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 4002—Federal 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 4004—Criteria 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 4005—Prohibition 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 4010—Adequacy 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-to—energy)
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; by—products;
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 publicly—owned
 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 liners—In-place soils are used to the maximum extent possible as
liner material to save the costs of purchasing and hauling soils to the site.
If appropriate 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 liners—These types of liners are used when soil permeability
is not adequate or economically attainable to  prevent pollutant migration, or
when required by regulations.  These liners include asphalt and portland
cement compositions, soil sealants, sprayed liquid rubbers, and synthetic
polymeric (or flexible) membranes.  Synthetic polymeric and asphaltic
materials are the most common membrane liners  used for landfills.^  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 collection—Control 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 control—This  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 processes—Leachate 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 ion—A landfill gas recovery system is designed to  maximize gas
recovery without disturbing the anaerobic conditions within the landfill.
Recovery systems typically include extraction wells  at the  interior of the
fill, a pump, and a  collection pipe network.  Gas migration control systems
were originally designed to prevent buildup and migration beyond the landfill
boundary using wells or trenches at the 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

     Enhancement—Landfi11 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 filla—The 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 impoundments—Phase 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 units—The 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^piles—No 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  257—CRITERIA  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-
228—5 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
—

^ f—t.
•+* 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 years—need 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

-------