Landfills as Bioreactors: 

Research at the Outer Loop 

Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky 

First Interim Report
 
EPA/600/R-03/097 

September 2003 

Landfills as Bioreactors:
 

Research at the Outer Loop 
 

Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky
 

First Interim Report
 

By 

Gary Hater and Roger Green 

Waste Management, Inc. 

BioSites Program 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45211 

Gregory Vogt 

SCS Engineers 

Reston, Virginia 20190 

Wendy Davis-Hoover1

, David Carson1, Susan Thorneloe2 and Fran Kremer1 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cincinnati, Ohio 452681 and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 277112 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement No. 0189-00 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 
DISCLAIMER 

Certain data presented in this Interim Report did not meet the stated quality assurance objectives. 

While these data are presented without flags in the body of the report, the reader is directed to 

Appendix C - Data Validation Reports which specifically identifies the parameters and data 

sets were certain objectives were not met. The Final Report for this project will include a data 

validation section and accordingly, data points of questionable quality will be flagged in that 

report at the conclusion of the project. 

ii 
FOREWORD 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s land, air, and 

water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement 

actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and 

nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is providing data and technical support for solving 

environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources 

wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. 

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for investigation of 

technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human 

health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s research program is on methods and their costeffectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water 

quality in public 

water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air 

pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster 

technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides 

solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the 

environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and 

providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and 

strategies at the national, state, and community levels. 

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory’s strategic long-term research plan. It is published and 

made available by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers 

with their clients. 

Hugh W. McKinnon, Director 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

iii 
CONTENTS
 

Section Page 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................... 1-1
 

Interim Findings........................................................................................................ 1-2
 

Landfill Operations ....................................................................................... 1-2
 

Trends in Physical, Chemical and Biological Parameters ............................ 1-2
 

2 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................... 2-1
 

Project Overview ...................................................................................................... 2-1
 

Rationale for Facultative Landfill Bioreactor............................................... 2-1
 

Rationale for Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor.................................. 2-2
 

Project Setting............................................................................................... 2-3
 

Project Ownership ........................................................................................ 2-3
 

State Approval.............................................................................................. 2-4
 

Project Objectives..................................................................................................... 2-6
 

QA/QC procedures ....................................................................................... 2-6
 

Reporting ...................................................................................................... 2-7
 

3 PROGRAM DESIGN ............................................................................................... 3-1
 

Landfill Unit Descriptions ........................................................................................ 3-3
 

MSW Landfill Control (Control) .................................................................. 3-3
 

FLB Process Description.............................................................................. 3-6
 

AALB Process Description........................................................................... 3-9
 

Bioreactor Treatment Strategies ............................................................................. 3-13
 

Moisture Addition....................................................................................... 3-13
 

Air Addition................................................................................................ 3-13
 

Timeline and Data Comparisons ............................................................................ 3-13
 

Critical and Non-Critical Parameters...................................................................... 3-15
 

Trend Monitoring.................................................................................................... 3-16
 

Settlement .................................................................................................. 3-16
 

Leachate...................................................................................................... 3-16
 

Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................... 3-17
 

Landfill Gas ................................................................................................ 3-17
 

Methane Surface Emissions: Regulatory Monitoring................................. 3-17
 

Fugitive Gas Emissions Study.................................................................... 3-17
 

4 METHODS ............................................................................................................... 4-1
 

Operational Methods ................................................................................................ 4-1
 

Moisture Addition......................................................................................... 4-1
 

Air Addition.................................................................................................. 4-2
 

iv 
5 

Sampling and Analytical Methods............................................................................ 4-2
 

Sampling Frequency..................................................................................... 4-3
 

Field Sampling Techniques .......................................................................... 4-3
 

Preservation and Handling............................................................................ 4-5
 

Analytical Methods....................................................................................... 4-7
 

Field Measurements...................................................................................... 4-8
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................... 5-1
 

Data Validation......................................................................................................... 5-1
 

Statistical Analysis.................................................................................................... 5-1
 

Summary of Periods of Leachate and Air Additions ................................................ 5-2
 

Waste Volumes and Settlement ................................................................................ 5-2
 

Summary of Waste Volume.......................................................................... 5-3
 

Summary of Waste Settlement ..................................................................... 5-7
 

Airspace Utilization factor (AUF) .............................................................. 5-12
 

Leachate Quality and Characteristics ..................................................................... 5-14
 

Summary of Leachate Head on Liner......................................................... 5-14
 

Summary of Leachate Production.............................................................. 5-21
 

Summary of Leachate Temperature............................................................ 5-25
 

Summary of Leachate pH........................................................................... 5-25
 

Summary of Leachate COD........................................................................ 5-26
 

Summary of Leachate BOD........................................................................ 5-26
 

Summary of Leachate Conductance ........................................................... 5-31
 

Summary of Leachate Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N) Levels ...................... 5-31
 

Summary of Leachate Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3-N) Levels........................... 5-31
 

Summary of Leachate Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2-N) Levels ........................... 5-32
 

Summary of Leachate o-Phosphate ............................................................ 5-37
 

Summary of Leachate Total Phosphorus .................................................... 5-37
 

Summary of Leachate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN).............................. 5-38
 

Summary of Leachate Total Dissolved Solids............................................ 5-38
 

Summary of Leachate Sulfate..................................................................... 5-43
 

Summary of Leachate Chloride .................................................................. 5-43
 

Summary of Leachate Total Potassium ...................................................... 5-44
 

Summary of Leachate Volatile Organic Acids........................................... 5-44
 

Summary of Leachate Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ................... 5-55
 

Summary of Leachate Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)........ 5-62
 

Summary of RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate ................................... 5-78
 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Characteristics ..................................................... 5-80
 

Summary of Organic Solids in MSW......................................................... 5-80
 

Summary of Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) in MSW .................. 5-81
 

Summary of (Cellulose + Hemicellulose)/Lignin Ratio in MSW .............. 5-84
 

Summary of Lignin Content of MSW ........................................................ 5-86
 

Summary of Hemicellulose Content of MSW............................................ 5-88
 

Summary of Cellulose Content of MSW.................................................... 5-90
 

Summary of Moisture Content of MSW .................................................... 5-92
 

v 
Summary of Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) of MSW .................... 5-94
 

Summary of Average Temperature of MSW.............................................. 5-95
 

Landfill Gas (LFG) Characteristics ........................................................................ 5-96
 

Summary of Landfill Gas Flow.................................................................. 5-96
 

Summary of Landfill Gas Temperature.................................................... 5-108
 

Summary of Landfill Gas Composition.................................................... 5-111
 

Summary of Landfill Gas Non-Methane Organic
 

Compounds (NMOCs).............................................................................. 5-115
 

Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)................... 5-118
 

Landfill Gas Surface Emissions............................................................................ 5-122
 

Moisture Balance .................................................................................................. 5-123
 

Fugitive Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 5-123
 

6 FIELD OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................... 6-1
 

Tire Chips as Part of Cell Construction.................................................................... 6-1
 

Air Addition to Enhance Aerobic Degradation........................................................ 6-2
 

Landfill Gas Collection Performance ....................................................................... 6-3
 

Moisture Addition Amounts ..................................................................................... 6-3
 

7 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 7-1
 

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 8-1
 

Appendix A: Project Photographs ............................................................................A-1
 

Leachate Storage Tank .................................................................................A-1
 

Waste Sampling ............................................................................................A-1
 

Trenching Layout AALB Unit......................................................................A-2
 

Waste Temperature Monitoring....................................................................A-2
 

SBR Leachate Treatment Facility.................................................................A-3
 

Waste Temperature Measurements...............................................................A-3
 

Leachate Storage-Force Main.......................................................................A-4
 

Waste Sampling ............................................................................................A-4
 

Unit 5 (FLB) Aerial Photograph...................................................................A-5
 

Unit 7 (Control + AALB) Aerial Photograph...............................................A-5
 

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Project Plan for Landfill Bioreactor Studies
 

At Outer Loop Landfill Louisville, Kentucky..............................................B-1
 

Appendix C: Data Validation Reports......................................................................C-1
 

Appendix D: Statistical Analysis ..............................................................................D-1
 

Appendix E: Surface Emissions, Remote Monitoring Studies................................. E-1
 

vi 
TABLES AND FIGURES
 

Table Page 

2-1 Project Participants, Affiliations and Responsibilities ............................................. 2-4
 

3-1 Summary Table of Cells Under Investigation.......................................................... 3-2
 

3-2 In-Place Cubic Yards in Control Over Time ............................................................ 3-6
 

4-1 Sampling Frequencies in Matrices of Interest.......................................................... 4-3
 

4-2 Containerization, Preservation and Holding Times.................................................. 4-6
 

4-3 Analytical Methods for Leachate.............................................................................. 4-7
 

4-4 Analytical Methods for Municipal Solid Waste ....................................................... 4-7
 

4-5 Analytical Methods for Landfill Gas........................................................................ 4-8
 

4-6 Number of GPS Points per Location...................................................................... 4-10
 

5-1 Timetable of Leachate and Air Addition.................................................................. 5-2
 

5-2 Summary of Leachate Temperature........................................................................ 5-25
 

5-3 Summary of Leachate pH....................................................................................... 5-25
 

5-4 Summary of Leachate COD.................................................................................... 5-26
 

5-5 Summary of Leachate BOD.................................................................................... 5-26
 

5-6 Summary of Leachate Ammonia-Nitrogen Levels ................................................. 5-31
 

5-7 Summary of Leachate Nitrate-Nitrogen................................................................. 5-32
 

5-8 Summary of Leachate Nitrite-Nitrogen.................................................................. 5-32
 

5-9 Summary of Leachate o-Phosphate ........................................................................ 5-37
 

5-10 Summary of Leachate Total Phosphorous .............................................................. 5-37
 

5-11 Summary of Leachate TKN.................................................................................... 5-38
 

5-12 Summary of Leachate Chloride .............................................................................. 5-43
 

5-13 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: Control 7.3A......................... 5-55
 

5-14 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: Control 7.3B......................... 5-56
 

5-15 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: FLB 5.1A.............................. 5-57
 

5-16 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: FLB 5.2B.............................. 5-59
 

5-17 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: AALB 7.4A.......................... 5-60
 

5-18 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Leachate: AALB 7.4B.......................... 5-61
 

5-19 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: Control 7.3A............. 5-63
 

5-20 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: Control 7.3B............. 5-65
 

5-21 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: FLB 5.1A.................. 5-68
 

5-22 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: FLB 5.2B.................. 5-70
 

5-23 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: AALB 7.4A .............. 5-73
 

5-24 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) in Leachate: AALB 7.4B............... 5-75
 

5-25 RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate: Control 7.3A and 7.3B............................. 5-78
 

5-26 RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate: FLB 5.1A and 5.2D.................................. 5-79
 

5-27 RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate: AALB 7.4A and 7.4B............................... 5-79
 

5-28 Summary of Organic Solids in MSW..................................................................... 5-80
 

5-29 Summary of BMP in MSW .................................................................................... 5-81
 

5-30 Summary of (Cellulose + Hermicellulose)/Lignin Ratio of MSW......................... 5-84
 

vii 
5-31 Summary of Lignin Content of MSW .................................................................... 5-86
 

5-32 Summary of Hemicellulose in MSW...................................................................... 5-88
 

5-33 Summary of Cellulose Content of MSW................................................................ 5-90
 

5-34 Summary of Moisture Content of MSW ................................................................ 5-92
 

5-35 Summary of ORP Data for FLB, Control and AALB Cells ................................... 5-94
 

5-36 Summary of Average Temperature of MSW.......................................................... 5-95
 

5-37 Summary of Landfill Gas Temperatures .............................................................. 5-108
 

5-38 Summary of Landfill Gas Composition in the Control......................................... 5-111
 

5-39 Summary of Landfill Gas Composition in FLB 5.1 ............................................. 5-111
 

5-40 Summary of Landfill Gas Composition in FLB 5.2 ............................................. 5-111
 

5-41 Summary of Landfill Gas NMOCs....................................................................... 5-115
 

5-42 Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants: Control 7.3A..................... 5-118
 

5-43 Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants: Control 7.3B..................... 5-119
 

5-44 Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants: FLB 5.1 (Gas Well 1)....... 5-120
 

5-45 Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants: FLB 5.2 (Gas Well 2)....... 5-121
 

Figure Page 

2-1 Project Site Location Map ........................................................................................ 2-5
 

3-1 Final Projected Grade of Control Unit...................................................................... 3-4
 

3-2 Grade of Control Unit, September 1998................................................................... 3-5
 

3-3 Unit 5 North-South Cross Section............................................................................ 3-7
 

3-4 Unit 5 East-West Cross Section................................................................................ 3-8
 

3-5 Unit 5 Piping Configuration Within Trench........................................................... 3-10
 

3-6 Unit 5 Gas Extraction Well and Temperature Probe Placement ............................ 3-11
 

3-7 Unit 7 North-South Cross Section.......................................................................... 3-12
 

3-8 Timeline of Events at Outer Loop .......................................................................... 3-14
 

4-1 Unit 5 GPS Point and Settlement Plate Locations .................................................. 4-12
 

4-2 Unit 7 GPS Point and Settlement Plate Locations .................................................. 4-13
 

5-1 Waste Volume vs. Time for Control Cells ............................................................... 5-4
 

5-2 Waste Volume vs. Time for FLB Cells .................................................................... 5-5
 

5-3 Waste Volume vs. Time for AALB Cells................................................................. 5-6
 

5-4 GPS Settlement Data for Control.............................................................................. 5-8
 

5-5 GPS Settlement Data for FLB .................................................................................. 5-9
 

5-6 Plan View Contour Plot of Settlement for FLB GPS Monitoring Points............... 5-10
 

5-7 GPS Settlement Data for AALB............................................................................. 5-11
 

5-8 Airspace Utilization Factor (AUF) vs. Time for FLB and AALB ......................... 5-13
 

5-9 Daily Mean Head Level for Control-A Cell........................................................... 5-15
 

5-10 Daily Mean Head Level for Control-B Cell ........................................................... 5-16
 

5-11 Daily Mean Head Level for FLB-A Cell................................................................ 5-17
 

5-12 Daily Mean Head Level for FLB-D Cell................................................................ 5-18
 

5-13 Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-A Cell............................................................. 5-19
 

viii 
5-14 Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-B Cell............................................................. 5-20
 

5-15 Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: Control Cells ..................................... 5-22
 

5-16 Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: FLB Cells .......................................... 5-23
 

5-17 Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: AALB Cells ...................................... 5-24
 

5-18 Leachate Temperature vs. Time ............................................................................. 5-27
 

5-19 Leachate pH vs. Time ............................................................................................. 5-28
 

5-20 Leachate COD vs. Time ......................................................................................... 5-29
 

5-21 Leachate BOD vs. Time ......................................................................................... 5-30
 

5-22 Leachate Conductance vs. Time ............................................................................. 5-33
 

5-23 Leachate NH3-N vs. Time....................................................................................... 5-34
 

5-24 Leachate NO3-N vs. Time....................................................................................... 5-35
 

5-25 Leachate NO2-N vs. Time....................................................................................... 5-36
 

5-26 Leachate o-Phosphate vs. Time.............................................................................. 5-39
 

5-27 Leachate Total Phosphorus vs. Time...................................................................... 5-40
 

5-28 Leachate TKN vs. Time.......................................................................................... 5-41
 

5-29 Leachate Total Dissolved Solids vs. Time ............................................................. 5-42
 

5-30 Leachate Sulfate vs. Time....................................................................................... 5-45
 

5-31 Leachate Chloride vs. Time.................................................................................... 5-46
 

5-32 Leachate Total Potassium vs. Time ........................................................................ 5-47
 

5-33 Leachate Acetic Acid vs. Time............................................................................... 5-49
 

5-34 Leachate Butyric Acid vs. Time ............................................................................. 5-50
 

5-35 Leachate Formic Acid vs. Time.............................................................................. 5-51
 

5-36 Leachate Lactic Acid vs. Time ............................................................................... 5-52
 

5-37 Leachate Propionic Acid vs. Time.......................................................................... 5-53
 

5-38 Leachate Pyruvic Acid vs. Time............................................................................. 5-54
 

5-39 Solid Waste Organic Solids Content Summary for FLB, Control and AALB....... 5-82
 

5-40 Solid Waste BMP Summary for FLB, Control and AALB Cells ........................... 5-83
 

5-41 Solid Waste (Cellulose+Hemicellulose)/Lignin Ratio Summary
 

for FLB, Control and AALB Cells ............................................................. 5-85
 

5-42 Solid Waste Lignin Content Summary for FLB, Control and AALB Cells........... 5-87
 

5-43 Solid Waste Hemicellulose Content Summary for FLB, Control and AALB........ 5-89
 

5-44 Solid Waste Cellulose Summary for FLB, Control and AALB Cells .................... 5-91
 

5-45 Solid Waste Moisture Content Summary for FLB, Control and AALB ............... 5-93
 

5-46 Box Plot of Control Cell Waste Thermocouple Readings ...................................... 5-97
 

5-47 FLB (5.1A) Waste Thermocouple Readings .......................................................... 5-98
 

5-48 FLB (5.2D) Waste Thermocouple Readings .......................................................... 5-99
 

5-49 AALB (7.4A) Lift 1 Waste Thermocouple Readings........................................... 5-100
 

5-50 AALB (7.4A) Lift 2 Waste Thermocouple Readings........................................... 5-101
 

5-51 AALB (7.4A) Lift 3 Waste Thermocouple Readings........................................... 5-102
 

5-52 AALB (7.4B) Lift 1 Waste Thermocouple Readings........................................... 5-103
 

5-53 AALB (7.4B) Lift 2 Waste Thermocouple Readings........................................... 5-104
 

5-54 AALB (7.4B) Lift 3 Waste Thermocouple Readings........................................... 5-105
 

5-55 Landfill Gas Flow vs. Time for Control (7.3) A and B........................................ 5-106
 

5-56 Landfill Gas Flow vs. Time for FLB 5.1A and 5.2D........................................... 5-107
 

5-57 Landfill Gas Temperature vs. Time for Control 7.3A and 7.3B........................... 5-109
 

5-58 Landfill Gas Temperature vs. Time for FLB 5.1A and 5.2D............................... 5-110
 

ix 
5-59 Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for Control 7.3A.......................................... 5-112
 

5-60 Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for Control 7.3B.......................................... 5-113
 

5-61 Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for FLB 5.1A and 5.2D............................... 5-114
 

5-62 Total NMOCs vs. Time for Control (7.3A & B) .................................................. 5-116
 

5-63 Total NMOCs vs. Time for FLB (5.1A and 5.2D) ............................................... 5-117
 

6-1 Water Addition Based on Density and Footprint ..................................................... 6-4
 

x 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 

This report was submitted by SCS Engineers, Reston, Virginia, in fulfillment of Contract No. 

68-W-00-110, Task Order 0015 with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division. Work was performed under 

the overall sponsorship and direction of the EPA Office of Research and Development, with the 

Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division in cooperation with the Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Division. This report covers a contract period of August 2003 to 

September 2003, and covers work performed under a Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement initiated in 2000 between U.S. EPA and Waste Management, Inc. 

The authors acknowledge substantial collaborative input to this research: 

Dr. Helen Swenson, SCS Engineers 

Dr. Doug Goldsmith, Alternative Natural Technologies, Inc. 

Dr. Morton Barlaz, North Carolina State University 

Dr. Jim Markweise, Neptune and Company, Inc. 

Mr. John F. Martin, US EPA 

Ms. Jennifer Goetz, US EPA 

Mr. Bruce Harris, US EPA 

Mr. Richard Shores, US EPA 

Dr. Timothy Looper, US EPA 

Mr. Mark Kemper, US EPA 

Mr. Derrick Allen, US EPA 

Ms. Cherie LaFleur, US EPA 

Mr. Lawrence Wetzel, US EPA 

Dr. David Slomczynski, University of Cincinnati 

Dr. Rathi Kavanaugh, University of Cincinnati 

Dr. Robert Grosser, University of Cincinnati 

The authors acknowledge technical reviewers Anne M. Germain, P.E., DEE, Delaware Solid 

Waste Authority and Michael Houlihan, P.E. GeoSyntec Consultants. We are grateful for their 

interest in and review of this research. 

xi 
SECTION 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Interim Report is presented to summarize data collected as part of a multi-year cooperative 

research and development agreement (CRADA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), examining two techniques of landfill 

bioreactor construction and operation. The project is underway at the Outer Loop Landfill 

located in Louisville, Kentucky, operated by WMI. Data presented here follow a quality 

assurance project plan (QAPP) established by the researchers prior to commencement of the 

project. The QAPP, appended herein, contains testing parameters, prescribed monitoring 

frequencies, and required quality control procedures. 

The purpose of the research effort is to assess which monitoring parameters provide superior 

indicators or measurements at a municipal waste landfill operated as a bioreactor, and to the 

extent possible, determine if this operational technique represents an improvement over 

conventional landfill management. The QAPP contains a prioritized list of monitoring 

parameters assembled by researchers, based on previous bioreactor research and understanding 

of landfill operation. This landfill research is designed to operate within the existing regulatory 

requirements, and the experiment has the regulatory approval of The Commonwealth of 

Kentucky. 

The experiment contains three key components as described in Table 3-1: 

• a conventional RCRA Subtitle D landfill which serves as the experimental Control 

(Area 7.3); 

• a bioreactor operational technique applied to an existing landfill cell, termed

“facultative landfill bioreactor,” (FLB), also called “retrofit” (Area 5); and,

• a new bioreactor landfill cell called the aerobic/anaerobic landfill bioreactor (AALB), 

also called “as-built”(Area 7.4). 

Each treatment and control (the control is considered a treatment for statistical purposes) is 

replicated with subcells to enhance comparisons and statistical understanding of data and 

trends. 

As is common with full-scale research, there are several challenges associated with testing the 

behavior of operating landfills. In addition to the variability of waste composition for each 

vehicle load of refuse discharged at the site, other variable are present as part of this research 

investigation. For example, waste age, density, moisture content, and waste volume within 

each cell differ by treatments. Waste was first disposed in the FLB, three and half years later in 

the Control, and another year later in the AALB (see Section 3). Other confounding factors 

exist, including dissimilar cell geometries, and the inability to split incoming waste loads into 

the replicate cells. These differences in time sequence will need to be taken into account so as 

to interpret the superior performance of certain monitoring parameters. 

1-1
As the project progresses, it is envisioned that the treatments and resulting data can be aligned 

according to time, geometry and amount of waste. Moreover, municipal solid waste is a highly 

heterogeneous material, and the purpose of this research is to observe the response and range of 

parameter trends that occur within landfill bioreactors when compared with ‘normal’, 

conventional landfill treatment. This research provides an opportunity to study and compare 

the performance of new landfill designs in the manner of controlled experiment. The results are 

expected to be variable but in kind with the variances typically seen with landfill research. 

INTERIM FINDINGS 

Based on results compiled through April 2003, there are already important and striking results 

at this stage of research. These are summarized below. 

Landfill Operations 

The bioreactor landfills have operated within RCRA Subtitle D and Clean Air Act requirements 

of a state-of-the-art municipal waste landfill. Leachate head on liner levels between control 

(conventional) and bioreactor treatment cells remain similar. Determination of leachate 

injection rate has been reasonably event free with minor operational issues addressed early on. 

There have been no slope stability issues associated with bioreactor or control treatments. The 

landfill gas extraction system has successfully used horizontal collection piping. Fugitive 

surface emissions were routine and corrected within the regulatory time requirements and have 

remained below methane concentration requirements. Waste and leachate temperatures are 

elevated as expected, indicating waste degradation. The AALB shows the highest mean 

temperatures at 28o

C and 27oC, compared to the FLB at 20.0oC and 28.2oC, respectively. The 

Control cell had waste and leachate temperatures of 16.6oC and 16.6oC, respectively. 

Trends in Physical, Chemical and Biological Parameters 

Waste Settlement in the AALB is greater than in the other two treatments. This is probably 

due to the addition of leachate and resulting consolidation from seepage force. However, it is 

not statistically conclusive at this point in time (see Appendix D). There is more surface 

settlement in the FLB in the south east corner. This is consistent with the fact that this is where 

the new waste was added after sampling baseline solids sampling in June 2000 (See Figures 3­

1, 3-2, and 5-6.) 

Air space utilization values (AUF) have increased significantly for both treatments when 

compared to the Control cells, with the AALB approaching a calculated in-place waste density 

of 1,900 lbs/yd 3

. This may be partially explained by enhanced physical settlement due to 

moisture addition but it also represents the effect of biological decay based on the MSW solids 

data discussed below. (See Figure 5-8). 

MSW Solids Data indicate that the changes in degradable organics are occurring in each of the 

treatment and control cells. In general, the AALB cells have shown the highest rate of change 

followed by the Control and then FLB cells. These data are shown with BMP, cellulose, 

cellulose+hemicellulose/ lignin ratio. This result was expected as the AALB treatment cell is 

1-2
the most highly engineered and represents the most aggressive treatment of the experiment. 

(See Figures 5-40 through 5-44). 

In the trend summary, (Appendix D), the Leachate Ammonia and TKN values tend to trend 

downward for FLB cells as was expected with this treatment. This was not seen in the control 

or AALB cells. (See Figures 5-23 and 5-28). 

Fugitive Gas Emissions measurements were conducted for the FLB, AALB, and Control cells. 

Measurements were conducted using optical remote sensing. Radial and vertical scanning 

measurements using open-path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (OP-FTIR) were 

conducted above surface and downwind from the sites. 

The AALB was found to have 160 g/s of methane, considered a conservative estimate because 

complete capture of the gas plume was not possible. Additional sampling is being conducted. 

This report provides data for sampling conducted in September 2002. A description of the 

measurements and analysis of the results are presented in Appendix E. 

The Final Report with help clarify more of these issues with a larger data set over a longer 

period of time. It is anticipated that this will be achieved at the end of this research effort. Our 

intent is to study other landfill sites to evaluate bioreactors under different conditions in the 

United States. 

1-3
SECTION 2 

PROJECT OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES 

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

In concept bioreactor landfills are designed to accelerate the biological stabilization of 

landfilled waste through increased moisture addition and other management techniques or 

procedures so as to enhance the microbial decomposition of organic matter. (Reinhart and 

Townsend, 1998). If the waste mass (or portions thereof) stabilizes more quickly than it would 

under conventional landfill operations, then certain benefits are anticipated. 

Anticipated benefits include, that the receiving cell might accept more waste sooner and 

therefore the overall bioreactor landfill capacity should be greater. Enhanced waste 

stabilization should reduce the potential for future environmental problems because the 

generation and subsequent removal of high-strength leachates occurs earlier in the life of the 

leachate collection system and landfill liner. Landfill bioreactors may also improve the capture 

performance for landfill gas energy recovery projects through compressing the time during 

which methane generation is suitable for energy recovery concurrent with increased methane 

yields per unit of time. (Green, et al. 2000). Potential concerns of bioreactor technology 

currently include: the method of fluid addition; whether conventional landfill cell liners can 

sufficiently contain the increased fluid content; the amount of air space within these landfills; 

methods of determination of both moisture content and air space; and the effect on any fugitive 

gas emissions. Considering the potential environmental and economic benefits of bioreactor 

operations, there is great interest in this technology. 

The purpose of this project is to test two types of landfills as bioreactors through the design, 

construction, and long-term operation of full-scale landfill cells. These two types of landfill, 

termed Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) and the Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor 

(AALB), will each be compared to conventional landfilling techniques (Control). The initial 

objective of the project was to assess which parameters should be monitored in addition to 

those already monitored in conventional Subtitle D landfills, should either of these models, or a 

derivative thereof, be adopted as a standard method for landfill operation. 

Rationale for Facultative Landfill Bioreactor 

The Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) is based on a patent held by Waste Management, 

Inc. (U.S. Patent No.: US 6,398,958 B1, June 4, 2002). The patented process is a method by 

which the ammonia in the landfill leachate collected from the FLB is sequentially nitrified ex 

situ and then returned to the landfill where it is denitrified, resulting in a net loss of nitrogen 

from the landfill. The methodology was developed to control the cycling of inorganic nitrogen 

present in the landfill waste material and leachate. This aspect of control typically has not been 

addressed in previous bioreactor studies and has resulted in high concentrations of ammonia in 

2-1
the leachate, leading to disposal problems and potential microorganism poisoning where the 

leachate is recirculated. 

The process includes a method to manage the nitrogen cycle in the bioreactor landfill by the 

biological conversion of ammonia in the leachate to nitrate and nitrite. The nitrate/nitrite-rich 

leachate is returned to the landfill, thus promoting landfill biological stabilization and reducing 

or eliminating the need for ex-situ leachate disposal. 

The reduction in leachate ammonia levels is achieved by withdrawing the leachate from the 

landfill and directing it into an attached growth nitrification unit. There the leachate will remain 

in contact with nitrification microorganisms, attached to fixed organic or inorganic substrates, 

for sufficient time to nitrify a minimum of 50 percent of the ammonia. The nitrified aqueous 

product is then returned to the landfill or to another landfill where it is biologically denitrified 

in situ, producing nitrogen gas. The denitrification step occurs in landfills undergoing either 

aerobic or anaerobic decomposition. 

As discussed herein, this project is designed to test and compare the FLB method through the 

traditional existing landfill by injecting nitrate-containing leachate into landfill cells. This 

approach is based on two premises. The first is that the addition of leachate will moisten and 

promote degradation of the waste. The second is that microorganisms present in the landfill 

waste use nitrate in the leachate as a terminal electron acceptor for anaerobic metabolism. As 

nitrate containing liquid moves through the upper sections of the FLB, denitrifying bacteria will 

convert nitrate to dinitrogen gas. This transformation of nitrate-nitrogen to gaseous nitrogen 

should result in the net loss of gaseous nitrogen from the landfill. Comparisons will be made to 

a conventional landfill cell not receiving moisture addition (i.e., this project has no 

representative control where leachate addition is made under conditions of no enhancement of 

the leachate with nitrate). 

Rationale for Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor 

The Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) is based on a patent held by Waste 

Management, Inc. (U.S. Patent No.: US 6,283,676 B1, September 4, 2001). This patent (titled 

“The Sequential Aerobic/Anaerobic Solid Waste Landfill Operation Patent”) includes the 

design and apparatus used to build the AALB with the primary objective of increasing 

degradation of municipal solid waste to increase landfill density and hence capacity. The 

method design also aims to improve the quality of the degradation by-products including 

leachate and landfill gas, and reduce landfill gas fugitive emissions. The patented process 

described the method for constructing the AALB and applying sequential aerobic and/or 

anaerobic operations to the waste mass in sequential waste lifts. 

In brief, the design involves placement of the first lift of waste material on top of the leachate 

withdrawal piping, followed by placement of the first piping layer on the top surface of the first 

lift; then placement of a second lift of waste on top of the first piping layer, followed by a 

second lift having a second lift top surface and placement of a second piping layer on the top 

surface of the second lift; and finally introducing air into the second lift using the first piping 

layer. Operation of this method is described in the patent. 

2-2
As discussed herein, the project is designed to test and compare the AALB approach through 

the use of new landfilled wastes. The newly placed waste is treated aerobically, similar to 

composting, by injecting air into the waste for approximately 30 to 60 days. After aeration is 

discontinued, the waste is moistened with liquids, and anaerobic conditions are rapidly 

established. In Section 4, comparisons are made to Unit 7.3, a conventional landfill cell not 

receiving air addition or moisture addition (Control). 

Project Setting 

The Outer Loop Recycling and Disposal Facility (OLDRF) is located in Louisville, Jefferson 

County, Kentucky. The site, which has a total property area of approximately 782 acres, is 

located on the north side of Outer Loop Road, immediately west of Interstate Highway 65. The 

OLDRF is comprised of seven individual and separate landfill units, designated Units 1 through 

7. Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 6 are inactive landfill units that are not receiving waste. 

Unit 4 is permitted as a construction and demolition debris (CD/D) landfill, and is an active 

unit. Unit 5 and Unit 7 are active permitted landfills and are the units of focus for this 

Bioreactor study. The Outer Loop Landfill is operated by Waste Management Inc. (WMI), and 

has been used for waste disposal for approximately 35 years. See Figure 2-1: Project Site 

Location Map. 

The site is situated within the alluvial valley of the Ohio River; approximately nine miles 

southwest of river mile 614. The area is generally flat with elevations averaging 455 feet Mean 

Sea Level (MSL). The region is effectively enclosed by topographically elevated areas on the 

west, east and south. Elevations range up to 750 feet MSL in areas surrounding the site. 

Topography and stream development in the area have been modified by construction and 

development activities of the region. Due to the flat topography, the clayey nature of the soil, 

and the relatively low elevation, the area is naturally poorly drained. To enhance surface 

drainage for the development of the region, several engineered drainage channels have been 

constructed in the area of the landfill. The channels drain toward the southwest, eventually 

discharging into the Ohio River. It has been observed that seepage of groundwater into the 

landfill occurs. 

The average regional temperature is 14oC, ranging from –4 to 31oC. Average annual 

precipitation consists of 44.39 inches of rainfall, plus approximately 17.4 inches of snow. The 

number of precipitation days averages 125 per year, with 47 days being thunderstorms. 

Prevailing wind is from the south. Relative humidity varies throughout the day at an annual 

average of 58 to 76 percent. (Source: US Department of Commerce, National Climatic Data 

Center). 

Project Ownership 

The projects are under joint investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and Waste Management, Inc. through a 5-year Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (CRADA). The overall project is being managed, analyzed and operated by Waste 

2-3
Management, Inc. at the Outer Loop Landfill located in Louisville, Kentucky. Personnel are 

made up of individuals from Outer Loop and the WMI BioSites program in Cincinnati, Ohio. 

The U.S. EPA is contributing to the management, oversight and analysis of the project. Table 

2-1 provides a listing of the project participants and related project responsibilities. 

TABLE 2-1. PROJECT PARTICIPANTS, AFFILIATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

NAME AFFILIATION RESPONSIBILITY 

Tony Barbush WMI Co-Principal Investigator; on-site operations 

Morton Barlaz North Carolina State University Analytical measurements, quality assurance 

David Burt WMI Oversight and quality assurance 

David Carson EPA Co-Principal Investigator; project oversight 

Greg Cekander WMI Program Owner; project oversight 

Wendy Davis-Hoover EPA Co-Principal Investigator; project oversight 

Charles Huber Severn Trent Labs Laboratory quality assurance 

Douglas Goldsmith Alternative Natural 

Technologies Senior Scientist; sampling and analysis 

Michael Goodrich Microbial Insights Manager; laboratory analyses 

Roger Green WMI Co-Principal Investigator; field sampling 

oversight and database management. 

Amy Haag Severn Trent Labs Manager; laboratory analyses 

Gary Hater WMI Project Manager 

Scott Jacobs EPA Quality Assurance Manager 

Fran Kremer EPA Project coordination 

Jim Markwiese Neptune & Company, Inc. Data validation 

John Martin EPA Branch Chief; project oversight 

Susan Thorneloe EPA Scientist; landfill gas and air emissions 

Chuck Williams WMI Program Owner 

State Approval 

Approval for the AALB (constructed in Unit 7.4 A and B), and the FLB (retrofitted in Unit 5) 

was received from Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Cabinet, Department for Environmental Protection in 2001 (Permit 

No. 056-00028). Approval for the FLB study was issued in January 2001. Approval for the 

AALB study was issued in October 2001. 

2-4
Figure 2-1: Project Site Location Map

Figure 2-1. Project Site Location Map 

2-5
PROJECT OBJECTIVES 

The landfill research described herein involves two multi-year landfill bioreactor studies in 

comparison with control landfill cells. The FLB and AALB studies are underway and consist of 

separate and distinct landfill units, each composed of two paired cells. In contrast to most 

landfill bioreactor research conducted at the bench or laboratory scale, this demonstration 

project is a full-scale application of the stated bioreactor approaches and methods. 

The overall project objectives for the landfill bioreactor studies at the Outer Loop Landfill 

Facility can be stated as: 

• To engineer and install two alternative designs of large-scale bioreactors. 

• To monitor sufficient parameters to understand the physical, chemical and biological 

activities and changes over time within the landfill bioreactors, with particular emphasis 

given to waste settlement, as well as the characteristics for in-place solid waste, leachate, 

and landfill gas. 

• To compare and contrast the measured information with that of a conventional Subtitle D 

MSW landfill (dry entombment methodology) in order to evaluate differences due to the 

bioreactor treatments. But not necessarily to compare the two alternative designs. 

• To incorporate statistical techniques to assess the effectiveness and protectiveness of the 

landfill bioreactor operational technique. 

• To establish best practices and procedures required to operate landfill bioreactors. 

• To establish the important and indicative parameters that should be monitored with respect 

to landfill bioreactor operations. (See discussion in Section 3 on Critical and Non-critical 

measurements). 

• To obtain sufficient research data to enable improvements that might be applied to future 

bioreactors, both in an experimental capacity and ultimately as an alternative design and 

management method for future MSW landfills. 

QA/QC Procedures 

Quality assurance and quality control procedures are designed and incorporated into this 

investigation to ensure reliable analytical measurements of environmental samples in terms of 

typical data quality indicators. Required controls for precision, accuracy, method detection 

limits, completeness, comparability and representativeness are presented in Appendix C, the 

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). This document should be referred to for descriptions 

of QA/QC procedures. 

2-6
Neptune and Company, Inc. was retained to performed data validation on selected sets of 

laboratory data for leachate and gas samples, including laboratory-generated data included in 

this report. As presented in Appendix C, observations and discrepancies in the project data 

were identified on a systematic basis. Subsequently, corrective steps were taken as warranted 

by the laboratory, Waste Management, and the EPA project team so as to make necessary 

adjustments and/or flag certain data points. 

REPORTING 

This Interim Report covers the period from the treatment cell initiations through April 2003. 

Monitoring is scheduled for a minimum period of the five-year contract life. A final report will 

be prepared and submitted at the conclusion of the project. 

2-7
SECTION 3 

PROGRAM DESIGN 

The program design of the bioreactor project has been outlined in the Quality Assurance 

Project Plan for Landfill Bioreactor Studies (included herein as Appendix ?). The Outer Loop 

project is under joint investigation by the EPA and Waste Management, Inc., through a fiveyear Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). 

The Outer Loop Landfill is owned and operated by Waste Management, Inc., and has been used 

for waste disposal for approximately 35 years. The project’s two multi-year studies are 

underway at the site, including the Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) study, and an 

Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) study. At Outer Loop, operation variables 

differ by separate and distinct landfill units, each composed of two paired (duplicate or 

replicate) cells. 

In contrast to other bioreactor research, these demonstrations are large-scale research efforts at 

a full-scale operational landfill. The FLB study covers approximately 26.4 acres (total) in 

paired landfill cells; these cells are four to six years of age. The AALB study covers 12 acres 

(total) in paired one-year old landfill cells. The FLB cells were retrofitted for bioreactor 

operation whereas the bioreactor infrastructure in the AALB cells is constructed as waste is 

added. A separate unit of paired cells, containing approximately two to three year old waste, is 

used as the control for the FLB and AALB studies. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the cells 

under investigation. 

3-1
TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY TABLE OF CELLS UNDER INVESTIGATION

LANDFILL 

UNIT 

SUBUNIT SUBCELL TITLE OPERATIONAL VARIABLES 

5 1 A FLB Addition of nitrate/nitrite enriched leachate from the SBR Unit through series of 

retrofit surface trenches. 

5 2 B FLB 

Duplicate 

Addition of nitrate/nitrite enriched leachate from the SBR Unit through series of 

retrofit surface trenches. 

5 1 B FLB Addition of nitrate/nitrite enriched leachate from the SBR Unit through a series of 

retrofit surface trenches. Although subject to the FLB operation, participation in the 

study is restricted to a limited section of the sampling strategy and landfill gas 

collection. 

5 2 A FLB 

Duplicate 

Addition of nitrate/nitrite enriched leachate from the SBR Unit through a series of 

retrofit surface trenches. Although subject to the FLB operation, participation in the 

study is restricted to a limited section of the sampling strategy and landfill gas 

collection. 

7 3 A CONTROL Operated as a traditional Subtitle D landfill Unit. 

7 3 B CONTROL 

Duplicate 

Operated as a traditional Subtitle D landfill Unit. 

7 4 A AALB Air injected through a series of pipes constructed on the surface of each lift during 

waste placement, for a period of 30-60 days per lift. Moisture, primarily leachate, 

added after aeration is complete through the piping network. 

7 4 B AALB 

Duplicate 

Air injected through a series of pipes constructed on the surface of each lift during 

waste placement, for a period of 30-60 days per lift. Moisture, primarily leachate, 

added after aeration is complete through the piping network. 

3-2
LANDFILL UNIT DESCRIPTIONS 

MSW Landfill Control (Control) 

The conventional MSW landfill Unit 7.3 has been designated as the Control for the project. 

Unit 7.3 has been operated as a conventional RCRA Subtitle D landfill with no moisture or air 

addition, but is monitored and sampled in a similar manner to the FLB and AALB units to 

provide comparison data for the study. The Unit is located in the southeast corner of Unit 7. 

Unit 7 is located in the western portion of the Outer Loop Landfill complex, as shown on the 

Project Site Location Map in Figure 2-1. 

Unit 7.3 consists of two-paired landfill cells, 7.3A and 7.3B. The Control unit is directly 

adjacent to Unit 7.4, which is the Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) portion of 

this study. A barrier layer is installed between units 7.3 and 7.4 (the Control and AALB) to 

prevent migration of leachate/moisture quantities, as well as landfill gas. This barrier layer 

consists of an impermeable clay along with an additional layer of permeable tire chips (to allow 

preferential movement of moisture and/or landfill gas at the unit edge). 

The Control cells for this research project were selected as the best nearby representation of a 

Subtitle D waste mass. Prime attributes includes no past or ongoing moisture addition to the 

waste, and the filled areas had standard vertical landfill gas wells, common to the majority of 

U.S. Subtitle D sites. The Control area was originally filled starting in 1998. At the start of the

project in 2001, solid waste in the control cells was nearing three years old, while the 

comparison bioreactor Unit 5, was approximately five years old, and the Unit 7.4 was at age 

zero. 

In early 2001, WMI began processing a permit application for a facility horizontal expansion. 

In part, due to a recent federal rule by the Federal Aviation Administration about landfill citing 

and required distances from airports, the approval for the expansion was delayed for several 

quarters. Currently, this expansion is scheduled for Summer 2004. 

The permit delays resulted in a significant decrease in available space to dispose of solid waste 

which, in turn, impacted the construction of Unit 7.4. Specifically, to complete the “as Built 

Bioreactors” in cells 7.4A and B, the vertical height for the remainder of Unit 7 (including the 

Control) had to be raised to final grades before the end of the project. At the beginning of the 

project, the initial volume in cell 7.3A was 822,387 in-place cubic yards and in cell 7.3B, 

692,139 in-place cubic yards (ipcy). Over the remaining life of the project there will be a slight 

increase in both of these cells in order to bring the cells to final grade and allow for the 

completion of the “as Built” cells on the western slopes (see overall site plan given in Figure 2­

1). The net result will be an increase of 7.3 percent in ipcy for cell 7.3A and 10.7 percent for 

cell 7.3B. Final grades are illustrated in Figure 3-1. 

Volume changes in the Control are documented quarterly. Figure 3-2 illustrates the grading of 

the Control unit from September 1998. Below, in Table 3-2, is the surveyor’s geometric 

calculation of airspace in place at various times over the life of the project 

3-3
3-4

PERMITTED TOE OF WASTE

CELL 1B

CELL 2A

CELL 2B

CELL 3A

CELL 3B

CELL BOUINDARY

UNIT 7

GRAPHIC SCALE

120 0 120

SCALE: 1" = 120'

CS MJ

7/28/03

GHATER1DWG

1"=120'

2 5

Figure 3-2. Grade of Control Unit September 1998 Figure 3-1. Final Projected Grade of Control Unit
3-5

PERMITTED TOE OF WASTE

CELL 1B

CELL 2A

CELL 2B

CELL 3A

CELL 3B

CELL BOUINDARY

UNIT 7

GRAPHIC SCALE

120 0 120

SCALE: 1" = 120'

C S M J

7/28/03

GHATER2

1"=120'

3 5

Figure 3-2. Grade of Control Unit, September 1998
TABLE 3-2 IN-PLACE CUBIC YARDS IN CONTROL OVER TIME

DATE 7.3A % CHANGE 7.3B % CHANGE 

Fall 2001 822,387 692,139 

April 28, 2003 856,873 4.1% 730,021 5.4 

Aug. 8, 2003 874,514 6.3% 747,662 8.0 

Final, winter 04 882,908 7.3% 766,310 10.7 

Concurrent with the waste additions to the Control, settlement plates are being placed on the 

slopes that are now being filled and three landfill gas wells may be added (the LFG wells are 

scheduled for Fall 2004). The settlement plates and new LFG wells will be monitored as part 

of the Control portion of the project to assess the benefits/impacts of this new loading on the 

Control cells. 

Resampling of the waste mass is scheduled for 2004. For the control, the 1998-2000 waste 

mass and the 2003 – 2004 mass will be tracked separately. This may yield subsequent project 

comparisons between portions of the Control and the AALB that are of essentially the same 

age. 

Leachate quantities from the Control will be affected from the opening of the southeast longterm cover until at such time the cell is re-covered. This opening is scheduled for about August 

2003 until Spring 2004. During this period, the project may observe related changes in leachate 

cell volume and possibly leachate quality on account of periods of heavy precipitation. 

FLB Process Description 

Landfill Unit 5 has been designated the FLB for this portion of the study. The FLB Unit 5 is 

located in the northern portion of the Outer Loop Landfill complex, as shown on the Project 

Site Location Map in Figure 2-1. Unit 5 consists of four separate landfill cells, 5.1A, 5.2A, 

5.1B and 5.2B, with Unit 5.1A (the most southern cell) and Unit 5.2B (the most northern cell) 

being the two primary FLB cells in the study. 

Landfill Unit 5 began accepting waste in July 1995, a total of approximately 1,930,825 tons of 

waste was in place by October 1997. Retrofit activities took place in March through May 2001. 

Retrofitting the landfill unit was conducted by modifying it to become a bioreactor cell. 

Retrofit activities included installing trenches, moisture distribution and gas collection piping, 

thermocouples, and Oxygen Reduction Potential (ORP) probes. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the 

north-south cross-section and east-west cross section, respectively. 

A series of horizontal trenches were installed up to 18 feet below the surface in Cells 5.1 and 

5.2. Each trench contains a perforated pipe and was back-filled with a permeable material. The 

trenches were spaced approximately 60 feet apart. Six vertical gas extraction wells (twelve 

total) also were constructed in cells 5.1 and 5.2. The gas wells serve a dual purpose of 

collecting landfill gas and penetrating layers of soil cover placed during landfilling. Probes for 

measuring temperature and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) were installed during vertical 

gas well installation in 2000. Additional thermocouples and ORP probes were installed during 

the 2001 retrofitting with the gas collection and liquid distribution piping. These probes were 

3-6
Figure 3-3. Unit 5 North-South Cross Section

3-7
Figure 3-4. Unit 5 East-West Cross Section

3-8
placed in the trenches. Similar installations were made for the 7.3A and 7.3B Control cells. 

Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the trenching system as well as the gas extraction well temperature 

probe placement. 

Changes in the state of degradation in the waste mass, for example, the impact of nitrified 

effluent applied to the landfill in Unit 5 and subsequent denitrification, should impact the 

overall mass balance of nitrogen as the nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas. The data collected 

for COD, BOD, ammonia nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen, as well as leachate 

quantification are examined in Section 5-Results. 

AALB Process Description 

Landfill Unit 7.4 has been designated the AALB for this portion of the study. Unit 7.4 is 

located in the southwestern portion of landfill Unit 7. Landfill Unit 7 is located in the western 

portion of the Outer Loop Landfill complex as shown on the project site location map in Figure 

2-1. 

Unit 7.4A began receiving waste in July 2001 and 7.4B began receiving waste in September 

2001. Units 7.4A and 7.4B are currently accepting waste, with approximately 959,993 cubic 

yards of waste in place as of March 2003. 

Construction of the AALB features occurred concurrently with waste placement in Units 7.4A 

and 7.4B. The base layer of the unit consists of an initial, uncompacted layer of waste which 

serves as liner protection. AALB cells 7.4A and 7.4B were constructed in 15-foot vertical lifts. 

This shallow lift system results from grading waste to promote homogenization of the incoming 

solid waste. As each lift was completed, water was added to increase the moisture content of 

the waste. Perforated pipes then were placed at regular intervals across the top of the waste. 

The pipes were covered with a permeable media. Each lift of piping was then connected via a 

common manifold. The next lift of waste was then placed over the installed piping, and the 

construction sequence was then completed for each successive lift of waste. The buried piping 

system serves the three-fold purpose of aeration, moisture distribution, and gas collection. 

Figure 3-7 shows the end view of the north-south cross section of Unit 7. 

As of April 2003, waste was no longer being accepted into the AALB study unit. Waste will be 

added again starting in late 2003 or early 2004. 

3-9
GROUND 

RISER TO 

GAS HEADER 

GAS 

RISER 

THERMOCOUPLE 

MONITORING 

WELL 

3 “ HDPE PERFORATED DISTRIBUTION PIPE 

THERMOCOUPLE 

MONITORING WELL 

PIEZOMETER 

GAS HEADER 

PIPE (SOLID) 

3 “ LEACHATE 

RISER PIPE (SOLID) 

VALVE 

VALVE VAULT (12 “ CCP)

3 “ HDPE SOLID 

LEACHATE 

DISTRIBUTION PIPE 

3 “ HDPE SOLID

LEACHATE

DISTRIBUTION PIPE

PIEZOMETER 

TYPICAL LATERAL CROSS SECTION 

GAS 

COLLECTION 

PIPE 

GROUND 

Figure 3-5. Unit 5 Piping Configuration Within Trench 

3-10
Figure 3-6. Unit 5 Gas Extraction Well and Temperature Probe Placement 

3-11 
Figure 3-7. Unit 7 North-South Cross Section

3-12
BIOREACTOR TREATMENT STRATEGIES 

Moisture Addition 

Moisture addition is made to the FLB and AALB cells and not the Control cells. This moisture 

is primarily recirculated leachate, along with various other on-site moisture sources. For the 

AALB, the recirculated leachate is not treated prior to return to the waste mass. 

For the FLB, recirculated leachate is treated through use of a chemolithropic bacteria to take – NH4

+ to NO3 in the aerobic Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR). In concept, the denitrifying 

bacteria under anaerobic conditions in the landfill will use the NO3 – as a terminal electron 

acceptor to form both N2O and N2 gasses. This nitrified leachate is introduced to the waste 

through the series of horizontal trenches that were installed in cells 5.1 and 5.2. The treated 

SBR effluent is monitored on a monthly basis for COD, BOD, ammonia–nitrogen, nitritenitrate nitrogen and phosphorous. 

The treated leachate is pumped to a holding tank and distributed to the trenches via a force 

main and manifold for distribution to the FLB. Moisture sources other than the leachate, such 

as water from Outer Loop underdrain or sedimentation pond, or other liquid waste streams as 

permitted by regulation, may be used to augment the supply of leachate. These liquid sources 

are monitored in the same way as the SBR effluent in order to follow nitrogen dynamics. 

Moisture volumes additions are performed by the landfill operator and are dependent, in part, 

on precipitation, moisture levels in the waste, and other factors. Operator judgment is used as 

necessary to achieve and maintain the in-place waste at desired moisture levels, as discussed in 

Section 6. . 

Air Addition 

Aeration in the AALB study also is designed to achieve accelerated stabilization of solid waste. 

The purpose of the aeration process is to biodegrade organic matter in the waste in an initial 

aerobic composting stage prior to establishing the typical anaerobic conditions. Theoretically, 

by rapidly degrading the organic waste, the acid or lag phase (see below) of the landfill 

degradation process will be reduced significantly, resulting in a more rapid progression toward 

methane generation in the anaerobic stage. In addition, the accelerated degradation of easily 

degradable organic waste may result in improved leachate quality and a reduction in gaseous 

non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) emissions. Aerating the uppermost lifts of the 

landfill should also establish conditions conducive to the biological oxidation of methane gas 

that is generated in the lower anaerobic lifts, thus reducing methane emissions. During and 

after aeration, moisture is added to control the temperature in the waste. 

TIMELINE AND DATA COMPARISONS 

Landfill units are filled sequentially (placement of waste in a particular cell is only initiated 

after the current waste-receiving cell is completely filled), therefore individual units in this 

study are not directly comparable with respect to time. The Control cells provide an adequate 

treatment reference by considering them as temporally offset from the treatment cells. For 

example, consider the comparison between FLB cells and the Control. As mentioned, FLB 

3-13
waste is generally four to six years old and control waste is about two to three years old. In 

three years, Control waste will be approximately the same age as present-day FLB waste. 

Therefore, Control samples collected three years following the initiation of the FLB treatment 

should be comparable to FLB cell data from when leachate was first introduced. Figure 3-8 

provides a timeline for comparison of significant events for this project. 

FIGURE 3-8. TIMELINE OF EVENTS AT OUTER LOOP 

Control 7.3A&B start receiving waste 

CRADA approved and signed 

FLB retrofit began 

FLB retrofit complete 

AALB A starts receiving waste 

Aeration commenced within 30 days

 of completing each new lift 

State approval received for 

AALB construction 

Addition of liquids to FLB Unit ceased 

1995 

JULY

1996 

1997 

OCT

1998 

NOV 

1999 

2000 

JUL 

OCT 

2001 

JAN 

MAR 

MAY 

JUL 

SEPT 

OCT 

2002 

JAN 

MAR 

SEPT 

2003 

SEPT 

FLB A & B start receiving waste 

FLB stopped receiving waste 

FLB A&B start receiving waste 

State approval received for FLB retrofit 

FLB stopped receiving waste 

SBR Treatment construction began 

AALB B starts receiving waste 

Aeration commenced within 30 days

 of completing each new lift 

SBR Treatment Unit complete 

Addition of liquids to FLB Unit began 

First interim report due for submission 

3-14 
CRITICAL AND NON-CRITICAL PARAMETERS 

Landfilled waste typically progresses through five phases of degradation, including: 

(1) adjustment or acclimation; (2) transition; (3) acidogenesis; (4) methanogenesis; and 

(5) maturation (Reinhart and Townsend 1998). This degradation process can be collectively 

considered as waste stabilization. At any given time, landfill cells may be characterized as 

experiencing one of the above phases. But because waste is deposited in a landfill cell over 

time (months to years), waste-stabilization phases tend to overlap and sharp boundaries 

between phases are not typical. 

1. Acclimation. During acclimation, microbial populations are in a state of adjustment. 

Waste moisture tends to increase and available oxygen is consumed during this phase. The 

atmospheric-oxygen supply to the buried waste is diffusion limited and outpaced by the 

oxygen demand of bacterial respiration; consequently the concentration of oxygen in the 

landfill cell begins to decrease. 

2. Transition. In the transition phase, conditions turn anaerobic as the available oxygen is 

consumed through the metabolism of readily degradable wastes. Complex organic matter is 

broken into simpler forms (e.g., organic acids) and energy that is not captured by cells 

during respiration is given off as heat. Waste and leachate temperature concomitantly 

increase during organic-matter degradation. Other respiration by-products (carbon dioxide 

and volatile organic acids) begin to increase in leachate. 

3. Acidogenesis. During acidogenesis the accumulation of volatile organic acids reaches its 

peak due to metabolism and fermentation of organic matter. The increase in chemical 

oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand indirectly reflects this increase in 

degradable metabolites. In addition, the high concentration of acids increases hydrogen ion 

activity, reflected by decreased waste and leachate pH. In the near absence of oxygen, 

metabolism shifts to anaerobic bacteria capable of utilizing alternate electron acceptors 

(e.g., nitrate and sulfate). 

4. Methanogenesis. In the methanogenic phase, the supply of most electron acceptors is 

exhausted. Methanogenic bacteria ferment organic acids to methane and carbon dioxide 

while other methanogens utilize CO2 as their terminal electron acceptor. Consequently, gas 

(methane and CO2) volume and production rates increase. Anaerobic respiration is a 

proton-consuming process and this is reflected by an increase in pH values in the waste and 

leachate. 

5. Maturation. The maturation phase represents the end-point of landfill settlement (surface 

GPS measurements). The overall conversion of complex wastes to leachable organic acids 

and gaseous products also serves to reduce the waste volume and organic solids and to 

increase waste density. Maturation occurs when degradable organic matter, and 

consequently microbial growth, is limited. This is reflected by decreases in the biochemical 

methane potential and gaseous metabolic by-products methane and CO2. Concentrations of 

organics in leachate remain steady but at substantially reduced levels relative to earlier 

phases. 

It is expected, that the bioreactor treatments will increase the rate of transition through the 

various phases relative to the control. It is further expected that this enhanced transition to 

stabilized waste will be discernable with trend analyses. 

3-15
The parameters selected for study for this project were divided into two basic groups termed 

critical and non-critical. The rationale for the parameter selection and grouping was based 

firstly on what parameters are currently monitored in conventional Subtitle D landfills and are 

useful indictors for optimal daily running of a landfill. Additional parameters were selected for 

research interest, based on previous landfill bioreactor study findings, ultimately cost 

evaluation also played a determining factor in the selection. 

The critical measurements were selected as the best means to capture aspects of waste 

stabilization over time. The extend of parameters selected was designed to meet the initial 

objective to determine which parameters should be monitored in addition to those already 

monitored in conventional Subtitle D landfills, should either of these models be adopted as a 

standard method for landfill operation. Ultimately it is anticipated that a combination of the 

critical and non-critical grouped parameters will provide sufficient information over the life of 

the project to understand and evaluate these bioreactor designs, as compared with conventional 

landfilling techniques, and meet the objectives set for this research project. 

TREND MONITORING 

Settlement 

Settlement of the fill is monitored quarterly through GPS measurements of elevation as an 

indication of biological stability. The numerous GPS sample points provide a data set with 

which to evaluate waste settlement. In addition to GPS measurements and survey data, 

settlement plates have been installed to measure settlement and stability of the landfill test 

cells. 

Pneumatic settlement cells and conventional settlement plates were installed to help define the 

limits of the test cells in areas they are laid over existing waste. It is expected that the 

pneumatic settlement cells will provide accurate measurement of settlement at depths greater 

than that of conventional settlement plates in operating landfills. 

A total of eight settlement plates were installed in Unit 5; seven of these plates remain in place 

to date. Unit 7.4 currently has two settlement plates in place. A total of three plates have been 

located in the control area to measure the settlement rates as a comparison. The top elevation 

of each plate was surveyed prior to the start of liquid injection. 

Leachate 

Leachate is collected from each of the cells in the study. The design of the landfill units (paired 

cells) is such that, with exception of Unit 5, each cell is separated from the surrounding cells. 

With respect to Unit 5, 1,000 feet of waste separate sample locations for cells 5.1A and 5.2B. 

The median of the two treatment cell observations from each sampling event will be calculated, 

resulting in a single time series for each treatment and control. These time series are used to 

assess trends, or lack thereof, for those characteristics and analytes measured in the leachate. 

3-16
Municipal Solid Waste 

Incoming solid waste is weighed on scales as it enters the landfill and prior to disposal in 

certain cells. In addition to weight, waste volume is calculated based on quarterly survey events 

using global positioning system on a fixed GPS grid. In addition, changes in surveyed slope 

points and an annual aerial photometric survey are used to supplement volume calculations. 

Waste composition is recorded according to the type of incoming waste: municipal solid waste; 

special waste; solidification waste; biosolids; asbestos; and construction and demolition debris. 

Along with the two-dimensional analyses outlined for the leachate and the landfill gas, threedimensional analyses are done for the municipal solid waste. If the treatment is more effective 

at one depth than another, incorporating depth into the MSW data assessment may identify it. 

Settlement and fill are monitored quarterly through GPS measurements of elevation as an 

indication of stability. The numerous GPS sample points provide a data set with which to 

evaluate waste settlement. Specific techniques on the employed technique of GPS surveying 

are provided in Section 4. 

Landfill Gas 

Gas sampling for CO2, O2 and CH4 are performed weekly. NMOC, HAPs and methane 

surface emissions monitoring are performed quarterly. Similar to leachate, gas sampling occurs 

at one point per cell where the gas extraction wells come to the collection point. The gas 

extraction wells are located systematically, approximately equidistant from one another. The 

number and location are selected to be representative of the cell. A description of the gas 

sampling procedure and analyses are given in Section 4. 

Methane Surface Emissions: Regulatory Monitoring 

Surface emissions are monitored on a quarterly basis in accordance with the requirements 

specified by the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG) for 

municipal solid waste landfills in 40 CFR 60.755. Methane concentrations are measured within 

5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in.) of the landfill surface using the CEC-Landtec SEM 500. Methane 

surface concentrations are monitored around the perimeter of the collection area along a pattern 

that traverses the landfill at 30-meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevate 

concentrations of landfill gas. 

Fugitive Gas Emissions Study 

Fugitive gas emissions are those gaseous emissions that are not captured through the 

engineered LFG collection system. Optical remote sensing (ORS) was used to evaluate 

fugitive gas emissions (primarily methane) for the FLB, AALB, and Control study units. At 

least three rounds of fugitive gas emissions testing are to be conducted at this site to estimate 

impacts on fugitive emissions from landfill bioreactors when compared to controls. Three 

rounds of testing will be completed by Fall 2003, with final results available in the Spring 

2004. The most recent available set of measurements is presented in Appendix E. 

3-17
SECTION 4 

METHODS 

This section provides a summary of both operational and sampling/analysis methods used 

during this investigation at the FLB, AALB and Control sites (Quality Assurance Project Plan, 

2003). 

OPERATIONAL METHODS 

Moisture Addition 

Moisture addition for this project was primarily leachate addition to the FLB and AALB test 

cells. It was achieved via gravity- fed injection through the horizontal piping or trench systems 

so as to increase significantly the moisture content of theses wastes when compared to the 

control cells. Rates of gravity-fed moisture addition varied from approximately 5 to 80 gallons 

per minute. 

Excessive moisture addition can result in leachate seeps or breakouts, and reduced performance 

of landfill gas collection wells and trenches. Consequently, moisture addition events included 

site monitoring by the landfill operator. Similarly, operator judgment was used to reduce such 

moisture additions during periods of precipitation or to increase moisture addition quantities 

during periods when the waste mass appeared to be drier. The amount and timing of moisture 

addition were established through a series of trial events so as to increase volumes added to the 

waste mass without compromising the leachate containment or landfill gas collection systems. 

Field procedures and practices used for moisture addition at Outer Loop are discussed in 

Section 6 - Field Observations. 

Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) --

Leachate collected from Unit 5 is recirculated through an on-site Sequential Batch Reactor 

(SBR) containing fixed chemolithotrophic bacteria that reduce the ammonium level by 

converting it to nitrate/nitrite. The leachate remains in contact with nitrification 

microorganisms for sufficient time to nitrify to achieve an ammonia concentration of less than 

50 mg/L. The nitrified aqueous product is then pumped to a holding tank before being returned 

to the FLB through a series of gravity-fed horizontal trenches. These trenches were constructed 

in the surface of the landfill after waste placement was complete. Other sources of liquid may 

be used to supplement the leachate, including water from the under drain or sediment pond, or 

other liquid sources permitted by the landfill facility permit. 

Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) --

Leachate and other moisture quantities are applied to the surface of the Unit 7 AALB units and 

through perforated piping manifolds connected to four tanks used to accumulate liquids from 

various sources. These sources have included Unit 7 leachate, various commercial liquids, 

surface water, and under drain water. The tanks’ gravity feed to both the surface and buried 

manifolds; the surface manifold was moved on an ongoing basis to different locations of the 

4-1
waste mass so as distribute moisture more evenly onto the waste (as determined by the landfill 

operator). In practice, moisture quantities were added to the lift of waste immediately below 

the lift of waste being aerated. 

Air Addition 

Aeration of the AALB unit was initiated within 30 days of completing a new lift of waste and 

was accomplished on an intermittent basis. Prior to commencing, moisture was added to the 

working face of the lift to be aerated. Aeration was performed after a lift of waste was placed 

to cover the aeration piping and the prescribed moisture addition was completed. Air addition 

was achieved through the horizontal piping installed between the lifts of the landfill, primarily 

using a blower at a pre-established rate between 200 to 1,000 scfm (Hater et al. 2001), 

supplemented on occasion with an air compressor. The rate and duration of air addition was 

dependent on the waste lift and, in particular, waste temperature. The air pressure across the 

header was balanced using a pressure gauge once the blower had been operational for 24 hours. 

The aeration face was watered on an approximate weekly basis. 

Aeration was performed over a period of approximately 30 to 60 days or until waste 

temperature reached 60oC. Aeration times generally varied with: 

• food content of waste; 

• moisture content of incoming waste and evaporation rate; and 

• ambient air and blower air temperature. 

To assess the progress of the aerobic composting stage, ongoing monitoring was performed for 

odors (subjective), landfill gas composition (field instrument), and waste temperature (in situ 

probes). These parameters provide both information on when to reduce or terminate the air 

addition, and also as a safety procedure to avoid subsurface fires. For example, changes in 

landfill gas composition, meaning a decrease in methane content and/or a rise in carbon 

monoxide content, could be indicative of subsurface fire conditions. 

Waste temperature rise was used as the key measure to stop or reduce air addition. If a waste 

temperature probe reached 80o

C, or if after reaching 60oC, a temperature probe increases by 

10oC or more during any 48-hour period, air addition would be terminated. See also Section 6 -

Field Observations. 

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 

The following sampling and analysis methods were applied to all of the tested landfill cells. 

Methods used during this investigation were concordant with EPA Standard methods contained 

within SW 846. 

4-2
Sampling Frequency 

An extensive program for sampling was developed for this project. A summary of sampling 

frequency is provided below, one sample was taken for each parameter at the given frequency 

from each of the locations: FLB 5.1, FLB 5.2, Control 7.3A, Control 7.3B, AALB 7.4A and 

AALB 7.4B, with the exception of those taken from the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). See 

Field Measurements section for further discussion of the Waste Settlement protocol. 

Sampling locations are discussed herein and were intended to reflect representativeness over 

the entire cells under investigation. For example, each cell’s leachate drains to a central sump, 

samples collected at sumps were therefore assumed to be representative of the entire cell. 

Similarly, sampling from landfill gas extraction wells and soil boring locations were assumed 

to represent cell and subcell on an ongoing basis. Generally, samples were taken from central 

locations within cells so as to avoid edge effects. 

TABLE 4-1. SAMPLING FREQUENCIES IN MATRICES OF INTEREST 

MATRIX: Leachate MATRIX: Municipal Solid Waste 

PARAMETER FREQUENCY PARAMETER FREQUENCY 

Head on Liner Continuous Oxygen Reduction Potential Daily (up to 250) 

Leachate Production Continuous Temperature Daily (up to 250) 

Chemical Oxygen Demand Monthly Waste Settlement See Field 

Measurements 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Monthly Cellulose/lignin 30 samples annually 

Ammonia-nitrogen Monthly Organic Solids 30 samples annually 

o-Phosphate Monthly Biochemical Methane 30 samples annually 

Total Phosphorus Monthly Potential 

Nitrate-nitrogen Monthly Waste Moisture 30 samples annually 

Nitrite-nitrogen Monthly Appearance 30 samples annually 

Total volatile organic acids Monthly pH 30 samples annually 

Temperature Monthly 

pH Monthly MATRIX: Landfill Gas 

Conductance Monthly LFG flow/production Weekly 

Volatile Organic Compounds Quarterly CH4, CO2, O2 Field Weekly 

Semi-Volatile Organic Cmpds Quarterly CH4, CO2, O2 Summa Quarterly 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Quarterly Non-methane organic Quarterly 

compounds 

Total Dissolved Solids Quarterly Hazardous Air Pollutants Quarterly 

Sulfate Quarterly Surface emission monitoring Twice Quarterly 

Chloride Quarterly 

Potassium Quarterly 

RCRA Hazardous Metals Quarterly 

Field Sampling Techniques 

Specific sampling procedures have been developed by the EPA and vary with the sample 

matrices and specific analyses. The types of containers, methods of preservation and holding 

times are identified in Table 4.2. 

4-3
Leachate --

Leachate samples were taken at the drain sump areas for Units 5.1 and 5.2, 7.3A and 7.3B, 

7.4A and 7.4B. Samples were obtained at regular time intervals at one sampling location. 

Leachate samples were collected directly from the tap or port on the riser pipe. This port is 

located at the point near where the leachate riser daylights to surface. Leachate was pumped 

from the sump through the riser pipe and collected from the valved port. Switching the riser 

pump from automatic mode to hand mode (essentially turning the pump off) prior to sampling 

was shown in subsequent sampling events to be an effective procedure for obtaining an 

adequate volume of leachate. 

Leachate samples were collected in the following sequence: COD, BOD, volatile organic acids, 

pH, temperature, VOCs, SVOCs, TKN, ammonia-N, nitrate-N, nitrite-N, total metals 

(including potassium), o-phosphate, total phosphate, chloride, sulfate, TDS and conductance. 

To obtain a representative sample, effluent was purged prior to collecting the actual sample. 

The purge volume was estimated by multiplying the time the sample line was open by leachate 

flow rate (30 gal/min) and recorded on the Leachate Sampling Information Form. 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) --

Solid waste samples were collected annually at systematically chosen boring locations. The cell 

was divided into six sections; each section was divided into 3x3 square meter grids and a 

square randomly chosen within a grid as the boring location for that section. The equivalent 

boring location was used for sampling in the remaining sections. The edges of the cell were not 

sampled. When drilling could not be initiated or completed for whatever reason in a selected 

location, a randomly selected square adjacent to the original location was selected, but only for 

that section where drilling was incomplete. 

A drill rig equipped with a 3-foot diameter bucket auger was used to sample each location in 

10-foot vertical sections. One representative sample, consisting of a 10 to 20 gallon 

composited aliquot, was collected for each section. The initial 10 feet of material generally was 

discarded as it usually contained significant quantities of soil. As the boring advanced, each 10 

-foot section was extracted from the auger and the appearance and temperature of the waste 

recorded. At least 30 baseline waste samples were collected from cells in Unit 5 and Unit 7.3 in 

2000. Six baseline samples were collected from 7.4A in November 2001 and six from 7.4B in 

February 2002. Additional samples were collected from all cells in October 2002. More than 

30 for Unit 5 cells 5.1A and 5.2B, only 23 for cells 7.4A and 7.4B, and more than 30 for cells 

7.3. The reason for this is six borings are placed in each cell. Waste samples are collected for 

each 10-ft increase in depth as the boring is advanced. The number of samples was dependent 

on the depth of the boring. 

The composite waste samples were sealed in plastic bags and placed in a cooler for shipment to 

the laboratory. These included samples for organic solids, pH, moisture content, biochemical 

methane potential, and cellulose/lignin ratio at the frequency designated. 

4-4
Temperature and ORP of the in-place MSW were monitored by type K-thermocouples (Hanna 

Model No. HI 766 C1). The data communications/gathering system that the probes are 

connected to currently record the temperature or ORP reading for each probe, once every 30 

minutes. Probes returning erratic temperature readings, based on historic temperature control 

charts, were investigated and the erratic results flagged. 

Landfill Gas --

Gas monitoring was done at the installed gas monitoring point within each cell to monitor 

activity within the landfill bioreactors and control areas. Information recorded for gas sampling 

was logged on a Gas Sampling Information Form. 

Field monitoring was performed using a GEM 2000 instrument (see Field Measurements) on a 

weekly basis (see Field Measurements below). Samples were collected for laboratory analysis 

of methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen by EPA Method 3, non –methane organic compounds 

(NMOCs), by EPA Method 25C, and volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs; 

Appendix J) by Compendium Method TO –14 on a quarterly basis. These samples were 

collected in 6–liter SUMMA® passivated stainless steel canisters at the gas monitoring point. 

Preservation and Handling 

Samples collected for laboratory analysis were transported to the lab within 24 hours via an 

overnight shipping company. Samples requiring cooling for purposes of preservation were 

packaged in coolers and maintained at 4o

C using crushed ice. Ice was packaged in large Ziploc 

baggies to prevent leakage onto sample containers. The laboratory was contacted prior to the 

day of shipment. The laboratory recorded the shipment temperature (of a temperature blank) 

upon arrival and significant variances in temperature (i.e. greater than 4o

C) were immediately 

reported to the WMI project Co-Principal Investigator responsible for field activities. 

Project personnel for field activities completed a sample collection narrative form, a record of 

activities carried out by the sampling team. The team member responsible for the sampling 

project completed the narrative and it traveled with the Chain of Custody (COC). The 

instructions laid out in the Project QAPP for the completion of the COC, sample handling and 

storage, and the transfer of sample custody were adhered to at all times. The sample collection 

information was also recorded on an analytical data sheet for field-testing parameters such as 

pH, specific conductance, gas surveys etc. 

Samples collected for laboratory analysis were identified with standard labels attached to the 

sample containers. The standard format detailed in the Project QAPP was utilized to uniquely 

identify all samples. All field documentation and project logbooks were maintained according 

to the QAPP (Quality Assurance Project Plan, 2003), which is included as Appendix B. 

4-5
TABLE 4-2. CONTAINERIZATION, PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIMES

PARAMETER SAMPLE 

VOLUME & 

CONTAINER 

PRESERVATION MAX. HOLDING 

TIME 

Inorganic Tests 

Ammonia-nitrogen 500ml*, P, G.1 Cool 4oC, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days 

BOD 1000ml, P, G. Cool 4oC 48 hours 

COD 1000ml, P, G.1 Cool 4oC, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days 

Conductance (leachate) P, G. None required. Analyze immediately. 

Chloride 500ml, P, G. None required 28 days 

Potassium 500ml, P, G. Field acidified to pH<2 with HNO3 28 days 

Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1000ml, P, G.1 Cool 4oC, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days 

RCRA Metals 1000ml, P, G.1 Field acidified to pH<2 with HNO3 6 months 

(Hg 28 days) 

Nitrate-nitrogen 1000ml, P, G. Cool 4oC 48 hours 

Nitrite-nitrogen 1000ml, P, G. Cool 4oC 48 hours 

o-Phosphate 500ml, P, G. Cool 4oC, filter in lab if necessary 48 hours 

Total phosphorous 500ml, P, G.1 Cool 4oC, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days 

Total dissolved solids 500 ml, P, G. Cool 4oC 7 days 

Temperature (leachate) P, G. None required. Analyze immediately. 

pH (leachate) P, G. None required. Analyze immediately. 

pH (waste) 1000ml wide-mouth, 

P, G. 

Cool 4oC 7 days 

Moisture (MSW) 1000ml wide-mouth, 

P, G. 

Cool 4oC 28 days 

Sulfate 50ml, T, P, G. Cool 4oC 28 days 

Specific Conductance 500ml, P, G. Cool 4oC 28 days 

Organic Tests 

Organic solids Double-wrapped 

plastic garbage bag. 2 

Cool 4oC 21 days 

Cellulose:lignin Double-wrapped 

plastic garbage bag. 2 

Cool 4oC 28 days 

BMP Double-wrapped 

plastic garbage bag. 2 

Cool 4oC 21 days 

Volatile organic acids 8oz. Amber glass, 

Teflon-lined septa 

Cool 4oC 10 days 

VOC 3x40ml glass, Teflonlined septa Cool 4oC, no headspace 7 days 

SVOC 2x1l Amber glass, 

Teflon-lines septa 

Cool 4oC Extract – 7 days 

Analyze – 21- 40 days 

Microbial studies 500ml P, G 

Sterile bag 

Cool 4oC 24 hours 

CH4, CO2, O2 6-liter, summa Not required 7 days 

*ammonia sample taken from COD bottle 

1

Sample bottles will be sufficient volume to prevent sample loss due to effervescence upon acidification.

2

Wrapped samples placed in polyethylene trays with lids and these filled trays are then placed in a (un-cooled) 

plastic bin.

3 This study was performed in addition to the requirements of the QAPP. 

P – Plastic 

G – Glass 

T – Teflon 

Sources: SW 846 Methods, 40 CFR 136, and Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 

4-6 
Analytical Methods 

A set of critical and non-critical parameters was established for each matrix. The methods used 

to measure each of these are presented in the following tables (Analytical Method References 

14 to 18). 

TABLE 4-3. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR LEACHATE 

CRITICAL NON-CRITICAL 

PARAMETER METHOD PARAMETER METHOD 

Chemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 (C) VOC 8260 (B) 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 405.1 (C) SVOC 8270 (B) 

Temperature Cole-Parmer 

Thermocouple* 

o-Phosphate 365.2 (C) 

pH Field electrode* Total Phosphorus 365.2 (C) 

Volatile Organic Acids Microbial Insights SOP Total Kjeldahl nitrogen 351.2 (C) 

Total dissolved solids 160.1 (C) 

Sulfate 300.0 (A) 

Chloride 300.0 (A) 

Potassium 6010 (B) (prepared 

according to 3005) 

Conductance Field electrode* 

RCRA Haz. Metals 6010/7470 (B) 

(prepared per 3005) 

Ammonia nitrogen 350.1 (C) 

Nitrate nitrogen 353.2 (C) 

Nitrite nitrogen 353.2 (C) 

Head on Liner Pressure Transducer* 

Leachate Production Totalizing Flow Meter* 

TABLE 4-4. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

CRITICAL NON-CRITICAL 

PARAMETER METHOD PARAMETER METHOD 

Waste Temperature Cole Parmer 

Thermocouple* 

Oxidation-reduction Potential Field ORP Electrode* 

Waste Settlement GPS survey* Cellulose:lignin ratio ASTM E-1758-95/Barlaz 

(R&D Method) 

Organic Acids Barlaz R&D Method Appearance of Waste Field Observation* 

Moisture Content Barlaz R&D Method 

pH US EPA 9045C 

Biochemical Methane Barlaz R&D Method 

Production 

4-7
TABLE 4-5. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR LANDFILL GAS

CRITICAL NON-CRITICAL 

PARAMETER METHOD PARAMETER METHOD 

CH4, CO2, O2 GEM 2000* Surface Emission Monitoring NSPS/FID mod. Method 21* 

CH4, CO2, O2 Method 3C Non-Methane Organic Carbon EPA Method 25C 

Gas Collection Orifice plate* Hazardous Air Pollutants Compendium Method TO-14 

Gas Volume GEM 2000* 

* Field Measurements.

Field Measurements 

Equipment used for field measurements was calibrated according to manufacturers’ 

instructions. 

In-Situ Municipal Solid Waste Temperature and ORP --

Temperature and Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) of the in-place waste were monitored 

by type K thermocouples (Hanna Model No. HI 766 CI) wire connected to a standard ColeParmer thermocouple panel meter on the surface. Temperature and ORP readings were made 

on a daily basis per cell. No calibration was required. 

Leachate Temperature, pH and Conductance --

Leachate temperature was measured using a Hanna Instruments Model HI 991301 

pH/conductance/temperature probe on a monthly basis. Calibrations were performed per the 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

A 500-ml or other suitable, clean, container was used to collect a sample of leachate from the 

same sampling port used for leachate quality sampling, immediately after collection of the 

quality samples. Each parameter was measured from the same sample. 

The pH meter was capable of measuring pH to +/- 0.002 units. The probe was calibrated before 

use each time using three buffer solutions that bracketed the expected pH. Accuracy was 

determined by re-measuring one of the three buffer solutions as a sample. The instrument had 

a temperature accuracy of – 0.2oC and resolution of 0.1oC. Though the measurement was not 

in-situ, it was typically made within 30 minutes of sample collection. 

An Accumet conductivity cell (Fisher Scientific, Cat No. 13-620-166) with a measurement 

range of 1000 to 200,000μS/cm, a cell constant (K) of 10.0cm–1 and accuracy of +/-0.5 percent 

was used to make the measurements. The probe was calibrated with standard solution of 

12,880 μS/cm (μmho/cm) @ 25 degrees C (Hanna Instruments, Cat No. HI 8030L). The cell 

had a one point automatic calibration, though several standard solutions were used to check the 

range. Leachate conductivity measurements typically fell in the 4-18 mS/cm range. 

4-8
Head on Liner and Leachate Production --

An in-place pressure transducer measured the head on the landfill liner and leachate production 

was quantified with a factory-calibrated totalizing flow meter (one per cell). 

Landfill Gas Composition and Volume --

A factory-calibrated orifice plate was used to measure the volume of gas collected by the 

landfill gas collection system. Gas temperature was measured using a Reotemp bimetal 

thermometer permanently fixed to the gas header, metering station piping, or gas well near the 

orifice plate. The thermometer is of stainless steel construction, approximately 3-inch 

diameter, with a dial direct read face. 

Gas field analyses were performed for methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen using a GEM 

2000, and in accordance with procedures given in EPA Method 3C. This instrument is a 

portable field gas analyzer and uses a self -compensating infrared detector. The instrument was 

calibrated prior to use per manufacturer specifications using 50:35:0:15 CH4 :CO2:O2:N2 and 

0:0:4:96 CH4:CO2:O2 :N2 gas mixtures. Additionally, the calibration was checked again after 

sample measurements with these gas mixture standards. Calibration gases for the GEM 2000 

were obtained from CES Landtec and included concentrations that bracket the expected 

measured concentration and a “zero” gas (e.g. nitrogen). Concentration readings for carbon 

dioxide and methane had to be within 15 percent of the actual concentration or sample 

duplicate; the tolerance for oxygen was ± 30 percent. Zero gases registered at no greater than 5 

percent of the span of the instrument. 

After calibration, the instrument was connected to a gas sampling port using flexible plastic 

tubing. Gas was drawn into the instrument by an internal pump and analyzed. Results were date 

and time stamped and data logged by the instrument. Gas standards for CH4, CO2 and O2 were 

analyzed twice daily on the day of sampling to evaluate accuracy objectives. Gas volume 

measurements were made by electronically logging three consecutive measurements of gas 

quality (methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and balance gas) and flow (differential pressure, 

static pressure, gas temperature, and flow rate) to the GEM 2000 for each sample point. The 

mean value for each of these measurements was recorded as the value for each parameter of 

interest. 

Surface Emissions Monitoring --

Surface emissions monitoring was performed for methane using the field instrument CEC -

Landtec SEM-500. This is a hand held portable flame ionization detector used to monitor 

surface emissions at landfills. The instrument was calibrated prior to use according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

Surface emissions monitoring was performed in accordance with the requirements specified by 

the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG) for municipal 

solid waste landfills in 40 CFR 60.755. Methane concentrations were measured within 5 to 10 

cm (2 to 4 in) of the landfill surface using the field instrument. Methane concentrations were 

measured following the procedures in EPA Method 21, except that "methane" replaced all 

4-9
references to "volatile organic compounds" (VOC) and the calibration gas was 500-ppm 

methane in air [§ 60.755(d)]. Methane surface concentrations were monitored around the 

perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 -meter 

intervals. In addition, prescribed monitoring included taking measurements where visual 

observations indicated elevated concentrations of landfill gas (e.g., distressed vegetation, cracks 

or seeps in the cover). 

Waste Settlement --

Surface settlement of the fill was monitored quarterly through Global Positioning Survey (GPS) 

measurements of elevation. The number of measurements taken per quarter is tabulated below. 

Unit 5 cells 5.1 and 5.2 are each comprised of two subcells, with each subcell having 20 GPS 

points. 

TABLE 4-6. NUMBER OF GPS POINTS PER LOCATION 

LOCATION NUMBER OF GPS 

POINTS 

FBL 5.1 (A&B) 40 

FBL 5.2 (C&D) 40 

Control 7.3A 20 

Control 7.3B 20 

AALB 7.4A 20 

AALB 7.4B 20 

GPS measurements were performed using the Trimble model 4800. Sampling points within a 

cell were selected according to the following criteria: 

1. Every sampling event was initialized from a known point and within a – 5 cm span 

for the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the known point. If sampling within a 

cell was interrupted, the system was reinitialized from the known point before 

sampling was resumed. 

2. Sampling was initiated if the root mean square reading from the system was less 

than or equal to 10. 

3. The positional dilution of precision (a measure of the relative dispersion of satellites 

in the sky) reading was less than or equal to 6 before the system was initialized. 

In addition to the plots described above, standard high and low points and contours were 

measured. One of every 20 points measured by GPS was randomly selected and re-sampled. 

These methods were used to confirm that the positional accuracy of the GPS readings was 

sufficient to meet the analytical needs of the investigation (including conformance with the 

QAPP), and that the GPS measurements made were accurate, reliable, and comparable. 

In addition to GPS measurements and survey data, settlement plates were installed to provide a 

localized indication for refuse settlement within the landfill test cells. Settlement plates were 

placed in the proximity of wells and trenches to measure the surface movements during the 

study. The top elevation of each plate was surveyed prior to initiation of moisture addition. 

Figures 4-1 and 4-2 provide GPS and settlement plate locations for Units 5 and 7, respectively. 

4-10
Fugitive Gas Emissions Study --

Sampling and analytical methods involved with measuring fugitive gas emissions at the Outer 

Loop Landfill are presented in Appendix E. 

4-11
Figure 4-1. Unit 5 GPS Point and Settlement Plate Locations 

4-12
Figure 4-2. Unit 7 GPS Point and Settlement Plate Locations 

4-13
SECTION 5 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

This section summarizes the sampling and field monitoring results for the Control, FLB and 

AALB study units. Discussion of these results is provided herein, with supporting statistical 

analysis included as Appendix C. Monitoring activities began in June 2001 in accordance with 

the methods described previously in Section 4. The data documented herein are for the period 

from cell initiation through April 2003. 

DATA VALIDATION 

Three independent Data Validations have been performed for all critical and non-critical 

analysis of leachate, landfill gas (LFG), Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and settlement 

parameters. On the basis of these audits, the data was amended as necessary. The data included 

in this report has been subject to this independent validation, all observations and findings 

documented in the validation reports have been addressed in the data presented. 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 

It is the intention of this project to use statistical methods to evaluate and compare data trends 

identified by the extensive parameter monitoring program. Given the immature status of the 

project and the present temporal non-correlation discussed previously, it would be premature to 

fully explore any apparent trends observed in the data collected so far for the purposes of this 

interim report. However, various statistical techniques were investigated and applied to some of 

the data collected to date, in order to assess the most appropriate method of displaying the 

results and evaluate the techniques for future application. 

For a full account of the statistical techniques applied see Appendix C. In summary, data was 

expressed in Time Plots or, where more appropriate, Box Plots or Histograms. Although not 

applied in the following section, best fit curves were provided in the statistical evaluation of the 

leachate Time Plots. Levelplot of Settling Height Change (LOESS) or “contour” plots were 

applied to the GPS settlement data for qualitative purposes only, no rigorous statistical analysis 

was performed on this. 

Statistical methods were then evaluated as a means to detect any statistically significant trends 

and slope estimates. For the leachate parameters the Mann-Kendall test was applied, and for the 

waste settlement the Shapiro Wilk Normality Test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test were 

evaluated. 

Analysis of covariance was performed for the leachate data between replicate pair cells. Each 

unit consists of two cells that are considered duplicates or replicates of each other. 

5-1
• Control 7.3A is a replicate of Control 7.3B 

• FLB 5.1A is a replicate of Control 5.2B 

• FLB 5.1B is a replicate of Control 5.2A 

• AALB 7.4A is a replicate of AALB 7.4B 

This set-up ensures that any apparent trend seen in a given cell can be evaluated against that 

seen in a similar, duplicate cell exposed to similar operational conditions, which theoretically 

therefore should behave in the same manner. 

The statistical analysis techniques applied here did not reveal any statistically significant 

trends, it did, however, identify significant outliers which affected the statistical analyses. 

These results were not unexpected and supported the assertion that it was somewhat premature 

to assume a model structure for the many parameters given the limited data currently available. 

The heterogeneous nature of the patterns seen for many of the parameters do not yet give rise to 

a common model that can be used to make comparisons. The following section presents and 

summarized the data so far, without offering in depth statistical evaluation. 

SUMMARY OF PERIODS OF LEACHATE AND AIR ADDITIONS 

The following Table 5-1 provides a timetable of the periods of leachate and air addition to the 

bioreactor treatment cells. Although included in this report for reference purposes only, this 

information will be used in future analysis of the data to correlate with any data trends 

identified and improve understanding of these systems. 

TABLE 5-1. TIMETABLE OF LEACHATE AND AIR ADDITION 

PERIOD FLB 5.1 FLB 5.2 AALB 7.4A AALB 7.4B 

3/21/02 to 10/11/02 Fluid 

Addition 

2/16/02 to 10/11/02 Fluid 

Addition 

Fluid 

Addition 

6/18/02 to 7/4/02 Air Addition Air Addition 

7/15/02 to 7/27/02 Air Addition Air Addition 

7/30/02 to 8/12/02 Air Addition 

2/4/02 to 2/14/03 Air Addition Air Addition 

2/18/02 to 3/27/03 Air Addition Air Addition 

Note: Liquid Addition to the AALB cells is essentially continuous beginning with 

installation of the first lift of waste in each cell. 

WASTE VOLUMES AND SETTLEMENT 

Various parameters were measured to monitor waste volume changes over time and ultimately, 

waste settlement in each of the cells under investigation. The results documented in this report 

apply the Control Unit (7.3 A and B), the FLB (Unit 5.1A and 5.2B) and the AALB (Unit 7.4 A 

and B). 

5-2
Summary of Waste Volume 

Gross volume for in-place waste and other materials was measured for each of the cells on a 

quarterly basis using surveying techniques. This has been graphically represented in Figures 

5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 for the Control, FLB and AALB, respectively. 

Waste deposition in Control Cells 7.3 A and B began in late 1998. Both cells have been filled at 

approximately the same rate with 7.3A presently having the slightly greater volume of 

655,165 m3

 versus 558,174 m3. Initially the waste volume in both increased rapidly as waste 

was deposited, bringing the total waste volume in both cells to 1,022,136 m3 by March 1999. 

Additional waste has continued to be deposited in both 7.3 A and 7.3 B resulting in a gradual 

increase in volume. By end of March 2003 there was 1,213,339 m3

 of waste in place. The trend 

is a result of the frequency and volume of waste deposited versus the rate of settlement and 

degradation of the waste, hence over certain periods a drop in volume is observed as the rate of 

settlement is greater than the rate of deposition. See Figure 5-1. 

Waste deposition in FLB Cells 5.1 and 5.2 began in July of 1995. This landfill received a total 

of 1,930,825 tons of waste by October 1997. An additional 154,924 tons of waste were added 

between July 2000 and March 2001. No further waste has been deposited since that time and 

waste volume measurements for the period June 2001 through December 2002 show a steady 

decrease in each of the four subcells A, B, C and D. The volume reduction over the period 

represents a 2.5 percent decrease in A, 2.6 percent in B, 2.5 percent in C and 3.4 percent in D. 

See Figure 5-2. 

Waste deposition in AALB units 7.4A and 7.4B began in July and September 2001, 

respectively. The waste volumes in place for both AALB units are showing an increase in 

waste volume over time because each continues to receive waste on a daily basis. By end 2001 

there was 22,3971m3

 total waste in place in both cells, 680,947m3 by end 2002, and 734,011m3 

by March 2003. See Figure 5-3. 

5-3
Figure 5-1. Waste Volume vs. Time for Control Cells 

700000

600000

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

0 

1/1998 1/1999 1/2000 1/2001 1/2002 1/2003 1/2004 

waste volume (m3 ) 

CONTROL (7.3A) 

CONTROL (7.3B) 

5-4
600000 

Figure 5-2. Waste Volume vs. Time for FLB Cells

waste volume (m

3) 550000 

500000 

450000 

400000 

350000 

1/2001 5/2001 9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003 

FLB-B 

FLB-C 

FLB-D 

FLB-A 

5-5 
Figure 5-3. Waste Volume vs. Time for AALB Cells 

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

0 

3/2001 6/2001 9/2001 12/2001 3/2002 6/2002 9/2002 12/2002 3/2003 6/2003 

waste volume (m3) 

AALB (7.4A) 

AALB (7.4B) 

5-6
Summary of Waste Settlement 

The surface elevation was measured using GPS technology for each of the Control, AALB and 

FLB units. The results are displayed in the form of a contour plot of total settlement for the 

period in the FLB, and box plots in Figures 5-4 through 5-7. 

There are relatively fewer data points for Units 7.3 and 7.4 compared with Unit 5, with only 

three measuring events versus eight for Unit 5 FLB. In addition the significance of the GPS 

data relative to the objectives of this investigation for Units 7.3 and 7.4 is limited at this point 

owing to soil covering and active waste placement. 

Unit 5 is not actively accepting waste. The last waste addition was made in 2000-2001. 

Relatively more of this waste was placed in the southeastern part of this Unit compared with 

the northern half. The GPS data for this region of Unit 5 shows a generally greater settlement 

(decrease in surface height) over the period, as would be expected. The box plot for FLB 5.1A 

also demonstrates a greater rate of settlement, decreasing with time, compared with FLB 5.2B 

that shows a much more consistent and lower degree of settlement. 

The maximum average settlement displayed in the box plots is approximately 0.2m. When this 

is compared with the data spread of approximately 0.3m for that period, it can be concluded 

that a greater degree of settlement is required to derive meaningful results from this 

measurement. Longer-term elevation measurements should provide greater clarity and 

confidence in this parameter. 

Interpretation of the Box Plot: 

95th Percentile 

90th Percentile 

75th Percentile 

Mean Median 

25th Percentile 

10th Percentile 

5th Percentile 

Insufficient data, overlap in waste age, and continued disturbance of the landfill surface may 

confound conclusive trends at this interim stage. 

5-7
Figure 5-4. GPS Settlement Data for Control 

Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Monitoring Point Settlement for Control-A Cell 

2.0 

1.5 

meters of settlement

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

sep 02-jan 03 jan 03-mar 03 mar 03-aug 03 

Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Monitoring Point Settlement for Control-B Cell 

2.0 

1.5 

meters of settlement

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

sep 02-jan 03 jan 03-mar 03 mar 03-aug 03 

5-8 
-0.1 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.2 

meters of settlement meters of settlement 

Figure 5-5. GPS Settlement Data for FLB 

Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Settlement Monitoring Points for FLB-A Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Settlement Monitoring Points for FLB-B 

0.4 0.4 

0.3 0.3 meters of settlement meters of settlement

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

-0.1 

july 01-oct 01

oct 01-jan 02

jan 02-apr 02

apr 02-jul 02

jul 02-oct 02

oct 02-dec 02

dec 02-mar 03

mar 03-jun 03

july 01-oct 01

oct 01-jan 02

jan 02-apr 02

apr 02-jul 02

jul 02-oct 02

oct 02-dec 02

dec 02-mar 03

mar 03-jun 03 

Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Settlement Monitoring Points for FLB-C Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Settlement Monitoring Points for FLB-D 

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 

-0.1 

july 01-oct 01

oct 01-jan 02

jan 02-apr 02

apr 02-jul 02

jul 02-oct 02

oct 02-dec 02

dec 02-mar 03

mar 03-jun 03 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

july 01-oct 01

oct 01-jan 02

jan 02-apr 02

apr 02-jul 02jul 02-oct 02

oct 02-dec 02

dec 02-mar 03

mar 03-jun 03 

5-9

-0.1 

0.0 

0.1 
Figure 5-6. Plan View Contour Plot of Settlement for FLB GPS Monitoring Points 

(6/2001 -6/2003) 

Northing 

-0.45 -0.52 -0.47 -0.37 

-0.90 -0.94 -0.91 -0.99 -1.02 -1.14 -1.33 

-0.77 -1.09 -1.31 -1.10 -1.16 -1.12 -1.40 -1.72 

-0.94 -1.31 -1.56 -1.62 -1.42 -1.24 -1.05 

-0.53 -0.65 -0.86 -1.13 -1.13 -1.44 -1.64 -1.19 

-0.71 -0.64 -1.09 -1.14 -1.88 

-0.45 -0.50 -0.72 -0.95 -0.91 -1.10 -1.12 -0.97 

-0.28 -0.55 -0.74 -0.88 -0.99 -1.40 -1.28 

-0.37 -0.44 -1.20 -1.32 -1.36 

-0.36 -0.46 -0.80 -0.97 -1.09 -1.13 0.79 

-0.25 -0.48 -0.69 -0.82 -1.05 -1.01 -0.13 

-0.74 -0.72 -0.92 -0.94 -0.89 -0.88 -0.66

-0.18 -0.82 -0.80 -0.69 -0.82 -0.82 -0.85 

FLB-A 

FLB-B 

FLB-C 

FLB-D 

-0.32 -0.90 

-0.27 -0.55 

meters 

-1.6 

240000 -1.4 

-1.2 

-1.0 

-0.8 239500 

-0.6 

-0.4 

-0.2 

239000 

0.0 

1576700 1576800 1576900 1577000 1577100 1577200 

Easting 

5-10
meters of settlement meters of settlement 

Figure 5-7. GPS Settlement Data for AALB 

Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Monitoring Point Settlement for AALB-A Cell 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

-0.2 

sep 02-jan 03 jan 03-mar 03 mar 03-aug 03 

Box Plot of Quarterly GPS Monitoring Point Settlement for AALB-B Cell 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

-0.2 

sep 02-jan 03 jan 03-mar 03 mar 03-aug 03 

5-11
Airspace Utilization Factor (AUF) 

In addition to waste settlement data, landfill operators use comparisons of calculated densities 

as a means to benchmark the use of the airspace created during development and filling of the 

landfill cells over time. Such comparisons require volume or weight data to calculate an inplace density of as-received materials. Depending on the calculation desired, these materials 

may be limited to simply waste, or other materials may be added in as well, such as cover 

materials, construction materials, moisture additions, and the like. At the Outer Loop facility, 

these comparisons are termed the Airspace Utilization Factor (AUF) and are calculated as 

follows: 

Calculated In-Place Cell Density (weight, as received waste lbs/cell volume, yd3

) 

AUF= 

Target cell Density (set at 2000 lbs/cubic yard) 

Where 

- the weight of as-received waste materials is from scalehouse data 

- the overall volume of the cell is estimated using GPS or other periodic survey 

methods 

- Target Cell Density is a constant 

- AUF is unit-less. 

Figure 5-8 depicts changes in the AUF values as calculated for the FLB and AALB cells 

(combined) over time. Note that the AUF for the FLB is somewhat constant, rising slowly with 

time, as opposed to significant rises in AUF shown for the AALB. The FLB no longer receives 

waste materials; however, its cell volume is decreasing with time due to settlement. This 

accounts for the increase in the calculated in-place density. The rising plot for AALB is a 

function of the ongoing receipt of wastes and the likely occurrence of waste settlement. 

5-12
Figure 5-8. Airspace Utilization Factor (AUF) vs. Time for 

FLB and AALB 

AUF 

0.70 

0.75 

0.80 

0.85 

0.90 

0.95 

FLB 

AALB 

3/2001 6/2001 9/2001 12/2001 3/2002 6/2002 9/2002 12/2002 3/2003 6/2003 

5-13
LEACHATE QUALITY AND CHARACTERISTICS 

As described in previous sections, leachate analyses have been taken to evaluate changes in 

leachate quality with respect to the program design treatments. Changes in leachate 

parameters are expected to broadly represent the changes in the MSW. For example, the 

impact of nitrified effluent applied to the FLB Landfill in Unit 5 and subsequent denitrification 

should impact the overall mass balance of nitrogen as the nitrogen is converted to nitrogen gas. 

The data collected for COD, BOD, ammonia nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrogen, as 

well as leachate quantification (e.g., production, and head on liner), will be examined further as 

the project progresses. The following represent summaries of the leachate data collected to 

date for the Control, FLB, and AALB units. 

Summary of Leachate Head on Liner 

The head on liner values for the period March 2002 through March 2003 for the AALB, FLB 

and Control Units are presented in Figures 5-9 through 5-14. This parameter was included in 

this investigation to examine measured head on liner for both control and treatment cells. The 

data are presented in the form of scatter plots with running average lines, box plots, and 

histograms. 

In general, mean head levels varied on an approximate seasonal basis, with significant changes 

occurring as a result of precipitation events. In addition, mean head levels remained at or 

below the permitted 12-inch level for the majority of the monitoring program. The exceptions 

to this were: 

• “spikes” due to specific rainfall events; 

• pumping impediments with Unit 5 relative to an apparent under capacity of the SBR; 

and 

• pumping impediments with Unit 7 relative to an apparent under capacity of the leachate 

force main. 

Elevated head levels attributable to precipitation events were managed with time with increased 

leachate pumping. With regard to the apparent under capacity of landfill bioreactor system 

elements, the need for increased pumping capacity was noted and examined in 2002. Design 

changes were determined and approved as part of the facility permit, including a planned 

expansion of the SBR tank and landfill cell pumping capacities. These improvements were 

under construction during early 2003 and are planned for completion in Autumn 2003. 

5-14
12 

14 

Figure 5-9. Daily Mean Head Level for Control-A Cell 

leachate head level (inches) 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

Running Average 

12" Above Liner 

1/1/02 5/1/02 9/1/02 1/1/03 5/1/03 

Histogram of Daily Mean Head Level for Control-A Cell Box Plot of Daily Mean Head Level for Control-A Cell 

18 70 

16 

percentage of total observations

60 

50 

10 

8 

40 

30

leachate head level (inches) 

0 

CONTROL-A <0" 0-12" 12-24" 24-36" >36" 

5-15 range of head level

20 

2 

0 

10 

4 

6 
10 

15 

20 

Figure 5-10. Daily Mean Head Level for Control-B Cell 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Running Average 

12" Above Liner 

leachate head level (inches) 

1/1/2002 5/1/2002 9/1/2002 1/1/2003 5/1/2003 

Box Plot of Daily Mean Head Level for Control-B Cell Histogram of Daily Mean Head Level for Control-B Cell 

70 

60 

percentage of total observations

50 

40 

30 

20

leachate head level (inches) 

10 

0 

CONTROL-B <0" 0-12" 12-24" 24-36" >36" 

range of head level

5-16 

0 

5 
40 

60 

Figure 5-11. Daily Mean Head Level for FLB-A Cell leachate head level (inches) 

-40 

-20 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Running Average 

12" Above Liner 

1/1/2002 5/1/2002 9/1/2002 1/1/2003 5/1/2003 

Histogram of Daily Mean Leachate Head Level for FLB-A Histogram of Daily Mean Leachate Head Level for FLB-A Cell 

100 

80

percentage of total observations

60 

40

leachate head level (inches)

20 

0 

FLB-A < 0" 0-12" 12-24" 24-36" >36" 

5-17 head level range 

-20 

0 

20 
20 

40 

Figure 5-12. Daily Mean Head Level for FLB-D Cell leachate head level (inches) 

-40 

-20 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Running Average 

12" Above Liner 

1/1/2002 5/1/2002 9/1/2002 1/1/2003 5/1/2003 

Histogram of Daily Mean Leachate Head Level for FLB-D Histogram of Daily Mean Leachate Head Level for FLB-D Cell 

60 100 percentage of total observations

80 

60 

40

leachate head level (inches)

20 

0 

< 0" 0-12" 12-24" 24-36" >36" FLB-D 

5-18 head level range 

-40 

-20 

0 
15 

20 

25 

Figure 5-13. Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-A Cell

Leachate Head Level (inches) 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

Running Average 

12" Above Liner 

01/01/02 05/01/02 09/01/02 01/01/03 05/01/03 

Box Plot of Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-A Cell Histogram of Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-A Cell 

80 

percentage of total observations

60 

40

leachate head level (inches)

20 

0 

<0" 0-12" 12-24" 24-36" >36" 

AALB-A 

5-19 head level range 

0 

5 

10 
15 

20 

25 

Figure 5-14. Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-B Cell leachate head level (inches) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

Running Average 

12" Above Liner 

1/1/02 5/1/02 9/1/02 1/1/03 5/1/03 

Box Plot of Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-B Cell Histogram of Daily Mean Head Level for AALB-B Cell 

100 

percentage of total observations

80 

60 

40

leachate head level (inches)

20 

0 

<0" 0-12" 12-24" 24-36" >36" AALB-B 

head level range

5-20 

0 

5 

10 
Summary of Leachate Production 

Cumulative leachate production is measured for each of the study cells, Control, FLB, and 

AALB. Measurements are taken on a continuous basis at half-hour intervals via a totalizer flow 

meter. The cumulative leachate production with time for each of the Units is presented in 

Figures 5-15 through 5-17. 

The Control cells are operated as a conventional Subtitle D landfill with no additional fluids 

added. The rate of accumulation of leachate in Control 7.3A remained relatively steady over the 

period March 2002 through March 2003 averaging approximately 700m3/month, with a total 

accumulated volume over the period of ~9,000m3. Spikes in the rate of accumulation represent 

significant rain events. Control 7.3B showed a much lower rate of leachate production, 

accumulating only approximately 400m3

 for that same period. One potential explanation for 

this difference is that Control A has significantly less surface area exposed than Control B. 

Therefore it has a much smaller precipitation catchment area relative to the footprint of that cell 

compared with Control B. 

The FLB Unit 5 is not currently active with the last waste received in March 2001. Nitrate 

enriched leachate addition was initiated in March 2002 and ceased in September 2002. 

Leachate production in these cells is lower than that of both the AALB and the Control. Both 

cells 5.1A and 5.2B showed a relatively steady rate of leachate production from January 2002 

until mid-September 2002, at approximately 100 and 155m3

/month respectively. From midSeptember through October 2002 a dramatic increase in leachate production was seen with 

~1100m3

 produced in 5.1A and ~1400m3 produced in 5.2B. From November through March 

2003, there was a relatively constant rate of leachate production in both cells of 240m3/month. 

One potential explanation for the increase in leachate production from mid-September through 

October 2002 may be a time lag on the order of approximately six months for the additional 

fluids added to permeate through the landfill. These moisture quantities did not start appearing 

at the collection point until mid-September. The additional leachate produced at that time may 

have been a combination of both the additional fluids added and a consequence of heavy 

rainfall during the Spring period. One other explanation, or an additional part of the 

explanation, was that boring samples were taken in September 2002. The bore holes were back 

filled with permeable tire chips in order to create direct conduits for fluid to pass through the 

landfill and avoid perched liquids as were observed during the boring activity. 

The AALB units are currently receiving waste and contain the youngest waste of all three units 

in the study. Additional fluids are added to this bioreactor on an ongoing basis as successive 

lifts of waste are placed. Both cells showed a steady rate of leachate production for the period 

March 2002 through March 2003. In both cells, the rate of leachate production was an order of 

magnitude higher than either the FLB or control at 4000m3

/month for 7.4A and 

2500m3

/month for 7.4B. The total leachate accumulate over the period was 52000m3 in 7.4A 

and 30000m3 in 7.4B. 

5-21
12000 

Figure 5-15. Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: Control Cells

3 m

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

3/2002 6/2002 9/2002 12/2002 3/2003 6/2003 

CONTROL (7.3A) 

CONTROL (7.3B) 

5-22
Figure 5-16. Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: FLB Cells

m 3 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

FLB (5.1A) 

FLB (5.2D) 

1/2002 4/2002 7/2002 10/2002 1/2003 4/2003 

5-23
Figure 5-17. Cumulative Leachate Production vs. Time: AALB Cells

3 m 

70000 

60000 

50000 

40000 

AALB (7.4A) 

AALB (7.4B) 

30000 

20000 

10000 

0 

3/2002 6/2002 9/2002 12/2002 3/2003 6/2003 

5-24
Summary of Leachate Temperature 

Leachate temperature was measured for each of the study units using a Hanna Instruments 

Model HI 991301 pH/conductance/temperature probe. Figure 5-18 shows the temperature of 

leachate from each of these units. The temperature of the FLB and Control units remained 

relatively consistent over the period monitored, with the variation seen in both Control Cells 

attributable to seasonal variations. The temperature in both AALB units appear to show a slight 

upward trend over the period January 2001 through July 2002, before leveling off for the 

remaining period at a temperature closer to that recorded for the FLB unit versus the Control. 

Both cells in each unit display similar trends. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the 

data are provided below In Table 5-2. 

TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE TEMPERATURE 

Cell Minimum 

Temperature 

Maximum 

Temperature 

Mean 

Temperature 

Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 23.0 34.6 29.58 3.4048 

FLB 5.2B 21.1 31.1 25.82 2.5980 

Control 7.3A 9.5 25.3 16.24 4.9550 

Control 7.3B 6.8 25.1 16.99 5.2618 

AALB 7.4A 19.8 34.7 29.08 4.6699 

AALB 7.4B 15.3 33.8 24.96 5.4191 

Summary of Leachate pH 

Leachate pH readings were collected and analyzed on a monthly basis using field electrodes, 

results are shown graphically in Figure 5-19. From the graph, the Control and FLB units show 

relatively constant pH measurements averaging a pH 7 over the June 2001 through April 2003 

time period. By comparison, measurements for the AALB study unit did not begin until 

December 2002 and showed a greater degree of variation, ranging from a pH of below 6 in 

AALB-B to over 7.5. The AALB pH levels stabilized over the course of the six-month period, 

with current pH averaging approximately 7. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the 

data are provided below in Table 5-3. 

TABLE 5-3. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE pH 

Cell Minimum pH 

Measured 

Maximum pH 

Measured 

Mean pH Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 6.92 7.56 7.22 0.15513 

FLB 5.2B 6.84 7.33 7.16 0.13203 

Control 7.3A 6.38 7.31 6.83 0.29601 

Control 7.3B 6.14 7.20 6.75 0.33671 

AALB 7.4A 6.31 7.40 7.07 0.27369 

AALB 7.4B 5.89 7.57 6.96 0.50964 

5-25
Summary of Leachate COD 

The COD concentration from the Control units and the AALB units are variable. 

Concentrations range from under 100 mg/l to approximately 6,000 mg/l, in Control 7.3B, and 

approximately 1,000 to 30,000 mg/l in the AALB 7.4A. These ranges are comparable with 

those of the duplicate cells in those units. This variation in the COD concentration corresponds 

to the addition or presence of newer waste to the landfill units. COD measurements in the FLB 

study unit remain more constant, with the exception of a sharp dip in COD concentrations 

recorded for FLB 5.2 in March 2002. COD measurements following the March 2002 reading 

in FLB 5.2 stabilize and average approximately 1000 mg/l for the remaining period of 

measurement, as represented graphically in Figure 5-20. Basic statistical parameters calculated 

from the data are provided below in Table 5-4. 

TABLE 5-4. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE COD 

Cell Minimum COD 

Measured 

Maximum COD 

Measured 

Mean COD Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 882.0 2620 1848.0 449.1 

FLB 5.2B 114.0 3560 1366.0 640.7 

Control 7.3A 114.0 3170 667.2 721.0 

Control 7.3B 60.3 5720 963.8 1297.2 

AALB 7.4A 916.0 30900 5282.0 7488.5 

AALB 7.4B 1840.0 26000 7222.0 7039.3 

Summary of Leachate BOD 

Sampling for BOD began in June 2001 for both the Control and FLB units. Sampling for BOD 

in the AALB began in December 2001. Results of the BOD analysis are shown graphically in 

Figure 5-21. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are also provided below in 

Table 5-5. 

BOD levels showed considerable variation early in the sampling process in the Control and 

AALB units. Levels in the Control showed values ranging from below 50 mg/l to greater than 

5,000 mg/l in the first 13 months of sampling. The AALB indicated similar values, but has 

continued to show varied readings through the most recently reported sampling events. BOD 

results for the FLB show less varied results with values ranging from approximately 100 mg/l 

to 1,000 mg/l. 

TABLE 5-5. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE BOD 

Cell Minimum BOD 

Measured 

Maximum BOD 

Measured 

Mean BOD Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 32.9 1060 189.0 228.7 

FLB 5.2B 24.9 783 156.0 185.7 

Control 7.3A 14.6 1820 155.6 395.4 

Control 7.3B 9.2 31400 1784.0 6805.0 

AALB 7.4A 20.0 15000 1967.0 3427.1 

AALB 7.4B 142.0 54400 6233.0 12546.6 

5-26
Temperature (

oC)

Figure 5-18. Leachate Temperature vs. Time 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

40 

30 

20 

FLB-A 

FLB-D 

10 

0 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

5-27 

6/03 
(s.u.)

Figure 5-19. Leachate pH vs. Time

8

7

6

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

8

7

6 FLB-D 

FLB-A 

8

7

6

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

5-28 

6/03 
COD (mg/L)

Figure 5-20. Leachate COD vs. Time

100000 

10000 

1000 

100 

10 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

100000 

10000 

1000 

100 

10 

FLB-D 

FLB-A 

100000 

10000 

1000 

100 

10 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

5-29 

6/03 
BOD (mg/L)

Figure 5-21. Leachate BOD vs. Time

100000 

10000 

1000 

100 

10 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

100000 

10000 

1000 

100 

10 

FLB-A 

FLB-D 

100000 

10000 

1000 

100 

10 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

5-30 

6/03 
Summary of Leachate Conductance 

The leachate conductance for each of the three study units is shown graphically in Figure 5-22. 

Conductance was measured on a monthly basis using a field electrode. 

Conductance levels in the FLB and AALB were considerably higher than those levels found in 

the Control unit. Results in the FLB ranged from approximately 9,000 umhos/cm to 

15,000 umhos/cm. Results for the AALB showed readings that varied between 

6,000 umhos/cm to nearly 17,000 umhos/cm. Levels for the Control unit indicated relatively 

stable reading that averaged 3,000 umhos/cm, with a spike in the September 2002 sampling of 

12,000 umhos/cm, levels returned to the 3,000 umhos/cm range following this sampling event. 

Summary of Leachate Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N) Levels 

Ammonia Nitrogen Levels in leachate were analyzed in samples taken on a monthly basis. 

Results of Ammonia Nitrogen levels in leachate are shown graphically in Figure 5-23. Basic 

statistical parameters calculated from the data are provided below in Table 5-6. 

Sampling began in June 2001 for the Control and FLB units and in December 2001 for the 

AALB unit. Samples for all three of the study units show relatively consistent results 

averaging approximately 500 mg/l in the Control and AALB units. The FLB unit showed a 

higher average of approximately 1000 mg/l. 

TABLE 5-6. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE AMMONIA-NITROGEN LEVELS 

Cell Min [NH4-N] 

Measured 

Max [NH4-N] 

Measured 

Mean [NH4-N] Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 551 19200 2445 4410 

FLB 5.2B 432 7010 1291 1393 

Control 7.3A 67 1420 460 432 

Control 7.3B 49 1410 376 406 

AALB 7.4A 162 2720 922 653 

AALB 7.4B 97 1540 921 463 

Summary of Leachate Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3-N) Levels 

Nitrate-Nitrogen levels (NO3-N) were analyzed from samples taken on a monthly basis in the 

laboratory using EPA Method 353.2. Sample results for the three study units are displayed in 

Figure 5-24. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are provided below in 

Table 5-7. 

Both the Control and FLB units showed a relatively stable nitrate level over the period 6/01 

through 4/03, typically in the 0.01 to 0.1mg/L range. The AALB unit showed greater variability 

over the period of measurement, 12/01 through 4/03, in both A and B cells. AALB A showed 

concentrations typically in the same, to one order of magnitude higher, range as the Control and 

FLB units. AALB B, however, showed overall higher nitrate levels, typically one order of 

magnitude but reaching levels of >10mg/L. 

5-31
TABLE 5-7. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE NITRATE-NITROGEN

Cell Min [NO3-N] 

Measured 

Max [NO3-N] 

Measured 

Mean [NO3-N] Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.04 

FLB 5.2B 0.02 0.20 0.04 0.05 

Control 7.3A 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.06 

Control 7.3B 0.02 0.26 0.05 0.06 

AALB 7.4A 0.02 1.70 0.22 0.40 

AALB 7.4B 0.02 26.50 2.31 6.38 

Summary of Leachate Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2-N) Levels 

Leachate nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N) measurements are taken on a monthly basis for all three of 

the study units, plots showing the concentrations vs. time are shown in Figure 5-25. Sample 

collection started in 6/01 for the FLB and Control units, and 12/01 for the AALB unit. Basic 

statistical parameters calculated from the data are provided below in Table 5-8. 

Trends for nitrite-nitrogen have remained relatively steady for the FLB and Control units with 

measurements averaging in both cases approximately 0.1mg/L (typical range 0.05 – 0.5mg/L). 

The measurements for the AALB A cell were comparable with the Control and FLB. AALB B 

showed greater fluctuation with measurements varying between 0.1 to 10mg/l in the first eight 

to nine months of measurement. AALB B nitrite levels showed indications of stabilization 

around August 2002, with readings averaging 0.1 mg/l. 

TABLE 5-8. SUMMARY OF NITRITE-NITROGEN 

Cell Min [NO2-N] 

Measured 

Max [NO2-N] 

Measured 

Mean [NO2-N] Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 0.02 0.28 0.08 0.07 

FLB 5.2B 0.02 0.24 0.06 0.06 

Control 7.3A 0.02 0.28 0.06 0.07 

Control 7.3B 0.02 2.00 0.19 0.45 

AALB 7.4A 0.05 0.65 0.24 0.18 

AALB 7.4B 0.09 10.70 1.30 2.78 

5-32
Figure 5-22. Leachate Conductance vs. Time

18000 

15000 

12000 

9000 

6000 

3000 

0 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

18000 

15000 

12000 

9000 

6000 

3000 

0 

FLB-A 

FLB-D 

18000 

15000 

12000 

9000 

6000 

3000 

0 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

conductivity (

mmhos/cm)

5-33

6/03 
Figure 5-23. Leachate NH3-N vs. Time

NH3-N (mg/L) 

10 

100 

1000 

10000 

FLB-A 

FLB-D 

10 

100 

1000 

10000 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

10000

1000

100

10

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 6/03 

5-34
Figure 5-24. Leachate NO3-N vs. Time 

10

1

0.1

0.01

10

1

0.1

0.01

FLB A 

NO

3-N (mg/L)

FLB B 

Control A 

Control B 

AALB A 

AALB B 

10

1

0.1

0.01

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

5-35

6/03 
Figure 5-25. Leachate NO2-N vs. Time

0.01 

0.1 

1 

10 

Control A Detect 

Control A Non-Detect 

0.01

0.1

1

10

Control B Detect 

Control B Non-Detect 

0.01 

0.1 

1 

10 

FLB A Detect 

FLB A Non-Detect 

NO2 -N (mg/L)

0.01

0.1

1

10

FLB B Detect 

FLB B Non-Detect 

0.01 

0.1 

1 

10 

AALB A Detect 

AALB A Non-Detect 

0.01

0.1

1

10

AALB B Detect 

AALB B Non-Detect 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 6/03 

5-36
Summary of Leachate o -Phosphate 

Leachate o-phosphate measurements were taken on a monthly basis and are displayed 

graphically in Figure 5-26. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are also 

provided below in Table 5-9. Measurements for total o-Phosphate commenced for the FLB and 

Control units in June 2001, with AALB measurements beginning in December 2001. 

Measurements for the Control and FLB remain relatively stable with results averaging 1 to 3 

mg/l. An increase in level to 7 mg/l for FLB 5.2B was recorded in February 2002. A similar 

increase in the Control unit was recorded in August 2002. o-Phosphate levels in the AALB unit 

indicate levels ranging between 1 mg/l to 15 mg/l. 

TABLE 5-9. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE o-PHOSPHATE 

Cell Minimum 

[o-Phosphate] 

Maximum 

[o-Phosphate] 

Mean [oPhosphate] 

Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 1.6 4.6 2.9 0.8 

FLB 5.2B 0.5 6.8 2.0 1.3 

Control 7.3A 0.1 3.4 1.1 0.8 

Control 7.3B 0.3 4.8 1.1 1.0 

AALB 7.4A 0.8 15.4 3.4 3.5 

AALB 7.4B 1.2 8.2 3.7 2.0 

Summary of Leachate Total Phosphorus 

Total phosphorous in leachate was measured for the three study units beginning in June 2001 

for the Control and FLB, and in December 2001 for the AALB. Total phosphorous 

measurements are shown graphically in Figure 5-27. Basic statistical parameters calculated 

from the data are also provided below in Table 5-10. 

Total phosphorous results show stable readings for both the Control and FLB units. Readings 

averaged approximately 2 to 3 mg/l for both of these units. The AALB results fluctuated more 

in comparison with the Control and FLB units, with measurements from near 0 mg/l to 10 mg/l, 

with the highest results recorded from July 2002 to August 2002. 

TABLE 5-10. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS 

Cell Minimum 

[Total P] 

Maximum 

[Total P] 

Mean [Total P] Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 0.77 5.3 2.9 1.2 

FLB 5.2B 1.00 14.2 3.3 2.9 

Control 7.3A 0.11 5.3 1.5 1.3 

Control 7.3B 0.11 5.6 1.8 1.5 

AALB 7.4A 0.92 21.6 5.4 5.1 

AALB 7.4B 0.33 10.5 3.8 3.2 

5-37
Summary of Leachate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 

Total TKN in leachate is taken on a quarterly basis for each of the study units. A summary of 

the total TKN in leachate vs. time are shown in Figure 5-28. Measurements for Total TKN in 

the Control and FLB study units began in June 2001. From the Figure, total TKN in the 

Control unit maintains relatively stable measurements with time, averaging approximately 

200 mg/l in unit A and 100 mg/l in unit B. Measurements for total TKN in the FLB study cells 

show a greater degree of variation than displayed in the control unit, with cells 5.1A and 5.2B 

ranging in concentrations from approximately 75 mg/l to 1100 mg/l. Sampling for the total 

TKN in the AALB study units began in March 2002, and showed concentrations varying 

between near 0 mg/l to over 700 mg/l. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are 

also provided below in Table 5-11. 

TABLE 5-11. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE TKN 

Cell Minimum 

[TKN] 

Maximum 

[TKN] 

Mean [TKN] Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 189 1160 812.7 348.8 

FLB 5.2B 89.2 1040 585.2 365.6 

Control 7.3A 91.9 371 194.1 94.1 

Control 7.3B 12.6 390 94.7 123.1 

AALB 7.4A 26.5 434 246.7 174.9 

AALB 7.4B 100 721 298.6 251.0 

Summary of Leachate Total Dissolved Solids 

Results are shown graphically in Figure 5-29. Sampling for the Control and FLB units began 

in June 2002 and sampling for total dissolved solids for the AALB began in March 2002. 

Results for the Control unit show consistent readings for total dissolved solids averaging 

2,500 mg/l through the sampling event in April 2003. Results for the FLB indicate stable 

readings averaging 5,500 mg/l. An increase to 25,000 mg/l indicated for the January 2003 

sample for FLB 5.1, results returned to 5,500 mg/l for the February 2003. Sample results for 

the AALB unit range between 5,000 mg/l to 10,000 mg/l. 

5-38
o-PO

4 (mg/L)

Figure 5-26. Leachate o-Phosphate vs. Time

20

15

10

50

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

20

15

10

50

FLB-A 

FLB-D 

20

15

10

50

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 6/03 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

5-39
Figure 5-27. Leachate Total Phosphorus vs. Time 

20

15

10

5

0

20

15

10

5 

0

20

15

10

5 

0 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 6/03 

Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

FLB-A 

FLB-D 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

5-40
Figure 5-28. Leachate TKN vs. Time

TKN (mg/L) 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

FLB-A 

FLB-D 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 6/03 

5-41
Figure 5-29. Leachate Total Dissolved Solids vs. Time

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

0 

5000 

10000 

15000 

20000 

25000 

FLB-A

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

FLB-D 

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 6/03 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

5-42
Summary of Leachate Sulfate 

Sulfate was measured in leachate beginning in June 2001 for both the Control and FLB, and 

beginning in March 2002 for the AALB. The results for concentrations of sulfate in leachate 

are shown graphically in Figure 5-30. 

Sulfate was detected in all three of the study units, but at low concentrations. Sulfate levels in 

the Control indicate consistent measurements with readings averaging <100 mg/l. Sulfate 

levels for the control steadily increase with measurements averaging approximately 200 mg/l 

by March 2003. A sharp spike of 900 mg/l was noted for the March 2003 sampling event. 

Sulfate in the FLB remains consistent with readings averaging <100 mg/l. An increase to 

approximately 200 mg/l was recorded in March 2002, but returned to previous levels the 

following sampling event. Sulfate measurements in leachate for the AALB indicated similar 

values to measurements recorded for the FLB, with results averaging <100 mg/l. 

Summary of Leachate Chloride 

Chloride was measured in leachate beginning in June 2001 for both the Control and FLB units, 

and beginning in March 2002 for the AALB. Results of the Chloride in leachate are displayed 

graphically in Figure 5-31. 

Chloride was detected in the leachate samples for the Control units within a range of close to 

0 mg/l up to approximately 750 mg/l, with results remaining consistent. Samples for the FLB 

show chloride typically ranging in concentration from approximately 1000mg/l to 2,300 mg/l, 

with one atypical value at close to 0 mg/l. Chloride levels in the FLB unit were consistently 

higher than those of the Control. Samples for the AALB show good consistency between the 

AALB 7.4A and AALB 7.4B units, with concentrations ranging between approximately 

500 mg/l to 1,250 mg/l. Results are summarized below in Table 5-12. 

TABLE 5-12. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE CHLORIDE 

Cell Minimum 

[Chloride] 

Maximum 

[Chloride] 

Mean [Chloride] Standard 

Deviation 

FLB 5.1A 1.0 2350 163.0 552.31 

FLB 5.2B 1.0 2340 150.1 548.46 

Control 7.3A 1.0 389 24.1 91.14 

Control 7.3B 1.0 1010 109.3 263.81 

AALB 7.4A 1.0 1650 484.2 554.73 

AALB 7.4B 2.9 2580 582.1 845.87 

5-43
Summary of Leachate Total Potassium 

Total potassium in leachate was measured for the three study units beginning in June 2001 for 

the Control and FLB units, and in March 2002 for the AALB unit. Figure 5-32 shows results 

for the three study units. 

Total potassium measurements for the Control sample indicate relatively consistent results with 

readings averaging 100 mg/l. The FLB unit indicates more varied results with results ranging 

from 400 mg/l to nearly 1,000 mg/l. The AALB unit indicates more consistent readings with 

results averaging 500 mg/l. 

Summary of Leachate Volatile Organic Acids 

Samples of volatile organic acids (VOAs) in leachate are collected on a monthly basis. 

Samples are collected for acetic, butyric, formic, and lactic acids. Sample results are shown 

graphically for each representative acid and can be found in Figures 5-33 through 5-38. 

Samples were collected for the three study units beginning November 2001 for the Control and 

FLB, and in December 2001 for the AALB. 

Acetic Acid --

Acetic acid in leachate was typically detected in the Control and FLB at levels near 0 mg/l. 

The Control unit showed the odd spike early in the sampling program up to approximately 

1,000 mg/l. The FLB showed spikes of up to approximately 2,500 mg/l. Acetic acid levels in 

both the Control and FLB returned to near 0 mg/l following the elevated readings. 

Acetic acid in leachate in the AALB unit shows much more varied readings over the same 

period from near 0 mg/l up to near 2,500 mg/l. These varied results continue throughout the 

period to date. Basic statistical parameters calculated from the data are also provided below. 

Butyric Acid --

Butyric acid in leachate was detected in the Control and FLB units at levels near 0 mg/l. The 

Control and FLB results indicate relatively stable measurements with occasional peaks that 

range between 0 mg/l and 2,000 mg/l. In the cases of the elevated readings, levels returned to 

near 0 mg/l in the subsequent sampling events. 

Levels of butyric acid in the AALB showed varied results in comparison to the Control and 

FLB units. Measurements indicate ranges between 0 mg/l and to 1,000 mg/l. 

5-44
Sulfate (mg/L)

Figure 5-30. Leachate Sulfate vs. Time

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Control A Detect 

Control A Non-Detect 

Control B Detect 

Control B Non-Detect 

1000

800

600

400

200

0

FLB-A Detect 

FLB A Non-Detect 

FLB B Detect 

FLB B Non-Detect 

1000

800

600

400

200

0

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

AALB A Detect 

AALB A Non-Detect 

AALB B Detect 

AALB B Non-Detect 

5-45

6/03 
Chloride (mg/L)

Figure 5-31. Leachate Chloride vs. Time

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

FLB-A 

FLB-D 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500

0

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

5-46

6/03 
1000 

Total Potassium (mg/L)

Figure 5-32. Leachate Total Potassium vs. Time 

800

600

400

200

0

1000

800

600

400

200

0

1000

800

600

400

200

0

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

FLB-A 

FLB-D 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

5-47 

6/03 
Formic Acid --

Formic acid in leachate was detected in the three study units, with sampling beginning in 

December 2001. Figure 5-35 shows the graphical results of formic acid levels in leachate for 

the three study units. 

Levels of formic acid for all three of the study units showed varying results ranging from near 0 

mg/l to nearly 25 mg/l. Results for the Control and FLB units showed stabilization near 0 mg/l 

beginning in the August 2002 sampling event, while the AALB began stabilizing to near 0 mg/l 

in the February 2003 sampling period. 

Lactic Acid --

Results for lactic acid in leachate samples are shown graphically in Figure 5-36. Sampling for 

lactic acid began in November 2002 for the Control and FLB units, and in December 2002 for 

the AALB unit. Results indicate non-detects for a majority of the sampling events. 

Propionic Acid --

Propionic acid samples were collected in the three study units beginning in November 2001 for 

the Control and FLB units, and in December 2001 for the AALB. Sample results are shown 

graphically in Figure 5-37. 

Levels of propionic acid in the Control and FLB units were relatively stable with results 

averaging 0 mg/l. The FLB unit showed two spikes in the results with values near 3,000 mg/l 

in April and November 2002, levels returned to near 0 mg/l in the following sampling event. 

The AALB unit showed more varied results with reading ranging from 0 mg/l to 2000 mg/l. 

Pyruvic Acid --

Pyruvic acid samples were collected for all three units of study beginning in December 2002. 

Results are shown graphically in Figure 5-38. 

Pyruvic acid levels show varied results in the all three of the study units. Results for the three 

units’ range in concentration from near 0mg/l to 175 mg/l in the FLB. Similar results were 

found for the Control and AALB. 

5-48
Figure 5-33. Leachate Acetic Acid vs. Time

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Control A Detect 

Control A Non-Detect 

Control B Detect 

Control B Non-Detect 

Acetic Acid (mg/L)

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

FLB A Detect 

FLB A Non-Detect 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

FLB B Detect 

FLB B Non-Detect 

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

AALB A Detect 

AALB A Non-Detect 

AALB B Detect 

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 6/03 

5-49 
Butyric Acid (mg/L)

Figure 5-34. Leachate Butyric Acid vs. Time

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Control A Detect 

Control A Non-Detect 

Control B Detect 

Control B Non-Detect 

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

FLB A Detect 

FLB A Non-Detect 

FLB B Detect 

FLB B Non-Detect 

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

AALB A Detect 

AALB A Non-Detect 

AALB B Detect 

5-50

6/03 
Formic Acid (mg/L)

Figure 5-35. Leachate Formic Acid vs. Time 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

50

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 6/03 

Control A Detect 

Control A Non-Detect 

Control B Detect 

Control B Non-Detect 

FLB A Detect 

FLB B Detect 

FLB B Non-Detect 

AALB A Detect 

AALB A Non-Detect 

AALB B Detect 

AALb B Non-Detect 

5-51
300 

Lactic Acid (mg/L)

Figure 5-36. Leachate Lactic Acid vs. Time 

200

100

0

300

200

100

0

300

200

100

0

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

Control A Detect 

Control A Non-Detect 

Control B Detect 

Control B Non-Detect 

FLB A Detect 

FLB A Non-Detect 

FLB B Detect 

FLB B Non-Detect 

AALB A Detect 

AALB A Non-Detect 

AALB B Detect 

AALB B Non-Detect 

5-52

6/03 
Propionic Acid (mg/L)

Figure 5-37. Leachate Propionic Acid vs. Time

3000

2000

1000

0

Control A Detect 

Control A Non-Detect 

Control B Detect 

Control B Non-Detect 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

FLB A Detect 

FLB A Non-Detect 

FLB B Detect 

FLB B Non-Detect 

3000

2000

1000

0

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

AALB A Detect 

AALB A Non-Detect 

AALB B Detect 

AALB B Non-Detect 

5-53

6/03 
Figure 5-38. Leachate Pyruvic Acid vs. Time 

200

150

100

50

0

200

150

100

50

0

Control A Non-Detect 

Control B Non-Detect 

Pyruvic Acid (mg/L)

FLB A Non-Detect 

FLB B Non-Detect 

200

150

100

50

0

6/01 10/01 2/02 6/02 10/02 2/03 

AALB A Non-Detect 

AALB B Non-Detect 

5-54

6/03 
Summary of Leachate Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in leachate are summarized in a series of detection 

frequency tables shown in Tables 5-13 through 5-18. The tables include a list of the VOC 

constituents that were analyzed as well as the number of samples taken for each study cell, the 

number of non-detects, number of readings between 1.0 and 100 mg/l, and number of readings 

greater than 100 mg/l for each compound analyzed. Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 

8260. 

VOC constituents that were present in the Control, FLB and AALB units include benzene, 

toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, 1,4-dichlorobenzene and methylene chloride. These VOC 

constituents were detected in all of the study units. A total of 9 percent of the samples were 

within the 1.0-100 ug/l range, with 4 percent of the samples are levels greater than 100 ug/l. 

TABLE 5-13. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE 

CONTROL 7.3A, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 8 7 1 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 8 8 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 2 6 0 

2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 8 8 0 0 

2-Hexanone 8 8 0 0 

Acetone 8 5 1 2 

Acrolein 8 8 0 0 

Acrylonitrile 8 8 0 0 

Benzene 8 0 8 0 

Bromochloromethane 8 8 0 0 

Bromoform 8 8 0 0 

Bromomethane 8 8 0 0 

Carbon Disulfide 8 7 1 0 

Carbon Tetrachloride 8 8 0 0 

Chlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Chloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Chloroform 8 7 1 0 

Chloromethane 8 8 0 0 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 8 8 0 0 

Dibromochloromethane 8 8 0 0 

5-55
VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Dibromomethane 8 8 0 0 

Dichlorobromomethane 8 8 0 0 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 8 8 0 0 

Ethyl methacrylate 8 8 0 0 

Ethylbenzene 8 0 8 0 

Iodomethane 8 8 0 0 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 8 5 1 2 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 8 6 0 2 

Methylene chloride 8 2 6 0 

Styrene 8 8 0 0 

Tetrachloroethene 8 6 2 0 

Toluene 8 3 3 2 

Total Xylene 8 0 4 4 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 8 8 0 0 

trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 8 8 0 0 

Trichloroethene 8 6 2 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 8 8 0 0 

Vinyl acetate 8 8 0 0 

Vinyl chloride 8 6 2 2 

Total 408 348 46 14 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B) 

TABLE 5-14. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE 

CONTROL 7.3B, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 7 7 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 7 7 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 7 7 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 7 7 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 7 7 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 7 7 0 0 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 7 7 0 0 

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 7 7 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane 7 7 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 7 7 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobethane 7 7 0 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 7 7 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 7 1 6 0 

2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 7 7 0 0 

2-Hexanone 7 7 0 0 

Acetone 7 3 1 3 

Acrolein 7 7 0 0 

Acrylonitrile 7 7 0 0 

Benzene 7 2 5 0 

Bromochloromethane 7 7 0 0 

5-56
VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Bromoform 7 7 0 0 

Bromomethane 7 7 0 0 

Carbon Disulfide 7 7 0 0 

Carbon Tetrachloride 7 7 0 0 

Chlorobenzene 7 7 0 0 

Chloroethane 7 7 0 0 

Chloroform 7 6 1 0 

Chloromethane 7 7 0 0 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 7 7 0 0 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 7 7 0 0 

Dibromochloromethane 7 7 0 0 

Dibromomethane 7 7 0 0 

Dichlorobromomethane 7 7 0 0 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 7 7 0 0 

Ethyl methacrylate 7 7 0 0 

Ethylbenzene 7 0 4 2 

Iodomethane 7 7 0 0 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 7 4 0 2 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 7 6 1 0 

Methylene chloride 7 5 2 0 

Styrene 7 7 0 0 

Tetrachloroethene 7 7 0 0 

Toluene 7 2 4 1 

Total Xylene 7 0 2 5 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 7 7 0 0 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 7 7 0 0 

trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 7 7 0 0 

Trichloroethene 7 7 0 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 7 7 0 0 

Vinyl acetate 7 7 0 0 

Vinyl chloride 7 3 4 0 

Total 357 313 30 14 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B) 

TABLE 5-15. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE 

FLB 5.1A, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 9 9 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 9 9 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 9 9 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 9 9 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 9 9 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 9 9 0 0 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 9 9 0 0 

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 9 9 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane 9 9 0 0 

5-57
VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 9 9 0 0 

1,2-Dichloroethane 9 9 0 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 9 9 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 9 1 8 0 

2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 9 9 0 0 

2-Hexanone 9 8 0 1 

Acetone 9 7 1 1 

Acrolein 9 0 0 0 

Acrylonitrile 9 9 0 0 

Benzene 9 8 1 0 

Bromochloromethane 9 9 0 0 

Bromoform 9 9 0 0 

Bromomethane 9 9 0 0 

Carbon Disulfide 9 9 0 0 

Carbon Tetrachloride 9 9 0 0 

Chlorobenzene 9 9 0 0 

Chloroethane 9 9 0 0 

Chloroform 9 9 0 0 

Chloromethane 9 9 0 0 

Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 9 9 0 0 

Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 9 9 0 0 

Dibromochloromethane 9 9 0 0 

Dibromomethane 9 9 0 0 

Dichlorobromomethane 9 9 0 0 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 9 9 0 0 

Ethyl methacrylate 9 9 0 0 

Ethylbenzene 9 0 9 0 

Iodomethane 9 9 0 0 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 9 4 3 2 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 9 7 2 0 

Methylene chloride 9 4 5 0 

Styrene 9 9 0 0 

Tetrachloroethene 9 9 0 0 

Toluene 9 1 8 0 

Total Xylene 9 0 2 7 

Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 9 9 0 0 

Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 9 9 0 0 

Trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 9 9 0 0 

Trichloroethene 9 9 0 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 9 9 0 0 

Vinyl acetate 9 9 0 0 

Vinyl chloride 9 8 1 0 

Total 459 408 40 11 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B) 

5-58
TABLE 5-16. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE

FLB 5.2B, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002

VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane 8 7 1 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dichloroethane 8 7 1 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 8 8 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 1 7 0 

2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 8 8 0 0 

2-Hexanone 8 8 0 0 

Acetone 8 3 3 2 

Acrolein 8 8 0 0 

Acrylonitrile 8 8 0 0 

Benzene 8 2 6 0 

Bromochloromethane 8 8 0 0 

Bromoform 8 8 0 0 

Bromomethane 8 8 0 0 

Carbon Disulfide 8 8 0 0 

Carbon Tetrachloride 8 8 0 0 

Chlorobenzene 8 7 1 0 

Chloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Chloroform 8 7 1 0 

Chloromethane 8 8 0 0 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 8 8 0 0 

Dibromochloromethane 8 8 0 0 

Dibromomethane 8 8 0 0 

Dichlorobromomethane 8 8 0 0 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 8 8 0 0 

Ethyl methacrylate 8 8 0 0 

Ethylbenzene 8 0 7 1 

Iodomethane 8 8 0 0 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 8 5 2 1 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 8 7 1 0 

Methylene chloride 8 5 3 0 

Styrene 8 8 0 0 

Tetrachloroethene 8 8 0 0 

Toluene 8 2 6 0 

Total Xylene 8 0 0 8 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 8 8 0 0 

trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 8 8 0 0 

5-59
VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Trichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 8 8 0 0 

Vinyl acetate 8 8 0 0 

Vinyl chloride 8 7 1 0 

Total 408 356 40 12 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B) 

TABLE 5-17. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE 

AALB 7.4A, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

VOC Compounds 

Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 4 4 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4 4 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4 4 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 4 4 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 4 4 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 4 4 0 0 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 4 4 0 0 

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 4 4 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane 4 4 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 4 4 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 4 4 0 0 

2-Hexanone 4 4 0 0 

Acetone 4 1 0 3 

Acrolein 4 4 0 0 

Acrylonitrile 4 4 0 0 

Benzene 4 3 1 0 

Bromochloromethane 4 4 0 0 

Bromoform 4 4 0 0 

Bromomethane 4 4 0 0 

Carbon Disulfide 4 4 0 0 

Carbon Tetrachloride 4 4 0 0 

Chlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Chloroethane 4 4 0 0 

Chloroform 4 4 0 0 

Chloromethane 4 4 0 0 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 4 4 0 0 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 4 4 0 0 

Dibromochloromethane 4 4 0 0 

Dibromomethane 4 4 0 0 

Dichlorobromomethane 4 4 0 0 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 4 4 0 0 

Ethyl methacrylate 4 4 0 0 

5-60
VOC Compounds 

Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Ethylbenzene 4 0 4 0 

Iodomethane 4 4 0 0 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 4 1 0 3 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 4 0 2 2 

Methylene chloride 4 3 1 0 

Styrene 4 4 0 0 

Tetrachloroethene 4 4 0 0 

Toluene 4 0 2 2 

Total Xylene 4 0 3 1 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 4 4 0 0 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 4 4 0 0 

trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 4 4 0 0 

Trichloroethene 4 4 0 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 4 4 0 0 

Vinyl acetate 4 4 0 0 

Vinyl chloride 4 2 2 0 

Total 204 178 15 11 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B) 

TABLE 5-18. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN LEACHATE 

AALB-7.4B, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 6 6 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 6 6 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 6 6 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 6 6 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 6 6 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 6 6 0 0 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 6 6 0 0 

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 

DBCP 

6 6 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 6 6 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 6 6 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 6 6 0 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 6 6 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 6 5 1 0 

2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 6 6 0 0 

2-Hexanone 6 6 0 0 

Acetone 6 0 0 6 

Acrolein 6 6 0 0 

Acrylonitrile 6 6 0 0 

Benzene 6 2 4 0 

Bromochloromethane 6 6 0 0 

Bromoform 6 6 0 0 

Bromomethane 6 6 0 0 

Carbon Disulfide 6 6 0 0 

Carbon Tetrachloride 6 6 0 0 

5-61
VOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Chlorobenzene 6 6 0 0 

Chloroethane 6 6 0 0 

Chloroform 6 6 0 0 

Chloromethane 6 6 0 0 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 6 6 0 0 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 6 6 0 0 

Dibromochloromethane 6 6 0 0 

Dibromomethane 6 6 0 0 

Dichlorobromomethane 6 6 0 0 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 6 6 0 0 

Ethyl methacrylate 6 6 0 0 

Ethylbenzene 6 0 6 0 

Iodomethane 6 6 0 0 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 6 0 0 6 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 6 0 1 5 

Methylene chloride 6 2 4 0 

Styrene 6 5 1 0 

Tetrachloroethene 6 6 0 0 

Toluene 6 0 0 6 

Total Xylene 6 0 1 5 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 6 6 0 0 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 6 6 0 0 

trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 6 6 0 0 

Trichloroethene 6 5 1 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 6 6 0 0 

Vinyl acetate 6 6 0 0 

Vinyl chloride 6 2 4 0 

Total 306 261 23 22 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8260B (B) 

Summary of Leachate Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) 

Tables 5-19 through 5-24 provide a summary of the semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) 

in leachate. Detection frequency tables showing the SVOC compounds that were analyzed 

using EPA Method 8270. 

Common constituents for the three units of study include diethyl phthalate, phenol, 1,4-

dioxane, naphthalene, cresol, m, o and p. Approximately 1 percent of the samples had 

concentrations within the 1.0-100 ug/l range. Less than 1 percent of the samples were at 

concentrations greater than 100 ug/l. 

5-62
TABLE 5-19. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE

CONTROL 7.3A, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002

SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate 8 8 0 0 

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 3 5 0 

1,4-Dioxane 8 6 2 0 

1,4-Naphthoquinone 8 8 0 0 

1-Naphthylamine 8 8 0 0 

2,2'-Oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 8 8 0 0 

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4-Dichlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 8 6 2 0 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 8 8 0 0 

2,6-Dichlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 8 8 0 0 

2-Acetylaminofluorene 8 8 0 0 

2-Chloronaphthalene 8 8 0 0 

2-Chlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2-Methylnaphthalene 8 8 0 0 

2-Naphthylamine 8 8 0 0 

2-Nitroaniline 8 8 0 0 

2-Nitrophenol 8 8 0 0 

2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 8 8 0 0 

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 8 8 0 0 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine 8 8 0 0 

3-Methylcholanthrene 8 8 0 0 

3-Nitroaniline 8 8 0 0 

4-Aminobiphenyl 8 8 0 0 

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 8 8 0 0 

4-Chloroaniline 8 8 0 0 

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 8 8 0 0 

4-Nitroaniline 8 8 0 0 

4-Nitrophenol 8 8 0 0 

5-Nitro-o-toluidine 8 8 0 0 

7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 8 8 0 0 

Acenaphthene 8 8 0 0 

5-63
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Acenaphthylene 8 8 0 0 

Acetophenone 8 8 0 0 

Anthracene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(a)anthracene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(a)pyrene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 8 8 0 0 

Benzyl alcohol 8 6 0 2 

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 8 8 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 8 8 0 0 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 8 7 1 0 

Butyl benzyl phthalate 8 8 0 0 

Chlorobenzilate 8 8 0 0 

Chrysene 8 8 0 0 

Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O- 8 8 0 0 

Cresol, m­ 8 6 0 2 

Cresol, o­ 8 8 0 0 

Cresol, p­ 8 6 0 2 

Cresol, p-Chloro-m- 8 8 0 0 

Diallate 8 8 0 0 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 8 8 0 0 

Dibenzofuran 8 8 0 0 

Diethyl phthalate 8 7 1 0 

Dimethoate 8 8 0 0 

Dimethyl phthalate 8 8 0 0 

Di-n-butyl phthalate 8 8 0 0 

Di-n-octyl phthalate 8 8 0 0 

Diphenylamine 8 8 0 0 

Disulfoton 8 8 0 0 

Ethyl methane sulfonate 8 8 0 0 

Famphur 8 8 0 0 

Fluoranthene 8 8 0 0 

Fluorene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Hexachloropropene 8 8 0 0 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8 8 0 0 

Isodrin 8 8 0 0 

Isophorone 8 8 0 0 

Isosafrole 8 8 0 0 

Kepone 8 8 0 0 

m-Dinitrobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Methapyrilene 8 8 0 0 

Methyl methanesulfonate 8 8 0 0 

Methyl parathion 8 8 0 0 

Naphthalene 8 8 0 0 

5-64
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Nitrobenzene 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosodiethylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosodimethylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitroso-Di-n-propylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-nitrosodiphenylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosopiperidine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 8 8 0 0 

o-Toluidine 8 8 0 0 

Parathion 8 8 0 0 

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Pentachlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Pentachloronitrobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Pentachlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

Phenacetin 8 8 0 0 

Phenanthrene 8 8 0 0 

Phenol 8 6 2 0 

Phorate 8 8 0 0 

p-Phenylenediamine 8 8 0 0 

Pronamide 8 8 0 0 

Pyrene 8 8 0 0 

Safrole 8 8 0 0 

Sym-Trinitrobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Thionazin 8 8 0 0 

Total 456 443 7 6 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270 

TABLE 5-20. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE: 

CONTROL 7.3B, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER16, 2003 

SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate 7 7 0 0 

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 7 7 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 7 7 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 7 7 0 0 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 7 7 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 7 3 4 0 

1,4-Dioxane 7 7 0 0 

1,4-Naphthoquinone 7 7 0 0 

1-Naphthylamine 7 7 0 0 

2,2'-Oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 7 7 0 0 

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 7 7 0 0 

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 7 7 0 0 

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 7 7 0 0 

2,4-Dichlorophenol 7 7 0 0 

5-65
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 7 7 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 7 7 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 7 7 0 0 

2,6-Dichlorophenol 7 7 0 0 

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 7 7 0 0 

2-Acetylaminofluorene 7 7 0 0 

2-Chloronaphthalene 7 7 0 0 

2-Chlorophenol 7 7 0 0 

2-Methylnaphthalene 7 7 0 0 

2-Naphthylamine 7 7 0 0 

2-Nitroaniline 7 7 0 0 

2-Nitrophenol 7 7 0 0 

2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 7 7 0 0 

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 7 7 0 0 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine 7 7 0 0 

3-Methylcholanthrene 7 7 0 0 

3-Nitroaniline 7 7 0 0 

4-Aminobiphenyl 7 7 0 0 

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 7 7 0 0 

4-Chloroaniline 7 7 0 0 

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7 7 0 0 

4-Nitroaniline 7 7 0 0 

4-Nitrophenol 7 7 0 0 

5-Nitro-o-toluidine 7 7 0 0 

7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 7 7 0 0 

Acenaphthene 7 7 0 0 

Acenaphthylene 7 7 0 0 

Acetophenone 7 7 0 0 

Anthracene 7 7 0 0 

Benzo(a)anthracene 7 7 0 0 

Benzo(a)pyrene 7 7 0 0 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7 7 0 0 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 7 7 0 0 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 7 7 0 0 

Benzyl alcohol 7 7 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 7 7 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 7 7 0 0 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 7 6 1 0 

Butyl benzyl phthalate 7 7 0 0 

Chlorobenzilate 7 7 0 0 

Chrysene 7 7 0 0 

Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O- 7 7 0 0 

Cresol, m­ 7 7 0 0 

Cresol, o­ 7 7 0 0 

Cresol, p­ 7 6 1 0 

Cresol, p-Chloro-m- 7 7 0 0 

Diallate 7 7 0 0 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 7 7 0 0 

Dibenzofuran 7 7 0 0 

5-66
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Diethyl phthalate 7 4 3 0 

Dimethoate 7 7 0 0 

Dimethyl phthalate 7 7 0 0 

Di-n-butyl phthalate 7 7 0 0 

Di-n-octyl phthalate 7 7 0 0 

Diphenylamine 7 7 0 0 

Disulfoton 7 7 0 0 

Ethyl methane sulfonate 7 7 0 0 

Famphur 7 7 0 0 

Fluoranthene 7 7 0 0 

Fluorene 7 7 0 0 

Hexachlorobenzene 7 7 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 7 7 0 0 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 7 7 0 0 

Hexachloroethane 7 7 0 0 

Hexachloropropene 7 7 0 0 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7 7 0 0 

Isodrin 7 7 0 0 

Isophorone 7 7 0 0 

Isosafrole 7 7 0 0 

Kepone 7 7 0 0 

m-Dinitrobenzene 7 7 0 0 

Methapyrilene 7 7 0 0 

Methyl methanesulfonate 7 7 0 0 

Methyl parathion 7 7 0 0 

Naphthalene 7 7 0 0 

Nitrobenzene 7 7 0 0 

N-Nitrosodiethylamine 7 7 0 0 

N-Nitrosodimethylamine 7 7 0 0 

N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 7 7 0 0 

N-Nitroso-Di-n-propylamine 7 7 0 0 

N-nitrosodiphenylamine 7 7 0 0 

N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 7 7 0 0 

N-Nitrosopiperidine 7 7 0 0 

N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 7 7 0 0 

o-Toluidine 7 7 0 0 

Parathion 7 7 0 0 

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 7 7 0 0 

Pentachlorobenzene 7 7 0 0 

Pentachloronitrobenzene 7 7 0 0 

Pentachlorophenol 7 7 0 0 

Phenacetin 7 7 0 0 

Phenanthrene 7 7 0 0 

Phenol 7 6 1 0 

Phorate 7 7 0 0 

p-Phenylenediamine 7 7 0 0 

Pronamide 7 7 0 0 

Pyrene 7 7 0 0 

Safrole 7 7 0 0 

5-67
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Sym-Trinitrobenzene 7 7 0 0 

Thionazin 7 7 0 0 

Total 798 788 10 0 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270 

TABLE 5-21. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE 

FLB 5.1A, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate 9 9 0 0 

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 9 9 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 9 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 9 9 0 0 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 9 9 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 9 9 0 0 

1,4-Dioxane 9 4 4 1 

1,4-Naphthoquinone 9 9 0 0 

1-Naphthylamine 9 9 0 0 

2,2'-Oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 9 9 0 0 

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 9 9 0 0 

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 9 9 0 0 

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 9 9 0 0 

2,4-Dichlorophenol 9 9 0 0 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 9 8 1 0 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 9 9 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 9 9 0 0 

2,6-Dichlorophenol 9 9 0 0 

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 9 9 0 0 

2-Acetylaminofluorene 9 9 0 0 

2-Chloronaphthalene 9 9 0 0 

2-Chlorophenol 9 9 0 0 

2-Methylnaphthalene 9 9 0 0 

2-Naphthylamine 9 9 0 0 

2-Nitroaniline 9 9 0 0 

2-Nitrophenol 9 9 0 0 

2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 9 9 0 0 

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 9 9 0 0 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine 9 9 0 0 

3-Methylcholanthrene 9 9 0 0 

3-Nitroaniline 9 9 0 0 

4-Aminobiphenyl 9 9 0 0 

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 9 9 0 0 

4-Chloroaniline 9 9 0 0 

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 9 9 0 0 

4-Nitroaniline 9 9 0 0 

5-68
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

4-Nitrophenol 9 9 0 0 

5-Nitro-o-toluidine 9 9 0 0 

7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 9 9 0 0 

Acenaphthene 9 9 0 0 

Acenaphthylene 9 9 0 0 

Acetophenone 9 9 0 0 

Anthracene 9 9 0 0 

Benzo(a)anthracene 9 9 0 0 

Benzo(a)pyrene 9 9 0 0 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 9 9 0 0 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 9 9 0 0 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9 9 0 0 

Benzyl alcohol 9 9 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 9 9 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 9 9 0 0 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 9 8 0 1 

Butyl benzyl phthalate 9 9 0 0 

Chlorobenzilate 9 9 0 0 

Chrysene 9 9 0 0 

Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O- 9 9 0 0 

Cresol, m­ 9 6 1 2 

Cresol, o­ 9 9 0 0 

Cresol, p­ 9 6 1 2 

Cresol, p-Chloro-m- 9 9 0 0 

Diallate 9 9 0 0 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 9 9 0 0 

Dibenzofuran 9 9 0 0 

Diethyl phthalate 9 9 0 0 

Dimethoate 9 9 0 0 

Dimethyl phthalate 9 9 0 0 

Di-n-butyl phthalate 9 9 0 0 

Di-n-octyl phthalate 9 9 0 0 

Diphenylamine 9 9 0 0 

Disulfoton 9 9 0 0 

Ethyl methane sulfonate 9 9 0 0 

Famphur 9 9 0 0 

Fluoranthene 9 9 0 0 

Fluorene 9 9 0 0 

Hexachlorobenzene 9 9 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 9 9 0 0 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 9 9 0 0 

Hexachloroethane 9 9 0 0 

Hexachloropropene 9 9 0 0 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 9 9 0 0 

Isodrin 9 9 0 0 

Isophorone 9 9 0 0 

Isosafrole 9 9 0 0 

Kepone 9 9 0 0 

m-Dinitrobenzene 9 9 0 0 

5-69
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Methapyrilene 9 9 0 0 

Methyl methanesulfonate 9 9 0 0 

Methyl parathion 9 9 0 0 

Naphthalene 9 6 3 0 

Nitrobenzene 9 9 0 0 

N-Nitrosodiethylamine 9 9 0 0 

N-Nitrosodimethylamine 9 9 0 0 

N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 9 9 0 0 

N-Nitroso-Di-n-propylamine 9 9 0 0 

N-nitrosodiphenylamine 9 9 0 0 

N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 9 9 0 0 

N-Nitrosopiperidine 9 9 0 0 

N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 9 9 0 0 

o-Toluidine 9 7 2 0 

Parathion 9 9 0 0 

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 9 9 0 0 

Pentachlorobenzene 9 9 0 0 

Pentachloronitrobenzene 9 9 0 0 

Pentachlorophenol 9 9 0 0 

Phenacetin 9 9 0 0 

Phenanthrene 9 9 0 0 

Phenol 9 7 2 0 

Phorate 9 9 0 0 

p-Phenylenediamine 9 9 0 0 

Pronamide 9 9 0 0 

Pyrene 9 9 0 0 

Safrole 9 9 0 0 

Sym-Trinitrobenzene 9 9 0 0 

Thionazin 9 9 0 0 

Total 1026 1006 14 6 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270 

TABLE 5-22. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE 

FLB 5.2B, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate 8 8 0 0 

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 6 2 0 

1,4-Dioxane 8 2 6 0 

1,4-Naphthoquinone 8 8 0 0 

1-Naphthylamine 8 8 0 0 

2,2'-Oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 8 8 0 0 

5-70
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4-Dichlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 8 8 0 0 

2,6-Dichlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 8 8 0 0 

2-Acetylaminofluorene 8 8 0 0 

2-Chloronaphthalene 8 8 0 0 

2-Chlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

2-Methylnaphthalene 8 8 0 0 

2-Naphthylamine 8 8 0 0 

2-Nitroaniline 8 8 0 0 

2-Nitrophenol 8 8 0 0 

2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 8 8 0 0 

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 8 8 0 0 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine 8 8 0 0 

3-Methylcholanthrene 8 8 0 0 

3-Nitroaniline 8 8 0 0 

4-Aminobiphenyl 8 8 0 0 

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 8 8 0 0 

4-Chloroaniline 8 8 0 0 

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 8 8 0 0 

4-Nitroaniline 8 8 0 0 

4-Nitrophenol 8 8 0 0 

5-Nitro-o-toluidine 8 8 0 0 

7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 8 8 0 0 

Acenaphthene 8 8 0 0 

Acenaphthylene 8 8 0 0 

Acetophenone 8 8 0 0 

Anthracene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(a)anthracene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(a)pyrene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 8 8 0 0 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 8 8 0 0 

Benzyl alcohol 8 8 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 8 8 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 8 8 0 0 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 8 7 1 0 

Butyl benzyl phthalate 8 8 0 0 

Chlorobenzilate 8 8 0 0 

Chrysene 8 8 0 0 

Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O- 8 8 0 0 

Cresol, m­ 8 5 2 1 

Cresol, o­ 8 8 0 0 

Cresol, p­ 8 5 2 1 

5-71
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Cresol, p-Chloro-m- 8 8 0 0 

Diallate 8 8 0 0 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 8 8 0 0 

Dibenzofuran 8 8 0 0 

Diethyl phthalate 8 8 0 0 

Dimethoate 8 8 0 0 

Dimethyl phthalate 8 8 0 0 

Di-n-butyl phthalate 8 8 0 0 

Di-n-octyl phthalate 8 8 0 0 

Diphenylamine 8 8 0 0 

Disulfoton 8 8 0 0 

Ethyl methane sulfonate 8 8 0 0 

Famphur 8 8 0 0 

Fluoranthene 8 8 0 0 

Fluorene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Hexachloropropene 8 8 0 0 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8 8 0 0 

Isodrin 8 8 0 0 

Isophorone 8 8 0 0 

Isosafrole 8 8 0 0 

Kepone 8 8 0 0 

m-Dinitrobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Methapyrilene 8 8 0 0 

Methyl methanesulfonate 8 8 0 0 

Methyl parathion 8 8 0 0 

Naphthalene 8 8 0 0 

Nitrobenzene 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosodiethylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosodimethylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitroso-Di-n-propylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-nitrosodiphenylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosopiperidine 8 8 0 0 

N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 8 8 0 0 

o-Toluidine 8 5 3 0 

Parathion 8 8 0 0 

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Pentachlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Pentachloronitrobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Pentachlorophenol 8 8 0 0 

Phenacetin 8 8 0 0 

Phenanthrene 8 8 0 0 

Phenol 8 7 1 0 

Phorate 8 8 0 0 

5-72
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

p-Phenylenediamine 8 8 0 0 

Pronamide 8 8 0 0 

Pyrene 8 8 0 0 

Safrole 8 8 0 0 

Sym-Trinitrobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Thionazin 8 8 0 0 

Total 912 893 17 2 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270 

TABLE 5-23. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE 

AALB 7.4A, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate 4 4 0 0 

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,4-Dioxane 4 4 0 0 

1,4-Naphthoquinone 4 4 0 0 

1-Naphthylamine 4 4 0 0 

2,2'-Oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 4 4 0 0 

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4-Dichlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 4 4 0 0 

2,6-Dichlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 4 4 0 0 

2-Acetylaminofluorene 4 4 0 0 

2-Chloronaphthalene 4 4 0 0 

2-Chlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2-Methylnaphthalene 4 4 0 0 

2-Naphthylamine 4 4 0 0 

2-Nitroaniline 4 4 0 0 

2-Nitrophenol 4 4 0 0 

2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 4 4 0 0 

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 4 4 0 0 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine 4 4 0 0 

3-Methylcholanthrene 4 4 0 0 

3-Nitroaniline 4 4 0 0 

4-Aminobiphenyl 4 4 0 0 

5-73
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4 4 0 0 

4-Chloroaniline 4 4 0 0 

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4 4 0 0 

4-Nitroaniline 4 4 0 0 

4-Nitrophenol 4 4 0 0 

5-Nitro-o-toluidine 4 4 0 0 

7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 4 4 0 0 

Acenaphthene 4 4 0 0 

Acenaphthylene 4 4 0 0 

Acetophenone 4 4 0 0 

Anthracene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(a)anthracene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(a)pyrene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4 4 0 0 

Benzyl alcohol 4 4 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 4 4 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 4 4 0 0 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 4 3 1 0 

Butyl benzyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Chlorobenzilate 4 4 0 0 

Chrysene 4 4 0 0 

Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O- 4 4 0 0 

Cresol, m­ 4 1 0 3 

Cresol, o­ 4 2 2 0 

Cresol, p­ 4 0 1 3 

Cresol, p-Chloro-m- 4 4 0 0 

Diallate 4 4 0 0 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 4 4 0 0 

Dibenzofuran 4 4 0 0 

Diethyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Dimethoate 4 4 0 0 

Dimethyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Di-n-butyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Di-n-octyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Diphenylamine 4 4 0 0 

Disulfoton 4 4 0 0 

Ethyl methane sulfonate 4 4 0 0 

Famphur 4 4 0 0 

Fluoranthene 4 4 0 0 

Fluorene 4 4 0 0 

Hexachlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 4 4 0 0 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 4 4 0 0 

Hexachloroethane 4 4 0 0 

Hexachloropropene 4 4 0 0 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 4 4 0 0 

Isodrin 4 4 0 0 

5-74
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Isophorone 4 4 0 0 

Isosafrole 4 4 0 0 

Kepone 4 4 0 0 

m-Dinitrobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Methapyrilene 4 4 0 0 

Methyl methanesulfonate 4 4 0 0 

Methyl parathion 4 4 0 0 

Naphthalene 4 4 0 0 

Nitrobenzene 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosodiethylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosodimethylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitroso-Di-n-propylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-nitrosodiphenylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosopiperidine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 4 4 0 0 

o-Toluidine 4 3 1 0 

Parathion 4 4 0 0 

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Pentachlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Pentachloronitrobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Pentachlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

Phenacetin 4 4 0 0 

Phenanthrene 4 4 0 0 

Phenol 4 2 2 0 

Phorate 4 4 0 0 

p-Phenylenediamine 4 4 0 0 

Pronamide 4 4 0 0 

Pyrene 4 4 0 0 

Safrole 4 4 0 0 

Sym-Trinitrobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Thionazin 4 4 0 0 

Total 456 443 7 6 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270 

TABLE 5-24. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS) IN LEACHATE: 

AALB 7.4B, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

0,0,0-Triethylphosphorothioate 4 4 0 0 

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

5-75
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

1,4-Dioxane 4 4 0 0 

1,4-Naphthoquinone 4 4 0 0 

1-Naphthylamine 4 4 0 0 

2,2'-Oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 4 4 0 0 

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4-Dichlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 4 4 0 0 

2,6-Dichlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 4 4 0 0 

2-Acetylaminofluorene 4 4 0 0 

2-Chloronaphthalene 4 4 0 0 

2-Chlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

2-Methylnaphthalene 4 4 0 0 

2-Naphthylamine 4 4 0 0 

2-Nitroaniline 4 4 0 0 

2-Nitrophenol 4 4 0 0 

2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 4 4 0 0 

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 4 4 0 0 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine 4 4 0 0 

3-Methylcholanthrene 4 4 0 0 

3-Nitroaniline 4 4 0 0 

4-Aminobiphenyl 4 4 0 0 

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4 4 0 0 

4-Chloroaniline 4 4 0 0 

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4 4 0 0 

4-Nitroaniline 4 4 0 0 

4-Nitrophenol 4 4 0 0 

5-Nitro-o-toluidine 4 4 0 0 

7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 4 4 0 0 

Acenaphthene 4 4 0 0 

Acenaphthylene 4 4 0 0 

Acetophenone 4 4 0 0 

Anthracene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(a)anthracene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(a)pyrene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 4 4 0 0 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4 4 0 0 

Benzyl alcohol 4 4 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 4 4 0 0 

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 4 4 0 0 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 4 3 1 0 

Butyl benzyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Chlorobenzilate 4 4 0 0 

Chrysene 4 4 0 0 

5-76
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Cresol, 4,6-Dinitro-O- 4 4 0 0 

Cresol, m­ 4 0 0 4 

Cresol, o­ 4 2 0 2 

Cresol, p­ 4 0 0 4 

Cresol, p-Chloro-m- 4 4 0 0 

Diallate 4 4 0 0 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 4 4 0 0 

Dibenzofuran 4 3 1 0 

Diethyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Dimethoate 4 4 0 0 

Dimethyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Di-n-butyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Di-n-octyl phthalate 4 4 0 0 

Diphenylamine 4 4 0 0 

Disulfoton 4 4 0 0 

Ethyl methane sulfonate 4 4 0 0 

Famphur 4 4 0 0 

Fluoranthene 4 4 0 0 

Fluorene 4 4 0 0 

Hexachlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 4 4 0 0 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 4 4 0 0 

Hexachloroethane 4 4 0 0 

Hexachloropropene 4 4 0 0 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 4 4 0 0 

Isodrin 4 4 0 0 

Isophorone 4 4 0 0 

Isosafrole 4 4 0 0 

Kepone 4 4 0 0 

m-Dinitrobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Methapyrilene 4 4 0 0 

Methyl methanesulfonate 4 4 0 0 

Methyl parathion 4 4 0 0 

Naphthalene 4 3 0 1 

Nitrobenzene 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosodiethylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosodimethylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitroso-Di-n-propylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-nitrosodiphenylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosopiperidine 4 4 0 0 

N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 4 4 0 0 

o-Toluidine 4 4 0 0 

Parathion 4 4 0 0 

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Pentachlorobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Pentachloronitrobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Pentachlorophenol 4 4 0 0 

5-77
SVOC Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings 

1.0-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Phenacetin 4 4 0 0 

Phenanthrene 4 4 0 0 

Phenol 4 1 1 2 

Phorate 4 4 0 0 

p-Phenylenediamine 4 4 0 0 

Pronamide 4 4 0 0 

Pyrene 4 4 0 0 

Safrole 4 4 0 0 

Sym-Trinitrobenzene 4 4 0 0 

Thionazin 4 4 0 0 

Total 456 440 3 13 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8270 

Summary of RCRA Hazardous Metals in Leachate 

Sampling for RCRA hazardous metals, which are presented in Tables 5-25 through 5-27, were 

collected for all three of the study units. Sampling began for the Control and FLB units in June 

2001, while sampling for the AALB began in March 2002. Samples, which are collected on a 

quarterly basis, are analyzed using EPA Method 6010 (B) except for mercury, which is 

analyzed using EPA Method 7470 (B). 

For all three of the study units, potassium was detected at levels greater than 1.0 mg/l. Other 

common metals detected are arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead. Ninety percent of 

these detected constituents were detected in ranges less than 1.0 mg/l. 

TABLE 5-25. RCRA HAZARDOUS METALS IN LEACHATE 

CONTROL 7.3A AND 7.3B, JUNE 26, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

Metals Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings Between 

0.001 - 1.0 mg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>1.0 mg/l 

Arsenic, Total 14 14 0 0 

Barium, Total 14 0 14 0 

Cadmium, Total 14 14 0 0 

Chromium, Total 14 2 12 0 

Lead, Total 14 11 3 0 

Potassium, Total 14 0 0 14 

Selenium, Total 14 14 0 0 

Silver, Total 14 14 0 0 

Mercury, Total 14 14 0 0 

Total 126 83 29 14 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 6010 (B) except for mercury, which was analyzed 

using EPA Method 7470(B) 

5-78 
TABLE 5-26. RCRA HAZARDOUS METALS IN LEACHATE

FLB 5.1A AND 5.2B, JUNE 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002

Metals Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings Between 

0.001 - 1.0 mg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>1.0 mg/l 

Arsenic, Total 16 0 16 0 

Barium, Total 16 0 11 5 

Cadmium, Total 16 14 2 0 

Chromium, Total 16 0 16 0 

Lead, Total 16 9 7 0 

Potassium, Total 16 0 0 16 

Selenium, Total 16 16 0 0 

Silver, Total 16 16 0 0 

Mercury, Total 16 16 0 0 

Total 144 71 52 21 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 6010 (B) except for mercury, which was analyzed 

using EPA Method 7470(B) 

TABLE 5-27. RCRA HAZARDOUS METALS IN LEACHATE 

AALB 7.4A AND 7.4B, MARCH 20, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2002 

Metals Number of 

Readings 

Number of 

Non-Detects 

(ND) 

Number of 

Readings Between 

0.001 - 1.0 mg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>1.0 mg/l 

Arsenic, Total 8 0 8 0 

Barium, Total 8 0 8 0 

Cadmium, Total 8 2 6 0 

Chromium, Total 8 0 8 0 

Lead, Total 8 0 8 0 

Potassium, Total 8 0 0 8 

Selenium, Total 8 8 0 0 

Silver, Total 8 8 0 0 

Mercury, Total 8 8 0 0 

Total 72 24 40 8 

Samples were analyzed using EPA Method 6010 (B) except for mercury, which was analyzed 

using EPA Method 7470(B) 

5-79
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) CHARACTERISTICS 

Municipal solid waste (MSW) parameters were measured both on-site using permanent 

monitoring probes installed at various locations in each cell on a daily basis, and by sample 

collection of a minimum of 30 boring samples per cell for off-site lab analysis on an annual 

basis. The results documented in this report apply to the Control Unit (7.3 A and B), the FLB 

(Unit 5.1 and 5.2) and the AALB (Unit 7.4 A and B). 

Summary of Organic Solids in MSW 

The organic solids have been measured for all cells under investigation. Two sampling events 

have occurred for each cell, the first is represented by the shaded bar and the second by the 

white bar in Figure 5-39. The first sampling event is referred to in the Figures as the baseline 

2000/2001, and occurred at different times for the different cells. The baseline-sampling event 

for the FLB and Control Units occurred in June 2000. However, no waste was in place in either 

AALB 7.4 A or 7.4B cell, these were sampled in the summer and fall of 2001, respectively, 

after waste placement had commenced. The second sampling event took place in October 2002 

for all cells. 

Each sampling event required a minimum of 30 MSW samples to be taken per cell. Note that 

the two cells of the FLB (5.1 and 5.2) are each made up of two sub-cells, the results from these 

are combined in the Figure. 

The top surface of each bar in Figure 5-39 corresponds to the mean value of all samples taken 

in that sampling event. The standard deviation from that mean is also displayed. The data has 

been further summarized in the table below in Table 5-28. 

TABLE 5-28. SUMMARY OF ORGANIC SOLIDS IN MSW 

DATE AVERAGE STD. DEVIATION 

FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 43.57 15.81 

Oct 2002 33.06 10.43 

%Difference between sampling events = 24% decrease 

FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 36.38 12.75 

Oct 2002 32.90 10.40 

Difference between sampling events = 10% decrease 

Control 7.3A 

2000/2001 67.19 16.35 

Oct 2002 41.67 11.61 

Difference between sampling events = 38% decrease 

Control 7.3B 

2000/2001 63.54 16.84 

Oct 2002 45.96 15.82 

Difference between sampling events = 28% decrease 

AALB 7.4A 

2000/2001 62.46 12.07 

Oct 2002 41.94 5.96 

5-80
DATE AVERAGE STD. DEVIATION 

Difference between sampling events = 33% decrease 

AALB 7.4B 

2000/2001 82.55 4.19 

Oct 2002 37.78 8.84 

Difference between sampling events = 55% decrease 

In all cells, values for percent volatile solids show a decrease between 2000/2001 and October 

2002. 

Summary of Biochemical Methane Production (BMP) in MSW 

A summary Biochemical Methane Production (BMP) is displayed graphically in Figure 5-40. 

The Figure is expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this 

representation provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the 

same two sampling events and is an average of the same samples. 

The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-29. 

TABLE 5-29. SUMMARY OF BMP IN MSW 

DATE AVERAGE STD. DEVIATION 

FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 41.81 33.49 

Oct 2002 27.64 20.57 

%Difference between sampling events = 34% decrease* 

FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 29.95 19.66 

Oct 2002 24.28 15.77 

Difference between sampling events = 19% decrease* 

Control 7.3A 

2000/2001 102.38 37.35 

Oct 2002 37.22 22.89 

Difference between sampling events = 64% decrease 

Control 7.3B 

2000/2001 97.15 39.53 

Oct 2002 40.40 19.73 

Difference between sampling events = 58% decrease 

AALB 7.4A 

2000/2001 57.68 18.49 

Oct 2002 28.77 14.17 

Difference between sampling events = 50% decrease 

AALB 7.4B 

2000/2001 84.22 22.32 

Oct 2002 26.70 20.70 

Difference between sampling events = 68% decrease 

Overall, the BMP shows a decrease between 2000/2001 and October 2002 in all cells. *The 

smallest decrease is seen in the FLB cells where the standard deviation is significantly greater 

than the apparent difference, hence therefore no detectable difference can be claimed. 

5-81 
volatile solids (%, dry weight) 

Figure 5-39. Solid Waste Organic Solids Content Summary for 

FLB, Control and AALB Cells 

100

80

60

40

20

0 

FLB-A+B 

FLB-C+D 

AALB-A 

AALB-B

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

5-82
Figure 5-40. Solid Waste BMP Summary for 

FLB, Control and AALB Cells 

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

FLB-A+B 

FLB-C+D 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

biochemical methane potential (mL/g dry weight)

Baseline 2000/2001 

10/2002 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

5-83
Summary of (Cellulose + Hemicellulose)/Lignin Ratio of MSW 

A summary (Cellulose + Hemicellulose)/Lignin Ratio is displayed graphically in Figure 5-41. 

The Figure is expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this 

representation provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the 

same two sampling events and is an average of the same samples. 

The data have been further summarized in the table below In Table 5-30. 

TABLE 5-30. SUMMARY OF (CELLULOSE + HEMICELLULOSE)/ 

LIGNIN RATIO OF MSW 

DATE AVERAGE STD. DEVIATION 

FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 1.31 .0.88 

Oct 2002 1.19 0.65 

%Difference between sampling events = 9% decrease 

FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 1.15 0.64 

Oct 2002 1.12 0.46 

Difference between sampling events = 3% decrease 

Control 7.3A 

2000/2001 2.36 0.93 

Oct 2002 1.34 0.58 

Difference between sampling events = 43% decrease 

Control 7.3B 

2000/2001 2.52 1.10 

Oct 2002 1.74 0.77 

Difference between sampling events = 31% decrease 

AALB 7.4A 

2000/2001 1.54 0.77 

Oct 2002 0.96 0.39 

Difference between sampling events = 38% decrease 

AALB 7.4B 

2000/2001 3.10 0.66 

Oct 2002 1.09 0.52 

Difference between sampling events = 65% decrease 

Overall, a decrease in the (Cellulose + Hemicellulose)/Lignin ratio is seen in the Control and 

AALB cells. The FLB values have remained essentially constant between 2000/2001 and 

October 2002, with the standard deviation in the measurements significantly outweighing any 

apparent change. 

This ratio is affected by the rate of decay of the hemicellulose and cellulose versus that of 

lignin. These plant polymers make up a large percentage of the biodegradable fraction of 

landfill waste and hence provide indicators of the waste degradation. Cellulose and 

hemicellulose are readily biodegradable in the landfill environment, whereas lignin has a much 

slower rate of decay. Monitoring of this ratio can provide a measure of waste degradation 

independent of the quantity of different materials present in the landfill, allowing comparisons 

over time and across samples. 

5-84
Figure 5-41. Solid Waste (Cellulose + Hemicellulose)/Lignin Ratio Summary 

for FLB, Control and AALB Cells 

FLB-A+B 

FLB-C+D 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

(cellulose + hemicellulose)

lignin 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Baseline 2000/2001 

10/2002 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

5-85
Summary of Lignin Content of MSW 

A summary of lignin content is displayed graphically in Figure 5-42. The Figure is expressed in 

a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this representation provided above for 

volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the same two sampling events and is an 

average of the same samples. 

The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-31. 

TABLE 5-31. SUMMARY OF LIGNIN CONTENT OF MSW 

DATE AVERAGE STD. DEVIATION 

FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 18.56 5.64 

Oct 2002 15.50 6.65 

%Difference between sampling events = 16% decrease 

FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells B and C) 

2000/2001 17.11 6.79 

Oct 2002 14.95 5.80 

Difference between sampling events = 13% decrease 

Control 7.3A 

2000/2001 18.24 4.08 

Oct 2002 17.83 5.94 

Difference between sampling events = 2% decrease 

Control 7.3B 

2000/2001 19.01 5.99 

Oct 2002 18.79 6.72 

Difference between sampling events = 1% decrease 

AALB 7.4A 

2000/2001 27.00 9.23 

Oct 2002 19.24 4.69 

Difference between sampling events = 29% decrease 

AALB 7.4B 

2000/2001 18.12 3.15 

Oct 2002 15.35 4.21 

Difference between sampling events = 15% decrease 

Overall, a decrease is seen in the lignin content in the treated cells FLB and AALB, while the 

lignin content in the control cells has remained constant over the period. However, in all cases 

the standard deviation is significantly greater than the observed differences. 

5-86
Figure 5-42. Solid Waste Lignin Content Summary for 

FLB, Control and AALB Cells 

40

30

20

10

0 

FLB-A+B 

FLB-C+D 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

lignin (%, dry weight) 

Baseline 2000/2001 

10/2002 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

5-87
Summary of Hemicellulose Content of MSW 

A summary of the hemicellulose content is displayed graphically in Figure 5-43. The Figure is 

expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this representation 

provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the same two sampling 

events and is an average of the same samples. 

The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-32. 

TABLE 5-32. SUMMARY OF HEMICELLULOSE IN MSW 

DATE AVERAGE STD. DEVIATION 

FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 4.56 2.51 

Oct 2002 4.04 2.13 

%Difference between sampling events = 11% decrease 

FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 4.00 2.52 

Oct 2002 3.72 2.03 

Difference between sampling events = 7% decrease 

Control 7.3A 

2000/2001 8.38 1.96 

Oct 2002 5.10 2.15 

Difference between sampling events = 39% decrease 

Control 7.3B 

2000/2001 7.80 2.47 

Oct 2002 6.28 0.66 

Difference between sampling events = 19% decrease 

AALB 7.4A 

2000/2001 6.92 1.52 

Oct 2002 4.31 1.20 

Difference between sampling events = 38% decrease 

AALB 7.4B 

2000/2001 11.09 1.06 

Oct 2002 4.03 1.60 

Difference between sampling events = 64% decrease 

Overall, a decrease in the hemicellulose content is seen for all cells over the period. The largest 

decrease is seen in the AALB B cell. The smallest decrease is seen in the FLB cells, where the 

standard deviation is significantly greater than the observed difference. 

5-88
Figure 5-43. Solid Waste Hemicellulose Content Summary for 

FLB, Control and AALB Cells 

14

12

10

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

FLB-A+B 

FLB-C+D 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

hemicellulose (%, dry weight) 

Baseline 2000/2001 

10/2002 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

5-89 
Summary of Cellulose Content of MSW 

A summary of cellulose content is displayed graphically in Figure 5-44. The Figure is 

expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this representation 

provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the same two sampling 

events and is an average of the same samples. 

The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-33. 

TABLE 5-33. SUMMARY OF CELLULOSE CONTENT OF MSW 

DATE AVERAGE STD. DEVIATION 

FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 19.84 12.48 

Oct 2002 14.20 9.00 

%Difference between sampling events = 28% decrease 

FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 16.02 10.52 

Oct 2002 13.53 7.93 

Difference between sampling events = 16% decrease 

Control 7.3A 

2000/2001 37.06 9.51 

Oct 2002 18.13 9.89 

Difference between sampling events = 51% decrease 

Control 7.3B 

2000/2001 36.18 11.09 

Oct 2002 23.91 2.08 

Difference between sampling events = 34% decrease 

AALB 7.4A 

2000/2001 29.03 6.74 

Oct 2002 13.40 4.56 

Difference between sampling events = 54% decrease 

AALB 7.4B 

2000/2001 43.28 3.85 

Oct 2002 12.14 6.34 

Difference between sampling events = 72% decrease 

Overall, a decrease in the cellulose content is seen in all cells over the period. The standard 

deviation associated with the FLB data is significantly greater than the difference observed. 

The largest decrease was seen in the AALB B cell. 

5-90
Figure 5-44. Solid Waste Cellulose Content Summary for 

FLB, Control and AALB Cells 

50

40

30

20

10

0 

FLB-A+B 

FLB-C+D 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

cellulose (% dry weight) 

Baseline 2000/2001 

10/2002 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

5-91
Summary of Moisture Content of MSW 

A summary of the moisture content is displayed graphically in Figure 5-45. The Figure is 

expressed in a similar form to Figure 5-39, and the interpretation of this representation 

provided above for volatile solids is also applicable to this. It represents the same two sampling 

events and is an average of the same samples. 

The data have been further summarized below in Table 5-34. 

TABLE 5-34. SUMMARY OF MOISTURE CONTENT OF MSW 

DATE AVERAGE STD. DEVIATION 

FLB 5.1 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 34.95 6.01 

Oct 2002 37.69 7.47 

%Difference between sampling events = 8% increase 

FLB 5.2 (two sub-cells A and B) 

2000/2001 34.52 6.12 

Oct 2002 36.81 7.64 

Difference between sampling events = 7% increase 

Control 7.3A 

2000/2001 35.34 6.81 

Oct 2002 32.39 5.27 

Difference between sampling events = 8% decrease 

Control 7.3B 

2000/2001 33.90 6.15 

Oct 2002 32.63 4.57 

Difference between sampling events = 4% decrease 

AALB 7.4A 

2000/2001 39.97 4.46 

Oct 2002 41.91 9.19 

Difference between sampling events = 5% increase 

AALB 7.4B 

2000/2001 45.78 7.01 

Oct 2002 40.55 9.21 

Difference between sampling events = 11% decrease 

Overall, the moisture content of the waste has remained consistent over the period for each cell, 

and is overall comparable between cells. 

5-92
Figure 5-45. Solid Waste Moisture Content Summary for 

FLB, Control and AALB Cells 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 

FLB-A+B 

FLB-C+D 

AALB-A 

AALB-B 

moisture content (% w/w) 

Baseline 2000/2001 

10/2002 

CONTROL-A 

CONTROL-B 

5-93
Summary of Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) of MSW 

Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) probes were installed in the waste in the FLB, Control and 

AALB cells in to assess their usefulness as qualitative indicators of the redox state of the waste 

during treatment (aerobic or anaerobic). A summary of the mean, maximum and minimum 

readings for the installed probes in the FLB, Control and AALB cells is provided in the 

following table. 

No clear trends in the ORP measurements over time or in response to various treatments that 

would be expected to influence the ORP of the waste, such as aeration in the AALB, were 

observed for these probes. In general the readings are characterized by large fluctuations in 

ORP spanning a wide range of values. 

TABLE 5-35. SUMMARY OF ORP DATA FOR FLB, CONTROL AND AALB CELLS 

Probe ID IR 

Nomenclature 

Mean 

(mV) 

Maximum 

(mV) 

Minimum 

(mV) 

51A O01 FLB-A No.1 21.5929 203.0000 -88.0000 

51A O02 FLB-A No.2 -336.4054 168.0000 -511.0000 

51A O03 FLB-A No.3 183.2729 546.0000 -159.0000 

51A O04 FLB-A No.4 285.4352 363.0000 0.0000 

51B O01 FLB-B No.1 346.7713 564.0000 -270.0000 

52A O01 FLB-C No. 1 10.4687 634.0000 0.0000 

52B O01 FLB-D No. 1 2.1590 132.0000 0.0000 

52B O02 FLB-D No. 2 160.9255 806.0000 -518.0000 

52B O03 FLB-D No. 3 -36.0699 115.0000 -640.0000 

52B O04 FLB-D No. 4 85.6895 958.0000 -211.0000 

73A O01 Control-A No.1 293.4921 537.0000 -136.0000 

73B O01 Control-B No. 1 44.1649 367.0000 -497.0000 

74A O01 AALB-A No.1 101.5301 547.0000 -1373.0000 

74A O02 AALB-A No.2 -577.4400 261.0000 -1422.0000 

74B O01 AALB-B No.1 -135.0144 1049.0000 -526.0000 

74B O02 AALB-B No.2 305.9152 1145.0000 0.0000 

5-94
Summary of Average Temperature of MSW 

Temperature readings of the MSW were made on a daily basis via multiple thermocouple 

probes permanently installed in the waste. These data are captured and graphically represented 

in the form of box plots for FLB 5.1, FLB 5.2, AALB 7.4A Lifts 1-3, AALB 7.4B Lifts 1-3, 

and the Control, in Figures 5-46 through 5-54. 

Interpretation of the box plot: 

95th Percentile 

90th Percentile 

75th Percentile 

Mean Median 

25th Percentile 

10th Percentile 

5th Percentile 

Multiple factors affect the recorded temperature within the landfill, including the location of the 

probe, depth of probe, atmospheric temperature, and volume and temperature of liquids added. 

Variability between the probes across a given cell is therefore not unexpected as seen in FLB 

5.1. FLB 5.2 shows a relatively stable temperature across probes T03 to T14, with a range of

~5-40oC, though averaging ~20oC. 

Each lift of the AALB cells shows there to be a relatively good temperature correlation across 

the lift. This is summarized below in Table 5-36. 

TABLE 5-36. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF MSW 

APPROX. AVERAGE APPROX. MEAN 

LIFT 10-90TH PERCENTILE TEMPERATURE 

TEMPERATURE RANGE (oC) ACROSS PROBES (oC) 

AALB 7.4A 

Lift 1 15-45 25 

Lift 2 15-45 27 

Lift 3 12-23 18 

AALB 7.4B 

Lift 1 14-45 28 

Lift 2 10-45 28 

Lift 3 15-35 25 

The Control Unit temperature readings are not divided into the subcells A and B but are 

combined to represent the entire Control Unit 7.3. It should be noted that several of the 

thermocouple probes in the Control unit produced erroneous readings. Consequently, the 

results required a significant degree of censoring. In addition, although the data span the period 

5-95 
March 2002 through April 2003, there were large time gaps for several of the probes that 

biased the readings. The available data from the probes across the landfill are variable and 

exhibit large temperature differentials. The average mean temperature for the site can be 

estimated as approximately 17oC. 

LANDFILL GAS (LFG) CHARACTERISTICS 

Landfill gas parameters were measured both on-site using a GEM 200 field instrument on a 

weekly basis, and by sample collection in a 6-liter SUMMA® canister for off-site lab analysis 

on a quarterly basis. The results documented in this report apply only to the Control Unit (7.3 A 

and B) and the FLB (Unit 5.1 and 5.2) as these units contain waste of sufficient age to be 

generating LFG (methanogenis phase). 

Summary of Landfill Gas Flow 

The collected landfill gas flow rate was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B and the 

FLB cells 5.1 and 5.2. The rate of flow was measured weekly using a calibrated orifice plate at 

the installed gas monitoring wells within each cell. Control cells 7.3 A and B both have two 

monitoring wells (referred to as 1 and 2), while each of the FLB cells, 5.1 and 5.2, has one. The 

results are graphically displayed in Figures 5-55 and 5-56. 

The results available for this report span approximately 16 months from January 2002 until 

May 2003. Landfill gas flow rate has remained steady throughout this period in both Control 

cells, as shown by the relatively level plots at each of the four monitoring points. In Control 

cell A, the mean value measured was in the range 47 to 49 scfm at well 1, and 29 to 31 scfm at 

well 2. In Control cell B, the mean value measured was in the range 45 to 47 scfm at well 1, 

and 32 to 34 scfm at well 2. 

The results for the FLB, over approximately the same period, show a flow of between 

approximately 300 to 500 scfm in both cells until approximately June 2002 when a significant 

drop in the flow rate occurred. This steady drop occurred between approximately May and July 

for FLB 5.1, and between July and September 2002 in FLB 5.2. The production rate then 

remained relatively constant in a range of 50 to 250 scfm in both cells until May 2003. 

. 

5-96
Figure 5-46. Box Plot of Control Cell Waste Thermocouple Readings

(3/2002 - 4/2003)

Temperature 

oC 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 

73 T01 73 T03 73 T04 73 T06 73 T07 73 T08 

5-97
Figure 5-47. FLB (5.1A) Waste Thermocouple Readings 

(3/12/2002 - 4/1/2003) 

Temperature 

oC 

80

60

40

20

0 

51A T01

51A T02

51A T03

51A T04

51A T05

51A T06

51A T07

51A T08

51A T09

51A T10

51A T11

51A T12

51A T13

51A T14 

Thermocouple ID

5-98
Figure 5-48. FLB (5.2D) Waste Themocouple Readings

(3/12/2002 - 4/1/2003)

Temperature 

o

C

80

60

40

20

0 

52B T01

52B T02

52B T03

52B T04

52B T05

52B T06

52B T07

52B T08

52B T09

52B T10

52B T11

52B T12

52B T13

52B T14

52B T15 

Thermocouple ID 

5-99
Figure 5-49. AALB (7.4A) Lift 1 Waste Thermocouple Readings

(3/13/2002 - 4/1/2003) 

80

Temperature 

oC 

60

40

20

0 

74A T01 74A T02 

74A T03 

74A T04 

74A T05 74A T06 

74A T07 74A T08 

74A T09 74A T10 

Thermocouple ID 

5-100
Figure 5-50. AALB (7.4A) Lift 2 Waste Thermocouple Readings

(5/29/2002 - 4/1/2003) 

80

Temperature 

oC 

60

40

20

0 

74A T11 

74A T12 

74A T13 

74A T14 74A T15 

74A T16 

74A T17 

74A T18 

74A T19 

74A T20 74A T21 

74A T22 

74A T23 

Thermocouple ID 

5-101
Figure 5-51. AALB (7.4A) Lift 3 Waste Thermocouple Readings

(11/4/2002 - 4/1/2003) 

80

Temperature 

oC 

60

40

20

0 

74A T24 

74A T25 

74A T26 

74A T27 

74A T28 

74A T29 

74A T30 

74A T31 

74A T32 

74A T33 

74A T34 

Thermocouple ID 

5-102
Figure 5-52. AALB (7.4B) Lift 1 Waste Thermocouple Readings

(3/13/2002 - 4/1/2003) 

80

Temperature 

oC 

60

40

20

0 

74B T01

74B T02

74B T03

74B T04

74B T05

74B T06

74B T07

74B T08

74B T09

74B T10

74B T11

74B T12

74B T13

74B T14

74B T15 

Thermocouple ID 

5-103
Figure 5-53. AALB (7.4B) Lift 2 Waste Thermocouple Readings

(7/1/2002 - 4/1/2003)

Temperature o C 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

74B T16 

74B T17 

74B T18 

74B T19 

74B T20 

74B T21 

74B T22 

74B T23 

74B T24 

74B T25 

74B T26 

74B T27 

Thermocouple ID

5-104
Figure 5-54. AALB (7.4B) Lift 3 Waste Thermocouple Readings

(2/3/2003 - 4/1/2003)

Temperature 

oC 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

74B T28

74B T29

74B T30

74B T31

74B T32

74B T33

74B T34

74B T35

74B T36

74B T37

74B T38

74B T39

74B T40

74B T41

74B T42 

Thermocouple ID

5-105 
Flow Rate (scfm)

Figure 5-55. Landfill Gas Flow vs. Time for

Control (7.3) A and B

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0 

9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003 

Control A-1 

Control A-2 

Control B-1 

Control B-2 

5-106
Figure 5-56. Landfill Gas Flow vs. Time for 

FLB 5.1A and 5.2D 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003 

Flow Rate (scfm)

FLB 5.1A 

FLB 5.2D 

5-107
Summary of Landfill Gas Temperature 

The landfill gas temperature was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B and the FLB 

cells 5.1 and 5.2. The temperature was measured weekly using a bimetal thermometer 

permanently installed at either the gas header, metering station piping or gas well within each 

cell. Control cells 7.3 A and B both have two monitoring wells (referred to as 1 and 2), while 

each of the FLB cells, 5.1 and 5.2, has one. The results are graphically displayed in Figures 5­

57 and 5-58. 

The results available for this report span approximately 16 months from January 2002 until 

May 2003. Landfill gas temperature has remained steady throughout this period in both Control 

cells, as shown by the relatively level plots at each of the four monitoring points. The mean 

temperature varied between the monitoring wells, see Table 5-37. 

TABLE 5-37. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS TEMPERATURES 

Location Approx. Mean 

Temperature ( oF) 

Max Temperature 

(oF) 

Min Temperature

 (oF) 

Control Cell A 

Monitoring Well 1 

Monitoring Well 2 

111 

101 

120 

120* (108 typical) 

98 

95 

Control Cell B 

Monitoring Well 1 

Monitoring Well 2 

102 

94 

110 

102 

98 

75* (90 typical) 

* Atypical value. 

The results for the FLB, over approximately the same period, showed considerable variation in 

both cells throughout the period, although the overall trend for both cells was similar. Both 

cells showed a gradual decline in temperature until March 2002 from over 90oF to 

approximately 75-80oF. From March until September 2002, there was a gradual increase in 

LFG temperature to a maximum of about 95oF. This pattern was repeated with a decline in 

temperature over the Winter period until March 2003, when the temperature began to rise 

again. The minimum temperature reached in FLB 5.1 was approximately 72oF in January 2003 

and 60oF in FLB 5.2 in February/March 2003. 

5-108
Figure 5-57. Landfill Gas Temperature vs. Time for 

Control 7.3A and 7.3B 

Temperature (

oF)

130

120

110

100

90

Control 7.3A-1 

80 Control 7.3A-2 

70

130

Control 7.3B-1 

120 Control 7.3B-2

110

100

90

80

70

9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003 

5-109
100 

Figure 5-58. Landfill Gas Temperature vs. Time for 

FLB 5.1A and 5.2D 

90

80

70

60

50

9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003 

Temperature (

oF) 

FLB (5.1A) LFG Temperature 

FLB (5.2D) LFG Temperature 

5-110
Summary of Landfill Gas Composition 

The landfill gas composition was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B and the FLB 

cells 5.1 and 5.2. The composition was measured weekly using the GEM 200 at the installed 

gas monitoring wells within each cell. Control cells 7.3 A and B both have two monitoring 

wells (referred to as 1 and 2), while each of the FLB cells, 5.1 and 5.2, has one. The results are 

graphically displayed in Figures 5-59, 5-60 and 5-61. 

The bulk gas compositions for both Control Units, at both gas wells, remained constant for the 

period January 2002 until May 2003. The following table gives the approximate mean values 

for each component at each location. Results are summarized below in Table 5-38. 

TABLE 5-38. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION IN THE 

CONTROL 

Location % Methane (v/v) % Carbon Dioxide (v/v) % Oxygen (v/v) 

Control Unit A 

Monitoring Well 1 

Monitoring Well 2 

60 

60 

40 

40 

0 

0 

Control Unit B 

Monitoring Well 1 

Monitoring Well 2 

59 

59 

41 

40 

0 

0 

The bulk gas compositions in the FLB units showed greater variability over the period 

September 2001 until May 2003. However, results from Unit 5.1 were sufficiently consistent to 

justify calculating approximate mean values for the period. Gas composition is summarized 

below in Table 5-39. 

TABLE 5-39. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITON IN FLB5.1 

FLB Unit 5.1: Approximate Mean Gas Composition 

% Methane (v/v) 52 

% Carbon Dioxide (v/v) 36 

% Oxygen (v/v) 2 

FLB Unit 5.2 bulk gas composition values were too variable after May 2002 to draw a 

meaningful average. The following table provides the maximum and minimum value recorded 

for each component over the period. Results are summarized below in Table 5-40. 

TABLE 5-40. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION IN FLB 5.2 

FLB Unit 5.2: Max and Min Gas Composition Values 

Component Maximum % (v/v) Minimum % (v/v) 

Methane 

Carbon Dioxide 

Oxygen 

62 

47 

17 

20 

4 

0 

5-111
Figure 5-59. Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for

Control 7.3A

Concentration (% v/v)

0

20

40

60

80

9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003

0

20

40

60

80

CH4

CO2

O2

Gas Well No. 1

Gas Well No. 2

CH4

CO2

O2

5-112
Figure 5-60. Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for

Control 7.3B

Concentration (% v/v)

0

20

40

60

80

9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003

0

20

40

60

80

CH4

CO2

O2

Gas Well No. 1

Gas Well No. 2

CH4

CO2

O2

5-113
Figure 5-61. Landfill Gas Composition vs. Time for

FLB 5.1A and 5.2D

0

20

40

60

80

9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003

Concentration (% v/v)

0

20

40

60

80

CH4

CO2

O2

FLB 5.1A

FLB 5.2D

CH4

CO2

O2

5-114
Summary of Landfill Gas Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOCs) 

The landfill gas total NMOC content was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B and the 

FLB cells 5.1 and 5.2. The NMOC content was measured quarterly by extracting a LFG 

sample into a 6-liter SUMMA® canister from the installed gas monitoring wells within each 

cell, and submitting for off-site lab analysis. The results are displayed as bar charts in Figures 

5-62 and 5-63. 

Four samples were taken from each of the four monitoring wells in the Control units in March, 

June, November and December 2002. Five samples were taken from both monitoring wells in 

the FLB in December 2001, March, June, November and December 2002. The NMOC levels 

remained relatively constant, with significantly lower values seen in the FLB units. Results are 

summarized below in Table 5-41. 

TABLE 5-41. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS NMOCS 

Maximum and Minimum Total NMOC Values Seen in Control and FLB Units 

Location Maximum Conc. 

(ppm-C, as hexane) 

Minimum Conc. 

(ppm-C, as hexane) 

Control Unit 7.3A 

Gas Monitoring Well 1 

Gas Monitoring Well 2 

1383 

1833 

883 

1333 

Control Unit 7.3B 

Gas Monitoring Well 1 

Gas Monitoring Well 2 

883 

850 

583 

517 

FLB Unit 5.1 

Gas Monitoring Well 350 200 

FLB Unit 5.2 

Gas Monitoring Well 383 183 

5-115
Figure 5-62. Total NMOCs vs. Time for 

Control (7.3A & B) 

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 

ppm 

73A G01 

73A G02 

73B G01 

73B G02 

3/2002 4/2002 5/2002 6/2002 7/2002 8/2002 9/2002 

10/2002 11/2002 

12/2002

5-116
Figure 5-63. Total NMOCs vs. Time for 

FLB (5.1A and 5.2D) 

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 

Concentration (ppm)

51 G01 

52 G01 

12/2001

1/20022/2002

3/2002

4/2002

5/2002

6/2002

7/20028/20029/2002

10/200211/200212/2002

Date 

5-117
Summary of Landfill Gas Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) 

The presence of HAPs in LFG was measured for both Control cells 7.3 A and B, and the FLB 

cells 5.1 and 5.2. HAPs were measured quarterly by extracting a LFG sample into a 6-liter 

SUMMA® canister from the installed gas monitoring wells within each cell, and submitting for 

off-site lab analysis. The results are displayed as tables in Tables 5-42 through 5-45. 

The readings for the Control units cover the period March 21, 2002 through December 19, 

2002. The readings for the FLB units cover the period December 19, 2001 through December 

19, 2002. For Control and FLB samples, HAPs were below detection limits in at least 64 

percent of the samples. 

TABLE 5-42. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 

CONTROL 7.3A (GAS WELL 1 AND GAS WELL 2), MARCH 21, 2002 THROUGH 

DECEMBER 19, 2002 

HAPs Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of NonDetects (ND) Number of 

Readings 

1-1000 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>1000 μg/l 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 8 0 2 6 

Chloromethane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 8 6 2 0 

Vinyl chloride 8 7 1 0 

Bromomethane 8 8 0 0 

Chloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 8 8 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 8 6 2 0 

Carbon disulfide 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 8 8 0 0 

Acetone 8 0 0 8 

Methylene chloride 8 4 3 1 

Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Vinyl acetate 8 8 0 0 

Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 8 0 6 2 

2-Butanone (MEK) 8 0 0 8 

Chloroform 8 8 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Carbon tetrachloride 8 8 0 0 

Benzene 8 0 8 0 

1,2-Dichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Trichloroethene 8 1 7 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 8 8 0 0 

Bromodichloromethane 8 8 0 0 

Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 8 8 0 0 

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 8 0 0 8 

Toluene 8 0 0 8 

Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Tetrachloroethene 8 0 3 5 

2-Hexanone 8 8 0 0 

5-118
HAPs Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of NonDetects (ND) Number of 

Readings 

1-1000 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>1000 μg/l 

Dibromochloromethane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 8 8 0 0 

Chlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Ethylbenzene 8 0 0 8 

Xylenes (total) 8 0 0 8 

Styrene 8 0 0 8 

Bromoform 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Benzyl chloride 8 8 0 0 

4-Ethyltoluene 8 0 0 8 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 8 0 2 6 

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 8 0 0 8 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 4 2 2 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 8 8 0 0 

Total 392 260 38 94 

TABLE 5-43. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

CONTROL 7.3B (GAS WELL 1 AND GAS WELL 2), MARCH 21, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER

19, 2002

HAPs Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of NonDetects (ND) Number of 

Readings 

1-1000 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>1000 μg/l 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 8 8 2 6 

Chloromethane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 8 6 2 0 

Vinyl chloride 8 1 2 5 

Bromomethane 8 8 0 0 

Chloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 8 7 1 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

Carbon disulfide 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 8 8 0 0 

Acetone 8 0 0 8 

Methylene chloride 8 8 0 0 

Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 8 8 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 8 5 3 0 

Vinyl acetate 8 8 0 0 

Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 8 0 4 4 

2-Butanone (MEK) 8 0 0 8 

Chloroform 8 8 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Carbon tetrachloride 8 8 0 0 

Benzene 8 0 5 3 

1,2-Dichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Trichloroethene 8 0 8 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 8 8 0 0 

5-119
HAPs Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of NonDetects (ND) Number of 

Readings 

1-1000 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>1000 μg/l 

Bromodichloromethane 8 8 0 0 

Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 8 8 0 0 

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 8 1 0 7 

Toluene 8 0 0 8 

Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Tetrachloroethene 8 0 5 3 

2-Hexanone 8 8 0 0 

Dibromochloromethane 8 8 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 8 8 0 0 

Chlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Ethylbenzene 8 0 0 8 

Xylenes (total) 8 0 0 8 

Styrene 8 0 3 5 

Bromoform 8 8 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 8 8 0 0 

Benzyl chloride 8 8 0 0 

4-Ethyltoluene 8 0 0 8 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 8 0 5 3 

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 8 0 0 8 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 6 1 1 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 8 8 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 8 8 0 0 

Total 392 258 41 93 

TABLE 5-44. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FLB 5.1(GAS WELL 1), DECEMBER 19, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 19, 2002

HAPs Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of NonDetects (ND) Number of 

Readings 

1-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 5 0 5 0 

Chloromethane 5 5 0 0 

1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 5 4 1 0 

Vinyl chloride 5 0 4 1 

Bromomethane 5 5 0 0 

Chloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 5 5 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 5 5 0 0 

Carbon disulfide 5 5 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 5 5 0 0 

Acetone 5 0 0 5 

Methylene chloride 5 3 2 0 

Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 5 5 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 5 4 1 0 

Vinyl acetate 5 5 0 0 

Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5 0 5 0 

2-Butanone (MEK) 5 0 0 5 

5-120
HAPs Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of NonDetects (ND) Number of 

Readings 

1-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Chloroform 5 5 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Carbon tetrachloride 5 5 0 0 

Benzene 5 0 5 0 

1,2-Dichloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Trichloroethene 5 2 3 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 5 5 0 0 

Bromodichloromethane 5 5 0 0 

Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 5 5 0 0 

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 5 0 4 1 

Toluene 5 0 0 5 

Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 5 5 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Tetrachloroethene 5 1 4 0 

2-Hexanone 5 5 0 0 

Dibromochloromethane 5 5 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 5 5 0 0 

Chlorobenzene 5 5 0 0 

Ethylbenzene 5 0 0 5 

Xylenes (total) 5 5 0 0 

Styrene 5 3 2 0 

Bromoform 5 5 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Benzyl chloride 5 5 0 0 

4-Ethyltoluene 5 0 0 5 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 5 0 5 0 

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5 0 0 5 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 5 5 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 5 0 5 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 5 5 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 5 5 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 5 5 0 0 

Total 245 167 46 32 

TABLE 5-45. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 

FLB 5.2(GAS WELL 2), DECEMBER 19, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 19 

HAPs Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of NonDetects (ND) Number of 

Readings 

1-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 5 0 5 0 

Chloromethane 5 5 0 0 

1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 5 4 1 0 

Vinyl chloride 5 0 5 1 

Bromomethane 5 5 0 0 

Chloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Trichlorofluoromethane 5 4 1 0 

1,1-Dichloroethene 5 5 0 0 

Carbon disulfide 5 5 0 0 

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 5 5 0 0 

5-121
HAPs Compounds Number of 

Readings 

Number of NonDetects (ND) Number of 

Readings 

1-100 μg/l 

Number of 

Readings 

>100 μg/l 

Acetone 5 0 1 4 

Methylene chloride 5 3 2 0 

Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 5 5 0 0 

1,1-Dichloroethane 5 4 1 0 

Vinyl acetate 5 5 0 0 

Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5 0 5 0 

2-Butanone (MEK) 5 0 1 4 

Chloroform 5 5 0 0 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Carbon tetrachloride 5 5 0 0 

Benzene 5 0 5 0 

1,2-Dichloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Trichloroethene 5 1 4 0 

1,2-Dichloropropane 5 5 0 0 

Bromodichloromethane 5 5 0 0 

Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 5 5 0 0 

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 5 0 3 2 

Toluene 5 5 0 0 

Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 5 0 0 5 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Tetrachloroethene 5 0 5 0 

2-Hexanone 5 5 0 0 

Dibromochloromethane 5 5 0 0 

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 5 5 0 0 

Chlorobenzene 5 5 0 0 

Ethylbenzene 5 0 0 5 

Xylenes (total) 5 0 0 5 

Styrene 5 3 2 0 

Bromoform 5 5 0 0 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 5 5 0 0 

Benzyl chloride 5 5 0 0 

4-Ethyltoluene 5 0 0 5 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 5 0 5 0 

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5 0 0 5 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 5 5 0 0 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 5 0 5 0 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 5 5 0 0 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 5 5 0 0 

Hexachlorobutadiene 5 5 0 0 

Total 245 158 51 36 

LANDFILL GAS SURFACE EMISSIONS 

Methane emissions were measured on a twice-quarterly basis using a CEC-Landtec SEM-500 

field instrument. Surface concentrations were monitored around the perimeter of the collection 

area and along a pattern that traversed the landfill at 30m intervals and where visual 

observations indicated elevated concentrations of landfill gas. Emissions were monitored and 

recorded separately for Unit 5 and 7. 

5-122
The climatic conditions and the background methane concentration up and downwind were 

recorded for each sampling event. Background concentrations averaged 8.4 ppm upwind and 

11.8 ppm downwind for Unit 5, and 5.0 ppm upwind and 8.2 ppm downwind for Unit 7, for the

period December 2001 to July 2003. 

Permit requirements necessitate a methane concentration greater than 500ppm above the 

measured background level to be marked, adjustments made to reduce the surface emissions at 

that location, and the location to be reanalyzed within 10 days. If an exceedance exists on 

reanalysis, additional adjustments and/or cover maintenance must be performed and the 

location reanalyzed within 10 days. On a third exceedance, the Air Pollution Control District 

(APCD) must be notified, and either a new well installed within 120 days of the initial 

exceedance, or an alternative remedy submitted for approval to the APCD. 

During the period from December 2001 to July 2003, Unit 5 recorded the following permit 

response actions: 

• Reported three occasions of exceedances which were resolved within 10 days via 

adjustment of the gas collection system; 

• Five locations where additional soil cover was added; and 

• Installation of one new gas collection well. 

During the same monitoring period, Unit 7 recorded the following permit response actions: 

• Seven locations where additional soil cover was added; and 

• One occasion that required maintenance of the leachate risers to resolve the issue. 

MOISTURE BALANCE 

The moisture balance within the landfill is dependent on several factors, not all of which are 

known precisely. In conventional landfills, the primary moisture sources are precipitation and 

storm water runoff, along with other additions such leachate recirculation, LFG condensate, 

and waste moisture. The rate of percolation through the landfill, and ultimately the volume of 

leachate generated, is dependent in part on the nature of waste in the landfill and its field 

capacity. A moisture balance analysis will be performed for each of the test cells in the Final 

Report of this research investigation. 

FUGITIVE GAS EMISSIONS 

The AALB was found to have 160 g/s of methane, while the FLB unit was 39 g/s of methane. 

The AALB estimate is considered to be conservative since complete capture of the entire plume 

was not possible. Additional sampling is being conducted and will be combined with the 

September 2002 results. An overview of the fugitive gas emissions study is included in 

Appendix D. 

5-123
SECTION 6 

FIELD OBSERVATIONS 

The purpose of this section is to summarize interim field observations made during the 

construction and operation of the Unit 5 and Unit 7 landfill bioreactor cells. These 

observations are from Mr. Tony Barbush, co-Principal Investigator, and Mr. Gary Hater, 

Project Manager, each an WMI employee with responsibilities for permitting, construction, 

and ongoing operations at the Outer Loop Facility. Selected photographs are provided in 

Appendix A to provide the reader with some insight of the site conditions and construction of 

project elements. 

It is recognized that these observations are general in nature and are not supported by 

experimental field data as might be presented in a technical or scientific manner. Moreover, 

such observations may not be applicable at other landfill sites due to many variables. 

Lack of supporting documentation and applicability might suggest that such observations 

should be excluded from this interim research report. However, full-scale trials of landfill 

bioreactor technologies are not common in the United States or in the published literature. 

Landfill owners and operators in the industry have little guidance as to what field techniques, 

practices, and procedures have merit with respect to the objectives of this and similar projects. 

As a result, this section has been included to contribute to the knowledge base of landfill 

operators seeking to explore the use of landfill bioreactor techniques and practices. 

Four topics for field observation are discussed herein: 

• Tire chips as part of cell construction 

• Air addition to enhance aerobic degradation 

• Landfill gas collection performance 

• Moisture Addition Amounts 

TIRE CHIPS AS PART OF CELL CONSTRUCTION 

The use of tire chips was integrated into the construction of landfill bioreactor cells Units 5 and 

7, generally for purposes of aggregate and replacement of gravel or stone where practical. 

During the cell construction period, WMI received over 20,000 tons of tire chips (less than 3­

inch [1.935 mm2

] pieces), equivalent to some 2.4 million tires, for pipe bedding, hydraulic 

separation of adjacent cells, and as part of a protection layer atop the leachate collection 

system. 

As pipe bedding, the tire chips were placed into trenches as part of the installation of perforated 

pipe used for the reintroduction of air, leachate or other moisture, and for landfill gas 

collection. Depending on the cell, trenches were either 3-feet or 15-feet deep, with varying 

bedding layers, piping runs, and instrumentation installations. Field observations suggest that 

these tire chips work well for pipe bedding in terms of the intended design. Performance of the 

6-1
tire chips may be reduced if there is significant vertical height of waste above the piping and 

subsequent compression loading. Field observations suggest that HDPE pipe SDR 17 

(standard dimension ratio) performance is better when bedded in tire chips with less than 

approximately 75 feet of vertical waste height. This performance was confirmed, at least in 

part, through television inspection of such pipes (4-inch diameter) at the Outer Loop facility. 

At greater vertical waste heights, field observations suggest that either the bedding material 

must be changed (e.g., to gravel or glass cullet) or the piping must be changed to SDR 11. 

In lieu of geomembranes or other impermeable materials, a 6- to12-inch tire chip layer was 

used in conjunction with a 12-inch clay layer to construct hydraulic separation barriers between 

research cells. As the various cells were filled, this barrier was installed to retain leachate and 

infiltration moisture within the test cells, and to reduce/prevent landfill gas migration from 

other cells into the test cells. 

A one-foot thick layer of tire chips was placed atop the leachate collection system as a 

protective material. This allowed the overall protective layer of placed refuse to be reduced to 

four feet from 10 feet. 

AIR ADDITION TO ENHANCE AEROBIC DEGRADATION 

The addition of air into Unit 7.4 was accomplished on an intermittent basis during the air 

addition phase of the program design. Landfill gas blowers were used primarily, along with an 

air compressor (or both) on some occasions. Rates of air addition into buried perforated pipe 

varied from approximately 200 scfm to 1,000 scfm, dependent on the waste lift and waste 

temperature, as well as on waste moisture and air permeability. For example, during the period 

of April 18, 2002 through April 1, 2003, lifts in Cell 7.4A were aerated for over 2,000 hours; 

lifts in Cell 7.4B were aerated for just over 600 hours, using only the blowers. 

As discussed earlier in this report, significant attention was given to the placement and number 

of temperature probes. Even so, some 10 percent of the installed probes appeared to fail with 

time. 

Waste temperature rise was used as a key measure to stop or reduce air addition. Field 

procedures called for evaluating continued air in the cells if any waste temperature probe 

reached 80o C, or if after reaching 60o C, a temperature probe increased by 10o C or more 

during any 48-hour period. Moisture additions were to be used, where warranted, to cool the 

in-place waste. Field observations and measurements suggested that these procedures avoided 

excessive temperatures that might lead to a subsurface fire situation. Over the period of 

treatment discussed herein, waste temperature exceedances did not occur and thus, aeration 

was not suspended nor was moisture addition prescribed for cooling the waste. 

With the introduction of air into the landfill, no impacts were observed on fugitive landfill gas 

emissions. That is, no exceedances of regulatory thresholds were encountered before or after 

the period of aeration treatment from surface emissions monitoring. 

6-2
LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION AND PERFORMANCE 

Moisture additions called for in the program design appeared to have an impact on landfill gas 

collection performance. Significant LFG generation was able to be captured in the leachate 

risers, leading to the need to valve the riser vaults and cleanouts and improve overall 

collection. Horizontal landfill gas collectors appeared to work as designed; the exception to 

this was during rain surges where on occasion, the piping and bedding materials flooded 

temporarily. In Unit 5 where vertical wells were used, field experience indicated that the 

installation of in-place pumps was useful to prevent watering out of some landfill gas wells. 

MOISTURE ADDITION AMOUNTS 

Moisture additions called for in the program design were accomplished on an intermittent 

basis, dependent on several daily and seasonal factors, as well as operator judgments. Apparent 

moisture content of the as-received waste, moisture content of expected waste loads, received 

and forecasted precipitation, recent moisture additions (including leachate) and other 

considerations, were taken into account so as to achieve good waste infiltration while avoiding 

leachate outbreaks, seeps, and reduced performance of landfill gas collection wells due to 

excessive moisture. 

Field observations on this project suggest that the removal of low permeability cover layers 

and paved haul roads prior to moisture addition can reduce or minimize sideslope seepage. In 

addition, placement of large volumes of non-permeable waste soils or similar materials should 

be directed away from the center of an operating cell, where practical, so as to manage 

moisture flow away from sideslopes. 

Conceptually, a lower in-place waste density will allow greater volumes of moisture addition 

than a higher initial waste in-place density, other factors being equal. Field observations on 

this project suggest that this basic relationship holds. Consequently, basic guidance can be 

developed for moisture addition to in-place refuse when the initial in-place density can be 

calculated and the approximate area (footprint) of the cell is known. 

This guidance is summarized in the below Figure 6-1, and provides a general calculated 

approach to the amount of moisture that can be added initially on a daily basis, relative to the 

surface area of the landfill cell. Based on field observations at the Outer Loop facility, moisture 

addition is an approximate linear relationship and not necessarily depth dependent. Note that a 

performance benchmark can be developed (termed the Airspace Utilization Factor, as 

discussed in Section 5) based on the calculated in-place waste density (wet) compared to the 

desired or target density (wet) to be achieved. 

6-3
 Water Addition Based on Density and 

Footprint 

1200 

1300 

1400 

1500 

1600 

1700 

1800 

6000 4000 3000 2000 

gal/acre/day 

Density (lb/cu yd) 

0.6 

0.7 

0.8 

0.9 

AUF 

Figure 6-1. Water Addition Based on Density and Footprint 

For example, suppose an operator intends to operate a new 10-acre landfill cell as a bioreactor 

through moisture addition and wetting of the waste at the working face. At the time of initial 

moisture addition, the calculated in-place density is approximately 1,400 lbs of refuse per cubic 

yard. Based on the above table, approximately 4,000 gallons per acre per day (or 40,000 

gallons per day), can be added during dry working conditions at the onset. The field experience 

at the Outer Loop facility suggests this amount would not/did not result in leachate seeps or 

outbreaks. Moisture addition would be limited to the working face area, the operating deck, 

and/or, if installed, subsurface piping of some kind.

6-4
SECTION 7 

REFERENCES 

1. Reinhart, D.R., Townsend, T.G. 1998. Landfill Bioreactor Design and Operation. Lewis 

Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 

2. Green, R.B., Vogt, W.G., Sullivan PS. 2000. Comparison of Emissions from Bioreactor and 

Conventional Subtitle D Landfills. Presented at Wastecon 2000. 

3. For References on previous Bioreactor Studies, go to http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/landfill/bioreactors.htm. 

4. Markwiese, J.T., Vega, A.M., Green, R., Black, P. 2002. “Evaluation Plan for Two LargeScale Landfill Bioreactor Technologies”. MSW Management 

(http://www.forester.net/msw:html). Online publication, November/December Issue: 66-70. 

5. Saint-Fort, R. 2002. “Assessing Sanitary Landfill Stabilization Using Winter and Summer 

Waste Streams in Simulated Landfill Cells”. Journal of Environmental Science and Health 

A37:237-259. 

6. Tammemagi, H. 1999. The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators and the Search for a 

Sustainable Future. Oxford University Press, New York. 

7. Hater, G.R., Green, R., Hamblin, G. Sequential Aerobic/Anaerobic Solid Waste Landfill 

Operation. Sept. 4, 2001. United States Patent US 6,238,676 B1. 

8. EPA. 1988. “Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW).” 

Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. Revised March 1988. 

EPA-600/4-79-020. 

9. EPA. 1986. “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. 

Laboratory Manual, Volume 1A through 1C and Field Manual, Volume 2. SW-846 Third 

Edition, Final (Promulgated) Update III.” Office of Solid Waste. EPA Document Control 

No. 955-001-00000-1, December. (Referred to as SW-845 throughout this document). 

10. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (Appendix A), Parts 136 and 29 CFR, and 

Parts 1910, 120, 1200 and 1450 as updated. 

11. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, 1996. 

12. EPA. 1996. “Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Compounds in 

Ambient Air.” EPA-625/R-96-010b. 

7-1
APPENDIX A 

PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS 
Photo 1: Leachate Storage Tank 

Photo 2: Drill Rig Equipped With a 3-foot Diameter Bucket Auger-Samples of Waste 

Are Collected in 10-foot Vertical Sections 

A-1
Photo 3: Fresh Waste Sample Collected from Drill Rig Using a 3-foot Bucket Auger 

Photo 4: Trenching Layout AALB Unit 

A-2
Photo 5: Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) Leachate Treatment Facility 

Photo 6: Waste Temperature Measurements 

A-3
Photo 7: Leachate pH/Temperature /Conductance Sampling Using a Bench Top 

Accumet AR20 Instrument 

Photo 8: Waste Sampling 

A-4
Photo 9: Unit 5(FLB) Aerial Photograph 

Photo 10: Unit 7 (AALB + Control) Aerial Photograph 

A-5
APPENDIX B

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR LANDFILL

BIOREACTOR STUDIES AT OUTER LOOP LANDFILL

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

Draft Final 

November 2002 

Prepared by: 

Waste Management, Inc. 

WMI Biosites Group 

2956 Montana Ave 

Cincinnati, OH 45211 

and 

Neptune and Company, Inc. 

1505 15th Street, Suite B 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 

B-1
Revision: 0

Date: 11/25/02 Page:

2 of iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of Tables 

Quality Assurance Project Plan Distribution List 

1.0 Project Description 

1.1 Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) Study 

1.1.1 FLB Primary Objective 

1.1.2 FLB Secondary Objective 

1.1.3 FLB Project Description 

1.1.4 FLB Process Description 

1.2 Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) Study 

1.2.1 AALB Primary Objective 

1.2.2 AALB Secondary Objective 

1.2.3 AALB Project Description 

1.2.4 AALB Process Description 

1.3 Landfill Bioreactor Schedule 

1.4 Overview of Data Collection 

2.0 Project Organization 

2.1 Quality Assurance Management Team 

2.2 Responsibilities of Other Project Participants 

3.0 Experimental Approach 

3.1 Sampling Strategy 

3.2 Critical and Non-Critical Measurements 

3.3 Data Evaluation 

3.3.1 Leachate 

3.3.2 Gases 

3.3.3 MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) 

4.0 Sampling Procedures 

4.1 General 

4.2 Site Specific Factors Affecting Sampling 

4.3 Site Preparation Required for Sampling Activities 

4.4 Sampling/Monitoring Procedures 

4.4.1 Leachate 

4.4.2 Gases 

4.4.2.1 Field Analyses (daily/weekly monitoring) 

4.4.2.2 Laboratory Analyses (quarterly monitoring) 

4.4.2.3 Surface Emission Monitoring 

4.4.3 MSW 

4.4.4 Sampling Strategy 

4.5 Laboratory Responsibilities 

4.6 Field and In-situ Equipment 

4.7 Sample Management 

4.7.1 Sample Identification 

4.7.1.1 MSW Samples 

4.7.2 Containerization, Preservation and Holding Times 

4.7.3 Sample Handling and Shipment 

4.8 Field Documentation 

4.8.1 Project Logbooks 

4.8.2 Corrections to Documentation 

iii of iv

iv of iv

1 of 4

1 of 4

1 of 4

1 of 4

2 of 4

2 of 4

3 of 4

3 of 4

3 of 4

3 of 4

3 of 4

4 of 4

4 of 4

1 of 3

1 of 3

1 of 3

1 of 8

1 of 8

3 of 8

5 of 8

6 of 8

7 of 8

8 of 8

1 of 10

1 of 10

2 of 10

2 of 10

2 of 10

2 of 10

2 of 10

3 of 10

3 of 10

3 of 10

4 of 10

5 of 10

5 of 10

5 of 10

5 of 10

6 of 10

6 of 10

7 of 10

7 of 10

9 of 10

9 of 10

10 of 10

B-2
Revision: 0 

Date: 11/25/02 Page: 

3 of iv 

5.0 Testing and Measurement Protocols 1 of 2 

5.1 Method References 1 of 2 

5.2 Procedures for Analytical Equipment and Test Methods 2 of 2 

6.0 QA/QC Controls 1 of 8 

6.1 Definitions 1 of 8 

6.2 Types of QC Samples 2 of 8 

6.3 Field Quality Control 3 of 8 

6.4 Laboratory Quality Control 4 of 8 

6.5 Failure to Meet Data Quality Indicators 7 of 8 

6.6 Retained Sample Storage 8 of 8 

7.0 Data Reporting, Data Reduction and Data Validation 1 of 4 

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 

8.0 Audits 

8.1 

8.2 

8.3 

8.4 

8.5 

Laboratory Data Reduction Reporting 1 of 4 

7.1.1 Laboratory Data Reduction 1 of 4 

7.1.2 Laboratory Data Validation 1 of 4 

7.1.3 Laboratory Reporting and Data Retention Requirements 2 of 4 

Project Data Reporting 

Reporting 

7.3.1 Schedule 

7.3.2 Final Report 

Performance Audits 

System Audits 

Corrective Action 

Initiation of Corrective Action 

Documentation of Corrective Action 

3 of 4 

4 of 4 

4 of 4 

4 of 4 

1 of 3 

1 of 3 

1 of 3 

2 of 3 

2 of 3 

3 of 3 

9.0 References 1 of 1

Appendix A: Timeline for Outer Loop Landfill Bioreactor Studies 1 of 1 

Appendix B: Microbial Ecology of Nitrogen Transformations 1 of 1 

Appendix C: Methane, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Measurements 1 of 1 

Appendix D: Organic Solids 1 of 1 

Appendix E: Biochemical Methane Potential 1 of 3 

Appendix F: Moisture Content 1 of 1 

Appendix G: Waste pH 1 of 1 

Appendix H: Sampling diagrams (provided separately by WMI on an “as needed” basis) 1 of 1 

Appendix I: Examples of Exploratory Data Analysis Plots and the Mann-Kendall Test 1 of 1 

Appendix J: Hazardous Air Pollutants to be Analyzed 1 of 9 

Appendix K: Field Sampling Forms, see attached PDF files 

B-3
Revision: 0 

Date: 11/25/02 Page: 

4 of iv

LIST OF TABLES 

2-1 Quality Assurance Management Team 4

2-2 Project Participant List 5

2-3 Contact Information for Key Project Personnel 5

3-1 Leachate Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies 7

3-2 Municipal Solid Waste Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies 8

3-3 Gas Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies 8

3-4 Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Leachate 10

3-5 Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Municipal Solid Waste 10

3-6 Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Gas 11

4-1 Proper containers, preservatives and holding times for landfill bioreactor studies 19

5-1 Method References 23

6-1 Field Quality Control Samples 27

6-1-1 pH 27

6-1-2 Waste Density 28

6-1-3 Gases 28

6-1-4 Waste Settlement 28

6-2 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: COD 29

6-3 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: BOD 29

6-4 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Volatile Organic Acids 30

6-5 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Organic Solids 30

6-6 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Waste Moisture 30

6-7 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Waste pH 30

6-8 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Biochemical Methane Potential 31

6-9 Quality Assurance Objectives 31

7-1 Reporting Units for Critical Measurements 33

B-4 
Revision: 0 

Date: 11/25/02 Page: 

5 of iv 

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Wendy Davis-Hoover 

Dave Carson 

John Martin 

Fran Kremer 

Susan Thorneloe 

Ann Vega/Scott Jacobs 

Gary Hater 

Roger Green 

Tony Barbush 

Greg Cekander 

David Burt 

Nancy Grams 

Morton Barlaz 

Amy Haag 

Charles Huber 

Michael Goodrich 

James Markwiese 

EPA Project Co-Principal Investigator 

EPA Project Co-Principal Investigator 

EPA Project Manager 

EPA Coordinator 

EPA Scientist 

EPA Quality Assurance Managers 

WMI Project Manager 

WMI Co-Principal Investigator 

WMI Co-Principal Investigator 

WMI Senior Engineer 

WMI Contract Lab Quality Coordinator 

WMI Quality Assurance 

NC State Scientist 

Severn Trent Project Manager 

Severn Trent QA Manager 

Microbial Insights Laboratory Manager 

Neptune and Company, Inc. QAPP Oversight 

B-5
Section: 1.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 11/25/02 

Page: 6 of 4 

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

There are growing concerns about our ability to effectively manage municipal solid wastes. 

More wastes are being generated while it is becoming increasingly difficult to site space for new 

landfills (Tammemagi 1999). And wastes landfilled in the past are the source of many presentday human health and ecological concerns. We need innovative technologies to ensure that 

future waste management practices are sustainable and environmentally sound. Greater 

economical use of landfill space and more efficient gas and leachate management would be a 

positive step in this direction. 

In large part, bacteria mediate waste degradation. This process is often moisture limited in a 

conventional landfill. Bioreactor landfills are designed to accelerate the biological stabilization 

of landfilled waste through leachate recirculation, thus enhancing the microbial decomposition of 

organic matter. Because waste stabilizes more quickly and likely to a greater extent than it 

would under conventional landfill operation, the receiving cell can accept more waste sooner and 

overall bioreactor landfill capacity should be greater. Enhanced waste stabilization should also 

reduce the potential for future environmental problems because the generation and subsequent 

attenuation of high-strength leachate occurs sooner than it would through conventional 

landfilling. In addition, bioreactor technology can reduce long-term requirements for monitoring 

gas migration and cover maintenance while minimizing the time required for profitable energy 

production through gas recovery (Arner 2002). Considering the potential environmental and 

economic benefits of bioreactor operations, there is great interest in this technology. 

The bioreactor quality assurance project plan discussed here is under joint investigation by EPA 

and Waste Management, Inc., through a 5-year Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement. The project is currently in its second year. The Outer Loop Landfill operated by 

Waste Management Inc., has been used for waste disposal for approximately 35 years. Two 

multi-year projects are underway at the site, including a Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) 

Study, and an Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) Study. At Outer Loop, treatment 

and control groups consist of separate and distinct landfill units, each composed of two paired 

cells. In contrast to many bioreactor demonstrations, these are large-scale projects. The FLB 

study covers approximately 19 ha (47 acres) in paired landfill cells that are generally 4 to 6 years 

of age and the AALB study covers 5 ha (12 acres) in paired one-year old landfill cells. The FLB 

cells are being retrofit for bioreactor operation whereas the bioreactor infrastructure in the AALB 

cells is constructed as waste is added. A separate unit of paired cells containing approximately 2­

to 3- year old waste is used as the control for the FLB and AALB studies. 

Because landfill units are filled sequentially (placement of waste in a particular cell is only 

initiated after the current waste-receiving cell is completely filled), individual units in this study 

are not directly comparable with respect to time. It is assumed that the control cells will provide 

an adequate treatment reference by considering them as temporally offset from the treatment 

cells. For example, consider the comparison between FLB cells and the control. As mentioned, 

FLB waste is generally 4-6 years old and control waste is about 2-3 years old. In three years, 

control waste will be approximately the same age as present-day FLB waste. Therefore, control 

B-6
Section: 1.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 11/25/02 

Page: 7 of 4 

samples collected three years following the initiation of the FLB treatment should represent the 

FLB cells as they were when leachate was first introduced. 

1.1 Facultative Landfill Bioreactor (FLB) Study

1.1.1 FLB Primary Objective The primary objective is to evaluate waste stabilization and 

settlement resulting from nitrate-enriched leachate application to test cells 5 North and 5 South 

relative to waste stabilization in control cells 7.3A and 7.3B. Details on the evaluation of this 

Primary Objective are presented in Section 3.2. 

1.1.2 FLB Secondary Objective The secondary objective is to assess nitrogen dynamics 

associated with the application of nitrate-enriched leachate to an existing landfill. Because there 

is no representative control for evaluating the effects of nitrate in isolation (i.e., an equivalent 

system receiving leachate that has not been enhanced with nitrate), these results will be recorded 

for potential use in future studies. 

1.1.3 FLB Project Description Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) proposes to test the efficacy of 

accelerating the stabilization of waste within the landfill by injecting nitrate-containing leachate 

into an existing landfill cell. This approach is based on two premises. The first, which is 

generally accepted, is that the addition of leachate will moisten and promote degradation of the 

waste. The second is that microorganisms present in the landfill waste will use nitrate in the 

leachate as a terminal electron acceptor for anaerobic metabolism. As nitrate containing liquid 

moves through the upper sections of the FLB, denitrifying bacteria convert nitrate to dinitrogen 

gas (Appendix B). This transformation of nitrate-nitrogen to gaseous nitrogen should result in a 

net loss of nitrogen from the landfill. 

1.1.4 FLB Process Description A series of horizontal trenches will be installed up to 18 feet 

below the surface in cells 5 North and 5 South. Each trench will contain a perforated pipe and 

will be back filled with a permeable material (e.g., tire chips). The trenches will be spaced 

approximately sixty feet apart. Six vertical gas extraction wells (twelve total) will also be 

constructed in cells 5 North and in 5 South. The gas wells will serve the dual purpose of 

collecting landfill gas and penetrating layers of soil cover placed during landfilling. Probes for 

measuring temperature and oxidation-reduction potential will be installed during gas well 

construction. Similar installations will be made for the 7.3A and 7.3B control cells. 

The FLB will be enhanced with leachate that has used chemolithotrophic bacteria to take NH4

+ 

to NO3

- in the aerobic Sequential Batch Reactor, then the denitrifying bacteria under anaerobic 

conditions in the landfill will use the NO3

- as a terminal electron acceptor to form both N2O and 

N2 gasses. This nitrified leachate will be introduced to the waste through the series of horizontal 

trenches that will be installed in cell 5 North and in cell 5 South. The treated SBR effluent is 

monitored on a monthly basis for COD, BOD, ammonia-nitrogen, nitrite/nitrate nitrogen and 

phosphorus. The treated leachate will be pumped to a holding tank and distributed to the 

trenches via a force main and manifold for distribution to the FLB. Liquid sources other than 

B-7
Section: 1.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 11/25/02 

Page: 8 of 4 

leachate, such as water from the Outer Loop under drain or sedimentation pond, or other liquid 

waste streams as permitted by regulation, may be used to augment the supply of leachate. These 

liquid sources will be monitored in the same way as the SBR effluent in order to follow nitrogen 

dynamics. Liquid will be added in the volume necessary to achieve and maintain the in-place 

waste at a moisture level of 35-55%. 

Leachate analyses will be taken to evaluate the effect of liquid addition on the MSW. Changes 

in leachate parameters are expected to broadly represent the changes in the MSW. Specifically, 

the impact of nitrified effluent applied to the landfill in Area 5 and subsequent denitrification 

should impact the overall mass balance of nitrogen as the nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas. 

The data collected for COD, BOD, ammonia nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen, as 

well as leachate quantification (e.g., production, head on liner; Table 3-1) will be examined as 

the project progresses. 

1.2 Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor (AALB) Study

1.2.1 AALB Primary Objective The primary objective is to evaluate waste-stabilization 

enhancement resulting from the sequential establishment of aerobic and anaerobic conditions in 

cells 7.4A and 7.4B relative to waste stabilization in the control cells 7.3A and 7.3B. Details on 

the evaluation of this Primary Objective are presented in Section 3.2. 

1.2.2 AALB Secondary Objective The secondary objective is to demonstrate the feasibility of 

implementing an AALB on a commercially viable operating scale. Details on the evaluation of 

this Secondary Objective are presented in Section 3.2. 

1.2.3 AALB Project Description The proposed Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor 

(AALB) study will examine the impact that establishing sequential aerobic and anaerobic 

conditions has on accelerating waste stabilization. In this scheme waste is treated aerobically, 

similar to composting, by injecting air into the waste for approximately 45 days. After aeration is 

discontinued, the waste is moistened with liquids, and anaerobic conditions are rapidly 

established. The rationale behind this sequential approach is to promote the rapid decomposition 

of food waste and other easily degradable organic matter in the aerobic stage of treatment with 

the intent of reducing the amount of fermentable organic matter entering the anaerobic stage. 

This could shorten the acid generating phase of anaerobic waste decomposition and result in a 

more rapid onset of methanogenesis. WMI has operated an experimental AALB at its Metro 

RDF landfill located in Franklin, Wisconsin since October 1999. The Metro RDF experience 

suggests that waste density (i.e., waste compaction) increases relatively rapidly as a result of 

aeration. 

1.2.4 AALB Process Description The base layer of waste will be a liner protection layer (loose 

waste) placed in cells 7.4A and 7.4B that is not compacted. Cells 7.4A and 7.4B will be 

constructed in fifteen-foot vertical lifts. This shallow lift system results from grading the waste to 

promote homogenization of the incoming solid waste (shearing of large materials and breaking 

open trash bags). As each lift is completed, water is added to increase the moisture content of the 

waste. Perforated pipes are placed at regular intervals across the top surface of the waste. The 

B-8
Section: 1.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 11/25/02 

Page: 9 of 4 

pipes are covered with a permeable media such as tire chips or aggregate. Each lift of piping is 

connected via a common manifold. The next lift of waste is then placed over the installed 

piping. This construction sequence is repeated for successive lifts of waste. 

The installed piping serves three functions: the injection of air; the injection of water; and the 

extraction of gas. In the proposed configuration, the uppermost lift of the landfill is aerated. The 

lift immediately below this lift receives water, while landfill gas is extracted from all deeper lifts. 

Probes for measuring temperature and oxidation-reduction potential will be installed during the 

construction of cells 7.4A and 7.4B. Settlement of the test and control cells will be measured 

using global positioning system (GPS; Trimble model 4800) equipment and taking quarterly 

surveys of 20 (or 40 in cells 5N and 5S) survey points in each cell. 

1.3 Landfill Bioreactor Study Schedule The FLB areas will be monitored for a period of 5 

years. The AALB study area (7.4A and 7.4B) is scheduled for 3 years of monitoring. The 

installation of the horizontal trenches and in-place monitoring equipment should be complete by 

the end of 2001. The time line for the Outer Loop Landfill bioreactor studies is presented in 

Appendix A. 

1.4 Overview of Data Collection Measurements will be collected from three media for each 

study: liquid (leachate), gas, and solid waste. Depending upon the medium and analyte or 

characteristic, samples will be collected on an annual, monthly, quarterly, weekly, or daily basis. 

Leachate will be collected from a sump for each cell. Gas will be collected from a gas collection 

point in a cell. The solid waste in each cell will be sampled through boring and GPS 

measurements of elevation. Field measurements of rainfall and temperature will be recorded 

regularly and historical records will also be consulted to account for inter-year variability of 

parameters such as rainfall and temperature. 

B-9
Section: 2.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 10 of 3 

2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION 

Key personnel for this project are identified along with their roles and responsibilities in Tables 

2-1 and 2-2. The overall project is being managed, analyzed and operated by Waste 

Management, Inc. at the Outer Loop Landfill located in Louisville, KY. The personnel will be 

made up of individuals from Outer Loop and the WMI BioSites program in Cincinnati, OH. The 

U.S. EPA is contributing to the oversight and analysis of the project. Details on the parties 

responsible for analytical measurements are presented in Section 5.1, Table 5-1. 

2.1 Quality Assurance Management Team David Burt manages the formal audit and quality 

assurance program for WMI contract labs. David Burt will model field wet chemistry analysis 

and university analyses to match the corporate contract lab testing protocols. Nancy Grams will 

function as the QA manager for this project and serve as a laboratory auditor and data validator. 

Ann Vega, EPA's quality assurance manager, is responsible for endorsing the QAPP for the 

quality assurance branch, while David Carson and Wendy Davis-Hoover are responsible for 

approving the QAPP. Jim Markwiese is responsible for tracking revisions to the QAPP and for 

keeping the QAPP current. 

Table 2-1. QA Management Team 

Personnel, title Phone Email 

David Burt, WMI contract lab quality coordinator

Nancy Grams, WMI quality assurance, data validation

Ann Vega, EPA quality assurance manager

Scoot Jacobs, EPA quality assurance manager

David Carson, EPA Co-Principal Investigator

Wendy Davis-Hoover, EPA Co-Principal Investigator

Jim Markwiese, Neptune and Company, Inc.

(713) 533 5000 dburt@wm.com 

(847) 464-1123 nancygrams@aol.com 

(513) 569-7635 vega.ann@epa.gov 

(513) 569-7223 jacobs.scott@epa.gov 

(513) 569-7527 carson.david@epa.gov 

(513) 569-7206 davis-hoover.wendy@epa.gov 

(505) 662-2121 jimm@neptunenandco.com 

In addition to this QAPP, USEPA is performing microbial analyses on the waste and biocover 

research is underway at this site. Both of these efforts are addressed in addenda to this QAPP. 

2.2 Responsibilities of Other Project Participants

Table 2-2. Project Participant List 

Name Project Title Responsibilities 

Wendy Davis-Hoover* EPA Project Co-Principal 

Investigator 

EPA Project Investigator 

Dave Carson* EPA Project Co-Principal 

Investigator 

EPA Project Investigator 

John Martin* EPA Branch Chief Project Oversight/Management 

Fran Kremer* EPA Coordinator Project Coordination 

Susan Thorneloe* EPA Scientist Technical Consultation, Air 

B-10 
Section: 2.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 11 of 3 

Table 2-2. Project Participant List, con’t. 

Name Project Title Responsibilities 

Gary Hater* WMI Project Manager Manage Project for WMI 

Tony Barbush* WMI Co-Principal Investigator Permits & Construction 

Douglas Goldsmith* WMI Senior Scientist Sampling and Analysis of Waste 

Matrices 

Greg Cekander* WMI Senior Engineer Engineering and Design Issues 

Chuck Williams WMI Program Owner Program Owner 

Jim Norstrom WMI Program Administrator Goal Manager and Owner 

Roger Green* WMI Co-Principal Investigator Field Sampling Oversight & 

Database Management 

David Burt WMI contract lab quality 

coordinator 

Quality Assurance Oversight for 

Barlaz Lab 

Amy Haag Severn Trent Project Manager Leachate and Select Gas 

Analyses 

Charles Huber Severn Trent QA mgr. Quality Assurance Oversight for 

Severn-Trent Laboratory 

Morton Barlaz North Carolina State University 

Scientist 

Solid Waste Analytical 

Measurements and Laboratory 

Quality Assurance 

Michael Goodrich Microbial Insights Laboratory Mgr. 

Jim Markwiese* Neptune & Company Scientist EPA QAPP Coordinator 

* Primary participants 

There are eleven primary participants and two participating laboratories in this project. WMI 

plans to have a minimum of one Bioreactor meeting a year at Outer Loop and participation by 

Primary Participants will be at least at the 80% level. Quarterly review meetings are also 

planned by WMI. 

Table 2-3. Contact Information: Primary Project, Quality Assurance and Contract 

Laboratory Personnel 

Name Title Address Phone E-mail 

Wendy Davis- EPA Project Co- US EPA (513) 569-7206 davis-hoover.wendy 

Hoover Lead 5995 Center Hill Ave @epamail.epa.gov 

Cincinnati, OH 45224 

Dave Carson EPA Project Co- US EPA (513) 569-7527 carson.david 

Lead 5995 Center Hill Ave @epamail.epa.gov 

Cincinnati, OH 45224 

John Martin EPA Branch Chief US EPA (513) 569-7758 martin.johnf 

5995 Center Hill Ave @epamail.epa.gov 

Cincinnati, OH 45224 

Fran Kremer EPA Coordinator US EPA 

26 West MLK Dr 

Cincinnati, OH 45224 

(513) 569-7346 kremer.fran 

@epamail.epa.gov 

Susan EPA Scientist US EPA (919) 541-2709 thorneloe.susan 

Thorneloe AAPCD Mail Drop 63 @epamail.epa.gov 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711 

B-11
Section: 2.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 12 of 3 

Table 2-3. Contact Information: Primary Project, Quality Assurance and Contract 

Laboratory Personnel, con’t. 

Name Title Address Phone E-mail 

Tony Barbush WMI District 

Engineer 

Waste Management 

7501 Grade Lane 

(502) 962-5069 tbarbush@wm.com 

Co-Principal 

Investigator 

Louisville, KY 

40219-3547 

Gary Hater WMI BioSites 

Program 

Waste Management 

2956 Montana Ave 

(513) 389-7370 

ext. 19 ghater@wm.com 

Director/Project 

Manager 

Cincinnati, OH 45211 

Roger Green WMI Senior 

Scientist/CoWaste Management 2956 Montana AveCincinnati, 

(513) 389-7370 

ext. 18 rgreen2@wm.com 

Principal 

Investigator 

OH 45211 FAX 

(513) 389-7374 

David Burt WMI Lab QA Mgr 155 N. Redwood Dr.; Suite 

250; San Rafael, CA 94903 

(415) 479-3700 dburt@wm.com 

Greg Cekander WMI Senior Waste Management (713) 533-5004 gcekander@wm.com 

Engineer 1001 Fannin, Suite 4000 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Douglas ANT Alternative Natural Technology (540) 552-3684 dougg@infi.net 

Goldsmith President/WMI 1847 Whittaker Hollow Rd. 

Senior Scientist Blacksburg, VA 24060 

Nancy Grams WMI QA Mgr, Lab 40 W. 840 Rosebend (847) 464-1123 nancygrams@aol.com 

Auditor Elgin, IL 60123 

Morton Barlaz North Carolina 

State University 

Dept. Civil Engineering 

203-B Mann Hall, Box 7908 

(919) 515-7676 barlaz@eos.ncsu.edu 

Scientist/ QA mgr. North Carolina State University 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27695 

Charles Huber Severn Trent QA Severn Trent Services-STL (716) 691-2600 chuber@stl-inc.com 

mgr. 10 Hazelwood Dr., Suite 106 

Amherst, NY 14228 

Amy Haag Severn Trent 

Project Manager 

Severn Trent Services-STL 

10 Hazelwood Dr., Suite 106 

Amherst, NY 14228 

(716) 691-2600 ahaag@stl-inc.com 

Michael Microbial Insights Microbial Insights (865) 573-8188 gooch@microbe.com 

Goodrich Laboratory mgr. 2340 Stock Creek Blvd. 

Rockford, TN 37853-3044 

Jim Markwiese Neptune & 

Company Scientist 

Neptune and Company, Inc. 

1505 15th Street, Suite B 

Los Alamos, NM 87544 

(505) 662-2121 jimm@neptuneinc.org 

B-12
Section: 3.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 13 of 8 

3.0 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH 

3.1 Sampling Strategy The primary objective of sampling the control, FLB, and AALB is to 

determine the impact of waste stabilization as a result of treatment applications relative to an 

untreated control. The number and type of each analysis is extensive and presented in Tables 3­

1, 3-2 and 3-3 for leachate, municipal solid waste and gas, respectively, for year one. Leachate 

samples for control areas 7.3A and 7.3B are taken from under the drain sump area. The landfill 

study areas (5N and 5S) and (7.4A and 7.4B) are sampled similarly. Diagrams of sampling 

locations for each matrix will be provided as a separate attachment from WMI on an “as needed” 

basis (Appendix H). Justification for the sample parameters is presented in Sections 1 and 3.2. 

Table 3-1. Leachate Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies 

Collection Frequency 

and Parameter 

Number of Samples to be Collected During the First Year per Cell 

FLB FLB Control Control AALB AALB 

5 N 5 S 7.3A 7.3B 7.4A 7.4B 

Continuous 

Head on liner 

Leachate production 

Monthly 

Chemical oxygen demand 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Biochemical oxygen demand 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Ortho P / Total P 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N) 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Total volatile organic acids 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Temperature 12 12 12 12 12 12 

pH 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Quarterly 

VOC 4 4 4 4 4 4 

SVOC 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Total dissolved solids 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Sulfate 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Chloride 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Potassium 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Conductance 4 4 4 4 4 4 

RCRA hazardous metals 4 4 4 4 4 4 

B-13 
1 

Section: 3.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 14 of 8 

Table 3-2. Municipal Solid Waste Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies* 

Collection Frequency and 

Parameter 

Number of Samples to be Collected During the First Year per Cell 

FLB FLB Control Control AALB 

5 N 5 S 7.3A 7.3B 7.4A 

AALB 

7.4B 

Daily 

Oxidation Reduction Potential 250 250 250 250 250 250 

Temperature 250 250 250 250 250 250 

Quarterly 

Waste Settlement (GPS) 40 pts** 40 pts** 20 pts 20 pts 20 pts 20 pts 

Annually 

Cellulose/lignin 30 30 30 30 30 30 

Organic solids 30 30 30 30 30 30 

Biochemical Methane Potential 30 30 30 30 30 30 

Annually 

Waste Moisture 30 30 30 30 30 30 

Waste Density 30 30 30 30 30 30 

Appearance 30 30 30 30 30 30 

pH 30 30 30 30 30 30 

* Given the extension of the originally anticipated start date of the project, solid waste sampling will not

begin until 2002. 

** 5 North and 5 South are each comprised of two subcells, with each subcell having 20 GPS points. 

Table 3-3. Gas Sampling Schedule for Outer Loop Bioreactor Studies 

Collection Frequency 

and Parameter 

Number of Samples to be Collected During the First Year per Cell 

FLB FLB Control Control AALB AALB 

5 N 5 S 7.3A 7.3B 7.4A 7.4B 

Weekly 

Landfill gas flow/production 52 52 52 52 52 52 

CH4, CO2, O2 52 52 52 52 52 52 

Quarterly 

CH4, CO2, O2, Summa canister 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Nonmethane organic carbon 4 4 4 4 4 4 

(NMOC) 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Surface emission monitoring (CH4)

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Surface emission monitoring will be performed twice quarterly . 

While the sampling schedule (Tables 3-1 through 3-3) is presented in a maximum time frame of 

one year, the proposed research will extend for many years. As shown in Appendix A, data 

collection activities are planned well beyond 2003. After the first year, the QAPP may be 

modified (with agreement from all parties) in an effort to utilize resources more efficiently. 

Unless strong justification can be made for changing the frequency of sampling and other 

research issues, however, the plan outlined in the QAPP will hold from year to year. 

B-14
Section: 3.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 15 of 8 

3.2 Critical and Non-Critical Measurements Landfilled waste typically progresses through 

five phases of degradation, including: (1) adjustment or acclimation; (2) transition; (3) 

acidogenesis; (4) methanogenesis; and (5) maturation (Reinhart and Townsend 1998). This 

degradation process can be collectively considered as waste stabilization. At any given time, 

landfill cells may be characterized as experiencing one of the above phases. But because waste 

is deposited in a landfill cell over time (months to years), waste-stabilization phases tend to 

overlap and sharp boundaries between phases are not typical. It is expected, however, that the 

bioreactor treatments will increase the rate of transition through the various phases relative to the 

control. It is further expected that this enhanced transition to stabilized waste will be discernable 

with trend analyses. The critical measurements (italicized) employed in this study were selected 

to capture aspects of waste stabilization over time. 

2. Acclimation. During acclimation, microbial populations are in a state of adjustment. Waste 

moisture tends to increase and available oxygen is consumed during this phase. The 

atmospheric-oxygen supply to the buried waste is diffusion limited and outpaced by the 

oxygen demand of bacterial respiration; consequently the concentration of oxygen in the 

landfill cell begins to decrease. 

6. Transition. In the transition phase, conditions turn anaerobic as the available oxygen is 

consumed through the metabolism of readily degradable wastes. Complex organic matter is 

broken into simpler forms (e.g., organic acids) and energy that is not captured by cells during 

respiration is given off as heat. Waste and leachate temperature concomitantly increase 

during organic-matter degradation. Other respiration by-products (carbon dioxide and 

volatile organic acids) begin to increase in leachate. 

7. Acidogenesis. During acidogenesis the accumulation of volatile organic acids reaches its 

peak due to metabolism and fermentation of organic matter. The increase in chemical 

oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand indirectly reflects this increase in 

degradable metabolites. In addition, the high concentration of acids increases hydrogen ion 

activity, reflected by decreased waste and leachate pH. In the near absence of oxygen, 

metabolism shifts to anaerobic bacteria capable of utilizing alternate electron acceptors (e.g., 

nitrate and sulfate). 

8. Methanogenesis. In the methanogenic phase, the supply of most electron acceptors is 

exhausted. Methanogenic bacteria ferment organic acids to methane and carbon dioxide 

while other methanogens utilize CO2 as their terminal electron acceptor. Consequently, gas 

(methane and CO2) volume and production rates increase. Anaerobic respiration is a protonconsuming process and this is reflected by an increase in pH values in the waste and leachate. 

9. Maturation. The maturation phase represents the end-point of landfill settlement (surface 

GPS measurements). The overall conversion of complex wastes to leachable organic acids 

and gaseous products also serves to reduce the waste volume and organic solids and to 

increase waste density. Maturation occurs when degradable organic matter, and 

consequently microbial growth, is limited. This is reflected by decreases in the biochemical 

methane potential and gaseous metabolic by-products methane and CO2. Concentrations of 

organics in leachate remain steady but at substantially reduced levels relative to earlier 

phases. 

B-15
Section: 3.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 16 of 8 

In addition to the biological and chemical parameters listed, settlement of the test and control 

cells will be measured by a professional surveying team by taking quarterly readings of 40 to 80 

global positioning system points in each treatment. The critical measurements listed above 

directly support the primary project objective of evaluating waste stabilization. 

There are also many secondary measurements for each matrix including 17 additional parameters 

for leachate, 3 for solid waste and 3 for gas. These non-critical measurements primarily support 

secondary project objectives (e.g., documentation of nitrogen dynamics, Section 1.1.2) and 

tangentially support primary project objectives. The FLB Secondary Objective is described in 

Section 1.1.2. To address the AALB Secondary Objective (Section 1.2.2), information on 

estimated investment, operating revenue, and operating costs will be collected on the AALB 

process in cells 7.4A and 7.4B. Once the information-gathering stage is complete, data will be 

analyzed in an economic model previously created in Microsoft Excel. The functionality and 

format of the model allows for estimations of life-of-site income statements, statements of cash 

flow, and financial-ratio calculations to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the AALB 

process at a commercially viable operating scale. Critical and non-critical parameters are 

identified in Tables 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6. 

Table 3-4. Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Leachate 

CRITICAL NON-CRITICAL 

Chemical oxygen demand VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) 

Biochemical oxygen demand SVOC (Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds) 

Temperature Ortho-phosphate 

pH (field) Total phosphorous 

Volatile organic acids 

Total dissolved solids 

Sulfate 

Chloride 

Potassium 

Conductance (laboratory and field analyses) 

RCRA hazardous metals 

Ammonia nitrogen 

Nitrate nitrogen 

Nitrite nitrogen 

Head on liner 

Leachate production 

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen 

B-16
Section: 3.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 17 of 8 

Table 3-5. Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Municipal Solid Waste 

CRITICAL NON-CRITICAL 

Waste temperature Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) 

Waste settlement (GPS) Cellulose:lignin ratio 

Organic solids Appearance of waste (e.g., color, texture, type) 

Moisture content 

pH 

Biochemical methane potential (BMP) 

Table 3-6. Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Gas 

CRITICAL NON-CRITICAL 

Methane, field, lab (Summa) Surface emission monitoring 

Carbon dioxide, field, lab (Summa) Non-methane organic carbon 

Oxygen, field, lab (Summa) Hazardous air pollutants 

Gas volume 

3.3 Data EvaluationGiven the difference in age between the treatment and control landfill cells 

and the small number of cells available for the investigation, there is a concern about the 

comparability and the validity of drawing inferences from such a small number of experimental 

units. Due to these concerns, more robust statistical methods will be employed when 

appropriate. Typically non-parametric methods are more robust than parametric ones, hence they 

are recommended here. While both parametric and non-parametric statistical methods require 

the data to be comparable and meet specific assumptions, most non-parametric methods require 

fewer assumptions to provide probabilistic, quantitative statements about the conditions being 

tested. 

Comparability of treatment and control data (i.e., comparability among landfill cells) will be 

carefully examined before performing any statistical analyses. The time lag between treatment 

and control for this project could introduce several factors that may affect comparability that 

cannot be controlled in the design; e.g., weather and the type of waste contained in each cell. 

There may be other issues that cannot necessarily be identified until the data are examined. If 

the treatment and control data resulting from this project are determined to be incomparable, the 

recommendations and conclusions will focus on the weight of evidence provided by exploratory 

data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment. These techniques include calculation 

of summary statistics and investigation of the data using pictures and graphs. Regardless of the 

method of statistical analysis, graphs and pictures of the data will be used to increase 

understanding of treatment and control behaviors. 

Summary statistics, including number of samples, number of detects, minimums, means, 

medians, maximums, and standard deviations of detected values will be presented. Because time 

is a key variable in this project, the time frame over which summary statistics are provided 

becomes important. For an overall difference between treatment and control, the data from the 

start to end of the project will be grouped into summary statistics. For differences over time, the 

B-17
0 

Section: 3.0 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 18 of 8 

summary statistics will be calculated from the data corresponding to the time frame of interest; 

for example, quarterly, yearly, or seasonally. 

In all cases, the data will be plotted. Graphical data-analysis tools that will be implemented 

include time plots, bubble plots, box plots, 3D color plots, and isopleth maps. These types of 

plots will provide an understanding of possible time dependencies and the potential differences 

between treatments and the control. Time plots show time on the x-axis and the dependent 

variable on the y-axis. Box plots give an indication of the frequency distribution of the data and 

help validate assumptions of statistical tests that are under consideration. Bubble plots provide 

an indication of the spatial distribution of results; data are plotted on maps as bubbles, with the 

size of the bubble proportional to the concentration. These will be used to make, between and 

within, treatment and control comparisons over time. Examples these types of plots are 

presented in Appendix I. 

Assuming the data from treatment and control are comparable, there are several statistical 

analyses that will be performed; these are discussed in the following sections. Part of the data 

assessment will include verifying the assumptions of the statistical analyses to ascertain whether 

conclusions based on the analyses are valid. For most of the time series analyses, the 

recommended test is the non-parametric Mann-Kendall test. The Mann-Kendall test for trend 

uses the relationship between time-adjacent results to determine whether there is sufficient 

evidence to detect an increasing or decreasing trend. To perform the Mann-Kendall test, data are 

ordered by sample date and the sign (positive or negative) of all sequential differences is 

recorded. The test statistic is the sum of the number of positives minus the number of negatives. 

If the sum is close to zero, then no trend is assumed. If the sum is large and positive (negative) 

then a positive (negative) trend can be assumed. Note that the test statistic is a function of the 

relationship between values rather than the values themselves, as is the case with most nonparametric tests (Hollander and Wolfe, 1973). An example of the Mann-Kendall test is 

presented in Appendix I. 

3.3.1 Leachate As stated above, leachate will be collected from each of the cells in the study. 

The design of the landfill units (paired cells) is such that, with the exception of Unit 5, each cell 

is separated from the surrounding cells. Regarding Unit 5, sample locations for subunits 5 North 

and 5 South are separated by ca. 1,000 feet of waste; a distance judged to be adequate for 

separation by EPA’s Office of Research and Development landfill expert, Dave Carson. The 

median of the two treatment cell observations from each sampling event will be calculated, 

resulting in a single time series for each treatment and control. These time series will be used to 

determine trends, or lack thereof, for those characteristics and analytes measured in the leachate. 

Because these data will be collected over a period of months, there is the potential for seasonal 

variations in the time series, at least with regard to moisture. And because the Mann-Kendall test 

for trend evaluates monotonic trends (overall increasing or decreasing), seasonal variations must 

be considered. There are two possible ways to account for seasonal variation; one is to perform a 

Mann-Kendall test on the differences between treatment and control series, another is to 

parametrically model each time series individually and perform a Mann-Kendall test on the 

residuals from each. 

B-18
0 

Section: 3.0 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 19 of 8 

If the data from treatment and control cells can be paired (i.e., they are comparable), their 

differences can be subjected to a Mann-Kendall test. The assumption is that the treatment and 

control will follow the same trend for a given measure, but the time period over which the trend 

occurs may be different, with the trend in the treatment cell being accelerated over time 

compared with the control cell. In this case, the differences between treatment and control will 

get larger over time, hence the differences will show an increasing trend, even if seasonal 

fluctuations are present. If this approach is to be taken, the treatment and control observations 

that are combined (through differences) will be as comparable as possible. For instance, if the 

treatment data are collected monthly over time starting in January, then the control samples will 

be paired over time accordingly. In other words, the treatment data will be collected monthly 

and the differences will be calculated on the same months. 

Although research has indicated that seasonal variability in stabilization is likely (Saint-Fort 

2002), both control and treatment data can be parametrically modeled as a time series to account 

for seasonal differences by a Mann-Kendall test on the residuals. The residuals are the 

differences between the modeled results and the actual results. Diggle (1990) provides a good 

basic discussion of parametric time series modeling. A parametric time series model will 

identify the autocorrelation (time dependence) present in a given series. This could provide 

information about whether the treatment is accelerated over the control as well as account for 

seasonal variations. One element of parametric time series modeling is to identify the lag, 

otherwise known as the time period between correlated observations. 

Parametric time series modeling is capable of identifying many different lags in a time series. 

For this project, a seasonal lag might be expected, but also a lag due to the stabilization process 

itself. Depending upon the data, each of these lags may be identified by the model. If the 

stabilization process lag for the treatment series is shorter than the lag for the control series, there 

is evidence that the treatment is effective. If the process lag is not evident in the model, but the 

seasonal lag is, the residuals can be tested separately to find the process lag, if there is one. 

These residuals should have no seasonal variation, and, if an underlying trend is present, it will 

be evident in the residuals. The results of the Mann-Kendall tests will then be used, along with 

time plots, to compare the treatment and control trends. For instance, if the Mann-Kendall test 

indicates that both residual series show an increasing trend, time plots will confirm that the 

treatment trend is accelerated over the control trend. 

3.3.2 Gases Gas sampling for critical measurements (CO2, O2 and CH4) will be performed 

weekly. Non-critical measures (NMOC and HAPs) and methane surface emissions monitoring 

will be performed quarterly (Table 3-3). Similar to leachate, gas sampling will occur at one 

point per cell where the cell’s gas extraction wells come to the collection point. The extraction 

wells will be located systematically, approximately equidistant from one-another. The number 

and location will be chosen such that the variation within a cell is adequately characterized. 

Exploratory data analysis, time series modeling, and trend testing will be performed on a location 

or a cell basis. Spatial patterns in the data will be considered before combining the data within a 

cell to compare with another cell. If the data are adequate, spatial analyses, such as block kriging 

or linear interpolation, will be used to compare patterns of gas generation in the treatment and 

B-19
0 

Section: 3.0 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 20 of 8 

control cells. Isopleths of gas volumes over time will be created for each cell and their 

magnitudes and shapes compared visually. This will give an indication of treatment 

effectiveness when the plots are placed side-by-side for the same time frames. If the spatial 

patterns of gas volume remain homogeneous over time, the data from a given time frame will be 

combined into a median or mean for treatment control comparisons. 

3.3.3 MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) Solid waste samples will be collected annually through 

systematic boring locations. Dividing the cell into six sections, dividing a section in 3x3 square 

meter grids and randomly choosing a square within a grid will identify the boring location within 

a section. The equivalent boring location will be used for sampling in the remaining sections. 

This sampling plan will exclude sampling on the edges of the cell. In addition, if drilling cannot 

be initiated (e.g., known asbestos deposit underneath) or completed (e.g., impenetrable object 

encountered) in a potential location, a randomly selected square adjacent to the original location 

will be selected (only for that section where drilling was incomplete). Along with the two 

dimensional analyses outlined for leachate and gas, three-dimensional analyses will be done for 

municipal solid waste. That is, because borings will be collected and depth samples collected, 

the trend and spatial analyses will incorporate depth. If, for some reason, the treatment is more 

effective at one depth than at others, incorporating depth into the MSW data assessment might 

identify it. Because the number of locations for collecting MSW is much less than for gases, 

spatial patterns and/or time trends in the MSW (e.g., waste density) will be more difficult to 

identify, but it may be possible. For example, typical p-value tables for the Mann-Kendall test 

require at least 4 samples, so the MSW data will meet the minimum requirements of the test, as 

long as no data are rejected or lost. 

Settlement of the fill will be monitored quarterly through GPS measurements of elevation as a 

indication of stability. The numerous GPS sample points will provide a data set with which to 

evaluate waste settlement. Specific details on the employed technique, global positioning (GPS) 

surveying, are provided in Section 4.4.3. 

B-20
Section: 4.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 21 of 10 

4.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES

4.1 General Specific sampling procedures have been developed by the EPA and vary with the 

sample matrices and specific analyses. The types of containers, methods of preservation and 

holding times are identified in Table 4-1. These meet specifications for EPA approved 

methodology, and are appropriate for the parameter and matrix of interest. EPA documents 

specify techniques for field sampling and this QAPP lists methods to be used for this 

demonstration. Specifics have been included for critical measurements including type of sample, 

sampling location, field sample preparation techniques, and sample handling requirements. The 

EPA provides guidelines for sample collection as part of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. WMI personnel will refer to the procedures found in SW 

846 for all sampling protocols used as part of this demonstration. Equipment used for field 

sampling is calibrated and maintained according to manufacturer's guidelines. Solid-waste 

probes (Temperature and ORP) will be employed with enough redundancy to compensate for 

potential failure in the field. 

For example, A pH meter with automatic temperature compensation capable of measuring pH at 

the demonstration site to ± 0.1 pH units will be used. The pH probe will be calibrated each time 

the instrument is set up using two buffer solutions that bracket the expected pH. Precision will 

be determined by analyzing a duplicate during each sampling event. The results must agree 

within ± 0.1 pH units or the instrument will be recalibrated and the results reanalyzed. Accuracy 

will be determined by measuring a third buffer solution as if it were a sample. The results must 

agree within ± 0.1 pH units or the instrument will be recalibrated. A standard Cole-Parmer 

Thermocouple will be used for field temperature measurements. Because standard 

thermocoulples are themselves considered the industry standard, no calibration procedures will 

be required. In addition, Standard Methods for the Examination Water and Wastewater and 

individual analyte methods provide valuable information for ensuring that samples are properly 

collected, stored and preserved. Laboratories used during the course of this study for sample 

analyses will be required to follow these guidelines. 

The method of shipping depends on the sample type and the common carrier available. It is 

anticipated that all samples will arrive within 24 hours of collection. An overnight shipping 

company will be used for this purpose. Samples requiring cooling for purposes of preservation 

will be packaged in coolers and maintained at 4o

C using commercially available crushed ice. Ice 

will be packaged in large Ziploc baggies to prevent leakage onto sample containers. Shipping 

samples by overnight carrier will help to ensure samples arrive at the laboratory at 4 o

C. In 

addition, overnight delivery will be critical for nitrate, nitrite, BOD and ortho-phosphate 

measurements that need to be measured within 48 hours. The laboratory will be contacted prior 

to the day of shipment to ensure sample analysis can be expedited upon arrival. The laboratory 

will record the shipment temperature (of a temperature blank) upon arrival and significant 

variances in temperature (i.e. greater than 4 o

C) will be immediately reported to the WMI project 

Co-Principal Investigator responsible for field activities (i.e., Roger Green). 

Under the supervision of Roger Green or Douglas Goldsmith, all project personnel for field 

activities will complete a sample collection narrative form. The team member responsible for 

B-21
Section: 4.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 22 of 10 

the sampling project completes the narrative and it travels with the Chain of Custody. It is a 

record of all activities carried out by the sampling team. The sample collection information is 

also recorded on an analytical data sheet for field-testing parameters such as pH, specific 

conductance, gas surveys etc. To maintain sample integrity and to assure the validity of results, 

well-documented Chain of Custody (COC) records are essential (Section 4.7.3). 

4.2 Site Specific Factors Affecting Sampling The only two factors that have impacted the 

sampling of a landfill in the past have been inclement weather and equipment failure. If these 

situations should occur, alternate sampling periods will be specified by the WMI Project 

Manager and Co-Principal Investigators and the EPA Project Co-leaders in order to 

accommodate the collection of critical information. 

4.3 Site Preparation Required for Sampling Activities Each sampling location will be 

appropriately marked with stakes and identification codes. The WMI Project Manager, Gary 

Hater, will conduct a review of the sampling points before each sampling event for leachate, 

MSW or gases. 

4.4 Sampling/Monitoring Procedures

4.4.1 Leachate Samples will be taken at the sump areas for Units 5N and 5S, 7.3A and 7.3B, 

7.4A and 7.4B. Samples are obtained at regular time intervals at one sampling location. 

Leachate samples will be collected directly from the tap on the riser pipe. Switching the riser 

pump from automatic mode to hand mode (essentially turning the pump off) prior to sampling 

has been shown in subsequent sampling events to be an effective procedure for obtaining an 

adequate volume of leachate sample. Leachate sample bottles will be collected in the following 

sequence: COD, BOD, volatile organic acids, pH, temperature, VOCs, SVOCs, TKN, ammoniaN, nitrate-N, nitrite-N, total metals (including potassium), ortho phosphate, total phosphate, 

chloride, sulfate and TDS. This sequence is also specified on the attached Leachate Sampling 

Information Form. To obtain a representative sample, effluent will be purged prior to collecting 

the actual sample. The purge volume will also be recorded on the Leachate Sampling 

Information Form. 

4.4.2 Gases Gas monitoring will be done at the installed gas monitoring point within a cell to 

monitor activity within the landfill bioreactors and control areas. Information recorded for gas 

sampling will be logged on the attached Gas Sampling Information Form. Gas analyses will be 

performed for methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen using a GEM 2000 (Appendix C). This 

instrument is a portable field gas analyzer and uses a self-compensating infrared detector. Gas 

volume measurements will be made by electronically logging three consecutive measurements 

(one measurement per minute) of gas quality (methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and balance gas) 

and flow (differential pressure, static pressure, gas temperature, and flow rate) to the GEM 2000 

for each sample point. The mean value for each of these measurements will be recorded as the 

value for each parameter of interest. 

Surface emissions monitoring will also be performed for methane using the field instrument 

CEC-Landtec SEM-500. This is a hand held portable flame ionization detector used to monitor 

B-22
Section: 4.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 23 of 10 

surface emissions at landfills. Both instruments will be calibrated prior to use per manufacturer 

specifications. In addition, for the landfill gas analyses routine field checks will be made using 

each of the three critical gases listed. Certified gas mixtures will be obtained from a reputable 

distributor (e.g. Scott Specialty Gases). This will include two concentrations that bracket the 

expected measured concentration and a “zero” gas (e.g. nitrogen). The instrument reading will 

be checked against the calibration gases twice daily on the day of sampling. Concentrations will 

be checked prior to instrument use and at the end of the day after field measurements are 

completed. Concentration readings for carbon dioxide and methane are to be within 15% of the 

actual concentration or sample duplicate; the tolerance for oxygen is ± 30% (Table 6-1-3). Zero 

gases should register no greater than 5% of the span of the instrument. Atmospheric oxygen 

(20.9%) can be used as one of the oxygen reference gases. See below for specific information 

regarding field instrument specifications. 

4.4.2.1 Field Analyses (weekly monitoring) Landfill gas will be sampled and analyzed to 

determine the composition of the gas. The majority of the samples and analyses performed will 

be made for the determination of methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen concentration using a 

portable landfill gas analyzer (GEM 2000). After calibration according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions, the instrument is connected to a gas sampling port using flexible plastic tubing. Gas 

is drawn into the instrument by an internal pump and analyzed. Results are date and time 

stamped and datalogged by the instrument. Gas standards for CH4, CO2 and O2 will be analyzed 

twice daily on the day of sampling (Table 6-1-3) to evaluate accuracy objectives (Table 6-9). 

One sample duplicate will be collected in a Tedlar bag on each day of sampling and the sample 

location will be rotated through the various units under study. The sample duplicate will be used 

to assess precision objectives (Table 6-1-3). Gas volume measurements will be made by 

electronically logging three consecutive measurements of gas quality (methane, carbon dioxide, 

oxygen, and balance gas) and flow (differential pressure, static pressure, gas temperature, and 

flow rate) to the GEM 2000 for each sample point. The mean value for each of these 

measurements will be recorded as the value for each parameter of interest. 

4.4.2.2 Laboratory Analyses (quarterly monitoring) Landfill gas samples will also be 

collected for laboratory analysis of methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen by EPA Method 3, 

non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), by EPA Method 25C, and volatile organic 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs; Appendix J) by Compendium Method TO-14. These samples 

will be collected in 6-liter SUMMA® passivated stainless steel canisters at the gas monitoring 

point. 

4.4.2.3 SURFACE EMISSIONS MONITORING (TWICE QUARTERLY) SURFACE 

EMISSIONS MONITORING WILL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 

REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED BY THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) 

AND EMISSION GUIDELINES (EG) FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS IN 40 CFR 

60.755. METHANE CONCENTRATIONS ARE MEASURED WITHIN 5 TO 10 CM (2 TO 4 IN) 

OF THE LANDFILL SURFACE USING A CEC-LANDTEC SEM-500. METHANE 

CONCENTRATIONS ARE MEASURED FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES IN EPA METHOD 

21, EXCEPT THAT "METHANE" REPLACES ALL REFERENCES TO "VOLATILE ORGANIC 

COMPOUNDS" (VOC) AND THE CALIBRATION GAS IS 500 PPM METHANE IN AIR [§ 

B-23
Section: 4.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 24 of 10 

60.755(D)]. METHANE SURFACE CONCENTRATIONS ARE MONITORED AROUND THE 

PERIMETER OF THE COLLECTION AREA AND ALONG A PATTERN THAT TRAVERSES 

THE LANDFILL AT 30-METER INTERVALS AND WHERE VISUAL OBSERVATIONS 

INDICATE ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS OF LANDFILL GAS (E.G., DISTRESSED 

VEGETATION, CRACKS OR SEEPS IN THE COVER). 

4.4.3 MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) Municipal solid waste sampling procedures will 

essentially follow those traditionally used in the industry. A drill rig equipped with a 3' bucket 

auger will be used. As indicated in Section 3.3.3, six locations on the surface will be sampled. 

Each location is sampled with the bucket auger in 10' vertical sections with one representative 

sample collected for each section. The initial 10 feet of material is generally discarded as it 

predominantly contains soil and not MSW. As the boring advances, each 10-foot sample is 

extracted from the auger and the appearance of the waste is observed and recorded. It is 

anticipated that at least five 10’ increments will be collected from each of the six sampling 

locations. As such, a minimum of 30 solid-waste samples will be collected for each cell on an 

annual basis (Table 3-2). 

The 10-foot waste sample is sealed in a plastic bag and placed in cooler for shipment to the 

laboratory. This includes samples for organic solids, pH, moisture content, biochemical methane 

potential, and cellulose/lignin ratio at the frequency designated in Table 3-2. 

Temperature and ORP of the in-place MSW will be monitored by type T-thermocouple probes 

connected to a PC-driven data collection system. The data communications/gathering system 

that the probes are connected to currently record the temperature or ORP reading for each probe 

once every 30 minutes. These data will be used to construct a control chart for each probe. 

Probes returning erratic temperature readings, based on the historic temperature control charts 

will be investigated. For most probes in Unit 5, this will involve removal, inspection of 

connections and the probe and if necessary replacement. The probes to be installed in 7.4 A and 

B will be permanent and not replaceable. Erratic results from these probes will be flagged. 

Global positioning (GPS) surveying with the Trimble model 4800 will be performed on sampling 

points within a cell as follows: 1) Every sampling event will be initialized from a known point 

and will agree to – 5 cm for the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the known point — if 

sampling within a cell is interrupted, the system will be reinitialized from the known point before 

sampling resumes; 2) sampling will not be initiated if the root mean square reading from the 

system is less than 15; and, 3) the positional dilution of precision (a measure of the relative 

dispersion of satellites in the sky) reading will be six or less before the system is initialized. In 

addition, one of every 20 points measured by GPS will be randomly selected and resampled. 

The results will be compared to Table 6-1-4. If these conditions are met, the positional accuracy 

of the GPS readings will be sufficient to meet the analytical needs of this QAPP. 

4.4.4 Sampling Strategy Several parameters were considered when developing a sampling 

strategy to represent the chemical, biological and physical status of a landfill in the best way 

possible. Because each cell’s leachate drains to a central sump, samples collected at sumps 

should be representative of the entire cell. Systematic locations for the gas extraction wells and 

B-24
Section: 4.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 25 of 10 

soil boring locations were chosen to maximize the coverage within the zone of maximum vertical 

resolution (i.e., away from the sides of the cell). Matrices will be sampled according to the 

schedule provided in Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 to provide a “snapshot” of the historical contents of 

the landfill. The goal is to effectively choose enough points on the landfill to get a complete 

picture upon combining the information from each snapshot. 

4.5 Laboratory Responsibilities Outer Loop personnel will be conducting leachate and gas 

sampling under the supervision of Roger Green. Subcontracted laboratories will be conducting 

leachate, gas and MSW analyses. Severn Trent Laboratories will be responsible for leachate and 

gas and North Carolina State University will conduct MSW testing (Table 5-1). 

4.6 Field and In-Situ Equipment Temperature and ORP of the in-place MSW will be 

monitored by type T thermocouple (see above) wire connected to a Cole-Parmer thermocouple 

panel meter on the surface. One temperature and ORP reading will be made on a daily basis per 

cell. A submersible in-line electrode fitted in a PVC casing for protection will measure the 

temperature and pH of the leachate. The signal will be boosted by a preamplifier, due to the 

amount of cable required, to a pH controller box with LED readout on the landfill surface. 

Calibrations will be performed per manufacturer specifications. The pH calibrations will be 

performed using standardized pH solutions of 7 and one other solution to bracket the pH of the 

measured leachate. An in-place pressure transducer measures the head on the landfill liner and 

leachate production is quantified with a factory-calibrated totalizing flow meter (1 per cell). 

A factory-calibrated orifice plate (certified prior to project initiation) is used to measure gas 

production. All other field gas measurements (methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen) will be 

measured using the GEM 2000. Calibration and QC specifications are noted above. Waste 

settlement is measured using a Trimble 4800 GPS system through quarterly monitoring. 

Measurements taken on a quarterly basis will be compared to pre-demonstration measurements 

for determination of waste settlement over time. The system has a vertical resolution of – 2 cm 

when employed in a kinematic (walking) survey (versus a stationary survey vertical resolution of 

– 5 mm). Positioning accuracy is determined by methods outlined in Section 4.4.3. 

4.7 Sample Management The following are procedures for identifying samples and ensuring 

that data can be correctly identified at a later date. 

4.7.1 Sample Identification

4.7.1.1 Samples collected for laboratory analysis are identified with standard labels attached to 

the sample containers. The following information will be included on the sample labels (using 

waterproof ink), in the order indicated: unit number, cell number, cell letter (if applicable), 

sample matrix/sample type, sampling location number (within this cell), sample depth or depth 

interval in feet below ground surface elevation (if applicable). The label also will list the date 

and time the sample was collected. The sample should be identified using the following format. 

# # X X # # # # — # # 

� � � � � � 

B-25 
Section: 4.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 26 of 10 

Unit Cell Cell Sample Sample Sample Depth or Depth 

No. No. Letter Matrix/ Location Interval 

Type No. 

Valid unit numbers are 5 or 7. Valid cell numbers are 1,2,3, or 4. Valid cell letters are A or B. 

The sample matrix or sample type will be indicated using a single letter according to the 

following table. 

Sample Matrix/Type Sample Matrix/Type Code 

Leachate L 

Gas G 

Solid waste W 

Waste Temperature T 

Waste ORP O 

Surface Emissions E 

For example a solid waste sample collected from the AALB in cell 7.4A at sampling location 1 

from a depth interval of 10 to 20 feet below ground surface would be identified as 74A W01 10­

20. Notice that a space is left between the cell letter and the sample matrix/type code and 

between the sample location number and the sample depth. 

7 4 A W 0 1 1 0 — 2 0 

� � � � � � Unit Cell Cell Sample Sample Sample Depth or Depth

No. No. Letter Matrix/ Location Interval 

Type No. 

Note that not all combinations of unit numbers, cell numbers, and cell letters are valid. For the 

FLB the combinations 51A, 51B, 52A, or 52B will be used; for the AALB the combinations 74A 

and 74B will be used; and for the Control the combinations used will be 73A, and 73B. Gas 

volume and quality measurements for the FLB are collected from two gas metering stations. 

One of these stations represents cells 5.1A and 5.1B, while the other represents cells 5.2A and 

5.2B. Therefore, the identification for these samples will not include the cell letter. For example 

samples collected from the metering station representing cells 5.1A and 5.1B will be identified as 

51 G01. 

4.7.2 Containerization, Preservation and Holding Times 

Table 4-1. Proper containers, preservatives and holding times for landfill bioreactor 

studies 

Parameter Sample volume & container Preservation Max. Holding Time 

Inorganic Tests 

Ammonia-nitrogen 500 ml, P,G1 Cool 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days 

BOD 1000 ml, P,G Cool 4°C 48 hours 

COD 500 ml, P,G1 Cool 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days 

Chloride 500 ml, P,G None required 28 days 

Potassium 500 ml, P,G Field acidified to pH<2 with 28 days 

B-26
Section: 4.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 27 of 10 

HNO3 

Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1000 ml, P,G1 Cool 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days 

RCRA Metals 1000 ml, P,G1 Field acidified to pH<2 with 6 months 

HNO3 (Hg = 28 days) 

Nitrate-nitrogen 1000 ml, P,G Cool 4°C 48 hours 

Nitrite-nitrogen 1000 ml, P,G Cool 4°C 48 hours 

ortho-phosphate 500 ml, P,G Cool 4°C, filter in lab if 48 hours 

necessary 

Total phosphorous 500 ml, P,G1 Cool 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days 

Total Dissolved Solids 500 ml, P,G Cool 4°C 7 days 

Temperature (leachate) P,G None required Analyze 

Immediately 

pH (leachate) P,G None required Analyze 

Immediately 

pH (waste) 1000 ml wide-mouth, P,G Cool 4°C 7 days 

Moisture (MSW) 1000 ml wide-mouth, P,G Cool 4°C 28 days 

Density (MSW) Volumetric box None required Field measurement 

Sulfate 50 ml, T,P,G Cool 4°C 28 days 

Specific Conductance 500 ml, P,G Cool 4°C 28 days 

Organic Tests 

Organic solids Double-wrapped plastic garbage bag2 Cool 4°C 21 Days 

Cellulose:lignin Double-wrapped plastic garbage bag2 Cool 4°C 28 Days 

BMP Double-wrapped plastic garbage bag2 Cool 4°C 21 Days 

Volatile Organic Acids 8 oz. amber glass, Teflon-lined septa Cool 4°C 10 days 

Volatile Organic 

Compounds 

3x40 ml glass, Teflon-lined septa Cool 4°C, no headspace 7 days 

Semi-volatile Organic 2x1 L Amber glass, Teflon-lined Cool 4°C Extract - 7 days 

Compounds septa Analyze - 40 days 

CH4, CO2, O2 6 liters, S None required 7 days

1 Sample bottles will be of sufficient volume to prevent sample loss due to effervescence upon acidification 

2 wrapped samples placed in polyethylene trays with lids and these filled trays are then placed in a (un-cooled) plastic bin 

P - Plastic Sources: SW 846 Methods 

G - Glass 40 CFR 136 

T - Teflon Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 

S- Summa canister 

4.7.3 Sample Handling and Shipment The WMI senior scientist in charge of field activities 

will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate chain-of-custody procedures are followed for 

each sample from the time it is collected until it is analyzed in the laboratory. Samples will be 

retained at all times in the custody of the sampler, field manager (if a different individual), or 

designated field sample custodian, until shipment. Transfer of custody between field personnel 

will be documented on the custody form. The field manager will ship collected leachate and gas 

samples to Severn Trent Laboratories and MSW samples to North Carolina State, Raleigh, NC, 

laboratories at the end of each sampling day. The following information will be required on the 

chain-of custody form: 

Project No.: Enter the complete project number 

Project Name: WMI/EPA Landfill Bioreactor Project 

Sample Number: Enter the sample ID number 

Date: Enter the date of sample collection 

Time: Enter the time of sample collection 

B-27
Section: 4.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 28 of 10 

Sample 

Description/Type: Enter the sampling location and matrix type 

Analysis Required: List the parameters to be analyzed and QC requirements (MS/MSD) 

Preservation: Provide description of preservation 

Each container should be labeled at the time it is filled with the sample description, number, 

date, time, and sampler's initials. Waterproof ink or marker will be used to ensure that the 

information can be read after shipping. In addition, each sample label will be wrapped with clear 

packaging tape at the time of collection in order to prevent loss of sample information. When 

sampling is complete, the sampler should retain or make a copy of the completed COC. The 

original COC should be protected by sealing in a Ziploc baggie and placed in the cooler with 

samples for transport. Field personnel will verify this documentation for accuracy before placing 

it in the cooler with samples. When all line items are completed and before shipping, the field 

manager will sign and date the chain-of-custody form, list the time, and confirm that all 

descriptive information contained on the form is complete. 

All samples will be packaged and labeled for shipment in compliance with current regulations. 

Laboratory and WM specifications for sample packaging and shipment will be followed for each 

type of sample and for each laboratory. For example, ice chests used to ship aqueous samples 

will be lined with two plastic bags; twisting the tip and securely taping the bag closed to prevent 

leaks will seal the plastic bags around the aqueous samples. Styrofoam, bubble wrap, or other 

packing materials will be used to absorb shock for all breakable sample containers. Samplers 

will place ample absorbent material in coolers for the case of possible sample jar breakage 

during shipment. Chain-of-custody record forms and any other shipping and sample 

documentation will accompany the shipment. These documents will be enclosed in a waterproof 

plastic bag and taped to the underside of the cooler lid. Each ice chest prepared for shipment 

will be securely taped shut. Reinforced or other suitable tape (such as duct tape) will be used 

and wrapped at least twice around the ice chest near each end where the hinges are located. Two 

custody seals will be placed on the cooler. Sample shipping containers will be marked in 

accordance with U.S. regulations for airborne shipping. When selecting means of shipping 

samples, field personnel will ensure that the method chosen will not cause the sample to exceed 

allowable holding times. When commercial common carriers are used to ship samples, all 

samples will be shipped for overnight delivery. 

In accordance with laboratory regulatory requirements and the standard written procedures of the 

laboratory, the laboratory sample custodian or designated alternate will receive and assume 

custody of samples until the samples have been properly logged in to the laboratory and stored in 

a secured area. When a sample shipment is received at the laboratory, the shipping container 

will be inspected for warning labels and security breaches before it is opened. The sample 

custodian will open the container and carefully check the contents for evidence of breakage or 

leaking. Preservation requirements regarding pH and temperature will be verified, as appropriate 

for aqueous samples at the time samples are received. Deviations will be reported to the WMI 

senior scientist in charge of field collection immediately and will be noted in the case narrative 

report based on chain-of-custody records. 

B-28
0 

Section: 4.0 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 29 of 10 

The contents of the container will be inspected for chain-of-custody record forms and other 

information or instructions. The sample custodian will record the date and time on the chain-ofcustody record form. The sample custodian will verify that all information on the sample 

container labels is correct and correlates with the information on the chain-of-custody record, 

and will sign the chain-of-custody record. The chain-of-custody record form will be retained in 

the project file and a copy returned to the WMI senior scientist in charge of field activities to 

verify receipt. Any discrepancy between the samples and the chain-of-custody information, any 

broken or leaking sample bottles or any other abnormal situation will be reported to the WMI 

contract laboratory quality coordinator. The WMI project manager will be informed of any 

problem, and corrective action will be discussed and implemented. The problem and its 

resolution will be documented, initialed and dated by the sample custodian. 

In accordance with regulatory laboratory certification requirements and the standard written 

procedures of the laboratory, samples will be handled, stored and processed in the required way 

and so as to minimize errors and degradation of sample integrity. Each shipment of samples 

received at each laboratory will be assigned a work order number. Each sample in the shipment 

will be given a unique laboratory sample number that includes the work order number and an 

identifying code. A laboratory sample label specifying the unique identifier will be attached to 

each container. The work order will specify the samples to be analyzed, the analysis required, 

the project-required QC, and any other necessary information. Bench sheets, initiated at the first 

point of sample preparation, are to accompany the samples throughout the analytical sequence. 

4.8 Field Documentation All handwritten documentation must be legible and completed in 

permanent waterproof ink. Corrections must be marked with single line, dated, and initialed. 

All documentation including voided entries must be maintained within project files. 

4.8.1 Project Logbooks Field personnel will record all information pertinent to the sampling 

and measurement program in a consecutively numbered field logbook. The information will be 

entered into the field logbook at the time of sampling. At a minimum, the logbook will contain 

the following. 

Documentation of Calibration of Field Equipment 

- Date and time of calibration 

- Calibration data 

- Instrument identification, including manufacturer and model 

Background Information 

- Date and time of the sampling activities 

- Personnel on site 

- Weather conditions 

- Purpose of sampling 

Chronology of Sampling 

- Description of sampling points and sampling methodology 

- Number and volume of samples collected 

- Date and time of collection 

- Sample identification number 

B-29 
0 

Section: 4.0 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 30 of 10 

- Field observations about any problems encountered and deviation from the QAPP 

Sample Distribution 

- Sample distribution and method of transport (name of laboratory where samples were 

sent, overnight courier service used, air bill number, and other information) 

- Signature of sampler or field sample custodian 

Each page will be dated and signed by the person making the entries. Logbooks are accountable 

field documents and serve as a chronological representation of the sampling and measurement 

program. Sufficient detail will be included in the logbook to provide a summary of sampling and 

measurement activities. Observations or measurements taken in the area where contamination of 

the field notebook may occur may be recorded in a separate bound and numbered logbook before 

being transferred to the project notebook. The original records will be retained, and the delayed 

entry will be noted as such. Field notebooks are intended to provide sufficient data and 

observations to enable participants to reconstruct events that occur during project field activities. 

4.8.2 Corrections to Documentation All original data recorded in the field notebooks and on 

sample identification tags, chain-of-custody records, and receipt-for-sample forms will be written 

in waterproof ink. These accountable, serialized documents are not to be destroyed or thrown 

away, even if they are illegible or contain inaccuracies that require a replacement document. If 

an error is made on an accountable document assigned to one person, that individual may make 

corrections simply by crossing out the error and entering the correct information. The erroneous 

information should not be obliterated. The person who made the entry should correct any error 

discovered on an accountable document and provide a brief explanation for the correction. All 

corrections must be initialed and dated. 

B-30
Section: 5.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 31 of 2 

5.0 TESTING AND MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS 

5.1 Method References 

Table 5-1. Method References 

Cellulose:lignin ratio 

Monitoring Parameter Analyst Method (Source) 

Leachate 

Head on Liner Waste Management Pressure transducer 

Leachate Production Waste Management Totalizing Flow Meter (1 meter per cell) 

Temperature Waste Management Cole-Parmer Thermocouple, field electrode 

Leachate pH, field Waste Management Field electrode (C/A) 

Leachate pH, laboratory Severn Trent US EPA 9045C 

Chemical Oxygen Demand Severn Trent 410.4 (C) 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Severn Trent 405.1 (C) 

Conductance, field Waste Management Field electrode (C/A) 

Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) Severn Trent 350.1 (C) 

Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) Severn Trent 353.2 (C) 

Nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N) Severn Trent 353.2 (C) 

Volatile organic acids Microbial Insights Microbial Insights SOP 

VOC Severn Trent 8260B (B) 

SVOC Severn Trent 8270C (B) 

ortho P / Total P Severn Trent 365.2 (C) 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Severn Trent 351.2 (C) 

Total dissolved solids Severn Trent 160.1 (C) 

Sulfate Severn Trent 300.0 (A) 

Chloride Severn Trent 300.0 (A) 

Potassium Severn Trent 6010 (B) (prepared according to 3005) 

RCRA hazardous metals* Severn Trent 6010/7470 (B) (prepared according to 3005) 

MSW 

Oxidation Reduction Potential Waste Management Field ORP electrode (C/A) 

Waste temperature Waste Management Cole Parmer Thermocouple 

Waste settlement Waste Management GPS survey (Trimble model 4800) 

Waste pH (field) Waste Management Field electrode (C/A) (Appendix G) 

North Carolina State 

Univ. 

ASTM E-1758-95/Barlaz (R&D Method) 

Organic solids North Carolina State 

Univ. 

Barlaz R&D Method (Appendix D) 

Biochemical Methane Potential 

(BMP) 

North Carolina State 

Univ. 

Barlaz R&D Method (Appendix E) 

Moisture content North Carolina State 

Univ. 

Barlaz R&D Method (Appendix F) 

Density 

Gas 

North Carolina State 

Univ. 

Borehole Sampling (field) 

CH4, CO2, O2 

Landfill gas flow/production 

Waste Management 

Waste Management 

GEM 2000. See Section 4.4.2, Table 6-9 and 

Appendix C 

Orifice plate, Earth Tech 

Non Methane Organic Carbon 

(NMOC) (SUMMA Canister) 

CH4, CO2, O2, SUMMA Canister 

Severn Trent 

Severn Trent 3 C 

25C (C) 

B-31
Section: 5.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 32 of 2 

Appendix J) (SUMMA Canister) 

Severn Trent TO-14 (Appendix J) 

Surface emission monitoring (SEM) Waste Management NSPS/FID modified method 21 

7470. 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs; 

*RCRA hazardous metals include As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag and potassium. Mercury prepared and analyzed according to 

5.2 Procedures For Analytical Equipment and Test Methods This section references 

calibration procedures, frequencies of calibration and required detection limits for each sampling 

and analytical system to be used. Calibration requirements for standard, EPA-approved methods 

are described in the reference methods. 

A. EPA, 1988, Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW). 

Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, Revised March 

1988. EPA-600/4-79-020 

B. EPA, 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, 

Laboratory Manual, Volume 1A through 1C, and Field Manual, Volume 2. SW-846 

Third Edition, Final (Promulgated) Update III, Office of Solid Waste, EPA Document 

Control No. 955-001-00000-1, December. [Note: For convenience, this reference is 

referred to as "SW-846" throughout this document.] 

C. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (Appendix A), Parts 136 and 29 CFR, and 

Parts 1910, 120, 1200 and 1450 as updated. 

D. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, 1996. 

E. EPA, 1996. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Compounds in 

Ambient Air. EPA-625/R-96-010b. 

B-32
Section: 6.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 33 of 8 

6.0 QA/QC CONTROLS Reliable analytical measurements of environmental samples require 

continuous monitoring and evaluation of the analytical process involved, i.e. quality assurance. 

To ensure optimum generation of valid data, a scientifically sound and strictly followed quality 

control program must be incorporated into the sample collection and analytical program. Quality 

assurance objectives for this demonstration have been established based upon specific project 

requirements and are designed to ensure that data generated are of known and acceptable quality. 

The critical and non-critical measurements for leachate, MSW and gas have been previously 

listed in Tables 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6. This section of the QAPP summarizes the QA objectives for 

the critical measurements in terms of the data quality indicators: precision, accuracy, method 

detection limits, completeness, comparability and representativeness. 

6.1 Definitions Accuracy and precision are two measures of the reliability of an analytical 

result. Accuracy is the degree with which the obtained result agrees with the true value 

(recovery). Accuracy may be described as the average of the results from repeated analysis of 

the same sample, compared to the actual amount of analyte in a specific sample. Precision is the 

degree of agreement among repeated tests of the same sample. By mathematical definition, 

precision is the percent difference of the results from reanalysis of a sample. 

For this project, precision will be evaluated for parameters by the analysis of laboratory 

duplicates for laboratory measurements and field duplicates for parameters analyzed in the field. 

Precision between duplicates will be quantified as their relative percent difference (RPD). Field 

duplicates will not be collected for MSW samples. Accuracy will be assessed by the analysis of 

matrix spikes for laboratory samples. Field analyses will require comparison to a known 

standard (pH and gas analysis). For matrix spike analyses, a known quantity of the target analyte 

is added to an aliquot of a field sample and the percent recovery is determined. Accuracy is 

further assessed through the analysis of laboratory control samples (LCSs), also called spiked 

blanks, and through the use of second source standards, (performance evaluation samples). 

While the results for the LCSs will be evaluated and reported, the spiked sample results are those 

that will be used to assess QA objectives. Second-source standard analysis will be used to 

verify the accuracy of the calibration standards as well as tracking long-term accuracy over the 

duration of the project by assessing shifts in the bias. 

Reporting detection limits (RDLs) are established by the lowest standard analyzed which meets 

the calibration curve linearity requirements. Method detection limits (MDLs) are established as 

per 40 CFR 136 Appendix B and are usually 3-5 times below the RDL. These limits will be 

adjusted as necessary based on contaminant levels, which may require higher dilutions. 

Completeness is the ratio of the total number of valid sample measurements generated compared 

to the number of measurements statistically determined to be necessary. Representativeness is 

ensured by a well-defined sampling strategy designed to collect samples, which exhibit average 

properties of the site. Field collection procedures ensure that the sample sent to the laboratory 

represents the entire interval of interest. Comparability is generally achieved by the use of 

standard EPA methods. Reporting the data in standard units of measure and adhering to the 

specified calibration procedures all contribute to comparability of the data. 

B-33
Section: 6.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 34 of 8 

6.2 Types of QC Samples Equipment Field Blank – All reusable sampling tools will be 

decontaminated by the appropriate washing/rinsing methods as given in SW 846 Chapter 9. 

Equipment blanks will be collected using DI water for all sampling equipment requiring 

decontamination. 

Trip Blank - VOA-grade laboratory reagent water is placed in VOA vials by the laboratory and 

the vials are packaged and shipped with the sample VOA vials to the samplers; trip blanks 

remain with the sample bottles until use, then packaged and shipped with the samples for that 

day. A trip blank will be included in each cooler containing VOC samples 

Sample Temperature - The bottles are kept at air temperature then placed in the cooler or 

shipping container at the same time as the refrigerant medium. At the laboratory the sample 

cooler and sample temperatures are checked with an infrared gun to assess whether the samples 

have been kept at a low enough temperature during shipment. Samples with temperatures above 

4o

C are flagged. 

Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate - Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD) are 

used to assure that recovery of target compounds is acceptable for the sample matrices involved. 

The spike duplicates are also used to demonstrate the relative precision of each method. The 

Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between spike values is calculated and noted. These values 

generally are calculated, recorded and compared to internal control charts to monitor system 

performance. Samples may be split during analysis to determine possible matrix interferences. 

Data quality indicators associated with MS/MSD samples include both accuracy and precision. 

Precision of the analytical technique can be estimated using the relative percent difference (RPD) 

between the analytes of interest in the samples, and can be calculated as follows: 

|C MS - C MSD | RPD = x 100% 

0.5 ( C MS + C MSD ) Where: 

CMS 

= Concentration in MS 

CMSD = Concentration in MSD 

Accuracy for organic analytes will be estimated by calculating percent recovery (%R) for 

laboratory MS samples using the following equation: 

( Cs - Cu ) % R = x 100% 

Ca 

Where: 

Cs = 

Cu = 

Ca = 

Concentration in spiked aliquot 

Concentration in unspiked aliquot 

Actual concentration of spike added 

B-34
0 

Section: 6.0 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 35 of 8 

Surrogate Spike – Surrogates, specified in certain methods, are compounds added to each sample 

before extraction to measure the efficiency of the extraction. Surrogates are selected according 

to protocol given in the reference methods and instrument guidelines. Recoveries are determined 

and reported with sample data on the final report. If recovery is outside the range established by 

the laboratory, then the results are reported with a qualifying statement identifying the matrix 

problems encountered. 

Method Blank - Laboratory generated sample that is carried through all cleanup and analytical 

steps to check for contamination during this part of the work. The method blank is generally 

deionized water for most routine testing, but can be a gas or sand (e.g., if samples are a gaseous 

or a solid matrix). 

6.3 Field Quality Control There are several testing/calibration activities and a number of 

types of samples that are used to track the field sampling and testing processes to ensure that 

these processes produce data of satisfactory quality. The QC sample types, frequency, 

acceptance criteria, and corrective actions are listed in Table 6-1 and associated Field QC Tables. 

Table 6-1. Field Quality Control Samples 

QC Sample Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action 

Equipment field blank 1 per day of sampling Below established Modify equipment decon 

reporting limits procedures 

Trip blank 1 per day of VOC VOC < RDL Flag data and modify 

sampling shipping procedures 

Field Quality Control Activities for Critical Measurements Not Specified in the Above Table 

Table 6-1-1. Field Quality Control Samples: pH 

QC Sample Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action 

Calibration standard (pH 

7 and other standard to 

bracket sample pH) 

Start of each 

measurement period 

pH within – 0.1 pH units Re-calibrate 

Sample duplicate Twice daily on day of – 0.1 pH units Re-calibrate; flag data; 

sampling, beginning and contact project manager 

end of day 

Standard check (pH 7) At the end of the 

sampling day 

– 0.1 pH units flag data 

Temperature 

The thermocouple will be evaluated annually (e.g., with regard to potential erratic performance) 

by checking against a second NIST traceable thermocouple. If the readings do not agree within – 

1o

C, the use of the defective, in-place thermocouple will be discontinued and readings from an 

alternate thermocouple (in the given cell) will be used instead. 

B-35 
Section: 6.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 36 of 8 

Table 6-1-2. Field Quality Control Samples: Waste Density 

QC Sample Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action 

Calibration weight series monthly – 1% true weight for each Re-calibrate balance 

for balance check (4,000 calibration standard 

to 24,000 lbs, 3,000 lb 

increments) 

Table 6-1-3. Field Quality Control Samples: Gases 

QC Sample Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action 

Calibration check Twice daily on day of Within – 15% Re-calibrate instrument; 

certified gas standard for sampling, beginning and flag data; contact project 

CH4, CO2, and O2 end of day manager 

Sample duplicate for One sample duplicate Table 6-9 Re-calibrate instrument; 

CH4, CO2, and O2 collected in Tedlar bag on flag data; contact project 

sampling day. manager 

Span gas (zero gas) Twice daily on day of Not greater than 5% of Re-calibrate instrument, 

sampling, beginning and instrument span flag data, contact project 

end of day manager 

Table 6-1-4 Field Quality Control Samples: Waste Settlement 

QC Sample Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action 

Precision evaluation For every 20 measures, Within – 5 cm of last Re-initialize, redo 

randomly select one of recorded horizontal and precision evaluation, rethe previous 20 points 

and resample. 

vertical position record previous 20 

samples. 

Initial calibration from At the initialization of Within – 5 cm of known Re-initialize 

known point each sampling period horizontal and vertical 

position 

6.4 Laboratory Quality Control Several types of QC samples will be analyzed in the 

laboratory, including calibration standards. Corrective actions for critical parameters in these 

samples not meeting QC criteria and for analytical operations are summarized in Table 6-2 

through 6-8. Note that other actions may be taken upon review of the analytical results based on 

considerations such as limited sample volumes, holding time and other technical issues. 

B-36
Section: 6.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 37 of 8 

Table 6-2 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Chemical Oxygen Demand 

Event or sample type 

Initial 5 point calibration 

curve with potassium 

hydrogen phthalate 

standards (5 mg/L – 425 

mg/L) 

Continuing calibration 

check (CCC) 

Laboratory control 

sample 

(Second source check) 

Matrix spike with 

potassium hydrogen 

phthalate standard 

Laboratory blank 

Laboratory duplicate 

Minimum Frequency Acceptance Criteria 

Initially and when CCC 

exceeds criterion. (Every 

three months at a 

minimum.) 

R2 ‡ 0.995 and visual 

confirmation of linearity 

(e.g., data points fall 

close to and on both 

sides of the line) 

Run mid-point standard 

with each analytical batch 

(£20 samples) 

– 10% of actual 

concentration 

Each analytical batch 

(£ 20) 

100 – 20% recovery 

Each analytical batch 

(£20 samples) 

100 – 20% recovery 

1 in every set of 10 

samples 

Below Detection Limit 

Run duplicates with each 

batch (£20 samples) 

– 20% RPD 

Corrective Action 

Re-calibrate 

Re-calibrate and reanalyze affected samples. 

Re-run LCS; check 

calculation of compounds; 

Re-run samples as 

required; contact project 

manager 

Re-run spike; check 

calculation of compounds; 

Re-run samples as 

required; contact project 

manager 

Investigate problem, check 

other batch blanks for 

sample carry over. 

Eliminate contamination, 

rerun. 

Re-do duplicate: contact 

client if consecutive 

duplicates fail. 

Table 6-3 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Biochemical Oxygen Demand 

Event or sample type Minimum Frequency 

Accuracy check 

Glucose/glutamic acid 

standards (5 dilutions) 

Prior to running samples 

and every 20 samples 

Dilution blank (method 

blank) 

Each batch or every 20 

samples 

Seed control Each batch or every 20 

samples 

Laboratory duplicate Run duplicates with each 

batch or every 20 samples 

and 1 mg/L, adjust to 

meet glucose/glutamic 

acid acceptance criteria 

Acceptance Criteria 

198 – 30.5 

0. 2 mg/L difference 

initial DO and final DO 

DO uptake between 0.6 

Compare to project QA 

objectives (Table 6-9) 

reject tests made with that 

seed 

Corrective Action 

Reevaluate control limit 

and investigate, reject tests 

made with that seed and 

dilution water 

Investigate problem, check 

other batch blanks; 

eliminate contamination, 

rerun. 

Investigate problem and 

Re-do duplicate: contact 

client if consecutive 

duplicates fail 

B-37 
Section: 6.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 38 of 8 

Table 6-4 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Volatile Organic Acids 

QC Sample 

Initial 5-point calibration 

curve 

Continuing calibration 

standard (2nd Source) 

Method Blank 

Matrix spike 

20) 

Minimum Frequency 

Initially and as needed 

Every sample batch. 

Every sample batch 

Every sample batch (£ 

critical compounds 

Acceptance Criteria 

R2

>0.99 

Standard reads within 

20% of true value 

< RDL 

70% -130% recovery of 

calculation of compounds; 

Re-run samples as 

Corrective Action 

Re-calibrate 

Re-calibrate 

Re-run: check for sample 

carry over; system 

maintenance 

Re-run spike; check 

Laboratory Control 

Sample 

Laboratory duplicate 

Every sample batch (£ 

20) 

Run duplicates with each 

batch or every 20 samples 

70% -130% recovery of 

critical compounds 

Compare to project QA 

objectives (Table 6-9) 

Re-run LCS; check 

calculation of compounds; 

Re-run samples as 

required; contact project 

manager 

required; contact project 

manager 

Re-do duplicate: contact 

client if consecutive 

duplicates fail 

Table 6-5 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Organic Solids 

QC Sample 

Sample duplicate 

Calibration weight (1 g) 

for balance check 

Minimum Frequency 

Every sample 

Every day before 

sampling 

Acceptance Criteria 

– 25% Relative Percent 

Difference (RPD) 

– 0.1% 

Corrective Action 

Re-do duplicate; flag data 

Re-calibrate balance 

Table 6-6 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Waste Moisture 

Event or sample type Minimum Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action 

Calibration weight (1 kg) 

for balance check 

Every day before 

sampling 

– 0.1% Re-calibrate balance 

Table 6-7 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Waste pH 

Standard check (pH 7) 

QC Sample 

Calibration standard (pH 

7 and other standard to 

bracket expected sample 

pH) 

pH sample duplicate 

At the end of 

measurement period 

Minimum Frequency 

Start of each 

measurement period 

Twice daily on sampling 

day, beginning/end of day 

pH within – 0.1 pH units 

Acceptance Criteria 

pH within – 0.1 pH units 

– 15% RPD 

flag data 

Corrective Action 

Re-calibrate 

Re-calibrate; flag data; 

contact project manager 

B-38 
Section: 6.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 39 of 8 

Table 6-8 Laboratory Quality Control Activities: Biochemical Methane Potential 

QC Sample 

Triplicate matrix 

(cellulose) spike (spiked 

at 30% of est. methane 

potential) 

Triplicate subsamples 

Minimum Frequency 

Once, pending acceptable 

results 

Every sample 

Acceptance Criteria 

100 – 20% recovery 

– 20% (RSD) 

Corrective Action 

Re-run spike; check 

calculation of compounds; 

Re-run samples as 

required; contact project 

manager 

Investigate problem; Re-do 

sample: flag data 

6.5 Failure to Meet Data Quality Indicators The QA objectives presented in Table 6-9 

represent the data quality necessary to establish the characteristics of the site during the various 

sampling/analysis events and to generate data of sufficient quality to meet the project’s technical 

objectives. The QA/QC efforts discussed in this QAPP focus on controlling measurement error 

within the precision, accuracy, and completeness (100% completeness is the target for all 

analyses) objectives given and provide a database for estimating uncertainty in the measurement 

data for the project. QA objectives for precision and accuracy will be evaluated during each 

sampling/analysis episode to see if the overall results for the project meet the stated objectives. 

If these objectives are not met the precision and/or accuracy of the results may be affected. 

Reanalysis of the samples will be conducted when it can be done. Corrective actions taken in 

response to non-compliant data will be documented and summarized in the project’s final report 

and the impact on project objectives will be evaluated and discussed. 

Of all the objectives listed in Table 6-9 the MSW sampling is most likely to fall short of 100% 

completeness. Previous landfill sampling has repeatedly shown discrete samples that will be all 

one type of material, such as wood, plastic, etc. as opposed to normal heterogeneous trash. At 

each sampling location three MSW samples will be taken per 10’ vertical increment. If one of 

these samples is lost, the analytical results from the other two samples will be used to estimate 

the average concentration for that location. If more than one sample is lost at a single location, 

then the location will be re-sampled as near as possible to the location if the drilling equipment is 

still on site. Otherwise it will be noted in the data report. 

Table 6-9. Quality Assurance Objectives for Critical Measurements 

Measurement Matrix Method 

Grab/Field 

Electrode/ Precision 

a 

Accuracy 

b 

RDLs 

c Units 

Time Point* 

Chemical Oxygen 100 – Leachate 410.4 G – 20% 5 mg/L Demand 20% 

Biochemical 100 – Leachate 405.1 G – 20% 2 mg/L Oxygen Demand 30% 

Leachate Leachate Thermocoupl FE – 1o

C – 1oC N/A �C temperature (d) e 

Field pH Leachate FE – 0.1 – 0.1 N/A -log H+ electrode 

Microbial 100 – Volatile Org Acids Leachate G – 20% 0.1 mg/L Insights SOP 30% 

B-39 
Section: 6.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 40 of 8 

Table 6-9. Quality Assurance Objectives for Critical Measurements con’t 

Waste Temperature 

(d) 

Measurement 

MSW 

Matrix 

Thermocoupl 

e 

Method 

FE 

Grab/Field 

Electrode/ 

Time Point* 

– 1o

C 

Precision 

a 

– 1oC 

Accuracy 

b 

N/A 

RDLs 

c 

�C 

Units 

Waste 

Settlement (e) MSW 

MSW 

GPS Survey TP 

G 

– 5 cm 

– 25% 

– 5 cm 

– 0.1% 

N/A cm 

% 

Moisture 

Content (f) 

Organic Solids (f) 

MSW 

MSW 

Appendix F 

Appendix D 

G 

G 

– 2% 

– 0.1 

– 0.1% 

– 0.1 

N/A 

N/A 

% 

Biochemical 

Methane Potential 

pH (g) 

MSW Appendix E 

Appendix G 

G – 20% 100 – 

20% 1 

N/A 

ml/g 

-log H+ 

Waste Density MSW Field 

Calibration G N/A (h) N/A kg/m3 

CH4, CO2, O2 Gas 

Gas 

See Section 

4.4.2 

Summa, lab 

G 

G 

(i) (i) Appendix 

C % (vol) 

Gas Volume (k) 

CH4, CO2,O2 

Gas See Section 

4.6 G – 5% 

– 10% 

100 – 

5% 

– 10% 

N/A 

(j) 

m3 

% (vol) 

* Samples are collected as a grab at the point of collection. GPS measures represent unique temporal/spatial sampling points. 

(a) Precision expressed as the relative percent difference (RPD) between spiked duplicates and/or lab duplicates 

(biochemical methane potential precision assessed with the relative standard deviation [RSD] of triplicate 

samples) 

(b) Accuracy is expressed as the % recovery of matrix spikes or as the measurement of a known standard 

(c) RDLs are the reporting detection limits as devised by the lowest calibration standard or weight. 

(d) Precision and accuracy objectives for temperature are based upon thermocouple specifications 

(e) Precision and accuracy objectives for GPS are based upon manufacturer specifications (Trimble model 4800), 

positioning accuracy determination outlined in section 4.4.3. 

(f) Precision and accuracy objectives for moisture and organic solids are based upon calibration requirements for 

analytical balances and duplicate weight measures of the same sample. 

(g) Accuracy for pH is based upon known standards. Precision is based on sample duplicate readings. 

(h) Balance is calibrated monthly and must be accurate to – 1% of true weight. 

(i) Gas composition precision (sample duplicate) and accuracy (certified gas standard) are as follows: methane and 

carbon dioxide precision, ± 10% (RPD), accuracy, 100 ± 10%; oxygen precision 30% (RPD), accuracy 30%. 

(j) Reporting detection limits for the gases are: CO2=0.02%; CH4=0.0004%; O2=0.2%. 

(k) Gas volume precision and accuracy are based upon manufacturer specifications and factory certification of the 

flow meter used. 

6.6 Retained Sample Storage Outer Loop subcontracted laboratories will store all residual 

samples and sample preparations until disposal is authorized by WMI. Disposal will be 

authorized following data review by Nancy Grams for WMI. While waiting for data review and 

validation, the samples will be stored in the following manner. The residual samples and their 

preparations will be stored in a refrigerator at 4°C or in a specified storage area at room 

temperature, depending on the analysis required, for 60 days. 

B-40
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

B-41
0 

Section: 7.0 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 42 of 4 

7.0 DATA REPORTING, DATA REDUCTION AND DATA VALIDATION

For analytical data to be scientifically valid, defensible, and comparable, the correct equations 

and procedures must be used to prepare the data. Evaluation of measurements is a systematic 

process of reviewing a body of data to provide assurance that the data are adequate for their 

intended use. The process includes the following activities: 

Auditing measurement system calibration and calibration verification;

Auditing QC activities;

Screening data sets for outliers;

Reviewing data for technical credibility vs. the sample site setting;

Checking intermediate calculations; and

Certifying the above process.

7.1 Laboratory Data Reduction and Reporting This section discusses laboratory data 

reduction, laboratory data validation, and laboratory-reporting requirements that will be 

implemented by Outer Loop subcontracted laboratories. 

7.1.1 Laboratory Data Reduction The analytical methods to be used for this full-scale 

applied research project contain detailed instructions and equations for calculating compound 

concentrations and other parameters. Data for critical parameters will be reduced to the units 

presented in Table 7-1. The established Reporting Limit (RL; determined by the lowest 

calibration standard) will be used in reporting results. All results between the RL and method 

detection limit (MDL) will be reported and flagged as "estimated". All calculable results that fall 

below the MDL will be flagged signifying that the calculated result was below the MDL and the 

MDL will be reported. The qualifier indicates the laboratory's judgement as to the limits of the 

data usability. 

The analysts responsible for the measurements will enter raw data into logbooks or onto data 

sheets. In accordance with standard document control procedures, original copies of all data 

sheets and logbooks containing raw data – signed and dated by the responsible analyst – will be 

maintained on file. Separate instrument logs will also be maintained to enable reconstruction of 

the run sequence for individual instruments. 

7.1.2 Laboratory Data Validation Individual analysts will review the data generated each day 

to determine the need for corrective action or rework. Data reviewed will include calibration and 

QC data. Individual analysts will also review data for completeness. Data will also undergo a 

second review process conducted by one of three independent reviewers (under some conditions, 

this second review may be conducted by an analyst that was not responsible for generating the 

data he or she reviewed). This second review is typically conducted within several days after the 

data are generated. The reviewers also review laboratory logbooks and notebooks on a monthly 

basis. Data books will be initialed and dated when evaluated. Data validation separate from that 

performed by the laboratories will be performed on 10% of all data. 

B-42
Section: 7.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 43 of 4 

Table 7-1. Reporting Units For Critical Measurements 

Parameter Units 

Leachate 

Chemical oxygen demand mg/L 

Biochemical oxygen demand mg/L 

Volatile organic acids mg/L 

Temperature o

C 

Leachate 

pH -log H+ 

MSW 

Waste Temperature °C 

Waste settlement (GPS) Height decrease (-cm) relative to fixed

reference 

Organic Solids % 

Biochemical methane potential ml/g 

Waste density kg/m3 

pH -log H+ 

Moisture content % 

Gases 

Methane % 

Carbon dioxide % 

Oxygen % 

Gas volume m3 

7.1.3 Laboratory Reporting and Data Retention Requirements All laboratories will provide a 

spreadsheet or other electronic database information showing the laboratory data, and general 

calculations used to determine the final concentration in each parameter/fraction/test. The 

laboratory will supply the following information in the form of a Level II Report: 

• Case narrative including a list of samples reviewed with field name and laboratory 

names crossed-referenced, discussion of any deviations from the QAPP and any other 

non-conformances and the associated corrective actions, discussion of any analytical or 

procedural problems encountered and corrective actions, and an explanation of the data 

qualifiers used 

• Completed chain-of-custody forms 

• Sample result summary forms for all samples, field QC samples, and method blanks 

• Spreadsheet containing any positive or negative results that are between the RL and 

MDL will be flagged as “estimated”; calculable results below the MDL will be flagged 

signifying that the calculated result was below the MDL (with MDL reported) 

• QC summary forms for MS/MSD samples and other lab QC 

• Sample preparation logs and run logs 

B-43 
Section: 7.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 44 of 4 

Original copies of all data sheets and logbooks containing raw data will be signed and dated by 

the responsible analyst reviewer(s) and will be maintained on file in accordance with standard 

document control procedures. The laboratory will maintain separate instrument logs to enable 

the run sequences to be reconstructed for individual instruments. The laboratory will maintain 

all data on file for 5 years in a secure archive warehouse accessible only to designated laboratory 

personnel. The data will be disposed of in the interim only after instructions to do so have been 

received from WMI and EPA. After 5 years, the data will be distributed to EPA and to WMI. 

7.2 Project Data Reporting Following the baseline sampling, WMI will prepare a data report. 

The report will consist of all analytical data. The report will be delivered to EPA 90 days after 

the pretreatment sampling is completed. 

Laboratory validated analytical data submitted by WMI will be used by EPA to prepare reports 

that evaluate the landfill bioreactor technologies and assess the potential applications. The report 

will include, at a minimum, the following information: 

• A discussion of the procedures used to define data quality and usability and the results of 

these procedures. Summary tables of the QC data obtained during the demonstration will 

be included. Results will be compared to the quality assurance objectives set forth in this 

QAPP to provide an assessment of the factors that contributed to the overall quality of 

the data. 

• The results of any technical system and/or performance audits performed during the 

course of the project will be documented, including corrective actions initiated as a result 

of these audits and any possible impact on the associated data. If any internal audits 

were performed, these too will be reviewed. 

• All changes to the original QAPP will be documented regardless of when they were 

made. The rationale for the changes will be discussed with any consequences of these 

changes. 

• The identification and resolution of significant QA/QC problems will be discussed. 

Where it was possible to take corrective action, the action taken and the result of that 

action will be documented. If it was not possible to take corrective action (for example, 

a sample bottle was broken on transit), this, too, will be documented. 

• A discussion of any special studies initiated as a result of QA/QC issues and/or 

corrective actions, including why the studies were undertaken, how they were performed, 

and how the results impacted the project data. 

• A summary of any limitations on the use of the data will be provided including 

conclusions on how these constraints affect project objectives. 

• The QA section will provide sufficient narrative concerning factors that could affect 

data (e.g., weather events) used in the evaluation of the landfill bioreactor technology. 

WMI project personnel will review this section to assess the assumptions made in 

evaluating the data and the conclusions drawn. 

7.3 Reporting The quality-related results, actions, and decisions required by this Quality 

Assurance Project Plan necessitate a reporting mechanism to keep project management informed 

as to the project status. These reports, discussed below, represent the minimum requirement to 

B-44
Section: 7.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 45 of 4 

provide management with the information necessary to assess the adequacy and success of the 

QA program. 

7.3.1 Schedule A detailed report on quality-related activities will be prepared after each sample 

set analysis by Nancy Grams and submitted to the Technical EPA Project Co-Managers. 

Information submitted in this report will include summary laboratory QA/QC activities and an 

overall tentative assessment of data quality to date. The report will discuss any problem 

conditions and corrective actions, audit events and results, sampling and analysis QA/QC status, 

and a general review of the achievement of data objectives for the project. 

7.3.2 Final Report The final demonstration report will include a separate QA section that 

documents the QA/QC activities that support a determination of the credibility and validity of the 

data. A summary of the data quality information will be provided, including an assessment of the 

QA objectives which were achieved, those which were not and why, and the expected impact on 

the project. 

B-45
Section: 8.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 46 of 3 

8.0 AUDITS Audits are an independent means of confirming the operation or capability of a 

measurement system, and of independently documenting the use of QC measures designed to 

generate valid data of known and acceptable quality. An audit is, by necessity, performed by a 

technically qualified person who is not directly involved with the measurement system being 

evaluated. A performance evaluation is generally an objective audit of a quantitative nature, and 

a systems audit is a qualitative evaluation of the capability of a measurement system to produce 

data of known and acceptable quality. Both types of audits will be performed for the laboratory 

and the field portions of this full-scale landfill bioreactor demonstration as discussed below. 

8.1 Performance Audits For all tests/methods conducted by laboratories, the performance 

evaluation samples received and processed by the laboratories (just prior to, during, and 

immediately following their involvement in the project) for purposes of compliance with 

laboratory certification requirements relating to these analyses (or where the laboratory is not 

regulated, PE samples submitted blind to analysts by laboratory management) will be provided to 

WMI. For all failed PE results the laboratory will institute remedial actions and where valid 

performance of the measurement system cannot be established, the laboratory will establish 

corrective actions. These corrective actions will include evaluation of testing data that may have 

been affected, notification to WMI if project data may have been affected, and amended reports 

with data appropriately qualified if and when the laboratory determines that data have been 

affected. 

Lab data validation procedures are required to employ an independent analyst to review all 

aspects of data generation, including the calculation steps used to generate sample 

concentrations. Outer Loop subcontracted laboratories will conduct this activity as part of their 

normal operations. Upon request to the laboratory, complete data sets (which document the 

laboratories’ data reduction and data review/validation) will be provided to EPA project 

personnel at no charge by the laboratory. EPA will spot-check these data for compliance with 

requirements and correctness of results. Results of these performance audits will be reported to 

the WMI QA Manager and made available for review. 

8.2 System Audits A system audit is a qualitative determination of the overall ability of a 

measurement system to produce data of known and acceptable quality, by an evaluation of all 

procedures, personnel, equipment, etc. utilized to generate the data. It is an evaluation of 

whether adequate QC measures, policies, protocols, safeguards, and instructions are inherent in 

the measurement system to enable valid data generation and subsequent actions. EPA QA 

personnel will conduct biannual (every two years) field systems audits during this field test. 

The field systems audit will review the project organization and technical personnel involved, 

including the following: 

Use of proper sampling equipment

Procedures for equipment maintenance and decontamination

Acceptable sampling protocol

Calibration procedures for field measurements

Proper sample handling

B-46
0 

Section: 8.0 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 47 of 3 

Storage and shipping procedures

Adequate field documentation and record-keeping procedures

Data reduction and reporting procedures (to final databases)

Laboratory systems audits of Outer Loop subcontracted laboratories for the methods and analytes 

critical to the project will be reviewed by WMI where laboratory certification agencies have 

audited these activities, or audits will conducted by WMI and by EPA. These audits will be 

performed on a biannual basis. In addition, the technical abilities of the lab personnel involved 

with the analysis of demonstration (randomly selected) samples will be reviewed. Regulatory or 

WMI audits will evaluate instrumentation respect to technical acceptability, maintenance 

procedures and records, availability of spare replacement parts (and/or service contracts), and 

general upkeep. Analytical methodology for all critical measurements of the project will be 

reviewed, including all: 

Extraction/preparation steps

Analysis steps

Data reduction and validation procedures

Applicable QC sample analysis records

Calibration records

General record-keeping/documentation practices

Additionally, sample handling and tracking procedures would be evaluated including: 

Sample receipt 

Chain-of-custody 

Sample storage 

Sample/standard segregation 

Results reporting 

8.3 Corrective Action Strictly defined sample and handling procedures, calibration 

procedures, QC sample analyses, and all associated acceptance criteria are part of the 

comprehensive QA program designed to identify situations which do not meet specific QA/QC 

requirements. The specific corrective action steps to be taken in response to failed criteria are 

discussed in Section 6.0. This section outlines general principles and procedures for identifying 

and responding to QA problems. Analytical QA and associated corrective actions are conducted 

by WMI and their analytical subcontractor. 

8.4 Initiation of Corrective Action The need for corrective action comes from several sources: 

• Equipment malfunction 

• Internal QA/QC checks outside of acceptance criteria 

• Deficiencies noted during performance or system audits 

• Non-compliance with sampling/analysis/QA requirements 

In all instances, except for responding to audit findings, personnel (field and laboratory) directly 

performing the measurement task are responsible for identifying any non-conformance or 

B-47
Section: 8.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 48 of 3 

potential problem with the protocols, equipment, or method. The responsible individual must 

immediately notify the appropriate supervisor that a problem exists. If the individual identifying 

the problem can correct it independently, such corrective action must take place before any 

further sample collection or analysis occurs. Depending upon the circumstances, the specific 

steps to be taken and the initiation of the corrective action can be decided by the field/laboratory 

technician, WMI management, or the laboratory QA Manager. 

8.5 Documentation of Corrective Action If, at any time immediate actions do not bring the 

system into control and without affecting any project data, formal corrective action shall be taken 

and documented with regard to: 

• Actions taken to bring the process back into control. 

• Actions taken to prevent recurrences of the out-of-control situation. 

• The fate of data obtained while the process was out of control. 

The documentation is accomplished by filing a corrective action report (WMI) or a memo to the 

file (EPA). Field or laboratory personnel, the appropriate supervisor, or the Laboratory QA 

Manager, depending on where the problem is recognized, initiates this documentation. The 

documentation will include as much of the following information as is appropriate to the 

problem: 

• Nature of problem 

• Parameter affected 

• Sample lot affected 

• Personnel responsible for identifying the problem 

• Corrective action measure(s) taken and final disposition/resolution of problem 

• Dates 

• Initials of the field personnel, analyst, or data reviewer 

B-48 
Section: 9.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 49 of 1 

9.0 REFERENCES 

Arner R. 2002. Perspectives in landfill gas-to-energy: a snapshot of the current state of the 

industry. MSW Management March/April 2002. 

http://www.forester.net/mw_0203_perspectives.html 

Diggle PJ. 1990. Time Series: A Biostatistical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 

England. 

Hollander M, Wolfe DA. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. John Wiley and Sons, New 

York, pp.185-208. 

Reinhart DR, Townsend TG. 1998. Landfill Bioreactor Design and Operation. Lewis 

Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 

Saint-Fort R. 2002. Assessing sanitary landfill stabilization using winter and summer waste 

streams in simulated landfill cells. Journal of Environmental Science and Health A37:237-

259. 

Tammemagi H. 1999. The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators and the Search for a Sustainable 

Future. Oxford University Press, New York. 

B-49
Appendix: A 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 50 of 1 

Appendix A. Time Line for Outer Loop Landfill Bioreactor Studies 

Start FLB TRT 

FLB 5 N&S FLB T0 5 North (TRT) opened 5 South (TRT) 

Start 7.4 A and 7.4B TRT AALB 

AALB 

7.4 A (TRT) AALB T0 

7.4 B (TRT) 

Start AALB CTL data collection Start FLB CTL data collection 

FLB + AALB CTL* 

7.3 A (CTL) 

7.3 B (CTL) 7.3 A&B AALB FLB 

opened; CTL T1 

CTL 

AALB T0 T0 

1996 2000 2002 

YEAR 

1999 2003 

FLB: Facultative Landfill Bioreactor 

AALB: Aerobic/Anaerobic Landfill Bioreactor 

CTL: Control 

TRT: Experimental Treatment 

* Because the control cells are, for the most part, younger than FLB cells, the control needs to be monitored longer than the FLB 

cells. 

B-50
Appendix: B 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 51 of 1 

Appendix B. Microbial Ecology of Nitrogen Transformations 

Nitrification is a biological process that converts ammonia ions to nitrite ions and then to 

nitrate ions. The groups of bacteria that perform this conversion are chemolithotrophic 

nitrifies. The conversion occurs according to the overall equation: 

NH4

+

 + 2O2 -----> NO3

- + 2H+

 + H2O 

The process takes place in two steps and each step is carried out by a distinct group of 

nitrifying organisms. These organisms are Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter. The reactions 

are as follows. 

2NH4

+

 + 3O2 -----> 2NO2

- + 4H+

 + 2H2O 

Nitrosomonas (also Nitrospira sp., Nirtrococcus sp. and Nitrosolobus sp.) 

2NO2

- + O2 -----> 2NO3-

Nitrobacter (also Nitrospira sp. And Nirtrococcus sp.) 

Nitrosomonas (and other genera) performs the first step of the conversion by oxidizing 

ammonium to nitrite. Nitrobacter (and other genera) completes the oxidation by 

converting the nitrite to nitrate. 

For more information, the reader is referred to Atlas and Bartha (1987): 

Atlas RM, Bartha R. 1987. Microbial Ecology: Fundamentals and Applications, Second 

Edition Benjamin /Cummings Menlo Park, CA pp. 333-342. 

B-51
Appendix: C 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 52 of 1 

Appendix C. Field Methane, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide 

Measurements 

Landtec GEM 2000 

The GEM 2000 is part of LANDTEC's family of products developed specifically for the landfill industry. 

These products are based on a decade of operating and regulatory experience at multiple landfill gas to 

energy sites by LANDTEC's parent, Pacific Energy. 

How it works 

A high vacuum sample pump draws a quantity of gas through the sample hose, in-line water trap and a user 

replaceable particulate filter, into a sample chamber. An infrared beam is projected, via sapphire windows, 

through the gas sample. On the other side of the chamber the beam is sensed by methane and carbon 

dioxide detectors. A microprocessor calculates the amount of infrared light absorbed at different 

wavelengths and determines the various gas concentrations. 

The oxygen concentration is measured by the Galvanic Cell method. The oxygen molecules diffuse through 

a Teflon membrane into a cell containing a gold electrode. The molecules are reduced and a current flows 

between the gold electrode and a lead electrode. The resulting cell output is measured as a voltage which is 

proportional to the oxygen concentration. The entire system has a very high resistance to poisoning caused 

by the presence of other gases, such as carbon dioxide or hydrogen sulfide. When a sufficient amount of 

gas has entered the sample chamber, gas concentration levels shown on the display will stabilize. Data will 

be stored electronically GEM 2000 memory with I.D. code, date and time in addition to being recorded in 

the field log. Scott gases or a similar reputable dealer will be used for the gas standards. 

sample resolution 

Sensor Range Resolution 

Methane - CH4* 0 - 100% 0.1% 

Carbon dioxide - CO2* 0 - 60% 0.1% 

Oxygen - O2* 0 - 25% 0.1% 

Static pressure* 0 - 100" H2O 0.01" H2O% 

Barometric pressure* ±0.15" Hg 0.1" Hg 

* Optional features

Accuracy 

%CH4 by %CO2 by %O2 by 

Concentration Volume Volume Volume 

5% (LEL CH4) ±0.3% ±0.5% ±0.25% 

60% ±1.9% ±3.0% n.a. 

100% ±1.9% n.a. n.a. 

B-52 
Appendix: D 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 53 of 1 

Appendix D. Determination of the Organic Solids Content of 

Refuse 

The methodology for Organic Solids is presented below: 

1. The procedure begins with samples that have been ground in a wiley mill to pass a 1mm 

screen. If the dryness of a ground refuse sample is suspect, then re-dry it for one day in a 

65°C oven. To re-dry ground refuse samples in Mason jars, do the following: Remove the 

jar lid and cover the mouth of the jar with aluminum foil. Replace the threaded outer ring. 

Using a disposable 18-gauge needle, punch lots of holes in the aluminum foil. Put the jar 

into a 65°C oven for at least one day. When the refuse is dry, remove the jar from the 

oven. Work quickly, as the dried refuse will immediately begin to absorb moisture from 

the air. Unscrew the threaded outer ring and replace the aluminum foil with the metal lid. 

Replace the threaded outer ring, screwing it down tightly. 

2. Prepare Gooch crucibles and filters by inserting a glass fiber filter (Whatman 934AH) into 

a crucible. Rinse the crucible with deionized water and place the crucible and filter in the 

furnace at 550°C for one hour. Allow crucibles to cool in a desiccator. After cooling, store 

the crucibles in a place where they will protected from dust and dirt. A clean box with a 

secure lid, or a tray lined with paper towels and covered with aluminum foil, is ideal for 

this purpose. NOTE: Once crucibles have been cleaned in this way, do NOT handle them 

with your fingers; use tongs or a clean, gloved hand only. 

3. Place approximately 1 gram of sample in a Gooch crucible. Dry the sample in the crucible 

at 75°C for at least 24 hours. Carefully stir the refuse approximately 6 hours into drying 

time. After drying, allow 2 hours to cool in a desiccator. Then, weigh the crucible and 

dried solids to 4 decimal places. When weighing, work quickly and with one crucible at a 

time because the dried solids will immediately begin to absorb moisture from the air upon 

removal from the desiccator. 

4. Place the Gooch crucible containing the solids in a 105°C furnace. Increase the furnace 

temperature to 550°C. Allow the furnace to remain at 550°C for 2 hours, then reduce the 

temperature to 105°C. After the oven cools to 105°C, remove the Gooch crucible and allow 

2 hours to cool in a desiccator. 

Weigh the crucible again. When weighing, work quickly and with one crucible at a time 

because the dried solids will immediately begin to absorb moisture from the air upon 

removal from the desiccator. The percent weight loss on ignition represents total organic 

matter. 

B-53
Appendix: E 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 54 of 3 

Appendix E. Biochemical Methane Potential Medium 

The BMP procedure was modified from previously developed procedures [5, 23]. Tests are 

conducted in 125 mL serum bottles (Wheaton, Millville, NJ) sealed with black butyl rubber stoppers 

(Bellco Biotechnology, Vineland, NJ) and aluminum crimps. Medium composition is presented in Table 1. 

The N2/CO2 (80/20) gas mixture is passed over a hot copper column to remove traces of oxygen. 

The carbon source in the BMP test was Wiley-milled refuse obtained as described above. Sufficient 

refuse is used in each BMP test so that the theoretical methane potential, based on complete cellulose and 

hemicellulose conversion to methane, was 50 mL. Theoretical methane potential is calculated using the 

stoichiometry presented in equation 1 [7]. Using equation 1, the calculated methane potential of cellulose 

(C6H10O5) and hemicellulose (C5H8O4) is 415 and 424 mL CH4 at STP per dry g of cellulose and 

hemicellulose, respectively. 

CnHaOb + [n -(a/4)-(b/2)]H2O � [(n/2)-(a/8)+(b/4)]CO2 + [(n/2)+(a/8)-(b/4)]CH4 (1) 

BMP tests are inoculated with 15 mL of anaerobically digested sludge (obtained just before use) at a 

gassing station (using the Oxygen-scrubbed N2/CO2 gas mixture) with the stopper off. Tests are conducted 

in triplicate and incubated at 37�C. Background methane production associated with the inoculum is 

measured in a set of five controls. 

To measure gas production, we vent the serum bottle to a gas bag and then measure the volume in 

the gas bag by using a syringe. Gas volumes are corrected to dry gas at STP. Gas production was 

measured after 28 days and again after 43 days. (We now are incubating for 60 days based on the 

behavior in most recent tests in which gas production did not stop at day 43.) The absence of 

additional methane production on Day 43, after correction for background, suggests that biodegradation of 

the refuse samples was essentially complete. 

Additional Notes 

With respect to the amount of solids to add, we are adding 1 gm for samples where we have cellulose, 

hemicellulose data and know that the theoretical gas potential is <170 ml/gm. For all other samples, we are 

adding 0.5 gm. The volumes to add are based on the size of your serum bottle and the headspace. We use a 

160 ml serum bottles with about a 60 mL headspace. As a rule, I would like to keep the overpressure to 60­

100 mL. Remember also that there will be some background methane production from the inoculum that 

must be measured. We do tests in triplicate plus 5 inoculum blanks. 

TABLE 1. BMP MEDIUM COMPOSITION 

Component per liter 

PO4 solution 100 mL 

M3 solution 100 mL 

Mineral solution 10 mL 

Vitamin solution 10 mL 

Resazurin (0.1%) 2 mL 

Distilled water 768 mL 

Refuse 50 mL CH4 potential 

(see text) 

NaHCO3 

a 3.5 g 

Cysteine hydrochloride (5%) a 10 mL 

a

Added after adjustment of the media to pH 7.2 and boiling under 

an 80/20 mixture of N2/CO2. 

B-54 
0 

Appendix: E 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 55 of 3 

Phosphate Solution 

Component per liter 

KH2PO4 16.1 g 

Na2HPO4•7H2O 31.89 g 

° Prepare in carbonate-free water and store under N2 at 4 C. 

M3 Solution 

Component per liter 

NH4Cl 10 g 

NaCl 9 g 

MgCl2•6H2O 2 g 

CaCl2•2H2O 1 g 

Store solution at 4� C. 

Trace Mineral Solution 

Component 1 liter 

Nitrilotriacetic Acid 1.5 g 

FeSO4•7H2O 0.1 g 

MnCl2•4H2O 0.1 g 

CoCl2•6H2O 0.17 g 

CaCl2•2H2O 0.1 g 

ZnCl2 0.1 g 

CuCl2•2H2O 0.02 g 

H3BO3 0.01 g 

Na MoO4•2H2O 0.01 g 

NaCl 1.0 g 

Na2SeO3 0.017 g 

NiSO4•6H2O 0.026 g 

Na2WO4•2H2O 0.033 g 

B-55
Appendix: E 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 56 of 3 

Dissolve the nitrilotriacetic acid in 200 mL of hot distilled H2O and then adjust the pH to 6.5 with KOH. 

Add this solution to about 600 mL of distilled water and dissolve the components in the order listed. Dilute 

to one liter. Store in the refrigerator under nitrogen. 

Vitamin Solution 

Vitamin g per liter 

Biotin 0.002 

Folic Acid 0.002 

B6 (pyridoxine) HCl 0.01 

B1 (thiamine) HCl 0.005 

B2 (riboflavin) 0.005 

Nicotinic Acid (niacin) 0.005 

Pantothenic Acid 0.005 

B12 (cyanocobalamin) crystaline 0.0001 

PABA (P-aminobenzoic acid) 0.005 

Lipoic Acid (thioctic) 0.005 

Distilled Water 1000 mL 

Add ingredients in the order given and let dissolve. Store in a dark container in the refrigerator under 

nitrogen. 

Resazurin Solution 

Prepare a 0.1% Resazurin solution (by weight) and store at 4�C. 

Cysteine Solution 

1) Prepare a 5.0% Cysteine Hydrochloride Monohydrate solution (by weight) by first boiling the DI 

water in a round bottom flask under N2 (g). 

2) Add preweighed amount of Cysteine to the round bottom flask. 

3) Transfer the solution to a serum bottle. Cap the bottle with a butyl rubber stopper and aluminum 

crimp. 

4) Autoclave the serum bottle. Let the solution cool before using. 

B-56
Appendix: F 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 57 of 1 

Appendix F. Procedure for Moisture Content Analysis 

1. Mix sample in a large container. 

2. Label and weigh a dry empty baking pan. 

3. Place one to two kilograms of sample into the pan. It may be necessary to dry a sample in 

more than one pan. Weigh pan(s) and sample(s). 

4. Subtract pan weight from total weight for the initial refuse weight. 

5. Cover the pan with aluminum foil and poke several holes in the foil using an 18-gage needle 

or something similar. The holes allow moisture to escape 

6. Dry in oven at 65�C. 

7. Remove pan from oven and weigh daily until the moisture content weight difference is less 

than one percent. (Weightn-1 – Weightn)/(Weightday0 – Weightn)*100%. N=day. 

8. Subtract recorded pan weight from total dry weight for the final refuse dry weight. 

9. Calculate the percent moisture: 

(initial wet refuse wt. – final refuse dry weight)/(initial refuse wet weight)*100% 

8. Remove the dried sample and place it in a labeled plastic bag. 

B-57 
Appendix: G 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 58 of 1 

Appendix G. Procedure for Waste pH 

1. Make a slurry of the waste with approximately 250 mls deionized water to 100 g 

waste. The ratio of water to waste will vary depending on the initial waste moisture 

(waste will become progressively more moist over time and will require less diluent) 

2. Calibrate pH meter with pH 7 standard and another standard (e.g., pH 3) expected to 

bracket slurry pH. 

3. Record the slurry pH 

4. Verify that pH is bracketed within the standards used. 

5. If slurry pH is outside of range, recalibrate pH meter with appropriate standards and 

renanalyze. 

B-58
0 

Appendix: H 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 59 of 1 

Appendix H. Sampling Diagrams (provided as a separate 

attachment by WMI on an “as needed” basis) 

B-59
Appendix: I 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 60 of 9 

Appendix I. Examples of Exploratory Data Analysis Plots and the 

Mann-Kendall Test 

What follows is a brief summary of the types of exploratory plots recommended in 

Section 3.3, along with an example of each type of plot. An example of the MannKendall test with contrived data sets is also included to show how two time series might 

be compared. These lines of evidence can be combined to present a compelling visual 

and quantitative argument for or against the efficacy of a treatment. 

Time plot: Figure I.1 shows an example time plot. The x-axis represents time and the yaxis represents concentration. Individual results are plotted and connected with a line. 

Detects and non-detects may be plotted as different symbols. When two or more sites are 

being compared, they are often shown on the same time scale – one on top of the other to 

facilitate visual comparisons. Horizontal lines can be drawn at concentrations of interest, 

such as the zero, the overall mean, or some comparison value, such as a regulatory limit. 

Box plot: Figure I.2 shows an example of side-by-side box plots. Box plots summarize 

information about the shape and spread of the distribution of concentrations from a data 

set. Box plots consist of a box, a (median) line across the box, whiskers (lines extended 

beyond the box and terminated with a perpendicular line segment), and points outside the 

whiskers. The y-axis displays the observed concentrations of the data in the appropriate 

units. The area enclosed by the box shows the concentration range containing the middle 

half of the data; that is, the lower box edge is at the first or lower quartile of the data (Q1, 

also called the 25th percentile, 25% of the data fall below Q1), and the upper box edge is 

at the third or upper quartile of the data (Q3, the 75th percentile; 25% of the 

concentrations fall above Q3). The height of the box (the interquartile range, Q3-Q1) is a 

measure of the spread of the concentrations. The horizontal line across the box represents 

the median (50th percentile or second quartile) of the data, a measure of the center of the 

concentration distribution. If the median line divides the box into two approximately 

equal parts, this indicates that the shape of the distribution of concentrations symmetric; 

if not, it indicates that the distribution is skewed or nonsymmetric. Frequently, the full set 

of concentrations is plotted as points overlaying the boxplot. When a data set contains 

results for both detects (detected chemical concentrations) and nondetects (nondetected 

chemicals reported as less than a sample specific detection limit), it is standard to use 

different plotting symbols for the detects and the nondetects. 

Bubble plot: Figure I.3 shows an example bubble plot. A 2-dimensional bubble plot is 

one in which the results are classified based on detect status and/or matrix. A different 

color or line type represents each class. The circles, or bubbles, are different sizes based 

on concentrations and these bubbles are plotted on a map of the site. The size of the 

bubble is directly proportional to the relative concentrations in the data set; in other 

words, the relatively smaller concentrations get smaller bubbles and the relatively larger 

concentrations get larger bubbles. Refer to the legend of the figure for the classes 

(including associated color or line type) and bubble size. 

B-60
Appendix: I 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 61 of 9 

3D Color Scale Plot: Figure I.4 shows an example of a color scale plot. A color scale 

plot is one in which the color associated with a result is based on the analyte 

concentration. In these figures, the color scale ranges from aqua to magenta, with aqua 

representing relatively lower concentrations and magenta representing relatively higher 

concentrations. Refer to the legend of the figure for the color/concentration relationship. 

This figure provides a 3-dimensional perspective of the core data; a basic cube is plotted 

on each figure, with the shoreline represented by a bold solid blue line and the land 

surface approximated using a spline fit on the surface elevation data. The depths of 

samples are shown relative to surface elevation information provided in the data. One 

must picture the north-south/east-west plane as going into the page and the surface/depth 

plane from the top to bottom of the page. A vertical line located inside the cube 

represents each core. The results are plotted along the vertical line at the corresponding 

depth at which aliquots from the core were analyzed; the color provides an indication of 

concentration. 

B-61
• • 

Appendix: I 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 62 of 9 

• • • 

• 

• • • • • • • • • 

• 

• 

• • • •

• 

•• 

(S): Canada del Buey @ SR-4 

1/74 4/78 1/82 3/86 8/90 6/94 5/98 

0.0 

0.01 

0.02 

0.0 

0.01 

0.02 

• • • • • 

• 

• 

• • 

• • • 

• 

• 

•

• 

• 

(S): G-5 

0.0 

0.01 

0.02 

0.0 

0.01 

0.02 

• • • • • • • • • 

• • 

• • • • 

(S): Pajarito @ Rio Grande 

0.0 

0.01 

0.02 

0.0 

0.01 

0.02 

• 

• • • 

• 

• 

• • • • • • • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

(S): Pajarito @ SR-4 

1/74 4/78 1/82 3/86 8/90 6/94 5/98 

0.0 

0.01 

0.02 

0.0 

0.01 

0.02 

(S): statistically significant increasing trend p<=0.10 

Figure I.1 Example Time Plot 

B-62 
80000 

Appendix: 

Revision: 

I 

0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 63 of 9 

Figure I.2 Example Boxplot. IRON (MG/KG) 0 20000 40000 60000 

Soil Detect 

Soil Non-Detect 

Sediment Detect 

Sediment Non-Detect 

Ambient Detect 

Ambient Non-Detect 

ECO = NA 

HH = 23000 MG/KG 

199019911994199519961997199019911994199519961997199019911994199519961997199019911994199519961997 

Coastal Interior Landfill Wetland Ambient 

Margin Margin 

B-63
Appendix:

Revision: 

I 

0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 64 of 9 

Figure I.3 Example Bubble Plot. 

IRON 

KEY 

SEDIMENT samples 

52800 MG/KG maximum 

30800 MG/KG 

median 

7450 MG/KG 

minimum 

SOIL samples 

67800 MG/KG 

maximum 

15400 MG/KG 

median 

6170 MG/KG 

minimum 

PRG Reference 

23000 MG/KG 

ESL Reference

Not Available

B-64
Appendix: I

Revision: 0

Date: 9-21-01

Page: 65 of 9

B-65

Figure I.4 Example Color Scale Plot

Concentration (mg/kg)

6610.00

11883.75

17157.50

22431.25

27705.00

32978.75

38252.50

43526.25

48800.00

N

Western Bayside

West Beach Landfill

IRON
Appendix: I 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 66 of 9 

For the example of the Mann-Kendall test, the following data sets were contrived. 

Suppose that the variable measured is one that increases with time. If the treatment were 

effective, the rate at which concentrations increase would be greater for the treatment 

than for the control. The treatment and control data sets were generated from a linear 

equation with random noise added. The treatment data set used the equation: 

concentration=20+4*(time step)+e, where e is a realization from a N(0,5) distribution. 

The control data set used the equation: concentration=20+2*(time step)+e, where e is a 

realization form a N(0,5) distribution. So, the treatment concentrations are increasing at 

twice the rate of the control concentrations. Table I.1 shows the data sets and the 

differences between them. 

Figure I.5 shows a time plot of the treatment and the control on the same plot, with linear 

regression lines drawn for each. Figure I.6 shows a time plot of the differences 

(treatment-control). The Mann-Kendall test was performed on each data set individually, 

as well as on the differences between them. The null hypothesis for the Mann-Kendall 

test is that there is no trend. If the p-value is small (less than 0.05), there is evidence that 

the null hypothesis is false and that there is a trend. The resulting p-values are shown in 

Table I.2. Notice that each data set shows an increasing trend, but the differences also 

show an increasing trend, which is what one might expect if the treatment was effective. 

If the treatment was not effective, the treatment and control concentrations might both 

still increase, but at similar rates. Consequently, the differences would not show any 

trend. 

Table I.1 Example Data Set for Mann-Kendall Test. 

Time Step Treatment Control TreatmentControl 

1 16 18 -1.3 

2 34 27 6.9 

3 40 22 18 

4 40 23 17 

5 37 37 0.32 

6 48 39 9.6 

7 36 45 -9 

8 58 30 29 

9 50 39 11 

10 63 52 10 

11 65 34 31 

12 69 51 19 

13 77 43 34 

14 77 46 31 

15 82 55 27 

16 84 49 35 

17 95 61 35 

18 80 52 28 

19 100 49 51 

20 100 53 50 

21 98 66 32 

22 110 63 48 

23 110 62 53 

24 130 72 56 

25 120 75 44 

B-66 
Appendix: I

Revision: 0

Date: 9-21-01

Page: 67 of 9

Figure I.5 Time Plots of Example Data. concentration 20 40 60 80 100 120

Treatment 

Control 

5 10 15 20

time period

Figure I.6 Time Plots of Differences of Example Data. Treatment-Control -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 

5 10 15 20

time period

B-67

25 

25 
Appendix: I 

Revision: 0 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 68 of 9 

Table I.2 Mann-Kendall Trend Test 

P-values for Example Data Set 

P-value 

Treatment 2.46e-010 

Control 5.27e-008 

Treatment-Control 1.68e-006 

B-68
0 

Appendix: J 

Revision: 

Date: 9-21-01 

Page: 69 of 1 

Appendix J. Hazardous Air Pollutants to be Analyzed 

Freon 12 (Dichlorodifluoromethane)

Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)

Freon 114 (1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane)

Vinyl chloride (Chloroethylene)

Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)

Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)

Freon 11 (Trichlorofluoromethane)

Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethene)

Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)

Freon 113 (1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane)

1,1-Dichloroethane (Ethylidene chloride)

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene

Chloroform (Trichloromethane)

1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)

Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)

Benzene (Cyclohexatriene)

Carbon tetrachloride (Tetrachloromethane)

1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride)

Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene)

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (cis-1,3-dichloropropylene)

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (trans-1,3-dichloropropylene)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (Vinyl trichloride)

Toluene (Methyl benzene)

1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide)

Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)

Chlorobenzene (Phenyl chloride)

Ethylbenzene

m-Xylene (1,3-Dimethylbenzene)

p-Xylene (1,4-Dimethylbenzene)

Styrene (Vinyl benzene)

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

o-Xylene (1,2-Dimethylbenzene)

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (Mesitylene)

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (Pseudocumene)

m-Dichlorobenzene (1,3-Dichlorobenzene)

Benzyl chloride (�-Chlorotoluene)

o-Dichlorobenzene (1,2-dichlorobenzene)

p-Dichlorobenzene (1,4-dichlorobenzene)

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Hexachlorobutadiene (1,1,2,3,4,4-Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene)

Hexane

Methyl ethyl ketone

Methyl isobutyl ketone

Acrylonitrile

B-69
APPENDIX C 

DATA VALIDATION REPORTS 
INDEPENDENT DATA VALIDATION

USEPA/Office of Research and Development 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Independent Data Validation of 

Outer Loop Landfill Baseline Data 

Performed by: 

Neptune and Company 

Date of Review: 4/30/2002 

Baseline Data: 4th Quarter 2001 

Data Packages Dates: 

STL-Buffalo 12/12/2001 

STL-Los Angeles 1/4/2002 

NCSU Sample Collection Dates: 6/6/2000-6/30/2000 

Waste Settlement Measurements: 7/2001, 10/2001, 1/2002 

Task No: 39 

EPA Task Order Manager: Ann Vega 

C-1
Introduction: Baseline data collection is in progress for the Landfill Bioreactor Studies at the 

Outer Loop Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky. These activities are guided by the Quality Assurance 

Project Plan, latest revision (Draft Final) dated September 21, 2001. The purpose of this task is 

to review and validate the data obtained in this project. To accomplish this, data were obtained 

from Roger Green, Waste Management Incorporated. The data packages included results from 

Severn Trent Services (STL Buffalo) for leachate sampling performed on November 15, 2001. 

This report included analysis for Volatile Organic Acids that was subcontracted to Microbial 

Insights; Severn Trent Services (STL Los Angeles) for gas sampling performed on December 

19,2001; electronic data for MSW analysis (NCSU), and settlement data (WMI). The data 

represent at least one full set of quarterly results (see QAPP Section 3.0 for sampling schedule). 

This validation process reviewed all critical and non-critical analyses included in the data 

packages and outlined in the QAPP Section 3.2, tables 3-4 to 3-6. The results of the data 

validation are outlined below and categorized by Medium and Laboratory/Analyst data package. 

Data packages were evaluated (where appropriate) for Sample Identification (QAPP Section 

4.7.1), Chain of Custody (QAPP Section 4.7.3), Correct Analytical Methods (QAPP Table 5.1), 

Container Preservation and Holding Times (Table 4-1), Detection/Reporting Limits (QAPP 

Table 6-9) and Laboratory Quality Control for Critical Measurements, QAPP Section 6.4 (Tables 

6-2 to 6-9). 

Due to the limited amount of QC information provided in the standard (e.g. Level II) data 

packages, STL-Buffalo, STL-Los Angeles, and Microbial Insights were contacted to obtain raw 

data for the critical measurements. Data were obtained from all three laboratories and the 

validation results are included. Additional raw data were not requested from North Carolina 

State University as this laboratory had been audited, and data evaluated on April 11, 2001. 

Overall the results from data validation indicate most laboratory analyses are in compliance with 

the QAPP quality control requirements. Findings, Observations, and Additional Technical 

Comments are provided in the section relevant to the issue. 

Leachate Samples: 

Severn Trent Services-Buffalo. Quote NY95-481. Samples Received 11/16/01. Sample 

Date 11/15/01. Program Manager: Amy L. Haag. 

C-2
Client Sample ID Laboratory Sample ID 

51A L01 A1B44001 

51B L01 A1B44002 

52A L01 A1B44003 

52B L01 A1B44004 

73A L01 A1B44005 

73B L01 A1B44006 

General: 

The Chain of Custody lists the bottle types but not preservative information as specified 

in Section 4.7.3 of the QAPP. The samples were grouped consistent with the expected 

preservatives (e.g. TKN, NH3, COD, total-P were in a single container consistent with 

sulfuric acid preservation). The COC does not list the required BOD analysis that was 

performed. 

OBSERVATION (1): The Chain of Custody (COC) should include the preservatives per the 

QAPP. BOD analysis should be included on the COC. 

Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9) 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (QAPP QC Activities Table 6-2): Method 410.4, STL SOP 

No. AWC-COD-44: 

All six samples were found above the RDL (Table 6-9). But the only sample with no 

dilution, 73B l01, had a RL of 10 mg/L. The QAPP specified RDL is 5 mg/L. To 

evaluate the QC requirements specified in Table 6-2 and 6-9 (precision, accuracy) and the 

Lab SOP, copies of the logbooks were obtained separately from the data package. The 

log book shows that the QC requirements for ICV, CCV, ICB, second source standard, 

reactor temperature and dilutions met the requirements and reported data. It was noted 

that the matrix spike was not performed on the OLL samples but on one other sample 

from the analytical batch. Blanks on the log book are noted as “< 5", indicating that an 

RDL of 5 mg/L can be obtained if necessary. 

OBSERVATION (2) COD reporting detection limit must be met as specified in the QAPP. 

Matrix spikes should be performed on OLL samples in future analyses. 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5, QAPP QC Activities Table 6-3): Method 405.1, 

STL SOP No. AWC-405.1-14: 

C-3 
All six samples were analyzed for BOD. QAPP requirements outlined in Table 6-3 were 

met with the exception of sample duplicates (see Finding 1.0). The data package 

narrative states that samples 51A L01 and 51B l01 were initially analyzed within the 

holding time, however all the oxygen was depleted. These samples were re-analyzed 

outside of the holding times and both sets of data were reported. The reported results for 

these samples were reported as follows: 

51A L01 (detection limit 20) 384 mg/L (flagged as an estimate) 

51A L01 (detection limit 2) 221 mg/L (second analysis, out of hold, no flag on report 

page) 

51B L01 (detection limit 20) 384 mg/L (flagged as an estimate) 

51B L01 (detection limit 2) 303 mg/L (second analysis, out of hold, no flag on report 

page). 

Review of the logbook (additional raw data requested from STL) shows that the initial 

analysis resulted in insufficient oxygen depletion (difference between the initial DO and 

final DO must be greater than 2 mg/L) for the test. This is in contrast to the data package 

narrative which states oxygen was depleted on the first analysis. The results of the reanalysis in triplicate (raw data, three different dilutions) varied widely: 

51A L01: 87.3 mg/L, 154 mg/L, 422 mg/L, average = 221 mg/L 

51B L01: 184 mg/L, 422 mg/L, average, = 303 mg/L (With the third sample the final 

DO value was less than 1 making the analysis invalid) 

FINDING (1): Two BOD samples required re-analysis past the holding times. The missed 

holding times is a concern. Fortunately, in discussion with Roger Green it was learned this 

was not a common occurrence. The 48 hour holding time criterion means any sample that 

does not have a valid analysis completed at the end of the 5 day test will fail this holding time. 

With such variation in BOD, the laboratory is apparently meeting the holding times by setting 

up several sample dilutions in the first analysis. However, there is concern that the variability 

observed in the BOD analysis will make comparison between cells difficult. Inspection of the 

raw data allowed comparison of replicate samples. No “sample duplicates” at the same 

dilution was performed in this batch. BOD analysis on this organic rich and microbiologically 

active matrix can be challenging. The project participants should contact STL-Buffalo and 

discuss the variability in BOD results to see if improvements can be made. Sample duplicates 

with OLL samples needs to be performed. It may be useful to analyze these samples for 

CBOD5 (nitrogenous oxygen demand inhibited) as an evaluation of this matrix effect. 

Non-Critical Measurements: 

Volatile Organic Compounds, Method 8260: 

All six samples were analyzed for VOCs. Due to excessive foaming in the purge 

vessel all samples were diluted at a ratio of at least 1:10. The blank samples met the 

C-4 
criteria for contamination, surrogate and internal standard recoveries. Surrogate and 

internal standard recoveries were not reported for the test samples and therefore not 

reviewed. Surrogate and internal standard recoveries will be requested for data 

validation in future data packages. 

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Method 8270: 

All six samples were analyzed for SVOCs. Dilution, due to the matrix effects, was 

performed on three of the samples. The data package narrative states, “Samples 51B L01 

and 52A L01 exhibited surrogate recovery results below quality control limits for all 

surrogates. However, the internal standard results were compliant.” QC data containing 

the surrogate and internal standard results were obtained directly from STL. Surrogate 

recoveries for these two samples were very low (0-18%) indicating a large matrix effect 

(not due to dilution). This indicates results for these samples are probably biased low (in 

fact 52A L01 was reported as ND for all 8270 analytes). 

OBSERVATION (3): Surrogate recoveries for two leachate samples analyzed by 8270 had 

very poor results. This indicates matrix effects, probably occurring during the extraction 

procedure. The potentially poor extraction could be the reason no analytes were observed in 

52A L01. It is recommended that matrix spike analysis be performed on these samples to 

evaluate the extent of matrix effects. In general, matrix spikes should be performed on the 

OLL samples for all tests that are amendable, especially COD (critical measurement). 

RCRA Metals, Methods 6010B, 7470 (mercury): 

All six samples were analyzed for RCRA metals. The report included all metals reported 

as specified on bottom of QAPP Table 5.1. Potassium analyses required dilution for 51B 

and 52A (noted in data package narrative). However, all samples were reported with the 

same detection limit (5 mg/L) even though dilutions were required for some samples. 

Blank results were all reported as ND. 

OBSERVATION (4): The Detection Limits reported for the RCRA metals are not easily 

derived from a comparison of samples that have different dilutions. This potential discrepancy 

should be clarified with STL-Buffalo. 

C-5
Wet Chemistry Analysis:

Analysis Analytical Method 

Ammonia (as N) 350.1 

Chloride 300.0 

Electrical Conductance (Field) 120.1 

Nitrite (as N) 353.2* 

Nitrate (as N) 353.2 

pH (Field) 150.1 

Ortho Phosphate 365.2 

Total Phosphate 365.2 

Sulfate 300.0 

Temperature (Field) 170.1 

Total Dissolved Solids 160.1 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 351.2 

*The method used for nitrite analysis is 353.2. This is correct per the STL audit 

conducted July 18, 19, 2001. The QAPP lists method 354.1. This needs to be 

corrected. 

ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL COMMENT (1): The QAPP needs to be modified to include 

the correct method (353.2) for nitrite analysis. 

All six samples were analyzed for the complete suite of wet chemistry analytes. 

Ammonia, chloride, ortho and total phosphate, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen required 

dilutions in all samples with the exception of 73B L01 due to high concentrations. 

The QAPP specified holding time for nitrite and nitrate is 48 hours. Sampling occurred 

from 11:35- 15:09 on 11/15/2001. Technically, all the nitrate and nitrite analysis have 

missed the holding time as the analysis was performed at 15:45 on 11/17/2001. The 

report indicates the holding time was met. 

C-6
OBSERVATION (5): The holding times issue identified with nitrite/nitrate should be 

reviewed with STL-Buffalo. 

No lab pH measurements reported. 

OBSERVATION (6): STL-Buffalo is not performing pH measurement of the leachate (noncritical). Roger Green indicated that a decision was made to only do pH in the field and 

conductance would be done both in the field and in the laboratory. Review of the Technical 

System Audit report from STL-Buffalo, QAPP Modifications item #2 indicates the agreement 

was to perform pH both in the field and lab and only do conductance in the field. Only 

electrical conductance from the field is reported in the STL data package. It is reasonable to 

expect conductance to be more stable than pH from field to laboratory but this issue should be 

resolved and the QAPP modified if necessary. 

Microbial Insights, Rockford TN. Point of Contact: Michael Goodrich. 

Sample Date 11/15/2001, Analysis Date 11/16/2001. 

Client Sample ID Laboratory Sample ID 

51A L01 A1B63901 

51B L01 A1B63902 

52A L01 A1B63903 

52B L01 A1B63904 

73A L01 A1B63905 

73B L01 A1B63906 

Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9) 

Volatile Organic Acids, Microbial Insights, Point of Contact: Michael Goodrich. SOP 

No. VFA, Revision 1. (QAPP Table 6-4) 

Raw QA/QC data were obtained for samples analyzed on November 15, 2001. The 

initial calibration data and blank met the requirements outlined in Table 6-4. The CCV 

and LCS samples have low recovery for Pyruvic acid (40-50% at 4 ppm). The laboratory 

has since started using the midpoint level (40 ppm) for CCV. The low recovery for 

Pyruvic acid indicates results for this analyte may be biased low, however no pyruvic 

acid was detected above the reporting limits found in the STL report (this work is 

subcontracted to Microbial Insights). However, the QAPP lists the RDL of 0.1 (Table 6­

9) yet the lowest standard run is 1 mg/L. The project participants should decide if an 

C-7 
RDL of 1 mg/L is sufficient for the project objectives. Michael Goodrich indicated they 

had not performed matrix spikes this day. Michael Goodrich submitted a spreadsheet 

with 32 days of MS/MSD (using OLL samples) and LCS results obtained after 

November 15, 2001. The LCSs met the criteria (70-130% recovery) for all compounds 

with the exception of 12/19/2001. On this day acetic acid recovery was 69.8%. Matrix 

problems were indicated on several days due to spike recoveries outside the limits. 

OBSERVATION (7): The project participants should decide if the reporting limits from 

Microbial Insights is sufficient and modify the QAPP as necessary. The QAPP (Table 6-4) 

requires re-analysis of spike and samples if necessary to resolve matrix problems. This should 

be done in future analyses to determine if the results can be improved. Microbial Insights 

should contact Roger Green for guidance if re-analysis results in recoveries outside the limits. 

Gas Samples: 

Severn Trent Services- Los Angeles. STL Lot Number M1L200214. Samples Received 

12/20/2001, Date Sampled: 12/19/2001. Project Manager: Marisol Tabirara. 

Client Sample ID Laboratory Sample ID 

51 G01 51 G01 

52 G01 52 G01 

Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9) 

Fixed Gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Oxygen): Method 3C (QAPP Table 6-9). 

Review of the data package for Method 3C indicates the data met the QC requirements 

for precision and accuracy for the LCS and LCS duplicate. LCS samples had a recovery 

of 102 and 104% for carbon dioxide and 101 and 101 for methane. Extended raw data 

and sample QC data was obtained from STL-Los Angeles. Table 6-9 QA objectives for 

this test are listed as “To be determined.” The raw data show compliance with Method 

3C requirements for initial and ongoing calibration. Sample results and RDLs are 

provided below for reference in determining QC objectives. 

Compound 51 G01 52 G01 Reporting Limit 

CO2 38% 39% 0.017% 

CH4 52% 54% 0.00034% 

C-8
O2 1.7% 1.1% 0.17% 

N2 (not analyte 

per QAPP) 

7.2% 4.6% 1.7% 

Non-Critical Measurements: 

Total Non-Methane Hydrocarbons: Method 25C Modified 

The data package from Roger Green was reviewed and no QA/QC issues were found out 

of compliance. Method blank was ND at 30 ppm-c**. Laboratory Control Samples had 

91 and 94% recovery with RPD of 2.4%. Spike amount was 3030 ppm-c. Sample results 

were 2100 ppm-c (51 G01) and 2300 ppm-c (52 G01) . 

** ppm-c is parts per million equivalent carbon atoms. The analytical method separates 

each analyte, reduces the compound to CO2 which is then oxidized to CH4 and measured 

by a flame ionization detector. Hexane would produce six methane molecules (or carbon 

atoms), 1 ppm hexane is equivalent to 6 ppm-c hydrocarbon. 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Method TO-14A 

The data package from Roger Green was reviewed and no QA/QC issues were found out 

of compliance. Method Blank was ND for all target analytes at low ppbv concentration. 

Laboratory Control Samples for 1-1-Dichloroethene, Methylene Chloride, 

Trichloroethene, Toluene and 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane had recoveries of 99-109% (met 

limit of method) and RPD values of less than 2%. 

Municipal Solid Waste Samples: 

North Carolina State University. Sampling Dates: 6/6/2000 - 6/9/2000, 6/12/200-6/15/2000, 

6/20/2000-6/23/2000, 6/26/2000, 6/27/2000, 6/29/2000, 6/30/2000. Approximately 170 

samples from varying depths and locations. 

Roger Green provided an Excel Spreadsheet containing the results from NCSU. 

Approximately 170 samples (representing 26 separate horizontal sample locations) were 

analyzed for Organic Solids, Moisture Content, BMP, Cellulose, Lignin, and 

Hemicellulose. The spreadsheet contained average and RPD values. 

Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9) 

Organic Solids (QAPP Table 6-5): 

C-9 
The average Relative Percent Difference (RPD) was 2.04% well below the 25% 

objective. No result was above 10% RPD (maximum value was 9.6%) 

Moisture Content (QAPP Table 6-6): 

No replicate (precision estimates) data were found in the spreadsheet. Results from the 

Technical System Audit at NCSU indicated the precision objectives in Table 6-6 were 

unrealistic and should be removed. 

Biochemical Methane Potential (QAPP Table 6-8): 

The average RPD equaled 6.98%, well below the objective of 20%. Three of the 170 

samples exceeded the 20% limit (29.82%, 30.34%, 41.67%). No matrix spike data 

were found in the spreadsheet. This should be reported for future validations. 

OBSERVATION (8): NCSU should include the matrix spike results for BMP in future 

reports. The balance calibration records will be requested in the next data package for 

validation. 

Non-Critical Measurements: 

% Cellulose: The average RPD equaled 4.31%, only four samples (4/170) exceeded 20%. 

%Lignin: The average RPD equaled 3.74%, only one sample (1/170) exceeded 20%. 

%Hemicellulose: The average RPD equaled 4.52%, five samples (5/170) exceeded 20%. 

Waste Management, Incorporated. GPS readings for Waste Settlement. 

Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9) 

Waste Settlement 

Roger Green provided the settlement data in an Excel spreadsheet (monthly report). The 

spreadsheet contained data for July and October 2001, and January 2002. Five grid point 

QA/QC checks were included for each month. These grid points contain duplicate 

measurement of an individual location. Each location is characterized by the northing 

and easting coordinates carried to 1/100th. The maximum variation in replicate 

measurements in feet found in the data is 0.03, this corresponds to less than 1 cm. The 

criteria outlined in the QAPP is precision of " 5cm. The data meet these precision 

requirements. 

C-10 
Waste Density (critical, field) 

Measurement and calculation of waste density is based on GPS and contour information 

with the mass of waste put in the landfill (weight of each truck). Therefore, Waste 

Density measurement quality is based on the GPS data obtained for settlement and the 

weight calibration performed prior to truck weight measurements. 

ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL COMMENT (2):Weight calibration data should be provided 

by WMI in the next data package. 

C-11
INDEPENDENT DATA VALIDATION

USEPA/Office of Research and Development 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Independent Data Validation of 

Outer Loop Landfill Experimental Data 

Performed by: 

Neptune and Company 

Date of Review: 11/27/2002 

Experimental Data: 2nd - 3rd Quarters 2002 

Data Packages Dates: 

STL-Buffalo 10/01/2002 

STL-Los Angeles 7/1/2002 

STL-Los Angeles 7/23/2002 

Task No: 39 TD8L 

EPA Task Order Manager: Ann Vega 

C-12
Introduction: Experimental data collection is in progress for the Landfill Bioreactor Studies at 

the Outer Loop Landfill (OLL), Louisville, Kentucky. These activities are guided by the Quality 

Assurance Project Plan, latest revision (Draft Final) dated July, 2002. The purpose of this task is 

to review and validate the data obtained in this project. To accomplish this, data were obtained 

from Roger Green, Waste Management Incorporated. The data packages included results from 

Severn Trent Services (STL Buffalo) for leachate sampling performed on September 16, 2002. 

This report of leachate samples included analysis for Volatile Organic Acids that was 

subcontracted to Microbial Insights. In addition, two data packages (STL Los Angeles) for gas 

analysis were received from Mr. Green. The gas sampling was performed on June 28, and June 

13, 2002. No new MSW data is currently available. This validation process reviewed all critical 

and non-critical analyses included in the data packages and outlined in the QAPP Section 3.2, 

tables 3-4 to 3-6. The results of the data validation are outlined below and categorized by 

Matrix, importance of parameter in the project objectives and then by Analyte(s). 

Data packages were evaluated (where appropriate) for Sample Identification (QAPP Section 

4.7.1), Chain of Custody (QAPP Section 4.7.3), Correct Analytical Methods (QAPP Table 5.1), 

Container Preservation and Holding Times (QAPP Section 4.1, Table 4-1), Detection/Reporting 

Limits (QAPP Table 6-9) and Laboratory Quality Control for Critical Measurements, QAPP 

Section 6.4 (Tables 6-2 to 6-9). 

Due to the limited amount of QC information provided in the standard data packages, STLBuffalo was contacted to obtain raw data for the anions (including sulfate) and Volatile Organic 

(Metabolic) Acids analyses. 

Overall the results from data validation indicate most laboratory analyses are in 

compliance with the QAPP quality control requirements. Only three Observations were 

noted with this report. However, as discussed in the previous data validation report, it is 

necessary to obtain matrix spike and/or duplicate analysis using the OLL matrix, especially 

for COD and BOD which are critical parameters. A discussion of reporting limits is 

included in the wet chemistry section. It is understood that analyzing a sample that 

contains high concentrations of analytes or other components can potentially compromise 

the integrity of an instrument. However, any steps that can be take to achieve detection 

status is extremely important for this project. The need to obtain results for all analytes so 

that each treatment cell can be compared should be emphasized to the laboratories. 

Included in this report are the data for selected analytes received in this data validation project. 

There appears to be some evidence of differences in some of the analytes between the control 

cells and experimental cells, though direct comparison is not valid due to the offset in age 

between the cells. 

C-13
Leachate Samples: 

Severn Trent Services-Buffalo. Job # A02-9192, A02-9196. Samples Received 9/17/02. 

Sample Date 9/16/02. Program Manager: Amy L. Haag. 

Client Sample ID Laboratory Sample ID 

51A L01 A2919201 

51B L01 A2919202 

52A L01 A2919203 

52B L01 A2919204 

73A L01 A2919205 

73B L01 A2919206 

74A L01 A2919207 

74B L01 A2919208 

C-14
Table 1. Selected Analyte Results for Leachate. 

Sample Sulfate 

(mg/L) 

BOD 

(mg/L) 

COD 

(mg/L) 

TDS 

(mg/L) 

Temp. 

(EC) 

Conductivity 

(UMHOS/CM) 

VOA* 

(mg/L-C) 

51A L01 120 204 2130 5800 32.9 14500 159 

51B L01 41.8 97.3 1420 5020 32.9 14000 7 

52A L01 32.2 106 1040 4520 34.2 8620 8 

52B L01 80.6 480 1280 4260 30.0 9620 202 

73A L01 127 156 675 2920 24.0 6760 0 

73B L01 57.4 158 641 2640 24.1 5660 4 

74A L01 100U 2340 6030 8500 33.7 15100 4328 

74B L01 100U 3540 11500 10800 33.8 16600 8193 

Sample NH3 

(mg/L) 

TKN 

(mg/L) 

Nitrite 

(mg/L) 

Ortho-P 

(mg P/L) 

Tot-P 

(mg P/L) 

Cl-

(mg/L) 

K+ 

(mg/L) 

51A L01 1170 836 0.19 3.0 4.1 1460 426 

51B L01 1720 846 0.020U 6.4 17.8 1650 388 

52A L01 1420 946 0.053 2.8 3.4 1110 340 

52B L01 1240 438 0.020U 2.4 3.9 1010 307 

73A L01 1160 371 0.078 1.4 2.5 569 237 

73B L01 736 41.9 0.10 1.1 2.0 506 219 

74A L01 2720 26.5 0.061 7.6 9.0 1400 533 

74B L01 1420 100U 0.11 6.9 10.5 1360 565 

* Volatile Organic Acids normalized on a carbon basis.

General: 

The two sample coolers were received at 3EC with all samples in good condition. The 

Chain of Custody lists the bottle types but not preservative information as specified in 

Section 4.7.3 of the QAPP. The samples were grouped consistent with the expected 

preservatives (e.g. TKN, NH3, COD, total-P were in a single container consistent with 

sulfuric acid preservation) however neither preservative nor container type key is used, 

the numbers refer to number of bottles. 

OBSERVATION (1): The Chain of Custody (COC) should include the preservatives as 

specified in the QAPP. 

C-15
Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9) 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (QAPP QC Activities Table 6-2): Method 410.4, STL SOP 

No. AWC-COD-44: 

All eight samples were found above the RDL (Table 6-9). Samples 74A L01 and 74B 

L02 had very high COD concentrations (6030 and 11,500 mg/L respectively). No COD 

matrix spike was performed on the OLL samples, however a batch matrix spike was 

performed. 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5, QAPP QC Activities Table 6-3): Method 405.1, 

STL SOP No. AWC-405.1-14: 

All eight samples were analyzed for BOD. Samples 74A L01 and 74B L02 had very high 

BOD concentrations (2340 and 3540 mg/L respectively). Batch QC met the QAPP 

limits. 

Non-Critical Measurements: 

Volatile Organic Compounds, Method 8260:

All eight samples were analyzed for VOCs, the laboratory narrative indicated that no

deviations from analytical protocol were encountered. The samples were diluted at a

ratio of 1:10. This was done to prevent excessive foaming in the purge and trap

instrument or due to high analyte concentrations. The batch blank and matrix spike

samples met the criteria for surrogate and internal standard recoveries and lack of

contamination. Holding times were also met.

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Method 8270:

All eight samples were analyzed for SVOCs. Sample 73A L01 had one low internal

standard (Perylene d-12) due to visible matrix interference (background, non- analyte

compounds that produced the ion used to quantify d-12 Perylene), however no analytes

were detected that use this internal standard for quantification. Sample 74B L01 had low

recovery of surrogate 2-fluorophenol due to dilution. Dilution, due to the matrix effects

or high analyte concentrations, was performed on seven of the samples. Holding times

for extraction and analysis was achieved. Batch blanks and matrix spikes met the QAPP

limits for recovery and lack of contamination.

RCRA Metals, Methods 6010B, 7470 (mercury):

All eight samples were analyzed for RCRA metals, no deviations from the protocol were

encountered. Potassium analyses required dilution for all samples due to high

C-16
concentration. Preparation and analysis holding times were achieved. Batch blank and 

spike samples met the QAPP limits for lack of contamination and analyte recovery. 

Wet Chemistry Analysis:

All eight samples were analyzed for the complete suite of wet chemistry analytes. 

Sample 52A L01 was originally analyzed for total dissolved solids within holding time 

but the result (1650 mg/L) was inconsistent with previous data. The sample was reanalyzed past the holding time but the result was in-line with previous data (4520 mg/L). 

Previous TDS results for this sample are provided in Table 2. Ammonia, chloride, ortho 

and total phosphate, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) required dilutions in all samples 

due to matrix effects or high analyte concentrations. Sample 74B L01 was diluted by 

1:1000 due to matrix effect for the TKN analysis resulting in a not detected (100 mg/L) 

status. 

Table 2. Historical Total Dissolved Solids Results 

Sample 52A L01 TDS 

Minimum: 4540 

Maximum: 10400 

Median: 8800 

Mean: 8356 

Standard Deviation: 2292 

(Markwiese, et al, August 19, 2002) 

The issue of high detection limits for sulfate in some samples has recently been under 

discussion between project participants. The exploratory data analysis report 

(Markwiese, et al) shows non-detect status for cells 51 and 52 at approximately 100 

mg/L, previous reporting limits have been 10 mg/L. Raw data for this data package 

(September 16, 2002 sampling) was obtained from STL-Buffalo for the anion analytical 

method (300.0). Sulfate was detected in all samples above the RL of 10 mg/L with the 

exception of samples 74A L01 and 74B L02 which are reported as not-detected at 100 

mg/L. All samples were run initially at 10% (1:10). All the sample analyses at a 10% 

dilution were inspected for the presence of large peaks. The chromatograms for the two 

samples that were reported as not detected (and therefore, not re-analyzed without 

dilution) do not appear significantly different from the other samples. STL-buffalo was 

contacted for information on why these two samples were only analyzed at 10% dilution. 

Amy Haag of STL-Buffalo reiterated that the matrix required diluting but she provided 

no further information as to why the analyst diluted only these two samples. 

C-17
OBSERVATION (2). The reason for the dilution of samples 74A L01 and 74B L02 that 

resulted in non-detect status for sulfate should be fully resolved. It is unclear from the raw 

data why these samples could not be re-analyzed without dilution. One suggestion for 

preventing ND results would be to initially analyze all of the samples at a ratio of 1:5 instead 

of 1:10. It appears this dilution ratio would have resulted in detection of sulfate for these two 

samples without compromising the instrument. 

Microbial Insights, Rockford TN. Point of Contact: Michael Goodrich. 

Sample Date 09/16/2002, Analysis Date 09/18/2002. 

Client Sample ID Laboratory Sample ID 

51A L01 A2919201 

51B L01 A2919202 

52A L01 A2919203 

52B L01 A2919204 

73A L01 A2919205 

73B L01 A2919206 

74A L01 A2919207 

74B L01 A2919208 

Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9) 

Volatile Organic Acids, Microbial Insights, Point of Contact: Michael Goodrich. SOP 

No. VFA, Revision 1. (QAPP Table 6-4) 

Raw QA/QC data were obtained for samples analyzed on September 18, 2002. The 

initial calibration and blank data met the requirements outlined in the QAPP, Table 6-4. 

The CCV and LCS standards are now run at 40 ppm and are within the method required 

limits. Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate data met the project requirements for 

recovery, the relative percent difference was less than 20% for all six analytes. There 

appears to be a slight error in the reported value for propionic acid in sample 52B L01. 

The raw data indicates the correct value is 14 mg/L, the final STL-Buffalo report has a 

value of 16.9 mg/L. STL- Buffalo is reviewing the data to determine the correct value.

 Sample reporting limits are 1 mg/L for all acids with the exception of pyruvic which is at 

4 mg/L. Observation 2 is repeated in this report. 

C-18
OBSERVATION (3): The project participants should decide if the reporting limits from 

Microbial Insights are sufficient and modify the QAPP as necessary. 

Gas Samples: 

Severn Trent Services- Los Angeles. STL Lot Number E2G020329 Amended and STL Lot 

Number E2F180191. Samples (E2G020329 Amended) Received 07/01/2002, Date Sampled: 

06/28/2002. Samples (E2F180191) Received 06/17/2002, Date Sampled: 06/13/2002. Project 

Manager: Marisol Tabirara. 

Four samples (E2F180191) were received June 17, 2002. Two additional gas samples 

(E2G020329) were received by STL-LA on July 1, 2002. The chain-of-custody and canister 

field data records indicate both sets of samples were received in good condition. 

Table 3. Gas Analysis Results 

Sample CO2 (%) CH4 (%) N2 (%) O2 (%) NMOC 

(ppm-C) 

Toluene* 

(ppb, TO-14) 

51 G01 36 49 16 2.9 2000 13000 

52 G01 20 25 49 11 1500 10000 

73A G01 41 53 2.7 0.40 8300 46000 

73A G02 41 53 1.8 ND (0.18) 11000 52000 

73B G01 40 53 2.1 ND (0.18) 5300 51000 

73B G02 46 55 ND (1.8) ND (0.18) 5100 38000 

Toluene concentration provided from TO-14 analysis as an indication of HAP levels . 

Critical Measurements: (QAPP QA Objectives in Table 6-9) 

Fixed Gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Oxygen): Method 3C (QAPP Table 6-9). 

Review of the data packages for Method 3C indicates the data met the QC requirements 

for accuracy and precision for the LCS and LCS duplicate. LCS samples had a recovery 

range of 106 to 111% for carbon dioxide (spike at 1%) and 106 and 112% for methane 

(spike at 0.0500%). Precision of the samples was well within the limit of 0-20%. The 

blanks were also found to be free from contamination. 

C-19
Non-Critical Measurements: 

Total Non-Methane Hydrocarbons: Method 25C Modified 

Both data packages from Roger Green were reviewed and no QA/QC issues 

were found out of compliance. Method blank was ND at 30 ppm-c. 

Laboratory Control Samples had recoveries ranging from 108 to 100% 

recovery with the highest RPD of 2.3%. Spike amount was 600 ppm-c. 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Method TO-14A 

Both data packages from Roger Green were reviewed and no QA/QC issues were found 

out of compliance. Method Blank was ND for all target analytes at low ppbv 

concentration. Laboratory Control Samples (50 ppb for 1-1-Dichloroethene, Methylene 

Chloride, Trichloroethene, Toluene and 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane) had recoveries of 88­

110% and RPD values of less than 6%, both QA indicators are within the limits specified 

in the QAPP. 

C-20
USEPA/Office of Research and Development 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Independent Data Validation

Independent Data Validation of

Outer Loop Landfill Experimental Data

Performed by:

David A. Gratson

Neptune and Company

Date of Report: 8/21/2003

Experimental Data: 3rd Quarter 2002, 1st & 2nd Quarters 2003 

Task No: 05 WO Seq. No. 07b 

EPA Task Order Manager: Scott Jacobs 

C-21
Introduction: Data collection is in progress for the Landfill Bioreactor Studies at the 

Outer Loop Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky. These activities are guided by the Quality 

Assurance Project Plan, latest revision (Draft Final) dated May 6, 2003. The purpose of 

this task is to review and validate the data obtained in this project. To accomplish this, 

data were obtained from Roger Green, Waste Management Incorporated and from 

Morton Barlaz, NCSU during a Technical Systems Audit at his laboratory in August, 

2003. The data packages from Roger Green included results from Severn Trent 

Laboratory - Buffalo (STL-Buffalo) for leachate and Severn Trent Laboratory- Los 

Angeles (STL-LA) for gas samples. The STL-Buffalo reports included analysis for 

Volatile Organic Acids that was subcontracted to Microbial Insights. This validation 

process reviewed all critical parameters and a few of the non-critical analyses included in 

the data packages and outlined in the QAPP Section 3.2, tables 3-4 to 3-6. The results of 

the data validation are outlined below and categorized by medium. 

Data packages were evaluated (where appropriate) for Sample Identification (QAPP 

Section 4.7.1), Chain of Custody (QAPP Section 4.7.3), Correct Analytical Methods 

(QAPP Table 5.1), Container Preservation and Holding Times (Table 4-1), 

Detection/Reporting Limits (QAPP Table 6-9) and Laboratory Quality Control for 

Critical Measurements, QAPP Section 6.4 (Tables 6-2 to 6-9). 

Limited amount of QC information is provided in the standard (Level II) data packages, 

however matrix and laboratory control spikes were included in the leachate data packages 

and QC requirements for the MSW data were reviewed in a recently completed audit. 

Overall the results from data validation indicate most laboratory analyses are in 

compliance with the QAPP quality control requirements. ALL CRITICAL DATA 

REVIEWED CAN BE USED in project reports. Some data has been qualified due to 

quality control issues identified and should be used with caution. The use of the data is 

context specific. For example, Volatile Organic Acids with low spike recoveries may 

indicate negative bias. However, one might assume all samples had similar bias and are 

thus comparable. More caution may be in order when comparing samples for BOD 

where one or more were analyzed out of holding times. 

Leachate Samples: STL-Buffalo

Critical Leachate Parameters: BOD, COD, Volatile Organic Acids (Microbial Insights). 

Some of the files also contained field data for pH (critical) and conductivity. 

Eleven Acrobat (pdf) files were obtained from STL-Buffalo with results for leachate 

analysis. The files were associated with samples collected from November 2002 to July, 

2003. Acrobat Files: A02-A447, A02-B373, A02-C503, A03-0709, A03-1405, A03­

2498, A03-3377, A03-5054, A03-5431, A03-5975, A03-7170. 

C-22
Excel spreadsheets (with the same name as the Acrobat files) with the summary data 

were also received and validated for data qualifiers. 

QA Evaluation: 

File A02-A447, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 10/21/02: 

The pH check (using a 7.0 buffer solution) reading was 7.28. The QC requirements for 

verification of pH are 7.00 ±0.1 units (Table 6-1-1). These data are qualified at 

potentially biased high (J+) due to the results of this QC check. Butyric acid had low 

recovery (60.7 and 74.7%) in the matrix spike and duplicate. All samples were ND for 

butyric acid (1 mg/L limit), there is potential for false negative results due to this low 

recovery. 

File A02-B373, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 11/14/2002: 

One set of samples (51A L01, 51B L01, 52A L01, 52B L01) was not preserved for COD 

when received (within 24 hours, good condition), the laboratory added sulfuric acid to 

achieve the required pH. 

File A02-C503, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 12/16/2002: 

Acetic and propionic acid (Volatile Organic Acids) had very high matrix spike recoveries 

(300-400%). All samples (especially 74A L01, 74B L01) are qualified as potentially 

biased high (J+). 

File A03-0709, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 74A, 74B, sampled 1/22/03: 74A 

L01 BOD results were qualified by the laboratory as estimated (E) because the holding 

time was out of compliance (the initial dilution resulted in oxygen concentration that did 

not meet the method criteria). These BOD results should be used with caution. 

File A03-1405, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 2/12/2003: 

All samples for COD/ammonia/total phosphate were received unpreserved. The 

laboratory added sulfuric acid to achieve the desired pH (within 24 hours of sampling). 

The initial BOD analysis for sample 73B L01 was depleted in oxygen; the reanalysis was 

performed out of holding times. Both results were reported, the first is qualified as 

estimated (72.0E), the second results was 74.7 mg/L. These BOD results should be used 

with caution. 

File A03-3377, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 4/10/03: 

Samples 74A L01 and 74B L01 were received unpreserved. The laboratory added 

sulfuric acid to achieve the desired pH. 

File A03-5054, samples 51A, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 5/23/2003: The 

initial BOD analysis for sample 74A L01 was depleted in oxygen; the reanalysis was out 

of holding times. Both results were reported (without qualification): ND (reporting limit 

1800), reanalysis 216 mg/L. The reanalysis result should be qualified as estimated (E) 

and used with caution. 

C-23
File A03-5431, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, sampled 6/5/2003: The pH 

check (using a 7.0 buffer solution) reading was 7.13. The samples are qualified as 

potentially biased high (J+) due to the results of this QC check. The RPD results for 

propionic and butyric acid are greater than the 20% limit; the LCS meet the QC 

requirements for all acids. Matrix spike recovery for pyruvic acid is low (56.8%, 54.7%). 

All samples were ND for pyruvic acid (4 mg/L limit), there is potential for false negative 

results due to this low recovery. 

File A03-5975, samples 74A and 74B, sampled 7/14/2003: The matrix spike recovery 

for pyruvic acid was 51.8 and 52.0%. Pyruvic acid is ND in both samples, there is 

potential for false negative due to this low recovery. 

File A03-7170, samples 51A, 51B, 52A, 52B, 73A, 73B, 74A, 74B, sampled 7/25/2003: 

The pH check (using a 7.0 buffer solution) reading was 7.16. The samples are qualified 

as potentially biased high (J+) due to the results of this QC check. 

A number of sample reports indicated interference with the non-critical parameter nitrite. 

These data should be used with caution since bias is likely. All results with an estimated 

(E) qualifier from the laboratory (e.g. BOD) should be used with caution. BOD, in 

particular, is susceptible to degradation and negative bias if analysis is not started within 

24 hours. 

MSW Samples: NCSU

Critical MSW Parameters: Moisture, Organic (Volatile) Solids, BMP.

Excel Files: BMP_1_08_04_03, BMP_2_08_04_03, Lablogbook, LablandfillsMoistures,

OL#3 data 081903, Volatiles-OL Set 3.

QA Evaluation:

Moisture and Organic (Volatile) Solids data was evaluated by reviewing the excel 

spreadsheets provided. The parameters are obtained by weighing samples before and 

after drying (65oC) or oxidation (550oC). Data validation is performed by ensuring the 

spreadsheets are correctly calculating the parameter using the entered data. This data is 

entered into the spreadsheet by the analysts and spot checked by peers, and/or Dr. Barlaz 

at NCSU. No problems were identified with the Moisture or Organic Solids data. 

BMP data was evaluated from two spreadsheets that contain MSW samples from the 

November, 2002 sampling period. The spreadsheets contain daily calibration information 

along with the calculations for methane (corrected for STP and inoculum blanks), 

nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. The precision (RSD/CV) is calculated for each set 

of triplicate samples (each sample undergoes the complete incubation and gas analysis 

process) and evaluated against the 20% criterion. Samples that exceed this criterion are 

re-analyzed (complete process) until the metric is achieved. A few minor mistakes in 

C-24
formulas within the spreadsheet were noted and discussed with Dr. Barlaz. These errors 

have been corrected and a consistent model is now used to calculate methane. There are 

six sets of data in which the lowest calibration standard (10% methane) was unavailable. 

The SOP for calibration requires at least three calibration levels. However, after 

evaluating the calibration data I believe these data are valid. The slope of the calibration 

model for these six sets is very similar to that obtained using a full calibration. There is 

3.1% difference in the average slope between the calibrations with three levels versus the 

calibration with two levels. This potential error level is within the precision of this 

analytical method. However, all future analyses should follow the method that requires 

at least three calibration levels*. 

Gas Samples: STL-LA

Critical Parameters: Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen via Summa Canisters.

Acrobat Files: E2K250218, El2300222, E2L300223, E3D160263, E3F100284,

M2C260265, E2F180191, E2G026329, M1C200280, M1L200214. Excel Files with the

same names were also obtained, these contain summary data.

QA Evaluation:

The only quality issue noted for the critical parameters for the gas samples is holding 

times. A number of samples were analyzed between 7 and 14 days after collection. The 

QAPP specifies a holding time of 7 days (Table 4-1). There is no reason to believe the 

composition of the gas samples (methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen) are compromised 

when analysis is performed within 14 days of collection (using Summa Canisters). For 

reference, Method 3C does not list a holding time and Method TO-14A has a 30 day 

holding time. All other QA/QC issues met the method and/or QAPP specifications. 

* While evaluating the methane calibration data received with the BMP results two issues arose that could 

potentially improve the current method. These ideas came out of a meeting held with David Gratson and 

Vicki Lancaster of Neptune and Company, Inc. and Morton Barlaz. The current calibration method is 

acceptable; however improved calibration precision may be achieved through the use of a weighted least 

squares regression model. The idea of using a single calibration slope that is acquired on a single day, then 

verified during daily calibrations is also being considered. NCSU is currently performing additional 

calibration to test these ideas. 

C-25
APPENDIX D 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC. 

2031 Kerr Gulch Road 

Evergreen, CO 80439 

Phone: 720.746.1803 

Fax: 720.746.1605 

pblack@.neptuneinc.org 

MEMORANDUM 

From: Jim Markwiese, Paul Black, Tom Stockton, Doug Bronson, Andrew Schuh 

To: Scott Jacobs, Ann Vega 

Date: 24 September 2003 

Subject: Statistical Analysis for Bioreactor Study 

Some preliminary data analyses, replicate analyses, and trend analyses are presented in the 

attached document for the data collected from the bioreactor experiments for WMI. Data have 

been provided by WMI for leachate for the 3 units, FLB, AALB, and control, and for solids, field 

gas, and landfill gas for the 2 units, FLB, and control (see attachment on data sources). The data 

are limited, reflecting the early stages of data collection for this 5-year project. The statistical 

analyses follow. Interpretation of the plots should consider the following notes: 

1. The time plots presented below have different y-axis scales, so some care should be 

taken during interpretation. The x-axis scales are the same for each set of plots. 

2. Lines drawn on the time plots are smoothed regression lines (using the LOESS 

function) when there are sufficient data (including detections). 

D-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY 

II. BIOREACTOR CELL TIMELINES 

This plots give the reader some sense of the date of activity of the landfills as well 

as the dates for which data is available for them. 

III. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR LEACHATE AND GAS DATA 

These are the basic statistics for the field gas and leachate including mean, 

median, quantiles, min, max, and standard deviation for data subset out by cell 

and replicate (A/B). 

IV. LEACHATE TIME PLOTS 

This is a good place to start for the leachate data as it gives the reader a good 

overall feeling for the behavior of the data. Rigorous statistical analysis of trends 

and replicates is left to sections VI. and IX. 

V. LEACHATE REPLICATE ANALYSIS 

This section investigates the differences between the replicates of each of the cells 

(FLB cell 5.1, FLB cell 5.2, Control cell 7.3, and 7.4). Also included is an analysis of 

some alternative replicate configurations based upon “after the fact” knowledge of 

the geometry and location of the cells and their replicates. Essentially, different 

polynomial models are fit to the data, a best model form chosen, and then the 

parameters are tested for significant differences. 

VI. FIELD GAS TIME PLOTS 

This section includes time plots of the field gas data and is a good place to start 

when trying to understand this data. 

VII. FIELD GAS BOX PLOTS 

This section contains boxplots of the field gas data with the Date variable being 

“collapsed”. Essentially these are additional diagnostic plots that provides a visual 

picture of overall concentrations. 

D-2
VIII. TREND TESTS 

This section tracks our attempts to detect statistically significant trends in the 

leachate data. It also includes some slope estimates which may be useful when a 

significant trend is evident. 

IX. LEVELPLOT OF SETTLING HEIGHT CHANGE 

This is a simple “contour” style LOESS plot of the settling height change. No 

rigorous statistical tests are performed on this data and this plot is included for 

qualitative purposes only. 

X. DATA SUMMARY 

This is a summary of the data we have received up until this point in time. 

D-3 
Summary 

At this point in the CRADA there is a major difficulty in comparing the treatment cells 

(FLB and AALB) to the control cells due to several confounding factors. As time 

progresses and more data become available, some of these confounding factors (e.g., nonoverlapping aged waste between cells) are expected to become less of a hindrance to 

statistical analysis. For now, however, if a difference is found between types of cells, it is 

challenging to determine if the difference is due to treatment or age. Confounding factors 

that could have an effect on critical parameters are: 

• geometry of cell 

• amount of waste disposed in cell 

• type of waste disposed in cell 

• time of waste disposal in cell 

As further data are collected, these factors can be addressed. 

Because of the difficulties above, the main focus of this document will be on: exploratory 

data analysis of critical leachate and field gas parameter along with the comparison of the 

A and B pairs of cells. The comparison is important because the pairs are intended to be 

replicates, but have been subjected to different conditions. Other topics include trend 

analysis of critical parameters and initial exploratory data analysis of the solids and 

settling data. 

Leachate data has been collected quarterly, so sample sizes are approximately 20 within 

each cell. Also, data values are highly variable and there are many confounding variables. 

These factors make modeling or comparing cells very difficult. Still, visual inspection of 

LOESS smooths of the time plots and analysis of covariance F-tests demonstrate that the 

A and B pairs within cells are similar. 

Field Gas data has been collected weekly and values are far less variable than the leachate data. 

Time plots indicate that concentrations in control and FLB cell 5.1 are quite similar. 

Concentrations are flat and linear. On the contrary, concentrations in FLB cell 5.2 follow a 

definite non-linear trend. Time plots and box-plots indicate concentrations in FLB cells are 

higher in variability than in the control cells. 

D-4
BIOREACTOR CELL TIMELINES

D-5
CELL AGE AND DATA TIMELINE

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

FLB 

5 North and 

actual date = ? Control Cells 

7.3A and 7.3B 

open 11/98 

5 South open 

FLB

5 North and

5 South

treatment

begins

actual date=?

?

AALB Cell 

7.4A opens 

and treatment 

begins 

6/12/01 

AALB Cell

7.4B opens and

treatment

begins

10/18/01

leachate.txt (approx. monthly collection) 

FLB 6/01 4/03 

AALB 12/01 4/03 

CTRL 6/01 4/03 

field.gas.txt (approx. weekly collection) 

FLB 11/16/01 4/11/03 

AALB 4/11/03 

CTRL 1/10/02 4/11/03 

solids.txt (annual collection) 

FLB 6/00 

AALB none 

D-6 CTRL 6/00 
Data Available versus Age of Cell 

FLB leachate 

AALB Leachate 

CTRL leachate 

Data Available

FLB field gas 

AALB Field Gas 

CTRL field gas 

FLB solids 

AALB solids 

CTRL solids 

Data 

Treatment Start Point 

0 2 4 6 8 

Age of Cell 

D-7 
SUMMARY STATISTICS

FOR LEACHATE AND GAS FIELD DATA

(data thru Spring 2003)

D-8
LEACHATE

Acetic 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 18 1.0 1.6 3.3 163.0 5.0 2350 552.31 

FLB 5.1 B 18 1.0 2.1 3.4 10.9 7.0 80 19.24 

FLB 5.2 A 18 1.0 2.5 3.8 5.6 8.0 20 4.89 

Acid FLB 5.2 B 18 1.0 1.6 2.3 150.1 22.3 2340 548.46 

Control 7.3 A 18 1.0 1.0 1.9 24.1 2.5 389 91.14 

Control 7.3 B 17 1.0 1.9 11.0 109.3 44.0 1010 263.81 

AALB 7.4 A 17 1.0 10.0 243.0 484.2 1010.0 1650 554.73 

AALB 7.4 B 17 2.9 23.0 151.0 582.1 539.0 2580 845.87 

Ammonia 

(As N, 

MG/L) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 21 551 831.0 1070.0 2444.5 1590.0 19200 4410.3 

FLB 5.1 B 21 468 707.0 976.0 1168.8 1410.0 3100 678.7 

FLB 5.2 A 20 291 865.0 1325.0 1278.1 1570.0 2580 551.6 

FLB 5.2 B 21 432 723.0 877.0 1290.5 1250.0 7010 1392.5 

Control 7.3 A 20 67.1 108.5 298.0 459.8 585.8 1420 432.3 

Control 7.3 B 19 48.6 114.5 239.0 376.1 409.5 1410 406.1 

AALB 7.4 A 17 162 545.0 741.0 922.1 942.0 2720 653.4 

AALB 7.4 B 17 97.3 650.0 1040.0 920.7 1320.0 1540 462.8 

BOD 

(MG/ 

L) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 22 32.9 61.8 95.5 189.0 216.8 1060 228.7 

FLB 5.1 B 23 21.7 74.3 119.0 165.4 228.0 629 145.2 

FLB 5.2 A 20 19.8 52.2 127.0 138.0 181.3 414 100.1 

FLB 5.2 B 21 24.9 58.7 84.5 156.0 159.0 783 185.7 

Control 7.3 A 20 14.6 34.0 49.9 155.6 99.0 1820 395.4 

Control 7.3 B 21 9.2 45.5 158.0 1784.0 198.0 31400 6805.0 

AALB 7.4 A 20 20.0 182.3 469.0 1967.0 2378.0 15000 3427.1 

AALB 7.4 B 18 142.0 517.8 2085.0 6233.0 6280.0 54400 12546.6 

Chlorid 

e 

(MG/L) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 9 818 1460.0 1850.0 1694.2 2060.0 2250 467.2 

FLB 5.1 B 8 955 1570.0 2485.0 2154.4 2732.5 2840 736.0 

FLB 5.2 A 7 1110 1355.0 1920.0 2027.1 2700.0 3050 794.4 

FLB 5.2 B 9 10 860.0 1180.0 1072.1 1390.0 1930 547.2 

FLB 5.1 A 9 818 1460.0 1850.0 1694.2 2060.0 2250 467.2 

FLB 5.1 B 8 955 1570.0 2485.0 2154.4 2732.5 2840 736.0 

FLB 5.2 A 7 1110 1355.0 1920.0 2027.1 2700.0 3050 794.4 

FLB 5.2 B 9 10 860.0 1180.0 1072.1 1390.0 1930 547.2 

D-9
COD 

(MG/ 

L) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 21 882.0 1790 1890 1848.0 1970.0 2620 449.1 

FLB 5.1 B 21 1000.0 1250 1560 1659.0 1960.0 2530 486.8 

FLB 5.2 A 20 10.0 1035 1595 1638.0 2140.0 3840 1054.1 

FLB 5.2 B 21 114.0 1200 1350 1366.0 1440.0 3560 640.7 

Control 7.3 A 20 114.0 259 435 667.2 687.3 3170 721.0 

Control 7.3 B 19 60.3 235 618 963.8 992.0 5720 1297.2 

AALB 7.4 A 17 916.0 1580 2290 5282.0 6030.0 30900 7488.5 

AALB 7.4 B 17 1840.0 2250 4220 7222.0 9330.0 26000 7039. 3 

Nitrite 

(As N, 

MG/L) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 21 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.28 0.07 

FLB 5.1 B 20 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.71 0.17 

FLB 5.2 A 19 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.38 0.09 

FLB 5.2 B 21 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.24 0.06 

Control 7.3 A 20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.28 0.07 

Control 7.3 B 19 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.19 0.10 2.00 0.45 

AALB 7.4 A 17 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.24 0.32 0.65 0.18 

AALB 7.4 B 17 0.09 0.12 0.17 1.30 0.44 10.70 2.78 

Nitrogen 

(Nitrate, 

MG/L) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 21 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.04 

FLB 5.1 B 20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.57 0.13 

FLB 5.2 A 19 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.28 0.07 

FLB 5.2 B 21 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.20 0.05 

Control 7.3 A 20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.06 

Control 7.3 B 19 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.26 0.06 

AALB 7.4 A 17 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.22 0.19 1.70 0.40 

AALB 7.4 B 17 0.02 0.10 0.18 2.31 1.00 26.50 6.38 

PH 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 21 6.92 7.14 7.22 7.222 7.34 7.56 0.15513 

FLB 5.1 B 21 6.95 7.17 7.30 7.255 7.36 7.51 0.16046 

FLB 5.2 A 20 6.65 7.15 7.28 7.244 7.36 7.62 0.20671 

(S.U.) FLB 5.2 B 21 6.84 7.10 7.16 7.161 7.28 7.33 0.13203 

Control 7.3 A 20 6.38 6.55 6.88 6.834 7.05 7.31 0.29601 

Control 7.3 B 19 6.14 6.42 6.85 6.752 7.05 7.20 0.33671 

AALB 7.4 A 17 6.31 7.01 7.13 7.072 7.20 7.40 0.27369 

AALB 7.4 B 17 5.89 6.64 7.11 6.964 7.37 7.57 0.50964 

D-10
Phosphate, 

Ortho (MG 

P/L) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 21 1.6 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.4 4.6 0.8 

FLB 5.1 B 20 0.98 1.6 2.3 2.6 3.2 6.4 1.3 

FLB 5.2 A 19 1.4 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.7 7.8 1.9 

FLB 5.2 B 21 0.54 1.2 1.9 2.0 2.3 6.8 1.3 

Control 7.3 A 20 0.08 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 3.4 0.8 

Control 7.3 B 19 0.27 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.2 4.8 1.0 

AALB 7.4 A 17 0.8 1.7 1.9 3.4 3.6 15.4 3.5 

AALB 7.4 B 17 1.2 2.1 3.4 3.7 4.7 8.2 2.0 

Phosphorous, 

Total 

(MG P/L) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 21 0.77 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.5 5.3 1.2 

FLB 5.1 B 21 0.12 1.6 2.0 3.0 2.9 17.8 3.7 

FLB 5.2 A 20 1.3 3.1 4.4 4.7 6.8 9.9 2.4 

FLB 5.2 B 21 1 1.5 2.3 3.2 3.2 14.2 2.9 

Control 7.3 A 20 0.11 0.7 0.9 1.5 1.9 5.3 1.3 

Control 7.3 B 19 0.11 0.8 1.4 1.8 2.3 5.6 1.5 

AALB 7.4 A 17 0.92 2.8 3.5 5.4 8.3 21.6 5.1 

AALB 7.4 B 17 0.33 1.7 3.1 3.8 4.2 10.5 3.2 

Temperat 

ure (� C) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 21 23.0 26.8 30.5 29.58 31.4 34.6 3.4048 

FLB 5.1 B 21 23.5 26.1 27.0 27.91 29.7 32.9 2.6107 

FLB 5.2 A 20 19.0 27.9 30.3 29.28 31.9 35.3 4.6443 

FLB 5.2 B 20 21.1 24.5 25.7 25.82 27.0 31.1 2.5980 

Control 7.3 A 20 9.5 11.9 15.1 16.24 19.1 25.3 4.9550 

Control 7.3 B 19 6.8 12.3 18.2 16.99 20.1 25.1 5.2618 

AALB 7.4 A 17 19.8 24.8 30.6 29.08 33.0 34.7 4.6699 

AALB 7.4 B 17 15.3 21.9 26.3 24.96 28.6 33.8 5.4191 

Total 

Kjeldahl 

Nitrogen 

(TKN) 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 A 9 189 612.0 955.0 812.7 1040.0 1160 348.8 

FLB 5.1 B 9 362 526.0 1030.0 882.8 1200.0 1250 370.6 

FLB 5.2 A 8 445 643.3 1088.0 1032.0 1355.0 1580 432.2 

FLB 5.2 B 9 89.2 394.0 505.0 585.2 1010.0 1040 365.6 

Control 7.3 A 8 91.9 123.8 179.0 194.1 236.8 371 94.1 

Control 7.3 B 8 12.6 36.5 55.3 94.7 83.0 390 123.1 

AALB 7.4 A 5 26.5 118.0 260.0 246.7 395.0 434 174.9 

AALB 7.4 B 5 100 169.0 171.0 298.6 332.0 721 251.0 

D-11
FIELD GAS

CH4 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 207 3.9 47.0 52.2 49.43 55.3 99.9 11.2770 

FLB 5.2 208 3.9 26.3 39. 5 38.04 53.9 61.9 16.6666 

Control 7.3 A 334 44.4 56.7 57.4 58.32 58.6 69.1 3.3828 

Control 7.3 B 353 51.0 56.4 57.6 57.27 58.4 62.7 1.9394 

AALB 7.4 A 4 54.5 54.5 54.7 54.65 54.8 54.8 0.1732 

AALB 7.4 B 3 54.7 54.8 54.8 54.80 54.9 54.9 0.1000 

CO2 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 207 3.2 33.0 36.8 34.79 38.7 45.7 7.3830 

FLB 5.2 208 3.1 19.9 29. 5 28.16 39.4 46.8 11.9248 

Control 7.3 A 334 29.2 41.7 42.5 42.19 43.1 45.2 1.6187 

Control 7.3 B 353 36.6 40.2 41.3 41.11 42.0 44.7 1.2481 

AALB 7.4 A 4 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.73 41.7 41.8 0.0500 

AALB 7.4 B 3 42.2 42.2 42.2 42.23 42.3 42.3 0.0577 

O2 

cell id n min Q1 median mean Q3 max sd 

FLB 5.1 207 0.1 1.3 2.1 3.436 4.3 18.7 3.5951 

FLB 5.2 208 0.0 1.3 6.6 6.641 10.0 18.9 5.4264 

Control 7.3 A 334 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.273 0.2 12.9 0.9682 

Control 7.3 B 353 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.331 0.4 8.4 0.7174 

AALB 7.4 A 4 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.850 1.0 1.0 0.1732 

AALB 7.4 B 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.867 0.9 0.9 0.0577 

D-12
LEACHATE TIME PLOTS

D-13
Acetic Acid 

Acetic Acid (MG/L) 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

AALB cell 7.4 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

Control cell 7.3 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

FLB cell 5.1 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

FLB cell 5.2 

03/04/02 08/01/02 12/29/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-14
Ammonia (as N) 

Ammonia (As N) (MG/L) 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

AALB cell 7.4 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

Control cell 7.3 

0 

5000 

10000 

15000 

20000 

FLB cell 5.1 

0 

2000 

4000 

6000 

FLB cell 5.2 

06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-15
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (MG/L) 

0 

10000 

20000 

30000 

40000 

50000 

AALB cell 7.4 

0 

10000 

20000 

30000 

Control cell 7.3 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

FLB cell 5.1 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

FLB cell 5.2 

06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-16
Chloride 

Chloride (MG/L) 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

AALB cell 7.4 

200 

400 

600 

Control cell 7.3 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

FLB cell 5.1 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

FLB cell 5.2 

06/27/01 11/24/01 04/23/02 09/20/02 02/17/03 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-17
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (MG/L) 

0 

5000 

10000 

15000 

20000 

25000 

30000 

AALB cell 7.4 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

Control cell 7.3 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

FLB cell 5.1 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

FLB cell 5.2 

06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-18
Nitrate (as N) 

Nitrite (As N) (MG/L) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

AALB cell 7.4 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

Control cell 7.3 

0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

FLB cell 5.1

0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

FLB cell 5.2 

06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-19
Nitrogen (Nitrate) 

Nitrogen, Nitrate (MG/L) 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

AALB cell 7.4 

0.05 

0.1 

0.15 

0.2 

0.25 

Control cell 7.3 

0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 

0.6 

FLB cell 5.1 

0.05 

0.1 

0.15 

0.2 

0.25 

FLB cell 5.2 

06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-20
Phosphate, Ortho (MG P/L) 

0 

5 

10 

15 

AALB cell 7.4 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Control cell 7.3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

FLB cell 5.1 

2 

4 

6 

8 

FLB cell 5.2 

Phosphate, Ortho 

06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-21
Phosphorous, Total 

Phosphorous, Total (MG P/L) 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

AALB cell 7.4 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Control cell 7.3 

0 

5 

10 

15 

FLB cell 5.1 

5 

10 

15 

FLB cell 5.2 

06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-22
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (MG/L) 

0 

200 

400 

600 

AALB cell 7.4 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

Control cell 7.3 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

FLB cell 5.1

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

FLB cell 5.2 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 

06/27/01 11/24/01 04/23/02 09/20/02 02/17/03 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-23
Temperature 

Temperature (Field Test) (°C) 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

AALB cell 7.4 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Control cell 7.3 

24 

26 

28 

30 

32 

34 

FLB cell 5.1 

20 

25 

30 

35 

FLB cell 5.2 

06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-24
pH 

pH (Field) (S.U.) 

6 

6.5 

7 

7.5 

AALB cell 7.4 

6.2 

6.4 

6.6 

6.8 

7 

7.2 

Control cell 7.3 

7 

7.2 

7.4 

7.6 

FLB cell 5.1 

6.6 

6.8 

7 

7.2 

7.4 

7.6 

FLB cell 5.2 

06/27/01 12/19/01 06/12/02 12/04/02 

detect non-detect smooth 

A 

B 

D-25
Summary 

These time plots of the leachate data, in our opinion, give the most representative look into 

the leachate data. It can be seen that the replicate data (A/B) does not seem to be tightly 

grouped as would be hoped. It appears, in hindsight, that the (FLB cell 5.1A,FLB cell 5.2B) 

and (FLB cell 5.1B,FLB cell 5.2A) pairs may be more similar due to similar geometries. 

Even furthermore, (FLB cell 5.1B,FLB cell 5.2A) could be considered replicates and (FLB 

cell 5.1A,FLB cell 5.2B) could be considered two independent samples since they share no 

common boundary and are in somewhat different locations. There is evidence of these 

kinds of relationships in most of the leachate time plots. Due to this fact, we may try to regroup these samples, in terms of “replicate” status, in future analyses. 

Locally weighted regression lines (LOESS) were included to assist the reader in viewing the 

data. The temporal correlation seems very adequate to justify including smoothed 

estimates of the data. Statistical tests will still be performed upon the actual data and these 

lines are only included to help the reader get a qualitative feel for the patterns in the plots. 

There are two substantial BOD results, replicates in Control cell 7.3B and AALB cell 7.4B 

for 12/18/2001. These have been included in the exploratory data analysis and other 

analyses in lieu of any explanation or reason to disregard them. Although they are 

influential observations, their removal would probably not have much of an effect on model 

fitting efforts due to the overall variability of the data. 

D-26
Influential Data Points to Validate 

The following two tables list concentrations that are either extremely large when compared 

to all cells or large compared to the source cell. These values can have a large influence on 

statistical analyses and should be investigated further to determine whether they are data 

entry errors, outliers, or if events can be identified to explain their size. 

Parameter Result Cell AorB Sampdate Large Relative To 

1.50E+04 

5.44E+04 

1.82E+03 

AALB cell 7.4 

AALB cell 7.4 

Control cell 7.3 

A 

B 

A 

11/14/2002 

12/18/2001 

3/20/2002 

all cells 

all cells 

rest of cell 

Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand 

3.14E+04 

1.85E+03 

1.71E+03 

Control cell 7.3 

Control cell 7.3 

Control cell 7.3 

B 

B 

B 

12/18/2001 

12/18/2001 

5/14/2002 

all cells 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

1.06E+03 

4.80E+02 

4.11E+02 

FLB cell 5.1 

FLB cell 5.2 

FLB cell 5.2 

A 

B 

B 

5/13/2002 

9/16/2002 

10/21/2002 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

3.09E+04 AALB cell 7.4 A 11/14/2002 all cells 

Chemical Oxygen 3.17E+03 Control cell 7.3 A 3/20/2002 rest of cell 

Demand (COD) 5.72E+03 Control cell 7.3 B 12/18/2001 rest of cell 

2.49E+03 Control cell 7.3 B 5/14/2002 rest of cell 

Phosphorous, Total 

2.16E+01 

4.00E+00 

5.30E+00 

7.90E+00 

AALB cell 7.4 

Control cell 7.3 

Control cell 7.3 

FLB cell 5.1 

A 

A 

A 

B 

4/10/2003 

7/16/2002 

8/7/2002 

3/18/2003 

all cells 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 

(TKN) 

7.21E+02 

3.71E+02 

3.90E+02 

AALB cell 7.4 

Control cell 7.3 

Control cell 7.3 

B 

A 

B 

6/10/2002 

9/16/2002 

6/10/2002 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

2.72E+03 

1.42E+03 

AALB cell 7.4 

Control cell 7.3 

A 

A 

9/16/2002 

7/11/2001 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

Ammonia (As N) 

1.38E+03 

1.16E+03 

1.41E+03 

Control cell 7.3 

Control cell 7.3 

Control cell 7.3 

A 

A 

B 

7/16/2002 

9/16/2002 

7/16/2002 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

rest of cell 

1.38E+03 

1.92E+04 

1.09E+04 

Control cell 7.3 

FLB cell 5.1 

FLB cell 5.1 

B 

A 

A 

11/14/2002 

6/25/2001 

12/17/2001 

rest of cell 

all cells 

all cells 

The following parameter/cell combinations have many large values when compared to the rest of 

the cells. 

Parameter Cell AorB 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand AALB cell 7.4 A 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand AALB cell 7.4 B 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) AALB cell 7.4 A 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) AALB cell 7.4 B 

D-27
LEACHATE REPLICATE ANALYSIS 

D-28
Analysis of Covariance 

An analysis of covariance is performed to compare the A and B pairs of each cell for 5 critical 

parameters. The comparison of A and B pairs has been performed because the pairs are intended 

to be replicates within a treatment. However, the A and B pairs are subjected to differing factors 

like type and amount of waste disposed along with cell geometry. It was discovered that the pairs 

(FLB cell 5.1A, FLB cell 5.2B) and (FLB cell 5.1B, FLB cell 5.2A) have similar geometries so 

these pairs were also compared. In future analyses, comparisons may change based upon 

conclusions about which “replicate” grouping seems most appropriate (see comments in 

Summary for Leachate Time Plots). 

The first step is to fit a polynomial (degree £ 3) regression model to all cells. Note that other 

non-linear models could have been utilized, but for simplicity only polynomial regression was 

attempted. Next, compare the model fits for A and B within a cell and chose a model that fits 

both well. Note that this choice may not be the model that fits each one best. However, a 

common model choice is necessary to perform an analysis of covariance. All model fits and the 

chosen models (in bold) are shown in the tables following the time and model plots. Many of the 

model fits are poor with insignificant parameters. The data are, in general, highly variable with 

small sample sizes. Also, there are many confounding factors that cannot be accounted for 

directly. These included geometry of cells, age of cells, type of waste in the cells and when the 

waste was placed in the cells. 

Statistical model comparison is shown in the table below. F-test p-values are provided in the 

right-side of the table. If all of the p-values are greater than 0.05, then the models are considered 

to coincide. Models with p-values between 0.05 and 0.10 have also been highlighted as 

marginally similar. Since many of the model fits are poor, models may be found to be 

statistically similar when the corresponding model plots look quite different. 

Following the analysis of covariance table are time and model plots. The plots provide a means 

of visually comparing the two models. Note that the chosen model that is plotted may contain 

insignificant parameters. 

D-29
Analysis of Covariance Table 

Paramete Cells Model Statistically Term 

r Similar? Cubic Quadratic Linear Intercept 

FLB FLB 

cell cell quadratic yes 0.4285 0.4120 0.5936 

5.1A 5.1B 

FLB FLB 

cell cell quadratic yes 0.3123 0.1218 0.5612 

5.2A 5.2B 

Biochemical 

Oxygen 

Demand 

FLB 

cell 

5.1A 

FLB 

cell 

5.2B 

quadratic yes 0.6442 0.8135 0.5925 

FLB 

cell 

5.2a 

FLB 

cell 

5.1B 

quadratic yes 0.3412 0.7124 0.3570 

Control Control 

cell cell linear yes 0.3466 0.3014 

7.3A 7.3B 

AALB AALB 

cell cell linear no 0.0051 0.1577 

7.4A 7.4B 

FLB FLB 

cell cell quadratic no 0.0071 0.0539 0.1670 

5.1A 5.1B 

FLB FLB 

cell cell quadratic yes 0.2199 0.8931 0.3836 

5.2A 5.2B 

Chemical 

Oxygen 

Demand 

FLB 

cell 

5.1A 

FLB 

cell 

5.2B 

quadratic no 0.8913 0.8475 0.0048 

FLB 

cell 

5.2a 

FLB 

cell 

5.1B 

quadratic no 0.0057 0.4406 0.8481 

Control Control 

cell cell quadratic yes 0.6555 0.4681 0.3949 

7.3A 7.3B 

AALB AALB 

cell cell linear no 0.0006 0.4461 

7.4A 7.4B 

Total 

Phosphorous 

FLB 

cell 

5.1A 

FLB 

cell 

5.1B 

linear yes 0.1490 0.8750 

FLB FLB 

cell cell linear yes 0.4358 0.0710 

5.2A 5.2B 

FLB FLB 

cell cell linear yes 0.5734 0.7361 

5.1A 5.2B 

D-30
FLB FLB 

cell cell linear no 0.0235 0.1021 

5.2a 5.1B 

Control Control 

cell cell quadratic yes 0.7175 0.5782 0.4107 

7.3A 7.3B 

AALB AALB 

cell cell linear yes 0.3446 0.2134 

7.4A 7.4B 

FLB FLB 

cell cell linear yes 0.7447 0.4744 

5.1A 5.1B 

FLB FLB 

cell cell linear no 0.4873 0.0028 

5.2A 5.2B 

FLB FLB 

Total 

Kjeldahl 

Nitrogen 

cell 

5.1A 

FLB 

cell 

cell 

5.2B 

FLB 

cell 

linear 

linear 

no 

yes 

0.6420 

0.5512 

0.0374 

0.2042 

5.2a 5.1B 

Control Control 

cell cell linear yes 0.8292 0.0965 

7.3A 7.3B 

AALB AALB 

cell cell linear yes 0.5332 0.7070 

7.4A 7.4B 

FLB FLB 

cell cell linear yes 0.0841 0.1729 

5.1A 5.1B 

FLB FLB 

cell cell linear yes 0.9638 0.9366 

5.2A 5.2B 

FLB FLB 

cell cell linear yes 0.1232 0.2320 

Ammonia 5.1A 5.2B 

(As N) FLB FLB 

cell cell linear yes 0.5407 0.5333 

5.2a 5.1B 

Control Control 

cell cell cubic yes 0.4256 0.2347 0.2270 0.5138 

7.3A 7.3B 

AALB AALB 

cell cell linear yes 0.8530 0.9939 

7.4A 7.4B 

D-31
0 200 400 600 800 1000 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 5.1 

Date 

Concentration 

5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.1A 

5.1B 

5.1A Model 

5.1B Model 

100 200 300 400 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 5.2 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.2A 

5.2B 

5.2A Model 

5.2B Model 

0 200 400 600 800 1000 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends) 

Date 

Concentration 

5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.1A 

5.2B 

5.1A Model 

5.2B Model 

100 200 300 400 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle) 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.2A 

5.1B 

5.2A Model 

5.1B Model 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 7.3 

7.3A 7.3A Model 

15000 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration for Cell 7.4 

7.4A 7.4A Model 

0 500 1000 1500 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

7.3B 7.3B Model 

0 5000 10000 

Date 

Concentration 

1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

7.4B 7.4B Model 

D-32
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 5.1 

5.1A 5.1A Model 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 5.2 

5.2A 5.2A Model 

1000 1500 2000 2500 

Date 

Concentration 

5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.1B 5.1B Model 

0 1000 2000 3000 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.2B 5.2B Model 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends) 

5.1A 5.1A Model 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle) 

5.2A 5.2A Model 

1000 1500 2000 2500 

Date 

Concentration 

5May2001 21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.2B 5.2B Model 

0 1000 2000 3000 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.1B 5.1B Model 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 7.3 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

7.3A 

7.3B 

7.3A Model 

7.3B Model 

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Concentration for Cell 7.4 

Date 

Concentration 

1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

7.4A 

7.4B 

7.4A Model 

7.4B Model 

D-33
Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 5.1 

5.1A 5.1A Model 

10 

Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 5.2 

5.2A 5.2A Model 

1 2 3 4 5 

Concentration 

5May2001 

Date 

21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.1B 5.1B Model 

2 4 6 8 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.2B 5.2B Model 

Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends) 

5.1A 5.1A Model 

10 

Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle) 

5.2A 5.2A Model 

1 2 3 4 5 

Concentration 

5May2001 

Date 

21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.2B 5.2B Model 

2 4 6 8 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.1B 5.1B Model 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

Concentration 

13A

Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 7.3 

Date 

ug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

7.3A 

7.3B 

7.3A Model 

7.3B Model 

5 10 15 20 

Phosphorous, Total Concentration for Cell 7.4 

Date 

Concentration 

1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

7.4A 

7.4B 

7.4A Model 

7.4B Model 

D-34
200 400 600 800 1000 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 5.1 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.1A 

5.1B 

5.1A Model 

5.1B Model 

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 5.2 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.2A 

5.2B 

5.2A Model 

5.2B Model 

200 400 600 800 1000 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends) 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.1A 

5.2B 

5.1A Model 

5.2B Model 

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle) 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.2A 

5.1B 

5.2A Model 

5.1B Model 

100 150 200 250 300 350 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 7.3 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

7.3A 

7.3B 

7.3A Model 

7.3B Model 

100 200 300 400 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Concentration for Cell 7.4 

Date 

Concentration 

9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 

7.4A 

7.4B 

7.4A Model 

7.4B Model 

D-35
Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 5.1 

5.1A 5.1A Model 

2500 

Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 5.2 

5.2A 5.2A Model 

0 5000 10000 15000 

Concentration 

5May2001 

Date 

21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.1B 5.1B Model 

500 1000 1500 2000 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.2B 5.2B Model 

Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 5 (Ends) 

5.1A 5.1A Model 

2500 

Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 5 (Middle) 

5.2A 5.2A Model 

0 5000 10000 15000 

Concentration 

5May2001 

Date 

21Nov2001 9Jun2002 26Dec2002 

5.2B 5.2B Model 

500 1000 1500 2000 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

5.1B 5.1B Model 

1400 

Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 7.3 

7.3A 7.3A Model 

Ammonia (As N) Concentration for Cell 7.4 

7.4A 7.4A Model 

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 

Date 

Concentration 

13Aug2001 1Mar2002 17Sep2002 5Apr2003 

7.3B 7.3B Model 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 

Date 

Concentration 

1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

7.4B 7.4B Model 

D-36
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 

FLB cell 5.1A L01 FLB cell 5.1B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

2.152412e+02 

-7.337726e-02 

0.04552217 

0.76794800 

2.682627e+02 

-2.890203e-01 

0.0001481634 

0.0553831481 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

1.827701e+01 

1.696082e+00 

-2.576048e-03 

0.88736979 

0.05274789 

0.03722919 

1.473795e+02 

7.663082e-01 

-1.532262e-03 

0.0584492734 

0.1151858269 

0.0284958364 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

3.154714e+01 

1.379486e+00 

-1.338671e-03 

-1.231015e-06 

0.83555604 

0.48586123 

0.84888488 

0.85813385 

7.426527e+01 

2.510360e+00 

-8.369213e-03 

6.814990e-06 

0.3593276353 

0.0232186664 

0.0334183914 

0.0727081641 

FLB cell 5.2A L01 FLB cell 5.2B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

2.588700e+02 

-3.346164e-01 

1.675535e-06 

1.732076e-03 

1.559619e+02 

2.602369e-05 

0.08466699 

0.99989973 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

2.024532e+02 

1.587610e-01 

-7.296590e-04 

8.140932e-04 

6.232715e-01 

1.242635e-01 

1.455682e+01 

1.285332e+00 

-1.876052e-03 

0.89427285 

0.07736977 

0.06691669 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

1.642517e+02 

1.146506e+00 

-4.744217e-03 

4.138439e-06 

6.746645e-03 

1.061819e-01 

7.238006e-02 

1.177996e-01 

6.282264e+01 

3.714552e-02 

3.008179e-03 

-4.841674e-06 

0.61710203 

0.98229640 

0.61900326 

0.41606637 

Control cell 7.3A L01 Control cell 7.3B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

2.436908e+02 

-2.445069e-01 

0.2221977 

0.6113035 

4.552255e+03 

-7.852682e+00 

0.1593952 

0.3235841 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

3.965700e+01 

1.546337e+00 

-2.654637e-03 

0.8840587 

0.3780156 

0.2907304 

3.376253e+03 

2.273288e+00 

-1.487198e-02 

0.4712576 

0.9395064 

0.7260773 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

-1.974563e+01 

3.095429e+00 

-8.968965e-03 

6.522872e-06 

0.9491376 

0.4358343 

0.5394232 

0.6598928 

4.574563e+02 

7.216667e+01 

-2.989309e-01 

2.936991e-04 

0.9293698 

0.2679709 

0.2127126 

0.2281026 

AALB cell 7.4A L01 AALB cell 7.4B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

-1.494479e+02 

8.937710e+00 

0.9146097 

0.0867887 

1.567017e+04 

-4.169637e+01 

0.003388943 

0.023164682 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

-6.318798e+02 

1.520903e+01 

-1.291843e-02 

0.7647328 

0.4677170 

0.7557589 

2.076381e+04 

-1.227301e+02 

1.756980e-01 

0.002358366 

0.055485451 

0.174735767 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

3.850463e+02 

-1.322407e+01 

1.423817e-01 

-2.197728e-04 

0.8816165 

0.7722729 

0.5294259 

0.4856335 

2.311238e+04 

-2.170226e+02 

7.182375e-01 

-7.767112e-04 

0.003205906 

0.132124827 

0.330033545 

0.451624289 

D-37
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 

FLB cell 5.1A L01 FLB cell 5.1B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

1.960465e+03 

-3.061233e-01 

1.081922e-08 

5.386668e-01 

2.235893e+03 

-1.573900e+00 

3.552959e-11 

8.013883e-04 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

1.615873e+03 

2.834956e+00 

-4.588793e-03 

6.124507e-06 

9.905660e-02 

6.006205e-02 

2.520544e+03 

-4.168465e+00 

3.790489e-03 

3.802319e-10 

5.202189e-03 

5.415787e-02 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

1.825067e+03 

-2.632638e+00 

1.684489e-02 

-2.126205e-05 

4.699406e-06 

4.884627e-01 

2.259622e-01 

1.235399e-01 

2.365736e+03 

-1.195621e-01 

-1.208195e-02 

1.574490e-05 

7.849645e-09 

9.689652e-01 

2.840335e-01 

1.590089e-01 

FLB cell 5.2A L01 FLB cell 5.2B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

1.840461e+03 

-5.616490e-01 

0.002178118 

0.661432084 

1.536272e+03 

-4.643965e-01 

4.519746e-05 

5.132532e-01 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

8.047374e+02 

8.495986e+00 

-1.339539e-02 

0.232099393 

0.055486304 

0.035815796 

1.147920e+03 

3.065543e+00 

-5.152352e-03 

7.569550e-03 

2.223960e-01 

1.471131e-01 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

5.576066e+01 

2.786167e+01 

-9.210465e-02 

8.113807e-05 

0.928185709 

0.002354332 

0.005135538 

0.012548053 

1.139109e+03 

3.293389e+00 

-6.043928e-03 

8.838069e-07 

2.025952e-02 

5.870335e-01 

7.811988e-01 

9.668344e-01 

Control cell 7.3A L01 Control cell 7.3B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

7.102012e+02 

-1.193484e-01 

0.05999102 

0.89215459 

1.428613e+03 

-1.331828e+00 

0.03666348 

0.41302080 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

2.456102e+02 

3.958456e+00 

-6.044686e-03 

0.61726719 

0.21549391 

0.18588644 

6.683128e+02 

5.385694e+00 

-1.005476e-02 

0.44712134 

0.33984764 

0.21877505 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

3.643681e+02 

8.615070e-01 

6.578941e-03 

-1.304055e-05 

0.51560667 

0.90310030 

0.80137794 

0.62496324 

1.432952e+02 

1.911237e+01 

-6.599695e-02 

5.766683e-05 

0.88009151 

0.12987300 

0.15513754 

0.21701552 

AALB cell 7.4A L01 AALB cell 7.4B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

2.728821e+02 

2.090255e+01 

0.93308625 

0.08442847 

1.500991e+04 

-3.249839e+01 

1.144936e-05 

1.337172e-03 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

2.807360e+02 

2.079518e+01 

2.239602e-04 

0.95199798 

0.65019472 

0.99805724 

1.775043e+04 

-6.996677e+01 

7.814792e-02 

6.699188e-05 

4.120704e-02 

2.328388e-01 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

2.533684e+03 

-4.896104e+01 

3.802693e-01 

-5.314646e-04 

0.65754826 

0.65094440 

0.48384465 

0.47747192 

1.702006e+04 

-4.735300e+01 

-4.505629e-02 

1.722917e-04 

8.242883e-04 

5.360385e-01 

9.053947e-01 

7.418435e-01 

D-38
Phosphorous, Total 

FLB cell 5.1A L01 FLB cell 5.1B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

2.707463e+00 

5.626158e-04 

0.0001475468 

0.6850799049 

6.418077e-01 

6.557450e-03 

0.6942815 

0.1034484 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

2.883161e+00 

-1.038930e-03 

2.339693e-06 

0.0018398618 

0.8384629711 

0.7437386096 

1.223737e-01 

1.129205e-02 

-6.916933e-06 

0.9565856 

0.4332161 

0.7304152 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

2.928984e+00 

-2.236583e-03 

7.034650e-06 

-4.657362e-09 

0.0053724566 

0.8579301840 

0.8759199590 

0.9158594354 

6.105435e-01 

-1.475719e-03 

4.313505e-05 

-4.964979e-08 

0.8146521 

0.9662528 

0.7321341 

0.6874593 

FLB cell 5.2A L01 FLB cell 5.2B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

6.426692e+00 

-4.754063e-03 

1.403425e-05 

9.184472e-02 

3.672043e+00 

-1.416524e-03 

0.01329640 

0.66363669 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

6.755890e+00 

-7.632967e-03 

4.257629e-06 

4.716200e-04 

4.543398e-01 

7.675323e-01 

2.188115e+00 

1.207169e-02 

-1.968761e-05 

0.23744612 

0.30265865 

0.23295379 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

6.001566e+00 

1.187098e-02 

-7.501358e-05 

8.171736e-08 

3.341393e-03 

5.984809e-01 

3.703287e-01 

3.372653e-01 

1.493954e+00 

3.002315e-02 

-8.993276e-05 

6.963309e-08 

0.47723110 

0.28994542 

0.37618268 

0.48161812 

Control cell 7.3A L01 Control cell 7.3B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

1.290169e+00 

5.324213e-04 

0.05730722 

0.73655511 

1.178021e+00 

1.886232e-03 

0.1229711 

0.3167403 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

1.013494e-01 

1.096692e-02 

-1.546745e-05 

0.90247044 

0.04991549 

0.05206245 

3.305437e-01 

9.373992e-03 

-1.120765e-05 

0.7430964 

0.1579260 

0.2348907 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

8.479099e-01 

-8.501764e-03 

6.388979e-05 

-8.197817e-08 

0.32103152 

0.43097181 

0.11964919 

0.05458430 

3.526714e-01 

8.795457e-03 

-8.849872e-06 

-2.430469e-09 

0.7608092 

0.5539467 

0.8713087 

0.9650235 

AALB cell 7.4A L01 AALB cell 7.4B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

9.293295e-01 

1.855459e-02 

0.65199414 

0.02026386 

1.273296e+00 

1.034462e-02 

0.35193662 

0.04345766 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

2.915159e+00 

-8.595683e-03 

5.662741e-05 

0.31396703 

0.75786922 

0.32110025 

2.565731e+00 

-7.325562e-03 

3.685475e-05 

0.18332603 

0.68945135 

0.32528984 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

1.563474e-01 

7.682319e-02 

-4.087511e-04 

6.507966e-07 

0.96156958 

0.22462179 

0.19715947 

0.14004323 

2.235548e+00 

2.897617e-03 

-1.884311e-05 

7.788924e-08 

0.34352471 

0.94735924 

0.93144676 

0.79646740 

D-39
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 

FLB cell 5.1A L01 FLB cell 5.1B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

1.186743e+03 

-1.301889e+00 

1.545508e-06 

5.516811e-04 

1.216155e+03 

-1.160246e+00 

4.280723e-05 

1.584045e-02 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

1.101968e+03 

-1.408898e-02 

-2.098476e-03 

8.686775e-06 

9.838737e-01 

9.224937e-02 

1.170280e+03 

-4.633607e-01 

-1.135579e-03 

4.503441e-04 

7.560703e-01 

6.293948e-01 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

1.104722e+03 

-1.180686e-01 

-1.667458e-03 

-4.381939e-07 

9.831374e-05 

9.527674e-01 

8.293180e-01 

9.549029e-01 

1.052960e+03 

3.964969e+00 

-1.949198e-02 

1.866199e-05 

1.960242e-03 

2.992721e-01 

2.014800e-01 

2.199153e-01 

FLB cell 5.2A L01 FLB cell 5.2B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

1.482229e+03 

-1.504524e+00 

8.902959e-05 

1.289419e-02 

8.991622e+02 

-1.091677e+00 

0.0003929878 

0.0252868669 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

1.451165e+03 

-1.054577e+00 

-7.506798e-04 

8.733119e-04 

5.503233e-01 

7.872231e-01 

9.819408e+02 

-2.340766e+00 

2.033163e-03 

0.0012002987 

0.1544070832 

0.4011545800 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

1.334024e+03 

4.289159e+00 

-2.419000e-02 

2.491795e-05 

2.082921e-03 

2.813821e-01 

1.588921e-01 

1.648856e-01 

1.148830e+03 

-8.540944e+00 

2.769309e-02 

-2.607333e-05 

0.0004901504 

0.0266411505 

0.0478667655 

0.0582659710 

Control cell 7.3A L01 Control cell 7.3B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

2.329992e+02 

-1.302736e-01 

0.006583895 

0.431311936 

1.163771e+02 

-7.249440e-02 

0.1885619 

0.7436343 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

2.193082e+02 

6.935795e-02 

-3.339230e-04 

0.029986841 

0.910668726 

0.737619354 

6.413407e+01 

6.892750e-01 

-1.274209e-03 

0.5132520 

0.3908422 

0.3284838 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

2.629507e+02 

-1.954824e+00 

8.569131e-03 

-9.482668e-06 

0.014521089 

0.171120388 

0.147270229 

0.132005299 

7.794385e+01 

4.876317e-02 

1.542984e-03 

-3.000600e-06 

0.5094423 

0.9815769 

0.8578281 

0.7416922 

AALB cell 7.4A L01 AALB cell 7.4B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

2.968319e+02 

-2.797538e-01 

0.1422521 

0.7078643 

4.751919e+02 

-9.854460e-01 

0.07980778 

0.31771615 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

2.820791e+02 

5.367207e-02 

-9.208126e-04 

0.3322031 

0.9872122 

0.9175455 

4.746016e+02 

-9.721032e-01 

-3.684848e-05 

0.22190046 

0.81326064 

0.99728299 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

3.072219e+02 

-1.790548e+00 

1.309786e-02 

-2.561497e-05 

0.5206202 

0.8795787 

0.8730695 

0.8625165 

3.737667e+02 

6.424126e+00 

-5.625863e-02 

1.027286e-04 

0.42000641 

0.57964067 

0.50601183 

0.50167999 

D-40
Ammonia (As N) 

FLB cell 5.1A L01 FLB cell 5.1B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

5.891555e+03 

-9.398683e+00 

0.004380627 

0.043475747 

1.757537e+03 

-1.605124e+00 

3.485958e-06 

2.306600e-02 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

7.657295e+03 

-2.549405e+01 

2.351368e-02 

0.005736417 

0.117999149 

0.294740536 

1.985035e+03 

-3.678752e+00 

3.029433e-03 

4.008765e-05 

1.332392e-01 

3.682352e-01 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

7.502048e+03 

-2.143644e+01 

7.607298e-03 

1.577901e-05 

0.017110290 

0.580445833 

0.956424707 

0.907820805 

1.870821e+03 

-6.915495e-01 

-8.680947e-03 

1.161628e-05 

3.792349e-04 

9.045288e-01 

6.770770e-01 

5.699373e-01 

FLB cell 5.2A L01 FLB cell 5.2B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

2.037352e+03 

-2.102609e+00 

1.323264e-09 

1.555545e-04 

2.088572e+03 

-2.175365e+00 

0.002769706 

0.149737373 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

1.861285e+03 

-5.628595e-01 

-2.277145e-03 

1.087967e-06 

7.303572e-01 

3.327963e-01 

1.646251e+03 

1.845129e+00 

-5.868373e-03 

0.062300131 

0.729955954 

0.436791548 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

1.805746e+03 

8.731488e-01 

-8.113609e-03 

6.016566e-06 

1.100234e-05 

8.137686e-01 

5.541618e-01 

6.648267e-01 

1.036460e+03 

1.761472e+01 

-6.757577e-02 

6.116972e-05 

0.271721227 

0.166983484 

0.142364982 

0.172571765 

Control cell 7.3A L01 Control cell 7.3B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

4.919822e+02 

-8.922344e-02 

0.032316700 

0.865743229 

1.471974e+02 

6.559115e-01 

0.45166176 

0.19081172 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

5.113659e+02 

-2.593578e-01 

2.521967e-04 

0.111779808 

0.895440894 

0.928534768 

-1.258665e+02 

3.068528e+00 

-3.611196e-03 

0.62786942 

0.07740272 

0.14120338 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

8.705869e+02 

-9.627064e+00 

3.843636e-02 

-3.944528e-05 

0.006949358 

0.015995287 

0.010191162 

0.009657178 

9.829742e+01 

-2.792277e+00 

2.027414e-02 

-2.462170e-05 

0.71117510 

0.41441411 

0.11997870 

0.06724930 

AALB cell 7.4A L01 AALB cell 7.4B L01 

coefficient p-value coefficient p-value 

linear intercept 

date 

5.906813e+02 

1.383019e+00 

0.06133527 

0.20084230 

5.345041e+02 

1.611618e+00 

0.01109482 

0.02616511 

quadratic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

2.714398e+02 

5.747689e+00 

-9.103408e-03 

0.50847802 

0.16455342 

0.26791563 

2.400521e+02 

5.637367e+00 

-8.396519e-03 

0.33197643 

0.03033601 

0.09642544 

cubic 

intercept 

date 

date^2 

date^3 

8.731121e+02 

-1.288140e+01 

9.239150e-02 

-1.419329e-04 

0.04565582 

0.10869700 

0.02785519 

0.01618144 

1.866690e+02 

7.290225e+00 

-1.740161e-02 

1.259294e-05 

0.53913615 

0.21575358 

0.54445124 

0.74881839 

D-41
FIELD GAS TIME PLOTS 

D-42
Summary 

The field gas plots for the control cells and FLB cell 5.1 are very similar in nature. Compositions 

are the same with all exhibiting a flat linear behavior in time. FLB cell 5.1 shows a slightly 

higher degree of variability than the control cells. 

FLB cell 5.2 is quite different than the other cells. At the beginning of observation, gas 

composition is quite similar to the other cells. Then on approximately March 1, 2002 after a 

period of flat linear behavior, there is a dip in methane and carbon dioxide (with a corresponding 

increase in oxygen) concentration levels for a period of approximately 10 months. Finally, on 

approximately January 1, 2003, field gas levels return to those of the other cells. 

D-43
Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 5.1 G01 

-20 0 20 40 60 80 

Concentration (% vol) 

CH4 

CO2 

O2 

21Nov2001 1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

Date 

Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 5.2 G01 

-20 0 20 40 60 80 

Concentration (% vol) 

CH4 

CO2 

O2 

21Nov2001 1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

Date 

* 5.1=FLB cell 5S

 5.2=FLB cell 5N 

D-44 
Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 7.3A G01 

-20 0 20 40 60 80 

Concentration (% vol) 

CH4 

CO2 

O2 

1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

Date 

Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 7.3A G02 

-20 0 20 40 60 80 

Concentration (% vol) 

CH4 

CO2 

O2 

1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

Date 

* 7.3=AALB cell 7.3

D-45 
Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 7.3B G01 

-20 0 20 40 60 80 

Concentration (% vol) 

CH4 

CO2 

O2 

1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

Date 

Landfill Gas Composition for Cell 7.3B G02 

-20 0 20 40 60 80 

Concentration (% vol) 

CH4 

CO2 

O2 

1Mar2002 9Jun2002 17Sep2002 26Dec2002 5Apr2003 

Date 

* 7.3=Control cell 7.3 

D-46 
FIELD GAS BOX-PLOTS 

D-47
Summary 

The first tool we use to investigate the dataset are boxplots, or box and whiskers plots. A box and 

whiskers plot is composed of a central box divided by a line and two lines extending out from the 

box called whiskers. The length of the central box indicates the spread of the bulk of the data 

(the central 50%) while the length of the whiskers show how stretched the tails of the distribution 

are. The width of the box has no particular meaning; the plot can be made quite narrow without 

affecting its visual impact. The sample median is displayed as a line through the box. Any 

unusually small/large data points are displayed by a circle on the plot. A box and whiskers plot 

can be used to assess the symmetry of the data. If the distribution is symmetrical, then the box is 

divided in two equal halves by the median, the whiskers will be the same length and the number 

of extreme data points will be distributed equally on either end of the plot. A boxplot is a way to 

visually analyze a dataset's distribution. The 25th and 75th quantile are the endpoints that 

encompass the filled box. The whiskers extend out to the largest(smallest) data points that lie 

more than 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR, the 75th quantile minus the 25th quantile) on 

each side of the median, a common non-parametric measure to distinguish possible outliers. 

Potential outliers are then plotted as circles outside of this range. These plots are very useful in 

making general decisions regarding the distributional form of the data. For example, 

assumptions of normality imply symmetrical data and if the data do not appear symmetric 

according to the boxplots there will most likely be problems with assuming normality. 

The box-plots for the three field gases demonstrate that the FLB cells contain slightly smaller 

concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide overall and slightly higher concentrations of 

oxygen. Also, the control cells contain far less variability in concentration levels. FLB cell 5.2 

has a larger variability because of the 10 month decrease in methane and carbon dioxide levels 

(10 month increase in oxygen levels). 

D-48
CH4 

20 40 60 80 100 

Concentration (% vol) 

5.1 G01 5.2 G01 7.3A G01 7.3A G02 7.3B G01 7.3B G02 

*5.1(2) : FLB Cell 5.1(2) 7.3 : Control Cell 7.3 

D-49
CO2 

10 20 30 40 

Concentration (% vol) 

5.1 G01 5.2 G01 7.3A G01 7.3A G02 7.3B G01 7.3B G02 

O2 

0 5 10 15 

Concentration (% vol) 

5.1 G01 5.2 G01 7.3A G01 7.3A G02 7.3B G01 7.3B G02 

*5.1(2) : FLB Cell 5.1(2) 7.3 : Control Cell 7.3 

D-50 
TREND TESTS 

D-51
Summary 

The Mann-Kendall results must be considered with caution. Well-constructed data sets will be 

evenly collected over time and must not exhibit any obvious temporal correlation. Both of the 

assumptions seem to be violated by the data in areas, particularly temporal correlation. 

Therefore, the results here are strictly qualitative and hopefully will help the reader reconstruct 

the statistical nature of the data. The Mann-Kendall test attempts to test for the existence of a 

trend by comparing the signs of pair-wise differences in the data. The null hypothesis is that 

there is no trend. In our case, the alternative is that there exists a trend, either positive or 

negative. A low p-value will reject “randomness” in favor of the existence of a trend. Further 

information can then be extracted by viewing the slope estimates. For n data points, the slope 

estimate is created by computing the n(n-1)/2 different slopes estimates between individual 

points and then selecting the median as the overall estimate. Details can be found in Hollander & 

Wolfe, pp 416-420, 1973. 

LEACHATE – Mann-Kendall Test 

p-values (values below 0.05 in bold) 

Cell BOD COD Ammonia 

(As N) 

Total Kjeldahl 

Nitrogen 

(TKN) 

Phosphorous, 

Total 

Control cell 

7.3A 0.112 1 0.922 0.108 0.697 

Control cell 

7.3B 0.0372 0.576 0.0252 0.0635 0.441 

AALB cell 

7.4A 0.035 0.029 0.127 1 0.0134 

AALB cell 

7.4B 0.0000817 0.00114 0.0529 0.806 0.127 

FLB cell 

5.1A 0.337 0.607 0.0399 0.00915 0.627 

FLB cell 

5.1B 0.000958 0.0122 0.0907 0.251 0.00591 

FLB cell 

5.2A 0.000246 0.381 0.000147 0.108 0.0512 

FLB cell 

5.2B 0.291 0.131 0.00152 0.0476 0.952 

Slope Estimate 

(change/day, pos. in red, neg. in blue, significant slopes “grayed”) 

Cell BOD COD Ammonia 

(As N) Nitrogen (TKN) 

Phosphorous, 

Total 

Total Kjeldahl 

D-52
Control cell 

7.3A -0.0628 0.00208 0.0234 -0.641 0.00016 

Control cell 

7.3B -0.502 -0.593 0.6 -0.3 0.00256 

AALB cell 

7.4A 5.79 9.28 0.785 -0.267 0.0123 

AALB cell 

7.4B -17.1 -20 1.66 -1.58 0.00803 

FLB cell 

5.1A -0.0631 0.167 -1.58 -3.75 0.000789 

FLB cell 

5.1B -0.23 -1.67 -1.14 -2.94 0.005 

FLB cell 

5.2A -0.411 -1.76 -2.37 -4.7 -0.00683 

FLB cell 

5.2B -0.0764 -0.476 -1.03 -3.5 0.000152 

FIELD GAS – Mann-Kendall Test 

p-values (values below 0.05 in bold) 

Cell CH4 CO2 O2 

Control cell 

7.3A G01 1.481e-08 2.387e-08 0.0137 

Control cell 

7.3A G02 4.613e-06 0.0006 0.4653 

Control cell 

7.3B G01 0.0559 0.0100 0.0022 

Control cell 

7.3B G02 0.1992 1.179e-08 0.1485 

FLB cell 5.1 

G01 0.0853 0.0385 0.0391 

FLB cell 5.2 

G01 0.0037 0.0010 0.0004 

Slope Estimate 

(change/day, pos. in red, neg. in blue, significant slopes “grayed”) 

Cell CH4 CO2 O2 

Control cell 

7.3A G01 -0.006667 -0.003187 0.000000 

Control cell 

7.3A G02 -0.006452 -0.001832 0.000000 

Control cell 

7.3B G01 0.002083 0.001875 0.000000 

D-53
Control cell 

7.3B G02 -0.001049 0.003704 0.000000 

FLB cell 5.1 

G01 -0.005424 -0.004786 0.001550 

FLB cell 5.2 

G01 -0.021591 -0.014725 0.007919532 

Interpretation 

A good example to start with is the AALB 7.4 data, which appears to be trended strongly for 

both ‘replicates’ in most parameters that were analyzed. A review of the time plots shows that 

this indeed seems to be the case and regardless of any violations of the assumptions, there 

appears to be trends present. This is most likely a function of the relatively young age of the 

landfill cell. FLB cell 5.1B illustrates some of the hazards of applying a simple trend test to data 

that shows serial correlation. There does not seem to be an overall positive/negative trend for 

most parameters but it appears that a trend exists according to the test. This could be caused by 

the obvious temporal correlation in the data and the fact that this is normally a major violation of 

the Mann Kendall assumptions. If this correlation continues to be evident with increased data 

then a time series model will most likely need to be fitted to the data in order to remove the 

temporal correlation that is being seen. Although it is possible, it is somewhat premature at this 

point to assume a model structure for the many of these parameters given only a couple of years 

of data. The heterogeneous nature of the patterns seen (in the time leachate plots) do not yet give 

rise to a common model that will be needed to make comparisons. 

D-54
SETTLING DATA

D-55
D-56

Levelplot of Settling Height in FLB Cell

(7/01/2001 thru 6/1/2003)

Easting

Northing

Area 52B

Area 52A

Area 51B

Area 51A

1.1 2.5 0.89

1.5

1.7

1.5 1.2 1.4 1

4.6 5.6 3.2

5.1 5.3 4.6

2.9 4.3 3.6 0.89

1.5 1.2 1.4

1.4 3.7 4.6 5.6

2.9 4.3 3.6 0.89

1.7 1.5 1.2

3.8 1.4 3.7 4.6

2.9

4.3 3.6

0.89

2.5

1.1

1.5 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.4

3.8

1.8 3.1 4.3

2.9

5.1 5.3

3.1 3 3.2

3.6 239000

239500

240000

1576700 1576750 1576800 1576850 1576900 1576950 1577000

--1

-0

-1

-2

-3

-4

NOTE:

The procedure for this analysis is as follows. A local multi-variate regression model is fit to the spatial

parameters (Easting and Northing). The local least squares criterion is then minimized to produce

estimates of the coefficients, and the resulting plane estimate from which the estimate at the point is

created. The proceedure is repeated for each point of estimation. The amount of smoothing that is done to

the data is highly dependent upon the value of h chosen. A large bandwidth h leads to a lot of smoothing

since many data points are used in the smoothing. A small h leads to a very noisy estimate since only

points right in the vicinity of the fitting point are being used for the estimate. In this model, the variable

bandwidth h represents a nearest-neighbor based bandwidth that utilizes the closest 50% of the data points
which is a somewhat average bandwidth. 

Care must be taken in interpreting these plots. First and foremost, the map is only really applicable within 

the confines of the sampling, the area in which the sampling was done. In addition to this, it must be 

realized that smoothing estimates near the edge of the sampled area may not be as reliable as those near 

the middle. Confidence bounds on the contours were not attempted here and would probably take a serious 

effort to creat, assuming we could find a method for which the assumptions were satisfied. 

Summary of FLB cell 5.1/FLB cell 5.2 Levelplot 

Settling heights do not appear to be strongly correlated although there does appear to be 

some mild correlation. A few anomalies seem to exist, one in particular in the east section 

of Area FLB cell 5.1B where there is a 1.4 ft. and a 0.89 ft. result that are amidst much 

higher results. Bigger differences seem to exist towards the center/east portions of the 

cells. As more data becomes available, it may be useful to attempt other modeling 

strategies. 

The data available for settling in Control cell 7.3 and AALB cell 7.4 was too sparse and 

discontinuous to warrant a spatial smoothing plot. We hope that in future the data 

collected will be less impacted by earth moving equipment and perhaps give us additional 

insight into the spatial nature of the settling in the control and ALLB cells. 

D-57
Boxplot of Mean Annual Differences in Height 

An explanation of what a boxplot is can be found in the previous section on FIELD GAS BOX PLOTS. 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

Height (ft/yr) 

-2 

FLB 5.1A FLB 5.1B FLB 5.2A FLB 5.2B Control 7.3A Control 7.3B AALB 7.4A AALB 7.4B 

Cell 

D-58 
A formal definition of normality can be found in any introductory statistics book. For our 

purposes, one can assume we are testing for the special ‘bell’ shape that defines it 

(empirical density estimate from Normal distribution shown below). 

Density Estimate from 100,000 Normal Observations (mean=0,sd=1) 

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 

Density 

-4 -2 0 2 4 

According to the Shapiro Wilk (Patrick Royston, Algorithm AS 181: The W Test for 

Normality. Applied Statistics, 31, 176-180, 1982) normality test results shown below, the 

data doesn’t seem to deviate too far from normality. There are two rejections of 

normality out of the eight data sets. When reviewing the boxplots of these two cases, one 

can see that both are skewed upward, indicated by the median being less than halfway up 

the main boxplot body. However, there are two others that would be rejected if the 

significance level was 0.10 instead of 0.05. Overall, this is not a strong case for 

normality. 

Shapiro Wilk Normality Test 

Control Control AALB AALB Cell FLB 51A FLB 51B FLB 52A FLB 52B 73A 73B 7.4A 74B 

p-value 0.077 0.246 0.145 0.064 0.049 0.001 0.356 0.872 

Given this, we will include two analyses of differences between the eight sets. First, a 

Tukey multiple comparison test will be performed giving 95% two-sided confidence 

intervals for each pair-wise difference of means. The multiple comparison procedure 

accounts for the fact that multiple comparisons are being performed and adjusts the 

confidence intervals accordingly. 

As one can see by reviewing the graph above, every confidence interval contains zero 

and therefore we can’t reliably conclude that there is a difference between any of the 

settling cell data sets. The cell that appears closest to being distinguished is cell AALB 

cell 7.4. However, earth activity caused a large portion of the data to be ignored, which 

lowered the sample size for this cell and could have had some effect upon the analyses. 

In addition to this, the large number of comparisons required in conjunction with the 

D-59
multiple comparison approach, makes it very difficult for the test to show a significant 

difference. 

Tukey contrasts 

Cell FLB 5.1B-Cell FLB 5.1A

Cell FLB 5.2A-Cell FLB 5.1A

Cell FLB 5.2B-Cell FLB 5.1A

Cell Control 7.3A-Cell FLB 5.1A

Cell Control 7.3B-Cell FLB 5.1A

Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell FLB 5.1A

Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell FLB 5.1A

Cell FLB 5.2A-Cell FLB 5.1B 

Cell FLB 5.2B-Cell FLB 5.1B

Cell Control 7.3A-Cell FLB 5.1B

Cell Control 7.3B-Cell FLB 5.1B

Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell FLB 5.1B 

Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell FLB 5.1B 

Cell FLB 5.2B-Cell FLB 5.2A

Cell Control 7.3A-Cell FLB 5.2A

Cell Control 7.3B-Cell FLB 5.2A

Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell FLB 5.2A 

Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell FLB 5.2A 

Cell Control 7.3A-Cell FLB 5.2B 

Cell Control 7.3B-Cell FLB 5.2B 

Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell FLB 5.2B

Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell FLB 5.2B

Cell Control 7.3B-Cell Control 7.3A

Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell Control 7.3A

Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell Control 7.3A

Cell AALB 7.4A-Cell Control 7.3B 

Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell Control 7.3B 

Cell AALB 7.4B-Cell AALB 7.4A ( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

-2 -1 0 1 2 

95 % two-sided confidence intervals 

Since this procedure depends upon the normality of each individual data set, we will also 

include some simple non-parametric pair-wise comparisons, which do not necessarily 

account for the multiple comparisons. In lieu of being a multiple comparison procedure, 

they should still provide additional evidence for the analysis. In particular, the Wilcoxon 

Rank Sum Test tests for a difference between the locations of two similarly shaped 

distributions. The null hypothesis is that the two variables, for instance FLB cell 5.1B 

and FLB cell 5.1A, have the same unspecified probability distribution. The alternative is 

that one variable tends to be larger/(smaller) than the other. A common way to visualize 

this is that one variable’s distribution is the same as the other except shifted to the left 

(smaller) or right (larger). Therefore, an assumption of the test is that both variables’ 

distributions are similarly shaped, which can’t be stated conclusively here and upon 

further review might even be stated as unlikely. Nevertheless, it provides a bit more 

support for what we see in the boxplots. 

D-60
Cell Difference 

FLB cell 5.1B-FLB cell 5.1A 

FLB cell 5.2A-FLB cell 5.1A 

FLB cell 5.2B-FLB cell 5.1A 

Control cell 7.3A-FLB cell 5.1A 

Control cell 7.3B-FLB cell 5.1A 

AALB cell 7.4A-FLB cell 5.1A 

AALB cell 7.4B-FLB cell 5.1A 

FLB cell 5.2A-FLB cell 5.1B 

FLB cell 5.2B-FLB cell 5.1B 

Control cell 7.3A-FLB cell 5.1B 

Control cell 7.3B-FLB cell 5.1B 

AALB cell 7.4A-FLB cell 5.1B 

AALB cell 7.4B-FLB cell 5.1B 

FLB cell 5.2B-FLB cell 5.2A 

Control cell 7.3A-FLB cell 5.2A 

Control cell 7.3B-FLB cell 5.2A 

AALB cell 7.4A-FLB cell 5.2A 

AALB cell 7.4B-FLB cell 5.2A 

Control cell 7.3A-FLB cell 5.2B 

Control cell 7.3B-FLB cell 5.2B 

AALB cell 7.4A-FLB cell 5.2B 

AALB cell 7.4B-FLB cell 5.2B 

 Individual Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests 

p-value 

0.631

0.717

0.016 The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests seem to pull 

0.323 out AALB cell 7.4B in particular as one with 0.296 increased settling differences, relative to the 0.131 others. However, there is a large difference in 0.014 running these non-parametric tests 0.527 

0.006 individually (not as a multiple comparison) 

and the confidence level of the overall set of 0.349

0.057 comparisons would be much lower than that

0.199 of the Tukey multiple comparison test. This

0.013 is far from conclusive evidence, however,

0.166 qualitatively with all evidence combined, it

0.554 does appear that AALB cell 7.4B does exhibit

0.501 larger settling values in general.

0.125

0.012 

0.907

0.291

0.007

0.000

Control cell 7.3B-Control cell 7.3A 0.445 

AALB cell 7.4A-Control cell 7.3A 0.138 

AALB cell 7.4B-Control cell 7.3A 0.026 

AALB cell 7.4A-Control cell 7.3B 0.102 

AALB cell 7.4B-Control cell 7.3B 0.021 

AALB cell 7.4B-AALB cell 7.4A 0.949 

D-61
OUTER LOOP LANDFILL BIOREACTOR DATA 

This document summarizes the data that Neptune has received to date from WMI and/or 

EPA/NRMRL. The data fall into 4 groups which might be labeled: 

1. Leachate (monthly and quarterly data collected from all disposal cells) 

2. Solids (weekly data collected from the control and FLB cells) 

3. Landfill Gas (quarterly data collected from the control and FLB cells) 

4. Field Gas (weekly data collected from the control and FLB cells) 

The disposal cells have been labeled somewhat differently in the data files received. We 

will use the following denotation: 

A. 73A and 73B – two control disposal cells 

B. 74A and 74B – two AALB treatment disposal cells 

C. 51A, 5 S-, 52A, 52B – four FLB treatment disposal cells 

1. The leachate data are labeled this way with an “L01” extension. 

2. The solids data are labeled this way for the control disposal cells with extensions 

that identify specific locations (e.g., 7.3A-1). For the FLB treatment cells, the 

solids data have been labeled 5N-x and 5S-x indicating north and south disposal 

cells and with x denoting a specific location. The locations also indicate which 

FLB treatment disposal cell applies: x in the range 1-6 for 5N implies 52B, in the 

range 21-26 for 5N implies 52A; x in the range 1-6 for 5S implies 51A, in the 

range 21-26 for 5S implies 5 S-. Locations for the solids data have been 

provided for the FLB treatment and control cells in terms of (x,y) coordinates in 

hard copy form and have been entered electronically into the database. 

3. The landfill gas data are labeled 73A and 73B for the control cells. For the FLB 

treatment cells the labels are 51 and 52, implying that landfill gas data were not 

collected on a more refined level (e.g., 51A and 5 S- separately), with an 

extension of “G01”. 

4. The field gas data are labeled 73A and 73B for the control cells. For the FLB 

treatment cells the labels are 51 and 52, implying that landfill gas data were not 

collected on a more refined level (e.g., 51A and 5 S- separately), with an 

extension of “G01” or “G02”. 

One other attribute of the data that will be relevant for data analysis is the temporal 

information. Different data were collected at different times and with different 

periodicity, as follows: 

D-62
1. The leachate data were provided in 27 data files that cover the following dates, 

with the corresponding number of data rows in each file: 

6/1/01 – (615) 6/25/01 – (801) 6/26/01 – (615)

7/11/01 – (1042) 7/12/01 – (188) 11/15/01 – (1217)

12/17/01 – (36) 12/18/01 – (86) 1/10/02 – (120)

2/11/02 – (120) 3/19/02 – (752) 3/20/02 – (1067)

4/11/02 – (106) 4/12/02 – (24) 5/13/02 – (63)

5/14/02 – (61) 6/10/02 – (1603) 7/16/02 – (120)

8/7/02 – (128) 9/16/02 – (1553) 10/21/02 – (128)

11/14/02 – (128) 12/16/02 – (1408) 1/22/03 – (113)

2/12/2003 – (121) 3/18/03 – (1552) 4/10/03 – (120)

The number of data points in each data set depends on the number of parameters 

measured. The leachate data are recorded monthly for some parameters and quarterly for 

many more. Hence, when the number of data rows is around 1,000, the data include 

quarterly results (7/11/01, 11/15/01, 3/20/02, 6/10/02, 9/16/02, 12/16/02, and 3/18/03). 

The data from June 2001 represent the first rounds of data collected. It appears as though 

the data collection regime has stabilized since that time, and that more recent data have 

been collected on a more regular schedule. 

2. The solids data are available for 4 days a week in each full week of the month of 

June 2000. In general, only one or two of those days were used to sample solids 

from a given location in a given disposal cell (for example, 18 samples were taken 

from location 73A-1 on 6/6/00, 6 samples were taken from 5N21 on 6/22/00). 

Samples were taken at each 3 inch depth interval, presumably to the bottom of the 

samples location bore hole. In total, 171 data points are available from 25 

locations from the FLB treatment and control disposal cells. 

3. The landfill gas data have been collected quarterly in the following months or 

dates (with number of data rows in parentheses): 

12/19/01 – (178) 3/21/02 – (453) 6/13/02- 6/28/02 – (466) 

Only a few samples have been collected in each case (e.g., 2 samples on 12/19/02, 

6 samples on 3/21/02, and 6 samples on June 2002). 

4. The field gas data have been collected approximately weekly since 11/16/01 for 

the FLB treatment disposal cell, and from 1/10/02 for the control disposal cell. 

For the control cells approximately 6 samples are included weekly for each cell 

(73A and 73B). There are a total of 687 data rows for this cell. For the FLB 

treatment disposal cells approximately 3 samples are included weekly for cell 51 

and again for cell 52. There are a total of 207 and 208 data rows for cell 51 and 

for cell 52, respectively. 

D-63
APPENDIX E 

SURFACE EMISSIONS, 

REMOTE MONITORING STUDIES 
SURFACE EMISSIONS, REMOTE MONITORING STUDIES

Prepared for: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division 

Air Pollution Branch 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Contract No. 68-C99-201 

Work Assignment No. 4-003 

Project No. RN992014.0003 

Prepared by: 

ARCADIS-Geraghty and Miller 

P.O. Box 13109

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 

September 16, 2003 
CONTENTS 

Page 

1. Optical Remote Sensing and Overview of Calculation of Emission Flux.......................E-2

1.1 Surface Radial Plume Mapping............................................................................E-4

1.2 Vertical Scanning.................................................................................................E-5

1.3 Virtual Flux Box...................................................................................................E-8

2. Data Quality Objectives and Criteria .............................................................................E-11

3. Round 1 D-14

3.1 Field Activities and Data Collection..................................................................E-14

3.1.1 As-Built Area .........................................................................................E-14

3.1.3 Control Area...........................................................................................E-18

3.1.4 Biocover Area ........................................................................................E-18

3.1.5 Compost Area.........................................................................................E-19

3.2 Data Analysis and Results..................................................................................E-20

3.2.1 As-Built Area .........................................................................................E-21

3.2.2 Retrofit Area...........................................................................................E-24

3.2.3 Control Area...........................................................................................E-27

3.2.4 Biocover Area ........................................................................................E-28

3.2.5 Compost Area.........................................................................................E-31

3.2.6 Upwind Measurements...........................................................................E-31

3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Control..................................................................E-33

3.3.1 Assessment of DQI Goals ......................................................................E-33

3.3.2 Meteorological/Theodolite Data ............................................................E-33

3.3.3 OP-FTIR Measurements ........................................................................E-34

3.3.4 Problems Encountered and Data Limitations.........................................E-39

4 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................

5 References E-41

Appendices 

A Site Configurations 

B Methane, Ammonia, and VOC Concentrations 

CONTENTS (Continued) 

E-ii 
TABLES

Table 

No. Page 

1 DQI Goals for Critical Measurements ...........................................................................E-11

2 Detection Limits for Target Compounds .......................................................................E-12

3 Schedule of ORS Measurements for Round 1 ...............................................................E-14

4 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and

Wind Direction for the As-Built Area................................................................E-21

5 Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane

For As-Built Vertical Scan-Run 1......................................................................E-23

6 Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs for As-Built Vertical

Scan-Run 2 .........................................................................................................E-23

7 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and

Wind Direction for the Retrofit North Area.......................................................E-25

8 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and

Wind Direction for the Retrofit South Area.......................................................E-26

9 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and

Wind Direction for the Background Vertical Scan of the Control Area............E-27

10. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane

For Control Area Vertical Scan-Run 1...............................................................E-29

11. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of NMOCs for Control Area

Vertical Scan-Run 2 ...........................................................................................E-29

12. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind

Direction for the Downwind Vertical Scan of the Biocover Area .....................E-30

13 Average Calculated Methane Flux (g/s) Found at Each Survey Area ...........................E-40

FIGURES 

Figure 

No. Page 

1 Waste Management, Inc. Outer Loop Facility Louisville, KY........................................E-3

2 Example of a Typical Radial Scanning Configuration.....................................................E-6

3 Example Vertical Scanning Configuration......................................................................E-9

4 Example of Virtual Flux Box Configuration..................................................................E-10

5 Map of As-Built Area showing Location of Vertical Plane, Surface Scanning,

Background Measurements, and possible “Hot Spot” .......................................E-15

6 Map of Retrofit Area (North and South) showing Location of Vertical Planes and

Background Measurements................................................................................E-16

CONTENTS (Continued) 

E-iii 
FIGURES

Figure 

No. Page 

7. Map of Retrofit Area (North and South) showing Location of Mirrors for Radial

Scanning and Gas Extraction Pipes....................................................................E-17

8. Map of Control Area showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background

Measurements.....................................................................................................E-18

9. Map of Biocover Area showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background

Measurements.....................................................................................................E-19

10. Map of Compost Area showing Location of Vertical Planes and Location of

Background Measurements................................................................................E-20

11. Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Moving Average of Loops

1 to 4 of the As-Built Vertical Scanning Survey................................................E-22

12. Reconstructed Methane Concentrations (in ppm) for the Retrofit North and

South Areas........................................................................................................E-24

13 Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Moving Average of Loops

1 to 4 of the Retrofit North Vertical Scanning Survey.......................................E-26

14 Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Moving Average of Loops

5 to 8 of the Retrofit North Vertical Scanning Survey.......................................E-27

15 Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Control Area Vertical

Scanning Survey.................................................................................................E-28

16. Reconstructed Average Methane Plume from the Moving Average of Loops

20 to 23 of the Biocover Vertical Scanning Survey...........................................E-31

17. Time Series of Calculated Methane Flux vs. Measured Wind Direction for the

Biocover (using moving average of 4 loops).....................................................E-32

18. Calculated Average Methane Flux and Average CCF from the Retrofit

South Vertical Scanning.....................................................................................E-36

19. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average

CCF for the Retrofit North Area Radial Scanning Survey.................................E-37

20. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and the Average

CCF for the Retrofit South Area Radial Scanning Survey.................................E-38

E-iv 
Fugitive Gas Emission Measurements

Landfill gas emissions have been found to be a concern to human health and the environment 

due to the explosive potential of the gas, emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), emissions of methane that contribute to climate change, and 

odor nuisance associated with landfill gas. Landfills emit more than 100 nonmethane organic 

compounds (NMOCs) (EPA 1997 a and b). The majority of the NMOCs are VOCs which 

contribute to urban smog. Over thirty of the landfill gas NMOCs are classified as HAPs (EPA 

2003). As a result, landfills are listed as a source as part of the Urban Air Toxic Strategy. 

Due to the concerns for human health and the environment, Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations 

have been promulgated that require landfill gas collection and control at landfills that (1) contain 

at least 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) or 2.5 million cubic meters of waste and (2) emit 50 Mg per 

year or more of NMOCs (EPA, 1998) The landfill evaluated in this study has gas collection and 

control and a portion of the gas is used at a near-by industrial plant as boiler fuel (offsetting 

fossil fuel). The measurements presented in this section are part of a larger effect by EPA’s 

Office of Research and Development to obtain necessary data needed to update the existing set 

of landfill gas emissions factors (Thorneloe, 2003). These data will also be used to update the 

existing set of landfill gas emission factors and as input to the evaluation of residual risk from 

MSW landfills as required by CAA Section 112 (f). 

Fugitive gas emissions are those emissions that are not captured for collection and control. 

Differences in how a site may be operated can contribute to the level of fugitive emissions. 

Optical remote sensing (ORS) was used to evaluate fugitive gas emissions for the retrofit and asbuilt bioreactors. Fugitive gas emissions have been identified as a potential concern because of 

the rapid increase in emissions when wet or bioreactor landfills are operated. The data collected 

through these field test measurements will help to evaluate these concerns and hopefully provide 

needed data to compare emissions from the as-built and retrofit bioreactors to the control site. 

Measurements were also conducted at the biocover units (where compost is used as a cover 

material) and compost facility. 

At least 3 rounds of fugitive emissions testing are being conducted at this site to help evaluate 

any increase or decrease in emissions from bioreactors (as compared to conventional landfilling 

practice). This section provides the results from the first round of testing. The second and third 

rounds will be completed by the fall of 2003 with results available by spring of 2004. The data 

resulting from these field tests will be used along with other available data from operating 

bioreactors to update existing EPA emissions factors. Current factors do not consider operation 

under wet or bioreactor conditions. Sites that are not subject to CAA regulations either due to 

their size or mass emission rate are not required by federal regulations to collect and control 

landfill gas emissions. There has been a marked increased in interest and operation of landfills 

with leachate recirculation and other liquid additions. Many of these sites do not have gas 

collection and control. Data from this site will help to provide data needed to estimate emissions 

at sites without controls in place and determine what level of fugitives may exist for this type of 

operation. 

Data from this site will also be used in EPA’s MSW Decision Support Tool (DST) to quantify 

total emissions for both conventional and bioreactor operations to help provide perspective of the 

total emissions released to the environment over the length of time that emissions are released. 

E-1
(Thorneloe, 2003) Offsets for landfill gas energy utilization will be accounted for along with 

emissions associated with the design, construction, operation, and monitoring of the landfill. The 

result will be an evaluation of the life-cycle environmental tradeoffs to compare wet landfills 

versus conventional landfills. 

Figure 1 identifies each of the areas included in this study. The following tasks were conducted 

in September 2002 for the as-built and retrofit bioreactors and the control, bio-cover, and 

composting facility: 

� Conduct background measurements using the bistatic open path-Fourier Transform Infrared 

Spectroscopy (OP-FTIR). 

� Collect OP-FTIR data in order to identify major emissions hot spots by generating surface concentration 

maps in the horizontal plane using OP-FTIR spectrometer; 

� Conduct vertical scans to determine the emission fluxes of detectable compounds downwind from major 

hot spots 

� Collect ancillary data needed for calculating mass emissions rates for pollutants of concern including 

methane, VOCs, and HAPs. Data for ammonia emissions were collected for the compost facility and 

other areas. 

� The following sections present an overview of: 

1. Optical remote sensing and calculation of emission flux; 

2. Data quality objectives and criteria; 

3. Round 1 field activities and data collection/analysis; 

4. Data Quality Assurance and Control; and 

5. Conclusions. 

Optical Remote Sensing and Overview of Calculation of Emission Flux 

The application of optical remote sensing (ORS) to quantify fugitive gas emissions has seen 

dramatic improvements over the last year partly due to the partnership between EPA’s Emissions 

Measurement Center and the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL). In 

addition, EPA’s Environmental Technology Initiative has tested different instrument types to 

provide additional validation of new ORS instruments. Because of the advancements made with 

this technology, the Agency recommends that this be used for evaluating large area sources. 

ASTM procedures are available for application of open-path Fourier Transform Infrared (OPFTIR) (ASTM E 1865-97, Re-approved 2002). The EPA’s Emissions Measurement Center is 

working to develop an EPA test method for ORS to be available by fall 2004. 

E-2
Retrofit 

Area 

Compost 

Area 

Biocover 

Area 

Built 

North 

Control 

Area 

AsFigure 1. Waste Management, Inc. Outer Loop Facility Louisville, KY 

E-3
The ORS improvements include an innovative method [Yost and Hashmonay, 2003] designed to 

obtain detailed spatial information from path-integrated ORD measurements by the use of 

optimization algorithms. The method uses a novel configuration of non-overlapping radial beam 

geometry to map the concentration distributions in a plane. This method, Radial Plume Mapping 

(RPM), is also applied to the vertical plane, downwind from the area source to map the 

crosswind and vertical profiles of a plume. The flux rate is calculated using wind data and other 

meteorological data. Measurements of any background emissions are also accounted for in these 

calculations through use of a bistatic Open-Path Fourier Transform Infra-red (OP-FTIR) 

instrument which can accurately measure the concentrations of a multitude of infrared absorbing 

gaseous chemicals with high temporal resolution. The chemical vapor, emitted from an emission 

source, forms a plume, which is carried by the wind across the multiple infrared beams. The 

beam measurements avoid some of the uncertainties that are inherent in the traditional point 

measurements. More information on these methods can be found in Hashmonay and Yost 

[1999B], and Hashmonay et al. [1999]. 

The OP-FTIR Spectrometer combined with the RPM method is designed for both fence-line 

monitoring applications, and real-time, on-site, remediation monitoring and source 

characterization. The OP-FTIR can be operated in either a monostatic, or bistatic configuration. 

In the monostatic configuration, an infrared light beam, modulated by a Michelson 

interferometer is transmitted from a single telescope to a retro reflector (mirror) target, which is 

usually set up at a range of 100 to 500 meters. The returned light signal is received by the single 

telescope and directed to a detector. The light is absorbed by the molecules in the beam path as 

the light propagates to the retro reflector and again as the light is reflected back to the analyzer. 

Thus, the round-trip path of the light doubles the chemical absorption signal. 

In the bistatic configuration, the OP-FTIR detector, interferometer, and receiving optics are set 

up at one end of the path length being surveyed, and an infrared light source is set up at the other 

end of the path length. Generally, the path length is between 100 to 300 meters. In this 

configuration, light is absorbed by gas molecules as the light travels from the infrared source to 

the detector (once through the plume). The use of retro reflectors is not required when operating 

a bistatic OP-FTIR. A theodolite is used to make the survey measurement of the azimuth and 

elevation angles and the radial distances to the retro reflectors, relative to the OP-FTIR sensor. 

Surface Radial Plume Mapping 

This technique yields information on the two-dimensional distribution of the concentrations in 

the form of chemical-concentration contour maps (Hashmonay et al., 1999; Wu et al., 1999; 

Hashmonay et al., 2002). Horizontal radial scanning was performed with the ORS beams located 

as close to the ground as practical. This enhances the ability to detect minor constituents emitted 

from the ground, since the emitted plumes dilute significantly at higher levels above the ground. 

The survey area is divided into a Cartesian grid of ‘n’ times ‘m’ rectangular cells. A retro 

reflector is located in each of these cells and the OP-FTIR sensor scans to each of these retro 

reflectors, dwelling on each for a set measurement-time (30 seconds was used for this study). 

The system scans to the retro reflectors in the order of either increasing or decreasing azimuth 

angle. The path-integrated concentrations measured at each retro reflector are averaged over a 

several scanning cycles to produce time-averagedconcentration maps. Meteorological 

measurements were made concurrent to the scanning measurements. 

For the first stage of reconstructing the average cell concentrations, an iterative algebraic 

deconvolution algorithm is used. The path-integrated concentration (PIC), as a function of the 

field of concentration, is given by: 

E-4
-------------- (1) PIC k =� K km cm 

m 

where K is a Kernel matrix that incorporates the specific beam geometry with the cell 

dimensions; k is the number index for the beam paths and m is the number index for the cells; 

and c is the average concentration in the mth cell. Each value in the Kernel matrix K is the length 

of the kth beam in the mth cell; therefore, the matrix is specific to the beam geometry. To solve for 

the average concentrations (one for each cell) the Non Negative Least Squares (NNLS) was 

applied. The NNLS is similar to a classical least square optimization algorithm, but is 

constrained to provide the best fit of non-negative values. The NNLS algorithm was tested and 

compared to the relaxation multiplicative algebraic reconstruction technique (MART) program 

previously developed and used. Both algorithms gave very similar results when reached to the 

same maximal level of fit between the predicted PIC and the observed PIC but the NNLS was 

much faster. Therefore, the NNLS algorithm will be applied in this study. This iterative 

procedure proceeds until the difference of the criteria parameter between sequential steps drops 

below a very small threshold value (tolerance). Multiplying the resulted vertical vector of 

averaged concentration by the matrix K, yields the end vector of predicted PIC data. 

The second stage of the plume reconstruction is interpolation among the nine points, providing a 

peak concentration not limited only to the center of the cells. We will use the triangle-based 

cubic interpolation procedure. To extrapolate data values beyond the peripheral cell centers and 

within the rectangle measurement domain, we will assign the concentration of each corner cell to 

the corresponding corner of the domain. 

Figure 2 represents a typical horizontal RPM configuration. In this particular case, n = m = 3. 

The orange lines define the nine cells in the matrix. The blue lines represent the 9 optical paths, 

each terminating at a retroreflector (Hashmonay et al., 2002). The red spot represents a point 

source. The enclosed areas represent the calculated plume, transported downwind by the wind. 

The numbers associated with the contour lines (isopleths) are the determined values for the 

concentrations. 

Vertical Scanning 

The RPM method maps the concentrations in the plane of the measurement. By scanning in a 

vertical plane downwind from an area source, plume concentration profiles can be obtained, and 

plane-integrated concentrations can be calculated. The Smooth Beam Function Minimization 

(SBFM) reconstruction approach is used with a two-dimensional smooth basis function 

(bivariate Gaussian) in order to reconstruct the smoothed mass equivalent concentration map. 

The smoothed mass equivalent concentration map is reconstructed using Matlab (MathWorks). 

In the SBFM approach, a smooth basis function is assumed to describe the distribution of 

concentrations, and the search is for the unknown parameters of the basis function. Since our 

interest is in the plane integrated concentration and not the exact map of concentrations in the 

plane, we fit only one smoothed basis function (one bivariate Gaussian) to reconstruct the 

smoothed map. 

E-5
Figure 2. Example of a Typical Radial Scanning Configuration 

E-6
� � � � � � �

� �

� � �

� �

�

�

� � �

�

�

� ��

� �

� � � � 

�

� � 

�

However, this methodology does not assume that the true distribution of concentration in the 

vertical plane is a bivariate Gaussian. Earlier computational studies showed that one might fit a 

single bivariate Gaussian function to many kinds of skewed distribu-tions and still retrieve a 

reasonably good estimate of the plane-integrated concentration. The fit of a single bivariate 

Gaussian function to a multiple mode distribution was also examined and found that the 

reconstructed plane integrated concentration conserved fairly well the test input plane integrated 

concentration. 

In each iterative step of the SBFM search procedure, the measured PIC values are compared with 

assumed PIC values, calculated from the new set of parameters. In order to compute the assumed 

PIC values, the basis function is integrated along the beam path’s direction and path-length. 

In our beam geometry, it is convenient to express the smooth basis function G in polar 

coordinates r and è. 

( )( ) ø (r Ø ) ( ) 2 2r r cosq-my A 1 cosq-my 12 r sinq-mz r sinq-mz Œ 

Œ

o

G r ( , ) q = exp - - + œ

21 s s 

The bivariate Gaussian has six unknown independent parameters: 

� A - normalizing coefficient which adjusts for the peak value of the bivariate surface 

� ñ12 - correlation coefficient which defines the direction of the distribution-independent 

variations in relation to the Cartesian directions y and z (ñ12=0 means that the distribution 

variations overlap the Cartesian coordinates) 

� my and mz - peak locations in Cartesian coordinates 

( -

� and óy and óz - standard deviations in Cartesian coordinates. To fit the unknown parameters

of the smooth basis function to the PIC data, one has to define an error function for

minimization.

The Sum of Squared Errors (SSE) function is defined in our study as: 

ps s 1 ) y z r12 - 2 2 2

2 2 r s s 12 œ

ß y y z z 

2 

SSE A

Where PIC represents the measured PIC values and the index i is for the different beams. The 

( 

SSE function is minimized using an iterative minimization procedure, such as the Simplex 

method, to solve for the unknown parameters. These calculations are performed using MatLab 

(MathWorks). 

To obtain the plane-integrated concentration, we fit a bivariate Gaussian surface to match the 

volume under the underlying true concentration distribution surface. This volume is highly 

conserved in the fitting procedure, which emphasizes agreement over the five path integrals. Six 

independent beam paths are sufficient to determine one bivariate Gaussian that has six 

independent unknown parameters. This can be reduced to four setting the setting the correlation 

parameter ñ12 equal to zero. This assumes that the reconstructed bivariate 

Gaussian is limited only to changes in the vertical and crosswind directions. In this case the 

above equation reduces to: 

) r

i 

, r s s , m m, , , = PIC - (rG ,q , A, , r m , m , , ) s s dr 12 y z y z i i 12 y z y z Ł ł i 0 

A 1 Ø(r cosq - m )

2

(r sin q - )

2 

m ø y rG ,( q) = exp - +

2 Œ

Œo s

z œ 

ßœ 2 2 2 psy z 

s y sz 

E-7 

2 
One also can fix the peak location in the vertical direction to the ground level when ground level 

emissions are known to exist, as in our field experiment. However, in this methodology, there is 

no requirement to apply a priori information on the source location and configuration. 

Once the parameters of the function were found for a specific run, the concentration values are 

calculated for every square elementary unit in a vertical domain. These values are integrated 

incorporating wind speed data at each height level to compute the flux. In this stage, the 

concentration values are converted from parts per million by volume to grams per cubic meter, 

considering the molecular weight of the target gas and ambient temperature. The flux is 

calculated in grams per second, using wind speed data in meters per second. The flux leads 

directly to a determination of the emission rate (Hashmonay et al., 1998; Hashmonay and Yost, 

1999A, Hashmonay et al., 2001). Thus, vertical scan leads to a direct measurement-based 

determination of the upwind source emission rate. 

The Concordance Correlation Factor (CCF) is used to represent the level of fit for the 

reconstruction in the path-integrated domain (predicted vs. observed PIC). The CCF is similar to 

the Pearson correlation coefficient, but is adjusted to account for shifts in location and scale. 

Like the Pearson correlation, CCF values are bounded between -1 and 1, yet the CCF can never 

exceed the absolute value of the Pearson correlation factor. For example, the CCF will be equal 

to the Pearson correlation when the linear regression line intercepts the ordinate at 0, its slope 

equals 1. Its absolute value will be lower than the Pearson correlation when the above conditions 

are not met. For the purposes of this report, the closer the CCF value is to 1, the better the fit for 

the reconstruction in the path-integrated domain. 

Figure 3 shows a schematic of the experimental setup used for vertical scanning. Several retro 

reflectors are placed in various locations on a vertical plane in-line with the scanning OP FTIR. 

The location of the vertical plane is selected so that it intersects the mean wind direction close to 

perpendicular as practical. 

Virtual Flux Box 

In concert with wind direction and speed data, the virtual flux box is an alternative ORS 

technique that yields emission fluxes. This technique is not as well developed as the vertical 

scanning technique. Conceptually, the virtual flux box may be regarded as three vertical planes 

(two beams per plane) such that 

E-8
Figure 3. Example Vertical Scanning Configuration 

the end points define the corners of the area under test. The virtual flux box was used at the 

Retrofit Area as backup data in case the vertical scanning configuration did not yield acceptable 

results (unfavorable wind directions). 

Figure 4 illustrates the experimental setup for establishing a virtual flux box. This figure 

represents the installation of the scanning OP-FTIR in a virtual flux box configuration at an 

elevated site. The instrument, represented by the circle, is set up in the “southeast” corner. It 

scans to the retroreflectors (small square symbols) at six of the other seven corners of the virtual 

cubical box. The red lines represent the optical paths. By analogy to the vertical scanning 

configuration described previously, three small vertical planes are defined. Application of the 

SBFM function using a bivariate Gaussian model, will calculate the plume’s size. Emission 

fluxes are determined from the vertical-plane area-integrated concentration multiplied by the 

wind speed. 

E-9
Figure 4. Example of Virtual Flux Box configuration 

E-10
Data Quality Objectives and Criteria 

Data quality objectives (DQOs) were developed using EPA’s DQO Process (described in EPA 

QA/G-4, Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process) to clarify study objectives, define 

the appropriate type of data, and specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be 

used as the basis for establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions. 

DQOs define the performance criteria that limit the probabilities of making decision errors by 

considering the purpose of collecting the data, defining the appropriate type of data needed, and 

specifying tolerable probabilities of making decision errors. 

Quantitative objectives are established for critical measurements using the data quality indicators 

of accuracy, precision, and completeness. The acceptance criteria for these data quality 

indicators (DQI) are summarized in Table 1. Accuracy of measurement parameters is determined 

by comparing a measured value to a known standard. Values must be within the listed tolerance 

to be considered acceptable. Accuracy can also be measured by calculating the % bias of a 

measured value to that of a true value. 

Precision is evaluated by making replicate measurements of the same parameter and by assessing 

the variations of the results. Replicate measurements are expected to fall within the tolerances 

shown in Table 1. Completeness is expressed as a percentage of the number of valid 

measurements compared to the total number of measurements taken. 

Estimated minimum detection limits, by compound, are given in Table 2. It is important to note 

that the values listed in Table 2 are considered approximate. Minimum detection limits can vary 

based on atmospheric conditions. Minimum detection levels for each absorbance spectrum are 

determined by calculating the root mean square (RMS) absorbance noise in the spectral region of 

the target absorption feature. The minimum detection level is the absorbance signal (of the target 

compound) that is five times the RMS noise level, using a reference spectrum acquired for a 

known concentration of the target compound. 

Table 1. DQI Goals for Critical Measurements 

Measurement 

Parameter 

Sampling 

Method(s) 

Analysis 

Method Accuracy Precision % Complete 

Wind direction N/A Magnetic compass ±5o ±5o 90% 

with vane tolerance 

Wind speed N/A Heavy duty wind ±0.8 m/s ± 0.8 m/s 90% 

cup set 

Optical path-length N/A Theodolite ±1m ± 1 m 100% 

Mid-IR absorbance N/A FTIR ±10% ± 10% 90% 

Elemental Hg N/A Lumex ±20% ±20% 90% 

E-11 
Table 2. Detection Limits for Target Compounds 

Est. Detect. Limit AP-42 Value ­

Compound Sampling/Analytical 

Method 

for Path Length = 

100m, 1 min Ave. 

Conc in raw 

landfill gas 

(ppmv) (ppmv) 

Butane FTIR 0.006 5.03 

Carbonyl sulfide FTIR 0.006 0.49 

Chloromethane FTIR 0.012 1.21 

Dichlorodifluoromethane FTIR 0.004 15.7 

Dichlorofluoromethane FTIR N/A 2.62 

Ethane FTIR 0.010 889 

Ethyl chloride FTIR 0.004 1.25 

Fluorotrichloromethane FTIR 0.004 0.76 

Methane FTIR 0.024 N/A 

Pentane FTIR 0.008 3.29 

Propane FTIR 0.008 11.1 

1,3-Butadiene FTIR 0.012 N/A 

Acetone FTIR 0.024 7.01 

Acrylonitrile FTIR 0.010 6.33 

Benzene FTIR 0.040 N/A 

Bromodichloromethane FTIR N/A 3.13 

Carbon disulfide FTIR 0.028 0.58 

Carbon tetrachloride FTIR 0.008 0.004 

Chlorobenzene FTIR 0.040 0.25 

Chloroform FTIR 0.012 0.03 

Dimethyl sulfide FTIR 0.018 7.82 

Ethyl mercaptan FTIR N/A 2.28 

Ethylene dibromide FTIR 0.006 0.001 

Ethylene dichloride FTIR 0.030 0.41 

Hexane FTIR 0.006 6.57 

Methyl chloroform FTIR 0.006 N/A 

Methyl isobutyl ketone FTIR 0.040 1.87 

Methylene chloride FTIR 0.014 14.3 

Propylene dichloride FTIR 0.014 0.18 

t-1,2-Dichloroethene FTIR N/A 2.84 

Tetrachloroethene FTIR 0.004 3.73 

Toluene FTIR 0.040 N/A 

Trichlorethylene FTIR 0.004 2.82 

Vinyl chloride FTIR 0.010 7.34 

Vinylidene chloride FTIR 0.014 0.20 

Ethanol FTIR 0.006 27.2 

Methyl ethyl ketone FTIR 0.030 7.09 

E-12
Est. Detect. Limit AP-42 Value ­

Compound Sampling/Analytical 

Method 

for Path Length = 

100m, 1 min Ave. 

(ppmv) 

Conc in raw 

landfill gas 

(ppmv) 

2-Propanol FTIR 0.006 50.1 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene FTIR 0.012 0.21 

Ethyl benzene FTIR 0.060 4.61 

Xylenes FTIR 0.030 12.1 

Hydrogen sulfide FTIR 6.0 35.5 

Methyl mercaptan FTIR 0.060 2.49 

Acetaldehyde FTIR 0.010 N/A 

Formaldehyde FTIR 0.006 N/A 

*N/A indicates that estimated minimum detection levels were not available for a particular compound. 

*The AP-42 values represent an average concentration of different pollutants in the raw landfill gas. This is not 

comparable to the detection limits for the OP-FTIR, which is an average value for a path length of 100 meters 

across the surface of the area source being evaluated. However, it does provide an indication of the types of 

pollutants and range of concentrations associated with landfill gas emissions in comparison to the detection limits 

of the OP-FTIR. 

E-13
Round 1 

Field Activities and Data Collection 

Field-testing was conducted as indicated in Table 3 during September of 2002. Data analysis 

was performed in the months of October 2002 through January 2003. 

Magnifications of the areas identified in Figure 1 are provided for each field test location. Within 

these figures, circles indicate the locations of the bistatic instrument and source. The location of 

the scanner plus monostatic FTIR is indicated by a circle, and the location of the scissors jack is 

indicated by the square. 

Theodolite measurements of the standard distance, and horizontal and vertical position of each 

retroreflector (mirror) were taken in each survey area. These measurements are presented in 

Tables A-1 to A-5 of Appendix A. 

As-Built Area 

Figure 5 shows the optical configurations used at the As-Built Area. Four surface non-scanning 

experiments were performed prior to the vertical scan due to limited access time at this site (we 

would have preferred to conduct a full radial scan). The results were used to determine 

concentrations of methane and VOCs but there was not enough data to construct a concentration 

contour map. 

The vertical scanning configuration was set up along the southern boundary of the As-Built Area 

(see Figure 5), since the observed mean wind was from the northeast. Concurrent meteorological 

data was collected during these tests. Additionally, the bistatic FTIR instrument was operated 

along the western boundary of the AALB to collect background concentration data, since the 

prevailing wind direction was initially from the west-northwest. 

Table 3. Schedule of ORS Measurements for Round 1 

Date Day of Week Detail of Work Performed 

Sept 5 Thursday Travel to site 

Sept 6 Friday AM-Arrive at site 

PM-Begin Survey/Set-up Work 

Sept 7 Saturday Vertical Scanning of Compost Area 

Sept 8 Sunday Radial and Vertical Scanning of As-Built Area 

Sept 9 Monday Vertical Scanning of Biocover Area 

Sept 10 Tuesday Vertical Scanning of Control Area 

Sept 11 Wednesday Radial Scanning of Retrofit Area 

Sept 12 Thursday Vertical Scanning of Retrofit Area 

Sept 13 Friday AM-Virtual Flux Box Scanning of Retrofit Area 

PM-Travel from site 

E-14 
mean wind 

direction 

location of 

hot spot 

North 

location of 

monostatic 

optical path 

location of 

bistatic path 

Figure 5. Map of As-Built Area showing Location of Vertical Plane, Surface Scanning, Background 

Measurements, and possible “Hot Spot 

Retrofit Area 

Vertical and horizontal scanning, as well as a virtual flux box configuration was performed at the 

Retrofit Area test site. Due to the size, dimensions, and collection system configuration of this 

site, separate experiments of each type were performed on the north and south “halves” of this 

plateau. Figure 6 shows the vertical configurations used at the Retrofit Area test site. Figure 7 

presents the radial scanning configurations used at the Retrofit test site, as well as the location of 

ten gas extraction pipes observed at the site (denoted by red as well as the location of ten gas 

extraction pipes observed at the site (denoted by red circles). The locations used for the two 

vertical plane experiments were defined in permit applications to the FAA. Due to the site’s 

elevation, proximity to the airport, and the scissor jack height when extended, FAA approval for 

narrowly defined scissor jack locations was required (North: 38°08’58” N, 85°43’14” W; South: 

38°08’51” N, 85°43’14” W). Concurrent meteorological data was collected during these tests. 

USEPA personnel operated a non-scanning bistatic FTIR along the northern boundary of the 

Retrofit Area, since the prevailing wind direction was initially from the north. 

Concurrent meteorological data was collected during these tests. USEPA personnel operated a 

non-scanning bistatic FTIR along the northern boundary of the Retrofit Area, since the prevailing 

wind direction was initially from the north. 

. 

E-15
North 

mean wind 

direction 

NORTH 

SOUTH 

location of 

bistatic path 

location of 

monostatic 

optical path 

Figure 6. Map of Retrofit Area (North and South) showing Location 

of Vertical Planes and Background Measurements 

E-16
North 

Figure7. Map of Retrofit Area (North and South) showing Location of Mirrors for Radial 

Scanning and Gas Extraction Pipes 

E-17
Control Area 

Figure 8 shows the vertical configuration used in the Control Area. As mentioned in Section 

1.2.7, the Control Area chosen for the study was located north of the As-Built Area. The vertical 

configuration was set up on the east side of the Control Area, and data was collected during 

periods that westerly winds were observed at the test site. 

Biocover Area 

Figure 9 shows the Biocover Area test site. Vertical scan experiments were set up with four 

mirrors instead of five while the fifth mirror was used as a surface scan along the diagonal of the 

Biocover Area. The vertical configuration was located directly west of the actual test area (see 

Figure 9). The favorable wind direction for this configuration would consist of an easterly 

component. During the period of the survey, westerly, as well as easterly winds were observed at 

the test site. Actual emission data from the Biocover Area was gathered during periods of 

easterly winds. The Biocover test site represents a one-acre plot within a conventionally 

configured landfill. 

mean wind 

direction 

Control 

Area 

North 

location of 

bistatic path 

location of 

monostatic 

optical path 

Figure 8. Map of Control Area showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background 

Measurements 

E-18
mean wind 

direction 

Biocover 

North 

location of 

bistatic path 

location of 

monostatic 

optical path 

Figure 9. Map of Biocover Area showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background 

Measurements 

Concurrent meteorological data was collected during these tests. A non-scanning bistatic FTIR 

was operated in an upwind location concurrent with these tests. 

Compost Area 

Figure 10 shows the Compost Area and the optical configurations used during testing. The large 

blue circles denote the locations of the compost piles surveyed. Two vertical scanning 

configurations were setup directly adjacent to two compost piles. It is important to note that 

physical barriers such as a fence line and the actual location of the compost piles configurations 

were setup directly adjacent to two compost piles. Physical barriers such as the fence line and the 

location of the compost piles limited the vertical configuration used for the survey. The winds 

during the time of the survey fluctuated, but were predominately oriented to the west-northwest. 

Since the vertical scanning configuration for pile 1 was oriented to the west of the pile, this 

scanning configuration was considered an upwind measurement. 

The scanning configuration used to survey pile 2 was located east of the compost pile, so this 

was considered a downwind measurement. Concurrent meteorological data was collected during 

these tests. Background concentration data were collected along the eastern boundary of the 

Compost Area using the bistatic FTIR instrument. 

E-19
mean wind 

direction 

Pile 1 

Pile 2 

upwind 

monostatic 

configuration 

downwind 

monostatic 

configuration 

North 

location of 

bistatic path 

Figure 10. Map of Compost Area showing Locations of Vertical Planes and Location of 

Background Measurements 

Data Analysis and Results 

FTIR data were collected as interferograms. All data were archived to CD-ROMs. After 

archiving, interferograms were transferred to USEPA personnel who performed the 

transformations to absorbance spectra and then calculated concentrations using a combination of 

AutoQuant® (Midac) and Non-Lin® (Spectrosoft) quantification software. This analysis was 

done after completion of the field campaign. Concentration data were matched with the 

appropriate mirror locations, wind speed, and wind direction. MatLab® (Math-works) software 

was then used to process the data into horizontal plane concentration maps or vertical plane 

plume visualizations, as appropriate. 

The fluxes are determined as the sum across the matrix of the point-wise multiplication of the 

concentrations times the wind speed. Emission fluxes for VOCs were calculated by 

proportioning to the methane flux. 

Meteorological data including wind direction and wind speed were continuously collected during 

the sampling/measurement campaign with a Climatronics model 101990-G1 instrument. The 

Climatronics instrument is automated. It collects real-time data from its sensors and records 

time-stamped data as one-minute averages to a data logger. Wind direction and speed-sensing 

heads were used to collect data at 2 heights, nominally at 2 and 10 meters (the 10 meter sensor 

was placed on top of the scissors jack). The sensing heads for wind direction incorporate an autonorthing function (automatically adjusts to magnetic north) that eliminates the errors associated 

with subjective field alignment to a compass heading. The sensing heads incorporate standard 

cup-type wind speed sensors. Post-collection, the two sets of data were fit linearly to estimate 

wind velocity as a function of height. 

Statistical analysis was performed on several of the data sets to assess data quality and 

consistency. Average fluxes reported are calculated in the following manner: (a measurement 

loop mentioned hereafter is a measurement cycle by scanning one time through all he mirrors in 

E-20
the configuration.): Path-integrated concentration values from measurements made on each beam 

path (looking at the corresponding mirror) are averaged for four consecutive loops, which satisfy 

a specified condition for acceptable wind direction. The wind measurements are made at 2m and 

10m above ground, and interpolated to six equidistant levels from 2m to 12m. The acceptable 

wind direction criterion is that the wind direction at 4m height must be within 70 degrees angle 

from the normal to the plane where the OP-FTIR measurements are made. The measurement 

plane is the plane in which all the mirrors and the OP-FTIR instrument are placed. All 

measurement loops which do not satisfy the above wind direction criterion are rejected. The 

wind speed and wind direction are averaged for our consecutive accepted loops similar to the 

path-integrated concentrations. A radial plume-mapping algorithm was used to compute the 

mass-equivalent plume image, and the flux in grams per second across the plane of the 

measurement. Ideally, one would like to have four loops (that are averaged) measured 

consecutively, which would be the case with consistent wind conditions. However, with unstable 

wind conditions and/or with wind directions close to 70 degrees from normal, some loops may 

be rejected in order to maintain data quality. For example, only 7 out of 16 loops shown in Table 

B-1 satisfy the wind criterion for the As-Built area, which is reported in Section 3.1. For 

measurements with more than four loops satisfying the wind criterion, a moving average is made 

with a grouping of four, and the flux across the measurement plane is calculated. In order to 

assess the accuracy of reconstruction for each moving average group, the Concordance 

Correlation Coefficient (CCF) has been computed for each reconstruction. The surface plume 

concentrations are calculated by calculating a path-integrated average for each pixel. Then, 

contour lines representing concentrations are drawn by interpolating between the nine average 

pixel values 

As-Built Area 

Table 4 presents the methane emission flux from the vertical scanning survey of the As-Built 

Area. A map of this site and the optical configurations are provided in Figure 5. The first column 

of this table refers to a running average calculation from the several loops of data collected. The 

second column shows the calculated CCF. The third, fourth, and fifth columns show the 

calculated methane flux (in grams per second), and the average wind speed and wind direction 

during the time the measurements were taken, respectively. The methane concentrations used to 

create this table can be found in Table B-1 of Appendix B. 

Table 4. Moving average of calculated methane flux, CCF, wind speed, and wind direction* 

for the As-Built Area 

Loops CCF Flux Wind Speed Wind Dir 

(g/s) (m/s) (deg) 

1 to 4 0.980 165 1.91 51 

2 to 5 0.977 180 2.38 33 

3 to 6 0.962 168 2.52 36 

4 to 7 0.958 118 2.15 43 

Average 0.969 160 

Std. Dev. of Mean 0.0108 27.3 

*wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration 

E-21 
Figure 11 presents a map of the reconstructed methane plume from the As-Built vertical 

scanning survey. Contour lines give methane concentrations in ppm. The average calculated 

methane flux from the As-Built Area was 160 g/s. 

In addition to measuring methane concentrations and methane flux, additional analysis was done 

to measure emissions of ammonia and VOCs from the As-Built Area. VOC concentrations and 

fluxes measured at the site were generally either too low to be detected, or were detected in only 

trace amounts. Consistent with the QAPP, emission concentrations and fluxes for these trace 

VOCs were calculated by proportioning to the methane concentration and flux. 

It is known that methane comprises approximately 50% of landfill gas. Proportioning an 

estimated methane concentration of 500,000 ppmv to the highest methane concentration found at 

the site, and ratioing this to the AP-42 value for each target VOC (found in Table 2), it was 

found that the expected VOC concentrations were often below the estimated minimum detection 

limit for the target VOC. As mentioned in Section 2.5, this was anticipated prior to performance 

of the experiments. 

Tables 5 and 6 present concentrations and calculated fluxes (in g/s) of VOCs and Ammonia 

measured during runs 1 and 2, respectively, of the AALB vertical scanning survey. The VOC 

fluxes were calculated by ratioing the measured methane concentrations with the measured VOC 

concentrations. For example, in Table 5, the average calculated methane flux value is 118 g/s. 

The average methane concentration is 109 ppmv. The average calculated ammonia flux is found 

by first multiplying the ratio of methane to ammonia concentration (109ppmv/ 0.0049ppmv) by 

the ratio of the molecular weight of methane to ammonia (16g/17g). This value (20,936.4) is then 

proportioned to the average calculated methane flux to yield the value of the average calculated 

ammonia flux (0.0056g/s). 

Figure 11. Reconstructed average methane plume from the moving average of loops 1 to 4 

of the As-Built Vertical Scanning Survey 

E-22
Table 5. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane for 

As-Built Vertical Scan-Run 1 

Compound Minimum Detection Average Conc. Flux 

Level (ppmv) (ppmv) (g/s) 

MTBE* 0.0099 0.0602 0.33 

Ammonia 0.0024 0.0049 0.0056 

Straight-Chain 0.49 1.6 9.2 

Hydrocarbons 

Bent-Chain 0.084 0.47 2.3 

Hydrocarbons 

Methane 109 118 

*MTBE= Methyl tert-butyl ether 

Table 6. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs for As-Built Vertical Scan-Run 2 

NMOC Minimum Detection Avg. Flux 

Level (ppmv) Concentration (g/s) 

(ppmv) 

MTBE* 0.0098 0.018 0.102 

Straight-Chain 0.48 0.85 5.1 

Hydrocarbons 

Bent-Chain 0.27 0.95 4.8 

Hydrocarbons 

Methane 147 165 

As was reported above, the average calculated methane flux from the As-Built Area was 160 

grams per second. However, this value may be a low estimate of the total methane flux from the 

As-Built Area. The observed wind direction during the vertical scanning survey was variable. 

Environments having variable wind directions are classified as unstable. Other studies have 

found that calculated fluxes could underestimate actual fluxes by as much as 35% in unstable 

environments [Hashmonay et al., 2001]. Additionally, the axis of the vertical scanning 

configuration was oriented along the southern boundary of the As-Built Area (see Figure 5). 

However, due to limitations in the instrumentation, it was not possible for the vertical scanning 

configuration to include the entire southern boundary of the survey area. The optical range of the 

OP-FTIR instrument used in this study was approximately 200 meters, which is less than the 

total distance of the southern boundary of the As-Built Area. Because of this, it is possible that 

the entire methane plume from the As-Built was not captured by the vertical configuration. 

Consequently, the calculated methane flux from the 

As-Built Area may be underestimating the actual flux, but the major identified “hot spot” was 

fully quantified. 

Due to time constraints and instrument limitations discussed in Section 2.1, a complete radial 

scan of the As-Built Area was not performed to identify the exact location of “hot spots” which 

may have contributed to the calculated methane flux. However, a non-scanning surface survey 

was performed in the As-Built using 4 beams. This survey was done over the western and central 

areas of the As-Built Area (see Figure 5). Concentrations of various compounds (including 

E-23
methane) were calculated from the four surface non-scanning experiments. The measured 

concentrations are presented in Tables B-2 to B-5 in Appendix B. Analysis of the wind data 

revealed that the prevailing wind direction during the vertical scanning survey was from the 

northeast. With this knowledge of the wind data, (and due to the fact that much lower methane 

concentrations were found during the surface survey of the western and central areas of the AsBuilt Area, along with data from the vertical scanning survey which gives plume shape and 

location with respect to relevant wind direction), we can conclude, based on the method 

described by Hashmonay and Yost [1999A], that any “hot spots” contributing to the methane 

fluxes calculated were probably located in the eastern portion of the As-Built Area (consisting of 

cells 4A and 4B). A blue star in Figure 5 of Appendix A denotes the location of this “hot spot”. 

3.2.2 Retrofit Area 

As mentioned earlier, radial and vertical scanning were performed in the Retrofit area. The radial 

scanning was performed to identify methane “hot spots”. Figure 12 presents a contour map of 

reconstructed methane concentrations (in ppm) from this area, and Table B-6 of Appendix B 

shows actual methane concentrations measured during radial scanning. The figure shows the 

presence of two distinct “hot spots”, or areas where methane concentrations exceed 79 ppmv. 

The red circles show the locations of ten gas extraction pipes observed in the Retrofit Area. 

Tables 7 and 8 present methane emission flux determinations for the northern and southern 

halves of the Retrofit Area, respectively. The optical configurations for this site are provided in 

Figure 6. In Table B-7, the measured methane concentrations are provided from the vertical 

scanning monitoring. The first column of these tables refers to a running average calculation 

from the several “loops” of data collected. The second column shows the calculated CCF. The 

third, fourth, and fifth columns show the calculated methane flux (in grams per second), and the 

average wind speed and wind direction during the time the measurements were taken, 

respectively. 

North 

Figure 12. Reconstructed Methane Concentrations (in ppm) for the Retrofit North and South 

Areas 

E-24
Table 7. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction 

for the Retrofit North Area 

Loops CCF Flux Wind *Wind 

(g/s) Speed Dir. (deg) 

(m/s) 

1 to 4 0.980 19 3.14 355 

2 to 5 0.987 18 3.29 356 

Average 0.983 19.0 

Std. Dev. of Mean 0.0049 0.707 

*wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration 

Figures 13 and 14 present the reconstructed methane plume from Retrofit North and South 

vertical scanning survey, respectively. Contour lines give methane concentrations in ppm. The 

average calculated methane flux for the northern half of the Retrofit Area was 19 grams per 

second, and the average calculated methane flux for the southern half was 20 grams per second. 

Two virtual flux box configurations were conducted in the Retrofit Area. The results from this 

showed consistent emissions results as was found using the vertical scanning measurements. 

As mentioned earlier, Figure 12 shows that two distinct methane “hot spots” were found in the 

Retrofit Area. The peak methane concentrations found in each “hot spot” were similar (greater 

than 79 ppmv). One “hot spot” was located in the Retrofit North area, and one in the Retrofit 

South area. The proximity of these “hot spots” to the location of the gas extraction pipes 

(indicated by red circles), and analysis of wind data at the time of the measurements, suggests the 

pipes may be a significant source of methane emissions. 

Closer inspection of the average reconstructed methane plumes from Retrofit North and South 

vertical scanning surveys (Figures 13 and 14, respectively) show that the average calculated 

methane fluxes for each area are very similar. This is not surprising, since the methane 

concentrations found in the “hot spots” for each area (which would be the major contributor to 

methane flux values) are similar in magnitude. Additionally, the spatial distribution of the 

plumes in the horizontal direction is consistent with the location of the “hot spots”. The center of 

the Retrofit North “hot spot” is located about 45 meters north of the position of the scanner. 

Figure 13 shows that the center of the methane plume found in the Retrofit North area is located 

about 40 meters from the scanner position. The center of the Retrofit South “hot spot” is located 

about 30 meters south of the position of the scanner. Figure 14 shows that the center of the 

methane plume found in the Retrofit South area is located about 35 meters from the scanner 

position. It appears that there was very good agreement between the location of “hot spots” 

found during the radial surface scanning surveys, and the plume reconstruction done from the 

vertical scanning surveys. 

Observed wind directions during the Retrofit vertical scanning surveys were stable. This would 

be indicative of a stable atmosphere. Hashmonay et al. [2001] found that fluxes calculated during 

stable environments may underestimate the actual flux by around 10%. 

E-25
Table 8. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind 

Direction* for the Retrofit South Area 

Loops CCF Flux Wind Speed Wind Dir 

(g/s) (m/s) (deg) 

1 to 4 0.976 13 3.30 11 

2 to 5 0.937 20 3.96 3 

3 to 6 0.924 24 4.06 360 

4 to 7 0.939 22 4.12 328 

5 to 8 0.931 20 3.94 348 

6 to 9 0.941 25 3.88 1 

7 to 10 0.968 22 3.75 17 

8 to 11 0.954 22 3.52 17 

9 to 12 0.986 21 3.57 345 

10 to 13 0.992 17 3.71 338 

11 to 14 0.981 15 3.41 329 

12 to 15 0.991 19 3.57 344 

13 to 16 0.989 19 3.70 15 

Average 0.962 20 

Std. Dev. of Mean 0.0253 3.40 

*wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration 

Figure 13. Reconstructed average methane plume from the moving average of loops 1 to 4 

of the Retrofit North Vertical Scanning Survey 

E-26
Figure 14. Reconstructed average methane plume from the moving average of loops 5 to 8 

of the Retrofit South Vertical Scanning Survey 

3.2.3 Control Area 

Methane fluxes were calculated in the Control Area for instances when westerly winds were 

observed. Table 9 presents calculated Control methane fluxes. The first column of these tables 

refers to a running average calculation from the several “loops” of data collected. The second 

column shows the calculated CCF. The third, fourth, and fifth columns show the calculated 

methane flux (in grams per second), and the average wind speed and wind direction during the 

time the measurements were taken, respectively. The methane concentrations used to create these 

tables can be found in Table B-8 of Appendix B. 

Table 9. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind 

Direction* for the Background Vertical Scan of the Control Area 

Loops CCF Flux (g/s) Wind Speed Wind Dir 

(m/s) (deg) 

1 to 4 0.973 6.0 0.95 332 

*wind direction shown is angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration 

Figure 15 presents the reconstructed methane plume from the vertical scanning survey of the 

Control Area. Contour lines give methane concentrations in ppm. The average calculated 

methane flux was 6 grams per second for the upwind survey. 

In addition to measuring methane concentrations and methane flux, analysis was done to 

measure emissions of ammonia and VOCs from the Control Area. Concentrations of various 

compounds were calculated from the surface scan (mirror 1), and vertical scan (mirrors 2, 3, 4, 

and 5) experiments. Tables 10 and 11 present concentrations and calculated fluxes (in g/s) of 

VOCs and ammonia measured during runs 1 and 2, 

E-27
Figure 15: Reconstructed average methane plume from the Control Area Vertical Scanning 

Survey 

respectively, of the Control vertical scanning survey. The fluxes were calculated by ratioing the 

measured methane concentrations with the measured VOC concentrations. 

3.2.4 Biocover Area 

Methane fluxes were calculated at the Biocover Area for instances where the vertical 

configuration was downwind of the actual survey area. Table 12 presents calculated methane 

fluxes measured at the site. The first column of these tables refers to a running average 

calculation from the several “loops” of data collected. The second column shows the calculated 

CCF. The third, fourth, and fifth columns show the calculated methane flux (in grams per 

second), and the average wind speed and wind direction during the time the measurements were 

taken, respectively. The methane concentrations used to create these tables can be found in Table 

B-8 of Appendix B. 

Figure 16 presents the reconstructed methane plume from the vertical scanning survey of the 

Biocover Area. Contour lines give methane concentrations in ppm. The average calculated 

methane flux for the Biocover Area was 24 grams per second. No other compounds were 

detected in the Biocover Area 

In order to analyze the results of the flux measurements, a comparison of methane flux 

calculations and wind data was made. Figure 17 presents a time series of methane flux and wind 

direction, for instances when the vertical configuration was located downwind of the survey area 

(the data used to create this graph can be found in Table B-8 of Appendix B). There appears to 

be a relationship between calculated methane flux and observed wind direction. The highest 

methane concentrations occur shortly after the observed wind direction has a northeasterly 

component (indicated as a wind direction of –30° to –40° in the figure). This 

E-28
suggests that methane is being transported through the vertical configuration, from a “hot spot” 

located somewhere to the northeast of the Biocover Area. 

Observed wind directions during the Biocover Area vertical scanning survey were highly 

variable. This is indicative of an unstable environment. This suggests that the calculated methane 

flux values could be underestimating the actual methane flux values in this area [Hashmonay et 

al., 2001]. 

Table 10. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane for 

Control Area Vertical Scan-Run 1 

Compound Minimum Average Flux 

Detection Level Concentration (g/s) 

(ppmv) (ppmv) 

TFM* 0.0018 0.0051 0.0036 

CFM* 0.0098 0.034 0.015 

Ethanol 0.0107 0.104 0.025 

MTBE* 0.0108 0.046 0.019 

Ammonia 0.0036 0.0202 0.0018 

Methane 66.5 6 

*TFM= Trichlorofluoromethane 

*CFM= Chlorodifluoromethane 

*MTBE= methyl tert-butyl ether 

Table 11. Average Concentration and Calculated Flux of NMOCs for Control Area Vertical 

Scan-Run 2 

Compound Minimum Average NMOC NMOC Flux 

Detection Level Conc (ppmv) (g/s) 

(ppmv) 

Ethylene 0.0041 0.0083 0.0014 

CFM* 0.0097 0.031 0.016 

Ethanol 0.0099 0.065 0.018 

MTBE* 0.0101 0.037 0.019 

Ammonia 0.0026 0.019 0.0019 

Methane 57 5 

*CFM= Chlorodifluoromethane 

*MTBE= methyl tert-butyl ether 

E-29
Table 12. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind 

Direction* for the downwind vertical scan of the Biocover Area 

Loops CCF Flux 

(g/s) 

Wind Speed 

(m/s) 

Wind Dir 

(deg) 

1 to 4 0.981 27 1.13 332 

2 to 5 0.994 22 1.06 341 

3 to 6 1.000 18 0.87 349 

4 to 7 1.000 17 0.67 354 

5 to 8 1.000 16 0.83 327 

6 to 9 1.000 15 0.99 320 

7 to 10 0.996 18 1.19 355 

8 to 11 0.990 19 1.37 348 

9 to 12 0.994 18 1.45 347 

10 to 13 0.983 15 1.35 19 

11 to 14 0.994 18 1.28 348 

12 to 15 0.985 16 1.07 356 

13 to 16 0.980 16 0.89 2 

14 to 17 0.976 17 0.83 333 

15 to 18 0.966 22 1.10 324 

16 to 19 0.973 25 1.62 314 

17 to 20 0.974 36 2.70 316 

18 to 21 0.979 35 3.30 346 

19 to 22 0.983 23 3.58 356 

20 to 23 0.984 24 3.89 3 

21 to 24 0.975 28 3.03 355 

22 to 25 0.982 12 3.31 317 

23 to 26 0.996 25 3.62 315 

24 to 27 0.999 27 3.68 319 

25 to 28 1.000 25 4.39 321 

26 to 29 0.997 32 4.67 329 

27 to 30 0.931 45 4.97 334 

28 to 31 0.936 37 4.88 339 

29 to 32 0.949 34 4.68 337 

30 to 33 0.953 33 4.12 338 

31 to 34 0.992 28 3.92 6 

32 to 35 0.993 28 3.97 4 

Average 0.932 24 

Std. Dev. of Mean .0183 7.96 

*wind direction shown is angle from a vector normal to the plane of the configuration 

E-30 
Figure 16. Reconstructed average methane plume from the moving average of loops 20 to 

23 of the Biocover Vertical Scanning Survey 

3.2.5 Compost Area 

The methane concentrations found in this area are presented in the Tables B-10 and B-11 of 

Appendix B. The results of the Compost Area survey show that the average methane 

concentrations found were higher in the upwind area than in the downwind area. The survey did 

not detect any methane plume originating from the compost piles, which was expected. Due to 

these findings, we conclude that the Compost Area is not a source of methane at the site. 

Additionally, no other compounds were detected at the Compost Area. 

3.2.6 Upwind Measurements 

Throughout the period of optical scanning measurements, USEPA personnel set up and operated 

a bistatic OP-FTIR separate instrument in an upwind location, using a classical non-scanning 

configuration. Data collected by this instrument are representative of background concentrations 

from ambient, or upwind, sources. Background data were collected in each of the survey areas 

(refer to Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for the location of the bistatic OP-FTIR configuration, which is 

denoted by the orange lines). Due to instrumentation problems, background OP-FTIR data is 

only available from the As-Built and Compost Areas. However, analysis of the surface scanning 

data from the Retrofit Area provides some information on background methane concentrations in 

this portion of the landfill. 

The background survey from the As-Built Area found an average background methane 

concentration of 8.6 ppmv. Figure 5 shows that the bistatic OP-FTIR configuration was located 

along the western boundary of the As-Built Area, and the observed mean wind direction was 

from the northeast. Due to this, we can determine that the average background methane 

concentration found was probably indicative of a true background methane measurement for the 

As-Built Area. 

E-31
Figure 17: Time Series of Calculated Methane Flux vs. Measured Wind Direction for the Biocover (using 

moving average of 4 loops) 

E-32
As mentioned above, the background OP-FTIR data from the Retrofit Area was unavailable due 

to instrumentation problems. However, in looking at the boundaries of the surface radial 

scanning results (Figure 12), one can estimate the background concentrations to be about 10 

ppmv. 

The background survey from the Compost Area found an average background methane 

concentration of 5.1 ppmv. This background value is very similar to the values detected 

immediately downwind from the compost piles, reinforcing the conclusion that no methane is 

emitted from the piles. 

3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Control 

In preparation for this project, a Category III Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was 

prepared and approved prior to the field campaign. In addition, standard operating procedures 

were in place during the survey, and the study was audited in the field and during post analysis. 

3.3.1 Assessment of DQI Goals 

The critical measurements associated with this project and the established data quality indicator 

(DQI) goals in terms of accuracy, precision, and completeness are listed in Table 1 of this 

document. Assessment of these measurements is discussed in the following subsections. 

3.3.2 Meteorological/Theodolite Data 

The Climatronics meteorological heads (which are used to collect wind direction, wind speed, 

ambient temperature, barometric pressure, and relative humidity), and the theodolite have 

recently been calibrated. The calibration of all instruments used to collect both critical and noncritical measurements should have occurred prior to the current field campaign. 

Although calibration of the Climatronics heads did not occur prior to the field study, both 

Climatronics heads were calibrated in March 2003 by the USEPA/APPCD Metrology Lab (the last 

calibration of both heads occurred in November 1999). All functions were checked during the 

March 2003 calibration, and the only adjustment made was approximately a 4 degree change to 

wind direction for one of the Climatronics heads. As shown in Table 1, accuracy within 5% is an 

acceptable range, and this variance will have very little bearing on the final flux estimate. 

It should also be noted that the wind direction measurement is not as critical to the flux estimates as 

the wind speed measurement. Additionally, checks for agreement of the wind speed and wind 

direction measured from the two heads (2m and 10m) were done. While it is true that some 

variability in the parameters measured at both levels should be expected, this is a good first-step 

check for assessing the performance of the instruments. 

The Climatronics meteorological heads used in the current study were also used as part of a 

validation study [Hashmonay et al., 2001], and a study done in October, 2002 to measure 

fugitive emissions at a Region I Landfill in New Hampshire. In both controlled release studies, 

calculated emission rates were within 65-96% of the actual controlled release rate. The wind 

measurements taken during these studies provided good flux calculations and therefore were 

representative of the wind field in the whole vertical plane. Due to these factors, we feel that the 

accuracy and precision of the Climatronics heads, as stated in the QAPP and by manufacturer’s 

specifications, are sufficient to provide favorable results using this method. 

It has been determined that the accuracy of the measured optical path-lengths (which are 

collected using the theodolite), as stated in the QAPP and by the manufacturer’s specifications, 

are not crucial to our method. However, calibration of the theodolite was done in the field during 

May 2003. The optical path-length was checked by measuring a standard distance of 50 feet 

(15.24 meters). The same distance was measured twice using the theodolite, and yielded 

distances of 15.43 and 15.39 meters. These results fall well within the acceptable accuracy range 

E-33
stated in Table 1. The horizontal angle was checked by setting up two targets approximately 180° 

apart, measuring the two horizontal angles between the targets, and summing these values. The 

sum of the two values should be 360°. These angles were measured twice using the theodolite. 

The first test yielded a sum of 359°21’18”, and the second test yielded a sum of 359°59’55”. 

Both of these values fall well within the acceptable accuracy range stated in Table 1. 

3.3.3 OP-FTIR Measurements 

As a QC check of the accuracy of the OP-FTIR, we have verified the measurement of the known 

atmospheric background nitrous oxide concentration of around 320 ppbv from data taken with 

the monostatic OP-FTIR. It should be noted that 320 ppbv is an average value, as the 

atmospheric background value exhibits a slight seasonal variation. The data was taken from a 

sample of the actual data collected during the current field campaign. The average nitrous oxide 

concentration found was 311 ± 36.24 ppbv. The average value falls within the accuracy goal of 

5%. 

Additionally, we follow DQI procedures for proper operation as described in EPA Compendium 

method TO-16, and the OP-FTIR EPA Guidance Document. However, TO-16 is somewhat of an 

outdated method that does not fully address the issue of non-linearity. Since the completion of 

the TO-16 document, significant research has been performed by APPCD researchers to improve 

analysis over a wide range of concentrations [Childers et al., 2001]. Application of the newly 

developed Non-Lin® software (developed by Spectrosoft) will provide better response of the 

OP-FTIR technique to higher levels of concentrations [Childers et al., 2002]. 

Tracer release is the ultimate DQI for confirming the RPM method as a whole system. 

Approximately three weeks after completion of the current study, another study was done using 

the ORS-RPM method at another site. During this study, a tracer release was done using 

ethylene. The same instrumentation used in the current study was used during this study. 

Ethylene was released through a soaker hose configuration located directly west of the vertical 

scanning survey. The wind direction during the time of the release was almost due west, which 

allowed the vertical configuration to capture the plume from the tracer release. The soaker hoses 

were set up in an “H” configuration to simulate an area source. The approximate dimensions of 

the “H” configuration were 10 meters wide, and 40 meters long (on each side). The weight of the 

ethylene cylinder was recorded prior to release of the gas, and immediately after the release was 

completed, using a digital scale. In addition, the precise starting and ending time of the release 

was recorded in order to calculate the average actual flux of ethylene. This flux value was then 

compared to the ethylene flux calculated from the vertical scanning survey. 

The emission flux through the vertical measurement plane, calculated from the area integration 

of the concentration profile multiplied by the component of the wind speed normal to the vertical 

plane was determined as 0.98 g/sec. Since the measurement plane captured the entire plume, the 

entire flux through the plane is the emission rate of ethylene. 

The ethylene tracer gas was released for 75 minutes. During this period, the measured mass of 

the ethylene cylinder was reduced by 4.59 kg. A loss of 4.59 kg over a 75-minute period 

indicates an average flow rate of 1.02 g/sec. The measured emission rate agrees with this massloss determination to 3.9 percent. 

The flux of the ethylene release determined by mass-loss agrees well with the average ethylene 

flux calculated from the vertical scanning survey. Observed wind directions during the vertical 

scanning survey were not highly variable. This would be indicative of a stable atmosphere. 

Hashmonay et al. [2001] found that fluxes calculated during stable environments underestimated 

E-34
the actual flux by around 12 %. The average ethylene flux calculated during the current 

experiment underestimated the actual average ethylene flux by 3.9 %. 

In addition to verifying data collected with the OP-FTIR instruments a process audit was done by 

personnel not involved in the data analysis process, to verify that the transfer of data was done 

accurately. The audit consisted of verifying that concentration data provided by USEPA 

personnel, as well as wind speed and direction data were input into the reconstruction programs 

accurately. The results of the audit showed that this process was indeed done accurately. 

E-35
Figure 18. Calculated Average Methane Flux and Average CCF from the Retrofit South Vertical Scanning 

Survey 

E-36
Figure 19. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average CCF for the Retrofit North 

Area Radial Scanning Survey 

E-37 
Figure 20. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average CCF for the Retrofit 

South Area Radial Scanning Survey 

E-38 
3.3.4 Problems Encountered and Data Limitations 

During the course of the field campaign, the project ran into some instrumentation problems and 

limitations, which slightly hindered some aspects of the data collection process. These included 

geographic barriers at the site, limitations in the optical range of the OP-FTIR instrument, and 

scanner errors that occurred primarily in the Retrofit Area. 

The optical range of the OP-FTIR instrument used in this study was approximately 200 meters. 

The optical range is affected by many factors such as weather conditions, and topography at the 

site. This limitation primarily affected measurements taken in the As-Built Area. As mentioned 

in Section 3.1, the vertical scanning survey was oriented along the southern boundary of the 

survey area. Because of the limitation in the optical range of the OP-FTIR, it was not possible for 

the configuration to include the entire southern boundary of the As-Built Area. Due to this, it is 

probable that the calculated methane flux from the As-Built Area may be underestimating the 

actual flux. More advance OP-FTIR instruments can easily have a range of 500m in similar 

conditions. 

Scanning errors occurred when the actual scanner (used to scan the OP-FTIR between each 

retroreflector in a configuration) stopped scanning. When this problem occurred, it prevented the 

completion of the survey, and the scanning program had to be reprogrammed. It is unclear what 

causes the scanning errors, but these errors occurred most frequently in the Retrofit Area, which 

may receive electromagnetic energy from air traffic as a result of it being located next to the 

airport and in the path of in-coming flights. 

E-39
4 Conclusions 

This report provides the first round of testing that is part of a longer-term effort to evaluate the 

performance of landfill bioreactor operations. The site has two different bioreactor operations 

(As-Built and Retrofit Areas). OP-FTIR measurements were conducted at the As-Built Area, 

where liquid additions are introduced at the work face. Sampling for this had to occur over the 

weekend when hauling operations were not active. The other type of bioreactor being evaluated 

is the Retrofit Area. This area was split into 2 different sections that were evaluated 

independently (north and south). In addition to evaluating the two types of bioreactors, the use of 

vegetative cover to reduce fugitive emissions (referred to as biocover) was evaluated. Emissions 

from the composting operation were also evaluated. Since this is an aerobic operation, methane 

emissions were not expected or found. Table 13 presents the average calculated methane fluxes, 

and the range of flux values, found at each area. 

Table 13. Average Calculated Methane Flux (g/s) Found at Each Survey Area 

Survey Area Calculated Methane Range of Flux Values 

Flux Calculated 

As-Built 160 ± 27.3 118 to 180 

Retrofit 39 ± 4.11 31 to 44 

Control 6.0 6 

Biocover 24 ± 7.96 12 to 45 

Compost N/A N/A 

The As-Built Area was found to have the highest methane fluxes, while the Control and 

Biocover Areas had the lower methane fluxes. The Compost Area was not found to be significant 

source of methane which one would expect since it is an aerobic operation. 

In addition to vertical scanning, surface scanning was done in the As-Built Area and Retrofit 

Areas. Two definitive methane “hot spots”, having concentrations over 79 ppmv were found at 

the Retrofit Area. 

E-40
5 References 

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Standard Practice for Open-Path Fourier 

Transform Infrared Monitoring of Gases and Vapors in Air, E 1982-98. 

ASTM, Standard Guide for Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Monitoring of Gases and 

Vapors in Air, E 1865-97, reapproved 2002). 

Childers, J.W., E.L. Thompson, D.B. Harris, D.A. Kirchgessner, M. Clayton, D.F. Natschke, and 

W.J. Phillips, Multi-pollutant concentration measurements around a concentrated swine

production facility using open-path FTIR spectrometry, Atmos. Environ.,35, 1923-1936, 2001. 

Childers, J.W., W.J. Phillips, E.L. Thompson, D.B. Harris, D.A. Kirchgessner, D.F. Natschke, 

and M. Clayton, Comparison of an innovative nonlinear algorithm to classical least-squares for 

analyzing open-path Fourier-transform infra-red spectra collected at a concentrated swine 

production facility, J. Appl. Spectr., 56, 3, 325-336, 2002. 

Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost, Localizing gaseous fugitive emission sources by combining 

real-time optical remote sensing and wind data, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 49, 1374-1379, 

1999A. 

Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost, Innovative approach for estimating fugitive gaseous fluxes 

using computed tomography and remote optical sensing techiniques, J. Air Waste Manage. 

Assoc., 49, 966-972, 1999B. 

Hashmonay, R.A., D.F. Natschke, K.Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L.Thompson, and M.G. Yost, 

Field evaluation of a method for estimating gaseous fluxes from area sources using open-path 

Fourier transform infrared, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 2309-2313, 2001. 

Hashmonay, R.A., K. Wagoner, D.F. Natschke, D.B. Harris, and E.L. Thompson, Radial 

computed tomography of air contaminants using optical remote sensing, presented June 23-27, 

2002 at the AWMA 95th Annual Conference and Exhibition, Baltimore, MD. 

Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, and C. Wu, Computed tomography of air pollutants using radial 

scanning path-integrated optical remote sensing, Atmos. Environ., 33, 267-274, 1999.. 

Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, D.B. Harris, and E.L. Thompson, Simulation study for gaseous 

fluxes from an area source using computed tomography and optical remote sensing, presented at 

SPIE Conference on Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technologies, Boston, MA, 

Nov., 1998, in SPIE Vol. 3534, 405-410 

Lindberg, S.E., and J.L. Price, Airborne emissions of mercury from municipal landfill 

operations: a short-term measurement study in Florida, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 49, 520­

532, 1999. 

Lindberg, S.E., D. Wallschläger, E.M. Prestbo, J. Price, and D. Reinhart, Methylated mercury 

species in municipal waste landfill gas sampled in Florida, USA, Atmos. Environ., 35, 4011­

4015, 2001. 

E-41
Natschke, D.F., R.A. Hashmonay, K. Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L. Thompson, and C.A. Vogel,

Seasonal Emissions of Ammonia and Methane from a Hog Waste Lagoon with Bioactive Cover,

presented at International Symposium on Addressing Animal Production and Environmental

Issues, Research Triangle Park, NC, Oct. 2001.

Russwurm, G.M., and J.W. Childers, FT-IR Open-Path Monitoring Guidance Document, 3rd ed.;

Submitted by ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., under contract 68-D5-0049 to the U.S.

EPA, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division, National Exposure Research

Laboratory: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999.

Thorneloe, S., U.S. EPA’s Field Test Programs to Update Landfill Gas Emissions Data,

Accepted for publication in proceedings of Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste

Management and Landfill Symposium, October 6 – 10, 2003, Sardinia, Italy.

Thorneloe, S. and K. Weitz, Holistic Approach to Environmental Management of Municipal

Solid Waste, Accepted for publication in proceedings of Sardinia 2003, Ninth International

Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, October 6 – 10, 2003, Sardinia, Italy.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compendium Method TO-16: Long-Path Open-Path 

Fourier Transform Infrared Monitoring of Atmospheric Gases, prepared under Contract No. 68-

C3-0315, WA No. 3-10, Center for Environmental Research Information-Office of Research and 

Development, US EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, Jan. 1999. 

Waste Management, Inc. news release, Waste Management signs agreement with EPA to 

research and develop landfill bioreactor, Biocover Projects, October 2000. 

Wu, C., M.G. Yost, R.A. Hashmonay, and D.Y. Park, Experimental evaluation of a radial beam 

geometry for mapping air pollutants using optical remote sensing and computed tomography, 

Atmos. Environ., 33, 4709-4716, 1999. 

Yost, M.G., and R.A. Hashmonay, Mapping Air Contaminants Using Path-Integrated Optical 

Remote Sensing with a Non-Overlapping Variable Path Length Beam Geometry, United States 

Patent Office, Patent # US 6,542,242 B1, issued April 1, 2003. 

E-42
Appendix A 

Site Configurations 
Table A-1. Standard Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of mirrors used for 

Vertical and Horizontal Scanning in the As-Built Area 

Mirror Standard Horizontal Angle Vertical 

Number Distance (m) from North (deg) Angle* (deg) 

Vertical 

1 67.1 270 0 

2 116 276 0 

3 167 274 0 

4 117 275 3 

5 118 276 6 

As-Built Lower Surface 

1 70.5 291 

2 79.8 60 

As-Built Upper Surface 

1 109 244 

2 110 121 

*Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values 

indicate descent from the horizontal). 

E-A-2
Table A-2. Standard Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of mirrors used for 

Vertical Scanning in the Retrofit Area 

Mirror Standard Horizontal Angle Vertical 

Number Distance (m) from North (deg) Angle* (deg) 

North 

1 29.7 4 0 

2 65.7 13 0 

3 102 8 0 

4 103 7 2 

5 104 8 6 

South 

1 31.8 158 0 

2 58.2 172 0 

3 88.7 177 0 

4 91.9 176 3 

5 93.1 177 7 

*Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values 

indicate descent from the horizontal). 

E-A-3
TableA-3. Standard Distance, and Horizontal Coordinates of mirrors used for Radial 

Scanning in the Retrofit Area 

Mirror Standard Horizontal 

Number Distance (m) Angle from 

North (deg) 

North 

1 55.5 67 

2 72.2 47 

3 34.3 44 

4 92.7 36 

5 115 30 

6 56.4 25 

7 84.3 18 

8 108.8 13 

South 

1 89.1 181 

2 69.7 175 

3 52.2 163 

4 104 160 

5 84.7 154 

6 34.1 143 

7 67.5 142 

8 55.7 125 

E-A-4
Table A-4. Standard Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of mirrors used for 

Vertical Scanning in the Biocover and Control Areas 

Mirror Standard Horizontal Vertical Angle* 

Number Distance (m) Angle from (deg) 

North (deg) 

1 109 36 0 

2 59.8 2 0 

3 99.8 0 0 

4 100 359 3 

5 101 0 6 

*Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values 

indicate descent from the horizontal). 

Table A- 5. Standard Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of configurations 

used for Vertical Scanning in the Compost Area 

Mirror Standard Horizontal Vertical 

Number Distance Angle from Angle* (deg) 

(m) North (deg) 

Upwind 

1 39.3 183 0 

2 103 185 0 

3 133 184 0 

4 135 182 1 

5 136 183 3 

Downwind 

1 23.4 325 0 

2 49.8 330 0 

3 51.9 325 4 

4 52.8 328 8 

*Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative 

values indicate descent from the horizontal). 

E-A-5
Appendix B 

Methane, Ammonia, and VOC Concentrations 
Table B-1.Methane Concentrations (in ppm) found during the As-Built Vertical Scanning Survey 

Wind Wind direction from 

Loops Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 Speed normal to vertical Comments 

(m/s) plane (deg) 

1 23.0 86.1 113 155 136 0.6 52 Loop Used 

2 192 196 158 97.8 53.3 1.9 28 Loop Used 

3 167 206 162 90.1 60.8 2.5 39 Loop Used 

4 154 207 160 103 82.1 1.7 46 Loop Used 

5 177 246 183 80.7 33.9 1.8 73 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

6 51.4 96.7 154 118 86.0 1.7 75 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

7 149 255 176 108 47.3 1.4 75 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

8 84.0 140 117 70.4 60.7 2.5 30 Loop Used 

9 149 134 84.9 62.8 52.7 2.3 36 Loop Used 

10 125 183 142 64.6 42.5 3.0 75 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

11 107 140 129 47.1 50.2 2.7 78 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

12 73.7 177 167 69.3 40.9 2.2 75 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

13 67.5 91.8 49.2 59.1 98.5 1.5 97 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

14 178 157 128 70.1 59.2 1.2 69 Loop Used 

15 98.2 236 170 53.4 22.9 0.8 85 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

E-B-2
Table B-2. Concentrations of Methane and VOCs (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 1 of the 

As-Built Lower Surface Scan 

As-Built 

Lower 

Conc. 

(ppmv) 

Mirror 1 

Loop Methane Acetylene Ethanol Straight-Chain 

HCs 

1 26 0.038 

2 27 

3 21 0.031 

4 24 

5 31 

6 41 

7 32 

8 31 

9 31 0.033 

10 35 0.055 

11 31 0.064 

12 26 0.018 

13 21 

14 23 0.035 

15 29 

16 22 0.038 0.057 

17 32 

18 23 

19 23 

20 23 

Avg=28 

E-B-3
Table B-3. Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 2 

of the As-Built Lower Surface Scan 

As-Built 

Lower Concentrations (ppmv) 

Mirror 2 StraightChain Bent-Chain 

Loop Methane Ethanol Ammonia Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons 

1 13 0.0095 

2 15 0.0086 

3 13 

4 22 0.0060 

5 22 0.0063 

6 17 

7 21 0.015 

8 21 0.012 0.022 

9 13 

10 23 0.0066 

11 19 

12 17 0.0058 0.017 

13 14 0.0075 0.014 

14 11 

15 11 

16 18 

17 19 0.0074 

18 11 0.0055 

19 21 0.0063 

20 11 0.0095 

Avg=17 

E-B-4
Table B-4. Concentrations of Methane and VOCs (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 1 of the 

As-Built Upper Surface Scan 

As-Built 

Upper 

Concentration 

(ppmv*m) 

Mirror 1 

Loop Methane Ethylen 

e Acetylene Ethanol MTBE* 

1 24 0.0098 

2 18 0.0082 0.028 

3 27 0.0082 0.024 

4 25 

5 32 0.0067 

6 19 

7 29 

8 33 

9 37 

10 28 0.0055 

11 29 

12 23 

13 29 

14 19 0.012 

15 26 0.015 

16 25 0.015 

17 31 0.021 

18 27 0.020 0.0047 

19 25 0.022 

20 28 0.0082 0.019 0.025 

Avg=27 

* MTBE = Methyl tert-butyl ether

E-B-5 
Table B-5. Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 2 

of the As-Built Upper Surface Scan 

As-Built 

Upper Concentrations 

Mirror 2 

Loop Methane Ethylene Acetylene Ethanol Ammonia 

1 26 0.0038 

2 21 0.00077 

3 27 0.0057 0.011 

4 24 

5 28 

6 15 0.0054 0.011 

7 39 0.0087 0.022 0.0078 

8 31 0.0036 

9 24 0.0041 

10 31 

11 16 0.0053 0.017 

12 13 

13 12 0.0038 

14 22 0.0049 0.0035 

15 35 0.0092 0.020 0.025 

16 24 0.011 

17 22 

18 27 0.0079 0.017 

19 33 0.012 

20 36 0.0072 0.011 0.0023 

Avg=25 

E-B-6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Table B-6. Methane Concentrations (in ppm) found during the Retrofit Radial Scanning Survey 

Loops Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 Mirror 6 Mirror 7 Mirror 8 

Radial North 

1 52 26 68 21 57 49 63 48 

2 36 31 52 36 62 26 30 25 

3 41 24 83 28 51 43 41 61 

4 52 25 77 28 80 53 49 35 

5 47 19 57 29 49 40 29 42 

6 48 22 50 29 49 32 23 36 

7 15 19 27 25 61 18 34 25 

8 46 11 63 37 67 36 33 57 

9 43 24 64 41 49 30 19 41 

10 10 4 29 25 69 20 31 24 

11 45 15 53 27 50 31 51 55 

12 22 26 37 34 61 26 56 25 

13 12 28 52 25 66 17 46 36 

14 40 16 38 34 59 39 26 28 

Radial South 

67 54 38 32 33 45 53 50 

40 71 48 26 28 28 53 61 

36 76 45 52 29 39 32 50 

52 94 54 35 53 32 45 67 

36 50 49 46 37 31 44 63 

36 63 46 34 50 23 32 45 

31 48 53 34 18 39 37 37 

42 83 46 37 41 42 38 38 

25 53 45 32 32 32 40 33 

15 41 48 29 25 32 28 35 

18 58 44 29 44 32 37 36 

22 36 41 23 27 36 30 31 

E-B-7
Table B-7. Methane Concentrations (in ppm) found during the Retrofit Vertical Scanning Survey 

Wind Direction 

Loop Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 Wind Speed from normal to Comments (m/s) vertical plane 

(deg) 

Retrofit North 

1 20.9 87.2 51.3 15.5 

2 48.3 62.0 36.4 11.9 

3 32.7 71.1 35.3 6.7 

4 25.3 65.3 36.1 9.0 

5 38.9 69.5 40.9 9.0 

12.0 2.7 347 Loop Used 

5.1 2.7 6 Loop Used 

3.1 3.8 354 Loop Used 

8.5 3.3 352 Loop Used 

3.6 3.3 353 Loop Used 

Retrofit South 

1 32.8 31.9 23.1 12.2 11.1 

2 46.6 39.6 22.4 13.9 8.9 

3 37.9 33.2 29.2 14.5 7.6 

4 31.5 40.5 17.6 16.2 5.9 

5 16.2 42.1 30.2 11.6 5.6 

6 51.6 44.4 27.6 12.3 5.1 

7 26.2 35.1 13.5 11.2 15.7 

8 64.0 42.7 30.9 14.8 9.3 

9 22.7 38.6 15.4 16.2 17.1 

10 15.7 37.2 28.3 14.2 11.4 

11 30.0 38.9 29.5 10.0 4.7 

12 20.7 29.8 23.5 15.5 15.8 

13 20.4 43.8 41.2 15.9 13.9 

14 50.7 37.2 27.3 12.1 5.9 

15 17.3 41.2 30.3 9.0 6.8 

16 15.2 16.0 12.8 16.4 5.1 

17 19.8 41.2 28.1 8.4 5.9 

18 15.7 40.5 32.6 7.5 6.2 

19 30.9 41.3 35.0 14.0 5.7 

20 71.3 33.8 33.3 11.4 11.2 

21 23.3 40.0 38.2 11.7 9.2 

22 22.4 33.3 21.3 11.4 8.5 

23 36.2 28.2 12.6 11.0 12.1 

2.0 127 Loop not used-does not 

meet wind criteria 

2.9 110 Loop not used-does not 

meet wind criteria 

4.3 196 Loop not used-does not 

meet wind criteria 

1.8 330 Loop Used 

4.2 334 Loop Used 

4.0 89 Loop not used-does not 

meet wind criteria 

2.2 69 Loop Used 

3.2 12 Loop Used 

4.5 296 Loop Used 

4.6 321 Loop Used 

4.3 324 Loop Used 

2.4 89 Loop not used-does not 

meet wind criteria 

4.2 348 Loop Used 

4.1 27 Loop Used 

3.3 322 Loop Used 

2.6 325 Loop Used 

4.8 318 Loop Used 

2.9 351 Loop Used 

4.0 24 Loop Used 

3.1 88 Loop not used-does not 

meet wind criteria 

4.2 101 Loop not used-does not 

meet wind criteria 

2.3 324 Loop Used 

2.4 346 Loop Used 

E-B-8
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

Table B-8. Methane Concentrations (in ppmv) from the Biocover/Control Area Vertical Survey 

LoopLoop Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 

Wind 

Speed 

(m/s) 

Wind directio

from North 

(deg) 

n

CommentsComments

32.1 43.7 64.3 45.6 45.6 0.8 326 Loop used for Control 

37.8 40.4 58.8 55.0 48.0 1.0 51 Loop used for 

Biocover 

28.6 46.6 97.1 18.6 12.3 1.2 23 Loop used for 

Biocover 

15.7 26.9 42.6 12.2 13.0 1.1 2 Loop used for 

Biocover 

8.39 25.8 28.8 19.9 10.9 1.4 48 Loop used for 

Biocover 

16.5 67.3 50.5 34.0 10.8 1.7 15 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

50.0 37.1 46.5 28.2 24.6 1.0 340 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

53.0 33.3 39.2 23.6 17.8 1.5 344 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

39.1 29.6 70.1 28.6 35.2 1.3 15 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

15.3 43.1 56.4 29.3 28.4 0.5 151 Loop used for 

Biocover 

17.8 50.5 46.6 27.1 17.2 0.6 233 Loop used for Control 

13.6 33.0 38.8 40.9 23.9 0.8 84 Loop used for 

Biocover 

31.3 38.5 35.4 30.4 18.5 0.4 54 Loop used for 

Biocover 

21.0 42.2 52.7 34.9 21.2 0.8 74 Loop used for 

Biocover 

33.0 32.9 56.6 23.2 20.7 1.1 31 Loop used for 

Biocover 

19.5 30.3 50.1 21.2 19.0 1.4 4 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

22.8 32.4 46.9 24.0 21.3 1.3 230 Loop used for Control 

20.8 26.4 47.9 35.2 15.6 0.7 58 Loop used for 

Biocover 

23.7 39.6 38.6 27.0 12.2 1.4 58 Loop used for 

Biocover 

15.4 29.5 36.3 18.4 19.7 1.2 113 Loop used for 

Biocover 

10.5 23.2 33.0 21.4 20.3 1.0 208 Loop used for Control 

15.8 41.3 61.5 28.5 19.2 1.3 36 Loop used for 

Biocover 

9.40 26.3 43.7 16.2 11.7 1.5 33 Loop used for 

Biocover 

13.9 24.4 36.3 22.4 16.9 1.0 106 Loop used for 

Biocover 

17.7 32.3 44.4 28.6 19.5 0.9 65 Loop used for 

Biocover 

19.9 37.0 37.0 21.6 22.7 0.6 66 Loop used for 

Biocover 

E-B-9
LoopLoop Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 Mirror 1 

Wind Wind direction 

Speed from North CommentsComments

(m/s) (deg) 

18.1 54.1 27 

28.0 50.1 28 

28.7 47.1 29 

50.0 73.7 30 

53.0 78.8 31 

39.1 78.6 32 

36.7 74.4 33 

11.1 61.2 34 

14.9 35.4 35 

15.1 18.1 36 

21.6 14.1 37 

7.95 14.7 38 

9.46 18.8 39 

7.93 15.9 40 

19.0 47.1 41 

14.9 35.3 42 

26.9 35.7 43 

32.6 18.6 44 

7.71 38.6 45 

25.2 58.3 46 

11.3 17.6 47 

24.4 44.4 48 

40.0 35.6 49 

16.9 24.2 50 

19.1 20.0 51 

16.2 17.6 52 

49.8 

38.6 

39.0 

68.0 

55.7 

71.3 

83.2 

55.1 

43.2 

23.8 

14.5 

20.7 

33.8 

61.7 

35.3 

31.1 

31.5 

25.2 

43.2 

23.9 

22.6 

39.4 

51.0 

39.0 

18.8 

19.3 

32.3 

32.8 

29.5 

47.0 

52.4 

40.3 

48.3 

20.3 

30.6 

7.53 

8.73 

8.67 

9.27 

19.4 

14.2 

22.9 

24.7 

25.7 

27.1 

16.1 

14.9 

25.5 

27.8 

16.2 

10.6 

8.96 

30.0 

29.2 

28.2 

47.9 

41.1 

39.4 

39.5 

17.2 

25.9 

7.75 

6.76 

5.96 

6.90 

20.4 

6.03 

33.4 

21.0 

15.7 

27.0 

6.85 

7.15 

17.0 

7.92 

17.8 

9.65 

4.84 

0.7 

0.9 

1.2 

1.3 

1.0 

1.9 

2.3 

1.3 

2.4 

4.8 

3.1 

2.9 

3.7 

1.6 

4.1 

1.6 

2.9 

2.5 

3.2 

4.0 

3.8 

2.9 

3.3 

4.1 

5.1 

5.2 

58 Loop used for 

Biocover 

77 Loop used for 

Biocover 

6 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

20 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

357 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

85 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

29 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

147 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

56 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

64 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

105 Loop used for 

Biocover 

77 Loop used for 

Biocover 

58 Loop used for 

Biocover 

35 Loop used for 

Biocover 

44 Loop used for 

Biocover 

355 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

355 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

344 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

356 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

66 Loop used for 

Biocover 

76 Loop used for 

Biocover 

352 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

363 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

37 Loop used for 

Biocover 

76 Loop used for 

Biocover 

83 Loop used for 

Biocover 

E-B-10 
LoopLoop Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 

Wind 

Speed 

(m/s) 

Wind direction 

from North 

(deg) 

CommentsComments

53 15.7 19.3 25.2 9.90 15.4 3.7 79 Loop used for 

Biocover 

54 25.3 27.6 24.0 12.4 12.4 3.8 60 Loop used for 

Biocover 

55 14.8 38.4 52.4 34.8 17.5 3.0 20 Loop not used-does 

not meet wind criteria 

56 19.3 21.1 26.5 11.3 8.84 4.4 67 Loop used for 

Biocover 

57 16.6 17.4 16.6 10.9 5.72 3.2 86 Loop used for 

Biocover 

58 32.7 24.3 29.5 15.2 9.83 3.0 107 Loop used for 

Biocover 

59 13.8 27.3 27.3 11.0 10.8 4.0 49 Loop used for 

Biocover 

E-B-11
Table B-9. Methane, Ammonia and VOC Concentrations (in ppmv) Measured on Mirror 1 of the 

Biocover Area 

Biocover Concentration 

(ppmv) 

Mirror 1 

Loop Methane TFM* CFM* Ethanol MTBE* Ammonia Ethylene 

1 51 0.0057 0.104 0.012 

2 54 0.0068 

3 41 0.023 

4 38 0.028 

5 42 0.035 0.026 

6 32 0.028 0.031 

7 38 0.031 0.021 0.0077 

8 28 0.016 

9 16 0.0059 

Avg=38 .021 

*TFM= Trichlorofluoromethane 

*CFM= Chlorodifluoromethane 

*MTBE= methyl tert-butyl ether 

Table B-10. Methane Concentration (in ppmv) found at the Compost Downwind Area 

Loop Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Wind 

Direction 

1 5.8 5.1 5.8 4.2 183 

2 5.8 5.1 5.3 5.5 135 

3 5.3 5.3 6.0 4.3 144 

4 5.2 5.3 6.8 5.6 166 

5 6.4 5.4 6.2 4.6 208 

E-B-12 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Table B-11. Methane Concentrations (in ppmv) found at the Compost Upwind Area 

Loop Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 Wind Direction 

10 13 13 12 11 322 

7.3 11 9.5 10 10 218 

10 10 9.3 10 10 280 

7.7 9.1 8.4 8.6 8.8 297 

8.7 10 10 10 11 259 

10 11 11 13 13 274 

8.5 15 15 15 16 235 

19 20 19 20 22 224 

13 28 27 29 28 239 

28 30 27 28 26 225 

22 26 23 24 24 234 

12 23 21 22 21 225 

5.4 6.1 5.9 4.7 6.7 143 

5.4 7.2 6.4 5.5 8.3 132 

5.7 6.3 6.4 4.8 6.9 104 

6.1 7.5 7.4 5.7 7.1 87 

6.0 7.1 6.0 5.4 5.4 168 

6.0 8.0 5.7 6.1 9.0 290 

E-B-13