-------
OJ
UJ
CO
oo
LU
a:
UJ
<.
c;
2:
O
o
CO
>~4
a:
o_
s:
o
g
O
Di
Q
O
o
4->
r-
QJ
C
CD
OQ
P_
re
4J
c
c:
ฃ
O
s-
^
c
i , 1
in
S-
re
1
'o
o
>>*-
4J O
CO
O in
O C
0
r-
i
r~~
r
cr
>
ฃ
re
c
$_
QJ
r
"*
C
C
o
o T ^
c cu -
re 4-> -Q
in s_ in
re o cu
CU 4J "O
> -i- CU
r- r- S-
tn re
03'"
r CT m
O. CU
X S- 4->
CU !- '-
re m
4-
o to i
+j re
in c m
+-> <3J O
0 E Q-
QJ QJ I/)
ii ._
M r~~ r~
<4- Q. -0
CU Q-
3 CU
to in 4->
3 m
Q * ป* re
"O to 3
s_ re
re en "O
M T-
T3 CT) ^
-C C 0
r- tO
E +J ^
o re o
S- -r- +->
M- X
+-> ^: in
C Q. OJ
CU in O
E re o
c: re
o s-
S- O in
'> (J *O
C -i- 5-
QJ X -P
o c
-O 4-> O 4J
re M- re
O " i-
o m o
<- m cu s-
i C S- -
^3 o 'r re
3 -i- M-
O. 4-> O
re o +->
to s- ซ->
+->-(-> tO
u re re
o c en M
s_ o cu re
ex o s- .c
<^J- LO O"*
1
r>^ ^l" r-~
CT^ ^~ r~*
i '
o
i-
re
tD
t c:
re
re +-> -o
r- -a oo TJ cu
S- CD 1 CU C
cu o cu o *r-
+-> 3 4-> 3 -Q
i- -a re T3 E
s- c +-> c o
T3
CU
to
O
a.
o
u
a.
t/>
4^
S-
o
Q.
s.
^
re
s-
re
cu
c
re
in
O
a.
in
r
-o
cu
4_)
in
re
S
c
o
c
re
.a
S-
o
14-
4->
a.
cu
u
X
cu
o
cu
to
o
Q.
o
S-
Q.
in
re
cu
E
re
oo
CO
UD
ro
r~~
*
CU
r-
U
r-
S-
cu *->
S- CO
o cu
z: ct
c
o
r
S-
cu
4~)
r"
S-
o
-a
S-
re
re
ฃi
T3
S-
r
ฐ
0
c
1 ป
Q.
CU
O
X
cu
T3
CU
in
0
Q.
O
S-
o.
in
re
cu
re
oo
00
O"*
01
*
cu
ฃ
o
*H"
i-
to to
cu cu
1 CC
111-98
u
"O
i
re
T>
c
re
M
to
cu
oo
in
C
in T-
ai j^
S- E
O
l/> O
in
at ai
*"" *
a
c >>
re
CD in
J= O
I O
-------
G. AESTHETIC AND OTHER EK'VTROK.IEN'TAL EFKF.CTS
1. Importance; Adverse Effects From Improper Disposal
Aesthetic and other miscellaneous environmental effects
associated with solid waste disposal sites are dust and dirt,
litter, noise, and odors. All of these factors are very dynamic
(constantly changing) and frequently require daily operational
responses, most of which are readily implemented.
The travel of collection trucks on untreated dirt roads and
operation of site equipment for earth excavation are responsible
for most of the dust and dirt problems associated wi th land
disposal operations. Treating roads, watering down dust, and
cleaning vehicles helps reduce dust and dirt. Litter problems
are a function of type of waste (e.g., paper and plastics), site
location (e.g., topography), operation (e.q., use of cover
material, fence controls), and weather conditions (e.g., winds).
Noise occurs at landfill sites due to the passage of collec-
tion trucks and the operation of landfill equipment (bulldozers,
scrapers, compactors). The major collection truck noise occurs
when vehicles accelerate (e.g., after crossing scales) and when
they discharge their load on the working faco of a fill. The
community impact of noise at disposal facilities is directly
related to the surrounding 1 a n d-us e patterns; as exported, the
impact is most severe whore residential and s r n s i t. i v e
institutional areas adjoin the facility. Noise at disposal sites
is generally i n t r> riv i t L e n t rather than continuous, and the
distance fro;-1 the work inn faoj (area of operation) to t;>o
property lint is constantly c nan q inn. Buffer /tones betveen the
operating a r e <"i d n d surrounding land are effective i n r; i n i m i 2. i n n
noise- and litter -ind may help i n dust and odor controls.
111-09
-------
Odors caused by the decomposition of putrer.cible waste at
disposal sites may have a decidedly adverse effect on the imme-
diate environment. Cover material helps control odors. The
occurrence of odors is a function of the daily and seasonal
conditions at the site.
2. Regulatory Alternatives and Environmental Consequences
a. Proposed Criterion
EPA proposes not to address these problems in the
Criteria, since these environmental effects (1) are very dynamic,
(2) are dependent on Adjacent land use and numerous site-specific
factors, (3) are generally temporary, (4) pose relatively minor
degrees of cnv iron inert a 1 concern, and (5) are readily correc-
table.
E P A's position is that State and local governments arc
better qualified to make site-by-site determinations of the
impact of Iheso parameters and to recommend the necessary correc-
tive actions. Also, as discussed in Chapter II, there are
several Federal n o i s < standards being developed applicable to
mobile solid waste collection and heavy disposal equipment.
b. More Restrictive Alternatives
The off-site mi oration of dust, litter, noise and odors
may contribute' to the drter i orati on of a local environment and/or
public inconvenience.
A more restrictive- alternative would be to specify that
disposal facilities rust prevent or minimize noise, dust, dirt,
odor, and litter miqration off-site so as to avoid causing damage
or inconvenience. Another more restrictive alternative would be
to specify operational criteria for control of aesthetic impacts,
by requirino specific en-site controls of dust, litter, noise,
III-100
-------
and odors. Such an alternative, while preserving the integrity
of local environments, might reduce the number of available,
otherwise feasible sites, be overly restrictive and thus
unnecessarily increase operating costs, and not reflect the
myriad of local conditions and individual values. Moreover,
alternative sites might pose more serious health and safety
problems.
3. Summary Technology, Economic, and Environmental Impact
Analysi s
a. Techno!ogy
The control methods to minimize the adverse impacts of
noise, dust, odor and litter at disposal sites are site-specific.
Noise is controlled by reducing noise from vehicles and equipment
and by using buffers. Noise regulations for nobile equipment are
being developed by EPA. Dust and dirt controlled by treating
access roads and providing a water truck to periodically wet down
temporary dirt access roads to the site. Odors can be
effectively controlled by the periodic application of cover.
Litter fences placed at strategic locations on-site control the
problem of off-site litter.
These technologies are based upon what EPA considers to be
proven and tested methods. Although regional solutions may vary,
they represent the best available approach for a nationwise
assessment of costs.
b. Assumptions
Only the more restrictive alternative would result in
an economic impact since it would create a need to prevent or
minimize noise, dust, odor, and litter from off-site migration
that may cause damage or inconvenience. The proposed alternative
does not result in compliance costs. The proposed alternative
III-101
-------
was adopted because aesthetic problems are dynamic, often
temporary, and readily correctable; moreover, aesthetic effects
are dependent on surrounding land use, numerous site-specific
factors, and minor degrees of environmental concern. A less
restrictive alternative does not exist.
Economic impacts of noise and odor controls were considered
minimal since these are problems only when specific land use
patterns exist, and since cover material and buffer zones exist
at most landfills.
Surface impoundments and 1andspreading operations will be
only minimally affected by this criterion and, therefore, would
have minimal economic impact.
c. Costs
Cost estimates for the effect of this criterion were
developed based upon the above technologies and on unit costs for
each technology, as a function of site size. Unit costs and the
data base are presented in greater detail in Section IV and in
Appendix V (Volume II).
In summary, the more restrictive alternative will result in
costs in 25 States ranging from $5,300 to $285,000 per State; the
remaining 25 States will not incur costs. Most State standards
were as stringent as the more restrictive alternative for litter
control, while about half of the States had regulations address-
ing dust control.
Table 26 compares annualized costs based on disposal method
and regulatory alternative.
III-102
-------
d. Economic and Environmental Comparisons Among
A1ternat1ves
Table 27 shows the economic and environmental
comparisons among alternatives for the aesthetics criterion.
Comparing the more restrictive alternative with the proposed
shows that an additional cost of $2.4 million per year for the
more restrictive alternative does offer some return over the
proposed in terms of environmental benefits. However, the more
restrictive alternative could be difficult and costly to
administer and enforce since aesthetic problems are dynamic,
site-specific, and readily correctable. EPA concludes that
specifying operational standards for this criterion would be
overly restrictive and not cost effective for the potential
environmental benefit. State and local controls are more appro-
priate for aesthetic problems.
III-103
-------
Q
LU
tO LU
< >
CO >-i
r-
tO -i CO
DC. -
< Q
a.
* ^
CO
* S-
CO rO
4-> r
CO
O 0
0 X3
r *+
fO O
4->
ฃ1 t/)
QJ C
E 0
OJ *p
X- r
O i
C -r-
' E
-o
O
JC
4_>
QJ
^""
p..
fO
CO
0
Q.
CO
r
Q
c
0
'^3
ro
o
r
r
a.
Q.
ec
a
c
ra
1
CO
4J
C
QJ
ฃ
^5
C
^3
0
a.
E
i ซ
QJ
Cj
03
14-
S-
3
CO
co
E
^
c:
(O
_j
O)
>
i
4->
ro
ฃ
QJ
4_>
r
ซ^
>ซj
o
4_)
ra
r
a>
a>
o:
o
0
o
-o
QJ
U
3
a
c
> i
i
a
i.
-o
c
ra
4_>
CO
1
ai
rO
to
o
o
0
*
*
-a
QJ
u
3
-a
c
i i
i
rO
*r-
ฃ_
QJ
4_)
tl
CJ
0
0
o
a
QJ
C
-Q
ง
O
o
QJ
CO
o
a.
0
l_
a.
0
o
LO
C\J
*
*
QJ
r
0
j^
I >
CO
QJ
cc:
QJ
S-
o
"*"
^v
fc.
"f"
^^
^^^
rv
S-
-I-J
CO
QJ
(X
CO
co
QJ
_j
CO
QJ
0 ฃ
+-> +J
C rrj
r- C
CO QJ
QJ +J
f~* f" ^
4->
O ซr-
fO 4->
*f- O
m L
\J* >v
C +->
r- CO
4-* QJ
CO L.
X CO
O) co
QJ
CD r
c
r- T3
i- C
-Q ra
"O
r- TJ
JE c s- -t-5
2 rrj o f
CO CO X
+J -O QJ
co QJ QJ
o -u a. -Jf
o ra o ฐ
+J r- ซ=
4-> to QJ1
c . > ^
fC Ji "ฐ -o
3 QJ 2 -U _
u *-> O 5
r- 0) C ฐ
a> s_ o -r
Sฐ S 2^ |
J3 r T- QJ ฃ
^3 tO f ~ 3^ ป
i- ex h
to o> e to u
S- QJ O CO .*2
n u_ o ฃ
+-> a> o r;
r- T3 >
-a c QJ TJ s-
c ra ซ QJ o
QJ -C U CL_
a. co on
X TD ro -O ni
QJ t- C >
rO O *< .,_
*-> "O 4J 1 H_>
c c aj ra
QJ rO T3 4-> c
to -M QJ rO s_
QJ co "CJ 4-> Q)
S- QJ ซ/) +J
O. Q) QJ ,
QJ -M C T3 ro
ฃ~ rtl c
4J QJ ro QJ
in to CO >
4-> o -a -r-
CO JE JC CJ 4J
O 4-> 4-> O O
O V- 3 -r-
5 TJ -0 S-
C C +->
4-^ O ^>> 1 QJ
C C OJ rO $-
OJ ro X3 ซr-
^ "*" ^- c^
3} > i/i CJ to
i~ Q- 4-ป 4-> QJ
O ฃ CO -r- '
C 0 0 i-
t~ซ t> CJ O "3.
* * * +
* #
III-104
-------
CQ
01
r
(O
CJ
o
M-
O
'il
CD
Ol
C
CO
OJ
S_
01
CO
Ol
i-
0.
Lf>
CM
*
Ol
O
r-
s_
Ol 4J
1 co
O O)
^ 01
It
ป(
ซ^
^-^
X
*
^
z:
O)
i
u
>rซ
CO +-ป
(/) oi
C.) C'J
, OL
i
III-105
a
a>
o
3
TO
C
f
I
-o
rt3
-a
c
ซ3
+J
co
Ol
4->
(O
4->
CO
-o
C
rtJ
Ol
o
-o
I
(O
r-
s-
Ol
o
-fj
c
E
O)
o>
CO
O
o
QJ
O)
4-5
CO
OJ 4->
> in
r- O
4-> O
o
r- T3
S_ (1)
4-> C
CO -I-
o
CO O
CO
X
O)
o
c
co
01
o
13
i.
Ol
i-
u
CO
o
Ol
CO
o;
01
Ol
>
(
+J
ra
c
s_
OJ
fO -i-
"C
c
oป +->
o
S )
4J
CO
O)
CO
CO
O!
a.
y.
*
-------
IV. IMPACT EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ACTION
Chapter III addressed each adverse effect associated .wi th
improper solid waste disposal, discussing the merits of various
regulatory alternatives to control each adverse effect.
Discussed in detail for each adverse effect were the environ-
mental and economic consequences of the proposed Criteria and of
selected more and less restrictive regulatory alternatives.
This chapter evaluates the impact of the proposed Criteria
as a whole, identifying the major environmental benefits and
costs on a national basis and on various cross-sections or
segments of our society. Section B aggregates the national
environmental benefits and costs of the proposed Criteria, and of
the major regulatory alternatives. Section C examines each of
the three major disposal methods in terms of the environmental
and economic effects of the proposed regulations. Section D
presents specific cases of the economic benefits of the Criteria
from damages that will be avoided. Section E examines the social
and equity impacts of the Criteria, i.e., how different groups in
the population are affected by the proposed regulation. These
impact groups include rural areas. States, regions, and specific
industrial groups. Section F presents the environmental an
economic effects, in terms of short-term and long-term consid-
erations, as well as irreversible and irretrievable effects.
Finally, Section G discusses the impact of the proposed Criteria
on energy use and resource recovery.
A. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The first task in the preparation of the EIS wซs to identify
all the potential adverse effects of improper solid waste
disposal and to assess the importance of the resource being
affected. Only then could relative evaluations ne mane as to
IV-1
-------
environmental benefits and importance of each proposed criterion.
Next, technologies and methods were identified which may be
utilized to comply with the proposed Criteria, and their costs
and effectiveness in reducing the adverse effects were assessed
(Chapter III).
The social and environmental impacts of solid waste disposal
practices include a wide range of concerns such as public health,
occupational health and safety, environmental damage, and main-
tenance of ecological systems..
The degree to which the proposed Criteria reduce to accep-
table levels or eliminate the significant cumulative adverse
environmental impacts of the solid waste disposal practices of
landfilling, 1andspreading, and impoundments depends on the
effectiveness of government regulations and the technological
developments necessary to implement regulations.
Although considered in the development of the proposed
Criteria, it is not the purpose of this report to evaluate the
efficiency and practicality of the systems for enforcing the
regulations (including monitoring to determine compliance) and
the probability of efficient (predictable) site operation.
Rather, the EIS evaluates the beneficial environmental effects
which reasonably can be expected to occur when the Criteria are
fully implemented and constrasts them with the probable economic
and social costs of the regulations.
The costs of achieving these effects will be borne directly
by the general public, disposal site operators, public aqencies
at local, State and Federal levels, industries, and other waste
generators. Some of these economic and social costs fall equally
on people, while others may be distributed inequitably to
segments of the population.
IV-2
-------
The basic analytical framework of the EIS diyiaes the costs
of meeting the Criteria into two parts: (1) the costs of meeting
existing State solid waste disposal regulations (State-standard-
induced costs) and (2) additional costs of meeting the Criteria
beyond the level specified by State regulations (Criteria-induced
costs). The true cost impact of the Criteria is found in (2),
but the total (combi ned) c_o_sjt to industry and consumer is the sum
of the costs in (1 ) and (2).
In order to identify the impacts, specific costs were
attributed to meeting each criterion. To avoid double-counting,
specific technologies which would achieve compliance with a
combination of criteria were assigned for cost accounting to the
criterion of greatest importance or where the technology had the
greatest impact.
In calculating the additional cost of compliance with the
Criteria, the cost impact assessment takes as given Federal
regulatory control of certain aspects of solid waste disposal
(e.g., NPDES permits, Army Corps of Engineers' permits), and
local/State regulations governing water pollution, air pollution,
noise, nuisance, litter, and similar effects.
The methodology for economic and environmental analysis w< ,
developed with the aid of fairly complete data on the number of
landfills and on State solid waste disposal regulations, but with
very limited data on the number of 1andspreadino operations and
surface impoundments and overall conditions or current impacts of
all three types of land disposal facilities. Although some
industrial landfills and surface impoundments may be regulated by
the hazardous waste regulations of RCRA and not by these
Criteria, no attempt was made to estimate how many sites may be
so affected; therefore, Criteria costs may include estimates for
some facilities that are regulated by the hazardous waste
regulations of RCRA. The availability of data is discussed in
Appendices III and V (Volume II).
IV-3
-------
The basic method used on a state-by-state basis was four-
fold:
(1) Estimate the number of disposal sites (by size and
location);
(2) Estimate the condition (environmental impact) of exist-
ing sites (by size and location);
(3) Identify control technologies and estimatle unit costs
(based on site size) to meet each criterion; and
(4) Derive total control cost of closure or upgrading by
summing costs of each criterion for the thr^ee types of
disposal for the total number of affected sites.
Unit costs for landspreading are expressed in metric units
($/metric ton) in conformance with the regulations qoverninq
landspreading that are currently being promulgated by EPA.
However, unit costs for landfills and surface impoundments are
expressed in English units ($/ton), reflecting the predominance
of the English system in the solid waste management field.
Calculations for annualized costs have taken into account this
di spari ty.
All costs in this report are in terms of annual i zed 19,
dollars. The methodology for the cost calculations is disc us sou
in detail in Appendix V (Volume II).
1. Landfil1s
The 1977 Wa ste Age survey provided most of the data base
necessary for the economic impact assessment of landfills.
Information regarding State regulations is from the 3NA's
Environmental Reporter, "State Solid Waste-Land Use." Additional
information and clarification resulted from consultation with
various State solid waste offices.
T \l -A
-------
Tne Waste Age survey identifies the total number of sites
within each State and presents two categoriespermitted and
authorized. Since these two categories do not sum to thp total,
a third category--!' 11 egal sites is determined.
This latter category is assumed to be open dumps; these
require closing under RCRA within 5 years. In other words,
illegal dumps meet none of the Criteria, and consequently, costs
for these sites reflect both closure costs and costs for
obtaining and developing a new site.
Permitted sites were assumed to comply with State
regulations and their condition was assumed to be a function of
the extent to which the State's solid waste regulations comply
with the proposed Criteria. Thus, the costs for these sites to
comply with the Criteria is the amount of upgrading needed on a
criterion-by-criterion basis for the difference between the
current State regulations and the proposed Criteria.
Authorized sites, according to the Waste Age survey, are
sites which are not quite ready to be permitted. In order to
maintain consistency, it was assumed that both authorized and
permitted sites would need to upgrade to meet the Federal
Criteria. The authorized are assumed to meet current State
regulations except those for existing ground and surface water
criteria. The costs for the authorized sites, to comply is the
same as for the permitted sites, plus any additional costs
necessary to comply with ground and surface water criteria.
2. Surface Impoundments
The surface impoundment methodology is predicated on data
from USEPA Contract No. 68-10-4342; Surface Impoundments and
Their Effect on Groundwater iji the United StatesA P r e 1 i m i n a ry
Survey. (Ref. 107). In addition to the above, The Ground Water
Report to Congress (Ref. 7) and telephone interviews provided
IV-5
-------
necessary information.
Due to the limited data on the location size and condition
of impoundments, sites were grouped into only two categories
based upon the nature of the industries and the size of the
impoundment site. Site size was the major distinguishing factor
between the two groups. Consequently, some industries (coal and
other mining, paper products, and utility services) having both
small and large impoundments were listed in both categories.
Group I and Group II sites were defined as .follows:
Group I - Industries having one 20-hectare (50-acre) surface
impoundment per site; includes mining, paper product, and
utility service industries.
Group II - Industries having three 1-hectare (2.5-acre)
impoundments per site, totaling 3 hectares (7.5 acres) per
site; includes oil and gas, food products, textiles, and
chemical product industries.
The proposed grou'nd-water criterion was identified as having
the greatest potential impact on surface impoundments based on
observations that most impoundments are unlined and leak part of
their contents downward into the soil. (Ref. 107). Therefore,
site lining was assumed to be needed to meet the proposed
alternative at 50% of all sites within a given State when that
State's regulations were not as stringent as the proposed
Criterion. A more detailed discussion of the cost methodology
and assumations is presented in Appendix V (Volume II).
3. Landspreading
The data sources for calculating the economic impact of the
criteria upon landspreading practices were:
IV-6
-------
(1) Unpublished EPA report on sludge disposal practices of
141 cities (Ref 126).
(2) Ground Water Report to Congress (Ref. 7).
(3) Consultation with major cities and EPA regional
offices.
(4) Construction grant design and planning report.
(5) Other research reports and published articles.
Initially, information regarding industrial groups plus
municipal waste treatment plants was examined. Of all industrial
groups surveyed, seven were thought to have wastes which could
feasibly be landspread: pulp and paper, Pharmaceuticals,
tanneries, feedlots, food processing, textiles, and petroleum
products. However, due to a lack of data regarding their land-
spreading practices, they were not considered. Thus, only
sludges from municipal waste treatment plants were considered.
All criteria were analyzed to determine their economic
impact upon this disposal practice. However, only the land
application criterion was considered to have the potential to
significantly impact 1 andspreading practices. See Appendix V
(Volume II) for a more detailed explanation.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND COST IMPACTS; SUMMARY
OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
1. Major Environmental Benefits
The general effects of the Criteria will be threefold:
(a) Many ฃ sting facilities (such as landfills, land-
spread: j operations, and surface impoundments) will
close or be forced to close, because of the cost or
physical impossibility of compliance;
IV-7
-------
(b) Many other existing facilities will upgrade their
operations in conformance with a State compliance
schedule and will reduce to acceptable levels or
eliminate the adverse environmental effects of their
operations; and*,
(c) New and expanded solid waste disposal sites, resulting
from previous closures/consolidations and new demands,
will be designed and operated in such a way as to
ensure a reasonable probability of health, safety and
environmental quality.
In some cases where existing facilities are closed or
upgraded, the environmental effects of past operations (for
example, caused by location in wet!ands/f1oodplains, critical
habitats; leachate and gas generation and migration; and heavy
metal application to land) may still continue for some time into
the future. This is because of the prohibitively high corrective
and retrofit costs and technological infeasibility or uncertainty
associated with closing or upgrading an existing facility such
that adverse environmental effects are eliminated. Herein lies
the major economic benefit of the proposed Criteria damages
(including corrective and retrofit costs) avoided.
Unfortunately, this economic benefit is not readily quantifiable.
This is discussed further in Section D.
Specific environmental benefits resulting from the proposed
Criteria were discussed in detail in Chapter III of this report;
these are summarized by criterion for landfills, 1andspreading
and surface impoundments in Table 28.
IV-8
-------
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
(By Criterion)
CRITERION
DISPOSAL METHOD
1. Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
A. Wetlands
B. Floodplains
C. Permafrost
D. Critical
Habitats
E. Recharge Zones
of Sole-Source
Aquifers
*Not Applicable
Landfills
Protects almost all
wetlands. Will elimi-
nate many open dumps
now in wetlands; will
prevent expansion of
others and develop-
ment of new sites.
Protects these areas
from major water qua-
lity impacts during
flooding.
Protects against near-
by flooding caused by
backwater effects.
Will improve current
disposal practices in
Alaska's Artie and
minimize erosion and
water pollution prob-
lems
Prevents expansion in-
to such areas; pro-
tects such habitats
in the future.
Protects drinking
water supply.
Landspreading
N/A"
Beneficial uses will
continue; protected
by other Criteria.
N/A
No effect.
Protects drinking
water supply.
Surface Impoundment
Reduces impacts in
lowlying industrial
areas and ensures
that new sites will
be permitted only
if they do not en-
danger the environ-
ment.
Eliminates water
quality effects of
flooding, especially
in areas of high
net precipitation.
Will minimize ero-
sion and pollution
problems.
Reduces potential
harmful impacts on
critical habitats.
Protects drinking
water supply.
IV-9
-------
TABLE 28 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
(by Criterion)
CRITERION
DISPOSAL METHOD
2. Surface Hater
A. Point Sources
B. Non-Point
Sources
3. Ground Water
4. Air
5. Application to
Land Used for
Food Chain Crops
Landfills
Reinforces Section
402 of the FWPCA.
Prevents or minimizes
flow into surface
water. May lead to
need for more point
source permits (NPDES)
Prevent or reduces
leachate flow into
ground water; improves
current and future
ground-water quality.
Reduces air pollution
from particulates and
gaseous emissions;
eliminates smoke haz-
ards.
N/A
Landspreading
Reinforces Section
402 of the FWPCA.
Prevents or minimizes
flow of contaminents
into surface water.
Reduces potential
contamination of
ground water.
N/A
Prevents additional
increase of cadi urn
into the diet; pro-
tects food chain
from unacceptable
levels of pesticides
and persistent or-
ganics; protects
animals raised for
milk from unaccep-
table concentrations
of pathogens, toxic
organics, or heavy
metals.
Surface' Impoundments
Reinforces Section
402 of the FWPCA.
Prevents or minimizes
flow of contaminents
into surface water.
Prevent or reduces
leachate flow into
ground water; improves
current and future
ground-water quality.
Reduces gaseous
emissions.
N/A
IV-10
-------
TABLE 28 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
(by Criterion)
CRITERION
DISPOSAL METHOD
6. Disease Vectors
Landfills
Reduces vectors in
existing landfills
and prevents vector
food and harborage
in new sites.
Reduces or eliminates
gas hazards. Elimi-
nates or controls
fires; eliminates
smoke hazards.
Landspreading
Eliminates fly and
insect problems.
Controls animal and
numan access, there-
by reducing injuries
Surface Impoundments
Controls aquatic
related vectors.
Controls toxic
gases; reduces in-
juries due to
improper access.
IV-11
-------
2. State-Standard-Inducod and Criteria-Induced Costs
To arrive at costs induced by State standards, a methodology
was developed for each type of disposal method. For landfills,
State-standard-induced costs were based on two considerations:
the number of "permitted"* and "authorized"* sites within each
State (Ref. 76) and the extent to which the State standards meet
or exceed the new Federal Criteria.
The three components of State-standard-induced costs for
landfills are:
(1) the cost to upgrade "authorized" sites to meet the new
Federal ground and surface water criteria;
(2) the cost to close illegal sites in States where State
standards meet or exceed the new Federal Criteria; and
(3) the cost of opening new sites to replace those which do
not meet State standards (the ratio of the cost to meet
State standards to the cost to meet Federal standards
was used to estimate this cost component).
Only the third cost element was used to estimate State-
induced costs of 1andspreadi ng.
For surface impoundments, the distribution of costs was
based upon an analysis of State regulations. If the State
regulations met the Federal Criteria, then upgrading and closure
costs were attributed to the State regulations. Conversely, if
the State regulation did not meet the Federal Criteria, then
upgrading and closure costs were considered Criteria-induced.
* D e f i n e d on page IV-5.
IV-12
-------
In summary, the combined annualized cost for all three
disposal methods is $1661.1 million of which $513.6 million (31%)
are Criteria-induced costs and $1147.5 million (69%) are State-
standard-induced costs. Table 29 shows Criteria and State-
standard-induced costs for 1 andspreading, landfills, and surface
impoundments.
TABLE 29
STATE-STANDARD-INDUCED VS. CRITERIA-INDUCED ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR
LANDSPREADING, LANDFILLS, AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(Proposed Criteria)
(millions of dollars)
Surface
Annualized Costs Landspreading Landfills Impoundments Total
Crite
State
Combi
=====
ri a-
-Sta
ned
= ===;
Indue
ndard
=====
ed
-In
=5=2 =
10.
duced 3.
14.
_________
6
5
1
_.
304
365
669
-* ? '_-_ .^-^-*-
.0
.3
.3
====:====
199
788
977
=====
.0
.7
.7
==
513
1147
1661
________
.6
.5
.1
=:= = =
3. Major Cost Factors
The major costs of the Criteria derive from three individual
criteria (ESA, ground water, and safety) and closure. To meet
the environmentally sensitive area (ESA) criterion, a total
annualized cost of $130.7 million will be incurred; these costs
include closure costs for surface impoundments. In order to meet
the ground-water criterion, a total annualized cost of
$974.7 million will be incurred; most of this cost can be attri-
buted to lining surface impoundments. Safety considerations
involve an annualized cost of $111.9 million, a significant
portion of which can be attributed to the lack of State legisla-
tion for control of toxic and asphyxiating gases at landfill
sites. Table 3 in Chapter I summarizes the annualized combined
costs for each criterion.
IV-13
-------
Annualized closure costs amounting to $398.0 million are
based entirely upon the number of illegal* landfill sites, which
must be closed and the number of new sites which will
consequently be developed and opened.
For surface impoundments, the cost of closure invo-lved
pumping out the impoundment, covering it with dirt, and
developing and lining a new impoundment. Most of the costs of
this closure process are associated with developing and lining
the replacement site. Since these costs are the same as those
associated with upgrading an existing site, the distinction
between "closure" and "upgrading" is not significant for surface
impoundments. For this reason, the concept of closure is not a
separate cost element as it is in landfills. Therefore, closure
costs do not appear as a separate cost element in tables
presenting data for surface impoundments.
Table 30 shows combined upgrading and closure costs by State
for landfills, surface impoundments and 1andspreading.
*Sites which are neither permitted nor authorized (Ref. 76)
IV-14
-------
TABLE 30
DISPOSAL METHOD COST SUMMATION
UPGRADE AMD CLOSURE
(Proposed Criteria)
Scat*
Alabama
Alaska
Arisona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
. Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Cakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Other
Total
Landfill
2,426,600
7,976,400
3, 348.000
13,003,700
0
9,2:4,400
4,216,300
855,500
12,740,100
44,358.600
1,737,000
7,009,100
65,128,200
6,814,800
11,637.500
7.112,700
7.402,100
17,527,300
9,714,300
9,272,400
15,214,000
63,252,300
3,514,300
28,810.500
3,701,500
3,711,700
10,779,500
2,498,900
2.840,200
10,321,500
14,075,100
42,296.700
2,311,700
6,623,300
10,432.:CO
69,926,300
1,469,500
18,565, 50O
16,500
7,248,300
1.179,900
4,933.500
21,723,900
28.262,700
1,337,700
6,933,5OO-
9,300..30O
6. 152, ;oo
ia,;88.4oc
2. 307.500
-
669,326,400
Surface
Impoundment
14,076,000
4,520,625
952,687
4,817,175
20,201,775
1,488,225
562,237
267,188
3,719,588
3,818,550
286,913
485,850
23,494,725
12,073,687
3,790,050
37,246,537
26,506,387
105,853,050
552,825
8,394,900
674,588
19,698.787
792,975
6,762.338
4,470,188
6,950.925
29,231,287
2,964,675
635", 550
1,965,000
4,199,250
6,954,000
4,714,350 '
16,671.262
106.253,387
20,941,688
2,446,612
313,761.105
252.525
1,006,950
346,650
5.650,338
59.665,500
Landspread
1,752,263
1,847,212
233,000
3,409,087
76,602,300
1.902.9CO
4,849,275
-
977,703,112
14,140,000*
Total
16.S02.600
12,497,000
6.800,700
17,820,900
20.201,800
10.712,600
4,778.500
922,700
16,459,700
48,677,200
2,023,900
7,495,000
94,015,500
19,147,600
15,427,600
44,359,200
33,908,500
123,680,400
10,267,100
17,667,300
15.888,600
82.951,100
9.307,800
35,572,800
ft. 347, Don
10,662.600
40,010,800
5.463,600
3,475.800
12.286.500
18,274.400
49,250.700
7,026,100
23,294.600
116,726,400
9O. 868, SCO
3,916,100
3VJ, 326, 60S
269, OOO
8.255,900
1.S26.60O
10.589,300
81,394,400
30,OIS,OCO
3,784,900
7.221,500
13.209.400
11. 554. 300
20.191,300
7.156,800
1.SSS.900
1.676.723.500
*This total results from multiplying by five the "total
(The data represent approximately 20% of the sludge
agricultural land).
IV-15
cost figur* for the 58-eity survey.
currently being Mndtpread on
-------
4. Comparison of_ A1ternalives
In Chapler III Ihe environmental benefits and economic costs
of the proposed, more restrictive and less restrictive alterna-
tives were discussed for each criterion.
The major environmental benefits of the proposed Criteria
were summarized in Table 28, page IV-9. Foremost among these
benefits are protection of:
almost all wetlands;
floodplains from major water quality impacts during
f1oodi ng ;
ground water and surface water by minimizing or
preventing leachate damage;
food chain crops by reducing the probability of an
increased dietary uptake of cadmium; reduces exposure
to pathogens, persistent organics and pesticides; and
public and environment from hazardous effects of
explosive gas and concentrations of toxic or asphy-
xiating gas
These significant environmental benefits would be sacrificed
if less restrictive alternatives were selected. As a result,
existing adverse effects enumerated in Chapter III would not be
adequately addressed. Thus, the less restrictive alternatives
would not provide comprehensive protection of wetlands and
floodplains; in addition, a less restrictive approach does not
offer regulatory controls to minimize or prevent off-site decirad-
ation of ground water and contamination of food chain crops.
Consequently, even though the implementation of less restriclive
alternatives for all the Criteria would result in an annual
IV-16
-------
savings of $632 million over the proposed Criteria, the resulting
adverse environmental impact would be so substantial as to offset
any saving.s. As discussed in Chapter II, the House of
Representatives' Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in
Report 94-1491 determined that legislation regulating land
disposal of wastes is necessary if other environmental laws (such
as those governing air and water) are to be both cost and
environmentally effective.
As indicated in the summary economic and environmental
impact analyses in Chapter III, the environmental benefits of the
more restrictive alternatives are quite similar to the benefits
offered by the proposed Criteria; the difference between the
proposed and the more restrictive alternative lies in the degree
of risk, not in the degree of environmental benefit. For the
environmentally sensitive area criterion, for example, bannina
solid waste disposal in these areas (the more restrictive altern-
ative) would result in less risk of damage potential than that.
offered by the proposed criterion. On the other hand, the
proposed criterion provides essentially the same envi ronnPnta 1
benefit as the more restrictive, protecting almost all productive
wetlands; protecting ground and surface water from contamination
due to flooding; reducing the potential for flood hazard; and
improving solid waste management in permafrost areas. In effect,
the proposed regulations governing disposal of solid wastes in
environmentally sensitive areas provide significant environmental
protection without resorting to an outright ban.
In terms of aggregate costs, more restrictive alternatives
would cost $598 million more than the proposed, in spite of the
minimal additional environmental benefit offered by the more
restrictive approach. The major cost differential results from
the ground-water criterion; the more restrictive alternative for
ground water would add $493 million (a 50% increase) annually to
the cost of the proposed criterion. The additional environmental
benefit of the more restrictive over the proposed is the
IV-17
-------
protection of ground water under disposal sites, resulting in the
protection of all usable ground water regardless of present or
future use.
In respect to the criterion for land application to food
chain crops, implementing the most restrictive regulatory
alternative would add $56.3 million annually, a 399% increase
over the proposed. Since the most restrictive alternative is a
ban on land application of solid wastes to food chain crops, the
environmental benefit of the most restrictive alternative would
offer maximum protection for humans and animals. However,
current EPA data indicate that a ban on land application of solid
waste is unnecessarily restrictive. In addition, as discussed in
Chapter III, such a stringent regulatory approach would impact
severely on many small communities.
In summary, the proposed Criteria developed by EPA address
the key environmental issues of concern in the disposal of solid
wastes to land, providing substantial protection of the environ-
ment; while more restrictive regulatory approaches might lessen
the risk of adverse environmental impacts, they would not provide
any significant additional environmental protection.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND COST IMPACTS SUMMARY OF
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
1. Landfill Disposa 1
(a) Data Base
The landfill data base was developed using the
Haste Age survey. (Ref. 76). The survey provides, on a state-
by-state basis, the numbers of permitted* and authorized* sites
within each State and a breakdown of these sites by tonnage
^Defined on page IV-5.
IV-18
-------
received per day (TPD). Table 31 presents assumptions on
landfill status and size derived from the survey.
IV-19
-------
1 V -,
TABLE 31
LANDF3U. JWWA BASE
Slate
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Cotmectxcut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansa^
Ker.tuck"
-ouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mi-'U.V'l'
Mi, aesoid
Mississippi
Missouri
Mom ana
Xetji aska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Sew Mexico
Sew York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Or Eฃon
Pennsylvania
Riot!.- Island
South Carolina
Siut Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wycrring
-tat
Permitted
127
84
78
74
430
67
55
30
238
123
21
40
288
125
94
103
144
60
13
48
101
295
134
78
117
124
62
31
62
210
50
420
170
23
242
165
167
111
35
217
23
109
293
9
60
209
50
51
289
10
6,160
Authorized
8
300
-
87
-
126
115
-
67
123
9
47
42
-
109
95
167
60
432
-
199
255
136
78
117
121
200
89
56
68
319
-
-
60
-
165
-
202
-
-
34
12
752
13
30
-
320
61
I. Oil
65
6,150
Illegal
3
16
f,6
239-
-
38
-
-
50
379
-
33
135
23
97
-
33
145
-
31
60
150
135
118
19
-
138
-
47
60
171
242
-
117
8
177
-
102
-
5
243
5
52
178
8
26
40
95
-
25
3.511
10 TPD
80
398
127
385
275
178
120
10
' . 247
511
17
50
218
91
255
150
322
255
441
43
300
316
371
206
219
239
397
118
157
278
537
363
69
196
26
227
157
328
30
113
298
31
1,008
100
97
139
339
192
1,220
98
12,342
100 TPD
51
1
11
14
80
47
48
14
71 .
75
9
60
112
41
40
43
15
-
4
19
43
245
34
32
24
6
1
1
7 ,
28
3
260
95
4
135
178
4
71
2
40
2
83
48
88
1
72
60
12
53
t
2,389
300 TPD
4
1
3
1
35
2
2 -
3
22
25
2
10
47
14
4
, 2
5
10
-
5
10
69
-
. 25
6
-
2
-
1
12
-
7
6
-
75
52
4
4
3
47
-
4
15
5
-
24
5
3
15
-
591
700 TPD
5
-
3
-
40
4
-
3
15
14
2
-
88
3
1
3
2
-
-
12
7
70
-
11
4
-
-
1
-
20
-
32
-
-
14
50
2
12
-
22
-
8 .
26
7
-
-
6
-
12
-
499
Total
Tonnage /Day
10,600
4,380
4,770
5,550
49,250
8,280
6,600
4,500
-26,670 "
29,910
3,070
9,500
53,880
11,310
8,450
8,500
16,620
5,550
4,810
8,730
20,460
97 , 360
7,110
20,460
9,190
2,990
4,670
1.980
2,570
23,180
5,670
54,130
11 , 990
2,360
46,060
70,670
4,570
19,980
1.400
34,630
3,180-
27,410
37,580
16.200
1,070
15,790
15,090
4,020
30,400
1,180
856,280
Tons/Year
2,756,000
l.foa.SOO
1,240*200
1,443,000
12,805,000
2,152,800
1,716,000
1,170,000
6,934,200
7,776,600
798,200
2,470,000
14,008,800
2,940,600
2,197,000
2,210.000
4,321,200
1,443,000
1,250,600
2,269,800
5,319,600
25,313,600
1,848,600
5,319,600
2,389.400
777.400
1,214.200
514,800
668.200
6.026,800
1,474,200
14,073,800
3,117,400
613,600
11,975,600
18,374,200
1,188,200
5,194.800
364.000
9.003,300
826,800
7,126,600
9,770,800
4,212,000
273,200
4, 105, ..00
3,923,400
1,045.200
7.904,000
306,300
[27,313,800
IV-20
-------
Since no detailed data exist to establish the location and
condition of these sites, several assumptions were made:
Location - Information Is available (Ref. 7) to
establish the percentage of land within each .State
classified as environmentally sensitive.* An
assumption was made that the number of landfills by
size and type within an ESA is a function of the
percentage of land within each State classified as
environmentally sensitive. Thus, if 10% of the land
within a State was classified as environmentally sensi-
tive, then 10% of the 10 TPD, 100 TPD, 300 TPD and
700 TPD sites (permitted, authorized and illegal) were
considered to be located in an ESA.
Condition - An assessment of the condition of the sites
was based upon the type of site and State regulations.
Permitted site conditions were assumed to be in compli-
ance with the State regulations. All authorized sites
were assumed to need controls for ground and surface
water. Illegal sites were assumed to be so environ-
mentally unsound that the most practicable solution was
closure.
Appendix V (Volume II) presents a detailed explanation of
the methodology and assumptions concerning location and condition
of landfills.
To avoid double-counting wetlands and floodplains, a figure for
the total number of square miles of wetlands and half of the total
number of square miles of floodolains was used in conjunction with
the total number of square miles of other ESA components.
IV-21
-------
(b) Major Environmental Benefits
For landfills, the significant environmental benefits
of the Criteria include:
Protection of almost all wetlands by eliminating many
open dumps located in these areas and preventing
expansion of existing sites and development of new
ones.
Protection of floodplains from major water quality
impacts during flooding.
Improvement of current disposal practices in permafrost
areas.
Protection of habitats of endangered species from
harmful impacts.
Protection of drinking water in recharge zones of sole-
source aquifers.
Improvement of current and future ground-water quality.
Protection of the nation's rivers, streams and lake
from bacterial and chemical contamination.
Reduction in air pollution caused by open burning.
Reduction in safety hazards (explosive gases, fires,
bird hazards to aircraft and injuries due to improper
access) .
Protection of public health.
IV-22
-------
(c) Unit Prices For Each Criterion
Costs for each criterion were based upon a hypothetical
scenario of an "average existing condition" and an "average
compliance technology". In other words, for each site size,
assumptions were made regarding: (1) average current operation
and maintenance; (2) the physical dimensions, properties, and
other characteristics of the site; and (3) the technoloay
required to upgrade, and to develop unit costs. Appendix V
(Volume II) presents a detailed description of these assumptions
of average conditions and average technologies.
Unit costs also assumed that the life of an average landfill
was 10 years and that implementation would occur in three years.
The detailed economic methodology can also be found in Appendix V
(Volume II).
Table 32 summarizes the landfill cost for each criterion and
site size.
IY-23
-------
M
cn
LU
1-
CM
LU
CO
cc
LU
Q_
co
CO
o
o
o
o
LU
I
o
o
r--
r~-
cn
c
o
10
c
4>
*j E
O
0 0.
(U
N
. U
p ^,
<0
3
C X)
C 1-
c
'e
U)
^
(0 *-"
-i l/l
C 0
C <->
(/I
o
0
s:
o
o
I/I
l/l c
o .-
O c~
__ U
tJ 3-
*
CL w
V-
V
(D
4) (U
4-> N
CO (/)
ฃ-
O
,
0)
,
1 *~
?
HJ
c
O 4-.
! I/I
> C
C tt)
1J 1 I/)
o
vO
1
o
o
CXI
o
o
o
o
o
(V,
VO
o
IT
c
*
vi re
XI
c c
vO
ป^
o
o
LA
CXI
CXI
O
O
O
O
CT\
oo
'
O
O
L
O
o
vO
r^.
CX|
o
o
oo
vO
O
o
o
o
fv^
CXI
O
O
O
0
-3"
cr\
c<\
o
o
vO
O
O
o
0
CO
CXI
O
o
o
o
CXI
,_
O
o
vO
O
O
0
o
o
^_
^
4-1
I/)
o
*4
E
(U
o.
1
0
o
CXI
,_
o
o
vO
o
o
o
o
o
ซ
^-,
2:
0)
o
t-
3 U1
O i-
t)
o ซ
. 3
O 0-
1
o
o
o
o
^
I/I
ID *-
U (0
4J
r>
ซ- TO
0 ^C
1
-------
CM
CO
<
rsi
co
LU
h-
1/1
CO
111 ^^
o;
o
o
ซ/>
O
J
o
o
<
c
o
t-t
(0
oi-
4) J^-
Z J
3 >
g .
en
c
'i
D
Wl
*
I/I
O
o
2.
Id
o
u
o
JO
as
i
4J 0)
I/I C
o
O JC
o
(0
a. oT
o "5
u
4)
ID 0)
4-1 N
I/) l/>
0
U
4)
4-1
*~
O
o
o
CM
O
O
CM
fl
O
o
0
o
0
CM
O
4)
4->
5
4)
O
<0
l_
3
10
a
s
,w
o
o
CM
-------
0)
3
C
J-J
C
o
o
LU
M
LU
t-
>
CO
01
LU
Qu
O
O
C_3
O
O
z
CO
a:
o
Q
cn
Q
<
c
0
4J
(0
c
in E
O 4)
Q.
~Q c
-
c .
C T>
< L.
cn
c
'i
i/i
Ul
M
-j ul
.- O
C
4-J
O
o
^
ta
o
V.
O
ro
_ i
*J 0)
I/) C
o !c
o
(0
(0 3C
._ *
Q. U)
03
O (0
4)
to
X
N
C
o
L-
4)
4-*
1_
O
O
O
cn
rC
0
o
LA
O
O
O
o
-T
O
o
o
o
-3-
0
I/)
Q
U
I ,
c
o
ฃr *"*
4) u>
>*- (0
(D O
to 1
0
0
pC
O
0
o
ro
CM
O
O
OO
oo
o
o
0
CO
oo
o
o
o
o
o
_
CM
o
0
o
oo
CM
O
O
CO
o
o
o
0
oo
o
-------
00
>-
^ z
i *
LU
ul n
CM
LU
_J
CQ
O
(J
O
O
o
LU
Q
<
to
o:
r
en
c
o
CX
TJ _
D
N .
u
fD """
D
O)
c
e
U)
I/I
ซ
T3
o
งซ-ป
UI
UI
O
o
ZI
tO
O
o
(D
_J
I/I
4)
4-J C
I/I .
o .c
o o
(XI
2:
(ti
i >i ^
ui
Q. ,
03 CO
U
01
OJ
z:
tt) 5)
*-> N
C
O
u
0)
^
*~
*"*
o
o
CM
O
o
LA
t
vO
on
1
1
O
o
o
on
'
0
O
LA
t
CM
CO
|
1
O
O
o
o
^
CM
O
O
o
*
LA
m
1
1
O
O
on
o
o
?-!
-3-
O
LA
r^*
s
CO
vO
1
1
o
o
I/I
o
o
0)
>
0)
U)
(D
01
l/>
~
o
<ฃ
\^
^
<^
^.
z.
-------
(d) State-Standard-Induced vs. Criteria-Induced vs.
Combined Costs
State costs were developed according to the methodolooy
briefly described earlier for upgrading and closure. Table 33
summarizes State-standard-induced and Criteria-induced costs for
1 a n d f i 11 s .
TABLE 33
STATE-STANDARD-INDUCED VS. CRITERIA-INDUCED
ANNUALIZED LANDFILL COSTS
(mi 11 ions of dol1ars)
Annuali zed Costs
Upgrade
Cl ose
Total
State-Standard-Induced
Criteria-Induced
115.8
155.5
249.5
148.5
365.3
304.0
Combi ned
271.3
398.0
669.3
Table 34 presents a detailed examination of the combined
economic impact on landfills of the proposed regulations by
criterion and by State.
IV-28
-------
TABLE 3i ;
COMBINED ECONOMIC IMPACT CF PROPOSED REGULATIONS BY STATE AND CRITERION: LANDFILLS
-------
(e) Major Cost Factors
Closure costs for illegal sites represent the greatest
overall cost factor for surface impoundments. In regard to the
Criteria, the ground-water criterion represents the largest
single criterion cost; most of this cost (88%) is State-standard-
induced due to: (1) the assumption that no authorized site
currently meets the State ground-water criterion, and (2) the
large number of authorized sites. The safety criterion
represents the second largest cost factor since few States have
addressed gas safety considerations in their regulations.
2. Surface Impoundmenf.s
(a) Data Base
The surface impoundment data base was derived from an
unpublished EPA report (Ref. 107) which provided an estimate of
the number of impoundments in each State.* Due to the .limited
data on the location, size, and condition of impoundments, sites
were grouped into only two categories based upon the nature of
the industries and the size of the impoundment site. Site size
was the major distinguishing factor between the two groups.
Consequently, some industries (coal and other mining, paper
products, and utility services) having both small and large
impoundments were listed in both categories. Group I and
Group II sites were defined as follows:
Group I - Industries having one 20-hectare (50-acre) surface
impoundment per site; includes mining, paper product, and
utility service industries.
*Municipaxl waste treatment impoundments and agricultural impound-
ments reported were not, considered in the data base for this EIS
IV-30
-------
Group II - Industries having three 1-hectare (2.5-acre)
impoundments per site, totaling 3 hectares (7.5 acres) per
site; includes oil and gas, food products, textiles, and
chemical product industries.
Table 35 presents the data base and cost summary for surface
impoundments.
IV-31
-------
TABLE 88
DATA BASE AND COST SUMMATION: SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware ,
Number of Sites
Group 1
:>28
50
13
11
159
40
9
0
Florida 22
Georgia
Hawaii
38
2
Idaho 4
Illinois 125
Indiana ' 93
Croup II
309
59
37
475
1,680
173
23
Total
537
109
50
486
1.839
213
32
33 33
170 192
191
27
41
2,318
1,009
229
29
45
2,443
1.102
1 Iowa 63 U6 209
Kansas i 53
Kentucky [ 452
4,640 4,693
592
Louisiana 55 9,338
Maine 7
Maryland ! 132
Massachusetts 7
Michigan 20
Minnesota | 7
Mississippi 30
Missouri i 71
, Montana i 11
Nebraska j 480
37
188
34
1,044 ,
9,393
44
320
41
2,273 ' 2,293
49
630
150
879
758
i Mevada 51 ' 77
; New Hampshire
Sew Jersey
< Mew Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
! Ohio
8 J3
21
19
37
48
35
430
, Oklahoma 126
] Oregon 38
Pennsylvania 5,003
i Rhode Island 1
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
7
>
86
158
4
21
3
40
704
24
34
9,082
101
56
660
221
890
1,238
128
41
122
456 475 .
464 ,' 301
223
1,955
11,480
1,213
83
7,871
32
72
34
228
6,762
208
103
26
201
5,755
79
438
64,153
271
1.990
11,910
1,339
121
12,374
33
79
36
314
6,920
212
124
29
241
6.459
103
472
73,235
Coats (Closure and Upgrading)
Group I
11,648,300
3,827,100
674,100
687,000
7,716,900
211,500 .
385,200
0
1,714,500
Croup II
2,427.700
693,500
278,600
4,130.200
12,484,900
1,276.700
177.000
267,100
2,005,000
2,157,300 1,661,200
Total $
14,076,000
4,520,600
952,700
4,817,200
. 20.201,800
11,488,200
562,200
267,100
3,719,500
3,818,500
96,300 ' 190,600 1 286,900
192,600 i 293,300
485,900
6,079,800 17,347,400 23,427,200
3,424,900 ' 5,827,000 9,055,900
2,702,900 1,087,200 I 3,790,100
2,606,600 34,640,000 ; 37,245.600
22,097,900 ' 4,408,500 26,506,400
3,904,100 101.899iOOO ' 105,853,100
288,900 ; 263,900 ! 552,800
5,904,100 1,490.800 1 8,394,900
391,700
1,072,200
282,900 i 674,600 |
18,626,600
391,700 665,600
1.656,500
3,370,500
5,105,800
1,099,700
481,500 i 6,469,400
23,555,300 5,676,000
2,407,500 557,200
385,200
1.797,300
864,800
3,693,000
2,834,300
1,739,900
20,929,400
6,073,400
1,829,700
250,674,300
0
391,700
96 , 300
4,644,100
7,935,300
192.600
1,065,800
96 , 300
1,926,000
34,116,000
1,264,800
1.637,100
455,285.600
250,300
822,700
19,698,800
1.057,300
6,762,300
4,470,200
6,950,900
29,231,300
2.964,700
635,500
2,620,000
3,334,400 ' 4,199,200
3,261.000
1,880,100
14,931,400
6,954,000
4,714,400
16,671,300
85,324.500 106.i53.900
14,868,300 20,941,700
616,900 2.446,600
60,086,700 310,761-,000
252,500
615,300
250,300
1,006,800
51,730,200
1,559.600
781,500
191,700
1,483,100
42,486,000
v 638,100
3,212,200
522,417.500
252,500
1,007,000
346,600
5,650,900
59,665,500
1,752,200
1,847,300
288,000
3. 409 , 100
76.602,000
1,902,900
4,849,300
977.703,100
IV-32
-------
(b) M a jor En v1r on menta 1 B e n e f i ts
For surface impoundments, the significant environmental
benefits of the Criteria include:
Reduction of impacts in low-lying industrial areas,
ensuring that new sites will be permitted in .flood-
plains only if they do not endanger the environment
Elimination of adverse water quality effects of
flooding, especially in areas of high net precipitation
Reduction of potential harmful impacts on critical
habitats
Protection of drinking water
Improvement of current and future ground-water quality
Reduction in air pollution caused by gaseous emissions
Control of toxic gases
Reduction in injuries due to improper access
(c) Costs For Each Criterion
Costs for surface impoundments were based upon the
average site sizes described in the previous section. Only three
criteria were judged to have the potential for the greatest
economic impact--ground water, environmentally sensitive areas,
and the access requirement of safety. Appendix V (Volume II)
presents a more detailed description of the cost methodology.
Costs assumed that an average surface impoundment would last
10 years and that implementation would occur three years hence,
Table 36 presents costs on a criterion-by-criterion, group basis.
IV-33
-------
TABLE 36
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT TECHNOLOGY COSTS PER SITE BY CRITERION*
(Annualized, 1977 Dollars)
Criterion Group I Group II
ESA + $102,000 $15,400
Ground Water 95,400 . 14,300
Safety* 1,100 400
*Assuming implementation beginning in 3rd year.
"'"Includes closure costs (closing and opening a new site).
JCost for access.
(d) State-Standard-Induced vs. Criteria-Induced
ys. Conbj ned Costs
Costs categories were developed based on the status of
current disposal practices and on whether the proposed Criteria
are more stringent than current State standards. If the State
standards were at least as stringent as the Federal Criteria, the
costs to upgrade current practices were attributed to the State
(State-standard-induced costs); if not, the costs were attributed
to the Federal Criteria. Table 37 shows that out of a combined
cost of $997.7 million, $778.7 mill ion, or 79%, are State-
standard-induced costs, and S199.0 million, or 21% are Criteria-
induced costs.
IV-34
-------
TABLE 37
ANNUALIZED COST FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS BY SELECTED CRITERIA
(Criteria-Induced and State-Standard-Induced)
(millions of 1977 dollars)
State-
Criteria Standard-
Criterion Group I Group II Total Induced Induced
ESA (closure)
Ground Water
Safety
36.6
413.6
5.2
88.5
421.7
21.2
125.1
835.2
17.4
99.2
96.9
2.9
25.9
738.3
14.5
Total 455.3 522.4 977.7 199.0 778.7
Tables 38, 39, and 40 show total annualized costs for
surface impoundments resulting from the proposed criteria for
ESA, ground water and safety, respectively.
IV-35
-------
TABLE 38
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS; ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Statt
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
Nevada
New Hanfis'ntrt
Sew Jersey
New Mcxic-o
New v.ork
Nortn Coro 1 ma
I
1 , 1 3 5 , / SO
2,671, 500
0
203, ~ j,25-
"
267, 753
488, 250
0
1,223, =00
315,^)0
15,750
15, 7fO
47,050
1,433,250
488,250
0
0
6,31,5,.0
283,5 0
31,50,0
1,165,500
1 41,750
02,652, 500
0
217,5 ;o
6 3,000
3,685, :00
^8,7:0
#97,750
0
47,250
^3b , .-:>f-'
)
15,750
21.;,^---
15,7=0
36, 20 ,
472,5""
local
1,603,500
3,151,750
0
1,434,000
520,500
15,753
15,750
47,250
2,660,250
1,104,750
0
0
867,010
386,250
134,25,0
1 , 268, 250
861,303
65,016,750
0
1,245,000
165,750
3,391,000
131,500
i ,206, ;oo
0
47 250
l.ibi. !'}
0
15, -50
513.000
15, 750
:,:=!, "oo
1,131, "'--
Federal
1,603,500
3.159,750
0
1,434,000
520,50,3
15,750
2,666, 250
-,
967.000
386.250
1,268. 250
361,000
65,016,753
0
3,891,000
1,206,000
47,250 j
1.161, JOO
0
513, OCO
' 15,753
2 ,091, 300
1,1 91, "50
State
15,750
47,250
1, 104, 750
J
1
13-1.250
{
i
1
1 ,.'45, ""0
165,755
131, 5:c j
1
1
-.----
1
North r.ikcta
Ohio
Oici.inona
513,-:
- - t , ,,
:.173,5^
- - J , - -
2.f?7 =) --si ^3 j
! ,
320, 2:3 ' 323,: = "; 1
Oreg3n
?B.TS> Ivar.la
^t I.l^d
South Co ro'i lia
">
10,435,0:"
15,7='
4,457,2=:
n , ~~
15, "50 . 15,750
22,152,2-1 !
47,:-; ' 4-, 25:
-,-,-: o 3-7, =:-.
IV-36
-------
TABLE 39
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS: GROUND WATER
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
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
Total
I
10,200,003
1,143. ODD
666,750
476,250
7,429, 500
190,500
381,000
-
476,250
1,524,000
95,250
190,530
5,810,250
4,381,500
2,571,750
2,476,500
21,145,500
1,524,000
285,750
5,612,503
285, 750
857,250
285,750
1,333,500
3,333,750
476,250
?2, J83.7SO
2,381,253
381,000
825,000
855,000
1,620,000
1,905,000
1,619,250
20, 193, COO
5,905,500
1,809,750
225,647,750
-
285,750
95,250
3,905,25?
7,239,000
190,500
9S2,50'-i
95,250
1,905,000
33, 337, SOS
1,047,750
1,61-3,250
413,552, 300
II
2,100,000
199.500
270,750
2,620,000
11.E27.500
1.225,500
156,750
213,750
Srs.TSO
1,140,000
185,250
285,000
16,216, 500
7,053,750
1,026,000
32,532,750
4,146,750
38,19C,000
256,500
1,237,500
213,750
14.520,750
31 3 , 500
4,089,750
1,068,750
6. 241, 500
5,2P6,750
541,500
228,000
600,000
3,225,000
3,135,OOC
1,368,000
13,409,250
6C, 811, 750
14,135,750
584,250
54.064,500
199,500
399,000
220,000
640,750
46,341,000
1,439,250
e>9fc,250
171,000
J,4lr,750
<10_,755.000
513,000
3, 106,500
421,679,200
Total
12. 300, 000
1,342,500
937,500
3,296,250
19,257,000
1,416,000
537,750
213,750
1,032,000
2,664,003
2K . 500
475,500
22,026,750
11, 435, 250
3,597.750
35,009,250
25,292,250
39,714,000
542,250
7,05C,000
49e, 500
15,378,000
599,250
5,423,250
4,402,500
6,241,500
27,670,500
T, 922, 750
609,000
I, 425,000
4,080,000
4,755,030
3, 273, 000
15,028,500
101,004,750
20,141,250
:,394,00i
283,712,250
199, 500
684,750
323,250
4,746,000
53,580,000
1,629, 750
i.f 50,750
266. 25R
3,315,750
74,:>=)2, SOO
1,560,750
4,725,750
635.231,500
Federal
1,416,000
537,750
-
11,425,250
3,597,750
35,009,25?
542,253
4 99, 5 X'
?,423,2ฃC'
1S,32ฃ,S--?
20,141,2-0
l.t>2ซ.~ =C
] ,650,? j?
96,911,2 10
State
12,400,300
1,342,500
937,500
3,296,250
19.257.00C
213,750
1,032,000
2,664,000
280, SOO
475,50.
22,026,750
25,292,250
39,714,OOC
7,050,000
15,37f,OOC
599,250
4,402,500
6.241.50C
27,670,500
2,922,750
609,000
1,425.000
4,080,000
4,755,000
3,273,000
101,004,750
_. .__ !
2,394,000
263,712,250
196,500
6B4. 75D
323,250
4,746,r-n
53,580,000
266.250
3,315.7fO
74,092,5-0
1,560,753
4,72S,T5C j
;36,320, 300
IV-37
-------
TABLE 40
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS: SAFETY
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Cal iforr.ia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
1 ilinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Karoshire
New Jersey
Sew Mexico
New York
North Caro'lna
North Dakota
Ohio
O^lanoma
Oregon
Pennsvl var.ia
Rhode Island
Soutl. Carolina
Soutn Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
I'tal.
Vermont
Vlrfii.id
Washington
Wept Vi r^'inia
Wj sc.onฃin
WvoElr.R
Total
I
11 :,:ป->:
12, GOD
II
6', , 000
5,775
7,? 50 ?,838
;.25C ! 31,e~5
i
81,900 342,375
21,000 35,475
4 , 20 f
-
5,250
if, 300
1,050
: , i oo
64,050
4f,000
28,250
27, arc
233,100
16,800
3,150
64,050
3 , 1 50
9,450
3,150
14,700
36,750
5,250
?4e, 750
26,250
4 200
5,000
9,75',
18,000
210, OJC
17,850
222, ere
(i,i'j:
19. vs;.
r,53i,r,so
-
: , i so
1,053
4 ': . 500
79, MO
; , i . '
4.53R .
6,186
16,068
33,000
5,363
6,2:."
4f9,42^
204,168
29,700
9ซ,73P
120, C38
1 ,105,500
7,425
35,650
6,1ฃS
420,336
9,0"':
118, 2E6
30,93fr
180,675
1 r-~ , IVt
15.C75
6,600
16.00C
93.75C
90,000
34, COO
TBt, J63
2,339,2Pt
4:r,csc.
i6,ฐ:3
1, 565,015
t, 775
11,550
6 , ', i 0
U, 33o
1,341,451
41 ,Df ?
10.500 | 2:, 21?
;.<-:
21 , r C'
3 j7 , :. ^/.
11. ::;
1 7 , fe 30
5 , 1 54 , I'C'.-
4, ' "
4.,,P3t
Total
172, 500
lfc,375
15,188
86, ','25
424,275
56,475
8,738
6,1 BE
21,336
49, HOO
6,413
10,350
533.475
252,168
58,050
969,038
353.136
1,1 22,. '00
10,575
99,900
9,338
429,796
12,225
133,068
67,639
185,925
Jo-, , -i-.R
41,925
10, ฃ03
27,:cr
103, so:
108,000
249, bOO
406,013
2,561, ฃ-88
477, l*c
3C,P.'3
4,PC/t , 575
5,77;
14,73'
~ ,<.- '
454,fc3b
1,421.;50
43,761'
30,71?
e , no''
! Cl,63f<
l,17?,7f: j 1.54~,25C.
; 4 , f i .
' ^, o::-.
i : , ii->. , ! f1
1
2f 40'1
107,77'
17,?. '.,, itlfi
Federal
172.500
15,188
6,413
1,I22.3.?0
-
: 7 , o : '
^3,". -
l, 54 ?.:
:. J:, -
State
.18,375
86,925
424,275
5ฃ,475
8.73B
6,151
21,33t
49,800
10, 350
533,475
252,168
58,050
969,035
353,133
10,575
99,000
9,336
429,788
12,225
133,088
ฃ7.686
185,925
3r:7,-cc
41,925
10,800
1C 3, 500
106,030
249,600
4C6.013
:, 561, ESS
477, 3 Pf
36, SP 3
4, 096, 575
5,7-5
14,700
7.C5C'
454.636
1.421.250
j
30,713
I
1
Cl ,t=3c
x. ,*<:'.
ic"1 7 7 r.
14 ,4"0,fior
lactored by .75
IV-38
-------
(e) Major Cost Factors
The major cost factors for surface impoundments are as
fol1ows:
Group II costs are greater than Group I costs in total;
however, considering numbers of sites, the average cost per
site is greater for Group I than for Group II sites.
The ground-water criterion will cause the greatest cost.
Closure costs are mafnly attributable to the Criteria.
3. Landspreading
The 1 andspreading data base was derived from available
information on waste categories that are disposed of by land-
spreading. At the present time, several industries are known to
landspread their solid wastes, but in unknown quantities.
Estimates of the total amount of wastes generated is known for
all categories; however, the composition of that waste and the
amounts landspread are generally not known.
Municipal waste-water sludge was the only category selected
for impact analysis because it is the only one for which there
are national estimates of the amounts landspread. Furthermore,
it is the only category where there is available information on
waste composition and quantities. The municipal waste water
sludge data base was derived from an unpublished EPA report on
sludge disposal practices of 141 cities. (Ref. 126). This report
provided data on (1) the amount of sludge currently spread on
agricultural land, and (2) the amount that in the future will not
be permitted on agricultural land (based on the recommended
reduction in cadmium levels in sludge applied to food chain
crops). Because the sludge represented in this study is about
20% of the known total of sludge which is landspread, a national
projection for total tonnage was developed hy multiplying the
IV-39
-------
study results by a factor of five, to derive the total tonnage of
sludge which is landspread.
Njo data exist on size or overall' condition of these sites.
An assumption was made that no 1andspreading occurs in environ-
mentally sensitive areas. Table 41 shows the quantity of sludge
which would be affected by the "operational controls" and the
amount which cannot be landspread at 10 and 20 metric tons per
hectare per year (4.47 tons/acre and 8.94 tons/acre, respec-
tively) for the various maximum annual cadmium additions
proposed. The rationale for selecting these two application
rates is based on the following assumptions: 20 metric
tons/hectare/year of a typical sludge would meet the nitrogen
needs for many varieties of corn and 10 metric tons/hectare/year
would be near the lower end of the economically viable range of
application rates. The last two columns of Table 41 show the
amount of sludge which would be 1andspreadabl e and the amount of
sludge which cannot be landspread as a result of the proposed and
more restrictive regulatory alternatives. This data base
represents 58 cities that landspread.
1V-40
-------
TABLE 41
LANDSPREADING DATA BASE*
(Quantity of Sludge Affected by "Operation Controls"
on Application of Cadmium)
Regulatory Alternative
(Based on Maximum Annual
Cadmium Addition)
Number of Sewage
Treatment Plants
That Can Meet The
Criteria
Quantity of
Sludge
Landspreadable
Quantity
of Sludge
Eliminated
(drymetric tons/year)
Proposed
2.0 Kg/ha cadmium limitation
-Applied at rate of 20 mt/ha
-Applied at rate of 10 mt/ha
1.25 Kg/ha limitation
-Applied at rate of 20 mt/ha
-Applied at rate of 10 mt/ha
0.5 Kg/ha limitation
-Applied at rate of 20 mt/ha
-Applied at rate of 10 mt/ha
More Restrictive+
-Applied at rate of 20 mt/ha
-Applied at rate of 10 mt/ha
Most Restricti ve+
50
54
47
50
41
45
41
45
None
159,140
172,645
151,110
159,140
125,378
153,851
90,155
144,905
None
19,170
6,205
27,740
19,710
44,348
16,973
88,695
33,945
All
* For 58 cities, sources of information include consultation with major cities and
EPA regional offices, construction grant design and planning reports, research
reports and published articles. Metric units in this table may be converted to
English units, as follows: 1 Kg/ha = .89 Ib/acres, and 1 mt/ha = .45 ton/acre.
+ More restrictive would immediately restrict maximum annual cadmium addition to
0.5 Kg/ha (rather than waiting until 1986 to implement); most restrictive is a ban
on application to food chain crops.
IV-41
-------
(b) Major Environmental Benefits
For landspreading, the significant environmental
benefits of the Criteria include:
Protection of public health by preventing additional
increase of cadmium into the diet; protects the food
chain from unacceptable levels of pesticides and
persistent organics.
Protection of animals raised for milk from unacceptable
concentrations of pathogens, toxic organics or heavy
metals.
Improvement in current and future ground-water quality.
Reduction of bacterial and chemical contamination of
surface water.
(c) Unit Prices For Each Criterion
Significant environmental impact was based entirely
upon the criterion governing application to land used for food
chain crops. Costs were based upon three factors: tonnage, an
assumption regarding the average cost/metric ton for dewatering
and landfill disposal ($78.00), the time-phased nature of the
criterion and operational costs ($11.53/metric ton).
(d) State- Stan da r d - In d u c e d ys,. Criteria-Induced
vs. Combined Costs
Based on the costs calculated in Appendix V
(Volume II), 25% of the total costs were attributed to the
States.
The combined national cost projection was $14.1 million, of
which $3.5 million was the cost induced by State standards and
$10.6 million was the cost induced by the Federal Criteria.
State, Federal and combined regulatory costs for each alternative
are given in Table 42.
IV-42
-------
**?
O
CM
Z
O
1-
2
in
ป V
CM ( m
-a- to L.
O TO
LU O
-i
cn C3 O
< ZTJ
H~ " * *
Q
o
z
TJ 1)
1 L. 0
4) TO 3
4J TJ TJ
TO C C
4-1 (0
tO 4-1
in
*+
TO
TJ
L. 41
D U
4-> 3
~ TJ
I- C
TJ
O
14
O
TO
x:
^^
cn
^
t
+- x:
LT) ^-
4
O E
O
1
TO
_c
LA --s
CM 4J
E
ป
O
r
OJ
Tฃ"
o \
4->
CM E
O
F
O O O O
0000
o o o o
CM LA r^ LA
CM CO O CA
-T CM r^ LA
M
CA
O O O O
O O O O
o o o o
LA vo -a-
VO LA CM O
CM OO vO
M MM
CM O
^*
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
I CO O
co -a- CM -a-
vO OO
M M M M
CM -a-
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
M M M M
CA -d" O^
LA O LA VXD
oo -a- CM CM
M M M M
CA vD
f
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
r-^ LA LA CA
O OO vO CM
o -a~ -a~ CA
ป M ป.
CM CM CM
*
c
ซ> .2
) 4-1
* to o
t O D
to o i
0 - 0
CO Z L.
o H- o_
o to
*~~ Z t o
<. CJ ID
TO 1 Z C
3 < -J O
c or X
< 0. I O TO
"-' O LU ป Z
LU
^
~.
1
<ฃ
z
o:
LU
I
-J
cฃ
LU
>
I
l_)
_
or
H-
in
LU
or
,_
1/1
o
y
LU
>
-^
}_
<^
2;
or
LU
1-
_J
c^
LU
>
1-
CJ
-.
or
H-
to
LU
or
LU
or
o
z
i
TJ TJ
1 1- 4)
4) TO U
4-1 TJ 3
TO C TJ
4-> TO C
to
1
TO
TJ
L- D
4) o
4-> 3
TJ
L. C
CJ
TJ
4)
C 4J
in
XI O
E cj
O
O
4+
1 "O TJ
4) L. 4)
4-1 TO U
TO T3 3
4-J C TJ
in TO c
to
.
1
TO TJ
.- D
L. O
D 3
4-1 TJ
C
L.
O
TJ
(^j
TO
O LA *^v
4-1
TO 0 E
x:
^ o
cn
_ii
i i i
i i i
O O O
o o o
o o o
1 CA CA CA
i P^ป r^ vo
O O CA
M M M
-a- -a- o
* M p*>ป
o o o
0 O 0
o o o
M Ik M
CA CA CA
i r*^ r^ vo
1 O O CA
M * M
-a- -a- o
** ^ r^
O O O O
o o o o
o o o o
M M M M
OO vO OO O
cr\ CM -a- -a-
CA vO O CM
LA
o o o o
O 0 0 0
o o o o
LA o-\ -a- o
vo r-> -a- CM
CM oo r-.
M M M M
CA LA
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
r~ LA CM O
oo o cr* vo
vO LA (TV
CM -a- o
CM
fC
c
on .2
j, t~ ซ
* in o
I O 1)
to cj i
o ;= o
0 Z L.
0 h- CL
CJ tO
x-^ Z 1 O
-
TJ
4) 4)
E 4->
in 3 TO
4) in E
in in
>- TO X
O
TO in L.
C . CL
TO CL
JC TO
E U 4)
3 in in
x: TO 4-1
E 2 XI c
TJ D 4)
TO 4-1 in TO in
O TO C 4-> 4)
L. O - 4) L.
3 L. x:
4-1 TJ 4-J TO
in
14_ >* O (/) 4)
jo o. >, 4) x:
Q. TO XI 4J
J- TJ 4J ~~
in 4> i_ TJ
N^ 4J TO D U 1)
O TO 4) >
tM C X 4)
CA ~-v CL x: <4-
,
I/I TO L. XI
3 D 4-J 3 O
O E "4-4-1
Q. 41 1) .-
4J x: TJ m
O5 . "v. TO 4J in
C in in 41 in 4)
C L. o
i- "4- o CL TO
C 0 TO .
O TO L. 4~i 3
E CL 4J TO E
E 0) 4) C TO
0 E XI .- TJ L.
LU E C 3
0 D O C TO 4J
x: TO
TJ 4-ป O 4) 4) 3
C TO L. o
TO D X: 4) TJ 3
o c o cn c on u
3Z 3 O TJ TO CL
Q. TJ X: 3 "4- TO
4) TJ 2 cn
ซi-4) in c r c
1/1 ml) 4-> o
O TO cn 41 4-> in
04-ixiTJx: TO OTJ
U 3 4-> L. u TO
4-ป TJ 41 '*! 4)
ง4) L- in Q. L.
E TO O TO Q.
O 3 "4- 4-> in
in in O "4- 4> O TJ
3T in 4J TJ x: 4-J c
Q.TO m mC4-i ;TO
O C TO
L. in o O "4- 4)
O TO 4-* o x: o>
14- 2 c O 4-> c
O 41 4-> E
c E x: 3 ui 41
OTO4-ป4-'4-Jin 0) XI
4-ซ L. ID in jฃ
~^Di inO 4) TOX
CAO 3 ox: 4-1
LA L. cn 4-> 4-1
ป Q. 41 4J ป 4-1 C
, i~ m TO in o 41
"~ C 4) 0 O i L.
II 41 4J .- - O 3
E TO C 4-> 4J L. O
4_1 4-1 4-1 O m O.
in TO in T> O 4)
O 4) ^^. 4-* TJ O . m
O L, - TO flj TO TJ
4-> TO C C 3
O)4> i- 01 TO O
C L. 4) EXT t-> i/l
Q. TD 4J O 4-1
4-1 41 4-> (D 41
TO m LL_ 4-
OLU | (4-1 t H-O
J.; ^_ .M. ซD = *
)ซ
-------
/ (e) Major Cost Factors
Table 42 summarizes the increased 1andspreading cost
for the proposed and two more restrictive alternatives. The less
restrictive alternative was not included because it was assumed
to have no. increased cost. This table shows the increased annual
operating and termination costs to communities at a sludge
application rate of 10 me trie tons per hectare per year
(4.47 tons per acre per year) the various maximum annual cadmium
additions proposed. The increased operating and termination
costs were also calculated for the two more restrictive alterna-
tives. These costs were then summed to give the total cost (58-
city data base). The total cost for the 58 cities was then
multiplied by 5 to nive a national projection. The national cost
projection used to calculate the overall Criteria-induced costs
was $14.1 million (for the 0.5 kg/ha (0.45 Ib/acre) maximum
annual cadmium addition at a 10 mt/ha/yr (4.47 tons/acre/year)
sludge application rate).
Table 42 shows that approximately 60% of the total costs are
due to operational costs and the remaining 40% are due to termin-
ation of landspreading practices. The operational costs include
costs for liming the soil, analyzing soils for pH and cation
exchange capacity, and monitoring cadmium content in the sludge.
Major costs will be incurred when the 2.0 kg/ha
(1.8 Ib/acre) cadmium limitation goes into effect. Most of the
landspreading Criteria-induced costs can be attributed to the
cadmium criterion since this will limit the amount of sludge that
communities can apply and hence will increase operating costs.
Evidence suggests that there is not a direct correlation
between the amount of sludge spread on agricultural land and the
incurrence of costs to meet the agricultural and application
criterion. Rather, costs are solely dependent upon the cadmium
level present in the sludge and upon the application rate.
IY-44
-------
As pretreatment regulations are implemented with the effect of
heavy metal recovery, lower cadmium levels will result and the
economic impact of this criterion on 1 andspreading will corre-
spondingly decrease.
In addition to the above costs, there are other costs which
must be borne in the future which cannot be determined at this
time. These include the impact of phasing out of ocean disposal
of municipal sludge and the actions taken by States with regard
to the giveaway or sale of sludge and sludge-based soil
conditioners/fertilizers.
Based on the data obtained in the 141-city survey, 615 dry
mt/day (678 tons/day) of sludge is currently disposed in the
oceans. If these cities currently ocean dumping wanted to
landspread one half of their sludge on food chain land,
51 dry/mt/day or 17% could not economically meet the cadmium
criterion. If each of the communities desired to landspread al1
of its sludge, then 185 dry mt/day (204 tons/day) or 30% could
not economically meet the cadmium criterion.
The cost impacts on bagged/giveaway/sale programs are also
impossible to quantify. This is due to the fact that there is no
practical way to assure compliance with the Criteria by the end
user. Several State regulatory approaches are possible,
including restrictions based on sludge quality, end user, or
labeling requirements. The impact of each of these alternatives
varies widely. While the annual cadmium application will have
little direct impact on giveaway or sale programs, the severity
of the qadmium restrictions may greatly affect the regulatory
approach selected by the States.
IV-45
-------
D. GENERAL BENEFIT DISCUSSION
Data which would enable numerical dollar benefits for the
Criteria do not exist, except for that presented in several 'case
studies of .ground-water contamination. Table 43 presents data on
well contamination case studies, including EPA documentation on
damage,* administrative* and avoidance* costs incurred at land-
fills as a result of ground-water contamination. (Ref. 10, 15,
16, 51, 134, and 135). In sum, these costs range from $7,000 to
$2 million per site. Estimates on corrective** costs exist for
three sites and range from $8 million to $25 million per site
(Ref. 10 and 134).
Total national benefits for ground wtter have been
estimated, based on the following assumptions:
$8 million per site is required for corrective costs;
$150,000 per site is required for damage, avoidance,
and administrative costs; and
From l%-5% of the total number of landfills and surface
impoundments (890-4500 sites) require preventive action
for ground-water protection and 0.5% of the total (450
sites) require corrective measures.
*Damage Costs are costs of damaged products and equipment as a
result of corrision, staining or water pollution. Admi ni strati ve
costs are investigative, monitoring, legal, and engineering design
costs. Avoi dance c o s t s are the costs to provide both temporary
and permanent water supplies from an alternative source, including
bottled or tank water, and the cost to pipe in clean water or to
develop an upgradient (clean) water well.
**Corrective Costs are costs to render the contaminated water
usable, including retrofitting or removing the contamination
source (disposal site) and treating the contaminated water to
make it potable.
IV-46
-------
. .
o
If-
0)
on
c/>
UJ
__
o
ra
H
c/)
5 w
CO
3 0
vJ ^^
00
2 0
1 ***
1
5
2ฃ
i
i
z
0
o
_J
UJ
3f
(
CO
Ul
1
W
CO
CO
Ul
1-
co
3"
Ul
h-
co
CO
Ul
1
CO
CM
Ul
CO
Ul
t
CO
C 00 >
* co c-
U. 3 44 0> _
_l JS -- _ ^,
CX
f c o ' c- c- c~ o
a o> o =? rs.
ex *v a:
Tป
|s.
_J ป. ~ 0> 0
" ^ป , o in o ~
acoco ' =* m - o
ซ (v. =*
o u co n- at -
co> ce
Je CM
u. o rs.
-JO o> o c~
I- O
"o is, , CM in o s_x
o 4> co ' CM in
. JQ CO O
O CO CO
c en
0 ae
oo
*- CO
u. o> o
_i ex o
CM . CO O O
3- ' in =ป - o
O 4) O O
> co O -
on o> CM ae
u. _
01
T3
a. o-
_i i- ex .
CO ' |s. O 0- s
~o 3^ co in
0 C C CO 0
. a 01
0 0 (0
c ae
ง
a> ^
u. u OL c-
1 * , O
ป * O s^
CM in co m u>
o -:*:* CM > o
d | 2 ~ .
3 ae
X
>
-* Si
oป
c ,_, (0
4-> 4> C W
* 10 -0 C 4)
ซ ex i.
c ex >*. 10 M . <0
CU 10 3 U 4> 4)
cx o e 10 N ex
>ป O C 41 >>
e- i < >- co t
m
^~
4)
X
Cป CO
0-
zt
CM
E in in
3- H~ "ซ
CM 4) 4> X
XX
o co
i ae a.
CO
*=ป
O
CM
E <0
CO
in 4>
o cu i.
X 3
o *
i ee x
3-
O h^ **-
O
CJI V>
c in in
CM CX 4)
E VOX
E 3 S X
ex co
CM i- cc a.
3- 41
-I-1 COCO CO
o c co
0
o
to
CM * ซ0
M- 4)
E 4) ซ-
O X 3
CMO *
CMO OC X
o in co**-
m
CM 4->
<*-
E 4>
O X
COO
O O ae
o co in
CM
0
4-*
10
c
i
4-1
C
o
u
ป*-
o
in
4-i 4)
c: 01
41 10
+-1 E
x 4)
X C
CO
o
c
a>-
-=*o
in a. co >
Q.O- O
3 1. C
4)
X e o
0- O
o
ae.
r^
a. o
-o-o 4) o
C 4) ซ- O
(0
-O ซJ *
3e - a)
XQ. f- >,
o 3 c
c-o o~
ex
-0 in E
10 3
ex ex in
tf> CX 4) *- 4>
3X4) >ซ
in 4->
4) C
X3(ซB 3
a. co o
a: a. u
ex
T3 -0 4)
C 4) l-
-------
Using these conservative assumptions, the following ground-
water benefits derive from the implementation of the proposed
Criteria:
The total national benefit for damage, avoidance, and
administrative costs ranges from $134 million to
$ 6 6 8 million.
The total national benefit for corrective costs is
estimated at $3.6 billion.
Other obvious economic benefits of the Criteria besides
ground-water protection are difficult to quantify; these include:
value of shellfish, crabs, and fish protected by the
wetlands and surface water Criteria;
value of property not impacted by flooding;
value of reservoirs and recreational surface waters
protected;
value of decreased cleaning and property repair from
fewer particulate and corrosive gas emissions into the
air;
value of health care need reduced by the disease
vectors, fires, gases, bird hazards, and access
Cri teri a;
value of property protected from damage by the gases,
fires, and bird hazard Criteria; and
value of crops and health protected by the
landspreading Criterion.
E. SOCIAL/EQUITY IMPACTS SUMMARY
Social and equity impacts were analyzed on the basis of
available data on municipal landfills and State solid waste
disposal regulations. Unfortunately, the lack of comprehensive
data on the exact number of landspreading sites and surface
impoundments (See Ref. 107 for the most complete study to date.)
made a comprehensive quantitative analysis of these impacts
impossi ble.
IV-48
-------
In spite of these limitations, the general effects of the
Criteria on several special impact groups were evaluated; these
groups include rural areas, regions, States, and specific
industrial groups.
* Rural Areas
The impact on rural areas was evaluated for landfill
disposal only; industrial landfills and surface impoundments do
not impact rural vs. urban areas per se.
The Waste Age survey reported a total of 15,893 landfill
sites nationwide. The survey distributed the sites into six
categories by daily operating capacity, with 11,165 (70%) being
reported in the smallest (0-50 tons/day) category. It is assumed
that these sites serve the smaller populations in the rural areas
of the United States and the larger sites (greater than 50
tons/day) serve more urbanized areas. Some rural areas
undoubtedly have initiated regional systems, in which case the
solid wastes from the areas would be disposed of in a larger
capacity site.
Using the average daily tonnages developed in the costing
methodology (Appendix V (Volume II)), one may estimate the
tonnage of wastes deposited in small sites serving rural areas.
Based on an estimated 202 million tons per/year (total wastes
disposed of in landfills), approximately 29 million tons/year are
placed in small, rural sites. This means that only 14% of the
wastes are disposed of in 70% of the landfill sites.
While most of the costs of meeting the Criteria are a
function of site size, the relationship between upgrading costs
and site size is not directly proportional. For example,
doubling the site size will not result in a doubling of costs for
manpower and equipment. In effect, larger sites--typically found
in urban centers are able to benefit from an economy-of-scal e
IV-49
-------
approach to solid waste disposal; on the other hand, small rural
sites will not reap the benefits of economy-of-scal e. As a
consequence, the cost impact per capita or per unit of waste
disposed will be greater for small landfill sites in rural areas
than for larger landfills in urban areas.
Given the relatively low income base in many rural areas,
expenditures for additional land, major control features (liners,
gas control, levees, etc.), and equipment may impose a severe
financial burden in some communities. Where these costs are
significant, the communities will need to reassess their current
disposal practices and the alternatives of transporting their
wastes and initiating larger scale regional solutions.
Recognizing the potential inequity, Congress provided a
mitigating factor by authorizing special funding to rural
communities in Section 4009 of RCRC, which provides for up to $25
million for the purchase of landfill capital equipmment.
Table 44, which identifies the total and per capita
annualized criteria-induced costs, shows that the more rural
States such as Alaska, Maine, and Utah, are impacted more than
most "urbanized" States. However, the other major factor
affecting this cost increase is the degree to which current State
regulations address land disposal practices.
In those States which have adopted stringent regulations,
the impact of the Criteria is minimal, and therefore the greatest
iiii pact generally occurs where current regulations are less
stringent than the Criteria. This factor probably impacts costs
more than does the rural/urban factor.
IV-50
-------
TABLE 44
INCREMENTAL PER-CAPITA UPGRADING AN!) CLOSURE COSTS FOR LANDFILLS
(Criteria-Induced'Annuuliied 9agis )
Scat*
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louie lana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri*
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakoca
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennesse
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Criteria-Induced Costa
Upgrading
1.742,600
3, 561, 000
780,100
1,321,900
0
6,110,400
3,683,500
655,500
1,976,100
2,492,100
1.671,700
1,191,900
12,654,500
4.005,100
5,312,600
7,112,700
2,740,800
1,431,000
8,705,700
0
9,156,200
2f471,300
0
0
4,800
2,040,800
2.130,000
979,500
2,400
538,800
3,235.000
5,600,800
2,311.700
1.720,700
5,934,200
21,009,500
1,469,500
3,231.600
16,500
4,011.500
437,700
1.914,300
131,200
805,800
1,711,700
2,650,500
8,400
944,700
30,000
610,600
149,329,900
Closure
212,400
47,200
5,067,800
2,800,300
0
972,800
0
0
3,049,700
9,487,500
0
997,100
23,456,500
1,441,400
2,623.700
0
1.231.505
11,169.900
0
0
2,480,500
8.666,700
0
0
5,000
0
1,452,900
0
1,010,700
903,200
1,519,900
19,082,900
0
2,154,100
3,158,900
24,026,700
0
2.099,400
0
1,980,500
12,300
1,071,300
21,700
11,156,500
0
2,559,300
1.199.700
1,272.400
0
133,300
148,526.200
Total
1,955,000
3,608,200
5,847,900
4,122.200
0
7,083,200
3,683,500
655.500
5,025,800
11,979,600
1,671,700
2,189.000
36,111,000
5,446,500
7,936,300
7,112,700
. 3,972,305
. 12,600,900
8,705,700
0
11,636,700
18,138.000
0
0
9,800
2,041,800
3,582,900
979,500
1,013,100
1,442,000
4,754,900
24,683,700
2,311,700
3,874,800
9,093,100
45,036,200
1,469,500
5,331,000
16,500
5,992,000
470,000
2,985,600
152,900
11.962,300
1,711,700
5,209,800
1,208,100
2,217,100
30.000
744,400
297.356,100
3,444,164
300,382
1,770,900
1,923,295
19,953.134
2,207.259
3.031,709
548,104
6,789,443
'4.589,575
768,561
712,567
11,113,976
5,193,669
2,824,376
2,246,578
3,128,706
3,641,306
992,048
3,922,399
5,689,170
8,875,083
3,804,971
2,216,912
4,676,501
694,409
1,483,493
488,738
737,681
7,168,164
1,016,000
18,236,967
5,082.059
617,76,1
10,652,017
2,559,229
2,091,385
11,793,909
946,725
2,590,516
665,507
3,923,687
11,196.730
1,059.273
444,330
4,648,494
3,409,169
1,744,;37
4,417,731
332,416
202.4J5.416
Incremental Fer-Caplta Costs
Upgrading
0.51
11.85
0.44
0.69
0
2.77
1.21
1.20
0.29
0.54
2.18
1.67
1.14
0.77
1.88
3.17
0.88
0.39
8.78
0
1.61
1.06
0
0
0.001
2.94
1.44
2.00
0.003
0.08
3.18
0.31
0.45
2.79
0.56
8.21
0.70
0.27
0.02
1.55
0.69
0.49
0.01
0.76
3.85
0.57
0.002
0.54
0.01
1,84
0.76
Closure
0.06
0.16
2.86
1.46
0
0.44
0
0
0.45
2.07
0
1.40
2.11
0.28
0.93
0
0.39
3.07
0
0
0.44
0.98
0
0'
0.001
0
0.98
0
1.37
0.13
1.50
1.05
0
3.49
0.30
9.39
0
0.18
0
0.76
0.02
0.27
0.002
10.53
0
0.55
0.35
0.72
0
0.40
0.73
Total
0.57
12.01
3.30
2.15
0
3.21
1.21
1.20
0.74
2.61
2.18
3.07
3.25
'1.05
2.81
3.17
1.27
3.46
8.78
0
2.05
2.04
0
0
0.002
2.94
2.42
2.00
1.373
0.21
4.68
1.36
0.45
6.28
0.86
17.60
0.70
0.45
0.02
2.31
0.71
0.76
0.012
11.29
3.85
1.12
0.352
1.26
0.01
2.24
1.47
IV- 51
-------
2. Regions Impacted by Specific Criteria
Each of the Criteria was evaluated to determine if it would
impact general geographic areas or segments of our society more
than others (in addition to the obvious rural vs. urban
dichotomy). The geographic equity impacts were found to be
related to the environmentally sensitive areas and ground
water/surface water criteria.
a, Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
Wetlands are most prevalent in the low, coastal areas
of the country. Therefore, the environmentally sensitive areas
criterion will affect Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and
Georgia more than other States (Table 45). In much of Florida
the wetlands criterion hampers conventional landfillinp at new or
expanded sites.
1V-52
-------
TABLE 45
STATES WITH HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF WETLANDS
State Percent Wetland
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Florida
Loiii siana
South Carolina
Georgia
North Carolina
Arkansas
Del aware
Mi nnesota
Michigan
Mi ssi ssippi
Wisconsin
New Jersey
A1 abama
45.8
31.2
16.0
15.7
12.0
11.1
10.0
9.4
8.6
8.5
7.8
5.4
4.8
Floodplains are most prevalent in the States east of the
Mississippi, and in Washington and Oregon. Although no exact
data are available, it is possible that 25% of all disposal sites
in these States lie in a 100-year floodplain. In making the
economic impact calculations, it was assumed that 25% of all
sites in States east of the Mississippi, or those bordering the
Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and Great Lakes, as well as
Washington and Oregon, lie in an ESA; and 5% of all sites in the
remaining States (west of the Mississippi) lie in an ESA.
IV-53
-------
b. Ground and Surface Water Criteria
The ground-water and surface-water criteria will result
in some equity impacts due to climatic and hydrogeologic factors.
(1) Climate
The eastern, and particularly the southeastern,
region of the United States receives a higher rainfall and has a
lower rate of potential evapotranspiratipn than the western
region. As discussed in Chapter III, the potential for ground-
water and surface-water contamination resulting from leachate is
greatest in areas where average annual precipitation exceeds the
potential water losses by evaporation and transpiration. Such
areas are generally found east of the Mississippi River and in
the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest. About 71 percent of
the municipal refuse disposal sites found in the United States
are located in these water surplus areas.
Although the production of leachate in landfill sites in the
southeastern and Great Lakes regions has contributed to some
contamination of ground water and surface water, industrial
impoundments in these regions of high precipitation are of
particular concern. Either through faulty design, accident, or
failure, impoundments containing industrial effluents have been
responsible for contaminating ground water and leaking waste
waters into streams, lakes or rivers. Impacted significantly by
the proposed ground-water criterion is the coal-producinq and
steel-making region of this country (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia); the combination of high precipitation and impounded
industrial waste poses a threat to ground-water quality in these
States.
IV-54
-------
(2) Hydrogeology
There are many factors that result In
hydrogeologic environments unfavorable for land disposal of
wastes. Such factors include soil porosity, thin soil cover,
shallow bedrock, fractured and jointed bedrock of shallow depth,
and a high water table. A high rate of precipitation may
intensify already unfavorable site conditions.
Although hydrogeologic environments vary widely from site to
site, certain regions of the United States are characterized by
generally unfavorable hydrogeologic conditions. These regions
include areas where shallow bedrock and volcanic terrain pose a
threat to ground water and consequently complicate the
construction and operation of landfills; such hydrogeologic
problems are encountered in the Pacific Northwest and in the
eastern Appalachian regions. In these regions additional costs
may be incurred in the design of protective features to insure
protection of ground water in areas of shallow bedrock. In
addition, the lack of adequate cover soil in such regions will
necessitate the importing of cover, thereby incurring higher
costs for landfill operation.
Throughout much of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast Plain, a high
ground-water table is encountered within permeable sandy
deposits. A difficult and costly technical problem to contend
with in these regions is the isolation of refuse from shallow
ground water.
(3) Usage
At least half of the population of the United
States relies on ground water as a source of drinking water;
although the equity impacts related to this use impinge most
directly on rural areas, there are certain regional trends that
may be noted. The South, Midwest and West (with the exception of
IV-55
-------
Washington and California) are impacted by this reliance on
ground water as a source of drinking water. Leading the States
that rely heavily on this source of drinking water are New
Mexico, Florida, and Mississippi ; .over 90% of the population in
these States depend on ground water for their drinking water
supply (Ref . 7 ).
The surface-water criterion is expected to have significant
economic impact on landfills and impoundments in the northern
Great Lakes region (Ohio/Illinois/Michigan) where industrial
production generates substantial quantities of industrial wastes
(some hazardous). (Ref. 7). Added costs may be incurred in this
region to implement technology required to protect streams,
lakes, and rivers from the adverse environmental impacts
associated with the disposal of industrial wastes.
3. States
The specific social/equity impacts of the Criteria in a
given State depend on a variety of factors, including:
the climatic and hydrogeological conditions;
reliance on ground water for drinking water and
industrial uses;
the current and past disposal practices;
the extent of enacted State legislation governing the
disposal of solid waste; and
the number, size, site life, and environmental
condition of the existing disposal sites.
Climatic and hydrogeological conditions have been discussed
above. These factors significantly affect the equity impacts in
specific States, as summarized below and illustrated in Table 46:
IV-56
-------
States located in the low, coastal areas of the
southeastern part of the country (Florida, Louisiana,
South Carolina and Georgia) will be significantly
impacted by the environmentally sensitive area
criterion (Table 46).
States located in the eastern and, especially the
southeastern part of the country receive relatively
high levels of rainfall, and experience relatively low
rates of evapotranspiration. As a result, both the
ground-water and surface-water criteria will have a
substantial impact in these States.
States that rely heavily on ground water as a source of
drinking water (New Mexico, Florida, Mississippi,
Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska and Iowa) will be impacted
significantly by the ground-water criterion (Table 46).
Highly industrialized States in the northern Great
Lakes region (Ohio, Illinois, Michigan) and in the
Appalachians (West Virginia and Kentucky) will be
impacted considerably by the ground-water and surface-
water criteria. These States generate substantial
quantities of industrial wastes (some hazardous).
Industrial impoundments and to some extent landfills in
these States are expected to require upgrading to meet
the ground-water and surface-water criteria. Based on
the data presented in Table 46, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia together account for 40% of the economic
impact of the ground-water criterion.
Some Appalachian States (Kentucky, West Virginia) may
incur additional costs for the ground-water criterion
due to unfavorable hydrogeologic conditions.
IV-57
-------
TABLE 4ซ
CRITERIA IMPACT BY STATE: LANDFILLS, SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, LANDSPREADZNC
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
i Indiana
TOUR
Kansas
Kentucky
i Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Kebraska
Nevada
1 New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
\'e noon t
Virginia
Washington
Weปt Virginia
Wisconsin
Vyoalng
Total
ESA*
1,603.500
3,664,700
0
1,632,900
. 520,500
23,400
15,800
47.200
A, 642, 400
1,014,700
0
0
205,500
102,800
102,700
118,000
719,200
2,563,300
0
1,027,500
102,800
1,551,000
102.800
418,500
0
47,300
1,161,000
0
15,800
743,100
15,800
2,055,000
719,200
129,800
545,900
151,800
15.300
18,495,000
15,300
754,000
23,400
450,000
747,800
78,700
io:,soo
15.800
31 , 500
411,000
205, SOO
15,750
130.671,900
Surface
Water
41.250
748.S50
0
230,350
0
661,050
532.800
0
273.750
652,500
6S.250
375,600
631,500
0
454,050
924,750
563,400
0
1,008,600
0
969,000
3.011,250
414,600
1,087,200
519,150
312,450
508,950
362.800
156,450
435,900
780,300
0
0
151,350
0
1.931,100
0
1,070,700
0
0
81,600
133,950
4,299,900
75.300
72,000
0
1,431.600
197,400
3,433,100
170.700
28,781.050
Ground
Water
12,472,600
4,608,700
937,500
4,297,200
19,257,000
5,517,700
3,921,400
213,750
3,269,400
5,414,400
1,431,200
2,042.300
24,678,500
15,436,800
6,991,600
39,120,300
27,717,400
40,525,400
5,326,400
7,050,000
6.692,800
28,002,200
2,380,000
10,030,300
6,411,200
7,598.900
29.868,200
4,079,400
1,284,800
3,273.200
7,483,800
4,775,000
3,273,000
15,957,900
101,004,750
36,333,600
2.394,000
288,239,900
199.500
684 , 700
679,700
5,302,200
66,812.100
2,156,100
2,624,000
266.300
9 , 394 , 2OO
74,941,500
16,376,100
5,466.400
974,714,200
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
296,250
152,550
0
0
108,742
0
0
0
0
0
0
132,990
368,903
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
302,017
0
0
72,502
1,508,587
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,942,541
Disease
Vector
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Safety
1,915.400
3,074,500
795,300
1,209,900
424 , 300
2,054,600
11,300
509,200
21,300
2,541,900
418,700
1,202,300
13,237,700
255,800
1,967,700
3,030,600
3,093,900
2,152,600
3,563.300
99,900
2,972,200
8,555,600
12,200
4,498,900
72,500
2,227,700
2,491.500
1,021,400
13,200
175,900
3,036.500
5,708,800 -
2,561.300
1.097.800
6,955,300
5,345,300
1.491,100
7,328,200
7,000
3.375.000
457,600
2,369.100
1,421,200
323,300
769,200
2,656.500
70,200
2,541,900
56,400
718,400
111, 516,200
Closure
470,175
400,200
5,067,825
10,450,050
0
2, 45:, 875
0
0
8,252,850
38,943.600
0
3,874,800
49,145,775
2,809,650
5,870,925
0
1,672,725
15,633,675
0
9,272,400
5,088,750
38,145,525
6,319,575
18,640,200
1,168,875
0
5,922,825
0
2,005,500
7,453,575
6,655,950
36,695,925
0
4,751,325
4,498,050
46.886,250
0
9,735,450
0
3,237,300
284,100
2.334,000
4,065.600
27,381,600
154,050
4,283,025
2.281,800
4,911.300
0
785,625
398,003,700
Food
Chain
I4,lซ0,000d
$ closure cent* for surface Impoundment*.
costs ซrซ for landfill* only.
C0thซr
total for utlmw.1 projection.
IV-58
-------
The next two factors, current and past disposal practices and
enacted State legislation, will obviously have a considerable
impact on the incremental cost to the State of meeting the
Criteria. Those States whose disposal practices and solid waste
legislation reflect more concern for environmental protection
have already made upgrading expenditures and therefore are
expected to have a smaller incremental cost to comply with the
Criteria.
These generalizations are illustrated in Table 47, which
presents landfill cost per ton on a state-by-state basis,
differentiating between Criteria-induced and combined cost-per-
ton increases. For all the States, the average upgrading cost
per ton due to the Criteria is $0.66, slightly less than 50% of
the combined cost-per ton average of $1.19. Eight of the States
will incur no Criteria-induced cost-per-ton increases since these
States already have regulations equivalent to the proposed
Criteria. On the other hand, in nine of the States, Criteria-
induced costs constitute over 90% of the total incremental
upgrading costs for landfills. The lack of environmentally
oriented solid waste legislation in these States is responsible
for the greater economic impact of the Criteria on incremental
upgrading costs for landfills.
In the past, the lack of adequate financial resources in
some States has hindered the development and implementation of
progressive solid waste disposal legislation. An important goal
of RCRA is to redress this inequity, thereby facilitating the
upgrading of disposal practices in these States. Under RCRA,
special communities with low populations and high levels of solid
waste disposal are eligible for grants to be used for the
conversion, improvement, consolidation or construction of solid
waste disposal facilities (Ref. 6). Such grants are designed to
promote environmentally sound disposal practices throughout the
country.
IY-59
-------
TABLE 47
INCREMENTAL CRITERIA-INDUCED AND COMBINED UPGRADING COST /TON - LANDFILLS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennesse
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Jyoralni?
Total
Total
Tons/tear
2,756,000
1,138,300
1,240,2CO
1,443,000
12,305,000
2,152,800
1, 71b,GOO
1,170,000
6,934,200
Criteria Induced
Upgrading
Costs
1,742,600
3, 561,000
780,100
1,321,900
0
. 6,110,400
3,033,500
655,500
1,976,100
7,776,600 | 2,492,100
798,200 1,671,700
2,470,000
14,008,800
2,940,600
2,197,000
2,210,000
4,321,200
1,443,000
1,250,600
2,269,800
5,319,600
25,313,600
1,848,600
1,191,900
12,654,500
4,005,100
5,312,600
7,112,700
2,740,800
1,431,000
8,705,700
0
9,156,200
9,471,300
0
5,319,600 0
2,389,400 4,800
777,400 2,041,800
1,214, 200 I 2,130,000
514,800 979,500
663,200 2,400
6,026,300
538,800
1,474,200 3,235,000
14,073,600
3,117,400
5,600,300
2,311,700
613, 600 i 1,720,700
11, 975, 600 | 5,934,200
18,374,200 21,009,500
1,188,200
5,194,300
364,000
9,003,800
826,800
7,126,600
9,770,300
4,212,000
278,200
4,105,400
3, 923, -00
1,045,200
7,904,000
W6,*00
227,312,300
1,469,500
3,231,600
16,500
4,011,500
457,700
1,914,300
131,200
305,300
1,711,700
2,650,500
8,400
394,700
30,000
610,600
,149,329.JOO
Cost/Ton
Increases
0.63
3.U
0.63
0.92
0
2.84
2.15
0.56
0.28
0.32
2.09
0.48
0.90
1.36
2.42
3.22
0.63
0.99
6.96
0
1.72
0.37
0
0
0
2.63
1.75
1.90
0
0.09
2.19
0.40
0.74
2.80
0.50
1.14
1.24
0.62
0.05
0.45
0.55
0.27
0.01
0.19
6.15
0.65
0
0.95
0
1.99
0.66
Combined
Upgrading
Costs
1,956,500
7,576,200
780,100
2,553,700
0
6,771,500
4,216,300
655,300
4, -'.87, 300
5,915,000
1,737,000
3,134,300
15,937,700
4,005,100
5,766,700
7,112,700
5,779,400
2,242,400
9.714,300
0
10,125,200
25,062,100
2,195,300
10,170,300
2,532,700
3,711,700
4,256,700
2,438,900
334,700
2,822,900
7,419,100
5,600,800
2,311,700
1,572,100
5,934,200
22,9iC,600
1,469,500
7,330,000
16,500
4,011,500
695,700
2,604,500
17,563,200
331,100
1,753,700
2.&50.500
7,513.500
2,107,600
18,238.400
1.521, "00
271,7.22.700
Cost/Ton '
Increases
0.71
6.65
0.63
1.76
0
3.14
2.45
0.56
0.54
0.76
2.17
1.26
1.13
1.36
2.62
3.22
1.32
1.55
7.77
0
1.90
0.99
1.13
1.91
1.05
4.77
3.99
4. S3
1.25
0.47
5.03
0.40
0.74
3.05
0.50
1.24
1.24
1.50
0.05
0.45
1.08
0.37
1.79
0.21
6.41
0.65
1.33
2.01
2.31
4.96
1.19
IV-60
-------
It 1s beyond the scope of this report to identify the specific
inequities that may result from State disposal practices and the
inadequacies of environmentally oriented legislation. Data on
such inequities will be available only after the inventory of
open dumps has been completed.
To adequately assess the last factors identified as impact-
ing on States the number, size, site life, and environmental
conditionsobviously would require complete and specific data
which is not available.
4. Industries
As noted in the discussion of regional and state equity
impacts, highly industrialized regions of the country (Great
Lakes, Gulf Coast, and Mid-Atlantic regions) are expected to
incur significant economic impacts as a result of the Criteria.
The lack of a national inventory of industrial land disposal
sites precludes a comprehensive assessment of the economic impact
of the Criteria on industries. Indeed, most industrial sites are
located on private property; hence their location or even
existence, is rarely recorded with public agencies (Ref. 7). In
spite of the lack of complete data on industrial sites, some
general equity impacts may be noted.
In analyzing the effects of the Criteria on industries, the
need to upgrade existing industrial surface impoundments was
identified as contributing the major portion of the State-
standard-induced annualized costs. As shown in Table 48, costs
to upgrade surface impoundments comprise 68% of the total State-
standard-induced costs, and 59% of the combined costs (Criteria-
induced plus State-standard induced).
IV-61
-------
TABLE 48
IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS ON
STATE-STANDARD-INDUCED AND CR I TER I A-INDUCED ANNUALIZED COSTS
Disposal Method
All Percentage
Surface Disposal Surface
Costs Impoundments Methods Impoundments
(millions of dollars)
State
Combi
-S
ne
tandard-Induced
d
7
9
78
77
.7
.7
114
166
7.
1.
5
1
68%
59$
A recent study of surface impoundments--Surface Impoundments
and Thei> E f f e c t 0ฃ Ground Hater i_ฃ the United States
(Ref. 107 )--provi ded ttie basis for an assessment of the impact of
the Criteria on industries that dispose of wastes in
impoundments.
In developing the economic impact data, it was assumed that
all impoundments fell into two groups based upon the nature of
the industry and the size of the impoundment site; site size was
the major distinauishing factor between the two groups. A total
of 73,235 surface impoundments fell into the following
categories:
IV-62
-------
Group I (20 hectares (50 acres)/site)*
Coal and Other Mining
Paper Products ^ 9,082 sites
Utility and Other Services
Group II (3 hectares (7.5 acres)/site)**
Oil and Gas
Food Products and Textiles ^64,153 sites
Chemicals and Refining
Miscellaneous Mining
*0ne 20-hectare (50 acre) impoundment per site.
**Three 1-hectare (2.5 acreh'mpoundments per site,
The annualized (combined) costs of the proposed Criteria
impact Group I and Group II industrial impoundments almost
equally; Group I industries will receive 47% of the annualized
combined costs; Group II, 53%.
Table 49 gives the distribution of costs to particular
industries. As noted, the Criteria affect the larger Group I
sites only slightly less (47% of the combined annualized cost)
than the smaller Group II sites (53% of the combined annualized
cost).
IV-63
-------
r--
o
o
Cฃ
u.
*"". oo cx-
= P I~
fX
r3
1/1
_j
CC
l/l
Q
CM
C
o
4~J
0!
O
1
-w
in
O
<_>
c
o
^
ft)
o
0
ซ
in
O
O.
3
0 m
l_ CU
C3 *-J
t
'-i- 1/1
O
;-?
Q.
3
Q
u.
o
>-
u
4-1
in
3
-o
C
>,
CO
d.
3
O
l_
>.
u
4-J
in
3
T3
C
03
Q.
3
O
O
u_
O
6-9
in
OJ
4_t
.
1/1
=**=
4-1
in
0
(0
c
O
4-j
ft)
2:
^
4-J
in
3
-3
C
^^
O-
3
O
\_
13
!ฃ
1/1
m
0
o
LA
1
-3-
>
cN?
vฃ>
OO
p
8s?
LA
1"-
PA
O
CO
*
vฃ>
cn
c
c
3:
_-
OJ
o
CN
,,
o
o
-3-
PA
C~\
cn
_
-3-
O
O
PA
ฃ
<3S9
CTV
_
^
CTป
cr\
^
i
.
z.
-T
,.
O
0
PA
CN
-3"
r^
o
0
o
o
r-
PA
vO
8-9
PA
8-S
-3-
CO
CM
in
o
3
-Q
O
L,
a.
L,
CU
Q.
03
Q.
n
^0
CM
0
O
LA
*
LA
CO
CM
ป
LA
LA
-T
VO
O
O
co
LA
LA
r~-
-T
PA
O
O
PA
j.
cn
CO
CM
8-?
VO
t
8^9
LA
vo
f*^.
CTv
LA
O
>
V-
CU
co
>-
f
._
4^
13
O
0
0
LA
LA
CO
-T
0
O
vO
^,
PA
P~.
^
(3s?
CNJ
CM
cJNฐ
cn
CO
ro
OO
L.
OJ
_c
JJ
o
O
o
LA
LA
CO
CM
LA
LA
-3-
O
O
CN
CO
O
*.
cn
cu
u
O
OJ
CL
3
O
o
cn
CM CM J-
0 O
o c
cn 'A
oo cn
cn r^
PA CO
LA LA
LA
8*$
vO ฃ*?
t r~-
O
~ p
PA CM
O CM
oo r-~
*
vD
cn
cn c
c
c
c
z:
v in
T3 0
O
LJ x;
CM -T
O
l-^ .
o
o
PA
CM
-3-
0
.
dNฐ
CM
.
CO
CM
in
4^J
O
3
T3
O
U.
a.
i_
0)
a
aj
Q-
ปป
*-
vO
CM
vฃ>"
CM
O
O
vO
1^
#
-3-
CM
CM
LA
5
CM
0 O
0 0
LA -3"
PA
MD CO
co rป.
-T \O
8^
d-P PA
@ฐ\ t
. ,_
r-*. PA
cn PA
LA CO
O-
U 3
r) o
cn
"*
o
o
VXD
O
-T
cn
PA
o
-3"
O
0
vO
O
-3-
cn
PA
O
-3"
^^
CO
\x>
0^9
r*x
r
-3"
O
vO
cn
m
CJ3
-Q
C
m
ซ.
._
0
PA
-
O
o
o
-^
cr,
.
,
o
o
o
r^
cn
F
8^*
cn
oN?
CM
LA
f*-^
PA
in
w
U
3
T)
O
L.
a.
13
O
O
u.
""
O 0
o o
OO -3-
CN CO
LA vD
cn o
.^
0 0
0 O
CO -3-
CM CO
LA vO
cn o
r^-
(j^s 8^*
vO CM
v~
8^9
8s? -3"
CM
.
I--.CO
* vO
00
m
u
3
a
O
i_
a.
i/> ~
CU 03
U
-> E
X. 0)
0) J=.
";
O O
0 0
CN cn
,
vO PA
1
_3-
CN
0 O
0 0
CN cn
.
vD PA
CM
d^3
8-P LA
P"^ .
PA
8^9
OO 8s?
-T
LA
cn
LA LA
"
CM
ca
c
._ ^
... ^
u>-
0) Q.
o: 3
o
e L.
D U
OJ ^
,
0 L,
u n)
4-1 -C
CU 4-1
Q- O
cn
CM
o
o
V4O
P^
p
-3"
CN
CM
LA
8*9
O
O
,__
PA
LA
ป
-3"
vO
^_
0
in
C
0)
E
4->
03
*
-Q
in
C
o
4-f
03
O
O
,
03
in
O
O
14-
o
3
m
c
CU
in
0)
0-
0)
I-
_
a.
3
O
C3
'^-^
L.
CU .
4J
O
-a
c
Q
*
vO
CM
vO
CM
MD
CM
J-
*~-
O
*
. *
CM
.
in
0)
o u
4-t
co in
3
L. -a
0 c
14- .
m a>
4-j m
m cu
0 .c
O 4-1
CM
Ol
c
in
1)
-a
c
0)
E
O
1/1
in
4-f
c
c
3
O
a.
e
cn
0
CM
CO
o
CM
fc
vฃ>
O
CN
j."
O
CM
PA
0
CN
CN
O
CN
___"
O
CN
O
CN
CJ
CO
-;:
vO
CM
CM
PA
CM
CM
CN
CM
CN
"
CN
CM
CM
CM
<->
L^
-:;
cn
CO
CM
i -
oo
CM
vO
00
CM
^
LA
CO
CM
-3-
CO
CM
PA
CO
CM
CM
CO
CM
^
OO
CM
03
CM
c_>
CO
,ฐ^
U
4-J
U
03
01
in
3
Cn
C
^-J
in
"^
O
i
13
E
CU
4-J
in
-------
The most affected industries are (in order of combined
annualized cost):
oil and gas $404 million (68% of all sites)
coal mining $397 million (19% of all sites)
misc. mining $ 42 million (1.9% of all sites)
utility service $ 35 million (1.6% of all sites)
food products $ 11 million (1.9% of all sites)
chemical products $ 7 million (0.2% of all sites)
The causes of for these combined (State-standard-induced
plus Criteria-induced) costs are three criteria:
ground water $835.2 million 85%
environmentally sensitive areas $125.1 million 13ซ
safety $ 17.4 mill ion 2%
Total $977.7 million 100%
Thus, the criterion with major national impact on the
combined costs of the Criteria is clearly the ground-water
criterion as it applies to surface impoundments. However, if one
compares only Cri teri a-induced c o s t s, the ESA criterion is
actually more expensive ($99.2 million) than the ground-water
criterion ($96.9 million), as shown below:
IV-65
-------
Criterion
Cri teria-Induced
Costs
(millions of $)
* of
Criteria- % of
Induced Combined
Costs Combined Costs Costs
(mil 1 ions -of $)
Ground Water $ 96.9
Environmentally $ 99.2
Sensitive Areas
Safety $ 2.9
48.7$
49.8$
1.4%
$835.2
$125.1
$ 17.4
10.0%
10.1%
0.3%
TOTAL
$199.0
100%
$977.7
20.4%
Consequently, the environmentally sensitive area criterion
is a significant Federal regulatory change for surface
impoundments.
F. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE; SHORT AND
LONG-TERM IMPACTS
1. Nature of Impact
Since the proposed Criteria aim at environmental improve-
ment, it is useful to examine them in terms of the nature of the
impact prevented or reduced in magnitude. Table 50 shows these
impact reductions.
IV-66
-------
TABLE 50
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Duration of
Env. Benefit
Short-
Term
Long-
Term
Nature
Irrever-
sible
Envi ron.
Changes
Prevented
of Impact
Irretri ev-
able
Commi tment
of Resources
Required
Criterion
1. Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
a. Wetlands
b. Floodplains
c. Permafrost
d. Critical Habitats
e. Sole-Source Aquifers
2. Surface Water
3. Ground Water
a. Drinking Water
b. Other Water Supply
4. Air
a. Municipal Wastes
b. Rural Wastes
5. Land Application
a. Heavy Metals
b. Pathogens
c. Pesticides
6. Disease Vectors
7. Safety
a. Gases
b. Fi res
c. Bird Hazard
d. Access
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES(?)
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
IV-67
-------
a. Irreversible Changes
Solid waste disposal facilities can cause irreversible
environmental changes. The Criteria would eliminate such impacts
on environmentally sensitive areas; wetlands, floodplains, perma-
frost areas, critical habitats and recharge zones of sole-source
aquifers; on ground-water supplies for drinkino water and other
uses; and on the presence of heavy metals and pesticides in soil
used for producing food chain crops.
b. Irretrievable Resource Commitments
To be implemented fully, certain of the Criteria
require irretrievable resource commitments of land, energy and
materials. These Criteria include those for environmentally
sensitive areas (especially for alternate sites for disposal
facilities in wetlands and floodplains), surface water (treatment
plants), ground water (lining, collection and treatment), air
(greater use of land for disposal), land application (greater use
of land or pretreatment for heavy metals in sludge), gases
(collection and treatment), and bird hazard (less advantageous
locations for disposal sites).
The economic impacts of these irretrievable resource commit-
ments are given in Section IVB.
2. Duration of Impact
The proposed Criteria will have certain environmental
benefits which are permanent and others which are only short-
term. Short-term benefits are the result of changes in waste
disposal methods to eliminate short-term or reversible adverse
impacts. There are also short-term and long-term economic
impacts, discussed above in Section IVB. Long-term impacts
result from preventing irreversible environmental changes. All
of these impacts are shown in Table 50.
IV-68
-------
G. ENERGY AND MATERIAL USE
The Criteria may initially cause displacement in direct
energy use for solid waste management by increasing tran.>porta-
tion energy requirements for some persons, groups, agancies, and
companies engaged in solid waste transport, while decreasing the
energy requirements for others. The net result could be a slight
increase nationally, but this is impossible to quantify. There
also will be direct increases in energy use through the increased
energy requirements for site preparation and operation and
through the energy inputs to create the materials and equipment
used. However, it is also impossible at this time to give
quantitative estimates of this impact.
On the other hand, energy production may increase in two
ways:
(1) with the likelihood of larger, more scientifically
designed landfills and as a result of the Criteria
requirement for control of explosive gases, there will
be increased direct energy (methane gas) recovery from
landfilIs;
(2) the increased costs of land disposal will increase the
economic viability and, therefore, the amount of off-
site resource recovery, for both materials (with
attendant energy savings) and direct energy production.
In addition, landspreading may have a positive energy
effect, since the nutrients in the sludge are used in place of
more energy-expensive artificially created fertilizers and soil
conditioners.
IV-69
-------
Recycling 1s typically less energy Intensive than virgin
material production, when all the stages of material acquisition,
transportation, and processing are considered. One study, for
example, estimates that for five metals evaluated (comprising 80
to 90 percent of energy consumption in all primary metals
industries), secondary metal recovery required only 1.5 to 31
percent of the energy per ton of product required by the virgin
counterpart material. Other work also suggests substantial
energy savings from paper and glass recycling. Contract research
projects in progress will provide a considerably firmer basis for
developing quantitative perspective in this area. (Ref. 137).
Currently, the disposal of solid wastes is done in
conformance with State permit requirements which vary widely
across the fifty States. In States which have very lenient
permit requirements or in which requirements are not enforced,
open dumping and open burning of wastes are practiced because
they are the cheapest disposal options. The Criteria will impose
nationwide requirements to cover and under certain conditions
line landfills, and treat the leachate emanating from the fill;
stop burning; insure proper grading and runoff; control disease
vectors; and control 1andspreading of wastes. All of these
measures will add to the cost of disposal, which will have the
net effect of making resource recovery more economically
attractive as an alternative. It is very difficult to assess all
of the factors which contribute to a community's decision to
recover materials or energy. However, local governments and
private business usually require the process chosen to be at
least as .cheap as the prevailing disposal options, including all
economic and financial incentives offered by government. If the
cost of the prevailing disposal options increases significantly,
more and more decision-makers will choose the resource recovery
option. Therefore, the net effect of these Criteria on resource
recovery will probably be to enhance its economic feasibility in
the near future.
IV-70
-------
1. Energy Recovery*
a. Theoretical Potential
In 1973, approximately 135 million tons per year of
residential and commercial solid waste were generated. About 70
to 80 percent of this waste was combustible, having an average
energy content of about 9 million British thermal units (Btu) per
ton. Theoretically, if all solid waste in the U.S. has been
converted into energy in 1973, about 1.2 quadrillion Btu per year
would have been generated. This is equal to more than 564,000
barrels per day of oil equivalent (B/DOE)** or 206 million
barrels per year of oil equivalent (B/YOE).** Growth in
population and per capita waste generation would cause these
figures to increase to 1,440 trillion Btu per year by 1980, or
about 680,000 B/DOE or 248 million B/YOE. These and other
findings are summarized in Table 51.
b. Available Potential
Not all waste is available for energy recovery. Energy
recovery systems require large quantities of waste (at least 200
to 250 tons per day) delivered for processing at one site in
order to achieve economies of scale. For this reason, energy
recovery appears feasible only in more densely populated areas,
such as most Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's).
If energy recovery has been practical in all SMSA's in 1973,
almost 900 trillion Btu would have been recovered. This is equal
Source of this discussion is Ref. 138,
**Explained in Table 51.
IV-71
-------
TABLE 51 (Ref. 138)
ENERGY POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE FROM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
SOLID WASTE*
1973 1980 '
Btut B/DOE* B/YOEง Btu B/DOEB/YOE
(trillion)(thousand)(million) (trillion)(thousand)(m1111on)
Theoretical 1,194 564 206 1,440 680 248
Available1' 899 424 154 1,085 512 187
Projected
recovery -- -- 85 40 15
*These estimates are a function of (1) population; (2) the
average amount of residential and commercial solid waste
Generated per person, and (3) the energy content of the waste
(4,500 Btu per pound). The heatling value of 4,500 Btu per pound
(9 million Btu per ton) is generally accepted for "as received,"
unprocessed waste as delivered by a collection truck to a
processing or disposal facility.
t Btu: British thermal unit.
* B/DOE: Barrels per day of oil equivalent. (Assuming 5.8
million Btu per barrel of oil and 365 days per year.)
S B/YOE: Barrels per year of oil equivalent.
II Based on all Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
(SMSA's).
NOTE: Different waste processing methods have different recovery
efficiencies. For example, a shreddinq/air classification waste
processing system loses some potential energy by removing heavy
combustibles from the fuel fraction, while high-temperature
incineration with no prio classification would lose far less
potential energy. However, no adjustment was made to allow for
such processing losses or energy conversion efficiencies (of,
say, steam or electricity) because no prejudgment can be made as
to which energy recovery method would be used in any given
situation.
IV-72
-------
to more than 424,000 B/OOE,* or 154 million B/YOE.* By 1980,
the energy potentially recoverable from the SMSA waste stream is
projected to be about 1,085 trillion Btu per year, the equivalent
of more than 512,000 B/DOE, or 187 million B/YOE.
c. Impact on Energy Demand
The quantity of energy potentially available from the
waste stream of more densely populated areas (SMSA's) is
significant. For example, the 424,00 barrels per day of oil
equivalent that was available in SMSA's in 1973 is equal to:
4.6 percent of fuel consumed by all utilities in 1973
(9.2 million B/DOE)
10 percent of all the coal consumed by utilities in 1973
(4.1 million B/DOE)
28 percent of the oil projected to be delivered through the
Alaskan pipeline (1.5 million B/DOE)
1 percent of all energy consumed in the United States in
1973 (35.6 million B/DOE)
The energy recoverable from SMSA's can light every home and
office building in the country and is equivalent to twice the
gasoline savings estimated for the 55-mi1es-per-hour fuel
conservation program in 1973-74.
Perhaps more significant is the impact on energy needs of
individual users. For example, many industrial plants can
generate at least half the process steam they use from solid
waste fuel, thus reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
^Explained in Table 51.
IV-73
-------
d. Projected Implementations of Energy Recovery Systems
Based on energy recovery systems existing or planned at the
present time, it is projected that by 1980 almost 30 cities and
counties around the country should be operating the equivalent of
about thirty-six 1,000-ton-per-day plants, recovering an
estimated 85 trillion Btu per year, or 40,000 B/DOE, or
15 mill ion B/YOE.
2. Material Recovery*
Detailed analyses of the practical quantitative potential
for resource recovery to save natural virgin resources have not
yet been developed. However, some preliminary evaluations with
respect to resource recovery potentials have been made that
suggest the order of magnitude of virgin material savings at
i ssue.
Table 52 summarizes the recyling potentials for selected
materials in post-consumer municipal waste in relation to certain
measures of U.S. material consumption. The estimated recovery
potentials for the individual materials are based on the
following assumptions: (1) 95 percent of the waste generated is
collected, either through mixed-waste collection or specialized
source-separated collection systems; (2) 70 percent of the
collected waste is processed for recovery of specific material
and energy values (roughly eauivalent to the waste collected in
U.S. SMSA's as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce);
(3) with respect to paper, it is assumed that only 40 percent of
SMSA collected weight is processed for fiber recovery; and
(4) with respect to the material actually processed for
recycling, final material recovery efficiency is assumed to be
80 percent. Although crude, these assumptions are consistent
*Source of this discussion is Ref. 137
IV-74
-------
-- N
r~~^
oo
i
M
ej^ i
1
UJ ซ
Qi 00
_J
oo d:
1 1 <
4 UJ
I- h-
z: _J
>- UJ
O OO
UJ
01 01
o
_J U.
^c
t i 2Z
o: o
1 1 1 ป i
I h-
=ฃ c_>
^~ ~^1
a
2: o
:3 cฃ
IE a.
I t
X Q
=)
OO
*^
o
CO
1
h-
oo
o
a.
T3
-o s-
C fO
f^ ^3
-Q
S_ i.
Ol CU
O- O.
C\ _ Q_.
e
r
(
"u
rO
1
i.
a>
CX
Q.
0
o
E
C
r-
E
r
t3t
C
0
S-
CU
-fj
fc (
o o
O I-.
r r^
n r*
CT> 00
OO LO
uป
oo oo
CM r-.
-f- +4-
LO i
f^ CO
. ^J~
^
-w-
O 00
LO OJ
CM CO
^
CM
4+
CD *^-
O r~.
CO O
LO
-H-
0 0
o o
<*O LO
*% A
O OO
r- CO
.
"^
f .
oo
C
o *
+J CU
oo co
G? ra
i 3 c
O
S- !-
>> ai 4J
4-3 g O
4-> on 3
C C 00
ra o c
= OO
cr i o
4->
i CO OO
rO O
r-a. =j
i-
OJ
ro
S
O O
r UD
O
*. ซ
CO 00
OO =!-
an an
i i
LO ^O
co LO
LO VD
H- 4+
r CM
CTl
y LO
f M
1 F -
. . . i
r-^ LO
r^. CM
00 CTl
. . ซ
** PO
+f
O O
o o
LO *d"
ซ ซ\
*st" ^~*
LO OO
. . .
'
r^
ra
-r-
C S-
O OJ
r- ^ปJ
4-> (O
o E
^^ 5
o ra
S- S-
0.
o
>>-
(O CO I
E cu ra
r- E 4->
S- 0 0
0.0 I
*
t/)
ra
i
o
4->
a>
4->
C*1
ro
^
i.
co
H
to
O
O
1
4->
CO
o
ex
4
O
O
4->
(O
^.
^_>
c
O)
o
cu
a.
LO
ซ
to
10
co
LO
OO
CM
LO
ai
.
CO
00
LO
r
r^-
OJ
f ซ
ซ
c
o
I
+J
o
o
C 0
O S-
i- Q-
4->
ex >,
S s-
oo E
to o
ป
CM OO
O en
i
tj ft
X o
0 u
CO 00
.
CM r
r- t
r^* r***"
. t
r-*. LO
r r
OJ ^J1
OJ O
r OJ
OJ
*^r CD
,
crt ro
r~~ r~*
r
ra
1
i.
OJ
4->
ro
S
ra
t-
o
1
4->
cu "ra
C -r- ฃ 4->
O S- O O
CJ O-O f
OO OO
f
H7 "~^
r- O
CM O
CM
CO
00 LO
LO i
00 O
LO ^J-
OO OO
LO OO
i
00 O
LO O
ซ3-
00 OO
LO r-
s
LO
r
ro
r~
4-) r
c. S- 00
0 0) c
Q.4J O
>. E
S- 00
a> cu o
> +J t
O oo
CJ ro
cu s -o
S- 01
<+- S-
E o cu
a >
E 4-> 0
i- C O
x ai ai
ra CJ S_
E s-
a> r
T3Q.rO
Ol 4->
4-> CO O
ro
>.
^.
OJ
O
o
ai
s-
^^
ra
4J
CU
4->
o
a.
o^_
o
o
r-
4->
ra
5^
^>
c:
cu
u
a>
a.
O LO LO
ซ^" r C71
i CM i
CT> fl 0
X X
OD 0 U
r
co co o
OJ **0 *^O
r^-* *^J" ro
ซ=$- en cXJ
ซtf- LO CO
CO oj O
1
r^. co o^
LO O ^C>
^
ป
ra
c s_
o cu
r- 4->
4-> ra
>!-
oo ฃ C1J ro
= - E 4->
O S- O O
0 Q.O 1
,
OO OO
, ,
^> ZD
CM
cn
r
*ป
CU
o
M-
Cf_
O
CD
C
r-
C
il
a.
4->
c:
(U
E
s-
a> CM
> r-.
o en
CD r-
* *ซ
OO CU
H3 23
4J
c: 4J
O oo
4-> C
CTit *
C
,c a>
to a.
ra rO
3 Q-
c
IO
O !-
O i-
o CL)
t- E
rO "^
d)
c-
CO O
r 4->
rO CD
S- C
CU -r-
C J=
r- co
s: ro
j
oo r^x
c en .
O r S_
r rjj
4-> >, . 0.
ra i oo ro
< c: cu Q.
3 O cr
CJ -1-4-
- c: 2: o
ซ3 O
O !- f- U1
4J O U
< CJ -r-
Q. ro 3 4->
UJ S_ (O oo
4- CU T-
C S- 4->
O C 3 ra
rO CO 4->
O CJ oo
CU
00 C C/1 OJ
(T3 -I C"
OQ ( ^> 1
* 4- +4- CO)
IV-75
-------
with current knowledge of the waste stream itself and current (or
soon-to-be-available) technology for material recovery.
The final national recovery ratios themselves--53 percent
for minerals and 21 percent for total paperrepresent practical
maxima from a technical standpoint. They assume, for example,
the existence of large-scale recovery plants serving the entire
U.S. SMSA population, and they also assume implicitly a signifi-
cant expansion in material-user-industry capacity in most
instances. They are thus obviously not recovery values that
could be implemented or achieved in the near future under any
circumstances and should not be so interpreted. They represent
what could conceivably be achieved with current or near-future
technology under a very vigorous implementation program. Note
that because they are based on current waste flow, they represent
net additions to any recovery already being achieved.
Thus, for example, if the incremental recycle quantity has
been achieved in 1971 for iron, then assuming the same total
demand for the material, it would have been possible to have
supplied about 7 percent of this demand from the municipal waste
stream rather than from domestic or imported virgin sources. For
the six materials shown, the percent of U.S. consumption that
could have been supplied from post-consumer wastes is seen to
range from a low of 3 percent for lead up to as much as
18.9 percent for paper and paperboard products.
The set of ratios in the next-to-last line of Table 52 is
most indicative of U.S. natural resource conservation benefits
because it relates to U.S. primary production based on domestic
ore {or forests, in the case of paper). The potential reductions
in primary production from virgin domestic resources could have
amounted to 10.3 percent for iron, 9.4 percent for copper,
6.8 percent for lead, 21.5 percent for paper, and over
100 percent for aluminum and tin. In the case of aluminum, for
which 90 percent of U.S. primary production is based on imported
IV-76
-------
bauxite and alumina, it would have been possible in principle to
have reduced the aluminum industry's demand for domestic bauxite
to zero and also to have reduced imports. In the case of tin,
where the U.S. produces negligible quantities of ore and refines
less than 1 percent of our virgin consumption, the total
substitution would necessarily have to come entirely at the
expense of imports.
Two principal conclusions emerge from these fioure?. The
first is that recycling post-consumer waste materials is not a
panacea in the sense that it cannot be expected to supply the
majority of the Nation's raw material demands. On the other
hand, the substitution possibilities, both with reaard to total
consumption and domestic virgin material supply, are not
insignificant.
In addition to these direct material resource savings, there
will also accrue further net indirect savings in the form of
reduced capital equipment and other material input requirements
in the mining, ore reduction and beneficiation, and smelt inn
sectors of the virgin mineral industries, as well as similar
reductions in the tree harvesting, wood preparation, and wood
pulping segments of the pulp and paper industry. No attempt has
yet been made to evaluate these in quantitative terms. There
will be, of course, some offsetting new capital goods require-
ments for processing the waste materials, but these generally
appear to be substantially less than those for virgin material.
I V - 7 7
-------
REFERENCES*
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Strategic environmental assessment system: residuals
forecasting. International Research and Technology
Corporation, February 1976. 59p. (Distributed by NTIS,
Springfield, VA as PB-252041.)
Comparing conventionally laidfilled solid waste with
processed landfilled solid waste. Floyd G. Brown and
Associates, Ltd. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency 1973. 136p. (Distributed by National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, as PB-253 304).
Effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources and
standards of performance for new sources, National Field
Investigation Center, Environmental Protection Agency.
August 1974 (Distributed by NTIS, Springfield, VA. as
PB-257 300).
Disposal of
Systems, Vol
Springfield,
Disposal of
Systems, Vol
Springfield,
wastewater residuals,
, 1. March 1976, 1031p.
VA. as PB-251 371-01).
wastewater residuals,
, 2. March 1976. 548p.
VA. as PB-251 371-02).
Envi ronmenta1
(Distributed
Envi ronmental
(Di stri bu ted
Qua!ity
by NTIS,
Qual ity
by NTIS,
Resource conservation and recovery act
94-580, 94th Congress 5.2150, Oct. 21
U.S. Government Printing Office, 19/6.
of 1976; Public Law
1976. Washington,
44p.
Office of Solid
Congress; waste
ground water.
Washington, D.C.
as PB-265 081).
Waste Management Programs. The report to
disposal practices and their effects on
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
January 1977. 512p. (Distributed by NTIS
Coe, Jack
q u a 1 i ty.
776-782p.
J. Effect
Journal
Dec. 1970.
of solid waste disposal on ground water
American Water Works Association
Proceedings; Kentucky Coal Refuse Disposal and Utilization
Seminar (1st) Held at Cumberland, Kentucky, May 22, 1975.
47p.
References cited in the text by number correspond to numbered refer-
ences in this list. Appendix IX (Volume II) presents a bibliography
organ ized accord ing to subjectmatter.
V-l
-------
10. Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damaoe: a national
assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. September 1976 (Unpublished Report).
11. Procedures manual for monitoring solid waste disposal sites.
(Office of Solid Waste Management Programs), Wehran
Engineering Corporation and Geraghty & Miller, Inc. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 287p.
12. Garland, George A. & Dale C. Mosher. Leachate effects of
improper land disposal. Waste Age, March 1975, pgs 42,
44-48. "~
13. Feldsman, Jim. Ground water pollution standards chapter.
March 21, 1977. 30p.
14. Geswein, Allen J. Liners for land disposal sites; an
assessment. EPA publication SW-137. U.S. Government
Printing Office 1975. 66p.
15. Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment; Case study
of the Fox Valley solid waste disposal site in Aurora,
Illinois. Environmental Protection Agency publication
SW-514. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 34p.
16. Shuster, Kenneth A. Environmental impact of leachate.
Outline of presentation; gas and leachate generation and
control in landfills. Presented at Madison, Wisconsin,
March 29-31, 1976. 14p.
17. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Decision
Makers guide in solid waste management. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-500. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976. 158p .
18. Proceedings; Conference on Geotechnical Practice for
Disposal of Solid Waste Materials, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, June-13 15, 1977, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1977. 885p.
19. Proceedings; Fourth National Congress on Waste Management
Technology and Resource & Energy Recovery. Atlanta,
Georgia, November 12-14, 1975. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1976. 382p.
20. Soil Conservation Society of America, Land application of
waste materials. Ankeny, Iowa, 1976. 313p.
21. Land Application of Residual Material; Proceedings
Selected Papers; Engineering Foundation Conference, Easton,
Maryland, September 25 - October 1, 1976. American Society
of Civil Engineers. 18 3 p .
V-2
-------
22. Smith, F.A. Quantity and Composition of post-consumer solid
waste: material flow estimate for 1973 and baseline future
projections. Waste Age, 2-10, April 1976.
23. Boyd, G.B. and M.B, Hawkins. Methods of predicting solid
waste characteristics. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-23C Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971,
28p.
24. American Chemical Society. Solid wastes. An Environmental
Science and Technology reprint book. 87p. CA., 1971.
25. National Environmental Research Center. Municipal solid
waste generated gas and leachate. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1974.
119p.
26. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Proorams. National
interim primary drinking water regulations. Federal
Register, Vol. 40, No. 248, December 24, 1975, 2p.
27. Sommers, L.E. Chemical composition of sewage sludges and
analysis of their potential use as fertilizers.
J. Environ. Qua!. 6(2): 225-231. 1977.-
28. Jelinck, C.F. and G.L. Brande. Management of sludge use on
land, F.D.A. Considerations. 35-37.
29. Municipal Sludge: what shall we do with it? Current Focus.
League of Women Voters of the United States. 5p.
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid
Waste. Proposed criteria for classification of solid waste
disposal facilities. (40 CFR Part 257). Docket No. 4004.
43 Fed. Reg. 4942-4955, February 6, 1978.
31. Jones, R.L., T.D. Hinesly, R.J. Johnson. Selenium in
agricultural ecosystems; a bibliography of the literature.
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
August, 1973. 79p.
32. Landspreading of municipal sludges (Draft), USEPA, 1977
(unpublished report).
33. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972: Enforcement
Vol. 1, October, 1975. 479p. (Distributed, by NTIS,
Springfield, Va. as PB-246 321).
34. Chian, E.S.K., 8, F.B. Dewalle. Compilation of methodology
for measuring pollution parameters of landfill leachate.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October, 1975. 164p.
V-3
-------
35. Office of Water Supply. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Draft Environmental Impact Statement; State
underground injection control program. Proposed
regulations. 40 CFR, Part 146. Washington, U.S. Government
Print ing Office, 1976. 2 0 7 p .
36. Brunner, D.R. and D.J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and
operation. Environmental Protection Agency Publication
SW-65ts. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 197?.
59p.
37. Subsurface application solves community sludge disposal
problems. Publi c Work s 67-68. December 1976.
39. Issue Paper: Proposed regulations for classification of
solid waste disposal facilities, 40 CFR, Part 257, July 20,
1977, lip.
40. Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990, May 24, 1977.
41. Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988, Federal
Register, Vol. 42, No. 101. May 25, 1977, 7p.
42. Background document, Land criteria. (Unpublished Draft).
June 24, 1977, 121pp. Docket 4004.
43. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental impacts of
land disposal. (Unpublished Draft). 26pp. Docket 400-1.
1977.
44. Sanitary landfill criteria, Issue No. 3, 15p. EPA, 1977.
45. Gray, Donald H., Environmental concerns related to disposal
fills. Department of Civil Engineering, the University of
Michigan. January 1976. 2 Op.
46. Pohland, F.G. and R.S. Engelbrecht, Impact of Sanitary
Landfills: An Overview of Environmental Factors and Control
Alternatives. Prepared for American paper Institute.
February 1976. 82p.
47. RCRA land disposal criteria: coverage of surface impound-
ments, July 15, 1977, 7p.
48. Personal Communications. Joseph Nile, Acting Associate
Commissioner for Compliance, Food and Drug Administration to
Dr. Andrew W. Breadenbach, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, September 22, 1976.
49. Anderson, R. Kent. Case studies of the cost of landspread-
ing and hauling sludge from municipal wastewater treatment
plants (unpublished document) U.S.E.P.A.
V-4
-------
50. Emcon Associates, Evaluation of clay liner materials
following in-field exposure to landfill leachate. Prepared
for USEPA, July 1977.
51. Shuster, K.A. Leachate damage assessment: Case study of
the Peoples Avenue solid waste disposal site in Rockford,
Illinois, Report EPA/530/SW-517, USEPA, 1976.
52. Stewart, W.S. State-of-the-art study of landfill impound-
ment techniques. Prepared by Exxon Research and Engineering
Co., Linden, N.J., for USEPA, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati. Project R-803585.
53. USEPA, Industrial waste management: seven conference
papers. EPA/530/SW-156, January 1975, lllp.
54. American Society of Civil Engineers, Sanitary landfill
manuals and reports of engineering practice - No. 39.
Revised 1976.
55. World Health Organization. Evaluation of certain food
additives and the contaminants mercury, lead, and cadmium.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives. FAO and WHO, Geneva, 1972. 32p.
56. The City of Scottsdale, Arizona. A handbook for initiatina
or improving commercial refuse collection. Environmental
Protection Agency Publication. SW-85d, Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, August 1975, 68p.
57. Berman, E.B. WRAP. A model for regional solid waste
management planning. User's Guide. Environmental
Protection Agency Publication. SW-574. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1977. 124p.
58. Environmental Protection Agency - Solid waste planning and
disposal advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal
Register, Vol. 42, No. 128. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1977. 124p.
59. Environmental Protection Agency. Materials recovery. Solid
waste management guidelines for source separation. Federal
Register, Vol. 41, No. 80. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, April 23, 1976. 8p.
60. Environmental Protection Agency. Resource recovery
facilities. Guidelines. Federal Register, Vol. 41,
No. 184. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
September 21, 1976. 4p.
61. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyl -
containing wastes. Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 64.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1, 1976.
3p.
V-5
-------
62. Environmental Protection Agency. Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 23.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, February 17,
1977. Ip.
63. Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of regions
and agencies for solid waste management. Interim
Guidelines. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 94. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, May 16, 1977. 5p.
64. Environmental Protection Agency. Vinyl chloride.
Recommended procedure for disposal of aerosol cans. Federal
.Register, Vol. 41, No. 112. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, June 9, 1976. 2p.
65. Terry, Jr. R.C. and J.B. Berkowitz, A.D. Little, Inc. C.H.
Porter. Waste clearing houses and exchanges. Chenn' cal
Engineering Progress, 58-62. December 1976.
66. Ghassemi, M., S.C. Quinlivon and H.R. Day. Landfills for
pesticide waste disposal. Envi ronmental Science and
Techno!ogy, 10. 1209-1214. December 1976.
67. Anderson, K. and M. Cowart. Don't walk away from an open
dump. The Ameri can Ci ty and County. February 1976. 2p.
68. Hatte, S.J. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste and sewage
sludge into methane. Compost Science _^ Journal of Wa s te
Recycli ng, 17(1): January - February 1976. 5p.
69. Environmental Protection Agency. Winter sewage treatment
plant performance study report. 1977.
70. Emcon Associates - City and County of Honolulu. Liners.
July, 1977. 5p.
71. Geswein, Allen J. Liners for disposal sites, an assessment.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-137.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. 66p.
72. Wolcott, R.M. and B.W. Vincent. The relationship of solid
waste storage practices in the inner city to the incidence
of rat infestation and fires. Environmental Protection
Agency Publication SW-150. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, May 1975. 14p.
73. Smith, F.A. Comparative estimates of post-consumer solid
waste. Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-148.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1975. Sp
74. Smith, F.L., Jr. A solid waste estimation procedure:
material flows approach. Environmental Protection Agency
Publication SW-147. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, May 1975. 55p.
V-6
-------
75. Stanton, W.S. and J.G. Langerton. Pesticide container
processing in commercial reconditioning facilities.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-88d.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1976.
20p.
76. Exclusive Waste Age survey of the nation's disposal sites.
Waste Age. 21-28. January 1977.
77. Cost of solid waste management facilities. Board of County
Commissioners. Johnson County, Kansas, March 1975.
78. Inglehart, Cecil. How do you measure the costs of landfill
design and operation? (unpublished report).
79. U.S. House of Representatives. Report of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H.R. 14496, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Report No. 94-1491,
94th Congress, Second Session, September 9, 1976. 136pp.
80. FAA "Bird Hazards to Aircraft" Advisory Circular AC
150/5200-3A, 1972.
81. FAA Advisory Circular. Use of chemical controls to repel
flocks of birds at airports (AC 150/5200-8, May 2, 1968).
82. FAA Advisory Circular, Bird reactions to scarinq devices.
(AC 150/5200-9, June 26,1968).
83. FAA Advisory Circular, Announcing the availability of the
international civil aviation organization airport services
manual, DOC-9137-AN/898, Part 3, Bird control and reduction.
(AC 150/5200-22).
84. FAA Order 5200.5 FAA guidance concerning sanitary landfills.
October 16, 1974.
85. EPA Noise emissions standards for (new) transportation
equipment: medium and heavy trucks. (40 CFR Part 205)
Federal Register. V. 41, N72, April 13, 1976. p.15538-58.
86. EPA Noise regulations for new wheel and crawler tractors and
other heavy equipment.
87. U.S. Water Resources Council. A Unified National Program
for Floodplain Management. Washington, D.C., July 1976.
88. James, Stephen C., Metals in Municipal Landfill Leachate and
Their Health Effects. Am. J. of Public Health 67, 5, May
1977, 429-432.
V-7
-------
89. Environmental Protection Aqency, Bird/airport hazards at
airports near solid waste disposal sites, SW-116, 1974.
90. Environmental Protection Agency Technical Bulletin:
Municipal sludge management technical factors, and Notice of
availability of proposed technical bulletin. 1977.
91. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Development of a data base for
determining the prevalence of migration of hazardous
chemical substances into the ground water at. industrial land
disposal sites. Project Synopsis. EPA Contract No.
68-01-3707. February 1977.
92. Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality
1976, Seventh Annual Report, Washington, D.C., September
1976.
93. Cogswell, Howard L. Proceedings on the Co-nference on the
Biological Aspects of the Bird/Aircraft Collision Program,
Clemson University, South Carolina, February 1974.
94. Hinesly, Thomas D. Agricultural benefits and environmental
changes resulting from the use of digested sludge on field
crops. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 375p.
(Distributed by NTIS, Springfield, VA. as PB-236 402).
95. Recycling sludge and sewage effluent by land disposal;
Environmental Science a^nd Tec hnol ogy 6(10): 871-873,
October 1972."
96. Walker, John, Sewage sludges - management aspects for land
applicat ion, Compos t Sc i ence 12-21, March-April, 1975.
97. Bjornson, B.F., Pratt, H.D. and Littig, K.S. Control of
domestic rats and mice. Public Health Service Publication
No. 563. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
Alp.
98. Ham. Robert K. Vectors. Conference of Engineering
Foundation Research. Deerfield, Massachusetts. 1970 14p.
99. Manson, Robert and Merritt, Clifford. Land application of
liquid municipal wastewater sludges. Journal of t_he Wa_te_^
Pollution Control Federation (Vol. 47, ฅcT IT" J a n u a ry 1 9 7" 5 .
24-24.
100. Singh, R.N., Keefer, R.F., and Hovath, D.J., Can soils be
used for sewage sludge disposal? Compost Science 22-25,
March-April 1975. ~
V-8
-------
101. U.S. Senate Report No. 94-988, 94th Congress, Second
Session, 1976.
102. LA/OMA Project, Sludge management activities for the Los
Angeles/Orange County metropolitan area, Whittier, CA.,
May 1977.
103. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicaqo,
Working Draft proposed regulations for classification of
solid waste disposal facilities. July 12, 1977.
104. SCS Engineers. Municipal sludge agricultural utilization
practices an environmental assessment. Volume I. Prepared
for Office of Solid Waste, USฃPA. 1977. 151p.
105. Impact assessment of annual cadmium limitations on the
agricultural utilization of municipal sludge. (Draft)
106. Municipal sludge management: EPa construction grants
program. An overview of the sludge management situation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations. April 1976. (Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, as
PB-266-695).
107. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Surface impoundments and their
effects on ground-water quality in the United States--A
preliminary survey. Prepared for the Office of Water
Supply, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September,
1977. 267p.
108. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research
and Development. Environmental Protection Technology
Series. Movement of selected metals, asbestos, and cyanide
in soil: applications to waste disposal problems. EPA
600/2-77-020. Cincinnati, Ohio. April 1977. 242p.
109. U.S. Water Resources Council. A Uniform Technioue for
Determining Flood Flow Frequencies, Bulletin No. 15.
Washington, D.C., December, 1976.
110. The carcinogen assessment group's assessment of cadmium.
1977 26p. (unpublished report)
111. Dotson, G. Kenneth, et_._ a 1 . An appraisal of the relative
health risks associated with land application of municipal
sludge. 50th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, Philadelphia, PA, October 2-6, 1977.
22p.
112. Bruade, G.L. and Jelinck, C.F. Management of sludge use on
land, FDA considerations. Food and Drug Administration,
Washington, D.C.
V-9
-------
113. Troast, Richard, et. al . , Cadmium. (Position Document 1).
Office of Special Pesticide Reviews. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
114. Otte, A.D. and K.Z. LaConde, Environmental assessment of
municipal sludge utilization at nine locations in the U.S.,
Ninth Annual Food, Fertilizer and Agricultural Residues
Conference. Syracuse, New York. April 27, 1977.
115. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water
Program Operations. Municipal Construction Division.
Municipal sludge management: environmental factors.
EPA 430/9-77-004". Washington D.C. October 1977. 31p.
116. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Engineer
Corps. Regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers. (42
F_ed^ Reg. 37122-37164, July, 19, 1977).
117. Emcon Associates. Methane gas hazard. In-house report.
1977 6p.
118. Riggs, James L. Economic decision models for engineers and
managers. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. 1968.
119. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. General
Summary, 1972 Census of Manufacturers, Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975.
120. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, RCRA solid waste disposal criteria,
(unpublished memorandum from Thomas C. Jorling to Assistant
Administrators). December 1977.
121. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as
amended. Public Law 94-140.
122. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Environment Reporter:
State Solid Waste - Land Use (Washington: The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc. 1976).
123. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of the Population:
Number of Inhabitants, Vol. I. United States Summary,
Table II, Area, 1970, and population per square mile, 1920
to 1970 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1972).
124. Gordian Associates, Inc. (draft) An economic analysis of
municipal waste water sludge treatment and disposal.
Washington: Gordian Associates, Inc., July 1977.
125. Clean Water Act. Public Law 95-217.
V-10
-------
126. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Public Law 95-217.
127. Anderson, R. Kent. Case studies on the cost of landspreading
and hauling sludge from municipal wastewater treatment
plants (unpublished document) USEPA.
128. Environmental Protection Agency. Working Paper #1.
Approach to guideline development for disposal of municipal
wastewater sludges and related residuals (unpublished report
from Docket No."4004). EPA WA77-B399, October, 1977.
129. Endangered Species Act. Public Law 93-205.
130. Critical habitat. 50 CFR Part 17, Subpart F.
131. Safe Drinking Water Act. Public Law 93-523.
132. Proposed procedures for sole-source aquifer designations.
42 Fed. Reg. 51620.
133. Clean Air Act. Public Law 93-319.
134. Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment: an
approach. (Unpublished Draft). December, 1975.
135. Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment; case study
of the Islip (Long Island) New York solid waste disposal
site. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976,
136. Brunner, D.R., S.J. Hubbard D.J. Keller, and J.L. Newton.
Closing open dumps. Environmental Protection Agency
Publication SW-61ts. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971, 19p.
137. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Second Report to
Congress; resource recovery and source reduction.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-122. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 112p.
138. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Third Report to
Congress; resource recovery and waste reduction.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-161.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
139. Thermal processinq and land disposal of solid waste;
guidelines. 40 CFR Part 241. 39 Federal Regi ster 29327-
29338, August 14, 1974.
SW-692
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
V -11 Rซfton 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jacfcson Poufevard, 12th
ปL 60604-3590
-------