TECHNOLOGY, PREVALENCE, AND ECONOMICS
OF LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE'
This report (SW-754),
performed for the Off-lee of Solid Wast.e
under contract no. 68-01-4895, Is reproduce
ute »- • nns s
attributed to the contractor and not to the
Off -Lee of Sol-id Waste
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1980
-------
tffPISrif "..-
IfHiiMr-1^
f:: , :•'. • _,..,.
,.:.:- |nis report. w|ff%^^ Int""
i4w fork,"'under contract no. 68-01-4895.
fliP:v?ewP^i DolTcfes of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
KesmllioFof commercial products constitute endorsement by the
li.S, Goverrimerit." " J " '
.
nenvironin
-------
FOREWORD
This report has been developed under contract number 68-01-4895 to
provide information for the Office of SoXid B,ste i0 use in developing
,-xa.lin.. for the landfil! disposal o( .„„, ^ ^ ^^^ •
the classification of solid ...t. disposal facilities. These
activities are undated under Sections 1008 and 4004, respectively
94-580. EeS°U"e C0"e""i°" -« •••o-ry Act of 1976. Public
Landfill disposal of solid »,st. is revie»ed in terms of, ,1, the
use of landfills for disposal, (a) technics co™nly e»ployed for
...h disposal, and ,3, the costs associated »ith iandfil! disposal by
those techniques. This report also presents estimates of the
anticipated increases in costs of iandfill disposal! as a result of the
Heferences to the information contained in this report are found
Environment,! and Economic lnp.« statements (E^a, »hich h,v« been
" C°"Jnn0"°" -1" «• ->llo»lng! "Sidelines for th.
Disposal of Solid Baste" ,40 CFR 241), and: "Criteria for the
""" DiS°Sal ' —ices" ,40
Jnformation presented in this report is based upon ,» early
»or,lng draft of the Suidelines and th. Pebruaryie, 1978 propog,a?
cr.ter.a ,43 CFE 4942). Some information contained in the tl KXs's
»ay, therefore, appear inconsistent wlth this report. any such
.ncons.st.ncies shouid be attributed to more current information
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
document were:
Fred C. Hart Associates. Inc.
Celia Y.C. Chen
William H. Crowell
Fred C. Hart (Project Director)
James E. McCarthy
James A. Rogers
WayneT^usa (Assistant Project Manager)
Timothy D. Van Epp
Sandy P. Wright (Project Manager)
S
State and industry personnel.
'
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
List of Tables •
List of Figures ..... !
I. . Executive Summary : .,
II. Introduction
A. Scope of Work . . . \ d
B. General Methodology ..'.'.'.' .'.'!!.'''""''' 4
C. Data Sources ... I....
-------
85
VI 1 1. Impact of the Guidelines on Energy Use
A. Background ...................... °
B. Estimating Construction Energy Impacts ........ »b
C. Estimating Operating Energy Impacts ......... 88
89
92
References Cited
Bibliography
Personal Communications 97
Appendix A. Sample Baseline Cost Curves ........... A-l
Appendix B. Unit Cost Calculations and Assumptions ...... B-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Landfill Prevalence by Size Category . . .
Existing Technology Levels and Assumed
Upgrading Technology
Upgrading Technology Costs. .
Alternate Upgrading Technology Costs . . .
Crop Residues as a Waste Management
Problem
Prevalence of Municipal Landfills
by Location, 1978
Standard Industrial Classification Codes
for Manufacturing Industries ,
Waste Generation by Manufacturing Industries
in the United States
Waste Generation by Manufacturing Industries
California
by Large Firms in San Jose,
in San Jose,
Waste Generation
California
Waste Generation
California
Waste Generation
Industrial Solid
Estimated Number
by Small Firms in San Jose,
in Wisconsin, by SIC Group . •.
Waste Production :.
of Industrial Landfills, I
by Size Category !
Number of Ash Landfills by Daily Capacity ' f
for Steam Electric Power Plants, by
Plant Type ;>
Estimation of U.S. Population in f
Environmentally Sensitive Areas ....:.
Impact of Guidelines on Operating Costs of i
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Costs/Ton!)
Impact of Guidelines on Operating Costs :
of Industrial Waste Landfills (Costs/Ton) i.
Impact of Guidelines on Operating Costs of i
Pollution Control Residue Landfills i
(Costs/Ton) !.
Summary of Impact of Landfill Guidelines on \
Operating Costs of Landfills ;
(Costs/Ton) . . . ;.
Aggregate Impact of Guidelines on Annual i
Landfill Operating Costs :.
Effect of Change in On-site Clay Availability '
Assumption on Guidelines Cost Impacts . . L
8
21
26
27
32
34
37
38
40
41
42
43
45
46
50
60
66
67
68
69
70
72
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
TABLE
PAGE
23 Aggregate Impacts of Guidelines on
Landfill Costs Under Alternative
Sensitive Area Assumptions ......
24 Trend in Mixed-Waste Resource Recovery
Facilities Implementations .
25 Conversion Technologies at Existing
Recovery Facilities, 1976 . ._
26 Upgrading Technologies Resulting in
Increased Energy Operating Costs . . .
27 Total Increased Capital Costs Per Ton and
Percent Increase in Construction Energy
Use for Upgraded Facilities
73
82
82
86
87
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
1 Sanitary Landfill Operating Costs i. 9
2 Sanitary Landfill Costs ...... ^
3 Average Sanitary Landfill Disposal Cost' ' % ' '
for Under 20,000 Population ''.',.. 11
4 Scale Economies in Landfill '.'''' 12
5 Current Sanitary Landfill Costs ....... ^
6 Composite Sanitary Landfill Costs : 15
7 Concentration of Wetlands in the U.S. ...... .' .' ' 53
8 Existing Flooding Problems ..!..'' 54
9 Continuous Permafrost in the U.S. ...... I .... 55
10 Estimated Extent of Sole or Principal Source !
Aquifers, Coterminous U.S . i . 57
11 Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the U.S. .'I!''* 58
12 Impact of Higher Landfill User Charges
on Demand _ 75
13 Optimal Location/Market Area for .....
Sanitary Landfill 78
14 Waste Collection Area for Various .......
Waste Generation Densities 80
-------
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
f +JhrS-re?°rt eyraluates the costs and economic and energy use impacts
of the Guidelines for the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste to be pro-
posed under Section 1008 (a) of P.L. 94-580, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. This analysis was accomplished in si'x steps. Each
step and the conclusions drawn from them are summarized briefly below.
mnrfPi-g data u°"u landfi11 tyP65 were used to select three
model landfill sizes on which to base subsequent cost, leconomic, and
energy use considerations. The landfill sizes chosen -I- 10, 100, and
300 tons per day (TPD) - represent capacity ranges of 0 to 50, 50 to
200, and greater than 200 TPD. ;
Second' cinrent 'landfill practices were defined ins terms of the
lp nl??1? J Derating procedures utilized most commonly, and base-
line unit costs were identified for each of the three model landfill
sizes. Currently, most landfills use only ditching for surface runoff
control and daily cover and clay liners for leachate control. Current
disposal costs range from $2.00 to $12.00 per ton, averaging $11.15 per
llr ?on -VSn^n™-! SUe^ $6'65 Per t0n at 10° TPD s'te* and $5.§r
?n tn 5n TS° S1*?S; These total unit costs represent approximately
20 to 30 per cent capital costs and 70 to 80 per cent operating expenditures.
tn ^h51rd'^an'OUS ava}lal?le landfill practices which make it possible
to achieve the recommendations of the Guidelines are identified and the
unit costs of these alternate methods were estimated. A variety of
landfill upgrading technologies were assumed. These covered waste
processing, gas control, leachate control, surface runoff control, and
monitoring Leachate controls, such as impermeable daily cover (off-
site source) and diking, will incur the highest landfill technology unit
costs, accounting for anywhere between two-thirds and all of the total
incremental costs due to the Guidelines, depending on landfill type
size, and sensitivity. ; ^ '
W5ule these Guidelines are only advisory arid compliance is
«« A ^he aggregate costs of application of the (Guidelines were
estimated. This is accomplished by (1) estimating the population of
various types of landfills, (2) determining the prevalence of various
environmentally sensitive site conditions, (3) determining the tech-
nologies required by the possible combinations of facility type and
environmental conditions, and then (4) summing the costs' for each cate-
gory to arrive at an aggregate national cost. Based on a literature
search and stated assumptions, the report concludes that! there are
81,317 landfills in the United States, of which 81% are &t privately
?anHd--i? dustr1al Slte,s: The report further estimates thkt 73% of all
n? til r-5r?- Catedvin env1r°nmentally sensitive areasl Application
of the Guidelines would result in increased costs of $2,070.3 million, a
rnJS™* -irr6956 °Her current costs ^ all landfills in the Nation
complied with these advisory Guidelines. The impact is greatest for -
small sites (0-50 TPD) located in environmentally sensitive arias.
vimiQi ™ ec°nomic effects of the increased costs identified pre-
viously are considered. These considerations are grouped into two
-i- ;
-------
categories: (1) impacts on the supply of landfills; and (2) impacts on
the demand for landfill services. Briefly, the major impacts on land-
fill supply will be: (1) increased disposal fees for landfill users;
(2) higher taxes for landfill support; (3) changes in the profits of
private landfill owners; (4) changes in the profits of industries with
on-site disposal; and (5) regionalization and consolidation of waste
handling. Increased costs for landfill services, on the other hand,
will cause the demand for landfill services to decrease in favor of
increased source reduction, energy and resource recovery, other legal
waste disposal methods, and illegal dumping.
Finally, current and expected landfill energy use at existing
facilities as a result of Guidelines implementation was considered.
Construction energy use will rise anywhere from 1 per cent for a 300 TPD
pollution control residue landfill located in an environmentally non-
sensitive area to 144 per cent for a 10 TPD municipal landfill sited in
a sensitive area. Operating use will increase 100 per cent at most
industrial and pollution control residue landfills which do not already
apply impermeable daily cover.
-2-
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Scope of Work
I Tp«e ?f th1s report is to consider the costs, economic
J-?ie?eCtS'?n S"r?? USG °f aPP11cat1on of the Guidelines for
P i S «S1SE2Sa] °f S°lld WaSte t0 be Pr°P°sed under Section 1008(a)
V A Z" ' the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (hereafter
referred to as the Act). The Guidelines contain recommended considerations
of ^H?^cL ?! H?-??10rVduS1Jn' ^ruction, operation and maintenance
°!j°lld waste landfi Is which if applied on a case-by-ease basis should
assist in complying with the "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
4004U) of'the'Act CR ^ deVeloped 1n accordance with Section
The Guidelines are applicable to the landfill disposal of all solid
waste. They delineate recommended practices but do not 'contain specific
requirements. The Guidelines are not mandatory. There will be no
Federal enforcement of the Guidelines. Thus, for the purposes of assessing
the economic impact of the Guidelines, it is assumed that all States
will adopt programs which require compliance with the Guidelines.
I
The scope of the Guidelines covers seven areas, as follows:
Section
241.200
241.201
241.202
241.203
241.204
241.205
241.206
Site Selection
Design
Leachate Control
Gas Control
Runoff Control
Operation
Monitoring
ofethis°repS?td Pract1ces 1n each of these areas
discussed in Section IV
mpni ' °f thf .a^Ption of the Guidelines, significant environ-
mental benefits are anticipated - particularly in the protection of ground
and surface-water resources. For obtaining these and other benefits, costs
will be incurred as existing facilities undertake an operational upqradinq
program and as new facilities are sited, designed and Operated. The major
near-term costs associated with Guidelines application will be incurred
through the upgrading of existing facilities. :
I
9zii 9me^r°^'SJ°ns c°ntained in Sections 241.200 (site selection) and
241.201 (design) would only be applicable to new facilities. The various
practices discussed under each of the remaining five sections of the Guide-
lines can be used individually or in combination at existing facilities to
-3-
-------
achieve environmental benefits, as dictated by site-specific conditions.
will not be possible, nor necessarily beneficial, however, for all facili-
ties to institute all of the practices outlined in the aforementioned seven
sections of the Guidelines.
It
B. General Methodology
1 Format. The analysis of economic and energy impacts contained in
this report proceeds through six steps, each of which corresponds to a
section of the report.
The first step is the selection of model landfills. Existing data on
landfill types have been used to select three sizes of landfill which serve
as the basis for all subsequent consideration of costs, economic impacts,
and energy use.
The second step is to identify baseline costs for facilities in each of
the three model sizes. Baseline costs are defined as the unit costs incurred
by facilities with the mix of technologies and operating procedures currently
in use.
The third step is to estimate the costs of alternate methods of compli-
ance with the Guidelines. This section of the report first identifies the
recommended practices in seven specific areas of siting, design a™
operation. The report then estimates unit costs of the alternate methods in
each category.
The fourth step is to estimate the aggregate costs of compliance with
the Guidelines. This is accomplished by (1) estimating the population of
various types of landfills, (2) determining the prevalence of various envi-
ronmentally sensitive site conditions, (3) determining the technologies
reouired by the possible combinations of facility type and environmental
conditions, and then (4) summing the costs for each category to arrive at an
aggregate national cost.
The fifth step is to consider the economic effects of the increased
costs identified in Steps 3 and 4. Ten specific effects are considered
grouped into two major categories: (1) effects on the supply of ^ndfils,
and (2) effects on demand for landfill services, as opposed to other
of solid waste management.
Finally the sixth step considers current energy consumption and in-
creased energy use as a result of Guideline implementation for the three
model landfills.
This report was the second major deliverable under
Contract No. 68-01-4895. It was the result of a concentrated effort over a
2. Methods.
boni.rai.1. iiu. oo ui Tt>.7v>. A* ""- ~"~ •—•-•- -• - — . . L.-nn
very short period of time — most of the analysis and writing having been
undertaken during a four week period.
The methods used in data collection were dictated by the time con-
straints. Primary emphasis was placed on a review of available literature,
T-4-
-------
supplemented by telephone contacts with a small number of industry associ-
°"S *»««»** "> the areas of
Because of constraints in time and in the availability of research an
'fr6 °f ^T11 Pr!valence a"d costs was 'obta?neS Given ?he
ssumotions ?or Si"1?? key^anab1es' * wa* necessary to make numerous
the text aiAnr, SitJ Jh Sf -6Se a!sumPtlons have been clearly stated in
the text along with the reasoning which led to their adoption By adootina
this approach, iVwas hoped that useful comments would be stimulated as to
the adequacy of the assumptions, so that further revisions of the report
would rest on the best available estimates. P
C. Data Sources
1* Sources Utilized
in the Preparation of the Draft Report A
1S C0nta1ned *H the Reference
were ut111zed-
2' Potential Sources for
Revision
ln **
of
this Report Several methods
have been: discussed
focused on the evaience °f
The data on prevalence of landfill types used in thlis reoort arp ^<;
complete as can be obtained without undertaking a major ong-term JffoS to
conduct a nat!onal survey of landfill sites. EPA is currently undertaking
3ffl an?UKVey ^fr,^6 ™™°rity of Section 4005 of RCRA? but 32 resuHs9
aval able until after the scheduled completion of this contract
seem "'
A second problem area relates to the adequacy of the data
cst da?aS;.nSt6 S°f ""^ ^ 1n thl'S W «^J SSlM
cost data reported by operating landfills and (2) engineering cost esti-
f°rmer' Wh!i1S Preferable be^se they reflect ISuSl JpSratlng
t ge"fally n°u reP°rte(i 1n sufficient detail in the available
6m°re £han a" °^er-of-magnitude range for cost data.
must "P/*1^ S1te Slze' site conditions, type of
cess watP Procedures, and type of technologies used to pro-
cess waste and to minimize environmental impacts. None of the existina
literature sources reported the information*^ such exhaustive deiail 9
To
As a result, engineering cost estimates were
the compliance costs. These estimates were based
personal communications. Efforts should continue
mates. One way in which they might be improved is
of a sample of permit application files in States
solid waste .disposal facilities. Such permit appl
detailed information on site characteristics, type
waste handled, and technologies utilized for waste
used to identify most of
on exis|ting literature and
to improve these esti-
through a detailed review
that require permits for
ications should contain
and projected amount of
processing, leachate
-5-
-------
control, gas control, etc. This information could be frrelfed.wl^ cost
data fof the facilities to provide a more accurate picture of existing unit
costs and projected impacts of the Section 1008 Guidelines.
A third problem area relates to the lack of data relating to energy use
at landfill disposal sites. In general the literature does not provide
enerqy use figures for actual construction, operation, and maintenance.
Available data on energy use are generally provided only as lump sum utility
expenditures.
As with the landfill prevalence and unit cost data, methodologies were
developed in this study to estimate the impact of the Guidelines on energy
use A more adequate method of assessing energy impacts would require a
survey of actual facilities to develop an energy data base.
-6-
-------
HI. MODEL LANDFILLS SELECTION CRITERIA
The first step in the analysis of economic and energy impacts of the
Guidelines was to identify model landfills to be used as the basis of cost
estimates. Three factors were considered in choosing the models- (a) pre-
valence of the model types; (b) differences in unit cost: for the proposed
models; and (c) compatibility with the models chosen by lEmcon, Inc in
their Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed 'Criteria for Clas-
sification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities under Section 4004 of RCRA
(1978). Since cost estimates for both Section 4004 Criteria and the Guide-
lines ^ will require many of the same technologies and operating procedures
choosing a compatible model would make possible a comparison of these esti-
mates. The result of this comparison would serve to reinforce and improve
the estimates provided by the earlier Emcon study. I
t
i
A. Prevalence l
\
f
The most comprehensive data on landfill prevalence are those provided
by Waste Age in its 1977 survey of U.S. disposal practices (Reference 1)
These data are organized into six size categories, as shown in Table 1
Since data were presented in size categories, rather than by technology
utilized, by type of waste handled, or by site conditions, this would sug-
gest that size be the variable determining the choice of1models.
!
B. Unit Cost I
Unit cost data also suggest that size should be the;key variable in the
choice of^model landfills, due to the fact that there are important economies
of scale in landfill design and operation which lead to lower unit costs at
larger sites. |
Data relating unit costs to size are presented in Figures 1-4. The
actual dollar values assigned as unit costs are of little concern at this
stage of the analysis. What is of interest is that all bf the sources show
an initial steep decline in unit costs as landfill capacity increases,
followed by a leveling off past some threshold. The threshold value varies
in each of the sources, but in no case was it higher than 300 tons per day
C. Compatibility with Section 4004 EIS
The final consideration in the choice of models was compatibility with
the models used by Emcon, Inc., in estimating the impacts, of the Section
4004 landfill criteria (Reference 6). That analysis was based on four
models:
-7-
-------
TABLE 1
LANDFILL PREVALENCE BY SIZE CATEGORY
Size Category
0-50 Tons Per Day
50 - 100 Tons Per Day
100 - 200 Tons Per Day
200 - 500 Tons Per Day
500 -1,000 Tons Per Day
1,000+ Tons Per Day
Unknown
Number of Landfills
11,165
1,195
781
485
331
129
1,807
Source: Reference 1.
-8-
-------
FIGURE' 1
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATING COSTS
4.00
Tons Per Year 0
Tons Per Day3 0
Population6 0
100.000
320
122.000
200.000
640
244,000
300.000
960
366.000
400,000 i
1280
488.000
500.000
16CO
610.CCO
a. Based on a 6-day work week.
b. Based on national average of 4.5 Ibs. per person '
per calendar day.
Source: Reference 2,
-9-
-------
FIGURE 2
SAMITAP.Y LANDFILL COSTS
o
I
PIECE OF EQUIPMENT
2 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT
3 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT
4 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT
Tons Per Year
Tons Per Day
Note:_ The dashed portions of the curve indicate overtime or second shifts allowing the site to be operated without
purchasing additional equipment.
Source: -7oforence 3.
-------
FIGURE 3
AVERAGE SANITARY LANDFILL DISPOSAL COST FOR UNDER 20.000 PflPliizmnM
35
30
25
(2 20
«
Ǥ
Q
10
0
Population 0
Tons Per Day
JL
5,000
13
10,000
26
15,000
39
20,000
52
Source: Reference 4.
-11-
-------
Capacity 1000's
3
M /year
FIGURE 4
SCALE ECONOMIES IN LANDFILL
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56
Tons per day 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 160 172
Note: Tons per day figure assumes that the waste has the same density as water.
Source: Reference 5.
-12-
-------
10 TPD, 100 TPD 300 TPD, and 700 TPD. Since there is an apparent consensus
that incremental economies of scale are quite small at sites larger than 300
IPD, it was decided through discussion with the Project'Offleer to eliminate
the largest of these models. The other three models adequately demonstrate
the range of unit compliance costs at small, medium and!large sites. At the
same time, they were compatible with models used in theiearlier study
-13-
-------
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF BASELINE COST DATA FOR EXISTING FACILITIES
A variety of references provide general baseline data for capital and
operating and maintenance expenses for sanitary landfills. Several of these
sources graphically portray this information in a cost per ton vs. daily
waste tonnage chart. To estimate current landfill costs, a composite
graphical approach was utilized. To accomplish this, the graphical data
presented in References 2, 3, 7 and 8 were updated to 1977 dollars Figure
5 presents the updated disposal costs per ton. For two of these studies an
average modal cost curve was assumed midway between the upper and lower
bounds indicated in the original reference. Appendix A presents each of the
original charts. Figure 6 presents the composite curve. Data points for
approximately two dozen case studies are also indicated in Figure 6 to
demonstrate potential variability of costs due to site-specific conditions
and variability of existing operations. Appendix B presents more specific
data on the case studies.
As indicated, current disposal costs (including capital and operating
expenses) range from approximately $2.00 to $12.00 per ton. Disposal costs
at ten ton per day sites average $11.15 per ton ($12.29 per metric ton).
One hundred ton per day sites exhibit economy of scale effects, with dis-
posal costs averaging $6.65 per ton ($7.33 per metric ton). Similarly,
three hundred ton per day sites average approximately $3.95 per ton ($4.3b
per metric ton). Approximately 20 to 30 per cent of these costs represent
design and construction expenses, with the remaining 70 to 80 per cent
representing operating expenditures.
-TO-
-------
FIGURE 5
CURRENT SANITARY LANDFILL
10-1000 TONS PER DAY)
400 500 600 700
WASTE QUANTITY — TONS PER DAY
800
900
-------
25.00-
CO
£C 20.00.
O
D
o>
i O
££
i tr*.
15.00-
H
(/)
O
O
10.00.
2
0)
5.00
FIGURE 6
COMPOSITE SANITARY LANDFILL COSTS
(0-4000 TONS PER DAY)
100
300
200 300 400 500 600 700
WASTE QUANTITY TONS PER DAY
800
900
1000
-------
V. IMPACT OF SECTION 1008 GUIDELINES ON COSTS
A. Recommended Technologies and Alternatives
The following sections summarize the alternate technologies and
approaches as recommended by the Guidelines.
]; Site Selection. Section 241.200 of the Guidelines recommends
avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas and areas requiring complex
engineering solutions, such as locations traversed by pipes Also
recommended for incorporation in the site selection process 'are evalu-
ations of the character and availability of on-site soil!, potential
socio-economic effects of the facility, and cost estimates, taking into
account future uses of the site. The recommendations of! this section
wlste landfil" undertaken prior to the design. of any solid
nf thP rmS™6 are Th alternat;ve Procedures suggested Within the text
ot the Guidelines. There are, however, provisions for proceeding with a
feasibility assessment for the siting of a disposal facility in an
environmentally sensitive area. The Guidelines do not foreclose the
that thl1^ °T SitlJ9/ la-2df111 1n such an area' but rathe^ suggest
that the level of study effort required in the pre-design phase should
*** ^^ f°r s1t1ng a fac1 ^ in a non
2- .Design. The Guidelines recommend that the following factors
be determined in designing a landfill:
types and quantities of waste
current and projected ground water use '
background water quality
direction and rate of ground water flow
depth to water table
potential interactions with ground and surface water
site geology I
hydraulic conditions and soil renovative capacity
quality, quantity, source and seasonal variation of surface water
100-year flood plain :
water balance
initial and final topography
land use and zoning ;
Hit- IheiI1nal <^sign, takin9 1nto consideration site-specific con-
nJtiM-'jKh P 6 5 JeVel of environmental protection that is com-
patible with the proposed Criteria and Guidelines. No specific technical
alternatives are presented in this sections. P^'nc recnmcai
!
+K Y .Leachate Control. This section of the Guidelines identifies
three basic alternatives for leachate control, which may be used indi-
vi dually or in combination: i
-17- ;
-------
control of leachate production
control of the escape of leachate
control of the impact of leachate on the environment.
Specific technologies that are recommended in the Guidelines, and
that may be used singly or in combination, include the following:
construction of surface runoff diversion
structures to divert all of the water from
a 24-hour, 25-year storm event
construction of a dike around fills within
a 100-year floodplain
- grading of fill to prevent standing surface
water, but at slopes less than 30% to avoid
erosion
use of cover material with low permeability
and shrink/swell potential
vegetation of final cover
protection of underlying ground water by liner
installation (12-inch impermeable, soil or
-------
n,c • ,, ? Guidelines identify two categories of gas! control technology-
passive Carriers and active barriers. The pros and cons for each type
of barrier are also discussed. Passive barriers would consist of:
vertical cut-off walls (clay or artificial
. materials) extending downward to an impervious
layer below the fill
venting system (gravel-filled trenches, per-
forated pipes or both) 1
gravel-filled trenches in combination with
cutoff walls. ;
Active barriers include: •
induced exhaust wells '
induced exhaust trenches i
induced recharge trenches i
.Sn1:/!!e^!SLSL!?a?.?*!_c?!!tr:011 •.the design construction
, would be
,nrll,5; R^off Control. Recommended procedures to pontrol runoff
include diversion of surface water, grading, construction of stilling
basins, final cover and vegetation of final cover. Since runoff control
is important to leachate control, as well as to the direct protection of
oart'S SP^P hT' rTft C°ntro1 tech"°l°9-<'es may be| incorporated as
part of the leachate control approach for many sites. l
, f- Operation. Specific operating technologies!recommended in
the Guidelines include the following:
pre-treatment of wastes (e.g., de-watering)
as required; :
application of 6 inches of soil or clay daily
application of final cover (6 inches of im-
permeable clay and at least 18 inches of '<
topsoil) I
i
landfill compaction
use of balers, shredders or stationary compactors
at or before delivery; I
provision of safety devices and recommended practices
eradication of vectors, if they become established
• . • I
initiation of long-term maintenance program.
-19-
-------
7. Monitoring. The scope, frequency and duration of an environ-
mental monitoring program is largely contingent upon the site character-
istics identified during baseline studies undertaken during the design
phase.
However, in general, the Guidelines recommend:
monitoring of ground water, at least annually,
at all landfills which have the potential for
discharge to drinking water supply aquifers;
monitoring of enclosed structures at landfill
facilities to detect gases;
monitoring of soils to detect gas migration.
8. Summary. It is important to emphasize that the mix of tech-
nologies to be employed in the location, design, construction, operation
and maintenance of landfill disposal facilities meeting the provisions of
the Section 4004 Criteria would differ widely from case-to-case. Simi-
larly, unit costs for individual technologies would differ widely, reflec-
ting such factors as availability of raw materials and other resources.
Later sections of this report provide: (a) estimated unit costs for the
specific technologies identified in the Guidelines, and the sources for
those cost estimates; and Cb) assumptions applied in aggregating these
costs to the national level, and the rationale for those assumptions.
B. Development of Unit Costs for Upgrading Technologies
To determine the economic effects due to implementation of the Guide-
lines, unit costs for required upgrading technologies were developed.
These upgrading technologies are identified in Table 2. The table identi-
fies assumed technologies for waste processing, gas control, leachate _
control, surface runoff, and monitoring at four types of landfills (muni-
cipal, industrial, construction, and pollution control residue). The table
also considers differences in current and recommended practices at sites
considered to be environmentally sensitive. The term "environmentally
sensitive" is defined at length in Section VI. C. of this report. It
includes wetlands, floodplains, permafrost areas, critical habitats of
endangered species, and recharge zones of sole source aquifers.
Table 2 identifies a set of assumptions that must be superimposed on
an assessment of existing practices at landfills in order to derive aggre-
gated national costs of implementing the proposed Guidelines. This set or
assumptions is largely judgmental and identifies those technologies (or_
practices) which may be required in facility upgrading in order to attain
or maintain status as a sanitary landfill. The basic rationale behind
these judgements is as follows:
-20-
-------
TABLE 2 |
EXISTING TECHNOLOGY LEVELS AND ASSUMED UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY
Assumed Current
Technology Levels
Assumed
Upgrading Technologies
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
(in environmentally sensitive areas
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control:
None
Leachate Control: Clay I fner
Daily cover
Surface Runoff: Ditching
Monitoring:
None
Vertical impermeable barriers
!
i
Impermeable cover
Leachate collection & treat-
ment (;new facilities only)
Pondi ng
i
Dike cbnstruction
Gas & ileachate
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
('in non-sensitive areas)
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control: None
Leachate Control: Permeable cover
Surface Runoff: Ditching
Monitoring: None
Vertical impermeable barriers
Impermeable cover
None
i
Gas & leachate
INDUSTRIAL LANDFILLS
(in environmentally sensitive areas)
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control: None
None
Leachate Control: Ingrequent permeable cover Impermeable cover
Liners {new facilities only)
I
Leachatfe collection & treat-
ment (new facilities only)
-21-
-------
TABLE 2
(continued)
Assumed Current
Technology Levels
Assumed
Upgrading Technologies
INDUSTRIAL LANDFILLS
(in environmentally sensitive areas)
~~~(continued)
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
None
None
Ponding
Dike construction
Leachate
INDUSTRIAL LANDFILLS
(in non-sensitive areas)
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control:
None
None
Leachate Control: Infrequent permeable cover Impermeable cover
Liners (new facilities only)
Surface Runoff: Ditching
Monitoring:
None
Ponding
Leachate
CONSTRUCTION LANDFILLS
(in environmentally sensitive areas)
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control:
None
Leachate Control: None
Surface Runoff: - Ditching
Moni tori ng:
None
None
Impermeable cover
Ponding
Dike construction
Leachate
-22-
-------
TABLE 2
(continued)
Assumed Current
Technology Levels
Assumed
Upgrading Technologies
Waste Processing:
Gas Control:
Leachate Control:
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
Waste Processing:
Gas Control:
Leachate Control:
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
Waste Processing:
Gas Control:
Leachate Control:
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
CONSTRUCTION LANDFILLS
(in non-sensitive areas)
None
None
.None
None
None
None
None
None
None
POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUE LANDFILLS
(in environmentally sensitive areas)
None j
None
None
Ditching
None
None :
Impermeable cover
Liner {new facilities only)
Leachate collection & treat-
ment (new facilities only)
Ponding
Dike construction
Leachate
POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUE LANDFILLSi
(in non-sensitive areas)
None
None
None
Ditching
None
None ;
Impermeable cover
Liner ('new facilities only)
None
Leachate
-23-
-------
1 Landfill liners cannot be retrofitted. Therefore, existing
qualfty will require only minimal upgrading to assure continued protection
of ground water resources.
2 New facilities will need liners plus leachate collection and
treatment if they are located in sensitive areas since these areas are
General 1$ "wet" and are concentrated in the areas of the country where
?nS oreciDtation is relatively high. The exception is landfills to be
used forlispota of construction wastes, which are inert and generally
pose less of a leachate problem than that associated with other wastes.
3 Liners which would allow slow migration of leachate to the
not generally be necessary.
4 Municipal wastes are the only general category of wastes that
to the other.
* Most existing landfills, regardless of location, waste type and
other factors' htve some provisions for diverting surface runoff to reduce
actual operation of the facility if ^^7^^^
^r» ? sec-
placed on runoff control, it is considered that all fills in sensitive
(wet) areas will require upgrading of current practices.
* Mnnitnrina is necessary to assure continued environmental pro-
tection and^^Sre'thS^fSrtlveness of control technologies in sensi-
tive areas. Leachate may be generated by any fil J *ype in a wet ar ft\es 1n
Therefore, groundwater monitoring should be instituted at all facilities
sensitive areas.
7 Safety precautions record- keeping, access, and vector control
sw r "
minimal Therefore these items are excluded from the table.
, the readily decomposable
and POTW sludges, if only
Some other wastes may generate.gas [e-
wastes of'the food processing industry
partly digested). In general, however, the other categories of
waste can be assumed not to be candidates for gas control.
-24-
-------
•H *•*• ,Table '2.Presents upgrading costs per ton of disposal for the
identified upgrading technologies. The identified upgrading technologies
represent most commonly used state-of-the-art engineering practices for
achieving the objectives of the Guidelines. Table 4 presents additional
unit cost.estimates for alternate control technologies? The alternate
technologies represent methods of compliance with the Guidelines which are
°0rSe
. — — -. . >~^ i i i n_^ VV1 1 I V*I| UIC
i-ici-nH -,•« T=ki -s "T"""": "'. techno'ogi6s that, when compared to those
listed in Table 3, are less desirable, are more costly,'do not represent
current state-of-the-art, or are applicable to fewer sites. It must be
TSSf1-zed'Tu°w?v^' ohat the final cl?°1ce of technologies will be site-
speciric. ine lable 3 technologies simply represent those which we have
assumed will be the most common methods chosen to achieve compliance
i
Cost data were developed via an extensive literature search. Where
data were insufficient, an engineering estimate was .used. In general!
total construction and operating costs were estimated for each upgrading
technology and unit costs (per ton) were developed by dividing the preslnt
vaiue OT total cost by the total expected waste tonnage !over an estimated
^niSLnc f J- \ Agp!r"d1x B Presents case examples and calculation
assumptions for each of the upgrading technologies.
-25-
-------
TABLE 3
UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY COSTS
Technology
Vertical Impermeable
Barrier
Dike Construction
Impermeable Daily Cover9
(on-site source)
Impermeable Daily Cover9
(off-site source)
Ponding
Gas Monitoring
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Natural Clay Liner
(Off-site source)
Leachate Collection
Facilities
Leachate Monitoring,
Removal and
Treatment
Cost/Ton
$1.30
2.40
0.75
5.30
0.10
0.15
0.60
3.20
0.95
5.80
10 TPn
(Cost/Metric Ton)
($1.43)
(2.65)
(0.83)
(5.84)
(0.11)
(0.17)
(0.66)
(3.53)
(1.05)
(6.39)
Cost /Ton
$0.30
0.55
0.35
2.65
0.05
0.03
0.10
1.50
0.40
1.10
100 TPD
f Pnc-t- /Merhvi r Ton^
V v/U b I*/ 1 1C U 1 1 1 ' ' v* • i
($0.33)
(0.61)
(0.39)
(2.92)
(0.06)
(0.03)
(o.n)
(1.65)
(0.44)
(1.21)
Cost /Ton
$0.15
0.30
0.25
1.75
0.04
0.01
0.05
1.35
0.30
0.50
300 TPD
(Cost /Metric Ton
($0.17)
(0.33)
(0.28)
(1.93)
(0.04)
(0.01)
(0.06)
(1.49)
(0.33)
(0.55)
a. "Impermeable" refers to a cover
Source: Appendix B.
type with relatively low permeability i.e., 1 X 10"7 cm/sec.
-------
X
TABLE 4
ALTERNATE UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY COSTS '
Technology
Shredding
j
Bali.ng
Permeable Daily Cover
(on-site source)
Permeable Daily Cover
(off-site source)
Vertical Pipe Vents
^ Perimeter Gravel Trenches
•-j
1 Gas Collection
Synthetic liner
Leachate Recycling
(not. including
collection)
Ditching
-•- Final Impermeable -Cover9
(on-site source)
Final Impermeable Cover9
(off-site source)
Cost/Ton
$0.60
1.90
0.90
1.60
2.50
4.00
0.45
0.15
--
0.45
3.20
10 TPD
(Cost/Metric Ton)
($0.66)
(2.09)
(0.99)
(1.76)
(2.76)
(4.41)
(0.50)
(0.17)
(0.50)
(3.53)
Cost/Ton
™"
~
$0.30
0.95
0.45
0.35
0.55
. 1.90
0.10
- 0.04
0.20
1.50
100 TPD
(Cost/Metric Ton)
—
••
($0.33)
(1.05)
(0.50)
(0.39)
(0.61)
(2.09)
(0.11)
(0.04)
(0.22)
(1.65)
Cost /Ton
$7.00
5.00
0.20
0.65
0.40
0.20
0.30
1.65
0.05
0-02, ....
. .
0.20
1.35
300 TPD
(Cost /Metric Ton)
($7.72)
(5.51)
(0.22)
(0.72)
(0.44)
(0.22)
(0.33)
(1,82)
(0.06)
(0.02)
(0.22)
(1.49)
a. "Impermeable" refers to a cover type with relatively low permeability, i.e., 1 X 10-7 cm/sec.
-------
TABLE 4 (Concluded)
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
i
to
oo
I
Techno!ogy
Final Permeable Cover
(on-site source)
Final Permeable Cover
(off-site source)
Revegetation
Fire Control
Access Control
Litter Control
Compaction
fnci" /Tnn
L*Uo U/ lull
$0.40
1.30
0.25
0.04
0.90
0.05
1.90
(Cost/Metric Ton) Cost/Ton
($0.44)
(1.43)
(0.28)
(0.04)
(0.99)
(0.06)
(2.09)
$0.15
0.60
0.10
0.01
0.20
0.01
0.20
(Cost/Metric lor
($0.17)
(0.66)
(0.11)
(0.01)
(0.22)
(0.01)
(0.22)
1 ) UUbU/ IUM
$0.15
0.55
0.10
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.05
\^uo u/ ncui i
($0.17)
(0.61)
(0.11)
(0.01)
(0.11)
(0:01)
(0.06)
Source: Appendix B
-------
VI- AGGREGATE COST OF LANDFILL GUIDELINES
A. Approach
In order to project the potential nationwide costs of implementinq
the Section 1008 Guidelines, it was necessary to make a number of broad
assumptions based on the finite amount of information currently avail-
able. In the ensuing discussion, the information base and consequent
rationale for each assumption have been identified in order to allow the
reader to recognize the limitations of the data, and the:categorizations
and aggregation processes that were applied to those data.
It was^not the intent of this study to provide a detailed economic
assessment in which every case situation could be fully evaluated. Such
an approach would neither be feasible nor appropriate, given the flexi-
bility inherent in the Guidelines. The results of the aggregate cost
evaluation contained herein should, thus, be viewed within the context
ot national scale, and with an appreciation of the limitations in sen-
sitivity of any analysis conducted at this scale.
The enforceability and applicability of the Guidelines are a pri-
mary concern in projecting the cost of compliance. There will be no
federal enforcement of the Guidelines; however, certain recipients of
Federal assistance under the provisions of RCRA must demdnstrate com-
pliance. Therefore, it is assumed that all States will enact programs
requiring the adoption of procedures identified in the Guidelines. The
cost of compliance would thus be State-induced. i
. The Guidelines are applicable to all facilities for -the landfill
disposal of non-hazardous solid wastes. As indicated earlier the
nearterm cost effects of the Guidelines will be incurred |by existing
facilities which could feasibly upgrade operational practices in order
to achieve, or remain within, the Criteria for classification as san-
itary landfills. Costs will also be incurred for siting," design and
operation of new facilities. Finally, costs will be incurred by exist-
ing and new sanitary landfills as they undergo closure. '
_ The general approach to assessing costs of upgrading! existing
facilities involves multiplying incremental cost increases associated
with upgrading existing practices by the number of facilities which may
be required, under State programs, to undertake various upgrading pro-
cesses. Baseline and upgrading costs have been estimated1in Section IV
and V of this report. ' i
The potential extent of upgrading and costs thereof,:are a function
of: (1) facility size; (2) waste type; (3) site characteristics; and
(4) the extent of current practice of the technologies identified in the
Guidelines. !
-29-
-------
1 Facility Size. Representative facility sizes are 10, 100 and
300 TPD lamlfills, as indicated earlier. These models are intended to
represent facilities in the following ranges: 0-50 TPD, 50-200 TPD, and
greater than 200 TPD.
2 Waste Type. Waste types include five broad categories:
agricultural:, municipal, industrial, construction and pollution control
residues.
3. Site Characteristics. Site characteristics, for purposes of
generalization, include environmentally sensitive areas including flood-
plains, wetlands, areas underlain by aquifers, and permafrost areas.
All other areas are placed in the "non-sensitive" category.
4. Extent of Current Practice of the Recommended Technologies.
The existing practice of Guidelines-level technologies can be broadly
sorted by waste type and site characteristics. Table 2 (included in
Section V) was based on an assessment of available literature and pro-
vided a checklist of environmental protection technologies currently
employed by a "typical" landfill for a given type of waste in environ-
mentally sensitive and non-sensitive areas. The indicated technologies
are meant to represent the most commonly utilized technologies at the
national level, and are not meant to represent the complete set of
technologies in use at the various types of site. Utilizing this table,
national upgrading costs can be aggregated by multiplying unit upgrading
costs by the prevalence of landfills in each broad category.
It is important to point out that where existing State programs
require the use of technologies equivalent to, or more stringent than
those recommended in the Guidelines, upgrading costs would be attrib-
utable to those existing programs and not to State enforcement of the
new Federal Guidelines. State solid waste management programs are
currently being examined by another EPA contractor. That portion of
total upgrading costs which may be attributable to existing programs
should be subtracted from the total cost estimated here.
B. Estimating the Prevalence of Landfill Types
1. Agricultural Landfills. Agricultural wastes include wastes
generated Trom raising and harvesting animals, grains, fruits and vege-
tables, and other field crops. They exclude food processing wastes
which are considered industrial. Several studies have produced data on
agricultural waste generation. However, a survey of EPA and other solid
waste management literature and inquiries at the USDA's Soil Conser-
vation Service produced no specific quantitative data on agricultural
waste disposal practices. General information on current disposal
practices indicates that essentially no single-purpose agricultural
landfills exist, on-site or off-site. The large majority of agricul-
tural waste is returned to the land on the farmsite. Manure and other
livestock solid wastes from feedlot and dairy operations are normally
-30-
-------
collected and stockpiled on-site until they can be spread on and disked
into adjacent acreage. Likewise, as Table 5 indicates, most crop
residues are shredded or chopped and disked or plowed back into the
topsoil. Some crop residues are removed for burning and Composting.
(References 8, 9). ;
i
m The land storage and disposal of all agricultural wastes can pose
serious environmental problems, particularly with regard:to water pol-
lution^ However, EPA's "Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Proposed Clas-
sification Criteria" specifically exclude from coverage solid waste
storage facilities and agricultural wastes returned to the land The
disposal of pesticide wastes, which also can pose environmental problems
is addressed by Subtitle C of RCRA, and, therefore is als'o not covered
by the proposed Guidelines. On-going research, demonstration, and
development of agricultural waste disposal technology also indicates
that the number of future agricultural landfills will be [insignificant
(Reference 8). As a result of these considerations, agricultural land-
fills are not considered further in this report.
. ?• Municipal Landfills. Municipal landfills primarily handle
municipal wastes, but may be privately or publicly owned or operated.
These sites may also accept other types of waste, such a* non-hazardous
industrial wastes. ;
To determine the total number of municipal landfill si, Fred C Hart
Associates conducted a literature search followed by telephone inquiries
to update the 1977 Waste Age survey of landfills (Reference 1):
a.
b.
The literature/data base amassed by the project:
team was examined. This included .the responses1 to
an Office of Solid Waste (EPA Headquarters) letter,
dated June 18, 1978, to the EPA Regional officek.
This letter requested the Regions to secure from
their respective States any information they might
have that could be used to upgrade the Waste Age
data base. The replies to this request were reviewed.
EPA Regional representatives and several State ;.
Solid Waste Representatives were contacted by !
telephone. Resource and time constraints, however,
precluded contact with all fifty States. Therefore,
only ten States, (Pennsylvania, Kentucky, New Jersey,
Oregon,_New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, Alabama,:Washington,
and California) were contacted. A criterion utilized
in the selection of these particular States was'the
significant interest they had displayed with respect
to the earlier "Criteria" EIS (Reference 6). In addition,
Mr. Richard W. El dredge, Technical Editor of Waste Age ,
who oversaw the Waste Age survey, was contacted;
-31-
-------
TABLE 5
CROP RESIDUES AS A WASTE-MANAGEMENT PROBLEM
. — crop residue Nature of the residue,
Tvoical yield to be managed typical management
Croo tons/aero tons/acre ...Problem
Field crops like
canning tomatoes,
sugar beets, pota-
toes
Field crops
harvested dry,
like soybeans,
saf flower cotton
Truck crops
(market veget-
ables)
Orchard fruit
Rice, wheat,
other grains
Field corn
Cotton
Sugar cane
20 (wet weight)
1.5
5-30
5-15
(fresh weight)
3.0
4n
.U
0.5
60 (wet cane)
30 (wet weight)
to as little as
3 tons dry solids)
1.6
1.5:1 to 4:1
(crop residue)
2
(.primings only)
3.5
5 3
tj • W
1.5
40 (burned-off)
ull fruit and all
Tiaterial (stems,
eaves, roots)
disked back into top-
soil
Dried plant parts;
shredded and disked
nto topsoil
Green parts not har-
vested, disked back,
or removed for com"
posting
Prunings-burned;
leaves-compost on
surface; cull fruit-
also compost
Straw, disked or
burned
Dried stalks,
usually chopped and
plowed in
Dried total plant,
shredded, plowed into
topsoil .
Leaves burned before
harvest, cane harvested
and squeezed, then the
residual (bagasse)
burned at mill , field
trash chopped and
disked
— — •
Source: Reference 8.
-32-
-------
The data collection efforts outlined did not significantly upgrade
l«h£ Tt 5 Jy ^t Waste A(je surve^' alth°"9h In some cases more
reliable, up-to-date data were substituted for that of Wa!ste Age The
1? 2^°lmnn«3Mr1Jy-mU1Cipal Iandf111s> but in a small Dumber of cases
it was impossible to exclude data on industrial landfills'.
L
rn,,nt«5S?J 2SotheS? dat? ?ollect1on efforts» Fred C. Hart Associates
counted 14,689 municipal landfills nationwide. This figure falls ap-
proximately midway between the. Waste Age 1976 estimate of 15,821 land-
fills and its 1977 figure of 14,126 municipal landfills. Table 6 rep-
resents the municipal landfill prevalence data. :
,nHl ?;. Industrial Landfills. To date, the disposal practices of
industries have received relatively little public attention. Conse-
quently, very little data quantifying their waste generation and dis-
posal practices are available. Since disposal problems are handled by
lnS,,JJ ^ 715' the meth°ds °f d1sposal a"e as va™d as the
industries themselves. In addition, wastes are often disposed of on-
site, making assessment of the disposal process more difficult to
mlpSlSl; Jo PH2Vlde a ba7^ t°r a99^gate cost assessment, four major
questions^ addressed: (1) how much industrial waste is generated;
nr nSa*-lS 1tS/?rT a"d how 1s 1t deposed; (3) is it disposed on-site
or off-site; and (4) what are the general disposal site characteristics?
Most of the recent studies that were examined defined industry
????? r^ ^°l gr°u^s of the Standard Industrial Classi-
d v< ™ Ifn } 0Je l^™.^ Table 7). In general, the manufacturing
d vision represents those industries that would produce what is normally
classified as industrial waste. Estimates of solid wasteiproduction per
industry are usually presented for the initial two digits !of the SIC
Code, (SIC Groups 20 to 39). In order to remain consistent with exist-
ing studies, this study also defines industries using the :SIC Code
groupings. •
To date, four types of waste generation data have been assembled
from investigations conducted by various "authorities: community average
per capita industrial waste contributions; average waste generation in
tonnage per^employee per year (TEY); waste generation rateis reported for
specific points; and waste generation data for industries determined to
be potential hazardous waste generators. Although none of these esti-
mating measures is ideal, the estimates of projections of tons of waste
per employee per year (TEY) provide the most reasonable method of
relating waste production to the manufacture of products or commodities.
The TEY method is used in this investigation to determine Current indus-
trial solid waste generation rates. ;
In an extensive survey of solid waste manaaement literature, three
sources were found containing TEY coefficients for each of'the 20 SIC
manufacturing industries (References 7, 8, 11). Tables 8 through 12
provide a range of estimates for industrial solid waste generation The
remaining tables of TEY coefficients or the equivalents (multipliers,
annual waste volume per employee, or waste production rate), reveal a
-33-
-------
TABLE 6
PREVALENCE OF MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS BY LOCATION. 1978
STATES
MUNICIPAL SITES
Region #1
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Sub-Total
Region #2
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico and
Virgin Islands
Sub-Total
Region #3
Delaware
Mary!and
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Sub-Total
Region #4
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Sub-Total
Region #5
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Minnesota
Wisconsin
296
635
936
132
330
480
140(a)
N/A
170
211
148 .
Sub-Total
1,611
300
149
572
250
405
1,297
2,973
-34-
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
PREVALENCE OF MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS BY LOCATION, 1978
STATES
Region #6
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
Region #7
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Region #8
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyomi ng
Region #9
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Region #10
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Sub-Total
Sub-Total
Sub-Total
Sub-Total
MUNICIPAL SITES
460
365
600
l,093(b)
188
2,706
322(c)
341(d)
165(e)
449
Sub-Total
1,277
220
227
135
300
174
150
1,206
187
605
35
113
890
350
120
158
410
1,038
United States Total:
14,689
-35-
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
On-site industrial sites included.
Includes fly-ash disposal sites.
Includes 225 sites currently in process
of being closed.
Includes 218 sites currently in process
of being closed.
Includes 48 sites currently in process
of being closed.
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
-36-
-------
TABLE 7 ;
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES i
Major Group 20.
Major Group 21.
Major Group 22.
Major Group 23.
Major Group 24.
Major Group 25.
Major Group 26.
Major Group 27.
Major Group 28.
Major Group 29.
Major Group 30.
Major Group 31.
Major Group 32.
Major Group 33.
Major Group 34.
Major Group 35.
Major Group 36.
Major Group 37.
Major Group 38.
Food and kindred products ' '•
Tobacco manufactures ; .
Textile mill products
Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and
similar materials
Lumber and wood products, except furniture
Furniture and fixtures ;
Paper and allied products
Printing, publishing, and allied industries
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum refining and related industries
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products •
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products
Primary metal industries ;
Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation
equipment ;
Machinery, except electrical ;
Electrical and electronic machinery, equipment, and supplies
Transportation equipment ;
i
Measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments; photographic,
medical and optical goods; watches and clocks
Major Group 39. Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
Source: Reference 38
-37-
-------
TABLE 8
WASTE GENERATION BY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN THE UNITED STATES
in Tons per Employee per Year, TEY)
SIC
Code
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Data
Industry Points
Food Processing
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Textile-mill products
Sol i ds
Liquids
Sludges
Apparel
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Wood products
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Furniture
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Paper and allied products
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Printing, publishing
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Chemicals and allied products
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Petroleum
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Rubber, plastics
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
31
11
1
16
15
1
20
0
0
10
0
0
7
0
0
21
9
8
24
12
0
39
23
28
4
1
1
13
8
1
Average
TEY
7.949
0.001
0.400
2.160
0.107
1.508
2.192
-
"•
8.531
-
—
2.783
-
—
3.987
0.010
0.012
5.835
0.013
—
8.862
2.599
2.554
1.594
0.041
0.003
9.835
0.072
0.084
Standard
deviation
10.451
0.036
™
1.854
0.233
~
6.197
•"
™"
7.648
—
**
3.578
—
«•
8.267
0.026
0.073
5.958
0.000
M
7.434
4.504
5.944
2.751
—
**
9.163
0.100
™ *
95%
Confidence
Limits
1.877
0.025
0.464
0.135
1.461
""
2.419
••
"
1.352
~
~
1.804
0.013
0.052
1.242
0.000
"
1.191
1.593
2.102
1.376
"•
"
2.541
0.071
- 38 -
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
»
HASTE GENERATION BY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN THE UNITED STATES
(in Tons per Employee per Year. TEY)
SIC
Code
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Industry
Leather
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Stone, clay
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Primary metals
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Fabricated metals
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Non-electrical machinery
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Electrical machinery
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Transportation equipment
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Professional and Sci.
instruments
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Miscellaneous manufacturing
Solids
Liquids
Sludges
Data
Points
2
0
0
18
1
7
13
5
1
42
22
23
47
21
18
21
15
0
8
4
6
•
7
5
0
25
0
0
Average
TEY
8.989
—
»
6.412
0.005
0.011
3.184
1.397
0.423
6.832
0.014
0.055
3.89
0.258
2.453
2.941
0.172
_
2.562
0.319
0.191
1.769
0.074
, «
1.603
_
_
i :
Standard
deviation
6.986
mm '
15.300
:0.024
8.210
12.067
;9.180
i 0.024
>2.268
; 1.448
'0.137
2.361
7.009
:0.077
;4.097
;0.183
10.124
'
,2.061
10.088
1.883
i
'—
95%
Confidence
Limits
4.941
_
3.606
0.017
2.277
8.534
1.416
0.009
1.307
0.211
0.052
1.363
1.529
0.039
1.449
0.129
0.880
0.779
0.062
0.377
•*
Source: Reference 8
- 39 -
-------
TABLE 9
WASTE GENERATION BY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA
Industry
Nondurables
Food products
Seasonal foods
Other foods
Total food products
Paper, printing and publishing
Chemicals
Other nondurables
Textiles and apparel
Rubber and plastics
Leather
Total other nondurables
Durables
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete
Primary and fabricated metals
Electrical and nonelectric machinery
Other durables
Lumber and wood products
Furniture and fixtures
Transportation equipment
Instruments
Total other durables
Other manufacturing
Total manufacturing employment
Employment
July 1967
2,200
11,482
13,632
6,478
1,900
2,193
1,835
355
4,383
3,708
15,250
12,478
1,033
1,562
2,768
915
6,278
2,500
66,657
Multipliers
ton/ employee/ yr
5.56570
4.81855
12.87060
8.21075
.52575
1.54810
2.49365
18.11425
6.7300
3.58040
21.68805
20.15545
3.39330
2.51700
2.49365
Wastes
ton/yr
12,245
55,304
83,376
15,600
1,153
2,841
885
67,168
102,632
44,676
22,404
31,483
9,393
2,303
6,234
457,697
a Basic employment data are from the State of California Department of Employment
Community Labor Market Survey. Data were adjusted to exclude Union City which is not
in the study area. Employment in the categories "Other Durables" and "Other Non-
durables" was distributed to the relevant SIC groups by using the same proportions
as existed in the 1965 employment data from ABAG.
b Multipliers for the manufacturing industries were developed and reported in Table
VI. Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Management, Second Annual Report.
SOURCE: C.G. Golueke and P.M. McGauhey, Comprehensive Studies of Solid Wastes Manage-
ment, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California, June 1970,
p.53. (Reference 7)
- 40 -
-------
TABLE 10
WASTE GENERATION BY LARGE FIRMS IN SAN JOSE
, CALIFORNIA
Standard industrial classification
Ordnance and accessories
Canning and Preserving
Other food processing
Tobacco .
Textiles
Apparel
Lumber and Wood Products
Furniture and fixtures
Paper and Allied Products
Printing, publishing, and allied
Chemicals and allied
Petroleum refining
Rubber and plastics
Leather
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical machinery
Transportation equipment
Instruments
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
Employment
29.356
11.389
2.012
NA
NA
601
NA
NA
250
968
NA
NA
481
NA
1.258
3.565
8.872
7.807
4.100
NA
NA
Annual
Wastes, vol
vd3b
I
131.404
102.238
17.545
NA
NA
;1.248
NA
! NA
•9.360
7.020
: NA
i NA
9.069
NA
6.617
-' • NA
47.078
101.153
57.252
100.776
: NA
NA
Annual wastes
per employee,
yd3b
4.476
8.977
8.720
NA
MA
2.077
NA
NA
37.440
7.252
NA
NA
18.854
NA
5.260
NA
13.206
13.206
7.333
24.580
MA
NA
NA - not available
Data on employment were obtained for those large firms which were surveyed
and included in the wastes calculationfrom the research department of the
Association of Metropolitan San Jose (Greater San Jos^e Chamber of Commerce),
FMC report. Solid Waste Disposal System Analysis (Preliminary Report).
Tables 10 and 11, 1968. ;
P "5
Annual wastes, vol. yd /employment -\
d For canning and preserving, no individual firm data were available. The
industry total developed for the country as a whole was divided by the
total employment in the industry (especially tabulated) to arrive at the
multiplier. :
SOURCE: C.G. Goluke and P.11. McGauhey, Comprehensive Studies of Solid Wastes
Management, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California
January 1969, p.221. •'.•••
Source: Reference 7.
- 41 -
-------
TABLE 11
WASTE GENERATION BY SMALL FIRMS IN SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
Weekly
wastes,
vol
per firm,
vd3a
Annual
wastes,
vol
per firm,
vd3b
Average
employment
per firmc
2.500
(Not surveyed)
10.875
4.000
16.083
23.000
44.650
6.448
6.506
NA
5.275
NA
9.415
2.000
5.284
4.450
6.733
4.550
3.600
1,250
130.00
565.50
NA
NA
208.00
836.33
1,196.00
2,321.80
335.29
338.31
NA
274.30
NA
489.60
104.00
274.75
231.40
350.13
236.60
187.20
65.00
MA
26.979
5.882
17.247
13.767
35,479
13.289
18.439
NA
9.596
NA
16.747
23.409
12.951
12.921
21.036
16.490
20.933
10.931
Annual waste,
vol per
employee,
vd3d
NA
20.961
Standard industrial classification
Ordnance and accessories
Canning and preserving
Other food processing
Tobacco
Textiles
Apparel
Lumber and wood products
Furniture and fixtures
Paper and allied products
Printing, publishing,
and allied
Chemicals and allied
Petroleum refining
Rubber and plastics
Leather
Stone, clay, glass, and
concrete
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical machinery
Transportation equipment
Instruments
Manufacturing
industries
NA - not available
a Data obtained and calculated for each SIC on the basis of small firm questionnaire
responses supplied by FMC.
b Weekly average in first column multiplied by 52.
c Average size of small firm estimates from the contribution of firms by employment
size, supplied by the California Department of Employment (Research and Statistics),
San Francisco Office.
d Annual wastes/average employment per firm.
35.360
48.492
86.877
65.442
25.230
18.348
NA
28.583
NA
29.235
4.443
21.214
17.909
16.645
14.348
8.943
5.946
SOURCE: C.6. Golueke and P.H. McGauhey, Comprehensive Studies of Solid Wastes
Management, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California,
January 1969, p. 221.
Source: Reference 7.
- 42 -
-------
TABLE 12
HASTE GENERATION IN WISCONSIN, BY SIC GROUP
S.I.C.
Group
20-39
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
50-51
52-59
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60-67
70-89
70
72
73
76
79
80
89
90-94
Description
Manufacturing
Food Products
Textile mill products
Apparel
Lumber & wood products,
except furnitures
Furniture & fixtures
Paper & allied products
Printing & publishing
Chemicals
Petroleum refining
Rubber & plastics products
Leather & leather products
Stone, clay, glass & concrete
products
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery, except electrical
Electrical & electronic machinery
Transportation equipment
Precision instruments
Miscel laneous Mfg. Industries
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Retail building materials
Retail general merchandise
Retail food
Auto sales, service, repairs
Retail apparel
Furniture
Eating and drinking establishments
Miscellaneous retail trade
Financial operation
Services
Hotels
Personal services
Business services
Miscellaneous repair
Amusements, recreation
Medical & health
Miscellaneous services
Government
Waste
Generation
Coefficient
Ibs/cap/day
26.7
1.7
1.3
89.0
6.8
81.7
6.2
45.0
159.2
6.1
1.1
125.0
36.8
20.4
19.9
14.7
7.1
1.9
6.6
10.3
8.7
1.5
11.9
2.5
2.4
6.4
12.5
5.4
7.1
11.8
2.3
4.1
9.1
4.0
6.9
4.1
Annual Averages
State
Employment
1000s
493.6
57.7
6.7
7.0
16.8
8.5
43.4
26.2
10. 1
12.5
13.9
8.3
28.1
44.4
103.3
46.5
38.1
8.8
13.0
67.9
278.0
14.1
60.7
45.2
34.3
li.9
7.9
55.5
25.7
64.1
249.5
10.6
14.5
19.0
2.0
8.1
24.6
7.9
279.5
(1972)
Est. Waste
Production
tons /day
(7-day week)
770 3
/ i \j * \j
5 7
+J • /
4 fi
^* w
747.6
28 Q
t*J • J
1,172.9
81.2
227 3
<_ £_ / • O
38.1
7.7
518 8
*J X(_) • U
517 1
•J J. / • j.
452 9
~*J t_ • J
1 027 8
X 5 \J L. I • \J
341.8
135.3
8 4
\J* *T
4.9 0
"c. • y
^AQ 7
UT- 3 • /
61 3
\J J. • *J
A.K K
I*J • O
268 <5
t,\ju * y
42.9
14 ?
±T^ • O
25 3
<_ ^ • O
346 Q
«™U • ^
RQ A
\jy • t
227 6
C—C^ f • U
62 5
Wt_ • »J
16.7
30 n
\J^ • \J
q i
y • x
16 ?
X
-------
wide range of values for what are theoretically, the same coefficients.
In part this inconsistency arises from the fact that the TEY data for
each industry are based on plants with diverse production methods, which
in themselves are often not reported for reasons of propriety. Another
factor leading to such dispersion of data is company employment figures
.which often do not distinguish non-production workers who do not directly
'generate the wastes, from the total plant employment. Consequently,
most industrial waste generation rates are based on the total employment
numbers. Lastly, the sample sizes as well as the sampling regions must
also be considered in evaluating coefficient differences.
For this study, coefficient values from Table 8 were chosen to
estimate waste generation, since TEY coefficients in this table were
broken down further into values corresponding to solid wastes, liquid
wastes, and sludges. Based on the assumption that solid wastes are
generally disposed of in landfills, the solid waste coefficients were
utilized to calculate the total industrial waste destined for landfill
disposal. Results are presented in Table 13.
Using the solid waste TEY's presented in Table 13 for each 2-digit
SIC industry, one can evaluate the plant size distribution by number of
employees necessary to produce 0-50, 50-200, and greater than 200 TPD of
solid waste (see Table 14). Census of Manufacturers plant size categories
are then reapportioned to fit the plant size distribution derived above.
Once the number of plants in each waste volume generating category has
been determined for each 2-digit SIC industry, a number of assumptions
are made. These assumptions relied heaviliy on EPA-supported studies of
industrial hazardous waste disposal practices for two reasons: first,
the studies provided the most detailed industry-specific analysis of
industrial waste disposal practices; and second, while the focus of the
studies was hazardous waste, many of the studies noted that industry
generally has not developed separate disposal facilities for hazardous
and non-hazardous solid waste. Thus, the waste disposal practices
described in these reports (References 5, 12-29) provide a reasonable
basis for assumptions concerning solid waste disposal.
Four assumptions were made:
a. Assume the same disposal practices (method and location)
for potentially hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in every
industry;
b. Assume all solid wastes are landfilled unless information
exists which indicates otherwise;
ci Where industrial hazardous waste practices assessments
have been performed for one or more 3-digit SIC indus-
tries within a 2-digit industry, the available disposal
data were averaged and the average was applied over the
remainder of 3-digit SIC industries within the 2-digit
SIC group;
-44-
-------
TABLE 13
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION
SIC
CODE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-P*
cn 29
30
31
32
33 .
34
35
36
37 '
38
39
TOTAL NUMBEF
OF EMPLOYEES
INDUSTRY (THOUSANDS)
Food Processing
Tobacco
Textile-Mill Products
Apparel
Wood Products
Furniture
Paper and Allied
Products
Printing, Publishing
Chemicals and Allied
Products
Petroleum
Rubber and Plastics
Leather
Stone, Clay
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Non-Electrical
Machinery
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Professional and Scien-
tific Instruments
Miscellaneous Manu-
facturing
1,527
^"6
838
1,213
592
398
590
1,073
848
141
597
240
592
1,091
1,420
1,979
1,521
1,604
502
394
>
;b TEYa
(SOLIDS)
7.949
N/A
2.160
2.192
8.531
2.783
3.987
5.835
8.862
1.594
9.835
8.989
6.412
3.184
6.832
3.189
2.941
2.562
1.769
1.603
TONS OF
_SOLIPS/YEAR__
12,138,000
N/A
1,810,080
2,658,896
5,050,352
1,107,634
2,352,330
6,260,955
7,514,976
224,754
5,773,145
2,157,360
3,795,904
3,474,744
9,701,440
6,311,031
4,473,261
4,109,448
888,038
631,582
TEYa
(ALL WASTES)
8.350
N/A
3.775
2.192
8.531
2.783
4.009
5.848
14.015
1.638
9.991
8.989
6.428
5.004
6.901
5.900
3.113
3.072
1.843
1.603
TONS OF
TOTAL WASTE/YEAR
12,750,000
N/A
3,163,450
2,658,896
5,050,352
1,107,634
2,365,310
6,274,904
11,884,720
230,958
5,864,717
2,157,360
3,805,376
5,459,364
9,799,420
11,676,100
4 734 R73
- -t-j / O"T jO/ O
4,927,488
925,186
631,582
SOLID WASTE
95.2
N/A
57.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.5
99.8
63
97
98
100.0
99.8
63.6
99.0
54.1
94 .-5
83.4
96.0
100.0
a. Reference 8.
b. Reference 10.
-------
f
TABLE 14
SIC
i rnnF
.£, ""XL
CD
1 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
•jg
OU
37
38
39
INDUSTRY
Food Processing
Tobacco
Textile Mill Pro-
duction
Apparel
Wood Products
Furniture
Paper and Allied
Products
Printing, Pub-
lishing
Chemicals and
Allied Products
Petroleum
Rubber and Plastics
Leather
Stone, Clay
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Non-Electrical
Machinery
Electrical
Machinery
Transportation
Equipment
Professional and
Scientific
Instruments
Miscellaneous Manu-
facturing
TEY
(SOLIDS)
7.949,
7.949a
2.160
2.192
8.531
2.783
3.987
5.385
8.862
1.594
9.835
8.989
6.412
3.184
6.832
3.189
2.941
2.562
1.769
1.603
RANGE OF PLANT RANGE OF PLANT
SIZE GENERATING SIZE GENERATING
0-50 TPD SOLID 50-200 TPD SOLID
WASTE (NUMBER WASTE (NUMBER
OF EMPLOYEES) OF EMPLOYEESL
0-1,635
0-1,635
0-6,019
0-5,931
0-1,524
0-4,671
0-3,261
0-7; 228
0-1 ,467
0-8,156
0-1,322
0-1,446
0-2,027
0-4,083
0-1,903
0-4,077
0-4,420
0-5,074
0-7,349
0-8,110
1,635 -
1,635 -
6,019 -
5,931 -
1,524 -
4,671 -
3,261 -
2,228 -
1 ,467 -
8,156"
1,322"
1 ,446 -
2,027 -
4,083 -
1,903 -
4,077 -
4,420 -
5,074 -
7,349 -
8,110 -
6,542
6,542
24,074
23,723
6,095
18,685
13,042
8,912
5,868
32,623
5,287
5,785
8,110
16,332
7,611
16,306
17,681
20,297
29,395
32,440
NUMBER OF
PLANTS GENE-
RATING 0-50 TPD
SOLID WASTE
28,120
272
7,201
24,438
33,937
9,233
6,038
42,069
11,317
2,016
9,168
3,197
15,993
6,728
29,450
40,792
12,270
8,661
5,983
15,187
NUMBER OF
PLANTS GENE-
RATING 50-200
TPD SOLID WASTE
63
12
-
34
108
69
4
22
64
75
-
-
141
-
-
% OF ALL
PLANTS LAND- NUMBER OF ON-SITE
FILLING LANDFILLS.
ON-SITE
22.
22b
22h
22h
22£
22b
22b
Oc
<
20!
i
22u
20n
22b
701
1
0J
22b
22b
22b
0-50
6,186
60
1,584
5,376
7,466
2,031
1,328
0
4,527
403
0
160
3,518
1,346
6,479
28,554
0
1,905
1,316
3,341
50-200 200-t- TPD
14
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
5
13
16
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL:
75,580 125
-------
TABLE 14 (Continued) j
Notes
a.TEY was unavailable for the tobacco industry. The TEY for food
processing was used as a proxy.
b. Average of the ".% of all Plants Landfill ing On-Site" ifor those
2-digit SIC industries for which hazardous waste practices assess-
ments are available.
c.Telephone Contact -- J. Grant, Director of Government Affairs
Printing Industries of America, Washington, D.C. ;
d.Weighted average of the "% of Plants Landfilling On-Slite" for:
- inorganic chemicals $IC 281); i
References 12, 13, 14. '.
- paint and allied products (SIC 285);
Reference 15.
- organic chemicals, pesticides, and
explosives (SIC 286, 287);
References 16, 17. :
Weights based on total potentially hazardous waste volume (dry MT/Y)
e.Based on percent of total potentially.hazardous waste:volume
(dry MT/Y) landfill ing on-site; Reference 18. ;
f.Reference 19.
i
g.Based on oercent of total potentially hazardous waste volume (dry
MT/Y) landfilled on-site; Reference 20. ;
h. Reference 21.
i.Reference 22.
j. Reference 23. ; .
-47-
-------
d. For 2-digit SIC industries for which no hazardous
waste practices assessments have been performed,
the disposal data available for the other 2-digit
SIC's were averaged and the average was applied.
Using the industrial hazardous waste practices assessments done for
EPA, the percentage of plants landfill ing on-site is determined. This
percentage was applied to the numbers of plants in each waste volume
generating category to yield the numbers of on-site landfills accepting
0-50 50-200, and over 200 TPD of solid waste. The total number of 0-50
TPD industrial on-site landfills is 75,580 while the number of 50-200
TPD on-site landfills is 125 and there are essentially no on-site land-
fills accepting more than 200 TPD of solid waste.
In a previous EPA study (Reference 30), Fred C. Hart Associates
estimated 10,558 industrial hazardous waste generators would require
permits for on-site hazardous waste facility operation. Assuming most
industries presently co-dispose hazardous and non-hazardous solid wastes
and that 90% of the establishments landfill or open dump these wastes,
9,502 industrial on-site hazardous waste landfills must exist nation-
'wide. Since these landfills will be covered under Subtitle C of RCRA,
this figure can be subtracted from the total industry solid waste land-
fill figure obtained from Table 14 to yield 66,203 (or 66,094 10 TPD and
109 100 TPD) industrial on-site non-hazardous solid waste landfills
nationwide which will be subject to the proposed Guidelines.
4. Construction, Demolition, and Disaster Debris
There are very few single-purpose construction, demolition or
Landfills.
disaster
landfills. The majority of construction wastes are used as fill
material or are disposed at permitted municipal landfills. Disposal
methods include separate burial, use for on-site construction such as
for service roads, or burial along with the municipal solid waste.
Demolition wastes normally suffer the same fate as construction wastes,
except that a greater percentage is used for clean fill. The Army Corps
of Engineers reports that there are no pre-planned or active disaster_
debris landfills. These landfills are selected on a case-by-case basis
by local authorities at the time of the particular disaster. Depending
on the type and amount of debris, and the availability of landfill_
sites, either existing municipal landfills or new single-purpose sites
are selected. These are used only once, covered over, and recorded only
local authorities. The data base developed in this report does not
Refinement of that data
minimum, contact with
to
by .
represent national prevalence of debris fills.
base to include debris fills would require, at a
each State. Since the number of such single-purpose fills is likely
be quite small, they are not considered further in this analysis.
5 Pollution Control Residues. The waste category of pollution
control residues includes:(a) flue gas desulfurization sludges (F6D> _
sludge); (b) ash generated by combustion of coal and oil; and (c) munici
pal waste water treatment plant sludges. Sludges from the treatment of
non-hazardous industrial wastes other than ash and FGD sludge are
accounted for in the industry section. Of the three waste types in the
-48-
-------
Pollution Control Residues (PCR) category, sludges from waste water
e±rPntPl?n? "1" 1°^ conside^d father" It is estimated that
percent of treatment sludges are landfilled. These si udqes are
1dent1f1ed
TIJ?1T?n:iain1n9 waste stream types are primarily generated by elec-
«,m, ?ll 1SS' u°ue ° ^e large volume of wastes generated, it can be
assumed that each power plant disposes of the waste oniits1 own site
*rpUrp^t? Ud§e| Can be large 1n Volume> but at the P**ent time there
?n „ vl Try fSW g°wer plants with act1ve scrubber systems. According
to a recent Energy Resources Company, Inc. study (Reference 31) there
Tar1^rMle ^^f T temS (which P^ducfwaste stream f'
• sa]eabl(r P^duct). Seventeen of these facilities dispose
o G lnKponds; *lx umts use landfills; and one unit dumps its
sludge in a borrow pit. Seven units did not report on 'disposal practices,
fn«iIhf,,ScermaJ°r"??llut1?n Ttro1 residue 1s ash- Combustion of
fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, generally produces an ash residue
on coaieq^eS-d1?POS,al\ The ?leCtHc power generating' industry re es
n,t?n ?ll-(irf1.stf'T1 electric power plants to generate about 63%
S JSJ 's electrical capacity, with coal at 38% and oil-fired
on £ !°tal "Paclty- The amount of ash residue generated
depends upon the type of fuel and the ash content of the fuel The
disposal of the ash is a practice particular to the plant involved. We
have attempted to estimate the population of combustion; ash disposal
sites in the manner described below.
From previous studies, the average ash generation figures oer olant
erHm^aWa^ (^l ¥ 9enerati"9 capacity were derived! first for
rinr* ?nn ?Sn f°rf 01J-fired facilities. Per MW, coal combustion pro-
duces 300 tons of ash per year or 0.82 tons per day, based on 365 days
per year of operation. The corresponding figures for ash generation at
oil-fired plants are 2.5 TPY and 0.007 TPD per megawatt;
tn thWeMneXt scaled ^^ mode1 landfill classes, established previously,
to the MW capacity figures for each type of plant. In order for a coal-
fired plant to generate from 0-50, 50-100 or 200+ tons of ash per day,
its rated capacity had to fall within 3 ranges of values. These values
were 0 to 61 MW.^61 to 244 MW, or 245+ MW for each of the three model
hS Ji Lr«P2CJ JSn'u,,1! the 53Se °f O1'l-f1red P^nts, the MW capacity
had to exceed 7,100 MW to produce more than 50 tons per day of ash Few
plants attain one tenth that size. :
iinif numb!r Of coal- and oi'l -fired plants in the
United States, by category of ash production. Oil-fired plants fall
completely within the smallest category. Coal-fired plants do not. The
results, on a national level are that 729 plants (621 oil-fired, 108
coal-fired) generate enough ash to fill ponds and landfills of 0 to 50
TPD capacity; 75 plants, all coal -fired, produce 50 to 200 tons of ash
per day; and 217 plants, all coal-fired, generate more tnan 200 tons of
ash per day.
-49-
-------
TABLE 15
NUMBER OF ASH LANDFILLS BY DAILY CAPACITY FOR
STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS, BY PLANT TYPE a
Total
Number of Plants in Ash Production
Categories (TPD)
Plant Type
Oil-Firedb
Coal -Fired0
0-50
621
108
50-200
-
75
200+ Total
- • 621
217 400
729
75
217 1,021
aPlants in service as of December 31, 1976, according to the Federal Energy
Administration.
^Included among oil-fired plants are some plants firing gas or coal.
However, it can be assumed that all the plants generate some oil-
fired ash which must be landfilled.
cNumbers represent plants firing coal only.
Source: Reference 32.
-50-
-------
Data
IS 1 JSV
the total, 49%
figure implies
from immediate
watering process
from the National Ash Association indicate thait 15% of the
1s used 1n construction and of the refraining 85% of
is trucked to landfills and 51% is sluiced. The latter
disposal in ponds or lagoons which removes this fraction
consideration. However, at the conclusion of the de-
this ash volume is reportedly dredged and dumped on
The practices of ash disposal are random; that is, they are not
correlated wth size of plant, with ownership, with plant location in
terms of either physiography or demography, nor with plant age. Prac-
tices are solely determined by the resources of the plant in question
and not of a class of plants. If 41.7% of ash is landfilled (49%
trucked x 85% disposed), then the total number of landfills by capacity
class, assuming a random disposal practice, is as follows-
Number of landfills
0-50 TPD 50-200 200+
304
31
90
Total
425
c- Estimating the Prevalence of Environmentally Sensitive Area;
Wetlands, floodplains, permafrost areas, critical habitats, and
recharge zones of sole source aquifers are considered as Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (ESAs) by the Criteria and Guidelines. Karst terrain and
active fault zones are not designated as ESAs by the Proposed Guidelines,
but are listed nonetheless as areas to avoid in sanitary landfill siting,
and to protect in landfill design and operation. The total U.S. area of
karst terrain and active fault zones is insignificant when mapped at the
gross scale used for estimating the extent of the other, more prevalent
hbAs. For this reason, consideration of ESAs is limited in this report
to wetlands, permafrost areas, floodplains, critical habitats, and areas
overlying sole source aquifers.
1. Wetlands. The proposed Guidelines define wetlands as "those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." To estimate the aggregate
National costs of sanitary landfill ing in wetland areas, it is first
necessary to map and estimate the total U.S. area of wetlands. A recent
inquiry at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the Federal
wetland inventory is not yet complete, and that no generalized U.S.
wetland map has superseded the 1956 USFWS Circular 39 map (Reference 33)
-51-
-------
Figure 7 represents a generalized adaptation of Reference 33.
Heavy concentrations of wetlands were identified by dots which rep-
resented 10,000 acres of wetlands. These were outlined to indicate
Generalized areas of expected concentration of wetlands. The total area
of wetlands in the U.S., as reported in Reference 33 is 74 million
acrel. Data are still needed for Alaska, Hawaii and the U.S. territories.
The map is subjective and intended only as a rough estimate of U.S.^
wetlands prevalence. When the national wetland inventory is complete, a
refined estimate can be made.
2 Floodplains. The proposed Guidelines define floodplains as
"lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters,
including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, which are inundated by
the base 100-year flood." To estimate the aggregate national costs •
of sanitary landfilling in floodplains, it is first necessary to map and
estimate the total U.S. area of 100-year floodplains.* A recent inquiry
at the Federal Insurance Administration, which administers the Federal
Flood Insurance Program, indicates that the Federal floodplain mapping
effort is not yet complete, and that no reliable generalized U.S. flood-
plain map yet exists. However, in a 1978 report, the U.S. Water Resources
Council Reference 34) produced a map of existing U.S. flooding problems
defined as areas (river basins) that have serious or moderate agricul-
tural, urban and other flooding. Figure 8 shows WRC's generalized areas
of serious flooding. When the Federal 100-year floodplain mapping
effort is complete, a refined estimate can be made of the extent of
floodprone areas.
3 Permafrost Areas. The proposed Guidelines define permafrost
areas as areas of "permanently frozen subsoil." R.F. Flint s Glacial
and Quaternary Geology (Reference 39) maps the present extent of con-
tinuous and discontinuous permafrost in the northern hemisphere. Figure
9 was adapted from Flint's map of continuous permafrost areas.
4 Critical Habitats. Critical habitats are those habitats
which have been determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be crit-
ical to the continued existence of endangered species listed under
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. According to K.
Schreiner of the Office of Endangered Species, U.S.. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the ultimate total U.S. area of ^1t1"J habitat w! 11 be very
small compared to the total area of the other ESAs. It wastherefore
concluded that the identification of the known small areas of critical
habitats would lack meaning in the national-scale maps used for this
report Further, many critical habitats are contained within the flood-
plain and wetland areas.
5 Areas Overlying Aquifers. The proposed Guidelines recommend
location of landfills in areas which are not underlain by current or
This approach conforms with the intent of Executive Order 11988
dated May 24, 1977, concerning floodplain management.
-52-
-------
FIGURE 7
CONCENTRATION OF WETLANDS IN THE U.S
. boun-
daries of
Wetland
Concentrations
Source: Reference 33.
-------
r
FIGURE 8
EXISTING FLOODING PROBLEMS
Areas that have serious agricultural, urban, and
other flooding.
Source: Reference 34 .
-------
FIGURE 9
CONTINUOUS PERMAFROST IN THE U.S.
Source: Reference 39
-------
planned drinking water sources. Figure 10 shows the areas of major
aquifers in the country in which municipalities rely heavily on ground
water as a source of drinking water. The map was adapted from U.S.
Geological Survey Hydro!ogic Atlas 194 (Reference 40) in consideration
of municipal water use data.
6. Total Environmentally Sensitive Area. Figure 11 maps the
total U.S. Environmentally Sensitive Area as defined by the Section 4004
Criteria and the proposed Guidelines. This map was produced by over-
laying Figures 7 through 10 representing the four separately mapped
ESAs. Figure 11 indicates that approximately 50-60% of the area of the
coterminous United States is classified as environmentally sensitive.
D. Estimating the Distribution of Sanitary Landfills
For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that the distribution
of sanitary landfills roughly correlates with population distribution.
To determine the number of landfills in ESAs, the following methodology
was used:
a. Determine which of each State's Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) lie
in ESAs. This was accomplished by over-
lapping a map of SMSAs with the composite
ESA map in Figure 11, and identifying over
lapping areas. The population of SMSAs in
ESAs was then summed for each State.
b. Determine the percentage of the remainder
of the State (non SMSA) which lies in ESAs
using the same tools as in (a) above.
Subtract the State's total SMSA population
from the State's total population to yield
the population of the remainder of the
State. Assuming an even population distrib-
ution over the remainder of the State, apply
the percentage ESA area found above to the
population of the remainder of the State to
obtain the ESA population in the remainder
of the State.
c. Add the total State SMSA population in ESAs
to the population of the remainder of the
State in ESAs to yield the total State
population in ESAs.
d. Add all the State's total populations in ESAs
together to obtain the total U.S. population
in ESAs.
-56-
-------
FIGURE 10
ESTIMATED EXTENT OF SOLE OR PRINCIPAL SOURCE AQUIFERS; COTERMINOUS UNITED STATE
Estimated Extent
of Aquifers
Source: Reference 40
-------
FIGURE 11
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE U.S.
Comoosite map
of Wetlands,
Continuous
Permafrost,
Existina Flood-
inn Problems,
and Principal
Source Aquifers
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
-------
e. Determine the percentage of the total U.S.
population which resides in ESAs, and apply
this percentage to the total number of land-
fills to obtai.n the number of landfills
in ESAs. "" ;
i
These data are summarized in Table 16. As the table indicates, the
total U.S. population in ESAs is 154.5 million or 73.1% of the total
U.S. population. If landfills are evenly distributed according to
population, then 73.1% or 59,443 landfills in all, lie in ESAs.
E. Aggregate Costs
Tables 17-19 outline the potential impact of the proposed landfill
Guidelines on the operating costs of various types of landfill oper-
ations. Table 20 presents the unit cost impact (i.e;, costs/ton) of the
Guidelines on landfill sites handling municipal, industrial, and pollution
control residue waste respectively, with these operations further strat-
ified by daily capacity (ton/day) and whether they are located in sen-
sitive or nonsensitive areas. All of these results are then summarized
in Table 21. These cost impact assessments ,are based on the landfill
prevalence data a,nd landfill upgrading cost estimates as developed in
Sections VLB. and V.B., respectively. The aggregate incremental cost
figures in Table 21 show the amount by which these changes in unit costs
would affect the average annual operating costs of each type of land-
fill, and the total of these Guidelines-related incremental costs for
all landfills nationwide.
The factors that stand out most clearly in these tables are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The potential cost impact is substantial; the national
figure of $2038.0 million is approximately a 60 percent
increase over the present landfill operating cost esti-
mate of $3,539 million.
The incremental costs due to the Guidelines reflect
the scale economy assumptions made earlier in this
report for both base line and upgrading technology
costs; this decreasing cost factor is the most
significant for municipal solid waste sites.
Leachate controls, and particularly the impermeable
cover requirement, represent the largest incremental
cost element, while surface runoff control is the
second largest factor.
The industrial landfill population is responsible for
roughly 66 percent of the total incremental costs,
with virtually all of it falling on the small (10
TPD) sites; the cost data however, show that the
incremental impact per unit of waste was fairly
even among the three waste categories.
-59-
-------
TABLE 16
o
I
(1)
STATE
\J 1 r\ I L.
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rode Island
Connecticut
New York
L-O 1 It'll
(2)
SMSAs
LOCATED IN
AN ESA
None
None
None
Boston
Worcester
Hone
Bridgeport
New Haven
(3)
SMSA
POPULATION
2,898
377
397
415
(4) (5) (6)
REMAINDER
OF STATE
TOTAL SMSA POPULATION
POPULATION STATE (Column 5
IN ESAsa POPULATION3 minus Col. 3)
0 1,047 1,047
0 808 808
0 470 470
3,275 5,800 2,525
0 937 937
812 3,088 2,276
(7)
PERCENTAGE
OF STATE
AREA IN
ESAs
40
5
5
30
0
40
(8)
REMAINDER
OF STATE
POPULATION
IN ESAsa
(Column 7
Times Col.
419
40
24
758
0
910
(9)
TOTAL STATE
POPULATION
IN ESAsa
(Column 8
6) Plus Col. 4)
419
40
24
4,033
0
1,722
Albany, Sche- 267b
nectady,
Troy
Binghamton
Buffalo
Nassau
New York
City
Rochester
Syracuse
p
151°
1,345
2,630
9,739
972
643
15,747 18,214 2,961
30
888
15,635
-------
(1)
(2)
(3)
TABLE 16 (Continued)
(4) (5)
(6)
(7) (8) (9)
I
01
STATE
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
SMSAs
LOCATED IN
AN ESA 1
Jersey City
Long Branch
Newark
Paterson
Harrisburg
Johnstown
Lancaster
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
York
Akron
Canton
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Evans vi lie
Indianapolis
South Bend
Chicago
Peoria
Rockford
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Kalamazoo
Lansing
Trrrni r.«r-n UIXV-I.M i nut. KU'lnlHUCK
TOTAL SMSA REMAINDER OF STATE OF STATF TOTii C.TATI:
^M^fl DHDIII ATTflM CTATC- nr- r—ri\-rr- .nr-> • . O 1 n 1 C. 1 U 1 HL OlAlt
°"JO rurULttliuli olAlc Or STATF ARFA TM DDDMI flTTfiM nnnin nTrnn
PflPIH ATffiKl TM CCA a nnmii A n Jinit. ni\i-n in rUrULnllUI'i rUrULAI 1UN
598
2J80 3,592 7,325 3,733 15 560 4,152
*461
425
266
4J35 8,540 11,862 3,322 40 1,329 9,869
2,'365
343
677
406
I$f6 5'529 10'737 5,208 25 1,302 6,831
1,'057
290
.1,137 „ 1,708. 5,330- 3,622- -40 1,449 3,157 "
7,002
351 7,624 11,131 3,507 40 1,403 9,027
4,446
517
HI 6,215 9,098 2,883 100 2,883 9,098
438
-------
I
CTl
ro
i
(1)
(2)
(3)
TABLE 16 (Continued)
(4) (5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
West Virginia Huntington
291
291
1,791
1,500
67
1,005
(9)
STATE
Wisconsin
Mi nnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
.South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas ;
Delaware
Mary! and
Wash., D.C.
Virginia
SMSAs
LOCATED IN SMSA
AN ESA POPULATION
Oshkosh
Madison
Milwaukee
Duluth
Minnesota
Davenport
Des Moines
St. Louis
None
None
Omaha
Kansas City
None
Baltimore
None
Newport
Norfolk
281
301
1,417
264
2,000
365
325
2,391
575
1,299
2,120
347
745
TOTAL SMSA
POPULATION
IN ESAsa
1,999
2,264
690
2,391
0
0
575
1,299
0
2,120
0
1,092
STATE
POPULATION
4,566
3,197
2,855
4,777
637
682
1,543
2,270
573
4,094
723
4,908
REMAINDER
OF STATE
POPULATION
2,567
933
2,165
2,386
637
682
968
971
573
1,974
723
3,816
PERCENTAGE
OF STATE
AREA IN
ESAs
100
88
50
30
60
48
28
28
0
22
0
15
REMAINDER
OF STATE
POPULATION
IN ESAsa
2,567
1,821
1,083
716
382
327
271
272
0
434
0
572
TOTAL STATE
POPULATION
IN ESAsa
4,566
3,085
1,773
3,107
382
327
846
1,572
0
2,554
0
1 ,664
1,296
-------
(1)
(2)
(3)
TABLE 16 (Continued)
(4) (5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
STATE
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Arkansas
SMSAs
LOCATED IN SMSA
AN ESA POPULATION
Charlotte
Greensboro
Raleigh
Columbia
Greenville
Charleston
None
Ft. Lauderdale
Jackson
Lakeland
Miami
Orlando
Pensacola
Tampa
W. Palm Beach
Lexington
Louisville
Chattanooga
Knoxville
Memphis
Mobile
Jackson
Little Rock
588
757
458
349
509
352
756
661
255
1,370
549
259
1,276
412
282
886
389
427
863
389
275
350
T/vrn, • PERCENTAGE REMAINDER
SIA,KS5A' REMAINDER OF STATE OF STATE TOTAL STATE
POPULATION STATE OF STATE AREA IN POPULATION POPULATION
IN ESAsa POPULATION POPULATION ESAs IN ESAsa IN ESAs™
1,803 5,363 3,560 63 2,243 4,046
1,210 2,784 1,574 40 630 1,840
0 4,882 4,882 65 3,173 3,173
5,538 8,090 2,552 100 2,552 8,090
1,168 3,357 2,189 35 766 1,934
1,679 . 4,129 2,450 50 1,225 2,904
389 3,357 2,968 52 1,543 1,932
275 2,324 2,049 85 1,742 2,017
350 2,062 1,712 82 1,404 1,754
-------
I
en
(1)
(2)
(3)
TABLE 16 (Continued)
(4) (5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
PERCENTAGE REMAINDER
(9)
STATE
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
SMSAs
LOCATED IN SMSA
AN ESA POPULATION
Baton Rouge
New Orleans
Shreveport
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Austin
Beaumont
. Corpus Christi
Dallas
El Paso
Houston
San Antonio
None
None
None
None
Albaquerque
Phoenix
Tuscon
Salt Lake City
Las Vegas
402
1,083
343
750
572
375
102
298
2,464
390
2,168
960
.-
376
1,127
. 416
753
308
TOTAL SMSA REMAINDER
POPULATION STATE OF STATE
IN ESAsa POPULATION POPULATION
1,828
1,322
6,757
0
0
0
0
376
1,543
- . -
753
308
3S764
2,709
12,050
735
799
359
2,496
1,122
2,153
1,173
573
1,936
1,387
5,293
735
799
359
2,496
746
610
420
265
OF STATE
AREA IN
ESAs
100
100
30
15
20
8
15
2?
10
35
33
OF STATE
POPULATION
IN ESAs3
1,936
1,387
1,588
110
160
287
374
172
61
147
87
TOTAL STATE
POPULATION
IN ESAs3
3,764
2,709
8,345
110
160
287
374
548
1.604
900
395
-------
CTl
cn
i
(1)
(2)
(3)
TABLE 16 (Continued)
(4) (5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Total U.S. Population in Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(9)
STATE
Washington
Oregon
California
Alaska
1 1«* . « *
Hawaii'
SMSAs
LOCATED IN
AM CCA D/
mi u«Jr\ r\
Seattle
Spokane
Tacpma
Portland
Anaheim
Bakersfield
Fresno
Los Angeles
Oxnard Si mi
Valley
Sacramento
Salinas
San Francisco
San Jose ,
Stockton
Vallejo
None
Honolulu
"rn-rni o..^» rt-ivmnmac KCIIftlNULK
REMAINDER OF STATE OF STATE TOTAL STATE
DPULATION IN ESAsa POPULATION POPULATION ESAs INESAs^ ^N^SA^
1,383
301 2,076 3,476 1,400 20 280 2,356
i'062 L062 2,266 1,204 28 337 1,399
1,597
336
435
6,924
420 15,693 20,907 5,214 20 1,043 16,736
255
3,143
1,157
299
263
0 337 337 40 134 134
686 686 847 161 90 145 831
i54 545
a. In thousands.
b. One-third of total SMSA population.
c. One-half of total SMSA population.
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
-------
TABLE 17
IMPACT OF GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID HASTE LANDFILLS (COSTS/TON)
Required Technologies
Gas Control
Vertical Impermeable Barriers
Site Condition and Size Categories
10 TPD 100 TPD 300 TPD
Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive
$1.30 $1.30
$0.30 $0.30
$0.15 $0.15
Leachate Control
Imper. Daily Cover (off-site source)
Dike Construction3
Surface Runoff
Ponding
Dike Construction9
Monitoring
Gas Monitoring
Ground Water Quality Monitoring
Total Incremental Costs
Baseline Costs
Total Post-Guidelines Costs
Percent Increase
5.30
1.20
0.10
1.20
0.15
0.60
$9.85
11.15
;2i7oo~
88%
5.30
-
0.15
0.60
$7.35
11.15
$18.50
66%
2.65
0.28
0.05
0.27
0.03
0.10
$3.68
6.65
$10.33
55%
2.65
-
0.03
0.10
$3.08
6.65
$9.73
46%
1.75
0.15
0.04
0.15
0.01
0.05
$2730
3.95
$6.25
58%
1.75
.
0.01
0.05
$1.96
3.95
$5.91
50%
a. Dike construction costs were divided equally between leachate and surface runoff control functions.
-------
TABLE 18
01
~J
I
Required Technologies
Gas Control
Leachate Control
Imper. Daily Cover (off-site source)
Surface Runoff
Ponding .
Dike Construction
Mom' tori ng
Gas Monitoring
Ground Water Quality Monitoring
Total Incremental Costs
Due to Guidelines
Baseline Costs
i ota i rosi-buiae n nes Losts
Percent Increase
10 TPD
Sensitive Non-Sensitive
$5.30 $5.30
0.10
2.40
0.15 0.15
1.60 0.60
$8.55 $6.05
11.15 11.15
$19.70 $17.20
77% 54%
Site Condition and Size Categories
TOO TPD 300 TPD
Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive
$2.65 $2.65
0.05
0.55
0.03 0.03
-.10 0 10
$3.38 $2.78
6.65 6.65
$10.03 $9.43 - """ _
51% 42%
-------
TABLE 19
IMPACT OF GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUE LANDFILLS (COSTS/TON)
en
CO
Required Technologies
Gas Control
Leachate Control
Imper. Daily Cover (off-site source)
Surface Runoff
Ponding
Dike Construction
Monitoring
Ground Water Quality Monitoring
Total Incremental Costs
Due to Guidelines
Baseline Costs
Total Post-Guidelines Costs
Percent Increase
10 TPD
Sensitive Non-Sensitive
$5.30 $5.30
$0.10
2.40
0.60 0.60
$8.40 $5.90
11.15 11.15
$15755" $17.05
75% 53%
100 TPD
Sensitive Non-Sensitive
$2.65 $2.65
$0.05
0.55
0.10 0.10
$3,35 $2.75
6.65 6.65
$10700" $9.40
50% 41%
300 TPD
Sensitive Non-Sensitive
$1.75
$0.05
0.30
0.05
$2.14
3.95
$6.09
54%
$1.75
-
0.05
$1.80
3.95
$5.75
46%
-------
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF IMPACT OF LANDFILL GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF LANDFILLS (COSTS/TON!a
I
CTl
UD
I
Landfill Baseline
Costs
Waste Types
Municipal
Post-Guidelines
Costs
Sensitive
$11.15
(12.29)
21.00
(23.15)
10 TPD
Non-Sensitive
$11.15
(12.29)
18.50
(20.39)
Sensitive
$6.65
(7.33)
10.33
(11.39)
IUM emu OIZ.K l/dLeqor
100 TPD
Non-Sensitive
$6.65
(7.33)
9.73
(10.73)
'ies
Sensitive
$3.95
(4.35)
6.25
(6.89)
300 TPD
Non-Sensi ti ve
$3.95
(4.35)
5.91
(6.51)
Industrial
Post-Guidelines
Costs
Percent Increase
19.70
(21.72)
77%
17.20
(18.96)
. .54%
Pollution Control Residues
Post-Guidelines
Costs
Percent Increase
19.55
(21.55)
75%
17.05
(18.80)
53%
55%
46%
10.03
(11.06)
- 51%
9.43
(10.39)
42%
10.00
(11.02)
9.40
(10.36)
41%
6.09
(6.71)
50%
5.75
(6.39)
a. Costs in parenthesis are costs/metric ton
-------
TABLE 21
AGGREGATE IMPACT OF GUIDELINES ON ANNUAL LANDFILL OPERATING COST$a
Site Size Categories
Haste Types
Municipal
Annual Costs/Site
# Sites
Total Costs (^million)
Industrial
Annual Cost/Site
# Sites
Total Costs ($million)
Pollution Control Res.
Annual Costs/Site
# Sites
Total Costs ($million)
Total Costs
($ million).
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
Sensitive—Non-sensitive Sensitive Non-sensitive Sensitive Non-sensitive Total
$ 25,610 $ 19,110
(8,375) (3,082)
$.214.5 $ 58.9
$ 22,230 $ 15,730
(48,315) .(17,779)
$ 1,074.0 $ 279.7
$ 21,840 $ 15,340
(222) (82).
$ 4.8 $ 1.3
$1,293.3 $ 339,9
$ 95,680 $ 80,080
(1,610) (593)
$ 154.0 $ 47.5
$ 87,880 $ 72,280
(80) (29)
$ 7.0 $ 2.1
$ 87,100 $ 71,500
(23) (8)
$ 1.3 $ .6
$ 163.0 $ 50.2
$179,400 $152,880
(752) (277)
$ 134.9 $ 42.3
$166,920
(66)
$ n.o
$140,400
(24)
$ 3.4
$ 145.9 $ 45.7
$ 652.1
$1,362.8
$• 23.1
$2,038.0
A. Landfill operating year is assumed to be 260 days.
-------
F- Sensitivity Analysis of Cost Impacts
1.
2.
of whlrh SSo hfo3 Pr??ent^h?re are based on numerous assumptions, all
of which have been delineated in earlier sections. The results are
hlJS im?r£Vn to4ha"ges !n s?me of these assumptions, while others
if^-!? -, effect on total costs- Two assumptions, one from the
landfill prevalence calculations and another from the upgrading tech-
nology estimates, were tested to see how they would SffStSe Guide-
lines cost impacts outlined above:
the portion of the landfills that have on-site clay
available for the impermeable cover process; and
the percentage of total landfills located In en-
vironmentally sensitive vs. non-sensitive areas.
imnn 22 Sh°WS th(r substantial difference in the; costs of the
impermeable cover requirement for operations with an on-site vs off-
TPD and^nn°TPne'-/he ValU6S °f $5'30> $2'65' and ^-75 *>r 10 TPD, 100
Iff s?t 2nM^lS1feSi ^sPfctively, assumed that all: sites must rely on
off-site sources of clay. This assumption is reasonable since althouoh
imieasroi?XwhenS1VeiareaS °f Clay?y S°fls in the ".$., the?e is reSly
cm/secS ?o hp S5 °Jay c9mP°neJt ls sufficiently impermeable (1 x 10-7 'y
cm/sec) to be effective in meeting the Guidelines. However if it is
assumed that 20 percent of landfills have on-site souses of clay, thl
P
c
costs assuming 50 percent of sites with clay avaiab'r(SefTablI 22).
It is very unlikely that more than 50 percent of the sites have
I ! surfac\^ ^e percentage with on-site clay? blsed Sn
cenl l?tSh9ated d^a °.n.S011 types' could eas11^ ^ under 20 per-
cent Although no exact estimate can be made, it is clear that
eventual cost results are very sensitive to this fictor -- a
that supports the need for further work in this area
The unit costs of impermeable cover for landfills with
anSloo ?PD t are *°-75-.*0-35' «nd $0.25 fir 10
and 300 TPD sites, respectively. See Table 3.
TPD,
-71-
-------
TABLE 22
EFFECT OF CHANGE IN ON-SITE CLAY AVAILABILITY ASSUMPTION
ON GUIDELINES COST IMPACTS ($ MILLIONS)
Assumption
0/100*
(Baseline)
20/80*
(% Change)
50/50*
(% Change)
Site Size Categories
10 TPD
$1,641.7
100 TPD 300 TPD
$216.8 $211.8
TOTAL
$2,070.3
1,456.4
(-11%)
1,177.0
(-28%)
188.2
(-13%)
145.5
(-33%)
182.6
(-14%)
138.9
(-34%)
1,827.2
(-12%)
1,461.4
(-29%)
0/100 = 0% have on-site clay, etc.
The results of the second sensitivity analysis are presented in
Table 23. Two alternative assumptions were substituted for the initial
estimate (labeled Baseline) that 73.1 percent of all landfills were
located in environmentally sensitive-areas:
Alternative Assumption 1: 50% in Sensitive/50% in Non-Sensitive Areas
Alternative Assumption 2: 10% in Sensitive/90% in Non-Sensitive Areas
The second assumption is close to the value used by the authors of
the Section 4004 Landfill Criteria EIS. The data in Table 23 demonstrates,
however, that the impact of even large adjustments in this sensitive/
non-sensitive split is rather small. A change in the on-site/off-site
clay assumptions, for example, from 0%/100% to 20%/80% or 50%/50% altered
total incremental costs by 12 percent and 29 percent, respectively. By
comparison, an almost complete reversal of the sensitive/non-sensitive
split (i.e., from 73%/27% to 10%/90%) changed total costs by only 18 per
cent. Although this change is of some significance, the overall results
are clearly rather insensitive to significant changes in this assumption.
-72-
-------
TABLE 23
AGGREGATE IMPACTS OF GUIDELINES ON LANDFILL COST UNDER ALTERNATIVE SENSITIVE AREA ASSUMPTIONS
~~ ($ MILLION) ~~ —
Haste Types
Municipal
Baseline:
Alt. Ass. 1:
Alt. Ass. 2:
73.1/26.9
50/50
10/90
CO
I
Industrial
Baseline: 73.1/26.9
Alt. Ass. 1: 50/50
Alt. Ass. 2: 10/90
Pollution Control
Baseline:
Alt. Ass.
Alt. Ass.
73.1/26.1
1: 50/50
2: 10/90
Sensitive
$214.5
146 . 7
29.3
$1,074.0
734.6
146.9
•' $11.6
8.0
' 1.6
10 TPD
Non-Sensitive
$58.9
109.4
197.0
$279.7 $1
519.8 1
935.7 1
$3.0
5.6
10". 1.
Total
$273.4
256.1
226.3
,353.7
,254.4
,082.6
$14.6
13.6
11.7
Sensitive
$154.0
105.4
21.1
$7.0
4.8
1.0
$4.8
3.3
0.7
TOTAL GUIDELINE COSTS ($
Baseline:
Alt. Ass. 2:
AH. Ass. 3:
73.
1/26.9 $2
50/50 ' 1
10/90 1
100 TPD
Non-Sensitive
$ 47.5
88.2
158.8
$2.1
3.9
7.1
$1.4
"2.7
4.8
MILLION)
,070.3
,945.4 (-6%)
,705.2 (-18%)
300 TPD
Total Sensitive Non-Sensitive Total
$201.5 $134.9 $ 42.3 $177.2
193.6 .. 92.3 78.7 179.7
179.9 18.5 141.6 160.1
$9.1 - -
8.7 - -
8.1 -
$6.2 $26.5 $ 8.1 $34.6
6.0 18.1 15.2 33.3
5.5 3.6 27.4 31.0
GRAND
TOTAL
$652.1
629.4
566.3
$1,362.8
1,263.1
1,090.7
- $55.4
52.9
. ^.48.2, .
3' location's^T Iff/PfiT d??1,l?1th't^.per^"tQ°f t0ta1 1andfills that are in environmentally sensitive vs. non-sensitive
locatTons, i.e., 73.1/26.9 - 73.1% sensTtive, 26.9% non-sensitive, 50/50 = 50% sensitive, 50% non-sensitive, etc.
-------
VII. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF INCREASED
OPERATING COSTS OF LANDFILLING
A. Background
The data presented in Sections V and VI outlined the probable
impact of the proposed sanitary landfill Guidelines on the per unit
operating costs of such facilities. However, it is the reaction to
these additional costs by those residential, commercial, industrial and
government sectors directly and indirectly affected that will determine
the long-run net costs and overall effectiveness of the Guidelines.
When a particular business or government agency is faced with higher
operating costs, it can adjust through one of the following routes:
change operating methods or technologies to
avoid the costs;
absorb the higher costs in the form of lower
profits (higher subsidies);
shift the higher costs backward on to suppliers
(e.g., lower wages);
shift the cost forward in the form of higher
rates or prices to its customers.
These four methods are of course not mutually exclusive, and
typically occur in various combinations as the affected parties search
for ways to minimize the burden of the added costs. In the landfill
"industry" this type of situation is complicated by the fact that much
of the nation's solid waste handling capacity is pub!icy-owned (although
frequently privately-operated), so the profit element is essentially re-
placed by various public mandates or regulations dealing with subsidy
limits, bond retirement guarantees based on user charges, and numerous
other economic, financial or political constraints. Because of the
multiple objectives of the public sector, an analysis of the impacts of
additional costs is more difficult.
The overall incidence patterns of these costs -- i.e., who bears
the burden of them — will be determined by the particular mix of
reactions outlined above. These can be roughly divided into two cate-
gories, which are discussed in the following sections:
supply effects: reactions by the suppliers of the
landfill services.
demand effects: reactions
landfilling services (i.e.
by those demanding these
, solid waste generators).
-74-
-------
B. Supply Effects
The landfill operator faced with higher operating costs can either
absorb the costs or seek out some method of avoiding them or shifting
them elsewhere. The analysis of these reaction patterns is similar in
nature to an analysis of the incidence of various government taxes or
fees; both depend principally on the financial conditions of the firms
and the characteristics of the markets in which they are involved Any
increases in business costs will eventually be borne either by (a) those
who provide the various factors of production (labor , capital, equip-
ment) or (b) those buying the business 's goods or services. The only
remaining alternative is to revise the technological or institutional
structure of the firm (e.g., new equipment, consolidation with other
tirms, etcj to avoid or minimize the impact of these costs by lowering
costs in other areas. The following sections address five major market
and operational effects most applicable to landfill operation.
, .,.}• Increase Disposal Fees for Landfill Users. The ability of
landfill operators to pass costs forward in the form of higher user
charges typically depends on the nature of the demand for their ser-
vices. If the demand is very price elastic, the potential increase in
revenue will be minimal as many of the landfill users will find alter-
native methods of meeting their waste handling needs. This is demon-
strated in the figure below.
FIGURE 12 ;
D quantity handled (tons)
IMPACT OF HIGHER LANDFILL USER CHARGES ON DEMAND
A hypothetical landfill is used by two waste generators represented bv
demand DI and D2 each of which dumps Q0 tons of waste annually at the
llll'it- thf\l™tf 111 raiS6S US ratSS fr°m R° to Rl> the m°re price-
Xnm nnVS* ™ ¥£' rePresented by demand curve DI, reduces its demand
from QQ0 to QQi. The more price inelastic generator, represented by
curve D£ shows a more modest drop from QQo to QQ2.
-75-
-------
ion
The principal effect of the increase in rates is a decline in
quantity disposed, and, if demand is elastic, a decline in total rev-
enues for specific landfills. However, the problems created by a highly
elastic market demand go beyond those of insufficient revenue generation.
All wastes formerly handled by the landfill must either be deposited
elsewhere or no longer disposed. The first of these options raises.the
possibility of illegal dumping as well as the increased likelihood that
various landfill operators might avoid compliance, both of which are
serious enforcement problems. The second option would be that gen-
erators might reduce their waste generation rates and/or expand re-
cycling efforts. This question is covered in more detail in Sectiot
VII.C.
2 Higher Taxes for Landfill Support. A response available to
public"landfill operations is to pass the additional costs on to tax-
payers in the form of higher subsidies for landfi 1 operations. Some
municipalities that have formerly assumed that all or a specified portion
of landfill costs would be paid by. landfill users may be faced with the
problem of maintaining operating ratios (operating revenues/operating
costs) while not wanting to provide any significant dlsl"f Jj^ *°
those generators who should be using these facilities. As the portion
of total costs covered by user charges drops, other public Avenue _
sources would be required. Some private landfill operating costs could
also be indirectly subsidized by taxpayers through investment, tax
credits or loan guarantees for landfill upgrading or construction,
research and development grants, or other forms of subsidy. The spe-
cific policy of the agencies involved, the prevailing methods used to
finance everyday operating costs or retire bonds, and numerous•other _
factors would have to be considered with the eventual reaction tending
to be highly site-specific. .
3 Decreases in Supplier Costs. The theoretical possibility
exists'that landfills could reduce their additional costs through .
decreases in supplier costs (e.g., lower wages, fuel costs, etc.). Ihis
oossibility is raised for the sake of completeness only. It is not -
loll dereda practical possibility for most landfill operations except
as part of a regionalization and consolidation effort (covered below in
Part 6).
4.
If a land-
4 Change in Profits of Private Landfill Operators.
fill operator cannot recover all of its additional costs through rate
increases, subsidies, or decreases in supplier costs, the impact will be
borne by the firm's stockholders in the form of a lower return on inves-
ted capital Small impacts in this area will probably not cause any
substantia adjustments by these firms, especially in the short-run, but
the ScrewedProfitability could reduce the level of investment in such
orations andmake it more difficult to raise the capital necessary to
upgrade existing operations or build new ones. For those landfills that
are publicly owned but privately operated (roughly seven percent of the
total number of sites presented in the Waste Age s"^)'.^ "^J"
would entail a pass-through of costs to the relevant public agency with
whom the operator has contracted. The affected agency would then be
-76-
-------
forced to either authorize higher user charges, provide alternative
financial support to the operator to cover the extra 'operating costs, or
implement a substantial revision in its operations. :
... 5> Change in Profits of Industries with On-$ite Disposal For
those firms tnat handle part or ail of their solid wastes at sites owned
and operated by the firm, the higher disposal costs may mean a substan-
tial financial loss if the firm has a high waste generation rate and if
disposal represents a significant element in the firm's overall oper-
ating costs. Conversion from open dump operations to sanitary landfill
operations could, in extreme cases, mean closure for some financially
vulnerable firms. Others would be left virtually unaffected. This type
of pattern has been shown to exist for the hazardous waste regulations
under Subtitle C of RCRA (Reference 5): some industries (e.g , wool
scouring and organic chemicals) would incur substantial cost increases
and some closures, while others would either have virtually no incremen-
tal treatment costs (e.g., plastics, paints) or could: pass through all
of them due to an essentially price-inelastic demand (e.g., explosives)
Industries that would be expected to face relatively substantial solid
f^Sr? ?ostVnc1ude f°od processing, apparel, wood products,
fabricated metals and non-electrical machinery. It would be necessary
to undertake detailed studies of each of these industries to determine
whether they will be adversely affected by the proposed Guidelines.
, 6: Regionalization and Consolidation of Waste Handling The
analysis of economies of scale in landfill operations ; presented in
Section III showed that cost savings could be realized through con-
solidation of smaller sites into one large landfill operation. The
implementation of the RCRA landfill Criteria and Guidelines will in-
crease the benefits of consolidation due to the lower unit disposal
SnSarv f^ • ?! " and.the shan'n9 of the 1n1tial financing burden of
sanitary landfill capacity among more waste generators. The solid waste
management plans^of many states assume that a considerable amount of
regional consolidation will occur. The New York State plan, for example
assumes that the total number of landfills will fall by over 59 percent
due .to the consolidation of smaller sites and the expanded use of energy
and material recovery plants (Reference 35). *"*;S that affect the consolidation decision
for scale economies; b the density, dispersion,
r rt the Wast^ SOUrces; and -i9T 13 shows the location of this model facility in the
rn^fnfiL/MTCU-?r m?et area Of radius R' Average; transportation
costs of lOtf/MT-mile and average haul distances of 2R were assumed The
following equation for waste handling cost was then derived:
-77-
-------
FIGURE 13
OPTIMAL LOCATION/MARKET AREA FOR SANITARY LANDFILL
Boundary of Waste
Collection Area
-78-
-------
. Cd = 20 + 143,800 ($/MJ) :
(MTY)1-04
Total disposal cost then equals Cd + transporations cost?
Co = Cd + Ct • ;
= 2($0.10) (2R/3) + 20 + 143,800
(MTY):
J.0$
,,a diffe£entiated with respect to R and this derivative was set
equal to zero to find the value of R that minimized C0. .Knowing the
'" ^F (wastes/^./sq. ™^)> the t§ial volume If waste
, where p = annual waste generation density Substi-
'
to 65nn
to 6500
R0 = 78.4 . -' '
pO.338
Figure 14 shows how the waste collection area decreases as the
" of waste generation increases. At a waste density of 100
(equivalent of roughly 120 persons/mi2 generating 5 Ibs/person/
° S?rV1ceM?^a.}s/855 mi and the Per unit treatment costs are
for 5 MTY/nvr/; (equivalent of 6 persons/mi2) the area increases
<-, and at 1 MTY/rm^ the area is roughly 19,400 mi2.
Clearly there are substantial assumptions included in this type of
model (e.g., the even distribution of wastes, the constant transportation
,,nf,?H °Ver ^W1ue mile!Se ™nge). The transportation costs per mile
would probably be consTderably higher for the areas with shorter average
mllSSi hl«* iiX^ C?StS °f the. ^icles would be spread over a smaller
mileage base. If the transportation costs were doubled to 20<£/MT-mile
for the highest density area, the service area would drop from 855 mi 2
a? ftnn Slv't^inInnSM?vy ^"^l1 capacity would fall accordingly from
°5'°° Y to 616
Mv
, MTY, and unit costs would rise 8 percent
to $25.23 -u. an increase of $121,000 in annual disposal costs for those
serviced in the revised service area.
Even with these limitations, this type of analysis does give a feel
Tor the way in which scale economies and transportation costs can jointly
determine benefits of regionalization and the optimal size and location
of the waste treatment facility. The RCRA Guidelines and Criteria will
force many (if not all) of the small landfill sites to consolidate their
-nS nLn" a1much/nial]er "umbf of large sites. The eventual impact on
net disposa costs and related policy decisions will then come from the
type of analyses presented above.
-79-
-------
FIGURE 14
WASTE COLLECTION AREA FOR VARIOUS WASTE GENERATION DENSITIES
Waste Generation Density
(MT/mi2/yr)
100J
$23.26
$27.09
$28.99
$40.70
Market
3t) area
(1000 mi2)
-80-
-------
A hypothetical example showing the potential impact of the Guide-
"^"atlon follows. Let. us assume that the landfill ng
of states such as North Dakota were to be regionalized usinq
Jf 69 273 Ssae/m?Ca*r •nodel1°S!*""ed above. The state has a land Irla
or 09,273 sq. mi. and a population of roughly 640,000. Assumino that
o? I V?h^ SU1Sble ft"-,1™""""* ^ generated at a pe capita rate
of 4.5 Ibs/day, the annual waste volume would be 525,600 tons ?476 821
MT). Usmg the Waste Age survey number of 200 known landfills these
200
'000 MTY would replace the
C. Demand Effects
tl iHe? vU?es P™art6offth- Vari°US "^tri.l.H.^"?; Je 1dan-
tidi activities. Part of this may occur as the disposal costs ar-P
internalized into various operations which then independently adjust
2di.n^!i^n!td Resource gP^VPry. The combined forces of higher
H 3!S J- • ' "Increased Petroleum cost, and concern over pos-
-81-
-------
TABLE 24
TPPNH IN MIXED-WASTP PFSnilRCE RECOVERY FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION
Facility Status
Operational
Under Construction
Advanced Planning9
Feasibility Studies'3
Total :
1974
15
- 7
23
25
70
1975
19
8
30
37
94
1976
21
10
33
54
118
a Advanced planning = request for proposals issued, final design
underway and/or funding authorized.
b. Feasibility studies - expressed interest in or undertaken informal
studies.
Source: Reference 37.
The 21 operational sites used the following range of conversion/recovery
processes:
TABLE 25
CONVERSION T.Fr.HNOLOGIES AT EX™TTNB RFCOVERY FACILITIES^1976
Process
Waste—-^Steam via Combustion
. Waste-*Refuse Derived Fuel
. Materials or Gas Recovery
. Compos t-^-Humus
. Waste-^Gas via Pyrolysis
No. of
Sites
13
4
2
1
1
Average Capacity/
Site (tons/day)
645
235
150a
200
200
a Materials recovery plant only; methane recovery plant operated at
existing Mndfills and therefore had no tons/day figure.
Source: Reference 37.
-82-
-------
The average capacity figure for the steam-generating plants is arti-
ficially lowered by demonstration-size plants (in the 20-50 TPD range)-
inetheei1ooVal?efinnrTp!!e 6 lar9^ s1t«s 1s 9i° tons/da* wiih 3 s?te '
in the 1,200 - 1,600 TPD range. Plants in the 1,200 TPD range are all
located within metropolitan areas. Such facilit es need a sirvicl area
population of about 500,000 in order to maintain that averagfflS
IZn?™ • averase size of plants under construction and in advanced
nifn oL'l eyen larger. A higher portion of these facilities will be
usmg RDF technologies, generally in combination with metal and
9eneration of steam via combustion is still
n C°.StS 2f many of these Plants are;rather high - up to
PA^dail£ t0,n of capacity for P^nts completed in the 1974-1976
laroe seal! ^°hna?d ?i0nal ?XPerience in ^ing these technologies In
large-scale (vs. pilot) operations may lower these costs, the cost of
oubficP a^-^Still,impl£ & ^-term commitment. IteierShele s, many
Eff L™ pnvaX sect?r. observers feel that material and energy recovery
will become a self-sufficient reality in the United States. Their
S ;1r°?-.are -aS^d °n the lon9 histor^ of successful operation of
such facilities in Europe and elsewhere, and the fact that private
investment has begun to occur in the field. private
no,. !he adde? C°StS °f RCRA wil1 encourage this trend, especially in or
near large urban areas where suitable landfill sites are scarce and
expensive and the waste density exists that is necessary for" "rge scale
recovery plants. Much of this same type of activity will, of course
occur in the industrial sectors that also face similar d spSsal colt"
increases. In combination with waste reduction, energy and material
thP°Le^ ^hn1?r w111 be aPP^ed more frequently, depending on (1)
the market for the recovered materials, within or outside the firm b)
the incremental production costs of the recovery processes! and (c) the
regional costs of electricity and other energy forms
..u ?* Qtner Legal Waste Disposal Methods. Other legal disoosal
"f!^df thatiW1" l°nti?Ue ^° ex1st after implementation9'! thePGu?de-
lines are volume reduction with disposal of residues), surface im-
poundment and landspreading. The costs of the latter two will ITso be
affected by RCRA, as Guidelines for surface Impoundments and andspreadlnq
nn?^ncUh -n5er.SeCtl^n 10°8' Decisions concerning waste dispS 9
options by industry and municipalities will change to reflect the costs
of these options after all the Guidelines are issued. Since the costs
lmP°undl"?nt and landspreading activities are not yet
'?p°slblto sa^ how the increases in the cost of
the Ch°ice °f
+ 4< Illegal Dumping. One option that is unfortunately available
n? ??S°rS a"5 Iandf1i! °Perators is ^e continued use or o?e?ation
of illegal open dumps. The enforcement problem will be most severe for
the thousands of very small sites in rural areas that would f"e leVy
large increases in disposal costs under the RCRA Guidelines, even if
-83-
-------
they were to implement the most cost-effective combination of site and
collection consolidation. The enforcement costs for such operations,
due to their geographic dispersion, small sites, and overall detection
difficulty, will be rather high as well, forcing agencies to concentrate
onlv on large sites. An enforcement management system would have to be
developed that could maximize the return on resources spent on enforce-
ment by taking into account such considerations as ground water con-
ditions, landfill size, waste types handled, and enforcement staff
constraints.
-84-
-------
VIII. IMPACT OF THE GUIDELINES ON ENERGY USE
A. Background
Guidelines implementation will result in increased energy con-
sumption for both the construction (involved in upgrading) and operating
phases of landfill operations. Construction energy use will increase
due to the requirements for improved levels of environmental protection
with the concommittant use of more complex technologies such as liner
installation, gas venting and collection systems, leachate collection
and treatment systems, etc. Similarly, energy use associated with the
operating phase will increase due to energy requirements for leachate
pumping, more frequent cover application, etc. As previously referenced,
Table 2 presents those technologies which have been defined as required
upgrading technologies for existing landfills and which will result in
increased construction'energy use. Similarly, Table 26 indicates those
technologies which will result in increased energy use associated with
landfill operation. :
B- Estimating Construction Energy Impacts
Data detailing construction energy use (gasoline, oil, diesel fuel,
electricity) for construction of landfills are currently unavailable.
To estimate the potential increase in construction energy use, the
assumption has been made that increased energy use is directly propor-
tional to increased capital expenditure. The baseline costs for exis-
ting landfill operations, as previously developed in Section III are
$11.15, $6.65 and $3.95 per ton for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD facil-
ities, respectively. Approximately 25 percent of those costs are
attributable to construction costs, as follows: 10 TPD - $2.78: 100
TPD - $1.66; 300 TPD - $0.99.
By utilizing capital upgrading costs for the technologies iden-
tified in Table 2, total upgrading capital costs can be determined.
Table B-l (see Appendix B) presents the capital costs for those up-
grading technologies to be incorporated into existing facilities. Table
27 converts the total upgrading technology capital costs developed in
Appendix B to unit costs, and sums the unit costs of the appropriate
technologies by landfill type, size, and site sensitivity. This yields
increased capital costs per ton. Increased construction energy use has
been assumed to be proportional to increased capital costs of the re-
quired upgrading technologies. Table 27 also shows the per cent increase
in construction energy use for upgraded facilities. Consumption use is
expected to be primarily in the form of gasoline, oil, and diesel fuel
utilization.
-85-
-------
TABLE 26
UPGRADING TECHNOLOGIES RESULTING IN INCREASED
' ENERGY OPERATING COSTS
Municipal
SENSITIVE FACILITIES
Industrial
Pollution Control
Residues
Groundwater Water Impermeable Daily
Quality Monitoring Cover
Gas Monitoring
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Impermeable Daily Cover
Groundwater Water Quality
Monitoring
NONSENSITIVE FACILITIES
Groundwater Water Impermeable Daily
Quality Monitoring Cover
Gas Monitoring
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Impermeable Daily Cover
Groundwater Water Quality
Monitoring
i. Daily cover assumed as existing technology; no increased energy use.
-86-
-------
TABLE 27
oc>
~^J
I
Municipal
Sensitive
Nonsensitive
Industrial
Sensitive
Nonsensitive
IN CONST
10 TPD
Increased Capital
Cost/Ton
$3.99
1.49
2.62
0.22
'RUCTION ENERGY
% Increase9
144%
54%
94%
8%
USE FOR UPGRADED FAC
100 TPD
Increased Capital
Cost/Ton %
$0.93
0.33
0.62
0.07
-ixi iiiontHc
ILITIES
Increase9
56%
20%
37%
4%
>L
300 TPD
Increased Capital
Cost/Ton %
$0.51
0.17
0.35
0.05
52%
17%
35%
5%
Pollution Control
Residues
Sensitive
Nonsensitive
2.62
0.12
94%
8%
0.62
0.02
37%
1%
0.35
0.01
35%
1%
a. Baseline construction costs: 10 TPD, $2.78; 100 TPD, $1.66; 300 TPD, $0.99
-------
C. Estimating Operating Energy Impacts
Table 26 lists upgrading technologies which will .^sult in in-
creased energy use during landfill operation. For existing facilities
thHrin^y energy consuming technology is that of impermeable cover.
It has been assumed that municipal facilities for both sensitive^
nonsensitive areas apply daily cover. Consequently, energy costs will
mt iScreast For the remainder of the waste types, it has been assumed
that daily cover is not a common practice and that impermeable cover
application is energy intensive,. A 100% increase in energy Requirements
for those sites which currently do.not ?PPly.daily cover might be a
reasonable estimate. Consumption is primarily in the area of gasoline and
diesel fuel.
-88-
-------
REFERENCES CITED
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1977 update for land disposal practices survey. ' Waste Aqe,
January 1978. 6 p. a-
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. Sanitary landfill-
a state-of-the-art study. Lexington, Mass., 1974. 119 p.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Sanitary
landfill; planning, design, operation, maintenance. Bureau of
Solid Wastes Engineering, 1971. 33 p.
Winfrey, A.J. Financing solid"waste services; solid waste manage-
ment guide. Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Kentucky State
Department of Health, May 1972. 41 p.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Integrated economic impact assessment of
hazardous waste regulations; preliminary draft report. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1978.
Office of Solid Waste. Draft environmental impact statement;
proposed criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1978.
Bond, R.6., and C.P. Straub.
vol. II. CRC Press, 1972.
Handbook of environmental control;
Wilson, D.6., ed_. Handbook of solid waste management. New York,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1977. 752 p.
Mantel!, C.L. Solid wastes; origin, collection, processing and dis-
posal. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1975. 1,127 p.
10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical
abstracts of the U.S.; 98 annual edition. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1977.
11. Department of Natural Resources, State of Wisconsin. Solid waste
management plan, report on the State of Wisconsin, 1974. 104 p.
12. American Defense Preparedness Association. Technical report; waste-
water treatment in the military explosives and propellants production
industry, 3 vol. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1975. Various pagings.
13. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices, inorganic chemicals industry. U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. Various pagings.
14. Versar, Inc. Draft report; alternatives for hazardous waste manage-
ment in the inorganic chemicals industry. Washington, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1977. Various pagings.
-89-
-------
15. Office of Solid .Waste. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste
practices: paint and allied products industry, contract solvent
reclaiming operations, and factory application of coatings. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 296 p.
16. Office of Solid Waste. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste
practices: organic chemicals, pesticides and explosives industries.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Various pagings.
17. Schalit, L., et al. Hazardous solid waste streams from organic chemicals
manufacturing and related industries. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, undated. Various pagings.
18. Jacobs Engineering Co. Assessment of hazardous waste practices in the
petroleum refining industry. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976. 353 p.
19. Foster D. Snell, Inc. Final report; assessment of industrial hazardous
waste practices, rubber and plastics industry; executive summary.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 55 p.
20. SCS Engineers. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices —
leather tanning and finishing industry. Washington, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1976. 233 p.
21. Calspan Corporation. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices
in the metal smelting and refining industry, 3 vol. Washington, U.S.,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
22. WAPORA, Inc. Final report; assessment of industrial hazardous waste
practices ~ special machinery manufacturing industries. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. 230 p. plus Appendices.
23. WAPORA, Inc. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices —
electronic components manufacturing industry. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. 145 p. plus Appendices.
24. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final report; assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices — electroplating and metal finishing indus-
tries — captive shops. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976. 52 p. plus Appendixes.
25. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final report; assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices — electroplating and metal finishing indus-
tries — job shops. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976. Various pagings.
26. Brown, J.A., ed. Proceedings of the American Defense Preparedness
Association'sTymposium on Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions,
Hawthorne., Nevada, April 20-22, 1976. Defense Documentation Center
and National Technical Information Service. Unpaged.
-90-
-------
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Chemical Propulsion Information Agency. Environmental impact
considerations for disposal of propel 1 ants and ingredients Laurel
Maryland, The Johns Hopkins University, undated. Unpaged?
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. .Economic impact
analysis of anticipated hazardous waste management regulations on the
leather tanning and finishing industry. Springfield, Virainia National
Technical Information Service, 1978. 113 p.
Processes Research inc. Alternatives for hazardous waste management
in the organic chemical, pesticides, and explosives industries.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Various
pagings.
Final reP°rt; demonstration/instructional
«M™nn M assistance in hazardous waste management.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. Various pagings.
Energy Resources Company Inc. Potential costs to coal-fired generating
Actnof 1976°mPaWith ^ ReSOUrCe Co"servation and Recovery
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division
Technical report for revision of steam electric effluent limitations
guidelines, Sept. 1978. 532 p. plus Appendices.
33' Sh^hS;^'u??5i5;5-c^!?!?eA,^S!!nS of..^.United States. U.S.
34. Water Resources Council, Executive Office of the President of the
United States. The nation's water resources; the second national
water assessment by the U.S. Water Resources Council; review copy-
summary report. Washington, March 1978. 52 p. Py'
35. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Draft
New York State comprehensive resource recovery and solid waste
management plan, February 1978.
36' DeYaonrk"'fhe>rerfceLn! li/O^ SPat1al eco"°-^heory. New
37' 0fJ±<.Jfj2ll2 ?aS!e:_..ResourSe recoyery_and waste reduction;
Washington, U.S. Environmental
38. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Statisitcal Policy Division
Standard industrial classification manual. Washington, U S
Government Printing Office, 1972. p. 649.
39' F1Inc!,Ri977Glap1892and guaternary Seology. New York, John Wiley & Sons,
40. McGuiness, C.L. Geologic Survey, Hydrologic atlas No. 199 (MAP)
Washington, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1964. (29"x44")'
-91-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Defense Preparedness Association. Technical report; wastewater
treatment in the military explosives and propel 1ants production in-
dustry, 3 vol. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
Various pagings.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Integrated economic impact assessment of hazar-
dous waste regulations; preliminary draft report. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, May 1978.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final report; assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices — electroplating and metal finishing indus-
tries — captive shops. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976. 52 pp. plus Appendixes.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final report; assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices — electroplating and metal finishing indus-
tries ~ job shops. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976. Various pagings.
Bendersky, D. Resource recovery from municipal wastes ~ a review and
analysis of existing and emerging technology. Albany, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, undated. 33 pp.
Bond, R.6., and C.P. Straub.
II. CRC Press, 1972.
Handbook of environmental control; vol.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Cost estimating handbook for transfer, shredding
and sanitary landfilling of solid waste. Washington, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1976. 77 pp.
Brown, J.A., ed. Proceedings of the American Defense Prepardeness Assoc-
iation's Symposium on Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions,
Hawthorne, Nevada, April 20-22, 1976. Defense Documentation Center
and National Technical Information Service. Unpaged.
Brunner, D.R., and D.J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and operation.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. 59 pp.
Calspan Corporation. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices
in the metal smelting and refining industry, 3 vol. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
Chemical Propulsion Information Agency. Environmental impact considerations
for disposal of propellants and ingredients. Laurel, Maryland, The
Johns Hopkins University, undated. Unpaged.
-92-
-------
Ctuan, E.S.K., and F. DeWalle. Evaluation of leachate treatment, vol. II;
biological and physical-chemical processes. Cincinnati, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, November 1977. 244 p.
Dean, R., W. Leahy, and D. McKee. Spatial economic theory. New York
The Free Press, 1970.
Department of Natural Resources, State of Wisconsin. Solid waste manage-
ment plan, report on the State of Wisconsin, 1974. 104 p.
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. Economic impact analysis
of anticipated hazardous waste management regulations on the leather
tanning and finishing industry. Springfield, Virginia, National Technical
Information Service, 1978. 113 p.
Engery Resources Company Inc. Potential costs to coal-fired generating
pia™of comPliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976. Unpaged. J
Flint, R.F. Glacial and quaternary geology. New York, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1977. 892 p.
Foster D. Snail, Inc. Final report; assessment of industrial hazardous
waste practices, rubber and plastics industry; executive summary
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 55 p.
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. Final report; demonstration instructional
materials for technical assistance in hazardous waste management. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. Various paging*.
Geswein, A.J. Liners for land disposal sites; an assessment. Environmen-
tal Protection Publication SW-137. Washington, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1975. 66 p.
Goldberg, T.L. Improving rural solid waste management practices. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-107. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973. 83 p.
Goodwin, R.H., and W.A. Niering. Inland wetlands of the United States-
evaluated as potential registered natural landmarks. NPS Pub. 144.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. 550 p.
Hickman, H.L., Jr. Solid waste management. District Heating, 57 (!)•
18-19, 22-24 (Summer 1971). —*
Jacobs Engineering Co. Assessment'of hazardous waste practices in the
petroleum refining industry. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976. 353 p.
Jones, J Disposal of power plant wastes. Washington, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1978. 20 p.
Kruth, M.A., D.H. Booth, and D.L. Yates. Creating a countywide solid
waste management system; the case study of Humphreys County, Tennessee
Environmental Protection Publication SW-110. Washington, U.S Govern-'
ment Printing Office, 1972. 15 p.
-93-
-------
Madison study focuses on financial aspects of landfilling milled trash.
Solid Wastes Management, 17(2.):30 (4 p.).
Mantel!, C.L. Solid wastes; origin, collection, processing and disposal.
New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1975. 1,127 p.
McGuiness, C.L. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 194. Washington,
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1964.
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. Sanitary landfill: a state-of-
the-art study. Lexington, Mass., 1974. 119 p.
Neely, G.A. Landfill planning and operation. American Public Works
Association Reporter, December 1972, p. 16-19.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Sanitary
landfill; planning, design, operation, maintenance. Bureau of Solid
Wastes Engineering, 1971. 33 p.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Solid waste
management plan, draft, July 1978.
Newest homes in town border on the landfill. Solid Wastes Management
18 (8): 16 (3 p.).
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President of the :
United States. Standard industrial classification manual, 1972.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 649 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste prac-
tices: organic chemicals, pesticides and explosives industries.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Various pagings.
Office of Solid Waste. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices:
paint and allied products industry, contract solvent reclaiming opera-
tions, and factory application of coatings. Washington, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1976. 296 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Cost estimating handbook for transfer, shredding
and sanitary landfill ing of solid waste. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-124c. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
77 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Decision-makers guide in solid waste management.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-500. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1976. 158 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Draft environmental impact statement; proposed ;
criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1978.
Office of Solid Waste. Resource recovery and waste reduction; fourth report
to Congress. Report SW-600. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977.
-94-
-------
Office of Solid Waste. Solid waste facts.
Protection Agency, May 1978. 13 p.
Washington, U.S. Environmental
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Disposal of sewage sludge into
Office ^1" Report SW"71d' Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices, inorganic chemicals industry. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1975. Various pagings.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Evaluation of solid waste
baling and bale-fins, vol. 1., v.d. Environmental Protection Publication
iw-iiic.i. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 153 p.
Processes Research, Inc. Alternatives for hazardous waste management
in the organic chemical pesticides and explosives industries.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Various
pagings.
The report to Congress; waste disposal practices and their effects on
groundwater. Washington, Office of Water Supply and Office of Solid
waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1977. 512 p.
Rossoff, J., et al. Disposal of by-products from nonregenerable flue
gas desulfunzation systems: second progress report: Washington, U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, May 1977. 278 p.
SCS Engineers. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices —
leather tanning and finishing industry. Washington, ^U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1976. 233 p.
Sather, J.H. ed. Proceedings of the National Wetland Classification and
^"f^o^Wo^shop, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland,
• ,"& • ' 9 5* Washin9ton, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services (conducted by the
Wildlife Management Institute), July 1976. 248 p. plus Addendum.
Schalit, L., et al. Hazardous solid waste streams from organic chemicals
manufacturing and related industries. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, undated. Various pagings.
Shaw, S.P., and C.B. Fredine. Wetlands of the United States. U.S
Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1956. 67 p.
st°nf' R.S., and R. Kahle. Evaluation of solid waste baling and land-
filling. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, (103):
557-571. .
Thompson, B., and I. Zandi. Future of sanitary landfill.
the Environmental Engineering Division, EEI (101):41-54.
Journal of
-95-
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstracts
of the U.S.; 98 annual edition. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1977.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Utility Projections. Inventory of
power plants in the United States. Washington, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1977. 444 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division.
Technical report for revision of steam electric effluent limitations
guidelines, Sept. 1978. 532 p. plus Appendices.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sanitary landfill: Clark County,
Arkansas. :. • -
Vevsar, Inc.- Draft report; alternatives for hazardous waste management
in the inorganic chemicals industry. Washington, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977. Various pdgings.
WAPORA, Inc. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices —
electronic components manufacturing industry. Washington, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1977. 145 p. plus Appendices.
WAPORA, Inc. Final report; assessment of industrial hazardous waste
practices — special machinery manufacturing industries. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. 230 p. plus Appendices. ,
Water Resources Council, Executive Office of the President of the
United States. The nation's water resources; the second national
water assessment by the U.S. Water Resources Council; review copy;
summary report. Washington, March 1978. 52 p.
Wilson, D.G., ed_. Handbook of solid waste management. New York, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1977. 752 p.
Winfrey, A.J. Financing solid waste services; solid waste management
guide. Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Kentucky State Department
of Health, May 1972. 41 p.
1977 update for land disposal practices survey. Waste Age, January 1978.
6 p.
-96-
-------
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Anderson, W., Pickard and Anderson, Inc., June 1978. i
Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Program, Philadelphia,
August 1977. ; H
Fogg, C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Environmental Services Division, Washington, September 22, 1978.
Grant, J., Director of Government Affairs, Printing Industries of
America, Washington, October 11, 1978.
Kohler, M., U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, May 31, 1978.
Sanislow, J., Division Representative, New York City, Army Corps of
Engineers, Emergency Operations Branch, September 22, 1978.
Schreiner, K., Official Contact, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species, Washington, September 29
-97-
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE BASELINE COST CURVES
-------
-------
FIGURE Al
SANITARY LANDFILL COSTS
PIECE OF EQUIPMENT
2 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT
3 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT
4 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT
40 60 80 ICO 120 140 160
WASTE QUANTITY - THOUSAND TONS PER YEAR
180
200
Source: Reference 3.
-------
FIGURE A2
ESTIMATED SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
$3,50
D One dozer operating
20 Two dozers operating
OS Dozers and scraper
ORS Dozers, ripper, scrcpsr
Esiimcted by others
for Denver crea
I Maximum, overage and
minimum costs based on
characteristics of sites
0 20O 4OO. 600 80Q K3OO
Filling Rale, Tons per Average Working Day
Note : Chart shows how cost of ownership- and operation of equipment relates to the
required filling rate.
Source: Reference 7.
A-2
-------
FIGURE A3
TYPICAL LANDFILL COSTS
4.00
3.00 *
2.00 *
1.00 -
Tons Per Year
Tons Per Day8
Population15
100.000
320
122,000
200,000 300,000 400,000
640 960 1280
244,000 366,000 488.000
3 Based on 6-day work week.
bBased on national average of 4.5 Ibs per person per calendar day.
500.000
1600
610,000
Source: Reference 2.
FIGURE A4
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATING COSTS
12
§ 10
c:
£-
VI
O
o
Q
I
ADD TRANSPORTATION
COST FOR TOTAL COSTS
LANDFILL COSTS
TRANSFER-STATION
COSTS:
MILLED
BALED
UNPROCESSED
_L
_L
200 400 600 800
SOLID-WASTE FLOW, TONS/DAY
1000
Source: Reference 8.
A-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
UNIT COST CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
-------
-------
For the purposes of developing final upgrading unit costs a cal-
culation methodology was adopted which was similar in approach to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities." Major assumptions are as follows:
Utilization of 10 TPD, 100 TPD, and 300 TPD sites
Corresponding total acreages of 6 acres, 28 acres
and 75 acres respectively
Corresponding total perimeter lengths of 2,000 ft., 4,400 ft
and 7,200 ft. respectively
260 days operation per year
In place refuse to soil cover rations of 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1
respectively
26,000, 260,000 and 780,000 total ten year life capacity
for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD facilities respectively
More detailed assumptions for the selected and alternative upgrading tech-
nologies are as follows:
VERTICAL IMPERMEABLE BARRIER
20' depth, 60 cu. ft./ft. perimeter installation
excavation @ $0.50/cu. yd., clay material @ $3.00/cu. yd.,
placement @ $0.30/cu. yd.
total unit cost $17.00/ft. ($55.76/meter)
DIKE CONSTRUCTION
10' depth, 567 cu. ft./ft.
3:1 slopes
materials and placement @ 1.50 cu. yd.
total unit cost $31.50/ft. ($103.32/meter)
IMPERMEABLE DAILY COVER (ON-SITE SOURCE)
total unit cost $0.60/cu. yd. ($0.78/cu. meter)
IMPERMEABLE DAILY COVER (OFF-SITE SOURCE) '.
transport (? $1.00/cu. yd., clay material @ $3.00/cu. yd.
placement @ $0.30 cu. yd.
2 mile average transport distance
total unit cost $4.30/cu. yd. ($5.62/cu. meter)
B-l
-------
PONDING
2" 24 hr. rainfall event
runoff storage required for twice the site landfill area
excavation @ $0.50/cu. yd. (0.65/cu. meter) land @ $3,000/acre
($7,410/hectare) rl . ^
10 TPD, 0.4 acres, 5' depth; 100 TPD, 1.85 acres, 5' depth;
300 TPD, 2.5 acres, 10' depth
PERIMETER GRAVEL TRENCHES
20' depth, 60 cu. ft/ft, perimeter installation
excavation @ $0.50/cu. yd., gravel material @ $4.00/cu. yd,
placement @ $0.30/cu. yd. . .
total unit cost $21.00/ft. ($68.88/meter)
GAS COLLECTION
perimeter installation
total unit cost @ $20.00/ft for 10 TPD and 100 TPD sites,
$15.00/ft for 300 TPD sites ($65.60/meter, $65.60/meter,
$49.20/meter respectively
Annual operating costs for 10 TPD, $4,000; 100 TPD, $8,800;
300 TPD, $10,800
SYNTHETIC LINER
total unit costs including site preparation and earth cover
$3.60/sq. yd. ($4.31/sq. meter)
LEACHATE RECYCLING
30" infiltration/year.
10 TPD, $6,000 piping, $2,000 pump station, $500 annual costs;
100 TPD, $13,200 piping, $4,000 pump station, $1,000 annual costs;
300 TPD, $21,600 piping, $10,000 pump station, $2,000 annual costs
DITCHING
total unit cost $2.25/ft. ($7.38/meter)
FINAL IMPERMEABLE COVER (QN-SITE SOURCE)
unit cost $0.60/cu. yd. @ 2' depth
FINAL PERMEABLE COVER (ON-SITE SOURCE)
unit cost $0.50/cu. yd. @ 2' depth
FINAL PERMEABLE COVER (OFF-SITE SOURCE)
unit cost $1.75/cu. yd. @ 2' depth
REVEGETATION
($5.62/cu. meter)
($0.65/oi. meter)
($2.29/cu. meter)
total unit cost $l,000/acre ($2,471/hectare)
B-2
-------
The following table presents the development of technology unit
costs in more detail: yj
GAS MONITORING
10 TPD, 4 wells; 100 TPD, 8 wells; 300 TPD, 12 wells
wells @ $200/each, labor @ $100/day
sampling labor for 10 TPD, 4 man-days/year; 100 TPD
8 man-days/year; 300 TPD, 12 man-days /year
$1,000 monitoring. equipment
6ROUNDWATER HATER QUALITY MONITORING
10 TPD, 3 wells; 100 TPD, 4 wells; 300 TPD, 7 wells
quarterly sampling @ $150/sample, $l,000/well
™9 7ab°r !°r 1° TPD' 5 man-days/year; 100 TPD, 4 man-days/year;
TPD, 7 man-days/year @ $100/day
NATURAL CLAY LINER (OFF-SITE SOURCE)
transport @ $1.00/cu. yd., clay material @ $3.00/cu. yd
placement @ $0.30/cu. yd. . •
2-foot depth clay material
2-mile average transport distance
total unit cost @ $4.30/cu. yd. ($5.89/cu. meter)
LEACHATE COLLECTION FACILITIES .
™nn 3d°Snn?0ll??tor p1p'e; 10° TPD' 14'300' collector pipe;
300 TPD, 36,000' collector pipe
100' collector pipe spacing plus perimeter
total unit cost @ $7.00/ft. ($22.96/meter)
LEACHATE MONITORING. REMOVAL AND TREATMENT
6" infiltration/year, 450 gal /day /acre
3.7*/cu. ft. respectively
PERMEABLE DAILY COVER (ON-SITE SOURCE)
total unit cost $0.50/cu. yd.
PERMEABLE DAILY COVER (OFF-SITE SOURCE
($0.65/cu. meter)
$0.30/cu. yd, placement
@loS50/cu@ $°'75/CU- yd'
1-mile average transport distance
total unit cost $1.55/cu. yd. ($2.03/cu. meter)
B-3
-------
VERTICAL PIPE VENTS
2 per acre § $2,000/vent
FIRE CONTROL
one fire truck unit @ $1,000, $2,000, and $10,000 per site
for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD sites respectively
ACCESS CONTROL
perimeter installation
total unit cost @ $12.00/ft. ($39.36/meter)
LITTER CONTROL
litter control fencing, 130 ft., 280 ft. and 450 ft. per
10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD sites respectively @ $10.00/ft.
($32.80/meter)
COMPACTION
one machine @ $50,000
B-4
-------
TABLE Bl
UNIT COSTS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Vertical Imper-
meable Barrier
Dike Construction
Impermeable
Daily Cover (on-
site source)
Impermeable
Daily Cover (off-
site source)
Ponding
Gas
Monitoring
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Gas Collection
Facilities
Site Size
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD '
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
Unit Costs
$17.00/ft.
II
II
$31.50/ft.
n
-
-
$ 0.50/cu. yd.
II
II
$200/wel 1
II
II
$l,000/well
II
$ 20/ft.
Capital Costs
Quantity
2,000'
4,400'
7,200'
2,000'
4,400'
7,200'
-
-
3,200 cu. yd.
15,000 cu. yd.
40,200 cu. vd.
4
8
12
3
4
7
2,000'
4,400'
7,200'
Total Unit Cost
$ 34,000
74,800
122,400
$ 63,000
138,000
226,800
$0.60/cu. yd..
- "
$4.30/cu. yd.
"
$ 2,800*
13,000*
27,500*
$ 1,800** $100/day
2,600**
3,400** ."
$ 3,000 $150/sample
4,000 . . "
7,000
$ 40,000
88,000
144,000
o a M COSTS
Quantity
-
5,200 cu. yd.
26,000 cu. yd.
52,000 cu. yd.
5,200 cu. yd.
26,000 cu. yd.
52,000 cu. vd.
4 days/year***
8 days/year***
12 days/year***
3 days/year****
4 days/year****
7 days/year****
Yearly
-
-
$ 3,120
15,600
31,200
$ 22,400
111,800
223,60'0
$ 400
800
1,200
$2,100
2,800
4,900
$ 4,000
8S800
1/L 400
Present
_.
$ 19,200
95,800
mfion
$ 137,300
686,500
1,372 900
$2,400
4,900
7 4fif)
$ 12,900
17,200
so ion
$ 24,600
54,000
no /inn
Total Costs/Ton
(1977 dollars)
$ 1.30
0.30
01 r
$ 2.40
0.55
Don
$ 0.75
0.35
Oor
$ 5.30
2.65
1 7Z
$ 0.10
0.05
Onyi
$ 0.15
0.03
Om
.1)1
$ 0.60
o.io -
OflC
$ 2.50
0.55
.JU
land costs
** includes equipment costs at $1,000
*** 8 samples/well/year
**** 4 samples/well/year
-------
-------
Technology
Natural Clay
Liner
Leachate
Collection
Leachate
Treatment
Permeable Daily
Cover (on-site
source)
Permeable Daily
Cover (off-site
source)
Vertical Pipe
Vents
Perimeter Gravel
Trenches
* trpflfmont 7 Hai/r i
Site Size Unit Costs
10 TPD $4.30/cu. yd.
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD $7.00/ft.
100 TPD "
300 TPD "
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD $2000 per
100 TPD »
300 TPD
10 TPD $21.00/ft.
100 TPD »
300 TPD "
Capital Costs
Quantity
19,350 cu. yd.
90,340 cu. yd.
242,000 cu. yd.
3,500'
14,300'
36,000'
-
-
-
12
56
150 ••
2,000'
4,400'
7,200'
Total Unit Cost
$ 83,200
388,500
1,040,600
$ 24,500
100,100
252,000
L0(f/gal.'
0.5
-------
-------
TABLE Bl (CONTINUED)
Technology
Synthetic
Liner
Leachate
Recycling
— - — ' — ,
Ditching
Final Imper-
meable Cover
(on-site source)
Final Imper-
meable Cover
(off-site source)
Final Permeable
Cover (on-site
source)
Final Permeable
Cover (off -site
source)
Revegetation
Site Size
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
i i n
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
-100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
Unit Costs
$ 3.60/sq. yd.
II
II
$ 3.00/ft.
II
n
$ 2.25/ft.
II
"
$ 0.60/cu. yd.
$ 4.30/cu. yd.
II
II
$ 0.50/cu. yd.
II
II
$ 1.75/cu. yd.
II
II
$l,000/acre
Capital Costs
Quantity
29,040 sq. yd.
135,520 sq. yd.
363.000 sq. yd.
2,000'
4,400'
7,200'
2,000'.
4,400'
7.200J
19,360 cu. yd.
90,340 cu. yd.
242.000 cu. yd.
19,360 cu. yd.
90,340 cu. yd.
242,000 cu yd
19,360 cu. yd.
90,340 cu. yd.
242,000 cu. vd.
19,360 cu. yd.
90,340 cu. yd.
242.000 cu. yd.
6 acres
28 acres
75 acres
_. 0 & M COSTS
Total Unit Cost Quantity
$ 104,500
487,900
1,306,800
$ 8,000*
17,200*
31,600*
$ 4,500
9,900
16,200
$ 11,600
54,200
145,200
$ 83,200
388,500
1,040,600
$ 9,700
45,200
121,000
$ 33,900
159,000
423,500 -
$ 6,000
28,000
75.000 ^
reany Present Total Costs/Ton
CoStS_ Worth (1977 rinllarc)
$ 4.00
1.90
$ 500 $ 3,100 $ 0.45
1,000 6,100 0 10
2,000 12,300 0 05
$ 0.15
0.04
0.02
$ 0.45
0.20
0.20
$ 3.20
1.50
1.35
$ 0.40
0.15
— - — i — : ^_ 0.15
$ 1.80
0.60
0.55
$ 0.25
0.10
- o.io
-------
-------
Technology
Fire Control
Access Control
Litter Control
Compaction
Site Size Unit Costs
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
10 TPD $ 12.00/ft.
100 TPD "
300 TPD
10 TPD $ 10.00/ft.
100 TPD "
300 TPD
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
Capital Costs
Quantity
1
1
1
2,000'
4,400'
7,200'
130'
280'
450'
1
1
1
Total Unit Cost
$ 1,000
2,000
10,000
$24,000
52,800
86,400
$ 1,300
2,800
4,500
$50,000
50,000
50,000
0 & M COSTS
Yearly Present Total Costs/Ton
Quantity Costs Worth (1977 dollars)
$ 0.04
0.01
0.01
$ 0.90
0.20
0.10
$ 0.05
0.01
0.01
$ 1.90
0.20
0.05
no 1821
SW-754
*U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 341-082/136
-------
-------
EPA REGION
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Waste Management Branch
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-5775
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Solid Waste Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-264-0503
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Hazardous Materials Branch
6th and Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia. PA 19106
215-597-7370
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Residuals Management Br.
345 Courtland St., N.E."
Altanta, GA 30365
404-881-3016
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Waste Management Branch
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2197
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Solid Waste Branch
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75270
214-767-2645
U.S. EPA, Region 7
Hazardous Materials Branch
324 East 11th St.
Kansas City, MO 54108
816-374-3307
U.S. EPA, Regions
Waste Management Branch
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80295
303-837-2221
U.S. EPA, Region 9
Hazardous Materials Branch
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-556-4606
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Waste Management Branch
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1250
-------
\
------- |