DOCSLIB.ORG

Joint Technical Document, MSW Landfill B-19, Kettleman Hills

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Joint Technical Document, MSW Landfill B-19, Kettleman Hills JOINT TECHNICAL DOCUMENT MSW LANDFILL B-19, KETTLEMAN HILLS FACILITY KINGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA VOLUME 1 OF 2 June 2016 Prepared for: Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 35251 Old Skyline Road Kettleman City, California 93239 Original prepared by: EMCON/OWT, Inc. 1326 North Market Boulevard Sacramento, California 95834-1912 Project No.: 833760.02000000 JOINT TECHNICAL DOCUMENT MSW LANDFILL B-19, KETTLEMAN HILLS FACILITY KINGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION This revision to the JTD was prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned. This report was prepared consistent with current and generally accepted geologic and environmental consulting principles and practices that are within the limitations provide herein. Scott Sumner, P.E. Engineering Manager, RCE 49769 B-19 JTD JUNE 2016 ii Table of Contents ________________________________________________ Title Page ............................................ ……………………………………………………………………………... i Professional Engineering Certification ……………………………………………………………………………... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... vii List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ vii CalRecycle/SWB Index………………………………………………………………………………………………viii 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Organization of this Document ............................................................................................. 1-3 2.0 Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Permits, Approvals and Regulatory Oversight ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 CEQA Compliance .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) ........................................................................ 2-3 2.1.3 Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) .................................................................. 2-3 2.1.4 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) ................... 2-4 2.1.5 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) ................................... 2-4 3.0 Facility Overview ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Bioreactor Landfill Definition and Purpose ............................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Landfill B-19 Bioreactor Unit .................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Site Location and Access ..................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 Access Signs ........................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Legal Description ..................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Site Plan Description ............................................................................................................ 3-5 3.4 Anticipated Vehicular Traffic ................................................................................................. 3-5 3.5 Waste Type and Volume ...................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5.1 Class III Wastes ...................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5.1.1 General ..................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5.1.2 Treated Medical Waste ............................................................................. 3-7 3.5.2 Class II Designated Wastes .................................................................................... 3-7 3.5.2.1 General ..................................................................................................... 3-7 3.5.2.2 Class II Waste Stream Evaluation Procedures.......................................... 3-8 3.5.2.3 Class II and III Materials to be Used as Cover Material ............................ 3-8 3.6 Liquids and High Liquid Content Waste to Promote Bioreactor Conditions .......................... 3-8 3.6.1 Liquid Acceptance Criteria ....................................................................................... 3-9 3.6.1.1 Methane Production Disruptors ................................................................. 3-9 3.6.2 Siloxane Producing Wastes ................................................................................... 3-10 3.6.3 Odor Causing Waste Streams ............................................................................... 3-10 3.6.4 Waste Streams That May Create Potential Air Emissions: .................................... 3-10 3.7 Site Capacity ...................................................................................................................... 3-10 B-19 JTD JUNE 2016 iii 3.8 Anticipated Waste Volumes and Site Life Projection .......................................................... 3-11 3.9 End Use of Site .................................................................................................................. 3-12 4.0 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 General Setting .................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2.1 Temperature ............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2.2 Precipitation ............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.3 Evaporation ............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.4 Wind Conditions ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Geology ................................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.3.1 Regional Geology .................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.2 Site Geology ............................................................................................................ 4-3 4.3.3 Geologic Materials/Soils .......................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.4 Faulting and Seismicity ............................................................................................ 4-3 4.4 Water Resources .................................................................................................................. 4-4 4.4.1 Surface Water Hydrology ........................................................................................ 4-4 4.4.2 Groundwater Hydrogeology ..................................................................................... 4-5 4.4.3 Permeability of Underlying Strata ............................................................................ 4-5 4.4.4 Water Quality and Water Usage .............................................................................. 4-5 5.0 Disposal Site Design ....................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Design Elements and Plans ................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Site Plan/Facility Layout .......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Soil Availability ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.3 Liner System ........................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3.1 Primary Base Liner System ....................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3.2 Secondary Base Liner System .................................................................. 5-3 5.1.3.3 Side Slope Liner System ........................................................................... 5-3 5.1.3.4 Barrier “Separation” Liner System ............................................................. 5-4 5.1.4 Bioreactor Liner Considerations .............................................................................. 5-4 5.1.4.1 Effects of Bioreactor Temperature and Chemistry on Liner Life ................ 5-4 5.1.4.2 Effects Caused by Liner Temperatures ....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Late Cenozoic Tectonics of the Central and Southern Coast Ranges of California
    OVERVIEW Late Cenozoic tectonics of the central and southern Coast Ranges of California Benjamin M. Page* Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2115 George A. Thompson† Department of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2215 Robert G. Coleman Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2115 ABSTRACT within the Coast Ranges is ascribed in large Taliaferro (e.g., 1943). A prodigious amount of part to the well-established change in plate mo- geologic mapping by T. W. Dibblee, Jr., pre- The central and southern Coast Ranges tions at about 3.5 Ma. sented the areal geology in a form that made gen- of California coincide with the broad Pa- eral interpretations possible. E. H. Bailey, W. P. cific–North American plate boundary. The INTRODUCTION Irwin, D. L. Jones, M. C. Blake, and R. J. ranges formed during the transform regime, McLaughlin of the U.S. Geological Survey and but show little direct mechanical relation to The California Coast Ranges province encom- W. R. Dickinson are among many who have con- strike-slip faulting. After late Miocene defor- passes a system of elongate mountains and inter- tributed enormously to the present understanding mation, two recent generations of range build- vening valleys collectively extending southeast- of the Coast Ranges. Representative references ing occurred: (1) folding and thrusting, begin- ward from the latitude of Cape Mendocino (or by these and many other individuals were cited in ning ca. 3.5 Ma and increasing at 0.4 Ma, and beyond) to the Transverse Ranges. This paper Page (1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Model of Leachate Recirculation in Bioreactor Landfills
    water Article Numerical Model of Leachate Recirculation in Bioreactor Landfills with High Kitchen Waste Content Peng Zhang , Hailong Liu * , Xingyao Jiang, Hao Lv, Chunyi Cui and Zhen Huyan Department of Civil Engineering, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China; [email protected] (P.Z.); [email protected] (X.J.); [email protected] (H.L.); [email protected] (C.C.); [email protected] (Z.H.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Surface spraying, horizontal trenches, and vertical wells are the most common leachate recirculation system used at landfills in engineering practice. In order to quantify the efficiency of the three aforementioned recirculation systems, a hydro–biochem–mechanical-coupled model was developed in the present work, which can describe hydrodynamic and biochemical behaviors in food-waste-rich landfills. A typical landfill cell was modeled in COMSOL. The results indicate that leachate recirculation can accelerate the decomposition of municipal solid waste (MSW) with food- rich waste content, relieving acidification, improving gas generation efficiency, and consequently, increasing the early settlement in landfills. Keywords: municipal solid waste; landfill; leachate treatment; coupled model; numerical simulation Citation: Zhang, P.; Liu, H.; Jiang, X.; 1. Introduction Lv, H.; Cui, C.; Huyan, Z. Numerical Disposing of municipal solid waste (MSW) has been a worldwide environmental Model of Leachate Recirculation in issue for decades. Landfilling is a commonly used MSW management method all around Bioreactor Landfills with High the world [1,2]. Due to the biochemical reaction of degradable components in MSW, the Kitchen Waste Content. Water 2021, releasing of polluted leachate and landfill gas will be a long-term process that may take 13, 1750.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioreactor Landfills: Experimental and Field Results
    Waste Management 22 (2002) 7–17 www.elsevier.nl/locate/wasman Bioreactor landfills: experimental and field results Mostafa Warith Ryerson Polytechnic University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3 Received 8 August 2000; received in revised form 29 January 2001; accepted 31 January 2001 Abstract Bioreactor landfills allow a more active landfill management that recognizes the biological, chemical and physical processes involved in a landfill environment. This paper presents the results of an experimental study carried out to determine the effect of solid waste size, leachate recirculation and nutrient balance on the rate of municipal solid waste (MSW) biodegradation. Higher rates of MSW biodegradation eventually cause a reduction of the contaminant life span of the landfill and decrease in the cost of long term monitoring. The study indicated that the smaller the size of the MSW the faster the biodegradation rate of the waste. In addition, the paper presents the results of leachate recirculation on solid waste biodegradation in a full-scale landfill site, which is located in Nepean, Ontario, Canada. The leachate was recirculated into the landfilled solid waste for 8 years through infiltration lagoons. Similar results to those obtained in the laboratory scale experiments were noted. The average pH of the leachate in the early stages of recirculation was on the acidic range of the pH scale, however, the pH value was in the range of 7–8 after 2 years of leachate recirculation. The concentration of chloride remained fairly constant at about 1000 mg/l during the leachate recirculation period. A decreasing trend of the organic load, measured as biological oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand, was observed.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioreactor Brochure
    City of Columbia, Missouri Glossary of Terms Questions? Public Works Department Aerobic: living or existing in the presence of oxygen For more information, visit our web page at Airspace: the available space in a cell where trash is placed www.GoColumbiaMo.com (GoLandfill) or call the for disposal Solid Waste Division at 573-874-6290. BIOREACTOR Anaerobic: living or existing in the absence of free oxygen LANDFILL Bioreactor: a controlled landfill or landfill disposal cell MORE INFO: US EPA where liquid and gas conditions are actively managed in WASTE STABILIZATION order to accelerate or enhance biostabilization of waste GENERAL: http://www.epa.gov/garbage/landfill/bioreactors. Biosolids: treated residuals from wastewater treatment htm facilities The City of Columbia Public Works Cell: a contained area of the landfill where waste is SPECIFIC: deposited http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/ Department has begun planning for landfill/biowork/index.htm the next sanitary landfill disposal cell. Inorganic: being or composed of matter other than plant As part of this planning process, or animal bioreactor technology is being ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS examined as a means to accelerate LCS: leachate collection system waste biostabilization. We thank the following individuals and Leachate: liquid that filters through MSW organizations for contributions to this brochure. LFG: landfill gas Camp Dresser and McKee Inc. Liner: an engineered impermeable barrier at the bottom of Engineering Consulting Firm the landfill cell to prevent liquid from leaving the landfill University of Missouri Methane: a colorless, odorless, flammable gas produced by Dr. John Bowders decomposition of organic matter Civil Engineering Department MSW: municipal solid waste Organic: relating to or derived from living things (plant or animals), containing carbon compounds City of Columbia Post Closure: covers a regulated (currently 30 years) Public Works Department period after waste is last accepted when the owner is Solid Waste Division financially obligated to maintain the area to the designed P.
    [Show full text]
  • Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years After the RD&D Rule
    EPA/600/R-14/335| September 2014 | www.epa.gov/ord Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years after the RD&D Rule Office of Research and Development [This page intentionally left blank.] EPA/600/R-14/335 Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years after the RD&D Rule U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division Waste Management Branch Cincinnati Ohio Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years after the RD&D Rule EPA/600/R-14/335 Notice This research was funded by the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development (ORD) under the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This report was prepared by Geosyntec Consultants of Columbia, Maryland under subcontract to RTI International of Research Triangle, North Carolina. Work was performed in accordance with the Performance Work Statement issued by ORD under Task Order #11 of EPA Contract EP-C-11-036. i Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years after the RD&D Rule EPA/600/R-14/335 Foreword The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, US EPA’s research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • An Environmental Evaluation of Landfill Systems Case Study from Two Landfills in South Sweden
    An Environmental Evaluation of Landfill Systems Case Study from Two Landfills in South Sweden Kuang -Ling Hsiao Supervisor Torleif Bramryd Thesis for the fulfilment of the Master of Science in Environmental Science Lund, Sweden, November 2001 ABSTRACT With the increasing environmental cancerns, the demand of waste management is switching from a problem solution to an integrated system of technical, ecological and economical cooperation. The present landfill technologies are the modem landfills, the biocell landfills, and the bioreactor landfills. Though the use of bioreactors techniques, a landfill site is regarded as a biological treatment and therefore is considered to be an alternative for the landfill management. In this study, two landfill sites in south Sweden is addressed for a better understanding of the landfill technologies. The landfill site owned by Sysav Company in Malmö with the modem landfill technology is compared to the other landfill site in Filborna, owned by the Nordvästra Skånes RenhålInings Company, with a bioreactor technology. For a comparison study of the environmental performance by different landfill techniques in each case, an evaluation system is developed. The environmental performance of each case is evaluated with an index consisting of four impact categories, namely air emission, water contamination, ecological impacts and human health risks. A further environmental evaluation is made accordingly. The result of the study shows that both technologies can reach a rather good gas production for energy recovery at present while the bioreactor technology has a better environmental performance campare to the modem landfill technology in a long-term perspective. Moreover, the design of future waste management should not be tied to a single technological solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Data Used Interpretation STRUCTURAL EVOLUTION
    STRUCTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE BUENA VISTA AND ELK HILLS ANTICLINES AND HYDROCARBON TRAPPING POTENTIAL (SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN BASIN, CALIFORNIA) Radu Girbacea Rock Fracture Project, Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-2115 and Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation P.O. Box 27757 Houston, TX 77227-7757 e-mail: [email protected] Introduction Andreas Fault. For exploration activities, the associa- The goal of this study was to provide a structural tion of thrusting and wrenching can provide additional model for the Buena Vista (BV) and Elk Hills (EH) structural trapping potential which might be underesti- anticlines (Fig. 1) and to add new insights into timing mated based on the previous structural models. and possible mecha-nisms of trap formation. The interpretation was based on balanced restoration of a Data used cross-section running from north of EH through BV and The data set used for this study consist of: up to the San Andreas Fault in the south. GeoSec2D • one 3-D seismic line (Line 574); was used to visualize and model critical points, as fold • one 2-D seismic line (Line SJ-132); geometry in connection to observed fault shape and slip • wells with picks and dipmeter data; amount, dif-ferences in forelimb/backlimb dips, and • surface geology (stratigraphy and structures). thinning of stratigraphic horizons across anticlines. The well and seismic line location is shown on the GeoSec2D was also used to unfold the studied cross- base map in Figure 2. The orientation of section 1-1’ section in steps corresponding to each stratigraphic top. (which is discussed here) was constrained by the regional This enabled the recon-struction of the incremental SJ-132 amd therefore is not perpendicular to the mean strains, the cal-culation of the amount of shortening, and fold axis orientation.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Justice Litigation in California: How Effective Is Litigation in Addressing Slow Violence? Deedee Chao Claremont Mckenna College
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2017 Environmental Justice Litigation in California: How Effective is Litigation in Addressing Slow Violence? Deedee Chao Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Chao, Deedee, "Environmental Justice Litigation in California: How Effective is Litigation in Addressing Slow Violence?" (2017). CMC Senior Theses. 1467. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1467 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont McKenna College Environmental Justice Litigation in California: How Effective is Litigation in Addressing Slow Violence? submitted to Professor Mary Evans and Professor Thomas McHenry by Deedee Chao for Senior Thesis Fall 2016 12/05/16 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................1 Abstract ................................................................................................................................2 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3 Case Study 1: Hinkley Groundwater Contamination.........................................................18 Case Study 2: Kettleman Hills Hazardous Waste Facility.................................................28
    [Show full text]
  • Bioreactor Landfills – an Innovative Technology for Biostabilization of Municipal Solid Waste
    Bioreactor Landfills – An Innovative Technology for Biostabilization of Municipal Solid Waste Nandana Perera, Don Davies, Stantec Consulting Ltd. David van Everdingen, Jasna Hundal, City of Calgary Patrick Hettiaratchi, University of Calgary Outline • Municipal Solid Waste • Waste biostabilization in a landfill • Bioreactor Landfills - Introduction • Conventional vs. Bioreactor Landfills • Case Study – City of Calgary Sustainable Landfill Bio-cell -Design - Construction - Cell filling - Operation/monitoring Municipal Solid Waste • Approximately 70% of the waste currently landfilled is organic - Yard waste (24%), Food waste (20%), Paper (27%) • Up to 75% of MSW generated in the region is disposed to landfills • Decomposition of organic component of MSW in landfills- landfill gas and leachate are generated • Landfills try to reduce impacts from leachate and landfill gas • Conventional landfills use dry tomb approach Waste Biostabilization Phases of MSW Decomposition in a Landfill Bioreactor Landfills – An Introduction • Designed/operated to ensure favourable conditions are created for rapid biodegradation of organic waste, landfills as “treatment vessels” • The most significant factor affecting waste biodegradation - moisture • Leachate recirculation • Operated near the field capacity of the waste • Could be anaerobic, aerobic or a combination Anaerobic Bioreactor Landfill Source: Waste Management Inc. Aerobic Bioreactor Landfill Source: Waste Management Inc. Conventional vs. Bioreactor Landfills • Conventional landfills - “dry tomb” philosophy
    [Show full text]
  • Yolo County Central Landfill
    FULL SCALE LANDFILL BIOREACTOR PROJECT AT THE YOLO COUNTY CENTRAL LANDFILL Final Report Principal Author(s) Ramin Yazdani, Assistant Director, Yolo County Public Works, California Jeff Kieffer, Associate Civil Engineer, Yolo County Public Works, California Heather Akau, Junior Engineer, Yolo County Public Works, California Date Report Issued April 2002 CIWMB Award Number IWM-C9050 Name and Address of Submitting Organization Yolo County, Planning and Public Works Department Attn: Ramin Yazdani 292 West Beamer Street Woodland, CA 95695 DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, its employees, or the State of California. The State makes no Warranty, express or implied, and assumes no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text ABSTRACT The Yolo County Department of Planning and Public Works is constructing a full-scale bioreactor landfill as a part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Project XL program to develop innovative approaches while providing superior environmental protection. The overall objective is to manage landfill solid waste for rapid waste decomposition, maximum landfill gas generation and capture, and minimum long-term environmental consequences. Waste decomposition is accelerated by improving conditions for either the aerobic or anaerobic biological processes and involves circulating controlled quantities of liquid (leachate, groundwater, gray water, etc.), and, in the aerobic process, large volumes of air. The first phase of the project entails the construction of a 12-acre module that contains a 6-acre anaerobic cell, a 3.5-acre anaerobic cell, and a 2.5-acre aerobic cell at the Yolo County Central Landfill near Davis, California.
    [Show full text]
  • LANDFILL MINING : Institutional Challenges for the Implementation
    Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Dissertation No. 1799 LANDFILL MINING Institutional challenges for the implementation of resource extraction from waste deposits Nils Johansson Environmental Technology and Management Department of Management and Engineering Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden Linköping, 2016 © Nils Johansson, 2016 Landfill mining: Institutional challenges for the implementation of resource extraction from waste deposits Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Dissertations, No. 1799 ISSN: 0345-7524 ISBN: 978-91-7685-657-4 Printed in Sweden by LiU–Tryck, Linköping 2016 Distributed by: Linköping University Department of Management and Engineering SE–581 81 Linköping, Sweden Phone: +46 13 281 000 ABSTRACT Landfill mining is a term to describe the emerging field of exploring and extracting disposed material. The recovery of deposited resources may increase the flows of secondary resources and thereby replace a significant share of the primary production. The extraction of deposited materials may also be integrated with remediation and after care measures, to handle the many problematic landfills. Such unconventional recycling practices are, however, currently limited. The research in the field has mainly focused on technical evaluations of sorting efficiency, economic feasibility, and resource and environmental potential. Other issues of concern to institutions, markets, policy and conflict of interest have received considerably less attention. This thesis consists of five scientific articles that have been synthesized. The overall aim of the thesis is to examine the institutional conditions for the implementation and emergence of landfill mining. This is addressed by three research questions. The first question concerns how policies come into play in a landfill mining operation and its consequences for the implementation and emergence of landfill mining.
    [Show full text]
  • Facultative Bioreactor Landfill: an Environmental and Geotechnical Study
    University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses 8-7-2003 Facultative Bioreactor Landfill: An Environmental and Geotechnical Study Ricardo DeAbreu University of New Orleans Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td Recommended Citation DeAbreu, Ricardo, "Facultative Bioreactor Landfill: An Environmental and Geotechnical Study" (2003). University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. 39. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/39 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by ScholarWorks@UNO with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FACULTATIVE BIOREACTOR LANDFILL: AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of New Orleans in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Engineering and Applied Sciences Program by Ricardo Coelho de Abreu B.S., Universidade de Sao Paulo, 1994 M.S., Universidade de Sao Paulo, 2000 August 2003 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the help of many people who shared their enthusiasm with me in the two years of this research project.
    [Show full text]