UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGION
III
1650
Arch
Street
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103­
2029
SUBJECT:
Site
Visit
to
Virginia
Project
XL
Bioreactor
Landfills
DATE:
4/
8/
02
FROM:
Steven
J.
Donohue,
Environmental
Scientist/
Project
Manager
Office
of
Environmental
Innovation
(3EI00)

TO:
File
On
April
3
and
4,
2002
I
visited
the
two
Virginia
Project
XL
bioreactor
landfills
and
met
with
representatives
of
Waste
Management
and
the
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.
Under
the
terms
of
a
Project
XL
Final
Project
Agreement,
a
Proposed
Site
Specific
Rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
December
22,
2001,
as
well
as
VADEQ
solid
waste
and
air
permits,
one
10
acre
test
cell
at
each
of
the
Virginia
Project
XL
landfills
will
be
operated
as
a
bioreactor.

Maplewood
Landfill
On
April
3,
2002
I
toured
the
Maplewood
Landfill
in
Amelia
County,
Virginia
with
Waste
Management
(WM)
Representatives;
Jim
Stenborg,
Project
Manager,
Brian
McClung,
Landfill
Manager
and
Patrick
McCann,
Landfill
Gas
Technician.
After
the
tour
I
met
with
the
WM
representatives
and
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(VADEQ)
representatives,
E.
Paul
Farrell,
Environmental
Engineer,
and
Robert
Timmons,
Waste
Compliance
Manager.
During
the
tour
I
made
note
of
the
following
features
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill.
The
side
slopes
of
the
landfill
were
well
vegetated
with
several
different
species
of
native
and
cool
seasons
grasses.
The
side
slopes
on
the
west,
south
and
east
sides
of
the
Phase
1
and
2
test
cells
consist
of
a
4
to
1
slope.
This
slope
is
broken
by
a
flat,
approximately
30
foot,
bench
located
about
halfway
up
the
side
of
the
landfill.

There
are
a
double
riser
extending
from
the
primary
leachate
collection
layer
up
to
the
sump
houses
which
are
located
at
the
toe
of
the
eastern
side
slope
of
the
landfill.
This
double
risers
provides
redundant
access
to
the
leachate
collection
pipe
under
each
cell
of
the
landfill.
WM
representatives
stated
that
each
cell
has
an
individual
leachate
collection
pipe
and
there
is
an
approximately
4
foot
high
berm
between
cells
to
hydraulically
separate
them.
WM
representatives
stated
that
if
the
leachate
pipe
were
to
become
clogged
the
stone
would
act
as
a
redundant
conduit
for
removing
leachate
from
the
cell.
The
leachate
lines
from
the
sump
of
each
cell
are
connected
to
a
common
subsurface
leachate
collection
line
that
runs
to
two
large
leachate
storage
tanks
that
I
observed
at
the
Site.
WM
reported
that
the
storage
capacity
of
the
leachate
tanks
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill
is
approximately
500,000
gallons.

I
noted
the
presence
of
the
landfill
gas
collection
system
which
was
in
operation
at
the
landfill.
Gas
was
being
collected
from
wells
located
on
the
top
of
the
landfill
and
from
the
leachate
collection
system
where
negative
pressure
was
maintained
on
the
riser
pipes
to
prevent
gas
buildup
in
the
sump
house
area.
Landfill
gas
lines
run
across
the
surface
of
the
landfill
from
west
to
east
and
connect
to
individual
stickups
from
the
gas
wells.
The
gas
pipelines
are
sloped
so
that
any
condensate
flows
downslope
to
the
leachate
collection
sump
house
areas
for
collection.
A
subsurface
landfill
gas
line
at
the
toe
of
the
landfill
collects
the
individual
lines
coming
down
the
slope
and
runs
to
a
flare
and
power
plant
located
on
the
site.
A
series
of
engines
in
the
power
plant
can
be
run
on
diesel
and/
or
landfill
gas
and
can
utilize
all
or
a
portion
of
the
landfill
gas
to
generate
power.
Any
landfill
gas
not
utilized
by
the
power
plant
is
automatically
sent
to
a
flare
for
combustion.
I
observed
a
large
vacuum
pump
that
pulls
the
gas
to
the
flare
and
power
plant.
WM
representatives
stated
that
the
contract
with
the
power
generating
company
is
structured
to
encourage
them
to
utilize
as
much
landfill
gas
as
possible
for
power
generation.

On
the
top
surface
of
the
landfill,
I
noted
the
presence
of
three
well
stickups
that
were
nested
together
(i.
e.
in
close
proximity
to
each
other)
at
several
locations
in
the
test
cells.
WM
representatives
stated
that
there
nested
stickups
marked
the
locations
where
borings
were
made
into
the
landfill
to
collection
baseline
samples
of
waste
and
obtain
waste
density.
After
the
drilling
was
completed,
wells
were
constructed
at
three
different
depths
in
the
hole
left
by
the
boring
into
the
waste.
Temperature
probes
were
installed
in
the
wells
and
they
will
be
monitored
during
the
project.
WM
stated
that
from
the
known
volume
of
the
boring
and
measurement
of
the
mass
of
the
waste
removed
from
the
hole
they
were
able
to
calculate
an
in
place
density
of
the
waste
at
different
locations
in
the
landfill.
WM
reported
that
the
density
at
Maplewood
was
.75
tons
per
cubic
yard.

Following
the
tour,
EPA
and
WM
discussed
issues
including
compaction,
increased
density
during
testing,
waste
stability
and
the
possibility
of
leachate
seeps
in
the
side
walls
during
the
project.
WM
stated
that
the
total
volume
of
waste
in
the
test
area
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill
was
approximately
2.2
million
cubic
yards
(MCY).
The
depth
of
the
landfill
in
the
foot
print
of
the
10
acre
test
cell
is
approximately
80
feet.
Therefore,
a
conservative
volume
of
waste
in
the
10
acre
foot
print
where
liquid
is
proposed
to
be
injected
is
approximately
1.
3
MCY.
Multiplying
1.
3
MCY
times
the
calculated
density
of
waste
of
.75
tons
per
cubic
yard
yields
a
value
of
975,000
tons
of
waste
in
the
10
acre
test
area
footprint.

The
volume
of
leachate
proposed
to
be
added
to
the
waste
each
year
is
3­
4
million
gallons.
Assuming
it
is
4
million
gallons
and
the
leachate
has
the
same
weight
as
water
(8.
3
lbs/
gallon),
this
would
be
the
equivalent
of
adding
33.
2
million
pounds
or
16,
600
tons
of
leachate
a
year.
This
annual
mass
of
leachate
represents
an
approximately
1.7%
increase
in
total
mass
of
waste
in
the
test
cell.
According
to
Reinhart
and
Ham
1974
between
25,000
and
50,000
gallons
of
liquid
per
1,000
tons
of
waste
is
needed
to
make
the
waste
achieve
field
capacity.
The
proposed
addition
of
liquid
to
Maplewood
is
approximately
4,102
gallons
of
liquid
per
1,000
tons
of
waste
per
year.

In
the
meeting
WM
agreed
to
monitor
the
liquid
levels
in
the
landfill
gas
extraction
wells
during
the
project
as
an
additional
safe
guard
against
liquid
buildup
in
the
landfill
and
the
possibility
of
surface
seeps.
WM
also
will
be
monitoring
gas
production
and
if
liquid
levels
rise
into
the
wells
this
can
cut
the
production
of
landfill
gas.

King
George
Landfill
On
April
4,
2002
I
met
with
WM
representatives;
Jim
Stenborg,
Project
Manager,
Howard
Burns,
Landfill
Manager
and
Patrick
McCann,
Landfill
Gas
Technician
and
VADEQ
representatives;
E.
Paul
Farrell,
Environmental
Engineer,
and
Tammy
Gumbita,
Senior
Compliance
Specialist
and
toured
the
King
George
Landfill
in
King
George
County,
Virginia.
WM
confirmed
the
side
slopes
of
the
King
George
Landfill
were
3:
1
slope.
Test
Cell
3
where
liquid
is
proposed
to
be
injected
is
bounded
on
the
north,
east
and
west
by
cells
5,
4
and
1,
respectively.
These
cells
would
buttress
or
support
and
provide
an
additional
buffer
against
seepage
in
the
side
slopes.
The
only
area
where
Cell
3
is
exposed
directly
to
a
3:
1
slope
is
an
approximately
450
foot
distance
along
the
southern
side
slope
of
the
landfill.
I
noted
the
presence
of
two
benches
set
into
the
3:
1
side
slope
in
this
area.

The
leachate
sumps
are
located
at
the
toe
of
the
southern
side
slope
of
the
landfill.
As
was
the
case
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill,
there
is
a
double
riser
extending
from
the
primary
leachate
collection
layer
up
to
the
sump
house
building.
This
provides
redundant
access
to
the
leachate
collection
pipe
under
each
cell
of
the
landfill.
There
is
an
approximately
5­
6
foot
berm
between
cells
to
hydraulically
separate
them.
The
leachate
lines
from
the
sump
of
each
cell
are
connected
to
a
common
subsurface
leachate
collection
line
that
runs
to
two
large
leachate
storage
tanks
I
noted
on
the
site.
WM
stated
the
storage
capacity
of
the
leachate
tanks
at
the
King
George
Landfill
is
approximately
500,000
gallons.
WM
reported
that
the
landfill
is
producing
approximately
1,000
gallons
of
leachate
per
day.

As
was
the
case
at
Maplewood,
the
gas
collection
system
was
in
operation
at
the
landfill.
Gas
was
being
collected
from
wells
on
top
of
the
landfill
and
from
the
leachate
collection
system
where
negative
pressure
was
maintained
on
the
riser
pipes
to
prevent
gas
buildup
in
the
sump
area.
Landfill
gas
lines
on
top
of
King
George
Landfill
are
buried
beneath
the
surface
and
run
from
north
to
south
and
collect
gas
from
individual
well
stickups
in
the
landfill.
The
lines
were
sloped
so
that
any
gas
condensate
flows
downslope
to
the
leachate
collection
sump
housing
areas
for
collection.
A
subsurface
landfill
gas
line
runs
to
a
vacuum
pump
and
flare.
According
to
instruments
monitoring
the
gas
flow
at
the
flare
1200
cubic
feet
per
minute
of
landfill
gas
was
being
flared
at
the
time
of
my
visit.
WM
stated
they
are
negotiating
with
the
Birchwood
Power
Station,
which
is
directly
adjacent
to
and
clearly
visible
from
the
landfill
property,
for
the
beneficial
reuse
of
the
landfill
gas.
This
facility
currently
burns
coal
to
produce
power
but
could
utilize
landfill
gas
in
their
boilers.

I
noted
the
presence
of
four
nested
well
stickups
on
the
surface
of
the
King
George
landfill
at
several
locations
in
the
test
cells.
WM
representatives
stated
that
these
stickups
marked
to
location
of
borings
that
were
made
into
the
landfill
to
collection
baseline
samples
of
waste
and
obtain
in­
place
density
measurements.
After
the
drilling
was
completed
wells
were
constructed
at
four
different
depths
in
the
hole
left
by
the
boring.
Temperature
probes
were
installed
in
the
wells
and
they
will
be
monitored
during
the
project.
WM
stated,
based
on
the
volume
of
the
boring
and
the
mass
of
the
waste
removed
from
the
hole,
they
calculated
an
in
place
density
of
the
waste
at
the
King
George
Landfill
of
.8
tons
per
cubic
yard.

WM
stated
that
the
total
volume
of
waste
in
the
test
cells
at
the
King
George
Landfill
was
calculated
by
a
surveying
to
be
approximately
the
same
as
in
the
test
cell
at
Maplewood
or
2.
2
million
cubic
yards
(MCY).
However,
the
depth
of
the
King
George
landfill
under
the
foot
print
of
the
10
acre
test
cell
is
approximately
100
feet.
Therefore,
a
conservative
volume
of
waste
in
the
10
acre
foot
print
where
liquid
is
proposed
to
be
injected
is
approximately
1.6
MCY.
Multiplying
1.6
MCY
times
the
calculated
density
of
waste
of
.80
tons
per
cubic
yard
yields
a
value
of
1,
280,000
tons
of
waste
in
the
10
acre
test
area
footprint
at
King
George.

The
volume
of
leachate
proposed
to
be
added
to
the
waste
each
year
at
King
George
Landfill
is
7­
8
million
gallons.
Assuming
that
it
is
8
million
gallons
and
the
leachate
has
the
same
weight
as
water
(8.
3
lbs/
gallon),
this
would
be
the
equivalent
of
adding
66.
4
million
pounds
or
33,
200
tons
of
leachate
a
year.
This
annual
mass
of
leachate
represents
an
approximately
2.6%
increase
in
total
mass
of
waste
in
the
test
cell.
The
proposed
annual
addition
of
liquid
to
King
George
is
approximately
5,000
gallons
of
liquid
per
1,000
tons
of
waste
or
an
order
of
magnitude
less
than
the
high
end
of
the
range
of
the
total
amount
of
liquid
that
Reinhart
and
Ham
1974
found
to
be
necessary
to
achieve
field
capacity.
