-110. rP
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF POTENTIAL GAS AND LEACHATE
PROBLEMS AT LAND DISPOSAL SITES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL GAS
AND LEACHATE PROBLEMS AT LAND DISPOSAL SITES
This open-file report (SW-llO.of) was prepared
by the Hazardous Waste Management Divisiont
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
This open-file report is reproduced as received from the
Hazardous Waste Management Division, which is responsible
for its editorial style and technical content.
Mention of commercial products does not imply endorsement
by the U.S. Government.
-------
FOREWORD
The generation and control of decomposition gases and
leachate at solid waste land disposal sites have been the
subjects of considerable discussion in recent years by those
working in the solid waste management fieldat research, design,
operation, and regulatory levels. Research studies on the
subject are numerous, but as is often the case, definitive
research study results are not readily available to help make
a true assessment of the scope of the gas and leachate problem
in relation to state-of-the-art practices.
Unfortunate allusions frequently have been made to the
sanitary landfill as equivalent to a time bomb, a privy, or a
cesspool. The erroneous implication is that to bury solid
waste is totally unsafe and ecologically unacceptable, since
such practices endanger our ground water resources.
This report is an initial step by the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs in an attempt to place the problem of gas
and leachate in proper perspective. Our advocacy of sanitary
landfilling is entirely consistent with the growing national
commitment to maximum recovery and reuse of our waste resources.
Sanitary landfills, properly designed and operated, are
urgently needed now to curb open dumping and, moreover, will be
fundamental parts of any future system of total resource
recovery. For even the most complete systems of resource
111
-------
recovery that can be envisioned for the future will still
leave large residues of unuseable wastes that must be disposed
of, on land, and in ways that do not pollute.
The basic contention is that with proper design and
operation, essential ingredients to the successful performance
of any facility, land disposal of solid waste can be accomplished
in a manner that meets established environmental requirements.
This is not to say that regulation is not needed, because that
tool is a key element in ensuring compliance with established
standards.
The "paper assessment" presented herein is being followed up
by Hazardous Waste Management Division staff with a series of case
studies undertaken in various geographical areas of the country
to identify the extent of gas and leachate control problems
based on actual field data. We plan to publish the results of
the case studies so as to further document the nature of the
problem and solutions available today.
JOHN T. TALTY
Acting Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Processing and Disposal Alternatives 1
Processing Alternatives 2
Disposal Alternatives 4
Problems of Land Disposal 5
Dumps 5
Sanitary Landfills 6
Environmental Parameters of Land Disposal 6
Effects of Biological Degradation of Solid Waste 8
Leachate Problems 9
Gas Problems 11
Sanitary Landfill Technology 12
Leachate Prevention and Control 12
Leachate Treatment IS
Gas Migration Control 18
Summary and Conclusions. 19
References 21
Appendix 23
References to Table B 32
-------
-------
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL GAS
AND LEACHATE PROBLEMS AT LAND DISPOSAL SITES
The recent nationwide interest and activity in environmental
matters has had definite beneficial effects on solid waste man-
agement practices, but has also resulted in a certain amount of
confusion for some people over the country's solid waste disposal
problems and needs. The appeal of some of the processing alterna-
tives currently being promoted and investigated have clouded or
obliterated, in the minds of many, the fact that all processing
techniques -- including incineration and recycling -- still leave
a residue that must be disposed of. Land deposition is the
only final disposal practice widely available today and will
continue to be for the foreseeable future. It is imperative,
therefore, that concerned citizens and solid waste managers
recognize: (1) the significant environmental problems that arise
when solid wastes are disposed of at open and burning dumps;
(2) the solutions that are now available to avoid such environ-
mental effects. This paper focuses primarily on the gas and
leachate* problems of land disposal and methods of abating them
by instituting proper disposal practices.
Processing and Disposal Alternatives
It is conservatively estimated that over 360 million tons
of residential, commercial, and industrial solid wastes were
*Leachate is liquid that has percolated through deposited
solid wastes and contains suspended and dissolved materials
extracted therefrom.
-------
generated in this country in 1967 -- more than 10 pounds per
person per day. This figure has undoubtedly increased since
then due to the increase in population. The disposal problems
posed by this ever-growing quantity of solid waste are of rising
concern to responsible officials at all levels of government.
Processing Alternatives. There are several processing
alternatives currently available which can be employed to reduce
the weight and/or volume of solid waste that must ultimately be
disposed of on land. These alternatives include milling, baling,
composting, recycling, incineration, and other thermal degradation
processes currently in the demonstration stage, such as gasifi-
cation and pyrolysis.
Municipal incinerators now process less than 6.5 percent of
our residential, commercial, and related solid waste, and in
recent years their use has been declining. The ash and residue
from a well-run modern incinerator, together with the fraction of
solid wastes not amenable to incineration, must still be disposed
2
of on the land.
Pyrolysis is being looked at with great interest because it
has the potential to recover useable liquid, gaseous, and solid
resources from the organic fraction of the input wastes. The
residue, however, is apt to represent a larger fraction of the
input than that produced by municipal incinerators. Gasification
is a partial combustion form of pyrolysis and may give better
-------
volume reduction than conventional incineration. Slagging units,
a variation of high-temperature incineration, will achieve 90
to 95 percent volume reduction. However, all of these variations
of thermal reduction are essentially as restrictive, with respect
to the type of solid wastes that can be processed, as conven-
tional incineration. Full-scale functional units have yet to be
demonstrated for any of these variations. It is doubtful, there-
fore, that in the immediate future, any significant portion of
the country's solid waste load will be processed by these new
thermal degradation processes.
Composting is a seemingly attractive concept from a resource
conservation point of view and has been tried by a number of
cities on a municipal scale over the past few decades. It has
not yet, however, proven itself to be economically viable. There
seems little reason to believe that the economic picture will be
changed within the next few years.
Recycling is perhaps the most popular aspect of solid waste
management at this point in time. There is, of course, a national
need to conserve resources, but it must also be recognized that
recycling is not currently an alternative that is as viable
nationally as sanitary landfilling. Studies carried out by the
Resource Recovery Division, OSWMP, indicate that the easily
recyclable constituents, such as glass, paper, metals, and rubber
compose less than 50 percent of all collected residential,
commercial, and industrial solid wastes. Moreover, not all solid
-------
waste is available for recovery. Some is generated and discarded
in remote locations from where it can never be economically
recovered. Other waste is indiscriminately littered and can
never be completely recovered. Large quantities are transported
and disposed of directly by the generators, thus complicating
the economics of getting such wastes into recovery systems.
Disposal Alternatives. For the following reasons, which are
based on currently available information, it appears that the
land will continue to be the prime receptor for the disposal of
solid wastes for many years:
Ocean dumping has been virtually eliminated as an
immediate alternative as a result of the recent
passage of restrictive legislation.
Recycling has yet to be developed for most areas as
an economically attractive method of reducing the
amount of solid wastes requiring disposal.
Incineration and other processing methods accomplish
volume reduction, but still require a sanitary
landfill as a means of final disposal.
The land now accepts some 93 percent of our residential and
commercially generated solid wastes in addition to most of the
residue of currently employed processing alternatives. Although
reliable figures on the volume of land-disposed industrial solid
wastes are not presently available, this is probably a substantial
part of the 110 million tons generated annually. Finally, the
land is a repository for nearly all of the approximately 2 billion
tons of animal manure and agricultural wastes produced annually,
-------
plus most of the 1 million or more tons of mining and mineral
wastes. A critical review of land disposal problems and needs,
therefore, is in order.
Problems of Land Disposal
Land disposal practices for residential and commercial solid
waste may generally be classified into one of two categories:
open dumping or sanitary landfilling. Of an estimated 17,000
land disposal sites then in use, the 1968 national survey of
community solid waste practices classified some 94 percent as
dumps because they were environmentally unacceptable. Since that
survey, over 2,000 dumps have been closed under EPA's Mission 5000,
but much remains to be done to establish sanitary landfilling*
as the rule rather than the exception in land disposal practices.
Dumps. Dumps are the source of several significant environ-
mental problems. They create health hazards in the forms of air
pollution from burning solid waste, water pollution from leaching
of solid waste, and disease potential through harborage of rats,
flies, and other pests. Improper use of land and scenic blight
create economic losses through lowered property values. Loss of
property and even death have resulted from explosions due to the
uncontrolled migration of methane gas from decomposing solid waste.
*Sanitary landfilling is an engineered method of disposing of
solid wastes on land by spreading them in thin layers, compacting
to the smallest practical volume, and applying cover material
by the end of each working day in a manner which minimizes environ-
mental hazards.
-------
The recent passage of laws in many areas of the country
prohibiting open burning* will help reduce air pollution by
eliminating burning dumps. This results in an increased volume of
wastes left for land disposal and the remaining environmental
insults originating from open dumps -- water pollution, gas migra-
tion, aesthetic and vector problems -- hold little prospect for
abatement save by the widespread adoption and implementation of
appropriate sanitary landfill technology.
Sanitary Landfill. One of the annoying and misleading state-
ments often found in literature dealing with land disposal of
solid wastes is the misuse of the term "sanitary landfill." It is
quite common, in reports on leachate or gas problems, to see
installations referred to as sanitary landfills, but upon reading
the reports in detail, to find that several or all of the prin-
ciples of true sanitary landfill design and operation have been
violated. The public, as well as those Federal, State, and local
officials who have limited concepts of the difference between a
dump and a sanitary landfill have often been misled by this
misnomer. Confusion such as this certainly hinders the neejded
nationwide acceptance and implementation of sanitary landfilling
as the environmentally sound solid waste land disposal method.
Environmental Parameters of Land Disposal
Numerous studies have been made of the effects of land-disposed
solid waste on the biological, chemical, and physical environment.
*0pen burning is burning taking place other than in an
approved incinerator.
-------
Many factors interact to influence the environmental system in
a land disposal site; some of the most prominent are: the types
of solid waste, their permeability to air and water, and their
in-place moisture content.
The types of solid waste that find their way to uncontrolled
land disposal sites are almost infinite in variety. When from
residential and commercial sources alone, the spectrum ranges from
papers, cans, and bottles, through food wastes and other putres-
cible materials, tires, appliances, and automobiles, to household
pesticides and caustic or toxic household chemicals. When wastes
from industrial sources are also present in an uncontrolled land
disposal site, the possible chemical, physical, and biological
interactions become extremely varied and complex.
The permeability of solid waste in a land disposal site
determines the freedom of gas and water movement and is dependent
upon a number of factors: (1) the physical nature of the waste
"as delivered"; (2) the degree to which it is compacted in place;
(3) the depth to which it is emplaced; (4) the depth and
permeability of cover material.
A number of factors affect the moisture content of solid
waste in land disposal sites. The "as delivered" moisture content
is sometimes as high as 95 percent. In addition, the 1968
national survey indicated that about 30 percent of the land
disposal sites surveyed had surface drainage problems and that
-------
over 18 percent involved disposal into ground or surface waters.
These figures are probably much higher, but because of the lack
of control exercised over dumps, responsible authorities are
unaware of these deficiencies.
Effects of Biological Degradation of Solid Waste
The moisture content of "as delivered" solid waste to the
disposal site varies considerably, but sufficient moisture is
usually present to encourage considerable biological activity.
Even if the "as delivered" waste is comparatively dry, moisture
penetration into the deposited wastes is uncontrolled at a dump;
therefore, most of it becomes sufficiently moist within a short
period of time to encourage biological degradation.
The biological degradation process proceeds aerobically for
the first few weeks until nearly all the oxygen in the solid waste
voids has been utilized. During this phase, the decomposition
products may include hundreds of intermediate organics, carbon
dioxide, and water.
As biological degradation begins, the oxygen present in voids
within the solid wastes is quickly used up by aerobic microbes
unless the permeability is such that oxygen is continually replen-
ished. As oxygen becomes scarce, facultative microorganisms begin
anaerobic decomposition of the solid wastes. The decomposition
processes generate hundreds of organic byproducts, many of which
are water soluble. The major gaseous products of anaerobic
-------
decomposition are carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and methane.
Carbon dioxide, of course, is highly water soluble and forms
carbonic acid in water. Hydrogen and methane are both combustible
gases. As influenced by the many variables involved, decomposition
may proceed for several years until all the waste is in a bio-
logically stable form.
Leachate Problems. Numerous studies have shown that water
will become polluted when allowed to come in direct contact with
mixed solid waste. There are many materials in solid waste which
are readily soluble in water, and other water soluble materials
are generated as products of biological degradation. Still other
materials become soluble when leachate acts on them. A compre-
hensive comparison of leachate characteristics reported from
various solid waste disposal facilities is included in Tables A
and B of the Appendix. Table 1 provides a comparison of the
concentrations of mutually occurring constituents of leachate and
domestic sewage. These tables indicate the considerable potency
of leachate, the impact of which must be considered with regard
to quantities produced. Leachate may vary considerably in
character, is widely dispersed, and is produced in relatively
small quantity, especially when compared to domestic sewage.
If there is any one critical factor affecting leachate quality
and quantity, it is the amount of water that is allowed, or is
able, to flow through the solid waste. Generally, as more water
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLID WASTE
LEACHATE AND DOMESTIC SEWAGE*
Concentration*
Leachate from Typical Ratio of
Landfill Six Domestic Leachate:
Months Oldi Sewage ^ Sewage
Constituent
Total Suspended Solids 360 200 2
Conductivity 5200 700 7
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 17500 500 35
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10000 200 50
(5-day BOD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOG) 6100 200 31
pH 5.5 8.0
Alkalinity (as Ca CO,) 3100 100 31
Acidity (as Ca C03) 1400 20 70
Total Phosphorus 22 10 2
Total Nitrogen 250 40 6
Chloride 660 50 13
Calcium 1500 50 30
Magnesium 210 30 7
Iron 55 0.1 500
Manganese 70 0.1 700
*From paper entitled "Characteristics of a Sanitary Landfill and
Its Potential Effects on Water Quality," presented at University of
Kentucky at Lexington Conference entitled, "Urban Rainfall Management
Problems", April 17-18, 1972
?Mg/l except for conductivity (micro-mhos/cm), and pH (pH units).
tBoone County Research Facility - Cell No. 1. Samples taken
January 10 and 24, 1972.
^Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Collection,
Treatment, Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, 1972.
10
-------
flows through, the pollutants that are leached out will increase.
To a certain extent, as less water flows through, the pollutants
picked up in the water tend to be more concentrated, but the
rate at which they are transmitted to the surrounding environment
is more often within the capability of surrounding earth to
accept and attenuate many of them. If no water is allowed to
flow into or through solid waste, leachate problems are unlikely
to develop.
Gas Problems. The gases given off by the biological degrada-
tion of solid wastes are potential sources of serious problems if
not properly controlled. In dumps, the escape of odorous gases is
common and very noticeable. Carbon dioxide dissolving in water
passing through dumped solid waste forms carbonic acid which may
result in high mineral contents if the leachate later percolates
through acid-soluble formations.
A serious gas problem encountered at dumps is the uncontrolled
production and migration of methane. Methane explosions have,
on occasion, been given national publicity because of loss of life
and property. One on the most publicized explosions occurred
in September 1969, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, when methane
became concentrated in an armory a short distance from the edge
of a covered dump. The explosion killed three men and seriously
injured five. Unfortunately, the gas is often reported as having
originated "from a sanitary landfill" rather than "from the city
dump".
11
-------
Another problem associated with uncontrolled gas migration
from improper land disposal of solid waste is vegetative damage
on adjacent land, but this phenomenon has not been extensively
reported.
Sanitary Landfill Technology
To many people, sanitary landfilling consists only of
spreading, compacting, and covering solid waste when, in fact, it
involves much more. It must be a planned operation that: (1) pro-
tects air and water quality; (2) provides the most pleasing
aesthetic appearance possible; (3) assures a safe working environ-
ment; (4) provides the most economical environmentally acceptable
land disposal possible; and (5) affords the most beneficial
final use of the land.
Sanitary landfilling technology has advanced rapidly over
the past decade and will continue to do so in the foreseeable
future. The state of the art is well documented in the EPA
4
publication, Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation, and the
requirements of the method will be defined in EPA's Land Disposal
Guidelines currently being developed.
Leachate Prevention and Control. Most of the early investi-
gations of leachate formation at land disposal sites were carried
out in California. Two often-quoted conclusions of these studies
are: (1) solid waste disposal sites, "if so located that no
portion intercepts groundwater, will not cause impairment of the
12
-------
groundwater for either domestic or irrigational uses"; (2) solid
waste disposal sites, "if so located as to be in intermittent
or continuous contact with groundwater, will cause the ground-
water in the vicinity to become grossly polluted and unfit for
5
domestic or irrigational uses". Studies in Illinois illustrated
the importance of site hydrology and geology in the leachate
problem. Studies in Pennsylvania have concentrated on the leachate
attenuating capabilities of unsaturated soils beneath the fill.
Numerous studies indicate that most of the factors affect-
ing leachate generation are highly site specific. Factors such
as precipitation, evapotranspiration, and soil permeability at a
particular site figure prominently in determining the potential
for surface water infiltration and eventual leachate generation.
The first two are somewhat constant over fairly large geographical
areas, and soil permeability can be somewhat controlled by
careful site selection. Other factors controlling infiltration
of covered solid waste, such as runoff and actual evapotranspira-
tion, can be largely optimized by the cover material used, design
surface slopes, diversions, and cover crop. If possible, the
sanitary landfill design and operational approach should always
be to eliminate or minimize infiltration through the solid waste.
In some areas, due to high precipitation and low potential
evapotranspiration, or geologic limitations, it is impossible
to reduce surface water infiltration to the point that leachate
13
-------
will not be produced. In such cases, site selection becomes
extremely important with respect to the inherent capability of
each site to accept and attenuate the pollution load imposed
by leachate from solid waste. The subsurface hydrologic and
geologic characteristics of each site must be carefully evaluated
and considered in the design phase. Factors such as the depth
and type of earthen material between the bottom of the site and
existing groundwater are of prime importance. The rate and
direction of flow of groundwater must be considered. Fortunately,
the amount of leachate that will be generated in a well-designed
and operated sanitary landfill is small in large areas of the
country. Sanitary landfills are designed to optimize the
mechanisms inherent in nature for leachate prevention and atten-
uation. Consideration should be given to the installation of
groundwater and leachate monitoring systems as integral features
of any sanitary landfill.
In some areas of the country, significant amounts of leachate
may be generated, and few attenuating mechanisms are present.
Leachate collection and treatment systems have, therefore, been
developed for these less-than-ideal situations. Most collection
systems utilize some type of impervious or highly impermeable
liner and collecting tiles or basins. Liners used include com-
pacted natural clay soils, compacted natural soils with bentonite
added, asphaltic liners, and plastic and artificial membranes.
14
-------
A study being supported by OSWMP in Sonoma County, California,
is monitoring the performance of cell liners constructed of com-
o
pacted layers of highly impervious natural soil. No sign of
leakage was detected after 6 months of operation, even though
approximately 1,000 gallons of water per day had been added to
some of the cells.
The Solid Waste Research Laboratory of EPA's National
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, is monitoring the
performance of a compacted natural clay soil liner in a test cell
g
at a Boone County, Kentucky, research site. During the first
year of operation, when there was 44 inches of rainfall, the
equivalent of about 1 inch leachate was collected by the dual
liner system. The upper liner, comprised of approximately 18
inches of compacted natural clay soil, collected nearly 85 percent
of the leachate during the first year. Only 15 percent of the
leachate penetrated the clay and reached the lower synthetic
membrane liner. Analysis of leachate samples taken on July 17,
1972, indicated that the COD above the clay was 24,384 mg per 1
and 8,636 mg per 1 below the clay. Similar reductions were
obtained for total solids (15,996- 7,482), conductivity (10,400-
5,900), and chlorides (798-425). These studies suggest that
even a relatively thin layer of soil with a high clay content
functions well as a liner in leachate collection systems.
Leachate Treatment. Once leachate has been collected, it
must be satisfactorily treated before it can be released. Our
15
-------
efforts to upgrade solid waste disposal practices across the
country have only within the past two or three years resulted in
sanitary landfill design and construction where leachate collec-
tion was necessary. Consequently, very little practical experience
in treating leachate has been obtained. However, work performed
by Ham and Boyle at Madison, Wisconsin, indicates that typical
leachate is susceptible to both aerobic and anaerobic biological
treatment techniques, with the latter being more efficient.
Biological treatment does little, though, to reduce the amount of
inorganic constituents. Chemical treatment was tried, but little
success was obtained. Ham's work did indicate, however, that
leachate can be treated in a municipal-scale, extended-aeration,
or activated sludge type sewage treatment plant in amounts as
high as 5 percent on a total volume basis. This approach seems
particularly appropriate because treatment of the biologically
active fraction is obtained and dilution of the inorganic com-
ponents can be provided.
There are several sanitary landfills where leachate is
collected and treated biologically. The effects of leachate
collection and treatment systems on the cost of sanitary landfill
operations is highly site-specific since the magnitude of any one
leachate problem is dependent on many variables. One of the
most expensive examples that has been observed is a fairly large
sanitary landfill in Pennsylvania where leachate is collected
16
-------
by a system of liners and drains and treated by two-stage
lagooning with discharge through a municipal sewage treatment
plant. The solid waste disposal charge at this site is reportedly
$6.00 per ton. At the other extreme is a small, 100-ton-per-day
sanitary landfill in West Virginia. Leachate is collected by
drains and is treated through two-stage lagoons where over 70
percent removal of COD is achieved. The disposal charge at this
site is reportedly only $2.00 per ton, which is a very economical
cost for an operation of this size, even without leachate collec-
tion and treatment.
Other leachate treatment systems are under development but
have'not yet been incorporated into a full-scale sanitary landfill.
Therefore, their effectiveness and cost have not been ascertained.
A pilot plant consisting of both aerobic and anaerobic stages
has been built to treat leachate from a sanitary landfill in
10
Wisconsin. The concept of recycling leachate through the sanitary
landfill is currently being given serious study at Sonoma County,
8 11
California, and at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The
possible advantages of this technique include accelerated
stabilization of the sanitary landfill.
Lysimeter studies currently under way at Boone County,
Kentucky, have obtained as high as 99 percent removal of COD by
12
percolating leachate through 18 inches of vegetated topsoil.
The reduction in many of the inorganic constituents has also
been substantial. It may be that where the subsurface hydrology
17
-------
and geology are too restrictive for leachate attenuation, irriga-
tion into the surface soils can provide the treatment mechanism
for this problem. Additional investigation is needed on this
approach.
Gas Migration Control. As long as sufficient moisture is
available to support microbial degradation, decomposition gases
will be formed. The relatively small quantity of moisture needed
may be in the waste at the time it is placed in the fill or it
may infiltrate through the surface cover. Initially the decom-
position gas is primarily carbon dioxide, but hydrogen sulfide
and ammonia are also occasionally present. These cause little
concern in a sanitary landfill, except that C02 may increase the
acidity of any leachate produced. As the biological degradation
becomes anaerobic, methane becomes one of the major decomposi-
tion products. Depending upon many factors, including the type
and quantity of waste and its moisture content, varying
quantities of methane can be produced and migrate into the
surrounding earth, or through the landfill cover to the atmosphere.
The potential problem from methane migration, other than
possible damage to vegetation, is that it may concentrate to
explosive levels in or under buildings, in sewer lines, or in
other enclosed spaces. As indicated by Bruner and Keller and by
Bramble, the gas migration potential must be considered and
4 12
controlled through proper site selection, design, and operation. '
The extent of potential migration problems is a function of gas
18
-------
generation rates, the proximity of any buildings or underground
utility tunnels, and the relative permeability of the sanitary
landfill cover as compared to that of the surrounding earth
materials. The majority of sanitary landfills have very little
potential for gas migration problems because of their distance
from buildings or underground conveyances and because their
cover material normally offers less resistance for gas venting
to the atmosphere. However, if a recognized potential for a gas
migration problem exists, monitoring and control provisions
should be included in the design and operating plan.
Whenever the natural soil, hydrologic, geologic, and geo-
graphic conditions of a site fail to provide adequate gas movement
control, man-made control systems can be constructed, if needed.
Lateral gas movement may be controlled by a number of means,
such as vents constructed of material that is more permeable than
the surrounding soils, gravel-filled vents or trenches installed
around the perimeter of the site, or vent pipes with collection
13
laterals under a relatively impervious cover. Pumped exhaust
wells have also been used successfully to intercept migrating
14
gas. Highly impermeable soil or artificial liners have also
been used to prevent lateral migration and to force the methane
to flow through the soil cover.
Summary and Conclusions
Significant health hazards and environmental degradation
problems are attributable to present-day disposal of solid waste
19
-------
on land by open dumping. Dumps provide ideal harborage for rats
and other vectors of disease and are a prime source of aesthetic
blight in the country today. They are potential sources of
serious water pollution problems from uncontrolled leaching of
solid waste. They are potential sources of serious accidents
from uncontrolled migration and explosion of methane gas.
By proper site selection, engineering design, and operation,
modern sanitary landfilling technology can minimize all of the
environmental hazards including gas and leachate generation,
now associated with the uncontrolled disposal of solid waste on
land. Further refinements of the technology are envisioned and
deserve rigorous investigation, but now is the time to start
applying currently available technology. The magnitude of improve-
ments to the environment would be substantial if all open dumps
were eliminated and sanitary landfilling were established as the
method of land disposal of solid waste.
20
-------
REFERENCES
1. Black, R. J., A. J. Muhich, A. J. Klee, H. L. Hickman, Jr., and
R. D. Vaughan. The national solid wastes survey; an interim report.
[Cincinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
[1968]. 53 p.
2. DeMarco, J., D. J. Keller, J. Leckman, and J. L. Newton. Municipal
high-scale incinerator design and operation. Formerly titled
"Incinerator guidelines1969." PuBlic Health Service Publication
No. 2012. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 98 p.
3. Armory blast injures over 25. Saturday Evening Sentinel, Winston-
Salem, N.C., Sept. 27, 1969. p.l.
4. Brunner, D. R., and D. J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and
operation. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
59 p.
5. Engineering-Science, Inc. Effects of refuse dumps on ground-water
quality. California Water Pollution Control Board Publication No.
24. Sacramento, 1961. 107 p.
6. Hughes, G. M., R. A. Landon, and R. N. Farvolden. Hydrogeology of
solid waste disposal sites in northeastern Illinois; a final report
on a solid waste demonstration grant project. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1971. 154 p.
7. Apgar, M. A., and D. Langmuir. Ground-water pollution potential of
a landfill above the water tab.le. In Proceedings; National Ground
Water Quality Symposium, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
the National Water Well Association, Denver, Aug. 25-27, 1971.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, p.76-96.
8. Sonoma County, California. First interim annual report, v.l.
Report on Solid Waste Demonstration Grant No. G06-EC-00351, 1972.
9. Brunner, D. R. First year's data on cell #1 at the Walton, Ky. .
Research Facility. Personal communication to J. George, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, [1972].
10. Ham, R. K., and W. C. Boyle. Treatability of leachate from sanitary
landfills; progress report for June 1, 1970-Aug. 31, 1971 on Solid
Waste Research Grant No. 5-R01-EC-00041-01. 55 p.
11. Pohland, F. G. Sanitary landfill stabilization with leachate
recycle; quarterly progress report no.4. Solid Waste Research
Grant No. EP-00658-01. June 6, 1972. 2 p.
21
-------
12. Bramble, G. M. Data on soil filter treatment of leachate. Personal
communication to J. George, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
[1972].
13. Sanitary landfill guidelines. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(In press.)
14. Callahan, G. P., and R. H. Gurske. The design and installation of
a gas migration control system for a sanitary landfill. Presented
at First Annual Symposium, Los Angeles Regional Forum on Solid Waste
Management, Pasadena, May 1971. 32 p.
22
-------
APPENDIX
Leachate Characteristics
Noted At
Various Land Disposal Sites
(Reference citations appear at
end of listing)
23
-------
TABLE A
SUMMARY of LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS REPORTED IN TABLE B
Components
Range of all
values
Alkalinity (CaC03)
BOD (5 day)
Calcium
COD
Copper
Chloride
Hardness (CaCo3)
Iron - Total
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nitrogen - NH3
Nitrogen - Kjeldahl
Nitrogen - N03
Potassium
Sodium
Sulfate
TDS
TSS
Total Phosphate
Zinc
PH
0-20850
9-54610
5-4080
0-89520
0-9.9
34-2800
0-22800
0.2-5500
0-5.0
16.5-15600
.06-1400
0-1106
0-1416
0-1300
2.8-3770
0-7700
1-1826
0-42276
6-2685
0-154
0-1000
3.7-8.5*
*Excluding incinerator residue
24
-------
CO
u
rH
H
co
rH
S3
|
CO X
u
i-J U
60 H
8"^ rK
CJ
J
a
Ul
H
OS
0
a,
0)
<£
rH
0 rH
P CD
rt P
rH rt
4) 5
C
P P
a> rt
6 -C
H 0
X S>
»J i-H
rH
iH
H
t|_l
T3
C
rt
rH
JS
V)
H
P
H
,H
BQ
rH
(^
rH
O
P
10
(U
4_>
rH
H
£4
BQ
X
(A
rH
BCM
O P
P G
H rt
^j rH
s ex
P
4>
££
X
a
to
4>
cx
H
CX
CM
4)
f^t
H
a.
iH
CD
f"i[
H
CX
CO
E""*
2H
w
§
o
o
fs^
LO
to
o
o
*
rH
00
00
O
rH
1
to
rH
LO
f%*
f**
CM
rH
LO
CM
1
iH
to
o
0
o
CM*
rH
1
cn
o
o
LO
*
to
rH
1
oo
^^
to
rj
rt
u
x'x
P rt
H -O
e, g
rl LO 3
rH ***** 'H
rt U
^ a rH
rH O rt
< CQ U
LO O LO 00 CM
CM LO LO
^- ^- cn O
rH
O O O O CM
tO LO LO O ^t
^^ r^- Crt rH
> i-H rH
to
CM
vO 00
rH
CM CM
1 O
** rH
to i
iH
CM
^v ^f
oo cn
Cft ^O
rH 1
1 CM
to TJ-
f*^
LO
LO
LO
to
^
cn
i
to
o
\o
LO
1
to
to*
O to
CJ X
rt rH Z
u rt
v ' 4J |
O S CD
CD (fl H PMC
"O V) -H CD CD
rH -rl 4) 1 tf) (5 60
4) fH C 4) rt O
CX, O T3 C -d C OOrH
Q CXrH rH O Crf 00 C P
O O rC rt rH 4) Cd rt *H
uuuSi-iHJSSZ
CM
OO
rH
1
^»
rH
CM
oo
rH
1
CM
iH
(x^
rH
rH
|
O
to
(_l
\Q
CM
1
LO
to
to
CM
I
1^
CM
iH
rt
rH
4)
r>
CM
rH
00
f-
LO
1
O
o
o
to
rH
I
to
iH
to
rH
1
Tfr
LO
LO
CM
|
LO
to
CM
rH
rH
O
r»-
o
oo
to
LO
to
CM
Ol
\Q
to
i
to
\o
CM
oo
rH
CM
.
CM
O
t***
to
to
oo
LO
*
cn
rH
r-»O
1
pi
CD
00
0
rH
P
H
2
I
4> -H
oo in
o
rH rt
H 0
25 CX
g
3
H
§
CO
4>
rt
rH
&
CO CO
e £
H H
o
4)
P
r|
in
o
pt
rH
rt
H
at
to
CM
LO
i
CM
vO
oo
I
o
25
-------
CD
P rH
a) -H
tO rH
to
O
P
at in
to CD
CD 3
C *o
H -H
O
C CD
f-i
CD
-O
u
O O O
tO vO to
vO t^- O
O * to
rH O
m o
CT> vO
in
\o
to oo
l^ OO
in
00
o
CM m vo vo
a- m to \o rH o*
I CM I CM -CM
Tl rH in rH rH I
CM
m
01
vO
t~~ -*t
m CM
m
o *
in oo
o m
m o
CM o vo
in o> CM to
i to vo to
in i i O)
to vo r^
in
to
O rH
VO
I
m
oo
i O CTl
I
CM in
to
CD
p
rH CD
co 6
X -H
CO M
Q rH
O
o
t-.
I
o
in
O O to O vO
in O> CM O rH
I I I/) t*>
o\ o r~» in ii
01-11
oo o n- o o
CM
oo
o o
o
o
o m
o
t^ CM
o o
o r-- in
to vo
rH rH OO
I I I
o o r-
to
TJ
CD
3
H
P
c
5
U
i
OQ
W
»*3
CQ
^*
H
H
C/3
n
Qi
E-
CJ
(V*
oo
rH CM
O O CM
o o in
VO in rH
rH CM
O O
rH t^ t^ CM
o\ o
0 rH i-l 0
CM O vO to
O> CM
o to in o
o o» o o
m o
vo o o o
o> CM o o
l-H O> r-H t~-
m
a>
m CM o o
so t~~ o» r~-
CM to to o
to
to
m o
to r^
CM m
in
o
o-
§
u
^\
10
o
u
at
CJ
V /
X
p
H
c
H
rH
at
31
/ *
to
o
CJ
01 rH
U at
**^ 1 ^
o
CD (/> E-
3 to -H CD 1
H
O
rH Q
at O
CJ CJ
CD to f
ft O T:
0 rC C
cj cj a
4
-I
2S
3£
at
CD
fj
to
t
e CD
3 W G
H CD CD
W C 00
CD Ol O
C 00 to
S» fS P
at at -H
s s z
a)
TJ
rH
CD to
r-,0
1 1
CD CD
00 00
0
P
H
O
to
P
H
Z
H
V)
in
at
P
O
CD
§P
at
._! fl 1
*X3 rH
0 3
CO W
e^
Phosphate
rH
at U
p P:
O -H
26
-------
01
H
<4H
T3
s
O
M
rt
£
Q
to
1/5
*
O O I-- O
CN \O ^t ^~
1s* in ^± Ol O
Tl- Tt CN
vO
Oi
CM
1/5 Ol
CN O
Lf)
O if)
CM i-H
CM \O
Oi
1/5
O
\O
O *
tO in VO O 1/5 in
vO CN in vO O
i-H i-H i-H tO O CM
vO
O
rH O
*t If) tr>
rH 00 VO
LO
TJ
r3
e
H
P
PJ
O
U
,
PQ
PJ
CO
E-
CO
£_J
(-H
E-
i i
OS
PJ
E-
^*
CM
^*
»X!
CJ
P-J
H
*C
U
PJ
Q
PJ
H
Oi
O
a.
PJ
a;
oo
O ^H
> rH
< -H
(S TJ
H (S
0 rH
f*^
,_j
i-H i-H
O -H
rl <4H
4-> TJ
o rt
f-x
1 ^H
^J i H
a bo-H
H *H *^3
o P e
O rt rt
Di rH rH
u
rj
H
i 1
X
u
o o o
O LO O
oo LO r-~
rH rH CM
0 0
OOO
o o in \o
oo CM r-~ m
CM i-t 1 rH
CM i in i
1 O CM O
OO O rH CM
in in to
in CM i^-
0 0
o o o o
in rH o m
to o \o o
CM rH 1 i-H
1 1 O 1
CM o \o o
o in r~~
to t^ CM
CM Tfr
OOO
m \o oi
oo to t-^
o to CM
CM to
OOO
o ^ oo
CM O) O
\O Ol rt
rH CM
o
o o
o *
^" lt
in 01
00 Tf
to 'd'
1 CM O
Ol 1 CM
O Tj-
t*** in i
Ol * Ol
\0
Ol O
O CM rH
O CM CM
tO 1 1
1 0 Tt
rH t*^
Ol to Tj-
o
o m
rH Ol O
to ^D \o
CN rH 00
O
O 0
O rH \O
O to *
CN i-H in
in *
OO \O vO t~-
i I~H CM r^
\O 1 1 i-H
CM to vO I
in vo
o
t-- in
i to in
IT) tO rH O
Ol I 't
\O 1 CM 1
rH Tt VO O
O VO vO
CM O i-H
^J" i-H ^"
rH rH
f- vO TJ-
oo m oo
to t~- vo
o
00
in I-H vo
rH I 1/5
-H OO i-l
1 1
CM tO rH
rH VO
vO
vO Ol
r-~ o oo
1 rH tO
CM 1 i-H
Ol 1
VO LO rH
0 Ol 00
t-~ to \o
I*-* ^j* ^^
IO i-H
in oo CM
to CM o
in -st o
CM i-H rH
to
h^
vO
O vO
^- CM m
vo I I
1 m rH
^f
to -! in
vO
in CM
00 CM VO
to i i
I vO OO
CM CM
^H ^sf
oo 01
i t
CM in
i^- m
rH VO
H
r2«
PJ
2
O
CJ
to
o
u
rt
U
V /
/ ^
X X
P rt
H T3
g
H in
rH ^-^
A
_i^ Q
rH 0
rt
OH O
0 A
U U
/ N
to
o
u
rt rH
U rt
V*' .JJJ
o
w H
(U 1
C
*o cj
rl 0
rt rl
g
^
H
(/)
0)
TJ C
rt bo
0) rt
J S
(D
W
O
rt
bO
1
rt
T)
i-H
tO
-------
CO
u
H
-P
§
U
CQ
OQ
rs
u
3
g
a.
CQ
LO
CO rH
rH .H
Oi <
£ i
^
o
to
II
s
s
+J
H
H
i-H
cd
r 1
<
0
-3-
*
^f
pH
*
o
LO
CM
*
LO
o
rH
*
O
o
^f
\o
*
LO
CM
CM
*
O
oo
o
^*
1 1
^^
J>^
cd
T)
LO
§
CQ
LO
i-H
rH
O)
O
CM
O)
o
rH
O>
O
rH
O
O
rH
CM
O
rH
O
00
to
CM
3
'o
rH
U
OO
0
o
to
LO
rH
^f
to
LO
rH
O
vO
CM
n-
0
o
o
0
oo
§
u
LO rH
CT>
o
LO CM
0
O rH
LO rH
O
C3 t***
in o
f^.
o
LO Ci
(SI
(^ ^j
LO
LO
O to
rH
LO
O
o to
to
rH
Ci)
T3
r^ 'H
0 r4
^^. O
o ^c
u u
rH O
\O tO rH rH
rH LO
rt rH O rH Tt
CT> rH O
rH
\o to
LO O Ol *
to o o
rH CM
rH rH LO O O
rH I~^ CM CM
O
\O rH 00 ^ LO
O) Ol rH
rH
rH
\O rH O O VO
O">
rH
\Q
to LO o o r^
LO
vO ^f
rH
3
/^ *o
tO rH
O tO 0) tO
CJ X "'"I O
Cd rH Z « Z
U cd
^ +J. Ill
o go
t/> H 3 G C C
vi -H o a> o> a>
0) 1 (/) C 60 bO 00
C 4> cd O 0 0
T3CTJf3t>05-(r
Cd rH Ci) Cd Cd *H «H *H
HrHJSSZZZ
f-*»
00
to
o
CM
CM
0}
to
oo
vO
rH
O
o
rH
O
rH
VO
B
3
H
(/>
cd
o
a.
vO
tt
OO
C71
00
to
^f
to
00
o>
CM
^*
t-~
0
rH
00
0
H
O
co
^>
CM
O
00
vD
rH
LO
\o
to
rH
CM
CM
CO
4^
cd
rH
3
CO
o
to
LO
o
rH
rH
^f
a\
o>
TJ-
oo
LO
O
to
CM
00
O)
rH
rH
^J>
Ol
^s»
NO
CO
e
CTl
,
LO
LO
cs
to
LO
CM
O
to
rH
O
CM
O>
00
CM
rH
0)
4J
cd
r*
PH
W
O
tx
rH
cd
CO -M
CO O
H E-
LO
00
to
LO
to
o
vO
o
rH
LO
rH
LO
*
^J
^^
O
H
IO
O
CM
*
28
-------
(D
00 -H
4) rH
P rH
H 0
CO S
CM
CM
O tO rH
to LO CM
OO
O O
rH LO LO O
t~- O O to
iI r~- Ol iI
O vO
vo
CM tO
to to
LO
CM
oo o
rH O C1 O
\O O~> O
o
CM
CM LO LO O O O
LO LO LO CM o>
to
00
O>
LO
*T3
0
3
C
H
P
O
u
1
OQ
U4
-J
09
<^
£_H
LO
rH
£ i
LO
P 1
OS
PJ
f-H
^J
2
£
U
£
g
u
PJ
h4
Q
PJ
OS
o
04
BJ
OS
CM
GI-H \O
OrH 1
XrH LO
C rH 1
rt -H to
O M-1
*o
0 C
p rt
C ir"1
0 CM
3 vO
O. I
to
i 1
1
CM
i I
rH
rH
i-H
rH £ -H
rH O "P.
o x 'O
O rt rt
LO O rH
O
0 rH
*O rH
H rH
W -H
(D *T3 3fc
> pi C
H rt -H
os r-i ea
rH i 1
0 rH
3 -H
^ ^H
O 13
rt C
r~H rt
OQ rH
0
o to
OOOO OOOLO to OO LO CM
tOOvOOO tOvOLOCMLOrH I-^rH «
t^(MLOCMtOCMrHi-HLO OOCM r--
LO O^ O) rH tO ^j" 1 1
^~
o LO o
oooo OOLO r-oo Looot^rH
vOO^toO OOtO '^rH rJ-CMtO-> vO
CMCMtOrH rHvOrH LO TfrlOvOrHOO
tO CM rH rj- I-H LO rH
VO O
rH 0 0 0
LOOt^LO LOOO^f LO'S; OOO
CMCMvDI^^l'^l't^VO'LOrH tOrHOVO CM-
IrHLOLOCM^OCMLOvD OrHrH-*VO t~»
OlIllltOCMIICMI -IIICM 1
LOI^LOCMtOll^ftOlO TfLOr^-OI rH
CMOiOlrH-t^LO'-OO 1 -OO-CM
rH tOtOVOOOLOtOtOCM OvO rHLO I
O ^d"
rH rH
O
OOOO O
OrHt^ OCMLO OOOLO O
LO*LO LOrHO O OlLO VDOO O>OtO
OltOCM tOOOtO rH OOLO OOOOIO CMrHvO
itoi CMII Tt ii rHi-nr-- i
OlLO IOLO 1 CM^t III \O 1 Is-
tOrHrH VOLO- Tt CM- OOLOCTl rHOI
r^-OOi-H CT>vOvO VO -CM CMOOIO -CMO
vO
LO
*
000 f
t^rH OOLO^ OtOOvD O ^ O
LOvO vO'd O-OvO r^-OOOi 1 vO't
* * *OvO LOi tvO« »O1OOO^
rH^- C7l ' 1 LO i 1 rHr^CJ^VOOl
rH LO tO rH
to
o
rt
LO
E-
Z
w
z
o
a.
§
u
rt
^_j
^ /
X
P
H
C
H
rH
rt
<
/ \
X
rt
rO
m
^W-r*
1
g
3
H
O
rt O
u u
O
-a
fn *H
CJ ^
Clj Q
u u
to
0
rt 1 i
U rt
o
in H
G
Q tO O -H
H H H M
§
X
rt
a
o
cs
*
29
-------
U
o
0
CM
00
1
o
i
r--
Tf
O
I .
1
vO
CM
vO
O
to
t^
rH
1
O
CM
O
i-H
O
O
CM
1
r-.
o
i i
o
o
0
I
00
CM
i
0
vO
00
en
r-t LO
I "ef
O
to
^-
i-H
0
Tfr
O rH
t~~ en to
en i r
1 0
o to
CM O
i-H i-H
O
i-H
CM
I
0
r--
rH
».
0
O LO
i-H
CM 1
0
CM
i-H
00
LO
LO
1
O
LO
to
vO
. *) o
i 1 vO
i 1 OO i-H LO
1 1 1 Tt i-H
«* CM t~~ CM rH
oo oo
^f rH
oo
^-
en
CM
i
vO
00
O
VO
1
O
rH
CM
^f
to
CM
1
LO
to
LO
LO vO
rH 1
00
LO
CM
T3
00
CM
1
O
O
!**.
v
^3-
i-H
O
O
^^
t
CM
to
1
O
o
IO
0
o
00
i-H
1
o
o
en
o
o
i-H
i
o
o
l^.
0
LO
en
CM
1
O
o
CM
O
CM Tl-
LO
« O
en i
00 O
i
o
o
to
t
vO
CM
0
0
^I
** \O
en
to o
i i
vO O
t"^
CM
»
O
CM
O
0
vO
t
to
Tfr \O
I
to to
to
en
0
i-H
CM
rH
|
O
CM
en
0
o
CM
i-H
|
O
to
LO
o
o
oo
i-H
1
00
en
en
o o
o
CM VO
1 1
0 0
vO
to
00 O
vO
^^ 1*"^
| |
O O
o
CM
^~
O CM
en
to i
o
CM
to
oo
to
o o o
CM
OO OO t C7> rH i-H >
I I O I I I rH
CM vo en
i en to
H I 00 I I
v| CM O vD
i to t>» to
en
vo en
o vo LO o o to CM
OO -TtLOOOtOVOrH
OO ^^ *s^ OO Oi OO " LO ^^ CM LO
i I-H i i i i en to i a- i
o looooorH loo icn
CMCMrHLOLOtOO'S-CTlCMTj-
oo
i-H
en
o
t--.
CM
vo CM en
CM «* vo TJ- rj- to
CM vo o LO i i oo o
I CM I O CM O OO I "*
CM
CM
LO
en
t
LO
fito
OrH
£3
U 4-1
T>
C C
o rt
H i-l
l/l
(/)
r-l
t^
1
<*
CM
to
oo
vO
1
oo
i i
1
to
i*-^
vO
00
O
vO
00
en
OO vO
O rH
en CM
o
0 0
en o
> CM
r^i r^
rH
CM
0
to
o
0
00
A
vO
r^v
LO
LO
to
CM
o
vO
vO
O
to
en
00
o
o
00
«\
CM
CM
LO
r-~
*
o
CM
00
CM
rH ^1-
^j"
LO
CD vO
CM
C~l
CM *
r- CM
rH
LO
CO
H
UJ
CD
cx
g
U
to
o
o
U
X X
P cd
H LO
cd
^ Q
rH O
< ca
to
O
V
U
rH Q
cd o b . .
u u u u
O
CL,
cd
P
O
X
PH
30
-------
73
0
3
C
H
p
c
o
u
1
CQ
LU
jj
CQ
^*
H
Cd rH
P 0> -H
CO OO'H
. 01 (4-1
C rH 73
C rH fi
0 o cd
OH CJ rH
0 a>
Cd rH
P CD rH
CO OO'H
.
DH *rK
CJ 3£
pq
b '
^c ^H ro r***
X P! rH 0rH
CJ O -H 73 0
<; 10 MH T3 w
W -H 13 CD 3
|-J -O C fH <»H
3^-gg
w
H
OS VD
O rH
(X rH
W Cd rH
OS g -H
>C S <4H
P ,0 TJ
fH cd C
O rH Cd
T3
0 LO
rHrH
TT rH 13
rH *H 0
S fn
rH 0
rH +J >
0 O O
u c o
O O
CM Tf
00 O
rH rH
CM O VD
O 00 00
LO 00 rH
rH
rH tO
I~» O)
Tf CM
O
o
rH
Oi
1
o
53-
o o
0 O
CT> to
1 CM
0 rH
LO 1
LO O
iH O
CM
O
i 1
O 0
0 0
rH O
* A
o ^*
rH CM
1 1
O 0
rH O
to o
rH rt
1^ 00
LO rH
LO OO
CM LO
O 00 tO
CM r-
tO LO *3-
o
O LO
00 00
CM 1
i r^
00
o o o
fH 00
t^ oo
0 O
CM VD
rH VD VD
CM VO tO
1 1 vD
o o
o oo
tO VD
1*^
to
o
to
1 1
O O O
VO LO
H to
00
i-H O
LO O> LO
to
LO
vO
00
CM
O
01
I
VO
LO
10
VO
CM
I
O
to
VO
00
I
O)
LO
o
O O VO
00 CM LO
LO VD LO
vO
w
f-t
21
w
g
o
u
to
o
u
cd
CJ
**~*
^
P
H
C
H
rH
cd
rH
^
cd
*i3
LO 3
>-^-H
u
Q -H Q
O cd O
CQ U U
0
73
fH -H
fti O
o S
U CJ
/ s
fT)
o
y
cd
$£,
w
I/)
0
-g
fH
cd
rH
cd
o
£~*
1
C 73
o cd
fH 0
g
3
H
I/)
0
g,
cd
s
to
a
z
0
0 0
C 00
cd o
00 fH
Q -P
cd -H
s z
cd
rH
0 to
r->O
1 1
G C §
0 0 -H
oo
fH fH Cd
P P P
H -H O
Z Z CX
0
§ rt
H MH
73 rH CO
030
CO CO H
0
P
cd
"ft
I/)
o
OH
rH
cd
CO 4J
CO O
H E-
o
tvj
31
-------
REFERENCES TO TABLE B
1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Pollution of water by
tipped refuse. Report of the Technical Committee on the experimental
disposal of house refuse in wet and dry pits. London, Her Magesty's
Stationary Office, 1961. 141 p.
2. Suffet, I. H., R. J. Schoenberger, A. A. Fungaroli, and S. Levy.
Specific ion electrodes analysis of waste-waters from solid waste
disposal. Presented at Third Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference,
University of Maryland, Dec. 15, 1969. 34 p.
3. Fungaroli, A. A. Hydrological considerations in landfill design and
operation. Presented at National Industrial Solid Wastes Management
Conference, University of Houston, Mar. 24-26, 1970.
4. Fungaroli, A. A. Pollution of subsurface water by sanitary landfills.
v.l. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. [202 p.];
v.2. 216 p. [Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va. as PB 209 001.]
5. Schoenberger, R. J. Chemical characteristics of leachate from an
incinerator residue landfill. In Proceedings; Second Mid-Atlantic
Industrial Waste Conference, Philadelphia, Nov. 18-20, 1968. Drexel
Institute of Technology, p.287-292.
6. Burchinal, J. C., and H. A. Wilson. Sanitary landfill investigation;
progress report. Solid Waste Research Grant No. 00040, July 12, 1966.
7. Pohland, F. G. Sanitary landfill stabilization with leachate recycle;
interim progress report on Solid Waste Research Grant No. EP-00658-01,
Mar. 1972.
8. Ham, R. K. The treatability of leachate from sanitary landfills;
summary progress report on Solid Waste Demonstration Grant No.
G06-EC-00041-02. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Mar. 1971.
9- Hughes, G. M., R. A. Landon, and R. N. Farvolden. Hydrogeology of solid
waste disposal sites in northeastern Illinois; a final report on a
solid waste demonstration grant project. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971. 154 p.
10. Investigation of leaching of a sanitary landfill. California State
Water Pollution Control Board Publication No. 10. Sacramento, 1954.
11. Sanitary landfill studies; Apendix A: summary of selected previous
investigations. California Department of Water Resources Bulletin
No. 147-5. Sacramento, The Resources Agency, July 1969. p.59-60.
32
-------
12. County of Los Angeles, Department of County Engineer, and Engineering-
Science, Inc. Development of construction and use criteria for sanitary
landfills; an interim report. Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1969. [267 p.]
13. Meichtry, T. M. [Leachate control systems.] Presented at Los Angeles
Regional Forum on Solid Waste Management, May 25, 1971.
14. Sonoma County, California. Test cells demonstration grant. Report on
Solid Waste Demonstration Grant No. G06-EC-00351.
15. Ham, R. K., W. K. Porter, and J. J. Reinhardt. Refuse milling for
landfill disposal; part three. Public Works, 103(2);49-54. Feb. 1972.
16. Riccio, J. F., and L. W. Hyde. Hydrogeology of sanitary landfill
sites in Alabama; preliminary appraisal. Geological Survey of Alabama
Circular No. 71. University, Ala., 1971. 23 p.
17. Ham, R. K., and W. C. Boyle. Treatability of leachate from sanitary
landfills; progress report for June 1, 1970-Aug. 31, 1971 on Solid
Waste Research Grant No. 5-R01-EC-00041-01. 55 p.
18. Anderson, J. R., and J. N. Dornbush. Influence of sanitary landfill
on ground water quality. American Water Works Association Journal,
59(4):457-470, Apr. 1967.
19. Apgar, M. A., and D. Langmuir. Ground-water pollution potential of a
landfill above the water table, lin^ Proceedings; National Ground
Water Quality Symposium, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
National Water Well Association, Denver, Aug. 25-27, 1971. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, p.76-96.
33 * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1973- 759-555/1161
-------
O^d U.-.-2.J. »'~i?:'"-'' "J
------- |