United States
Environmental Protection
Ayaocy
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, D.C. 20460
Solid Waste
EPA Report to
Congress
Solid Waste Disposal
in the United States
Volume II
EPA/530-SW-88-011B
October 1988
,. s Environmental Protection
Ja.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
CONTENTS
Figures
Tables
Exhibits
PAGE
viii
x
xviii
CHAPTERS
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUBTITLE D OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT
IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBTITLE D
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF
1984
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID
WASTE AMENDMENTS
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-5
1-6
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
CONGRESSIONAL REPORT DATA COLLECTION PROJECTS 2-1
SCOPE AND-METHODOLOGY 2-1
CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES OF SUBTITLE D WASTES 2-3
CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES OF SUBTITLE D FACILITIES 2-7
CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES OF STATE SUBTITLE D 2-12
PROGRAMS
FUTURE DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS 2-14
REFERENCES ' 2-15
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBTITLE D WASTE
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION ASH
INFECTIOUS WASTE
TIRES
INDUSTRIAL NONHAZARDOUS WASTE
VERY-SMALL-QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTE
3-1
3-2
3-6
3-11
3-15
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-21
in
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE
3.9 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE 3-30
3.10 AGRICULTURAL WASTE 3-30
3.11 OIL AND GAS WASTE 3-32
3.12 UTILITY WASTE 3-32
3.13 MINING WASTE 3-32
3.14 SUMMARY 3-33
3.15 REFERENCES 3-36
4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBTITLED FACILITIES 4-1
4.1 LANDFILLS 4-2
4.1.1 General Profile 4-2
4.1.2 Characteristics of Leachate and Gas from 4-17
Landfills
4.1.3 , Design and Operation of Landfills 4-30
4.1.4 Analysis of Environmental and Human Health 4-52
Impacts at Landfills
4.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS 4-87
4.2.1 General Profile 4-87
4.2.2 Design and Operation of Surface Impoundments 4-101
4.2.3 Analysis of Environmental and Human Health '4-108
Impacts at Surface Impoundments
4.3 LAND APPLICATION UNITS 4-111
4.3.1 General Profile 4-111
4.3.2 Design and Operation of Land Application Units 4-124
4.3.3 Analysis of Environmental Impacts at LAUs 4-133
4.4 WASTE PILES 4-134
4.4.1 General Profile 4-136
4.4.2 Design and Operation of Waste Piles 4-146
4.5 SUMMARY 4-146
4.6 REFERENCES 4-150
IV
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE
5.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAMS 5-1
5.1 QUALITY OF DATA FOR STATE PROG RAM 5-1
CHARACTERIZATION
5.2 OVERVIEW OF STATE SUBTITLED PROGRAMS 5-1
5.2.1 Program Organization and Management 5-1
5.2.2 Identification and Status of Subtitle D 5-5
Facilities
5.2.3 Regulations and Permits 5-9
5.2.4 Enforcement Authorities 5-13
5.3 FACILITY-SPECIFIC STATE REGULATIONS 5-16
5.3.1 Landfills 5-16
5.3.2 Surface Impoundments 5-21
5.3.3 Land Application Units 5-25
5.3.4 Waste Piles 5-29
5.4 SUMMARY 5-31
5.5 REFERENCES 5-32
APPENDICES
A Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities A-1
and Practices
B Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Tables B-1
C Municipal Waste Landfill Capacity Problems C-1
D State Subtitle D Program Regulations for Municipal Waste D-1
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Land Application Units,
and Waste Piles
E The Subtitle D Ground-Water Risk Model E-1
-------
FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE
2-1 Subtitle D Study Methodology 2-2
3-1 Municipal Solid Waste Discarded and Energy Recovery 3-5
from Municipal Solid Waste, 1960-2000
4-1 Universe of Subtitle D Units, by Percent 4-2
4-2 Number of Subtitle D Landfills by State 4-5
4-3 Ground-Water Regions of the United States 4-56
4-4 Distribution of Average Risk-Baseline 4-60
4-5 Cumulative Frequency of Average Risk-Baseline-All Landfills 4-61
4-6 Cumulative Frequency of Average Risk -Baseline -Only 4-63
Landfills with Wells
4-7 Distribution of Average Risk -Baseline by Landfill Size 4-64
(Normalized)
4-8 Cumulative Frequency of Average Risk-Baseline: Actual vs 10M Well 4-65
4-9 Distribution of Average Risk - Baseline by Net Infiltration Rate 4-67
(Normalized)
4-10 Distribution of Resource Damage -Baseline 4-69
4-11 Cumulative Frequency of Resource Damage-Baseline: Use 4-70
Value and Option Value
4-12 Cumulative Frequency of Resource Damage-Baseline: Use 4-72
Value Only
4-13 Distribution of Resource Damage-Baseline by Size (Normalized) 4-73
4-14 Distribution of Resource Damage - Baseline by Infiltration Rate
(Normalized) 4-74
4-15 Subset of Subtitle D Landfills Within CERCLIS Data Base 4-76
4-16 Observed Releases at Subtitle D Landfills on the NPL 4-78
4-17 Number of Active Subtitle D Surface Impoundments by Type 4-89
4-18 Number of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments by State 4-90
4-19 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units by Type 4-113
VI
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER PAGE
4-20 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units by State 4-114
4-21 Weeksof Operation Per Year for Food Processing and Pulp 4-130
and Paper Industries
5-1 States and Territories That Have Permit Requirements 5-12
for all Subtitle D Facilities
VII
-------
TABLES
NUMBER PAGE
3-1 Past and Projected Trends in Municipal Waste 3-3
Composition
3-2 Hazardous Constituents of Common Household 3-8
Commodities
3-3 Annual Generation Rates of Household Hazardous 3-12
. Waste in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Marin County, California
3-4 Potentially Hazardous Wastes in King County Municipal 3-14
Solid Waste
3-5 Waste Quantity Disposed of in On-Site Industrial 3-22
Facilities in 1985
3-6 Number of Small-Quantity Generators and Waste 3-24
Quantity Generated by Waste Stream
3-7 Numberof Small-Quantity Generators by Industry Group 3-26
3-8 Distribution of Off-Site and On-Site Management Practices 3-28
for Small-Quantity-Generator Wastes
3-9 Estimated Number of Land Disposal Facilities 3-29
Receiving Small-Quantity-Generator Wastes
3-10 Distribution of Surface Impoundments by Agricultural 3-31
Production Facility
3-11 Numberof Mining; Surface Impoundments by the 3-33
Material Mined
4-1 Universe of Subtitle D Facilities 4-1
4-2 Numberof Subtitle D Landfills by Type of Facility 4-4
4-3 Number of Industrial Establishments with Landfills 4-6
and Numberof Landfill Units
4-4 Number of Landfills by Ownership Category 4-7
4-5 Number of Landfills by Acreage Category 4-8
VIII
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER PAGE
4-6 Number of Industrial Establishments with Landfills by 4-9
Total Area of Landfills in Each Establishment
4-7 Number of Landfills by Amount of Waste 4-10
Received in 1984
4-8 Waste Quantities Disposed of in Industrial 4-11
Landfills in 1985
4-9 Numberof Industrial Establishments With Landfills 4-12
by Annual Waste Quantity Disposed of in Them in 1985
4-10 Remaining Life of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 4-13
4-11 Numberof Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments by 4-13
Total Design Capacity
4-12 Numberof Industrial Establishments with Landfills 4-15
by Landfill Design Capacity Per Establishment
4-13 Design Capacity of Industrial Landfills by Industry Type 4-16
4-14 Ageof Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments 4-16
4-15 Ageof Federally-Owned Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 4-17
Establishments
4-16 Waste Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 4-18
Establishments
4-17 'Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments Accepting 4-18
Industrial Waste
4-18 Numberof Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments 4-19
by Percentage of Liquids in Waste
4-19 Number of Industrial Establishments with Landfills 4-19
Receiving Off-Site Waste and Off-Site Household
Waste by Industry Type
4-20 Number of Small-Quantity-Generator Industrial 4-20
Establishments that Dispose of Their Small-Quantity-
Generator Waste in Their Landfills by Industry Type
IX
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER PAGE
4-21 Preliminary Data on Concentrations of Organic 4-22
Constituents in Leachate from Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills
4-22 Range of Various Inorganic Constituent and Parameter 4-24
Concentrations in Leachate from Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills
4-23 Preliminary Data on Concentrations of Organic Constituents 4-26
in Leachatefrom Municipal Solid Waste Landfills According
to Landfill Operations Start Date
4-24 Range of Various Inorganic Constituent and Parameter 4-27
Concentrations in Leachate from Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills According to Landfill Operations Start Date
4-25 Typical Composition of Gas from Municipal Solid Waste 4-31
Landfills
4-26 Typical Trace Constituents in Municipal Solid Waste 4-31
Landfill Gas
4-27 Numbersof Subtitle D Landfill Units Using Various Types of 4-33
Release Prevention Methods
4-28 Number of Active and Planned Municipal Solid Waste 4-34
Landfill Units by Type of Liner and Age of Disposal Unit
4-29 • Number of Active Federally-Owned Municipal Solid 4-34
Waste Landfill Units by Type of Liner and Age of Disposal
Unit
4-30 Number of Active Municipal Solid Waste 4-36
Landfills by Type of Leachate Collection System and Age
of Unit
4-31 Number of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills by Type of 4-37
Leachate Management Practice and Operating Status
4-32 Number of Active Municipal Solid Waste 4-39
Landfills by Type of Run-on/Run-off System and Age
of Unit
4-33 Number of Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfills by 4-39
Type of Run-on/Run-off System and Age of Unit
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER PAGE
4-34 Number of Active Municipal Solid Waste Landfills with Gas 4-39
Monitoring Detection or Recovery Systems by Age of Facility
4-35 Number of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills by Cover Type 4-41
and Operating Status
4-36 Number of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Selected 4-42
Terrains
4-37 Number of Federally-Owned Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 4-42
in Selected Terrains
4-38 Number of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills by Location 4-42
Criteria and Age of Facility
4-39 Number of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments 4-43
by Underlying Predominant Soil Type
4-40 Numberof Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments 4-43
by Horizontal Flow Rate in Ground Water
4-41 Source of Hydrogeologic Information Provided for 4-44
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey
4-42 Source of Water Information Provided for 4-44
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey
4-43 Numberof Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments 4-47
Not Accepting Various Waste Types by Age of Facility
4-44 Numberof Municipal Waste Landfill Establishments 4-48
Using Separate Disposal Areas for Various Waste Types
by Age of Facility
4-45 Numberof Active Landfills with Monitoring Systems 4-50
4-46 Numberof Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments 4-50
with Ground-Water and Surface Water Monitoring Systems
by Age of Facility
4-47 Number of Federally-Owned Municipal Solid Waste 4-51
Landfill Establishments with Ground-Water and Surface
Water Monitoring Systems by Age of Facility
4-48 Numberof Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments 4-52
with Air Monitoring Systems by Age of Facility
XI
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER PAGE
4-49 Number of Federally-Owned Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 4-53
Establishments with Air and Methane Monitoring Systems by
Age of Facility
4-50 Aggregate Data Relating to Environmental Contamina- 4-54
tion at Landfills in 1984
4-51 Numberof Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Within One 4-58
Mile of Active Drinking Water Wells
4-52 Numberof Municipal Solid Waste Landfills by Distance to 4-79
Nearest Surface Water Body Not Used for Drinking
4-53 Landfill Gas Migration Damage Cases 4-80
4-54 Estimates of Specific Subtitle D Surface Impoundment 4-91
Numbers and Wastes Received Within Each Impound-
ment Category
4-55 Numberof Industrial Establishments With Subtitle D 4-92
Surface Impoundments and Number of Surface
Impoundments by Industry Type
4-56 Numberof Active Subtitle D Surface Impoundments 4-94
Used Only for Back-Up or Surge Capacity by Industry
Type
4-57 Numberof Active Subtitle D Surface Impoundments by 4-95
Ownership Category
4-58 Numberof Active Subtitle D Surface Impoundments by 4-96
Acreage Category
4-59 Numberof Industrial Subtitle D Establishments With 4-97
Active Surface Impoundments by Industry Type and
Total Area of Surface Impoundments in Each
Establishment
4-60 Number of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments by Surface 4-98
Impoundment Type and Amount of Waste
4-61 Waste Quantity Disposed of in Industrial Subtitle D Surface 4-99
Impoundments in 1985 by Industry Type
4-62 Number of Establishments with Surface Impoundments 4-100
by Industry and Waste Quantity Disposed of in Them
in 1985
XII
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER PAGE
4-63 Number of Small-Quantity-Generator Industrial Establish- 4-102
ments That Dispose of their Small-Quantity-Generator Waste
in Their Surface Impoundments by Industry Type
4-64 Number of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments Using 4-103
Various Types of Release Prevention Methods
4-65 Number of Active Surface Impoundments with 4-107
Monitoring Systems
4-66 Aggregate Data Relating to Environmental 4-109
Contamination at Surface Impoundments
4-67. Number of Industrial Establishments with Subtitle D 4-115
Land Application Units and Number of Land Application
Units by Industry Type
4-68 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units by 4-116
Ownership Category
4-69 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units by Acreage 4-118
Category
4-70 Number of Active Industrial Subtitle D Establishments 4-119
with Land Application Units by Industry Type and Total
Area of Land Application Units in Each Establishment
4-71 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units by Amount 4-120
of Waste Received Annually
4-72 Waste Quantity Disposed of in Industrial Subtitle D 4-121
Land Application Units in 1985 by Industry Type
4-73 Number of Establishments with Land Application 4-122
Units by Industry Type and Waste Quantity Disposed of in
Them in 1985
4-74 Number of Sites Contacted for Food Processing and Pulp 4-123
and Paper Land Application Units Study by Industry Type
4-75 General Characteristics of Various Industrial Wastewaters 4-124
Applied to Land
XIII
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER PAGE
4-76 Number of Small-Quantity-Generator Industrial 4-125
Establishments that Dispose of Their Small-Quantity-
Generator Waste in Their Land Application Units by
Industry Type
4-77 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units Using 4-127
Various Types of Release Prevention Methods
4-78 Application Techniques for Food Processing and Pulp 4-130
and Paper Land Application Units by Industry Type
4-79 Number of Active Land Application Units with 4-132
Monitoring Systems
4-80 Aggregate Data Relating to Environmental 4-135
Contamination at Land Application Units
4-81 Numberof Industrial Establishments with Subtitle D 4-137
Wastes Piles and Number of Waste Piles by Industry -
Type
4-82 Waste Quantity Disposed of in Industrial Subtitle D Waste 4-139
Piles in 1985 by Industry Type
4-83 Numberof Establishments with Waste Piles by Industry 4-140
Type and Waste Quantity Disposed of in Them in 1985
4-84 Numberof Active Industrial Subtitle D Establishments 4-141
with Waste Piles by Industry Type and Total Area
of Waste Piles in Each Establishment
4-85 Waste Types Disposed of in Waste Piles 4-142
4-86 Numberof Industrial Establishments with Subtitle D 4-144
Waste Piles Receiving Off-Site Waste and Off-Site
Household Waste by Industry Type
4-87 Number of Small-Quantity-Generator Industrial 4-145
Establishments that Dispose of Their Small-Quantity-
Generator Waste in Their Waste Piles by Industry Type
4-88 Management Methods for Waste Stored in Industrial 4-147
Subtitle D Waste Piles by Industry Type
5-1 Sources of Subtitle D Funding 5-4
5-2 State Subtitle D Activities 5-6
XIV
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER PAGE
5-3 Importance of Subtitle D Program Activities as Ranked 5-6
by the States
5-4 Number of Open Dumps in the 1985 Inventory 5-8
5-5 40 CFR Part 257 Adoption by States and Territories 5-10
and the District of Columbia
5-6 Number of Subtitle D Facilities with Permits 5-13
5-7 Number and Percentage of States with Enforcement
Authorities 5-14
5-8- Number of Inspections at Subtitle D Facilities in 1984 5-15
5-9 Number of Facilities with at Least One Violation in 1984 5-15
5-10 Number of Subtitle D Landfills with Permits and Licenses 5-17
^'
5-11 Number of Inspections of Subtitle DLandfillsin 1984 5-20
5-12 Frequency of Inspection of Subtitle D Landfills 5-20
5-13 Numberof Landfills by Type of Violation in 1984 5-21
5-14 Numberof Subtitle D Surface Impoundments with 5-22
Permits and Licenses
5-15 Numberof Inspections of Subtitle D Surface .5-24
Impoundments in 1984
5-16 Frequency of Inspection of Subtitle D Surface 5-24
Impoundments
5-17 Numberof Surface Impoundments by Type of Violation 5-25
in 1984
5-18 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units With 5-26
Permits and Licenses
5-19 Numberof Inspections of Subtitle D Land Application 5-28
Units in 1984
5-20 Frequency of Inspection of Subtitle D Land Application 5-28
Units
5-21 Numberof Land Application Units by Type of Violation 5-29
in 1985
xv
-------
EXHIBITS
NUMBER PAGE
2-1 Data Col lection Projects 2-4
3-1 Household Hazardous Wastes and Their Characteristics 3-7
XVI
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), by Novembers, 1987, to
submit a report to Congress addressing whether the criteria under Sections 1008(a) and 4004 of
RCRA and 40 CFR Part 257 are adequate to protect human health and the environment from ground-
water contamination. To meet this Congressional mandate, EPA has undertaken a Subtitle D study
to assess:
• the impacts of nonhazardous waste landfills, surface impoundments, land application
units, and waste piles on surface water, ground water, and air; and
• the implementation of the State nonhazardous waste programs.
The Subtitfe D study includes a compilation and assessment of information on State programs,
facilities, wastes, and contamination impacts. Information was obtained from EPA files, from the
States, from published and unpublished literature, and from other sources. This volume presents the
results of the data collection projects. The evaluation of the impacts of Subtitle D facilities on human
health and the environment and the assessment of the adequacy of the current Subtitle D criteria are
presented in Volume I of this Report to Congress. The conclusions made in Volume I are supported
by the data presented in this volume. Chapter 2 of this volume presents details on the data
collection projects. The next three chapters present the data according to the topics of waste
characteristics (Chapter 3), facility characteristics (Chapter 4), and State programs (Chapter 5).
The remainder of this chapter provides the legislative and regulatory background of the
Subtitle D program. Beginning with a discussion of the RCRA legislation that establishes Subtitle D,
the chapter briefly reviews Federal and State implementation of Subtitle D from 1978 to 1981. (In
1981, Federal attention turned to the hazardous waste program under Subtitle C, and Federal
funding of State Subtitle D implementation programs ended). The chapter then outlines the new
Subtitle D provisions of HSWA and describes EPA's plans to implement these provisions. This
Subtitle D report constitutes part of that implementation.
1-1
-------
1.1 SUBTITLE D OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
Subtitle D of RCRA establishes a framework for coordinating Federal, State, and local
governmental management of nonhazardous solid wastes. The Federal role in this arrangement is
to establish the regulatory direction and provide technical assistance to States and Regions for
planning and developing environmentally sound waste management practices. The actual planning
and implementation of solid waste programs under Subtitle D remain State and local functions.
The primary planning and technical assistance provisions of Subtitle D are the following:
Section 4002-Federal Guidelines for State Plans. Requires EPA to promulgate guidelines to
assist in the development and implementation of State solid waste management plans.
• Section 4004-Criteria for Sanitary Landfills. Requires EPA to establish criteria for determining
which facilities must be classified as sanitary landfills-that is, which facilities pose "no
reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment from the disposal of
solid waste."
Section 4005--Prohibition of Open Dumps. Imposes a ban on open dumping in facilities that
do not meet the criteria for sanitary landfills and requires EPA to publish an inventory of open
dumps in order to assist States in upgrading or closing these facilities.
1.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBTITLE D
In a series of rulemakings beginning in 1978, EPA began the process of implementing the
provisions of Subtitle D. The Agency completed the guidelines for State plans in 1979 and began
reviewing plans submitted by States. To aid the States in developing plans, EPA provided them with
more than $50 million in annual grants. This financial assistance was terminated in 1981. EPA also
finalized the "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" in 1979.
These criteria are used by the States to classify facilities as either sanitary landfills or open dumps.
After compiling these State facility classification data, EPA published the first inventory of open
dumpsin 1981.
1-2
-------
Guidelines for State Solid Waste Management Plans--40 CFR Part 256
In compliance with RCRA Section 4002(b), on July 31,1979, EPA promulgated guidelines
(40 CFR Part 256) for the development and implementation of State solid waste management plans
(44 FR 45066). These guidelines establish the minimum requirements for State plans and describe the
procedures for State plan adoption, submission, and approval by EPA. Furthermore, the guidelines
contain requirements and recommendations for solid waste disposal, resource conservation and
recovery programs, facility planning and implementation activities, and public participation.
As the centerpiece of the Subtitle D program, the State solid waste management plan serves a
critical function. Through this plan, each State identifies an overall strategy for protecting human
health and the environment from the potentially adverse effects of solid waste disposal, specifies
efforts for encouraging resource conservation and recovery, a/id formulates plans for providing
adequate disposal capacity. The plan also describes the institutional arrangements that the State
will use to implement its solid waste management program.
Under Subtitle D, EPA reviews State plans and approves those that meet the EPA guidelines.
As of August 1987, EPA had fully approved 25 State solid waste management plans and partly
approved another six.
Criteria for Sanitary Landfills--40 CFR Part 257
In compliance with RCRA Sections 4004(a) and 1008(a), EPA developed the "Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR Part 257). These criteria
provide minimum national performance standards for the protection of human health and the
environment from solid waste disposal facilities. They establish the level of protection necessary to
ensure that "no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment" will result
from operation of the facility. A facility that meets the criteria is classified as a "sanitary landfill"; a
facility in violation is classified as an "open dump" and must be upgraded or closed. The criteria,
reproduced in Appendix A, were promulgated on September 13, 1979(44 FR 53438). Minor
amendments were issued in September 1981. The criteria can be summarized as follows:
1. A facility or practice must use special controls for location in floodplains.
2. A facility or practice must not adversely affect endangered species or their critical
habitats.
1-3
-------
3. A facility or practice must not cause discharges to surface waters or wetlands that are in
violation of Section 402 or 404 of the Clean Water Act.
4. A facility or practice must not contaminate an underground drinking water source
beyond the solid waste boundary or an alternative boundary.
5. A facility or practice must have specific restrictions on waste application to land used for
food-chain crops.
6. A facility or practice must meet specific requirements for disease vector controls
7. A facility or practice must not engage in open burning of waste.
8. A facility or practice must have specific requirements for safety provisions to control
explosive gases, fires, bird hazards to aircraft, and public access to the facility.
Implementation and enforcement of these Federal criteria under Subtitle D are primarily the
responsibility.of State and local governments. In addition, private citizens may use the RCRA citizen
suit provisions (Section 7002) to bring actions in Federal court to enforce the criteria.
Inventory of Open Dumps
In compliance with RCRA Section 4005(b), EPA has published an inventory of open dumps in a
series of five annual installments. The inventory is a listing of facilities that States have identified as
failing to meet the criteria of 40 CFR Part 257. Based on State efforts in evaluating disposal facilities,
the inventory serves two major functions:
1. It informs Congress and the public about the extent of the problem presented by
disposal facilities that do not adequately protect public health and the environment.
2. It provides an agenda for action by identifying problem facilities routinely used for
disposal that should be addressed by State solid waste management plans.
The first inventory installment was published on May 29,1981. It reflected the participation of
55 States and territories and listed 1,209 facilities as open dumps. However, many States had not
1-4
-------
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS
EPA has proceeded with implementing the HSWA Subtitle D requirements, conducting the
Subtitle D study, and considering revisions to the Subtitle D criteria in a parallel effort. The tight
HSWA schedule for completing the study, preparing the report to Congress, and promulgating the
revisions to the criteria requires that these efforts take place concurrently.
Subtitle D Study
For the Subtitle D study, EPA has gathered existing information from the literature, States,
EPA files, voluntary submissions of facility owners or operators, and any other available sources to
identify and characterize Subtitle D wastes, facilities, and State programs.
Revisions to 40 CFR Part 257 Criteria
In a parallel effort, EPA is revising the Subtitle D criteria for those facilities that may receive
SQG wastes and/or HHW. Incompliance with RCRA Section 4010 these new requirements must
address, at a minimum, ground-water monitoring, location criteria, and corrective action. The
development of these revisions requires extensive contacts with States, local governments, and trade
and environmental groups.
1-6
-------
completed their inventory at the time of the publication (i.e., they had not evaluated all their sites
against the criteria). The fifth and most recent installment of the inventory appeared in June 1985
and lists 1,856 facilities as open dumps. It represents the efforts of about 20 States to update their
lists.
1.3 HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
On November 8, 1984, the President signed into law HSWA, which modified virtually every
part of RCRA, including Subtitle D. The amended RCRA Section 4010 requires EPA to "conduct a
study of the extent to which the [criteria]... applicable to solid waste management and disposal
facilities, including but not limited to landfills and surface impoundments, are adequate to protect
human health and the environment from ground-water contamination." This study, which must be
completed and delivered to Congress in report form by Novembers, 1987, "shall also include
recommendations with, respect to any additional enforcement authorities which the EPA
Administrator, in consultation with the Attorney General, deems necessary" to protect ground
water.
The amended Section 4010 also requires EPA to revise the Subtitle D criteria by March 31,
1988, for facilities that receive household hazardous waste (HHW) or waste from small-quantity
generators (SQGs). Such revisions must be necessary to protect human health and the environment
and may take into account the "practicable capability" of facilities to implement the criteria. At a
minimum, the revisions should require ground-water monitoring as necessary to detect
contamination, establish location standards for new or existing facilities, and provide for corrective
action, as appropriate.
The HSWA amends Section 4005 of RCRA to require each State to establish, by Novembers,
1987, a permit program or other system of prior approval for facilities receiving small amounts of
hazardous waste. Within 18 months of EPA's promulgation of revised criteria, each State must
modify its permit program or alternative system accordingly. If a State fails to develop and
implement an appropriate permit program, or another system of prior approval, by September 30,
1989, and EPA determines that the State has not developed an adequate program, EPA is given the
authority to enforce the revised criteria at facilities with HHW or SQG waste.
1-5
-------
Chapter 2
CONGRESSIONAL REPORT DATA COLLECTION PROJECTS
2.1 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) require the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to assess the adequacy of existing Subtitle D criteria for preventing ground-water
contamination. In particular, HSWA requires EPA to evaluate existing requirements for monitoring,
prevention of contamination, and remedial action at Subtitle D facilities. To do this, EPA used the
methodology illustrated in Figure 2-1.
Several studies were conducted that would characterize (1) the universe of Subtitle D waste
(Section 2.2); (2) the universe of Subtitle D facilities with respect to environmental controls,
environmental monitoring, and releases to the environment (Section 2.3); and (3) State Subtitle D
programs (Section 2.4). Data on environmental controls and monitoring used at Subtitle D facilities
were correlated with information on the composition of Subtitle D wastes and the number and type
of releases that have occurred at these facilities. Using this information, EPA attempted to evaluate
the nature and extent of the impacts of Subtitle D wastes and disposal facilities on human health and
the environment. Federal and State criteria (40 CFR Part 257) and State implementation and
enforcement activities were then evaluated to determine their roles in preventing or mitigating any
adverse impacts of Subtitle D wastes and disposal facilities on human health and the environment.
The Agency collected available existing data on Subtitle D wastes, facilities, and State
programs during the 3 years following the November 1984 passage of HSWA. The data sources for
these projects included State and Federal program offices, published and unpublished literature, the
regulated community, and technical research. Every effort was made to collect as much existing
information as possible in all areas, within the constraints of the broad scope of the study, and time
and resource limitations. Several original data collection efforts were also conducted, including
surveys and fieldwork at a selected number of landfills.
2-1
-------
Figure 2-1. SUBTITLE D STUDY METHODOLOGY
i
CHARACTERIZATION
What are the characteristics of Subtitle
D wastes, disposal facilities, and State
programs?
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Are Subtitle O wastes and disposal
facilities causing impacts on human
health and the environment? If so,
why?
•
No
•^-
Subtitle 0
regulatory
program is
most likely
adequate
Yes
What factors contributed to these impacts?
REGULATIONS
Are State and Federal Subtitle D regulations
adequate?
IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATIONS
Are the States adequately implementing their
regulations (i.e., are permitting and enforcement
adequate}?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Regulations are
adequate
Regulations are
inadequate
Implementation of
regulations is
adequate
Implementation of
regulations is
inadequate
2-2
-------
For the purposes of this chapter, the projects have been grouped into the following
categories:
• characterization studies of Subtitle D wastes,
• characterization studies of Subtitle facilities, and
• characterization studies of Subtitle D State programs.
This chapter describes the Subtitle D projects and their v 'engths and limitations. Exhibit 2-1
presents a list of the principal data collection projects.
2.2 CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES OF SUBTITLE D WASTES
The objective of the Subtitle D characterization studies was to determine the characteristics,
volumes, and management methods of Subtitle D wastes. This objective was addressed by studies
concerning several Subtitle D waste types, including municipal solid waste (MSW), industrial
nonhazardous waste, household hazardous waste (HHW), and small-quantity generator (SQG)
waste, and by I iterature reviews that were performed to support alrof the technical areas covered by
this report. The studies and literature reviews are summarized in the following subsections.
Source. Availability, and Review of RCRA Subtitle D Land Disposal Data Published Since 1980
This study1 was one of the first efforts made in support of this Report to Congress. It was
intended to locate available land disposal documents that would provide a foundation for the
Subtitle D study. The report produced from this effort contains abstracts and bibliographic
information on 110 documents. The abstracts are separated into eight categories: Overview, Design
and Construction, Operation and Maintenance, Process Performance, Constituent Characteristics,
Sampling and Methodology, Impacts, and Closure.
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. 1960 to 2000
This study2 examines the historical quantities and composition of MSW. Quantities and
sources of MSW are discussed in terms of both the historical quantities and the generation of the raw
and manufactured source materials. Future municipal waste volumes and composition are predicted
using (1) available forecasts of activities within various manufacturing industries and (2) calculations
based on estimated waste generation per unit of material produced (these waste generation factors
2-3
-------
Exhibit 2-1. DATA COLLECTION PROJECTS
Subtitle D Waste Characterization Studies
Source, Availability, and Review of RCRA Subtitle D Land Disposal Data Published Since
1980--Reviews and abstracts of recent literature relevant to the Subtitle D study
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000--lnventory
and forecast of municipal solid wastes in the U.S.
Summary of Data on Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices-Summary of
non-State data on solid waste characteristics and solid waste disposal practices
A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs-Review of
existing data on the characteristics of HHW and analysis of HHW collection
programs
National Small Quantity Generator Survey-Survey to characterize SQG waste volumes
and disposal practices
Hazardous Waste Generator Data and Characteristics of Sanitary Landfills in Selected
Counties in Florida-Case history of Florida disposal of small quantity generator
hazardous wastes
Subtitle D Facility Characterization Studies
Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste Programs-Mail survey
of data on State Subtitle D programs and Subtitle D facilities
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey-Summary of data from State survey of municipal
landfills
Industrial Facilities Telephone Survey-Summary of data from telephone survey of 17
industries
Critical Review and Summary of Leachate and Gas Production from Landfills-Summary
and evaluation of data on quality of leachate from municipal landfills
Evaluation of a Landfill with Leachate Recycle-Case study of the Lycoming County, PA,
landfill with a major emphasis on experiences with leachate recirculation
Summary of Data on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate Characteristics-Review
of municipal landfill leachate data
Gas Characterization, Microbiological Analysis, and Disposal of Refuse in GRI Landfill
Simulators-GC/MS analysis of landfill gas samples from the Center Hill lysimeters
Landfill Gas Update: Summaries of Technical Reports-Summaries of six studies relating
to landfill gas production, characteristics, and recovery
Evaluation of NPL/Subtitle D Landfill Data-Summary of data on former Subtitle D .
facilities that are now on the NPL or are candidates for the NPL
Ground-Water and Surface Water Contamination from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-
Summary of facility characteristics and environmental impacts at the damage cases
State Subtitle D Program Characterization Studies
Review of State Enforcement Authorities Under RCRA Subtitle D-Compilation of data
on States' enforcement authorities with respect to Subtitle D management and
disposal facilities
Updated Review of Selected Provisions of State Solid Waste Regulations-A review of liner,
leachate collection, final cover, ground-water monitoring, and corrective action
requirements
State Regulatory Equivalency Analysis of the U.S. EPA Classification Criteria for Solid
Waste Management Facilities (40 CFR Part 257) - A State by State determination of the
comparability of State Subtitle D regulations to those contained at 40 CFR Part 257
State Subtitle D Regulations on Municipal Waste Landfills, Surface Impoundments,
Waste Piles and Land Application Units-Review of State Subtitle D regulations
National Solid Waste Survey (ASTSWMC)--Mail survey of data on State Subtitle D programs
2-4
-------
are changed over time to account for technical changes). The results are reports and forecasts of the
quantities and composition of MSW for the period 1960 to 2000. The report was updated in 19883.
Summary of Data on Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices
This study4 characterized the wastes and management methods of those industries likely to be
most affected by regulatory changes required under HSWA. The 22 industries studied were selected
because: (1) they produced the largest quantities of nonhazardous waste, (2) they had the highest
probability for management in on-site land disposal units (i e., landfills, surface impoundments, land
application units, or waste piles), and (3) they produced the most potentially toxic wastes.
Data were collected from non-State sources only, since separate studies were being done to
gather Subtitle D information from State sources The study used published and unpublished
literature to obtain data in the following areas:
• characteristics of nonhazardous waste generated,
• amounts of each waste type,
• amounts processed by different on-site waste management facilities,
• numbers and characteristics of on-site units,
• environmental impacts of on-site units, and
• amounts transported to different off-site units.
This study revealed several limitations in the quality and content of available data on
industrial waste generation and management. Data completeness varied according to data type:
most industries had complete data on waste type, waste quantities were available for fewer
industries, estimates of waste quantities managed on the site were available for fewer yet, and
almost no estimates were available on the numbers of on-site land disposal units within an industry.
No nationwide data were available on the typical design characteristics of on-site land disposal units,
the location or prevalence of ground-water monitoring at these units, or their impacts on the
environment.
A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs
The legislative history of HSWA indicates that a major Congressional concern in passing the
law was the large amount of HHWand SQG waste managed at Subtitle D facilities that may not be
suited to receive such hazardous wastes. In order to better characterize and quantify HHW, EPA
2-5
-------
conducted the Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs.s This study
is a literature survey that presents information on the makeup of HHWs, their presence in the
municipal waste stream, and their impacts on solid waste management. It also presents information
on State HHW programs and special HHW collection programs and includes three case studies of
HHW programs in the United States. No nationwide data were available on types and quantities of
HHW, environmental impacts of HHW by disposal at municipal landfills, and administration of HHW
collection programs.
National Small-Quantity Generator Survey
EPA sought to better characterize SQG waste and management practices by conducting the
National SQG Survey.6 Even though this survey was completed in 1985, it addresses distinctions
made by the March 24,1986, rule on SQG exemption to regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA). The SQG exemption was amended to apply only to
"conditionally exempt" SQGs of less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste, or very-
small-quantity generators (VSQGs). This survey was mailed to 50,000 industrial establishments that
generate less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, so it addresses both SQGs and
VSQGs. The report includes a summary and analysis of the 1,900 responses to the survey. The results
include the following:
• the estimated number of SQGs and VSQGs and the total quantities of hazardous waste
they generate,
• descriptions of the different SQG and VSQG wastes generated by the 22 major industry
groups surveyed, and
• estimates of the management practices currently used by SQGs and VSQGs in the
primary industry groups targeted in the survey.
Hazardous Waste Generator Data and Characteristics of Sanitary Landfills in Selected Counties in
Florida
In a further attempt to characterize SQG waste and management practices, EPA obtained
data from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations.7 These data were collected in 1983
in order to implement Florida's Local Government Hazardous Waste Management Program, which
required every county in the State to complete assessments of hazardous waste generation and
2-6
-------
management. The final report contains data from all 67 counties in the State. Those data cover SQG
waste types, amounts, sources, and management and disposal practices.
2.3 CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES OF SUBTITLE D FACILITIES
Facility characterization studies were conducted to gather information in the following areas:
numbers and general characteristics of Subtitle D facilities, facility design and operating practices,
and the characteristics of leachate and gas from Subtitle D facilities. These data are needed to assess
the likelihood of releases to the environment from Subtitle D facilities, and the probable impact on
human health and the environment in the event of such releases. Studies undertaken in this effort
are described below.
Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste Programs
The State Subtitle D census8 was conducted to collect comprehensive data on Subtitle D
facilities and regulatory programs across the country. The Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials was very helpful to EPA in developing the census. The census was
mailed to Subtitle D regulatory program offices in all States and territories. Telephone follow-ups
were used to supplement the questionnaire and minimize errors due to inconsistency or
nonresponse.
Part I of the questionnaire was designed to produce a directory of State agencies that
administer Subtitle D programs and to determine their level of funding and program emphasis. The
remaining three parts elicited information on numbers of facilities, design and operating
characteristics, regulations, enforcement activities, and data availability. Parts II, III, and IV are
divided into information concerning landfills, land application units, and surface impoundments.
The census topics included the following:
1. State organization and resources
a. State agencies
b. Budget
c. Budget sources
d. Labor hours
e. Activities
f. Projections
2-7
-------
2. Facilities
a. Total number
b. Total number by facility subcategory
c. Total number by State and Region
d. Total number by ownership, acreage, and amount of waste
e. Total number using key design and operating features
3. Program characteristics
a. Regulatory requirements
b. Permitting and licensing
c. Inspections
d. Violations
e. Monitoring and release-prevention
The census data are limited because of imperfect and inconsistent recordkeeping among the
State and territorial regulatory offices. When asked to rate the quality of their information,
respondents rated landfill data highest, surface impoundment data lowest, and land application
data somewhere in between.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey
The Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey9 was performed in 1986 and 1987 to confirm the
results and fill the data gaps from the State Subtitle D census. The EPA asked each State for a list of
active municipal solid wastelandfills(MSWLFs) within the State. A compilation of all of the States'
lists indicated that there were 7,600 MSWLFs in the nation. As a result of some telephone follow-
ups, the estimate of the total number of active MSWLFs in the nation was lowered to approximately
6,000. This estimate was made after careful consideration of the Subtitle D census data, which
indicated there were 9,300 MSWLFs.
After defining the universe of approximately 6,000 facilities, EPA selected a statistical sample
set of 1,250 MSWLFs. This set consisted of 200 large facilities (more than 500 tons/day of waste) and
1,050 small facilities (less than 500 tons/day of waste). The 200 large facilities represent 45 percent of
all large MSWLFs, and the 1,050 small facilities represent approximately 11 percent of all small
MSWLFs. A questionnaire was mailed to the 1,250 facilities, followed by a telephone contact in
order to maintain consistent responses.
2-8
-------
The Survey provided detailed site-specific data on the number, size, ownership, age, location,
design and operating characteristics, monitoring practices, waste management techniques, and
other aspects of MSWLFs. The actual survey responses from the sample set were projected upward to
a level representing the entire universe of MSWLFs. The scaling factors used consider the
composition of the sample set with respect to the size of the facilities. The results provided by this
survey are subject to sampling and non-sampling errors Sampling errors result from the fact that
only a fraction of the population is surveyed. Non-sampling errors include mistakes in interpreting
questions, writing down responses, coding, and programming.
Industrial Facilities Survey
The Industrial Subtitle D Facilities Survey™ was undertaken to fill data gaps in the Subtitle D
census results for industrial landfills, surface impoundments, land application units, and waste piles.
Seventeen major industries were surveyed, including electric power generation, water treatment,
petroleum refining, five categories of chemical manufacturing, and nine categories of other
manufacturing. Only telephone survey results are presented here.
Approximately 18,000 of the 150,000 Subtitle D facilities in the United States falling in these
categories were randomly selected and then contacted by telephone. Of the 18,000 facilities, 11,000
generated Subtitle D wastes, and 2,800 had landfills, surface impoundments, land application units,
or waste piles on-site. The telephone survey responses were compiled and then extrapolated to
determine nationwide statistics on industrial Subtitle D waste management.
The Industrial Facilities Survey provided data on the number and acreage of industrial
Subtitle D establishments as well as the waste management techniques used and the waste quantity
received by these establishments. The number of actual survey responses was projected upward to a
level representing all of the industrial Subtitle D facilities located at the 17 industries surveyed. The
scaling factors used consider the composition of the sample set with regard to the size and industry
type of the facilities. The results of this survey are subject to the same errors discussed above for the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey.
Critical Review and Summary of Leachate and Gas Production from Landfills
In an effort to determine the risks posed by leachate and gas produced at Subtitle D facilities,
EPA conducted several leachate and gas characterization studies. The first of these studies, Critical
2-9
-------
Review and Summary of Leachate and Gas Production from Landfills,11 examines research efforts
and field investigations of landfill leachate and gas production and management. The purpose is to
provide an inventory of available techniques for containment, control, and treatment of landfill gas
and leachate. This inventory will serve asa reference of state-of-the-art technologies against which
data on current management practices at Subtitle D facilities can be evaluated
Evaluation of a Landfill with Leachate Recycle
To further evaluate technologies for leachate management, EPA collected data from the
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, landfill, which was designed to use leachate recirculation as a
control technology. The EPA chose this facility for study in part because the county's solid waste
department had kept detailed records of the landfill operations, including data on leachate quantity
and quality. This study12 examines the effectiveness of leachate recirculation as a control
technology, and examines the feasibility of leachate recirculation for different locations and various
types of landfill cover. New techniques are evaluated and problems are identified for different
landfill designs.
Summary of Data on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate Characteristics
The purpose of this report13 was to present information on the quality of leachate from
MSWLFs. The data gathered for this report were used to help evaluate the potential human health
and environmental impacts from MSWLFs. Values for traditional leachate parameters, inorganic
constituents, and organic constituents are presented.
Gas Characterization, Microbiological Analysis, and Disposal of Refuse in Gas Research Institute
Landfill Simulators
To better characterize both the trace volatile constituents in landfill gas and the microbial
content of refuse in landfills, EPA obtained information from the Gas Research Institute (GRI).14 The
GRI had conducted a five-year study to describe the microbiology of refuse, the production of trace
constituents in landfill gas, and methane production and gas enhancement techniques at landfills.
Sixteen lysimeters were used to simulate landfills and to monitor gas production. The results of this
study will be used asa reference for the technical and environmental impact analysis of methane
production and gas enhancement at Subtitle D facilities.
2-10
-------
Landfill Gas Update: Summaries of Technical Reports
This report15 summarizes six studies performed on landfill gas production, characteristics, and
recovery. The purpose of the report is to provide the Subtitle D study with current research
information related to landfill gas.
Evaluation of NPL/Subtitle D Landfill Data
This study16 focused on the 184 Subtitle D landfills that were either on or proposed for the
National Priority List (NPL) in May 1986. Data for these sites were examined in an effort to identify
common characteristics of those Subtitle D landfills known to have resulted in adverse
environmental impacts (i.e., those on the NPL). Data were obtained from the CERCLIS data base, NPL
site descriptions, MITRE Hazard Ranking System (MRS) data base, and other EPA data sources. Site
characteristics that were evaluated include the following: operating dates; NPL rank; MRS score;
date listed or proposed for the NPL; site ownership; open-dump status, financial obligations and
expenditures for cleanup; site size; hazardous constituents; waste types; and observed releases to
ground water, surface water, and air. These characteristics and others, such as wastes received or
problems encountered, were entered onto a separate data base for future consideration.
Case Studies on Ground-Water and Surface Water Contamination From Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills
This report17 identified and described human health and environmental impacts (excluding
impacts from subsurface gas migration) that have resulted from the operation of MSWLFs and,
where possible, determined what role the design, operation, and location of the facility played in
creating the problem. Numerous sources of information were reviewed to identify MSWLFs that
have resulted in some type of adverse impact to ground water, surface water, or wildlife. Once a site
was identified as having caused some type of damage, the information on that site was further
evaluated to determine:
• the severity of the damage
• whether there was a potential relationship between the damage and the design,
operation, or location of the MSWLF, and
• the type of corrective action, if any, that may have been implemented.
2-11
-------
2.4 CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES OF STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAMS
State Subtitle D programs were studied to determine the:
• equivalency of State Subtitle D regulations with those contained at 40 CFR Part 257,
• State powers and authorities to enforce Subtitle D programs, and
• State Subtitle D program organization, staffing, resources, monitoring, enforcement
activities, and priorities in solid waste management.
The information available from the census was described in Section 2.3 above. Information
from the other projects is discussed in this Section.
Review of State Enforcement Authorities Under RCRA Subtitle D
Section 4010 of HSWA specifies that the Subtitle D Report to Congress must include
recommendations with respect to additional enforcement authorities necessary to protect human
health and the environment from ground-water contamination. To determine this, EPA conducted a
study1^ to compile information on existing State enforcement powers and authorities with respect
to Subtitle D management and disposal facilities and practices. This study had the following three
objectives:
1. list all State and territorial Subtitle D enforcement powers and authorities,
2. note national and regional patterns in Subtitle D enforcement authorities and evaluate
strengths and weaknesses in meeting Subtitle D requirements, and
3. present recommendations regarding the establishment of additional Federal
enforcement authorities necessary to carry out Subtitle D objectives.
The information was compiled through a review of available information sources on State
Subtitle D laws and regulations. Patterns were then examined at the national and EPA regional
levels. The enforcement data are limited because only solid waste laws and regulations were
reviewed. Applicable enforcement authorities may be found in other State statutes or regulations.
In addition, due to time limitations, the States did not review the results of this study.
2-12
-------
State Regulatory Equivalency Analysis of the U.S. EPA Classification Criteria for Solid Waste
Management Facilities (40 CFR PART 257)
Since the current Subtitle D program is primarily a State-administered program, EPA
conducted this study1^ to determine the equivalency of each State's Subtitle D regulations with
those regulations contained at 40 CFR Part 257.
This study presents the results of the State-by-State determination in both matrix and
narrative form. State Subtitle D requirements were analyzed for comparability to the requirements
contained at 40 CFR Part 257. Those determined to be not comparable were further analyzed to see
if they constituted a "distinctive and innovative approach" that nevertheless provided for protection
of human health and the environment.
State Subtitle D Regulations on Municipal Waste Landfills, Surface Impoundments. Waste Piles and
Land Application Units
EPA conducted mail and field surveys of the States, to evaluate State implementation of the
Subtitle D criteria. This project resulted in a draft report20 in which current State regulations are
summarized and analyzed. The most current regulations were obtained from each State as one of its
responses to the State Subtitle D census. Current regulations were received from all States and all
but two territories. The draft report is presented in four volumes, with one each for MSWLFs, surface
impoundments, land application units, and waste piles. Regulations reviewed cover the following
categories:
• permitting and administrative requirements,
• design criteria,
• operation and maintenance criteria,
• location standards and restrictions,
• monitoring requirements,
• closure and post-closure requirements, and
• financial responsibility.
Appendix D presents a series of tables summarizing the key findings of this report.
2-13
-------
Updated Review of Selected Provisions of State Solid Waste Regulations
The three provisions of State solid waste regulations reviewed in this document21 were facility
design requirements (i.e., requirements for liners, leachate collection systems, and final cover);
ground-water monitoring requirements; and requirements for corrective action. This analysis was
done to support the revisions to the current Federal Subtitle D Criteria. Results from this review are
presented in Chapter 5 of this report, with the results of the study described above.
National Solid Waste Survey
An additional study that assessed State implementation of the Subtitle D criteria was the
National Solid Waste Survey.22 In 1983, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials, together with the EPA Office of Solid Waste and the National Solid Wastes
Management Association, formulated and distributed this survey to solid waste management
officials in all States and territories. A total of 44 States and territories responded, providing data on
the following topics: solid waste agency organization and function; staffing resources; budget
resources; solid waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility statistics; facility evaluation,
monitoring, and enforcement activities; SQGs; and priorities in solid waste management.
2.5 FUTURE DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
To fill the numerous data gaps identified by the study, several information-gathering efforts
have been planned and some are under consideration. The Agency will be proposing to amend the
current Federal Subtitle D criteria (40 CFR Part 257) with a notification requirement for industrial
facilities. These facilities will be required to provide information regarding waste types disposed at
the facility, the location and types of units at the facility, and general exposure information such as
the number of drinking water wells within one mile of the facility. In addition, the Agency will be
developing a plan for filling remaining data gaps on industrial facilities.
For MSWLFs, more sampling and analysis of leachate has been planned. Newer sites will be
visited and complete facility information will be obtained. In addition recycling and source
reduction efforts are being considered.
2-14
-------
2.6 REFERENCES
1. Booz. Allen, and Hamilton. Source. Availability, and Review of RCRA Subtitle D Land Disposal
Data Published Since 1980, Contract 68-01-6871, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1985.
2. Franklin Associates. Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960
to 2000: Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
3. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Wastes in the United States, 1960
to 2000, Update. 1988 Draft Report. Contract 68-01-7310, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1988.
4. Science Applications International Corporation. Summary of Data on Industrial Nonhazardous
Waste Disposal Practices, Contract 68-01-7050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1985.
5. SCS Engineers. A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs,
Contract 68-01-6621, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
6. Abt Associates, Inc. National Small Quantity Generator Survey. Contract 68-01-6892, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1985.
7. Florida State University. Hazardous Waste Generator Data and Characteristics of Sanitary
Landfills in Selected Counties in Florida, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1986.
8. Westat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste Programs,
Contract 68-01-7047, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Results of the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey,
Unpublished, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., September 1987.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Results of the Industrial Subtitle D Facility Survey,
Unpublished, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., September 1987.
2-15
-------
11. Pohland, F. G., and S. R. Harper. Critical Review and Summary of Leachate and Gas Production
from Landfills, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1986.
12. Pickard and Anderson. Evaluation of a Landfill with Leachate Recycle, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1985.
13. NUS Corporation. Summary of Data on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate
Characteristics. Contract 68-01-7310, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1987.
14. Kinman, R. N., J. Rickabaugh, D. Nutini, and M. Lambert. Gas Characterization. Microbiological
Analysis, and Disposal of Refuse in GRI Landfill Simulators. Contract 68-03-3210, U.S.
Enviromental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1985.
15. SCS Engineers. Landfill Gas Update: Summaries of Technical Reports. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1985.
16. GCA Technology Division, Inc. Evaluation of NPL/Subtitle D Landfill Data: Preliminary Final
Report, Contract 68-01-7037, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Background Document, Ground-Water and
Surface Water Contamination from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Criteria for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 258). Washington, D.C., 1988.
18. Radian Corporation. Review of State Enforcement Authorities Under RCRA Subtitle D,
Contract 68-01-7310, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1987.
19. NUS Corporation. State Regulatory Equivalency Analysis of the U.S. EPA Classification Criteria
for Solid Waste Management Facilities, 40 CFR Part 257, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1987.
20. PEI Associates. Inc. State Subtitle D Regulations on Solid Waste Landfills, Surface
Impoundments, Land Application Units, and Waste Piles, Draft, Vols. I-IV, Contract 68-01-
7075/02-3890, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
2-16
-------
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft Background Document. Updated Review of
Selected Provisions of State Solid Waste Regulations, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills (40 CFR Part 258), U S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1987.
22. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. National Solid Waste
Survey. Washington, D.C, 1984.
2-17
-------
Chapter 3
CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBTITLE D WASTE
Subtitle D wastes are solid wastes regulated under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). They are not subject to the hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C
of RCRA. Solid wastes regulated under RCRA are defined in 40 CFR Part 257 as:
...any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or
air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisoiid, or
contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial
discharges which are point sources subject to permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), source, special nuclear, or byproduct material
as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
In accordance with the above-mentioned definition, the following categories of Subtitle D
wastes have been identified:
• Municipal solid waste
• Household hazardous waste
• Municipal sludge
• Municipal waste combustion ash
• Infectious waste
• Waste tires
• Industrial nonhazardous waste
• Very-small-quantity generator hazardous waste (< 100 kg/month)
• Construction and demolition waste
• Agricultural waste
• Oil and gas waste
• Utility waste
• Mining waste.
3-1
-------
The following sections define each category and discuss the data collected on waste
characteristics, generation rates, and management practices.
3.1 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a mixture of household, institutional, commercial, municipal,
and industrial solid waste. The composition of MSW is variable, but generally more than half (by
weight) is paper products and yard waste. In 1986, approximately 158 million tons of MSW were
generated in the United States. Approximately 141 million tons were discarded, mostly (93 percent)
in landfills. The characteristics, quantities, and management of MSW are discussed in this section.
Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste
Reports on the composition of MSW vary widely.1.2.3 This variation is attributable in part to
regional differences in climatic, seasonal, and socioeconomic factors. It is also the result of reporting
methods that differ in measurement techniques, definitions of MSW, and categories of waste
constituents. The variation in these reports makes it difficult to construct a national profile of MSW
composition.
The best source of information on MSW characteristics is Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000. 1<4 This study constructs a national profile of MSW by
evaluating a wide range of waste composition data and comparing this information to materials
production data in a national materials balance model. It relates historical information on waste
generation to information on the production of durable and nondurable materials. The study does
not estimate industrial nonhazardous wastes, small-quantity-generator hazardous wastes, or
municipal sludge components of MSW.
As shown in Table 3-1, the MSW characterization study reported that paper products (paper
and paperboard) and yard wastes made up about 56 percent of the MSW discarded in 1986. Table
3-1 also shows the estimated tonnage of materials discarded for the years 1970 and 2000. These data
suggest that the use of paper and plastics is increasing.1'4
Municipal solid wastes generated from households, institutions, and commercial
establishments may contain microorganisms. For example, household discards that may contribute
microorganisms include facial tissue, soiled disposable diapers, and putrescible foods. Relatively
3-2
-------
Table 3-1. PAST AND PROJECTED TRENDS IN MUNICIPAL WASTE COMPOSITION
Materials
Paper and
paperboard
Glass
Metal
Plastic
Rubber and leather
Textile
Wood
Food waste
Yard waste
Other nonfood
product waste
Miscellaneous
inorganic waste
Total t>
1970
Million
Tons/Yra
36.5
12.5
13.5
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
12.8
23.2
0.1
1.9
112.5
%
32.4
11.1
12.0
2.7
2.7
1.8
3.6
- 11.4
20.6
--
1.7
100
1986
Million
Tons/Yra
50.1
11.8
12.6
10.3
3.9
2.8
5.8
12.5
28.3
0.1
2.6
140.8
%
35.6
8.4
8.9
7.3
2.8
2.0
4.1
8.9
20.1
—
1.8
100
2000
Million
Tons/Yra
66.0
12.0
14.4
15.6
3.8
3.3
6.1
12.3
32.0
0.1
3.2
168.8
%
39.1
7.1
8.5
9.2
2.3
2.0
3.6
7.3
19.0
—
1.9
100
SOURCE: References 1 and 4.
a After materials recovery has taken place
t> Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
3-3
-------
high densities of microorganisms in MSW have been reported in the literature with paper products,
garden waste, and food waste contributing the most. 5
Quantities of Municipal Solid Waste
The MSW characterization study reports that about 158 million tons of MSW were produced in
1986 and 141 million tons (89 percent) were discarded. The amount discarded is equivalent to
approximately three pounds per capita per day (pcd). The study also presents estimates of the
amount of municipal waste discarded (in millions of tons per year) from the period 1960 to 2000.
These estimates are presented in Figure 3-1. According to the characterization study, MSW discarded
in the year 2000 is projected to be twice that discarded in 1960.
Management Practices for Municipal Solid Waste
Options available for the management of MSW include land disposal, ocean disposal,
incineration with or without energy recovery, and recovery of materials. The characterization study
addresses three of the MSW management alternatives: municipal landfills, incineration with energy
recovery, and materials recovery. The report estimates that of the total 157.7 million tons of MSW
produced, 9.6 million tons per year (6.0 percent) were used for energy recovery in 1986, and 131.2
million tons (83.2 percent) were managed through landfills, ocean disposal, or incineration without
energy recovery. Since the amounts of waste being disposed of by ocean disposal and incineration
without energy recovery are considered negligible relative to landfill disposal, 1312 million tons can
be accepted as an upper-bound estimate of MSW disposed of in landfills in 1986. The remaining
estimated 16.9 million tons (10.7percent) of MSW were recovered for materials.1-4
The percentage of MSW recovered for materials is expected to increase as more States
incorporate recycling into their solid waste management plans. It has been estimated that 25-30
percent of MSW is easily recyclable.6 Most of the recovery to date has been accomplished through
source separation (i.e., when the waste generator separates recyclable wastes from other wastes).7- 8
There are approximately 400-500 curbside recycling programs9 and an estimated 30-40 centralized
materials separation facilities in the United States.10 The characterization study estimates that
recovery rates in 1984 for aluminum, glass, and paper were 40, 7, and 21 percent, respectively.
Recycling of municipal waste is the subject of another Report to Congress prepared by EPA in
conjunction with a study of municipal waste combustion (i.e., energy recovery).6
3-4
-------
Figure 3-1. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISCARDED AND ENERGY RECOVERY
FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 - 2000
Millions
of
Tons
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
(81.9)
MSW Discarded*
168.8
140.8(1986)
'159
.•* 149
..-•'137.2
129.5
•' 112.5
B116.5
'..«•• (96.3)
MSW Used for Energy Recovery
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
SOURCE: References 1 and 4.
a After materials recovery has taken place.
3-5
-------
3.2 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
Household hazardous waste (HHW) is waste generated by households that meets the RCRA
technical definition of a hazardous waste but is exempted from Subtitle C regulations. "Household"
is defined here as any type of living quarters: single and multiple dwell ings, hotels, motels, and
other residences. Household hazardous waste is generally discarded directly into the MSW stream,
with a small fraction diverted into special HHW collection programs. The characteristics, quantities,
and management practices for HHW are discussed separately, below.
Characteristics of Household Hazardous Waste
According to A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs,2
HHW is generated by disposal of products such as those listed in Exhibit 3-1. Exhibit 3-1 was
developed by scanning the ingredients listed on the labels of household products for hazardous
compounds. Where household products did not have labels that stated the chemical ingredients and
their concentrations, professional estimates of the chemical compositions were made. Included in
this list are keys to the chemical characteristic responsible for a hazardous classification. Household
items that are keyed as being "Listed" contain compounds that are toxic or acutely toxic. Table 3-2
presents the hazardous chemical constituents found in common household products. Because
HHW contains these hazardous constituents, users (e.g., homeowners) may be harmed if they misuse
or improperly store or dispose of HHW.
Quantities of Household Hazardous Waste
Several local government studies were reviewed to obtain information on quantities of HHW.
Two studies 11.12 conducted by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District involved sorting and
weighing of MSW. One of these studies estimated that the fraction of HHW in the MSW stream was
less than 0.2 percent by weight; the other study estimated 0.0015 percent by weight. The University
of Arizona conducted HHW surveys in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Marin County, California,13 and
found that the fraction of HHW in the MSW stream was approximately 0.35 to 0.40 percent by
weight. The MSW characterization study estimate of 141 million tons of MSW discarded in 1986 and
the results of these studies were used by EPA to estimate a national HHW generation rate of 2,000 to
560,000 tons per year.
The annual generation rates of the different products composing HHW were estimated in the
study conducted by the University of Arizona13 and in another study conducted in King County,
3-6
-------
Exhibit 3-1. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS
Automotive Products
Air conditioning refrigerants (Listed)
Body putty (I)
Carburetor and fuel injection cleaners (I)
General lubricating fluids (I or E)
Grease and rust solvents (I)
Oil and fuel additives (I)
Radiator fluids and additives (I)
Starter fluids (I or Listed)
Transmission additives (I)
Waxes, polishes, and cleaners (I or C)
Home Maintenance Products
Adhesives(l)
Paints (I)
Paint strippers and removers (I)
Paintthinners(l)
Stains, varnishes, and sealants (I)
Household Cleaners
Disinfectants (Cor I)
Drain openers (C)
General purpose cleaners (C or I)
Oven cleaners (C)
Toilet bowl cleaners (C)
Wood and metal cleaners and polishes (I)
Lawn and Garden Products
Fungicides or wood preservatives (Listed)
Herbicides (E or Listed)
Pesticides (E or Listed)
Miscellaneous
Batteries (C or E)
Electronic items (E)
Fingernail polish remover (I)
Photo processing chemicals (E, C, or I)
Pool chemicals (R)
SOURCE: Reference 2.
C: Corrosive
I: Ignitable
Listed: Toxic or acutely toxic
E: EPtoxic
R: Reactive
3-7
-------
Table 3-2. HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS OF COMMON HOUSEHOLD COMMODITIES
Item
Automotive Maintenance
Antifreeze/coolant
Auto wax
Engine treatment (transmission and
motor oil additives; fuel additives,
carburetor cleaner, etc.)
Oil and transmission fluid (grease,
hydraulic fluid, motor oil, all purpose
oil, etc.)
Other auto (grease solvents, rust
solvents, refrigerants, etc.)
Batteries and Electrical
Auto and flashlight batteries,
solder, etc.
Household Cleaners
Air freshener
Ammonia based cleaner
Drain opener
Floor finish
Known Examples of
Hazardous Ingredients
Ethyleneglycol
Methanol
Petroleum distillates
Methylene chloride
Mineral spirits
Petroleum distillates
Toluene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
Lead
Petroleum distillates
(petroleum hydrocarbons)
Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
Potassium dichromate
Toluene
Mercuric oxide
Sulfuric acid
Alkyl phenoxypolyethoxyethanol
Isobutane
Propane
Ammonia
Ammonium hydroxide
Diethyleneglycol
Ethoxylated alcohol
Phenols
Sodium hypochlorite
Surfactants
Xylenols
Hydrochloric acid
Potassium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethane
Ammonia
Diethyleneglycol
Petroleum solvents
3-8
-------
Table 3-2. (continued)
Item
Known Examples of
Hazardous Ingredients
Laundry soap, bleach, dish-washing
detergent, bathroom cleaners,
upholstery cleaners, floor cleaners,
other general purpose cleaners
Ethylene glycol
Methanol chloride
Perchloroethane
Sodium hypochlorite
Surfactants
Tetrachloroethylene
Polish (furniture, wood, metal, vinyl, etc.)
Denatured ethanol or isopropanol
Mineral spirits
Oxalic acid
Petroleum distillates
Petroleum solvents
Phosphoric acid
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toilet bowl cleaner
Chlorinated phenols
Sodium acid sulfate or oxalate
or hydrochloric acid
Trichloro-s-triazinetrione
Other household cleaners (oven cleaner,
etc.)
Sodium or potassium hydroxide
Household Maintenance
Glue (model, epoxy, general purpose, etc.)
Acetone
Asbestos fiber (asbestos cement)
Hexane
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Paint (latex, oil base, art and model paints,
etc.)
Halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons
Methylene chloride
Mineral spirits
Toluene
Xylene
Paint thinner and stripper (remover)
Alcohols
Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
Chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons
Esters
Ketones
Toluene
Stain/varnish/sealant
Benzene
Lead
Methyl and ethyl alcohol
Methylene chloride
Mineral spirits
Pentachlorophenols
Petroleum
3-9
-------
Table 3-2. (continued)
Item
Other maintenance (asphalt
caulking, tar paper, etc.)
Pesticide and Yard Maintenance
Fertilizer
Herbicides
Pesticides
Pet maintenance (flea and tick treatment
powders and liquids, flea and tick
collars, etc.)
Prescription Drugs
Selected Cosmetics
Nail polish remover, hairspray, make-up
remover, dyes, etc.
Other
Pool chemicals (acid, chlorine)
Hobby related activities, etc.
Known Examples of
Hazardous Ingredients
Asbestos
Benzene
Ketones
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Concentrated potassium, ammonia,
nitrogen, phosphorus
Chlorinated phenoxys
Dipyridyl
Nitrophenols
Aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons
Carbamates
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
Coumarin
Naphthalene
Organophosphorus ~:
Petroleum distillates
Triazine base
Uracil
Urea
Xylene
Carbaryl
Chlordane
Dichlorophene
Other chlorinated hydrocarbons
Diverse ingredients
t
Acetone
Alcohols
Aromatic hydrocarbon solvents
Dibutyl phthalate
Ethyl and butyl acetate
Toluene
Sodium dichloro-s-triazmetrione
SOURCE: Reference 14.
3-10
-------
Washington.14 Automotive oil, paints, and batteries accounted for more than 50 percent of the
HHW in both Marin County, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana. The results of the University of
Arizona Study are summarized in Table 3-3. In the King County study, residential and self-haul
wastes were sampled in order to quantitatively assess the characteristics of HHW. Residential waste
contained large amounts of cleaners, paints, oils, and batteries. Self-haul wastes contained banned
pesticides, solvents, and paints. The large quantities of hazardous wastes found in the self-haul
waste stream may have been the result of garage and basement cleaning. The results of the King
County study are presented in Table 3-4. A fourth study,15 conducted in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
employed a questionnaire to determine how much hazardous waste a sample group of household
members could recall discarding. Results from this study are limited in validity because respondents
may have based their answers on incorrect perceptions of hazardous materials. This study did not
contain data on the proportion, by weight, of HHW in the MSW stream.
Management Practices for Household Hazardous Waste
The volume of HHW managed by various disposal options is unknown. The major
management options exercised by the public are disposal with MSW and disposal into municipal
sewer systems and septic tanks. As mentioned previously, the portion of HHW collected by special
programs is small; however, HHW collection programs are increasing in number.
In the last six years, more than 530 locally sponsored HHW collection programs have been
held. Most of these col lection programs have been one-day special events, but more permanent
programs are being established. Collection programs provide many benefits beyond the collection
and disposal of HHW. Education of the public and increased awareness of the presence of.hazardous
materials in the home are assets of these programs. The EPA has compiled a bibliography of HHW
information and a list of expert contacts for each State.16
3.3 MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
Municipal sludge includes both drinking water and wastewater (sewage) treatment sludges.
The EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) maintains a data base17 on publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs), which includes data on municipal sewage sludge characteristics,
generation, and disposal. The MSW characterization study supplies additional data in these areas for
sewage and water treatment sludge, and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) provides
data on quantities of water treatment sludge generated.18
3-11
-------
Table 3-3. ANNUAL GENERATION RATES OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE IN NEW ORLEANS,
LOUISIANA, AND MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Waste Type
Automotive Maintenance
Antifreeze/coolant
Auto wax
Engine treatment
Oil
Transmission fluid
Other auto
Subtotal
Batteries and Electrical
Household Cleaners
Air freshener
Ammonia-based cleaners
Bleach
Cleaner
Dish detergent
Drain opener
Floor finish
Laundry soap
Polish
Toilet bowl cleaner
Other household
Subtotal
Household Maintenance
Glue
Paint
Paint thinner
Stain/varnish
Projected Annual Generation
Rate in Locality (tons/year)
New Orleans
10.6
1.6
0.6
133.3
0.0
3.3
149.4
84.0
0.4
0.1
0.9
7.7
3.6
0.1
2.4
52.0
17.3
0.0
8.6
93.1
14.4
132.8
0.0
20.2
Marin County
0.0
2.6
3.6
23.1
0.6
3.2
33.1
76.0
1.9
2.3
0.3
18.0
3.1
0.0
2.0
3.7
4.6
2.3
4.7
42.9
4.7
26.8
0.8
70
Percent of Total
New Orleans
1.5
0.2
0.1
18.9
0.0
0.5
21.2
11.9
0.1
0.0
0.1
1.1
0.5
0.0
0.3
7.4
2.5
0.0
1.2
13.2
2.0
18.8
0.0
2.9
Marin County
0.0
0.9
1.3
8.1
0.2
1.1
11.6
26.6
0.7
0.8
0.1
6.3
1.1
0.0
0.7
1.3
1.6
0.8
1.6
150
1.7
9.4
0.3
2.5
3-12
-------
Table3-3. (continued)
Waste Type
Other maintenance
Subtotal
Pesticides and Yard Maintenance
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Pet maintenance
Pesticides
Subtotal
Prescription drugs
Selected cosmetics
Ottaer
Hobby related
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
Total a
Projected Annual Generation
Rate in Locality (tons/year)
New Orleans
139.2
306.6
0.0
0.0
2.0
4.8
6.8
7.5
35.1
2.3
21.8
24.1
706.6
Marin County
39.9
79.2
3.5
0.0
4.1
17.5
25.1
9.1
10.8
5.1
3.8
8.9
285.1
Percent of Total
New Orleans
19.7
43.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.7
1.0
1.1
5.0
0.3
3.1
3.4
100
Marin County
139
27.8
1.3
0.0
1.4
6.1
8.8
3.2
3.8
1.8
1.4
3.2
100
SOURCE: Reference 13.
a Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
3-13
-------
Table 3-4. POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES IN KING COUNTY
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Waste Category
Cleaners
Solvents
Paints
Oils
Acids
Bases
Pesticides
Aerosols
Batteries
Cosmetics
Medicine
Alcohols
Waxes
Adhesives
Inks
Total
Residential
Wastea
(tons/yr)
297.9
14.7
254.6
347.6
2.9
8.3
19.3
18.0
220.7
81.1
33.3
15.9
14.8
18.5
5.1
1,352.7
Self-Haul Wasteb
(tons/yr)
98.9
490.1
2,877.5
39.2
0.0
35.1
98.6
49.3
311.3
15.7
2.0
1.4
52.1
493.1
6.4
4,570.7
Total
(tons/yr)
396.8
504.8
3,132.1
386.8
2.9
43.4
117.9
67.3
532.0
96.8
35.3
17.3
66.9
511.6
11.5
5,923.4
SOURCE: Reference 14.
3 Residential waste is defined here as waste collected by regular route collection from
private residences.
b Self-haul waste is defined here as waste hauled in cars and small trucks to a waste
management facility by small contractors and members of the general public. Note
that self-haul waste may include industrial as well as household hazardous waste.
3-14
-------
Wastewater Treatment Sludge
Biological processes are predominantly used for municipal sewage treatment. They result in
sludge that consists primarily of organic matter. If either aerobic or anaerobic sludge digestion is
used, the organic fraction of the sludge solids may be reduced by approximately 50 percent. The
OWRS has used a data base of 15,300 POTWs to estimate that 6.9 million dry tons of sewage sludge
are generated each year. 1? This data base also shows that sewage sludge is managed through
incineration (20 percent), land application (25 percent, including 6.0 percent that is distributed and
marketed), ocean disposal (6 percent), and lagooning and landfilling (49 percent, including 1.0
percent in monofills, landfills that receive only sewage sludge). Incineration produces a residue
consisting primarily of an inorganic ash. This residue quantity is usually much smaller, by weight,
than the original sludge and is often landfilled.
Water Treatment Sludge
Drinking water treatment processes-including coagulation/filtration, direct filtration, lime
softening, and greensand fiOration-produce sludge that consists of a variety of organic and
inorganic materials. The concentration of contaminants in the sludge depends on the treatment
process chosen and the quality of the raw water. The AWWA conducted a survey of drinking water
treatment utilities serving populations greater than 25,000. It estimated that these utilities generate
80 percent of the drinking water treatment sludge produced in the nation.18 Of the 1,290 utilities
surveyed, 637 (49 percent) responded. Based on these data, 3.5 million tons of drinking water
treatment sludge may be generated each year. Drinking water treatment sludge may be discharged
to a sanitary sewer, applied to the land, landfilled, stored on the site in a lagoon, or subjected to
chemical recovery and treatment techniques.
3.4 MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION ASH
There are three categories of MSW fuel combustion: raw MSW; refuse-derived fuel (RDF),
which is processed MSW; and co-firing a varying amount of refuse-derived fuel or MSW with coal,
oil, wood, sewage sludge, or other fuel.19 Approximately 6 percent of all MSW generated is
incinerated at energy-recovery facilities.1'4 There are approximately 140 municipal waste
combustion (MWC) facilities operating in the United States with a total capacity of 62,000 tons of
waste per day. There are an additional 210 facilities in various stages of planning and construction.
By the year 2000, 350 facilities are expected to be on line, with a capacity of 250,000 tons per day.20
3-15
-------
Characteristics of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash
Fly ash and bottom ash are generated from the combustion process. Fly ash is captured in the
stack by emissions control equipment, bottom ash is the residue from burning that remains in the
combustion chamber.
The incineration of MSW fuel is a process that can differ greatly from plant to plant and from
one geographic area to the next.19 Consequently, the characteristics of the MWC solid residues can
differ greatly. For example, RDF facilities that shred the municipal waste and/or remove metals prior
to combustion generally produce MWC ash with lower concentrations of some organics and
inorganics than those that do not shred the waste or remove metals. Ash characteristics also depend
on facility operational parameters and facility design including air pollution control equipment.
Tests done on leachatefrom monofills containing MWC residues have also shown heavy
metals, particularly lead which has exceeded the primary and secondary drinking water
standards.19-21.22.23 The results from the tests discussed above indicate that at some facilities there is
a potential for polluting the environment with heavy metals and mineral salts from MWC residues,
unless the disposal facility is designed to eliminate the potential hazard.
The Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity tests conducted on fly ash and bottom ash from various
municipal waste incinerators have shown that these residues have highly variable concentrations of
heavy metals, particularly lead and cadmium.19'24 Some of these residues, particularly fly ash, may
have high metal concentrations. Other tests have shown the presence of the following organics in
low concentrations: polychlorinated dibenzpdioxin (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDFs),
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) with higher concentrations in fly ash than bottom ash. The
levels of PCDDs and PCDFs have been linked to combuster parameters.
Quantities of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash
Combustion reduces the MSW volume by 70 to 90 percent and the mass by 50 to 80 percent.
The quantity of ash depends on the moisture content of the incoming waste and on whether the
MSW is shredded prior to combust!on. Using the approximation of total capacity discussed above,
EPA estimates that in 1988, 3.2 to 8.1 million tons of ash will be generated. This amount is expected
to increase to 17 million tons in the year 2000. Fly ash ranges from 5 to 8 percent of the total ash
depending on operational parameters.
3-16
-------
Some additional tonnage is generated from MSW incinerators not practicing energy recovery
and from those establishments that burn their own waste. Incinerator residue from this latter
category is probably included in estimates of industrial process wastes or other industrial wastes.
Management of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash
Approximately 90 percent of the MWC solid residues is being disposed of in MSW landfills and
MWC residue monofills. To a much lesser degree, MWC solid residues are being used for cover
material, road construction, cement/concrete mixtures, and other uses. In 36 States, ash is co-
disposed with other waste. In 19 States, ash disposal is addressed through statutes, regulations, or
permits.
It should be noted that EPA has conducted a comprehensive municipal waste combustion ash
characterization study25 and is evaluating appropriate management methods.
3.5 INFECTIOUS WASTE
There is no universally accepted definition for infectious waste. The EPA Guide for Infectious
Waste Management26 defines infectious waste as waste capable of producing an infectious disease.
Although infectious waste is not generated just by hospitals (i.e., doctors' offices, nursing homes, etc.
also contribute to the waste stream), the only quantitative data available are for infectious hospital
waste. In 1985, there were 6,862 hospitals in the U.S. with 1,318,000 beds. It is estimated that 8 to 13
pounds of infectious wastes are generated per bed each day. Using the high end of this range and a
69 percent occupancy rate, the total hpspital waste generation .is estimated at 5,900 tons per day or
more than 2 .1 million tons per year.27
EPA has categorized infectious waste into the following six groups:
• isolation wastes,
• cultures and stocks of infectious agents and associated biologicals,
• human blood and blood products,
• pathological wastes,
• contaminated sharps (needles, etc.), and
• contaminated animal carcasses, body parts, and bedding.
3-17
-------
Infectious waste may be treated so that it is no longer biologically hazardous, and disposed of
as nonhazardous solid waste, provided the waste poses no other hazards that are subject to Federal
or State regulations.26 Treated liquid wastes are usually disposed of di rectly to the sanitary sewer
system, if approved by the local authority. Treated solid wastes and incinerator ash are usually
disposed of in sanitary landfills. A recent survey conducted by the National Solid Wastes
Management Association found that 28 States and the District of Columbia have some special
management requirements for infectious wastes, 31 States require treatment to render the waste
noninfectious, and five States regulate infectious wastes as hazardous wastes.28 The volumes of
infectious wastes managed by various disposal options are unknown.
3.6 TIRES
The Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a study29 to assess the potential of recovering
energy from scrap tires. It investigated tire stockpiles within 100 to 150 miles of any major
metropolitan area that contained at least 100,000 tires. More than 34 stockpiles were identified that
met these criteria, although many more smaller ones exist. From this number, DOE determined that
approximately 240 million automobile and truck tires are discarded annually in the United States.
Management of Scrap Tires
The results of this study indicated that less than 20 percent of the 240 million tires discarded
per year are recovered for recapping or resale, and only about 10 percent are reclaimed: rubber
reclaiming (5 percent); energy recovery (about 3 percent); splitting (1 percent); and use in artificial
reefs, highway crash barriers, highway base materials, and children's playthings (less than 1 percent).
The other 70+ percent of discarded tires (approximately 168 mil lion per year) are disposed of in
landfills or junkyards as scrap tires.
Because tires have a high energy value of approximately 15,000 Btu/pound,2? the DOE study
was conducted to investigate alternatives for alleviating the scrap tire problem by converting the
waste product into energy. It focused on tire pyrolysis technologies and found it was a mature and
well-developed technology. In a recent study30 conducted for DOE, however, it was found that no
pyrolysis process proposed to date in the United States has proven economically feasible. This recent
study focused on controlled combustion of tires, specifically incineration of tires in a free-standing
new power plant and in cement kilns.
3-18
-------
Recent studies and articles29'31.32'33.34 suggest that interest in tire recycling has grown in the
past several years. The primary techniques being studied are cryogenic grinding, shredding and
incineration, and adding to asphalt.30.31 Using shredded tires, instead of wood chips, as a bulking
agent for composting sewage sludge has also been studied.34
Characteristics of Scrap Tires
Scrap tires placed in landfills can present health, safety, environmental, and handling
problems. These tires provide an excellent breeding ground for vermin and mosquitoes, do not
biochemically degrade completely when buried, and resurface in landfills if not anchored. Because
of their shape, tires stored outdoors collect and hold rainwater. Leaves, grass, and other nutrients
falling into the tires provide an ideal habitat for immature mosquitoes.35 The dark tires absorb heat
efficiently, providing warmth for rapid insect development. In the United States, at least four species
of tire-breeding mosquitoes transmit diseases to humans and domestic animals.36 Aedes aeqypti
and Aede triseriatus transmit the viruses that cause dengue fever and LaCrosse encephalitis,
respectively, while the recently introduced Aedes albopietus can transmit both viruses. Culex pipiens
is a vector of St. Louis encephalitis virus, and all of these species are able to transmit dog heartworm.
3.7 INDUSTRIAL NONHAZARDOUS WASTE
The two sources of data on industrial Subtitle D waste are the Industrial Facilities Survey37 and
the Summary of Data on Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices.38 The first is a survey of
17 major industries. It provides data on the number of Subtitle D units these industries have on the
site and the waste quantities disposed of in them. The second study presents data on 22 major
industries (encompassing all but one of the 17 industries surveyed) and includes a review of compiled
available data on industrial nonhazardous waste characteristics and generation rates. The
limitations of the Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Study are discussed in Chapter 2. The
characteristics, quantities, and management methods for industrial Subtitle D waste are discussed
below.
Characteristics of Industrial Nonhazardous Waste
The characteristics of industrial nonhazardous waste vary from industry to industry and within
each industry. The major waste types within each of the 22 industries38.39 and the general waste
characteristics for each industry with regard to the relative concentration of heavy metals or organics
are presented in Tables B-1 and B-2 (Appendix B), respectively. Twelve of the 22 industries studied
3-19
-------
are expected to contain relatively high levels of heavy metals and organic constituents, five
industries contain relatively moderate levels, and the remaining five industries contain low levels.
Included in these waste streams are some PCB-contaminated wastes. The Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) PCB disposal regulations allow limited categories of PCB materials to be disposed
of in Subtitle D landfills. These materials include drained PCB-contaminated electric equipment that
contained 50-500 ppm PCBs in dielectric fluids, drained hydraulic and heat transfer equipment, and
"PCB Articles" (see 40 CFR Sections 761.3 and 761.60(b)(5)) that previously contained 50-500 ppm
PCBs and that have been drained of free-flowing liquids. More significantly, TSCA disposal
regulations allow the disposal of "small capacitors" that contain less than three pounds of PCB
dielectric in Subtitle D landfills. These small capacitors frequently are found in fluorescent light
ballasts, high-intensity discharge lighting power supplies, and a variety of consumer appliances, such
as microwave ovens and air conditioners.
In addition, regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
allow pesticide containers that have been properly rinsed in accordance with the label instructions
to be disposed of in Subtitle D landfills.
Quantities of Industrial Nonhazardous Waste
The quantity of industrial waste disposed of in on-site Subtitle D units for the 17 industries
covered in the facilities survey is presented in Table 3-5. The 17 industries studied dispose of
approximately 7.6 billion tons of industrial nonhazardous waste on-site each year. Nearly 95 percent
of the waste is produced by 10 industries. The top two industries, pulp and paper and primary iron
and steel, produce 47 percent of the waste. Table B-1 (Appendix B) presents the generation rates
estimated in the Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Study for the 22 industries studied. The
quantities estimated in this study are much lower than quantities estimated from the survey.
Reasons for this large discrepancy are being investigated. At this time, the survey data are
considered more accurate because, for the industrial nonhazardous waste disposal study, waste
quantity information was not available for all industries, and the data that were available were
often more than five years old.
Management Practices for Industrial Nonhazardous Waste
The Industrial Facilities Survey indicates that 2,757 landfills, 15,253 surface impoundments
(Sis), 4,308 land application units (LAUs), and 5,335 waste piles received industrial nonhazardous
3-20
-------
waste. The percent of the waste stream that went to each on-site unit is presented in Table 3-5.
Most of the waste is managed in surface impoundments. The amount of waste that is recycled or is
disposed of off-site is not known.
3.8 VERY-SMALL-QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTE
Small-quantity generator (SQG) waste is waste that meets the definition of a hazardous waste
under 40 CFR Part 261 and is generated at a rate of less than 1,000 kilograms per month. While SQG
waste has been exempt from Subtitle C regulations, a March 24, 1986, rule applies certain Subtitle C
regulations to SQGs generating between 100 and 1,000 kilograms per month.40 This rule took effect
on September 22, 1986, for off-site and September 22, 1987, for on-site treatment, storage, or
disposal. After these effective dates, the exemption from Subtitle C regulations applies only to
generators of less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste. These very-small-quantity
generators (VSQGs) are regulated under Subtitle D of RCRA.
The National Hazardous Waste Small Quantity Generator Survey41 is the principal source of
data on SQG waste. Through a mail questionnaire, the survey obtained national estimates of the
number and type of SQGs and their waste generation and management practices. The detailed
results of the survey address 22 primary industries and 27 targeted wastes, accounting for 378,000
(60 percent) of the estimated 630,000 generators and approximately 658,000 (64 percent) of the
estimated 1,036,000 tons of SQG hazardous waste generated annually. Results distinguish between
SQGs of 100 to 1,000 kilograms per month of hazardous waste (now regulated under Subtitle C) and
VSQGs of less than 100 kilograms per month (regulated under Subtitle D). A discussion of the
hazardous waste produced by SQGs of 100 to 1,000 kilograms per month is included here because it
has only recently been considered a Subtitle C waste.
Three smaller-scaled surveys42'43-44 on small-quantity generators of hazardous waste were
conducted in the cities of Hampton, Richmond, and Lynchburg, Virginia; the counties of Chesterfield
and Henrico, Virginia; the Puget Sound area in the State of Washington; and the State of Delaware.
The purpose of these surveys was to:
• inform small businesses of the pending regulation of businesses that generate between
100 and 1,000 kg/month of hazardous waste,
• assist the small businesses to comply with the new regulations, and
• survey current waste management practices of small businesses.45
3-21
-------
Table 3-5. WASTE QUANTITY DISPOSED OF IN ON-SITE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES IN 1985*
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemical and Allied
Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather Products
Total
Total Waste
Quantity
Disposed of
inAII
On-Site
Industrial
Facilities
(thousand
tons)
58,864
1,300,541
165,623
1,092,277
180,510
919,725
621,974
2,251,700
67,070
373,517
58,846
168,632
24,198
12,669
67,987
253,780
3,234
7,616,149
Percent
of Waste
Disposed
of in
Landfills3
0.4
0.3
3.5
4.9
0.05
0.4
1.2
0.3
2.1
1.0
0.3
0.2
2.2
1.4
0.2
0.03
0.3
1.1
Percent
of Waste
Disposed
of in
Surface
Impound-
ments
96.3
99.2
93.1
95.0
98.2
95.1
97.3
99.3
84.3
78.6
84.5
99.6
97.4
93.1
99.1
99.7
99.4
96.6
Percent of
Waste
Disposed of
in Land
Application
Units
3.1
<0.01
0.5
0.03
0.02
- 0.01
<0.01
0.4
0.6
20
15
0.2
0.2
<0.01
0.7
0.3
0
1.3
Percent of
Waste
Disposed of
in Waste Piles
0.08
0.5
2.9
0.08
1.7
4.5
1.5
0.07
13
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.2
4.6
0.01
<0.01
0.3
1.0
SOURCE: Reference 37.
a Percentages are rounded and do not total 100 percent.
3-22
-------
Additional information on the types and amounts of SQG hazardous wastes is available from
an extensive survey of SQGs and municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) in Florida.46 These data
also include some hazardous waste quantities from large-quantity generators.
Characteristics of Small-Quantity-Generator Waste
The SQG hazardous waste streams in the industries addressed in the SQG survey are presented
in Table 3-6. This table indicates that used lead-acid batteries represent the largest hazardous waste
quantity .and the largest number of generators, in both the VSQG and other SQG categories. Other
significant hazardous wastes are spent solvents, dry cleaning filtration residues, and photographic
wastes.
There are an estimated 600,000 to 660,000 SQGs of hazardous waste in the United States
representing 98 percent of the total number of hazardous waste generators.41 Nearly 85 percent of
SQGsareinnonmanufacturing industries, including 50 percent in vehicle maintenance and 10
percent in construction. Other nonmanufacturing establishments include laundries, photographic
processors, equipment repair shops, laboratories, and schools.. The remaining 15 percent of SQGs are
manufacturing establishments, with two-thirds of these in metal manufacturing and the remaining
generators in manufacturing industries, such as printing, chemical manufacturing, and textile
manufacturing.41 Table 3-7 presents the number of SQGs in each industry group.
Very-small-quantity generators constitute 70 percent of the SQGs, and the industrial
distribution of VSQGs differs from that of other SQGs. Most of the VSQGsare in nonmanufacturing
industries, whereas relatively few of the other SQGs are found in this category. In contrast, there is a
more even distribution between VSQGs and other SQGs in the manufacturing industries.
Quantities of Small-Quantity Generator Waste
Small-quantity generators are estimated to generate about 1,036,000 tons of hazardous waste
annually, which is 0.5 percent of the total quantity of hazardous waste.41 Very-small-quantity
generators produce about one-fifth of all SQG hazardous waste. Approximately 658,700 tons of
hazardous waste are generated by the 22 primary industry groups studied in the SQG survey. Sixty-
two percent (408,000 tons per year) of this waste is used lead-acid batteries; 18 percent (116,000 tons
per year) is solvents; and 5 percent (33,000 tons per year) is acids and alkalies. Table 3-6 presents the
breakdown of SQG waste quantity according to various types of waste streams.41 Vehicle
3-23
-------
Table 3-6. NUMBER OF SMALL-QUANTITY GENERATORS AND WASTE
QUANTITY GENERATED BY WASTE STREAM
Waste Stream a
Arsenic wastes
Cyanide wastes
Dry cleaning filtration residues
Empty pesticide containers
Heavy metal dust
Heavy metal solutions
Heavy metal waste materials
Ignitable paint wastes
Ignitable wastes
Ink sludges containing chromium or
lead
Mercury wastes
Other reactive wastes
Paint wastes containing heavy metals
Pesticide solutions
Photographic wastes
Solutions of sludges containing silver
Solvent still bottoms
Spent plating wastes
Spent sol vents
Strong acids or alkalies
Used lead-acid batteries
Waste formaldehyde
VSQGs: Generators of
< 100 kg of Hazardous
Waste/Month
[Subtitle D Waste]
Number of
Generators
21
587
13,168
9,809
48
15
121
T2.788
8,951
1,093
19
1,133
381
3,207
21,287
4,482
2,114
3,960
77,629
13,739
119,747
11,930
Waste
Quantity
(tons/yr)
8
19
5,674
1,424
11
7
34
2,328
1,001
99
1
97
13
1,153
4,856
1,033
126
543
21,420
2,170
71,495
3,805
Other SQGs:
Generators of
100 kg to 1,000 kg of
Hazardous Waste/Month
[SubtitleC Waste]
Number of
Generators
19
1,384
2,540
1,963
40
30
117
3,122
2,873
83
0
497
156
.1,747
4,949
2,648
738
1,422
33,475
10,480
77,880
2,014
Waste
Quantity
(tons/yr)
114
2,345
9,373
2,606
180
57
592
5,367
8,345
140
0
1,201
8
5,532
1 5,447
8,792
2,052
5,811
94,650
30,647
335,089
5,944
3-24
-------
Table 3-6. (continued)
Waste Stream^
Waste inks containing flammable
solvents or heavy metals
Waste pesticides
Wastes containing ammonia
Wastewater containing wood
Wastewater sludges containing heavy
metals
Total
VSQGs: Generators of
< 1 00 kg of Hazardous
Waste/Month
[Subtitle D Waste]
Number of
Generators
3,642
2,852
1,154
88
894
314,679
Waste
Quantity
(tons/yr)
290
441
106
29
207
118,090
Other SQGs:
Generators of
100 kg to 1,000 kg of
Hazardous Waste/Month
[Subtitle C Waste]
Number of
Generators
718
990
100
108
790
1 50,883
Waste
Quantity
(tons/yr)
1,497
944
298
763
2,441
540,235
SOURCE: Reference 41.
a Some SQGs generate more than one waste stream.
3-25
-------
Table 3-7. NUMBER OF SMALL-QUANTITY GENERATORS BY INDUSTRY GROUP
Industry
Analytical and clinical laboratories
Chemical manufacturing
Cleaning agents and cosmetic
manufacturing
Construction
Educational and vocational
establishments
Equipment repair
Formulators
Furniture/wood manufacture and
refinishing
Laundries
Metal manufacturing
Motor freight terminals
Paper industry
Pesticide application services
Pesticide end users
Photography
Printing/ceramics
Textile manufacturing
Vehicle maintenance
Wholesale and retail establishments
Wood preserving
Other manufacturing
Other services
Total
VSQGs: Generators of
< 100 kg of Hazardous
Waste/Month
[Subtitle D Waste]
Number of
Generators
Per
Industrial
Category
5,123
362
277
11,561
3,239
1,526
507
2,776
13,131
26,245
103
98
7,786
1,392
6,538
21,190
149
142,105
5,156
86
1,618
13,913
264,881
Percent of
Generators
Per
Industrial
Category
80
48
51
91
93
85
57
83
84
70
70
54
82
86
70
86
54
63
90
45
63
85
70
Other SQGs:
Generators of
100 kg to 1,000 kg of
Hazardous Waste/Month
[Subtitle C Waste]
Number of
Generators
Per
Industrial
Category
1,286
391
265
1,117
241
269
395
579
2,515
11,076
45
83
1,660
231
2,817
3,450
124
82,528
575
107
946
2,409
113,109
Percent of
Generators
Per
Industrial
Category
20
52
49
9
7
15
43
17
16
30
30
46
18
14
. 30
14
46
37
10
55
37
15
30
SOURCE: Reference 41.
3-26
-------
maintenance and metal manufacturing are the most numerous industries and generate the most
waste in both SQG categories.
Management Practices for Small-Quantity Generator Waste
Table 3-8 illustrates that most SQG waste is managed off-site (83 percent) and mostly by
recycling. Much of the off-site recycling involves lead-acid batteries. The rest of the SQG waste is
managed on-site, with 8 percent going to RCRA-exempt disposal in public sewers. Some SQG waste
is treated on-site and then managed off-site.
Waste management practices by VSQGs differ somewhat from those of other SQGs. Of those
VSQGs that manage waste on-site, 23 percent recycle waste, compared to 39 percent of the other
SQGs. Among those that ship waste off-site, 61 percent of the VSQGs and 78 percent of the SQGs
send it to recycling facilities.
The Florida hazardous waste generators and sanitary landfills study46 presents summary
statistics that include quantities and percentages of SQG hazardous wastes disposed of by various
means. An extensive data base on characteristics of SQGs and MSWLFs in Florida was developed for
this study. The numbers cannot be directly compared to the SQG survey data, however, since the
disposal categories are set up differently.
The three previously mentioned, small-scaled surveys on small-quantity hazardous waste
generators42'43.44 identified some mismanagement of hazardous wastes. These surveys indicate that
the need to educate small businesses about procedures for identifying, quantifying, managing, and
handling hazardous wastes exists.
Other information relative to SQG hazardous waste management is available from the
Subtitle D census and the Industrial Facilities Survey. The census solicited estimates of the numbers
of Subtitle D landfills that receive SQG waste. As shown in Table 3-9, the respondents estimated that
approximately one-third (31 percent) of the Subtitle D landfills receive SQG waste, and over half (53
percent) of municipal waste landfills receive SQG waste. The census estimated that 10 percent of
LAUsand 15 percent of Sis receive SQG wastes. The Industrial Facilities Survey suggested that very
few industrial establishments dispose of SQG waste in their on-site facilities. For example, less than 4
percent of the establishments with surface impoundments disposed of SQG waste in their
impoundments.
3-27
-------
Table 3-8. DISTRIBUTION OF OFF-SITE AND ON-SITE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SMALL-
QUANTITY-GENERATOR WASTES
Management Practices
Off-Site:
Recycling
Solid waste facility
Subtitle C facility
Unknown
Total off-site
On-Site:
Public sewer
Recycling
Treatment
Total on-site
Total off-site and on-site
Approximate
Amount of Waste
(tons/year)3
416,000
32,000
25,000
70,000
543,000
51,000
39,000
25,000
115,000
658,000
Percent of
Wasteb
63
5
4
11
83
8
6
4
18
101
Percent of
Generators'1
52
14
4
13
83
14
8
6
28
111
SOURCE: Reference 39.
a Estimates based on Small Quantity Generator Survey data: 378,000 small-quantity
generators provide detailed information for targeted wastes-approximately 658,000
tons/year of waste.
t> Percentages are rounded and do not total 100 percent.
c Percentages do not add to 100 due to multiple management practices.
3-28
-------
Table 3-9. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES RECEIVING SMALL-QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTE
Facility Type
Landfills:
Municipal
Industrial
Demolition Debris
Other
Subtotal
Land Application Units:
Municipal sewage sludge high rate
Municipal sewage sludge low rate
Municipal sewage total3
Industrial waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
Subtotal
Surface Impoundments:
Municipal sewage sludge
Municipal run-off
Industrial waste
Agricultural waste
Mining waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
Subtotal
Reported
Number of
Facilities
9,284
3,511
2,591
1,030
16,416
242
9,779
11,937
5,605
726
621
18,889
1,938
488
16,232
17,159
19,813
125,074
11,118
191,822
Response
Rate
(percent)
88
83
89
28
84
--
- -
92
95
57
100
90
75
77
65
79
59
77
99
75
Reported
Number
of Facilities
Receiving SQG
Waste
4,327
360
312
76
5,075
33
1,050
1,382
164
101
0
1,647
548
157
1,541
88
824
17,746
5
20,909
Estimated
Percentage of
Facilities
Receiving
SQG Waste
52.9
12.3
13.5
26.7
37.1
16.4
11.2
12.6
3.1
13.9
0
9.6
37.6
41.5
14.7
0.7
7.0
18.5
0.1
14.5
Ul
NJ
SOURCE: Reference 47.
a High-rate application and low-rate application may not equal the total municipal sewage sludge figures because some States do
not distinguish between high-rate and low-rate LAUs when reporting the total, while others do make the
distinction.
-------
3.9 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE
Characteristics of Construction and Demolition Waste
Solid waste from construction and demolition of structures includes mixed lumber, roofing
and sheeting scraps, broken concrete, asphalt, brick, stone, plaster, wallboard, glass, piping, and
other building materials. The exact nature of construction and demolition waste depends upon the
type of structures involved, and varies with geographical location and the age and size of a
community.
Quantities of Construction and Demolition Waste
The quantities of demolition and construction waste reported in various locations across the
nation range from 0.12 to 3.52 pounds per capita per day (pcd).4^ An urban average of 0.72 pcd was
reported from 1970 data.49 A California study reported 0.27 pcd for communities with fewer than
10,000 people, 0.68 pcd for communities of between 10,000 and 100,000 people, and 1.37 pcd in
communities of over 100,000 people.50 A study of waste generation in the Kansas City area
estimated quantities of demolition and construction wastes at about 0.6 pcd.51 At an average of
0.72 pcd,49 the total quantity of construction and demolition waste generated in the United States is
estimated at approximately 31.5 million tons per year. This is about 22 percent as much as the
municipal solid waste disposed of in 1986J.2
Management Practices for Construction and Demolition Waste
Management options for construction and demolition waste include recycling, reclaiming, or
direct disposal in municipal, industrial, and demolition debris landfills and waste piles. However, the
fraction of construction and demolition waste received at any of these facilities is unknown. Since
most of this waste is generally viewed as requiring less stringent disposal than MSW, special
demolition debris landfills are often used.1
3.10 AGRICULTURAL WASTE
Agricultural waste includes animal wastes from feedlots and farms, crop production wastes,
irrigation wastes, and collected field run-off. Irrigation return flows and agricultural wastes, such as
manures and crop residues that are returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners, are exempt
from regulation under RCRA.
3-30
-------
Atotal of 2.0 billion tons of wet manure are produced each year from livestock on American
farms.52 The portion of this waste regulated by RCRA (i.e., that is not returned to the soil) is not
known. Other constituents found in these wastes, especially from feedlots and barnyards, are
nutrients, organic matter, ammonia, fecal bacteria, and other microorganisms. Crop production
wastes, irrigation wastes, and collected field run-off have not been well characterized. The total
volume of these wastes produced annually is unknown.
Information on agricultural Sis has been collected in The Surface Impoundment Assessment
National Report.53 The objective of this study was to identify all existing Sis. The study counted
agricultural Sis and categorized them by the type of agricultural production facility. A total of
19,437 agricultural Sis were identified by this survey, 270 of which were classified as abandoned Sis.
Because the study relied on secondary sources of data such as United States Geological Survey maps,
permit files, and well drillers' reports, the number of agricultural Sis reported may be low. Actual
volumes of waste placed in the agricultural Sis were not reported. The number of Sis located, broken
down by facility type, is presented in Table 3-10.
Table 3-10. DISTRIBUTION OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION FACILITY
Agricultural Production Facility
Dairy farms
Hogs
Cattle feed lot
General farms
Poultry farms
Other fur-bearing animals
Crop production
Fish hatcheries
Number of Sis Located3
4,732
3,492
2,974
1,208
717
336
190
95
SOURCE: Reference 53.
a The States of Louisiana and Nevada are not included in this inventory.
The Subtitle D census reported a total of 17,159 active agricultural Sis. Fewer States provided
estimates of numbers of Sis for the Subtitle D census as compared to the national SI Assessment. The
Subtitle D census also reported that 93 percent of all agricultural Sis receive 50,000 or fewer gallons
of agricultural waste per day. Assuming that the average agricultural SI receives less than 50,000
gallons per day, EPA estimates that 1 billion gallons per day is an upper limit to the amount of
agricultural waste disposed of in Sis.
3-31
-------
3.11 OIL AND GAS WASTE
Congress temporarily exempted from regulation under RCRA Subtitle C, pending further
study by EPA, drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration,
development, or production of crude oil or natural gas. These wastes are the subject of another
report to Congress prepared by EPA which was issued in December 1987.54 The oil and gas wastes
are characterized by high concentrations of chloride, total dissolved solids, barium, sodium, and
calcium. Preliminary data from the oil and gas report to Congress indicate that the quantity of
produced waters generated annually falls between 11.7 and 16.3 billion barrels, and the range for
drilling waste is 0.46 to 2.44 billion barrels. The Subtitle D Census identified 125,074 oil and gas Sis.
3.12 UTILITY WASTE
Congress also exempted wastes generated from the combustion of fossil fuels from regulation
under Subtitle C of RCRA pending further study by EPA. Approximately 90 percent of the wastes
generated from the combustion of fossil fuels comes from coal-fired electric power plants. These
coal-combustion wastes are the subject of another EPA report to Congress55 which was issued in
February 1988.
Data from the report to Congress indicate that in 1984 coal-fired electric power plants
generated 69 million tons of ash and 16 million tons of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastes. There
are also several different types of low-volume wastes generated in the routine cleaning of plant
equipment and in purifying water used in the combustion process. Examples of these low-volume
wastes include boiler blowdown, metal and boiler cleaning wastes, and coal pile run-off.
Approximately one-fifth of the large-volume wastes are recycled. The rest of the waste is
disposed of in Sis and landfills. Results of the report to Congress indicate that coal combustion waste
streams generally do not exhibit hazardous characteristics as defined in the current Federal
hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C of RCRA.
3.13 MINING WASTE
Mining waste included as RCRA solid waste is the product of activities such as extraction,
beneficiation (e.g., crushing, screening, washing, and flotation), smelting, and refining. High
concentrations of heavy metals, sulfate, sodium, and potassium can be present.
3-32
-------
In December 1985, EPA issued a first report to Congress56 on mining wastes (other than coal
mining wastes) and is continuing to gather data to support rulemaking efforts. The first report
indicated that 1.4 billion tons of mining waste (other than coal mining waste) are produced each
year from the extraction and beneficiation of metals, phosphate, asbestos, and oil shale. A second
report is currently being prepared by EPA covering the extraction and beneficiation of aluminum,
bauxite, copper, lead, zinc, and zinc oxide. The EPA is planning a third report to Congress on those
mining wastes not covered in the first two reports.
The National SI Assessment counted mining Sis and categorized them by the material mined
but did not report the rates of waste input. The numbers of Sis are listed in Table 3-11 to give a
qualitative measure of the characteristics of mining waste.
Table 3-11. NUMBER OF MINING SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY THE MATERIAL MINED
Material Mined
Bituminous coal and lignite
Nonmetals
Metals
Anthracite
Total
Number of Sis
19,891
2,272
1,754
459
24,376.
SOURCE: Reference 53.
3.14 SUMMARY
Chapter 3 provides information on the characteristics, quantities, and management methods
of Subtitle D wastes. This information was compiled to assess the hazards posed by releases of
Subtitle D wastes to the environment. The following categories of Subtitle D wastes were identified
for this report: MSW, MWC ash, HHW, municipal sludge, waste tires, industrial nonhazardous waste,
SQG waste, construction and demolition waste, oil and gas waste, utility waste, agricultural waste,
infectious waste, and mining waste.
One hundred and fifty-eight million tons of MSW were produced in 1986. Eighty-three
percent of this waste was disposed of in landfills, 10.7 percent was recycled, and 6.0 percent was used
for energy recovery. The portion of MSW recovered for energy is projected to increase to 20 percent
by the year 2000.1-4
3-33
-------
Ninety percent of the ash produced from the combustion of MSW is disposed of in monofills
and landfills. Dioxins, difuran, lead, and chromium are several constituents of concern in MWC ash.
A comprehensive municipal waste combustion ash characterization study has been conducted under
a separate effort.25
Motor oil, paint, household maintenance items, batteries, and miscellaneous electrical items
comprise 58 to 69 percent of household hazardous waste.13 These items are known to contain
hazardous wastes such as toluene, xylene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, benzene, lead,
mercuric oxide, and sulfuric acid.14 Most HHW is mixed with municipal solid waste and ultimately
disposed of in landfills. The fraction of HHW in the MSW stream will vary according to the season,
household, and area of the country. Current data indicate that the fraction of HHW in the MSW
stream ranges from 0.1 percent to 0.4 percent.
Approximately 6.9 million dry tons of sewage sludge and 3.5 million tons of water treatment
sludge are generated annually.17-^ Municipal sludges are composed of organic and inorganic
constituents.
Approximately 240 million automobile and truck tires are discarded annually in the United
States and can present health, safety, and handling problems.29 Most of these tires (168 million) are
disposed of either in junkyards, where they can become a breeding ground for mosquitoes, or in
landfills, from which they can resurface if not anchored.
Approximately 7.6 billion tons of industrial nonhazardous wastes are generated annually by
17 major industries, with nearly 95 percent of these wastes generated by 10 industries.37 The
characteristics of the waste vary with the industry.
Small-quantity generators of hazardous waste produce 1.04 million tons of hazardous waste
annually, which is approximately 0.5 percent of the total amount of hazardous waste generated
annually. Very-small-quantity generators produce about 0.2 million ton of hazardous waste
annually, which is about one-fifth of all SQG hazardous waste. Used lead-acid batteries represent
the largest waste category and the largest number of generators.
The quantity of construction and demolition waste generated is approximately 31.5 million
tons per year49 and is comprised of a variety of building materials. Disposal options for construction
and demolition waste include landfills and waste piles. The exact nature of construction and
3-34
-------
demolition waste depends upon the types of structures involved and varies with geographical
location, and the age and size of a community.
The annual production rate of oil and gas drilling muds was approximately 102.7 billion
gallons in 1985.54 Oil and gas brines and drilling muds may contain high concentrations of chloride,
total dissolved solids, barium, sodium, and calcium. A separate report to Congress has been
prepared by EPA on oil and gas wastes.
Approximately 69 million tons of ash from coal-fired electric power plants was generated in
1984. In addition, these plants produced 16 million tons of FGD wastes. EPA has prepared a report
to Congress55 on these utility wastes.
Annual production rates of agricultural and infectious waste are not known. Agricultural
waste may contain nutrients, organic matter, .ammonia, fecal bacteria, and possibly pesticide
residues. Infectious waste may be biologically hazardous or capable of producing an infectious
disease.26
Mining waste is produced at a rate of 1.4 billion tons per year, 99 percent of which is
nonhazardous.56 Heavy metals, acids, asbestos, and radionuclides can be present in mining waste.
3-35
-------
3.15 REFERENCES
1. Franklin Associates Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. 1960
to 2000. Final Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
2. SCS Engineers. A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs,
Contract 68-01-6621, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1985.
3. Pohland, F. G., and S. R. Harper. Critical Review and Summary of Leachate and Gas Production
from Landfills, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1986.
4. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960
to 2000- Update 1988, Draft Report, Contract No. 68-01-7310, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1988.
5. Pahren, H. R. "Microorganisms in Municipal Solid Waste and Public Health Implications," CRC
Critical Review in Environmental Control, Vol. 17, Issue 3, 1987.
6. Radian Corporation. Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Recycling of Solid Waste, Final
Report, EPA/530-SW-8-7-021, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., June
1987.
7. Cutter, S. Resource Recovery: An Overview in Environmental Policy, Solid Wastes, Vol. IV,
Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.
8. National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. Resource Recovery Facts and Figures, Resource
Recovery Update. Vol. 9, No. 5, p. 2, May 1980.
9. Hertzberg, R. "New Directions in Solid Waste and Recycling", BioCycle, Vol. 27, pp. 22-26,
January 1986.
10. "Update: Resource Recovery Activities Report," Waste Age, Vol. 16, No. 11, pp. 99-183,
November 1985.
3-36
-------
11. Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Hand Sorting Fact Sheet. Solid Waste Management
Department, Whittier, California, 1979.
12. Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Unannounced Search, Summer 1984, Solid Waste
Management Department, Whittier, California, 1984.
13. University of Arizona, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, and Florida State
University, Center for Biomedical and Toxicological Research and Hazardous Waste
Management. Characterization of Household Hazardous Waste from Marin County,
California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
Neveda, 1987.
14. Savage, G. M., and H. Sharpe." Assessment of Non-Regulated Hazardous Wastes in the Seattle
Area," Waste Management and Research, Vol. 5, pp. 159-171, 1987.
15. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Environmental Health and Energy Dept. Residential
Hazardous/Toxic Waste Survey, 1983.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Household Hazardous Waste Bibliography of Useful
References and List of State Experts. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.
17. Rubin, A. Personal Communication from A. Rubin, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.
18. Personal Communication from American Water Works Association to S. Mooney, Special
Wastes Branch, Office of Solid Wastes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.
19. GCA Corporation. Evaluation of the Land Disposal of Solid Residues from Municipal Waste
Combustion Report 1: Data Summary. Final Report, 1986.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Unpublished Survey Conducted by the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1988.
3-37
-------
21. Rigo, H. G. State-of-the-Knowledqe Report on the Disposal of Incinerator Ash. Rigo and Rigo
Associates, Duxbury, Massachusetts, August 1982.
22. Analyses performed by E. C. Jordan Co., Portland, Maine, October 1985.
23. Schoenberger, R. J., and A. A. Fungaroli. "Incinerator-Residue-Fill Site Investigation," Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. SMIO. pp 1431-1443. American Society of
Chemical Engineers, New York, New York, October 1971.
24. Doerr-Buliock, L, and P. Carpenter. EP Toxicity Test Results on Residues from Eight Resource
Recovery Facilities, Contract 68-01-6071, prepared by SYSTECH Corporation, Xenia, Ohio, for
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., February
1981.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Leachates from Municipal Waste
Disposal Sites and Codisposal Sites, Volume VI, prepared by NUS Corporation, Contract 68-01-
7310 Washington, D.C, September 1987.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Guide for Infectious Waste Management. Policy
Directive 9401.00-2, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
27. Radian Corporation. Hospital Waste Combustion Study Data Gathering Phase. Final Draft
Report, Contract 68-02-4330, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, October 1987.
28. Pettit, C. L Infectious Waste State Program Survey. Technical Bulletin 86-4, National Solid
Waste Management Association, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1986.
29. EG&G Idaho, Inc. Scrap Tires: A Resource and Technology Evaluation of Tire Pyrolysis and
Other Selected Alternate Technologies; EGG-2241, Idaho Operations Office, U.S. Department
of Energy, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 1983.
30. Science Management Corporation. Waste Tire Utilization, Contract A C01-84CE40714, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1987.
3-38
-------
31. Power J. "Tire Recycling: Proven Solutions and New Ideas." Resource Recycling, Vol. 5, pp. 12-
14, 1987.
32. Grady, J. C "Tire Disposal Problem May Be Short-Lived," Waste Age, Vol. 18, pp. 34-44, 1987.
33. Almaula. B. Options for Energy Recovery from Waste Tires in the District of Columbia, Contract
000000 83-AE-75, District of Columbia Energy Office, Washington, D.C., 1983.
34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Shredded Rubber Tires as a Bulking Agent for
Composting Sewage Sludge. Monthly Report, Water. Engineering Research Lab, Cincinnati,
Ohio, December 1986.
35. Beier, J. C., M. Travis, C. Patricoski, and J. Kranzenfelder. "Habitat Segregation Among Larval
Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Ti're Yards in Indiana, USA," J. Med. Entomol., Vol. 20, pp.
76-80,1983.
36. James, M. T., and R. F. Harwood. Herms' Medical Entomology, Sixth Edition, MacMillan
Company, 1969.
37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Results of the Industrial Subtitle D Facility Survey,
Unpublished, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., March 1987.
38. Science Applications International Corporation. Summary of Data on Industrial Nonhazardous
Waste Disposal Practices, Contract 68-01-7050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1985.
39. Energy Resources Company, Inc. Disposal Practices for Selected Industrial Solid Wastes,
Contract 68-01-5814, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1980.
40. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hazardous Waste Management System: General
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste;
Standards for Transporters of Hazardous Waste; EPA Administered Permit Programs;
Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Programs, Final Rule," Federal Register, Vol. 51, No.
56, March 24, 1986.
3-39
-------
41. Abt Associates, Inc. National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey. Contract 68-
01-6892, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1985.
42. Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal Association. Virginia Small Quantity Hazardous
Waste Generator Survey Report. Publication GHW-6, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1986.
43. Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal Association. Puqet Sound Small Quantity
Hazardous Waste Generator Survey Report. Publication GHW-7. Silver Spring, Maryland, 1986.
44. Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal Association. Delaware Small Quantity
Hazardous Waste Generator Survey Report. Publication GHW-5, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1986.
45. Hickman, Jr., H.L "A Report on the Findings of Surveys in the United States on Waste
Management Practices of Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators", paper presented at
the 8th Canadian Waste Management Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, September 3-
5,1986.
46. Florida State University. Hazardous Waste Generator Data and Characteristics of Sanitary
Landfills in Selected Counties in Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C, 1986.
47. Westat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste Programs.
Contract 68-01-7047. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
48. Wilson, D. G., ed. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
New York, New York, 1977.
49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Local Governments on Solid Waste
Management. Washington. D.C., 1971.
50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. California Solid Waste Management Study (1968) and
Plan (1970). SW-2tsg, Washington, D.C.
51. Metropolitan Planning Commission, Kansas City Region, Metropolitan Solid Waste
Management Plan, May 1971.
3-40
-------
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the
United States, Washington, D.C., 1984.
53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Surface Impoundment Assessment National Report,
EPA 570/9-84-002, Washington, D.C., 1983.
54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress, Management of Wastes from the
Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy,
EPA/530-SW-88-003, Washington, D.C., 1987.
55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of
Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. EPA/530-SW-88-002, Washington, D.C., 1988.
56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on Wastes from the Extraction and
Benefication of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining,
and Oil Shale. Washington. D.C, 1985.
3-41
-------
Chapter 4
CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBTITLE D FACILITIES
According to the Subtitle D census, there are 227,000 Subtitle D units in the United States, 85
percent of which are surface impoundments (Sis). Land application units and landfills make up the
remaining 8 percent and 7 percent of the universe, respectively. The census did not address waste
piles. There are also 120,000 establishments that contain one or more Subtitle D units. Table 4-1 and
Figure 4-1 describe this universe of Subtitle D facilities. The census indicated that in 1984 there were
33,000 establishments with only closed or inactive Subtitle D units.
This'chapter presents statistics on the numbers and characteristics of Subtitle D facilities. The
principal source of this information isthe Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Non-Hazardous
Waste Programs.1 Two other major data sources are the industrial Subtitle D Facility Survey2 and the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey.3 These two surveys were undertaken in order to fill data gaps
in the Subtitle D census results for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) and industrial landfills,
Sis, land application units, and waste piles.
Table 4-1. UNIVERSE OF SUBTITLE D FACILITIES
Facility Type
Landfills
Surface impoundments
Land application units
Waste piles
Total
Number of
Units
16,416
191,822
18,889
No Datac
227,127a
Number of
Establishments
15,719
108,383
12,312
No Datac
128,128b
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Sixteen percent (or approximately 36,000 units) are estimated to receive hazardous
wastes from households or small-quantity generators.
b This is the correct total. The numbers for each type of facility do not add to this
total, since two or more facility types or two or more of the same unit may exist at an
establishment.
c The census did not address waste piles. Information on Industrial Waste Piles was
provided by the Industrial Subtitle D Facility Survey and is presented later in this
Chapter.
4-1
-------
Figure 4-1. UNIVERSE OF SUBTITLE D UNITS, BY PERCENT
Landfills
7%
Surface
Impoundments
85%
Land
Application
Units
8%
SOURCE: Reference 1.
4.1 LANDFILLS
This section first presents a profile of Subtitle D landfills. It then looks at the characteristics of
the by-products of landfills-namely, leachate and gas; landfill design and operation; and the
environmental and human health impacts of landfills.
4.1.1 GENERAL PROFILE
The Subtitle D census defined landfill as:
A part of an establishment at which waste is placed in or on land and which is
not a land application unit, a surface impoundment, an injection well, or a
compost pile.
4-2
-------
The census subdivided landfills into the following classes:
Municipal solid waste landfills primarily receive household refuse and nonhazardous
commercial waste. They may also receive a limited amount of other types of Subtitle D waste,
such as municipal sewage sludge and industrial wastes.
Industrial waste landfills receive nonhazardous waste from factories, processing plants, and
other manufacturing activities. These landfills may also receive hazardous wastes from very-
small-quantity generators (less than 100 kg/month).
Demolition debris landfills receive only construction or demolition debris.
Other landfills receive Subtitle D waste and do not fall into any of the above categories (for
example, they receive only municipal sewage sludge).
In general, the data quality for MSWLFs was rated as good by the respondents of the census.
Industrial waste estimates are thought to be underestimated to an unknown degree because some
States do not have permitting requirements for on-site industrial waste landfills. The data on
demolition debris landfills are also uncertain, but are probably more reliable than data for industrial
landfills. The following subsections present data on the numbers, ownership, acreage, waste
volumes, and capacity status of landfills.
Number of Landfills
Census results indicate that in 1984 there were 16,416 active Subtitle D landfill units located at
15,719 establishments across the United States. More than half of the landfills identified were
MSWLFs. For this study, an establishment with one or more landfill units is considered as having one
landfill unless otherwise specified (i.e., the word "units" appears in the discussion or in a table).
Table 4-2 portrays the number and relative share of the total for each of the four types of landfills as
determined by the State census and the MSWLF Survey. The survey estimated that there are
approximately 6,000 MSWLFs in the United States.
The survey estimate of 6,000 MSWLFs differs from the 9,300 MSWLFs counted in the Subtitle D
census. This discrepancy may be primarily attributed to inaccurate estimates by the States in the
census, in part due to the different definitions of landfills used by the States. To a lesser extent, the
census represents data collected in 1984, as compared with the MSWLF Survey, which includes 1986
4-3
-------
Table 4-2. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS BY TYPE OF FACILITY
Landfill Type
Municipal Solid Waste
Industrial Waste
Demolition Debris
Other
All Landfill Types
Number of Landfills
9,284
6, 584a
3,511b
2.59K
1,030
16,416
Percentage of Landfills
57
21
16
6
100
SOURCE: Reference 1, unless otherwise noted.
a Estimated number of landfill units from the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Survey (Reference 3)
b No estimate of industrial waste landfills was obtained for Massachusetts or
Michigan.
c No estimate of demolition debris landfills was obtained for Ohio.
data; thus the census may include a number of closed landfills. Although 6,000 is likely a more
accurate estimate, 9,300 will be used in this report for consistency with other results from the census.
The distribution of landfills among States and territories determined from the census data is
shown in Figure 4-2. West Virginia reported the largest number of Subtitle D landfills (1,209),
followed by Pennsylvania (1,204), Texas (1,201), Wisconsin (1,033), Alabama (800), Alaska (740), and
California (720).1
Table 4-3 presents results from the Industrial Facilities Survey of the numbers of Subtitle D
industrial landfills for seventeen major industries. These results indicate that there are 2,757 active
industrial landfills. The stone, clay, glass, and concrete industry accounts for nearly half of all the
landfills.
Ownership of Landfills
Ownership data were reported for 15,578 (95 percent) of the Subtitle D landfills identified in
the census. Just over half of these landfills are owned by local governments. A similar distribution of
4-4
-------
Figure 4-2. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS BY STATE
Q
^
'"3
25
Guam
North Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
7
1
75
3
SOURCE: Reference 1.
-------
Table 4-3. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LANDFILLS AND NUMBER
OF LANDFILL UNITS
Industry Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron
and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and
Resins Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and
Miscellaneous Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total a
Total Number
of Active
Subtitle D
Unitsb
385
1,124
515
1,528
373
1,281
7,247
1,548
880
8,029
974
1,249
392
723
298
944
164
27,654
Number of
Active Landfill
Units
17
201
31
155
32
120
1,257
259
111
194
121
61
77
63
21
28
9
2,757
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Landfills
13
177
30
126
28
81
1,153
180
90
189
69
41
36
56
19
25
9
2,321
Number of
Establishments
with Closed
Landfills
39
104
45
89
46
115
454
179
93
140
29
66
93
127
33
84
23
1,757
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because
of rounding.
t> These numbers correspond to the total universe of active Subtitle D units and include
landfills, surface impoundments, land application units, and waste piles.
4-6
-------
ownership of MSWLFs was determined by the MSWLF Survey. Table 4-4 presents the census and
survey results.
Federally owned or operated Subtitle D facilities have recently become the subject of
Congressional interest. Federal agencies that carry out solid waste disposal activities or allow other
entities to engage in such activities on their land are responsible for ensuring compliance with the
Federal criteria. (Federal agencies such as the Department of the Interior (DOI) often lease parcels of
land to local governments or other entities for use as landfills.) In addition to the criteria found in 40
CFR Part 257, Federal facilities must also comply with requirements under Part 241 - Guidelines for
the Land Disposal of Solid Wastes. These guidelines are recommended for non-Federal facilities.
The MSWLF Survey provided data on Federally-owned facilities. The survey results indicate
that there are 193 MSWLFs that are Federally owned (this number does not include landfills located
on Federal lands and operated by other entities). In general, the MSWLF Survey data indicate that
these Federal facilities are operated and designed very much like the universe of MSWLFs. Federal
facility data of interest are presented throughout this chapter.
~$
Table 4-4. NUMBER OF LANDFILLS BY OWNERSHIP CATEGORY
Landfill Type
Municipal
Sol id Waste
Industrial '
Waste
Demolition
Debris Only
Other
All Landfill
Types
Survey
Response
Rate
96%
97 %c
97%
91%
93%
95%
Ownership Category3
Owned by
State
Government
126
(1 4%)
49c
(08%)
17
(0 5%)
33
(1 4%)
89
(9 3%)
265
(1 7%)
Owned by
Local
Government
6,908
(77.9%)
3,343c,d
(57 1 %)
74
(2.2%)
1,190
(50.5%)
203
(21 3%)
8,375
(53 8%)
Owned by
Federal
Government
348
(3 9%)
193c
(3 3%)
126
(3 7%)
82
(3 5%)
60
(6.3%)
616
(4 0%)
Privately
Owned
1,482
(167%)
802c
(137%)
3,177
(93 6%)
1,050
(44 6%)
603
(63.1%)
6,312
(40 59/o)
Other
8
(0 1%)
1,465c
(25%)
2
(0 1%)
0
0
10
(0 1 %)
TotaN
8,872
(100%)
5,853c
(100%)
3,396
(100%)
2,355
(100%)
955
(100%)
15,578
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1, unless otherwise noted.
Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
Totals are for census data only unless otherwise specified.
Landfill estimates from Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey (Reference 3). The survey
identified a total of 6,034 landfills.
City- and county-owned landfills only.
4-7
-------
Acreage Covered by Landfills
Information on landfill acreage was supplied for 13,143 (80 percent) of the total Subtitle D
landfills counted in the census. As shown in Table 4-5, more than half of all landfills were less than
10 acres, and about 95 percent were 100 acres or less. The Industrial Facilities Survey also provided
acreage information. Nearly 75 percent of the establishments with landfills had landfills that were
less than 10 acres. The results are presented in Table 4-6.
Table 4-5. NUMBER OF LANDFILLS BY ACREAGE CATEGORY
Landfill
Type
Municipal Solid
Waste
Industrial Waste
Demolition
Debris Only
Other
All Landfill
Types
Survey
Response
Rate
75%
88%
84%
88%
80%
Acreage Category
Less than 10
2,944
(42.3%)
2,182
(70.7%)
1,327
(60 6%)
831
(92 1%)
7,284
(55 4%)
10to100
3,572
(51 3%)
834
(27 0%)
797
(36 4%)
70
(78%)
5,273
(40 1%)
More than
100
449
(64%)
72
(2 3%)
64
(2 9%)
1
(1 1%)
586
(5 0%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
Note: Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
Waste Volumes
Waste quantities were reported for 13,818 (84 percent) of the landfills identified in the census.
Some quantities were reported in terms of volume (cubic yards per year), and others were reported
in terms of weight (tons per day). Table 4-7 presents data on the amount of waste disposed of i n the
different types of landfills, as identified in the census. It indicates that most landfills (67 percent)
receive less than 30 tons of waste per day, or 30,000 cubic yards of waste per year. The MSWLF
Survey estimates that more than half (58 percent) of MSWLFs receive less than 10 thousand tons of
waste annually, or approximately 38 tons daily if 260 operating days/year are assumed.
The Industrial Facilities Survey estimates that of the total waste quantity disposed of in
industrial Subtitle D facilities, only 1.1 percent is disposed of in industrial landfills. The amount of
waste disposed of in landfills for each of the 17 industries surveyed is presented in Table 4-8.
4-8
-------
Table 4-6. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LANDFILLS BY TOTAL
AREA OF LANDFILLS IN EACH ESTABLISHMENT
Industry
Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron and
Steel
Fertilizer and
Agricultural Chem.
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass,
and Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary
Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and Misc.
Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chem. &
Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and
Leather Products
Total a
Number of Establishments by
Total Landfill Area (Acres)
Less than
5
2
49
21
17
18
29
788
20
54
120
14
20
11
43
6
7
8
1,227
5-10
7
61
2
18
5
17
177
35
9
6
1
12
1
5
4
2
0
363
11-50
1
45
4
30
5
28
132
100
21
58
54
8
13
5
8
8
1
520
51 -100
1
15
0
29
0
5
9
13
4
5
0
0
10
3
1
8
0
103
More
than
100
2
6
3
31
0
2
16
12
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
75
Total
Establishments
Per Industry
Type-*
13
176
30
126
28
81
1,122
180
90
189
69
41
36
56
19
25
9
2,289b
SOURCE: Reference 2:
a The totals presented are the correct totals. The table entries have been rounded,
and individual columns may not add to the specified total.
b Overall response rate for this table is 98.6 percent.
4-9
-------
Table 4-7. NUMBER OF LANDFILLS BY AMOUNT OF WASTE RECEIVED IN 1984
Waste Type
Municipal
Solid Waste
Industrial
Waste
Demolition
Waste
Other Waste
Survey
Response
Rate
85%
82%
83%
85%
Quantity of Waste Received
<30,000cuyds
(< 30 tons/day)
5,309
(67%)
2,289
(79%)
1,608
(75%)
790
(93%)
30,000-600,000
cu yds
(30-500
tons/day)
2,211
(28%)
523
(18%)
468
(22%)
51
(6%)
>600,000cuyds
(> 500 tons/day)
408
(5%)
72
(2.5%)
78
(3.6%)
11
(1.3%)
Total Landfills
Per Waste
Type3
7,925
(100%)
2,884
(100%)
2,154
(100%)
852
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages may not total 100 percent because of rounding.
Additional landfill waste quantity information from the Industrial Facilities Survey is presented in
Table 4-9, which shows the distribution of the same industrial establishments according to the daily
quantity of waste disposed of in their landfills during 1985. The survey results indicate that most (58
percent) of these landfills received less than 500 tons of waste in 1985
Current Capacity of Landfills
Information related to capacity status is available for both municipal and industrial waste
landfills. The census reported that in many States there are MSWLFs that are either reaching
capacity, at capacity, or beyond capacity. A few States and territories reported that they had no
landfill capacity problems. New sites for landfills were said to be difficult to obtain, highly opposed
by the public, and costly. The shortage of landfill capacity has created a solid waste crisis in many
States. Some States reported that incinerators and resource-recovery plants represent promising
future alternatives to landfills, but were not viable alternatives for solving immediate capacity
problems. Some States are considering recycling as an alternative. Appendix C contains specific
State and territory responses to the census question on capacity status.
Data on the expected year in which MSWLFs will be filled were provided by the MSWLF Survey.
Table 4-10 displays the estimated distribution of MSWLFs according to the date filled. The data
indicate that more than one-third of all MSWLFs will close in 5 years. Data on the design capacity of
MSWLFs were also provided from the MSWLF Survey and are presented in Table 4-11. The survey
4-10
-------
Table 4-8. WASTE QUANTITIES DISPOSED OF IN INDUSTRIAL LANDFILLS IN 1985
Industry Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron and
Steel
Fertilizer & Agri-
cultural Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass,
and Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Non-
ferrous Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and Misc.
Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chem. &
Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and
Leather Products
Total a
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Landfills
13
177
30
126
28
81
1,153
180
90
189
69
41
36
56
19
25
9
2,321
Waste Quantity
Disposed of in
Landfills
(Thousand Tons)
263
3,687
5,789
53,449
86
3,220
7,571
5,873
1,375
3,595
157
272
520
172
112
69
9
86,219
Total Waste
Quantity
Disposed of in
all Industrial
Subtitle D
Facilities
(Thousand Tons)
58,864
1,300,541
165,623
1,092,277
180,510
919,725
621,974
2,251,700
67,070
373,517
58,846
168,632
24,198
12,669
62,987
253,780
3,234
7,616,149
Percent of Total
Waste Disposed of
in Landfills
0.4
0.3
3.5
4.9
0.05
0.4
1.2
0.3
2.1
1.0
0.3
0.2
2.2
1.4
0.2
0.03
0.3
1.1
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals
because of rounding.
4-11
-------
Table 4-9. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LANDFILLS BY ANNUAL WASTE
QUANTITY DISPOSED OF IN THEM IN 1985
Industry
Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron and
Steel
Fertilizer & Agri-
cultural Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, &
Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and Misc.
Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chem. and
Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total a
Number of Establishments by
Annual Quantity of Waste Disposed of in Landfills in 1985
(thousand tons)
Less
than
0.5
2
69
25
23
18
30
873
26
32
127
33
21
2
37
6
12
8
1,344
0.5-5
4
55
2
13
6
31
129
14
35
22
33
9
22
8
6
6
0
396
5.1-20
4
29
0
6
2
10
85
83
7
T7
0
8
2
7
6
7
1
274
21-100
2
13
0
23
2
. 9
46
44
13
12
3
1
10
7
1
0
0
181
101-1,000
1
9
2
57
0
0
10
12
2
11
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
105
More
than
1,000
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
0
5
Total
Establishments
Per Industry
Typea
13
176
30
126
28
81
1,143
179
90
189
69
40
36
• 54
19
25
9
2.305b
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. Table entries may not add to their respective totals due to
rounding.
b Overall response rate for this table is 99.3 percent.
4-12
-------
Table 4-10. REMAINING LIFE OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
Remaining Years
(Closure year minus 1986)
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
All Years
Number of Landfills
535
2,167
612
1,126
360
1,234
6,034
Percentage of Landfills
8.9
35.9
10.1
18.7
6.0
204
100
SOURCE: References.
Table4-11. NUMBER OF MUNICIPALSOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS BY TOTAL
DESIGN CAPACITY
Design Capacity
(thousand tons)
Less Than 5,500
5,500- 11,000
12,000-22,000
23,000-44,000
More than 44,000
Unknown
Number of Landfill
Establishments
5,407
263
115
50
32
167
Percentage of Landfills
89.6
4.4
1.9
0.8
0.5
2.8
SOURCE: References.
4-13
-------
estimates that most M5WLF establishments (approximately 90 percent) were designed to receive
less than 5,500 thousand tons of waste.
Landfill capacity information from the Industrial Facilities Survey is presented in Tables 4-12
and 4-13. The survey data indicate a fairly even distribution of design capacity among on-site
industrial landfills, as shown in Table 4-12. Table 4-13 indicates that approximately 95 percent of the
total design capacity of industrial landfills used by the seventeen major industries surveyed remains.
Information on the ages of landfills was available for MSWLFsonly. The MSWLF Survey
indicates that very few MSWLFs have opened in the last 5 years and greater than half are more than
15 years old. The results are presented in Table 4-14. Data on the number of MSWLFs owned by the
Federal government are presented in Table 4-15. In general, the breakdown of Federally-owned
MSWLFs is proportional to that of the entire MSWLF population. The following approximate
numbers of new landfill and landfill expansion approvals by the States were reported from another
study:4 559 landfills and 139 expansions in 1981, 524 landfills and 151 expansions in 1982, and 416
landfills and 141 expansions in 1983. The number of expansion approvals has remained relatively
constant over this period, but approvals for new landfills have dropped almost 25 percent over the
same 3-year period. Considering that approximately one-third of the MSWLFs will close in 5 years,
this decrease in the number of new landfills may increase the capacity problem in some areas.
Waste Characteristics
Municipal solid waste and industrial waste are the major categories of waste that can be
found in Subtitle D landfills. Other waste types include agricultural waste, municipal sludge,
construction and demolition debris, incineration ash, small-quantity generator (SQG) hazardous
waste, infectious waste, and waste tires. Most of these wastes are in solid form, although municipal
and industrial sludges are common. Chapter 3 presents available data on the physical and chemical
characteristics of wastes in each of these categories.
Tables 4-16 and 4-17 present data from the MSWLF Survey on the types of waste in MSWLFs.
Table 4-16 presents the mean composition of various waste types. Survey results indicate that most
of the wastes in MSWLFs are generated by households and commercial establishments. Table 4-17
4-14
-------
Table4-12. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LANDFILLS BY LANDFILL
DESIGN CAPACITY PER ESTABLISHMENT
Industry
Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron and
Steel
Fertilizer & Agri-
cultural Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass,
and Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food & Kindred
Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and Misc.
Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chemicals
& Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and
Leather Products
Total a
Number of Establishments by Design Capacity
(thousand tons)
Less
than
0.5
1
3
19
6
8
1
177
0
9
91
24
2
0
31
0
1
0
373
0.5-5
0
24
1
5
2
12
234
1
13
33
3
5
0
1
1
2
3
342
5.1-20
2
51
4
5
8
20
176
17
26
4
28
8
0
2
4
0
3
358
21-100
5
25
2
12
4
18
127
47
8
18
7
9
2
10
5
5
0
304
101-1,000
4
49
0
21
7
20
162
79
20
39
4
6
11
5
4
2
1
433
More
than
1,000
1
11
3
74
0
3
71
26
3
1
1
1
11
2
1
0
0
209
Total
Establishments
Per Industry
Typea
13
163
29
124
28
74
947
169
79
186
66
32
25
53
15
10
7
2,020b
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals
because of rounding.
t> Overall response rate to this table is 87 percent.
4-15
-------
Table 4-13. DESIGN CAPACITY OF INDUSTRIAL LANDFILLS BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer & Agricultural Chem.
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins Manufac.
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Misc. Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chem. & Allied Prod.
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather Prod.
Total a
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Landfills
13
177
30
126
28
81
1,153
180
90
189
69
41
36
56
19
25
9
2,321
Total Design
Capacity
(Thousand Tons)
6,284
61,056
149,252
999,469
2,200
69,167
8,883,934
108,457
21,460
23,758
3,374
9,200
18,456
7,335
3,056
697
178
10,367,356
Remaining Design
Capacity
(Thousand Tons)
4,011
42,870
63,307
874,358
1,514
8,593
8,538,009
229,337
13,818
13,078
1,782
2,357
5,657
2,003
3,285
728
120
9,804,831
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because
of rounding.
Table 4-14. AGE OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS
(Number of Units)
Age of Facility
(as of 1986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
Unknown
Number of Landfills
563 (1,715)
1,036 (1,229)
1,583 (1,300)
963 (820)
434 (333)
357 (309)
988 (783)
110 (95)
Percentage of Landfill
Establishments (% of units)
9.5 (26.0)
17.5 (18.7)
26.7 (19.7)
16.3 (12.5)
7.2 (5.0)
5.9 (4.7)
16.4 (11.9)
1.8 (1.4)
SOURCE: References.
4-16
-------
Table 4-15. AGE OF FEDERALLY-OWNED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS
Age of Facility
(years as of 1986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
Total
Number of Federally-Owned
Landfills
6
32
49
39
67
193
Percentage of Federally-
Owned Landfill
Establishments
3.1
16.6
25.4
20.2
34.7
100
SOURCE: References.
presents data on the number of MSWLFs receiving selected types of industrial waste. The results
indicate that all of the industries listed send some of their waste streams to MSWLFs.
Table 4-18 presents results from the MSWLF Survey on the percentage of liquids in the waste
at MSWLFs. Survey results indicate that the great majority (more than 95 percent) of MSWLFs do not
accept liquid wastes. The Industrial Facilities Survey indicates that very few of the industrial
establishments surveyed receive off-site waste in their own on-site landfills. In addition, very few
industrial SQGs (less than 100 kg/month) dispose of their hazardous waste in their own on-site
Subtitle D landfills. These results are presented in Tables 4-19 and 4-20, respectively.
4.1.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF LEACHATE AND GAS FROM LANDFILLS
This subsection addresses the by-products of landfills -- namely, leachate and gas. The data
presented are for MSWLFs only; information for other types of landfills was unavailable.
Leachate
Leachate composition and volume generation depend on many variables, including those
inherent in the refuse mass and landfill location and those created by engineers and site operators.
The availability of water, surface conditions, underlying soil conditions, landfill age or degree of
stabilization, and refuse composition, condition, and depth all affect leachate composition and
volume.5
Leachate data from 70 MSWLFs are presented in Tables 4-21 through 4-24. Fifty-three of these
sites were analyzed for organic constituents and 62 of these sites were analyzed for inorganic
constituents and selected parameters. The data have several limitations. Unknown variables include
sampling and handling procedures, analytical methods, the list of constituents for which samples
4-17
-------
Table4-16. WASTE COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS
Waste Type
Household Waste
Commercial Waste
SQG Hazardous Waste
Asbestos-Containing Waste
Construction/Demolition Waste
Industrial Process Waste
Infectious Waste
Municipal Incinerator Ash
Other Incinerator Ash
Sewage Sludge
Other Waste
Waste Composition Percentage
(Mean Value)
71.98
17.19
0.08
0.16
5.83
2.73
0.05
0.08
0.22
0.50
1.18
SOURCE: References.
Table 4-17. MUNICIPALSOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS ACCEPTING INDUSTRIAL WASTE
Industrial Waste Type
Electric Power Generation
Fertilizer/Agricultural Chemicals
Food and Related Products and By-products
Inorganic Chemicals
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Leather and Leather Products
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing/Foundries
Organic Chemicals
Petroleum Refining Industry
Plastics and Resins Manufacturing
Pulp and Paper Industry
Rubber and Misc. Plastic Products
Stone, Glass, Clay, and Concrete Products
Textile Manufacturing
Transportation Equipment
Water Treatment
Other
Number of Landfills Receiving This
Waste Type
748
740
722
750
719
732
725
750
• 740
727
738
714
714
743
733
738
746
SOURCE: References.
4-18
-------
Table 4-18. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS
PERCENTAGE OF LIQUIDS IN WASTE
BY
Percentage of
Liquids in Waste
0.1 -0.5
0.6-1
1.1 -2
2.1 -5
5.1 -10
10.1-20
20.1 -40
40.1-50
50.1-100
Number of Landfills by Liquid Category
Bulk Liquids
58
50
55
81
7
13
No data
2
20
Drummed/
Containerized Liquids
41
104
26
2
7
No data
No data
2
No data
Drummed/Containerized
Other Waste Forms
52
106
20
21
13
8
No data
No data
13
SOURCE: References.
Table 4-19. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LANDFILLS RECEIVING OFF-SITE
WASTE AND OFF-SITE HOUSEHOLD WASTE BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer & Agricultural Chem.
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins Manufac.
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Misc. Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chem. & Allied Prod.
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather Products
Totala.b
Number of
Establishments with
Active Landfills
13
177
30
126
28
81
1,153
180
90
189-
69
41
36
56
19
25
9
2,321
Number of
Establishments
Accepting Off -Site
Waste
4
25
3
10
1
4
76
19
7
1
7
6
2
0
1
1
0
168
Number of
Establishments
Accepting Off-Site
Household Waste
0
21
2
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
32
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because of
rounding.
b Overall response rate for this table is 91.4 percent.
4-19
-------
Table 4-20. NUMBER OF SMALL-QUANTITY-GENERATOR INDUSTRIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS THAT DISPOSE OF THEIR
SMALL-QUANTITY-GENERATOR WASTE IN
THEIR LANDFILLS BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron
and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and
Resins Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation '
Equipment
Selected Chemicals
and Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Totals
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Landfills
13
177
30
126
28
81
1,153
180
90
189
69
41
36
56
19
25
9
2.321
Number of SQG
Establishments
with Landfills
0
59
3
73
10
16
373
60
38
61
29
5
10
5
0
12
3
757
Number of SQG
Estabs. Disposing
of SQG Waste In
Their Landfills
0
14
1
1
0
0 •
26
6
10
1
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
69
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective
totals because of rounding.
4-20
-------
were analyzed, and landfill conditions. For some of the landfills, the age, location, design, refuse
depth, and type of waste accepted are unknown. Finally, the data are from a relatively small number
of facilities which may not be representative of all MSWLFs. Despite these limitations, the data
presented may be used to formulate general observations.
Table 4-21 provides the current limited organic leachate data and Table 4-22 presents
inorganic data as well as other leachate parameters. In general, these tables highlight the wide
variability both in the constituents identified and their concentration ranges. Please note that every
constituent was not analyzed for at every site. As mentioned above, the list of constituents for which
samples were analyzed was unknown for several sites.
In order to provide some reference point for the risks associated with these leachate
constituents, the leachate data were compared to EPA drinking water and/or human health criteria
or EPA water quality criteria. These values are presented in Tables 4-21 and 4-22. In general, if an
EPA drinking water standard (i.e., a maximum contaminant level - MCL) was available, that level was
used. If an MCL was not available, an Agency-approved health-based level was used. For systemic
toxicants, verified reference doses have been established and for carcinogens risk-specific doses have
been developed. If a constituent is considered to act both as a carcinogen and a systemic toxicant,
the lower value was used. Finally, if neither a standard nor a health-based level was available, EPA's
water quality criteria were used. For some constituents, no values were available.
This analysis is very conservative because in all but the most extreme circumstances, MSWLF
leachateswill become diluted in ground water. However, in a number of cases the median
concentrations would need to be diluted more than 1,000 times to reach the appropriate level.
Therefore, there are some constituents that may be of potential concern.
Tables 4-23 and 4-24 present a breakdown of MSWLF organic and inorganic parameter
constituents, respectively, according to the age at which the MSWLF began operation. The selection
of pre-and post-1980 for comparison is thought to help distinguish between MSWLFs which
accepted Subtitle C wastes from those which allegedly never accepted large-quantity-generator
hazardous wastes. In addition, post-1980 MSWLFs began operation afterthe current Subtitle D
criteria became effective. Only those constituents for which pre- and post-1980 data were available
are presented. The available data do not indicate any trend. Median concentrations for post-1980
landfills are higher than those for pre-1980 landfills for approximately 50 percent of the constituents
for which data were available for both.
4-21
-------
Table 4-21. PRELIMINARY DATA ON CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
IN LEACHATE FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
Compound
Acetone
Acrolein
Benzene
Bromomethane
Butanol
1-Butanol
Butyl benzylphenol
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Bis-(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Bis-(Chloromethyl) ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
p-Cresol
2,4-D
4,4-DDT
Dibromomethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
Diethyl phthalate
2, 4-Di methyl phenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
Endrin
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
Number of Sites
at Which
Constituent was
Detected
12
1
18
1
1
2
2
2
8
7
2
1
8
3
1
1
5
5
5
1
5
8
5
20
6
2
21
9
2
12
2
2
5
3
1
2
Concentration
Range
(ppb)
8-11,000
270-270
4-1,080
170-170
1,000-1,000
320-360
21 -150
6-398
1-685
1 1 - 860
18-25
2-1,100
27-31
170-400
250-250
46-46
45-5,100
7-220
0.042-0.22
5-5
3-22
1 -52
10-450
4 - 44,000
1 -11,000
190-470
2-4,800
0.03-500
18-30
3-330
10-28
30-55
12-150
0.04-50
2,300-2,300
42-130
Median
Concentration
(Ppb)
430
270
37
170
1,000
340
125
202
7
28
22
551
29
175
250
46
2,305
130
0.105
5
12
7
274
165
10
330
92
9
124
83
19
43
49
0.25
2,300
86
1
Promulgated
Standards
or Criteria
(ppb)
4,OOQa
21b
5<
10a
5=
1,000a
5.9d
0.0037d
2,OOQa
40Qa
0.1d
3,000a
75c
7,000a
0.58d
5c
5,700b
0.1 9d
460,000a
2,120b
313,000b
400a
0.2c
4-22
-------
Table 4-21. (continued)
Compound
Ethyl benzene
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2-Hexanone
Isophorone
Lindane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1-Propanol
2-Propanol
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran-
Toluene
Toxaphene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl chloride
m-Xylene
Xylenes
Number of Sites
at Which
Constituent was
Detected
25
8
6
6
1
13
7
32
13
3
1
2
21
1
4
1
11
6
32
1
13
3
17
9
1
6
7
6
Concentration
Range
(ppb)
6 - 4,900
16-750
6-690
4-16,000
0.017-0.023
110-27,000
10-710
2-220,000
2-202
4-120
17-17
3-470
7-28,800
11,000-11,000
94-26,000
210-210
2-620
18-1,300
6-18,000
1-1
1-13,000
30-630
1-1,300
4-150
230-230
8-61
10-171
32-310
Median
Concentration
(ppb)
58.5
80
88
76
0.020
1,550
270
440
12
40
17
45
378
11,000
8,450
210
55
260
413
1
86
426
43
34
230
40
68
71
Promulgated
Standards or
Criteria
(ppb)
4,OOQa
70a
5,200t>
4c
2,000a
2,000a
4.8d
620b
20a
150b
1,000^
1,000a
1.7d*
6.7d*
10,000a
5c
200<
6.3^*
5c
10,000a
7,000a
2c
70,000a
SOURCE:
Reference 5
Reference 7
Reference 8
Reference 9
Reference 10
Reference 11
Reference 12
Reference 13
Reference 14
Reference 15
Reference 16
Reference 17
Reference 18
a Concentration based on U.S. EPA verified reference dose for systemic toxicants and the
assumption of a 70-kg adult consuming 2 I iters of water per day.
t> EPA water quality criteria.
c Maximum contaminant level, EPA's drinking water standard.
d Constituent is considered a carcinogen by the oral route. Concentration is based on a unit
risk of 10-6 except where noted.
* Concentration based on a 10-5 risk level (this is a class C carci nogen).
NOTE: The EPA is presently evaluating these data in a separate report titled Summary of Data on
Municipal Solid Waste LandfiirLeachate Characteristics. This report is being prepared by
NUSCorp. under contract 68-01-7310 as a background document for the work
assignment "Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills."
4-23
-------
Table4-22. RANGE OF VARIOUS INORGANIC CONSTITUENT AND
PARAMETER CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE
FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
Compound
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Ammonia
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Biological Oxygen Demand
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Chromium (Total)
Cobalt
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Copper
Cyanide
Eh (millivolts)
Fluoride
Hardness
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Number of
Sites at Which
Constituent
was Detected
29
7
44
9
36
36
6
33
8
31
19
52
52
43
2
55
33
13
6
18
26
55
45
18
43
16
37
Concentration
Range
(ppm)
470-57,850
0.01 -5.8
0.39-1,200
0.0015-47
0.0002-0.982
0.11-5
0.001 -0.01
7-29,200
0.63-12
0.007-0.15
96-2,100
42-50,450
31-5,475
0.0005-1.9
0.04-0.13
300 - 36,000
0.003-2.8
0.004-0.02
383-804
0.11-302
0.8-9,380
0.22-2,280
0.005-1.6
74-927
0.03-79
0.0001 -0.01
0.02-2.2
Median
Concentration
(ppm)
2,650
2.4
209
0.066
0.0135
0.58
0.005
2,310'
4
0.0135
320
2,800
594
0.06
0.08
5,600
0.054
0.03
481
0.39
1,665
95
0.063
136
3.7
0.0006
0.17
Promulgated
Standards or
Criteria
(ppm)
0.01a
O.OSb
1.0b
0.2a
0.01b
O.OSb
0.012a
0.7a
1,000=
O.OSb
O.OSc
0.002b
0.5a
4-24
-------
Table 4-22. (continued)
Compound
Nitrate
Nitrite
Nitrogen (Kjeldahl)
Nitrogen (Organic)
Nitrogen (Total)
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Temperature (°C)
Thallium
Tin
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
(Nonpurgeable)
Total Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Vanadium
Zinc
pH (standard units)
Number of
Sites at Which
Constituent
was Detected
31
8
21
9
1
4
14
19
17
17
37
39
6
11
3
28
33
8
32
6
50
59
Concentration
Range
(ppm)
0.01 -51
0.005-0.2
34-1,470
4-100
505-505
0.42-7
0.29-117
18-1,175
0.0008-0.05
0.0008-0.035
12-2,574
8-1,400
5-25
0.004-0.86
0.16-2.0
390-31,800
20-14,500
1,900-33,050
23-17,800
0.009-0.029
0.03-350
5.4-12.5
Median
Concentration
(ppm)
0.22
0.03
270
50
505
1.2
1.4
382
0.02
0.012
693
111
11
0.08
0.23
4,890
1,000
10,658
276
0.08
0.68
6.69
Promulgated
Standards or
Criteria
(ppm)
10<:
0.01b
O.OSb
0.01a
20c
0.110c
6.5-9<
Reference 5
Reference 7
Reference 8
Reference 9
Reference 10
Reference 1 1
Reference 12
Reference 13
Reference 14
Reference 1 5
Reference 16
Reference 17
Reference 18
Reference 19
SOURCE:
a Concentration based on U .S. EPA verified reference dose from systemic toxicants and the
assumption of a 70-kg adult consuming a liter of water per day.
b Maximum contaminant level, EPA's drinking water standard.
c EPA's water quality criteria.
NOTE: The EPA is presently evaluating these data in a separate report titled Summary of Data
on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate Characteristics. This report is being
prepared by NUS Corp. under contract 68-01-7310 as a background document for the
work assignment "Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills."
4-25
-------
Table 4-23. PRELIMINARY DATA ON CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN LEACHATE FROM
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS ACCORDING TO LANDFILL OPERATIONS START DATE
Compound
Acetone
Chloromethane
p-Cresol
4,4-DDT
1,1-Dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Diethyl Phthalate
2-Hexanone
Isophorone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Toluene
Data from Landfills that Started
Operation Prior to 1980
Number
of Sites
at Which
Constit-
uent Was
Detected
2
1
2
1
12
13
9
1
5
7
15
12
16
Concentration
Range
(ppb)
170-390
170
45-78
0.042
4-6,300
7-3,130
3-330
6-12
4-16,000
195-2,800
2-57,000
7-15,800
6-13,300
Median
Concentration
(ppb)
320
170
54
0.056
220
168
92
9
91
430
1,100
258
420
Data from Landfills that Started
Operation After 1980
Number
of Sites
at Which
Constit-
uent Was
Detected
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
4
2
3
Concentration
Range
(ppb)
8-4,600
400-400
4,400-4,500
0.042-0.22
4-4
6-677
32-32
39-690
25-25
1,300-12,000
6-690
378-2,100
83-1,100
Median
Concentration
(ppb)
4,000
400
4,450
0.11
4
14
32
360
25
9,900
120
1,700
590
SOURCE:
NOTE:
Reference 5
Reference 7
Reference 8
Reference 9
Reference 10
Reference 11
Reference 12
Reference 13
Reference 14
Reference 15
Reference 16
Reference 17
Reference 18
The EPA is presently evaluating these data in a separate report titled Summary of Data on
Municipal Solid Waste LandfiirLeachate Characteristics. This report is being prepared by NUS Corp
under contract 68-01-7310 as a background document for the work assignment Criteria for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills."
4-26
-------
Table 4-24. RANGE OF VARIOUS INORGANIC CONSTITUENT AND PARAMETER CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE
FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS ACCORDING TO LANDFILL OPERATIONS START DATE
Compound
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Biological Oxygen Demand
Cadmium
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Chromium (Total)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Copper
Eh (millivolts)
Fluoride
Hardness
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Data from Landfills that Started
Operation Prior to 1980
Number
of Sites
at Which
Constit-
uent Was
Detected
17
6
21
24
22
20
15
11
29
28
28
32
18
3
9
17
31
24
10
26
21
Concentration
Range
(ppm)
960- 57,850
0.01-6
1.6-1,100
0.0002-0.982
0.11-5
64-29,200
0.002-0.15
146-2,100
266-50,450
31-2,651
0.002-1.9
300-36,000
0.02-2.8
411-804
0.11-1.1
670-9,380
2.1-2,280
0.031-1.6
74-780
0.03-79
0.02-2.2
Median
Concentration
(ppm)
2,650
3.3
215
0.015
0.58
2,600
0.018
284
2,817
550
0.06
5,450
0.059
486
0.28
1,550
93
0.072
138
3.26
0.16
Data from Landfills that Started
Operation After 1980
Number
of Sites
at Which
Constit-
uent Was
Detected
1
1
4
4
4
3
• 5
2
5
4
6
4
3
, 1
2
1
4
5
2
4
4
Concentration
Range
(ppm)
3,800-4,200
2.2-3.4
0.39-810
0.003-0.04
0.08-1.7
13-5,980
0.003-0.02
657- 1,060
42-16,000
43-2,056
0.006-0.37
1,750-28,125
0.02-0.07
481 -481
0.38-1.8
2,800-3,000
2.6-695
0.007-0.15
275-424
1 -50
0.05-1.6
Median
Concentration
(ppm)
3,900
2.6
299
0.011
1.0
185
0.0065
747
4,300
820
0.08
8,800
0.031
481
0.4
2,900
230
0.046
412
12
0.185
4-27
-------
Table 4-24. (continued)
Compound
Nitrate
Nitrite
Nitrogen (Kjeldahl)
Nitrogen (Organic)
Phosphorus
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Temperature (
-------
Comparison of the pre-and post-1980 data has severe limitations. First, the previously
discussed data limitations have more pronounced effects due to a smaller sample size. As mentioned
above, for many of the landfills, the age was unknown. Consequently, for the pre- and post-1980
comparison, organic data were available for only 15 MSWLFs (10 pre- and 5 post-1980), and
inorganic/ parameter data were available for only 20 MSWLFs (16 pre- and 4 post-1980). Second,
examining the effect of the hazardous waste restriction is made difficult by the fact that some
landfills may still be accepting hazardous waste illegally. Finally, leachate composition is affected by
many variables, including time. Because leachate characteristics change over time, a comparison of
the current post-1980 leachate data, which include leachates from landfills that are no more than 7
years old, with leachates from landfills that may be 40 years old may not reliably indicate changes in
leachate composition. The Agency is currently initiating additional field sampling which will focus
on post-1980 landfills to supplement the data base.
Although relatively high densities of microorganisms have been found in MSW, a review of
the literature19 indicated that few microorganisms can survive in the leachate environment.
Therefore, few microbes are transported away from the MSWLF after the solid waste has been m
place a few months.
Two studies performed for the American Foundrymen's Society examined leachate
characteristics at 14 ferrous foundry waste monofills.20.21 The primary environmental impacts
identified in the studies were the presence of cadmium, chromium, and lead in trace concentrations
which were occasionally found in monofill leachate. Ground water at one facility was found to be
contaminated with barium and mercury at concentrations exceeding the EPA primary drinking water
standards. The EPA has not determined that the facilities examined in these studies are
representative of ferrous foundry waste monofills in general.
Gas
Gas is produced in MSWLFs through bacterial decomposition of organic matter. The type of
organics, rate of reaction, and completeness of the reaction are controlled by local site conditions,
such as pH, temperature, moisture, and oxygen content (both gaseous and chemically available),
which affect the bacterial population. Methane is produced within a landfill after the gas in the
voids changes from aerobic to anaerobic and the chemically available oxygen in the refuse is
consumed.
4-29
-------
One of the potential benefits derived from landfill gas is that, because of its high methane
content, it may be used as a fuel with applications similar to those of commercial natural gas. As the
landfill gas is withdrawn from the landfill and cooled (naturally or artificially), landfill gas
condensate is produced. In a recent limited study22 conducted for EPA, condensate from four
landfills was analyzed. The condensate is a two-phase liquid containing an aqueous phase and an
organic phase. Condensate quality varied from site to site. Forty-nine priority pollutant compounds
were identified in the condensate; 11 were detected in the organic phase at levels that exceed
proposed regulatory limits.
Municipal solid waste landfill gas has been found to consist of about 50 percent methane and
40 to 50 percent carbon dioxide, plus 0.5 to 1 percent of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other trace
gases.23 Table 4-25 presents data that support this statement. Typical trace components found in
MSWLF gases are described in Table 4-26.24 Only one compound (vinyl chloride) has a median
concentration that exceeds Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible
exposure levels. Other compounds whose concentration range has exceeded these exposure levels in
some samples are benzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, and xylene. No information was found for
other landfill types. (The OSHA permissible exposure level is used for comparison only and
represents the maximum safe level allowed in a workplace where long-term exposure exceeds eight
hours per day or 40 hours per week.)
The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) discussed above are air contaminants not only because
they represent human health risks, but also because they can lead to the formation of ozone, a
priority air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Total nationwide emissions of nonmethane organics
are estimated to be in the range of 200,000.to 300,000 megagrams per year for active MSWLFs.
4.1.3 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF LANDFILLS
The following discussion of design and operating characteristics of Subtitle D landfills presents
statistics under the topics of landfill design, landfill operation and maintenance, and environmental
monitoring.
4-30
-------
Table 4-25. TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF GAS FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
Component
Methane
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Paraffin hydrocarbons
Aromatic and cyclic hydrocarbons
Hydrogen
Hydrogen sulfide
Carbon monoxide
Trace compounds3
Component Percentage (dry-volume basis)
Study 1
44.0
34.2
20.8
1.0
~
-
--
0.4-0.9
—
-
Study 2
47.5
47.0
3.7
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.5
Study 3
50.0
35.0
13.0
1.7
-
-
0.3
-
-
~
Study 4
53.4
34.3
6.2
0.05
0.17
~
0.005
0.005
0.005
-
SOURCE: Reference 23.
a Includes sulfur dioxide, toluene, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and carbonyl
sulfide in concentrations S 50 ppm.
Table 4-26. TYPICAL TRACE CONSTITUENTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL GAS
Compound
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Heptane
Hexane
Isopentane
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
Methylene chloride
Nonane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
m-Xylene
o-Xvlene
Number
of Sites
Sampled
13
11
4
8
5
6
6
10
6
13
16
11
12
10
5
4
7
Number
of
Samples
21
14
6
9
7
7
7
17
8
19
26
18
19
16
6
9
9
Range of
Concentration
(Vppm)
0-12
0-91
0-11
0-31
0.05-4.5
0.017-19
0-12
0- 118
0-24
0-186
0-357
0-2.4
0-44
0- 10
0-111
1.7-76
0-19
Median
Concentration
(Vppm)
0.3
1.5
0.45
0.8
2.0
3.6
2.8
0.83
0.54
0.03
6.8
0.03
0.12
2.2
0.1
4.1
1.8
Standard
Deviation
(Vppm)
3.0
24
5.2
11
1.5
8.8
4.4
30
8.2
44
82
0.6
10
3.7
48
28
7.7
PELa
(Vppm)
10
100
500
500
-
500
~
500
400
100
100
350
100
1
100
100
100
SOURCE: Reference 24.
a PEL = Permissible exposure level prescribed by OSHA for workplace exposure. OSHA has
proposed revising the PEL for benzene to 1 Vppm (Volume parts per million).
— = No PEL set.
_ = Exceeds OSHA limit (PEL).
4-31
-------
Landfill Design
This subsection outlines the major environmental protection elements in landfill design and
presents available statistics on the frequency of their use. These elements are liners, leachate
collection/removal systems, run-on/run-off controls, methane gas controls/recovery systems, cover
and closure characteristics, and location factors.
Liners
The purpose of a liner is to limit migration of pollutants from the landfill into the ground
water. A liner may be composed of soil or synthetic materials. Soil liners are typically compacted
clays. Synthetic liners include a variety of low-permeability materials.
Soil Liners -- In-place soils are used to the maximum extent possible as liner material to save
the costs of purchasing and hauling soils to the site. If appropriate clay soil does not exist, or exists
only-on a part of the site or at certain depths, imported clays or chemical additions are used. Many
types of clays or mixes of clays (montmorillonite, kaolinite, illite, bentonite) are used, as well as
artificial soil amendments. With proper quality control and construction techniques, clay liners can
achieve permeabilities of approximately 1O7centimeter per second.25
Synthetic Liners- These types of liners are used when soil permeability is not adequate or
economically attainable to prevent pollutant migration, or when required by regulations. These
liners include asphalt and portland cement compositions, soil sealants, sprayed liquid rubbers, and
synthetic polymeric (or flexible) membranes. Synthetic polymeric and asphaltic materials are the
most common membrane liners used for landfills.26 Using the best present construction and
placement technologies, facilities can achieve permeabilities on the order of 10-10 centimeter per
second.25 Certain landfill waste and leachate can damage membrane liners. Damaging
characteristics include high or low pH, oily waste, exchangeable ions, and organic compounds.
Tables 4-27, 4-28 and 4-29 present data on landfill liner status. Table 4-27 presents Subtitle D
census data and shows that very few of the active landfills use any liners. Of those that do, most use
natural liners. Municipal solid waste landfills tend to be the predominant landfill type to employ
natural liners. Table 4-28 presents results from the MSWLF Survey on the distribution of MSWLF units
using various liner technologies according to the age of the landfill. The data indicate that the use
of synthetic liners has increased slightly in the last ten years. Table 4-29 presents results from the
4-32
-------
Table 4-27. NUMBERS OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILL UNITS USING VARIOUS TYPES OF RELEASE PREVENTION METHODS
Management Method
Synthetic Liners
Natural Linersd
(e.g., clay), including slurry walls
Leachate Collection Systems
Run-on/Run-off Controls
Methane Controls (vents, recovery)
Leachate Treatment* (except
leachate recirculation)
Leachate Recirculation
Restrictions on Receipt of Liquid
Wastes (e.g., bulk liquid restrictions)
Number of Units by Facility Type3
Municipal Solid
Waste
Census
71
(0 8%)
1,353
(146%)
481
(5%)
4,240
(45 7%)
1,539
(166%)
245
(2.6%)
205
(2.2%)
4,436
(47 8%)
Municipal
Surveyb
73
(1 1%)
1,806d
(27 4%)
746
(11 3%)
4,016t>
(61 0%)
123e
(1 9%)
No Data
2283
(3 5%)
No Data
Industrial
Waste
45
(1 3%)
392
(11 2%)
112
(3 2%)
1,150
(32 8%)
98
(2 8%)
69
(2 0%)
27
(0 8%)
1,200
(34 2%)
Demolition
Debris Only
1
(<0.1%)
117
(4 5%)
3
(0 1%)
685
(26 4%)
107
(4.1%)
1
«0 1%)
0
818
(31 6%)
Other
2
(0.2%)
5
(0 5%)
6
(0 6%)
78
(7 6%)
3
(0 3%)
2
(0.2%)
0
128
(124%)
Total Units
Per
Management
Method*:
119
(0 7%)
1,867
(11.4%)
602
(3 7%)
6,153
(37 5%)
1,747
(10.6%)
317
(1 9%)
232
(1.4%)
6,582
(401%)
Source: Reference 1.
a Percentages are relative to approximately 9,300 (for census data) or 6,600 (for survey data).
b Estimate from Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey. (References)
c Total is for census estimates only.
d Only in-situ clay liners are identified for this entry See table 4-28 for more detail on facilities natural liners as identified by the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey.
e Survey results estimate only the number of recovery systems.
-------
Table 4-28. NUMBER OF ACTIVE AND PLANNED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL UNITS
BY TYPE OF LINER AND AGE OF DISPOSAL UNIT
Age of Unit
(years as of 1986)
Planned Units
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
Greater than 20
Unknown Age
Number of Units by Liner Type
Natural Liners
Soil
523
372
151
289
174
362
15
Clay
1,015
597
412
328
161
263
45
Re-Compacted
Clay
673
473
230
256
102
140
13
Synthetic Liners
(e.g., membrane,
asphalt)
201
42
13
10
13
3
3
Other Liners
271
122
141
59
28
80
8
No Liners
or
Unknown
1,163
429
425
495
409
796
26
SOURCE: References.
Table 4-29. NUMBER OF ACTIVE FEDERALLY-OWNED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL UNITS BY
TYPE OF LINER AND AGE OF DISPOSAL UNIT
Age of Unit
(years as of 1986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
Greater than 20
Number of Federally-Owned Units by Liner Type
Natural Liners
Soil
19
26
2
0
13
Clay
26
19
15
6
6
Re-Compacted
Clay
13
0
6
0
0
Synthetic Liners
(e.g., membrane,
asphalt)
0
0
0
0
0
Other Liners
0
13
6
0
0
No Liners
or
Unknown
21
19
13
13
15
SOURCE: References.
-------
MSWLF Survey on Federally-owned MSWLF units using various liner technologies according to the
age of the landfill. Table 4-29 illustrates a slight increase in the use of liners over the past 20 years at
Federally-owned MSWLFs.
Leachate Controls/Removal Systems
These systems refer to the control and collection, composition control, treatment, and
recirculation systems of leachate.
Leachate Control and Collection -- Control and collection techniques have been well
established. They include drains, wells, liners, slurry trenches, cut-off walls, grading (run on), and
surface sealing. As noted in Table 4-27, the census indicated that 490 of all MSWLF units have
leachate collection systems and the MSWLF Survey indicates that approximately 11 % have a
collection system. . •
The MSWLF Survey provided information on the number of MSWLF units using various
leachate collection technologies and management practices. Table 4-30 presents the number of
MSWLF units using various leachate collection technologies and the total number that employ any
system according to unit age. The survey indicates that sumps and drainage tile/pipe are the most
predominantly used leachate collection technologies. Table 4-31 presents the number of closed,
active, and planned landfill units using various leachate management practices. Recirculating by
spraying and trucking to publicly owned treatment works (POTW) is the most common management
method.
Leachate Composition Control -- Composition can be controlled through design and operating
features and by addition of selected sorbents into the fill. Landfill design and operating features
that are significant to leachate composition are the chemical and physical characteristics of waste
placed in the landfills, including particle size (shredding) and density (compaction and baling); rate
of water application; landfill depth or lift height; and landfill temperature (which can be regulated
to some extent through cover material, refuse density, and lift height).27
Leachate Treatment Processes -- Leachate can be treated by existing wastewater plants, or by
processes specifically designed for landfill leachate. Available technologies include
aerobic/anaerobic biological processes, and physical/chemical processes. The census results
presented in Table 4-27 indicate that approximately 2 percent of the Subtitle D landfills use leachate
treatment other than leachate recirculation. Most of these are MSWLFs. The census and the MSWLF
4-35
-------
Table 4-30. NUMBER OF ACTIVE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL UNITS BY TYPE OF LEACHATE
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND AGE OF UNIT
Age of Unit
(years as of
1986)
Less
than 5
5-10
11 - 15
16-20
More than 20
Unknown
Age
Total
Sand
Drainage
Layer
82
18
26
15
3
10
154
Gravel
Layer
64
19
11
8
29
2
133
Filter
Fabric
Layer
21
11
7
8
10
3
60
Plastic
Drainage
Net
7
2
0
0
8
0
17
Sumps
102
49
28
16
31
13
239
Drainage
Tiie/Pipe
198
60
68
24
52
11
413
Interceptor
Trenches
115
58
75
34
44
10
336
Other
Types
29
32
23
3
34
0
121
Number of
Units
with a
Collection
System3
306
134
146
55
92
13
746
SOURCE: References.
a Please note, this is not a total column. Many units employ more than one system. This is the number of units that have any type of
leachate collection system.
-------
Table4-31. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLIDWASTE LANDFILL UNITS BY TYPE OF
LEACHATE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE AND OPERATING STATUS
Type of Leachate Management Practice3
Recirculate by Spraying
Recirculate by Injection
Recirculate by Other Means
Land Spreading
Truck to POTW
Discharge to Sewer to POTW
Discharge to Surface Water
Other or Unknown Off-Site Treatment
On-Site Biological Treatment
On-Site Chemical/Physical Treatment
Number of Landfills
Closed
40
10
11
15
48
53
28
5
41
34
Active
158
36
34
84
76
118
81
21
102
61
Planned
185
16
22
60
245
135
26
23
108
60
SOURCE: References.
a Some facilities have more than one leachate management practice.
Survey indicate that approximately 3 and 10 percent, respectively, of the MSWLFs use treatment
processes other than recirculation.
Leachate Recirculation Systems- A full-scale leachate recycle study performed at the
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, MSWLF 28 concluded that leachate recycle systems result in more
rapid decomposition of organic waste, and enhanced methane production, and increase the
stabilization rate. Other factors found to affect decomposition rates and methane production were
landfill age, type of soils employed as cover materials, moisture content of the waste, and climate.
While recirculation has certain benefits, there are drawbacks to using it as a treatment
method. Reintroducing leachate into a landfill will result in an increased leachate production rate.
The increased volume of leachate may clog the leachate collection system and present an increased
threat to ground water. Subtitle D census results presented in Table 4-27 show that approximately
1.4 percent of all landfills use this treatment process, and MSWLFs comprise the largest user
category. According to the census and the MSWLF Survey, approximately 3 percent of the MSWLFs
used recirculation systems.
Run-on/Run-off Controls
Run-on/run-off controls are important to landfill pollution control, since run-on contributes to
leachate generation and can cause harmful compounds to be swept out of the landfills. Subtitle D
census results presented in Table 4-27 show that approximately 37 percent of all landfills employ
4-37
-------
these controls, and MSWLFs comprise the largest user category. The census estimated that roughly
46 percent of MSWLFs used run-on/run-off controls while the MSWLF Survey estimated that 61
percent used these controls. This discrepancy is most likely due to inaccurate reporting by the States.
Tables 4-32 and 4-33 present results from the MSWLF Survey on the number of MSWLFs using
various run-on/run-off control technologies. Table 4-32 presents data on planned and active
MSWLFs, and Table 4-33 presents data on closed MSWLFs. The results indicate that the use of
diversion bermsand ditches has increased over the past 15 years.
Methane Gas Controls/Recovery Systems
Many factors determine the feasibility of a methane gas recovery system at a landfill. Since
the gas generation process depends on several environmental variables, it is difficult to predict the
exact production rate, volume, and composition of the gas. Nevertheless, different kinds of
collection systems have been designed, depending on whether the purpose of collection is migration
control and/or recovery.
Table 4-27 presents census data on landfills using methane controls. About 11 percent of all
landfills employ these controls, and most of these facilities are MSWLFs. This reflects the fact that
MSWLFs generally produce significant quantities of methane (see discussion of leachate and gas
characteristics), while other landfills generally do not. Table 4-34 presents the results from the
MSWLF Survey on the distribution of MSWLFs using methane gas recovery systems according to the
age of the landfill. The results indicate that only a small number (less than 2 percent) of MSWLFs are
attempting to recover methane emissions. Most of the methane monitoring and recovery systems
are in landfills that are more than 10 years old. This is because several years are necessary before
solid waste begins to generate significant amounts of methane. The remaining discussion on landfill
gas applies mainly to MSWLFs.
Collection --A landfill gas-recovery system is designed to maximize gas recovery without
disturbing the anaerobic conditions within the landfill. Recovery systems typically include extraction
wells at the interior of the fill, a pump, and a collection pipe network. Gas migration control systems
were originally designed to prevent buildup and migration beyond the landfill boundary using wells
or trenches at the landfill's exterior to vent the gas. Current trends are to tie together the migration
and recovery systems to increase gas collection.23
4-38
-------
Table 4-32. NUMBER OF ACTIVE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL UNITS BY
TYPE OF RUN-ON/RUN-OFF SYSTEM AND AGE OF UNIT
Age of Unit
(years as of
1986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
Unknown
Diversion
Berms
817
409
446
217
342
53
Collection/
Sedimentation
Ponds
424
215
237
86
160
27
Diversion
Ditches
912
553
533
313
464
52
Other
System
113
141
75
28
71
2
No
System
437
390
505
390
726
36
SOURCE: References.
Table4-33. NUMBER OF CLOSED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL UNITS BY
TYPE OF RUN-ON/RUN-OFF SYSTEM AND AGE OF UNIT
Age of Unit
(years as of
1986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
Unknown
Diversion
Berms
256
328
264
118
204
23
Collection/
Sedimentation
Ponds
93
106
53
28
34
3
Diversion
Ditches
176
411
306
131
169
3
Other
System
18
45
79
31
60
0
No
System
200
471
232
88
171
46
SOURCE: References.
Table 4-34. NUMBER OF ACTIVE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS WITH GAS MONITORING
DETECTION OR RECOVERY SYSTEMS BY AGE OF FACILITY
Age of Facility
(years as of 1986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
Unknown
Monitoring or
Detection System
49
72
90
58
100
32
Recovery System
10
9
40
14
45
5
Total
Landfills
59
81
130
72
145
37
SOURCE: References.
4-39
-------
The layout of the wells depends on many factors, including the results of a field testing
program, the end use of the landfill surface, and the purpose of the collection system. Testing at a
landfill will indicate which areas of the landfill might provide the most gas of good quality for a
recovery system.
Processing -- Before the gas can be sold or used, it must be purified. A processing unit is used
to treat the gas to certain specifications, depending on the grade desired (medium or high Btu
gas). For medium Btu gas, processing requires removal of particulates and water. For high Btu gas,
processing requires removal of particulates, water, carbon dioxide, and most trace components.
According to the literature, typical gas processing rates are from 0.001 to 0.008 cubic meter per
kilogram dry refuse per year.
Enhancement-- Enhancing landfill gas production involves accelerating gas production and
increasing the total amount of gas produced. In general, enhancement of landfill gas production is
possible through several techniques: (1) moisture can be added and circulated through the landfill,
(2) nutrients and bacteria can be introduced with anaerobically digested sewage sludge, (3) the pH
can be adjusted with a buffer such as calcium carbonate or certain waste products, and (4) particle
size can be reduced by shredding the incoming refuse. The technical and economic feasibility of
increasing gas yield with these techniques remains to be determined by large-scale field tests.23
Cover and Closure Characteristics
The final cover is installed when a landfill has reached the end of its useful life. A key element
in site closure, the final cover, seals the fill material for environmental protection and allows the land
to be used for some benefit (farming, recreation, development, etc.). The major elements of cover
design and analysis include determination of allowable percolation, water balance analysis, soil and
membrane selection, compaction and placement, surface slope, and drainage. Although preventing
water infiltration, which contributes to leachate generation, is the major focus of landfill cover
design, covers can be designed to permit water flow for gas enhancement and chemical
stabilization.
The MSWLF Survey provided information on the number of MSWLFs using various types of
cover materials. Table 4-35 presents the number of closed, active, or planned MSWLFs using various
types of cover materials. The survey results indicate that soil, clay, and topsoil are the most
predominant type of cover materials for MSWLFs.
4-40
-------
Table 4-35. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS BY COVER
TYPE AND OPERATING STATUS
Cover Type
Soil
Sand or Gravel
Recompacted Clay
Synthetic Membrane
Topsoil
Other
Unknown
Number of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Closed
1,598
370
1,022
44
1,053
310
89
Active
3,278
939
2,132
110
2,448
339
393
Planned
1,672
350
1,093
79
1,243
346
146
SOURCE: References.
Location Factors
The topography, hydrogeology, ecology, and demography of a landfill site may influence the
potential for leachate generation (through precipitation and waste generation), the dilution
potential of the area surrounding the waste site, and the potential for human or environmental
exposure. The Subtitle D census provided geographical data on MSWLFs, and EPA tnas compiled a list
of MSWLFs from these data.29 From this list it can be concluded that MSWLFs are located in-all
hydrogeological settings in the United States. No census data were available for industrial or
demolition debris landfills concerning location characteristics of different facilities or numbers of
landfills using location factors in their designs. A discussion of State and territorial location
requirements is presented in Chapter 5.
Data on the location characteristics of MSWLFs also were provided by the MSWLF Survey.
Table 4-36 presents the number of MSWLFs located in floodplains, wetlands, karst terrain, or below
seasonal-high water tables. The data indicate that a small percentage of landfills are located in
these areas. Table 4-37 presents the same location data for Federally-owned MSWLFs and indicates a
similar distribution. Table 4-38 presents the number of MSWLFs according to age that fail in these
categories.
Data on the predominant soil type underlying MSWLFs were available from the MSWLF Survey
and are presented in Table 4-39. The survey results indicate that a majority of MSWLFs are located
over clay (35 percent) or sandy clay (21 percent).
4-41
-------
Table 4-36. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS IN SELECTED TERRAINS
Location Criteria
100-Year Floodplains
Wetlands
Karst Terrain
Below Seasonal-High Water Table
Number of Landfills
766
334
231
429
Percentage of Total Landfill
Establishments3
13
6
4
7
SOURCE: References.
a Total of percentages isgreaterthan 100 because some landfills overlap location criteria.
Table 4-37. NUMBER OF FEDERALLY-OWNED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS IN
SELECTED TERRAINS
Location Criteria
100-Year Floodplains
Wetlands
Karst Terrain
Below Seasonal-High Water Table
Number of Federally-
Owned Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills
13
13
6
13
Percentage of Total
Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Establishments9
7
7
3
7
SOURCE: References.
a Total of percentages isgreaterthan 100 because some landfills overlap location criteria.
Table 4-38. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS BY LOCATION CRITERIA
AND AGE OF FACILITY
Age of Facility
(years as of 1986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
Unknown Age
Total
Location Criteria
100- Year
Floodplains
81
140
164
87
292
2
766
Wetlands
8
34
49
29
206
8
334
Karst Terrain
21
55
63
23
67
2
231
Under Seasonal-High
Water Tables
31
57
65
68
198
10
429
SOURCE: References.
4-42
-------
Table 4-39. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS
BY UNDERLYING PREDOMINANT SOIL TYPE
Soil Type
Clayey Sand
Sand
Clay
Sandy Clay
Silt
Other
Number of Landfills
547
822
2,100
1,238
214
1,054
Percentage of Landfills
9
14
35
21
4
17
SOURCE: References.
The MSWLF Survey provided data on the horizontal flow rate of ground water in the
uppermost aquifer beneath each MSWLF. Approximately 17 percent of establishments are located
over aquifers with horizontal flow rates of more than 10-5 cm/sec but most respondents (60 percent)
do not know the horizontal flow rate. The results are presented in Table 4-40.
Table4-40. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS BY
HORIZONTAL FLOW RATE IN GROUND WATER
Horizontal Flow Rate
(cm/sec)
10-7-10-6
10-6- 10-5
10-5- 10-4
10-4- 10-3
More than 10-3
Unknown
Number of Landfills
170
146
297
300
404
3,566
Percentage of Total
Landfill Establishments3
3
2
5
5
7
60
SOURCE: References.
3 Overall response rate for this table is 81 percent.
The MSWLF Survey also provided data on the sources of hydrogeologic and water source data
available to these facilities. Tables 4-41 and 4-42 present these data. Both tables indicate that
MSWLF owners and operators commonly use "best estimates" to develop water source and
hydrogeologic data for their facilities. Site-specific studies are performed for only 17 percent (water
source studies) to 28 percent (hydrogeologic studies) of all MSWLFs.
4-43
-------
Table 4-41. SOURCE OF HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE LANDFILL SURVEY
Source of Data
Site-Specific Study
Regional Report
State Agency
No Data ("Best Estimate")
Number of Landfills
1,683
1,070
827
4,033
Percentage of Total
Landfill Establishments3
28
18
14
67
SOURCE: References.
3 Total of percentages is greater than 100 percent si nee some landfills reported more
than one data source.
Table 4-42. SOURCE OF WATER INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
LANDFILL SURVEY
Source of Data
Site-Specific Study
Local Water Department
No Data ("Best Estimate")
Other
Number of Landfills
1,003
590
3,874
846
Percentage of Total
Landfill
Establishments3
17
10
64
14
SOURCE: References.
3 Total of percentages equals more than 100% since some landfills reported more than
one data source.
Landfill Operation and Maintenance
The operation and maintenance of a landfill can be viewed as an ongoing construction
project. As with any construction effort, it proceeds according to detailed plans and is accompanied
by appropriate equipment, materials, and personnel. Characteristics addressed in this subsection
include landfill employees, equipment, daily operations, waste restrictions, and emergency
preparedness and contingency plans. Most of this discussion pertains to MSWLFs, because little
information is available on other landfill types.
Employees
The variety of positions at MSWLFs depends on the size of the operation. For small sites (50 to
70 tons per day (TPD)), a single full-time operator may be able to satisfactorily operate equipment,
4-44
-------
record waste quantities, and perform administrative and maintenance functions. Larger sites may
require more positions, including one or more of the following: supervisor, equipment operator,
check station attendant, mechanic, and laborer. As a general rule, one employee is needed per 70
tons per day of waste received.26 However, requirements are site-specific, and the number of
employees may be affected by the size of the landfill (waste received), the operating method
(trench, area, shredding, balefill), site characteristics, and operating hours. No data were available
on the number of employees used per landfill.
Equipment
Equipment at Subtitle D landfills serves three basic functions: (1) handling waste, (2)
excavating soil and handling cover soil, and (3) performing support functions. Handling of solid
waste at a landfill site resembles earth-moving, but differences exist that require consideration.
Solid waste is less dense, more compressible, and more heterogeneous than earth. Spreading a given
volume of solid waste requires less energy than spreading an equal volume of soil. Support
equipment may be required to perform such tasks as road construction and maintenance, dust
control, fire protection, and possibly assistance in waste unloading operations.
Equipment functions and performance specifications vary with the size of the landfill. Except
large landfills, the same piece of equipment normally performs all functions. Additional equipment
may be on hand for busy times and when other equipment is out of service.26 No data were
available on the number and types of equipment used per landfill.
Daily Operations
Daily MSWLF operations include fill operations, fill-related tasks, and other general
procedures. The two basic fill methods are trench and area. Trench operations use a prepared
excavation that confines the working face between two side walls. The area method does not use
extensive surface preparation; therefore, the width of the working face is limited only by the site
boundaries. Some landfills use a combination of both methods at different locations or times. Other
methods involve the preparation of wastes by shredding or baling, but these methods are essentially
variations of trench and area methods.
Procedures dependent on the landfilling method include site preparation, traffic flow and
unloading, and compaction and covering. General operational procedures are as follows:
environmental control practices (siltation and erosion, mud, dust, vectors, odors, noise, aesthetics,
4-45
-------
birds, litter, fires); inclement weather practices; and ongoing engineering practices (site
preparation, road maintenance). No data were available on any of these daily operating procedures
of landfills.
Waste Restrictions
Waste restrictions vary widely with the design and operation criteria of the individual landfill.
Table 4-27 indicates that about 40 percent of all landfills identified in the census impose some type
of restrictions on the wastes they receive. Municipal solid waste landfills have these restrictions more
often than any other landfill type.
The numbers of MSWLFs (distributed by landfill age) that do not accept various types of waste
and use segregated disposal areas are presented in Tables 4-43 and 4-44, respectively. The data
indicate that household waste and construction/demolition waste are accepted by nearly all
MSWLFs. However, these wastes are segregated from the general waste stream at MSWLFs more
often than any other waste type.
Emergency Preparedness and Contingency Plans
.Anticipating the operational problems and addressing contingencies in the operation plan
may reduce risks to human health and the environment. Some of the major potential problems at
MSWLFs include fires, inclement weather, equipment failure, and personnel shortages.
There are many potential sources of fires at landfills. These include receipt of hot wastes such
as incinerator ash, sparks from vehicles igniting flammable wastes, and vandalism. Many facilities
employ tight security to spot hot or highly flammable wastes and direct them to specific areas to be
wetted down or smothered with soil or water. When fires do occur, they are usually dug out and
smothered with soil and/or water or smothered by placing damp soil on the surface of the fill.
Several particularly large facilities have a fire department on-site.
Equipment failure is common at landfills due to high usage. Contingency plans may include
well-documented procedures for repairs, either with on-site mechanics or by outside means, having
redundant equipment at the fill, or borrowing or leasing from allied agencies (e.g., public works,
contractors). Additional personnel may be required for seasonal or other peak waste-receiving times
or to temporarily replace sick or injured workers. Employees may be trained to perform multiple
tasks, and procedures for labor overhires can be outlined in advance and initiated quickly when
4-46
-------
Table 4-43. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS NOT ACCEPTING VARIOUS WASTE TYPES
BY AGE OF FACILITY
Waste Type
Household Waste
Commercial Waste
SQG Waste
Bulk Liquids (not containerized)
Drummed/Containerized Waste
Asbestos-Containing Waste Materials
Construction/Demolition Wastes
Industrial Process Wastes
Infectious Wastes
Municipal Incinerator Ash
Other Incinerator Ash
Recyclable Wastes
Sewage Sludge
Other
Number of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Establishments
By Age Of Facility
(years as of 1986)
Less
than
5
0
0
210
188
195
143
13
93
187
112
105
50
133
0
5-10
0
0
348
360
333
283
52
245
339
273
260
146
235
2
11-15
0
20
507
601
543
359
73
216
542
396
365
211
369
0
16-20
0
26
292
294
274
171
49
187
268
245
227
85
201
7
More
than 20
7
20
666
710
731
496
73
445
650
551
517
286
522
0
Total Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill
Establishments Per
Waste Type a.b
7
65
2,022
2,152
2,075
1,451
260
1,185
1,986
1,577
1,475
778
1,460
8
SOURCE: References.
a Includes other landfills of unknown age.
b These totals are correct. Table entries have been rounded and may not add to their respective totals.
-------
Table 4-44. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS USING
SEPARATE DISPOSAL AREAS FOR VARIOUS WASTE TYPES
BY AGE OF FACILITY
Waste Type
Household
Waste
Commercial
Waste
SQG
Waste
Bulk Liquids (not
containerized)
Drummed/Containerized
Waste
Asbestos-Containing Waste
Materials
Construction/Demolition
Wastes
Industrial Process
Wastes
Infectious
Wastes
Municipal Incinerator
Ash
Other Incinerator
Ash
Recyclable
Wastes
Sewage
Sludges
Other
Number of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Establishments by Age of Facility
(years as of 1986)
Less
Than 5
125
47
2
7
7
23
177
0
2
7
13
67
34
52
5- 10
212
141
16
42
54
77
208
45
36
18
31
103
93
101
11 -15
289
182
26
49
52
102
336
62
21
21
. 42-
224
130
226
16-20
175
57
0
15
13
66
205
8
7
2
7
132
63
88
More
Than 20
449
244
35
37
8
141
546
68
13
31
44
277
146
226
Total Municipal
Solid Waste
Landfill
Establishments
Per Waste Typea'b
1,251 (21%)
671 (11%)
80(1.3%)
149(2.5%)
134(22%)
410(7%)
1,472(2.4%)
183(3%)
78(1.3%)
78(1.3%)
136(2.2%)
803(13%)
466(8%)
692(11%)
SOURCE: References.
a Includes landfills of unknown age.
b Percentage is relative to total number of MSWLF establishments (6,034).
4-48
-------
needs arise. No data were available concerning the use and elements of emergency preparedness
and contingency plans.
Environmental Monitoring at Landfills
Landfill monitoring is used to measure changes in the environment that occur as a result of
disposal. Environmental monitoring design may vary, depending on landfill design, operation, and
maintenance characteristics; wastes received; and location. Monitoring for any given landfill may
measure ground and surface water, and air and methane. Monitoring of these media and specific
test parameters are discussed below.
Table 4-45 presents data on the number of active landfills with monitoring systems identified
in the census and by the MSWLF Survey. Ground water is the most frequently monitored medium,
and air is the least.
Ground-Water Systems/Parameters
Subtitle D census data reported in Table 4-45 show 3,134 landfills (19 percent) monitor ground
water. Of these, 2,331 are MSWLFs. The MSWLF Survey estimates that 2,141 MSWLFs monitor
ground water.
Table 4-46 presents data from the MSWLF Survey on the distribution of MSWLFs with ground-
water monitoring systems according to landfill age. The data indicate many more new landfills than
old landfills are monitoring ground water. Similar data from the MSWLF Survey are presented in
Table 4-47 for Federally-owned MSWLFs.
Devices-- Monitoring equipment may be classified as wells with the capacity to sample at a
single depth (single-screened wells), multisampling wells for sampling at different depths
(multiprobe wells or well clusters); and piezometers, which are designed to obtain samples using
airlift methods (airlift samplers). No data are available on the number of facilities using different
devices.
Locations- Ground-water monitoring systems are very site-specific. Landfill size and site
hydrogeology are factors that dictate the actual number of installed wells. The spacing and depths
of monitoring wells depend on the particular pattern of ground-water flow, making it extremely
difficult to specify aggregate statistics for this area.
4-49
-------
Table 4-45. NUMBER OF ACTIVE LANDFILLS WITH MONITORING SYSTEMS*
Landfill
Type
Municipal solid
waste
Industrial waste
Demolition debris
only
Other
Total <=
Ground-Water
Monitoring
2,331
(25%)
2141b
(35%)
626
(18%)
135
(5.2%)
42
(4.1%)
3,134
(19%)
Surface-
Water
Monitoring
1,100
(12%)
912b
(15%)
230
(67%)
69
(2 7%)
16
(1 6%)
1,415
(8.9%)
Air
Emissions
Monitoring
358
(3 7%)
161b
(2.7%)
80
(2 3%)
7
(0 3%)
0
445
(2 7%)
Methane
Monitoring
427
(4 6%)
401 b
(6.6%)
63
(1 8%)
8
(0 3%)
0
498
(3 0%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are relative to approximately 9,300 (for census data).
b Percentage are relative to approximately 6,600 (for survey data).
c These are the correct totals. Table entries have been rounded and may not add to their
respective totals.
Table 4-46. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH
GROUND-WATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING SYSTEMS
BY AGE OF FACILITY
Age of Facility
(years as of 1986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
More Than 20
Unknown
All Ages3
Number of Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills with Ground-
Water Monitoring
279
391
637
293
493
48
2,141
Number of Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills with Surface
Water Monitoring
97
182
240
136
238
19
912
SOURCE: References.
a These are the correct totals. Table entries have been rounded and may not add to their
respective totals.
4-50
-------
Table 4-47. NUMBER OF FEDERALLY-OWNED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH GROUND-WATER AND SURFACE WATER
MONITORING SYSTEMS BY AGE OF FACILITY*
LANDFILL
Age of Facility
(years as of 1 986)
Less Than 20
21 -30
31 -40
More Than 40
All Agesb
-------
Air and Gas Systems/Parameters
Gas sampling devices usually consist of simple, inexpensive gas probes. The probe is usually
polyethylene, copper, or stainless steel tubing. Due to the small diameter of probes, a series of these
devices can be situated at various depths within a single hole. The sample collection technique
depends upon the type of sampling probe installed. Most frequently, a portable meter is used to
monitor methane gas. The sampling frequency often depends upon the frequency of monitoring in
other media. The estimated rateof movement of gas in particular soil may be useful for developing
sampling frequencies.
Data concerning the extent of ambient air or methane monitoring for Subtitle D waste
landfills are presented in Table 4-45. The Subtitle D census determined that few landfills have air or
methane monitoring systems (about 3 percent for both). This is supported by MSWLF Survey data,
also presented in Table 4-45. The MSWLF Survey estimated that 161 (2.7 percent) MSWLF
establishments monitor air emissions and 401 (6.6 percent) monitor methane gas. The distributions
by age of the landfills that monitor air emissions and methane are presented in Tables 4-48 and 4-34,
respectively. Table 4-49 presents similar data for Federally-owned MSWLFsandjndicates that very
few of the 193 Federal MSWLFs employ air emissions or gas monitoring.
Table 4-48. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH
AIR MONITORING SYSTEMS BY AGE OF FACILITY
Age of Facility
(years as of 1986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
All Ages
Number of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
with Air Emissions Monitoring
21
45
37
18
37
161
SOURCE: References.
4.1.4 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS AT LANDFILLS
Aggregate data collected in the Subtitle D census and detailed case studies are used to analyze
the environmental and human health impacts at Subtitle D landfills. The aggregate census data can
4-52
-------
Table 4-49. NUMBER OF FEDERALLY-OWNED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH AIR AND METHANE MONITORING SYSTEMS
BY AGE OF FACILITY
Age of Facility
(years as of 1 986)
Less than 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
Number of Federally-Owned
Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills with Air Monitoring
0
6
2
0
0
Number of Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills with Gas
Monitoring
0
6
16
0
0
SOURCE: References.
be used to correlate different types of contaminant problems with different landfill categories and
to indicate the extent of these problems across the universe of landfills. The EPA has also conducted
a risk analysis on MSWLFs to support both the Subtitle D study effort and the development of
revisions to the Subtitle D criteria. The results of this analysis are included in this subsection under
ground water.
Table 4-50 presents the relevant Subtitle D census data for ground-water, surface water, and
air impacts at Subtitle D landfills. This table also presents statistics on the number of State landfill
inspections conducted and violations detected in 1984 and on the number of landfills with
monitoring systems in place (by medium).
The following discussion presents the available aggregate and case study information for
ground-water, surface water, and air contaminant impacts. A general description of the sol id waste
disposal problem on Indian lands follows this discussion.
Ground Water
Census Data
The census data in Table 4-50 indicate that violations of State ground-water protection
standards occurred at 720 Subtitle D landfills, 586 of which were at MSWLFs. Fewer violations were
reported for other landfill types, but this is most likely because fewer industrial and demolition
debris landfills monitor the ground water or are inspected by the State more than once a year. The
4-53
-------
Table 4-50. AGGREGATE DATA RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AT
LANDFILLS IN 1984
Total Active Facilities
Number of Facilities
With at Least One
Violation
Ground-water
contamination
Surface-water
contamination
Air contamination
Methane control
deficiencies
State Inspect! on at
Least Once Each
Yeara
Facilities With
Monitoring
Ground water
Surface water
Air emissions
Methane
Subtitle D Landfill Type
Municipal
Sol id Waste
9,284
586
660
845
180
6,708
2,331
1,100
358
427
Industrial
Waste
3,511
111
50
18
8
2,653
626
230
80
63
Demolition
Waste
2,591
16
42
33
0
1,548
135
69
7
8
Other
1,030
7
6
54
1
631
42
16
0
0
Total
Landfills
Per
Category
16,416
720
758
950
189
11,540
3,134
1,415
445
438-
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a These data include numbers cited by States or territories for frequencies ranging from once
a year to more than four times a year. The category excludes less frequent inspections and
entries under the questionnaire category of "other."
4-54
-------
number of reported violations is an imperfect measure of environmental impacts because (1)
"violations" may be defined differently among States and territories, (2) many violations may go
unreported due to inspection or monitoring inadequacies, and (3) multiple violations can occur at a
facility.
Case Studies
To date, 163 MSWLFs have been identified for which environmental impacts and threats to
human health have been documented.30 The sources for this information included MSWLF case
studies prepared by and for the EPA, literature search of newspapers and journals, and a telephone
survey. The case studies were chosen from eight States that represent a variety of hydrogeologic
settings and encompass all 11 of the ground-water regions of the continental United States, as
shown in Figure 4-3. In addition, the States represent a variety of demographic settings ranging
from major urban areas to rural areas. Sites were selected using the above criteria and availability
and completeness of data, particularly monitoring data.
The literature search was conducted to obtain information documenting health or
environmental impacts resulting from MSWLFs. A telephone survey of eight States also was
conducted. These States were selected because they indicated in the 1984 State Subtitle D Program
Questionnaire that they had case studies available. These case studies are good examples of
problems that can occur at poorly designed and operated landfills.
Ground-water quality was adversely affected at 146 sites. Ninety of the sites had
contaminated on-site ground water and 56 of the sites had contaminated off-site ground water. The
impacts identified range in severity from simply elevated levels of various constituents in on-site"
ground water to the contamination of major aquifers and/or productive well fields. Thirty-five sites
were documented to have adversely affected drinking water resources and three other sites pose a
threat to water supply systems. In 17 of these case studies alternative water supplies were necessary.
As an example, one active MSWLF in Florida contaminated a square mile of a sole source aquifer and
closed a major community well field. Elevated levels of organics, including pesticides, and metal
contaminants have been found in ground water at many of these sites.
Regard less of the degree of ground-water contamination, certain factors were common to
these cases. Most were located within eight feet of the ground-water table, underlain by highly
permeable soils, or engineered without an effectively impermeable liner. In addition to these
4-55
-------
Figure 4-3- GROUND-WATER REGIONS Of THE UNITED STATES
en
01
O
LEGEND
0 100 200 300
i , i i i
400 500 Miles
i i
Western Mountain Ranges
Alluvial Basins
Columbia Lava Plateau
Colorado Plateau and
Wyoming Basin
High Plains
Nonglaciated Central Region
Glaciated Central Region
l\y.i::l Piedmont and Blue Ridge
f-';''XJ Northeast and Superior Uplands
EXSNl Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains
I /•"] Southeast Coastal Plains
| I Hawaii
-------
generic factors, the ground-water contamination appeared to be more severe in areas characterized
by higher net infiltration rates and ground-water flow rates.
The analysis of case study information identified several factors that in various combinations
determine failure at a particular facility. These factors include the following:
• the age of the landfill;
• the location (e.g., climate , depth to ground water, soil permeability, and leachate
migration potential); and
• the engineering design (e.g., liner use, run-on/run-off control systems, leachate
collection systems) and design/operation practices.
The representativeness of the information to the universe of MSWLFs is unknown, and it is not
possible to isolate the specific factors responsible for each failure. Another potential factor that may
cause detrimental impacts is the characteristics of the waste itself. However, the waste types
disposed of at the MSWLFs reviewed for this study were not available to determine waste
characterization as a specific factor.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey Data
Results from the MSWLF Survey provided data on the population using ground water for
drinking in the areas surrounding MSWLFs. The survey indicates that approximately 46 percent of
MSWLFs are located within one mile of the drinking water wells, while 54 percent are not within one
mile of any drinking water well. Table 4-51 presents the percentage of MSWLFs located within one
mile of an active drinking well.
Risk-Analysis
The Subtitle D MSWLF universe consists of a diverse group of facilities that occur in a wide
variety of environmental settings. Hundreds of factors affect the nature, extent, and severity of
environmental impacts from these facilities. To identify and evaluate some of the most important
factors, EPA developed the Subtitle D Risk Model. The model concentrates on ground water as the
environmental medium of concern; surface water and air-related impacts were not addressed. This
model couples information from the Office of Solid Waste case studies, MSWLF Survey, and other
4-57
-------
Table 4-51. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS WITHIN
ONE MILE OF ACTIVE DRINKING WATER WELLS
Distance (meters) to Nearest Well
(public or private)
10
60
200
400
600
1,000
1,500
None within 1 mile
Percentage of Landfills
2.4
4.4
6.0
12.7
5.0
9.8
5.3
54.4
SOURCE: References.
sources, with a series of mathematical formulations of engineering, physiochemical, hydrologic,
toxicologic, and socioeconomic processes that govern impacts.
Although the Subtitle D Risk Model has been neither peer reviewed nor verified, EPA has used
it in its preliminary form to help analyze human health and resource impacts associated with ground-
water contamination at Subtitle D MSWLFs underthecurrentset of criteria (i.e., baseline conditions).
The baseline facility that has been analyzed consists of a new, unlined facility with a vegetative
cover. Since the majority of existing facilities are unlined, this analysis roughly estimates risks posed
by existing facilities.
There are several important caveats to the risk analysis results presented in this section. The
risk and resource damage modeling includes considerable uncertainty. The model components that
introduce the most uncertainty are those that predict leachate quality for trace organics, and the
human health risks resulting from exposure to toxic substances (i.e., the dose-response model).
In addition, the risk results are based on the current distribution of drinking water wells near
MSWLFs (from the MSWLF survey). No attempt was made to predict how that distribution will
change with the siting of new MSWLFs. The model only estimates risk for facilities with drinking
water wells within one mile. Therefore, the model predicts that facilities with no wells within one
mile pose no human health risk. This is a limitation of the model; EPA has not assumed that these
facilities actually pose no ground-water risks.
4-58
-------
The following presents an overview of the risk model methodology and then discusses the
baseline human health and resource damage impacts, weighted to reflect the total population of
6,034 MSWLFs.
The Subtitle D Risk Model Methodoloqy--The Subtitle D Risk Model builds directly on the Subtitle C
Liner Location Risk and Cost Analysis Model,31 and has adopted many of its basic characteristics. It is
a dynamic model. For this analysis, 100 years of leachate release and up to 200 years of ground-
water transport for each year's release were simulated.
Environmental fate and transport and dose-response relationships are modeled as
deterministic processes, while containment system failure and some hydrologic events are
considered stochastic phenomena. Some parameters can be varied over a wide range; for others,
the user selects from specified, generic values.
The model includes a series of submodels that simulate pollutant release (liner failure and
leachate quality submodels), fate and transport (unsaturated zone and saturated zone transport
submodels), exposure, impacts (dose-response and resource damage submodels), and corrective
action. For this analysis EPA assumed no corrective action occurs in the baseline. Brief summaries of
each of these submodels, as they apply to the baseline facility, are presented in Appendix E.
Human Health Risk Results--A risk of 10-6 indicates that exposed individuals would bear a 1 in
1,000,000 chance of contracting cancer in their lifetime as a result of the exposure.
Across all 6,034 MSWLFs in the baseline, EPA estimates that average maximum exposed
individual (MEI) risks over the 300-year modeling period range from approximately 10"4 to zero.
Nearly 12 percent of all MSWLFs pose risks in the 10-5 to 10-6 range, approximately 6 percent fall
within the 10-5 and 10-4 risk range, and a negligible 0.05 percent exceed 10-4. Preliminary results
from the MSWLF Survey indicate that about 54 percent of landfills have no drinking water wells
within one mile of the facility boundary. The model, therefore, estimates that these facilities pose
no human health risk. Another 6 percent have nearby wells but have no risk (MEI less than or
equal to 10-1°) because no constituents reach the wells within the modeling period. The remainder
of the facilities (22 percent) pose risks that are less than 10-6. Figures 4-4 and 4-5 depict this baseline
risk distribution. The principal constituents contributing to risk are vinyl chloride, 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane, and dichloromethane (methylene chloride).
4-59
-------
en
o
70
60
50
40
PERCENT
30
20
10
0
Figure 4-4
DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE RISK
BASELINE
<=-10
:-9 -9:-8 -8:-7 -7:-8 -6:-5
LOG OF RISK
WELLS M NO WELLS
-5:-4 -4:-3
-------
Figure 4-5
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF AVERAGE RISK
BASELINE - ALL LANDFILLS
X
z
o
y.
w
OL
o
z
o
-1Q
LOG OF RISK
-------
As future wells are located near existing MSWLFs (or new sites are located near current wells),
the overall risk distribution will reflect the estimates for the subset (46 percent) of landfills that
currently have wells within one mile of the facility boundary. For this subgroup of the population,
the median risk is about 4.3 x 10-7. In addition, nearly 40 percent of these landfills have a risk
exceeding 1O6, as presented in Figure 4-6.
For population risk, the Agency estimates that 0.0770 cancer case per year in the baseline can
be expected over the 300-year modeling period (assuming there continues to be, in the future, no
wells within one mile of 54 percent of the landfills and, therefore, no risk).
The results of the analysis identify several factors that are important in determining risk.
However, risk is the result of a complex interaction among many factors (some of which have not
been accounted for in this analysis) and, thus, no single factor is responsible for most of the
variation. Some of the factors-constituent concentration in leachate, facility size, distance to
nearest well, environmental setting, and aquifer characteristics-are discussed below.
Higher levels of contamination and, thus, risks may be associated with larger facilities which
have a greater mass of waste. Figure 4-7 shows the distribution of risk by landfill size in unweighted
terms (i.e., each landfill size/environmental setting/well distance combination is weighted equally) to
focus on the relationship between risk and landfill size. In facilities handling 10TPD) the model
predicts that about 33 percent of the scenarios have risks that exceed 10-6. This value increases to
over 55 percent for 175-TPD facilities and nearly 64 percent for 750-TPD facilities. Eight percent of
the 10-TPD scenarios are predicted to have risks exceeding 10-5, 22 percent of the 175-TPD
scenarios exceed 10-5 and nearly 30 percent of the 750-TPD scenarios exceed 10-5. Since only 5.5
percent of landfills fall into the 750-TPD category, the impact of these landfills on the overall
distribution is small. The high percentage of small facilities (51 percent handle less than 18TPD)in
the MSWLF population tends to weight the overall distribution to lower risk levels.
All other factors held constant, risk decreases with increasing distance of wells from the
facility. Contaminant concentrations diminish over distance due to degradation, dispersion, and
attenuation. Results from the facility survey indicate that 54 percent of MSWLFs have no wells
within one mile, 15 percent have wells within 300 meters, and 25 percent have wells within 500
meters.
If all exposure occurred at the facility boundary (assumed to be 10 meters from the landfill
unit boundary), the baseline risk distribution would change significantly. Figure 4-8 compares the
4-62
-------
Figure 4-6
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF AVERAGE RISK
BASELINE - ONLY LANDFILLS WITH WELLS
10O
en
X
z
o
OL
O
Z
o
-10
-8
LOG OF RISK
-------
a\
t*
PERCENT
Figure 4-7
DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE RISK - BASELINE
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
BY LANDFILL SIZE (NORMALIZED)
NO WELL
10TPD 175TPD .
LANDFILL SIZE
g^l VERY LOW l=l LOW
Risk (10-8) Risk (10-7)
750 TPD
MODERATE
Risk (10-6)
HIGH
Risk (10-5)
-------
Figure 4-8
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF AVERAGE RISK
BASELINE: ACTUAL VS 10M WELL
Ol
Ul
A
z
o
¥
(A
O
Z
O
too
9O -
30 -
20 -
1Q -
-1Q
-4
LOG OF RISK
Baseline,
10m Well
Baseline,
Actual
-------
cumulative frequency of average individual risk at the 10-meter well to the cumulative frequency of
risk using the existing well distribution as reported in the facility survey. While the model predicts
that less than one-fifth of the landfills have risks exceeding 10-6 with the existing well distribution,
over 50 percent exceed this risk level when exposure occurs at the facility boundary. Approximately
35 percent of MSWLFs have risks at the facility boundary, while only 6 percent posed these risks
under the existing well distribution. Thus, the distribution of well distances has a significant effect
on risk.
Figure 4-9 shows the distribution of risk by net infiltration rate in unweighted terms. Wetter
climates are associated with higher release volumes and, consequently, greater risks. In the 0.25-inch
setting, risk exceeds 10'6 in only 15 percent of the scenarios and never exceeds 10-5. In the wettest
setting (20-inches), risk falls into the 10-6to 10'5 risk range in over 30 percent of the scenarios and is
greater than 10-5 in over 42 percent of the scenarios. In the intervening net infiltration settings, risk
increases with infiltration. The high-risk profile associated with the 20-inch infiltration region is
mitigated by its relatively low frequency (about 12 percent). Over two-thirds of the landfills are split
about equally between the 0.25- and 10-inch settings, which have the greatest effect on the overall
risk distribution. Thus, because landfills are almost equally likely to be found in wet or arid climates,
no one infiltration rate setting has a dominant influence on the overall risk distribution.
Hydrogeologic characteristics of the aquifer also exert a strong influence on risk. Aquifer
properties affect the extent of dilution of the leachate and the retardation and degradation of
specific pollutants. The EPA's results indicate that the slowest and fastest flow fields have lower risk
profiles than the intermediate-velocity fields. Aquifers with slow velocities (i.e., 1 meter per year)
generally allow for no pollutant breakthrough at the more distant wells and for considerable
pollutant degradation before breakthrough at nearby wells. In the high-velocity flow fields (i.e.,
1,000 and 10,000 meters per year), considerably more water flows through the aquifer, which
affords more dilution of the leachate. Intermediate-velocity aquifers (i.e., 10 and 100 meters per
year) have higher risk profiles because they neither allow for much degradation nor provide for
much dilution or pollutant dispersion.
In summary, EPA estimates that about 17 percent of MSWLFs have risks that exceed 10"6 under
the current well distribution. The model only estimates risks for facilities with drinking water wells
within one mile. This percentage could increase if new wells were drilled in the vicinity of landfills or
if new landfills were sited near existing wells. The risk analysis indicates that infiltration rate, facility
size, distance from the facility, and aquifer characteristics are strong determinants of risk. However
no single factor is responsible for most of the variation.
4-66
-------
FIGURE 4-9
DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE RISK - BASELINE
BY NET INFILTRATION RATE (NORMALIZED)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Si",?
.'
•
NO WELL
0.25" 1" 10
NET INFILTRATION RATE
^ VERY LOW |==l LOW
20"
MODERATE
HIGH
-------
Resource Damage Results--For this analysis, EPA has measured resource damage as the replacement
cost (in present value terms) to provide drinking water to users whose supply is contaminated by
releases from MSWLFs. Replacement costs for other uses (e.g., agricultural) were not addressed. In
addition, as a second measure of resource damage, the model estimates the total area of
contaminated ground water in the baseline.
The Subtitle D Risk Model calculates resource damage for both "use value" and "option
value." Use value applies to all landfills that currently have downgradient drinking water wells
within one mile of the facility boundary (46 percent of existing MSWLFs). Option value represents
the replacement cost for ground water that does not currently serve as a drinking water source but
may do so (at a given probability) in the future. Because the probability is low initially and increases
with time, option value is always less than use value.
Another important point concerning the resource damage estimates is the impact of time and
discounting. In the risk analysis, a cancer case is counted the same whether it occurs in the first year
of the simulation or the last year. When considering the value of a resource, however, EPA has
discounted future cash flows. Asa result of this discounting, the timing of plume formation has a
significant impact on the resource damage results.
Figure 4-10 presents the weighted distribution of resource damage for all units, expressed in
present value terms. The numbers on the x-axis represent the upper bound of the resource damage
interval (e.g., the bar labeled 0.4 includes landfills with replacement costs higher than $0.2 million
but less than or equal to $0.4 million). The EPA estimates that resource damage ranges from $0 to
more than $4 million and that the total resource damage for all 6,000 landfills is about $2.58 billion.
The model predicts that about 31 percent of landfills have resource damage exceeding $200,000,
and about 13 percent have resource damage in excess of $1 million. The model predicts that
approximately 29 percent of the landfills will have no resource damage. Figure 4-10 also shows how
the distribution of resource damage divides into use value and option value. Because option value is
based on the probability that a ground-water source may someday be used, it tends to be much
lower than use value fora given set of conditions. In fact, the model data indicate that option value
is, on average, only a tenth of use value. The result is that option value dominates at lower levels of
resource damage, while use value is the only measure to appear at levels exceeding $400,000.
Figure 4-11 summarizes the resource damage estimates in terms of a cumulative frequency
distribution. This graph includes both use and option values. The median resource damage is about
4-68
-------
o>
V0
PERCENT
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FIGURE 4-10
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCE DAMAGE
BASELINE
Y/////////A
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 3 4
RESOURCE DAMAGE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Wk USE VALUE HH OPTION VALUE
4 +
-------
Figure 4-11
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF RESOURCE DAMAGE
BASELINE: USE VALUE AND OPTION VALUE
10O
-p.
o
w
Z
O
o
OL
O
Z
o
X
fo.o
|2.O
(Millions)
PV OF REPLACEMENT COST
$4.0
-------
$79,000. Thirteen percent of the landfills have damages exceeding $1 million, and 7 percent exceed
$2 million. Figure 4-12 presents the cumulative frequency distribution for use value alone. The
median replacement cost for this subset of landfills is about $485,000, and about 28 percent of these
landfills have damages that exceed $1 million.
Similar to the risk results, resource damage estimates are strongly influenced by facility size
and environmental setting. The following is a discussion on how these variables interact to affect
the timing and size of plume releases from MSWLFs. Because use and option values are highly
correlated, only the use value results are presented (those landfills with wells within one mile).
Figure 4-13 shows that landfill size has a large impact on resource damage. Slightly less than
30 percent of the 10-TPD scenarios have resource damage greater than $1 million. In sharp contrast,
66 percent of the 750-TPD MSWLFs have resource damage greater than $1 million, and nearly 30
• percent of these landfills have damage in excess of $3 million. Less than 20 percent of the 750-TPD
landfills have no resource damage. The greater mass of waste and larger area of these facilities lead
to larger plumes and, as a direct result, higher resource damage. The high resource damage
estimates at the large landfills are mitigated by their small proportion in-the landfill population.
Net infiltration has a strong effect on resource damage, as shown in Figure 4-14. Infiltration
affects both plume size and the timing of plume development. In wetter climates, plumes tend to be
larger and to occur sooner because greater pollutant mass is released earlier in the modeling period.
In the driest setting, 0.25-inch, most of the scenarios have no resource damage, and the number
steadily decreases in the higher intervals. This pattern reverses in the 20-inch setting where a
growing proportion of scenarios falls into the higher resource damage intervals. However, the
higher resource damage levels from MSWLFs in the 20-inch setting (12 percent of all facilities), are
mitigated by the lower levels from landfills in the 0.25- and 10-inch settings.
Aquifer characteristics also affect resource damage. In the aquifers of lowest velocity, plumes
grow relatively slowly, but pollutant concentrations remain relatively high. In the aquifers of
highest velocity, plumes grow rapidly but also dissipate rapidly. In the moderate-velocity flow fields,
plumes grow rapidly and remain above threshold concentrations for a long period. Consequently,
lower resource damages occur at either extreme, and higher resource damages occur in the middle-
velocity flow fields. Thus, similar to the risk results, the slowest and fastest aquifers (1 meter per
year, and 1,000-10,000 meters per year, respectively) have lower resource damage profiles than the
moderate flow fields (10-100 meters per year).
4-71
-------
Figure 4-12
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF RESOURCE DAMAGE
BASELINE: USE VALUE ONLY
*>
NJ
z
o
o
a:
o
z
o
fi
|2.O
(Millions)
FV OF REPLACEMENT COST
14-0
-------
Ul
40
35
30
P
E 25
R
C
N 20
T
15
10
0
FIGURE 4-13
DISTRIBUTION OF RD - BASELINE
BY SIZE (NORMALIZED)
$0
10TPD 175TPD 750TPD
RESOURCE DAMAGE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
^ $0.5. B $1 mn $2 G3 $3
ni $3+
-------
60
FIGURE 4-14
DISTRIBUTION OF RD-BASELINE
BY INFILTRATION RATE (NORMALIZED)
50
P
E 40
R
C
E
N
T 30
20
10
0
$0
25" 1" 10"
RESOURCE DAMAGE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
20"
$3
$3 +
-------
In summary, EPA estimates that 13 percent of all MSWLFs have resource damage in excess of
$1 million, 31 percent have levels exceeding $200,000, and 29 percent of all MSWLFs will have no
resource damage. The low present value estimates for some facilities are due to the fact that ground
water is not currently used at 54 percent of all landfills. In some situations, however, resource
damage can be more than $4 million. Estimates of resource damage are heavily dependent on the
current status of ground-water use, plume size, and the timing of contamination.
National Priorities List/Subtitle D Data
The report on National Priorities List/Subtitle D landfills32 identified some pertinent
characteristics of the Subtitle D landfills on the National Priorities List (NPL) (as of May 1986). Of the
approximately 19,000 sites inventoried by EPA as hazardous waste substance sites and listed on the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) data base
(CERCLIS), approximately 2,000 were identified as Subtitle D landfills by EPA. Of the sites ranked by
EPA as part of the process of identifying sites for inclusion on the NPL, 325 were identified as
Subtitle D landfills that have received municipal wastes. Finally, of the 850 sites listed or proposed
for listing on the NPL?;184 were identified as NPL/Subtitle D landfills that had received municipal
wastes. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 4-15.
The most common chemicals found at these landfills are halogenated organics, aromatics, and
metals. No specific chemicals were cited as being most common. The most significant chemical
origin was found to be industrial waste, followed by sludge and household hazardous waste. The
NPL sites have been scored using the Hazard Ranking System (MRS). The system considers the toxicity
of substances, observed or potential releases to the surrounding media, and the potential routes of
exposure, as well as the population exposed.
Surface Water
Census Data
The census indicates that 660 MSWLFs were contaminating surface water, compared to 50
industrial landfills, 42 demolition debris landfills, and six other landfills (see Table 4-50). The higher
incidence of violations at municipal landfillsis most likely due to a higher incidence of monitoring
and State inspections at those landfills. Surface water violations were detected from facility
monitoring data or from samples taken during inspections. For reasons cited previously, the number
of reported violations is an imperfect measure of environmental impacts.
4-75
-------
Figure 4-15. SUBSET OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS WITHIN CERCLIS DATA BASE
Approximately 19,000 Sites
on CERCLIS Inventory
2,000 Identified as Subtitle
D Landfills
325 Landfills Receiving
Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste
184 Subtitle D Landfills
Proposed or Listed on NPL
SOURCE: Reference 30.
-------
Case Studies
At 73 of the 163 MSWLF case studies, 30 there was documentation or evidence of surface water
degradation as a result of leachate seeps, run-off control deficiencies, or locating in a wetland or
floodplain. While the extent of surface water degradation was limited in most cases, some impacts
had either an effect on local wetland environments or subsequently caused ground-water
degradation.
A few examples of ecological -damage was also identified. Impacts on fish or other aquatic life
have been documented at 13 sites. However, ecological damages associated with MSWLFs are
difficult to identify and often not investigated; therefore, this small number of cases does not likely
reflect the actual number of occurrences. Acute catastrophic impacts (e.g., a major fish kill) are not
usually associated with MSWLFs. Municipal solid waste landfills are more likely to discharge
contaminants to surface water, causing subtle changes to the aquatic environment. For example, in
one of the 13 damage cases mentioned above, a five-year study was conducted that was specifically
designed to determine what impacts a landfill had on benthic (bottom) organisms in a nearby
stream. The results indicated that the diversity of benthic organisms downstream was much less than
that found upstream. The few species that survived downstream were more tolerant of the higher
metal concentrations present as a result of the landfill. These subtle changes would not have been
identified during normal inspections. EPA concludes from this that there are probably more cases of
ecological damage from MSWLFs than the Agency has documented.
National Priorities List/Subtitle D Data
Of the 184 Subtitle D landfills either listed on the NPL or being considered for listing, surface
water was found to be affected at 43 percent of these sites (see Figure 4-16). Liquid waste was
present at approximately 70 of the facilities showing surface water contamination, while sludge was
present at approximately 45 sites. Pesticides were found to be present at only approximately ten of
those sites affected.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Survey Data
the MSWLF Survey estimates that less than 1.5 percent of the landfills are located within one
mile of a surface water body used for drinking. Only 66 landfills are located near surface water
bodies that serve more than 100 people.
4-77
-------
Figure 4-16. OBSERVED RELEASES AT SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS ON THE NPL
No Release (15.2%)
Surface Water Only (8.7%)
.p>
oo
GW + SW + Air (8.7%)
GW + Air (2.7%)
GW + Air (2.7%)
Ground Water Only
(37.0%)
GW + SW(23.4%)
AirOnly(1.6%)
OF THE 850 SITES LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ON THE NPL,
184 SITES ARE SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS.
SOURCE: Reference 32
-------
The MSWLF Survey also provided data on the distance from each landfill to the nearest surface
water body not used for drinking. Table 4-52 presents the distribution of MSWLFs according to the
distance to the nearest surface water body not used for drinking. The table presents data for
rivers/streams, lakes/reservoirs, and wetlands and indicates that approximately 40 percent of all
MSWLFs are located within 1/4 mile of a surface water body.
Table 4-52. NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS BY DISTANCE TO NEAREST
SURFACE WATER BODY NOT USED FOR DRINKING
Distance to Nearest
Surface Water Body
Distance Unknown
0 Miles
Less than 1/4 Mile
1/4 -1/2 Mile
1/2- 1 Mile
Total
Type of Surface Water Body
Rivers/Streams
73
57
1,574
580
655
2,939
Lakes/Reservoirs
52
7
268
156
187
670
Wetlands
61
70
600
128
117
976
SOURCE: References.
Air
Census Data
As shown in Table 4-50, the Subtitle D census provides information on the number of facilities
that have air monitoring, and information on air quality violations that have been reported to occur
in 1984. These data indicate that 845 MSWLFs were contaminating the air, compared to 18 industrial
landfills, 33 demolition debris landfills, and 54 other landfills. These groups reported 180, eight,
zero, and one incidences of deficient methane controls, respectively. More MSWLFs conduct air
monitoring than do other types of Subtitle D landfills. This may account for the larger number of
violations at MSWLFs. Air contamination and methane control deficiencies may be detected from
facility monitoring data or sampling during State inspections. For reasons cited previously, the
number of reported violations is an imperfect measure of environmental impacts.
Twenty-nine landfill gas migration damage cases were identified for another report to
Congress now being prepared by EPA on extending the useful life of MSWLFs (see Table 4-53). 19
4-79
-------
Table 4-53. LANDFILL GAS MIGRATION DAMAGE CASES
Landfill, Location, and
Date of Event
Fresno, CA
April 1984
Monterey Park, CA
August 1983
West Covina, CA
August-October 1984
Topeka, KA
August 1983
Cincinnati, OH
1983
Wallingford, CT
June 1984
Cleveland, OH
1980
Methane Detected
Off-Site Above
LEL?/Distancea
Yes/N/A
Yes/No information
available.
Yes/250
Yes/No information
available.
Yes/300
Yes/No information
available.
Yes/100
Explosion/Fire?
Yes
On-Site
No
Yes
No
Yesc
Off-Site
No
Yes<
Off-Site
Landfill Characteristics and
Corrective Actionb
Control system installed
after incident.
Class 1 landfill LFG
recovery system present.
Control system existed
prior to incident.
Class 1 landfill. Control
System expanded after
incident.
No information available.
No liner present. Control
system installed after the
incident.
LFG recovery system
present.
No liner present. Soils
consist of silt and clay.
Control system installed
after the incident
Damages and Other Comments
Fresno police bomb squad used site
for practice. A bomb was buried and
was detonated causing LFG
explosion. Explosive levels of
methane were migrating off-site.
Vinyl chloride detection caused
SCAQMD to order 30-day shutdown
of landfill. It reopened, subject to
closure in six months.
Twenty residences temporarily
evacuated due to explosive methane
levels in adjoining soils.
Home abandoned due to high
methane levels.
Explosion destroyed residence across
the street from the landfill. Minor
injuries reported.
Explosive levels of methane detected
in dog pound. Dog pound
temporarily closed, ventilation
system to be installed.
Explosion killed foundry worker on
site adjacent to landfill.
oo
o
-------
Table 4-53. (Continued)
Landfill, Location, and
Date of Event
Richmond, VA
1975
Richmond, VA
1982
Manchester, NJ
December 1983
Wanaque, NJ
March 1984
Comack, NJ
May 1984
Methane Detected
Off-Site Above
LEL?/Distancea
Yes/20
No/N/A
No/N/A
No information
available.
Yes/50
Explosion/Fire?
Yes
Off-Site
Yesc
On-Site
Yes
On-Site
Yes
Yesc
On-Site
Landfill Characteristics and
Corrective Action13
No liner present.
No information available.
Ventilation and alarm
systems to be installed in
the remaining
maintenance garage.
Control system proposed
for school located on a
closed landfill
No liner present. Sandy
soils Control system
installed after incident.
Damages and Other Comments
In 1975, explosion occurred in
nearby apartment building. The City
decided to buy and demolish it. Two
schools sited on the landfill were
closed until a control system was
installed.
The 1 982 incident occurred when
children trespassed onto the landfill
site, entered a control system
manhold, and lit a match, resulting
in an explosion. The nature of the
associated injuries has not been
disclosed. The case is in litigation.
Spark from landfiJI pump probably
ignited methane gas, causing
explosion and fire. One person
sustained first and second degree
and flash burns. Office building
destroyed.
No information available.
Methane migrated to the scale-
house on-site Explosion killed one
person and injured another.
oo
-------
Table 4-53. (Continued)
Landfill, Location, and
Date of Event
Baltimore, MD
April 1983
Jersey City, NJ
1984
Oceanside, CA
1981
Adams County, CO
1977
Springfield, IL
1979
Louisville, KY
1978
Methane Detected
Off-Site Above
LEL?/Distancea
Yes/No information
available.
No/N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes/200
Yes/200
Explosion/Fire?
No
Yes
On-Site
No
Yesc
Off-Site
Yesc
Off-Site
No
Landfill Characteristics and
Corrective Actionb
Solid waste with illegally-
dumped hazardous waste.
Soil type is clay with sand
lenses. Native clay serves
as a liner.
Solid waste with illegally-
dumped hazardous waste.
An NPLsite.
No liner present. Control
system installed after the
incident.
No information available.
No liner present. Control
system installed after the
incident.
No liner present. Soils are
sandy with clay and silt
layers interspersed.
Control system installed
after the incident.
Damages and Other Comments
Vent pipes were not maintained,
causing vents to become non-
functional. Street light fire was
believed related to methane
migration. Ongoing lawsuit
concerns presence of priority
pollutants.
Landfill fires causing air pollution
have been a problem for years.
Schools surrounding the landfill
were evacuated and classes were
suspended for 4-5 months.
Explosion caused two fatalities and
injured seven others at a pipeline
construction project adjacent to the
landfill.
Methane migrated into construction
company offices adjacent to the
landfill. Limited fires occurred No
explosion. Building evacuated and
use restricted for four weeks.
No physical damages occurred.
Buildings evacuated for short period
of time
00
K>
-------
Table 4-53. (Continued)
Landfill, Location, and
Date of Event
Louisville, KY
1978
Frostburg, MD
1978
Rockville, MD
1980
Winston Salem, NC
1969
North Hempstead, NY
1981
Smithtown, NY
1984
Methane Detected
Off-Site Above
LEL?/Distance<*
Yes/1,000
Yes/200
No/N/A
Yes/100
Yes/200
Yes/200
Explosion/Fire?
Yesc
Off-Site
Yesc
Off-Site
Yesc
Off-Site
Yesc
Off-Site
Yesc
Off-Site
Yesc
Off-Site
Landfill Characteristics and
Corrective Action13
No liner present. Soils are
clayey silt to gravelly sand.
Control system installed
after the incident.
No liner present. Soils are
silt and clay. Control
system installed after the
incident.
Old, inactive dump site.
Building constructed on
inactive disposal site.
Control system installed
after the incident.
Codisposal. No liner
present. Control system
installed after the
incident.
Liner present. Soils sandy
with some clay and silt
layers.
Liner is present. Soils are
sandy.
Damages and Other Comments
Small fires and explosions. Several
houses evacuated and condemned.
Benzene (29.5 ppm) and vinyl
chloride (17.9-122.6 ppm) detected
off-site.
Limited fire in off-site equipment
maintenance building. No
explosion. Building use restricted for
two months. Building was highly
ventilated until gas control system
installation.
Small explosion occurred in enclosed
back room of auto body shop. A
janitor was injured. Shop closed for
one month until control system was
installed
Methane migrated into National
Guard Armory. Explosion killed
three guardsmen, seriously injured
twelve, and twenty-five other
guardsmen experienced less serious
injuries. Seven of the injured have
become partially or completely
disabled.
Small explosion in furnace rooms of
several homes. Minor damage
occurred. Furnaces were replaced.
Explosion damaged room in transfer
station.
oo
-------
Table4-53. (Continued)
Landfill, Location, and
Date of Event
Akron, OH
1984
Canton, OH
1984
Tyler, TX
May 1982
Lorton, VA
1984
Madison, Wl
Methane Detected
Off-Site Above
LEL?/Distancea
Yes
500-1,000
Yes/No information
available
No/N/A
Yes
300-1,000
Yes
100-150
Explosion/Fire?
Yes'
On-Site
No
No
Yes<
Off-Site
Yesc
Off-Site
Landfill Characteristics and
Corrective Action6
No liner present. Control
system installed after
incident.
No information available.
Control system existed
prior to incident.
No liner present.- Soils
range from clay to sandy
clay to sand. Control
system installed after the
incident.
Soils are composed of clay,
glacial fill, sand,
weathered and fractured
bedrock.
Damages and Other Comments
One house destroyed. Ten houses
evacuated temporarily. Several
minor injuries.
Two homes and a day care center
temporarily evacuated.
TOPS office building sited on closed
landfill. Methane has caused
problems since early 1970's. Failure
of ventilation exhaust fan resulted in
"significantly high" levels of
methane in the building.
One man was fatally injured and
another burned over 50% of his
body during explosion and limited
fire.
Explosion blew out one sidewall of a
townhouse. Three adjacent
apartment buildings and several
homes evacuated for 20-30 days.
Two people seriously injured. Claims
filed against the City total $5.2
million.
.&.
oo
SOURCE: Reference 19.
Symbols
N/A
a
b
c
Not Applicable.
Reported distance (in feet) of maximum migration, or distance to affected structure.
Landfills are municipal solid waste landfills (publicly or privately owned/operated) unless otherwise noted.
Personal injuries sustained and/or death occurred.
-------
Twenty-one of the 29 cases involved an explosion or fire, and 15 of those cases resulted in personal
injuries and five involved fatalities. More than half of the landfills did not have a methane control
system at the time of the incident.
Significant air pollution has resulted from methane gas-recovery operations at MSWLFs.
Methane gas is produced in landfills during anaerobic bacterial digestion of organic matter. Gas
that is produced in the landfill migrates through the refuse and soil by both convection and
diffusion. Trace quantities of many other types of hazardous wastes have also been observed at
Subtitle D landfills. Studies performed jointly and separately by the Gas Research Institute, the U.S.
Department of Energy, and EPA33.34 found that since methane gas is produced at most landfills, it
may serve as a vehicle for other hazardous contaminants to be released to the atmosphere. In
addition, landfill gas burned for energy recovery might expose consumers to hazardous
contaminants found in the gas.
NPL/SubtitleDData
The NPL/Subtitle D Landfill Study showed that only 16 percent of the 184 NPL/Subtitle D
landfills had significant air emission problems (see Figure 4-16). Most of these sites were used
primarily for industrial waste disposal.
Indian Reservation Surveys
EPA recently sponsored a survey of 48 Indian reservations.35 Forty-four (44) percent of the
reservations cited solid waste disposal as a major problem. Fifty (50) percent of the reservations
surveyed reported that "community dumps" were used for disposal. Roadside dumps and other
unauthorized open dumps were reported by nearly 20 percent of the reservations. Open burning
and community dumps were cited several times as a source of air pollution. Landfill leachate was
cited six times as the actual source of water pollution and 24 times as a potential source.
A survey of the eleven Tribes of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wild life Commission was also
conducted.36 The Tribes were asked to prioritize environmental concerns. The second most
important concern, after surface water quality, dealt with solid waste control. Seven Tribes (63
percent) cited unauthorized landfilling as a problem. Other problems reported included
unauthorized burning and lack of capacity. Two of the Tribes cited landfills as the source of surface
water pollution. A third survey of potential hazardous waste sites in EPA's Region 5 found 66 open
dumps on 29 Indian reservations.37
4-85
-------
In addition to these surveys, other informal communications with various Tribes indicate that
solid waste disposal is an important environmental issue on reservations. Current data, however, are
extremely limited. More information is necessary to determine whether human health and/or the
environment are being threatened.
4-86
-------
4.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
This part presents a general profile of Subtitle D surface impoundments (Sis). It also discusses
SI design and operation, and environmental and human health impacts at Sis.
4.2.1 GENERAL PROFILE
The Subtitle D census provided general information on Sis, including numbers, ownership,
acreage, and waste volumes. Information on waste characteristics was available through other
sources. The Subtitle D census defined SI as:
A part of an establishment which is a natural topographic depression, man-made excavation,
or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials (although it may be lined with man-made
materials) that is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes containing free
liquids. Treatment, storage, and disposal Sis are included. Sis are often referred to as pits,
ponds, or lagoons. This'definition does not include any type of tank, including concrete,
fiberglass, or steel tanks.
This definition is broken down further into the following categories:
Municipal sewage sludge surface impoundments receive sewage sludge from publicly owned
or privately owned domestic sewage treatment establishments, including septic tanks.
Municipal run-off surface impoundments are used for the collection of run-off or leachate
from MSWLFs or municipal solid waste land application units.
Industrial waste surface impoundments receive wastes primarily from factories, processing
plants (including food processing), and other manufacturing or commercial activities. Also included
in this category are Sis used for the collection of run-off or leachate from industrial or demolition
landfills and industrial land application units.
Agricultural waste surface impoundments receive waste only from agricultural operations,
including farming, crop production, and animal husbandry (including feedlots). Specifically
excluded from this category are Sis used for waste from slaughterhouses and other animal and food
processing operations, which are included in the industrial SI category.
4-87
-------
Mining waste surface impoundments are associated with mineral extraction and beneficiation
activities, such as crushing, screening, wasting, and flotation. These minerals include metallic and
nonmetallic ores, coal, sand, and gravel. They exclude oil and gas processing wastes from
manufacturing establishments, which are included in the industrial SI category.
Oil or gas surface impoundments receive waste from oil and gas exploration and extraction,
commonly known as brine pits. Both disposal and emergency brine pits are included. Specifically
excluded are Sis used for petroleum refinery wastes, which are included in the industrial SI category.
Other surface impoundments receive Subtitle D wastes, but do not fall into any of the above
categories.
Number of Surface Impoundments
The Subtitle D census indicates that there were 191,822 active Slsin 1984located at 108,383
establishments. There were more than five times as many oil or gas waste impoundments (125,074)
as the next largest category, mining waste impoundments (19,813). Figure 4-17 depicts the numbers
and relative shares of the seven different types of Sis. These impoundments are distributed
throughout the country, as shown on the map presented in Figure 4-18. Pennsylvania reported the
largest number of Sis (32,653), followed by Arkansas (25,705), Louisiana (20,010), West Virginia
(18,705), and New Mexico (17,044).
The estimated number of Subtitle D Sis is believed to underestimate the actual number of Sis
nationwide, owing to data gaps in the Subtitle D census. Nine States and territories were unable to
provide any estimates for numbers of Sis. One State provided an estimate of the total, but was
unable to break down that estimate into the different categories. Five more States could not
provide estimates for one or more of the categories.
The SI Assessment National Report38 provides a breakdown of numbers of agricultural and
mining waste Sis, as illustrated in Table 4-54. The SI Assessment National Report was discussed in
Chapter 2.
Table 4-55 presents results from the Industrial Facilities Survey on the numbers of Subtitle D Sis
for seventeen major industries. The survey indicates that there are approximately 15,000 industrial
4-88
-------
Figure 4-17. NUMBER OF ACTIVE SUBTITLE D IMPOUNDMENTS BY TYPE
Municipal Runoff
488a
(0.2%)
Municipal
Sewage Sludge
1,9:3a
(1%)
Other
Miscellaneous
(6%)
Industrial
Waste
16,232a
(8%)
Agricultural
Waste
17,159a
(9%)
Mining
Waste
19,813a
(10%)
Oil/Gas
Waste
125,074a
(65%)
TOTAL SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS = 191,822
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a No estimates of surface impoundments were obtained from CA, KY, MO, MN, UT, VT, WY,
PR, and VI; estimate from SD was not broken down by category In addition, no estimates of
municipal sewage sludge were obtained from IL, LA, or Rl; no estimate of industrial waste
from LA; no estimates of agricultural waste from LA or NY; no estimate of mining waste
from NY; no estimates of oil/gas waste from IN, MT, NY, or Rl; and no estimates of municipal
run-off from IL, LA, or Rl.
4-89
-------
*»
O
243
NoD.ta
American Samoa 0
Guam 0
North Marianas 1
Puarto Rico No Data
Virgin Islands No Data
SOURCE: Reference 1
Figure 4-18 NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY STATE
-------
Table 4-54. ESTIMATES OF SPECIFIC SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT NUMBERS AND
WASTES RECEIVED WITHIN EACH IMPOUNDMENT CATEGORY
Waste Description
Number of Impoundments3
Agricultural Waste
Livestock, general
Dairy farm
Hogs
Cattle feed lot
General farm
Poultry farm
Other fur-bearing animals
Crop production
Fish hatcheries
17,159t>
5,333
4,732
3,492
2,974
1,208
717
336
190
95
Mining Waste
Bituminous coal and lignite
Nonmetallic minerals
Metals
Anthracite
19,813t>
19,891
2,272
1,754
459
SOURCE: References 1 and 38.
a Based on data from Reference 38 unless indicated otherwise. Note that numbers from
various sources do not generally concur.
b Based on data from Reference 1. Note that numbers from various sources do not
generally concur.
4-91
-------
Table 4-55. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH SUBTITLE D SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS AND NUMBER OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and
Miscellaneous Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total b
Total Number
of Active
Subtitle D
Units*
385
1,124
515
1,528
373
1,281
7,247
1,548
880
8,029
974
1,249
392
723
298
944
164
27,654
Number of
Active Surf ace
Impoundment
Units
262
383
274
1,220
292
1,039
3,152
918
448
4,166
659
915
176
287
219
741
102
15,253
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Surface
Impoundments
88
185
113
322
80
345
1,977
302
188
1,713
330
321
126
121
53
388
27
6,681
Number of
Establishments
with Closed
Surface
Impoundments
41
107
25
40
43
173
315
111
136
406
11
108
111
101
46
112
23
1,905
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These numbers correspond to the total universe of active Subtitle D units and include landfills,
surface impoundments, land application units, and waste piles.
b These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because of
rounding.
4-92
-------
Sis. This is close to the approximately 16,000 industrial Sis predicted by the census, taking into
account the data gaps mentioned previously.
Table 4-56 presents results from the Industrial Facilities Survey on the number of industrial
Subtitle D Sis that are used for back-up or surge capacity only, rather than for everyday waste
disposal purposes. The survey results indicate that approximately 16 percent of the industrial Sis are
used only for back-up.
Ownership data were provided in the census for 149,711 (78.2 percent) of the Subtitle DSIs.
More than 98 percent were privately owned, as shown in Table 4-57, although local governments
owned most of the municipal sewage sludge and municipal run-off Sis.
The census provided acreage information for 123, 412 (64 percent) of the Sis. As Table 4-58
shows, the majority (90.6 percent) of these impoundments were less than one acre, although about a
third of mining impoundments were six acres or more. Additional SI acreage information from the
Industrial Facilities Survey is presented in Table 4-59. The table indicates that most (80 percent) of
the industrial Sis surveyed are less than five acres.
Census respondents supplied waste quantity data for 124,038 (64.8 percent) of the Sis. As
shown in Table 4-60, more than four-fifths of these impoundments received less than 50,000
gallons each day. Fewer than 1 percent of all impoundments were reported to receive 10 million
gallons or more per day.
Table 4-61 presents results from the Industrial Facilities Survey of waste quantities received in
1985 by Sis in the 17 major industries. The table also presents the percentage of the total industrial
Subtitle D waste that Sis received. The survey indicates that most (96.6 percent) of the industrial
waste disposed of in Subtitle D facilities is sent to Sis. Additional waste quantity information from
the Industrial Facilities Survey is presented in Table 4-62, which shows the distribution of industrial
establishments with Sis according to the quantity of waste disposed of in their SI during 1985. The
table indicates that approximately 40 percent of all establishments with active Sis disposed of more
than 10,000 tons in those Sis.
Waste Characteristics
Wastes disposed of in Subtitle D Sis are generally in liquid, sludge, or slurry form. The
available information on physical and chemical characteristics of these wastes is presented in
4-93
-------
Table4-56. NUMBER OF ACTIVE SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS USED ONLY FOR
BACK-UP OR SURGE CAPACITY BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather Prod.
Totals
Total Number
of Active
Surface
Impoundments
262
383
274
1,220
292
1,039
3,152
918
448
4,166
659
915
176
287
219
741
102
15,253
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Surface
Impoundments
88
185
113
322
80
345
1,977
302
188
1,713
330
321
126
121
53
388
27
6,681
Number of
Establishments
with Back-Up
Surface
Impoundments
35
17
25
72
32
69
270
88
30
389
64
85
16
18
24
72
4
1,308
Number of
Surface
Impoundments
Used Only for
Back-Up
63
24
55
138
62
136
432
165
56
825
73
181
21
'33
58
76
4
2,403
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because of
rounding.
4-94
-------
Table 4-57. NUMBER OF ACTIVE SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY OWNERSHIP
CATEGORY
:
Ownership
Category
Response Rate
(percent)
Owned by
State
Government
Owned by
Local
Government
Owned by
Federal
Government
Privately
Owned
Total Number
of Surface
Impoundments
by Typea
Surface Impoundment Type
Muni-
cipal
Sewage
Sludge
95%
19
(1 0%)
1,327
(72 4%)
42
(2.3%)
446
(243%)
1,834
(100%)
Muni-
cipal
Run-off
100%
0
368
(75 4%)
5
(1 0%)
115
(23 6%)
488
(100%)
Indus-
trial
Waste
66%
94
(09%)
71
(0 7%)
74
(0 7%)
10,519
(97 8%)
10,758
(100%)
Agri-
cultural
Waste
92%
25
(0 2%)
0
3
(0 002%)
15,733
(99 8%)
15,761
(100%)
Mining
Waste
69%
0
5
(004%)
0
13,625
(9996%)
13,630
(100%)
Oil or
Gas
Waste
69%
0
0
0
101,884
(100%)
101,884
(100%)
Other
48%
20
(04%)
663
(12%)
11
(02%)
4,662
(87%)
5,356
(100%)
Total
Per
Owner-
ship
Category
78%
158
(0 1%)
2,434
(1 6%)
135
(0 1%)
146,984
(982%)
149,711
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
4-95
-------
Table 4-58. NUMBER OF ACTIVE SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
BY ACREAGE CATEGORY
Acreage
Category
(acres)
Response
Rate
Less than
0.1
0.1 -0.4
0.5-0.9
1 -5
6-10
11-100
Greater
than 100
Totala
Surface Impoundment Type
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
68%
138
(11 1%)
524
(42 0%)
405
(32 5%)
155
(12 4%)
16
(1 3%)
4
(0.3%)
5
(0.4%)
1,247
(100%)
Municipal
Run-off
71%
43
(124%)
123
(35 5%)
92
(26 6%)
67
(194%)
16
(46%)
5
(1 4%)
0
346
(100%)
Industrial
Waste
40%
705
(108%)
1,627
(248%)
2,205
(33 6%)
1,113
(170%)
458
(7 0%)
380
(5 8%)
70
(1 1%)
6,558
(100%)
Agricultural
Waste
69%
560
(4 7%)
5,843
(495%)
2,445
(20 7%)
2,791
(23 6%)
68
(0 6%)
102
(0.9%)
0
11,809
(100%)
Mining
Waste
33%
320
(5 0%)
439
(6 9%)
927
(144%)
2,679
(41 6%)
1,801
(280%)
257
(40%)
17
(0 3%)
6,440
(100%)
Oil or
Gas
Waste
73%
36,575
(399%)
48,318
(52 7%)
5,316
(5 8%)
1,244
(1 4%)
237
(0 3%)
27
(003%)
25
(0 03%)
91,742
(100%)
Other
47%
4,833
(91 7%)
241
(4 6%)
137
(2 6%)
42
(0 8%)
15
(0 3%)
2
(0.04%)
0
5,270
(100%)
Total
Per
Acreage
Category
64%
43,174
(35%)
57,115
(463%)
11,527
(9 3%)
8,091
(6 5%)
2,611
(2 1%)
777
(006%)
117
(0 1%)
123,412
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
4-96
-------
Table 4-59. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D ESTABLISHMENTS WITH ACTIVE SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS BY INDUSTRY TYPE AND TOTAL AREA OF SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS IN EACH ESTABLISHMENT
Industry Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron
and Steel
Fertilizer and
Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and
Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay,
Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Non-
ferrous Metals
Food and
Kindred Prod.
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and
Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected
Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and
Leather
Products
Totala
Number of Establishments by Area of Surface Impoundments
Less
than
0.1
Acre
7
38
44
56
9
31
885
34
53
253
37
68
67
54
11
134
4
1,784
0.1-
0.49
Acre
16
35
18
17
16
75
331
38
19
316
64
84
12
13
3
77
0
1,133
0.5-
0.99
Acre
11
15
4
13
5
70
106
36
19
258
30
16
15
14
5
18
4
641
1-5
Acres
20
41
29
73
28
86
408
43
27
529
157
100
31
" 30
18
133
9
1,760
6-10
Acres
25
11
3
22
8
24
102
11
37
120
30
16
0
4
7
6
6
435
11-50
Acres
7
39
9
55
13
33
128
84
10
149
13
27
1
3
9
12
3
596
51-100
Acres
0
3
3
33
0
9
12
18
5
22
1
4
0
1
0
8
0
119
More
than
100
Acres
2
4
4
51
1
17
5
39
17
65
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
210
Total
Establishments
Per Industry
Typea
88
185
113
321
80
345
1,976
302
188
1,713
331
320
126
120
53
388
27
6,677f
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because of
rounding.
b Overall response rate for this table is 99 percent.
4-97
-------
Table 4-60. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
TYPE AND AMOUNT OF WASTE
Amount of
\A/acfe
Received
(in
thousands)
Response
Rate
50 or fewer
gallons/day
50-99
gallons/day
100-499
gallons/day
500 - 999
gallons/day
1,000-
9,999
gallons/day
10,000 or
more
gallons/day
Total a
Surface Impoundment Type
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
79%
1,392
(95.7%)
50
(3.4%)
14
(1 0%)
2
(0.2%)
0
0
1,458
(100%)
Municipal
Run-off
58%
215
(75.7%)
58
(20 4%)
0
3
(1 1%)
8
(2 8%)
0
284
(100%)
Industrial
Waste
40%
2,998
(46 1%)
1,202
(18.5%)
935
(144%)
817
(12 6%)
470
(7 2%)
85
(1 3%)
6,507
(100%)
Agricultural
Waste
70%
11,074
(92 9%)
831
(7 0%)
21
(0 2%)
0
0
0
11,926
(100%)
Mining
Waste
31%
2,372
(39 2%)
619
(102%)
1,136
(188%)
630
(104%)
946
(156%)
350
(5 8%)
6,053
(100%)
Oil or
Gas
Waste
74%
79,096
(85 3%)
266
(0 3%)
13,316
(144%)
0
0
0
92,678
(100%)
Other
46%
5,013
(978%)
71
(1 4%)
36
(0 7%)
5
(0 1%)
7
(0 1%)
0
2
(100%)
Total Per
Amount
of Waste
Received
for Each
Category
65%
102,160
(82 3%)
3,097
(2 5%)
15,458
(12 5%)
1,457
(1 2%)
1,431
(1 2%)
435
(0 3%)
124,038
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
4-98 '
-------
Table 4-61. WASTE QUANTITY DISPOSED OF IN INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS IN 1985 BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type3
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and
Agricultural Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and
Miscellaneous Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total a
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Surface
Impoundments
88
185
113
322
80
345
1,977
302
188
1,713
330
321
126
121
53
388
27
6,681
Waste Quantity
Disposed of in
Surface
Impoundments
(thousand tons)
56,727
1,290,649
154,257
1,037,665
177,241
875,075
605,168
2,235,418
56,559
293,524
49,724
167,885
23,567
11,789
62,440
252,931
3,214
7,353,834
Total Waste
Quantity Disposed
of in All Facilities
(thousand tons)
58,864
1,300,541
165,623
1,092,277
180,510
919,725
621,974
2,251,700
67,070
373,517
58,846
168,632
24,198
12,669
67,987
253,780
3,234
7,616,149
Percent of Total
Waste Disposed
of in Surface
Impoundments
96.3
99.2
93.1
95.0
98.2
95.1
97.3
99.3
84.3
78.6
84.5
99.6
97.4
93.1
99.1
99.7
99.4
96.6
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because of ,
rounding.
4-99
-------
Table 4-62. NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS WITH SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY
INDUSTRY AND WASTE QUANTITY DISPOSED OF IN THEM IN 1985
Industry
Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron
and Steel
Fertilizer and
Agricul. Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass,
and Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonfer-
rous Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and
Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected
Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and
Leather Products
Total a
Number of Establishments by Waste Quantity Disposed of
in Them in 1985 (tons)
Less
Than
3
1
1
3
5
3
3
42
9
6
13
0
30
41
7
2
1
0
168
3-9
2
1
1
3
2
1
106
23
5
30
0
4
1
0
0
16
0
197
10-99
2
37
37
29
4
25
419
0
38
105
34
60
22
19
2
39
3
877
100-
499
12
18
9
29
6
34
594
29
18
215
34
12
1
29
3
1
3
1,049
500-
999
1
3
3
7
1
14
194
3
2
54
5
10
10
2
4
11
1
325
1,000-
4,999
11
24
6
20
8
83
217
19
51
353
17
70
1
9
4
21
0
916
5,000-
10,000
13
10
3
7
2
32
76
15
10
129
32
8
3
8
5
16
1
369
Greater
Than
10,000
45
89
47
207
50
145
290
201
55
799
207
117
46
44
33
283
18
2,677
Total
Establish-
ments Per
Industry
Type3
86
182
110
306
77
340
1,939
301
186
1,700
329
310
126
118
52
388
27
6,578b
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals
because of rounding.
b Overall response rate for this table is 98.5 percent.
4-100
-------
Chapters of this report. Table 4-63 presents results from the Industrial Facilities Survey of the total
number of Sis receiving on-site SQG hazardous waste for each of 17 major industries. According to
the survey, most SQGs do not dispose of their hazardous waste in on-site Sis.
4.2.2 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
The following discussion of design and operating characteristics of Subtitle D Sis summarizes
the pertinent data collection efforts. The information is organized under the topics of design,
operation and maintenance, and environmental monitoring characteristics. Table 4-64 presents the
number of Subtitle D Sis using various types of release prevention methods, according to the 1984
census. With a few exceptions, release prevention is not a frequently used waste management
method. Further detail on this topic is provided throughout the subsection.
Surface Impoundment Design
The design of an SI may be a complex engineering activity in which waste characteristics,
facility usage characteristics, and site characteristics are considered in the specification of design
features. This subsection will outline the major environmental protection features of an SI design.
These features include liners, run-on/run-off controls, leachate detection systems, cover and closure
characteristics, and location factors.
Liners
Liners constructed of low-permeability materials are used to prevent waste migration
through impoundment floors and sidewalls. Since liner use for landfills and Sis is similar,
descriptions of soil, membrane, and composite liners are analogous to those provided in the landfill
subsection (Subsection 4.1.3). Subtitle D census data on liner use status indicate that less than one-
third of active Sis are lined (see Table 4-64).
Soil liners for Sis are similar to those for landfills, although SI designs usually consider the
additional effects of hydraulic head on the integrity of the liner. The Subtitle D census indicates that
27 percent of active Subtitle D Sis use soil liners. Soil liner use is most frequent among agricultural
waste impoundments (54 percent), followed by other waste (44 percent), municipal run-off (29
percent), oil and gas waste (27 percent), municipal sewage sludge (26 percent), industrial waste (17
percent), and mining waste (4 percent) impoundments (see Table 4-64). No data were available to
describe the quality of the soil liners used in these impoundments.
4-101
-------
Table 4-63. NUMBER OF SMALL-QUANTITY-GENERATOR INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS THAT
DISPOSE OF THEIR SMALL-QUANTITY-GENERATOR WASTE IN THEIR SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemicals and Allied Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather Products
Total a
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Surface
Impoundments
88
185
113
322
80
345
1,977
302
188
1,713
330
321
126
121
53
388
27
6,681
Number of
Establishments
that are SQGs
with Surface
Impoundments
13
26
40
180
11
117
550
114
64
570
74
165
16
17
6
171
9
2,143
Number of SQG
Establishments
Disposing of
SQG Waste in
Their Surface
Impoundments
3
9
4
15
4
2
42
35
10
84
10
27
10
1
3
50
0
309
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because
of rounding.
4-102
-------
Table 4-64. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS USING VARIOUS TYPES OF RELEASE PREVENTION METHODS
Management
Method
Synthetic Liners (e.g.,
membrane)
Natural Liners (e.g.,
day)
Leak Detection
Systems
Overtopping
Controls
Waste Restrictions
(ban on certain
Subtitle D waste
types)
Discharge Permits
All Management
Methods3
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
76
(3 9%)
508
(26 2%)
32
(1 7%)
589
(30 4%)
634
(32 9%)
522
(26 6%)
1,938
Municipal
Run-off
23
(4 7%)
140
(28.7%)
37
(7 6%)
269
(55 1%)
71
(145%)
16
(3 3%)
488
Industrial
Waste
756
(4.7%)
2,818
(174%)
896
(5.5%)
3,672
(23%)
2,685
(17%)
4,738
(29 2%)
16,232
Agricultural
Waste
60
(0 3%)
9,299
(54 2%)
26
(0 2%)
6,713
(39 1%)
8,371
(48 8%)
2,018
(11 8%)
17,159
Mining
Waste
200
(1 0%)
868
(4 4%)
335
(1 7%)
4,144
(20 9%)
4,358
(22.0%)
4,970
(25 7%)
19,813
Oil or Gas
Waste
2,950
(2 4%)
33,768
(27%)
1,406
(1 1%)
28,541
(23%)
30,509
(24.4%)
46,491
(372%)
125,074
Other
(e.g.,
drinking
water
treatment
sludges)
6
(0.1%)
4,835
(44%)
0
4,733
(43%)
4,736
(42 6%)
171
(1 5%)
11,118
Total Surface
Impoundments
Per
Management
Method
4,071
(2.1%)
52,236
(27%)
2,732
(1 4%)
48,661
(25%)
51,364
(26.8%)
58,926
(30 7%)
191,822
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Some establishments use more than one management method. Therefore,4he percentages may add to more than 100
-------
Membrane liners are, ideally, impermeable to liquid wastes, so the effect of hydraulic head is
reduced. Shultz et al.39 have demonstrated the technical feasibility of retrofitting Sis with
membrane liners using a "pull-through" technique with a flexible chlorosulfonated polyethylene
membrane. The Subtitle D census indicates that just over 2 percent of the active Subtitle D Sis use
membrane or synthetic liners. Between 2 and 5 percent of industrial waste, municipal run-off,
municipal sewage sludge, and oil and gas waste impoundments have membrane liners; while 1
percent or less of mining waste, agricultural waste, and other waste impoundments use them (see
Table 4-64). No data were available that described the membrane liners used in the lined
impoundments.
Run-on/Run-off Controls
Dikes, channels, and berms control run-on and run-off by damping, diverting, and/or slowing
storm water flow into and out of Sis. Design requirements are dictated by site topography, normal
climate, and expected extreme weather conditions. Dikes are used for impoundment sidewal I
construction and run-off control. Lined sidewall dikes on fill and filled/excavated impoundments
serve to ensure slope stability and prevent lateral seepage. Both kinds of dikes are designed to
provide surface drainage control, meet stability criteria and resist wind-driven wave erosion, ram
erosion, burrowing animals, and tree roots.
Channels and berms are used in conjunction with dikes to minimize run-off, erosion, and
infiltration. Channels may be constructed of concrete, sod, corrugated metal, or admix materials.
They divert run-on from impoundments, and their design is determined by site topography and
expected climatic conditions. Berms are flattened embankments surrounding impoundments
designed to lessen run-on velocity and allow sufficient room for the equipment used in liner
installation and maintenance.
The Subtitle D census reported that overtopping controls are used at 25 percent of Sis (see
Table 4-64). The census did not distinguish between different types of overtopping controls, and no
other data concerning run-on/run-off control technology uses were available. Overtopping controls
are used most frequently among municipal run-off impoundments (55 percent), followed by other
waste (43 percent), agricultural waste (39 percent), municipal sewage sludge (30 percent), industrial
waste (23 percent), oil and gas waste (23 percent), and mining waste (21 percent) impoundments.
4-104
-------
Leak Detection Systems
Leak detection systems indicate liner failure and subsequent waste migration from lined Sis.
The Subtitle D census reports that leak detection systems are found at only 1.4 percent of active
impoundments. As shown in Table 4-64, the highest rate of leak detection system use is with
municipal run-off (7.6 percent) and industrial waste impoundments (5.5 percent).
Impoundment wastes exhibit phenomena that distinguish them from normal ground-water
conditions. Leak detection requires the discovery of the wastes' distinctive phenomena outside the
impoundment boundaries. Distinctive phenomena that yield to modern detection systems include
changes in specific conductance, the presence of subgrade and impoundment materials,
characteristics of ground-water flow fields, and liner and soil distress.
Cover and Closure Characteristics
When an SI has reached the end of its useful life, and after the liquid wastes have been
dewatered and otherwise treated, a permeable or impermeable cap may be installed. The specific
features of an SI cover design depend upon the intended final use of the waste site as dictated in the
closure plan. Cover designs for dewatered and treated SI wastes are the same as cover designs for
landfilled waste. Characteristics of landfill covers were discussed previously.
In most cases, impoundment closure follows a procedure of dewatering, sludge removal and
disposal, liner repair or removal, dike repair and contaminated soil removal, monitoring system
installation, backfill, cover, and surface reclamation.^ No data were available on the number of
cover systems being used.
Location Factors
Physical location factors (site and surrounding topography, climate, and hydrogeologic
setting) present the final line of defense for contaminant control. No data were available
concerning the location characteristics of different facilities or the numbers of Sis employing location
factors in their designs. State and territorial location requirements are discussed in Chapter 5.
4-105
-------
Surface Impoundment Operation and Maintenance
As with landfills, operation and maintenance of an SI is an ongoing project involving
equipment, materials, and personnel. Because of the nature of liquid wastes, operation and
maintenance of an SI is less labor and equipment intensive than operation and maintenance of a
landfill, and operating costs are generally lower. Subtitle D census statistics for release prevention
and management methods that may be used during SI operations are presented in Table 4-64.
Almost 27 percent of Sis have waste restrictions, and about 30 percent have discharge permits.
Limited information is available to indicate the incidence of other operating and maintenance
features. Operation and maintenance plans for Sis may include staff structure and requirements,
facility description and design parameters, emergency procedures, operation variables and
procedures, troubleshooting procedures, preventive maintenance procedures, personnel safety
requirements and procedures, equipment maintenance records, permissible and unacceptable
waste lists, and an additional record of all additions, deletions, or revisions of procedures.25
Maintenance of the physical plant will include control of design, construction, construction
materials, wastes received, impoundment performance, liner condition, earth work condition,
vegetation, rodents, inspections, and unacceptable practices.25
Environmental Monitoring at Surface Impoundments
This section presents pertinent environmental monitoring characteristics of Subtitle D Sis.
Environmental monitoring may be performed in three media: ground water, surface water, and air.
The Subtitle D census provides an indication of active Subtitle D SJ monitoring activity.
Ground-Water Systems and Parameters
The purpose of ground-water monitoring is to determine the presence or extent of
contaminant migration from the impoundment. Consideration for ground-water monitoring
systems and parameters for Sis are identical to design consideration for landfill ground-water
monitoring and can be found in Section 4.1.3. Table 4-65 indicates that about 4 percent of all
impoundments have ground-water monitoring systems. Mining waste impoundments were
reported to have these systems more often than other impoundments.
4-106
-------
Table 4-65. NUMBER OF ACTIVE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS WITH MONITORING SYSTEMS^
Surface
Impoundment Type
Municipal Sewage Sludge
Municipal Run-off
Industrial Waste
Agricultural Waste
Mining Waste
Oil and Gas Waste
Other
Total
Number of Surface Impoundments by Monitoring System
Ground-Water
131
(6 8%)
192
(39 3%)
1,396
(8.6%)
44
(0 3%)
5,399
(27%)
165
(0.1%)
7
(0.1%)
7,334
(3.8%)
Surface-Water
50
(26%)
57
(11 7%)
3,151
(19 4%)
135
(0 8%)
8,679
(43 8%)
20,030
(160%)
133
(1 2%)
32,235
(168%)
Air Emissions
10
(0 5%)
0
73
(0 4%)
1
(<0 1%)
15
(0 1%)
25
(<0 1%)
0
124
(0 1%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are total number of surface impoundments having the specific monitoring system
divided by the total number of surface impoundments of that type.
4-107
-------
Surface Water Systems and Parameters
The Subtitle D census indicates that approximately 17 percent of Subtitle D impoundments
presently have surface water monitoring systems. Mining waste (44 percent) and industrial waste
(19 percent) have higher percentages of surface water monitoring than do the other impoundment
types (see Table 4-65). The proximity of waste Sis to surface water and drainage patterns determine
the necessity of surface water monitoring. Sampling programs generally include upstream stations
to collect adequate background water quality data and downstream stations in areas of most likely
contamination.
Air Monitoring Systems and Parameters
Nonhazardous waste Sis do not generally contain explosive or highly volatile gases.
Accordingly, Table 4-65 indicates that only 0.1 percent ofactive Subtitle D Sis have air monitoring
systems. Excluding methane monitoring (which is not relevant to Sis), the air monitoring systems and
parameters at Sis are identical to those used for landfill air monitoring and are described in the
landfill section.
4.2.3 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS AT SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
This subsection presents data relating to environmental and human health impacts of Subtitle
DSIs, and has the same objectives as Subsection 4.1.4. Table 4-66 presents Subtitle D census data
relating to ground-water, surface water, and air impacts at Subtitle D Sis. The table also presents
statistics on State inspections and on the numbers of Sis with monitoring systems. The following
discussion reviews the available aggregate and case study information on the impacts of ground-
water, surface water, and air contamination.
Ground Water
Ground-water impacts of Subtitle D Sis were not described in detail in any of the data
collection efforts, nor were they described in any of the literature reviewed for this study. However,
the census presented data on ground-water-related permit violations at Subtitle D Sis. No case
studies were evaluated for ground-water impacts associated with Sis.
4-108
-------
Table 4-66. AGGREGATE DATA RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Total Active Facilities
Number of Facilities With
at Least One Violation
Ground-water
contamination
Surface water
contamination
Air
contamination
State Inspection at Least
Once Each Year3
Facilities With Monitoring
Ground water
Surface water
Air emissions
Number of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments by Type
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
1,938
35
24
20
1,148
131
50
10
Municipal
Run-Off
488
32
18
12
350
192
57
0
Industrial
Waste
16,232
416
279
145
5,541
1,396
3,151
73
Agricultural
Waste
17,159
29
189
21
3,334
44
135
1
Mining
Waste
19,813
48
249
5
2,366
5,399
8,679
15
Oil and
Gas Waste
125,074
111
128
10
62,724
165
20,030
25
Other
11,118
6
22
0
674
7
133
0
Total Surface
Impoundments
Per Category
191,822
677
909
213
76,137
7,334
32,235
124
£>.
o
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a These data include numbers cited by States for frequencies ranging from once a year to more than four times a year. They exclude
less frequent inspections and entries under the questionnaire category of "other."
-------
Census Data
Table 4-66 presents data showing that few Sis monitor ground water. This table also presents
the number of facilities with at least one ground-water protection standard violation and the
number of facilities with inspections at least once each year. The census reported 416 ground-water
violations at industrial Sis and lesser numbers at other types of Sis. Thirty-two ground-water
contamination violations were reported at municipal run-off Sis.
These values and those for other types of Sis may understate the total number of violations
substantially, since of the active industrial and municipal run-off Sis, only 9 percent and 39 percent,
respectively, had ground-water monitoring programs. For these and other reasons cited previously
(in the discussion of impacts at landfills), the number of reported violations is an imperfect measure
of environmental impacts.
Surface Water
Surface water impacts of Subtitle D surface impoundments were not described in detail in any
of the data collection efforts or literature reviews. The census presents data on surface-water-
related violations at Subtitle D surface impoundments. In the absence of case studies or data
regarding surface water impacts associated with surface impoundments, actual public health or
environmental impacts associated with contamination from this type of facility cannot be made. No
case studies were evaluated for surface water impacts associated with Sis.
Census Data •
Table 4-66 shows that about 17 percent of all impoundments monitor surface water. The
table also indicates that 24 municipal sewage sludge surface impoundments were reported by the
State to have at least one surface water contamination violation, compared to 279 industrial
facilities, 189 agricultural units, and 249 mining waste units, contributing to a total of 909 SI units
with violations in 1984.
Air
Air impacts at Subtitle D Sis were not described in detail in any of the data collection efforts or
literature reviews. The census does present data on air-related violations at Subtitle D Sis. No case
studies that examine actual impacts upon air quality due to the presence of an SI were available for
4-110
-------
this study. In the absence of such data the nature and significance of impacts associated with these
occurrences cannot be evaluated. However, the reports of contamination violations indicate that
these problems do exist.
Census Data
Table 4-66 indicates that little air monitoring is performed at Sis. Twenty municipal sewage
sludge Sis were reported that have at least one air contamination violation compared to 145
industrial facilities, 21 agricultural units, and 5 mining waste units, contributing to a total of 213 SI
units with at least one violation in 1984.
4.3 LAND APPLICATION UNITS
This section' presents data on Subtitle D land application units (LAUs). The topics covered
include general profile, design and operation, and environmental impacts at LAUs.
4.3.1 GENERAL PROFILE
The Subtitle D census provided general information on the numbers, ownership, acreage, and
waste volumes of LAUs. Information on waste characteristics was available from other sources. The
Subtitle D census defined LAUs as:
A part of an establishment at which waste is applied onto or incorporated into the soil surface
for the purpose of beneficial use or waste treatment and disposal. Land application is often
referred to as landfarming or landspreading. Specifically excluded from this definition are
manure spreading operations.
This definition is broken down further into:
Municipal sewage sludge land application units, which primarily receive sewage sludge from
publicly owned or privately owned domestic sewage treatment facilities, including sludge
from domestic septic tanks (wastewater LAUs are not included in the census). These LAUs are
divided into two types: high-application units, where the application rate exceeds the
nutrient needs of crops, and low-application units, where the application rate is based on
crop nutrient needs.
4-111
-------
Industrial waste land application units, which receive waste (including sludge or wastewater)
primarily from factories, processing plants, and other manufacturing or commercial
activities.
Oil and gas land application units, which receive waste generated by oil and gas exploration
and extraction operations--e.g., drilling muds.
Other land application units, which receive Subtitle D wastes but do not fall into any of the
above categories-e.g., a drinking water treatment waste LAU.
For each type of LAU, Subtitle D census data were collected on total numbers, ownership,
acreage, and amount of wastes received.
Numbers of Land Application Units
Respondents typically rated the quality of the data on the numbers of LAUs in the fair, poor,
or very poor range. According to census results, there were 18,889 Subtitle D LAUs located at 12,312
establishments in the United States in 1984. Municipal sewage sludge units accounted for about
two-thirds of this total. Figure 4-19 presents the number and relative share of the total for each of
the four types of LAUs. The total estimated number of active Subtitle D LAUs in 1984 for each State
and territory is shown on the map presented in Figure 4-20. Wisconsin has the highest number of
Subtitle D LAUs(4,181), followed by Michigan (2,501), Pennsylvania (2,400), Indiana (1,300), and
Minnesota (850).
Data on the number of industrial establishments with any active Subtitle D units, the number
of establishments with active LAUs, the number of active LAUs, and the number of closed LAUs are
shown in Table 4-67.
Ownership of Land Application Units
Ownership data were reported in the census for 18,782 (99.4 percent) of the total Subtitle D
LAUs, and are presented in Table 4-68. The high-rate application and low-rate application data do
not equal the total municipal sewage sludge figures because States that reported municipal sewage
sludge data did so in different ways. Some States reported one number for the total municipal
sewage sludge facilities, while others reported the total number of facilities according to the
4-112
-------
Figure 4-19. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY TYPE
Industrial
5,605^
(30%)
Municipal
Sewage Sludge
11,937a
(63%)
Oil or Gas
726a
(4%)
TOTAL LAND APPLICATION UNITS = 18,889
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a No estimates of municipal sewage sludge LAUs obtained for IL, LA, MO or WV; no estimates of
industrial waste LAUs obtained for IL, LA, MO, or MT; and no estimates of oil or gas waste
LAUs obtained for IL, MO, or MT.
4-113
-------
czzzzzzzza
Amarican Samoa 0
Guam 3
North Mariana* 1
,100 No Data
, |«|Md* No Data
SOURCE: Reference 1.
Figure 4-20. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY STATE
-------
Table 4-67. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION
UNITS AND NUMBER OF LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron
and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inqrganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemicals
and Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total b
Total Number
of Active
Subtitle D
Units*
385
1,124
515
1,528
373
1,281
7,247
1,548
880
8,029
974
1,249
392
723
298
944
164
27,654
Number of
Active Land
Application
Units
27
76
160
43
17
24
309
139
9
3,128
147
114
16
11
. 17
72
0
4,308
Number of
Establishments
with Active Land
Application Units
24
53
95
34
15
16
188
75
8
1,375
102
45
16
10
15
65
0
2,136
Number of
Establishments
with Closed
Land
Application
Units
8
10
27
6
10
27
64
38
18
229
30
48
21
20
11
24
10
601
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These numbers correspond to the total universe of active Subtitle D units and include
landfills, surface impoundments, land application units, and waste piles.
b These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because
of rounding.
4-1 15
-------
Table 4-68. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY OWNERSHIP CATEGORY
Land Application Unit Type
Municipal Sewage Sludge
at High Application Rates3
Municipal Sewage Sludge
at Low Application Rates3
Total Municipal Sewage
Sludge3
Industrial Waste
Oil or Gas Waste
Other
Total
Response
Rate
(Percent)
98
99
99
99
100
100
99
Ownership Category
State
Government
2
(0.8%)
72
(0.7%)
104
(0.9%)
1
(0.1%)
1
(0.1%)
10
(1.6%)
116
(0.3%)
Local
Government
48
(20.3%)
1,028
(10.6%)
1,524
(12.9%)
18
(0.3%)
6
(0.8%)
26
(4%)
1,574
(8.4%)
Federal
Government
0
17
(0.2%)
72
(0.6%)
13
(0.2%)
16
(2.2%)
9
(1.4%)
110
(0.6%)
Privately
Owned
187
(78.9%)
8,570
(88.5%)
10,145
(85.6%)
5,558
(99.4%)
703
(96.8%)
576
(92.8%)
16,982
(90.4%)
Total
Land
Application
Units per
Type
237
(100%)
9,687
(100%)
11,845
(100%)
5,590
(100%)
726
(100%)
621
(100%)
18,782
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a High-rate application and low-rate application do not equal the total municipal sewage sludge figures because some States
do not distinguish between high and low application rates.
-------
application rate category (high or low). As Table 4-68 makes clear, the great majority of all kinds of
LAUs are privately owned.
Acreage of Land Application Units
Acreage information was supplied in the Subtitle D census for 15,576 LAUs (82.4 percent).
Although three-quarters of "other" LAUs were greater than 100 acres, more than half of municipal
sewage sludge, industrial waste, and oil and gas waste LAUs were less than 50 acres. These acreage
data for each type of LAU and for total LAUs are presented in Table 4-69.
Additional LAU acreage information is available from the Industrial Facilities Survey, and is
presented in Table 4-70. The survey indicates that more than half of the industrial facility LAUs were
less than 50 acres.
Waste Volumes Handled by Land Application Units
Census information on the amounts of waste received was reported for 12,020 (63.6 percent)
of the Subtitle D LAUs. Most LAUs received less than 50 tons of waste (dry weight) i n 1984, as shown
in Table 4-71, although the majority of oil or gas waste LAUs received 100 to 999 tons during the
year. Table 4-72 presents results from the Industrial Facilities Survey of waste quantities received in
1985 by LAUs in the 17 major industries surveyed. The table also presents the percentage of the
total industrial Subtitle D waste that LAUs receive. The survey indicates that very little of the total
waste produced by the 17 industries and disposed of in Subtitle D facilities goes to LAUs.
Additional LAU waste quantity information from the Industrial Facilities Survey is presented in
Table 4-73, which shows the distribution of industrial establishments with LAUs according to the
quantity of waste disposed of in their LAUs during 1985. Most of the industries received more than
100,000 tons in 1985.
A study currently being conducted on food processing and pulp and paper industry (SIC 20 and
SIC 26) LAUs provided some preliminary informations9on waste volumes. To date, 117 land
treatment sites have been contacted for the study. Seventy-two of these sites were in the food
processing category. Because of the limited number of sites contacted thus far, the information
presented should not be interpreted as representative of land treatment practices of either
industrial category. The specific industries and the number of sites contacted are listed in Table 4-74.
Both wastewater and solid wastes were applied to the land at these facilities. Over 16 billion gallons
4-117
-------
Table 4-69. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY ACREAGE CATEGORY
Land
Application
Unit Type
Municipal Sewage
Sludge at High
Application
Ratesb
Municipal Sewage
Sludge at Low
Application
Ratesb
Total Municipal
Sewage SI udgeb
Industrial
Waste
Oil or
Gas Waste
Other
Total
Response
Rate
(percent)
98
78
82
96
100
100
82
Number of Units by Size
Less Than
10 Acres
96
(40 7%)
1,503
(196%)
2,077
(21 2%)
681
(154%)
568
(78 2%)
154
(24 8%)
3,480
(22.3%)
10-49
Acres
57
(242%)
3,339
(43 6%)
4,567
(46 5%)
1,805
(40 9%)
69
(9 5%)
7
d 1%)
6,448
(41 4%)
50-99
Acres
64
(27 1%)
1,476
(193%)
1,789
(182%)
1,462
(33 1%)
44
(6.1%)
6
(1 0%)
3,301
(21 2%)
100 Acres
or More
19
(80%)
1,336
(175%)
1,378
(140%)
470
(106%)
45
(62%)
454
(73 1%)
2,347
(15 1%)
Total Land
Application
Units per
Typea
236
(100%)
7,654
(100%)
9,811
(100%)
4,418
- (J:00%)
726
(100%)
621
(100%)
15,576
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
b High-rate application and low-rate application do not equal the total municipal sewage
sludge figures because some states do not distinguish between high and low application
rates.
4-118
-------
Table 4-70. NUMBER OF ACTIVE INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LAND
APPLICATION UNITS BY INDUSTRY TYPE AND TOTAL AREA OF
LAND APPLICATION UNITS IN EACH ESTABLISHMENT
Industry
Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and
Steel
Fertilizer and
Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass,
and Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and
Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chemical
and Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total a
Number of Establishments by Land
Application Unit Total Area
Less than
10 Acres
16
29
5
31
9
7
144
6
5
444
32
13
12
9
7
50
0
818
10-50
Acres
2
4
54
2
1
4
14
4
2
350
30
3
2
0
5
11
0
487
51-100
Acres
0
1
2
1
2
2
30
35
0
163
29
1
1
1
3
0
0
271
More than
100 Acres
6
0
34
0
3
3
0
30
1
407
11
28
1
0
0 .
4
0
528
Total
Establishments
Per Industry Type3
24
34
95
34
15
16
188
75
8
1,364
102
45
16
10
15
65
0
2,105
SOURCE: Reference2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals
because of rounding.
4-119
-------
Table 4-71. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY AMOUNT OF WASTE
RECEIVED ANNUALLY
Land
Application
Unit Type
Municipal Sewage
Sludge at High
Application Ratesb
Municipal Sewage
Sludge at Low
Application Rates'3
Total Municipal
Sewage Sludge*3
Industrial
Waste
Oil or
Gas Waste
Other
Total
Response
Rate
(percent)
32
52
57
81
76
100
64
Received
Less than
50 Tons
per Year
(dry
weight)
20
(26.0%)
2,727
(53.9%)
4,276
(63.3%)
3,740
(91.3%)
81
(14.7%)
319
(51.4%)
8,416
(70.0%)
Received
50-99
Tons per
Year
(dry
weight)
24
(31.2%)
958
(18.9%)
1,043
(15.4%)
174
(4.2%)
22
(4.0%)
151
(24.3%)
1,390
(11.6%)
Received
100-999
Tons per
Year
(dry
weight)
5
(6.5%)
1,050
(20.8%)
1,080
(16.0%)
151
(3.7%)
439
(79.8%)
151
(24.3%)
1,821
(15.1%)
Received
1,000 or
more Tons
per Year
(dry
weight)
28
(36.4%)
321
(6.3%)
355
(5.3%)
30
(0.7%)
8
(1.5%)
0
393
(3.3%)
Total Land
Application
Units Per
Type3
77
(100%)
5,056
(100%)
6,754
(100%)
4,095
(100%)
550
(100%)
621
(100%)
12,020
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
b High-rate application and low-rate application do not equal the total municipal sewage
sludge figures because some States do not distinguish between high and low application
rates.
4-120
-------
Table 4-72. WASTE QUANTITY DISPOSED OF IN INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION
UNITS IN 1985 BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Totala
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Land
Application
Units
24
53
95
34
15
16
188
75
8
1,375
102
45
16
10
15
65
0
2,136
Waste
Quantity
Disposed of in
Land
Application
Units
(Thousand
Tons)
1,827
76
756
331
166
108
51
8,942
373
75,938
8,955
396
52
0.33
423
763
0
99,160
Total Waste
Quantity
Disposed of in
all Facilities
(Thousand
Tons)
58,864
1,300,541
165,623
1,092,277
180,510
919,725
621,974
2,251,700
67,070
373,517
58,846
168,632
24,198
12,699
62,987
253,780
3,234
7,616,149
Percent of
Total Waste
Disposed of in
Land
Application
Units
3.1
<0.01
0.5
0.03
0.09
0.01
<0.01
0.4
0.6
20
15
0.2
0.2
<0.01
0.7
0.3
0
1.3
SOURCE: Reference 2.
3 These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because
of rounding.
4-121
-------
Table 4-73. NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY INDUSTRY
TYPE AND WASTE QUANTITY DISPOSED OF IN THEM IN 1985
Industry
Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Misc. Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total3
Number of Establishments with Land Application
Units by Amount of Waste Disposed of in Them
(tons)
Less Than
10
0
25
38
2
1
1
72
1
1
298
24
25
10
7
0
0
0
504
10-29
0
0
16
2
1
0
2
2
0
194
4
1
0
1
2
32
0
258
30-49
0
0
0
0
1
1
70
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
79
50-99
2
0
17
2
1
3
0
2
2
25
0
2
1
1
2
7
0
67
100-
1,000
4
5
4
3
6
2
26
40
1
232
32
7
1
1
4
10
0
380
Greater
Than
1,000
18
2
20
22
5
9
9
29
2
612
38
9
3
0
6
16
0
801
Total
Establish-
ments per
Industry
Type-3
24
32
95
32
15
16
179
74
6
1,363
102
45
16
10
15
65
0
2,088b
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals
because of rounding.
b Overall response rate for this table is 97.7 percent.
4-122
-------
Table 4-74. NUMBER OF SITES CONTACTED FOR FOOD PROCESSING
AND PULP AND PAPER LAND APPLICATION UNITS STUDY
BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry
Category
Pulp and paper
Meat products
Dairy products
Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables
Bakery products
Sugar products
Beverages
Miscellaneous (food preparations, canned
and cured fish, roasted coffee)
Total
Number of Sites
Contacted
45
2
5
34
1
3
8
19
117
SOURCE: Reference41.
and 328 thousand dry tons of waste were handled at the 117 sites. These facilities also provided
some data on ages of facilities. Ninety-two of these facilities have been in operation for less than 15
years, although six facilities have been operating for more than 30 years.
Waste Characteristics
The principal waste types that are disposed of in Subtitle D LAUs include municipal sewage
sludge, industrial wastewater and sludge, and oil and gas wastes. General characteristics of these
wastes are presented in Chapter 3.
Waste restrictions are widely practiced at LAUs; therefore, the chemical and physical
characteristics of land-applied wastes are determined as much by facility operation or design
parameters as by waste generator characteristics. Table 4-75 lists waste constituent ranges for
industrial wastes that are well suited for disposal through land application. Biological oxygen
demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) are commonly used to determine a waste's
degradeability.
The municipal sewage sludge characteristics of interest to land application include solids
content, total fixed dissolved solids, suspended solids, BOD, and COD. As with industrial wastes,
municipal sludge characteristics define a waste's degradeability and are used to establish application
rate limits.
4-123
-------
Table 4-75. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATERS APPLIED TO LAND
Constituent
BOD, mg/l
COD, mg/l
Suspended Solids, mg/l
Total Fixed Dissolved
Solids, mg/l
Total Nitrogen, mg/l
pH, dimensionless
Temperature, °F
Food
Processing
200-4,000
300-10,000
200-3,000
1,800
10-50
4.0-12
145
Pulp and
Paper
60-30,000
-
200-100,000
2,000
--
6-11
195
Dairy
4,000
-
-
1,500
90 - 400
5-7
-
SOURCE: Reference42.
Table 4-76 presents results from the Industrial Facilities Survey on the number of industrial
SQGsthatdisposeof their hazardous waste in on-site Subtitle D LAUs. The survey indicates that very
few of theSQG industrial establishments surveyed dispose of their SQG wastes in their LAUs.
4.3.2 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF LAND APPLICATION UNITS
This section discusses design, operation and maintenance, and environmental monitoring at
LAUs.
4-124
-------
Table 4-76. NUMBER OF SMALL-QUANTITY-GENERATOR INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS
THAT DISPOSE OF THEIR SMALL-
QUANTITY-GENERATOR WASTE IN THEIR LAND
APPLICATION UNITS BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemical and Allied
Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather Products
Total a
Number of
Establishments
with Active Land
Application
Units
24
53
95
34
15
16
188
75
8
1,375
102
45
16
10
15
65
0
2,136
Number of
SQGswith
Land
Application
Units
3
43
20
29
1
4
132
20
2
401
9
2
0
0
0
40
0
706
Number of SQG
Establishments
Disposing of
SQG Waste in
Their Land
Application
Units
0
20
0
1
0
0
30
1
0
35
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals
because of rounding.
4-125
-------
Design of Land Application Units
Many variables may affect the design of LAUs. The existing soil characteristics determine the
waste types that can be used, and the waste characteristics determine the application method. This
section presents design information concerning slope, run-on/run-off controls, and soil
requirements.
Slope
Slope can affect the amount of soil erosion and potential run-off of applied sludge. Steep
slopes are acceptable if the soil is well drained and well aerated. With very permeable soils,
however, steep slopes increase the possibility of surface run-off of sludge. Rapid surface run-off and
soil erosion can transport sludge-soil mixtures to surface waters. The particular wastes must also be
considered. No data were available concerning various slopes at active LAUs.
Run-on/Run-off Controls
Run-on/run-off control requirements are used to protect water quality and prevent
unauthorized discharge into the ground water or surface water. Selection of run-on/run-off control
usually depends upon sludge application techniques. The following is a list of common techniques
and practices used to control run-off:43
• filling of depressions from cut ridges and mounds to control ponding,
• terraces to protect lower lands,
• diversion terraces graded and grass covered to deliver water at nonerosive flows to a
control discharge point,
• vegetation to control erosion and reduce surface run-off,
• collection and storage of surface run-off, and
• leachate collection and control.
Table 4-77 shows that 51 percent of the LAUs reported in the census employ run-on/run-off
controls. Municipal sewage sludge LAUs are the most likely to have these controls.
4-126
-------
Table 4-77. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS USING VARIOUS TYPES OF
RELEASE PREVENTION METHODS
Land Application
Unit Type
Municipal Sewage
Sludge at High
Application Rate
Municipal Sewage
Sludge at Low
Application Rate
Total Municipal
Sewage SI udgeb
Industrial
Waste
Oil or Gas Waste
Other
Total
Number of Land Application Units by Release Prevention
Management Method3
Run-on/Run-
off Controls
59
(24.4%)
4,090
(41.8%)
5,075
(42.5%)
3,837
(68.5%)
569
(78.4%)
164
(26.4%)
9,645
(51.1%)
Waste
Restrictions
(ban on certain
Subtitle D
waste types)
185
(76.4%)
5,698
(58.3%)
5,932
(49.7%)
3,633
(64.8%)
122
(16.8%)
554
(89.2%)
10,241
(54.2%)
Waste
Application
Rate Limits
195
(80.6%)
8,164
(84%)
9,437
(79.7%)
4,085
(72.9%)
93
(12.8%)
475
(76.5%)
14,090
(74.6%)
Restrictions on
the Growing
of Food-Chain
Crops
198
(81.8%)
7,672
(78.5%)
8,401
(70.4%)
2,395
(42.7%)
23
(3.2%)
576
(92.8%)
11,395
(60.3%)
Total Land
Application
Units Per
Type
242
9,779
11,937
5,605
726
621
18,889
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Some LAUs apply more than one management method.
b High-rate application and low-rate application may not equal the subtotal because some
States do not distinguish between high and low application rates.
4-127
-------
Soil Type Requirements
Soil characteristics affect LAU siting because the conditions and properties of soil and sludge
determine sludge application rates. Soil characteristics commonly considered include soil test
information, permeability requirements, and special considerations for crop growth. No data were
available concerning various soil types at LAUs.
Operation and Maintenance of Land Application Units
The operating and maintenance characteristics of an LAU consist of a wide spectrum of
activities and precautions. This section is concerned with safety precautions and controls, employees
and equipment, waste application techniques, waste application rate limits, and emergency
preparedness. Limited data are available on current LAU practices in these areas. No data are
available on contingency plans and LAU employees.
Safety Precautions and Controls
Data are presented in Table 4-77 for waste restrictions, application rate limits, and crop
restrictions. The census data indicate that 54 percent of all LAUs employ waste restrictions, 75
percent have application rate limits, and 60 percent have restrictions on growing food-chain crops.
The majority of facilities using these methods are municipal sewage sludge units.
Equipment
Equipment at LAUs is used for transportation, storage, and application of waste. The
equipment used for waste transport and application varies according to the consistency of the waste
applied (i.e., dewatered, liquid sludge, orwastewater). Fordewatered sludge, open dump trucks are
used for transporting, while bulldozers, loaders, graders, or box spreaders are used for spreading.
Regular farm equipment is used for spreading or filling dewatered sludge, and heavy-duty disks or
disk harrows are commonly used to bury the sludge.
Liquid sludge and wastewater are usually transported in tank trucks or pipelines (also used are
closed railroad tanks and barges). Tank truck sprayers and spreaders with splash guards are used to
apply the waste. Subsurface application is achieved by using subsurface injection dischargers
mounted to plows or disks.
4-128
-------
Storage facilities are used in cases of equipment breakdowns or adverse weather conditions,
or to accommodate fluctuations in sludge production rates and agricultural cropping patterns.
These storage facilities include lagoons, septic tanks, holding tanks, unconfined hoppers, and bins.41
Waste Application Techniques
Waste application techniques also vary with waste consistency. The application techniques for
dewatered or liquid sludge differ from those for wastewater.
Municipal wastewater sludge can be applied to land in either liquid or dewatered form.
Dewatered sludge application is similar to that of fertilizers, lime, or animal manure. Liquid sludge
can be applied by tank truck, farm tank wagon, or subsurface injection. Land application of
industrial wastewater is used for waste treatment and disposal. Surface application methods include
sprinkler systems, ridge and furrow, border strip, and basin flooding. Land treatment methods
include slow- and rapid-rate infiltration. The municipal sludge application rate may be determined
by sludge composition, soil test information, fertilizer need of the crop grown, and annual waste
addition limits. Fifty-nine (50 percent) of the 117 facilities in the food processing and pulp and paper
LAD study used land spreading of solids, and 50 (42 percent) utilized slow-rate application. Data are
presented in Table 4-78 for application techniques used by each industry type contacted.
Weeks in Operation
Approximately half the 117 facilities contacted for the food processing and pulp and paper
LAD study operate year-round, while the other half operate less than 7 months per year. Figure 4-21
presents this data.
Emergency Preparedness
Emergency preparedness procedures used at LAUs include training personnel for emergencies,
keeping emergency equipment on standby, using fire precaution procedures such as prohibition of
unauthorized open burning, constructing storm-water channels to prevent flooding of potentially
harmful wastewater, and using proper monitoring procedures (see the subsection on Environmental
Monitoring at LAUs).
4-129
-------
Table 4-78. APPLICATION TECHNIQUES FOR FOOD PROCESSING AND PULP AND PAPER
LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Category
Pulp and paper
Meat
Dairy
Canned and Fresh
Fruit and Vegetables
Bakery
Sugar
Beverages
Miscellaneous
Total3
Application Technique
Slow Rate
3
2
2
25
1
4
3
10
50
(42%)
Landspread
41
0
3
3
0
0
5
7
59
(49.6%)
Overland
Flow
1
1
0
5
0
0
0
2
9
(7%)
Rapid
Rate
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
(0.8%)
Total Land
Application
Units per
Industry
Category
45
3
5
34
1
4
8
19
1igb
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 41.
a Percentages are rounded and do not total 100 percent.
b Facilities may use more than one technique.
Figure 4-21. WEEKS OF OPERATION PER YEAR FOR FOOD PROCESSING
AND PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRIES
Number of Facilities
60
50
40
30
20
10
Y////A
8 12 15 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52
Weeks in Operation
SOURCE: Reference 41.
4-130
-------
Environmental Monitoring at Land Application Units
After sludge application, LAUs are monitored to determine the extent of environmental
changes that have occurred as a result of waste application. Environmental monitoring needs vary
according to land utilization (e.g., dedicated land disposal, agricultural purposes) and existing site
characteristics. In general, monitoring at an LAU may include sampling and analysis of:
• sludge quantities and characteristics,
• soil characteristics (physical and chemical),
• ground-water quality beneath and adjacent to the site in the direction of ground-water
flow,
• surface water run-off from the site,
• surface waters potentially affected by the site,
• odor, dust, and/or aerosol emissions from the site, and
• crops grown on the site.
Data from the Subtitle D census are presented in Table 4-79, showing the number of active
Subtitle D LAUs with ground-water, surface water, air, or soil monitoring systems in place.
Forty-six percent of the 117 facilities contacted in the food processing and pulp and paper LAU
study had ground-water monitoring systems. Twenty percent reported no monitoring, and 34
percent did not respond.41
Sludge System and Parameters
A sludge monitoring system is often used as a quality control tool and a warning of the
presence of high concentrations of undesirable constituents. In addition, data on plant nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) are sometimes monitored to assist sludge users (e.g., farmers,
commercial tree growers) in efficient use of nutrients.
4-131
-------
Table 4-79. NUMBER OF ACTIVE LAND APPLICATION UNITS WITH MONITORING SYSTEMS
Land Application
Unit Type
Municipal Sewage Sludge at High
Application Rate
Municipal Sewage Sludge at Low
Application Rate
Total of Municipal Sewage
Sludgea
Industrial Waste
Oil or Gas Waste
Other
Total
Ground-Water
Monitoring
43
(178%)
170
(1 7%)
337
(2 8%)
592
(10.6%)
247
(34.0%)
3
(0 5%)
1,179
(6 2%)
Surface
Water
Monitoring
16
(6 6%)
74
(0 8%)
265
(2 2%)
137
(2.4%)
230
(31 7%)
0
632
(3 3%)
Air
Monitoring
0
0
100
(0.8%)
31
(0 6%)
37
(5 1%)
0
168
(0 9%)
Soil
Monitoring
206
(85 1%)
4,157
(462%)
4,804
(40 2%)
204
(3 6%)
42
(5 8%)
3
(0 5%)
5,053
(26 8%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a A high-rate application and low-rate application may not equal the subtotal because some
States do not distinguish between high and low application rates.
The frequency of sludge sampling and analysis is commonly a function of system size, historical
variations in sludge characteristics, the land application option being used, and the sampling
frequency required by the appropriate regulatory agency.44 Sludge may be analyzed for pH and a
variety of chemical constituents. If the system used is potentially sensitive to pathogens and/or
priority organics, these parameters may also be measured. No data were available on the numbers
of facilities that monitor sludge or input wastes.
Soil System and Parameters
Periodic soil monitoring of an LAU may be done when the sludge contains significant
quantities of heavy metals or priority-persistent organics, when heavy sludge application rates are
used (e.g., as with a dedicated disposal site), when there is concern that the soil will become
phytotoxic to vegetation on the site, or when the LAU's State or local permit requires certain
periodic soil monitoring. Table 4-79 shows that about 27 percent of all LAUs identified in the census
monitor the soil. Most of these a re municipal sewage sludge LAUs.
Ground-Water System and Parameters
A detailed discussion of ground-water monitoring systems can be found in Section 4.1.3
(Landfills). The constituents analyzed from ground-water samples depend on monitoring goals,
waste composition, uses of ground water, and regulatory requirements. The Subtitle D census
4-132
-------
indicated that about 6 percent of all LAUs monitor ground water (from Table 4-79). Most of these
are industrial waste LAUs.
Surface Water Monitoring Systems and Parameters
Surface water monitoring is generally performed when it is required by an NPDES permit or
when the site is near a sensitive surface water body.43 Surface water monitoring parameters may
include those that may either affect public health or contribute to eutrophication (e.g., nitrogen and
phosphorus). Data from the census, presented in Table 4-79, indicate that about 3 percent of all
LAUs monitor surface water. Municipal sewage sludge and oil and gas units monitor surface waters
most frequently.
Air Monitoring Systems and Parameters
As shown in Table 4-79, few LAUs (less than 1 percent) monitor the air. No data were available
on the monitoring systems or parameters used at the sites reporting air monitoring.
Crop Monitoring/Parameters
Vegetation monitoring is usually done when heavy sludge application rates are used (e.g., as
with a dedicated disposal site) and there is concern that food-chain vegetation grown on the site
may accumulate potentially harmful quantities of heavy metals (particularly cadmium) from the
amended soil. It may also be performed to assure private farm owners that their crops are not being
harmed by the use of sludge. The actual parameters monitored will vary among LAUs, depending on
the sludge constituents of concern. No data on numbers of facilities that monitor crops were
available.
4.3.3 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AT LAUs
This subsection presents data relating to environmental impacts of Subtitle D LAUs and has the
same objectives as Subsection 4.1.4. It presents the available aggregate and case-study information
on the environmental impacts of contaminants in ground water, surface water, and air. No data on
actual public health impacts of LAUs were available for this study. Table 4-80 presents Subtitle D
census data relating to ground-water, surface water, and air impacts at Subtitle D LAUs. The table
also presents statistics on State inspections and on the numbers of LAUs with monitoring systems.
4-133
-------
Ground Water
As shown in Table 4-80, few LAUs monitor ground water. This table indicates that, in 1984, 17
municipal sewage sludge LAUs, 45 industrial LAUs, and 2 oil or gas and other LAUs were reported to
have at least one ground-water protection standard violation. However, the number of reported
violations is an imperfect measure of environmental impacts for reasons cited previously in the
discussion of impacts at landfills (see Section 4.1.4).
Land treatment field studies were conducted for field application units to determine the
environmental acceptability of LAU operations.42 The conclusions of the case studies are site-
specific, with each site possessing a unique balance of decomposition and waste migration,
depending upon the various properties of the waste, site, and land cultivation techniques. These
case studies are not reviewed here because their data were insufficient to draw general conclusions
about health and environmental impacts at LAUs.
Surface Water
As shown in Table 4-80, few LAUs monitor surface water. The data in this table indicate that
17 municipal sewage sludge facilities; 60 industrial facilities, 25 oil or gas LAUs, and 24 other LAUs
had at least one surface water contamination violation. No case studies providing significant
information on surface water impacts from LAUs were available for this report.
Air
As shown in Table 4-80, few LAUs monitor air. This table indicates that 12 municipal sewage
sludge facilities and 10 industrial LAUs were reported to have at least one air contamination
violation in 1984. No case studies were available that provided information on air impacts associated
with LAUs.
4.4 WASTE PILES
This section provides a general profile of Subtitle D waste piles. It also discusses the
design and operation, and environmental impacts of waste piles. Waste piles have not yet been
sufficiently characterized to determine the human health effects they cause.
4-134
-------
Table 4-80. AGGREGATE DATA RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AT LAND APPLICATION UNITS
Total Active Facilities
Number of Facilities With at Least
One Violation
Ground-water contamination
Surface water contamination
Air contamination
State Inspection at Least Once Each
Yearb
Facilities With Monitoring
Ground water
Surf ace water
Air emissions
Soil
Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units, by Type
Municipal Sewage Sludge
High
Application
Rate
242
4
1
0
18
43
16
0
206
Low
Application
Rate
9,779
13
15
12
1,267
170
74
0
4,517
Total of
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge3
11,937
17
17
12
2,321
337
265
100
4,804
Industrial
Waste
5,605
45
60
10
796
592
137
31
204
Oil or
Gas Waste
726
2
25
0
652
247
230
37
42
Other
621
2
24
0
26
3
0
0
3
Total Land
Application
Units Per
Category
18,889
66
126
22
3,795
1,179
632
168
5,053
U)
Ul
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a High-rate application and low-rate application do not equal the total because some States do not distinguish between high and low application
rates.
b These data include numbers cited by States or territories for inspection frequencies ranging from once a year to more than four times a year. The
category excludes less frequent inspections and entries under the questionnaire category of "other."
-------
4.4.1 GENERAL PROFILE
The Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Study45 indicates that a number of industries use
waste piles for either temporary stockpiling or permanent disposal of wastes. These industries
include:
• fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals;
• electric power generation;
• industrial inorganic chemicals;
• industrial organic chemicals;
• lumber and wood products;
• pulp and paper;
• plastic and resin manufacturing;
• primary iron and steel manufacturing and ferrous foundries;
• primary nonferrous metals manufacturing and nonferrous foundries;
• stone, clay, glass, and concrete products; and
• textile manufacturing.
Waste piles were not included in the Subtitle D census, and sufficient data are not available to
provide the numbers, locations, types, ownership characteristics, or sizes of all existing waste piles.
Waste piles were, however, included in the Industrial Facilities Survey. Therefore, numbers for
industrial waste piles are available. EPA is conducting ongoing studies to gather more information
about this facility type.
Numbers of Waste Piles
Table 4-81 presents nationwide projections based on results from the Industrial Facilities
Survey of the numbers of Subtitle D waste piles for the 17 major industries surveyed. The table also
includes data on the number of industrial establishments with any active Subtitle D units, the
number of establishments with active waste piles, the number of active waste piles, and the number
of closed waste piles. The survey indicates that there are approximately 5,335 active industrial waste
piles.
4-136
-------
Table 4-81. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH SUBTITLE D WASTE PILES AND
NUMBER OF WASTE PILES BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron
and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and
Miscellaneous Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chemicals
and Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total
Number of
Active Subtitle D
Units*
385
1,124
515
1,528
373
1,281
7,247
1,548
880
8,029
974
1,249
392
723
298
944
164
27,654
Number of
Active Waste
Piles
79
464
50
110
32
98
2,528
232
312
540
48
158
123
362
41
103
54
5,335
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Waste Piles
37
335
30
98
23
60
2,082
163
261
340
44
136
108
307
39
99
43
4,205
Number of
Establishments
with Closed
Waste Piles
36
102
25
18
13
42
305
69
93
141
8
43
27
93
10
28
39
1,092
SOURCE: Reference2.
a These numbers correspond to the total universe of active Subtitle D units and include landfills,
surface impoundments, land application units, and waste piles.
4-137
-------
Waste Volume
Table 4-82 presents nationwide projections data from the Industrial Facilities Survey on the
percentage of the total quantity of Subtitle D waste that waste piles receive. According to the
survey, only 1.0 percent of the industrial waste stream disposed of in Subtitle D facilities is received
by waste piles.
Table 4-83 shows the distribution of industrial establishments with waste piles according to
the daily quantity of waste disposed of in their waste piles during 1985. The table displays
nationwide projection data on 17 major industries.
Waste Pile Acreage
Limited information was available on theareal extent and volume of waste piles. These data
were highly variable and industry-dependent, since many wastes are stockpiled only temporarily
until they can be recycled. Waste pile acreage information from the Industrial Facilities Survey is
presented in Table 4-84, which shows the distribution of industrial establishments with waste piles
according .to total waste pile acreage per establishment.
Waste Characteristics
Waste disposed of in Subtitle D waste piles is generally in slurry or solid form. Table 4-85
shows a partial list of the waste types disposed of in waste piles according to the Industrial
Nonhazardous Waste Survey. The table illustrates the wide variety of compounds present in
industrial waste piles. Additional data on the waste characteristics were discussed previously in
Chapter 3.
Table 4-86 presents national projections from the Industrial Facilities Survey on the number of
industrial establishments that store off-site waste and off-site household waste in their on-site waste
piles. The survey indicates that about 5 percent of industrial waste piles accept off-site waste. Table
4-87 presents national projections from the survey on the number of industrial SQGs who dispose of
their hazardous waste in on-site Subtitle D waste piles. According to the survey, very few
establishments dispose of SQG hazardous waste in waste piles.
4-138
-------
Table 4-82. WASTE QUANTITY DISPOSED OF IN INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D WASTE PILES IN 1985
BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total a
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Waste Piles
37
335
30
98
23
60
2,082
163
261
340
44
136
108
307
39
99
43
4,205
Waste
Quantity
Disposed of
in Waste Piles
(thousand
tons)
48
6,129
4,820
832
3,018
41,323
"9,184
1,469
8,764
460
9
79
58
708
8
18
11
76,936
Total Waste
Quantity
Disposed of
inAII
Facilities
(thousand
tons)
58,864
1,300,541
165,623
1,092,277
180,510
919,725
621,974
2,251,700
67,070
373,517
58,846
168,632
24,198
12,669
62,987
253,780
3,235
7,616,149
Percent of
Total Waste
Disposed of
in Waste Piles
0.08
0.5
2.9
0.08
1.7
4.5
1.5
0.07
13
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.2
4.6
0.01
<0.01
0.3
1.0
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals
because of rounding.
4-139
-------
Table 4-83. NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS WITH WASTE PILES BY INDUSTRY TYPE AND WASTE
QUANTITY DISPOSED OF IN THEM IN 1985
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and
Agricultural Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and
Miscellaneous Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total3
Number of Establishments According to Amount of Waste
Disposed of in Them (thousand tons)
Less
than 0.5
21
202
19
77
19
30
1,549
51
198
297
41
112
76
213
33
90
37
3,064
0.5-5
15
74
2
8
1
12
1£4
63
41
28
1
21
21
70
6
10
3
558
5.1-20
2
24
4
0
2
4
131
38
14
4
0
2
1
15
0
0
0
242
21-100
0
14
1
8
0
2
57
7
4
11
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
106
101-
1,000
0
2
3
1
0
7
21
2
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
40
More
than
1,000
0
2
1
0
1
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
Total
Establish-
ments Per
Industry
Typea
37
317
30
93
23
60
1,942
162
261
340
42
135
98
300
39
99
39
4,019t>
SOURCE: Reference2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals because
of rounding.
b Overall response rate for this table is 95.6 percent.
4-140
-------
Table 4-84. NUMBER OF ACTIVE INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D ESTABLISHMENTS WITH WASTE PILES
BY INDUSTRY TYPE AND TOTAL AREA OF WASTE PILES IN EACH ESTABLISHMENT
Industry
Type
Organic
Chemicals
Primary Iron
and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and
Resins Manufacturing
Inorganic
Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and
Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water
Treatment
Petroleum
Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile
Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total a
Number of Establishments with Waste Piles
According to Size
Less
than
5 Acres
35
311
22
91
20
44
2,017
148
243
315
44
131
108
304
39
68
43
3,983
5-10
Acres
0
16
2
5
0
2
29
6
9
13
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
89
11-50
Acres
0
5
2
1
0
6
5
7
2
12
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
42
51-100
Acres
0
1
0
1
0
1
12
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
More
than
100 Acres
1
1
4
0
1
7
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
51
Total
Establish-
ments Per
Industry Type3
36
334
30
98
21
60
2,063
163
261
340
44
136
108
307
39
99
43
4,183t>
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals
because of rounding.
b Overall response rate for this table is 99.5 percent.
4-141
-------
Table 4-85. WASTE TYPES DISPOSED OF IN WASTE PILES
Industry
Waste Types
Fertilizer and other
agricultural chemicals
(SIC 2873-2879)
Waste gypsum
Electric power generation
(SIC 4911)
Coal piles
Fly ash
Bottom ash/slag
Industrial inorganic chemicals
(SIC 2812-2819)
Hydrofluoric acid
Calcium carbide
Phosphorus
Gypsum
Lime
Slag
Industrial organic
chemicals
(SIC 2819)
Precipitates/filtration residues
Sludges
Heavy ends
Off-spec, products
Spent adsorbent
Spent catalyst
Lumber and wood products
(SIC 24)
Wood residues
Pulp and paper
(SIC 26)
Papermill sludges
Pulping rejects and fines
Bark wastes
Plastic and resin manufacturing
(SIC 2821)
Off-specification products and sludges
Decantates/filtrates
Miscellaneous solids
Spent solvents
Heavy ends
Light ends
Spent carbon
Sludges
Primary iron and steel
manufacturing and ferrous
foundries
(SIC 3312-3321)
Steelmaking slag
Blast furnace slag
Blast furnace sludge
Spent pickle liquor (dumped on slag piles)
Continuous casting scale
Primary mill scale
Hot rolling scale
Fly/bottom ash
Electric arc furnace slag
4-142
-------
Table 4-85. (continued)
Industry
Primary nonferrous metals
manufacturing and nonferrous
foundries
(SIC 3330-3399)
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete
products
(SIC 32)
Textile manufacturing
(SIC 22)
Waste Types
Butt screenings
Electromelt furnace slag
Dross
Spent potliners
Shot blast dusts
Slag
Slurries and sludges (with slag)
Dried polishing pond solids
Goethite leach residues
Saleable zinc-lean residues
Zinc-oxide clinker
Refractory brick
Slag
Acid plant blowdown/run-off/washdowns
Treated slag granulation water
solids
dredged
Sediment from granulation water slag
Waste brick
Kiln dusts
Not available
SOURCE: Reference45.
4-143
-------
Table 4-86. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH SUBTITLE D WASTE PILES
RECEIVING OFF-SITE WASTE AND OFF-SITE HOUSEHOLD WASTE
BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous
Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemicals and Allied
Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather Products
Total
Number of
Establishments with
Active Waste Piles
37
335
30
98
23
60
2,082
163
261
340
44
136
108
307
39
99
43
4,205
Number
Accepting Off-site
Waste
11
5
4
32
0
4
79
3
7
30
5
30
1
14
2
0
1
228
Number
Accepting Off-site
Household Waste
0
0
0
23
0
1
69
0
0
0
1
0
0
7
2
0
0
103
SOURCE: Reference2.
4-144
-------
Table 4-87. NUMBER OF SMALL-QUANTITY-GENERATOR INDUSTRIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS THAT DISPOSE OF THEIR
SMALL-QUANTITY-GENERATOR WASTE IN THEIR
WASTE PILES BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and Agricultural
Chemicals
Electric Power Generation
Plastics and Resins Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Food and Kindred Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Miscellaneous Products
Transportation Equipment
Selected Chemicals and Allied
Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather Products
Total a
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Waste Piles
37
335
30
98
23
60
2,082
163
261
340
44
136
108
307
39
99
43
4,205
Numberwith
Waste Piles
That Are SQGs
0
118
7
61
2
14
552
62
88
188
38
46
33
38
24
11
3
1,285
Number of SQG
Establishments
Disposing of SQG
Waste in Their
Waste Piles
0
5
0
5
0
0
62
1
4
11
0
1
10
14
22
0
0
135
SOURCE: Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals. The table entries may not add to their respective totals
because of rounding.
4-145
-------
4.4.2 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF WASTE PILES
This section discusses the design, and the operation and maintenance of Subtitle D waste piles.
No information was available to ascertain the extent of ground-water, surface water, or air
monitoring in the vicinity of Subtitle D waste piles.
Waste Pile Design
Waste piles are often used for temporary storage of wastes that will be recycled or used as
fuel. Therefore, little design is involved in the construction of waste piles. Some waste pile areas
have run-on/run-off controls to minimize the leaching of contaminants from the wastes. In a few
States, run-off impoundments or catch basins have been required to protect surface waters. Liner
systems to control the release of contaminants to ground water are generally not used.
Waste Pile Operation and Maintenance
Most (55 percent) of the establishments with waste piles eventually send their wastes off site.
Table 4-88 presents results from the Industrial Facilities Survey on the number of industrial
establishments with waste piles and the various management methods by which the materials are
handled after they are placed in the waste piles. No other data were available concerning the
operation and maintenance of Subtitle D waste piles.
4.5 SUMMARY
Chapter 4 provides data on the numbers, design and operating features, leachate and gas
characteristics, and the monitoring systems in place at Subtitle D facilities. These data, along with
the waste characterization data from Chapter 3, provide the information necessary to determine if
Subtitle D wastes and facilities are causing significant impacts to human health and the
environment. (See Volume I of this report.)
The census identified 16,416 active Subtitle D landfills in the United States. Municipal waste
landfills, industrial waste landfills, and demolition debris landfills comprise the largest landfill
subcategories, making up 57 percent, 21 percent, and 16 percent of the landfill universe,
respectively. Seventy-two percent of all landfills receive less than 30,000 cubic yards per year (30 tons
per day).
4-146
-------
Table 4-88. MANAGEMENT METHODS FOR WASTE STORED IN INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D WASTE PILES BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Industry Type
Organic Chemicals
Primary Iron and Steel
Fertilizer and
Agricultural Chemicals
Electric Power
Generation
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Stone. Clay, Glass, and
Concrete
Pulp and Paper
Primary Nonferrous
Metals
Food and Kindred
Products
Water Treatment
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and
Miscellaneous Products
Transportation
Equipment
Selected Chemicals and
Allied Products
Textile Manufacturing
Leather and Leather
Products
Total"
Number of
Establishments
with Active
Waste Piles
37
335
30
98
23
60
2.082
163
261
340
44
136
108
307
39
99
43
4,205
Waste
Quantity
Placed in
Waste Piles
(thousand tons
in 1985)
48
6,129
4,820
832
3,018
41,323
9,184
1,469
8,764
460
9
79
58
708
8
18
11
76,936
Number of Establishments per Management Method
Sent
Off-site
29
238
7
43
10
35
1,174
103
171
124
37
65
106
234
33
87
37
2,533
Recycled
On-site
11
45
4
24
2
8
305
2
84
44
2
8
1
16
2
0
1
558
Incinerated
On-site
1
7
2
0
1
1
9
7
0
3
2
3
11
1
0
0
1
50
Transferred
to Landfill
On-site
1
8
0
3
9
2
55
4
11
30
1
1
0
3
0
1
0
129
Transferred
to Land
Application
Units On-site
1
3
1
0
0
1
39
0
1
105
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
158
Transferred to
Surface
Impoundments
On-site
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
13
Kept in
Permanent
Storage in
Waste Pile
3
24
10
30
2
20
423
8
53
25
1
35
0
10
2
2
0
648
Other
7
59
12
32
2
8
391
49
47
85
3
19
2
99
4
10
4
835
No
Management
Method
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
SOURCE- Reference 2.
a These are the correct totals The table entries may not add to their respective totals because of rounding
-------
Leachate and gas from landfills contain a variety of organic and inorganic compounds. These
substances are found at a wide range of concentrations. The current data have many limitations.
Design and operation practices employed at Subtitle D landfills include synthetic and natural
liners, leachate collection systems, run-on/run-off controls, methane controls, leachate treatment
and recirculation, liquid waste restrictions, and environmental monitoring. Less than half of all
Subtitle D landfills employ any one of these environmental controls.
Releases to all environmental media were observed to occur at Subtitle D landfills. Factors
observed to contribute to ground-water contamination include age of landfill, depth to ground
water, soil and liner permeability, net infiltration rate, and ground-water flow rate and
characteristics of waste received.
The Subtitle D census identified 191,822 surface impoundments (Sis) in the United States. Oil
and gas Sis constitute 65 percent of the Subtitle D SI universe, and mining waste Sis, agricultural
waste Sis, and industrial waste Sis constitute 10 percent, 9 percent, and 8 percent of the universe,
respectively. Eighty-two percent of all Sis receive 50,000 or fewer gallons per day.
Design and operation practices employed at Subtitle D Sis include synthetic and natural liners,
leak detection systems, overtopping controls, waste restrictions, discharge permits, and
environmental monitoring. Less than one-third of all Subtitle D Sis employ any one of these controls.
Releases to all environmental media have been observed at Subtitle D Sis.
The Subtitle D census identified 18,889 land application units (LAUs) in the United States.
Municipal sewage sludge LAUs com pose 63 percent of the universe, and industrial and oil or gas
LAUs make up 30 percent and 4 percent of the LAU universe, respectively. Seventy percent of all
LAUs receive less than 50 tons of waste per year (dry weight).
Design and operation practices employed at Subtitle D LAUs include run-on/run-off controls,
waste restrictions, application rate limits, restrictions on the growing of food-chain crops, and
environmental monitoring. Seventy-five percent of all LAUs limit waste application rates, and more
than half use run-on/run-off controls, waste restrictions, and restrictions on the growing of food-
chain crops. Releases to all environmental media have been observed at Subtitle D LAUs.
The Industrial Facilities Survey indicates that there are approximately 5,335 active industrial
waste piles. Available information indicates that a number of industries use waste piles for either
4-148
-------
temporary stockpiling or permanent disposal of Subtitle D wastes. No data on environmental
monitoring at waste piles on releases to the environment were available.
4-149
-------
4.6 REFERENCES
1. Westat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste Programs.
Contract 68-01-7047, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1986.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Results of the Industrial Subtitle D Facility
Survey. Unpublished, Office of Solid Waste, September 1987.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Results of the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Survey, Unpublished, Office of Solid Waste, September 1987.
4. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. National Solid Waste
Survey. Unpublished, 1984.
5. NUS Corporation. Leachate Baseline Report: Determination of Municipal Landfill Leachate
Characteristics. Final Report, Contract 68-01-7310, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C, 1986.
6. Metry, A. A., and F. L. Cross. "Leachate Control and Treatment," Environmental Monograph
Series, Volume 7, Technomic Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut, 1975.
7. Lu, J. C. S., B. Eichenberger, and R. J. Stearns. Leachate From Municipal Landfills. Contract 68-
03-2861, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1985.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Leachates from Municipal Solid
Waste Disposal Sites and Codisposal Sites, Vol. 6, prepared by NUS Corporation, Contract 68-
01-7310, Washington, D.C.. September 1987.
9. Stegen, L., W. Gresham, and M. Carlson. Unified Ground Water Monitoring Program, Waste
Management of North America, Northeast Region, Southfield, Michigan, 1987.
4-150
-------
10. McGinley, P. M., and P. Kmet. Formation. Characteristics, Treatment and Disposal of Leachate
from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Special Report, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, 1984.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Landfill Case Studies, Unpublished, Office of
Solid Waste, Washington, D.C, 1986.
12. Science Applications International Corporation. [Evaluations of Data from Case Studies
Obtained from National Solid Waste Management Association and Governmental Refuse
Collection and Disposal Association].
13. Brown, K. W., and K. C. Donnelley. The Occurrence and Concentration of Organic Chemicals in
Hazardous and Municipal Waste Landfill Leachate, Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas.
14. Sobatoka & Co., Incorporated. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Case Histories Data
Compilation, Economic Analysis Branch, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., July 1986.
15. ICF Northwest. Case Study Short Mountain Sanitary Landfill, Goshen, Oregon, Draft Report,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.
16. PEI Associates, Incorporated. Case Study Van-Pal Landfill, Duranqo, Colorado, Final Draft
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.
17. ICF Northwest. Case Study Portage County Landfill, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, Draft Report,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.
18. SRW Associates, Incorporated. Case Study Franklin County Sanitary Landfill, Greenpoint,
Florida, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.
19. Pahren, H. R. "Microorganisms in Municipal Solid Waste and Public Health Implications." CRC
Critical Review on Environmental Control, Vol. 17, Issue 3. 1987.
4-151
-------
20. Ham, R. K., W. C. Boyle, and F. J. Blaha. Leachate and Groundwater Quality in and Around
Ferrous Foundry Landfills and Comparisons to Leach Test Results. American Foundrymen's
Society, January 1985.
21. Fero, R. L, R. K. Ham, and W. C. Boyle. An Investigation of Ground-water Contamination by
Organic Compounds Leached from Iron Foundry Solid Wastes. American Foundrymen's
Society, September 1986.
22. Briggs, J. L. Letter from J.L. Briggs, SCS Engineers, Reston, Va., to P. DePercin, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Januarys, 1987.
23. SCS Engineers. Municipal Landfill Gas Condensate, Contract 68-02-3993, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1987.
24. SCS Engineers. Letter to A. Geswein, Land Disposal Branch, Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., December 11,1985.
25. Matrecon, Inc. Lining of Waste Impoundments and Disposal Facilities, SW-870, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
26. Conrad E. T., J. J. Walsh, J. Atcheson, and R. B. Gardner. Solid Waste Landfill Design and
Operation Practices, Contract 68-01-3915, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1981.
27. Shultz, D., and D. Black. "Land Disposal," Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Research
Symposium on Municipal Solid Waste, EPA 600/9-81-002a, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981.
28. Pickard and Anderson. Evaluation of a Landfill with Leachate Recycle, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1985.
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. List of Municipal Waste Landfills compiled from EPA's
State Subtitie D Census. EPA 530-SW-86-039, Washington, D.C.
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Background Document: Case Studies on
Ground-Water and Surface Water Contamination from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,
4-152
-------
Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 258), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1988.
31. ICF. Inc. The Liner Location Risk and Cost Analysis Model: Phase II, Draft Report, Office of Solid
Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
32. GCA Technology Division, Inc. Evaluation of NPL/Subtitle D Landfill Data, Contract 68-0 1-7037,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
33. Zimmerman, E. R. and M. E. Goodkind. Landfill Methane Recovery Part I: Environmental
Impacts, Final Report, Contract 5080-35 1-0343, Gas Research Institute, 1981.
34. Kinman, R. N., J. Rickabaugh, D. Nutini, and M. Lambert. Gas Characterization. Microbial
Analysis, and Disposal of Refuse in GRI Landfill Simulators, Contract No. 68-03-3210, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1985.
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Survey of American Indian Environmental Protection
Needs on Reservation Lands: 1986, Washington, D.C., September 1986.
36. Council of Energy Resource Tribes. Environmental Needs Study of the Tribes of the Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Project No. 093-2284-0, January 1988.
37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Survey of Potential Hazardous Waste Sites in Region 5.
Unpublished, Chicago, Ilinois 1987.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SI Assessment National Report, EPA 570/9-84-002,
Office of Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1983.
39. Schultz, etal. "Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste," Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual
Research Symposium on Municipal Solid Waste. EPA 600/9-85/03, Hazardous Waste
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Closure of Hazardous Waste Sis, Revised Edition, EPA-
SW-873, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., September 1982.
4-153
-------
41. Loehr, R. C, and D. J. Tedaldi. Use of Land Treatment and Disposal in the Food Processing and
the Pulp and Paper Industries: Internal Report to the Of flee of Solid Waste. CR-812819, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, June 1987.
42. Pound, C. E. and R. W. Crites. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application, Vol. II,
EPA 600/2-73-0066, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1973.
43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual: Land Application of
Municipal Sludge, EPA-625/1-83-016, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983.
44. Berkowitz, J., S. E. Bysshe, B. E. Goodwin, J. C. Harris, D. B. Land, G. Leonardos, and S. Johnson.
Land Treatment Field Studies, Vols. I-VI, EPA 600/2-83-057, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983.
45. Science Applications International Corporation. Summary of Data on Industrial Nonhazardous
Waste Disposal Practices, Contract 68-01-7050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C, 1985.
4-154
-------
Chapter 5
CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAMS
This chapter discusses the quality of the data used for characterizing the State Subtitle D
programs. It provides an overview of State Subtitle D programs, focusing on organization,
resources, the types and numbers of solid waste management facilities, permit or other approval
mechanisms, and enforcement activities. Finally, the chapter reviews State regulations specific to
four types of Subtitle D facilities: landfills, surface impoundments (Sis), land application units (IADs),
and waste piles.
5.1 QUALITY OF DATA FOR STATE PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION
The primary sources of State program data used in this assessment are the Subtitle D census,1
the regulations reviews,2 the Review of State Enforcement Powers and Authorities Under Subtitle D
of RCRA,3 and the State Regulatory Equivalency Analysis.4 These reports represent the most recent
and most comprehensive State Subtitle D data collection efforts.
One significant problem with respect to most of the estimates presented in the Subtitle D
census is nonresponse to survey questions. This factor results in underestimates for many of the
totals presented in this assessment. To verify the quality of the data obtained, EPA asked
respondents to indicate whether they felt that the quality of their responses was good, fair, poor, or
very poor. Data quality concerns are noted in this chapter where pertinent.
5.2 OVERVIEW OF STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAMS
5.2.1 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
#
*!4
As described previously in the report, Subtitle D of RCRA established a program for solid waste
management to be implemented by the States through comprehensive planning pursuant to Federal
criteria. One unclear area of responsibility, however, is implementation of the program on Indian
lands. Under Section 1004of RCRA, Indian Tribes, authorized Tribal organizations, and Alaska
Native Villages are included in the definition of municipality. While a municipality plans and
5-1
-------
implements its own solid waste management program, it is subject to State solid waste regulations
and State solid waste management objectives. However, States generally do not have jurisdiction
over Indians in Indian country unless Congress has clearly expressed an intention to permit it.5 The
approach to implementation of the criteria on Indian lands needs clarification. Agency
recommendations for addressing this problem are presented in Volume I.
The specific State Subtitle D program elements that make up organization and management
are State organization; budgetary and personnel resources; the qualifications and training of the
personnel; and the overall program strategy. The available program data are analyzed according to
these elements.
State Organization
The Subtitle D census asked each State and territory to list all agencies responsible for
developing, regulating, enforcing, overseeing, and otherwise administering any part of the Subtitle
D program. Fifteen States and territories indicated that they have one agency with administrative
authority for Subtitle D activities. The remaining 39 respondents indicated that from two to eight
different agencies administer parts of the Subtitle D program. The most frequently listed were solid
waste and water-related agencies. Some of the other agencies reported to be involved in
administering programs for specific Subtitle D facility types include oil and gas commissions, mining
and reclamation bureaus, and air compliance offices.
•
Subtitle D programs for landfills were most frequently reported to be administered by solid
waste agencies; programs for Sis, on the other hand, were most frequently reported to be
administered by water agencies. Subtitle D land application programs are usually administered by
either a solid waste or a water agency.
Although the response rate on State administrative organization was high in the Subtitle D
census, it is likely that not all agencies involved in Subtitle D activities are represented. With the
exception of solid waste agencies, other State agency activities are not generally perceived to be
related to Subtitle D programs. Many water agencies, for example, do not view their activities as
being related to the implementation of Subtitle D, despite the fact that some of their work involves
direct enforcement efforts at Subtitle D facilities (e.g., Sis).
Further complicating the organization data is the fact that few agencies are perceived as
having a unique budget for Subtitle D activities, even though they may spend money on Subtitle D
5-2
-------
work (e.g., inspecting municipal solid waste landfills). In some cases it appears that money is
redirected from other agency programs to offset the lack of money for Subtitle D programs.
Furthermore, the list of agencies may not account for State regional or district offices, even where
State organizational structures are such that these offices may be heavily involved in Subtitle D
inspection and enforcement activities.
Overall, few States and territories administer their solid waste management programs in the
Federal mold, using one agency or department to handle all Subtitle D activities. Most, in fact, have
at least two separate agencies, generally a solid waste and a water agency, that carry out Subtitle D
functions.
Resources, Staff Qualifications and Training, Program Strategy
The Subtitle D census provides the following types of data: estimates of total dollars spent,
sources of funding, total person-hours expended, types of program activities undertaken, and
priorities for different Subtitle D program activities. Although these data do not present a complete
picture of State programs, they do indicate the level of effort that States and territories currently
commit to Subtitle D activities.
Of the 141 agencies that responded, 104 included the portion of their overall budget that was
spent on Subtitle D activities. The total dollar amount reported for these agencies nationwide was
$39,282,455 in fiscal year 1984 (FY84). The average number of dollars reported per State or territory
was $785,649. Water agency expenditures were larger on average ($631,389 per State or territory)
than solid waste agency expenditures ($427,184 per State or territory). The majority of the States
and territories (28) budgeted less than $500,000 on Subtitle D activities. A sizable number (13)
allocated between $500,000 and $1,000,000. A few States and territories (7) spent more than
$1,000,000 for Subtitle D programs.
The total dollar amount reported is probably an underestimate of the amount spent on
Subtitle D activities nationwide. As noted.above, some agencies with Subtitle D responsibilities
failed to provide an estimate of the amount spent on Subtitle D activities, and even among those
providing estimates, the figures are admittedly very rough.
The Subtitle D census also asked each State to provide an estimate of the percentage of its
total Subtitle D budget for FY84 and FY85 that came from State sources, Federal sources, license or
user fees, and other funding sources. These estimates are presented in Table 5-1. The census found
5-3
-------
that in FY84, 84.6 percent of all Subtitle D funding was attributed to State sources and that only 7.5
percent of such funding came from Federal sources. Federal funding for Subtitle D activities came
almost exclusively through water agencies. The National Solid Waste Survey^ results for FY84
roughly parallel those of the Subtitle D census, with an average of 89 percent of all Subtitle D
funding coming from State sources and 3.5 percent corning from Federal sources.
Table 5-1. SOURCES OF SUBTITLE D FUNDING
Funding Source
State sources
Federal sources
License or user fees
Other
Percentage of Funding per Source3
Fiscal year
Ending in
1984
84.6
7.5
3.5
4.4
Fiscal Year
Ending in
1985
85.1
7.1
6.0
1.9
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
In contrast, data for FY81 reported by the National Solid Waste Survey show that 58 percent of
the funding for Subtitle D activities came from State sources, and 30 percent was provided by Federal
sources. The census data reveal the marked change in the balance of State and Federal funding for
Subtitle D programs since 1981. In addition to State and Federal sources, the Subtitle D census
reports that in FY84 and FY85, nine and ten States, respectively, used license or user fees and other
funding sources to account for 7.9 percent of the aggregate funding in those years.
Estimates of the total number of person-hours expended on Subtitle D activities in FY84 were
reported for 103 of the 141 agencies identified by the States and territories as being involved in
Subtitle D activities. A total of 1,715,539 hours was reported by the respondents (although this
number is probably an underestimate for the reasons cited earlier). Using 2,000 hours as a rough
measure of person-hours per year, this number represents a total of 858 person-years committed to
Subtitle D functions by the States and territories. As with the Subtitle D budget estimates discussed
above, these work-year estimates vary widely among the States and territories. Twenty-two States
and territories allocate 10 or fewer person-years to Subtitle D, 15 devote between 10 and 25, and 10
commit 25 or more person-years.
5-4
-------
The Subtitle D census also reports estimates of the percentage of total hours expended in
performing seven different Subtitle D program activities (see Table 5-2.) The two types of activities
most frequently pursued were surveillance/enforcement and permitting/licensing. These accounted
for almost 70 percent of all hours expended on Subtitle D activities. Training and research had the
smallest percentages of hours devoted to them, with less than 5 percent between them.
As an indication of additional needs, the census asked each State and territory to rank the
seven activities listed in Table 5-2 with respect to their potential for improving Subtitle D program
effectiveness, assuming additional resources were available. The overall and facility-specific activity
rankings are shown in Table 5-3. Surveillance and enforcement activities ranked highest overall for
each of the three facility types. This indicates that the States and territories perceive that their
Subtitle D program effectiveness would be improved most by further expanding the activity that is
now most frequently pursued -- surveillance and enforcement. The small percentage of hours
devoted to training and the low ranking in importance indicate that States and territories do not
place great emphasis on training in their Subtitle D programs. The data are less conclusive regarding
overall program strategy, but they strongly suggest that States and territories have recognized
priorities should additional funding become available.
5 2.2 IDENTIFICATION AND STATUS OF SUBTITLE D FACILITIES
The specific program elements that make up identification/status are an active solid waste
facility and practice identification effort, an accurate data base on facilities, and an up-to-date status
determination for all facilities. The available program data are analyzed according to these program
elements.
Identification Effort
The Subtitle D census contains no data on the efforts that State and territorial programs make
in identifying the universe of Subtitle D facilities and in ensuring that they are in the regulatory
system. The best indications of State efforts in this respect are the data bases they have developed
**
on facilities and the confidence States indicate that they have in the data.
5-5
-------
Table 5-2. STATE SUBTITLE D ACTIVITIES
Subtitle D Activity
Surveillance and enforcement
Permitting and licensing
Technical assistance
Planning
Regulation development
Training given
Research
Percent of Hours
41.1
27.8
9.1
5.8
4.5
2.8
1.5
Number of States
Reporting
46
46
46
42
40
30
16
SOURCE: Reference 1.
Table 5-3. IMPORTANCE OF SUBTITLE D PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AS RANKED BY THE STATES
Overall
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Subtitle D Activity
Surveillance and
enforcement
Technical assistance
Permitting or licensing
Regulation
development
Training
Planning
Research
Importance According to Facility Type
Landfill Ranking
1
2
3
5
6
4
7
Surface
Impoundment
Ranking
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
Land
Application Unit
Ranking
1
3
2
4
5
6
7
SOURCE: Reference 1.
5-6
-------
Data on Facilities
The census collected State and territorial data on three of the four basic types of land disposal
facilities regulated under Subtitle D: landfills, Sis, and LAUs. Chapter 4 of this report presents the
data States have available on the numbers of such facilities and discusses State indications of the
quality of such data.
The available State and territorial data on Subtitle D facilities suggest that the total universe is
approximately 227,000 Subtitle D units, although this number is likely to be an underestimate. The
Subtitle D census indicates that the States and territories do not have consistent approaches for
identifying and maintaining data on Subtitle D facilities and thus have data of varying degrees of
accuracy for the different facilities regulated by Subtitle D.
Status Determination
The basis for determining the status of a facility or practice are the Federal criteria in 40 CFR
Part 257 promulgated by EPA in 1979 for distinguishing a sanitary landfill from an open dump. The
Subtitle D census does not include data (other than inspection data discussed below in enforcement)
on State and territorial efforts at determining the regulatory status of facilities based on the 40 CFR
Part 257 criteria. The Inventory of Open Dumps,7 however, provides a limited record of State
evaluations of Subtitle D facilities. It lists facilities that States have found to be in violation of the 40
CFR Part 257 criteria, and that thereby pose a reasonable probability of adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Also included in the inventory are brief State descriptions of actions and
approaches taken in evaluating the universe of facilities.
The inventory represents an incomplete record of status determinations for Subtitle D
facilities, however, because State participation in the inventory has been extremely limited in recent
years due to the termination of Federal Subtitle D funding. For example, the most recent installment
of the inventory, published in June 1985, received new information from only 16 States. Table 5-4
presents data from this inventory on the number of open dumps reported by the States and
territories.
/
It cannot be assumed that, because the States and territories did not participate in the
inventory, actions were not being taken to close open dumps. Solid waste management laws in a
number of States and territories have specific bans on open dumping. Further bans on open dumps
5-7
-------
Table 5-4. NUMBER OF OPEN DUMPS IN THE 1985 INVENTORY
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Number
of
Dumps
12
50
39
26
35
11
30
1
37
11
1
39
12
12
3
3
9
338
16
6
61
151
66
88
3
42
1
52
28
5
State
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Number
of
Dumps
5
55
0
8
50
61
20
48
6
3
64
6
11
31
9
1
32
45
51
17
5
1
3
64
5
1,789
SOURCE: Reference 7.
5-8
-------
are implicit in permit or license provisions, which typically prohibit the disposal of solid waste in
unpermitted facilities. All of the States and territories have permit or license requirements for
certain types of Subtitle D facilities in their solid waste management laws.3
5.2.3 REGULATIONS AND PERMITS
Asa part of the State sol id waste management planning process described in40CFR Part 256,
States are to have provided for the establishment of regulatory powers that accomplish the
following objectives:
• development of standards equivalent to or more stringent than the EPA classification
criteria at 40 CFR Part 257;
• development of surveillance capabilities to detect adverse environmental effects;
• development of a permitting program; and
• creation of administrative and judicial enforcement capabilities.
This section discusses the results of the State Regulatory Equivalency Analysis4 (SREA) for
accomplishing the first objective and the findings of the census for accomplishing the second and
third objectives. Progress in the establishment of enforcement authorities is discussed in Subsection
5.2.4.
State Regulatory Equivalency Analysis
The SREA was conducted to determine the adoption rate by States of 40 CFR Part 257 Criteria
for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices on a criterion-by-criterion basis.4
Because of the broad performance-based standards of the EPA criteria, the evaluation guidelines
were designed to gauge equivalency in the overall environmental effect, rather than duplication of
regulatory language. A two-category classification scheme was developed, and States were
determined to be either "comparable" or "noncomparable" in the level of protection of,human
fls"
health and the environment afforded by each of the criteria specified in Part 257. The EPA criteria
address:
• floodplain integrity and management;
5-9
-------
• endangered species preservation;
• surface water protection;
• ground-water protection;
• application of wastes to land used for the production of food-chain crops;
• disease prevention;
• air quality protection; and
• public safety with respect to explosive gases, fires, bird hazards to aircraft, and site
accessibility.
Section 256.21 Requirements for State Regulatory Powers provides that States must have
adequate powers to enforce solid waste disposal standards that are equivalent to or more stringent
than the 40 CFR Part 257 criteria. Table 5-5 presents the adoption rate of the performance standards.
in 40 CFR Part 257. Only State solid waste regulations were examined for this analysis, and no effort
was made to evaluate the adequacy or effectiveness of State solid waste programs (i.e., only
regulations were examined). Results of the SREA clearly indicate that very few States have adopted
the Federal criteria. A higher adoption rate had been anticipated, since 25 States and territories
have approved 40 CFR Part 256 State Solid Waste Management Plans.
Table 5-5. 40 CFR PART 257 ADOPTION BY STATES AND TERRITORIES AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Criteria
Floodplains
Endangered species
Surface water
Ground water
Land application
Disease
Air
Safety
Adoption
(percent)
41
29
57
68
14
34
68
30
SOURCE: Reference4.
5-10
-------
There are several possible explanations why the SREA found a lower adoption rate of 40 CFR
Part 257 by States and territories. First, many 40 CFR Part 256 State solid waste management plans
were approved in 1980 and 1981 with compliance schedules that required States and territories to
revise their regulations to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 257 as soon as State regulatory approval
boards, commissions, and agencies could satisfy State regulatory amendment requirements. Some of
these schedules may not have been implemented. Second, the States and territories have amended
their solid waste management regulations numerous times so that regulations that may have been
equivalent to or more stringent than 40 CFR Part 257 in 1981 may now be viewed as less stringent.
Finally, the State plan review process is an iterative process, while the SREA was a desk-top study.
During State plan reviews, other State regulations that play a role in overall solid waste
management programs are considered (i.e., water and air regulations), while the SREA only
considered State solid waste regulations.
Permits
The Subtitle D census and regulations reviews contain data on the number of States and
territories that have permit or plan approval requirements for Subtitle D facilities. Figure 5-1
presents a map of the United States depicting the States and territories that have such requirements.
While all States and territories have permit requirements for certain types of Subtitle D facilities, only
ten report having permit, license, or plan approval mechanisms for landfills, Sis, LAUs, and waste
piles. Although most States and territories have permit requirements for landfills (50) and waste
piles (29), fewer have requirements for Sis (16) and LAUs (27). The breakdown by facility type is
discussed in Section 5.3 of this chapter.
The census also solicited information about permit fee requirements. Fifty-one percent of the
States and territories responding had permit fees for landfills, 40 percent had fees for Sis, and 46
percent had permit fees for LAUs.
The Subtitle D census contains data on the number of Subtitle D facilities (excluding waste
piles) that have permits or approved facility plans. Table 5-6 presents these data relative to the total
universe of Subtitle D facilities. Those facilities that have "licenses" are not included here because, in
most cases, a license does not require prior submission of a formal plan. A further breakdown by
facility type of the number of permits and percentage permitted is contained in Section 5.3. The ^
**'
data indicate that while the number of permits granted to Subtitle D facilities is high, almost half of
the facilities remain unpermitted.
5-11
-------
ISJ
\
«
SOURCE: Reference 1.
States and Tarritories with Permit Requirements for
•II Four Subtitle O Facility Types
CD American Samoa
CD Guam
CD North Marianas
^Puerto Rico
CH Virgin Islands
Figure 5-1. STATES AND TERRITORIES THAT HAVE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL SUBTITLE D
FACILITIES
-------
Table 5-6. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D FACILITIES WITH PERMITS
Facility Type3
Landfills
Surface impoundments
Land application units
Total
Number
8,422
95,478
12,502
116,402
Percent of Total
51.3
49.8
66.2
51.2
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Data were not available on waste piles.
5.2.4 ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES
State solid waste enforcement authorities fall into two general categories: administrative and
judicial. Administrative enforcement actions include: issuing, modifying, suspending, and revoking
permits, licenses, and registrations; conducting inspections or surveys; and issuing various types of
compliance and enforcement orders. Prohibiting open dumps and directly cleaning up waste sites
are also administrative enforcement actions.
After administrative procedures have been exhausted, judicial enforcement actions (civil and
criminal) offer a second level of enforcement authority. They may be initiated by the State or by
private citizens. Judicial actions are typically initiated to recover costs incurred for cleanup, to assess
civil penalties, to confiscate or condemn property for purposes of remedying solid waste problems,
to compel compliance, or to abate nuisances. Criminal actions usually require that the violator
willingly and knowingly committed the offense, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony.
An analysis of State solid waste enforcement powers and authorities was conducted in order
to identify national patterns in the existing State enforcement authority framework.3 Table 5-7
presents the results of the State enforcement study, which reviewed only State solid waste
management regulations. Enforcement authorities that may be found in general public health
statutes or media protection statutes were not addressed, for the most part, in the analysis.
The State enforcement study demonstrates that all States have permitting authority, although
the scope of such authority varies from State to State. Most notably, permits are not required for all
types of Subtitle D facilities. In addition, less than one-fourth of the States have the administrative
authority to undertake direct State cleanup of Subtitle D waste sites, and only two-thirds of the
States have authority to issue civil penalties. The maximum penalties, evident by reviewing State
laws, range from $300 per day to $ 100,000 per day. To the extent that enforcement authority is
5-13
-------
Table 5-7. NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF STATES WITH ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES
Authority Type
Administrative
Permits
Inspections
Compliance Orders
Penalties/Fines
State Cleanup
Open Dump Prohibition
Judicial: Civil
Injunctions
Assessment of:
Cleanup Costs
Penalties
Citizen Suits
Condemnation
Judicial: Criminal
Misdemeanor Fines
Misdemeanor Imprisonment
Felony Fines
Felony Imprisonment
Number of States^
51
51
50
22
14
25
41
27
36
11
3
31
13
6
7
Percent of States
100
100
98
43
27
49
80
53
71
22
6
61
25
12
14
SOURCE: Reference3.
a Includes 50 States and the District of Columbia. State solid waste regulations were the primary
source of information.
delegated to local governments, penalties may be less. Also, criminal sanctions are not a universal
feature of State solid waste enforcement frameworks.
Inspection Program
The Subtitle D census contains data on the number and frequency of State inspections at
Subtitle D facilities in 1984 (excluding waste piles). Table 5-8 presents these data in the aggregate; a
breakdown of inspection data by facility type is presented in Section 5.3. The data indicate that
landfills and Sis have been the primary focus of State inspection efforts, and that landfills are
inspected more often than any other type of facility.
The census also reports whether or not States and territories used checklists for their
inspections. The summary results indicate that 71.5 percent used checklists for landfill inspections,
and that 30.4 percent did so for LAUs. No summary results were available for Sis.
5-14
-------
Table 5-8. NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS AT SUBTITLE D FACILITIES IN 19843
Facility Type3
Landfills
Surface impoundments
Land application units
Number of
Inspections
32,852
48,103
8,085
Percentage of Units
Inspected Yearly or More
Often
77
56
19
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Data were not available on waste piles.
Table 5-9. NUMBER OF FACILITIES WITH AT LEAST ONE VIOLATION IN 1984
Type of Facility3
Landfills
Surface
Impoundments
Land application
units
Ground-water
Contamina-
tion
720
677
66
Surface
Water
Contamina-
tion
758
909
126
Air
Contamina-
tion
950
213
22
Methane
Control
189
NA
NA
Opera-
tional
Deficien-
cies
5,973
4,907
293
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Data were not available on waste piles.
Discovery of Violations
The Subtitle D census contains data on the number and type of violations found by States and
territories at Subtitle D facilities in 1984 (except for waste piles). Table 5-9 presents these data in
aggregate form. A breakdown of the data by facility type is presented in Section 5.3. The data
indicate that the most commonly cited violations at Subtitle D facilities in 1984 involved facility
operating requirements. A significant number of ground-water, surface water, and air
contamination violations was also cited.
5-15
-------
Enforcement Actions
The Subtitle D census does not contain any data on enforcement actions from State Subtitle D
programs. However, the National Solid Waste Surveys includes limited enforcement data on the
number of actions brought against Subtitle D facility owners/operators in 1983. In that year, 897
State actions were brought against municipalities and counties, and 1,158 against private firms and
individuals. An additional 931 unclassified actions were filed in 1983.
5.3 FACILITY-SPECIFIC STATE REGULATIONS
The regulations reviews2 contain detailed information on the State and territorial
requirements that apply to the various types of Subtitle D facilities. This regulatory information is
discussed under the following headings: permitting and administrative requirements, design
criteria, operation and maintenance standards, location standards and restrictions, monitoring
requirements, closure and post-closure requirements, and financial responsibility requirements. The
discussion that follows presents a summary of State and territorial regulations for each facility type.
More detailed information on what requirements are imposed by which States appears in tabular
form in Appendix D.
An additional review was conducted in 1987 of State and territorial regulatory programs8 that
focused primarily on landfill design criteria (i.e., liners and leachate collection systems), ground-
water monitoring, final cover, and corrective action. This review updated selected provisions of the
regulations reviews2, as discussed above, that were conducted in 1986. The data collected for the
1987 updated regulation review are summarized in the following landfill discussion. More detailed
information is presented in tabular form in Appendix D.
5.3.1 LANDFILLS
Permitting and Administrative Requirements
According to the Subtitle D census, most States and territories require some permit/plan
approval or license/registration for the various types of landfills (all but one have such requirements
for municipal solid waste landfills). Out of a total of 16,416 landfills, 8,422 (51 percent) have permits
and 2,686 (16 percent) have licenses. Table 5-10 presents these data by landfill type.
5-16
-------
Table 5-10. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS WITH PERMITS AND LICENSES
Landfill Type
Municipal waste
Industrial waste
Demolition debris only
Other
Total
Number of Landfills
with Permits or
Approved Plans
5,444
1,392
1,377
209
8,422
Number of Landfills
with Licenses or
Registrations
2,206
319
150
11
2,686
SOURCE: Reference 1.
Most available data on specific permit information requirements, contained in the regulations
reviews, are limited to municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs). These data are presented in Table
D-1 of Appendix D and indicate that the States and territories vary widely in permit information
requirements for MSWLFs. Most require some information on soil conditions, the location of surface
water, and a determination of surface water background quality. Fewer have requirements with
respect to total acreage, life of the facility, and future use of the property. About half require
certification of the permit application by a registered professional engineer.
Design Criteria and Standards
The regulations reviews2 i ndicate that 50 States and territories have a general performance
standard that requires the owner/operator of an MSWLF to control the generation, storage,
collection, transportation, processing and reuse, and disposal of solid waste in a safe, sanitary,
aesthetically acceptable, and environmentally sound manner. Few specific design requirements have
been promulgated. The data on requirements for MSWLFs are presented in Table D-2 of Appendix
D. Design requirements imposed by those States and territories typically include run-on/run-off
controls and, to a lesser extent, leachate management and gas controls. Eighteen States have liner
design specifications, for both natural and synthetic liners.
5-17
-------
The 1987 updated regulation reviews indicates that 24 States and territories have liner
requirements and 27 States and territories have leachate collection system requirements. An
additional 19 States and territories may specify liners and 15 States and territories may specify
leachate collection systems through guidance rather than regulations. The data on requirements for
MSWLFs from the 1987 updated regulation reviews are presented in Table D-3 of Appendix D.
Operation and Maintenance Standards
Fifty-two States and territories have established minimum standards for the operation and
maintenance of MSWLFs. Requirements regarding the operation and maintenance of MSWLFs are
presented in Table D-4 of Appendix D. Most States and territories employ a fairly consistent set of
controls, including waste management, leachate control, daily cover, safety requirements, and other
controls, though only 22 States employ gas controls at their MSWLFs.
Location Standards and Restrictions
Forty-four States and territories have some sort of location standards or restrictions applicable
to MSWLFs. The different requirements, ranging from flood protection and minimum distances to
restrictions with respect to critical habitat, geologically sensitive areas, and soil conditions, are
presented in Table D-5 of Appendix D. As shown in Table D-5, 39 States specify minimum distances
to man-made or natural structures, and 36 have some form of flood control restrictions. Only 19
States and territories have location standards restrictions applicable to critical habitats, geologically
sensitive areas, or soil conditions and only a few include location standards for wetlands (6 States),
seismic impact zones (3 States), and subsidence-prone areas (6 States) in their solid waste
regulations.9
Monitoring Requirements
The regulations reviews2 indicate that 42 States and territories require ground-water
monitoring, 23 require leachate monitoring, and 3 of the States or territories that require leachate
monitoring do not require ground-water monitoring. Ten States require surface water monitoring
systems to be installed and operated around MSWLFs and no States or territories require air
monitoring. The data on types of monitoring are presented in Table D-6 of Appendix D.
5-18
-------
From the 1987 updated regulation review8 it was determined that 38 States and territories
require ground-water monitoring through regulation and an additional nine States and territories
may specify ground-water monitoring through guidance. These data are presented in Table D-3 of
Appendix D.
Closure, Post-Closure, and Financial Responsibility Requirements
Forty-four States and territories have some sort of regulatory requirements for both closure
and post-closure, and 20 of these require some form of financial assurance. Seven States have
requirementsonly for closure. The differing requirements are presented in Table D-7 of Appendix D.
The 1987 updated regulation review8 indicates that 49 States and territories require a final
cover at closure and an additional 3 States and territories may specify final cover through guidance.
Fourteen States and territories require corrective action for ground-water contamination and 18
States and territories may specify corrective action through guidance. These data are presented in
Table D-3 of Appendix D.
Enforcement Efforts
The Subtitle D census contains limited data on State enforcement activities at Subtitle D
landfills. The number and frequency of inspections and the number and type of violations
discovered at landfills are included, but no data are available on enforcement actions and
compliance rates.
Census data on inspections, presented in Table 5-11, demonstrate the special attention given
MSWLFs compared to the other types of landfills. This is also confirmed by the data on frequency of
inspections shown in Table 5-12.
Census data on violations discovered at landfills are presented in Table 5-13. These data
indicate that while most of the violations reported in 1984 were for operational deficiencies, a
significant number were reported for ground-water, surface water, and air contamination
violations. It should be noted that the States used their own definitions of "contamination" in
reporting these data, and thus both minor and serious contamination incidents are likely to be
included.
5-19
-------
Table 5-11. NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS IN 1984
Landfill Type
Municipal waste
Industrial waste
Demolition debris only
Other
Total
Number of
Inspections
During 1984
24,865
4,354
2,834
799
32,852
Number
of
Landfills
9,284
3,511
2,591
1,030
16,416
SOURCE: Reference 1.
Table 5-12. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS
Inspection Rate
Response Rate
Never inspected
Less than once every two
years
Once every two years
Once a year
Twice a year
Four times a year
More than four times
a year
Other
Total a
Municipal
Waste
90%
431
(5.1%)
347
(4.1%)
776
(9.3%)
2,609
(31.1%)
1,272
(15.2%)
1,548
(18.5%)
1,279
(15.3%)
122
(1.5%)
8,384
(100%)
Industrial
Waste
94%
157
(4.8%)
376
(11.4%)
87
(2.6%)
512
(15.3%)
482
(14.6%)
416
(12.6%)
1,243
(37.7%)
24
(0.7%)
3,297
(100%)
Demolition
Debris
92%
212
(9.2%)
202
(8.8%)
308
(13.4%)
580
(25.2%)
733
(31.9%)
142
(6.2%)
93
(4.0%)
30
(1.3%)
2,300
(100%)
Other
98%
64
(6.4%)
10
(1.0%)
301
(30.0%)
513
(51.0%)
100
(9.9%)
15
(1.5%)
3
(0.2%)
0
1,006
(100%)
Total
91%
864
(5.8%)
935
(6.2%)
1,472
(9.8%)
4,214
(28.1%)
2,587
(17.3%)
2,121
(14.2%)
2,618
(17.5%)
176
(1.2%)
14,987
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
5-20
-------
Table 5-13. NUMBER OF LANDFILLS BY TYPE OF VIOLATION IN 1984
Violation
Type
Ground-water contamination
Ground-water monitoring
program deficiencies
Surface-water contamination
Air contamination
Methane control deficiencies
Operational deficiencies and
other minor violations
Other violations in 1984
Municipal
Waste
586
834
660
845
180
4,784
222
Industrial
Waste
111
117
50
18
8
433
13
Demolition
Debris
Only
16
82
42
33
0
531
7
Other
7
108
6
54
1
225
0
Total
720
1,141
758
950
189
5,973
242
SOURCE: Reference 1.
5.3.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Sixteen of the States and territories studied for the regulations reviews have regulations that
address Sis.
Permitting and Administrative Requirements
With a few exceptions, each of the 16 States and territories studied requires that an
application, license, or permit be issued before facilities can become operational. As shown in Table
5-14, a significant number of Sis actually have permits or approved plans, while relatively few have
licenses or registrations. Specific permit information requirements that apply to Sis-ranging from
soil conditions, ground-water and surface water information to future use of the property-are
shown in Table D-8 of Appendix D. In most cases, the requirements include certification of the
permit application by a professional engineer and, to a lesser extent, surface water and ground-
water information.
5-21
-------
Table 5-14. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS WITH PERMITS AND LICENSES
Surface Impoundment Type
Municipal sewage sludge
Municipal run-off
Industrial waste
Agricultural waste
Mining waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
Total
Number of Surface
Impoundments with
Permits or Plan
Approvals
1,121
365
7,747
10,505
11,218
59,295
5,227
95,478
Number of Surface
Impoundments with
Licenses or
Registrations
0
0
354
210
77
0
0
641
SOURCE: Reference 1.
Design Criteria and Standards
Of the 16States and territories that have SI requirements, 11 have facility design criteria. As
can be seen in Table D-9 of Appendix D, not all of these specific criteria are implemented in each of
the 11 States. Nine specify security requirements and run-on/run-off controls, eight require leachate
management, and seven include some form of natural or synthetic liner design specifications.
Operation and Maintenance Standards
Fourteen of the 16 States and territories with SI requirements have established minimum
operation and maintenance standards. The reasons typically cited for promulgating such standards
are to minimize nuisances, to protect public health and safety, and to prevent pollution of the
environment. Despite this uniformity of purpose, the breadth and specificity of these minimum
standards vary widely among the States and territories, as shown in Table D-10 of Appendix D, and
the actual levels or methods of performance are frequently left to the discretion of the enforcement
agency. Thirteen States have some sort of leachate controls, 11 have safety standards, and ten have
other operation and maintenance controls. Only six States have standards relative to waste
management, and only two have standards for cover.
5-22
-------
Location Standards and Restrictions
Twelve States and territories have location standards for Sis. The distribution of the specific
location standards and restrictions, ranging from flood protection to critical habitat control, is
shown in Table D-11 of Appendix D. Eleven States have flood protection standards, nine have
minimum distance requirements, five have geologically sensitive area restrictions, and four have
critical habitat controls. Only two States have standards relative to soil conditions. As with landfills,
States are more likely to restrict sites in floodplains and within specified distances to man-made
structures and natural resources.
Monitoring Requirements
Fourteen States require ground-water, surface water, leachate, or air monitoring, as
illustrated in Table D-12 of Appendix D. Ground-water monitoring is required in 11 of these States,
leachate in seven, air in eight, and surface water in only four States.
Closure, Post-Closure, and Financial Responsibility Requirements
Eleven of the 16 States and territories have included closure requirements in their regulations.
These are shown in Table D-13 of Appendix D. Ten States have requirements covering post-closure,
and six of these States impose financial responsibility requirements as well.
Enforcement Efforts
The Subtitle D census contains limited data on State enforcement activities at Subtitle D Sis.
Though the number and frequency of inspections and the number and type of violations discovered
are included, no data on enforcement actions and compliance rates are provided. The inspection
data presented in Table 5-15 show the number of inspections conducted during 1984 at various types
of Sis. While the total number of Sis is shown in this table to place the numbers of inspections in
perspective, a true indication of frequency of inspections cannot be deduced. For an indication of
the frequency of inspections at Sis, the reader is referred to Table 5-16. The data show that
municipal run-off Sis are inspected the most frequently, with 73 percent inspected one or more times
each year.
5-23
-------
Table 5-15. NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS IN 1984
Surface Impoundment Type
Municipal sewage sludge
Municipal run-off
Industrial waste
Agricultural waste
Mining waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
Total
Number of Inspections
During 1984
1,079
1,768
6,164
3,765
7,674
26,340
1,313
48,103
Number of Surface
Impoundments
1,938
488
16,232
17,150
19,813
125,074
11,118
191,813
SOURCE: Reference 1.
Table 5-16. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Inspection
Rate
Response
rate
Never
inspected
Less than
once every
two years
Once every
two years
Once a year
Twice a
year
Four times a
year
More than
four times a
year
Other
Totals
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
93%
37
(2 1%)
401
(22 4%)
208
(11 6%)
851
(47 9%)
234
(130%)
61
(3 4%)
2
(0.1%)
0
1,794
(100%)
Municipal
Run-off
98%
34
(7 1%)
59
(12 3%)
30
(6 3%)
106
(22 1%)
24
(5.0%)
82
(17 1%)
138
(28 8%)
6
(1.3%)
479
(100%)
Industrial
Waste
73%
191
(1 6%)
2,981
(25 2%)
2,835
(24 0%)
4,645
(39 3%)
498
(4 2%)
234
(2 0%)
164 .
(1 4%)
275
(2 3%)
11,823
(100%)
Agricultural
Waste
88%
3,634
(24 2%)
5,568
(37 1%)
1,013
(6 7%)
2,918
(194%)
413
(2 8%)
3
(0 1%)
0
1,465
(9 8%)
15,014
(100%)
Mining
Waste
38%
658
(8.8%)
927
(124%)
3,294
(44 0%)
2,009
(26.8%)
100
(1 3%)
51
(0 7%)
206
(2.7%)
249
(3.3%)
7,494
(100%)
Oil or
Gas
Waste
77%
11,478
(11 9%)
15,239
(157%)
7,344
(7 6%)
60,152
(62 2%)
1,426
(1.5%)
406
(04%)
740
(0 8%)
0
96,785
(101%)
Other
47%
3
(0.06%)
104
(2 0%)
108
(2.1%)
425
(8 2%)
27
(0.5%)
222
(43%)
0
4,324
(82 9%)
5,213
(100%)
Total
72%
16,035
(11 6%)
25,279
(182%)
14,832
(10 7%)
71,106
(51 3%)
2,722
(2 0%)
1,059
(0 8%)
1,250
(0.9%)
6,319
(4 6%)
138,602
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
5-24
-------
Census data on violations at Sis are presented in Table 5-17. As with landfills, these data
indicate that while most of the violations reported in 1984 were for operational deficiencies, a
significant number were reported for ground-water, surface water, and air contamination
violations. As mentioned previously, the States' definitions of "contamination" vary.
Table 5-17. NUMBER OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY TYPE OF VIOLATION IN 1984
Violation
Type
Ground-water
contamination
Ground-water
monitoring
program
deficiencies
Surface-water
contamination
Air
contamination
Operational
deficiencies3
Other
violations in
1984
Municipal
Sewage
35
28
24
20
137
0
Municipal
Run-off
32
12
18
12
37
0
Industrial
Waste
416
317
279
145
616
0
Agricultural
Waste
29
34
189
21
672
0
Mining
Waste
48
137
249
5
534
7
Oil or
Gas
Waste
111
110
128
10
2,893
0
Other
6
5
22
0
18
0
Total
677
643
909
213
4,907
7
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Includes other minor violations.
5.3.3 LAND APPLICATION UNITS
Twenty-three of the States and territories reviewed in the regulations reviews have
regulations that address LAUs.
Permitting and Administrative Requirements
Out of a total of 18,889 LAUs, 12,502 (66 percent) have permits or approved plans, and 410 (2
percent) have licenses or registrations. These numbers are presented, by LAU type, in Table 5-18.
Twenty-two of the 23 States and territories require an application, license, or permit before facilities
can become operational. The range of specific permit information requirements is shown in Table
D-14of Appendix D.
5-25
-------
Table 5-18. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS WITH PERMITS AND LICENSES
Land Application Unit Type
Municipal sewage sludge
Industrial waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
Total
Number with
Permits or
Approved Plans
7,955
3,331
697
519
12,502
Number with Licenses
or Registrations
297
113
0
0
410
SOURCE: Reference 1.
In most State and territory regulations, the governing agency reserves the right to require any
additional information deemed necessary. Along the same lines, nearly all States have specific
administrative procedures that allow exemptions, variances, and restrictions based on a case-by-case
evaluation of site-specific circumstances.
Design Criteria and Standards
Sixteen States and territories have requirements pertaining to facility design. The variability
with respect to the enforcement of such requirements across States is shown in Table D-15 of
Appendix D. Most States require security (14) and run-on/run-off controls (13) and, to a lesser extent,
leachate management (7) and temperature storage system design specifications (7). Only three
States have air protection design criteria, and only one State has requirements pertaining to
environmental criteria.
Operation and Maintenance Standards
Twenty-one of the 23 States and territories with restrictions on LAUs have operation and
maintenance regulations. Table D-16 of Appendix D shows which of these regulatory areas are
covered by the different States and territories. Eighteen States and territories require safety
controls, 16 have waste management and/or waste application controls, seven have crop
management restrictions, and six have leachate management restrictions.
5-26
-------
location Standards and Restrictions
Seventeen States and territories have location standards and restrictions that pertain to LAUs,
as shown in Table D-17 of Appendix D. Consistent with othertypes of Subtitle D facilities, LAU
location controls usually include floodplain and minimum distance restrictions. Relatively few States
have requirements relative to critical habitat, geologically sensitive areas, or soil conditions.
Monitoring Requirements
Sixteen States and territories have monitoring requirements. The distribution of these
requirements across States and territories is shown in Table D-18 of Appendix D. Fifteen call for
ground-water monitoring, but only eight require soil monitoring. Soil, air, and leachate monitoring
are required by eight, seven, and six States and territories, respectively.
Closure. Post-Closure, and Financial Responsibility Requirements
State and territory regulatory requirements for LAU closure, post-closure, and financial
responsibility vary widely. The 13 that have such regulations are shown in.Table D-19 of Appendix D.
No States or territories are reported to have liability requirements for LAUs.
Enforcement Efforts
The Subtitle 0 census contains limited data on State enforcement activities at Subtitle D LAUs.
These include the number and frequency of inspections and the number and type of violations
discovered. The inspection data, presented in Table 5-19, indicate that over twice as many
inspections occurred at municipal sewage sludge units as at other types. On the other hand, the data
on frequency of inspection shown in Table 5-20 reveal that most municipal sludge units were
inspected once every two years or less, whereas most oil and gas units were inspected once a year
or more. Census data on violations at LAUs are presented in Table 5-21. As with landfills and Sis,
these data indicate that most of the violations reported in 1984 were for operational deficiencies,
but ground-water, surface water, and air contamination violations were reported as well.
5-27
-------
Table 5-19. NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS IN 1984
Land Application Unit Type
Municipal sewage sludge
Industrial waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
Total
Number of
Inspections
During 1984
5,326
1,601
1,124
34
8,085
Number of Land
Application
Units
11,937
5,605
726
621
18,889
SOURCE: Reference 1.
Table 5-20. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS
Inspection Rate
Response rate
Never inspected
Less than once every
two years
Once every two years
Once a year
Twice a year
Four times a year
More than four times
a year
Other
Total a
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
95%
388
(3 4%)
6,489
(57 2%)
1,403
(12 4%)
1,787
(158%)
254
(2 2%)
98
(0 9%)
182
(1 6%)
743
(6 5%)
1 1 ,344
(100%)
Industrial
Waste
99%
1,308
(23.7%)
2,487
(45 0%)
845
(15.3%)
639
(11.6%)
126
(2 3%)
21
(0 4%)
10
(0 2%)
94
(1 7%)
5,530
(100%)
Oil and Gas
Waste
100%
15
(2 1%)
6
(0 8%)
33
(4 5%)
175
(24.1%)
465
(64 0%)
4
(0 6%)
8
(1 1%)
20
(2.8%)
726
(100%)
Other
100%
71
(11 4%)
46
(7 4%)
28
(4.5%)
26
(4 2%)
0
0
0
450
(72 5%)
621
(100%)
Total a
97%
1,782
(9 8%)
9,028
(49 5%)
2,309
(12 7%)
2,627
(144%)
845
(4 6%)
123
(0 7%)
200
(1 1%)
1,307
(7.2%)
18,221
(100%)
SOURCE: Reference 1.
a Percentages are rounded and may not total 100 percent.
5-28
-------
Table 5-21. NUMBER OF LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY TYPE OF VIOLATION IN 1984
Violation Type
Ground-water
contamination
Ground-water monitoring
program deficiencies
Surface water
contamination
Air contamination
Operational deficiencies and
other minor violations
Other violations in 1984
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
17
14
17
12
115
10
Industrial
Waste
45
41
60
10
88
0
Oil or
Gas
Waste
2
8
25
0
82
0
Other
2
1
24
0
8
0
Total
66
64
126
22
293
10
SOURCE: Reference 1.
5.3.4 WASTE PILES
Thirty States and territories have regulations that address waste piles.
Permitting and Administrative Requirements
Thirty States and territories require a permit, license, or application for waste piles. Table D-20
of Appendix D presents a matrix of some of the permit requirements. Specific permit information
requirements for waste piles are limited in scope and vary considerably among the States and
territories, but typically require information on soil conditions, surface water location, and ground-
water elevation and flow. As with the other types of facilities, most States require certification of
permit applications by a professional engineer.
Design Criteria and Standards
Twenty-two States and territories have design criteria applicable to waste piles. Specific
requirements for waste piles range from liner specifications to leachate management and
decomposition gas controls. The distribution of these requirements is presented in Table D-21 of
Appendix D. Nineteen States have security requirements, and 13 require run-on/run-off controls.
5-29
-------
Very few States have liner design criteria (7) or gas control standards (6), and no State or territory has
leachate collection design standards.
Operation and Maintenance Standards
Twenty-seven States and territories impose some sort of operation and maintenance
standards on waste piles. Specific standards range from waste composition requirements to vector,
dust, and noise controls. The distribution of these requirements among the States is presented in
Table D-22 of Appendix D. Most of these States have safety standards (26) and other operation and
maintenance standards (25). A relatively moderate amount have waste management restrictions
(10) and leachate controls (9), while relatively few have gas controls (4) or cover requirements (3).
Location Standards and Restrictions
Fifteen States and territories have some sort of location standards or restrictions applicable to
waste piles. As with other facility types, the most common location requirements apply to
floodplains (11) and minimum distances (9). These location standards and restrictions are presented
in Table D-23 of Appendix D. The least common restrictions found were for critical habitat (3),
geologically sensitive areas (2), and soil conditions (2).
Monitoring Requirements
Sixteen States and territories impose monitoring requirements on waste piles. The specific
types of monitoring required (i.e., ground water, surface water, leachate, or air) vary considerably.
These requirements are presented in Table D-24 of Appendix D. More States require ground-water
monitoring systems (14) and leachate monitoring and control (10) than require surface water (5) or
air monitoring (2).
Closure, Post-Closure, and Financial Responsibility Requirements
Fourteen States and territories have closure and post-closure maintenance requirements for
waste piles. These are presented in Table D-25 of Appendix D, and include six States that impose
financial responsibility requirements for waste piles.
5-30
-------
Enforcement Efforts
The Subtitle D census does not contain data on waste piles, so there are no current, available
nationwide data on the number and frequency of State inspections of waste piles or the number and
types of violations.
5.4 SUMMARY
This chapter has presented data on State and territorial Subtitle D programs. The Subtitle D
census indicated that most States (39) have two to as many as eight different agencies administering
parts of the Subtitle D program. Solid waste and water-related agencies were most frequently
noted.
The average number of dollars reported per State or territory spent on Subtitle D activities in
1984 was $785,649. Approximately 85 percent of this funding was attributed to State sources, and
only 7.5 percent came from Federal sources (primarily through water agencies). The census also
indicated that approximately 858 person-years were committed to Subtitle D functions by the States
and territories in 1984. These budget and person-hour figures are very rough and are most likely
underestimates.
The Subtitle D activities most often pursued are surveillance/enforcement and
permitting/licensing. The census indicated that States perceive that Subtitle D program effectiveness
could be improved by expanding surveillance and enforcement activities.
Although most States have permitting authority, the scope of such authority varies from State
to State. As a result, approximately one-half of the Subtitle D facilities do not have permits. Most
States have the authority to inspect (90 percent) and to issue compliance orders (73 percent).
Landfills are inspected more frequently than are Sis or LAUs. Few States have in their solid waste
management laws and regulations authority to clean up a site that is contaminating the
environment. This authority and others may, however, exist in other related statutes.
Most States do not have solid waste regulations that are equivalent in effect to the Federal
criteria (40 CFR Part 257), although some do have distinctive and innovative approaches to
implementation, such as the development of a class system for waste streams and disposal facilities.
Facility-specific State regulations are also presented in this chapter. More detailed information can
be found in Appendix D.
5-31
-------
5.5 REFERENCES
1. Westat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste Programs.
Contract 68-01-7047, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
2. PEI Associates. Inc. State Subtitle D Regulations on Landfills. Surface Impoundments. Land
Treatment, and Waste Piles. Draft, Vols. I-IV, Contract 68-01-7075/02-3890, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
3. Radian Corporation. Review of State Enforcement Powers and Authorities under RCRA
Subtitle D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1987.
4. NUS Corporation. State Regulatory Equivalency Analysis of the U.S. EPA Classification Criteria
for Solid Waste Management Facilities. 40 CFR Part 257, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1987.
5. 752 Federal Reports, 2nd Series. "State of Washington, Department of Ecology v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency".
6. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. National Solid Waste
Survey, Unpublished, 1984.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of Open Dumps, Washington. D.C.. 1985.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Background Document: Updated Review of
Selected Provisions of State Solid Waste Regulations. Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills (40 CFR Part 258). Washington, D.C., 1987.
9. NUS Corporation. Letter and attachment from D. Worley, NUS Corporation to J. Dorian, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Review of Current Statutes and Regulations for Subtitle D
Location Bans. December 30,1986.
5-32
-------
Appendix A.
40 CFR Part 257
CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES
-------
-------
PART 257 - CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES
Sec.
257.1 Scope and purpose.
257.2 Definitions.
257.3 Criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities and practices.
257.3-1 Floodplains.
257.3-2 Endangered species.
257.3-3 Surface water
257.3-4 Ground water.
257.3-5 Application to land used for the production of food-chain crops. (Interim final).
257.3-6 Disease.
257.3-7 Air.
257.3-8 Safety.
257.4 Effective date.
Authority: Sec. 1008(a)(3) and Sec. 4004(a), Pub. L 94-580,90 Stat. 2803 and 2815 (42 U.S.C.
6907(a)(3) and 6944(a)); Sec. 405(d), Pub. L 95-217, 91 Stat. 1606(33 U.S.C. 1345(d)).
(Amended by 46 FR 47051, September 23, 1981).
§257.1 Scope and purpose.
(a) These criteria are for use under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (the Act) in
determining which solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable probability of
adverse effects on health or the environment. Unless otherwise provided, these criteria are
adopted for purposes of both Section 1008(a)(3) and Section 4004(a) of the Act.
(1) Facilities failing to satisfy criteria adopted for purposes of Section 4004(a) will be considered
open dumps for purposes of State solid waste management planning under the Act.
(2) Practices failing to satisfy criteria adopted for purposes of Section 1008(a)(3) constitute open
dumping, which is prohibited under Section 4005 of the Act.
[257.1 (a) amended by 46 FR 47051, September 23,1981].
A-1
-------
(b) These criteria also provide guidelines for sludge utilization and disposal under Section 405(d)
of the Clean Water Act, as amended. To comply with Section 405(e) the owner or operator of
any publicly owned treatment works must not violate these criteria in the disposal of sludge
on the land.
(c) These criteria apply to all solid waste disposal facilities and practices with the following
exceptions:
(1) The criteria do not apply to agricultural wastes, including manures and crop residues, returned
to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners.
(2) The criteria do not apply to overburden resulting from mining operations intended for return
to the mine site.
(3) The criteria do not apply to the land application of domestic sewage or treated domestic
sewage. The criteria do apply to disposal of sludges generated by treatment of domestic
sewage.
(4) The criteria do not apply to the location and operation of septic tanks. The criteria do,
however, apply to the disposal of septic tank pumpings.
(5) The criteria do not apply to solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows.
(6) The criteria do not apply to industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits
under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(7) The criteria do not apply to source, special nuclear or byproduct material as defined by the
Atomic Energy Act, as amended (68 Stat. 923).
(8) The criteria do not apply to hazardous waste disposal facilities which are subject to regulation
under Subtitle C of the Act.
(9) The criteria do not apply to disposal of solid waste by underground well injection subject to
the regulations (40 CFR Part 146) for the Underground Injection Control Program (UICP) under
the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3007 et seq.
A-2
-------
§257.2 Definitions.
The definitions set forth in Section 1004 of the Act apply to this part. Special definitions of general
concern to this Part are provided below, and definitions especially pertinent to particular sections of
this Part are provided in those sections.
"Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid
waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste
or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into
any waters, including ground waters.
"Facility" means any land and appurtenances thereto used for the disposal of solid wastes.
"Leachate" means liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble,
suspended or miscible materials removed from such wastes.
"Open dump" means a facility for the disposal of solid waste which does not comply with this part.
"Practice" means the act of disposal of solid waste.
"Sanitary landfill" means a facility for the disposal of solid waste which complies with this part.
"Sludge" means any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial, or
industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility
or any other such waste having similar characteristics and effect.
"Solid waste" means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply
treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid
semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and
agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved
materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial
discharges which are point sources subject to permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as
defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923).
("Solid waste" definition corrected by 44 FR 58910, October 12, 1979).
A-3
-------
"State" means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
§257.3 Criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities and practices.
Solid waste disposal facilities or practices which violate any of the following criteria pose a
reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment:
§257.3-1 Floodplains.
(a) Facilities or practices in floodplains shall not restrict the flow of the base flood, reduce the
temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain, or result in washout of solid waste, so as
to pose a hazard to human life, wildlife, or land or water resources.
(b) As used in this section:
(1) "Based flood" means a flood that has a 1 percent or greater chance of recurring in any year or
a flood of a magnitude equalled or exceeded once in 100 years on the average over a
significantly long period.
(2) "Floodplain" means the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters,
including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, which are inundated by the base flood.
(3) "Washout" means the carrying away of solid waste by waters of the base flood.
§257.3-2 Endangered species.
(a) Facilities or practices shall not cause or contribute to the taking of any endangered or
threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife.
(b) The facility or practice shall not result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical
habitat of endangered or threatened species as identified in 50 CFR Part 17.
(c) As used in this section:
A-4
-------
(1) "Endangered or threatened species" means any species listed as such pursuant to Section 4 of
the Endangered Species Act.
(2) "Destruction or adverse modification" means a direct or indirect alteration of critical habitat
which appreciably diminishes the likelihood of the survival and recovery of threatened or
endangered species using that habitat
(3) "Taking" means harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, wounding, killing, trapping,
capturing, or collecting or attempting to engage in such conduct.
§257.3-3 Surface Water.
[257.3-3(a) and (b) amended by 46 FR 47051, September 23, 1981 ].
(a) For purposes of Section 4004(a) of the Act, a facility shall not cause a discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States that is in violation of the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as
amended.
(b) For purposes of Section 4004(a) of the Act, a facility shall not cause a discharge of dredged
material or fill material to waters of the United States that is in violation of the requirements
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(c) A facility or practice shall not cause non-point source pollution of waters of the United States
that violates applicable legal requirements implementing an areawide or Statewide water
quality management plan that has been developed and approved by the Administrator under
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(d) Definitions of the terms, "Discharge of dredged material," "Point source," "Pollutant,"
"Waters of the United States," and "Wetlands" can be found in the Clean Water Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 etseq., and implementing regulations, specifically 33 CFR Part 323
(42 FR 37122, July 19, 1977).
A-5
-------
§257.3-4 Ground Water.
(a) A facility or practice shall not contaminate an underground drinking water source beyond the
solid waste boundary or beyond an alternative boundary specified in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section.
[257.3-4(b) revised by 46 FR 47051, September 23, 1981].
(b) (1) For purposes of Section 1008(a)(3) of the Act or Section 405(d) of the CWA, a party
charged with open dumping or a violation of Section 405(e) may demonstrate that
compliance should be determined at an alternative boundary in lieu of the solid waste
boundary. The court shall establish such an alternative boundary only if it finds that such a
change would not result in contamination of ground water which may be needed or used for
human consumption. This finding shall be based on analysis and consideration of all of the
following factors that are relevant:
(i) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land, including any natural
attenuation and dilution characteristics of the aquifer;
(ii) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the leachate;
(iii) The quantity, quality, and direction of flow of ground water underlying the facility;
(iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of ground-water users;
(v) The availability of alternative drinking water supplies;
(vi) The existing quality of the ground water, including other sources of contamination and their
cumulative impacts on the ground water;
(vii) Public health, safety, and welfare effects.
(2) For purposes of Sections 4004(a) and 1008(a)(3), the State may establish an alternative
boundary for a facility to be used in lieu of the solid waste boundary only if it finds that such a
change would not result in the contamination of ground water which may be needed or used
A-6
-------
for human consumption. Such a finding shall be based on an analysis and consideration of all
of the factors identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that are relevant.
(c) As used in this section:
(1) "Aquifer" means a geologic formation, group of formations, or portion of a formation
capable of yielding usable quantities of ground water to wells or springs.
(2) "Contaminate" means introduce a substance that would cause:
(i) The concentration of that substance in the ground water to exceed the maximum
contaminant level specified in Appendix 1, or
(ii) An increase in the concentration of the substance in the ground water where the existing
concentration of that substance exceeds the maximum contaminant level specified in
Appendix I.
(3) "Ground water" means water below the land surface in the zone of saturation.
(4) "Underground drinking water source" means:
(i) An aquifer supplying drinking water for human consumption, or
(ii) An aquifer in which the ground water contains less than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved solids.
(5) "Solid waste boundary" means the outermost perimeter of the solid waste (projected in the
horizontal plane) as it would exist at completion of the disposal activity.
§257.3-5 Application to land used for the production of food-chain crops (interim final).
(a) Cadmium. A facility or practice concerning application of solid waste to within one meter
(three feet) of the surface of land used for the production of food-chain crops shall not exist or
occur, unless in compliance with all requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section or all requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
A-7
-------
(1)(i) The pH of the solid waste and soil mixture is 6.5 or greater at the time of each solid waste
application, except for solid waste containing cadmium at concentrations of 2 mg/kg (dry
weight) or less.
(ii) The annual application of cadmium from solid waste does not exceed 0.5 kilograms per
hectare (kg/ha) on land used for production of tobacco, leafy vegetables or root crops grown
for human consumption. For other food-chain crops, the annual cadmium application rate
does not exceed:
Time Period
Present to June 30, 1984
July 1, 1984 to December 31, 1986
Beginning January 1, 1987
Annual Cd application
rate (kg/ha)
2.0
1.25
0.5
(iii) The cumulative application of cadmium from solid waste does not exceed the levels in either
paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) of this section or paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A)
Soil cation
exchange capacity
(meg/1 OOg)
<5
5-15
>15
Maximum cumulative application (kg/ha)
Background soil pH
<6.5
5
5
5
Background soil pH
>6.5
5
10
20
(B) For soils with a background pH of less than 6.5, the cumulative cadmium application rate does
not exceed the levels below: Provided, that the pH of the solid waste and soil mixture is
adjusted to and maintained at 6.5 or greater whenever food-chain crops are grown.
A-8
-------
Soil cation exchange capacity (meq/1 OOg)
<5
5-15
>15
Maximum
cumulative
application (kg/ha)
5
10
20
(2)(i) The only food-chain crop produced is animal feed.
(ii) The pH of the solid waste and soil mixture is 6.5 or greater at the time of solid waste
application or at the time the crop is planted, whichever occurs later, and this pH level is
maintained whenever food-chain crops are grown.
(iii) There is a facility operating plan which demonstrates how the animal feed will be distributed
to preclude ingestion by humans. The facility operating plan describes the measures to be
taken to safeguard against possible health hazards from cadmium entering the food chain,
which may result from alternative land uses.
(iv) Future property owners are notified by a stipulation in the land record or property deed which
states that the property has received solid waste at high cadmium application rates and that
food-chain crops should not be grown, due to a possible health hazard.
(b) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Solid waste containing concentrations of PCBs equal to or
greater than 10 mg/kg (dry weight) is incorporated into the soil when applied to land used for
producing animal feed, including pasture crops for animals raised for milk. Incorporation of
the solid waste into the soil is not required if it is assured that the PCB content is less than 0.2
mg/kg (actual weight) in animal feed or less than 1.5 mg/kg (fat basis) in milk.
(c) As used in this section:
(1) "Animal feed" means any crop grown for consumption by animals, such as pasture crops,
forage, and grain.
A-9
-------
(2) "Background soil pH" means the pH of the soil prior to the addition of substances that alter
the hydrogen ion concentration.
(3) "Cation exchange capacity" means the sum of exchangeable cations a soil can absorb
expressed in milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil as determined by sampling the soil to the
depth of cultivation or solid waste placement, whichever is greater, and analyzing by the
summation method for distinctly acid soils or the sodium acetate method for neutral,
calcareous or saline soils ("Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy Monograph No. 9." C.A. Black,
ed., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 891-901, 1965).
(4) "Food-chain crops" means tobacco, crops grown for human consumption, and animal feed for
animals whose products are consumed by humans.
(5) "Incorporated into the soil" means the injection of solid waste beneath the surface of the soil
or the mixing of solid waste with the surface soil.
(6) "Pasture crops" means crops such as legumes, grasses, grain stubble and stover which are
consumed by animals while grazing.
(7) "pH" means the logarithm of the reciprocal of hydrogen ion concentration.
(8) "Root crops" means plants whose edible parts are grown below the surface of the soil.
(9) "Soil pH" is the value obtained by sampling the soil to the depth of cultivation or solid waste
placement, whichever is greater, and analyzing by the electrometric method. ("Methods of
Soil Analysis, Agronomy Monograph No. 9," C.A. Black, ed., American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 914-926, 1965).
§257.3-6 Disease.
(a) Disease Vectors. The facility or practice shall not exist or occur unless the on-site population of
disease vectors is minimized through the periodic application of cover material or other
techniques as appropriate so as to protect public health.
A-10
-------
(b) Sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings (Interim Final). A facility or practice involving
disposal of sewage sludge or septic tank pumpings shall not exist or occur unless in compliance
with paragraphs (b)(1), (2) or (3) of this section.
(1) Sewage sludge that is applied to the land surface or is incorporated into the soil is treated by a
Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens prior to application or incorporation, unless public
access to the facility is controlled for at least 12 months and unless grazing by animals whose
products are consumed by humans is prevented for at least one month. (These provisions do
not apply to septic tank pumpings disposed of by a trenching or burial operation.)
(2) Septic tank pumpings that are applied to the land surface or incorporated into the soil are
treated by a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (as listed in Appendix II, Section A),
prior to application or incorporation, unless public access to the facility is controlled for at
least 12 months and unless grazing by animals whose products are consumed by humans is
prevented for at least one month. (These provisions do not apply to septic tank pumpings
disposed of by a trenching or burial operation.)
(3) Sewage sludge or septic tank pumpings that are applied to the land surface or are
incorporated into the soil are treated by a Process to Further Reduce Pathogens, prior to
application or incorporation, if crops for direct human consumption are grown within 18
months subsequent to application or incorporation. Such treatment is not required if there is
no contact between the solid waste and the edible portion of the crop; however, in this case
the solid waste is treated by a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, prior to application;
public access to the facility is controlled for at least 12 months; and grazing by animals whose
products are consumed by humans is prevented for at least one month. If crops for direct
human consumption are not grown within 18 months of application or incorporation, the
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of this section apply. Processes to Further Reduce
Pathogens are listed in Appendix II, Section B.
(c) As used in this section:
(1) "Crops for direct human consumption" means crops that are consumed by humans without
processing to minimize pathogens prior to distribution to the consumer.
(2) " Disease vector" means rodents, flies, and mosquitoes capable of transmitting disease to
humans.
A-11
-------
(3) "Incorporated into the soil" means the injection of solid waste beneath the surface of the soil
or the mixing of solid waste with the surface soil.
(4) "Periodic application of cover material" means the application and compaction of soil or
other suitable material over disposed solid waste at the end of each operating day or at such
frequencies and in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fire and to impede vectors access to
the waste.
(5) "Trenching or burial operation" means the placement of sewage sludge or septic tank
pumpings in a trench or other natural or man-made depression and the covering with soil or
other suitable material at the end of each operating day such that the wastes do not migrate
to the surface.
§257.3-7 Air.
(a) The facility or practice shall not engage in open burning of residential, commercial,
institutional or industrial solid waste. This requirement does not apply to infrequent burning
of agricultural wastes in the field, silvicultural wastes for forest management purposes, land-
clearing debris, diseased trees, debris from emergency clean-up operations, and ordinance.
(b) For purposes of Section 4004(a) of the Act, the facility shall not violate applicable
requirements developed under a State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved or promulgated
by the Administrator pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended .
(257.3-7(b) amended by 46 FR 47051, September 23, 1981 ].
(c) As used in this section "open burning" means the combustion of solid waste without (1)
control of combustion air to maintain adequate temperature for efficient combustion, (2)
containment of the combustion reaction in an enclosed device to provide sufficient residence
time and mixing for complete combustion, and (3) control of the emission of the combustion
products.
A-12
-------
57.3-8 Safety.
) Explosive gases. The concentration of explosive gases generated by the facility or practice
shall not exceed:
i Twenty-five percent (25%) of the lower explosive limit for the gases in facility structures
(excluding gas control or recovery system components); and
i The lower explosive limit for the gases at the property boundary.
) Fires. A facility or practice shall not pose a hazard to the safety of persons or property from
fires. This may be accomplished through compliance with 257.3-7 and through the periodic
application of cover material or other techniques as appropriate.
Bird hazards to aircraft. A facility or practice disposing of putrescible wastes that may attract
birds and which occurs within 1 0,000 feet (3,048 meters) of any airport runway used by
turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet (1 ,524 meters) of any airport runway used by only piston-
type aircraft shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft.
) /Access. A facility or practice shall not allow uncontrolled public access so as to expose the
public to potential health and safety hazards at the disposal site.
i As used in this section:
) "Airport" means public-use airport open to the public without prior permission and without
restrictions within the physical capacities of available facilities.
i "Bird hazard" means an increase in the likelihood of bird/aircraft collisions that may cause
damage to the aircraft or injury to its occupants.
"Explosive gas" means methane
"Facility structures" means any buildings and sheds or utility or drainage lines on the facility.
"Lower explosive limit" means the lowest percent by volume of a mixture of explosive gases
which will propagate a flame in air at 25 °C and atmospheric pressure.
A-13
-------
(6) "Periodic application of cover material" means the application and compaction of soil or
other suitable material over disposed solid waste at the end of each operating day or at such
frequencies and in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fire and to impede disease vectors'
access to the waste.
(7) "Putrescible wastes" means solid waste which contains organic matter capable of being
decomposed by microorganisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of
attracting or providing food for birds.
§257.4 Effective date.
These criteria become effective October 15, 1979.
A-14
-------
Appendix I
The maximum contaminant levels promulgated herein are for use in determining whether solid
waste disposal activities comply with the ground-water criteria (§257.3-4). Analytical methods for
these contaminants may be found in 40 CFR Part 141 which should be consulted in its entirety.
1. Maximum contaminant levels for inorganic chemicals. The following are maximum levels of
inorganic chemicals other than fluoride:
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate (as N)
Selenium
Silver
Level (milligrams per liter)
0.05
1.
0.010
0.05
0.05
0.002
10.
0.01
0.05
The maximum contaminant levels for fluoride are:
Temperature1
degrees Fahrenheit
53.7 and below
53.8 to 58.3
58.4 to 63.8
63.9 to 70.6
70.7 to 79.2
79.3 to 90.5
Degrees
Celsius
12 and below
12.1 to 14.6
14.7 to 17.6
17.7to21.4
21. 5 to 26.2
26.3 to 32.5
Level
(Milligrams per liter)
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1 Annual average of the maximum daily air temperature.
A-15
-------
2. Maximum contaminant levels for organic chemicals. The following are the maximum
contaminant levels for organic chemicals:
Level
(milligrams per liter)
(a) Chlorinated hydrocarbons:
Endrin (1,2,3,4,10, 10-Hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1,4,4a, 5,6,
7,8a-octahydro-1,4-endo, endo-5,8-dimethano
naphthalene)
Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma
isomer)
Methoxychlor (1,1,1 -Trichloro-2,2-bis (p-
methoxyphenyl) ethane)
Toxaphene (C1OH1OO8-Technical chlorinated camphene,
67 to 69 percent chlorine)
(b) Chlorophenoxys:
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid)
2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid)
0.0002
0.004
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.01
3. Maximum microbiological contaminant levels. The maximum contaminant level for coliform
bacteria from any one well is as follows:
(a) Using the membrane filter technique:
(1) Four coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters if one sample is taken or
(2) Four coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters in more than one sample of all the
samples analyzed in one month.
(b) Using the five tube most probable number procedure (the fermentation tube method),
in accordance with the analytical recommendations set forth in "Standard Methods for
Examinationofwaterand Waste Water," American Public Health Association, 13th Ed. pp.
662-688, and using a Standard sample, each portion being one fifth of the sample:
(1) If the standard portion is 10 milliliters, coliform in any five consecutive samples
from a well shall not be present in three or more of the 25 portions, or
(2) If the standard portion is 100 milliliters, coliform in any five consecutive samples
from a well shall not be present in five portions in any of five samples or in more
than fifteen of the 25 portions.
A-16
-------
4. Maximum contaminant levels for radium-226, radium-228, and gross alpha particle
radioactivity. The following are the maximum contaminant levels for radium-226, radium-
228, and gross alpha particle radioactivity:
(a) Combined radium-226 and radium 228--5 pCi/l;
(b) Gross alpha particle activity (including radium -226 but excluding radon and uranium)-
15pCi/l.
A-17
-------
Appendix II
A. Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens.
Aerobic digestion: The process is conducted by agitating sludge with air or oxygen to
maintain aerobic conditions at residence times ranging from 60 days at 15oC to 40 days at 20°C, with
a volatile solids reduction of at least 38 percent.
Air Drying: Liquid sludge is allowed to drain and/or dry on under-drained sand beds, or paved
or unpaved basins in which the sludge is at a depth of nine inches. A minimum of three months is
. needed, two months of which temperatures average on a daily basis above 0°C.
Anaerobic digestion: The process is conducted in the absence of air at residence times ranging
from 60 days at 20°C to 15 days at 35 to 55oC, with a volatile solids reduction of at least 38 percent.
Composting: Using the within-vessel, static aerated pile or windrow composting methods, the
solid waste is maintained at minimum operating conditions of 40°C for five days. For four hours
during this period the temperature exceeds 55oC.
Lime Stabilization: Sufficient lime is added to produce a pH of 12 after two hours of contact.
Other Methods: Other methods or operating conditions may be acceptable if pathogens and
vector attraction of the waste (volatile solids) are reduced to an extent equivalent to the reduction
achieved by any of the above methods.
B. Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens
Composting: Using the within-vessel composting method, the solid waste is maintained at
operating conditions of 55°C or greater for three days. Using the static aerated pile composting
method, the solid waste is maintained at operating conditions of 55°C or greater for three days.
Using the windrow composting method, the solid waste attains a temperature of 55°C or greater for
at least 15 days during the composting period. Also, during the high temperature period, there will
be a minimum of five turnings of the windrow.
Heat drying: Dewatered sludge cake is dried by direct or indirect contact with hot gases, and
moisture content is reduced to 10 percent or lower. Sludge particles reach temperatures well in
excess of 80°C, or the wet bulb temperature of the gas stream in contact with the sludge at the point
where it leaves the dryer is in excess of 80°C
Heat treatment: Liquid sludge is heated to temperatures of 180°C for 30 minutes.
Thermophilic aerobic digestion: Liquid sludge is agitated with air or oxygen to maintain
aerobic conditions at residence times of 10 days at 55-60°C, with a volatile-solids reduction of at least
38 percent.
A-18
-------
Other methods: Other methods or operating conditions may be acceptable if pathogens and
vector attraction of the waste (volatile solids) are reduced to an extent equivalent to the reduction
achieved by any of the above methods.
Any of the processes listed below, if added to the processes described in Section A above,
further reduce pathogens. Because the processes listed below, on their own, do not reduce the
attraction of disease vectors, they are only add-on in nature.
Seta ray irradiation: Sludge is irradiated with beta rays from an accelerator at dosages of at
least 1.0 megarad at room temperature (ca. 20°C).
Gamma ray irradiation: Sludge is irradiated with gamma rays from certain isotopes, such as
eocobalt and137 Cesium, at dosages of at least 1.0 megarad at room temperature (ca. 20°C).
Pasteurization: Sludge is maintained for at least 30 minutes at a minimum temperature of
70°C.
Other methods: Other methods or operating conditions may be acceptable if pathogens are
reduced to an extent equivalent to the reduction achieved by any of the above add-on methods.
A-19
-------
Appendix B
INDUSTRIAL NONHAZARDOUS WASTE TABLES1
Taken from: Summary of Data on Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices. Science
Applications International Corporation, for U.S. EPA. 1985.
-------
Table B-1 SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL NONHAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT
Industry
Electrical
machinery and
electronic
components
(SIC 36)
Electric power
generation (SIC
4911)
Waste Type*
Wastewater
treatment
sludges
Plastics
Oils
Paint wastes
Bottom ash (coal)
Fly ash (coal)
Flue gas
desulfurization
(coal) sludge
Boiler slag
Fly ash (oil)
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
11,5001.2
5,9001-2
5,1001-2
2001-2
2001.2
61,553,0006.7
11,258,0006.7
44,900,0006.7
3,966,0006.7
--
20,0006.7
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities'5
LF
-3
-
SI
3914
--
1,6714
LT
•
--
Other
-
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
M
-
--
--
~
--
--
-
SI
M
--
~
~
51
81
43
81
--
LT
—
--
-
~
--
~
~
-
Other
"
—
—
~
~
~
—
~
Total
~~
-
-
~
M
M
M
M
M
M
Off Site
Disposal
M
~~
M
M
M
~
—
"
—
-
Other
~~
~
-
—
—
—
"
~
-
Total
M5
-~
M
M
M
"
—
~
"
..
-
CD
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Fabricated8
metal products
(SIC 34)
Fertilizer and
other
agricultural
chemicals (SIC
2873-2879)
'
Waste Type3
Wastewater
treatment sludge
Spent air filters
(painting)
Paint sludge
Waste gypsum
Wet scrubber
liquor
Cooling water
treatment sludge
WPPA sludge
Spent catalyst
Sulfur filter cakes
Pesticide
manufacturing
wastes
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
330,0007-9
•
—
-
65,033,500
43,043,6007
747,00011
> 550,80011
~
~
--
20,692,1006.12,13
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities15
LF
SI
1,3164
LT
Other
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
"
~
—
-
-
—
—
-
~
--
<0.1
SI
"
—
—
~
--
—
—
--
~
~
46
LT
"
—
--
-
--
~
—
--
-
--
0
Other
—
—
—
90
—
—
-
--
-
23
Total
209.10
—
—
—
90
--
—
~
~
~
Off Site
Disposal
"
—
—
-
—
—
—
-
~
-
8
Other
"
--
~
~
—
—
—
~
-
-
69
Total
809.10
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
70
CD
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Food and
kindred
products (SIC 20)
Waste Typea
Paunch manure
Meat sludge
Liquid whey
Unusable food
Soil and trash
Nonfood waste
Grain mill sludge
Soil
(sugar prod.)
Lime mud (sugar
products)
Excess bagasse
Spent bleaching
Fat/oil sludge
Nonfood fat/oil
waste
Liquor stillage
Unused seafood
portions
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
7,007,60014.15
851,10014,15
382,20014
411,10014
1,644,60014,15
252,80014
425,20014
61,60014,15
1,211,70014
1,211,70014
267,20014,15
60,90016
9,50016
12,30016
82,20014
123,40014
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities'3
LF
SI
4,9604
LT
Other
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
2.2
-
0
—
~
-
~
0
0
100
~
-
~
~
—
SI
2.2
-
10-15
—
~
-
~
100
100
0
--
--
—
-
~
LT
15.6
M
10-
15
10-
15
-
-
~
0
0
0
--
-
—
—
~
Other
-
—
0
—
-
~
~
0
0
0
~
~
--
"
~
Total
20
~
20-25
10-15
~
10-15
-
100
100
100
~
-
—
-
~
Off Site
Disposal
80
~
75-80
M
M
M
M
0
0
0
-
Other
~
0
—
-
--
-
0
0
0
--
Total
80
-
75-80
—
-
-
-
0
0
0
~
~
—
~
—
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Industrial
inorganic
chemicals
industry (SIC
2812-2819)
Waste Typea
Brine muds
Salt tailings
Red mud
Phosphate dust
Na ore residues
Lime participates
Gypsum
Iron oxide wastes
Li ore residues
Bauxite ore
wastes
Sulf uric ore waste
Calcium wastes
Insoluble ore
residues
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
28,852,0006.17
416,7006,17
13,879,7006,17
8,371,9006,17
163,0006,17
1,321,9006.17
2,588,7006,17
1,470,6006,17
48,5006,17
286,4006,17
132,2006,17
35,8006,17
134,9006,17
1,7006.17
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities'3
LF
SI
LT
Other
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
LF
M.LUN18
~
--
M,LUN
--
M.LUN
M,LUN
M.LUN
M,LUN
M,LUN
M.LUN
M.LUN
M.LUN
On Site
SI
M.LUN
M.LUN
M.LUN
--
M.LUN
--
--
-
~
--
--
~
LT
--
—
—
-
-
--
-
--
-
~
-
—
Other
-
-
—
-
--
-
--
~
~
~
--
~
Total
—
~
~
-
—
-
~
—
—
—
~
~
Off Site
Disposal
Other
Total
—
—
..
„
—
„
—
—
~
~
—
—
CO
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Industrial
organic
chemicals (SIC
2819)
Waste Typea
Process
wastewater
Equipment
washdown
Steam jet
condensate
Nonprocess
wastewater
Spent scrubber
wastes
Sludges
Precipitates/
filtration residues
Decantate/
filtrate
Spent adsorbent
Spent catalyst
Spent solvent
Heavy ends
Light ends
Off-spec products
Containers, liners,
rags
Treated solids
By-products
Other
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
1,072,4006.12
56,988,3006,12
265,3006.12
142,3006.12
362,1006.12
9,623,2006.12
751,8006.12
3,379,5006.12
3,999,4006.12
58,9006.12
12,0006.12
144,2006.12
5,268,1006.12
22,522,6006.12
520,6006.12
1,2006,12
90,1006.12
3,071,5006.12
40,6006,12
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities13
LF
SI
4,3774.
19
LT
Other
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
1.7
0.15
NR20
NR
NR
NR
2.8
47.3
<0.1
6.5
10.6
NR
1.0
0.2
<0.1
0.9
33.8
NR
NR
SI
34.1
60
93.8
67
20.7
35.3
46.1
22.2
54.8
14.6
2.1
<0.1
8.0
1.0
8.2
NR
NR
<0.1
NR
LT
0.3
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
30.3
NR
NR
0.3
1.4
NR
0.8
NR
1.9
NR
NR
NR
NR
Other
23.7
7.7
0.1
6.1
77.7
40.3
17.5
46.6
1.8
0.3
17.9
70.6
25.3
41.5
66.2
47.9
3.9
82
74.3
Total
—
—
~
—
~
~
~
--
~
—
~
—
—
~
—
—
—
~
Off Site
Disposal
1.4
<0.1
NR
NR
NR
0.4
38.8
15.3
0.1
165
40.5
0.3
5.4
1.1
2.2
50.9
61.9
0.6
3.4
Other
61.3
89
99
69
22.3
59
3.5
6.4
76.6
76.2
27.5
36.2
74.1
3.4
23.1
0.2
0.3
23.8
11.2
Total
—
—
~
~
~
—
—
~
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
CO
1/1
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Leather and
leather products
(SIC 31)
Lumber and
wood products
and furniture
and fixtures (SIC
24 and 25)21
-
**•
Waste"Typea
Trimmings and
shavings
Unfinished
leather trim
Buffing dust
Finished
leather trim
Finishing
residues
Wastewater
screenings
Wastewater
sludge
Miscellaneous
solid wastes
Bark and wood
wastes
Wood ash
Wood-
preserving
sludges
Wastewater
sludges
Paint waste
Sol vent waste
Amount of
Waste
Generated
(dry tons/yr)
27,1002-9
8,4002.9
1,5002.9
4002.9
3,1002.9
8002.9
1,4002.9
4,6002.9
6,9002.9
> 135,400
~~
95,5006.9,11
— -
34,6006,9,11
5,1006,9,11
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal Facilities'3
LF
SI
1044
8164
LT
Other
"
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
5
~
—
,.
—
•"
—
—
"
"
80
80
—
20
20
SI
5
—
—
--
—
~~
—
--
—
--
-
—
-
~
LT
—
—
-
—
--
—
—
—
--
~
--
~
-
Other
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
~
--
~
—
--
-
Total
10
—
—
~
—
—
—
~
—
-
~
—
~
~
Off Site
Disposal
50
—
—
~
—
—
—
—
—
~
~
~
80
Other
40
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
~
-
20
—
-
—
Total
90
—
—
~
—
—
—
~
—
-
—
—
~
-
CD
a\
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Machinery
except electrical
(SIC 35)
Pulp and paper
industry (SIC 26)
Petroleum
refining industry
(SIC 29)
Waste Typea
Plastics and
ceramics
Fluxes
Oils
Wastewater
treatment sludge
Paint sludge
Wood wastes
Chemical
recovery wastes
Pulp rejects
Wastewater
sludges
Coal and bark ash
Waste paper
rejects
Biological sludge
FCC catalyst
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
213,20022
—
-
~
—
-
9,503,20023
2,203,10023
672,00023
506,7006,23
2,442,20023
1,255,80023
2,423,40023
1, 406,000 1 3
866,20013
162,40013
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities'5
LF
"
650-
900
SI
294"
1,15411
1,8844
LT
~~
0
100
13
Other
~~
0
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
LF
"
—
~
-
—
--
72,
LUN
M
M,
LUN
M,
LUN
78
M,
LUN
~
0
0
0
SI
"
—
~
~
—
--
7,
LUN
—
—
--
—
—
~
0
0
0
On Site
LT
"
~
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
~
59
46
24
Other
"
~
—
—
~
—
10
—
—
--
22
—
—
0
0
0
Total
1022
~
—
—
~
—
—
—
~
~
78
—
-
59
46
24
Off Site
Disposal
70
~
—
—
--
—
~
—
—
-
-
--
~
4124
54
76
Other
20
—
..
..
-
—
--
—
--
-
-
~
--
0
0
0
Total
9022
~
—
..
~
—
~
—
~
—
22
—
-
41
54
76
DO
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Petroleum
refining industry
(continued)
Pharmaceutical
industry (SIC
2831-2834)
Waste Type3
Nonleaded tank
bottoms
*v -
Primary O/S/W
separator sludge
Stretford solution
HFalkylation
sludge
Spent catalysts
Cool ing tower
sludge
Treating clays
Secondary O/S/W
separator sludge
Biological sludge
Filter aid, carbon
sawdust,
mycelium
Wet plant
material
Fused plant
steroid ingots
Extracted animal
tissue
Fats and oils
Filter cake
Returned goods
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
145,00013
85,50013
47,10013
37,90013
21,00013
17,40013
14,90013
8,70013
283,00025
91,00025
86,40025
2,20025
90025
8,30025
40025
20025
11,00025
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities'3
LF
SI
LT
Other
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
--
—
—
—
--
--
~
SI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LT
52
37
0
37
15
60
21
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
—
—
—
~
~
--
Total
52
37
0
26
15
60
21
44
--
—
—
--
--
--
~
Off Site
Disposal
48
63
100
37
85
40
79
56
90
85-90
85-90
M
M
M
M
M
M
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
—
—
—
~
~
~
Total
48
63
100
74
85
40
79
56
-
—
—
—
-
~
~
CO
I
00
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Pharmaceutical
preparations
(continued)
Plastics and
resins
manufacturing
(SIC 2821)
Waste Typea
Glass, paper, wood,
aluminum, and
rubber scrap
Decantates/filtrates
Sludges
Off-spec, products
Spent solvents
Light ends
Miscellaneous
solids
Precipitation/
filtration residues
Heavy ends
Process Waste-
water
Equipment
washdown
Steam jet
condensate
Spent scrubber
water
Nonprocess
wastewater
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
82,6006.25
49,600,0006.12.26
8,003,0006.12,26
479,1006.12,26
323,6006.12,26
315,7006.12.26
215,6006,12,26
134,0006,12,26
34,1006.12.26
18,0006.12,26
34,078,2006,12.26
285,2006.12,26
129,5006,12.26
2,593,6006.12.26
2,951,6006,12,26
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities'1
LF
63
SI
235
LT
11
Other
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managed1
On Site
LF
0.8
NR
81.6
1.7
NR
NR
2.3
21.5
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
SI
0
68
34.8
5.7
9.1
<0.1
<0.1
NR
28.4
3.4
80.9
92.2
NR
0.2
89
LT
0
0.1
NR
6.4
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
<0.1
NR
NR
NR
NR
Other
58
97.5
2
76.6
99.5
74.4
79.0
33.3
89.9
41.5
7.6
100
65.8
89.1
Total
69
—
—
—
— •
—
--
—
~
--
—
—
—
Off Site
Disposal
100
1.3
1.7
4.4
8.3
<0.1
NR
84.7
39.8
4.3
0.4
NR
NR
7.7
NR
Other
78
52.3
1.5
0.57
4.2
32.8
2.4
27.6
17.6
83.6
100
100
100
90.2
Total
79
—
~
~
—
—
--
—
_
—
—
—
-
—
00
-------
Table 8^1 (continued)
Industry
Primary iron and
steel
manufacturing
and ferrous
foundries (SIC
3312-3321)
Waste Type3
Coke breeze
Blastfurnace
s'ag *.L.
Blastfurnace
dust
Blastfurnace
sludge
EAFslag
EAF dust and
sludge
Open hearth
slag
Continuous
casting scale
Continuous
casting sludge
Soaking pit
scale
Primary mill
scale
Primary mill
sludge
Rolling scale
(hot and cold)
Rolling sludge
(hot and cold)
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
66,841,80067
1,929,9006,7,9
25,481,4006,7
1,616,0006,7
1,692,0006.7
4,146,3006,7
449,4006,7,9
2,231,8006.7
351,4006,7
4,4006,7
922,0006,7
2,759,4006.7
114,6006.7
1,071,8006.7
5,5006.7
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities'3
If
SI
1,380^,27
LT
Other
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
24,LUN
0
0
— -
12.LUN
90
100
25.LUN
—
~
—
—
—
—
~~
SI
24.LUN
0
0
—
12.LUN
0
0
25.LUN
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
LT
0
0
~
—
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Other
65.R28
100.R
0
100.R
88, R
10,R,50S29
0
75,R
100,S
--
--
100,S
~
100,5
"
Total
100
0
100
--
100
—
—
~
—
~
~
--
100
--
Off Site
Disposal
0
100
—
~
~
0
—
~
—
—
~
—
~
—
Other
0
100.R
—
~
~
0
—
~
~
—
~
~
—
—
Total
0
100
—
—
~
0
—
—
~
~
~
--
—
—
00
o
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Primary Iron and
Steel
Manufacturing
and Ferrous
Foundries
(continued)
Primary non-
ferrous metals
manufacturing
and nonferrous
foundries (SIC
3330-3399)30
Waste Typea
Pickle liquor
sludge
Galvanizing
sludge
Tin plating
sludge
Bricks and rubble
Fly ash and
bottom ash
Foundry sand
and other wastes
Primary
aluminum wastes
Primary copper
wastes
Primary zinc
wastes
Primary lead
wastes
Foundry sand
and other wastes
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
44,1006.7
17,6006.7
8,122,9006.7
—
15,881,3006.7
7,242,800
343,6006.16
3,641,0006,16
566,00026
374,5006-26
2,317,7007
Number of On-Site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilitiesb
LF
SI
1,380^.31
LT
Other
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
—
~
100.LUN
—
100
75
—
—
~
88-98
SI
—
~
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
2-12
LT
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Other
100.R
—
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
100
— •
"
—
100
75
"
—
—
100
Off Site
Disposal
—
--
-
—
—
25
-•
—
—
Other
~"
--
„
"
~~
--
"
™
--
~~
Total
~~
™
~
"
"~
25
"
~~
—
--
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Rubber and
miscellaneous
plastic products
(SIC 30)
Soaps; other
detergents;
polishing.
cleaning and
sanitation goods
(SIC 2841 -2842)
Waste Type3
Tire/inner tube
waste streams
Rubber and
plastics footwear
waste streams
Reclaimed
rubber waste
streams
Rubber and
plastks, hose and
belting waste-
streams
Fabricated
rubber products
NEC waste
streams
Miscellaneous
plastic products
waste streams
Lost product
Tower cleanouts
Sludges
Dust and fines
Amount of
Waste
Generated (dry
tons/yr)
597,7002.6
246,1002.6,9.30
35,2002.6.9,30
42,8002.6.9.30
58,6002.6.9.30
214,9002.6.9.30
34,5006.13
~
~
~
~
Number of On-site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities15
LF
SI
2524
LT
Other
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
-"
~
-
--
-
SI
~~
-
~
-
~
LT
~~
-
--
-
-
Other
**~
--
~
-
--
Total
~~
~
~
-
—
Off Site
Disposal
"
-
--
-
—
Other
"
-
~
-
-
Total
"
-
~
~
—
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Stone, clay, glass,
and concrete
products (SIC 32)
Waste Typea
Silica
particulates
Spent
diatomaceous
earth
Soda ash
Lime
Brine residues
Air pollution
control sludge
(cement)
Air pollution
control sludge
(clay)
Lubricants
Pottery sludge
Air pollution
control sludge
(concrete,
gypsum, and
plaster)
Waste cul let
Fiber resin
masses
Amount of
Waste
Generated
(Dry Tons/Yr)
> 20,489, 10032
—
"
--
~
-
13,329,400
4,813,800
~
SIG33
2,369,500
-
—
Number of On-site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities'3
LF
"
SI
1,2434
LT
Other
"
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
"
—
~~
--
-
~
"
~~
--
M
--
~
SI
~"
—
~~
~
~
M
"
~"~
--
--
--
~
LT
""""
—
~~
~
~
~
"
~~
~
--
~
-
Other
"
~
~~
--
~
—
M
—
—
—
~
Total
"""
-
~~
--
-
--
"
~~
-
--
~
~
Off Site
Disposal
Other
Total
"
~
~~
~
—
~
"
—
~
~
--
00
-------
Table B-1 (continued)
Industry
Textile
manufacturing
(SIC 22)
Transportation
Equipment (SIC
37)
Water
treatment (SIC
4941)
Waste Type3
Wool scouring
wastes
Clippings
Dye containers
Dry flick
Waste fiber
Wastewater
treatment
sludge
• jr
• >49.600
~
--
--
~
--
"'"
572,800' 1
163,000
273,200
136,600
5,463,80034
—
~
Number of On-site
Nonhazardous Disposal
Facilities'3
LF
"
"
SI
5364
"
"
LT
"
"
Other
"
Percent of Nonhazardous Wastes Managedc
On Site
LF
10
—
--
--
~
„ .
"
"
37
20
100
~
—
SI
~
-
--
-
"
"
-
-
—
—
—
LT
—
~
--
-
~
"
"
--
--
—
~
~
Other
—
--
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
—
--
~
~
--
"
"
—
-
~
"
~
—
Off Site
Disposal
55
M
M
M
M
M
"
"
--
-
~
~
~
Other
—
--
-
~
-
M
63
80
~
—
--
Total
—
-
--
-
—
"
—
~
—
—
— -
-------
a.
Waste types from more than one product or process within an industry often are combined under one listing in this table. Such combining often
prevented the listing of waste management information for a given waste. This information is available in Section 4 of the Summary of Data on
Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices.
b. LF = landfill; SI = surface impoundment; LT = land treatment.
c. Numbers in all columns represent the percentage of total wastes; note the sum of numbers in one row may exceed 100 percent if one management
method is used prior to another method for the same waste stream. Also note: The management data represent the same year as the quantity data,
unless otherwise indicated.
1 Data on waste types and amounts were available only for SIC 367 (represents only 2 percent of total value of 1976 product shipments for the industry)
2. 1975 data.
3. "--" = data not available.
4. Data from the Surface Impoundment Assessment National Report were collected in 1978-1980. EPA 570/9-84-002. Office of Drinking Water,
December 1981.
5. M = most of the referenced wastes are managed by this technology; however, no percentage values are available in the literature.
6. Dry or wet weight not specified; assume wet weight.
7. 1983 data.
8. Data on nonhazardous waste streams in this industry are almost completely nonexistent. The list of waste types is incomplete.
9. Includes hazardous and nonhazardous wastes, depending on the source.
10. Electroplating and metal finishing only; other SIC 34 groups unknown; 1979 data
11. 1980 data.
12. Estimated from the Industry Studies Data Base, compiled for the USEPA by SAIC
13. 1981 data.
14. 1976 data.
15. Wet weight.
16. 1984 data.
17. 1979 data.
18. LUN = location of the management site (i.e., on site or off site) is unknown.
19. Includes the entire chemical manufacturing industry (SIC 28).
20. NR = not reported by any industries surveyed to compile the Industry Studies Data Base. See footnote number 12 above.
21 The total amount of wastes within this industry is large; however, most of the wastes are recycled; no quantities on total waste generation are
available.
22. Includes only wastes from SIC 355 and 357 (representing 12 percent of total sales in SIC 15)- 1977 data
23. 1977 data.
24. Landfilling is the leading off-site disposal method for petroleum wastes
25. 1973 data.
26. 1982 data.
27. Includes the primary nonferrous metals industry.
28. R = this waste is stockpiled prior to recycling.
29. S = stockpiled.
30. The waste streams in this category were too numerous to include in the table. See Section 4.17 of the Summary of Data on Industrial Nonhazardous
Waste Disposal Practices.
31. Includes the primary iron and steel industry.
32. This estimate is known to exclude significant quantities of nonhazardous wastes.
33. SIG = significant quantities are believed to be generated.
34. Disposal methods are the subject of an ongoing survey.
-------
Table B-2 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL NONHAZARDOUS WASTE DATA
Industry
Data Availability3
Relative Levels of Heavy Metals or
Organics in Wastes
Prevalent Waste Management
Methods
Electrical machinery and
electronic components
(SIC 36)
POOR: The descriptions of waste
types are incomplete and waste
quantity data are available only for
SIC 367, which represents only 2
percent of total SIC 36 sales. (Year-
1977)
HIGH: Wastewater treatment
sludges, oils, and paint wastes have
potential to release heavy metals
and organics. No specific analytical
data are available. Since this
industry generates considerable
quantities of hazardous waste, some
small-quantity generators may
dispose hazardous wastes in on-site,
land-based facilities.
General trend indicates off-site
landfill disposal, based on 1977 data.
Large quantities of nonhazardous
wastewaters may be managed in on-
site surface impoundments.
00
i
Ol
Electric power generation
(SIC 4911)
GOOD: Detailed descriptions of
waste types and quantities are
available. Waste management data
are fairly good. (Year-1983)
MODERATE: This waste has a
potential to reduce pH levels and
release metals. Organics, such as
naphthalenes and benzofluorenes,
also may be released. Toxicity
depends on the source of coal or oil
being burned.
General trend is on-site disposal in
clay-lined surface impoundments
and landfills. Some of these facilities
are synthetic-lined and have ground-
water monitoring.
Fabricated metal products
(SIC 34)
POOR: Waste type and quantity
data are almost completely
nonexistent. Some management
data are available. (Years-1976,
1979, and 1983)
HIGH: Wastewater treatment
sludges, oils, and paint wastes have .
potential to release heavy metals
and organics. No specific analytical
data are available. Since this
industry generates considerable
quantities of hazardous wastes,
some small-quantity generators may
dispose of hazardous wastes in on-
site, land-based facilities.
Data from 1976 indicate that 20-30
percent of wastes are managed on
site in landfills and lagoons.
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
Industry
Data Availability3
Relative Levels of Heavy Metals or
Organics in Wastes
Prevalent Waste Management
Methods
Fertilizer and Other
Agricultural Chemicals
(SIC 2873-2879)
MODERATE: Waste quantity and
management data are very good for
pesticide formulation and
manufacturing, but are poor for
some segments of fertilizer
manufacturing. Waste types are
fairly well-defined for fertilizer and
detailed analyses are available for
pesticides. (Years-1980and 1983)
HIGH: Waste gypsum piles may
cause local pH and metals
contamination problems. Pesticide
wastes may release organics and
heavy metals.
Waste gypsum is stored in unlined
piles. Large quantities of
wastewaters are stored or treated in
surface impoundments.
Food and Kindred
Products (SIC 20)
GOOD: Waste types and quantities
are well defined and waste
management methods are fairly well
described. (Year-1980)
LOW: Most food industry wastes are
biodegradable, but may cause taste
and odor problems.
Off-site landfills and land
application are used extensively,
with some on-site land disposal.
CD
Industrial inorganic
chemicals industry (SIC
2812-2819)
MODERATE: Data on waste
quantities and amounts are good,
but there are very little analytical
data. (Year-1979)
HIGH: Most nonhazardous wastes
from this industry do not appear to
contain heavy metals, but there are
insufficient analytical data on these
wastes. Since this industry generates
considerable quantities of hazardous
wastes, some small-quantity
generators may dispose of
hazardous wastes in on-site, land-
based facilities.
On-site landfills and surface
impoundments are used for most
wastes. Design data on these
facilities are not available.
Industrial organic
chemicals (SIC 2819)
VERY GOOD: Detailed information
is available on all data areas except
the design features of the waste
management facilities. (Years- 1981
and 1982)
HIGH: Many of the waste streams in
this industry contain high levels of
extremely toxic organic chemicals.
Since this industry generates
considerable quantities of hazardous
wastes, some small-quantity
generators may dispose of
hazardous wastes in on-site, land-
based facilities.
Most land-based disposal is
performed at off-site facilities;
however, approximately 34 percent
of wastewater and sludges are
treated in on-site impoundments
prior to discharge.
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
Industry
Data Availability3
Relative Levels of Heavy Metals or
Organics in Wastes
Prevalent Waste Management
Methods
Leather and leather
tanning (SIC 31)
GOOD: Waste types and quantities
are well described and general
management methods are known.
(Year-1975)
MODERATE: These wastes generally
contain chromium, but it is generally
in the + 3-valence state.
Off-site landfills are used most
commonly, and approximately 90
percent of all wastes are sent to off-
site facilities. Ten percent of the
wastes are managed in on-site
surface impoundments and land-
fills.
Lumber and wood
products and furniture
and fixtures (SIC 24 and
25)
MODERATE: The waste types in this
industry are described, but there are
no dependable data on quantities of
analytical results. (Year-1980)
CD
00
MODERATE: Most of the wastes
(380 million MT/year) from this
industry are composed of wood dust,
chips, shavings, and other rejects,
and most of these wastes are burned
or reused. However, the ash from
burning these wastes is generated in
very high quantities and is high in
PH.
There are no data on land disposal of
wastes from this industry.
Machinery except
electrical (SIC 35)
POOR: The descriptions of waste
types are incomplete, and waste
quantity data were available only for
SIC 355 and SIC 357, which represent
only 12 percent of total SIC 35 sales.
(Year- 1977)
HIGH: Wastewatertreatment
sludges, oils, and paint wastes have
potential to release heavy metals
and organics. No specific analytical
data are available. Since this
industry generates considerable
quantities of hazardous waste, some
small-quantity generators may
dispose of hazardous wastes in on-
site, land-based facilities.
Data from 1977 indicate that 90
percent of these wastes are
managed off site and that 70
percent of the total waste stream
from this industry are land disposed.
Ten percent of these wastes are
managed on site; however, the
management methods are not
known.
Pulp and paper industry
(SIC 26)
•*,.
GOOD: The quantities and types of
wastes from this industry are well
described, and management
methods are known for each waste
type. Some data are available on
waste management facility designs.
(Year-1977)
MODERATE: Organic pollutants
from wood fibers may be significant.
Also, coal and bark ash may contain
metals. Sulfates and metals are high
in some pulping wastes.
Approximately 72 percent of all
wastes are managed in on-site
landfill facilities. On-site surface
impoundments account for 7
percent of industry wastes; about 10
percent of pulp and paper wastes
are managed in on-site incinerators.
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
Industry
Data Availability3
Relative Levels of Heavy Metals or
Organics in Wastes
Prevalent Waste Management
Methods
Petroleum refining industry
(SIC 29)
VERY GOOD: All data needs were
available except typical designs of
waste management facilities.
(Year-1977)
HIGH: These wastes generally
contain high levels of sulfides,
ammonia, phenols, and oils. Some
of them also contain mercaptains,
benzo-a-pyrene, and other toxic
organics. Since this industry
generates considerable quantities of
hazardous wastes, some small-
quantity generators may dispose of
hazardous wastes in on-site, land-
based facilities.
Approximately 59 percent of the
wastes are managed in on-site land
application facilities. The remaining
41 percent are managed at off-site,
land-based disposal sites.
00
Pharmaceutical
preparations (SIC 2834)
GOOD: The quantities and types of
wastes from this industry are fairly
well-described and the general
waste management methods are
known. (Year-1976)
LOW: The majority of these wastes
are fermentation products and are
biodegradable.
Approximately 85 to 90 percent of
the wastes from this industry are
managed in off-site, land-based
disposal facilities.
Plastics and resins
manufacturing (SIC 2821)
VERY GOOD: Detailed information
is available on all data areas except
the design features of the waste
management facilities. (Year-1982)
HIGH: Many of the waste streams in
this industry contain organic solvents
and unreacted monomers, which are
frequently toxic.
Approximately 68 percent of these
wastes are treated in surface
impoundments, 1 percent are
landfilled, and.1.5 percent are
managed in off-site, land-based
disposal facilities.
Primary iron and steel
manufacturing and ferrous
foundries (SIC3312-3321)
GOOD: The waste types and
quantities generally are available,
and the compositions of each waste
are known. Management methods
generally are known for each waste
type. (Year-1983)
HIGH: Many of the wastes from this
industry are low in pH and may
release significant quantities of
heavy metals.
Approximately 25 percent of these
wastes are managed in on-site
impoundments and landfills. Also, 65
percent of the wastes (mainly slag)
are stored in waste piles prior to
recycling.
Primary nonferrous metals
manufacturing and
nonferrous foundries (SIC
3330-3399)
POOR: Good descriptions of the
types of wastes produced by each
sector, but not much analytical data.
Good estimates on the quantities of
each waste type, but almost no
waste management data. (Year-
1984)
HIGH: Several of the waste streams
contain high levels of heavy metals.
No data.
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
Industry
Data Availability^
Relative Levels of Heavy Metals or
Organics in Wastes
Prevalent Waste Management
Methods
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastic products (SIC 30)
POOR: Good data on quantities of
wastes, but poor descriptions of
waste characteristics and
management methods. (Year-1975)
HIGH: Data are sketchy, but indicate
possibly significant levels of
elastomers, carbon black, plastic
resins, plasticizers, and pigments.
At least some on-site landfilling and
incineration, but data are almost
nonexistent.
Soaps; other detergents;
polishing, cleaning, and
sanitation goods (SIC 2841-
2842)
POOR: Waste types poorly defined
and quantity data are almost
nonexistent. (Year-1974)
LOW: Most of these wastes are
composed of packaging, lost
products, salts, inerts. Some organics
are generated from floor polishes
(plasticizers) and pine oils (solvents).
Most of these wastes are expected to
be sent off site because the industry
is composed of a large number of
small establishments.
POOR: Waste quantity data are
available only for some waste types.
Waste types are fairly well described,
but lack analytical data.
Management methods are poorly
documented.
00
M
o
Stone, clay, glass, and
concrete products (SIC 32)
LOW: Most of the wastes produced
are inert, earth-type materials.
However, significant quantities of air
pollution control sludges are
generated, some of which may
contain heavy metals.
No data; however, most wastes are
expected to be managed on site due
to generally low toxicity and high
volumes.
Textile manufacturing (SIC
22)
POOR: Waste types are fairly well
described, but there are virtually no
analytical data and no data on waste
quantities and management
methods.
LOW: Waste descriptions indicate
low organics and heavy metals, but
there are virtually no analytical data
to confirm this assumption.
No data.
-------
Table B-2 (Continued)
Industry
Data Availability3
Relative Levels of Heavy Metals or
Organics in Wastes
Prevalent Waste Management
Methods
Transportation Equipment
(SIC 37)
POOR: There are no data in the
literature pertaining to
nonhazardous waste generation and
management within this industry.
HIGH: Wastes are expected to be
similar in quantity and composition
to those generated within SIC 34 and
35. Since this industry generates
considerable quantities of hazardous
wastes, some small-quantity
generators may dispose of
hazardous wastes in on-site, land-
based facilities.
No data.
Water treatment (SIC 4941)
03
POOR: Waste types are fairly well
described and an overall estimate on
waste quantities was available;
however, there were no data on
waste management methods.
LOW: These wastes are com posed
mainly of alum and lime, but may
contain some heavy metals.
No data.
Data areas pursued in this study included detailed analyses on each type of waste generated by each industry, the amount of each type of
waste, the types and numbers of on-site, land-based disposal methods used by each industry, the general design of these facilities, and the
amounts of each waste type managed in each different type of facility. The year for which most data were found is given in parentheses.
-------
Appendix C
MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILL CAPACITY PROBLEMS1
1 Presented as Appendix A in Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste
Programs. Westat, Inc., for U.S. EPA. 1986.
NOTE: Landfill capacity status data from the municipal survey are presented in Chapter 4.
-------
As part of the landfill section of the State Subtitle D program questionnaire, the States were asked to
respond to the following:
"Please describe any local, regional, or statewide landfill capacity problems in your State."
The responses are listed below, alphabetically by State.
Alabama. Many of the landfills are reaching capacity. It is very difficult to site new landfills due to
technical requirements and public opposition.
Alaska. There is no capacity problem in Alaska as far as space, but in most areas the soil and
topography are not suitable for landfills (wetlands and permafrost) due to the climate.
American Samoa. The existing landfill on the island of Tutuila is rapidly approaching capacity. With
limited useable land, alternate methods of municipal waste disposal may have to be used (e.g.,
incineration or waste transfer to other islands).
Arizona. It is getting more difficult to site new landfills and this is causing a problem especially in
the Phoenix Area, Maricopa, and Mojave Counties. Also, much of the land is federally owned and is
leased on a highest bidder basis. Many of the area's lands are going back to private companies and
this is causing problems siting landfills.
Arkansas. A few individual landfills are reaching capacity but no problems are foreseen in finding
new locations. This is primarily due to a 1974 Arkansas ruling which said that landfills can only be
turned down because of physical criteria siting problems, not because of public opposition.
Additionally, zoning regulations are not restrictive in siting new landfills.
California. Most urban areas have capacity for only approximately 20 years. We need to expedite
planning for future capacity.
Colorado. There are six landfills which service the greater Denver metropolitan area. Within the
next three years, two with a possibility of four landfills may close. At the present time, there are no
new landfills proposed to replace these facilities. If no new landfills are permitted, the Denver area
may face a critical shortage of landfill space.
C-1
-------
Connecticut. The State of Connecticut is approaching a statewide capacity shortage, estimated to
become critical in late 1988. Currently 50 percent of the State's solid waste is going to nine major
regional landfills. These sites will all reach their permitted capacity at about the same time because
the waste flow is easily diverted to the few remaining landfills. No new municipal waste fills have
been permitted in Connecticut si nee 1978. The permitted landfills will be used up before the
planned resource recovery projects are in operation.
Delaware. No capacity problems. Increased volume at landfills in Kent and Sussex County would
allow economic resource recovery facilities to be built (similar to the one presently operating in New
Castle County).
Florida. An evaluation of current and projected population growth in Florida indicates a need for an
estimated equivalent 2,700 acres of additional landfill area, annually, through year 1995.
Georgia. Gwinnet County, Fulton County, Douglas County, Cobb County -- these counties are
located in the Atlanta area and have problems locating and zoning new sites due to public
opposition. All have limited remaining landfill capacity at existing sites.
Guam. The single municipal landfill owned and operated by the Government of Guam will reach
capacity in one to two years.
Hawaii. Statewide: the shortage of suitable and available sites (no community opposition) for
landfills is the major concern of all the counties. Except for the City and County of Honolulu, the
amount of refuse generated per day on each of the counties is too small to consider refuse-to-energy
(refuse derived fuel) as an alternate method of refuse disposal. City and County of Honolulu: the
three municipal landfills are rapidly approaching their capacities; the two smallest landfills will be
closed within 18 months and the largest within three years. The city is finalizing a contract with a
private firm to design, construct, and operate a refuse-to-energy plant.
Idaho. Approximately 12 landfills are in need of replacement due to capacity problems, eight of
which are the major or only landfill for the counties in which they are located.
Indiana. PI ease see attached map. (Map shows estimated lifetimes of all landfills in Indiana.)
Iowa. No significant landfill capacity problems at this time statewide. Local capacity problems
usually result in landfill expansion at nearby sites.
C-2
-------
Louisiana. Lack of permitted disposal facilities for oil field waste encourages illegal dumping
Kansas. None.
Kentucky. No response.
Maine. Some small communities, particularly those in the more remote areas not serviced by
regional or commercial landfills or resource recovery projects, are in need of regional solutions.
Many small municipal sites have little remaining capacity.
Maryland. Calculating the total disposal capacity for the State would be misleading. Each of the 23
Maryland Counties and Baltimore City are responsible for providing landfill capacity for their
residents. This capacity at present ranges from less than one to more than 25 years. There is no
programmatic mechanism for moving waste from an area with a capacity shortage to an area with a
capacity surplus. The Draft State Solid Waste Plan found, in early 1985, that eight of the 24
jurisdictions had less than five years disposal capacity under permit.
Massachusetts. The capacity of Massachusetts' active landfills is actively running out. [Plus an
additional page of text.]
Michigan. The capacities for solid waste disposal areas are addressed as part of the solid waste
management plans which are required to be developed pursuant to Act 641 .PA1978. The plan
requires each county to identify disposal sites which will accept solid waste generated within its
political boundaries for a five-year period. The plans are to be updated every five years with new
sites identified as necessary.
Minnesota. Many landfills have five years or less for capacity and some disposal option will be
needed. However, we are stressing reuse of the waste and will need less capacity. Other landfills
have as much as 20 to 40 years left.
Mississippi. Within five years only about 5 percent of our landfills in Mississippi will need new sites.
We expect more recycling and incineration. In general, there are no landfill capacity problems.
Missouri. No response.
C-3
-------
Montana. Statewide many of the existing landfills are nearing capacity. In general it is very difficult
to obtain new sites for landfills.
Nebraska. One municipality (pop. 18,000) has been unable to site a landfill and is transferring refuse
50 miles to another site. One major landfill has less than two years remaining life with no known
effort to find a replacement at this time. Another major landfill with about the same remaining life
serves 180,000 people. The city involved is seeking a new site.
Nevada. None at this time.
New Hampshire. Many landfills are reaching capacity. Also a large number have shown leachate
breakouts and are under closing orders. As a result, many towns are opting for refuse-to-energy
facilities.
New Jersey. Capacity problems are very severe across the state. Siting due to public opposition is
the largest contributing factor to the capacity problem.
New Mexico. There are currently 61 landfills on Federal land and 12 on State land. Both entities
have told the landfills that as leases expire to find new land or purchase the existing land at current
market rates. Communities either do not have the funds for purchase or no other land is available or
suitable. Also the "not in my backyard" syndrome is beginning to come forth in New Mexico.
New York. No response.
North Carolina. The biggest issue facing landfill operators is economic considerations needed to
construct and maintain landfill facilities. With stringent rules in place for protection of the
environment, new techniques and technologies are mandated for protecting the environment.
North Dakota. There are no capacity problems at this time in North Dakota.
Northern Marianas. The only solid waste facility at the present time is an open dump and although
there are no capacity problems, we are looking for a new site for a landfill. We hope to find a
suitable site in the not too distant future.
Ohio. There are 41 counties (out of 88) that will reach landfill capacity within four years. These are
major municipal landfills that accept general solid waste (in the 41 counties).
C-4
-------
Oklahoma. Almost every area of the State experiences some landfill capacity problems. The primary
problem facing the State, however, is the lack of new landfills. Rising costs of operation, more
stringent permitting requirements, and increasing public opposition have caused many landfills to
close at capacity and have prevented the opening of new sites.
Oregon. Unable to estimate. Most areas of the State have at least five years of remaining life. The
Portland Metropolitan Area with over one-half of the state population has less than four years of life
with no new site identified. The Portland Metropolitan Area landfill that serves four counties is
scheduled for closure in 1989. We are looking fora new site but have not found one yet. By July
1987, we hope to find a site. The rest of the State has no real capacity problems.
Pennsylvania. Problems in landfills are especially acute in southeast Pennsylvania. This is primarily
due to closure of "full" and substandard landfills and public resistance. The Delaware and Lehigh
Valleys have only a two to three year capacity and include 40 percent of the state population.
Overall, the State has an estimated landfill capacity of about six years.
Puerto Rico. The landfill capacity problem is enormous in all of Puerto Rico. Almost all of the
landfills operating in the Commonwealth are at the last portion of their useful life. Since Puerto Rico
is a small island characterized mainly by high population densities and surface water bodies
throughout the Commonwealth, it is very difficult to obtain additional land for landfill expansion or
relocation. Therefore, this critical problem will only be solved by looking toward other solid waste
alternatives (such as incineration).
Rhode Island. Many landfills are nearing capacity. Three landfills active in 1984 have closed.
South Carolina. Eight to 10 sites need additional acreage within the next year and two of these sites
are at capacity right now.
South Dakota. There are no existing capacity problems in South Dakota.
Tennessee. The urban areas, due to population densities and lack of property of adequate acreage
and approvable geology, are difficult to acquire. The public pressure to reject siting is also a factor.
This situation is acute in the middle Tennessee area as geologically approvable sites are so difficult to
locate.
C-5
-------
Texas. Replacement landfills in most urban areas are coming under increasing public opposition.
This has significantly increased the time required to process a permit, which diverts resources from
other applications and causes an ever increasing backlog in permit evaluation.
Utah. Capacity is not a big problem but there are some localized problems with siting, especially in
the industrial landfills which are in heavily populated areas and don't want to haul waste long
distances.
Vermont. The Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation recognizes two regional solid waste
(i.e., landfill) capacity problems. Both regions lack landfill volume to dispose of solid waste
generated within the region. Solid waste must be transported excessive distances to approved
landfills. New landfills are not being developed due to lack of acceptable land, lack of resources to
develop landfills, and/or regulations. One region has committed to an alternative disposal method,
which has not been implemented due to regulatory and environmental issues. A statewide capacity
problem has also been identified. "Approved" solid waste disposal capacity for the year 1990 is
estimated to be 573,000 cubic yards to dispose of a projected 983,000 cubic yards of solid waste.
Virginia. Public resistance to siting of new facilities has caused delays in providing new facilities.
Therefore, many landfills are near full and some are in heavily populated areas. Some municipal
governments have moved to resource recovery facilities or contracted disposal as an alternative.
Virgin Islands. No response.
Washington. There are no capacity problems now but rather siting problems for the future for new
locations especially in the metropolitan areas of Spokane and Seattle. Lack of sites and appropriate
land to build landfills is primarily due to public resistance and lack of necessary geographic locations.
Planning is being done for other methods of disposal such as resource recovery and burning.
West Virginia. 1) Approximately 50 percent of municipal solid waste generated in West Virginia is
disposed at unpermitted facilities; 2) approximately 50 percent of permitted sites are within three to
five years of exhaustion of space/capacity; 3) the northeast area of West Virginia has had severe
flood damage to solid waste disposal facilities; 4) older permitted sites were designed without
adequate consideration of capacity; 5) we believe we will have a 70 percent shortfall of capacity in
three to five years if something is not done to improve conditions.
C-6
-------
Wisconsin. Capacity problems are mostly short-term and localized. Long-distance hauling
sometimes is needed on an interim basis. Replacement (new or expanded) landfills are being sited in
the State at the rate of about 10 to 20 per year. The State siting process is the same for both new and
expanded landfills. It is a long process (two to five years), but does allow siting to take place.
Wyoming. A few areas of the State now have capacity problems, mainly Teton County, near
Yellowstone, which is having a problem siting a landfill. The Federal Bureau of Land Management is
no longer leasing land cheaply and in the next 10 years, siting will be a Statewide problem.
C-7
-------
Appendix D
STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAM REGULATIONS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILLSU,3, SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS*,
LAND APPLICATION UNITS*, AND WASTE PILES6
1 PEI Associates. State Subtitle D Regulations on Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Final Draft
Report. Contract No. 68-01-7075, U.S. EPA, OSWER, Washington, D.C., 1986.
2 U.S. EPA. Background Document: Updated Review of Selected Provisions of State Solid Waste
Regulations. Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 258) -Subtitle D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Draft. Washington, D.C., December 1987.
3 Westat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste Programs. Contract
No. 68-01-7047, U.S. EPA, OSWER, Washington, D.C., 1986.
4 PEI Associates. State Subtitle D Regulations on Surface Impoundments. Draft Volume II. Contract
No. 68-02-3890, U.S. EPA, OSWER, Washington, D.C., 1986.
5 PEI Associates. State Subtitle D Regulations on Land Treatment. Draft Volume III. Contract No.
68-02-3890, U.S. EPA, OSWER, Washington, D.C., 1986.
6 PEI Associates. State Subtitle D Regulations on Waste Piles. Draft Volume IV. Contract No. 68-02-
3890, U.S. EPA, OSWER, Washington, D.C., 1986.
-------
Table D-1. SPECIFIC PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Soil
Conditions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ground-
water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total
Acreage
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Life
of
Facility
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Future
Use
X
X
X
X
X
X
P.E.
Certification
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D-1
-------
Table D-1. (continued)
State
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
North Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
Soil
Conditions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
39
Ground-
water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
43
Surface
Water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
38
Total
Acreage
X
X
X
15
Life
of
Facility
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
Future
Use
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
P.E.
Certification
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
SOURCE: Reference 1.
D-2
-------
Table D-2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Liner
Design
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Leachate
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Run-on/run-off
Controls
X
X
X
X
X .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gas Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D-3
-------
Table D-2. (continued)
State
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
North Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
Liner
Design
X
X
X
X
X
19
Leachate
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
27
Run-on/Run-off
Controls
Gas Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
42
Gas
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
31
SOURCE: Reference 1.
D-4
-------
Table D-3. UPDATED REVIEW OF DESIGN, OPERATION AND CLOSURE STANDARDS FOR
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Liners
NS
X
X
X*
X*
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X*
X*
X*
X
PS
X
X
X
X
X
X
DS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LCS
NS
X
X
X*
X*
X*
X
X*
X*
X
X*
X*
X*
X
PS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DS
X
X
X
X
X
Final Cover
NS
X*
PS
X
X
DS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GWM
NS
X*
X*
X*
X*
X
X*
X*
PS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DS
X
X
X
X
CA
NS
X
X*
X*
X
X*
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X*
PS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D-5
-------
Table D-3. (continued)
State
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
N. Carolina
N. Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
S. Carolina
S. Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
W. Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern
Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Totals
Liners
NS
X*
X
X
X*
X*
X*
X*
X
X
X*
X
X*
X*
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X
32
19*
PS
X
X
X
9
DS
X
X
X
X
X
15
LCS
NS
X*
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X
X
X
29
15*
PS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
DS
X*
6
Final Cover
NS
X*
X
X
X*
X
6
3*
PS
X
3
DS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
46
GWM
NS
X
X*
X
X
X*
X
X*
X
X
X
17
9*
PS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
34
DS
4
CA
NS
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
41
18*
PS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
SOURCE: Reference2.
NS = No Standard.
PS = Performance Standard.
DS = Design Standard.
* = Possibly in guidance based on 1986 Subtitle D census 3.
D-6
-------
Table D-4. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Waste
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Leachate
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gas
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cover
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Safety
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other O&M
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D-7
-------
Table D-4. (continued)
State
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
North Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
Waste
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
52
Leachate
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
36
Gas
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
22
Cover
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
48
Safety
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
52
Other O&M
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
52
SOURCE: Reference 1.
D-8
-------
Table D-5. LOCATION STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Floodplain
Protection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Minimum
Distances
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Critical
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Geologically
Sensitive
Areas
X
X
X
Soil Conditions
X
D-9
-------
Table D-5. (continued)
State
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
North Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
Floodplain
Protection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
36
Minimum
Distances
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
39
Critical
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
Geologically
Sensitive
Areas
X
4
Soil Conditions
X
2
SOURCE: Reference 1.
D-10
-------
Table D-6. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Ground
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
Leachate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Air
D-11
-------
Table D-6. (continued)
State
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
North Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
Ground
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
42
Surface
Water
X
X
X
X
10
Leachate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
Air
0
SOURCE: Reference 1.
D-12
-------
Table D-7. CLOSURE, POST-CLOSURE, AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Closure
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Post-Closure
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Financial
Responsibility
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D-13
-------
Table D-7. (continued)
State
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
Closure
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
51
Post-Closure
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
44
Financial
Responsibility
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
SOURCE: Reference 1.
D-14
-------
Table D-8. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
State
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Gen.
Permit
Req.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
Soil
Cond.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Ground-water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Surface
Water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Total
Acreage
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Life of
Facility
X
X
X
X
X
5
Future
Use
X
X
X
X
4
P.E.
Certif.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
SOURCE: Referenced
D-15
-------
Table D-9. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
State
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Liner
Design
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Leachate
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Run-on/Run-off
Control
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
Dike
Stability
and Air
Protection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Security
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
SOURCE: Reference 4.
D-16
-------
Table D-10. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
State
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Waste
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Leachate
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Cover
X
X
2
Safety
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Other
O&M
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
SOURCE: Referenced
D-17
-------
Table D-11. LOCATION STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
State
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Floodplain
Protection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Minimum
Distances
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
Critical
Habitat
X
X
X
X
4
Geologically
Sensitive
Areas
X
X
X
X
X
5
Soil
Conditions
X
X
2
SOURCE: Referenced
D-18
-------
Table D-12. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
State
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Ground
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Surface
Water
X
X
X
X
4
Leachate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Air
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
SOURCE: Referenced
D-19
-------
Table D-13. CLOSURE, POST-CLOSURE, AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
State
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Closure
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Post-closure
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
Financial
Responsibility
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
SOURCE: Referenced
D-20
-------
Table D-14. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
State
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Gen.
Permit
Req.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
Soil
Cond.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Ground-
water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
Surface
Water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
Total
Acreage
X
X
X
X
X
5
Life of
Facility
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Future
Use
X
X
X
X
4
P.E.
Certif.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
SOURCE: References.
D-21
-------
Table D-15. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
State
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Environmental
Criteria
X
1
Leachate
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Air
Protection
X
X
X
3
Run-on/Run-off
Control
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Temp.
Storage
System
Design
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Security
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
SOURCE: References.
D-22
-------
Table D-16. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
State
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Waste
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Waste
Application
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Crop
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Leachate
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Safety
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18
Other
O&M
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18
SOURCE: References.
D-23
-------
Table D-17. LOCATION STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
State
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Flood plain
Protection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Minimum
Distances
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
Critical
Habitat
X
X
X
X
4
Geologically
Sensitive
Areas
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Soil
Conditions
X
X
2
SOURCE: References.
D-24
-------
Table D-18. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
State
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Ground
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
Surface
Water
X
X
X
X
X
5
Leachate
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Air
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
SOURCE: References.
D-25
-------
Table D-19. CLOSURE, POST-CLOSURE, AND FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
State
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Closure
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Post-closure
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Financial
Responsibility
Requirements
X
X
X
X
4
SOURCE: References.
D-26
-------
Table D-20. SPECIFIC PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE PILES
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Soil
Conditions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
Ground-water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Surface
Water
Information
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
Total
Acreage
X
X
X
3
Life
of
Facility
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Future
Use
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
P.E.
Cert.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
SOURCE: References.
D-27
-------
Table D-21. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WASTE PILES
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Liner
Design
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Leachate
Collection
0
Gas
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Run-on/
Run-off
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Security
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
19
SOURCE: References.
D-28
-------
Table D-22. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR WASTE PILES
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Waste
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
Leachate
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
Gas
Controls
X
X
X
X
4
Cover
X
X
X
3
Safety
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
26
Other
O&M
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
25
SOURCE: References.
D-29
-------
Table D-23. LOCATION STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR WASTE PILES
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Floodplain
Protection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Minimum
Distances
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
Critical
Habitat
X
X
X
3
Geologically
Sensitive
Areas
X
X
2
Soil
Conditions
X
X
2
SOURCE: References.
D-30
-------
Table D-24. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE PILES
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Ground
Water
X
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
Surface
Water
X
X
X
X
X
5
Leachate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
Air
X
X
2
SOURCE: References.
D-31
-------
Table D-25. CLOSURE, POST-CLOSURE, AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE PILES
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Closure
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
Post-closure
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
Financial
Responsibility
Requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
SOURCE: References.
D-32
-------
APPENDIX E
The following are summaries of each submodel used for the Subtitle D risk analysis. The submodels
simulate:
A) pollutant release,
B) fate and transport,
C) exposure, and
D) impacts and corrective action.
A. Pollutant Release
Liner Failure Submodel
The failure/release submodel uses Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the probability and time
of failure (defined as release to the unsaturated zone) as well as the quantity of leachate released.
The submodel used a "fault tree" structure that traces each possible failure event from all possible
combinations of basic events (e.g., liner failure, infiltration of liquid) that could combine to cause
failure. The basic events are assumed to occur at random, following specified probability
distributions. The output is a distribution of the year of failure and pollutant release rate fora given
facility design and environmental setting.
Leachate Quality Submodel
The leachate quality submodel simulates the concentrations of chemical constituents in leachate
released from the landfill between years 1 and 100. Given differences in the leaching behavior of
constituents, the submodel utilizes three different modeling approaches to simulate the
concentrations of inorganics, biodegradable organics, and synthetic organics in leachate. The
submodel applies the appropriate algorithm to calculate the concentration of each leachate
constituent for each year. The concentration is then combined with the release volume calculated by
the failure/release submodel to calculate the mass flux of the constituent across the landfill/subgrade
boundary.
One representative leachate, consisting of eight constituents of concern (COC), was simulated.
This leachate is intended to represent typical leachates generated from existing municipal solid
E-1
-------
waste landfills (MSWLFs), some of which received at least limited quantities of hazardous waste.
Leachate composition data covering 212 chemical constituents were obtained for 44 operating
MSWLFs. The eight COC were selected based on potential for causing human health risk or resource
damage, given their observed concentrations in the leachate data, toxicity to humans, regulatory
limits under the Safe Drinking Water Act, taste and odor thresholds, and mobility and persistence in
the subsurface environment.
The eight COC and the effect of concern for each are given below:
Vinyl chloride Human health risk (cancer)
Arsenic Human health risk (cancer)
Iron Resource damage (taste and odor)
1,1, 2, 2, - Tetrachloroethane Human health risk (cancer)
Dichloromethane Human health risk (cancer)
Antimony Human health risk (systemic poison)
Carbon tetrachloride Human health risk (cancer)
Phenol Resource damage (taste and odor)
For this analysis, the median concentrations from the data base were used. The Agency
considered using the 90th percentile concentration levels for the analysis. However, it was estimated
that the risk associated with the 90th percentile levels in the leachate data would be approximately
one order of magnitude higher than that simulated for the median concentrations. The 90th
percentile represents the higher end of the leachate data. Available data on leachate from MSWLFs
are limited, especially for characterization of organics. The constituents and concentrations that
best characterize the leachate are subject to change in the future as the data base is expanded.
B. Fate and Transport
Unsaturated and Saturated Zone Transport Submodels
Subsurface transport modeling addresses transport through both the unsaturated zone and the
saturated zone. The Subtitle D Risk Model uses the McWhorter-Nelson wetting front model to
calculate the delay between the time of failure and the time that contaminants reach an underlying
aquifer. The mass that breaks through the unsaturated zone then disperses through the ground
water. Using an adaptation of the Random-Walk Solute Transport Model developed by Prickett,
Naymik, and Londquist, the saturated zone model simulates downgradient ground-water
E-2
-------
concentrations over a period that covers 100 years of release and 200 years of saturated zone
transport for each year of release. Concentrations are estimated at seven downgradient distances
ranging for 10 meters to 1,500 meters. These distances define the location of wells where
contamination might occur. The velocity of ground water and retardation caused by absorption of
contaminants to earth materials govern the rate of constituent transport through the unsaturated
and saturated zones. Retardation depends on contaminant as well as soil characteristics.
Degradation is considered for those constituents that have adequate data to develop rates.
The rate at which pollutants are released to an aquifer is influenced significantly by climate and
hydrogeology. Two of the most important parameters are net infiltration (precipitation minus
evapotranspiration) and ground-water table depth. Net infiltration determines the amount of
water that can enter a landfill as a result of precipitation. Ground-water table depth is important for
two reasons. First, depth to ground water determines the thickness of the unsaturated zone, an area
in which significant pollutant retardation and degradation can occur. Second, for facilities that are
seasonally inundated with ground water, the inundation depth determines the rate at which ground
water can flow through the waste.
These two parameters were used to define eight environmental settings for the failure/release
submodel runs. The settings consist of four net infiltration categories (0.25-inch, 1-inch, 10-inch, and
20-inch) and two ground-water table depths (deep and shallow) for each infiltration regime. EPA
performed a statistical analysis of U.S. Geological Survey data for each infiltration category to
determine the distribution of ground-water table depths and average annual ground-water
fluctuation. EPA chose the 50th and 90th water table depths to represent the shallow and deep
conditions, respectively.
To model the transport of constituents in the saturated zone, EPA developed 11 generic ground-
water flow fields to represent the range of hydrogeologic conditions in the United States. The flow
fields were developed on the basis of data collected from ground-water supply reports for each of
the USGS ground-water regions. The flow fields vary in terms of aquifer configuration, materials,
and flow velocity. Five of the flow fields are single-layer aquifer systems, two contain two adjacent
aquifers, three consist of an aquifer overlaid with a non-aquifer, and one contains two aquifers
separated by a non-aquifer.
To estimate the frequency with which landfills are located in each of these environmental
settings, EPA determined the latitudes and longitudes of over 700 landfills from the municipal
landfill survey and a separate mapping effort. EPA used precipitation and other climatic data
E-3
-------
collected at weather stations near each landfill to assign the site to a net infiltration region. EPA also
determined the likely DRASTIC1 setting for each landfill, and used ground-water data characterizing
these settings to assign sites to ground-water table depths and flow fields. Flow fields I and J were
virtually absent from the set of characterized facilities and, therefore, were not modeled.
C. Exposure
Ground-water concentrations of chemical constituents released from landfills can cause human
exposure via drinking water. EPA estimated human health risk for the maximum exposed individual
(i.e., the mean of the average lifetime risks over the 300-year modeling period) and the total
population using ground water as a drinking water source, residing within one mile of the facility.
EPA chose seven well distances for modeling risk: 10 meters, 60 meters, 200 meters, 400 meters,
600 meters, 1,000 meters, and 1,500 meters. EPA used preliminary results from the MSWLF survey to
develop a distribution of distance from the landfill to the closest drinking water well at each site;
this well distance distribution was used to develop frequency weights for each of the seven well
distances. This distribution (distance to nearest well) was used to estimate risk to the maximum
exposed individual. An important finding from the facility survey is that 54 percent of MSWLFs
reported having no downgradient wells within one mile. Thus, because this analysis only considers
risk within one mile of the facility, it is assumed there is no risk at 54 percent of the MSWLFs.
For population risk (number of predicted cases), EPA used preliminary facility survey results on
distance to public and /or private wells (and the corresponding number of people served at each
well) within one mile downgradient of the facility. EPA estimated that landfills with wells have a
downgradient density of about 1.6 well-using people per acre. EPA calculated the affected land area
associated with each exposure well and multiplied the area by the above population density to
estimate the size of the exposed population for each well at sites with wells.
All exposed individuals are assumed to weigh 70 kilograms and drink two liters of water per day.
The lifetime dose is calculated as the running 70-year average over an individual's lifetime.
1 DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground-Water Pollution Potential Using
HydrogeologicSettings. U.S. EPA, 1985, EPA/600/2-85/018.
E-4
-------
D. Impacts and Corrective Action
Health Effects Submodel (Dose-response)
Of the constituents of concern selected for modeling human health risk, five are carcinogens and
one is a noncarcinogen. The approach for estimating risks for carcinogenic effects is consistent with
the Agency's cancer risk assessment guidelines. Carcinogenic potencies are obtained using either the
Agency's Carcinogenic Assessment Group values, which were derived from dose-response data using
the 95% upper bound slopes based on a linear multistage function (when available), or a one-hit
model. Both methods assume linearity at low doses and no threshold.
For noncarcinogenic effects, EPA used the Weibull equation with a threshold to predict a
probability of effect. Below the threshold, risk equals zero. At doses above the threshold, risk
depends on the dose, the constituent-specific threshold, and the shape of the dose-response curve.
Resource Damage Submodel
The measure of resource damage used in the model is based on the cost to replace contaminated
ground water that is currently used or that may be used for drinking water. Resource damage is
determined by plume area, the density of drinking water wells, the source of replacement water and
its distance from the affected wells, the time the plume first appears, and whether or not ground
water is currently used.
Similar to the risk analysis, preliminary results from the (Municipal) Solid Waste Landfill survey
were used to derive the average well density (i.e., 1 well per 80 acres) and population served per well
(128 people). These two values, along with the plume area generated by the model, were used to
estimate the required size of the replacement water supply system. The Agency assumed that the
replacement source is nearby ground water located at one mile distance.
Resource damage was estimated under two scenarios: use value and option value. Use value
assumes that the population is currently using the ground water for drinking water, whereas option
value assumes that the population is not currently using the resource for drinking water but may
wish to do so in the future. For option value, the resource damage measure recognizes the
probabilistic nature of future use; replacement costs are multiplied by an estimated probability of
E-5
-------
use in each time period. The present value for both option and use value are then determined at a 3
percent real discount rate. Thus, unlike the human health risk estimates, the resource damage
results reflect the potential growth in the future use of ground water as a drinking water source.
E-6
-------
,fco
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable George Bush
President of the Senate
Washington D.C. 2O510
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to transmit the enclosed Report to Congress
on Solid Waste Disposal in the United States. The report
presents the results of our study carried out pursuant to
Section 4O1O of Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act as amended by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments.
The report addresses the land disposal of all
non-hazardous solid waste covered by the existing Federal
Subtitle D criteria (4O CFR Part 257). The adequacy of
these Federal criteria as well as existing State Subtitle D
programs is evaluated.
The report is published in two volumes. Volume I
contains the Executive Summary and presents the conclusions
and recommendations of the Subtitle D study. Volume II
contains the detailed data collected during the study.
Sincerely,
Lee M. Thomas
Enclosure
-------
UMITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
Go] 7
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable James C. Wright
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
Washington D.C. 2O515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to transmit the enclosed Report to Congress
on Solid Waste Disposal in the United States. The report
presents the results of our study carried out pursuant to
Section 4O1O of Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act as amended by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments.
The report addresses the land disposal of all
non-hazardous solid waste covered by the existing Federal
Subtitle D criteria (40 CFR Part 257). The adequacy of
these Federal criteria as well as existing State Subtitle D
programs is evaluated.
The report is published in two volumes. Volume I
contains the Executive Summary and presents the conclusions
and recommendations of the Subtitle D study. Volume II
contains the detailed data collected during the study.
Sincerely,
Lee M. Thomas
Enclosure
------- |