Lfci Report Bridgetonlf

Providing a full range of landfill fire control and prevention services.
 Fire Safety Training  Fire Extinguishment Services

 Fire Safety Audits  Fire Monitoring
 Fire Prevention and Response Plans  Environmental Monitoring
 Fire Extinguishment Strategies  Forensic Investigations
September 2nd, 2015 LFCI 14010
The Missouri Attorney General’s Office

Attention: Peggy A. Whipple
Supreme Court Building
Post Office Box 899
Jefferson City, Missouri, USA 65102
Dear Ms. Whipple:
Re: Review of Subsurface Self Sustaining Exothermic Reaction Incident at Bridgeton Landfill,
with a Focus on Causes, Suppression Actions Taken and Future Liabilities
Landfill Fire Control Inc. (LFCI) is pleased to submit this report in support of our analysis of the
ongoing heating incident in the South Quarry at Bridgeton Landfill, 13570 St. Charles Rock Road,
Bridgeton, Mo.
Scope: LFCI staff have been retained by the Missouri Attorney General’s office to complete seven
specific tasks to support the Attorney General’s office as specialist advisors in the technical areas of
landfill fire and exothermic reactions, landfill gas management and landfill operations.
At the onset of this project the scope of LFCI’s support included the following:
1. Familiarize LFCI staff with site

2. Familiarize with Fire History Events
3. Familiarize with Documented Interpretation of Fire Cause
4. Review and Analyze LFG System Information
5. Review and Analyze Leachate Treatment System Information
6. Explore Possible Causes of Fire
7. Reporting and Consultation
As the project evolved a three day site visit was organized that included a full day inspection of
Bridgeton Landfill, a full day of LFG sampling of 10 operating extraction wells and half day
orientation tour of nearby Champ Landfill, a quarry fill facility in a very similar setting to that of
Bridgeton.
During the review of project data it became clear that Bridgeton Landfill, LLC believes that the
incident does not involve a fire, but rather some form of burning process believed to involve pyrolysis.
LFCI undertook additional research and consultation with several industry experts in an attempt to
better explain the causes of the heating incident that has clearly resulted in significant impacts on
Bridgeton and nearby communities and that poses ongoing environmental risks into the future.
LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.
#8 – 1225 East Keith Road, North Vancouver, B.C., V7J 1J3
Phone (604) 986-7723 Fax (604) 986-7734 e-mail: [email protected]
www.landfillfire.com
State of MO v. Republic Services, Inc. et al
Sperling/Abedini - 0000001
Page 2
Missouri Attorney General
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
The following report is based on the technical knowledge of two LFCI specialists, Dr. Tony Sperling,
P.Eng. and Dr. Ali Reza Abedini. The report is founded on the knowledge and experience
summarized below.
Dr. Sperling has gained over 25 years of landfill engineering experience, initially with consulting firm
Gartner Lee Limited for five years, and subsequently as the President and Chief Engineer of Sperling
Hansen Associates for twenty years. In that time, Dr. Sperling has completed more than 1,000
engineering assignments involving the design of landfills, environmental control systems for leachate
and landfill gas and monitoring programs.
Dr. Sperling is also a recognized authority on the topic of Landfill Fire. He has worked on more than
30 landfill fire projects as Incident Commander or Technical Advisor on suppression strategies. Most
notably, he was the lead advisor during the extinguishment of the massive Cerro Patacon Landfill Fire
in Panama in 2013. In 2014 Dr. Sperling developed extinguishment plans for the Iqaluit Landfill fire
and suppression strategy for the Lake County Landfill Fire in Montana. Dr. Sperling has taught a full
day Landfill Fire Course on numerous occasions, including nine cities in 2014, and has presented
numerous papers on Landfill Fires at major SWANA conferences over the years.
LFCI’s report is based on personal knowledge and experience gained on the above assignments as well
as a detailed but not all encompassing review of available information supplied by the Attorney
General’s office and the three day site visit. Additional research and consultations were undertaken in
the areas of smoldering, pyrolysis and exothermic reactions during the course of this assignment.
Dr. Sperling is the lead engineer who prepared this report with technical support in the specialty area
of landfill gas by Dr. Ali Abedini, a landfill gas specialist employed by Sperling Hansen Associates.
Dr. Sperling also relied on specialist input on chemical reactions from Dr. John Grace, P.Eng.,
Professor Emeritus in the Chemistry Department at the University of British Columbia and Landfill
Fire Specialist Patrick Foss – Smith, M.Sc., MInstRE, MCIWM. (See Appendix O for all specialist
CVs).
Prepared by:
September 2nd, 2015

Dr. Tony Sperling, P.Eng. (British Columbia)
President

Page 3
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Table of Content
1. Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 5

2. Site History........................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Site Development ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Site Geometry ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 Site Geology .............................................................................................................................. 7
2.4 Site Groundwater Hydrogeology ............................................................................................. 15
2.5 Groundwater Inflow ................................................................................................................. 15
2.6 Waste Materials Received (tires, etc.) ..................................................................................... 23
2.7 Radiological Waste .................................................................................................................. 23
2.8 Fill Placement .......................................................................................................................... 24
2.9 Intermediate and Final Cover .................................................................................................. 24
2.10 Regulatory Requirements and Constraints ........................................................................... 25
3. Normal Landfill Conditions ............................................................................................................ 26
4. Air Intrusion .................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Air Intrusion Background ........................................................................................................ 27
4.2 Air Intrusion at Bridgeton Landfill South Quarry ................................................................... 31
5. Thermal Events ............................................................................................................................... 37
5.1 Burning .................................................................................................................................... 37
5.2 Combustion .............................................................................................................................. 37
5.3 Smoldering ............................................................................................................................... 38
5.4 Pyrolysis................................................................................................................................... 39
5.5 Self Sustaining Subsurface Exothermic Reaction (SSSER) .................................................... 39
6. SER Control History ....................................................................................................................... 43
6.1 Period before problems developed 1930-2007 ........................................................................ 43
6.2 Offsite Gas Migration Period 2002-2008 ................................................................................ 43
6.3 LFG Overdraw Leading to Aerobic Conditions Jan. 2008- Dec. 2009 ................................... 45
6.4 Subsurface Smolder / SSO Period Dec. 2009 – Feb. 2011 .................................................... 45
6.5 The SSSER Period February, 2011 to present ........................................................................ 47
7. Landfill Fire History ....................................................................................................................... 51
7.1 1992 Fire Incident .................................................................................................................... 51
7.2 2006 Fire .................................................................................................................................. 51
7.3 2009 SSO / Spontaneous Combustion / Smoldering ............................................................... 51
7.4 2014 Fire .................................................................................................................................. 52
8. Monitoring Data Review ................................................................................................................. 54
8.1 Temperature Background ........................................................................................................ 54
8.2 Early Temperature Measurements ........................................................................................... 58
8.3 Gas Well Temperature Measurements ..................................................................................... 58
8.4 Downhole Temperature Monitoring Probe (TMP) Measurements .......................................... 61
8.5 Settlement ................................................................................................................................ 63
8.6 Methane ................................................................................................................................... 66

Page 4
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
8.7 Carbon Dioxide ........................................................................................................................ 67

8.8 Trends in Methane and CO2 Concentrations at Bridgeton ...................................................... 67
8.9 Oxygen ..................................................................................................................................... 76
8.10 Carbon Monoxide................................................................................................................. 77
8.11 Hydrogen .............................................................................................................................. 77
8.12 Observed Reactions Trends of SSSER ................................................................................ 77
8.13 Spatial Evolution of Bridgeton SSSER ................................................................................ 84
9. Site Observations and Testing......................................................................................................... 88
9.1 Odours ...................................................................................................................................... 88
9.2 Surface Temperature Observations .......................................................................................... 88
9.3 Liner Integrity Inspection ........................................................................................................ 91
9.4 Well and Header Integrity........................................................................................................ 93
9.5 Field Sampling ......................................................................................................................... 98
10. Risk Factors ............................................................................................................................... 102
11. Suppression Strategies ............................................................................................................... 106
12. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 109
12.1 Conclusions about the Cause of the SSSER ...................................................................... 109
12.2 Conclusions about the Processes Driving Burning at Bridgeton ....................................... 110
12.3 Conclusions about Leachate ............................................................................................... 112
12.4 Conclusions about Landfill Design .................................................................................... 112
12.5 Recommendations re Control of SSSER............................................................................ 112
12.6 Recommendations re Leachate Control ............................................................................. 113
12.7 Recommendations re Field Sampling ................................................................................ 114
12.8 Recommendations re Long Term Mitigation Costs ........................................................... 115
13. Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 116
14. References ................................................................................................................................. 117

Page 5
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
1. Project Objectives
LFCI was retained by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office to provide an expert review of technical
information relating to the Bridgeton Landfill incident. LFCI’s scope is as follows:
 to provide an opinion on the likely cause of the Bridgeton Landfill incident;

 to review available data and based on that data to comment on whether action was taken at the
earliest possible time to control the incident;
 to provide an opinion on the mechanism that is causing the heat build up and gas emissions at
Bridgeton landfill, be it a subsurface fire, a subsurface smoldering event (SSE), a subsurface
oxidation event (SSO) or a subsurface reaction event (SRE);
 to comment on whether the measures undertaken by Bridgeton Landfill LLP and its parent
company Republic Waste Services to contain the incident represent best practice;
 to comment on any additional measures that should be taken to prevent the fire from migrating
into the North Quarry, and ultimately toward the radiological waste that is situated in Westlake
OU1 approximately 1,000 feet north of the neck;
 to comment on any future risks that need to be considered and managed;
 to opine on possible methods of containing the incident.
2. Site History
2.1 Site Development
The Bridgeton Landfill has been developed in an old limestone quarry complex that includes the South
Quarry and the North Quarry. Quarrying first commenced in 1930. The two quarries are separated by
a narrow canyon referred to as “the Neck”. Figure 2-1 provides a 3D rendition of the rock quarry
geometry.
A number of conduits were developed in the waste mass during the landfill operational history. There
is a 1962 reference to the construction of Lateral gas vents to be installed into MSW below DLC,
consisting of round openings filled with graded crushed limestone. As well, a number of vertical
leachate wells, referenced as “reinforced concrete pipes” or RCP’s were progressively constructed as
the quarry was filled to allow leachate to be extracted from the bottom of the waste mass. These
historic pieces of infrastructure, where present, likely provide ideal preferential pathways for migration
of landfill gas, steam and heat through the waste mass.

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 3D SCHEMATIC OF BRIDGETON QUARRY Figure
Drawn By: NL BY P.J. Carey & Associates and Civil & Environmental
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
Consultants
SOURCE: BSL_001_0000145
2-1
Page 7
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Unlike the Champ Landfill that is currently being developed with a bottom geomembrane and low
permeability compacted clay barriers along the side walls, the Bridgeton Quarries did not include any
engineered liner systems to contain leachate and landfill gas within the quarries. Instead, the plan was
to contain leachate with an inward gradient pumping system and to contain landfill gas with an LFG
extraction system. In LFCI’s opinion, this decision was flawed given the geologic and hydrogeologic
information available at the time.
2.2 Site Geometry

The Bridgeton Landfill complex occupies a total footprint of 214 acres and houses numerous landfill
units including the North Quarry, the South Quarry, and the OU1 radiological area. Together, the
South Quarry and North Quarry occupy 52 acres, of which about 32 acres are occupied by the South
Quarry. The North Quarry landfill footprint is 20 acres. Both quarries are 210 to 240’ feet deep from
crest to base.
Figure 2-2 is a map from the North Quarry Contingency Plan prepared by P.J. Carey and Associates
and identified with a Bates number BSL_001_0000145. LFCI has enhanced the approximate limits of
the vertical quarry wall on the figure, as well as “the neck”, the north quarry step and the OU1 area
that contains radiological waste. The quarry floor is at an elevation 250’ above sea level (ASL) and
the quarry crest is at about 460’ ASL. Both quarries have been filled from the quarry floor to the rim
with MSW. As shown on a schematic cross section along the long axis of the rock quarries in Figure
2-3 (also derived from BSL_001_0000145), MSW was subsequently landfilled approximately 90 ft.
above the quarry rim. Landfilling started in 1952 in the North Quarry and progressed from North to
South. Landfilling was completed in December, 2004.
2.3 Site Geology

The Bridgeton rock quarries have been developed into two massive limestone formations known as the
St. Louis Formation and the Salem Formation. According to a 1985 Hydrogeological Investigation of
West Lake Landfill prepared by Burns & McDonnell (Bates No PL1-0563196) the bedrock geology in
the Bridgeton area is as follows, reported stratigraphically from top down:
 Cherokee Group Limestone – thin deposit (not present at Bridgeton)

 Ste. Genevieve Limestone – 30 ft. thick (not present at Bridgeton)
 St. Louis Formation – 100 ft. thick (quarried)
 Salem Formation – 100 to 160 – thick (quarried)
 Warsaw Formation – Shaley Limestone 80’ thick (not quarried)
Figure 2-4 produced by Golder Associates summarizes the site stratigraphy in the area of the South
Quarry.

THE
NECK OU‐1
RADIOLOGICAL
AREA
NORTH
QUARRY APPROX. LIMIT OF
STEP ROCK QUARRY WALLS
Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF BRIDGETON LANDFILL Figure

Drawn By: NL
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
SOURCE: BSL_001_0000145 2-2
OU‐1
RADIOLOGICAL
AREA
THE
NECK
NORTH
QUARRY
STEP
Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 CROSS-SECTION TRHOUGH BRIDGETON Figure

Drawn By: NL SOUTH QUARRY, NORTH QUARRY AND OU-1
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015 2-3
SOURCE: BSL_001_0000145

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 BEDROCK GEOLOGY BY GOLDER Figure
Drawn By: NL
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015 2-4
Page 11
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
The bedrock geology is very continuous in the area of Bridgeton, and despite being folded and faulted
and tilted elsewhere, around Bridgeton the above formations are relatively flat and continuous. The
same geologic features also extend to the Champ Landfill quarry where LFCI conducted an inspection
of the quarry walls and landfilling operations. The limestone is reported to be massive and relatively
free of fractures in that report; however, according to information provided in the Bridgeton Landfill
Gas Corrective Action Plan Update (Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. July, 2013) reported
that the upper bedrock zone between 20 and 60’ below ground surface was weathered and fractured.
Photo 2-1 is a recent photograph taken at the Champ Quarry located 0.9 miles southwest of Bridgeton
South Quarry. Both landfills are identified on a recent Google Earth satellite photo presented in
Figure 2-5. As the geology in the area is reported to be flat lying and continuous, it is reasonable to
assume that rock walls within the Bridgeton Quarry were similar in character to those pictured in the
Photo.
Photo 2-1 Champ Quarry North East Wall, note groundwater seepage locations
Surficial geology plays a very important part in the control of groundwater flow, as discussed below.
For this reason, surficial geology is also briefly reviewed here.
A broad valley was historically carved into the bedrock by the Missouri River. The valley was
approximately 2 miles wide and approximately 100 ft. deep. According to mapping provided by
Burns & McDonnell, the valley walls extend to within 120’ of the vertical quarry walls according to

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 GOOGLE SATELLITE PHOTO OF BRIDGETON AREA Figure
Drawn By: NL
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015 2-5
Page 13
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 2-6, originally prepared by Burns & McDonnell (PL-0563212). During the most recent ice age
during the Holocene epoch the bedrock canyon has been infilled by alluvial deposits. The lowermost
100’ of deposits are coarse grained, including sands and gravels. These deposits form a broad aquifer
unit. The overlying strata are less pervious and include a layer of alluvial silts and clays. Figure 2-6
presents the Burns & McDonnell interpretation of surficial geology. Of interest, the water table in the
alluvial aquifer formation is virtually flat and fluctuates between 430 and 440’ as shown. Figure 2-7
presents a more detailed interpretation of the stratigraphy of the alluvial infill of the ancestral Missouri
River canyon.

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALLUVIAL AQUIFER Figure
Drawn By: NL AND SOUTH QUARRY
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
PER BURNS & McDONNELL 2-6
Page 15
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
2.4 Site Groundwater Hydrogeology

The massive limestone formation is relatively impervious. Some groundwater seepage does occur
through fractures, but the bulk of groundwater flow occurs in the overlying overburden, and possibly
in the near surface weathered and fractured bedrock.
The sand and gravel aquifer within the historic canyon of the Missouri River is a high capacity aquifer
that is capable of yielding more than 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) from wells. Although the risk to
groundwater supply wells around the landfill is an important topic, this expert report does not
investigate the groundwater pollution issue in detail, but flags potential risks as they relate to the
ongoing subsurface reaction.
The water table in the aquifer is hydrologically connected to the Missouri River and fluctuates
seasonally by about 10’, between 430 and 440’ in the area of the landfill. The mean stage of the
Missouri River 2 miles to the west is about 413.7’ ASL. A very gentle regional gradient drives
groundwater flow toward the river valley.
The alluvial deposits within the river valley have a hydraulic conductivity of 2.4x10-4 to 2.5x10-1 cm/s
according to Burns & McDonnell. This means that the alluvial aquifer is highly transmissive, and
should contaminants enter into this aquifer they could travel quickly in a plume.
The water level in Bridgeton Landfill was controlled by four vertical pumping towers LCS-1 to LCS-
4, located roughly in the four corners of the South Quarry. No other leachate control works such as
liners or drainage blankets at the base of the landfill were noted. Based on LFCI’s experience, MSW
becomes highly impervious as it decomposes and when subjected to large compressive stresses of
overlying waste. Hydraulic conductivities as low as 1x10-9 cm/s have been measured at several
landfills in B.C. and LFCI would expect that similar levels of hydraulic conductivity would be
experienced at depth at Bridgeton Landfill. In that case, the radius of influence of leachate collection
wells will be very limited and the wells will not be particularly effective at dewatering the lower
portions of the rock quarries. Therefore, LFCI recommends that leachate levels be sounded in inactive
LFG wells or new piezometers to establish the true leachate level within the MSW waste as was
previously done by Aquaterra in 2010.
This is important because Bridgeton Landfill has been set up as an inward gradient landfill. To
contain the pollutants within the rock quarry perimeter it is absolutely critical that water levels
everywhere within the rock quarry be maintained well below the regional water table level which was
historically about 430’ ASL in the surficial aquifer, while the potentiometric surfaces in the limestone
units appear to be about 340 to 350’ ASL according to measurements conducted by Golder in 1995.
2.5 Groundwater Inflow

The Bridgeton Quarries were developed well below the natural water table. As a result of dewatering
efforts, a significant drawdown cone has developed around the rock quarry in the deeper bedrock

Page 16
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
units. Water level measurements prepared by Golder in 1995 suggest that at that time the
potentiometric surfaces in those formations had been drawn down by approximately 100’ to 340 to
350’ ASL, although some perched water may remain at higher levels within the much more pervious
near surface aquifer systems.
In 1985 Burns & McDonnell reported that groundwater inflow into the Bridgeton Quarries was on the
order of 75 to 100 GPM. In 1995 Golder noted that the total leachate being pumped from the
Bridgeton Quarries at that time was 216,500 gallons per day. This translates to 150 GPM which
would suggest that at the time about 50% of leachate being extracted was originating as groundwater
inflow and 50% was leachate produced by the compression and breakdown of MSW and precipitation
input. In 2010 the average daily leachate inflow rate was reported to be 225,381 gallons per day.
LFCI reviewed the average precipitation input into the 52 acre quarry footprint and determined that
with an average annual rainfall of 38.7 inches, an estimated evaporation rate of 40% the annual
leachate contribution from precipitation is estimated at 32.8 million gallons, which translates to 89,917
gallons per day or 62.5 GPM.
Golder reported 88 seeps were noted discharging water into the rock quarry near the top of the St.
Louis formation where the fractured and weathered bedrock was noted. The same groundwater inflow
process was noted by LFCI when we toured the nearby Champ Landfill. LFCI believes that this
groundwater seepage process continues to contribute water into the rock quarry to this day. This
means that water will have to be controlled in perpetuity to ensure that the inward hydraulic gradient
can be maintained.
In 2010 leachate was extracted from the waste mass via six leachate collection sumps (LCS), 54
perimeter dual extraction wells (PEW), condensate traps / sumps (CT), and 20 landfill based dual
extraction wells (GEW). Based on sounding of wells, Aquaterra reported in 2010 that leachate levels
in the South Quarry were typically at an elevation of 450 to 460 ft. except in drawdown cone
depressions around five apparent pumping nodes that can be seen in Figure 2-8, an interpreted contour
plot. LFCI has previously flagged the concern that due to the low permeability, the actual slope of the
drawdown cone may be a lot steeper than inferred by the contouring package in areas not supported by
additional piezometer measurements. This is because contouring packages typically use contouring
algorithms like Kriging that linearly approximate between known data points.
Looking at Figure 2-7 it would appear that in 2010 the water level in the quarry was very close to the
rim of the limestone quarry at approximately 450 to 460 ft. elevation. This could be very problematic
from a groundwater pollution perspective if the inward gradient into the rock quarry was / is not being
maintained since the water level in the gravel aquifer to the west is reportedly at 430 to 440’ elevation
and groundwater flows from high levels to low.

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALLUVIAL AQUIFER Figure
Drawn By: NL AND SOUTH QUARRY
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
PER BURNS & McDONNELL 2-7
Page 18
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
The most recent sampling conducted by MDNR’s consultants indicates that water levels in bedrock on
the east side of the landfill are found at an elevation of 460 to 470’ ASL while water levels on the west
side appear to be at 430 to 440’ ASL. Thus it would appear that the regional gradient is to the west, as
expected. However, without an accurate topographic contour plan of water levels, such as the one
produced in Figure 2-8 for January, 2010 water levels, it is not possible to conclude whether leachate
drawdowns in the rock quarries are sufficient to maintain a hydraulic trap, or whether leachate is
escaping westward toward the Missouri River. LFCI recommends that a number of inactive LFG
wells be sounded to determine the current leachate levels within the landfill.
We noted above that the upper portion of the St. Louis formation appears to be highly weathered and
fractured, allowing both air and groundwater flow to occur. LFCI flags this issue, but notes that it is
not a focus point of our investigation.
Figure 2-9, which shows the approximate thickness of the unsaturated waste mass above the water
table in 2010, indicates that prior to the recent settlement activity, the thickness of the saturated zone
was 90 to 150’ below the ground surface. LFCI is of the opinion that the bottom of the SSSER is
constrained by the water table, so we would expect that the reaction will be limited to an elevation of
about 450 to 460’, except in areas where pumping has drawn down the water table deeper into the
waste mass (around TMP#7 for example). For this reason, LFCI questions whether a strategy of
accelerated dewatering of the waste mass is wise in light of the data that is presented in this report, as
dewatering the waste mass appears to facilitate the escalation of the reaction to greater depths.
Figure 2-10 is a thermal plot from TMP-7R which shows a rapid cooling of temperatures from 240ºF
to 160 ºF at a depth of 150’. The boiling point conversion occurs at 212 ºF at STP. The sharp
temperature step suggests that at this location the water table is currently situated at an elevation of
about 350’.
The current water level within the MSW in the rock quarries will be important for a number of reasons
in future discussions:
Foremost, leachate floods out wells and inhibits effective gas collection. Since the leachate level is
expected to be at 90 to 150’ below pre-settlement ground level (see red zone in Figure 2-8), LFCI
concludes that for the purposes of controlling the reaction, development of future extraction wells
should be limited to the water table elevation.
Second, water is a very strong cooling agent as a tremendous amount of energy is consumed (40.65
kJ/mol) in converting water from liquid to gas phase. One would anticipate that most of the burning /
SSSER activity is taking place in areas that are above the water table, where sufficiently high
temperatures can be developed to sustain the reactions.

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 WATER TABLE CONTOURS IN MSW Figure
Drawn By: NL AT BRIDGETON LANDFILL 2010
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
PER AQUATERRA ENVIRONMENTAL 2-8
BSL_006_0059634

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 THICKNESS OF USNATURATED MSW Figure
Drawn By: NL AT BRIDGETON LANDFILL 2010
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
PER AQUATERRA ENVIRONMENTAL 2-9
BSL_006_0059637

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 TEMPERATURE PROFILE IN TMP-7R Figure
Drawn By: NL
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
BSL_001_0000302 2-10
Page 22
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Third, evaporation of water, migration of steam in the gaseous phase, followed by condensation of the
of the steam at a down gradient location is a very efficient heat transport mechanism that is likely
playing a major role in rapid distribution of the heat within the waste mass.
Based on the above, LFCI believes that flooding the quarry to the highest possible level that would not
compromise groundwater seepage may be an effective suppression strategy to help control the SSSER.
Allowing the quarry to flood may not be consistent with containment of leachate; however, LFCI
suspects that a dewatering strategy using perimeter wells in the bedrock, possibly coupled with a
grouting program, may be more effective and reliable in preventing off-site leachate migration. LFCI
recommends that Bridgeton LLC and MDNR may want to revisit the requirement to maintain the
sump elevations at 30’ above the base of the quarry floor given that the SSSER is occurring.
The water level in the North Quarry may play an inhibiting role in the spread of the SSSER in that
area. LFCI recommends that Bridgeton Landfill LLC give very careful consideration to the pros and
cons of aggressive dewatering of leachate from gas collection wells in the north quarry. Furthermore,
LFCI recommends that all existing wells be accurately sounded for the current water level.
LFCI is of the opinion that any planned containment structures such trench excavations, cut-off walls,
cooling wells, inert gas injection wells, etc. that were investigated in detail need not be extended the
full 240’ depth of the rock quarry to contain the SSSER. Instead, such structures need only be
extended a small distance below the water table to achieve containment (as long as the water table is
maintained). Failure to recognize this has resulted in a massive overestimation of the effort and capital
cost required to construct and maintain an effective isolation barrier in the neck.
Based on experience gained with the formation of water gas in the UK, LFCI cautions that addition of
small amounts of water to hot char at slow rates may have unintended consequences (formation of
steam and flammable hydrogen gas via the water gas reaction). If addition of water is going to be
undertaken, it would have to be rapid and aggressive.
Furthermore, aggressive dewatering from LCS-1D, immediately south of the neck and drawdown from
LCS-5A (drawdown cone north of the neck), has resulted in the development of two distinct
drawdown cones that have locally pulled down the water table to 360’ and to 440’ in the “neck” area.
Unfortunately, information on the position of the water table today is lacking. However, based on the
TMP data LFCI believes that the water table is currently around 350’. As discussed later, LFCI
believes that dewatering of the waste mass will make containment of the SSSER in the neck area more
problematic.
LFCI notes that according to Aquaterra, the water table in the northern portion of the North Quarry
exceeds 480’ ASL. No data is presented for the water level in OU-1. Given the observed groundwater
flow gradient in the North Quarry, suggesting southwestward groundwater flow from the North Quarry
into the South Quarry, if the same water table slope extends northward, then groundwater flow could
be occurring from OU-1 into the North Quarry. LFCI questions whether this could be a potential
pathway for radionuclides to be transported into the North Quarry waste mass. This is potentially an
Page 23
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
important question as a reaction of that waste mass in the North Quarry and the associated generation
of large volumes of steam could then release these materials into the atmosphere.
The leachate sample recently collected by the AGO indicates that Bridgeton leachate is highly polluted
with very high Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) at 3.2 g/L and total dissolved solids at 18 g/L.
These levels are indicative of a very strong leachate. Heavy metals that are elevated include Arsenic at
7 times water quality guidelines, Mercury at 6 times DW limits and Chromium at 1.4 times DW limit.
Of greater concern, a number of volatile organic species also exceed guidelines, including Benzene at
182 times DW limits, and 1,4 Dichlorobenzene at 6.7 times DW limits. Also, very unusually elevated
are two organic species that LFCI has never encountered at such high concentrations in landfill
leachate. Acetone is being reported at 140,000 µg/L which is 140 mg/L. Although there is no US
EPA standard for Acetone, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that there is a significant increase in the
risk of contracting cancer at Acetone concentrations of 6 mg/L. Also 2-Butanone is being reported at
8,700 µg/L, 8.7 mg/L (ppm). The EPA reports a 10 day health advisory for a 10 Kg child at 7.5 mg/L
concentration, and a lifetime advisory at 4 mg/L. The lab results for Bridgeton Leachate chemistry are
presented in Appendix J).
Given the elevated levels of a number of pollutants, particularly benzene, LFCI recommends to the
Missouri Attorney General’s office that due consideration be given to the long term methods and costs
of containing leachate within the rock quarry confines. Given the highly aggressive nature of the
leachate and a strongly acidic pH of 5.5, resulting in rapid corrosion of steel, maintaining a pumping
system operational will likely prove very costly.
2.6 Waste Materials Received (tires, etc.)

Bridgeton Landfill was permitted to receive municipal solid waste (MSW). The landfill operated
between 1979 and 2004. Records show that this landfill received approximately 10 million cu.yd of
waste between 1990 and 2004. Based on very crude measurements by LFCI, it is estimated that
Bridgeton received about 21 million cu.yds. of MSW, during its operating period. Assuming an
average density of 1,000 lbs/cu.yd. the landfill likely received on the order of 10.5 million tons of
MSW, an annual average of 420,000 tons per year. It is our understanding that the vast majority of
MSW received at Bridgeton was curbside waste from residential and commercial sources in the
Greater St. Louis area; however, other materials including quantities of demolition waste, gypsum
wallboard and up to 500,000 automobile tires were also deposited in the landfill.
2.7 Radiological Waste

Radiological waste comprised of 40,000 tonnes of waste material mixed with barium sulfate residues
was landfilled in the Westlake Landfill Operating Unit 1 (OSU 1) in 1973. OSU 1 is located
immediately south of the Bridgeton scale access road between the scale and the North Quarry landfill.
The OSU1 area is directly connected to the North Quarry fill. Based on the cross section presented in
Figure 2-3, the overall thickness of material is 30’. Therefore, construction of fire and heat proof
barrier of inert soil to isolate the radiological waste should be relatively straightforward as long as

Page 24
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
radiological material has not been drawn into the North Quarry as a result of leachate and/or
groundwater seepage.
LFCI recommends that the groundwater levels between the North Quarry and the OU-1 area be
carefully assessed to determine groundwater flow directions. If there is a risk of southwestward
groundwater flow into the North Quarry, then given LFCI’s concern that the reaction is spreading into
the North Quarry (as discussed in Chapter 9), it would be prudent to establish a physical barrier
between the North Quarry and OU1 that is an effective thermal barrier as well as a barrier to
groundwater flow, particularly given such a project seems relatively straightforward given the shallow
waste thickness in the area.
2.8 Fill Placement

LFCI has not come across any information on the landfilling practices that were in use to construct
Bridgeton Landfill. Based on observations at Champ Landfill and numerous other landfill operations
across North America, LFCI assumes that waste was placed in each quarry from the bottom up in lifts,
each lift being 10 to 20’ thick and covered with a soil intermediate cover. It is our understanding that
Bridgeton Landfill received hydrocarbon contaminated soil, and we anticipate that this material was
used for intermediate cover purposes as this is a common practice in landfills.
2.9 Intermediate and Final Cover

Operational cover or intermediate cover was periodically applied, but according to County Health
inspection in Dec. 1992 considered the operational cover inadequate and large areas of exposed MSW
was present at surface. A 1994 inspection by DOH noted that settlement had opened up fissures along
the quarry walls and that a leachate collection well in “Pit 2” was exposed and venting. The inspection
also noted that a 5’ diameter “blow hole” with fissures had developed in “Pit 1” that was venting gas.
In 1994 Laidlaw requested authorization to use contaminated soil for daily and intermediate cover.
LFCI noted a mottled texture in the July, 2004 photo that is typical of exposed MSW.

Page 25
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 2-2. South Quarry July 28, 2004. Large area of what appears to be exposed waste
2.10 Regulatory Requirements and Constraints

The following operational requirements have been placed on Bridgeton Landfill in various Federal,
State and County regulations and permits that are of significance to the heating incident.
 Subsurface landfill gas must be controlled so that methane concentrations do not exceed 2.5%
at the facility property boundary.
 Leachate levels in extraction wells must be maintained within 30’ of the quarry floor.
 Landfill gas temperatures in LFG extraction wells should be maintained below 131ºF.
 Nitrogen levels from LFG extraction wells shall be maintained below 20%.
 Oxygen levels from LFG extraction wells shall be maintained below 5%.

Page 26
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
3. Normal Landfill Conditions

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) contains combustible and reactive organic matter that includes paper,
plastic, wood, food waste, rubber and assorted textile materials. Typically, the carbon content of
MSW is 27-32% on a wet weight basis (Bahor et. al. 2008). Although food waste decomposes
quickly, cellulose, hemi-cellulose, plastics and other complex organic molecules may take decades and
longer to decompose.
Most landfills develop and maintain methanogenic conditions relatively quickly whereby oxygen
becomes depleted and methanogenic bacteria dominate. Methanogenic bacteria consume and break
down available biomass to produce methane gas (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).
Landfill gas is generally composed of 50 to 60% methane and 40 to 50% CO2 on a dry volume basis.
Landfill gas is typically saturated with H2O. Much smaller concentrations of assorted volatile organic
compounds are also present in landfill gas. These constituents are commonly grouped together as Non
Methane Organic Compounds (NMOC’s).
Oxygen is not produced in landfill gas, but can be encountered if LFG extraction systems are operated
with excessive vacuum such that air intrusion develops into one or more extraction wells in the well
field. Oxygen can also be pulled into the well field through cracks and defective welds in the
extraction piping. Best operational guidance is to maintain O2 concentrations in LFG wells below 2%.
The U.S. EPA’s New Source Protection Standards (NSPS) require that LFG wells be operated in such
a way that O2 concentrations are maintained below 5%. The Bridgeton Operations and Maintenance
Manual (1993) stipulates that LFG operating vacuum in wells should be adjusted based on methane
content, with methane in wells maintained at 40 to 50%. The manual does not discuss oxygen, balance
gas, temperature or CO levels.
Like oxygen, nitrogen gas (N2) is also not produced by methanogenic bacteria, but is drawn into the
waste mass from atmospheric air through the air intrusion process described above. Atmospheric air is
typically composed of 21% O2 and 79% N2. N2 is an inert (non reactive) gas that is sometimes used to
control subsurface landfill fires. Landfill gas analyzers such as the Landtec GEM2000+, GEM5000
and Elkins Envision analyze the LFG for CH4, CO2 and O2. The analyzers also report “Balance Gas”.
In general, balance gas is very rich in N2; however, in the reacting areas of the South Quarry at
Bridgeton, the balance gas can contain high concentrations of hydrogen gas.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is not produced during methanogenesis and is typically found in landfill gas at
concentrations of less than 100 ppm. Elevated concentrations of CO are considered indicative of
subsurface landfill fire. The significance of CO is discussed in Section 8.8.
In the methanogenic state normal landfill temperatures are 60 to 131 ºF.
Decomposition of MSW in landfills is a slow process. In LFCI’s experience, normal settlement rates
in MSW are below 2% of the total waste column thickness per year. Settlement rates generally decline
with the age of refuse as the rapidly decaying organics are consumed.

Page 27
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
4. Air Intrusion
4.1 Air Intrusion Background
LFCI has encountered air intrusion as the leading cause of spontaneous combustion fires on numerous
landfill fire projects over the years. Side slope air intrusion is particularly problematic in construction
/ demolition / land clearing debris (DLC) landfills that generally have a higher air permeability than
MSW landfills. In MSW landfills, like Bridgeton, the primary cause of air intrusion occurs through
the overdraw of LFG extraction wells.
It has long been recognized by the landfill industry that overdraw of LFG extraction wells can lead to
aerobic conditions in the landfill, and ultimately, if the problem is not corrected, to subsurface landfill
fire. For this reason the NSPS guidance is to maintain O2 levels below 5% and to maintain nitrogen
levels (as balance gas) below 20%. The risk of overdraw induced fires or SSO’s is recognized broadly
in the industry with most landfill SOP’s having limits for air intrusion, including oxygen and balance
gas. In 2013, Hammer Consulting prepared a report that reviewed the Standard Operating Procedures
(SOP’s) for a number of major landfills in North America, including those operated by Republic
Services. Table 4-1 below provides a summary of the SOP’s, as developed by Hammer Consulting.
Notably, the Republic Services SOP calls for oxygen to be ideally maintained below 1% and the
maximum allowable level being 2%. Also, the SOP stipulates that methane concentrations be
maintained above 48% and temperatures below 120ºF.
In his deposition during the Marsha Buck et. al. vs. Republic case (BSLXL_030_0001923), Craig
Almanza noted that oxygen intrusion is a common cause of subsurface landfill fires and that wells that
experience SSO need to be shut down promptly to control the reaction.

Page 28
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Table 4-1 LFG Well Control SOP’s compiled by Hammer Consulting (2013)

Page 29
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010

Page 30
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010

Page 31
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
LFCI has worked on the control of several LFG initiated landfill fires and agrees that the primary
means of control is to shut down the LFG extraction well. However, if the fire is initiated in an area
that continues to draw oxygen from the ground surface even after a well is shut down, then additional
control measures are needed to prevent the SSO from spreading.
In case an SSO develops, the Republic Services SOP for Subsurface Oxidation events calls for the
following:
 Oxygen suppression is key protocol

 Health and safety concerns, collapse
 Turn off vacuum in wells around area
 Add dirt cover with LGP equipment
 Do not add water (concern with odours, steam)
 Do not excavate through cover system (will add extra oxygen)
 Do not remove well head, field under vacuum, will draw oxygen in
 Do not add dry ice, will need wellhead to be removed
 Do continued monitoring
4.2 Air Intrusion at Bridgeton Landfill South Quarry

Landfills are required to apply intermediate cover on MSW deposited in the landfill, in part, to prevent
the intrusion of atmospheric air into the waste mass. As well, landfills are required to implement final
closure with an impervious cap once the final landfill geometry is reached.
At Bridgeton the final closure cap was constructed in 2005 and 2006. However, significant cracking
and slumping of that cap has been reported in the 2010 Annual Financial Report. The Google air
photo record indicates that black geomembrane liner was deployed in two areas along the landfill toe
of the South Quarry in 2011 and subsequently, additional liner was added in 2012.
Under NSPS landfills are required to maintain methane concentrations at the property below 2.5%
methane on a volume basis. Given the rock quarry geometry, the presence of overburden at surface
underlain by fractured and weathered limestone at the top of the St. Louis formation, and given that
there is no low permeability liner on the quarry walls to contain methane, control of off-site gas
migration has been an ongoing challenge at Bridgeton landfill and has resulted in Orders being issued
to Bridgeton LLC starting in 2005. In January, 2010 perimeter wells 1, 5, 7 and 11 were in non-
compliance for exceeding the 2.5% methane concentration. In the 2010 Annual Financial Report, it is
noted that off-property LFG migration remains as a top priority risk and that substantial fines were
issued against the company.
From the LFG extraction record presented in Figure 4-1, it is evident that Bridgeton commenced
aggressive extraction of the LFG around November, 2009, with LFG flows increasing from about
1,200 SCFM to about 1,700 SCFM, an increase of 42%. However, LFCI’s review of LFG extraction
well monitoring data compiled by Aquaterra between 2005 and 2008 (see Appendix H) indicates that

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 METHANE FLOW TO FLARE 2005-2009 Figure
Drawn By: NL
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
BSL_006_0059638 4-1
Page 33
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Bridgeton Landfill had a history of exceeding oxygen levels and temperatures in a number of
monitoring wells, and that the frequency of exceedances increased in 2008 and 2009 as more
aggressive action was taken to control the offsite LFG migration.
Table 4-2 Summary of temperature and O2 concentration exceedances of NSPS 2005-2008

Temp Percent
# of Temp Exceedence # of O2 O2 Percent # ofBal Gas Bal Gas
Year Exceedences (%) Exeedences Exceedence Exeedences Exceedence Entries Frequency Comments
2005 4 1.4 6 2.1 74 25.4 291 M
2005 4 1.9 6 2.8 37 17.5 211 M
2006 15 3.1 9 1.9 N/A N/A 485 M No data for first half
2007 27 2.3 138 11.5 N/A N/A 1200 M
2007 59 5.4 104 9.6 N/A N/A 1089 Bi-weekly No data for :Oct, Nov, Dec
2008 25 1.2 290 13.5 N/A N/A 2146 Bi-weekly
By 2008 the record indicates that LFG wells were experiencing oxygen overdraw on 13.5% of
readings taken. This level of overdraw is well above the norm and exceeds Republic’s own SOP’s for
LFG extraction well operation. Many of the exceedances originated from perimeter extraction wells
(PEW’s) and from interception trench risers (IT’s). This data indicates that atmospheric air was being
drawn into the MSW bedrock interface. Although, this tactic helped to control gas migration at the
property line, it also introduced very high concentrations of O2 into the waste mass beneath the final
cover.
As shown by the methane concentrations for GEW’s plotted for January, 2010 in Figure 4-2, most of
the South Quarry is in a state of significant overdraw. Normal methane concentrations above 45%
methane are noted only in a small area on the southeast side of the landfill, with more than 2/3 of the
South Quarry reporting methane levels below 40%., well below Republic’s minimum methane level of
48%, as per their SOP. Of particular concern, as indicated by the red zones on Figure 4-2, severe air
intrusion is evident on the northeast and southeast sides of the South Quarry and in a red zone in the
middle of the quarry as well where methane concentrations are below 25%.
LFCI undertook a review of the oxygen and balance gas concentrations from the latest SCS data base
provided to us by the AGO. LFCI has plotted the oxygen and balance gas concentrations for a
selected group of 36 wells from that data base. The concentration vs. time graphs are presented in
Appendix F. On the plots LFCI has highlighted readings that exceeded NSPS operating guidelines
(5% O2 and 20% Nitrogen as Balance Gas). The record indicates that a number of wells have been
consistently over-extracted for extended periods, well above NSPS guidelines and Republic’s SOP’s.
In particular, overdraw is evident in wells 12A, 21A, 63 and 70. Some of these are the same wells that
subsequently developed elevated temperatures and were placed on the County elevated temperature
monitoring list on December 15th, 2008. Figure 4-3 shows a balance gas plot for SEW-063, while
Figure 4-4 shows the corresponding oxygen concentration plot for the same well. Note that the well
was operated from 2007 to late 2010 with balance gas concentrations well above the NSPS guideline.
This resulted in significant air incursions, particularly in August, 2009. It should be noted that Oxygen
may be stripped away by the aerobic bacteria as the intruded air travels through the waste mass.

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 METHANE CONCENTRATIONS Figure
Drawn By: NL JANUARY 2010
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015 4-2
BSL_006_0059635

Page 35
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Therefore, depending on the distance between the air intrusion point and the LFG collection well,
elevated oxygen levels may not have necessarily been observed in all the over-pulled wells.
Figure 4-3 Balance Gas and Vacuum Plot for SEW-063
Figure 4-4 Oxygen Plot for SEW-63

Page 36
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
It has been LFCI’s experience that allowing air entry into landfills is dangerous. Aerobic
decomposition leads to elevated waste mass temperatures. Elevated temperatures increase the risk of
triggering other exothermic chemical reactions that ultimately lead to heat build up, spontaneous
combustion of the waste mass and SSO or smoldering. LFCI’s experience is echoed by the
Environment Agency (UK). According to the agency, air intrusion is a common cause of subsurface
landfill fires or “hot spots”. The EA report states “Air ingress to the waste as a result of active gas
extraction systems and the over-abstraction of landfill gas was suspected to be the principal
contributing factor for the majority (62 per cent) of the (78) sites”.
In the case of Bridgeton Landfill, allowing the over-extraction of LFG to continue unchecked for an
extended period of time resulted in heat build up. This ultimately led to the initiation of a self
sustaining subsurface exothermic reaction (SSSER), as discussed later in this report.

Page 37
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
5. Thermal Events
Landfills can experience a range of burning events that include fire, smolder, pyrolysis and SSSER.
5.1 Burning
Burning or to burn is defined as:
 to undergo rapid combustion or consume fuel in such a way as to give off heat, gases, and,
usually, light; be on fire (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/burn)
 marked by flame or intense heat (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/burning)
In the context of a landfill, the burning process involves a chemical reaction that results in the rapid
generation of heat, gases and usually (but not always) light.
5.2 Combustion
Combustion or fire is the most recognized form of burning. Fire is a strongly exothermic oxidation
reaction whereby a fuel is rapidly oxidized, typically producing CO2 as the primary combustion gas,
fine particulate as smoke and ash. Fires give off light in the visible spectrum as flame, and in the
invisible infra-red spectrum. Fires generate a large amount of heat due to their strongly exothermic
nature. The reaction requires high temperatures to be sustaining, typically temperatures above 600°F.
Photo 5-1 presents a photograph from the Cerro Patacon Landfill fire that was extinguished by the
Panamanian Bomberos under direction of Dr. Sperling from LFCI.
Photo 5-1. Cerro Patacon Landfill Fire in Panama

Page 38
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
5.3 Smoldering
Smoldering is also recognized as a form of burning, as in “a burning cigarette”. Smoldering is also an
exothermic reaction, whereby combustion products react with limited amounts of oxygen to produce
gases and heat. In many cases smoldering does not generate visible flame or light, but it does
consume fuel, release heat through as a result of the exothermic oxidation reaction, and generate
exhaust gases, typically rich in carbon monoxide (CO). Typical temperatures of the smoldering front
are 932 to 1292ºF (G. Rein, 2009); however, initiation of smoldering has been documented at
temperatures as low as 170ºF (Babaruskas, 2003). Typical CO concentrations during smoldering are
100 to 10,000 ppm.
Photo 5-2 is a picture of a typical smoldering front observed at Carmon Landfill in Israel. Similar
depressions with abnormally high temperatures have been observed beneath the EVOH geomembrane
on the southwest side of the South Quarry.
Photo 5-2 Typical Collapse Crater with Smoldering Front – Carmon, Israel
Research into smoldering suggests that in most cases the smoldering reaction occurs as a two step
process (Rein, 2009). First organic material (e.g. wood) is heated to a temperature that initiates the
break up of more complex organic molecules such as cellulose and lignin into smaller gaseous
molecules including CO, CO2, CH4, H2 and H2O and char. This process is generally endothermic. In
the second step, the gases react with available oxygen in highly exothermic oxidation reactions to
produce the combustion gases and heat. The heat subsequently drives the pyrolysis process. Thus
smoldering can be a self sustaining reaction provided sufficient oxygen remains available.

Page 39
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Smoldering is known to propagate at oxygen concentrations as low as 3% (DeHann, 2007). The SCS
data base indicates that many GEW wells at Bridgeton are currently operated at levels that will support
smoldering. Given the elevated temperatures and the history of oxygen intrusion, LFCI suspects that
smoldering is occurring in the shallower areas of the waste mass. Characteristic smoke residue is not
being observed in the LFG because the waste mass itself serves as an excellent particulate filter.
However, all of the reaction products of smoldering are being observed in the LFG being extracted
from the South Quarry, and drill cuttings from Sonic drilling programs are bringing up a grey material
that has the characteristics of ash (Brenda Ardrey, personal communication). In his deposition, Mr.
Craig Almanza indicated that the post reaction materials are reduced and are turning to ash and char.
5.4 Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is defined as the breakdown of solid hydrocarbons in an inert (oxygen free) atmosphere.
Two characteristic forms of pyrolysis are recognized, high temperature pyrolysis such as is utilized in
waste to energy facilities and low temperature pyrolysis which is also referenced as torrefaction.
Torrefaction occurs at temperatures below about 600°F (Grace, 2015). Torrefaction is always an
endothermic process, meaning it consumes heat. For this reason pyrolysis is not burning and pyrolysis
on its own cannot be self sustaining. However, just as in the burning cigarette reaction, pyrolysis
plays a key role in the self sustaining subsurface exothermic reaction, as described below.
5.5 Self Sustaining Subsurface Exothermic Reaction (SSSER)

SSSER is a true burning process. It is a self sustaining reaction that consumes fuel, produces large
quantities of product gases and generates lots of heat. SSSER is not well recognized and is not well
documented in the technical literature.
LFCI first became aware of the potential for SSSER at Winnipeg Landfill in 2014 when LFCI’s client
detected very high CO levels in a number of their newly installed LFG extraction wells. Subsequent
testing revealed that the LFG contained abnormally elevated levels of H2 gas. Although elevated
levels of H2 do occur during the early deposition of MSW as the waste transitions from aerobic
through Phase II Transition and Phase III acidic stages, once steady state methanogenic conditions are
established in Phase IV methane fermentation stage H2 levels in LFG are typically very low (See
Figure 5-1).
In researching the potential source of H2, LFCI identified the mildly exothermic water gas shift
reaction as a possible source of the hydrogen. Subsequent research revealed that other landfill fire
specialists in the UK identified the water gas reaction as another possible source of hydrogen gas in
subsurface exothermic reactions. (Hall, 2007, Foss-Smith personal communication; 2015( see
Appendix I for communication and Appendix O for Foss-Smith CV))

Page 40
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 5-1. Gas Composition During 5 Phases of Landfill Evolution (after Hofstetter)
Organic chemistry is a subject in which the LFCI project team has only a limited working knowledge
gained from attending several Chemistry courses in the early years of engineering school. For this
reason LFCI consulted with Dr. John R. Grace, professor emeritus in Chemical Engineering at UBC
and former Canada Research Chair in Clean Energy combustion processes, with a focus on fluidized
bed reactors (see Appendix O for Dr. Grace’s CV).
Dr. Grace was asked to inform the LFCI team on the likely chemical mechanisms that could be leading
to the generation of heat, the consumption of methane, the generation of abnormally high levels of CO
and relatively rapid subsidence in a subsurface landfill environment. Dr. Grace prepared a brief report
that is presented in Appendix K in its entirety and key sections are extracted and italicized in this
section.
Dr. Grace supported LFCI hypothesis that torrefaction of the waste is producing reaction gases. He
pointed out that torrefaction is a purely endothermic process and therefore, there must be another
mechanism generating the heat necessary to drive the pyrolysis reaction.
Dr. Grace identified the following exothermic reactions that all involve reaction products known to
exist in significant quantities in the subsurface LFG, including CH4, CO2, H2O, H2, C(solid) and O2.
Oxygen has been drawn into the landfill around wells that have been over-extracted, and is also being
pulled in through the southeast and southwest quarry walls, as previously indicated by gas
concentration patterns visible on Figure 4-2.

Page 41
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Water-Gas Shift (WGS) Reaction: CO + H2O CO2 + H2. This is a reversible mildly exothermic
process. Industrially, it is carried out at high temperatures (e.g. in excess of 1500°F (816°C), as well
as in low-temperature shift reactors at temperatures as low as 392°F (200°C). As an exothermic
reaction, its equilibrium constant increases with decreasing temperature, meaning that more reaction
would occur if equilibrium were to be achieved. However, the kinetic rate constants for the reaction
decrease with decreasing temperature. In industrial reactors, the reaction is catalysed by various
metals and metal oxides, with copper oxide (CuO) and platinum most commonly deployed as catalysts
in low-temperature WGS reactors. Various catalyst poisons (in particular sulphur compounds,
chlorides and some heavy metals) can lead to the deactivation of catalysts. Because there is no change
in the total number of moles in this reaction, the equilibrium conversion is independent of the total
pressure.
Mr. Patrick Foss-Smith, a renowned landfill fire specialist from the UK, as well as members of the UK
Fire College and UK Environment Agency are of the opinion that initiation of the water gas shift
reaction can occur at temperatures as low as 100 ºF.
Steam Gasification: C(s) + H2O → CO + H2: Sometimes referred to as the “Water-Gas Reaction”,
this endothermic and essentially irreversible reaction converts carbon and steam into a synthesis gas.
Its rate is dependent on the nature of the carbonaceous solid, as well as the temperature and steam
concentration. According to the Environment Agency (UK) H2 concentrations in excess of 20% in
landfill gas have been reported in areas where water has been slowly introduced into an area with a
suspected hot spot (Hall, et. al. 2007).
Boudouard Reaction: CO2 + C(s) 2CO. This reversible reaction provides a route by which carbon
monoxide can be produced from carbon dioxide and vice versa. The kinetics of this reaction depend
heavily on the specific hydrocarbon represented by the “C”, as well as on the temperature. In the
direction shown, the reaction is endothermic, so that it is less favoured thermodynamically at low
temperatures. The reverse reaction could be relevant in the landfill as it is more favoured at lower
temperatures.
Methanation Reactions: CO2 + 4H2  CH4 + 2H2O and CO + 3H2  CH4 + H2O.
These are exothermic reactions, the reverse of the steam reforming reactions used widely in industry
to produce hydrogen, usually with nickel oxide catalysts, but various other metals can also act as
catalysts. Both these reactions are exothermic, and hence equilibrium conversions are higher at lower
temperatures. Once again, various poisons can reduce the activity of the catalysts, with sulphur
compounds being especially important catalyst poisons in industrial reactors. Given the decrease in
the number of moles for both of these reactions as written, equilibrium conversions are favoured by
increased pressure. In addition, both would decrease the total pressure locally, leading to some
infiltration of gases from the surrounding area.
Oxidation reactions: Of the compounds involved in the other reactions identified above, hydrogen,
carbon monoxide, methane and carbon can all be oxidized by air/oxygen:
H2 + ½O2 → H2O; CO + ½O2 → CO2; CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O; and C(s) + O2 → CO2.
Page 42
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
All of these reactions are strongly exothermic. At the relatively low temperatures of interest, oxidation
catalysts such as the noble metals platinum and palladium would need to be present, in addition to
intruding oxygen, for these reactions to be playing a major role.
Dr.’s Sperling and Abedini are not experts in chemical reactions. In Chapter 8 of this report we
identify striking patterns in the reaction trends observed in the vast majority of the wells that suggest
to us that certain chemical reactions must be occurring in a pre-determined sequence, with the outcome
of one reaction leading to the next. We recommend that experts in the field of torrefaction, smoldering
and low temperature combustion be consulted to confirm the observed trends, confirm the reactions
that are causing the trends and advise on control strategies that can be adopted to control those
reactions.

Page 43
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
6. SER Control History
To determine whether Bridgeton Landfill LLC and its contractors took all reasonable actions and
followed best management practices leading up to the SSER event, LFCI constructed a chronological
record of key events, starting from the time the rock quarry was initially developed to present day.
The record is presented in Table 6-1. Particularly significant events are highlighted in orange, and less
critical but still relevant information is highlighted in yellow.
6.1 Period before problems developed 1930-2007

Work on the Bridgeton quarries commenced sometime in the 1930’s. Golder reports that quarrying
first started in 1939. Landfilling operations first started in 1952 for “combustible materials”, Westlake
Landfill was issued a permit to receive MSW in 1962. 40,000 tonnes of radiological waste were
received at Westlake Landfill and placed in the OU1 area. Landfilling in the rock quarry area
commenced in 1979. Quarrying operations ceased in 1988. Landfilling operations at Bridgeton
Landfill ceased on December 31, 2004.
In 1992 Bridgeton Landfill was ordered to install an active landfill gas collection system to control
odours. In late 1992 Bridgeton Landfill experienced a subsurface fire that eventually broke out at
surface along a quarry wall in the North Quarry. A subsequent inspection summarized in a DNR letter
dated December 30, 1992 identified a large area that lacked soil cover, numerous erosion gullies in the
soil cover, strong odours and an ongoing fire. The fire event ultimately lasted until March, 1995,
when it was finally fully extinguished. The 1992 fire event and subsequent fires are explored in
Chapter 7.
6.2 Offsite Gas Migration Period 2002-2008

An inspection report dated August 14, 2002 noted that methane levels exceeding allowable
concentrations were being detected in property monitoring wells. On May 14, 2003 MDNR referred
Bridgeton Landfill to the enforcement unit for repeated violations concerning elevated methane levels
in gas monitoring probes at the property boundary. Work commenced on a corrective Settlement
Agreement that was ultimately issued to Bridgeton on January 18, 2006. The Agreement stipulated
that Bridgeton must:
 complete the final cover by December 1st, 2006

 prepare a remediation plan for to correct ongoing off-site LFG migration
 construct four additional leachate recovery wells by January 2nd, 2006
 install 26 additional perimeter gas extraction wells by January 2nd, 2006
 complete an upgrade to the gas collection system including 8 replacement wells and 22 new
extraction wells by January 2nd, 2006
In response to the Agreement the landfill was capped with a low permeability soil cover in 2005 and
2006 and the gas infrastructure was upgraded.

Table 6-1. Event Log for Bridgeton SSSER Incident
Reference Date Source / Bates # Event
1930-01-01 Site used as Rock Quarry

1939-01-01 PL0013784 Limestone Quarry and Crushing Operation Initiated in 1939 according to Golder
Rock Quarry Operations

1952-04-23 Site permitted as landfill for combustible material
1962-02-16 Westlake Landfill authorized to receive all MSW, sanitary MSW
Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 all used for sanitary MSW and DLC
Areas 1, 3, 5 and 6 originally sanitary and DLC, capped with 2' clay and converted to DLC under permit 218903
Lateral gas vents to be installed into MSW below DLC round openings filled with graded crushed limestone (see plan sheet 25)
1973-01-01 BSL_001_0000145 Radioactive waste received in West Lake OU1 Area 1 in 1973
1979-01-01 BSL_001_0000145 Quarry Bottom digitized in 1979
1979-01-01 PL-0013785 Landfilling in North Rock Quarry initiated in 1979 according to Golder
1985-11-18 Missouri DNR Web Permit Issued for Bridgeton Landfill to Laidlaw
1988-12-31 Operation of Rock Quarry was stopped according to Golder
1992-07-31 DNR Order Change LFG management from passive to active
1992-09-25 Missouri DNR Web Subsurface Fire reported by Laidlaw North Quarry, Taussig Road
1992-11-30 Laidlaw Letter to DNR Fire smoke first detected November 30, 1992 along quarry wall. Fire air leakage though weathered rock 15' above waste.
1992-12-29 County Health Inspection Lack of soil cover, large area of exposed waste. New flare to be operational by Feb 1, 1993. "Enormous Odour Problems"
1992-12-30 DNR Letter Inspection, large uncovered area, erosion gullies in wet weather area, subsurface fire. Ongoing odour issue.
1992 Fire Event North Quarry
1993-12-10 SCS Fire Proposal Investigate North Quarry Fire, Infrared Thermography, Thermisters, Mitigate with Bentonite Slurry
1994-01-10 SCS Fire Proposal Revised workplan submitted
1994-02-18 Laidlaw Letter to DNR Requests immediate approval of SCS workplan
1994-03-04 Inspection by DOH MSW Landfill Operation Noted settlement has opened fissures along quarry walls. Flames and smoke noted along eastern wall of Pit 2.
Abandoned leachate well in Pit 2 has surfaced and is venting.
Pit 1 has developed a 5' diameter blow hole that is venting gas and fissures.
1994-03-04 DNR Letter Approves waiving of liner on ramp and sidewalls of quarry
1994-03-08 DNR Letter DNR approves implementation of SCS Workplan
1994-03-22 Dept. of Health DOH approved drilling of monitoring wells
1994-03-29 SCS Report Infrared shows hot spot in north quarry, at quarry wall.
cold zone temperature probes below 100F (37C)
Elevated warm zone temps of 100 to 140 F (37 to 60C)
Gas is normal LFG 50-64% CH4, 34-42%CO2, 0.1-2.5%O2, 0-6.7% N2 Low CO concentrations
Recommend injection of Portland Cement Slurry into fissures
1994-04-27 DNR Inspection Site is looking good, no fire evident
1994-06-22 DNR Inspection Site looked good. Pit #2 fire appears out. Good soil cover.
1994-07-05 Midwest Env. Letter Request to use hydrocarbon contaminated soil as ADC
Page 199 of report has really good map of historic permits
1994-07-07 DNR Letter Letter approves augering. Notes uncertainty whether DLC material may be encountered in North Quarry
1994-10-31 Missouri DNR Web Second Subsurface Fire Reported
1994 Fire
Quarry
North
1994-10-31 Laidlaw Letter to DNR Initial 1992 Fire Reignited, fissure opened. Smoke observed from second area on Taussig Road at Quarry wall.
1994-12-01 DNR Inspection Leachate levels above 30
1995-03-29 Missouri DNR Web Initial fire in North Quarry extinguished (additional data indicates 2nd fire did not occur???)
1995-03-29 Laidlaw Letter to DNR Initial fire caused by TRW gas extraction wells.
1995-06-13 Laidlaw Letter to DNR Gas system on line, failure of header due to differential settlement. Failure of piping system in southern area
1995-06-15 Midwest Env. Report Major report on Environment. Reference chimney drain design change?
1995-10-03 Laidlaw Letter to DNR Reference to underground historic fire around W-4, reference SCS monitoring with some thermistors above 140F
1997-11-26 Dept. of Health Inspection Letter. All systems working. Comments provided on planned upgrades
2003 XXXX XXX Inspector detects off site migration of LFG in perimeter wells. Works starts toward corrective order.
2004-12-31 BSLXL-030-0002960 and Missouri DNR Bridgeton stopped receiving waste
2004-12-31 BSLXL_030_0002961 In 2004 Republic started work on GCCS Gas Collection Control System Plan
Took for years to receive high temperature variance on 7 wells.
2005-05-01 BSL_006_0059629 Soil capping of Bridgeton Landfill Initiated under Aquaterra's Overview
2006-10-01 BSL_006_0059629 Soil capping of Bridgeton Landfill finished under Aquaterra's Overview
2007-01-01 Almanza becomes Manager of Landfill Gas Operations in Republic Head Office, Phoenix Arizona sometime in 2007.
2008 BSLXL_030_0004336 St. Louis County Health Violation issued to Bridgeton for non compliance on monitoring. 13 exceedances noted. Violation #1412.
2008-09-12 DNR Letter Documents meeting regarding overlap between permit and USEPA CERCLA Superfund
Lateral Gas Migration off Property is Top Priority
St. Louis County at some time approved operating the wells above 130F. Probably Dec. 15, 2008
Varian
Well
Hot
ce
2008-12-31 BSLXL_030_0002961 Republic requests high temperature variance on 7 wells some time in 2008.
2009-03-01 BSLXL_030_0002864 Vasbinder hired as Environmental Manager Bridgeton Landfill LLC
2009-05-27 BSLXL_030_0004341 Bridgeton monthly report indicates subsurface oxidation in wells 12A, 59, 63. Temps above 130.
Decomposition / High
2009-05-27 BSLXL_030_0004341 MCC obtained additional samples, CO data indicates that levels do not exceed threshold.
2009-05-27 BSLXL_030_0004341 Monitoring indicates wells had elevated temperatures.
2009-07-31 BSLXL_030-0004347 Wells 12A, 57 and 63 indicate SSO.
Temperatures
2009-09-30 BSLXL_030-0004349 Wells 12A, 57 and 63 indicate SSO.

2009-09-30 BSL_006_0059638 LFG extraction ramped up by 40%
Aerobic
2009-10-31 BSLXL_030_0004353 Well 12A, 57 and 63 continue to show signs of SSO. CO below 500 ppm.
2009-11-30 BSLXL_030_0004355 Wells 12A, 57, 59R and 63 indicate signs of SSO.
2009-12-31 Lambrich sends e-mail that 12A and 63 are high temp, CO below 500 ppm.
2009-12-10 BSLXL_030_004333 Michael Lambrich sends e-mail to Dave Vasbinder re high CO readings in wells. CO of 600 ppm in Well 67.
2010-01-01 Vasbinder E-mail to Almanza indicating LFG property line non compliance in wells 1, 5, 7 and 11 for methane.
2010-02-28 Larger than normal settlements noted in South Quarry, especially SE facing slope
2010-02-28 BSLXL_030_004359 Wells 12A and 67 have high CO 350 to 700 ppm. SSO occurring.
Subsurface Smoldering / SSO
2010-03-31 BSLXL_030_004361 Wells 12A and 67 CO levels 350 to 700. SSO event occurring.
2010-03-01 BSL_006_0059629 20 Gas wells converted to dual phase leachate / gas extraction in Q1
2010-04-10 BSL_001_0000118 Bridgeton New Release, Completed installation of 40 new LFG wells in addition to 160 already in place.
2010-04-12 Aquaterra Test Pits Excavated about 100 test pits 162-406 with Mini Excavator
2010-04-30 BSLXL_030_0004370 Wells 12A and 67 indicating SSO. CO 350-750.
2010-05-31 BSLXL_030_0004370 Wells 12A, 13, 59R, 63 and 67 indicate signs of SSO.
2010-05-30 BSLXL_030_0004374 Vasbinder complains to Lambrich at MCC about Flare Shut Down.
2010-12-22 BSLXL_030-0004324 Mike Lambrich detects high CO around 600 ppm in GEW 67
2010-12-22 BSLXL_030-0004321 Mike Lambrich notifies Vasbinder about high CO in GEW 67, first day of his new career??? (but reaction started 18 months previous)
2010-12-22 BSLXL_030-0004323 Mike Lambrich testifies that there was absolutely nothing indicating problems before Dec. 22, 2010???
2010-12-22 BSLXL_030_0004344 Gas wells 12, 29, 63 and 67 were indicating high temperatures in subsurface.
2010-12-23 Almanza Gets phone call from Vasbinder re 15 wells with high temps, provides contacts that could assist, then nothing
2010-12-23 BSLXL_030_0004328 Lambrich sends Vasbinder an e-mail about elevated CO levels in 67.
2011-01-21 BSLXL_030_002923 Key Meeting with MDRNR and County in Jefferson City. Decide on Action Plan.
2011-01-31 BSLXL_030_002975 Jim Walsh of SCS brought in to help consult on problem.
2011-02-28 BSLXL_030_002975 Installed new wells to get heat and gas out according to Vasbinder, Feb, March, April 2011 (total 6 wells)
2011-03-30 BSLXL_030_0004411 Michael Lambrich hired internally by Bridgeton
2011-04-30 BSLXL_030_0003013 Odour back under control with HDPE? Liner and wells installed, according to Vasbinder.
2011-12-31 BSLXL_030_0003013 Between April 2011 and January, 2012 general feeling was that reaction was under control according to Vasbinder.
2012-01-06 BSLXL_030_0002111 Burning electrical chemical type odour complaint reported.
2012-04-28 BSLXL_030_0002943 Vasbinder requests authority for more wells from MDNR.
2012-05-30 BSLXL_030_0002943 Bridgeton installed evoh additional liner.
2012-06-01 BSLXL_030_0002982 Jim Teter from corporate brought in to make Bridgeton a Corporate priority, additional resources allocated.
2012-06-27 BSLXL_030_0002113 Very strong odours reported in nearby business.
Subsurface Self Sustaining Exothermic Reaction (SSSER)
2012-08-31 BSLXL_030_0002942 Work started on first toe trench at top of quarry wall to intercept gas, temperature, pressure.
2012-08-31 BSLXL_030_0002945 Work on GIW's started in August of 2012
2012-08-31 BSLXL_030_0003029 Air Quality Monitoring Program implemented in August, 2012 First time ambient Air SUMMA samples pulled
2012-09-14 BSL_001_0000229 Original TMP Plan David Vasbinder or Republic Submitted to DNR
2012-09-27 BSL_001_0000230 MDNR Approval Letter
2012-11-30 LFG CAP Update 5 New Trench Wells
2012-11-30 BSLXL_030_0002937 Almanza becomes Area Manager in November, 2012. Becomes more involved. Becomes point person
2012-11-30 BSLXL_030_0002069 According to Almanza, Bridgeton prepared Odour Management Plan in Nov., 2012
2012-12-31 BSLXL_030_0001935 Almanza transferred to Bridgeton to help manage SSE problem
2012-12-31 BSLXL_030_0002887 Vasbinder transferred from Bridgeton Landfill to Lemon.
2012-12-29 BSL_001_0000210 Heat Dissipation Barrier Plan, PJ Carey Associates
2013-01-03 BSL_001_0000237 Expanded Design for GIW System by SCS
2013-01-04 BSL_001_0000154 North Quarry Heat Barrier System Report, P.J. Carey Associates
2013-01-10 BSL_001_0000216 From: Craig Almanza, Bridgeton LLC and SCS Design of Gas Interceptor Wells
2013-01-11 BSL_001_0000227 Charlene Fitch Approval Letter from MDNR to Bridgeton LLC
2013-01-12 BSL_001_0000119 Grid based settlement monitoring program initiated
2013-02-06 BSL_001_0000222 Letter from Daniel Brennan, P.E. SCS to Charlene Fitch DNR re Expanded GIW Program
2013-02-08 MDNR Approval Letter of GIW Expanded Design (copy not provided)
2013-02-18 BSLX_030_000196 Odour complaints from nearby SSM DePaul Health Centre
2013-02-27 Meeting with MDNR and Bridgeton LLC team (minutes not provided)
2013-03-29 BSL_001_0000240 Overview Report of Monitoring Results and Barrier Options by PJ Carey Associates
2013-04-12 BSL_001_0000118 Bridgeton announces completion of 40 new promised gas wells.
2013-05-20 Commenced removal or RCP (reinforced concrete pipe) frac tanks
2013-06-20 BSLXL_001_00002895 Monthly Data Submittals Dec. 2012 - March, 2013
2013-06-27 BSL_001_0000119 North Quarry Contingency Plan Issued
2013-07-26 BSL_001_0000139 Bridgeton to submit construction plans for EVOH Cap on North Quarry Area
2013-08-23 BSLXL_030_0002157 Almanza gives deposition
2013-08-30 LFG CAP Update Placement of 32 acres of evoh geomembrane cap completed
2014-02-16 Fire breaks out at surface, allegedly due to broken gas pipe.
2015-02-10 Pattonville Fire Dept InfraRed shows two hot spots North Quarry high temps. Deputy Chief LaVanchy
Republic spent $410 million at Bridgeton to date
BSLXL_030_0002158

Page 45
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
6.3 LFG Overdraw Leading to Aerobic Conditions Jan. 2008- Dec. 2009
In 2008 St. Louis County Health Dept. issued a Violation Order citing 13 exceedances. As a result of
the Orders, Bridgeton expanded the LFG well field and commenced operating the LFG extraction
system more aggressively. This resulted in an increase in oxygen intrusion in a number of LFG
extraction wells that resulted in elevated well temperatures. In 2008, Bridgeton requested a high
temperature operating variance for 7 wells. The variance was approved by the County on December
15, 2008.
Michael Lambrich was hired as a landfill gas technician by Monitoring Control and Compliance
(MCC) in March, 2008. Bridgeton Landfill was one of numerous sites that he monitored and
maintained the well field, together with a team of other technicians. He was subsequently hired by
Bridgeton Landfill, LLC. in 2011. Mr. Lambrich’s deposition indicates that he received one year of on
the job training for the position by Jared Romaine and received minimal course type training.
David Vasbinder was hired as area Environmental Manager in March, 2009. Bridgeton Landfill was
one of about 25 landfills he was responsible for. Mr. Vasbinder’s deposition indicates that he had
limited formal training in landfill gas management prior to starting his job at Bridgeton.
Monthly monitoring of temperatures and CO in the five high temperature wells commenced in May,
2009. The May data set indicated that CO levels of all 5 wells were below 500 ppm. The Monitoring
Control and Compliance (MCC) Report for May stated that “The results of the CO samples revealed
readings below concerning levels and MCC will continue to watch this area closely to prevent the
chance of subsurface oxidation.”
Monthly monitoring of the wells continued with no apparent action being taken to control the air
intrusion problem. In September, 2009 high temperatures were again noted in wells 12A, 57 and 63.
Notwithstanding the hot wells control of off-site migration of LFG appeared to remain a priority and
gas extraction rates were increased by 40% in September, 2009.
In July, 2009 Bridgeton staff concluded that a subsurface oxidation reaction (SSO) was occurring at
wells 12A, 57 and 63 and that the wells were operating hot. Despite this, the well monitoring data
clearly shows that the wells remained operational. Well 12A was pumped with a vacuum that varied
between 1 and 4” though until Dec, 2010. Well 57 was pumped at a vacuum of 1 to 7” until Dec. 2010
and well 63 was pumped with a vacuum of 1 to 5” until Dec. 2010.
6.4 Subsurface Smolder / SSO Period Dec. 2009 – Feb. 2011

Not surprising to LFCI given that air intrusion into LFG wells is recognized as the leading cause of
subsurface fires in MSW, on December 10, 2009 high CO levels above 500 ppm were detected in
well 67 by technician Mike Lambrich. This marks the start of the burning event at Bridgeton
with initiation of a smoldering fire. The 600 ppm reading was reported to David Vasbinder in an e-
mail dated December 10, 2009. (BSLXL_030_004333).

Page 46
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Continued extraction of LFG from wells that are clearly showing rapidly decreasing methane
concentrations, increasing balance gas levels and CO levels above 500 ppm violated NSPS guidelines,
Republic’s SOP’s and industry best practices. In LFCI’s opinion, a knowledgeable and experienced
landfill gas system operator such a Republic Services should have recognized the significant risks that
the company was taking by overpulling the LFG control system.
LFCI can only speculate that the very risky decision to continue overpulling was made in an attempt to
control the off-site gas migration issues. Based on the apparent level of training and workload of key
Republic staff including Mr. Vasbinder and Mr. Lambrich, it is also possible that the problem simply
did not receive the attention it deserved in 2009 and 2010 because they were not aware of risks they
were taking by continuing to overpull the gas field. The 2010 financial report for example identifies
that the biggest risks to the Bridgeton operating unit are the ongoing methane migration issue and the
increased costs of leachate disposal. The issue of a potential SSO in the vicinity of wells 12A and 67
is only mentioned in passing.
When Mr. Lambrich detected elevated CO in well 67 in February, 2010, he reported the exceedance
and then MCC waited to receive direction and approval from St. Louis County and Aquaterra to
decommission the well. The pumping record indicates that the well remained active. Monitoring of
high CO levels continued monthly until December, 2010 when Bridgeton staff appeared to realize that
they had a very serious subsurface fire occurring, at which time all wells in the area were shut down
and senior management including Mr. Vasbinder and Mr. Almanza were notified. Figure 6-1 presents
the flow and pumping record for the well.
Given that high CO levels were first detected in Well 67 in February, 2010, the flow and applied
vacuum data indicate that the well was not shut down (or control valve defected and not fully shut)
until September, 2010, some eight months later. In LFCI’s experience a lot can happen at landfills
experiencing sub-surface burning in eight months.
As discussed in Section 8.8, LFCI’s review of the gas composition starts to indicate abnormally
elevated CO2 readings in well 67 going back to February, 2009, indicating overdraw conditions and air
incursion.
In February, 2010, larger than normal settlements were noted in the South Quarry, particularly on the
southeast facing slopes.
In March, 2010 Bridgeton converted 20 wells to dual phase wells capable of pumping both leachate
and LFG and 40 new wells were added in addition to the 160 already in place.
In April, 2010, Aquaterra excavated 100 test pits through the final cover with a mini excavator to
assess cover integrity.

Page 47
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 6-1. Pumping Record for Well 67, the Well where SSSER Initiated
On December 22nd, 2010, Mike Lambrich again notified David Vasbinder regarding high CO levels in
well 67. Although the CO level was reportedly 600 ppm, the same as in February, 2010, this time the
information was immediately passed on Mr. Almanza, Republic’s Senior Manager responsible for
Landfill Gas.
Despite extensive experience in SSSER at other facilities, Mr. Almanza did not personally engage in
the Bridgeton problem until two years later. Instead, he referred Mr. Vasbinder to consulting experts,
including Mr. Walsh of SCS Engineers.
In early 2011 six new wells were drilled and HDPE geomembrane was installed at the landfill toe to
control venting. This geomembrane was evident during LFCI’s air photo review.
According to Mr. Vasbinder, between April 2011 and January, 2012 there was a general feeling that
the reaction was under control.
6.5 The SSSER Period February, 2011 to present

The detailed gas record indicates a completely different story. LFCI’s analysis determined that the
SSSER commenced at Well 67 in February, 2011. The reaction quickly spread. A second node
initiated in March, 2011 at Well 34.

Page 48
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Michael Lambrich was hired by Bridgeton Landfill LLC. to manage the gas field in March, 2011.
In January, 2012 a strong burning, electrical, chemical type odour was detected. The odour problem
was very serious in nature.
In April, 2012 public meetings regarding the odour issues were convened. Odorous leachate and
landfill gas were being expressed at the quarry wall and around most of the LFG wells. A
comprehensive air sampling program was initiated.
In May, 2012 the toe slopes of the southeast side of the South Quarry were covered with an EVOH
liner to control odours and limit air intrusion.
In June, 2012 Jim Teter, a senior Republic executive was brought in to Bridgeton. Additional
corporate resources were allocated. Very strong odours continued to be reported in nearby business.
In August, 2012 work started on the first toe trench at top of quarry wall to intercept gas, temperature,
pressure. The toe trench was designed to capture leachate and landfill gas escaping at the MSW/
Bedrock interface. Work on the GIW's also started in August of 2012.
An Air Quality Monitoring Program was implemented in August, 2012. It was the first time ambient
Air SUMMA samples pulled.
Five New Trench Wells were completed in November, 2012. Craig Almanza becomes Area Manager.
He becomes the point person for the incident. An Odour Management Plan was prepared under his
direction in Nov., 2012
In December, 2012 Craig Almanza was transferred to Bridgeton to help manage SSE problem. David
Vasbinder was transferred from Bridgeton Landfill to Lemon Landfill. A Heat Dissipation Barrier
Plan was also prepared by PJ Carey Associates.
In January, 2013 SCS prepared a detailed design for the Gas Interceptor Well System (GIW). The
design competed with the heat removal system recommended by Carey. Almanza chose to implement
the SCS design. The plan was approved by MDNR. A grid based settlement monitoring program was
initiated to track the reaction front.
In February, 2013 odour complaints continued. A key complaint was from nearby SSM DePaul
Health Centre. MDNR issued an Order to start collecting air quality data.
On March 1, 2014 Bridgeton experienced a blow out failure on gas well 30R. Crews had to work
through the night to contain the blow-out.
On March 21, 2013 MDNR referred the violations to Attorney General Kris Koster. The AG filed a
lawsuit to ensure Republic Services completed all promised actions.
Page 49
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
In April, 2013 Bridgeton announced the completion of 40 new promised gas wells.
In May, 2013, Bridgeton commenced removal of the RCP (reinforced concrete pipe) that was a source
of LFG venting and odours. The First Agreed Order was reached between the Attorney General and
Bridgeton.
In June, 2013 the RCP abandonment program was completed.
Photo 6-1. Decommissioning RCP in June, 2013. (Source PL1 – 0562625)
In July, 2013 Bridgeton submitted plans for an EVOH Cap on entire South Quarry Area.
In August, 2013 placement of 32 acres of EVOH geomembrane was completed. This was initially
partially successful as leakage continued around wells. First EVOH boots were added, and later
Neoprene boots were added to affect a good seal.
On February 16, 2014 a fire broke out on the Southeast Side of the landfill. The fire was allegedly
caused by a break in a high pressure pneumatic air line driving the leachate well pumps.
On February 10, 2015 the Pattonville Fire Dept. InfraRed showed two hot spots in the North Quarry
with high temps according to Deputy Chief LaVanchy.
In March, 2014 Bridgeton upgraded the on-site leachate storage system adding first of four 1 million
gallon storage tanks.

Page 50
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 6-2. Drilling Replacement LFG Well With Bucket Auger Rig. Jan. 20, 2015 (Source,
Brenda Ardrey)
In controlling the SSSER Republic Services reportedly spent $410 million at Bridgeton to February
10, 2015.

Page 51
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
7. Landfill Fire History

The Bridgeton Landfill has a long standing history of landfill fire. Fire in the North Quarry occurred
in 1992 and subsequently reignited (or was never properly put out) in 1994. MDNR staff have also
suggested that a fire may have occurred in 2006. The current event started as a subsurface smoldering
event on or before December 10th, 2009 and escalated to a full scale SSSER event sometime in
February, 2011. A surface fire commenced due to the broken oxygen line on the southwest face of the
South Quarry on February 16th, 2014.
In reviewing statistics published by the NFPA, LFCI has determined that the statistical probability of a
major Level 4 landfill fire is about one in 200 per annum. With three or four major fire / reaction
events in less than 20 years Bridgeton Landfill is well outside the norm, especially since it has been a
closed facility for more than 10 years.
7.1 1992 Fire Incident

The 1992 fire occurred in the North Quarry at Taussig Road. The fire was first reported as a
subsurface fire, on September 25th, 1992. Subsequently, the fire broke out to surface at the bedrock
MSW interface on November 30th, 1992. The fire was extremely difficult to fight because it burned at
depth and because the fire was getting oxygen through the rock mass.
According to the County Health Inspector the area in the vicinity of the fire was poorly covered with
lots of exposed waste and resulted in enormous odour problems.
The fire continued to burn throughout 1993 and 1994 while strategies to contain it were developed.
Leachate wells in the area started venting as a result of the fire in 1994 and a 5’ diameter blow hole
developed.
A suppression plan involving pumping of bentonite slurry along the bedrock interface was initiated to
cut off the oxygen supply in April, 2014. This strategy was effective and the fire was extinguished on
April, 27th, 1994, a year and a half after the fire first started.
7.2 2006 Fire

Ms. Brenda Ardrey has a recollection of a fire event that was mentioned in a historical report. As of
the time of writing this document, she has not located the paper.
7.3 2009 SSO / Spontaneous Combustion / Smoldering

Bridgeton field staff commenced reporting hot wells in 2008 and requested authorization to operate the
wells at elevated temperature. Bridgeton staff reported the initiation of a subsurface oxidation event
(SSO) in May, 2009. At that time well CO levels were below 500 ppm. On December 10th, 2009 CO
levels in well 67 exceeded the 500 ppm threshold. LFCI believes that spontaneous combustion was
initiated near well 67 as a result of elevated temperatures due to the SSO. LFCI uses the 500 ppm CO

Page 52
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
concentration as an indicator that a smoldering reaction is likely. New wells were added and pumping
rates increased by 40% in September of 2009.
The smoldering fire grew to involve more and more wells. By December 22nd, 2010 about 15 wells
were involved in the SSO/smolder. The event was reported to Senior Management and aggressive
action to contain the burning event was initiated.
Measures were undertaken in 2010 to control odours. These included additional wells, geomembrane
liners and increased extraction rates on the LFG system.
In February, 2011 heat from the smoldering fire initiated an SSSER. The SSSER spread quickly to
involve about 75% of the South Quarry by 2014. The SSSER continues to this day, being most active
in the Southwest corner and approaching the area of the “neck”.
In 2012 the SSSER became more aggressive and continued to grow throughout 2012 and 2013. The
reaction generated catastrophic odour impacts on the community of Bridgeton. The record indicates
that a number of individuals with chemical sensitivities were seriously affected.
LFCI notes that during a review of the Deposition by Craig Almanza, he indicated that he would never
purchase a house near a landfill due to the risks of odour. He indicated that “Landfills do not bake
cookies.” This comment suggests an apparent lack of compassion regarding the impacted residents of
the area. The serious odours clearly affected their lives for several years.
On a previous project in Iqaluit, Canada, LFCI has conducted research on the release of dioxins and
furans during low temperature burning of landfill gas. The research papers that were reviewed suggest
that generation of dioxins during low-temperature smoldering-type fires in MSW is common.
Generation of Dioxins and Furans is an environmental impact that is generally not assessed due to the
difficulty of sampling for these compounds. LFCI recommends that MDNR undertake dioxin
sampling in nearby areas downwind the South Quarry in the prevailing wind direction.
7.4 2014 Fire

On February 16th, 2014 the Pattonville Fire Dept. responded to a fire that occurred at the landfill toe on
the northwest side of Bridgeton Landfill. According to the Bridgeton staff this fire incident was
initiated by the failure of a sub-cover pneumatic air line that introduced a steady flow of oxygen
beneath the geomembrane liner. The air leak initiated a spontaneous combustion fire that
subsequently melted the geomembrane.
The fire was promptly extinguished and the area was buried by dirt by site staff and landfill
contractors until the liner could be repaired. Subsequently, Bridgeton staff relocated all air lines above
the geomembrane liner. Photos 7-1 and 7-2 relates to this fire incident.

Page 53
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 7-1. February 2014 Fire Before Suppression Action
Photo 7-2. Fire Zone after fire extinguished

Page 54
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
8. Monitoring Data Review

8.1 Temperature Background
Temperature is a key indicator in the detection of landfill fires, and indeed, landfill decomposition
processes in general. Table 8-1 presents a visual summary of key temperatures associated with
anaerobic and aerobic decomposition of MSW, subsurface oxidation reaction, smoldering and
combustion.
Most MSW landfills are operated in the anaerobic state, whereby methanogenesis (the production of
CH4 and CO2 by methanogenic bacteria) is promoted. Typically, anaerobic temperatures in the core of
MSW landfills exist at temperatures of typically 131 ºF or less (some reported maximum of 140 ºF).
For this reason, 131ºF is the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for maximum LFG extraction
well temperature. Landfill operators are required to obtain authorization to operate wells above this
threshold temperature.
Aerobic bacteria produce more heat. Thus, if oxygen is allowed to enter into the MSW mass as a
result of aggressive application of vacuum at an LFG control well, temperatures in the waste mass can
escalate. Aerobic bacteria typically generate MSW temperatures up to 167 ºF and have been known to
increase temperatures up to 176 ºF. It is generally recognized in the solid waste industry that operation
of landfills in the aerobic mode is subject to an increased risk of spontaneous combustion and landfill
fire.
Temperatures above 170 ºF in landfills are considered indicative of some form of chemical oxidation,
chemical hydration, or other chemical reaction occurring within the waste mass. Hydration of
aluminum dross is a prime example of an exothermic chemical reaction that can develop temperatures
above 170 ºF in the waste mass, and ultimately lead to subsurface exothermic reactions (SER), and/or
subsurface fire.
The boiling point of water is 212 ºF. Because the conversion of water from liquid to gas phase,
commonly known as steam generation, is a strongly endothermic (energy consuming) reaction, water
is very effective at cooling the surrounding waste mass. LFCI has effectively prescribed water
application as a cooling medium on many landfill fire suppressions over the years. The conversion of
water to steam results in a volume increase of 1,700 times at STP. In a confined space, such as deep
within the waste mass, this conversion leads to a large increase in the partial pressure of water, and
indeed in the total subsurface pressure. Production of steam is a key reason why an uncontrolled blow
out of an LFG well has been experienced at Bridgeton in the past, as illustrated in Photo 8-1, taken by
Brenda Ardrey on March 1, 2014.

Fahrenheit Celsius
Deg. F Deg. C
1,832 1,000
1,382 750
932 500
608 320 Upper Limit of Torrefaction (low temp. Pyrolysis)
Fire
601 316 Wood ignites spontaneously
500 260
Decay of Wood
400 204
Exothermic
392 200
392 200 Minimum temperature for Industrial Water Gas Shift Reaction (fast)
324 162 Melting point of EVOH Resin
300 149
290 143
280 138
Reaction in MSW
270 132
260 127
Exothermic
Subsurface
Suspected
250 121
240 116
230 110
220 104 Bridgeton Trigger for Elevated Temps in Waste per TMP's
212 100 Boiling Point of Water
210 99
Heat Transfer and
Exothermic Metal
200 93
190 88
180 82
Decomposition Oxidation
176 80 Maximum Biological Temperature per LFCI experience

175 79 Bridgeton Trigger for Elevated Temps in GEW's
170 77
167 75 Upper Limit of Aerobic Biologic Decomposition Temps. MSW
165 74 Bridgeton typical top line of methanogenesis.
Biological
160 71
Aerobic
150 66
145 63 Temperature to which variance issued for running hot wells
140 60
131 55 NSPS standard for maximum temperature in well
130 54
Anaerobic Biological
120 49
110 43
Decomposition
100 38
90 32
80 27
70 21
60 16
Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 LFCI TEMPERATURE SCALE Table

Drawn By: NL
IDENTIFYING KEY
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015 TEMPERATURE RANGES 8-1

Page 56
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 8-1. Steam Released During Blow-Out of GEW-30R (Source, Brenda Ardrey).
A review of the monthly well field monitoring reports for the period leading up to the SER, between
2005 and 2008 indicates that a number of wells in the Bridgeton South Quarry area were routinely
operated at temperatures above 131ºF (See Appendix H, LFG extraction well monitoring data
compiled by Aquaterra between 2005 and 2008). In LFCI’s opinion, aggressive operation of LFG
extraction wells at temperatures above 131ºF presents risk of initiating a subsurface fire, and should be
avoided.
Subsurface temperatures above 212 ºF are extremely hot and only occur in situations where an
aggressive chemical reaction or subsurface fire is occurring. Because all water has converted to the
gaseous phase at these temperatures, the waste quickly dries out as the steam is drawn out of the waste
mass via the LFG extraction system. Thus, a hot, dry waste mass could potentially develop. Such a
waste mass would be at higher risk of conventional fire (exothermic oxidation) should the waste mass
be introduced to an oxygen source, such as incursion of atmospheric air as a result of a failure in the
air impervious cover system.
During a personal communication with Ms. Brenda Ardrey of MDNR, LFCI was informed that most
of the material encountered during borings into the reacted zone is grey, wet and has the consistency of
wet sloppy ash. Therefore, it would appear that the reaction is consuming most of the available carbon
as combustion gases, leaving behind mainly inert ash.
It has been LFCI’s experience that temperatures measured at subsurface monitoring points are
invariably much lower than the highest temperatures that are actually present in the subsurface.
Foremost, the temperature of LFG drawn out of Bridgeton’s gas wells, which is recorded by

Page 57
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
monitoring technicians during their rounds by inserting a Fluke thermometer into the gas flow, is an
averaged temperature of all of the gas being drawn from that particular well. As such, it measures the
average temperature of a mixture of LFG drawn from both cooler and warmer zones within the well’s
zone of influence.
Second, it has been LFCI’s experience that even point specific monitoring probes such as the TMPs
are very rarely developed exactly at the hot spot in the subsurface. In LFCI’s experience, sub surface
fires tend to develop in localized areas and then spread out somewhat akin to octopus tentacles,
following air permeable pathways that efficiently convey the heated gas. As a result, most of the
waste mass in the subsurface remains much colder than nearby zones that are actually combusting.
Typically, LFCI’s subsurface thermistor investigations yield temperatures of 167 ºF or less, while
follow up excavations ultimately expose material that is actually on fire, in some cases at temperatures
above 1,832ºF. Photo 8-2 shows very hot material within an MSW landfill where nearby temperatures
in the surrounding waste mass were less than 167 ºF and the ground temperature was -104 ºF.
Therefore, LFCI recommends that the temperatures being observed at Bridgeton, particularly the
temperatures from the GEW’s and GIW’s be considered only as rough indicators of subsurface
temperature, and that it be anticipated that actual subsurface temperatures in the heart of a reaction will
likely be much hotter.
Photo 8-2. Hot Zone at Dawson Creek Landfill in 2007 (exposed SSO)
Third, as in a burning cigarette, the temperature at the reaction front will be much hotter than the
temperature in the rest of the waste mass, both ahead, and behind the reaction front. As an example,
during a fire investigation project at Carmon Landfill in Israel LFCI investigated a number of
smoldering collapse craters that had developed on the landfill surface. Although waste mass
Page 58
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
temperatures were less than 110 ºF in front of and behind the smoldering front, at the smoldering front
itself, temperatures exceeded 932 ºF.
In three dimensions, the smoldering front, or reaction front occurring in the subsurface is likely to be
some form of irregular 2 dimensional surface, like a growing sphere, crater, sink hole, or pipe. In any
case, as this front advances and expands, it is likely to affect only a small portion of a gas extraction
well at any given time, thus temperature measurements from GEWs are less likely to record the full
temperature increase of the reaction.
8.2 Early Temperature Measurements

Well monitoring data from 2005 to 2008 indicates that seven South Quarry wells were operated at
temperatures above 131 ºF under authorization from St. Louis Dept. of Health, including 12A, 13,
19A, 28, 34, 56, and 67. The field monitoring data at those wells shows that temperatures at wells
12A, 56 and 67 oscillate wildly between 50 and 150ºF. Most other wells do not exhibit this oscillation
in temperatures. It almost appears that the wells were intentionally overdrawn with atmospheric air in
an attempt to cool them and to keep the wells below the 145 ºF compliance temperature. Monitoring
events showing diluted LFG (i.e. simultaneous drop in CH4 and CO2) at presence of gas flow rate
supports this thought. As an example, see GEW-16R data between Dec., 2009 and Feb., 2010
(extracted from the LFG database, BL_004_0002789) presented in Appendix N. Data clearly shows
that the temperature of this well was kept below the threshold by overpulling the well as gas flow rate
of fluctuating between 12 and 51 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm).
8.3 Gas Well Temperature Measurements

Gas well temperature measurements have been collected monthly by Bridgeton staff and active gas
extraction wells and the information has been compiled in the SCS data base. Coloured maps of well
head temperatures have been plotted monthly and submitted quarterly to MDNR. LFCI has compiled
the continuous record of these plots and contoured those temperatures that exceed 171 ºF. The plots
are presented in Appendix C. As discussed, above, temperatures above 170 ºF are considered
abnormal in MSW landfills and are not generally caused by normal methanogenic or aerobic bacterial
activity.
By scanning through the data set it is apparent that the high temperature zone of the SER appeared to
be in the northern half of the landfill in January, 2013, to gradually expand westward toward the
“amphitheatre area” by Sept. 2013, to really heat up and expand in October, 2013, to die back to the
northwest corner during the winter months of January and February, 2014, to heat up and cover most
of the south quarry by March and April, 2014, to be constrained in a reaction zone around the
“amphitheatre” and the south slope in June, July and August, 2014. By January, 2015, the warmest
areas were in the southwest face and the east corner. By May, 2015, the warm areas appear to have
expanded, particularly on the southwest slope where the SER appears to be most intense. However,
several wells remain above 171 ºF near the “neck”.

Page 59
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
The temperature contour charts presented in Appendix C, do not correlate well with settlement
contours presented in Appendix D, or more correctly, the high temperatures seem to lag behind.
For example in the settlement plots the highest settlement rates noted in our analysis were occurring in
the west quadrant of the South Quarry in August to September, 2013 while the temperature profiles
indicated that the north quadrant was warmest at that time. However, by May, 2015 it appears that the
south quadrant was becoming the warmest whereas the settlement had already occurred in that area 18
months previously. In general, the expansion of the temperature front appears to lag behind all of the
gas and settlement fronts. Also, it appears to be the parameter that decreases the slowest once the
reaction has halted, which is consistent with the observation that MSW is a good insulating material.
It has been LFCI’s experience on several oxygen suppression fire extinguishment projects, that MSW
is an excellent insulator and that it typically takes years for high temperatures in the subsurface to
dissipate. Thus as the SER continues in the subsurface over months and years, temperatures continue
to be maintained or to increase, long after the rapid settlement front has passed.
Although the patterns presented in the contour information from the GEW temperature measurements
suggest that the temperature front is cooling and that the hot zone is shifting to the south quadrant,
LFCI is not fully convinced of that conclusion. It is important to recognize that temperatures in the
GEW wells are highly dynamic as a result of the large settlements that are being experienced and air
incursion into some of the wells. Bridgeton is experiencing failures of many of the GEW’s as a result
of settlement (they are melting, corroding and being thrust upwards and crimped as the waste mass
settles around them). As a result, Bridgeton is re-drilling new wells, often to much shallower depths
of only 50’ to 150’. Typically, near surface temperatures are much cooler due to conductive cooling
from the ground surface, and possibly due to overdraw of colder atmospheric air in some wells.
Therefore, LFCI expects that at depth temperatures may be much higher than indicated by the GEW
measurements.
LFCI has also analyzed the temperature readings of the GEW’s temporally as a scatter plot. First,
Figure 8-1 presents the temperature monitoring data from the entire SCS LFG database plotted against
balance gas.

Page 60
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 8-1. Temperature Scatter Plot
There appear to be three clusters on the graph, the first between 70 and 130 ºF which is interpreted as
normal anaerobic conditions, the second between 130 and 150 ºF which is interpreted as aerobic
conditions or heat transfer zone and the third, above 150 ºF which is interpreted as the SER zone.
Again, these zones do not align perfectly with LFCI’s temperature zone divisions because
temperatures in GEW’s are typically lower than actual MSW temperatures.
Similar plots are generated on a year by year basis in Appendix L. Looking at the data on a year by
year basis, in 2011 most of the GEW readings were in the normal anaerobic zone, with a cluster of
outliers in the aerobic zone and a few outliers in the SER zone. By 2012, more wells were in the SER
zone and temperatures were increasing. By 2013, it appears the only one half of the data points
remained in the normal anaerobic zone, and many GEW temperatures were climbing to the steam
control temperature of 212 ºF. The pattern for 2014 was similar to 2013, except that there appear to be
fewer data points, probably because wells were lost.
On Figure 8-1 notice that there is a strong correlation between increasing temperature and increasing
balance gas within the aerobic and SSE zones of the plot. Within the aerobic zone this trend is due to
increased biological activity generating more heat, in the reaction zone it is due to increased chemical
reaction activity, as indicated by increasing concentrations of H2.

Page 61
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
8.4 Downhole Temperature Monitoring Probe (TMP) Measurements

Bridgeton has developed a number of dedicated thermistor probes in the vicinity of the neck. These
probes, labelled TMP 1 to 14 were installed in late 2012. Additional TMP’s were added more
recently, but LFCI has not reviewed readings from these new probes.
Figure 8-2 is a plot of the maximum temperatures observed in each TMP nest as a function of time. It
is apparent that temperatures in most of the TMP’s are trending in the 140 to 180 ºF range, well above
the normal anaerobic temperature range.
However, three of the TMP’s, TMP-5, 6 and 7 have spiked up to steady state temperatures of 250 to
270 ºF, and TMP 5 peaked at 310ºF. LFCI believes that these three TMP’s are situated very close to
an active reaction zone where all of the available water has been converted to steam and other
exothermic reactions are continuing to generate heat and maintain very warm temperatures. These
SSSER reactions were discussed in Chapter 5 and the effects of these reactions on the gas quality at
Bridgeton is examined in the following sections of this chapter.
Unlike the GEW coloured maps that seems to suggest a cooling trend, the TMP data is showing that
the MSW has reached a very high temperature in three wells (believed to be TMP 7, 8 and 9, but
colours make it hard to be 100% sure), and the temperature appears to have stabilized as of Feb. 27,
2014. LFCI did not review more current TMP information.
Clearly, the zone around TMP 7, 8 and 9 is behaving differently than all of the other TMP’s. LFCI
suspects that TMP 7, 8, and 9 are positioned within the reaction area, whereas all of the other TMP’s
that are being monitored are situated to the west of the GIW line and have not been affected by the
reaction as of Feb. 27, 2014, the most recent date for which the TMP information was plotted. The
remaining TMP’s for which plots are included in Appendix L, show stable temperature profiles, with
colder base and landfill surface and core temperatures rising to about 170ºF. These temperatures are
consistent with maximum biological temperatures of about 175 ºF. Some warming may also be
occurring as the GIW series of wells pull hot steam from the reaction zone around TMP 7, 8 and 9.
The hot steam will condense once temperatures drop below 212 ºF, releasing large amounts of heat
through the phase change.
LFCI is concerned that once the pore water that appears to be cooling the waste mass reaction and
keeping it below 212 ºF is depleted, much of the waste mass may heat up further to temperatures of
310 ºF or higher, as seen in TMP 7, 8 and 9. In the worst case scenario, the large increase in
temperatures could lead to much warmer temperatures at surface, and could result in the loss of
integrity of the existing ethylene-vinyl-alcohol (EVOH) cap which has a melting point around 324 ºF.

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 TMP TEMPERATURE TRENDS Figure
Drawn By: NL
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
PER WEEKLY DATA SUBMITTALS MARCH 4, 2014 8-2
Page 63
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
8.5 Settlement
Settlement is experienced in most municipal landfills. The primary cause of normal settlement of
MSW is biological decomposition of organic waste, leading to the production of landfill gas and
leachate. In LFCI’s experience, settlement rates of about 2% of the total waste column annually are
typical. For a waste column of 300’ such as is typical of the Bridgeton quarry, normal settlement rates
of about 6’ per year would be expected in fresh garbage, and settlement rates lower than that, perhaps
3’ per year would be expected in MSW that has been in place for 10 years or more.
Over most the South Quarry area, the SER has consumed a significant amount of the waste and
resulted in a very large decrease in elevations. Figure 8-3 presents a series of photographs of the
South Quarry landfill over a period of several years that illustrate the dramatic reduction in landfill
height that has been experienced at the site.
P.J. Carey and Associates have been tracking settlement rates at Bridgeton since March 2013, and the
settlement plots are presented in the monthly reports. Copies of those maps, with LFCI’s highlighting
of 1’ and 2’ settlement contours for clarity are presented in Appendix D. Settlement rates in excess of
1.17 ft/month or 14’ per year have been used to identify areas undergoing SER. On a typical waste
column thickness of about 350’, this settlement rate translates to 4% per annum, more than double the
typical MSW settlement rate in fresh MSW.
A review of the 27 monthly settlement plots generated by P.J. Carey Associates between March, 2013
and June 2015 indicate that the rate of settlement in the highly reactive area of the landfill has typically
exceeded 2’ per month, and has peaked at 3’ per month. These settlements translate to annual
settlement rates of 24’ to 36’ per annum which are much greater than normal settlements experienced
at typical MSW landfills. In LFCI’s experience, such large settlement rates have been observed only
in areas that are experiencing a sub-surface landfill fire and areas underlain by thick deposits of
compressible peat.
The settlement plots can be broken down into four distinct periods that show fairly consistent rates of
settlement. From March 2013 to September, 2013 the entire crest of the South Quarry is settling at a
rate in excess of 1’ per month and the southern crest is settling at about 2’ per month. Figure 8-4
presents a typical representation.
From September 2013 to February, 2014 there appear to be two distinct active zones, the more active
one on the south side of the south quarry continuing to settle at about 2’ while in the north half the
settlement has slowed down to about 1.3’ per month.
From February, 2014 to August, 2014 settlement continued to be more active in the southern half of
the south quarry, with two zones developing and settlement rates continuing at about 1 to 2’ per year.

3-12-2013
6-6-2013
8-10-2013
9-25-2013
7-20-2015
CLIENT: PROJECT: TITLE: SCALE: DATE: PROJECT NO:
N.T.S. 2015/08/26 LFCI 14010

yyyy/mm/dd
MISSOURI ATTORNEY BRIDGETON LANDFILL
GENERAL OFFICE FIRE INVESTIGATION DRAWING NO:
DRAWN NL
CHECKED TS
Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 SETTLEMENT CONTOURS FOR Figure
Drawn By: NL MARCH-APRIL, 2013
Reviewed By:
Date:
TS
24 AUG 2015
BY P.J. Carey & Associates and Civil & Environmental Consultants 8-4
Page 66
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Finally, from August, 2014 to June 2015, the greatest settlement was occurring in the southern corner
of the south quarry, with settlement rates averaging about 1.6’ per month and slowly decreasing.
Overall, the plots indicate that the rate of mass loss within south quarry has been decreasing over time
and the most active settlement area has been shifting to the south corner of the south quarry. LFCI
believes this is primarily the result of material within the north portion of the quarry being consumed
at an earlier time, prior to March, 2013. Photo 8-3 shows that significant settlement on the north
portion of the South Quarry had indeed already taken place by that time.
LFCI is of the opinion that should the SER move into the north quarry where the waste material is
presently unconsumed, the rate of reaction could once again escalate to levels previously observed in
2012 and 2013.
Photo 8-3. Bridgeton Landfill South Quarry on March 12th, 2013, Looking Northwest
According to the law of conservation of mass, and assuming that the density of the waste mass is
remaining roughly constant, one would expect that the large decrease in landfill air space would be
associated with a release of total mass as landfill gas emissions and leachate releases.
LFCI notes that an analysis of settlement rate that factors the total waste column thickness would be
more accurate at pinpointing rapidly reacting areas, nevertheless, since all of the south quarry has a
depth of approximately 240’, and the waste pyramid piled on top of the rock quarry had a maximum
elevation of about 100’, overall waste column thickness does not deviate greatly. In the future, if the
reaction moves northward beyond the topographic step in the north quarry, then overall waste
thickness should be taken into consideration.
8.6 Methane
Methane is the primary landfill gas that is tracked at all landfills that operate LFG collection systems.
Normal methane concentrations in landfill gas are 50 to 60%. Methane concentrations at this landfill
have been monitored and entered into the SCS data base. Prior to 2008, methane concentrations in the
entire south quarry were typical of methanogenesis. A detailed analysis of methane concentration
changes on a year by year basis is presented, together with the trends for CO2.

Page 67
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
8.7 Carbon Dioxide

CO2 is the second primary landfill gas generated during methanogenesis. Typically, CO2
concentrations in LFG are 40 to 50%. When air incursion occurs, methane levels tend to decline and
CO2 levels tend to rise as aerobic microbes produce predominantly CO2 gas.
8.8 Trends in Methane and CO2 Concentrations at Bridgeton

Scatter plots of CH4 and CO2 provide a lot of useful insight regarding conditions inside a landfill.
Figure 8-5 presents a scatter plot of gas chemistry collected from a major MSW landfill in Canada. As
can be seen in that plot, most data points cluster around 50 to 60% methane and 40 to 50% CO2 with a
CH4:CO2 ratio of between 1 to 1.5.
Figure 8-5. Gas Composition for Major MSW Landfill in Canada
Major MSW Landfill
The following figures present a series of similar gas composition plots for Bridgeton Landfill for the
years 2007 to 2014. These plots are also provided in Appendix M.
The observed changes in gas composition provide a lot of insight into the evolution of the SSSER
event.

Page 68
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 8-6. Bridgeton LFG Composition in 2007
As can be seen in comparing Figure 8-5 and 8-6, in 2007 Bridgeton gas chemistry indicated a normal,
healthy MSW landfill under methanogenic conditions.
The same pattern was replicated in 2008. Figure 8-7 shows that again, gas composition was pretty
much normal, except for a cluster of two points with CO2 at 55% and methane at 35-40%. This is the
very first sign of possible aerobic decomposition due to oxygen/ air intrusion.

Page 69
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 8-8 presents the 2009 data. On this graph, things are starting to become abnormal. A number
of data points are plotting above 60% CO2 and well outside of the normal cluster. An investigation
into which wells were abnormal revealed that wells 16, 35, 36 and 37 were the source of the high CO2
readings. A review of balance gas levels in those wells revealed numerous readings in the 10.0 to
18.9% balance gas (data extracted from database, BL_004_0001964, and provided in Appendix M).
Temperatures in Well 36 were reported as high as 130ºF.
Figure 8-8 Bridgeton LFG Composition in 2009
Figure 8-9 plots the locations of the wells that had elevated CO2 levels. As shown in Figure 8-9 with
blue symbols, three of the four wells were located on the northeast face of the Quarry, while well 16
was located in the middle of the northwest face.
Also shown on Figure 8-9 are the locations of the seven wells that were noted to be operating at high
temperature (above 131 ºF) and for which the Saint Louis County Dept. of Health required that
additional monitoring be undertaken. Of interest, all problem wells are close to the outer perimeter of
the landfill, consistent with the hypothesis that air incursion is the probable starting cause of the
reactions.

= High CO
= High Temperature (2008)
SCALE APPROX. 1:3000

1 cm = approximately 30 m
GAS WELLS WITH CO > 55% 2009
N.T.S. 2015/08/26 LFCI 14010

yyyy/mm/dd
DRAWN NL
CHECKED TS
Page 71
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 8-10 plots the gas composition in 2010. As can be seen in the red box, there are now a large
number of wells with abnormally high CO2 levels (above 55%) and low methane levels. In 2010, the
number of problem wells increased to 17, including SEW/GEW-12A, GEW-14A, GEW-26R, GEW-
30R, SEW-31R, GEW-33R, GEW-34, GEW-35, GEW-36, GEW-37, GEW-57R, GEW-58, GEW-
59R, GEW-65, GEW-66, GEW-68 and GEW-83.
When the locations of the wells are plotted in Figure 8-11, most cluster in the northeast quadrant. Of
interest, that is where the highest hydrogen clusters, CO clusters and temperature clusters are noted on
the first monthly report plots prepared in January, 2013. LFCI suspects that the northeast quadrant
was one of two starting reaction areas in the South Quarry where the reaction has been occurring for
the longest time, resulting in the highest temperatures.

= High CO

N.T.S. 2015/08/26 LFCI 14010

yyyy/mm/dd
DRAWN NL
CHECKED TS
Page 73
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 8-12 shows the XY scatter graph for 2011. In this plot, it appears that more than half of the
data points are plotting in the air intrusion zone with high CO2 and low methane. There also appear
two clusters of points with very low methane levels, below 5%. These are in the area where the
SSSER was occurring at the time. The following section will reveal that the SSSER reaction areas are
associated with very low to zero methane concentrations and high H2 concentrations that are reflected
in high balance gas. Analysis of the data reveals that a total of 34 wells produced LFG with more than
55% CO2. Of those wells, the most concerning wells with the highest CO2 readings included 12A,
21A, 31R, 57R, 65A, 66 and 70R.
The locations of the high CO2 wells for 2011 are shown in Figure 8-13. The figure shows that in 2011
most of the impacted wells were found in the northern half of the South Quarry, with some wells also
impacted along the southeast and southwest toe where air incursion is known to have occurred as far
back as 2010 based on Figure 4-2.

= High CO

N.T.S. 2015/08/26 LFCI 14010

yyyy/mm/dd
DRAWN NL
CHECKED TS
Page 75
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 8-14, which plots the 2012 data, indicates that the landfill areas producing methane continue to
shrink, with fewer data points,, the more wells are now operating as aerobic wells, and that a much
larger area is now affected by the SSSER, as indicated by those wells plotting below 5% methane (i.e.
left of the green line in the figure). A trend noted in this figure that may be of concern is that a few
data points are plotting at very high balance gas levels, indicating significant oxygen intrusion. This
condition is occurring in wells 12A and 20A in 2012.

Page 76
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
The 2013 data set shows that the SSSER continues to expand, with the majority of data points plotting
in the SSSER zone. Also, more wells appear to be in a condition of severe overdraw, with very high
balance gas levels. LFCI is concerned about these data points because it is not possible to determine
from these plots whether the subsurface conditions are due to gas quality returning to normal
atmospheric as a result of all reactants being spent, or whether they represent conditions of high
hydrogen.
The data for 2014 plotted in Figure 8-16 indicates that the SSSER chemistry continues to dominate.
Very few wells remain the aerobic decomposition zone, as most have been consumed by the SSER.
The wells showing normal methanogenic conditions are originating from the North Quarry. The
number of wells indicating Stage 5 conditions continues to increase.
8.9 Oxygen
Oxygen gas is found in the atmosphere at a concentration of 21%. In landfills oxygen is rapidly
depleted by aerobic microbes. Landfills in an anaerobic, methanogenic state generally have less than
2% oxygen, unless the LFG extraction system is being operated aggressively. NSPS allows a
maximum oxygen concentration of 5%. The Bridgeton SOP’s target oxygen levels below 1% and
specify a maximum oxygen level of 2%. As can be seen in Appendix E, many of the wells were
aggressively pulled and experienced oxygen intrusion between 2008 and 2011, leading to the initiation
of one or more SSO events in December, 2009 and subsequently, to the start of the SSSER in February
and March, 2011.

Page 77
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
8.10 Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide has been recognized as a prime indicator of subsurface landfill fire by numerous
landfill fire experts (Stearns, 1984, Thalhamer, 2013, Sperling, 2001). In particular, CO is generated
during incomplete combustion in an oxygen deficient environment. Such conditions frequently exist
in subsurface fire and subsurface smolder events (SSE). CO is also a byproduct of low temperature
pyrolysis, also known as Torrefaction. LFCI uses a CO concentration of 500 ppm as an indicator of
potential smoldering nearby, a level of 750 ppm as an indicator of fire or exothermic reaction likely
and a level of 1,000 ppm as a strong indicator of landfill fire, smoldering or pyrolysis occurring.
Bridgeton staff have been reporting on CO concentrations in monthly landfill reports since January
2013. LFCI has compiled the coloured maps of well head CO concentrations presented in Appendix
B. Concentrations of 5,000 ppm or more were initially reported in the central portion of the South
Quarry in January, 2013, gradually declining over time. Elevated CO concentration started to be noted
in the south corner of the South Quarry in Sept. 2013. There appears to be a strong correlation
between active settlement in areas and the production of CO. As soon as production of CO ceases in
an area, the accelerated rate of settlement appears to stop as well. This suggests that CO production is
related to volume loss, either through pyrolysis, smoldering, or both.
8.11 Hydrogen
Hydrogen is typically not observed in LFG produced by landfills during the steady state methanogenic
phase. However, at Bridgeton very high levels of hydrogen, up to 30% or more, are routinely detected
in the LFG. Similar hydrogen concentrations were noted by LFCI on a landfill fire investigation in
Winnipeg that was undertaken in 2014. At that time, LFCI suspected that the H2 was being produced
by a water gas shift reaction. This reaction, and other chemical reactions that may be taking place in
the subsurface, were described in Chapter 5 and are explored in the context of Bridgeton Landfill in
the following section.
H2 concentration in LFG have also been reported and plotted in the monthly reports generated by SCS
since January, 2013. Careful review of those plots has revealed that the hydrogen concentration
patterns appear to correlate strongly with the distribution of CO. This observation further supports the
theory that H2 is being produced by the water gas shift reversible reaction. Whenever, CO is
produced, some of that CO reacts with available water to produce H2 gas and CO2. Compiled H2
concentration coloured maps are presented in Appendix A.
8.12 Observed Reactions Trends of SSSER

When analyzing the trends in the gas composition data compiled in the SCS database, LFCI noted that
the same reaction pattern was observed in a vast majority of the 36 wells analyzed. Graphs that show
historic LFG composition for CO2, CH4 and temperature are presented in Appendix G. Results of
laboratory chemical analysis were also plotted and analyzed. These graphs showed the same reaction
pattern.

Page 78
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 8-17 presents a graph of the field based gas composition data for well GEW-12A that illustrates
the typical pattern that has been identified by LFCI, as described below. Figure 8-18 presents the
SUMMA laboratory sample results for the same well. Please note that LFCI used a highlighter to
identify trend lines in the two figures. Some trends are defined by different colours in the field data
(Figure 8-17 and Appendix G) vs. the laboratory data (Figure 8-18 and Appendix E). LFCI apologizes
for this discrepancy.
Figure 8-17 Field Readings for CO2, CH4 and temperature for Well GEW-12A

Page 79
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Figure 8-18. Laboratory Sample LFG Analysis for GEW-12A
Based on a qualitative review of these plots we have determined the SSSER process involves a five
step multi – reaction process:
Prior to the reaction starting, gas composition is typical of methanogenic conditions, with methane
levels, slightly higher than CO2 levels. Prior to the onset of the reaction, aggressive LFG extraction
from wells, as indicated by highly fluctuating LFG temperatures and declining CH4 levels indicate that
the well experienced air intrusion. Well temperatures are generally below 131ºF.
Step 1. Overdraw Condition: In Reaction Step 1 a significant drop in CH4 levels is observed,
highlighted with a lime green colour in Figure 8-17. In some instances, CO2 concentrations are
observed to increase as well (purple), in other wells CO2 concentrations remain flat. LFCI interprets
the data to indicate a transition from methanogenic dominant conditions to aerobic dominant
conditions where the primary gas being generated is CO2.
Step 2 Aerobic Heating Phase: In Reaction Step 2 the aerobic decomposition process becomes
dominant. CO2 concentrations typically continue to increase to between 60 and 80% (purple) and
temperatures generally increase above 130ºF, which is considered the maximum methanogenic
temperature but remain below 175ºF, the maximum aerobic decomposition temperature.
Step 3 Methanation Reaction: In Reaction Step 3 there is a gradual build up in methane,

accompanied by a corresponding decline in CO2. Also, as flagged by the gold line in Figure 8-18, H2
concentrations also decrease. Based on the reaction mechanisms presented by Dr. Grace, LFCI notes

Page 80
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
that the observed changes in gas chemistry are consistent with the onset of the two methanation
reactions, whereby CO and CO2 react with available hydrogen gas to produce methane and water.
These reactions are exothermic, and are thus believed to be responsible for any heat build-up observed
in Step 3.
Step 4 Torrefaction / Water Gas Shift Reaction: Reaction Step 4 is marked by a rapid drop in
methane concentrations to near zero, a significant increase in CO concentrations, an increase in CO2
and an increase in H2. LFCI believes that Step 4 is the onset of torrefaction. At this point sufficient
heat has been generated to initiate a relatively rapid breakdown of organic matter into reaction
products including CO2, CO, H2, H2O and CH4. LFCI suspects that at this point the exothermic water
gas and water gas shift reactions commence, explaining the increase in H2 concentration that can be
seen in Figure 8-18 (cyan highlight), and in many of the plots in Appendix E. Heat generated by the
water gas and water gas shift reactions allows the continuation of the endothermic torrefaction process,
resulting in a self sustaining net exothermic reaction, the SSSER.
The SSSER in Stage 4 appears to last about a year to 18 months in most of the wells, continuing until
all available fuel is consumed. The large scale settlements observed in the South Quarry are indicative
of the loss of mass that is occurring through this reaction, as is the very high concentration in H2 gas.
We understand from observations and interviews with drillers undertaken by Brenda Ardrey of
MDNR, that reacted material generally has the consistency of grey ash.
Step 5. Once available fuel has been consumed, the SSSER stops suddenly, as indicated by a rapid
drop in CO concentrations. At the tail end Step 5, levels of CO2, CO and H2 appear to stabilize. Signs
of air intrusion are noted in some of the wells, with increases in nitrogen and oxygen concentrations.
LFCI believes that fully understanding the reaction process will be key in order to determine the best
method of controlling the reaction. LFCI recommends that Bridgeton Landfill LLC and MDNR
consult with specialists in the thermal energy sector like Dr. John Grace to confirm the trends in this
report and to identify the most effective control strategies to stop or reverse the SSSER reactions.
Some preliminary thoughts on how the reactions could be controlled are presented in Chapter 12 of
this report for consideration and more in depth analysis.
The pyrolysis process generates char as one of the reaction products. Char is a material similar to coal
and charcoal briquettes. Photo 8-4 is a picture of smoldering char being exhumed from a subsurface
landfill at fire at Vancouver Landfill in 2009. When the white hot material at temperature above
1,500ºF was exposed to air it burned aggressively and suppression required prolonged soaking with
copious amounts of water, generating large clouds of steam (Photo 8-5).

Page 81
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 8-4 Exhuming Char at Vancouver, 2009 Photo 8-5. White Hot Char Starting to React
LFCI is concerned about the current uncertainty regarding actual subsurface conditions because the
oxidation reaction for solid carbon is highly exothermic. A review of the long term chemistry data
presented in Section 8.8 and particularly Figures 8-15 and 8-16 is showing that as the SSSER is
depleted, Bridgeton continues to aggressively extract LFG, despite the fact that all biological material
has been consumed and methanogenic and aerobic decomposition reactions have stopped. This
appears to be causing an overdraw condition to develop and incursion of air into the subsurface, as
noted by an increase in balance gas concentrations in 2013 and 2014.
If all of the available organic carbon has been consumed and all that is left of the reacted material is
inert ash, then returning to atmospheric concentrations will not be a problem. However, if there
remains a significant quantity of unreacted char in the subsurface then this could pose a long term risk.
With elevated temperatures and exposure to oxygen through the observed overdraw condition, the
oxidation of char could result in rapid escalation of temperatures. In LFCI’s opinion this condition has
the potential to result in a major subsurface fire. Combustion temperatures for char can exceed
1,500ºF. There is a strong possibility that such a fire event would result in the melting of the EVOH
membrane cap. If not quickly contained, this would allow very rapid incursion of atmospheric air into

Page 82
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
the subsurface, and potentially, a rapid escalation of the fire. At that point it may prove extremely
difficult and highly dangerous to achieve control of the fire due to the risk of equipment collapse.
As a graphic example of the rapid transition from smolder to fire, Photo 8-6, extracted from a paper by
Rein, illustrates that when exposed to air, escalation from smoldering to violent combustion will be
very rapid if oxygen is available.
Photo 8-6. Transition from Smoldering to open flame in polyurethane (conversion from
smoldering to vigorous combustion occurs in only a few seconds
A review of the available chemistry data suggests that on average the Stage 5 post reaction chemistry
appears to be about 50% CO2, 30% H2 and the balance suspected to be nitrogen from air intrusion. A
key question in LFCI’s opinion revolves around the nature of the remaining solid mass post SSSER.
Has all of the available material above the water table fully reacted, leaving behind inert ash residue,
or has a significant percentage of the organic carbon converted to char and tar due to a lack of oxygen
to complete the pyrolysis and oxidation reactions.
LFCI has received third hand information from MDNR’s Brenda Ardrey that drillers reported that drill
cuttings from reaction areas are mostly a grey, wet and sloppy ash like material. However, it is not
clear whether some of the material converts to char, as is deposition testimony from Mr. Almanza it is
mentioned that “The organic materials are consumed by the heat, and you know, they char, they break
down, they reduce.” (BSXL_030_0001953). Also, Ms. Ardrey communicated an on-site discussion
with Mr. Jim Getting, Bridgeton’s resident engineer, that the material in the landfill is like a glowing
red hot charcoal briquette on a bar-b-que. Photo 8 shows some of the cuttings from a recent drilling
program Jan. 22, 2015. The cuttings appear relatively dry and black, possibly indicative of char.

Page 83
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 8-7 Drill cuttings from bucket auger drill hole, Jan. 22, 2015
Photo 8-8 shows a graphic example of what heat char looks like. LFCI has encountered similar
material on several landfill fire overhaul projects. If large pockets of material like this are present in
the sub-surface, and particularly in the near sub-surface area, these could pose a fire risk if exposed to
abundant air.

Page 84
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 8-8 Char Reacting With Oxygen In A Controlled Experiment (Source, Rein, 2009)
In LFCI’s opinion, it is absolutely critical to know whether at the completion of Stage 5, all of the
reactive organic carbon has been depleted and off gassed as CO and CO2, or whether a significant
portion still remains as char. LFCI recommends that MDNR request factual information from
Republic, including cores or other samples of cuttings from previous Sonic drilling programs, or that
additional drilling be undertaken to establish whether a significant amount of reaction product still
remains sub-surface.
8.13 Spatial Evolution of Bridgeton SSSER

To determine the starting point of the SSSER, LFCI examined the chemistry plots in Appendix G.
LFCI picked off the start of Step 4 of the SSSER in each well, the true exothermic reaction. LFCI’s
picks were as follows: the SSSER commenced in well GEW-67A in February, 2011, and then wells
GEW-63 and GEW-35, in March, 2011, GEW 12A in April, 2011, moved to GEW-58 by May, 2011,
GEW-59 by June, 2011, GEW-66 by June, 2011 and GEW 57 by August, 2011. Indeed, when all of
the start times for the Stage 4 reaction from the graphs in Appendix G are plotted on a map (see Figure
8-19), it becomes apparent that the SSSER commenced in February, 2011 at GEW-67A, and shortly
afterwards, a second node started independently in the northeast corner of the South Quarry at
GEW-35. From those two nodes, the SSSER spread at a rate of approximately 50 to 100 yards per
month to the north and south, and somewhat slower to the east and west.

N.T.S. 2015/08/26 LFCI 14010

yyyy/mm/dd
DRAWN NL
CHECKED TS
Page 86
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
It is probably not pure coincidence that GEW-67 and GEW-34 were on the SLCDOH watch list as
early as December, 2008. It is very probable that continued operation of those two wells at elevated
temperatures resulted in the classic aerobic conditions, elevated temperatures and an eventual
smoldering fire in February and March, 2011.
The vacuum application record for Well 67 shows that the well was pulled very hard up to May, 2007
with up to 10” of water column vacuum. This initiated an increase in temperature that exceeded the
NSPS 131ºF trigger for action. Unfortunately, instead of leaving the well shut-off to re-establish
normal methanogenic conditions, the well field operators chose to cycle the well between 1 and 4” of
water column. This resulted in the gradual conversion of the well to aerobic conditions, and ultimately
to the initiation of a subsurface fire in December, 2009 when CO of 600 ppm was detected in GEW-67
according to Michael Lambrich’s deposition (BSLXL_030_0004333).
Indeed, the earliest laboratory data from GEW 67 starting in January, 2011 is already showing CO
levels above 2,000 ppm, which is a strong indicator of smoldering fire. , CO levels in GEW 67 first
exceeded the 500 ppm in December, 2009.
As well, gas flow diluted oxygen concentrations of 2% in late January, 2011 and balance gas
concentrations of 8% indicate that sufficient oxygen was likely present to sustain a smoldering
reaction in the upper portion of that well. Figure 8-20 presents the detailed SUMMA chemistry for
GEW-67.
Figure 8-20 Detailed Laboratory Chemistry for GEW-67 where Smoldering Fire started

Page 87
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Furthermore, the propagation rates determined from Figure 8-19 translate to a propagation rate of 50 to
100 mm/hour. For comparison, Rein reports that the typical spread of a smolder front occurs at 10 to
30 mm/hr. Therefore, the observed reaction appears to spread somewhat faster than a typical smolder.
However, forward smolder reactions where the burn front is pre-heated by combustion gases propagate
faster, and at Bridgeton it is conceivable to assume that hot combustion gases would be drawn toward
active LFG extraction wells, causing the burn front to spread faster than in a static situation. Also,
given that oxygen concentrations in many of the wells are observed at levels of 2 to 4% once the Step
4 reaction is initiated, as can be seen from the plots presented in Appendix E, it is conceivable that
smolder may have played, and continues to play, a significant role in the spread of the SSSER.

Page 88
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
9. Site Observations and Testing

LFCI staff including Dr. Tony Sperling, P.Eng., and Dr. Ali Abedini conducted a two day site
inspection of the Bridgeton Landfill on July 21 and 22, 2015, together with several other
environmental and fire fighting specialists retained as experts by the MDNR. During Day 1 of the site
visit LFCI focused on observing site conditions. During Day 2, LFCI collected LFG samples from 10
LFG extraction wells at Bridgeton, including eight wells in the South Quarry and two wells in the
North Quarry.
9.1 Odours
LFCI noted the presence of the typical “burning landfill” smell immediately at an overview point on
Old St. Charles Road, southeast of the southern property boundary. The odour was very faint but
detectable. During sampling of wells on top of the EVOH liner, LFCI noted the same smell, but at
much stronger levels. The smell permeated all of LFCI’s sampling equipment such that it was
distinctly noticeable in our hotel rooms at the end of the day. Around most of the property, burning
smell odours were generally not noted during our site tour.
9.2 Surface Temperature Observations

LFCI relies on surface temperature measurements as an indicator of landfill fire at depth. Often, hot
combustion gases will vent out of fumaroles on top of the landfill during subsurface fires. In the case
of Bridgeton such conditions could not be visually observed because the entire South Quarry has been
capped with an EVOH geomembrane. Nevertheless, measurements with LFCI’s hand held infra-red
hand held thermometer and MDNR’s thermal imaging revealed a number of hot spots on the land
surface that were abnormally warm. Most of these small crater-like hot spots were noted on the
Southwest face of the landfill.
Photo 9-1. Hot Spot at Sink Hole on Southwest Face

Page 89
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 9-1 is a typical thermal image of one of the hot spots. Notwithstanding that the ground
temperature on the EVOH surface ranged from 110 to 140ºF on a sunny day, the hot spots ranged in
temperature from 160 to 191ºF. The hot spots appeared obvious in infra-red FLIR images. As can be
seen on the image, the maximum temperature in this hot spot was 170 ºF. The area was subject to a
fairly high degree of vacuum because the EVOH liner was pulled tightly into the soil collapse
depressions.
Photo 9-2 shows four of the depressions which are indicative of thermal activity near surface. The fact
that the liner is pulled down tightly indicates that the LFG extraction system is pulling hot gases
downward toward the wells. Clearly, under such conditions atmospheric air overdraw will develop
through any holes in the geomembrane.
Photo 9-2. Cover Soil Collapse Areas, Southwest Face
LFCI’s general guidance, as taught in our Landfill Fire Course is that subsurface fire should be
expected whenever surface temperatures exceed 140ºF. Due to concerns regarding collapse features, it
is imperative that workers and first responders be aware of the collapse risk. An infra-red camera
provides a very valuable tool that will quickly identify potential collapse hazards.

Page 90
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 9-3. Hot spot and potential collapse feature around well. Note ladder for safe access.
Photo 9-4. Hand Held IR Meter 183ºF Photo 9-5. Subsidence Hot Spot 142ºF

Page 91
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
9.3 Liner Integrity Inspection

During the site tour Dr. Sperling examined the EVOH liner for punctures, tears and weld separation.
Photo 9-6 illustrates him carefully examining a failed weld. Numerous small defects were noted on
the landfill surface, mostly associated with infrastructure that was lifting up the membrane from below
due the settlement
Photo 9-6. Dr. Sperling Inspecting Liner
The liner breaches of greatest concern were located along the southeast and southwest toes. In that
area a number of lines penetrated the EVOH liner without boots. One such breach is pictured in Photo
9-7. Because the perimeter gas interceptor trench is located directly beneath this liner, and reportedly
this trench was excavated deep along the bedrock interface to intercept leachate, allowing air to enter
into this system through holes provides an excellent conduit for oxygen into the reacting waste mass.
Another major breach of the liner was noted at a culvert where the liner separated at a boot weld. Note
the high permeability gravels directly below that again provide a direct conduit for air to travel beneath
the liner and into the waste mass. We trust that these major defects were promptly repaired by
Bridgeton staff once located.
LFCI recommends that the liner be inspected at least once per month for major defects such as rips and
tears, and that particular attention be given to the critical area at the landfill toe.

Page 92
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 9-7 Pipe penetrating EVOH liner without a boot.
Photo 9-8 Major Weld Separation Providing Air Intrusion Pathway

Page 93
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
9.4 Well and Header Integrity

During the reaction infrastructure is settling at a rate of several feet per month. As a result, wells are
continuously coming out of the ground as shown in Photo 9-9. Maintaining boots and preventing them
from tearing is a full time job for several technicians. Realigning headers in areas subject to settlement
is also challenging as low spots trap condensate and reduce the ability to extract gas. A typical low
spot is illustrated in Photo 9-10.
Photo 9-9. Gas well gradually rising above ground as waste mass settles
The blank portions of well casing that originally prevented air intrusion are rising close to surface due
to settlement. As a result, the MSW seals between ground surface and slotted screen are being
reduced and at times eliminated. This process dictates that wells need to be re-drilled over time.
Working on these wells presents an obvious fall hazard. LFCI did not observe Bridgeton staff
checking on these wells, but clearly, the ladder pictured in Photo 9-9 is not long enough to do so
safely. Also, is the worker on top of the ladder stabilized by another employee while doing this work
or are monitoring staff working alone when adjusting wells? Given the numerous site hazards around
wells LFCI recommends that monitoring staff never work alone when undertaking field investigations

Page 94
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
in the SSSER reaction zone as the risk of collapses, well failures and blow outs of pressurized wells,
trip and fall hazards at the site is high.
SSSER induced settlement of the MSW is causing numerous depressions such as that pictured on
Photo 9-10. Condensate blockage will cause surging of the well, and indeed will render a well
inoperable once the depth of the pipe belly exceeds the applied vacuum on the header.
Photo 9-10. Low Spot in Header that will trap condensate
As well, the leachate at Bridgeton has a very low pH, and condensate is also expected to be acidic due
to the abundant hydrogen gas. Acidic conditions lead to corrosion of metal. This was observed at
well casing SEW 12-A where tar was noted on the well casing from a leak. A small hole in the casing
was also observed (see Photos 9-11 and 9-12). LFCI understands that steel casing is no longer used
for this reason; however, the same corrosion problems will be experienced on pumping well
infrastructure, valves and other gas control components that are made of steel. LFCI recommends that
conservative estimates be made for frequent maintenance and replacement of any long term pumping
infrastructure, including leachate pumping infrastructure during the entire post-closure period.

Page 95
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 9-11 and 9-12. Tar leaking out of compromised steel casing
As pictured in Photo 9-13, the piping network at Bridgeton is very complex. It is the most complex
LFG infrastructure that both Dr. Sperling and Dr. Abedini have observed to date. Maintaining such a
complex network of dual phase wells, CT’s, LFG extraction pipes and abstraction works, in an
environment where settlement rates of several feet per month are being experienced which is causing
wells to come out of the ground and buckle (see Photo 9-14), and in an environment where the LFG is
corrosive, saturated with particulate materials and tars that frequently clog filters, and is hot enough to
melt pipes (see Photo 9-15), is not an easy task. Given the current situation in the South Quarry, there
remains a high risk of repeated failures of the system that will require continuous inspection and
maintenance until the reaction is fully exhausted.

Page 96
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 9-13. Complex Network of Piping
Photo 9-14. Dr. Abedini testing a well impacted by settlement

Page 97
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 9-15. Melted End Cap
Photo 9-16. Bridgeton Staff Fixing Leaky Sampling Ports During LFCI Site Inspection

Page 98
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
9.5 Field Sampling

On July 22nd LFCI conducted a full day of sampling at 10 LFG wells. Of those, eight were situated in
the South Quarry and two in the North Quarry. The samples were replicated by Bridgeton sampling
staff. Dr. Abedini collected the samples for LFCI and Mike Lambrich collected the samples for
Bridgeton.
The data results are presented in Table 9-1. LFCI found excellent correspondence between the field
readings with LFCI’s GEM 5000 and GEM 2000+ instruments and Bridgeton’s Elkins Envision
analyzer. The only obvious difference was the Elkins Envision instrument consistently read the
oxygen levels 1 to 2% percent lower than LFCI’s GEM instrumentation.
The analysis confirmed that five of the wells tested were strongly impacted by the SSSER. These
included GEW28R, GEW123, GEW140, GEW11 and GEW65. GEW124, GEW109 were moderately
impacted. GEW 2, GEW 3 and GEW39 were not impacted.
A key finding of the LFCI testing was that the SSSER / smolder / settlement front has reached GEW
109. This monitoring well is situated 120 ft. north of the southerly line of GIW wells. This result
unequivocally indicates that the SSSER has passed beyond both lines of GIW wells at the
“neck”. With the reaction moving closer to the North Quarry there exists only a very limited window
to take further action to prevent the SSER from once again escalating out of control and causing
additional hardship on the community of Bridgeton. Furthermore, allowing the reaction to move
forward to the North Quarry would bring the reaction dangerously close to the OU-1 radiological area.
Excellent correlation was observed between LFCI's Gastec detector tubes and lab results for CO. For
example, the tube reading at well 65A was 3,000 ppm and the lab reported 2,900 ppm. Given the
excellent correlation, LFCI believes that collecting SUMMA canisters to test for CO is not necessary
at every reading. LFCI recommends that consideration be given to undertaking laboratory analysis for
CO only during every 5th sampling run to confirm that the correlations observed by LFCI continue to
be true. If data deviates by more than 25% then SUMMA samples should be pulled and tested in the
lab for CO on every sample.
More importantly, field operations staff should act IMMEDIATELY based on the results of the CO
testing and turn wells off if CO levels exceed 500 ppm. Of course, this recommendation does not
apply to the South Quarry where the SSSER is well established, but it does apply to all other areas of
Bridgeton Landfill where the landfill remains in a methanogenic state, as well as to all other Republic
Services Landfills in Missouri where methanogenic conditions dominate. Furthermore, a specialist
familiar with Landfill Fires and SSSER’s should be consulted promptly to conduct a detailed
investigation of landfill gas composition and recommend further action.
Although the H2 meter utilized by LFCI did not correlate as well as the Gastec tubes, the results were
still sufficiently close to also recommend that field analysis for H2 be conducted with this meter. (Our
recommendation is subject to confirmation that the analyzer does not burn out after repeated use in
such a high H2 environment).

TABLE 9‐1. LFCI Compilation of Field and Lab Monitoring Data Collected on July 22nd, 2015
CH4 CO2 O2 Bal H2 S CO N2 H2 Temperature System Pressure Static Pressure

Well ID Date Time
(%) (%) (%) (%) ppm ppm (%) (%) (ᵒF) ("H2O) ("H2O)
LFCI GEW‐3 22‐Jul‐15 10:00 53.7 39.1 1.0 5.9 58 22 ‐ ‐ 120.1 ‐28.32 ‐1.06 1 GEW‐3
RS1 GEW‐3 22‐Jul‐15 56.7 37.5 0.0 5.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 118.0 ‐28.02 ‐1.04 2 GEW‐2
RS2 GEW‐3 22‐Jul‐15 54.5 39.5 0.0 6.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 119.0 3 GEW‐28R
LAB GEW‐3 24‐Jul‐15 7:12 54.0 41.0 < 1.3 ‐ ‐ < 250 4.2 0.094 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 GEW‐124
LFCI GEW‐2 22‐Jul‐15 10:30 53.6 40.0 1.1 5.3 87 16 ‐ ‐ 125.6 ‐28.90 ‐0.29 5 GEW‐123
RS1 GEW‐2 22‐Jul‐15 56.0 41.3 0.1 2.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 123.2 ‐29.05 ‐0.63 6 GEW‐140
RS2 GEW‐2 22‐Jul‐15 55.9 41.5 0.1 2.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 123.4 ‐28.20 ‐0.92 7 GEW‐11
LAB GEW‐2 24‐Jul‐15 7:26 55.0 41.0 < 1.3 ‐ ‐ < 250 2.7 < 0.025 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 GEW‐65A
LFCI GEW‐28R 22‐Jul‐15 11:30 0.5 47.4 6.2 45.9 2500 ‐ ‐ > 186 ‐15.80 ‐15.60 9 GEW‐39
RS1 GEW‐28R 22‐Jul‐15 0.1 45.3 7.1 47.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 184.1 ‐15.70 ‐15.30 10 GEW‐109
RS2 GEW‐28R 22‐Jul‐15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
LAB GEW‐28R 24‐Jul‐15 7:41 0.3 46.0 6.3 ‐ ‐ 2200 23.0 23.0 ‐ ‐ ‐
LFCI GEW‐124 22‐Jul‐15 14:30 25.3 54.8 2.5 17.3 71 ‐ ‐ ‐ 138.8 ‐12.23 LFCI: Analysis of Data:
RS1 GEW‐124 22‐Jul‐15 20.0 61.4 0.1 18.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 141.1 ‐14.19 ‐13.31
RS2 GEW‐124 22‐Jul‐15 19.5 62.2 0.3 18.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 142.0 ‐14.01 ‐13.34 Excellent correspondence between LFCI, Bridgeton and Lab data.
LAB GEW‐124 24‐Jul‐15 7:55 19.0 64.0 < 1.4 ‐ ‐ 1500 < 2.7 14.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ Clear evidence of SSE impacted wells: Levels as follows:
LFCI GEW‐123 22‐Jul‐15 15:00 13.3 61.6 2.0 20.6 ‐ 3500 28.7 179.0 ‐14.29 ‐13.60 GEW28R, GEW123, GEW140, GEW11, GEW65‐A strongly impacted
LFCI‐STP GEW‐123 22‐Jul‐15 15.0 63.0 1.5 19.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ GEW124, GEW109 moderately impacted
RS1 GEW‐123 22‐Jul‐15 7.9 59.7 0.3 32.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 177.7 ‐14.74 ‐14.22 GEW 2 and GEW39 not impacted
RS2 GEW‐123 22‐Jul‐15 8.0 62.9 0.3 28.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐14.19
LAB GEW‐123 24‐Jul‐15 8:10 6.9 63.0 < 1.3 ‐ ‐ 2900 < 2.7 24.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ Key finding is that smoulder/settlement front is at GEW 109
LFCI GEW‐140 22‐Jul‐15 15:55 19.9 55.1 1.2 23.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 184.5 ‐8.02 ‐1.92 This means that SSE has passed beyond both lines of GIW wells
RS1 GEW‐140 22‐Jul‐15 11.5 60.1 0.1 28.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 183.0
RS2 GEW‐140 22‐Jul‐15 10.6 58.8 0.1 30.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 182.7 Excellent correlation between LFCI's GasTec tubes and lab results for CO
LAB GEW‐140 24‐Jul‐15 8:25 10.0 58.0 < 1.4 ‐ ‐ 2400 < 2.8 28.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ Oxygen intrusion is indicated at GEW28R, GEW109 and GEW 39
LFCI GEW‐11 22‐Jul‐15 17:20 4.8 59.6 1.7 33.9 Scrubbed ‐ ‐ 35.0 187.0 ‐18.60 ‐4.47 LFCI concludes that field instrumentation is providing sufficiently accurate data to track event
LFCI‐STP GEW‐11 22‐Jul‐15 4.7 56.3 2.7 35.8 Scrubbed 2500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Lab testing for assessing key parameters of CH4, CO2, O2, H2 is not necessary
RS1 GEW‐11 22‐Jul‐15 3.8 62.0 0.0 34.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 184.6 ‐4.90 H2 instrumentation provides comparable results to lab, this is good news.
RS2 GEW‐11 22‐Jul‐15 3.5 61.8 0.0 34.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 184.6 ‐4.96
LAB GEW‐11 24‐Jul‐15 8:39 3.2 62.0 < 1.4 ‐ ‐ 2300 < 2.7 31.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ LFCI recommends that Gastec analysis for CO become routine monitoring practice
LFCI GEW‐65A 22‐Jul‐15 18:00 2.3 59.6 1.2 36.9 Scrubbed ‐ ‐ 40.1 200.7 ‐0.66 ‐4.00 LFCI recommends that field monitoring for H2 become routine part of program
LFCI‐STP GEW‐65A 22‐Jul‐15 3.6 54.5 2.4 39.5 Scrubbed 3000 ‐ ‐ 89.9 ‐ ‐ LFCI believes expensive laboratory SUMA canister analysis is warranted only occasionally (e.g. every 6th sample round)
RS1 GEW‐65A 22‐Jul‐15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ LFCI believes Bridgeton may be pulling too hard in neck area (further review of all wells warranted)
RS2 GEW‐65A 22‐Jul‐15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
LAB GEW‐65A 24‐Jul‐15 8:54 0.5 59.0 < 1.4 ‐ ‐ 2900 < 2.8 36.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ Above Analysis completed by:
LFCI GEW‐39 22‐Jul‐15 18:40 42.4 48.9 1.1 7.8 Scrubbed ‐ ‐ 0.1 136.3 ‐26.00 ‐0.75 Dr. Tony Sperling, P.Eng., July 31, 2015
LFCI‐STP GEW‐39 22‐Jul‐15 39.2 43.4 2.7 14.7 Scrubbed 156‐200 ‐ ‐ 88.5 LFCI notes that during sampling day access to several wells that LFCI wanted to sample was restricted
RS1 GEW‐39 22‐Jul‐15 38.4 55.7 0.0 5.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 133.7 ‐0.98
RS2 GEW‐39 22‐Jul‐15 40.6 48.3 0.0 11.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 134.0 ‐1.00
LAB GEW‐39 24‐Jul‐15 9:08 38.0 52.0 < 1.4 ‐ ‐ 260 6.2 3.3 ‐ ‐ ‐
LFCI GEW‐109 22‐Jul‐15 19:00 Scrubbed
RS1 GEW‐109 22‐Jul‐15 7.0 52.9 0.0 40.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 175.2 26.92
RS2 GEW‐109 22‐Jul‐15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
LAB GEW‐109 24‐Jul‐15 9:23 4.1 54.0 < 1.5 ‐ ‐ 1900 8.5 32.0 ‐ ‐ ‐
LFCI : Landfill Fire Control Inc. Not impacted: Methane>50%, CO2<50, CO<500 ppm, H2<1%
RS: Republic Services Moderately SSE: Methane<30%, CO2>50%, CO>1500ppm, H2>10%
LAB: Air Technology Laboratories Inc. Strongly SSE: Methane<10%, CO2>60%, CO>2500, Temp>175F, H2>20%
STP: Standard Temperature & Pressure

Page 100
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
LFCI concludes that field instrumentation is providing sufficiently accurate data to track the event and
that lab testing for assessing key parameters of CH4, CO2, O2, H2 and CO is not necessary. As
mentioned above, LFCI recommends laboratory sampling be undertaken during every fourth or fifth
sampling run as a QA/QC measure to verify that all instrumentation is working effectively. Prior to
implementing this recommendation, all other stakeholders should be consulted to ensure that there is
no other data required from the laboratory samples (such as VOC’s concentrations).
Photo 9-17. Field based CO Analysis with Gastec Detector Tubes
LFCI’s testing results indicate that at the time samples were drawn significant oxygen intrusion was
occurring at GEW28R. LFCI remains concerned about the risk of air intrusion triggering a near
surface MSW fire that could compromise the EVOH geomembrane.
Finally, LFCI notes that during the sampling day access to many of the key wells that LFCI wanted to
test was restricted. LFCI was informed that some of these wells were “unsafe” to be tested, and many
other were tagged as “Out of Service” as pictured in Photo 9-18. This was particularly frustrating as
many of the wells were sampled during Bridgeton’s previous monthly sampling run and were not
included on the “Do Not Sample” list provided by Brenda Ardrey.

Page 101
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 9-18. Numerous key wells were tagged at “Out of Service”
Photo 9-19. Numerous key wells were claimed to be “unsafe” to be tested

Page 102
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
10. Risk Factors

In completing this expert opinion and review LFCI believes it is important to document the potential
risk factors that were identified during our investigation. Many of these risk factors are probably well
recognized; however, LFCI will repeat them here in case some have not been previously identified by
others. Recognition of these risk factors may be particularly important to First Responders that may
be required to attend the site in an emergency, and to MDNR and AGO staff in accounting for
potential long term liabilities associated with this incident.
Collapse: In LFCI’s opinion, the biggest risk factor to human health and life is collapse. Given the
large settlements that have occurred to date, and the small localized settlements and hot spots that were
noted, it is LFCI’s opinion that the risk of collapse features developing is significant, especially around
infrastructure that is conveying hot gases to surface.
Rapid Air Entry: Currently the LFG system is placing the entire South Quarry Landfill under a state
of vacuum. This vacuum is pulling air into the landfill from the outside perimeter. It is also pulling
heat toward the LFG extraction wells. Should the LFG extraction system malfunction for an extended
period of time, e.g. during a prolonged power outage, it is likely that pressure gradients will reverse,
bringing hot gases to surface. Gases from highly reactive areas may be approaching the melting
temperatures of the EVOH liner. Failure of the liner could result in rapid air intrusion into the waste
mass increasing the risk of a surface fire to break out.
Hydrogen Gas Ballooning: The SSSER is generating a very large amount of reaction gas. That gas
contains virtually no methane, but it does contain 20 to 30% H2. Photo 10-1 shows the development
of a large bubble beneath the membrane liner during some recent maintenance work. Photos 10-2 and
10-3 show the development and subsequent degassing of another bubble during the RCP work. LFCI
questions whether sufficient attention was being paid to the potentially explosive work environment
when photos 10-2 and 10-3 were taken.
It is not unreasonable to anticipate that a much larger bubble could develop beneath the EVOH liner in
the event of a prolonged power failure such as was experienced in during the ice storms in Ontario a
few years ago.
H2 is a highly flammable and explosive gas. Many will recollect the explosion of the Hindenburg
dirigible as a graphic reminder of the danger posed by hydrogen gas in bubbles. LFCI believes that an
emergency plan needs to be developed concerning safe work procedures around these bubbles if one
does not exist currently.

Page 103
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 10-1 Gas Bubble developed during decommissioning of RSP (Source: PL1 562621)
Photo 10-2 Smaller bubble during active decommissioning of RCP

Page 104
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Photo 10-3. Degassing of bubble. Note presence of numerous bystanders downwind.
Settlement Induced Failures of Gas Wells: The rapid settlement of the MSW is exerting enormous
downdrag forces on well casings at Bridgeton. Some of the wells are ejecting upward through the
surface as the waste settles around them, others are getting pinched at depth.
Liner Meltdown: The melting point of EVOH liner is around 324°F. LFCI believes that the actual
reaction temperature of the SSSER is considerably higher given that a temperature of over 300°F has
been measured in TMP-7R. If the liner is exposed to hot gas from an active reaction zone, it could
result in the thermal meltdown of the EVOH. This could result in a surface fire, especially if venting
gases were ignited. Control of a reaction would be challenging, particularly if it occurred in the
middle of the amphitheatre area in darkness.
Gas Gradient Reversal: The SSSER reaction is generating large volumes of reaction gas. The
heating of water, and subsequent expansion of that water to steam, is also increasing the pressure
within the South Quarry area. In the past, this pressure has overwhelmed some of the LFG wells such
that they vented with positive pressure. High pressures within the landfill will lead to migration of
exhaust gasses upward and toward the landfill perimeter.
The interface between MSW and the quarry wall has historically been a preferred migration pathway
for both LFG and leachate. Bridgeton Landfill LLC has installed a number of lateral trench style
collectors to depressurize this area. Development of positive pressures in the vents could result in gas
escaping at the landfill toe and migrating through the subsurface. LFCI already noted landfill gas
bubbling from the ground at a seepage location on the south side of Old St. Charles Road. Off-site

Page 105
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
LFG migration can pose a threat of explosion. However, it is important to recognize that the
composition of gas is quickly changing. Monitoring for CH4 at property boundaries should be
augmented with monitoring for H2 gas. In LFCI’s opinion, the same trigger level should be adopted
for hydrogen, 0.5 of LEL concentrations.
Benzene: Because benzene is present at very high concentrations in leachate, monitoring for benzene
levels should become routine for all groundwater chemistry tests, if this parameter is not already
included.
Loss of Hydraulic Trap: Based on LFCI’s cursory review of water levels, it appears that the critical
control elevation for containment of leachate within the rock quarry is about 430’ ASL. The elevation
may be lower for the bedrock aquifers, but with the exception of the upper St. Louis formation which
is known to be pervious due to weathering and fractures, the remaining limestone units are believed to
be relatively impervious.
The development of the SSER and the water it is generating through the water gas and water gas shift
reactions, as well as the loss of pumping infrastructure due to the large settlements that are being
experienced may be resulting in the development of positive hydraulic heads within the quarry, and the
potential for outward flow of contaminated leachate. This outward flow may be resulting of off-site
migration of polluted groundwater. This polluted groundwater may be entering the Missouri River
aquifer, which appears to be situated in close proximity to the western quarry wall based on geologic
cross section information reviewed by LFCI.
We understand that this risk is being addressed by other qualified professionals for the AGO.
SSSER Reaching Radiological Waste: We understand that there is radiological waste present in
OU-1, immediately north of the North Quarry. Furthermore, we understand that there is currently no
physical separation between the waste in OU-1 and the waste in the North Quarry. Furthermore, we
understand that there is a physical step or cliff present about mid-way into the quarry. The north
quarry is much shallower on the north side of that step.
LFCI has determined that if the SSSER were to expand in the North Quarry at the same rate as was
observed in the South Quarry, the reaction could reach OU-1 in as little as three to six months. LFCI
believes that currently the advance of the SSSER northward is being retarded by the vacuum that is
being applied by the two rows of GIW wells. However, once the reaction front migrates beyond the
zone of influence of those wells it is not unreasonable to conclude that it may once again accelerate.
The SSSER is generating a lot of heat that converts leachate to steam. LFCI is not knowledgeable
regarding the release of radioactive waste, other than the knowledge distributed by media during the
recent Fukushima disaster. During that event, super-heated steam carrying radionuclides was one of
the primary pathways for distribution of radiation, as was the case at Chernobyl.
Given the potential risk, LFCI is of the opinion that a physical barrier to isolate OU-1 from the threat
of landfill fire should be constructed immediately.
Page 106
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
11. Suppression Strategies

Just as in the recent fire suppression in Iqaluit and the suppression of the Cerro Patacon Landfill fire in
Panama, the objectives of controlling the Bridgeton SSSER incident are:
 To prevent odour and toxic releases into community
 To prevent SER from reaching radioactive waste
 To prevent pollution of groundwater resources
 To ensure the safety of all workers, first responders and residents
The following tools are available to fire fighters, when trying to contain burning events in landfills, be
they surface fires, smoldering, or SSSER.
 Cooling by water
 Oxygen Control (not effective for SSSER)
 Cooling and oxygen suppression with inert gas (N2 or CO2)
 Removal of fuel
The selected strategies need to achieve control of smoke, particulate release, odour release and off-site
leachate discharge.
Available suppression strategies that have been evaluated included:

 Water Injection/Flooding
 Inert Gas Injection (Nitrogen/CO2)
 Oxygen Suppression by burying with clay or containing with geomembrane
 Heated Gas Extraction
 Cooling Loop using cooling fluids
 Inert Fire Barriers (slurry walls, caissons, trenches)
Suppression strategies that have been implemented to date have included:
Oxygen Control with HDPE and EVOH geomembrane. This strategy was implemented at the
landfill toe in 2012 and over all of the South Quarry in 2014. It has proven effective at controlling
odours. LFCI believes that it has also proven reasonably effective at minimizing air intrusion.
Maintenance of the cover is a challenge as piping continues to rise.
LFG Extraction: Aggressive dual phase extraction is being used to remove reaction gases from the
SSSER, including CO2, H2 and leachate and water vapour. Given that the SSER appears to be
constrained above the water table, LFCI questions the benefit of drawing the water table down in the
waste mass. Furthermore, LFCI notes that removing liquid water from the waste mass removes a large
amount of heat absorbing capacity that could be realized. Generally, dewatering and drying out any
form of burning reaction is considered poor practice. For example, during the recent massive wild
fires in Washington State and B.C. fire behaviour was explosive on hot dry days, and much more
constrained on damp cloudy days when humidity was higher.

Page 107
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
LFCI agrees that pressure in the waste mass needs to be controlled to limit odour releases, but we do
not necessarily believe that liquid water should be removed as well. In this case, LFCI recommends
that expert guidance be sought from qualified professionals who are knowledgeable in pyrolysis and
the various reactions identified in Chapter 5.
Removal of water also opens up the pore spaces for migration of hot combustion gases.
Furthermore, LFCI believes that more effective extraction of LFG and the reaction gases from the
SSSER could be achieved by increasing the number of wells with shallower collection zones, instead
of pulling harder on the existing deep wells. Installation of condensate traps much closer to the wells
could also significantly reduce the number of available vacuum loss incidents which periodically
happen at Bridgeton, due to the landfill’s rapid settlement events resulting in condensate blockage in
the lateral pipes.
Gas Interceptor Wells: LFCI generally supports the need to depressurize the reaction to maintain
control; however, we question the aggressive pumping of LFG in non-reacted areas ahead of the
reaction front. In our opinion, extracting LFG from ahead of the reaction induces gas flow and heat
transfer in the wrong direction, pulling the reaction northward rather than pulling it back. The GIW’s
may be more effective in constraining further spread now that the reaction has crossed to GEW 109.
Cooling Loop: Based on LFCI’s experience with MSW fires, garbage is an excellent insulator. It has
been our experience on several projects that heat from a fire takes years to dissipate back to
background. Therefore we strongly suspect that any form of cooling liquid pumped through wells in
the subsurface would have a very limited zone of influence. Proper heat flow analysis should be
undertaken before such a measure is considered and implemented.
Raising Leachate Levels: LFCI recommends that the pros and cons of raising leachate levels to
effectively flood the lower portions of the reaction area should be fully evaluated, especially in areas
where the reaction has yet to be established (e.g. the neck and the north quarry). It has been LFCI’s
experience that soaking wet garbage simply does not burn or react until all liquid water is converted to
steam. If there is a lot of water available the heat provided by the exothermic reactions is not
sufficient to vapourize all available water and the reaction should be terminated.
Raising leachate levels would also minimize the depth of any containment infrastructure intended to
contain the reaction in the South Quarry such as inert gas injection wells, grout filled caissons, slurry
trench or the like.
Of course, raising water levels in the North Quarry must be carefully evaluated in the context of the
inward hydraulic gradient needed to maintain a hydraulic trap, and in the context of the possible
presence of radionuclides from OU-1 in the leachate. LFCI does not have sufficient information to
comment on either of these concerns at present.

Page 108
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Oxygen Control With Low Permeability Soil Barrier: Soil is one of the most effective tools for
landfill fire fighters. The massive Cerro Patacon fire was controlled primarily by burying the entire
landfill with 3 feet of soil, thereby inhibiting oxygen entry and smothering the fire.
In the case of an SSSER soil application at surface will not be effective in controlling the reaction, but
LFCI believes it would minimize the risk of EVOH geomembrane failure and collapse. LFCI believes
that a 6’ to 10’ thick layer of soil placed below any new geomembrane cap would help to insulate the
membrane from heat. The soil would also provide a means of minimizing the risk of near surface
collapse features. Due to its inherent weight, the soil would have a tendency to collapse into any voids
created by near surface combustion. It would also serve as a secondary barrier to limit air incursion
into the waste mass should the EVOH liner system fail.
Inert Gas Barrier: LFCI is not a strong believer in the use of inert gas for fire suppression, except in
very special circumstances. Once a fire is established, a lot of heat is contained in the subsurface.
Although inert gas may temporarily displace oxygen, it has been LFCI’s experience that the inert gas
concentrations dissipate quickly, long before the waste mass can be cooled and the fire re-ignites.
In the context of Bridgeton, use of inert gas may have some merit, particularly if inert gas such as CO2
is selected. CO2 is a reaction product of the water gas and water gas shift reaction. By increasing
concentrations of CO2, the reaction product, it is quite possible that the reversible water gas shift
reaction can be driven in the opposite direction and the water gas reaction can be stopped. Specialist
input from a chemistry expert is needed to confirm LFCI’s hypothesis.
Pressure Control: The same specialist should be consulted to determine whether the exothermic
reactions that are driving the SSSER react faster as pressure increases. Without this knowledge, it is
not clear to LFCI whether depressurization of the waste mass at depth is actually a good thing. If high
pressure would slow the reaction, then a better strategy may be to allow the deep subsurface to become
pressurized and to then bleed of any reacting gasses by a series of shallow wells developed near
surface.
Certainly, maintaining the CO2 and H2 pressurized at depth would increase the concentration of the
reaction products, which should theoretically slow or reverse the exothermic reactions driving flow.
Again, input from a qualified chemistry professional is required to advise on this hypothesis.

Page 109
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
12. Conclusions and Recommendations

LFCI is honored to submit this assessment report of the Bridgeton SSSER incident. Our evaluation is
based on a thorough review of key data provided by the Missouri Attorney General’s office, a full two
day visit to Bridgeton Landfill during which both the South Quarry and North Quarry areas were
inspected and sampling was conducted on 10 wells, additional research on chemical reactions, and on
17 years of practical experience in the control and extinguishment of landfill fires and SSO’s by Dr.
Sperling and 12 years practical LFG management experience by Dr. Abedini. Additional research was
conducted by LFCI’s staff during investigation.
LFCI notes that despite spending a total of 500 hours collectively by Dr. Sperling and Dr. Abedini in
conducting the site investigation and preparing this report, we were unable to fully review all of the
information that was provided to us by the AGO due to time constraints that were imposed by previous
consulting commitments to other projects. Notwithstanding, we do believe that we have a sufficiently
good understanding of issues and data to draw the following conclusions and recommendations, and
that our conclusions and recommendations are based on information that is factual, unbiased and
represents current state of practice in landfill gas control and landfill fire management.
12.1 Conclusions about the Cause of the SSSER

Burning of MSW is currently occurring in the South Quarry of Bridgeton Landfill. The burning is
occurring through two processes. Smoldering where oxygen is available, and through self sustaining
subsurface exothermic reaction (SSSER) at depth.
The burning incident at Bridgeton was first detected on December 10th, 2009 at Well 67, as indicated
by CO levels in that well above 500 ppm.
Prior to the initiation of subsurface smolder, the LFG extraction system was aggressively operated by
Bridgeton Landfill LLC in an attempt to control an off-site methane migration issue. From 2007
through 2010 numerous wells were operated well outside NSPS limits of 5% oxygen and 20%
nitrogen and outside Republic Services Standard Operating Procedures.
This aggressive operation of the well field, combined with poor maintenance of the soil final cover cap
allowed oxygen intrusion into the waste. Oxygen intrusion caused by over-extraction of LFG wells is
recognized as the leading cause of subsurface fires and smolders in MSW. The bi-weekly or monthly
monitoring events conducted by the field monitoring staff may not have necessarily observed elevated
oxygen levels in all the over-pulled wells. Oxygen may be stripped away by the aerobic bacteria as the
intruded air traveled through the waste mass, depending on the distance between the air intrusion point
and the LFG collection well. LFCI is of the opinion that Bridgeton Landfill LLC was negligent in
aggressively over-extracting the gas system well outside industry best practices.

Page 110
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
The XY scatter plots for methane and CO2 illustrate without any reasonable doubt that the well field
started to be overdrawn in 2008 and was seriously overdrawn in 2009 and 2010, prior to the start of
the SSSER.
Although the initiation of an SSO reaction was reported to management in July, 2009 aggressive
extraction of LFG continued, and indeed extraction rates were increased by 40% in September, 2009.
Decisive action to contain the SSO and the smoldering event, including retaining expert assistance,
was not initiated until Dec. 22nd, 2010, more than a full year after high CO levels were first detected.
In LFCI’s opinion, this delay was negligent and essentially eliminated any opportunity to contain the
burning incident before it became a catastrophic event.
LFCI is of the opinion that Bridgeton Landfill LLC, and its parent company Republic Services failed
to provide sufficiently experienced people to oversee the operation of their critical environmental
control systems at Bridgeton, and the staff in those positions were overloaded. This observation is
believed to be a key contributing factor to this unfortunate incident.
Prior to February, 2011 the subsurface heating event was a conventional biological aeration and
localized smolder. However, in February, the heat build up as a result of inadequate containment
efforts initiated an SSSER at well 67. A second SSSER was initiated around well 34 in March, 2011.
The SSSER spread from those two nodes at an approximate rate of 150 to 300 ft per month. Over the
past four and a half years the reaction has consumed waste in about 75% of the South Quarry area.
12.2 Conclusions about the Processes Driving Burning at Bridgeton

LFCI believes that prior to February, 2011 the primary burning mechanism was smoldering initiated
by overdraw of the LFG system. Since February, 2011 LFCI believes that the primary mechanism has
been the SSSER reaction process. However, given observed oxygen levels in the shallow subsurface,
LFCI believes that continued smoldering is also playing a key role in the reaction.
Analysis of monitoring data indicates that the SSSER involves a five step reaction process. LFCI
suspects that the five reaction steps are:
Step 1. Overdraw Condition

Step 2. Aerobic Heating Phase
Step 3. Methanation Reaction
Step 4. Torrefaction / Water Gas Shift Reaction
Step 5. Recovery
Step 4 is the key step where lots of heat, gas and settlement are generated. Step 4 appears to last 12 to
18 months. Reaction Step 4 is indicated by high concentrations of H2 gas, CO and elevated
temperatures.

Page 111
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
As indicated by the rapid rise of temperatures in TMP 7R, at the reaction front temperatures exceed
300°F. Clearly, the reaction requires temperatures above the boiling point of water. Therefore, LFCI
concludes that Step. 4 of the reaction will not occur below the water table.
For this reason LFCI questions whether aggressive dewatering of leachate levels was and is a wise
course of action. Removal of leachate removes one of the most efficient means of cooling which is
realized during the phase change from liquid to gas. In other words, pumping leachate out of the
landfill is equivalent to removing the capacity to spray an equivalent amount of water into the reaction
area for cooling purposes.
LFCI believes that fully understanding the reaction process will be key in order to determine the best
method of controlling the reaction.
Given that the SSSER reaction does not occur below the water table, the various strategies to contain
the SSSER in the North Quarry grossly overestimated the infrastructure required to contain the
reaction. At first glance, LFCI suggests that, if coupled with flooding of unreacted areas in the neck to
a water level around 420’ ASL (or whatever is the maximum safe water level to avoid loss of a
hydraulic trap) the depth of the various containment structures may be dramatically reduced. Of
course, detailed analysis of this concept is needed to ensure that it would indeed be effective and
protective of the environment. In particular, the potential impact on radiological wastes has to be
considered.
Based on the temperature data reviewed, LFCI does not believe that temperatures in the South Quarry
waste mass are declining as rapidly as indicated by temperatures measured at the GEW wellheads.
Because many of the wells are being redrilled to shallower depth, and many wells are experiencing air
incursion, cooler gas is being drawn into the wells. Deeper areas of the landfill may remain hot.
The presence of radiological waste in OU-1, 1,000 ft. from the reaction front is a major concern to
LFCI. Based on observed rates of SSSER spread at 150 to 300 ft. per month, high temperatures from
the reaction could conceivably reach OU-1 in 3 to 6 months.
A key finding of the LFCI testing was that the SSSER / smolder / settlement front has reached
GEW 109. This monitoring well is situated 120 ft. north of the southerly line of GIW wells. This
result unequivocally indicates that the SSSER has passed beyond both lines of GIW wells at the
“neck”. With the reaction moving closer to the North Quarry there exists only a very limited window
to take further action to prevent the SSER from once again escalating out of control and causing
additional hardship on the community of Bridgeton. Furthermore, allowing the reaction to move
forward to the North Quarry would bring the reaction to the OU-1 radiological area.
LFCI is concerned that reaction Step 4 may be generating char in the subsurface. If large quantities of
char are present, these materials could present a risk of a very aggressive large scale fire if the char
becomes exposed to the atmosphere.
Page 112
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
12.3 Conclusions about Leachate

LFCI’s review of the leachate sample collected by the AGO indicates that the leachate is highly
polluted. Of particular concern, benzene concentrations exceed drinking water guidelines by a factor
of 170 times. Long term containment of this very strong leachate is a technical challenge and will
result in very significant long term costs.
Given the hydrogeological setting, operation of the leachate containment system may be required for
centuries to ensure full containment of the toxic substances contained in the rock quarries.
LFCI believes that the SSSER is mobilizing significant quantities of soluble organics into the leachate.
The presence of these organics is increasing the toxicity of the leachate, making containment more
problematic, and making treatment of the leachate more difficult and much more expensive.
12.4 Conclusions about Landfill Design

In LFCI’s opinion, the development of such a deep inward gradient landfill that relies on a hydraulic
trap which must be maintained by pumping was ill conceived. Also, filling of the waste mass against
quarry walls without an impervious barrier such as a clay wall or geomembrane liner system was ill
conceived, given that the bedrock formation is weathered and fractured near surface. Off-site
migration of LFG in this environment was totally predictable.
Only 120 ft. of bedrock separates the waste in the South Quarry from the gravel / sand aquifer of the
Missouri River. Placing a major landfill in such close proximity to a drinking water aquifer was also
ill conceived.
12.5 Recommendations re Control of SSSER

We recommend that experts in the field of torrefaction, smoldering and low temperature combustion
be consulted to confirm the observed trends, confirm the reactions that are causing the trends and
advise on control strategies that can be adopted to control those reactions.
LFCI recommends that MDNR request factual information from Republic, including cores or other
samples of cuttings from previous Sonic drilling programs, or that additional drilling be undertaken to
establish whether a significant amount of reaction product still remains sub-surface in reacted areas.
Based on a suggestion by Dr. John Grace, P.Eng., LFCI recommends that Team Bridgeton evaluate
the feasibility of injecting cooled exhaust gas from the flare as an inert gas into the subsurface,
depending of course on the concentration of inert gases including N2 and CO2 relative to O2 in the
exhaust gas stream. In particular, establishment of a positive pressure front of cold and inert gas in the
“neck” may be effective in preventing migration of the SSSER into the North Quarry.
LFCI recommends that in the future Team Bridgeton re-evaluate the control strategy of installing
GIW’s in cold areas in front of the SSSER given the fact that the flow of hot gases, and condensation
of steam are very effective heat transfer mechanisms and that forward smolder reactions (where the

Page 113
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
smolder front moves in the same direction as gas flow) are known to travel faster than a reverse
smolder.
12.6 Recommendations re Leachate Control

LFCI recommends that Bridgeton Landfill LLC give very careful consideration to the pros and cons of
aggressive dewatering of leachate from gas collection wells in the north quarry. Furthermore, LFCI
recommends that all existing wells be accurately sounded for the current water level. Key things to
consider in that analysis are the possible presence of radiological waste in the North Quarry, the phase
change conversion of liquid water vapor to steam, the large amount of heat absorbed during that phase
change.
LFCI recommends that Team Bridgeton consider some form of closed loop groundwater / leachate
recirculation system whereby impacted groundwater would be pumped from bedrock wells at the
landfill perimeter and then injected in landfill areas to raise the water table in areas yet unaffected by
the SSSER. The presence of large volumes of water may be sufficient to significantly slow, or even
stop the SSSER reaction in its tracks. LFCI recommends that an energy balance be conducted by
qualified professionals to confirm that LFCI’s hypothesis is valid.
Given the fact that the SSSER is not occurring below the water table, LFCI recommends that
Bridgeton LLC and MDNR may want to revisit the requirement to maintain the sump elevations at 30’
above the base of the quarry floor given that the SSSER is occurring. LFCI recognizes that
maintaining inward gradients is critical to protect groundwater resources. We believe that an
engineered solution including perimeter pumping wells, grouting programs and other impervious
barriers can be developed to safely achieve both objectives.
LFCI recommends that the groundwater levels between the North Quarry and the OU-1 area be
carefully assessed to determine groundwater flow directions. If there is a risk of southwestward
groundwater flow into the North Quarry, then given LFCI’s concern that the reaction is spreading into
the North Quarry (as discussed in Chapter 9), it would be prudent to establish a physical barrier
between the North Quarry and OU1 that is an effective thermal barrier as well as a barrier to
groundwater flow, particularly given such a project seems relatively straightforward given the shallow
waste thickness in the area.
Given that in the worst case scenario, the SSSER could arrive at OU-1 in as little as three months,
LFCI does not believe that delaying the construction of an effective thermal and leachate barrier
between OU-1 and the North Quarry is in the best interest of Bridgeton Landfill LLC, Republic
Services and its shareholders as it potentially exposes those parties to immense environmental and
financial liabilities should the worst case scenario develop.
LFCI recommends that all existing wells be accurately sounded for the current water level in the
landfill at least on an annual basis, if not more frequently. A proper contour map should be generated

Page 114
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
showing current water levels. At least 75% of the readings should be taken from monitoring wells not
affected by leachate pumping.
Given the high levels of pollutants, it is important that leachate from Bridgeton be properly treated
before discharge to the environment. LFCI recommends that MDNR ensure that leachate is being
properly treated and analyses are being undertaken to ensure that pollutants such as benzene are
treated at the WWTP’s prior to discharge into the environment.
12.7 Recommendations re Field Sampling

LFCI recommends that monitoring staff never work alone when undertaking field investigations in the
SSSER reaction zone as the risk of collapses, well failures and blow outs of pressurized wells, trip and
fall hazards at the site is high.
LFCI recommends that the temperatures being observed at Bridgeton, particularly the temperatures
from the GEW’s and GIW’s be considered only as rough indicators of subsurface temperature, and
that it be anticipated that actual subsurface temperatures in the heart of a reaction will likely be much
hotter.
LFCI recommends that the liner be inspected at least once per month for major defects such as rips and
tears, and that particular attention be given to the critical area at the landfill toe.
Field operations staff should act IMMEDIATELY based on the results of the CO testing and shut
wells down if CO levels exceed 500 ppm. Of course, this recommendation does not apply to the South
Quarry where the SSSER is well established, but it does apply to all other areas of Bridgeton Landfill
where the landfill remains in a methanogenic state, as well as to all other Republic Services Landfills
in Missouri. Furthermore, a specialist familiar with Landfill Fires and SSSERs should be consulted
promptly to conduct a detailed investigation of landfill gas composition and recommend further action.
LFCI recommends that consideration be given to undertaking laboratory analysis for CO only during
every 5th sampling run to confirm that the correlations observed by LFCI continue to be true. If data
deviates by more than 25% than CO lab measurements should be resumed on every sample.
Although the H2 meter utilized by LFCI did not correlate as well as the Gastec tubes, the results were
still sufficiently close to also recommend that field analysis for H2 be conducted with hydrogen gas
detector (recommendation subject to confirmation that analyzer does not burn out after repeated use).
LFCI recommends that leachate levels be sounded in inactive LFG wells or new piezometers to
establish the true leachate level within the MSW waste as was previously done by Aquaterra in 2010.

Page 115
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
12.8 Recommendations re Long Term Mitigation Costs

LFCI recommends that conservative estimates be made for frequent maintenance and replacement of
any long term pumping infrastructure, including leachate pumping infrastructure during the entire
post-closure period.
Given the elevated levels of a number of pollutants, particularly benzene, LFCI recommends to the
Missouri Attorney General’s office that due consideration be given to the long term methods and costs
of containing leachate within the rock quarry confines. Given the highly aggressive nature of the
leachate and a strongly acidic pH of 5.5, resulting in rapid corrosion of steel, maintaining a pumping
system operational will likely prove very costly.

Page 116
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
13. Limitations
This report has been prepared by Landfill Fire Control Inc. (LFCI) for the Missouri Attorney General’s
office in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices to a level of care and skill normally
exercised by other members of the engineering and science professions currently practicing under
similar conditions in British Columbia, subject to the time limits and financial and physical constraints
applicable to the services.
The report, including all tables and figures and data compilation during the course of the project, is
based on engineering analysis by LFCI staff. Except where specifically stated to the contrary, the
information on which this study is based has been obtained from external sources. This external
information has not been independently verified or otherwise examined by LFCI to determine its
accuracy and completeness. Landfill Fire Control Inc. has relied in good faith on this information and
does not accept responsibility for any deficiency, misstatements or inaccuracies contained in the
reports as a result of omissions, misinterpretation and/or fraudulent acts of the persons interviewed or
contacted, or errors or omissions in the reviewed documentation.
The report is intended solely for the use of the Missouri Attorney General’s office. Any use which a
third party makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions to be made based on it, are the
responsibilities of such third parties. Landfill Fire Control Inc. does not accept any responsibility for
other uses of the material contained herein nor for damages, if any, suffered by any third party because
of decisions made or actions based on this report. Copying of this intellectual property for other
purposes is not permitted.
The findings and conclusions of this report are valid only as of the date of this report. The
interpretations presented in this report and the conclusions and recommendations that are drawn are
based on information that was made available to LFCI during the course of this project. Should
additional new data become available in the future, Landfill Fire Control Inc. should be requested to
re-evaluate the findings of this report and modify the conclusions and recommendations drawn, as
required.
Prepared by:
Dr. Tony Sperling, P.Eng. (British Columbia) Dr. Ali R. Abedini

President Landfill Gas Specialist
September 2nd, 2015

Page 117
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
14. References
Bahor, Brian, Keith Weitz and Andrew Szurgot, Updated Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Mitigation from Municipal Solid Waste Management Facilities, Energy Recover Council
Global Symposium, 2008.
Babrauskas, V. Pyrophoric carbon and low-temperature, long-term ignition of wood.”

http://www.doctorfire.com/low_temp_wood1.pdf, 2003.
Bates, Margaret. Managing Landfill Site Fires in Northamptonshire, University College

Northampton, Northamptonshire County Council, Northampton, October 2004
Burns & McDonnell. Hydrogeologic Investigation West Lake Landfill Preliminary Phase Report,
Kansas City, Missouri, January, 1985
Carey DRAFT: North Quarry Barrier-Conceptual Planning, Bridgeton Landfill, prepared for
Republic Services, Inc. dated January 4, 2013
Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. & Weaver Boos Consultants. Bridgeton Landfill Gas
Corrective Action Plan Update, Hazelwood, Mo. July 26, 2013
DeHann, J.D., Kirk’s Fire Investigation, Sixth edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey, 2007.
Englisch, M. Torrefaction – Fundamentals and Basic Principles of Torrefaction. Österreichisches

Forschungsinstitut für Chemie und Technik. Vienna, Austria.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Landfill Fires – Their Magnitude,

Characteristics and Mitigation. FA-225, May 2002.
Foss–Smith, Patrick. Understanding Landfill Fires, Waste Management World, Volume 11, Issue 4
Golder Associates. DRAFT Hydrogeologic Characterization Report for the Bridgeton Active
Sanitary Landfill, Bridgeton Missouri, Volume I, St. Louis, Missouri, September, 1995
Hall, David, David Drury, Ralph Keeble, Andrew Morgans and Rachel Wyles, Review and
Investigation of Deep-seated Fires Within Landfill Sites. Environment Agency, Bristol, March,
2007

Page 118
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Henderson, J. P. and Sperling, T. Vancouver Landfill Demolition Fire. Vancouver Landfill Fire
Project, City of Vancouver Landfill Operations Branch & Sperling Hansen Associates.
Jurbin, T. Landfill Fires. Canadian Consulting Engineer, pp. 41-42, August/September 2013.
Miller, J. B. Elevated Temperature Investigation of Landfill Gas Wells. 2012 SWANA Landfill
Gas Symposium.
Moqbel, S. and Reinhart, D. Spontaneous Landfill Fires: Investigation and Simulation.
Ohlemiller, T. J., Smoldering Combustion, National Bureau of Standards (NIST), 1986.
Quintiere, J., M. Birky, F. McDonald and G. Smith. An Analysis of Smoldering Fires in Closed
Compartments and Their Hazard Due to Carbon Monoxide, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Center for
Fire Research, Washington, D.C., July, 1982.
Rein, Guillermo. Smoldering Combustion Phenomena in Science and Technology,

International Review of Chemical Engineering, Vol 1, pp 3-18, Jan 2009.
Renaud, Reg. Subterranean Landfill Fires. STI Engineering, Silverado, CA.
Sinha, S., Jhalani, M.R.R. and Ray, A. Modelling of Pyrolysis in Wood: A Review. SESI Journal,
10(1), 41-62, 2000.
Smith, B.R.J., Loganathan, M. and Shantha, M.S. A Review of the Water Gas Shift Reaction
Kinetics. International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 8(1), 2010.
Sperling, T. When a Fire Occurs At Your Facility, Will You Be Ready? SWANA Wastecon 2002.
Sperling, T., Dickin, R.C., and Henderson, J. P. Hydrogeological Review of the City of Vancouver
Landfill. SWANA 1996 Regional Symposium, 1996.
Sperling, T. and Henderson, J. P. Understanding and Controlling Landfill Fires. SWANA 2001
Landfill Symposium, San Diego, CA, 2001.
Stark, T. D., Martin, J. W., Gerbasi, G. T., Thalhamer, T. and Gortner, R. E., Aluminum Waste
Reaction Indicators in a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, pp. 252-261, March 2012.
Stearns, R. P. and Petoyan, G. S., Identifying and Controlling Landfill Fires. Waste Management &
Research, Vol 2., pp 303-309, 1984.

Page 119
September 2nd, 2015
LFCI – PRJ14-010
Thalhamer, Todd. Data Evaluation of the Subsurface Smoldering Event at the Bridgeton Landfill,
Hammer Consulting Service, Cameron Park, CA, June, 2013.
Yoshida, H. and R. K. Rowe. Consideration of Landfill Liner Temperature, *Muroran Institute of

Technology, Department of Civil Engineering & Architecture, Hokkaido, Japan, Proceedings of
Sardinia, 2003. Ninth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Oct. 2003.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
HYDROGEN MAPS

APPENDIX B
CARBON MONOXIDE MAPS

APPENDIX C
TEMPERATURE MAPS

APPENDIX D
SETTLEMENT MAPS

APPENDIX E
LABORATORY GAS ANALYSIS

APPENDIX F
OXYGEN AND BALANCE GAS GRAPHS

APPENDIX G
WELLFIELD MONITORING LFG DATA

APPENDIX H
AQUATERRA WELL FIELD DATA

APPENDIX I
FOSS-SMITH PERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Hi Tony

Further to our phone conversation on Tuesday.

Firstly, the Action between Indian Harbor and Republic was settled out of court last night and I have
been dismissed as an expert witness as a result. This means that the following can be made more
relevant to you:

1. Landfills produce H2:
a. Water shift ‐ Fuel (Char / CO) + H2O →← CO2 + H2
b. By reaction between H2S and certain metals. H2S is produced by microbiological action
on Gypsum. Records of deposits at Bridgeton include significant deposits of gypsum as
plasterboard / dry lining. It is possible that some H2 arisings are not caused by water
shift alone.
c. Acetogenic / anaerobic phase generate around 0.2% rising to 1.5% H2 around a hot spot
and up to 20% (well above the LEL for H2) near a hot spot particularly where a failed /
sunken cap has admitted rainwater or where insufficient water has been used to cool
hot carbonaceous material ‐ see photo 'Hot Char' where high H2 readings were noticed
a couple of weeks after a bowser was used to try to put out a fire in this area.
2. Maximum H2, produced by water shift, occurs at a temperature of around ±350⁰C. There are
suspicions held by the UK Fire College, the UK Environment Agency and me, that initiation of the
reaction is possible at a temperature as low as ±100⁰C on small particles (ie having a large
surface area) in the presence of saturated steam / vapour / aerosol when driven by the
advancing pyrolysis front. Small particles could include for example, de‐volatilised unburned
carbon as soot (5 to 50μ). The reaction seems to be a continuum which doesn't start and stop
suddenly but is unpredictable and dependent on a number of variables.
3. Hydrogen is a light molecule with great penetrative ability. Able to progress forward faster than
volatiles. Reaction can be sustained by presence of chlorinated compounds for example, hot
PVC. Dissipates quickly so can't be pinpointed to a particular spot beyond about 20m. Measured
concentration dies back within 2 to 3 weeks. Landfill gas consultant in UK is about to be
commissioned to see if there is any correlation between H2 gas readings at different wells to
pinpoint source (ie triangulation). Daft idea.
4. H2 reacts with O2 to form pyroligneous water forming an available moisture source. At Bridgeton,
the oxygen readings exceed the trigger levels in a high proportion of the readings. The reaction
has been noticed in O2 concentrations as low as 5% ‐ In confidence please ‐ of the 59,000
measurements I've seen at Bridgeton 23% of the measurements were over 5% and 43% of the
results are suspiciously at 0%. No analyses of hydrogen have been seen (just methane, carbon
dioxide, , oxygen). Not sure why H2 was not measured since the portable instruments (GEM
range) used had the capability to measure hydrogen. Would consider hydrogen concentration of
1.5% to indicate a hot spot.
5. More likely to occur nearer the surface in areas where the cap has failed and rainwater has
contacted material likely to char (wood). Not much information on deeper reactions but it's
possible that a fire in a zone wetted by leachate might also give rise to the reaction particularly
near gas extraction / monitoring wells where the seals have failed.
6. H2 arising from water shift reaction is as a result of a hot spot rather than the other way round.
Hydrogen has a high ignition point (around 400°C) and is unlikely to spontaneously ignite.


If you were to ask me if a water gas reaction is playing a significant role at Bridgeton, I would say yes, it
most probably is.

I hope this tells you what you need to know, Tony.

Do let me know if you, or anyone needs some other background support on the Bridgeton site ‐ I have a
mountain of information on the subject.

Lastly, I have attached a CV and Capability Statement

All the best

Patrick

Patrick Foss‐Smith MSc MInstRE MCIWM
Landfill Fire Engineer
Office 01202 822478
Cell 07841 929860
Email [email protected]
Web: Landfill‐fire.eu.com


APPENDIX J
LEACHATE CHEMISTRY REPORT

PDC Laboratories, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL • DEPENDABLE • COMMITTED
April 29, 2015
Chris Boldt
Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources
PO Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Dear Chris Boldt:
Please find enclosed the analytical results for the sample(s) the laboratory received on 4/10/15 9:20 am and
logged in under work order 5041721. All testing is performed according to our current TNI certifications
unless otherwise noted. This report cannot be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of
If you have any questions regarding your report, please contact your project manager. Quality and timely
data is of the utmost importance to us.
PDC Laboratories, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide you with analytical expertise. We are always
trying to improve our customer service and we welcome you to contact the Vice President , John LaPayne
with any feedback you have about your experience with our laboratory.
Sincerely,
Lisa Grant
Project Manager
(309) 692-9688 x1764
[email protected]
State of MO v. Republic Services, Inc. et al Page 1 of 8

2231 West Altorfer Drive
Peoria, IL 61615
(800) 752-6651
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Sample: 5041721-01 Sampled: 04/09/15 10:03

Name: 152187 Received: 04/10/15 09:20
Matrix: Leachate - Grab
Parameter Result Unit Qualifier Prepared Analyzed Analyst Method
Anions - PIA
Chloride 1200 mg/L 04/21/15 11:19 04/21/15 11:19 TAS EPA 300.0
Sulfate 270 mg/L 04/21/15 11:03 04/21/15 11:03 TAS EPA 300.0
General Chemistry - PIA
Alkalinity - total as CaCO3 2800 mg/L 04/14/15 12:45 04/14/15 12:45 LAZ/B SM 2320B
COD 32000 mg/L 04/15/15 12:49 04/15/15 12:55 SJW SM 5220D
Cyanide < 0.0050 mg/L 04/13/15 09:47 04/14/15 11:16 lgsjf SM 4500-CN C - EPA 335.4
Fluoride 0.398 mg/L 04/23/15 13:26 04/23/15 13:26 TCH SM 4500-F C
pH 5.59 pH Units H 04/20/15 11:31 04/20/15 11:31 pdcad SM 4500-H B - EPA 150.1 -
SW 9040
Solids - total dissolved solids (TDS) 18000 mg/L 04/15/15 13:47 04/15/15 14:35 TIN SM 2540C
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 350 mg/L 04/15/15 12:30 04/15/15 21:07 BRS SM 5310C
Nutrients - PIA
Ammonia-N 260 mg/L 04/15/15 07:51 04/15/15 09:30 BRS OIA/PAI-DK03 & EPA 350.1
Nitrate/Nitrite-N 0.23 mg/L 04/15/15 15:16 04/15/15 15:16 lgsjf EPA 353.2 - SM 4500-NO3
F - QC 10-107-04-1-C
Total Metals - PIA
Hardness 7600 mg/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 12:38 JMW [CALC]

Aluminum 3.4 mg/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 12:24 JMW SW 6010
Antimony < 60 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 13:11 JMW SW 6020
Arsenic 340 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 13:11 JMW SW 6020
Barium 1800 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 13:11 JMW SW 6020
Beryllium < 20 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 13:11 JMW SW 6020
Boron 12000 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/17/15 09:14 JMW SW 6020
Cadmium < 20 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 16:47 JMW SW 6020
Calcium 2600 mg/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 12:38 JMW SW 6010
Chromium 140 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 16:47 JMW SW 6020
Cobalt < 40 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 13:11 JMW SW 6020
Copper < 60 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 13:11 JMW SW 6020
Iron 610 mg/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 12:39 JMW SW 6010
Magnesium 250 mg/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 12:21 JMW SW 6010
Manganese 33000 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 16:47 JMW SW 6020
Mercury 12 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 13:11 JMW SW 6020
Nickel < 100 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 16:47 JMW SW 6020
Phosphorus 1600 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 16:47 JMW SW 6020*
Potassium 280 mg/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 12:21 JMW SW 6010
Selenium 52 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/17/15 11:29 JMW SW 6020
Silver < 100 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 13:11 JMW SW 6020
Sodium 1100 mg/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 12:21 JMW SW 6010
Strontium 12 mg/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 12:39 JMW SW 6010
Thallium < 20 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 16:47 JMW SW 6020

Customer #: 206723 www.pdclab.com
Peoria, IL 61615
(800) 752-6651
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Sample: 5041721-01 Sampled: 04/09/15 10:03

Name: 152187 Received: 04/10/15 09:20
Vanadium < 100 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 16:47 JMW SW 6020
Zinc 6200 ug/L 04/13/15 11:45 04/16/15 16:47 JMW SW 6020
Volatile Organics - PIA
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,1,2-Trichloroethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,1-Dichloroethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,1-Dichloroethene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 410 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dibromoethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dichloroethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,3-Dichloropropene- Total < 750 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dichloroethene- Total < 500 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dichloropropane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,3-Dichlorobenzene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 510 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
2-Hexanone 1700 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 2100 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Xylenes- Total < 750 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Acetonitrile < 5000 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Acrolein < 2500 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Acrylonitrile < 2500 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Benzene 910 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Bromodichloromethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Bromoform < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Bromomethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Carbon disulfide < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Carbon tetrachloride < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Chlorobenzene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Chloroethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Chloroform < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Chloromethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
DBCP < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Dibromochloromethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B

Peoria, IL 61615
(800) 752-6651
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Sample: 5041721-01 Sampled: 04/09/15 10:03

Name: 152187 Received: 04/10/15 09:20
Dichlorodifluoromethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Ethylbenzene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
MTBE < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Methylene chloride < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Styrene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Tetrachloroethene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Toluene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Trichloroethene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Trichlorofluoromethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Vinyl acetate < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Vinyl chloride < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
o-Xylene < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
m,p-Xylene < 500 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B
Dichlorofluoromethane < 250 ug/L Pc 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 13:38 JMB SW 8260B*
Sample: 5041721-01RE1 Sampled: 04/09/15 10:03

Name: 152187 Received: 04/10/15 09:20
2-Butanone 87000 ug/L Pc 04/15/15 00:00 04/15/15 14:32 MAB SW 8260B

Acetone 140000 ug/L Pc 04/15/15 00:00 04/15/15 14:32 MAB SW 8260B
n-Butanol < 2000000 ug/L Pc 04/15/15 00:00 04/15/15 14:32 MAB SW 8260B*

Peoria, IL 61615
(800) 752-6651
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Sample: 5041721-02 Sampled: 04/09/15 00:00

Name: 152188 (Trip Blank) Received: 04/10/15 09:20
Matrix: Leachate - Trip Blank
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,1,2-Trichloroethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,1-Dichloroethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,1-Dichloroethene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dibromoethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dichloroethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,3-Dichloropropene- Total < 15 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dichloroethene- Total < 10 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,2-Dichloropropane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
2-Butanone < 10 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
2-Hexanone < 10 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) < 10 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Xylenes- Total < 15 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Acetone < 10 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Acetonitrile < 100 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Acrolein < 50 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Acrylonitrile < 50 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Benzene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Bromodichloromethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Bromoform < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Bromomethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Carbon disulfide < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Carbon tetrachloride < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Chlorobenzene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Chloroethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Chloroform < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Chloromethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
DBCP < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Dibromochloromethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B

Peoria, IL 61615
(800) 752-6651
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Sample: 5041721-02 Sampled: 04/09/15 00:00

Name: 152188 (Trip Blank) Received: 04/10/15 09:20
Matrix: Leachate - Trip Blank
Dichlorodifluoromethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Ethylbenzene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
MTBE < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Methylene chloride < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
n-Butanol < 1000 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B*
Styrene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Tetrachloroethene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Toluene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Trichloroethene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Trichlorofluoromethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Vinyl acetate < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Vinyl chloride < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
o-Xylene < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
m,p-Xylene < 10 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B
Dichlorofluoromethane < 5.0 ug/L 04/14/15 00:00 04/14/15 11:41 JMB SW 8260B*

Peoria, IL 61615
(800) 752-6651
NOTES
Specific method revisions used for analysis are available upon request.
Certifications
PIA - Peoria, IL
TNI Accreditation for Drinking Water, Wastewater, Hazardous and Solid Wastes Fields of Testing through IL EPA Lab No. 100230
Illinois Department of Public Health Bacteriological Analysis in Drinking Water Approved Laboratory Registry No. 17553
Missouri Department of Natural Resources Certificate of Approval for Microbiological Laboratory Service No. 870
Drinking Water Certifications: Iowa (240); Kansas (E-10338); Missouri (870)
Wastewater Certifications: Arkansas (88-0677); Iowa (240); Kansas (E-10338)
Hazardous/Solid Waste Certifications: Arkansas (88-0677); Iowa (240); Kansas (E-10338); Wisconsin (998284430)
SPMO - Springfield, MO
USEPA DMR-QA Program
STL - St. Louis, MO

TNI Accreditation for Wastewater, Hazardous and Solid Wastes Fields of Testing through KS Lab No. E-10389
Illinois Department of Public Health Bacteriological Analysis in Drinking Water Approved Laboratory Registry No. 171050
Drinking Water Certifications: Missouri (1050)
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
* Not a TNI accredited analyte
Qualifiers
H Test performed after the expiration of the appropriate regulatory/advisory maximum allowable hold time.
Pc Chemical preservation discrepancy noted at the time of analysis
Certified by: Lisa Grant, Project Manager

Page 8 of 8

APPENDIX K
CHEMICAL EXPERT REPORTS

2018 Quilchena Crescent,
Vancouver, B.C.
V6M 1E3,
August 20. 2015.
Dr. Tony Sperling, P.Eng.

President, Sperling Hansen Associates Inc.
Landfill Fire Control Inc.
8-1225 East Keith Road
North Vancouver B.C.
V7J 1J3
Dear Dr. Sperling:

As requested by you, I am sending you some information on some gas phase
reactions that may be of importance in the Bridgeton Landfill. I also comment below on
whether these reactions might provide possible explanations for the high-temperature
front that, as demonstrated by the temperature and concentration data shared with me, is
advancing in the Landfill sub-surface.
As a chemical engineer, I have had to consider these reactions in the context of
reactors designed to produce hydrogen and synthesis gas, as well as in gasification and
combustion of carbonaceous fuels. In these contexts, the reactions take place at
significantly higher temperatures and in reactors with well defined contents, geometry
and operating conditions, compared with the conditions in landfills. My comments
should be seen in this context.
The following gas-phase reactions in the absence of oxygen are of possible
relevance with respect to the Bridgeton Landfill:
A) Torrefaction/Pyrolysis: Torrefaction is the breakdown (low-temperature pyrolysis)
of solid hydrocarbons in an inert atmosphere at temperatures below about 600°F (316°C
leading to the production and release of volatile gases (mainly CO, CO2, CH4, H2, H2O),
as well as char, a solid residue of higher density than the original solid hydrocarbon. It is
an endothermic process.
B) Water-Gas Shift (WGS) Reaction: CO + H2O ⇆ CO2 + H2. This is a reversible
mildly exothermic process. Industrially, it is carried out at high temperatures (e.g. in
excess of 1500°F (816°C), as well as in low-temperature shift reactors at temperatures as
low as 392°F (200°C). As an exothermic reaction, its equilibrium constant increases with
decreasing temperature, meaning that more reaction would occur if equilibrium were to
be achieved. However, the kinetic rate constants for the reaction decrease with
decreasing temperature. In industrial reactors, the reaction is catalysed by various metals
and metal oxides, with copper oxide (CuO) and platinum most commonly deployed as
catalysts in low-temperature WGS reactors. Various catalyst poisons (in particular
sulphur compounds, chlorides and some heavy metals) can lead to the deactivation of
catalysts. Because there is no change in the total number of moles in this reaction, the
equilibrium conversion is independent of the total pressure.

2
C) Steam Gasification: C(s) + H2O → CO + H2:. Sometimes referred to as the

“Water-Gas Reaction”, this endothermic and essentially irreversible reaction converts
carbon and steam into a synthesis gas. Its rate is dependent on the nature of the
carbonaceous solid, as well as the temperature and steam concentration.
D) Boudouard Reaction: CO2 + C(s) ⇆ 2CO. This reversible reaction provides a
route by which carbon monoxide can be produced from carbon dioxide and vice versa.
The kinetics of this reaction depend heavily on the specific hydrocarbon represented by
the “C”, as well as on the temperature. In the direction shown, the reaction is endothermic,
so that it is less favoured thermodynamically at low temperatures. The reverse reaction
could be relevant in the landfill as it is more favoured at lower temperatures.
E) Methanation Reactions: CO2 + 4H2 ⇆ CH4 + 2H2O and CO + 3H2 ⇆ CH4 + H2O.
These are exothermic reactions, the reverse of the steam reforming reactions used widely
in industry to produce hydrogen, usually with nickel oxide catalysts, but various other
metals can also act as catalysts. Both these reactions are exothermic, and hence
equilibrium conversions are higher at lower temperatures. Once again, various poisons
can reduce the activity of the catalysts, with sulphur compounds being especially
important catalyst poisons in industrial reactors. Given the decrease in the number of
moles for both of these reactions as written, equilibrium conversions are favoured by
increased pressure. In addition, both would decrease the total pressure locally, leading to
some infiltration of gases from the surrounding area.
F) Oxidation reactions: Of the compounds involved in the other reactions identified
above, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and carbon can all be oxidized by
air/oxygen: H2 + ½O2 → H2O; CO + ½O2 → CO2; CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O; and
C(s) + O2 → CO2. All of these reactions are strongly exothermic. At the relatively low
temperatures of interest, oxidation catalysts such as the noble metals platinum and
palladium would need to be present, in addition to intruding oxygen, for these reactions
to be playing a major role.
Data collected at the Bridgeton Landfill suggest that temperatures in some gas
samples approach the boiling point of water (212°F/100°C). It is likely that local
temperatures exceed this temperature, with the result that steam is being produced from
the abundant liquid water derived from the waste materials, as well as groundwater.
Hence there is an ample source of steam to participate in reactions like C and D above.
The rates (kinetics) of these various reactions depend on the availability and nature of
catalytic materials, as well as temperature and the presence of deactivating agents
(catalyst poisons). I would expect that a wide assortment of metallic (and metal oxide)
surfaces would be available from the discarded constituents of the landfill, including iron,
copper and nickel. These surfaces would be available for catalyzing the suite of reactions.
Reactions B and C could explain the surprisingly high concentrations of hydrogen
detected in the gas sampling. The methanation (E) reactions could be supplementing the
biogenic production of methane.
Whatever mechanism was responsible for the first “hot spot” or “hot spots” that
initiated the current situation, a key question now is whether exothermic reactions can
generate enough heat to make the reactions self-sustaining, allowing the reaction “front”

3
inside the landfill to continue to advance as heat is also being lost to the surroundings,
used up in steam generation and consumed due to endothermic reactions. At the
temperatures encountered in the sub-surface, (~212°F/100°C) and less, the gas-phase
reactions outlined above, even with heterogeneous catalytic surfaces present, will proceed
very slowly, much more slowly than rates of interest to chemical engineers in designing
and operating reactors. But the time scales of interest in the landfill are much longer –
weeks and even months compared with seconds for chemical reactors in which gases are
being reacted.
No useful quantitative estimates can be made which would help to answer the
above question. This is because the precise in situ temperatures, concentrations and
catalytic surfaces are unknown, and because, in any case, the kinetics at the sub-surface
temperatures are too low to have been of interest to chemists and chemical engineers who
perform such measurements. One can speculate, however, that, in the absence of oxygen,
there are sufficient metallic surfaces originating from the discarded wastes within the
landfill to ensure that the exothermic WGS reaction proceeds, with production of
hydrogen and generation of sufficient heat to sustain the advancement of the reaction
front. This could be aided by some oxygen diffusing to the reaction area to promote
some (exothermic) oxidation of CO, H2, CH4 and C(s).
If these gas-phase reactions are indeed important in facilitating the
continuation of sub-surface hot-front migration, then it is useful to speculate about a
possible method of extinguishing the reactions and regaining control. The reactions
could be slowed by lowering the temperature (to decrease the reaction kinetic rates),
removing heat as it is generated, reducing the concentration of reactants, or, in the case of
reversible reactions, increasing the concentration of product compounds. Varying the
total pressure could also have some effect on reversible reactions, as predicted by Le
Châtelier’s principle, but feasible changes in pressure level are very likely too small in
the sub-surface to play a significant role.
As a possible remedy, some attention should be given to the injection of cool inert
and/or product gases at the reaction front. For example, natural gas could be burnt with
stoichiometric air, with the flue gas then cooled by heat exchangers to condense water
and the cool product gas (predominantly nitrogen and CO2) then injected along the front.
This would cool the critical sub-surface region, promote the reverse-WGS reaction
(endothermic in the reverse direction), while also favouring the endothermic Boudouard
reaction and inhibiting (exothermic) oxidation reactions. While exothermic methanation
would be promoted, the extents of these reactions are likely to be limited because
hydrogen production would decrease as a result of slowing and even reversing the water-
gas shift reaction.
Please let me know if you have questions or would like me to clarify any of the
points made in this letter.
Yours truly,
John R. Grace, P.Eng., Ph.D.

APPENDIX L
TEMPERATURE PLOTS

APPENDIX M
CO 2 AND CH 4 X-Y SCATTER PLOTS

Point Adj Init Static Adj Static System
Date Time CH4 CO2 O2 Bal Adj Temp CH4/CO2
Name Flow Press Press Pressure
GEW-36 12/01/2010 9:16 28.5 58.9 0 12.6 120 24 -0.9 -0.9 0.48
GEW-36 12/01/2010 9:18 27.9 59 0 13.1 118 23 -0.8 -0.8 0.47
GEW-36 20/01/2010 14:24 21.8 60.8 0 17.39 118 0 1 0.36
GEW-36 20/01/2010 14:27 23.8 60.2 0 15.99 130 23 -0.1 0.40
GEW-36 17/02/2010 14:10 36.1 56.2 0 7.7 118 13 -1.9 0.64
GEW-36 17/02/2010 14:12 35 56.3 0 8.7 118 9 -1.7 0.62
GEW-58 22/02/2010 8:09 41.2 58.8 0 0 38 0 -2 0.70
GEW-57R 22/02/2010 8:17 42 57.6 0 0.4 98 2 -2.8 0.73
GEW-57R 22/02/2010 8:19 42.2 57.8 0 0 102 12 -3.1 0.73
GEW-35 05/03/2010 8:44 41.6 55.2 0 3.2 115 4 -2.2 0.75
GEW-35 05/03/2010 8:45 41.6 55.4 0 3 110 0 -1.8 0.75
GEW-36 05/03/2010 8:49 29.2 60.2 0 10.6 120 5 -2.3 0.49
GEW-36 05/03/2010 8:50 29.2 59.9 0 10.9 120 1 -2.1 0.49
GEW-12A 17/03/2010 14:00 39.6 55.3 0 5.1 88 0 -1.1 0.72
GEW-36 17/03/2010 17:24 27.9 71.5 0 0.59 115 1 -0.1 0.39
GEW-36 17/03/2010 17:26 29 71 0 0 122 3 -0.4 0.41
GEW-37 17/03/2010 17:29 34.1 65.3 0 0.59 120 1 -0.4 0.52
GEW-37 17/03/2010 17:31 34.2 65.3 0 0.5 125 4 -0.6 0.52
GEW-36 27/04/2010 16:27 20.05 56.79 0 23.16 124.6 0 -0.69 -37.76 0.35
GEW-36 27/04/2010 16:29 19.27 59.25 0 21.48 115.2 0 -0.43 -37.46 0.33
GEW-36 10/05/2010 15:37 15.38 57.86 0 26.77 59.5 0 2.74 -51.49 0.27
GEW-36 10/05/2010 15:39 18.12 56.62 0 25.27 130.6 30.83 -0.05 -50.07 0.32
GEW-36 12/07/2010 11:41 28.2 57 0 14.8 125.1 0 -0.32 -50.54 0.49
GEW-35 23/07/2010 10:22 28.26 63.23 0 8.52 100 0 0.75 -49.19 0.45
GEW-35 23/07/2010 10:23 30.11 62.51 0 7.37 105 0 -0.01 -48.5 0.48
GEW-36 23/07/2010 10:26 15.41 76.68 0 7.91 110 0 0.73 -48.8 0.20
GEW-36 23/07/2010 10:27 15.67 72.15 0 12.18 112 0 -0.02 -48.46 0.22
GEW-35 27/08/2010 10:26 34.81 55.62 0 9.57 116.5 8.5 -0.39 -50.61 0.63
GEW-36 27/08/2010 10:29 24.21 62.87 0 12.93 131.8 0 -0.25 -50.52 0.39
GEW-36 27/08/2010 10:31 21.3 66.13 0 12.57 130.5 0 -0.11 -50.86 0.32
GEW-58 30/08/2010 10:41 30.39 57.8 0 11.81 100.7 3.86 -0.16 -50.56 0.53
GEW-35 13/09/2010 14:36 31.5 55 0 13.4 122 18.43 -0.01 -50.36 0.57
GEW-36 13/09/2010 14:41 12.9 58 0 29.1 130 4.12 0.94 -50.4 0.22
GEW-36 13/09/2010 14:42 14.6 58.2 0 27.2 138 0 -0.1 -50.19 0.25
GEW-36 13/09/2010 14:44 14.7 57.7 0 27.5 138 12.37 -0.01 -51 0.25
GEW-35 18/10/2010 13:42 26.4 57.2 0 16.4 119.1 17.13 -0.02 -47.7 0.46
GEW-36 18/10/2010 13:45 10.7 61 0 28.4 131.8 0 1.42 -47.74 0.18
GEW-36 18/10/2010 13:48 12.6 61.3 0 26.1 138.7 12.06 -0.01 -47.7 0.21
GEW-35 02/11/2010 15:23 25.3 58.4 0 16.3 116.3 24.6 -0.52 -49.71 0.43
GEW-35 02/11/2010 15:25 24.9 59.4 0 15.7 113.5 15.04 -0.02 -50.4 0.42
GEW-36 02/11/2010 15:34 21.6 56.7 0 21.7 129.9 12.09 -0.01 -49.37 0.38
GEW-58 03/11/2010 9:26 23.5 59.4 0 17.1 129.4 13.65 -0.02 -49.8 0.40
GEW-57R 03/11/2010 9:43 15.4 58.4 0 26.2 112.8 22.82 -0.02 -49.54 0.26
GEW-31R 17/11/2010 14:40 33.7 59.5 0 6.7 120.8 7.64 -0.38 -37.1 0.57
GEW-33R 17/11/2010 14:48 31.6 60 0 8.4 138.3 14.59 -0.28 -37.79 0.53
GEW-33R 17/11/2010 14:50 27.2 56.2 0 16.6 136 10.7 -0.02 -41.22 0.48
GEW-36 17/11/2010 15:31 20.4 60.3 0 19.3 133.4 15.11 -0.67 -49.5 0.34
GEW-36 17/11/2010 15:34 16.3 57.9 0 25.8 130.8 8.48 -0.24 -49.75 0.28
GEW-58 18/11/2010 14:17 20.6 55.1 0.3 24.1 128.7 0 -0.33 -52.16 0.37
GEW-57R 18/11/2010 14:25 22.2 55.3 0 22.5 116.3 0 -0.41 -51.38 0.40
GEW-26R 01/12/2010 14:30 24.3 59.3 0 16.4 122.3 0 0.26 -48.77 0.41
GEW-26R 01/12/2010 14:33 21.6 57 0 21.4 128.1 23.87 -0.01 -49.07 0.38
GEW-30R 01/12/2010 14:49 36.6 55.9 0 7.4 125.1 0 0.48 -49.45 0.65
GEW-30R 01/12/2010 14:52 34.4 56.9 0 8.6 130.7 12.82 -0.02 -48.94 0.60

GEW-31R 01/12/2010 14:56 21.9 63.7 0 14.3 120.2 0 1.92 -39.46 0.34
GEW-31R 01/12/2010 14:58 22.6 64.6 0 12.8 130.8 33.59 -0.03 -50.57 0.35
GEW-35 01/12/2010 15:20 20.5 65.5 0 14 112.8 0 2.11 -50.44 0.31
GEW-35 01/12/2010 15:21 17.9 63.8 0 18.2 117.5 0 -0.01 -49.67 0.28
GEW-36 01/12/2010 15:24 10.5 67.3 0 22.2 133 0 1.89 -49.41 0.16
GEW-36 01/12/2010 15:26 11.1 70 0 18.9 139.3 10.6 -0.07 -50.44 0.16
GEW-37 01/12/2010 15:29 21.4 58.8 0 19.9 132.7 0 0.41 -48.77 0.36
GEW-37 01/12/2010 15:31 29.5 60.5 0 10 135.6 22.48 -0.03 -50.1 0.49
GEW-58 02/12/2010 11:53 20.9 60 0 19.1 125 12.16 -0.03 -51.69 0.35
GEW-57R 02/12/2010 12:05 10.1 63.4 0 26.5 120 0 1.1 -51.47 0.16
GEW-57R 02/12/2010 12:08 12.5 68.1 0 19.4 128 40.01 -0.01 -50.78 0.18
GEW-33R 15/12/2010 17:36 17.6 62 0 20.4 141.3 45.37 -0.27 -53.31 0.28
GEW-33R 15/12/2010 17:38 15.2 62.5 0 22.3 141.8 72.5 -0.07 -51.16 0.24
GEW-36 15/12/2010 17:49 21.9 63.5 0 14.6 127.5 31.28 -1.55 -52.15 0.34
GEW-26R 20/12/2010 11:04 25.3 72.8 0 1.9 120 8.39 0.36 -46.37 0.35
GEW-26R 20/12/2010 11:10 20.3 65.8 0 14 125 20.98 -0.06 -47.01 0.31
GEW-30R 20/12/2010 12:38 25.8 63.2 0 11 120 0 1.28 -46.67 0.41
GEW-30R 20/12/2010 12:39 25.4 66.1 0 8.5 138 28.46 -0.01 -46.71 0.38
GEW-30R 20/12/2010 12:41 26.1 68.2 0 5.6 138 38.07 -0.01 -46.02 0.38
GEW-31R 20/12/2010 12:44 18.4 67.4 0 14.2 122 0 0.12 -46.02 0.27
GEW-31R 20/12/2010 12:46 18.7 68.6 0 12.6 125 38.49 -0.03 -36.84 0.27
GEW-33R 20/12/2010 12:51 16.5 62 0 21.5 138 46.83 -0.95 -47.05 0.27
GEW-33R 20/12/2010 12:53 17.9 62.2 0 19.9 138 62.2 -2.09 -44.22 0.29
GEW-34 20/12/2010 12:56 28.3 57.4 0 14.2 120 23.04 -1.59 -46.75 0.49
GEW-35 20/12/2010 12:58 19.5 67.4 0 13.1 120 45.2 -2.3 -47.52 0.29
GEW-36 20/12/2010 13:01 24.4 60.8 0 14.8 120 19.24 -2.01 -46.8 0.40
GEW-58 21/12/2010 9:12 17 61.4 0 21.6 118 14.27 -2.31 -47.35 0.28
GEW-57R 21/12/2010 9:29 16.8 68 0 15.3 110 11.49 -3.15 -47.01 0.25
GEW-65A 21/12/2010 9:55 12.6 59.4 0 28 122 15.14 -1.1 -47.65 0.21
GEW-30R 21/12/2010 20:35 23.5 55.1 1.1 20.3 128 18.17 -1.33 -47.35 0.43
GEW-30R 21/12/2010 20:37 24.2 62.5 0.3 13 120 0 -0.35 -47.05 0.39
GEW-31R 21/12/2010 20:41 22.1 66.6 0 11.3 112 31.64 -1.82 -37.23 0.33
GEW-31R 21/12/2010 20:42 21.5 62.4 0 16.2 105 0 -0.04 -47.05 0.34
GEW-33R 21/12/2010 20:50 18.8 63.2 0 18 125 50.43 -4.5 -39.8 0.30
GEW-33R 21/12/2010 20:52 14.4 61 0 24.6 118 0 -0.83 -47.05 0.24
GEW-34 21/12/2010 20:56 28.4 57.8 0 13.8 112 24.32 -3.46 -48.34 0.49
GEW-34 21/12/2010 20:57 28.9 56.1 0 15 102 0 -1.15 -47.4 0.52
GEW-35 21/12/2010 21:00 20.6 61.9 0 17.5 100 43.76 -4.51 -48.77 0.33
GEW-35 21/12/2010 21:02 19.9 63.9 0 16.2 92 0 -1.62 -48.43 0.31
GEW-36 21/12/2010 21:05 25.7 60.6 0 13.7 110 22.46 -4.05 -49.75 0.42
GEW-36 21/12/2010 21:07 25.4 59.8 0 14.8 100 0 -2.26 -48.73 0.42
GEW-14A 21/12/2010 22:25 38.7 55.8 0 5.5 98 0 -0.08 -48.43 0.69
GEW-58 21/12/2010 22:38 17.3 63.3 0 19.4 110 13.59 -1.92 -49.03 0.27
GEW-58 21/12/2010 22:39 15.9 68.7 0 15.4 100 0 -1.28 -48.08 0.23
GEW-57R 21/12/2010 22:46 17.2 61.4 0 21.4 102 35.8 -3.01 -48.73 0.28
GEW-57R 21/12/2010 22:48 14.9 66.3 0 18.8 98 0 -1.68 -49.58 0.22
GEW-66 21/12/2010 23:02 21 61.9 0 17.1 92 0 -1.2 -44.99 0.34
GEW-65A 21/12/2010 23:06 15.1 65 0 19.9 120 14.02 -1.28 -49.33 0.23
GEW-65A 21/12/2010 23:07 14.6 67.9 0 17.5 110 0 -0.83 -49.07 0.22
GEW-37 22/12/2010 14:36 16.4 58.5 0 25.1 91.9 0 1.26 -49.44 0.28
GEW-37 22/12/2010 14:38 16.4 58.9 0 24.7 81.9 0 1.32 -49.79 0.28
GEW-36 22/12/2010 14:42 12 66.3 0 21.6 53.7 0 2.89 -49.61 0.18
GEW-35 22/12/2010 14:45 23.4 62.9 0 13.6 43.1 0 4.02 -50.3 0.37
GEW-34 22/12/2010 14:48 31.2 55 0 13.8 75.5 0 4.07 -49.79 0.57

GEW-34 22/12/2010 14:50 31.3 56.4 0 12.3 67.5 0 4.3 -49.79 0.55
GEW-33R 22/12/2010 14:58 8.3 65.4 0 26.3 140.4 0 4.48 -49.96 0.13
GEW-33R 22/12/2010 15:00 8.4 66.1 0 25.5 126 0 4.94 -50.13 0.13
GEW-31R 22/12/2010 15:29 14.4 67.9 0 17.8 119.1 0 2.51 -44.72 0.21
GEW-31R 22/12/2010 15:31 14.6 68.3 0 17 104.6 0 3.09 -49.79 0.21
GEW-30R 22/12/2010 15:35 21.8 67.9 0 10.3 116.7 0 0.77 -49.66 0.32
GEW-30R 22/12/2010 15:39 22.3 68.5 0 9.2 95.5 0 1.06 -50.13 0.33
GEW-65A 22/12/2010 15:50 11.6 65.1 0.2 23.2 29.5 0 2.52 -49.83 0.18
GEW-57R 22/12/2010 15:59 2.7 67.1 0 30.2 108.8 0 3.11 -50.17 0.04
GEW-57R 22/12/2010 16:02 3 68.2 0 28.8 86.1 0 3.24 -50.13 0.04
GEW-58 22/12/2010 16:10 6 65.9 0 28.1 48 0 2.89 -49.87 0.09
GEW-14A 22/12/2010 16:55 35.2 55.9 0 8.8 81.4 0 0.58 -50.13 0.63
GEW-14A 22/12/2010 16:57 35.4 56.3 0 8.3 66.7 0 0.67 -50.13 0.63
GEW-30R 23/12/2010 10:36 22.5 63.2 0 14.2 20 0 1.83 -49.41 0.36
GEW-31R 23/12/2010 10:38 15.1 70.9 0 14 20 0 4.47 -49.71 0.21
GEW-33R 23/12/2010 10:43 9.4 67.4 0 23.2 30 0 6.57 -48.73 0.14
GEW-35 23/12/2010 10:48 23.1 64.3 0 12.6 22 0 5.5 -50.36 0.36
GEW-36 23/12/2010 10:50 14.1 69.8 0 16.1 20 0 4.58 -50.4 0.20
GEW-37 23/12/2010 10:53 14.6 62.9 0 22.5 20 0 2.63 -50.1 0.23
GEW-14A 23/12/2010 11:18 32.5 61.1 0 6.3 25 0 2.06 -49.71 0.53
GEW-58 23/12/2010 11:36 7.6 67.8 0 24.6 22 0 5.15 -49.88 0.11
GEW-57R 23/12/2010 11:41 3.8 68.2 0 28 28 0 5.54 -49.37 0.06
GEW-66 23/12/2010 11:48 8.8 58.3 0 33 20 0 1.98 -45.89 0.15
GEW-65A 23/12/2010 11:50 11.1 67.2 0 21.8 20 0 4.76 -49.8 0.17
GEW-68 23/12/2010 11:55 31.9 55 0 13.1 20 0 4 -49.37 0.58
GEW-12A 26/12/2010 12:20 22.4 55.4 0.5 21.7 40 3.9 3.9 -41.05 0.40
GEW-66 26/12/2010 12:56 7.5 68.5 0 24 40 1.7 1.7 -41.22 0.11
GEW-83 26/12/2010 13:00 35.4 62.9 0 1.7 110 0.2 0.4 -41.34 0.56
GEW-65A 26/12/2010 13:04 6.1 75.8 0 18.1 40 4.9 4.9 4.97 0.08
GEW-68 26/12/2010 13:08 28.8 56 0.2 15 30 4.2 4.2 4.21 0.51
GEW-31R 26/12/2010 13:19 13.1 79.7 0.7 6.5 40 5.1 5.1 5.12 0.16
GEW-30R 26/12/2010 13:22 18.8 81 0.1 0.1 40 2.4 2.4 2.45 0.23
GEW-57R 26/12/2010 13:31 3.8 76.5 0.4 19.3 40 5.9 5.8 5.89 0.05
GEW-59R 26/12/2010 13:46 27.4 58.7 0 13.9 40 2.4 2.4 2.43 0.47
GEW-58 26/12/2010 13:53 4.8 72.2 0 23 45 5.5 5.5 5.5 0.07
GEW-33R 26/12/2010 13:59 7.5 74.6 0 17.9 40 7.4 7.4 7.42 0.10
GEW-37 26/12/2010 14:21 12.9 65.8 0 21.3 40 3.1 3.1 3.15 0.20
GEW-36 26/12/2010 14:24 9.6 75.9 1.6 12.9 40 5.3 5.4 5.4 0.13
GEW-35 26/12/2010 14:27 18.9 72.3 0 8.8 50 6.3 6.3 6.37 0.26
GEW-34 26/12/2010 14:30 30.3 60.5 0.4 8.8 40 6.7 6.7 6.77 0.50
GEW-14A 26/12/2010 14:42 29 65.2 0.1 5.7 40 2.2 2.2 2.27 0.44
GEW-30R 27/12/2010 8:26 22.9 62.5 0 14.6 5 0 2.24 -44.65 0.37
GEW-31R 27/12/2010 8:39 16.3 61.2 0.8 21.7 3 0 3.54 -44.95 0.27
GEW-33R 27/12/2010 9:02 8.2 60.7 0 31 10 0 8.16 -43.92 0.14
GEW-35 27/12/2010 9:20 21 61 0 17.9 10 0 6.19 -44.95 0.34
GEW-36 27/12/2010 9:30 10 63.9 0 26.1 8 0 5.46 -45.51 0.16
GEW-37 27/12/2010 9:40 13.7 56.7 0 29.6 8 0 2.77 -45.64 0.24
GEW-58 27/12/2010 13:11 6.3 57.7 0 36.1 30 0 6.49 -44.65 0.11
GEW-57R 27/12/2010 13:27 6.7 62.1 0 31.2 62 0 6.83 -43.96 0.11
GEW-65A 27/12/2010 14:01 8.1 58.7 0 33.2 32 47.36 6.19 -45.29 0.14
GEW-30R 28/12/2010 10:41 24.6 64.2 0 11.2 20 0 2.83 -43.92 0.38
GEW-31R 28/12/2010 10:44 16.4 66.9 0 16.7 18 0 5.8 -44.22 0.25
GEW-33R 28/12/2010 10:49 9.4 61.2 0 29.4 30 0 7.56 -43.92 0.15
GEW-35 28/12/2010 10:59 22.2 63.4 0 14.4 22 0 6.87 -44.56 0.35

GEW-36 28/12/2010 11:04 12.6 66.7 0 20.7 25 0 6.01 -44.22 0.19
GEW-37 28/12/2010 11:07 15.7 58 0 26.3 28 0 3.64 -44.26 0.27
GEW-58 28/12/2010 12:02 8.3 60.9 0 30.8 25 0 6.53 -44.14 0.14
GEW-57R 28/12/2010 12:08 7.8 61.6 0 30.5 32 0 7.22 -43.92 0.13
GEW-66 28/12/2010 12:16 11.2 55.3 0 33.5 28 0 3.53 -40.1 0.20
GEW-65A 28/12/2010 12:19 9.4 62 0 28.6 22 0 6.83 -44.61 0.15
GEW-30R 29/12/2010 8:25 23.2 63.6 0 13.1 12 0 3.21 -43.54 0.36
GEW-31R 29/12/2010 8:36 15.3 63.9 0.2 20.7 20 0 6.23 -43.92 0.24
GEW-33R 29/12/2010 8:51 8.3 59.8 0.1 31.8 22 0 8.93 -43.24 0.14
GEW-35 29/12/2010 9:07 18.3 60.1 0.1 21.5 20 0 7.6 -44.31 0.30
GEW-36 29/12/2010 9:15 10.7 68.4 0 20.9 20 0 6.92 -43.92 0.16
GEW-37 29/12/2010 9:22 13.9 55.2 0 30.9 18 0 4.05 -44.22 0.25
GEW-58 29/12/2010 11:24 6.9 57.3 0 35.8 20 0 3.05 -43.92 0.12
GEW-57R 29/12/2010 11:37 7.2 63.6 0 29.1 25 0 8.16 -43.92 0.11
GEW-65A 29/12/2010 12:04 9.2 61.3 0 29.5 20 0 7.9 -43.71 0.15
GEW-30R 31/12/2010 7:01 24.5 67.7 0 7.8 80.4 0 2.73 -44.29 0.36
GEW-30R 31/12/2010 7:04 24.1 68.5 0 7.5 76.8 0 2.79 -43.64 0.35
GEW-31R 31/12/2010 7:19 15.9 65.5 0 18.6 63 0 5.71 -43.6 0.24
GEW-31R 31/12/2010 7:22 15 68.4 0 16.6 93.6 12.24 4.9 -39.13 0.22
GEW-31R 31/12/2010 7:24 15.2 67.6 0 17.2 83.4 0 5.8 -45.06 0.22
GEW-58 31/12/2010 7:36 8 61.2 0 30.8 40 0 6.19 -43.62 0.13
GEW-33R 31/12/2010 7:37 8.1 66.7 0 25.2 77.1 0 8.2 -43.34 0.12
GEW-33R 31/12/2010 7:41 8.4 66.1 0 25.4 132.1 30.38 7 -43.64 0.13
GEW-33R 31/12/2010 7:44 8.8 66.6 0 24.6 121.2 0 7.21 -43.69 0.13
GEW-58 31/12/2010 7:45 8.3 59.4 0 32.3 75 0 5.15 -43.24 0.14
GEW-58 31/12/2010 7:47 8.7 59.5 0 31.7 70 0 5.84 -43.24 0.15
GEW-57R 31/12/2010 8:05 9.7 65.6 0 24.7 48 0 6.53 -43.79 0.15
GEW-57R 31/12/2010 8:09 10.4 60.9 0 28.8 100 19.37 5.84 -43.54 0.17
GEW-57R 31/12/2010 8:10 10.6 62.9 0 26.5 80 0 6.53 -42.94 0.17
GEW-34 31/12/2010 8:12 28.5 55 0 16.4 63.5 0 7.26 -44.03 0.52
GEW-35 31/12/2010 8:17 19.4 62.2 0 18.4 67.2 0 6.87 -44.67 0.31
GEW-35 31/12/2010 8:19 19.7 62.8 0 17.5 93.2 0 6.14 -43.43 0.31
GEW-35 31/12/2010 8:21 20.4 62.6 0 17 84.1 0 6.87 -43.04 0.33
GEW-36 31/12/2010 8:25 9.7 66.8 0 23.5 63.1 4.09 5.84 -42.74 0.15
GEW-36 31/12/2010 8:27 11.5 66.3 0 22.2 123.8 0 4.65 -43.38 0.17
GEW-66 31/12/2010 8:27 14.6 55.6 0 29.8 45 0 3.01 -40.49 0.26
GEW-36 31/12/2010 8:29 11.5 67.3 0 21.3 100.9 0 5.84 -43.34 0.17
GEW-66 31/12/2010 8:32 20.8 55.4 0 23.8 80 0 2.81 -39.46 0.38
GEW-37 31/12/2010 8:33 12.2 60.5 0 27.3 63.3 0 3.37 -43.34 0.20
GEW-65A 31/12/2010 8:35 11.4 60.9 0 27.6 42 0 6.19 -43.24 0.19
GEW-37 31/12/2010 8:35 16.1 58.2 0 25.7 122.9 0 2.55 -43.08 0.28
GEW-37 31/12/2010 8:37 16.1 57.6 0 26.3 104.7 0 3.3 -43.34 0.28
GEW-65A 31/12/2010 8:39 16.3 60.8 0 22.9 100 20.33 5.5 -42.89 0.27
GEW-65A 31/12/2010 8:40 16.9 61.7 0 21.5 80 0 5.88 -43.62 0.27
GEW-14A 31/12/2010 9:12 30.9 58.3 0 10.8 63.8 0 2.26 -43.94 0.53
GEW-14A 31/12/2010 9:14 31.7 58.9 0 9.4 96.4 14.96 1.53 -43.21 0.54
GEW-14A 31/12/2010 9:16 31.1 59.4 0 9.6 86.8 0 2.1 -43.38 0.52

APPENDIX N
GAS EXTRACTION OPERATION ANOMALIES

Example of improper field operation (extracted from LFG Database – BL_004_0002789)
GEW-016 & 016R
Init Adj Init Adj

Point Adj Init Adj System
Date Time CH4 CO2 O2 Bal Static Static Diff Diff Pressure
Comments
Name Temp Flow Flow
Press Press Press Press
GEW-016R 30/09/2009 11:09 1.7 2.6 16.7 79 75 0 0 -0.2 0 SLIGHTLY OPEN;V
GEW-016R 30/09/2009 11:12 23.4 30.7 0 45.9 80 0 0 -0.3 0 SECOND READING
GEW-016R 05/10/2009 11:19 39.2 36.2 0 24.59 98 0 0 -0.1 0 NO ADJUSTMENT
GEW-016R 27/10/2009 13:23 50.9 41.7 0 7.39 105 0 0 0.6 0 SLIGHTLY OPEN
GEW-016R 27/10/2009 13:26 51.3 42 0 6.7 120 24 24 -0.1 0.22 SECOND READING
GEW-016R 11/11/2009 10:44 27.6 30.7 1.8 39.9 110 29 29 -2.6 0.3 SLIGHTLY CLOSED
GEW-016R 11/11/2009 10:47 18.6 24.6 3.8 53 108 0 0 -1.7 0 SECOND READING
GEW-016R 23/11/2009 10:36 4.3 7.1 13.3 75.29 85 1 0 -1.5 0 SLIGHTLY OPEN
GEW-016R 23/11/2009 10:41 18.6 19.2 8.2 54 110 22 22 -2.2 0.17 SECOND READING
GEW-016R 07/12/2009 11:52 30.8 28.8 2.6 37.8 108 0 0 -2.5 0 NO ADJUSTMENT
GEW-016R 21/12/2009 13:09 36.5 33.1 1.1 29.3 110 26 26 -1.6 -1.7 0.175 0.172 NO ADJUSTMENT,
GEW-016R 04/01/2010 12:07 47.3 40.2 0 12.5 102 38 43 -0.1 -0.1 0.351 0.445 NO ADJUSTMENT,
GEW-016R 20/01/2010 11:15 23.5 26.5 4.2 45.8 110 38 38 -4 0.5 SLIGHTLY CLOSED
GEW-016R 20/01/2010 11:19 14.4 19.7 6.5 59.39 105 12 12 -2.8 0.06 SLIGHTLY OPEN
GEW-016R 20/01/2010 11:22 24.3 26.6 4.6 44.5 112 51 51 -4.8 0.89 SECOND READING
GEW-016R 17/02/2010 11:16 23 23.9 3.4 49.69 105 24 24 -6.3 0.21 SLIGHTLY OPEN
GEW-016R 17/03/2010 14:17 28.5 28.7 2.8 40 110 56 56 -7.2 1.04 SECOND READING
GEW-016R 12/04/2010 9:44 19.37 26.39 5.78 48.46 109.3 66.94 66.94 -7.9 0.953 -36.77 Closed > 1 turn; A
GEW-016R 12/04/2010 9:46 11.67 21.4 8.12 58.8 105.4 20.44 20.44 -5.84 0.087 -36.9 Second reading; A
- insisting on overpull continues and pushes the reaction towards aerobic

- significant LFG dilution with air is observed (See 07/12/2009)
- and applied vacuum continues to increase (See adjusted Static Pressure in 2010 till Mid-
March)
Obvious over-pull (Fig.1) and LFG dilution (Fig.2). The well was continuously stressed out,
perhaps caused localized high temperature pockets. However, the collected LFG temperature
was cooled down by dilution. Second reaction (chemical?) started around end of 2011.
Complete vacuum loss in 2013 (perhaps due to settlement, sag in the header/ lateral pipe, maybe
elevated leachate level in the well, or both). System vacuum became available Nov. 2013 and
flow jumps to 60 and then to above 100 scfm! (Fig. 3)

Temperature (°F) Balance Gas Concentration (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
22/01/2007 14:01
22/01/2007 14:01
23/04/2007 13:36
08/05/2007 14:23
23/07/2007 11:17
08/08/2007 9:35
01/11/2007 12:04
10/12/2007 11:29
26/02/2008 8:46
07/04/2008 8:54
02/06/2008 11:48
diluted by ambient air.

GEW-016
04/08/2008 9:57
GEW-016
15/09/2008 10:43
25/11/2008 16:03
Average of Bal
05/01/2009 10:22
Average of CH4
Average of CO2
Average of Temp
16/03/2009 12:39 12/05/2009 15:42
Average of Vacuum
05/08/2009 9:59 11/09/2009 8:41

23/11/2009 10:41 21/12/2009 13:09
04/03/2010 12:57 17/03/2010 14:16
Figure 1. Vacuum and Balance Gas

07/06/2010 10:50 07/06/2010 10:50
05/10/2010 10:59 05/10/2010 10:57
04/01/2011 8:20 20/12/2010 9:29

14/02/2011 11:08 09/02/2011 10:02
28/02/2011 12:04 24/02/2011 7:55
21/03/2011 12:24 11/03/2011 9:48
05/05/2011 11:21 05/04/2011 11:39
13/07/2011 11:18 27/05/2011 11:37
14/11/2011 13:44 24/08/2011 17:26
05/03/2012 15:13 28/12/2011 12:01
GEW-016R
06/07/2012 13:15 27/03/2012 11:05
GEW-016R
13/09/2012 16:06 14/07/2012 16:59

19/11/2012 11:26 13/09/2012 16:06
13/02/2013 10:30 14/11/2012 16:03
21/10/2013 15:54 05/02/2013 10:59
26/12/2013 10:50 03/10/2013 14:14
08/04/2014 17:44 05/12/2013 14:19
12/03/2014 14:38
16/06/2014 15:12
07/05/2014 11:35
08/09/2014 11:50
29/07/2014 10:55
25/02/2015 10:48
20/10/2014 11:44
20/04/2015 14:39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
CH4 & CO2 Concentration (%)

Vacuum (" w.c.)
becoming more dominant. Temperature was below the NSPS threshold as the collected LFG was
below 1) indicates there is aerobic and anaerobic degradation occurring in 2011 with aerobes
below threshold as it was being consumed by aerobic bacteria. Ration of CH4:CO2 (slightly
Balance gas (N2) concentrations in 2010 shows significant air intrusion, Oxygen was mainly
O2x10 and CH4, CO2, H2 & Bal. (%)
LFG Flow Rate (scfm)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
04/01/2011
22/01/2007 14:01
26/01/2011 23/04/2007 13:36
24/02/2011 23/07/2007 11:17
Average of H2
Average of Bal
24/03/2011 01/11/2007 12:04
Average of CH4
26/02/2008 8:46
28/04/2011
02/06/2008 11:48
GEW-016
24/08/2011 15/09/2008 10:43
Average of Flow
13/06/2012
05/01/2009 10:22
Figure 4. Lab Data Results

12/05/2009 15:42
Average of Vacuum
26/07/2012
11/09/2009 8:41
26/09/2012
21/12/2009 13:09
06/11/2012 17/03/2010 14:16
05/12/2012 07/06/2010 10:50
Average of CO
05/10/2010 10:57
Average of CO2
25/01/2013
Figure 2. Gas Quality and Temperature

20/12/2010 9:29
Average of O2 x 10
13/02/2013 09/02/2011 10:02
06/03/2013 24/02/2011 7:55
Figure 3. Applied Vacuum and LFG Flow Rate

08/10/2013 14:46 11/03/2011 9:48
GEW-16R
05/04/2011 11:39
13/11/2013
27/05/2011 11:37
11/12/2013 14:39 24/08/2011 17:26
15/01/2014 28/12/2011 12:01
21/02/2014 27/03/2012 11:05
GEW-016R
14/07/2012 16:59
12/03/2014
13/09/2012 16:06
08/04/2014 17:45 14/11/2012 16:03
07/05/2014 05/02/2013 10:59
17/07/2014 03/10/2013 14:14
05/12/2013 14:19
11/09/2014 12/03/2014 14:38
06/11/2014 07/05/2014 11:35
20/01/2015 29/07/2014 10:55
20/10/2014 11:44
31/03/2015 13:40
20/04/2015 14:39
13/05/2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
CO (ppm) Vacuum (" w.c.)

GEW-070R
Init Adj Init Adj

Point Adj Init Adj System
Date Time CH4 CO2 O2 Bal Static Static Diff Diff Pressure
Comments
Name Temp Flow Flow
Press Press Press Press
GEW-070R 21/03/2011 13:26 24.3 26.2 5.2 44.3 118 23 20 -0.4 -0.4 0.141 0.115 NO ADJUSTMEN
GEW-070R 24/03/2011 17:00 5.2 12.5 10.8 71.5 93 -1.6 -1.7 -0.048 -0.02 NO ADJUSTMEN
GEW-070R 24/03/2011 17:08 4.3 9.7 12.4 73.6 93 12 16 -1.7 -1.7 0.04 0.071 SECOND READIN
GEW-070R 30/03/2011 13:35 23 30.3 4 42.7 118 11 2 -0.3 -0.3 0.035 0.001 NO ADJUSTMEN
GEW-070R 13/04/2011 12:56 15.9 19.6 7.5 57 108 7 14 -0.9 -0.9 0.017 0.058 SECOND READIN
GEW-070R 21/04/2011 17:21 31.3 36.9 0.1 31.7 115 2 2 0 0 0.001 -0.004 SLIGHTLY OPEN
GEW-070R 21/04/2011 17:23 31.6 37 0 31.4 120 17 17 -0.1 -0.1 0.084 0.088 SECOND READIN
GEW-070R 28/04/2011 16:36 4.3 5.9 15.7 74.1 93 9 9 -5.1 -5.1 0.025 -0.014 SLIGHTLY CLOSE
GEW-070R 28/04/2011 16:42 3.6 5.2 15.8 75.4 90 -4.8 -4.8 -0.001 -0.004 SECOND READIN
GEW-070R 05/05/2011 12:40 25.9 31 2.7 40.4 119 11 10 0 0 0.036 0.031 SLIGHTLY OPEN
Notes:
- Highlighted dates show obvious air intrusion (See lab data illustrated in Figure 1). These
conditions require immediate closure of the well or proper adjustment with a “next-day”
re-visit.
- Comparison between Bal (N 2 ) and O 2 indicates O 2 is partially consumed (i.e. aerobic
conditions created)
- Ratio of CH 4 :CO 2 (being close to 1) indicates this well is still “somewhat” healthy,
perhaps started to warm up, though the temperature was kept below the NSPS threshold
by “diluting” the collected gas with ambient air. This well’s temperature goes above the
NSPS threshold in Sep. 2011 (see graphs Figures 2 to 4 extracted from the LFG
Database).

Temperature (°F) O2x10 and CH4, CO2, H2 & Bal. (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
11/09/2009 13:15 04/01/2011
24/11/2009 13:15
26/01/2011
03/02/2010 17:23
Average of H2
Average of Bal
13/04/2010 10:51
Average of CH4
24/02/2011
23/06/2010 13:33
14/09/2010 11:40 24/03/2011
18/11/2010 15:05
Average of CH4
Average of CO2
Average of Temp
05/01/2011 11:41 28/04/2011
12/01/2011 12:32
24/01/2011 13:06 25/08/2011
02/02/2011 15:59
09/02/2011 12:39 15/06/2012
Average of CO
23/02/2011 9:11
Average of CO2
27/07/2012

07/03/2011 13:15
Average of O2 x 10
24/03/2011 17:00 27/09/2012
21/04/2011 17:23
Figure 1 – Lab Analysis Results for GEW-70R

24/05/2011 15:07 01/11/2012
GEW-70R
GEW-070R
30/06/2011 10:47
25/08/2011 15:59 06/12/2012
14/12/2011 14:04
23/02/2012 13:49 24/01/2013
25/04/2012 15:07
20/07/2012 10:19 12/02/2013
17/09/2012 14:21
05/03/2013
15/11/2012 12:10
08/01/2013 16:03 11/11/2013
28/02/2013 16:01
30/10/2013 14:58 16/07/2014
03/06/2014 11:23
13/08/2014 10:34 11/09/2014
18/12/2014 8:50
28/07/2015 6:00 05/11/2014
Figure 2 – LFG Filed Data, Methane, Carbon Dioxide and Temperature at GEW-70R
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
CH4 & CO2 Concentration (%) CO (ppm)

Balance Gas Concentration (%)
Oxygen Concentration (%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
11/09/2009 13:15 11/09/2009 13:15

24/11/2009 13:15 24/11/2009 13:15
03/02/2010 17:23 03/02/2010 17:23
13/04/2010 10:51 13/04/2010 10:51
23/06/2010 13:33 23/06/2010 13:33
14/09/2010 11:40 14/09/2010 11:40
18/11/2010 15:05 18/11/2010 15:05
Average of O2
Average of Bal
05/01/2011 11:41 05/01/2011 11:41
Average of Vacuum
Average of Vacuum
12/01/2011 12:32 12/01/2011 12:32

24/01/2011 13:06 24/01/2011 13:06
02/02/2011 15:59 02/02/2011 15:59
09/02/2011 12:39 09/02/2011 12:39
23/02/2011 9:11 23/02/2011 9:11

07/03/2011 13:15 07/03/2011 13:15
24/03/2011 17:00 24/03/2011 17:00
21/04/2011 17:23 21/04/2011 17:23
24/05/2011 15:07 24/05/2011 15:07
GEW-070R
GEW-070R
30/06/2011 10:47 30/06/2011 10:47
25/08/2011 15:59 25/08/2011 15:59
14/12/2011 14:04 14/12/2011 14:04
23/02/2012 13:49 23/02/2012 13:49
25/04/2012 15:07 25/04/2012 15:07
20/07/2012 10:19 20/07/2012 10:19
17/09/2012 14:21 17/09/2012 14:21
15/11/2012 12:10 15/11/2012 12:10
08/01/2013 16:03 08/01/2013 16:03
28/02/2013 16:01 28/02/2013 16:01
30/10/2013 14:58 30/10/2013 14:58
03/06/2014 11:23 03/06/2014 11:23
13/08/2014 10:34 13/08/2014 10:34
18/12/2014 8:50 18/12/2014 8:50
28/07/2015 6:00 28/07/2015 6:00
Figure 4 – LFG Filed Data, Applied Vacuum vs. Oxygen Concentration at GEW-70R
0
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
Vacuum (" w.c.)

Figure 3 – LFG Filed Data, Applied Vacuum and Balance Gas Concentration at GEW-70R
Vacuum (" w.c.)

GEW-107
Point Init Adj Init Static Adj Static Init Diff Adj Diff System
Date Time CH4 CO2 O2 Bal
Name Flow Flow Press Press Press Press Pressure
GEW-107 30/07/2014 10:59 2.7 14.2 16.5 66.6 244 248 -15.3 -14.8 15.115 15.598 -15.38
GEW-107 30/07/2014 11:00 3.1 14.6 16.2 66.1 235 251 -14.6 -15 13.997 15.885 -14.9
GEW-107 13/08/2014 14:30 1.6 26.6 8.4 63.4 316 322 -26.3 -27.4 26.964 28.118 -27.97
GEW-107 13/08/2014 14:31 1.9 25.2 8.5 64.4 246 279 -15.4 -17.8 15.948 20.508 -17.8
GEW-107 26/08/2014 11:17 18.3 62.3 0.5 18.9 197 205 -12.8 -13 12.619 13.69 -13.14
GEW-107 26/08/2014 11:17 19.2 62.5 0.3 18 204 206 -13.2 -13.7 13.501 13.865 -13.35
GEW-107 09/09/2014 13:42 0.2 11.7 16.1 72 -19.96 -19.47 19.881 19.394 -20.18
GEW-107 09/09/2014 13:46 0.2 24.2 12.2 63.4 -19.96 -21.98 20.028 22.323 -20.67
GEW-107 26/09/2014 9:37 11.2 13.6 19.6 55.6 -22.16 -24.05 22.608 24.242 -21.71
GEW-107 26/09/2014 9:37 4.3 6 19.5 70.2 -23.69 -22.1 24.05 22.736 -25.57
GEW-107 07/10/2014 11:25 2 63.5 0.1 34.4 -8.73 -8.49 8.843 8.669 -21.47
GEW-107 07/10/2014 11:25 2.9 64.8 0.1 32.2 -8.85 -7.02 8.926 7.3 -21.65
GEW-107 20/10/2014 16:24 5.8 65.5 0 28.7 222 235 -18.6 -18.6 18.072 20.308 -20.83
GEW-107 20/10/2014 16:24 5.6 65.4 0 29 234 235 -20 -19.1 20.254 20.381 -19.46
GEW-107 07/11/2014 10:36 0.2 7.9 19.3 72.6 281 292 -18.8 -19.2 18.785 20.238 -19.62
GEW-107 07/11/2014 10:40 0.1 5.7 20 74.2 276 294 -18.7 -19.7 17.968 20.444 -20.05
GEW-107 18/11/2014 10:31 0.2 49.7 1.9 48.2 -12.15 -12.7 12.057 12.415 -12.05
GEW-107 16/12/2014 14:31 0.4 48.2 4.5 46.9 -17.83 -17.83 18.062 18.062 -18.1
GEW-107 20/01/2015 10:02 0.3 65.7 0.8 33.2 174 172 -8.5 -7.8 8.801 8.608 -8.8
September 9th 2014, applied vacuum 22” w.c., [O 2 ] = 12%,

Next reading September 26th, vacuum 23” w.c. and [O 2 ] = 19%
Note: Although database shows no flow conditions in these dates, there is a lab data point
labeled September 11th, 2014 (perhaps sampled September 9th) showing [O 2 ] = 13%, and [CO] =
1500ppm. One would think that summa canister samples are collected from open wells
- Continues application of excessive vacuum and Oxygen intrusion (Fig.1)

- High balance gas levels (Fig.2) confirmed by lab data (Fig.3 – September and November
2014)

Balance Gas Concentration (%)
Oxygen Concentration (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
5
10
15
20
25
Figure 2.
Figure 1.
25/05/2013 11:45 25/05/2013 11:45
04/06/2013 10:42 04/06/2013 10:42
07/09/2013 15:46 07/09/2013 15:46
22/10/2013 10:42 22/10/2013 10:42
06/11/2013 10:20 06/11/2013 10:20
13/11/2013 15:54 13/11/2013 15:54
18/11/2013 11:18 18/11/2013 11:18
Average of O2
Average of Bal
29/11/2013 16:40 29/11/2013 16:40
04/12/2013 10:35 04/12/2013 10:35
Average of Vacuum
Average of Vacuum
10/12/2013 9:39 10/12/2013 9:39
29/01/2014 15:03 29/01/2014 15:03
27/02/2014 11:20 27/02/2014 11:20
11/03/2014 8:50 11/03/2014 8:50
17/03/2014 14:34 17/03/2014 14:34

08/04/2014 11:14 08/04/2014 11:14
22/04/2014 14:21 22/04/2014 14:21
06/05/2014 15:18 06/05/2014 15:18
22/05/2014 13:35 22/05/2014 13:35
GEW-107
GEW-107
27/06/2014 10:42 27/06/2014 10:42
17/07/2014 9:27 17/07/2014 9:27
30/07/2014 11:00 30/07/2014 11:00
13/08/2014 14:31 13/08/2014 14:31
09/09/2014 13:42 09/09/2014 13:42
26/09/2014 9:37 26/09/2014 9:37
20/10/2014 16:24 20/10/2014 16:24
07/11/2014 10:40 07/11/2014 10:40
16/12/2014 14:31 16/12/2014 14:31
20/01/2015 10:13 20/01/2015 10:13
25/02/2015 15:58 25/02/2015 15:58
23/03/2015 14:56 23/03/2015 14:56
17/04/2015 15:25 17/04/2015 15:25
13/05/2015 14:06 13/05/2015 14:06
24/06/2015 12:01 24/06/2015 12:01
09/07/2015 10:10 09/07/2015 10:10
0
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
15
20
25
30
35
Vacuum (" w.c.)

Vacuum (" w.c.)
Temperature (°F) O2x10 and CH4, CO2, H2 & Bal. (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
Figure 4
Figure 3
25/05/2013 11:45
04/06/2013 10:42
17/07/2014
07/09/2013 15:46
Average of H2
Average of Bal
22/10/2013 10:42
Average of CH4
06/11/2013 10:20
13/11/2013 15:54
18/11/2013 11:18
Average of CH4
Average of CO2
29/11/2013 16:40
Average of Temp
11/09/2014
04/12/2013 10:35
10/12/2013 9:39
29/01/2014 15:03
27/02/2014 11:20
11/03/2014 8:50
Average of CO
Average of CO2
17/03/2014 14:34 07/11/2014

Average of O2 x 10
08/04/2014 11:14
22/04/2014 14:21
06/05/2014 15:18
22/05/2014 13:35 GEW107
GEW-107
27/06/2014 10:42
17/07/2014 9:27 20/01/2015
30/07/2014 11:00
13/08/2014 14:31
09/09/2014 13:42
26/09/2014 9:37
20/10/2014 16:24
07/11/2014 10:40 31/03/2015
16/12/2014 14:31
20/01/2015 10:13
25/02/2015 15:58
23/03/2015 14:56
17/04/2015 15:25
13/05/2015 14:06 13/05/2015
24/06/2015 12:01
09/07/2015 10:10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
CH4 & CO2 Concentration (%) CO (ppm)

APPENDIX O
EXPERTS CURRICULUM VITAE (CVs)

DR. TONY SPERLING, P.Eng.
President SHA / Landfill Design Engineer
Landfill Fire Control Specialist
PROFILE: 1978 - 1983 B.A.Sc. Geological Engineering, UBC, Geotechnical Option

1981 - 1982 (Summer) Engineering Student and Drill Inspector, B.C. Hydro
1983 (Summer) Mine Geologist, Brenda Mines Ltd.
1984 - 1985 M.A.Sc. Mining Engineering, UBC, Rock Mechanics
1984 (Summer) Geotechnical Engineer, Equity Silver Mines Ltd.
1985 - 1986 (Summer) Geological Engineer, Trigg, Woollett, Olson Consulting Ltd.
1986 - 1990 Ph.D., Geological Engineering, UBC, Ground Water Hydrogeology
1987 - 1988 (Summer) Geotechnical Engineer, Highland Valley Copper
1987 - 1989 Engineering Software Consultant, Sperling GeoComp Inc.
1989 - 1993 Geological Engineer, Gartner Lee Limited
1993 - 1995 Senior Geological Engineer, Gartner Lee Limited
1994 - Present Lecturer in Solid Waste Management, B.C.I.T.
1995 - 1996 Senior Engineer / President Sperling Engineering Services Inc.
1996 - Present President and Chief Engineer, Sperling Hansen Associates Inc.
2000 – Present President Landfill Fire Control Inc.
EXPERIENCE: Landfill Fires: Dr. Sperling has been responsible for

techniques at a cost of $400,000.
Dr. Sperling has also developed fire response plans and

prevention strategies for a number of municipal and industrial
clients including Weyerhaeuser, Metro Waste in Des Moines,
Iowa, , the City of Penticton, the County of Colchester in
Nova Scotia and the City of Kamloops, Bahamian Govt.,
Israel Ministry of Environment, amongst others.
To disseminate SHA’s knowledge in landfill fire control and

prevention, Dr. Sperling has prepared a one day course on
fire management that has been presented in Vancouver,
Calgary, Prince George, San Diego, Truro, Mexico, Panama,
Comox, Peterborough, Barry, Truro and Kamloops.
Solid Waste Management: As a landfill design specialist, in the past 25 years Dr. Sperling has
concentrated on providing state-of-the-art engineering services relating to the design, operation,
monitoring and closure at municipal landfills. He has completed over 1,000 geotechnical assessments,
design and operations plans and closure plans for more than 150 landfills, including both large
municipal sites such as the Vancouver Landfill in Burns Bog and the Hartland Landfill in Victoria, as
well as numerous small rural sites in the Thompson Nicola Regional District, the Regional District of
Bulkley Nechako, the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen and the Regional District of Kitimat
Stikine, amongst others. Flagship projects have included design of the Hartland Landfill PVC closure
system, design of the Whistler Landfill Expansion lining and leachate collection system and design of
slopes and landfill expansion for a large landfill expansion at the Bailey Road Landfill in Chilliwack.
A complete list of projects is included overleaf.
Dr. Sperling is also very active in disseminating the art of landfill engineering in B.C. He is a Director
of the B.C. SWANA Pacific Chapter and Chair of their Training Committee. He is also a member of
SWANA’s MOLO faculty. He has taught SWANA’s flagship Manager of Landfill Operations
LANDFILLFIRE CONTROL INC.
PROVIDING A FULL RANGE OF LANDFILL CONTROL AND PROTECTION SERVICES

DR. TONY SPERLING Page 2
President SHA / Landfill Design Engineer / Landfill Fire Control Specialist
(MOLO) course on four occasions. As well, he has specialty courses on landfill operations at Salmon
Arm, Smithers, Kamloops and in Burns Lake B.C and three invited courses on groundwater issues to
the MoELP waste managers throughout B.C. As well, he has developed and taught two courses on
landfill design at the British Columbia Institute of Technology.
Mining: Projects completed in the mining industry include the

design of the Valley Pit Dewatering System for Highland Valley
Copper, pit design of the Main Zone Pit at Equity Silver Mines
for Placer Dome Mines, a technical assessment of acid mine
drainage control at Equity, a technical review of ground water
control measures for the Lelydorp III bauxite mine in Suriname,
South America for N.V. Billiton Maatschappij, a
hydrogeological feasibility assessment of developing a diamond
mine beneath a lake in Canada’s Arctic for Canamera
Resources, and most recently, a hydrogeologic review of ARD
seepage from Island Copper’s sub-marine waste dumps.
Ground Water Modeling: Dr. Sperling has been involved in the

development of several computer models for assessing ground water flow. He has developed COAST,
a sophisticated pre and post processor program for MODFLOW, with Dr. R. A. Freeze. Development
of this software has resulted in numerous spin-off assignments including three successful modeling
courses for nearly 100 regional staff at the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. He has
taught courses on ground water modeling at the University of British Columbia, University of
Washington, the University of Wisconsin, and in house courses for ERM in Houston, Texas.
• Hydrogeotechnical Studies
Port Clements Landfill, Queen Charlotte Islands
Lillooet Landfill Hydrogeologic Investigation
Hartland Landfill Hydrogeologic Investigation and Leachate Management Concepts
Knockholt Sub-Regional Landfill Hydrogeotechnical Assessment, Houston
Thornhill Landfill Hydrogeotechnical Study, Terrace
Hydrogeological Assessment, City of Vancouver Landfill, Burns Bog, Delta
Bailey Road Landfill, District of Chilliwack
Crown Packaging Landfill, Vancouver
• Design and Operations Plans

Port Clements Landfill Lower Nicola Landfill, TNRD
Campbell Mountain Landfill, Penticton Chase Landfill, TNRD
Summerland Landfill Clearwater Landfill, TNRD
Foothills Boulevard Landfill, Prince George Heffley Creek Landfill, TNRD
Lillooet Landfill Barriere Landfill, TNRD
Hartland Landfill, Victoria Westwold Landfill, TNRD
Salmon Arm Landfill Iskut Landfill, RDKS
Bailey Road Landfill, District of Chilliwack Rosswood Landfill, RDKS
Hope Landfill Fort St. James Landfill, RDBN
Burns Lake Landfill, RDBN Smithers Landfill, RDBN
Granisle Landfill, RDBN Fraser Lake Landfill, RDBN
Manson Creek Landfill, RDBN Vanderhoof Landfill, RDBN
• Closure Plans
Squamish Landfill Logan Lake Landfill, TNRD
Whistler Landfill Clinton Landfill, TNRD


Final Cover Test Pad Program, Hartland Landfill Lytton Landfill, TNRD
Premier Landfill, North Vancouver Brookmere Landfill, TNRD
Toppley Landfill, RDBN Clucluz Lake Landfill, RDBN
Old Smithers Landfill, RDBN Tatalrose Landfill, RDBN
Perow Landfill, RDBN Fort Fraser Landfill, RDBN
Ootsa Lake Landfill, RDBN Old Houston Landfill, RDBN
Endako Landfill, RDBN Palling Landfill, RDBN
Topley Landing Landfill, RDBN City of Vancouver Landfill
• Engineering Design and Construction

South Face Closure Design, Hartland Landfill North and East Face Closure, Hartland
Underdrain Design Concept, Hartland Landfill North Ravine Closure Campbell Mountain
West Perimeter Diversion Ditch Design, Hartland Bailey Road Phase II Expansion, Chilliwack
Hope Landfill Leachate Collection System Detailed Design
• Stability Assessments
Fort Fraser Landfill Stability Assessment Hope Landfill Stability Assessment
• Environmental Monitoring
Annual Monitoring, Hartland Landfill, Victoria (1990-1994)
Hope Landfill Annual Monitoring, (1995-1997)
Thornhill Landfill Annual Monitoring (1996-1997)
Transition Plan and Environmental Monitoring
Landfill Gas Assessment, Campbell Mountain Landfill, Penticton
Geotechnical Engineering: Dr. Sperling has participated in a number of geotechnical investigations

throughout western Canada and the Arctic. His experience includes geotechnical investigation of dam
foundations, concrete aggregate resources and stream diversions on B.C. Hydro's Liard, Iskut and
Stikine and Hat Creek projects, construction supervision of a rock fill tailings dam for Equity Silver
Mines and slope stability studies for Equity Silver, Brenda Mines, Township of Langley, and Town of
Hope. He was the geotechnical engineer responsible for an innovative project that involved excavation
and drying of 150,000 m3 of very wet lake bottom peat deposits in Heal Basin. He has also completed
a number of stability assessments at landfill sites at Fort St. James, Hope and Chilliwack.
Environmental: Dr. Sperling has managed Phase II contaminated site investigations for B.C. Hydro,
Fletcher Challenge and MacMillan-Bloedel. Typically, the work involves a field program consisting of
drilling and sampling, laboratory testing, data interpretation and report preparation.
EDUCATION: Ph.D., Geological Engineering - Ground Water Hydrogeology, The University of British Columbia,
1990. Thesis Topic: A Risk-Cost-Benefit Framework for the Design of Dewatering Systems in Open
Pit Mines.
Post Graduate Course Work, The University of Arizona, 1989. Courses in hydrogeology and risk
based engineering design.
M.A.Sc., Mining Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 1985. Thesis topic: Slope Stability
and Dewatering in Main Zone Pit at Equity Silver Mine.
B.A.Sc., Geological Engineering, Geotechnical Option, The University of British Columbia, 1983.
Thesis Topic: Avalanche Control in Allison Pass.
Scholarships: Placer Development Ltd. Scholarship, 1981

Victor A. Olacke Memorial Bursary, 1981


British Columbia Hydro Scholarship, 1982
Cy Keyes Memorial Scholarship, 1983, 1984
National Research Council Scholarship, 1985, 1986
University Graduate Research Fellowship, 1987
COMPUTER: Dr. Sperling routinely uses the latest computer software to carry out state-of-the-art technical analyses
and enhance the quality of technical reports and presentations. Software that he routinely uses include
the Microsoft Office Suite of applications, AutoCad 13, AutoCad Lite, Surfer, BOSS Groundwater
Modeling System, TimeLine, ModView, ModFlow, and HELP.
As well, he is a proficient computer programmer in Quick Basic and Fortran languages. He specializes
in the development of user-friendly, graphic intensive software that helps him carry out complex
technical analyses efficiently. He has developed a comprehensive library of software for geotechnical,
hydrogeological and mining applications as well as several custom software products for a number of
corporate clients. These include:
COAST: Pre and post-processor to Modflow ground water flow model.

SG-Slope: Slope stability analysis via Sarma's method.
SG-Pump: Software for analysis for pumping tests.
SG-Volmod: Landfill Volume Terrain Modeling System
SG-Settle: Landfill Settlement Model
SG-Veneer: Landfill Cover Stability Model
AFFILIATIONS:
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) - Director of B.C. Chapter

COAST Waste Management Association
Northern Waste Management Association (NWMA) - Founding Member
Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia
Canadian Geotechnical Society
North American Geosynthetics Society (NAGS)
International Geosynthetics Society (IGS)
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS:
A Risk-Cost-Benefit Framework for the Design of Dewatering Systems in Open Pit Mines. 28th U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 999-1007. T. Sperling and R.A. Freeze, 1987.
Ground Water Control at Highland Valley Copper. International Journal of Surface Mining. Vol. 3,
No. 3, T. Sperling, W.K. Munro and R.A. Freeze, 1989.
Dewatering the Overburden at Highland Valley Copper. 41st Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Kitchener, Ontario, 1988, T. Sperling, W.K. Munro, R.A. Freeze, 1989.
Hydrogeological Decision Analysis: 1. A Framework. Ground Water, Vol. 28, No. 5, R.A. Freeze, J.
Massmann, L. Smith, T. Sperling and B. James, Sept. 1990.
Using Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis to Design a Dewatering System at Highland Valley Copper. 43rd
Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Quebec City, Quebec, T. Sperling, 1990.
Hydrogeological Decision Analysis: 2. Applications to Ground-Water Contamination. Ground Water,
Volume 29, Number 4, J. Massmann, R. A. Freeze, L. Smith, T. Sperling and B. James, 1991.


Hydrogeological Decision Analysis: 3. Application to Design of A Ground-Water Control System at an
Open Pit Mine. Ground Water Volume 30, Number 3, T. Sperling, R. A. Freeze, J. Massmann, L.
Smith and B. James, 1992.
Site Preparation at Hartland's Phase II Landfill, B.C. Water and Waste Annual Conference, Vernon,
B.C., T. Sperling, A de Meulles, S. Pitt, 1993.
Controlling Leachate at Landfills without Costly Liners, GLOBE 94 Conference, Vancouver, B.C., T.
Sperling, 1994
Design and Operations Plans for Municipal Landfills, B.C. Water and Waste Annual Conference,
Victoria, B.C., T. Sperling and M. Budzik, 1994
The Application of Geosynthetics at Hartland Landfill, Geosynthetics 95, Nashville Tennessee, T.
Sperling and A. Jones, 1995
New Trends in Landfill Design, 1995 Canadian Waste Management Conference, Quebec City, M.
Sungalia and T. Sperling, 1995.
Leachate Management at Victoria’s Hartland Landfill, Public Works and the Human Environment
Conference, Seattle, Washington, M. Budzik and T. Sperling, 1995
Geosynthetics Pass the Test, Waste, Washington, D.C., T. Sperling and A. Jones, August, 1995.
Hydrogeological Assessment of the City of Vancouver Landfill, 12th Annual Northwest Regional
Symposium, T. Sperling, R. Dickin and P. Henderson, April, 1996.
Landfill Closure in British Columbia, Solid Waste Association of North America, British Columbia
Pacific Chapter Meeting, T. Sperling, October, 1996.
Landfill Siting, Operation and Closure, Southern Interior Waste Managers Association Meeting, T.
Sperling, March 1997.
Final Closure at Hartland Landfill, 1997 Solid Waste Association of North America, Solid Waste
Symposium, T. Sperling and B. Hansen, April 1997.
Land Reclamation at Municipal Landfill Sites, 21st Annual Mine Reclamation Symposium, Cranbrook,
B.C. B. Hansen and T. Sperling, September, 1997.
From Dumps to Sanitary Landfills – Upgrading Solid Waste Management Systems in British
Columbia. 1999 SWANA Northwest Regional Symposium, Portland, Oregon, April, 1999.
Extinguishing the Delta Shake and Shingle Landfill Fire. Waste Age Magazine, Atlanta, Ga.
November, 2000.
Vancouver Landfill Demolition Fire. MSW Management Magazine Vol. 11, No. 4, Santa Barbara,
California, July/August, 2001
Understanding and Controlling Landfill Fires. SWANA 6th Annual Landfill Symposium, San Diego,
California, T. Sperling, June, 2001.
Issues to Remember when Dealing with Landfill Fires – Canadian Corner: MSW Solutions, SWANA,
Silver Spring, Maryland, March, 2002.
When a Fire Occurs at your Facility will you be ready? SWANA Training Center, Palm Springs, CA,
Dr. Tony Sperling, P.Eng., April, 2008.
Extinguishing the Vancouver Landfill Fire. SWANA Landfill Symposium and Planning &
Management Conference, Reno, Nevada. | Dr. T. Sperling and S. McCracken, April 12-13, 2010.
Controlling the Cerro Patacon Landfill Inferno, Panama: SWANA’s 19th Annual Landfill
Symposium, New Orleans, LA, Dr. T. Sperling, 2015


ALI ABEDINI, Ph.D.
Landfill Gas Specialist
PROFILE:
2008-Present Senior Environmental Consultant
Sperling Hansen Associates,
North Vancouver, B.C.
2006-2011 Research and Teaching Assistant
Department of Civil Engineering,
The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C.,
2005-2006 Environmental Specialist,
The World Bank
2005-2006 Environmenatl Specialist,
The World Bank Project Office
Ministry of Interior, Tehran, Iran
2003-2005 Project Manager, Tehran SWM Project
The Wold Bank Project, OWRC,
Municipality of Tehran, Iran
2001-2003 Civil & Environmental Engineer
Parsconsult Consulting Engineers, Tehran, Iran
1999-2001 Civil Engineer
Kheradmand Engineering Co., Tehran, Iran
EXPERIENCE:
Ali Abedini received his B.Sc. (1999) in Civil Engineering from IUT (Isfahan University of Technology) and
his M.Sc. (2003) in Civil & Environmental Engineering from University of Tehran (thesis entitled “Feasibility
Study of Municipal Solid Waste Recycling in Zanjan Province”), and his PhD in Civil Engineering from
University of British Columbia (thesis entitled “Integrated Approach for Accurate Quantification of Methane
Generation at Municipal Solid Waste Landfills”).
He joined the Recycling Organization of the Municipality of Tehran as the head of research deputy and was
soon appointed as the Manager of a World Bank funded project consisting of eight solid waste management
projects within the framework of the Tehran’s Integrated Solid Waste Management Project, including (i)
Landfill Preparation Study, (ii) Integrated Waste Management Strategy and Implementation Plan, (iii) Design of
Waste Separation and Recycling in Transfer Station , (iv) Social Assessment Study, (v) Pilot for Health Care
Waste Management in Tehran, (vi) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study for the Sanitary Landfill,
(vii) EIA Study for the Waste Sorting Pilot Plant in Transfer Station and (viii) Kahrizak Landfill Gas Extraction
Project (the first Carbon Fund and Landfill Gas extraction project in the country).
In 2005 Mr. Abedini joined the World Bank as a freelance consultant (environmental safeguard policy
specialist) and worked on several projects in Iran. In 2006 he moved to Canada to pursue his PhD degree at
UBC in the area of Solid Waste Management under supervision of Professor J. W. Atwater.
Ali joined Sperling Hansen Associates (SHA) in 2008. His main focus at SHA is designing LFG management
and GHG emission control systems. He has more than 14 years of experience in the field solid waste
management with his main focus on landfill and LFG collection system design.
KEY QUALIFICATIONS:
• Landfill gas specialist and technical expert in designing landfill gas management and control systems.
LANDFILLFIRE FIRE CONTROL INC.

ALI ABEDINI Page 2
• Expert in the field of solid waste management.

• Technical expert in the areas of Solid Waste Recycling, Composting, Landfilling, Bio-filters and Waste-to-
Energy.
• Experienced in landfill fire controls and fire risk reductions.
• Experienced manager for planning and organizing of tasks and for working with people and resolving problems.
• Experienced in international procurement procedures and especially with the World Bank procedures for
selection of consultants.
• Experienced in developing GHG emission reduction initiatives and CDM projects.
EDUCATION:
Ph.D., Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada,
2014. Thesis entitled “Integrated Approach for Accurate Quantification of Methane Generation at Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills”.
M.Sc., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tehran, University of Tehran (UoT), Iran, 2003. Thesis entitled
“Feasibility Study of Municipal Solid Waste Recycling in Zanjan Province”.
B.Sc., Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology (IUT), Isfahan, Iran, 1999.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION:
• Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
• International Solid Waste Association (ISWA)
PUBLICATIONS:
• Quantifying Methane Oxidation at Municipal Landfills Cover Soil Using the Stable Isotope Technique and Flux
Chambers, under review for publication.
• Effects of Recycling Activities on Waste Disposal Options: Case Study of the Metro Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, Oral Presentation at the 2012 World Solid Waste Congress, Florence, Italy.
• Effect of Recycling Activities on the Heating Value of Solid Waste: Case Study of the Greater Vancouver
Regional District (Metro Vancouver), Journal of Waste Management and Research, August 2012.
• Estimating GHG emissions from Waste Water Treatment Plants, Course paper, Department of Civil
Engineering, the University of British Columbia, April 2007.
• Healthcare Waste Management Strategy, Case Study of Tehran Metropolitan, Accepted and Published, 2nd
National Clean Earth Day and Waste Management Conference, April 2006.
• World Bank Safeguard Policies and its interaction with EIA, Accepted and Published, 3rd Iranian National
Conference in Environmental Impact Assessment, Tehran, Iran, February 2006.
• Kahrizak Landfill Carbon Collection and Closure Strategy: case study of Iran's largest landfill, Accepted in 10th
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy, October 2005
• Integrated Waste Management Strategy, M.Sc. Thesis Advisor, University of Tehran, 2005.
• Feasibility Study for PET Recycling in Iran, Case Study of PET Recycling in District #13, M.Sc. Thesis
Advisor, University of Tehran, 2005.
• Feasibility Study on Recycling Potentials in Zanjan Province, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Tehran, Iran, 2003


ALI ABEDINI Page 3
RESEARCH INTERESTS:
• Landfill gas emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from landfills
• Measurement of fugitive methane emissions from landfills
• Assessment of LFG collection efficiency and GHG emission from Landfills
• Organic waste diverion and waste to energy initiatives
• (APEGBC).


Name Patrick Foss-Smith MSc, MInstRE, CMIWM
Age 62
Higher Education Southampton College of Technology. HND Marine Engineering.
Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. Graduate
Royal School of Military Engineering. Graduate (civil / military engineering)
University of Southampton. MSc Graduate Sustainable Waste Management
1985-2014 — Freelance Environmental Consulting Services.
Examples of my waste management work include:
• Principal landfill fire detection and treatment consultant for a fire at an

illegal landfill (current task for the Israeli Ministry of Environment)
• Detection and treatment of various deep-seated municipal landfill fires
(Norfolk County Council, Biffa, Viridor and others)
• Detection and treatment of a deep seated tyre fire in Wales (Sir William
Halcrow and partners)
• Detailed design and implementation of an integrated waste collection,
recycling, incineration and landfill system in Mauretania (MCE Mauretania)
• Conducted a detailed review into the scope of likely residual hazardous
wastes to be found in obsolete naval vessels including appropriate ship
breaking and waste pre-treatment techniques (White Young Green
Environmental for UK Ministry of Defence)
• A technical review of the status of Plasma Conversion as a means of
disposing of hazardous wastes. Works included a comparative technology
/ economic review of alternative technologies (White Young Green
Environmental for UK Ministry of Defence)
• Drafting fire avoidance Conditions for inclusion in landfill site permits
(various Local Authorities and the Environment Agency)
• Expert Witness for Professional Indemnity insurers regarding landfilled
asbestos under a housing development located on a former RAF airfield
(Bureau Veritas UK).
• Expert Witness for a planning application hearing for a landfill, at risk of a
landfill fire, in the Republic of Ireland (White Young Green Environmental
plc)
• Expert Witness for appeal against refusal of a permit application for a
landfill, considered to be at risk of a landfill fire, in the Republic of Ireland
(White Young Green Environmental plc)
• Expert Witness for appeal against the enforced closure of a landfill site
(Alexander Metals)
• Expert Witness to assist the Arbitrator to assess the validity of a claim for
unpaid Landfill Tax arising from incinerator waste (for Wolverhampton City
Council).

1980-1985 — George Wimpey plc
Managing Director of Wimpey Laboratories’ operations in Saudi Arabia.

Responsible for the business profitability and technical output. Responsible
for negotiating turn-key contracts for water and environmental engineering,
waste disposal engineering (landfill & treatment) and associated laboratory
services to ARAMCO and other clients.
1975 - 1980 — Army Officer, Royal Engineers, UK Ministry of Defence
1970 - 1975 — Marine Engineer Officer, P&O Shipping Company
Papers:
Paper: Mixtures for the Adsorption and Storage of Radionuclides Contained in

Nuclear Waste and Contaminated Groundwater. Authors: Patrick Foss-Smith,
Brimac Carbon Services, Ltd. (UK); Ray Lidzey, Brimac Carbon Services, Ltd. (UK) ;
James H.P. Watson, University of Southampton (UK) ; Derek Elwood, University of
Southampton (UK).
Paper: Understanding Landfill Fires Waste Management World.
Paper; Detection and Diagnosis of Deep Seated landfill Fires Journal of the
Chartered Institute of Wastes Management
Article, Igniting Caution Journal of the Chartered Institute of Wastes Management
Guest Speaker on behalf of the Royal Geographical Society, on the subject of

renewable energy

Capability Statement
Patrick Foss-Smith MSc, MInstRE, MCIWM

Landfill Fire Specialist
Summary of career experience:
 Qualified, indentured, mechanical engineer

 Qualified civil / military engineer arising from commissioned service with Royal Engineers
 Employed by waste management / landfill operator from 1980 to 1985
 Self-employed waste management consultant from 1985 to present
Academic and Publications
 MSc (Sustainable Waste Management) at University of Southampton – Dissertation research into landfill fires
 Member of the Chartered Institute of Waste Management
 Paper: Understanding Landfill Fires Waste Management World.
 Paper; Detection and Diagnosis of Deep Seated Landfill Fires Journal of the Chartered Institute of Wastes
Management
Examples of Experience:
1984 – General Manager of a consultancy in Saudi Arabia contracted to extinguish a surface fire in Jubail and another in
Jeddah.
1988 – Diagnosis and treatment of an underground tyre fire in Wales including survey, thermal imaging and Site
Investigation. Project management of treatment works based on cryogenic gas injection.
1998 – Risk Assessment of an underground fire adjacent to a buried WWII explosives dump, in the Ukraine, on behalf of
World Bank.
2009 / 10 – Attachment to the US EPA (OEPA) to research and learn from, USA best practice. Attendance at a number of
fires in support of PhD research.
2010 – Forensic investigation to provide evidence of arson on behalf of a UK insurance company.
2010 – Drafting fire risk reduction measures for inclusion in a site permit application
2011 – Second Opinion on the treatment method proposed for a surface fire at an illegal municipal waste landfill in Ireland.
2011 – Expert Witness on behalf of a landfill operator defending the fire resistance measures proposed for a DAC lined
landfill near Dublin.
2011 – Forensic investigation into the initiation of a municipal waste landfill fire at a Local Authority landfill.
2011 – Project management of a deep-seated fire below the cap of a municipal waste landfill in East Anglia,
using inert gas; having negotiated the treatment method with the Environment Agency.
2011 / 12 – Site investigation and excavation methodology for an illegal municipal waste landfill fire in Israel on behalf of
the Israeli Department of Environment.
Related Skill Sets
 Design and assembly of down-the-hole temperature profiling arrays and data-loggers.

 Interpretation of aerial thermal scans
 Construction of 3D visualisations of underground conditions using data integration techniques (topographical
anomaly, thermal imagery, temperature profiling, gas analysis, etc)
 Risk Assessment of treatment works
 Works planning and supervision

John Grace | Chemical and Biological Engineering http://www.chbe.ubc.ca/profile/john-grace/
Faculty of Applied Science
John R. Grace (http://chbe.sites.olt.ubc.ca

/profile/john-grace/)
Professor Emeritus
Former Canada Research Chair in Clean Energy Processes
Fluidization, Reactor Design, Fluid-Particle Systems, Biomass,
Coal, Combustion, Two-Phase Flow, Fluid
[email protected] (mailto:jo%68n%2eg%72a%63%65%40ubc.
%63%61)
Education
University of Western Ontario, 2003, D.Sc. (Hon.)
Cambridge University, 1968, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering
University of Western Ontario, 1965, B.E.Sc.
Research Interests
Dr. Grace’s primary research interests are concerned with fluidized bed reactors and related
multi-phase systems. Fluidized beds are used for a wide variety of chemical and physical purposes,
for example in catalytic, gas-solid and three-phase reactors, drying, coating and thermal treatment.
Working closely with graduate students, fellow faculty members and other research associates, Dr.
Grace has investigated a wide range of problems which are fundamental in nature, but which have
practical application. Some of the topics studied in the recent past include transient forces on
immersed tubes, heat transfer in circulating fluidized beds, hydrodynamics and mixing in high velocity
beds, effects of particle size distribution, reactor modelling, scale-up issues, attrition, electrostatics,
non-uniformity of flow through parallel channels, computational fluid dynamics, comparison of
alternative techniques for voidage and velocity measurements, and dispersion and inversion
phenomena in liquid-fluidized beds. Applications studied include fluidized bed combustion and
gasification of biomass and coal, a novel process for steam reforming of natural gas to make pure
hydrogen, and greenhouse gas capture. While most work is on gas-solid fluidization, some work is
also done on spouted beds and on liquid-solid and gas-liquid-solid fluidized beds. Many of the projects
are motivated by direct industrial interest. The research is funded by government and by industrial
sources.
The U.B.C. group has unique facilities for the study of fluidization. For example, the group operates a
pilot-scale circulating fluidized bed gasification unit in which both fundamental and applied data have
been obtained. There are also a number of other units of different scales and a wide variety of related
equipment for characterizing particles and obtaining in-bed measurements.
Dr. Grace is also involved, often in collaboration with researchers from other departments and
industry, in the factors leading to the spread of brominated and fluorinated compounds in the
environment, improvement in the properties of perm-selective membranes, removal of contaminants
from waste streams, mixing in the pulp and paper industry, and development of unique clay resources
of British Columbia.
Publications
J.R. Grace Publications, 2012- June 2015
1. Xu WJ, Li LY and Grace JR, Regeneration of natural Bear River clinoptilolite used to remove Zn
from acid mine drainage in a slurry bubble column, Applied Clay Sciences, 55, 83-87 (2012).
2. Li TW, Grace JR, Bi HT, Reid K and Wormsbecker M, Numerical investigation of Fluid CokingÔ
units, Part I: Hydrodynamics of a scaled cold flow model, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 90(2), 442-456
(2012).
State of MO v. Republic
3. Li Services,
TW, Grace Inc.
JR, BietHT,
al Reid K and Wormsbecker M, Numerical investigation of Fluid CokingÔ
1 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM
units, Part II: Modelling of feed vaporization, Can. J. Chem. Eng.,90(2), 457-471 (2012).
4. Yenjaichon W, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Bennington C, In-line jet mixing of liquid-pulp fibre
suspensions: Effect of concentration and velocities, Chem. Eng. Sci., 75, 167-176 (2012).
5. Zhang LF, Hou J, Bi XT, Grace JR, Janke T and Arato C, Electrostatic beneficiation of fly ash in a
free-falling separation system, Particuology, 10, 154-160 (2012).
6. Vashisth S and Grace JR, Simulation of granular transport of Geldart type A, B and D particles
through a 90° elbow, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 51, 2030-2047 (2012).
7. Abo-Ghander N, Logist F, Grace JR, van Impe JFM, Elnashaie SSEH and Lim CJ, Comparison of
diffusion models in the modelling of a catalytic membrane fixed bed reactor coupling
dehydrogen-ation of ethylbenzene with hydrogenation of nitrobenzene, Computers & Chem.
Engng, 38, 11-23 (2012).
8. Fan CG, Bi XT, Grace JR and Goto Y, Grid zone performance of a fluidized bed through analysis
of local solids holdup signals, Powder Technol., 219, 37-44 (2012).
9. Gorgy TA, Li LY, Grace JR and Ikonomou MG, An exploratory investigation on the mobility of
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in biosolids-amended soil, Water, Soil & Water Pollution,
223, 2297-2309 (2012).
10. Xiao G, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Limestone particle attrition in high-velocity air jets, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res., 51(1), 556-560 (2012).
11. Li BL, Danon-Shaffer MN, Li LY, Ikonomou MG and Grace JR, Occurrence of PFCs and PBDEs
in landfill leachates from across Canada, Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 223, 3365-3372 (2012).
12. Zhang LF, Hou JT, Bi XT, Grace JR, Janke T and Arato C, Fluidization characteristics and charging
behavior of fly ash in a vibro-fluidized bed, Powder Technol. 215, 235-241 (2012).
13. Moughrabiah WO, Grace JR and Bi XT, Electrostatics in gas-solid fluidized beds for different
particle properties, Chem, Eng. Sci., 75, 198-208 (2012).
14. Jalalinejad F, Bi XT and Grace JR, Effect of electrostatic charges on a single bubble in gas-sold
fluidized beds, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 44, 15-28 (2012).
15. Vivacqua V, Vashisth S, Hébrard G, Grace JR and Epstein N, Characterization of fluidized bed
layer inversion in a 191-mm-diameter column using both experimental and CPFD approaches,
Chem. Eng. Sci., 80, 419-428 (2012).
16. Dai J, Cui HP and Grace JR, Biomass feeding for thermochemical reactors, Progr. Energy &
Combustion Science, 38, 716-736 (2012).
17. Ellis N, Lim CJ, Reyes PA, Soletti JI and Grace JR, Acoustic emissions method for solids mass
flux measurement, Proc. 21st International Fluidized Bed Combustion Conf., pp. 681-688 (2012).
18. Benskin J, Li B, Ikonomou MG, Grace JR and Li LY, Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: patterns,
tome trends, sources, Envir. Sci. & Technol. 46, 11532-11540 (2012).
19. Talukdar S, Banthia N and Grace JR, Carbonation in concrete infrastructure in the context of
global climate change: Part 1, Experimental results and model development, Cement & Concrete
Composites, 34(8), 924-930 (2012).
20. Talukdar S, Banthia N, Grace JR and Cohen S, Carbonation in concrete infrastructure in the
context of global climate change: Part 2: Canadian urban simulations, Cement & Concrete
Composites,34(8), 931-935 (2012).
21. VIgneault A. Grace JR and Elnashaie SSEH, Simulation of a compact multi-channel membrane
reactor for the production of pure hydrogen via steam methane reforming, Chem. Eng. & Technol.
35(8), 1520-1533 (2012).
22. Yenjaichon W, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Gas dispersion in horizontal pulp-fibre-suspension flow, Int.
J. Multiphase Flow, 49, 49-57 (2013).
23. Gorgy T, Li LY, Grace JR and Ikonomou MG, Migration of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in
biosolids-amended soil, Envir. Pollution, 172, 124-130 (2013).
24. Danon-Schaffer M., Machecha-Botero A, Grace JR, Transfer of PBDEs from e-waste to aqueous
media, Sci Total Environment, 447, 458-471 (2013).
25. Dubrawski K, Tebianian S, Bi HT, Chaouki J, Ellis N, Gerspacher R, Jafari R, Kantsas A, Lim CJ,
Patience GS, Pugsley T, QI MZ, Zhu JX and Grace JR, Traveling column for comparison of
invasive and non-invasive fluidization voidage measurement techniques, Powder Technol, 235,
203-220
State(2013).
of MO v. Republic Services, Inc. et al
2 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM
26. Tannous K, Lam PS. Sokhansanj S and Grace JR, Physical properties for flow characterization of
ground biomass from Douglas-fir wood, Particulate Sci, & Technol., 31, 291-300 (2013).
27. Yenjaichon W, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Bennington CJ, Gas dispersion in pulp-suspension flow in
the presence of an in-line mechanical mixer, Chem. Eng. Sci., 93, 22-31 (2013).
28. Nagahashi Y, Yamamoto D, Grace JR and Asako Y, Forces on horizontal tubes of non-circular
cross-section, in Fluidization, ed. J.A.M. Kuipers, R.F. Mudde, J.R. van Ommen and N.G. Dean,
pp. 607-614 (2013).
29. Danon-Schaffer M., Machecha-Botero A, Grace JR, Mass balance evaluation of polybrominated
diethyl ethers in landfill leachate and potential for transfer from e-waste, Sci. Total Environment,
461-462, 290-301 (2013).
30. Grace JR and Lim CJ, Properties of circulating fluidized beds (CFB) relevant to combustion and
gasification systems, Chapter 4 in Fluidized bed technologies for near-zero emission combustion
and gasification, ed. F. Scala, Woodhead Publishing, pp.147-176, 2013.
31. Rim GH, Jeong CH, Bae JW, Lee Y, Lee DH, Epstein N, Grace JR and Kim SD, Prediction of layer
inversion velocity in three-phase fluidized beds, Chem. Eng. Sci., 100, 91-97 (2013).
32. Yenjaichon W, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Bennington C, In-line jet mixing of liquid-pulp-fiber
suspensions, AIChE Journal, 59(3), 1420-1430 (2013).
33. Yenjaichon W, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Bennington CJ, Characterization of gas mixing in water and
pulp-suspension flow based on electrical resistance tomography, Chem, Eng, Journal, 214,
285-297 (2013).
34. Xu N, Ryi S, Li AW, Grace JR, Lim CH and Boyd T, Improved pre-treatment of porous stainless
steel substrate for preparation of Pd-based composite membrane, Can.J.Chem.Eng. 91,
1695-1701 (2013).
35. Habibi R, Kopyscinski J, Masnadi M, Lam J, Grace JR, Mims C and Hill, J, Co-gasification of
biomass and non-biomass feedstocks: synergistic and inhibition effects of switchgrasss with
sub-bituminous coal and fluid coke during CO2 gasification, Energy & Fuels, 27, 494-500 (2013).
36. Yenjaichon W, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Bennington CJ, Pilot scale examination of mixing liquid into
pulp fiber suspensions in the presence of an in-line mechanical mixer, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, 52(1),
485-498 (2013).
37. Vivacqua V, Xu WJ, Hébrard G, Li LY and Grace JR, Modelling of zinc adsorption into clinoptilolite
in a slurry bubble column, Chem. Eng. Sci., 100, 326-331 (2013).
38. Vivacqua V, Vashisth S, Prams A, Hébrard G, Epstein N and Grace JR, Experimental and CPFD
study of axial and radial liquid mixing in water-fluidized beds of two solids exhibiting layer
inversion, Chem. Eng. Sci., 95, 119-127 (2013).
39. Zhong WQ, Chen X, Grace JR, Epstein N and Jin BS, Intelligent prediction of minimum spouting
velocity of spouted bed by back propagation neural network, Powder Technol, 247,197-203 (2013).
40. Chen ZW, Lim CJ and Grace JR, Stability of slot-rectangular spouted beds with multiple slots,
Can. J. Chem. Eng., 91, 1768-1775 (2013).
41. Liu XJ, Shao YJ, Zhong WQ, Grace JR, Epstein N and Jin BS, Prediction of minimum spouting
velocity by CFD-TFM approach development, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 91, 1800-1808 (2013).
42. Zhong WQ, Liu XJ, Grace JR, Epstein N, Ren B and Jin BS. Prediction of minimum spouting
velocity by CFD-TFM: Scale-up, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 91, 1809-1814 (2013).
43. Xu WJ, Li LY, Grace JR and Hébrard G, Acid rock drainage treatment by clinoptilolite with slurry
bubble column: Sustainable zinc removal with regeneration of clinoptilolite, Applied Clay Science,
80-81, 31-37 (2013).
44. Masnadi MS, Habibi R, Kopyscinski J, Hill JM, Bi XT, Lim CJ, Ellis N and Grace JR, Fuel
characterization and co-pyrolysis kinetics of biomass and fossil fuels, Fuel, 117, 1204-1214 (2014).
45. Hejazi B, Grace JR, Bi, XT and Mahecha-Botero A., Steam gasification of biomass coupled with
lime-based CO2 capture in a dual fluidized bed reactor: a modelling study, Fuel, 117, 1256-1266
(2014).
46. Mahecha-Botero A, Li TW, Haseidl S, Nguyen A and Grace JR, Experimental and computational
fluid dynamic study of the change of volumetric flow in fluidized-bed reactors, Chem. Eng. Sci.,
106, 231-241 (2014)
47. He C, Bi XTof
State and
MOGrace JR, Contact
v. Republic electrification
Services, Inc. of
etaalnovel dual-material probe with charged
3 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM
particulate flow, Powder Technol., 253, 1-9 (2014).
48. Basinas P, Wu Y, Grammelis P, Anthony EJ, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Effect of pressure and gas
concentration on CO2 and SO2 capture performance of limestones, Fuel, 122, 236-246 (2014).
49. Abo-Ghander N, Logist F, van Impe JFM, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Heterogeneous modeling of an
autothermal membrane reactor coupling dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene to styrene with
hydrogenation of nitrobenzene to aniline: Fickian diffusion model, Chem. Eng. & Proc., 77, 50-65
(2014).
50. Tebianian S, Ahmadi Motlagh AH, Vashisth S, Cocco RA, Ellis N, Hays R, Karri SBR and Grace
JR, Extending the comparison of voidage measurement and modeling techniques in fluidized
beds, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology 11, ed. J Li, F Wei and XJ Bao, Chemistry Industry
Press, Beijing, pp. 137-142 (2014).
51. Alsmari T, Grace JR and Bi XT, Interactions among pressure, electrostatics and particle
entrainment in gas-solid fluidized beds, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology 11, ed. J Li, F Wei
and XJ Bao, Chemistry Industry Press, Beijing, pp. 175-180 (2014).
52. He C, Bi XT and Grace JR, Dual-material probe measurement of electrostatic charges and
hydrodynamics in gas-solid fluidized beds, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology 11, ed. J Li, F
Wei and XJ Bao, Chemistry Industry Press, Beijing, pp. 183-188 (2014).
53. Danon-Schaffer MN, Grace JR and Ikonomou MG, Investigation of PBDEs in landfill leachates
from across Canada, Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, 3, 74-97 (2014)
54. Butler J, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Kinetics of CO2 absorption by CaO through pressure swing
cycling, Fuel, 127, 78-87 (2014).
55. Rim GH; Kim JK; Lee DH, Grace JR and Epstein N, Data and models for liquid velocity and liquid
holdup at layer inversion point in a three-phase fluidized bed of binary solids, Chem. Eng. Sci.,
109, 82-84 (2014).
56. Chen YM, Mahecha-Botero A, Lim CJ, Grace JR, Zhang JY, Zhao YC and Zheng CG, Hydrogen
production in a sorption-enhanced fluidized bed membrane reactor: Operating parameter
investigation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Research, 53, 6230-6242 (2014).
57. Jimenez M, Dietrich N, Grace JR and Hébrard G, Oxygen mass transfer and hydrodynamic
behaviour in wastewater: determination of local impact of surfactants by visualization techniques,
Water Research, 58, 111-121 (2014).
58. Xu N, Kim SS, Li AW, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Boyd T, Preparation and characterization of
palladium-ruthenium composite membrane on alumina-modified PSS substrate, Can.J.Chem.Eng.,
92, 1041-1047 (2014).
59. Talukdar S, Banthia N, Grace JR and Cohen S, Climate change induced carbonation of concrete
infrastructure, Construction Materials, 167(3), 140-150 (2014).
60. Xu WJ, Li LY and Grace JR, Dealumination of clinoptilolite and its effect on zinc removal from acid
rock drainage, Chemosphere, 111, 427-433 (2014)..
61. Yenjaichon W, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Kerekes RJ, Mixing quality in low-consistency fibre
suspensions downstream of an in-line mechanical mixer measured by electrical resistance
tomography, Nordic Pulp and Paper Research Journal, 29(3), 392-400 (2014).
62. Ahmadi Motlagh AH, Grace JR, Salcudean M and Hrenya C, New structure-based model for
Eulerian simulation of hydrodynamics in gas-solid fluidized beds of Geldart group “A” particles,
Chem Eng Sci, 120, 22-36 (2014).
63. Knight A, Ellis N, Grace JR and Lim CJ, CO2 sorbent attrition testing for fluidized bed systems,
Powder Technology, 266, 412-423 (2014).
64. Gang X, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Evolution of limestone particle size distribution in an air-jet attrition
apparatus, Ind. Eng. Chem. Research, 53, 15845-15851 (2014).
65. Yu MM, Masnadi MS, Grace JR, Bi XT, Lim CJ and Li YH, Co-gasification of biosolids with
biomass: thermogravimetric analysis and pilot scale study in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor,
Bioresource Technol., 175, 51-58 (2015).
66. Saayman J, Aumann M, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Reyes-Ramirez P, Hinrichsen O, Ellis N,
Hydrodynamics of lime-based pellets in a dual fluidized bed and the effect of temperature, Chem.
Eng. J. , 260, 532-540 (2015).
67. He C, Bi XTof
State and
MOGrace JR, Simultaneous
v. Republic measurements
Services, Inc. et al of particle charge density and bubble
4 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM
properties in gas-fluidized beds by dual-tip electrostatic probes, Chem. Eng. Sci., 123, 11-21
(2015).
68. Alsmari TA, Grace JR and Bi XT, Effects of superficial gas velocity and temperature on
entrainment and electrostatics in gas-solid fluidized beds, Chem. Eng. Sci., 123, 49-56 (2015).
69. Kim M, Li LY and Grace JR, Selecting reliable physicochemical properties of perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) based on molecular descriptors, Envir. Pollution, 196, 462-472
(2015).
70. Braga MB, Wang ZL, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Rocha SCS, Slot-rectangular spouted bed:
Hydrodynamic stability and effects of operating conditions on drying performance, Drying Technol.
33(2), 216-226 (2015).
71. Vigneault A and Grace JR, Hydrogen production in multi-channel membrane via steam-methane
reforming and methane catalytic combustion, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 40, 233-243 (2015).
72. Masnadi MS, Grace JR, Bi XT, Ellis N, Lim CJ and Butler JW, From fossil fuels towards
renewables: Inhibitory and catalytic effects on carbon thermochemical conversion during
co-gasification of biomass with fossil fuel, Applied Energy, 140, 196-209 (2015).
73. Jalalinejad F, Bi XT and Grace JR, Effect of electrostatics on interaction of bubble pairs in a
fluidized bed, Adv. Powder Technol, 70, 104-112 (2015).
74. Masnadi MS, Grace JR, Bi XT, Lim CJ, Watkinson AP and Li YH, Single fuel steam gasification of
switchgrass and coal in a bubbling fluidized bed: a comprehensive parametric reference for
co-gasification study, Energy, 80, 133-147 (2015).
75. Tebianian S, Dubrawski K, Ellis N, Cocco R, Hayes R, Karri SBR, Leadbeater TW, Parker DJ,
Chaouki J, Jafari R, Garcia-Trinanes P, Seville JPK and Grace JR, Investigation of particle velocity
in FCC gas-fluidized beds based on different measurement techniques, Chem. Eng. Sci., 127,
310-322 (2015).
76. Jalalinejad F, Bi XT and Grace JR, Effect of electrostatics on freely-bubbling beds of mono-sized
particles, Int. J. Multiph. Flow, 70, 104-112 (2015).
77. Talukdar S, Banthia N and Grace JR, Modeling the effects of structural cracking on carbonation
front advance into concrete, Int. J. Structural Engng., 6(1), 73-87 (2015).
78. Li B, Li LY and Grace JR, Adsorption and hydraulic conductivity of landfill-leachate perfluorinated
compounds in bentonite barrier mixtures, J. Envir. Management, 156, 236-243 (2015).
79. Kim SS, Xu N, Li AW, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Ryi SK, Development of a new porous metal
substrate based on nickel and its application for Pd-based composite membranes, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy, 40(8), 3520-3527 (2015).
80. Zhang LF, Bi XT and Grace JR, Measurement of electrostatic charging of powder mixtures in a
free-fall test device, Procedia Engng. 102, 295-304 (2015).
81. Vashisth S, Ahmadi-Motlagh, AH, Tebianian S, Salcudean M and Grace JR, Comparison of
numerical approaches to model FCC particles in gas-solid bubbling fluidized bed, Chem. Eng. Sci.,
134, 269-286 (2015).
82. Chen Y, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Zhang J, Zhao Y, Zheng C, Characterization of pressure fluctuations
from a gas-solid fluidized bed by structure density function analysis, Chem. Eng. Sci., 129,
156-167 (2015).
83. Masnadi MS, Grace JR, Bi XT, Ellis N, Lim CJ and Butler JW, Biomass/coal steam co-gasification
integrated with in situ CO2 capture, Energy, 83, 326-336 (2015).
84. Liang C, Grace JR, Shen L, Yu an G, Chen X and Zhao C, Experimental
investigation of pressure letdown flow characteristics in dense-phase pneumatic conveying at high
pressure, Powder Technol. 277, 171-180 (2015).
85. Grace JR, Fluidized bed catalytic reactors, Chapter 4 in Multiphase Catalytic Reactors: Theory,
Design, Manufacturing and Applications, ed. Onsan ZI and Avci AK, Wiley, New York, in press.
86. Xu N, Kim SS, Li AW, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Boyd T, Novel electroless plating of ruthenium for
fabrication of palladium-ruthenium composite membrane on PSS substrate and its
characterization, J. Membrane Sci. & Research, in press.
87. Butler JS and Grace JR, High-pressure systems and processes for calcium looping, Chap. 16 in
Calcium and Chemical Looping Technology for Power Generation and Carbon Dioxide Capture,
Ed. Fennel
State Pofand
MOAnthony EJ, Woodhead
v. Republic Publishing.
Services, Inc. et alIn press.
5 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM
88. He C, Bi XT and Grace JR, A novel dual-material probe for in-situ measurement of particle charge
densities in gas-solid fluidized beds, Particuology, in press.
89. Abbasi M, Grace JR, Soude-Gharebagh R, Zhargami R and Moustofi N, Numerical comparison of
gas-liquid bubble columns and gas-solid fluidized beds, Can.J.Chem.Eng., in press.
90. Dai J, Saayman J, Grace JR and Ellis N, Gasification of woody biomass, Ann. Rev. Chem. Biomol.
Eng., in press.
91. Kim M, Li LY, Grace JR, Benskin J and Ikonomou MG, Compositional effects on leaching of stain-
guarded (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance-treated) carpet in landfill leachate, Envir.
Sci. & Technol., in press.
92. Saidi M, Wang Z, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Numerical and experimental investigation of
hydrodynamic characteristics of a slot-rectangular spouted bed, Can.J.Chem.Eng., in press.
93. Masnadi MS, Grace JR, Bi XT, Watkinson AP, Ellis N, Li YH and Lim CJ, From coal towards
renewables: catalytic/synergistic effects during steam co-gasification of switchgrass and coal in a
pilot-scale bubbling fluidized bed reactor, Renewable Energy, in press.
94. Saldarriaga JF, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Wang ZL, Xu N, Atxutegi A, Aguado R and Olazar, M, Bed-to-
surface heat transfer in conical spouted beds of biomass-sand mixtures, Powder Technol., in
press.
95. He C, Bi XT and Grace JR, Decoupling electrostatic signals from gas-solids bubbling fluidized
beds, Powder Technol., in press.
Previous Publications not Picked Up by Google Scholar
Constantineau JP, Bouffard SC, Grace JR, Richards GG and Lim CJ, Demonstration of the
conditions conducive to agglomeration of zinc calcine in fluidized bed roasters, Minerals Engng.
24(13), 1409-1420 (2011).
Gorgy T, Li LY, Grace JR and Ikonomou MG, Polybrominated diphenyl ethers mobility in biosolids-
amended soils using leaching column tests, Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 222(1-4), 77-90 (2011).
Grace JR and Lim CJ, Scale-up, slot-rectangular and multiple spouting, Chapter 17 in Spouted
and Spout-Fluid Beds, ed. N. Epstein and J.R. Grace, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
U.K., pp. 286-299, 2011.
Rakib MA, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Fluidized bed membrane reactor for steam reforming of higher
hydrocarbons: model sensitivity, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology, Engineering Conferences
International, New York, pp. 313-320 (2011).
Nagahashi Y, Grace JR, Epstein N, Asako Y and Yokogawa A, Fundamental study of washing
characteristics of a novel multiphase flow system, J. Proc. Mech. Engng, 224, 223-231 (2010).
Kobayashi Y, Mori Y, Goto A, Bi HT and Grace JR, Heat transfer to immersed cooling tubes and
particles in a fluidized bed reactor, Fluidization XIII, in Fluidization XIII, ed. S.D. Kim, Y. Kang, J.K.
Lee and Y.C. Seo, Engineering Conferences International, Brooklyn, pp. 599-606, 2010.
Li TW, Grace JR and Bi, HT, Numerical investigation of gas mixing in gas-fluidized beds, AIChE
Journal, 56(9), 2280-2296 (2010).
Oliveira WP, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Hodgson MR, Investigation of acoustic signals as a tool for
characterizing spouted bed dynamics, Can.J.Chem.Eng., 87(2), 298-307 (2009).
Zhao, J, Lim CJ, Grace JR and Legros R, Nitric oxide formation and destruction in a CFB:
two-zone model, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology IX, ed. J. Werther, W. Nowak, K-E. Wirth
and E-U. Hartge, TuTech Innovation, Hamburg, Germany, pp. 559-564, 2008.
Escudié R, Epstein N, Grace JR and Bi HT, Volume contraction in liquid fluidization of binary solids
mixtures, in Fluidization XII, ed. X.T. Bi, F. Berruti and T. Pugsley, United Engineering
Conferences, Brooklyn, pp. 305-312, 2007.
Rusnell D, Grace JR, Bi HT, Lim CJ, Ronan P and McKnight CA, Improved transfer line entrance
for stable high-flux solids flow, in Fluidization XII, ed. X.T. Bi, F. Berruti and T. Pugsley, United
Engineering Conferences, Brooklyn, pp. 161-168, 2007.
Danon-Schaffer MN, Grace JR, Wenning RJ, Ikonomou MG and Luksemburg WJ, PBDEs in
landfill leachate and potential for transfer from electronic waste, Organohalogen Compounds, 68,
1759-1762 (2006).
Gorgy T, Li LY and Grace JR, Fate and transport of polybrominated biphenyl ethers from biosolids,
Proc. 5th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, ed. H.R. Thomas, Telford,
6 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM
Cardiff, Wales, UK, pp.1161-1168, 2006.
Watkinson AP, Li YH, Bi HT, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Formation of dioxins during combustion of
salt-laden hog fuel, in Science in Thermal and Chemical Biomass Conversion, ed. Bridgwater AV
and Boocock DGB, CPL Press, Newbury, UK, pp. 82-97, 2006.
Danon-Schaffer MN, Grace JR and Ikonomou M, Identifying sources of PBDEs in the Canadian
Arctic, Organohalogen Compounds, 67, 513-517 (2005).
Grace JR and Abba IA, Recent progress in the modeling of fluidized-bed reactors, Proc. Industrial
Fluidization South Africa, South African Inst. Mining & Metallurgy Symp. Ser. S42, pp. 3-22 (2005).
Gorgy T, Li LY, Grace JR and Ikonomou MG, Desorption of various PBDE Congeners from
Biosolids Amended Agricultural Soils, Organohalogen Compounds Volume 67 Ed. E. Reiner and
M. Alaee, Toronto, 5 pp., 2005.
Li X, Adris AM, Lim CJ, Grace JR and Ellis N, Enhanced hydrogen production from circulating
fluidized bed biomass gasification by double equilibrium shift, Circulating Fluidized Bed
Technology VIII, ed. Cen K., International Academic Publishers, pp. 499-506, 2005.
Issangya AS, Grace JR and Zhu JX, Bottom and exit region solids hold-ups in circulating fluidized
bed risers, Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology VIII, ed. Cen K., International Academic
Publishers, pp. 209-215, 2005.
Song XQ, Bi HT, Lim CJ, Grace JR and Cui HP, Transient hydrodynamics in a circulating fluidized
bed riser, Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology VIII, ed. Cen K., International Academic
Publishers, pp. 68-74, 2005.
Stefanova A, Bi HT, Lim CJ and Grace JR, Heat transfer from a vertical tube in a turbulent fluidized
bed, In Transport Phenomena in Science & Technology, Proc. 5th Symp. of South East European
Countries, Sunny Beach, Bulgaria, ed. J. Hristov, pp. 95-108, 2005.
Mehrani P, Bi HT and Grace JR, Changes in electrostatic charges of fine particles after addition to
gas-solid fluidized beds, in Recent Developments in Applied Electrostatics, ed. K Sun and G Yu,
Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 25-28, 2004.
Donald A, Bi HT, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Penetration of single and multiple horizontal jets into
fluidized beds, Fluidization XI, ed. U. Arena, R. Chirone, M. Miccio and P. Salatino, Engineering
Conferences International, New York, pp. 171-178, 2004.
Muir JR, Brereton CMH, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Line-and sinker measurement of solids circulation
rate in a CFB combustor, Fluidization XI, ed. U. Arena, R. Chirone, M. Miccio and P. Salatino,
Engineering Conferences International, New York, pp. 315-322, 2004.
Xu J, Bao X, Wei W, Bi HT, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Flow regime recognition of spouted beds
through mutual information function, Fluidization XI, ed. U. Arena, R. Chirone, M. Miccio and P.
Salatino, Engineering Conferences International, New York, pp. 507-514, 2004.
Caffery G., Shook AA, Grace JR and Eltringham GA, An investigation of burner design for
high-grade copper concentrate smelting, Copper 2003, Proc. 5th International Conf., Santiago,
Chile, ed. G. Lagos, 2003.
Knapper B, Berruti F, Grace JR, Bi HT and Lim CJ, Hydrodynamic characterization of fluid bed
cokers, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology VII, ed. Grace JR, Zhu J and deLasa HI, CSChE,
Ottawa, pp. 263-270, 2002.
Liu J, Grace JR and Bi HT, Radial distribution of local particle velocity in a high-density circulating
fluidized bed riser, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology VII, ed. Grace JR, Zhu J and deLasa H,
CSChE, Ottawa, pp. 341-348, 2002.
Golriz MR and Grace JR, Predicting heat transfer in large-scale CFB boilers, in Circulating
Fluidized Bed Technology VII, ed. Grace JR, Zhu J and deLasa HI, CSChE, Ottawa, pp. 121-128,
2002.
Constantineau JP, Grace JR, Richards GG and Lim CJ, Factors that influence particle size
distribution in zinc fluidized bed roasters, In Sulphide Smelting 2002, ed. Stephens RL and Sohn
HV, Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, pp. 405-419, 2002.
Laursen K, Duo W, Lim CJ and Grace JR, Sulfation and steam reactivation characteristics of
limestones of worldwide origin, in Advances in Environmental Materials, ed. White T and
Stegemann JA, MRS, Singapore, vol II, pp. 67-75, 2001.
Luo BL, Freitas
State of MOLAP,v.Lim CJ and Grace
Republic JR, Flow
Services, Inc.characteristics
et al of two-dimensional spouted beds
7 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM
with draft plates, Engng. Chem. & Met., 21, 369-374 (2000).
Chen A, Grace JR, Epstein N and Lim CJ, Steady state hydrodynamic model for continuous
particle classification in a liquid fluidized bed, Fluidization X, ed. M. Kwauk, J. Li and W-C Yang,
Engineering Foundation, pp. 413-420, 2001.
Keefe AR, Bert JL, Grace JR, Makaroff SJ, Lang BJ and Band PR, A Hierarchical Approach to
Coding Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Exposures, British Columbia Cancer Control
Agency, Vancouver, 350 pages, 2000. (ISBN 1-896624-07-3)
Liu J, Grace JR, Bi HT and Zhu J, Gas mixing in a high-density circulating fluidized bed riser, in
Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology VI, ed. J. Werther, pp. 399-404, 1999.
Nagahashi Y, Grace JR, Lim KS and Asako Y, The mechanism of forces on tubes immersed in
gas-fluidized beds, Proc. 3rd World Congress on Particle Technology, No. 218, Instn. Chem.
Engrs., London, 1998.
Bai DR, Grace JR and Zhu J, An experimental method for distinguishing group C powders in
Geldart’s classification, Proc. 3rd World Congress on Particle Technology, No. 221, Instn. Chem.
Engrs., London, 1998.
Nagahashi Y, Asako Y, Grace JR and Lim KS, Buffeting forces in gas fluidized beds of large
particles with tube banks, Proc. 35th National Heat Transfer Symp. of Japan, B225, 461-462,
1998.
Grace JR, Influence of riser geometry on particle and fluid dynamics of circulating fluidized beds,
in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology V, ed. M. Kwauk and J. Li, Science Press, Beijing, pp.
16-28, 1997.
Issangya AS, Bai D, Bi HT, Lim KS, Zhu J. and Grace JR, Axial solids holdup profiles in a
high-density circulating fluidized bed riser, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology V, ed. M.
Kwauk and J. Li, Science Press, Beijing, pp.60-65, 1997.
Lim KS, Zhou J, Finley C, Grace JR, Lim CJ and Brereton CMH, Cluster descending velocity at the
wall of circulating fluidized bed risers, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology V, ed. M. Kwauk and
J. Li, Science Press, Beijing, pp. 218-223 (1997).
Plate T, Band P, Bert J and Grace JR, Visualizing the function computed by a feedforward neural
network, Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. on Neural Information Processing, ed. N. Kasabov, Springer
Verlag, pp. 1-4, 1997.
Bai D, Bi HT and Grace JR, Dependence of chaotic behaviour of fluidized beds on experimental
measurement methods, Proc. 1st Intern. Conf. on Fractal Concepts and Application of Chaos in
Chemical Engineering Problems, Sept. 2-5, 1996, Rome, Italy.
Plate T, Band P, Bert J and Grace JR, A comparison between neural networks and other statistical
techniques for modeling the relationship between tobacco and alcohol and cancer, in Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems 9, ed. M.C. Mozer, M.I. Jordan and T. Petsche, MIT Press,
pp. 967-973, 1997.
Chen J, Brereton CMH, Lim CJ, Grace JR and Gennrich T, Performance testing of high
temperature ceramic filters, in Advances in Filtration and Separation Technology, ed. S.K. Sharma,
Amer. Filtration and Separation Soc., Kingwood, Texas, vol. 8, pp. 386-390 (1994).
Laytner F, Epstein N, Grace JR and Pinder KL, Kinetics of wood wafer drying, in Drying ’92, ed. AS
Mujundar, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1135-1144 (1992).
Seville JPK, Legros R, Brereton CMH, Lim CJ and Grace JR, Performance of rigid ceramic filters
for CFBC gas cleaning, Proc. 11th Internat Fluidized Bed Combustion Conference, ed EJ Anthony,
Amer Soc Mech Engrs, New York, pp 279-286 (1991).
Bennington CPJ, Kerekes RJ and Grace JR, Mixing in pulp bleaching, in “A TAPPI Press
Anthology”, ed. H. Jameel, TAPPI Press, Atlanta, pp. 752-761(1991).
Keefe A, Grace JR, Band PR, Bert JL, Teschke K, Svirchev LM and Spinelli JJ, A hierarchial
coding system for occupational exposures, J. Occup. Medicine, 33, 127-133 (1991).
Khoe GK, Ip TL and Grace JR, The influence of fine particles on the rheological and fluidization
behaviour of powders, Proc Intern Conf on Measurement and Control of Granular Materials,
Shenyang, China, 1988.
Bert JL, van Dusen LJ and Grace JR, A generalized model for the prediction of lead body burdens,
Envir.State
Research,
of MO48,v.117-127 (1989).
Republic Services, Inc. et al
8 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM
Zhu J, Grace JR and Lim CJ, Erosion-causing particle impacts on tubes in fluidized beds, in
Fluidization VI, ed. JR Grace, LW Shemilt and MA Bergougnou, Engineering Foundation, New
York, 1989, pp 613-620.
Burkell JJ, Grace JR, Zhao J and Lim CJ, Measurement of solids circulation rates in circulating
fluidized beds, in Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology II, ed. P Basu and JF Large, Pergamon,
Oxford, 1988 pp 501-509.
Grace JR and Baeyans J, Experimental techniques, Chapter 13 in Gas Fluidization Technology,
ed. D Geldart, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 419-464, 1986.
Grace JR, Fluidized bed heat transfer, Chapter 8.2 in Handbook of Multiphase Systems, ed. G.
Hetsroni, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC, 1981, 19 pages.
Piccinini N, Grace JR and Mathur KB, Vapour phase chemical reaction in spouted beds:
verification of theory, Chem Eng Sci, 34, 1257-1263 (1979).
Grace JR, Fluidized bed reactor modeling: an overview, ACS Symposium Series, No 168, 1-18,
1981.
Varadi T and Grace JR, High pressure fluidization in a two-dimensional bed, in Fluidization,
Proceedings 2nd Engineering Conference, ed. JF Davidson and DL Keairns, Cambridge University
Press, pp 55-58, 1978.
George SE and Grace JR, Entrainment of particles from aggregative fluidized beds, AIChE
Symposium Series, 74, No 176, 67-74 (1978).
Wairegi T, and Grace JR, Teardrop shapes for small bubbles and drops moving through Newtonian
liquids, Nature, 248, 327-328 (1974).
Grace JR, Fluidization and its application to coal treatment and allied processes, A.I.Ch.E. Symp.
Series, 70, No 141, 21-26 (1974).
Harrison D, and Grace JR, Fluidized beds with internal baffles, Chapter 13 in Fluidization, ed. J.F.
Davidson and D. Harrison, Academic Press, 1971.
Grace JR, An evaluation of models for fluidized bed reactors, Chem. Eng. Progr. Symp. Series, 67,
No 116, 159-167 (1971).
Grace JR and Harrison D, The distribution of bubbles within a gas-fluidized bed,Institution of
Chemical Engineers Symp. Series, No 30, pp 105-113 (1968).
CHBE 251 Transport Phenomena I (Fluid Mechanics)

CHBE 344 Unit Operations I
CHBE 351 Transport Phenomena II (Heat/Mass Transfer)
CHBE 452 Environmental Process Design Project
CHBE 455 Kinetics and Reactor Design
CHBE 456 Heterogeneous Catalysis and Advanced Reactor Design
CHBE 550 Advanced Reactor Design
CHBE 559 Topics in Chemical Engineering
CHBE 561 Particulate and Multiphase Systems
APSC 261 Technology and Society
APSC 450 Professional Engineering Practice
Fluidization Research Centre (FRC) (http://frc.engineering.ubc.ca/) , Director
Canadian Academy of Engineering, Fellow
Chemical Institute of Canada, Fellow
Engineering Institute of Canada, Fellow
Royal Society of Canada, Fellow
PAPRICAN (http://www.ppc.ubc.ca/) , Faculty Associate
Professional Engineer, British Columbia
Chemical and Biological Engineering Find us on

Vancouver Campus
2360 EastState
Mall of MO v. Republic Services, Inc. et al
9 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z3 (https://www.facebook.c
Tel 604 822 3238 /pages/Chemical-
Email [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) and-Biological-
Engineering-
at-UBC
/480565001968698?ref=
(https://twitter.com
/CHBEUBC)

10 of 10 31/08/2015 1:40 PM

Lfci Report Bridgetonlf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lfci Report Bridgetonlf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Providing a full range of landfill fire control and prevention services.

 Fire Safety Training  Fire Extinguishment Services

September 2nd, 2015 LFCI 14010

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office

Dear Ms. Whipple:

1. Familiarize LFCI staff with site

September 2nd, 2015

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

1. Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 5

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

8.7 Carbon Dioxide ........................................................................................................................ 67

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

 to provide an opinion on the likely cause of the Bridgeton Landfill incident;

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

2.2 Site Geometry

2.3 Site Geology

 Cherokee Group Limestone – thin deposit (not present at Bridgeton)

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF BRIDGETON LANDFILL Figure

Project No.: LFCI PRJ14010 CROSS-SECTION TRHOUGH BRIDGETON Figure

State of MO v. Republic Services, Inc. et al

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

2.4 Site Groundwater Hydrogeology

2.5 Groundwater Inflow

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

State of MO v. Republic Services, Inc. et al

State of MO v. Republic Services, Inc. et al

2.6 Waste Materials Received (tires, etc.)

2.7 Radiological Waste

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

2.8 Fill Placement

2.9 Intermediate and Final Cover

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

2.10 Regulatory Requirements and Constraints

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

3. Normal Landfill Conditions

In the methanogenic state normal landfill temperatures are 60 to 131 ºF.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

 Oxygen suppression is key protocol

4.2 Air Intrusion at Bridgeton Landfill South Quarry

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

Table 4-2 Summary of temperature and O2 concentration exceedances of NSPS 2005-2008

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

State of MO v. Republic Services, Inc. et al

Figure 4-3 Balance Gas and Vacuum Plot for SEW-063

Figure 4-4 Oxygen Plot for SEW-63

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

Photo 5-1. Cerro Patacon Landfill Fire in Panama

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

5.5 Self Sustaining Subsurface Exothermic Reaction (SSSER)

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

LANDFILL FIRE CONTROL INC.

6. SER Control History

6.1 Period before problems developed 1930-2007