined. Application of the
SBFM function using a bivariate Gaussian model, will calculate the plume's size. Emission
fluxes are determined from the vertical-plane area-integrated concentration multiplied by the
wind speed.
E-9
-------
Figure 4. Example of Virtual Flux Box configuration
E-10
-------
Data Quality Objectives and Criteria
Data quality objectives (DQOs) were developed using EPA's DQO Process (described in EPA
QA/G-4, Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process) to clarify study objectives, define
the appropriate type of data, and specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be
used as the basis for establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions.
DQOs define the performance criteria that limit the probabilities of making decision errors by
considering the purpose of collecting the data, defining the appropriate type of data needed, and
specifying tolerable probabilities of making decision errors.
Quantitative objectives are established for critical measurements using the data quality indicators
of accuracy, precision, and completeness. The acceptance criteria for these data quality
indicators (DQI) are summarized in Table 1. Accuracy of measurement parameters is determined
by comparing a measured value to a known standard. Values must be within the listed tolerance
to be considered acceptable. Accuracy can also be measured by calculating the % bias of a
measured value to that of a true value.
Precision is evaluated by making replicate measurements of the same parameter and by assessing
the variations of the results. Replicate measurements are expected to fall within the tolerances
shown in Table 1. Completeness is expressed as a percentage of the number of valid
measurements compared to the total number of measurements taken.
Estimated minimum detection limits, by compound, are given in Table 2. It is important to note
that the values listed in Table 2 are considered approximate. Minimum detection limits can vary
based on atmospheric conditions. Minimum detection levels for each absorbance spectrum are
determined by calculating the root mean square (RMS) absorbance noise in the spectral region of
the target absorption feature. The minimum detection level is the absorbance signal (of the target
compound) that is five times the RMS noise level, using a reference spectrum acquired for a
known concentration of the target compound.
Table 1. DQI Goals for Critical Measurements
Measurement
Parameter
Wind direction
Wind speed
Optical path-length
Mid-IR absorbance
Elemental Hg
Sampling
Method(s)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Analysis
Method
Magnetic compass
with vane
Heavy duty wind
cup set
Theodolite
FTIR
Lumex
Accuracy
±5°
tolerance
±0.8 m/s
±1m
±10%
±20%
Precision
±5°
±0.8 m/s
± 1 m
±10%
±20%
%
Complete
90%
90%
100%
90%
90%
E-ll
-------
Table 2. Detection Limits for Target Compounds
„ . Sampling/Analytical
Compound Method
Butane
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Ethane
Ethyl chloride
Fluorotrichloromethane
Methane
Pentane
Propane
1,3-Butadiene
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Hexane
Methyl chloroform
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Propylene dichloride
t-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichlorethylene
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Ethanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
Est. Detect. Limit
for Path Length =
100m, 1 min Ave.
(ppmv)
0.006
0.006
0.012
0.004
N/A
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.024
0.008
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.010
0.040
N/A
0.028
0.008
0.040
0.012
0.018
N/A
0.006
0.030
0.006
0.006
0.040
0.014
0.014
N/A
0.004
0.040
0.004
0.010
0.014
0.006
0.030
AP-42 Value -
Cone in raw
landfill gas
(ppmv)
5.03
0.49
1.21
15.7
2.62
889
1.25
0.76
N/A
3.29
11.1
N/A
7.01
6.33
N/A
3.13
0.58
0.004
0.25
0.03
7.82
2.28
0.001
0.41
6.57
N/A
1.87
14.3
0.18
2.84
3.73
N/A
2.82
7.34
0.20
27.2
7.09
E-12
-------
Compound
2-Propanol
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Xylenes
Hydrogen sulfide
Methyl mercaptan
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Sampling/Analytical
Method
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
Est. Detect. Limit
for Path Length =
100m, 1 min Ave.
(ppmv)
0.006
0.012
0.060
0.030
6.0
0.060
0.010
0.006
AP-42 Value -
Cone in raw
landfill gas
(ppmv)
50.1
0.21
4.61
12.1
35.5
2.49
N/A
N/A
*N/A indicates that estimated minimum detection levels were not available for a particular compound.
The AP-42 values represent an average concentration of different pollutants in the raw landfill gas. This is not
comparable to the detection limits for the OP-FTIR, which is an average value for a path length of 100 meters
across the surface of the area source being evaluated. However, it does provide an indication of the types of
pollutants and range of concentrations associated with landfill gas emissions in comparison to the detection limits
of the OP-FTIR.
E-13
-------
Round 1
Field Activities and Data Collection
Field-testing was conducted as indicated in Table 3 during September of 2002. Data analysis
was performed in the months of October 2002 through January 2003.
Magnifications of the areas identified in Figure 1 are provided for each field test location. Within
these figures, circles indicate the locations of the bistatic instrument and source. The location of
the scanner plus monostatic FTIR is indicated by a circle, and the location of the scissors jack is
indicated by the square.
Theodolite measurements of the standard distance, and horizontal and vertical position of each
retroreflector (mirror) were taken in each survey area. These measurements are presented in
Tables A-l to A-5 of Appendix A.
As-Built Area
Figure 5 shows the optical configurations used at the As-Built Area. Four surface non-scanning
experiments were performed prior to the vertical scan due to limited access time at this site (we
would have preferred to conduct a full radial scan). The results were used to determine
concentrations of methane and VOCs but there was not enough data to construct a concentration
contour map.
The vertical scanning configuration was set up along the southern boundary of the As-Built Area
(see Figure 5), since the observed mean wind was from the northeast. Concurrent meteorological
data was collected during these tests. Additionally, the bistatic FTIR instrument was operated
along the western boundary of the AALB to collect background concentration data, since the
prevailing wind direction was initially from the west-northwest.
Table 3. Schedule of ORS Measurements for Round 1
Date
Day of Week
Detail of Work Performed
SeptS
Sept 6
Thursday
Friday
Sept 7
SeptS
Sept 9
Sept 10
Sept 1 1
Sept 12
Sept 13
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Travel to site
AM-Arrive at site
PM-Begin Survey/Set-up Work
Vertical Scanning of Compost Area
Radial and Vertical Scanning of As-Built Area
Vertical Scanning of Biocover Area
Vertical Scanning of Control Area
Radial Scanning of Retrofit Area
Vertical Scanning of Retrofit Area
AM-Virtual Flux Box Scanning of Retrofit Area
PM-Travel from site
E-14
-------
location of
monostatic
optical path
Figure 5. Map of As-Built Area showing Location of Vertical Plane, Surface Scanning, Background
Measurements, and possible "Hot Spot
Retrofit Area
Vertical and horizontal scanning, as well as a virtual flux box configuration was performed at the
Retrofit Area test site. Due to the size, dimensions, and collection system configuration of this
site, separate experiments of each type were performed on the north and south "halves" of this
plateau. Figure 6 shows the vertical configurations used at the Retrofit Area test site. Figure 7
presents the radial scanning configurations used at the Retrofit test site, as well as the location of
ten gas extraction pipes observed at the site (denoted by red as well as the location often gas
extraction pipes observed at the site (denoted by red circles). The locations used for the two
vertical plane experiments were defined in permit applications to the FAA. Due to the site's
elevation, proximity to the airport, and the scissor jack height when extended, FAA approval for
narrowly defined scissor jack locations was required (North: 38°08'58" N, 85°43'14" W; South:
38°08'51" N, 85°43'14" W). Concurrent meteorological data was collected during these tests.
USEPA personnel operated a non-scanning bistatic FTIR along the northern boundary of the
Retrofit Area, since the prevailing wind direction was initially from the north.
Concurrent meteorological data was collected during these tests. USEPA personnel operated a
non-scanning bistatic FTIR along the northern boundary of the Retrofit Area, since the prevailing
wind direction was initially from the north.
E-15
-------
location of
monostatic
optical path
Figure 6. Map of Retrofit Area (North and South) showing Location
of Vertical Planes and Background Measurements
E-16
-------
Figure?. Map of Retrofit Area (North and South) showing Location of Mirrors for Radial
Scanning and Gas Extraction Pipes
E-17
-------
Control Area
Figure 8 shows the vertical configuration used in the Control Area. As mentioned in Section
1.2.7, the Control Area chosen for the study was located north of the As-Built Area. The vertical
configuration was set up on the east side of the Control Area, and data was collected during
periods that westerly winds were observed at the test site.
Biocover Area
Figure 9 shows the Biocover Area test site. Vertical scan experiments were set up with four
mirrors instead of five while the fifth mirror was used as a surface scan along the diagonal of the
Biocover Area. The vertical configuration was located directly west of the actual test area (see
Figure 9). The favorable wind direction for this configuration would consist of an easterly
component. During the period of the survey, westerly, as well as easterly winds were observed at
the test site. Actual emission data from the Biocover Area was gathered during periods of
easterly winds. The Biocover test site represents a one-acre plot within a conventionally
configured landfill.
location of
monostatic
optical path
Figure 8. Map of Control Area showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background
Measurements
E-18
-------
location of
monostatic
optical path
Figure 9. Map of Biocover Area showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background
Measurements
Concurrent meteorological data was collected during these tests. A non-scanning bistatic FTIR
was operated in an upwind location concurrent with these tests.
Compost Area
Figure 10 shows the Compost Area and the optical configurations used during testing. The large
blue circles denote the locations of the compost piles surveyed. Two vertical scanning
configurations were setup directly adjacent to two compost piles. It is important to note that
physical barriers such as a fence line and the actual location of the compost piles configurations
were setup directly adjacent to two compost piles. Physical barriers such as the fence line and the
location of the compost piles limited the vertical configuration used for the survey. The winds
during the time of the survey fluctuated, but were predominately oriented to the west-northwest.
Since the vertical scanning configuration for pile 1 was oriented to the west of the pile, this
scanning configuration was considered an upwind measurement.
The scanning configuration used to survey pile 2 was located east of the compost pile, so this
was considered a downwind measurement. Concurrent meteorological data was collected during
these tests. Background concentration data were collected along the eastern boundary of the
Compost Area using the bistatic FTIR instrument.
E-19
-------
upwind
monostatic
configuration
downwind
monostatic
configuration
Figure 10. Map of Compost Area showing Locations of Vertical Planes and Location of
Background Measurements
Data Analysis and Results
FTIR data were collected as interferograms. All data were archived to CD-ROMs. After
archiving, interferograms were transferred to USEPA personnel who performed the
transformations to absorbance spectra and then calculated concentrations using a combination of
AutoQuant® (Midac) and Non-Lin® (Spectrosoft) quantification software. This analysis was
done after completion of the field campaign. Concentration data were matched with the
appropriate mirror locations, wind speed, and wind direction. MatLab® (Math-works) software
was then used to process the data into horizontal plane concentration maps or vertical plane
plume visualizations, as appropriate.
The fluxes are determined as the sum across the matrix of the point-wise multiplication of the
concentrations times the wind speed. Emission fluxes for VOCs were calculated by
proportioning to the methane flux.
Meteorological data including wind direction and wind speed were continuously collected during
the sampling/measurement campaign with a Climatronics model 101990-G1 instrument. The
Climatronics instrument is automated. It collects real-time data from its sensors and records
time-stamped data as one-minute averages to a data logger. Wind direction and speed-sensing
heads were used to collect data at 2 heights, nominally at 2 and 10 meters (the 10 meter sensor
was placed on top of the scissors jack). The sensing heads for wind direction incorporate an auto-
northing function (automatically adjusts to magnetic north) that eliminates the errors associated
with subjective field alignment to a compass heading. The sensing heads incorporate standard
cup-type wind speed sensors. Post-collection, the two sets of data were fit linearly to estimate
wind velocity as a function of height.
Statistical analysis was performed on several of the data sets to assess data quality and
consistency. Average fluxes reported are calculated in the following manner: (a measurement
loop mentioned hereafter is a measurement cycle by scanning one time through all he mirrors in
E-20
-------
the configuration.): Path-integrated concentration values from measurements made on each beam
path (looking at the corresponding mirror) are averaged for four consecutive loops, which satisfy
a specified condition for acceptable wind direction. The wind measurements are made at 2m and
10m above ground, and interpolated to six equidistant levels from 2m to 12m. The acceptable
wind direction criterion is that the wind direction at 4m height must be within 70 degrees angle
from the normal to the plane where the OP-FTIR measurements are made. The measurement
plane is the plane in which all the mirrors and the OP-FTIR instrument are placed. All
measurement loops which do not satisfy the above wind direction criterion are rejected. The
wind speed and wind direction are averaged for our consecutive accepted loops similar to the
path-integrated concentrations. A radial plume-mapping algorithm was used to compute the
mass-equivalent plume image, and the flux in grams per second across the plane of the
measurement. Ideally, one would like to have four loops (that are averaged) measured
consecutively, which would be the case with consistent wind conditions. However, with unstable
wind conditions and/or with wind directions close to 70 degrees from normal, some loops may
be rejected in order to maintain data quality. For example, only 7 out of 16 loops shown in Table
B-l satisfy the wind criterion for the As-Built area, which is reported in Section 3.1. For
measurements with more than four loops satisfying the wind criterion, a moving average is made
with a grouping of four, and the flux across the measurement plane is calculated. In order to
assess the accuracy of reconstruction for each moving average group, the Concordance
Correlation Coefficient (CCF) has been computed for each reconstruction. The surface plume
concentrations are calculated by calculating a path-integrated average for each pixel. Then,
contour lines representing concentrations are drawn by interpolating between the nine average
pixel values
As-Built Area
Table 4 presents the methane emission flux from the vertical scanning survey of the As-Built
Area. A map of this site and the optical configurations are provided in Figure 5. The first column
of this table refers to a running average calculation from the several loops of data collected. The
second column shows the calculated CCF. The third, fourth, and fifth columns show the
calculated methane flux (in grams per second), and the average wind speed and wind direction
during the time the measurements were taken, respectively. The methane concentrations used to
create this table can be found in Table B-l of Appendix B.
Table 4. Moving average of calculated methane flux, CCF, wind speed, and wind direction*
for the As-Built Area
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
Average
Std. Dev. of Mean
CCF
0.980
0.977
0.962
0.958
0.969
0.0108
Flux
(g/s)
165
180
168
118
160
27.3
Wind Speed
(mis)
1.91
2.38
2.52
2.15
Wind Dir
(deg)
51
33
36
43
*wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration
E-21
-------
Figure 11 presents a map of the reconstructed methane plume from the As-Built vertical
scanning survey. Contour lines give methane concentrations in ppm. The average calculated
methane flux from the As-Built Area was 160 g/s.
In addition to measuring methane concentrations and methane flux, additional analysis was done
to measure emissions of ammonia and VOCs from the As-Built Area. VOC concentrations and
fluxes measured at the site were generally either too low to be detected, or were detected in only
trace amounts. Consistent with the QAPP, emission concentrations and fluxes for these trace
VOCs were calculated by proportioning to the methane concentration and flux.
It is known that methane comprises approximately 50% of landfill gas. Proportioning an
estimated methane concentration of 500,000 ppmv to the highest methane concentration found at
the site, and ratioing this to the AP-42 value for each target VOC (found in Table 2), it was
found that the expected VOC concentrations were often below the estimated minimum detection
limit for the target VOC. As mentioned in Section 2.5, this was anticipated prior to performance
of the experiments.
Tables 5 and 6 present concentrations and calculated fluxes (in g/s) of VOCs and Ammonia
measured during runs 1 and 2, respectively, of the AALB vertical scanning survey. The VOC
fluxes were calculated by ratioing the measured methane concentrations with the measured VOC
concentrations. For example, in Table 5, the average calculated methane flux value is 118 g/s.
The average methane concentration is 109 ppmv. The average calculated ammonia flux is found
by first multiplying the ratio of methane to ammonia concentration (109ppmv/ 0.0049ppmv) by
the ratio of the molecular weight of methane to ammonia (16g/17g). This value (20,936.4) is then
proportioned to the average calculated methane flux to yield the value of the average calculated
ammonia flux (0.0056g/s).
2 8-
Figure 11. Reconstructed average methane plume from the moving average of loops 1 to 4
of the As-Built Vertical Scanning Survey
E-22
-------
Table 5. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane for
As-Built Vertical Scan-Run 1
Compound Minimum Detection
Level (ppmv)
MTBE*
Ammonia
Straight-Chain
Hydrocarbons
Bent-Chain
Hydrocarbons
Methane
*MTBE= Methyl tert-butyl
0.0099
0.0024
0.49
0.084
ether
Average Cone.
(ppmv)
0.0602
0.0049
1.6
0.47
109
Flux
(g/s)
0.33
0.0056
9.2
2.3
118
Table 6. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs for As-Built Vertical Scan-Run 2
NMOC Minimum Detection
Level (ppmv)
MTBE* 0.0098
Straight-Chain 0.48
Hydrocarbons
Bent-Chain 0.27
Hydrocarbons
Methane
Avg.
Concentration
(ppmv)
0.018
0.85
0.95
147
Flux
(g/s)
0.102
5.1
4.8
165
As was reported above, the average calculated methane flux from the As-Built Area was 160
grams per second. However, this value may be a low estimate of the total methane flux from the
As-Built Area. The observed wind direction during the vertical scanning survey was variable.
Environments having variable wind directions are classified as unstable. Other studies have
found that calculated fluxes could underestimate actual fluxes by as much as 35% in unstable
environments \Haskmonay et al, 2001]. Additionally, the axis of the vertical scanning
configuration was oriented along the southern boundary of the As-Built Area (see Figure 5).
However, due to limitations in the instrumentation, it was not possible for the vertical scanning
configuration to include the entire southern boundary of the survey area. The optical range of the
OP-FTIR instrument used in this study was approximately 200 meters, which is less than the
total distance of the southern boundary of the As-Built Area. Because of this, it is possible that
the entire methane plume from the As-Built was not captured by the vertical configuration.
Consequently, the calculated methane flux from the
As-Built Area may be underestimating the actual flux, but the major identified "hot spot" was
fully quantified.
Due to time constraints and instrument limitations discussed in Section 2.1, a complete radial
scan of the As-Built Area was not performed to identify the exact location of "hot spots" which
may have contributed to the calculated methane flux. However, a non-scanning surface survey
was performed in the As-Built using 4 beams. This survey was done over the western and central
areas of the As-Built Area (see Figure 5). Concentrations of various compounds (including
E-23
-------
methane) were calculated from the four surface non-scanning experiments. The measured
concentrations are presented in Tables B-2 to B-5 in Appendix B. Analysis of the wind data
revealed that the prevailing wind direction during the vertical scanning survey was from the
northeast. With this knowledge of the wind data, (and due to the fact that much lower methane
concentrations were found during the surface survey of the western and central areas of the As-
Built Area, along with data from the vertical scanning survey which gives plume shape and
location with respect to relevant wind direction), we can conclude, based on the method
described by Hashmonay and Yost [1999A], that any "hot spots" contributing to the methane
fluxes calculated were probably located in the eastern portion of the As-Built Area (consisting of
cells 4A and 4B). A blue star in Figure 5 of Appendix A denotes the location of this "hot spot".
3.2.2 Retrofit Area
As mentioned earlier, radial and vertical scanning were performed in the Retrofit area. The radial
scanning was performed to identify methane "hot spots". Figure 12 presents a contour map of
reconstructed methane concentrations (in ppm) from this area, and Table B-6 of Appendix B
shows actual methane concentrations measured during radial scanning. The figure shows the
presence of two distinct "hot spots", or areas where methane concentrations exceed 79 ppmv.
The red circles show the locations often gas extraction pipes observed in the Retrofit Area.
Tables 7 and 8 present methane emission flux determinations for the northern and southern
halves of the Retrofit Area, respectively. The optical configurations for this site are provided in
Figure 6. In Table B-7, the measured methane concentrations are provided from the vertical
scanning monitoring. The first column of these tables refers to a running average calculation
from the several "loops" of data collected. The second column shows the calculated CCF. The
third, fourth, and fifth columns show the calculated methane flux (in grams per second), and the
average wind speed and wind direction during the time the measurements were taken,
respectively.
50
* 40
B
I 30
| 20
f; 10
-10 L
Concentrations are in ppm
_~-
%
i O
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance [meters]
Figure 12. Reconstructed Methane Concentrations (in ppm) for the Retrofit North and South
Areas
E-24
-------
Table 7. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction
for the Retrofit North Area
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
Average
Std. Dev. of Mean
CCF
0.980
0.987
0.983
0.0049
Flux
(g/s)
19
18
19.0
0.707
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
3.14
3.29
*Wind
Dir. (deg)
355
356
*wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration
Figures 13 and 14 present the reconstructed methane plume from Retrofit North and South
vertical scanning survey, respectively. Contour lines give methane concentrations in ppm. The
average calculated methane flux for the northern half of the Retrofit Area was 19 grams per
second, and the average calculated methane flux for the southern half was 20 grams per second.
Two virtual flux box configurations were conducted in the Retrofit Area. The results from this
showed consistent emissions results as was found using the vertical scanning measurements.
As mentioned earlier, Figure 12 shows that two distinct methane "hot spots" were found in the
Retrofit Area. The peak methane concentrations found in each "hot spot" were similar (greater
than 79 ppmv). One "hot spot" was located in the Retrofit North area, and one in the Retrofit
South area. The proximity of these "hot spots" to the location of the gas extraction pipes
(indicated by red circles), and analysis of wind data at the time of the measurements, suggests the
pipes may be a significant source of methane emissions.
Closer inspection of the average reconstructed methane plumes from Retrofit North and South
vertical scanning surveys (Figures 13 and 14, respectively) show that the average calculated
methane fluxes for each area are very similar. This is not surprising, since the methane
concentrations found in the "hot spots" for each area (which would be the major contributor to
methane flux values) are similar in magnitude. Additionally, the spatial distribution of the
plumes in the horizontal direction is consistent with the location of the "hot spots". The center of
the Retrofit North "hot spot" is located about 45 meters north of the position of the scanner.
Figure 13 shows that the center of the methane plume found in the Retrofit North area is located
about 40 meters from the scanner position. The center of the Retrofit South "hot spot" is located
about 30 meters south of the position of the scanner. Figure 14 shows that the center of the
methane plume found in the Retrofit South area is located about 35 meters from the scanner
position. It appears that there was very good agreement between the location of "hot spots"
found during the radial surface scanning surveys, and the plume reconstruction done from the
vertical scanning surveys.
Observed wind directions during the Retrofit vertical scanning surveys were stable. This would
be indicative of a stable atmosphere. Hashmonay et al. [2001] found that fluxes calculated during
stable environments may underestimate the actual flux by around 10%.
E-25
-------
Table 8. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind
Direction* for the Retrofit South Area
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
1 0 to 1 3
11 to 14
12to15
1 3 to 1 6
Average
Std. Dev. of Mean
CCF
0.976
0.937
0.924
0.939
0.931
0.941
0.968
0.954
0.986
0.992
0.981
0.991
0.989
0.962
0.0253
Flux
(g/s)
13
20
24
22
20
25
22
22
21
17
15
19
19
20
3.40
Wind Speed
(mis)
3.30
3.96
4.06
4.12
3.94
3.88
3.75
3.52
3.57
3.71
3.41
3.57
3.70
Wind Dir
(deg)_
11
3
360
328
348
1
17
17
345
338
329
344
15
*wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration
S
1 6
concentrations are in ppm
Flux = 19 g/s
. 1 '•'< * I :
10 20 30 40 Cj0 60 70
Crosswnd Distance [metersj
Figure 13. Reconstructed average methane plume from the moving average of loops 1 to 4
of the Retrofit North Vertical Scanning Survey
E-26
-------
..I . .*.!."
3D 40 50 60
Crossftind Distance [meters!
Figure 14. Reconstructed average methane plume from the moving average of loops 5 to 8
of the Retrofit South Vertical Scanning Survey
3.2.3 Control Area
Methane fluxes were calculated in the Control Area for instances when westerly winds were
observed. Table 9 presents calculated Control methane fluxes. The first column of these tables
refers to a running average calculation from the several "loops" of data collected. The second
column shows the calculated CCF. The third, fourth, and fifth columns show the calculated
methane flux (in grams per second), and the average wind speed and wind direction during the
time the measurements were taken, respectively. The methane concentrations used to create these
tables can be found in Table B-8 of Appendix B.
Table 9. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind
Direction* for the Background Vertical Scan of the Control Area
Loops
1 to 4
CCF
0.973
Flux (g/s)
6.0
Wind Speed
(mis)
0.95
Wind Dir
(cleg)
332
*wind direction shown is angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration
Figure 15 presents the reconstructed methane plume from the vertical scanning survey of the
Control Area. Contour lines give methane concentrations in ppm. The average calculated
methane flux was 6 grams per second for the upwind survey.
In addition to measuring methane concentrations and methane flux, analysis was done to
measure emissions of ammonia and VOCs from the Control Area. Concentrations of various
compounds were calculated from the surface scan (mirror 1), and vertical scan (mirrors 2, 3, 4,
and 5) experiments. Tables 10 and 11 present concentrations and calculated fluxes (in g/s) of
VOCs and ammonia measured during runs 1 and 2,
E-27
-------
10
? 6
ire in
Flux =6 g/s
100
Figure 15: Reconstructed average methane plume from the Control Area Vertical Scanning
Survey
respectively, of the Control vertical scanning survey. The fluxes were calculated by ratioing the
measured methane concentrations with the measured VOC concentrations.
3.2.4 Biocover Area
Methane fluxes were calculated at the Biocover Area for instances where the vertical
configuration was downwind of the actual survey area. Table 12 presents calculated methane
fluxes measured at the site. The first column of these tables refers to a running average
calculation from the several "loops" of data collected. The second column shows the calculated
CCF. The third, fourth, and fifth columns show the calculated methane flux (in grams per
second), and the average wind speed and wind direction during the time the measurements were
taken, respectively. The methane concentrations used to create these tables can be found in Table
B-8 of Appendix B.
Figure 16 presents the reconstructed methane plume from the vertical scanning survey of the
Biocover Area. Contour lines give methane concentrations in ppm. The average calculated
methane flux for the Biocover Area was 24 grams per second. No other compounds were
detected in the Biocover Area
In order to analyze the results of the flux measurements, a comparison of methane flux
calculations and wind data was made. Figure 17 presents a time series of methane flux and wind
direction, for instances when the vertical configuration was located downwind of the survey area
(the data used to create this graph can be found in Table B-8 of Appendix B). There appears to
be a relationship between calculated methane flux and observed wind direction. The highest
methane concentrations occur shortly after the observed wind direction has a northeasterly
component (indicated as a wind direction of-30° to -40° in the figure). This
E-28
-------
suggests that methane is being transported through the vertical configuration, from a "hot spot"
located somewhere to the northeast of the Biocover Area.
Observed wind directions during the Biocover Area vertical scanning survey were highly
variable. This is indicative of an unstable environment. This suggests that the calculated methane
flux values could be underestimating the actual methane flux values in this area [Hashmonay et
al, 2001].
Table 10. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane for
Control Area Vertical Scan-Run 1
Compound
TFM*
CFM*
Ethanol
MTBE*
Ammonia
Methane
Minimum
Detection Level
(ppmv)
0.0018
0.0098
0.0107
0.0108
0.0036
Average
Concentration
(ppmv)
0.0051
0.034
0.104
0.046
0.0202
66.5
Flux
(g/s)
0.0036
0.015
0.025
0.019
0.0018
6
*TFM= Trichlorofluoromethane
*CFM= Chlorodifluoromethane
*MTBE= methyl tert-butyl ether
Table 11. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of NMOCs for Control Area Vertical
Scan-Run 2
Compound
Ethylene
CFM*
Ethanol
MTBE*
Ammonia
Methane
Minimum
Detection Level
(ppmv)
0.0041
0.0097
0.0099
0.0101
0.0026
Average NMOC
Cone (ppmv)
0.0083
0.031
0.065
0.037
0.019
57
NMOC Flux
(9/s)
0.0014
0.016
0.018
0.019
0.0019
5
*CFM= Chlorodifluoromethane
*MTBE= methyl tert-butyl ether
E-29
-------
Table 12. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind
Direction* for the downwind vertical scan of the Biocover Area
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10to13
11 to 14
12to15
13to16
14to17
1 5 to 1 8
1 6 to 1 9
17 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
21 to 24
22 to 25
23 to 26
24 to 27
25 to 28
26 to 29
27 to 30
28 to 31
29 to 32
30 to 33
31 to 34
32 to 35
Average
Std. Dev. of Mean
CCF
0.981
0.994
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.996
0.990
0.994
0.983
0.994
0.985
0.980
0.976
0.966
0.973
0.974
0.979
0.983
0.984
0.975
0.982
0.996
0.999
1.000
0.997
0.931
0.936
0.949
0.953
0.992
0.993
0.932
.0183
Flux
(g/s)
27
22
18
17
16
15
18
19
18
15
18
16
16
17
22
25
36
35
23
24
28
12
25
27
25
32
45
37
34
33
28
28
24
7.96
Wind Speed
(mis)
1.13
1.06
0.87
0.67
0.83
0.99
1.19
1.37
1.45
1.35
1.28
1.07
0.89
0.83
1.10
1.62
2.70
3.30
3.58
3.89
3.03
3.31
3.62
3.68
4.39
4.67
4.97
4.88
4.68
4.12
3.92
3.97
Wind Dir
(deg)
332
341
349
354
327
320
355
348
347
19
348
356
2
333
324
314
316
346
356
3
355
317
315
319
321
329
334
339
337
338
6
4
*wind direction shown is angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration
E-30
-------
12
10
1 8
Concentrations are in ppm
Flux = 24 g/s
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Crosswind Distance [meters]
100
Figure 16. Reconstructed average methane plume from the moving average of loops 20 to
23 of the Biocover Vertical Scanning Survey
3.2.5 Compost Area
The methane concentrations found in this area are presented in the Tables B-10 and B-l 1 of
Appendix B. The results of the Compost Area survey show that the average methane
concentrations found were higher in the upwind area than in the downwind area. The survey did
not detect any methane plume originating from the compost piles, which was expected. Due to
these findings, we conclude that the Compost Area is not a source of methane at the site.
Additionally, no other compounds were detected at the Compost Area.
3.2.6 Upwind Measurements
Throughout the period of optical scanning measurements, USEPA personnel set up and operated
a bistatic OP-FTIR separate instrument in an upwind location, using a classical non-scanning
configuration. Data collected by this instrument are representative of background concentrations
from ambient, or upwind, sources. Background data were collected in each of the survey areas
(refer to Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for the location of the bistatic OP-FTIR configuration, which is
denoted by the orange lines). Due to instrumentation problems, background OP-FTIR data is
only available from the As-Built and Compost Areas. However, analysis of the surface scanning
data from the Retrofit Area provides some information on background methane concentrations in
this portion of the landfill.
The background survey from the As-Built Area found an average background methane
concentration of 8.6 ppmv. Figure 5 shows that the bistatic OP-FTIR configuration was located
along the western boundary of the As-Built Area, and the observed mean wind direction was
from the northeast. Due to this, we can determine that the average background methane
concentration found was probably indicative of a true background methane measurement for the
As-Built Area.
E-31
-------
. _, __
&n nn -
q-c nn _
$
•^ on nn
**•*
X
2
^ nr nn
u
09
•C -in nn -
1 c nn -
1 n nn
e nn -
n nn .
*
A
I A
A N / V . . -
i \ j T I X. T~-«
M - / \ " / M -
\ ' 5 " ^ / \" /; /\/ /*"
Vs s - s i /* L^ l / '
V ; i / s V \ / )
A i / ' / ] I :
;' ^^x.^ 1 f/^ ^*^t '^- j/ R f * ""-s. ™"*
rf i / * =. f /"
M E- : ' -s/
_ ~ •=
• 20.00
m
•10.00 •§
o
• 0.00 J:
m
o
•-10.00 I
Q.
•-20.00 |
• -30.00 T3
• -40.00
. *;n nn
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Starting Loop Number
Figure 17: Time Series of Calculated Methane Flux vs. Measured Wind Direction for theBiocover (using
moving average of 4 loops)
- Methane Flux
Wind Direction
E-32
-------
As mentioned above, the background OP-FTIR data from the Retrofit Area was unavailable due
to instrumentation problems. However, in looking at the boundaries of the surface radial
scanning results (Figure 12), one can estimate the background concentrations to be about 10
ppmv.
The background survey from the Compost Area found an average background methane
concentration of 5.1 ppmv. This background value is very similar to the values detected
immediately downwind from the compost piles, reinforcing the conclusion that no methane is
emitted from the piles.
3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Control
In preparation for this project, a Category III Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was
prepared and approved prior to the field campaign. In addition, standard operating procedures
were in place during the survey, and the study was audited in the field and during post analysis.
3.3.1 Assessment of DQI Goals
The critical measurements associated with this project and the established data quality indicator
(DQI) goals in terms of accuracy, precision, and completeness are listed in Table 1 of this
document. Assessment of these measurements is discussed in the following subsections.
3.3.2 Meteorological/Theodolite Data
The Climatronics meteorological heads (which are used to collect wind direction, wind speed,
ambient temperature, barometric pressure, and relative humidity), and the theodolite have
recently been calibrated. The calibration of all instruments used to collect both critical and non-
critical measurements should have occurred prior to the current field campaign.
Although calibration of the Climatronics heads did not occur prior to the field study, both
Climatronics heads were calibrated in March 2003 by the USEPA/APPCD Metrology Lab (the last
calibration of both heads occurred in November 1999). All functions were checked during the
March 2003 calibration, and the only adjustment made was approximately a 4 degree change to
wind direction for one of the Climatronics heads. As shown in Table 1, accuracy within 5% is an
acceptable range, and this variance will have very little bearing on the final flux estimate.
It should also be noted that the wind direction measurement is not as critical to the flux estimates as
the wind speed measurement. Additionally, checks for agreement of the wind speed and wind
direction measured from the two heads (2m and 10m) were done. While it is true that some
variability in the parameters measured at both levels should be expected, this is a good first-step
check for assessing the performance of the instruments.
The Climatronics meteorological heads used in the current study were also used as part of a
validation study [Hashmonay etal., 2007], and a study done in October, 2002 to measure
fugitive emissions at a Region I Landfill in New Hampshire. In both controlled release studies,
calculated emission rates were within 65-96% of the actual controlled release rate. The wind
measurements taken during these studies provided good flux calculations and therefore were
representative of the wind field in the whole vertical plane. Due to these factors, we feel that the
accuracy and precision of the Climatronics heads, as stated in the QAPP and by manufacturer's
specifications, are sufficient to provide favorable results using this method.
It has been determined that the accuracy of the measured optical path-lengths (which are
collected using the theodolite), as stated in the QAPP and by the manufacturer's specifications,
are not crucial to our method. However, calibration of the theodolite was done in the field during
May 2003. The optical path-length was checked by measuring a standard distance of 50 feet
(15.24 meters). The same distance was measured twice using the theodolite, and yielded
distances of 15.43 and 15.39 meters. These results fall well within the acceptable accuracy range
E-33
-------
stated in Table 1. The horizontal angle was checked by setting up two targets approximately 180°
apart, measuring the two horizontal angles between the targets, and summing these values. The
sum of the two values should be 360°. These angles were measured twice using the theodolite.
The first test yielded a sum of 359°21'18", and the second test yielded a sum of 359°59'55".
Both of these values fall well within the acceptable accuracy range stated in Table 1.
3.3.3 OP-FTIR Measurements
As a QC check of the accuracy of the OP-FTIR, we have verified the measurement of the known
atmospheric background nitrous oxide concentration of around 320 ppbv from data taken with
the monostatic OP-FTIR. It should be noted that 320 ppbv is an average value, as the
atmospheric background value exhibits a slight seasonal variation. The data was taken from a
sample of the actual data collected during the current field campaign. The average nitrous oxide
concentration found was 311 ± 36.24 ppbv. The average value falls within the accuracy goal of
5%.
Additionally, we follow DQI procedures for proper operation as described in EPA Compendium
method TO-16, and the OP-FTIR EPA Guidance Document. However, TO-16 is somewhat of an
outdated method that does not fully address the issue of non-linearity. Since the completion of
the TO-16 document, significant research has been performed by APPCD researchers to improve
analysis over a wide range of concentrations [Childers et al, 2001]. Application of the newly
developed Non-Lin® software (developed by Spectrosoft) will provide better response of the
OP-FTIR technique to higher levels of concentrations [Childers etal., 2002].
Tracer release is the ultimate DQI for confirming the RPM method as a whole system.
Approximately three weeks after completion of the current study, another study was done using
the ORS-RPM method at another site. During this study, a tracer release was done using
ethylene. The same instrumentation used in the current study was used during this study.
Ethylene was released through a soaker hose configuration located directly west of the vertical
scanning survey. The wind direction during the time of the release was almost due west, which
allowed the vertical configuration to capture the plume from the tracer release. The soaker hoses
were set up in an "H" configuration to simulate an area source. The approximate dimensions of
the "FT' configuration were 10 meters wide, and 40 meters long (on each side). The weight of the
ethylene cylinder was recorded prior to release of the gas, and immediately after the release was
completed, using a digital scale. In addition, the precise starting and ending time of the release
was recorded in order to calculate the average actual flux of ethylene. This flux value was then
compared to the ethylene flux calculated from the vertical scanning survey.
The emission flux through the vertical measurement plane, calculated from the area integration
of the concentration profile multiplied by the component of the wind speed normal to the vertical
plane was determined as 0.98 g/sec. Since the measurement plane captured the entire plume, the
entire flux through the plane is the emission rate of ethylene.
The ethylene tracer gas was released for 75 minutes. During this period, the measured mass of
the ethylene cylinder was reduced by 4.59 kg. A loss of 4.59 kg over a 75-minute period
indicates an average flow rate of 1.02 g/sec. The measured emission rate agrees with this mass-
loss determination to 3.9 percent.
The flux of the ethylene release determined by mass-loss agrees well with the average ethylene
flux calculated from the vertical scanning survey. Observed wind directions during the vertical
scanning survey were not highly variable. This would be indicative of a stable atmosphere.
Hashmonay etal. [2001] found that fluxes calculated during stable environments underestimated
E-34
-------
the actual flux by around 12 %. The average ethylene flux calculated during the current
experiment underestimated the actual average ethylene flux by 3.9 %.
In addition to verifying data collected with the OP-FTIR instruments a process audit was done by
personnel not involved in the data analysis process, to verify that the transfer of data was done
accurately. The audit consisted of verifying that concentration data provided by USEPA
personnel, as well as wind speed and direction data were input into the reconstruction programs
accurately. The results of the audit showed that this process was indeed done accurately.
E-35
-------
Calculated Average Methane Flux and Average CCF
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.920
Methane Flux
-CCF
0.84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Number of Loops used for Moving Average
Figure 18. Calculated Average Methane Flux and Average CCF from the Retrofit South Vertical Scanning
Survey
E-36
-------
9,00 n
.000
0.00
0.840
-*— Distance of Plume from Average Plume
-» CCF
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Loops used for Moving Average
Figure 19. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average CCF for the Retrofit North
Area Radial Scanning Survey
E-37
-------
12
_, 10
03
i
E
01
i 8
01
I
i
o
E
= 6
a.
_l—,_
i r
-- 0.995
-- 0.99
-- 0.975
0.97
-- 0.965
-- 0.96
0.955
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Loops used for Moving Average
Figure 20. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average CCF for the Retrofit
South Area Radial Scanning Survey
0.985
u
-*— Distance of Plume from Average Plume
-m CCF
E-38
-------
3.3.4 Problems Encountered and Data Limitations
During the course of the field campaign, the project ran into some instrumentation problems and
limitations, which slightly hindered some aspects of the data collection process. These included
geographic barriers at the site, limitations in the optical range of the OP-FTIR instrument, and
scanner errors that occurred primarily in the Retrofit Area.
The optical range of the OP-FTIR instrument used in this study was approximately 200 meters.
The optical range is affected by many factors such as weather conditions, and topography at the
site. This limitation primarily affected measurements taken in the As-Built Area. As mentioned
in Section 3.1, the vertical scanning survey was oriented along the southern boundary of the
survey area. Because of the limitation in the optical range of the OP-FTIR, it was not possible for
the configuration to include the entire southern boundary of the As-Built Area. Due to this, it is
probable that the calculated methane flux from the As-Built Area may be underestimating the
actual flux. More advance OP-FTIR instruments can easily have a range of 500m in similar
conditions.
Scanning errors occurred when the actual scanner (used to scan the OP-FTIR between each
retroreflector in a configuration) stopped scanning. When this problem occurred, it prevented the
completion of the survey, and the scanning program had to be reprogrammed. It is unclear what
causes the scanning errors, but these errors occurred most frequently in the Retrofit Area, which
may receive electromagnetic energy from air traffic as a result of it being located next to the
airport and in the path of in-coming flights.
E-39
-------
4 Conclusions
This report provides the first round of testing that is part of a longer-term effort to evaluate the
performance of landfill bioreactor operations. The site has two different bioreactor operations
(As-Built and Retrofit Areas). OP-FTIR measurements were conducted at the As-Built Area,
where liquid additions are introduced at the work face. Sampling for this had to occur over the
weekend when hauling operations were not active. The other type of bioreactor being evaluated
is the Retrofit Area. This area was split into 2 different sections that were evaluated
independently (north and south). In addition to evaluating the two types of bioreactors, the use of
vegetative cover to reduce fugitive emissions (referred to as biocover) was evaluated. Emissions
from the composting operation were also evaluated. Since this is an aerobic operation, methane
emissions were not expected or found. Table 13 presents the average calculated methane fluxes,
and the range of flux values, found at each area.
Table 13. Average Calculated Methane Flux (g/s) Found at Each Survey Area
Survey Area Calculated Methane Range of Flux Values
Flux Calculated
As-Built
Retrofit
Control
Biocover
Compost
160 ±27.3
39 ±4.11
6.0
24 ±7.96
N/A
118 to 180
31 to 44
6
12 to 45
N/A
The As-Built Area was found to have the highest methane fluxes, while the Control and
Biocover Areas had the lower methane fluxes. The Compost Area was not found to be significant
source of methane which one would expect since it is an aerobic operation.
In addition to vertical scanning, surface scanning was done in the As-Built Area and Retrofit
Areas. Two definitive methane "hot spots", having concentrations over 79 ppmv were found at
the Retrofit Area.
E-40
-------
5 References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Standard Practice for Open-Path Fourier
Transform Infrared Monitoring of Gases and Vapors in Air, E 1982-98.
ASTM, Standard Guide for Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Monitoring of Gases and
Vapors in Air, E 1865-97, reapproved 2002).
Childers, J.W., E.L. Thompson, D.B. Harris, D.A. Kirchgessner, M. Clayton, D.F. Natschke, and
W. J. Phillips, Multi-pollutant concentration measurements around a concentrated swine
production facility using open-path FTIR spectrometry, Atmos. Environ.,35,1923-1936,2001.
Childers, J.W., WJ. Phillips, E.L. Thompson, D.B. Harris, D.A. Kirchgessner, D.F. Natschke,
and M. Clayton, Comparison of an innovative nonlinear algorithm to classical least-squares for
analyzing open-path Fourier-transform infra-red spectra collected at a concentrated swine
production facility, J. Appl. Spectr., 56, 3, 325-336, 2002.
Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost, Localizing gaseous fugitive emission sources by combining
real-time optical remote sensing and wind data, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 49, 1374-1379,
1999 A.
Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost, Innovative approach for estimating fugitive gaseous fluxes
using computed tomography and remote optical sensing techiniques, J. Air Waste Manage.
Assoc., 49, 966-972, 1999B.
Hashmonay, R.A., D.F. Natschke, K.Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L.Thompson, and M.G. Yost,
Field evaluation of a method for estimating gaseous fluxes from area sources using open-path
Fourier transform infrared, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 2309-2313, 2001.
Hashmonay, R.A., K. Wagoner, D.F. Natschke, D.B. Harris, and E.L. Thompson, Radial
computed tomography of air contaminants using optical remote sensing, presented June 23-27,
2002 at the AWMA 95th Annual Conference and Exhibition, Baltimore, MD.
Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, and C. Wu, Computed tomography of air pollutants using radial
scanning path-integrated optical remote sensing, Atmos. Environ., 33, 267-274, 1999..
Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, D.B. Harris, and E.L. Thompson, Simulation study for gaseous
fluxes from an area source using computed tomography and optical remote sensing, presented at
SPIE Conference on Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technologies, Boston, MA,
Nov., 1998, in SPIE Vol. 3534, 405-410
Lindberg, S.E., and J.L. Price, Airborne emissions of mercury from municipal landfill
operations: a short-term measurement study in Florida, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 49, 520-
532, 1999.
Lindberg, S.E., D. Wallschlager, E.M. Prestbo, J. Price, and D. Reinhart, Methylated mercury
species in municipal waste landfill gas sampled in Florida, USA, Atmos. Environ., 35, 4011-
4015,2001.
E-41
-------
Natschke, D.F., R.A. Hashmonay, K. Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L. Thompson, and C.A. Vogel,
Seasonal Emissions of Ammonia and Methane from a Hog Waste Lagoon with Bioactive Cover,
presented at International Symposium on Addressing Animal Production and Environmental
Issues, Research Triangle Park, NC, Oct. 2001.
Russwurm, G.M., and J.W. Childers, FT-IR Open-Path Monitoring Guidance Document, 3rd ed.;
Submitted by ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., under contract 68-D5-0049 to the U.S.
EPA, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division, National Exposure Research
Laboratory: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999.
Thorneloe, S., U.S. EPA's Field Test Programs to Update Landfill Gas Emissions Data,
Accepted for publication in proceedings of Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste
Management and Landfill Symposium, October 6 - 10, 2003, Sardinia, Italy.
Thorneloe, S. and K. Weitz, Holistic Approach to Environmental Management of Municipal
Solid Waste, Accepted for publication in proceedings of Sardinia 2003, Ninth International
Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, October 6-10, 2003, Sardinia, Italy.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compendium Method TO-16: Long-Path Open-Path
Fourier Transform Infrared Monitoring of Atmospheric Gases, prepared under Contract No. 68-
C3-0315, WA No. 3-10, Center for Environmental Research Information-Office of Research and
Development, US EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, Jan. 1999.
Waste Management, Inc. news release, Waste Management signs agreement with EPA to
research and develop landfill bioreactor, Biocover Projects, October 2000.
Wu, C., M.G. Yost, R.A. Hashmonay, and D.Y. Park, Experimental evaluation of a radial beam
geometry for mapping air pollutants using optical remote sensing and computed tomography,
Atmos. Environ., 33, 4709-4716, 1999.
Yost, M.G., and R.A. Hashmonay, Mapping Air Contaminants Using Path-Integrated Optical
Remote Sensing with a Non-Overlapping Variable Path Length Beam Geometry, United States
Patent Office, Patent # US 6,542,242 Bl, issued April 1, 2003.
E-42
-------
Appendix A
Site Configurations
-------
Table A-1. Standard Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of mirrors used for
Vertical and Horizontal Scanning in the As-Built Area
Mirror Standard
Number Distance (m)
Vertical
1 67.1
2 116
3 167
4 117
5 118
As-Built Lower Surface
1 70.5
2 79.8
As-Built Upper Surface
1 109
2 110
Horizontal Angle
from North (deg)
270
276
274
275
276
291
60
244
121
Vertical
Angle* (deg)
0
0
0
3
6
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
E-A-2
-------
Table A-2. Standard Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of mirrors used for
Vertical Scanning in the Retrofit Area
Mirror
Number
North
1
2
3
4
5
South
1
2
3
4
5
Standard
Distance (m)
29.7
65.7
102
103
104
31.8
58.2
88.7
91.9
93.1
Horizontal Angle
from North (deg)
4
13
8
7
8
158
172
177
176
177
Vertical
Angle* (deg)
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
3
7
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
E-A-3
-------
TableA-3. Standard Distance, and Horizontal Coordinates of mirrors used for Radial
Scanning in the Retrofit Area
Mirror
Number
North
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
South
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Standard
Distance (m)
55.5
72.2
34.3
92.7
115
56.4
84.3
108.8
89.1
69.7
52.2
104
84.7
34.1
67.5
55.7
Horizontal
Angle from
North (deg)
67
47
44
36
30
25
18
13
181
175
163
160
154
143
142
125
E-A-4
-------
Table A-4. Standard Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of mirrors used for
Vertical Scanning in the Biocover and Control Areas
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Standard
Distance (m)
109
59.8
99.8
100
101
Horizontal
Angle from
North (deg)
36
2
0
359
0
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0
0
0
3
6
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table A- 5. Standard Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of configurations
used for Vertical Scanning in the Compost Area
Mirror
Number
Upwind
1
2
3
4
5
Downwind
1
2
3
4
Standard
Distance
(m)
39.3
103
133
135
136
23.4
49.8
51.9
52.8
Horizontal
Angle from
North (deg)
183
185
184
182
183
325
330
325
328
Vertical
Angle* (deg)
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
4
8
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative
values indicate descent from the horizontal).
E-A-5
-------
Appendix B
Methane, Ammonia, and VOC Concentrations
-------
Table B-1 .Methane Concentrations (in ppm) found during the As-Built Vertical Scanning Survey
Loops
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Mirror 1
23.0
192
167
154
177
51.4
149
84.0
149
125
107
73.7
67.5
178
98.2
Mirror 2
86.1
196
206
207
246
96.7
255
140
134
183
140
177
91.8
157
236
MirrorS
113
158
162
160
183
154
176
117
84.9
142
129
167
49.2
128
170
Mirror 4
155
97.8
90.1
103
80.7
118
108
70.4
62.8
64.6
47.1
69.3
59.1
70.1
53.4
MirrorS
136
53.3
60.8
82.1
33.9
86.0
47.3
60.7
52.7
42.5
50.2
40.9
98.5
59.2
22.9
Wind Wind direction from
Speed normal to vertical Comments
(mis) plane (deg)
0.6
1.9
2.5
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.4
2.5
2.3
3.0
2.7
2.2
1.5
1.2
0.8
52
28
39
46
73
75
75
30
36
75
78
75
97
69
85
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop Used
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
E-B-2
-------
Table B-2. Concentrations of Methane and VOCs (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 1 of the
As-Built Lower Surface Scan
As-Built
Lower
Mirror 1
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Methane
26
27
21
24
31
41
32
31
31
35
31
26
21
23
29
22
32
23
23
23
Avg=28
Acetylene
0.038
0.031
0.033
0.018
Cone.
(ppmv)
Ethanol
0.035
0.038
Straight-Chain
HCs
0.055
0.064
0.057
E-B-3
-------
Table B-3. Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 2
of the As-Built Lower Surface Scan
As-Built
Lower
Mirror 2
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Methane
13
15
13
22
22
17
21
21
13
23
19
17
14
11
11
18
19
11
21
11
Avg=17
Concentrations
Ethanol
0.0075
0.0074
0.0095
(ppmv)
Ammonia
0.0095
0.0086
0.0060
0.0063
0.015
0.012
0.0066
0.0058
0.0055
0.0063
Straight-
Chain
Hydrocarbons
0.022
0.017
Bent-Chain
Hydrocarbons
0.014
E-B-4
-------
Table B-4. Concentrations of Methane and VOCs (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 1 of the
As-Built Upper Surface Scan
As-Built
Upper
Mirror 1
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Methane
24
18
27
25
32
19
29
33
37
28
29
23
29
19
26
25
31
27
25
28
Avg=27
Ethylen
e
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
Concentration
(ppmv*m)
Acetylene
0.0098
0.028
0.024
0.0067
0.019
Ethanol
0.0055
0.012
0.015
0.015
0.021
0.020
0.022
0.025
MTBE*
0.0047
' MTBE = Methyl tert-butyl ether
E-B-5
-------
Table B-5. Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 2
of the As-Built Upper Surface Scan
As-Built
Upper
Mirror 2
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Methane
26
21
27
24
28
15
39
31
24
31
16
13
12
22
35
24
22
27
33
36
Avg=25
Concentrations
Ethylene
0.0057
0.0087
0.0053
0.0092
0.0079
Acetylene
0.0038
0.00077
0.011
0.0054
0.022
0.0036
0.0041
0.017
0.0049
0.020
0.011
0.017
0.012
0.0072
Ethanol
0.011
0.0078
0.025
0.011
Ammonia
0.0038
0.0035
0.0023
E-B-6
-------
Table B-6. Methane Concentrations (in ppm) found during the Retrofit Radial Scanning Survey
Loops
Mirror!
Mirror 2
Mirrors
Mirror 4
Mirrors
Mirror 6
Mirror?
Mirrors
Radial North
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
52
36
41
52
47
48
15
46
43
10
45
22
12
40
26
31
24
25
19
22
19
11
24
4
15
26
28
16
68
52
83
77
57
50
27
63
64
29
53
37
52
38
21
36
28
28
29
29
25
37
41
25
27
34
25
34
57
62
51
80
49
49
61
67
49
69
50
61
66
59
49
26
43
53
40
32
18
36
30
20
31
26
17
39
63
30
41
49
29
23
34
33
19
31
51
56
46
26
48
25
61
35
42
36
25
57
41
24
55
25
36
28
Radial South
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
67
40
36
52
36
36
31
42
25
15
18
22
54
71
76
94
50
63
48
83
53
41
58
36
38
48
45
54
49
46
53
46
45
48
44
41
32
26
52
35
46
34
34
37
32
29
29
23
33
28
29
53
37
50
18
41
32
25
44
27
45
28
39
32
31
23
39
42
32
32
32
36
53
53
32
45
44
32
37
38
40
28
37
30
50
61
50
67
63
45
37
38
33
35
36
31
E-B-7
-------
Table B-7. Methane Concentrations (in ppm) found during the Retrofit Vertical Scanning Survey
Loop
Mirror 1
Mirror 2
Mirrors
Mirror 4
Mirrors Wind Speed
Mirrors im/sl
Wind Direction
'=:!"
(deg)
Retrofit North
1
2
3
4
5
20.9
48.3
32.7
25.3
38.9
87.2
62.0
71.1
65.3
69.5
51.3
36.4
35.3
36.1
40.9
15.5
11.9
6.7
9.0
9.0
12.0
5.1
3.1
8.5
3.6
2.7
2.7
3.8
3.3
3.3
347
6
354
352
353
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Retrofit South
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
32.8
46.6
37.9
31.5
16.2
51.6
26.2
64.0
22.7
15.7
30.0
20.7
20.4
50.7
17.3
15.2
19.8
15.7
30.9
71.3
23.3
22.4
36.2
31.9
39.6
33.2
40.5
42.1
44.4
35.1
42.7
38.6
37.2
38.9
29.8
43.8
37.2
41.2
16.0
41.2
40.5
41.3
33.8
40.0
33.3
28.2
23.1
22.4
29.2
17.6
30.2
27.6
13.5
30.9
15.4
28.3
29.5
23.5
41.2
27.3
30.3
12.8
28.1
32.6
35.0
33.3
38.2
21.3
12.6
12.2
13.9
14.5
16.2
11.6
12.3
11.2
14.8
16.2
14.2
10.0
15.5
15.9
12.1
9.0
16.4
8.4
7.5
14.0
11.4
11.7
11.4
11.0
11.1
8.9
7.6
5.9
5.6
5.1
15.7
9.3
17.1
11.4
4.7
15.8
13.9
5.9
6.8
5.1
5.9
6.2
5.7
11.2
9.2
8.5
12.1
2.0
2.9
4.3
1.8
4.2
4.0
2.2
3.2
4.5
4.6
4.3
2.4
4.2
4.1
3.3
2.6
4.8
2.9
4.0
3.1
4.2
2.3
2.4
127
110
196
330
334
89
69
12
296
321
324
89
348
27
322
325
318
351
24
88
101
324
346
Loop not used-does not
meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does not
meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does not
meet wind criteria
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop not used-does not
meet wind criteria
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop not used-does not
meet wind criteria
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop Used
Loop not used-does not
meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does not
meet wind criteria
Loop Used
Loop Used
E-B-8
-------
Table B-8. Methane Concentrations (in ppmv) from the Biocover/Control Area Vertical Survey
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q
(J
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mirror!
32.1
37.8
28.6
15.7
8.39
16.5
50.0
53.0
39.1
15.3
17.8
13.6
31.3
21.0
33.0
19.5
22.8
20.8
23.7
15.4
10.5
15.8
9.40
13.9
17.7
19.9
Mirror 2
43.7
40.4
46.6
26.9
25.8
67.3
37.1
33.3
29.6
43.1
50.5
33.0
38.5
42.2
32.9
30.3
32.4
26.4
39.6
29.5
23.2
41.3
26.3
24.4
32.3
37.0
Mirrors
64.3
58.8
97.1
42.6
28.8
50.5
46.5
39.2
70.1
56.4
46.6
38.8
35.4
52.7
56.6
50.1
46.9
47.9
38.6
36.3
33.0
61.5
43.7
36.3
44.4
37.0
Mirror 4
45.6
55.0
18.6
12.2
19.9
34.0
28.2
23.6
28.6
29.3
27.1
40.9
30.4
34.9
23.2
21.2
24.0
35.2
27.0
18.4
21.4
28.5
16.2
22.4
28.6
21.6
Mirrors
45.6
48.0
12.3
13.0
10.9
10.8
24.6
17.8
35.2
28.4
17.2
23.9
18.5
21.2
20.7
19.0
21.3
15.6
12.2
19.7
20.3
19.2
11.7
16.9
19.5
22.7
Wind
Speed
(mis]
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.3
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.3
0.7
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.0
0.9
0.6
Wind direction
from North
Meg)
326
51
23
2
48
15
340
344
15
151
233
84
54
74
31
4
230
58
58
113
208
36
33
106
65
66
•—
Loop used for Control
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for Control
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop used for Control
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for Control
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
E-B-9
-------
M
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Mirror!
18.1
28.0
28.7
50.0
53.0
39.1
36.7
11.1
14.9
15.1
21.6
7.95
9.46
7.93
19.0
14.9
26.9
32.6
7.71
25.2
11.3
24.4
40.0
16.9
19.1
16.2
Mirror 2
54.1
50.1
47.1
73.7
78.8
78.6
74.4
61.2
35.4
18.1
14.1
14.7
18.8
15.9
47.1
35.3
35.7
18.6
38.6
58.3
17.6
44.4
35.6
24.2
20.0
17.6
Mirrors
49.8
38.6
39.0
68.0
55.7
71.3
83.2
55.1
43.2
23.8
14.5
20.7
33.8
61.7
35.3
31.1
31.5
25.2
43.2
23.9
22.6
39.4
51.0
39.0
18.8
19.3
Mirror 4
32.3
32.8
29.5
47.0
52.4
40.3
48.3
20.3
30.6
7.53
8.73
8.67
9.27
19.4
14.2
22.9
24.7
25.7
27.1
16.1
14.9
25.5
27.8
16.2
10.6
8.96
Mirrors
30.0
29.2
28.2
47.9
41.1
39.4
39.5
17.2
25.9
7.75
6.76
5.96
6.90
20.4
6.03
33.4
21.0
15.7
27.0
6.85
7.15
17.0
7.92
17.8
9.65
4.84
Wind
Speed
(mis]
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.9
2.3
1.3
2.4
4.8
3.1
2.9
3.7
1.6
4.1
1.6
2.9
2.5
3.2
4.0
3.8
2.9
3.3
4.1
5.1
5.2
Wind direction
from North
Meg)
58
77
6
20
357
85
29
147
56
64
105
77
58
35
44
355
355
344
356
66
76
352
363
37
76
83
—
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
E-B-10
-------
M
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Mirror!
15.7
25.3
14.8
19.3
16.6
32.7
13.8
Mirror 2
19.3
27.6
38.4
21.1
17.4
24.3
27.3
Mirrors
25.2
24.0
52.4
26.5
16.6
29.5
27.3
Mirror 4
9.90
12.4
34.8
11.3
10.9
15.2
11.0
Mirrors
15.4
12.4
17.5
8.84
5.72
9.83
10.8
Wind
Speed
(mis]
3.7
3.8
3.0
4.4
3.2
3.0
4.0
Wind direction
from North
Meg)
79
60
20
67
86
107
49
—
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop not used-does
not meet wind criteria
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
Loop used for
Biocover
E-B-11
-------
Table B-9. Methane, Ammonia and VOC Concentrations (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 1 of the
Biocover Area
Biocover
Mirror 1
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Methane
51
54
41
38
42
32
38
28
16
Avg=38
TFM*
0.0057
CFM*
0.035
0.028
0.031
Concentration
(ppmv)
Ethanol
0.104
MTBE*
0.0059
Ammonia
0.012
0.0068
0.023
0.028
0.026
0.031
0.021
0.016
.021
Ethylene
0.0077
*TFM= Trichlorofluoromethane
*CFM= Chlorodifluoromethane
*MTBE= methyl tert-butyl ether
Table B-10. Methane Concentration (in ppmv) found at the Compost Downwind Area
Loop Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4
Wind
Direction
1
2
3
4
5
5.8
5.8
5.3
5.2
6.4
5.1
5.1
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.8
5.3
6.0
6.8
6.2
4.2
5.5
4.3
5.6
4.6
183
135
144
166
208
E-B-12
-------
Table B-11. Methane Concentrations (in ppmv) found at the Compost Upwind Area
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Mirror 1
10
7.3
10
7.7
8.7
10
8.5
19
13
28
22
12
5.4
5.4
5.7
6.1
6.0
6.0
Mirror 2
13
11
10
9.1
10
11
15
20
28
30
26
23
6.1
7.2
6.3
7.5
7.1
8.0
Mirror 3
13
9.5
9.3
8.4
10
11
15
19
27
27
23
21
5.9
6.4
6.4
7.4
6.0
5.7
Mirror 4
12
10
10
8.6
10
13
15
20
29
28
24
22
4.7
5.5
4.8
5.7
5.4
6.1
Mirror 5
11
10
10
8.8
11
13
16
22
28
26
24
21
6.7
8.3
6.9
7.1
5.4
9.0
Wind Direction
322
218
280
297
259
274
235
224
239
225
234
225
143
132
104
87
168
290
E-B-13
------- |