Joint Technical Advisory Group Meeting University of ...labees.civil.fau.edu/Technical Advisory Group Meeting-minutes-05-27...Joint Technical Advisory Group Meeting ... University

Joint Technical Advisory Group Meeting

University of Florida and Florida Atlantic University Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

and the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County

MEETING AGENDA

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

10:00 – 10:15 am Opening Address and Introduction of Participants J. Schert10:15 – 11:00 am Leachate Collection System Clogging K. Kohn

D. Purdy

J. Dacey

A. Harris 11:00– 11:15 am Overview of University of Florida Research

Studies

T. Townsend

11:15– 12:00 noon Options for On‐Site Leachate and Groundwater

Management Strategies at Landfills

J. Wally

R. Darioosh

J. Chung 12:00 – 12:35 pm Tool for Assessing Potential Iron Exceedances in

Groundwater at Landfill Sites

L. Sarmiento

N. Blaisi

J. Chung 12:35 Lunch 12:35 –12:55 pm Overview of Florida Atlantic University Studies D. Meeroff12:55 –1:15 pm Groundwater Circulation Well Technology

Experiments

A. Albasri

1:15 –1:35 pm Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the

Environment

J. Lackner

1:35 –1:55 pm Open Forum Participants2:00 pm Adjourn, Thank You J. Schert

For more information, contact Dr. Daniel E. Meeroff at:

Tel.(561) 297‐3099 FAX.(561) 297‐0493 http://labees.civil.fau.edu

Attendance: Denys Purdy, Justin Dacey, Alyssa Harris , Jim Wally, Nawaf Blaisi, Jaeshik Chung,

Linda Monroy, Roja Dasioorh, Chris Moody, Kevin Kohn, Tim Vinson, Jessyca Dalazen, Ahmed

Albasri, Joseph Lakner, Damaris Lugo, Richard Loff, Sam Levin, John Schert, Tim Townsend,

Dan Meeroff

1. Opening address by J. Schert of the Hinkley Center followed by introduction of the

group members and participants (10:05 am) 2. Kevin Kohn (UF) gave an introduction to the leachate collection system clogging

project. He described the nature and history of the clogging issues at the Solid

Waste Authority of Palm Beach County. He discussed the potential mechanisms

including supersaturation with calcium carbonate, degassing of carbon dioxide,

and the role of microorganisms. He described solutions that had been set forth in

the previous studies and the literature including acid addition, loading reduction,

coarse drainage layers, carbon dioxide degassing, limiting mixing of different

leachate streams, organic colloids, stagnant conditions, etc. He described the

different types of rocking observed in the study, the water quality testing, and

sampling methodology used. Next, he showed data profiles with respect to

temperature, pH, alkalinity, COD, etc. He then presented historical leachate

collection system inspection patterns from 2007‐2014. Then he described column

studies to investigate nucleation sites and the role of microorganisms as well as

the effect of stagnant vs. turbulent conditions. Finally, he presented potential

solutions currently being tested by SWA and the UF/FAU/Hinkley Center team

as well as operational and design changes. 3. Alyssa Harris (FAU) presented FAU leachate aeration experiment data and

vibration table experiments. There was a suggestion to run the experiments in a

fume hood to increase evaporation. Sam Levin suggested controls that were open

to the atmosphere and recording the amount of precipitates formed. 4. Denys Purdy (FAU) described leachate loop experiments conducted at FAU. The

first experiment was run for 100 hours with no significant precipitate formation.

This was expected since no air, foam, nucleation sites or flow obstructions were

used. Mr Purdy described planned modifications to the experiment setup to form

the precipitates and then test conditions to prevent formation. Sam Levin

recommended to turn off the pump and let the leachate sit but this was already

done. Then he suggested to use a larger reservoir of leachate. Mr Schert asked if

the leachate was representative with respect to calcium. Ms. Lugo asked if the

size of the pipe in the track plays a role. Mr. Lackner asked if the pipe materials

were the same as in the field, but they are not. Dr. Townsend recommended

hypothesis testing for the experimental design rather than random testing. 5. Tim Townsend (UF) introduced additional leachate research at UF. He described

projects on beneficial use of wastes, landfill design, groundwater issues

associated with landfills, and C&D debris recycling. He described field studies of

beneficial reuse of ash in roadways in Pasco County, modeling efforts for iron in

groundwater and surface water near landfills, and onsite management of iron in

groundwater and leachate. 6. Jim Wally (UF) presented his work on updating a leachate management database

based on Meeroff and Teegavarapu 2008. He asked for the audience to help him

fill holes in the survey. He also addressed the issue of cost data for management

options. 7. Roja Dasioorh (UF) presented her work on leachate water quality database updates

based on Meeroff and Teegavarapu 2008. Her focus is on pH, TDS, COD, BOD, chlorides,

sodium, iron, arsenic, lead, calcium, ammonia, etc. 8. Jaeshik Chung (UF) presented finite element modeling work on vadose zone aeration

venting for iron remediation under passive venting and negative pressure conditions. Dr.

Meeroff raised concerns about biofilm plugging. John Schert asked about ORP

measurements and strength of aeration piping underneath the landfill. Ms. Lugo and

others asked how the hydraulic conductivity, porosity, oxygen profile, ORP, specific

oxygen uptake rate, and overlap of aeration profiles were taken into account in the

model. 9. Richard Lott (UF) presented a brief review of groundwater quality data of iron in

landfills using WACS. He compared groundwater background levels with iron

detections in groundwater with box and whisker plots. 10. Linda Monroy (UF) presented her work on determining the initial concentrations of iron

underneath landfills. She described a preliminary experiment to determine conditions

for determining this value with a 15‐30 day test method with nitrogen purging and a

celluslose carbon source at different liquid/solids ratios using DI water. They tried

various leaching solutions including young and old leachate. Dr. Meeroff suggested

using sterile dilution water with nutrients (such as the water used during the BOD test

instead of DI water or actual leachate which varies too much). 11. Nawaf Blaisi (UF) presented his work with changing the liquid/solid ratio using an

anaerobic glove box and aerobic conditions as well. Dr. Meeroff suggested varying the

carbon content with something like methanol in sterile dilution water with nutrients. 12. Jaeshik Chung (UF) returned to describe his modeling of Fe(II) dissolution underneath

landfills using TOUGH and TOUGH2, which are conservation of mass based models.

He looked at how long it would take to induce the soluble ferrous iron to background

levels. He looked at the effect of sorption using a 0.1 distribution coefficient, and showed

the retardation effect as well as spatial‐temporal variations with aeration downgradient.

He plans to look at other minerals other than iron as well. Sam Levin asked about the

difference in the model if the landfill was lined v. unlined. 13. Break for lunch 14. Dan Meeroff (FAU) introduced FAU research on leachate treatment, iron in

groundwater, membrane treatment of wastewater, sustainability in buildings, water

conservation, water quality, sea level rise, and green lodging.

15. Ahmed Albasri (FAU) presented his work on groundwater circulation wells for

managing iron in groundwater underneath landfills. He presented results from phase 1,

2, and 3. He described his experiments for phase 4 with continuous feeding of

groundwater spiked with iron conducted at the water treatment facility in Boca Raton

with Boca Raton sandy soils in a flow through configuration to determine reaction times,

radius of influence, and other design/cost criteria. Sam Levin asked how to stop the iron

from creating a layer of precipitates at the top. Albasri responded by showing how the

new setup will introduce flow in the subsurface of the tank. The remaining questions are

surrounding the amount of air and how far apart the wells need to be. John Schert raised

concerns about well clogging. Albasri then asked questions of the audience with respect

to cost data, other locations suffering from this problem, the radius of influence equation,

and iron speciation methods. 16. Joseph Lackner (FAU) described the UV/TIO2 photocatalytic process to treat weak

leachates for potential beneficial reuse in applications such as surface water discharge,

irrigation, industrial cooling water use, and dilution water. He described the

modifications done to the pilot unit and described his methodology for upcoming

experiments. The key items were to quantify the fate of ammonia and COD, optimize

the catalyst dose, recovery, cost and energy usage. He talked about varying the UV

wavelengths and lamp energies to reduce the reaction times and decrease the cost of the

process. Dr. Townsend recommended that the water quality parameters for FAC777

could be significantly reduced for efficacy testing. 17. Dr. Meeroff (FAU) thanked everyone for participating and thanked all of the speakers. 18. Meeting adjourned at 2:20 pm

5/29/2014

1

EXAMINATION OF LCS

CLOGGING AT ASH AND

MSW CO-DISPOSAL LANDFILL

May 27, 2014

The Problem

Clogging of:

Leachate collection system (LCS) pipes within the landfill

cells.

Leachate force main “outside” the cells.

Gas condensate “force main” clogging.

The Site

Dyer Landfill

Admin Building

Class III Landfill

New

Mass Burn RDF

Closed Cells 1 - 4

Cells 13, 14

Cells 11, 12 Cells 5,6,7, and 8

N

Leachate Gravity Lines, Gas Condensate

and Force Main

B

Pump

Sta

Why Study?

LCS is critical - limit leachate head

Expect a reduction in LCS efficiency; so,

Design redundant systems

Bottom slope, pipes, drainage layer, separate cells

Apply factors of safety (FOS)

Clean-outs for LCS pipes to allow cleaning.

Complete blockage not anticipated.

Design and FOS may need to change.

The Focus

Our focus has been to better understand both:

The mechanism – how clogs form

Allows assessment of FOS and deign adequacy.

Treating the day-to-day issues to prevent permit

& operation issues.

Dilution

Acid treat

Electrostatic treatment

5/29/2014

2

What We Knew at the Start

(September 2012)

March 1999 – loss of leachate flow Cell 6.

Force main clogged - outside Landfill.

Also, gravity lines clogged in Cell.

Cell 6 constructed: 1995 – 1996.

1st waste: Sept 1996.

< 3 years for significant clog formation.

Annual LCS inspection and maintenance:

Clogging in pipes in Cells 1 - 8

Previous Work

Maliva, Levine, Mullah-Salah, Mayer

Leachate supersaturated with calcite;

CO2 degassing may play a role

Microbes involved

“Passive” as nucleation sites

“Active”

Metabolism affects environment around microbe

More alkaline = CaCO3 solid

Metabolic activities generate ions which form insoluble

solids

Previous Work

Maliva, Levine, Mullah-Salah, Mayer

Particles in leachate and clog: Calcium predominant (90%)

Some Mg, P, Cl, S, CO32-, and Si

Ash a source of calcium and TDS in leachate.

Clogging in Ash/MSW > MSW > ash

Operational and design considerations

Acid treat clogged pipes

Reduce loading – larger pipes closer together.

Coarse drainage layer

“Working” Hypotheses

Multiple factors – not all at play all the time.

Leachate supersaturated with:

Calcium

(source = ash and MSW)

Carbonates

(source = microbial degradation of MSW)

pH increase as CO2 released to atmosphere.

Less CO2 in atmosphere outside Landfill than inside.

CaCO3 less soluble at high pH

Exacerbated by turbulence/pumping

“Working” Hypotheses (continued)

Mixing of different leachate streams, for example:

Low pH (6.9) and high pH (7.8)

Low pH lots of Ca2+ and CO32- in solution mixes with high

pH causing rapid precipitation of CaCO3.

High organic (gas condensate) and high Ca2+

(+) ions surround (-) colloids = agglomeration

“Working” Hypotheses (continued)

Stagnant conditions

“Standing” leachate = more clogging than flowing.

Microbial activity

Source of carbonates - MSW degradation

Nucleation sites for crystal formation

Suspended particles in leachate

Formation of “biofilm”

Secretion of EPS that trap suspended particles

Metabolism affects environment around microbe

5/29/2014

3

“Working Hypotheses” (continued)

Clogging mechanism must account for:

Clogging in disparate environments

LCS pipes deep in Landfill.

Leachate in pipes outside the Landfill.

Formation of very different types of clog material:

Answering the Questions

CaCO3 Forms from Saturated Solutions

Are leachates supersaturated with Ca2+

and CO32- ?

Previous analyses were on mixtures

Liquids mix in manholes; so,

Collect “discrete samples”.

Separate cells, gas condensate

Expand sample points

Collect many samples = confidence

3/8/2013 4/8/2013 5/8/2013 6/8/2013 7/8/2013 8/8/2013 9/8/2013 10/8/2013 11/8/2013 12/8/2013 1/8/2014 2/8/2014 3/8/2014 4/8/2014

Sa…Dates sampled:

Typical Cleanout Sampling

Sampling Cell 7 – Cleanout 9

Langlier Index - All Supersaturated

Location SS or US

PS B & C6 SS

Gas Cond C5 SS

LDS 6 SS

Flare Cond SS

Cl III & Dyer SS

Dyer SS

Gas Cond C6 SS

C7 Composite SS

LDS C7 SS

C10 Composite SS

C10 LDS SS

C12 Composite SS

C12 LDS SS

PS D SS

C11 Composite SS

C10 Lateral SS

Dr. Meeroff’s lab:

Analyzed samples for pH, ALK,

Temperature, TDS, Ca2+

Calculated Langlier & Ryznar

indices.

Indicates propensity to scale

Most supersaturated.

But not clogs everywhere; so,

more involved.

Location SS or US

C11 LDS SS

C9 Composite SS

C9 LDS SS

Cool Tower SS

C8 LDS SS

C8 Lateral SS

C5 LDS SS

C6 LDS SS

PS C SS

Dyer SS

C5 Lateral SS

C11 Lateral SS

C9 Lateral SS

C7 Lateral SS

C12 Lateral SS

Lots of Data – Different Locations

Allows Comparisons to Determine Patterns

6.80

7.00

7.20

7.40

7.60

7.80

8.00

Time (6 mos) 29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

T

Time (6 mos)

“Natural” T Variation “Natural” pH Variation

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

4 6 8 10 12 14

Cell #

pH - Same Day all Cells

Cell #

7.00

7.20

7.40

7.60

7.80

8.00

8.20

8.40

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

4 6 8 10 12

pH

ALK

and C

OD

pH, ALK, COD - Same Day all Cells

Time Check

Halfway

8 minutes left?

Does CO2 Degassing Cause Clogging?

Does CO2 diffuse to air when

leachate leaves landfill?

If yes, what impact?

Samples:

Not exposed to air.

What happens when exposed?

5/29/2014

4

CaCO3 Forms When CO2 Degasses

When leachate degasses:

pH goes up.

CaCO3 forms

Decrease in ALK

Suspended solids less

9000

9200

9400

9600

9800

10000

10200

10400

11-Mar-14

Alk

alin

ity

(m

g/L

)

Effect of CO2 Degassing on Alkalinity

C11 - ALK (No air)

C 11 - ALK (Air)

13.00

13.50

14.00

14.50

15.00

15.50

16.00

Total Dissolved

So

lid

Co

nte

nt

(g/L

)

Effect of CO2 Degassing on Dissolved Solids

Content

Solids (no air)

Solids (air)

7

7.5

8

0 5 10 15

pH

Time (minutes)

pH Increases as CO2 Degasses

Mixing of Leachate Streams – Organic Colloids

Organic colloids

Suspended in solution

Too small to settle

Usually (-) charged

If mixed with Ca2+ in

leachate, then

Repulsive force is reduced

agglomeration.

Effects of Mixing – Organic Colloids

High organic (gas condensate) mixed with high Ca2+ (Cell 9)

If agglomeration, then TS same & DS of mixture decreases.

No decrease in DS after mixing.

20.00

21.00

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

Apr 8 Apr 22

Solids

(g/L)

C9 & GC

Predicted TS

C9 & GC Actual

TS

C9 & GC

Predicted DS

C9 & GC Actual

DS

TS

TS

DS

DS

Effects of Mixing – Organic Colloids

High organic (gas condensate) mixed with high Ca2+ (calcium standard)

If agglomeration, then TS same & DS of mixture decreases.

No decrease in DS after mixing.

13.40

13.60

13.80

14.00

14.20

14.40

14.60

14.80

15.00

Apr 23

Solids

(g/L)

GC & Ca StdPredicted TS

GC & Ca StdActual TS

GC & Ca StdPredicted DS

GC & Ca StdActual DS

TS

DS

Effects of Mixing - pH Role of Saturated Conditions

Comparison of Annual Pipe Inspections

<--------------------------------------912'--------------------------------------------->

Aug-98

N 2014 Feet

1 o----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 875

2 o------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 830

3 o--------- 90

4 o----------- 110

5 o------ 55

6 o----- 50

7 o---------------------------------------------- 460

8 o------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 780

9 o-------------------------------- 320

10

11

12

13

S

2013

1 o----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 900

2 o------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 912

3 o---------------------------------- 350

4 o------------ 125

5 o----- 52

6 o--------------- 151

7 o------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 838

8 o------------------------------------------------------------- 618

9 o------------------------------- 310

10

11

12

13

<-----------------------------------------912'--------------------------------------------->

Aug-98

2008

1 o---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 875

2 o-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 800

3 o----------- 113

4 o--------- 93

5 o----- 51

6 o------------------------ 239

7 o------------------------------------ 361

8 o----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 762

9 o------------------------ 237

10

11

12

13

N 2007

1 o---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 875

2 o--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 806

3 o---------- 104

4 o--------- 86

5 o---- 43

6 o------------------------ 239

7 o---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 875

8 o---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 875

9 o--------------------- 206

10

11

12

13

o---|------|- -|------|------|------|------|---o

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Header (2014)

Laterals Laterals

2007

2008 2014

2013

5/29/2014

5

Do Flooded Conditions Matter?

Different Exit Conditions

Geotextile Drainage material

(1 foot)

Ash

(4 feet)

Water in

Leachate out

Clear Pipe

Make volume through each pipe the same; so,

“loading” is the same for both pipes.

2. Constant Flow

1. Periodic:

Stagnate -> Release -> Stagnate

1% slope on pipe

Experiment in the dark, temperature

maintained at 35 C and nitrogen atmosphere.

Leachate from SWA – replaced every two weeks.

Do Flooded Conditions Matter?

Role of Microbes

Nucleation Sites or More?

Saturated Solution

CaCO3 in

Stir gently

Measure Ca2+

out

Add nucleation sites:

(silica sand, ash, microbes)

Role of Microbes

Nucleation Sites or More?

100 mL Plastic

syringe w

silica sand

Leachate

w and w/o live microbes

Drainage tube

Can create

saturated

conditions

Determine mass

of precipitate

From: Qabany (2012. Factors affecting microbe induced calcite precipitation

Role of Microbes

Precipitate Formation on Microbe Surface

From: Watson-Craik (1995) Selected approaches for the investigation of microbial interactions in landfill sites.

So, What Do We Know?

Virtually all liquids sampled have potential to scale.

Not seen everywhere; so, other factors contribute.

CO2 degasses, pH goes up, and CaCO3 forms.

Pumping and other turbulence seems to exacerbate.

No precipitate riser sampling tube removed from riser but scale on

coupon in manhole and pneumatic gas well pumps

“Inside” “Outside” Effects of Air?

5/29/2014

6

What We Know (continued)

Leachate chemistry

changes rapidly.

-80-60-40-20020406080

25

27

29

31

33

35

25-Mar 26-Mar

OR

P (

mV

)

Tem

pera

ture

(C

)

Temp

ORP

0

20

40

60

80

100

25-Mar 26-Mar

% D

O

% DO

0

5

10

15

20

25

7.82

7.84

7.86

7.88

7.9

7.92

7.94

7.96

7.98

4 6 8 10 12 14

%D

O

pH

Time (minutes)

pH

%DO

“4 mins. sucking air”

“1 day open flange”


Leachate chemistry

changes rapidly with

different conditions.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% G

as

CH4 CO2 O2 Balance

String inside

closed manhole

yellowish

powdery

precipitate


Standing worse than flowing leachate.

Anecdotal but crafting experiments.

To date, not able to demonstrate or rule out mixing

(either different pH or organics with Ca2+ rich

leachate) having effect.


How crystals form and growth of crystal at point of

first formation may be important.

Precipitate formed all along

string but clog formed only

at point where two strings

are close enough together so

crystals can grow.

What to Do?

As from the beginning, SWA pushing forward:

“Treatments” being explored

Acid “drip”

Dilution

Electronic treatment

Operational changes

Limit mixing

Limit atmospheric and other “disturbances”

Limit turbulent conditions

Reduce leachate generation

Internalize cleaning? Less cost? More often?

Additional design changes?

Acknowledgements and Questions

Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County

Mark Eyeington

SWA Staff

Ron Schultz, Nathan Mayer, et. al

Dr. Meeroff (FAU)

Hinkley Center

John Schert, Tim Vinson, Rhonda Rogers-Bardsley

Dr. Townsend (UF)

Questions?

6/2/2014

1

Aeration Tests

pH v. time Turbidity v. time

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8.0

8.2

0 50 100

pH

Elapsed Time (minutes)

Aerated

Control

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 50 100

Tu

rbid

ity

(N

TU

)

Elapsed Time (minutes)

Aerated

Control

Vibration Table Tests

Emulates aeration test using

foam

Rotates at 1rev in 1.096s

Initial weight: 171.23g

Weight over time:

23 hrs: 127.84g

Control (stationary):

Initial Weight: 179.31

23 hours: 138.36g

6/2/2014

2

Comparison

Initial After 4.5 Hours

After 23 hours

Control (Stationary)

Initial 23 hours

100 mL after 43 hours: 1 rev 1.4s

Additional Experiments

Vary the amount of foam, or leachate

Vary the speed of rotation

Aerate?

How long before crystals start to form?

Run experiment in fume hood

TAG Meeting May‐27, 2013: D Purdy 3‐Jun‐14

1

Leachate Loop 2.0

Circulates leachate continuously from 550 mL/min to 1500 mL/min at 40°C on a 1% slope, in two independent loops

Version 1.0 tested pH buffered and found no significant rock formation

Possible Inhibitors- Lack of air- Lack of a nuclei- Lack of flow obstruction

6/3/2014

Rock Theory Formation

Perforated Aeration Tubing

Aerated Leachate

Formed in Foam at Surface, around just a string

6/3/2014

Modification: Circulate & Aerate

6/3/2014

Aerated Leachate Circulation Video

6/3/2014

What’s Next?

Loop Modifications- Ventilation risers (manholes)- In-line obstructions (pins, tubing irregularities)- Centrifugal pumping

Once Solids Formed- Dilution & flow rates- Acid drip- Temperature differential

Audience Comments & Recommendations?

6/3/2014

5/29/2014

1

Hinkley Center Research at University of Florida

Environmental Engineering Sciences

Current Research Projects

• Beneficial Use of Wastes

• Landfill Design, Operation and Monitoring

• Groundwater Issues at Landfills

• C&D Debris Recycling

• Two current Hinkley Center Projects

Assessing Options for On-site Leachate and Groundwater Management Strategies at Florida Landfills

Developing Tool for Assessing Potential Iron Exceedances in Groundwater at Landfill Sites

Demonstration of WTE Bottom Use in Road

Construction in Pasco County

Overview Construction of field scale test strips using WTE bottom ash as an ingredient in road construction

Project currently underway (UF, Pasco County, Covanta)

• Laboratory environmental testing including LEAF

• Lab scale materials testing

• Development of mix designs

• Asphalt and concrete testing

• Groundwater monitoring

4

Test Strip Base Pavement

1 WTE Bottom Ash Asphalt

2 Limerock Asphalt

1

2

3

4

5

5/29/2014

2

WTE Bottom Ash as Base

5/29/2014

3

Thanks!

• Townsend Research Group Page • http://pages.ees.ufl.edu/townsend/

• Research publications • http://pages.ees.ufl.edu/townsend/publications/refereed-journal-

publications/

• [email protected]

http://pages.ees.ufl.edu/townsend/publications/refereed-journal-publications/





5/29/2014

4

5/29/2014

5

HMA with WTE Bottom Ash as Partial Aggregate Replacement

5/29/2014

6

Developing Tool for Assessing Potential Iron Exceedances in Groundwater at Landfill Sites

5/29/2014

7

Two Primary Issues

• Observations of surface water impacted by iron in the vicinity of landfills.

• Exceedances of iron concentrations in landfill groundwater monitoring wells above regulatory standards and health-based risk thresholds.

The iron becomes reduced, turning into a more soluble form (it moves from the soil to the groundwater). This can be caused by both biotic and abiotic conditions.

Fe+3 Fe+2 Ferric Iron Ferrous Iron

If the landfill is unlined, iron reducing bacteria can utilize organic matter in the leachate as food and iron in the soil as an electron acceptor.

solid dissolved

Reductive Dissolution

Summary of Biological Reductive Dissolution

• Iron occurs naturally in the solid phase as Fe+3 . Under reducing conditions, iron can be biologically reduced to Fe+2.

• This results in iron exceedances in groundwater.

• When groundwater hits the atmosphere again (at a seep or creek), the iron precipitates back out of solution.

Fe+2 (dissolved) Fe+3 (solid)

2

2224

7

4

12)(}{

4

1FeOHCOHsFeOOHOCH

Consider conditions prior to a landfill. Since the aquifer is at equilibrium with atmosphere (w.r.t. dissolved oxygen), the iron stays in the solid phase.

Vadose Zone

Aquifer

α-Fe2O3

oxygen

dissolved oxygen

An unlined landfill is constructed.

Vadose Zone

Aquifer

oxygen

dissolved oxygen

If organic matter is discharged into the aquifer, it can be used by bacteria as a food source. Once oxygen is used up (along other more favorable electron acceptors), iron will be utilized, resulting in reductive dissolution.

Vadose Zone

Aquifer

Fe+2

2

2224

7

4

12)(}{

4

1FeOHCOHsFeOOHOCH

5/29/2014

8

What is the role of landfill gas? Displaces oxygen Adds organic matter

oxygen

dissolved oxygen

2

2224

7

4

12)(}{

4

1FeOHCOHsFeOOHOCH

The displacement of air from the vadose zone can limit reaeration and promote oxygen depletion

Consider a liner. Can it have an impact?

2

2224

7

4

12)(}{

4

1FeOHCOHsFeOOHOCH

Can the liner sufficiently cut off reaeration such that iron reducing conditions develop?

oxygen

dissolved oxygen

0.1 mg/L 1 mg/L 10 mg/L 100 mg/L

100 µg/L 1,000 µg/L 10,000 µg/L 100,000 µg/L

0.01 mg/L

10 µg/L

Typical Range of Iron Concentrations

1,000 mg/L

1,000,000 µg/L

SMCL 0.3 mg/L

Health Benchmark (4.2 mg/L)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

9/19/1991 6/15/1994 3/11/1997 12/6/1999 9/1/2002 5/28/2005 2/22/2008

Sample Date

Iron (

ug/L

)

Monitoring Well 7S

Iro

n c

on

ce

ntr

atio

n (

g/L

)

101

102

103

104

105

P-17 MW-2 5A 6 7 8D 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 P21 22 24 25 26 27 Leachate

GCTL

Health-based risk level

Potential Factors

• Reduction of DO in underlying groundwater due to physical constraint of oxygen recharge.

• Addition of organic matter as a result of construction activities (clearing, grubbing, new soils) and other site activities?

• Addition of organic matter as a result of storm water recharge?

Groundwater table

Fe+3 (s) Fe+2 (diss)

Fe+3 (s)

Fe+2 (diss)

5/29/2014

9

• Remedial • Install infrastructure to actively

remove/reduce iron concentrations from groundwater (pump and treat, permeable reactive barrier, air sparging)

• Passive • Predict the potential magnitude of

occurrence and adjust site boundary, zone of discharge, and/or monitoring requirements.

• Preventative • Construct the landfill foundation, liner

system and related infrastructure in a manner to prevent the formation of reducing conditions

Subject of recent research

Subject of research being presented today.

Subject of recently proposed research.

Developing a Tool for Assessing Potential Iron Exceedances in Groundwater at Landfill Sites

• Fundamental Objective: Build upon recent research conducted on iron at Florida landfills to develop an approach for evaluating future landfill sites for their potential to result in elevated iron concentrations in groundwater.

Dissolved Iron

(mg/L)

Upgradient Edge of Landfil l

Downgradient Edge of Landfil l

Vadose Zone

Surficial Aquifer

Air is depleted in vadose zone

Dissolved Fe(II) increases

Reaeration of aquifer

Decrease in Fe(II)

Big question: What distance is required

for Fe(II) to return to normal?

Co = Initial Concentration “leaving” the landfill footprint

Landfill

Vadose Zone

Aquifer

Distance from Landfill Edge

Dissolved Iron Concentration

Co

Tasks

1. Determining steady state iron concentrations

2. Modeling zone of discharge requirements

3. Approach development

4. Approach validation and refinement

Assessing Options for On-site Leachate and Groundwater Management

Strategies at Florida Landfills

5/29/2014

10

Research Agenda Item 7

What measures can be taken to prevent "reductive dissolution" of iron and arsenic beneath existing lined landfills? What are some low-cost design and construction options for getting oxygen into the soils? What are the options for new landfills that have not yet been constructed? How can we avoid creating new groundwater contamination problems due to “the shadow effect” underneath new lined cells which have not yet been built?

Research Agenda Items 12 and 13

Can constructed wetlands be utilized for onsite leachate treatment?

What are the onsite leachate treatment options for landfills that have high chloride levels in their leachate from waste-to-energy ash?

Options for On-Site Leachate Management

• Leachate recirculation

• Evaporation

• Wetlands

• On-site treatment plant with discharge to surface water or groundwater • High salt

• Low salt

Study Objectives

• Task 1: Update 2007 state of practice information

• Task 2: Critical review of ash landfill leachate management

• Task 3: Develop an engineering cost model for on site leachate treatment

• Task 4: Develop a tool to disseminate on-site leachate assessment

• Task 5: Develop design options for sub-liner vadose zone venting

• Task 6: Vadose zone venting simulation and economic evaluation

• Task 7: Preparation of final report

Task 1

• Update of current state of practice for leachate management at Florida landfills. The previous Hinkley Center study on leachate management practices in Florida will be updated (Townsend et al., 2007). Additional sites will be identified. Contact information for the majority of the facility operators already exists from the previous work. A specific objective is to identify all facilities with on-site leachate treatment components; these will serve as probable data sources for economic, energy and treatment efficiency data.

5/29/2014

11

Task 2

• Critical review of ash landfill leachate management practices. Given the Center Agenda Item 13, an in depth critical review, beyond those facilities in Florida, will be conducted for ash landfill leachate management. Leachate quality data, treatment experience, economic data and energy consumption information will be gathered from facilities around the country (and internationally if appropriate). The investigator already has contacts with many of the major companies involved in the WTE industry.

Task 3

• Development of an engineering cost model for on site leachate treatment. A spreadsheet economics model, one that includes energy consumption, will be developed for major on-site leachate treatment options. The source of the information will be from industry and facility contacts identified in Tasks 1 and 2, the scientific literature, communications with practicing engineers (included as part of the TAG), and consultation with equipment and technology vendors. The goal of the model will be to allow an interested party to enter site specific information, using defaults where necessary, and predict the costs of implementing various forms of on-site leachate treatment.

Task 4

• Development of a dissemination tool for on-site leachate assessment. The resulting model and associated information will be used to produce a tool for use by interested parties. The exact nature of the tool will depend on feedback from the TAG, but candidate formats are a spreadsheet, an interactive website, or an app.

Task 5

• Development of design options for sub-liner vadose zone venting. The investigator and his team will develop a set of potential design alternatives for meeting the objectives described earlier in this proposal. These design alternative are anticipated to include either air venting (forced aeration, induced soil venting, passive venting) or the addition of aerated water (possibly with amendments) using configurations/materials such as pipes, rock trenches, geonets, and high permeability soil layers. These configurations will be presented to the TAG for feedback before detailed simulation and costing.

Task 6

• Vadose zone venting simulation and economic evaluation. Appropriate design configurations developed in Task 5 will be modeled with respect to the potential to maintain baseline oxygen conditions under a landfill liner system. This will be modeled with standard hydraulic engineering techniques as well as multimedia transport models currently used by the investigator for reductive dissolution research. Based on these results, an engineering economic analysis and energy evaluation will be conducted for those scenarios/designs that are believed to suitably meet the desired objectives. The results will be compared to more traditional remedial alternatives.

Study Objectives








5/29/2014

12

Past Work

• Leachate Database

• Leachate Management in Florida

Source: Wastemap.org

Treatment Options for Landfill Leachate: 1. Discharge to WWTP

Landfill WWTP

61% of landfills surveyed in 2007

Treatment Options for Landfill Leachate: 2. Pretreatment, Discharge to WWTP

Landfill WWTP


Treatment Options for Landfill Leachate: 3. Pretreatment, Onsite Discharge

Landfill


Treatment Options for Landfill Leachate: 4. Recirculation

Landfill Landfill

19% of landfills surveyed in 2007 recirculated leachate 9% managed all leachate through recirculation

Treatment Options for Landfill Leachate: 5. Evaporation

Landfill Landfill Evaporation

5/29/2014

13

Treatment Options for Landfill Leachate: 6. Deep Well Discharge

Landfill


Study Objectives








Waste to Energy Ash

• Burning municipal solid waste (MSW) creates ash which must be disposed of

• Ash can be placed in a landfill by itself (ash monofill) or with MSW (co-disposed)

• This can create leachate with very different characteristics than MSW leachate

Leachate Database • Contains various parameters over multiple years for 95 different lined landfills in Florida

• pH, ammonia, VOCs, heavy metals, TDS, conductivity, alkalinity, etc.

• Data from:

• Landfill operators

• FDEP files (including WACS)

• Allows us to compare leachate characteristics from different landfills over a desired time span

Ash leachate vs. MSW leachate

• Compared leachate data from ash monofill landfills and MSW landfills

• Looked at pH, TDS, COD, BOD, Chloride, Sodium TOC, Arsenic, Iron, and Lead

MSW

pH

• MSW data included 1925 data points from 88 landfills • Ash data included 47 data points from 4 landfills

5/29/2014

14

TDS


COD


BOD


Chloride


Sodium


TOC


5/29/2014

15

Iron


Arsenic


Lead


Calcium Precipitation • Calcium precipitation from leachate

can clog leachate collection systems • Want to calculate a calcium

precipitation index for different types of landfill leachates

• There are many different calcium

precipitation indices • Langelier Saturation Index, Ryznar Index,

Aggressiveness Index, Momentary Excess, Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Potential (CCPP), etc.

Langelier Index for different types of leachate Type of leachate Landfill that samples were taken

from Langelier Index

Ash Monofill West Pasco County 0.45

Co-Disposal Palm Beach County NCRRF Class I Landfill

2.97

C&D West Pasco County 0.88

Mature Leachate New River Regional Landfill 1.31

Fresh Leachate New River Regional Landfill - 0.71

Study Objectives








5/29/2014

16

Cost Variables

• Volume

• COD and BOD

• Ammonical Nitrogen

• pH

• Total Dissolved Solids

Metal Concentrations

• Many exceed GWCTLs

• No direct removal route in biological processes

• Just diluting leachate in conventional WWTPs

Source: 2007 Hinkley Center Report: Lined Landfill Leachate Management in Florida

2007 Report: Biological 2007 Report: Physical/Chemical

Key Treatment Parameters

Source: Quan et al., 2013 – Electrochemical oxidation of….Biologically Treated Municipal Solid Waste Leachate in a Flow Reactor

Engineering Cost Model

Process 1 Process 2 Process 3

Parameters Removed

1

Costs 1 Costs 2 Costs 3

Influent Quality

Effluent Quality

Parameters Removed

2

Parameters Removed

3

5/29/2014

17

Adsorption

• Adsorption media requirements

Source: Halim et al., 2010

Membranes

Operational costs of an AnMBR Source: Lin et al., 2011 Desalination

Biological - Aerobic

Source: Liu et al., 2011

Oxidation

Study Objectives








Task 5: Develop design options for sub-liner vadose zone venting & Task 6: Vadose zone venting simulation and economic evaluation

Presented by Jaeshik Chung (PhD student)

5/29/2014

18

Sub-Liner Vadose Zone Venting Prevent plume migration especially developed under reducing condition (Mn(II), Fe(II)..) Oxidation of residual organic matter, ammonium-nitrogen Reducing risk of some contaminants via transformation to less hazardous form (As(III)

As(V)..) Cost-benefit analysis is required..

Introduction

Fig. Scheme of sub-liner vadose zone venting

Simulation of Vadose Zone Venting using Numerical Simulation Assuming predictable and continuous spatial-temporal variation across discrete points Can incorporate various initial/boundary condition

Simulation tool used in this study

Features (from GEOSLOPE web page)

•Analysis types include steady-state confined and unconfined flow, transient flow, 2-D flow in a cross-section or in plan view, and 3D axisymmetric flow.

•Boundary condition types include total head, pressure head, or flux specified as a constant or a function of time; pressure head; transient flux as a function of computed head; review and adjustment of seepage face conditions.

•Volumetric water content and conductivity functions can be estimated from basic parameters and grain-size functions. •Adaptive time stepping to ensure the use of optimal time steps in transient analyses with sudden changes in boundary

conditions. •Flow path deliniation.

AIR/W 2012 air flow analysis.

AIR/W is a finite element CAD software product for analyzing groundwater-air interaction problems within porous materials such as soil and rock. Its comprehensive formulation allows you to consider analyses ranging from simple, saturated steady-state problems to sophisticated, saturated/unsaturated time-dependent problems

Fig. Example of air-flow modeling into a tunnel

(Saturated) Aquifer

B

Landfill

A

Uniform Flow

Conceptual 2-D Model for Sub-Liner Venting

Vadose zone (K=8.64 m/days)

Replenishment O2

Replenishment O2

Replenishment O2

Replenishment O2

×

(-) (+)

Multiple Venting/Aeration

0 days

Air

Flux

(g/

day

s)

Distance (m)

-20,000

-40,000

-60,000

-80,000

-100,000

-120,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Landfill

Effect of the combined Passive-venting/Forced aeration in vadose Zone

Forced Aeration

Passive Venting

Passive venting only

Forced aeration only

Forced Aeration

Passive Venting

Passive Venting

Summary & Further Study

Sub-Liner Vadose Zone Venting can be effective in preventing vadose zone from reducing condition

can prevent secondary contamination (e.g. reductive dissolution) in advance

Dimension and configuration of the venting/aeration pipes should be considered Distance between pipes, amount of pressure should be optimized Verification of the model using lab(field) data

(Saraya et al., 2014)

Study Objectives








5/29/2014

19

Questions?

Developing Tool for Assessing Potential Iron Exceedances in Groundwater at Landfill Sites:

Developing a Tool for Assessing Potential Iron Exceedances in Groundwater at Landfill Sites

• Fundamental Objective:

Build upon recent research conducted on iron at Florida landfills to develop an approach for evaluating future landfill sites for their potential to result in elevated iron concentrations in groundwater.

Dissolved

Iron (mg/L)

Upgradient Edge of Landfil l

Downgradient Edge of Landfil l

Vadose Zone

Surficial Aquifer

Air is depleted in vadose zone

Dissolved Fe(II) increases

Reaeration of aquifer

Decrease in Fe(II)

Big question: What distance is required

for Fe(II) to return to normal?

Evaluation of Iron Concentrations at Landfill Sites from Existing Database

• Database was created to evaluate iron concentrations at landfills which were “nominated” from DEP District staff;

• Study evaluated approximately 76 landfills in 4 DEP Districts: • NE District: 46 • NW District: 15 • SW District: 14 • Central District: 1

• All types of landfills were studied: • Class I: 53 % • Class II: 10 % • Class III: 24 % • Combination of Classes: 13 %

Landfill Study

• Historical monitoring results obtained from DEP’s Water Assurance Compliance System (WACS);

• Historical vs. latest 2-year average; • Box and Whiskers plots for water quality <2 years; • Impacted or monitored aquifers were noted; • Landfills divided into groups:

• Unlined vs. Lined • Background vs. Detected Iron Concentrations

• Background Iron > Detected Iron • Background Iron = Detected Iron • Background Iron < Detected Iron

5/29/2014

20

Box and Whiskers Plots

Wide Range of Fe Concentrations

FeBackground >> FeDetection

High Background Concentrations

Low Fe Background High Fe Detected

Determination of steady state iron concentratio

5/29/2014

21

Incubator

Soil samples

Cellulose (additional organic matter)

& DI water

N2 purging

250 mL Glass bottle

pH ORP Fe+2

Previous Research - Biological reducing test

Method to test potential of soil to undergo reductive dissolution.

Carbon source for iron reductive bacteria

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

OR

P (

mV

)

Ferr

ou

s (m

g/L)

Time (days)

Biological reducing test results for selected soils Niceville Sarasota

Aucilla

Iron concentration increase and ORP decrease over time.

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

OR

P (

mV

)

Ferr

ou

s (m

g/L)

Time (days)

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

OR

P (

mV

)

Ferr

ou

s (m

g/L)

Time (days)

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

OR

P (

mV

)

Ferr

ou

s (m

g/L)

Time (days)

ORP Fe

Klondike

Research related to this project Anaerobic Batch Tests

• Incubation of soil and DI water at a L:S of 1:1 under an anaerobic environment

• 30 day incubation to allow for steady state

• Photocatalytic reactions were avoided

• Parameters measured: • DI: pH, ORP, DO, conductivity, total Fe and As concentrations, NPOC, TN

• Soil: Moisture content, OM content, extractable NH3, pH, ORP, CEC, AsTOT, FeTOT, amorphous iron

• Extract: pH, ORP, DO, conductivity, total Fe and As concentrations, NPOC, TN, and Fe(II)

Results

SOIL ID SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

Soil 1 Baker Landfill (Okaloosa County)

Soil 2 Aucilla Area Landfill

Soil 3 Klondike Landfill

Soil 4 Sarasota County Landfill

Soil 5 North Central Landfill (Polk County) Soil Sample

1 2 3 4 5

Fe

(II

) m

g/L

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Relating anaerobic batch tests to field data • Mass of iron in the soil beneath the landfill:

• Anticipated percentage of Fe(II) to be released:

• Anticipated mass of Fe(II) to be released:

• Anticipated concentration of Fe(II) under the landfill:

5/29/2014

22

Anticipated concentrations from mass balance calculations

Soil Fe(II) conc.

Soil + DI mg/L

FeTOT mg/L

Anticipated Fe(II)

concentration mg/L

1 0.05 14552 0.53

2 0.10 14038 1.06

3 0.04 10554 0.42

4 0.60 2780 6.36

Landfill Average Fe(II)

Conc. mg/L

Minimum Fe(II) Conc.

mg/L

Maximum Fe(II) Conc.

mg/L

Median mg/L

1 10.4 0.000 120

0.049

2 2.80 0.011 70.8 0.123

3 15.2 0.002 67.9 8.27

4 45.1 0.370 136 40.7

5 9.32 0.010 133 0.551

Fe(II) concentrations from historical groundwater monitoring data

Why is data not correlated? • Lack of organic matter in the DI • Lab conditions did not simulate conditions beneath the landfill

accurately • Incubation period not long enough • L:S not comparable to that in the field

Extraction Solution

DESCRIPTION

Solution A Municipal Solid Waste leachate (Age = 8 months)

Solution B Municipal Solid Waste leachate (Age>15 years)

Solution C Construction and Demolition debris landfill leachate

Solution D Water collected from MSW landfill storm water ponds

Anaerobic Batch Tests with different source of organic matter

Fe(II) released with different organic matter sources

Column Leaching Test

Aerobic Conditions

Anaerobic Conditions

5/29/2014

23

Soil Characterization

Parameter Units Soil sample

pH S.U. 5.44

ORP mV 120

Fe(total) mg/kg-dry 14,038

Amorphous iron mg/kg-dry 625

Organic matter % 1.48

Leachate Characterization

Parameter Units Value

pH S.U. 7.87

ORP mV 189

Conductivity µS/cm 13,910

DO mg/L 1.27

Fe(total) mg/L 8.84

COD mg/L 2171

TOC mg/L 415.4

Column Test Under Aerobic Conditions Using DI Water

Aerobic conditions using DI water

Cumuilative LS Ratios

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Ferr

ou

s C

on

cen

trati

on

,mg

/L

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

OR

P

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

Fe(II)

ORP

MDL

Column Test Under Anaerobic Conditions

Anaerobic conditions using DI water


0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Ferr

ou

s C

on

cen

trati

on

,mg

/L

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

OR

P

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

Fe(II)

ORP

MDL

Column Test Under Anaerobic Conditions Using Leachate

Anaerobic conditions using leachate


0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Ferr

ou

s C

on

cen

trati

on

,mg

/L

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

OR

P

-330

-320

-310

-300

-290

-280

-270

-260

-250

Fe(II)

ORP

MDL

DI Water and Leachate Column Leaching Ferrous Comparison

Cumilative LS Ratios

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Cu

mu

ilati

ve R

ele

ase o

f F

err

ou

s,m

g/k

g

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

DI water

Leachate

Bottle leaching test

5/29/2014

24

Presented by Jaeshik Chung (PhD student)

Developing Tool for Assessing Potential Iron Exceedances in Groundwater at Landfill Sites: - Simulation of Fe(II) Front in Terms of Aquifer Reaeration -

What is a modeling? Prediction of future status based on previous data Can be applied to various fields (Finance, medical, Population growth) Creditable Previous data is required

Modeling of solutes (contaminants) transport in subsurface

Advection-Dispersion(-Reaction) equation Reactions: Sorption/desorption, Dissolusion/precipitation, decay (biodegradation), Various initial & boundary conditions can be considered

Methods and software for solving A-D-R equations Analytical (mathematical) methods (models):

Ogata & Banks (1961), Van Genuchten (1981), CXTFIT (1995) Numerical methods (models):

HYDRUS (1998), ModFlow (1998), TOUGH2 (1999) Hybrid..

Introduction

Fig. Example of modeling

(Rockware, PetraSim webpase)

Fig. Examples of fluid (heat) transport modeling in subsurface

C (x , t) = ???

(Saturated) Aquifer: 10% Goethite (FeOOH)

K=1x10-12m2

n=0.3

B

Landfill

A

Uniform Flow

Conceptual 1-D Model for Aquifer Reaeration

V = 0.33 x 10-5m/s Q = 0.001 kg/s

C0: Fe(II) 10-4 mol/L (5.6 mg/L)

Replenishment O2

(Unsaturated) vadose zone

C0 O2 initial

Multi-phase simulation using numerical method, TOUGH2 (Pruess, 1991) Transport of Unsaturated Groundwater and Heat TOUGH2 is a general-purpose numerical simulation program for multi-dimensional fluid and heat flows of multiphase,

multicomponent fluid mixtures in porous and fractured media. PetraSim5 is used for pre/post processing (e.g. mesh generation, data print)

Simulation tool used in this study

Fig. Space discretization and geometry data in the integral finite difference method

(Oldenburg & Pruess, 1993)

Governing Continuity equation (Conservation of mass)

Validation of the Model using Hand-Calculation

Validation of Reaction term using Advection-Dispersion-Reaction equation

One of the solution is provided by Ogata and Banks (1961):

C(x,t) = (Co/2).{ erfc[(x-vxt)/2(Dxt)1/2] + exp(vxx/Dx).erfc[(x+vxt)/2(Dxt)1/2] } (where erfc(b) is called the complementary error function (1 – erf(b)))

The second term in the solution involving the exponential function is almost always small and can be neglected. The simplified solution becomes:

C(x,t) = (Co/2).erfc[(x-vxt)/2(Dxt)1/2]

Effect of Aquifer Reaeration on Fe(II) oxidation

Distance and time required for Fe(II) to return to background level

O2 (Initial)

O2 (transient)

5/29/2014

25

Effect of Sorption on the Fe(II) front

0 years 0.05 years 0.1 years 0.2 years 0.3 years 0.5 years 0.7 years 1 years

kd=0.1 L/kg Retard. factor 2

No Sorption

Effect of Initial O2 in GW on Fe(II) front (3.2 ppm vs. 32 ppm)

Summary & Further Study

Continuous spatial-temporal variation in concentration could be successfully tracked Can estimate the Fe(II) in downgradient according to the Initial condition (C0) and boundary conditions (O2, mineral composition, ..)

Various compositions in aqueous ion and composed minerals other than Goethite Nitrogen, Surfer, Ferryhidrite (Fe(OH)3; Amorphous), Mignetite (Fe2O3; Crystal), …

Incorporating vadose zone physics (2-D expansion) Quantification of O2 (g) diffusion from vadose zone Considering (O2-saturated) rainfall Verification and refinement of the model using lab (field) data

Questions?

1

Technical Advisory Group Meeting

1. “Reducing The Iron Pollution In Landfill Soils By Using

Aeration Wells”

Ahmed Albasri, MSCE Candidate Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering

Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions

Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory Group

The Problem

• Iron is being detected in monitoring wells downstream of Florida landfills

• State Enforceable Secondary Drinking Water Standard (62-550 FAC) and Groundwater Cleanup Target Level (62-777 FAC) set at 300 µg/L (0.3 mg/L)

• Evaluation monitoring required by 62-701.510(7)(a) if levels are detected significantly above background

• Requires installation of compliance monitoring wells

• Requires additional sampling

• Stipulates corrective measures (62-780 FAC) • Pump & treat with filtration, biological treatment, chemical

treatment

26

Fe

55.845


Case Study

• Iron presence was detected in 22 observation wells on 29 April 2008 in

North Central Landfill (NCLF) higher than PDWS (Florida Primary

Drinking Water Standard) which is 300 µg /L

• High Iron presence exceed the CTL (Clean-up Target Level) which is

3000 µg /L were observed in 15 monitoring wells including compliance

wells



Treatment Method

• Soil aeration is one of the successful decontamination processes used to treat volatiles

• Groundwater circulation well (GCW) systems attempt to create a 3-dimensional circulation pattern in an aquifer by drawing ground water into the well

• The main goal of this system is to oxidize the Iron in the soil from Fe(ll) form to Fe(lll) form, which is insoluble to stop Iron migration with ground water

• The advantage is that treatment of the contaminated groundwater takes place below grade and does not require that it be pumped out the ground

• Another advantage over conventional pump-and-treat is that GCWs induce a groundwater circulation zones that “sweeps” the aquifer

• Pump-and-treat systems cause drawdown around the well, leaving contaminated zones that are not treated


Air

Sand Filter

Another

Option • In situ remediation

process

• Metals and

radionuclides

• Volatiles

• Biodegradables

• Simple to operate

• Rapid

• Inexpensive

Reaction Zone

2


Objectives

1. To conduct lab experiments for iron (and possible

co-contaminant) removal in-situ using groundwater

recirculation well technology.

2. To find the required treatment capacity to

decontaminate the high elevated iron for certain

parameter


Samples Collection

• Boca soil samples were collected

• 4 samples were collected from Polk

County Landfill

• The first 2 samples where collected

from SE & NE of the site on

05/11/2011

• The second set of 2 were collected

from SE & SW on 11/10/2011

• The samples collected after

removing the top 15 cm from the

soil surface

• The soil has a homogeneous profile

• The samples were kept at room

temperature until testing


Research steps include :

• 1. Show that GCW is valid process to reduce the iron

in soils and elaborate performance charts prove the

desire results.

• 2. develop empirical estimations to set the

parameters depend on the experiment success as

mentioned above.

• 3. estimate the site cost for the treatment technique

after set the empirical parameters


Aquarium Experiments

• GCW model consists of the following parts:

• Transparent glass aquarium of (11.5 × 5.5 × 7.75) inch

dimensions

• A prototype of sparging well (vinyl tube ½” outside DIA)

• Two well screens with 4 slits/cm and 1 inch long separated

by 1 inch

• Vinyl tube within a tube to create the negative pressure

head of the air bubbles which induces circulation

• Gravel filter around the well with #20 Sieve for a diameter of

1.5 inch around the well

• Aquarium Air pump (elite 799) with 1 cubic ft / min flowrate

and with pressure of 1.0 PSI



Phase1 :

Test with Boca Raton soil • For conservative demands the test has started with soil from Boca

Raton to prove the ability of contaminant removal

• Boca soil is sandy as it lies in the Eastern Sandy flatland area

according to physiographic region.

• The geographical distribution of the soil in Florida reflects that Boca

soil is sposdsol type which has an expected iron content of 300 mg/kg

• Iron reference of 1000 mg/L was added to the water and soil in the

aquarium

• Two aquarium tests were running simultaneously to obtain replicate

results

3



Results of Boca Soil Tests

• Iron concentration found in Boca Raton was close to the theoretical data (~300 mg/kg) for all samples

• Iron removal readings through the 72 - 264 hr running time show arbitrary numbers as it cannot be decided whether the Iron is in Fe(II) or Fe(III) form as they both can be occur in spectrometric test

• Independent lab results were also inconclusive due to the limitations of the phenanthroline colorimetric method


0

100

200

300

400

500

1 2 3 4

fFe m

g/K

g

Boca Raton test Results

compare with chen.1999

Fe soil test without rover

Fe with Rover

Spodosols (0.033*10^4)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 1 2 3 4 6 24 48 54 72

Fe(C

/C0)

Time (hours)

Iron reading in Boca Soil

Sample1

Sample2


Results of Boca Soil Tests

• Further test has been conducted for testing the

samples range (72-234) which where 6 samples

(116.5, 140, 163.5, 180.5, 203.45, 233.5) hours for

each one of the 2 aquariums.

• Rerun the previous 10 samples (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 24, 48,

54, 72) hours to conduct the complete profile for the

Boca 2 soils aquariums.


0

5

10

Fe

mg

/L

Time (hours)

Iron Reading in Boca Soil

Sample 1

Sample 2

0

5

10

Fe

(C/C

0)

Time (hours)

Iron reading in Boca Soil

Sample 1

Sample 2


Conclusion in Phase 1

• The trend of samples collected from running Boca Soils don’t

represent constant removal process which may attribute to several

factors :

1- PH : we discover by contacting Hach company that samples PH

should be set between (3-5) to get best results from the

spectrophotometer

2- Iron Reference: the samples has been tested for process better

performance reading with 1000 mg/L Iron reference but the resulted

Iron after lab. Preparation wasn’t give the desired number.

3- Testing tools : spectrophotometer cuvettes was used for other lab

purposes with different material types may not be well clean and react

with FerroVer that should be added to get the Iron reading, Further

cleaning steps has been taken by rinse with nitric acid path to ensure

that no further interference occur.

4


Phase2 :

Test with Polk County soils ( 4 Aquariums ) • 3 samples for each one of the 4

samples collected in May and

November -2011 for Iron digestion

Hot Block experiment are

processed

• 2 Aquariums of the SE and NW

landfill soil which was collected in

May 11-2011 are built

• The 2 which were collected in

November are in the dried and built

( they were needing further process)


Test with Polk county Soils

• 4 Aquariums for the soils Collected from Lakeland landfill were built in

this phase.

• Same Aquarium Construction were adopted for Boca tests in phase 1

• SE & NE soil samples were sandy profile which enable setting them

quickly in their 2 test aquariums.

• SE & SW were need further process as they were clay constructed soil

(soils had been dried for 24 hour with 100 degree Celsius )

• 4 samples were crashed with hammer and settled in 2 aquarium.

• 94 mg/L Iron has been created FeCl2 with HCl

• 4 Aquariums were saturated with Iron for 1 day

• 4 Aquarium test were on 10/31/2012



Testing Results

• Spectrophotometer test conducted and samples

collected 1,2,4,6,8 & 12 hours

• The results show fast decreasing after 1 hour of

running the experiment in 4 aquariums

• Iron reading were 0.11-0.08 mg/L for the 4 test

experiments after 1 hour running and keep

decreasing through time.


0 1 12

FE 94.3 0.1195 0.0909

0

50

100

Iro

n

Fe for NE 05/11/11

0 1 12

FE 94.3 0.08969 0.05764

0

50

100

Iro

n

Fe for SE 05/11/11

0 1 12

FE 94.3 0.08 0.0933

0

50

100

Iro

n

Fe for SW 11/9/11

0 1 12

FE 94.3 0.08 0.04

0

50

100

Iro

n

Fe for SE 11/9/11


5


Phase 2 conclusion

• Fast degradation of Iron led to believe that another

factor interfered to that reduction

• Soil chemistry may contribute to accelerate that fast

reduction.

• Iron tested before charging into the soil and it was

shown 94.3 mg/L which draw suspicious that iron

breakdown in the first hour of running the aquariums

test.


Phase3 :

Test with Polk County soils ( 2 Aquariums )

• Fast degradation of Iron lead to suspect that soil

may play vital rule by adsorbing the Charged Iron.

• Further step developed to charged the 4 Aquariums

with Iron to saturation or to get variance less 10 %

between add and another.

• Charging and monitoring process took 3 weeks

when evaporating process were 4 weeks


Saturated Aquarium Experimenting

• 365 mg were charged for each Aquarium.

• Aquarium 1 and 2 show less than 10% variance

which make them ready to test

• Aquarium 3 and 4 show higher percent of change.

• The tested samples were diluted 50 time to obtain

reliable spectrophotometer reading


Iron Reference Charging process


Phase 3 Results

• Aquarium 1 and 2 were obtain slope close to zero

with less than 10 % variance through saturation

made them qualified for starting the experiments

• 02/24/2013 the qualified aquariums run started.

• Sampling time were concentrated in first hour as

degradation were expected to occur.


Iron degradation through

experimenting

6


• The chart show that testing the aeration process

with Aquarium 1 show the desired degradation.

• Aquarium 2 didn’t show any critical change through

the aeration process as the Iron content was low and

not easy to follow in addition to the soil high ability

to adsorb the charged Iron.


Conclusion Phase 3

• According to the last 2 test conducted on Lakeland

soil, they both showed decreasing occur through

remediation process using sparging well technique.

• Further test for the 2 samples left is going to

consolidate the principle targeted to using that

technology as remediation solution.


Adjusting the process • Further test planned to be conducted to enhance the results were

obtained by running the 2 aquariums conducted last February

• The non tested Aquariums 3 and 4 whom contain the SE and NE soils

of Lakeland collected in 05/11/2011 are recharged with iron referenced

diluted with lake water to elevate the iron level to the limit removal can

be shown in case of GCW model were run.

• Aquarium 2 were added to consolidate the next run results and it’s

charged from the same iron source aquariums 3 and 4 provided with.

• The R2 value didn’t show significant correlation with recharging

process, that led to standing for more research to show the reason

beyond the iron non increase occurrence despite the increase in patch

recharge from 100 mg/L to more than 200 mg/L.


y = -0.0002x + 7.5072 R² = 0.5372

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

3/7/2013 3/17/2013 3/27/2013 4/6/2013 4/16/2013 4/26/2013 5/6/2013 5/16/2013 5/26/2013 6/5/2013 6/15/2013 6/25/2013

Ex/C

um

l

Date

Aquarium -2-

exist / Cumulative

Linear (exist / Cumulative )

y = -5E-05x + 1.9645 R² = 0.248

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

2/15/2013 3/7/2013 3/27/2013 4/16/2013 5/6/2013 5/26/2013 6/15/2013 7/5/2013

Ex/C

um

l

Date

Aquarium -3-

exist / Cumutative

Linear (exist / Cumutative)

y = -0.0004x + 15.167 R² = 0.4915

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

2/15/2013 3/7/2013 3/27/2013 4/16/2013 5/6/2013 5/26/2013 6/15/2013 7/5/2013

Ex/C

um

l

Date

Aquarium -4-

Exist/Cumulative

Linear (Exist/Cumulative )


• One more sample had been taken from Aquarium 3

from out side the prototype well, and the result

showed huge difference between the 2 reading till

it’s over what the specterphotomenter can handle

and need for more dilution to realize the amount of

iron, the samples were pipette before recharging the

aquarium with more iron


7


• That show obviously that the iron adding process

didn’t show iron percolation in the soil to increase

the soil content of it but stay on the upper layer and

evaporate water leaving the iron as impermeable

layer as shown in the sketch below


Phase4 :

Test with Boca Raton soil ( 30

gallons Aquariums , continuous

feeding with iron reference)


Design adjustment

• Research committee suggest to increase the scale of

the aquarium cell to achieve better water head loss

between the feeding side and the collecting side

which included in the system too.

• Suggested aquarium design has been approved by

the committee .

• Simulation was achieved by utilizing soil from Boca

Raton has sandy profile to conduct circulation in

optimal shape.


New set specification

• The new treatment cell

is 30 gallons bin used

as aquarium holding

the soil and the feeding,

discharging lines, in

addition to the

treatment sparging well.


• The aquarium has

discharge point to test

the obtained reduction

in iron from treatment

process.

• Feeding Iron set to be

200 mg/L obtained from

delusion of 1000mg/L

patch


• Aquarium shape is

trapezoid and filled to the

shown dimensions with

Boca Raton sandy soil .

• The aquarium set to be

charged with Iron water and

discharged using O.S.E S40

½”x5’.025 PVC pipe

8


• The charge and discharge

pipes system includes 2

pipe of 13 inch long each

capped on both sides and

perforated 1 inch c/c to

insure flow continuity and

avoid clogging related to

rust and bacterial growth.


• Each one of the pipes

system is covered with thin

layer of grovel to permit

water flow through pipes

without get clogged with

silt as system flow

protection step ( compatible

for GCW protection

process)


Finding ROI

• The soil tested currently to

find the permeability

coefficient value k using

constant head hydraulic

conductivity test .

• The permeability for Boca

Soil is required to

determine (ROI) radius of

influence sparging well

can obtian


Experiment Run

• The test set to be processed

at Boca water treatment

planet lab for 2 reasons:

1- Ability to provide continues

raw ground water to the

tested system.

2- safe discharge to the water

coming out of the system

which is contain

considerable amount of Iron.


Step to be Achieved

• Determine the K value to estimate the radius of

influence

• Determine the flow velocity V through the system to

set the feeding system requirements.

• Determine the reaction time needed for adequate

Iron removal using GCW

• Develop design criteria for GCW for iron removal


Recommendations

• Checking longer range of experiment running may

results in better removal action occurrence.

• Keep feeding the aquarium with water to keep the

GCW active to work as it should be totally

submerged with ground water to obtain maximum

performance

• Cleaning lab tools well as the test is very sensitive

for interference (rinsing with DI water 3 time may not

be sufficient to ensure cleanness)

9


Acknowledgement

• Dr. Daniel Meeroff ( my Advisor )

• Dr. Khaled Sobhan

• Dr. Fred Blotescher

• All whom keep motivate me toward research

• Audience



I Have Questions for YOU

• I am presuming that ROI for recharged well is same

for extraction well with inverted cone of influence,

anything might be against my assumption ?

• Do you have any suggestions for an appropriate test

method to speciate the forms of iron, Fe(II) and

Fe(III), in groundwater and soils?

• Where else is iron reductive dissolution a problem?

• What are the costs associated with remediation of

iron dissolution?

1

Presentation to the Joint Technical Advisory Group MeetingWest Palm Beach, FL, May 27, 2014

Florida Atlantic UniversityCollege of Engineering & Computer Science

“Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment ”

Joseph Lakner.

Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions

Presentation to Joint Advisory GroupWest Palm Beach, FL, May 27, 2014

Problem Statement• In South Florida, several landfills combine leachate

for disposal• Active leachate

• Mature leachate

• Partially closed landfill leachate

• The partially closed landfill leachate can account for 10-25% of the overall leachate flow• 20,000 – 200,000 gpd


Dyer Park Leachate Quantity

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Lea

chat

e G

ener

atio

n (

gal

lon

s p

er m

on

th)

Year


Problem Statement

• Current disposal methods is deep well injection.

• Is there a better way to manage these liquids cost effectively?


Photocatalytic Oxidation• Ultraviolet Radiation +

Semiconductor

• Simple, one stage process

• Ultraviolet Light

• Titanium Dioxide


How Does Photocatalysis Work?

h+

e‐Mn+

(aq)

M0(s)

[ Photoreduction ]of metals

+

hν[ Photooxidation ]

of organics

Oxygen

Water

TitaniumDioxide

Proton

Hydroxyl radical

Water and carbon dioxide

2


Beneficial Use of Closed Leachates

Surface Water

Discharge

• The most complex discharge requirements

Industrial Reuse

• Irrigation, cooling water

• Hardness scaling

Dilution Water

• To reduce leachate clogging


Leachate Water QualityZX FDEP

Freshwater Criteria Target

(62-777 F.A.C.)

Typical SWA

Leachate

Dyer ParkLeachate Average

Dyer Park Range

pH n/a 7.2 ± 0.3 7.2 ± 0.3 6.9 – 7.7

TDS (mg/L) 500 13,4000 ± 5400 2280 ± 510 1700 – 2845

DO (mg/L as O2) 5.0 0.9 ± 1.3 4.9 ± 0.6 3.9 – 5.3

COD (mg/L as O2) n/a 5380 ± 5300 390 ± 260 74 – 780

NH3 (mg/L NH3-N) 0.02 – 2.8 2390 ± 2740 440 ± 80 360 – 540

Alk (mg/L as CaCO3) n/a 3330 ± 2220 1635 ± 160 1425 – 1850

Ca (mg/L as CaCO3) n/a 1500 ± 2030 535 ± 110 440 – 700

Fe (mg/L) 0.3 – 1.0 12.4 ± 8.0 9.4 ± 4.0 6.2 – 13.8

Pb (μg/L) 0.02 35 ± 41 7.7 ± 4.6 0.02 – 12.1

Color (PCU) n/a 130 ± 110 130 ± 110 40 – 250


Falling Film Reactor

• Reservoir (10L)

• Temperature Sensor

• Pump (360 L/h)

• Flow Regulator

• Sampling Port

• 3 Way Valve

• Weir Compartment

• UV Power Source (120W)


Experimental Protocol• Experiments will run for 24 hours

• Samples will be collected at 30 minute intervals

• Sample collection procedure is as follows:

• Do not turn off reactor, take samples from reservoir

• Take a sample (40 ml) and then placed in tubes to be centrifuged.

10


Experimental Protocol• UV sensor will be used to measure the intensity in

the reactor.

• Monitor offgas to determine where ammonia and COD end up.

11 Presentation to Joint Advisory GroupWest Palm Beach, FL, May 27, 2014

Plan of Study• Objectives

• Collect New Leachate Specimens

• Achieve FAC 62-777 Requirements

• Optimize Falling Film Reactor For:

• Ultraviolet Spectrum

• Catalyst Dose

• Catalyst Recovery

• Update Cost

3


Plan of Study• Objectives Continued

• Assess Residuals• Determine the recovery number

• Perform TCLP analysis of spent catalysts


Plan of Study• We will work with FDEP to establish the appropriate

target limits for each beneficial use



Titanium Dioxide Absorption Spectrum


Catalyst Optimization Curve

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

% COD REm

oval at 24 hours

TiO2 dosage (g/L)

y = 2.9648ln(x) + 19.876R² = 0.9689

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

% COD Rem

oval at 24 hours

TiO2 dosage (g/L)

• Follows asymptotic curve

• After 10 g/L efficiency only increases slightly

• 160 – 200 hours to reach target removal (800 mg/L) at 4 – 10 g TiO2 per liter


Leachate Bench Tests• Actual leachate:

• Broward County

• SWA

• Polk County

• COD was reduced to permissible levels in t < 45 min

• Complete mineralization in 4 hrs

• Pre-filtration was not necessary

CODo ~ 1,000 mg/L


Bench reactor

• UV = 450 W lamp

• Vol = 375 mL

• Time = 240 – 360 min

• TiO2 = 1 – 5 g/L

• pH: 7.1 – 9.2

• Starting COD 1100 mg/L

Titanium Dioxide

Absorption Spectrum

Medium Pressure Mercury-vapor Spectrum

4


Preliminary Costs• For Monarch Hill, current leachate management costs

(without the cost of sewer disposal)• $3.65 – 8.33 per 1000 gallons

• Based on lab scale treatment of simulated leachate for 20 hr with 13.3 g/L TiO2 with 450 W lamps

Costs 42 MG/year 96 MG/year

TiO2 chemical costs (one time only) $289,630 $662,010

2 x 0.2 MG tanks $90,000

2 x 0.3 MG tanks $140,000

UV lamps/ballast/power supply $40,000 $70,000

Pumps/blowers/plumbing/etc. $21,000 $36,000

Total capital cost $440,630 $908,012

Annualized (6%, 20 years) $38,423 $79,179

O&M costs (est. 10% of capital) $44,063 $90,801

Total annual costs $82,486 $169,980

Cost per 1000 gallons $1.96 $1.77



• UV = 150 W lamp

• Vol = 10 L

• Time = 24 hr

• TiO2 = 25 g/L

• pH: 7.1 – 9.2

• Starting COD 6250 mg/L

Titanium Dioxide

Absorption Spectrum

Medium Pressure Mercury-vapor Spectrum


• CODo = 6250 mg/L • Ammoniao = 1710 mg/L as NH3-N

• Coloro = 1125 Platinum Cobalt Units (PCU)

COD took the longest to degrade in 24 hr


Preliminary Costs• For Monarch Hill, current leachate management costs

(without the cost of sewer disposal)• $3.65 – 8.33 per 1000 gallons

• Based on pilot scale treatment of real leachate for 200 hr with 4 g/L TiO2 with 120 W lamps

Costs 42 MG/year 96 MG/year

TiO2 chemical costs (one time only) $871,068 $1,991,014

2 x 1.0 MG tanks $1,736,020

2 x 2.5 MG tanks $3,088,180

UV lamps/ballast/power supply $250,000 $500,000

Pumps/blowers/plumbing/etc. $89,000 $136,000

Total capital cost $2,946,088 $5,715,194

Annualized (6%, 20 years) $256,899 $498,365

O&M costs (est. 10% of capital) $294,609 $571,519

Total annual costs $551,508 $1,069,884

Cost per 1000 gallons $13.13 $11.14


Summary of Past Reseach• Excellent removal of multiple contaminants in a single process

(essentially first order kinetics)• COD (bench scale 60% removal vs. pilot scale 30% removal)

• Ammonia (bench scale 85% removal vs. pilot scale 82% removal)

• Color (bench scale 65% removal vs. pilot scale 37% removal)

• TiO2 doses were tested from 4 – 40 g/L (0.64 – 5.73 TiO2/COD) • Maximum pilot scale COD removal occurred at 25 g/L (4.7 TiO2/COD)

• Maximum batch scale COD removal was at 35 g/L (6.6 TiO2/COD)

• Reactor design• Reaction time (bench scale 4 hr vs. pilot scale 96 – 200 hr)

• UV power (bench scale 1.5 W per mL vs. pilot scale 0.02 W per mL)


Previous Work• “Options for Managing Municipal Landfill Leachate”

• Englehardt and Meeroff (2005)• “Investigation of Energized Options for Leachate

Management Year One”• Meeroff and Tsai (2006)

• “Investigation of Energized Options for Leachate Management Year Two”• Meeroff and Tsai (2008)

• “Interactive Decision Support Tool for Leachate Management”• Meeroff and Teegavarapu (2010)

• “Energized Processes for Onsite Treatment of Leachate”• Meeroff (2011)

• “Onsite Treatment of Leachate Using Energized Processes”• Meeroff (2014)

5


Challenges• To remove desired constitutes in a timely manor at

minimal cost.

• Reach FAC 62-777 standards for all 538 constitutes


Acknowledgements


http://labees.civil.fau.edu/leachate


Any Volunteers?


292929

website: http://labees.civil.fau.edu


What is Landfill Leachate?

Landfill Leachate contains: • COD• BOD• Possible heavy metals :

• Arsenic• Lead• Iron • Copper

• Ammonia• Color• Chlorides • Pathogens

Documents

Joint Technical Advisory Group Meeting University of ...labees.civil.fau.edu/Technical Advisory Group Meeting-minutes-05-27...Joint Technical Advisory Group Meeting ... University