United Staiei
Environmental Protection
Agency
O^ice of Solid Waste
and Emenjencv Response
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/530-SW-86-0&4
October 1986
Solid Wane
c/EPA
Subtitle D Study
Phase I Report
-------
DISCLAIMER
This Draft Final Report was furnished to the Environmental Protection
Agency by the Alliance Technologies Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
and Booz,Allen & HamIton, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland 20814, in partial
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-6871, Work Assignment No. 63 The opinions,
findings, and conclusion expressed are those of Che authors and not
necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency or the cooperating
agencies. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an
endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGE ( NT
This report was prepared by a team of individuals from several
organizations. The EPA Office of Solid Waste, Special Wastes Branch directed
Alliance Technologies Corporation (formerly GCA Technology Division, Inc.) in
organizing and managing the report preparation. Those who contributed to the
report include:
EPA-OSW Gerri Dorian
Michael Fiynn
Alliance Technologies Corporation Alfred Leonard
Campbell Amos
J. Jeffrey Heaiey
Jeffrey D. Magaw, P.E.
R. Clay Spears
Joseph Tota
Booz,Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Jann Buller
David Colbert
Eric Dolin
Science Applications International Mark Evans
Corporation
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
CONTENTS
Figures vii
Tables. viii
Executive Summary ...... ... . ES-1
1. Introduction and Background . 1-1
Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act 1-2
Implementation of Subtitle D 1-2
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 1-5
Implementation of the HSWA. 1-5
2. Phase I Projects ..... 2-1
Subtitle D Waste Characterization Studies. . . 2-1
Subtitle D Facility Characterization Studies ...... 2-6
State Subtitle D Program Characterization Studies . . . 2-9
References .............. 2-11
3. Subtitle D Waste ........... 3-1
Definition of RCRA Subtitle 0 Solid Wastes ........ 3-1
Municipal Solid Waste 3-2
Household Hazardous Waste. ............... 3-3
Municipal Sludge ..... ..... 3-6
Municipal Waste Combustion Ash ..... . . 3-8
Industrial Wastes 3-8
Small Quantity Generator Waste . 3-9
Construction and Demolition Waste ........... 3-19
Agricultural Waste ..... ......... 3-22
Oil and Gas Waste 3-23
Mining Waste 3-23
References 3-25
4. Facilities Characterization % ..... ..... 4-1
-~'-**b Need for Facilities Assessment 4-1
Landfills. 4-3
General profile 4-3
Landfill leachate and gas characteristics ..... 4-11
Landfill design and operation 4-11
Preliminary analysis of environmental and human
health impacts at landfills 4-24
Surface Impoundments .......... 4-30
General profile. ...... .... 4-30
Surface impoundment design and operation 4-32
Preliminary analysis of environmental and human
health impacts at surface impoundments ..... 4-44
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Land Application Units 4-47
General profile 4-47
LAU design and operation ............. 4-54
Preliminary analysis of environmental and human
health impacts aC LAUs ........ t-al
Waate Piles 4-65
References 4-66
5. State Subtitle D Programs Characterization. . . 5-1
Quality of Data for Characterization 5-1
Overview of State Subtitle D Programs. ......... 5-2
Program organization and management. ....... 5-2
Identification/status. 5-6
Permit/regulation. . 5-7
Enforcement. . 5-10
Facility-Specific State Regulations * 5-12
Landfills. . 5-12
Surface impoundments 5-17
Land application units 5-22
Waate piles. . 5-24
Summary. . . ................ 5-27
References * . . . 5-28
6. Conclusions 6-1
Data Needs 6-1
Directions for Phase II 6-6
References 6-9
Appendices
A. 40 CFR Part-257: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Practices ............. A-l
B. Industrial Nonhazardou* Waste Tables ............ B-l
C. Municipal Waste Landfill Capacity Problems C-l
D. State Subtitle D Program Regulations for Municipal Waate
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Land Application Units,
and Waste Piles D-l
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
ES-1 Universe of Subcitle D facilities, by percent ES-9
1-1 Subtitle D schedule under HSWA 1-6
4-1 Universe of Subcitle D facilities, by percent . . . . 4-2
4-2 Number of Subtitle U landfills, by type ............ 4-4
4-3 Number of Subtitle D landfills by State ............ 4-5
4-4 Subset of Subtitle D landfills within CERCLIS database .... 4-2tt
4-5 Observed releases at Subtitle D landfills on the NPL ..... 4-29
4-6 Number of Subtitle D surface impoundment8, by type. ...... 4-33
4-7 Number of Subtitle D surface impoundments by State. ...... 4-34
4-8 Number of Subtitle D land application units, by type. ..... 4-49
4-9 Number of Subtitle D land application units by State 4-5U
5-1 States and Territories that have permit requirements for all
Subtitle D facilities 5-9
vii
-------
TABLES
Number fage
ES-1 Phase I Data Collection Projects Supporting Subtitle D
Study and Criteria Revisions ... ...... ES-3
ES-2 Characteristics Quantities and Management Practices
of Subtitle D Wastes .......... ES-4
ES-3 Universe of Subtitle D Facilities ES-9
ES-4 Numbers of Landfills and Municipal Waste Landfills
with Selected Design and Operating Characteristics ES-lU
£5-5 Numbers of Surface Impoundments with Selected Design
and Operating Characteristics ES-13
ES-6 Numbers of Land Application Units with Selected Design
ES-7
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
Phase I Data Collection Projects Supporting Subtitle 0
Phase I Data Collection Matrix. . .
Past and Present Trends in Municipal Waste Composition
Industrial Nonhazardous Wastes; Major Waste Types and
Listing of Industries by Estimated Annual Amounts of Non-
Existing Quantitative Data on Industrial Management of Non-
ES-15
ES-2U
2-2
2-3
3-4
3-5
3-7
3-10
3-13
3-15
vili
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number of Small Quantity Generators and Waste Quantity
Generated by Waste Stream 3-17
3-8 Number of Small Quantity Generators by Industry Group and
Quantity of Waste Generated ......... 3-LB
3-9 Distribution of Offsite and Unaite Management Practices .... 3-2U
3-10 Estimated Land Disposal Facilities Receiving SQG. ....... 3-21
4-1 Universe of Subtitle D Facilities 4-2
4-2 Number of Subtitle D landfills by Ownership Category 4-7
4-3 Subtitle D Landfills by Acreage Category 4-8
4-4 Subtitle D Landfills by Amount of Waste 4-9
4-5 Industrial Disposal of Non-hazardous Wastes at Unaite Landfills. 4-1U
4-6 Range of Constituent Concentrations in Leachate from
Municipal Waste Landfills ........... 4-12
4-7 Preliminary Data on Concentrations of Organic Constituents
in Leachate from Municipal Waste Landfills ......... 4-13
4-8 Typical Composition of Gas from Municipal Waste Landfills . . . 4-14
4-9 Typical Trace Constituents in Landfill Gas . 4-15
4-10 Numbers of Subtitle D Landfills Using Various Types of
Release Prevention Methods ..... ....... 4-17
4-11 Numbers of Active Landfills wijth Monitoring Systems 4-23
4-12 Aggregate Data Relating to Environmental Contamination at
Landfills .......... .... 4-25
4-13 Number of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments by Ownership Category. 4-35
4-14 Number of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments by Acreage Category . 4-36
4-15 Number of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments by Amount of Waste. . 4-37
ix
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
4-16 Estimates of Specific Subtitle D Surface Impoundment Numbers,
Quantities Managed and Wastes Received Within Each
Impoundment Category. . . . . 4-Jb
4-17 Numbers of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments Using Various Types
of Release Prevention Methods ..... ... 4-40
4-18 Numbers of Active Surface Impoundments with Monitoring Systems . 4-43
4-19 Aggregate Data Relating to Environmental Contamination at
Surface Impoundments 4-45
4-20 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units by Ownership
Category. ...... 4-51
4-21 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units by Acreage
Category. 4-52
4-22 Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units by Amount of
Waste . 4-53
4-23 Characteristics of Various Industrial Wastewaters Applied to
Land 4-55
4-24 Industrial Disposal of Nonhazardous Wastes in Land
Application Units 4-56
4-25 Numbers of Subtitle 0 Land Application Units Using Various
Types of Release Prevention Methods F . . . 4-5b
4-26 Numbers of Active Land Application Units with Monitoring
Systems . 4-b2
4-27 Aggregate Data Relating to Environmental Contamination at Land
Application Units .... 4-bJ
5-1 Sources of Subtitle D Funding ..... 5-4
5-2 State Subtitle D Program Activities ..... 5-5
5-3 Importance of Subtitle D Program Activities as Ranked by
States .......... 5-5
5-4 Numbers of Open Dumps in the 19S5 Inventory .......... 5-8
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
5-5 Numbers of Subtitle D Facilities With Permits 5-10
5-6 Numbers of Inspections at Subtitle D Facilities in 1984 .... 5-11
5-7 Numbers of Violations at Subtitle D Facilities in 1984 .... 5-12
5-8 Numbers of Subtitle D Landfills with Permits and Licenses . . . 5-13
5-9 Numbers of Inspections at Subtitle D Landfills in 1984 .... 5-15
5-10 Frequency of Inspection at Subtitle D Landfills in 1984 .... 5-16
5-11 Number of Landfills by Type of Violation in 1984 5-17
5-12 Numbers of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments with Permits and
Licenses. ......... ........... 5-18
5-13 Numbers of Inspections of Subtitle 0 Surface Impoundments in
1984 5-19
5-14 Frequency of Inspections of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments
in 1984 5-20
5-15 Number of Surface Impoundments by Type of Violation in 1984 . . 5-21
5-16 Numbers of Subtitle D Land Application Units with Permits . . . 5-22
5-17 Numbers of Inspections of Subtitle D Land Application Units in
1984. 5-24
*
5-18 Frequency of Inspection of Subtitle D Land Application Units
in 1984 5-25
5-19 Number of Land Application Units by Type o£ Violation in 1984 . 5-26
j.
6-1 Current Phase II Projects b-7
xi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require EPA to
conduct a study of the adequacy of Subtitle D Criteria to protect human health
and the environment from ground water contamination and to recommend whether
additional authorities are needed to enforce them. This report presents the
results of data collection for the first phase of that study, and identifies
key areas to be addressed in Phase II data collection efforts.
BACKGROUND
Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
established a cooperative framework for Federal, State, and local governments
to control the management of solid waste. As part of this framework, EPA
developed Criteria that set minimum performance standards for all solid waste
disposal facilities. These "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR Part 257), were promulgated by EPA
in 1979. They consist of eight environmental performance standards for solid
waste management.
These Criteria are implemented and enforced by State and local
governments or through citizen suits. Prior to 1981, EPA provided financial
assistance to the States to implement the Criteria. That assistance ceased in
1981 and, since that time, States have managed the Subtitle L> programs without
Federal financial assistance. The scope and status of State programs are
quite variable, as described in Section 5.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 direct the EPA to revise
the Criteria for facilities that may receive household hazardous waste (HHW)
or hazardous waste from small quantity generators (SQG). The HSWA specify
that thejgriteria "shall be those necessary to protect human health and the
environment," and at a minimum "should require ground water monitoring as
necessary to detect contamination, establish criteria for the acceptable
location of new or existing facilities, and provide for corrective action as
appropriate." The statute further states that the EPA may consider the
"practicable capability" of facilities and that the revised Criteria must be
promulgated by March 31, 1988.
The HSWA also directed the EPA to conduct a study to determine whether
the current Criteria are adequate to protect human health and Che
environment. This Subtitle D study is being conducted in two phases: Phase I
involves collection of existing data; and Phase II includes additional data
collection efforts. Results of the Subtitle D study are to be submitted in a
report to Congress by November 1987.
ES-1
-------
PHASE I PROJECTS
The EPA identified three categories for data collection in the Subtitle L)
study:
Subtitle D waste characterization
Subtitle D facility characterization
State Subtitle D program characterization
During Phase I, EPA undertook numerous projects to collect readily available
information in these three categories. The key projects are described in
Table ES-1 and described in further detail in Section 2. The projects cited
in this table include the Subtitle D Census,1- the State regulation
reviews, the municipal solid waste (MSW) characterization study,^ the
industrial nonhazardous waste study,1* the HHW study, * and the SljG
survey. The Census results are limited by inaccuracies and response
errors, but they present previously unavailable data. Most of the other
studies are reviews, compilations, or analyses of previously available data.
SUBTITLE D WASTE
Subtitle D wastes are all solid wastes regulated under the RCRA not
subject to hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C. These wastes are
defined in 40 CPR Part 257 (see Appendix A).
The Phase I data collection efforts gathered readily available existing
information on characteristics, generation volumes, and management of the
following Subtitle D wastes:
Municipal solid waste
Household hazardous waste (HHW)
Industrial waste
-,
-Ssall quantity generator hazardous waste (SQG)
Less extensive reviews were performed for municipal sludge, municipal waste
combustion ash-, construction and demolition waste, agricultural waste, oil and
gas waste, and mining waste. Phase I data for these waste categories are
summarized in Table ES-Z and addressed further below.
Municipa1 Sol id Waate
Municipal solid waste is generated from residential, institutional, and
commercial sources. The MSW characterization study-* determined that, as a
national annual average, over SO percent of MSW is composed of paper and
ES-2
-------
TABLE ES-1. PHASE l' DATA COLLECTION PROJECTS
Subtitle 3 Waste Characterization Studies
a. Source, Availability and Review
iff" Evaluation of NPL/Subtitle 0 Landfill Data
Sutnaary of- data an former Subtitle D facilities that are nov on the NPL or are
candidates for the NFL.
g. Municipal Landfill Case Studies
Preliminary studies of facility characteristics and environmental impacts at
12? municipal waste landfills.
State Subtitle D Program Studies (in addition to studies noted above)
a. State Subtitle D Regulations on Municipal Waste Landfills, Surface Impoundments and
Land Application Units.
Review of Scace Subtitle D regulations.
b. National Solid Waste Survey
Hail survey a£ data on State Subtitle 0 programs.
ES-3
-------
TABLE ES-2. CHARACTERISTICS, QUANTITIES, AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF SUBTITLE D WASTES
C/1
Hajo
Annual quanlilies
I. MunicipaI Sol id
2. Household Hazardous
3. Municipa I Sludge
4. Municipal Haste
Combust ion Ash
3 11 Pjpe r .ind pape r board
\ti1 Yar.I waste
101 Met a
til Food
71 Plast
101 Othe
Drain opene r s , cleaners/strippers,
oil and f ue I add it i ves , solvent s .
refrigerants , adhes i ves , pest ic ides
mi I I ion tons
(3)
10 5 tn 10 3 tiraei the
Uf .W1*.16'
Water and wastewater treatment sludge
Const itueut s are highly variable jnd
of Fen contain c admi mn, copper and z i \\
Possibly high metals
S. Indusc rial Nonhazardous 931 from 1 industries;
with indust ry segment
6. Sraa 11 ()iun[ ily
Generator
621 Ustd lead-acid bat
IBZ Spent solvents
51 acids and alkalies
7. Construct ion/Demo I it ion Lurober, roof ing, and sheet ing
ac raps. broken concrete, aspha11,
brick, stone, wa11 board, glass,
othe r
(dry basis)19
2.3 million tons*J)
430 million ions (dry basis
66U.UUO tons*6*
31 million tons in LFs<20>
8. AgriculturaI
9. Oil and Gas
10. Mining
Nitrates, pesticides
herbicides, (eililizers
Br ine and J r iI Ii ug mud whic h may unknown
con tain cliloriJe, bar Lura, sod ium,
and calc IUID
Bituminous coal and lignite which way 1.'. billion tons
cont a in metals, sulfate, sod iura,
putaas i urn- and cyanide(02Z of
impoundments)^2 ''Anthracite (21 o( impouiid-
(nenti)(2l'Metals (/I of impoundments)^21'
Nonmetals (91 of impoundments)*2''
Management pract ice
Landfill (94.7 wt . percent)*"
Ocejn '11 spoa a I , inc i nerai i un
recycle, and other (3.3 wi. percent)
Disposed utch MSW (mostly landfilled)
Landf il I
Sui I ace impijuiulinent
I. and application no Its
Ocean d i aposaI
Incine rat ion
Landfill ar. Subtitle C or
Subt itle 0 tac iI it lea
3S percent of ncmhaidrdous ujst *? 3
are managed onsite at land fills
sur face impoundment s or LAUa.'
(1)
5.075 Idnddlls1 l>
20,409 surfdce impoundments
I ,bb1 IAnJ «pplicacion units
2,555 laniHilliO
No data on other nanageraent practices
I/.IS-)* 1J - !9.|b7(H) surface
impoundmi-nt a . Ho data on ot he r
management pract ices.
125,074* l) surface impoundments.
ho data on other management prac ticea.
impoundment s.
Note: Superscripts refer to references at the end of thi
I 3 sect ion.
-------
paper-board and yard wastes; almost 40 percent is metals, food wastes, and
plastics; and the remaining 10 percent is wood, rubber and leather, textile,
and miscellaneous inorganics. Municipal solid waste composition is highly
site dependent, and is significantly influenced by climate, sea-son, and
socioeconoraic characteristics.
The MSW characterization study concluded that approximately 133 million
tons of municipal solid waste were generated in 1984. This volume is expected
to grow to 159 million tons by the year 2000.
The management choices for MSW are landfilling, ocean disposal, and
incineration with or without energy recovery. According to the MSW
characterization study estimates, approximately 6.5 million tons of MSW were
used for energy recovery in 1984 and most of the remaining 126.5 million tons
of MSW were landfilled.
Household Hazardous Waste
Household hazardous waste is a small subset of MSW. Common household
products known to contain concentrations of hazardous materials include drain
openers, oven cleaners, wood and metal polishes and cleaners, automotive oil
and fuel additives, grease and rust solvents, carburetor and fuel injection
cleaners, air conditioning refrigerants, starter fluids, paint thinners, paint
removers, adhesives, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, and wood
preservatives .
The available datai suggest that HHW may constitute between 0.001
and 1 percent of all MSW. No data were available on HHW disposal practices,
however, these practices are believed to, include codiaposal with MSW
(primarily in landfills) and direct disposal of liquid HHW into sewers.
Municipal Sludge
Sludge from water and wastewater treatment consists of a variety of
organic and inorganic materials. Independent sources^-'' ^° have estimated
that water treatment filter cake generation is between 0.005 and 0.2 pounds
per capita per day. This equates to about 207 kilotons to 8,267 kilotons per
year. Extensive data on sewage sludge composition and quantities are
availabLa-^JOm the EPA Office of Water* Regulations and Standards (OWRS). The
OWRS database of 15,300 POTWs indicates that 8.4 million dry tons of municipal
sewage sludge are generated each
According to the OWRS database, municipal sewage sludges are managed in a
variety of ways, including surface impoundments and landfills (46.4 percent
including 1.5 percent in monofills), land application (25.4 percent),
incineration (20.3 percent) and ocean disposal (6.6 percent). ^ Data on
water treatment sludge management practices are not available.
ES-5
-------
Municipal Waste Combustion Ash
Combustion of MSW may produce ash of highly variable composition. These
ash materials are generated by a variety of facilities ranging from large
resource recovery plants to small town or institutional faciliries. Analyses
of fly ash and bottom ash from municipal waste incinerators have revealed
residues with high metal content. Little data on municipal waste combustion
ash composition are available.
Assuming an average residue weight of 30 percent of municipal solid
waste, about 2.3 million tons are generated each year by wasce-to-energy
facilities in the United States. Current data indicate that some disposal of
ash products is in landfills.-' However, no data are available on the types
of landfills (e.g., monofills, Subtitle D or C) used for disposal or other
management practices employed.
Industrial Waste
The industrial nonhazardous waste study yielded estimates of the waste
generation rates of the 22 industries believed to generate the majority of the
Subtitle D industrial waste. This study revealed that 390 million metric cons
of industrial nonhazardous waste are generated annually.
The Subtitle D Census1- indicates 3,511 landfills, 16,232 surface
impoundments, and 5,605 land application units were classified by the State
program offices as industrial nonhazardous waste facilities in 1984. The
industrial nonhazardous waste study indicated that 12 industries cumulatively
generate over 99 percent of the industrial Subtitle D wastes. That study
reported that 35 percent of industrial nonhazardous wastes are managed in
onsite landfills, surface impoundments, and land application units, and that
75 percent of these wastes are generated by four industries (iron and steel,
electric power generation, industrial inorganic chemicals, and plastics and
res ins).
Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste
The National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey^ indicated
that the majority of the total SQG wastes consist of used lead-acid batteries
(62 peraanc) and spent solvents (18 percent) and that 72 percent of SQG wastes
are generated from the vehicle maintenance industry. The SQG Survey estimated
that SQGs generate 940,000 metric tons of hazardous waste annually. According
to Survey estimates, SQG wastes are managed on the site by: recycling
(65 percent); discharge to public sewers (8 percent); solid waste facilities
(5 percent); Subtitle C facilities (4 percent); and unknown methods
(11 percent). The sum of these percentages exceeds 100 because some
facilities treat wastes on site, and then dispose of residuals off site.
Section 5 presents these data by waste type and industry.
Small quantity generator waste management data were also obtained from
the Subtitle D Census,^ which showed that SQG wastes are managed in 5,075
landfills, 20,909 surface impoundments, and 1,647 land application units. The
Census did not identify the quantities managed in these facility categories.
ES-6
-------
Construction and Demolition Debris
Construction and demolition activities generate large quantities of
lumber, roofing and sheeting scraps, broken concrete, asphalt, brick, stone,
wallboard, glass, and other materials.20 The generation ratea ot these
waste materials are highly variable and depend primarily upon geographic
location and community age and size. It was estimated in 1970 that urban
areas generated an average of 0.72 pounds per capita per day of debris.^
Other reports", 23 for independent locations indicate generation ratea of
between 0.12 and 3.52 pounds per capita per day. Assuming 0.72 pounds per day
is accurate, there are 31.5 million tons generated annually.^0 The
Subtitle D Census identified 2,591 active demolition debria landfills in 1984.
AgricuItural Waate
Agricultural wastes include animal wastes from feedlots and farms, crop
production wastes, and collected irrigation field runoff. These wastes are
known to have high concentrations of nitrates, pesticides, herbicides, and
fertilizers. ^
The Subtitle D Census^- and the National Surface Impoundment
Assessment21- provided estimates of numbers of active agricultural waste
surface impoundments. The Census reported a total of 17,159 impoundments, and
the Assessment reported 19,167 impoundments.
Oil and Gas Waste
Oil and gas wastes consist of brines and drilling muds that are known to
have high concentrations of chloride, total dissolved solids, barium, sodium
and calcium.^ The Subtitle D Census report estimated that there are
125,074 oil and gas surface impoundments.
M in ing Wajte
Mining wastes are the products of crushing, screening, washing, and
flotation activities. Such activities can generate high concentrations of
heavy metals, sulfate, sodium, potassium, and cyanide.'^ A recent report to
Congress on mining wastes^ estimated that over 1.4 billion tons of
nonhazardous mining waste is generated annually.
Js
»-'.tfti^tf , ' 11
According to the National Surface Impoundment Assessment, there are
24,376 mining waste surface impoundments. Almost 82 percent of these are
associated with bituminous coal and lignite mining. Nonmetal (V percent),
metal (7 percent) and anthracite mining (2 percent) account for the remaining
impoundments. The Subtitle D Census^ identified 19,813 mining waste
impoundments.
ES-7
-------
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
Subtitle D facilities include landfills, surface impoundments, land
application units, and waste piles. Table ES-3 and Figure ES-1 present the
numbers of facilities and establishments in each category as determined by the
Subtitle D Census. A total of 227,127 facilities were identified, including
191,822 surface impoundments, 18,889 land application units, and 16,416
landfills.
Landfills
A landfill ia an area of land or an excavation in which wastes are placed
for permanent disposal, and which is not a land application unit, surface
impoundment, injection well, or compost pile. Landfills are divided into the
following waste classes: municipal, industrial, demolition debris, and
"other". Municipal waste landfill data are more complete and reliable than
data for the other landfill categories.
General Profile
The Subtitle D Census identified 16,416 active Subtitle D landfills
located at 15,719 establishments in the United States. Of these landfills,
9,234 (57 percent) are municipal, 3,511 (21 percent) industrial, 2,591
(16 percent) demolition, and 1,030 (6 percent) other types. Slightly over
half of all landfills are owned by local governments. Table ES-4 indicates
that more than half of all landfills are less than 10 acres in size and more
than 90 percent occupy 100 acres or less. The same table shows that more than
70 percent of all landfills receive less than 30,000 cubic yards of waste
annually (approximately 30 short tons per day).
Landfill Leachate and Gas Characteristics
Few data are available on leachate and gas characteristics for other than
municipal landfills. Leachates are generally high in organics and total
solids, they have relatively low concentrations of heavy metals, and they tend
to be acidic.10 Gas consists of about 50 to 60 percent methane; 40 to
50 percent carbon dioxide; and 0.5 to 1 percent hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and other trace gases.-'-0
Landfill Design and Operation--
Lan#f£*ll design features include* liners, leachate collection and removal
systems, methane gas controls and recovery systems, closure and final cover,
and location. Landfill operation and maintenance characteristics include the
number of employees, daily operations, waste restrictions, and emergency
preparedness plans. Landfills may have monitoring systems for ground water,
surface water, air, and/or methane monitoring. Table ES-4 presents the
percentages of all Subtitle D landfills and municipal waste landfills that use
liners, leachate collection, gas collection, runon and runoff controls, waste
restrictions, and monitoring systems. These features are also discussed below:
Liners. The Census reported that 11 percent of all landfills and
15 percent of municipal landfills use either soil or synthetic
liners.
Es-a
-------
w
TABLE ES-3. UNIVERSE OF SUBTITLE L> FACIHTIhSa[ IJ
Fac il it y Type
of units
Landfills
Surface Irapoundments
16,416
191.622
Land Application Units (LAus) 18,889
Waste Piles
No Data
TOTAL
227,127
Number of
e labl isluaenl s
,J«3
12.312
No Data
albl (or approximately 36,000 facilities) are estimates to
receive hazardous wastes from households or small quantity
generators.
"This is the correct total. The numbers (or each type of
facility do not add to this total since two or more facility
types may exist at an establishment.*
LANDFILLS
LAU *
SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
Figure ES-1. Universe of Subtitle D facilities
by percent. [lj
-------
TABLE ES-4. NUMBERS OF LANDFILLS AND MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILLS WITH
SELECTED DESIGN AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS'lJ
Percent of
Percent of all Subtitle D
Characteristic all Subtitle D municipal
landfills waste landfills
Size
< 10 acres 55 42
10-100 acres 40 51
> 100 acres 5 6
Waste Received
< 30,000 cubic yarda/yr 72 67
30,000 - 600,000 cubic yards/yr 24 . 28
> 600,000 cubic yards/yr 4 5
Design Characteristics
Liners (includes synthetic and soil/clay) 11 15
Leachate Collection 4 5
Gas Collection 11 17
Runon/Runoff Controls 38 46
Operating Characteristics
Waste Restrictions (includes liquids 40 48
and/or specific waste types)
Monitoring Systems
Ground Water
Surface Water
Air
Methane
19
9
3
3
25
12
4
5
ES-10
-------
Leachate collection and removal systems. These systems collect
and/or remove leachate, and may collect ground water and/or surface
water that flows into or out of the fill. The Census reported that
4 percent of all landfills and 5 percent of municipal landfills have
leachate collection systems.
Methane gas controls and recovery systems. The Census reported
mechane recovery systems for 11 percent of all landfills and
17 percent of municipal landfills.
Runon and runoff controls. These controls include dikes, barms, and
channels to prevent liquids from flowing into or out of the
landfill. Table SS-4 indicates that 38 percent of all landfills and
46 percent of municipal waste landfills use these controls.
Waste restrictions. Table ES-4 indicates that 40 percent of all
municipal landfills employ waste restrictions.
Ground water monitoring. The Census reported chat ground water
monitoring is conducted at 19 percent of all landfills and
25 percent of municipal waste landfills (see Table ES-4).
Surface water monitoring. Table ES-4 shows that surface waters are
monitored at 9 percent of all landfills and 12 percent of municipal
landfills.
Air and methane monitoring. According to the Census (Table ES-4),
3 percent of all landfills and 4 percent of municipal landfills have
methane or air monitoring systems and 3 and 5 percent, respectively,
have methane monitoring systems.
Preliminary Analysis of Environmental and Human Health Impacts at Landfills--
The principal sources of data on the human health and environmental
impacts of landfills are the State Subtitle D Census, the National Priorities
List (NFL) Subtitle 0 landfill daca base, and available case studies.^ Of
the 16,416 active landfills reported in the Census, 11,540 were inspected at
least annually, and there were 2,428.violations due to ground water, surface
water, or air contamination. No correlation has been made between these
J*
violations*and any past, present, or potential health effects.
The NFL data base identified 134 Subtitle D landfills where environmental
impacts have been determined by the National Hazard Ranking System to be
significant. Of these sites, nearly 75 percent had releases to ground water
and for 40 percent, the primary cause of ground water contamination was
industrial waste.
Case studies of 127 municipal waste landfills in eight States'
(Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Oregon, Texas, and
Wisconsin) were analyzed in an attempt to correlate location and design
ES-11
-------
factors with adverse environmental impacts. The analyses indicated that
locations with high leachata generation potential, high leachate migration
potential, and those Lacking certain landfill design feaCuras (especially
liners and runon and runoff controls) were associated with environraenta1
impacts more often than locations noc displaying these characteristics. They
also indicated that impacts are more likely for facilities more than 10 years
old.
Surface Impoundments
A surface impoundment is a natural topographic depression, man-made
excavation, or diked area that is designed to hold liquid wastes or wastes
containing free liquids. Wastes stored at Subtitle D surface impoundments
include; municipal sewage sludge, municipal runoff, industrial wastes,
agricultural wastes, raining wastes, oil and gas wastes, and other types of
waste. Table ES-5 lists the percentages of surface impoundments with selected
design and operating characteristics. Most respondents to the Subtitle D
Census rated the data quality for surface impoundments as fair.
General Profile--
The Subtitle D Census identified 191,822 active surface impoundments
located at 108,383 facilities across the States and Territories. The majority
of these impoundments (72 percent) are in EPA Regions III and IV (53,770 and
77,752, respectively).
The Census results show that the number of impoundments reported by waste
type includes 125,074 (65 percent) oil and gas wastes, 19,813 (10 percent)
mining wastes, 17,159 (9 percent) agricultural wastes, 16,232 (8 percent)
industrial wastes, 1,938 (1.0 percent) municipal sewage sludge, 488
(0.2 percent) municipal runoff, and 11,118 (6 percent) other types of waste.
The majority (98 percent) of surface impoundments are privately owned.
Table ES-5 indicates that most surface impoundments (81 percent) occupy leas
than 0.4 acres, and more than 80 percent receive less than 50,000 gallons per
day.
Surface impoundment wastes are predominantly liquids, sludges, or
slurries. Estimates presented in Section 4 of this report indicate that Che
major s'oflfTTes of surface impoundment wastes are: bituminous and lignite coal
mining, oil and gas brining, nonmetallic minerals mining, industrial organic
chemical manufacturing, and wastewater processing. The lack of data on
particular waste streams and the extent of codisposal of liquid wastes makes
generalization on waste characteristics difficult.
Surface Impoundment Design and Operation
Surface impoundment design features include liners, leachate detection
systems, runon and runoff controls, closure, final cover, and location.
Census data on these features are presented below:
ES-12
-------
TABLE ES-5. NUMBERS OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS WITH SELECTED DESIGN
AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICSUJ
Percent of all
Subtitle U
Characteristic surface impoundments
Size (Acres)
< 0.1 35
0. 1 - 0.4 46
0.5 - 0.9 9
1-5 7
6-10 2
11 - 100 0.6
> 100 0.1
Waste Received (gallons/day)
< 50,000 82
50,000 - 99,000 3
100,000 - 499,000 13
500,000 - 999,000 1
1,000,000 - 9,999,000 1
> 10,000,000 a. 3
Design Characteristics
Liners (includes synthetic and soil/clay) 29
Leak Detection Systems 1
Overtopping Controls 25
Operating Characteristics
Restrictions" * 27
Discharge Permit 31
Monitoring Systems
Ground Water 4
Surface Water 17
Air 0.1
ES-13
-------
Liners. Liners at Subtitle D surface impoundmencs are classified as
either soil or synthetic. Approximately 29 percent of surface
impoundments use liners, 28 percent use soil and 1 percent use
synthetic.
Leachate detection systems. Slightly over one percent of Subtitle D
surface impoundments use leak detection systems.
-Runon and runoff controls. Overtopping controls are used on
25 percent of facilities.
No data were readily available for closure, final cover, or location features
at Subtitle D surface impoundments.
Operation and maintenance characteristics for surface impoundments
include maintenance of minimum freeboard, restriction of wastes, compliance
with a discharge permit, and the maintenance of dike stability. Data were not
available on the number of employees and equipment required to operate a
surface impoundment. Table ES-5 shows that waste restrictions are applied by
27 percent of the surface impoundments. Thirty-one percent are reported to
have discharge permits.
Environmental monitoring systems and parameters for surface irapoundments
are generally the same as those for landfill environmental monitoring and the
media include ground water, surface water, and air. Table ES-5 indicates
that, of active surface impoundments, 4 percent monitor ground water,
17 percent monitor surface water and 0.1 percent monitor air emissions.
Preliminary Analysis of Environmental and Human Health Impacts at Surface
Impoundments
The State Subtitle D Census identified the numbers of perraic violations
due to ground water, surface water, and air contamination, reported in 1984.
Of 191,822 active surface impoundments identified by the Census, 76,137 were
inspected at least annually, and there were 1,799 violations due to
contamination. The Census did not relate these violations to any past,
present, or potential health effects.
Land Application Units
_____^__^_______________ f
Land application units (LAUs) are areas where wastes are applied onto or
incorporated into the soil surface (excluding manure spreading operations) for
agricultural purposes or for treatment and disposal. Land application units
are categorized according to the following waste classes: municipal sewage
sludge, industrial wastes, oil or gas wastes, and other types of wasce.
Table ES-6 lists the percentages of LAUs with selected design and operating
characteristics. Census respondents typically rated the quality of their LAU
data as fair, poor, or very poor.
General Profile
Table ES-3 shows that there are 18,889 Subtitle D LAUs located at 12,312
establishments in the United States. A breakdown by type shows that there are
11,937 LAUs (63 percent) for municipal sewage sludge, 5,605 (30 percent) for
ES-14
-------
TABLE ES-6. NUMBERS OF LAND APPLICATION UNITS WITH SELECTED DESIGN
AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS!1J
Characteristic
Percent of all
Subtitle U
land application units
Size (Acres)
< 10
10 - 49
50 - 99
> 100
Waste Received (ton/year)
<50
50 - 99
100 - 999
> 1,000
Design Characteristics
Runon/Runof£ Controls
Operating Characteristics
Waste Restrictions
Waste Application Rate Limits
Restrictions on Growing Food-Chain Crops
Man i to r in-g^tys terns
Ground Water
Surface Water
Air
Soil
22
41
21
15
70
12
15
3
54
75
60
6
3
1
27
ES-15
-------
industrial wastes, 726 (4 percent) for oil or gas wastes, and 621 (3 percent)
for other types of waste. The majority of LAUa are privately owned.
Table ES-6 indicates that about 85 percent of LAUs occupy less than
100 acres. Although three-quarters of the "other" LAUg are greater than
100 acres, more than half of municipal sewage sludge, industrial waste and oil
or gas waste LAUa are leas than 50 acres in size. Table ES-6 also shows that
70 percent of all LAUa recieve less than 50 tons of waste per year.
The major sources of LAU waste include municipal waatewater treatment
plants (liquid and dewatered sludges), households and small businesses (septic
tank sludges), industrial establishments (sludges and wastewaters), and oil or
gas exploration/extraction sites (drilling muds and sludges). The
constituents in some of these wastes may be beneficial to the soil and to
plants (nitrogen, phosphorous, carbonates, etc.); however, other wastes may
contain constituents that are not appropriate for application to food chain
crops (e.g..cadmium, PCBs, pesticides, etc.).
LAU Design and Operation
LAU design considerations include runon and runoff controls and
location. The Census reported that 9,645 LAUs (51 percent from Table ES-6)
use runon and runoff controls. No location data were available.
LAU operation and maintenance practices include waste application
techniques, waste restrictions, food crop restrictions, and replication rate
limits. Table ES-6 lists the percentage of LAU employing waste restrictions,
application rate limits, and restrictions on growing food chain crops.
Waste restrictions. The Census showed waste restrictions in effect
at 10,241 LAUs (54 percent).
Food crop restrictions. The Census revealed food crop restrictions
at 11,395 LAUs (60 percent).
Application rate restrictions. Application rates are determined by
balancing the waste characteristics with soil attenuation capacity
and plant uptake (if vegetation is grown). The Census revealed that
14,090 LAUa (75 percent) restrict application rates.
Monitoring of the applied waste, ground water, surface water, air, crops,
and soil may be practiced at LAUs. The extent of the monitoring system is
usually determined by waste and site characteristics. Ground water, surface
water and air monitoring systems are similar to those of landfills; however,
parameters to be measured may differ depending on Che use of the land.
Table ES-6 lists the percentages of LAUs with ground water, surface water,
air, and soil monitoring systems.
ES-16
-------
The State Subtitle D Census indicated that 1,179 LAUs (6 percent)
practice ground water monitoring; 632 (3 percent), surface water monitoring;
168 (1 percent), air monitoring; and 5,053 (27 percent), soil monitoring.
Industrial units have more ground water monitoring (10 percent of industrial
units) than other unit types, and municipal sewage sludge units more soil
monitoring (40 percent) than other units.
Preliminary Analysis of Environmental and Human Health Impacts at LAUs--
Of the 18,889 active LAUs reported by the Census, 3,795 were inspected at
least annually, and there were 214 violations due to groundwater and surface
water contamination. No information was available to associate these
violations with health effects.
Waste Piles
Waste piles were not included in the State Subtitle D Program Census and
no other sources of information were readily available to determine the
number, locations, types, ownership characteristics, or sizes of existing
waste piles. (Some data may have been included as "other" landfills in the
Census.) Available data^ identify four industries which annually store
90 million tons of waste in waste piles.
STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAMS CHARACTERIZATION
The Subtitle D program is implemented and enforced' by the States. The
EPA has published minimum requirements (40 CFR Part 256) for State solid waste
management programs. These include State legal authority and regulatory
powers, provisions for classifying facilities, closing or upgrading open
dumps, and schedules for compliance with the Federal prohibition of open
dumping.
Data collected in the Phase I effort support this State program
characterization by addressing the following four areas:
Program organization and management resources
Identification and status of solid waste facilities
Permit and regulation mechanisms
Enforcement programs
State regulations for each type of Subtitle D facility are summarized as well.
Overviewof State Subtitle D Programs
Program Organization and Management Resources--
Few States administer their solid waste management programs in the
Federal mold, using one agency or department to handle all Subtitle D
activities. Although 15 States and Territories have 1 agency responsible for
Subtitle D program implementation, the remaining 39 have from 2 to as many as
8 different agencies that administer parts of the Subtitle D program.
ES-17
-------
The majority of Stales and Territories (28) budgeted less than $500,000
for Subtitle D activities (FY84), 13 budgeted between $500,000 and $1 million,
and 7 budgeted over £l million. In fiscal year 1984, 85 percent of the
funding for Subtitle D came from State sources, 8 percent was-from Federal
sources, and 7 percent was from licenses, user fees, and other sources. The
last year in which Federal funds were a major portion was 1981 (30 percent).
The States and Territories indicated that surveillance and enforcement
accounted for 42 percent of the hours expended on Subtitle D activities and
that permitting and licensing accounted for 30 percent during 1984, The data
from the Census, however, do not explicitly show whether the States are
committing adequate resources for Subtitle D activities.
Identification and Status of Solid Waste Facilities
The States and Territories have different approaches for identifying and
maintaining data on the various Subtitle D facilities and thus have data of
varying quality for the different types of facilities. Generally the best
information is available for municipal waste landfills.
Permit and Regulation Mechanisms--
Although most States have permit requirements for landfills and waste
piles, fewer have requirements for surface impoundments and LAUs. Roughly
half of all Subtitle D facilities have been granted permits by the States.
The Federal criteria promulgated in 1979 (40 CFR Part 257) define minimum
regulatory standards for Subtitle D facilities. Many States have adopted
these criteria in their solid waste management plans. Currently, the EPA has
approved 25 such State plans and partially approved 6 others.
Enforcement Programs
Inspection data indicate that landfills and surface impoundments have
been the primary focus of State inspection efforts and that landfills are
inspected more often than any other type of facility. The most common
violations are operational deficiencies, but a significant numBer of ground
water, surface water, and air contamination violations have also been
discovered. No source of information on trends in compliance rates for State
programs was identified during Phase I.
Facilil'^^fpecifie Regulations
Landfills-
Alt hough almost all States require permits or plan approval for
landfills, the percentage of landfills with permits is low. Specific permit
requirements for landfills vary widely among the States. Design criteria tend
to be comprised of general performance standards as opposed to specific
engineering design standards. Most States have established requirements for
operation and maintenance, location, monitoring, closure and postclosure.
ES-18
-------
Surface Impoundments--
Only 16 States have regulations for surface impoundments. With a few
exceptions, each of the 16 States requires issuance of an application,
license, or permit before facilities can become operational. Eleven of the 16
States with surface impoundment regulations have design standards, mostly for
leak detection, security, and runon/runoff controls. Twelve States restrict
the location of surface impoundments in floodplains and near reservoirs.
Thirteen States have monitoring requirements for ground water, surface water,
leachates, or air. (Most of these States require ground water monitoring.)
Eleven of the 16 States with surface impoundment regulations enforce closure
requirements.
Land Application Units--
Twenty-three States have regulations for LAUs. Most of these States
require an application or permit before such facilities can become
operational. Approximately 65 percent of the facilities in these States have
permits; the others have submitted their permit applications. Eighteen States
have facility design requirements, typically security and runon and runoff
controls; 21 have operation and maintenance regulations; 16 have location
standards; and 17 have monitoring requirements. No States have liability
requirements for LAUs.
Waste Piles--
About half of the States regulate waste piles and require permits for
them. Waste pile permit requirements are limited in scope and vary
considerably among the States. Approximately 50 percent of the States have
design criteria and operation and maintenance standards. Fifteen States have
requirements for location, monitoring and closure at waste piles.
CONCLUSIONS
The Phase I efforts have gathered and summarized much readily available
existing data on Subtitle D facilities. However, additional data needs for
the report to Congress and for Subtitle D rulemaking efforts w^re identified.
Table ES-7 lists the additional data needs for characterization of Subtitle D
wastes, Subtitle D facilities and State Subtitle D programs. These data needs
are described more fully in Section 6.
ES-19
-------
TABLE ES-7. PHASE I REMAINING DATA NEEDS
Data categories
Remaining data needs
Waste Characterization
Municipal solid waste
Household hazardous
waste
Municipal sludge
Municipal combustion
ash
Industrial nonhazardous
waste
Small quantity
generator v te
Construction and
demolition waste
Agricultural waste
Oil and gas waste
Mining waste
None
Data on quantities and characteristics of
HHW waste
Data on characteristics of municipal water
and wastewater treatment sludges
More detailed data on characteristics,
quantities, and management
More precise estimates of quantities
generated from specific sources
Quantities and types of wastes managed at
Subtitle D facilities
Better waste characterization including
concentration ranges and averages
None
Data on waste characteristics, quantities,
and management
Data on waste characteristics, quantities and
management
i
Data on waste characteristics, quantities and
management (focus of separate Agency efforts)
(Focus of separate Agency efforts)
Facility Characterization
General profiles
More accurate profile information for all
facility types except municipal landfills
(continued)
ES-20
-------
TABLE ES-7 (continued)
Data categories
Remaining data needs
Design and operation
- Landfills
- Surface impoundments
Land aoplication
- Waste piles
Leachate and gas
characteristics
Preliminary environ-
mental and human
health impacts
Facility-specific design and operating data
Facility-specific design and operating data
Facility-specific design and operating data
Information concerning all aspects of waste
piles
Characteristics of organic constituents for
leachate and gas at municipal waste landfills
Leachate and gas characteristics (if
appropriate) for facilities other than
municipal waste landfills
Data which may help Correlate environmental
impacts with leachate and gas production
Additional ground water, surface water, and
air monitoring data on all facility types
Case studies of contaminant impacts
State Programs Characterization
Further evaluation of existing data
Follow-up case studies, if required
Program/organization
management
Identi fication/facility
status" "**"
Permit/ regulation
Enforcement
pile data (numbers and characteristics)
States/Territories having criteria equivalent
to Federal Criteria
State enforcement authorities
Case studies of enforcement programs
ES-21
-------
REFERENCES
1. Wescat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle U Nonhazartious
Waste Programs. Contract No. 68-01-7047. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 1986.
2. PEI Associates, Inc. State Subtitle D Regulations on Solid Waste
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Land Application Units and Waste Files.
Contract No. ci-01-7075/02-3890, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 1986.
3. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States, 1960 to 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 1986.
4. Science Applications International Corporation. Summary of Data on
Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices. Contract No.
68-01-7050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 19a5.
5. SCS Engineers. A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and related
Collection Programs. Contract No. 68-01-6621. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1986.
6. Abt Associates Inc. National Small Quantity Generator Survey. Contract
No. 68-01-6892, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, 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. GCA Technology Division, Inc. Evaluation of NPL/Subtitle D Landfill
Data. Contract No. 68-01-7037, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 1986.
9. Municipal landfill case studies used in this analyses were from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. These studies
were prepared by PEI, SRW, and ICF. 1986.
10. Pohland, F. G., and S. R. Harper. Critical Review and Summary of
Leachate and Gas Production from Landfills. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
11. Pickard and Anderson. Evaluation of a Landfill with Leachate Recycle.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSW, Washington, D.C. 1985.
ES-22
-------
12. Kintnan, R. N., Rickabaugh, J. , Nutini, D. , and M. Lambert. Gas
Characterization, Microbiological Analysis, ard Disposal of Refuse in EK.I
Landfill Simulators. Contract No. 68-03-3210, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 1985.
13. SCS Engineers. Landfill Gas Update, Summaries of Technical Reports.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1935.
14. Booz,Allen and Hamilton. Source, Availability, and Review of RCRA
Subtitle D Land Disposal Data Published Since 1980. Contract No.
68-01-6871, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSW, Washington, U.C.
1985.
15, City of Albuquerque, NM, Environmental Health and Energy Dept.
Residential Hazardous/Toxic Waste Survey, 1983.
16. University of Arizona, Preliminary Results from Household Phase Research,
Dept. of Anthropology. Tucson, AZ, 1985.
17. Steel, E.W., and T.J. McGhee. Water Supply and Sewerage. Fifth edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979.
18. Steel, E.W., Water Supply and Sewerage. Fourth edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Co., 1960.
19. Rubin, Alan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards. Personal communication, 1 October 1986.
20. Guidelines for Local Governments on Solid Waste Management, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1971.
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Surface Impoundment Assessment
National Report. EPA 570/9-84-002, U.S. EPA ODW, Washington D.C., 1983.
22. Wilson, D.G., Editor, Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, Co., New York, NY. 1977.
23. California Solid Waste Management. Study (1968) and Plan (1970), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency/OSWMP. (SW-2tsg).
2<4. Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Survey Design and Regulatory Analysis for
RCRA Subtitle D Surface Impoundments, Draft Final. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1984.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on Wastes from
the Extraction and Bonification of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock,
Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining, and Oil Shale. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency/OSW. Washington, D.C., 1985.
ES-23
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (KSWA) to Che Resource
Conservation and Recovery Ace (RCRA) require the EPA, by November b, 1987, to
submit a report to Congress addressing whether the Criteria under the Sections
1008(a) and 4004 of the RCRA and 40 CFR Part 257 are adequate to protect human
health and the environment from ground water contamination. To meet these
Congressional mandates, the EPA is undertaking a Subtitle D study; 1) to
assess the impact of nonhazardous waste landfills, surface impoundments, land
application units, and waste piles on surface water ground water and air;
and 2) to assess implementation of the State nonhazardous waste programs. The
Subtitle D study is divided into two major phases:
Phase I - Compilation and preliminary assessment of information on
State programs, facilities, wastes, and contamination
impacts from EPA files, the States, published and
unpublished literature, and other sources.
Phase II- Acquisition and analysis of additional information to fill
data gaps identified in Phase I; and development of the
report to Congress.
This report summarizes the results of all of the Phase I data collection
projects, assesses their adequacy for evaluating the current Subtitle 0
Criteria, and identified some of the key areas to be addressed in Phase II
data collection projects. Section 2 presents details on Phase I data
collection projects. The next three sections present the Phase I data
accordttrfto the topics of waste characteristics (Section 3), facility
characteristics (Section 4), and State programs (Section 5). The final
section, Section 6, presents conclusions and identifies directions for
Phase II data collection.
The remainder of this section provides the legislative and regulatory
background for understanding the current status of the Subtitle D program.
Beginning with discussion of the RCRA legislation establishing Subtitle D, the
section briefly reviews Federal and State implementation of Subtitle 0 from
1978 to 1981, when Federal attention turned to the hazardous waste program
under Subtitle C and Federal funding of State Subtitle D implementation
programs ended. The section then outlines the new Subtitle D provisions of
the HSWA of 1984 and describes EPA plans to implement these provisions. This
Subtitle D report constitutes part of that implementation.
1-1
-------
L.I SUBTITLE D OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
Subtitle D of RCRA, establishes a franework for coordinating Federal,
State and Local government 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, however, remain State
and local functions.
The primary planning and technical assistance provisions of Subtitle D
are the following:
Section 4002Federal Guidelines for State Plans. Requires the EPA
to promulgate guidelines to assist in the development and implemen-
tation of State solid waste management plans.
Section 4004Criteria for Sanitary Landfills. Requires the EPA to
establish criteria for determining which facilities shall be clas-
sified as sanitary landfills, i.e., those that pose "no reasonable
probability of adverse effects on health or the environment from the
disposal of solid waste."
Section 4005Prohibition of Open Dumps. Imposes a ban on open
dumping in facilities that do not meet the criteria for sanitary
landfills and requires the EPA to publish an inventory of open dumps
in order to assist States in upgrading or closing these facilities.
Section 4010Adequacy of certain guidelines and criteria. Requires
SPA to conduct a study to determine which guidelines and criteria
ara adequate to protect human health and the environment.
Thirty-six months after the enactment of HSUA, EPA is required to
submit a report to congress on the results of this study. Not later
than March 31, 1988, the EPA is required to promulgate revisions to
the Subtitle D criteria for facilities that may receive hazardous
household wastes or hazardous wastes from small quantity
generators. The criteria shall be those necessary to protect human
Jjsalth and the environment And at a minimum include ground water
monitoring, location, and corrective action requirements.
1.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBTITLE D
In a series of rulemakings beginning in 1978, the 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. It also finalized the Criteria for Classifying Solid Waste Management
Facilities and Practices in 1979. These Criteria are used by the States to
1-2
-------
classify facilities as either sanitary landfills or open dumps. After
compiling these State facility classification data, the tFA published the
first inventory of open dumps in 1981. To aid them in developing plans and
programs to implement the criteria, EPA provided more than $50 million in
annual grants to the States. This financial assistance was terminated in 19U1.
Guidelines For State Solid Waste Management Plans - 40 GFR Part 256
Pursuant to RCRA Section 4002(b), the EPA promulgated guidelines (40 CFR
Part 256) for the development and implementation of State solid waste
management plans on July 31, 1979 (44 FR 45066). These guidelines establish
the minimum requirements for State plans and describe the procedures for State
plan adoption, submission, and approval by the EPA. Furthermore, the
guidelines contain requirements and recommendations for solid waste disposal
and 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. It is through this plan that each
State identifies an overall strategy for protecting public health and the
environment from potential adverse effects of solid waste disposal, specifies
efforts for encouraging resource recovery and resource conservation, and
formulates plans for providing adequate disposal capacity within the State.
The plan also describes the institutional arrangements that the State will use
to implement its solid waste management program.
Under Subtitle 0, the EPA reviews and approves State plans that meet the
guidelines of 40 CFR Part 256. Aa of August 1986, the EPA had fully approved
25 State solid waste management plans and partially approved another six.
Criteria For Sanitary landfills - 40 CFR Part 257
Pursuant to RCRA Sections 4004(a) and 1008(a)(3), the EPA developed the
"Criteria, for Classifying Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40
CFR Part 257). These Criteria provide minimum national performance standards
for the protection of public health and the environment from solid waste
disposal facilities. The Criteria establish the level of protection necessary
to ensure that "no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the
environmate**"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
may be summarized as follows:
A facility or practice shall employ special controls for location in
floodplains.
A facility or practice shall not cause adverse effects on endangered
species or their critical habitats.
A facility or practice shall not cauae discharges to surface waters
or wetlands that are in violation of Section 402 or 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
1-3
-------
A facility or practice shall not cause ground water contamination,
particularly underground drinking water sources.
A facility or practice shall have specific restrictions on waste
application to land use for food chain crops.
A facility or practice ahall meet specific requirements for disease
vector controls,
A facility or practice shall not engage in open burning of waste.
A facility or practice shall have specific requirements for safety
provisions to control:
Explosive gases
Fires
Bird hazards to aircraft
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's citizen suit provisions (Section 7002) to
bring actions in Federal court to enforce the Criteria.
Inventory Of Open Dumps
Pursuant to RCKA Section 4005(b), the EPA has published the inventory of
open dumps in a series of five annual installments. The inventory is a
listing of facilities which 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:
Inform Congress and the public about the extent of the problem pre-
sented by disposal facilities 'that do not adequately protect public
and the environment *
Provide 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 completed their
inventory at the time of che publication (i.e., they hadn't evaluated all
their sites against the Criteria). The fifth and most recent installment of
the inventory appeared in June 1985 and included 1,356 facilities. It
represents the efforts of about 20 States to update their lists.
1-4
-------
1.3 HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
On November 8, 1984, the President signed into law the HSWA, which
modified virtually every part of RCRA, including Subtitle D. The amended RCRA
Section 4010 requires the EPA to "conduct a study of the extent to which the
(Criteria) ... applicable to solid waate 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 November 8, 1987, "shall also include recommendations with respect to any
additional enforcement authorities which the administrator, ia consultation
with the attorney general, deems necessary" to protect ground water.
The amended Section 4010 also requires the EPA to revise the Subtitle L)
Criteria by March 31, 1988, for facilities that receive hazardous household
waste (HHW) or waste from small quantity generators (SQGa). Such revisions
shall be those 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 the RCRA to require each State to
establish by November 8, 1987, a permit program or other system of prior
approval for facilities receiving small amounts of hazardous waste. This
permit program is meant to ensure that such facilities are in compliance with
the current Criteria. Within 18 months of the 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 31, 1989, the EPA
is given the authority to enforce the revised Criteria at facilitiea accepting
HHW or SQG waste.
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HSWA
*
The EPA is currently proceeding with implementation of the HSWA Subtitle
D requirements, conducting the Subtitle D atudy in two phases and considering
revisions to the Subtitle D Criteria in a parallel effort. The tight HSWA
schedule for completing the atudy, preparing the report to Congress and
promulgatinsjMhe revisions to the Criteria requires that these efforts take
place concurrently*
Subtitle D Study
During Phase I of the Subtitle 0 atudy, the EPA 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
9 State programs
1-5
-------
This report, which contains a preliminary characterization of the
Subtitle D topics identified above, represents the culmination of the EPA13
Phase I efforts. Recommendations regard ins the Subtitle D study's Phase II
data collection activities are also provided in thia report.
In Phase II, the EPA will concentrate on filling the information gaps
identified during Phase I through the collection of additional existing data.
Some data needs may not be met using thia procedure, however, so original data
collection efforts may also have to be conducted. These may include surveys
and field work at a selected number of landfills, land application units, and
surface impoundments. In Phase II, the EPA will also recommend regulatory and
nonregulatory alternatives that could be used to address any problems
identified concerning the Criteria. Phaae II will result in the completion of
the Subtitle D report and its submission to Congress by November 1987.
Revisions to 40 CFR Part 257Criteria
In a parallel effort, the EPA is revising the Subtitle D Criteria for
those facilities that may receive SQG wastes and/or HHW. These new
requirements must address at a minimum ground water monitoring, location
criteria, and corrective action. The development of revisions will involve
extensive contacts with States, local governments, and trade and environmental
groups, and will require the preparation of a complete administrative record,
including a regulatory impact analysis. This process is expected to span two
years, overlapping the second phase of the Subtitle 0 study, and to culminate
in the promulgation of revisions to the Criteria in March 1988.
Implementation Schedule
The HSWA impose a rigorous schedule on both the tPA and the States for
completing their Subtitle D responsibilities. Figure 1*1 provides a time line
illustrating the HSWA schedule. As the figure indicates, the EPA must submit
the Subtitle D report to Congress by November 1987 and promulgate revisions to
the Subtitle D Criteria by March 1988. The States are required by the HSWA to
develop a permit or other approval program for implementing the existing
Criteria by November 1987 and a revised program within 18 months of
promulgation of the revised Criteria (projected as September 1989).
nn
IUp«ri u C«
I* Crlltrti:
Prepaid
Fill!
Suit RtqulrtBMli:
Pi rail Frogrtm
Rtriud P«r«U
Progr»«
l/Bfi
-4J
11/87
3/87
Ii/87
3/81
§/ 89
Figure 1-1. Subtitle D Schedule Under HSWA.
1-6
-------
SECTION 2
PHASE I PROJECTS
In Phase I of Che Subtitle D study, the Agency collected existing data on
Subtitle D wastes, facilities, and State programs that were available during
the 13 months following the November 1984 passage of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (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. For the
purposes of this section, Phase I projects have been grouped into the
following categories:
Subtitle D waste characterization studies
Subtitle D facility characterization studies
State Subtitle D program characterization studies
This section describes Phase I projects, their strengths and limitations,
and their relationship to the Subtitle D study. Data from these projects are
presented in Sections 3, 4, and S of this report. Table 2-1 presents a list
of the principal Phase I data collection projects. Table 2-2 correlates the
Phase I projects with the major categories of information that were identified
at the onset of the Subtitle D study.
2.1 SUBTITLE D WASTE CHARACTERIZATION?. STUDIES
One~$8^ective of the Phase I study was to determine the characteristics,
volumes, and management methods of Subtitle D wastes* This objective was
addressed by literature reviews and in separata Phase I studies concerning
municipal solid wastes, industrial nonhazardous wastes, household hazardous
wastes (HHW), two studies addressing SQC wastes and additional literature
reviews performed for the purposes of this summary report.
Literature Reviews
Literature reviews were performed to support all of the technical areas
covered by this report. They include a study which reviewed and summarized
recent documents pertaining to Subtitle D, and supplementary literature
reviews performed during the preparation of this report.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. PHASE I DATA COLLECTION PROJECTS SUPPORTING
SUBTITLE D STUDY AND CRITERIA REVISIONS
5ubticl« D Waete Cnaracteriiation Studies
a. Source, Availability and Review pf RCRjt Subtitle C Uand Disposal Data Published
Since l?&d
Rsviews and atratracta of r«cent I itefacure reUvant to [ha Subtitle D study.
0. Characterization at Municipal Solid ^aate in the United State), 1960 Lo 1000
Inventory and forecaat of raunicipal ifllid vaitei in the U.5,
c, Surooary of Data on Induatrial Nanhatardoua Waste Disposal Practical
a SunBery of non-»tale diet on solid JUte charac teriatiei and aolid Ltnd
dijpaail prac:icsi.
d. A Survey al Houiehold hUztrdoui Ui«[«s and Related Collection Projrajoi
Rev is- of emitting did on chi chariq utittica of HHW and antlylil of HHW
caLlection prograntf.
e, National Small Quantity Generator Survey
Survey to characteriaa SQG waate voluaea and diipoial practice!.
{. Hazardous uasce Generjcor Daca and Charjcteriatie« of Sanicary Landfilla in
SeL«cced Countiei in Florida.
Cast history of Florida diipoeal of snail quantity generator rmariaui uaataa.
Subtitle P Facility Characte riiac IOTI Studiea (in addition to itudies noted above)
a. Cental of State and Terri-orial Subcicle D Nonhaiardoue Ueici Prograjni
m Hail survey af data on State Subtitle D prjgrma and Subtitle D EteiliCill,
D. Critical Review and Sunotry of Leich«te ind Ca* Prsduccion from Ltndfilla.
SunBoary and evaluaicion at data on quality of leachate from municipal landfilla.
c, Evaluttion of a Landfill with Uachate Recycle.
a Case «tudy of Che Lyeoolng County, PA landfill uich a aajor enphaaif on
experieneea uich leachate recirculation.
d. Zas Characterization. Microbiological Analyflil and Biapoial of Hefaai in OR1
Landfill Simulate.
I GC/MS analyiii of landfill |t« aaaptoe frsn thi Centir Hill \yiiniCera.
e. Landfill Gal Update: Sumurie* of Technical Raportl.
Sumariea of aix acudi.ee relating to landfill gas production, characteriitica
ar.a recovery-
Evaluacian at NFL/Subtitle 0 Landfill Of",t
* Sumary o{ dac« oa ConMT Subtitle D facilitin chat ire now on the SPL or ere
candiditei far the NFL,
g. Hunieipal Landfill Caa« Studlee
Preliminary acudiet of facility cheracteriatic» and eovironntncal impact a ac
127 municipal uaite landfilli.
3, State 5uitvci« D Progran Studio (io addition to itudiea noted abov«)
a. State Subtitle D RegulatI5ti» on Municipal UailC* Landfill!, Surface Impoundment! and
Lard Application Unita,
Reviev of State Subtitle D regulation*.
b. National Solid Uaace Survey
Mail «urv»y of data an Staca Subciclt D
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-2. PHASE I DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
Principal Chase I Data Collection Projects*
Data Categoriea
i
Hunic ipe.1
Lndust rial
SQG
State
Program
Leachate
and Cat)
Charac-
NPL/
Subtitle D
Hunic ipal
Landfill
Case
Subcit le D
Review*
HASTE CHARACTERIZAriUN
Municipal Solid Uaate
HHW
Hunicipal Sludge
Hunicipal Uaate Incineration Aah
Industrial Nonhazardoua Uaate
SqC-Uaale
Other Uaate
'ACUITY CHARACTERIZATION
General Profile:
landfill!
aurface impoundmenta
lend application
Deaign and Operation
Undfilli
aurfece impoundment a
lend application
Health end Environmental Impact! :
landfi Ill-
ground water
aurfece water
air
aurface impoundmenta-
ground water
aurfece water
air
lend application-
ground water
aurface water
eir
STATE rtOCIAH ASSESSMENT
Regulation!
Program Adminiatrat ion
Frogram Implementation
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX X
X X
X X
X XX X
X X
X X
X X
X X X X
X XX
X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
XX X
X
X
l'a indicate information from a Phaae I data collection project and aupporta a apecific data category.
-------
The Phase I study, Source. Availability arid Review of RCRA Subtitle D
Land Disposal Data Published Since 1980,* began with a revvev of the
available information on Subtitle D facilities and regulations. The report
produced from thia 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 SolidWastein the United States, I960 to 2QUO
This study^ examines the historical quantities and composition of
municipal solid waste. The quantities and sources of municipal solid wastes
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 are
changed over time to account for technological changes). The results are
forecasts of the quantities and composition of municipal solid wastes for the
period 1960-2000. These results are summarized in Section 3.
Summary of Data on Industrial^Nonhazardoua Waste Disposal Practices
This study^ used published and unpublished literature to characterize
and evaluate 22 major manufacturing industries in terms of nonhazardous waste
quantities, composition, and management technologies. These industries were
selected because they generate significant quantities of nonhazardous wastes
or manage nonhazardous wastes in onsite land Disposal units (i.e., landfills,
surface impoundments, LAUs or waste piles). The data sought for each industry
included:
Characteristics of nonhazardous waste generated
Amounts of each waste type
Amounts to different onsite waste management facilities
Numbers and characteristics of onsite units
- -fK- >
-,^3S*
Environmental impacts of onsite units
Amounts transported to different offsite units
Total nonhazardoua waste generation was estimated to be roughly
390,000,000 metric tons per year, with 93 percent of thia provided by seven
industries: industrial organic chemicals; primary iron and steel; fertilizers
and other agricultural chemicals; electric power generation; plastic and resin
manufacture; industrial inorganic chemicals; and atone, clay, glass, and
concrete products. Detailed results of this study are presented in Section 3
of this report.
2-4
-------
This study revealed several limitations in the quality and content of
available data on industrial waste generation and management. The
transportation equipment industry was cited as having the least data. Data
completeness also 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 onsite land
disposal units within an industry. No nationwide data were available on the
typical design characteristics of onsite land disposal units, the location or
prevalence of ground water monitoring at these units, or their impacts an the
environment.
Household Hazardous Wastes
The HHW study* is a literature survey which presents information on the
makeup of HHW, their presence in the municipal waste stream, and their impacts
on solid waste management. It also presents information on State HHW program
and Special HHW collection programs and includes three case studies of HHW
programs in the U.S.
Further studies were recommended in the areas of types and quantities of
HHW, environmental impacts of HHW by disposal at municipal landfills, and the
administration of HHW collection programs. The results of this study are
described in more detail in Section 3.
National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey
The national SQG survey-* was mailed to 50,000 industrial establishments
that generate less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. On.
March 24, 1986, the SQG exemption to regulations under Subtitle C of the RCRA
was amended to apply only to "conditionally exempt" SQGs of less than
100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste. The report includes a summary and
analysis of the 1900 responses to the survey. The results include the
following:
The estimated number of SQGs and conditionally exempt SQGs and the
total quantities of hazardous waste they generate.
_ .Descriptions of the different* SQG and conditionally exempt SQG
wastes generated by the 22 major industry groups that contain
significant numbers of SQGs.
Estimates of the management practices currently used by SQGs and
conditionally exempt SQGs in the primary industry groups targeted in
the survey.
Hazardous Waste Generator Data and Characteris tics of Sanitary Landfills in
Selected Countiea in Florida
This study" presents data on small quantity hazardous waste generation
and management and sanitary landfill operation in the State of Florida. The
2-5
-------
data were collected in 1983 by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulations (FDER), The FDRR helped implement Florida's Local Government
Hazardous Waste Management Program, which required every county in the State
to complete assessments of hazardous waste generation and management. The
final report will contain data from all 67 counties in the State. Those data
will cover hazardous waste types, amounts, sources, and management and
disposal practices. This study is discussed further in Section 3.
2.2 SUBTITLE D FACILITY CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES
Facility characterization studies were conducted to gather existing
information in the following areas: numbers and general characteristics of
Subtitle D facilities; facility design and operating characteristics; leachace
and gas characteristics; and environmental and human health impacts associated
with different types of facilities. These data are needed for assessments of:
human health and environmental risks due to Subtitle U facilities, and needs
for Subtitle D regulatory revisions.
The principal source of information on numbers of facilities and design
and operating characteristics is the Subtitle D Census of data available from
State program offices. Gas and leachate characteristics were addressed in
four Phase I studies and additional data were provided from a preliminary
review of municipal landfill case studies.^ Two Phase I studies were
conducted to address environmental and human health impacts: a review of
those National Priority List (NFL) sites that were once managed as
nonhazardous waste landfills, and the preliminary review of municipal waste
landfill case studies. Additionally, the Census provided some environmental
contamination data that were available from State program offices. All of
these topics were supplemented by literature reviews.
Literature reviews were described previously in Section 2.1. Other Phase
I studies conducted to gather information in the areas of facility numbers,
design and operating characteristics, leachate and gas characteristics, and
environmental and human health impacts are described below. *
State Subtitle DProgram Census
The State Subtitle D Census? was conducted to collect comprehensive
data on S-eriM*itle 0 facilities and regufatory programs across the country. The
Census was conducted as a mail survey sent to Subtitle 0 regulatory program
offices in all States and Territories. The questionnaire was developed by the
EPA with significant input from the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO). The questionnaire was supplemented by
telephone follow-up to minimize errors due to inconsistency or nonresponse.
The first part of the questionnaire was designed to produce a directory
of agencies in each State that administers Subtitle D programs, and to
determine their level of funding and program emphasis. The remaining three
parts elicited information on regulations, enforcement activities, numbers of
facilities, design and operating characteristics, and data availability.
2-6
-------
These three parts are divided into information concerning landfills, land
application units (LAUs), and surface impoundments.
The Census topics include the following:
State organization and resources
State agencies
Budget
Budget sources
Person hours
Activities
Projections
Landfills, land application units, and surface impoundments
Total number
Total number, by facility subcategory
Total number, by state and region
Total number, by ownership, acreage, and amount of waste
Total numbers, utilizing key design and operating features
Program characteristics
Regulatory requirements
Permitting and licensing
Inspections
Violations
Monitoring and release prevention
The Census data are limited because imperfect and inconsistent record
keeping among the State and Territorial regulatory offices has resulted in
incomplete or unconaistent responses. Respondents were asked to rate the
quality of their information. They rated landfill data quality highest,
surface impoundment quality lowest, and land application data quality
somewhere in between.
Critical Review and Summary of. Leachate 'and Gas Production from Landfills
This study" reviews research studies 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 gaa and leachate. Methods for management and ultimate
disposal are described and evaluated.
Evaluation of a Landfill with Leachate Recycle
This study' examines the effectiveness of leachate recirculation aa a
control technology. The analysis is built upon a case study of a facility in
2-7
-------
LycominR County, Pennsylvania. New techniques were evaluated, and problems
were identified for different landfill designs. The feasibility of leachate
recircluation ia discussed for different locations and various types of
landfill cover.
Gas CharacEgrization, Microbiological Analysis^ and Disposal of Refuse
in Gas Research Institute Landfill Simulators
This study , conducted by the Gas Research Institute, used
16 experimental landfills in a 5-year gas enhancement project to describe the
microbiology of refuse. The production of trace constituents of gas was
monitored using lysimeters. The monitoring results are presented in the
report. The results of this study will be used as a reference for the
technical, cost, and environmental impact analysis of methane production and
gas enhancement at Subtitle D facilities.
Landfill Gaa Update: Summaries of TechnicalReports
This re port 11- summarizes six studies performed on landfill gas
production, characteristics, and recovery. The following documents are
summarized;
Pohland, F. G., and S. R. Harper. Critical Review and Summary of
Leachate and Gas Production from Landfills. 1984.
Vogt, W. G., and J. J. Walsh. Volatile Organic Compounds in Gases
from Landfill Simulators. 1984.
Zimmerman, R. E., and M, £. Goodkind. Landfill Methane Recovery:
Part I, Environmental Impacts. 1981.
Zimmerman, R. E., N. W. Flynn, and V. Olivieri. Landfill Methane
Recovery: Part II, Gas Characterization. 1982.
Zimmerman, R. E., G. R. Lytwynshyn, and N. H. Flynn. Landfill
Methane Recovery, Part III: Data Analysis and Instrumentation Needs
1983.
St^ynm, J. W. , W. G. Vogt, andjJ, J. Walsh.. Demonstration of
Landfill Gas Enhancement Techniques in Landfill Simulators.
The purpose of this report is to provide the Subtitle D study with
current information related to landfill gas.
Evaluation of NPL/Subtitle D Landfil1 Data
This study^ focused on the 184 Subtitle D landfills that are either
on, or are proposed for the National Priority List (NPL). Data on these sites
were obtained from the CERCLIS data base, NPL site descriptions, the MITRE
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) data base, and other EPA data sources. Site
2-8
-------
characteristics that were evaluated include: operating dates; NPL rank; HRS
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 & separate data base for future
consideration. The results of this study are discussed further in Section 4.
Municipal Waste Landfill Case Studies
Case study reports^ were developed for 127 municipal waste landfills
located within various hydrogeologic and environmental settings in eight
States. The data were collected from State regulatory agency files in
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Oregon, Texas, and
Wisconsin. These States were selected in an attempt to sample available data
from a broad range of hydrogeologic conditions (geology, climate, and ground
water occurrence). It is not assumed that these case studies fully represent
the universe of municipal waste landfills throughout the country.
During Phase I, a preliminary analysis of approximately 90 case studies
was conducted, considering trends in the following factors: geographic
location, hydrogeologic characteristics, engineering design, facility age,
potential population exposure, and documented environmental impacts. A
complete compilation and evaluation of these case studies will be conducted in
Phase LI of the Subtitle D study. The results of the preliminary analysis are
presented in Section 4.
2.3 STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES
The information collected on State Subtitle D programs included data on
the current status and funding of Subtitle D programs in the States and
Territories. The principal information was collected under three projects:
two were conducted by the EPA and one by the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO). Some additional
information was found in a review of the literature. The EPA projects
included the Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D program offices,7
and a review of Subtitle D regulations in the States and Territories.1-4 The
ASTSWMO project was a 1983 mail survey of the States and Territories. ^ The
information available from the Census was described in Section 2.2 and
informatioit-ferom the other projects is discussed below.
Analysisof State Subtitle D Regulations
This project resulted in a draft report14 in which current State
regulations are summarized and analyzed. The most current regulations were
obtained from each State as one of their responses to the State Subtitle D
Census. Current regulations were received from all Statee and all but two
Territories. The draft report is presented in four volumes, including one
each for municipal landfills, surface impoundments, LALJa, and waste piles.
The reviewed regulations cover the following categories:
2-9
-------
Permitting and administrative requirements
Design criteria
Operation and maintenance criteria
Location standards and restrictions
Monitoring requirements
Closure and postc leisure requirements
Financial responsibility
Appendix D presents a series of tables summarizing the key findings of this
report. These findings are discussed in Section 5.
National Solid Waate Survey
In 1983, the ASTSWMO, together with the EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSWJ
and the National Solid Waste Management Associations (NSWMA), formulated and
distributed this survey^ instrument to solid waste management officials in
all States and Territories. A total of 44 States and Territories responded,
providing data on Che 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.
2-10
-------
REFERENCES
1. Booz,Alien and Hamilton. Source, Availability, and Review of KCKA
Subtitle D Land Disposal Data Published Since 1980. Contract No.
68-01-6871, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSW, Washington, D.C.
1985.
2. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States, 1960 to 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 1986.
3. Science Applications International Corporation. Summary of Data on
Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices. Contract No.
68-01-7050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1985.
4. SCS Engineers. A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related
Collection Programs. Contract No. 68-01-6621, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 1986.
5. Abt Associates Inc. National Small Quantity Generator Survey. Contract
No. 68-01-6892, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSW, Washington,
D.C. 1985.
6. Florida State University. Hazardous Waste Generator Data and
Characteristics of Sanitary Landfills in Selected Counties in Florida.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, U.C. 1986.
7. Westat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Non-Hazardous
Waste Programs. Contract No. 68-01-7047. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 1986.
8. Pohland, F. C., and S. R. Harper. Critical Review and Summary of
Leacha^t^ and Gas Production from Landfills. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
9. Pickard and Anderson. Evaluation of a Landfill with Leachate Recycle.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSW, Washington, D.C. 1985.
10. Kinman, R. N., Rickabaugh, J., Nutini, D., and M. Lambert. Gas
Characterization, Microbiological Analysis, and Disposal of Refuse in GRl
Landfill Simulators. Contract No. 68-03-3210, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 1985.
2-11
-------
11. SCS Engineers. Landfill Gas Update, Summaries of Technical Reports.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1985.
12. GCA Technology Division, Inc. Evaluation of NPL/Subtitle D Landfill
Data; Preliminary Final Report. Contract No. 68-01-7037,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1986.
13. The Municipal landfill case studies evaluated in Phase I were obtained
from the Office of Solid Waste of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. These studies were compiled by PEI, Inc.; SRW, Inc.; and
ICF, Inc.
14. PEI Associates, Inc. State Subtitle D Regulations on Solid Waste
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Land Application Units and Waste Piles,
Draft Vol. I-IV. Contract No. 68HD1-7075/02-3890, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1986.
15. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
National Solid Waste Survey. Washington, D.C. 1984.
2-12
-------
SECTION 3
SUBTITLE D WASTE
This section defines the universe of Subtitle D wastes and presents
available information on the characteristics of the following waste
categories: municipal solid waste (MSW), household hazardous waate (HHW),
municipal sludge, municipal waste incinerator ash, industrial waste, small
quantity generator (SQG) waste, construction and demolition waste,
agricultural waste, oil and gas waste, and mining waate. Foe each Subtitle 0
waste category, the Phase I data collection efforts have focused on waste
characteristics, generation rates, and management practices.
3.1 DEFINITION OF RCRA SUBTITLE D SOLID WASTES
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 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, 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."
Household hazardous wastes and hazardous SQG wastes are solid wastes
that are exempt from Subtitle C regulations and thus are Subtitle D
wastes. Household hazardous wastes are hazardous wastes generated by
households and must meet the RCRA technical definition of a hazardous
waste. "Household" is defined here aa any type of living quarters:
single and multiple dwellings, hotels, motels, and other residences.
Small quantity generator wastes are defined as those wastes that meet the
definition of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261, and that are generated
at a rate of less than 1,000 kg/month. While SQG wastes have been exempt
from Subtitle C regulations, a March 24, 1986 rule will apply certain
3-1
-------
Subtitle C regulations to SQGs generating between 100 and 1,000
kg/month.1 This rule took effect on September 22, 1986 for offaite,
and September 22, 1987 for onsite treatment, storage, or disposal. After
these effective dates, the conditional exemption from Subtitle C will
apply only to generators of less than 100 kg/month of hazardous waste.
In accordance with the above-mentioned defi itiong and exclusions,
the following categories of Subtitle D wastes have been identified;
Municipal solid waste
Household Hazardous Waste
» Municipal sludge
Municipal waste combustion ash
Industrial nonhazardoua waste
Small Quantity Generator waste
Construction and demolition waste
Agricultural waste
Oil and gas waste
Mining waste
The characteristics, quantities, and management practices of each of
these Subtitle D wastes are discussed separately in the following subsections.
3.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Municipal solid waste is a mixture of household, institutional,
commercial, municipal, and industrial solid wastes. The composition of MSW is
variable, but generally more than half (by weight) is paper products and yard
wastes. In ,IjLfl4> approximately 130 million tons of MSW were discarded, moat
of them (126 million tons) in landfills. The characteristics, quantities and
management of MSW are discussed separately below.
Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waate
Reports on the composition of MSW vary widely.2.3,4 This variation ia
attributable in part to regional differences in climatic, seasonal, and
socioeconcroic factors, as well aa differences in waste reporting methods. The
reporting methods differ in measurement techniques, definitions of MSW, and
the categories of waste constituents. The variation in these reports makes it
difficult to construct a national profile of MSW composition.
3-2
-------
The beat source of information on MSW characteristics is Characterization
of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. I960 to2000.2 This study
constructs a national profile of MSW by evaluating n 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 nondurable and durable
materials. The study does not estimate industrial nonhazardous wastes, bCJG
hazardous wastes, or municipal sludge components of MSW.
As shown in Table 3-1, this study2 reported that paper products (paper
and paperboard) and yard wastes currently make up about 55 percent of all
MSW. Table 3-1 also shows the estimated tonnage of materials discarded for
the years 1970 and 2000. These estimates indicate that the use of paper and
plastics is increasing, whereas the use of glass, metals, and food wastes is
decreasing. Other materials retain about the same percentage composition.2
Quantities of Municipal Solid Waate
The MSW Characterization study reports that about 133 million tons of MSW
were discarded in 1984. This is equivalent to 3.0 pounds per capita per day.
The study also presents estimates of annual municipal waste generation (in
millions of tons per year) from the period 1960-2000. These estimates are
presented in Table 3-2. Waste generation in the year 2000 is projected to be
2.1 times that in I960.2
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 study2 addresses three of the MSW
management alternatives: municipal landfills, energy recovery, and materials
recovery. The report estimates that 6.5 million tons of MSW per year are used
for energy recovery, while the remaining 126.5 million tons are managed
through landfills, ocean disposal, or incineration without energy recovery.
Since ocean disposal and incineration without energy recovery are considered
negligible relative to landfill disposal, 126.5 million tons per year can be
accepted as an upper bound estimate of MSW disposal in landfills. In addition
to the 133 million tons discarded in 1984, an estimated 15 million tons of MSW
were recovered for materials.2
i
TabLe^JLr2 provides estimates of M»W discarded and energy recovery of MSW
for the period 1960-2000. In 1984, energy recovery accounted for 5 percent of
the MSW discarded. In the year 2000, an estimated 20 percent will be used in
energy production facilities.2
3.3 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
Household hazardous waste is generally discarded into the MSW stream,
with a very small fraction diverted by special HHW collection programs. The
characteristics, quantities, and management practices for HHW are discussed
separately below.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1. PAST AND PROJECTED TRENDS IN MUNICIPAL WASTE COMPOSITION [2]
Materials
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Wood
Food wastes
Yard wastes
Other non-food product
wastes
Miscellaneous inorganic
wastes
TOTAL
1970
Million
tons/yr
36.5
12.5
13.5
3.0
3.0
2.2
4.0
12.7
21.0
O.I
1.6
110.3
%
33.1
11.3
12.2
2.7
2.7
2.0
3.6
11.5
19.0
O.I
1.6
100
>
1984
Million
cons/y r
49.4
12.9
12.8
9.6
3.3
2.8
5.1
10.8
23.fi
O.I
2.4
133.0
X
37.1
9.7
y.b
7.2
2.5
2.1
3.8
8. I
17.9
0.1
1.8
100
2000
Million
tons/y r
6i. 1
12.1
14.3
15. i
3. a
3.5
6.1
10.8
24.4
0. 1
*
3.1
158.8
X
41.0
7, to
y.o
9.8
2.4
2.2
3. a
6.8
15.3
0. i
2.0
100
Table entries may not add to totals due to rounding.
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-2. ENERGY RECOVERY FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 196U to 2UUU 12]
Year
I960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1990
1995
2000
MSW Discarded
(millions of cona)
76.4
92.0
110.2
113.4
125.5
127.5
124.7
130.5
132.7
143.8
154.7
164.7
Energy Recovery
of MSW
(millions of tons)
0
0.2
0.4
0.7
2.7
2.3
3.5
5.0
6.5
13.3
22.5
32.0
Energy Recovery
of MSW
(percent)
U
0.22
0.36
U.62
2.15
1.84
2. ay
3. 83
4.*l)
9.25
«
14.54
19.43
3-5
-------
Characteristics of HHW
Household hazardous wastes are defined as waatea that meet che technical
definition of hazardous wastes in RCRA (40 CFR Part 261) and are generated by
households. According to Household Hazardous Waste^. HHW are generated by
disposal of products such as those listed in Table 3-3. This table was
developed by scanning the ingredients listed on labels of household products
for hazardous compounds. Where household products did not have ingredients
labels that state 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.
Quantities of Household Hazardous Waste
Four local government studies were reviewed to obtain information on
quantities of HHW. Two studies^'" (both conducted by the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District) involved sorting and weighing of MSW. One of these
studies estimated that the fraction of HHW was less than 0.2 percent by
weight; the other study estimated 0.0015 percent by weight. Although these
results are extremely variable, they can be used to estimate a national HHW
generation rate of between 1,000 to 100,000 tons per year. A third study,7
conducted in Albuquerque, New Mexico employed a questionnaire to determine now
much hazardous wastes a sample group of household members could recall
discarding. Results from this study are limited because respondents may have
based their answers on incorrect perceptions of hazardous materials. The
fourth study, by the University of Arizona**, reported numbers of hazardous
waste items discarded per ton of MSW. Neither of the latter two studies
offered data on the proportion, by weight, of HHW in che MSW stream.
Management Practices of HHW
The volumes of HHW managed by various disposal options are unknown. The
major disposal options exercised by the public include management with MSW,
and disposal into municipal aewer systems and septic tanks. As mentioned
previously, the portion of HHW collected by special programs is very small.
In a recent 3 year period, there have been on the order of 100 or more locally
sponsored programs. Of these, it ia estimated that, less than 1 percent of the
public participated!
3.4 MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
Municipal sludge includes both water and wastewater (sewage) treatment
sludges. The EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) maintains a
database14 on Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) which includes data on
municipal sewage sludge characteristics, generation and disposal. The
Characterization study^ supplies additional data in these areas for sewage
and water treatment sludge.
Biological processes are predominantly used for municipal aewage
treatment methods and result in sludges that consist primarily of organic
matter. If aerobic or anaerobic sludge digestion are used, the organic
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-3. HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD WASTES AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS
Household Cleaners
Drain openers, (C)a
Oven cleaners, (G)
Wood and mecal cleaners and polishes, (I)
Toilet bowl cleaners, (C)
General purpose cleaners, (C or I)
Disinfectants, (C or I)
Automotive Products
Oil and fuel additives, (I or E)
Grease and ruat solvents, (I)
Carburetor and fuel injection cleaners, (I)
Air conditioning refrigerants, (Listed)
Starter fluids, (I or Listed)
General lubricating fluids, (I or £)
Radiator fluids and additives, (I)
Waxes, polishes, and cleaners, (I or C)
Body putty, (I)
Transmission additives, (I)
Home Maintenance Products
Paint thinners, (I)
Paint strippers and removers, (I)
Adhesives, (I)
Paints, (I)
Stains, varnishes, and sealants, (I)
Lawn and Garden Products
Herbicides, (E or Listed)
Pesticides, (E or Listed)
Fungicides or wood preservatives, (Listed)
-,
laneous >
Batteries, (C or E)
Fingernail polish remover, (I)
Pool chemicals, (R)
Photo processing chemicals, (E, C, or I)
Electronic items, (E)
al: Ignitable
C: Corrosive
R: Reactive
E: EP toxic
3-7
-------
fraction of the sludge solids may be reduced by approximately 50 percent. The
EPA OWRS has used the database of 15,300 POTWs to estimate that 7.6 million
dry metric tons (8.4 million dry tons) of sludge are generated each year.^
This data base also shows that sewage sludge is managed through incineration
(20.3 percent), land application (25.4 percent), ocean disposal (6.6 percent),
and lagooning and landfilling (46.4 percent, including 1.5 percent in
monofills). Incineration produces a residue consisting primarily of an
inorganic ash. This residue quantity is usually much smaller, by weight, than
the original sludge and it is often landfilled.
Water treatment sludges (filter cake wastes, etc.), consist of a variety
of organic and inorganic materials, including inorganics from coagulation and
softening. Total water treatment sludge quantities are probably much smaller
than those of sewage sludges. Filter cake sludge from water treatment is
reportedly generated at the rate of 0.005 to 0.2 pounds per capita per
day.^ This equates to about 207 kilo tons to 8,267 kilotons per year. Water
treatment sludge may be landfilled or subjected to chemical recovery
techniques.2
3.5 MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION ASH
Combustion residue is generated from industries, institutions, and other
establishments that burn their own solid wastes, or from the burning of
collected municipal solid wastes. ,The latter source of combustion residue is
judged to be the largest and reflects incineration of approximately 5 percent
of generated municipal solid waste in energy recovery (waste-toenergy)
facilities.^
The quantity of ash depends on the incoming waste moisture content. Dry
ash may represent, only 20 percent of the weight of the unburned waste input,
whereas wet ash may be as high as 45 percent of the waste input. Assuming an
average residue weight of 30 percent of incinerated municipal solid waste,
about 2.3 million tons of residue/year are disposed from currently operating
uaste-to-energy facilities in the United States. Some additional tonnage
is generated from municipal solid waste 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.
ComHus*tlon residue has been stored on incinerator sites, and disposed of
in monofills and MSW landfills. The fraction of combustion residue in
municipal waate landfills ia unclear. Tests of fly ash and bottom ash from
municipal waste incinerators have shown that these residues often have high
concentrations of heavy metals.
3.6 INDUSTRIAL WASTES
The principal source of data on industrial Subtitle 0 wastes is the
report entitled Summary of Data on Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal
Practices.H This report, referred herein as the Industry Report, includes
3-8
-------
a review of compiled available data on industrial nonhazardous wastes
characteristics, generation rates. The study presents data on 22 major
manufacturing industries, which generate an estimated 390 million metric tons
of solid waste annually.
The set of industries selected for this study represents those that
generate the largest amounts of nonhazardous waste, manage significant
quantities of such wastes onsite, and have high levels of potentially toxic
constituents in their waste streams. The characteristics, quantities and
management methods for industrial Subtitle D wastes are discussed separately
below.
Characteristics of Industrial Nonhazardous Waste
The characteristics of industrial nonhazardous wastes vary from industry
to industry and within each industry. Table 3-4 lists the major waste types
within each of 22 industries^ and presents general waste characteristics
from each industry with regard to the relative concentration of heavy metals
or organics. Twelve of the 22 industries studied 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.'
Quantities of Industrial Waste Generated
Table 3-5 presents estimated waste generation rates for the industries
covered in the Industry Report. Approximately 390 million dry metric tons of
industrial nonhazardous wastes are generated annually, with almost 90 percent
of the waste generated by the six highest ranked industries. About 99 percent
of the wastes are generated by 12 industries. Table B-l (Appendix B).
presents the amount of wastes generated for each major waste type in each
indust ry.
Management Practices of Industrial Nonhazardous Wastes
The Subtitle D Census1^ indicates 3,511 landfills, 16,232 surface
impoundments, and 5,605 land application units received industrial
nonhazardous wastes in 1984. The Industry Report shows that approximately
35 percent of industrial nonhazardous Vastes (145 million dry metric
tons/year-l^are managed in onsite landfills, surface impoundments, and land
application units. Four industries, iron and steel, electric power
generation, industrial organic chemicals, and plastic and resins, generate
75 percent of industrial nonhazardous wastes known to be managed onsite. The
wastes generated by each industry are categorized according to disposal
practice in Table 3-6. Table B-2 (Appendix B) adds description to these data,
and quantities managed are further separated into the major waste types for
each industry in Table B-l (Appendix B).
3.7 SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTE
The National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey,**
hereafter referred to as the SQG Survey, is the principal source of data on
SQG wastes. The SQG Survey was conducted using a mail questionnaire and was
designed to obtain national estimates of the number and type of SQGs and their
3-9
-------
TABLE 3-4. INDUSTRIAL NONHAZARDOUS WASTES:
AND CHARACTERISTICS [12]
MAJOR WASTE TYPES
Lnoustrv
Uasce type
Relative levels of heavy metals
or organics in uastas
Electrical Machinery
and Electronic
Components (SIC 36)
Electric Power
Generation (SIC 4911)
Fabricated Metal
products (SIC 34)
Fertilizer and Other
Agricultural Chemi-
cals (SIC 2373-2879)
Food and Kindred
Products (SIC 20)
Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals Industry
(SIC 2812-2319)
Industrial Organic
Chenicals (SIC 2819)
Wastewacer treatment sludges;
plastics; oils; paint wastes.
bottom ash (coal); fly ash
vcoai); flue gas desulfuriza-
cion (coal) sludge; boiler
slag; fly ash foil).
Wastewater treatment sludge;
spent air filters (painting);
paint sludge.
Waste gypsum; uet scrubber
liquor; cooling water treatment
sludge; WPFA sludge; spent
catalyst; sulfur filter cakes;
pesticide jnanufacturing wastes.
Paunch manure; raeat sludge;
liquid whey; unusable food;
soil and trash; non-food waste;
grain mill sludge; sail (sugar
products); line mud (sugar
products); excess bagasse; ,
spent bleaching earth; fat/oil
sludge; non-food fat/oil waste;
liquor stillage; unused seafood
portions.
Brine muds; salt catlings; red
mud; phosphate dust; Na ore
residues; lime partieulates;
gypsum; iron oxide waste*; Li
ore residues; bauxite ore
vasces; sulfuric ore waste;
calcium wastes; insoluble
ore residues. -fa
Process uastevaCer; equipment
washdown; steam jet condensate;
non-process wasteuater; 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; byproducts;
other.
High: Wascewater treatment
sludges, oils, and pair.t wastes
have potential Co release heavy
metals and orgartics. No specific
analytical data are available,
Moderate: This waste has a
potential to reduce pK levels and
release metals. Toxicity depends
on the source of coal or oil
being burned.
High: Uastewacer treatment
sludges, oils, and paint wastes
have potential to release heavy
oecals and organics. No specific
analytical data are available,
High: Waste gypsua piles may
cause local pH and oecals con-
tamination problems. Pesticide
wastes cay release organic: and
heavy metals.*
Low: Host food industry wastes
are biodegradable, but many
cause casce and odor problems.
High; Most nonhazardous wastes
from this industry do not appear
to contain heavy metals, but there
are insufficient analytical data
on these wastes.
High: Hany of the waste streams
in this industry contain high
levels of extremely toxic organic
chemicals.
(continued)
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-4 (continued)
Industry
Waste type
Relative levels at heavy metals
or organicB in wastes
Leather and Leather
Produces (SIC 31)
Lumber and Wood
Vroducte, and
Furniture and
Fixtures CS1C 24
and 25)
Machinery Except
Electrical (SIC 35)
Pulp and Paper
Industry (SIC 26)
Petroleum Refining
Industry (SIC 29)
Pharmaceutical
Industry (SIC 2831
to 283gpec. products; spent
solvents; light ends; miscell-
aneous solids; precipitation/
filtration residues; heavy
ends, process waatewster;
equipment vashdown; steam jet
condensate; spent scrubber
water; non-process wastewater.
Moderate;' These wastes generally
contain chromium, but it is
generally in the -*3-valence state.
Moderate: Most of the wastes
(380 million Hi/year) from this
industry are composed of wood dust,
chips, shavings, and other rejects,
and moat of these vastea are
burned or reused.
High; uattewater treatment
sludges, oils, and paint wastes
have potential co release heavy
metala and orgenics. Ho specific
analytical data are available,
Moderate; Organic pollutants from
wood fibers may be significant.
Also, coal and bark ash may con-
tain metala. Sulfatea «nd metala
are high in some pulping wattes.
High: These wattes generally con-
tain high levels of aulfides,
amonia, phenols, and oils. Some
of them alto contain mercaptains,
benzo-a-pyrene, and other toxic
organics.
Low; The majority of these wattes
are fermentation products and are
biodegradable*
High; Many of the waste streams
in this industry contain organic
solvents and unreaeted monomers,
which are frequently toxic.
(continued)
3-11
-------
TABLE 3-4 (continued)
Induetry
Waste type
Relative levels of heavy mecals
or oreanjce in wastes
Primary Iron and
Steel Manufacturing
and Ferrous Foundries
(SIC 3312-3321)
Coke breeze; blast furnace
slag; blast furnace dust, blast
furnace sludge; EAT slag; EAF
dust and sludge; open hearth
slag; continuous casting scale;
continuous casting sludge;
aaakins pit scale; primary mill
scale; primary mill sludge;
rolling scale (hot and cold);
railing sludge (hoc and cold);
pickle liquor sludge; galvaniz-
ing sludge; tin plating sludge;
bricks and rubble; fly ash and
bottom ash; foundry sand and
other wastes.
High: Many of the wastes from this
induBC' ' ire low Ln pH and nay
release significant quantities of
heavy metals.
Primary Non-FerTOu8
Metals Manufacturing
and Non-Ferrous
Foundries (SIC 3330-
3399)
Rubber and Miscell-
aneous Plastic
Products (SIC 30)
Soaps; Other Deter-
gents; Polishing,
Cleaning, and Sani-
tation Goods
(SIC 2841-2842)
Scone, Clay, Glass,
and Concrete
Products (SIC 32)
Textile Manufacturing
(SIC 22)
Transportation
Equipment (SIC 37)
Primary aluminum wastes;
primary copper wastes; primary
zinc wastes; primary lead
wastes; foundry sand and
other wastes,
Tire/inner tube waste streams;
rubber and plastics footwear
waste streams; reclaimed rubber
waste streams,1 rubber and
plastics hose, and belting
waste streams; fabricated
rubber products NEC waste
streams; miscellaneous plastic
products waste streams.
Lost product; tower cleanouts;
sludges; dust and fines.
Silica parciculatea; spent
diatomaceoua earth; soda ash;
lime; brine residues; air
pollution control sludge
(clay); lubricants; pottery
sludge; air pollution control
sludge (concrete, gypsum a*hd
plaster); waste cullet; fiber
resin Basses,
Uastevatar treatment sludge;
wool scouring wastes; clippings;
dye containers; dry flick;
waste fiber.
Solvents; paint wastes; metal
treating wastes.
High: Several of the waste streams
contain high levels of heavy
metals.
High: Data ere sketchy, but
indicate possibly significant
levels of elastomers, carbon
black, plastic resins, plasti-
cizers, and pigments.
Low; Hose of these wastes are
composed of packaging, lost pro-
ducts, salts, inerts. Some
organica are generated from floor
polishes (plasciciters) and pine
oili (solvents).
Low: Most of the wastes produced
are inert, earth-type materials.
However, significant quantities of
pollution control sludges are
generated, some of which may contain
heavy metals.
Low: Waste descriptions indicate
lov organic* and neavy metals, put
there are virtually no analytical
dat* to confirm this assumption.
High: Wastes are expected to ba
similar in quantity and composi-
tion to those generated within
SIC 34 and 35.
Water Treatment
(SIC
Coagulation sludges; softening
sludgea.
Low: These wastes are composed
mainly of alum and lime, but may
contain SCUM heavy metals.
3-12
-------
TABLE 3-5. LISTING OF INDUSTRIES BY ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNTS OF
NONHAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED*(12|
Industry
Industrial organic chemicals (SIC 2819)
Primary iron and steel manufacturing and
ferrous foundries (SIC 3312-3325)
Fertilizer and other agricultural
chemicals (SIC 2873-2879)
Electric power generation (SIC 4911)
Plastics and resins manufacturing (SIC 2821)
Industrial inorganic chemicals industry
(SIC 2812-2819)
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products
(SIC 32)
Pulp and paper industry (SIC 26)
Primary non-ferrous metals manufacturing
and non-ferrous foundries (SIC 3330-3399)
Food and kindred products (SIC 20)
Water treatment (SIC 4941)
Petroleum refining industry (SIC 29)
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products (SIC 30)
Transportation equipment (SI£ 37)
Fabricated metal products (SIC 34)
Pharmaceutical preparations (SIC 2834)
Machinery, except electrical (SIC 35)
Waste quantity
(dry metric tons)
97,354,lOOb'c
60,679,UOUD
59,037,400b
55,b7a,000b
44,991,700b«d
26,191, 800b
> 18, 600, 000
8,b27,000e
6,575,000b
6.36l,500£
4,960,000
1,276,400
542,600b
520,000
300,000
256,900
> 193, 5008
Percent of
total
24.8
15.5
15.0
14.2
11.5
6.7
4.7
2.2
1.7
1.6
1.3
0.3
0.1
0.13
0.08
0.07
0.05
(continued)
3-13
-------
TABLE 3-5 (continued)
Waste quantity Percent of
Industry (dry metric tone) total
Lumber and wood, and furniture and
fixtures (SIC 24 and 25)
Textile manufacturing (SIC 22)
Soaps; other detergents; polishing, cleaning,
and sanitation goods (SIC 2841-2842)
Leather and leather products
Electrical machinery and electronic
components (SIC 36)
Total :
>l22,700b-h
>45,000
3l,3UOb
24,600
10,400* -
J92.579.900
U.UJ
O.Ul
U.Ul
0.01
I). 01
a£stimate9 do not include wastes that are discharged to publiclyowned
treatment works (POTW) or recycled unless they are sometimes stored or
treated in waste piles, or surface impoundments prior to recycling.
Dry or wet weight not specified; assume wet weight.
C36,164,800 when aqueous wastes are not counted.
d8,643,400 when aqueous wastes are not counted.
e5,081,000 when aqueous wastes are not counted.
*Wet weight.
^Includes only wastes from SIC 355 and 357 (representing 12 percent of
cotal sales).'
>
hThe total amount of wastes in this industry is large, however, most of
the wastes are recycled; no quantities on total waste generation are
available. The quantity shown above may include significant quantities
of hazardous waste.
lData on waste types and amounts were available only for SIC 367
(represents only 2 percent of total value of 1976 product shipments
from the industry).
3-14
-------
TABLE 3-6. EXISTING QUANTITATIVE DATA ON INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT OF NONHAZARDOUS WASTES [12]
Quantities of Nonhazardous Wastes Managed (Dry Metric Tons)a
Onsite
Induatryb
Electric power generation (SIC 4911)
Fertilizer and other agricultural
chemicals (SIC 2873-2879)
Food and kindred chenicals (SIC 20)
Leather and leather products (SIC 31)
Machinery, except electrical (SIC 35)
Pulp and paper industry (SIC 26)
Pharmaceutical preparations (SIC 2834)
Plastics and resins manufacturing
(SIC 2821)
Primary iron and ateel manufacturing
and ferrous foundries (SIC 3312-3321)
Primary non-fprroua metals
foundries (SIC 3330-3399)
Totals:
Landfill
NAC
187,800
NA
Ift ft A nno
, ODD pUUU
1,200
NA
5,962.300
NA
NA
378,500
14,563,000
233,900
22,994,700
Surface
impoundment
28,497,800d
8,640.800d
NA
in nsfl 7nnd
JO,Ujtf,/UU
1,200
NA
579.700
HA
NA
30.513.700"1
14.563,000
147.300
121.002,200
Land
appl icat ions
NA
NA
NA
fee inn
2.JJ , /UU
NA
NA
NA
753 300
NA
43,200
NA
NA
1,052,200
Other
NA
39, 487, 900*
NA
1 1 & i ft *innd
I i , ** IO , JUU
NA
19 , 300*
862,700
NA
NA
26,146,400
39,*41,400e
NA
128,376,200
Offsite
Land
disposal
NA
1,502,700
NA
1 ,369 , 500
12,300
135,500
NA
523 500^
219.400
392.400
NA
78.000
4,233,300
Other
NA
12,961 ,200d.n
NA
59 ,662 , 700
9,800
3B.700R
NA
NA
NA
34.914.600"
NA
NA
107,587.000
"Waatea managed in surface ia^oundoenta snd land application units are reported in wet metric tona.
Includes only industries for which there are estimated quantities of wastes being managed by the above listed methods.
The quantitiea listed above may represent the entire industry or oply one waate stream within an industry.
NA - Data not available.
Dry or wet weight not specified; assume wet weight.
cHostly waste piles.
Mostly land application.
Management method unknown.
Hoatly discharges to POTUa and surface waters.
-------
waste generation and management practices. The detailed results of the survey
(presented in Tables 3-7 and 3-8) address 22 primary industries and
27 targected wastes, accounting for 378,000 of the estimated 630,000
generators and 598,000 of the estimated 940,500 metric tons of hazardous waste
generated annually. Results distinguish between SQGs of between 100 and
1,000 kg/month of hazardous waste and SQGa of less than 100 kg/month (which
are conditionally exempt from Subtitle C regulations). The "conditionally
exempt" SQGs are referred to hereafter as very small quantity generators, or
VSQGs.
Additional information on the types and amounts of SQG hazardous wastes
is available from an extensive survey of small quantity generators and
municipal landfills in Florida. ** These data also include some waste
quantities from large quantity generators.
Characteristics of SQG Waste
The SQG waste streams in the industries addressed in the SQG survey are
presented in Table 3-7. This table indicates that used lead acid batteries
represent the largest waste quantity and the largest number of generators, in
both VSQG and other SQG categories. Other significant 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. * Nearly 85 percent of these generators are in nonraanufacturing
industries, including fifty 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.13 Table 3-8 presents SQG waste generation by industry.
Very small quantity generators constitute 72 percent of the SQGs. The
industry distribution of VSQGs differs from that of other SQGa. Vehicle
maintenance and nonmanufacturing establishments are more heavily concentrated
among VSQGs. Table 3-8 shows that generators from service related industry
groups 3uch^| pesticide end .users and application .services, laundries,
equipment repair shops, construction, furniture, printing, education
establishments, and wholesale and retail establishments are also more heavily
concentrated in the VSQG category. In contrast, a relatively large number of
generators engaged in chemical manufacturing, wood preserving, textile
manufacturing, cleaning agent manufacturing, and paper products are non-exempt
SQGs.13
Quantities of SQG WasteGenerated
Small quantity generators are estimated to generate about 940,000 metric
tons of hazardous waste annually, which is 0.05 percent of the total quantity
of hazardous waste. " Approximately 598,000 metric tons of wastes are
generated by the industry group studied in more detail in the SQG survey.
3-16
-------
TABLE 3-7. NUMBER OF SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS AND WASTE QUANTITY GENERATED
BY WASTE STREAM 113]
Araenic va!tea
Cyanide vaates
Dry cUaning Ciltra-
Eopty peaticidc
container!
Heavy netal dust
Hsairy metal waste
Ignicible naatea
chromium or lead
Mercury waatea
Other reactive wastes
ing heavy ojeJala
Pesticide aalutiona
Photographic vaatea
Solvent atill bottom!
Spent plating uaatee
Solution! of sludge!
containing silver
Strong acids or
alkal iea
Uaed le.ad~ac.id biteriai
Waste formaldehyde
VanCB inks containing
£ I amiable solvents of
heavy (MCali
Uaate pesticides
Weatevacei containing
wood preaervat ivea
Vastrwater aludgei con-
taining heavy aetala
Hastea containing
auasonia
Total:
VSyGa-. Generators
of '100 m of
**aa to/aonth
Number of
generacora
51
587
13,168
15
121
12.738
8,951
19
1,113
381
1,027
21,287
Z.114
3,940
77,629
4,482
11,739
119,747
11,930
3.642
2,852
38
894
1.154
264,895
Wane
quantity
iKT/yr)
7
17
S.lil
1,293
10
31
1,841
909
90
1
88
1,047
4,408
114
493
1,970
A
64,903
3,454
263
400
26
IBB
96
io7, i?a
Qthar SQCi:
Ceneraiori of
100 kg to 1,000 kg
of vaate/iDonth
Number of
19
1,384
2,540
1,963
40
30
117
3,122
2,873
83
0
497
156
1,747
4,949
738
1,422
33,475
2,648
10,480
77,8*0
2,014
718
990
108
74"
100
113,086
Uaate
quantity
CKT/yr)
104
2.129
8,509
2,366
163
52
S3!
4,872
7,576
127
0
1,090
;
5,012
14,023
1,863
5,275
85,923
7,981
27,821
304,194
5,396
1,359
85?
693
2,116
271
490,427
Total S<)C»
Nuraber of
generator!
40
1,972
15,708
1I.7JJ
88
45
238
15,910
11,824
1,176
19
1,630
537
4,774
26,236
2,652
5,382
111,104
7 , 130
24,219
L97.627
IS, 944
4,360
3,842
196
1.684
1,254
377,981
Ua>t«
quantity
III
2,146
13,660
3,659
173
58
568
6.71J
8,485
:i7
i
1,178
f>,069
18,431
1,977
5,768
105,368
. 8,919
29,791
369,097
6,653
1,622
1,25?
719
2,404
367
591,625
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-8. NUMBER OF SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS BY INDUSTRY GROUP
AND QUANTITY OF WASTE GENERATED [13]
Other SQC
VSlJCs: Generators Generators
of --'100 kg of<100 kg CD
of waste/mrrnth 1,000 Kg of waste/month Total
Renpracors
Pesticide end users
Pesc ic id6~applicat ton
services
Chemical nunu f ac turi n^
Wood preserving
Fonnulacors
Laundries
Other services
Photography
Textile manufacturing
Vehicle maintenance
Equipment repair
Metal raanufac taring
Construction
Motor freight terminals
Furniture/wood manu~
facrure and refinishinp;
frincing /ceramics
Cleaning agents and
cosmetic manufacturing
Othar manufacturing
Paper indoja^jj
Analytical and clinical
1,352
7,786
362
86
507
13,131
13,<513
6,538
149
142, 105
1,526
26,245
11,561
103
2,776
2 1 , 1 90
277
1,618
98
b,m
generators generators
36
82
49
45
57
Si,
85
70
54
63
85
70
91
70
83
86
51
6J
54
80
231
1,660
391
107
395
2,515
2,409
2,317
124
82,528
269
11,076
1,117
45
579
3,450
265
946
-fc 83
1,286
generators
14
18
52
55
43
16
15
30
46
37
15
30
9
30
17
14
49
37
46
20
Number of
generators
1,623
9,444
753
193
902
15,646
16,322
9,355
272
224,632
1,795
37,320
12,677
148
3,355
24,640
543
2,564
181
6,409
SQC a
Waste
QU3F1 C 1 C V
(HT/yr)'
1,122
3,444
2,373
715
2,333
13,418
10,706
18,052
650
427,287
943
64,652
5,033
161
3,703
18,307
1,569
5,361
544
7,17V
laboratories
Educational and voca- 3,239 93
cional establishments
Wholesale and retail 5.156 90
establishments
Total: 2*4,895 70
241
575
113,086
10
1,179
5,731 J.B76
377,981 597,625
3-18
-------
Sixty-two percent (3700,000 metric tons/year) of the waste generated by SQGe
are used lead-acid batteries; IS percent (105,000 metric tons/year) are
solvents; and 5 percent (30,000 metric tons/year) are acids and alkalies.
Table 3-7 presents the generation rates of various types of VSQG and other
wastes. *^
Very small quantity generators generate about one-fifth of all SQG
hazardous waste. Small quantity generator waste quantities generated by the
22 primary industries are presented in Table 3-8. Vehicle maintenance and
metal manufacturing are the most numerous and generate the most waste in both
SQG categories.
Management Practices of SQGs
Host SQG waste is managed offsite (85 percent) and ouch of it
(65 percent) is recycled offsite (Table 3-9). Much of the offsite recycling
involves lead acid batteries. Eighteen percent of SQG waste is managed
onsite, with 8 percent going to RCRA-exempt disposal into public sewers. Some
SQG waste is treated onsite and then managed offaite.
Waste management practices by VSQGs differ somewhat from those of other
SQGs. A lower percentage of VSQGs recycle their waste, both onsite and
offsite. Of those VSQGs that manage waste onsite, only 23 percent recycle
waate, compared to 39 percent of the other SQGs. Among those that ship waste
offsite, only 61 percent of the VSQGs send it to recycling facilities, while
78 percent of the SQGs send it to recycling facilities.
The Florida hazardous waste generators and sanitary landfill
presents an extensive database on characteristics of SQGs and municipal
landfills in Florida. Summary statistics include quantities and percentages
of hazardous wastes (virtually all SQG wastes) disposed by various means. 5
Although the SQG Survey presents data in a similar fashion, the numbers cannot
be directly compared due to the fact that disposal categories are set up
differently.
The State Subtitle D Census*-" solicited estimates of the n matters of
Subtitle D landfills that receive SQG wastes. As shown in Table 3-10, the
respondants estimated that 5,075 of the reported 16,416 Subtitle D landfills
receive SQG waste and over half (53 percent) of municipal waste landfills
receive SQG wastes. Much lower percentages of the other types of landfills
are believ-e-a^to receive these wastes, the Census estimated that y.b percent
of land application units and 14.5 percent of surface impoundments receive SQG
wastes.
3.8 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES
Solid wastes from construction and demolition of structures include mixed
lumber, roofing and sheeting scrapa, broken concrete, asphalt, brick, stone,
plaster, wallboard, glass, piping, and other building materials. The exact
nature of construction and demolition wastes depends upon the type of
structures involved, and varies with geographical location, and the age and
size of a community.
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-9. DISTRIBUTION OF OFFSITE AND ONSITE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
FOR SQG WASTES [13]
Approximate
amount of vaate
(MT/year)
Off-Site
Recycling 377,000
Solid waste facility 29,000
Subtitle C facility 23,000
Unknown 64,000
On-Stce
Public sewer 46,000
Recycling 35,000
Treatment 23,000
598,000
Percent of
waste
65
5
4
U,
85
8
b
4
IB
Percent of
generators
52
14
4
13
14
a
b
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to multiple management practices.
Source: Estimates based on Small Quantity Generator Survey data: J78,UOO
s'Sffffl quantity generators provides detailed information for
targeted wastes - 598,000 MT/year of waste.
3-20
-------
TABLE 3-10. ESTIMATED LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES RECEIVING SQG WASTE [16]
u>
I
Landfills
Municipal
Industrial
Demolition debris
Other
Subtotal
Land Application Units
Municipal sewage sludge high rate
Municipal sewage sludge low rate
Total Municipal sewage total3
Industrial waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
Subtotal
Surface Impoundments
Municipal sewage sludge
Municipal runoff
Industrial waste
Agricultural waste
Mining waste
Oil or ga« waste
Other
Subtotal
Reported
number of
fac ilit ies
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
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
5738.1
0
9.6
37.6
41.5
14.7
0.7
7.0
18.5
0.1
14.5
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
°Pplication and low rate application may not equal the total municipal sewage sludge
because some states do not distinguish between high and low rate land application un!cs
-------
The quantities of demolition and construction wastes reported in various
locations across the nation range from 0.12 to 3.52 Ibs per capita per day
(pcd).'1 An urban average of 0.72 pcd was reported from 1970 data.^° A
California study reported 0.27 pcd for communities under 10,000 people,
0.68 pcd for communities between 10,000 and 100,000 people, and 1.37 pcd in
communities of over 100,000 people.^' A study of waste generation in the
Kansas City area estimated quantities of demolition and construction wastes at
about 0.6 pcd.
At an average of 0.72 pcd2, the total quantity of construction and
demolition wastes generated in the United States is estimated at about
31.5 million tona/year. This is about 24 percent as much as the municipal
solid waste disposed of in 1984.
Management options for construction and demolition wastes include
municipal, industrial, and demolition debris landfills and waste piles. The
fraction of construction and demolition wastes received at any of these
facilities is unknown. Since most of these wastes are generally viewed as
requiring less stringent disposal than MSW, special demolition debris
landfills are often used.
3.9 AGRICULTURAL WASTES
Agricultural wastes include animal wastes from feedlots and farms, crop
production wastes, irrigation wastes, and collected field runoff. Not all
agricultural wastes are regulated by RCRA. Irrigation return flows and
agricultural wastes (manures and crop residues) which are returned to the soil
as fertilizers or soil conditioners are exempt from regulations under RCRA.
High concentrations of nitrates, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are
common in agricultural wastes.
The best available information on Subtitle D agricultural waste types and
volumes is that which has been collected on agricultural surface
impoundments. ^°» ^0 The Surface Impoundment Assessment National Report^
counted agricultural Sis and categorized them by the type of agricultural
production facility but did not report the waste input rates. The number of
Sis are listed below to give a measure of the characteristics of agricultural
waste :
..v^gri cultural >
Production Facility ____ Number of Sis
Crop production 190
Cattle feedlot 2,974
Hogs 3,492
Livestock, general 5,333
Dairy farms 4,732
Poultry farms 717
Other fur bearing animals 336
General farraa 1,208
Fish hatcheries 95
3-22
-------
The Subtitle D Census^ reported that 93 percent of agricultural
Sis receive 50,000 or fewer gallons per day. According to the National SI
report, there were 19,167 active agricultural Sis. (Note, the National SI
report specifically inventoried Sis. The Subtitle D Census^ mail survey
reports a somewhat smaller number of agricultural Sis.) Assuming that the
average agricultural. SI receives less than 50,000 gallons per day, one billion
gallons per day is an upper limit to the amount of agricultural waste disposed
into Sis.
3.10 OIL AND GAS WASTES
Oil and gas wastes consist of brines and drilling muds which are
characterized by high concentrations of chloride, total dissolved solids,
barium, sodium , and calcium. These wastes are the subject of an ongoing EPA
study scheduled for completion in the near future. That study is noted in the
discussion of Phase II studies in Section 6.
The information on Subtitle D oil and gas waste volumes is Limited to
that which has been collected on oil and gas surface impoundments.^,20
Subtitle D Census^ reported that 85 percent of oil and gas Sis receive
50,000 or fewer gallons per day. According to the Census, there were 125,074
active oil and gas Sis. (This number is far greater than the 64,951 Sla
reported in the National SI Assessment,)20 Assuming that the average oil
and gas SI receives less than 50,000 gallons per day, 6.25 billion gallons per
day is an upper limit to the amount of oil and gas waste stored in Sis.
3.11 MINING WASTES
Mining wastes included as RCRA solid wastes are the products of
activities such as.crushing, screening, washing, and flotation. High
concentrations of heavy metals, sulfate, sodium, potassium, and cyanide can be
present. A significant portion of mining wastes are not regulated by RCRA,
specifically, any mining overburden that is returned to the mine site. E?A
has recently completed a report to Congress2* on mining wastes (other than
coal mining wastes) and is continuing to gather data to support rulenaking
efforts. Those efforts are noted in the discussion of Phase II studies in
Section 6.
" i
The EPA report to Congress on igining wastes,^ issued in
December 1985, indicated that 1.4 billion short tons of mining wastes (other
than coal mining wastes) are produced each year. Of these, only 1 percent
(12 million tons) are hazardous under current RCRA criteria. The National SI
AB seasraent^O counted mining Sis and categorized them by the material mined
but did not report the rates of waate input. The numbers of Sis are listed
below to give a qualitative measure of the characteristics of mining waste.
Material Mined Number of Sla
Metals 1,754
Anthracite 459
Bituminous coal & lignite 19,891
Non-metals 2,272
Total24,376
3-23
-------
The Subtitle D Census^- categorized mining Sis by waste flow
amounts. Because the Assessment reports only a fourth (6,053) of the number
of Sis that the National SI reports, and because those counted by the Census
may not be representative of mining Sis, a rough estimate of the amount of
mining wastes flowing into Sla was not generated. The report to Congress^!
found that moat mining waste disposal sites are not hazardous due, in part, to
Che tendency toward locating in remote areas with dry climates and deep water
tables.
3-24
-------
REFERENCES
1. 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.
2. Franklin Aasoc., Inc. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States, 1960 to 2000, Draft Report, 1986.
3. SCS Engineers. A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related
Collection Programs. Contract No. 68-01-6621, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1985.
4. Pohland, Frederick G., and Stephen R. Harper. Critical Review and
Summary of Leachate and Gas Production for Landfills. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
5. Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Hand Sorting Fact Sheet,
Solid Waste Management Dept., Whittier, CA 1979.
6. Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Unannounced Search, Summer
1984, Solid Waste Management Dept., Whittier, CA 1984.
7. City of Albuquerque, NM, Environmental Health and Energy Dept.
Residential Hazardous/Toxic Waste Survey, 1983.
8. University of Arizona, Preliminary Results from Household Phase
Research, Dept. of Anthropology. Tucson, AZ, 1985.
9. Steel, E.W., and T.J. McGee. Water Supply and Sewerage. Fifth
edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979.
10. "Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Plan." Metropolitan Planning
Commission, Kansas City Region, May 1971.
11. Steel, E.W., Water Supply and Sewerage. Fourth edition, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1960,
12. Science Applications International Corporation. Summary of Data on
Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices. Contract
No. 68-01-7050, U.S. Environmental Protect ion,Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1985.
3-25
-------
13. Abt Associates, Inc. National Small Quantity Generator Survey. Contract
No. 68-01-6892, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSW, Washington,
D.C., 1985.
14. Rubin, Alan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards. Personal communication, 1 October
15. 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. , 19B6.
16. Westat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Non-Hazardous
Waste Programs. Contract No. 68-01-7047. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, OSW, Washington, D.C., 1986.
17. Wilson, D.G. , Editor, Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Van No strand
ReinholdCo., New York, NY. 1977.
18. Guidelines for Local Governments on Solid Waste Management, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1971; as quoted in Reference 2.
19. California Solid Waste Management Study (1968) and Plan (1970), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency/OSWMP. (SW-2tag); as quoted in
Reference 2.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Surface Impoundment Assessment
National Report. EPA 570/9-84-002, U.S. EPA ODW, Washington U.C. , 1983.
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Report to Congress on Wastes from
the Extraction and Benefication of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Hock,
Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining, and Oil Shale. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency/OSW. Washington, D.C. 1985.
3-26
-------
SECTION 4
FACILITIES CHARACTERIZATION
This section presents Phase I study data on Subtitle D landfills, surface
impoundments, land application units, and waste piles. The presentation ia
oriented toward statistics on Subtitle D facility numbers and
characteristics. The principal source of this information is the Subtitle LI
Census.
According to the Subtitle D Census1-, there are 227,000 Subtitle D
facilities in the United States, 85 percent of which are surface
impoundments. Land application units and landfills make up the remaining
8 percent and 7 percent of the universe respectively. There are alao 120,000
establishments which contain one or more Subtitle D facilities. Table 4-1 and
Figure 4-1 describe thig universe of Subtitle D facilities.
4.1 NEED FOR FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
The major objective of the Subtitle D study is to collect data to assess
the adequacy of current Subtitle D Criteria to protect human health and the
environment from ground water contamination. The adequacy of the current
Criteria can be judged, in part, by evaluating their effectiveness in ensuring
that Subtitle D facilities are designed and operated in a manner that protects
human health and the environment. Aa part of this effort, the facilities
assessment detailed in this section summarizes the Phase I data on the general
profiles, design and operating characteristics, and environmental impacts of
nonhazardous waste disposal facilities in the United States.
This, .section uses the State Subtitle D Census'- as its primary source of
information. Data from other Subtitle D program efforts and other non-program
data are used when Census data are not available. Nonresponse to survey
questions was a significant problem with the Subtitle D Census data. This
factor contributed to underestimates for many of the numbers listed in the
Census. In an effort to verify the data quality obtained, Census respondents
were asked to indicate whether they felt the quality of their data was good,
fair, poor, or very poor. The data quality for Subtitle D facilities was
found to vary markedly by facility type. Municipal landfill data were found
to be the highest quality while industrial surface impoundment data were found
to be the lowest.
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. UNIVERSE OF SUBTITLE D FACIHTIESa[l ]
Facility Type
Number
at units
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
16,416
191,822
Land Application Units ^LAUs) 18,889
Waste Piles
No Data
TOTAL
227,127
Number of
est iabl islu.ieni s
15,719
10B,-163
12,312
No Data
fl!6Z (or approximately 36,000 facilities) are estimates to
receive hazardous wastes from households or small quantity
generators.
This is the correct total. The numbers for each type of
facility do not add to this total since two or more facility
types may exist at an establishment.
LANDFILLS
SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
Universe of Subtitle D facilities,
by percent. [1]
-------
4.2 LANDFILLS
This part presents data on Subtitle D landfills. The topics covered
include general profile, leachate and gas characteristics, landfill design and
operation, and environmental and human health impacts of landfills.
4.2.1 GENERAL PROFILE
For purposes of the Subtitle D Census * data collection, landfills were
defined 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.
The Census subdivided landfills into the following classes:
Municipal waste landfills primarily receive household refuse and
nonhazardous commercial waste. These 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.
Demolition debris landfills receive only construction or demolition
debris.
Other landjjJJ.a^ receive Subtitle D waste and do not fall into any of
the above categories (for example, receive only municipal sewage
sludge).
In general, the data quality for municipal waste landfills 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 onsite industrial waste landfills. Estimates for
demolition debris landfills are believed to fall between the high quality of
the municigjj,! waste landfills data and* the lower quality of the industrial
waste estimates.
Landfi II Numbers, Ownership, Acreage, Waate Vo lumesj and Capacity Status
Census results indicate that in 1984 there were 16,416 active Subtitle D
landfills located at 15,719 establishments across the United States* More
than half of the landfills identified were municipal Landfills. Figure 4-2
portrays the number and relative share of the total for each of the four types
of landfills. The distribution among States and Territories is shown in
Figure 4-3. West Virginia reported the largest number of Subtitle U landfills
(1,209), followed by Pennsylvania (1,204), Texas (1,201), Wisconsin (1,033),
Alabama (800), Alaska (740), and California (720).
4-3
-------
Other
1,030'
(6%)
Municipal Waste
i,284*
(57%)
Demolition Debris
2,591'
(16%)
Industrial Waste
3,511*
(21%)
TOTAL LANDFILUS =16,416
*Ho estimates of industrial vaste landfills were obtained for MA or MTj and
no estimates of demolition debris landfills were obtained for OH.
Figure 4-2. Numbetr of Subtitle D landfills, by type, [i]
4-4
-------
-------
Ownership data were reported for 15,578 (94.9 percent) of the Subtitle D
landfills. Just over half of these landfills are owned by local governments.
Table 4-2 depicts ownership counts and percentages for each type of landfill,
plus totals for all landfills.
Information on landfill acreage was supplied for 13,143 (80.1 percent) of
the total Subtitle D landfills. As shown in Table 4-3, more than half of all
landfills were less than 10 acres, and about 95 percent were 100 acres or less.
Waste quantities were reported for 13,818 (84.2 percent) of the
landfills. Some quantities were reported in terms of volume (cubic yards per
year) and others were reported in terms of weight (tons per day). As
indicated in Table 4-4, about three-quarters of all Subtitle 0 landfills were
reported to receive less than 30,000 cubic yards of waste (or less than
30 tons/day) during 1984.
Information related to capacity status is available only for municipal
waste landfills. The Census* reported many States have municipal landfills
that were either reaching capacity, at capacity, or beyond capacity at the
present time. 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. 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. Specific capacity data (i.e., volumes) are not
available. Appendix C contains specific State and Territory responses to the
census question on capacity status.
The following approximate numbers of new landfill and landfill expansion
approvals by the States were reported from another study^: 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
have remained relatively constant over this period, but approvals for new
landfills have dropped almost 25 percent over the same 3-year time period.
Waste Characteristics
The major types of wastes that can be found in Subtitle D landfills are
municipal ar^d...industrial. Other types include agricultural, municipal sludge,
demolition debris, incinerator ash, household hazardous wastes, and small
quantity generator hazardous wastes. Moat of these wastes are solid, although
municipal and industrial sludges are not uncommon. Section 3 presents
available data on the physical and chemical characteristics of wastes in each
of these categories.
Table 4-4 presents data on the amount of waste disposed in the different
types of landfills and indicates that most landfills (72.3 percent) receive
less than 30 ton/day (30,000 cy/yr) of waste. Table 4-5 presents data from a
Phase I report on industrial nonhazardous wastes. The table presents
estimates of industrial nonhazardous waste disposal in onsite landfills for
selected industries. Limitations of the industrial nonhazardous waste
disposal study are discussed in Sections 2 and 3.
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-2. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS BY OWNERSHIP CATEGORY [l]
Landfill
Type
Municipal
waste
Industrial
waste
Demolition
debria only
Other
Total
Response
Rate
96%
97%
91%
93%
95%
Owned
by State
govern-
ment
126
(1.4%)
17
(0.5%)
33
(1.4%)
89
(9.3%)
265
(1.7%)
Owned
by local
govern-
ment
6,908
(77.9%)
74
(2.2%)
1,190
(50.5%)
203
(21.3%)
8,375
(53.8%)
Owned by
Federal
govern-
ment
348
(3.9%)
126
(3.7%)
82
(3.5%)
60
(6.3%)
616
(4.0%)
Pri-
vately
owned
1,482
(16.7%)
3,177
(93.6%)
1,050
(44.6%)
603
(63.1%)
6,312
(40.5%)
Other
8
(0.1%)
2
(0.1%)
0
0
10
(0.1%)
Total
8,872
(100.0%)
3,396
(100.1%)
2,355
(100.0%)
955
(100.0%)
15,578
(100.1%)
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-3. SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS BY ACREAGE CATEGORY [1]
Landfill
Cype
Response
Rate
Less than
10
acres
10 - 100
acres
More than
100 acres
Total
Municipal 75% 2,944 3,572 449
waste (42.3%) (51.3%) (6.4%)
Industrial 83% 2,182 834 72
waste (70.7%) (27.0%) (2.3%)
Demolition 84% 1,327 797 64
debris only (60.6%) (36.4%) (2.9%)
Other 88% 831 70 1
(92.1%) (7.8%) (1.1%)
6,965
(100.0%)
3,088
(100.0%)
2,188
(99.9%)
902
(100.0%)
Total
80%
7,284
(55.4%)
5,273
(40.1%)
586
(4.5%)
13,143
(100.0%)
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-4. SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS BY AMOUNT OF WASTE [1]
Received
Received 30,000 -
leas than 600,000
30,000 cubic
cubic yards yards in
Landfill
type
Municipal
waste
Industrial
waste
Demolit ion
debris only
Other
Total
Response
Rate
852
82%
83%
83%
84%
in 1984
(30 tons
per day)
5,309
(67.01:)
2,289
(79.4%)
1,608
(74.7%)
790
(92.72)
9,996
(72.3%)
1984 (30-
500 tons
per day)
2,211
(27.9%)
523
(18.1%)
468
(21.7%)
51
(6.0%)
3,253
(23.53O
Received
more than
600,000
cubic yards
in 1984
(500 tons
per day)
408
(5.1*)
72
(2.5%)
78
(3.6%)
11
(1.3%)
569
(4.1%)
Total
7,928
(100. Ui)
2,834
(IUO.UX)
2,154
(100. OX)
852
(100. OX)
13,816
(99.9%)
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-5. INDUSTRIAL DISPOSAL OF NONHAZARDOUS WASTES AT ONSITE LANDFILLS [3]
(Quantities of Nonhazardous Wastes Managed in Dry Tons Per Year)3
Industry*5 Onsite landfill
Fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals 207,050
(SIC 2873-2879)
Industrial organic chemicals (SIC 2819) 1,838,970
Leather and leather-products (SIC 31) 1,323
Pulp and paper industry (SIC 26) 6,573,436
Plastics and resins manufacturing (SIC 2821) 417,296
Primary iron and steel manufacturing and 16,055,708
ferrous foundries (SIC 3312-3321)
Primary nonferroua metals manufacturing and 257,875
nonferrous foundries (SIC 3330-3399)
Total 25,351,658
NA = Data not available.
aFrom Table 3-6.
"Include only industries for which ttjere are estimated quantities of wastes
being "managed in onsite landfills.
4-10
-------
4.2.2 LANDFILL LEACHATE AND GAS CHARACTERISTICS
This subsection addresses the byproducts of Landfills, namely leachate
and gas. The data presented are for municipal landfills only; information for
other landfill types was unavailable.
Leachate--
Leachate composition ia a function of numerous factors including those
inherent in the refuse mass and landfill Location, and those created by
engineex-s and site operators.
Table 4-6 illustrates concentration ranges of municipal leachate chemical
composition. From this table (and the references indicated), the following
observations can be made: leachate ia highly variable with respect to
constituent concentration; leachate is generally high in total organic carbon
and total solids (from the high TOG results); and leachate tends to be
acidic. Table 4-7 shows the preliminary types and concentration ranges of
organic constituents. In general, this table highlights the wide variability
both in the constituents identified and their concentration ranges. No
information was available on leachate generation and migration volumes from
any other landfill type.
Gas--
Municipal landfill gas production occurs through bacterial decomposition
of. organic matter. This process proceeds through stages controlled by local
site conditions which affect the bacterial population such as: pH,
temperature, moisture, and oxygen content (both gaseous and chemically
available). Within A landfill, methane is produced after the gas in the voids
changes from aerobic to anaerobic and the chemically available oxygen in Che
refuse is consumed. The type of organisms, rate of reaction, and completeness
of the reaction are controlled by the availability of oxygen and the process
temperature range.
Municipal landfill gas usually consists 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.^ Table 4-8 presents data which support
this statement. Trace gasee are described in Table 4-9. Only one compound
(vinyl chloride) has a median concentration which exceeds OSHA limits. Other
compounds ,MkQ3e concentration range ha* exceeded these levels in some samples
are benzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, vinyl chloride, and xylene. No
information was found for other landfill types.
Total gas production ratios have ranged from 0.003 to 0.43 or/kg of
refuse.1^ Other studies?*^ report values from 0.022 to 2.5 m^/kg of
refuse, and 0.005 to 0. 10 mVkg of refuse, respectively. No information was
available on the gaa volumes released.
4.2.3 LANDFILL DESIGN AND OPERATION
The following discussion of design and operating characteristics of
Subtitle D landfills presents statistics under the topics of landfill
landfill operation and maintenance, and environmental monitoring.
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-6. RANGE OF CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE
FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILLS (From Ref 6 unless noted)
(in fflg/L unless noted)
Constituent
COD
BOD
Total Organic
Carbon (TOO
Total solids (TS)
TDS
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS)
Volatile Suspended
Solids (VSS)
Total Volatile
Solids (TVS)
Fixed Solids (FS)
Alkalinity0
(as CaC03)
Total colifannb
(CFU/lOO ml)
F|'c
Zn*
Sulfatea
Sib
Total volatile
acide (TVA)b
Mub
" "'-*** h
Fecal colifons0
(CFU/1,000 ml)
Specific conduct-
ance0 (mhR/cm)
AsuDoaluB nitrogen^
(NH4-N)
°Re£erence 14.
''Reference 7,
^Reference 10.
Concentration
range
50-90,000.
5-75,000
50-45,000
1-75,000
725-55,000
10-45,000
20-750
90-50,000
800-50,000
0,1-20,350
0-105
200-5,500
0,6-220
25-500
0.2-79
70-27,700
0.6-41
0-10 5
960-16,300
0-1,106
Concentration
Constituent range
Hardn«gs 0.1-36,000
(as CaC03)
Total t 0.1-150
Organic P 0.4-100
Nitrate nitrogen 0.1-45
Phosphate (Inorganic) 0.4-150
Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) 0.1-2,000
Organic N 0.1-1,000
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen 7-1,970
(TKN)b
Acidity 2,700-6,000
Turbidity (Jackson unite.) 30-450
Clb . 30-5,000
pH (dlmenslonleaa) 3.5-B.5
Na° 20-7,600
Cua 0.1-9
Pbb G, 001-1. 44
M«b'c 3-15,600
K*^ 35-2,300
Cdb'c 0-0.375
Hgc 0-0.15
Sec 0-2.7
Crb 0.02-18
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-7. PRELIMINARY DATA ON CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
IN LEACHATE FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILLS (units in ppb)a
CONSTITUENT
Acetone,
Benzene
Bromomethane
1-Butanol
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chioroethane
bis (2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Chloroform
Chioromethane
Delta BHC
Dibromonethane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
D i chl or odif luorome thane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
i ,2-Dichloroethane
cis 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans 1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Di chloromethane
1 , I-Dichloropropane
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Endrin
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl Benzene
his (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Isophorene ,
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Propanol
1 ,1,2,2-Tetrachlotoethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Toxaajtena
1,1, l-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoronethane
Vinyl chloride
m-Xylene
p-Xylene -t- o-Xylene
MINIMUM
140
2
10
50
2
2
5
2
2
10
0
5
2
10
2
0
4
4
2
2
2
k
4
0
5
5
6
10
110
10
k
2
17
3
10
94
7
2
5
2
0
0
2
1
4
0
21
12
MAXIMUM
11,000
410
170
360
398
237
170
14
1,300
170
5
25
20
369
6,300
11,000
190
1,300
3,300
100
45
55
12
' 1
50
580
no
85
28,000
660
19
40
40
25
28,800
10,000
210
100
260
1,600
5
2.400
500
43
100
100
79
50
MIDIAN
7,500
17
55
220
10
10
7.5
10
10
55
0
10
7.7
95
65.5
7.5
97
10
230
10
31.5
15
10
0.1
42
38
22
10
8,300
270
8
15
25
3
257
6,900
20
40
18
166
1
10
10
3.5
12.5
10
26
18
aThe table was provided by U.S. EPA, Office of Waste, Economic Analysis,
Branch. It includes data from 15 municipal landfill case studies performed
by Q5Ul2; data from landfill leachace sampling studies performed by
Wisconsin and Minnesota; and data from NPDES discharge permits tor leachates
from landfills in New Jersey. These studies provided reliable data, albeit
on a relatively small number of facilities.
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-8. TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF GAS FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILLS [8]
Methane
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Paraffin hydrocarbons
Aromatic and cyclic
hydrocarbons
Hydrogen
Hydrogen sulfide
Carbon monoxide
Trace compounds3
Component percentage
Study 1 Study 2
44.0 47.5
34.2 47.0
20.8 3.7
1.0 0.8
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4-0.9 0.01
0.1-
0.5
(dry volume
Study 3
50.0
35.0
13.0
1.7
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
basis)
Study 4
53.4
34.3
6.2
0.05
0.17
-
0.005
0.005
0.005
-
alncludes sulfur dioxide, benzene, toluene, methylene chloride, perchlot"
ethylene, and carbonyl sulfide in conjcentrationa <_50 ppm.
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-9. TYPICAL TRACE CONSTITUENTS IN LANDFILL GAS
NUMBER
COMPOUND OF SITES
SAMPLED
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Heptane
Hexane
Isopentane
Methyl cyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
Methylene Chloride
Nonana
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 . 1, 1-Trichioroethane
Tcichloroethylene
Vinyl Chlorid*
Xylene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
13
11
4
8
5
6
6
10
6
13
16
11
12
10
5
4
7
NUMBER RANGE OF
OF SAMPLES CONCENTRATION
(Vppm)
21
14
6
9
7
7
7
17
B
19
26
18
19
16
6
9
9
0
0 -
0 -
0 -
0.05
0,017 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
o -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
KMMMMi
1.7 -
0 -
12
mmmmf^f
91
11
31
4.5
19
12
118
24
ll§
357
2.4
44
10
111
MMHMMk
76
19
MEDIAN
CONCENTRATION
(Vppn)
0.3
1.5
0.45
0.8
2.0
3.6
2.8
0.83
0.54
0.03
6.8
a
0.03
0.12
2.2
O.I
4.1
1.8
STANDARD PEL
DEVIATION (Vppm)
(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
10
100
500
500
...
500
...
500
400
100
100
350
100
1
100
100
100
Notes: PEL Permissible Exposure L«v«l prescribed by OSUA for workplace exposure
OSKMua proposed revising the PEL for benzene to 1 Vppn
-No PEL set
= Exceeds OSHA limit (PEL)
4-15
-------
Landfill Design
This subsection outlines Che 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,
runon/runoff controls, methane gas controls/recovery systems, cover and
closure characteristics and location factors.
Liners
The purpose of a liner is to prevent migration of pollutants from the
landfill into the ground water. Liner types include soil and synthetic. Soil
liners are typically compacted clays. Synthetic liners include a variety of
low permeability materials.
Table 4-10 presents Subtitle D Census data on landfill liner status.
This table shows that few of the active landfills in any category employ
liners. About 1 percent of all landfills use synthetic liners and about
11 percent use natural liners. Municipal landfills tend to be the predominant
landfill type to employ both types of liners.
Soil linersIn-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 clayey 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 (montraorillonite, kaolinite, illite,
bentonite) are used, as well as artificial soil amendments. With proper
quality control and construction techniques, clay linera can achieve
permeabilities of approximately 10"? cm/sec.^
Synthetic linersThese 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.^ Using
the best present construction and placement technologies, permeabilities on
the order of 1Q~"^ cm/sec can be achieved. Certain landfill waste and
leachate can damage membrane Liners. Damaging characteristics include high or
low pH, oi'"i»pwaste, exchangeable ions, and organic compounds.
Leachate Controls/Recovery Systems
These systems refer to the control and collection, composition control,
and treatment of leachate.
Control and collectionControl and collection techniques have been well
established and include drains, wells, liners, slurry trenches, cut-off walla,
grading (runon), and surface sealing. No data were available on numbers of
techniques being used. Table 4-10 indicates that about 4 percent of all
landfills have leachate collection systems of some type. Municipal landfills
employ these systems more frequently than other landfills.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-10. NUMBERS OF SUBTITLE 0 LANDFILLS USLNG VARIOUS
TYPES OF RELEASE PREVENTION METHODS (l]
Management
method
Synthetic liners
Natural liners
(e.g., clay),
including slurry
walls
Leachate collection
systems
Runon/runof f
controls
Methane controls
(vents, recovery)
Leachate treatment
(except leachate
recirculation)
Leachate
recirculation
Restrictions on
receipt of. l.^fl^id
wastes (e.g. , bulk
liquid reatrictions)
Municipal
waste
71
(0.8%)
1,353
(14.6%)
481
(5.2%)
4,240
(45.7%)
1,539
(16. 6Z)
245
(2.6%)
205
,(2.2%)
4,436
(47.8%>
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
(34.5%)
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
(0.2Z)
0
128
(12.4%)
Total
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
(40.1%)
Total Landfills
9,284
3,511
2,591
1,030 16,416
4-1?
-------
Composition controlThis control can be accomplished through design and
operating features, and addition of selected sorbents inCo Che fill. Landfill
design and operating features which are significant to leachate composition
are chemical and physical characteristics of waste input, 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.6
Treatment processesLeachate treatment can be performed by existing
wastewater plants, or by processes specifically designed for landfill
leachate. Available technologies include aerobic/anaerobic biological
processes, and physical/chemical processes. Table 4-10 indicates that
317 landfills (2 percent) utilize leachate treatment. Municipal landfills are
the major users of these processes. No data were found on leachate treatment
for any other landfill types, or on the treatment technologies used
nationwide. Leachate recirculation was reported to be used at 205 municipal
waste landfills (2.2 percent).
Runon/Runoff Controls
Runon/runoff controls are important to landfill pollution control since
runon contributes to leachate generation and runoff could cause harmful
compounds to be swept out of the landfills. From Table 4-10, about 37 percent
of all landfills employ these controls, and municipal landfills comprise the
largest user category.
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 kinda of
collection systems have been designed, depending on whether the purpose of
collection is migration control and/or recovery. This section presents an
overview of the methods of gas collection, processing, and enhancement.
Table 4-10 presents data on landfills using methane controls. About
11 percent of all landfills employ these controls, and most of these
facilities are municipal landfills. This reflects the fact that municipal
landfills ^Pifferally produce significant quantities of methane (see discussion
of leachate and gas characteristics), while other landfills generally do not.
The remaining discussion on landfill gas mainly applies to municipal waste
landfills.
Co 1lect ionA 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 landfills exterior to venc the gas.
Current trends are to tie together the migration and recovery systems to
increase gas collection.
4-18
-------
The layout of the wells depends on many factors, including results of a
field testing program, end use of the landfill surfece, 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 may 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 fltu 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 nrVkg dry refuse/year.7
EnhancementLandfi11 gas production enhancement 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 gaa yield with
these techniques remain to be determined by large-scale field tests.^
Cover and Closure Characteristics--
The final cover is installed when a landfill has reached the end of its
useful life and is a key element in site closure. The purpose of the final
cover is to seal the fill material for environmental protection, and so the
land can provide some benefit (fanning, recreation, development, etc.).
Control of water infiltration, which contributes to leachate generation, is
the major focus of landfill cover design. No data were available on the
numbers of landfill cover systems being used.
Cover systems are generally composite systems with several Layers of soil
and synthetic membranes. The major elements of cover design and analysis
include determination of allowable percolation, water balance analysis, aoil
and membrane selection, compaction and placement, surface alope, and
drainage. The usual intention of a landfill cover is to impede the flow of
water, but covers can be designed to permit water flow for gas enhancement and
chemical stabilization.
Location Factors
Topography, hydro geology, ecology, and demography of a of a landfill aite
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 Census^
provided geographical data on municipal waste landfills, and the EPA ia in the
process of evaluating these data. No data were available for industrial or
demolition debris landfills concerning location characteristics of different
facilities or numbers of landfills employing location factors in their
designs. A discussion of State and Territorial location requirements is
presented in Section 5.
4-19
-------
Landfill Operation and Maintenance
The operation and maintenance of a Landfill, can be viewed as an ongoing
conscruet ion 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, emergency
preparedness and contingency plans. Most of this discussion pertains to
municipal waste landfills; little information is available on any other
landfill type.
Eraployees--
The variety of positions at municipal landfills depends on Che size of
the operation. For small sites ( 50 to 70 Cons per day), a single full-time
operator may be able to satisfactorily operate equipment, record waate
quantities, and perform administrative and maintenance functions. Larger
municipal 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.-' However, requirements are site-specific and the number of
employees may be affected by: size of landfill (waste received); 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: waste
handling; excavating soil and handling cover soil; and 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 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. Excepting large landfills, the same piece of equipment normally
performs alLJ^unctions. Additional equipment may b« on hand for busy times
and when other equipment is out of service.5 No data were available on the
number and types of equipment used per landfill.
Daily Operations--
Daily municipal landfill operations include fill operations, fill-related
tasks, and other general procedures. The two basic fill methods are trench
and area. Trench operations employ a prepared excavation which confines the
working face between two side walla. 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 bailing, but are essentially variations to trench and area.
4-20
-------
Procedures dependent on the landfilling method include: aite
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, birds,
litter, fires); inclement weather practices; hours of operation; and ongoing
engineering (site preparation, road maintenance, as-built drawings). No dat*
were available on any of these daily operating characteristics of landfills.
Waste Restrictions
Waste restrictions vary widely with the design and operation criteria of
the individual landfill. Table 4-10 indicates that about 41 percent of all
landfills employ some type of restrictions on input wastes. Municipal
landfills have these restrictions more often than any other landfill types.
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 municipal landfills include fires, inclement
weather, and equipment and personnel shortages.
There are many potential sources of fires at landfills including:
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
vet 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 onsite.
Out of service equipment is common at landfills due to high usage.
Contingency plans may include well documented procedures for repairs, either
with onsite mechanics or by outside means, having redundant equipment at the
fill, or borrowing or leasing from allied agencies (i.e., public works,
contractors, etc.).
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 outL^gpd in advance and initiated quickly when 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 fqr any given landfill may measure
ground and surface water, and air and methane. Monitoring of thesa media and
specific test parameters is discussed below.
4-21
-------
Table 4-11 presents data on Che number of active landfills with
monitoring systems. Ground water is the moat frequently monitored medium, and
air is the least. No data are available beyond numbers of facilities
monitoring different media.
Ground Water Systems/Parameters
Census data^ reported in Table 4-11 show 3,314 landfills (19 percent)
monitor ground water. Municipal landfills are the major facilities which
perform this monitoring. Ground water monitoring will be discussed with
respect to devices and locations.
Devices Monitoring equipment may be classified as: wells with the
capacity to sample at a single depth (single screened wells), multi-sampling
wells for sampling at different depths (raulti-probe wells or well clusters),
and piezometers which are designed to obtain samples utilizing 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 which dictate the actual
number of installed wells. The spacing and depths of monitoring veils depend
on the particular pattern of ground water flow, making it extremely difficult
to specify aggregate statistics for this area. During Phase II of the
Subtitle D study, EPA will be examining landfill case studies to evaluate the
adequacy of ground water monitoring systems now in place at Subtitle D
facilities.
Surface Water Systems/Parameters
Surface water monitoring is often implemented as a component of a total
monitoring network. The proximity of a solid waste landfill to surface water
and local drainage patterns may determine whether surface water monitoring is
necessary. Indicator parameters and analytical methods used for surface water
samples are usually consistent with those for ground water testing.
Data concerning the extent of surface water monitoring for landfills are
presented in Table 4-11. Fewer than 9 percent of all landfills have surface
water monitoring systems. Municipal and industrial landfills have the highest
percentage of surface water monitoring system use (12 and 7 percent,
Air and Gas Systems /Parameters
The characteristics of gases produced at landfills were discussed earlier
in the Landfill Leachate and Gaa Characteristics subsection. The current
Federal Criteria (see Appendix A) state that any explosive gas shall not
exceed 25 percent of the lower explosive Limit (LEL) in facility structures,
or exceed the LEL at the solid waste disposal property boundary. Gaa
monitoring is not specifically required by the Criteria.
Gas sampling devices usually consist of simple, inexpensive gaa probes.
The probe is usually polyethylene, copper, or stainless steel tubing. Due to
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-11. NUMBERS OF ACTIVE LANDFILLS WITH MONITORING SYSTEMS [1]
Landfill Ground Water
type monitoring
Municipal waste
Industrial waste
Demolition debris only
Other
Total
2,331
(25.1%)
- 626
(17. 8%)
135
(5.2%)
42
(4.1%)
3,134
(19.1%)
Surface
water
monitoring
1,100
(11.8%)
230
(6.6%)
69
(2.7%)
16
(1.6%)
1 ,415
(8.6%)
Air
emissions
monitoring
358
(3.7%)
80
(2.3%)
7
(0.3%)
0
(1.6%)
445
(2.7%)
Methane
monitoring
427
(4.6%)
63
(1.8%)
a
(0.3%)
0
498
(3.0%)
4-23
-------
the small diameter of probea, a series of these devices can be situated at
various depths within a single hole. The sample collection technique depends
upon che 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 rate of movement of gas
in a 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 4-11. Few landfills have
air or methane monitoring aysterna (about 3 percent for both).
4.2.4 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
AT LANDFILLS
This subsection presents Phase I data relating to environmental and human
health impacts of Subtitle D landfills. Phase I efforts to meet these
objectives include aggregate data collected in the Subtitle D Census and
detailed case studies available from various sources. The aggregate Census
data can 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. EPA is also conducting a risk analysis on
municipal waste landfills to support both the Subtitle D study effort and the
development of Subtitle D Criteria revisions. The results of this analysis
will be included in the report to Congress on the Subtitle D study.
Table 4-12 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 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.
Ground Water
Census Data--
The Census data in Table 4-12 indicate 720 ground water contamination
violations at Subtitle D landfills, 586 of which were at municipal waste
landfills. The, number of reported contamination violations is an imperfect
measure of environmental impacts because: a) "violations" may be defined
differently among States and Territories, b) many violations may go unreported
due to inspection or monitoring inadequacies; and c) multiple violations can
occur at a facility. Fewer violations were reported for other facility types,
both in terms of numbers of violations and percentages of these other,
possibly related, statistics.
Case Studies--
During Phase I, EPA performed preliminary case study evaluations of
127 municipal waste landfills located within various hydrogeologic and
environmental settings in eight States.^2 These case studies are currently
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-12. AGGREGATE DATA RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION
AT LANDFILLS [l]
Number of Subtitle D Landfills, by type
Municipal Industrial Demolition
waste waste waste Other Total
Total active facilities 9,284 3,511 2,591 1,030 16,416
Violations detected by
State inspection programs
- Ground water 586 111 16 . 7 720
t
contamination
- Surface water 660 50 42 6 758
contamination
- Air contamination 845 18 33 54 950
- Methane control 180 8 01 Ib9
deficiencies
State inspection at 6,708 2,653 1,548 631 11,540
least once each year3
Facilities with
monitoring
- Ground water
Surface water
- Air
- Methane
2,331
1,100
358
427
626
230
80
63
135
69
7
8
42
16
0
0
3,134
1,415
445
498
aThese data include numbers cited by States or Territories for frequencies
ranging from once a year to more than four times a year. It excludes less
frequent inspections and entries under the questionnaire category of "other"
4-25
-------
being compiled in the Phase II data collection efforts. Beyond theae, many of
che sites listed on the NFL/Subtitle D data base have detailed case study
information.
The preliminary evaluation of 127 municipal waste landfill case studies
provided evidence of ground water contamination or an adverse trend in ground
water quality at 33 facilities. These impact cases ranged from relatively
minor to major environmental impacts. As an example, one landfill located in
the northeastern U.S. showed an upward trend of some key indicators of
municipal waste landfill leachate (i.e., total dissolved solids, chloride,
specific conductance and ammonia) in ground water samples from dovngradient
monitoring wells. Much more severe impacts were identified at a facility in
the southern U.S., where a well defined leachate plume is traveling nearly
300 feet per year toward two active public well fields. Regardless of the
degree of ground water impact, certain factors were common to these cases.
Most were located within 8 feet of ground water, underlain by relatively high
permeability soils, or engineered without an effectively impermeable liner.
In addition to these generic factors, the degree of ground water impact
appeared to be more severe in areas characterized by higher net infiltration
rates and ground water flow rates.
The preliminary analysis of case study information identified several
factors which in various combinations determine failure at a particular
facility. However, it is difficult to separate out the specific factors
responsible for such failure. These factors include:
Age of landfill;
Location (e.g., climate, depth to ground water, soil permeability,
and leachate migration potential); and
Engineering design (e.g., liner use, runoff control) and
design/operation practices.
The case studies indicated that the facilities impacting the environment
were generally more than 10 years older than facilities reporting no impacts.
The location factors which most contribute to ground water pollution are high
prgf-ipitatiflft and infiltration. Of the>facilities located in relatively poor
hydrogeological settings, success in preventing ground water contamination
appeared to be directly related to the sophistication of the liner and
leachate collection system design.
NPL/Subtitle D Data
The Phase I report on NPL/Subtitle D landfills^- identified some
pertinent characteristics for the Subtitle 0 landfills on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Of the approximately 19,000 sites inventoried by tPA
as hazardous waste substance sites and listed on the CERCLA data base
(CEKCLIS), approximately 2,000 have been 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 sites were identified as subtitle D landfills
that have recieved municipal wastes. Finally, of the 850 sites listed or
4-26
-------
proposed for listing on the NPL, 184 aitea were identified as NFL/Subtitle D
landfills that had received municipal wastes. Thia relationship ia
illustrated in Figure 4-4.
The most common chemicals found at theae landfills are halogenated
organics, aroma tic a, and metals. No specific constituents were sited as being
moat 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 Hazardous Ranking System which considers toxicity of
substances, observed or potential releases to the surrounding media, potential
routes of exposure, as well as the population exposed. Releases of hazardous
material to ground water is documented in nearly 75 percent of those sites
listed. Figure 4-5 presents these data. Industrial waste was listed as the
primary cause of ground water contamination in 130 sites.
Surface Water
Census Data
The Census indicates that 660 surface water contamination violations were
reported at municipal landfills, compared to 50 at industrial landfills, 42 at
demolition debris landfills and 6 at other landfills (see Table 4-12). For
reasons cited previously, the number of reported violations ia an imperfect
measure of environmental impacts.
Case Studies
At 16 facilities where case study reports were developed,^ there was
documentation or evidence of surface water degradation as a result of leachate
seeps and runoff control deficiencies. While the extent of surface water
degradation was limited in most cases, some impacts had either an
unmeasureable effect on local wetland environments or subsequently caused
ground water degradation. As in the cases of ground water impacts, these case
studies were characterized by locations with high net infiltration rates,
limited runoff control features, and highly permeable native soils.
NPL/Subtitle D Data
Of the 184 Subtitle D landfills either listed in Che NPL or being
considered for listing, surface water was found to be affected at 43 percent
of these sites (see Figure 4-5). Liquid waste was present at approximately 70
of the faculties showing surface water^ contamination; solid waste was present
at approximately 65 facilities. Industrial waste was present at approximately
75 of those aitea showing surface water contamination; while sludge was
present at approximately 45 sites. Pesticides were only found to be present
at approximately 10 of those sites affected.
Air
Census Data
As shown in Table 4-12, the Subtitle D Census provides information on
Statewide requirements for air monitoring at landfills, percentages of
facilities which have air monitoring, and information on air quality
violations which have been reported to occur in 1984. These data indicate
that 815 air contamination violations were reported at municipal landfills,
compared to 16 at industrial landfills, 33 at demolition debris landfills and
4-27
-------
N>
00
APPROXIMATELY 19,000
SITES ON CERCLIS
INVENTORY
2,000 IDENTIFIED
AS SUBTITLE D
LANDFILLS
325 RANKED
SUBTITLE D
LANDFILLS
184 SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS
PROPOSED OR LISTED ON NPL
Figure 4-4. Subset of Subtitle D landfills within CERCLIS data base. [11]
-------
SURFACE WATER ONLY (8.7%)
NO RELEASE (15.2%)
GW + SW + AIR (8.7%)
SW + AIR (2.7%)
GW + AIR (2.7%)
GW + SW (23.4%)
GROUND WATER ONLY (37.0%)
AIR ONLY (1.6%)
OF THE 850 SITES LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ON THE NPL,
184 SITES ARE SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS
Figure 4-5. Observed releases at Subtitle D landfills on the HPL. [11]
-------
54 at other landfills. These groups reported 180, 8, 0, and L incidences of
methane control deficiency violations, respectively. For reasons cited
previously, the number of reported violations is an imperfect measure of
environmental impacts.
Case Studies
Air and methane impacts were documented at four of the case study^
facilities. The impacts include odor problems, landfill fires, vegetation
destruction, and explosions caused by methane accumulation. In all cases, gaa
venting systems were absent, and in the cases of air emission impacts, the use
of daily and final cover was inadequate.
Significant air impacts have been found to occur during methane gas
recovery operations at municipal landfills. 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 0 landfills. A recent study by the
Gas Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy,^ 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.
Public health hazards associated with contaminants existing in methane
gas have not been well quantified. The greatest threat would be to the onsite
workers themselves, but if the gaa is processed and distributed to consumers,
the possibility then exists of exposing consumers to contamination.
NFL/Subtitle D Data
The NPL/Subtitle D landfill study showed that only 16 percent of the
184 NFL/Subtitle D landfills had significant emissions problems (aee
Figure 4-5). Most of these sites vere used primarily for industrial waste
d isposal.
Summary
The prelimanry Phase I analysis of environmental and human impacts of
landfills indicates that improperly located and/or designed landfills may be
causing significant impacts. Additional^ analysis during Phase II of the study
is neceasazly"*fo determine the overall impact of these facilities on human
health and the environment.
4.3 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
This part presents data on Subtitle D surface impoundments. The topics
covered include general profile, surface impoundment design and operation, and
environmental and human health impacts at surface impoundments.
4.3.1 GENERAL PROFILE
The, Subtitle D Census*- provided general information on surface
impoundments including numbers, ownership, acreage, and waste volumes.
Information on waste characteristics was available through other sources. The
general definition of surface impoundment used in the Subtitle D Census^ is:
4-30
-------
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 ia
designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes
containing free liquids. Treatment, storage, and disposal surface
impoundments are included. Surface impoundments 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:
* Muni c ipa 1 a ewage a lud ge surface impoundments receive sewage sludge
from publicly owned or privately owned domestic sewage treatment
establishments, including septic tanks.
Municipal runoff surface impoundments are used for the collection of
runoff or leachate from municipal waste landfills or municipal waste
LAD s.
waste surface impoundments primarily receive wastes from
factories, processing plants (including food processing), and other
manufacturing or commercial activities. Alao included in this
category are surface impoundments used for the collection of runoff
or leachate from industrial or demolition landfills and industrial
land application units.
Agricultural waste surface impoundments only receive waste from
agricultural operations, including farming, crop production, and
animal husbandry (including feedlots). Specifically excluded from
this category are surface impoundments that are used for wastes from
slaughterhouses and other animal and food processing operations,
which are included in the industrial surface impoundment category.
Mining waste surface impoundments are associated with mineral
extraction and beneficiation activities such as crushing, screening,
wasting, floatation. These minerals include metallic and
non-metallic ores, coal, sand and gravel, but exclude oil and gas
processing wastes from manufacturing establishments which are
- **&luded in the industrial surface impoundment 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 surface impoundment used for petroleum refinery wastes
which are included in the industrial surface impoundment category.
Other surface impoundments receive Subtitle D wastes, but do not
fall into any of the above categories.
The estimated total number of Subtitle D surface impoundments is believed
to underestimate the actual number of surface impoundments nationwide, owing
to data gaps. Nine States and Territories were unable to provide any
4-31
-------
estimates of numbers of surface impoundments. 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 ot
the categories.
SurfaceImpoundment Numbers, Ownership, Acreage, and Waste Volumes
The Subtitle D Census indicates that there were 191,822 active surface
impoundments in 1984 located at 108,383 establishments. There were more than
five times as many oil or gas waste impoundments (125,074) ag the next largest
category, mining waste impoundments (19,813). Figure 4-6 depicts the numbers
and relative shares of the seven different types of surface impoundments.
These impoundments are distributed throughout the country, as shown on the map
presented in Figure 4-7. Pennsylvania (32,653) reported the largest number of
surface impoundments, followed by Arkansas (25,705), Louisiana (20,010),
West Virginia (18,705), and New Mexico (17,044).
Ownership data were reported for 149,711 (78.2 percent) of the Subtitle D
surface impoundments. More than 98 percent were privately owned, as shown in
Table 4-13, although local governments owned most of the municipal sewage
sludge and municipal runoff surface impoundments.
Acreage was reported for 123,412 (64.5 percent) of the surface
impoundments. As Table 4-14 shows, the majority of these impoundments were
less than one acre, although about a third of mining impoundments were 6 acres
or more.
Census respondents supplied waste quantity data for 124,038 (64.8 percent)
of the surface impoundments. As shown in Table 4-15, more than four-fifths ot
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.
Waste Characteristics
Wastes disposed in Subtitle D surface impoundments are generally in
Liquid, sludge or slurry form. The available information on physical and
chemical characteristics of these wastes ^s presented in Section 3 of this
report undeir'tftife headings of: municipal sludge, agricultural waste, mining
waste, industrial waste, and oil and gas waste.
The Census results* indicate that most surface impoundments receive
50,000 gpd or less of waste (Table 4-15). The Phase I report on industrial
nonhazardous wastes^ provides a further break down of numbers of facilities
for specific industries (Table 4-16). Limitations to the waste quantities in
the industrial nonhazardous waste disposal study are discussed in Sections 2
and 3.
4.3.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT DESIGN AND OPERATION
The following discussion of design and operating characteristics of
Subtitle D surface impoundments summarizes the pertinent Phase I data
collection efforts. The information is organized under the topics of design,
operation and maintenance, and environmental monitoring characteristics.
4-32
-------
Oil/Gas
Waste
125,074*
(65%)
Municipal Runofl
488*
(0.2%)
Municipal
Sewage Sludge
1'938* Other
Miscellaneous
11,11 8 '
(6%)
Industrial
Waste
16,232'
(8%)
Agricultural
Waste
17,159'
(9%)
Mining
Waste
19,813*
(10%)
TOTAL SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
191,822
*No estimate of surface impoundments was obtained form CA, KY, MO, MN, UT,
VT, WY^.jyk 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 RI; no estimates of industrial waate from LA; no estimates of
agricultural waste from LA, or NY; no estimates of mining waate from NY;
no estimates of oil/gas waste from IN, MT, NY, or RI; and no estimates of
municipal runoff from IL, LA, or RI.
Figure 4-6. Number of Subtitle D surface impoundments, by type,
4-33
-------
V//////A NO Data
AMERICAN SAMOA 0
GUAM 0
NORTH MARIANAS 1
PUERTO RICO NO DATA
VIRGIN ISLANDS NO DATA
Figure 4-7. Number of Subtitle D surface impoundments by State. [1
-------
TABLE 4-13. NUMBSR OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY OWNERSHIP CATEGORY [1]
Surface
impoundment
type
Municipal
sewage
sludge
Municipal
runoff
Industrial
waste
*
jj, Agricultural
*" waste
Mining
waste
Oil or gas
waste
Other
Total
Response '.
rate ft
(percent)'
95%
100%
66%
92% *"
69%
69%
48%
78%
Owned
by State
govern-
ment
19
(1.0%)
0
94
(0.9%)
25
(0.2%)
0
0
20
(0.4%)
158
(0.1%)
Owned
by local
govern-
ment
1327
(72.4%)
368
(75.4%)
71
(0.7%)
0
5
(0.04%)
0
663
(12.4%)
2,434
(1.6%)
Owned by
Federal
govern-
ment
42
(2.3%)
5
(1.0%)
74
(0.7%)
3
(0.02%)
0
0
11
(0.2%)
135
(0.1%)
Pri-
vately
owned
446
(24.3%)
115
(24.6%)
10,519
(97.8%)
15,733
(99.8%)
13,625
(99.96%)
101,884
(100.0%)
4,662
(87.0%)
146,984
(98.2%)
Total number
of surface
impoundments
by type
1,834
(100.0%)
488
(100.0%)
10,758
(100.0%)
15,761
(100.0%)
13,630
(100.0%)
101,884
(100.0%)
5,356
(100.0%)
149,711
(100.0%)
-------
TABLE 4-14. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY ACREAGE CATEGORY [1]
Acreage category
Response Rate
<0.1 acre
0.1- 0.4 acres
0.5 - 0.9 acres
1-5 acres
6-10 acres
11-100 acres
>100 acres
Muni-
cipal
s.ewage
sludge
F
68%
138
(11.1%)
524
(42.0%)
405
(32.5%)
v 155
(12.4%)
16
(1.3%)
4
(0.3%)
5
(0.4%)
Muni-
cipal
runoff
71%
43
(12.4%)
123
(35.5%)
92
(26.6%)
67
(19.4%)
16
(4.6%)
5
(1.4%)
0
Indus-
trial
waste
40%
705
(10.8%)
1,627
(24.8%)
2,205
(33.6%)
1,113
(17.0%)
458
(7.0%)
380
(5.8%)
70
(1.1%)
Agricul-
tural
waste
69%
560
(4.7%)
5,843
(49.5%)
2,445
(20.7%)
2,791
(23.6%)
68
(0.6%)
102
(0.9%)
0
Mining
waste
33%
320
(5.0%)
439
(6.9%)
927
(14.4%)
2,679
(41.6%)
1,801
(28.0%)
257
(4.0%)
17
(0.3%)
Oil
or gas
waste
73%
36,575
(39.9%)
241
(52.7%)
5,316
(5.8%)
1,244
(1.4%)
237
(0.3%)
27
(0.03%)
25
(0.03%)
Other
47%
4,833
(91.7%)
241
(4.6%)
137
(2.6%)
42
(0.8%)
15
(0.3%)
2
(0.04%)
0
Total
64%
43,174
(35.0%)
57,115
(46.3%)
11,527
(9.3%)
8,091
(6.5%)
2,611
(2.1%)
777
(0.6%)
117
(0.1%)
Total
1,247 346
(100.0%) (99.9%)
6,558 11,809
(100.1%) (100.0%)
6,440 91,742 5,270 123,412
(100.2%) (100.2%) (100.0%) (99.9%)
-------
TABLE 4-15. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY AMOUNT OF WASTE [l]
Amount of
waste received
(in 1,000's)
Response Rate
50 or fewer
gallons/day
50 - 99
gallons/day
100 - 499
gallons/day
p-
ii> 500 - 999
gallons/day
1,000 - 9,999
gallons/day
10,000 or more
gallons/day
Muni-
cipal
sewage >
sludgei
79%
1,392
(95.7%)
50
(3.4%)
14
(1.0%)
2 v
(0.2%)
0
0
Muni-
cipal
runoff
58%
215
(75.7%)
58
(20.4%)
0
3
(1.1%)
8
(2.8%)
0
Indus-
trial
waste
40%
2,998
(46.1%)
1,202
(18.5%)
935
(14.4%)
817
(12.6%)
470
(7.2%)
85
(1.3%)
Agricul-
tural
waste
70%
11,074
(92.9%)
831
(7.0%)
21
(0.2%)
0
0
0
Mining
waste
31%
2,372
(39.2%)
619
(10.2%)
1,136
(18.8%)
630
(10.4%)
946
(15.6%)
350
(5.8%)
Oil
or gas
waste
74%
79,096
(85.3%)
266
(0.3%)
13,316
(14.4%)
0
0
0
Other
46%
5,013
(97.8%)
71
(1.4%)
36
(0.7%)
5
(0.1%)
7
(0.1%)
0
Total
65%
102,160
(82.3%)
3,097
(2.5%)
15,458
(12.5%)
1,457
(1.2%)
1,431
(1.2%)
435
(.3%)
Total
1,458 284
(100.2%) (100.0%)
6,507 11,926
(100.1%) (100.1%)
6,053 92,678 5,132 124,038
(100.0%) (100.0%) (100.1%) (100.0%)
-------
TABLE 4-16. ESTIMATES OF SPECIFIC SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT NUMBERS,
QUANTITIES MANAGED AND WASTES RECEIVED WITHIN EACH
IMPOUNDMENT CATEGORY [1,4,19]
Waste description
Quantity
managed3 per year
wet metric ton)
Number
of
impoundmentsc
Municipal Sewage Sludge
Municipal Runoff
Industrial Waste :
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Plastics and Resins Manufacturing
Electric Power Generation
Primary Iron and Steel Manufacturing
and Ferrous Foundaries
Fertilizer and Other Agricultural
Chemicals
Pulp and Paper Industry
Primary.Non-Ferrous Metals
Manufacturing and Non-Ferrous
Foundaries
Leather and Leather Products
Agricultural Waste
Livestock, General
Daily Farm
Hogs
Cattle Feedlot
General Farm
Poultry Farm
Other Fur-Bearing Animals
Crop Production
Fish Hatcheries
Mining Waste
Bituminous Coal and Lignite
Non-Metallic Minerals
Metals
Anthracite
Oil and Gas Wasted
Other Wastes
121,002
38,059
30,514
28,498
14,563
8,641
580
147
16,232b
4,377
1,671
1,380
1,249
1,380
104
17,159b
5,333
4,732
3,492
2,974
l,20b
717
336
190
95
19.M135
19,891
2,272
1,754
459
125,074b
allaged an data from [3).
"Based on data from fl]. Note that numbers from various sources do not
generally concur.
cBaaed on data from [15] unless indicated otherwise. Note that numbers from
various sources do not generally concur.
dMostly brine waste.
4-38
-------
Surface Impoundment Design
Design of a surface impoundment 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 a
surface impoundment design. These features include liners, runon/runoff
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 surface impoundments ia similar, descriptions of soil, membrane,
and composite liners are analagous to those provided in the landfill
subsection (Subsection 4.2.3). Table 4-17 presents Census data on liner use
status that indicate that less than one-third of active surface impoundments
are lined.
Soil Liners for surface impoundments are similar to those for landfills,
although surface impoundment designs usually consider the additional effects
of hydraulic head on the integrity of the liner. The Subtitle D Census (see
Table 4-17) indicates that 28 percent of active Subtitle 0 surface
impoundments use soil liners. Soil liner use is most frequent among
agricultural waste impoundments (54 percent), followed by other waste
(43 percent), municipal runoff (29 percent), oil and gas waste (27 percent),
municipal sewage sludge (26 percent), industrial waste (17 percent), and
mining waste impoundments (4 percent). No data Were available to describe the
quality of the soil liners used in these impoundments.
Membrane liners are ideally impermeable to liquid wastes, so the effect
of hydraulic head is reduced. Shultz, et al.,^ have demonstrated the
feasibility of retrofitting surface impoundments with membrane liners using a
"pull-through" technique with a flexible chlorosulfonated polyethylene
membrane.
The Subtitle D Census (see Table 4-17), indicates that just over
2 percent of the active Subtitle D surface impoundments use membrane liners.
Industrial waste, municipal runoff, municipal sewage sludge, and oil and gas
waste impewwfcnents are found with membrane liners more than the average
2.2 percent of the time. Mining waste, agricultural waste, and other waste
impoundments are all below this average in terms of membrane liner use. No
data were available that described the membrane liners used in the lined
impoundment s.
Runon/Runoff Controls--
Dikes, channels and berraa control runon and runoff by damping, diverting
and/or slowing storm water flow into and out of surface impoundments. Design
requirements are dictated by site topography, normal climate, and expected
extreme weather conditions*
4-39
-------
TABLE 4-17. NUMBERS OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS USING
VARIOUS TYPES OF RELEASE PREVENTION METHODS [l]
Method
management
Synthetic liners
Natural liners
(e.g., clay)
-p-
i
o Leak detection
systems
Overtopping
controls
Waste restric-
tions (ban on
certain Sub-
title D waste
types)
Discharge
permits
1
Municipal
sewage
sludge
76
(3.9%)
508
(26.2%)
32 v
(1.7%)
589
(30.4%)
634
(32.7%)
522
(26.6%)
Municipal
runoff
23
(4.7%)
140
(28.7%)
37
(7.6%)
269
(55.1%)
71
(14.5%)
16
(3*3%)
Indus-
trial
waste
756
(4.7%)
2,818
(17.4%)
896
(5.5%)
3,672
(22.6%)
2,685
(16.5%)
4,738
(29.2%)
Agricul-
tural
waste
60
(0.3%)
9,299
(54.2%)
26
(0.2%)
6,713
(39.1%)
8,371
(48.8%)
2,018
(11.8%)
Mining
waste
200
(1.0%)
868
(4.4%)
335
(1.7%)
4,144
(20.9%)
4,358
(22.0%)
4,970
(25.1%)
Oil or
gas
waste
2,950
(2.4%)
33,768
(27.0%)
1,406
(1.1%)
28,541
(22.8%)
30,509
(24.4%)
46,491
(37.2%)
Other
(e.g. , drink-
ing water
treatment
sludges)
6
(0.1%)
4,835
(43.5%)
0
4,733
(42.6%)
4,736
(42.6%)
171
(1.5%)
Total
4,071
(2.1%)
52,236
(27.2%)
2,732
(1.4%)
48,661
(25.4%)
51,364
(26.8%)
58,926
(30.7%)
Total Surface 1,938
Impoundment s
488
16,232 17,159
19,813 125,074
11,118
191,822
-------
Dikes are used for impoundment aidewall construction and runoff 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, resist wind driven wave erosion, rain
erosion, burrowing animals and tree roots, and meet stability criteria.
Channels and berras are used in conjunction with dikes to minimize runofl,
erosion, and infiltration. Channels may be constructed of concrete, sod,
corrugated metal, or admix materials. They divert runon away from
impoundments, and their design is determined by site topography and expected
climatic conditions. Berms are flattened embankments surrounding impoundments
designed to lessen runon velocity and allow sufficient room for the equipment
used in liner installation and maintenance.
The Subtitle D Census reported that over-topping controls are used at
30 percent of surface impoundments (see Table 4-17). The Census did not
distinguish between types of over-topping controls and no other data
concerning runon/runoff control technology uses were available. Over-topping
controls are used most frequently among municipal runoff impoundments
(55 percent), followed by other waste (43 percent), agricultural (39 percent),
municipal sewage sludge (30 percent), industrial (23 percent), oil and gas
(23 percent), and mining waste impoundments (21 percent).
Leak Detection Systera--
Leachate detection systems indicate liner failure and subsequent waste ,
migration from lined surface impoundments. The Census reports that leak
detection systems are found on only 1.5 percent of active impoundments. As
shown in Table 4-17, the highest rate of leak detection system use is with
municipal runoff (7.6 percent) and industrial waste impoundments (5.5 percent).
Impoundment wastes exhibit phenomena which distinguish them from normal
ground water conditions. Leachate detection requires the discovery of the
wastes' distinctive phenomena outside of the impoundment boundaries.
Distinctive phenomena which yield to modern detection systems include:
changes in specific conductivity, the presence of subgrade and impoundment
materials, ground water flow fields, and liner and soil distress.
Cover and Closure Characteristics
When a surface impoundment has reached the end of its useful life and
after the* HSfuid wastes have been dewatered and otherwise treated, a permeable
or impermeable cap may be installed. The specific features of surface
impoundment cover design are dependent upon the intended final use of the
waste site as dictated in the closure plan. Cover designs for dewatered and
treated surface impoundment wastes are the sane 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 numbers of cover
systems being used.
4-41
-------
Location Factora--
Phyaical location factors (site and surrounding topography, climate, and
hydrogeologic setting) present the final line of defense for contaminant
control. No data were available concerning location characteristics of
different facilities or numbers of surface impoundments employing location
factors in their designs. A discussion of State and Territorial location
requirements is presented in Section 5.
Surface Impoundment Operation andMaintenance
As with landfills, operation and maintenance of a surface impoundment is
an ongoing project. It includes elements of equipment, materials and
personnel. Due to the nature of liquid wastes, operation and maintenance of a
surface impoundment is lesa labor and equipment intensive than operation and
maintenance of a landfill, and operating costs are generally lower.
Census statistics for release prevention/management methods that may be
employed during surface impoundment operations are presented in Table 4-18.
The numbers of surface impoundments that have waste restrictions, and
discharge permit requirements are shown for the different facility types.
Almost 27 percent of surface impoundments have waste restrictions and over
32 percent have discharge permits.
Limited information is available to indicate the incidence of other
operating and maintenance features. An operation and maintenance plan for
surface impoundments may include: staff structure and requirements, facility
description and design parameters, emergency procedures, operation variables
and procedures, trouble-shooting procedures, preventive maintenance procedures
personnel safety requirements and procedures, equipment maintenance records,
permissible waste List, unacceptable waste lista, and an additional record of
all additions, deletions, or revisions of procedures. 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.^
Environmental Monitoring at Surface Impoundments
This s-eA&iem presents pertinent environmental monitoring characteristics
of Subtitle D surface impoundments. Environmental monitoring may be performed
in three media: ground water, surface water, and air.
The Subtitle 0 Census provides an indication of active Subtitle D surface
impoundment monitoring activity. As shown in Table 4-18, 4 percent use ground
water monitoring, 17 percent monitor surface waters, and 0.1 percent monitor
air emissions. The following subsections describe the design and extent of
ground water, surface water, and air emissions monitoring for Subtitle D
surface impoundments.
Ground Water Systems/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 surface impoundments are
4-42
-------
TABLE 4-18. NUMBERS OF ACTIVE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS WITH
MONITORING SYSTEMS [I]
Surface
impoundment type
Municipal sewage sludge
Municipal runoff
Industrial waste
Agricultural waste
Mining waste
Oil and gas waste
Other
TOTAL
- --">-
Ground water
monitoring
131
(6.8%)
192
(39.3%)
1,396
(8.6%)
44
(0.3%)
5,399
(27.2%)
165
(0.1%)
7
(0.1%)
7,334
(3.8%) >
Surface water
monitoring
50
(2.6%)
57
(11.72)
3,151
(19.4%)
135
(0.8%)
8,679
(43.8%)
20,030
(16.0%)
133
(1.2%)
32,235
(16.82)
Air emissions
monitoring
10
(0.5%)
0
73
(0. 4%)
1
(<0. 1%)
15
(U.U)
25
0
124
(U.U)
4-43
-------
identical to design consideration for landfill ground wacer monitoring and can
be found in Section 4.2.3. Table 4-18 indicates chat about 4 percent of all
impoundmenta have ground water monitoring systems. Mining waste impoundments
are more likely to have theae systems than other impoundments.
Surface Water Syaterns/Parameters--
The Subtitle D Census (aee Table 4-18) indicates that approximately
17 percent of Subtitle 0 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.
Proximity of waste surface impoundments to surface water and drainage
patterns determine the necessity of surface water monitoring. Sampling pro-
grams generally include upstream stations to collect adequate background water
quality data, and downstream stations in areas of most likely contamination.
Air Monitoring Systems/Parameters
Nonhazardous waste surface impoundments do not generally contain
explosive or highly volatile gases. Accordingly, Table 4-18, indicates that
only 0.1 percent of active Subtitle D surface impoundments have air monitoring
systems. Excluding methane monitoring (which is not relevant to surface
impoundments), the air monitoring systems and parameters at surface
impoundments are identical to thoae used for landfill air monitoring and are
described in the landfill section.
4.3.3 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
AT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
This subsection presents Phase I data relating to environmental and human
health impacts of Subtitle D surface impoundments, and has the same objectives
as Subsection 4.2.4.
Table 4-19 presents Subtitle D Census data relating to ground water,
surface water and air impacts at Subtitle D surface impoundments. The table
also presents statistics on State inspections, and on the numbers of surface
impoundments with monitoring systems. The following discussion reviews the
available aggregate and case study information for ground water, surface water
and air contamination.
,m jt
Ground Water
Ground water impacts of Subtitle D surface impoundments were not
described in detail in any of the Phase I 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
surface impoundments.
Census Data
Table 4-19 presents data showing that few surface impoundments monitor
ground water. This table also presents numbers of violations due to ground
water contamination, numbers of facilities with ground water monitoring and
4-44
-------
TABLE 4-19. AGGREGATE DATA RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS [1]
j
Municipal
sewage sludge
Total active facilities 1,938
Violations detected
by State inspection programs
- ground water
contamination 35
- surface water
contamination 24
V
- air
contamination 20
State inspection at
least once each year3 1,148
Facilities with
monitoring
- ground water 131
- surface water 50
- air 10
Number of Subtitle D Surface
Municipal Industrial Agricultural
runoff waste waste
488 16,232 17,159
32 416 29
18 279 189
12 145 21
350 5,541 3,334
192 1,396 44
57 3,151 135
0 73 1
Impoundments, by type
Mining Oil and
waste gas waste Other Total
19,813 125,074 11, H8 191,822
48 111 6 677
249 128 22 909
5 10 0 213
2,366 62,724 674 76,137
5,399 165 7 7,334
8,679 20,030 133 32,235
15 25 0 124
aThese data include numbers cited by states for frequencies ranging from once a year to more than four times a year.
It excludes-less frequent inspections and entries under the questionaire category of "other".
-------
numbers of facilities with inspections at least once each year. The Census
reported 416 ground water violations at industrial surface impoundments,
and lesser numbers at other types of surface impoundments. A reported
32 ground water contamination violations were at municipal runoff surface
impoundments. These values and those for other types of surface impoundments
may understate the total number of violations substantially, since of the
active industrial and municipal runoff surface impoundments, 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.
Case Studies
Four case studies of Subtitle D surface impoundments were prepared under
the Phase I effort.^ These case studies were selected by the EPA Office of
Solid Waste, as examples of nonhazardous industrial waste lagoons in operation
throughout the country. In spite of this, the cases cannot be considered as
representative of the surface impoundments operated across the nation. The
case study data were not sufficient to develop any general conclusions
regarding causes or effects of ground water contamination at surface
impoundments. However, the data provided in four surface impoundment case
studies indicate that common ground water impacts are: elevated COD, TDS, and
300 levels; and increased levels of metals. No health impacts were associated
with ground water contamination occurring at the case study facilities.
S_urface Water
Surface water impacts of Subtitle 0 surface impoundments were not
described in detail in any of the Phase I data collection efforts or
literature reviews. However, 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.
Census Data
Table 4-19 shows that about 17 percent of all impoundments monitor
surface water. The table also indicates that 24 surface water contamination
violations were reported at municipal sewage sludge surface impoundments,
compared t6rtf-79 at industrial facilities, 189 at agricultural units, and 249
at mining waste units, contributing to a total of 909 violations in 1984.
Case Studies
No case studies were available for evaluation of surface water impacts
associated with surface impoundments.
Air
Air impacts at Subtitle D surface impoundments were not described in
detail in any of the Phase I data collection efforts or literature reviews.
However, the Census presents data on air-related violations at Subtitle D
surface impoundments. In the absence of information regarding actual
4-46
-------
occurrences of air contamination due to surface impoundments or air monitoring
data from case studies, the nature and significance of impacts associated with
these occurrences cannot be evaluated. However, the fact that air
contamination violations have been reported indicates that these problems do
exist .
Census Data
Table 4-19 indicates that little air monitoring is performed at surface
impoundments. This table indicates that 20 air contamination violations were
reported at municipal sewage sludge surface impoundments, compared to 140 at
industrial facilities, 21 at agricultural units, and 5 at mining waste units,
contributing to a total of 208 violations in 1984.
Studies
No case studies which examine actual impact upon air quality due to the
presence of a surface impoundment were available for this study.
Summary
Surface impoundments have not yet been characterized sufficiently to
determine human health and environmental impacts.
4.4 LAND APPLICATION UNITS
This part presents data on Subtitle D land application units (LAUs), The
topics covered include general profile, design and operation, and
environmental and human health impacts at LAUs.
4.4.1 GENERAL PROFILE
The Subtitle D Census1 provided general information on LAUs, including
numbers, ownership, acreage, and waste volumes. Information on waste
characteristics was available from other sources. The definition of land
application unit (LAU) used in the Subtitle D Census'1 was:
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 land spread ing. Specifically excluded from this definition
are raarfijre spreading operations.
This definition is broken down further into:
* Municipal sewage sludge LAUa , 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.
4-47
-------
Indu st ria 1 wa s te LAUa, which receive waste (including sludge or
wastewater) primarily from factories, processing plants, and other
manufacturing or commercial activities.
Oil and gas LAUs, which receive waste generated by oil and gas
exploration and extraction operations, e.g., drilling muds.
Other LAUs, which receive Subtitle D wastes but do not fall into any
of the above categories, e.g., a drinking water treatment waste LAlJ.
LAU JJumbera, Ownership, Acreage, and Haste Volumes
For each type of LAU, Census data were collected on total numbers,
ownership, acreage and amount of wastes received. Respondents typically rated
the data quality of land application unit total numbers in the fair, poor or
very poor range.
According to Census results, there were 18,889 Subtitle D land
application units located at 12,312 establishments in the United States in
1984, Municipal sewage sludge units accounted for about two-thirds of this
total. Figure 4-8 presents the number and relative share of the total for
each of the four types of LAU. The total estimated number of active
Subtitle D land application units in 1984 for each State and Territory is
shown on the map presented in Figure 4-9. Wisconsin has the. highest number of
reported Subtitle D LAUs (4,181), followed by Michigan (2,501), Pennsylvania
(2,400), Indiana (1,300), and Minnesota (850).
Ownership data were reported for 18,732 (99.4 percent) of the total
Subtitle D LAUs. Aa Table 4-20 makes clear, the great majority of all kinds
of LAUs are privately owned.
For 15,576 (82.4 percent) of all LAUs, acreage information was supplied.
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. Acreage for each type of LAU and for total LAUs is
presented in Table 4-21.
Information on the amounts of waste received was reported for 12,020
(63.6 percent!, of the Subtitle 0 land application units. Most LAUs received
Less than 50 tons of waste (dry weight) in 19S4, as shown in Table 4-22,
although the majority of oil or gas wsste LAUs received 100 to 999 tons during
the year.
Waste Characte_riatics
The principal waste types that are disposed in Subtitle D LAUs include:
municipal sewage sludge, industrial wastewater and sludge, and oil and gas
wastes. The characteristics of these wastes are presented in Section 3. The
following subsections describe the physical and chemical waste characteristics
and quantities received in Subtitle D land application units.
4-48
-------
Munlcip I
Sewage S
11,937*
(63%)
'" *''" ' "* "
Industrial
5,605
(30%)
TOTAL LAND APPLICATION UNITS = 18,889
*No estimatea of municipal sewage sludge LAUs obtained for IL, LA, MO, or WV;
no estimatea of industrial waate LAUa obtained for IL, LA, MO, or MT; and no
estimates of oil or gaa waste LAUa obtained for IL, MO, or MT.
Figure 4-8. Number of Subtitle D land application units, by type. [I]
4-49
-------
V//////A No Data
*-
i
Ul
o
AMERICAN SAMOA 0
GUAM 3
NORTH MARIANAS 1
PUERTO RICO NO DATA
VIRGIN ISLANDS NO DATA
Figure 4-9. Number of Subtitle D land application units by State. [1]
-------
TABLE 4-20. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE R LAND APPLICATION UNITS
BY OWNERSHIP CATEGORY [1]
Land
application
unit type
Municipal
sewage sludge
at high ap-
plication
rates3
Municipal
sewage sludge
at low appli-
cation
rates3
Total muni-
cipal sewage
sludge3
Industrial
waste
Oil or Gas
waste
Other
TOTAL
Owned by
Response State
rate govern-
(percent) menta
98 2
(0.8%)
99 72
(0.72)
99 104
(0.9%)
99 1
(0.1Z)
100 1
(0.1%)
100 10
(1.6%)
99 116
(0.3%)
Owned by
local
govern-
ments
48
(20.3%)
L.028
(10.6%)
1,524
(12.9%)
18
(0.3%)
6
(0.8%)
26
(4.2%)
1,574
(8. -.4%)
A
Owned by
Federal
govern-
ment
0
17
(0.2%)
72
(0.6%)
13
(0.2%)
16
(2.2%)
9
(1.4%)
110
(0.6.%)
Pri-
vately
owned
187
(78.9%
8*570
(88.5%
10, 145
(85.6%
5,558
(99.4%
703
(9b.8%
576
(92.8%
16,982
(90.4%)
Total
237
(100.0%)
9,687
(100.0%)
11,845
(100.0%)
5,590
(100.0%)
726
(99.9%)
621
(100.0%)
18,782
(100.0%)
aHigh rate application and low rate application do noc equal the total
municipal sewage sludge figures because some states do not distinguish high
and low application rates.
4-51
-------
TABLE 4-21. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS
BY ACREAGE CATEGORY [l]
Land
application-
unit type
Municipal sewage
sludge at high
application
rates3
Municipal
sewage sludge
at low appli-
cation races3
Total municipal
sewage sludgea
Industrial
waste
Oil or gas
waste
Other
TOTAL
Response
rate
(percent)
98
78
82
96
100
100
82
Less than
10 acres
96
(40.7%)
1,503
(19.6%)
2,077
(21.2%)
681
(15.4%)
568
(78.2%)
154
(24.8%)
3,480
(22.3%)
10 - 49
acre;
57
(24.2%)
3,339
(43.6%)
4,567
(46.5%)
1,805
(40.9%)
69
(9.5%)
7
(1.1%)
6,448
(41.4%)
50 - 99
acres
64
(27.1%)
1,476
(19.3%)
1,789
(18.2%)
1,462
(33.1%)
44
(6.1%)
6
(1.0%)
3,301
(21.2%)
100 acres
or more
19
(8.0%)
1,336
(17.5%)
1,378
(14.0%)
470
(10.6%)
45
(6.2%)
454
(73.1%)
2,347
(15.1%)
Total
236
(100.0%)
7,654
(100.0%)
9,811
(99.91)
4,418
(100.0%)
726
(100.0%)
621
(100,0%)
15,576
(100.0%)
aHigh 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 rat§3.
4-52
-------
TABLE 4-22. NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION UNITS
BY AMOUNT OF WASTE [l]
Land Response
application rate
unit type (percent)
Municipal sewage 32
sludge at high
application
ratea3
Municipal 52
sewage sludge
at low appli-
cation rates3
Total municipal 57
sewage sludge3
Industrial 81
waste
Oil or gas 76
waste
Other 100
TOTAL 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
we igh t )
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
77
(100.U)
5,U56
(99.9%)
6,754
(100.0%)
4,095
(99.9%)
550
(100.0%)
621
(100.0%)
12,020
(100.0%)
aHigh 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.
4-53
-------
Chemical and Physical Characteristics--
Waste restrictions are widely practiced at LAUs, therefore the chemical
and physical characteristics of land applied wastes are determined as much by
facility operating or design parameters as by waste generator characteristics.
Table 4-23 lists waste constituent ranges for industrial wastes thac 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 degradability.
The municipal sewage sludge characteristics of of interest to land
application include solids content, total fixed dissolved solids, and
suspended solids, BOD and COD. As with industrial wastes, municipal sludge
characteristics define a waste's degradability and are used to establish
application rate limits.
Quantities Received
Table 4-22 presents Subtitle D Census data on waste amounts received at
land application units in 1984. The table shows that most reported LAUs
(70 percent) receive less than 50 tons/year of waste and approximately
81 percent of the reported industrial LAUs receive less than 99 tons/year.
A study of industrial nonhazardous wastes-^ presents data from 12 major
industries concerning industrial nonhazardous wastes managed at land
application sites. These data are summarized in Table 4-24. Limitations of
the industrial nonhazardous waste disposal study are discussed in Sections 2
and 3.
4.4.2 LAU DESIGN AND OPERATION
The following discussion summarizes the pertinent Phase I data collection
efforts regarding design and operating characteristics of Subtitle D land
application units. Topics discussed in this section include design, operation
and maintenance, and environmental monitoring.
LAU DesigTi
Many variables may affect the design of land application units. The
existing soil characteristics determine, the waste types that can be used. The
waste characteristics determine the application method. This section presents
design information concerning slope, runon/runoff control and soil
requi rements.
Slope
Slope can affect the amount of soil erosion and potential runoff 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 runoff of sludge. Rapid surface runoff 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.
4-54
-------
TABLE 4-23. CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERS
APPLIED TO LAND [20] (units in mg/1 unleaa noted)
Food Pulp and
Constituent processing paper Dairy
BOD 200 - 4,000 60 - 30,000 4,000
COD 300 - 10,000
Suspended solids 200 - 3,000 200 - 100,000
Total fixed dissolved 1,800 2,000 1,500
solids
Total nitrogen 10-50 - 90 - 400
pH, diraensionless 4.0 - 12 6 - II 5-7
Temperature, °F 145 195
4-55
-------
TABLE 4-24. INDUSTRIAL DISPOSAL OF NONHAZARDOUS
WASTES IN LAND APPLICATION UNITS [3Ja
Quantity managed
by onsite
Land application
Industry (ton/year)
Industrial Organic
Chemicals (SIC 2819) 255,700
Petroleum Refining
Industry (SIC 29) 753,300
Plastics and Resins
Manufacturing (SIC 2821) 43.200
Total 1,052,200
Approximately 0.3 percent of the industrial waste
produced (12 of 22 industries) is being managed on
land application sites.
4-56
-------
Runon/Runoff Controls--
Runon/runoff control requirements are used to protect water quality and
prevent unauthorized discharge into the ground water or surface water.
Selection of runon/runoff control usually depends upon sludge application
technique. The following is a list of common techniques and practices used Co
control runoff: °
Fill depressions from cut ridges and mounds to control ponding;
Terraces to protect lower landa;
Diversion terraces graded and grass covered to deliver water at
nonerosive flows to a control discharge point;
Vegetation to control erosion and reduce surface runoff;
Collection and storage of surface runoff;
Leachate collection and control.
Table 4-25 shows that 51 percent of LAUa employ runon/runoff controls.
Municipal sewage sludge LALJs are the most likely to have these controls.
Soil Type Requirements
Soil characteristics effect land application unit 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 LAUa.
LAU Operation and Maintenance
The operating and maintenance characteristics of a land application unit
consist of a wide spectrum of activities and precautions. This Section is
concerned with the following characteristics: safety precautions and
controls, employees and equipment, waste application techniques, waste
application rate limits, emergency preparedness and contingency plans.
Limited data are available on current LAU practices in these areas.
,'t ' *
Safety PretSStions and Controls
Data are presented in Table 4-25 for waste restrictions, application rate
limits and crop restrictions. 'Fifty-four percent of all LAUa 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.
Employees and Equipment
Equipment at LAUs is used for transportation, storage and application of
waste. No useful information was found pertaining to LAU employees.
The equipment used for waste transport and application varies according
to the consistency of the waste applied (i.e., dewatered, liquid sludge or
wastewater). For dewatered sludge, open dump trucks are used for
4-57
-------
TABLE 4-25. NUMBERS OF SUBTITLE D APPLICATION UNITS USING VARIOUS
TYPES OF RELEASE PREVENTION METHODS [1]
in
00
Municipal sewage sludge3
f
f High
application
Management method rate
Runon/Runoff controls
Waste restrictions
(ban on certain
Subtitle D waste
types)
Waste application
rate limits
Restrictions on the
growing of food
chain crops
Total LAUs
(59)
(24.4%)
(185)
(76.4%)
(195)
(8ft. 6%)
(198)
(81.8%)
Low
application
rate
(4,090)
(41. 82)
(5,698)
(58.3%)
(8,164)
(83.5%)
(7,672)
(78.5%)
Subtotal3
5,075
(42.5%)
5,932
(49.7%)
9,437
(79.1%)
8,401
(70.4%)
11,937
Industrial
waste
3,837
(68.5%)
3,633
(64.8%)
4,085
(72.9%)
2,395
(42.7%)
5,605
Oil
or gas
waste
569
(78.4%)
122
(16.8%)
93
(12.8%)
23
(3.2%)
726
Other
164
(26.4%)
544
(89.2%)
475
(76.5%)
576
(92.8%)
621
Total
9,645
(51. 1Z)
10,241
(54.2%)
14,090
(74.6%)
11,395
(60.3%)
18,889
aHigh and low rate application may not equal the subtotal because some States
do not distinguish between these two types.
-------
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 discs 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 waate.
Subsurface application is achieved by using subsurface injection dischargers
mounted to plows or discs.
Storage facilities are used in case of equipment breakdowns, adverse
weather conditions, or to accommodate fluctuations in sludge production rate
and agricultural cropping patterns. These storage facilities include lagoons,
Imhoff and community septic tanke, holding tanks, unconfined hoppera and
bins.18
Waste Application Techniques--
Waste application techniques also vary with waste consistency. The
application techniques for dewatered or liquid sludge differ from those for
wastewater. These techniques are described below.
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-spreading or by using subsurface injection.
Industrial waatewater land application 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.
Waste Application Rate Limits
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.
Emergency Preparedness
Emergency preparedness procedures ^used at LAUs to avoid possible
hazardous" Situations include: training personnel for emergency situations,
keeping emergency equipment on standby, using fire precaution procedures such
as prohibition of unauthorized open burning, constructing stormwater channels
to prevent flooding of potentially harmful wastewater, and using proper
monitoring procedures (see section on Environmental Monitoring at LAUs).
Contingency Plans
No information is available regarding the role of contingency plans in
the operation of land application sites.
4-59
-------
Environmental Monitoring at LAUa
Monitoring LAU sites after sludge application indicates the extent of
environment changes that have occurred as a result of waste application.
Environmental monitoring needs vary according to land utilization
(i.e., dedicated land disposal, agricultural purposes, etc*) and existing site
characteristics. In general, monitoring at a land application unit may
possibly include sampling and analysis of:
Sludge quantities and characteristics,
Soil characteristics, (physical and chemical),
Ground water quality beneath and adjacent to the site in Che
direction of ground water flow,
Surface water runoff from the site,
Surface waters potentially affected by the site,
Odor, dust, and/or aerosol emissions from the site, and/or
Crops grown on the site.
Data from the Subtitle D Census are presented in Table 4-26, showing Che
number of active Subtitle D LAUs with ground water, surface water, or air
monitoring systems in place.
Sludge System/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 (N, P, and K) are sometimes monitored to
assist sludge users (e.g., farmers, commercial tree growers, etc.) in
efficient use of nutrients. *
The frequency of sludge sampling and analysis is commonly a function
of. system size, historical variations in sludge characteristics, the
land application option being utilized, and the sampling frequency required by
the appro£c4ate regulatory agency. *
Sludge may be analyzed for pH, and a variety of chemical constituents.
In addition, 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 which monitor sludge or input wastes.
Soil System/Parameters
Periodic soil monitoring of a land application unit may be done when the
sludge contains significant quantities of heavy metals or priority persistent
organics, when heavy sludge application rates are used (i.e., as with a
dedicated disposal site) and there is concern that the soil will become
4-60
-------
phytotoxic to vegetation on the site, or when the LAU's Scate or local permit
requires certain periodic soil monitoring. Table 4-^6 shows thac about
27 percent of all LAUs monitor the soil. Most of these are municipal sewage
sludge LAUs.
Ground Water System/Parameters
A detailed discussion of ground water monitoring systems can be found in
Section 4.2 (Landfills). The constituents analyzed from ground water samples
depend on monitoring goals, waste composition, uses of ground water, and
regulatory requirements. About 6 percent of all LAUs monitor ground water
(from Table 4-26). Most of these are industrial waste LAUs.
Surface Water System/Parameters
Surface water monitoring is generally performed when it is required by an
NPUES permit, or when the site is near a sensitive surface water body.l**
Surface water monitoring parameters may include those which either may effect
public health, or those which may contribute to eutrophication;
(e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus). According to Table 4-26, about 3 percent of
all LAUs monitor surface water. Municipal sewage sludge and oil and gas units
monitor surface waters most frequently.
Air System/Parameters
As shown in Table 4-26, 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 (i.e., 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 Cd) from the amended soil. It may
also be performed to assure private farm owners that their crops are not being
adversely affected by the use of sludge. The actual parameters monitored may
vary from this list, depending on the sludge constituents of concern. No data
on numbers of facilities that monitor crops were available.
4.4.3 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
AT LAUs
This -subjection presents Phase I da*ta relating to environmental and human
health impacts of Subtitle 0 land application units, and has the same
objectives as Subsection 4.2.4. It presents the available aggregate and case
study information for ground water, surface water and air contaminant
impacts. No data on actual public health impacts of LAUs were available for
this study.
Table 4-27 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.
4-61
-------
TABLE 4-26. NUMBERS OF ACTIVE LAND APPLICATION UNITS WITH
MONITORING SYSTEMS [Ij
Land application
unit type
Ground Surface
water water Air Soil
monitoring monitoring monitoring monitoring
(Municipal sewage sludge
at high application rate)
(Municipal sewage sludge
at low application rate)
Subtotal of municipal
sewage sludge*
Industrial waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
Total
( 43)
(17.8%)
(170)
(1.7%)
337
(2.8%)
592
(10.6%)
247
(34.01)
3
(0.5%)
1,179
(6.2%)
(16)
(6.6%)
(74)
(0.8%)
265
(2.2%)
137
(2.4%)
230
(31.7%)
0
632
(3.3%)
(U)
(0)
100
(0.8*)
31
(0.6%)
37
(5. IX)
0
168
(0.9%)
(206)
(85.1%)
(4157)
(46.2%)
4tt04
(40.2%)
204
(3.6%)
42
(5.8%)
3
(0.5%)
5,053
(26. B%)
*High and low rate application may not equal the subtotal because some States
do not distinguish between these two types.
4-62
-------
TABLE 4-27. AGGREGATE DATA RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AT LAND APPLICATION UNITS [1]
P-
u>
Number of Subtitle D Land Application Units, by Type
t
£
1
Total active facilities
Violations detected
by State inspection programs
- ground water
contamination
- surface water
contamination
- air
contamination
V
State inspection at
least once each yearb
Facilities with
monitoring
- ground water
- surface water
- air
- soil
Municipal sewage sludge
High
application
rate
(242)
(4)
(I)
(0)
(18)
(43)
(16)
(0)
(206)
Low
application
rate
(9,779)
(13)
(15)
(12)
(1,267)
(170)
(74)
(0)
(4,517)
Subtota 1 of
municipa 1
sewage
sludge3
11,937
17
17
12
2,321
337
265
100
4,804
Industrial Oil or
waste gas waste Other Total
5,605 726 621 18,88°
45 2 2 66
60 25 24 126
10 0 0 22
796 652 26 3,795
592 247 3 1,1 79
137 230 0 632
31 37 0 168
204 42 3 5,053
aHigh 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.
''These data include numbers cited by States or Territories for inspection frequencies ranging from once a year to
more than four times a year. It excludes less frequent inspections and entries under the questionaire category of
"other".
-------
Ground Water
Census Data
As shown in Table 4-27, few land application .nits monitor ground water.
This table indicates 17 ground water contamination violations at municipal
sewage sludge LAUs, 45 at industrial LAUa, and 2 at oil or gas and other
LAUs. These data suggest that industrial LAUa cause more ground water
contamination than municipal, oil and gas, or other units. The number of
reported violations is an imperfect measure of environmental impacts for
reasons cited previously (in the discussion of impacts at landfills).
Case Studies-
Land treatment field studies were conducted for field application unit
facilities in an effort to determine the environmental acceptability of LAU
operations. 1 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
Census Data .
As shown in Table 4-27, few LAUs monitor surface water. The data in this
table indicate 17 surface water contamination violations at municipal sewage
sludge facilities, 60 at industrial facilities, 25 at oil or gas LAUs, and 24
at other facilities.
Case Studies--
No case studies providing significant information on surface water
impacts from land application units were available for this report.
Air
Census Data
As shown in Table 4-27, few LAUs monitor air. This table indicates
12 air contamination violations at municipal sewage sludge facilities, and
10 at indus^rjlal LAUs. >
Case Studies
No case studies were available which provided information on air impacts
associated with LAUs.
S umma ry
Land application unts have not yet been characterized sufficiently to
determine human health or environmental impacts.
4-64
-------
4.5 WASTE PILES
Waste piles were not included in the Subtitle 0 Census and no other
sources of information are available that provide the numbers, locations,
types, ownership characteristics, or sizes of existing waste piles. A general
profile of scrap tire piles was reviewed for this report and found to have
useful statistics for this particular type of piled waste.2^
Available data indicate that the following approximate amounts of
industrial nonhazardous waste are contained in waste piles:
Industry type SIC code Waste amounts (kkgj)
Plastics and resins manufacturing 2821 69,740
Industrial organic chemicals 2819 658,734
Fertilizer and other agricultural 2873-2879 "39,487,900
chemicals
Primary iron and steel manufacture 3312-3321 39,441,400
turning, and ferrous foundariea _____^__
Total: 79,657,774
No data are presently available on design, operation and maintenance, or
environmental monitoring, or ground water, surface water, or air impacts from
Subtitle D waste piles.
4-65
-------
REFERENCES
1. Westat, Inc. Census of State and Terricorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous
Waste Programs. Contract No. 68-01-7047, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., July 21, 1986.
2. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials,
National Solid Waste Survey. Unpublished. 1984.
3. Science Applications International Corporation. Summary of Data on
Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices, Contract
No. 68-01-7050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1985.
4. Matrecon, Inc. Lining of Waste Impoundments and Disposal Facilities.
SW-870, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
5. Conrad, E.T., J.J. Walsh, J. Atcheson and R.B. Gardner. Solid Waste
Landfill Design and Operation Practices. Contract No. 68-01-3915,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1981.
6. Shultz, David, and David Black. Land Disposal: Municipal Solid Waste
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Research Symposium. EPA 600/9-81-002a,
(J.Sr Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981.
7. Pohland, Frederick G. , and Stephen R. Harper. Critical Review and
Summary of Leachate and Gas Production for Landfills. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
8. Zimmerman, Eric R., George R. Lytwynyshyn, and Michael L. Wilkey.
Landfill Gas Recovery: A Technology Status Report. Contract
No. 31-109-38-6821, U.S. Department of Energy, 1983.
9. SCS Engineers, Reston, VA. December 11, 1985 Letter to Allen Geswein
(U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Land Disposal Branch).
10. Lu, James C.S., Bert Eichenberger and Robert J. Stearns. Production and
Management of Leachate From Municipal Landfills: Summary and
Assessment. Contract No. 68-03-2861, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, MERL.
4-66
-------
11. GCA Technology Division, Inc. Evaluation of NPL/Subcicle 0 Landfill
Daca. Contract No. 68-01-7037, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1986.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Municipal
landfill case studies (unpublished). These studies were prepared by
SRW, and ICF. 1986.
13. Zimmerman, Eric R. and M.E. Goodkind. Landfill Methane Recovery Part I:
Environmental Impacts, Final Report. Contract No. 5080-351-0343, Gas
Research Institute, 1981.
14. Wanielista, Martin P., and James S. Taylor. Municipal Solid Waste: Land
Disposal Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Research Symposium.
EPA-600/79-023a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1979.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Surface Impoundment Assessment
National Report. EPA 570/9-84-002, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency/ODW, Washington, D.C., 1983.
16. Schultz, et al. Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste: Proceedings of the
Eleventh Annual Research Symposium. EPA 600/9-85/03, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, HWERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1985.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface
Impoundments. EPA-SW-873, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. , September 1982,
revised edition.
IB. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual: Land
Application of Municipal Sludge. EPA-625/1-83-016, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Impact Statement:
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practicer. SW-821, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1979.
20. Pound, Charles E. and Ronald W. Crites. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
By LatwfesApplication, Volume II. EPA 600/2-73-0066, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ORD, Washington, D.C., 1973.
21. Berkowitz, Joan, Sara E. Bysshe, Bruce E. Goodwin, Judith C. Harris,
David B. Land, Gregory Leonardos, and Sandra Johnson. Land Treatment
Field Studies: Volumes I-VI. EPA 600/2-83-057, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983.
22. E.G.&G. Idaho, Inc.. Scrap Tires: A Resource and Technology Evaluation
of Tire Pyrolysis and Other Selected Alternate Technologies. EGG-2241,
prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Falls, Idaho, November
1983.
4-67
-------
SECTION 5
STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION
This section characterizes the current status of State Subtitle D
programs. The discussion is organized as follows:
5.1 discusses the quality of the data used for characterizing the
State programs
5.2 provides an overview of State Subtitle D programs, focusing on:
Program Organization/Management - organization and resources in
managing State programs
Identification/Status - identification of all solid waste
management facilities
Permit/Regulation - permit or other approval mechanism for
imposing minimum regulatory requirements on facilities and
practices
- Enforcement - enforcement program for Subtitle D compliance.
a 5.3 reviews State regulations specific to four typea of Subtitle U
facilit ies.
The section concludes with a brief summary.
5.1 QUALITY OF DATA FOR CHARACTERIZATION
The~p*£nary sources of State programs used in this Phase I assessment are
the Subtitle 0 Census'1 and the Regulations Reviews , both completed in
mid-1986. Not only are these two reports the noat recent State Subtitle D
data collection efforts, they are also the most comprehensive. Data from
other Subtitle D program information sources are used in this assessment only
when data are not available from either the Subtitle D Census or the
Regulations Reviews.
One significant problem with respect to raoet of the estimates presented
in the Subtitle D Census ia nonreaponse to survey questions. This factor
results in underestimates for many of the totals presented in this assessment
(especially significant with respect to estimates of dollars and hours spent
on Subtitle D activities, and numbers of surface impoundments and industrial
facilities). In an effort to verify the quality of the data obtained,
respondents to the Subtitle D Census were asked to indicate whether they felt
5-1
-------
that the quality of their responses was good, fair, poor, or very poor. As a
result, ic was determined that the quality of the data on Subtitle D
facilities, for example, varies markedly by type of facility. The quality of
the data on municipal waste landfills is considered highest by the
respondents, the quality of the data on industrial surface impoundments
lowest. Data quality concerns are noted in this diacussion where pertinent.
5.2 OVERVIEW OF STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAMS
This part presents an overview of State Subtitle D programs. The
discussion is organized according to the four topics identified at the
beginning of this section.
5.2.1 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
The specific program elements that make up organization/management are;
State organization in terms of administrative authority to handle Subtitle D
activities, budgetary and personnel resources allocated to Subtitle D
functions, the qualifications and training of these personnel, and the overall
program strategy as demonstrated in a solid waste management plan. 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 as many aa 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 affices.
Subtitle D programs for landfilla were most frequently reported to be
administered by solid waste agencies; programs for surface impoundments, on
the other hand, were most frequently reported to be administered by water
agencies., ..Jfcubt itle D land application>prograras 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., surface impoundments).
5-2
-------
Further complicating Che 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 work (e.g., inspecting municipal
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, StaffQualifications 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 importance rankings 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 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 actitivities, 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 above 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 apeiflf'on Subtitle D activities, and even among those providing
estimates, the figures are admittedly very rough.
The Subtitle D Census also asked each State Co provide an estimate of the
percentage of its total Subtitle D budget for FY84 and FY85 that came from
State, Federal, license or user fees, and other funding sources. These
estimates are presented in Table 5-1. The Subtitle D Census found that in
FY84, 84.6 percent of all Subtitle D funding waa attributed to State sources
and that only 7.5 percent of such funding came from Federal sources (the
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 coming from
Federal sources.
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-1. SOURCES OF SUBTITLE D FUNDING [1]
Funding source
a. State sources
b. Federal sources
c. License or user fees
d. Other
TOTAL
Fiscal year Fiscal year
ending in ending in
1984 1985
(percent) (percent)
84.6 85.1
7.5 7.1
3.5 6.0
4.4 1.9
100.0 100.1
In contrast, data for FY81 reported by the National Solid Waste Survey
show thaC 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, 9 and 10 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
358 person years committed to Subtitle D functions by the States and
Territorial* 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,
fifteen devote between 10 and 25, and ten commit 25 or more person years.
The Subtitle D Census also.reports estimates of the percentage of total
hours expended in performing seven different Subtitle D program activities.
The results are displayed in Table 5-2. The two types of activities most
frequently pursued were surveillance/enforcement and permit ting/licensing.
Together 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.
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-2. STATE SUBTITLE D ACTIVITIES [1]
Subtitle D activity
Percent o£ hours
1.
2.
3.
A.
5.
6.
7.
Surveillance and enforcement
Permitting and licensing
Technical assistance
Planning
Regulation development
Training
Research
41. 1
27.8
9. 1
5.8
4.5
2.8
1.5
As an indication of additional needs, the Subtitle D Census aaked 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, and for each of the three
facility types. This indicates that the States and Territories perceive that
Subtitle D program effectiveness would be improved moat by further expanding
the activity that is now most frequently pursued (see Table 5-2).
TABLE 5-3. IMPORTANCE OF SUBTITLE D PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AS RANKED BY
THE STATES [1)
Overall
ranking
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
Subtitle D
activity
- ***>-
Surveillance and
enforcement
Technical assistance
Permitting or
1 icensing
Regulation development
Training given
Planning
Research
Landfill
ranking
i-
1
2
3
5
6
4
7
Surface
impoundment
ranking
I
2
4
3
5
6
7
Land
application
ranking
1
3
2
4
5
6
7
5-5
-------
It is apparent that States and Territories do not place great emphasis on
training in their Subtitle D programs. The small parcentage of hours devoted
to training and the low ranking in importance are indications of this. The
data are less conclusive regarding overall program strategy, but strongly
suggest that States and Territories have recognized priorities should
additional funding become available.
5.2.2 IDENTIFICATION/STATUS
This discussion describes State activities regarding the identification and
determination of the Status of Subtitle D facilities. The specific program
elements that make up identification/status are: an active solid waste
facility/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 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 reapect are the data bases they have developed on
facilities and the confidence States indicate that they have in the data.
Data on Facilities
The Subtitle D Census collected State and Territorial data on three of the
four basic types of facilities regulated under Subtitle D: landfills, surface
impoundments, and land application units. Section <+ of this report presented
the data States have available on the numbers of such facilities and a
discussion of State indications of the quality of such data.
In brief, the available State and Territorial data on Subtitle 0 facilities
suggest that the total universe is approximately 227,000 facilities, 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 bases for determining the status of a facility or practice are the
Federal Criteria promulgated by EPA at 40 CFR Fart 257 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 Part 257 Criteria. The Inventory of Open Dumps\ however, provides a
limited record of State evaluations of Subtitle D facilities. Published
annually since 1981, the inventory lists facilities that the States have found
5-6
-------
Co he in vi.olaci.on of che Part 257 criCeria and chus to pose a reasonable
probability of adverse effects on human health or the environment. The
inventory also includes brief Scate 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 dedicated
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.
5.2,3 PERMIT/REGULATION
The specific program elements under this topic are: specific permit,
license, or approval mechanism requirements; minimum regulatory standards or
criteria applicable to facilities; and an active permitting program. The
available State and Territorial data are analyzed according to theae program
elements.
Permit or Approval Mechanisms
The Subtitle D Census'- and Regulations Reviews2 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 number of States and Territories that have such
requirements. A total of ten States and Territories report having permit,
license or plan approval mechanisms for all four types of Subtitle D
facilities. Although most States and Territories have permit requirements for
landfills (50) and waste piles (29), fewer have requirements for surface
impoundments (16) and land application units (27). The breakdown by facility
type is discussed in subsection 5.3 of this section. (These data on State
permit requirements run contrary to information EPA has on State and
Territorial solid waste management plans. EPA has approved 25 State plans, as
discussed below, which must include permit requirements to be in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 256. This discrepancy haa not yet been reconciled).
The Census also solicited informatign about permit fee requirements.
Fifty-one'TJ^tcent of the States and Territories responding had permit fees for
landfills, 40 percent had fees for surface impoundments, and 46 percent had
permit fees for land application units.
Minimum Regulatory Standards or Criteria
The Federal Criteria promulgated in 1979 (40 CFR Part 257) represent the
minimum regulatory standards that a State program must apply to Subtitle D
facilities. Many States and Territories have incorporated these Criteria into
regulations as part of their solid waste management plans. At this time, EPA
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-4. NUMBERS OF OPEN DUMPS IN THE 1985 INVENTORY [4]
State Number of dumps
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Ca lifornia
Colorado
Connect icu t
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
11 linois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada . ,-y*.
New Hampshire
New Jersey
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 Number of dumps
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
Am. Samoa
Guam
N. Mar. Is.
Puerto Rico
Virgin Is.
*
5
55
0
8
50
61
20
48
6
3
64
6
11
U
9
1
32
45
51
17
5
1
3
64
5
5-8
-------
O
11
«-
-------
has approved 25 such plans and partially approved six others. However, Che
EPA has not actively reviewed State solid waste management plans since 19bl
when the Federal emphasis shifted Co Che hazardous waste program. During
Phase II of the Subtitle D Study, the EPA plans to evaluate how many
additional States have regulations equivalent to or more stringent than the
Federal Criteria.
A number of States and Territories have established regulatory
requirements for their Subtitle D facilities that are, in many instances more
stringent than the Subtitle D Criteria. The Subtitle D Census and Regulations
Reviews contain extensive information on the number and types of other
regulatory requirements imposed by the States. A breakdown of these
additional requirements by facility type is contained in the discussion of
specific facility requirements in subsection 5.3 of this section.
Permit Program jrnpljmentation
The Subtitle 0 Census contains data on the number of Subtitle D
facilities (excluding waste piles) that have permits or approved facility
plans. Table 5-5 presents these data on the numbers of Subtitle D facilities
with a permit or approved plan and the percentage of the total universe of
facilities (note that those that have "licenses" are not included here). A
further breakdown by facility type of the number of permits and percentage
permitted is contained in subsection 5.3. The data indicate that while the
number of permits granted to Subtitle D facilities ia high, almost half o£ the
facilities remain unpermitted.
TABLE 5-5. NUMBERS OF SUBTITLE D FACILITIES WITH PERMITS [11
Facility type
Number
Percent of total
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Land Application Units
Waste Pilea
TOTAL
8,422
95,478
ia»,502
n/a
116,402
51,3
49.3
66.2
n/a
51.2
5.2.4 ENFORCEMENT
The specific program elements covered under this topic are: an
inspection program for discovering non-compliance, data on the violations
discovered, and follow-up enforcement actions for remedying violations.
5-10
-------
Inspection Program
The Subtitle D Census contains data on numbers and frequency of State
inspections at Subtitle D facilities in 1984 (data do not include waste
piles). Table 5-6 presents these data in the aggregate; a breakdown of
inspection data by facility type is presented in subsection 5,3. The data
indicate that landfills and surface impoundments 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 had checklists for landfill inspections and 30.4 percent did so
for land application units, but no summary results were available for surface
impoundments.
TABLE 5-6. NUMBERS OF INSPECTIONS AT SUBTITLE D FACILITIES IN 1984 [1J
Facility Type
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Land Application Units
Waste Piles
Number of
inspections
32,852
48,103
8,085
n/a
Percentage
inspected
more o
77
56
19
n/a
of units
yearly or
ften
Discovery of Violations
i
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 5-7 presents these data in aggregate form. A breakdown
of the data by facility type is presented in subsection 5.3. The data
indicate that the moat common violations discovered at Subtitle D facilities
are violations of facility operating requirements, but a significant number of
ground water, surface water, and air contamination violations have also been
uncovered.
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-7. NUMBERS OF VIOLATIONS AT SUBTITLE D FACILITIES IN 1984 U
Ground Surface
water water Air con-
contami- concatni- Lamina- Methane Operational
Type of facility nation nation tion control deficiencies
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Land Application Units
Waste Piles
720
677
66
n/a
758
909
126
n/a
950
213
22
n/a
189
n/a
n/a
n/a
5,973
4,907
293
n/a
Enforcement Actions
The Subtitle D Census does not contain any such enforcement data from
State Subtitle D programs. The National Solid Waste Survey^, however, does
include 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. Another 931 unclassified actions were filed in 1983.
5.3 FACILITY-SPECIFIC STATE REGULATIONS
The Regulations Reviews^ contain detailed information on the State and
Territorial regulations that apply to the various types of Subtitle 0
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"'"9fta Territorial regulations tor each facility type. More detailed
information on what requirements are imposed by which States appears 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 landfills). Out
of a total of 16,416 landfills, 8,422 (51 percent) have permits and 26B6 (16
percent) have licenses. Table 5-8 peresents these data by landfill type.
5-12
-------
TABLE 5-8. NUMBERS OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS WITH PERMITS AND LICENSES [1]
Number of landfills Number of landfills
with permits or with licenses or
Landfill type approved plans registrations
Municipal waste
Industrial waste
Demolition debris only
Other
TOTAL
Moat available data on specific permit information requirements,
contained in the Regulations Reviews, are limited to municipal landfills.
These data are presented in Table 1 of Appendix, D. As the table indicates,
the States and Territories vary widely in permit information requirements for
municipal landfills. Most require aorae 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
Fifty States and Territories have a general performance standard that
requires the owner/operator of a municipal landfill 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 municipal landfills are presented in Table 2 of
Appendix D. Those States and Territories imposing design requirements
typically include runon/runoff controls and, to a lesser extent, leachate
management and gas controls. Eighteen States have liner design
specifications, ranging from thickness to permeability, for both natural and
synthetic liners.
Operation and Maintenance Standards
Fifty-two States and Territories have established minimum standards for
the operation and maintenance of municipal landfills. Requirements regarding
5-U
-------
che operation and maintenance of municipal landfills are presented in Table 3
of Appendix D. Most States and Territories employ a fairly consistent set of
controls, including waste management, leachate controls, daily cover, safety
requirements, and other controls.
Location Standarda and Restrictions
Forty-four States and Territories have some sort of location standards or
restrictions applicable to municipal landfills. 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 4 of Appendix D. As shown, moat States
specify minimum distances to man-made or natural structures and have some form
of flood control restrictions.
Monjjt o_r_ing Requirements
Forty-one States and Territories require ground water monitoring, 23
require leachate monitoring, and 10 require surface water monitoring to be
installed and operated around municipal landfills. Four of the States or
Territories which require leachate monitoring do not require ground water
monitoring. No States or Territories require air monitoring. The data on
types of monitoring are presented in Table 5 of Appendix D.
Closure, Post-Closure, and Financial Responsibility Requirements
Fifty-one States and Territories have some sort of closure and
postcloaure regulatory requirements and 21 require some form of financial
assurance. The differing requirements are presented in Table 6 of Appendix D.
EnfQrcertient Efforts
The Subtitle D Census contains limited data on State enforcement
activities at Subtitle D landfills. These include number and frequency of
inspections and number and type of violations discovered at landfills, but no
data an enforcement actions and compliance rates. The Census data on
inspections, presented in Table 5-9t demonstrate the special attention given
municipal landfills compared.to the other types. This is also confirmed by
the data-owatfrequency of inspections snown in Table 5-10. Census data on
violations discovered at landfills are presented in Table 5-11. These data
indicate that while most of the violations reported in 1984 were for
operational deficiencies, a significant number also were reported for ground
water, surface water, and air contamination violations. It should be noted
that States used their own definitions of "contamination in reporting these
data, and thus both minor and serious contamination incidents are likely to be
included.
5-14
-------
TABLE 5-9. NUMBERS OF INSPECTIONS OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS IN 1984 [l]
Landfill type
Number of
inspections
during 1984
Number
of
landfills
Municipal waste
Industrial waste
Demolition debris only
Other
TOTAL
24,865
4,354
2,834
799
32,852
9,284
3,511
2,591
1.U30
16,416
5-15
-------
TABLE 5-10. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION OF SUBTITLE D LANDFILLS IN 1984(1]
Response Rate
Never inspected
Less Chan once
every two years
Once every
cwo years
Once a year
Twice a year
Four times
a year
More than four
times a year
Other - .-.j^
TOTAL
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%)
Indust rial
waste
94%
157
(4.8%)
347
(11.4%)
87
(2.6%)
512
(15.3%)
482
(14.6%)
416
(12.6%)
1,243
(37.7%)
*24
(0.7%)
3,297
(100%)
Demol it ion
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. 8X)
935
(6.2%)
1,472
(9.8%)
4,214
(28.1%)
2,587
(17.3%)
2,121
(14.2%)
2,618
(17. 5X)
176
(1.24)
14,987
(100*)
5-16
-------
TABLE 5-11. NUMBER OF LANDFILLS BY TYPE OF VIOLATION IN 1984 [1
Demolie ion
Municipal Industrial debris
Violation Type waste waste only Other TOTAL
Ground water
contamination 586 111 16 7 720
Ground water moni-
toring program
deficiencies 834 117 82 108 1,141
Surface water
contamination 660 50 42 6 758
Air contamination 845 18 33 54 950
Methane control
deficiencies 180 801 189
Operational defi-
ciencies (e.g.,
daily cover violation
or blowing litter and
other minor
violations) 4,784 433 531 225 5,973
Other violations
in 1984 * 222 13 7 0 242
5.3.2 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
the States and Territories studied for the Regulations
Reviews^ have regulations that address surface impoundments. These
regulations are discussed briefly below.
Permitting and Administrative Requirements
With a. few exceptions, each of the 16 States and Territories requires
issuance of an application, license, or permit before facilities can became
operational. A significant number of surface impoundments actually have
permits or approved plans. A smaller number have licenses or regiat rations,
as shown in Table 5-12, Specific permit information requirements that apply
to surface impoundments ranging from soil conditions, ground and surface
water information to future use of the property are shown in Table 7 of
Appendix 0. In moat cases, the requirements include certification by a
Professional Engineer and, to a leaser extent, surface and ground water
information.
5-17
-------
TABLE 5-12. NUMBERS OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
WITH PERMITS AND LICENSES [I]
Surface impoundment
type
Number of surface
impoundments with
permits or plan
approvals
Number of surface
impoundments with
licenses or
registrations
Municipal sewage sludge
Municipal runoff
Industrial waste
Agricultural waste
Mining waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
TOTAL
1,121
365
7,747
10,505
11,218
59,295
5,227
95,478
0
0
354
210
77
0
0
641
Design Criteria and jtandarda
Of the 16 States and Territories that have surface impoundment
requirements, 11 have criteria with respect to facility design. As can be
seen in Table 8 of Appendix D, not all of these specific criteria are
implemented in each of the 11 States. Nine specify security requirements and
runon/runoff controls, eight require leachate management, seven include some
form of natural or synthetic liner design specifications.
Operations and Maintenance Standards
Thirteen of the 16 States and Territories with surface impoundment
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 9 of Appendix D, and the actual levels or
methods of performance are frequently left to the discretion of the
enforcement agency.
Location Standards and Restrictions
Twelve States and Territories have location standards for surface
impoundments. The distribution oC the specific location standards and
5-18
-------
restrictions, ranging from flood protection to critical habitat control ia
shown in Table 10 of Appendix D. As with landfillj, States are more likely to
restrict sites in floodplaina and within specified distances to man-made
structures and natural resources.
Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring requirements pertaining to ground water, surface water,
leachate, or air are imposed in 14 States, as can be seen in Table 11 of
Appendix D. Ground water monitoring is required in 11 of these States,
leachate and air in about half, 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 g surface impoundment regulations. These are shown in
Table 12 of Appendix D. Ten States have requirements covering post-closure
and seven of these States impose financial responsibility requirements as veil.
Enforcement Efforts
The Subtitle D Census contains limited data on State enforcement
activities at Subtitle 0 surface impoundments. These include number and
frequency of inspections and number and type of violations discovered, but no
data on enforcement actions and compliance rates. The inspection data,
presented in Table 5-13, indicate that inspections have occurred at oil or gas
waste surface impoundments more often than at all other types combined. The
frequency of inspection data shown in Table 5-14, on the other hand, reveal
that the municipal runoff impoundments are the most frequently inspected.
Census data on violations at landfills are presented in Table 5-15. As with
landfills, these data indicate that while most of the violations reported in
1934 were for operational deficiencies, a significant number alao were
reported for ground water, surface water, and air contamination violations.
As mentioned previously, the States' definitions of "contamination" vary.
TABLE 5-13.
NUMBERS OF INSPECTIONS OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS IN 1984
_. -'T^JJT'' " "
Surface impoundment type
Municipal sewage sludge
Municipal runoff
Industrial waste
Agricultural waste
Mining waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
Number of
inspections
during 1984
1,079
1,768
6,164 ,
3,765
7,674
26,340
1.313
Number of
surface
impoundments
1,938
488
16,232
17,150
19,813
125,074
11,118
TOTAL
48,103
191,822
5-19
-------
TABLE 5-14. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION OF SUBTITLE D SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS IN 1984 [2]
in
I
N)
O
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
Munic ipal
sewage
i sludge
'i
1
93%
37
(2.1%)
401
(22.4%)
208
(11. 6Z)
v 851
(47. 4Z)
234
(13.0%)
61
(3.4Z)
2
(0.1Z)
0
1,794
(100Z)
Munic ipal
run-
off
98Z
34
(7.1%)
59
(12.3%)
30
(6.3Z)
106
(22.1%)
24
(5.0Z)
82
(17.1%)
138
(28.8%)
6
(1.3%)
479
(100Z)
Indus-
trial
waste
73Z
191
(1.6%)
2,981
(25.2%)
2,835
(24. OZ)
4,645
(39. 3Z)
498
(4.2Z)
234
(2.0Z)
164
(1.4Z)
275
(2.3Z)
11,823
(100%)
Agricul-
tural
waste
88%
3,634
(24.2%)
5,568
(37.1%)
1,013
(6.7%)
2,918
(19. 4Z)
413
(2.8Z)
3
( 0.1Z)
0
1,465
(9.8Z)
15,014
(100Z)
Mining
waste
38%
658
(8.8%)
927
(12. 4Z)
3,294
(44. OZ)
2,009
(26.8%)
100
(1.3Z)
51
(0.7%)
206
(2.7Z)
249
(3.3Z)
7,494
(1002)
Oil or
gas
waste
77Z
11,478
(11.9%)
15,239
(15.7%)
7,344
(7.6Z)
60,152
(62.2%)
1,426
(1.5Z)
406
(0.4Z)
740
(0.8Z)
0
96,785
(100%)
Other
47%
3
(0.06%)
104
(2.0Z)
108
(2.1%)
425
(8.2%)
27
(0.5Z)
222
(4.3%)
0
4,324
(82.9%)
5,213
(100Z)
TOTAL
72%
16,035
(11.6%)
25,279
(18. 2Z)
14,832
(10.7Z)
71,106
(51.3%)
2,722
(2.0Z)
1,059
(0.8%)
1,250
(0.9Z)
6,319
(4.6%)
138,602
(100%)
-------
TABLE 5-15. NUMBER OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY TYPE OF VIOLATION IN 1984 [1]
Agri-
Mimici- Munici- Indus- cultu- Oil
pal pal trial ral Mining or gas
Violation type sewage runoff waste waste waste waste Other TOTAL
Ground water
contamination 35
Ground water
monitoring
program
deficiencies 28
Surface water
contamination 24
Air contami-
nation 20
Operational defi-
ciencies and
other minor vio-
lations 137
Other violations
in 1984 0
32 416 29 48 111
12 317 34 137 110
18 279 189 249 128
12 145 21
10
677
643
22 909
213
37 616 672 534 2,893 18 4,907
5-21
-------
5.3.3 LAND APPLICATION UNITS
Twenty-three of Che States and Territories reviewed in the Regulations
Reviews^ have regulations that address land application units (LAUs). These
regulations are discussed briefly below.
Pe rmi t t ing and Admin is t rative Requi re ments
Out of a total of 18,889 LAUs, 12,502 (66 percent) have permits or
approved plans annd 410 (2 percent) have licenses or registrations. These
numbers are presented, by LAU type, in Table 5-16. 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 13 of Appendix D. In moat State and Territory
regulations, the governing agency reserves Che 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-cage evaluation of site-specific circumstances,
TABLE 5-16. NUMBERS OF SUBTITLE D LAND APPLICATION
UNITS WITH PERMITS AND LICENSES [1]
Land application unit type
Number with
permits or
approved plans
Number with
licenses or
registrations
Municipal sewage sludge
Industrial waste
Oil or gas waste
Other
TOTAL
7,955
3,331
697
519
12,502
297
in
0
0
410
Pea ign Griteria and Standards
Eighteen States and Territories have requirements pertaining to facility
design. The variability with respect Co the enforcement of such requirements
across States is shown in Table 14 of Appendix D. Typically these
requirements include security and runon/runoff controls, and to a lesser
extent, leachate management and air protection design specifications.
5-22
-------
Operations and Maintenance Standards
Twenty-one of the 23 States and Territories with restrictions on LAUs
have operation and maintenance regulations. Table 15 of Appendix D shows
which of these regulatory areas are covered by the different States and
Territories. Eighteen States and Territories require safety controls, 15 have
waste management and waste application controls, seven have crop management
restrictions, and six have leachate management restrictions.
LocationStandards and Reatrictions
Sixteen States and Territories have location standards and restrictions
that pertain to land application units as can be seen in Table 16 of
Appendix D. Consistent with other types of Subtitle D facilities, LAU
location controls usually include floodplain and minimum distance restrictionsi
M on i t o r i ng Reg ui re men ts
Sixteen States and Territories have monitoring requirements. The
distribution of these requirements across States and Territories is shown in
Table 17 of Appendix D. Fifteen call for ground water monitoring, but fewer
than half that number require surface water, soil, or air monitoring.
Closure, Post-Closure, and Financial Responsibility Requirements
Wide variations exist among State and Territory regulatory requirements
for LAU closure and post-closure. The 12 that have such regulations are shown
in Table 18 of Appendix D. The six States having regulations regarding
financial responsibility also are shown in that table. No States or
territories are reported to have liability requirements for land application
units.
Enfo rcement E f £o r t s
The Subtitle D Census contains limited data on State enforcement
activities at Subtitle D land application units. These include number and
frequency of inspections and number and type of violations discovered. The
inspection data, presented in Table 5-17, indicate that almost twice as many
inspections occurred at municipal sewage sludge units compared to the other
types. IboEudata on frequency of inspection shown in Table 5-18, on the other
hand, reveals 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 land application units are presented in
Table 5-19. As with landfills and suface impoundments, 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.
5-23
-------
TABLE 5-17. NUMBERS OF INSPECTIONS OF SUBTITLE D LAND
APPLICATION UNITS IN 198'* [1]
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
5.3.4 WASTE PILES
Thirty States and Territories have regulations that address waste piles.
These regulations are discussed briefly below.
Permittjng^and Administrative Requirements
Twenty-nine States and Territories require a permit, license, or
application for waste piles. Table 19 of Appendix D presents a matrix of
these permit requirements. Specific permit information requirements for waste
piles are limited in scope and vary considerably among Che States and
Territories, but typically require information on soil conditions, surface
water location, and ground water elevation and flow. As with the other typed
of facilities, most States require certification of permit applications by a
Professinal Engineer.
Design CftflHria and Standards
Twenty-two States and Territories have design criteria applicable to
waste piles. Specific requirements for waate piles range from liner
specifications to leachate management and decomposition gas controls. The
distribution of these requirements is presented in Table 20 of Appendix L).
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 21
of Appendix D.
5-24
-------
TABLE 5-18. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION OF SUBTITLE D
LAND APPLICATION UNITS IN 1984 [Ij
t
Response Rate
Never inspected
Less Chan once
every two years
Once every
two years
Once a year
Twice a year
Four times
a year
More than four
cimes a year
--'*Os
Other
TOTAL
Total
municipal
sewage
sludge
95%
388
(3.4%)
6,489
(57.2%)
1,403
(12.4%)
1,787
(15.8%)
254
(2.2%)
98
(0.9%)
182
(1.6*)
743
(6.5%)
11,344
(100%)
Industrial
waste
99%
1,308
(23.7%)
2,487
(45.0%)
845
(15.3%)
639
(11.6%)
126
(2.32)
21
(0.4*)
10
(0.22)
>
94
(1.7%)
5,530
( 100% )
Oil and gas
waste
100%
15
(2.L%)
6
(0.8%)
33
(4.5%)
175
(24.1%)
465
(64.0%)
4
(0.6%)
8
(i.tt)
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
(100Z)
TOTAL
97%
1,782
(9.8%)
9,028
(49.5%)
2,309
(12.7%)
2,627
(14.4%)
845
(4.6%)
123
(0.7%)
200
(1.1%)
1,307
(7.2%)
IB, 221
(100%)
5-25
-------
TABLE 5-19. NUMBER OF LAND APPLICATION UNITS BY TYPE OF VIOLATION
IN 1984 [1]
Total
municipal Oil or
sewage Industrial gas
Violation Type sludge waste waste Other TOTAL
Ground water
contamination 17 45 2 2 6t>
Ground water moni-
toring program
deficiencies 14 41 8.1 64
Surface water
contamination 17 60 25 24 126
Air contamination 12 10 0 0 22
Operational defi-
ciencies and
other minor
violations 115 88 . 82 8 293
Other violations
in 1984 10 00 0 10
LocationStandards 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 and minimum distances.
These location standards or restrictions are presented in Table 22 of
Appendix D.
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 23 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).
5-26
-------
Closure, Post-Closure, and Financial Responsibility Requirements
Fifteen States and Territories have closure and post-closure maintenance
requirements for waste piles. These are presented in Table 24 of Appendix D.
This.table also shows the six States that impose financial responsibility
requirements'for waste piles.
Enforcement E_fforts
The Subtitle D Census does not contain data on waste piles, so there are
no nationwide data on the number and frequency of State inspections of waste
piles or the number and typea of violations uncovered currently available.
5.4 SUMMARY
This section haa presented data on State and Territorial Subtitle D
programs. It has also identified the limitations in the available data that
make a complete State program characterization difficult. The data on State
and Territorial Subtitle D programs collected during Phase I will continue to
be examined, and will be supplemented as necessary during Phase II of the
Subtitle D study.
5-27
-------
REFERENCES
1. Westat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle I) Non-Hazardous
Waste Programs. Contract No. 68-01-7047. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, OSW, Washington. D.C, , 1986.
2. PEI Associates, Inc. State Subtitle Regulations on Landfills, Surface
Impoundments, Land Treatment and Waste Piles, Draft Vol. I-IV. Contract
No. 68-01-7075/02-3890, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSW,
Washington, D.C., 1985.
3. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
National Solid Waste Survey, Unpublished. 1984.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of Open Dumps. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1985.
5-28
-------
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS
Ac the beginning of the Subtitle D study, the Agency identified waste
characterization, facility assessment, and State program assessment as the key
topic areas to be addressed during the study. This section identifies the
major data needs within each of these topic areas that are outstanding at the
end of Phase I of the study. The EPA will consider these data needs in
developing the workplan for Phase II of the study. Some key Phaae II projects
that are already underway are briefly reviewed at the end of this section.
6.1 DATA NEEDS
The Phase I data collection efforts described in Sections 3 through 5
have provided adequate information to satisfy many of the Subtitle 1> study
needs, but some needs remain unfulfilled. The following discussion identifies
these key outstanding data needs.
Waste Char acterization
The major data sources used to address the Subtitle D waste
characterization portion of Phase I varied by waste and included: the MSW
Characterization Study!, t^e Household Hazardous Waste Study*, the
Subtitle D Census , the Industry Report*1*, the National Surface Impoundment
Assessment5, and the National Small Quantity Generator Survey^. This
subsection presents the remaining data needs associated with each of the nine
major Subtitle D waste categories identified in Section 3.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Phase. .Ip^f forts revealed significantly more data on MSW than on any of
the other Subtitle D waste types. The data include national generation rates
for key MSW components and projections of future MSW generation. Preliminary
analyses indicate these data provide adequate detail and accuracy for the EPA
report to Congress.
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Available information on HHW is limited to descriptions of current HHW
management practices, local studies of HHW quantities, and lista of items
believed to qualify as HHW3. The most significant data needs remaining are:
Additional estimates on the quantities and characteristics of the
HHW received at Subtitle D facilities.
6-1
-------
Municipal Water and Wagtewater Treatment Sludge--
The characterization of water and wastewater treatment sludges included
readily available data on the composition, quantities and disposal methods
used for municipal aludge including numbers of surface impoundments and LAUa
which primarily receive municipal sludges. Additional data are needed on the
composition and quantities of these sludges. Much of these data are available
in the literature or are currently being gathered by EPA's Office of Water.
These data will be incorporated in the EPA report to Congress.
Municipal Waste Combustion Ash
Limited data are available which characterize municipal waste combustion
ash and its management. The remaining data needs include characterization of
the composition and quantities of combustion ash.
Industrial Nonhazardous Waste
The Phase I efforts provide estimates of industrial nonhazardous waste
quantities and management practices for those industries that are believed to
generate the largest quantities of theae wastes. The greatest remaining data
needs are:
More precise estimates of the waste quantities generated from
specific industrial waste sources.
Better characterization of each waste type including concentration
ranges and averages for the major waste constituents.
The quantities and types of wastes managed in industrial surface
impoundments, landfills, LAUa, and waste piles.
Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Waste
Information sources for SQG wastes provided detailed information on the
composition, quantities, and management practices associated with SQG
disposal, including numbers of Subtitle D facilities receiving SQG wastes (by
facility type). These data appear to provide adequate detail and accuracy for
the EPA report to Congress^
Construction and Demolition, and Agricultural Wastes
The _a.y^Alable data on -these waste 'categories provide only very rough
estimates of nationwide waste quantities, typical compositions, and quantities
received at facilities dedicated to these wastes. The outstanding data needs
include better characterization, nationwide waste quantities, and associated
management practices.
6-2
-------
Mining, and Oil and Gas Wastes
Data on Subtitle D raining waatea have been provided by a recent EPA
Report to Congress and these are being supplemented by current efforts in
support of ruleraaking. Oil and gas waste is"the subject of another Report to
Congress that is now being prepared by the EPA. Remaining data gaps will be
addressed by these separate, more comprehensive efforts on raining, and oil and
gas wastes.
Facility Characterization
Ths principal facility characterization data provided in Phase I of the
Subtitle D study is from the Subtitle D Census,^ the Industry Report,1* the
NPL/Subtitle D study,' and the preliminary review of case studies from
municipal landfills. Data needs presented below are organized according to
general facility profiles, design and operation, preliminary environmental and
hunan health impact analysis, and leachate and gas characteristics of
Subtitle D facilities.
General Profiles--
Facility profile information that supports the Subtitle D study includes
statistical profiles of the different facility classes, including such
characteristics as: numbers of active facilities, locations, types, ownership
characteristics, sizes, and wastes received. Remaining data needs include;
General profile information on waste piles, including facility
numbers, locations, types, ownership characteristics, sizes, and
wastes received.
For all facility types except municipal waste landfills, more
facility-specific data are needed on facility numbers, locations,
sizes, and wastes recieved.
Design and Operation
Subtitle D facility design and operating data will support EPA evaluation
of the effect of the Federal Criteria and the State Subtitle D regulatory
programs on the level of environmental controls at Subtitle D facilities.
Remaining data needs are presented below for landfills, surface impoundments,
land application units, and waste piles.
Land fillaThe Phase I studies provided aggregate statistics of the
numbers of landfills using soil and synthetic liners, leachate control
systems, methane control systems, runon/runoff controls, and employing waste
restrictions and environmental monitoring. In addition, Phase I research
provided descriptions of design,and operating practices that may be employed
at municipal waste landfills. There is a general lack of data on other
landfill types. Data needs are as follows:
6-3
-------
Identification of major d if fiirencea between the design and operation
methods for industrial, demolition debris, and ocher landfills, and
those for municipal landfills.
Facility-specific data on design and operating characteristics.
This information could be compiled for correlation among design and
operating characteristics or correlation with contamination
impacts. (Aggregate data collected in the State Census cannoc be
used to make these correlations. )
Surface impoundmentsPhase I studies provided general statistics on the
numbers of surface impoundments using soil and membrane liners, overtopping
controls, leak detection systems, waste restrictions, and environmental
monitoring. This data was of low quality, however. The major remaining data
needs include facility-specific design and operating data for all
impoundments. This information could be compiled for correlation among design
and operating characteristics or correlation with contamination impacts.
Land application unitsThe Phase I studies identified the numbers of
LALJs using riinon/runoff controls, waste restrictions, application rate limits,
food chain crop restrictions, and environmental monitoring. Current
literature provides complete information concerning recommended slopes for
various treatment/disposal procedures, available runon/runoff controls, and
environmental monitoring. The most critical information needs remaining are
facility-specific design and operating statistics for all LAUs. This
information could be compiled for correlation among design and operating
characteristics or correlation with contamination impacts.
Waste^pilesNo data were collected during Phase I on waste piles. Data
needs include:
Information concerning typical design, operation, and management
practices.
Types of nonhazardous waste managed in piles, and amounts managed
by each industry.
Leachate and Gas Characteristics--
Municipal landfill leachate information is complete for inorganic
constituents and very Limited for organic constituents. No information was
obtained on leachate from industrial or demolition debria landfills, or from
any type of surface impoundments or waste piles. Landfill gas information is
also incomplete in the area of trace organic constituents. Remaining data
needs are:
Organic constituents for leachate and gas from municipal landfills.
6-4
-------
Leachate characteristics from nonmunicipal waste landfills (i.e.,
industrial and demolition debris waste landfills), surface
impoundments, and waste piles.
Gas characteristics for non-municipal waste landfills.
Leachate and gas production rates and the effects of organics in
gas and leachate. Research should attempt to reveal the
constituents sources and their environmental impacts since organic
data are limited.
Preliminary Environmental and Human Health Impact Analysis
Available data on environmental and health impacts at Subtitle D
facilities include numbers of reported violations for ground water, surface
water, and air contamination, and preliminary case study information on
contamination at various Subtitle D facilities (mostly municipal
landfills). In order to fully evaluate the environmental and human health
impacts of these facilities, these data must be used in conjunction with the
results from a risk analysis. The data needs for documenting the extent of
contamination problems include more extensive ground water, surface water
and air monitoring data for all facility types. Additional field data may
be required. These data could be complemented with case studies which
assess risk and evaluate probable causes of contaminent releases.
State Program Characterization
The principal resources used in the State program characterization were
the State Subtitle 0 Census,^ and the State Regulations Reviews.9 The
additional data and analysis needs identified here are organised according to
the topics addressed in this report: program organization/management;
facility identification/status; permit/regulation', and enforcement.
Program Organization/Management
In order to assess the implementation impacts on States of any Subtitle D
criteria revisions, EPA needs to further examine the information in hand, then
follow up if necessary with case studies.
Identification/Status ±
To flippy1 understand the size and composition of the universe of
Subtitle D facilities, and to anticipate the likely impacts of the Criteria
revisions on these facilities, the EPA will need to obtain State program data
on waste piles to complete the picture on numbers and characteristics of
facilities.
Permit/Regulation
All States and Territories that have an approved Subtitle U program must,
by definition, have criteria that are at least as stringent as those in 4U CFH
Part 257. It remains uncertain how many more States and Territories have
criteria that are equivalent to or more stringent than those required by the
6-5
-------
Federal government. The EPA will need further analysis to determine whether
or not existing criteria are adequate to protect human health and the
environment from ground water contamination, as required under the 1984
Amendments to RCRA. This will include determining which States and
Territories, in addition to the 25 with approved State plans, employ criteria
equivalent to the current Federal Criteria.
Enforcement
To determine if State enforcement authorities are adequate, as specified
under Section 4010 of RCRA, the following data should be obtained:
State enforcement authority information.
Enforcement program caae studies
6.2 DIRECTIONS FOR PHASE II
The EPA is now developing a workplan for Phase II of the Subtitle D
study. The data needs identified in the previous discussion will be
considered in this workplan. Theae data needs will be more fully examined to
determine whether additional or somewhat different data are needed to address
the objective of the Subtitle D study, i.e., to evaluate the adequacy of the
Subtitle D Criteria protection of human health and the environment. The
specific Phase II data collection projects will be determined baaed on a
number of factors, including contributions toward the Subtitle D study
objective, and timing and resource constraints.
Although the workplan is not yet complete, the EPA has already initiated
several Phase II data collection projects to address some of the more critical
data needs. These projects are listed in Table 6-1 and described in further
detail below:
Municipal Landfill Survey- A survey of a representative sample of
municipal landfills to gather facility-specific data on design and
operating characteristics and environmental contamination.
Industrial Facilities Survey- A telephone and mail survey of a
representative sample of industrial nonhazardous waste land disposal
-£*cilities to gather facility-specific data on design and operating
characteristics and environmental contamination.
Case Studies at Municipal Landfills- Evaluation of detailed data on
facility design and operating characteristics and environmental
impacts for a set of about 110 case studies prepared during
Phase I. This includes case studies collected for State regulatory
agencies.
6-6
-------
TABLE 6-1. CURRENT PHASE II PROJECTS
Municipal Landfill Survey. Survey to gather site specific information.
Initial survey - November 1986 ,
Draft Report - May 1987
Industrial Facilities Survey. Telephone and mail survey of land disposal
facilities owned by industry.
Telephone survey;
Survey initiation - November 1986
Draft Report - May 1987
Mail Survey:
Survey initiation - January 1987
Draft Report - August 1987
Case Studies at Municipal Landfills. Case studies on facility D&O and
environmental impacts.(ongoing)
Municipal Waste Landfill Leachate Characterization. Field sampling of
leachate from selected municipal solid waste landfills, (ongoing)
Characterization of Municipal Waste Incinerator Residues. Sampling and
analysis of residues at municipal incinerators and ash monofill units.
(ongoing)
*
Hazardous Household Waste Sorting and Evaluation. Assessment of
hazardous household wastes in selected municipal waste streams, (ongoing)
6-7
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Leachate Characterization- Field sampling of
leachate from a selected set of municipal waste landfills to collect
more comprehensive data on the hazardous organic constituents in
leachate.
Characterization of Municipal Waste Incinerator Residues- Sampling
and analysis of combustion residues at selected municipal
incinerators and ash raonofill units,
Hazardous Household Waste Sorting and Evaluation Quantitative and
qualitative assessment of hazardous household wastes in selected
municipal waste streams.
Other Phase II projects may be initiated following completion of the
workplan and further consideration of additional data submissions from the
Agency or from waste management trade associations. Additional Agency efforts
which will contribute to the Subtitle D Report to Congress include separate
and comprehensive efforts on mining wastes, oil and gas wastes and municipal
wastewater sludges.
6-8
-------
REFERENCES
1. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in
the Unites States, 1960 to 2000. Draft Report. U..S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, B.C. May 1986.
2, 5CS Engineers. A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related
Collection Programs. Contract No. 68-01-6621, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1986.
3. Westat, Inc. Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous
Waste Programs. Contract No. 68-01-7047, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 1986.
4. Science Applications International Corporation. Summary of Data on
Industrial Nonhazardoua Waste Disposal Practices. Contract No.
68-01-7050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1985.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Surface Impoundment Assessment
National Report. EPA 57/9-84-002, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency/ODW, Washington, D.C. 1983.
6. Abt Associates, Inc. National Small Quantity Generator Survey. Contract
No. 68-01-6892, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSW, Washington,
D.C. 1985.
7. GCA Technology Division, Inc. Evaluation of NPL/Subt itle D Landfill
Data. Contract No. 68-01-7037, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. , 1986.
8. Municipal landfill case studies used in this analyses were from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, gffice of Solid Waste. These studies
e^'lpffe pared by PEI, SRW, and ICF. 1986.
9. PEI Associates, Inc. State Subtitle D Regulations on Landfills, Surface
Impoundment, Land Treatment and Waste Piles, Draft Vol. I-IV. Contract
No. 68-01-7075/02-3890, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSW,
Washington, D.C. 1986.
6-9
-------
APPENDIX A
40 CFR Fart 257
CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTL
DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES
-------
PART 257CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFI-
CATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOS-
AL 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.
APPENDIX I
APPPENDIX II
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)).
SOURCE: 44 FR 53460. Sept. 13. 1979.
unless otherwise noted.>
; * *
9 257.1 Scope and purpose.
(a) These criteria are for use under
the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (the Act) in determining
which solid waste disposal facilities
and practices pose a reasonable proba-
A-l
-------
§ 257.2
bility of adverse effects on health or
t,he environment. Unless otherwise
provided, these criteria are adopted
for purposes of both Section
1008UK3) and Section 4004 These criteria apply to all solid
waste disposal facilities and practices
with the following exceptions:
(1) The criteria do not apply to agri-
cultural wastes, including manures
and crop residues, returned to the soil
as fertilizers or soil conditioners.
(2) The criteria do not apply to over-
burden resulting from mining oper-
ations 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 gener-
ated by trearfaaient of domestic sewage.
(4) The criteria do not apply to the
location and operation of septic 'tartta,
The criteria do, however, apply to the
disposal of septic tank pumptngs.
(5) The criteria do not apply to solid
or dissolved materials in irrigation
return flows.
(6) The criteria do not apply to In-
dustrial discharges which are point
sources subject to permits under Sec-
tion 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).
(S) The criteria do not apply to haz-
ardous waste disposal facilities which
are subject to regulation under Sub-
title C of the Act,
(9) The criteria do not apply to dis-
posal of solid waste by underground
well injection suojecc to the regula-
tions (40 CFR Part 145) for the Under-
ground Injection Control Program
(UICP) under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3007
et seq.
[44 FR 53460, Sept. 13, 1979. zs amended at
46 FR 47052, Sept. 23, 1981)
3 257 J Definitions.
The definitions set forth in Section
1004 of the Act apply to this part. Spe-
cial definitions of general concern to
this part are provided below, and defi-
nitions especially pertinent to particu-
lar sections of this part are provided in
those sections.
"Disposal" means the discharge, de-
posit, 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 ap-
purtenances thereto used for the dis-
posal 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 mu-
nicipal, commercial, or industrial
wastewater treatment plant, water
supply treatment plant, or air pollu-
tion 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.
A-2
-------
§ 257.3-3
or air pollution control facility and ,
other discarded material. Including
solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained
gaseous material resulting from Indus-
trial, commercial, mining, and agricul-
tural operations, and from community
activities, but does not include solid or
dissolved materials In domestic
sewage, or solid or dissolved material
in irrigation return flows or industrial
discharges which are point sources
subject to permits under Section 402
of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880). or
source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material as defined by the Atomic
Knergy Act at 1954, as amended (68
Stat. 923).
"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.
[44 FR 53460, Sept. 13, 1979; 44 FR 56910.
Oct. 12. 1979]
§ 257.3 Criteria for classification of solid
waste disposal facilities and practices.
Solid waste disposal facilities or
practices which violate any of the fol-
lowing criteria pose a reasonable prob-
ability of adverse effects on health or
the environment:
9 257.3-1 Floodplains.
(a) Facilities or practices In flood-
plains shall not restrict the flow of the.
base flood, reduce the temporary
water storage capacity -x the flood-
plain, or result in washout of solid
waste, so as to pose a hazard to human
life, wildlife, or land or water re-
sources. *>***
(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 sig-
nificantly long period.
(2) "Floodplaln" 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.
[44 FR 53460. Sept. 13. 1979; 44 FR 54708,
Sept. 21, 1978]
§ 257.3-2 Endangered ap«ciee.
(a) Facilities or practices shall not
cause or contribute to the taking of
any endangered or threatened species
of plants, fish, or wildlife.
Cb) 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 CFB Part 17.
(c) As used In this section:
(1) "Endangered or threatened spe-
cies" means any species listed as such
pursuant to Section 4 of the TMdap.
gered Species Act.
(2)'"Destruction or adverse modifica-
tion" means a direct or Indirect alter-
ation of critical habitat which appre-
ciably'diminishes the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of threatened or
endangered species using that habitat.
(3) "Taking" means harassing, harm-
ing, pursuing, hunting, wounding, kill-
ing, trapping, capturing, or collecting
or attempting to engage In such con-
duct.
9257.3-3 Surface water.
(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 re-
quirements 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 vio-
lates applicable legal requirements Im-
plementing an areawide or Statewide
water quality management plan that
has been approved by the Administra-
tor under Section 208 of the Clean
Water Act. as amended.
(d) Definitions of the terms "Dis-
charge of dredged material", "Point*
source", "Pollutant", "Waters of the
United States", and "Wetlands" can be
A-3
-------
§ 257.3-4
found in the Clean Water Act. as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., and
implementing regulations, specifically
33 CFR Part 323 (42 FR 37122, July
19, 1977).
[44 FR 53460, Sept. 13. 19T9, &s amended at
46 FR 47052, Sept. 23. 1981]
§ 257.3-1 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.
(bXl) For purposes of Section
1008(aK3) 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 compli-
ance should be determined at an alter-
native boundary in lieu of the solid
waste boundary. The court shall estab-
lish 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 consid-
eration of all of the following factors
that are relevant:
(1) The hydrogeological characteris-
tics of the facility and surrounding
land, including any natural attenu-
ation and dilution characteristics of
the aquifer.
(it) The volume and physical and
chemical characteristics of the leach-
ate;
(iii) The quantity, quality, and direc-
tion of flow of ground water underly-
ing the fsdSty:
Qv) 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;
(vll) Public health, safety, and wel-
fare effects.
(2) For purposes of Sections 4004(a)
and 1008(a)(3), the State may estab-
lish an alternative boundary for a fa-
cility 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 for human con-
sumption. Such a finding shall be
based on an analysis and consideration
of all of the factors identified in para-
graph (bXl) of this section that are
relevant.
-------
except for solid waste containing cad-
mium at concentrations of 2 mg/kg
(dry weight) or less.
(ii) The annual application of cadmi-
um 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 penod
Pr»s«nl to June
Jury 1, 19U to
Beginning Jan,
30 1984 _ _
Dae. 31, IBM
1 1 9fl7 ._
Annual Cd
apnicaaon
rat* (kg/
na|
2.0
1.25
0.5
(iii) The cumulative application of
cadmium from solid waste does not
exceed the levels in either paragraph
(a)(l)(ili)(A) of this section or para-
graph (aXlXiiiXB) of this section.
(A)
Soil cabon eieha/ig* capacity
{meq/lQOfl)
Maximum cumuiadv*
application (Kg/Ma)
OH
man 8.5
Leas man S_,
S 10 15
More nan IS.,
Qround BOB
pH mcrv
man 6.5
S
10
20
(B) For soils with a background pH
of less than 6.5, the cumulative cadmi-
um application rate does not exceed
the levels below: Provided, That the
pH of the se-Utfejjeaste and soil mixture
is adjusted to and maintained at 6.5 or
greater whenever food-chain crops are
grown.
>
SoH caDon «xcftang« capacity (rrwq/IOOgJ
LMJ man s _^
5 In 15__. .... , . ,.. . ..
Mora than IS , ....,, .
Maximum
cumuUtMl
(kfl/hal
5
10
20
(2X1) The only food-chain crop pro-
duced is QTiftl 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
§ 257.3-5
the time the crop is planted, whichev-
er 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 pre-
clude Ingestion by humans. The facili-
ty operating plan describes the meas-
ures 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 noti-
fied by a stipulation in the land record
or property deed which states that the
property has received solid waste at
high <»*/<**jiim application rates and
that food-chain crops should not be
grown, due to a possible health
hazard.
(b) Polychlarinated BipKenyla
(PCBs}. Solid waste containing concen-
trations of PCBs equal to or greater
than 10 mg/kg (dry weight) is incorpo-
rated into the soil when applied to
land used for producing animal feed.
including pasture crops for animals
raised for miyc. Incorporation of the
solid waste into the soil is not required
if it is assured that the PCS content is
less than 0.2 mg/kg (actual weight) in
animal feed or less than 1.5 mg/kg (fat
basis) in miiic.
(c) As used in this section:
(1) "Animal feed" means any crop
grown for consumption by animals,
such as pasture crops, forage, and
grain.
, (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 ca-
tions a soil can absorb expressed in
milli-equivalents 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 gnm.ma.tinn method
for distinctly acid soils or the sodium
acetate method for neutral, calcareous
or saline soils ("Methods of Soil Anal-
ysis, Agronomy Monograph No. 9." C.
A. Blade, ed., American Society of
Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin, pp
891-901.1965).
A-5
-------
§ 257.3-4
(4) "Food-chain crops" means tobac-
co, crops grown for human consump-
tion, .and animal feed for animals
whose products are consumed by
humans.
(5) "Incorporated into the soil"
means the injection of solid waste be-
neath the surface of the sail or the
mixing of solid waste with the surface
soil.
(6) "Pasture crops" means crops
such as legrumes, grasses, grain stubble
and stover which are consumed by ani-
mals while grazing.
(?) "pH" means the logarithm of the
reciprocal of hydrogen ion concentra-
tion.
(8) "Root crops" means plants whose
edible parts are grown below the sur-
face 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 Mono-
graph No. 9," C.A. Black, ed, Ameri-
can Society of Agronomy, Madison,
Wisconsin, pp. 914-928, 1965.)
[44 FH 53460, Sept. 13, 1919; 44 FR 54708,
Sept. 21. 1979]
§ 257.3-6 Disease.
(a) Disease Vectors. The facility or
practice shall not exist or occur unless
che on-site population of disease vec-
tors is rninimized through the periodic
application of cover material or other
techniques as appropriate so as to pro-
tect public health.
(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 com-
pliance 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, Public
access to the facility Is controlled lor
at least 12 months, and grazing by ani-
mals whose products are consumed by
humans is prevented for at least one
month. Processes to Significantly
Reduce Pathogens are listed In Appen-
dix n. Section A. (These provisions do
not apply to sewage sludge disposed of
by a trenching or burial operation.)
(2) Septic tank pumpings that are
applied to the land surface or incorpo-
rated into the soil are treated by a
Process to Significantly Reduce
Pathogens (as listed in Appendix II,
Section A), prior to application or in-
corporation, 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 Fur-
ther Reduce Pathogens, prior to appli-
cation or incorporation, if crops for
direct human consumption are grown
within IS months subsequent to appli-
cation or incorporation. Such treat-
ment Is not required if there is no con-
tact 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 ani-
mals whose products are consumed by
humans is prevented for at least one
month. If crops for direct human con-
sumption are not grown within IB
months of application or incorpora-
tion, the requirements of paragraphs
(b) (1) and (2) of this section apply.
Processes to Further Reduce Patho-
gens are listed in Appendix II, Section
B.
(c) As used in this section:
(1) "Crops for direct human con-
sumption" means crops that are con-
sumed by humans without processing
to minimize pathogens prior to distri-
bution to the consumer.
(2) "Disease vector" means rodents,
files, and mosquitoes capable of trans-
mitting disease to humans.
(3) "Incorporated into the soil"
means the injection of solid waste be-
neath 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
A-6
-------
§ 257.3-8
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.
[44 PR 53460, Sept. 13, 1979; 44 FR 54708,
Sept. 21. 1979]
8 257.3-7 Air,
Ca) 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 agricul-
tural wastes in the field, silvlcultural
wastes for forest management pur-
poses, land-clearing debris, diseased
trees, debris from emergency clean-up
operations, and ordnance.
(b) For purposes of Section 4004(a)
of the Act, the facility shall not vio-
late 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.
(c) As used in this section "open
burning" means the combustion of
solid waste without (1) control of com-
bustion air to maintain adequate tem-
perature for efficient combustion. (2)
containment of the combustion reac-
tion in an enclosed device to provide
sofficient^fesidence time and mixing
for complete combustion, and (3) con-
trol of the emission of the combustion
products.
[44 FR 53460. Sept. 13. 1979; 44 FR 54708.
Sept. 21. 1979, as amended at 48 FR 47052.
Sept 23, 1981]
§257.3-8 Safety.
(a) Explosive gases. The concentra-
tion of explosive gases generated by
the facility or practice shall not
exceed:
el) Twenty-five percent (25%) of trie
lower explosive limit for the eases In
facility structures (excluding gas con-
trol or recovery system components):
and
(2) The lower explosive limit for the
gases at the property boundary.
-------
§ 257.4
proportion as to be capable of attract-
ing or providing food for birds.
§ 257.J Effective date.
These criteria become effective Oc-
tober 15, 1979.
APPENDIX I
The maximum contaminant levels promul-
gated herein are tor use In determining
whether solid waste disposal activities
comply with the ground-water criteria
15 257.3-4). Analytical methods for these
contaminants may be found In 40 CFH Part
141 which should be consulted In Its entire-
ty.
1. 3faximtim contaminant levels far inor-
panic chemicals. The following are the max-
imum levels of Inorganic chemicals other
than fluoride:
Contaminant
lrt«r)
A~~«r
B«THtf"
(_KflS ,, -, .T-T T I , r , n , - ., -
Mfeury , ., ,,. ,. .,.. - -
"Httnut iiu N), - , -,,
5itw<»
0.05
1
0010
0 05
0,05
0.002
to
0.01
0.09
The maximum contaminant levels for flu-
oride are:
Temperature ' 0«gr*«
S3.7 and below.,
H.B to 58.3-
M.4 to 63.8
63.9 to 70.8
70,7 to 79.2 __
79.3 to 90.5__
Calaiua
12 ana Mtow.
12.1 u i4.e._
14.710 17,8,,..
17.7 ID 21.4....
21Jt02SJ_.
28.3 to 32.! _
Lsv*
2.4
12
2.0
1.8
1.8
.1.4
1 Annual »vwr«g« of m« mmnmum doily ur tMTtpmtur*.
2. Maximum contaminant levels for or-
ganic chemicals. The following are the max-
imum contaminant levels for organic chemi-
cals:
h*«in«.
(1.l.l-TncMocx>-2.2^ia
tn«n«) ___ ........
TP Smn (2,4.5-Trxniofoon«o- o*y-
pcoo*»*c sad) --- ___ ______ , ___ .
0,004
O.t
0,005
0.1
0.01
3. Maximum microtriclcpicai contaminant
levels. The mmHmnm contaminant level for
conform bacteria from any one well is as fol-
lows:
(a) using the membrane filter technique:
(1) Four conform bacteria per 100 ^"J\l»!-
ten 11 one sample is taken, or
(2) Four coliform bacteria per 100 mtlHU-
tcrs in more than one sample of all the sam-
ples 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 Examination of Water and
Waste Water", American Public Health As-
sociation. 13th Ed. pp. 662-588. and using a
Standard sample, each portion being one
fifth of the sample:
(1) If the standard portion is 10 miMltera.
coliform la any five consecutive samples
from a veil shall not be present in three or
more of the 25 portions, or
(2) If the standard portion Ls 100 mililli-
ters, coliform in any five consecutive sam-
ples from a well shall Dot be present In five
portions In any of five samples or In more
than fifteen of the 25 portions.
4, Jfonmum contaminant levels for
radium-226, radium-228, and gross alpha
panicle radioactivity. The following are the
maximum contaminant levels for radium-
226, radium- 228, and gross alpha particle ra-
dioactivity:
(a) Combined radium-226 and radium-
2285 pCI/l:
(b) Gross alpha particle activity (Including
ndlum-226 but excluding radon and urani-
um)15 pCi/L
APPENDIX n
M Chforinctal Hydrocarbon*:
EnCrin
0.0002
A. Processes to Siynificantly Reduce
Pathogens
Aerobic digestion: The process is conduct-
ed by agitating sludge with air or oxygen to
m^nt^r. Mroblc conditions at residence
times ranging from 60 days at 15* C to 40
A-8
-------
days at 20' C, with a volatile solids reduc-
tion of at least 38 percent.
Air Drying: Liquid sludge Ls 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.
Anaercbic digestion: The process is con-
ducted In the absence of air at residence
times ranging from 60 days at 20' C to 15
days at 35' to 55' C, with a volatile solids re-
duction of at least 38 percent.
Composting: Using the wlthin-vessel.
static aerated pile or wtndrow composting
methods, the solid waste Ls maintained at
minimum operating conditions of 40* C for 5
days. For four hours during this period the
temperature exceeds 55' C.
Lime Stabilization; Sufficient lime Ls
added to produce a pH of 12 after 2 hours of
contact.
Other methods: Other methods or operat-
ing conditions may be acceptable if patho-
gens and vector attraction of the waste
(volatile solids) are reduced to an extent
equivalent to the reduction achieved by any
of the above methods.
3. Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens
Composting; Using the within-vessel com-
posting method, the solid waste Ls main-
tained at operating conditions of 55' C or
greater for three days. Using the static aer-
ated 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 com-
posting period. Also, during the high tem-
perature period, there will be a minimum of
five turnings of the windrow.
Hear drying: Dewatered sludge caJte 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 wltffTne 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.
ThermophUic Aerobic Digestion: Liquid
sludge Ls 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.
Other methods: Other methods or operat-
ing conditions may be acceptable if patho-
gens 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
trie 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 Ls irradiated
with beta rays from an accelerator at dos-
ages of at least 1.0 megarad at room temper-
ature (ca. 20' C).
Gamma ray irradiation.- Sludge is irradi-
ated with gamma rays from certain isotopes.
such as "Cobalt and '"Cesium, at dosages
of at least 1.0 megarad at room temperature
(ca. 20* C).
Pasteurization: Sludge Ls maintained for
at least 30 minutes at a minimum tempera-
ture of 70' C,
Other methods: Other methods or operat-
ing conditions may be acceptable if patho-
gens are reduced to an extent equivalent to
the reduction achieved by any of the above
add-on methods.
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
INDUSTRIAL NONHAZARDOUS WASTE TABLES
1. Tables B-l and B-2 are presented as Tables 1-1 and 1-4 in: Summary of
Data on Industrial Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Practices, by Science
Application International Corporation for U.S. EPA, 1985.
-------
TABU B-I. SIJMHAHT Of IHUISTKIM, HOH-|IHA»DOUS HASTE GENERATION ANil HANAfitMtNT IC»,H jnucj)
Aauunt of U«*le Hi
Cunettfed HJII liaise
Industry tf«»ie Type* (Dry Keltic Tona/Yr) LF SI
InJudlii*! 9J.154.I006'11 4,:
A
uigaitic t
Clienicals Piiicevn wasie- 51,714,000 '
(SIC 2819) w*ier
6 12
Ci|uipflenl vdtihdown 240. BOO *
6 12
Stem )et 129.200 '
Kiin-pruce«C 128, /OU '
u«*lci»ler v
Spent (crubber 8,7)5,900 '
Sludge* 682,500 '
Piecipit«t*i/ 1.067.9006>IJ
[ill 1*1 ion fetiduet
tecMt.te/fitit.te 1.610.7006'11
6 12
Spent Jdiurbent 51.500 '
Spent cttilytt 10.900 *
6 12
Spent nolvenl 1 JO. 900 '"
Heavy endi 4,782,400
6 11
Light e»Jn 20,446.000 '
Off-ipec piuductH 4)2,600 '
6,12
C«int Ainei fi, linera, 1,100
6 11
Tt^iitJ k.ilidii 81 .800 '
6 11
By-pruJucli J.JBB.JOO '
6 12
Uiher 16.900 '
uuber nf Oa-Sile . fcicei.
Ittat Diopnoal I'acilkiien Oil ill
LT Ull.cf Tut ill I.K SI
l»4'19 -- 1.7 14.1
0.15 60
*
ru ti. 8
NH 67
NH 20.7
NH 15.1
2.8 46.1
4J.1 22.2
<0.l 54.8
6.5 14.6
10. b 2.1
NH <0. 1
i.D 6.0
0.2 1.0
<0 . 1 B . 2
0.9 NH
11. B NH
NH
-------
TABLE B-l. SUHHAHY OF INDUSTRIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WAS IK CKNtKATIOH AND MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Industry
Food and
Kindred
Products
(SIC 20)
(cont inued)
Industrial
Inorganic
CheoicsU
Industry
(SIC 2812-
2819)
Amount of Waste Number of On-Sile l'erci:iil uf Nun II a z a i '7 -- H.I.IIN
120. OOO6'17 -- H.I.IIN
32.5006''7 -- H.I.IIN
122. 5006'1' * - H.I.IIN
l.iOO6'" - H.IIIN
bjI In I
-------
TABLE B-l. SUMMARY OF INIIIISTRIAl. NDM IIA/AHDOIIS UASTK CKHKIIATKIH AND MAHACKHKNT
Iniiusl ry
Electrical
Machinery
and Elrc-
I ronic
Component a
(SIC 16)
Electric
Power
General ion
(SIC 4911)
Fabricnicil
HRI al product a
(SIC 14)
Waste Type
Amount at Waste Number of Oil-site IVicKnl uf Nun- lUini Jjiia Uaslrs H.m.i|-,<-.|
Generated Non-Hazardous Disposal Facilities On S ill" 1)1 I S i i
(Dry Metric Tonu/Yi ) I.F SI I.T Oilier Tol.il l.f SI l.T Oiluji Ln al liib|..>-. il MI 1,, c
£
B
I0.40IT'2 --1 HI* -- -- -- - M** M
1 t
Waateualer treatment 5,400''* M M
ludgea
Plaat ics
Dili
Paint want-el
Dot ton anil (coal
Fly aali (coal)
Flue gai .li-mil-
fiirizat ion (coal
(toiler (lag
Fly ash (oil)
\ 1
4,600 ' -- -- -- -- --MM
2001'2 -- -- -- -- --MM
2001'2 -- -- -- H H
55,878,0006>7 1,671* M -- SI
6 7
) 10,220,0011 ' M -- 81
6 7
40,760,000 ' M -- 41
ff 7
1.600,000 ' M
'
1.280.0006'7 M -- 81
IB.OOO6'7 M
100. OOO7'9 - ..1U* -- - 2.."-10 - - Hll9-10 -
Wauleualer trcalmcnl
sludge
Spent air
filler* ( paint ing)
Paint (ludge
-------
~ r E r
a -3
<
z
ji
<
3
-a
O 5
i !
3 ^
O
T-
Cb
"*. . .
*^> ^^ A
** ^h ^k
o o j
i i i
Ve
Cau
e »
3 m
a. - m
vi vi y
ago
3 o a a
r* Q g-i
a o
33
2 S
«* o
tf^ O
3 J U -3
"^35
-------
TABLE B-l. SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMT.NT (Com inuc.il)
Industry
Leather and
Leather
Products
(SIC 11)
Lumber and
Wood Product a
and Furniture
and Fixtures
(SIC, 24 and
25)
Amount of Waste Number of Ou-Site Percent of Noii-llazartlous Wasies Man/igoil
Generated Non-11 , .11 dona Disposal Facilities On-Siie Off Site
Waste Type3 (Dry Hetri? Tons/Yr) LF SI I.T Other Total I.F SI LT Other Total Disposal Oiliei
L
24
Trimmings and 7
shavings
Unfinished 1
leather trim
Buffing dust
Finished 2
leather trim
Finishing residues
Wastewater acreenings 1
Wastewater sludge 4
i
Miscellaneous solid 6
wastes
>I22
Hark and wood
wastes
Wood ash
Wood preserving 86
sl udgcs
Uastewater
sludges
Paint waste 31
Solvent waste 4
F
,6002'9 -- I04'1 -- -- 10 5 5 90 50 40
i6002.9 .. .. .. .. .. ..
,4002'9
400*.9 _. .. .. ..
i8002.9 _. .. __ .. ..
700^.9 .. .. .. ..
§3002'9
,200?-9
.3002'9
.900 -- 8I&''
flO
.7006-9-" - 80 - - - - - 20
.4006-9'" - 20 - - - - -
,6006>9>" -- 20 -- -- -- -- 80
-------
TABLE B-l. SIIMHAHY OF I NIlUSTH I Al- NDN-IIAZAHDOIIS WASTE (.KHtltA I I OH AND HANACKHKNT ( Ci.ui i i
Indiisl ry
Machinery
Cacepl
Elect r ical
(SIC 15)
W
Pulp and
Paper
Indubl ry
(SIC 26)
Petrol tun
Defining
liiJuti i y
(SIC 29)
Amount of Haute Number of On-Sile
Generated Non-Hazardous Uituobal Kacilili.'b
Waste Type3 (Dry Metric Tonu/Yi ) I.F SI I.I Olli.-i Total
PI ast ics and
c e r at i c s
Fluxes
Oils
Uasleuater treat-
ment sludge
Paint sludge
Wood Wasted
Chenical
lecoveiy uabtes
Pulp rejects
Wableual er
ttl udges
Coal and baik
Waste paper
I eject s
Biological sludge
FCC cat alyal
191. 50022 -- 294*" -- -- I02'
V
8.62J.00021 6SO-900 l.lii" 00--
2.000.00021
610. OOO21
460. OOO6'21
2.2IJ.00021 7d
I.KO.OOO21
f
2.200.00021
l.276.'.00U -- l.BB^'' I0011 -- yt
J86.10011 <,6
UJ.'.OO1 24
Herci:ul of Nun lluzai vlout* Udsleu Hanaged
Oii-Siii; ()((-Siie
IK SI I.T Otliei l,,(j| UiB(,,ijal 0
9U JO 21
i
?2,UIN 7.I.UN -- 10
H
H.I.UN
H.I.UN
?a -- -- 22 'n
M.I.IIN
0 0 59 0 41 41^ 0
0 0 46 0 54 54 0
0 0 24 0 fu ;t> 1)
-------
TABLE B-l. SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTK GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Amount of Waste Number of On-Site (
Industry
Petroleum
Refining
Industry
(cont inued)
Pharmaceut ical
Industry
(SIC 78)1
-28)4)
Waste Type (Dry
Non- leaded tank
bottoms
Primary O/S/W
separator sludge
Stretford solution
IIF alkylation sludge
Spent catalysts
Cooling tower
sludge
Treating clays
Secondary O/S/W
separator sludge
Biological sludge
Filter aid, carbon
sawduBt , mycellium
Uet plant
at er ial
Fused plant
Hleroid ingots
F.ntracted animal
t i ssue
Fal s and oils
Fi 1 ter cake
Relumed goods
Generated Non-Hazardous Disposal Facilities
Metric' Tons/Yr) I.F SI LT Oilier Total I.F
fe
K
1)1. 60013 52 0
1 1
77.600 37 0
42.80013 0 0
34.40013 26 13
I9.I0013 15 0
15. BOO13 60 0
I3.50013 21 0
7,^0013 44 0
256, 90025
2 5
82.600
25
78.400
2,000
BOO25
7.50025
400"
25
200
lo.ooo25
Percent
On-Site
SI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of Non-llazai dung
LT Older
52 0
37 0
0 0
37 0
15 0
60 0
21 0
4'. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Uaales Managed
Of f-Sil e
Total Disposal Olli.-i
48 48 0
6) 6) 0
100 100 0
74 37 0
85 85 0
40 40 0
79 >9 0
56 56 0
90
85-90
85 90
H
M
M
M
M
M
-------
a so ^
z
<
r
z
<
- j
- 71
u en -:
3 1 2.
J «- 'J
30 "*- -
a O i
o
a
u ^
j-
& h.
3 -J
"^ "
a
S)
1
1
Z
tjj ,
3 ""
- *J
g --
j in
-j -
a. C vi
ii.
i
£
71
« * *
o j
° '" ~
E 9
I -3
Z -
N
1
5
z
X
4J -fl
« 9
a "3 H
<* a ..
U u
u e aj
s v x
3 U
9 X
4 3
&
jj
2
s
;
ji
3
C
,
1
,
1
a
;
i
^
".
"§
.
u-t
=
j
-3
b. c a.
U (fl !fl
a. '-
tj S
e '-
s'il
3
a
y -J>
" e C
? - 'J
2 :.!
2 1 =
* V 9
£ £ v
33 rv( ' r-< . ^! ^ ^3
^^ -0 -r.r--^ ^ _u -_
" '^"33
C as < ^ xx
^--33 'VZ3Q t-1 ^ O Z2
^ \ II ili I ii II
^-l Ii III I'll Ii
^ so -^ T r^^
_ -T
OZ 02 ZZ2 Z Z , "^ Z2
n >r ^ CN
33>r .. aax 3i -a . x.
XI "* ^ « " ^
OZ X) ZZ(M (X S Z ZZ
^a i ii iii i it ii
i
r^
3
-"*. ~. ~ ^ ~ r. ".. 7. ". ". ". «.
. . .. ... . .. ..
3, a oa aoo o as oa
0,0 oo ooo o so so
-;£ SJ «S« ^ SS S2
3 "" S S S
3 O
-3
C 30- - a
'A > -J) ^ ^i C J1 (fl QJ
.j u -a 0 C fl 4. -- - £w«
^4>v&u -,fl O. fl n g . c
fl w "3 l~? C « U U * > UJ - * "^
U ^ 3 "** 0 V *J at U cq 0 3 U -
a * en O a. « -i X * a. *- s a. > ^j t/iu
ac
s - - '. - - ,
s
-2 » 5 2
s-Hii
u 3 vs
a. ari X
x ^
^*
"- z
, ,
33
u* jv'
X X
z z
^ ^
c
=C X
z z
1 1
« «
^ "
a a
o o
u* r*.
«
U
3 -Jl w
w V V
J> (j fl
3 3
S J 3. w
y - c j>
w J z 3
B-8
-------
TABLE B-l. SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTK GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT (c»niinm!d)
Amount, of Waste NumlxT of On-Sile PerctMil of Nm> ll.izac.l.ius Wastes Hanagr.l'
Generated Non-llazar dous Disposal Facilities On S i 1 c Ofl Siii'
Industry Waste Type" (Dry Met r ic, Tons/Yr ) LF SI LT Olli.:r T.ual I.F SI LT Olli.-r Total Dispos.il (tili.-i
Primary Iron 60.
and Steel
Manufacturing Cuke brecie 1,
and Ferrous
Foundries Blast Furnace 2),
(SIC 3312- slag
1321)
Blast furnace 1 ,
duut
Blast furnace 1
sludge
EAF slag 3
CO EAF dust and
vi sludge
1
Open heailh slag 2
Cont iniious
cast ing scale
Cont iniious
casting sludge
Soaking pit scale
Primary mi II 2
scale
Pr imary mi 1 1
sludge
Rol 1 ing scale
(hot and cold)
i
Rol 1 ing sludge
(hot and cold)
Jj ...--.-.-
679.000*' -- I.3B04'27 -- -- 2'i.l.llN 2/..I.UN -- 65.R2B
679
752.000 ' ' 100 0 0 0 IOO.R 00 0
6 7
132,000 ' 00000 100 0 1 1)0 . R
467. OOO6'7 100 -- -- -- IOO.R
,516.000;' -- I2.1.IIN I2.I.IIN -- Bfl.R
67 7Q
,76'i,000 ' 100 00 0 0 IO.R.50S --
A08.0006'7'9 , -- 100 0 0 0 00 0
fr 7 -'
.026.000 ' -- 25.I.IIN 25.I.UN 75. R
319. OOO6'7 -- -- -- -- 100. S
4. OOO6'7
817. OOO6'7
.505. OOO6'7 -- -- -- 100. S
6 7
104.000 '
6 7
973.000 ' loo -- -- -- 100. S
6 7
5.000 '
-------
TABLE B- 1 . SUMMAHY Of INUUSTK I Al. HUH HAZARDOUS WAL.IK OtlltHATION AND HAIIAI.KHKHI (Cum i nuc.l)
Induui r y
Type
Amount of Uas
Generated
(Dry Metric Tunb/Yc )
l.f
Number of Oil-Si I u
/ai :tl
(In Sile orr-Siie
SI IT Oilier lolal UIII,,IL,.J| III I,
IOO.K
IOO.I.UN
100 100
30
Pr unary .
Non-Ferroun
He I a I M
Hanufactur ing
and Mou-
Ferroun
Foundries
(SIC 1110-
3399)
Priuary aluainu
wast ea
Pr imary copper
wabl eb
Pr ioary zinc
wastes
Priuary lead
waste*
6.575.000
311.900
3 .305.300'
513.800
340.000
I . 380
6.16
6,16
6.26
25 25
Foundry sand 2.104.000
and oilier wastes
100 HU-yB 2 12
-------
TABLE 1-1. SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION Afll> MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Industry
Waate Type
Amount of Waste Number of On~Site
Generated Non-llazarJons Disposal Facilities
(Dry Metric Tons/Yr) l.F SI LT Oilier
Total
l.F
Percent of Non-Hazardous Wastes M.in.igeil
Oil-Site Off-Site
SI I.T Other Total nisposal Oih
Rubber and
Miscellaneous
Plastic
Products
(SIC 30)
542|«002'6
Tire/inner tube 223,400 ' ' '
waste streams
Rubber and 32.0002>6'9l3°
plastics footwear
252
waste streams
2,6.9,30
2,6,9,30
Reclaimed rubber 38,900
waste streams
Rubber and 33,200
plastics hose and
belting waste-
streams
ft L n *in
Fabricated rubber 195,100 ' ' '
products NEC V
waste streams
Miscel laneous
plastic products
waste streams
Soaps; Other
Detergents;
Polishing,
Cleaning and
Sanitation
Coods (SIC
2841-2842)
Stone, Clay
Class, and
Concrete
Products
(SIC 32)
6 13
31,300 '
Lost product
Tower cleanouts ~- -- ---
Sludges
Dust and fines
*
32 A
>18,600,000 1,243
Silica particu-
lacea
Spent dia-
tomaceous earth
Soda ash
Lime . --
-------
TABLE 1-1. SIIMMAIIY OF I NDUS'I'U I Al. NON-IIAZAKDOIIS WASTK ("KNEUATION AND MANAKKMI-.NT (Continual)
Industry
Stone, Clay
Class and
Concrete
Products
(SIC 10)
(cant inued)
Amount of WastJ! Number of (iu-Situ I'uicont of N.MI ll.izai.luua [(.isles H.in.igud'
Generated § Nun-llazanlous Dibuasal facilities On-SHe Off-Site
Waste Type" (Dry Metric TonK/Yr) Lf SI I.T Oilier Tola! I.F SI I.T Oilier Toiiil Uis|ii>sal Oil,
Brine residues - -- M
A.ir pollution 12,100,^00
control sludge
(cement)
Air pollution 4,370,000 -- -- -- ||
control sludge
(clay)
Lubricants
Pottery sludge SIC -- M
td
K-"
M
Air pollution
control sludge
(concrete, gypsum
and plaster)
Waste cullet
Fiber resin masses
2.151.000
Textile
Manufacturing
(SIC 22)
536"
10
Wool scouring
wastes
Clippings
Dye containers
Dry flick
Waste fiber
55
M
II
M
M
M
-------
TABLE B-I. SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTK CKNEHATtON AND HAHACtMKHT (Coni i nuu.l)
Industry
Text i le
Manufacturing
(SIC 22)
(continued)
Tr anaportat ion
F.qui pnent
(SIC 17)
Water
Treatment
(SIC 4941)
Ajnounl of Watile Number of On-Sile Percent of
Ceneiateil Non-llazai Jons Disposal Kucililicb On S i 1 e
Waate Type8 (Dry Metric Tuns/ir) LF SI I.T Oilier Total I.F SI 1
i
i
Waarewater
treatment sludge
520.0001'
Solvents I'iB.OOO -- 37
Paint wastes 248,000 -- 20
Metal treating wastes 124,000 -- 100
4.960.000
poagulation
sludges *
Softening
sludges
Pi:ici;ill of Non-llaiJi-Joiiii W.IS|I:H H.in.ini-,1
Of f-Sil i:
Ol lier Tol al Di ^,,.;,;il Oi 1.
«, )
HO
-------
y
^
3
_~
-j
yl
"j
3
^
_
-
S?
V
3
*H
=
TJ
J
S
y
.
11
^
<
3
3
,~
S
a
=
-*
_
5
u
*3
3.
3
U
3
3
11
V
3
e
j
i
a
a
5
a
11
a.
-
V
'a
j
;
*
-,
-
J
-_
T
-
.Z
-*
3
T
]f
-.
n
1
"
**
-J
s
n
2
?
5
"j
j
T
;
t
-j
3
j
?
fl
"j
j
3
-
^
a
a
TJ
i
^
V
m*
A
fl
3
"J
3
a
u
-
3
1M
"I
1
y
^
e
i
2
3
.,
'J
*/I
3
"
»
~
i
.
"
-
_^
3
i
J
~_
I
»
-
2
s
^
^
3
^
fl
H
i
""
^*-
^M
^
^.
^
^
"
5
u
«
a
1^
?
V
jj
J,
u
3
i
T
C
a
u
5
«
»
» i
-j
J 3
- a
-"
5
,z
->
«
^
y
^
^
3
a
3^
^
S
UJ
_^"
s
T
3^
£
-3
«.
U
J
3
'J
-j
i
-
"^
H
a.
j
i
a
z
_
j
^
i!
'^
VI
a
T5
3
I
U J
J -
q ^
y
^ 3
M S
c y
^ o
M~ S '»
Ss1 a
_
r
9
-
-
*j
t
c
J
"5
'~
-3
^
5
n
'J
^
?
-^
«
"J
^
3
J
3
-
'^
5?
j;
3
'J
*f
J_
n
'
-
^
i
!?
9
fl
^
fl
1
TJ
U
u
V
i
w
11
^
1
a
i
r
"i
y
3
w
U
1
1
A
fl
*
^
U
^
U
11
a.
s
-
30
S
1. ^
0
s-S
a -
i
*
^
-3
z
-
i.
^
,1
3
*.
*
?
r
JI
,-
U
»_
5
n
.
e
"j
..
^
g
n
u*
"
3
c
'A
3
^
£
N
5
-3
C
»
»
3
15
fl
3
J
fl
T U
<
3\ «
2 1"
«l ^
C i.
? *^J
J =
- -j
___
"Ji
Gk h.
3 -3
±d ^
_j, __
" -^
S 1
i/1 U
LI *
y *j
'S
-3 A
-a
>^ J}
_ a
c o
U 01
.- 13
jUI 3
a -.
c
^ -g
eg 3
4j T
U -
a
^ u
S ,£
e 3
u o '- ^ -^ c
1
i
...
"7
^ ft.
+* 33
^
J
^r
4
n
5 -3
V 30
« -«
'^ 'z
a
u S
^j a
Ei~
fl y
S ?
^5
^ 01
^
3 -
1
u ^
3 1
1 3
* x S
"J
>
Ji
.^
~
J
i
j
1
i
1
4^
J
'"J
-j
71
a
a
^
w
3
G
6
U
^
w
*J»
3
^
U
*
y
-»
3.
I
tj
"J
>.
JJ
3
1J
"
'J
"*
e
n
^
"5
w
a
z
a
|
J
.1
,T
1
^
"3
"^
2
,-
.z
_
1-
1
^
TJ
>,
-J
'J
^
i!
fl
a
^
3
'_£
^
«
_
~
">
3
«
u
OJ
"
71
«*
3
-B
n
C
'
^
'
V
39
M
3
e
3
I
^
.
^
Z^
Zl
w
w
.«
VI
'J
a
M
-* "J
3 ^w
- 'o
fl
- \
J
'j 3
i -j
*« w
3
30 *-
e
" 2
a >y
V 9
?m "
u ^
^
^ "3
u*\ .
f^l *3
"i v
^ r
, i ^«>
3
Wl C
1 f
* 3
V
W V
n «
a
~ w
3 C
3 *
3
~
-3
'J
1
?
^2
J
5
"Z
-j
j
-JI
-J
"3
~"
y
w
-«M
1
y
--
2
3
3
e
3
e
3
a
V
! ad u
> s 1
a "«-
3 'J w
-J U
*1 ^- 4_
» 1 u
*J -fl
3 w
a .=
V M
3 -
a a. c
i- "^
s a. ii
3 J h
C u -
w » «
fl M
- - "*
w J
& v ?
u U «
31 -Ji « g
£ » -
- 1 a. u
' 1 ifl J i
a u « a
» a .s
,
3
J
V
-a
C
3
,
X
fl
3
..
Oh
u
w
3
U
fl
n
"U
^
3
3
L.
3
f
C
i
^
^
5
3
r-
tw
3}
<
e
ji
V
^
u
5
^
1
3
^
a
*_
-
a
C
^
B-
- >*,
y. j
C 91
=0 a
'O
J 3fl
C
te >
?
y ^
^ 3
w y
35 'j
n ^
- a
3 "Hi
» i
4
C 4
* -7
U 3
5s
i
a a
B-14
-------
TABLE B-2. QUAI.1TATIVK ANALYSES OF INDUSTRIAL NON-HAZARDOUS UASTK DATA
industry
Data AvatlabiIiry
tfl
Electrical Machinery
and Electronic
Components (SIC 36)
Electric Power
Generation (SIC 4911 )
fabricated Hetal
Products (SIC 34
Fertilizer and Other
Agr iciill ural Chemical s
(SIC 2873-2879)
Relat ive Leve I s of Iterwy
Meial a or Dig antes in Was lea
Prevalent Wait e Management He I hod s
POOH .* The Hctfc r i p' i ons of wrtdi p I ypes
are i ncompl etc and waui e quantity rial a
are aval I able only for SIC 167 , which
represents only 2 percent, of tot at SIC
36 eales. (Year = 1977)
in I'll: WAS t ewal«: r treatment fi I itdgt.'s t
oils, and paint wastes have potential
to release he.tvy metals and organic^.
No specific analytical data are avail-
ah 1 e . Since this industry generates
considerable quantities of hazardous
wast e , some sma I I quantity generators
may d i sposu ti.izar ttttuy was( cs i n
on-si Ie , 1 and-based fac iIiI ies.
KOpKRATfi: This w.isre has- a potential
t a r educe pll 1 eve I s and release met a I s .
Organ ies, soch ay naphthalenes and
benzofIuorencs, a I so may be re leased.
Toxicity depends on the source of coal
or oil be ing burned.
HIGH: Wastpwaier t(eaimont siudgcs.
(ji I fl, and p^inf wastes have potential
to release heavy metals and organic^.
No speci fie analylical dat a are avaiI-
able. Since this indust r y generates
considerable qoant ities of hazardous
wast es t some smalI quant i t y generators
may dispose hazardous wastes in
on-s i te, land-based fact'ities.
MODKKA TK : W^s I e quantity find miinagement II Kill: Waste g ypsum piles may cause
data are very good for pesticide formula' local pll and me I a I s cont am in/it ion
fi\kf a i led finder ipl ions of was I e
types and quant i t ies are available.
Wist e ro/magement data are fairly good.
(Year = 1983)
POOR: Wast e l#|H1 ,-an<( quantity data are
a I mo*/ £f>jnpJeJ ely non-en i sir en I . Some
management data are available. (Years a
1976. 1979, and I98J)
lion and in ami f ac I nr i np , hut are poor for
some segment tf of fertilizer in ami f ac-
tor ing. Waste typos are fairly wo I I -
defined for fei t i I izundmeMt s and
I andf i I I s . Some of the sir f ac i I i t ies
synt het ic-Ii ned and have ground-wat er
moni t or ing.
Data from 1976 indicaie that 20-30 pero-nf
of waste s are managed on-site in landfills
and I agoons.
Waste gypsum is -Stored in nn I i ord piles.
Large quant ii ies of w,isf t*u;ii er s at f
s t ored 01 1 i eat ed in sur \ .i<:o ii(ipini(iil-
mrnls.
pood and(Kindied
Products'(SIC 20)
W.isl e I y ties ,n»tt ijiian) i t i es are I.OW: Nost Food / mli/si r y wastes are
we I I-de f i ned and wasl <; management mm hod s h i odegr ad ah le p hul may c a use ( as I e
are fairly we 11 -de.se i i boil. (Year = I9HO) and odor problems .
Of f- s i f r / and f i M s ;in
-------
!-
^
I
H
x
-
3
1
c
1J
a
"
Q
z
U
Q
U
a
a
S
y
P-
rj
^1
?5
2 s
% J
3 u
* S
7 w
^
Si 3
« -g
4^ Ml
a .-a
i I
3
3
i
s
*J
J
a
k.
3
«
-3
5
iri
Q
*
y
B
o
c
5
^
y
n
a
j
B
;
~-
H
"f
%
A
1
^
=
,§
U
J
la
^
I
w
3
3
a
u
i
a
an
a
3
o
y
i:
3
3
T
X
B
3
C
M
Jl
~
3
^
n
B
y
,
.M
fl ,
lu
31
U
- JU
£ j3
3 31
3 "
-5 *
a -B
4 Z* » -3
« - U "3 k-
S > '.i
y Z y ^ ST C *
a T M -y
JS ^ X J «1 --
^ . ^ u> ' »
^ B ~ - 'Jl
j ^ -fl - 3 .^
« j ,., .. 3 vi *.
"S * * " ' 43
y fl ^ fl a g fl
3 c r 5 * j
> - i -J V S
fl S - 2 -U t
'J u in 3 fl
js -- fl ^ a
U - 3. "
S - 'V * fl *J
H "^ ^J 'U * **
j. .j, ._,, -jj x }
u - J y 3 S 5
"3
g
31 "U
a. »
* S
- 0
fl .-
31 9
0..-
'8 ^
m .Mt
^3 U
fl
Ji -a
4
fl 1
3
'J
0 -L
X «
31
«K
W
a
V Lfc-
B 3
u a
B li
Qj U
a j;
3 -
- c
>^ 3
C U
I >,
^
.. Q
- 1
22 "-^
u
U
4
> u
S3 i
5
3 C
e ^
<>
a. w
. a
4) «
9 M
3 -S
-- 3
H
3 31
Oi -3
a. -
s q
i
V
-3
n
tf S
o
a y
U
Tl
5 U
'J
"3 u
B
? i
*= X
y
^ -a
M e
3 --
91
x
"£ 5
s
y i*
e
4J Wl
U
tt
a
a
^
2
M.
M
d
U
^
3
--
*
u
. ,**
V X t
1 S
ai a 3
3 '* S
k. >«*
- 3
~ ^ U
3 i. -
fl S 3
,-U ^| 'j)
f r-i-:
AS fl -
4j _ ^ -g
C 3 U
o fl n
s g a *
3 i
U y a. T
3 8-i S
« a T
X
A
a
S
a
3
S
"O
QJ
a
a
C
^
i
C
£
ffl
««
3
X
51
H
U
y
u
a
i
^
3
-J
ji
V
U
&
<
2
a
T
»
^
^
2
U
^u
o
ft
il
tf
M
a.
a.
^
S
y
S
X
fl
5
i
-«
u
-a - 3
s
9 - < "W
3 * u *J
^ 3 Z f
~ ^ 2 J
« ? 5 |
EM <* ^ A
Z 3 U
s T s -e
3 U * fl
.- -n >
^ 7( U
9 u 'a
u .« _j
= a
a 'J i
r" w j; tM
>- ^3 ,1 3
V
d
jz "^i
JS
ad
s >. =
-- u i.
3 'J
Is'"
g "33
0 ^ *
a »
J> 41
q -j. ^
W U B
W v.
^ a '
* v ^
J ^ Z
"5 !9 2
= J 3"
3
5 ?o
X r*»
B u g^
U y
._ >
-J n
.- y
S "8 ^
> «
U
"J ^
3 a
J -3
-. a « (j
a u M
a -3 -
*i -»
a. a S
> o
§ 'J
S J
» u
5 "5
-
- »
a
360
Q «
w 'J
n -~
3 3
-j a
x >. c j
5 i s.1:
3C = -J >.
S^^l
i-5 1 S
-3 -
3 in
d U
3-9
C *
-------
TABI.F. B-2. QUALITATIVE ANALYSES OF INDUSTRIAL NON-HAZARDOUS UASTE DATA (Continued)
Industry
Data Avail abi lily
Relative Levels of Heavy
Helals or Organic:! in Wastes
Prevalent Was! e Management Methods
I
*-
-vl
Machinery Rxcept
Electrical (SIC
Pulp and Paper Industry
(SIC 26)
Petroleum Refining
Industry (SIC 29)
Pharmaccut ical
Preparations (SIC 2834)
Plantics and Resins
Manufacturing (SIC 2H2I)
POOR: The dcs|fripl inns of waste types
are Incomplete anil waste quantity data
were available only for SIC T)5 and
and SIC 3)7, which represent only
12 percent of total SIC T) sales.
(Year - 1977)
GOOD: The quantities and types of
wastes from Ihis industry are we I I-
described, and management methods are
known for each waste type. Some data
are fj ail able on waste management
facility designs. (Year 19/7)
VERY GOOD: Alt'data needs were available
except typical designs of waste manage-
ment facilities. (Year = 1981)
GOOD: The quantities and types of
wastes from Ihis industry are fairly
well-described and the general waste
management methods are known.
(Year = 19/6)
VF.HY GOOD: Detailed informal ion is
available on all d.ila areas except I he
design f i-al ui rs ' ol I he waste m.in.igemenl
faciliiies. (Year = I9R2)
Data from 1977 indicate (hat 90 percent
nf these wastes are managed off-sile
and that 70 percent of the (otal uasre
stream from ring industry are I and
HIGH: Wantewater treatment sludges.
oils, and paint wastes have potential
lo release heavy metals and organics.
No specific analytical data are
available. Since this industry generates disposed. Ten percent of these wasies
condiderable quantities of hazardous are managed on-site, however, I hn in.in.i
was I e , Borne so) all quant it y generators
may dispose hazardous wastes in
on-site, land-based facilties.
men! methods are not known.
MODERATE: Organic pollutants
from wood fibers may be significant.
Also, coal and bark ash may contain
metals. Sulfales and metal* are high
in some pulping wastes.
HIGH: These wastes generally contain
high levels of sulfides, ammonia,
phenols, and oils. Some of them also
contain mere apt ains, benzo-a-pyrene,
and other toxic organics. Since Ihis
industry generates considerable
quantities of hazardous wastes, some
smal l-qoani it y generators may dispose
hazardous wastes in tin-site, land-based
facilities.
LOW: The majori£v of these wastes are
fermentation products and are bio-
dcgr aitab I e .
HIGH: Hany of the waste siiearns in
this tndtitilry contain organic solven
anil unread ed iniiimmei H , which ai e
frequently Ionic.
ApproH imal e I y 72 percent of nil wnsles
are managed in on-site landfill
facilities. On-site surface impound-
ments account for 7 percent of industry
wastes, about 10 percent of pulp and
paper wastes are managed in on-sile
incinerators.
Approximately !>9 percent of the wastes
are managed in on-sile land application
facilities. The remaining 41 percent
are managed at off-site, land-based
disposal sites.
Approximately 8*> t o 90 percent t> f i he
wastes from this intlusliy ,11 » man.igt'd
in off-site, land-based dispos.il
I ac i I i I i e s .
Approximately 68 peiceiit i>f ihrsi>
aie treated in sin fare im|i>Miii>lin,-iif
I percent are I and f i I I ed t /ind I . ft
are managed in off-sile, I an.I- l> ;isr
d i s posa I f ac i I i t i r s .
-------
TABLE B-2. QUALITATIVE ANALYSES OF [NDUSTKIAL NON-IIAZAKDOUS UASTE DATA (Continued)
Industry
Dal a AvailabiIiry
He I alive Levels of Heavy
Metals ur Oiganics in Uab
l'ii"Jj|eiil Waste Hanageineiu
Primary Irun and Si ee I
Manuf actur ing and Ferrous
Foundries (SIC 1312-1121)
Primary Non-Ferroub Metals
Manufacturing and Non-
F^rroub Foundries
(SIC 1110-1199)
COOL): The waste types and quantities
generally are available and I lie composi-
tions of each waste are known. Manage-
meiii methods generally are knuwn fur
each waste type. (Year - I'jtU)
uf
HOOK: Good debcriptiunb of the typeb
wastes produced by each beet or , but uoi
much analytical dar a. Good ebl imareb on
the quanr il ieb of each waute Iype , but
aUaotfL no wable uanagemenL data.
(Year '""' v
MICH: Many of the wastes from this
industry are luw in |>ll and may
release si^nilicant qiunlitieb uf
hi: jvy mi: laid.
INCH: Several of the waste si reams
contain high levels of heavy metals.
f 1 li
ApproM imalely 25 pure*
ai e managed i n on- bile impumuLmenl i ami
I and t i I Iu . Also, 65 pur ten f uf t lie uab
(mainly blag) me sluic-d in wj^l u p i 1 u d
pi 101 I o r L-C yc \ i ng .
No data.
Rubber and Hi see I I aneoua
-* Plastic Products (SIC 30)
Soap*, Oilier Detergent A;
Polishing, Cleaning, and
Sanitation Coodb
(SIC 2BU-2B42)
Srone, Clay, Class, and
Concrete Pioductb (SIC 32)
Textile Manufacturing
(SIC 22)
,
POOH: Good data on quantities of wujlea,
but pour dei>cr ipt iuns uf wa^le charac-
tcriblictt and management ici^i hiids .
(Year
POOH: Waste typeu pourly defined and
quantity data is almost non-ei i stem .
(Year
POOU: Wabte quantity data are available
unly for bome waste lypes. Waste types
are fairly well-described, but lack
analytical data. Hana^t.-ia^nt methods are
pool I y doc uiiicnt ed .
POOH: Wasle lypeb are laiily we I I-
debcribed. but ther^ are viitually no
analytical data uud no data on u.iilu
quantities and loaitageuient methods.
HIGH: Dai a are bketchyt but indical e
potiiiibl y tiigni fie aiil level a of el us
I oiae r b , Cai bun b 1 ack, plastic i e t» i MS t
pla±»ticizertt, and pigmentti .
LOW: Hobt of these wastes are composed
of packaging, lo^t products, aal(^.
inert a . Some 01gauicu are generaled
from floor poIi bheb (plablicizers) and
pine oilb (tolveiiLb).
LOW: Hobt of the wutires produced are
Significant tjuantif iet of air pollni ion
control b I udge t» ai e g^ner a I e«J, uome of
which may Coni am -heavy met alb.
LOW: Waste Jebc r i j>t ionb indical e low
01 ganicd and huavy io« I al t., bui there are
virtually no analytical data to con fitm
t h i b a^iiuiiipt ion .
A i I e an t some on~ i i i ^ Iditdfilling and
i itc i nur al i ua t but U
-------
TAIII.fi B-2. QUALITATIVE ANALYSES OF INDUSTRIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE DATA (Continued)
Industry
Data AvaiIabiIi ty
Relative Levels of llfjivy
Metals or Organic* in Wastes
Prevalent Waste Management Methods
Transportation Equipment
(SIC 37)
Water Treatment
(SIC 4941)
POOR: There are no data in the litera-
ture per tainting to non-hazardous wasl e
generation aifl management williiu this
industry.
POOR: Waste types are fairly well-
described and an overall estimate on
waste quantities was available; howewer ,
there were no data on waste management
methods.
HIGH: Wastes .ire expected to be similar No data.
in quantity and composition to those
'generated wltliin SIC 34 anil IS. Since
this industry generates considerable
quantities of hazardous wastes, some
small-quantity generators may dispose
hazardous wastes in on-site, land-based
faciIit ies .
LOW: These wastes are composed mainly No data.
of aim and lime, but may contain some
heavy me t ala,
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 typee
and numbers of on-site, lan'd-hased disposal methods used by each industry, (lie 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.
to
I
-------
APPENDIX C
MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILL CAPACITY PROBLEMS
1. Presented as Appendix A in: Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D
Nonhazardous Waste Programs. Westat, Inc., for U.S. EPA, 1986.
-------
APPENDIX A
LANDFILL CAPACITY PROBLEMS
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. 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, 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, & 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.
C-l
-------
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 but not public opposition. Additionally, zoning
regulations are not restrictive in siting new landfills.
California. Most urban areas have capacity for only
approximately 20 yearsneed to expedite planning for future
capacity.
Colorado. There are 6 landfills which service the greater Denver
metropolitan area. Within the next three years, two with a
possible 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.
Connecticut. The State of Connecticut is approaching a statewide
capacity shortage, estimated to become critical in late 1988.
Currently, 50% of the state's solid waste is going to 9 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 since 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
c-2
-------
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. The above 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. Single municipal landfill owned and operated by Government
of Guam will reach capacity in 1-2 years.
Hawaii. Statewide: 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 as an aletrnate 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-'-*ithin 3 years. The city is finalizing a contract with a
private firm to design, construct, and operate a refuse-to-energy
(RFD) plant.
Idaho. Approximately 12 landfills are in need of replacement due
to capacity problems, 8 of which are the major or only landfill
for the counties in which they are located.
C-3
-------
Indiana. Please 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.
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.
i
Maryland. Calculating the total disposal capacity for the state
would be misleading. Each of the 23 Maryland Counties and
Baltimore City is responsible for providing landfill capacity for
its resi.ql^ts. 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 S41.PA1978. The plan
requires each county to identify disposal sites which will accept
solid waste generated within their political boundaries for a 5
year period. The plans are to be updated every 5 years with new
sites identified as necessary.
Minnesota. Many landfills have 5 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 20-40 years left.
Mississippi. Within 5 years only about 5% 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.
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.
c-5
-------
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.
NewMexico. 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).
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 has caused many landfills to close at capacity
and not permit new sites.
Oregon. Unable to estimate. Most areas of state have at least 5
years remaining life. The Portland Metropolitan Area with over
one half of the state population has less than 4 years life with
no new site identified. The Portland Metropolitan Area landfill
that serves 4 counties is scheduled for closure in 1989. We are
looking for a new site but have not found one yet. By July 1987
they hope to find a site. Rest of state has no real capacity
problems.
Pennsylvania. Problems in landfills are especially acute in
Southeast Pennsylvania. This is primarily because of three
factors-*-*!) closure of "full" iandfills; 2) closure of
substandard landfills; and 3) public resistance. The Delaware
and Lehigh Valleys have only a 2-3 year capacity and include 40%
of the state population. - Overall, the state has an estimated
landfill capacity of about 6 years.
C-7
-------
Puerto Rico. The landfill capacity problem is enormous in all
Puerto Rico. Almost all of the landfills operating in the
Commonwealtil 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 all the
country, 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).
RhodeIsland. Many landfills 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,
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.
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.
08
-------
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 state wide capacity problem has also been identified.
"Approved" solid waste disposal capacity project 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'-'TS-lands. 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
c-9
-------
is being done for other methods of disposal such as resource
recovery and burning.
West Virginia. 1) Approximately 50% of municipal solid waste
generated in west Virginia is disposed at unpermitted facilities;
2) approximately 50% of permitted sites within 3 to 5 years of
exhaustion of space/capacity; 3) 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%
shortfall of capacity in 3 to 5 years if something is not done to
improve conditions.
Wisconsin. Capacity problems are mostly short-term and
localized. Long-distance hauling sometimes needed on an interim
basis. Replacement (new or expanded) landfills are being sited
in state at rate of about 10-20/year. State siting process is
the same for both new and expanded landfills. It is a long
process (2-5 years), but does allow siting to take place.
Wy_omj.ng. 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 laasing land cheaply and>in the next ten years siting will
be a statewide problem.
c-io
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE SUBTITLE D PROGRAM REGULATIONS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILLS , SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS2,
LAND APPLICATION UNITS,3 AND WASTE PILES4
1 PEL 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 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.
>
3 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.
* 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.
D-
-------
TABLE 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 "" '~*aL-
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Soil
condi-
t ions
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
Ground
water
infor-
mation
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
Surface
water
infor-
mation
X
X
X
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
faci- Future
lity use
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
P.E.
certi-
£ ica-
tion
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D-l
-------
TABLE 1 (continued).
Strata
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Guam
N. Mar. Is.
Puerto Rico
Virgin Is.
Soil
condi-
tions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ground
water
infor-
mation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
water
infor-
mation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Life
of
Total faci- Future
acreage licy use
X
X X
X X
X X
X XX
X
X
X X
X X
f.E.
certi-
fica-
tion
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference 1
D-2
-------
TABLE 2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL LAiNDFILLS
S tate
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 HampshviMSi
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Liner
design
X
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
Jt
X
X
X
X
Run-on/ run-o f f
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
Gas
controls
X
X
X
X.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D-3
-------
TABLE 2 (continued).
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Line r
design
X
X
X
Leachate Run-on/run-off Gas
management controls controls
X X
XX X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
Virginia
Washington X
West Virginia X
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Guam
N. Mar. Is. X X X
Puerto Rico XX X
Virgin Is. . X
Source: Reference 1
D-4
-------
TABLE 3. MUNICIPAL LANDFILL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
Waste Leachate Gas
State management controls controls
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georg.ii
Hawaii
Idaho
II linois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska -*»*
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
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
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
!
B
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
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
X
X
X
X
Other
ObM
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
X
X
X
X.
D-5
-------
TABLE 3 (continued),
Waste
State management
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Guam
N. Mar. la.
Puerto Rico
Virgin Is.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Leachate Gas
controls controls Cover
XXX
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XXX
X
Safety
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
G&M
controls
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference I
D-6
-------
TABLE 4. MUNICIPAL LANDFILL LOCATION STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS
Flood
State protection
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
II linois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
X
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
X
X
Geologically
Critical sensitive boil
habitat areas conditions
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
A
X
X X
X
North Dakota
Ohio
D-7
-------
TABLE 4 (continued).
State
Flood
protection
Minimum
distances
Critical
habitat
Geologically
sensic ive
areas
Soil
condit ions
Oklahoma X X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island XXX
South Carolina
South Dakota XXX
Tennessee X X
Texas XXX
Utah X
Vermont XXX
Virginia
Washington X
West Virginia X X
Wisconsin X X
Wyoming X
Am. Samoa
Guam X XX
N. Mar. Is.
Puerto Rico XXX
Virgin Is.
Source: Reference I
D-8
-------
TABLE 5. MUNICIPAL LANDFILL MONITORING R£guiREMENTS
State Ground water
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Co lorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
11 linois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Mary land
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampahjjcg.j
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
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
X
X
X
Surface water Leachate Air
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
J>
X
X X
X
X
X
X
0-9
-------
TABLE 5 (continued)
State
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Guam
N. Mar. Is.
Puerto Rico
Virgin Is.
Ground water
Surface water
Leachate
Air
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Ve rmont
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference 1
D-10
-------
TABLE 6. MUNICIPAL LANDFILL CLOSURE, POST-CLOSURE, AND
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Co lorado
Connecticut
De laware
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
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
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
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
X
X
X
Financial
responsibi lity
requirements "
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D-ll
-------
TABLE 6 (continued).
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Vi rginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Guam
N. Mar. la.
Puerto Rico
Virgin Is.
Closure
requirements
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
Financial
responsiDility
requirements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference I
D-12
-------
TABLE 7. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Ground
Gen. water
permit Soil infor-
State req. cood. raation
California
Co lorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
XXX
XXX
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X
XXX
X
X
XXX
X
X X X
XXX
X
Surface
water Total Life of
infor- acre- tacil- Future P.c,.
mation age ity uae certif.
XX X XX
XX X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X XXX
X X X X
XX X XX
X . X
Source: Reference 2
D-13
-------
TABLE 8. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
State
California
Colorado
Florida
Liner
design
X
X
Leachate
manage-
ment
X
X
X
Run-on/
run-off
control
X
X
DiKe
stability
and air
protection
X
X
Security
require-
ments
X
X
Georgia
IIIinoig
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference 2
D-14
-------
TAHLE 9. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Waste
manage
State ment
California x
Colorado x
Florida
Georgia
1 1 lino is
Louisiana x
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire x
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas x
Wisconsin x
Puerto Rico
Leachate
manage-
ment Cover
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
Operations
and
maintenance
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference 2
D-15
-------
TABLE 10, LOCATION STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOg SURFACE IhPOUNDWENIS
Ueologi-
State
California
Colorado
Florida
Floodpiain
protection
X
X
Minimum
distances
X
X
cally
Critical sensitive
habitat areaa
X,
Soil
conditions
Georgia
II litioii
Louisiana x
Montana x
Nebraska x
New Hampshire x
New Jersey
New ₯ork x
Oregon
South Dakota x
Texas x
Wisconsin x
Puerto Rico x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference 2
0-16
-------
TABLE 11. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
State
California
Co lorado
Ground
water
X
X
Surface
water Leachate
X
X
Air
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference 2
D-17
-------
TABLE 12. CLOSURE POST-CLOSURE AND FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Financial
Closure Poat-closure assurance/responsibility
State requirements maintenance requirements
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
1 1 linois
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
NP.W York
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
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
Source; Reference 2
D-18
-------
TABLE 13. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
State
Gen.
permit
req.
Soil
cond.
Ground
water
infor-
mation
Surface
water
infor-
mation
Total Life of
acre- Eacil- Future F.t.
age ity , uae cert if.
Alaska x
Arkansas x
California x
Colorado x
Florida x
Georgia x
Illinois x
Iowa x
Kentucky x
Louisiana x
Michigan x
Mississippi x
Montana x
Nebraska x
New Hampshire x
New York x
Oklahoma x
South Carolina 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
X
X
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
x
X X
X
X X
X
X X X X X
X XXX XX
X X
Source: Reference 3
D-19
-------
TABLE 14. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
State
Environ-
mental
criteria
Leachate
manage-
ment
Air
protec-
tion
Kun-on/
run-of t
control
system
Temp.
storage
system
design
Security
req.
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
IIlinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mi saissippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
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
Source: Reference 3
D-20
-------
TABLE 15. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR
LAND APPLICATION UNITS
Waste
tnanage-
State ment
Alaska
Arkansas
Ca lif ornia
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
11 linois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Waste
applica-
tion
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Crop Leachate
manage- manage- Safety
ment raent req.
X
X
X X
X
X XX
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X XX
X XX
X
Opera-
tions &
aainte-
ance
require-
meats
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference 3
D-21
-------
TABLE 7-16. LOCATION STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR
LAND APPLICATION UNITS
Floodplain
State protection
Alaska x
Arkansas
California x
Colorado x
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky x
Louisiana x
Michigan x
Mississippi
Montana x
Nebraska
New Hampshire x
New York x
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota x
Texas x
Vermont
Wisconsin x
Puerto Rico x
Geologi-
cally
Minimum Critical sensitive Soil
distances habitat areas conditions
x
X X
X X
XXX
XX X
X
X
X XX
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X X
Source: Reference 3
D-22
-------
TABLE 17. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
Ground Surface Leachate Soil Air
State water water monitoring monitoring monitoring
Alaska x x
Arkansas
California x x x
Colorado x x
Florida x x x
Georgia x
£1linoia
Iowa
Kentucky x x x
Louisiana x x x
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana x x
Nebraska x
New Hampshire x x
New York x x
Oklahoma x
South Carolina
South Dakota x x x x
Texas x x x
Ve rmont
Wisconsin x x x x x
Puerto Rico x x x x
Source: Reference 3
D-23
-------
TABLE 18. CLOSURE, POST-CLOSURE, AND FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND APPLICATION UNITS
Financial
Scate Closure Post-closure assurance/responsibility
Alaska x x
Arkansas
California x x x
Colorado x x
F lorida
Georgia
Illinois xx x
Iowa
Kentucky x
Louisiana x x x
Michigan
Mississippi x x
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York x x
Oklahoma x
South Carolina x
South Dakota x x
Texas x x
Vermont
Wisconsin x x x
Puerto Rico
Source: Reference 3
D-24
-------
TABLE 19. SPECIFIC PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE PILES
Ground
Soil water
. condi- infor-
State tiona mation
Alabama x x
Arkansas x x
California x x
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota x
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska x x
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio x x
Oklahoma
Oregon x x
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin x x
Wyoming X x
Puerto Rico
Surface Lite
water of
infor- Total faci- Future f.L.
mation acreage lity use cert.
X X
X XXX
X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
XX X
X XXX
X XX
X
X X
X X
X XX
X X
Source: Reference 4
D-25
-------
TABLE 20. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WASTE PILES
State
Liner
design
Leachate
collection
Gaa
controls
Run-on/
run-off
controls
SecuriLy
controls
Alabama
Arkansas
Ca lifornia
Delaware
Florida
Ge o rg i a
Idaho
Illinoi s
Iowa
Maine
Mary land
Minnas, .^a
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pe nnsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wiscons in
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
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
Source: Reference I
D-26
-------
TABLE 21. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR WASTE PILES
Waste
manage- Leachate
State ment controls
Alabama x
Arkansas
California x x
Delaware
Florida x
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa x
Maine x
Maryland x
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri x
Nebraska x
Nevada
New Jersey x
New York x
Ohio x
Oklahoma x
Oregon x
Pennsylvania x
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas x
Washington
West Virginia x
Wisconsin x
Wyoming x
Puerto Rico
Operations
Gas and
controls Cover Safety maintenance
x x
X X.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
x
XXX
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
Source: Reference 4
.erer
D-27
-------
TABLE 22. LOCATION STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR WASTE PILES
State
Floodplain
t ion
Minimum
distances
Critical
habitat
Geologi-
cal ly
sensitive
areas
Soil
conditions
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
Ne« Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virgini
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
x
x
X
X
X
X
Source: Reference 4
D-28
-------
J0271-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT
3. Recipient*
4. Title end Subtitle
$. Report Date
October 1986
Subtitle D Study Phase I Report
AUt "special Wastes Branch, Office of Solid Waste, EPA
B. Performing Organization Riot. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Addrest
Waste Management Division (WH-565)
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
10, Project/T««k/Work Unit No,
11. Contract(C) or Gr»nt(G) No.
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Cammeree
------- |