Technical Advisory Group Meeting “Sustainable Management of Pollutants Underneath Landfills”
“Onsite Treatment of Leachate Using Energized Processes”
“Critical Examination of Leachate Clogging” By D.E. Meeroff (Florida Atlantic University)
Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)
DATE: Friday, March 15, 2013
TIME: 1:00 pm
WHERE: Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton Campus
Computer Center Building
CM Building (22), Room 130 (Studio 1)
777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Attendance:
Dan Meeroff (FAU), Tim Vinson (Hinkley Center), Cleevens Geurrier (FAU),
Christine Lyons (FAU), Khaled Sobhan (FAU), Ahmed Albasri (FAU), Frank
Youngman (FAU), Kevin Kohn (University of Florida), Art Torvela (FDEP), Amede
Dimonnay (FDEP)
1. Opening address by Dr. Meeroff followed by introduction of the group members
and participants both through GoToMeeting and live (1:03 pm)
2. Introduction to Landfill Technology Research by Dr. Meeroff
Dr. Meeroff presented the agenda of the meeting, the objectives of the research, and
introduced the speakers. Dr. Meeroff showed the TAG members the project website
(http://labees.civil.fau.edu/leachate.html).
3. Pilot Studies of Photocatalytic Oxidation of Leachate by Frank Youngman
Frank began discussing the background of his research. He explained how the
photocatalytic oxidation treatment mechanism works. Then he went over the
methodology of the pilot scale experiments. He reported on the progress of catalyst
optimization, process removal efficiency and kinetics of COD, ammonia, and color,
and he described ongoing catalyst recovery experiments. He presented a
preliminary cost analysis of the process based on his findings to date, and then
provided recommendations for modifying the process to achieve better removal
efficiencies. Tim Vinson asked Frank to compare the UV dose to previous work to
clarify the differences. Tim Vinson also asked if it was possible to shift the amount of
light while keeping a constant level of TiO2 in order to use less catalyst. He also
stated that the reaction kinetics make the photocatalyst act like a reactant not a
catalyst. He asked if the catalyst is available in bigger particle sizes to facilitate the
separation of the catalyst at the end of the run. Tim Vinson also asked about the fate
of the ammonia if the system is not closed. Perhaps the ammonia is boiling off due
to the elevated temperature in the unit. It was suggested to trap the gases and test
for ammonia in the offgas. Frank and Dr. Meeroff responded by explaining the pH
effect for ammonia removal such that loss of gaseous ammonia would not be
favored at these pH values and temperatures, but no direct measurements of
gaseous ammonia in the treatment offgas have been taken. Frank thought that it
would be interesting to see if the dose of catalyst could be lowered to below 2 g/L
while increasing the UV radiation above 0.3 mW/cm2, which is the current upper
limit of the pilot treatment unit. Frank also responded to a question about scale up
issues with regards to determining the catalyst dose and UV operating conditions.
Since the demonstration testing has not reached the sewer disposal target for COD
and ammonia, Frank responded that modifications to the unit must be made with
respect to increasing the UV dose and increasing the time in the reaction zone. Art
Torvela mentioned that landfill leachate treatment processes should be tested
against total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) and chlorinated solvents.
He mentioned the target limits for TRPH is 90 ppb and for Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene and Xylenes (BTEX) it is 200 ppb and for benzene it is 1 ppb. He also
mentioned a CS2 treatment process that has been proposed. Dr. Meeroff observed
that as the amount of leachate generated increases the economics for photocatalytic
oxidation become more favorable. At the same time, if the amount of leachate
increases, the costs for sewage disposal and exceedance surcharges go up, which
also favors photocatalytic oxidation. The key will be to reduce the reaction time
required to meet the 800 mg/L COD level because the ammonia will already be gone
in half the time it takes for the COD to be removed.
4. Laboratory Studies of Groundwater Circulation Well Technology by Ahmed
Albasri
Ahmed began by discussing the background on his research. He explained how the
groundwater circulation well treatment process is intended to work. He was asked
by Dr. Sobhan about the iron levels found in elevated monitoring wells. Ahmed
responded that elevated levels were recorded in the 40 – 85 mg/L range compared to
the groundwater cleanup target of 3 mg/L. Then he went over the methodology of
the aquarium experiments. Dr. Sobhan asked about the scale issue using aquarium
tests. Ahmed explained that the purpose of aquarium tests is to determine the
parameters for scale‐up with regard to air flow rates, depth, well spacing, radius of
influence, etc. He reported rapid removal of iron in the early stages of the process,
but iron speciation has still not been measured. Ahmed explained his steady state
aquarium loading experiments and presented his results for two of the experiments
involving Polk County soils. For one of the experiments, the results showed similar
rapid removal of iron within the first hour of treatment. But for the second aquarium,
the results were inconclusive because the initial concentration was so low (about 10
mg/L vs. 65 mg/L for the first experiment). Ahmed explained that he will continue
loading until a higher steady state concentration is reached and then additional
replicates can be tested. Tim Vinson mentioned a UF dissertation that described how
measuring Fe(II) and Fe(III) is possible in a study focused on Escambia County. Tim
also mentioned that he has seen data regarding pump and treat costs for a similar
sized situation that were on the order of $ 1 million per year. Art Torvela told
Ahmed that he has personally seen reports with existing empirical sparging well
design equations and offered to share those with him. He also mentioned that
Ahmed should investigate a former Delray dump with an iron hotspot because he
has data that he is willing to share and that the cost for an impermeable reactive
barrier technology for this case cost on the order of $2 million.
5. Leachate clogging experiments by Christine Lyons
Christine introduced the joint project with the Hinkley Center, UF, and FAU
regarding the examination of leachate clogging issues at the Solid Waste Authority
of Palm Beach County. She presented her water quality data from several sampling
events, showed a brief video of her sodium hydroxide experiments to create
precipitants in the leachate, and previewed the upcoming demonstration site project
to test potential mechanisms. She mentioned the ongoing leachate collection system
rehab projects which involve 4000 psi jetting and showed the results. Jetting with
10,000 psi and also chemical jetting is planned for the future. Other landfills in the
southeast were identified by Art Torvela as Miami and Monarch Hill that possibly
suffer from leachate clogging too. Kevin Kohn talked about potential mechanisms.
He said that leachate is highly saturated with methane and carbon dioxide and
when the carbon dioxide degasses, the pH jumps up and precipitation of calcium
carbonate is favored. So he described his recent experiment where he collected
degassed leachate/condensate from a landfill gas well at the SWA on March 13, 2013.
He monitored the pH in the degassed leachate and after exposure to air, he
continued to monitor the pH and noticed a slight increase. He tried out his
methodology at the New River Landfill closer to home first before trying the
experiment at the SWA. In general, the pH increased from 7.6 to 8.1 after exposure
to air. He also mentioned ideas about the demonstration project at the SWA which
will involve continuous pumping vs. settling or intermittent pumping. It was
mentioned that permitting is now handled at the Tallahassee level instead of the
local level, so it was suggested to contact Richard Tedder or Joe Lurix to determine
who is handling the SWA case.
6. Adjourn (3pm), thank you for participating!
For more information, contact Dr. Daniel E. Meeroff at:
777 Glades Road, Building 36, Room 222, Boca Raton, FL 33431‐0991
Tel.(561) 297‐3099 FAX.(561) 297‐0493 http://labees.civil.fau.edu
3/18/2013
1
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Agenda
1. Introductions/Opening Remarks
2. Photocatalytic Oxidation Studies
3. Circulation Well Experiments
4. Leachate Clogging Project
Dr. Meeroff
Frank Youngman
Ahmed Albasri
Christine Lyons
5. User Input/Open Forum Everyone
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Introductions
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
http://labees.civil.fau.edu/leachate
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
TAG Meeting
“Onsite Treatment of Leachate Using Energized Processes”
Frank Youngman, BS/MS StudentDepartment of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering
Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Problems with Leachate
Turbidity
Elevated TDS, COD,
NH3
High COD/BOD
ratio
pH toxicity
Heavy metalsPb, As, Cd, Hg
Quantity and quality highly
variable
OdorPathogens
5 Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
What will we do with leachate in the future?
Hauling
POTWs Deep Injection Wells
Pretreatment
3/18/2013
2
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
One Solution
• Pre-treatment on-site
• Advanced oxidation using ultraviolet light activation (Energized processes)
• FAU has investigated photochemical iron mediated aeration (PIMA) and TiO2 photocatalysis
• And TiO2 photocatalysis seems to be promising
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Titanium dioxide
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Hydrogen
Peroxide
Photon (UV)Hydroxyl Radical
Contaminant
Copyright © Trojan Technologies Inc. All Rights Reserved
Water
How Do Energized Processes Work?
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
h+
e‐Mn+
(aq)
M0(s)
[ Photoreduction ]
+
hν[ Photooxidation ]
Oxygen
Water
TitaniumDioxide
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Titanium Dioxide MechanismTiO2TiO2
O2 UV O•
2
H+
O•
2 HO•
2
H2O•OHO
•2 HO
• 2 O2 H2O2
HO•
2 H2O2TiO2 H+
TiO2
H2O2TiO2 TiO2
•OHOH
12
3/18/2013
3
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
13
Procedures
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Wiles Rd
Pow
erline R
oad
Leachate Sample
•Location
•Monarch Hill, formerly known as CDSL
•Pompano Beach, FL
•Sample Point
•Waste Management•South East Step-Up Station
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Leachate/ TiO2
CE 584 Falling Film Reactor
• Reservoir (10L)
• Temperature Sensor
• Pump (360 L/h)
• Flow Regulator
• Sampling Port
• 3 Way Valve
• Weir Compartment
• UV Power Source (120W)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Mechanical Improvements• Catalyst
build-up in pump
• Installed a 3-way valve to allow flushing of the pump
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Temperature Control• VWR Recirculating Cooler
1150S
• 13 L Capacity
• Temp: -30°C to 150°C
• Filled with Dynalene HC-50 (hydrocoolant)
3/18/2013
4
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Temperature Curves
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature (C)
Time (minutes)
Temp. without Cooling (Richard)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature (C)
Time (minutes)
Temp. with Recirculating Cooler
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Parameters• COD/ Alkalinity Testing
• Leachate Sample Volume (8L)
• Degussa P25 TiO2 Catalyst• 4 g/L
• 16 g/L
• 25 g/L
• Constant Aeration
• Recirculating Cooler
• 4 - Hour Test Segments
• Flow Rate: 300 L/hr
• UV dose 0.365mW/cm2
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Sample Testing
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Experimental Protocol
22
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
23
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Experiment #1
• Leachate collected 9/23/2011
• 4 grams TiO2 per liter leachate
• CODo = 6250mg/L
• Ammoniao = 1710 mg/L as NH3-N
• Alkalinityo = 4630 mg/L as CaCO3
• Coloro = 1125 Platinum Cobalt Units (PCU)
• pH = 8.35
• 44 hour total run
3/18/2013
5
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
What is the limiting parameter?• Clearly COD
is the limiting parameter
• COD is primary concern for determining reaction kinetics
y = ‐0.009x + 1.0024
y = e‐0.064x
y = e‐0.061x
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
C/Co
Time (hours)
C/Co comparing degradation of COD, Ammonia and Alkalinity
COD Ammonia Alkalinity Linear (COD) Expon. (Ammonia) Expon. (Alkalinity)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Reaction Kinetics – Zero Order• Initial Values
• 4.0 g/L TiO2
• CODo = 6250 mg/L
• Zero order kinetics
k = - 56 mg/L-hour
• Estimated time for 100% COD removal would be 112 hoursand 97 hours to get to 800mg/L
y = ‐56.005x + 6261.3R² = 0.9825
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
COD (mg/L)
Time (hours)
Experiment #1 (4g/L) COD Concentration
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Reaction Kinetics – First Order• Initial Values
• 4.0 g/L TiO2
• CODo = 6250 mg/L
• First order kinetics
k = - 0.0112 hour-1
• Displays a higher correlation coefficient than zero order
y = ‐0.0112x + 8.7589R² = 0.9832
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
lnCOD
Time (hours)
Experiment #1 (4g/L) ln(COD Concentration)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Reaction Kinetics – Second Order• Initial Values
• 4.0 g/L TiO2
• CODo = 6250 mg/L
• Second order kinetics
k = 0.000002 L/mg-hour
• Displays a lower correlation coefficient than first and zero order
y = 2E‐06x + 0.0002R² = 0.9779
0
0.00005
0.0001
0.00015
0.0002
0.00025
0.0003
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1/COD
Time (hours)
Experiment #1 (4g/L) 1/(COD Concentration)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Experiment #2
• Leachate collected 3/9/2012
• 16 grams TiO2 per liter leachate
• CODo = 5270mg/L
• Ammoniao = 1310 mg/L as NH3-N
• Alkalinityo = 3560 mg/L as CaCO3
• Coloro = 825 Platinum Cobalt Units (PCU)
• pH = 7.52
• 40 hour total run
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Reaction Kinetics – Zero Order• Initial Values
• 16 g/L TiO2
• CODo = 5270 mg/L
• Zero order kinetics
k = - 52 mg/L-hour
• Estimated time for 100% COD removal would be 98 hours and 83 hours to get to 800 mg/L
y = ‐52.229x + 5140R² = 0.9776
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
COD (mg/L)
Time (hours)
Experiment #2 (16g/L) COD Concentration
3/18/2013
6
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Reaction Kinetics – First Order• Initial Values
• 16 g/L TiO2
• CODo = 5270 mg/L
• First order kinetics
k = - 0.0129 hour-1
• Displays a higher correlation coefficient than zero order
y = ‐0.0129x + 8.5635R² = 0.9839
8
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
lnCOD
Time (hours)
Experiment #2 (16g/L) ln(COD Concentration)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Reaction Kinetics – Second Order• Initial Values
• 16 g/L TiO2
• CODo = 5270 mg/L
• Second order kinetics
k = 0.000003 L/mg-hour
• Displays a lower correlation coefficient than first order, but higher than zero order
• First order takes precedence
y = 3E‐06x + 0.0002R² = 0.9809
0.00000
0.00005
0.00010
0.00015
0.00020
0.00025
0.00030
0.00035
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
COD (mg/L)
Time (hours)
Experiment #2 (16g/L) 1/(COD Concentration)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Experiment #3
• Leachate collected 3/9/2012
• 25 grams TiO2 per liter leachate
• CODo = 5360mg/L
• Ammoniao = 1380 mg/L as NH3-N
• Alkalinityo = 3560 mg/L as CaCO3
• Coloro = 790 Platinum Cobalt Units (PCU)
• pH = 7.54
• 40 hour total run
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Reaction Kinetics – First Order• Initial Values
• 25 g/L TiO2
• CODo = 5360 mg/L
• First order kinetics
k = - 0.0158 hour-1
y = ‐0.0158x + 8.5351R² = 0.9749
7.8
7.9
8
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
ln(COD)
Time (hours)
Experiment #3 (25g/L) ln(COD Concentration)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Experiments #4, 5 and 6Parameter Exp. 4 Exp. 5 Exp. 6
Date leachate collected 7/18/2012 7/18/2012 11/2/2012
Catalyst dosage (g/L) 40 25 10
CODo (mg/L as O2) 6,560 6,560 6,064
Ammoniao (mg/L as NH3-N) 1,635 1,635 1,700
Alkalinityo (mg/L as CaCO3) 4,125 4,125 4,375
Coloro (PCU) 756 756 813
pHo 7.66 7.66 7.71
Total treatment time (hours) 24 24 24
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
y = ‐0.0011x + 1R² = 0.9411
y = ‐0.0015x + 1R² = 0.963
y = ‐0.0022x + 1R² = 0.9235
y = ‐0.0021x + 1R² = 0.9193
y = ‐0.0018x + 1R² = 0.9509
y = ‐0.0018x + 1R² = 0.7468
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1
1.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
COD lnC/lnCo
Time (hours)
COD Comparison Plot
4 g/L 16 g/L 25 g/L 40 g/L 30 g/L 10 g/L
Linear (4 g/L) Linear (16 g/L) Linear (25 g/L) Linear (40 g/L) Linear (30 g/L) Linear (10 g/L)
3/18/2013
7
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
k- constant comparisonTiO2 Dosage k‐value
4 g/L ‐0.0102
16 g/L ‐0.0127
25 g/L ‐0.0167
40 g/L ‐0.0160
30 g/L ‐0.0146
10 g/L ‐0.0125
• 25 g/L exhibits the largest k-value
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Catalyst Optimization Curve• Previous
curve, which determined the 10 g/L trial
• 10 g/L supported logarithmic curve
y = 2.9746ln(x) + 19.995R² = 0.9697
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 Removal at 24 hours
TiO2 dosage (g/L)
Catalyst Optimization Curve
y = 3.0ln(x) + 20R² = 0.97
y = 2.9746ln(x) + 19.995R² = 0.9697
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 Removal at 24 hours
TiO2 dosage (g/L)
Catalyst Optimization Curve
y = 3.0ln(x) + 20R² = 0.97
y = 2.96ln(x) + 19.88R² = 0.97
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 Removal at 24 hours
TiO2 dosage (g/L)
Catalyst Optimization Curve
y = 3.0ln(x) + 20R² = 0.97
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Ammonia• 4 g/L shows
highest degradation
• k-constant for 4 g/L = -0.0726/hr
y = ‐0.0103x + 1R² = 0.9838
y = ‐0.0039x + 1R² = 0.9585
y = ‐0.004x + 1R² = 0.8967
y = ‐0.0035x + 1R² = 0.943
y = ‐0.0037x + 1R² = 0.9803
y = ‐0.0082x + 1R² = 0.9444
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
lnC/lnC0
Time (hours)
Ammonia Comparison Plot
4 g/L 16 g/L 25 g/L 40 g/L 30 g/L 10 g/L
Linear (4 g/L) Linear (16 g/L) Linear (25 g/L) Linear (40 g/L) Linear (30 g/L) Linear (10 g/L)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Alkalinity• 10 g/L shows
highest degradation
• k-constant for 10 g/L = -0.0794/hr
y = ‐0.0087x + 1R² = 0.9713
y = ‐0.0041x + 1R² = 0.844
y = ‐0.0028x + 1R² = 0.8301
y = ‐0.007x + 1R² = 0.9113
y = ‐0.0074x + 1R² = 0.9416
y = ‐0.009x + 1R² = 0.9667
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
lnC/lnC0
Time (hours)
Alkalinity Comparison Plot
4 g/L 16 g/L 25 g/L 40 g/L 30 g/L 10 g/L
Linear (4 g/L) Linear (16 g/L) Linear (25 g/L) Linear (40 g/L) Linear (30 g/L) Linear (10 g/L)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Conclusions
• Based on COD, Ammonia and Alkalinity removal comparison, the optimum range of TiO2 catalyst dose is 4 – 10 g/L.
• At optimal TiO2 range, it would take approximately 160 - 200 hours to achieve 800 mg/L COD target for sewer disposal• Ammonia: 55 - 75 hours to achieve 25 mg/L target
• Alkalinity: 29 - 30 hours for 90% removal
• Color: 160 - 190 hours for 90% removal
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Preliminary Cost Analysis
• As of 2010, Monarch Hill leachate generation ranges from 42 – 96 MG/year (115,000 – 262,000 gal/day)
• Exceedance fees reported at ≈ $350,000 annually, which is ≈ $3.65 - $8.35 per 1,000 gallons
• Investigating the cost of using the optimum catalyst dosage range of 4 - 10 g/L, the most cost efficient dose is 4 g/L.
3/18/2013
8
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Preliminary Cost Analysis
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
• Original Cost estimate based on lab scale treatment of simulated leachate for 20 hours with 13.3 g/L TiO2
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Preliminary Cost Analysis
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
• Cost estimate based on pilot scale treatment of real leachate for 200 hours with 4 g/L TiO2
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Preliminary Cost Analysis• Current treatment process is not cost efficient and will
require some changes to lower the treatment time.• Increase in UV power (increased intensity and/or
decrease distance from UV source)
• Change the reactor style to mimic continuous flow conditions will speed up the reaction rate
• Chemical additives to optimize the process need to be further researched
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Next Step
• Catalyst Recovery• 3 bag sizes (5, 10 and 20 micron) will be tested on
their efficiency in recovering the TiO2 after approximately 8 hours of treatment.
• The goal is to recover at least 80% of the catalyst
• Aeroxide TiO2 P25 is reported to have an average primary size of 21nm
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Future Work
• Catalyst Reuse Efficiency
• Refined Cost Analysis
• Understand Alkalinity Dependence
• UV Light Modification
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Huddle.net
Acknowledgements
• TAG Members
• Daniel Meeroff, PhD, EI
• Andre McBarnette
• Richard Reichenbach
• Jeff Roccapriore
• Florida Atlantic University
3/18/2013
9
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
• Do you know of an easy/efficient way to collect the TiO2 nanoparticles for reuse?
• What other chemical constituents of leachate are of interest to you?
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Technical Advisory Group Meeting
1. “Reducing The Iron Pollution In Landfill Soils By Using Aeration Wells”
Ahmed Albasri, MSCE CandidateDepartment of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering
Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
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
Fe55.845
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Sources• Landfill
leachate• Iron liberated
due to the presence of the landfill
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Iron from Leachate?
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Iron Mobilization in Leachate Plumes• Landfill leachate plume chemistry:
• High oxygen demand• High levels of strongly reduced organic matter • pH 6.5-8 (typical Florida landfill leachate)
• Groundwater chemistry:• Soils high in subsurface iron oxides• Low DO, reducing conditions
• Food source + environmental condtions favor iron-and sulfate-reducing bacteria (Shewanella and Desulfovibrio)• Microbially-mediated liberation of ferrous iron
3/18/2013
10
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Landfill Leachate• If the source of the elevated iron is landfill leachate,
then we would expect to see:• Other conservative tracers (TDS, chlorides, etc.)• Other leachate contaminants (VOCs, As, etc.)• Dilution effects compared to the measured leachate
water quality
• Caveats:• Variability caused by field sampling methods• Reliability of redox-sensitive parameters • Well construction materials (non-steel)• Variations in landfill construction methods
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
North Florida Results
Monitoring Well 7S
Monitoring Well 2S
• Townsend 2008
• Timmons et al. 2008
• Wang and Stone 2008
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
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
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
NE
SESW
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Possible Corrective Measures• Options:
• Either Pump and treat with packed column, sedimentation, membrane filtration system (Sim et al. 2001)
• Excess iron bacteria disinfection
• Lack of iron bacteria microaeration, pH-adjustment, chelation with organic acids, nutrient addition
• Ferrous iron ion exchange or oxidation + filtration or adsorptive filtration or oxidation trenches
• Ferrous + Arsenic advanced oxidation recirculation wells
• Hydrology restore non-reducing conditions
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
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
3/18/2013
11
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Air
SandFilter
Another Option
• In situ remediation process
• Metals and radionuclides
• Volatiles
• Biodegradables
• Simple to operate
• Rapid
• InexpensiveReactionZone
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Groundwater circulation well (GCW)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Objectives
1. To develop a list of viable engineering alternatives for controlling the release of iron in-situ
2. To conduct lab experiments for iron (and possible co-contaminant) removal in-situ using groundwater recirculation well technology
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
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
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
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
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
3/18/2013
12
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Test with Boca Soils• 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 100 mg/L was added to the water and soil in the aquarium
• Two aquarium tests were running simultaneously to obtain replicate results
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
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
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
0
100
200
300
400
500
1 2 3 4
fFe
mg
/Kg
Boca Raton test Results compare with chen.1999
Fe soil test withoutrover
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/C
0)
Time (hours)
Iron reading in Boca Soil
Sample1
Sample2
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Test for Polk County Soils
• 3 samples for each one of the 2 samples collected in May 11-2011 for Iron digestion Hot Block experiment are in process
• 2 Aquariums of the SE and NW landfill soil which was collected in May 11-2011 are built already
• The 2 which were collected in November are in the drying process
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Tests with Polk County Soils
• 4 Aquariums for the soils Collected from Lakeland landfill.
• Same Construction were adopted for Boca tests.
• SE & NE soil samples were sandy profile which enable setting them quickly in their 2 aquariums.
• SE & SW were need further process as they were clay constructed soil.
• Soils had been dried for 24 hour with 100 degree Celsius
3/18/2013
13
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Tests with Polk County Soils
• 4 samples were homogenized with a hammer and added to 2 aquaria
• 94 mg/L Iron has been created FeCl2 with HCl
• 4 Aquaria were saturated with iron for 1 day
• 4 Aquaria tests were started on 10/31/2012
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
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 aquaria
• Iron reading were 0.11 - 0.08 mg/L for the 4 test experiments after 1 hour running and keep decreasing through time
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
0 1 12FE 94.3 0.1195 0.0909
0
50
100
Iro
n
Fe for NE 05/11/11
0 1 12FE 94.3 0.08969 0.05764
0
50
100
Iro
n
Fe for SE 05/11/11
0 1 12FE 94.3 0.08 0.0933
0
50
100
Iro
n
Fe for SW 11/9/11
0 1 12FE 94.3 0.08 0.04
0
50
100
Iro
n
Fe for SE 11/9/11
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
3/18/2013
14
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Adding Iron to the Samples
• Fast initial degradation of iron soil may play vital role by adsorbing the spiked iron
• To counteract this possibility, iron was saturated in the aquaria to achieve a variance <10 % (steady state) in aqueous iron concentration
• This spiking process took 3-4 weeks• 365+ mg of iron were spiked for each aquarium
• Loading of the aquaria required an additional 4 weeks due to flooding, seepage, and evaporation
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Aquarium 1 and 2
• Aquarium 1 (SE 11/09/2011) and 2 (SW 11/09/2011) show less than 10% variance which make them ready to test
Slope = 0.4% Slope = 0.18%
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Aquarium 3 and 4
• Aquarium 3 (SE 05/11/2011) and 4 (NE 05/11/2011) still show higher variance, so we are still in the spiking process
Slope = 4.3% Slope = 0.65% Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Saturated Aquarium Experimenting• Aquarium 1 and 2 were started on 02/24/2013
• Sampling times were concentrated in the first hour as degradation was expected to occur rapidly
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Iron Degradation Experiments
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Results
• The GCW process with Aquarium 1 shows rapid degradation in the first 2 hours• kfirst order = 2.4 hr-1; r2 = 0.89
• Aquarium 2 did not show significant changes because the initial iron concentration was much lower than in the 1st aquarium• kfirst order = 0.4 hr-1; r2 = 0.06
3/18/2013
15
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Summary of Findings
• According to the last 2 tests conducted with Polk County soil, they both showed rapid iron removal using GCW technique
• Aquarium 2 needs to be repeated with more spiked iron to confirm
• Further tests for the 2 samples left are going to consolidate the principle targeted to using that technology as remediation solution
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Next Steps
• 1. Complete the saturation of the 3rd and 4th aquaria and test them with GCW for iron removal
• 2. Find the design limitation according to the prototype specification and soil features
• 3. Develop a design equation for field implementation
• 4. Analyze the iron speciation
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Recommendations
• Utilizing the sparging well (GCW) as treatment technique for contaminated groundwater and soils with elevated iron
• Study soil profile as the technique could vary according to soil characteristics, permeability, and texture which will determine the efficiency of the process
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
I Have Questions for YOU
• Do you have any knowledge of design equations that govern groundwater circulation well (GCW) systems or sparging wells?
• 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?
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
TAG Meeting
“Leachate Clogging Project”
Christine Lyons, BSCE CandidateDepartment of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering
Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Exciting New Joint Project
• “Critical Examination of Leachate Collection System Clogging at SWA Disposal Facilities”
3/18/2013
16
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Problem Statement
• Calcium carbonate scale buildup in leachate collection system for certain cells causes clogging
• Removing clogs is costly and time consuming
• Private company does the cleanout• $130K + $1200/day for video
• 2.5 months to clean cells 6-16
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
2012 Jetting Results
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
2013 Jetting Results
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
What is in the LCS?
• Primary leachate
• Leak detection (2° liner)
• Gas wells
• Condensate lines
• Class III leachate
• Dyer (closed landfill) leachate
• Cooling water
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
LCS
• 65 miles of gravity pipe
• Laterals are 60-70 ft apart
• 6-8 inch DIA perforated pipe wrapped in filter cloth
• Pump stations• 250-270 gpm 24/7
• Pump station A is the lowest point in the system
• Forcemain
• Drip lines for gas condensate
3/18/2013
17
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Parameters
• Temperature
• pH
• Specific conductance
• Conductivity
• Salinity
• DO
• COD
• Ammonia
• Color
• Alkalinity
• TSS,TDS,VSS
• Ca, Mg, Fe
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
11/21/2012 FAU SamplesParameter Cell 6 Leachate
CompositeCell 6 Leak Detection
Gas Condensate
Gas WellsForcemain
pH 6.60 7.17 7.26 7.56
Cond. (mS/cm) 0.49 4.31 1.35 1.05
TDS (mg/L) 2,380 30,000 17,750 5,280
TSS (mg/L) 15 35 57 89
COD (mg/L) 780 3940 6830 3730
Color (PCU) 200 1025 600 200
Alk (mg/L as CaCO3) 1175 675 2750 2725
Ca (mg/L as CaCO3) 470 3310 250 270
Mg (mg/L as CaCO3) 230 180 250 50
NH3-N 364 1644 1250 870
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
12/10/2012 FAU SamplesParameter Cell 6 Leachate
CompositeCell 6 Leak Detection
Gas Condensate
Gas WellsForcemain
pH 6.53 6.93 7.05 7.57
Cond. (mS/cm) 0.35 4.61 1.24 1.31
TDS (mg/L) 1331 37,020 4190 6510
TSS (mg/L) 14 20 332 46
COD (mg/L) 600 4110 11,190 4040
Color (PCU) 250 350 250 750
Alk (mg/L as CaCO3) 800 575 2250 3275
Ca (mg/L as CaCO3) 420 2990 100 300
Mg (mg/L as CaCO3) 80 790 250 150
NH3-N 208 1432 1592 1026
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
12/10/2012 FAU SamplesParameter Class 1 Flare Class III +
DyerDyer Cooling
Water
pH 7.16 7.21 7.27 6.88
Cond. (mS/cm) 1.11 0.67 0.64 0.48
TDS (mg/L) 6305 3114 2733 3645
TSS (mg/L) 98 6.1 23 28
COD (mg/L) 9290 820 740 60
Color (PCU) 125 275 250 125
Alk (mg/L as CaCO3) 2200 1350 1850 75
Ca (mg/L as CaCO3) 200 680 440 1710
Mg (mg/L as CaCO3) 230 530 100 200
NH3-N 1232 376 360 10
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
01/25/13 FAU SamplesParameter Class I
FlareCell 5 Gas F/M
Cell 6 GasF/M
Pump Station D
pH 6.91 7.75 6.07 6.90
Cond. (mS/cm) 8.5 17.3 54.4 9.4
TDS (mg/L) 5200 37,020 4190 5700
DO (mg/L) 3.81 5.07 5.04 1.67
Temperature (°C) 28.0 24.2 23.2 28.5
TSS (mg/L) -- -- -- --
COD (mg/L) 4450 4130 63,400 2760
Color (PCU) -- -- -- --
Alk (mg/L as CaCO3) 1075 2100 4700 1850
Ca (mg/L as CaCO3) 100 160 11400 --
Mg (mg/L as CaCO3) 170 200 700 --
NH3-N (mg/L as N) 1090 1660 5130 550
Fe (mg/L) 6.15 18.8 530 --
3/18/2013
18
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
01/25/13 FAU SamplesParameter Cell 7
LeachateCell 7 Leak Detection
Cell 10 Leachate
Cell 10 Leak Detection
pH 7.40 7.37 7.17 7.42
Cond. (mS/cm) 46.78 43.33 43.23 26.62
TDS (mg/L) 28,210 28,160 25,890 16,880
DO (mg/L) 4.2 5.6 1.1 1.9
Temperature (°C) 29.0 24.2 29.6 26.4
TSS (mg/L) -- -- -- --
COD (mg/L) 4050 3600 3760 3400
Color (PCU) -- -- -- --
Alk (mg/L as CaCO3) 3000 4675 5800 7300
Ca (mg/L as CaCO3) 650 150 3200 --
Mg (mg/L as CaCO3) 350 1000 500 --
NH3-N (mg/L as N) 2440 2630 2840 2570
Fe (mg/L) -- -- -- --Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory Group
Boca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
01/25/13 FAU SamplesParameter Cell 12
LeachateCell 12 LDS
Cell 11 Leachate
Cell 11 LDS
Cell 9 Leachate
Cell 9 LDS
pH 7.17 7.09 6.81 7.33 7.25 7.34
Cond. (mS/cm) 22.1 12.6 48.1 21.3 40.9 28.4
TDS (mg/L) 12,990 7,995 27,700 14,130 23,850 17,850
DO (mg/L) 1.13 1.76 1.15 1.97 2.20 2.11
Temperature (°C) 30.6 26.3 31.8 24.0 31.1 26.9
TSS (mg/L) -- -- -- -- -- --
COD (mg/L) 2290 920 2760 2780 5200 4220
Color (PCU) -- -- -- -- -- --
Alk 4700 2850 3900 5700 5450 7200
Ca -- -- -- -- -- --
Mg -- -- -- -- -- --
NH3-N (mg/L as N) 1630 1240 1440 2170 2490 2820
Fe (mg/L) -- -- -- -- -- --
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
April 24, 2012 CDM Letter ReportParameter Cell 6
Leachate Composite
Cell 6 Leak Detection
Gas Condensate
Gas WellsForcemain
pH 7.12 6.82 6.50 6.96
DO (mg/L) 3.77 (34°C) 1.45 (32°C) 1.24 (35°C) 0.40 (37°C)
Salinity (ppt) 20 21 4.2 20
ORP (mV) -182 -30 -114 -188
Conductivity(mS/cm)
38 31 9 39
TDS (mg/L) 27,000 23,000 2900 30,000
TVS (mg/L) 8,600 5200 1800 17,000
TS (wt%) 2.98 2.47 0.36 3.64
Foaming No No Yes YesPresentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory Group
Boca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
April 2012 InorganicsParameter Cell 6
LeachateComposite
Cell 6 Leak Detection
Gas Condensate
Gas WellsForcemain
Chloride 18,000 14,000 760 12,000
TP 13 7.1 7.2 12
Sulfate 630 570 560 990
Alkalinity 6100 780 2700 9900
Ammonia 11 5 5 14
TKN 15 12 14 20
NO3 + NO2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.1
TN 16 14 15 21
TOC 4200 390 2100 12,000
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
April 2012 Metals and VFAsParameter(mg/L)
Cell 6 LeachateComposite
Cell 6 Leak Detection
Gas Condensate
Gas WellsForcemain
Calcium 920 1300 34 1400
Magnesium 150 110 29 230
Sodium 5600 4500 500 5400
Total Fe 75 13 3.0 270
Soluble Fe 65 6.0 3.2 21
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
NaOH Precipitation
• Rock formation occurred in certain samples with the addition of NaOH
3/18/2013
19
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
NaOH Precipitation
• Moles of NaOH required to form rock correlates with alkalinity:
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Sampling Plan• 23 samples @ 3 times (to apply statistics)
• LCS Class I – Cells 5 to 12 (8 samples)• LDS Class I – Cells 5 to 12 (8 samples)• Dyer Road Landfill leachate (1 sample)• Liquid from saturated gas wells (2 samples)
• Cell 5 and 6
• Class III leachate (2 samples)• Pump Stations C & D
• Condensate from Class I flare (1 sample)• Cell 8
• Blowdown water from WTE plant (1 sample)
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Future Plans
• Three months of continuous sampling is expected to happen this summer
• Analyze the water quality data for calcium carbonate precipitation potential (Langelier’s Index, Ryznar Index, etc.)
• Demonstration testing on site
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Questions?
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Questions for You
• Do you have any suggestions for possible solutions?
• Have you heard of this happening at other facilities?
• What other experiments would you suggest?
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Contacts
• Mark Eyeington
• Ron Schultz, Utilities Manager• Gas and leachate, electrical, and pump stations
• Tim Townsend
• Kevin Kohn
• Christine Lyons
3/18/2013
20
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
Sponsors
Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, March 15, 2013
116
website: http://labees.civil.fau.edu