Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue

Engr 435

Bioreactor Landfill
PAPER AND PRESENTATION TO BE DONE BY FRIDAY DECEMBER 6th

Table of Contents

1 Introduction
As the human population continues to grow, so does the volume of waste generated. With
changes in technology and conventional practices, waste is beginning to be understood more
from a resource standpoint through waste recovery programs, recycling, waste-to-fuel
technologies, and bioreactor landfills. Landfills are often considered a last step in the waste cycle
due to inefficiency of waste treatment and the scale of infrastructure required. The purpose of a
bioreactor is to reduce biodegradation time, simplify leachate treatment, utilize generated landfill
gas, and accelerate subsidence of waste for reclamation of the landfill site (Karthikeyan, 2006).
Bioreactor landfills are an innovative design alternative aimed to quickly and safely stabilize the
waste, and use resulting products as a resource.
1.1 History of Conventional and Bioreactor Landfills
Sanitary landfill development was initiated to protect human health and safety. During the early
1900s, waste disposal consisted of open dumping on land or water and dumping in marshes and
wetlands was common practice (Lawson, 2012). This waste management technique led to
outbreaks of disease and considerable odors. Scientists began to recognize germs, viruses, and
bacteria as agents of infection. The removal of garbage from regular human contact became
standard waste management practice.

The first landfill on record in the United States was in Champaign, Illinois in 1904 (Lawson,
2013). The 1930s and World War II brought an influx of using landfills to dispose of waste. The
concept of sanitary landfills, where waste is divided into cells, compacted, and covered daily
with a layer of soil to control vermin and other vectors, was developed by Jean Vincenz in
Fresno, California in the 1930s (Lawson, 2013). Concerns regarding landfills include quantity
and quality of leachate, gas production, and decomposition. Many rural communities still used
open dumping until the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act outlawed open dumping
(Karthikeyan, 2006). The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Act further developed sanitary
landfill regulations.

Bioreactors began the transition from waste storage to waste treatment. In the 1970s, lab studies
were conducted to support bioreactor landfill technology such as leachate recirculation to

1
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

stabilize waste and to generate gas. In the 1980s, pilot and full scale bioreactor landfills began
operation (Karthikeyan, 2006).
1.2 Regulations Pertinent to Bioreactors
Similar to conventional landfills, all bioreactor landfills in the United States must comply with
the general landfill federal regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
Subtitle D (EPA, 2007). This legislation is the industry standard for landfill management practice.
Bioreactors must have the same specifications as a sanitary landfill prescribed by Subtitle D.
This continuity allows for closed landfills to be retrofitted into a bioreactor. This act does allow
for leachate recirculation, but does not allow for additional liquids to be added to landfill
(Benson et al., 2005, 2005).

The Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits (RD&D), under 40 CFR 258.4, allows
introduction of outside liquids such as stormwater, wastewater, or groundwater. This legislation
also allows landfill owners to submit designs that provide improved economic or environmental
performance to the state for approval. States can approve a proposal if the design does not pose
any additional risk to human or environmental health beyond that of a traditional Subtitle D
landfill (Benson et al., 2005).

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) defines Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations that affect only anaerobic bioreactors. This
legislation specifies an emission reduction expected of landfill owners and stipulates that gas
collection and control systems must begin operation within 180 days of beginning to add liquid
to a bioreactor, or 180 days after moisture reaches 40% of landfill weight. These guidelines
apply to landfills greater than 2.5 million cubic meters in volume (Benson et al., 2005).

2 System Design
The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) has defined a bioreactor landfill as
any permitted Subtitle D landfill or landfill cell that controls injection of liquid or air into the
waste mass to accelerate or enhance biostabilization of the waste (EPA, 2013). Other purposes of
using bioreactor technology include increasing available space for more waste deposits, reducing
leachate treatment costs, reducing the length of time a landfill presents potential hazards to
health and the environment, or increasing methane production rates for gas extraction (Benson et
al., 2005).
2.1 How it works
The main difference between conventional and bioreactor landfills is the leachate recirculation in
the landfill and the generation of landfill gases. In conventional landfills, referred to as a “dry
tomb,” leachate is removed from the landfill for treatment and disposal to prevent the transport
of landfill contaminants into the surrounding environment or groundwater. Since the 1970s, a

2
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

new method of landfilling called a bioreactor landfill has been gaining acceptance due to the
following advantages: decreased landfilling costs, increased methane production, increased
waste settlement, and a decrease in potential environmental concerns after landfill closure
(Karthikeyan, 2006). Bioreactors are “wet tomb” style landfills (Figure 1) where the leachate is
recirculated through the system to increase the moisture content, nutrients, enzymes, and bacteria
in the waste (ITRC, 2006). With the increase in moisture, waste degrades at an accelerated rate
and landfill gases are generated earlier and more predictably over the lifespan of the landfill
(ITRC, 2006). The accelerated biodegradation is achieved by manipulating oxygen and moisture
levels. Under the right conditions, the addition of moisture increases the microbial activity that
degrades organic material and produces landfill gases available to extract for energy. By
accelerating the degradation processes, the materials in the landfill can be rendered benign while
the system is still being monitored (Benson et al., 2005). After gas and leachate collection
responsibilities have ended, bioreactor landfills should pose less of a risk than traditional
landfills of transporting contaminants off-site through the composite liner and cover already in
place.

Figure 1: General schematic of a bioreactor landfill using leachate recirculation (Hughes et al.
2013)

One of the main objectives of a bioreactor is to accelerate the stabilization of waste. Stabilization
refers to the state of the waste that no longer poses an environmental threat, be it toxic leachate
or landfill gas with global warming potential. Landfill stabilization occurs in five phases and
landfill constituent levels are represented graphically in Figure 2. Phase one includes the initial
placement of waste in the landfill, moisture begins to accumulate, and aerobic bacteria begin to
consume the waste. During phase two, oxygen levels decrease due to the decomposition process
and the landfill begins its transformation from aerobic to anaerobic. Increased activity of

3
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

anaerobic bacteria initiates phase three. During this phase acidogenic bacteria convert waste to
total volatile acids (TVA) causing a decrease in leachate pH (ITRC, 2006). Chemical oxygen
demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels peak during phase three. Phase
four begins the methane fermentation process. Methanogenic bacteria convert the acid
compounds produced in phase three to methane and carbon dioxide (ITRC, 2006). Phase four
signifies the period when the maximum amount of gas production occurs. The leachate ph
returns to a neutral state while metals and VOC concentrations are reduced. Final maturation
occurs during phase five, landfill gas production decreases, leachate constituents become stable,
and organic matter slowly continues to degrade.

Figure 2: Gas, COD, and TVA trends through the 5 phases of waste stabilization
(Karthikeyan and Kurian, 2013)

2.2 Design Components

Many criteria are considered in designing a bioreactor such as type of waste, waste placement,
leachate recirculation system, gas generation, moisture content, waste settling, liner system, and
environmental monitoring. Understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes
that control bioreactor landfill performance is still under investigation through pilot studies.
Optimal moisture levels and temperature control are key design components. Waste settling,
waste stability, slope stability, managing temperatures, and gas generation are also important
design considerations. Many of these practices are prescribed by Subtitle D of RCRA, but more
research is needed to fully understand bioreactor performance. The associated design for each
consideration largely depends on the design of the site and the composition of the contained

4
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

waste. Design practices vary between retrofit and as-built bioreactors. The infancy of purpose-
built bioreactors results in uncertainties regarding the performance of the bioreactor design.
Different design approaches must be taken with respect to these considerations to satisfy the
prescriptive landfill regulations and ensure public and environmental safety.

Waste Placement
Conventional waste placement methods can be used in bioreactors. Heavy compactors and
bulldozers can be used for arranging and compacting the waste. The material does not need to be
shredded or milled. Special materials do not need to be used for cover material: fine textured soil,
sand, crushed glass, and foundry sand have all been used successfully but more porous materials
are preferable. At the beginning of daily operation, some sites remove daily covers placed the
night before for better distribution of leachate and to save space (Benson et al., 2005). Special
considerations must be taken into account in continuing waste placement while leachate
recirculation and gas collection operations are running (Tolaymat et al., 2004). This is to ensure
proper settlement of waste and preservation of the integrity of the distribution/collection pipes in
place.

Leachate Recirculation
A bioreactor leachate recovery system is configured no differently than that of a landfill
constructed under Subtitle D. The system must handle the increased volume of leachate typical
of a bioreactor and still comply with having less than one foot of head of leachate on the liner.
Tire derived aggregate (TDA), crushed stone, pea-gravel, and/or medium grain sand are used
around the perforated HDPE collection lines as a cushion layer to accommodate waste settling.
Conventional landfill typically pump leachate from a location on the landfill floor to equalization
tanks. This is effective when the drainage design and waste compaction allow for adequate
settling of leachate. New River Regional Landfill is known for maintaining low leachate head
levels during bioreactor operations, and uses this gravity fed collection technique (EPA, 2007).
Most sites only recirculate leachate, some add stormwater and/or wastewater. Yolo County
Landfill adds groundwater occasionally (Yazdani et al., 2006). The collected leachate is typically
distributed back into the landfill through horizontal lines also entrenched with gravel or a TDA
cushion. Horizontal distribution systems are used in purpose-built bioreactors. Vertical lines are
more common in retrofit bioreactors. Vertical injection lines can be used successfully, but do not
disperse leachate as well as horizontal lines. These configurations are often subject to dispersing
leachate directly to the leachate recovery system (Benson et al., 2005).

Leachate recirculation was found to have no effect on additional leachate generation. Therefore,
leachate systems do not need to be more robust than traditional leachate systems. Leachate
injection occurs every 10-14 days either manually or automated. Volumes can range from 87-870
liters per meter of pipe. In its peak year, Crow Wing County Landfill recirculated 75 gallons of

5
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

leachate per ton of MSW (EPA, 2007). Leachate recirculation volumes are determined by the
landfill’s objective. Higher volumes optimize degradation yet lower volumes work if the primary
objective is avoiding leachate treatment. Cumulative recirculation fell into two ranges: 16-29
L/Mg of waste for sites recirculating primarily to avoid leachate treatment and 230-420 L/Mg of
waste for sites seeking to optimize waste degradation. Leachate recirculation did not increase the
temperature of the leachate, the temperature of the liner, or significantly increase the amount of
leachate head on the liner (Benson et al., 2005).

Gas Recovery and Landfill Gas Generation

Landfill gas (LFG) recovery strategies vary with the layout and objective of the landfill site.
Odor control, emission reduction, and gas-to-energy are all objectives to manage LFG. Excess
LFG is managed using a flare system, or vented passively or actively (ASTDR, 2001). Sites
using passive ventilation rely on pressure or concentration gradients for extraction. Vertical vents
or horizontal gravel trenches are common examples of a passive system. Active ventilation sites
create a vacuum with the contained waste, drawing gas through vertical extraction wells linked
to horizontal collectors (Wright, 2013). Generation of methane or odor is typically less in aerobic
sites than anaerobic sites (Benson et al., 2005). Some sites collect gas through the same network
for leachate. This can be done using an innovative HYEX piping system, which has two
chambers completely separated by a partition. In this way leachate can be dispersed from one
side of the pipe and LFG can be collected from the other side. Generally, gas extraction is not
done at the same time as leachate collection/recirculation to avoid drawing leachate into the gas
system. In some system configurations, gas collection lines installed at one site are co-located
with recirculation lines to improve efficiency of system. Other systems have recirculation and
gas collection lines stacked on one another. This temporarily suspends LFG in areas receiving
recirculation to avoid fouling of gas lines (Benson et al., 2005).

Environmental Monitoring
Conventional monitoring methods are performed in compliance with a region’s environmental
standards. Depending on the site, more extensive monitoring for bioreactors is done for moisture
content, temperature, pressure, stabilization, and settlement of the landfill (ASTDR, 2001).
Settlement monitoring is common practice for sites aiming to enhance biodegradation and
settlement. Reference points and aerial surveys are performed along with traditional land
surveying methods. Density measurements are based on mass landfilled and volume consumed.
Groundwater quality has been a primary environmental standard for landfills. Sites built on top
of groundwater sources are prescribed through Subtitle D to have monitoring systems below the
landfill liner. The handling of leachate also calls for responsible practice when characterizing the
leachate for treatment.

6
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

Liners/Containment
Bioreactors generally do not require more complex systems than those expected of traditional
landfills (Figure 3). Originally unlined, landfills and bioreactors are shifting toward required
liner specifications (Walker and Anderson, 2001). Redundancy in the liner components are one
of the consistent differences between traditional and bioreactor landfills (Benson et al., 2005).
Double liner systems in traditional landfills aim to ensure environmental protection, though
single liner systems would often suffice. Liner redundancy increases the initial cost of a
bioreactor, but the relatively new, large scale operations of bioreactors call for conservative
approaches to ensure environmental protection. New York and other states require double liner
systems for all landfills as well as bioreactors. Some site designs have incorporated a double
liner system to accelerate the permitting process (Benson et al., 2005). Monitoring systems for
LFG and leachate are installed throughout and surrounding the landfill to monitor for
containment seepage. Lysimeters installed at some sites showed no higher than expected leakage.
Combinations of soil, compacted clay, geomembranes, geotextiles, and geocomposite layers are
designed to achieve a permanent barrier between the waste and the native strata . Each
component must be specified for durability, hydraulic conductivity, and slope stability to comply
with the site’s operation strategy and state legislation.

Figure 3: General cross section of a California landfill liner and cap components (Lee, 2013)

Slope Stability
Slope stability analysis depends on the topography of the site and the chosen components of the
liner (Lee, 2013). Side slope designs can dictate placement of collection/circulation lines. Good
practice includes the placement of leachate injection lines no closer than 30 meters from the side

7
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

slope, and locating horizontal gas collection pipes on the side slope (EPA, 2007). These design
elements help prevent pressure build up from water or LFG, which would affect slope stability.
Slope failures are often attributed to abnormally steep side slopes. Williamson County Landfill
experienced two side slope failures, due to a combination of steep side slopes and the operation
of high pressure air injection, which forced water and leachate into cover soils along the side
slope. This resulted in slippage along the interface between waste and cover soil (EPA, 2007).
Mulch placed on top of covers increases water retention (and weight), which can be mitigated by
adding a drainage medium to cover soils (Benson et al., 2005). Bioreactors that are designed and
operated to prevent leachate seepage onto side slopes do not experience slope instability. By
alternating the permeable daily cover, seepage and instability can be avoided (EPA, 2007).

Waste Stability
The physical stability of the waste is a consideration that comes up in a bioreactor application.
High volumes of liquid can cause destabilization of the waste mass due to the increase in total
unit weight. Additional weight from the liquid increases the shear strength of the weight mass
and can change the structural characteristics (ITRC, 2006). As much as a 50% increase in total
unit weight can occur when developing a wet landfill. Changes in waste density may cause
conflict in seismic or other stability requirements and should be considered during systems
design. Compaction and decomposition also cause density changes and settlement. When
designing for the physical stability of the waste, uniform settlement of the degrading waste is the
primary objective. The available space created should be approached carefully when adding
waste. New waste on top of stabilized waste can affect landfill stability and should be placed
accordingly (ITRC, 2006).

Waste stability also refers to the chemical stability of the waste mass. Degradation rates are
accelerated in a bioreactor landfill and are characterized in the 5 phases described in section 2.1.
Phase 5 marks the final state of landfill stabilization. The biological activity in the waste mass
becomes relatively dormant as nutrients and available substrate become limited (Karthikeyan,
2006). The potency of leachate remains low and gas generation lowers significantly during this
phase. Waste with soil constituents may continue to degrade slowly over time.

It has been shown, as demonstrated by Table 1, that leachate constituents are appreciably
reduced by the effects of recirculation in a bioreactor, with the exception of ammonia nitrate.
The biochemical processes involved in nitrogen cycling are discussed in more detail in section
3.4, performance enhancement.

Table 1. Leachate constituent ranges, conventional and bioreactor landfills (EPA, unknown date)

8
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

Settling
Settling refers to shifting of waste caused by degradation. Pipes used in collection and
distribution networks have to be designed to maintain performance when shifted with the
decomposing waste. These pipes are typically made with HDPE for flexibility within the
changing cell. Lateral extraction/injection pipes are more susceptible to damage when significant
settling has occurred. Common practices include providing enough “slack” in the lines to
account for movement or coupling pipe of varying diameters for added flexibility (EPA, 2007).
Additionally, trench fill can include tire derived aggregate (TDA), which has favorable
properties including elasticity, such that when pipes shift as the cell settles, the pipe will be less
prone to pinch or sheer as might occur in gravel-filled pipe trench (Wright, 2013).
Considerable care should be taken to design the leachate, gas collection and air injection systems
such that the cell settles uniformly. Shallow vertical injection wells were observed to cause the
greatest settling, and deeper injection wells caused less settling in some sites. Settlement around
vertical injection wells decline with radially from the well. At the New River site, settlement was
measured up to 15 meters from the vertical injection wells before levelling off (EPA, 2007).

Moisture Content
Moisture content of a landfill must comply with the 1ft of leachate head at the landfill floor as
prescribed in Subtitle D. This is to protect underlying resources of the landfill such as
groundwater and protects the necessary components of the bioreactor. Site specific leachate
collection systems are installed to achieve this standard. Sites can circulate dozens of gallons of
leachate per ton of MSW while maintaining low leachate head on the floor liner with effective
extraction systems. Properly compacted trash and properly excavated cell floors can still comply

9
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

with allowable head requirements. Gravity fed leachate collection at a sump is common practice
given proper landfill design has been implemented (EPA, 2007).

Temperature/Fire Prevention
The high temperatures associated with the decomposition of waste in a sealed system requires
active monitoring. Should temperatures reach flammable levels, balance within the landfill can
be reached through adjusting aeration and leachate injection rates. Depriving a “hot spot” of air,
reducing the vacuum of pumps, and increasing the moisture surrounding the spot with leachate is
common practice for regulating temperature levels in bioreactor landfills recognized by the EPA
(EPA, 2007).

3 System Performance
Due to variations in geography and design criteria, bioreactors performance vary from one
another. The performance of each component depends on the main objective of the bioreactor as
well as the type of bioreactor. The EPA published a report titled “Bioreactor Performance,”
comparing 5 landfill sites. The sites varied by geography, layout, amount of waste, and operation
objectives. Certain configurations are often more adequate than others.
3.1 Bioreactor Design Differences
There are three types of bioreactors; aerobic, anaerobic, and hybrid, a combination of aerobic
and anaerobic (ITRC, 2006). All three bioreactors have leachate collection systems where the
leachate is collected and stored in a storage tank prior to recirculation. An anaerobic system’s
degradation process occurs under anaerobic conditions, deprived of oxygen, to produce methane
as the main landfill gas. The anaerobic system maximizes methane production during a minimal
time period. An aerobic system differs in that air is injected into the waste mass with vertical or
horizontal wells. The addition of oxygen accelerates waste stabilization. During aerobic
degradation, bacteria grows on the surface of the waste and metabolizes it. Proteins are then
converted to sugar and amino acids. Hybrid bioreactors operate in both aerobic and anaerobic
conditions. In some circumstances hybrid design is used to accelerate the biodegradation process
in the aerobic section and generate LFG in the anaerobic section. Strategically switching between
aerobic and anaerobic conditions can optimize the LFG generation as well as degradation
process. The waste can be brought into the methanogenesis phase more quickly using hybrid
bioreactor technology (EPA, 2013). Hybrid systems are helpful in suppressing heavy metal
transport in the landfill leachate. Waste in the acidification phase produces leachate with
relatively high concentrations of heavy metals. In the methanogenesis phase, the leachate pH is
more basic and heavy metal ions precipitate out. By placing relatively new lifts of waste in an
aerobic section above older anaerobic lifts, heavy metals can be immobilized and kept out of the
surrounding environment. (Xian, 2007)

10
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

Purpose built bioreactors is an emerging landfill practice. Many capped landfills can be
retrofitted to operate as a bioreactor. Liner and cap design are important considerations when
constructing a retro fit bioreactor. Original documentation must be evaluated to decide certain
aspects of bioreactor operation that is within the scope of existing landfill conditions. It is
common for purpose built bioreactors to have redundancy in the liner system (Benson) to
accommodate an increase in the load on the liner system. Active venting systems also affect how
a capped dry tomb landfill will react to the changing characteristics of the contained waste. The
main difference between a retrofit and a purpose built bioreactor is the orientation of the
injection/collection systems. Purpose built bioreactors ensure a more uniform dispersion of
leachate during recirculation and can therefore extract gas more easily (EPA, 2007).
Recirculation and collection lines are installed in horizontal layers at specified distances from the
surrounding liner. Retrofits are often forced to vertically drill into the waste source to install
recirculation and collection lines (Benson). This does not always facilitate efficient recirculation
because leachate cannot disperse as well. This also means gas generation may be concentrated in
certain areas of the waste source. Retrofits often have more drilling location in order to span as
much area as possible.

3.2 Bioreactor advantages

Waste disposal practices have progressed over time based on research and new technology. New
disposal facilities are increasingly difficult to obtain permitting for due to increasingly stringent
MSW regulations. The solid waste management industry has thereby been forced to explore
waste disposal practices that extend the life of existing landfills. Operational advantages
associated with bioreactors include reduced post closure care timeframes, cost reduction in
leachate management, maximization of gas production, and extended landfill capacities.

The leading advantage found in a bioreactor system is accelerated waste stabilization. The
timeframe for biological stabilization of a MSW can be reduced from decades to only several
years, decreasing landfill post-closure care (Reinhart and Townsend, 1998). Research indicates
that bioreactor waste becomes more stable and poses less of a threat to human health and the
environment over time. Post-closure regulations require 30 years of monitoring under RCRA.
Decreased or eliminated post-closure care would be a source of financial savings in the future
(IRTC, 2006).

Metals are an emerging constituent in landfill leachate and can be mobilized as leachate
percolates through the bioreactor system during the acidification phase. As the bioreactor enters
the methanogenic stage, pH rises and heavy metals are precipitated and immobilized (Qu et al.
2007). If the bottom layer exhibits the methanogenic phase, it can ‘catch’ the heavy metals as

11
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

leachate percolates from the top layers that are still in the acidification phase, effectively
immobilizing heavy metals within the landfill in a shorter period of time.

Biological decomposition is accelerated in a bioreactor; as a result, an approximately 20 to 40

percent increase in landfill capacity can be achieved. Landfill volume reduction results in
additional usable waste capacity that can be used to generate revenues to offset other bioreactor
operation costs (IRTC, 2006). When additional waste is added, the stability of the landfill is
increased due to filling of void spaces (IRTC, 2006). Continued operation of an existing waste
facility is sufficiently cost effective in itself when considering the costs of designing, permitting,
and constructing a new facility. Often, it can be difficult to obtain permits to build another
landfill; bioreactors retrofits to old landfills helps to extend the lifespan of landfills and avoid the
need for new landfills.

Leachate and landfill gases can have an advantage in bioreactors compared to traditional landfills.
Leachate management can be a very costly consideration in landfill design. Storage, recirculation,
and on-site treatment of leachate is advantageous because it is often a less expensive option than
off-site disposal. As this concept develops and gains acceptance, it may be possible for the
landfill to accept other types of liquid waste (IRTC, 2006). With on-site treatment and possible
recirculation of leachate, the danger of toxic leachate leaking into the environment can be
reduced. Another significant bioreactor advantage is the accelerated landfill gas production. Gas
is generated more rapidly in a bioreactor than traditional dry landfill. Gas production diminishes
during closure and post closure stages, further reducing post closure care of a landfill with
respect to gas monitoring and flaring.

3.3 Bioreactor disadvantages

In comparison with dry tomb designs, bioreactors also have some disadvantages, which include
increased landfill gas generation, physical instability, and high operation and maintenance
demands.

Bioreactors tend to generate more hydrogen sulfide than traditional landfills. Hydrogen sulfide is
a noxious compound and, unless mitigated for, the presence of this gas may make some
bioreactors sites less suitable for post closure uses, such as golf courses. Also, the increased
production of LFG requires more robust gas venting or active extraction designs to prevent the
explosions, fires and the transport of methane off site (EPA 2013). It can also be difficult to
maintain a completely aerobic environment in a bioreactor. The aerobic site studied by Benson et
al. (2005) showed significant production of methane in some wells indicating that some areas of
cells were not receiving oxygen. In landfills, significant methane concentrations are highly
undesirable in oxygen rich environments.

12
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

Due to the rapid settlement of waste in landfills, there can be physical instabilities in landfills,
with problems occurring in the cover, the liner, and the leachate/gas pipe systems. Sections of the
bioreactor may settle at different rates, resulting in depressions in the cover and possible
interference with the leachate and gas systems (IRTC, 2006). The use of flexible pipes combat
the stresses placed on these systems due to uneven waste decomposition and settling. An
additional concern associated with bioreactors is the physical instability of liners with increased
moisture content and temperature, which in turn can reduce structural stability of the landfill.
Bioreactors have been observed to have some higher temperatures due to the high levels of
biological activity occurring. The increased temperatures and moisture are a concern to the
physical integrity of the plastic membrane liners (IRTC, 2006). Increased temperatures through
oxygen injection increases the risk of landfill fires resulting in obvious infrastructure damage.
Surface seepage and other leachate leakages may result in degradation of the liner. Increased
operation and maintenance may be required to detect and handle some of these physical
instabilities. Aerobic, anaerobic, leachate, and landfill gas systems all require higher levels of
maintenance because of the greater level of complexity inherent in the systems.

As in any landfill, leachate in bioreactors is a concern. Due to leachate recirculation to obtain

higher moisture content, the leachate collection system must be appropriately sized to handle the
larger volumes of leachate and to ensure no more than 1ft head of leachate is allowed to collect
on the liner system. With respect to fluid distribution, a daily soil operations layer may prohibit
efficient moisture recirculation. For bioreactors, IRTC recommends using permeable daily
covers or removing impermeable covers daily to more effectively distribute leachate (IRTC,
2006).
3.4 Performance Enhancement of Bioreactor Landfills
Many performance enhancement options largely depend on the bioreactor site and its primary
objective. Optimization techniques are used to enhance the geographic, economic, and
environmental strategies of an operating bioreactor. Many currently operating bioreactors are
large scale research studies and s to enhance performance is an ongoing mission.

Temperature and Climate Performance Considerations

Performance enhancement options can be dictated by the environmental conditions of the landfill
site. The Northern Oaks Recycling and Disposal Facility (NORDF) is an operating bioreactor in
the cold climate of Harrison, Michigan. When leachate recirculation began in the summer
months, generation of methane gas began 3 months later, whereas when recirculation began in
the winter months, methane generation did not begin until 8 months later (Zao, 2008). The low
levels of methane generation during the winter months shows that temperature control is as
important as maintaining moisture levels. Timing the start up period is crucial for optimizing

13
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

methane production in an anaerobic system, since performance of a bioreactor is influenced by

temperature. Strategies were used to ensure that moisture and temperature levels are both
adequate for anaerobic degradation. The temperature of the waste reached equilibrium with the
cold leachate temperature, limiting the effectiveness of moisture levels. Heat associated with
aerobic processes can be generated by controlled injection of air into the waste (Zao, 2008).

Basic Financial Performance

Financial performance enhancement is tailored to a landfill’s objective. The financial aspect of a
landfill is a major driver in operation, requiring extensive economic analysis. Site operators
looking to employ bioreactor technology to decrease leachate treatment expenses found savings
of $24k-200k per year (Benson et al., 2005). Treatment costs for leachate range from $0.03 to
$0.12 per liter (Reinhart, D.R., 2007). The power cost associated with recirculating leachate is
nominally less expensive, $0.02 per ton of MSW annually (Yazdani, 2003). One study revealed a
site that was optimized for biodegradation of waste did show increased methane production.
Significantly more leachate was circulated in this site than others surveyed (Benson et al., 2005).
Reduced operating costs for leachate recirculation may enhance methane production, which
further offsets expenses with power generation revenue. Offsetting operational costs with a LFG-
fired generator, gas collection systems should be operational before the 180 day deadline
mandated by NESHAP. It is known that methanogenesis is accelerated in a bioreactor landfill
and LFG production rates are estimated to be up to 10 times higher than in conventional landfills
(EPA, 2004).

Reinhart, et al. (2007) analyzed costs associated with traditional landfills, purpose built, retrofit,
and hybrid bioreactor landfills. What follows is a summary of findings. Without the advantages
associated with reduced post closure costs, retrofit bioreactors and traditional landfill present
worth costs are very close. Due to air space recovery and reduced leachate treatment costs, as-
built bioreactor landfills have lower costs than traditional landfills and retrofit bioreactors.
Increased operations and maintenance costs offset advantages associated with leachate treatment
and airspace recovery in retrofit bioreactors. Utilization of recovered air space is more profitable
as it becomes available, than at the end of life. There is an opportunity cost associated with
reduced methane collection for power use in operating aerobic bioreactors, which is negligible
when no added benefit of the gas is used. Inefficient gas collection during the active phase of a
cell reduces the potential benefit of the enhanced gas production. There are unknown cost
savings associated with environmental impact reduction and long term liability reduction
(Reinhart, et al., 2007).

Operations and Environmental Performance Enhancement

Purpose built bioreactors require covering of waste as the cells are being filled. These covering
strategies are employed mostly for environmental control and should be carried out to ensure

14
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

performance of existing infrastructure. During operation, it is advisable to avoid silty soil and
clay in daily cover, or to use a temporary removable daily cover (Koerner), since silt and clay
can clog collection pipes. Soil provides more surface area for leachate constituents to adsorb
onto. On one hand it minimizes transport of constituents, on the other hand it may delay
stabilization through biochemical processes. Bioreactor landfill operators should consider
placing a temporary cover until significant settlement has slowed, and then place the final cover
in order to avoid having differential settlement cause a failure in the cover materials from shear
stress (Koerner).

A main environmental concern of landfills and bioreactors alike are gas emissions. Monitoring
surface gas flux can be achieved using a flux chamber over the cover (EPA, 2004). Such
monitoring indicates if any fugitive gas escapes through the cover, isolating the leak for repair.
Onsite gas emissions from LFG combustion can be mitigated by the use of biofiltration (Yazdani,
2006). Essentially, flux gasses are run through a layer of MSW and compost below the cover
system, in order that nitrous oxide or uncombusted methane are stabilized by biological activity
(Yazdani, 2003).

Table 2. Conditions for optimal biodegradation (Karthikeyan)

Influencing Factors in biodegradation Criteria

moisture optimum: 60% and above

pH 6-8

Alkalinity Optimum for methanogenesis: 2000 mg/L

Temperature Optimum for methanogenesis: 40 C

The toxicity of leachate is a primary environmental concern. Many methods for adding moisture
to a landfill can be used. Addition of sludge or industrial liquids is allowed under the RD&D (FR
2004) rule, but such liquids should not contain oil or petroleum, and should be closer to neutral
in pH — greater than 4 and less than 9. Furthermore, liquids added should not contain pickling
waste streams, surfactants, aluminum dross, or high sulfate concentrations. Addition of non-
hazardous heavy metals-bearing liquids is allowed but discouraged, since high concentrations of
metals has been observed to slow or inhibit methane production. Care should be taken to avoid
addition of rapidly fermentable organic liquids, or to apply them at controlled rates to locations
in the cells that are already well decomposed or in a methanogenic state. It is advisable to
research the toxicity and biodegradability in anaerobic settings of such compounds; some
compounds in this general category can impede refuse decomposition (EPA, 2004).

15
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

Some components in the waste and leachate are conserved in anaerobic but degradable in aerobic
conditions, such as lignins and aromatic compounds. Hence, for more complete degradation of
refuse, it may be favorable to implement a hybrid bioreactor design such that conditions are
cycled periodically between aerobic and anaerobic. Several parameters are affected in hybrid
bioreactor operations. It has been observed that, by initially aerating waste, temperature increases
and the acidogenic phase is reduced, both of which allow for an earlier onset of methanogenesis.
Furthermore, the biochemical effect of a hybrid process is to combine several nitrogen
transformation and removal processes in situ (Berge, 2005).

Ammonia-nitrogen are known to increase in concentration as leachate is recirculated as indicated

in Table 1. Berge (2005) has suggested that ammonia-nitrogen is a significant long-term
pollutant which may determine when post-closure monitoring may end. Hence it may be of
interest to design a process to facilitate its removal and stabilization. In a facultative bioreactor
landfill, ammonia is removed from leachate and nitrified in an external, biologically-aided
process that oxidizes ammonia with O2 into ammonium, then nitrite, and finally into nitrate.
There should be sufficient carbonaceous material in the leachate, but it is necessary to aerate for
rapid nitrification to occur. Then after the external nitrification treatment, these oxidized nitrogen
compounds are added to the leachate and recirculated. Conditions become favorable for
facultative anaerobes which use these oxidized nitrogen compounds for respiration in a process
called denitrification, where the nitrogenous compounds are reduced, and eventually inert N2 gas
is released (Berge, 2005). To the facultative anaerobes, the order of most to least
thermodynamically preferential nitrogen electron acceptors is nitrate, nitrite, nitric oxide, and
nitrous oxide. All of these compounds may exist in situ, or will be introduced by the external
nitrification process. There are many different design and process considerations, and this is a
new area of research; the fate of nitrogen in bioreactor landfills is poorly understood through
controlled experiments (Berge, 2005). The additional expense to design and operate the
nitrification treatment process is a drawback that is balanced against a potentially shorter post-
closure monitoring period.

4 Case Studies
New River Landfill
New River Solid Waste Association (NRSWA) retrofitted 10 acres within the New River
Regional Landfill (NRRL) in Florida. Two contiguous cells were operated as full-scale
bioreactors. One of the cells was exclusively operated at anaerobic conditions; the other was
operated under regulated aerobic conditions. As of 2007 when operations discontinued, 25
million liters of leachate had been recirculated (EPA, 2007).

16
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

Vertical leachate recirculation wells were placed in both cells. A series of nested vertical wells
were installed for air injection in the aerobic cell, with wells installed at 6, 12, and 18 meters
below the cover surface (O’Neal, 2010). The EPA “HELP” model (Hydrologic Evaluation of
Landfill Performance) was used as a control system feedback loop, such that if the collection
flow rate from a particular line was greater than the model predicted based on the recirculation
rate, this indicated that head on the liner was greater than the regulated 30 cm, so recirculation of
leachate would be discontinued until the collection flow rate was normalized (EPA, 2007).
In the anaerobic cell, the gas collection system design included a combination of vertical wells,
shallow horizontal wells, and collection pipes on side slopes. Dewatering pumps were installed
in the vertical wells, since leachate that is re-injected tends to migrate toward the vacuum in the
gas wells. Leachate sumps and clean-out risers also were connected to the vacuum gas collection
system. Interestingly, the leachate recirculation systems when not adding leachate could be
connected to the gas collection vacuum. However this seems to work at cross-purposes with
leachate recirculation since it causes saturated conditions around the perforated collection pipes
(EPA, 2007).

LFG results were as follows: 10 % of gas generated was collected from manholes, 28 % was
collected at the top surface of the bioreactor below the cap and about 62% was collected from the
side slopes of the bioreactor (EPA, 2007).

Temperatures were controlled in the anaerobic cell by leachate injection, efficient gas collection
beneath the membrane cap, and gas vent balancing to reduce the concentration of methane.
Sensors indicated that the temperatures in the anaerobic cell remained at safe levels. There were
two methods to control temperature in the aerobic cell: (1) injection of leachate above the
vertical injection zones where air was added, and (2) air injection and leachate recirculation
scheduling. When too much time was allowed between air injection and recirculation in the
aerobic cell, or air injection continued too long or not enough moisture was provided by
recirculation, temperatures could rise above the safety threshold of 78°C (EPA, 2007). A further
complication of this control system is that there were inaccurate moisture readings from
instruments that were installed by retrofitting; preferential paths leading to the instruments
caused them to read more moisture than existed in their surroundings. Different expected
moisture content based on mass balance equations suggested this instrumentation bias (O’Neal,
2010).
No integrity problems were observed as a consequence of settling. No compromise of the
geomembrane cover integrity was observed due to penetrations from injection wells and
instrumentation, and no compromise of the leachate and gas wells were observed (O’Neal, 2010).

17
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

Bioreactor Case Study for Cold Climate (Zhao, 2008)

The Northern Oaks Recycling and Disposal Facility (NORDF), located in Harrison Michigan has
a 0.49 ha full-scale bioreactor landfill. The cell contains 32,400 metric tons of municipal solid
waste (MSW). A three-dimensional monitoring system provides a grid of waste, leachate, and
gas characteristics from within the cell. Optimal moisture levels and temperature control are key
design considerations in cold climate bioreactors. Moisture levels must not exceed regulatory
limits and temperatures must be held with air temperatures that are below freezing. Settlement is
an important aspect in landfill design; it is an indicator of solid organic material consolidating,
decomposition and converting to gas and liquid product.

Approximately one year after capping, the bioreactors moisture content reached a steady state.
The leachate injection lines were placed on top of each lift, which facilitated in the horizontal
moisture distribution. As a result the vertical moisture infiltration covered a greater volume
within the bioreactor in a shorter amount of time. Based on monitoring results, lifts placed in
conditions with temperatures below 0°C had low thermal conductivity and heat capacities for
months. Leachate injection rapidly increased degradation and gas production in lifts placed
during warmer temperatures but not for lifts placed during colder temperatures. One possible
approach to increase temperatures in each lift is to generate heat through aerobic processes.
Oxygen can be injecting into the bioreactor for a predetermined time period to promote aerobic
activity and ultimately increases temperatures.
Bioreactor start up is the most critical period in effective anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic
microorganisms are generally present in low concentrations at the onset causing a slow start up.
The start-up is particularly slow with low initial temperatures; elevating temperatures can greatly
aid in methanogenic activity.
Pilot Scale Bioreactor Study in China
Full scale bioreactor studies in China have been delayed due to the uncertain reliability of
resources and methods associated with bioreactors (Jiang et al. 2007). A series of pilot scale
bioreactors were constructed to examine various leachate characteristics and the effects of its
recirculation. 4 concrete silos 3 meters in diameter were constructed and filled with MSW
diverted from the Xiaping landfill in Shenzhen China, compacted to the site’s specified density.
Silos R1-R3 were injected with 1.6, 0.8, and 0.2 m3 of leachate pumped from the Xiaping site at
regular intervals. The fourth cell, R4, was a control cell only being exposed to quantities of water
resembling rainfall infiltration for the region. The bottom of each cell was lined with a gravel
operation layer and lined with HDPE. Each cell was capped with gravel and an HDPE liner as
well. Leachate characteristics, waste samples, temperature readings, and gas levels were all
recorded and compared for over a year.

18
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

The in-situ management of leachate recirculation in this study led to findings to ensure proper
waste stabilization. Cell R1 indicated the fastest stabilization rate by having a half-life of COD in
the leachate to be 8-14 weeks shorter than cells R2-R4. The large amount of LFG generated in
R1 was also correlated to the COD of the leachate after 30 weeks of recirculation. By the 50th
week, waste in R1 was most stable and generated the most LFG. As a result, the leachate washed
out which decreased the potential of LFG generation. The comparison of the 3 cells suggests that
leachate recirculation techniques should include adjustments that correspond to the stabilization
phase of waste.

Yolo County Central Landfill and Rapid Methane Generation

Two studies were conducted at Yolo County Central Landfill to test the concept of landfilling as
a biological treatment system. The purpose of the studies was to investigate the effects of
bioreactors on waste stabilization and methane generation for power production. The first study
was a small pilot study with two cells each about 0.27 acres containing 9,000 tons of municipal
solid waste; one was a bioreactor and the second was a control/traditional landfill. The second
study was conducted on three scaled up bioreactor cells including two anaerobic cells: a 3.5 acre
cell, a 6 acre cell, and one aerobic cell of 2.5 acres. Each cell was designed from the beginning
as a bioreactor cell and was fitted with a horizontal leachate distribution system (Yazdani et al.,
2006).

The anaerobic pilot study cell exhibited the highest generation (over 5-fold increase compared to
the control ‘traditional’ cell) rate of methane gas from decomposition of municipal solid waste.
The larger scale anaerobic (3.5 and 6 acres) cells also generated landfill gases at higher rates
when compared to traditional landfills (4 - 7 fold increase), but at a slower rate over time than
the original small pilot cell. The pilot study required higher levels of recirculated leachate, at 55
gal/ton of waste compared to the 3.5 and 6 acre cells which were 43 gal/ton and 21 gal/ton,
respectively. The moisture sensors inside all the bioreactors indicated elevated water content of
the waste, however, core samples and differing leachate recirculation rates may have implied that
moisture distribution through the cells was irregular. To increase the degradation of the waste
and the production of methane, the study suggests increasing the leachate recirculation rates.

A concern of conventional landfills is the escape of landfill gases into the atmosphere which
contribute to greenhouse gas concentrations. The Yolo county studies were designed to retain the
landfill gases to contribute to production of energy from methane. Subsequently, the bioreactor
cells had significantly reduced greenhouse gas emission on the order of 10-100 fold less than
federal and state standards. From these studies, the bioreactor was found to be more efficient
than traditional landfills at producing methane for power generation and retaining greenhouse
gas emissions (Yazdani et al., 2006).

19
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

5 Conclusion
As technology evolves, so do waste treatment practices. Bioreactors are a design alternative that
offer several advantages over traditional or “dry tomb” landfills designs. Bioreactor landfills
employ a variety of designs to meet different objectives, but the common element among all
bioreactors is the recirculation of leachate.

Leachate recirculation can be designed to simply reduce leachate treatment costs or it can
increase biodegradation of organic waste, speed settling and the transition from the acidification
to the methanogenesis phase, and to increase LFG generation. Other than the recirculation,
system bioreactors do not require additional system components not needed in a traditional
landfill. The use of bioreactor technology may increase the total disposal capacity of a given site
and offer enhanced methane generation.

No technology is perfect, and bioreactors do have some disadvantages. Permeability is important

to maintain leachate circulation so component materials and daily covers must factor this into
consideration. Bioreactors can also generate more of the noxious gas hydrogen sulfide and if
remediation is not performed bioreactor sites can be less suitable for some post closure uses.
Also, increased settling rates can increase stress to internal structures such as piping and
bioreactors may require more maintenance while in operation.

Through pilot studies and research, the bioreactor landfill method has shown promise as to
modernize landfilling to obtain enhanced methane generation for power generation and increased
in landfill capacity. Although bioreactors may require more maintenance to upkeep their systems
(i.e. aerobic, anaerobic, leachate recirculation), the reduction in the time for waste stabilization to
occur and the possible reduction in post-closure environmental impacts can outweigh the
disadvantages of the budding technology. In addition, the high rate of settlement promotes more
space in landfills for waste.

Future directions of Bioreactor Landfills

While bioreactors have been under investigation for several decades now, more research is still
necessary in many regions. The relationship between volume of leachate applied and the
degradation rate of the waste should be researched further. To take more advantage of the raised
landfill gas production, more bioreactors should focus on generating methane for energy to be
coupled with power plants. In addition, emerging contaminants, heavy metals, and ammonia
concerns need to be researched to further identify the effects they have on leachate and the solid
waste decomposition. Double liners should also be researched to determine if they

20
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

References
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. (2001). “Landfill Gas Primer.”
Chapters 3-5, Center for Disease Control, Historical Document.
<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/html/ch5.html> (11/26/2013).

Benson C.H., Barlaz M.A., Lane D.T., and J.M. Rawe. (2005). State-of-the Practice Review of
Bioreactor Landfills. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. EPA.

Berge N.D., Reinhart D.R., Townsend T.G. (2005). The Fate of Nitrogen in Bioreactor Landfills,
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 35:365-399, 2005.

Department of Environmental Conservation. (2013). “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.”

<http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/23682.html> (11/20/2013).

Hughes K., Christy AD., Heimlich JE. Bioreactor Landfills. Extension Factsheet. Ohio State
University. Nov. 2013. http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/pdf/0139.pdf

ITRC. (2006). International technology and Regulatory Council Alternative Landfill

Technologies Team. Characterization, Design, Construction, and Monitoring of Bioreactor
Landfills.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oHnAbIi1-
GgJ:www.itrcweb.org/Guidance/GetDocument%3FdocumentID%3D3+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=cln
k&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Jianguo Jiang, Guodong Yang, Zhou Deng, Yunfeng Huang, Zhonglin Huang, Xiangming Feng,
Shengyong Zhou, Chaoping Zhang, Pilot-scale experiment on anaerobic bioreactor landfills in
China, Waste Management, Volume 27, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 893-901, ISSN 0956-053X,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.07.008.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X06002236)

Karthikeyan Obuli, Joseph Kurian. 2006. Bioreactor Landfills For Sustainable solid Waste
Management. Center for Environmental Studies, Anna University, Chennai. Web 11-17-13.
http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/UpdData/National/BIOREACTOR%20LANDFILLS%20FOR%20SUS
TAINABLE%20SOLID%20WASTE%20MANAGEMENT.pdf

Koerner. Unknown Date. Presentation to the EPA: “Wet (aka, Bioreactor) Landfills.” Online.
<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bio-work/koerner.pdf> (1 Dec. 2013).

21
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

Lawson, Benjamin. 2013. Encyclopedia of American Indian Issues Today. American Indians
and Solid Waste. Web 11-17-13
http://books.google.com/books?id=-
5nYmCjtMcQC&pg=PA705&lpg=PA705&dq=champaign+illinois+sanitary+landfill+1904&sou
rce=bl&ots=_mmeJEObmM&sig=CeKCoE3-Aon-
XJzrcifCazb69L0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oh6JUpXyLuKsjALfs4CACw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBQ#v=
onepage&q=champaign%20illinois%20sanitary%20landfill%201904&f=false

Lee, GF., Jones-Lee, A. 2013. “Flawed Technology of Subtitle D Landfilling of Municipal Solid
Waste. G. Fred Lee and Associates.
<http://www.gfredlee.com/Landfills/SubtitleDFlawedTechnPap.pdf>. (11/26/2013).

O'Neal D., Ko J.H., DeVita J.L., Kadambala R.,Townsend T. (2010). New River Regional
Landfill Bioreactor. Online 17 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/New_River_Regional_Landfill_Bioreactor_1
0871.aspx>

Qu Xian, He Pin-Jing, Shao, Li-Ming, and Lee, Duu-Jong. (2007) “Heavy metals mobility in
full-scale bioreactor landfill:Initial stage.” State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and
Resource Reuse, Tongji University, Shanghai.
<http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41016250.pdf> (11/17/2013).

Reinhart, D., and T. Townsend. (1998). Landfill Bioreactor Design and Operation. Lewis
Publishers, New York. p.3

Reinhart, D.R. (2007). “Economic Analysis of Bioreactor Landfills.” Bioreactor Landfill

Workshop - USEPA and World Bank, Nov. 13, 2007.
<http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUSWM/Resources/463617-
1195074901771/Reinhart_Bioreactor_economics.pdf> (4 Dec. 2013)

Tolaymat, T., Kremer, F., Carson, D., Davis-Hooper W. (2004). Monitoring Approaches for
Bioreactor Landfills. SCS Engineers Inc, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development, EPA. http://www.scsengineers.com/Pubs-
News/bioreactor_Monitoring.pdf

22
 Ryan Dunne, Ryan Kaplan, Steven Pearl, Karen Stufkosky, Alisha Sughroue
Engr 435

U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. “Monitoring Approaches for Landfill
Bioreactors.” (2004) <http://www.scsengineers.com/Pubs-News/bioreactor_Monitoring.pdf>
(22 Nov. 2013)

U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Management Division.
Bioreactor Performance Summary Paper. (2007). EPA530-R-07-007

U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. “Application for Project XL - Bioreactor Systems.” (Unknown
Date). <http://www.epa.gov/projctxl/virginialandfills/md00117part2.pdf> (22 Nov. 2013)

Walker, S. Anderson, R. 2001. “Engineering Geology Overview of Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills in Northern California.” Engineering Geology Practice in Northern California, Bulletin
210. <http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/techservices/.../EngGeology.pdf> (11/26/2013)

Wikipedia. “Denitrification.” Online. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denitrification> (1 Dec.

2013).

Wright, Joaquin. 2013. Engineering 435 Lab Lecture. Humboldt State University. Nov. 22, 2013.

Yazdani, R. (2003). “Yolo County Full-Scale Bioreactor (EPA Project XL).” US EPA Workshop
on Bioreactor Landfills February 27-28, 2003.
<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bio-work/yazdani.pdf> (4 Dec. 2013).

Yazdani, R., Kieffer, J., Sananikone, K., and D. Augenstein. (2006). Full Scale Bioreactor
Landfill for Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Emission Control: Final Technical Progress
Report. Yolo County, Planning and Public Works Department. Document at
http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=438#Construction

Zhao Xianda , Mulsleh Reem, Maher Seth, Khire, Voice Thomas, Hashsham Syed. Science
Direct 2008. Start Up Performance of a Full Scale Bioreactor Landfill Cell Under Cold-Climate
Conditions. Web 11-6-13
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X08000226

23