EPA 600/R-17/205 | November 2017 | www.epa.gov/ord
Unitfid States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Post-Closure Performance of Liner Systems at
RCRA Subtitle C Landfills
Final Report
Cover
System
Gas Collection Layer
Sotid Waste
Double-Liner
System
LDS Drainage Layer
Post Closure Year
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Land and Materials Management Division
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
EPA/600/R-17/205
November 2017
Post-Closure Performance
of Liner Systems at
RCRA Subtitle C Landfills
Final Report
Materials Management Branch
Land and Materials Management Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH
iii
-------
Foreword
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting
the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under the 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, US EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building the scientific 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
investigating 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 preventing
and controlling pollution of air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protecting water
quality in public water systems; remediating contaminated sites, sediments, and ground
water; preventing and controlling indoor air pollution; and restoring ecosystems. NRMRL
collaborates with public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and 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 US EPA's Office of Research and Development to
assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EPA/600/R-17/205
November 2017
Executive Summary
Generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste are
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), an act of
Congress that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to control
hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." Specifically, Subtitle C of RCRA pertains to
management of hazardous waste.OF1 This document is specifically focused on the long-term
performance of landfill containment facilities (the "grave" in the above analogy) at RCRA
Subtitle C facilities. Landfills are used for the environmentally protective disposal of
hazardous waste, regulation of which is codified at 40 CFR Part 264, "Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities," as
published in various editions of the Federal Register since 1980. Sections of the regulation
of relevance to this document are provided under Subpart N - Landfills (40 CFR §264.300
through .317) and Subpart G - Closure and Post-Closure (40 CFR §264.110 through .120).
Post-closure care (PCC) requirements for Subtitle C landfills involve monitoring and
maintaining the waste containment systems for a presumptive period of 30 years (per 40
CFR §264.117), or an extended or reduced period based on the demonstration that such
adjustment is necessary or sufficient, respectively, for the protection of human health and
the environment. Hazardous waste landfills have been permitted under RCRA Subtitle C
since 1984, over 30 years ago, thus an increasing number of facilities around the country
are approaching the end of their presumptive 30-year PCC period. Stakeholders requested
the EPA to provide guidance on how and when it may be appropriate to make such
certifications or other decisions regarding the ongoing status of their site. For its part, in
2016 EPA issued "Guidelines for Evaluating the Post-Closure Care Period for Hazardous
Waste Disposal Facilities under Subtitle C of RCRA."
The aim of the study is to facilitate the discussion and decision-making processes by
illustrating what data are needed, highlighting categories of useful data that are typically
lacking, and recommending techniques and tools to complement the EPA's "Guidelines for
Evaluating the Post-Closure Care Period for Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities under
Subtitle C of RCRA". The study investigates the field performance of engineered double-liner
systems based on data from 9 Subtitle C landfills sites that have completed several years of
PCC. It is noted that the document is not intended to address policy issues (such as how
1 Subtitle D of RCRA sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes;
however, management of non-hazardous solid waste is only of passing interest in this document.
v
-------
EPA/600/R-17/205
November 2017
landfills may be managed, controlled, or regulated after PCC has ended) or to provide
generic answers to defining conditions for ending PCC.
Furthermore, also provides a follow-up for a broader EPA study published in 2002 entitled
"Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment
Systems." The 2002 study reported on the performance of active and closed hazardous and
non-hazardous waste landfill units around the country using data collected in the 1980s and
1990s. In updating that study, EPA is specifically interested in supplementing the previous
dataset with a further 10-15 years of performance data from closed Subtitle C landfill units.
Overall, the nine landfills yielded 45 individual double-lined closed units ranging in size from
1.4 to 11 acres, although most units were less than 5 acres in area. The oldest units in the
study have been closed for over 29 years, while the newest are only 6 years into a PCC
program. The thickness of waste in place above the liner ranged from 40 feet to 110 feet
(average 70 to 80 feet). Amongst the 45 case study units, 11 different liner system designs
and a further 11 different cover system designs are represented. These are combined into
13 unique containment system design configurations featuring commonality through the
entire thickness of the unit from the top of the cover to the bottom of the liner. The
discussion is interested in addressing the five broad research questions presented next.
1. How much leachate is generated in closed Subtitle C landfills and what are the effects of
site location (climatic region), cover system design, or waste type on leachate
generation rates?
In general, field data showed a decline in leachate flow from the LCRS and LDS. In all cases,
placement of cover led to a reduction in the LCRS flow rate, including where only 12 inches
of intermediate cover soil had been placed. Rainfall has an effect on leachate generation,
with higher LCRS flows recorded at the four wet sites and very low or negligible flows
recorded at three dry sites. The incidence of precipitation as rainfall versus snowfall does
not appear to affect leachate generation at the wet sites.
An increasing trend in leachate generation was observed at some sites for a duration of time
and was attributable to known operation and maintenance (O&M) issues affecting cover
system performance. Erosion damage to cover systems was identified as a key issue
affecting landfill performance in the post-closure period, with higher costs and effort
associated with repairs needed during initial years of PCC before cover vegetation is fully
established and the cover stabilized. Breaches in the cover system, particularly in the early
years of PCC, could result in relatively long-term setbacks in terms of returning LCRS flow
rates to expected levels once the cover is repaired. Routine cover inspection is essential for
vi
-------
EPA/600/R-17/205
November 2017
identifying issues related to erosion damage, water ponding on the cover system, or other
issues, as this facilitates timely maintenance and repair to reduce leachate flow volumes.
Data from this study suggest the rate at which LCRS flow rate declines post-closure may be
three to five times slower than reported in 2002 study or approximately an order of
magnitude decrease in flow every 15-20 years. However, more field studies, preferably
under a random selection procedure, are needed to validate this finding before
recommendations for adjusting current industry projections and accruals for leachate
management can be made. Furthermore, the rate of decrease in the leachate generation
correlates with the maximum leachate generation at closure. In another word, cells that
were wetter and had higher leachate flow at the time of closure continued to have relatively
high flow well into their PCC period. This emphasizes the importance of good storm water
control during the period of landfill operation and competent cover design and construction
performed under strict CQA procedures so as to minimize peak leachate generation
immediately after closure.
2. What conclusions can be drawn regarding the hydraulic efficiencies of double-liner
systems (i.e., leakage rates through primary liners) at Subtitle C landfills based on
available leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) and leakage detection system
(LDS) data?
The "apparent" hydraulic efficiency (Ea) of the primary liner can be calculated as the flow in
the LDS relative to the flow in the LCRS. If the only source of flow into the LDS sump is
primary liner leakage, then Ea provides the true measure of the effectiveness of a particular
liner in limiting or preventing advective transport across the liner. Overall, calculated Ea
values from this study generally fall significantly short of the one suggested by the 2002
study (99%). Furthermore, as would be expected, the apparent liner efficiencies are
significantly higher at dry sites than at wet sites.
A significant number of calculated Ea values in this study fall below zero (i.e., have negative
Ea values). Negative values are interesting in that they indicate that flow in the LDS
exceeded that in the LCRS. This may be the result of major defects in the primary liner
system (which should have been identified during the construction of the liner system, or
that the volume of liquids in the LDS cannot be attributed to liner leakage alone and may be
caused by groundwater intrusion. It is possible that by distinguishing liquids with similar
chemical signatures, leachate chemistry data can be used to quantify the portion of liquids
comprising total LDS flow that could be attributable to primary liner leakage as opposed to
other sources, thereby correcting the extent to which the LCRS and LDS are hydraulically
connected. Using chlorides for chemical signature, the liner efficiencies increased drastically.
-------
EPA/600/R-17/205
November 2017
It is noted that this correction may grossly overestimate the collection efficiency as it does
not take into account chemical attenuation of the liner system.
An interesting observation is that the thickness of material specified does not appear to
affect the hydraulic performance of the barrier GM in either the cover or liner system for the
units included in this study when compared across a common material type, although high-
density polyethylene (HDPE) appeared to outperform polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Four sites
featured a GM-only barrier in the primary liner, while all other designs feature a composite
GM/CCL barrier. However, the primary liner design also does not appear to affect LDS flows;
therefore it appears that construction of a composite primary liner may not be necessary as
long as a composite secondary liner is constructed if one was only considering the limited
number of units included in this study. More data are needed to evaluate this observation.
3. How do predictions of leachate generation using the EPA's Hydrologic Evaluation of
Landfill Performance (HELP) Model compare to observed generation rates at these sites?
Based on the landfill cover designs and leachate flow rates from the sites evaluated in this
study, the HELP Model appeared to be better suited to predicting long-term LCRS flow at
wet rather than dry sites, which is consistent with published findings. The model predicts
zero or near-zero LCRS flows at dry sites, whereas higher LCRS flow was observed at all
four dry case study landfills. Based on our findings, it appears that it may be unreasonable
to achieve a leachate flow rate of zero or near zero for a landfill site within the 30 years PCC
period. Therefore, it is prudent to demonstrate that the absence of care for the leachate
collection system would not pose a threat to water quality and human health and the
environment. Such demonstrations may be made if enough data is available on leachate
flow and chemical concentrations having reached quasi-steady state, predictable, and non-
impacting conditions, albeit at a non-zero flow rate.
4. What is the leachate chemistry at these sites, and does it exhibit asymptotic behavioral
trends over the long term?
Thirty chemical parameters were selected to represent leachate constituents of interest,
based on those investigated in the 2002 study. These included water quality indicator
parameters, macro indicators of dissolved organic matter, major inorganic cations and
anions, trace metals, and trace volatile organic compounds (VOCs) frequently observed to
be present in landfill leachate. Concentration trends in these data were examined to assess
whether the asymptotic behavior was evident or could be predicted. Where available,
leachate concentrations were compared to published data as well as EPA water quality
standards. However, rather than directly comparing source leachate concentrations to a
limit value (which defeats the performance-based intention of the regulation), a universal
-------
EPA/600/R-17/205
November 2017
dilution/attenuation factor (DAF) of 20 was applied to represent a concentration decrease
that would be expected prior to detection at a point of compliance (POC) monitoring well.
This DAF value is equal to the default specified in the EPA's Soil Screening Guidance (EPA,
1996); however, use of a DAF of 20 for illustrative purposes in this study should not be
misconstrued as a suggestion that this value has universal applicability nor that EPA has
endorsed use of this value in lieu of site-specific analysis. In any evaluation of leachate
chemistry and threat potential, a site-specific DAF should be calculated.
Significant variability was evident in the data for many constituents, particularly in the LCRS
where differences between maximum and minimum observed values often span six or more
orders of magnitude for cations/anions, trace metals, and VOCs. The general water quality
characteristics of liquids from the LCRS and LDS drainage layers are also significantly
different, again by multiple orders of magnitude in many cases. Although, contaminant
transport through a liner can occur due to advective or diffusive flux, or both, given the
order of magnitude differences in concentration of the chemical constituents in LCRS and
LDS, advective flux may be considered as a primary driving mechanism for this variability.
The long-term outlook for leachate management based on observations of behavioral trends
amongst selected leachate data from this study is mixed. Water quality indicators and major
cations/anions suggest that the materials contained in Subtitle C landfills may not degrade
under landfill conditions, or only degrade very slowly, such that observations based on
similar behavioral trends from non-hazardous Subtitle D landfills cannot be extrapolated to
characterize the expected performance of Subtitle C landfills.
5. How could current monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements be improved
to better ensure that the data necessary for performance demonstrations are collected?
The unavailability of some critical site information and monitoring data limited the extent to
which evaluations of leachate flow and chemistry could be completed or even performed in
this study. Obvious data gaps and their effects are identified throughout this document.
Fuller LCRS and LDS datasets, for example, would have expanded the level of detail to
which cover and liner system performance could be evaluated, while a longer data record
would have enabled a clearer picture of long-term stable leachate generation to be
gathered. The focus and goal of this discussion is to reiterate some key data limitations and
discuss their effect on limiting the study, in so doing providing some guidance to site
operators and regulators as to what data that are not routinely collected would be valuable
in demonstrating that one or more components of PCC at Subtitle C landfills could be
modified over the long term. This is intended to provide motivation, rather than an
obligation, for additional data collection.
ix
-------
EPA/600/R-17/205
November 2017
Overall, significant variability existed between the case study units, which is beneficial to a
study of this nature. In terms of variability in construction details, 11 different liner system
designs and a further 11 different cover system designs were featured amongst the study
units featured, combining to provide 13 unique containment system design configurations.
Major variables in cover system design were represented. However, primary liner designs
essentially comprised only two variables: GM/CCL and GM only. No case study units were
constructed having a GM/GCL composite primary liner, although one site has a GCL
secondary liner. As such, the efficacy of a GM/GCL primary liner design cannot be
evaluated, an important limitation given the widespread use of GCLs in liner systems. In
terms of facility operations, seven of the nine landfills are commercial facilities accepting
hazardous waste from a wide range of generators. As such, an original research question
from this study (does waste type affect leachate concentrations?) could not be addressed,
as the commercial facilities accepted waste from multiple sources thereby making it difficult
to compare waste chemistry for these sites, while there were insufficient data from non-
commercial facilities against which to gauge variability between commercial and non-
commercial sites. Further, waste manifests were not available, which meant that although
some findings appeared to support the hypothesis that facility/waste type would affect
leaching behavior and leachate characteristics, this could not be confirmed.
With regard to leachate chemistry data, many targeted leachate constituents are poorly
represented in the LCRS dataset, while LDS chemistry is not monitored at all at many sites.
Leachate chemistry data are most commonly collected semi-annually or annually, thereby
limiting the overall size of the dataset available for analysis. An issue of importance
identified in the process of collecting leachate chemistry data for this study is that site
operators are reportedly only required to keep records for 3 years; as such, many older
data are no longer available. If this is broadly representative of Subtitle C facilities, it
represents an important limitation on assessing the long-term performance of containment
systems and potential modifications to existing PCC programs. Given the focus on
containment and leachate minimization at Subtitle C landfills, data availability may be
reflective of the low level of concern operators have on managing leachate treatment and
disposal costs (low leachate flows attract little interest because disposal costs are modest
for small volumes). Many of the data used to support the performance demonstrations
made in this study rely on non-compliance data collected only to meet influent limits
imposed by a receiving facility for leachate treatment and are not routinely submitted to the
state. This has implications in terms of being able to independently assess site performance,
which would be important if an operator was unable to continue providing care.
x
-------
EPA/600/R-17/205
November 2017
Notice
This research was funded by the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development
(ORD) under the Safe and Healthy Communities Research Program. This report was
prepared by Geosyntec Consultants of Columbia, Maryland under subcontract to RTI
International of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Work was performed in accordance
with a Work Assignment issued by EPA under Contract EP-D-11-084.
We acknowledge the support of the following individuals for preparing this report:
Geosvntec Consultants
Jeremy Morris, PhD, PE
Ranjiv Gupta, PhD, PE
Michael Houlihan, PE
Mohammed Al-Quraan
Keaton Botelho, PE
Herwig Goldemund, PhD
Beth Gross, PhD, PE
Vinay Krishnan Lakshminarayanan
Chunling Li, PhD, PE
Cory Russell
Andrew Stallings
Brianna Wallace, PE
RTI International
Coleen Northeim
Keith Weitz
EPA Office of Research and Development CORD')
Thabet Tolaymat, PhD
David Carson
Jonathan Rickets
EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery ('ORCR')
Patricia Buzzell
Lilybeth Colon
xi
-------
EPA/600/R-17/205
November 2017
[This page intentionally left blank.]
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Foreword iv
Executive Summary v
Notice xi
Abbreviations xix
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Overview and Terms of Reference 1
1.2 Purpose, Scope, and Limitations of the Study 2
1.3 Overview of Waste Regulations and Guidance 4
1.3.1 Regulation of Hazardous Waste Landfills 5
1.3.2 Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance 6
1.4 Landfills as Waste Containment Systems 7
1.4.1 Waste Containment Goals 7
1.4.2 Containment System Components 7
1.5 Long-Term Performance of Landfill Containment Systems 11
1.5.1 Liner-System Performance 11
1.5.2 Leachate Generation Modeling 13
1.5.3 Potential Sources of Liquids Contributing to LCRS and LDS Flow 15
1.5.4 Leachate Chemistry 17
1.5.5 Liner and Cover Stability 20
1.6 Assessment and Termination of Post-Closure Care 20
1.6.1 Number of Closed Hazardous Waste Units 20
1.6.2 Process for Assessing Completion of Post-Closure Care 20
1.6.3 Case Study Example of Post-Closure Permit Termination 22
1.7 Long-Term Landfill Performance and Resilience 23
2. Data Collection and Analysis 25
2.1 Data Collection 25
2.1.1 Criteria for Case Study Site Selection 25
2.1.2 Geographic and Climatic Distribution 25
2.1.3 Site Data Collection Protocol 26
2.2 Site Data 27
xiii
-------
2.2.1 Site Information 27
2.2.2 Leachate Flow 28
2.2.3 Leachate Chemistry 28
2.2.4 Quality Assurance Project Plan 29
3. Review of Case study landfills 32
3.1 Overview 32
3.2 General Description of Case Study Facilities 33
3.2.1 Landfill Construction and Operation 33
3.2.2 Liner System and Cover System Design 34
3.3 Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance 43
3.3.1 Leachate Management 43
3.3.2 Cover Monitoring and Maintenance 46
3.3.3 General Status of Post-Closure Care 47
4. Analysis of Leachate Flow Data 49
4.1 Temporal Trends in Leachate Flow Rates in the LCRS and LDS 49
4.1.1 Wet Sites - Landfills B, T, D, and F 49
4.1.2 Dry Sites - Landfills J, R, Y, and M 54
4.1.3 Climatic Cusp Site - Landfill P 57
4.2 Comparing LCRS Flow Data to Modeled Predictions 59
4.2.1 Methodology 60
4.2.2 Results 61
5. Analysis of Primary Liner Performance 68
5.1 Apparent Hydraulic Efficiency of the Primary Liner 68
5.1.1 Methodology 68
5.1.2 Values Calculated by EPA (2002) 68
5.1.3 Values Calculated in this Study 69
5.2 Modeled Hydraulic Efficiency of the Primary Liner 73
5.2.1 Methodology 73
5.2.2 Results 73
5.3 Correcting Apparent Liner Efficiency Calculations 75
5.3.1 Technical Basis 75
5.3.2 Methodology 79
5.3.3 Results 79
6. Analysis of Leachate Quality Data 81
6.1 Overview 81
xiv
-------
6.1.1 Data Availability 81
6.1.2 Temporal Analysis of Leachate Quality 82
6.1.3 Leachate Chemistry Constituents 83
6.1.4 Water Quality Indicators 87
6.1.5 Dissolved Organic Matter 89
6.1.6 Major Cations and Anions 90
6.1.7 Trace Metals 93
6.1.8 Volatile Organic Compounds 97
7. Summary and Conclusions 99
7.1 Study Implications on Understanding Long-Term Landfill Performance 99
7.1.1 Leachate Flow Rate and Trends 99
7.1.2 Liner Design and Performance 104
7.1.3 Trends in Leachate Chemistry 107
7.2 Data Availability and Limitations 109
7.2.1 General Site Information 110
7.2.2 Leachate Flow Data Ill
7.2.3 Leachate Chemistry Data Ill
7.3 Recommendations for Future Research and Development 113
8. References 115
9. appendix I 122
10. appendix II 123
11. appendix III 132
12. appendix IV 169
xv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
Figure 1-1. Schematic of typical cover and double-liner system for a Subtitle C
landfill 8
Figure 1-2. Potential sources of liquids contributing to LDS flow 16
Figure 1-3. Distribution of closed hazardous waste disposal units in the United
States 21
Figure 2-1. Geographical regions established for the study 26
Figure 3-1. Distribution of landfill sites in U.S. geographical regions established for
this study 32
Figure 3-2. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill B 36
Figure 3-3. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill T 37
Figure 3-4. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill J 38
Figure 3-5. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill R 39
Figure 3-6. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill P 40
Figure 3-7. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill Y 41
Figure 3-8. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill M 42
Figure 3-9. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill D 43
Figure 3-10. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill F 44
Figure 4-1. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, B-l to B-6 50
Figure 4-2. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, B-7 and B-8 51
Figure 4-3. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, Landfill T 52
Figure 4-4. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, Landfill D 53
Figure 4-5. Average annual LCRS and LDS flow, Landfill F 53
Figure 4-6. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, Landfill J 55
Figure 4-7. Annual average LCRS flow, Landfill R 56
Figure 4-8. Annual average LCRS flow, Landfill Y 56
Figure 4-9. Annual average LCRS flow, Landfill M 57
Figure 4-10. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, P-l 59
Figure 4-11. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, P-2 to P-4 59
Figure 4-12. Trends in long-term LCRS flow, B-l to B-5 64
Figure 4-13. Trends in long-term LCRS flow, F-l 64
Figure 4-14. Trends in long-term LCRS flow, R-l to R-5 65
Figure 4-15. Trends in long-term LCRS flow, Y-l to Y-3 65
Figure 5-1. Chloride-magnesium bivariate plot, Landfill T 76
Figure 5-2. Ionic composition of liquids in the LCRS, LDS, and vadose zone, Landfill
J 77
Figure 5-3. Comparison of chloride concentrations in LCRS and LDS liquids 78
Figure 6-1. Temporal variability in pH 88
Figure 6-2. Temporal variability in specific conductance 89
Figure 6-3. Temporal variability in chloride 91
Figure 6-4. Temporal variability in sulfate 92
xvi
-------
Figure 6-5. Schoeller diagrams for cations and anions, Landfill R 93
Figure 6-6. Temporal variability in arsenic 95
Figure 6-7. Temporal variability in total chromium 96
Figure 6-8. Temporal variability in lead 97
Figure 6-9. Temporal variability in benzene 98
xvii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
Table 2-1. Data quality assessment guide for source 30
Table 2-2. Data quality assessment guide for timeliness 30
Table 3-1. General site information 33
Table 3-2. Commonality of liner system, LCRS and LDS drainage system, and cover
system for different case study design configurations 34
Table 4-1. Modeled LCRS and LDS flow 62
Table 4-2. Estimated timeframe to achieve steady state leachate flow 66
Table 5-1. Apparent liner efficiency, Ea (wet sites) 70
Table 5-2. Apparent liner efficiency, Ea (dry sites) 71
Table 5-3. Apparent liner efficiency, Ea (cusp site) 71
Table 5-4. Modeled liner efficiency, Em 74
Table 5-5. Corrected liner efficiency, Ec 80
Table 6-1. Summary of LCRS leachate concentrations in case study landfills 84
Table 6-2. Summary of LDS liquids concentrations in case study landfills 85
Table 7-1. Summary of potential factors affecting relative flow in the LCRS and LDS 102
Table 7-2. Comparison of liner efficiency calculations 106
xviii
-------
Abbreviations
ASTSWMO
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
BOD
biochemical oxygen demand
BTEX
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene
CAMU
corrective action management unit
CCL
compacted clay liner
CF
correction factor
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COD
chemical oxygen demand
CQA
construction quality assurance
DAF
dilution/attenuation factor
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DOM
dissolved organic matter
Ea
apparent liner efficiency
Ec
corrected liner efficiency
Eh
oxidation-reduction potential
Em
modeled liner efficiency
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Et
true liner efficiency
ET
evapotranspiration; evapotranspirative
FA
financial assurance
GCL
geosynthetic clay liner
GC
geocomposite
GM
geomembrane
GN
geonet
gpad
gallons per acre per day
GT
geotextile
HDPE
High-density polyethylene
HELP
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill [Model]
HHE
human health and environment
HW
hazardous waste
ITRC
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council
LCRS
leachate collection and removal system
LDS
the leakage detection system
LFG
landfill gas
LLDPE
linear low-density polyethylene
LLRW
low-level radioactive waste
Iphd
liter per hectare per day
MCL
maximum contaminant level
MSW
municipal solid waste
MSWI
municipal solid waste incineration
-------
ND
non-detect
NRMRL
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (EPA)
O&M
operation and maintenance
OIG
Office of Inspector General (EPA)
ORCR
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (EPA)
ORD
Office of Research and Development (EPA)
OSDC
on-site disposal cell
OSDF
on-site disposal facility
PCC
post-closure care
POC
the point of compliance
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
QA
quality assurance
QAPP
quality assurance project plan
QC
quality control
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SCS
Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture)
SMCL
secondary maximum contaminant level
TDS
total dissolved solids
TOC
total organic carbon
TSDF
treatment, storage, and disposal facility
VOC
volatile organic compound
WWTP
wastewater treatment plant
XX
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview and Terms of Reference
A research field of significant interest to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
the long-term behavior of hazardous waste disposal facilities regulated under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The regulation is codified
under 40 CFR Part 264, as published in various editions of the Federal Register since 1980
(EPA, 2014a). Sections of the regulation of relevance to this research field are provided
under Subpart N - Landfills (40 CFR §264.300 through .317) and Subpart G - Closure and
Post-Closure (40 CFR §264.110 through .120). Post-closure care (PCC) requirements for
Subtitle C landfills involve monitoring and maintaining the waste containment systems for a
default period of 30 years (per 40 CFR §264.117), or an extended or reduced period based
on demonstration that such adjustment is necessary or sufficient, respectively, for
protection of human health and the environment (HHE). Adjusting the PCC period, or
certifying that PCC is completed such that HHE remains protected in the absence of PCC, is
at the discretion of the permitting authority (EPA Regional Administrator or Director of an
authorized state program).
Hazardous waste landfills have been permitted under RCRA Subtitle C since 1984, over 30
years ago, which means that an increasing number of facilities around the country may
soon have completed 30 years of PCC. Both the regulated and regulatory communities are
faced with addressing the situation in which a decision is needed regarding the ongoing
status of the site. A 2015 study by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) estimated that
over 1,500 hazardous waste disposal units across the nation had been "closed with waste in
place" as of October 2014, although not all are under a permitted PCC program (EPA,
2015). The number of units for which a decision regarding the end of PCC will be needed
was estimated at between 15 and 45 annually through 2030, with over half of these
decisions falling in the next 10 years. The need for technical and procedural guidance has
been identified by the regulated and regulatory communities alike. Notably, the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) issued a position
paper calling for guidance from EPA on evaluating PCC criteria and modifying the PCC period
(ASTSWMO, 2013). In response to these and other calls for increased clarity on the subject,
EPA recently issued "Guidelines for Evaluating the Post-Closure Care Period for Hazardous
Waste Disposal Facilities under Subtitle C of RCRA" (EPA, 2016). While the guidance does
not provide specific details on how to conduct an evaluation, it does provide a framework
that recommends the use of monitoring, modeling, and/or statistical analysis to determine if
1
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
landfill contaminants (primarily leachate) would pose a threat to HHE at compliance or
exposure points outside of the waste mass. This study provides updated information on the
post-closure performance of Subtitle C landfill liner systems and, therefore, supports EPA's
guidance on using performance-based demonstrations as the basis for extending, reducing,
or ending PCC.
1.2 Purpose, Scope, and Limitations of the Study
The primary objective of this study is to investigate the field performance of engineered
double-liner systems based on data from Subtitle C landfills that have completed several
years of PCC and to quantify actual leachate generation rates, liner performance (i.e.,
leakage), and leachate chemistry during PCC in relation to current industry "norms" and
expectations. It is anticipated that this study will help the EPA assess and update
expectations for field performance of Subtitle C landfills in the PCC period, specifically as
reported and discussed in Chapter 5 and Appendix E of the previous study prepared for EPA
titled "Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste
Containment Systems" (EPA, 2002). This should be beneficial to both the regulatory and
regulated communities in terms of making decisions regarding the long-term data collection
and performance demonstrations necessary to evaluate, and ultimately adjust, PCC at
Subtitle C landfills. As such, the intended audience of this document is state and EPA
regional regulators, private industry, commercial facility owners/operators, landfill design
engineers, and other hazardous waste professionals.
EPA (2002) reported on the performance of active and closed hazardous and non-hazardous
waste landfill units around the country using data collected in the 1980s and 1990s. In
updating that study with respect to hazardous waste landfills, EPA is specifically interested
in supplementing the previous dataset with a further 10-15 years of performance data from
closed Subtitle C landfill units in the interests of addressing the following four broad
research questions:
1. What conclusions can be drawn regarding the hydraulic efficiencies of double-liner
systems (i.e., leakage rates through primary liners) at Subtitle C landfills based on
available leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) and leakage detection system
(LDS) data?
2. How much leachate is generated in closed Subtitle C landfills and what are the effects of
site location (climatic region), cover system design, or waste type on leachate
generation rates?
3. How do predictions of leachate generation using the EPA's Hydrologic Evaluation of
Landfill Performance (HELP) Model compare to observed generation rates at these sites?
2
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
4. What is the leachate chemistry at these sites, and do certain constituents exhibit
asymptotic or other notable behavioral trends over the long-term?
This study aims to provide answers to these questions. However, it is important to clarify
that the focus is on understanding the performance of liner systems rather than cover
systems. This is because Subtitle C landfills routinely install double liners such that the
performance (leakage) of the primary liner can be directly measured, while the performance
of the cover system can only be indirectly estimated based on overall leachate generation.
Similarly, it should be clarified that it is not the intent of this study to directly address PCC
policy issues (such as how landfills may be managed, controlled, or regulated after PCC has
ended) or to provide generic answers to defining conditions for ending PCC. These should be
agreed via a site-specific discussion between the regulator and owner/operator, based on
the application of the guidance issued by EPA (2016). This study aims to facilitate the
discussion and decision-making processes by illustrating what data are needed, highlighting
categories of useful data that are typically lacking, and recommending techniques and tools
for evaluation of data.
Other important questions extend beyond the main study goals but can help further the
understanding of long-term landfill performance and development of guidance to both
evaluate and improve performance. These include:
1. How does leachate chemistry at Subtitle C landfills compare with water quality
standards?
2. What models are routinely used to analyze leachate data and predict leachate
generation and potential transport of hazardous waste constituents?
3. What are the expected or observed effects of extreme weather or seismic induced
events (e.g., flood, excessive rainfall, or tsunami) on the performance of waste
containment systems, particularly the cover?
4. Can performance data from studies such as this be used to assign risk-based evaluation
criteria and procedures for demonstrating long-term protection of HHE?
5. How could current monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements be improved
to better ensure that the data necessary for performance demonstrations are collected?
Although these additional questions were considered during this research study, they serve
primarily to establish longer-term research goals for EPA.
Important limitations pertain to this study, mainly with regard to the relatively small
number of contributory datasets available to evaluate the long-term performance of
composite liner systems comprising both geosynthetic and clay barrier layers (liner system
components are described in detail in Section 1.4.2). For inclusion in the study, therefore, a
Subtitle C landfill disposal unit (i.e., discrete set of one or more cells, phases, modules, or
areas) needed to be final capped (or have been inactive at final grade for an extended
3
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
period under intermediate cover) and have a double-liner system with separate unit-specific
measurement of liquid flow rate in the LCRS and LDS. The total number of Subtitle C
landfills in the country with at least one doubled-lined closed unit is limited to a few dozen
sites, such that the pool of candidate sites was small. Furthermore, to promote the free
exchange of site performance data and operational experiences, participation in the study
was fully voluntary on the part of site operators. As a result, the selected case studies
cannot be assumed to be representative of a random subset of Subtitle C facilities.
1.3 Overview of Waste Regulations and Guidance
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the public law that creates the
framework for the proper management of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste to
protect communities and natural resources in the country. Specifically, the law describes the
mandate and authority given to EPA by Congress to develop the RCRA program, which
comprises regulations, guidance, and policies to ensure the safe management and cleanup
of solid and hazardous waste as well as encourage source reduction and beneficial reuse.
The term RCRA is often used interchangeably to refer to the law, regulations, and EPA policy
and guidance. However, in the context of this study, the term refers specifically to EPA's
regulation of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste management under RCRA Subtitle C
and D, respectively.
Hazardous waste is defined under RCRA as a solid waste that is not excluded from
regulation as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR §261.4(b) and meets the criteria listed in 40
CFR §261.3. Hazardous waste management requires treatment, storage, and disposal as
appropriate under 40 CFR Part 264, with specific restrictions on landfill disposal of
hazardous waste controlled under 40 CFR Part 268. These intersecting regulations are
complex, with detailed discussion beyond the scope of this document. However, for the
purposes of this study, it is important to emphasize that waste in liquid form cannot be
directly landfilled but must be encapsulated, solidified, and/or stabilized before disposal.
This general restriction extends to hazardous waste containerized in drums. As such,
disposal of free-draining liquids in the landfill waste stream should not be an appreciable
source of leachate at Subtitle C landfills.
This study is not specifically concerned with non-hazardous solid waste landfills regulated
under RCRA Subtitle D as codified under 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258. Subtitle D establishes
minimum technical standards and guidelines for state solid waste plans (EPA, 1993). Non-
hazardous waste materials regulated under Subtitle D include (1) household refuse, also
known as municipal solid waste (MSW); (2) sludges from wastewater treatment plants or
4
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
pollution control facilities; (3) non-hazardous industrial wastes (e.g., manufacturing process
wastewaters and non-wastewater sludges and solids); and (4) other discarded materials
resulting from industrial and commercial activities, (e.g., mining waste, oil and gas waste,
construction and demolition debris, medical waste, agricultural waste, household hazardous
waste, and conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste).
1.3.1 Regulation of Hazardous Waste Landfills
EPA has developed a comprehensive program to provide safe management of hazardous
waste from the moment it is generated to its final disposal (a "cradle-to-grave" approach).
RCRA Subtitle C regulations set criteria for hazardous waste generators and transporters,
and for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. This includes permitting requirements,
enforcement, and corrective action or cleanup. The regulations governing hazardous waste
identification, classification, generation, management, and disposal are found in 40 CFR 260
through 273 (EPA, 2014a). EPA typically authorizes states to implement and regulate
hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal government. If a state program does not
exist, EPA has the authority to directly implement hazardous waste requirements in that
state.
This study is most concerned with 40 CFR Part 264: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Sections of the regulation of
particular relevance are provided under Subpart N - Landfills (40 CFR §264.300 through
.317) and Subpart G - Closure and Post-Closure (40 CFR §264.110 through .120). Most of
the hazardous disposal facilities regulated under RCRA Subtitle C that were included in this
study are commercial waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs); however,
two industrial TSDFs are also included in the study. TSDFs are used for treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste produced by general industrial and manufacturing
activities. Commercial facilities are owned and operated by waste management companies
and accept waste from multiple industries whereas industrial facilities are owned by and
contain waste from the industrial process run by the owner. Corrective action management
units (CAMUs) are special units created under RCRA to facilitate treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes managed for implementing site cleanups, and to remove
disincentives to cleanup that the application of RCRA can sometimes impose. Requirements
for CAMUs are provided under Subpart S - Special Provisions for Cleanup (40 CFR §264.550
through .555).
5
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
1.3.2 Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance
The guidelines for post-closure monitoring and maintenance systems required at a
hazardous waste landfill are listed in §264.310(b) and require the owner and operator to
comply with all post-closure requirements contained in §264.117 through .120, including
maintenance and monitoring throughout the post-closure care period (as specified in the
permit under §264.117). Financial assurance requirements for post-closure care are
specified under §264.145(i). The owner or operator of a hazardous waste disposal unit must
have a written post-closure plan providing a description of the planned monitoring and
maintenance activities, the function of the monitoring equipment, and frequencies at which
monitoring and maintenance activities will be performed. Specifically, the owner or operator
must:
1. Maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the final cover, including making repairs to
the cap as necessary to correct the effects of settling, subsidence, erosion, or other
events;
2. Continue to operate the leachate collection and removal system until leachate is no
longer detected;
3. Maintain and monitor the leak detection system in accordance with 264.301(c)(3)(iv)
and (4) and 264.303(c), and comply with all other applicable leak detection system
requirements of this part;
4. Maintain and monitor the groundwater monitoring system and comply with all other
applicable requirements of Subpart F (§264.90 through .101);
5. Prevent run-on and run-off from eroding or otherwise damaging the final cover; and
6. Protect and maintain surveyed benchmarks used in complying with §264.309 (Surveying
and Recordkeeping).
Monitoring and inspection requirements for closed Subtitle C landfills specified under
§264.303(c) include recording the volume of liquids removed from each leak detection
system sump at least weekly during the closure period. After installation of the final cover
has been certified, the volume of liquids removed from each leak detection system sump
must initially be recorded at least monthly. If the liquid level in the sump stays below the
pump operating level for two consecutive months, the amount of liquids in the sumps must
be recorded at least quarterly. If the liquid level in the sump stays below the pump
operating level for two consecutive quarters, the amount of liquids in the sumps must be
recorded at least semi-annually. If at any time during the post-closure care period, the
pump operating level is exceeded at units on quarterly or semi-annual recording schedules,
the owner/operator must revert to monthly recording of the amounts of liquids removed
from each sump until the liquid level again stays below the pump operating level for two
consecutive months. In this regard, "pump operating level" refers to a liquid level based on
6
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
pump activation level, sump dimensions, and other considerations that will avoid backup
into the drainage layer and minimize buildup of hydraulic head. Pump operating levels must
be proposed by owner/operators and approved by the EPA Regional Administrator or
Director of an authorized state program.
1.4 Landfills as Waste Containment Systems
1.4.1 Waste Containment Goals
Landfills are land-based waste management units that contain solid waste as well as
byproducts of waste decomposition (conversion of solids to more mobile liquid and gaseous
phases). Gaseous phase byproducts are primarily associated with biological degradation
processes that form landfill gas (LFG) and are less important in RCRA Subtitle C landfills
than in Subtitle D landfills regulated under 40 CFR Part 258, as the latter generally contains
significantly more organic materials disposed of as part of an MSW stream. Although some
Subtitle C landfills feature LFG control systems, the performance of containment systems in
controlling gaseous phase byproducts is not considered in this study. This study is
concerned with the control of liquid phase byproducts (leachate), which are primarily
comprised of liquid that has percolated through or emerged from the solid waste and
contains soluble or suspended materials removed from the waste (Pohland & Harper, 1985).
Waste containment systems for landfills consist of liner systems that underlay the wastes
placed on them and final cover systems constructed over the wastes. The primary function
of the liner system is to minimize, to the extent achievable, the subsurface migration of
waste constituents and degradation byproducts (i.e., leachate and gases) out of the landfill.
The primary functions of the final cover system are threefold: contain and isolate the waste
from the surrounding environment; minimize, to the extent achievable, the percolation of
water into the waste body; and control the atmospheric emission of gases, if any, from the
landfill. To achieve their performance objective of protecting the environment, multiple
systems acting together are employed throughout the landfill's life (i.e., operation, closure,
and post-closure). The performance objective for these systems is the protection of
potential environmental receptors (groundwater, surface water, unsaturated soil, and air).
1.4.2 Containment System Components
Typical components of containment systems at Subtitle C landfills (Figure 1-1) and their role
in meeting performance standards can be briefly described as follows:
¦ Liner system, typically a double-liner system with a composite clay/geosynthetic system,
which provides containment of waste and waste byproducts (Rowe, 2005);
7
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
¦ Leachate management system, which collects leachate to minimize buildup of
hydrostatic head above the liner and removes it for treatment and disposal (Rowe,
1998); and
¦ Final cover system (installed after closure), which provides long-term containment
(Bonaparte et a I., 2004), controls the rate of water entering the landfill from rainfall or
snowmelt, provides storm water management, protects surface water quality, and can
also provide a suitable platform for beneficial reuse options (Crest et al., 2010).
Active monitoring of landfill containment and control systems and potential receiving media
is required (EPA, 2014a). Such monitoring is not only an important compliance tool to
evaluate whether component systems are functioning as designed but also measures
system performance over time.
Double-Liner
System
LDS Drainage Layer
Composite Secondary Liner
Surface and Protection Layer
Drainage Layer
LCRS Drainage Layer
Gas Collection Layer
Solid Waste
GM Barrier
GM Barrier
GM Barrier
Figure 1-1. Schematic of typical cover and double-liner system for a Subtitle C
landfill2
Liner and Leachate Management Systems
A liner system is a low-permeability barrier used to contain the waste and impede
subsurface liquid or gas flow, primarily leachate. Liner systems are typically installed in
accordance with an independent construction quality assurance (CQA) program, which
provides third-party inspection, testing, documentation, and certification that liner
2 Redrawn from Figure 5-1 of EPA (2002). Note that not all components will be present as shown in all
Subtitle C containment system designs; in particular, a gas collection layer may not be specified and
materials used in drainage layers may vary between granular soils and geosynthetic products.
8
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
components were installed in accordance with design specifications and regulatory
requirements. Nevertheless, no liner material can be manufactured or installed to be
perfectly impermeable (Giroud and Bonaparte, 1989; Giroud et al. 1997; EPA, 2002; Rowe,
2005). Therefore, the competent leachate containment design provides for a combination of
barrier and drainage layers performing complementary functions. Barrier layers impede
leachate percolation out of the landfill and improve the performance of overlying drainage
layers, which serve to rapidly remove leachate and limit the buildup of hydraulic head on
underlying barrier layers. Drainage layers collect and convey leachate from above the
uppermost liner material towards controlled low-point collection points (sumps) on the liner
where the liquids can be removed, thereby minimizing the hydraulic head on the liner and
advective flux through the liner. Combinations of liners and drainage layers are collectively
referred to as liner systems.
A double-liner system consists of a primary liner and a secondary liner, each overlain with a
dedicated drainage layer. The drainage layer above the primary liner serves to remove
leachate before it can develop a significant hydraulic head on the primary liner; as such,
this drainage layer is referred to as the leachate collection and removal system (LCRS). The
drainage layer between the primary and secondary liners serves to collect leachate that may
leak through the primary liner; this drainage layer is thus referred to as the leak detection
system (LDS). A schematic showing various components of a typical double-liner system is
shown in Figure 1-1.
All double-liner systems being constructed at Subtitle C landfill facilities today have primary
and secondary liners that include geomembranes (GMs). Due to its resistance to
degradation by a wide range of chemicals, among other factors, high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) is the most common type of GM barrier used in landfill liners. However, other GM
materials include polyvinyl chloride (PVC), butyl rubber, polypropylene (PP), and Hypalon.
Primary and/or secondary liners can consist of a GM alone, although this is rare, or a GM on
top of a compacted clay liner (CCL) or geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). The latter two cases,
which are referred to in this study as GM/CCL and GM/GCL liners, respectively, are known
as "composite" liners and significantly outperform single liners because the properties of the
two different barrier materials work synergistically to maximize the performance
characteristics of the other (Rowe, 2011). Only double-lined landfills with GM, GM/CCL
composite, or GM/GCL composite primary and secondary liners were included in this study.
Sites with liner systems constructed with single CCL primary liners were not considered. The
specific double-liner system types in service at the various landfill units included in this
study are discussed in Chapter 3.
9
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
The LCRS and LDS drainage layers overlying the low permeability primary and secondary
liners, respectively, which traditionally comprise a 12- to 24-inch layer of granular soil (sand
or gravel), the main purpose of which is to collect and remove liquids to prevent buildup of
hydraulic head on the liner, although the granular soil layer also serves to protect the liner
system from damage during initial waste placement. Increasingly common, a specifically
designed open-weave plastic mesh product termed a geonet (GN) or geocomposite (GC) is
installed above the liner in conjunction with, or instead of, the granular soil layer to improve
LCRS and/or LDS drainage performance and/or economics. Granular soil drainage layers are
usually overlain by a geotextile (GT) fabric or similar permeable barrier to minimize
intermixing of overlying waste and protective soil/gravel layers. A protective soil layer is
installed above the LCRS, and/or the first two to four feet of waste is carefully selected and
placed to form a protective "fluff layer" above the LCRS. A schematic illustration showing
the locations of LCRS and LDS drainage layers in a double-liner system is shown in Figure 1-
1. The specific LCRS and LDS designs and material types in service at the various landfill
units included in this study are discussed in Chapter 3.
Cover System
Landfills require daily covers, intermediate covers, and final cover systems, depending on
their stage of development. At most landfills, a daily cover (soil, select waste, or other
material such as foam or fabric) is applied to waste at the end of each working day to
provide temporary control of vectors and erosion of waste by wind and surface water runoff.
The daily cover was not a primary focus of this study. The intermediate cover is often placed
on open portions of landfill areas on which waste placement has ceased, either permanently
or for an extended period. The intermediate cover serves the same purposes as daily cover,
but at a higher performance level, and often comprises the subgrade foundation upon which
a final cover is constructed. Intermediate cover usually consists of a thicker layer of soil or
select waste than the daily cover and may include a temporary GM. As the active period of
operation progresses, the landfill is filled with waste, and waste placement ceases.
Depending on the method of operation, landfill units may be under intermediate cover for
up to several years before a final cover system is constructed over the waste. The
intermediate cover is of interest in this context because one of the case study landfills
includes a unit in which waste has been placed to final grades but the final cover system has
not yet been constructed.
The final cover system at a Subtitle C landfill typically consists of a barrier layer (GM,
GM/GCL, or GM/ CCL) overlain by drainage and soil protection/vegetation layers. The barrier
10
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
layer is constructed on a subgrade foundation layer above the waste. A gas
distribution/collection layer is included beneath the barrier layer at landfills with wastes that
generate gases during decomposition (EPA, 1989, 1991; Bonaparte et al., 2004). Final
covers are engineered systems constructed over the entire aboveground surface of the
landfill (i.e., a top area and side slopes). Final covers are designed to minimize water
infiltration into the waste (i.e., leachate generation), control the migration of gases
produced by waste decomposition, prevent against inadvertent intrusion, and be
aesthetically acceptable (Koerner and Daniel, 1997). Similar to liner systems, final cover
systems are typically installed in accordance with an independent CQA program, which
provides third-party inspection, testing, documentation, and certification that cover system
components were installed in accordance with design specifications, although (again similar
to liners) no cover material can be manufactured or installed perfectly (EPA, 2002; Rowe,
2005). A schematic illustration of the various components of a typical cover system is
shown in Figure 1-1. In some jurisdictions, the final cover system is often considered to
replace the liner system as the primary means of environmental protection once it is
installed at a site during closure construction. The specific cover system types in service at
the various landfill units included in this study are discussed in Chapter 3.
1.5 Long-Term Performance of Landfill Containment Systems
1.5.1 Liner-System Performance
A number of textbooks and guidance documents have been developed to provide
recommendations for design, permitting, operation, performance, and monitoring of
hazardous waste landfills. However, most active research on design and performance of
landfill containment systems predates the publication of the seminal study by EPA (2002)
and was captured in the extensive literature review provided therein. That discussion is not
reiterated here.
A report published by the National Academic Press (2007) on the performance of engineered
barriers for containment of MSW, hazardous and toxic waste, and low-level radioactive
waste (LLRW) focused on answering two primary questions: How well are engineered barrier
systems working? How long are they likely to work effectively? Based on 20 years of data,
the report concluded that "most engineered waste containment barrier systems that have
been designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with current statutory
regulations and requirements have thus far provided environmental protection at or above
specified levels. Extrapolations of long-term performance can be made from existing data
and models, but they will have high uncertainties until field data are accumulated for longer
11
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
periods, perhaps 100 years or more. We will never have all the long-term observations and
data that we would like." The report concluded that significant failures have been rare and,
in general, repair or limited reconstruction has been possible when needed.
Since the late 1990s, a number of on-site disposal facilities (OSDFs), which are doubled-
lined landfills for containment of mixed LLRW and RCRA wastes, have been constructed as
part of the decommissioning and remediation of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
facilities such as the Feed Material Production Center in Fernald, Ohio and Idaho CERCLA
Disposal Facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho (Koslow, 2015). Liquids management data (i.e.,
leachate collection system and leakage detection system flow rate and liquid chemical
constituent data) from the operational and post-closure periods have been reported for a
number of these facilities (e.g., Benson et al., 2007; Bonaparte et al., 2011; Bonaparte et
al., 2016). In the latter study, performance data from three facilities were analyzed to
calculate hydraulic containment efficiencies of the liner systems and to draw conclusions as
to whether the liner systems are performing as expected. Based on the data presented, all
facilities were found to be "performing very well in providing containment and collection of
leachate." Performance metrics for the facilities were consistent with those presented in EPA
(2002). However, the authors noted that the public availability of data for several of the
facilities was limited and recommended more intensive liner system monitoring and
information dissemination by DOE.
Although some recent research has focused on the design and hydraulic performance of
CCLs exposed to high strength leachate (Safari et al., 2012), most geotechnical research on
landfill containment systems since 2002 has focused on long-term material integrity and
aging and their expected effect on the service life of HDPE geomembranes and other
geosynthetics used in liner applications (e.g., Sangam and Rowe, 2002; Hsuan et al., 2005;
Rowe and Rimal, 2008; Rowe et al., 2009; Rowe and Hoor, 2009; Rowe et al., 2010),
including in applications at landfills for containment of mixed LLRW and RCRA wastes (Jo et
al., 2005; Tian, 2015). The most significant aging mechanism in HDPE geomembranes used
in landfill liners is chemical aging, with the extraction of antioxidants and then oxidation
being the main degradation mechanisms. Eventually, the geomembrane will likely become
brittle to the extent that it is considered to have reached the end of its service life. In
addition to the in-service stresses imposed on a GM, Rowe, and Sangam (2002) highlighted
that the real service life of a GM depends on its mechanical, hydraulic, and diffusive
properties. Thus, a GM may lose strength while still performing satisfactorily as a barrier.
Accordingly, the true hydraulic and diffusive service life of a GM may significantly exceed
12
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
the service life determined based on the degradation of the physical and mechanical
properties, especially if the tensile stresses are minimal.
Many researchers (cit. in Rowe, 2007 and 2011) have focused on the importance of
manufacturing and construction practices in minimizing long-term field leakage through
composite liners. Rowe (2011) concluded that "composite liners have performed extremely
well in field applications for a couple of decades and that recent research both helps
understand why they have worked so well, but also provides new insight into issues that
need to be considered to ensure excellent long-term liner performance of composite liners."
Factors potentially affecting the field performance of barrier materials in liners include
avoiding excessive wrinkles in GMs, moisture loss and shrinkage of GCL panels (particularly
overlaps), and desiccation of CCLs. These can be mitigated by imposing strict quality control
(QC) protocols on manufacturers and CQA procedures on installation, particularly
minimizing exposure to the sun and the wind (Rowe and Hosney, 2010).
The potential for LCRS clogging and malfunction has also been considered by several
researchers (e.g., Fleming and Rowe, 2004; VanGuIck and Rowe, 2004; Cooke et al., 2005;
Rowe, 2005). Rowe (2005) reported that clog material forms by biologically induced
processes that involve the removal of some of the organic leachate constituents and
precipitation of some inorganic leachate constituents followed by an accumulation of
inorganic particles originally suspended in leachate. Research suggests that the potential for
clogging depends on the amount and composition of leachate and on the details of the
design of the LCRS. However, most of the research has been performed on MSW landfills;
as hazardous waste landfills generally contain significantly lower quantities of organic waste,
which should reduce their clog potential. The lower the leachate generation rate, the lower
the potential for clogging (other factors being equal). Given the significant decrease in
leachate generation rates after landfill closure, the potential for biological clogging of the
LCRS decreases after the landfill is closed with a final cover system.
1.5.2 Leachate Generation Modeling
Leachate generation can be estimated using water balance models, which are based on the
principle of conservation of mass, in which water mass is conserved through the process.
Typically, water in a landfill exists as an input, output, or in storage. The most important
factor in the water balance equation is the storage in the cover soil and evapotranspiration.
These two factors greatly affect surface runoff and the amount of precipitation that is
allowed to infiltrate the cover system barrier layers (Kaushik et al., 2014). There are many
variations in the assumptions and algorithms these models use. Generally, site-specific
13
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
geometry (e.g., waste thickness, base liner, side slope inclination) as well as climatic and
soil data are input to predict flow over a period of time. A water balance may be performed
for various periods, ranging from one month to several decades, depending on the amount
of data necessary. All models are limited by availability and accuracy of site-specific data
(Peyton and Schroeder, 1993; EPA, 2004).
Although many public and commercial water balance models are available, the HELP Model
developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the EPA (Schroeder et al., 1994a and b)
is the most widely used hydrologic model in the landfill industry, both in the United States
and internationally (Berger, 2003). The model can be used to evaluate percolation through
cover and liner systems, hydraulic head on liners, and, by association, leakage of leachate
to the subsurface (Yalcin and Demirer, 2002; Alslaibi et al., 2013). Three versions of the
model are currently available: HELP 3.07, Visual HELP 2.2, and HELP 3.95 D. Plans for
improving the model and developing a future version (HELP 4 D) based on ongoing
validation results and requests from the practice are described by Berger (2015).
HELP is a quasi-2D model because it considers either vertical or horizontal flow in each
layer, but not both simultaneously. The model is popular for its ease of use in comparing
different cover and liner types; a broad database of climatic and material property default
values; ability to provide daily, monthly, or annual output; consideration of lateral drainage;
and ability to evaluate up to 20 layers. The HELP Model has widespread regulatory
acceptance both in the United States and internationally. There have been several criticisms
levied about the model; for example, that it overestimates leachate generation and
percolation through covers (particularly in arid and semi-arid conditions) by underestimating
evapotranspiration (Vorster, 2001). However, many findings from validation studies are
contradictory: for example, the model is reported to either under-predict or over-predict
surface runoff (Paige et al., 1996) and assign too high or too low default values for field
capacity and hydraulic conductivity depending on geographic region (Uguccioni and Zeiss,
1997). Some limitations are due to the maximum 1-day time resolution of the model and its
input data. Any model using daily precipitation data can give only a rough estimate of
surface runoff, especially in poorly vegetated regions experiencing large precipitation
events. The empirically derived Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number method
underlying the runoff sub-model should, strictly speaking, be calibrated for different regions
and time periods of application. Similarly, using daily precipitation data cannot reproduce
short-term peaks in lateral drainage from drainage layers in final covers (Berger, 2015).
14
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
Conventional soil mechanics theory used to describe hydraulic properties of solid waste such
as field capacity assumes Darcian flow through a homogeneous porous matrix. However,
the landfill waste body is, by its nature, highly heterogeneous. Observations (e.g., Bendz et
al., 1997; Rosqvist, 1999; Fourie et al, 2001; Rosqvist et al., 2005) have shown significant
channeling, or preferential flow, through waste layers, albeit generally measured at MSW
landfills under high infiltration rates (open conditions). This results in lower practical field
capacities, faster breakthrough times, and higher and non-uniform leachate discharge rates
than obtained from the HELP Model, which assumes homogenous Darcian flow (Fellner and
Brunner, 2010). Low infiltration rates (such as occur after application of landfill covers),
however, are less likely to lead to pronounced channeling than high rates, because more
time is allowed for absorption of water into waste particles, and capillary action in smaller
pores redistributes moisture so that uniform flow through the waste layer may contribute
more to overall moisture movement. As a result, channeling may only occur significantly in
the initial phase of landfilling, or where high rates of liquids injection are attempted at
bioreactor facilities (Bengtsson et al., 1994). This suggests that the HELP Model should be
better at predicting leachate generation during PCC than during the operational period.
1.5.3 Potential Sources of Liquids Contributing to LCRS and LDS Flow
Leachate is produced when the field moisture-holding capacity of the landfill contents is
exceeded. This occurs when the waste moisture deficit (the difference between the waste
moisture content at placement and field capacity) is exceeded. Four principal factors govern
leachate production at a landfill (Rees, 1980):
¦ The water content of the waste when placed;
¦ The volume of infiltrating rainfall;
¦ The volume and water content of sludges co-disposed with the waste; and
¦ Waste compaction and density.
Prior to closure, precipitation levels would be expected to be directly correlated to leachate
generation (i.e., liquids volume recovered in the LCRS), and thus also have an indirect
impact on LDS flow rates, since higher LCRS flow rates mean greater potential for primary
liner leakage. However, leachate generation during the post-closure period is primarily
controlled by the cover system, which limits infiltration. As such, LCRS and LDS flow rates
would be expected to decrease significantly following completion of closure construction.
Thereafter, any residual post-closure LDS flow is expected to be more dependent on
imperfections in the liner and cover system construction (e.g., anchor trench tie-in and
15
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
welding of cover arid liner system geosynthetics), cover erosion issues, and groundwater
conditions than on precipitation.
The performance of primary liners at double-lined landfills in limiting leakage of leachate is
generally inferred by comparing LCRS and LDS flow rate and chemical constituent data.
Pioneering studies by Bonaparte and Gross (1990) and Gross et al. (1990) identified four
main potential sources of liquids contributing to LDS flow (Figure 1-2), The potential sources
of LDS liquids identified in the figure include;
¦ Primary liner leakage (Source A);
¦ Construction water and compression water (Source B), comprising water (mostly
rainwater) that infiltrates the LDS during construction and continues to drain to the LDS
sump after the start of facility operation;
¦ Consolidation water expelled into the LDS from the CCL/GCL components of a composite
primary liner as a result of clay consolidation under the weight of the waste (Source C);
and
¦ Groundwater that percolates vertically or laterally through the secondary liner from
outside the landfill or other external sources of water (e.g., condensation of water vapor
in any gases encapsulated within the landfill), which condenses and infiltrates the LDS
(Source D),
Figure 1-2. Potential sources of liquids contributing to LDS flow3
The contribution of Sources B and C is not insignificant, particularly at sites having granular
drainage layers and thick CCL barrier layers (Bonaparte et al., 2011). However, such
sources are expected to have less relevance when only post-closure performance of the
liner is considered.
3 Based on Figure 3 of Bonaparte and Gross (1990), used with permission of the authors.
WASTE
GROUNDWATER TABLE
GM -»
Q - TOTAL FLOW
Q - A+B+C+D
SOURCES.
A - PRIMARY LINER LEAKAGE
B = CONSTRUCTION WATER AND COMPRESSION WATER
C = CONSOLIDATION WATER
D - INFILTRATION WATER
16
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
Gross et al. (1990) presented the following five-step approach for evaluating the sources of
LDS liquid at a specific waste management unit:
1. Identify the potential sources of flow based on double-liner system design, climatic and
hydrogeologic setting, and landfill operating history;
2. Calculate flow rates from each potential source;
3. Calculate the time frame for flow from each potential source;
4. Evaluate the potential sources of flow by comparing measured flow rates to calculated
flow rates at specific points in time; and
5. Compare LCRS and LDS flow chemistry data to further establish the likely sources of
liquid.
The approach outlined above was used to evaluate the performance of the primary liner
systems in this study as discussed in Chapter 4. In addition to mechanisms identified above,
the operators of participating case study sites were asked about other possible reasons for
higher-than-expected flows in LDS sumps; where this occurred, it was mainly attributed to
issues with the anchor trench tie-in design or cover erosion and repair. Selection of
secondary liner system and LDS drainage layer materials on a side slope and base liners
may also be important where groundwater is shallow and potentially in contact with the
liner.
1.5.4 Leachate Chemistry
Leaching, which is the release of compounds from a solid to a solution, typically involves a
number of interrelated physical, chemical, and biological processes (e.g., degradation,
dissolution, desorption, complexation, or mineralization) and transport mechanisms, which
can be grouped into those predominantly controlled by diffusion and those predominantly
controlled by percolation and kinetics. Diffusion occurs where percolating liquids move
mainly over the surface of a block of material rather than around individual particles or
grains. Therefore, apart from initial wash-off effects, contaminant release is by diffusion
through the interstitial spaces inside the block to the exposed surface. Contaminant release
is thus related to the extent of this exposed surface. Percolation and kinetics refer to the
situation where the liquid passes through a material, which comprises a mass of particles or
granules and comes in direct contact with the surface of each particle. Contaminants
transfer into solution by diffusion or dissolution and then migrate with the leachate. The
factors controlling leaching also affect the composition of the resulting leachate, which in
turn affect long-term management and treatment options (Renou et al., 2008). These
factors include (Rees, 1980; Heasman, 1997; Morris, 2001):
¦ The source, nature, and physical properties of the waste material;
17
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
¦ The leaching mechanism;
¦ The chemistry of the contaminants concerned;
¦ The pH and redox potential of the leaching environment; and
¦ The nature and rate of movement of percolating liquids.
With regard to the last factor, hazardous waste materials may not degrade or only degrade
very slowly, under landfill conditions. Reliable data on landfill leachate constituents collected
over multiple years can support analyses of landfill processes and are needed to predict
long-term trends in leachate chemistry with statistical confidence (Kylefors, 2003).
However, while considerable research into the long-term composition of leachate has been
conducted (e.g., Kjeldsen et al, 2002; Statom et al., 2004; Oman and Junestedt, 2008;
Gibbons et al., 2014) this has tended to focus on non-hazardous waste landfills. In light of
this, Tian (2015) analyzed leachate composition from four landfills constructed for
containment of LLRW and hazardous wastes in the United States and compared
concentrations of dissolved organic matter (measured as total organic carbon [TOC]),
inorganic macro-components (including major cations and anions), and trace metals to
values reported in the literature for MSW leachate. The study concluded that:
¦ Dissolved organic matter concentrations were insignificant when compared with MSW
leachate;
¦ Concentrations of inorganic macro-components were broadly similar to MSW leachate;
and
¦ Trace metal concentrations were relatively lower than in MSW leachate.
For major cations, the concentrations of Ca and Mg were found to be similar to those in
MSW leachate, while K and Na concentrations were higher in MSW leachate. For major
anions, sulfate concentrations were much lower in MSW leachate. Interestingly, the
concentrations of trace metals were found to be relatively constant over time at the four
sites studied. Overall, if current expectations are that the time taken for concentrations of
constituents of concern in leachate to decrease to asymptotic levels will be similar for
hazardous and non-hazardous landfills, this may not be appropriate.
Most recent research into the properties of hazardous waste and its byproducts of
degradation and decay has focused on landfill diversion of materials in support of zero
waste principles or the "circular economy" (e.g., Lopez- Delgado and Tayibi, 2012). An
exception is municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) bottom ash and fly ash, which
contains a considerable amount of heavy metals, salts, organic pollutants, and other
potentially toxic components. Investigation into recovery of metals with resale value (e.g.,
18
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
copper, zinc, lead, and cadmium) from MSWI by controlled leaching using different solutions
(nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid) and optimized parameters (temperature,
controlled pH value, leaching time, and liquid/solid ratio) was reported by Tang and Steenari
(2016) with recovery rates varying from 68 to 92%, although it is doubtful such conditions
for leaching could exist in situ. At many hazardous waste landfills, incoming waste is mixed
with a bulk solidifier/stabilizer (cement kiln dust, fly ash, Portland cement, or activated
carbon), which can make up as much as 40% of the volume in a given landfill unit, or
stabilized by encapsulation using polymers (Kim et al., 2009; Lopez et al., 2015). The
stabilization process can immobilize hazardous organic materials such as phenol and reduce
the potential for heavy metals to leach out of the waste (Rho et al., 2001; Reich et al.,
2002).
Despite the shortfall in leachate characterization studies and need to establish a basis for
expectations regarding trend behavior, hazardous waste landfill leachate data can help
determine liner performance and identify groundwater contamination sources, depending on
the signature relationship to landfill sections, waste type, and waste age. Of particular
interest to this study, comparison of the concentrations of key chemical constituents in
temporal LCRS and LDS chemistry datasets can be used to establish the extent of the
hydraulic connection between these drainage layers (i.e., whether primary liner leakage had
contributed significantly to observed LDS flows). Several factors need to be considered in
identifying the constituents of interest, including common occurrence in leachate, high
solubility in water and low octanol-water coefficient, and high resistance to hydrolyzation.
The parameters analyzed from sites used in this study included pH, specific conductance,
total dissolved solids (TDS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), major cations and anions,
trace metals, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The chemical signatures for these
parameters in LDS vs. LCRS liquids serve as justification for proceeding with correcting liner
efficiency calculations; this is discussed in Chapter 5. If sufficient data on major cations and
anions are available, Stiff and Piper diagrams can be used to subjectively describe ionic
solutions and distinguish leachates with similar chemistry into clusters (Tonjes, 2013).
Further, with respect to the major ions, chloride is of particular interest since it serves as a
conservative parameter that does not take part in biochemical reactions and is not
physically altered during the processes of leaching (Rowe, 1991). Therefore, despite
differences in volumes between LCRS and LDS flow rates, chloride concentrations should be
approximately constant between these two drainage layers if the primary source of liquids
in the LDS is leakage through the primary liner.
19
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
1.5.5 Liner and Cover Stability
Problems affecting liner stability generally occur as a result of short-term unstable
conditions developing during operations (Blight, 2008; Mitchell, 2009). Potential causes of
liner instability include inadequate design (e.g., inappropriate selection of smooth GM
materials in contact with slick clay resulting in lower-than-expected interface friction), poor
construction inspection and quality assurance, and/or inadequate control of liquid waste and
moisture conditions. For the most part, such problems are avoidable. Liner issues not
addressed during construction would be difficult to repair during operation and almost
impossible to repair after the closure of the landfill. However, liner failures after closure
have not been reported at modern RCRA landfills.
Most cover stability issues are identified based on visual observations during routine
inspections. These are generally less likely to increase the potential for environmental
impacts due to compromised waste containment system integrity than liner system failures.
Cover issues related to erosion or storm water ponding may result in increased infiltration
and leachate generation; however, most cover issues can be remedied in a relatively
straightforward manner if detected and repairs are made in a timely fashion.
1.6 Assessment and Termination of Post-Closure Care
1.6.1 Number of Closed Hazardous Waste Units
The EPA Office of Inspector General recently issued a report (EPA, 2015) to evaluate
whether the EPA and authorized states and territories have sufficient safeguards to control
and mitigate long-term public health, environmental, and fiscal risks at hazardous waste
disposal sites beyond the 30-year PCC period. The report identified over 1,500 hazardous
waste disposal units that had been assigned an operating code of "closed with waste in
place" as of 9 October 2014 (Figure 1-3), although not all are reported to have entered into
a permitted PCC program.
1.6.2 Process for Assessing Completion of Post-Closure Care
PCC for each hazardous waste management unit must begin after completion of closure and
continue for 30 years thereafter according to 40 CFR §264.117(a), although discretion is
provided to the permitting authority (EPA Regional Administrator or Director of an
authorized state program) to adjust the post-closure period as necessary to protect HHE.
Therefore, the presumption of a 30-year PCC period does not reflect a determination by EPA
that 30 years is necessarily sufficient to eliminate potential threats to HHE in all cases. The
regulations provide authority to conduct a case-by-case review of the PCC period and to
20
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
establish arrangements to adjust the length of the post-closure care period on a facility-
specific basis, where the records support a determination that the revised post-closure
period will protect human health and the environment (EPA, 2016). In other words, the
duration of PCC is a performance standard rather than a prescriptive standard.
Region
AK
yr
Region 9
,0
•So ' # AT
V ( , 1 Region!
•* • '• "5 "•
%9- • J -v'rwp
T v. , • Y
v
*
Figure 1-3. Distribution of closed hazardous waste disposal units in the United
States4
In terms of the current state of the industry, EPA (2015) concluded that some important
safeguards are in place, such as corrective action and other enforcement authorities that
the EPA and authorized states can use to address cleanup needs at facilities undergoing
PCC. States have exercised their authority, extending PCC and associated financial
assurance when unacceptable risks remain. One state (Virginia) has also ended post-closure
care at one facility and established other long-term care arrangements under an
environmental covenant (see Section 1.6.3). If long-term problems arise after PCC, the
implementing authority may be able to address these problems using its RCRA enforcement
authority. Nevertheless, a number of challenges remain:
¦ In the absence of the finalized additional guidance from EPA, states have to make
decisions on adjusting the PCC period;
¦ 18 states do not have environmental covenant statutes that strengthen controls for
long-term protection of land use; and
¦ EPA and state hazardous waste programs will have an increased workload as more units
reach the end of their expected 30-year PCC periods (the number of units for which a
decision regarding the end of permitted PCC will be needed was estimated at between
4
Modified from the cover map of EPA (2015). Red dots show the locations of hazardous waste disposal
units. Numbers and color shading groups indicate EPA regions.
21
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
15 and 45 annually through 2030, with over 50% of these decisions falling in the next
10 years).
Post-closure activities must be continued until the permitting authority (generally, the state)
determines that the facility is performing acceptably and that the post-closure permit can be
terminated. If the permittee (i.e., site owner/operator) is unable to continue providing PCC
under these conditions, in accordance with applicable terms of the financial mechanism used
to provide the financial assurances the state may provide PCC using an independent third
party contractor. To cover the costs of such post-closure care under these circumstances,
the state would exercise the financial assurances provided for PCC. For this reason, many
states require routine assessments of the adequacy of funding and financial assurances for
PCC at all facilities within their jurisdiction. Utah Senate Bill 24 of 2005, for example,
requires an assessment every 5 years (Baird and Seiger-Webster, 2011).
A few states have used their authority under RCRA to extend PCC. For example, Maryland
evaluated information on a disposal unit approaching the end of its 30-year PCC care period
in 2012. Maryland identified continuing risk and required the owner to renew its PCC permit
for another 10 years. Further, Maryland required the owner to maintain financial assurance
to cover this extended care. The amount of financial assurance is to remain great enough to
cover 10 years of care throughout the extended permit period (EPA, 2015).
1.6.3 Case Study Example of Post-Closure Permit Termination
This study found evidence of only one Subtitle C landfill facility at which PCC has been
demonstrated complete and the PCC permit terminated (Romanchik, 2013; EPA, 2015). This
is the Wheelabrator Corporation Landfill, a 2.7-acre landfill located on 13 acres of land near
Bedford, Virginia. The landfill was used for disposal of furnace dust and furnace slag
generated from secondary steel (scrap) smelting operations conducted at the adjacent
Wheelabrator Abrasives foundry. The landfill was operated for 16 years through 1985 and
then closed with waste in place on 21 December 1988. At the time of closure, the waste
inventory was estimated as 122,900 cubic yards.
On 29 September 1992 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality issued Wheelabrator a
Hazardous Waste Management Post-Closure Permit (Permit) that required monitoring of
upgradient and downgradient groundwater at the closed landfill as well as maintenance of
the landfill cap. On 17 July 2003, the Permit was renewed for a 10-year period through 16
August 2013 with groundwater monitoring requirements reduced from quarterly to semi-
annual sampling. On 29 September 2008, the compliance period (16 years) for the
regulated unit ended and the groundwater monitoring constituent list was significantly
22
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
reduced. Finally, on 9 August 2013, the department approved Class 3 Permit Modification to
reduce the PCC period from 30 years to the time served to date. To comply with long-term
stewardship goals, an environmental covenant was executed under Virginia's Uniform
Environmental Covenants Act that allowed the site out of PCC in exchange for an annual
certification by a certified professional engineer that required cap monitoring, maintenance,
and site security obligations covered under the covenant are being met.
Based on a review of available documentation, it appears that termination of PCC at this site
was approved based on demonstration of no unacceptable threat to HHE as a result of
potential long-term leakage of leachate to groundwater. As such, the approval invokes the
department's authority under the performance standard implicit in §264.117(a) rather than
strict invocation of the prescriptive requirement under §264.310(b)(2) to continue to
operate the leachate collection and removal system until leachate is no longer detected.
1.7 Long-Term Landfill Performance and Resilience
Some hazardous waste management units in place today may be under-designed for the
future if conditions change significantly relative to recent historical patterns. This could have
serious consequences for the integrity of hazardous waste disposal facilities, such as a cover
system breach causing either subsidence or leaching of contaminants into the subsurface
(Kelly and Winchester, 2005). Therefore, the vulnerability of existing and proposed
hazardous waste disposal facilities should be evaluated with regard to long-term climatic
hazards (e.g., inundation due to sea level rise, elevated temperatures, and/or groundwater
elevation rise) as well as short-term hazards (e.g., possible increase in precipitation and
associated flooding, increases in storm flooding/surges, potential changes in wave action
and currents, king tides, seismic events such as earthquakes or tsunamis, and/or El Nino
effects). Little research has been published on the long-term vulnerability of closed landfills
to these events; as such, this represents a research need in terms of assessing the long-
term performance of landfill containment systems.
Although very long-term design considerations and the effects of extreme climatic or other
natural events are not routinely considered for RCRA Subtitle C landfills, very long-term
performance requirements are considered for waste encapsulation designs (Reith and
Caldwell, 1993) used for containment of extremely hazardous or radioactive wastes. For
example, functional requirements for the design of an on-site disposal facility (OSDF) for
mixed LLRW and RCRA waste containment based on 40 CFR §192.02(a) with a 1,000-year
design life are described by Bonaparte et al. (2011 and 2016). These included potential
mechanisms for performance failure such as long recurrence interval earthquake and storm
23
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
events. Changes in erosional stability over time were also considered. For design, the
performance period was divided into three operating timeframes: initial period, which
extends from construction until the end of the 30-year post-closure monitoring period;
intermediate period, which begins 30 years after final closure and lasts for at least 200
years and up to 1,000 years; and final period, which does not occur for at least 200 years
and possibly up to 1,000 years after final closure of the facility. During the final period, it is
assumed that liner and final cover system geosynthetics are non-functional along with
synthetic components of LCRS and LDS drainage systems and pipes.
According to the National Academic Press (2007), long-term containment designs that allow
for lifetimes of thousands of years are likely infeasible and prohibitively expensive;
therefore, designs that allow for recovery, repair, or replacement of the barrier system
components for the landfill cover system should be encouraged. The potential effects of
changes in temperature and precipitation, sea level rise, and related flooding, as well as
other extreme events such as earthquakes, could be minimized by building resiliency in
design for repair and replacement of the barrier system components. The appropriate
continuing management strategy would include ending maintenance, continuing
maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation.
24
-------
2. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
2.1 Data Collection
The EPA, in partnership with the States, biennially collects information regarding the
generation, management, and final disposition of hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA
and publishes a National Biennial Report to communicate the findings (EPA, 2011). This
includes a list of reported RCRA sites in the United States, which helped in initial
identification of candidate sites for this study.
Efforts were made to obtain data from a variety of facilities to represent the different waste
generator and operator types regulated under Subtitle C, including commercial facilities and
landfills dedicated to a specific industrial waste stream. Variability in geographic/climatic
conditions was also sought, as discussed below. The cooperative participation of site
managers and other operator personnel was also seen as key to success, in particular in
understanding the nuances in the data (for example, many apparent anomalies can be
readily explained from operational records: a 5-day spike in leachate flow may simply be
the effect of a malfunctioning flowmeter that took a few days to notice, isolate, and
replace). However, it is recognized that non-random selection of sites is likely to have
biased the data set. Therefore, to gain some understanding of the extent of data that may
be available without direct contact with the operator, site records and analytical data for one
site (denoted Landfill F in the study) were obtained directly from the state.
2.1.1 Criteria for Case Study Site Selection
Landfill disposal units (i.e., cells, phases, modules, or areas) sought for inclusion in this
study offered the following four main characteristics:
¦ Regulated under RCRA Subtitle C;
¦ Closed (i.e., final capped) or at final grade for an extended period under intermediate
cover;
¦ Have a double-liner system with separate (unit-specific) measurement of liquid flow rate
in the LCRS and LDS; and
¦ Collect leachate chemistry data independent of any active units in operation at the same
facility.
2.1.2 Geographic and Climatic Distribution
For the purposes of this study, the continental United States was divided into four
geographic regions: Northeast (NE), Southeast (SE), Northwest (NW), and Southwest (SW).
These regions were constructed to broadly reflect climatic differences, as represented by
25
-------
Section 2 — Data Collection and Analysis
average annual rainfall and temperature (Figure 2-1). Regional representation was
established as a goal in selecting case study landfills for inclusion in the study.
Generally, facilities in the SE experience higher rainfall and evapotranspiration, and fewer
days below freezing annually than other regions. Compared to the SE, facilities in the NE
receive slightly lower rainfall, have lower evapotranspiration, and experience a significant
number of days below freezing annually. Both the SW and NW are relatively dry (ignoring
the coastal Pacific Northwest), with relatively low precipitation and relatively high
evapotranspiration. Facilities in the SW may not experience any days below freezing
annually while facilities in the NW should expect a significant number of days below freezing
annually.
The climatic differences between regions would be expected to have a direct impact on
leachate generation (LCRS flow rates) as well as an indirect impact on LDS flow rates since
higher LCRS flow rates mean greater potential for primary liner leakage. However, LDS flow
rates may be more dependent on liner system construction, cover system construction (in
particular, tie-in of to the liner system anchor trench by welding cover and liner
geomembranes (GM) together), and groundwater conditions than on precipitation. Climatic
and other influences on LDS flow are examined as part of this study.
Composite Precipitation (inches)
Jon to Dec 1990 to 2007
NW
WAA/CSRL PSD end OWES-CDC
(Source: http://lwf. nede noaa gov/oa/c limale research/cag3/cag3 html)
NOM/ESRL PSD and CtW£S-CPC
Composite Temperature (F)
Jon to Dec 1990 to 2007
Figure 2-1. Geographical regions established for the study
2.1.3 Site Data Collection Protocol
The dataset available from closed landfill facilities reported in EPA (2002) included only 9
years of post-closure data from both MSW and hazardous waste units. A primary objective
26
-------
Section 2 — Data Collection and Analysis
of this research was to extend the dataset for hazardous waste units by 20+ years. Thus, in
developing a data collection protocol, care was taken to review material used in the
preparation of that study and interview a number of professionals that were involved in data
collection and analysis for that study. A review of other relevant publications and guidance
related to liner, cover, and LCRS design at Subtitle C landfills was conducted to develop a
Data Requirements Checklist (Appendix I). Checklist data were broadly categorized in terms
of (1) design and construction of the liner, LCRS, LDS, and cover; (2) waste placement
schedule, characteristics, and in-place volume; (3) LCRS and LDS flow quantities; and (4)
leachate chemistry data.
To obtain the data identified on the checklist, owner/operators, EPA regions, and state
regulators of Subtitle C landfills were contacted to identify candidate sites with one or more
closed units that meet the minimum data requirements specified in the checklist. Efforts
were made to include facilities in a variety of regions and climatic conditions. Based on
feedback received, the data requirement checklist and/or candidate list was modified and a
shortlist of sites developed from the initial pool of candidates. Thereafter, the operators of
shortlisted sites were contacted with a formal request for participation in the study. After
reviewing responses, a final list of sites was selected.
Data for this study were collected by Geosyntec during 2015 and 2016. Initially, data were
requested in electronic format. After reviewing the data received for completeness in
relation to the checklist requirements, Geosyntec traveled to the site or regulators' offices to
collect additional data needed for the completion of this task. During the data collection
process, Geosyntec interviewed site personnel with regard to the nature and frequency of
any issues encountered with the cover or LCRS and LDS operation (e.g., repair of cap
erosion or replacement of flowmeters).
2.2 Site Data
2.2.1 Site Information
The site information, design details, LCRS and LDS flow data, and chemistry data presented
in this study were obtained from engineering drawings, project specifications, as-built
records, and/or operation records, supplemented with interviews with facility
owner/operators, monitoring personnel, and/or regulatory agencies. Efforts were made to
obtain as complete a record of data as possible, from completion of liner construction
through the time of data collection. The presentation and structure of the information
provided in this study purposefully mirror that of Appendix E in EPA (2002). In this way, this
report is intended to serve as a limited extension of that study.
27
-------
Section 2 — Data Collection and Analysis
2.2.2 Leachate Flow
The leachate flow data from the LCRS and LDS drainage layers were collected from site
records. For all landfills, the daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly data were normalized to
gallons per acre per day (gpad) to provide a common unit for comparison of leachate flow
for this study. Attempts were made to collect data from the date of unit closure (i.e., "time
zero" for PCC) to the current date in order to obtain as complete a timeline of post-closure
flow. Average and peak flow data are provided in full in Appendix II.
As described in Chapter 4, flow data were used to evaluate the trends between average
LCRS flow rates and average annual rainfall for a given site. Consistent with EPA (2002),
which this study seeks to complement, the data were first assessed using a methodology
presented by Gross et al. (1990) using LCRS and LDS flow data to evaluate the performance
of primary liner in terms of apparent leakage through the primary liner. The basic approach
involved the evaluation of relative LDS to LCRS flow rate to quantify the hydraulic
performance of primary liner system.
2.2.3 Leachate Chemistry
Leachate chemistry data for both the LCRS and LDS as reported in monthly, quarterly or
annual reports were assembled for sites, as available. Data from 30 parameters were
sought, where available. For consistency, these parameters mirrored those reported by EPA
(2002). Major categories of parameters analyzed in this study included:
¦ pH;
¦ Specific conductance and total dissolved solids (TDS);
Macro-indicators of leachate quality, including chemical oxygen demand (COD),
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and total organic carbon (TOC);
Major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium);
Major anions (chloride, sulfate, and alkalinity);
¦ Trace metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel; and
¦ Volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
(BTEX).
The data were used to estimate the time that may be required for concentrations of
constituents of interest in leachate to decrease to asymptotic levels during PCC (Section
6.2). As discussed in Section 5.3, leachate chemistry data were also used to quantify the
portion of liquids comprising total LDS flow that should be attributable to primary liner
leakage as opposed to other sources (i.e., by demonstrating a lack of hydraulic connection
between the LCRS and LDS). In some cases, this allowed the apparent liner efficiency to be
corrected based on relative concentrations of seven key cations and anions (particularly
28
-------
Section 2 — Data Collection and Analysis
chloride) as well as selected VOCs in the LCRS and LDS. Similar to the approach in EPA
(2002), the presence of chemical constituents in the LDS was evaluated empirically (i.e.,
the concentrations of chemicals collected in the LDS were directly compared to
concentrations of the same chemicals collected in LCRS). No fate and transport analysis
were performed to account for attenuation of the LCRS chemicals migrating through the
primary liner CCL. However, to minimize the effects of attenuation, the key chemical
constituents were selected based on their high solubility in water, low octanol-water
coefficient, high resistance to hydrolyzation, and high resistance to anaerobic
biodegradation in soil.
The leachate chemistry database is too large and complex to meaningfully summarize here
but is presented in full in Appendix III. It is noted that the database is limited in terms of its
completeness and the duration of monitoring. Many key leachate constituents are poorly
represented in the LCRS dataset (e.g., TDS, COD, and BOD), while LDS chemistry is not
monitored at many sites. Further, site operators are only required to keep records for 3
years; as such, many older records are no longer available. If this lack of data exists across
all other Subtitle C facilities (i.e., is not unique to the case studies), this represents an
important limitation on assessing the long-term performance of Subtitle C containment
systems.
2.2.4 Quality Assurance Project Plan
Collection and review of data for this study were performed in accordance with the quality
assurance project plan (QAPP) developed for the Work Assignment. The QAPP was
developed in accordance with guidance provided in the EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) quality assurance requirements for secondary data projects
(EPA, 2008). The QAPP was approved by EPA prior to the initiation of data gathering. The
primary focus of the QAPP was to verify that the environmental and related data compiled
for reference or use on this project are complete, accurate, and of the type, quantity, and
quality required for their intended use.
In compiling information from secondary data sources for this report, every effort was made
to identify and select data sources that have undergone peer and public review to varying
degrees. Specific elements addressed by the QAPP include identifying the sources of
secondary data and rationale for selecting the data sources used, presenting the hierarchy
for data sources (Table 2-1), describing the review process and data quality criteria/metrics,
discussing quality checks and procedures should errors be identified, and explaining how
data will be managed, analyzed, and interpreted.
29
-------
Section 2 — Data Collection and Analysis
Table 2-1. Data quality assessment guide for source
Quality Ranking
Source
Highest
Federal, state and local government agencies
Second
Consultant reports for state and local government agencies
Third
Non-governmental organization (NGO) studies, peer-reviewed
iournal articles, and peer-reviewed conference proceedings
Fourth
Conference proceedings and other trade literature that are not peer-
reviewed
Fifth
Individual estimates
With regard to data from the individual case studies presented in Chapter 3 and discussed in
Chapters 4 to 6, a key focus of the QAPP was to ensure that the environmental and related
data were complete, accurate, and of the type and quality required for their intended use.
Potential data sources available for each site were reviewed to identify the level of quality
assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) applied during collection and analysis of samples.
Significant limitations on the use of data were documented prior to inclusion in this report in
an effort to ensure that the data are appropriate for their intended use and representative
of site conditions. Although it important to note that specific vetting of individual site data
was not possible, data that were officially submitted to federal or state agencies were
assumed to represent sources equivalent to the second tier in Table 2-1 (i.e., consultants
reports for submission to state agencies or the relevant regulatory authority, for which data
have undergone QA and QC procedures consistent with such submissions). These data were
prioritized. Where data are included in the report that were received directly from the site
operator or their consultants but that had not been officially submitted to the regulator,
these sources are considered to represent fifth tier sources in the table. Examples of this
category of data include operators' anecdotal recollections regarding the locations and
timing of localized cap repairs. Use of such information is limited but included, where useful,
to the case study discussions; in all cases, data limitations are clearly identified in the report
text. The age of secondary data sources was also considered as a quality criterion per the
scheme listed in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Data quality assessment guide for timeliness
Quality Ranking
Source
Highest
Data from sources dated 2010-2016
Second
Data from sources dated 2005-2009
Third
Data from sources dated 2000-2004
Fourth
Data from sources dated 1999 or prior
30
-------
Section 2 — Data Collection and Analysis
31
-------
3. REVIEW OF CASE STUDY LANDFILLS
3.1 Overview
Nine doubled-lined Subtitle C landfills featuring one or more closed unit were selected as
case studies. All data are blinded, with a single-letter alphabetic designation randomly
assigned to each site. There are at least two case study sites from each of the four U.S.
geographic regions (Figure 3-1). However, this study presents only a very small fraction of
the total of over 1,500 hazardous waste sites closed Subtitle C sites nationwide. The nine
sites do not represent a statistically significant number of sites to represent Subtitle C sites
or to predict performance across different landfill design characteristics or climatic regions.
NW Region NE Region
Landfills Y and M Landfills D and F
SE Region
Landfills B and T
SW Region
Landfills J, R and P
Composite Precipitation (inches)
Jon to Dec 1990 to 2007
Figure 3-1. Distribution of landfill sites in U.S. geographical regions established for
this study
The majority (7 of 9) of sites are commercial facilities that accepted hazardous waste from
multiple sources. Two are industrial facilities that accepted waste from a single generator.
One site (Landfill M) has a unit that is not formally closed but has been dormant under
intermediate soil cover for several years. Facility information, including average annual
rainfall, subsurface soil types, and nominal depth to groundwater below ground surface is
summarized in Table 3-1. The nominal depth to groundwater affords an understanding of
the separation distance between the base of the landfill and the water table, and thus the
potential for the direct intersection between the landfill liner system and groundwater.
32
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
Table 3-1. General site information
Landfill
designation
Geographic
region
Average
annual rainfall
(inches)(1)
Average
annual
snowfall
(inches)(1>
Nominal depth
to
groundwater
(feet)'2'
Subsurface soil type(s)
B
SE
47
—
<5
Claystone
T
SE
70
—
<5
Sandy silt and clay
J
SW
11
—
300
Clays and sandstone
R
SW
6.5
—
250
Sands and clays
P
SW
28
—
40
Clay
Y
NW
10
—
120
Gravelly sands to silty clays
M
NW
9.5
—
200
Clays
D
NE
42
17
10
Clay and gravelly sands
F
NE
40
60
90
Sands to silty loam
Notes:
1). The average annual rainfall and snowfall were computed based on nearest weather station data to the site.
2). The nominal depth to groundwater was based on design and/or groundwater monitoring reports made available by
the operator.
Overall, the nine landfills yielded 45 individual double-lined closed units for investigation in
this study. A database was developed based on reports made available by the operators
that include design information and monitoring data collected at each individual unit. The
data collected are summarized in Appendix II:
General landfill construction information (Table II-1);
Landfill liner system design details (Table II-2);
Final cover system design details (Table II-3);
LCRS and LDS annual average (Tables II-4A-C) and annual peak (Tables II-5A-C) flow,
normalized as gallons per acre per day (gpad); and
LCRS and LDS chemistry data (Table II-6).
Available LCRS and LDS flow and chemistry data are presented in full in Appendices III and
IV, respectively.
3.2 General Description of Case Study Facilities
3.2.1 Landfill Construction and Operation
Overall, 45 individual double-lined units at nine separate landfill facilities are included in this
study. Individual units at case study landfills ranged in size over an order of magnitude from
1.4 acres to 11.3 acres, although most units were less than 5 acres in area. The oldest units
in the study have been closed for over 29 years, while the newest are only 6 years into a
PCC program (the study unit at Landfill M is not closed with a final cover, but has been
inactive with waste at final grade for 4 years). Individual units featured various LCRS and
LDS flow measuring devices (Table II-l). In most cases, liquids in the LCRS and LDS were
each drained to a single sump serving the entire unit; however, a few units featured
33
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
multiple sumps each equipped with individual flow measuring devices. The thickness of
waste in place above a liner ranged from 40 feet to 110 feet, although the thickness of
waste in most units was in the range of 70 to 80 feet. All liner and cover construction at the
study units was performed under a construction quality assurance (CQA) program.
3.2.2 Liner System and Cover System Design
Amongst the 45 case study units, 11 different liner system designs and a further 11
different cover system designs are represented. For discussion in this report, these are
combined into 13 unique containment system design configurations featuring commonality
through the entire thickness of the unit from cover to liner (Table 3-2).
Table 3-2. Commonality of liner system, LCRS and LDS drainage system, and cover
system for different case study design configurations
Design Configuration
Landfill
Sub-group
Number of units
Primary
Liner
LCRS
LDS
Cover system
Composite
(GM/CCL)
Geomembrane
O
-*
si
D
C
fi)
-*
(A
O
Geosynthetic
(GC or GN)
O
-*
si
3
C
fi)
-*
(A
O
Geosynthetic
(GC or GN)
Composite
(GM/CCL)
Composite
(GM/GCL)
Composite
(CCL/GM)
Geomembrane
w
o
1
B
B-1 to B-6
6
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
2
B-7 and B-8
2
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
3
T
T-1 to T-18
18
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
4
J
J-1 to J-3
3
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
5
R
R-1
1
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
6
R-2 to R-5
4
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
7
P
P-1
1
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
8
P-2 to P-4
3
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
9
Y
Y-1
1
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
10
Y-2 and Y-3
2
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
11
M
M-1
1
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
12
D
D-1 and D-2
2
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
13
F
F-1
1
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
TOTAL
45
35
10
32
13
27
18
27
8
6
3
1
Note 1). The granular soil is either coarse sand or gravel, Soil is general fill.
Inspection of Table 3-2 reveals the following commonalities and differences in containment
system design traits amongst the case study units:
¦ Liner system: Most of the study units had a GM/CCL composite primary liner system
(80%), with seven design configurations (1-6 plus 11) featuring this liner design. A
single geomembrane primary liner was featured in 20% of study units (configurations 7-
34
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
10 and 12-13). No case study units were constructed having a GM/GCL composite
primary liner, although one site (Landfill D) utilizes a GCL in the secondary liner.
¦ LCRS: Six design configurations (1-4 and 9-10), comprising 80% of the study units, had
12 inches of sand as the LCRS drainage layer while the other seven configurations
(comprising 20% of study units) had a geocomposite (GC) or geonet (GN) drainage
layer.
¦ LDS: A 12-inch sand drainage layer was in 60% of the study units (four design
configurations, 1-3 and 9), while the remaining 40% (representing nine configurations)
had a GC or GN drainage layer.
¦ Cover system: A GM/CCL composite cover design was used for 59% of the study units
(six design configurations), while 18% (four configurations) were constructed having a
GM/GCL composite cover system. Six study units (14% of the total, all design
configuration 1 at Landfill B) were constructed in reverse with a CCL/GM cap. Two
special-case cover design types exist:
o Landfill J had an MSW overfill landfill constructed above it and thus its cover
system acts as the liner system for the overlying landfill (design type 4), and
o Landfill M currently has intermediate cover soil in place (design type 11) although
the approved final cover design is an all-soil evapotranspiration cover system.
Landfill B
The site is located in the SE region and is fully closed with no active receipt of waste for
treatment, storage, or disposal. The mean annual precipitation at the site is 47 inches with
minimal depth to groundwater. The subsurface soil mainly consists of claystone with a few
sand lenses. The eight study units at this landfill (B-l to B-8) vary in size from 3.7 to 8.8
acres. Waste thicknesses above the liner range from about 45 feet to 110 feet (average 75
feet).
The liner and cover system details are as follows:
Primary Liner (all): 80-mil HDPE GM overlying a 60-in CCL
LCRS Drainage Layer (all): GT overlying a 12-in thick sand layer
Secondary Liner (all): 80-mil HDPE GM overlying a 36-in CCL
LDS Drainage Layer (all): GT overlying a 12-in thick sand layer
Cover (B-l to B-6): 24-in CCL overlying a 30-mil HDPE GM
Cover (B-7 and B-8): 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a 24-in CCL
Cover Drainage/Protective Layers (all): 18-in sand layer underlying 6-in protective soil
Note that the typical composite barrier configuration (geomembrane overlying soil layer) is
reversed in the cover system for units B-l to B-6, where the GM is placed under the CCL.
This has important ramifications on cover system performance and leachate flow as
discussed in Chapter 4. The configurations of the liner and cover systems for units at
Landfill B are shown in Figure 3-2.
35
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
B-1 to B-6:
Cover System
B-7 and B-8:
30-mil HDPE GM-
6-INCH PROTECTIVE SOIL LAYER
18-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER
24-INCH
COMPACTED CLAY
LINER
24-INCH
COMPACTED CLAY
LINER
24-INCH INTERMEDIATE SOIL
WASTE
¦ 60-mil HDPE GM
GEOTEXTILE
80-mil HDPE GM
GEOTEXTILE
80-mil HDPE GM
12-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER
PROTECTIVE LAYER
60-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
12-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER
LCRS Flow
LDS Flow
Liner System
This cross-section corresponds with Configuration Nos. 1 and 2 in Table 3-2.
Notice the two different cover designs used at the site: variations are highlighted in red.
Figure 3-2. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill B
Landfill T
The site is located in the SE region and is currently operational (i.e., some active units are
accepting waste). The mean annual precipitation at the site is 70 inches with minimal depth
to groundwater below ground level, which implies that groundwater is in contact with the
liner system. The subsurface soil mainly consists of sandy silt and clay. Eighteen closed
units (T-l to T-18) are part of this study.
The closed units at Landfill T range in size from 1.4 to 4.2 acres with a waste thickness of
70 to 80 feet. Ail units have the same liner and cover system design, details of which are as
follows (Figure 3-3):
Primary Liner: 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a 36-in CCL
LCRS Drainage Layer: 12-in thick sand layer overlain by 12-in protective soil layer with
permeability greater than 1x10 2 cm/s
Secondary Liner: 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a 36-in CCL
LDS Drainage Layer: 12-in thick sand layer
Cover: 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a 24-in CCL
Cover Drainage/Protective Layers: GN underlying 24-in protective soil
36
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
Cover System
24-INCH PROTECTIVE SOIL LAYER
GEONET
fif)-mil HDPF RM —
24-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
24-INCH INTERMEDIATE SOIL
WASTE
PROTECTIVE LAYER
12-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER
) LCRS Flow
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
12-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER
—LDS Flow
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
Liner System
This cross-section corresponds with Configuration No. 3 in Table 3-2.
Figure 3-3. Liner arid cover system cross-sections for Landfill T
Landfill J
This site is located in the SW region and is currently operational. The region is arid, with
mean annual precipitation at the site only 11 inches. The depth to groundwater is 300 feet.
Subsurface soils mainly consist of clay and sandstone. Three conjoined landfill units (J-l to
J-3) comprise a single closed landfill unit that is part of this study. These units have an MSW
overfill landfill constructed above them such that the liner system for the overlying MSW
landfill system is integrated with the cover system for Landfill 3. The three units are all
about 10 acres in area with waste thickness above the liner of 90 feet.
All units have same liner and cover system design, details of which are as follows (Figure 3-
4):
Primary Liner: 60-mil HDPE GM overlying an 18-in CCL
LCRS Drainage Layer: 12-in thick sand layer overlain by 24-in soil layer with geotextile
Secondary Liner: 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a 36-in CO-
LDS Drainage Layer: 12-in thick gravel layer overlying a GN
Cover: 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a 24-in foundation layer
Cover Drainage/Protective Layers: GC underlying 24-in protective/drainage soil layer
which also acts as LCRS for an overlying MSW cell
37
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
Cover System
24-INCH PROTECTIVE/DRAINAGE
SOIL LAYER
GEOCOMPOSITE
60-mil HDPE GM -
24-INCH FOUNDATION LAYER
WASTE
PROTECTIVE LAYER
12-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER
—LCRS Flow
18-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
GEONET
12-INCH GRAVEL DRAINAGE LAYER
> LDS Flow
60-mil HDPE GM
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
Liner System
This cross-section corresponds with Configuration No. 4 in Table 3-2.
Figure 3-4. Liner arid cover system cross-sections for Landfill J
Landfill R
The site is located in the SW region and is currently operational. The site is located in an
arid region with mean annual precipitation at the site of 6.5 inches and depth to
groundwater of 250 feet. The subsurface soils mainly consist of sand and clay. Five landfill
units (R-l to R-5) are part of this study. The units vary in size from 5.0 to 7.6 acres with
the maximum thickness of waste in R-l being about 70 feet and in R-2 to R-5 being about
100 feet. All units have a similar cover system; however, R-l has a different liner system
design to the other units.
The liner and cover system details are as follows (Figure 3-5):
Primary Liner (R-l): 40-rnil PVC GM overlying a 36-in CCL
Primary Liner (R-2 to R-5): 80-mil HOPE GM overlying a 36-in CCL
LCRS Drainage Layer (R-l): GN overlay by 18-in thick protective soil layer
LCRS Drainage Layer (R-2 to R-5): GC
Secondary Liner (R-l): 40-mil PVC GM overlying a 36-in CCL
Secondary Liner (R-2 to R-5): 80-mil HDPE GM overlying a 36-in CCL
LDS Drainage Layer (R-l): GN
LDS Drainage Layer (R-2 to R-5): GC
Cover (all): 80-mil HDPE GM overlying a 24-in CCL
Cover Drainage/Protective Layers (all): GT underlying 24-in protective soil
38
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
Cover System
GEOTEXTILE
60-mil HDPE GM
24-INCH PROTECTIVE SOIL LAYER
24-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
24-INCH INTERMEDIATE SOIL
WASTE
GEOCOMPOSITE
GEONET
¦> LCRS Flow
40-mil PVC GM
80-mil HDPE GM
GEOCOMPOSITE
GEONET
¦> LDS Flow
40-mil PVC GM
80-mil HDPE GM
PROTECTIVE LAYER
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
R-1: Liner System R-2 to R-5:
This cross-section corresponds with Configuration Nos. 5 and 6 in Table 3-2,
Notice two different liner system designs used at the site: variations are highlighted in red.
Figure 3-5. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill R
Landfill P
The site is located in the SW region and is currently operational. The mean annual
precipitation at the site is 28 inches and the average depth to groundwater is 40 feet below
ground level. The subsurface soil mainly consists of clay. Four landfill units (P-l to P-4) are
part of this study, each with an area of 10 acres and a maximum thickness of waste above
the liner of 42 feet.
The liner and cover system details are as follows (Figure 3-6):
Primary Liner (all): 60-mil HDPE GM
LCRS Drainage Layer (all): GN overlain by 24-in protective cover layer
Secondary Liner (all): 80-mil HDPE GM overlying a 36-in CCL
Lower LDS Drainage Layer (all): GN overlain by intermediate liner (60-mil HDPE GM)
Upper LDS Drainage Layer (all): GN overlain by 24-in. the protective layer and underlain
by intermediate liner
Cover (P-l): 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a 24-in CCL
Cover (P-2 to P-4): 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a GCL
Cover Drainage/Protective Layers (all): GN underlying 36-in protective soil
This site is unique in that it has an intermediate liner system situated between the primary
and secondary liners with an overlying GN drainage layer providing separate recovery and
39
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
recording of liquid flows. For ease of identification on the figure and throughout this report,
the upper LDS drainage layer is denoted "LDS1" while the lower LDS drainage layer in
denoted "LDS2." In terms of assessing the performance of the primary liner, the sum of
flows in LDS1 and LDS2 is used to compare to flow in the LCRS.
P-1:
Cover System
P-2 to P-4:
36-INCH
PROTECTIVE SOIL
GEONET
LAYER
36-INCH
PROTECTIVE SOIL
60-mil HDPE GM
24-INCH
COMPACTED CLAY
LINER
LAYER
GEONET
60-mi HDPE GM
GCL
24-INCH INTERMEDIATE SOIL
WASTE
GEONET
PROTECTIVE LAYER
? LCRS Flow
60-mil HDPE GM
GEONET
m-mii HnPF r?M
PROTECTIVE LAYER
^ LDS1 Flow
GEONET—
80-mil HDPE GM
>
LDS2 Flow
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
Liner System
This cross-section corresponds with Configuration Nos. 7 and 8 in Table 3-2.
Notice two different cover system designs used at the site: variations are highlighted in red.
Figure 3-6. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill P
Landfill Y
The site is located in the NW region and is currently operational. Mean annual precipitation
at the site is 10 inches and depth to groundwater is 120 feet below ground level. Subsurface
soils mainly consist of gravelly sand and silty clay. Three landfill units (Y-l to Y-3) are part
of this study, all of which have similar dimensions with an average area of 1.75 acres and
maximum waste thickness of about 55 feet. All units have the same cover system; however,
Y-l has a different liner system from the other two units. The liner and cover system details
are as follows (Figure 3-7):
Primary Liner (Y-l): 60-mil HDPE GM
¦ Primary Liner (Y-2 and Y-3): 80-mil HDPE GM
LCRS Drainage Layer (all): 12-in thick sand layer overlain by 6-in soil layer with
geotextile
Secondary Liner (Y-l): 40-mil HDPE GM overlying a 36-in CCL
Secondary Liner (Y-2 and Y-3): 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a 36-in CCL
40
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
LDS Drainage Layer (Y-l): 12-in thick sand layer
LDS Drainage Layer (Y-2 and Y-3): 12-in thick sand layer overlying a GC
Cover (all): 40-mil HDPE GM overlying a GCL
¦ Cover Drainage/Protective Layers (all): GC underlying 30-in protective soil
Cover System
30-INCH PROTECTIVE SOIL LAYER
-
GEOCOMPOSITE
40-mil HDPE GM -
GCL
24-INCH INTERMEDIATE SOIL
WASTE
PROTECTIVE LAYER
.LCRS Flow
12-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER
12-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER >
so C;FOC.OMPOSITF
40-mil HDPE GM —
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
60-mil HDPE GM
Y-1:
Liner System
Y-2 and Y-3:
This cross-section corresponds with Configuration Nos, 9 and 10 in Table 3-2,
Notice two different liner system designs used at the site; variations are highlighted in red.
Figure 3-7. Liner arid cover system cross-sections for Landfill Y
Landfill M
The site is located in the NW region and is currently operational. The mean annual
precipitation at the site is 9.5 inches and depth to groundwater is 100 feet below ground
level. The subsurface soil mainly consists of clay. A single landfill unit (M-l) is included in
this study. The unit has an area of 9 acres with a maximum thickness of waste of 110 feet.
The liner and cover system details for Landfill M are as follows (Figure 3-8):
Primary Liner: 60-mil HDPE GM overlying an 18-in CCL
LCRS Drainage Layer: 12-in thick sand layer with a GC overlain by 12-inch surface
course material as a protective layer
Secondary Liner: 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a 36-in CCL
LDS Drainage Layer: GN
Cover: Intermediate cover only, comprising 18-in select soil layer
The approved final cover design for the landfill consists of an evapotranspiration cover
comprising a 3-foot soil layer. The waste in M-l has been at final grades with the
intermediate cover in place for 4 years.
41
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
18-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
18-INCH INTERMEDIATE SOIL
12-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER
PROTECTIVE LAYER
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
GEOCOMPOSITE
60-mil HDPE GM
60-mil HDPE GM
GEONET
Liner System
This cross-section corresponds with Configuration No. 11 in Table 3-2.
Cover System
WASTE
LCRS Flow
LDS Flow
Figure 3-8. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill M
Landfill D
Landfill D is located in the NE region and comprises an on-site disposal cell (OSDC) for
hazardous waste generated from the closure of an industrial facility. The mean annual
precipitation at the site is 40 inches (annual average snowfall is 17 inches) and groundwater
is shallow at only 10 feet below ground level. The subsurface soils mainly consist of sands to
silty loam. Two units (D-l and D-2) are part of this study, D-l having an area of 3.2 acres
and D-2 an area of 5.8 acres. The maximum thickness of waste is 50 feet.
The liner and cover system details are identical for both units (Figure 3-9):
Primary Liner: 60-mil HDPE GM
LCRS Drainage Layer: GC overlain by 12-in protective soil layer with permeability
greater than 1x10 3 cm/s
Secondary Liner: 60-mil HDPE GM overlying a GCL above a 12-in foundation layer
LDS Drainage Layer: GC
Cover: 40-mii LLDPE GM overlying a GCL
Cover Drainage/Protective Layers: GC underlying 24-in protective soil
42
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
Cover System
40-mil LLDPE GM ¦
24-INCH PROTECTIVE SOIL LAYER
GEOCOMPOSITE
24-INCH INTERMEDIATE SOIL
GCL
WASTE
PROTECTIVE LAYER
GEOCOMPOSITE
60-mil HDPE GM
LCRS Flow
LDS Flow
GCL
QFOCOMPOSITF
60-mil HDPE GM
12-INCH FOUNDATION LAYER
Liner System
This cross-section corresponds with Configuration No. 12 in Table 3-2.
Figure 3-9. Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill D
Landfill F
The site is located in the NE region and is used for disposal of hazardous waste generated at
an operational industrial facility. The mean annual precipitation at the site is 40 inches
(annual average snowfall is 60 inches) and the average depth to groundwater is 90 feet
below the ground surface. Subsurface soils mainly consist of sands to silty loam. A single
landfill unit (F-l) is included in this study, with a liner area of 6 acres and a maximum
thickness of waste of 50 feet.
The liner and cover system details (Figure 3-10) for F-l are as follows:
Primary Liner: 80-mil HDPE GM
LCRS Drainage Layer: GN
Secondary Liner: 80-mil HDPE GM overlying 36-in CCL
LDS Drainage Layer: GN
Cover: 40-mil LLDPE GM overlying a GCL
Cover Drainage/Protective Layers: 12-in sand layer underlying 12-in protective soil
3.3 Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance
3.3.1 Leachate Management
The LCRS and LDS from each landfill unit drain to low points (i.e., sumps) on the primary
and secondary liners, respectively, from where liquids are removed using pumps and side
slope risers. Dedicated LCRS and LDS sumps are isolated from each other. The volume of
liquids collected in each sump is recorded using a variety of devices, including automated
accumulating flowmeters or periodic pumping based on liquid height exceeding an action
threshold. To be included in the study, liquid flows in the LCRS and LDS had to be measured
43
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
PROTECTIVE LAYER
24-INCH INTERMEDIATE SOIL
12-INCH PROTECTIVE SOIL LAYER
12-INCH SAND DRAINAGE LAYER
36-INCH COMPACTED CLAY LINER
S2GEONET
80-mil HDPE GM
40-mil LLDPE GM
GEONET
80-mil HDPE GM
LDS Flow
Liner System
This cross-section corresponds with Configuration No. 13 in Table 3-2.
Cover System
WASTE
GCL
LCRS Flow
Figure 3-10, Liner and cover system cross-sections for Landfill F
individually per landfill unit. In most cases, each landfill unit featured only one LCRS and
LDS sump. Where a landfill unit had more than one sump, data were combined to represent
total flow in the LCRS/LDS.
Leachate Flow
Leachate flow data from the LCRS and LDS drainage layers were collected from operators'
site records. These were provided in the same format in which they are submitted in reports
to regulators, and are assumed to have undergone QA and QC checks consistent with such
submissions. The leachate flow database is included as Appendix III.
For each landfill unit, the daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly data were normalized to annual
average and peak flow in terms of gallons per acre per day (gpad) to provide a common
unit for comparison of leachate flow for this study. Attempts were made to collect data from
the date of closure (i.e., time zero for PCC) through to the current time in order to obtain a
complete timeline of post-closure flow from each unit. Average and peak flow data along
with the sampling frequency and a total number of data points available from each unit are
summarized in Tables II-4 and II-5 in Appendix II,
As described in Chapters 4 and 5, flow data were used to evaluate trends between average
LCRS flow rates and average annual rainfall for a given site. Consistent with EPA (2002),
which this study seeks to complement, the LCRS and LDS data were also comparatively
assessed to evaluate the hydraulic performance of the primary liner in terms of apparent
leakage.
44
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
Leachate Chemistry
Leachate chemistry data for both the LCRS and LDS as reported in monthly, quarterly or
annual reports were assembled from operators' site records, as available. Data from 30
parameters were sought, where available; these parameters mirrored those reported by
EPA (2002). Major categories of parameters targeted in this study included:
¦ pH;
¦ Specific conductance and TDS;
Macro-indicators of leachate quality, including COD, BOD, and TOC;
Major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium);
Major anions (chloride, sulfate, and alkalinity);
¦ Trace metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel; and
¦ Volatile organic compounds, including BTEX.
Leachate chemistry data from the LCRS and LDS drainage layers were collected from
operators' site records. These were provided in the same format in which they are
submitted in reports to regulators or to meet influent monitoring requirements of
wastewater treatment facilities, and are assumed to have undergone QA and QC checks
consistent with such submissions. The leachate chemistry database is too large and complex
to meaningfully summarize in this report; however, the availability of leachate chemistry at
each of the nine case study landfills is provided as Table II-7 in Appendix II, with the full
database included as Appendix IV. Leachate data are discussed in Section 5.1 in the context
of correcting apparent liner efficiency calculations and in Section 6.2 in terms of temporal
trends observed in leachate quality parameters. Where possible, the latter serves to
estimate the time that may be required for concentrations of constituents of interest in
leachate to decrease to asymptotic levels during PCC.
It is noted that the leachate chemistry database is limited in terms of its completeness and
the duration of monitoring although it is important to acknowledge that "completeness" in
this context refers to the availability of the full suite of 30 parameters targeted in this study
and not to data requirements specified for compliance. Many targeted leachate constituents
are poorly represented in the LCRS dataset, while LDS chemistry is not monitored at all at
many sites. In the latter case, it is noted that three sites (Landfills R, Y, and M) have zero
flow in the LDS, which negates the ability to collect samples for analysis. In the context of
this data assessment, therefore, this should not be construed as a data gap. An issue of
importance identified in the process of collecting leachate chemistry data for this study is
that many site operators reported only being required to keep records for 3 years, so older
data are no longer available. As there are no specific requirements for monitoring and
45
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
retaining records of leachate quality under 40 CFR 264, this may reflect state-specific rules
or site-specific agreements with receiving facilities for leachate treatment and disposal.
Whatever the reason, if this lack of data at the case study landfills is representative of the
majority of Subtitle C facilities, it will be an important limitation on assessing the long-term
performance of Subtitle C containment systems and potential modifications to existing PCC
programs.
Leachate Treatment and Disposal
The manner in which leachate from the case study landfills is treated and disposed of varies
between the sites. For example:
¦ At Landfills B and P, leachate collected from the closed units is processed at an on-site
leachate treatment plant that evaporates most of the effluent. The brine residuals from
the evaporation process are sent off-site for incineration or disposal.
Landfill J uses one of three options to dispose of leachate depending on constituents
determined from chemical analysis of leachate, including evaporation in on-site ponds,
stabilization prior to being disposed of in the landfill, or off-site transfer for treatment
(VOC removal) and disposal.
¦ At Landfills R, T, and F, leachate is transported off-site for treatment and disposal.
¦ At Landfill D, leachate collected from D-l is managed at an on-site water treatment
plant, while leachate from D-2 is shipped off-site for disposal.
Landfills Y and M dispose of leachate on-site using evaporation ponds, although some
leachate is also sent to a wastewater treatment plant.
It is noted that only anecdotal information from site operators was provided with regard to
compiling the above list. Operators did not complain of any significant problems related to
leachate treatment and disposal. The strong focus on containment and reducing leachate
flow volumes is likely a contributing factor. Operators interviewed for this study indicated
that actual leachate disposal costs were generally in line with expectations.
3.3.2 Cover Monitoring and Maintenance
As part of this study, a small number of site operators were informally interviewed
regarding site-specific conditions and the extent of cover monitoring and maintenance
activities being conducted. In particular, whether the level of maintenance has increased or
decreased noticeably over time, what the greatest challenges have been (e.g., extreme
weather events) in maintaining and monitoring the containment systems, and noticeable
trends in the type of recurring issues and whether these can be directly related to causal
effects (e.g., leakage/scouring around the boot between cap geosynthetics and headwalls at
stormwater drainage swales at the anchor trench, erosion and infiltration around
appurtenances in the cover).
46
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
This small number of operators indicated that the general level of cover monitoring and
maintenance performed and the costs associated with these activities had been relatively
steady over the years, with higher costs associated with repairs needed during the initial
years of PCC before cover vegetation was fully established and the cover stabilized. The
biggest reported challenge has been erosion control and protection of the cover specifically
due to high rainfall following a long spell of dry weather. This led one operator to focus on
the timely and effective seeding of newer caps and to limit side slopes to 3H:1V to help
prevent erosion issues. Cover penetrations at Subtitle C landfills are generally more limited
than at Subtitle D landfills, as it is often not necessary to install LFG collection wells. Most
penetrations were for vertical riser pipes at LCRS and LDS sumps. Maintenance and
localized repair of these penetrations were not reported as being a significant issue. The low
levels of biodegradable material disposed of within Subtitle C landfills relative to Subtitle D
landfills also limit issues with the differential settlement of the cover.
3.3.3 General Status of Post-Closure Care
As part of this study, a small number of site operators were informally interviewed
regarding the general status of the closed units at their facility and monitoring and
maintenance conducted under the PCC program. Questions posed included whether
progress has been made in improving the stability of the cover system, what the costs
associated with PCC have been and how these compare with expectations, what their
anticipation is for the total duration of PCC, and whether any steps have been employed or
considered for implementing any sort of passive control systems that could potentially
reduce the long-term PCC burden (e.g., alternative covers or on-site engineered wetlands).
Operators were also asked about the adequacy of financial assurance (FA) requirements for
PCC. Finally, operators were asked what challenges to innovation and creativity they face
with regard to optimizing PCC, and how EPA could help incentivize action in this area.
Responses from operators are summarized below. It is noted that the information provided
below is subjective in nature and should be taken as such:
¦ Closed units at the case study sites have mostly performed well during PCC with steady
leachate generation rates in line with modeled predictions. Where significant deviations
from expected flow rates have occurred, these have been traced to minor issues with
the containment system, notably the anchor trench tie-in between the liner and cover
systems that, once repaired, have rapidly returned to the expected level. Leachate
chemistry has not deviated from acceptance criteria for treatment and disposal, such
that leachate management has not been an issue or represented a higher-than-expected
cost.
¦ Non-routine operation and maintenance (O&M) issues were mostly related to equipment
repair and replacement due to clogging of pumps and flow meters. The latter is
47
-------
Section 3 — Review of Case Study Landfills
particularly important as it has caused a number of sites concerns about apparently high
or fluctuating leachate generation rates that were ultimately traced to faulty meters.
¦ The highest costs (or at least, most notably high costs from the perspective of
operators) are related to PCC activities associated with a third-party engineer providing
routine facility inspections and technicians conducting groundwater monitoring in the
preparation of reports to be submitted to the overseeing agency. One operator opined
that climate change has seemingly caused wider seasonal fluctuations in groundwater
levels in recent years relative to historical data, but that has not significantly impacted
the provision of PCC at the site to date.
¦ Most operators appear to assume that PCC will be conducted for 30 years with
monitoring and maintenance activities being progressively reduced or scaled back based
on facility performance before eventually being terminated. It is not clear whether the
expectation is that the 30-year period applies to the time until the scaling back of
activities would commence or the time at which activities will be terminated.
¦ In general, operators consider their FA provisions to be adequate for the assumed PCC
program at the site but understand that the funds cannot last in perpetuity. As such,
they suggested that some certainty or guidance on the process for scaling back and
elimination of PCC activities is needed. Also, some operators noted that original FA
estimates were done 20+ years ago and that adjustment factors for increases in costs
and the complexity of PCC activities (e.g., as a result of improved analytical techniques
and survey methods) may be needed.
¦ In general, operators have looked to remain with the prescriptive standards for design
and operation of Subtitle C landfills. This is likely in the interest of improving cost
certainty, as the perception is that alternative designs are riskier. Nevertheless, one
operator is evaluating on-site leachate treatment using novel biological treatment
technologies, and two operators are trying to permit an all-soil evapotranspiration (ET)
final cover. It is noted that one case study site (Landfill M) already has an ET cover
permitted.
¦ With regard to incentives that EPA could provide, one operator called for the option of
recirculating leachate collected from closed units at their facility into active units.
Another operator would like EPA to provide guidance on permitting ET covers at
hazardous waste landfills and to provide guidance on how to scale back and end PCC
activities based on an assessment of performance data.
48
-------
4. ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE FLOW DATA
4.1 Temporal Trends in Leachate Flow Rates in the LCRS and LDS
This section focuses on understanding temporal trends in LCRS and LDS flow data. All the
landfill units in the study were operated with the strategy of liquid removal from both LCRS
and LDS in order to minimize potential head buildup and leakage through the primary and
secondary liners. In accordance with 40 CFR §264.301(a)(2), the buildup of hydraulic head
on the primary liner must be limited to less than 12 inches. Throughout this chapter, LCRS
and LDS flows are normalized to gallons per acre per day (gpad) to facilitate comparison of
results between different sites. Because the potential for leachate generation is closely tied
to precipitation levels, the distinction is made between sites in "wet" climates, at which
average annual precipitation exceeds 25 inches and "dry" sites at which average annual
precipitation falls well below this level. Use of 25 inches of annual rainfall as the distinction
between wet and dry landfill conditions is consistent with the EPA's approach to assigning
decay factors for methane generation modeling at Subtitle D landfills (EPA, 1995). As such,
the discussion is grouped between four wet sites (Landfills B, T, D, and F), four dry sites
(Landfills J, R, Y, and M), and one in-between (cusp) site with unique liner design (Landfill
P). Within each category, data are presented for groups of units comprising each of the 13
design configurations listed in Table 3-2.
4.1.1 Wet Sites - Landfills B, T, D, and F
Landfill B receives an average of 47 inches of rainfall annually while Landfill T receives an
average of 70 inches. Both Landfills B and T are in hot and wet climates with groundwater
at or near the ground surface. The climate at Landfills D and F is also wet but colder: these
landfills receive 42 and 40 inches of average annual rainfall and 17 and 60 inches of
average annual snowfall, respectively. Groundwater is shallow at Landfill D (10 feet) and
deep at Landfill F (90 feet).
Landfill B, Units B-l to B-6 (Design Configuration No. 1)
Available leachate data for these units includes monthly LCRS and LDS flow volumes for up
to 29 years of PCC (Figure 4-1, note the difference in y-axis scale between the two graphs).
49
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
400
300
TJ
CO
CL
o>
I 200
w
cc
o
100
10 15 20
Post Closure Year
20
15
T3
ro
o.
3
110
w
Q
10 15 20
Post Closure Year
—B-1 —B-2 —B-3 —B-4
—B-5
—B-6
Figure 4-1. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, B-1 to B-6
Of interest to this design is the fact that the typical composite barrier configuration
(geomembrane overlying soil layer) is reversed in the cover system for units B-1 to B-6,
where the GM is placed under the CCL, With the exception of B-6, LCRS flow rates for all
units are below 100 gpad, with most below 10 gpad. Trends have been predictably
downward or steady. Unit B-6 is not contiguous with B-1 through B-5 but forms part of a
separate landfill mound with units B-7 and B-8, The sudden spike in LCRS flow in B-6 after
10 years was mainly attributed by the site operator to overtopping of an operational berm in
B-8. In support of this, after the berm was repaired the LCRS flow rate in B-6 has trended
down to similar levels recorded for the other five units.
Flow rates recorded in the LDS appear more erratic than in the LCRS, although this may
simply reflect the low volumes of liquids recovered in the LDS. This behavior is most notable
in B-5, although no specific causal factors were identified. With the exception of B-5, trends
are steady or declining with most units exhibiting LDS flow below 5 gpad in recent years.
Landfill B, Units B-7 and B-8 (Design Configuration No. 2)
Available leachate data for these two units includes monthly LCRS and LDS flow volumes for
up to 17 years of PCC. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow rates are presented in Figure 4-2
(note the difference in y-axis scale between the two graphs). As noted above, units B-7 and
B-8 form part of a separate landfill mound to the other six closed units at Landfill B.
50
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
Post Closure Year
Post Closure Year
Figure 4-2. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, B-7 and B-8
LCRS flow in B-8 is very low, trending downwards while the LDS flow rate exceeds that of
the LCRS and is trending upward to 100 gpad. The LCRS flow rate in B-7 has decreased
significantly since the closure of the unit and is relatively steady at a value of about 100
gpad. The LDS flow is increasing and currently is about 20 gpad.
Landfill T (Design Configuration No. 3)
Available leachate data for Landfill T in the PCC period includes annual total LCRS and LDS
flow volumes for up to 7 years in T-l to T-6 and daily flow volumes for T-7 to T-18 for years
10 through 23 of PCC. Earlier records for T-7 through T-18 are not available. Annual
average LCRS and LDS flow rates for the 18 units are presented in Figure 4-3 (note the
difference in y-axis scale between the two graphs). LCRS flow rates are generally below 100
gpad, with some units below 10 gpad; however, trending behavior is difficult to visualize in
most cases. T-16 exhibited an increase in LCRS flow rate between years 7 and 16 of PCC
that the site operator made several attempts at addressing with partial success (as denoted
by the "saw tooth" shape of the graph during this period) and was finally able to trace to a
localized cover system breach. The cover was repaired in year 16, which resulted in rapid
reduction in LCRS flow to rates similar to other units.
51
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
500
400
w 200
cr
o
5 10 15 20
Post Closure Year
150
125
v 100
(0
Q.
o>
5
.O
LL
CO
Q
75
50
25
5 10 15 20
Post Closure Year
—T-1 —T-2 —T-3 —T-4 —T-5 —T-6 —T-7 —T-8 —T-9
—T-10 —T-11 —T-12 —T-13 —T-14 —T-15 —T-16 —T-17 —T-18
Figure 4-3. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, Landfill T
As with LCRS flow data, steady or downward trends in LDS flow are not easy to visualize.
Although LDS flow rates for T-1 to T-6 are below 10 gpad (with the exception of T-5), the
LDS flow rates for T-7 to T-18 are significantly higher, similar in many cases to LCRS flow
rates. This may be due to the shallow groundwater table at this site or lateral infiltration of
stormwater runoff as detailed in Section 5 (Landfill T experiences an average of 70 inches of
rain annually, the highest rainfall of any of the case study sites).
Landfill D (Design Configuration No. 12)
Available leachate data for Landfill D includes monthly LCRS and LDS flow volumes for two
units D-l and D-2, which have been closed for 7 and 9 years, respectively. The annual
average LCRS and LDS flow rate for both units are presented in Figure 4-4. LCRS flow
volumes in both units decreased rapidly from pre-closure levels and remained in a relatively
steady state of decline since placement of the cover system. The climate at Landfill D is
reasonably wet at 42 inches of average annual rainfall; however, of additional interest is the
average annual snowfall of 17 inches at the site. Gradual melting of snow accumulated on
the cover surface in spring has been reported as a significant factor influencing higher-than-
expected leachate generation at landfills during the operational period; however, this does
not appear to have influenced leachate rates during post-closure case at Landfill D.
52
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
£30
Ll
LL
10
Post Closure Year
Post Closure Year
Figure 4-4. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, Landfill D
The LDS volumes for D-l have been below 5 gpad since the closure, whereas the LDS
volumes in D-2 initially increased for the first 4 years after closure before exhibiting a
steeply declining trend over the last 3 years. LDS flows in D-2 are also higher than LCRS
flows. D-2 had a very short operational period of only 1 year: this compares to more than
10 years for most other facilities included in the study.
Landfill F (Design Configuration No. 13)
Available leachate data for the single case study unit F-l at Landfill F includes monthly LCRS
and LDS flow volumes for 12 years of PCC (Figure 4-5, note difference in y-axis scales).
Post Closure Year
Post Closure Year
Figure 4-5. Average annual LCRS and LDS flow, Landfill F
53
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
Both LCRS and LDS flows have trended significantly downward at Landfill F, with current
LCRS flows below 50 gpad and LDS flows below 5 gpad. The climate at the site is wet: 40
inches of average annual rainfall and 60 inches of average annual snowfall.
4.1.2 Dry Sites - Landfills J, R, Y, and M
This category of sites includes those in arid climates with deep groundwater tables. Landfill J
receives only 11 inches of rainfall per year on average. Groundwater is also very deep at
300 feet below ground level. Landfill R is the aridest of all case study sites, with average
annual precipitation of only 6.5 inches and a depth to groundwater of 250 feet. Landfill Y
receives only 10 inches of annual rainfall on average, with deep groundwater (120 feet
below ground level). Landfill M has average annual precipitation of only 9.5 inches and a
depth to groundwater of 200 feet. Overall, it should be expected that this category of case
study units would exhibit the lowest LCRS and LDS flows. Of particular note, three of the
sites (Landfills R, Y, and M) are so dry that only negligible LDS flow has ever been recorded.
Landfill J (Design Configuration No. 4)
Available leachate data for Landfill J includes monthly LCRS and LDS flow volumes for all
three case study units J-l to J-3 for 17 years of PCC. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow
rates are presented in Figure 4-6. LCRS and LDS flow rates for all three units are mostly
below 1 gpad, which is not surprising since these as these units are situated directly
beneath an MSW overfill landfill and the site is located in an arid region with very deep
groundwater. As the cover system is directly beneath and in contact with the liner system
for the overlying MSW landfill, the only liquid available to infiltrate the cover and form
leachate is leakage through the liner system of the overlying MSW landfill. As such, post-
closure leachate flows at Landfill J may be skewed relative to a typically closed landfill in
that increased overburden pressures resulting from ongoing waste disposal in the overfill
landfill may be contributing to larger-than-normal compression of the waste. This may
partially help to explain why LDS flow rates generally equal or exceed LCRS flows. In
particular, J-l has experienced LDS flow rates of up to 5 gpad while LCRS flows have not
exceeded 1 gpad. However, it is important to note that flows in both drainage layers are
very low in relation to observations at most other sites.
54
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
Post Closure Year
Post Closure Year
Figure 4-6. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, Landfill J
Landfill R (Design Configuration Nos. 5 and 6)
The liner design for R-l differs slightly from that of R-2 to R-5 with regard to the types of
geosynthetic drainage (geonet vs. geocomposite) and barrier materials (40-mil PVC GM vs.
80-mil HDPE GM) specified. However, the designs are similar enough to be presented and
discussed concurrently. Available leachate data for all five units includes monthly LCRS and
LDS flow volumes for 13 years of PCC (Figure 4-7). The LCRS flow rate started near 10
gpad in R-l but has declined steeply in subsequent years. LCRS flows in the other four units
started slightly lower and have also declined, albeit less steeply. LDS flows have been zero
throughout the PCC period with the exception of one reading of 1 gpad in year 10 in R-l.
Landfill Y (Design Configuration Nos, 9 and 10)
The liner design for Y-l differs slightly from that of Y-2 and Y-3 with regard to the LCRS
drainage layer design (Y-2 and Y-3 feature a GC in addition to a sand drainage layer, while
Y-l feature only a sand layer) and the specifications for geomembrane barrier materials.
However, the designs are similar enough to be presented and discussed concurrently.
Available leachate data for Landfill Y includes weekly LCRS and LDS flow volumes for three
units for years 2 through 10 of PCC. Earlier records are missing. Annual average LCRS flow
rates are presented in Figure 4-8. As shown, LCRS flow rates for all three units have
trended downward since closure and have always been less than 10 gpad. LDS flows at this
dry site (10 inches of annual rainfall on average) with deep groundwater (120 feet below
ground level) have been negligible and are not shown or discussed.
55
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
Post Closure Year
Figure 4-7. Annual average LCRS flow, Landfill R
Post Closure Year
Figure 4-3. Annual average LCRS flow, Landfill Y
Landfill M (Design Configuration No. 11)
Available leachate data for Landfill M includes monthly LCRS and LDS flow volumes from
one unit (M-l) within which waste has been placed to final grades and left undisturbed for
56
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
the last 4 years, but at which a final cover system has not yet been constructed. An
alternative all-soil evapotranspiration final cover system has been approved for the site. The
intermediate cover comprises an 18-in thick layer of the select soil. Despite this permeable
cover, annual average LCRS flows are very low, trending downward from less than 20 gpad
(Figure 4-9), and LDS flows have been negligible (not shown). The highest recorded LDS
flow rate was 0.14 gpad in year 1, this has since declined to 0.07 gpad. Landfill M is one of
the driest sites in this study, with average annual precipitation of only 9.5 inches and a
depth to groundwater of 200 feet.
Post Closure Year
Figure 4-9. Annual average LCRS flow, Landfill M
4.1.3 Climatic Cusp Site - Landfill P
Landfill P experiences about 28 inches of rainfall annually, near the nominal value of 25
inches considered to separate wet and dry sites. As such, this site is considered a climatic
cusp between the wet and dry site categories discussed above. The depth to groundwater
represents an in-between condition relative to other sites; it is not excessively deep at only
40 feet below ground level, but this is significantly deeper than the three sites with shallow
groundwater included in this study, at which groundwater is within 10 feet of the ground
surface.
This site is also unique in that it has an intermediate liner system situated between the
primary and secondary liners, with an overlying GN drainage layer providing separate
recovery and recording of liquid flows (as depicted in Figure 3-5). For ease of identification
57
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
in this report, the upper LDS drainage layer is denoted "LDS1" while the lower LDS drainage
layer in denoted "LDS2." For assessing the performance of the primary liner, liquid flows in
the LCRS are compared to the sum of flows in LDS1 and LDS2. The primary and
intermediate liners are a single GM barrier sandwiched between two drainage layers. As
such, it should not be expected that flow volume recorded in the LCRS, LDS1, and LDS2
would be substantially different if the only source of liquids is leakage through the GM.
There are four study units at Landfill P. The cover system design for the oldest unit P-l is
distinct from that of the three newer units P-2 to P-4 in that it features a 24-in CCL barrier
layer whereas the other units feature a slimmer design utilizing a GCL barrier. As such, P-l
represents a notably different design configuration to that of the other three units.
Landfill P, Unit P-l (Design Configuration No. 7)
Available leachate data for P-l includes weekly LCRS and LDS flow volumes for years 4 to
21 of PCC (Figure 4-10). Earlier records are missing. LCRS flow exhibits a downward trend
and has been less than 10 gpad for the entire PCC period. As noted above, the unusual
triple-GM liner design at P-l would be expected to result in flow volumes which show similar
trends in the LCRS, LDS1, and LDS2. In fact, flow rates in LDS1 and LDS2 are similar and
substantially greater than flows in the LCRS suggesting either a major defect in the primary
liner GM or supplementary source of liquids in LDS1 and LDS2. Neither LDS flows exhibit
real signs of trending behavior, although flow rates have declined relatively consistently
since reaching peaks in year 13.
Landfill P, Units P-2 to P-4 (Design Configuration No. 8)
Available leachate data for P-2 to P-4 includes weekly LCRS and LDS flow volumes for up to
17 years of PCC. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow rates for all three units are presented
in Figure 4-11. As with P-l, LCRS flow exhibits a downward trend in all three units and has
been less than 10 gpad over the entire PCC period with the exception of the first 2 years in
P-4. As noted above, the unusual triple-GM liner design at Landfill P would be expected to
result in similar trends in flow volumes in the LCRS, LDS1, and LDS2. This is the case in P-
4, although flow in the two LDS layers has been more erratic than in the LCRS. In P-2 and
P-3, flow rates in LDS2 often exceed those in LDS1, while both LDS1 and LDS2 flow rates
are greater than corresponding LCRS flows indicating either a major defect in the primary
liner GM or supplementary source of liquids in LDS1 and LDS2.
58
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
40
30
20
10
0
5
10
0
15
20
25
Post Closure Year
—LCRS —LDS1 —LDS2
Figure 4-10. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, P-l
—LCRS —LDS1 —LDS2
o
0 5 10 15 20
Post Closure Year
P-2
5 10 15 20
Post Closure Year
P-3
5 10 15
Post Closure Year
Figure 4-11. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow, P-2 to P-4
4.2 Comparing LCRS Flow Data to Modeled Predictions
Cognizant of the advantages and limitations of water balance modeling previously outlined
in Section 1.5.2, the performance of the HELP Model as a predictive design tool was
compared to the LCRS flow data obtained from the case study landfill units. Consistent with
previous sections in Chapter 4, HELP Model results are presented and discussed in terms of
59
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
the 13 unique design configurations representing different cover, primary liner, and
LCRS/LDS drainage layer configurations amongst the 45 case study units (as listed in Table
3-8).
4.2.1 Methodology
Modeling Leachate Generation
HELP Version 3.07 (Schroeder et al., 1994a) was used to estimate landfill leachate
generation before and after placement of the final cover system. The methodology used
average annual (not peak) HELP Model results calculated for a 100-year period to simulate
the range of weather conditions that a landfill may experience. Weather data for the
simulation (i.e., daily precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation values) were generated
by the model based on default assumptions for the closest city in the model's database to
the landfill location. Material properties for soil layers were selected based on default values.
Protective cover soil and waste were modeled as vertical percolation layers. GMs, GCLs, and
CCLs were modeled as barrier soil layers and the LCRS and LDS were modeled as lateral
drainage layers. With regard to the selection of a representative number of GM defects to
input to the model, a 10-year survey by Forget et al. (2005) reported 0.5 defects/hectare
for sites with strict CQA and 16 defects/hectare without CQA. All the case study sites had
CQA performed during liner and cover construction, suggesting a value of 0.5
defects/hectare may be appropriate. However, whether the level of CQA performed at each
case study could be similarly interpreted as "strict" was unknown. Therefore, GMs were
conservatively assumed to have 2 defects/acre, in the middle of the range of 1 to 4
defects/acre suggested by EPA (Schroder et. Al, 1994) for "good quality GM installation."
Cell geometry, drainage length, and waste height were input based on landfill design plans
(see Table II-1 in Appendix II). The input parameters for each HELP Model run are provided
in Appendix V.
Three scenarios were modeled for each of the 13 design configurations to establish
boundary conditions based on expected landfill leachate generation before and after
placement of the final cover system:
¦ HELP Model Scenario No. 1 (pre-closure conditions with default input): The first scenario
assumes that waste had been placed to final grades but no engineered measures beyond
intermediate cover soil application had been implemented to prevent direct infiltration of
rainwater into the landfill. This flat-line value serves to provide a (likely overestimated)
upper-bound indication of short-term LCRS and LDS flows expected in the first few years
after closure.
60
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
¦ HELP Model Scenario No. 2 (long-term quasi-steady state conditions with default input):
The second scenario assumes a final cover system has been constructed over the waste
and the cover is assumed to be well established, graded, and stabilized with good
vegetation coverage and capable of diverting most incident rainfall as stormwater runoff.
This flat-line value serves as a lower-bound limit on expected LCRS and LDS flows over
the long-term.
¦ HELP Model Scenario No. 3 (annual LCRS flow model with site-specific input): In the
third scenario, a more representative prediction of annual changes in leachate flow was
attempted. First, the HELP Model was run under similar default input assumptions as for
Scenario 1, except that it was assumed that waste had been placed to final grades for
the entire operational life of the landfill unit(s). The model was run only for the
operational period. The output file from this run was then used to assign site-specific
values of volumetric water storage in each layer (i.e., cover, waste mass, and liner) in
the last year of operation (i.e., immediately prior to capping). The HELP Model was then
rerun for 30 years under conditions of final cover (akin to Scenario 2), but with site-
specific values for water storage in the waste mass and liner (default values were used
for water storage in the cover since these layers would have been newly constructed).
The output file from this model run showed annual flow in the LCRS and LDS drainage
layers on a year-on-year basis for 30-years of PCC.
Calculating Trends in LCRS Flow
Assuming that LCRS flow rates decrease exponentially after closure, which is consistent with
observations in EPA (2002), expected leachate generation can be modeled as an
exponential best-fit trend line to the data. An exponential decay model of the form shown in
Equation 4-1 can be constructed, where f is a slope factor that depends mainly on the type
of cover in place:
LpEAK
Leachate generation is plotted as a function of time (t), such that the ratio of leachate
generated in any given year during the post-closure period (Lt) is a function of peak
leachate generation at or soon after closure (Lpeak).
4.2.2 Results
Upper- and Lower-Bound Thresholds for LCRS and LDS Flow
Results from HELP Model Scenario Nos. 1 and 2 representing upper bound (intermediate
cover) and lower bound (final cover) average flow rates in the LCRS and LDS, respectively,
are summarized for all 13 design configurations in Table 4-1.
61
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
Table 4-1. Modeled LCRS and LDS flow
Design
configurati
on
Climate
Condition
Study
Unit(s)
Average annual flow from HELP Model
(gpad)
Notes
Scenario No. 1:
Intermediate cover
(pre-closure)
Scenario No. 2:
Final cover
(post-closure)
LCRS
LDS
LCRS
LDS
1
Wet
B-1 to B-6
1243
5E-01
5
4E-03
2
Wet
B-7 to B-8
1243
5E-01
5E-01
4E-04
3
Wet
T-1 to T-18
1319
8E-02
5E-05
2E-07
4
Dry
J-1 to J-3
0.2
4E-05
Zero
Zero
1
5
Dry
R-1
38
2E-03
1E-04
1E-05
6
Dry
R-2 to R-5
38
2E-05
1E-04
8E-07
7
Cusp
P-1
122
1E-02
3E-04
5E-06
4
8
Cusp
P-2 to P-4
122
1E-02
2E-04
4E-06
4
9
Dry
Y-1
5
9E-01
8E-07
1E-05
2
10
Dry
Y-2 to Y-3
5
9E-01
8E-07
1E-05
2
11
Dry
M-1
129
2E-04
22
2E-05
3
12
Wet
D-1 to D-2
504
15
5E-05
3E-04
2
13
Wet
F-1
559
16
2E-03
3E-04
Notes:
1). Landfill J has an overfill MSW landfill.
2). Landfills Y and D have more flow in the LDS than LCRS after the final cover is placed due to a boundary
constraint in the HELP Model, see discussion below.
3). Scenario 2 at Landfill M is hypothetical, as the final cover has not yet been placed (current cover performance
reflects Scenario 1).
4). LDS flow is for lower drainage layer (LDS2).
Flow values from the HELP Model are converted to gpad to allow easy comparison to field
data. These results are primarily used to estimate modeled liner efficiency for comparison to
effective liner efficiency calculations in Section 5.2. Blinded input and output files from each
HELP Model run are provided in Appendix V. Some observations on the results presented in
the table include:
Design Configuration Nos. 1 and 2: Units B-l to B-6 have a thinner cover system GM as
compared to B-7 and B-8, and the GM and CCL layers are switched such that the CCL
overlies the GM. This is reflected in the significant difference in modeled LCRS and LDS
flows post-closure (a CCL overlying a GM is leakier because it does not take advantage
of the synergistic benefits of a composite barrier in which an underlying CCL or GCL
effectively "plugs" holes in the overlying GM).
Design Configuration Nos. 2 and 3: Units B-7 and B-8 have an 18-in sand drainage layer
above the barrier layer in the final cover system whereas all units at Landfill T have a
GN drainage layer. This is reflected in the significant difference in LCRS and LDS flows
post-closure between these two configurations (overall, a GN has been shown to be
more efficient at reducing flows).
Design Configuration No. 4: The cover system for J-l to J-3 is integrated with a liner for
an overfill MSW landfill covering the entire surface area of the three units. Modeling
infiltration through the final cover is not meaningful under these conditions, as the only
source of infiltrating water is leakage through the overlying liner, which is negligible (the
HELP Model analysis would show zero flow in the LCRS and LDS).
62
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
Design Configuration Nos. 5 and 6: R-l has a 40-mil PVC GM liner while the other units
at Landfill R (R-2 to R-5) have an 80-mil HDPE liner. The apparently superior
performance of the HDPE liner at limiting leakage as compared to PVC is reflected in the
model results for LDS flow as the HELP model default values assign two orders of
magnitude lower permeability to HDPE GM when compared with PVC GM.
Design Configuration Nos. 7 and 8: P-l has a different cover system design to P-2 to P-
4, although this does not significantly affect hydraulic performance. More importantly, all
four units have three basal drainage layers (LCRS, LDS1, and LDS2) separated by single
GM liners. The HELP Model output did not show any flow in the upper LDS1 once the
final cover was placed (although flow has been observed in this layer). Results in the
table thus represent modeled flow in the LCRS and lower LDS2.
Design Configuration Nos. 9 and 10: Y-2 and Y-3 have a thicker GM in the primary liner
than Y-l, although this does not affect modeled advective flow through the primary
liner.
Design Configuration Nos. 9, 10, and 12: HELP Model output for Y-l to Y-3 and D-l
shows higher flow in the LDS than LCRS after the final cover is placed, although it is
important to note that flow values in both drainage layers are extremely low in all
affected units. This result is possibly due to a boundary constraint in the HELP Model in
that the preferential flow path for a very small thickness of liquid above the GM in the
LCRS layer is vertical (down through a hypothetical defect in the GM) rather than lateral.
Therefore, all this liquid is erroneously assigned as vertical leakage through the primary
liner by the model rather than lateral conveyance in the LCRS.
Design Configuration No. 11: Landfill M is located in an arid region and has a composite
primary liner resulting in minimal flow in LDS when compared with LCRS. The study unit
M-l is not technically closed, but has been filled to final grades and is inactive under the
intermediate cover soil. Due to the dry climate and low leachate flows observed, an all-
soil ET cover has been permitted as final cover at this facility.
Estimating Timeframes to Achieve Steady State Leachate Flow
In order to better understand behavioral trends in leachate generation based on field
observations, annual LCRS flow measurements were compared to annual flow rates
predicted from HELP Model Scenario 3. Acknowledging limitations in the HELP Model (see
Section 1.5.2), the basis for this comparison is that if the HELP Model provides an accurate
prediction of long-term leachate flow post-capping, the LCRS flow rates would decrease to a
value approximating the quasi-steady state flow rate predicted by the model under this
scenario. Selected results from six of the 13 design configurations representing the case
study units are presented in Figure 4-12 through Figure 4-15. The selected results feature
four of the case study sites: wet Landfills B and F and dry Landfills R and Y. With reference
to each figure, the estimated time to reach quasi-steady state leachate flow as predicted by
the HELP Model is shown for individual units as well as for the average of all data comprising
a different design configuration in Table 4-2. The value of the slope factor (f) from the best-
fit trend line and the coefficient of correlation to the data (R2) are also shown.
63
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
1.E+03
1.E+02
73
<0
Q_
O)
(5 1.E+01
s
o
u.
cn
oc
o
1.E+00
1.E-01
B-1
B-3
B-5
• B-2
« B-4
—HELP Model
* * f ¦ ¦ ¦ * 4 * ¦ * ..
• ~
10 15 20
Post Closure Year
25
30
Figure 4-12. Trends in long-term LCRS flow, B-1 to B-5
1.E+03
1.E+02 i
1.E+01
2 1.E+00
j2 1.E-01
CO
oc
u, 1.E-02
1.E-03 i
1.E-04
a F-1
—HELP Model
10 15 20
Post Closure Year
25
30
Figure 4-13. Trends in long-term LCRS flow, F-1
64
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
1.E+02
« 1.E+01
3
75
q:
£
o
q: 1.E+00
o
1.E-01
R-1 ~ R-2
R-4 ¦ R-5
R-3
; ¦ ? 11
• ¦ 11V ~
X r* *
Best-fit trend line,
average of R-2 to R-5
Best-fit trend line. R-1
10 15 20
Post Closure year
25
30
Figure 4-14. Trends in long-term LCRS flow, R-1 to R-5
1.E+02
g_ 1.E+01 :
5
0)
03
cc
£
o
W 1.E+00 :
o
1.E-01
" * .>
• i-* i
¦ Y-1
* Y-2
~ Y-3
Best-fit trend line, Y-1
Best-fit trend line,
average of Y-2 and Y3
10 15 20
Post Closure Year
25
30
Figure 4-15. Trends in long-term LCRS flow, Y-1 to Y-3
65
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
Table 4-2. Estimated timeframe to achieve steady state leachate flow
o
o
3, D
8
Characteristic of best-fit
Climate
Condition
Cover system barrier
layer design
Study Unit
exponential trend line to the
data
Time to
intercept
HELP Model
(Q
a ™
o
D
Slope factor
M
Correlation
coefficient
(R2)
flow rate'1'
(years)
B-1
0.05
0.64
29
B-2
0.05
0.43
18
1
Wet
24-in CCL over 80-mil
B-3
0.05
0.19
27
HDPE GM
B-4
0.06
0.78
28
B-5
0.09
0.68
8
B-1 to B-5
0.04
0.16
27
13
Wet
40-mil LLDPE over
GCL
F-1
0.13
0.54
97
5
Dry
80-mil HDPE GM over
24-in CCL
R-1
0.13
0.73
Not calculated
R-2
0.05
0.85
Not calculated
80-mil HDPE GM over
24-in CCL
R-3
0.06
0.91
Not calculated
6
Dry
R-4
0.03
0.79
Not calculated
R-5
0.06
0.77
Not calculated
R-2 to R-5
0.05
0.26
Not calculated
9
Dry
40-mil HDPE GM over
GCL
Y-1
0.07
0.58
Not calculated
40-mil HDPE GM over
GCL
Y-2
0.13
0.92
Not calculated
10
Dry
Y-3
0.10
0.71
Not calculated
Y-2 and Y-3
0.12
0.78
Not calculated
Note:
1). The HELP model predicted zero LCRS flow at dry Landfills R and Y after 30 years; therefore, the time to intercept
HELP model could not be calculated.
Overall, the analysis suggests that it would take from 8 to 97 years to reach the steady
state flow rate suggested by the HELP model. It is interesting that only one unit require
more than 30 years to reach steady state. In summary and discussion of the results
presented in Table 4-2 and Figures 4-12 to 4-15:
Design Configuration No. 1 (B-l to B-5): The time to reach the steady-state flow rate
(approximately 5 gpad) predicted by the HELP Model was less than 30 years for all five
units at this wet landfill. Values for the slope factor (f) vary from 0.05 to 0.09, with the
average for all units being 0.06 (the field data are poorly correlated to the trend line
developed for the average). Overall, it is assumed that quasi-steady state leachate
generation will continue at the level predicted by the HELP Model, perhaps declining to
about 1 gpad as suggested by B-5.
Design Configuration No. 13 (F-l): The HELP Model predicts that LCRS flow at this
single-unit wet landfill would decline to about 0.001 gpad within four years of closure
and remain steady thereafter. This seems an impractically low target for ending leachate
management, although the best-fit trend line to the data (f = 0.13, R2 = 0.54) suggests
that this steady state flow rate would be reached in 97 years. In addition, the data
record extends only 12 years at this site and fitting a trend to only the most recent 5 or
6 years of data would produce a much steeper trend line.
66
-------
Section 4 — Analysis of Leachate Flow Data
Design Configurations Nos. 5 and 6 (R-l, R-2 to R-5): The steady state flow rate
predicted by the HELP Model for both these configurations is on the order of 10~4 gpad;
however, as discussed previously the model does not properly account for lateral
drainage at very low flows in LCRS drainage media (as shown in Table 4-1, the HELP
Model predicts that LDS flows would be two orders higher than LCRS flows). As such, the
HELP Model may not provide accurate estimates of steady state leachate flow at very
dry sites such as Landfill R, and comparisons to modeled predictions are not made in
Figure 4-14 or Table 4-2.
Design Configurations Nos. 9 and 10 (Y-l, Y-2, and Y-3): The steady state flow rate
predicted by the HELP Model for both design configurations at dry Landfill Y is on the
order of 10~7 gpad. This prediction may not be accurate for the reasons discussed above,
and comparisons between best-fit trend lines and modeled predictions are not made in
Figure 4-15 or Table 4-2.
With regard to the slope factor calculated from these results, it is interesting to note that
this is significantly lower than that calculated from the dataset reported by EPA (2002),
which suggested an order of magnitude decrease in LCRS flow rate should be expected
every 5 years after closure. This would equate to a slope factor f = 0.5 in Equation 4-1.
Slope factors calculated from this study suggest values less than 0.15, or even less than
0.1, may be more appropriate at most Subtitle C landfills. The dataset utilized in this study
is larger (45 individual units with up to 29 years of post-closure data) than for the 2002
study (33 units with up to 9 years of post-closure data). In particular, the lack of data from
many units beyond year six of PCC in the EPA (2002) study, inclusion of MSW landfills, and
the very low flow rates reported for a few units after year six, suggests that the data may
have been skewed by a small number of very dry or high performing sites. If current
industry projections of post-closure leachate generation are based on the 2002 data,
expectations may need to be reset in terms of the rate of decline in LCRS flow. Rather than
an order of magnitude decrease every 5 years, it is more reasonable to expect an order of
magnitude decrease every 15-20 years. However, more field studies are needed to validate
this finding before recommendations for adjusting current industry projections and accruals
for leachate management are made.
67
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
5. ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY LINER PERFORMANCE
5.1 Apparent Hydraulic Efficiency of the Primary Liner
5.1.1 Methodology
Consistent with the study by EPA (2002), concurrent LCRS and LDS flow data from the case
study landfill units were evaluated to estimate leakage rates and the hydraulic efficiency of
the primary liner. Using a method suggested by Bonaparte et al. (1996), the "apparent"
hydraulic efficiency, EA, of the primary liner can be calculated from observed LCRS and LDS
flow rates as:
The parameter EA is referred to as an "apparent" hydraulic efficiency because flow into the
LDS sump may be attributed to sources other than leakage through the primary liner. If the
only source of flow into the LDS sump is primary liner leakage, then Equation 5-1 provides
the "true" liner hydraulic efficiency (ET). True liner efficiency provides a measure of the
effectiveness of a particular liner in limiting or preventing advective transport across the
liner. For example, if a liner has an ET of 99%, the rate of leakage through the primary liner
would be 1% of the LCRS flow rate. The leakage rate for a given composite liner system is
directly proportional to a number of defects in GM and leachate head over the liner system
(Touze-Foltz and Giroud 2003; Giroud and Touze-Foltz 2005). Therefore, the true efficiency
of a liner is not a constant, but rather a function of the hydraulic head in the LCRS and size
of the area over which LCRS flow is occurring (Bonaparte et al., 2016).
The higher the value of EA, the smaller the flow rate from the LDS compared to the LCRS
flow rate. The value of EA may range from zero to 100% with a value of zero corresponding
to a LDS flow rate equal to the LCRS flow rate, and a value of 100% indicating no flow in
the LDS (indicating a perfect liner). Negative values indicate that flow volumes in the LDS
exceed those in the LCRS, which was observed at many case study units (Section 4.1).
5.1.2 Values Calculated by EPA (2002)
EPA (2002) reported the apparent efficiency of a number of different primary liner
configurations for individual cells for which continuous LCRS and LDS flow rate data were
available from the start of operation and for a significant monitoring period thereafter. In
summary of data provided for the post-closure period:
LCRS Flow Rate
(5-1)
68
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
GM Liners: Calculated values for Ea from six individual cells ranged from 62.0 to 85.4%,
68.8%, 91.1 to 98.6%, 92.3%, 99.7%, and 99.6%.
GM/GCL Liners: Calculated values for Ea from six individual cells ranged from 89.6%,
98.8%, 100%, 100%, 99.6%, and 100%.
GM/CCL and GM/GCL/CCL Liners: Calculated values for Ea from four individual cells
ranged from -1,300 to 83.4%, 36.3to 80.5%, and 81.8 to 96.8%, and 94.0 to 97.2%.
In each category, single values (other than a range) indicate that only one calculation was
performed for an individual cell. It is noted that the above results may include cells at non-
hazardous waste landfills (i.e., MSW landfills with higher leachate generation potential than
most hazardous waste landfills). Negative values indicate that flow in the LDS exceeded that
in the LCRS. Overall, the authors concluded that "flows from the LDS of cells with composite
liners are usually very low. The true hydraulic efficiency of composite liners may often
exceed 99.9%."
5.1.3 Values Calculated in this Study
Available flow data from each of the 45 units at the nine case study landfills was evaluated
to calculate leakage rates and apparent hydraulic efficiencies of the primary liners based on
landfill leachate generation rates (i.e., LDS versus LCRS flow rates). The minimum,
maximum, and average value of liner efficiencies for each unit are summarized in Tables 5-
1 to 5-3 along with the number of data points for each unit that falls into different EA
ranges.
values were calculated. In addition, average values were calculated using positive values
only. It is also important to note that the liner efficiencies reflected in the tables were
calculated as static values from average LCRS and LDS flow rates in the post-closure period.
As these flows tend to decrease with time, Ea values may dynamically increase or decrease
with time depending on the relative rates of decrease of LCRS flow versus LDS flow. Overall,
only 5% of the units exhibited an efficiency Ea value greater than 99% with 73% of the
units having an Ea value that is less than 90%. Furthermore, the apparent liner efficiencies
calculated across the sites are significantly higher at dry than at wet sites. For the wet
landfill sites, the total number of Ea values exceeding 99% is 96, representing 79% of the
data, in Table 5-2. The proportion of sites at which Ea values are negative is approximately
equal at 16 and 17% at wet and dry sites, respectively. It is interesting to note that the
collection efficiencies calculated for dry landfill sites were much lower than those for wet
ones. Only 1 percent of the units examined demonstrated an efficiency that is higher than
90% as presented in Table 5-1C.
69
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Table 5-1. Apparent liner efficiency, Ea
o
o
Apparent liner efficiency, Ea
Breakdown of data
3, D
c <2.
Primary liner
system
c
D
¦z.
c
Ea value
a =
o
D
r+
Minimum
Maximum
Average1
3
CT
(D
<0%
0%
to
90%
90%
to
99%
>99
%
B-1
62%
83%
72%
20
0
20
0
0
80-mil HDPE GM
over
60-in CCL
B-2
35%
87%
67%
20
0
20
0
0
1
B-3
38%
94%
81%
20
0
17
3
0
B-4
79%
98%
89%
20
0
9
11
0
B-5
0%
68%
48%
20
15
5
0
0
B-6
73%
98%
91%
20
0
8
12
0
2
80-mil HDPE GM
B-7
77%
99%
91%
18
0
8
6
4
over 60-in CCL
B-8
0%
97%
65%
12
3
6
3
0
T-1
0%
84%
77%
8
6
2
0
0
T-2
71%
94%
83%
8
1
6
1
0
T-3
0%
90%
73%
8
1
6
0
1
T-4
0%
88%
42%
8
1
6
0
1
T-5
0%
98%
84%
8
3
2
3
0
T-6
31%
100%
54%
8
0
6
0
2
T-7
60%
98%
83%
13
0
8
5
0
60-mil HDPE GM
over
36-in CCL
T-8
0%
68%
35%
13
6
7
0
0
3
T-9
0%
82%
56%
14
4
8
2
0
T-10
0%
82%
56%
11
1
10
0
0
T-11
0%
93%
60%
11
1
9
1
0
T-12
0%
99%
81%
11
2
4
5
0
T-13
0%
100%
68%
11
4
5
1
1
T-14
0%
94%
74%
11
3
5
3
0
T-15
0%
75%
57%
11
4
7
0
0
T-16
0%
92%
81%
11
1
9
1
0
T-17
83%
100%
96%
11
0
1
7
3
T-18
64%
100%
88%
11
0
4
6
1
12
60-mil HDPE GM
D-1
80%
100%
92%
10
0
4
3
3
D-2
0%
45%
45%
7
6
1
0
0
13
80-mil HDPE GM
F-1
59%
99%
88%
13
0
4
7
2
TOTAL
367
62
17%
207
56%
80
22%
18
5%
wet sites)
Note:
1. Average values were calculated using positive values only.
70
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Table 5-2. Apparent liner efficiency, Ea (dry sites)
o
o
Apparent liner efficiency, Ea
Breakdown of data
3, D
c <2.
Primary liner
system
c
D
¦z.
c
Ea value
a =
o
D
r+
Minimum
Maximum
Average1
3
CT
(D
<0%
0%
to
90%
90%
to
99%
>99
%
60-mil HDPE GM
J-1
0%
35%
18%
15
12
3
0
0
4
over
J-2
0%
1%
1%
6
5
1
0
0
18-in CCL
J-3
0%
3%
3%
3
2
1
0
0
5
40-mil PVC GM
over 36-in CCL
R-1
84%
100%
99%
13
0
1
0
12
80-mil HDPE GM
over
36-in CCL
R-2
100%
100%
100%
13
0
0
0
13
6
R-3
100%
100%
100%
13
0
0
0
13
R-4
100%
100%
100%
13
0
0
0
13
R-5
100%
100%
100%
13
0
0
0
13
9
60-mil HDPE GM
Y-1
100%
100%
100%
9
0
0
0
9
10
80-mil HDPE GM
Y-2
100%
100%
100%
9
0
0
0
9
Y-3
99%
100%
100%
9
0
0
0
9
11
60-mil HDPE GM
over 18-in CCL
M-1
99%
100%
99%
5
0
0
0
5
TOTAL
121
19
16%
6
5%
0
0%
96
79%
Note:
1. Average values were calculated using positive values only.
Table 5-3
1. Apparent liner efficiency, Ea
cusp site)
Design
configuration
Primary liner
system
c
D
r+
Apparent liner efficiency, Ea
Breakdown of data
Minimum
Maximum
Average1
¦z.
c
3
CT
(D
"I
Ea value
<0%
0%
to
90%
90%
to
99%
>99
%
7
60-mil HDPE GM
P-1
0%
0%
0%
18
182
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
18
182
0
0
0
8
60-mil HDPE GM
P-2
0%
48%
48%
18
17
1
0
0
0%
1%
1%
18
17
1
0
0
P-3
0%
72%
39%
18
10
8
0
0
0%
46%
46%
18
17
1
0
0
P-4
0%
92%
62%
14
1
12
1
0
0%
79%
48%
14
10
4
0
0
TOTAL1
136
108
79%
27
20%
1
1%
0
0%
Note:
1. Average values were calculated using positive values only.
2. Calculated as [1-(LDS1+LDS2)]/LCRS.
As noted previously, a calculated value for Ea below zero indicates that sources other than
liner leakage are contributing to liquid volumes in the LDS. For simplicity, minimum
apparent liner efficiency is reported as 0% in the tables where one or more negative values
were calculated. In addition, average values were calculated using positive values only. It is
71
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
also important to note that the liner efficiencies reflected in the tables were calculated as
static values from average LCRS and LDS flow rates in the post-closure period. As these
flows tend to decrease with time, EA values may dynamically increase or decrease with time
depending on the relative rates of decrease of LCRS flow versus LDS flow. Overall, only 5%
of the units exhibited an efficiency EA value greater than 99% with 73% of the units having
an EA value that is less than 90%. Furthermore, the apparent liner efficiencies calculated
across the sites are significantly higher at dry than at wet sites. For the wet landfill sites,
the total number of EA values exceeding 99% is 96, representing 79% of the data, in Table
5-2. The proportion of sites at which EA values are negative is approximately equal at 16
and 17% at wet and dry sites, respectively. It is interesting to note that the collection
efficiencies calculated for dry landfill sites were much lower than those for wet ones. Only 1
percent of the units examined demonstrated an efficiency that is higher than 90% as
presented in Table 5-3.
While the data evaluated here are limited, it appears that the use of a GM/CCL composite
barrier system may not outperform the use of a single GM barrier as the primary liner in
either wet or dry sites. Landfills B and T do not perform better than Landfills D and F, while
Landfills J, R, and M do not outperform Landfill Y.
The following site-specific observations are offered, which emphasize a number of important
limitations on the use of EA as a measure of liner performance:
¦ Rainfall and the depth of groundwater are at/near ground level in wet climates (such as
that found at Landfill sites B and T) can be factors contributing to the low apparent liner
efficiencies at those sites. While the hydraulic connection between the secondary liner
and groundwater is not confirmed there is a potential for groundwater to intrusion into
the LDS. Furthermore, precipitation, especially after large events, may infiltrate into
anchor trenches or defects/appurtenances in the final cover system and migrate to the
LCRS or LDS.
¦ Low leachate generation volume at arid climate landfills (such as Landfill J) can be low,
LCRS (<0.001 gpad) and LDS (<0.1 gpad). Thus small variability in leachate volume
measurement could translate to an extreme calculated efficiency. This may explain why
the apparent liner efficiencies are mostly below zero site J.
Thus, it is important to take into account site-specific consideration when evaluating liner
efficiency. Below are some examples of how site-specific conditions were used to explain
efficiencies calculated for some of these sites:
¦ Landfills R, Y, and M are located in arid climates with little yearly rainfall, resulting in
very low LCRS flows, negligible LDS flows, and high apparent liner efficiencies.
¦ Landfill F is an industrial site located in NE region with high average annual precipitation
as both rainfall and snowfall. Minimum and maximum EA values for this site represent a
temporal improvement: liner efficiency increased from 59% at closure to 94% five years
72
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
later. This suggests that EA may not be an effective measure of liner performance in
early years while excess residual water in the landfill from the construction and
operational phases is working its way out via the LCRS.
From the above, site-specific climatic, construction, and operational factors clearly have an
important influence over calculated values for EA. This level of subjectivity provides a high
level of uncertainty when using EA. A method to improve estimates of liner efficiency by
correcting for relative LDS and LCRS chemistry data is discussed in Section 5.3.
5.2 Modeled Hydraulic Efficiency of the Primary Liner
5.2.1 Methodology
Expected post-closure LCRS and LDS flow rates for each of the 13 different design
configurations were calculated using the HELP Model based on default inputs considered
representative of pre-closure conditions (intermediate cover soil only) and post-closure
conditions (final cover). The methods used to calculate these flow rates were described
previously in Section 4.2.1 as HELP Model Scenario Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. Results were
previously summarized in Table 4-1 (qualifications on the modeling approach and validity of
output values were provided with the table; these are also relevant in the context of the use
of these values here). Based on these values, a comparison of actual LCRS and LDS flow
rates with modeled predictions can be made, which will facilitate critical assessment of the
model's adequacy in predicting long-term leachate generation and, by association, leakage
through the primary liner.
Similar to the method used for calculating apparent liner efficiency, EA (Section 5.1.1), the
hydraulic efficiency of the primary liner system can be calculated as (Equation 5-2):
Where EM is the modeled liner efficiency calculated based on relative flow in the LDS and
LCRS as predicted by the HELP Model.
5.2.2 Results
Using the methodology above, EM was calculated for the 13 unique design configurations
reflecting different cover, primary liner, and LCRS/LDS drainage layers used in the
construction of the 45 case study units (Table 5-4). Some qualifications regarding results
presented in the table include:
Design Configuration No. 4: The cover system for J-l to J-3 is integrated with a liner for
an overfill MSW landfill covering the entire surface area of the three units. Modeling
LDS Flow Rate from HELP
LCRS Flow Rate from HELP
(5-2)
73
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
infiltration through the final cover is not meaningful under these conditions, as the only
source of infiltrating water is leakage through the overlying liner, which is negligible (the
HELP Model analysis would show zero flow in the LCRS and LDS). Model results under
intermediate cover suggest very high levels of hydraulic performance at this dry site.
Design Configuration Nos. 9, 10, and 12: HELP Model output for Y-l to Y-3 and D-l
shows higher flow in the LDS than LCRS after the final cover is placed, although it is
important to note that flow values in both drainage layers are extremely low in all three
units. This result is possibly due to a boundary constraint in the model in that the
preferential flow path for a very small thickness of liquid above the GM in the LCRS layer
is vertical (down through a hypothetical defect in the GM) rather than lateral. There is
no head buildup over the primary liner as shown in HELP Model output files; therefore,
the hydraulic performance of the primary liner is likely to be higher but cannot be
calculated for post-closure conditions using the HELP Model method. The apparently low
Em values for these three units under conditions of intermediate cover should also be
treated with caution given the limitations of the HELP Model described here.
Design Configuration No. 11: Landfill M is located in an arid region and has a composite
primary liner resulting in minimal flow in LDS when compared with LCRS. The study unit
M-l is not technically closed, but has been filled to final grades and is inactive under the
intermediate cover soil. As such, hydraulic performance of the primary liner under
intermediate cover represents current conditions.
Table 5-4. Modeled liner efficiency, Em
o
o
w
Average annual flow from HELP Model
(gpad)
Modeled liner efficiency,
Em
3, D
8
Climate
condition
C
o.
<
Intermediate cover
Final cover
D
CD
31
d'
-t ro
a °
o
D
3
2
LCRS
LDS
LCRS
LDS
(note 2)
rmediate
Dover
Si.
o
o
<
(D
-*
1
Wet
B-1 to B-6
1243
5E-01
5
4E-03
99.96%
99.93%
2
Wet
B-7 to B-8
1243
5E-01
5E-01
4E-04
99.96%
99.92%
3
Wet
T-1 to T-18
1319
8E-02
5E-05
2E-07
99.99%
99.58%
4
(note 1)
Dry
J-1 to J-3
0.2
4E-05
0
0
99.98%
Not Calculated
5
Dry
R-1
38
2E-03
1E-04
1E-05
99.99%
93.0%
6
Dry
R-2 to R-5
38
2E-05
1E-04
8E-07
100%
99.4%
7
Cusp
P-1
122
1E-02
3E-04
5E-06
99.99%
98.38%
8
Cusp
P-2 to P-4
122
1E-02
2E-04
4E-06
99.99%
97.54%
9
Dry
Y-1
5
9E-01
8E-07
1E-05
82.65%
Not Calculated
10
Dry
Y-2 to Y-3
5
9E-01
8E-07
1E-05
82.65%
Not Calculated
11
(note 3)
Dry
M-1
129
2E-04
22
2E-05
100%
Not Calculated
12
Wet
D-1 to D-2
504
15
5E-05
3E-04
96.94%
Not Calculated
13
Wet
F-1
559
16
2E-03
3E-04
97.16%
84.12%
Notes:
1). Landfill J has an overfill MSW landfill.
2). Landfills Y and D have more flow in the LDS than LCRS after the final cover is placed due to a boundary
constraint in the HELP Model, see discussion below.
3). Final cover has not yet been placed at Landfill M.
74
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Ignoring the HELP Model's limitations at accurately predicting LCRS and LDS flows at
Landfills Y and D as discussed above, calculated values for EM exceed 99.9% at all but one
other site (Landfill F, with calculated EM value of 97.2%).
5.3 Correcting Apparent Liner Efficiency Calculations
5.3.1 Technical Basis
Leachate chemistry data can be used to quantify the portion of liquids comprising total LDS
flow that should be attributable to primary liner leakage as opposed to other sources (e.g.,
groundwater infiltration) by demonstrating a lack of hydraulic connection between the LCRS
and LDS. This is done by distinguishing liquids with similar chemical signatures. The
rationale is simple: if leakage through the primary liner is the main source of liquids in the
LDS, then the concentrations of key indicator parameters in LDS liquids should be
comparable to the concentrations of the same constituents in LCRS leachate for all samples
collected concurrently in the two drainage layers. If the concentrations in LDS liquids are
significantly lower than the corresponding concentrations in LCRS leachate, however, a lack
of hydraulic connection can be inferred (i.e., dilution of LDS liquids from a non-leachate
source is occurring). As discussed in more detail below, the preferred indicator parameter
for comparing LCRS and LDS chemistry is chloride, a conservative (unattenuated) anion that
does not take part in biochemical reactions and is typically found in elevated concentrations
in leachate (Rowe, 1991). Comparison of LDS and LCRS chloride concentrations assumes
that advective flow through pinhole defects in the GM is the only mechanism by which
leakage through the primary liner occurs (i.e., diffusion through the GM, which is a potential
transfer mechanism for volatile compounds, can be ignored). Potential adsorption of
chloride to solids in the CCL or GCL component of a composite primary liner is also ignored,
which is reasonable given the weak ion affinity of chloride and typically has low attenuation
in clays (Pansu and Gautheyrou, 2006). Where chloride data are available, the apparent
liner efficiencies calculated in Section 5.1 can be corrected. The main goal of this section is
to demonstrate the presence (or lack thereof) of a hydraulic connection between the LCRS
and LDS within a particular landfill unit.
Concentrations of Key Indicator Constituents
To initiate an evaluation of whether primary liner leakage had contributed to the observed
LDS flows, the concentrations of key chemical constituents in LCRS and LDS flows were
investigated. This included the four major cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and
sodium) and three major anions (alkalinity, chloride, and sulfate), which typically are
enough to calculate the ionic charge balance in environmental effluents, although in some
75
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
regions nitrate and ammonium can be important (Andersen et al., 2014). Comparing the
ionic composition of liquids from the LCRS and LDS allows the chemical signatures of the
samples to be easily differentiated. There are several ways in which to graphically portray
the ionic composition of liquid samples, including Stiff, Piper, or Schoeller diagrams or
simple bivariate plots (Bonaparte et al., 2011). Even simpler, anion/cation ratios (e.g.,
chloride/sodium or chloride/calcium) can be calculated. If the shapes of these diagrams or
values of ratios differ significantly between LDS liquids and LCRS leachate, this provides a
strong indication that the source of liquids may be different. The chemistry database for this
study was very limited as only a few of the parameters were available concurrently in both
the LCRS and LDS at each site. Alkalinity has not been analyzed at any site. Therefore, Stiff
or piper plots could not be constructed, leaving Schoeller diagrams or bivariate plots as an
alternative method of portraying the data. As an example of this approach, chloride and
magnesium concentrations in the LCRS and LDS for four study units at Landfill T were
plotted (Figure 5-1).
1.E+05
o 1.E+04
1.E+Q3
1.E+02
1.E+02
1.E+03 1.E+04
Chloride concentration (mg/L)
• LCRS oLDS
1.E+05
Figure 5-1. Chloride-magnesium bivariate plot, Landfill T
The bivariate plot of the data for Landfill T in Figure 5-1 shows that the chemical fingerprint
of the LDS is significantly different from the LCRS. Concentrations of both analytes are two
orders of magnitude different in all data. As another example, the chloride, sulfate, sodium,
calcium, magnesium, and potassium concentrations for the LCRS, LDS, and vadose zone
were available for three units at Landfill J. Simplified Schoeller diagrams were constructed
to represent the ionic composition of liquids in these media (Figure 5-2).
76
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Sulfate Calcium Magnesium Potassium
- LCRS LDS VADOSE
Sodium
1.E+07
1.E+06
1,E+Q5
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
_1.E+07
11.E+06
g 1.E+05
o
C 1.E+04
o
™ 1.E+03
0
1 1.E+02
° 1.E+01
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
Chloride
Figure 5-2. Ionic composition of liquids in the LCRS, LDS, and
vadose zone, Landfill J
In all three units at Landfill J, the shape of the diagram for the LDS was much closer to the
vadose zone than the LCRS, indicating that the chemical composition of liquids in the LDS
are more closely related to data for the vadose zone than to leachate. The LCRS data exhibit
significant variability between years, particularly in J-2, while the LDS and vadose zone data
77
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
are very consistent over time. The two anions (chloride and sulfate) showed the most
significant contrast between the LCRS and LDS datasets.
Selection of Chloride as Indicator Parameter
Examination of the ionic composition of liquids in the LCRS and LDS at Landfills T and J
presented above appears to support the use of chloride as the indicator parameter with the
most significant (generally, orders of magnitude) distinction between these two drainage
layers. Chloride is a conservative ion that does not take part in biochemical reactions and is
not physically altered by the leaching process in landfills (Rowe, 1991). Therefore, chloride
concentrations should be fairly similar between the LCRS and the LDS if the source of liquids
in the LDS is due to primary liner leakage and not dilution from groundwater or other
sources.
To further validate the selection of chloride as a useful indicator parameter with which to
correct liner efficiency calculations, all available chloride data from the case study units
were plotted (Figure 5-3). Chloride concentrations in the LCRS range from 53 to 34,320
mg/L with a median value of 9,290 mg/L, whereas concentrations in the LDS range from 2
to 3,000 mg/L with a median value of 22 mg/L. As shown in the figure, the significant
contrast in chloride concentrations between the LCRS and LDS is relatively constant
(especially once the first few years of post-closure have been completed), confirming
selection of chloride as the preferred indicator parameter with which to review the hydraulic
performance of the primary liner.
1.E+05
O)
£
c
o
c
;g
_c
O
1.E+01
1.E+00
w
A a a A AA^AAAAaRaX
AA*aa£AAA£AA£
• • £ a A
A A A A
A A
A A
10 15 20
Post Closure Year
•LCRS ALDS
25
30
Figure 5-3. Comparison of chloride concentrations in LCRS and LDS liquids
78
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
5.3.2 Methodology
The LCRS and LDS chemical constituent data can be compared to estimate the portion of
liquids in LDS which could be attributed to leakage through the primary liner only and
separate this from liquids present in LDS due to construction water, consolidation of the
primary liner, compression of drainage layer materials, and infiltration of groundwater (see
Figure 1-2 and discussion in Section 1.5.3). For this comparison, chloride concentrations in
the LCRS and LDS are used per the previous discussion.
A correction factor (CF) is first calculated as the ratio of chloride concentrations in the LDS
and LCRS at a given time. CF is a dimensionless parameter as shown in Equation 5-3:
Chloride Concentration in LCRS
Equation 5-3 assumes that only leachate (i.e., LCRS liquids) contributes to the chloride
concentration in the LDS and that chloride is not adsorbed to soils in the primary liner or
drainage layers, or otherwise attenuated as it passes through the primary liner. Any
contribution of chloride from other sources (e.g., brackish groundwater) would serve to
increase the numerator in the expression and thus increase the magnitude of the CF value
computed.
Using CF, a corrected liner efficiency, EC, can be derived using the simple expression in
Equation 5-4:
Note that chloride concentration and flow data must be temporally coincidental in the LCRS
and LDS in order to calculate a corrected liner efficiency using Equation 5-4.
5.3.3 Results
The current leachate chemistry database has limited temporally coincidental chloride data in
the LCRS and LDS. Overall, concurrent data are available for only 17 units at three sites
(Landfills B, T, and J). A correction factor (CF) and corrected liner efficiency (EC) was
calculated for each of these units as summarized in Table 5-5. The EC values shown in the
table are average values for each unit, based on the number of data points indicated. The
following observations are offered with respect to the performance of the primary liner
based on the information shown in the table:
CF values ranged over three orders of magnitude from 0.0004 (B-8) to 0.4 (J-l). Values
less than 1.0 indicate that only a portion of the total flow in LDS should be attributed to
Chloride Concentration in LDS
CF =
(5-3)
LCRS Flow Rate
(5-4)
79
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
primary liner leakage. This was the case for all 17 study units, which suggests that
values of Ea at other sites could be correctable if applicable LCRS and LDS chemistry
data were available. This represents a shortcoming on the part of site operators at
collecting data that could help understand long-term liner performance.
Both Landfills B and T receive above-average rainfall (>25 inches) each year and the top
of groundwater is at/near the ground surface, which increases the probability of
infiltration into the LDS from groundwater. This is borne out in the data: based on the
CF calculations, only 1 to 3% of the liquids volume in the LDS is attributable to leachate
leakage at Landfill T, and only 0.04 to 0.05% of the volume in the LDS is attributable to
leachate leakage at Landfill B. Based on this, the corrected liner efficiency could be
greater than 99% for all units at Landfill B and four of the six units at Landfill T.
At Landfill J, concentrations of chloride in the LDS are similar to those in the vadose
zone (Figure 5-2). The site is located in an arid climate with little to no LCRS flow. In
most cases, the LDS flow volumes, while minor, exceeded LCRS flow volumes. Based on
the CF value, it appears that 20 to 40% of the total LDS flow may be attributable to
primary liner leakage at this site.
There appears to be a positive correlation between the number of data available to
calculate Ec and the magnitude of the value calculated. In general, more data mean
higher corrections, which should incentivize site operators to collect these data.
Table 5-5. Corrected liner efficiency
, Ec
Design
configuration
Climate
condition
Primary liner
system
Study
unit
Correction
factor
(CF)
Corrected
liner
efficiency
(Ec)
Number of
concurrent
data
available
B-1
0.002
99.93%
12
B-2
0.005
99.89%
16
1
Wet
80-mil HDPE GM
B-3
0.002
99.97%
16
over 60-in CCL
B-4
0.004
99.76%
14
B-5
0.003
99.49%
16
B-6
0.001
99.98%
16
2
Wet
80-mil HDPE GM
B-7
0.004
99.87%
7
over 60-in CCL
B-8
0.0004
99.99%
12
T-1
0.01
91.99%
5
T-2
0.02
99.50%
7
3
Wet
60-mil HDPE GM
T-3
0.01
99.42%
8
over 36-in CCL
T-5
0.03
99.08%
8
T-6
0.03
98.47%
13
T-7
0.03
99.57%
17
J-1
0.4
71.79%
3
4
Dry
60-mil HDPE GM
over 18-in CCL
J-2
0.2
79.03%
2
J-3
0.3
71.79%
1
80
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
6. ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE QUALITY DATA
6.1 Overview
Chapter 6 presents an analysis of leachate chemistry data as background for understanding
long-term leachate management at closed Subtitle C landfills. As discussed in Section 1.5.4,
leachate chemistry from hazardous waste (HW) landfills has received relatively little scrutiny
in recent years, although some research at a number of landfills for containment of mixed
LLRW and HW from the nine facilities included in this study, this may be due in large part to
a paucity of data, particularly with regard to the chemistry of liquids recovered from LDS
drainage layers. This is primarily due to two reasons:
Leachate chemistry data are most commonly collected semi-annually or annually at each
site, thereby limiting the overall size of the dataset available for analysis at each site;
and
¦ The leachate constituent list monitored is dependent on site-specific waste history and
local practices for leachate treatment and disposal, thereby limiting the number of
similar constituents for which data were available at all sites.
Intra-unit comparisons (i.e., comparison of leachate chemistry between the LCRS and LDS
in the same unit) are dependent on the same constituents being monitored on the same
date, while inter-unit comparisons (i.e., comparison of leachate chemistry between different
units and sites) are dependent on the similarity of the leachate analyte lists.
6.1.1 Data A vailability
The availability of leachate constituents of interest to this study in the LCRS and LDS at
each case study landfill is shown in Table II-7 in Appendix II. The leachate chemistry
database is included in full in Appendix IV. Data for 30 analytes were sought, where
available; selection of these analytes mirrored that of EPA (2002). In summary:
Within the available leachate chemistry dataset, the LCRS has been sampled far more
frequently than the corresponding LDS;
¦ The highest levels of data availability are at wet Landfills B and T and dry Landfill J;
¦ Very limited leachate chemistry data are available at non-arid Landfills P and F;
No data are available for dry Landfill Y due to low liquid volumes and difficulty in sample
collection in both the LCRS and LDS; and
Monitoring of leachate chemistry in the LDS is not performed at dry Landfills R and M
because liquid volumes are too small for samples to be collected.
In the remainder of this chapter, available leachate chemistry data are evaluated with a
focus on estimating the time that may be required for the concentrations of constituents of
interest to decrease to asymptotic levels during PCC.
81
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
6.1.2 Temporal Analysis of Leachate Quality
The chemical composition of MSW landfill leachate has been well studied, with
comprehensive data collected over multiple years from several sites as summarized by
Kjeldsen et al. (2002), SWANA (2004), and Oman and Junestedt (2008). Longitudinal
studies of MSW leachate data (e.g., Gibbons et al., 2014) have shown that concentrations of
dissolved organic matter indicators tend to decrease rapidly after landfill closure. Statom et
al. (2004) evaluated over 12 years of MSW leachate data from a site in Florida and found an
overall declining trend in major ion chemistry, with data collected after closure capping
showing an overall reduction in the amplitude of short-term variations. Conservative
inorganic ions such as chloride, however, are released in leachate over time by flushing.
Therefore, limiting infiltration post-closure curtails their removal in leachate (Rowe, 1991).
Several processes affect long-term concentration trends for VOCs, including volatilization to
gas (Kjeldsen and Christensen, 2001), diffusive loss through cover geosynthetics (Foose et
al., 2002), sorption to or desorption from waste, or leaching and degradation (Lowry et al.,
2008).
The fate of trace metals under various landfill operating and internal biochemical conditions
has been extensively researched in MSW landfills (Gibbons et al., 2014). As a landfill ages,
pH tends to increase causing a decrease in metal solubility. Thus, although accumulation of
humic acid concentrations over the long term may be expected to mobilize metals, elevated
metals concentrations are not typically observed in leachate from well decomposed waste
(Barlaz et al., 2002), in part because trace metals are strongly attenuated by in situ
sorption and precipitation (Christensen et al., 2001). This is consistent with reviews of
leachate data from multiple landfills (e.g., Kjeldsen et al., 2002; SWANA, 2004) which
generally reported trace metal concentrations at or below federal maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs).
Relative to the well-documented leaching behavior within MSW landfills as summarized
above, hazardous waste materials may not degrade, or only degrade very slowly, under
landfill conditions. While leachate chemistry at HW landfills may share many of the trends of
MSW leachate, this has received relatively little scrutiny in recent years. Tian (2015)
analyzed leachate composition from four landfills constructed for containment of mixed
LLRW and HW in the United States and compared concentrations of dissolved organic matter
(measured as TOC), inorganic macro-components (including major cations and anions), and
trace metals to values reported in the literature for MSW leachate, concluding that:
¦ Dissolved organic matter concentrations were insignificant when compared with MSW
leachate;
82
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
¦ Concentrations of inorganic macro-components were broadly similar to MSW leachate;
¦ Trace metal concentrations were relatively lower than in MSW leachate and tended to
exhibit steady or slightly increasing trends.
If current expectations for the time required for the concentrations of constituents of
concern in leachate to decrease to asymptotic levels or meet regulatory standards such as
MCLs are rooted in observations from MSW landfills, this may not be appropriate. Therefore,
an important component of this study is to review concentration trends in leachate from
Subtitle C landfills.
6.1.3 Leachate Chemistry Constituents
Consistent with EPA (2002), 30 chemical parameters were selected to represent leachate
constituents of interest for this study. These include the following categories of analytes:
¦ Water quality indicator parameters (pH, specific conductance, TDS);
Macro indicators of dissolved organic matter (COD, BODs, and TOC);
Major inorganic cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium) and anions
(alkalinity, chloride, and sulfate);
¦ Trace metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel); and
¦ Trace VOCs frequently observed to be present in landfill leachate, represented by a
group of 12 aromatic hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents (and their degradation
products).
The minimum, maximum, median, and arithmetic mean values are summarized for LCRS
and LDS liquids in Tables 6-1 and 6-2, respectively. The number of reporting landfills and
units is also listed, along with the total number of data and non-detect (ND) values. Finally,
MCLs for public drinking water from 40 CFR Part 141 are also listed in the table, if available,
for specific analytes. The use of MCLs as comparison values is justified by the fact that
potential leachate releases would most likely occur to groundwater rather than surface
water or other environmental media.
83
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Table 6-1. Summary o
LCRS leachate concentrations in case study landfills
Concentration
Data availability
Chemical
constituents
Units
s
d'
s
fi)
X
2
a>
2
(D
° Q_
fl>
"S c
O D
O
fi)
¦Z.
D
a
MCL<2>
3
c
3
c
fi)'
fi)
D
5 =a
3 =
3. s
5- tfl
o.
a
fi)
3
3
(Q (/)
CO
r+
fi)
-
pH
s.u.
5.6
12.2
7.7
8.3
5
17
97
0
6.5-8.5'31
Specific conductance
|jmhos/cm
1,560
89,800
28,833
31,674
5
12
64
0
-
Total dissolved solids
mg/L
8,207
20,500
14,353
14,353
1
2
2
0
500(3)
COD(5)
mg/L
-
BOD(5)
mg/L
-
TOC(5)
mg/L
337
10,579
3,803
4,641
2
9
48
0
-
Alkalinity
mg/L
-
Chloride
mg/L
53
34,320
9,290
9,865
5
20
249
2
250(3)
Sulfate
mg/L
20
10,488
4,850
4,740
3
8
61
0
250
Calcium
mg/L
0.4
23,467
390
1,668
5
20
227
2
-
Magnesium
mg/L
0.6
2,100
68
354
4
14
179
8
-
Sodium
mg/L
6
25,760
5,064
6,552
3
9
80
0
-
Potassium
mg/L
17
8,700
795
1,860
2
5
52
0
-
Arsenic
Mg/L
0.01
234,333
223
11,951
7
25
265
9
10
Cadmium
Mg/L
0.001
26,000
6
318
5
19
212
51
5
Chromium
mq/l
0.01
4,750
130
283
5
21
196
18
100
Lead
Mg/L
0.001
1,790
33
87
6
23
226
75
15(4»
Nickel
Mg/L
0.13
30,000
509
1,295
6
19
123
13
-
Benzene
Mg/L
0.0002
48,600
10
537
6
21
271
69
5
1,1-Dichloroethane
Mg/L
0.0015
474,000
8
6,319
5
20
270
61
-
1,2-Dichloroethane
Mg/L
0.0003
104,000
9
1,573
5
19
253
115
5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Mg/L
0.0002
68,300
2
1,164
2
10
174
80
70
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Mg/L
0.0004
2,440
7
66
5
19
263
135
100
Ethyl benzene
Mg/L
0.002
1.7E+06
15
19,361
5
20
271
55
700
Methylene chloride
Mg/L
0.002
4.3E+06
20
81,928
5
20
254
88
-
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Mg/L
0.0002
739,000
6
11,605
5
20
265
125
200
Trichloroethylene
Mg/L
0.0003
671,000
6
10,404
5
21
263
99
5
Toluene
Mg/L
0.002
8.7E+06
43
94,022
5
19
263
43
1,000
Vinyl chloride
Mg/L
0.0001
150,900
10
2,548
5
20
266
112
2
Xylenes (total)
Mg/L
0.002
5.7E+06
36
56,998
4
14
222
27
10,000
Notes:
1). ND = non-detect (values reported between the method detection limit and reporting limit).
2). MCL = Maximum contaminant level per 40 CFR Part 141.
3). SMCL = secondary maximum contaminant level.
4). Action level required if 10% of the water exceeded 15 |jg/L.
5). COD = chemical oxygen demand, BOD = biochemical oxygen demand, TOC = total organic carbon.
84
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Table 6-2. Summary of LPS liquids concentrations in case study landfills
Concentration
Data availability
Chemical
constituents
Units
s
d'
s
fi)
X
2
a>
2
(D
° Q.
(D
"S C
O D
O
fi)
¦Z.
D
a
MCL'2'
3
c
3
c
fi)'
fi)
D
5 §i
3 =
a. s
=;¦ tfl
o.
&)
&)
3
3
(Q (/)
CO
r+
fi)
—
pH
s.u.
6.5
8.3
7.2
7.2
4
17
129
0
6.5-8.5(3)
Specific conductance
|jmhos/cm
1,391
27,600
6,630
8,277
4
12
105
0
-
Total dissolved solids
mg/L
79
620
150
179
1
5
15
0
500(3)
COD(5)
mg/L
-
B0D(5)
mg/L
-
TOC(5)
mg/L
3
63
8
13
3
12
64
0
-
Alkalinity
mg/L
-
Chloride
mg/L
2
3,000
22
286
3
17
251
0
250(3)
Sulfate
mg/L
134
10,000
5,100
4,642
2
6
58
0
250
Calcium
mg/L
110
3,048
400
713
3
10
98
0
-
Magnesium
mg/L
310
1,800
1,000
1,031
2
3
48
0
-
Sodium
mg/L
13
667
37
178
2
7
76
0
-
Potassium
mg/L
550
3,200
1,600
1,650
1
3
48
0
-
Arsenic
MQ/L
2.5
773
11
34
5
17
128
30
10
Cadmium
MQ/L
0.5
15
3
4
2
9
84
4
5
Chromium
MQ/L
9
190
17
36
2
13
65
28
100
Lead
MQ/L
3
897
9
27
4
16
115
24
15(4)
Nickel
MQ/L
6
1,200
110
151
3
11
89
37
-
Benzene
MQ/L
0.0002
208
1
5
4
18
327
141
5
1,1-Dichloroethane
MQ/L
0.0003
355
4
18
3
18
327
104
-
1,2-Dichloroethane
MQ/L
0.0003
750
1
34
3
17
315
135
5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
MQ/L
0.0002
421
0.2
28
1
9
169
66
70
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
MQ/L
0.2
100
2
8
3
18
286
153
100
Ethyl benzene
MQ/L
0.002
306
2
8
3
18
327
201
700
Methylene chloride
MQ/L
0.002
176
2
5
3
17
315
139
-
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
MQ/L
0.0002
162
1
6
2
18
327
210
200
Trichloroethylene
MQ/L
0.0003
81
1
11
3
18
327
143
5
Toluene
MQ/L
0.002
255
2
6
3
16
318
145
1,000
Vinyl chloride
MQ/L
0.0001
4,948
1
68
3
18
328
151
2
Xylenes (total)
MQ/L
0.002
100
2
9
2
11
278
175
10,000
Notes:
1). ND = non-detect (values reported between method detection limit and reporting limit).
2). MCL = Maximum contaminant level per 40 CFR Part 141.
3). SMCL = secondary maximum contaminant level.
4). Action level required if 10% of the water exceeded 15 |jg/L.
5). COD = chemical oxygen demand, BOD = biochemical oxygen demand, TOC = total organic carbon.
As shown in the tables, there is significant variability in the data for many constituents,
particularly in the LCRS where differences between maximum and minimum observed
values often span six or more orders of magnitude for cations/anions, trace metals, and
85
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
VOCs. For this reason, the median is considered more representative of overall leachate
quality in both the LCRS and LDS than the mean, which is more sensitive to one or two
significant outliers. The general water quality characteristics of liquids from the LCRS and
LDS drainage layers are also significantly different, again by multiple orders of magnitude in
many cases. This strengthens previous findings in Chapter 5 that additional sources of
liquids rather than simply primary liner leakage are contributing to the liquid volumes
measured in the LDS.
In the remainder of this section, select leachate data representing the five major categories
of analytes of interest are reviewed. The purpose is twofold:
Estimate when concentration trends may be asymptotic, and
Compare concentrations to limit values (drinking water MCL or secondary MCL [SMCL]),
where available.
In the latter regard, the focus of the comparison is LCRS concentrations as this represents
characteristics of source leachate in the landfill. However, it is important to recognize that
any potential leakage from the landfill to the subsurface will occur via the LDS since this
underlies the LCRS across the base and side slope areas of the landfill. As such, LDS
concentrations are of more significance than LCRS concentrations in an environmental
setting, assuming the relationship between LCRS and LDS concentrations is understood and
remains stable over the long term. In addition, rather than directly comparing leachate
concentrations to a limit value, a universal dilution/attenuation factor (DAF) of 20 was
applied to represent expected concentrations at the point of compliance (e.g., monitoring
well) rather than in source leachate. This is consistent with the default DAF specified in the
EPA's Soil Screening Guidance (EPA, 1996). As a potential release of leachate moves
through soil and groundwater, constituent concentrations are attenuated by sorption,
degradation, and dilution in clean groundwater. A DAF of 20 is deemed appropriate for
contaminant sources up to 0.5 acres in size. While landfills are generally much larger than
that, the potential release points (i.e., potential pinhole defects and tears in liner GM
barriers) are collectively much smaller than 0.5 acres. As such, this approach is appropriate
for the purposes of this portion of the study, which is to investigate whether leachate
concentrations are exhibiting downward trends and/or reaching asymptotic levels that meet
applicable limit values. Nevertheless, it is important to note that assigning this default DAF
in this study does not imply any endorsement from EPA with regard to the universal
application of this approach to assessing long-term leachate management and groundwater
monitoring at Subtitle C landfills.
86
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
In keeping with the above-stated goals, the focus of the discussion presented in the next
subsections is on general trends in the composite concentration data rather than absolute
values for individual units at specific times. Therefore, the data selected for presentation are
not identified by individual units, although the colors and shapes of data points direct the
reader to commonality amongst datasets with regard to the represented landfill and
drainage layer, respectively.4F5 Insufficient flow data and waste manifests were available to
accurately review leachate chemistry in terms of contaminant removal loads (e.g.,
cumulative mass of contaminant removal per ton of waste in place), although this would
potentially have been advantageous in terms of normalizing the data between the different
study units, climatic conditions, and cover/liner design configurations. No statistical analysis
was conducted to eliminate outliers, test the significance of trends, assign correlation
coefficients to trending data, or calculation of confidence limits. No correlations between
leachate chemistry and flow rates were investigated, so it is not known whether the goal of
excluding liquids from RCRA landfills in the post-closure period contributes to chemical
changes or whether cover design and performance has a direct effect on leachate quality.
Interested readers can review specific leachate flow and chemical characteristics from the
blinded raw data provided in Appendices II and III.
6.1.4 Wa ter Quality Indica tors
pH
Leachate pH in the LCRS varied from 5.6 to 12.2 s.u., with a median value of 7.7 s.u.
Temporal variability in the data is plotted in Figure 6-1. For the most part, readings are
within the 6.5 to 8.5 s.u. the range specified under 40 CFR Part 141. If data from the first 5
years of PCC from Landfill T are ignored, the pH range would narrow further to 6.5 to 10
s.u, which is broadly consistent with the range of 7.6 to 9.4 s.u. and average 8.2 s.u.
reported for HW landfills by EPA (2002). Temporal trends in pH appear stable based on the
data plotted for each facility.
Most readings, particularly over the longer term, are above neutrality, which suggests that
leachate at Subtitle C sites should be expected to be in the alkaline range. One possible
explanation for the high pH values could be the relatively widespread practice of solidifying
and stabilizing hazardous waste with cement, fly ash, or kiln dust prior to landfill disposal.
5 In all plots presented in Section 6.2, circular markers (•) are used to present LCRS data while
triangular markers (A) present LDS data. Markers are color-coded with a unique color representing
each case study landfill, with colors grouped between geographic regions (SE = green, NE = blue, SW
= red/pink, NW = orange/yellow).
87
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Based on discussions with operators at case study sites, it appears that such stabilizers may
occupy as much as 40% of the total airspace volume. The potential implications of an
alkaline medium on limiting trace metals mobilization from the waste are important, as
discussed in Section 6.2.4.
zt
JW-
X
Q_
14
13
12 #
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
8 • • •
S •
SE B-1 to B-6 H—
SW P-1 to P-4 R-1 to R-5 J-1 to J-3
NW Y-1 toY-3 M-1
NE I F-1
• LCRS A LDS
uiiji.iiii.i't!;!:
10 15
Post Closure Year
20
25
30
Figure 6-1. Temporal variability in pH
Specific Conductance
The specific conductance (or conductivity) of a solution is a measure of its ability to carry an
electric current, which provides an estimate of the dissolved solids in solution. The mean
conductivity of LCRS leachate samples from the case study units was about 31,700
pmhos/cm, with a median of 28,800 pmhos/cm, which is higher than the mean of about
22,100 pmhos/cm from three HW sites reported by EPA (2002) and substantially higher
than the mean of 250 to 3,500 pmhos/cm reported for MSW landfills by Oman and
Junestadt (2008). Values in the LCRS and LDS are of the same order of magnitude (Figure
6-2).
Overall, conductivity measurements are highly variable with no evidence of asymptotic
behavior. A number of datasets (notably Landfill P) are exhibiting apparent upward trends
with conductivity values approaching 100,000 pmhos/cm.
88
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
100.000
E
c
E
ZL
*u
c
o
o
70,000
| 60,000
03
* »
50,000
40,000 +
30,000
• ~ •
o
03
w 20,000
10,000
0
•
o
•
•
•
4
A
•
4 A
•
•
*
2 a i;
A
ft >
•
0
A
AAA
ft
I
A *
r i A
A
t *
90,000
SE
B-1 to B-6
T-1 toT-18
SW
P-1 lo P-4 R-1 to R-5 J-1 (o J-3
¦-
NW
Y-1 to Y-3
M-1
80,000
NE
M
• LCRS ~ LDS
10 15
Post Closure Year
20
25
30
Figure 6-2. Temporal variability in specific conductance
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Limited TDS data were available for the study arid are not plotted, although it is expected
that TDS trends would correlate closely with specific conductance in which case no evidence
of declining or asymptotic behavior would be expected. TDS analysis was conducted on
samples from the LCRS at Landfill R and the LDS at Landfill B. LCRS concentrations for two
data points at Landfill R were 8,200 and 20,500 rng/L (mean 14,350 mg/L). Based on
applying a DAF of 20 to the SMCL limit value of 500 mg/L, the mean is above but consistent
with the modified benchmark of 10,000 mg/L. Overall concentrations in the LDS are one or
two orders of magnitude lower than the LCRS.
6.1.5 Dissolved Organic Matter
Dissolved organic matter (DOM) in leachate is composed of a variety of constituents that
are collectively expressed in terms of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical
oxygen demand (COD). A higher oxygen demand generally implies a higher organic loading,
even though other constituents such as ammonia and nitrogen also exert an oxygen
demand; therefore, COD and BOD are useful indicators of pollution potential posed to
receiving systems such as surface water bodies. BOD is generally considered as a measure
of biologically degradable organic materials and is measured as oxygen consumption over
five days, hence the suffix BODS often used in the annotation for this parameter. COD, on
the other hand, also includes recalcitrant compounds that are not easily biologically
89
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
degradable; as such, COD concentrations are generally substantially higher in leachate than
BOD concentrations. BOD and COD data are not collected at any case study site.
A measure of some of the constituents of DOM is provided by total organic carbon (TOC).
TOC has been analyzed on a handful of occasions in both the LCRS and LDS at Landfills P
and T. Values in Table 6-1 range from about 340 to 10,580 mg/L with a median
concentration of 3,800 mg/L, which compares reasonably close to the mean of about 1,620
mg/L reported for two HW sites by EPA (2002). Mean and median TOC concentrations in the
LDS are two to three orders of magnitude lower than in the LCRS. The maximum TOC
concentration in MSW leachate reported by Kjeldsen et al. (2002) was 29,000 mg/L.
In summary, DOM data do not appear to be routinely analyzed in leachate at Subtitle C
facilities. COD and BOD data were not reported for any HW landfill in the study by EPA
(2002). The limited data available for this study generally support the finding by Tian
(2015) that DOM concentrations are insignificant in HW leachate when compared with MSW
leachate (although this does not imply that DOM concentrations in HW leachate are
insignificant with respect to potential impacts to HHE). No MCL or SMCL is specified for any
constituents of DOM listed above. Overall, beyond complying with potential influent
limitations on COD/BOD imposed by off-site wastewater treatment facilities, it is assumed
that concentrations of DOM in leachate are of little interest to Subtitle C landfill operators.
6.1.6 Major Cations and Anions
With the exception of alkalinity, which is not analyzed at any case study landfill, data for the
other major cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium) and anions (chloride,
and sulfate) were available in both the LCRS and LDS at a number of case study sites. Given
the nature of HW, they are also expected to be present in significant concentrations in
leachate. Tian (2015) reported that concentrations of cation and anions in HW leachate are
broadly similar to MSW leachate. These parameters offer a meaningful opportunity to
estimate the time to reach asymptotic levels and/or MCL/SMCL limit values, which are
specified for sulfate (MCL = 250 mg/L) and chloride (SMCL = 250 mg/L). Using a DAF of 20,
as previously discussed, the modified benchmark for comparison of sulfate and chloride
concentrations to limit values is 5,000 mg/L.
Chloride
As presented in Table 6-1, leachate chloride concentrations ranged widely from about 50 to
34,320 mg/L, with similar mean and median concentrations of 9,870 mg/L and 9,290 mg/L,
respectively. This is higher than the range of 150 to 4,500 mg/L reported for MSW landfills
90
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
by Kjeldsen et al. (2002). The mean LCRS chloride concentration reported for two HW
landfills by EPA (2002) was 11,700 mg/L, which suggests that chloride concentrations have
remained fairly constant in HW leachate over the intervening period. These values exceed
the modified benchmark by a factor of about two. However, the temporal plot of LCRS
chloride data (Figure 6-3) indicates that many datasets exhibit no downward trend or are
even trending upwards, although several data points are below the modified benchmark
(shown as the dashed line in the figure). Overall, it cannot be concluded that LCRS chloride
concentrations should be expected to routinely meet the modified benchmark within 30
years of closure. However, LDS concentrations routinely exhibit stable trends and are all
below the modified benchmark (most LDS concentrations meet the SMCL directly).
cn
E
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
close to the modified benchmark of 5,000 mg/L. There is no evidence of trending to
asymptotic levels in either the LCRS or LDs dataset presented in the figure.
It is noted that the reasons why sulfate should persist at high concentrations in HW leachate
are not well understood. It is possible that the waste contains a sulfate source such as
gypsum-containing wallboard, although it is not known why significant quantities of this
material would be disposed of in an (expensive) Subtitle C landfill rather than an MSW or a
construction and demolition debris landfill facility. Sulfate would typically be reduced to
sulfide under the anaerobic conditions assumed to be prevalent in closed landfills (Plaza et
al., 2007). For example, Kjeldsen et al. (2002) reported sulfate concentrations in the range
of 10 to 420 mg/L in methanogenic leachate. It is speculated that HW landfills have much
lower DOM availability and thus reduced microbial activity relative to MSW landfills, and
redox conditions may not reach a sulfate-reducing environment (i.e., Eh below -250 mV).
15,000
12,500
10,000 -
I
Q>
g
® 7,500 J
co
i • A A
m ] 4 A A 0 •
5,000
2,500
AAA
A A
A
A A
•I.
~ !
i I * 1* * I
4 1 I 4 | I
• ••••
0 M t » t t ~
SE B-1 to B-6 T-1 ta T-18
SW P-1 to P-4 R-1 to R-5 J-1 to J-3
NW Y-1 to Y-3 M-1
NE I F-1
• LCRS ~ LDS
10 15
Post-Closure Year
20
25
30
Figure 6-4. Temporal variability in sulfate
Ionic Charge Balance
Schoeller diagrams (absent alkalinity) were constructed to concurrently illustrate the
concentrations of six cations and anions in LCRS leachate at Landfill R (Figure 6-5). Data
are collected separately for R-1 and as a combined sample for R-2 to R-5. The figure
provides a geochemical "fingerprint" of data collected over 13 years of PCC, with each line
on the two graphs representing a single year. With the exception of sodium, and to a lesser
extent chloride, the very close bunching of lines in the figure shows there has been no
92
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
significant change in overall geochemical makeup of leachate over the 13 years of PCC.
Although not discernable from these graphs, the variability in sodium, chloride, and sulfate
values represents concentration fluctuations that are apparently random on a year-on-year
basis rather than evidence of trend behavior.
600
R-1
500
400
300
200
u
100
0
600
R-2 to R-5
500
400
300
£ 200
100
0
Calcium
Chloride
Magnesium
Sodium
Sulfate
Potassium
Figure 6-5. Schoeller diagrams for cations and anions, Landfill R
6,1.7 Trace Metals
Trace metals selected for this study comprise arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and
nickel, These five analytes were selected based on their inclusion in EPA (2002). As shown
in Table 6-1, MCLs are specified for arsenic, cadmium, and chromium while a limit value for
lead is provided as an action level. Using a DAF of 20 as previously discussed, modified
93
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
benchmarks can be established for arsenic (200 |jg/L), cadmium (100 |jg/L), chromium
(2,000 |jg/L), and lead (300 |jg/L).
Review of data from EPA (2002), which reported on leachate quality from three HW landfills,
indicates that the mean concentration of all five trace metals in that study was similar
(within the same order of magnitude) but slightly lower than the corresponding values
reported in this study. This may reflect the reduced practice of co-disposing of MSW and
other non-hazardous wastes with HW in the intervening period, as MSW has been shown to
offer significant buffering capacity for adsorption of trace metals (Gibbons et al., 2014).
Overall, however, the long-term similarity in concentrations over a long period suggests
that trace metals in leachate may be relatively stable or increase only slightly over time.
This is consistent with findings reported by Tian (2015) that trace metal concentrations
were relatively lower in HW landfills than in MSW leachate and tended to exhibit steady or
slightly increasing trends. Concentrations of trace metals in the LDS are universally lower
than in the LCRS and typically meet limit values without the need for DAF modification.
Arsenic
Arsenic data are highly variable with no evidence of asymptotic behavior, particularly in the
LCRS dataset (Figure 6-6, note log scale on y-axis). The variability observed is not
dissimilar to the range of 10 to 1,000 |jg/L reported for MSW landfills (Oman and Junestadt,
2008). Although a significant proportion of the data are below the modified benchmark limit
of 200 |jg/L (indicated by the dashed line in the figure), the relatively high concentrations of
arsenic that persist long into the PCC period may be due to the relatively alkaline pH of
leachate, potentially attributable to the practice of solidifying and stabilizing HW with
cement, fly ash, or kiln dust prior to disposal. Arsenic is generally more mobile under
alkaline conditions (Smedley and Kinniburgh, 2002). Another observation that is evident
from inspection of the figure is the clustering of data according to sites. This suggests that
arsenic concentrations in HW leachates are highly site-specific and dependent on the cover
soils used and/or sources of waste placed in a particular unit.
94
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
1.E+06
1.E+05
_ 1.E+04
_j
O 1.E+03
c
0)
U)
< 1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
• • • #
A
i
i
O I 0
SE B-1 to B » IS
SW P-ltciP-S R-IIdR-5 J-1 to J-3
NW Y-1 to Y-3 M-1
NE I F-1
• LCRS ~ LDS
—r~
5
—i 1 1—
10 15 20
Post Closure Year
25
30
Figure 6-6. Temporal variability in arsenic
The marked difference between mean and median values of arsenic in the LCRS dataset
suggests that a few data are skewing the overall results; as such, the median value (220
pg/L in the LCRS, 11 pg/L in the LDS) is considered a better representation of leachate
quality. The median concentration of arsenic in LCRS leachate slightly exceeds the modified
benchmark.
Total Chromium
Chromium (as total chromium) data from the case studies are highly variable with
concentrations ranging over six orders of magnitude. The data do not suggest a trend to
asymptotic behavior (Figure 6-7), although almost all data are below the modified
benchmark limit of 2,000 pg/L indicated by the dashed line in the figure. The majority of
data are not dissimilar to the range of 20 to 1,500 pg/L reported for MSW landfills (Oman
and Junestadt, 2008).
The similarity between mean (282 pg/L) and median (130 pg/L) concentrations of
chromium in leachate suggests that the variability in data is extensive and not limited to a
few data points. The median value in the LCRS (130 pg/L) slightly exceeds direct
comparison to the MCL of 100 pg/L but easily meets the modified benchmark. The median
value in the LDS (17pg/L) is slightly above the MCL. The low concentrations of chromium in
95
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
\
leachate may be due to the relatively alkaline pH, which may be attributable to the practice
of solidifying and stabilizing HW with cement, fly ash, or kiln dust prior to disposal.
5,000
4,000
3,000
I SE B-1 to B-6 T-1 toT-10
SW F>-1 to P-4 R-1 lo R-5 J-1 to J-3
NW Y-1 toY-3 ¦
NE P-1
M-1
• LCRS ~ LDS
O)
ZL
E
1 2,000
o
1,000
o •
i
• • •
m • • »
lllitl
¦ ~
»i»i11 li 111 i»«I;1
0
10 15 20
Post Closure Year
25
30
Figure 6-7. Temporal variability in total chromium
Lead
Similar to chromium data, lead concentrations in leachate are highly variable with no
evidence of asymptotic behavior (Figure 6-8). However, with the notable exception of recent
data from Landfill B, most data are below the modified benchmark indicated by the dashed
line in the figure, Concentrations are generally below the upper-bound value of 5,000 pg/L
reported for MSW leachate by Oman and Junestadt (2008).
Like chromium, the similarity between mean and median values of lead in leachate suggests
that the variability in data is extensive. The median value in the LCRS (33 pg/L) slightly
exceeds direct comparison to the action level of 15 pg/L, while the median value in the LDS
(15 pg/L) equals the action level. Overall, this appears promising in terms of trace metal
concentrations in leachate from Subtitle C landfills meeting acceptable limit values within
the presumptive 30-year PCC period. The low concentrations of lead in leachate may again
be due to the relatively alkaline pH.
96
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
O)
"O
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0
SE B-1 to B-6
SW P-ltoP-4 R-1 to R-5 J-1toJ-3
NW Y-1 to Y-3 M-1
NE F-1
0
• LCRS ~ LDS
I » I »l
10 15 20
Post Closure Year
25
30
Figure 6-8. Temporal variability in lead
6.1.8 Volatile Organic Compounds
For this study, trace VOCs—represented by a group of 12 aromatic hydrocarbons and
chlorinated solvents (and degradation products) frequently observed to be present in landfill
leachate—were selected as constituents of interest. Of all the groups of chemical
constituents considered in this study, VOCs exhibited the most variability in concentration
between different landfill units, and sometimes between different sumps within the same
unit.
As indicated in Table 6-1, the variability among the LCRS data is significant for all VOCs,
with reported concentrations ranging over six or more orders of magnitude. LDS data
exhibit far less variability than LCRS, with similar median and mean concentrations for all
but one VOC (trichloroethylene). The wide discrepancy between median and mean values in
the LCRS suggests that the data are skewed by a few outliers; as such, the median is
considered to be more representative of "typical" concentrations. This is supported by
comparison of LCRS data to values for VOCs reported for MSW leachate. Median values of
all VOCs from this study fall within the concentration range reported by Kjeldsen et al.
(2002) and Oman and Junestadt (2008) but mean values significantly exceed the reported
range for MSW leachate.
97
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
MCLs are specified for all but two of the VOCs selected. The median value of VOCs in the
ICRS in this study only exceeds the MCL in four out of ten cases, although the four failing
parameters easily meet the DAF-adjusted benchmark. The median LDS concentration
directly meets the MCL in eight of the ten cases, the failures being trichloroethylene and
vinyl chloride. Again, these two parameters easily meet the DAF-adjusted benchmark.
Review of data from EPA (2002), which it should be noted included data from only two HW
landfills, indicates that mean concentration of all VOCs were slightly higher in that report
than the median values calculated in this study. This may be suggestive of an overall
downward trend in the VOC content of HW in the intervening years.
Temporal variability and trends within the VOC category of leachate constituents are
illustrated using benzene (Figure 6-9, note log scale on y-axis). Overall, the data are
somewhat variable, although with the exception of Landfill B there is evidence of downward
trending behavior. A significant number of data are below the DAF-adjusted benchmark (20
x MCL), which is indicated by the dashed line in the figure.
1.E+05
1.E+04
|j> 1.E+03
0)
c
CD
£ 1.E+02
CD
m
1.E+01
1.E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Post Closure Year
SE
B-1 to B-6
T-1 toT-18
SW
P-1 to P-4
R-1 to R-5 J-1 to J-3
NW
Y-1 to Y-3
M-1
NE
M
• LCRS ~ LDS
0
• • • • ft
I? !•••; • ••
*
1 0 A • • • » I * • ; (
* . •. ;
•? * •
a J € • • t ft
• | • J • 2 I • •
1 A # g ft rt rt A 1 j ;
Figure 6-9. Temporal variability in benzene
98
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Study Implications on Understanding Long-Term Landfill
Performance
The purpose of this section is to summarize findings from analysis of liquids management
data for double-lined hazardous waste landfills located throughout the United States.
Specifically, LCRS and LDS flow rate and flow chemistry data were evaluated for 45 landfill
units at nine closed Subtitle C sites. Design and operational characteristics of the study
units were summarized in Chapter 3 of this report along with post-closure data availability.
These data were used to evaluate:
¦ Long-term trends in leachate generation rates;
¦ Leakage rates and hydraulic efficiency of primary liner systems; and
¦ Leachate chemistry data, including time for constituents of interest to degrade and
potentially reach asymptotic levels or water quality limit values.
The primary aims of this assessment are to understand whether existing regulations for
containment system design and performance evaluation at Subtitle C landfill facilities are
appropriate and what main issues or shortcomings in data collection are evident that could
be addressed.
7.1.1 Leachate Flow Rate and Trends
The focus of this discussion is to address the following two key research questions: How
much leachate is generated in closed Subtitle C landfills and what are the potential effects
of site location (climatic region), cover system design and construction, facility operation or
waste type, and other factors on leachate generation rates? How do predictions of leachate
generation using the HELP Model compare to observed generation rates at these sites?
General Observations Based on Field Data
Flow data in the LCRS and LDS at the case study sites were summarized in Section 4.1. In
general, LCRS and LDS flow volumes declined soon after closure with a steady or decreasing
trend behavior thereafter. Discrepancies or short-term deviations from general trends were
generally attributable to known O&M issues affecting cover system performance. For
example:
¦ Landfill B: A spike in the LCRS flow rate from unit B-6 was attributed to a localized
cap failure. This has since been repaired and the flow rate has returned to similar
levels as recorded for other units at the landfill.
99
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
¦ Landfill T: UnitT-16 exhibited an increase in LCRS flow rate between years 7 and 16
of PCC that was finally traced to a localized cover system failure. The cover was
repaired in year 16, which resulted in rapid reduction in LCRS flow to rates similar to
other units.
¦ Landfill D: Liquid volumes in the LDS for D-2 were observed to increase for the first
4 years after closure before exhibiting a declining trend thereafter. This cell had a
short operational period of only 1 year, during which time the contractor reported
difficulties in fully eliminating rainwater from the unit during construction and waste
filling. As such, LDS volumes could be attributable to the potential this excess water
contributing to construction, compression, and consolidation water rather than
leakage through the primary liner. The LDS flow volumes are anticipated to continue
to lessen as this excess water works its way out of the unit.
Erosion damage to cover systems is a key factor affecting landfill performance in the PCC
period, with higher costs and effort associated with repairs needed during initial years of
PCC before cover vegetation is fully established which helps stabilize the system. Breaches
in the cover system may result in relatively long-term setbacks in terms of returning LCRS
flow rates in affected landfill units to expected levels once the cover is repaired. In this
regard, it may be beneficial to maintain hydraulic separation between the liners of different
units, and potentially minimize the size of individual units which may assist in isolating the
impacts of a potential cover damage.
This further highlight the importance of routine cover inspection in identifying problems
related to erosion damage, water ponding on the cover system, or other issues, as this
facilitates timely maintenance and repair to minimize the likelihood of water seeping back
into the cell. Furthermore, as weather patterns seem to be changing, it is advisable that
routine inspections be supplemented with non-routine cover ones following an extreme
weather (e.g., flood, excessive precipitation, drought, or tsunami) or seismic event. The
largest challenge at one of the examined sites was erosion control and protection of the
cover specifically due to high rainfall following a long spell of dry weather, particularly in the
first few years of closure before cover vegetation has matured.
Potential Factors Affecting Leachate Flow in the LCRS and LDS
All liner and cover system construction at the 45 landfill units included in this study was
performed under a program of third-party CQA; therefore, the potential effects of
construction in the absence of CQA cannot be examined.
The potential effects on relative LCRS and LDS flow were qualitatively examined with regard
to several variables as summarized in Table 7-1, including:
¦ Time in post-closure;
100
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Climatic and hydrogeologic conditions at the site (average annual rainfall, average
annual snowfall, depth to groundwater, and types of subsurface soils); and
Containment system design and material specifications (cover type, primary liner
type, and secondary liner type).
Consistent with previous report sections, the table is structured around the 13 unique
configurations for the containment system design that are represented amongst the 45
study units. Although it is important to recognize the limitations in the small sample size
and non-random nature of the case studies, the following observations are made:
¦ The table clearly illustrates that rainfall has an effect on leachate generation, with
higher LCRS flows recorded at the four wet sites (Landfills B, T, D, and F) and very
low or negligible flows recorded at dry sites (Landfills J, R, and Y). Landfill M is
excluded from this comparison since only intermediate cover had been installed at
this site. It is noted also that Landfill J is a special case at which a landfill overfill
liner is integrated with the cover; as such, leakage through the cover system would
be expected to be very low, independent of rainfall. Overall, the incidence of
precipitation as rainfall versus snowfall does not appear to affect leachate
generation.
Ignoring Landfills J and M as unrepresentative, the performance of three different
final cover system designs was evaluated as part of this study. Six units at Landfill B
feature a reversed CCL/GM cover design, while nine units at four sites (Landfills P, Y,
D, and F) feature a composite GM/GCL rather than GM/CCL cover barrier design at
the other 27 units. For final cover systems, the units in this study with the GM/GCL
design had slightly better overall performance in terms of flow reduction than
GM/CCL. The reversed CCL/GM design was leakiest for the units evaluated here.
In all cases, placement of cover leads to a reduction in the LCRS flow rate, including
Landfill M which has only 12-inchs of intermediate cover soil in place. Although LCRS
flows are an order of magnitude higher at Landfill M than the other three dry sites.
¦ In general, LDS flows are affected by LCRS flows (as would be expected). But, depth
to groundwater may significantly affect relative LDS flows, with higher flows recorded
at wet sites with shallow groundwater (Landfills B, T, D, and, to some extent, P).
Hydraulic connection between groundwater and the secondary liner has not been
established at any site. Thus, it cannot be concluded that groundwater rather than
infiltration of rainwater is the main alternative source of LDS liquids.
Four sites (Landfills P, Y, D, and F) feature a GM-only barrier in the primary liner,
while all other designs feature a composite GM/CCL barrier. With the exception of
Landfill P, the primary liner design also does not appear to affect LDS flows.
101
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Table 7-1. Summary of potential factors affecting relative flow in the LCRS and LDS
Design configuration
Study unit(s)
Years in post-closure
Site details
Containment system design'1"2'
LCRS flow'3'
LDS flow'3'
Geographic
Region
Annual
precipitation (in.)
Depth to
groundwater (feet)
Subsurface
soil type
Cover
barrier design
Primary liner
barrier design
Secondary liner
barrier design
>100 gpad
11-100 gpad
1-10 gpad
<1 gpad
>10 gpad
1-10 gpad
0.1-1 gpad
<0.1 gpad
1
B-1 to B-6
22-29
SE
47
<5
Claystone
CCL/GM-H30
GM-H80/CCL
GM-H80/CCL
3
3
4
2
2
B-7 and B-8
11-17
GM-H60/CCL
1
1
2
3
T-1 toT-18
7-23
SE
70
<5
Sandy silt,
clay
GM-H60/CCL
GM-H60/CCL
GM-H60/CCL
8
8
2
8
8
2
4
J-1 to J-3
17
SW
11
300
Clays,
sandstone
Landfill
overfill liner
GM-H60/CCL
GM-H60/CCL
3
3
5
R-1
13
SW
6.5
250
Sands,
clays
GM-H80/CCL
GM-P40/CCL
GM-P40/CCL
1
1
6
R-2 to R-5
GM-H80/CCL
GM-H80/CCL
4
4
7
P-1
21
SW
28
40
Clay
GM-H60/CCL
GM-H60
GM-H60/CCL
1
1
8
P-2 to P-4
13
GM-H60/GCL
1
2
1
2
9
Y-1
10
NW
10
120
Gravelly
sands, silty
clays
GM-H40/GCL
GM-H60
GM-H40/CCL
1
1
10
Y-2 and Y-3
GM-H80
GM-H60/CCL
2
2
11
M-1
4
NW
9.5
200
Clays
Soil
GM-H60/CCL
GM-H60/CCL
1
1
12
D-1 and D-2
6-9
NE
42
(17 )4
10
Clays,
gravelly
sands
GM-L40/GCL
GM-H60
GM-H60/GCL
1
1
1
1
13
F-1
12
NE
40
(60)4
90
Sands, silty
loam
GM-L40/GCL
GM-H60
GM-H80/CCL
1
1
Notes:
1). GM = geomembrane, -H = high density polyethylene, -P = polyvinyl chloride, -L = linear low density polyethylene. The number denotes GM thickness (mil).
2). CCL = compacted clay liner, GCL = geosynthetic clay liner.
3). The number of units with the average annual flow in the range shown over last 3 years of post-closure. Gpad = gallons per acre per day.
4). Average annual snowfall in inches shown in parenthesis.
102
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Predicted vs. Observed Trends in Leachate Flow
Although it is reasonable to expect that leachate generation rates generally trend
downwards after cover placement, it may not be reasonable to expect that flow rates will
decline at such a significant rate over the long term.
In order to better understand behavioral trends in leachate generation based on field
observations, annual LCRS flow measurements were compared to annual flow rates
predicted using the HELP Model. If the model provides an accurate prediction of long-term
leachate flow post-capping, it should be expected that LCRS flow rates would decrease
exponentially to a value approximating the quasi-steady state flow rate predicted by the
model, after allowing for a reasonable time lag for water already in the waste body prior to
capping to percolate down to the LCRS and be removed.
Overall, the HELP Model appeared to be better suited to predicting long-term LCRS flow at
wet rather than dry sites, consistent with previous findings (e.g., Vorster, 2001). The model
predicts zero or near-zero LCRS flows at dry sites, whereas some LCRS flow was observed
at all four dry case study landfills (although three had no/negligible LDS flow). Although this
study did not focus in detail on this aspect of the model's application, it is suggested that
the model significantly underestimates lateral flow where the thickness of liquids on the
primary liner is very small. This manifests as a predicted LDS flow that exceeds the
corresponding LCRS flow, although in both cases the volumes are very low (this issue was
observed where modeled flows were in the range of 10-4 to 10-7 gpad).
Selected results from 6 of the 13 design configurations (different cover, primary liner, and
LCRS/LDS drainage layer) represented by the 45 case study units were reviewed in detail in
Section 4.2.2. The selected results featured four of the case study sites: wet Landfills B and
F and dry Landfills R and Y. Based on these results, if the requirement under
§264.310(b)(2) that operation of the LCRS should be continued "until leachate is no longer
detected" is interpreted strictly to mean that LCRS operation must continue until leachate
flow is at or near zero, then this cannot reasonably be achieved, even at extremely dry
sites. Therefore, it is more appropriate to apply the performance-based standard implicit in
40 CFR §264.117 that PCC is required until a demonstration that the absence of care would
not pose a threat to water quality at the POC. Such demonstrations could be made on the
basis of leachate flow and concentrations having reached quasi-steady-state, predictable,
and non-impacting conditions, albeit at a non-zero flow rate.
103
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
Data from this study suggest the rate at which LCRS flow rate declines post-closure may be
three to five times slower at most Subtitle C landfills than previously suggested by EPA
(2002). The dataset utilized in this study was more comprehensive (45 individual units with
up to 29 years of post-closure data) than the 2002 study (33 units with up to 9 years of
post-closure data). In particular, the lack of data from many units beyond year six of PCC in
the earlier study, and the very low flow rates reported for a few units after year six suggests
that the dataset may have been skewed by a small number of very dry or high performing
sites. If current industry projections of post-closure leachate generation are based on EPA
(2002), expectations may need to be reset in terms of the rate of decline in LCRS flow.
Rather than an order of magnitude decrease every 5 years, it may be more reasonable to
expect an order of magnitude decrease every 15-20 years. However, more field studies are
needed to validate this finding before recommendations for adjusting current industry
projections and accruals for leachate management are made. Since the rate of decrease
also appears to be linked to maximum leachate generation at closure, this emphasizes the
importance of good stormwater control during the latter stages of operation and competent
cover design and construction performed under strict CQA procedures so as to minimize
leachate generation immediately after closure.
7.1.2 Liner Design and Performance
The focus of this discussion is to address the following key research question: What
conclusions can be drawn regarding the hydraulic efficiencies of double-liner systems (i.e.,
leakage rates through primary liners) at Subtitle C landfills based on available LCRS and
LDS data? It should be made clear that all case study sites reported competent CQA
programs during liner and cover construction events. As such, the effect of CQA practices
on long-term containment system performance cannot be assessed. The findings in this
section are thus predicated on the assumption that good CQA will be employed during liner
and cover system installation.
Apparent Hydraulic Efficiency of the Primary Liner
The "apparent" hydraulic efficiency, EA, of the primary liner can be calculated as the flow in
the LDS relative to the flow in the LCRS (Section 5.1.1). The higher the value of EA, the
smaller the flow rate from the LDS compared to the LCRS flow rate. Based on the data
provided only 5% of the evaluated data demonstrated an effective efficiency greater than
99% with the bulk of the data (73%) exhibiting an efficiency that is less than 90%. It is
noteworthy to mention that the leachate flow from some of the LDS of some units was
greater than that from the LCRS. With the data provided, it is unclear if the source of the
104
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
increased in the liquid flow from the LDS(s) is an external source (e.g. groundwater) or a
major defect in the liner system. The liner efficiencies are significantly higher at dry than at
wet sites: 79% of the data from dry sites produced Ea values exceeding 99% (Table 5-1B),
whereas only 5% of the data from wet sites did so (Table 5-1).
Modeled Hydraulic Efficiency of the Primary Liner
There is a high degree of uncertainty associated with using the HELP Model to calculate
efficiency as the method does not utilize the site-specific available data. As described in
Section 5.2.1, expected leachate generation rates in the post-closure period were simulated
by the HELP Model using default input assumptions, including the number of geomembrane
defects. This allowed the modeled hydraulic efficiency, EM, of a liner system to be calculated
using model output values as substitutes for field data of LCRS and LDS flow. Values for EM
were calculated for the 13 unique design configurations reflecting the study units. Results
were summarized in Table 5-2. Calculated EM values varied from 93 to 99.9%, close to
corrected Ec.
Corrected Hydraulic Efficiency of the Primary Liner
By distinguishing liquids with similar chemical signatures, leachate chemistry data can
potentially be used to quantify the portion of liquids comprising total LDS flow that should
be attributable to primary liner leakage as opposed to other sources. This approach has two
major limitations:
1. Only leachate (i.e., LCRS liquids) contributes to the chloride concentration in the
LDS. Any contribution of chloride from other sources (e.g., brackish groundwater)
would serve to increase the numerator in the expression and thus increase the
magnitude of the CF value computed.
2. Chlorides are not adsorbed to soils in the primary liner or drainage layers, or
otherwise attenuated as it passes through the primary liner.
3. It is noted that this analysis may overestimation of the liner efficiency since it
assumes no attenuation in the liner system.
4. The concentration of the indicator chemical and flow data must be temporally
coincidental in the LCRS and LDS in order to calculate a corrected liner efficiency,
Ec.
5. Specific to this study, data available for calculating Ec were limited to 173 sets of
readings at 17 units from only three sites (Landfills B, T, and J).
Landfill J is located in an arid climate with little to no LCRS flow. In most cases, the LDS
flow volumes, while minor, exceeded LCRS flow volumes. Based on the Ec value calculated
only 20-40% of the total LDS flow could be attributed to primary liner leakage at the site.
The Ec calculations for the other two sites (B and T) that receive more than 25 inches of rain
105
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
per year, showed that less than 3% of the liquids generated from the LDS are attributable
to leachate leakage through the liner. This is a significant improvement over Ea values of
63 to 93% calculated for corresponding units in Landfill B and Ea values of 54 to 95%
calculated for corresponding units in Landfill T. However, we note again that these Ec values
are most likely an overestimation of the actual liner efficiency as stated above.
Comparison between Apparent, Modeled, and Corrected Liner Efficiencies
The results for liner efficiencies computed using the three methods discussed in this report
are compared in Table 7-2 for the three sites (Landfills B, T, and J) for which values from all
three methods could be calculated. Modeled liner efficiency (Em) values shown in the table
are directly copied from results in Table 5-2. Corrected liner efficiency (Ec) values are
average values for each different design configuration based on the values for individual
units shown in Table 5-3. Finally, apparent liner efficiency (Ea) was calculated based on
monthly average LCRS and LDS flow data for units where concurrent chloride concentration
data were also available for calculation of an Ec value. This allows direct comparison of
corresponding values for Ea, Em, and Ec.
For all design configurations listed in the table, Ec is greater than Ea. Although this data set
is very limited and does not include the high values for Ea calculated for a number of units
in dry Landfills R and Y, this nevertheless suggests that true liner efficiency is potentially
higher than the simple value calculated as the LDS flow volume relative to the LCRS flow
volume. Values of Em and Ec are very close. This suggests that Em may be a useful
representation of liner efficiency where field data with which to estimate Ea or Ec are not
available. For landfills constructed with good CQA, this may suggest the use of the HELP
Model with default assumptions as a method of estimating the liner efficiency after the
closure of a landfill.
Table 7-2. Comparison of liner efficiency calculations
Design
Climate
condition
Study units
Apparent
liner
efficiency
(Ea)
Modeled
liner
efficiency
(Em)
Corrected
liner
efficiency
(Ec)
Number of
data used to
calculate Ec
1
Wet
B-1 to B-6
82.8%
99.93%
99.84%
90
2
Wet
B-7 and B-8
84.9%
99.92%
99.95%
19
3
Wet
T-1 to T-18
73.2%
99.58%
98.57%
64
4
Dry
J-1 to J-3
9.1%
99.98%™
74.2%
6
Note:
1). Em cannot be calculated under conditions of final cover at units J-1 to J-3 due to the fact that Landfill J resides
beneath an overfill landfill. Therefore, Em was calculated for intermediate cover conditions.
106
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
7.1.3 Trends in Leachate Chemistry
A review of the technical literature revealed that leachate chemistry from HW landfills has
received relatively little scrutiny in recent years. Tian (2015) analyzed leachate composition
from four landfills constructed for containment of mixed LLRW and HW and compared
concentrations of dissolved organic matter (measured as TOC), inorganic macro-
components (including major cations and anions), and trace metals to values reported in
the literature for MSW leachate, concluding that:
Dissolved organic matter concentrations were insignificant when compared with MSW
leachate;
Concentrations of inorganic macro-components were broadly similar to MSW
leachate; and
¦ Trace metal concentrations were relatively lower than in MSW leachate and tended to
exhibit steady or slightly increasing trends.
If current expectations for the time required for the concentrations of constituents of
concern in leachate to decrease to asymptotic levels or meet regulatory standards such as
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are rooted in observations from MSW landfills, this
may not be appropriate. Therefore, an important component of this study is to review
concentration trends in leachate from Subtitle C landfills.
From the above, the focus of this discussion is to address two key research questions: What
is the leachate chemistry at the case study sites, and does it exhibit asymptotic behavioral
trends over the long-term? How does leachate chemistry at Subtitle C landfills compare with
water quality limit values such as drinking water MCLs? Addressing these questions is
intended to broaden an understanding of long-term leachate management at closed Subtitle
C landfills in the context of the performance standard implicit in 40 CFR §264.117.
Parameter Selection and Evaluation Approach
Thirty chemical parameters were selected to represent leachate constituents of interest,
based on those investigated by EPA (2002). These included water quality indicator
parameters (pH, specific conductance, TDS), macro indicators of dissolved organic matter
(COD, BOD, and TOC), major inorganic cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and
sodium) and anions (calcium, chloride, and sulfate), trace metals (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, and nickel), and trace VOCs frequently observed to be present in landfill
leachate (represented by a group of 12 aromatic hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents).
The general approach to the evaluation was as follows:
¦ Where available, leachate concentrations were compared to federal water quality
standards (MCL or SMCL). However, rather than directly comparing leachate
107
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
concentrations to a limit value, a universal dilution/attenuation factor (DAF) of 20
was applied to represent concentration increases that would be expected prior to
detection at a POC monitoring well. This is consistent with the default DAF specified
in the EPA's Soil Screening Guidance (EPA, 1996), for which a DAF of 20 is deemed
protective of contaminant sources up to 0.5 acres in size. While landfills are
generally much larger than that, the potential release points (i.e., potential pinhole
defects and tears in liner GM barriers) are collectively much smaller than 0.5 acres.
As such, this approach is appropriate for the purposes of this study. Nevertheless, it
is important to note that assigning this default DAF in this way does not imply any
endorsement from EPA with regard to the universal application of this approach to
assessing long-term leachate management and groundwater monitoring at Subtitle C
landfills.
¦ The availability of leachate chemistry data at the case study landfills was limited in
most cases, which restricted the level of analysis that could be completed in this
study. Data availability and gaps are discussed in further detail in Section 7.2.
Summary of Main Findings
There is significant variability in the data for many constituents, particularly in the LCRS
where differences between maximum and minimum observed values often span six or more
orders of magnitude for cations/anions, trace metals, and VOCs. For this reason, the median
may be considered more representative of overall leachate quality, which is more sensitive
to one or two significant outliers. The general water quality characteristics of liquids from
the LCRS and LDS drainage layers are also significantly different, again by multiple orders of
magnitude in many cases.
Observations from the evaluation of leachate chemistry data with regard to the five
categories of interest are summarized as follows:
¦ Water Quality Indicators: Temporal trends in leachate pH appear relatively stable,
with most readings within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 s.u. The majority of readings were
alkaline mainly as a result of solidifying and stabilizing hazardous waste with cement,
fly ash, or kiln dust prior to disposal. Overall, conductivity measurements were highly
variable with no evidence of asymptotic behavior. Values in the LCRS and LDS are of
the same order of magnitude.
Dissolved Organic Matter: The DOM content of leachate cannot be extensively
commented on in this report since these data were not routinely collected at any
case study site, although TOC has been analyzed on a handful of occasions in both
the leachate and the LDS at Landfills P and T. TOC concentrations were significantly
lower than those reported for MSW leachate. The mean and median TOC
concentrations in the LDS were two to three orders of magnitude lower than in the
LCRS. The limited data available for this study generally support the finding by Tian
(2015) that DOM concentrations are insignificant in HW leachate when compared
with MSW leachate.
Major Cations and Anions: With the exception of alkalinity, which is not analyzed at
any case study landfill, data for the other major cations (calcium, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium) and anions (chloride, and sulfate) were available in both the
LCRS and LDS at a number of case study sites. Based on the literature, they are also
108
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
expected to be present in significant concentrations in HW leachate at concentrations
broadly similar to MSW leachate. Overall, the cation/anion data are highly variable
with no consistent evidence of asymptotic behavior or downward trends. With the
exception of sodium, and to a lesser extent chloride, there has been no significant
change in the overall geochemical makeup of leachate over the 13 years of PCC.
Using chloride as an example of behavioral trends, concentrations ranged widely
over three orders of magnitude, with a median concentration higher than the range
reported for MSW landfills but broadly consistent with that reported for two HW
landfills by EPA (2002).
¦ Trace Metals: Generally, the median concentrations of trace metals in the studies HW
landfill leachate from was above the DAF-modified benchmark. Specifically, arsenic
was measured at a median concentration of approximately 12 mg/L. Concentrations
of trace metals in the LDS were universally lower than in the LDS. However, a review
of data from EPA (2002), which reported on leachate quality from three HW landfills,
indicates that mean concentration of trace metals were slightly lower than
corresponding values reported in this study. The order-of-magnitude similarity in
concentrations over the 15-year intervening period suggests that trace metal
concentrations in leachate are relatively stable over the long term.
¦ Volatile Organic Compounds: Of all the groups of chemical constituents considered in
this study, VOCs exhibited the most variability in concentration between different
landfill units, and sometimes between different sumps within the same unit. The
variability among the LCRS data was significant for all VOCs, with reported
concentrations ranging over six or more orders of magnitude. LDS data exhibited far
less variability, with similar median and mean concentrations for all but one VOC
(trichloroethylene). The wide discrepancy between median and mean values in the
LCRS suggests that the data could potentially be skewed by outliers. This is
supported by comparison of LCRS data to values for VOCs reported for MSW
leachate: median values of all VOCs from this study fall within the concentration
range reported for MSW landfills but mean values significantly exceed the reported
range for MSW leachate. MCLs are specified for all but two of the selected VOCs.
The long-term outlook for leachate management based on observations of behavioral trends
amongst selected leachate data from this study is mixed. Water quality indicators and major
cations/anions suggest that the materials contained in Subtitle C landfill may not degrade
under landfill conditions, or only degrade very slowly, such that observations based on
leachate data from non-hazardous Subtitle D landfills cannot be extrapolated to characterize
the expected performance of Subtitle C landfills. On the other hand, data for trace metals
and VOCs, while highly variable, thus site-specific considerations are important when
evaluating these parameters.
7.2 Data Availability and Limitations
The unavailability of some critical site information and monitoring data limited the extent to
which evaluations could be completed or even performed in this study. Data gaps and their
effects were identified throughout Chapters 4 to 6. The focus of the discussion in this
section is to reiterate key data limitations and discuss their effect on limiting the study. The
109
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
goal is to provide some guidance to site operators and regulators as to what data that are
not routinely collected would be valuable in demonstrating that one or more components of
PCC at Subtitle C landfills could be scaled back or terminated over the long term. This is
intended to provide motivation, rather than an obligation, for additional data collection.
Indeed, it is important to emphasize here that this discussion is not concerned with data
collection and reporting for compliance purposes. Rather, this section seeks to address the
following key research question: How could current monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements be improved to better ensure that the data necessary for
performance demonstrations are collected?
7.2.1 General Site Information
Overall, this study included 45 individual double-lined units at nine separate landfill
facilities. Significant variability existed between the units, which is beneficial to a study of
this nature. For example, individual units ranged in size by an order of magnitude from 1.4
acres to 11.3 acres, time of post-closure from 6 to 29 years (Landfill M is not closed, but
has been inactive for 4 years pending final capping after waste was filled to final grades),
and various LCRS and LDS flow measuring devices. In terms of variability in construction
details, 11 different liner system designs and a further 11 different cover system designs
were featured amongst the study units featured, combining to provide 13 unique
containment system design configurations. Major variables in cover system design were
represented: CCL/GM (an apparently accidental "upside down" design), GM/CCL, GM/GCL,
and all soil. However, primary liner designs essentially comprised only two variables:
GM/CCL and GM only. No case study units were constructed having a GM/GCL composite
primary liner, although one site (Landfill D) utilizes a GCL in the secondary liner. As such,
the efficacy of a GM/GCL primary liner design cannot be evaluated in this study, an
important limitation, given the widespread use of GCLs in the liner systems at both Subtitle
C and D landfills.
In terms of facility operations, seven of the nine landfills are commercial TSDFs accepting
HW from a wide range of generators, while two are industrial facilities providing disposal for
a single HW generator or as part of site remediation). As such, an original research question
from this study (does waste type affect leachate concentrations?) cannot be addressed, as
the commercial facilities accepted waste from multiple sources thereby making it difficult to
compare waste chemistry for these sites, while there were insufficient data from non-
commercial TSDFs against which to gauge variability between commercial and non-
commercial operations. Further, waste manifests were not made available by any site
110
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
operator, which meant that although some findings appeared to support the hypothesis that
facility/waste type would affect leachate characteristics, this could not be confirmed. For
example, arsenic concentrations appeared to cluster according to a unit, suggesting that
arsenic concentrations in HW leachates are highly site-specific and dependent on the waste
source or sources disposed of in a particular unit. In addition, the relatively high
concentrations of arsenic and low concentrations of heavy metals that persist long into the
PCC period may be due to the relatively alkaline pH of leachate, potentially attributable to
the practice of solidifying and stabilizing HW with cement, fly ash, or kiln dust prior to
disposal. Details and data regarding these practices are needed in order to fully understand
the long-term leaching behavior of disposed HW.
7.2.2 Leachate Flow Data
For all case study landfills, leachate flow data were normalized to an annual average and a
peak flow in terms of gallons per acre per day (gpad) to provide a common unit for
comparison between sites. Attempts were made to collect data from the date of closure
(i.e., time zero for PCC) through to the current time in order to obtain a complete timeline
of post-closure flow from each unit. However, the availability and level of granularity
amongst the data varied considerably between sites. Available leachate data for Landfill T,
for example, includes annual total LCRS and LDS flow volumes for up to 7 years in some
units and daily flow volumes for years 10 through 23 of PCC in other units. Respective
earlier and later records were not available. Leachate data for Landfill Y included weekly
LCRS and LDS flow volumes for all three study units for the duration of PCC, except the first
year (an important data point in terms of assessing trends in leachate generation post-
closure). Fuller LCRS and LDS datasets would have expanded the level of detail to which
cover and liner system performance could be evaluated and would likely have enabled a
clearer picture of long-term stable leachate generation to be gathered.
An important limitation regarding the use of LCRS and LDS leachate chemistry to correct EA
values is the need for concurrent chemistry data to be available in both the LCRS and LDS.
Overall, such data were available for only 17 units at three sites (Landfills B, T, and J). This
represents a shortcoming on the part of site operators at collecting data that could help
understand long-term liner performance.
7.2.3 Leachate Chemistry Data
It is noted through the discussions in this report that the leachate chemistry database is
limited in terms of its completeness and the duration of monitoring, although it is important
to acknowledge that "completeness" in this context refers to the availability of the full suite
111
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
of 30 parameters targeted in this study and not to data requirements specified for
compliance. Many targeted leachate constituents are poorly represented in the LCRS
dataset, while LDS chemistry is not monitored at all at many sites. In the latter case, it is
noted that three sites (Landfills R, Y, and M) have zero flow in the LDS, which negates the
ability to collect samples for analysis. In the context of this data assessment, therefore, this
should not be construed as a data gap as these site operators have effectively achieved a
goal of PCC, which is to end monitoring and management of liquids in the LCRS and LDS. An
issue of importance identified in the process of collecting leachate chemistry data for this
study is that site operators are only required to keep records for three years; as such, many
older data are no longer available. If this lack of data at the case study landfills is
representative of that at other Subtitle C facilities, which seems likely, this represents an
important limitation on assessing the long-term performance of containment systems and
potential modifications to existing PCC programs.
Intra-unit comparisons (i.e., comparison of leachate chemistry between the LCRS and LDS
in the same unit) are dependent on the same constituents being monitored on the same
date, while inter-unit comparisons (i.e., comparison of leachate chemistry between different
units and sites) are dependent on the similarity of the leachate analyte lists. Both intra and
inter-unit comparisons, which can provide important operational insights into relative cover
system infiltration and other indicators of landfill performance, are obviously hampered by a
lack of data. The general paucity of leachate chemistry data at Subtitle C landfills,
particularly with regard to the chemistry of liquids recovered from LDS drainage layers, may
be due to two reasons:
¦ Leachate chemistry data are most commonly collected semi-annually or annually at
each site, thereby limiting the overall size of the dataset available for analysis; and
¦ The leachate constituent list monitored is dependent on site-specific waste history
and local practices for leachate treatment and disposal (i.e., non-compliance data),
thereby limiting the number of similar constituents for which data were available at
all sites (i.e., constituent lists vary between different wastewater treatment
facilities).
Anecdotal information received from site operators was that leachate volumes and
chemistry have not deviated from acceptance criteria for treatment and disposal, such that
leachate management has not been an issue or represented a higher-than-expected cost.
Operators did not complain of any significant problems related to leachate treatment and
disposal, which suggests that this is not an issue at Subtitle C facilities. As noted previously,
the strong focus on containment and reducing leachate flow volumes under RCRA is likely a
contributing factor to the lack of LDS data. Certainly, data availability was highest at two
112
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
wet sites (Landfills B and T), which may be reflective of the level of concern operators have
on managing leachate treatment and disposal costs (in other words, low leachate flows
attract little interest, because disposal costs are modest for small volumes). The fact that
many of the data used to support the performance demonstrations made in this study rely
on non-compliance data is borne out that very limited leachate chemistry data were
available at wet Landfill F, for which data were obtained directly from the state rather than
from the operator. As such, the chemistry dataset would not be expected to include non-
compliance leachate chemistry data collected only to meet influent limits imposed by the
receiving wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). This has implications in terms of being able
to assess site performance independent of the operator, which would be important if, say,
an operator was unable to continue providing care.
In terms of specific availability of individual analytes from the list of 30 targeted for this
study, data were available for all analytes with the exception of COD, BOD, and alkalinity,
although many analytes were available only in LCRS and not LDS datasets. The lack of COD
and BOD data may not be important, as concentrations of dissolved organic matter in
leachate are not a primary concern to Subtitle C landfill operators beyond complying with
potential influent limitations imposed by a receiving WWTP. However, it should be
recognized that long-term changes in leachate management may require consideration of
effluent discharge to receiving water bodies, in which case BOD may become a critical
analyte. More important in the context of this study is the absence of alkalinity data, as data
for the other major cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium) and anions
(chloride, and sulfate) that make up the majority of the ionic charge balance were available
in both the LCRS and LDS at a number of case study sites. This prevented the construction
of Stiff or Piper plots, which are effective methods of portraying the data.
7.3 Recommendations for Future Research and Development
This study identified a number of areas in which further research could be beneficial in
understanding the long-term performance of Subtitle C landfills. In the longer term, this
could potentially facilitate the development of guidance on improving long-term
performance, reducing the duration and costs of PCC, and allowing more flexibility in the
manner in which the regulation is applied (which may be appropriate recognizing that that
end goals for PCC are defined in terms of performance). Better understanding and improved
predictability of long-term performance could allow more innovation and creativity enclosure
system designs. Ultimately, performance data from studies such as this could be used to
113
-------
Section 7 - Summary and Conclusions
assign risk-based evaluation criteria and procedures for demonstrating long-term protection
of HHE and completion of PCC.
Two short-term suggestions for further research include the following:
¦ Multi-site evaluation of leachate chemistry data: This study focused on leachate flow
and containment system performance. While leachate chemistry data were
examined, for various reasons identified in the report these examinations were not
sufficiently detailed nor were the dataset extensive enough to draw firm conclusions
regarding the interrelated factors affecting long-term trend behavior and leachate
quality. Insufficient flow data and waste manifests were available to accurately
review leachate chemistry in terms of contaminant removal loads (e.g., cumulative
mass of contaminant removal per ton of waste in place), although this would
potentially have been advantageous in terms of normalizing the data between the
different study units, climatic conditions, and cover/liner design configurations. The
effects of facility operations and waste types on leachate chemistry were not
examined. No statistical analysis was conducted to eliminate outliers, test the
significance of trends, or assign correlation coefficients to trend data. No correlations
between leachate chemistry and flow rates were investigated, so it is not known
whether the goal of excluding liquids from RCRA landfills in the post-closure period
contributes to chemical changes or whether cover design and performance has a
direct effect on leachate quality.
¦ The vulnerability of Subtitle C landfills to short and long-term hazards: Currently,
landfills are designed and operated assuming that future climate and precipitation
intensity will be similar to historical records. In addition, seismic design requirements
are not explicitly cited for Subtitle C landfills. Some hazardous waste management
units in place today may thus be vulnerable to future conditions. This could have
serious consequences for the integrity of hazardous waste disposal facilities and
protection of HHE. Therefore, the resilience of hazardous waste disposal facilities
should be evaluated with regard to both long-term hazards (e.g., inundation due to
sea level rise, elevated temperatures, seismic events, and/or groundwater elevation
rise) and short-term hazards (e.g., possible increase in precipitation and associated
flooding, increases in storm flooding/surges, and changes in waves, currents, king
tides, or El Nino effects). To date, little research has been published on the long-
term vulnerability of closed landfills to short and long-term hazards. As such, this
represents an important research need in terms of assessing the long-term
performance of landfill containment systems.
114
-------
Section 9 - Appendix II
8. REFERENCES
Alslaibi T.M., Abustan I., Mogheir Y.K., Afifi S. (2013) Quantification of leachate discharged
to groundwater using the water balance method and the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) model. Waste Management & Research, 31, 50-59
Andersen C.B, Lewis G.P., Hart M., Pugh J. (2014) The impact of wastewater treatment
effluent on the biogeochemistry of the Enoree River, South Carolina, during drought
conditions. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 225, 1955-1976
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO). (2013)
Subtitle C and Subtitle D post-closure care period final survey report. Prepared by the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials Post-Closure Care
Workgroup, March 2013. http://www.astswmo.org/Files/Policies_and_Publications/Cross-
program/2013_04-Post-Closure_Ca re_Period_Survey_Results.pdf
Baird R.D., Seiger-Webster C. (2011) Evaluation of closure, post-closure, and perpetual care
and maintenance for commercial hazardous waste and commercial radioactive waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Prep, by URS Corporation for Utah Solid and
Hazardous Waste Control Board and Utah Radiation Control Board, Final Report, September
2011
Barlaz M.A., Rooker A.P., Kjeldsen P.K, Gabr M.A., Borden R.C. (2002) A critical evaluation
of factors required to terminate the post-closure monitoring period at solid waste landfills.
Environmental Science & Technology, 36, 3457-3464
Bendz D., Singh V.P., Akesson M. (1997) Accumulation of water and generation of leachate
in a young landfill. Journal of Hydrology, 203, 1-10
Bengtsson L., Bendz, D., Hogland W., Rosqvist H., Akesson M. (1994) Water balance for
landfills of different ages. Journal of Hydrology, 158, 203-217
Benson C.H., Albright W.H., Ray D.P., Smegal J. (2007) Review of the Idaho CERCLA
Disposal Facility (ICDF) at Idaho National Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Environmental Management, December, 12 pp.
Berger K. (2003) Validation and enhancement of the HELP model to simulate the water
balance of surface covers. Proc. Sardinia 2003, 9th International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium, 6-10 October 2001, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy
Berger K.U. (2015) On the current state of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) model. Waste Management, 38, 201-209
Blight G.E. (2008) Slope failures in municipal solid waste dumps and landfills. Waste
Management & Research, 26, 448-463
Bonaparte R., Gross B.A. (1990) Field behavior of double-liner systems, In: Waste
Containment Systems: Construction, Regulations, and Performance, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 26, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 52-83
Bonaparte R., Othman M.A., Rad N.S., Swan R.H., Vander Linde D.L. (1996) Evaluation of
various aspects of GCL performance. Appendix F of Report of 1995 Workshop on
Geosynthetic Clay Liners, D.E. Daniel and H.E. Scranton (Eds.), EPA/600/R-96/149, EPA
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, F1-F34
Bonaparte R., Gross B.A., Daniel D.E., Koerner R.M., Dwyer S.F. (2004) Technical guidance
for RCRA/CERCLA final covers (Draft). EPA-540-R-04-007, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC
115
-------
Section 8 - References
Bonaparte R., Beech J.F., Griffin L.M., Phillips D.K., Gross B.A., Klenzendorf B., O'Leary L.
(2011) Cold war legacy: Design, construction, and performance of a land-based radioactive
waste disposal facility. The 19th Spencer J. Buchanan Lecture, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX, 11 November 2011
Bonaparte R., Gross B.A., Brown A., Gupta R. (2016) Evaluation of liquids management
data for double-lined mixed low-level radioactive waste landfills. Proc. Geo-Chicago 2016:
Sustainability, Energy, and the Geoenvironment, 14-18 August 2016, Chicago, IL
Christensen T.H., Kjeldsen P., Bjerg P.L., Jensen D.L., Christensen J.B., Baun A.,
Albrechtsen H.-J., Heron G. (2001) Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes. Applied
Geochemistry, 16, 659-718
Cooke A.J., Rowe K., VanGuIck J., Rittmann B.E. (2005) Application of the BioClog Model for
landfill leachate clogging of gravel-packed columns. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42,
1600-1614
Crest M., Akerman A., Morris J.W.F., Budka A., Presse D., Hayward-Higham S. (2010)
Aftercare completion and the path to sustainable reuse of closed landfills. Proc. ISWA World
Congress, 15-18 November 2010, Hamburg, Germany
Fellner J., Brunner P.H. (2010) Modeling of leachate generation from MSW landfills by a 2-
dimensional 2-domain approach. Waste Management, 30, 2084-2095
Fleming I.R., Rowe R.K. (2004) Laboratory studies of clogging of landfill leachate collection
and drainage systems. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41, 134-153
Foose G.J., Benson C.H., Edil T.B. (2002) Comparison of solute transport in three composite
liners. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128, 391-403
Forget, B., Rollin, A.L., Jacquelin, T. (2005) Lessons learned from 10 years of leak detection
surveys on geomembranes. Proc. Sardinia 2005, 10th International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium, 3-7 October 2001, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy
Fourie A.B., Rosqvist N.H., Rohrs L.H. (2001) Potential impacts of preferential flowpaths on
the operation of a flushing bioreactor. Proc. Sardinia 2001, 8th International Waste
Management and Landfill Symposium, 1-5 October 2001, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari,
Italy
Gibbons R.D., Morris J.W.F., Caldwell M.D., Prucha C.P., Staley B.F. (2014) Longitudinal
data analysis in support of functional stability concepts for leachate management at closed
municipal landfills. Waste Management, 34, 1674-1682
Giroud J.P., Bonaparte R. (1989) Leakage through liners constructed with geomembranes.
Part II: Composite liners. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 8, 77-111
Giroud J.P., Gross B.A., Bonaparte R., McKelvey J.A. (1997) Leachate flow in leakage
collection layers due to defects in geomembrane liners. Geosynthetics International, 4, 215-
292
Giroud J.P., Touze-Foltz N. (2005). Equations for calculating the rate of liquid flow through
geomembrane defects of uniform width and finite or infinite length. Geosynthetics
International, 12, 191-204
Gross B.A., Bonaparte R., Giroud J.P. (1990) Evaluation of flow from landfill leakage
detection layers. Proc. 4th International Conference on Geotextiles and Geomembranes and
Related Products, 28 May - 1 June 1990, The Hague, Netherlands, 481-486
116
-------
Section 8 - References
Heasman L. (1997) Leaching tests to assess the environmental impact of waste. Proc.
Sardinia 1997, 6th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 13-17
October 1997, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy
Hsuan Y.G., Li M., Koerner R.M. (2005) Stage 'C' lifetime prediction of HDPE geomembrane
using acceleration tests with elevated temperature and high pressure. ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 130-142, Geo-Frontiers 2005, 4207-4211
Jo H., Benson C., Shackelford C., Lee J., Edil T. (2005) Long-term hydraulic conductivity of
a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) permeated with inorganic salt solutions. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131, 405-417
Kaushik T., Khire M.V., Johnson T., Caldwell M., (2014) Surface runoff at an instrumented
catchment scale water balance final cover. Proc. Geo-Congress 23-26 February 2014,
Atlanta, Georgia
Kelly T.M., Winchester J.W. (2005) Can hazardous waste sites be breached as a result of
future climate change? Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131, 810-814
Kim D., Quinlan M., Yen T.F. (2009) Encapsulation of lead from hazardous CRT glass wastes
using biopolymer cross-linked concrete systems. Waste Management, 29, 321-328
Kjeldsen P., Christensen T.H. (2001) A simple model for the distribution and fate of organic
chemicals in a landfill: MOCLA. Waste Management and Research, 19, 201-216
Kjeldsen P.K., Barlaz M.A., Rooker A.P, Baun A., Ledin A., Christensen T.H. (2002) Present
and long term composition of MSW landfill leachate: A review. Critical Reviews in
Environmental Science and Technology, 32, 297-336
Koerner R.M., Daniel D.E. (1997) Final covers for solid waste landfills and abandoned
dumps. ASCE Press, Reston, VA
Koslow K.N. (2015) ICDF complex five-year operations and maintenance activities report for
fiscal years 2010 through 2014, Idaho Cleanup Project, RTP-1351, Rev. 0, 20pp.
Kylefors K. (2003) Evaluation of leachate composition by multivariate data analysis (MVDA).
Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 367-376
Lopez F.A., Alguacil F.J., Rodriguez O., Sierra M.J., Millan R. (2015) Mercury leaching from
hazardous industrial wastes stabilized by sulfur polymer encapsulation. Waste Management,
35, 301-306
Lopez-Delgado A., Tayibi H. (2012) Can hazardous waste become a raw material? The case
study of an aluminium residue: A review. Waste Management & Research, 30, 474-484
Lowry M.I., Bartelt-Hunt S.L., Beulieu S.M., Barlaz M.A. (2008) Development of a coupled
reactor model for prediction of organic contaminant fate in landfills. Environmental Science
and Technology, 42, 7444-7451
Mitchell J.K. (2009) Geotechnical surprises - or are they? The 2004 H. Bolton Seed Lecture.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135, 998-1010
Morris J.W.F. (2001) Effects of waste composition on landfill processes under semi-arid
climatic conditions. PhD Thesis: Univ. of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa,
December 2001
National Academic Press (2007) Assessment of the performance of engineered waste
containment barriers. Prep, by Committee to Assess the Performance of Engineered
Barriers, National Research Council, Washington, DC:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11930.html
117
-------
Section 8 - References
Oman C.B., Junestedt C. (2008) Chemical characterization of landfill leachates - 400
parameters and compounds. Waste Management, 28, 1876-1891
Paige G.B., Stone J.J., Lane L.J., Yakowitz D.S., Hakonson T.E. (1996) Evaluation of the
prototype decision support system for selecting trench cap designs. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 25, 127-135
Pansu M., Gautheyrou J. (2006) Anion exchange capacity. In: Handbook of soil analysis:
Mineralogical, organic and inorganic methods, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 755-766
Peyton R.L., Schroeder P.R. (1993) Water balance for landfills. In: Geotechnical practice for
waste disposal, Daniel D.E. (Ed.), Chapman & Hall, London, UK
Plaza C., Xu Q., Townsend T., Bitton G., Booth M. (2007) Evaluation of alternative landfill
cover soils for attenuating hydrogen sulfide from construction and demolition (C&D) debris
landfills. Journal of Environmental Management, 84, 314-322
Pohland F.G., Harper S.A. (1985) Critical review and summary of leachate and gas
production from landfills. EPA/600/2-86/073, EPA Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH, December 1985.
Rees J.F. (1980) The fate of carbon compounds in the landfill disposal of organic matter.
Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 30, 161-175
Reich J., Pasel C., Herbell J.-D., Luckas M. (2002) Effects of limestone addition and sintering
on heavy metal leaching from hazardous waste incineration slag. Waste Management, 22,
315-326
Reith C.C., Caldwell J. A. (1993) Principles and practice of waste encapsulation. CRC Press
LLC, Boca Raton, FL
Renou S., Givaudan J.G., Poulain S., Dirassouyan F., Moulin P. (2008) Landfill leachate
treatment: Review and opportunity. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 150, 468-493
Rho H., Arafat H.A., Kountz B., Buchanan R.C., Pinto N.G., Bishop P.L. (2001)
Decomposition of hazardous organic materials in the solidification/stabilization process using
catalytic-activated carbon. Waste Management, 21, 343-356
Romanchik L.A. (2013). Class 3 Permit modification, reduction in the post-closure care
period, Approval for Wheelabrator Corporation Landfill, Bedford, Virginia. EPA ID #
VAD000063669, Letter issued on 9 August 2013 to USA Waste of Virginia Landfills, Inc.
Rosqvist N.H. (1999) Water flow and solute transport in landfills. PhD Dissertation: Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Rosqvist N.H., Dollar L.H., Fourie A.B. (2005) Preferential flow in municipal solid waste and
implications for long-term leachate quality: valuation of laboratory scale experiments.
Waste Management & Research, 23, 367-380
Rowe, R.K. (1991) Contaminant impact assessment and the contaminating lifespan of
landfills. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 18, 244-253
Rowe R.K. (1998) Geosynthetics and the minimization of contaminant migration through
barrier systems beneath solid waste. Keynote Paper: 6th Int. Conf. Geosynthetics, 25-29
March 1998, Atlanta, GA
Rowe R.K., Sangam H.P. (2002) Durability of HDPE geomembranes. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 20, 77-95
Rowe R.K (2005) Long-term performance of contaminant barrier systems, 45th Rankine
Lecture. Geotechnique, 55, 631-678
118
-------
Section 8 - References
Rowe R.K. (2007) Advances and remaining challenges for geosynthetics in
geoenvironmental engineering applications, 23rd Manual Rocha Lecture. Soils and Rocks,
30, 3-30
Rowe R.K., Rimal S. (2008) Ageing of HDPE geomembrane in three composite liner
configurations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134, 906-916
Rowe R.K., Hoor A. (2009) Predicted temperatures and service lives of secondary
geomembrane landfill liners, Geosynthetics International, 16, 71-82
Rowe R.K., Rimal S., Sangam H.P. (2009) Ageing of HDPE geomembrane exposed to air,
water and leachate at different temperatures. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, 137-151
Rowe R.K., Islam M.Z., Hsuan Y.G. (2010) Effect of thickness on the ageing of HDPE
geomembranes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136, 299-309
Rowe R.K., Hosney M.S. (2010) A systems engineering approach to minimizing leachate
leakage from landfills. Proc. 9th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Guaruja, Brazil,
501-510
Rowe R.K. (2011) Short and long-term leakage through composite liners. The 2011 Arthur
Casagrande Lecture, Proceedings of the 2011 Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference, 2-6
October, Toronto, Canada, 26pp.
Safari E., Ghazizade M.J., Abdoli M.A. (2012) A performance-based method for calculating
the design thickness of compacted clay liners exposed to high strength leachate under
simulated landfill conditions. Waste management and Research, 30, 898-907
Sangam H.P., Rowe R.K. (2002) Effects of exposure conditions on the depletion of
antioxidants from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 39, 1221-1230
Schroeder P.R., Aziz N.M., Lloyd C.M., Zappi P.A. (1994a) The hydrologic evaluation of
landfill performance (HELP) model: User guide for version 3. EPA/600/R-94/168a, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH
Schroeder P.R., DozierT.S., Zappi P.A., McEnroe B.M., Sjostrom J.W., Peyton R.L. (1994b)
The hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance (HELP) model: Engineering documentation
for Version 3. EPA/600/R-94/168b, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, U.S. EPA Office
of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH
Smedley P.L., Kinniburgh D.G. (2002) A review of the source, behavior and distribution of
arsenic in natural waters. Applied Geochemistry, 17, 517-568
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) (2004) The effectiveness of municipal
solid waste landfills in controlling releases of heavy metals into the environment. SWANA
Applied Research Foundation, Silver Spring, MD:
https://swana.org/Products/ProductDetail.aspx?pc=ARF03MSWEFF
Statom, R., Thyne, G.D., McCray, J.E. (2004) Temporal changes in leachate chemistry of a
municipal solid waste landfill cell in Florida, USA. Environmental Geology, 45, 982-991
Tang J., Steenari B.-M. (2016) Leaching optimization of municipal solid waste incineration
ash for resource recovery: A case study of Cu, Zn, Pb and Cd. Waste Management, 48, 315-
322
Tchobanoglous G., Theisen H., Vigil S. (1993) Integrated solid waste management:
Engineering principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
119
-------
Section 8 - References
Tian K. (2015) Long-term performance of geosynthetic liner materials in low-level
radioactive waste disposal facilities. Ph.D. Thesis: Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, WI
Tonjes D.J. (2013) Classification methodology for landfill leachates. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 139, 1119-1122
Touze-Foltz N., Giroud J.P. (2003) Empirical equations for calculating the rate of liquid flow
through composite liners due to large circular defects in geomembrane. Geosynthetics
International, 10, 215-233
Uguccioni M., Zeiss C. (1997) Improvement of leachate prediction through municipal solid
waste layers. J. American Water Resources Association, 33, 1265-1278
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1989) Final covers on hazardous waste
landfills and surface impoundments. Technical Guidance Document, EPA/530/SW-89/047.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1991) Design and construction of
RCRA/CERCLA final covers. Seminar Publication, EPA/625/4-91/025. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1993) Solid waste disposal facility criteria.
Technical Manual, EPA530-R-93-017. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1995) AP-42 (5th Ed.), Compilation of air
pollutant emission factors, volume 1: Stationary point and area sources, Section 2.4:
Municipal solid waste landfills. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995, Supplement E
(November 1998), draft update in review (October 2008)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1996) Soil screening guidance: User's guide.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC 20460. Publication 9355.4-
23, July 1996
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002) Assessment and recommendations for
improving the performance of waste containment systems, EPA/600/R-02/099. Prep, by
Bonaparte R., Koerner R.M., Daniel D.E. for EPA National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2004) Monitoring approaches for bioreactor
landfills. EPA/600/R-04/301, prepared by Tolaymat, T.M., Kremer F., Carson D., Davis-
Hoover W. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008) National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Requirements for Secondary
Data Projects, Rev. 0 October 2008: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/qa/qappreq.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011) State detail Analysis: The national
biennial RCRA hazardous waste report (based on 2011 data). Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, Washington, DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2014a) Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) Regulations: A User-Friendly Reference Document for RCRA
Subtitle C Permit Writers and Permittees, Version 4. EPA 530-R-11-006, 1 December 2014
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/tsdf-ref-doc.pdf
120
-------
Section 8 - References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2014b) Climate change adaptation plan. EPA
100-K-14-001, June 2014: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPA-climate-
change-adaptation-plan.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2014c) Climate change adaptation technical
fact sheet: Landfills and containment as an element of site remediation, EPA 542-F-14-001,
May 2014: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/climatechange/cca-tech-fact-sheet-lf-
containment.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2015) Some safeguards in place for long-term
care of disposed hazardous waste, but challenges remain. Report No. 15-P-0169, Office of
Inspector General, Washington, DC, 17 June 2015, 29pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2016) Guidelines for evaluating the post-
closure period for hazardous waste disposal facilities under Subtitle C of RCRA. Final
Memorandum, Office of Resource Conservation, 15 December 2016: 19:
http ://bit. Iy/2q wYVEh
VanGuIck J.F., Rowe R.K. (2004) Influence of landfill leachate suspended solids on clog
(biorock) formation. Waste Management, 24, 723-738
Vorster K. (2001) Determination of the field capacity of a landfill. Proc. Sardinia 2001, 8th
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 1-5 October 2001, S. Margherita
di Pula, Cagliari, Italy
Yalcin F., Demirer G.N. (2002) Performance evaluation of landfills with the HELP (hydrologic
evaluation of landfill performance) Model: Izmit case study. Environmental Geology, 42,
793-799
121
-------
LANDFILL DATA FORM
FACILITY NAME:
LOCATION:
1- CRITICAL ATTRIBUTES CHECKLIST
SUBTITLE C SITE ONLY
AT LEAST OWE CLOSED (I.E.. CAPPEO) SUBTITLE C UNIT AT SITE:
NO. OF CLOSED SUBTITLE C UNITS WITH DOUBLE U
LCS AND LOS HOW DATA AT CLOSED SUBTITLE C UNITS IS RECORDED INDEPENDENTLY Of ACTIVE UNI TS AND NON-SUBTITLE C UNITS:
SITS INFORMATION
LCS FLOW DATA
LBS FLOW DATA
LCS (LEACHATE)'
ALL/SOME CLOSED UNITS HAVE SEPARATE DATA COLLECTION
ALL/SOME CLOSED UNJTS HAVE SEPARATE DATA COLLECTION
OME CLOSED UNITS HAVE SEPARATE DATA COLLECTION
-»(F NO. STOP HE R*
-»IF NONE. STOP HERE
-»IF NO. CONTACT PROJECT TEAM TO DISCUSS BEFORE PROCEEDING
-> IF YES, CONTINUE TO ITEM (2) NEXT
IS COMBINED ACROSS Ail CLOSED UNITS
DATA IS COMBINED ACROSS ALL CLOSED UNITS
B
|YE5/NO
IF YES. PROIECTTEAM WILL FOLLOW UP TO OBTAIN DATA
S. DATA MANAGEMENT MATRIX
PLEASE COMPLETE DATA MANAGEMENT MATRIX BELOW FOR EACH CLOSED UNIT
THE NUMBER OF COLUMNS SHOULD MATCH THE NUMBER »N BOX LA ABOVE - PLEASE ADD ADDITIONAL COLUMNSIf NECESSARY
FOR EACH UNIT. ANSWER QUESTIONS 1-26 OR INDICATE "YES" IF DATA ARE AVAILABLE. "U/K" IF UNKNOWN, "NO" IF DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE, "N/A" IT NOT APPLICABLE
FOR EACH YES ENTRY, PBCMECT TEAM WILL FOLLOW UP TO OBTAIN OATA
CLOSED SUBTITLE C UNIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
UNIT ID#
1
UNIT SIZE | LINER PLAN AREA} (ACRES)
¦
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (LINER, LCS, AND LDS CROSS-SECTIONS)
-
(.MERMAN IAVQUT DRAWING AVAILABLE
4
AVERA6E UNERBASE SLOPES\%)
5
3RD PARTY CQA PROGRAM FOR LINER CONSTRUCTION
6
END OF LINER CONSTRUCTION DATE
< 1,:*' -:/V INI-. l-rRR;!'
,
s
END OF OPERATING PERIOD
9
PREDOMINANT WASTE TYPE
10
WASTE RECEI PTS/PLAC£MENT RECORDS AVAILABLE
! 1
IOTAI VOLUME/MASS OF WrtSTL iN PLACE
MAXIMUM WASTE HEIGHT (I'EETI
13
aOSURE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (COVER CROSS-SECTIONS)
¦
GAS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (VENTS. WELLS)
15
COVER PLAN LAYOUT DRAWING AVAILABLE
16
FINAL COVER TOP SLOPES (%)
i r
FINAL COVER SIDE SLOPES (H'.V)
18
3RD PARTY CQA PROGRAM FOR COVER CONSTRUCTION
19
END OF ITOVfft CONSTRUCTION DA IT
20
LCS ROW DATA
:
'
r
21
NO. OF INDEPENDENT LCS FLOW MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
¦
METHODS) OF LCS FLOW MEASUREMENT
23
LDS FLOW DATA
24
NO. OF INDEPENDENT iCSFIOW MfASURFMFNT 1 OCATIONS
25
ME rHOIKS) <¦>' U.S > LOW MEASUREMENT1
26
LEACHATE CHEMISTRY DATA
"
NUMBER 0« INDEPENDENT LEACHATE SAMPLING POINTS
28
LEACHAIE DATAQA/QCPROTOCOL
29
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATION VEXPIAINATION OF LC5/LDS DAld"
l|
30
COVER SYSTEM (MM/ REPAIR RECORDS
J
COVER SYSTEM SETTLEMENT DATA
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS
1 COOES FOR METHOO FOR FLOW MEASUREMENT
A AUTOMATIC PUMPING SYSTEM, UQUlD VOLUME RECORDED FROM ACCUMULATING FLOW METER
B PERIODIC PUMPING IF LIQUID IS PRESENT, VOLUME RECORDEO FROM ACCUMULATING FLOW METER
C PERIODICALLY MEASURE TIME TO FILL A KNOWN VOLUME
0 PERIODIC PUMPING IF LIQUID IS PRESENT IN SUMP TO A HOLDING TANK, VOLUME TRANSFERRED FROM HOLDING TANK MEASURED
E PERIODIC PUMPING IF LIQUID PRESENT IN SUMP. VOLUME ESTIMATED FROM CHANGE IN LIQUID LEVEL
F AUTOMATIC PUMPING SYSTEM, UQUID VOLUME ESTIMATED BY MULTIPLYING PUMP CAPACITY > TIME
G OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
2 FOR EXAMPLE, STUDIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED INTO STORMWATER INFILTRATION ISSUES, EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS, METER CALIBRATION/TOLERANCES. DATA GAPS, ETC.
PLEASE RECORD ADDITIONAL NOTES AND COMMENTS ON NEXT TAB (IF APPLICABLE)
-------
Section 10 - Appendix II
10. APPENDIX II
Table 11-1. Landfill construction details
Landfill designation
Total number of study
units
Total area of ail units
included in study
(acres)
c
1
-o
is
•<
c »
2.-0
n
- fl
%
8
w
o
5 o
W C
23
0
1
Total waste in place
(million cubic yards)
>
<
i
J4
HI
» &o
§ a
&
«<
Maximum waste thickness
(feel)
Average base liner slope
<%)
Average final cover slope,
top area
<%)
>
<
$
1
fj
CO JD
SI
1
It
i r
M
- o
fg
¦o
3.
II
O 3
O &
o O
< >
?
1 a
51
o *
r S3
5° 2
u> 2. v>
33 S®
W 3
e
8
50
M-1980S
to
L-1990s
L-1980s
to
M-2000S
3.3
3
110
2
2
3 1
Yes
Yes
1
T
18
48
L-1980s
to
M-1990s
M-1980s
to
M-1990s
46
3
80
25
5
5 1
Yes
Yes
li
j
3
31
M-L
1980s
M-L
1990s
3.0
9
90
2
2
NA
Yes
Yes
li
R
5
31
M- 1980s
to
E- 1990s
E-2000S
22
10
100
2
5
3 1
Yes
Yes
iil
P
4
40
L-1980s
to
E- 1990s
M-1990s
to
E-2000S
1.7
7
50
2
0 5
20:1
Yes
Yes
Iv
Y
3
5
M- 1980s
M-2000S
024
19
55
1
4
3:1
Yes
Yes
ii
M
1
9
M- 1990s
M-2010S
08
21
110
2
5
31
Yes
NA
iv
D
2
9
M-2000S
M-L
2000s
07
3
100
45
10
3 1
Yes
Yes
iv
F
1
6
L-1980s
E-2000s
0.31
14
50
2
10
3:1
Yes
Yes
II
Notes
1). E - early. M - mid, L - late
2). I ¦ automatic pumping system, liquid volume recorded from accumulating flow meter; II - periodic pumping if liquid Is present, volume recorded from
accumulating flow meter, iii = periodic pumping if liquid present in sump, volume estimated from change in liquid level, iv > periodic pumping if liquid Is present in
sump to a holding tank, volume transferred from holding tank measured
NA not applicable Landfill J is situated below an MSW overfill landfill and has no sideslopes The unit at Landfill M has intermediate cover soil only
123
-------
Table IMA. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow rate (gpad) at Landfills B, J, and R
Landfill unit
Sampling
Years into post-closure care program
ID
Layer
Interval
Total
Data
to
CO
¦c*
Oi
O
--1
CO
<£>
o
-
ro
co
cn
o
-si
CO
CO
N>
O
ro
ro
to
to
CO
ro
£»
8
ro
o>
ro
-4
ro
CO
ro
to
B-1
LCRS
Monthly
641
21
19
17
16
13
13
12
10
13
9.1
6.5
8.0
8.3
13
6.8
10
9.1
9.5
8.2
7.6
LDS
536
4.1
5.2
4.5
3.4
3.1
3.1
2.0
3.7
3.1
CO
o
1.5
2.6
2.5
3.1
2.6
2.9
3.0
3.5
2.2
2.8
B-2
LCRS
Monthly
644
13
12
8.3
9.4
8.2
7.2
7.9
7.1
8.9
5.6
2.5
5.7
5.1
4.1
2.6
8.4
4.6
4.7
5.4
5.4
LDS
452
3.0
4.2
5.3
4.0
3.9
3.8
4.0
4.6
2.6
1.7
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
B-3
LCRS
Monthly
675
31
30
23
20
18
15
14
8.5
6.1
4.3
3.0
6.6
7.3
5.9
15
13
13
13
12
10
LDS
401
3.9
4.0
4.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
1.9
3.0
1.3
2.6
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.6
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.6
1.4
1.9
B-4
LCRS
Monthly
669
30
27
22
21
19
17
14
12
14
12
13
8.2
7.6
9.1
7.8
13.0
9.2
10
8.8
8.5
LDS
205
1.6
2.8
2.5
2.0
3.9
2.2
2.8
2.1
1.3
0.4
0.2
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
B-5
LCRS
Monthly
663
10
8.9
9.1
6.5
5.6
5.3
4.2
2.8
5.5
11
7.4
5.6
3.8
4.1
1.8
2.8
2.0
2.0
1.7
2.0
LDS
370
4.4
15
12
11
6.6
7.6
10
11
6.5
3.4
3.0
3.2
3.3
4.7
2.7
4.5
4.6
7.9
5.5
7.7
B-6
LCRS
Monthly
675
70
78
69
36
39
37
48
68
331
338
237
142
91
67
66
54
41
30
29
25
LDS
207
19
14
10
6.9
6.8
5.0
5.5
7.6
7.5
5.7
3.7
3.6
1.7
2.5
2.2
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.8
B-7
LCRS
Monthly
420
630
692
599
496
479
84
112
98
100
111
122
106
115
118
129
126
120
LDS
228
7.7
4.4
5.2
3.0
3.1
34
3.6
4.5
5.2
13
21
17
19
19
29
18
23
B-8
LCRS
Monthly
138
41
24
14
14
17
21
21
15
10
3.7
2.5
LDS
126
2.3
2.1
2.4
3.0
10
13
12
11
37
52
86
J-1
LCRS
Monthly
20
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.0
LDS
85
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
2.0
4.1
4.8
5.1
3.2
2.8
1.9
1.7
0.8
1.2
0.8
J-2
LCRS
Monthly
21
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
LDS
21
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
J-3
LCRS
Monthly
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
LDS
26
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.5
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.0
R-1
LCRS
Monthly
148
9.7
7.1
5.3
4.7
4.2
2.5
2.7
2.5
3.3
4.1
2.2
1.0
2.0
LDS
148
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
R-2
LCRS
Monthly
156
7.1
6.0
6.2
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.8
3.9
4.2
3.8
3.9
3.7
4.2
LDS
156
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
R-3
LCRS
Monthly
156
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.0
LDS
156
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
R-4
LCRS
Monthly
156
5.0
5.2
4.4
4.2
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.1
3.4
3.3
3.5
LDS
156
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
R-5
LCRS
Monthly
156
3.4
3.2
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.0
2.5
1.6
2.2
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
LDS
156
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Co
0)
o
ry
o'
a
is
"O
ft;
a
&
-------
Section 10 - Appendix II
Table 11-2. Landfill base liner system details
Designation
Area
LCRS
Primary liner
LDS
Secondary liner141
Landfill
%
%
§
X)
-s-if
2 J"
»l§
» a
9
3 S-
11
2 <
$
Soil thickness
(inches)
* 2.
3 B
•3
2 I
i
Geomembrane
thickness
(mil)
Compacted clay
liner thickness
(inches)
Drainage layer
material1'1
£
If
<9 Tr
l» 3
u
f=f
M
2 S
||
o
4
ill
(0 D
Compacted clay
liner thickness
(inches)
B
B-1 to B-8
4-9
S
12
GM/CCL
HDPE
80
60
S
12
GM/CCL
HDPE
80
36
T
T-1 toT-18
1 5-4
S
12
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
36
S
12
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
36
J
J-1 to J-3
9 5-115
s
12
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
18
G/GN
12
GM'CCL
HDPE
60
36
R
R-l
5-7.5
GN
-
GM/CCL
PVC
40
36
GN
-
GMCCL
PVC
40
36
R-2 to R-5
GC
-
GM/CCL
HDPE
80
36
GC
-
GM/CCL
HDPE
80
36
P
P-1 to P-4
10
GN
-
GM
HDPE
60
-
GN
-
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
36
Y
Y-1
1 5-2
S
12
GM
HDPE
60
--
S
12
GM/CCL
HDPE
40
36
Y-2 and Y-3
s
12
GM
HDPE
80
--
S/GC
12
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
36
M
M-1
9
S/GC
12
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
18
GN
-
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
36
D
D-1 and D-2
3-6
GC
-
GM
HDPE
60
-
GC
--
GM/GCL
HDPE
60
-
F
F-1
6
GN
-
GM
HDPE
80
-
GN
--
GM/CCL
HDPE
80
36
Notes
1) GN - geonet. GT • geotextile. QC - geocomposite, G » gravel, S - sand
2|- GM = geomembrane, GCL » geosynthetic clay liner, CCL = compacted clay liner
3| HOPE - high-density polyethylene. PVC « polyvinyl chloride
4) The LDS lor Landfill P is overlain by a tertiary liner and drainage layer, not listed in the table die to space constraints As such, Landfill P features two LDS
layers from which data are available LDSt (upper LDS above tertiary liner and LDS2I and LDS2 (lower LDS above secondary liner)
Table 11-3. Landfill cover system details
Designation
Drainage layer(s)
Barrier layer
Landfill
2*?
II
|1
" 2.
Protective soil
thickness
(inches)
Type"'
Soil thickness
(inches)
4?
S
s
1
19
1
Thickness
(mil)
Compacted clay
liner thickness
(inches)
B
B-t toB-6
6
S
18
CCUGM
HDPE
30
24
B-7 to B-8
6
S
18
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
24
T
T-1 toT-18
24
GN
-
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
24
JO
J-1 to J-3
24
GC
-
GM
HDPE
60
-
R
R-1 to R-5
24
GT
~
GM/CCL
HDPE
80
24
P
P-1
36
GN
--
GM/CCL
HDPE
60
24
P-2 to P-4
36
GN
-
GM/GCL
HDPE
60
-
Y
Y-t to Y-3
30
GC
-
GM/GCL
HDPE
40
-
M-1
-
GF
18
-
--
-
--
D
D-1 to D-2
24
GC
-
GM/GCL
LLDPE
40
-
F
F-1
12
S
12
GM/GCL
LLDPE
40
-
Notes
t) GN - geonet, GT « geotextile, GC = geocomposite, S > sand, GF = general fill
2) GM . geomembrane, GCL - geosynthetic clay liner CCL » compacted clay liner
3). HDPE » high-density polyethylene. LLDPE » linear low density polyethylene
4). Landfill J is situated below an MSW overfill landfill, the liner system of the overfill landfill is Integrated with the
cover system of Landfill J units.
5) Landfill M unit is currently inactive with intermediate soil cover pending final oover system construction; the final
cover will comprise a 36-inch ail-soil evapotranspirative cover system
125
-------
Table II-4B. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow rate (gpad) at Landfill T
Landfill unit
Sampling
Years into post-closure care program
ID
Layer
Interval
Total
Data
-
ro
w
U
cn
O)
CO
CO
Ul
o>
-nI
CO
—L
<£>
ro
o
ro
_i.
fO
N>
ro
CO
fO
u
ro
tn
ro
CD
ro
-si
ro
CO
ro
<£>
T-1
LCRS
Monthly
58
16
9.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
LDS
58
2.5
2.7
3.0
4.4
2.4
0.8
0.5
T-2
LCRS
Monthly
57
69
34
23
14
5.1
6.4
4.0
LDS
63
4.1
3.6
2.7
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.2
T-3
LCRS
Monthly
55
34
8
51
43
19
12
6.5
LDS
70
8.7
10
5.3
5.3
3.1
4.3
3.9
T-4
LCRS
Monthly
51
50
7.1
17
7.3
1.4
0.1
0.2
LDS
54
5.9
4.3
4.6
3.6
2.4
0.1
0.2
T-5
LCRS
Monthly
48
352
125
73
48
30
1.0
0.1
LDS
70
5.9
4.5
7.0
10
13
15
16
T-6
LCRS
Monthly
59
21
12
6.8
7.5
4.0
3.7
0.9
LDS
50
12
6.4
4.3
3.2
2.7
1.3
0.0
T-7
LCRS
Daily
1591
40
24
52
60
51
40
34
28
43
21
28
24
LDS
390
7.7
4.5
5.2
4.9
3.3
1.4
3.9
0.4
17
4.7
7.1
7.6
T-8
LCRS
Daily
1519
33
31
42
95
100
180
95
72
105
15
91
13
LDS
1356
26
77
50
81
91
57
30
41
85
52
137
119
T-9
LCRS
Daily
1365
79
90
139
121
44
32
34
87
81
69
21
LDS
979
19
27
38
30
30
27
24
39
14
31
46
T-10
LCRS
Daily
937
79
90
139
121
44
32
34
87
81
69
21
LDS
1108
19
27
38
30
30
27
24
39
14
31
46
T-11
LCRS
Daily
1615
67
86
82
64
72
60
66
63
48
34
18
LDS
1047
27
24
37
27
25
25
24
34
3.1
26
24
T-12
LCRS
Daily
1497
34
46
80
74
48
62
43
37
17
4.5
2.0
LDS
592
0.4
5.2
4.8
4.1
3.2
2.4
5.8
17
12
22
23
T-13
LCRS
Daily
1457
60
46
13
1.1
0.9
1.2
16
29
4.1
35
3.2
LDS
401
0.2
0.6
1.5
1.2
4.5
6.3
14
6.1
5.8
3.8
2.9
T-14
LCRS
Daily
1276
32
46
45
124
91
96
36
23
3.6
3.8
2.0
LDS
587
14
8.1
8.3
7.3
5.1
7.2
9.0
20
7.1
14
11
T-15
LCRS
Daily
1322
3.8
3.6
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.1
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.3
LDS
235
1.4
1.2
1.1
2.0
0.6
0.5
0.5
11
7.4
0.3
1.8
T-16
LCRS
Daily
1535
167
230
185
281
196
367
228
402
386
171
57
LDS
1008
64
40
58
48
39
43
45
51
29
32
61
T-17
LCRS
Daily
1535
86
185
184
73
31
67
66
63
41
37
33
LDS
175
5.0
0.1
7.8
3.3
0.4
2.6
0.2
1.0
6.8
0.0
1.2
T-18
LCRS
Daily
1310
28
25
17
12
6.9
19
47
41
74
12
27
LDS
309
2.7
1.1
1.6
1.9
2.5
3.0
1.8
3.7
0.2
1.7
2.1
K2
a*
0!
a
9-
-------
Table IMC. Annual average LCRS and LDS flow rate (gpad) at Landfills P, Y, M, D, and F
K2
SI
Landfill unit
Sampling
Years into post-closure care program
ID
Layer
Interval
Total
Data
-
CM
CO
¦st
IT)
<£>
f-
CO
o
o
-
CM
P-1
LCRS
Weekly
1909
5.9
3.5
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.8
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.2
LDS1
3577
11
19
23
18
14
24
34
32
6.5
37
33
26
30
15
20
11
10
4.9
LDS2
3258
12
17
19
13
17
11
22
16
5.6
27
19
18
16
6.4
11
6.8
13
12
P-2
LCRS
Weekly
1793
8.1
4.8
2.7
2.2
3.6
1.8
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
LDS1
3399
21
18
11
6.3
6.4
8.4
10
1.8
15
14
11
15
8.2
8.6
8.8
8.0
3.4
LDS2
3266
17
27
18
25
16
27
17
5
21
20
15
14
6.0
8.4
8.9
8.8
10
P-3
LCRS
Weekly
1520
7.0
3.8
3.9
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
LDS1
3389
3.7
2.8
3.4
1.8
1.1
3.1
1.5
0.8
2.8
1.3
1.9
6.5
2.0
4.9
4.0
2.4
1.6
LDS2
3160
4.7
8.0
8.3
10
5.4
10
5.2
1.1
8.4
10
7.2
6.1
2.7
5.3
6.1
5.9
5.7
P-4
LCRS
Weekly
1157
19
13
8.2
6.9
6.6
3.9
2.4
3.6
3.6
2.1
3.1
2.0
2.5
LDS1
3239
2.4
1.4
3.9
3.9
1.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
2.0
1.5
1.8
2.2
1.7
LDS2
3211
4.2
8.7
6.6
1.2
11
4.8
7.5
6.6
2.2
6.2
5.9
5.1
5.5
Y-1
LCRS
Monthly
99
4.4
3.8
3.3
2.4
2.7
2.3
2.3
2.8
2.5
LDS
99
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Y-2
LCRS
Monthly
102
5.9
5.0
4.4
3.6
4.1
2.6
2.2
2.3
2.1
LDS
102
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Y-3
LCRS
Monthly
101
5.1
4.3
3.4
2.3
3.4
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.2
LDS
101
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
M-1
LCRS
Monthly
48
20
14
14
12
LDS
6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
D-1
LCRS
Monthly
103
40
40
25
22
30
23
22
21
20
LDS
19
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.8
5.9
4.3
1.8
3.5
2.6
D-2
LCRS
Monthly
72
14
6.0
3.4
5.1
4.5
3.6
LDS
72
27
29
31
24
20
17
F-1
LCRS
Monthly
288
179
310
164
160
148
126
275
206
100
49
58
24
LDS
141
58
27
33
13
12
7.2
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.6
2.3
5.0
CO
0)
o
ry
O'
a
is
T3
"O
ft
a
&
-------
Table II-5A. Annual peak LCRS and LDS flow rate (gpad) at Landfills B, J, and R
Landfill unit
Years into post-closure care program
ID
Layer
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
B-1
LCRS
22
22
24
18
16
16
15
13
36
16
7.3
10
10
51
19
15
12
10
8.8
7.9
LDS
4.6
6.7
6.3
4.4
4.6
4.7
3.9
5.6
4.3
10.2
3.0
6.1
3.3
4.6
3.6
5.5
6.3
6.9
4.0
3.8
B-2
LCRS
13
14
11
12
10
12
17
16
27
10
6.3
9.0
6.9
6.5
5.7
20
5.5
5.7
5.6
6.4
LDS
4.5
7.7
9.4
7.2
8.9
6.0
10
5.7
4.1
5.6
2.4
3.1
1.2
1.6
2.8
1.7
1.7
2.1
2.0
1.1
B-3
LCRS
32
31
29
22
26
20
17
12
11
10
7
9
9
9
18
17
15
16
14
11
LDS
7.0
8.5
10
4.8
4.9
6.4
4.4
5.4
5.1
10
5.3
3.4
2.6
3.2
2.5
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.2
3.1
B-4
LCRS
31
33
26
24
23
19
17
17
19
20
22
10
11
17
17
22
10
11
10
8.7
LDS
4.8
6.3
6.7
10
13
10
8.0
5.2
8.0
4.0
1.6
10
4.0
1.9
2.5
2.0
2.6
1.8
2.0
1.0
B-5
LCRS
12
12
12
9.4
8.3
9.4
5.6
5.1
11
14
11
6.8
4.6
8.4
7.6
5.3
3.3
6.1
3.6
3.8
LDS
8.2
50
43
25
21
17
26
22
24
8.8
8.9
6.5
8.1
10
5.7
12
10
19
11
14
B-6
LCRS
75
94
101
69
42
49
85
184
836
429
264
202
118
79
79
70
47
33
31
28
LDS
30
28
23
19
22
19
7.6
32
24
12
5.8
11
8.3
10
8.2
4.6
4.3
7.6
3.5
3.0
B-7
LCRS
1495
1147
771
1018
718
179
131
142
118
122
163
119
129
124
144
137
132
LDS
23
7.5
19
5.8
6.7
6.7
11
13
22
46
37
58
48
60
60
39
41
B-8
LCRS
76
34
16
16
28
58
24
21
15
4.2
3.4
LDS
5.7
5.5
5.2
6.5
73
67
54
34
103
188
188
J-1
LCRS
2.3
1.3
4.0
2.7
3,5
0.0
1.7
2.6
6.8
9.1
8.7
9.3
4.2
5.8
10.3
8.4
0.0
LDS
3.2
2.2
2.9
2.3
2.3
2.4
4.5
5.7
8.4
19.3
5.4
6.2
5.6
5.7
5.4
5.0
5.0
J-2
LCRS
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
LDS
2.2
2.3
2.5
1.9
1.8
1.9
0.3
2.7
0.0
5.9
6.3
6.5
5.4
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
J-3
LCRS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.8
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
LDS
2.2
2.1
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.0
3.3
4.3
3.5
4.6
3.7
4.3
4.0
4.2
3.8
0.0
R-1
LCRS
15
12
7.1
9.3
6.2
4.4
3.9
3.1
11
7.7
5.7
2.7
3.2
LDS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
R-2
LCRS
8.7
7.2
7.2
7.3
6.2
5.9
9.6
4.2
7.7
6.3
5.6
4.0
12
LDS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
R-3
LCRS
4.4
7.6
7.9
3.9
3.7
4.8
3.0
3.5
4.7
2.6
2.3
3.3
4.1
LDS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
R-4
LCRS
6.2
6,5
5.6
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.3
6.3
4.8
6.6
3.9
4.5
LDS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
R-5
LCRS
4.4
7.7
3.5
2.9
4.4
2.5
5.3
2.0
3.2
6.0
1.8
3.3
1.8
LDS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
K2
00
0
1
0!
a
9-
-------
Table II-5B. Annual peak LCRS and LDS flow rate (gpad) at Landfill T
Landfill unit
Years into post-closure care program
ID
Layer
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
T-1
LCRS
70
14
2.4
4.5
2.2
0.4
0.2
LDS
4.4
3.3
4.8
11
7.2
4.9
4.5
T-2
LCRS
123
65
37
44
12
13
11
LDS
6.5
4.8
4.6
4.5
3.0
2.9
5.0
T-3
LCRS
51
22
95
86
59
97
75
LDS
12
15
16
7.7
6.0
7.6
11
T-4
LCRS
307
40
51
12
12
1.0
0.4
LDS
10
5.4
8.3
4.5
4.6
0.2
1.0
T-5
LCRS
593
193
148
82
112
6.2
0.2
LDS
14
7.2
18
18
26
25
33
T-6
LCRS
83
20
9.2
17
11
13
4.5
LDS
18
8.8
10
4.0
5.8
14
0.2
T-7
LCRS
57
62
69
80
68
49
38
37
59
25
37
65
LDS
16
15
21
21
14
11
31
4.7
61
19
23
49
T-8
LCRS
44
43
59
337
353
521
116
122
148
57
142
52
LDS
50
157
157
196
243
132
215
99
287
178
338
446
T-9
LCRS
592
563
206
329
90
102
107
234
271
235
188
LDS
71
69
96
79
59
62
60
74
61
121
236
T-10
LCRS
592
563
206
329
90
102
107
234
271
235
188
LDS
71
69
96
79
59
62
60
74
61
121
236
T-11
LCRS
83
99
98
89
78
72
86
84
60
50
45
LDS
49
50
86
64
48
50
60
63
17
156
88
T-12
LCRS
69
81
89
89
68
88
72
52
34
8.8
7.8
LDS
3.6
20
13
10
7.6
4.2
19
89
65
126
88
T-13
LCRS
253
76
42
1.7
1.3
7.0
26
36
18
104
8.7
LDS
1.8
1.3
4.6
7.5
16
31
57
20
19
39
22
T-14
LCRS
84
120
181
289
284
218
74
33
21
8.7
10
LDS
32
28
27
21
12
22
23
63
50
57
37
T-15
LCRS
6.2
4.7
2.8
2.4
2.2
1.3
1.0
1.3
6.6
5.8
7.2
LDS
4.4
3.9
3.1
7.8
2.8
2.0
2.3
125
68
1.9
8.3
T-16
LCRS
530
888
283
693
441
1216
529
1149
1387
934
325
LDS
146
93
139
116
80
104
107
171
134
199
276
T-17
LCRS
225
240
663
172
56
113
143
122
187
109
92
LDS
61
1
81
12
3
10
1
4
47
0
6
T-18
LCRS
56
60
53
34
13
48
86
105
276
64
101
LDS
9.1
2.4
4.3
11
13
11
7.6
12
2.0
12
11
K2
IO
l
t3
t3
0!
a
9-
-------
Table II-5C. Annual peak LCRS and LDS flow rate (gpad) at Landfills P, Y, M, D, and F
M
O
Landfill unit
Years into post-closure care program
ID
Layer
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
P-1
LCRS
12
5.5
3.4
3.4
2.9
2.4
5.1
6.7
3.0
6.5
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.2
1.8
1.5
2.0
0.9
LDS1
24
36
36
36
32
51
68
101
11
99
50
49
37
26
32
19
16
8.9
LDS2
33
30
27
25
34
22
44
35
15
52
29
33
27
18
20
15
19
15
P-2
LCRS
12
13
5.1
6.7
21
6.0
2.2
0.7
1.6
0.8
0.0
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.3
0.6
0.5
LDS1
42
28
23
15
11
21
25
3.2
38
19
21
22
19
15
16
11
5.5
LDS2
44
39
45
51
32
55
33
17
40
31
36
27
21
17
20
14
13
P-3
LCRS
10
5.9
7.9
3.4
4.0
3.2
4.5
2.5
1.8
2.3
3.6
2.9
2.9
1.4
1.7
1.1
2.0
LDS1
5.5
3.9
10
3.5
2.4
11
4.6
1.6
6.9
2.6
7.4
12
4.9
8.5
10
5.6
2.5
LDS2
6.5
17
21
22
13
24
18
3.2
15
20
16
10
12
12
13
9.5
8.6
P-4
LCRS
38
21
13
14
10
15
5.2
11
6.1
3.9
6.1
5.1
4.3
LDS1
3.8
4.0
10
8.5
3.4
2.3
2.3
3.1
3.4
2.6
3.4
4.4
2.9
LDS2
11
15
14
3.1
24
8.5
16
15
6.3
13
11
10
13
Y-1
LCRS
5.3
4.6
4.0
4.8
6.9
3.7
5.3
4.4
5.2
LDS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Y-2
LCRS
7.2
5.9
5.5
5.7
7.2
6.5
4.5
3.7
4.4
LDS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Y-3
LCRS
6.3
5.6
5.2
3.6
9.1
4.4
4.7
3.9
4.6
LDS
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
M-1
LCRS
34
25
14
14
LDS
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
D-1
LCRS
104
65
67
39
46
45
35
32
33
LDS
21
0.0
0.0
9.3
20
22
19
15
11
D-2
LCRS
23
13
5.1
9.2
9.2
8.2
LDS
33
35
34
31
26
42
F-1
LCRS
214
536
200
220
193
142
333
290
121
90
107
34
LDS
129
49
248
19
17
9.2
3.7
2.5
2.9
1.8
3.0
19
in
0)
o
<3"
O'
a
is
T3
"O
ft
a
&
-------
Section 10 - Appendix II
Table 11-6. Summary of leachate data availability for constituents of interest
Chemical
constituent
Data availability at landfill'2*
B
T
J
R
P
Y
M
D
F
LCRS
LDS
LCRS
LDS
LCRS
SOI
LCRS
sen
LCRS
LDS1
LDS2
LCRS
son
LCRS
LDS
LCRS
LDS
LCRS
LDS
PH
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
Y
V
Y
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Specific conductance
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
Y
Y
Y
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Total dissolved solids
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
N
NF
N
N
N
N
COD'"
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
N
NF
N
N
N
N
BODn!
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
N
NF
N
N
N
N
Total organic carbon
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
NF
Y
Y
Y
N
NF
N
NF
N
N
N
N
Alkalinity
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
N
NF
N
N
N
N
Chloride
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Sulfate
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
N
NF
N
N
N
N
Calcium
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
N
NF
N
N
Y
Y
Magnesium
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Sodium
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
N
NF
N
N
N
N
Potassium
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
N
NF
N
N
N
N
Arsenic
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
Y
Y
Y
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
Y
Y
Cadmium
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Chromium
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
NF
Y
Y
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Lead
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
Y
Y
Y
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Nickel
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
NF
Y
Y
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
Y
Y
Benzene
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
Y
Y
1.1 -Dichloroethane
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
1,2-Dichloroethane
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
trans-1.2-Dichloroethene
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Ethylbenzene
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Methylene chloride
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Trichloroethylene
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Toluene
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Vinyl chloride
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Xylenes (total)
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
NF
Y
NF
N
N
N
N
Notes:
1). COD = chemical oxygen demand. BOD = biochemical oxygen demand.
2). Data availability: V = leachate data are available (these cells are colored green for ease of identification), N = leachate data are
not collected, although sufficient flow in the LCRS and/or LDS exists to enable a sample to be collected, NF = no flow in the LDS.
which means sample collection and analysis cannot be conducted (these cells are colored gray for ease of identification),
131
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
11. APPENDIX III
Landfill
Landfill B
Cells
Years into PCC
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
Modules
Bll
B12
B13
Bll
B12
B13
Bll
Parameter
Units
pH
pH units
Specific Conductance
(jmhos/cm
TDS
mg/L
COD
mg/L
BODS
mg/L
TOC
mg/L
Alkalinity
mg/L
Chloride
mg/L
14700
6860
11200
53.2
5750
9860
Sulfate
mg/L
Calcium
mg/L
16.7
2280
811
55.9
Magnesium
mg/L
15.3
263
81.7
18.1
Sodium
mg/L
Potassium
mg/L
Arsenic
2440
201
646
426
Cadmium
ng/i
ND
Chromium
M#
138
Lead
H#
ND
Nickel
P#
Benzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
48600
ND
324
1,1 -Dichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
453000
194
1050
1,2-Dichloroethane
fJ-gfl
ND
ND
914
ND
104000
726
ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
fJg/l
1980
ND
ND
470
68300
121
3900
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
M-g^
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ethylbenzene
P#
1690
4510
ND
ND
1090000
101
189
Methylene Chloride
vefl
ND
289000
13600
ND
3490000
6730
ND
1.1,1 -T nchl or oe thane
M-g^
ND
4130
ND
ND
481000
ND
ND
Trichloroethylene
ND
ND
ND
ND
561000
69
ND
Toluene
pg/i
14800
28900
123
388
8670000
230
10600
Vinyl Chloride
M-g/I
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
75.1
850
Xylenes (total)
M-g/1
16300
21300
154
ND
5040000
444
ND
132
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
u-i
21
21
*22
22
22
23
23
23
24
B12
B13
Bll
B12
B13
Bll
B12
B13
B! 1
9340
6680
1580
7310
2090
592
45.5
2190
263
9.15
ND
677
9.7
253
70.9
8.22
253
19.2
ND
ND
88.7
1.1
216
85.4
S21
ND
ND
2420
ND
266
585
1120
6160
10.2
1020
1570
ND
ND
137
10
107
969
174
239
25.5
315
ND
111
4750
1790
ND
51.3
1580
ND
ND
ND
ND
854
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.7
320
15200
116
4.77
202000
ND
486
6600
109
300
ND
307
1.91
ND
ND
27
3880
108
250
ND
43.9
7.45
ND
20
1690
ND
142
1540
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
300
3070
22 ^
ND
1670000
24.7
2210
11400
13.4
5710
351000
2270
6.9
1510000
ND
ND
168000
755
2000
6750
ND
ND
296000
ND
131
3080
ND
325
5400
20.5
8.36
454000
ND
194
4650
147
250
34300
63
0.431
5210000
123
25700
40600
28.2
58900
ND
29.7
0.952
ND
ND
233
ND
15.9
500
10900
104
2.01
194
13600
58000
40
38100
133
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
u
,24
15
25
2f>
2ft
IT
mi
8D
811
Bl 2
813
Rtl
BI2
KO
B2t
!K.M»
I XK«
1
0 5
N^l
|0
N'I
1.1
15
340
yX
W >
r":M
VKd
!>'
ivO
1
Hit
q ii
1 *VJ
(¦
of.".
Mi>0
0 Os)C.
".'JO
4! 1
1 A»
if*1
14
tiHii
I?li
ijr,
xi
irt
2.3
19
«•
>10
.TUX)
n
At!
It
0 1
10
H-
>X?
4¦>*>
1 ««
m
:td
.UiJ
1
f. w
4 "1.1
•iliO
.Nh'i
«M **!
:vn
Mil
.vXW
! ?4
4?n
v4
!) UK
M
ii.!:
\!.>
!5
'
i'l'i
iiO'te
M,*
t men's
;?),?
17fr,'
K5
tg;
O.iVU
1! S
?(W
i :,K>
lu
1
'Kisfit
0.i!4
>0
0 mm
St.
•Si'K'}
l(t>
•>!
4
Wffi
! 1 *¦
I7(io
HS
IMH>
%
S5 <»
»4 5
!<>:.'
4>V
IfH'
f,
4.1
M.i
;•«
^5(w»
s*
liitXS
U
\S 7
134
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
B22
B23
B21
B22
B23
B21
B22
B23
B21
B22
7,330
4,470
8,450
6,310
3,900
8,560
5,150
3,290
11,800
802
11.6
137
653
10.5
85.6
509
12.8
19
30,1
136
290
30.3
49
273
38,4
6.83
675
1550
1260
500
203
6120
404
25.3
ND
ND
14.5
ND
ND
270
97
ND
171
11.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.18
57.8
10.2
3.02
21.5
6.52
2.98
2.04
192
ND
4.8
207
65
2.21
197
49.7
2,76
20.5
ND
ND
ND
12.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
19.4
16.2
5.7
ND
8.71
2.33
ND
1.49
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2,58
ND
ND
ND
130
138
15
186
163
5.21
51.2
63
7.53
1.54
449
ND
ND
313
5.36
4.04
10.4
6.57
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.76
1.37
ND
9.55
0.946
ND
0.412
ND
ND
ND
10
3.97
ND
1.47
1.14
ND
0.275
737
136
91.6
1050
112
56.8
295
45.8
51.9
13.3
ND
ND
ND
21.5
2,53
ND
22,5
ND
ND
2.49
519
415
57.8
767
539
17.4
202
108
24.8
12,9
135
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
Ii-2
20
21
31
21
22
22
22
23
23
23
IS 23
B21
B22
B23
B21
B22
B23
B21
B22
H23
2,500
11.700
6,910
4,080
9,480
6.740
3.750
10.000
8,100
4,000
-t;i
6.89
94.5
659
8.4
79 6
596
22>
33.2
72.4
359
26.3
55.9
282
2040
331
194
19100
723
166
7700
410
160
6200
38.#
ND
ND
132
10
10
16.4
6
6
25
7
382-
127
15.4
660
105
18.1
280
120
79
\l)
ND
ND
ND
33
33
33
19
46
19
1100
840
20000
1 7(i
ND
ND
13,2
15
60
4.54
10
52
1.1
29
3,2
226
843
15
188
120
15
270
38
ND
ND
ND
ND
12.5
50
0.6
15
60
0.6
1
ND
86
ND
15
70
4.04
10
48
0.97
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
60
0.6
20
80
0.8
11.9
4.1
106
153
12.5
88
66
85
340
23
ND
ND
ND
48.4
100
400
6.24
85
340
3.4
0.96]
ND
ND
26
16.3
65
1.2
10
40
1.9
0.51
ND
ND
5.6
12.5
50
2.26
15
60
1.6
9.24
6.6
396
126
54.5
374
34.5
85
890
16
0.519
ND
ND
19,2
25
100
1.28
5
20
0.98
16.6
23.5
356
387
15
378
140
85
650
64
136
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
?4
24
24
Ifi
16
16
17
a
17
18
H21
82-2
B23
B.M
B32
B.U
K.U
K3 2
b;w
B31
11 .m
MOO
4, t()0
(.luM
4,1 SO
)4,SQt>
CMOG
«'.7M
I0.SUO
n
100
MO
34 7
Iir
i-W
Si,9
JO
#.2
:ry
2f>,.
K4,h
1,07
MxZ
Sht;
KMO
2010
554
V«
"J*
(J OfHi
59
ND
J JO
o ie i
27?
54
mo
ift'i
ju 2
I4M
it (OrtO
.•
:• i
.? 03
NO
N'D
u 97
4 St'
ND
NO
7 h
700
®>2
5 r>4
!5 4
NO
\> 47
H.5
Nf J
NT)
o.mts
01'Xil 5
N'D
Nil
ND
N'D
NT'
N'n
ND
o.ooi:
0,047
O.C-fM
4.K
ND
ND
ND
X.-47
ND
ND
0 00?
OOOW
u oo;
ND
ND
ND
1 7
0S4!
ND
ND
0 W5
150
i'
ND
4 7 X
? 54
14 4
O.'-JK
1 *
0.0085
0 0085
0.00S5
ND
363
14-0
N'D
ND
16
ND
0.01
7,3
1.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>0
ND
0 CO 1 *¦
MOO 15
ND
NT>
ND
[ 51
(1^04
Nit
Nf!
14
^}0
'1 -.X
40 2
45 «1
Id 5
^ >,4
o.s
!;
4 72
NT?
NO
fc 48
7 U
ND
ND
n
(>70
8 68
4 t,
W ii
ja
«.(-U
137
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
rt-j
w
18
19
W
w
2d
20
20
21
21
KM
KM
HM
832
j>?i
831
tB2
BM
BAJ
BM
ND
wo
ND
v,750
11.100
1 2.000
S,420
107
28 r.
35?
0.54;
24 «
2.22
160
0.654
80.6
-;rs
(•9,4
iSM
15K
so
ND
ND
85,4
2.1
1.V70
?]«
im:
<«0.4
1230
IX'J
'M>2
NT)
,ND
31. J
!f<4
nd
\D
ND
H)
S5 4
> h
52 7
23 *
12:*
M)
.U4
171
I5P
25
HTt
VD
Mt
ND
\*D
ND
ND
ND
T>
2 M
Nl)
4!0
1 »'•!
ND
N'D
ND
ND
•1!)
t 5
5 4?
Nil
5(4
4 <4
ND
ND
s. h4
ND
10
"i "t
NO
M)
ND
Ml
ND
ND
ND
ND
.25
1.2?
1, K
ND
ND
o >m
.ND
XI)
1.5S
ND
?<}
1 5
sn
vr>
\n
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
>0
f -•
8.04
s ,i't
24 to
^ l
1X4
nn
ND
ti.15
25
j I
\n
ND
ND
no
SD
ND
1 St
.27
200
2t 2
ND
NH
sn
Nf3
NO
ND
ND
ND
¦D *
j C«.t
u„«:
xd
-a:
0 .s?s
\'D
ND
OSh
ND
25
I 25
VA:'
7.;
UlOtXt
N'D
i) ft
7|
n 7
N1 >
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
50
2.?
S ,\t>
:v.b
HW„>
t:.4
145
ND
a.h:
5K.2
;>u
5.7
138
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
21
22
22
22
23
23
'23
14
u
14
B33
BJI
B32
BM
1»1
B32
B33
!U1
B42
B43
15 i>( K)
12,1*00
14 turn
y.'Siii
1 i jj(jO
7,540
',050
K.tOU
1 44
i yti
M5
35
<;0
i ih
2«i
2W
MO
510
UKX)
in
ft
73
M)
0.00t»
•13
0.03
242
IK>
200
I'Kl
480
54
2stj
5t
Is)
*45
ICn)
:i<>
45f!
SiOll
\n'ii
si ill
14tt»
I ilX)
n'i'J
1 5
20
1
1
1.7
0.71
u.ooi
0.351
N'D
i.5
30
i X
I •.
S ;
; t
u!'c
NTJ
\D
\r>
170
8 5
X 5
0 tXJK4!
0017
l>00K">
4X1
1 67
NO
.<1,2
1
lt>u
2.*
12
MM
21
12.V
J.3N
i 2.4
-
20
1
1
t s Oil f
ft i
0 001
ND
Mi
\'f>
i,;5
J It
1.5
1,5
O.tiO I ft
0 0011
0,0015
ND
XI)
Nf"
170
8 5
5
17
2 i
IXUOS5
sv
J 5h
2,5
10
0 5
t\5
0,^7
0.31
&,00f)5
ND
ND
\D
.. .
a\5
46
21
,i,l
-2 '¦
^ 14
1.73
139
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
11-4
IS
IS
IS
tft
(ft
17
If
17
18
84 J
fU2
Hi}
la j
H4J
B43
K4i
M2
K4.1
K41
5ft')
1 I ,VfX>
4 (.20
5i> 40
8,31
3,W|
4,-10
5.5N>
52 i
2
41 1
iO.X
*^7
218
2f> f,
9: K
:i 4
. 4
5!
I < >
28 l>
i ? iO
91 ;
,:i 1.6
W
1140
14 1
ND
HI)
"V-"}
'? 15
ND
15 X
;.V5
ND
243
a
2lll
i;i
55.6
ND
N'D
36 ft
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.36?
0.874
CU'.
\D
ND
ND
ND
ND
0 W
I XK
! ^3
4 5)
I ,-*.7
i.V<7
ND
1,11
Oil
7 14
1 8D
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
nd
NO
NT)
\n
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT)
ND
ND
NP
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'i i:
5.15
1.??
-t>S5
0.81 IS
ND
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
IX
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
U42
B43
B41
B42
B43
B41
B42
B43
B41
B42
5.820
12,200
4,750
5 390
10.100
5,900
6,300
13,000
5,200
5,800
157
9.46
27.2
97.5
13.2
23
150
61.1
12.9
24:7
49.7
16.8
21
64
131
446*
1740
101
652
820
140
1200
760
140
\n
ND
30.3
10
10
25
6
6
25
0.006
19.8
95.1
81.5
30
351
76
810
230
71
46
\n
ND
33
33
33
19
19
19
38
49
2700
1200
560
2500
910
ND
0.74
0.3
0.3
30
0,2
0.4
20
0.24
0.0002
0.48
22
1.96
0.43
30
o 2
5.2
30
2.3
3.5
ND
ND
0.25
0.25
25
0.3
0.3
30
0.0003
0.0003
ND
ND
0.3
0.3
30
0,2
0.2
20
0.0002
0.0002
ND
ND
0.3
0.3
30
0.4
0.4
40
0.0004
0.0004
0,78
1.56
1.65
0.83
46
2.8
1.7
170
2,8
0.0017
ND
5.62
7.22
-
200
1.7
1,7
170
3
0,0017
ND
ND
0.325
0.325
32.5
0.2
0.2
20
0.0002
0.0002
ND
ND
0.73
0.25
25
1.4
0.3
30
0.0012
0,0003
ND
6.16
0.26
0.25
110
1.7
1.7
170
3.3
0.0017
ND
ND
0.5
0.5
50
0.1
0.1
10
0.0001
0.0001
ND
12.2
9.19
0.3
314
9.7
L7
170
11
0.0017
141
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
21
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
R43
B51
B52
BS3
B51
B52
B53
B51
B52
B53
11,000
8,650
6,700
4,760
8.830
1,960
4,260
6,240
2.670
11.500
20
96.6
361
354
673
341
162
30
40.2
67.9
49.4
54.5
75.5
43.7
1100
783
434
189
253
96.6
80.1
0.006
52.7
10.3
ND
:jo
ND
ND
ND
i 30
ND
29
ND
561!
0.001
1.36
ND
1.29
0.535
ND
2.97
ND
ND
1.45
1.9
3.53
ND
1.51
1.8
1.14
2.79
0.646
0.407
1.71
0.0015
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.286
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.001
1.08
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.002
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0085
1.07
ND
15,2
0.254
ND
17.4
ND
ND
4.16
0.0085
5.05
10.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.001
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0015
ND
ND
0.341
ND
ND
0.341
ND
ND
ND
0.0085
4.2
ND
6.43
1.6
0.3
11.2
0.887
ND
2.47
0.0005
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0085
7,24
5.89
282
1.45
1.01
140
0J56
0.557
41.8
142
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
R-5
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
K51
B52
B53
BS1
B52
B53
BSl
B52
BS3
R5I
4;s:o
2,220
2,360
6,230
2.950
4.720
8,780
3,030
3,910
7,500
645
396
149
1030
520
187
705
456
82.3
51.2
68
26.6
77.7
78.5
49.5
55.9
96.1
46
126
29.2
18.1
81.1
85.9
125
110
50
71.8
68
53.2
7.73
11
170
ND
ND
178
10
10
130
15.1
6.08
12
10.9
ND
34.5
6.98
31.5
34.6
4500
ND
10.4
ND
ND
102
ND
3,3
33
33
1.9
1400
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.45
0.558
0.517
0.485
11.7
30.8
5,65
2,13
8.05
4.6
4.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
28.4
ND
0.25
13.5
0.25
0.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.32
ND
0.3
0,3
0.3
0.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
ND
ND
0.604
0.42
ND
ND
0.31
0.25
0.25
1.7
ND
ND
ND
9.3
ND
ND
2.04
2
2
1.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.325
0.325
0.325
0.2
ND
ND
ND
2.82
0.5
0.93
0.56
0.25
0.43
1.3
0314
ND
ND
0.28
0.7
ND
0.25
0.36
0.25
2.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.51
ND
0,5
0.5
0.5
0.1
ND
ND
3,98
3.15
ND
0.97
0.47
0.3
0.3
6.4
143
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
19
19
'20
20
20
11
12
12
12
13
BS2
B53
B51
B52
B53
U61
B61
B62
B63
B61
3.500
5,200
7,800
3,300
4,400
14,600
11,700
11,800
4,230
790
360
82
126
69
81
43
65.6
.380
74
86
180
110
396
6
6
120
0.006
0.006
:-o
76
33
0.021
38
70
19
13
42.
31
350
220
630
280
180
(>.:
0.8
0.34
7.4
1.9
9.01
ND
0.694
68.9
2,14
3.8
2.6
19
5.6
3,46
ND
0,694
ND
11.4
29
0.3
0.0003
23
0.0003
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.3
0.2
0.0002
0.004
0.0002
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
0.4
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.8
1.7
0.0017
0.0017
0.0017
91.4
91.2
1.38
66
10.7
1,7
1.7
0.0017
0,0017
0.0017
ND
ND
2.04
ND
ND
0.2
0,2
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.77
0.98
0,00066
0.00052
0.001
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.1
1.7
0.0017
0.0017
19.8
51.2
4,33
2480
21
1
0.1
0.0001
0.5
0.17
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,2
2.9
95
3.3
0.0017
95
1290
4120
3.62
118
221
144
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
H-ft
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
Bf>2
B63
B61
B62
B63
Bfsl
B62
B63
B61
B62
10,100
12,100
3,640
11,500
12,800
5,580
16,200
15,000
19,800
:5 4
21.9
110
25.6
25.8
49.8
93
14.4
1,42
30,5
11.8
13.2
58
13.6
16.7
45
17,6
16.5
20.6
226
248
463
219
212
255
148
193
ND
194
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
327
237
142
280
257
232
188
181
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.77
46.9
ND
4.52
39.9
ND
3.67
33.7
918
7.71
4.45
ND
5.45
2.49
5.27
ND
2.39
6.36
1140
5.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.84
ND
ND
2.54
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
30
11
1.55
29
5.35
1.97
23.1
8660
2,35
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.94
ND
ND
ND
0.354
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.32
18.4
1140
10.1
7,76
338
11
5.36
110
55900
10.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.15
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,27
7.14
65.8
191
4.31
51.9
51.4
5.85
38
60100
7.22
145
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
H63
B6.1
B62
B63
B61
B62
B63
B61
B62
B63
15,200
9,930
11,100
5,100
12.000
13,000
5 j 00
6.400
37.3
72.9
26.5
28.2
93
S3
46
23,1
40.5
18.9
18,6
34
41
30
183
330
195
213
320
90
190
100
380
250
ND
1
1
1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.003
9.8
0.003
1 35
250
143
111
220
72
250
76
270
150
ND
5.25
3.3
23.8
1,9
1.9
20
24
12
52
1400
230
270
350
2000
350
15.2
7.4
7.56
6.5
12
1.4
8,9
3.7
5.4
5.6
8.94
6.7
3.13
5
8.8
3.2
5.9
3.4
7
6.6
ND
2.5
0.25
1.25
3
0.3
1.5
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
1.23
3
0.3
1.5
4.1
0.37
1.6
0.001
0.001
0.001
ND
3
0.3
1.5
4
0.4
2
0.002
0.002
0.002
10.6
13.3
2,89
6.6
17
1.7
8.5
0.0085
13
0.0085
ND
20
2
10
17
1,7
8.5
0.0085
0,0085
0.0085
ND
3.25
0.325
1.63
T
9.7
1
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.62
2.5
0.25
1.25
3
0,7
1.5
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
53.9
58
8.48
24.6
87
3,1
21
0.0085
54
15
1.88
5
0.5
2.5
9.5
0.1
2.8
1,1
1.5
1.2
24.9
166
7.33
16,6
99
4,7
16
0,0085
150
11
146
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
B-7
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
1 1
R71
B72
B71
B72
B71
B72
B71
B72
B71
B72
15.600
8,180
9,290
11,300
13,000
14,000
13,100
12,400
70.2
27.6
18.5
15.5
64
43.5
4.5
6.76
6.95
5.26
7.84
5.89
163
149
176
148
177
109
ND
ND
ND
ND
120
93.8
214
124
ND
ND
155
ND
78.1
58.4
60.6
109
108
65.4
52
50.5
36.1
73.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.695
6.09
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.43
4.94
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.338
ND
ND
ND
76,6
52.7
61
83.3
41.2
72.8
46.1
72.4
29.5
97.5
ND
ND
ND
51.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.03
1.75
ND
ND
4940
1890
3230
1160
1700
3720
2610
4450
1540
4580
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.861
5.28
ND
ND
105
273
111
455
123
383
89.2
529
49.9
483
147
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
0
1
B7i
B72
B71
B72
B71
B72
B71
B72
ISS1
B81
14.100
9,340
12.300
12,200
11000
15,000
15.000
14,000
7,900
4,940
J 6.8
15.6
19.1
15.5
33
23
1140
9.15
7.49
9.7
8.56
12
6,6
1.13
¦>p
125
168
111
220
200
260
'240
195
ND
ND
1
1
0,6
0.6
3.1
0,003
142
120
134
86.9
200
130
190
130
ND
ND
3.3
3.3
4.8
1.9
19
32
320
280
580
480
39.3
43.5
48.8
27.5
70
65
57
43
105
144
ND
ND
'7.5
7.5
7,5
7.5
0.006
0,006
ND
4.02
ND
ND
6.25
6.25
7.5
7.5
0.006
0.006
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.5
7.5
16
5
0,012
0.0078
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.5
7.5
10
10
0.008
0.008
ND
ND
33
53.5
45.3
51
43
71
38
61
33.9
44.9
ND
ND
50
50
43
43
0.034
0.034
29.6
ND
\P
ND
8.13
8.13
5
5
0.004
0.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.25
6.25
7.5
7.5
0.006
0.006
ND
ND
1920
2710
2620
1470
2900
2300
2600
1400
477
724
ND
ND
12.5
12.5
2.5
2.5
0.002
3
ND
ND
58.8
289
74.3
286
74
420
66
360
156
183
148
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
Landfill F
K-8
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
B8I
B81
B81
B81
B81
HHI
3.880
5,560
11,600
10.400
14.000
12,000
73.5
81.4
228
302
120
614
586
440
439
N[>
ND
ND
0.6
ND
123
136
127
167
240
300
16.1
21.8
10.9
17.3
ND
ND
ND
0.328
0.6
4.7
ND
ND
43.5
44.8
55
64
ND
ND
ND
3.3
1.9
21
620
990
\D
ND
ND
ND
3L7
37
254
206
210
190
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.92
ND
ND
6
6
3.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
6
0,003
0,724
ND
ND
6
4
0.0049
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
8
0.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
12,5
11.8
74
72.6
63
65
ND
ND
ND
ND
2,14
ND
ND
40
34
0.017
ND
ND
ND
6.5
4
0.002
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.455
ND
ND
5
6
0.003
ND
ND
ND
ND
161
162
1130
1060
820
700
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
2
0.001
ND
ND
ND
ND
64.9
47.4
319
290
280
280
149
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
Landfill J
1-1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
7.6
9750
676
650
552-
287
354
342
380
333
386
ND
13.2
14
13
10
4
5
g
4
10
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
18
ND
3
ND
N1J
ND
ND
ND
14
26
44
2.6
ND
ND
5
\n
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12.0
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
5
M)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.7
\H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nil
s
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
10
10
150
-------
1
7.6
9890
2540
1730
352
823
22
952
10
5
3
40
10
13.0
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
20
Section 11 - Appendix III
J-l
11360
7,1
6,9
12640
7,1
13938
6.6
17410
7.3
15324
6.2
25509
6.8
34700
2770
1710
390
830
936
10
2840
1880
439
952
25
1190
10
3300
1900
480
930
29
1400
10
3400
2100
460
1000
29
1400
10
3300
2400
400
920
36
1500
10
41.00
2900
410
1100
45
1900
11
7200
4500
630
1800
130
4200
28
7200
5200
530
1600
140
3800
40
10
25,0
10
40
10
31.0
10
42
18.0
18
270
23.0
340
12.0
160
5,0
15
230
15.0
260
13.0
20
10
10
10
10
IF
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.3
10
10
5.0
5.0
To"
10
10
5.0
5,0
6.3
10
5.0
5.4
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
151
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
11
12
13
14
IS
16
0
1
"2
3
6.9
7.3
7.1
7 7
7 5
7.1
7.5
7.4
38400
42900
43161
43700
44748
45563
1630
1675
9200
9400
9500
10000
10000
11000
209
207
6600
72.00
8700
7800
7800
7700
203
200
760
810
860
840
810
790
69.4
50.7
2000
o
o
o
2000
2100
2100
2100
94.4
104
480
560
740
720
800
890
5.58
5.94
7300
8600
7800
8000
8700
8600
143
159
40
57
60
63
80
96
10
10
1
4
25
10
6
4
*5
5
9
9
45
140
13
43
21
5
240
380
1100
2100
1000
410
219
55
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
10
3.5
7,1
7.7
5.0
8.2
5.9
100
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
200
20
1
1
1
1
100
10
5.0
0.6
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.9
100
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1,0
100
10
0.9
1.1
1.3
2.1
1.5
100
41
1
1
1
0.57
1
100
10
1
1
1
1
1
200
20
2
2
2
2
2
200
20
152
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
,1-2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i
13
7.6
7.0
72
7.0
6.4
7.3
7,1
7.0
7 3
1560
7374
6966
6356
17134
17450
18500
14190
19186
220
510
610
4200
4700
4000
4100
4400
4300
190
2400
3000
5800
6500
5700
5700
6200
6600
45
170
130
520
500
510
470
500
480
100
470
600
1800
1600
1600
1400
1800
1900
6
13
16
46
40
31
38
34
39
160
690
900
2300
2000
2000
2100
2100
2400
10
10
10
10
6
15
6
15
15
5
5
5
5
2
7
2
1
3
3
68
8
34
9
9
3
9
40
3700
590
480
250
290
510
990
25
40
10
20
0
1
1
1
1
25
40
10
20
6
4
3
3
4
25
40
10
20
1
1
1
1
1
50
80
20
40
1
1
1
1
1
25
40
10
20
1
1
1
1
1
25
40
10
20
1
0
5
5
1
25
40
10
20
1
1
1
1
1
43
40
10
72
5
5
5
6
8
25
40
10
20
1
1
1
1
1
50
80
20
40
1
1
1
1
1
50
80
20
40
2
2
2
7
2
153
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
14
15
0
1
2
3
4
S
6
7.5
7.4
7 5
6.5
19760
19676
19009
14070
4700
5200
4400
4700
7200
8200
6400
25
450
510
490
760
1800
1700
1600
1100
38
37
39
29
2500
2600
2500
570
5
5
10
10
1
5
1
5
4
9
14
3
950
1300
1200
370
1
1
1
100
3
6
3
100
1
1
1
100
1
1
1
200
1
1
1
100
2
2
2.
100
1
1
1
100
¦j
12
8
100
I
J
1
100
1
1
1
200
-
2
'2
200
154
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
J-3
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
6.8
6.7
12286
10040
4100
3500
2?
20
560
430
1000
770
34
23
540
450
23
17
S
1
r 5
9
510
400
130
I
130
36
130
20
270
20
130
130
9
130
20
130
20
130
8
270
20
270
Q
155
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
Landfill M
Landfill P
M-.l
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.5
29615
19891
16387
14948
15994
66.900
70,500
546
516
2.010
337
5423
2544
2431
2625
2783
2400
YD 5
340
440
1.5
33
290
035
6.3
LI
0.82
16
n "w
0.57
156
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
P-i
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
10
17
i8
8.4
7 9
89*800
82.500
1,730
534
ND
m/i
y /4
157
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
i'l
20
21
i
2
4
S
6
?
8.2
7.6
6.8
45,800
43,000
45,200
2,950
2,380
1.630
1,460
1,430
1,890
1,830
356
566
701
Mi
ND
ND
71?
1.050
1,560
158
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
9-2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
9.5
9.9
9.0
9.4
59,200
43.900
2.210
781
1,290
830
219
262
233
ND
55
955
1,550
1,290
159
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
P-3
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
60.300
56.400
.57,000
56,400
2,800
2,580
1.820
160
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
P-4
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
9
10
11
9,1
8.7
9.4
9.1
Q. [
9.8
8.3
8.2
59,400
68,900
18,760
10,700
12,300
12,000
10,600
¦843
2.800
108
1,210
1,020
1,120
ND
ND
ND
40
ND
ND
422
152
508
661
¦yyi
625
3,670
2,300
161
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
Landfill R
R-l
12
13
I
2
3
4
6
7
8
7n
8,1
7300
7800
8100
8500
2600
2700
2900
2800
1500
1400
1800
1100
360
360
470
310
3,600
4,600
6,000
3,700
24.0
19.0
20.0
22.0
1,520
1,550
30
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
10
75
356
ND
ND
ND
50
\D
27
60
ND
ND
ND
8.210
5.450
110
100
130
130
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
162
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
•>
10
11
12
13
1
•?
3
4
5
7.6
35,300
20.500
7.850
9,600
10.000
8,900
9,400
14,000
15,000
15,000
13,000
2,810
3,400.00
3,400
3,500
3,600
5,500
2,600
2,700
5,500
1,200
1.200.00
1,300
1,100
1,100
880
1,400
2,700
710.00
382
390
490
430
460
690
400
780
390
5,070
5,600
5,700
5,000
5,700
12,000
4,800
10,000
7,200
16.8
18.0
20.0
22,0
20.0
39
34
36
30
0
8.20
15
9
11
10
ND
ND
0.03
0
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
0
290
8
2
11
ND
ND
ND
50
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
67
ND
0
180
140
180
170
110
ND
ND
130
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
163
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
Landfill T
K-2to R-S
ft
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
1
7.0
8.8
8.5
14.131
39004
47100
8,207
2167
3508
16,000
12,100
13,500
13,500
13,500
14,250
11590
14120
5,600
4,730
4,850
4,875
4,825
5,100
'8933
9700
1,500
1,211
1,140
1,210
1,105
1,095
4270
2283
620
620
505
600
530
555
7,900
9,153
8,875
9,150
8,600
9,450
42
23
51
33
38
37
20
0.04
32,00
39.00
17.75
14.15
102467
112550
10
0.01
7.90
9.45
4.65
4.76
549
483
50
0.02
2.17
6.70
1.80
!' -j
sO
407
143
50
0.00
3.95
50
ND
78
0.13
113.50
121.75
116.25
119,50
ND
ND
0.40
0.79
1.30
ND
5
31
ND
ND
0.44
0.50
0.37
0.35
7
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
718
307
ND
ND
N'D
ND
11
35
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2020
4424
ND
ND
ND
0.54
ND
ND
164
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
f-i
T-2
4
5
6
«
1
2
B-
=1?
K.7
¦¦ ¦
?"
,V>
5,(i
y*,2
4 »•!«)
•ilMX'
:«vm?
,c:?o
W
Hm
i
7iV
4,4'W
ifm
4,4 W
, >ii
t .w
U=W
I-JHKj
i4,r/5
,I't5
-;m u3o
.stiAH
v»?0
«)5{i5
KL'H
( -ush
fix1
4450
4,557
I7.4IC
14, ISO
h v> fiiXi
I'S "iWs
iK.yot)
fsm~>
?l?so
({>5425
s:s(to
154, u •
>;>so
13,CMS
M)
\U
ND
11
!«<
321
1 h'
W}
.i,<4
5>'
tilt)
1
1.4 if
55.*'
NO
,*il
M>
MO
,M
^2
15t
NP
IS
tf!
155
i)5
5(.
1"«,
sn
1 (>20
r:<
!! 7
'74
25
1 K'i
NT)
sn
if-
\"D
04
(O
35
i?o
Nj)
ND
5
NP
,5
M
HD
ND
ND
ND
ItVK
-H
¦;sk
Ml
m
i 7
N13
H6
JO
xn
fots
.444
ND
HJ
»
1#
152
NO
m
4
NO
IX
.S
"
7ti
22J
M fj
'.'1
"40
\i%'W
44 M
421
24*
}4f.
4?
165
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
T-3
4
5
(»
0
1
2
3
4
7.8
7M
7.9
8.8
8.6
7.8
8.1
8.1
3.710
2.955
2,097
7.053
5,061
4,957
4,840
5,891
26,575
30.550
31,867
21.448
31.300
33.733
34,320
32,150
15,400
16,600
19,167
7,397
6.592
9,363
9,722
9,063
21,600
24,800
24,567
19,667
19,480
15,100
19,780
17,800
83.400
103,975
214,667
234,333
171,140
121,733
200,200
112,950
n
5
9
1,208
585
831
124
4
598
582
747
310
604
873
1,030
1,233
60
36
21
28
55
167
151
60
105
69
19
541
219
335
248
495
114
79
83
499
174
345
267
603
o7
45
27
521
106
205
158
315
38
32
45
170
67
118
90
180
170
111
26
883
366
619
405
810
108
48
47
1.647
654
334
195
315
90
62
31
393
137
279
214
428
46
29
20
429
87
145
107
215
143
93
18
1,224
816
727
405
827
238
155
49
5.476
1,582
733
876
5.800
166
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
T-5
s
(t
o
1
2
.k
4
5
6
7.5
12.1
11 .*
12,0
12.il
12.0
11.8
i 1.7
;u*)»
KJSb
j, 144
7
;.>42
10.57V
H. 7 W
7, 7 i<)
30/05
.« 1.300
12.2:0
i.-UU?.'
12,41 K
D.iii
14.575
u.:c5
12 «'?:•
?.r: <
5,.«H*»
4J4.S
\k;k
02.K
t'l l;(M
1').205
7,7\)H
.»
Ifi.flO
tXVOO
7,4h:-;
h.)«5
7 013
^ 420
G.W *
<1 (
200
t >>>
•19
] ,M5
?;,scsf.
f in?
1
j6l)
,W5
105
:r.
3.945
403
158
Kfi
140
75
75
4<-
?44
2,-un
17?
yti
106
144
275
il
to,:.u
744
40S
iix
1 I")
III!
4V
IJ.M2
iOI
i4 A
15 i
IV-
15,
32
1.292
390
214
IN
IS?
*.)
*S
1*
W>2
J,
2'lf,
10?
XI
2 »!1
if,
:.tm
K>\>2
! 52«
74>
1,420
an
i5
22,154
1
24.45'.)
17.530
28.425
2-. 350
4 OS
167
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
T-6
T-7
0
1
2
3
4
5
ft
0
1
1 2.0
12,2
10.8
12.1
9.4
11.5
11.7
9.4
9.6
45250
30100
5,745
6,933
7,664
7,694
8,275
9,962
8,799
6,438
4,928
11,000
9,850
18,092
14,150
11,629
16,700
17.100
13,525
13,850
7,215
6.235
3,300
4,710
7.516
7,545
5.483
7,198
7.928
6,970
7,338
4,930
5,998
9.706
6,953
5,058
8,515
8.575
18,500
19,050
44,460
22,575
14,593
19,975
16.100
53,500
32,247
4
72
54
26
2
5
17
17
40
128
61
26
50
66
122
201
5
45
126
134
72
39
15
55
20
490
2,361
340
328
224
170
113
584
460
470
2.438
285
324
172
125
565
4,000
1,880
644
385
146
179
144
160
160
827
89
110
58
125
256
720
3.720
389
495
262
250
178
170
145
2.720
5,117
1.115
204
102
354
273
777
380
1,963
199
261
139
169
176
190
1.029
161
131
126
73
129
1,200
3.350
1,063
544
478
214
113
15,100
19,000
9.660
5.658
3,881
4,580
733
1,027
435
168
-------
Section 12 - Appendix IV
12. APPENDIX IV
169
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
APPENDIX IV
170
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
LANDFILL B
171
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
CELLS B-1 TO B-6
172
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
173
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
?*r*Pi»l!«SF 'SMTKW
SSSSSit^Sf' &kSSg£ii:li
kv« c-*«* nu.
*«<•;* t«jk ? ?,», l**'* t •« s\)J» «e \o«« i , su
w*. eer;ssw mx: c;'uK>»:v»m!av
»«* nwf; .cr^I-K^-o^-.XfF
¦¦¦¦¦¦:¦¦. V ¦•r.,,-V:;1-.
<¦¦11 . *». . / .'¦ v.; ¦)./ ¦ ,i . ,. V.!.. . w u v .. ¦ .v..-;. ¦.»¦•...¦ . :-i •
rtSSISSi"
Ks;,n«-s5:ssr*;
lis?"
-- t,«;
...,
m-.-.i. ¦¦¦¦(-; ¦'•¦,( '..(v '
TU,h'lSSfc"!BS;tr_
I I:1ISI S'BBi
1 "If51lr
25.!,, SS 5
iSS
iwif.it mii, ¦»¦?£.# •::i*-rsvi-
fo-»£«..-SiVi« *&* HH\ C&H1,
3EH&.**?. iCJA*. AM' SV^WSvt :.ms CM*
- is™, irssstfHr
WS- a. a#®W « ti. PSS*.
¦
174
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
v»»6* «
5-SX-. CSV^m**
i.owa
f:Sti
a.«N»
a-. («8TW
l;Si
- wwm. . mm*xn o*.n.< >>e*i>?
imt 1:18 t'SS iSM
Si« -jr i,4-.-i;p »•
>. vi«»S
a, «S-'6
t.'.mst
5f«»
«MSP«5t '<*0 «
' "iSacS
s?t\. £®*3:*ne*5
.>«¦»***->,-«* HKsiitJSSJijm.i.H.S »~,-I#,» i . »• «*> ..«,4VH
Av«S«*». Ariwfe, S 4 m. l^vSAn^,! ft*. ii'MS
IHCK1 ' £!>,
iW.T*! t,
~ s.m < *.**»*:»
•ft, ratm i <*>.**n%t
4 H-i
WKtPtTSTIW
M-.u'-.visv.j.miir.v-a'
u**c# %
"StiS","*
uJXl, S?1*«"•«•="*
"r
>*«:>» m 'st^s-K? i'Tsss®:
14.MH1UMW.1 >-,H>
.¦mm
O.-CfCW
V.Wit-rl
V.-iSS
.M
:V5?
1 »t»i»Kn«iv.>
-
MR' ^U«J ^ '6»¥
»W*:*r
*it Timsmn i..*-.** t
^%-m •«£**¦ -f.J® SSI- w^gSS «:
***»»» •*« ^ ^«Ti< *
m&rm as mm i» k^m ¦*
s'&istm« HKSM »Aml
ciwlisw un« r
>w.»CV>' UW£» v
£«,«•«. «£«? .X w iSP i.4»Tf «
•\y.mw Htm w iv# » a
ux*nc* v ww «$•« if* lms:
S*St^4»f.i '«¦* IW!*1
5«w »*1g«
«VWI<«». Wtt- SfiU *aT»> C-
v«C. »U »TB
a WW'jgn
i.k 3M*H-m
l,iW sw.w
,4«»? «?*>»
itWiia'i'wij
«.ws?
**<*« **m m *»M«i u«*«* turn * ®w«k»M -
tSfefHW-'X ft-mh w lifitf'H tlmyr
n«*i »*re<.
ttNCWSi
J..4WI
i:>. m ?
0,
O.uWK.
0.*.">X>
j»w w«?a?
175
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
176
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
'*»>«: f-i
5!S"2.sre:,siSi»rLri/s ssx*'
,, J*™*
Slits- ; IS Sit
177
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
*'«w
''"KySS*""!*«
•
"swysv -
"XS*-, S£tf0
.: . ," . ¦¦ , . ..
®iSeA^!Sii|^ois w
O.uMM , »,»«.»>
i.SW f 4.W-
<>,«»»» r «..!»> i
i : .
( «,«8<
t.MSl ( .•,>««..>
».wt
>*.m* i %.:m3
*<¦»«*
i.iM
i4-«-
8 .
~;izs£rr
t.ja?
^ i co..'.ec»ff #«o» OiBt / ^ o.*w^
**«« ME* JW <* tA«t 5
**&«««* »M Tftu .,a, lkti^ t
i'iw* -t* J «.»»sp i
' '' «»V •* !-•*'« .*«>* t.H)
serene rfc* uwt* *
m»1W# »«*» * T(* ,>f !*•!« »
- vj Hi-«• in . » < I' •> ft
.yv« - < * *«»>>>
., .¦ , .., .. ' .
Itw.n«
. ..'. .. ¦ . ¦
,.,-,... .
it.m
¦ ! ¦¦ •'
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
30-YEAR DURATION
179
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
,sm». -t'ur/iya*
W*$". $l ""vSf 3«j'J
i*.«- I
" f "
"»"* "
M> i . ,,•> t », a, 011 -;>. i ,w«*
' isCiac w<»?"4 i5>-
iWftRi*! ¦ * '" -*» w
"s.'sr
«,«¦ I
A.t&s
jsV'.<*:.« • >
u
i ?.r;
k\&. **&¦ » '."S® 3F t.MCS »
y.WW)-
* }.«, ^
^ *"* ' * •***
««•»«
4(W3«rt.aee
s«i «*•'<» « ** ¦?* >w*
a«. w
sww mm* 41 ¥>*rt w
.,!. i.m
v, afc
a»6v
j. ,**£'£ *** gi^:
&.«*
«.ia
f*i i-
,J-",ZT,tV..'T,,',T^.,l,
»•»<•'',-jrJi*' £'jf»
jwJnTw S?
^ »- -''.
frXiTMwJt ff-4,i.?.C?'CP rw * »(S. Mnv **5'S?, !V-
180
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
»«.. ok cms •» . *»'sk »
:i6«.««r oxucfco «:/>»• ^m:s<
#i'«. «SW •?« »,.&»!;:? ¥
¦:»** *a?cr *t ru»t 4* .evj
sWw *sw at «K> £**- v -rmornr'
.•«•«'.:»»»*•• u-.w
TJTM4
*?*/«*» (Sftfr/'Af »-KAl'1 **»/*.«¦
£1 5:S i;3 i:S
!;» f;lf
f;*« EE
U,fe5'> a!,»SU &.y»f fr.'.*,V Kite
O.USW =:,PH« I;, Its «.«0 few *.fcK>
SIS ills i;J8 ?;SS fc»
l:fg Kit s:3f l;i» t«5 fciS
«,» S;« i;S| »,«
-c-cu^ti' r«w a
^'ISsT'lSi I:SS 1:81 i;ltll i:IK
£Sg ?;S f;S j.s„ i!s ,;5g
ft. *:¦¦?>
¦*c« <»u«
»,i>WS>i I. J, *39 -XiiC«s.ie
....
J, f»B<5wr,M J
0«^r'
SV'iWSST
!:*»}«&«• "t«*i .*.*•> «
M.t.CS.(..STSM *9Mf *• T9* a«- (.*»«>¦ *,
* *,M> f* .»
;* <*«w >
< >¦&« UMS* 9
I IMW «
V. «,(»!»'!
•5<-&SU,?y?
ill.-. <*.<-..•
'w>, fi75»;x
i,unn
Wil. *w»« (Vwi/wrt,. •
'/tlv. w*a:« ftni/Vr., ;i
-*-* *1 '••M.K »"-» .• »d t.»n •:* < kciuir'fj.-. ¦*••
Ss>f#t &spth >»#(• oLtfTV. v ,„«>».•
hs A MCtW'^, r^VCi-iHv f:# ~-."•a-,
Si' iSKX'L'SJFtSSf^rSS
«i« 1.4- v U.A S. irs-i J, B* . X »¦•« 4-S **»««.•«* 4," VS. «.«*** <*»V* *»*«> * it
'2^1. «>»«»• rJv-MCf AT t:,» ,V »«*» 4
!.««,» «s»Kry;s ^vftsj-^s
»«»8 r
**& s
181
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
?sv?s.©ms is.
y-;« wato**** jr«f^
«Ss.iM «|W f»« .'»«!
s^iiiSKK: iisili
fWH!» sv.«ft F!uC:
"Sir^sts gir,s,
n« S«, «ssm
t,m ^ ^ **&*
•iffes-
,i,s'Si,;rtisiir r;;r
,,,, J*™*
Slits- ; lis Sit
ms^.'-S'ltSS!' : MAi&iSiS.
—«» -s
182
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
us»e| uiwi ^ &««»{,£ ttSfkm.
-wil»r wms fertB3.*A<
w:*»: viuu
rorsi. &.«*««•£
i:§ is?
m.fcW
iw.«es.-»c«
?esc!»?r^i.;.5<
£»iWA*i»U.»\*n
.¦enn-'-TAf :
'mwh*;-* UrvSK «
sw. ««¦ '» KW ->- ;.4>i'£S> i
''iil 1 »• t*iv **{#» ! "i* 1
WC./UiWfci!? !,*.** ?.fi
«*- »«•«» !» >S ,A»»* &
MSefMA-M 8*i wmse a) i««.s ^ *«.«,*
<»5i. «?0 »T cw:. •>" •£.&»
MM* **•(-*»• 4f ijasd .> «»>'.*
^ #r i*- >* <1*1,
#>*'<5* r««a^ &.4)_.«w:s
s r-Oft >£«
5*-.*S
a,5«
i»,H5
mias.w
i,i-H
te »*..**
«V»iWpS«^X?AT?0>«
Hsnra.^i?
&-, *a
n>>5i#s..w
-;:a«. *«xe « s?«i cc %¦»«*>¦*. \
.*&«, *M£». « fit* Cf« .CW SSMoWM
a*-* «< •-» ((¦•» .'h«w !Kt;
S»»V* «*<{* *T Otf .•<* .s« trJ¦
tmtwsf* wsma wtn i &*!,»*},* s>,«
vt ej. i ma .(.*» *
mms* e«. w
r»l,. iM.??"
«««?¥ i, K!ii
W«WS«^ite! SON U, ?S&
k»*:««&c '*y* „• u.-iSis
iv«. «e«> •*>* -u^ ?r <^.x* < i.^r,
. M fc* «¦ O.I4S?
«* ?**«:«#.<.» . 0»n ?s> u.
*$<&. '-W >:** w <«• ^YS»
s»a,«w4ii. jsirnn «wi«H u H.iU'Mi
'mm*, uwu o
-.ss^c cw ^ e-s j j it, Mess
s«< w*re» si^ki. i.Hi
ws?ES «i ;ii.wi rws .-<«. ,-pA*
3»«>- tewse sr rrts' >x*9
«'« MS <>.*¦ Cr,S
-3H5B.
4il?S. W
5w
*%;r?5J{, «..fc: f-cA
S-Sfj-if ?
8««« i^vtintc .A.cft
KfeteBirfS 4
tv<, <«« C« LO'C.
a* i ^»fl^ «.5V«.»
r j^ wix^ACC T^WC-rfisi s,.a-«» .it?
*.-* >»>v top .?.#• I.»e V
S!** ttlAkd ItHy f"««» !«.«> i
«®:,iUWE I,A,m u
AV.5. >;« -r'-rf. ^,4.^8 ii
t* W«5
•..rn AS ~<.*».•
S-JJ?, ST gW .?f vl»
s«;# »r» ST ¦'xt&pt « ,s>6
H« Mfw fif- IW k®«R
«»««. wtg.s ®a*a-t »«.s»w:e
0»S6U«'44
s.we
iA ¦»•'
"•SSSUPST«V>!-(
*: ^-tEr- U
»»». ,,.K.i..«.':A -.^>|K I»
,9i»X. »*MS >:« ?» !> t>fo-rtr 15
st »«s-,a s?c4<««
v. i
tiiiTUm'i
¦nmr-.am
Kftim.*xi
nkkimfM-um
iW.t-
iteit. Hfl i*>.m v#rt-^ ;-
)msiSH «-.SR. 4
AV-I, .->£«- ^ W i.
sitMH&x f>.\.i.rc-5ir. ; ,v.»» »j«6 t
(.WK.Agk'iw ,ii>
4.V-. K«* -%¦*. -.:it -ar ^
<.;««.(, Vw- i
»'r«;v.-\1.fc.«t.t . »,» H
*X<4 . •«L»l> C« Tt:>P <>?' I..AV?,'? Xi-
< "-W.» ;s.
«»t«B »T i,f#r-r ?.¥ vtAis
flf f:f» M. 'SMJ'
JHIV »iTf» «¦ ST"T vj? 6e«B
>«U« SI t-w. i,«.
W1!^M -wstts •t.'^.l.-! S«».t
6..
*§,*?-
WAU ^ (W {,
!i?'W-
««kihwi» ' ":«rr"
fe«s.m»OS OXSJECWB r».-M
«8
AvU. «««> ••;:« »W « a
rri#
?rnv,m tt-tr i11' *«•¦»• i
uM^VtA
9.J0W
».«n
0
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
tA-'W 3,S
Ma.:,, 4« ft* tffu -K Ife'fti 1.1
J*t WT'CE 5-!--JS4«;
sost .iicfc St xrma o* ' *• W* "~ •>*»
:v-» «*;?» « 7i«rt B, »W.
IS».NS*
^.:ion4r:r!» '<* ! *"<** %
s««s»a&J. ..smt.a^ '«« k«S^ M
?wow 4-s.iss .u
9Ws, .*-•«¦> -m »!." :» . *VH- ?r
¦¦:•**«* i* w*U» sisawct
tins wuw AT .»«.-} ,;•*
*7K W"C» « E«S ** *E»
u«» ¦**>*» «r 4S,B«1 » U-w»
*w«* ««.* Jt r etss fi* YfcB»
ws». s»,s«rt-
? iy> ?A~i
V'.t/iu
s»Vi»
u»; **«?
ssu.iM*
ww.w*
!,\ i,%Wi
v. «KK!03
>-WW>?
4 •
ivvjav -r-M«.« eri- »*«• A
ui,
*»<:* .*»e» .'
^E.j.c.,-wtv«yt fmivgH vv.s* 4
n» ^.p- ^ U*t5» i-
rji.AJ^ft.,1 «&» £.(fW S
r^-r.^'.caKAK '¦-«•••.<« Li'te in
«VsJ. *-W <« •>" a
tSKISSirfi n?yiH«> |.-«m iJttlSft 11
»MC..-U«S.*SS '•¦ft.r-Ajn 5*
t**« «!» Jw* .* i-ft."** VJ
> wswir !•» *>•»«
S'JSi. ^nfc At §f ,K.J»
3«i AT kms 9r V««
S5R-W M r'f- f»; 'iM-
<*HV X nc <«» .*Af
ewivii. W«n*. SftUV.r
u~ urn
ii.««
is,ia«
.i.ViJS5
5 S.»4»,
t.%Si
s>t«t;K*4t
jyfr.&i
#y
SSUWS**
v.-. i«r.
447n-SK
isy-3'5,1®!
.Xt** ?
n?«. ?nv
asEMMJ«ac CL^tXOSi. rfcw tftics- s
5SK..4£«ii.«»r rm-ntm t.*T» ,r.s<»K5w i^a*?
»W>. ass ?,-,!! i,,i ,4-vrft <" il»r.«ca®
.-Oui.SC?S!> ?«,*» uSi'-E* 21 -j.^S 1. m
'«s« I..^!.s «¦»
&v,-e,. ^4C w *#*><* v'..5I- ii v.^oa
:;««»» j?» «*TV» iftV'l 5M3«,«>»S
K
-w>- mrm 4t e«> £,« re»
m»m. w«»- \"if< ftftuwr.e
WK!*I f * I H'"
^4f.ft«4 '.fl.M'-.nc. I'M* i »'**
nJK./^A^ nvtcmt iMm «.
««f -JJii lit .'Jf L4VTJ i
-^U.fcCfif J-!W LMfcS
«fe.-r/icto«;n. M»a.v«r» (.A»« to
.tei. «£«• » -toi' or !_»£!:•
.*V(» «
AWi. •'*«• *h 'h'}P Of LA.i* S/
!.hftS» tM M-WiWst.
S«fc AT jr^t 't»*
AH AS ».« !. ¦''•"*1.1 r;^ 't"
Ltx-mt r»-*! .«'»~. •>
xm,m% -v*>-ss> *
W, K# i(WfS •.
c-ja.rcn.t- i*-c #
n-».«C,.AC-to-RfS ftSi&SM f *i«s 1*
**•(;. •.* '?r-e ^ 9
stiiw,? 'Aw; 'Mi n
. .-.r *»•».,~ 1?
»v"«
'.wi %at*» At ;.;f n-»
•f«is u» ^
*»rc» at ¥*.&«» »*'
li,«ly^ A(" vt Ti.Wi
i * n«£ iv.fc
!. ? U*
W.O»M
O-tiWiKS
f.6S9i
M, v«a;i
OS, «ir
l-jwm\aei»
vHMm
is?
-iiSUSS?.^
.V5R4'.«?»
ws&sv.astf
8,i$
a.frv.
T-;iT4U!! PC«" -t»B
sB«r^r
•>, Si®T
jujuiir«w
li.^55
t?
184
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
iw.wi
.-OH, <*•/
wis.m
immm.. 035. i-ccrsf w« IA-V «
< «-»* ta
swi. ««.>iw on *
iWjlWt? v>ts.ecT?C M/fS A3,
«*<•./! f'AMKM >.&»«* r-i
*v$, «fiA» -:+« w w wifgft SJ
•:H4J^c IK sr<«*CT
&>Jt --trcs stms-j -* rem
.m, w»r,-« st ,» <*.»,>
s>«* te'fts feT st,m~ VCAF
»?.* fcA-TEfc ft? CI® .-if. ,**#
*«e«? is
ii*,»»^' c.u.
i.m
§¦«>
WAlSWiS C0iU-€?s;.f? m*l i.W* .i
«-f w,. ••, i *v»'T, 4
6v«, ->P ION -V-r (,.«>¦» {
j.'«sh«wwi •.«<*••".:!«.?' *•'«»« J.*•'¦«« <
*!«W* I.*. SB, W
*(; Uii-> , *'• 5 *
•S.i.3W
.s.&v*
s.e-?a;w.
"1«.. n%
¦nn\i,ru
*>*rn.is*
V >**
&>«es: a.
t»»» t*H>- sp* C
~ 1« «*«* WMt
S-S%» i?
SV*W6*H«®lfe*f!Ct«
¦¦en**.-*.! >,#m >*a* ;
m»<«*•.,<.» (>'•«» '1
*tM4» v» m .**«» i
i^Ajbsa- *»c* urn «
4<.<
*.v ***•' -.'w 'v:,.« m . #,«.<> *
W*;r«.lt OJU..SC~S£< «CM u*f tv U
«-*•«'./U'AfAsJ- ?««?*»« i'i
<«*,, *M« -w jvf- •?* ^>-*e l>
CH*«4t- S« Wft*» '»»«£
vu watf» tr ?rtp.T -:* vc*»
AU «*Vi.a *f s,»> u«. 5»ii
;»v »*'tM *1 ,|»j ;.i- r»,S!{
WSTCP if CK5 IK iCM
<.Ws
iCRK.t^Ci
rm^hms
.'Wi-»S8
A»u.m
-••-vH
>-»0
i.s?u.. 5iS»
n-rtw? ron <;• p i
s»u®«« '¦».:*« t«is I
<*tekVu-.Avaiis '
wm
^v5«U.-s
\*BS.
*.V:?ti «
S«i W«-r6R i-r i*in-r «m »?»
t>h wiifice «r w i-.i. 94a»
<5,^ wftT« Al STSfiT '>f rK«-
jsw«rg!'i »r i:m » ,»«
»w« «<«.>
*iso .Mt.Mi l-snkt
WJW'
i%mn- feOM
IM V/ **.
?Xit;.Tt.- »»«•»! ;.*.<» -
tiwozvs »*«»,* .< V'.wm
«¦*'! 1-^T K® ...» i ».(•¦ % |
s«tw«£ auw ftw ..*»» € v,m*
>¦*.««* ^gR s4j v,«wi?
*vv. w o< <-.»•;» •;» v). '»y^
& i&i «.t! >-»..« iJ.ss.tt si w,mwu
s.EatsJffie t*.£» -is
tr.'i «<» 0» i; '> «i
< ->*>¦¦> ti*f,i. » -*>?'• ji
.e«fe:,.\ctea«is twvxm»i (.««* i.i
***-,. i«»: 4?»- .» -.m-* i>
:M»Gr I.m -rwtoa:
",«li »*!." if --UI.I Kf .B*»
^O'-t WA'«« Kf -'.T .•%•»¦»
$*09 W&fK( ¦« SWC' OP W
*»««-*• masiM Kst.bsa
W.i
as.
5«CiCS
".laKlHfl'i!. Sft.l!
0,-iSp
sv..ft>ie»M-tw, KM JS!.4r5
^wnMib -.,»(v< '»L' t»'n : v.''#v,
S«Ri:.AEiffe»li '•"*;'•>¦.•' «,A''8* « u.sra.-»i
•4i%. !»*.-: n-»I *l.w .>t l*'»« * • . S«»
s*«s« x'UntU!.- 1M ^Vii § a,K>m
«?K.AK«?M8 n^m> u.toes; 19 O.oaoc-St
AV«. .ov«&
vXUfeCUS R*«« .*vt* u fc^owai
t«vKte )i
nefiAti Tftp «- LiisXS- .U Q.liRiH
<•• w.1 !«.'W I.nr
w-,rl. »> *.!*•> >• •»*« Jii'4^4*
MAft-K At 6%fe £»fi •.«*«•. «
,S»,.»5Ui SA.THS
Sjf. FlEf WW'
;f ri j
o.or,
J^WJS,9tte
185
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
vv-' ^**r ' ^ -V1*
\v a«
& <«C
aiwbrs
*. U*
MtUkQW
V
to.W
WW 5.S73
IH.UM
U.J#
+e*e.A*Aw*« fc*,» *
^m«u
fr.W
B* l£
K JSJ p
tt.Vlf
W
9»tu *»«» fcT «T«* *r
iW. >M
9H. W-8 *V »MC< ¦« 't *•'»
."?#, m
¦!'S4*,»?a. ^i,i£i
*lf'" *- ^ ^
;..e%
S»5» ««Tt» Af S^.» >t.m
v4Ji?
tt.69fr
i.^6
*m,m **'w w'*',ri BBMWkt
».6V,
aww*. n^k-i rn ?tM |y
' " ...
***¦T- *• v *•** •
4<,j* iim&i ASV W
«**<¦ «m<* :w.»7 AH
?t.«7 f.r *>¦¦
swum* r*u.ecT» «« uwt* i si.a»w is.j#
tul?
mourns
;>,««
W«!**CE cna£€icc< Cfr* l*rC« U
y. vwi
«»«., . /', *.M.k;» M«..;s,i,H iMSk' 1»
M I>li4i4
«
**. *** -it* TO® ^ i.
y *»t
C«®56 IS WAYJft
4.J4J
s«5,m
*»*»« « VIA.
«e.s«
wfv «•«*• w £«e ^ *»«.
S».5M
t»»U0.4»
§;^^W **. ,iT "T*CT
0.4IP8
*«*'* « CM. Ot *W
l!
,,w
, *,<« «»*» fa
"-W-f
- V' *V -1.^ > 5 ^-,1 6 vC.'V
~ ww ,»*» ¦¦
s; c^itcris rte'4, .>•,« *
MK./iW.W ****** £»,« ,j>
#wi. -tH- «* *w •:¦• u'>r- #
mmw*# ».*****» u
~WC./UtWJW ««« t*** X,
AV6. «** «~ *•*>** .i!t» 1?
13
iMKft*
6.0«rf
r.u^AMS
?it?.gn
y, •;.!«<
s w
•j.
if »l W ?,%%<-» y.y.f
.¦....; .'.-Jj .Vj" *.*
.. . .
?»:»** c«. w
4
*¦«. *w> o* *« ** wwe* s
* w
«W*. «**£> wtw
¦* -ft* lA<£* S
'»-.Aii <;* !'*< 0» lV
&**!«*«; <^5C«0» *** .*.W
> 5M6
twMtw
a. p
O-oMWH.
<~.««»
4.40M-
s<»
?, i3Csii"ff;5
i,!, V5(X'I
o-««-
-t, v«
^,34
?«.??€
•msus, w
».««
4,»
3.S&5
«,W
«.®«e
-0.W
:rrw<*
Xfef W
t«MHMW>l»ll»<
»fa|3€
-unu .'fcl«i» •«<» ,.»¦¦(« :•
».>:;¦
««..H;m,»3i; «k< u
,»Ct -i
-«««. m
.« s
«•«««"• •-»J.»-"«' >* »»»« «
6. AT*,
¦ttzi-j.im
C-CT'' .-. t*».itt>"S ?«6T»-94sl ^<1 rC* i-u
S. 54«
»,w
RV?, fcj, ;Mt v, {^Jf
* %
u
e-*m
WW
Kfc:,?uik» ¦^/•».'>»
trtl. 1.5
,, ijg^O', i
"•.«- ^ c.^'1
t. j;
C.M
»« »
186
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
•-nvrii in rt<* sr^ma
t->i *i -ntm ¦» «i=
J.6?«
tt, i»>v
f'frm
»~* WffK *> - «•*?
«!.•« H.vir> *r «© ! «t»iST tut *»*;.«
»•.;» .C4». }*¦
:»-wes
ij.w
9y«WT
nmm* *
»w. m w- '•«« i SV** ;i
ec>s..u,ST«» m« i»t* ®
W'ftlK.WfB W
«£, "««? w -'W -s»! t*vt» V
cquucw m# i.a.s.;- u
«•»«./, «®.ft.,« »«*«,*,. , AVf. u
*•-«,. '**{.. csw is it
¦:»m» ?» %*ur «*>*,«
«?r »'MM m ^Ain ssf •«*•**
»ifc. fXi s£ .'SW
?>»V «U'K» At »¦£>*
S^W te'tTEP ** C"» C:« VJ4B
t*<»!AK W*f« &«««;.*
K.WW
I. WH
a<„ tcjT
ucmwatKi
4ram.S44
.¦rm.. «c>
.fit ft-
fc&AtWVMi CA.6*
•««GW L*-.{» s
AW. «RM>. <* ih» * i.VM-H I?
"*W*A IN «*).» -iIOKWi.
stow *vi6> *r irtiKT -if s*K
? *F i
S.'fr.KJ
lK?*.+«r
»a«, )S«
vgt
?«*¦•» ««es> *
-.* «TM;
' MS* ¦*»<> *f 1-* a* «-MW
ta&rCB *u>CCr
*•«*. H-mi aw ' E** J,T
«»r- -;v, rerT
-WtMWfton
JlfWJ'ywSS! BAS'IOk
I Ut w-. I*f ~••.<:« nWti ?
,»
. '**li •» 1'SP >r -A.Ti» i
if -tu> E«.j..-vKsr,«s vm^M iB
»Kwa »H.1PCT« «?« fcA*s». il
.sivu, «.« ',>N ros » S.s
tii 5t»B«s;
s«>.n K**«» <«« .::« VR-HW.
:-W5i. •k'.T.* *-• ms •:*¦ ¦£**
smv *i»m fet r?/w * -s*«<
Si«to- »i|p sr «« or =f«
n.«sa !V.«tr
,'ias. Wi'
iVA^?!. i;c
us.
tw3W«. iw
ni
?««*.<&
!»?S.?SS
i,«t5
K>».
^ 33
NRTHSt
s«,(«fi.i!uK ,41'
*Km*T
«!**««•«» <* c is u.afcg't
s'-«»a is *sM'€K ;f<-A-sf -i }««!
fir •<**> <.f .»*< ;;:'.",.*».« -.'»«> •» !ti" ivC'W
J*V ^ASTft 4r C'(6 >>f ¥«**- «, »>#
KsSBfccai «i,4Tt» ¥<"X;;.'t tiU,A*K&- ij.ai>50
-aSJin.M y
5!»
«*¦">, 5 ^s»«;sr^
s^.i^z «4..UCHt- Fe.j^
K«».< ..^.toAS* !«»>..~, .*,•,« 4
>v»-... rM sue ¦¦*¦ i,.,H 1
«is«h«c •CC^l..«C-CC CRC» vA-fES
usiv-.¦-!>«?-8A»t» sa
Avn. Mt-A« i:f«
r«£ji"i«.'K'h Jft.'t.
*«*SNW3 Kf3«
*»»., . n»W» iiKW 1
A«, (>««& f>« -Hie tAVfcS- 4
fK.Ajtotf v;vu
CS^./H^Ky i«v^» S«»PS Sfr
?¦**!'."(-•< j.i
...HM.W.i, JB«vX8,t« 1?
««•». i;.»« .w O S.«*ss 5:-
Ciwwac «ftios SKinsa
M«E« AV V»A** '# *8.^'
'Vrtt AT y" »»
W"» ®»T«S *T -.TA»r .;,C ,CA>
W«T^I #>' W ,»**
»i» m'w: BwWtti-
ASt*
o,&WM
o.'sm
«a.*'5 ?
?J.S.
a.
5,?!«
f«I
UOOA?"Vi
S.4W
ivxt. .'5'i
'.ftlSWvSiXi
ijrtW.W
0. (®
•>,3»
Miirt.t ~'•- !S.,W
f'»«'
imnssA),* f&KHd. ? I2.a?.*i
"SC.AEtesit i»t» « V.'.'-
S3tw:ia. ,I?C
187
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
nstc.nxftucr LATW 10 4.Pf4»>« t.iBO i.W
*«. **6 W» I® ft* >•»» 6 ».MM
?&*:»<»« coi,(.ccfcf> tK« ,ti s, sssws. uiz* u,\&
,..,. .,.-,.:. ,.„. .» ..-. . «..,¦¦¦¦! '. ¦¦ ...»¦.¦¦
¦
OW« *N *»T|* Siwac /.VM 9«*C.«» 5,4*
»u *>ie* *t «• «e** u«.m i»mw
¦¦¦'.¦¦¦ .:¦? ¦¦¦¦::;¦ .:<" ¦:¦¦,<•.; •¦¦ ¦ ,j .;.
' ' " ¦..;¦..¦¦• >.
. - ,¦ ,,
— * «*• - -
...»¦ ¦ r.„ . ¦¦¦.
St >.**., IX
4l'rt= >;«>'
¦¦¦«.<',:.(•'¦
V.!.:
*»¦ »
.... JL i . J.'
«. 1%
?<«««" u>m *
*•.*>***
**v. -**> OH >** * 5
?,1«U
....
».«*>
/«*,?*»
¦: ) ;<
¦¦ ¦ ¦ - ¦•
S.S-M4M
&.«•
fej- W «* W »
il.VSW
... i ,.,i
.,,w
s»,>* si
*>.Www
^ MMfc «~ too LWIr> u
5 to i ?¦
->. Vt?
,t.8'R
H«». »«»*• A4 >>- W*»
.¦;>,.¦¦.! :
»Jt »t a® or »w
?sW
' * T "'*
, ¦ - v.
" ¦
feSjAJW* c-'\f (»>;.< ft
w"
¦: |... "* I .'
2.U* f ».«W
fe^ncT f i.mw
V.Wflt* t
I e,te«rf
#.(»*»« ff.w»n
f *.«t5
«.»• i *.**«*«
a.***?
Wt.fi ;„4,<
188
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
•W-Jh-J* wEAfc » tBr lA-S* U
m;*mm ysx. seu «tn» & fessoils *>•* ws?m> femes'*
'V,«r.s-4E«i l*pr», Otffi' tin«'
'/•y I*** «» «*£«'«», inUw, ti, *t «.»<*«»
*S£S J «„«¦»<,? trf SwWsnsMUf
U/>, W. t. hw&um, st.
U.
I......I*.to.
rj«*V WITSB S-"S«E AT DISS Of- H\« Ms
"'*in w ^c.r
"XmF'
i.WsiL i.istl-a
i&.:*So ii.
«.*<,«& «¦,,c.ir, v,m'H
i.wo
S, t!«u$ «.«w
189
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
CELLS B-7 AND B-8
190
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
191
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
W*i:
fe>»tnwjs'r«»£ w
innw r-ott
irsrsr
X'SMK?' Sli*i
?«•».!£(>
3S«S«i K?.2is%
£>A5>
S'iStew*
192
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
"""i I:S5 S:S!1 S:SSJ 1:«! J:KI feSS
to. »i»im |.g|i Jjgg |.jjo| s.ggj w j.tjw
* a^ES^e 0^ T''J^ -W LAvES 'i
'' 1:88 !:1I tm !:»?. !:S !:flll
?.glJ f:;i?{ tst ,:MS t:Wi
<•* t',!» or nw *
'"~Z-r^U»7 7= 'Z"7:tWi\ £- fK"-> a wtfttt j
VvWrfS »''*«* ,,'SjU S'!v£? . .3>'1
Si". : -l--. . !> *• < b- >¦ v.. V I/-.} z v -*- .
•.i,E.r,„»4 |«M| j.tM, ajju jjjjj t.KMi
— ~ .-.I.....
A,»fc<6& A.**** .Jtt*., Mn.. J Lt.
c"lii'-w
{ Q.HAI,.
«>.^T
t; 4.W915
«TWi.«
"SStSSTT """w
is- nii§£4 i f;
«.?4?
•'JTS.ff'V'*""
..>»«u!"' c !? w! ">&' < j »* s i^.w-c-y
E>.m«
/«
»,*»•«« «, L.T. 4
'"•"•RRSKWRMS4
«I«W WlM, ,
MM, UW «
«.«»
1*.* 'Erf
H.HIM
».«»¦ ¦,».» L» l,.», »
""'a,5i5*"fS,*S,I" L**i* '
u.m*
tf.t? f«>5
~r H5s *TiSr
mw
I. *»t
<»,.;«
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
194
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
'"Hi: 52!"
195
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
, ,»••• i. n .
*p.'j.'., ¦,r,r» i? *¦
vts. wA'cts tvc'UfVvi. v
MitRiMrvts. sou »«r«
(5.6-
¦tmnjun
"->¦ w»-
196
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
LANDFILL I
197
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
198
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
199
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\mAeivMS. smirsn
si-T'
-ss"r—
"ST-E'V ¦"
. mvim&tsj mr. u*.
.
»J"\ ;.*»•. •
f. •>.»*,*<*
«>>.!?? i
*ettSf f 9.MM17
i.n* l, o.w*i
*,«UJ . 0.«MW.1
•' SI * i
is.***
is*r*
u.
WCv't *' J «•'»{' 1.4'C ¦<
KWTO1 HCtt S» W 5^ fc*»r* j.
> t.«. A« '
- in V'£3**? c *7
LOCS' t|M ft* '" *'""'S P
i». v rm
0,695
K%m
•j.0 .M
hwt ifeWV,4'«V
®i <**/«*,. 5-4V?
, c,«» «««> a.crrv
c
ra»*L **t» sto»»:c as « «.«» .mu
s**ti ' w»**> '" ^y
i
<
4
*
V
r
**"' **"
l.WU
S.W'J
v.y«
0.«i6
200
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
201
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
Slut:
Ci\rs fk.W
nni.: ,¦&,.,«•
. ¦¦*¦¦¦¦. I- , ¦¦¦¦¦:¦ ¦ ¦¦.. ' ,¦¦¦ .. I , M. .
iwmn
¦L Hlfu **«* OMiTSW
. V,l
\v**
«W5kf,vA',. C~ " ^^ ^ ^ ^
hz:tsn' I
:2sr : »,AiS,iSL
:¦ ( ¦¦ ' ¦ '¦ . I ¦¦, ¦ .(||
.... ¦-
* U',.
naa cAwcir- * v.»xssc votAm
!¦¦'!¦¦ > :¦¦¦¦!.¦.¦ >.. ¦*¦¦¦. v.a
(-I • >* v v -¦«. ny.\. ml, ., / <
«.p. 03W, - S.jbCv»&&ie50E-!M C
«o«>< w mm. &*$.*
fMU-l * «W*»» CW.V* *<«* BWW »
;.<>.¦¦-I ,
> m(r
KI.SKiar*
T««t. S«*W««
'f
t
at.
«-
(Ml sv m.iii- s vw, i '«»
a: HI :ii?
;%«
i:a
tss
!;S i:« III i:8
S;IS 1:51 5:» t:IS
202
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
J.»V {;|g
>0f'
T,,ia ' ' ?:»? 1:28 lit!
*rt>. t*£\>t*rizm «.**/ |,nu* }•.<**•., •'. '.'W
sffi,-, 1.34!? ,\IW
i,8*« l.JSSv j.'m?
«<»^sh vavs»' ¦«
f.GsWs &•, W»)
3.iY:ii-Kttw t.vaoc £>,mov s.«
z.mm ii.msx. z.mm <.,o3vit-
:*««*;» -v.i£C*«u*- t»¦•-*» c*n» ¥
"x:irr ~l:iS""i:iI tSS! tSIII lit?
' ";:K IS 1:138: I:Sg 5;IIS1
l:S 1:1?
I:P* fciS
r,. Mt,r
¦>. "ja s.
«:1
I: Si
i;S
*$)*) *
Iff. K.W»tlW;
iWM* iWIBW»l6!WI.'WUf|(« 3
^ ^ ^
|;g| |;ga ,.« f;Sg 8.|S
TW&«*(» T.W •?(' ti-E* a
SiiSI
tsi
**')' *¦
v*iur-, rc«ss .1 ?i*sw• i!..
.'MM&5*. fH:AS< « ">5F< *r UtC« 3
¦f> -» fw ,•'.:«** t,*.s-F
»VPW »*?.' •'.» W VI lia# ?
H£At«4« TO" W U-i.tf »
U# »?«(»« «* »«*«».»* i|WWv i» x *.K. ¦
,..*«« ¦>
i-cacei.'.rrc^-t.c**&x 4aics. i
,,*»» i* Ul» X* i-^SR
>i.u
msvA.nm
i.WV- mm*. WW
o.a«s w.jxjtv
j. ws*
i(-fe ...Stf,jj www -i
"—¦: SrSSSSSsa
il-s, »«r.,- i, 'I
.¦3M« i«t. S3&
I**"w ""<««»«>
0*1 i' *vi#A-rf H£*ff <:
IS t;llil m 1:» S:«S t:SS
Q,-xm u.94K» iJUW s.SfttJJ
i3.ji fl.owa 0.0»&» ?i..a<3Si ii.^.s
viift '•
t
SiSSS S;SI SS i
^ w v*'*^ ifi-
fcsas
5.C«« J.WfcC
a. we-
ft. £S-Jt
1-:* «.*«' 5 IWBW lUI
B0ySfi
B x»
««rs,r,-Ti*
^ t-n *A(>fr !•!•>«.»»
i&, ?.(sa
a.wi
y.tftno
f.umm
z.ntt>
y.y4W
203
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
LANDFILL J
204
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
205
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
»is. ..«• v. .~B.-i(I «;<*•»
¦we wwcr«*»-s sr«s.G»sw
* twwmvt ^
•„ i.« !»#~*>,*» kMM...»!, rt.*4 ..»« »*«•*»«. fc». »«!, «»*,>»•«» $l/v S»i«- ««**
*XK SJIilSSSf
.. rut: ov»^EWTftieK.a
wti!
*; >¦:. 0 Ml Mv .«>¦¦.
»,r: '•ss^rs.srsLgis^fL'sr sxr<
ifar :
"rsyssKrr-"
t »a,«»«««;«
" • ' *' ¦¦¦-...
i.jiililiiiS t
^ :t.*K £,»*
Sl?5K»"25 SSL.: ,lfc
- -.«¦•!¦ ¦'
Vi* »,fcM .
ivit. v>3v ja
: :a?ii
ssr
.*«* WK*S< ?fc» M.
'•¦¦{¦;,.«¦ ;¦¦¦¦¦« -
« IVMWIW i*i<« »
SSISSSS :
SEJIfSir-
¦' . - ... '¦¦¦ *. ' ...¦« ».'•¦:¦' ¦!> ¦ J... «¦» 1 '¦ ¦¦¦ .» I » „.t ¦.. »., :
.-.i . „. ¦¦ I:',, :.
206
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
I'eiM I s^'iwjt
ESii !:JSS KI8 ISS fcSK I'Si
S*'v« Jc^pscs WW ••:»« YOC- <>r *,.«£* ?
. / ' „ I; ,t,- mii!, M,',. <*, . ¦¦ j «(1a > -,».v a y - i\5tV
l:«il i:U4 IM V.Sm t$m &&&
*w«*s« 4W^ ««T4i,s « fsr#, rv>. ,nn i w.
' tv M J'«r> 'hWi y
tf.tort C *.«»;> t.«
t.vw < t.s«»?
1 1
1rg«r«W "*
! jrriii, »«».«£ f-"ii £»--«»'
».r .^7% , . &'
-si/X -
'pgZw"
%m< cc '
Q.90&
¦rt.W
»i',W
i- i'l'dku i ii -iK'sieO i 4;.fci'3
v.vttC f
J, t,U»
» 1 o,a«.)«. i.w
t mi
i.mt r a. mi., !„».;»«
"" (liiiii'
»iki,
WWS** ««*• «* OP **r» 4
6.6K
>,«.»,( t f.Altsi'
9,f !-«.»
8«tWC COuCCrcf- r*;» LAYCR. »
5-WX.<«i>3«.!-l.C.to» mwaw *,.«£* if
e.^WvC v,vne«-
»*«« ,•**«> «8 n-S ..i.fcK ^
fi.^i
«,» <«j« 0* TOP or /
e.s vfctT
^ -w
i,n umM.vnz
«5, Kii. «>'E'S Wv/m:?
¦i.tm
0.0/
H-i.» Fie-itSi .sfe '.vS»!M.ii «M ,,VV - «>?'•»"- • v'-i **-w
-F*S^"W
«
J
*
*
•'
'¦>
?
8
'Tmres'P
-il.t.iis;
fe, mi
u. i;>sw>
.' VWft
0 -Mtb
&. t^s
ft
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
LANDFILL R
208
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
CIILL R-l
209
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
210
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
*«» ***** «« «*•**»<* K
«¦; iwr , <1.,
i-cns* **> r.-,v-.5».AV»->E r*'*
«« .. .. •
sr^ss^ssfi/sc^rs*-"' "
'« Mf> r-xw-ts- t r>0,i> KKilfi
w.a mv.*-,,~«}-.(.« -«• >>M-
lllHlialli? II !1
«vct-i.x u,i,t.«cf s« ?«e*€s re* -rt«- i •w.yi*
: t. .:.
IWSF *fA.3^v«s.r
is J;» l;B !:» SS VZ
til };l? Ill 1:1 1:3 til
211
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
¦£. & «,S-TIX. Utvi'-noif'.,! «>!> VS«5
t.Atss«s.
»¦*?,«.*> -WW <** mv
*,« r
v.«*^ <
tf.ws« f «.iwr-
u««a
wirn.n
*1.'a#.v.*>
rssM i« (rt
•1?
I tot*
u.vmw s
•5 ; -xTzSA r?S.'n
¦I
i -. I,,, i ,k,
wu.a vH-ji;; ¦•'..» vSS»S. i ;,W.h
' ('.!>. R.i
t, *2 snUvw
E«ssrttei3. s«tCU5 »*» ..«« ;
KKSA.*JiiS«A..&*s<«i5li; rfe^xr.w 4
*&•<¦• .*jks urn-. ?» ?£.»' »- li.'i'S. Si
®K***W »f>r- -3 T?
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
213
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
U*~
;; :i
*'4m "*«•'•<> *4"" *1""11 " ,V ^
v»
%S*£ ! ! '* #-'¦« • T« ' » r*'?"*
•i-1 -•>«!!"- ri '""'1' *' JIl'if *¦ " " *
I
:
slsi^
,sti,; f c.
« l:S 12 $:?• 1:S !;£
SS J: I S;S Wf £» i!i
SrSs S? S« IS l;S 1:SI5
214
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
mm mil* vtuer. *c* «mss l ttww i«
cKss-~s:~;:~
m.»m. mn> >> w ® %¦
*"T !p., ^^ ' »'•*>"!';<«!» 4«" '
(Aretha. *»?« .*tt* ft
... r
,.... ,
1 " * * " *
. ¦. U' ¦ , . ¦- ., 1
" * tjUjVTvwi\»k-!V'' ' ft i ^9$^ I ,
•. i„ . ; „ , ..i' .'.i. ¦..¦ •. ...:.. A ,*,
u"->Tj-' '"%l** *
o Klt&M; «) MS. a. fSMT t4v^
215
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
( ELLS R-2 10 R-5
216
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
217
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
::
::
»iw:
* V ''*1'^ - '1 Jv - '** Vv S^sSs?^'
t^w" ' --^W"
)SAU»J«i tf'^iuM »
' ' „ r -i *i! ^ <"<
I , • - .« ., ,.-¦ . ~'iBr- i MlMI Ai.ll. , ,»ii
tllr**. -«i -*" -I *
" ,bi -*• '*" '** ' " i*» „r.
»• v lH\
9.WJ.5 4i4?'.r
L 6T£ft.fe. l-aiXM6i« '';(;lLCHC0 f#0* '.. "•to -
r((, p • f(,.,SK.
,r " IV'Xm-' 1\\mX
-'• ,fSjV( . . v,-«; »•»»». .-. .-V- X' Urttl"'
. .
'"«¦* |.gg g-gg
Vtft, V,
"jssr
_ ; *„jr- ,, . ^
Li .J5*r J fiiit- ii vx'ii .J- ot">s
4,** ^ *:#* ^
l:S. i:R; ts m
i t Ji - > yT r - i, fe° »)3t«
iiiSf? lis;
ji'SiH
(f.'im! LUKRKS s.uwsyj
|:-|f|| |;||{J «;» |g®
1:S S:8S> S:St {*8$
!!;2S j;SS 15:5 fcSSS
i r ;':j,X ¦ ."„i;, ;v r ^ .
p ®ti.» -awism o^oum «,um?o
sjllSl MM l.'Sil fcfiHl
airtis
S:S ?;!?S!
'''.^if"*'. * »-• rfJii - f ^
"Es:r1!?:
»»,>» mw h«m» *«,,»* >«,«:
4;tf t:tt J;8 S# S:S S:S
t:S 1:1 fcJS ill! 5:2 66
l; jjjjj, sc.i«-' s> fisU;
5
»:r'cr"^T^r v»icr»"s^K'
-
« v>» or U.VC# j
j'Syy ts'f'Sy 4*c3&6
a <» U'iiif- a ihm ^ -^iWi si uiiiVi « i«V(><
"*ui?-0 i«" '••(itr- h (S
<' -/vr,,' , > . .,( ,> g. 'y.^: /
a'Sjwt .i" SvW «' V)S> I'fSuf!
«»~» ¦<
218
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
x « VTB. mvi&twuti «53
«,"T i.«t)
•),«» < t,»W»
10 fa Sim i S.SWBJ
5. SKI
•*S15»5*°j°"
'f
"'SgifT'*"®' '
,r/.«.
»*s t Mm,
B.WiW&J » «,««».
f.taK» < ***»>
*.&« t *.*>**
*w.« &.**
PS.tX vAiy£5 <">;<» r£A8$ i. 'Hur.-yjH if-,.
,i: r(i «•->¦!« ;h~;m i
< «• ,» >«• f l»,t. 1
/
t,J * w,
l.M
w.WW
•i. l?*+t
frv. r».i
-U>m« ^iS
««*«*>« ***»>»» *«» %w» ^
*«6«)wrt<**r*'*GC *«c«3k u»rts •
HMfc „* ffw .H I *S>« *
w ijj >
O.AM
U,» rrc .
o.**
¦j.O W
k. ?*
.i WS <**/«*,>
i».i»tsR>«« '.»»•»» i~» ¦"¦' Vi-M.' If**
219
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
220
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
llls-=":
r* Views'
t**lS;'SS'; : a,«i
a ot-»?
'a ' '"J* **"' 1 •1 kr"-1'^4t,>:fia 1
- * - ¦ ¦
KT«.W?
S:£ 1:5! 1*1 » !:S I:S
S:S SI 13. ii f WJ £S
S fcl
IS
221
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
S8Ii till SiS I;IS 1:1111 SSI
'v 11 y' ^ f 4'o'fc^
^ 5|' y f'
„., ... . .. , -. . ,,, , ....j . iJr H !5 urn ,, .....
JU" " " ~ ~ *,*m ImU ¦>:&« «:«& *:&& *:*»»
Wif «***» HMP •¦'» «* v«» U
—» "' l:SSI !:i»! !;S fill I;S 1:1111
***• IW«W» ^fjg |:fg| |:||g |:«g ||«| !»
„
(«0*s Cw, fffi" «KW
•• • !
*,<* c *.«m innt.A «*,»*
d.liiti ,>' 6,si>'J©')"i ft.«£ ti.CviVi
s»«" '¦""1 ««.«» «.:««»
f"',i!?¥Sw V-KsW * v. fcSW) U.1W
rW *,MW «• ••«**
. * "tt-lH ' t ^ -g.;. (( ii £, = ^ ^ *tf*7' 1 -. '> vy.i
Ju. ' '. ££>"> ' E
• ,*V,» ;¦.« »«;•« >.-, Wis s' <>,<» f. ii-ihx
*
«*?* *
1 I,.\ ft, ' *V>' "
.*««#«. wu^^.-wrt ft
"•ftKIHuM HpSt >« T0» v •'
> ». 3 t i. >M r« HU1W.M fthjkn (» IJ-li. *
. II."# tf 'Ih) -
<*«*«.<• ««««'«!< ,-M-ilK «!
•*«*** W IX
' vi ICS*# gfiJU* J% ftU* ...a, ,
' >' -
*~» «*»**
¦¦-¦¦- "" ¦¦'¦¦ ¦ . " ' >¦¦¦ ¦'"¦¦¦¦
?.T *
& Wi
«5,«;o
0.«*
«. 0 <•<~ .
,i;.:p, VfV ¦;¦:.,¦¦¦¦ ¦ ¦'.'¦¦. . t? :~l'::..-» ¦: I j ¦r,-,-i;U i"' .. ¦¦•¦¦¦
"""
*-«¦> WUfMl »# .•rwfrrnwf.r.,1 S»«iftWiivj
13%, w. r, «r
i
t».2*ad
i. A2?G
*»,*?**
O.tvo
*.
e,wa
«.WW
w.e«w
*
4>.S/«9
«.»,«
ft
C.
<. MO
• &
8, feiKKi
if . y^r;
it
222
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
30-YEAR DURATION
223
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
-SfSfKiisrviy
8W.TO at tuvitx*-
i*« k-i
*•« «?»** »»»*•«••«
*t«n ,****«*« »*
n«;
rs^C;
IIS?-
svrii lifcti;. T04/WI**
fl'yu'; «:i
«"c »»iisi,:r£'s«£rs,si5tifss,!s sar
. #.(.« t
¦^K'ssjfiasr,;*"
.rss-fsae":
. «.tl»
. SE>Tt«E ®i*SS !«
6,?6 f»;K'
(.-iVfififc
"*t i .
n.i«
siar :
want* mssfr
I'.v'f«V Wi -*!«'» ; >M«U- a
r^r€sm <,««, .<•.*. »
«»*<*. i*u> *» r.AW.nvt t*»*
iS£iI:;S,'a=ss;t,ss,
&*?» «*««**
fisfe WSWwlwM.ri {MVVSH-
''-¦'•<>I.r S'5P »CJW< i
4,'IV
st.«jF« savmi
WAiHtK StUKTiMMH iM! f iUSM
*«,&!«{ I.SVI.S, 4 rf.SMMte*
<•!¦*«. <3* ;:.r i ^w^,?
«... '*»•
utMr,**
sstB*
IMif
Cr»s£•«
**r »••&. :.?-w>. - n.l#$-av
J4-.M
-!« i ¦• >.Ai *•*<*& tl«
«AT*«fe 'S.nfS.S
WHi miL W*rtfc C^fsnwf
UW »«>&. f«S.
- u,e* r>»>
sww; c^j..crTE& y«;s«t
U,'JX^
®S».C,;'l.£«s*GS IW!«S(i.MR ?
irtuSWiv
o.«i
J,W
•.V. -Wi KU! ,1# -»i'«
-¦¦Wis 5*. *»r«M -T«*a
fj.SfcS
u ssr
h ht
M|"1! «*.-**<
W>. *F
¦mi ¦*'."*.* *» rws
m-M?
=siai^%t»'..cw
•! iift«
(Ti« Vl£*».
5a£MR..na
it*, w
ra»>rv
tf.MS-
!>.WV
*,w
(,V4J»Vv:V.-.r.HA"W.5
MrSOW-S-^
?r.'%
en- ;
M,.t8'S3
i.r?
s-£*.;.,.\s.SK4Si' *
*>¦ !"«« '« '•'-k- >> #
/v*.>.'-!«!' f*~w ¦ *•»* '.
tt. urn
*«»•¦:. V!.i»«e ?-as*NsSK i,»6« ?
•SA^MC,
e,»
«>»-. M*!' ~•t.' i
u.mm
•. ">«*,<. iV #*t.»
'Jv
»*»*: M ! V«' ;«. rV^
TVt.'S.*:
SV^R:K«?..-Sfi'
SOTv. -a-ts *t S«! .tAf
IM.iM
¦>.«•'* rt. « *« 1
**«* S
224
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
555
-y> rur
Q. f T'"¦
;S;;?
*««¥»¦
fr.ew
V-1ST
«f.«-
WW*** ^.«^b M.« *.*~»» 1
if. 50V;
v.r.
5nat..,utw«s ?¦.«-,«* t*«s*. 4
ia;
u»)
r
i,M
******* *.&Kt«'»»* tMW > Mf. f
*.am
s.«»
*.«
*C*c,/u*m«* r» lAviiiv r
fr.Ml
fr.S-S
«*, Oh W -sr ,»W *
i, a»j
J« *'i."li: 'STOfeMS'.
,Su« « urn* » ,ur
«n.w
»*<¦ ««« «T Oft ¦ >> .-W;»
.HWWjAi. WW HWST &*l..ftw"S
*.*«S
*«ew
IVOv
t«. PM
i>. w
&«€.
»,»
WWMWJWIW
iXi.;.s-
!'«."« t*Sf^ ?
*.?4«
H*£,A.t«r«e tV.t* .4
V. ^.5?T
• t< & I-.^C ^
¦»n,-8, i'-S1. -).:U\>
i<»C.>LS».feSt. u.S»,"» fl
. .
V. M
rtfc'SO HH WO s„ftYSSt t
mm
4, MM
a.
fac./iiimt u.«» t
•V,
&. MS
fe-ti, «S«. UN »C»" «•
«. Wfcft
>AW sw *mt
Hi
¦ak *r tiwf vv^
5^«. »r S*@ *&»
w.v*?t
i?Sv«'Si£ (Xi<.i
tolrt« *t -4t«T « *),«.
V#* »J S-to «t>»
4.6«s
*xm WMt 9K*K*
x. |ijj
v,«
...
" - "'^ ." ""
!h!R
C-H HCT
««W4.?W
w.'.m
V. »
i,' >'i-,.Mes
4.£w
n«,.>5AIW!i.W fwwawi iA»
«f SW5 -i» M*.
i.!>W
ft,**
v,«
'^T® *«»*'
s,««
Sl«
£-** «A*U. A* S*tt* uw
<**«*»» At vt» ^
(!..0v# fi.eo
<..*«¦ 1,«
. ^ ^ ^ ^
»«.«»« gum m« ..«•; ,•
4^. «».» w uw *
«»s, ww m m * uw» *
vm. .to « w or w
,s5»
*-«
S.l>
o.«u
e.«
*.«
e,s»
v.«
»i «i
«. 1^9
isisi. m i.«?
"Jm "ifi*"£^ "
WE® '» ^ r
^viIMj,i I't-U-risi'i bttU i mil! *;
' ».«inwr. ^ .9 ft s«*>, ' ¦ "* **** "
R^«un
o-ivst »<»*.«*
SMM»w•¦ aw
©.*&*
-o,w
•f.65
T,U
*va. rt»o* T0r.x kWC* s
s«;;«
0 MB
^.eas
¦K0&
4s.tm.il?
*VT,3*
«,a»
iO«8..>3M
».,»>,«
a«»
e.
«. t'ftijes-:
o.di-5
?.s»
J, Kf
...y.M*
»«**
225
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
s-m wires *f ^ »ear
«»• a< c«s i%. «i.«
jt *¦?&».?• ^ 'M
3*** *£T£j» 4.T CW or «56P
5 Ht-a iiv^
»,?'A-r* s i« s:'s>r ?«/<« t ~ws»;vSf'
«*!•'- &»UTSr|fVrt
*»e.
.».VWVW»AMS«MneW
?sm.s
£«<¦ ?CJ.?4.r»«S
3*v,n*. rw'v* M»sro> j**/«}ct w/iw w«c
j. t»
i.t*
5:8
}-»« »,04
i:5 tS ES
S:?f 1:5 K
1;«B feSi 1:8
1:111 !:»» S;ii 1:11 III till
fiSS
SSI l;Sfi
!:K
1:88 i:Ili l:R
>).*** *.*t<
e.wo ».«ft iS.^4%
I: a
J:S
vSTtajits. £*<.Jn»*,* si'-iUTtf:-: an» ,
Mtoi *,*M& *.»>» &«« *.«*« «.««!
&i'5sa t'.ttwi &,«,,*,> 6,«si>
J.JJJ, {;88 „„ i;g„ S;|S |;|}«
rt®C-:^i1?vH/t.ti.rAa- **»*~.*!« U-s* 4
ESS 1:SSI !:S3 I:S2 tS J:!S
Sf LK !* 'JiV'V SX frSt'C «. fi&j*
tss
..AHtlftl !;hKiSi»$ ¦ >#r.=
Ml... wwjajikifc^
4. MM d
**m. a
iS
m*ALi
i?» -a
9CW I ...»
s.«»e s.cmj- e.4«6a «.m*
?.Tv- kyi-m'S-Smss o.wwy q.wop ci,-,h>«v a.wu o.e«Ht a.wtij
M>sa tuam if -g.ew ¦i.iKm iseo
A-a-fcfe.#'. «Jt- ««««.* .flaw i\>K*Y$%
t*i*" *»»**<* v* x>.e* I
. [.evismrHS
CiA-ti.- *'.*a«e<;c wtef £
<>*;, K.rtl'iOtft
9. WK-
J,S#t
l;IS 5:SSS
S:S» l:SSI
v„«yi«.< y.;5«tv s,<,y.H;y
¦J„w»3 S.4»JsK- ».WJO
Ovw's i% ift'-M
4,ww a-iwte
¦1.. V i •-.'••.4 «««»-.». 4 ..I.. »...»« I »~
W4 ••<•* -e^; : "•»:« &
-7.fr, f«C-!
a. SOW.
¥!3¥H>.5
0. M'i
<„Mh} « «, ?",s
Mwn < tr,^rm\ mm,
J-*:*' i-e-c«
»-«»<;«~ *,» Wt/5 r.«Kttt;S . («o.*w
"SltifV'
5
»».?<( '.Awp- ^
K-Wi.flff»5«ArAicA« t*.re
a-W-Attirf. s-sf --fee :^te 'fiP ^ i. -I'»'! *> ~
ma'mM KIMS > KV> Oi- i.*H» i
^.«»«Kr WSFv t>
iptstms n ^
«£ m .
rojs-'vcc e
•-» -v -«m «!
W-.
»', •»4'--K 1335, j'sp.
. >..t 4. 6...
i-imiu s.»i,«wfe ,«r ?-}«• c
"S"
ioi.
&.««
Wise
*xvt U
¦ «fe,W f
"ttiisto*
S'.a^v
te.*?70
226
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
2
r»
»n*; ~
WC; »«J",«,»•' »• VM «»
M»M *T*i '.Hr
u«» *
— r- r:;"V""T'v
. ¦¦¦'. ¦¦«,.. ¦ ¦¦¦¦¦ ¦¦¦ ¦>¦¦¦'
>,.r. i.. w ... i...-
o- im
¦, .:
...
IX. i*
V .
227
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
T'..BA *
mfcswwt :-AV£.iTi.n ck« uance >,
twftiw uh-p is
ft«U MCae- SB W» cc i.AcO. It.
:»««* 1" **T« 3T.5SSIS
*Mi. *M<"> *>• M««# •» «•«,«
»H. **«s « £M» c ->r W
%%«¦» «.l»v,«S W<1 W t
**«*?%*, ,»v
we z.i-i', £.»•;..ACte&ir. LSrtSv a
uctsp ;¦*¦•»• *
Ofcte,I,f.<»t a
*'•>-•¦ *«;«' W ^ *
Mm >>
m-c,n,m-m rums* u«* K
"«.« #n ^ j* ii»
a« wars.,.
iw«' satds
-'<-r ¦*'?»
v,**a tinu.m #>.n
¦:?:. fl. J-n fc>,
>h&>r*
Stii*.GSA\
snnm, w*r£* gySKHK
*<•*««;. ii'rt«s.s sm >•*« i
s««i,5 cv. sssrf (»c«»wr
N9KIKWKS
«'SSn».®? 3A9.S®
r-MiMSC «-u,&TO nt£» vW
-Ci". /iCM'JCX a>CS 4
a«v, «;,«> <». w ?;*. < A-tfe 3
S'JjAtMHiS: C«,S,CCtS'.f. riw «
s-KBCv •'s.em.sgs u*'«* i
Sfc. Mtfef >•« Jo* x.w )Ai>?"S 7
c>**im*< r-»v,.n< ¦.«.<,» .12
<<*£• OS >C* i* L*.v£3< J,i
i vm* s« wm»
S'Ms ST swr -«* ** m:> t-r >,m
* W«« at e>*. OP '***
AWiiiM »w>t» *•».«¦'
«.»t
S?4»,?n IS.iJ
¦-ROAi.'SJ w,3«.
iMK«MV.9£«J
^M'UiAS,. '«T4LS !»«* TlS®
1.W »#->
•WHHtBti-i
mmm-A >¦*>:*<
..Mi
nva, «#y ow r»< -m vf i>.f* ?•
i»«-viw.c£ ;^xet?*e »''«»»).wi» ».
SVE9C./LKW.KC rmo^K U
>«*P 4N Tttw « , S.C
:i« ?» «ST£&-
W«k. W'»f' *'• «t«- tH <1#
wrtft 4t « >«• >!•«
:»->* «"T» *t s'tss^ -x «e«
•i«» WJlB « f* .(« "i"i »«4 ».W- V'.fe
Adwjfc,. W«rt RW '?.0i«;59
,WH,x4v t"?«(.».»
"9«IS!MS,t.50
&.<*3w
«»Ki>"-V*rrc.N
•«!MW ^.Vji.t.nrrvff f.'hs« i«P ?
«8»C,A»'fcSC 4
««, »«.«v ^ ftsa »; . S
<•»*?*<*.» )<
«f*c. >;.£A**a& n^r-'&i L«.Vf* «.
AW!. 'XW i,W ft>4< ••* »*f** ~
:¦».*; «K«t osn.gcf$B s#r« -s
^•C, «!!»•• z* >«r v4'E»
JfW«£S In
¦mi w«« ti s'ftf'l cms
¦/mi,us
»it« st i*. i#»
s»-^ «»rt« «? r?»#T or >«*«
w«* Sui--,n m.-m.f
»»»
®»S-.t»5T*T3^
»"»-r
j«.W
.-.x^rn't- r=,5M „.*t» :
t*vtB 4
»v«„. -» W ^ t^5^- I
s«^SK«w v:feipr!(.s t-y»i . *;vb «
«U't'C.,-j.£'Sx«a: ul^CR s
« '••«¦ •-» ?
»»M»to54 i>Tfs< n* if {.'*• 6f .s«
WArslft h? .'«• V».»
*->*~ S? iWii ?»*¦*
Mmui*. «i«.M -smm-
"""Tor
v, !j»Kll!«Vl
£>-0#C
>.u.
*m*.m
m».5 M
s»ae
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
a- \n
; . c<5
«,!«
¦••w**.. -.«»P-.m, i«(f» ?
?n;-o&.Fr"
4^ ,A«.
*«¦;-AUt.acc. um a
*.***«
v. as
«0. <**P <*» ?**> « w»m J
¦.it^.iCnf FMN k*M* *
«,.>»
•S*C.AS».tSS rwswfih i*v®r »
v.WHKOfr
i>.
**». «* :¦• ?
«mm« m,ucr» *"K» iw S
¦i.SWS
J.®
»A
rt-Bf./K.ftt.v,!. f*****,*,*, It
a, WOWS
*.««,
k-..£.fe
avC .<«*& 4* y,}*' <5* i,Ai-E« iS
* •» >&*
S«.» *«<*» «' a Art ,¦» TSOS
ft.0«
V, «
*&.*'? (f Av % Mf' US"
i, e»w
S. !?£¦<•»
Is. )'«s
«"»•¦ '«««"»»» '»»«
*
"H"
*•»*
',.a«
<•.»
«,1»
»Km% moOTS «<* a.«w ;
jsiTw.iia
fmi.Aewis nwwv !.*«• «
^.twawn
«.wt
k.U>
»». .»» a, n» «~ i.M» )
fr^K-
Mm OJUMt. »-«» 1KB »
V.W»i
v. owi
,„^i
A.0»
>-»
«**n .,* <0*- U <*<|> -
1.KW
a*urc*» i*s» *
i-.frSv'
6.C«
.
„„£»«„,»«
... «j
«.«»
ss.w
03il£ir?» F«W L«t&% »
».K.t
il«i.4.;-s«
*
3,35?
Km
tw:. ¦» is* -as- u>« »
¦•".VSUJinf -':*>!.(#! tvf.' , A(|.^ yga J ¦> •>
a
if, <>CitoiS
»,«
S«„ "<««> an w «w Sv
fi, mm
«*»*» .1«,«.»...
Kg, ( "j*"'
4or,?n i«w«.«ac.
*<** S..W0
sftScra^TAttOhi
' ' »w. MS»
' " 4-v "" » «"
M-*.. 1 « i'
»¦«»
s.fiso
6, l-'f
i*.j:
i-AK.H*!£. C§t,!»S'Cftft C«^M L„6Yg«. J
. / LS^>f£\aE t'>- f.&! '«
•t,
»V«. 3
.i.saoi;
u
C.««
.m*-. w;« «m »<•* « a-u is
C-M',.«iC H. Mlitcft StORMt-
0-0^
- ''- ^,r< - ^-'
W». M "6
SfeSrt^IM.^r
S&a, »«TW iT ENS W tE»
««s « 5^«- » r«*f
U-tsttC
>W »U» At WW Or »**.
MT(» #W»ET nH.**Oi
-^#49
***** *»*.•; w*
«,.«>-f
2S*?.
4.»;
if. <"W
«. .f.Si.
•3.--.1W
i*%t^n
i&Tw
<,w
»*!«« r*w >
„Ki«?
'in^Afh
&:<
Tm.,» wH® 4
«,*»*£
( ^ j .J.
acw^
«" k * ' 2. i* 'r
V.0^8
S5.8l>:>
».w
•K.a»« »EI •
O.OJBWV
*?.«»
'J«S»
»». »« ~ w ,» i ¦!¦
e, cm*
«• Ctu-KTH. •»;.« Ml »
a,.cftst.
i..«K
fc.eu
MMW, >.*.«« I)
».««(*.
W-6V
»,,,. ,«.!.« w .» ,«, «
-U8»,5^
~e,n
je.fi. v»» « &r itw
:^U?5
w. «m « *• » >*«»
ivmnt.vK
-1 »«»»¦ M ».l»»t i,« ,S,«
9.W
«,«w
sw ««a «¦ nit, <* m
iX'iM
iS..u©fi
i.M
th**i ^'*'v
fl.yew
9. Si!
*hp t«
^#(SV 1 : «
Sa> 3a.'.'.
».5«i,
.,»>•:«
;«i wrtt isr st.ss- <«• ?£«
rtSeBWO.OOB
( >Vt'. i$.&£
»rt?.:74
;wm.iii«
s«w «?C# frr fiWT «r .K*
9,tf«
0. 3«W
fl.W
<•*«- mtm #f fcf»> '-iR .*.#-
v.wsi
ii, 486
*W^ M4't K e- MA* *••» f
«.6»e
-X4M
>i, S-3
..
smm w> «# t?
W«t SS.UCW *«* jnu
*»«*•* ,«s» «
w* ** «# <* « *•¦-* '
*»*»*«» *** a«i #
• «*«< *• '«*• «'
¦55U « « * *M«
*
¦*, «y
U.tfi*!
«.6W
fr.«X
«•»
u.«»
***
».,« u
229
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
sMVMAi. wa*s» s«k.!«»,. TOTSu*
FOfe <«»« j
-J
*BECS#tSA-rj';«
¦i, iS
«05«5 k:>3?
a,M4
Kv^aAN3«'ti.^i®i
J-, i-if?
t-n-.U'.m.
a.iH
»«, *,J© CM -! i
L.( Wis
>-»s»W*y «•',•> l«' •«.»« »>£» a
i
«n«i, Ki »r< V!>. U>« C.fc >/>!»!. ?'
>i, Kt«^l
S;«A|«falSJ. .-fH s.«.s-T»-& S-WJW i «!{.% '«
e.<*«
*'i,t>-»-Vi< ftSXx«5w 1.4,us U
i-.
¦wc. iizm -m 1-Jf v kfiitf lit
t* «*TS*> S7C.fe.feX
a, «y
,3i( fc«tis *i- ",'iljM ?*
tor.m
»»¦_ «S-!S.S at- S.K O? -Lift
mmstm?, !A*t C® -««.1
WA«f. if,? SteJ Of '¦r.few it. *.r jri «n -£' »C6'*
»tl.. wATS-d »T S.S© C# -6«»
«*t* K *' "'*61 -» ,(»
s«>» M*s& tr t*, ••¦* «S»t
«*%»* **.n. lU^w.i
iwuvAC for^, j. p
6RAIMW -CliZCfK '»*» L*vt#
*«< ..-Ti.w.jwe *
Itw >%B •»»-? ..Arts *
»««« 'W(S..:»io *«{**}**¦«•
WV». , HUtOit ">•*: •*.«¦ ~ *.«5. «• Of* 10» 3* *>•¦'{« '
- <•,! iiVHf »*>«» t .H**
'•«>- ,.'!S-AVfcS»r «CAstS ta
<:*»«? :•¦ wxi-fK s?i«.*cr
SOU *MM *f .'«t <# ~&«
•iM, V.^i.6 «> k!« ^ f*M»
SMCW »fcT£S it rW •>" VCAP
V** »!!(• ,«« »»*.- K#' ' Mf
s?»<5fc Ksakf&n mmvi m m tt
¦"T*"
ij.WiS
<*, kflJftS
4. 6W»
4. monk
it. &8&S
-a. tn"
Uijfe.erc
f.l't
Jte-lrts'
0*4*
cuwa i^usrsgx r*o* i,*\£'s s
«'.» ,,VwA>** 4
6W. M.« ON *6* «' ...we* f
y«iRW v«.,i.¥»-igfi >->,.» t«fe« C
fW'.AWASK i«E« .4
ivS .«*«< tfsi t«-• s^'ES ?
)»**! ,.*«*» *
»£im:.Aesk«s ?w»?ws3.f n
*~•¦•¦ TJ# S«f
?•• wat** fRftfess
¦sO-H W»fM* A'< V!A« <-* *S*S
»'?Jw viWII? AT r«' ??' '-'C«
s»:.« **rt:e it etsb" iw itif
.-H« W*!W»' H W) r«: >».**
*»»w. »Ttt 9i«i.WT a«cA,.*r.
~ SMI...".. »»»» «. O. »* -»l»..«...»»» .
!*4/i
a, cf;>3!»fe?
«rm.«s
s.Vwi".'Ao.a«
y.WWS
>»•-!.»•»•'. "..n r» • «•»?'»•»«*»•» •»»»«•.•»«' ~.»*»»»»•• •
W/tftl-v K* ! 5-
. rtV
"ffcsf-r'afi'.s.
,«•*!.«,»» frf S.JSVMI
>*•<*# 4
/.«- '»s«- n* tls«is ?
C'.-'.LtCTC?. 1V«4!«
scH-ztew.ise .>.•£* i
»>••%- !««. >i« s««- » >^*t" "
riiSKuiiE o:.u:crrc rs-:**
5.i
,5'Wi, »«; -•*! r.w, Ji'i
jm ^arsst st6R«s;
O. MWfti
v.OCll
e. #m
a. yMiiSy
3'^U.iS?
«45f »
f?, n-
A>ftjA.4Cfc U.5
S^Tii'K.te i^515
•J.JCvCvV lulH •&.,!
¦«.m.
Sir.IfttmW!
yi.4rt4«„ !«-.« ; A.C.K
f«WX»S.M 4
.«•#«» ";>(> ?e i^ves »
SSStA-iHUiS. '55i...UCilt> !li'» .AvW
V^-¦
.!>>-( 4'J.'-!^ »«!<*
/. .»-<.'»-»¦•" '*'»? .U
"4.A5 ^ TSI» .Sf 1.4'!-E*r
^ ws-rt«
v>l'- ViTtr JT jTA.r pr i£«.
•*.« »t we* w- .!•'«,
«*'r» *T vr^ «r .««
->"* A! i'W. irf- '•«.*>
»;«* wv.,„v.
r-» o:xri'x'v^
kKZWmh'iVtXHT urn
W8f« -. «
fcv:<». (1*1- ¦>* >fciR .>i' J
6S.ASte« ^icSCiSS-
#SSe.AEW«!S ^>^3«5.w s
A>«s. i^« « -K'P ^ a'"i:R '
£:fc«S««a *Xi.Ui fW> PW iA.sfcfc
4iW.>
t,f4r?5
xe«i®s?
^«»fr ife
230
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
e, mm®
'i.-im'
W, »«,«'. »«l l«» » .*v-5.8 «.
*.w&
!>, WU
,.m
l;,5^
»n *-u* sr r»' -X .j;«
46i.^
«W««,W9
«i, «H'i» fe» »*:i- <» 'S®
«frV.3?1 3
^0W7«.i«0
S»K» ft I <# rtM
P.SSW
0.ft»
t.iX'
»KM »«SS A* SH» 6« SW
$.060
ft,«C
f.w
i:tX
3
iWii tW' S
-.Vu W«i> *v* i tot* A
3C8-C. uXMAlf f»C»W> iAy£K *
¦»*!*** ft IS Mm# i«,»* *
r«**«w u»w u
»Vr* *#-» ••« »<«" » ?«»«• K-
0ft KA>
4, Mfi
5.*MS
¦I ,rm
**m.w
, ... v-«,, .» ......
^ '-. *' ' ' ¦ •''¦•' ff.. 5?.r
«*•«
t,in
;, v ^
l„AK^>
««* w*-a.c V'»«H --v
s*-jc. issfE'p *t gh.j >»*¦ ,[40
:«* V' li K j? * tr* <>
SS.S9W v»l*i
40". 2«
6, Sr>
s, r?>
C.K,
>•$£," .{""Lj i*"'£T- f {'•>* i. ^
>.mK
s. ,w.=
W»^B' 4
;>. iftlOK'
l. «. o»
b. m
to, ¦*».«< i«»» ?
o««iL«e «r« ii^u -»
3.&M&
f,M
HK . >»ss> ,»s» ^1
A,M<.
to*. *«> «* W -w U»f. 16-
*.Wf
r.WftW f« «r4fc -i'KteW,
i> w>
U . . i f,.
&.«w
mi W *T n»-f Of <«
. , ,y g j
•ait ^fs« *t >«i « ^-w
mw «i» if i\*r «
$.#&
a.-im
«/, ^
^ «-«Et.> ,nr fiWi, ?l« .KiS
tf. «»
i>. MO
+,W«ft
w,(«w
l«.p;
Ml.
* ' - -" .-V
«««
y.«0
V.W
9.S6
A. MS
S.«6«
«3«S,^
n,4a
»,«
«£«,M»li ma. WIS <
**;. ..t,w «« sr «r im> «
«,6M0.
j. Opt*
7 S.ITJ
»***<* ».*v^ »
StPOMr
.1 V.&&
*.«~
4«5. ««. W w or /
®.s«s
-rt.Krtt **m (#r»* ft
'¦*•• ...••'*^.•1 ,i« w or fc**W IS
ft. two
•.www t* »iif WW.
*.«**
iNSV
m>. «*«•». ftt stm -',* »%**
»%u v*?k *• *.' ».>*i >jv 4i.nn
46T.JJ4
me* %m> *t of -
J?« ltf-r
,n( »«, W*V
.: '**<•,. i-* jwj-w
C«U*«K COUSCTKO P** ,*>« £
AVS. HW* *t "M> U*E> *
(.££.¦¦• ' n£4\i^"c Te^i^x ¦ .'Vftt <3
W» W W OC /
fSSi\. j'5.S,*S.*«sE ''®v'!lw-» 1-
OK fe* «- *.»•(.<• 16
11 if 'V .*» i *'*. ijJ.
ii.. 0(«
,,U)
w.W
0^4
n.?*
„¦,/JS8
S-S,
o.vtivw;
.«
y . g.-y
I.).. !J(M&&U
U.UtW
o.ye-u
4\.W
«. pfe-3
«>
o.«we
o.Sfs
'¦•,R>
tt.S->
i#*** ^ *•« rscT 'iwpfT
^^ ^^^ J t ^C: V'"k'P ';
**«. ««( CH «* ** L**l» J
* 4TU6
ifW.-ll U.t*
^*w. w ».«
J.
w-> -. -i:
»W 4
v.oaatfb.'
U.iSw
OS **. .'B ifevf
* ?
swiwa WU^CTW !»»>» .AVER %
y..^
«. 0»
rwewi W
trtK «
e-Q«®o
i.fis*
#«. wvi
> .'
if,«W
, »>'„
< ft
»•*« :n
O.OKJ&
*. WftbW
tt Ok&f-
e.m
'>.»
i.BO
SS&.P t,;* <,« :.**!
» 16
u, »s
.!MW
«¦««
wu «>!?«- *? M«I- a- i
•*«iv
«.w;>
»*. ^ XV
*
KV'-.-iJ
l'*>- W.St« At ,
W
rt <•«%!
*>'¦ W'
e. a®.
£.SSi
WW www M wt *¦ m
w
o.«i<
i.w
mmu. «n» tr^
u*.t
9-ooee
s. ue
e,««
o «?
»«»« s»
».«» i.«
l!,10
231
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
-1 i > * I A
««. *««> *» W ^ i»«» *
« u»t* c. >;w r».r- $r «w** 10
H»fc ««» *T «TJ*T «- ,«*
« ».v *rm ar ««c
S./JJl)
1 ¦ 5 ^ -¦
«,«l,»o>
0.3M
"<
vj. ^agt®
ij. iife
5, OWJ
t.iXW
».«0
sr.
9.00
X.W0*
¦¦£&>'. //s
e.osw
V. &H
^«*?44.«W
v.0«>
i.«a
6.P&
sr.^tf
(?.«8
C-W
lr.?0
6.?^
& ^.£#S 3
*><,¦%, fc 'c* or i,*vCI> S
.«*41 H.\j-» • y: #~i%b s. A*%A *»
—m. wm ™ •»» »
mwt;*. f,;5 «*» " «ea-
•Mi. »«;»,»/« in>
,!,£«. <>.»« 4r.l,«
«••» »,»»
».«J».l MIU» «»..>•
t *. ..}!.i .j. * ... -
sr.w»
*s*c. a.«*«E ;«aw u»s« a
4.. €
*.««**
U.O06 «.»
*,*Kf l.S*
«.i,w»y i;..w
3.U60 *.r«l
W* **** « smr t* «**
EK* *w *r em w v«»
o.*»
0- WiJ
e.-m-
<> -;te>
s re* m*> ;%
'
"
m..ss,i.
pmcin?mm
.
fts
eUM:^r
O.i'tf?
•3,90
fcvw«€»RWMn.«»
u,«?s
Jiww.w-i
«UN«K ffl^LKTCr Mf* .'
W.S^
•.•4'fe ,-%.««*-«»» , Aih» 4
«. >*:&* ^ «<»" vJ< > W5« 1
9""""* "*"¦ " l"""r T
v.«S
4,»
»WC.,VC«M« WW 1
«.WM«
V.W4
«-»e
&!fe Sfi.p T-^W - MS# «
w. wfftW
0, am
4.6m
W.AEWM6 T»»ftC«M ..£>» U
O.OW6W.
»..«.,
«,w
aftitr! ¦- HMO
^.isWi
o,w
«?! »«« *r #*»» «£*»
'<(« ; ;i ^
•«»«« .*? tm ¦>•¦ x.**
sw.' »fss *' »t«
Ofiti?
9,W>8
S*% WVft « 6NO «• m-*
o.«w
(.
O.«0
"Hl-V WH!
1,5: IflK'®
&W4A. 1!
~7~ ss;~; ix;r
y.6ta. u.lo
!.,» I,i« ».»
*Wh. >«-« « to« {* x «wr» JO
a v>&5§
¦t. *iS'rl>ft,<>»,'.• !>.*?,
e«M»a i* ••»«» ctmubh
0..f»
o.aw
S.TMW «.*
>«S, *«!«,?.. *< 1,u*> '4f
s«i mm «¦ « w '««
"-*"•'"• *' ••'*x' u*- '(•*»
*«?,wv
'W« '!,W
?«CStfij "J. WO ^
0-WJ
<• ***#>
v,»
V.H' V.W
4»0»
4©y,*>*
*.n%
,,«•
*.ow
.v.wi
S.*SH> V.t*
n,«
*V # ' *»<" %
fr fft«« W*r» 4
*
, «K4«v ,>!i ?§»< W i,AU» -f
J>
--¦- ¦¦-¦- J™"—--
*«5
.«.«,.. mw .* «,» « uu» >
»,5. w « w .1* vm !»
WP»»,. WttfcW MM <•««» »
^ s; ^i.iS?ivN»-a^§f 1 iy y. ^ ^ ^
swn *C,V,- t» 9S l*»C» 10
•& IA!
»~«« ».o«
Kit. .*rft « m «F
sm> mr(A ». ^ «««>
B.WSB
.«>? . J.' %
*w.u*
SJ K(
tA>
232
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
W-
l.wrt ¦?
UrtS S
*->z. *<«' -jh »w •:* i>'V .<
^ii.tcuc rmm i.*»c* s
:;<. .... I ... ¦' (.¦ i ».., «... ,'!
*vC, ¦««.< 0*4 «}<•< «%* (,*»« W
4w.T, '3M )•!>!' -;® art's i->
.-m»# „l (*&??* \r»**A
S*U mXt* S-? ST*ST <:#• .v£«S
¦flU W.**# *? IK! «• «'
>»»5W w**tv *-r Jtt6* » '-ta
-!~»-•*¦ MTtJ »-• £*«• Of -ti»
W*> *V9
cs>. -»rt
SI-SIS,1^
>.., xi:,
'Vt>ci*r
SW.l*
4«WW.(,.- v-UsH^ S* fU« ll«'. 8. K
»'sa/e« war/sp1 Artv\xt mv/m- 3-ufe'KC
,1 .
,• rdMii Qh v
".Ik-
SS J;!SS
ISM
mvi
IS
iSi 1:115
1:1 U
lilts
/¦ ,..v...
V. '.*i*
!:8I IIS
t:lit
IS
I:ii
I:SI
fei4& o.saiSi
2:£3S
S;Sggg
Si.CfO;*
H
v.'.i 1 ¦;...
i«^T"
«.«ys. i
i_Af«®A. &8««StH. ClX-UCTK.
1 1.-VJJT1
C:.0^
-ZWf i<»- TiJ^"
:.-.t m', .t.;;.j.'
(*jes,U MiWKi
(, w....- ;¦¦
1 «.<««««..
5'^
^58060'-
' - ¦'¦ '¦¦¦¦• ' '
! «>!¦¦ >
WBCS1 jtss^/xs** «g - i-feiaits
,.»(
D-Wttll
C. $.<»«*&;
If.
«.©« r -S.««3>
.'.!¦.< 'V!;
f.W
¦¦¦'¦¦],.¦!¦;.< ;v
¦II' " '¦..«» ,11 I'" '.'. 1 > -J "¦• It ' '
!"(>¦¦ ri-Vi:.; ,,ii. V.;-: I...* (s:w.-.;
S h. '¦"
..;m
¦;,.-'.i ...... v..w.>X:
5»s.« ccukts:; f» t«vje. * i. ma.
.: v;:,r !;
;¦¦¦ '¦ ¦ .:¦ :.K
WttwH ,»l« ?
*¦&**&. m*i- *n« »
««»•.«£ (C&t- tm r li. i-v,\.i:v
**«<¦«.*< T**ar sf» si
• fr.nr.it- (- »«f IWS(!« ..1n.r
I- #«rl~ ? UTO /S?
Ptf,*4.. ¦**?& tp&ms *>* «we ** *&&
¦ •.¦¦:.» , i u.-.:. .'v.
r, «
233
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
ti, O&C'j
v'l.'fjf#
3»0§3<5
«i6'2
«K$5S
234
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
LANDFILL P
235
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
CELL l»-1
236
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
237
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
¦< .. I » » < » t
PKff.iT.vjc« »:r» s-jij
.. U.L&U
. Si^U Flii;
twtw z:\r-w.wtf.w
rws, Stoat mn» 4nimu
.'.OIXMXKIIMOOMlHMM'I.II.OOM. ........ ....I.. ... .1
Stan: «M!W «» *«ikv *»*-«*»**«&*
«. «t>w ww>%tm mi&i s* »** m&m\.
». 3 • WUJ&iW **«>»««*
5IW8H WW J
***¦¦ ;¦
wtk.
?>r«"
¦ m x ¦ mzui w*%hm uw*
wwiav wami «*** #
!Ht€**ISS » *.n CIMK
HfrJmU- ¦' t'.Bbw
«rto ».*»*;!>* * «w«
. *.«»»«*/**
*Xl Mftftft * ".*!««~ W.< ,Vn
w, - ft.****** :m<
\wei * :z.m «scfv
mmm uwh - i**« ¦'«¦/(, t.-i
rifcyj
«i'5» W>W
swn*tscit«»is 'mm
"H' V*« •»*! Wi. W
2 a"M«- DUMWOfc
frxiwir M*sr« ^4
iiffifcww » *.> :**«
- «.*k* m/fe
- *.*»* «*.#**
WlLlUtftMM - 4.W0ML
Wli« «S« «><* « «.*u* «*/»¦*.
'WW *® ««*.
»AtN*fc tflfct*
-\s» *?v;sk?
**.* fsri;
** *•• <**m. *wm. m
•»*?*»« nvm* ***** v,
».» rtew*
*>ji
mi warn tmmrr
wrttm wivis. «®,
238
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
mm*. ®»a mstmmtnt tat •*»
tm » su» ii«H of
its t«te» am mmm
2
w.n? i«.^s
t.«* msgs
e.«* m-f«
i».:*
(M.J,-* tBunvi
***** m\a\ its »wtr* «* .»«•¦ » tMsa»h *#»
iwinus ww mixr **/sr:-
wutmtwiur
"n££s"*"
fr.rjii -»
• . >>¦-
¦.. :c,.
¦ r ' '
4,*i
¦ ;¦ .(.'
5.*^
¦.
J.^r
*.S?>
:¦ >¦¦¦.
'„ (,.V,
1.84
•—"3
£,>"*V
a.^i
sjm
A,«?
v».^
»..®S I
u,*v
A®
M-fi a.H5
;. %*
v. V.y,
A ?£3
¦ .,.v ^
w. ummKM
K866 l.SSt
i.ai
, ¦:-.. i
J»E«4t £SWt*AK COOfCTfO rs«« 3
*.i2i.* iisa
u;.- e.eiu*
ft.6S53
#..a-s.h
«. \3#a
*,2V&
sm urviirtw
'•!< J
*!«wi
a,nm
S:SS JS
»!«m
*!«#*
ts
#!«m
mmmtir.
iS
e.tatt
Mtm. mms^t ann'iib mm >e.m i
*tv a ¦¦
W. W.
«!«5
stb. mvunim
?'2f
i?.wei!!
wki^
g.^sr
*.«w
mm** "8- wwvm £«WiJ tou h#89>
^at> amuase «-« « im& $
-7
5-TB. SffrtXHO*
Mbf* K«t >* f
t'.ml V.S# SSS ?!
Si *****
%!#«
®.3S6S
Wi
« «te»s s.«8r &.«***
Vfe ;J.
; • a>t«
».«m» »v3S z.'tm ».m* *.mS
Ztu. VtVlMSm
miv< ,««.» ««> tM i'»- w um
$*$$$? "j»i ^,'^h9^ y. v^r;.4
¦V ^
feMfeH
tSS »;S SSS tS tE
*««*» fjs ts IIS IS KS
##**» mmm rmm-, & i-!te..n«an«K! ir* «•««* s w« tm
8,ft» *
#.«©! m2>2Z
fU'VU
0,#??
EWSrWS&PiMTK*
iKCMt m&ium- iTinzam
m:m l»« ?
j**omm!<*;*<**m
lAv:';* »
ASMS W
'¦.<* v.
twews. uuittGf -jatsKne
timitsfth i
^ToTm('Smm' nm&
s^aag mm m top
K1 >>"U *
tmttt Wflis^fe ai,^tffca
.«. ; :v I ¦¦¦!. .'¦
mt/MsnmmuMMi i>mw
<:li <,t> 'I.
m*m *Xj m w
'W 0
< HW4 ffl WW '.n*A*
iiwiww.w U,Mf.
hTOWs v:uM4?^iV? ^%i04
»¦«» i »».WI 4«»im
¦>,¦/,¦:',
f - ¦*?.-«.-¦
¦*,*» . %,mm
*>mu i **omu>
v.mm «
u i.s
4*,«?
«,vw«
'S.f>3 #.»«
-W,«t
pr»* fMW mi$h m vr«% ! ths^c t#ft
awE
wtwm toimw urn i*m }¦
!mmii
'! . >
Ki', Ff. i
mm.nu
Ue? !,*<*,'(.>
^ *
239
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
tmmk>. uws*
¦;;
mkmt »«?£* <-«>a i.ws ^
**<» nr i
iV'M
*
i.^«rtca u *«i»* **© j« u»s*
V
*.* ffff
***«. *m* vtmm *r e«q «r «« m
fOHTtter Mom ««fcj
i#k*
tW«l
{fe/VK-}
*««&£ 2fiUKt*0 f« <>t«' s
i
*tnaujs* ukm
';/
SMtfW
ws& «»ui k*» m%«. i
,Si i.HSil
.
mam h*hx w ss t
'S.tWS
4
IvWfe*
L?x»fi« t# mxinm <€«< in imh
S
tuntMut nm mm
v-.tf M.sf
>
".W2c
»«*** •matm am ?
mam twr*
«&« teres usvsi «
MftKM***** W0 UWt* S
uxtmu & mwm mm m mm
u->.*TSj«-f «KS5 «S!1*
z.*m
*¦<*?*
8.9»8
5S.S44
b.««*
V. is&SS
*Wm* £«• SOS*. w*fS
**m# VIS. w *w» <**aku
* w-
mm'. »# scKpyt#,; *t»K.iv*f "
K»t»r#n.-*: -,»>»<«,»8 tt*W* /W l*r,j*il< ilsr
fty fc-w r 8, Kvfrv <*, lfl»l *t« Hy ,if na^s;.
i>-t kwrvl «•«
Vs-U SI'S, «te»~ ,\ «r«--:h i,5Ts, «¦« 74? 79%.
Vim i»
240
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
241
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
*
;; "
us* amwcwr vmw
m i&m «» mmmm mmmirn umimv
V ¦:
t »*««.»<.*ft.*.* ..•mi.
¦>
mm qtuh
«i nil: uwSjSwiii
,-siw w*mr<
t**e 3 •• imui mmrni ? ?¥'?€>
partly * tolfVA.
Hfu» i.iSfiSs;!»* - ".wwVArtrn
wiitittk HKut - *.«M mm.
fKM-ss:sr : n.zst£sr
5«w - mat
rnmm «wt« v ie,# j«t
11.!.., Si..:..
¦ r; ...w,
imntti rn^nrnt vmtm a ««« vft*R» M»Mn»«NMk *»
awpkiiAt *«w j* **&*«*,
ifitca *
Srtt 1 nm^nnm >A,n
wwjw *pkwm i&m» i
SftUi SS St? *2
XKC6I1* - **?>• «9UV».
ff*ui .p*** •
. V». Vxm. ' iw
otaa** * ;.«• «uv«st
cj, - a sic ***.&*¦
" ''Nii !i
i/tv.'.i '¦
\ «*vjul 1
#»?«» WW* MM* IS
SSL... ; "!;:S
*tfi* «KW - «.»/» »UM,
mrm wp<* <*«*w * w*#**
rwmw w. his. p«® - »,««******** *- mtvr
w* i www* wwmrw «*vf*
AVi'esifii T.jciiiCf fiiaWR i
- $».w
uiriA win »
mn\ »
HtHlfc VffJ Wtfft -rtWf*T ¦¦
tW!« Wft. CC*D. •» 4i^ ^/S«
' ¦¦tVi' N :.
TtH ? lAWWt CMiMe UNf«:
IWWHf ItfMfX *d
¦m J !.MSR4t »M««SS '...Mm
WW* mtm ms j*
¦:,*W.«.., , ,:.V ,^h.,,
mrnm- » *},&*» vxmi
mnm mm - V5t /r«
«»t K#n» copev *
rwtrmr ^a. ,v«®. -
vliV:,: ¦• ."..(tV
IUt
*>n * timw uws
„
242
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
'"'SbsklISwi*
•¦W-i
»Uiu
l«. iJ ©EWtTC
mi #iffY
mn:$.
-n;
rtSWriv
«itifes ivit«r
iwn«. 3»u«sm
twnw sat. hw,
mmmf .fw,i«
ssSl
!:s sstaas
a.*W* wtur*4
mm
vmm muv,
«*» 4 ¦ «w*Wf
*»«* mm* 8MW** «
. v."v: '¦!
sssr
M»u» fjwfctr,
*esw
iWtu-A W! ^efrsw
c»««tw at, wm, «*©.
»* n**>u mum
mi mt&ammmum
«t PL^J«fi? t^UTf
*»«¦ A
»!««- msa, & wtm -urn m t »
mi * Men \imtot &i w, rett.
w\«a»j» \m* mm*
tmnm « m* Kta*m mr»
m* nmt?m*m *um
im am
fwn*. mm is twannve mm
nm* um w tmmm* %mm
tfwt tim-- t»
ton*, alMrMPUt
MiHi*. 18 i*rt* WlfKtM*
w wrx* wtss
******* m>rn
«m» num
?;.* i««s
S.3M OTMSv
*.m mm%
asm mm*
ts^.tn* make,
m.in iH'.»t:
,S.W
mum mam* wiisv in «•» vfw>
<*
HIOMIKIIXXOMIltll
' :¦¦,«?>;. U :,0.v
a»3S
iii#. ».«»* y,&M» &,iw #.w»
\WM«. o^Asmo «c«f JVFS f
ft
re- »«-«UC« <*.*»*> «,«» «.«» t»,««
«.e«i *,*** »,««•
thk%sjm ie
iOMi^ »t.«w, *,»*«= w.e«8?
k\%\m *>.***> *.*&*
>1i'.. i:fi;T.W!W ^
wprtVt. £*«*«* sm;w „&f8 n.
^ ^k. Cs^^i ^ ^ ^ Pv*#*
m §.#« k,Mt ».g» j.wjj
(««««». I*ni( 1.
, ... ¦ . ., . . . ¦., . :
's, '. I ,;\-: ¦• '. .*»•¦ s , ¦>' ¦..¦.>,
mumm- tMW *,?**
- .?«»%>
243
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
.1 :i , -i... : ,
$.*»& *,*i£ s.«*s «.*~:»
«.i*^8r
f.a*2#
*•»*?» -mwh a,®**/
BMu Av?sfcc® =€«i o«t w or Outk I
*>tm *.«»» »,«m»
utyiMtgss
sen ***** **» m t
.-.Wr-S ":.»? ;
«*.<&«$ e,e*« e,m% *,««* *****
sr&. aw*?*3»& e.«we &.*m*
i:«l* 4WI&K «Cci& t«* n-»> » amk is
/.I ,/*,,<¦¦.¦ . >11 '/-'¦ . , ,¦¦„
».««>* *.*»* «-«**"
o, «w*ruws
m*m, ns& om«K*^ tm *im i rmnxm m
!,*:;¦.«¦¦', ,P. «TVi ¦:
vm *
#.***
y.nmi; IH16W..W %¦» «sm
*.$w f <**eu
*.*m» « *«vwt
*<.*« I -'ft.***-!
. .. .., . i
t ****
¦'•'¦ ¦¦'• -¦ '¦ " ¦'¦'• <¦¦••1
{ *.#*»>,
s.-m i *.*»i
*.«* . #s.v;
mom
¦ *¦:',<*; .A
*k» m w
i*:* *
Uif.SAl v'XilC^C.
m# k4v£«
PCMSUf iyfeU«xfl» J TO
-
mm m ?w
-i.*-v l^V'i ¦'
uutt*. i*m*k mixcrn
nmi-^% f
m mil m H'fc,,-.* ^r. t.*f «h
i,Wfc ,.:,¦(
#x*w nmm w
w»«* j*«sm«r <«uem&
»w u
m mt% f »«t r ?ssa»«
Ll'«i t's
^Sa&£ *g> €« ?Tf»
v i.;
c«JW6l W WW* SiW«S
¦:¦ <¦ ' r I I. < « T ,.¦»¦"» l-r.
n* mi? vmM'i m nm >. m
.i.'v fi:,;.; ¦ 1 ¦¦. iif. :¦
aiMMHf «:K.u-r«a ots« t»« 2
•»0CUATiWAt».«i « ItVf*
««•«» «»'* «c^«5» »
»SW»»«f« twf# >#MS( I
trtcsriat c.5: *wski» in i&im
mv*m 1m mmm
mm* «im»wuw %
^miAnmjaskm ~«*0£«
mum mmm top qp i«h 7
ww i-wr.fi
umm w MdeiMP w uww
stffl BSATS)
ts.vi'iscf. ¦ ¦:uic'tu mm am *
mh,m k toscw» 1 -v. k >,»
mem* mm m np u- sm*
«jmo» of 9Av«w?« wiAt). j« uv»ii
mum*, m* mmm
vmmt ^Ant'hu hm» asrfc* 11
i&m j
«IAC«r «i&fw TCP
msjw» fji «
mzmm( w *mm* mm m mm 1
mmm&m.
mm
wu. toii. mnh tm?m <
«*tw» «&. soil, wtfr* £«./«.>
9,m,
(A
M.( U*f
'.c;*-t,«- **.*<,»#¦ i«-,.MT,e4 <>v»< uw.jo'is.1
v->. Ci: ; ,,> - vi
*vt« iwi ,7»" r-.v-ircw^fAtyi
. uf, «.v 3, w I-#: rw.
>B* ••« *«*• » tWBt «'* W»
iWf«
¦:HKW41
.'VWA&.5
',
*.*M4
».«et
¦¦
¦>
i4tV LWy
f
;¦¦
!
n.tsm
s.«e»
(I
i1.40%8
...
f»«» !
244
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
Prtee i
245
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
CELLS P-2 TO P-4
246
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
247
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
2SS5:2
yr
I mi tm* miki
mim msk*nf; cr\wwwjwr
¦~m t i**M Wfe» 4«/WW
. > ¦: ¦ i . <
it,,.,.*..
l#»r* (Mr*** Of «» MTM
«6. MkMi'tfm mm w m iwsam*.
s . KtSTjrj! usm.
«Tf«« mnwr Iftwsrx tfi
li'-J f.K'.l-J
*e*»m
rsne uw#.ifv
#H*7*s POT Iff
«r?s% *»t wmn *mii
imnm w. «?».
wt - swum *n**,u«:
»0Bf *M*t*
r,« 2 . ijItom £*fii*«£ >.«M
a-fwrn .RXi^fe mm* #
mioses* * *.a* we**
wAiir - ?-•¦«<»*; toft
W!itite pcsw?
=«r* *»>.* umw
tmn\vt w, *h
«->«*# WH /*.S
*4«* Wt,?WL
«-«*»»»'«*»
*.
.^s >.w-
VU
*.*N» WjU«ClL
?imm - *.««*» v&mi
mi
2.w iuwtm
Wtut
wuuia *.•**»
«Bn«.feti.*rc*
sit-t. .?« ft:*?.
. t vwtw*. wmmtk* t*n*
««hui latitat i«» s
*.«w **uwx.
.;s *JL/K*.
*x,,m
- .,W«c
*•» :i irHAi mn*t& *««
wrp ttxiwr www* ¦*
**>»*
«*&. trrn
«.*w* »*.&*
#.w»* *Stfw*
^issr,
J-C# iW;W
UrtN
flWS'
*me <*mm
*mm **:«
nnm wt* «*r* wwr
«¦. ;SM.
m,
m im&n&im »»'it
F* **«•* ^«4S'7
-ffe <* - **w#fc uun
**»*!* iflim HLMt* .P>
2,en he.*l£:»/;V. sk
»4.«» ir^tVfAtiWf
.",u
i««'8 T
MSKMT*
«'.«» <¦«'
nmm mx
¦ m :t ¦
I ?.AV«
"£sst
i«»n«. y»i iwoe* hmiw •
ffnnm &if. «'o. :
2.n
m^r-cc
1 M' *
t«a
'Zu*>« 'tfxtm
mmi mmm urn
¦i,
,
*.W» «5»
6.«K# ¥3LrWl
" Hwuwiwfe4
; aw
UTM 9
w » B«nrn
ustewai. v?»»sfc
i-^.n rrv
WUHW,
!«ns,i sm» «M»m -•
¦rm-cim -«Ti, x.-.te. -
4
248
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
&*o a '.uPt imvth or *,&. rer.
S.*SK
MUMHB KBW8M
i W*t/e*rtfc HAW-
5JSSSSSS
i ikimu mmuis
S"L„
ss.t#
53.*
i.vm mm'K'|s||2
>t.>m
:'Vv
.1. U'/ l.JW
i ;vi .'..i.v
: .. :iV
-~.Sit'
4.m
i.*W
ste. sevsmfiv.
Am *.*&
i.m 1M9
I'-.w
:.. •:.»¦.! >
»•««
¦( ,'W
i.^e
ifttSSAi,. USA1KAU £
^Mi2
**.< ii'-
#,£W%
«MW®
jTij. a««noft
ft.32ff6 e,l&65
fe.sw./
IS-
e. 23#'§
p.nw
PirKWAUtfl/UAtlia Jfti% i
t« ssaitsv w- jtii»
%A- IWWJO®
a.«»»
«SKCUWM4Ma TK«Su6p i«M 6
tH?*.*
.. t#vutt»*v
*.*»w
=.«rrwt QRAiirA&r cwtimus u*r* ?
MMif ».«««
;. .,
* ¦ ... .. .
i'' ¦' ¦¦.¦¦.¦
ft.®**
tfS
*'£&¦
*'«fe *
? r^^V' ®1 4:1 ,^5,'. ^
^ t*c* .Afc-n-i ij ist-ric.- ^
...... ¦/¦¦¦¦
oas iv %«& anew*
3,M*t *.«» *.*mw *,«*» a,«*t *«*«?
&,«n e.*sm ~.«*» %.#m i »>«s«5
V«tt t»«J»ir«*
a*m «*mit mmm-ttvw um *
S.w: B.«W
*«*«**
. >.t Vf AT {tSF-s
y**,* g ^ 0
».«#§» «.w &,«#* t'-.mm
at
?M£ *.<«*» *,&#» %,
Avr#«f *«i fife n* (if i «|f* «
»,,. :• .: «.' .f. ..
' 1', 'I
., ,¦..!, ... ». , , ¦ ,, , ,.
....... i ...... ¦ , . i . ... i . ,. i' \'f /&,* % V'-
'.*. »" . fif?. Vt. iva/»*
W jf ^ v? visAf>* \*
i\Mm %j>m b^'w A.A^A
• »« ? •- >¦ V- •','!» * " •¦ ''¦•¦¦' r f - «1
mi f»ui,
, k. I * tfeM»
;r;\!.; vfJICOL« K»/ilte*X
u>m 3
awftar,f-
¦>. ;,v.L^
wets*t x*K*m '7xmmi
s
mmmm -mum
t
msm. mm w iw
-,!¦ ;,VS .,
m«n aw
ftSWf t««Xfci>
tofemei. tty
i #¦;«. c
¦.&m m KMt«
•W. Al t
t
i
i
v>Wi) i
«.*« f
i
.•
«X.«3W i,
fc.?As. im»*0
6m. 2!
S4,5«
i
-e»*te i
^4s
}um
M. W
*«sw»
..««•.I d •.-: or M*t >>•>«>.><>.«• ••.¦<>< i <« .r>-* It ••>»•••«••«>•>..<>!*••
«t«Jt VAUS'i if* TfAK-j j iMTtt,5f
¦rvw- ,;;.!;. n.;
m &nm $. ^
*..*'! ¦>¦<*..•¦¦¦¦: r>H
,y S
249
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
tmmm asuicrgs t*B :>
^S«JWTKWmwu« fWKMSM Ijh«
***** fr*s* tart*
mam* *«>c* t» o* avts ?
iOMrfts* c* *&'.*!* *«& in
tm mm:<
»f&mz wauaw ««# an* s
WmJftNWUlMGl WWl 1*1*
AWWtt **#M* W «f Wtfc* »
mam mm m »-y * uvea ,
«x*ie* s* w»>««, 1* urn
f«y«a «w» t*««?
'OUJC'W 7
nz-mmmmmmf mnm u*m
mMsr •* it* »* i«s *
«»«$« ?»'»' l-nv^fc §
t.OC«TFi« nw.imj* mm mm
mum* m* »m*j
«sen«* ws. sou wwtx
*tfci»u* fcft. H«; mots o*w*«>
».-t..,,-J.»|,1...
ftsai Mm %imm st g® * vt* i*»
($ Wl :
#.«©?
*
«« wa;r*
•;<**/*« >
.¦¦¦¦y;':-:"<¦:¦¦¦:,;)¦ .a .-
Kr^^ufi fcisriw.** nPi-T'- »«T ii'.r*
E»jf »«. «CgW'«>, IWIW.U* « 5Ute«
feCt .W r,.l »5 invlt £n#I«e«ri»^
fe>i- feK \ JtaTHTti im*, ?p- «>an.
250
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
251
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
:UE;- C:-vW."\eAT#V*f;
!€! SIISS:
0,;,r cm*
!»&«« :
. .. *
We-
WTg«*w TCXTi,*
if
' ¦•¦¦ ma
Sfrai*;," ¦
»nmt :wt«s. mwt
»nsmu. MESS **> «•»*»*«.*£ »*fi &*?*
5« WtfrfV Oft** «.»*£« ««M ca-VvrtfiC «£**«.•*
as ssjtjsx r:t,m"ifJArn
252
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
*t* A S%9*t *£•«*». ?¦- »,
VS fa)*>tk v«M* *W*
:
Swnvs jvjftjs *
vCC-l* LSW CP SV«PC«ASK-feteK »
L4MIT .«* ",
S2: I^aSTU^** :
M*9.*«*S s^.JRS J.ii
<-
jk ?smi;
I ¦iwxi&i* I6ii
•»1V ,••'~'¦-•
»«sars«?»5M
v",,tL-
!;fl
S„ J<5
-%*ir
.? .!.:
i.li
-'-M
¦.¦ V,l;
..' ; .
rn\ K:«»11«
.'. - •¦
.1,
i.fc.t
i.
', T...
i .
>... ¦•:..
¦¦
!:gi
t;S
6 fi!j
lite
I;SI
i;3?
(S:?K\ «««K>R5
¦¦¦¦,,,¦:¦
!.:.i ¦'
S:li
y. k>S*
S;S1
¥,
'¦¦ .\., .'V' : .< ¦„ ",(. ' .:. ¦'. ¦¦
5:S
?:SSS
!:JS
i:S!
iot
v.. sic
¦'¦*.. ',;.l-l.».. )¦¦>'¦¦¦'
?;1S
J;JS
IS
J:J£
-. Aim*. »At»%;s: -it*>
•-CV64- .Assb ,x'
fc|!S
1:58!
!«
ii{«
ru-. S£v$*rms
» ^11
!:ll«l
l;2t
I;lif
«I»
«tfa.KWt ¦-*#«
!v 1,">¦'¦"»
I;ia
S, -JS«
s?.«oe
ss§
fcisi
*ma a--2*
e. &-siy> & w»»
v" SkS
is&jwr.jr »>;«* >.*•*» a
v.
6, fAH..>
grass
®" -5P?
V. 1-W.S
ass
' ¦¦¦' |. '• ». '".¦« ¦» . : ¦¦ »V
.¦«, I.if'j ;¦¦"<¦ iffJWi"; .1 ,,:i.?Vi. !)>'¦¦
n«xi vi 0 •- >• i
.-*i.ir:r*T mm .•
-.^i- *4f> * IWM -r
'«*!*«» «*t ** n» i;>f I.a«« f
••"n5rss,;s,-s.s,w"
KttJfiUfc'kt#*. ?
I «*.«• 'v* -J* w*.'« ?
* » v.- *r t**c* ••
!..«**< «•« <* «W«* «*«, 4H U^S-" t;
fS-TC.MKt t»Wi
»,?¦( *>•'I U> t** .*»** >¦>
».SVK«»AWW« -mw-m 6.fev^fc «?
< v.'
' I;/
I'fHW ® •wui«i<* f«,«( ;* t «1S« '-
r»*.*K*a ^.tccn Hkisw t.«» a
;«•»« U
.A"-ew ^
•<*»**• ** *««• "ft* « ..*«« j-
l.f I
S. KJSSXO
i.-Uf
Kit"!
*«***&}.«»
. ȣL wATf*
S<-U- {vt>l,ASSt,-J
v.SAW
«»*<«• *«*«-***
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
Hp }sr«
nm. urtt n^SMM at t*> OT .-«w t«s
fll!
==s
0.0)«X
':WlA,S-'
v.'JIvf
*
*.««
S.'.Miu
!?./»»
*
>-«-sc.«a
tt.XW
*
j
«,W*9
*
I,uaua
*
*.0*0
ȣ>
**•*>
e.wsw
u
*.e««
a
o.«te
u
fe.^yv
S*i*
3.SW
I
254
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
LANDFILL V
255
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
CELL ^ -1
256
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
257
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
;3U : Swti(«
ftW- lvirwuv< 2XSSC MT.
•«5: •i;?i;icss^^fssa,viK<5rr'
X'KSV?'!?-'' "•*
£i"S' :
»¦ "¦ •¦¦¦¦*¦ I <'»°#!*s *
:
Ttr£ agsfojpk,*,
/VSW.
I ¦« ¦ ¦!» '¦ :'.'• I (¦¦ ¦! ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦;¦ • ¦¦¦¦. ¦ . I 1... w. .. U'- ¦ ¦ ¦¦¦¦ ¦: »¦¦.¦¦¦¦ r. ¦•. >¦¦¦.¦,¦. ¦¦
fiVEM.54-SW i»K~5S f'itff ,'S»te: i t®:>
i'.tL **•:•-«v :»«:
f.»'«K>Tw*«iPJ fear i «iw
r„ \j.«
1:3
;;K
1:8
fell
t;M
1:11
Jrfi
1:14
f:B
«.J?S
«.WSO
fb.m 6
fcSl
1:12
£S
:2
till
Kl
1:1!
5:15
•: vvm.
258
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
, ^ #« 4 J i '/('X.'t
w.-
r «¦<«»»> !.-<<»«,.* ,-vt, i Brfirri
i-\ Agw' ^ v * '
FT?8% ??V'! ''^"^
».t«« -. oawt*
«.«wn
t *.«•*>
"•*«« l M3WI
is, y-SCHiii ( vV-sWWiOiV!
t,v«, c i,mn
3«.i!* fl,SWS«
,;,a..-m 3,3^
—•
**» EWJU i«L,«-5 «?t
m *rce
>i.i
ftas »'« «sr,jr,}ttj svw i atiatn . <
(if:t"«VSwifRS-««
vui, U9. to. S, M*rif
( ««, p#,
_..
rswa. **«•*«
•' -SftrfSASfc A? if® >.* •,(?.«. iflvi
r:;!!
"T-:
e. „xi«s(S
s
t.MO-
£.&*$*'
*
U-W®
0.>toW
4
o.tm
fi.WW
3
e.eew
«„«*»
«
iS.it.'Q
d.**1*
•-** WTM?
*.*»
259
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
260
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\
i lis™ j
tmcnvr t*r. --v r-*n. ¦ ess s^-ss-:
Sirs
?s»tf|«is.f„ »ft, «A.rtf amtf«
>, iiW.3WKi'ja$i
<4'«.Mw lifWH
i.VAP^»rjvt
¦c-iS.bfX
',-M.SiZ J« lr<"f
vZ&tt*
m. wtxATum
;tt<« wvj *.r!v»c
* »#S >i
261
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
I: SSI !:«'*
rews-r.i.n,»,^EWKjr Tm«
f.'.Tfc
•OTAi.3
A mWi «*»>««
mt
5T£». :#Y3&,rK» W
»»in«e ox-u
W-. Wivv^nwhrs
H-eo^us*. t
SSI t;SS
S:8S ESS
lie
Sift I:iS
iitmt
»:iS l:SS
•UECTSf- F«C* tS.VS* 3
v.&ascj s.&m
111 2:S
t-5'lAU
r*&. 3cv;s-nc4fs
S. s'i.KiSXS
>;®S f«f
S:S8
fell
1:888
i:!IS
KS ttllf ;:sa
st.fcwS <>,&.«' 4, saw
sKtSS*.
C.dwfe w.&W
1:151 8: §8 I:SI
Hi SSI I:fit
1:88 8:83 SS82
t,w«Ki y.c:i
u-^M' n.i&m
fetss ass fess
i:sa as is
1:25
£88
"f mt&m i mm
**»(.» *»~ ««««¦ "
> .
-we SSB ?:SSI
«,|S{ ,:gs
I;8«
t\ C-itJS 4. &")«
s?.WVIi
•;fc. (i.f/Wt
i;S l:SS
f:S£! 1:3 SI
J:
if i'i i>Stofe
».<&& LvtoCr
t:SS
K&a&j
"AH - -H *l< «
«*•:»«!.« -**•' <»> i"P ">» i *.»* ---
HtvJTMW* MiOtJ [¦> S4.TI-
8'» »•«*»#$
C4u.ec*» «o« .*>« «
!'»<;>«>~ .i.if
¦p *h TOP (..M'fli ;
tV,
""{S.S.S'S/tS.g
V»C* *
4 UWS* %
rh *r. :c* n«r • ¦:'•% w ;.r ,.4-si >* t aw
i.i9 ta
nmm* vt.vrp c
.frKPwci,-*:;
PS»is,„ %y.trts gr^*«SK AT » ••.* >fw
«k;. i/i
S.^W'3
0,0W»
i«.ne«
O.aMv
a. uoo
?.«iU
if , 4S>?i'3
«:8i
iiS
. c«-n-;atiOis3> j
SW>EJ
J ThB.ru>'?'> x%>0
S?T
i-i't'M.. C«'£3^^« -Cw.S.:-Cv
!< i1; t WiA. c Tw»MC*
' re-;« UuV
l*S\SI"T
pe^€i.a*-s r,(j,4x.cr«s,K t
a-.«k i«
»«f- « T«p-
i>2 S
C'-t«SS. i» «i'»* SIMMS
JMv.
s.zm\ w>?. n i,.m
i,9*7*1 t|«isra3.-- as.^,>
K-4j»i;« i.a;
0.4ft# *.00«i.
,1. «.»a ¦
yKSISWK C^L^'TfE.f >•«,:« t«.••{» /
Mi5» «•
. 'l.ttflt... I<»
«iMCHtr; pt.>
f< - j.i_i
s,i;>ri 4-s»4».wpo
6,Cv&Sl"i«- kh'^tS'i
is. t./.«
s
262
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
CELLS Y-2 AND Y-3
263
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
264
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
ftl,
V! <• I 7::nv I
5IKSI : IS
iwm» WUM- - - - -
,1 i - -V I : i If; • ,
I* t*«S P.'fft ,M*S i ?*»*¦»« ilk..
¦¦
V-b. !-• . 3*!
•'ffe - ' ""
... / i .....
W* Kit
'¦ ¦" - * - ¦ ' ' ' W ¦.
'
»:«;
It
1:11 !;?! t;i l:f?
tit 1:11 fell I:IJ
fcg
si?
.: :.V
s.iH
S'J^Vs I-'vSK* '^'£3
&2S «:&
;:SS
.-. ¦ ,
SIS
t:IS Kit l;g U?
J:1S £3 !;1S SB!
I:!S»
; »„.,i
265
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
, ^ #« 4 J i '/('X.'t
w.-
r «¦<«»»> !.-<<»«,.* ,-vt, i erlirn
i- (< Agw' ^ v * '
^t?8% ??V'!
A.0MM1
».«* t *.*«*
«j.0»n s, iL«?w;i
II. W f o,,»-
t.vSS < 1.31H
— "•••«•«*-
1«,M)
—•
, DAIU
*W*K >#» ®* W «r L*V *
i-xsilM.fiil \i,n ikr'i'u #••«•! i *• »* «
tW&(, ^ ft. ..^ ( r
»•«..» «tw .;«. .« ,.»,»» »
L.-n'.A* "
¦«€¦<«.« .v
«as »?« «sr,jr,}t^ ,.^r.«r,! t «««¦
fels4' ''Mkt«'»UV (if'J*«VS»fSr ?n®Siverii"a
vaiv m, «w. J. M«-vfc»«3, w, 26J-2?8,
.._ ^ „w" '
».* «.«
I 8.WM IS.MK.
^ & iVwSfl ft
i 6.m *.<**8
i &,«»•:? vV.rfwo
» u.*^« a.^;5<
--¦mm wu* ».»»
266
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
267
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
»Pg 0 >- PlK-GO-JE *
,*.I » v-'tt"..
r. i'i'i r i'. "i
ife™; liil
trncnvr tJ-r. r-*n. > ess s^-ss.;
Sirs
ViUCs ;«* s*c-
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
I: SSI !:«'*
rews-r.i.n,»,^EWKjr Tm«
f.'.Tfc
•OTAi.3
A mWi «*»>««
mt
5T£». :#Y3&,rK» W
»»in«e ox-u
W-. Wivv^nwhrs
H-eo^us*. t
SSI t;SS
S:8S ESS
lie
Sift I:iS
iitmt
»:iS l:SS
•UECTSf- F«C* tS.VS* 3
v.&ascj s.&m
111 2:S
t-5'lAU
r*&. 3cv;s-nc4fs
S. s'i.KiSXS
>;®S f«f
S:S8
fell
1:888
i:!IS
KS ttllf ;:sa
st.fcwS <>,&.«' 4, saw
sKtSS*.
C.dwfe w.&W
1:151 8: §8 I:SI
Hi SSI I:fit
1:88 8:83 SS82
t,w«Ki y.c:i
u-^M' n.i&m
fetss ass fess
i:sa as is
1:25
£88
"f mt&m i mm
**»(.» *»~ ««««¦ "
> .
-we SSB ?:SSI
«,|S{ ,:gs
I;8«
t\ C-itJS 4. &")«
s?.WVIi
•;fc. (i.f/Wt
i;S l:SS
f:S£! 1:3 SI
J:
if i'i i>Stofe
».<&& LvtoCr
t:SS
K&a&j
"AH - -H *l< «
«*•:»«!.« -**•' <»> i"P ">» i *.»* ---
HtvJTMW* MiOtJ [¦> S4.TI-
8'» »•«*»#$
C4u.ec*» «o« .*>« «
!'»<;>«>~ .i.if
¦p *h TOP (..M'fli ;
tV,
""{S.S.S'S/tS.g
V»C* *
4 UWS* %
rh *r. :c* n«r • ¦:'•% w ;.r ,.4-si >* t aw
i.i9 ta
nmm* vt.vrp c
.frKPwci,-*:;
PS»is,„ %y.trts gr^*«SK AT » ••.* >fw
«k;. i/i
S.^W'3
0,0W»
i«.ne«
O.aMv
a. uoo
?.«iU
if , 4S>?i'3
«:8i
iiS
. c«-n-;atiOis3> j
SW>EJ
J ThB.ru>'?'> x%>0
S?T
i-i't'M.. C«'£3^^« -Cw.S.:-Cv
!< i1; t WiA. c Tw»MC*
' re-;« UuV
l*S\SI"T
pe^€i.a*-s r,(j,4x.cr«s,K t
a-.«k i«
»«f- « T«p-
i>2 S
C'-t«SS. i» «i'»* SIMMS
JMv.
s.zm\ w>?. n i,.m
i,9*7*1 t|«isra3.-- as.^,>
K-4j»i;« i.a;
0.4ft# *.00«i.
,1. «.»a ¦
yKSISWK C^L^'TfE.f >•«,:« t«.••{» /
Mi5» «•
. 'l.ttflt... I<»
«iMCHtr; pt.>
f< - j.i_i
s,i;>ri 4-s»4».wpo
6,Cv&Sl"i«- kh'^tS'i
is. t./.«
s
269
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
30-YEAR DURATION
270
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
:: -r«S,fKS;iKfelTSi:s,?'S?f ::
8W.W at chvIB-t-www. tAfrwror..
'* v'.*z wwcr«*»-s t«K»iwr wino* «*
«• *.* «»
iSii.KX
... .s-sit?, ma
«;V2®\€*,)T.;W
HE: SIP
W.S*;
^5«U- '? WJ.cV-Viuff"
w" 't£sBs,rgx'??i,sisr:s;frt,t?5Ss^K
((»•(},» i
** t - **TK#
mwM. umx*. i»
tH111... I (!„
c.Kv:»r.i*>' 1
ZHtmt,is i'> it* ft»w
!5-,te rn«-"P-
' ISil
i>-ls-.sk>toiK4w6v?. ys <
» **& jvwMT.'vt os* C'ftf*
'fl|llPgg=SH-
! «
Wlrtig'- ' Kt
- » I rii 1M- *«.>.- «
5WS'JKI-AM IttfWte
S,«$
SSKSSTW Z<
;•« «&t£S ST>:**J6
isu. vm-t *i .jta*? os .*«».
?4ix ***&» it vm *¦* \w
¦its* «s-»r* $r.w :v*; w
¦V* &t kV .1®. it.
(-'v CuK-
U.tJ«S
5i. fcwi
*. mum
mai*
?^i , rf'5
*UR«,«e
v,w
tn-ccnvc" s»t"
S«S^.s -MWU
l&fi-K
t-^'K
*sjscmt:s«T
^v...
AwyAt {9**1.5 rre
ti» i**,'-**. .CK', k*#, t w? «<•>*-«>
U, Mj SK'MK«,M »n.'S> *..«
»»5?»S"HMX«> ipi.WS
WitSKW* FKvW i»-s«
.Af#»sA.e V^vs. «« .14*
r«» wri# Sir W cs8 '.5*f
•**! 1* «ti;i»;l.l «». I
i>, «v
1?. wnds.
ANWJSt. £'«c.
—
i«4s.
"Jsir/
SdttC«'S
0. (Mi
iiUV i¥, v.tt
6, AW
m.tt-
C&U,£CM- t'fm v,%TC» ;•
¦i ,&x#
S(»
v.aimm":
?.ji; v,w
6-,^ ~«»?• 0* ^ 'V S..W- ;-
?»v«W
4
271
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
wuhwe mtOflYtc *w* iwt> ^ ~
«.«r> an i8s» or u.c«B *
5m a; im &« -t«
¦V,M«
;,244
*.6i
•i.mim
«. IW
».WM
t,*w
.Xis.tiJ
i*,«*
*.**
V,w
i.m
tl>il
4. MM
•4,g»
rL'rfL.
II.»
vm«m* a^UCTtt r«w« w*c* -
!*K-S4f" *-!jffs,nS:«rt (..frl'S-ft !
4MJ. J®AB *0P >' i
**W-.-.WMiht »**(*»«. t»V» ft
&-.ny s»S"stt> -ii* \>yt ,-ir isue.a.
II,. SI
•.MM
>*>'.<&¦$* v4«S *^>
ii'yi; ifio a«
v.*.
5..-,SI
».N«e
i.liS
fr.JV
««a «bw.** ml#£(
«>,W
:.,iw
a.wi
V-.
J.HJ
..»>.»»» •„»..
»,»¦
0^$
«#¦?'?>-,.?.tjS.
w.n
*4'»* *.T ci* - c *&¦
WO
V.WO
4,
t.M
k*.*u w. »i«i
(I1!WIWW(
n'w
fe, 66
+.6SW&?
*W. •€*& -» W 3r i-MW 4
AfatM
>..».»# S* 1 »•»
V. ??1
«!>. «**«» «' "fW «"*
*«?»««'
^ ^
-oats
^ *« « **m
Kttft
Kite
w« fejyj
4.CW
-c.ieo
fr,«
AftfiiiS'XU »"'(£ >T"SH ¦&
fT .*•
1
j k.s;. -<«¦ <-« •?•••" •;< iAvr* i
(mW
r,*^®a :*¦ «^t£.k sow
a.«w
swrte.w
jr.fo
«k»«fc ftf ¦,!». m. «m
nssMij.
SGU SSTKfi »T C«'> C'('' 'CM'
» -4ri« fef STMT f.f s««
o.u^
i.W
AC ,,«5. M S.«»
$ vp?'», ys^s
»*¦'•£«. U'Wr t«i«ae:s:
i,...us®,ssh j
JWJ. «**2 C'« *«N «* . «(.* ?
*v*. «t«" «t )W » ^.w *
Kwmi 5«i wftf£.» rtr«S.K
' " ¦ ' '
.. 1^. *.
u.n
c,;v^ ¦
*£«£«
!teT«T
\ ^ t ^ y
v.n
u-ia
mtm. >w
,if;«K «
O.fli.*
BU.,i»».
S,S»
d.W
i.?*i
-o.Wi
wc.rtmwit TM«wsn I«c# i
tawi
WA.«U
J.3i
***. MS*» <*h W or 5
o.«u*
',>!.»««« n.«4 #
- - '<.?*».* S'.if L.AtS ^
o. c«mfa4
i.M
tSift® «•*! !W" St : «:f* '.
a,am
;.^W58 TH **rr*
*.i*Z
V<»« W(VJ«K #.• .,«AK? •» rs«.
/», 5t»
m AT tm or t*«
^.s-na
•WWW «' %1«« «t »»»
».<*»
a, >J6s
-).ۥ:>
••».¦« **'•¦» »•• »«• •* >#,«
tf.OW
3,«
6.0tf«fe
«.<&
TiM- -ivi
«»
•5
««**» we
,,^l
tZ,XQt
20*. 54
MVS 6- n.|> »sv^ ;.,«*« 3
ft. «>!sf.it
i.,-5
•+*¦.,<>fr**** i
e.mm
4.«
MM8 «K lfl» fl« 1.4, W 1
^m.
v.
fr.i'?'
W1.4MM» r«N%Mi W»fc» S
« ( 4VW ?
0. «
#^'/V '.f '"i
».IS
S-A', «Sfc» *i S-tSRS ®
?».>«
»-.i w,«a, M m-, ^1 *.
s»» WA^« or STWT » ,£**
4 mi
o.giW
S.W
ie(K At ~*. « <»M
&.w6ft
P.S4
B4UWJ1
-i.«?
«...
272
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
totw mna.\ 1-m '¥«* K;
i\*SVrW*l*Jir!Qtt
iSuf*. :
AVK, *«M> *4* "*<¦?> S¥- a%*& iH* SOW 3* «AH-R »
««!£ t»* STC.ffftSE
»!•- l.*Tct! AT ".TAB*- <«- .'E*»
¦Kiii w*«» *» »•«* ? <•£**
"-W5® «*-»(•' *f k'»«J ,lt- '} g.BIS
wans# MViCY ft*u»:c
U-, «"£C
tw'wjiw
nfCt-r
,-m. I«
U,'»M
?W?MW,£'
e,c*
....it »«•»«•.»*¦«»>.• or»~.«.»»¦»»»»a..k.fc.
»KKa^n*fSy«
' aus-'IfiO i:« < *>'*«
wr aWiit 3
*v%. .W6f "« r<5(5 :» > «ft' ?
i.W >*t> *•*<« ' *v»«
»»«¦:. ;.i-SK <5
?W.H« 5.
i.«K
I.'.*"
, tSt'5
**>*.* *r
uni^f.JSi ?.«>*
4.M
,:05#?.&»S S>,«5
ivw»c«s»jx4^.i^»<
».«ft*G8 os-a.>rt£r. was*
>W1«WH»» 3
te«. '*«< '"M* ?0r -:>5 v.4.0 1
-.-.Mi-vm. ' »'.«• . i <*< Ii*' v® lAtis 5
^mmz in mu- m^S
sm «rfeir ir ji#' -••.«- tKM'
vn> «wn\jv a.r >>5. *{,»•
¦TWJ* «sATE?f AT STW8T «¦ »f.«
W*tHi *t C.*J -w «t«i7
Hta,a, s»6.Tk8 SfcliAti •( n»iW(
oxuems *fe«t
>•<»£../iX^is u>e* .*
HfcKU UW >!*> •» wA'i* 5
**<*»
'tec. - UL^i-ir '¦KSOi*> L.src® B
**«i ^V, «»»,«. t
;^k-# SW **t,»
son. «*u* &V :»*«» -> rtM.
*mi mm- *» w
«*» »f5ft if -V -WF
,.NOte Viffci? Si Stoi <0- -Lie
*HW*v W4T«» SHfKSCT feibMKC
J..WS Srrw».JStf i'M.e
«.i«a v.t
.V,i;ws>i?f ^..3? )-<„£
v,>»4
.-iw.K.i -nsfcv/.cc..-.
,".in «,<
rn-ws^
, *«.K'
'*,?>¦& i-?MS.SOSi>'Si/
ft.iS» .53%*.^
7,m? sa%i««,iv.
-.KC5 ft.lSJ
4, liswij-
?5.U>*JI«,WS
4i&m,.'Ss. ^,*e?
T&r«.s. '-A. .t^s 5-
CvllJ
; (-.. we!
izm.uf
iri&miKW*
K-Hi
u.so
r*KSPXW}t;«
sapfeff
?x!.s-i.'i-sr. S.UM ^»-$n
W.AWteS ..A.** 5
#vV\. »*-. {•« W i.Mif* 'i
6W»» «5W.«C»«C- !»**» i>y6*
»*K,AE^S® ?"¦««;« l>VKf v
«aj st«i y t,av» Is
i«i Wiitf. •c»>,-l5W«l,
son -fc»rte at su»j <.f tti>
*'H" WiW or #«a .'4. .«»»
SSX,^ A( !„<«• .!•*"
».*T£* «T 5.«- Cif '*«•
f-t.W'.'fci W4rr" S.M.x, • 1w *<«••»
f4l35.esu,««
W -«••••
i
mviH: upm-% »•/» -C*^ J1
lifc,;fffiS ««. e«ES
r-V4U(4.;.t O&i-S-'SP PJKS4
feiac. s
«Vn- 'tit' ..•. HK- Ai i *in ¦'.
'.-«*iKfcK f *•>« S..4VER
t«owm tffiKi. •:,-
J-W. «A.- vW8 n* S,«VC> i
' «*M-t Ift
5&r. v*Tfn if •¦*»*? -:-r
M'U Af fc«> y» •<««
\*f* *»'«* ftS V!*»J '.« .»A»
S*J«f W4TS* AT ««> m IS*--
34.IV -£**
^^r,. J'A. r,>.
» ? ».AltW (t(?t 1 DH
&fe»i'R»3£ c«;»i..ss;-i'Cb ps« >.s^ee c
HHC./.£taW <-A• 6R a
A^». '-««• -5* Livfs ;v
S**»W£ -J
li .«a 8
»nm^aae
273
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
A4»5, •«* .JM t(Jf C* tivcs, =.
fe.«KKi
.~»*««*: m haw *».«**.
.a.-^a
's * - ¦ - «.h
wu mh« £t rrmt *:.* *»:?» &t e:«5 of vs«
«.«w
»»»* tw«t
S.M««
&,?«5
«.M
--- —•
¦>^VAL T-yrAtr W .£»*
i,~
lWW;s
cw. rsrr
oat
«y^«
£<3m$£. *#.--¦
¦»,«
< ¦» 41tlxni 'fu i f>'TH» iH'im * j,.| » j
».»W
»,B«SK
«w»
«. «• » M» « w «
«»« au»8 '«• ww «
<>,«»»
4,15
©tki-'./t f'AJJlief *!«®!i*»i! I.M'WJ' i®-
rK fiwSK-t
f
»-,«.
*w. «£S0 Ok "5P .::r itoss j
V, Wit
«!»» i«. «Al». ««
-.-, !W» ,B'5i
-v. ni
j' *•- j*.' >>'" -JC^S
¦'<1. 3^>
1SSL ftt »«0 >;# ¦SOI'
JW,«»
^
S.fe^
«»'{« .A? or -C'»
4.WS
«~«??
iMtetti WJ.UB ^ ( «4, *.*¦ C
.». fi«W
<-. «>
t,s 2..,!1
Me* M
MKS-IFtPAfJW
S«.®8
«»*.
!.«»
5V.iWT^A»S^IfeAT.J^
so. nt
JWfSQiS.JSti
WI.JS
*.*«*
B.OiA
•WhJ.ACH.Mt ».*»*» i
0..m
¦iv>X'
**«• -a* W «• 5
.tetOh" +*** i
*.**»
n.ii«
4.«
t j8,- ".SE |r WW ITl+VX
\\W% V ^l, .,,
••«:'<3o<.v. iiw->
5«V «*tw w ew or t%*ft
,j
s«-:«f waraft st Ftsfif •>»- •&«
it, W
v-irto
¦*? t"^3 vi"A4:
n.m
WIV.4W
vMJiSJS
«.. .*»
ttKua w. w n«tw
"l^ae miwyuvi ii^ST
o.tf*
-^;'6S. "Ss
*.54
s-«//S «u&
2C4r.^
.'ftkcwe »-x-« (.»« ;•
f ^ ,< t # l^'s ^
t.iKW
A.-&, f««- <*, ty» t? w*»» J
a.«se
6W«t r«.-r« av*» 4
Saws
I. ^
y &*mi
U.iSit
v SK"
*'"•. »4«, (A«f« S
V.WW
t«*m: x* **rv, srwsa-
4..M*
-.,4*.
»A^J »«,•»» « «6 ..«-
?« ,,?fi
%VK. «1H M ftik. V
?t5'J.. «iVf
.Srtiw *«se ar 3T.4I8T ftp !mt
6„1«
tar m
.'.f
«P « «>aF «sr,
y |£s F0S-' «ik-AS*f & fHtfjW***< i"5
JWy'W.
*
"mIM.h""'
I;S
i:3
K!
»:S £?'
-';.5w>
i.3>
*"'• WWWM"
2:S
Ki
1:8
r>; ts
1:S
I;SI
t;SI
fcS
SSS 1:11s
«... &,»:•
tf-tm
*'7p"
^'^>1
1:115
Bl
iSS
SS
1:3
1:J5 KS
t;s
?ȣ>.- cc/ifKim d.auyu ijyui? i.i.^Kk/ ^.yuc;o d.ayt'y
.
AvnwM:?*i Wwm.v SLvr-ft*^ i-AH,-- «•<&«? Ctv-^-T,
.' " . "' " " " ..
.r». V vr e f'v ,'kv"l-'j ,i W «nui .-. ,yt ¦*{_>¦ , - * -* -1. .as -
>tmn &:UM u.Zm*
— :
--" -¦¦• — ¦•¦•
£'*£¦¦-- y':b * '1-r-fykt
tt«":t";.«;> si;
i'< ^*t<
*
fr.IW *
W.MS <
e.DTfte t «r.66*av
4.ri.« ( *.<&?>
*AVi < «.WJi
~•is. &1& t i.imj
I J,nv jj J
„f. m
Mu
-m« »
0-B»,
»„« u
274
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
t.*4
¦\ MO
mAETftti i UWAO. un.'Wf«
- 8,Wf«
•WU.H 5 a,i."s
i O.Wl
(-*>"»" ' ^ J P'gg?
x.t*! *¦ * * *' ' l: i t'"-' 4 ^^ ¦ ^5'^ 5-i?h
%w« mM m «#¦ l**w v' 1, u«* *'
*U«W* r«iP X K'l* 31" UM« 4 !,!. l»*
I«.*• ¦»• "•&?&•* 4 . ^
>0
-™- sssr®:
V3l. tt*. 16. <, ««*sfctt&». t». ^ i!',*iJ>
275
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
-:«!¦ i. :¦ <
r.\\f , i,.:i ' 'V,
vesioi **«• j?fME
" »r
SI-ESsr
W.«f »!» <;ft
1^1^"
HSirSr'"'" ¦ J"'
a
*''f 1 l*r
S#S
5?1,»fiKi- "W
I^5T
>. w
¦:: .,':¦'¦»
z^ktcm note .,.**1* :
^i#WUVAs«w J-W.WS.X v.;Wi> A
.
w
*V«,. WAt- ?« T3F UA«f» i
v.« ks< h<**» i iu. s
'•* flftap
- 'li ''
¦<.;¦,•¦
***,<¦..t-SitoMii. Tm^Wi f
0, >
m%. S«*S ,-M W '-W- •'
O.tfWft
W*i !¦£««. i.ij, r*«M » «
0
.¦.„w..
¦ „,,
**¦«-;, /.,sa»#ss
u.utfa>£*?
»>;- H&U- ¦-> **» » utvrfe ?
"<,¦ 'i'-Uiv!,
i.
UU, B-ff*?
»U. ~»TS* A? !>»' f«s
mw*9«.
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
SM* *WW *f **«« ^ -C*»
i.95tf
W.-SS
'¦WWWt « «»>'«• 'FW
«». Mft
«•««»
WW IWCT
.... •
«e»*3 iT
sci" g®"
~.«»«
^nia.-in
.#..«. *•>
MWS cm.i.Ev-se «¦¦«<« LAVJS .¦
f.+rs*
«»,«,...rtiiKft.,* iwwif!-! 4
'KiAWIS.J
tf.?W
<\!K>
•*fi. "««e •» ^e» w*>w i
iV.rwiS
*»<;<»{»«».«»• , j!S( J.. j^t, sfese , a#n> ,-.
fr,M(r
«.«W80W
S.Oto
&>i%- -«6M, >5-74 TJf' ;»c ifttSr. f
».HM
• '*A"ivf'L^ufc'vTCC" jv4i£^v-
Vi', £«!)
t.W
Tufitttt* ufcrtf IV
i.v'-K1
i,;s:
*«i, nr«b w tfle <* 0
e, Wija'
>;««££ P( w4T£» SWftSClL
*,im
S9ae-.es
as
Wti. WJM 41 '-ISS-!
WK.
WAfM. #,f £He
/«=ft4u
'^i4*AU, lAl'J
switt :,r*i.r ,-c -s:os
«.«rt
•>*, «>
AV Ef*a *
A.&V
uauu «» tfi* -
CM. f»«
mui'-f
«*£!,. Sr«
i.n
1 55"»
n*A(m.k}»
jj.w
»*!!«*£ oxutKt rmm um J
43. «
'I. fc4t. fcris *. f
!>.S5-?
S.M
««- <•««! W C*' fc(t-.£:» i
o-ifse
es^i^steE c?s.i..«rtmi:. *s« ,...*?er t
U.WWb
«.oc»
«.«
V.0WWO
#v»J. ^ w OF l.4t-ESi
«.asw
vi*jNimr vivviCEt **'.*> !.»><« t
j, J,^jV
9.6W
4.«
«*WH WW iS
0.0!»
j,v.;. ws.jt5t ,.;>!i (-;& i»s. i. Ai'j-s '•(
0 0M6
C»«!ir,c 5>v vjifto
w,w
sei, »rtf. « stmt op ,**.
*«»« »t MB
7a««.x-.'^lVWW
-.-;«« mr& m ^ »*«
tf.OW
4. TO
*n.m M ^ !» v»iv
j,l«.
\>tr,r.s*A
11.?'?
wn* «,«.^.
r,
t.m
t'.W
a,* to**
**• •«« w * t~» -
SSJ.SlfiiVt f-»—« V,«.vi.»i 4
>£'¦•>:...£»¦ *cic '•>«;»:ui-tt' '
*••**• **«• ** ** *~ » **** -
tfe&5
1.1*1 4»*w.m t*.4?
»J.«« *.£0
4^. *»© --ST £.«W W
*«t *wr* *» a* m ««*
i.a«
- ti... t&i •*&.% i v.^O'
i,w 4»?:r.u* v«,v
li.fi&CKs -i-i&i w.i/i
S**iw« 3>UJKW ;
y»? •» M* i
eeutusc cftKCtW Wnfl* UrB* t-
*«;, ww (Sir w- -d <«,»* ?
sMxwet «u.8CH& p«w *
*.6»S
*¦#&
Ci*. tRfft sTfcCewr
ph-
fi.Wi
i.W
4 5,W<
*«* «M» *» W » 0»t» ?
XW* w»*S!? *t fR.'i =-(F Ifih
V.t»0 v.w
-*.sm ->««*,«* .>,w
Sr.^ ;**«.#* *.&
*.v» *<*
»«» r
a
ttKli"!»'!iA
r^c*
«*C¥(P
*«»»<
J ?\5^
W.-Ui,m
0. as>c«:
i o.a«
<2** <:¦£ ( s
e'AJ^.ni'S- rfrc^ ;..^Sfr ft
«.0K»
a***
.J.KJ
*>*-..!'««&«« H.M. ?
e.itiA
V. &Q
i*fitgl ^ H* C* «*>¦• -'
.;•¦ &«a
^-¦RfWWiS «K« „»»i* fl
U.WW
a.atA,
H.tfJ
fit*. .U*M *¦*«* ift
6, scw^f,
J vw»
«W
t» .«ar»f,
-fl. m
im. **.nr- if fTMT >:.f JCWt
--(-r. »f kw. .«•
j«i
r*4.5«.^ 0«l
..«.•„ *** •-•* U*R ,-
ctftiSCTM- ?iw( ^
l**-- ' '•'•'•
i«6.»
.'JW.iW ^3e
rv>'i>m.Mte U.«
n*:.v»* .;•-, «,?. uc>
e.m a.w
-"*** *
a a**
4.«
111
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
**S. -W) W W W LMSI *
->-, <$m
9. «-»
S, >>®5
t.ift
''t*".. - /IS.*' *iC ''"tf-ij'ts'iw t4>J,K iO
icsjws
«•.»(
^:, *£«• iVM n» CT t &Tt. «
'i1.
+wrr.«*
3 -«
««*» *T STJWT .X W
»U **iP *t 5.!,S «*
'' ^ ^ * 1 ^i - ••
d.wo
5.^
^.eo
WflS *1 S.N«i 1# v6AS
rf. W<(
C.«5
«.K
«*w«* V«TCT m«SKT
^«'SW
CWWW8»TW«TW
^.c, ./(t-ww .»
Urjgfj i
AS. *fe*& OM "»«> wr urn »
**«»*« *»«* >**f* %
B^c-A-gA^s *.*•<« i*
ivu-. 4** .*» »c* « .»»t» «
~n&ft/itZ t.j k«*rt». sfhssahc
"*«¦ «*?£.. *T JT«T s>- i%m
5.1 4?;*<^l.*iV 10", •„-«
•>-W-> »&*
»Si 3$,t". <"5-j
+.&JW40S &V4* tflW
:>'. it, iJSfe V.-IJM
i'-SSSiU^Ofi iScMCS «.•!&<
v. 1K)&
•>.&(«« &.W66
3..9M t.«S0 £.&»£
S.«T .'..CS
*4«B *
«»c.^«ucc rwwttMM >'
.j.
t.. <«
~w, «t.« s>« w S* t*»» V
„-, ess®
•riiH*.v ,>:n>A"K*m '-WW I.w-f# f.
A.»M
«.e«.
¦'ijl'.. -i.£.**• ?
«.6646C{
&.«o
i.i*
8^;. «{«? »M tin-- ;¦* (S.4I. t
4, !*¦«'«
catfWf »'H« «
i».W»
8-.WX)
> &• 'AX'
V.te
it.m
vh •«»' Of u«l» f
*.«K*
;-:«W m
t.lHta
5 a, ft-s
ws», a-r «»n =¦».«
"i1i4??;sjS, )5SO
s;.3n. **TE» AT K«' C- SE4»
ib\, }>¦»-,
.'-¦niMoM/cv
'.•#'«* jo-H** «f f)A*1 ¦¦» >t*r
•..w
^ »-n« *. iW <«
-i.n?
s,«»v
*«wiW». Wv^lEft fcvt-Slt &At#fK4'
a,«-
^¦'K- -X-A. • »-» .~*« 11
^'*6
I >. 7*
c-J- 'in
«T ««.«•
*Wf«.
/(l «S
IIW.MI
•!.<»
Vj **
w«w« ®s,u«n» f»i*« u<{* »¦
s.*wi
!««!!.«»
^4S
IWMft u*«fcR »
(V, (^miC
W-Si'f
VStfft
«V. *«*.. -w? * ,W. 3
tt.&S'SC
5»«w6f c«A£CitP ***» tATt* «
;>. E'SH>.J
s,a»
v.«
a, M^wfeije
«,«=
Mi. ritft, f»h fVf «* .*.«* 1
.f, UW3
oxtartsB m« tf
&.«hW
tf. w
i.S.%
i-ki- ..-. t j,;;
a. H
fc-4. ««. W tt»$e »
*n ««'«k
...;,.ih
-•,«
»Jt %*TCfr *r -SW -X .C«.
SM.t**
? &*¦*; i it? j
=;
.;».«
s;5*
««^R
h.mr
4.«J
t.r'T
}7v
K',?i
RiiWE CC4fcErrs& r.'W! «r
t. mt
Mm*.™
w.ss
> A**-*! *
«V 00&,3
C. T?i
^
« 3«K
-ixucrsi' reo« „^tes. s
y.Wt#
¦i.&a
it**«v,i! ti.s-x-»JUf ' fttfef 5
« WO
e,w
S«S. VTSM: W TS«. «<#• ,..4'vi i >1 t»r. f.^». > %•»» «
^...Ae^wvi is
fc.ykH.fiiu
0.vte
«,54
*s«. *** «« ^ »
C-WiC Pi ««*» SK*«fi
K*«. « W W *&»
Js^.SSS.
«>« *»«• *' ««* *• ««
8^.W*«T^ 41 S.t«»" W ftAf
O.OiK!
e,»
,,„..»,.......v,
U.tfiM
!¦-, UC<
i=, fe
M,
Is™*-"
A..\SW
M*
*SR 2 S.U1?
***~ i*
'v*. «*, sswhh
^IuChS £Sr«T
trout.t*
***
?6..^.
am *»r« *r stat- w <*»
1 '-f- 4 > ¦•' yJ1 ¦% '
i,t« iwfO.'ia. t,w
a.m ».«
i,:m i.m
;ie :E»r
«u.n» »»,«
.¦ '..E^ >*jE **'***'¦ ^
WII. •»**•- «« w (* wf -1
'Wit W»(£K Af kW,' tfi- VfcW*
-«v w*«. *' -•«' *ma
««W wren M 0* of „e*»
S*i1S.Si,''(W-3-
*l« ««*¦*** i.«*
~.** JlMiW.W J».J»
*««»*? i<> *».««
g.«Kww *.su s.»
w.e« 4.W
» M.6?
o-awo
-4t -2.:J
5»vi^
- yili *.5c$w->?«,n'£,,¥
a.iU 4»»w.4« 5..^
O.W« 0,®t«
«.W
a^s^.sAk. ai,.|.
P*« 13
278
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
!»«»«•;5 wmVVutt !
*»». "*-» ** >»•¦ * "WW •'
nxtum vx.t*me **c» u>m *
pwc,at*r*«r ***#» wm »
A'*-.. «ao » -;w :sr ;.«.*«.« «
WCt AT H«T V «*>
w, %*TM u wrn m SSM
swr *«« *r *,»^1 -* >*#
i «r >e«
.Llil
I.W
¦i. t;,'s
6. ^
S
«.o«»
«T«.WI
'•Ji,'1:M,'Wi
V.
A.&«.
»,(h»
. .'i .1"'~ . 1^*.. -
fmmimc* i-
tv(J -tCi.C -m TCP ¦•** J
sSTrsT
hu* mm-mi .;.,w
*,HA mm^^c 4?.?%
~'«• s
8.W«. *.i*
¦j.ixm
•*g* U
-» w ir i.*vj-»i •?
{V MUr
-1.74
sen. -fru « rm rsw
X's.. m
$&s. wAtt? »r s~«e .W*
W.&,'-3
.'.M^SS.'O-y^
»*«*».» «! r.»? ^ .»«
o.«w
q ,m
.:!:*»*. MWT« *T rw .¦.'«¦- «« 4
s<„ m*c « «w «* *
atom* reel. u>» *
*», «» «f H-r <* t**s* *
"""""
-:y. rro
'i,.,.,
1 f!"- ^"
O.IM
1.5»
'.t m
s.*«;
.y '->/ '^3 . t& '"'
A»«
....«»
O.wfeWS'}
o.«w
«..;»»
.. ,-^j^
«*
o.«wo
t.L«rt
i«m» :«
K.. Uvi^.
V. W
l/..
i> ftOlO
-a w
ikW
t«K>
*.W
4,«
««F t*
- ••»«»¦
«****• W*S »»» «* 1*
**.. ,««.«, Wto^f >„«« J
»iW«- i<
'* .**<•* ?
».«
SWH
.. .... „...^„-
sw(^n' &,.
UW*D.**
www.w
^ *« *H W 5T U«* *
¦&U. wis.? 41 atfi s* mm
wn «*rr* »t s*a> «- »cm
iSt.'W. *,«jp J . v , ^ ^ .,k.4jf
<**««» « m».» «m
'•W
-:.«3 .«nn.o«
•|,., .«., ,,, ns„ r,...
" i'''1 " ''s' ' " J '*''" - - ,jl"'-'-
Jh.uj
fr.WO >.«&
#.;-W3 »..«
fevfe
fr.ee
w.fei
t, K
-a. ?*,
nwioH
««w J
»rf„' as.. ii.u' »
" iwycs
.51 . ..— SB. .1"
.tti, ' .
;«:ir
VfC.
J.W4
*>.•*
*•**»
a,?/
«w./tirfc*sc m.w ?
y-o^yijc.
,,0^:
»^i. W*» « Ids or L«hk •'
t.o«e
a>*sh^4 isu.t'iM *•*.*¦! »***¥ R
«>. C.teii>
it.Wft
4.&a
0.SkM»»0
0
*«>. >*«« w -v
!,!.
:;-«as«#s ru -Afc* stc.»ws
V-vfc
niov. w
*.w
' ST <*$tip * "\t~ ^4.
;.v,i..ii5
5m #«Cfi OF .»w
J«S.0»
«*f*« *1 ¥l4Mft .-« TkM
.-< ftfe?
*.s «» - 5'
A.«?T
«.«r
V.{®V4&?
d,TM
e.fift
Wi. -W «« f
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
jr. MM
¦;r.»M
* **M. ]«
I5Kl«S
cu. «S>
w«£*r
S&U
'*,«
j-'ew *'••
.3.«-.&£
*wm*
S?.^f
<*»{«
T;. 1S
i«es.9r.j79
U.4i
*»«**« '.CUSCT^ r«*» rw^twR *
^.fiwaaw
4' '-V
*>•.. «*.» flh 10* •-«. >
*c«.»m«£ coi.i.s^tr- ~arn i.a»e» V.
5.0W
«(&•
»wc./UttM -Jwewir. <
^woaw
».<>?!>
!.«>
^..., ..»«¦ W< .W .V !*>,.» T
i.w«»
*»w «>r« s
v. 5W
&. W4
i„W
*,0«#«06
ia,
AJWS, » *w wwa» -.<
*.mz
it, «.KS*«*.
-4.W
•¦¦'*
•••'•t7'.'-'«. fW-
»«. wsttf #t 0p »EA6
r(j>,n?
**-tf .><• ««
•¦"»
i.fc
J;«».'••>; St- ^,^-; J($ tg;isS
t.wo
i.186
v. W-
-r
i. tc-tm,? fW , «8
e.Mo «.*»
?>li J l&.'W
mrm. »««« WW «*m
SSf-Sr-f p,t--r , <»«*-» If
* VWt, ¦ .; '-a.** •-v ^ *
SWW.CJ, ..suscwft i*>n
»ZK..'*.£*>££& K.WB ?
$13,ftp •~*« 3r4j« yi^ j v *
o»i!aSw^V : ftiM5 ' «'& W On* »
*sk.*u»mok -«*«»* i-*.»* 5«
*»*„ ow ra« Oi- *
•••U^. w«W* *r UVK^ SMP
£»» ft# -.cwr
^ 11 "•*'
1,t v &***>• *• *tei* <&M1
44>a; !•«.-. fco
<¦ ^
C.AV
J?, ^
r*, IS^S
mm* ,'H©
»,-4
9.WA
¦i.CSW
V.0«
w.»
S.WMf
&« Ctt?
...cvawi.
5-S»
b.tw
•.a>i
ss«n=vu.
.'.«
m.3H
?«*?>?«, «»Q
;;•. f.4i«
(>,w
wms. wr
S, a»
/.j»
te w
V. MM *i
•?
"W «
«««:,.4ew*s8 M,vg!i 4
«.«g
«W„ (-««.!' S* •« ,.*** "5
«(>«h
s»«w«t «s^uctcr- «»;« t*n3» t
o.«ee
t.A'sE» T
fc*W
iJ.SW
x., &>
*¦+*. ***t, & to* «. « mm *
ca-Lfc-THC :»
0.>5v«
BS^sAE^f tmmn «
4,W»W
i'.-W
«.%> <;<* ?¦:.«• ^ 5 ftvfi «.
r,.WBB
i^se Ut mt& me**st
-#wt»
-a.»
S$Sl WP AT STtfiV W ,5^
.'Si.ft.-
iot' 4T llfei'v <~i£ Ti.^
/aMiMs.-Xw
*W» WW-W *t M»T •* ,i»-
S^WATJft «• m? OC *&M
9.(sA
-i. w
AVfWftU tVl-it' B«J4«.
-a«.«
U.S6
u«>^r
m*w.,ito
«t. il,»w«i» T.w«* -„m t
( (!«},-.&£; .¦'tfj 5 # ( ^
WW CR.i.«at& rim mt* t
*W4- wr«^t»r er 1*^ ,'
i tti: »¦ -'l
»«. ««-• <* w 4F uw ¥
n^*'! W«*'* ' '*•*' ;5'**'
~*. km
*19* U
*9W
i.auv
J-M'-i'l <*f\ Ota
s,«
wx>::nT«i5te
li.W
3 1 ' 111 '0 '''' --J
"fli 'Vl
l.t-1.. V.'
«.««
, n«
imwn
5«»3h«K •r'V;.*-'"trc s
*¦«*>
nnwi.m
«..u
!•• t*«ti t 4
v.Wf^iite
<}>m
ft. so
(F.VW
i
o.ewo
".W
u.W
5-W.S ^,A-€.f ¦'
v. 409«9>
o.#»
«.«»
M. KK v»K -
'¦¦ eat*
MHWUI <-Ok.lSi.HH? »««« *
w.D«i&
e.-s&e
VJrW
c ,?s' - ¦' ***£
®, *ss
*v>',. ITI'I .-».i »«' ;* i Avk IT C»
.>«s,yn
••«« »'«S At VT*S«
Win it S» (tf vv«
9.i»-
a?«v ;jw
a-w
^r^jryAf i5^u
:='"
S,4'^
^,yy
WWW. ' - » "•*. ^ •* - '
tw-'wir*
„ T;.
u.«
w. w
"SS
i.i-
s««w««6fM*now
*.IS*
1«»M0.!,..«
i'i
e-«««i». .«ou « i.i. HM. < «w ,-
».TTrt
!¦.««.»
?W. H
fcu6SnV&*
».«!,
.:>,
'vVi '-* v** t' ,t
•i.i**li
e^jww* wmxw. >*«# *
i-.ma
/¦it'v»>it ^»a»Ski ».*rff: -"
i>- iC'ivfiv
5.«
S.&»
'-48& ^ «A.I« ?
e.a»
(niKiTf att* a
»•«»
«SW
r-mm Si
280
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
i.A'sKS 5.6
M/U. m WW M ,**«» V
?.Jd4
ft-S'K fe.94
X I#
».• i'fAB'i r,4 rtss
?.s.u, »iw *T a# m «»
¦»>> ««e» *T 5T»rr OF *s»
«Ww*c «»~S* UKMST wiw:s
VWi.TO A,*S
tvW
t-.w? i-.«y
*«u*i v.w.. w ,s« ?*
' '
sii.w-.iri.
>>,m
J,l«
¦s.,3«
i;. *«f
»*. !«
.«!)"¦¦(« M'.iM 5.J>«V ?
vs.«
«..UW n*j«*u»ys* 4
"r-fJ'ffWC1.'
,,w
*(*». H.W m f
«•*»*
<*ASM«t r*»» %
4. WW
0-6W
If.w
'W,o. t«tp i
tf. c«>
«*•- «fc«> M* 1t» i f
f.t&t-i
exu-c^D t*m iA r
6,t«
,,,«!,
fr. tei
u *.*«• f 4
<. im
», !'W
i«W„ fJM Vffil' J*- i«tt S.
«>, MCff
s'tisvxzg |j6 ^j. "T* t>.a£
#.»•
mia.m
Z,•&**
m.-»*
i>K *•.««? iw ** -em
¦'j'rW».«!•. a?v
Vr<-m
K,M
S«5* sa-rof n- Cfe;s ,tt V.£ar,
,.s*s
I»a-4S3
,5,^
f -, w
« iu ( R?f$ -.
s *4
*.oam
* 0«o
.•Hi;-. KW«A>n isvfctt 40
-/. fejiwvO
a,#a&
V, «
.!C»i. c-H <¦?' v*. at ?«T •>- .CW
.:.,.C4>«
iV.,^e
W.^ M.\u>> *• am ¦•* >¦*<*
.'!, Wl-'
S.WC
6,S"S>
„. {>>,>;;.
.
»DC1<'1T«T1M
iw.li""
«w.
&.B0S
r,«;n«!»iat» E>»
.,4
-»u.iOSP rtw .'
Jtf*Ssw.*K?
M.«
<¦«>¦'>.,.htm^s cm,:,i^ !(,, i.."ij,!> ~ )>(.»• 1 iifi-b h
v, rrf»
'•>,
Ir.W
tm,t,Am*.m >mm i*« '
if. W
».w
•O. '»»" m '•»• » 1 «»• t
£.vifW
6.1M0
«,0*
«g?.c.,./i..s>.»+.ai3fi na.,®> t*¥B* if
ti.9»
v.ge
•*¦<* w «¦ « «t* *
s.fiaw
.••**ar :?• S7<<»,mz
/SX
<¦«.
*«trs 4.f 2*A*T '5*
»5.ia
,,v,.
^ tm or »m»
?0i-, ',*Xs>
sA«ilW.>.f3a
-.*tSs. *> w, .-ev;
1.4*
«! rtt »K-«.
•** »
¦¦n;s'
V.-IW
AW, tti* ^ tfi® ii>K #&»
, ,j rw»-iyfi?< r to Kf* l
9.UU6BUJI
y.^is
4.W
SW. w»® >:» ?<.'« '.¦'- • *¦•<¦• 3
0,0«lr
?-«• S*.w; «
a.o^n>
<;.. aoa
ir.so
*«*• «
•'s. is* 4. (JW
Af»M^..«, "fSTASrS W »E8P «v
' " ~
'•H-.Sr.iTAfiOh
w.«
1 ' " -1,1 V
!#¦'
O-'M
' A : '1< '
*ss -i
iil*»'*.CU
M". *!•
»%¦>.¦:,A,-«r;.vj"i •4'!» 4
f i'ifei(8!'i '-
B.W
SJ.t^
AV«, ._•«, w.nv ,« ^
0.4W3
M*w» ^ s
C.S»5
/L£4fJ^5E ""M1,WiM J
C-W
».»
,R«„ «». KS- «• iAUii ?
U.'3«fr
e^ewMjc v:'aK'i£& .»''V<» a
a 0&&
0
ft.«W
'l w j- f oi iv
0, Otoi
WM. •.» «*> <» l.AH« %
M-9fc»
¦ IN «n«
1.C^
TOtMi.iiiV
ft. a
*'jf.-,. h" ^?»r" v^* f
.'«s.'tet<
1«« *f t4A. •»
M.W
'«W5«a.«»
» Wire*. « i'tAsi -«.*»
&.m
5f6WS,«S
fl.3W
e.u*
3.M
i.9S
- {j'nCi
•t.t4
4/.1S
»#«* n
281
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
282
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
283
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
LANDFILL M
284
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
285
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
WCTlAj. ~EVTt«e ii»
>*1 »WW:«\
286
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
&1 §
MiM- u-'fj&o s*
till l:MM 1118 I:1SI I;EMI £111
Vttv* «K**W: *»t> a* W & U«» >
" Y r,v>» V' JJS?, ».' ?' -,v." r." jX'.} X" i»
V-siiWW t• »"•* Wi.t-.A-L- »"• VW*
1BH1. xwV.MM «.«« j:«j g.glg g.jgj .,»»«
SSSi l;!SS I:SS !:SS &KE SSSJ
?Tf Kt.-i! li}*". 'V C( 3 ifs&if ft (*»?,<;< &„iifitfS i-
* 1-- <.>»¦»«
m»*" wtw *«*? .
~zf
«*S*VbJt !ti',A£. -.>» »->: Of t* 5
ha-TH^i S'H i^A-vgji £
>«*)**£« (rt.KHti b*M ..*¥<» ^
*"it ( .isX,* *-
*«ME> >>. Tf«: •>« i.d»C!t t
i.itw
y«o - * r '- ¦; -
'.?"»>(' f si-!
HP'
(i
«.).*,IV
ft. 6 »*M
i.58
n-ajr^ifo
•4WJ* v'tv. 501 i,. %(*{.» S'VCt/V&i-j
iff','? » fc
' ' " ' fl'v",'
® \* iH.~' *
—-*•¦-
A
» y.«s»
::::=:::i:;:;»":=:::!:::::::~;::i:::;::
•««¦ 1
287
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
288
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
289
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
»T«:
-WTAU-
SriSft si S„fcKt6
>si®Si: c-iS'jw
,1
* -aw « «**
X'(« ->' a?IS V ..aSs
» i.MB6 ¦¦« (ma i* i«>»
*>&&* *.««
' ." , ft
fe*v*fp
f:lii iSSI I:SIS
I;Si l;SIS SSII
.:,«: w t:B««
l" * Yj-'f f 'C' '['i
I;Iw ISel S;«#
fi iSiUJ v Q^fr fi 'jleis.
* Xr", *!
>'< £«?»)! ft lHKli> >< lW«l
1* "/ n'( ir, ..V ^'V>/v.
. y <* /#" ,„7~. ,^|./_ _. ^ fc £' 1(j- ^ j. jfl1 ''' J ^ ^
3*K» muss *««< w. rs* «w ut,e* C-
f!i,W „1 f. tW
** " /'^vr 4 sk'.-K SI'?-*"w> ti-£«'ir° a" WW-- (''iChV-
*Tf- «i-» -:- li !>¦«'>' !• 'A,i
- 1 pT v!^f&- '' °'r' '-. '" ^Xf'w-
^ t' ^^ !°-"'"k"'' ^'"'*f
•;.t«i!6 ;t.l¥iil i.'-.-jgy# J.ijJWsJ >.,". ".UKjS S.lwM
iiTjt.. scv.itio*' v^Skk* ^'"fr'tS f'"wlov
-««¦
¦
*ij^T"**i'~'*nw> "*4viii»»rr"
i>.u* t 0
***
.rcs-i f...,,y,.,t.>r ^iSWiirj. ft i>3,\art < a law, a s tesfAi-
£ T" "V ••v". - , .&*£ w
V*SU/.»»^
4.3M4
**.<** ***** t ^tl^. ««
P'WM. Vi'SS S»Wft36 *.'!¦ 6N5 <;F !.fe>
i.
-fa
,;;";";S
LKiUl
1
*
0. ?1S1
>
V.VW
v-««
». i««fe
*
",*««¦
P.^-Jg
«
a.*&r(v
<*.<*•»
*
«xh.
S.5MW
»* »»»H'
u.i/rcF
fr.Wire
f
— ,J
290
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
LANDFILL D
291
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
292
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
5. '-.SAtM
¦--.•'.ci.Tir.c-/
>: s \\ -.iMMl. MI
cy?f*y* 1H?* fw.
¦¦I )¦<' '
iVS &;*i. iJ»»
•154,Mi. J«
¦ SvSfco# »' ~>,** JHCi.vK
tflCKiS-'fEW
293
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\ i':t. \y t-4ff J J '' ik ' i
.
?>«!,» &VSWC WSAE- <;>* -P.JF- (« ^ 0 rj3S«; {V ?'0OS »>»OS « Cafii
Vi1-. ivi.'ii ^T^T,* V X Jt5 1
™ ™~™ ~m "
"S5'iSS"T
" i„i.« I™ "" "'
AV?r*"*irt^'0> *:W: *''*
a, ' c
( !.««>
«.SJ i J.SMl
'•««»
S..W! «
fc.tSW f
t.JWi c c5.«Sft?>
f/.tiivaon -s.irffiifKj'i
ft.W f
«t£*AfV (
-tnOU ,, l.^ij
SS.Si'iNW.C
r*"r
8o«I>
www waters* r*m *
«*rtWW «*" ¦¦!* w « U*«iS *
• * V', J?''y v
t«• wavtwH ssrws im i s,re "<
...„- "s,™ "*r~" "
Ut**** '««W U-B 8
D.i.^
i ssr?
w,«n>
a> c"'5<*
n.jjO'"
o,
i etrr
rf. ijysssi
5.«
*, M
"*'*** ***** #SW£W»iS
T IS'. "
O.MO
»«. »«>»: C.oii
294
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
295
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
i.»tm i
"W.U-iKSfc-JSB' M"
SSS„tf : l&IS
!!SI,Ni,-s:/Si»': t,.,HILicS,w
S SSsliSf" : , - II SS5Si
il? :sr
»
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
¦¦¦¦¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦
j,i» f t.nwrt av"n>.« <«•»
r !.!.«« »•>«
?»,«»»•? r t.iwMj »«»,» «.«»«•,
'if '$<$
-stss-r
1 ^ ****
"•SH.SV"
1 *5*'k '¦' ,,k'
T*"
*,«>« ( vM
v.trtiW <
.1 t
»
¦ f ),«»!
».«» ' «.•»>
i.«® •, ..>.»»»,»
i.,«i 4 I.«
v .... i (-
...
l.ii"
>.!«
¦¦ -¦.... -
* *
¦¦-¦¦- 5
:r :».»¦¦¦ >" ..A.:;.,,. .;,
wjTMaS' **""*
TjFFF'
4.M HU?3»,»i
¦< MW ilM V ' W.r
¦ ' •" • ¦
O.fcwBWJ
,, <¦,>¦/:
,.wi;
«.i «sr
ft W I *m-
W1W« m.*r ¦.» r>.# w« s-«w «
«vtfei( «i8£, ff4 iA'8& e
¦¦ ;¦«. »¦<
ss&jwMe t:ou.ec?fef nk» u-e*. m
I •*.«« in**,,..,* ,*>~«¦ j.?
4-o-SRAa &i »v;«. .?p fives' u
«*».:«»»<» I«f« **«i '»¦ H
SWCWfMAWiiK >WO«;k t**T«
-S.ttWao
C^>«
,. - i .- ,
e.wttvu
i//. *«*.-
« im
. y.«i wwt» :»**v.*4 "••t-'-'cr # e»...*H.v.r. "*»
<,*!»» *ry**» SiIT4«f»d "««>»>' OV#i* MWifli! \1s»r
ill1 iSCm-* w ?1 r?-'^ wVn?
297
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
298
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
LANDFILL I
299
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
\M ERiVi£ 1)1 ATE (OVLR
300
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
SfttA rfeSr
Ta '¦as:
« tiMA rive; ; \rwr-%WTAi;
<¦:»!«. r, »*vr,>r
j"5&s»s's,2r siix«£iri/«? ssyr
!*.:;!¦: W ¦ii.y/v.-if. W
ill™! ,JSS
» zem ssw
mt- a - -*» i'<». *>.*>,
. „ .. ill?* piilis
soi*i. wn m. %«!W
'T>}'*V SKftsw
W«y>« wrM-% mi/toft 1*
!;fe
>,»
Jf.i;
fill
I;I1
..<, >
» 1 ¦.
¦¦¦ ii '¦ ' ¦
i
:> v..
v.;:
i.-.
S.'&l
„ , J":
>M.
¦f '.: ' V...:i
S:S2
J:{£
¦^ms
" , ft',1
2:SS
tlSm
s*t>. MVs»TK*tt
viasl
1:2*
1:5
IS
iv fc«no«'
Elf
!:SI
f:2t
l:St
!;»
::iii
w. Wrt*n**a
?;B!
1:1"
§:«
<¦'¦.. :.'r
f-*«x*s*nc «-H v*-te» ,?
301
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
em !
if-;'/.'*\ ill ? \ '**'^.1'i i-. /(if rt.y',\.
"til ia"""a '""**
° £.. J,\ 'J,.
*'*¦ ¦ •* * * * *•
t *(6w *"l
"k * ^ ^ ^ *,>f
"., i, .g.jwsw?
<,,(?«** fl.W
».y5tt r o.w».
*.«» j a.n#n
rUi.KVK 0 M?H
rUl'.W 4,***Sw
....
-t- ^^'*s V vj, ^ i - r,„y y^fi J
'
^"n -' * - *• ^ ••' * ***'" 'vs!v
»«WS I *tj* ¦-*** ^ I ^ ^
u"' "'•¦
V. M-
O.WI
i(. i«^9
5,6 f«r
-"- u.4«l*wr *j ,•> t.rgyfai, »-.i . * %'
r i wjf^'f i.
5
i
«
i
*
C. C1J-?
v,w»e
U.^.u
302
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
FINAL COVER
303
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
3«i« tSS S$ki""f'
•—>
S5"5«it.
5K«Ffe"
.j ^ rt ./'i •'* *
.T^siif; 11
-¦( . ¦ >>:...
¦ W .
304
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
t-re.
.«kU *«.•., .".w-tSiUt: !Wt <3
m. ««*«»* i:|« S:»»
I;||SI
S-fft. •5€>«4Vis3M5
¦.»»«»*, fir,'** .,*•.£» 9
1:.SE
rffil
IS
8:SS
IrlllS
|;g|
y. £"»«:
tass
SSSJ
m lill
J:SS t;S
n*. p.n«-i« 6.C6» i»g
Eili Eis
'• *VW>w K i ¦*"!>*'( ...
'¦°KwS if' V/'OSOO
till §;SS I:SS!
;•» i'Sis fsa
*. vtv- ^'i v. vw«'
feSS-
six
Sill
*1, €>. frWi'
.x^*5s.--s ..«?• win
hi-ssi ** ntt< or »»»'?> *
''igiris
tn-„ e*vsK-nsm i--i
S'S'P. f.swtriwrt
&>,!
tKWlSQ f(.«rtXl C.QCK8C
0.»M «.MM ».{*»
*4?r >.
tiiSSI l:iSI
US £!Sf
J:lSI S88
&. twv
tliS
t, «1M-
06 HMIW m«- th 5.AV«
*«>-« j!*',UNi
fs*.Wi*wyi C^uCCtcr. «.>t 6
»u.re?tc -imm t,t» t* s
wtfCiMimnaAKites • «¦*•»..... siXhf. Kr
lAn'K "'i
"UWjui.* ..*»;• ,J« TOP C* i.A'.'SR V
**,.»* a
swwwmw
mxvm vca. &n »**¦«* ftmmw?
vt
\.\\}*i
i, <*-»•*
i»wm.4W
-HM'. iST'S .• r»f,tr>K! (M'i«( ,-r r
ri'lfc. AT iCW- *t« K-l-
%,««« UW,,.
1 I.«n
C-.tti'A K.&i-t-S
} a-^il si.-y.4w
e, ysisi
y. -nev
fr-fKa
i'SAUiffi
;:SS
0,».w 9,«WS 'ii.-yOW iW
¦- r,^vj»tt»ws> s
JSC>«£
i ThEOlKH imi
fv.&M?!} t
¦ij.sXitW t
i.*w* min^i
-W-OJ'.'Jv
W .*<*'»
*•'».*! H't&fr t ..
fr'14**w 1 i,Bi,vuiM
•s*g.rr^ w
'¦ts^,STrA £.•« «.U? f
S#SK«SS ^
c«A«;it 2»#
*-»•»•«
£•»¦ r
5.»&is«4h: caj-SCTsE. p®;t» la*??. <•
A»s.4fe-,f Mi- v.s «'"• .•» !.**!« >
n.t*. C'. 0C<<1 y
S •!PR'4.l.*.,M
IJWMSSi '
t.M
4. $3?
ft, I'w&ats
¦:kqus<>
305
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
30-YEAR DURATION
306
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
:: -r«S,fKS;iKfelTSi:s,?'S?f ::
8W.W at chvIB-t-www. tAfrwror..
«• *.* iwtvt* KVtmH.rirr £
"¦as: ^•rwwnr.f,.
C:\rwrMN4rr-'
. ^rj^i vi;r*c wj
riu: CWfflff.
ia;ay r,ne; <, »/?«#
«sa,3«|n«,gfRt,K,.5i,r;sft»«s« s««
. «*)>« i
ng'st
'fffc " * iAHP
wesxfe ?s>Tisf •«*«** m
w»»SS'fr
title
SUS 5
««i4«
?Um e«< I
SKf% SEtKi*. fe45 £VMS*JWiYI!>..£ ,S>"« OftTi
w**4j ailvuf ,;=(tfvj, )«,««;«< tte«J eSJiW
H „*»%* « JM.1SS.
»*»« faSUlW Wftsw* - H'-J.'ifif
•K'»i mn-:* - »,«
i'JIrti s
S¥r^tft>««*ir«-4r3-iiS
«VHk*vi> - auic'Hs <-wm« i/,*}.«
fOC„4.«t'W^Mve *
•« i,«,s*
f.'SK..",.s«Aie *w>»* i»*ss .1
to. fsh fi>* ;» t «.»« 1
i»b4SH m «»T5i i7v;.c*GS
Situ wfiW s* ?*a« •¦«.«.
nu .•¦' c»". .tip
;«*» **ys* ,<,? $m? ® *£fts
>»M *»»Hi S,«*> » ->'«
5«.34J
i.&et
*«**¦ >
5. »»;
'««»«¦*. ',-Jw
tivcr.rsvt ».®T. ei*
S.Atl «
*«£S vSfVKWt
¦¦• Wfr.
t »«« t w>«4«u«t i i »t *
'VI* mmVrn^ vfMS
ivcmcwr ^witxrf
4,,...... .
AWyifc 7-^AH fC# W
in-•*v <-w »¦»*>•»'
«EKit!!W}0»
u>*
t^tuwws. WiU-rrEi' «.»?««
,A5Ak««)r- (WW '*-'»»¦ x
6W. iW N"' ..S* ,Mi* ?
t'S.,.^^fegS nxuj«s& -*V£R
«v*,. t-fcj!® ?{,s. i* (,.,«»<- 5
t.».nS,n(, ««»
i'ja •ri'S'fi *' J® fi«
'Mti »»1<( Si *«*. ¦•* »*..V-
-'*»»¦ Wfh' *> -HAtH .. >«*~
¦Mi* -*rs» *r Kv, c,r ns.ak
«M« Mi
45, H*
«5 ?
•\m-m i. mt
M'VItu TflTAt.3 r
fr.U5»^4f '.Vvi.srr-It' rR>* »•'.*£»•
*V«. <«i "-3T <# a*!?* -i,
1?^.^
nm-i.m-
-«3r5fi..«i!T
mi
«.4W «,«#
HWf4t«6.4&6
«-S3Mta S-*«
V'.v1^
n,:i
307
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
^^../rSU-W UfiKiWiH !.5¥fe!J
-Jiswx m to*! Hi, 1««
5-0 It, V.AJCS *T ?r»i>T ¦:*
«It Si 6'<5 0« .»**
¦'u.fe*r»Ats» *ui •>¦ vk<»
"SMC* *4ts» IT fcKi. *141
%a!"«r gi/uttr
>S,«
TQUI.S. ros >Ks*
"seE'V
(jyy
.^SJVV-. 'H-
?*««£ m« tW-
-*«> •"* n<- •:#' ^«R ?
Cw.acr» r«« Li«sv
««¦ 'U'JSWMi S WK ti
«*i. >»:*& a* '!,* ¦« i»'t« i
•:»» 5* »4!Ki «T,.<»aStti
ten wm» *»- ' f jssi .» .•«« "i
>»>» •*« *!*?>¦; --fcsfe
srsi^ »*TSCT *? E«e> V-P -S«S
-."."."..l-.l..'"...— ...!
•fwvit kmu- r« .s>* '
eafeJWW,™
».Kw«t >•««* u-if
®STie*u -. ft.P Wi Affei".
> km t,
«£» ¦;* -w >r ^»tf. s
1 , j,4,
•~M». ¦»*>** «> A* ,*«.
dJv wn.rgs a? Esgi -v *r*e
M &W
iwsw i ifi, »«.«~ i
PS(W»f%WWtS I...*V£J,
At-j, f^-aa <«• ¦?•:•" ¦;* t*«ci ;¦
cs?«sq: ;w hs'xs 5Km«
U.tt -«¦¦ *€«
sou. *&rze v? r«.i w ?zah
ito:« «,rs» -r ;t*«t 0s >f«
«.r L1»., <*.
soj-cst »•.«.«
y.
Z'.om
iwiut-m
mi'tsi.vw
SUM Si ?.#?«>
U,l»
i8-?«
1 »J«
.«.»•.s.1.
*+Ai>m,r re.* i*-v«lr
fKSC,AW«;e v*-s« ?
4« .-S& >OF !.*H% >
-cisusr^c?- '¦»•><
S-^KV.A.t.te*^ ?><*»*,« RA^« >«
Si.-., »•« C*£ \» at t *•»* s
'.>•*** X«. -5Tl«Ka
V,L »«;a» Of ,U-«'Y ;¦,«
W(i Ar |>%ti til ri"J»
5 f.S!^
•:u :cci
. "1i';
^.•4
^9.SJS.^
«s«sm.c
8frsc.,-u»*«' i
avi, ww .;<* i.m v-r L*.fi {
-•;<« '«•* i.A>-r»
»**•:., fwssxot I.SVES, «
'«.*« C .*«(V %
¦-¦-*¦>*¦* £*( arjt 3tfR.*5?
-idti «f -ifws •?•««»
sc-ft &? two or «i«
.» -C'ria
wt» A( ~.*• v»*i
mi&,y Ofe,..^!'
«.SW5J
d. «4ft?K
iW.Wfc
lv* i>;
<>. on
'UG.«U>Jf.»VK?'
-46. ?
O^WI.
$%:«x(rs^f#An a..; !»H'. ;m-s» 5-
, *;,* i
Wi. se«r -ffts- ^ tA*E» S
Si&xizm r«'?« fcMxs i
Sfcfe; . Aww#«ii i.»V*9 «
^ mm '¦¦M ^ « »•!.- »;
<•«..« :». Kirtt sr>'JB.!fej£
MIH ii *!*«' •«»• HW
M:«i W*m> «f L('«i VSC "'»4*
??»-• St *i*'
-i*-* «*<<« AT
iistest Si-Sif?
4, ***.
v.fc-a^s,
*rs««~v
JW'UJr. &
> l;s i,i,»i
gs-ms5«.
;• mvmo. ;{./ ..,«
J 50«fi,-'S5
>o u.x.n -f.w
..ill.
308
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
use
w.wt.5
¦iM. rsr?
Si«'?£%s.«a5
¦:<}?-, i.n
» u<-e«- .?,»« riven.j?p u.*;-
"-•«»"< t *
»*J. •«.« ;•»» lit- #¦ i>tS> S
WSWS -3&UCT® nm ¦«
«•»<. . i. «f. ;.»<£!* r,
Ik**-, *tWSW 'A !«»» }*»** <¦'
•:*•«:«. i« ^-£% swase
-»Si **•?«» ?7*#r C* «kss
«S(i IMt** i? f:®> t>f u-fti!
Wi*tf *7 :r«T ,£>*
•sS»~;» ««lrr A* t;w» u»w
SS^St* WKHRV »5fe!
if.ifa i KOK V'ES^ I"!
. .. -
l.WA
S«*. W
.1M.WO
l»l. %Hf
easwsvt,. vtp
.w-m.m
?*u wu» » r»w -•,» v£M
<» sws .*• '?/,»¦
sv/wwftrpi <.( sr«."-' or fii.1.
r.mm a" p® <>r .jab
asj.y.1, *Atfc». f.UMf t;
!•«.*** WW3$J4tiR»
W.U"S 45^SiiW». fltS'5
I.n# ii,-j
»«C.S»IT*.TK«
swim ' ws i«w
«•.*, ».V »!> OH K>P t»v ;*,« *
mwum ¦ .it t» '.~!> **«* < #\>»
VS-BC./U-M'WSS t,.#s£* «,
swi, «(W. ^ <¦«. '
5M ¦.»!'- -T"» *•'->
Kxm.-i
J > >&«>
H-m'W/tsu
****
¦tsfns.ni
rviWf;&».Ks>tPft-rt-3w
»«« cotLtcreo rte* i^s*
«W« I Mi- -«
*«s, >s*c <•« T&* -:>t t4-r**iC 'i*-W tk<
*wc. »«Ay afi liw vM i&ifie S
CfiAwsc iK -«u>' ;n>i*cc
*»• ;;r«t .,»- *asf
V)«i Ki?*» -V ¦••»
»s»w it sT»'t ¦;« »(;*»
•-'~f W»'K «' '•» '!!•¦«»
Aiak.,w, ss&i.»s>*k.
i>a:w>K mr* ft.*}-
#,13-64 Wi.Mft
».«R«V9 S.w3i
»>«.«•
w(r, 7m
<>.?m
i srti'j
MSC5»iT-*n««B
-xm^scm mm
«CK,ACt''MC •"«<<*> Li-'g. i
SW,; .„<{» fyp &i- '#
mw(**.¦,<* ••'^(U-.srHE. S««* *.A*-fcS-
**b->jch i,..»«e» s
4'A., >«» •(.« Of, , k
»s* w*>k* *-: ..i-
v4»ea »sp
X- em am
m «»w-
s.8W
*. ti'.s
<((. *«v
as;v»3?,««
A».
*¦><4* S3
%v&m>xtxm»nwum
V
«-***¦ m u«< ,,* ifc.t. *s
cs^fcSSftr, p«a« ^s*
• *H»--:r.,i v*'v» «
fcv*. fsaj; <•«? -<>i» s
t-.tsWA S« WH-fi
•Sm. MTt® -tf STiS!'» Or »£*.»
^>5i atsf»« m e**r <» vfew
¦0%,« WA?IU- «( &I-
S!#«' »r m- i* -'£»
spi^k W4.rc. • WiW. r
*•:# i?ea?
5..^/v
«, MW3
CvUW
0- 09X1
Vxvt*n\cm
ixnhvx ma}
«>s
««%.«?
WS?9'W.0W
«-*iei'rSi.t3.ai.y
7.(3
a
•MK
uisss ^-wis W.'s;
vtb.. Y.K-i-SMSCi^
:S1 S:Ss
S:iS S;S5
«v«~..rfAK-;pT**T!y».
f*}t£kS
?.T5, M-vi*nr-«s
I:JS l:S*
HS ?:S
I.SICA4.; "Okti'crrfi rftc#* t,a»ei- ,•
0,.&•>«& •a.flH
y.^i-s J.eoi.5
,:S5 S:£S
"l;;;;r ' l:8l!f' *i:ll!l
tSS t:SSII
i.A?taA4 «i» . t^TVt'l (.»!;« UTt« 4
im/hv wmr w»A* 1 «¦»»/*-(.
l:Sf !:S l:T. l:S
0,.» a,-si j..;m j.-5'j l - >ss
KD %.¥> 1,71 5.4J }.«.fi
tIS !;J8 &
iii& !:«'& liSlI
!;3« f:!S i:5«
IS 8:58 IIS
2115 i:S£ l:21t
iSSi I;SK Siȣ
l:til 1:11! i:B»
?:S S6K l;SB!
*;Sf
lWi5
S:S IS
w t.,*fse (i
I:**
S:S
ESS
l:glf
»i!?S
t.lml
I:«S
S.«JC&
J.MCO
o.Wi» Ii,iw -i.c&Bti 9,w»«.
i«C- O.ctw 0.^30&
till
iMli
309
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
P «C"». ^ *f*Kl OI' i A*r£,V
kW;
rr* ia>»«w3
If.OQS® 15 &JI-A O.tta-Si i..,&l<54
*wwk> s.e^-a a.uW> *.«o»
ESS tSS ESS £!S£ S£8 I:5X!
llSTs S;ilS l:lll !:SS till
\i itiwl it Ste'i &u&ao£> fi.&jcfl e.nsift &. ss«
, "<¦.>¦ '. 7-, -r -Vv, t> J?'-** ;t f r
•u:;r~?-c«;> ilsSrr ;SF^
I,«, < LSC9 W.l«
¦;.«*» ( vift'A $W'-»sn.i,Vs
r .'^n«,T,ae
y- S" $ ! » ) .j ft >V$Vt
iT-#»A. MVk-S'f
i ^
Tu.ST w
"T«S? *?""***
#.«*» « «.«*
* '"•! t $¦>" '= !/ 1 -I '('"ilfixj' 1 — i- . *|
s>' WkX*M > f '.RttrtlW i
i.wo ( <>,««}
-t.UJ < i.mm
•»u. Mil .'•¦mtJ
1 u
'«»*»-.' tea. «...
B^i.3W
-----
»49- t?
C'?' * t '.'Ct* t '«*"£& ^
: «» •» ..» w L«D> »
« »:» «« P- * n.» »
US'tip; i
<"iti«JMb'£ C'ji.i.getEJ; t.>-« 4
8VIW W -5«i h* -** W«'8» »
m-«m» ww ioit nm* tm/wsvj
e, !m
r.i m*.
4.«MS
«.»>«,
«. s,£«
c.crn
,«.('*«»*¦•. !.«,k,» »«»».»,i mt.Mf.wMii t
i
!>. wrz
*
V* ')¦.'V.'0
o.uaoo
4
W. tfMfl
s
e. Cnt0.i
i.owb
W.J.VU
• *»««,
*.*»
310
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
•wc"1
311
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
*m'» at W w,vv
tf.OfW *.«*'!
Js»W*lr WATKH WWIT if.StVi! JM*!* «-«»
*Kt.'k ?»T*Ls: «>» -fKM
SMB.'S -Cto. fST
11,5
CV.Ws'S^wSIHifAnv"
;>fc*jhtacr, coLtccrsf. rs?« wcs J
*>.* ,,n »»>*-,« 4
Ik«, *?*(¥ -i« 'u» W v*(SK 3
=•»,, fc. t>u ««fs «
i»,>* -f
^VSS> «« t» -3? *A<4»#3£ 5if *i?M' SJXAfifiX
¦,LS!l, ¦»*.?*» A. *•»»>» .»• .*-«
V.**-. wftlfc* ** «! <« '»•«.
i!** *t 3W? -5 less.
•••*•.- *' '*» •*
w«» tx«r? w^mix
neMSJi.iW
» «S'«M= 3®
winr-.M
ynm-Ktm
i.*K
nmxim "5i« « k.QK tfeM •
!!¦¦¦ '"V= CM. >*»'
¦«. tor- las, «•
n.%rnf, Xtx
cumm m 7'v^J.lt 4
VH? w-ie-i. 4? -UH. .-<> (,»,« A. vm< '¦->!' »*A«* ->
¦s»?s»-wsn*p *r B«9'?#• vC4j» i.jjru *«.<"» »K* 4.1-4
J»»)K4. •mttff S«T t«M.A]*,lr ii.wWS >,!.&»
•-i.orono-MH-oi.M^iontU'Or^KMrxxMnvo.i.^tto.aixiitoioi.tx
*u«&r»
yVf^PSWs.tf.St.jU- fSN
***.(**« «u,«r» **m LAW
AIKJ, wn »<» .«. 1 .«.»«~' I
».«*««• coated *w«
>»*>.**%* (.i.t£-rrE& rt,*«
*«,A«'.fcS5 10
M**« nfc*® i.'S I OP '.<•
•'"*** Ut '-ta.SA.ut,
MJ6 wafcf >" rfftRi- ~<• *C»W
v»v **'»~• S,f- 5«. uk
¦.>.V «*>HC *!• 1H8i w» .,.«K
?t*5« %«U'» *r fe-W OF fK*8-
jWUfcP PT.A4 ;
?4«
,0WW«.V
i*i/3«.v-w
7W^H>,«0
jiA'W,;, /so
~OMfcUZ.'JW
,:3&4#5.?'4f
.7 W
e»W,iSW:C1:»H£f,N
»...!..£¦:n:r;- r&;« ttTCfc
««•«« ilrtS 4
4va. «&& .;« fcti- e«- s
^lums o;s,i..er:'«- »s;-« vt'.tt'
.\SWM (¦ ft y
*.'i. 1*«- •:« TOB ¦;*> ! 4vt« S
K-S^J^fg 44SAUSKS? Pf»« LA.-CS
¦r»--....->.r^^t v.«vgft »' »«
:*«w **Tt* *> :i'«n gs re**
»..w \m¥
«.isa .'4*en;-.fia- u
WOT! t«' *5
u aw s/sni^. «.s< sa
y.ufei^T
y, Oifimb
ip.m
%?,4«
hS«-«.4,V®
JUUWV...U®
V,S)
«w.»«
,$<,{.«•!£« i:A^.s,
«OKv>!X6*-&st; Trfcc^, -
4^- W4,;. .->1 «..»• i *4fc. :"-
css-:„.'>&«siH; r«*c.:.r,»( <..<,»&» iv-
•K)..X1«
•l.wtl
w
w. «4V»fr
>» SS*< <¥ t «fr« ?¦
i;iS-fi5HtoK »K«i .•Ti*
i«£f«y./'tt «¦*«{». .-.fti'Ffe 1 i
*VS. .»
. »
^•;V?
3S#ifcta» .0Ss,L%;-5-SC ?«>.« i.#VEK „•
^.rc « >hmim
iy.»- •«'.?« s-^S..i«s. f
niseis- <8 c,«!«s
rvm&u *.v»« ? «06«i«
s?s^mS'..369
Wii.c®
du>
s. ^
SW.59
312
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
-m Wf t# iM&i !•
rsmtf t m*
fVm.AWKi ^Att» is
*£«> frM n» or t&'W 9
•!« ?*•'»«..
SSXs.. a*t«» «¦ SWT »'BA®
}8k wATjf* AT » -'B#<
•-W-* O* «'«*
INCx t*V»* *1 «.!*! 1# >6A*
W*T« WSKT RJ.fc.MCS
*¦«*- fiHWii.8
U"MK-Tt»n«»JBA«'TC.|/
SW.W65S 05UCCTSC m5W lluE* i
ej;a«'../i l'»W istvi-n *
Ave. «s,4i> iw rap ->r j
r.-(, *«<•» i ,v^* i
?
*.
WifsW ='>5iU<'m> MsfW ( At-fK- i*
n^wVP^se j,; GS &
j" u*m rw-wc
^S,. «*?(.» *t rc*M ^
~,$n. **.'•» is '»« »•.* '-fis
;*-.«» a- 7r«t .;<• >i«
m,:* ssr,?S« *s »«, « *»*&
* «*>!%. *«'>» WXrf* fcHAW »
»&»««, sa*
»«fei «w
a,45
>a »
wmsoa.cs&s
*S<5*l.*. <:.*.•
.«».;.At»A3«- ?«**;*.¦»;»¦« LSI,-3 -
hW3, w -»• !.sr$» s
' f» , i,-n-li -v« I..W1>*
S'KK.A.EWMff ^s>:>s*5® M-6* ?
*w. ?i*»» m m »• T-1.WS f
mAumt :'aU :m rp&* ti'f>
nws&iS.,* ,.wSF W
Av«;, ,«c.4!> TOP ©tf j.S',r;8 '#
.:»*»• tf4 »ih»
V.a *-«»S! .If *Fwn .5* *«*(•
X'I>-. «•«'£» ft-t S!S> v.y ' S.4R
-,•>"« WA-frft v* tiS»
Tfr. »r (.no "*
WAtef K)C-St* tALWi
». >m*w*
\=iSJ9y
i«,>n
?*«?«. n*
sj4??«n*w.
s.ij:
»^.. s»l ! *f;->H
Craw^X CMtl'TTCt- uve» ^
"SV'tiWMW. »
-ft.*'. .'»« fS-»« *• .. ««»« ?
SiMitaVic c>5i.u-cr£0 ri>c«t t..wf;» t
"*WV. »!»«,.•»•.« >~<».-
rtt-w;, K.hi Ktt" s-rt ,inix >
5 coiasrtw evt«w tAffiS, a
?«*i,V'5 1.S.U,
. »«»/- » HP §s i>.5^ »
•*..» m mn;> K
, *.T STiA' «#• .•».«>
f.m
u.ss»
»«««.»«.» J. *1. «¦»»,«,
U.«L
SA. r"&
9.^
.«« 1J
i-WWU^.fcHfV
• «•>¦.<•>»>>> * K
rot^S r>59
seli. Wft» At- ytAKT cr »£*«
»wti W® At- feWE* <>i
%w.*tc a? s;«^ or- t«a
fl«WiW.l «((•• i?K,U%*-
:i i»'«J
J.WiJ
Jti.W
SJWJS.slr
S*7a. V?J
SAJWS-M
S-ijSWfsMrtsnSBTii'iW
fniwf. ec^Ucm- r
/¦WA c<* .e**
-t-e?
SWl
¦'u1.Ji.SP
Kil. wrs 5T « w i'J.-.U/k 'WS*H.£
JS((S* AT 'n»'r S'ts 'W *. ISWiMf-.s.
..»w W«r» At M«< (Si !fM <5.,»?;c 3?-4HS:,.4'5¥ l.C"
fc^v.^ •-4Tf sot.HT s*LS.»»ri; (J.dteft « :«• i.56
v.,
*¦««,(' f
S«K!T*S^4BSS«T19E»
»«!S»4 .«,.(.»< ,w#
W-:,A.E4KASS *
«^V. »!%»» -:v. »•- 'V ! ¦?
r*,-« .xnr
»W..-n«4, f«SS-te»t 1,4^4.' ;;
,«V ,.AH» T
^-»k< Hi
a«.„ m w -> >.«F« >¦>
C.m« St» S'K'HASffi-
*-OK W**C
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
is.ISi
S»»»i »>
C0UKT« *ro* U-tf
/<»•: .ar^&iC rw>«a»« ..*»£» *
st^s- «.v^. f.te <.'» •;« s»'»» ^
3iM.ge 7
*vr. ~f*f< oh -t.i' »• <»•¦*,< r
**«•**#£ ®tt®CTgS> <-Ki». v*< r-?
srsc.ar.ij'^s tw^.® l«» *y
iv<:. «e^i< ,•»« ?w •¦!' v.i»cp »
;»« SH VTSJik* vVNfcftW
««« wvts» AV stm !?«- HM
.sesj. «*nR jiT t"»e •:# » »
T.',fAlt rot »W iJ
»Wn<^ Kii- W '•*••»• ~».!
r3W«3ti%ij0«
W»;, w.
?**#&. im
aiiJije? ;V,S.«
-»«••->-» {ft, saj
5-B4FH»§C «'sV(s i U, ?*#/
rStof»&i(i (.«-»« -> tt.twSTO
««. i *.«*<*
-giifeTO •-»«« iirt- - i,•.&'!&«
'WWUVH f ihamnAii
frtf*. »«ar! -¦>» «P > '_**•£» ' 3.KWS
?«6i./U'te^ I «'•'* 5a *.*&•niftCisV
-wtAtr; «os FEAR
jy-'-Mrt
45<-m
swxyuwi <**n w ,v.!U*
:• ri.*?¦»;¦
*£iJC/W«fciK U--CS 4
S4.V- m St® Si. " !f, ?>"*?
"«»!»,« «>, jM.Tvr, ».»'« i «»>»• K
TO>C> ¦-USJ'1,55 TW/,iji5l., 5-
AVte, <^6y Hfe. t*,t-- o* ? .r«&(il«I
•;«Uiv:.yiwcnp *•!.?(*~ s.w*
IWd'A&n !»Ai fift J,«
i<. St. •»<." .yr !!.941
¦titm:* wiaus. y*w«*w ;»,«?»
wi'« *1 VIABS «J» rt.aw itn.w
5.01s. •iTCP 5." t'»'C .CSX-
ia»» >.•«. rt,,M
v<*-« fcAt'* *t **» .S4 -r Sh
n.- r&t«
m.sr 4
«»A, ««S k»» !»»¦> T
W!Wtt suwct rei^f ^'fS«
#»» M
«js.«»a.c
*-.'1- 'Tfif- ¦•*« '•">» ^ i.*Vfl !?
{V WUf
5CIS. ^rt* it S¦?**!• <>r H»
s&l^ tr i:m' ¦••• »•£.»
*».»« fi! V» 6tf V !-6- *»•»-
#«¥« *r j-m. .¦>»- ,-6t*
~MivAv »«S«
i>mm. WJU
estajwac o vccc-iU' ris« -,Mta
».W,.v».frA<«5t >
6v«x, '•»< <* *,A>m 1
W« ©ii:!!»[i „«$!!
*». i« e« TC'F OS- U.toE* >
Iw mn$
idl **n». *' irriRt t-r ,t*»
wsorre zm «¦ «as
'.'K* WK Af 5-JA*T ?r v-IM
»'t «« «(.
w»«* tfviSJ«\F,t mum*
5S»"
S«
v*:w
y. o®x>
y,
o- 064ib
O.yf^K-
».as<
»«
»i»i- !«4-i' .:•«» <3.8 l*.»k ^
a»Ais»-4- '>*?.«<: ifff r«.« ?
»i«c. L*.f« ie
AVI- r«»Ai» •* K>i' ¦;¦• : •'(
c^rSB sh w/,rr>. sniKim
lit" * 13f- v ^ 3rto
scii «fte A' K«r Of
•VW...MVS .« vitt-J af #Ms
«* MU! A! !.«.! '/* v»*-
8USIS6?
3?Haf,*n c.«
'Ot «i «¦ .i**
«b
$>*.&!UK* «!-••*.( Kfc'« „A,«» >
,A.fcK 4
M"i, ««" ?5'S- <«• 3
ccr.vfcttt »*»er
#>«¦».-;../fcs,.»*¦««. 7
«»,. I»sw •:« ~<» is- i >**» -
-cv*!«*.;c :,v!.icia ri;^ '...A«n t
!,)
4W.. w» »,* '» -«¦ i ».*«¦» ':f
i-sAwii; £« wtfji. ium&x
i«!S «f T1ABS «» •>«,»
t&ti, f«^Sf .St m> Of tSM-
>**•» wt« 5i '.is;rs <«1 .i,«.
S.« W«SR Ar e« «-r ¦»««
s«sn«3-
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
w*rSiP fcHSSt <«,&Svi -;¦.}•<
Mtn>u
wi:w« roujcrtr «t« uvp
¦i'CK./ilif.'e.-SS rw/!>m\H !_.«*$'(!; 4
M, >ii«i ;»(.;< :n .-.*vs>» 5
OSItCCTSt. F5C« I.A-U-
U»''S» C
***,, r#»i9( K7H-.F- >AltP r
S»*SKAi3S «H.UKT8r> fK»5 U>eS»
(•w./o-iife!- i*
*«3, -» TO? ?.r i.AvtB =»
t« *»i*b i.».>K*iib
4>*l «'*«» A* 5T«T ?#- -t*
t-ii'it. *>-n» »¦! a.m o*
**¦>¦» WW «.¦!- *f»f <» *? $w» >¦*
''«, -s
u.s«
li.W**
nvm.f*
%nzmz,m
j«f*ws,s<»
ffS-SCSS-T
iSii. «4
U.52
tet.»
uio.u.onwi-ixoil-K.
•WNBit. TOf&t.^ fC» VJiH ,
S.W „¦«»;!«-. 5C-& W-.S«t
^...•n^iv»i»8S .«*. ,;•.«« ?ii*r57s. 360 eW,«>s
^-ns^wu^ ? j.i.Vas -tsr^.WK. r-svijtt
s,-
imi »«?*•(¦ *- s«> -\w *«*
-»*.W «'il St -STATS- .J#' ,***
¦>!£« .»!« At »•«}! ,i» TAB
SMtaWti **?» I< S 1'MW.BW.t'
b»eu#IWk:'!«
wu>»
«.«><** ^LiCrtx. »>.•»<
«*C,At*K*« P-WW !•**» •«
,r>f '.4 f.taf* "'
--.bwm&i- • «,s.?.:«h »w« Wi*
*w:. nj.*xmi "«wn#®» t..ft'«sf so
««.. fMR l)« H,«' S 5 Arts- <>
t.!4 »»n* .ST.JM4S
•-JJ. wmsr *1 ir.w-f •;« um
SisU, **H". A* SKI- 6* *«A8
»»**.• **«',» «! ?lttf vjiW!
V"« »TM> *» »*•
»1'0 «of.*5tT
<¦*!« -tA®
'"res"
0*lt4
nt'mi.m-
5«m :'SC-
u. Wt
i.m
W},mi
tw.&«4
•vCM<
u»eot.?-.6
, » v - » .¦ „• « « w « *
*ta* -2
" " ~'~W m* " '>t*w
s®
*V.„ K«- t
PW;.^S.AK«5i i»3H i»E( ;'
*-i^t. kS,"s«. «,» tivn ,;m r.Av^-J- •
i' Cu-.xfc!.T*t. t
®E«./*EAXft3S J®
««, *>«£. ¦?*( ta«. 43« -5,
¦•£.»^»se t(» W.r£ft -.?«•*«*
iii:. »t sriM £-r vts*
scat »4TC6 »? ,T ¦»£»
3wV **rzp ax C<*.- OT YCA>
twNit'
.*/
i.v;4 -%m
U«W..4*xt
Wwv K">u rc« «c« «
1«WW
£•»'?'•«-ft' )*!> »-v-» ,»r.«
»va. k-.» ^ ¦*{*> ?•« if-n
ccLiwteft r^-:« .>vt»
• t«*f> c*« :«¦ i*vt)i .?
ffcP !••«« • »vSit
• *,!,* ia
->• re* :« w*V*» «
» t' 41 s« V»
cy. m-'
>.U«w«6
C.UMB
i.l»
^M69?^.4oa
^5* *
PW«PSTAUf'.S
fw-*'.s fturt!r- "
U,^.„ , *.(,~ i-. vca.f.vr«-?• t-«.« «
*V... i».*: .-*! AW at . *..~ -
»<%«JW,W,-S v«,« i «-#..»« U'ffeft s
U'f». Is
AWl. t-«.ASi m- .An« '¦«
c«9ius 61 »»..« «,-..«««
¦soli. teW *• ,>& 1V«,
5'S.Ii 4T t'C ->r -.'CSJ;
5?KV iW- «iA»
Mt;i at $m «¦
6MW.4L MfK &MCr5 i«t.S»:S
:l.R'i -Sl..«»»iSl.=3te! i.ta.s:v
«,m J4. Si
?nr?:.c>. tfr-ii
oj«i immodi
y.Wkrf, a,®;3 ^wo
v. •mm* i..>*s ¦*,&}
*a« •fc.'w
3..S»> 5J,«
it.ar? i.%3Wt%.Vii i.m
0.wm e.»w J.wa
Wh«4fc W.AU. F-» VS.M V'i
" '&&£$' ^"rnr*~' ~
«!»*>!.
twAJ^s. k.MM
Hh.AfS»«f 4
«»* i•**:.' cw ?£«¦ c« }
I.SAL#'! n-i.
r.-=,, ^ n# i Afpt; ?
f«!».v;e. c-xucct r*m ^tn
:stn?s. «to
SiMSTM.om
315
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
se.tev.A.&teMt muss ac ' &,«u i. iu
WAHJt Mr s,fWl rf«« lVu?l> mifiiV.Wi
«.SJi„ WiTO AT £.M> 0* »tft» *n^,J44 '(.iSfJWi.ySV
1»;» H.1CI at -•- •!,-« i :iiJMi..ft i.t®
«m»- wtiB .a? fetw ».>t >i>m *« laus .<
ixv.it® ?
:*>:»»« ALK'Ttr. UK* uWfe* if
!»"«.!. l*.». 5i>
9».s ni;«e SM w » imn '<
->*&»«« m s?sft**«
tcv: ** r?»? s>" >•£*.»
mm if KK5 *s *£*&
*i' >.S. «BB
*">¦ ~*"c» -r tfca cr +xjm
m^XL wu«t- WI m AM.-SS
'. .1* V*. i-»I.»«**»»«• s> «.*«*«
. wm>, MM ,•»„** ?
it^WK'S,
IS.
e.99WHi
«. i«%«.
I'M.I**
if. Mm
. sv« *
*oy>?' ow Wis .y Ulii 3
-rn »-»f» U.n
««<: = %««&-,?, S(^te« •.»"«« w
AV& ;-i£.A& *M tv>e .0¥ t*«jf 8
«.fi4£
i-OXl.. «)(S &r St&itv .(«
5f) w»Vt< as (,». * vj.(ys
ac» wAffi.iv ST«(T <>r ?«
PSCC!F!«
6V.^*)js; OAvCCTkUv »>.»£R
»»«:•. .>14,*:* •'
WAl f Jsif J
t rac«
«>.r. Atw-fc-t ^ftvcs .'
«¦>*-. h;?« -••«« •"*•¦ 'r
¦c^&zmx •:c-.k.cc"r«?' i>:» -s»cp.
'¦»!«'( i.*=e» se
*«i. t*-W ¦» *'& sy
5®. is-
vs.;*u
tv»Si?
ill. tfeW
-w.
«V. rs«t_
astrso.sr^
•1.-35J
.""•At'fcVrt, iain>^
awti.. w.3*f ?•>« -»¦ SSVH 3
iywrwfc ;*vrK
•.t£«
«.-.- W.U..
SOU. «fi8 4T ST*»T f®'
"fei-i *kU» A! i)«. n«- <>.**
JV/» At StAflf S.S '4*»
^** «(¦>¦'.» AS !).%» !»¦ y%ftV
f^CT a*i.s«t
U^vi.'V.'.'W
.?»>. ??«
'.«ixa
0 'Jews
¦L%i.Zi$
'i-li'aW
W.w«
•'CIO J sse. q»
**•-¦«.-. TvtS,..S *v* <1**
"s^ir
iu,W
r.,sr
ea,g«.
316
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
l*AiHX,l ro-.« -u'P
swssn.ns
WSf./itWV.S tvrsP J
¦*
.„K>. »«»!«' W or t*c-«.e s
wiite '•«! H-HS »'4;fS» i^tS-
«K.AtM«£C tA*W
*.vm
»SK§i.«T!5^Uita: *
i(, www
..'. i. 1. V'.;
;;.ri->.;!' 'i.vOvu
£SSS
il.CX'S
ISli
*»«-.. •¦*«• <.»* 1» C'f >-
»*w .*,>*'
«£e£,/U*K£®« ?•*<>&¦ 3~u
**?. *s£*£ •.<* "T&P it txta *
¦r,
,:vv
Sit!. l«5".!»TK.''V- i)„taS)W I'.fftMQ
E?WUW«« C«4l.£Ct£S W! S
ti.apQQ
}. r»»0
S"3we*<
KISS
I;III
«,Ili
1: Bill
•:hm« 3M wins srswst
-.:!¦ ( ff .'!¦.( ¦ ¦ .W,
Jiv-il, m>
,A.' .
¦nr.. <*AWi
0, i;.vKv
J:12
i'.iwSQ
vlSl
J: SSI
{Mi w«W« it the- ¦•* vrs*
in:* «-*K* sr rrwn ¦:« »tM
i
. -
Si 1^5
SI
SSK
J'*V *»'i« 5* K»i OB SK»
5«i.Ste«
¦¦¦¦»¦¦; > I. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ .. ' '. ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦
wsm.
, ¥,,
op. v.wm
tss
v..mm
«;&!«»
€!X.i«kl?i. '»>.»» i-A-rfeSi &
I:S1S
|,yOft.e
tss
tss*
****« «wrw.¥ |
v i«wts *s>» ^ms
S- iV
st&, m\'iMKm |.%g| i,S0«.
SiSfll
iilii
1;S5
tilSIl
¦¦¦-«!. ,rr.-.
pm/wc w/uv
iWSA.C't ^t/®v
MISW.'lViV.WA ¦ W« Sii
w" ' 'is I:fiS
S;1S
fciai
A
vri.
' w l:i
yi?
., T,
;¦..« J.tfT
STJ>. StEvJ-41 Sf»s
u..v»«iw
U.s>j0C
-is .wo
a.sst-fW
J:SSg
.¦¦;¦ .1 .:, V..S'
t;S:
};« Ml
:, ¦,¦!',
13
l:5SS S
I;3i S:Si
!':
av*ks,ss nut m n>? i
iff, V, rn
l:MS iilS
tas m
" ' 'S:SS S:8!S
fcsa
I:«!
J:MS
r^~ ~ KS
!:S? 1:21
t.l'n. i"c«*
g:8g j,;gs
Sit-vv i«!S«(iC "ll£& .IS, tf,-;.. CrT 0.vt.p J
y,*foSV
l:Ss
I:S4
!:««
**<¦,.. W'tAflrtWi «,W6
§;!SI S
V- ',!i.!>>ij
ts
iiSSS
o'SwS
t'Ss
,.»««« i3its*«as:t* «M' »«v«»
¦,;i..-i;i ¦ ;
*»«* ?"
*.^R? 0.W6
WijAir 'rA ¦.Wwjo
;:S
;:KS
317
-------
Section 11 - Appendix III
318
------- |