HomeMy WebLinkAboutTM_Facility-Evaluation_10203725_CAAP-MethaneRecFS_2020-0320
Existing Facility
Evaluation TM
CAAP – Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
Completed by HDR Engineering, Inc. on behalf
of the City of Iowa City, to support the Climate
Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and the
associated Action Items 3.7 and 3.8.
Iowa City, Iowa
March 20, 2020
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
1
Table of Contents
Facility Evaluation - Wastewater Treatment Plant ........................................................................ 3
Existing or Baseline Facility Conditions ..................................................................................... 3
Flows and Loads .................................................................................................................... 4
Solids Production Rates ........................................................................................................ 7
Digestion Process Configuration and Design ...................................................................... 10
Digestion Process Loading Rates ........................................................................................ 12
Electrical, Natural Gas, and Chemical Usage ...................................................................... 16
Future WWTP - Facility Conditions ...................................................................................... 17
Facility Evaluation – Iowa City Landfill ........................................................................................ 21
Existing Landfill Overview ....................................................................................................... 21
Composting Overview ............................................................................................................. 21
Landfill Gas Collection and Control System ............................................................................ 22
Landfill Gas System Operations and Maintenance .............................................................. 23
Existing Landfill Gas System Deficiencies ........................................................................... 23
Historical Landfill Gas System Recovery ................................................................................ 24
Landfill Gas System Expansion Planning ............................................................................ 24
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 25
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Influent Flow Rate .......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Influent cBOD5 and TSS Loads ..................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Influent TKN and TP Loads ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 4. Primary Sludge Flow Rates ........................................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Secondary Solids (WAS and TWAS) Flow Rates .......................................................... 8
Figure 6. Combined Solids (Primary and Secondary - Raw solids) Flow to Digesters ................. 9
Figure 7. Solids Loads – Primary Solids, Secondary Solids, and Digester Feed.......................... 9
Figure 8. Digestion Process Flow Scheme – Spring 2020 Operation ......................................... 10
Figure 9. Digestion Process Flow Scheme – Normal Operation ................................................. 10
Figure 10. Minimum Number of Digesters Required per Sludge Flow (peak 15-day rolling
average) – from Iowa City WWTP O&M Manual ........................................................................ 11
Figure 11. Digestion Process Hydraulic Retention Times (HRTs) .............................................. 12
Figure 12. Digestion Process Volatile Solids (VS) Loading Rates .............................................. 13
Figure 13. BioWin™ Iowa City Anaerobic Digestion – Process Flow Scheme ........................... 14
Figure 14. Digester Loading Rates (HRT and VSR) ................................................................... 15
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
2
Figure 15. Volatile Suspended Solids Reduction Efficiencies (Red is VSR in individual tanks,
dark red is overall VSR) .............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 16. Iowa City WWTP – Electrical Power Usage (Total and Aeration) .............................. 16
Figure 17. Iowa City WWTP – Natural Gas Usage (Total and Boiler)......................................... 17
Table of Tables
Table 1. Iowa City NPDES Permit ................................................................................................ 4
Table 2. Influent Flows and Loads ................................................................................................ 6
Table 3. Influent Pollutant Concentrations .................................................................................... 7
Table 4. Digester Tank Sizes (Capacities) .................................................................................. 12
Table 5. Digestion Process Capacity Assessment ..................................................................... 13
Table 6. Design Flows compared to 2017-2019 Flows (Table reproduced from O&M Manual) . 17
Table 7. Design Maximum Month Loads compared to 2017-2019 Loading ............................... 18
Table 8. Digester Design Solids Feed Flow Rates ..................................................................... 18
Table 9. Model Anaerobic Digestion Scenarios with External Organics (Hauled Waste) Additions
.................................................................................................................................................... 20
Attachments
Attachment A. Landfill Master Site Map
Report prepared by:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Morgan Mays, PE
Project Manager
5815 Council St. NE, Suite B
Cedar Rapids, IA 52302
D 319.423.6318 M 319.400.2718
Morgan.Mays@hdrinc.com
hdrinc.com/follow-us
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
3
Technical Memorandum
Date: Friday, March 20, 2020
Project: City of Iowa City – Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Methane Feasibility Study
To: Joe Welter, IA City; Tim Wilkey, IA City; Jennifer Jordan, IA City
From: Morgan Mays, HDR; Eric Evans, HDR; Eric Sonsthagen, HDR
Subject: Existing Facility Evaluation TM
This technical memorandum (TM) evaluates the existing facilities; specifically, the wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) and landfill; as part of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)
Methane Feasibility Study. The first part of the TM covers the assessment of the existing
WWTP, including evaluation of existing and future conditions at the facility. The second part of
this TM provides an evaluation of the existing and future conditions at the landfill facility.
Facility Evaluation - Wastewater Treatment Plant
Existing or Baseline Facility Conditions
The existing Iowa City WWTP treats wastewater to meet permitted discharge requirements
shown in Table 1. Treatment requires removal of five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
total suspended solids (TSS), ammonia and E. Coli. to low concentrations. In addition, the
WWTP removes nutrients; as measured by total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP)
concentrations. Treatment processes at the WWTP include preliminary treatment (screening
and grit removal), primary treatment with sedimentation, secondary biological treatment using
an activated sludge based biological nutrient removal (BNR) process, and finally, anaerobic
digestion of solids residuals generated. Outputs from the WWTP include the treated effluent that
is discharged to the Ralston Creek-Iowa River, and Class A (digested) biosolids that are land
applied.
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
4
Table 1. Iowa City NPDES Permit
NPDES Permit IA 0070866 Effective Date: 05/01/2014
Parameter Units Month Max Daily Max Monitor Freq. Note
BOD5 mg/L 25.0 40.0 Daily Technology Based Limit
TSS mg/L 30.0 45.0 Daily Technology Based Limit
Ammonia (Jan) mg-N/L 12.8 41.2 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Feb) mg-N/L 15.1 43.1 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Mar) mg-N/L 8.3 41.3 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Apr) mg-N/L 5.2 41.1 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (May) mg-N/L 4.7 41.1 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Jun) mg-N/L 3.7 39.3 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Jul) mg-N/L 4.1 25.8 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Aug) mg-N/L 4.2 26.6 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Sep) mg-N/L 3.8 34.1 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Oct) mg-N/L 5.7 49.4 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Nov) mg-N/L 8.0 42.9 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
Ammonia (Dec) mg-N/L 9.0 44.6 Daily Water Quality Based Limit
E. Coli. #/100-mL 147 1/3 Months March - November
Flows and Loads
The current flows and loads are evaluated in this section based on flow data exported from
SCADA and routine monitoring data reported by the WWTP for BOD5, TSS, TN, TKN, and TP.
The monitored influent flow rate varies from about 1 million gallons per day (MGD) to nearly 40
MGD as shown in Figure 1 with higher seasonal flows in Spring and Summer. For the data
period from Jan. 1, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2019, the average flow rate is 8.9 MGD, the median
(50th percentile) flow rate is 8.0 MGD, the 91.7th percentile (statistical maximum month) flow rate
is 11.9 MGD, and the 99.7th percentile (statistical maximum day) flow rate is 27.3 MGD.
The cBOD5 and TSS loads on the WWTP are presented in Figure 2. These loads are about
20,000 lb/d on average with a max day cBOD5 load of roughly 38,000 lb/d and a max day TSS
load over 47,000 lb/d. Figure 3 shows the TKN and TP loads, which average around 2,700 lb-
N/d and 400 lb-P/d, respectively.
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
5
Figure 1. Influent Flow Rate
Figure 2. Influent cBOD5 and TSS Loads
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19MGD
WWTP Influent - Flow, MGD 14 per. Mov. Avg. (WWTP Influent - Flow, MGD)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19Load, lb/dInfluent - cBOD5 Load (N/A), lb/d Influent - TSS Load (N/A), lb/d
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Influent - cBOD5 Load (N/A), lb/d)14 per. Mov. Avg. (Influent - TSS Load (N/A), lb/d)
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
6
Figure 3. Influent TKN and TP Loads
Overall influent flows and loads are summarized in Table 2 based on the statistical analysis of
the data. On a per capita basis, the average flow rate is about 105 gpd/capita and the average
cBOD5 load is 0.27 lb/d/capita; a relatively typical per capita flow rate but a per capita cBOD5
load that is about 50% higher than typical. The peaking factors for flow based on the data are
about 1.5 for max month and 3.4 for max day conditions, and the peaking factors for cBOD5
based on the data are 1.3 for max month and 1.8 for max day conditions. The flows and loads
translate to concentrations as shown in Table 3, which further support a classification of
medium- to high-strength wastewater at the WWTP.
Table 2. Influent Flows and Loads
Parameter Unit Ave
Annual
Max
Month
Max
Day
Flow MGD 8.0 11.9 27.3
cBOD5 lb/d 20,600 27,300 38,000
TSS lb/d 20,200 30,000 47,300
TKN lb-N/d 2,730 3,290 4,180
Ammonia lb-N/d 1,500 1,870 2,270
TP lb-P/d 394 510 664
*Based on data from: 01/01/2017 - 12/31/2019
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19 lb-P/dlb-N/dInfluent - TKN Load (N/A), lb-N/d Influent - TP Load (N/A), lb-P/d
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Influent - TKN Load (N/A), lb-N/d)14 per. Mov. Avg. (Influent - TP Load (N/A), lb-P/d)
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
7
Table 3. Influent Pollutant Concentrations
Parameter Unit Ave
Annual
Max
Month
Max
Day
Flow MGD 8.0 11.9 27.3
cBOD5 mg/L 309 274 167
TSS mg/L 303 302 208
TKN mg-N/L 41 33 18
Ammonia mg-N/L 22 19 10
TP mg-P/L 5.9 5.1 2.9
Solids Production Rates
Solids are produced at the Iowa City WWTP by the primary sedimentation process and by the
second-stage BNR process. The solids are combined and treated in the anaerobic digestion
process.
PRIMARY SOLIDS
Primary solids are pumped to Sludge EQ Tank T8001 and measured through one of two flow
meters. Figure 4. Primary Sludge Flow Rates provides the raw output primary sludge flow rate
data for the last five years. For the data period from January 2017 through December 2019, the
average primary solids flow was 29,000 gpd with a median value of 28,800 gpd, a 91.7th
percentile value of 38,800 gpd and a 99.7th percentile value of 64,200 gpd. This corresponds to
a primary solids load of about 12,000 lb/d on average with a max day load near 33,000 lb/d.
Figure 4. Primary Sludge Flow Rates
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-191,000 GPDPS to T8001A - Flow [F7101A], 1,000 GPD
PS to T8001A - Flow [F3001A], 1,000 GPD
Primary Sludge - Total Flow, 1,000 GPD
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Primary Sludge - Total Flow, 1,000 GPD)
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
8
SECONDARY SOLIDS
Secondary solids (Waste Activated Sludge [WAS]), produced by the BNR process, are first
pumped and thickened by rotary drum thickeners (RDTs) generating thickened WAS (TWAS).
Thickened secondary solids are combined with primary solids and secondary scum in the
sludge EQ tank T8001. Figure 5 presents the raw flow data from each process for the past five
years. Secondary solids flow to the RDTs varies from an average of 264,000 gpd (median of
254,000 gpd) to a 91.7th percentile flow of 346,000 gpd. Thickened solids flow depends on
thickening efficiency but ranges from an average of 28,400 gpd to a 91.7th percentile of 43,300
gpd, and a 99.7th percentile of 69,900 gpd.
Figure 5. Secondary Solids (WAS and TWAS) Flow Rates
TOTAL DIGESTER FEED SOLIDS
The total digester feed solids reflect the sum of primary and thickened secondary solids. This
total digester feed is transferred from the sludge EQ tank T8001 to the thermophilic digester
(T8101, T8201, or T8101 and T8201). The total digester feed solids flow averages 57,300 gpd
with a 91.7th percentile flow of 70,800 gpd and a 99.7th percentile of 98,500 gpd. Figure 6 shows
the flow data from the last 5 years. A general decline from between 60,000 and 80,000 gpd to
between 40,000 and 60,000 gpd is evident on the graph.
Total solids loads are shown in Figure 7 including the primary solids and secondary solids to
Tank 8001 and the combined solids load from Tank 8001 to the digesters. Based on the data,
the average loads are about 12,000 lb/d, 12,000 lb/d, and 19,000 lb/d for primary solids,
secondary solids, and digester feed, respectively. The max month loads are about 17,000 lb/d,
17,000 lb/d, and 25,000 lb/d for primary solids, secondary solids, and digester feed,
respectively. The data suggest that Tank 8001 provides some preliminary solids breakdown.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19 Thickened Secondary Solids Flow, 1,000 gpdSecondary Solids Flow, 1,000 GPDWAS Thickener - Flow, 1,000 GPD TWAS - Flow, 1,000 gpd
14 per. Mov. Avg. (TWAS - Flow, 1,000 gpd)
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
9
The key takeaway, however, is that the combined solids production results in an average solids
yield from wastewater treatment of about 0.9 lb-TSS/lb-cBOD5 treated, which is consistent with
high end yields in references (Tchobonagolous, Stensel, Tsuchihashi, & Burton, 2014).
Figure 6. Combined Solids (Primary and Secondary - Raw solids) Flow to Digesters
Figure 7. Solids Loads – Primary Solids, Secondary Solids, and Digester Feed
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-191,000 GPDRaw SL to DIG - Flow, 1,000 GPD 14 per. Mov. Avg. (Raw SL to DIG - Flow, 1,000 GPD)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19lb/dWAS - Load, lb/d Raw Sludge - (Dig. Feed) Load (N/A), lb/d
Primary Sludge - Load (N/A), lb/d 14 per. Mov. Avg. (WAS - Load, lb/d)
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Raw Sludge - (Dig. Feed) Load (N/A), lb/d)14 per. Mov. Avg. (Primary Sludge - Load (N/A), lb/d)
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
10
Digestion Process Configuration and Design
The digestion process at the WWTP is designed as a temperature-phased anaerobic digestion
(TPAD) process; with thermophilic followed by mesophilic treatment phases/stages. During the
study (Spring 2020), two digesters operate at thermophilic temperatures followed by mesophilic
digestion with the remaining digesters. Figure 8 provides a schematic overview of the process
flow scheme. The current operation uses two thermophilic digesters to support start-up of Tank
T8101.
Normal operation uses one thermophilic digester a shown in Figure 9 with T8101 acting as the
thermophilic digester phase, tanks T8201, T8301, and T8401 acting as the mesophilic
digesters, and tanks T8601 and T8701 acting as the second stage mesophilic digesters and
storage step.
Figure 8. Digestion Process Flow Scheme – Spring 2020 Operation
Figure 9. Digestion Process Flow Scheme – Normal Operation
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
11
The WWTP Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual identifies the required minimum
digester tanks online as presented in Figure 10. The system can operate with one or two
thermophilic digesters online and as many as four mesophilic digesters online. The six tanks
that make up the digestion system at the WWTP are identified in Table 4. The digestion process
is designed for a max month hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 20 days and an average annual
HRT of 15 days with one tank out of service (Themophilic HRT = 5 days, Mesophilic HRT = 10
days). The design volatile solids (VS) loading rate is between 350 and 450 lb -VS/(1,000 ft3•d) in
the thermophilic digester(s). This translates to a design average flow of 96,600 gpd and a
design max month flow of roughly 129,000 gpd.
Figure 10. Minimum Number of Digesters Required per Sludge Flow (peak 15-day rolling average) – from
Iowa City WWTP O&M Manual
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
12
Table 4. Digester Tank Sizes (Capacities)
Digester Temperature Diameter (ft) Max. Depth (ft) Volume (gal.)
T8101 Thermophilic 55 27 520,000
T8201 Thermophilic/ Mesophilic 55 27 520,000
T8301 Mesophilic 45 27 340,000
T8401 Mesophilic 45 27 340,000
T8601 Mesophilic 45 27 340,000
T8701 Mesophilic 45 27 340,000
Digestion Process Loading Rates
The data were used to evaluate baseline loading rates on the digestion process at the WWTP.
As shown in Figure 11, the Thermophilic HRT varied between 5 and 20 days (partly a function
of 1 versus 2 thermophilic digesters online) from January 2015 through December 2019. The
Mesophilic HRT varied from 10 to 40 days (also due to the number of digesters online) during
the same period. On average, the thermophilic HRT was between 8 and 10 days and the
mesophilic HRT was between 16 and 20 days. As shown in Figure 12, the volatile solids loading
rates average 230 and 50 for the thermophilic and mesophilic digesters, respectively.
Figure 11. Digestion Process Hydraulic Retention Times (HRTs)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19d
Thermophilic - HRT, d Mesophilic - HRT, d
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Thermophilic - HRT, d)14 per. Mov. Avg. (Mesophilic - HRT, d)
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
13
Figure 12. Digestion Process Volatile Solids (VS) Loading Rates
The basline digester process condition is compared to the design capacity in Table 5 showing
available capacity that may be available for use in elevating biogas generation Based on the
evaluation/comparison, the digesters operate below their design loading conditions. Available
capacity within the digestion process is estimated between 30-60% depending on the loading
condition and digester stage evaluated.
Table 5. Digestion Process Capacity Assessment
Digester Parameter 2017-2019
Digester Condition*
Digester
Design Capacity
Ave. Annual Thermophilic HRT 8.4 5
Ave. Annual Mesophilic HRT 16 10
Max. Month Thermophilic HRT 5-10 7.5
Max. Month Mesophilic HRT 10-30 12.5
Ave. Annual Thermophilic VS Load 230 350-450
Ave. Annual Mesophilic VS Load 52 100-120
Max. Month Thermophilic VS Load 300-500 350-450
Max. Month Mesophilic VS Load 50-100 100-120
*Note: Average Annual Condition Assumes one digester offline
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19lb/(1,000 ft3 d)Thermophilic - VS Loading, lb/(1,000 ft3 d)
Mesophilic - VS Loading, lb/(1,000 ft3 d)
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Thermophilic - VS Loading, lb/(1,000 ft3 d))
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Mesophilic - VS Loading, lb/(1,000 ft3 d))
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
14
In order to support an assessment of nutrients and sulfur loading effects on the digestion
process with outside organics (Future WWTP Section), the existing digestion process was also
setup and evaluated using the wastewater simulator – BioWin™ as shown in Figure 13. The
model validation is shown in this section to demonstrate alignment with the observed process.
First, the configuration is setup based on the preferred operating strategy for the digestion
process. Then, the model is setup to calculate the hydraulic retention time (HRT) and volatile
suspended solids loading rate (VS Load) as shown in Figure 14. Finally, treatment performance
by the digesters is shown in Figure 15 with both individual and overall volatile suspended solids
removal rates1 (VSRs).
Figure 13. BioWin™ Iowa City Anaerobic Digestion – Process Flow Scheme
1 Note, data typically presents total volatile solids and total volatile solids removal efficiencies; whereas,
the model presents based on volatile suspended solids. This is typically a small difference in solids
treatment (digesters).
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
15
Figure 14. Digester Loading Rates (HRT and VSR)
Figure 15. Volatile Suspended Solids Reduction Efficiencies (Red is VSR in individual tanks, dark red is
overall VSR)
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
16
Electrical, Natural Gas, and Chemical Usage
Electricity, natural gas (NG), and chemical usage at the WWTP are evaluated in this section
based on reported data from the last five years. Figure 16 shows total electricity usage at the
WWTP, as well as showing specific usage for the aeration basins (the largest electricity
consumer at the WWTP). On average, the WWTP uses 23,327 kWh per year (January 1, 2017
through December 31, 2019). Aeration demand reflects approximately 50% of the total
electricity usage and the digestion process utilizes about 12% of the total electricity usage.
Figure 16. Iowa City WWTP – Electrical Power Usage (Total and Aeration)
Figure 17 shows the NG usage at the WWTP including both the total plant NG usage and the
boiler NG usage. As is typical for the Midwest, NG usage reflects a seasonal pattern with winter
peak NG usage and summer low NG usage. The average NG usage from 2017 to 2019 was
99,140 cubic feet per day.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19kWh
Plant - Total Elec. Power, kWh Aeration - Total Elec. Power, kWh
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Plant - Total Elec. Power, kWh)14 per. Mov. Avg. (Aeration - Total Elec. Power, kWh)
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
17
Figure 17. Iowa City WWTP – Natural Gas Usage (Total and Boiler)
Future WWTP - Facility Conditions
DESIGN FLOWS AND LOADS
The current WWTP liquid treatment processes are designed with capacity to support growth
through 2025 (Phase I). The design flows and loads are compared to the 2017-2019 flows and
loads in Table 6 and Table 7. Table 6 shows that flow rates (average, maximum, and peak) are
significantly below design capacities. Design loads are compared to observed statistical
maximum month loads, which also shows additional cBOD5 capacity (10-20%), TSS capacity
(10-20%), and TKN capacity (50%) remains within the WWTP. A Phase II expansion is reflected
in planning documents and provides capacity through 2040.
Table 6. Design Flows compared to 2017-2019 Flows (Table reproduced from O&M Manual)
Condition Design Flow [MGD] 2017-2019 Flow [MGD]
Ave Annual --- 8.0
AWW
(Max Month)
24.20 11.9
MWW
(Max Day)
43.30 27.3
Note: 1EQ flow is 30 MGD, Hourly flow data not evaluated
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19 Boiler NG Usage, CFDPlant NG Usage, CFDPlant NG - Flow, CFD Total Boiler - NG Usage, CFD
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Plant NG - Flow, CFD)14 per. Mov. Avg. (Total Boiler - NG Usage, CFD)
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
18
Table 7. Design Maximum Month Loads compared to 2017-2019 Loading
Parameter Design Loading [lb/d] 2017-2019 Loading [lb/d]
BOD5 32,658 27,300
TSS 34,386 30,000
TKN-N 6,311 3,290
DESIGN SOLIDS PRODUCTION RATES
The anaerobic digestion system was originally designed for the projected solids values (through
2040) for average annual and maximum month conditions shown in Table 8. The average
annual capacity of nearly 97,000 gpd is approximately 40% higher than the current average
feed flow, and the maximum month capacity of almost 129,000 gpd is roughly 80% higher than
the current 91.7th percentile (statistical maximum month) flow. Additionally, the current solids
mass fed to the digester (19,000-25,000 lb/d) is below the design capacity for the digestion
process. Based on the current solids load and the recent growth trend, the 2040 projected solids
production rate will average 23,000 lb/d with a maximum month mass of 28,000 lb/d indicating
that residual capacity may be available for the entire design period.
The comparison between digester feed flows and digestion capacity shows available capacity
for hauled wastes can be used to increase biogas production potential. Overall, the available
capacity varies from between 40 to 50% currently to 30 to 40% in the future . Typically, municipal
digesters fed with outside wastes limit the external carbon feed to between 25% and 50% of the
total feed. The available capacity is consistent with these operational goals. Therefore, the
available capacity2 for outside wastes is between 4,000 (minimum) and 12,000 (peak) lb-
solids/d currently (2020) and between 6,000 (minimum) and 14,000 (peak) lb-solids/d in 2040.
This equates to a potential average external carbon feed of roughly 7,000-8,000 lb-solids/d in
2020 and 8,000-9,000 lb-solids/d in 2040.
Table 8. Digester Design Solids Feed Flow Rates
Parameter Design Capacity 2017-2019 Condition
Ave Annual Flow, gpd 96,577 57,300
Ave Annual Mass, lb/d 32,218 19,000
Max Month Flow, gpd 129,148 70,800
Max Month Mass, lb/d 43,084 25,000
*Mass loadings assume 4% total solids content of digester feed.
2 In order to realize estimated capacities, operation of the digesters may require a shift to two thermophilic
digesters, or feed of outside wastes directly to mesophilic digesters with lower loading rates.
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
19
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER – MODEL HAULED WASTE IMPACTS
The anaerobic digestion model of the existing process, developed during this evaluation of
existing conditions, can be used to test the impacts of hauled waste on the treatment process.
This analysis is used to evaluate the increased biogas potential, changes to volatile solids
reduction efficiency, impacts on biogas hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content, and the potential
struvite generation due to the addition of external organics.
The focus of the preliminary modeling exercise is evaluating general relationships and/or trends
using the average annual operating condition. A base solids flow of roughly 61,000 gpd and a
base TSS load of about 22,000 lb/d (corresponding to 25,000 lb/d COD load) is applied
conservatively. This allows for a hauled waste addition between 0 and 10,000 lb/d of TSS
corresponding to about 17,000 lb/d COD in about 20,000 gpd of feed flow (three to five hauled
waste tanker trucks). The results of all the model scenarios tested (Base and hauled waste
[HW] scenarios 1 through 10) are shown in Table 9.
The goal of adding external organics or hauled waste is to increase the biogas production
potential from the digesters. The baseline model shows a biogas production rate between 80
and 100 scfm. With the addition of hauled wastes, the biogas production rate increases to
between 100 and 150 scfm. The biogas increase corresponds to a biogas yield between 8 and
15 ft3 per pound TSS added. In general, higher sulfur and phosphate content of the waste
reduced the biogas yield due to competition for organics and reaction volume.
The sulfur load for the model conditions varied from 0 to 134 lb-S/d compared to the base sulfur
load of 2 lb-S/d (base sulfur load derived from current H2S concentration near 100 ppmv in
digester). A high TSS to sulfur ratio in the hauled waste can dilute the hydrogen sulfide content
of the biogas from the baseline of about 100 ppmv to 26 ppmv. A lower ratio between TSS and
sulfur increased the sulfur concentration to 316 ppmv for the conditions modeled, but
experience at other facilities shows higher ratios can result in over 2,000 ppmv of hydrogen
sulfide in the biogas.
Impacts to struvite generation on digestion are also tested. Hauled wastes can contain both
phosphorus and magnesium, both of which are key to struvite formation in the digesters. When
testing a range of phosphorus load increases to the digester from 0 to 667 lb-P/d, the struvite
generation potential increased by less than 5%. However, when magnesium loading increased,
which is generally the limiting factor, the struvite production can increase over 100%. A
significant magnesium content would be required, however, to create the strong impact to
struvite production.
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
20
Table 9. Model Anaerobic Digestion Scenarios with External Organics (Hauled Waste) Additions
Primary + Secondary Solids Hauled Waste Digester Impact
Scenario Flow,
gpd
COD,
lb/d
TSS
lb/d
Flow,
gpd
COD,
lb/d
TSS,
lb/d
Sulfur,
lb-S/d
Magnesium,
lb/d
Phosphorus,
lb-P/d
VSR,
%
Biogas,
scfm
Biogas
H2S
ppmv
Struvite,
lb/d
Base 60,750 25,210 21,590 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 56.1 88.6 104.0 1,137
HW-1 60,750 25,210 21,590 5,000 4,172 2,608 4.2 0.0 41.7 59.8 113.2 26.0 1,124
HW-2 60,750 25,210 21,590 5,000 4,172 2,608 8.3 0.0 83.5 59.8 109.6 44.0 1,128
HW-3 60,750 25,210 21,590 5,000 4,172 2,608 16.7 0.0 167 59.9 102.3 75.5 1,131
HW-4 60,750 25,210 21,590 5,000 4,172 2,608 16.7 1.7 167 59.9 102.3 81.1 1,148
HW-5 60,750 25,210 21,590 5,000 4,172 2,608 16.7 3.3 167 59.9 102.3 81.1 1,164
HW-6 60,750 25,210 21,590 10,000 8,345 5,216 33.4 6.7 334 64.0 117.1 129.0 1,182
HW-7 60,750 25,210 21,590 15,000 12,516 7,823 50.1 10.0 500 67.2 132.2 158.0 1,199
HW-8 60,750 25,210 21,590 20,000 16,690 10,432 66.8 53.4 667 69.7 146.8 170.9 1,606
HW-9 60,750 25,210 21,590 20,000 16,690 10,432 66.8 106.8 667 69.7 146.3 168.6 2,129
HW-10 60,750 25,210 21,590 20,000 16,690 10,432 133.6 213.6 667 69.5 144.9 316.0 3,137
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
21
Facility Evaluation – Iowa City Landfill
The following sections provide a brief summary of the Iowa City Landfill facility and provides an
overview of the existing landfill, an overview of the composting operations that take place on-
site, a description of the landfill gas (LFG) collection and control system, known deficiencies of
the existing LFG system, historical landfill gas recovery, and expansion and operational
considerations.
Existing Landfill Overview
The Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center is located at 3900 Hebl Ave. SW in Johnson
County, Iowa. The landfill is owned and operated by the City of Iowa City, and began receiving
waste in 1971. The facility serves Johnson County, Kalona and Riverside and accepts both
residential and commercial waste haulers. In total, the landfill is approximately 400 acres in size
and about half of the total footprint contains buried waste. The remaining land is primarily used
for wetlands and as a buffer for surrounding properties. The facility is c onsidered an
Environmental Management System by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and
offers community composting and educational opportunities.
The current total permitted waste disposal capacity is approximately 7.71 million tons of
municipal solid waste (MSW) for all cells. Based on historical waste disposal quantities, it is
estimated that approximately 4.46 million tons of MSW are currently disposed of within th e
landfill as of June 30, 2019. Recent records show that approximately 135,000 tons of waste
is disposed of annually.
The waste cell layout and other features of the landfill can be found in Attachment A, which was
provided by the City. The overall development of the landfill has been constructed in phases
that have generally progressed in a clockwise direction, with the first cell (FY72) being
constructed in the northern portion of the site in 1971 and the FY06 cell constructed south of the
FY74 cell. Cells FY09 and FY18 have deviated from the clockwise orientation and were
constructed west of the FY95 through FY02 cells. Cells FY72 through FY91 were constructed
prior to promulgation of Subtitle D and are currently closed while cells FY95 through FY18 were
constructed after issuance of Subtitle D and are currently open for future waste disposal.
Currently waste filling operations are in Cells FY09 and FY18, with construction of future North
Cells, the first of which is scheduled for development within the next seven (7) years. Future
expansion into the areas denoted “Future North” and “Future Northwest” in Appendix A, will be
comprised of approximately 16 to 17 years of site life that should achieve the full 7.71 million ton
capacity of the site. Current life of site estimates show the landfill continuing to accept
waste through approximately January 2043.
Composting Overview
The City owns and operates a wind-row type composting operation at the landfill where yard
waste and food waste are composted into a soil amendment. The composting operation
manages approximately 9,000 tons of incoming waste material annually. The incoming
material is composted at the landfill within an approximate 4-acre area located on the north side
of the landfill on top of the FY73 and FY74 cells, with a portion of the operations located just
west of these cells. The site produces approximately 1,900 tons of compost product and
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
22
2,200 tons of wood chips on an annual basis. The compost and wood chips are available at
the landfill to businesses and the general public. There is a minimal cost for the compost and
the wood chips are made available at no cost.
Discussions with the City indicates that the composting operation is operating at capacity based
on the current available footprint area designated for composting at the landfill. If additional
organic material was either collected or diverted from the landfill towards composting, a new
larger area for composting would need to be identified. Ideally, the composting operation would
stay at the landfill to maintain synergies with staffing, equipment operations, and material drop-
off. These planning considerations serve to limit the design composting capacity into the
future to the currently through-put rate of approximately 9,000 tons of incoming waste
material annually.
Landfill Gas Collection and Control System
The City utilizes an active LFG collection and control system at the landfill, which consists of a
series of vertical gas extraction wells and horizontal collectors installed within the landfill
footprint. Once LFG is collected within the extraction points, it is conveyed to a blower/flare
station by a network of lateral and header pipes.
The initial LFG collection system components were installed in 2000, and went online the
following year. Components of the initial LFG collection system installation consisted of 37 gas
extraction points (vertical wells and horizontal collectors) which were installed primarily within
the pre-Subtitle D area of the site. In 2009, the system was expanded, with 9 horizontal trench
collectors installed and connected to the LFG system. LFG connections to the leachate system
risers were also constructed at this time. The LFG is routed to the blower/flare station located on
the north side of the landfill on top of the FY73 cell (see Appendix A). The original LFG flare
and blowers were replaced in 2016 and the existing system consists of a 46.5 million British
Thermal Units per hour (MMBTU/h) enclosed ground flare manufactured by Perennial Energy,
LLC. (PEI). The new blowers are rated for 85 inches of water column pressure differential and
total flow rates between 155 and 1,550 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) and are
manufactured by National Turbine. Components of the LFG system are also presented in
Appendix A.
Although not shown in the Appendix A, there are several operations layer horizontal collectors
that were installed at the bottom of the FY09 cell that extend west to east across the cell. The
wells are connected to the LFG system near wells GW-09G and GW-09F on the west perimeter
of cell FY09.
The landfill is currently subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) promulgated
under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60, Subpart XXX as it has commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. It is also subject to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart AAAA, promulgated under
40 CFR 63. The landfill gas system has been installed to comply with the 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart XXX requirements. The facility is also subject to the Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR)
for greenhouse gases (GHG) promulgated under 40 CFR 98.
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
23
Landfill Gas System Operations and Maintenance
The existing LFG system at the landfill is operated and maintained by City personnel. Monitoring
of the LFG system wells and piping is necessary to collect operational data and is typically
performed on a monthly basis to tune the wellfield and maintain compliance with regulatory
requirements. Maintenance is performed on an as-needed basis to correct deficiencies within
the LFG system and supporting infrastructure. Typical operation and maintenance activities
include the following:
Monthly monitoring and tuning of each LFG wellhead for temperature, pressure and gas
concentrations.
Re-checking LFG wellheads that have exhibited regulatory exceedances.
Inspection and routine repair of wellheads, flexible hosing, and exposed piping.
Inspection and routine repair of condensate management infrastructure such as sumps
and pumps.
Monitoring of flow rates and LFG concentrations at the blower flare station.
Inspection and routine repair of leachate extraction and pumping equipment installed
within LFG wells.
Non-routine actions may include replacing or raising wellheads, troubleshooting of pipe blockages,
excavation and replacement of piping sections, repair of sumps or pumps, and other minor
construction related items.
Existing Landfill Gas System Deficiencies
From discussion with City staff there are a number of known deficiencies within the existing LFG
collection and control system. A summary of these reported deficiencies are described in detail
below:
There is a remote sump located near the intersection of the FY83 and FY98 cells near
the eastern central portion of the landfill that connects to the north/south traversing
center main header. This sump has historically had issues with drainage that has
impacted flow to several LFG extraction wells in the area. Although this problem is
located near the middle of the center main header, it has not caused significant blockage
issues for the LFG system.
Just south of the remote sump near the overlapping area of FY86 and FY98 cells is an
area that has historically experienced elevated concentrations of fugitive emissions
during routine surface emission monitoring scans. This area is located between wells
GW-126, GW-131, GW-315, GW-316, and GW-318. This area is approximately 0.75
acres in size.
Based on historical readings, there is limited vacuum available at the southern end of the
east main header within the FY91 cell. This has inhibited gas recovery in the FY91 cell
but is expected to be addressed in the near future.
Existing gas wells GW-209 through GW-216 are off-line and not actively collecting LFG.
These wells are located on the southwestern portion of the landfill within the FY95,
FY96, and FY98 cells. These 8 wells were required to be abandoned as waste filling
operations in the area progressed above the well heights such that they could not be
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
24
extended and utilized in the future. It is anticipated that new wells within this area would
need to be installed in the future after waste filling has moved from the area.
Existing gas wells GW-201 through GW-208 are currently actively collecting LFG.
However, these wells will need to be abandoned in the future similar to wells GW-209
through GW-216 as filling progresses northward from FY09 to FY18 and into the future
north cells that have not yet been constructed. Similarly, it is anticipated that new wells
within this area would need to be installed in the future after waste filling has moved from
the area.
Historical Landfill Gas System Recovery
Historical LFG recovery from initial system operation in 2001 through 2014 not provided for this
evaluation and were estimated based on an assumed LFG recovery efficiency of 60 percent
based on the approximate coverage area of the gas system. The average LFG recovery flow
rate during 2001 through 2014 was estimated to be approximately 480 scfm.
Actual LFG recovery flow data was provided by the City from December 2015 through
December 2019. During 2015 and 2016 the system was operating at an average of
approximately 630 scfm. From 2017 to 2019, the average flow rate increased to approximately
850 scfm during the past three years. The 2017 through 2019 enhanced gas recovered rates
are believed to be attributed to the new flare and blowers that were installed in 2016.
Additional information regarding historical and future LFG system recovery data will be
presented in the forthcoming LFG Recovery Technical Memorandum.
Landfill Gas System Expansion Planning
The following section provides a brief description of known LFG system expansion b ased on
discussion with City staff and future planned activities. Each of the planned activities as
described by the City are provided in detail below:
In an attempt to address low vacuum being observed in the header line adjacent to well
GW-136 at the southern end of the landfill in cell FY91, a new header line is planned for
installation to connect the center main header and the east main header lines near GW-
135 to the west header line near GW-09B. Installation of this piping will create a looped
header system that will allow more routes for the LFG collected on the southern end of
the landfill to reach the blower/flare station and should increase the available vacuum to
wells in the area, thereby increasing the LFG recovery from this area.
After construction of the future north cell(s), a new west header line will be installed from
the blower/flare station to the west around the future north cell(s) and traverse the
perimeter of the FY18, and FY09 cells. The west header line will connect to the existing
gas infrastructure in place at the FY09 cell and promote gas capture in the FY18 and
future north cell(s). Although this expansion is not anticipated for some time, it will
continue to enhance gas recovery at that time and into the future.
New vertical LFG wells are typically installed periodically as cell expansion and waste
filling progresses across the landfill. In general, LFG wells are installed approximately
every 5 years to maintain adequate system coverage and regulatory compliance.
City of Iowa City | CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
25
Conclusion
Based on the planning efforts outlined above the collection efficiency of the existing and future
LFG collection system should generally improve and that future landfill expansions will
incorporate LFG collection efforts in a timely manner and in accordance with regulatory
requirements. The existing LFG system has capacity to collect more LFG as the landfill grows
and additional waste is disposed of. The existing capacity of the blower and flare is anticipated
to be sufficient for the fully permitted future buildout of the landfill, but this will be fully evaluated
in the forthcoming LFG Recovery Technical Memorandum. Additional details regarding the LFG
generation and recovery estimate will be included in the upcoming memorandum, which will
provide quantitative values for determining the feasibility and evaluation of beneficial use
projects.
Conclusion paragraph here – can you take the above planning and make the case that
collection efficiency will generally improve and that future landfill expansions will be installed
with LFG collection in a timely manner? And will they still generally be within the capacity of the
existing blower/flare? You may need to stop short of saying these things, but need to end
similar to the WWTP section, with a statement that there is room to collect more LFG
commensurate with the growth of the landfill, and that details of generation/collection will be
provided and estimated into the future in the following TM to provide quantitative values for
fueling a beneficial use project.
FY72
FY73
FY74 FY75
FY77
FY78
FY81
FY83
FY86
FY89
FY98
FY91
FY95
FY96
FY02
FY06
FY09
FY182,150,0002,150,5002,151,0002,151,5002,152,0002,152,5002,153,0002,153,5002,154,0002,154,5002,155,0002,155,500606,500
606,000
605,500
605,000
604,500
604,000
607,500
607,000
608,000
C
C
GMP-E
GMP-W
GMP-N
LPZ-1
LPZ-2
LPZ-3
LPZ-7
LPZ-8
LPZ-9
LPZ-11
LPZ-10
LPZ-23
LPZ-13
LPZ-22 LPZ-15
LPZ-14
LPZ-21
LPZ-20
LPZ-19
LPZ-18
LPZ-24
WT-3
WT-2WT-4
WT-5
WT-1
ST-1
LPZ-96
C
C
C
C
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
LPZ-95
LPZ-17
LPZ-3
LPZ-4
LPZ-6
LPZ-5
LPZ-98
V
V V
V
V V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
S
S
S
S
S
V
C
C
V
VVV
M
LEACHATE
LAGOONLEACHATE
LAGOON
1
2
3
4
5
6
GW-101 GW-102 GW-103
GW-106GW-105GW-104
GW-107
GW-108
GW-109
GW-110 GW-111 GW-112 GW-113
GW-114
GW-115
GW-116
GW-117
GW-118
GW-119 GW-120
GW-121
GW-122 GW-123
GW-124
GW-125
GW-128
GW-127
GW-126
GW-131
GW-129
GW-130
GW-132
GW-133
GW-137
GW-134
GW-135
GW-136
GW-216
GW-215
GW-214
GW-213
GW-212
GW-211
GW-210
GW-209
GW-208
GW-207
GW-206
GW-205
GW-204
GW-203
GW-202
GW-201
MW-29A
MW-39B
MW-205A
MW-211B
MW-216A
MW-217A
MW-218A
MW-219A
MW-220A
MW-303A
MW-305A
MW-306A
MW-307A
MW-308A
MW-309A
MW-310A
MW-311A
MW-312A
MW-313A
MW-315A
MW-314A
MW-304A
LPZ-98R
LP-2
LP-1
LPZ-02R
LPZ-06R
GMP-S
MW-403
MW-2E-97
GMW1
MW-30CMW-30A
MW-36A
MW-22B
MW-2B
MW-2E
MW-2A
MW-30C
MW-30A
SW-1
MW-26A
MW-27A
MW-28C
SW-200
MW-200A
CC
FY 72(UNLINED)
FY 73(UNLINED)
FY 74(UNLINED)
FY 75(UNLINED)
FY 77(UNLINED)
FY 78(UNLINED)
FY 06(5'CLAYLINED)
FY 81(2'
CLAYLINED)
FY 02(5'CLAYLINED)
FY 83(2'CLAYLINED)
FY 86(2'CLAYLINED)
FY 89(2'CLAYLINED)
FY 98(5'CLAYLINED)
FY 96(FMLLINED)
FY 95(4'CLAYLINED)
FY 91(4'CLAYLINED)
FY 09(FMLLINED)
DP-1
C
C
C
C
C
C
MW-201A
MW-202A
MW-204A
MW-301A
MW-302B
MW-206A
MW-207A
MW-208B
MW-209B
MW-210B
MW-2A-97
MW-2C-97
MW-212A
MW-213A
MW-214A
MW-215A
MW-37C
MW-37B
MW-25CMW-25A
MW-25E
MW-24A
MW-23A
MW-23D
MW-1EMW-1B
MW-1A
MW-4A
MW-5B
MW-6B
MW-7B2MW-7E MW-7C
MW-7B1
MW-8B
MW-9A
MW-10B
MW-11C
MW-11DMW-11E MW-11B
MW-12BMW-12D
MW-13B
MW-14B
MW-15A
MW-16A
MW-203AMW-17C
MW-17DMW-17A
MW-18D2
MW-18D1
MW-35A
MW-34A
MW-32A
MW-31B
MW-31C
MW-31E
SW-2
MW-33CMW-33A
MW-18A
MW-18C
MW-17E
MW-200A
M
MH-1
M
MH-2
MMH-3
M
MH-5
M
MH-6
M
MH-7MMH-8M
MH-9
M MH-11
M
MH-4
M
MH-10
M MH-12
M MH-17
M
MH-13
M MH-14
M MH-15
M MH-16
M MH-18
M MH-19
MMH-20
MMH-21
MMH-22
M MH-23
M MH-24
M
MH-25
M MH-26 M MH-27
M MH-28
M MH-30
M
MH-31
MMH-33
M MH-29
M MH-35M
MH-34
M
MH-32 V
V
V
V
C
CC
C
CC
CC
GW-310
GW-304 GW-305
GW-306
GW-308
GW-307
GW-309
GW-311
GW-313
GW-314
GW-315
GW-312
GW-321
GW-319
GW-316
GW-317
GW-303
GW-302
GW-301
GW-111R
GW-320 GW-318
GW-09G
GW-09F
GW-09E
GW-09D
GW-09C
GW-09B
GW-09A
V
MW-402
MW-404
MW-405
MW-406
MW-407
FY18(FMLLINED)
FUTURE
NORTH
FUTURE
NORTHWEST
GROUND WATER
LEACHATE
MONITORING WELL
LEACHATE PIEZOMETER
LEGEND
GAS FEATURES
TRENCH WELL
WELL
HEADER AND LATERALS
TRENCH WELLHEAD TIE-IN
CLEANOUT
CONTROL VALVE
CONDENSATE KNOCKOUT
C
FLOW DIRECTION
CELL BOUNDARY
CELL BOUNDARY-Future
STORM PIPE
SANITARY MAIN
FORCE MAIN
HIGH POWER LINE
STORM RISERC
CONTROL MONUMENT
POWER POLE
LPZ-5
GEW-#?
MW-#?
SCALE: 1" = 200'1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G Attachment A
Landfill Master Site Map
- Showing specific gas
system infrastructure
- Provided by CIC Landfill