Bioreactor Landfill Design and Performance By: Kenneth High TEC 4608 12/1/11

High, 1 Bioreactor Landfill Design And Performance Chapter 1: Introduction Overview In this report I will be examining a new more sustainable approach towards waste management, Bioreactor landfills. Traditional Dry Tomb landfills simply hides the waste with little management to promote decomposition. This method of waste management is highly unsustainable and can be dangerous to the environment. I will be examining and discussing the potential benefits that a Bioreactor landfill design has over Dry Tomb landfills and what some future problems might affect this new method of rapid waste stabilization. Introduction We generated 243 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in 2009, 4.34 pounds per person per day. This means that each person in the U.S produces an average of 1,584 pounds of MSW per year. Taking into account that there are over 300 million people living in the U.S this means that there is a lot of waste out there to be dealt with. According to recent studies, the United States generates some 545 million tons of non-hazardous waste per year, of which almost 70 percent is disposed of in landfills. Once a piece of trash makes it to the land fill that is where it will stay for the rest of its time on this earth because our current landfilling method just hides the waste from sight. There are several major issues with traditional Dry Tomb landfills including: waste and leachate toxicity, ground water contamination, land use and Land Fill Gas emissions.

High, 2

(U.S. EPA) The two graphs above show the MSW generation and recycling rates for the last 50 years. In order to properly manage our waste we must first know what is in it and what happens to it when it is encapsulated in a landfill. There are five core phases that the waste mass of a landfill goes though on its way towards stabilization. Phase I: Initial adjustment phase - initial placement of solid waste and accumulation of moisture within landfills. An acclimation period is monitored until sufficient moisture collects to supports an active microbial community. Phase II: Transition phase - the field capacity is sometimes exceeded, and a transformation from an aerobic to anaerobic environment occurs, as evidenced by the depletion of oxygen trapped within a landfill cell. By the end of this phase,

High, 3 measurable concentrations of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and volatile organic acids (VOA) can be detected in the leachate. Phase III: Acid formation phase - The continuous hydrolysis of solid waste, followed by the microbial conversion of biodegradable organic content results in the production of intermediate VOAs at high concentrations throughout this phase. Phase IV: Methane fermentation phase - intermediate acids are consumed by methane-forming consortia (methanogenic bacteria) and converted into methane and carbon dioxide. Sulphate and nitrate are reduced to sulphides and ammonia, respectively. Phase V: Maturation phase - During the final state of landfill stabilization, nutrients and available substrate become limiting, and the biological activity shifts to relative dormancy. Gas production drops dramatically and leachate strength stays steady at much lower concentrations.

Chapter 2: Literary Review Bioreactor Landfill A bioreactor landfill is very similar to dry tomb landfills with a few changes in operation and management. Both methods use plastic liners and compacted soil to contain the MSW to prevent or minimize leakage of contaminants into ground water supplies; both have leachate collection systems and storage ponds or tanks and LFG collection systems. The main difference of the design and operation of a bioreactor landfill is that by monitoring and optimizing environmental conditions within the

High, 4 waste a more rapid and complete degradation of the waste may be achieved. The general objective is to produce a stable waste within a reasonable time scale and to reduce the potential negative impact on the surrounding environment. There are three categories that a bioreactor design can fall under: Aerobic, Anaerobic and Hybrid. In an aerobic bioreactor landfill, leachate is removed from the bottom layer of the landfill, piped to either storage tanks or ponds and re-circulated into the landfill in a controlled manner. Air is also injected into the waste mass, using vertical or horizontal wells, to promote aerobic activity and accelerate waste stabilization. Aerobic bioreactor landfills are much more operationally intense than anaerobic bioreactor landfills; however, post closure costs should be reduced substantially due to reductions in LFG generation and cover settlement. In an anaerobic bioreactor landfill, moisture is added to the waste mass in the form of re-circulated leachate and other sources to obtain optimal moisture levels. Biodegradation occurs in the absence of oxygen (anaerobically) and produces landfill gas (LFG). Landfill gas, primarily methane, and carbon dioxide can be captured to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and for energy generation. The maximum methane production in landfills occurred at moisture content of 60-80% wet weight. This suggests that most landfills are well below the optimum moisture content for methane production. The hybrid bioreactor landfill accelerates waste degradation by employing sequential aerobic-anaerobic treatment to rapidly degrade organics in the upper

High, 5 sections of the landfill and collect gas from lower sections. Operation as a hybrid results in the earlier onset of methanogenesis compared to aerobic landfills. Bioreactor technology involves physical, chemical and biological process along with proper leachate and or air management to maximize the recovery of LFG for energy production. These key concepts are described below: Physical process the physical process involves, shredding of the waste to a uniform size and proper mixing of the waste. This allows for a more compact waste mass and reduces the initial amount of oxygen trapped in the waste allowing for a earlier onset of the anaerobic biodegradation. Chemical process - Chemical process for enhancement of microbial growth involves leachate recirculation, pH adjustment, addition of buffers and nutrients. Maintaining proper levels of these will harbor better conditions for the microorganisms that are necessary for the decomposition of the organic materials in the MSW. Biological process - Bioreactor landfill operates under optimal aerobic or anaerobic environmental conditions for the enhancement of the biodegradation process by microorganisms. The higher moisture levels due to leachate recirculation promotes better growth of microorganisms that break down the organic material in the waste and leachate. Liquid Addition: The addition of moisture to landfilled waste creates an environment favorable for those organisms responsible for waste decomposition. The moisture available in the waste is usually not sufficient to meet the microbial

High, 6 requirements, so design and operational modifications are needed to add liquids to the landfill waste. Recirculation of leachate is the most common liquid supply, but other moisture sources can also be used. Air Addition: Another feature proposed for some bioreactor landfills is the addition of air. The addition of air, and thus oxygen, promotes the aerobic stabilization of the landfilled waste. This is the same process that decomposes waste in a traditional waste compost system. Aerobic waste decomposition is a faster process in comparison to anaerobic waste decomposition. The aerobic technique may be helpful for adopting bioreactor technology in cold regions.

(Horizontal trench design for leachate re-circulation and air injection) These differences between the traditional dry tomb and bioreactor landfill design have several benefits including:

High, 7 Decomposition and biological stabilization in years vs. decades Lower waste toxicity and mobility due to both aerobic and anaerobic conditions Reduced leachate disposal costs A 15 to 30 percent gain in landfill space due to an increase in density of waste mass Significant increased LFG generation that, when captured, can be used for energy use onsite or sold Reduced post-closure care It has been demonstrated that a 15 to 30 percent gain in landfill space, due to an increase in density of waste mass from shredding the trash and higher moisture levels, can be achieved when a landfill becomes stabilized. This increase in landfill space allows for more MSW to be stored in each cell. This presents both financial and environmental benefits since less land is needed. All landfills produce and emit landfill gas (LFG), which is roughly 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Methane gas is created naturally when organic materials such as food scraps, yard clippings, or animal waste decompose in the absence of oxygen, anaerobically, and has 27 times the negative environmental impact than that of carbon dioxide. Methane is also known commonly as Natural Gas and is considered a cleaner fuel because it releases less carbon dioxide per unit of heat that it releases making it a cleaner burning than gasoline and other common fuels.

High, 8 Research indicates that the operation of a bioreactor may generate LFG earlier in the process and at a higher rate than the traditional landfill. The bioreactor LFG is also generated over a shorter period of time because the LFG emissions decline as the accelerated decomposition process depletes the source waste faster than in a traditional landfill. The net result appears to be that the bioreactor produces more LFG overall than the traditional landfill does. With the ability to collect more methane and at a faster rate, methane to electricity collection systems becomes more economically viable. Currently, the use of LFG (in traditional and bioreactor landfills) for energy applications is only about 10 percent of its potential use. The US Department of Energy estimates that if the controlled bioreactor technology were applied to 50 percent of the waste currently being landfilled, it could provide over 270 billion cubic feet of methane a year, which is equivalent to one percent of US electrical needs. (Bioreactor) If proper operation of a bioreactor landfill is maintained then a reduction in landfill monitoring activities and post-closure care cost. A bioreactor landfill minimizes long-term environmental risk and liability because of the controlled decomposition and stabilization of the solid waste and the recovery of LFG during landfill operation and the low potential for leachate leakage into the water table and surrounding environment. By lowering the toxicity of both the leachate and the waste mass through the re-circulation of leachate and or other liquids along with the advanced liner system the risk of an environmental accident is also dramatically decreased.

High, 9 Recirculating leachate through the waste partially remediates, or reduces the toxicity of, the leachate. Each time the leachate passes through the waste, microorganisms within the landll transform compounds within the leachate, and the toxicity of the leachate is reduced. Once stabilized, the landll poses less risk to the environment and community. (Hughes, Christy, and Heimlich 1-3) EPA Project XL EPA began Project XL in 1995 and accepted projects until 2002. The Project XL (eXcellance and Leadership) program is an EPA initiative that provides regulatory flexibility to entities to conduct pilot projects that demonstrate the ability to achieve superior environmental performance. EPA ultimately developed over 50 environmental innovation pilot projects under Project XL. Of the 50 projects started under project XL there were five full-scale bioreactor-testing sites.

Chapter 3: Procedure Procedure: I began by studying the system elements and overall design in order to gain a basic understanding of the intended working conditions of the system. After gaining a solid understanding of the design and operation of the bioreactor I then compared the hypothetical benefits of a bioreactor to a full-scale test site, Buncombe county. It was my goal to confirm that the hypothesized benefits of rapid stabilization of waste, faster and larger production of methane rich LFG and lower toxicity rates of the leachate and waste mass. Once I have made my conclusion about the accuracy of

High, 10 hypotheses I will make recommendations for future tests and data collection.

Chapter 4: Data Buncombe County Bioreactor Project (SEE APENDIX A) Appendix A is a copy of the 2010 Progress Report of the Buncombe County EPA XL bioreactor landfill project. Included in this report is a site description, systems description, collected data, project assessment and recommended modifications to the site/system. Buncombe County is located in the mountains of North Carolina approximately nine miles north of the City of Asheville. The Buncombe County Bioreactor project has several designs and waste management methods that are currently being tested and reporting data to the EPA. The facility serves only Buncombe County and its six municipalities: Asheville, Biltmore Forest, Black Mountain, Montreat, Woodfin, and Weaverville. This facility is among the ten largest publicly owned Municipal Solid Waste landfills in the state, accepting approximately 100,000 tons per year from the area's 200,000 residents. The landfill currently receives about 150,000 tons per year of municipal solid waste and construction and demolition wastes. This project differs from other Project XL projects in that it is a full-scale implementation of a bioreactor system that is being performed in two phases over an extended period of time. Phase 1 is a retrofit bioreactor system that entails installing trenches after landfill cells are filled to capacity. The Phase 1 Retrofit System was installed in Cells 1-5 and has been in operation since April 2006. Phase

High, 11 2 is a build-as-you-go bioreactor system, which means that the infrastructure is installed in stages as the waste is being placed. The build-as-you-go approach will provide a more extensive wetting of the waste and earlier capture of landfill gas. The first stage of the Phase 2 system is expected to be installed in Cell 6 in 2011. The County describes five components in their XL proposal: Combined leachate recirculation and gas collection Horizontal trenches Pressure injection system Active gas collection Alternative liner system

The Subtitle D landfill is 95 acres and consists of ten disposal cells that are being constructed sequentially over the estimated 30+ years. Cells one and two were constructed with a prescriptive RCRA Subtitle D liner system. Cells 3-6 were constructed with an alternative liner system that uses an 18-inch soil barrier layer with a maximum permeability of 1x10-5cm/sec, a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), a 60-mil HDPE liner and a 24 rock drainage layer. Cells 1-5 are filled to capacity and Cell 6 has been the active disposal cell since 2006. Based on current waste flows Cell 7 is expected to begin operation in 2015. (Buncombe County Landfill Project) The recirculation of leachate into the MSW mass is the key action that causes the benefits bioreactors have over dry tombs. It raises the moisture level of the waste mass which promotes the growth of microorganisms which in turn break down toxic chemicals in the waste releasing methane rich LFG.

High, 12 Cell 1 (Gallons) Cell 2 (Gallons) Cell 3 (Gallons) Cell 4 (Gallons) Cell 5 (Gallons) Cell 6 (Gallons)

Nov. Dec. 9,723 487 20,898 11,382 11,675 981,305 2007 2008 288,526 8,860 94,705 173,647 164,467 8,904,461 2009 101,777 35,102 103,371 333,067 356,580 14,610,720 2010 173,878 34,813 283,867 419,454 124,089 7,097,590 Cumulative 573,904 79,262 502,841 937,550 656,811 31,594,076 (Annual Leachate Collected from Cells 1-6 ("Buncombe County Bioreactor Project") Leachate recirculation is not performed during the winter months due to concern of the negative impacts of cold leachate on the propagation of the microorganisms. An established minimum leachate temperature of 50 degrees F must be measured at the leachate pond for the recirculation operation. To date, approximately1.6 million gallons of leachate has been re-circulated resulting in 320 less truck trips to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). That has resulted in savings of approximately $78,000 in avoided hauling and treatment costs. With the planned expansion of the bioreactor system into Cell 6, the largest cell of the landfill, the amount of leachate that can be re-circulated will be significantly increased. It is anticipated that hauling of leachate will not be required outside of the winter season once the Cell 6 system is operational. Because of the leachate re-circulation the waste mass is much heavier than dry tombs and needs a better lining system to minimize the chance for leaks. As of this stage of the project the alternative liner system that is being tested is functioning at a comparable level to the prescriptive Subtitle D liner system. While liquids have

High, 13 been observed in the leak detection zones of the landfill cells, testing of LDZ samples indicates that it is groundwater. (Buncombe County Landfill Project)

(Leachate collection/ circulation pipes at Buncombe County Bioreactor) Settlement Plate Monitoring Data Summary Subtitle D Landfill Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility Settlement Total Settlement Plates (inches) SP-1 6.12 SP-2 8.64 SP-3 6.84 SP-4 SP-5 SP-6 SP-7 SP-8 SP-9 SP-10 6.60 3.96 4.08 11.76 9.36 23.16 11.64

From January 2006 to October 2011

High, 14 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recomendations Conclusion It is in my opinion that the bioreactor design and operational methods are superior to the dry tomb design. Data has shown that with this new design it is possible to: reduce how much land is used for landfills, increase LFG production to a rate that makes a gas to energy recovery system more economically available, reduces the toxicity of the waste and leachate and reach waste stabilization all in a significantly less time frame compared to dry tombs. All of these benefits make this landfill design cheaper to operate and less of a risk to its surrounding environment making it a more sustainable waste management solution. However, the technology is still being fully tested on full-size landfills and will need more testing and data collection time. Recommendation I agree with the recommended modifications made at the end of the 2010 Progress Report (Appendix A). Along with those in the report I would also recommend testing and data collection on how a bioreactor would function if there were an increase in composting rates. An increase in composting would mean less organic material for the microorganisms to break down and less methane production. I have not been able to find an answer to this question and I would consider this to be important for bioreactor testing as the decrease in organic material could reduce the speed of stabilization and other benefits of the bioreactor design.

High, 15 Glossary Anaerobic: living or existing in the absence of free oxygen Aerobic: living or existing in the presence of oxygen Bioreactor: a controlled landfill or landfill disposal cell where liquid and gas conditions are actively managed in order to accelerate or enhance biostabilization of waste Hydrolysis-a chemical process of decomposition Leachate- liquid that filters through MSW Methane- a colorless, odorless, flammable gas produced by decomposition of organic matter LCS- leachate collection system MSW-otherwise known as trash or garbageconsists of everyday items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, and batteries.

High, 16 Citations Hughes, Kerry, Ann Christy, and Joe Heimlich. "Bioreactor Landfills." Ohio State University. 1-3. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://ohioline.osu.edu/cdfact/pdf/0139.pdf>. Karthikeyan, Obuli, and Kurian Joseph. Bioreactor Landfills For Sustainable Waste Management. Chennai: Web. 1 Dec 2011. Muth, Timm. "Jackson County Green Energy Park." jcgep.org. N.p., 2007. Web. <http://www.jcgep.org/collection.html>. Rather, John. "Trapping Power From Trash." New York Times . (2008): n. page. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/14Rm ethane.html>. Repa, Edward. United States. National Solid Waste Management Association. Bioreactor Landfills: A Viable Technology. Washington DC: , 2003. Smith, Kristy. United States. USEPA. 2010 Progress Report. Alexander: , 2011. Print. Theressa, Maria, and Milind Khire. "Aerobic in-vessel composting versus bioreactor landlling using life cycle inventory models." Springer-Verlag, 2007. Web. 1 Dec 2011. U.S. EPA, . "Wastes - Non-Hazardous Waste - Municipal Solid Waste." Municipal solid waste. U.S. Government, 2011. Web. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/>. United States. EPA. Buncombe County Landfill Project. 2011. Web. <http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/buncombe/index.htm>. United States. EPA. Bioreactors. 2011. Web. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bioreactors.htm>. United States. USEPA. Buncombe County Bioreactor Project. Alexander: , 2011. Web. <http://www.buncombebioreactor.com/Website info/Bioreactor Progress Report/2010 Bioreactor Progress Report.pdf>.

Appendix A