Cosponsored by the National Solid Wastes Management Association
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, November 12-14, 1975
          U, S- fiTvi;..  •;",.
          £D;SON, N. L

An environmental protection publication (SW-8 p) in the solid waste management series.

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
                             Washington, D.C. 20402

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Solid Wastes Management

Association cosponsored the Fourth National Congress on Waste Management Technology

and Resource and Energy Recovery in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 12-14, 1975.  The

Congress gave particular attention to three major areas of solid waste management: hazardous

wastes, land disposal, and resource recovery. A Special Technical Symposium, which focused

on problems of leachate from land disposal sites, was also conducted as part of the Congress.

    The meeting included participants from State and local, as well as Federal, government,

waste management and resource recovery firms, universities, research and development com-

panies, and the financial community. The papers given represent a range of viewpoints and

provide a valuable store of current information and opinion on vital areas of interest in our


                                              — SHELDON MEYERS
                                                  Deputy Assistant Administrator
                                                  for Solid Waste Management

    The National Solid Wastes Management Association is pleased to express its apprecia-

tion to the participants of the Fourth National Congress. The candid and often controver-

sial discussions on the state of technology development and application provided attendees

an opportunity to learn of the important issues being addressed in the fields of hazardous

wastes management, resource recovery, and land disposal.

                                JAMES R. GRECO
                                Technical Director
                                National Solid Wastes Management Association


     Moses N. McCall III	      2
     James R. Greco	      5

                     HAZARDOUS WASTES
     Gay nor W. Dawson and Michael W. Stradley
     John P. Lehman ..........................     22

     William E. Brown, Ph.D ........................     37

     Edward Slover ...........................     46

     Dr. Harvey Collins  .........................     67

     Thomas Tiesler  ..........................     76
                        LAND DISPOSAL

     Michael Pope	      82

     Truett DeGeare, Jr	     113

     R. K. Ham	     128

     Cecil Iglehart, Jr., P.E	     137

     Chris Klinck	     143

     Richard Molenhouse	     154

     David W. Miller	     164

     John Pacey	     168
     Robert H. Collins, III	     191
                     RESOURCE  RECOVERY

      Donald K. Walter.
     Samuel Hale, Jr	    222

     David J. Darniano	     230

     Dorsey H. Lynch	     238

     Bruce Hendrickson	     243

     Irving Handler, P.E	     253
     Ned R. Mann	     267
     James S. Atwell, P.E	     278

     Joseph Bern, P.E	     302

     Daniel J. McCabe	     321

     Dale A. Carlson and Ole Jakob Johansen	     359


Opening General
Session Remarks

                                Moses N.McCall III
         Director, Solid Waste Management Services, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
           President, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials

     The evolution  of State involvement in solid waste management can be

appropriately  summarized by plagarizing a currently popular cigarette commercial--

"You've come a long way baby".  Ten years ago only two States had administrative

programs for solid waste management.  Now, all States have programs,  and many

state programs are  substantial  in size, budget, and technical expertise.

     What then is the proper  role of State government in coping  with  our increasing

solid waste problem?   I submit  that at the State level this is "where its at"

program wise.    State governments have the obligation of assuring that local

governments provide for efficient, environmentally sound solid waste  services

for their inhabitants,  either by  the public or the private sector.  Regulation,

therefore, is  a  prime concern of  the State.  We at the State level cannot be

content with only a regulatory  role however.  We must provide various forms of

aid to assist  and encourage expanded and improved services.  The State role

therefore is threefold:  (1)  Regulation, (2) Assistance, and (3) Leadership.

     Regulation--Each State is  relatively unique in size, physical land

characteristics, geology,  economic development and population distribution.

This individuality  has been recognized in the regulatory practices of the States--

State solid waste laws and administrative procedures have been geared to meet

individual needs.   Federal regulation has been nonexistant; therefore, States

have not been  forced  to all follow the beat of the same drum as  has been the case

in such EPA regulatory programs as air and water pollution.  The regulatory

process has been evolutionary--initially concentrating on elimination of open

burning dumps and installation of sanitary landfills.  Programs have progressed

and now many states are taking on more sophisticated regulatory roles--requiring

groundwater monitoring, leachate collection and treatment, and improved hazardous

waste handling.  This will be the trend for the future — the regulatory role of

the states will continue to become more sophisticated as technology improves.

More states will require monitoring wells and leachate treatment, and more

states will embark on hazardous waste programs.  As proper solutions are derived,

I foresee more uniformity in the regulatory programs of the states.

     Assistance--The hand that regulates must also assist.  State solid waste

agencies must provide aid (administrative, managerial, financial and technical)

to local governments and to private industry.  Many local governments serve small

populations, have part-time administrations and have limited professional assistance

to develop and operate effective solid waste systems.  Further, local governmental

officials are faced with a myriad of regulations from the State and Federal

governments--water supply, water pollution, fair labor standards, ad infinitim.

It is therefore the obligation of the State to assist--to provide training and to

give technical assistance whenever requested.  The same is true regarding the

private sector.  State programs have becone more sophisticated and have technical

staffs which have developed considerable expertise in solid waste management.  A

proper role is for the State to share this expertise in an effort to get a job

done well.

     Leadership--Although not normally involved in the direct provision of

solid waste service, the states have an obligation to assure that adequate solid

waste services are provided for their inhabitants--either through public or

private means.  This then commits the State to a strong leadership role.  We

must remain committed to promoting positive programs through the legislative

process.  We cannot remain static--antiquated laws which impede progress or

hinder effective solid waste management must be changed.  We must take the lead

in promoting resource recovery and proper management of hazardous waste.  And,

the States must maintain an open line of communications--among themselves, with

EPA, and with private industry.  Individually and through the Association of

State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the States will continue

to make known our needs and our viewpoints to EPA and to Congress.

     If this is the role of the state, how then does this mesh with the role of

the Federal agency, specifically EPA.  I contend that the state is the best level

of government to carry out an effective solid waste program of the type I have

described--not EPA.  The Federal solid waste program should concentrate on

resource and energy conservation, research and development, demonstration projects,

establishing markets for recycled materials, and education and training programs.

In addition, the Federal program should provide worthwhile data regarding hazardous

wastes and should encourage  (monetarily and otherwise) implementation of hazardous

waste programs by the States.  Implementation, however, should remain a state

function.  And last, but certainly not least, any planning must be coordinated

through the state solid waste agency.  Utilizing this approach, the States will

continue to further the leadership role we have assumed.

                         STATUS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY
                                 James R.Greco
               Technical Director, National Solid Wastes Management Association

    Resource recovery 	 resource recovery  from wastes  	 resource  recovery from

solid waste — resource  recovery  from municipal solid wastes.   It  is  im-

portant to recognize the distinctions.  Of all the significant  developments  af-

fecting the environmental management of our  nation's discards,  perhaps  the mu-

nicipal solid  waste resource recovery movement is the most promising and surely

provides the most exciting speculations.  For  theoretically,   if  there  were  to

be an ultimate solution  to the problems of managing our  wastes,  would  it not be most

appropriate to recover   the latent resources existent in the waste stream, whether

those resources be in the form of energy or  materials or both!  Lest there be any

confusion through the rest of this Congress, I shall use the term  "resource

recovery" as the general descripter for the  means of recovering either  energy

or materials from municipal solid wastes.

    The past 12 months have brought resource recovery to the forefront  of

waste technology.  The announcements, the plans, the rumors,the realities

have literally exploded  into the mainstream  of solid waste disucssion and press

coverage. A full two-page article entitled  "The Dollars  Mount  Up  For  Resource

Recovery," appeared in the August issue of Business Week.  The  subhead  read, "The

Technology May Be An Answer to Communities Waste Disposal Practices."  Un-

questionably, the general public's fancy is  being captured and  the elected

officials' views are turning in favor of changing this liability  — solid waste —

into an asset.  Whereas  some have been swept away by the movement, others can't

feel it is happening fast enough  or soon enough.  So, we have  the  optimists  and

pessimists, the promoters and the critics, and those largely uncommitted 	

patiently waiting for national policies to be established and  the  telling data

for resource recovery programs going on-the-line 	 the operational  and econom-

ic data.

    Last year at the Third National Congress in San Francisco, we learned that

the decision to undertake the New Orleans prototype materials recovery demonstra-

tion facility had finally been settled 	 construction would commence in early

1975.  Union Electric had recently announced plans to build an 8000 ton per day

Solid Waste Utilization System which would prepare solid waste for use' as a

supplementary fuel for electric power generation.  And Chicago's plans were

described for constructing a similar refuse-derived-fuel program.  As of the fall

of 1974, Milwaukee's supplemental fuel from wastes program was not yet. firm,

Baltimore's pyrolysis plant was yet to commence shakedown operation, Ames and

Saugus were still under construction, and although Bridgeport had selected a con-

tractor, the design, construction, and operating contracts were yet to be finalized

Within a year's time, however, Bridgeport executed its contracts for design,

construction, and operation, ground has been broken in New Orleans, Milwaukee,

and Chicago.  Baltimore, Ames, and Saugus have begun to process wastes, and recover-.

plants are yielding operational data in South Charleston, Nashville, St. Louis,

Houston, East Bridgewater, Franklin, and Ft. Wayne.  As a result, the technology

is being developed.  Nonetheless, municiapl officials may likely be hesitant,

the resource recovery industry waiting, and the public wanting — to accelerate

the movement.  So the question seems to be, "How fast will resource recovery become

a part of the system for managing our waste?"  The answer unfortunately, is yet

ahead of us in the near future when key issues can be  thoroughly and objectively

addressed, such as:

          •  proven technology throughout  the system for every facet of
             waste reception, processing,  and derived end-products,
             be they energy or materials;  and,

          •  economic viability, namely, the tasks of financing  the
             projects and determining  the  bottom-line reality amongst
             a myriad of other considerations.

There is no clear, simple, and curable analysis or evaluation.  Simply

speaking, technology is being developed.  It does seem clear, however, that

the emphasis is on energy recovery where the "return-on-development" may be most

appropriate and realizable.  This should not discount, however, the potential

viability of shred and ferrous recovery operations where ferrous markets and

landfill operating requirements may warrant this technological approach.  Three

sessions on resource recovery will be presented at this Congress:

    (1)  Energy Recovery from Solid Wastes

    (2)  Procurement of a Resource Recovery System

    (3)  Technology Implementation 	 Status Report

    The first will focus on policy issues and strategies for using refuse as an

energy-producer  complemented by a roundtable discussion on the perspectives of

utility companies.  Session II will delve more deeply into the strategies and

implementation approaches whereby the roles of the public and private sectors,

and planning contractual, and financial considerations will be aired.  Session III

will identify the status of development and operating experience of system tech-

nologies and component equipment design.  A notable array of speakers and panelists

have been gathered to directly address these topics.  Finally, we will summarize

our discussions and candidly characterize the resource recovery movement and where

it fits in the environmental management of our wastes.

    There is a dire need for a clear and candid characterization of the role of

resource recovery.  To that end this Congress is directed.


Hazardous Wastes

    Gaynor W. Dawson, Senior Research Engineer, and Michael W. Stradley, Research Engineer
                   Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
The need to address the problem of  Hazardous Waste Management
was recognized in the Resource  Recovery Act of 1970.  Sub-
sequent efforts led to a  series of  research studies1"3 which
attempted to identify and quantify  hazardous wastes within
the United States.  All were  conducted  on a national scale
and have been valuable in providing order of magnitude esti-
mates of the national hazardous wastes  problem and as aids in
formulating national policies on hazardous waste management.
Further studies on specific industry groups are now unde;rway.
Nevertheless, the scale or level of resolution of these
studies is such that their applicability to local, state, and
even regional planning for hazardous waste management IE;
limited.  Detailed information  relating to waste types and
quantities, disposal practices,  and spacial distribution of
sources is not evident in these studies.   The collection and
evaluation of such detailed information is an essential pre-
cursor to meaningful and  effective  action by federal, regional
and state environmental protectiOT  agencies.

The study discussed herein represents an attempt to generate
the type of detailed information described above.   The area
selected for study covered the  States of Oregon, Washington,
Idaho and Alaska.  The specific goals of the study included
the following:

*  Identification and location  of hazardous waste being gen-
   erated in the States of Alaska,  Idaho,  Oregon,  and Washington;

•  Estimation of the types and  quantities of these wastes;

•  Determination of the waste management and disoposal prac-
   tices associated with  these  wastes;

•  Identification of existing and potential hazardous waste
   disposal sites;

*  Projection of future waste generation patterns;
'Battelle Memorial Institute.   "Program  for the Management of
 Hazardous Wastes," Environmental  Protection Aoency,  Contract
 No. 68-01-0762, July 1973.
20ttinger, R. S., at al.   "Recommended Methods of P.eduction
 Neutralization, Recovery, and  Disposal  of Hazardous  Wastes,"
 TRW Systems for Environmental  Protection  Agency, February 1973.
3Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc.   "A Study of Hazardous Waste
 Materials, Hazardous Effects,  and Disposal Methods," Environ-
 mental Protection Agency, June 30,  1972.

•  Evaluation of current hazardous waste management prac-
   tices; and

•  Development of cooperative concepts which could enhance
   hazardous waste management within the region.

The study was carried out by Battelle-Northwest Laboratories
with the assistance of federal, state and municipal pffices
and the cooperation of literally hundreds of industries within
the four state regions.  The study is now complete.  It is,
therefore, appropriate to step back and evaluate the approach
taken, and the desirability of conducting similar efforts in
other regions of the country.  Such an analysis is provided in
the following paper.


Hazardous wastes may be generated in a variety of ways.  The
approach used in the subject study to identify sources of
hazardous waste began with a categorization of the general
types of activities which had the potential to produce hazard-
ous wastes.  These potential sources were initially grouped
under three major headings:

•  Industrial Operations - which produce a hazardous residual
   as part of their process or handle hazardous materials, a
   portion of which is wastes.

•  State and Federal Activities - which handle hazardous
   materials.  Also included under this heading are utilities
   and public utility districts.

*  Agricultural Operations - which handle large quantities of

The hazardous waste management industry formed a fourth group
of potential sources.  At the present time, these are a number
of private companies in the u. S. which dispose of and/or pro-
cess hazardous wastes.  These companies are a potential source
of hazardous wastes which could arise from reprocessing resid-
uals and improper disposal.  The assumption that assignment
of hazardous wastes to these companies constitutes proper
management of the wastes cannot be made automatically.   Hence,
inclusion of these companies as a source is dictated not only
by the need to document their important role in the management
of hfl^ardous wastes, but also to insure that new wastes com-
posited from a variety of primary sources are not being generated.

This breakdown of potential sources not only facilitated the
management and direction of the study, but more importantly,
due to the rather unique characteristics of the wastes  and the
organizations producing the wastes, allowed the use of the most

appropriate techniques of ascertaining waste' quantities and
management practices for each category.  For example, deter-
mination of waste quantities from centralized state and federal
agencies was most easily determined by directly approaching
the agencies, while the disperse nature of the agricultural
pesticide usage required an indirect and less precise approach.

Specific approaches taken to delineate waste quantities and
management practices are discussed below by source category.

Industrial Operations

The survey of industrial sources used a combination of direct
and indirect procedures to ascertain hazardous waste types
and management practices.  The first step in this procedure
was the compilation of a list of industries in the region
with the potential to generate hazardous wastes.   Industries
were selected on the basis of their Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC).1*  A SIC list1 corresponding to industries
which had the potential to generate hazardous wastes was cross
referenced with the Manufacturing Directories5"8  of the States
of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.   This cross refer-
encing resulted in a list of industrial operations within the
four states which were considered to have the potential to
generate hazardous wastes.  For the most part, thislist
proved to be quite comprehensive although some additional
sources (primarily new operations)  were identified during the
course of the study as a result of contacts with  various
federal, state, and local regulatory authorities,  industrial
representatives,  and waste processors.

Given the list of candidate industrial  sources,  the effort
was directed to the identification of hazardous waste quantities
and management practices in the industrial sector.  This con-
stituted the bulk of the study effort.   Each of the industries
identified as a potential generator of  hazardous  wastes was
considered individually,  using inputs from the following data

•  State Manufacturing Directories - aside from identifying
   individual firms in a category,  these directories typically
   give brief descriptions of the size  of the operation, by
   employment level, basic products, and ir. some  instances,
   the type of process.
""0. S. Office of Management and Budget.   "Standard Industrial
 Classification Manual," U. S.  GPA, Washington, D. C., 1972.
5Alaska Department of Economic Development.  "Directory of
 Alaska Commercial Establishments," Juneau, July 1974.
6Idaho Department of Commerce and Development.   "Manufacturing
 Directory of Idaho," Boise, 1973.
'Oregon Department of Economic Development.  "Directory of
 Oregon Manufacturers," Salem,  1974.
Ev;=shington Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
 "Directory of Washington Manufacturers,"  Olympia, 1974.


   State Surveys - the states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
   had previously conducted industrial solid and hazardous waste
   studies9"11 of varying scope and depth in their respective
   states.  The data included hazardous wastes quantities and
   present disposal practices.  The state of Alaska had not
   conducted a survey of industrial hazardous waste generation;
   however, they were able to comment on the list of industries
   provided to them by the study team on the basis of their
   working experience.

   NPDES Permits - the list of potential industrial hazardous
   waste generators was crossed with the NPDES filed maintained
   at the EPA Regional Office in Seattle.   Although the infor-
   mation contained in these files is oriented toward water
   quality and effluent characteristics, these files proved
   quite helpful in identifying specific manufacturing and
   waste treatment procedures used by individual companies.
   Information contained in field "trip reports" often included
   discussions of airborne and solid waste management.   Data
   on plant effluent characteristics was also a useful indicator
   of the existance of a hazardous solid waste as well as the
   potential for increased sludge volumes  with stricter water
   pollution controls in 1977 and 1983.

   National Industrial Surveys - data was  extracted from com-
   pleted and on-going industrial hazardous waste studies
   sponsored by the EPA Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
   grams.   These studies proved helpful  in two ways:   1)  pro-
   viding general background information on hazardous wastes
   produced by selected industries,  and  2)  providing  specific
   information on some of the Pacific Northwest hazardous
   waste generating industries which had been surveyed directly.
   Collection of the latter data required  direct contact with
   the individual contractors who conducted the various
   studies since the final reports submitted to the EPA did
   not characterize hazardous wastes from  individual  industrial

   Municipalities - some of the larger municipalities in the
   Pacific Northwest maintain industrial effluent monitoring
   programs.   Data collected from these  municipalities  proved
   helpful in identifying hazardous  effluent constituents and
   in determining which industrial operations within  the muni-
   cipal jurisdiction were practicing effluent pretreatment.
 'Idaho Department of Environmental  and Community Services.
  "Idaho Solid Waste Management Industrial  Survey Report,"
  Boise, June 1973.
1"Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.   "Hazardous
  Waste Management Planning 1972-73,"  Salem, March 1974.
1'Washington Department of  Ecology.   "A Report  on Industrial
  and Hazardous Wastes," Olympia,  December  1974.

•  Waste Processors - records maintained by some of the waste
   processing companies within the region were used to identify
   and quantify the wastes from a number of industrial sources.

•  The Literature - various reports and publications were
   located and used to provide background material and operating
   characteristics for specific industries.

The data collected from the aforementioned sources allowed the
candidate industries to be divided into four basic groups:

1.  Know Hazard Waste Generators

2.  Suspected Hazardous Waste Generators

3.  Industries for which Little was Known

4.  Industries Known not to Generate Hazardous Wastes

At this point it was necessary to shift from an indirect to a
direct survey mode in order to realize the level of resolution
desired.  This was accomplished through direct contact with
the industries in order to fill in gaps in the data collected
from other sources, verify waste quantities and disposal prac-
tices, and survey industries for which no information (other
than SIC and products)  was available.   All firms in Group 1
were contacted   No firms in Group 4 were contacted.  Spot
contacts with individual firms in Groups 2 and 3 were made.
If these indicated hazardous waste generation potential for
a SIC Category, all firms in that industrial category were
contacted.  Industries to be contacted were approached by phone
or letter and asked to provide information relating to:

•  Type of Operation

•  Number of Employees

•  Products and Production Capacity

•  Hazardous Wastes Generated

•  Hazardous Waste Disposal Practices

•  Effluent Characteristics Including Treatment Practices

After the initial telephone or letter  contact, a "profile" on
the company was prepared.   This profile contained a summar/ of
pertinent information derived from the aforementioned sources
and the telephone survey.   Copies of these profiles were sent
to each industry for inspection and comment as to accuracy and
completeness.  Cooperation by the industries contacted during
the initial contact period was excellent.   The most common down-
fall was a failure to respond to the profile.   A very few firms
refused to answer the initial inquiry.

Agricultural Operations

Virtually all  Agricultural  Operations  utilize pesticides  for
vegetation and insect  control.   These  pesticides  are  handled
not only by licensed applicators,  but  also by individual
farmers.  A direct  survey of  individual pesticide disposal
practices was  beyond the initial scope of the study;  however,
during the early  stages of  the  program, meetings  with state
Solid Waste Management representatives from  Idaho,  Oregon and
Washington revealed an unanimous consensus that spent pesticide
containers represented a significant question mark in the area
of hazardous waste management and  that some  quantification of
the magnitude  of  this  problem was  needed.  Therefore,  an
approach was derived to make maximum utilization  of existing

The procedure  used to  estimate  regional agricultural  pesticide
usage and the  number of containers resulting from this usage
was a statistical one  based on  data generated during  the  1969
Census of Agriculture12 and the  1971 Farm Production  Expenditure
Survey13 conducted by  the U. S.  Department of Agriculture.

The Expenditure Survey was based on personal interviews with
8,600 farmers  in  394 counties throughout the contiguous states
and Hawaii.   The  region was r3presented by 28 counties.  These
are illustrated in Figure 1.

The numbers in the shaded areas  correspond to the  identification
numbers of the Primary Sampling  Unit (PSU).  The  numbers in  the
non-shaded areas  indicate which  PSU or PSU's were  used to
estimate pesticide use densities in non-surveyed  counties.   The
PSU usually consists of one county, but in areas  containing
few farms, two or more counties  are grouped into  one  PSU.
Selections of  farmers  for interview was based on  a  two-stage
multiple frame sample  designed  to  represent all United States
farms.  The first stage of sampling consisted of  selecting
counties or groups of  counties  to  form the PSU's.   The second
stage of sampling was  selecting  farms  within each  PSU  for
interview.  The interview provided detailed information on
costs of certain groups of pesticides  and quantities of
specific pesticide materials used  to treat growing  crops,
stored crops,   seeds, livestock,  and storage or livestock

For purposes of this study,  the  data for the Pacific Northwest
were printed out, "clean up," and interpreted manually.  They
consisted of 1798 observations.  In order to disaggregate these
data to the county unit,  it was necessary to define the per  acre
12Bureau of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce.  "1969 Census
  of Agriculture," Washington, Part 46, Oregon, Part 47, and
  Idaho, Part 39, Vol. I, Area Reports, Washington, D. C., 1972.
1 3S .atist:cal Reporting Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
  " -971 Farm Prociaction Expenditure Survey," Interviewers Manual,
  Washington, D. C., 1971.







 application  for major  crop  categories.  This was  done  in  terms
 of ounces of active  ingredient by  reported units.  The reported
 units consist of ounce, pound, pint, quart, or gallon.  The
 total quantity of pesticide used in each crop category, by
 specific reported unit, was divided by the total  number of
 reported acreas in each crop category.  The value of each of
 the unit quantities  sums to the average per acre  value.

 When the application of pesticides was reported for specific
 crops in the Farm Production Expenditure Survey, but no acreage
 was reported for these crops in the Census of Agriculture, they
 were collected together in a category defined as  "Other Crops."

 Pesticides were found to be reported on land which was not
 being farmed.  These uses included roadsides, fence rows, and
 around buildings.  It also included streams, ponds, lakes, and
 irrigation and drainage ditches.  Quantities of pesticides
 used for these purposes, as well as on pastures and summer-
 fallow, were aggregated with quantities used on crops  and
 presented in a "County Average" category.

 Total pesticide usage was computed by multiplying the  appli-
 cation rates by the most recently reported crop acreage allot-
 ments by county.  Estimates of the number of spent containers
 generated in each county were made from these tonnage  figures.
 The reported units (e.g., pounds, ounces, gallons, etc.)  for
 each crop' in each county were extended to determine what
 percent of total tonnage was reported in each unit for a  given
 county.  These data were then categorized.  Pesticides reported
 in ounce and pound units were assumed to have been shipped in
 50 pound bags.  Hence, bag quantity estimates were derived by
 multiplying  county tonnage data by 40.  Pesticides reported in
 pint and quart units were assumed to have been delivered  in
 quart bottles.  Hence, bottle estimates were derived by
multiplying county tonnage data by 1000 (the latter is based
 on an average density of 8 pounds per gallon).  Pesticides
 reported in  gallons were assumed to have been delivered in
 5 gallon pails.  (This results in an over estimation because
 of the use of 30 gallon drums and 55 gallon drums by some
 large users and applicators.)   Hence, drum estimates were
derived by multiplying county data by 49.8.  (The latter
 also assumes an average density of 8 pounds per gallon.)

 State and Federal Agencies

Hazardous wastes resulting from the activities of various
 state and federal agencies were identified through direct
contact wit-h the individual agencies.  The list of state
agencies was compiled from previous state solid and hazardous
waste surveys9~   and individual communications from the
Oregon Departm nt of Environmental Quality, Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology,  Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.   Federal
agencies were identified through the Federal Regional Task
Force on Hazard Wastes.  Also included under this heading was


a direct survey of 157 utilities and public utility districts
for the specific purpose of ascertaining waste management
practices for polychlorinated biphenyl's  (PCB's) found in
transformer and capacitor oils.

Waste Processing and Disposal Companies

Commercial waste processing and disposal companies were identi-
fied through state and federal regulatory agencies.  Other
firms such as tank cleaning and spetic tank companies which
may pick up wastes, but do not process them or operate dis-
posal sites, were not identified systematically.  Rather, the
main source of identification for these types of operation
were the industries who were using or had used their services.
Because no systematic approach was used to identify these
operations and because the industries contacted were not
always able to identify these companies by name, coverage of
these operators was not complete.


The program approach described here was the first survey of
its kind and as such should be viewed as a pilot program.
Therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate the desirability of
such a program and the effectiveness of the approaches taken.

A regional study of this nature is valuable only if it can be
taken to a fine level of resolution.  Broader, more general
data are already available from previous studies conducted on
a national level.   When high resolution is achieved, the final
product can be expected to give a clear picture of the total
hazardous waste management cycle both technically and spatially.
In the final analysis, the degree of resolution desired for this
type of study necessitates the use of direct contact with waste
generators, transporters, and processors.  The latter cannot
be accomplished effectively with form letters, but requires
personal interaction with allowance for active feedback.  There-
fore, in planning such a. study, strong consideration must be
given to logistical aspect.  There is no quick and dirty way
to achieve the requisite high level of resolution and detail.
Rather such detail is achieved through the methodical evalu-
ation of each potential source which will ultimately dictate
personal contact with known or highly suspect hazardous waste
generators.  The cost of such an effort is directly and for
the most part linearly proportional to the number of such
sources.  This implies major costs for highly industrialized
areas and suggests that an objective evaluation be made prior
to initiating any work to determine if the additional benefits
to be gained from high resolution justify the costs.

It was originally thought that indirect estimates using waste
generation factors (e.g., units of hazardous waste/unit of
production) would provide an adequate method for determining
hazardous waste.  Sach an approach is obviously less expensive

than direct contact and does not rely directly on industry as
a data source.  Indeed, for some industries in which the process
or processes are stoichometrically governed, a good estimate
of "first generation" wastes can be made.  However, this pro-
cedure does not allow individual consideration of inplant modi-
fications, recycling procedures, and housekeeping practices,
nor does it enable the user to predict which disposal options
are being practiced by any given company.

The excellent response by industry to the survey is felt to be
partially attributable to the fact that in almost all contacts
some information on the hazardous wastes  (either potential or
actual) for each facility was already in the hands of the
survey team as a result of the data collection effort which
preceeded the direct contacts.  Fewer than one percent of the
industries contacted flately refused to discuss their hazard-
ous wastes.  This phenomenon could also be a local one attri-
butable to the relative high visibility of industry in the
Pacific Northwest and the fact that public opinion, especially
in Oregon and Washington, is strongly in favor or environmental
protection.  It may be that industries in the region, especially
the larger ones, are highly cognizant of this concern and
having acknowledged their responsibilities toward environmental
protection are more willing to discuss these matters.  This
open atmosphere may not prevail in other areas of the country.

A comment regarding SIC codes is also in order.  The use of
SIC codes to identify potential sources can be very misleading
and must be handled with discretion.  Initial identification
using this approach will typically generate many candidates
that do not actually produce hazardous wastes.  In this regard,
estimates will be conservative.   If individual firms are
identified through cross reference with state directories,
outside input will be required since directories are not com-
plete.   State agencies and municipalities can be of assistance
here.  The latter source is particularly good for effluent data.

The approach described here for quantification of agricultural
sector wastes is considered a very cost-effective methodology.
The results appear to be very reasonable for individual
counties and should be valuable for future planning.  Since
the existing data base covers all of the continental U. S.,
there is no reason to believe that the same level of resolution
cannot be obtained in an effort covering all the counties in
the nation.   Since much of the data is computerized, a
national scale study would most likely be airenable to data
processing techniques.   A study in the State of California
recently generated data on the distribution of container
sizes employed by agricultural interests.   Use of this dis-
tribution is probably more desirable than the blanket
assumption of 50 pound bags and 5 gallon pails employed here.

If the latter is undertaken, it would be possible to include
a sub-routine to identify chemical families and pesticide
groups from the Frear Codes included in the present data
base.  This would give an even better picture of the manage-
ment needs for pesticide residues and containers from the
agricultural sector.  This refinement is hard to justify cost-
wise on an individual regional study.

While the agricultural survey approach produced estimates of
pesticide usage, it provided no data on waste management
practices.  There is a real need to supplement it with a survey
of farmers and applicators to generate a better picture of
what is presently being done with the literally millions of
spent pesticide containers generated annually.

The diverse nature of activities conducted by state and
federal agencies dictates the use of direct contacts to assay
this source of hazardous wastes.  This is not as complicated
for agencies as it is for private industry since potential
sources are more easily identified, and official lines of
communication are already in place.  The existence of regional
task forces and state hazardous waste offices further simpli-
fies data collection.

Considering the approach outlined here, and the potential
difficulties noted,  the decision to pursue similar efforts
in other regions can be made in an objective manner.  The
most important points to be taken into account are:

1.  What are the expected benefits of detailed information?
    Potential benefits can consist of a large body of data
    from which to design an optimal management system which
    will eliminate environmental insult, or the recognition
    that the present problem does not warrant large scale

2.  Do these benefits exceed the cost of direct contact
    with all potential sources?  It is estimated that 1 - J.. 5
    man months are required to survey each 100 potential
    sources.  This requirement can be reduced if staff
    have experience  from previous studies in this area.

The first question can be answered only if some very definite
plans exist for future management of hazardous wastes in the

Surveys of this nature can be conducted on either a state or
regional level.   Studies conducted on a state level (especially
in the industrial sector) are probably best accomplished by
state agencies who are more familiar with local problem areas.*
*Cooperation from state agencies involved in hazardous waste
 management played an important part in the reported study.

In this case, consullation either with federal agencies or
independent consultants in the evaluation of waste management
practices may be required if such expertise does not exist
at the state level.  The exploration of cooperative concepts
for hazardous waste management on a regional level may well
require federal coordination.

In all cases, the conduct of an agricultural sector survey
for pesticide containers appears both feasible and warranted.
Great economies are available if this is done on a national
scale rather than by individual regions.

                       AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
                           John P. Lehman
    Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

     At the  outset,  let me state that a meaningful

discussion of  the regulatory aspects of  siting a hazard-

ous waste treatment  and disposal facility presupposes

that such facility siting is, in fact, regulated by some

governmental entity  under authority of hazardous waste

management legislation.  Although some States  do have such

legislation  and authority, the majority  do  not.   And

although comprehensive Federal hazardous waste management

legislation  has been proposed, at present there is no

Federal requirement for facility siting, with  the exception

of radioactive waste.  Consequently, the following dis-

cussion is based primarily on premise, not  fact.

     Another aspect to bear in mind  is that all waste

treatment and  disposal facilities should be regulated —

not just those dedicated to hazardous waste.   Otherwise,

there  can be no assurance that hazardous waste will reach

appropriate  treatment and disposal  facilities.  If open

dumping  and  environmentally unacceptable treatment facili-

ties are allowed, hazardous waste will go to  these dumps

for simple economic reasons.

     In other words, regulation of hazardous waste
facility siting must be viewed in the context of an

overall waste management program, with the necessary

legislative authority in place.

     Many people assume that a regulatory agency should

concern itself only with the technical aspects of hazard-

ous waste facility siting, such as whether or not the site

is environmentally suitable for hazardous waste disposal.

Based on our experience with some of the State programs

to date, and projecting our thoughts to the time when there

are stronger mandates to manage hazardous waste properly,

I can assure you it's not that simple.  Socio-political,

economic and jurisdictional issues also are part of the

regulatory process.

Socio-Political Aspects

     When it comes to solid waste management facilities

siting, the almost universal public reaction is, "Don't

put that dump near my property!"  Regardless of the technical

merits of each case, landfill siting decisions are among

the most sensitive decisions a politician must face.

     When the additional dimension of "hazardous" wastp is

added to the equation, the public reaction to facility

siting proposals is usually even more strident and negative.

For example, one firm I know of has tried 26 times to get

local government approval for a new, apparently well-designed


hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility i

States and was turned down cold 26 times in a row.

     Clearly, adverse citizen reaction to hazardous waste

treatment and disposal facilities is a very serious

problem whicji will become more prevalent as more States

adopt new hazardous waste management legislation and regu-

lations.  The laws cannot be implemented if there are

insufficient facilities to handle the waste load.

    Balanced  against this pressure for new facilities is

the public's right to participate in regulatory decisions.

Clearly, there must be open hearings concerning hazardous

waste facility siting decisions.  Citizens have a right

to know what's going on and to comment on the proposals.

     Government officials sometimes make unpopular

affirmative decisions which they believe are for the public

good in the long run.  More often, officials bow to local

reaction and make negative decisions, which again can be

interpreted as being for the public good.  The merits; of

each case must be known before we pass judgment.  It is

clear, however, that a negative decision is the easiest


     We have given a great deal of thought to the citizen

acceptance issue, since it is a prerequisite to a viable

hazardous waste management program.  Some principles have


emerged.  First, it is obvious that the public needs to

know the facts, rather than heresay.  It should know the

dimensions of the problem and how the particular hazard-

ous waste facility proposal fits into the solution.  The

public needs to be assured that safety precautions will

be taken.  It needs to know what the alternatives are and

the economic and environmental costs vs. benefit tradeoffs

of each.  In short, a public education program is a

necessity.  If the public knows the facts, and considers

them objectively, hopefully a wise decision will evolve.

It is when emotions get the upper hand, or when data

biased one way or the other is the only basis, that poor

decisions are made and citizen reaction intensifies.

     Another way to alleviate public concerns about

hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities is to

locate them on Government-owned land.  This has been the

approach used at a number of locations with nuclear and

other hazardous wastes  (i.e., Los Angeles County, San Diego

County, Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, and several

nuclear sites).  This approach will also be taken at the

Minnesota demonstration which is being partially sponsored

by EPA.  Somehow the  fact that a Government entity is

actively involved in  the proposed facility, and presumably

would have long-term  control over the site, goes far in

gaining public approval.  I do not want to imply that a

Government entity should also own and operate the facilities

on the land made available.  Although this is one option,

I believe the private sector would be amenable to building

and operating hazardous waste facilities on Government-

leased land, particularly if there were no other land

parcels available.

     In addition, although we are not aware of specific

instances regarding hazardous waste sites, State governments

can obtain land by eminent domain proceedings if suitable

land is not otherwise available.  Use of the eminent domain

process can, on the other hand, stir up much local opposi-

tion, and, therefore, should be used as a last resort.

     Another socio-political aspect associated with

hazardous waste facility siting is the waste non-importa-

tion controversy.  Many industrial concentrations are

located in metropolitan areas which overlap State boundaries.

New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Chicago are examples.

Also, many existing hazardous waste facilities have customers

located in several States.  If such facilities are to be

financially self-sustaining, they must be able to draw

waste from as many waste generators as possible in a logical

geographical area.  While it is understandable that local

citizens would prefer to restrict access to facilities to

local industry, hazardous waste facility siting decisions

should be based on economic and technical factors

irrespective of political boundaries.


Economic Aspects

     Obviously, there is interplay between some economic

and socio-political aspects of facility siting, as we just

mentioned.  From a regulatory perspective, there are other

economic issues to be resolved.  These issues arise as a

result of the "start-up" problem of regulatory controls

vis-a-vis disposal facility availability.  If a Governmental

agency has regulatory powers, but no facilities exist with-

in its jurisdiction, it is very difficult to actively

enforce the regulations.  This leads to the decision

whether to provide some fiscal incentives to industry to

build and operate such facilities in order to provide

acceptable "pathways" for the wastes.  Such incentives

include grants, loans, loan guarantees and preferential

taxation.  Another alternative is to set up a quasi-

governmental financing authority.- supported by public

bonding, to provide the funds for facilities.

     An important economic aspect of regulating private

hazardous waste facilities is the fiscal responsibility

of the owner.  There have been several cases in vrhich a

private entrepreneur has opened a hazardous waste treatment

and disposal facility, accepted  (and collected fees for) a

large quantity of waste, and then abandoned the facility,

usually leaving a mess for Government authorities to clean

up at public expense.  Some safeguards against this slip-

shod practice should be built into the facility permitting


process.  Examples include requirements for a complete
financial statement and posting of a performance bond by

the permit applicant.

Institutional and Jurisdictional Aspects

     As before, there are linkages between institutional

and Jurisdictional aspects, and economic and socio-

political aspects of hazardous waste facility siting.

     The basic institutional and Jurisdictional question

is whether or not hazardous waste facilities should be

provided by the public sector or by the private sector,

or by a mix of both.

     It is certainly within the power of State, regional

or local governments to set up a public authority to pro-

vide the necessary facilities.  The Gulf Coast Waste Dis-

posal Authority serving the Houston area is an example of

this concept.  A variant could be a public utility

corporation with a franchise or monoply in a given area,

and with rate structures regulated by an oversight


     One advantage of the public authority or utility

concepts is that public facilities could be required to

accept  all types and quantities of hazardous waste.  By

contrast, a private  facility may elect to accept only

high volume, concentrated wastes to maximize profitability,

and to  reject  low volume wastes which may be the most

difficult to process.  In opposition/ one can argue that

open competition among private operators will result in a

lower cost, more efficient service than a public facility

can provide.  But, if private facilities are not available,

some form of public service facility may be the solution.-

The same regulatory criteria must apply to any facility,

public or private, however.

     Another jurisdictional aspect is the issue of whether

Federal, State, regional or local government should have

regulatory authority over hazardous waste facilities.

This is a different issue than which level of government

should implement construction and operation of such

facilities, if a public facility option is chosen.  The

distinction is important, since, in our view, regulatory

and implementation authorities should be separated whenever

possible.  AT. analogy at the Federal level is the recent

reorganization of the atomic energy program to provide a

regulatory body (the Nuclear Regulatory CoiPitission)

separate and distinct from an implementation body  (ERDA).

     While there are pro and con arguments for each

governmental level to have facility regulatory authority,

our view is that State government should exercise this

authority.  This conclusion derives from the unique

potential of hazardous wastes to cause public health and

environmental damages, the fact most haza.rd.ous wastes

originate from private industry, and the potential need
for inter-State compacts regarding facility access, as

discussed previously.  We feel that State governments can

judge hazardous waste facility siting decisions better

than the Federal Government cam due to a better under-

standing of unique conditions within the State.  Also, as

mentioned before, States can exercise eminent domain

powers if necessary.  Most States which are currently

operating hazardous waste regulatory programs have retained

hazardous x-raste facility siting authority at the State

government level.

Technical Aspects

     Assuming all the socio-political, economic and

jurisdictional aspects are resolved satisfactorily, the

crux of regulatory facility siting decisions comes down

to a thorough and objective evaluation of numerous technical

criteria.  Is a proposed site technically adequate for

treatment and disposal of hazardous waste?  Should a permit

be issued or withheld?  These are the hard questions.

Future protection of public health and the environment rides

or. the answers,

     We have studied over a dozen different schemes con-

cerning facility site selection criteria from both the U.S.

and Europe.  Several guiding principles emerge  from such

analyses, as well as an understanding of pitfalls  to be

avoided.  It is my intention here to discuss the general

principles of technical criteria selection, rather than

details of the criteria themselves, thus avoiding one of

the major pitfalls we discovered, namely that many criteria

are valid only for a very limited geographical area, and

are better left to State-level decision makers.

     In a 1972 article in the Journal of the American

Water Works Association*, Stokinger discussed "seven

commandments" for setting environmental policy.  Four of

these are germane to the exercise of developing site

selection guidelines.  Briefly, proposed guidelines should


     0   based on scientific fact, not politics

     0   well documented and defensible

     0   realistic and not unnecessarily severe

     0   based on an accurate interpretation of trends

     Based on our recent studies, we would suggest

additional principles.  Wherever possible, site selection

procedures should endeavor to:

     0   Treat each site parameter independently in order

         to fully consider the impact it may have on the

         site's suitability for hazardous waste disposal.

         This avoids one pitfall of a weighted-average
     *Stokinger, H.E.  How to achieve a realistic evaluation
 (in seven commandments).  Journal of the American Water Works
Association, 64(4): 262-265  (April 1972).


         approach,  namely that additive totals will mask

         a basic defect of a proposed site.

     0   Minimize the amount of judgment or arbitrary

         decision used.  Decisions should be based on the

         best technological data available.

     0   Evaluate site parameters that are measurable and

         definable by known test procedures.

     0   Provide variance procedures or options to eilleviate

         or modify unacceptable site parameters.

     0   Make use of existing sources of environmental data.

     0   Be applicable to a broad range of environmental


     0   Be flexible to change with a minimum of retooling.

     With these general principles in mind, the next step

is to design a decision procedure which addresses the key

parameters in the selection process.  The most significant

parameters are those which determine  (1) the behavior and

movement of soil moisture, and  (2) the social and political

acceptance of the facility.  Examples of such site

parameters are:

     "   Ilydrogeology, including seismic activity

     0   Topography,  including  slope  and floodplain aspects

     0   Climatic factors, such as rainfall, winds,

         prevalence of tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

      0   Ecological factors, such as  presence of endangered


        species and migratory wildlife

     0  Cultural factors, such as

           land use and zoning

           transportation access

        -  historical significance, and

           aesthetics, including visual and noise level


One promising decision making format is the decision

tree, that is, a flow chart of yes-no decision points.

The decision tree contains a. complete set of decision

parameters arranged in a logical sequence,  A well designed

decision tree would provide a means of modifying an

unsatisfactory site parameter to meet a given criterion,

and also provide variance and appeal procedures.  One

virtue of the decision tree system is that each parameter

is decided upon independently.

     Before leaving the technical aspects, I would like to

mention two very important technical parameters which

should be part of a hazardous waste facility operating

permit decision, even though they are not necessarily

part of the facility siting decision.

     First, there should be some criteria for the technical

adequacy of the facility staff at both the management and

operating levels.  The people who operate hazardous waste

facilities have got to know what they are doing.  Secondly,
we feel it is very important to require a routine monitoring

and surveillance program for hazardous waste facilities.

The degree and frequency of monitoring will vary with

individual circumstances, but it is imperative in our view

to have a baseline survey before facility operations

commence, and regular monitoring surveys thereafter to

detect trouble before it becomes serious.


     In summary, the regulation of hazardous waste

facility siting encompasses social, political and economic

aspects as well as technical aspects.  Each aspect is

linked to all the others, often in complex ways.  Further-

more, regulation of hazardous waste facility siting must

be viewed in the context of an overall waste management


     Citizen acceptance of hazardous waste facilities is

the most significant socio-political aspect.  We believe

an active, factual, unbiased public education program is

the key to success in this area.  Locating hazardous waste

facilities on Government-owned land is another way to

alleviate public concerns.  This should be done only as

the last resort, however.

     If hazardous waste facilities are to be financially

self-sustaining, they must be able to draw waste from

all waste generators in a logical geographical area,

irrespective of political boundaries.  Consequently, we

feel that waste importation bans are counter-productive.

     Some safeguards against abandonment of hazardous waste

facilities should be built into the facility permit process.

For example, fiscal responsibility of owners should be

firmly established, and posting of a performance bond by

the permit, applicant could be required.

     If private facilities are not available, providing

some type of fiscal incentive or setting up some form of

public service facility may be the solution.  Regulatory

criteria must apply equally to any facility, whether

public or private.  Our view is that State governments

should exercise such regulatory authority.

     Technical site selection criteria should be addressed

independently, rather than with some weighted-average

scheme, since additive totals may mask a basic defect of

a proposed site.  Facility evaluations should be based or.

site parameters that are measurable by standard test

procedures, wherever possible, to minimize the amount of

arbitrary decision used.  A decision tree with a logical

sequence of yes-no decision points is one promising

decision making format.

     Lastly, we believe minimum training requirements for

facility operators, and a routine monitoring and surveil-

lance program, are essential parts of the regulatory

criteria for hazardous waste treatment and disposal


     Clearly, a lot of meat must be added to the bones of

the site regulatory criteria approach I have outlined.

Detailed numbers and amounts must be specified for each

criterion, and these quantities will likely vary in

different parts of the Nation.  However, once these values

are set, they should remain constant until substantial new

evidence dictates a change.  Industry'cannot cope with

moving targets by regulatory agencies.

     I hope this discussion has provided some food for

thought to you all and will stimulate a dialogue.  The

regulation of hazardous waste facility siting is a

relatively new area of concern, and the basic concepts

and criteria are still evolving.  I am sure State regula-

tory agencies, and the EPA, are open to new ideas.  Now

is the time to discuss these criteria; please share your

thoughts with us.

     Thank you very much.

                         William E. Brown, Ph D.
             President, Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc., Grand Prairie, Texas

          To successfully manage any business,  it  is  a  primary requirement
to know enough about it to not only handle  the  routine  matters and  be
prepared for emergencies, but to also avoid creating  major  additional
difficulties through decisions based on insufficient  or misleading  infor-
mation.  We have all heard the story about  the  group  of blind  men describing
an elephant variously as like a tree, a wall, a brush and a snake,  etc.
How many decisions have we made based on a  one-sided  view of the  problem?

          Today I will discuss some of my ideas regarding the  chemical
viewpoint of hazardous wastes management.   The  chemical viewpoint is dif-
ferent from other viewpoints.  Each viewpoint has  substance.   If  we put
these all together we can more intelligently handle the problems  at hand  -
be they elephants or hazardous wastes.

          A review of the papers presented  at the  Third National  Congress  -
Waste Management Technology and Resource Recovery  in  November,  1974,
indicates that operational technology and basic treatment techniques have
been very adequately described in Dr. Eugene Nesselson's paper "Treatment
Techniques for Chemical and Hazardous Wastes"1  and specific problem areas
and opportunities by Mr. Louis E. Wagner's  paper,  "Application of Chemical
and Hazardous Wastes Management Technology".2   The purpose  of  this  paper
is threefold:

             to present to you the viewpoint of the chemist
             regarding hazardous wastes management

             to compare it to the Sanitary  and  Civil  Engineering
             viewpoints of the same problems

             to develop a unified aspect of  hazardous wastes
             management in which the different  viewpoints can
             be synthesized into a basis for better management
             of hazardous waste problems.


          A.  Terminology

              I will discuss language and communication first.  All
substances are chemicals,  most substances are combinations  of  many


chemicals.  Water, salt and sugar are relatively simple pure chemicals.
Wood, wool, bread and hamburger more complex chemicals.  We often think
of chemicals as things that emit green fumes and will "eat your arm off!"
That is correct for a few hazardous substances, but totally untrue for most.

              About 90% of industrial wastes can be handled in an
environmentally acceptable manner by good waste management practices.
The other 10$ may require special handling.  These are the hazardous wastes,
those which "pose a substantial danger, immediately or over time, to humans,
plant or animal life and which, therefore, must oe handled or disposed of
with special precautions."3

          B.  Reversibility

              All hazardous wastes have been created by man from natural
materials.  Life evolved and has prospered in equilibrium with all of the
natural materials.  We have heard the alarm that life will perish because
of our accumulated hazardous wastes.  Net so,  man can return all of these
to their natural non-hazardous state or its equivalent.  It is not necessarily
difficult or excessively costly to convert hazardous wastes to a non-hazardous
form (with the exception cf radio-active wastes).

              In many cases the hazardous portion of a waste can be separated
and/or concentrated with recovery or normal disposal procedures applied to
the non-hazardous portion.   The hazardous end  product must then be processed
to render it acceptable to the environment.

          C.  Individuality of Characteristics

              Referring back to the introduction of this paper. I said that
it is necessary to have adequate information to do an effective job.   This
is especially true of hazardous waste management;  it is essential to know
or find out what is in the waste before any attempt is made to process it.
From the chemical viewpoint, it is infinitely simpler and less costly to
have the originator provide details on the composition cf the waste than
to attempt to analyze it.

              Each hazardous waste material has individual chemical char-
acteristics and it usually can be handled by standard chemical processes
without complications.  In contrast, if wastes are blindly mixed together,
the complexity of the resultant mess can require extremes in treatment and
astronomical costs.  The potential cost is not of the order of twenty-five
percent but more likely two times to five times and even as high as ten
times or a hundred times the cost of treating the unmixed wastes.  Thus,
it is essential to segregate waste streams and T.o maintain separation until
processing has been completed.

              Dilution is not the solution to pollution, although it has
long been a favorite method for reducing the concentration of hazardous
wastes.  It is almost always more costly to process large volumes of dilute


-------OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000B3A\tiff\2000YBIV.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000B3A\tiff\2000YBIV.T$F.T$F" failed.

-------OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000B3A\tiff\2000YBIW.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000B3A\tiff\2000YBIW.T$F.T$F" failed.

hazardous wastes.  Dr. Nesselson^ listed four basic groups of treatment
operations with more than fifteen individual processes for hazardous wastes.
Mr. Wagner2 documented the operational necessity for multiple path processing
and the cost impact of it.  It is unlikely that a single process could be
developed that would be capable of economical treatment of a broad range of
hazardous wastes.  From the chemical viewpoint, it will be necessary to
process hazardous wastes according to their individual characteristics to
assure completely detoxified residual products that can be returned to the
environment safely.

          Certainly as progress is made in processing technology for
hazardous wastes, there will be lower cost and improved methods for hazardous
wastes management.

          G.   Summary

              The chemical viewpoint of hazardous wastes management can be
summarized as follows:

              1.  Segregate the hazardous wastes from all other wastes.

              2.  Keep the various kinds of hazardous wastes separated from
                  each other.

              3.  Process these hazardous materials to produce environmentally
                  acceptable end products when there is no opportunity for

              In short, BENEFICIAL CHANGE by processing can convert hazardous
wastes to environmentally acdeptable materials.  The near term cost is higher,
but the long term cost is much lower in dollars and environmental damage
than the alternates.


          Substantial advances in waste management technology have been
developed and are being employed in some of the more recently established
solid waste disposal operations.  Research in advanced wastewater treatment
has made similar studies toward improved technology.  The basic engineering
principles employed in waste management operations have been established
for many years and when properly applied have met environmental requirements.
There is a difference between these engineering viewpoints and the chemical   (

          A.   Singularity of Method

              The technology which has been developed for waste handling
has as a common characteristic the combination of wastes into one stream
which is then processed in a large capacity facility.  Solid wastes are
gathered from all sources and transferred to a landfill where efficiencies
of scale provide economically attractive disposal operations.  Similarly,


liquid wastes are gathered and conducted to a central wastewater treat-
ment facility which handles the combined wastes of the entire community or
even an entire region.  Inherent in the central processing concept are
efficiency of large scale operation, lower cost and high volume capability.
On the other side there cannot be flexibility of operations to suit
individual waste characteristics.  All wastes must proceed through the
established process.

          B.  Technology Status

              The operational and the design principles employed in waste
management have been developed and refined over many years to the point
that additional improvements are mainly in the areas of increased cost
effectiveness through better machinery and equipment, modern management
techniques, long term planning, optimum site locations and the like.
This is in strong contrast to the hazardous waste management area which
is in its infancy and is still struggling to carve out its niche as a
service industry.

          C.  Methodology

              Conventional concepts in solid waste management have included
the following:

              1.  A large, relatively constant volume of wastes

              2.  A constant composition of waste

              3.  Containment of the waste in a specific location

              4.  Control of waste to prevent adverse environmental effects

              The waste management methods which have been developed to
meet the requirements of these concepts are, in general, environmentally
adequate for non-hazardous wastes when well engineered and implemented.
These methods were not intended to handle hazardous wastes and indeed
they will not do so.


          From the foregoing it should be evident that while we may view
the "elephant" differently, both the chemical and engineering disciplines
recognize it as a formidable entity "jhat must be handled with the best
means at our disposal.

          A.  Capabilities Required

              There can be no question that the capabilities of the
sanitary, civil and possibly other engineering professions as well as
those of the chemical biological and other sciences are needed for the

development of effective, economical methods for managing hazaardous

          B.  Apparent Standoff in Viewpoints

              Despite the differences that are apparent in the methodology
now employed in waste management and that which is needed for adequate
management of hazardous wastes, the problem can be resolved by joint action
to separate the hazardous materials at the source with consequent benefits
for the environment and the segments of the waste management industry

          C.  Communication - Vocabulary

              Effective coordination of the efforts of all disciplines
applied to waste management will necessitate definition and standardization
of terminology.  The technical vocabulary of one group can easily be mis-
understood by the other.  Progress in this area is becoming evident in the
definitions which have been appearing in industry publications, technical
journals and government agency publications.  It should not be an insur-
mountable task to unify the various vocabularies into a series of working
definitions.  This can be illustrated by the following examples of potential
differences in the meaning of terminology:

              1.  "Waste processing", does it mean producing a chemical
                  change in the waste material, or does it imply trans-
                  portation or compaction or a physical change, or all
                  of these?

              2.  "Waste treatment", is the meaning of this term the same
                  as "processing", is it limited to wastewater, to fluids,
                  or does it imply the application of a chemical or physical
                  process to the waste?

              3.  "Waste disposal", does this term simply mean to discard,
                  does it mean storage, is there any implication of causing
                  a beneficial change in the waste?

              4.  "Containment", does this mean that the wastes have been
                  placed in one location,  or that they cannot migrate from
                  the location, that they are confined in some sort of

          D.  Overlap in Waste Management Areas

              A realistic view of the management of both non-hazardous and
hazardous wastes shows that while there may appear to be overlapping of
operations,  it is not necessarily a conflict situation.  Once it is recognized
that there are two paths to be followed in managing the two classes of wastes,
the operational aspects are clarified.  Both disciplines involved in the


management of wastes have the same objective of establishing and promoting
the growth of a viable and effective waste management industry.   Here again,
terminology differences may be at the root of the problem.   The  apparent
conflicts are likely to be resolved by generation of clear, unequivocal
definitions of the terminology employed in the waste management  areas.
It is important to note that in the proper management of hazardous wastes
many of the best practices currently in use in the waste management
industry are required.  Land disposal of the detoxified residues of some
hazardous waste treatment processes is one example of this.

          E.  The Prospects and Necessity for Synthesis

              It is still astounding to me to realize that  I watched men
walking on the moon, in full color, from the comfort of my  home.  The
combined efforts of every variety of discipline in engineering,  science,
management and even politics, to attain a common goal that  seemed
impossible just a few years ago demonstrates that the synthesis  of
disciplines in the waste management area is entirely possible.

              In the waste management area the diversity between the
requirements for environmentally acceptable processing of hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes make a common effort essential. While  parallel
and independent work by both segments of the industry could produce some
beneficial results, the greatly multiplied power of a combined industry
striving for a single goal offers overwhelming advantages to all concerned,
the industry,  the public and the environmentalists.


          The purpose of this paper is to present several aspects of the
different viewpoints regarding hazardous waste management and to elaborate
on their impact on the methods employed to process and dispose of wastes.
The chemical viewpoint is that the relatively small volume  cf hazardous
wastes must be kept segregated from the bulk of non-hazardous wastes.
Further, the hazardous wastes must be subjected to processing appropriate
for their chemical composition to render them acceptable to the  environment.
The residues from processed hazardous wastes may require special handling
to prevent regeneration of toxic characteristics.  The cost of proper
management of hazardous wastes will be higher than that of  non-hazardous
wastes, but the potential cost of inadequate disposal of these wastes is
infinitely higher, not only in dollars but in environmental damage.

          I do not view the differences in waste management viewpoints
as a barrier to effective coordination within the waste managemeit industry
in developing environmentally sound and economically viable means for
handling hazardous wastes.  I hope that the viewpoints presented will
increase the understanding of the hazardous wastes problem  and help to
generate productive interactions with and between the many  professional
individuals and organizations who are coming together to create  the new
hazardous wastes management industry.

1.  Nesselson, E., "Treatment Techniques For Chemical and Hazardous
         Wastes",  Third National Congress,  Waste Management Technology
         and Resource Recovery,  National Solid Waste Management
         Association, p. 23, Nov. 1974.

2.  Wagner, L. E., "Application of Chemical and Hazardous Wastes
         Management Technology", ibid., P.  137.

3.  "Hazardous Wastes and Their Management", Office of Public Affairs
         (A-107),  U. S. Environmental Protective Agency,  Washington,  D.  C.
         20460, May 1975.

4.  Steward, F. A., "EPA Discharge Regulations, Explanatory Remarks and
         Comments", Metal Finishing,  p. 47, Sept. 1974.

                             Edward Slover
            Senior Process Engineer, Environmental Systems, Union Carbide Company
     Union Carbide's Institute, West Virginia,  plant employs about
2000 people in the manufacture of some  300 chemicals.  Wastes from
these operations vary from waste  paper  to  chemical sludges, and the
problems connected with their disposal  represent a real challenge.
     Chemical landfill has been on the  list of  disposal alternatives
at Institute since 1965 when the  Plant  received the first chemical
landfill permit  issued in the State of  West Virginia.  Because of
water pollution  control considerations  in  the construction and oper-
ation of a chemical landfill, West Virginia elected to issue its
first permit of  this kind through the Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources with  consultation from the State Health
Department and the State Air Pollution  Control  Commission (1).
     Institute's chemical landfill  passed  through two design and oper-
ation periods before being finalized in 1969  into the phased-construc-
tion, dynamic, "wet-process" system that it is  today.
     The following discussion is  a brief summary of the development
of the present chemical landfill  at the Institute Plant with emphasis
on historical influences, waste classification  and control, regula-
ting agency relationships, and the  evolution of current design and
operating practices.  Adequate references  to other books and mono-
graphs covering  this installation are provided  for those who desire
detail beyond the scope of this general overview.


Decisions Leading to Chemical Landfill Project
     Prom the beginning of the Institute Plant during World War II,
miscellaneous wastes that could not be used as fuel for the Plant
steam boilers were handled in a variety of ways that included open-
pit burning, crude landfill, ponding, and occasional sales where
valuable constituents could be recovered by interested buyers.
     Open burning was recognized as both a public nuisance and a
personnel hazard.  Black clouds of smoke over the burning Pits
drew unfavorable attention, and unexpected reactions between wastes
destroyed this way created an ever-present risk to employees invol-
ved in disposal work.
     As the Plant added more chemical processes and expanded exist-
ing facilities more wastes were generated that could not be used as
boiler fuel or fed to the biological wastewater treatment •unit.  A
few examples of this are: partially polymerized plastic monomers,
spent filter media, chemically-contaminated ground cover (slag, lime-
stone), viscous materials, and solids generally.
     General practices during the early disposal history of the
Institute Plant tended to involve large tracts of prime land that
were lost to more profitable enterprise because of adjacent dispo-
sal activities or because of permanent alteration of the land itself.
     Hewer production processes brought with them more complicated
wastes that required more care in the final handling and destruction
steps.  Reactivity with water, autolgnition on extended contact with air,
the production of undesirable leachates, odor emission, and reaction
with other wastes were a few of the problems.

Decisions Leading to Chemical Landfill Project - Continued
     By 1962 the search for alternatives was well underway, but
progress was severely limited by the lack of available disposal
technology.  Existing municipal incinerators were considered at
the time, but the systems in the surrounding communities lacked
adequate water and air pollution control equipment and their oper-
ating temperatures varied widely,  A uniform temperature of some
1800°F. was considered necessary to completely oxidize the organics
in these wastes.  Waste feed was another area of concern because
municipal units were designed to receive fuels with uniform physical
characteristics.  They were hardly able to accommodate mixtures with
glue-like and/or rock like consistency in the same batch, and many
wastes had these properties.
     Often the drum, pan or fiber pak used to transport the waste
had to be destroyed because the contents could not be removed.  Some
industries                     tried to overcome this problem by dumping
the containers into sanitary landfills.  Institute found this to be
unsatisfactory because of fire and leachate discharge problems.  San-
itary fills using the "pit-and-cover" approach were particularly fire-
prone.  Each "cell" became a sealed concentrator with a rich organic
core that heated rapidly as anaerobic oxidation progressed.  The re-
quired earth seal on the top kept the generated gases in place so
that all the essentials for underground fires were assembled in a
single, tight package with spontaneous combustion as the end result.
     During the Plant's search for a disposal technique likely to
conquer  many of the problems listed here, several companies announced


Decisions Leading to Chemical Landfill Project - Continued
success in the miscellaneous disposal field with, rotary kilns rigged
to take whole containers of waste materials and completely oxidize
the contents leaving only the compacted metal remnant from the con-
tainer.  Air pollution was controlled through a system of scrubbers
whose liquors were given biological treatment.  Overall the kiln appeared
to offer a good solution.
     Land disposal where close attention was paid to waste segregation,
leachate control, and proper drainage continued to offer attractive
possibilities, so a study was made covering kiln disposal and Im-
poundment landfill.
     Impoundment landfill was selected for two reasons: superior
ability to receive wastes in a variety of physical states, and lower
capital cost (a third advantage - energy conservation - in the form
of lower fuel consumption has become apparent as the current energy
crisis mounts).
Evolution of Design and Operating Practices
     Experience with crude landfills and ponds that were used prior to
decision to construct a chemical landfill pointed out some essential
requirements that would have to be met by a disposal facility designed
to handle miscellaneous wastes in a safe and environmentally acceptable
manner.  These needs were:
        (1) Large Available Volume - Any landfill used for chemical
            waste from the Institute Plant should justify the initial
            investment in land and special facilities through a long
            operating life;

Evolution of Design and Operating Practices - Continued
        (2) Proximity to Plant - Manning, transportation,  supervision,
            security, and operation can all be done more safely and
            efficiently if the landfill is located close to the par-
            ent plant (as it turned out later, this was the valuable
            feature that permitted a direct tie-in to the  Plant's
            wastewater treatment unit and gave  fun   control over
            all drainage (2), (3));
        (3) Protection Against Uncontrolled Leaching and Excessive Rain
            Contamination of surface and subsurface waters was a major
            concern of the Institute Plant because of its  pioneer posi-
            tion in the field of wastewater treatment.  A  particular
            problem in West Virginia is the heavy annual rainfall that
            can easily saturate and flood landfill installations;
        (4) Protection of Personnel - Protection of disposal workmen
            against hazards to health, exposure to flammable chemicals,
            and involvement in reactive incident was a primary reason
            for seeking alternate disposal methods to the  crude fills
            and ponds used earlier;
        (5) Avoidance of Fires and Odors - Personnel safety and pro-
            tection against property loss through fire damage had been
            major problems in the early days of miscellaneous waste
            diaposal and the need to protect against atmospheric pol-
            lution was being recognized as this chemical landfill con-
            cept was being developed.

Evolution of Design and Operating Practices - Continued
     At the outset of chemical landfill design there was little
data available in the literature.  Most information was concerned
with sanitary landfills designed to accommodate municipal solid
     Early design, then, had to rely largely on previous experience
with these miscellaneous wastes and take what it could from principles
of sanitary landfill practice that seemed to apply.
     Site location on Plant property just across a perimeter highway
was based on the observations of a disposal foreman who noticed that
non-volatile chemicals ponded there had not penetrated the clay floor
of the deep "hollow" making up most ••• ? this land parcel.  Test cuts
with a bulldozer confirmed the presence of a thick clay layer at all
points where landfill might be carried out, so a seal against leachate
penetration of groundwater under the site could be constructed by com-
pacting material already in place.
     Figure 1 shows the plan view and Figure 2 the elevation of the
"impoundment" concept that evolved in this first stage of chemical
landfill development.  Imported, loamy earth was to be placed between dikes
674, 673-A, and 675-B after the original "hollow" floor and the dikes
had been compacted as much as possible with sheep*s-foot rollers and
bulldozer treads.  Beginning at dike 674 waste was to be placed in a
trench parallel to this dike, blended with loam and loosely covered.
The process was to be repeated in successive trenches, each north of
the one preceding. Effort was to be made to keep each class of waste
in a. single row lying along a north-south axis.



'JECT.U.CC_Go_ff__Hgngw.Land_fin	   SHEET HQ....&?.. OF.

Basic  "CELL" Design  -  Elevation View JOB NO



Evolution of Design and Operating Practices - Continued
     Sanitary landfill literature studied during this early design
phase had warned of gas generation problems from biological oxida-
tion so a technique of blending the waste intimately with earth using
a clam-shell crane was employed.  Heavy compacting of the final earth
cover would be avoided to allow the gas to escape uniformly over the
entire working face of the fill.
     Normal drain water flow down the "hollow" was carried through
the waste impoundment by a 28" and a 36" reinforced concrete pipe
sealed with concrete at the joints and resting on the clay floor.
Rain and water delivered to the impoundment basin in wastes remained
there until evaporation removed it.  A program of grassing and sloping
was to be followed to minimize penetration of the impoundment surface.
Surface water drains were provided to carry off peripheral and impound-
ment surface waters.
     Water pollution was deemed the greatest control problem in this
design.  Therefore, application was made to the West Virginia Depart-
ment of Natural Resources - Division of Water Resources for a license
to operate the chemical landfill.  This was the first time a request
to license such a landfill had been received by the State so a stan-
dard wastewater treatment permit form was modified to fit the situation.
The new permit was further cricumscribed by an agency statement of pol-
icy covering drainage ownership by the applicant.  Agreements were
reached between the Division of Water Resources, the State Health
Department, and the State Air Pollution Control Commission that Water
Resources would be the prime licensing agency for industrial waste
fills while sanitary landfills would remain the province of the Health
Department.  Information on chemical landfill progress and difficulties


 Evolution of Design and Operating Practices - Continued
 was  to  be shared  among all  three  agencies.  This agreement has con-
 tinued  in its original form aince the license was issued in 1965.
      Shortly after test operation began in early 1965, Institute
 found that the impoundment  approach was seriously hampered by water
 accumulation in the blended fill.   Efforts to replace the crane with
 bulldozer to speed earth/waste mixing resulted in the latter's being
 swamped in a "mud lake", making it difficult to keep up with the
 daily work load.
      Some sort of relief was necessary so the Plant turned to a soil
 consulting firm for guidance.  Continued problems with impounded
 water coupled with leakage  in the  28-inch and 36-inch pipes carry-
 ing  drainage through the fill prompted Carbide and the soil consul-
 tant  to shift their basic plan for this type operation from impound-
 ment  to a "wet" system that allowed water entering the earth/waste
 blending area to  pass  out through "leaky" retainer dikes into a leach-
 ate  collector pond bounded  by an  impervious dike.  Collected leachate
 was to  be trucked to the Plant's wastewater treatment unit for stabil-
 ization.   Figure  3 shows a  schematic elevation diagram of this process
     The  "wet" system in its first phase (one leaky dike)  was com-
pleted in 1969 and placed in operation.   It has  been successful in
providing a dry work face that permits the use of end loaders and
bulldozers to replace the original crane,  and the "dynamic"  water
removal system prevents the formation of "mud lakes"  that  were en-
countered in the "static" water-holding system of the impoundment
fill used in the beginning.

i HL
0 . 	 ^^ il
    1-1   H
    H   <£

    t   i



Evolution of Design and Operating Practices - Continued
     Earth blending with the waste has continued with an average
of one  volume of earth being added to each volume  of waste.  While
the blending machinery has been changed to a faster and more flexible
end-loader based system, Carbide  has found it desirable to fabricate
a special drum crusher to open and reduce those drums that must be
worked  into the fill.   Performance of the crusher  is still not cer-
tain because construction of the  machine has not been completed.
     A  second leaky dike was scheduled for completion in 1972, but
the project was changed to a series of fill lifts  to reduce capital
expenditures at a  low  in the Company's business cycle.
     A  thorough study  of the underlying geology in the fill area
was made by the soil consultant befor the first leaky dike was con-
structed.   A second study is now  underway by a second firm as the
engineering for the third (and largest) dike gets  underway.  This
is expected to be  the  last of these dikes to be built during the
life of the fill (estimated at 20-years from 1969).
      Gas production, a problem in many sanitary landfills, has not been a
 concern at this chemical  landfill.  There is  no doubt that  gas  is present
 because bore holes drilled 30-feet into the work face have  tapped gas pockets
 that explode during test  ignition.  The gas does not migrate  laterally through
 the bottom and side seal because it is released evenly to the  atmosphere through
 the loose, uncompacted cover earth on the work face.  Much  like the spongy soil
 on the  top of certain marshes, the loose earth cover serves to  aerobically de-
 odorize the gaseous products of anaerobic decomposition deep in the fill.
      Odor has been a problem, however, with  the oil layer  that emerges on the
 leachate collection basin.  It is necessary to skim the layer  regularly and burn
 it in the steam generating boilers within the Plant.  When  this is not done, a


Evolution of Design and Operating Piactices - Continued

strong odor reminiscent of oil well casinghead gas rises from the leachate basin

and permeates the fill area. Rough analysis of this oil layer shows that it con-

tains linear paraffins known to enter the fill with one of the process wastes.

      Many of the wastes handled in this landfill are of a "hazardous" nature

because of their health hazard, flammability potential, chemical reactivity,

or environmental impact.  Special procedures are written when a disposal order

for one of these materials is received by the landfill supervisor.  No work on

the order is done until approval of the procedures has been obtained from the

Plant Safety/Hygiene Department, the Maintenance Department which will do the

work, the Waste Generating Unit, and the Plant Environmental Protection Depart-

(which operates the landfill).  Work may involve processing at the waste source,

sale of the waste to an outside buyer, incineration of the waste at the steam plant,

bio-oxidation of the waste in the wastewater treatment unit,  anaerobic decompositior

of the waste in the chemical landfill, or some combination of these and other chem-

ical methods.  A more complete discussion of the Order for Waste Removal that in-

itiates action on a particular waste is given in the next section of this paper.

      Costs for the operation were based initially on an annual waste load of

12,000 cubic yards per year.  Capital and comparative costs for other disposal

methods are shown in the tables given in Figure k.  Current aerial surveys and

volume determinations indicate that the real annual load is 6,000 cubic yards,

making costs shown somewhat higher (costs do not double because the charges are

for loads taken from Orders for Waste Removal that specify the containers and

sizes that must be handled - the cost for a partially full drum is essentially

that for a full, one as far as most handling is concerned.).


                        Total Estimated 20-Year Cost *
      Study and Design                                 $     77,^97

      Capital Costs Through Phase I                         198,000

      Land Cost                                             100,000

      Estimated Phase II and Phase III Costs                 52,000

      Operating Costs for 20-Years                        3,300,000
      Total cost for stabilizing 2^0,000 cubic yards   $  3,727,^95
             of refractory chemical wastes
      * = 1971 Estimate
      Note: An incinerator system to take a comparable
            waste load showed a capital cost of ...    $ 3,000,000
                         COMPARATIVE DISPOSAL COSTS **

                                1971 Dollars

Disposal Method             Cost/Cubic Yard (a)

Chemical Landfill                $ 9.27

Incineration (Municipal)           1.64

Sanitary Landfill  (Municipal)
** = Assumes hazardous wastes could be placed in municipal incinerators and
     municipal sanitary landfills - a condition contrary to fact!

(a) = Based on p density of 501* pounds per cubic yard.
                                   Figure 4.                             11-1-75


 Waste Classification and Control
       Waste control at the source is the key to chemical landfill operating suc-
 cess.  Institute's facility bases its entire chemical landfill control on a special-
 ly-designed Chder for Waste Removal.
       This instrument was used by miscellaneous disposal personnel several years
 before the landfill was conceived, so it was ready to serve the new facility the
 day it went into service.  The form had undergone considerable change before the
 fill became operable, and as experience was gained changes were made to reflect
 landfill needs.
       The form shown in Figure 5 is requirec from every miscellaneous v.aste
 generator before his waste will be considered for disposal.  The generator
 fills out the document to the best of his ability and sends it to the miscel-
 laneous disposal supervisor who reviews it, requests procedures - if necessary -
 requests pre-processing and advises the generator on the steps he must take.
 Once agreement is reached, the supervisor stamps the portion of the form that is
 to travel with the waste (as its identification to all who come in contact) with
 a special stamp and returns it to the generator who may now a*^ for transportation.
 The form travels with the waste to the disposal point where it serves as a pass to
 enter the landfill.  Disposal is performed £,s directed by the order and the order
 is entered in the disposal supervisor's file where it serves as a record for fill
 loed estimation, monthly billing of waste generators (volume basis), a disposal
 procedure record, and a hazard warning when that waste is encountered again.
       A special hazard rating system must be entered on the form for eech known
 chemical component in the areas of Health (H), Flammability (F), and Stability or
 Reactivity (S).  A number from one to four is entered under each heading to indicate
 the relative hazard.  Generally, a four is naximum hazard and a one is minimum.
( Reference (5) provides more detail on this system.)  Handlers of the waste are,
 then, required to protect themselves according to the indicated hazard code.

                                          OBDER FOB WASTE REMOVAL

     USE  BALL  POINT  PEN.  Read  all instructions before completing  form  Each  container  must  ha\e  contents
     identified,  with  paint  stick,  on  side  of container  along with  -hazard  rating   Containers  must  be  placed  near
     roadway loi truck pickup  This is a 3 part form. Remove 3  sheets or put  in  backing  board   This  form  is  to  be
     filled  out in its  entirety by person  requesting  disposal, and  returned to Waste Disposal  Co-ordmator  for  approval,
     Sheet No  1 &  3  It  is the responsibility of  the  person  filling out this  order,  to list  all personal precautions for
     handling this material required to be taken  by any personnel  working in the unit.  Failure  to  insert  this  informa-
     tion, resulting  in injury or illness to  personnel handling this  material,  will compel  an investigation  by  the  Industrial
     Hygiene  Department.  Fill  in   all components contained in  mixtures. Mail completed  form  to  Waste   Disposal
     MATERIAL — Fill  i« name  of material completely  Do  not write chemical  terms  The men  «ho  handle this
     matenal are not chemicaHy orientated  If you have  a mixture or compound,  write in all  components that make
     this mixture, unless it is aXrade named item
     ORDERED BY — Name of  person filling  out form and who is requesting  the removal  This, should be one and
     the same person. No filling out forms for someone else
     LOCATION — Where material is to be picked up
     DATE — Date form is filled out

Shop Ordftr No
I ) Store to crush
{ ) Loose fill
I ) Leachale Pond
I ) Clean for scrap

I ncfff*^ f»' Ova"t'ty
' ) Sump
I I Sludge Pond
( > Dowlherm Tank
1 1OM Stg Tank
( I STEAM PLANT Power House
Dump Tank No - 	
Tank Trailer No
ARF AS ecu i nws

1 iLiq Thin
I )Liq Thick
1 I Solid
1 ) Polymer Present

. ». Gal
I Drum 55 Gal
I Drum 30 Gal
I Can 5 Gal
1 Fiber Pak 60
1 Fiber Pak 30
J Dump Pan


Disposal No
Total Yds Ch
jrged _

( ) Dump Hopper
1 ) Dump Truck
No __ nf



PRECAUTIONS  Chemical gloves-coverall goggles-coveralls  required  Do not allow skin Disposal Crew  By	
contdct with material—Do not breach in any vapors  Follow unit hazard  instructions  listed must sign      DdH*	
                                                                                           FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
drciftrtxi By

Shnpr,rrt.,Mn ,~.=,-.,, n,,,n,,,y v.,.
' t Store to crush
I > Loose fill
1 1 Leachale Pond
I ) Clean for scrap
Dump Tank No -
Tank Trailer N"
( ? Sump
1 1 Sludge Pond
( ) Dowtherm Tank
1 1 Oil Stg Tank
Power House
ARE AS F01 1 nWS

contact with mater-dl— Do
1 ) tiq Thin
( t Liq Thick
[ I Solid
1 ) Polymer Present
. *. Gal
) Drum 55 Gal
1 Drum 30 Gal
1 Can 5 Gal
) Fiber Pak 50
1 Fiber Pak 30
) Dump Pan

gloves-coverall goggles-coveralls required Do not allow skin
not breath in any vapors Follow unit hazard instructions listed

Total Yds Charged 	
( ) Dump Hopper
t ) Dump Truck
No _. .of -


S 1

Disposal Crew By - 	 	
must sign Dale 	 - 	 - —
                                                                                                        10-j -.-7-


Waste Classification and Control - Continued

      A special point here should be made of the review procedure used by the

miscellaneous disposal supervisor to select the final disposal process that will

be used.  Disposal techniques at the Institute Plant are given a rating according

to desirability from an economic and environmental standpoint.  Each Order for

Waste Removal is checked against this list and the highest priority method

selected and assigned.  Figure 6 shows this list.

Future Goals and Objectives

      Leachates and gases from sanitary landfills in several parts of the U. S.

are being used commercially.  While the Institute Chemical Landfill has beam

going through a three-stage construction program there has been little oppor-

tunity to tap these same resources./rs the final construction phase is completed,

however, attention will be turned to evaluating chemical fill production potential.

Facultative bacteria are currently under stbdy as leachate treatment agents for

the fill.  As this work progresses, commerical opportunities will be searched cu;-.

Conclusions From Experience

      Chemical landfill is a viable method for handling hazardous and refractory

chemical wastes at the Institute Plant.  Underdesign of the leachate collection

system has been a problem d'*±t^ extremely wet years, and this will be corrected

during the third phase      .1-   -:•< ior.  : • h a larger collection system.

      Odor has been anothe. tc' -ous problem that will be dealt with during the

final construction.  A ski' .   will be installed and recycle of the leachate

back over facultative-bacteria charged portions of the fill work face will be

used to remove odorous components.

      A high quality landfill operator familiar with chemicals and chemical process

operations is essential to the successful control of the facility.  This man has  bee

hard to obtain in  the past, so several new approaches to manning are under  consider-



                   (Listed In Descending Order of Preference)

                   Institute Plant - Union Carbide Corporation

1.  Reprocess the Haste

2.  Sell the Waste-

3.  Burn the Wast*

4.  Bio-oxidation
S.  Chemical Landfill

Best financial return
No environmental impact

Sane as Ite» 1 above
Heat recovered as
                              Protects the river
                              Lou environmental
                              impact; Handles con-
                              centrated, bulky

Investment cost;
Technical difficulty

SaM as Item 1 above;
Toxicity, chipping t
market problems

Air, water, * land
pollution) transport-
                         Cost i
                         tained organic chem.
                         Investment: $45 ,/lb.
                         contained, continuously-
                         fed organic chemical.
                         Strict Control to avoid
                         environ, pollut i on &

                         Cost: 6. It «/lb.
                         Strict Control to avoid
                         environ! pollutions
                         Requires land
a - UCC eqpt. often too large

b - Requires tanks, trucks, 6 miles of pipelines

c - Air, water,  land

 Note:   Costs  shown on l&fk ba»is.


Conclusions From Experience - Continued

      When the license for the landfill was issued in 19^5> Carbide agreed to

follow the guidelines shown in Figure 7.  Looking back on these checlcpoints

from 10 years of operation, Carbide finds them to be just as applicable today

as they were then.
                                    - End -


                        GOFF MOUNTAIN LANDFILL CONTROL

     To maintain our License No.  3141 with the West Virginia State Department
of Natural Resources. Water Resources Division we have agreed to the following:

     1.  NO BURIAL OF "SANITARY" WASTE - Garbage from food and direct human
         activity must be handled in special landfills licensed by the State
         Health Department.  Ordinary "garbage" attracts rats and flies.   We
         have agreed that there will be none of these vectors at Goff Chemical

     2.  NO POLLUTION OF SURFACE OR UNDERGROUND WATER - Special drains, collec-
         tion basins, clay seals, and chemical inerting procedures are followed.
         to guarantee that no chemical leaches into any water supply.

     3.  NO POLLUTION OF THE ATMOSPHERE OVER THE FILL  - Fire control and odor
         elimination are required by the State Air Pollution Control Commission.
         No breathing hazards or attraction of pests is permitted.

     U.  NO WASTE OF THE LAND - A definite development program for the landfill
         is being followed to guarantee that the filled area will be usable
         when project life is complete in 20 years.

     5.  NO EMISSION OF TOXIC MATERIALS - No toxic substances may escape from
         the fill area by any route.  Chemical reaction and encapsulation
         are used to guarantee that this does not happen.

     6.  MULTIPLE LAND REUSE IS REQUIRED - Every effort is made to degrade the
         chemical waste scientifically so that its volume is reduced.  Chemical
         and biological techniques are used.  This enables burial of more than
         one waste in the same place.

                                 Figure 7.
                                                                 NSWMA  10-13-75

1. "Water Pollution Control Permit Ho.  3l')l";  State  of West Virginia - Department
    of Water Resources, July 26, 1965.

S. ibid. Policy Statement

3. C. L. Mantell, et al, "Solid Wastes:  Origin, Collection, Processing, and Dispos
   Wiley Interscience Publication, John Wiley and Sons, New York,  p-999-

h. ibid.

5. J. J. Duggan, "See Hazards at a Glance", Chemical Engineering,  pp.  162-166,
   February 23, 1959.

                         Dr Harvey Collins
    Supervising Engineer, Vector Control Section, California Department of Health
                          I.  BACKGROUND
     California's hazardous waste management program  has  nearly
completed its developmental phase and recently entered  its  opera-
tional phase.  Evidence indicates the operational  phase will  not
be premature.

     Last spring 31 people were hospitalized for treatment  of
poisoning after a truck carrying 24,000 pounds of  a carbamate
insecticide in methanol overturned and caught fire at a southern
California freeway interchange.  Police and firemen at  the  scene
did not discover the nature of the truck's cargo until  after  many
of them had inhaled toxic fumes or had accidently  been  sprayed with
water directed onto the pesticide.

     Recently the driver of a 30-barrel tank truck accidentally
sprayed a private residence in the San Francisco Bay  area with a
mixture of acids, heavy-metal salts and organic solvents  while
enroute to a disposal site.  The incompatible wastes  had  been
combined in the tank truck at a transfer station-,  and on-the  way
to the disposal site pressure in the tank began to increase.  When
the driver discovered that the pressure had risen  dangerously high,
he decided to make a run for the disposal site.  As he  drove  through
a residential area near the disposal site, the truck's  pressure valve

     In September 1975, at a small, private hazardous waste disposal
site in southern California, the driver of a tank  truck was emptying
a 4000-gallon load of hydrochloric acid into an open  disposal well.
As the acid entered the well, dense brown fumes of toxic  nitrogen
dioxide began emanating from the well opening.  Reportedly, nitric
acid had been placed in the well previously, and the  two  acids were
reacting to produce-the toxic gas.  When the driver finished  un-
loading, emission of gas decreased, but several hours later nitrogen
dioxide began billowing from the well, and a brown cloud  of the gas
spread into manufacturing plants across the street from the site.
An inspector from the local air pollution control district  was
called to the scene.  Because the disposal site is unsupervised, the
site operator had to be telephoned.  He responded  by  sending  a laborer,
who could not speak English, to shovel dirt over the  well opening.  The
person, who was not equipped with safety gear, worked directly in the
path of the toxic gas.

     Without a vigorous statewide program of hazardous waste man-
agement, incidents like these could become increasingly common.
The California Legislature concluded in 1972 that the mismanagement
of hazardous wastes could result in a serious threat to public
health and the environment.   Consequently, the Hazardous Waste
Management Act was passed by the Legislature during  the 1972
Legislative Session and was  signed into law in December 1972.
That Act, which became effective July 1, 1973, now Section 25100
et seq., Health and Safety Code, required the State  Department  of
Health to adopt and enforce  minimum standards for managing said
wastes to protect against hazards to the public health, domestic
livestock and wildlife.

     In accordance with the Hazardous Waste Act,  the Department-has
developed and adopted regulations governing hazardous wastes.  '
Emphasis is now being placed on the operational  phase of the program,
five aspects of which will  be discussed below:

          1.  policy regarding land disposal;

          2.  monitoring hazardous waste producers,  haulers,
              processors, and disposal  site operators;

          3.  enforcing the minimum standards  for the collection,
              processing, and disposal  of hazardous  wastes;

          4.  surveying production of hazardous  wastes statewide;

          5.  participating in the state's plan  for  managing
              spills of hazardous materials.

     1.  Department Policy Regarding Land Disposal

     Several disposal techniques are used to handle  hazardous  wastes
at approved facilities (Class I or Class II-l  Disposal Sites)  in
California.  Such wastes are: (1) ponded to utilize  solar evaporation
for concentrating the wastes; (2) mixed with soil;  (3) mixed with
refuse on the open face of a landfill or injected through shallow
wells into buried refuse; (4) buried in soil;'or (5) injected  into
deep wells.

     No doubt, the need to continue to use these land, disposal  tech-
niques will remain for the forseeable future.   However, the  Department's
policy in regard to the disposal of highly hazardous, but reusable,
materials is to work with the waste producers  to find markets  for  such
materials.  This prevents the depletion of natural  resources, but,  more


importantly, eliminates the hazards to the public and the envir-
onment that exist when such materials are disposed of onto the
land.  Pursuant to this policy and the Hazardous Waste Management
Act, the Department shall decline to issue permits for land disposal
of extremely hazardous materials for which alternatives to disposal
do exist.

     2.  Monitoring Hazardous Wastes

     The Department's monitoring program centers on the hauler's
manifest (trip ticket).  The waste producer must submit a copy of
the manifest directly to the Department on a monthly basis.  The
waste processor or disposal site operator accepting the waste must
also send a copy of each completed manifest to the Department monthly.
The waste producer, hauler, and processor or disposal site operator
must certify under penalty of perjury that the information they have
provided on the manifest is accurate.  The Department can compare
the two copies of the manifest received, one from the waste producer
and one from the waste processor or disposal site operator, to ensure
that each load of hazardous wastes produced is processed or discarded
at a plant or site authorized to accept such wastes.

     Since July 1974, the Department has received about 72,000 mani-
fests and $291,087 in fees.  This large amount of paperwork requires
computer processing.  Using flow charts and other information from
EPA's Hazardous Hastes Information System, Preliminary Design (draft
report), the Department prepared the first segment of a computer
program for processing these manifests and auditing the fees collected.
This program segment records on tape information coded from the copies
of the manifests received from hazardous waste processors and disposal
site operators.  Each month the program segment yields a summary of:
the total amounts of each type of waste carried by each hauler; the
total amounts of each type of waste received at each processing plant
or disposal site, and the method used to process or dispose of the
waste; and the total fees collected'from each waste processor and
disposal  site operator for payment to the Department.  The computer
program segment has been run successfully using test data and the
University of California's computer in Berkeley.
     3.  Enforcing the Minimum Standards

     The Department's enforcement program recently received some
preliminary testing in the field.  The two primary goals of the
preliminary field test'were: (1) to sample and analyze hazardous
wastes entering Class I and Class II-l disposal  sites; and (2)  to
verify the accuracy of information on the manifests identifying
the wastes and the hazards associated with them.

     The enforcement activity utilized sampling teams.   The team
approach has several advantages over an individual  working alone
1n the field because the team can:  provide more than one witness
to a violation; provide help in an  emergency;  and sample waste
loads more rapidly without delaying drivers at the busier disposal
sites.  For the preliminary field test, two teams composed of
personnel  from the Department and from EPA, and graduate engineering
students from the University of Southern California were used.  Each
team consisted of three individuals; (1) a supervisor in charge who
obtained a copy of each waste hauler's manifest and recorded pertinent
data from it; (2) a technician who  sampled the waste; and (3) an
assistant.  Each member of each team received  protective gear to be
worn while sampling hazardous wastes: a hard hat with clear plastic
visor; a respirator; a rubber raincoat and overalls; and rubber boots.

     The two sampling teams collected nearly 400 samples of hazardous
waste from trucks arriving at the three Class  I and selected Class  II-l
disposal sites in the Los Angeles area during  a two-week period.  Chem-
ists at the Department's Berkeley and Los Angeles laboratories and  at
U.S.C.'s laboratories are now analyzing these  samples.   Results from
the tests performed so far indicate that the information provided by
the waste producer on the manifest  often fails to reveal the true com-
position or the hazardous properties of the waste.

     4.  Survey of Hazardous Waste  Production

     The Department is currently sponsoring a  pilot survey of hazardous
waste production in one southern California county.  Its purpose is to
test a survey questionnaire and techniques that will be used in a
statewide survey to be conducted later.  The questionnaire is designed
to obtain the following information from waste producers in the area
being surveyed: names and locations of waste producers; present and
projected rates of waste production; probable  composition and concen-
tration of the wastes produced; and present methods used for disposal.
If available, other information about the wastes will be sought, such
as: chemical composition; physical, chemical and biological properties;
and the nature of hazards commonly  associated  with the  wastes.

     When conducted statewide, the  survey will reveal the amounts of
wastes being discarded on property  belonging to private industries
and the amounts of wastes being reclaimed or recycled by industries
throughout California.  The manifest system, discussed  above, provides
neither of these categories of data.  Furthermore, the  requested pro-
jections of future waste generation supplied by industries will help
the Department to plan the future course of hazardous waste management
in the state.

     5.  Hazardous Materials Spill  Plan

     Incidents like the mismanaged  pesticide fire described above have
amply demonstrated the need for a comprehensive, coordinated plan for
managing spills of hazardous materials in California.  The State's


Office of Emergency Services (OES) has already developed comprehensive
programs for managing spills of oil and of radioactive materials.  How-
ever, the management of spills of other hazardous materials has  been
left almost entirely to the discretion of local officials who were
first on the scene.  Many of these officials have had little or no
training and have no equipment or money for managing such spills.

     The OES has now developed a prototype hazardous materials spill
plan to be adopted by all counties in the state.  Under the plan,
local agencies are responsible for notifying state agencies by call-
Ing the State toll-free emergency number and for initiating immediate
action to correct the spill.  State agencies, including the Department
of Health, will provide technical and financial assistance to local
agencies, particularly for preventing contamination of the environ-
ment.  The Department of Health has taken the position, and OES
agrees, that any hazardous material usually becomes a waste when
spilled and is, therefore, subject to the Department's hazardous
waste regulations.

     Although the prototype plan represents an important first step
1n managing spills of hazardous materials, the final plan must incor-
porate a chain-of-command to avoid jurisdictional squabbles among
local agencies responding in an emergency.


     As reported at the June 20, 1975 National  Solid Wastes Management
Association International  Equipment and Technology Exposition in Los
Angeles, the Department has encountered several problems, including
illegal  disposal  of wastes, in administering the State's Hazardous
Waste Management Program.   At that time, it was also reported that:
(1) the limited number of Class I sites in California, as well  as the
fees charged for the disposal  of hazardous wastes, had probably encour-
aged illegal disposal; (2) the State Solid Waste Management Board (SSWMB)
had appointed an Industrial Liquid Wastes Committee (ILK'C)  made up of
members of the Board, as well  as representatives of the Department of
Health and the State Water Resources Control  Board (SWRCB),  to obtain
information regarding the illegal disposal of non-sewerable liquid
wastes;  and (3) Assemblyman Z'berg (recently deceased) had  introduced
Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) No. 79 regarding Class I sites.

     ACR 79, which has now been passed, recogniz'ing that "the shortage
of Class I  sites creates serious environmental  problems and presents
severe hardships on local  governmental  agencies and industries  which
generate these wastes", directs the SSWMB, in conjunction with  the
State Department of Health, the State Department of Food and Agriculture
and the State Water Resources  Control  Board, to "evaluate the role of

the state 1n establishing new Class I sites.   Such evaluation  shall
Include (1) whether the state should assist in the location  and
evaluation of potential sites, (2)  if these sites should be  purchased
and owned by the state, and (3)  the manner by which the state  should
control or regulate the operation of waste disposal  procedures".

     The ILVIC held eight days of public hearings during June and Julv
throughout California from San Diego to Eureka.   Testimony concerning
the problems was received from liquid waste producers, haulers and
disposal site operators as well  as  from representatives of private
groups, including environmentalists, and of governmental  agencies.

     Testimonies received at those  hearings indicate that:

     1.  Additional Class I sites are needed in California.

     2.  Long haul distances are expensive and also result in
         wasted energy and concomitant illegal disposal.

     3.  Industries are not locating in the Antelope Valley  area
         of Los Angeles County because of the lack of nearby
         suitable disposal sites.

     4.  It may be necessary, due to the physical  difficulties asso-
         ciated with finding sites  which meet the Class I require-
         ments and due to local  social and political  difficulties
         associated with the establishment of Class I sites, for
         the State to acquire sites and then lease them to local
         governments or private  operators for use.

     5.  It may  be necessary to  develop a statewide requirement
         for adequate buffer areas  surrounding Class I sites so
         as to minimize the impact  of the disposal operations  on
         adjacent properties.

     6.  The Department's monitoring and enforcement program is
         good, but the regulations  are not adequately enforced.

     7.  Legitimate, licensed waste haulers are competing unfav-
         orably with persons who have little to lose by engaging  in
         illegal disposal activities.  Consequently, it may  be
         advisable to develop a  statewide licensing system for
         all haulers, including haulers of solid wastes and  septic
         tank wastes, in order to facilitate enforcement of proper
         disposal procedures.

     8.  Sites that are open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week,
         help minimize illegal disposal.

     9.  The technology of recovering usable products from most
         Industrial  wastes is still  in the developmental  stage
         and, therefore, very little is being done to reclaim
         the wastes.  A noted exception is petroleum solvents;
         about 80% of all  such solvents produced in the San
         Francisco Bay Area are reportedly reclaimed.

     Based on the testimonies summarized above,  the ILWC recommended
that the SSWMB undertake the following:

     1.  Develop a statewide master  plan for Class I disposal  sites.
         Such a plan should determine regional  needs, locate sites,
         and include methods of implementing the establishment of
         sites as proposed in ACR 79 introduced  by Assemblyman
         Z'berg.  Such a plan should utilize data being gathered
         through the county solid waste management plans  to identify
         current remaining site capacity and projected quantities
         of industrial  liquid wastes.  The plan  should outline
         methods for early action to implement State purchase  of
         suitable sites well in advance of need.  The "warehousing"
         of sites is considered essential  as they are a scarce
         resource which enables continued  industrial production
         in concert  with environmental  protection.   In formulating
         the plan, the Board shall select  a committee on  which local
         government  and concerned industries are represented.

     2.  Pursue, in  cooperation with the State Department of Health
         and the State Water Resources  Control  Board, stronger
         monitoring  programs and enforcement procedures.   These
         should include:

         a.  Implementation of the Department of Health's authority
             to delegate hazardous waste enforcement to local  en-
             forcement agencies only where disposal  sites are
             privately operated.  The local  enforcement agencies
             should  be those which are  established  by the county
             solid waste management  plans  as required by  the
             Board's guidelines.

         b.  Pooling of the separate inspection  activities of  the
             Air Resources Board, Water Resources Control  Board,
             Solid Waste Management  Board  and the Department of
             Health  to maximize the  effectiveness of state sur-
             veillance responsibilities.

         c.  Legislation to expand the  existing  state licensing
             requirement for liquid  waste  haulers to include
             solid waste haulers, septic tank haulers and all
             disposal  site operators.

     3.   Sponsor,  in cooperation with the State Department  of
         Health and the State Water Recources  Control  Board,
         legislation to modify the current hazardous  waste  fee
         structure to include not only hazardous waste but  all
         non-sewerable liquid wastes.

     4.   Other considerations:

         a.   All  wastes considered detrimental  to water quality
             or considered hazardous to public  health  shall  be
             consolidated into a single list,  and the  list  shall
             be reviewed to determine its applicability in  relation
             to the physical  characteristics of each  new and  exist-
             ing Class 1 site.

         b.   Where Class 1 sites are required,  sufficient buffer
             areas should be established either by outright
             purchase, purchase of development  rights, or other
             means to minimize adverse impacts  on adjacent  commun-

         c.   A more concentrated effort should  be developed to
             educate the public on the vital need for  adequate
             disposal sites for industrial  liquid wastes to
             prevent public health and environmental  problems
             and to permit the industrial  sector of the State's
             economy to operate as efficiently  as possible.

     The report of the ILWC was approved by the SSWMB  and has sub-
sequently been transmitted to various State agencies.
                     IV.   CONCLUSIONS

     California's hazardous waste management program has  nearly com-
pleted its developmental  phase and recently entered  its operational
phase.  Five important aspects of the program's operational  phase are
currently progressing well: (1) seeking alternatives to land disposal
of extremely hazardous wastes; (2) monitoring production, processing
and disposal of hazardous wastes; (3) enforcing minimum standards
for safe management of such wastes; (4) surveying statewide  production
of these wastes; and (5)  participating in a coordinated plan for man-
aging spills of these wastes.   However, the program  still has many
challenges, particularly  in the area of resource recovery.   The biggest
challenge, however, is in developing a truly equitable hazardous waste
management system throughout the State.  Implementation of the mandates
of ACR No. 79 and of the  recommendations of the Industrial  Liquid Waste
Committee will certainly  be a  "giant step forward" in achieving that

                      References Cited
1.  Collins, H.F., and Storm,  D.L., "California's Legislative
        and Regulatory Policy  for Hazardous  Waste Management",
        Paper presented at the Third National  Congress  on  Waste
        Management and Resource Recovery,  San  Francisco,  CA,
        November 1974.

2.  Collins, H.F., "Experiences of a State Hazardous  Waste Program",
        Paper presented at the National  Solid  Wastes  Management
        Association International  Waste  Equipment and Technology
        Exposition, June  1975, Los Angeles, CA.

                           Thomas Tiesler
    Director, Solid Waste Management Programs, Tennessee Department of Public Health
It is certainly a pleasure to be a part of the Fourth National Congress on
Waste Management Technology and Resource and Energy Recovery.  I
would like to admit, however, that there are other areas related to solid
waste management in Tennessee that I am a bit more proud to talk about
than the hazardous waste program.   Like many other states, our hazardous
waste program is still in its infancy; and we are still learning  and attempting
to do what is possible to control the problem.  The State of Tennessee
is like many other states in that we  have a basic solid waste disposal law
which deals somewhat with the hazardous waste disposal problem. The
"Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act" was passed in  1969 and became fully
implemented July  1, 1972.  Fortunately, at the time of the passage of the
law and the writing of the regulations, we had enough insight  to include
within the "Solid Waste  Disposal Act" acme regulations which cover  the processing
and disposal of hazardous waste materials. We included two basic sections
that dealt with hazardous waste disposal.  One section is concerned  with
the  registration  of hazardous waste  processing and disposal facilities.
This would include land disposal  sites for hazardous waste and any type
of hazardous waste processing facilities,  including incinerators.  The  other
regulation deals with "special waste" which is aimed basically at controlling
these types of materials from going  into normal sanitary landfills.

In order  to gain  a better understanding of the  situation in Tennessee,
it would probably  be best to talk about the character of the state.  Tennessee
presently has a  population of approximately four million people with about
six  thousand industries of various types.  Some of these industries produce
large amounts of hazardous waste while other  industries have  smaller amounts
of hazardous waste in their processing and disposal operations such as
solvents, sludges, and  other chemicals.  I  consider these types of industries
very typical of many other states.  One unique problem in Tennessee is that
we do have some large pesticide manufacturers which have a large amount
of pesticide residues remaining from processing.  These problems have
been improperly dealt with over the past years and have left scars within
the State of Tennessee which we are currently having to monitor and deal
with continuously.  Another somewhat unique  problem in Tennessee is
the fact that we  have very few privately operated  disposal facilities.  The
majority  of the sanitary landfills operated in Tennessee are operated by
either city or county governments and we have only about twenty percent
of the sanitary landfills operated by private industry.  This is probably
more typical of the states in the southeast than the northeastern, or  mid-
western states.

We  are very much aware of the hazardous waste problem in Tennessee and
feel like  in one sense that due to the strict control and monitoring of sanitary
landfills, we have made it a separate disposal  problem.  We have limited
or tried to exclude certain types of  materials from being disposed of in normal


municipal disposal sites and for this reason we have separated the municipal
solid waste disposal problem from the hazardous waste problem.  In the
past, all  types of municipal and industrial wastes went to the city dump.
It was believed at that time that the city dump was a disposal or burial
ground for any type of material that could not be handled cheaply in any
other manner.  We even had some industries who carried their liquid waste
discharges to the dump.  This material should have been treated  in a treatment
facility and discharged into a sewer.  Instead of going to the expense of
treating the material  properly, they would simply pick it up in tank trucks,
haul it to the dump, and pour the liquid into trenches.  In one specific instance,
we had an industry which disposed of eight thousand gallons a day of raw
metal plating  waste in this manner for about eight years.  It was  not long
before the material had saturated an entire ridge and began to seep into
a nearby spring. As you can imagine, this problem is going to continue
for many years until  all of the material has finally leached out of  the soil.
These types of situations are not unusual and I would say it is probably
typical of many of the disposal problems that exist in Tennessee and many
other states.  Until a strong hazardous waste  law is enacted, we  will have
to deal with these problems as best we can.  We have been fortunate in most
situations that we can handle them through legal action either through the
"Tennessee Solid Waste  Disposal Act" or through joint legal actions with
the  Division of Water Quality Control.

In attempting  to handle the hazardous waste problem, we have approached
it in a number of ways.  First with a  limited staff, we have attempted to enforce
those sections of the  "Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act" which relate
to hazardous waste disposal.  Second, we have  tried to eliminate as much
as possible the hazardous materials  from entering the  sanitary landfill.
When hazardous materials are unacceptable for  sanitary  landfilling, additional
problems arise as to  what alternatives for disposal are left to industry.
In an effort to solve some of these problem we have put together a list of
companies across the country which are in the process of handling  toxic
and hazardous materials.  We encourage the industries to contact these
people and make arrangements to have their waste disposed.  As you can
imagine some industries cooperate and some do  not. We  do not feel that
this arrangement will in all cases correct the  problem  -  it depends on the

A couple of years ago, we conducted an  industrial waste survey  in an
attempt to determine  the magnicude of the industrial and  hazardous  waste
problem in Tennessee.  We do not feel like from the standpoint of determining
the  real problem of hazardous waste disposal  that this survey was very beneficial.
Probably the most important result to come out of the survey was the personal
contact with various  industries  and actual training for our staff.  We soon
realized that only those  industries who did not have a  problem or had a
solution to their problem would respond to the survey.  Those  industries

that had a real problem were not interested in participating in the survey.
We also found out that many industries which were surveyed in personal
interviews did not reveal all of their problems  - this stands to reason.
We therefore have somewhat of a negative attitude about hazardous waste

We feel that  proper training is a  vital part of any regulatory program;
therefore, we conduct two solid waste training courses per year for municipal
and industrial sanitary landfill operators.  These are two day meetings where
the operators come to a training center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and
we go through various elements of sanitary landfill operation. During this
training session, we also devote a couple of sessions to hazardous waste
management in an attempt to alert the operators to the problem of handling
certain types of hazardous  waste materials.  We feel that this  has been effective
from the standpoint of keeping these materials  out of municipal sanitary

In addition to training, we  hold an annual Solid Waste Conference each
year in January  where we devote time to various topics in solid waste management.
This year we are concentrating a large portion of the program on industrial
and hazardous waste management.

We have a basic  philosophy about liquid and hazardous waste disposal.
We attempt in Tennessee to keep as much water or liquids out of sanitary
landfills as possible to cut down on possible leachate production and ultimate
groundwater pollution problems. For this reason, we have a blanket
policy that no liquids will  be disposed of in sanitary landfills. We do however
under the "special waste"  provision allow certain sludges to go into sanitary
landfills if they have been dewatered to the point of having no free water.
We also have some hesitation about  the use of liners and other artifical
barriers for prevention of groundwater contamination.   It is usually decided
that these types  of devices  are used in marginal landfill sites  where the
soil is not sufficient for use without a liner. It is our feeling  that there is
still some question about the I  ife of certain liners and other problems relating
to placement where they might be punctured during operation; we therefore
do not allow their usage in  marginal sites.  We will not approve the us.e of
a marginal sanitary landfill site even with artifical barriers.

We have in the past and are presently attempting to get a strong  hazardous
waste control law passed.   We feel that this is  the only way to really get
a handle on the hazardous waste disposal problem and  find a  solution to
solving the  problem.  Most private  companies are not going to come into
the State of Tennessee and  spend a lot of money investing in a facility to
handle certain types of waste  if there is not a strong control agency which
will force the various industries to use these facilities.  Most industrial
waste generators are opposed  to a strong hazardous waste control  law because

they do not want to spend the extra money for proper treatment.  However
we are not going to have a solution to the problem until someone will provide
the treatment facilities.  The State of Tennessee, like other states,  is having
economic problems and the administration is not interested  in passing
any new legislation which will cause an increase in spending. The type
of legislation which could possibly be passed is that which  is funded by
the people who are being regulated by  the use of a permit fee.

Another problem facing Tennessee and other states, besides not having
adequate legislation, is not having sufficient manpower.  Until we have enough
manpower to follow-up and routinely monitor all industries in the state,
we are not going to have a viable program.  Any regulatory program
has to be consistent in  their control.  It is not fair to be more stringent in
one area of the state or with one type of industry and with a limited staff
of only two people working in hazardous waste this becomes extremely difficult.

I  feel like  the only true solution to the hazardous waste program is  the passage
of a hazardous waste control law which is stringent and wi II provide enough
monies to  adequately fund the staff which are to control the problem.   I think
when this  law is passed, private industry will establish themselves in
Tennessee and be willing to invest money and construct facilities to solve
the problem.  Until that is done, we will continue  to put out fires.
JTT/RS/cm 3/10


Land Disposal

                             Michael Pope
                 Chief Executive Officer, Pope, Evans, and Robbins

       To an average citizen the term "sanitary landfill" conjures

       up thoughts of a smelly, rat infested, open dump,  usually


       And we really can't blame the public.  In many instances the

       term "sanitary landfill" has been misused.

       I think those of us involved in the business of solid waste

       management have a responsibility to educate the community.

       A sanitary landfill is a planned and engineered method for the

       disposal of solid waste,  and does not involve burning or open



The best definition of a sanitary landfill was set forth by

the American Society of Civil Engineers.   It reads:

"Sanitary Landfill is a method of disposing of refuse on land

without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or

safety,  by utilizing  the principals of engineering to confine the

refuse to  the smallest practical area,  to reduce it to the

smallest practical volume, and  to cover it with a layer  of

earth at the conclusion of each day's operation, or at such

more frequent intervals as may be necessary. "

Why a Sanitary Landfill Instead of Some Other Method0

It has been proven time and agaii. that, where land is  avail-

able,  sanitary landfilling is the most economical and efficient

method of  solid waste disposal.

Economics of Sanitary Landfills

Landfill costs can be generally divided into initial investment

and operating costs.

The extent of the initial investment will depend on the size  and

degree of sophistication of the landfill. The major items will be:

land,  planning  and design,  and site development and equipment;

       with the larger share of this cost going for land and

       equipment.  However, regardless of the cost,  the initial

       investment in a sanitary landfill will usually be lower than

       that for any other method of solid  waste disposal.

       The total operating cost of a sanitary landfill varies between

       $1.00 and $5. 00 per ton depending on the size, method and

       efficiency of the operation.  The cost breakdown is about 40

       to 50 percent for wages, 30 to 40 percent for equipment

       maintena  ce and supplies and 20 percent for general  overhead

       and miscellaneous.

       We must remember to consider the  total life cycle cost of the

       operation when comparing different  methods of solid  waste

       disposal.  On this  basis,  the operating costs of a sanitary

       landfill is usually lower than that of any other method.

       A major  advantage of sanitary landfills is that the land

       value of the site can be increased  by reclamation to a park,

       playground, golf course or other recreational facility.

B.     PER Landfill Projects:

       Pope, Evans and Robbins Incorporated has been involved in

       a number of solid waste management projects.

The projects that I would like to present to you

are three sanitary landfills for the Town of Brookhaven

on Long Island. New York and one of my favorite

"specialty" sanitary landfills,  the proposed RECAP

Island in Lower New York Bay.

a) The Sanitary Landfills on Long Island

In 1970 the New York State Environmental Facilities

Corporation commissioned us  to prepare a comprehensive

Solid  Waste Management Program for the  Town of

Brookhaven in Suffolk County,  New York,  for the

twenty year period between 1970 and 1990.  At the

time of the study, the Town of Brookhaven population

was estimated to be 235,000.  By the year  1990 the

town population will have more than doubled to about


In 1970,  the amount of refuse generated by the town was

4,000 tons per week.  By 1990, it is estimated to be 14,000

tons per week.

During  the preparation of the long range Plan we

considered various methods of solid waste disposal

including: sanitary landfill,  conventional incinera-

tion,  high temperature incineration, pyrolysis,  corn-

posting, hauling to out of town sites, as well as

shredding, compacting and baling.

We found that incineration or pyrolysis  required

large initial investments in equipment that might

soon become obsolete or depended on processes

still in  the experimental stage.

Composting and salvage turned out to be very costly

and lacked the type of assured market required  to

make the operation competitive.

The results of our study indicated that sanitary landfill

•was the most  economical method of solid waste disposal.

Shredding and/or baling,  while prolonging landfill life,

was an additional cost not justified in view of the

available land and comparatively low land costs.

The sanitary landfill method had the additional advantage

of yielding much needed recreational facilities for the

ever growing population of the Town of Brookhaven.  In this

way we were able to turn a necessary evil into an asset that

would  enhance the quality of life in the community.

The decision to use sanitary landfills for the disposal of

solid waste was followed by the selection of a number of

available sites for evaluation.  We analyzed the relative

advantage and total cost of solid waste  disposal at each of

the chosen sites  and combination of sites.   The evaluation

criteria  included: the cost of land, site preparation, trans-

portation of refuse,  landfill equipment,  facilities and opera-

tion, as well as   site location,  site  capacity, area zoning

regulations, land acquisition problems, landfill impact on

site environment, site topography,  geology and hydrology,

and the potential contribution of the completed recreational

facility to the  surrounding community and to  the Town of

Brookhaven as a whole.

Three  sites were finally selected.  The three landfills

would be operated in  sequence and they would be capable

of receiving the Town's solid waste for the full 20 year



The three sites would ultimately become parks, each
with its own theme and physical characteristics.  The first,
known as Holtsville, would be a strolling and athletic park;
the second,  named Brookhaven Park, would emphasize
summer and winter recreation featuring a skiing mountain,
the third park, known as Middle Island East, would be made
up of hills and lakes similar to New York City's Central

To give you more specific details we will  look  at
each one  individually.

b)   Holtsville Park
The Holtsville sanitary landfill was  the  first sitp
to be developed.
This site consisted of 74 acres which were at the time
being utilized for solid waste disposal.  We cannot  say
that it was a typical dump,  since some covering was
being done, but the operation did not follow  the rules
and guidelines  that have come to be accepted as essential
in the running of an economical and efficient sanitary

Since the existing site obviated the need for many of

preliminary steps, our first action was to prepare opera-

tional plans and specifications that would  guide the daily

operations as well as the construction and installation of

facilities and utilities required to make the  operation more

efficient.  The specifications included those for the purchase

of the equipment necessary to do the job,  such as weigh

scale, payloaders, and scrapers.

In addition, end use plans and spec_ucations were prepared

for the facilities to be constructed at  the completion of a

sanitary landfill.  These  included swimming pools, base-

ball fields, tennis and handoall courts, kiosks, bath house

and concessions building  as well as a senior citizen recrea-

tion area.

Please note the differentiation made between operational

and end use plans and specifications.  The operational

documents tell the landfill operators when, where and how

to place the refuse,  utilities, and facilities necessary to

run the landfill.  On the other hand, the end use plans

and specifications are the architectural,  structural,

mechanical and electrical documents  normally required

for any new facility.


Sanitary landfill activities at the Holtsville site were

completed over two years ago and many of the planned

recreational facilities have been built.   For the last two

years the residents of Suffolk County have enjoyed the  u

of the Holtsville Park swimming pools,  which include

an Olympic size as well as diving and a wading pool. The

senior citizens recreation area has also been completed

These are a few pictures of the official opening of the pa

of the construction of a paddle tennis court and of the co

pleted pools.  Artist's rendering present the planned fin

configuration of the Holtsville park.

c)        Brookhaven Park

For approximately a year before landfilling activities

ceased at the Holtsville landfill, site preparation work \

been going on to get the second site, at Brookhaven,

ready to receive garbage after the last ton was dumped

at Holtsville.

The Brookhaven site, located about 8 miles from the

Holtsville site, is a parcel containing about 225 acres  o

wooded virgin land set in a rural area of Suffolk County.

Because the land was the property of a number of privat

owners, land acquisition proceedings had started a coup

of years before the site was to be used.   However,  whei


 the site was finally opened to landfilling activities,  not

 all the  land had been acquired.  As we all know, land

 acquisition is one of the critical items in site selection.

 In this  particular case the fact that not all the required

 land was  owned by the Corporation resulted in the costly

 and time  consuming job of resurveying the land and re-

 designing the operational  plans,, so that all site preparation

 such as  fencing, access  roads and utilities - as  well as the

 landfilling operations could  take place on land that had

 already been acquired.

 The theme of this completed landfill was to be a summer

 and winter recreation park,  having as its main  attraction

 a large skiing mountain.   Together with a special ski-

 mountain  design consultant,  we developed a layout for a

 skiing mountain that would suit the site and accommodate

 a number of slopes  suitable  for beginners and experts.

The mountain turned out to be 250 ft.  high and 85 acres  at

 the base.   In addition to the  mountain, the finished park is

to have  many summer recreational facilities including

swimming pools  and athletic fields and courts.

No two  engineering  projects are alike, and sanitary landfills

are no different.   What made this particular landfill

unusual  \\as  the great height to which the garbage was going

to be placed.  To our knowledge this was and  still is


the highest sanitary landfill ever planned.   Since w«

must cover the refuse with at least 6 inches of soil daily

and provide a final cover no less than 2 ft.  thick, we needed

much cover material. Roughly 4 million cubic yards.  I

don't care what you multiply that by, its going to be a lot of


Fortunately,  the landfill was to be seated on top of that good

and plentiful  Long Island sand.  We  decided to mine the

material required for daily cover right from under the land-

fill.   To obtain the amount of soil ^e need, part of the excava-

tion  is as much as  35 feet below the ground surface.

Another interesting aspect of this sanitarj' landfill  is the

way  in which we decided to handle the leachate.   Since

the groundwater is the sole water supply for Brookhaven

and surrounding Long Island communities,  prevention  of con-

tamination by leachate was a critical design concern.  The

usual solution to this  problem involves doing one of the


    1.    Select a  site where the groundwater is far

enough below the landfill base to permit natural biological

and physical processes to purify leachate percolation.

      2.  Select a site that has a natural impermeable

clay layer, between the landfill and the groundwater


      3.  Place a bentonite layer at the bottom of the land-


Since our site did not have a natural protective barrier,

and to put in a layer of clay on  85 acres would have been

too costly, we decided, after successful testing, to use

a 20 mil PVC  membrane at  the bottom of the landfill.

The membrane is economical,  effective and easy to handle

and install.  After installation, the membrane is covered

with a protective layer of sand and is ready to accept

refuse.   The leachate that is trapped by the membrane

is collected by a system of perforated subdrain pipes,

pumped to a treatment station,  treated and discharged to

local streams.

Because the base area of the landfill is so large, the

operational plans are  very detailed.  They show how

the area has been subdivided into small portions ranging

from 5 to 10 acres.  They also show the sequence in

which these small areas are surveyed, cleared of  vege-

tation, excavated, graded to the appropriate contours

and covered with the PVC membrane to make it  ready


to receive the garbage.  Just to give you a feeling
for the size of this landfill, it will take 2 large scrapers,
working continuously.  5 years to excavate all the required
cover material.

The Brookhaven landfill has been operating for the last
two years and we anticipate that it will take about ten
more years for it to be completed.  By that time,
approximately ten million tons of garbage will have been
disposed of at this sanitary landfill

Upon completion of landfilling operations,  work will start
on the construction and installation of skiing and summer
recreation facilities.  At the end, Brookhaven Park will
stand as a model of what can be done with a well planned
and properly engineered sanitary landfill.
d)        Middle Island East Park
Sometime before the end of operations at Brookhaven Park,
site preparation work will start at the  Middle Island East
sanitary landfill.  This landfill will serve as the solid waste
disposal site for the Town of Brookhaven for the remainder
of the 20 year period.


Unlike the other parks, the theme of this completed

facility will be a naturalistic environment.  Where the

other two parks emphasize athletics and recreational

activities this one will contain rolling hills and lakes.

In addition to good planning, good design and an appropriate

site we were very much concerned about sound financing and

public approval of the project.

The three landfills in Brookhaven,  New York,  have been financed

by the New York State Environmental Facility  Corporation

(EFC).  In addition to our role as technical and economic

advisor, we also  acted as mediators between EFC and the

Town of Brookhaven during contract negotiations.  The

contract calls for  the Town to reimburse EFC  on a per ton

basis.  The actual dump fee reflects EFC's financing  costs

plus an amount set aside for the  development of the end

use projects by the Town.

During the planning stage,  as  well as during the design

stage, we prepared a series of presentations to the State

Department of Environmental  Conservation (DEC), to  the

Town Supervisor and the Town Council, to a special advisory

committee appointed from among leading citizens by

the Town Council and to numerous  citizens' and civic

groups.  Some of these presentations were through formal

meetings and public briefings and hearings,  while  others

were only courtesy meetings to familiarize various groups

with the scope, purpose and objectives of the project.

We do believe that involvement of local and state authorities

and of interested citizens in the early phases of the project

is one of the main factors  contributing to the success of any

urban sanitary landfill project.

e)   RECAP Island
One of the most challenging projects we have been associated

with is finding a solution to the refuse disposal crisis develop

tn New York City.  Currently, New York City produces

26, 000 tons "of waste per day, and incinerates approximately

25 percent of it.  The  remaining 75 percent along with the

incinerator ash go to landfills.  The landfill capacity will

be exhausted in 1985.  There is practically no land area

available within the City for new sanitary landfills.

New York City has under  consideration a series of tentative

plans to  increase its disposal capacity.  Some of the propose

programs rely on out of state rail haul, others include the


construction of resource recovery pilot plants.

Exportation of garbage to out-of-state locations is

expensive, makes New York City dependent on the

legal and political whims of others and will cost two

or three times the present costs.  The pilot plant

approach will add a minimum of five years to a

decision making process.

Our firm undertook a comprehensive review of available

and developing alternative concepts, based on their

respective technical characteristics, environmental

impacts, financial implications and implementability.

Existing or possible alternative locations on land,

immediately offshore and in the ocean were considered

for a variety of conventional disposal practices,

such as sanitary landfill, incineration and ocean

disposal, and resource recovery technologies.

One of the main conclusions of this evaluation process

was that, while any modern solid waste disposal program

should be resource recovery oriented, it is mandatory

that the system contain a sanitary landfill.

With land for a sanitary landfill practically impossible to

obtain within New York City limits or in the neighboring

areas, our study concluded that a readily accessible arti-

ficial island providing considerable fill volume and accommo

dating a resource recovery oriented solid waste processing

facility was the best s;olution for solving the City's current

and future disposal needs.

RECAP is the name of the  proposed artificial island to be

located in lower New  York Bay.   Recap Island will provide

a modular, centralized disposal and recovery system capabl

of handling from 11,000 to 44,000 tons of refuse per day.

Four modules are  considered.   The first stage of RECAP

will be an island of approximately~250 acres of which about

30 acres is allocated  to an operations area  with sufficient

space to accommodate equipment for processing from

11,000 to 22,000 tons of refuse per day.  Up to three

additional stages,  each of approximately 250 acres, can be

provided to extend the island life span. A  second operating

area, identical to the first, will allow for the expansion

of refuse processing capacity to 44, 000 tons per day.

Various processing alternatives have been  considered,

ranging from minimal to maximum justifiable resource


recovery.  In the first extreme case,refuse will be shredded,

ferrous metals magnetically separated,  and the residual,

equivalent to 95. 5 percent of the input refuse will be baled

and placed.  In the second case, the light

organic fraction of the input refuse will be recovered

for use as supplementary fuel; ferrous metals, and possibly

glass and aluminum will also be recovered.   Additional

processing could be added for further recovery of other

non-ferrous metals,  if justified.  Other alternatives, involving

various degrees of resource recovery in between these

extremes, have also been analyzed.  In all cases,  the residue

will be placed on the Island site.  Refuse processing equip-

ment will be installed on the operations area.

Phase I life span will vary from 10 to 42 years at a refuse

input  rate of 11,000 tpd depending upon the extent of

resource recovery.  The Phase IV life span could vary

from  15 to 251 years depending upon the refuse input rate

and the extent of resource  recovery.

Currently, approximately 35 percent of the refuse of

New York City is transported by barge to a landfill located

in Staten Island.  Using these existing refuse transfer

facilities and barge fleets, refuse could be transported to


 Each module will be circular in shape.  Phase I  will

 consist of a  fill area,  operations and barge basin.  An

 enclosure wall of precast reinforced concrete sections

 will define these areas.

 The enclosure wall will be constructed of precastj  rein-

 forced concrete  sections.  The box-like "units, will be

 constructed  on shore and towed to the site, where they will

 be positioned and sunk on a prepared foundation of sand

 and crushed stone.  After placement, the caissons will be

 filled with dredged sand and/or construction debris and

 rocks.  Joints between concrete caissons will be  specially

 constructed  to prevent leakage.  To protect the enclosure

 •wall from wave and wind action, two or three  layers of

 armor rock  will be placed against the caissons.

 To prevent contamination of the surrounding sea water

 and to contain solid waste leachate within the island enclosure,

 an impervious liner will be installed on the seabed.  The

 basic liner material will be poly vinyl chloride (PVC).

 Approximately 30 acres adjacent to the barge  basin will

 be used for the construction of processing, support and

maintenance facilities.


The costs of the Phase I Island for processing 11,000 tons

per day of refuse is as follows:

Minimal Resource Recovery          $10.81 per ton

Maximum Resource Recovery           2. 85 per ton

Costs include all construction,  marine transportation and

an allowance for revenues.

The environmental  studies, conducted  in connection with

the Recap Island project involved oceanographic, hydrological,

and ecological surveys to determine the data necessary

to design a facility  that will haye minimum potential

detrimental impacts.  These studies  concluded that:

     1.    the Island's physical influence on the movement

of the water in the Bay is negligible.

     2.    the placement of an  impervious, protective liner

at the bottom of the Island would prevent contamination

of the groundwater  and bay waters.

     3.    dredging required for the construction of RECAP

will have only short term effects.   Those organisms in the

area that might be affected will begin to repopulate almost

immediately,  when dredging is completed.


     4.    long-term effects of RECAP Island on the ecology

of Raritan Bay, now a highly polluted estuary, will probably

be beneficial.  The placement of the Island will allow coloni-

zation of encrusting organisms, producing an artificial

reef community.  The localization of fish around the reef

would increase the recreational value of the area.

RECAP Island will allow the early closing of poorly operatec

landfills and will accelerate the return to public use of

thousands of acres now occupied by disposal facilities.

With the sale and use of recovered resources still

uncertain  due to economic  and socio-political concerns,

RECAP offers the option of being capable of operating

as a landlill  until such time as the use  of refuse fuel or

other recycled products becomes  accepted practice.

When a market for energy recovered from waste  can be

developed in the  New York City area, at 22,000 tons per

day, RECAP will provide the energy equivalent of  approximj

10 million barrels of low sulfur fuel oil per year.   Used

as a supplement  in public utility boilers, the Island's

waste fuel can satisfy approximately 5% of New York City's

electricity requirements.


             No community wants a disposal facility in its backyard.
             By being located offshore, RECAP will eliminate the pro-
             blems of siting a refuse handling facility in urban neigh-
             borhoods.  One facility will serve the entire Metropolitan

             We have completed an extensive feasibility study and pre-
             sented RECAP Island to various City, and State authorities
             as well as to numerous citizens' groups.

             We believe that the RECAP Island concept can be used
             by other water front communities with high population
             concentration, if land areas for landfills cannot be
             easily acquired.

       In conclusion to summarize the requirements for a successful
       landfill,  I like to think of 6 ingredients that  must come to ether:
       They  are.-
       1.    Good Planning
       2.    Sound Financing
       3.    Appropriate Site
       4.    Public Approval
       5.    Good design and adequate site preparation
       6.    Clean and Efficient Operation

      1.   Good planning means establishing very early,  a

comprehensive Solid Waste Management Program.  An important

phase of  this program will be the investigation and outline

of all pertinent parameters, such as:


          Quantity of Waste

          Type of Waste

          Distances Involved

          Collection Patterns

          Traffic  Patterns

          Impact of Landfill on Environment

          Public Attitude

          Regulatory Agencies

          Ultimate Use of Facility

          Potential Landfill Sites

The planning stages should produce a comprehensive report as

well as plans and specifications for the implementation of the


      2.   Sound Financing  requires a comprehensive  study of the

economic base that will fund the project. All interagency agree-

ments should be reached as early as possible and long range fisca

plans should be prepared and approved by the appropriate authorit


      3.  A crucial element to the success or failure of the pro-
 gram is the sanitary landfill site.  Site selection goes hand in
 hand with good planning as far as eliminating future operational pro-
 blems and reducing operational costs.  Since the factors to be considered
 will require technical know-how ana experience we
 strongly advise that a well qualified consulting engineer
 be responsible for the selection of the site.  Looking
 once again at some of the factors that must be considered:

          Zoning.  This is probably the major stumbling
 block in the selection of an appropriate site.  Before full
 scale investigation is undertaken regarding the suitability
 of a potential site, all zoning ordinances must be reviewed.
 An early review of ordinances  saves time, money,  and
 energy.  At that time we can make a determination as to
 whether the site is clear or whether it  is necessary to rezone
 or change the ordinances to eliminate  any legal restrictions
that could hamper the use  of a  particular parcel as the site.

 In some cases the review will show that the area in question
 can be zoned for sanitary waste disposal thereby circumventing
many of the potential problems.

         The location of the site.  Is it easily accessible
to the handling trucks and the general public?  What is
the hauling distance? What type of roads will receive
the main traffic?  What will be the impact of the vehicles
transporting the refuse on the existing traffic patterns?
 How close is the site to populated areas?
Do the prevailing winds transport odors from the landCill
to the populated are as ?

          Land Acquisition:  In the ideal case the land will
already be owned oy the community or  agency and then of
course, there is no problem.  However, in many cases,
the land will be privately owned,  and must be acquired.

Land acquisition is a long process.  The ususal approach
is to deal with the individual owners directly.  If this
approach does not work, it is then necessary for the
community or agency to condemn  the land.  At this
point,  however,  we are dealing through the courts and
it is well known how lengthy  court proceedings can be.
The only thing to do is to start land acquisition pro-
ceedings as early as possible.

          Land Requirement:  The amount of land needed

for sanitary landfill is a function of the quantity of solid

waste that we must dispose of,  the depth of the fill which

is dictated by the ultimate use of the landfill, the efficiency

of the compacting operation and the desired life of the


In addition to the actual landfill requirements we need land

for storage, stockpiling,  facilities, access roads and most

important for a buffer zone between the landfill and the rest

of the community.  There are no hard and fast rules  for the

extent of the buffer zone.  But, usually, depending on location

and its  ultimate use, it will be from 200 to 1, 000 feet wide.

          Site Topography and Geology  studies are  necessary

since the methods of preventing surface and ground water

pollution will depend on the geology and topography of the site.

          The Environmental Impact of the Sanitary Landfill

on the Particular Site must be investigated especially as it

affects  neighboring residences through noise and traffic and

the existing wild life and vegetation.

          The Availability and Cost of Cover Material may

be a significant factor in certain cases and must not be


    4.    Another most important element in the  success

of a new landfill  project is public approval.

Very  few people will willingly accept a "sanitary

landfill" in their  neighborhood or community.  They

must  be  convinced that the operation will be clean,

efficient, odorless,  and they will not suffer any


This can be accomplished with a well prepared and

well executed public information program.  If the opposition

is unusually strong consider hiring a professional public

relations firm and even conducting a small  model sanitary

landfill project to show the community the type of clean

and efficient operation that you plan to conduct.  Also,

models and architectural renderings of the ultimate use

of the completed  facility are usually a great help in  obtain-

ing public support.

     5.     The design should include detailed

drawings and specifications for the operation in-

cluding the sequence of clearing, excavating and

landfilling portions of the site until the desired

landfill shape is achieved.  Plans should also show

construction and installation details for access

roads, utilities, weigh scales, storm drainage, fences,

personnel and equipment facilities.

Similar drawings and specifications are prepared by

the engineer to show all the topographic, architec-

tural and structural features of the completed land-


An Environmental Baseline Survey is also necessary since

it serves as a guide and datum against which to measure the

impact of the landfill on the environment.

Before starting landfilling operations, it will be necessary


      a)    obtain all necessary local and state permits

and approvals.

      b)  fence the site, construct access roads and

   install a weigh scale, utilities and all other personnel

   and  equipment facilities,

      c)  at this time you must also: purchase or lease

   the required equipment.

6.  The one facet of the Solid Waste Management Program

   that will be under constant  observation by the public is

   the actual operation of the landfill. No matter hov.'  good

   the planning,  how sound the financing, how well the

   early stages of the program were received by the public

   and  how adequate the landfill is,  an operation that is

   not clean and quiet, but disrupts the normal life of the

   community, will create opposition and hostility.

   In addition to appropriate equipment and adequate day

   by day operating procedures, a major and permanent

   concern should be protection of public health and environ-


A System.of..Vector Control  must be established to control
insects and rodents.  Strict adherence to daily landfill
cover procedures are essential.

Prevention of Air and Water Pollution:  Air pollution is
avoided by prohibiting burning and by provisions to
extinguish accidental fires.  Odors can be eliminated by
spraying with non-toxic chemical agents.  Surface water
pollution is eliminated by the proper design of the landfill
and  its surface drainage features.  Groundwater pollution
is avoided by  selecting a site possessing a natural leachate
barrier, like  clay, or by the use of an impervious membrane
under the landfill.

Gas  Control:  Landfills generate methane,  nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide.  Provisions
must be made within the landfill to allow the gases to be
vented to the atmosphere,  unless  special gas capture programs
are part of the design.
We are strong believers in the potential of resource recovery
from solid waste.  But we also know  that until resource
recovery is accepted and implemented on a large scale,

there will always be a primary need for well

planned, well designed, well financed,  well

operated and environmentally sound urban

sanitary landfills.

        The Role of Processed Refuse in Landfilling: Yesterday's Experience, Today's Status,
                           Tomorrow's Forecast-BALING
                               Truett DeGeare, Jr.
                  Acting Chief, Technology Applications Branch, OSWMP
                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

     The Environmental  Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs (OSWMP) has  recently been involved in two efforts to assess the
use of baling in the  processing of solid wastes.

     The earlier project was a demonstration funded jointly by the OSWMP
and the City of San Diego, California.   The project involved the construc-
tion and evaluation of  a pilot facility by the City of San Diego.  This
project has been completed and a final  report submitted.  However, we
have not yet reviewed the report for possible publication.  Thus, this
system will be discussed in  only a limited manner.

     The second project was  a contracted evaluation of a full-scale
facility which was constructed and operated in St. Paul, Minnesota,
without Federal funds.   Federal funding was involved only in the evalua-
tion, which was conducted by Ralph Stone and Company under contract to
our office.  This project has been completed and an acceptable final
report submitted.  The  report has been reviewed and submitted for publication.


San Diego  Plant

     This  pilot plant system consisted of the following unit operations:

     1.  Unloading and  storage
     2.  Conveying to shredder
     3.  Shredding
     4.  Transport and  feed  to baler
     5.  Baling
     6.  Bale tying
     7.  Conveying, weighing and truck loading
     8.  Transport to disposal site
     9.  Balefilling

     Solid Waste was  unloaded and stored on a flat area adjacent to a
pan conveyor.  A rubber-tired front-end loader was used to load the
conveyor which transported the waste to the hammermiII located below
grade to reduce noise and dust.  Transport away from the shredder was
accomplished on  a slider bed conveyor.   A doffer roler was used to
increase the density  of the shredded waste from about 2 pounds per cubic
foot to about 9  pounds  per cubic foot.   A bucket elevator was used to
transport  the waste to  the baler.

     Baling was accomplished by a 25 ton per hour continuous horizontal
extrusion type baler.  Successive charges of waste were dropped into the
baling chamber and compressed against the end of a previously formed
bale.  Shredded waste was successively charged and compressed in a
series of sandwiches until a bale of desired length was formed.   Bale
size was 30 inches by 40 inches by a variable length averaging 76 inches.
Average bale density was about 1,700 pounds per cubic yard.   Bales were
wire-tied to assure integrity.  Tying was done by a system of bale
separator blocks designed with slots through which the wires were manually
inserted and secured around the bales.

     Completed bales were transported to a scale and onto trucks by
roller conveyors.  Dump trucks outfitted with roller conveyors transported
the bales one-half mile to the balefill where they were unloaded by

San Diego Balefill

     The balefill was located in a narrow canyon in San Diego's Balboa
Park.  Various devices were tried for use ir bale placement before it
was decided to use a rubber-tired front-end loader.  The loader's bucket
was equipped with a hydraulic logging hook for bale handling.  Bales
were placed three high in an orderly building-block fashion and covered
daily on the top surface with 6 inches of soil.

     Provision was made for collection of leachate; however, after 2
years of operation no leachate had been detected.  This is probably due
in large part to the relatively low rainfall experienced in San Diego.

     Although quantitative data is not available, neither odors nor
vectors were considered to be problems at the balefill.  It was noted
that the typical garbage smell experienced at the unloading area was
reduced to a slight musty odor at the balefill.

San Diego Costs

     In April 1971, the cost of facility construction, including engi-
neering services, was about $164,000.  The cost of plant equipment (baler,
shredder/motor, all conveying equipment, scale, air compressor, tools,
hoist etc.) was about $183,000.  An hourly depreciation rate for equipment
and facility and services, based on expected life for each piece of
equipment, was applied for the actual hours used to process a total of
7,523.4 tons over the cost evaluation period (March 1, through August 31,
1973).  The total depreciation amounted to $1.22 per ton of solid waste
processed.  Operating costs (labor, materials and supplies, equipment
rental, utilities, equipment maintenance) amounted to $5.93/ton of
refuse processed.  The total processing system cost, less cost of land,
was therefore $7.15 per ton.

     The transportation cost to the balefiTI (labor and equipment rental
was $1.42/per ton of solid waste.  Disposal cost (labor and equipment
rental) amounted to $.35 per ton, excluding land cost.  Site preparation
came to an additional $.12 per ton for a total disposal cost of $.47 per
ton of solid waste disposal.

     The total pilot plant cost including processing, transport to the
disposal site and disposal was $9.04 per ton of solid waste processed
and disposed.

St. Paul Plant

     The full-scale facility at St. Paul was owned and operated by the
American Hoist and Derrick Company.  It is represented by the schematic
of Fig. 1 and consisted of the following unit operations:

     1.  Unloading and storage
     2.  Conveying, weighing, and baler charging
     3.  Baling
     4.  Truck loading
     5.  Transport to disposal site
     6.  Balefilling

     As at the San Diego plant, a rubber-tired front-end loader was used
to load the conveyor with waste from incoming collection vehicles.  The
conveyor passed a picking stand where corrugated cardboard was segregated
manually for recycle.  The conveyor then discharged the waste onto a
platform scale.  On accumulation of about 3,000 pounds of waste, the
scale contents were charged into the baler charging box for baling.
Bales were formed by a 32 ton per hour high pressure single charge baler
with three hydraulic baling rams, an exit platform, and two hydraulic
bale pusher rams. The baling chamber size was about 36 inches by 36
inches by variable length averaging 48 inches.  Completed bales were
ejected, then positioned and loaded onto a waiting flat-bed truck by the
pusher rams.  The trucks hauled the bales to the balefill where they
were unloaded by a forklift.

     In cooperation with the American Hoist and Derrick Company, our
contractor studied several aspects of this facility, one of which was
bale characteristics.  Table 1 summarizes measurements made on several
bales at various times after bale formation.  Bale volumes were observed
to increase an average of 7.4 percent, 28.4 percent, and 24.6 percent at
one hour, one day, and one week, respectively, after production.  This
expansion is shown graphically in Fig. 2 and indicates that bales stacked
in a fill would tend to close in on each other and fill gaps between the

     Average production time for the baler was found to be fairly constant
at about 1.7 minutes per bale.  This is the time period from closure of
the charging box lid to complete ejection of the bale.  Table 2 summarizes
plant production observed during a typical five-day monitoring period.
Bales were produced at an average rate of 17 per hour, or 24 tons per

     Although bales are amenable to rail haul, the bales at St. Paul
were transported to the baledfill on 40-foot flat-bed trailers towed by
enclosed cab tractors.  The trailers were loaded by the hydraulic
pusher rams.   Haul distance was about 24 miles round trip; and, in
order to comply with State load limits, 14 to 16 bales comprised the
normal load.  On arrival at the balefill, the trailers were unloaded by
forklift.  On the average, unloading required about 12 minutes.

St. Paul Balefill
     Bales were stacked by the forklift three high in tiers and side-by-
side to form horizontal rows.  The study indicated that about 2.2 percent
of the bales received broke during handling.  An average 6 inches of
cover soil was placed once or twice weekly on the top surface of each

     In order to provide controlled conditions for balefill evaluation,
a special test cell was constructed.  The test cell was 90 feet by 110
feet by 15 feet deep and contained about 1,500 bales.  The test cell was
monitored for settlement, gas, leachate, and temperature.  Filling of
the test cell was completed in October 1973,  and monitoring was conducted
over the following year.  Hence, the results should be considered as
representative of only the very early stages of the biographical and
chemical systems active within the balefill.

     Leachate was collected for analysis from the sump which drained the
impervious cell liner.  Figure 3 shows trends for leachate and precipitation.
Leachate flow was less than one liter per day except during the months
of June, July, and August 1974.  During this period about 19,000 liters
of leachate was generated.  This amounted to about 8 percent of total
precipitation for the period.  Results of some of the leachate analyses
are shown in Table 3 indicating relatively low values for BOD and chlorides
and an almost neutral pH.

     Average tmperatures rose about 45°C to a peak of about 65°C over
the first 20 days.  Over the next 60 days temperatures decreased to
about 30°C where, with some deviation, they remained over the rest of
the test period.

     Gas composition was monitored at several points in the test cell.
Trends over time were slight, indicating a decrease in 02 and increases
in COp and CH^.  CH  concentrations generally remained below 15 percent
by volume.         "


     Settlement monitoring conducted over the one-year period indicated
expansion over the first ten days after placement, followed by a basically
stable condition.

     Emergence of flies from the balefill was also studied.  Data
obtained from the fly traps employed is shown in Table 4 along with data
from another study conducted in Oceanside, California.  The beneficial
effect of cover soil was especially evident in the final study conducted
in June 1974.

St. Paul Costs

     Table 5 summarizes cost information obtained over about 20 months
of operation at St. Paul.  Costs are presented for the system as a
whole, as well as for each of the three basic cost centers:  baling
plant, transportation network, and balefill.
     The information I have presented is somewhat abreviated and cursory.
It is based primarily on the report "Evaluation of St. Paul Solid Waste
Baling and Balefill Project" by Ralph Stone and Company.   For more
details on the system studied and the results of the studies, I suggest
that you consult that report.  It should be available in  January from
the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Springfield, Virginia.

     We anticipate that the use of balers will increase in the future
where it is found that the processing costs are offset by savings in
transport, either by rail or road, and disposal site space.  In light of
this and in order to provide more information on the behavior of balefills,
our Solid and Hazardous Haste Research Division is conducting further
research in this area.  Systems Technology Corporation, under contract
to that Division, has constructed and is evaluating the five test cells
listed in Table 6.  This three-year effort will allow evaluation of the
quantity, as well as quality, of gas and leachate produced by the closed
cells.  Dan McCabe of Systems Technology Corporation will describe the
study and results to date in a paper on Friday.

     We are fortunate in the location of this meeting, as one of the two
known operating bale facilities in the nation is in the Atlanta area.
This facility is owned and operated by neighboring Cobb County.  This
baler, manufactured by American Hoist and Derrick, is similar in nature
to the St. Paul baler I discussed earlier. Flat-bed trailers are used
for transport, and the balefill is operated as described for St. Paul.
In this case, the balefill is located about 20 miles from the baler.  If
you are considering adding baling to your system, I encourage you to
observe operating facilities such as this one and discuss actual costs
and operating features with the responsible officials.


                        IU O- 0.
                        ~> o«
                        - ~Cl

a z






o ^—
_* IL-



" "S
u °
.c a
on °3

-<• U1 [M O-
tx O co n
10 •* .— eg
co CN r-i ^o
r- 0 .-
1 f) CO tx
oo cP^to
^J •— CM CM
OO IO •* 0
— — — —
CO •* Co xi
r- CN ix rx
IT) IT) 10 in,
O CO <» O
co co -*>r ^i-

^t CM ra -°
CO 0 CJ .-
co co ^ S^
,x. Os O O

CM CO IT) -j-
xf -<- -xT ^f
O O so -.-?
E^-S 5
O O .— CM

— CM r— CO
•* f •* ^r
^- r— CM —

.5 3 § -S
E 0 o o
0 ^ -c 5

=> o -o o
rx ir> co o
S-o o .—
rx o o
•* o ^
1 O IX tx
o. ^^s ^3
rx . — CM to
— •— CM CM
~- CO O CO
;o 10 in 10
— to O CN

a> co r- ^~
O O xj- IX
CO -* ^f •*
~- •<• CM O
O O •— CM

rx .— co to
ro to Ix tx
•<• •>* •* xf
— 'O O r-

•^5 -1
= ^-s 1

-o •— o -o
N 0 CN O
•vj- N. OO CO
CO ^t "O O
rx o u-> o
-* to o
1 CO r- 0
•— CO CM
CM to" CN ^O~
O CO — O
r— .— CM C-l
O •<• IO -O
ro o O oo
co rx ^i- CN
CN -sf IX O
CM •— *— CM
CN 03 O i—
tx O IX Ix
"=t CO M3
1 -0 -* r-
CM" xi- co" co
r- CM CO -<•
rx co rx rx
•—•-•- —
-<• -o co tx
IO to IO *O
CO Tl- ~-f •*

•*• "*• -* >t
r- ^- O CO
-— r- r- O

CM 'sf CO *—

•I 5 ^1
e o D s;
0-c -D 3:

                                                          UJ  ftN
                                                          O  5
                                             "      E

                        TABLE  2
Date 1
9/73 1
Total Wt.
Per Days:
Kg (tons)
Avg. V/t.
Per Bal«:
Kg (Ib)
No. Bales '
Per Day j-
1,305 202
1,277 284
1 ,273 275
1,277 300
1,263 218
1,278 256
8 3.5 17.5
8 7.5 18
8 8 17
8 8.5 18
8 7.5 14
8 7 17

         Cumulative P.-ecipHarion (1,000 lifers)
(SJ34!] OOO'Q
                            3Ai40]nu;rr) puo uouojidpajj XJIOQ



1 —



«j |
Cf D
Z 0

*r~ co
6 1C
u"i *7
O ^
i O



'•4- t^>
^-' f

! o
E -—
o ^
• 2 cj
o . 	 ,
•- £
"o £•
U :~
















CO ^~ ON
: ^

1 CO

1 0

Si o
0 V
§ o
f 1—
*~ ^NJ*
tr LO


o o
^ °
CM ~M"


















^ r
>* ^N,



' —







r ;o ^











NO cr
•o rx i o
*- — 1 CN

xf CO O

xj- O 1 LO


i — O CM ^
1C O ^O NO
O ON -Nl- LO
CM •— CM —


—• CO
0 *> ^ d

xf O O LO
X> r- LO ON

— LO —

CO r->
y co r: co
^ v S V

O - O CO

CM ^~
r— O •— •—
tx fx rx ix












! ~
! "O
. QJ
• ,f-
\ §
\ u
! *"""**


^ r
O ;

? \


LO \

0 ;



CM !
<~^ co" \



^ "
—3 - —


1 0)
1 .-t


1 1
1 CD
| O
1 ^

1 ;t;
1 "5
! u
I r
} c
! '
! <•


1 —








o °-
-J- ^ • —
'_ V~) 	
^ uo ~a
^ " r-
5? d •-
21 	 U_

I 1 ! I
1 1 I 1

1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1

1 1 1
1 I 1
— r— CN -—

._.-.— ._
• • • •

o o u-> r-v
^- o o

o o to —
•^ co co '<•

LO LO to O

o C"~; irj •<•
in o r\ o

o o o o
o o o o
•^t "* xT xf
C-l £M CN C^J

CO CO ^j- O

xj- ^- _^^ CO ^^
U-)_,— o^N^^j^j-
^ -o \ co \- co \ c-
^s. (V) CJ (-rj CJ (-V-) CJ £f)



y —
C <
^ ">
o .-
_C •'-
^ "
c u
.t: *o
> 0
vr Q-
u *"
D 0
-T-] r-
1 t- "i:
O w
U 0
o E
.;: •-

'u ^o
r\ CO








x^ O
s ^t>
— 2
5 S
o ~
1- UL
"- V*
O o
-5 o
£ £
73 ' —




— i
n to

o o

o o

-^- -^J-

8 I
s_ 0
o o
8 c
o a
DJ — '

— "5
-c •£

*~ o

o ~~o
o c
C 0
o en
"a °
D -4-
1/1 6



f\ tx


^ ^*

•" >
$-. 0
O 0
O "O
o c
D d
O) • —
-a "»
D *.
" 0
-C _C



— o

o o

"*}* •^f-


0 ~
j- O
o *~

"5 o
? 0
~O "U
c c
D 0
o o
Ol 01
"O ~O
^ _?
.JC -C


CM hx
0 •—


•^J. x}-

0) —
S 8
0 l-
j- (D
D >
0 0
_c o

C Q>
O O)
-u "»>
^? -^
" 0
-C _C


CO . — CO *O
IT) CO -* V)
00 •- —

o o m co

>* -* m IT)

_ o
.- o
a^ -
-*- ^
t. •- O

o-o o cj
0 C " >
-a ° o 8
CO >
D ro o -^
~D ">» ."t 7-t

" o -D -a
-£ •£ o cj
> > ° D
> > CQ ca

i £
O £
ro ht
£ S-
i> CM
"^ ^5-
CO 4
CM £$
^ >

fO • —
^ ^*1
0 CO

^o 'o

to "o


- §
o "
O « — • CN CO
r- CM O •*
co -<)• o oo
CN "tf O CO
r- CM o m
O ""N" Ix • —
O CN O •*
O CN ^f IO
CN CO •— -O
•O O >-O —
CN CM O ^=t
•— CO O 'O
r'txed +
Opcrating T
ro — o o
o o o —
O O •— CM
O .— 0 —
CO O CN x>
O — O •—
— — CO
O — 0 ~-
co o Ix ID
•<• co co •—
0 — 0 CM
IX IO • — CO
o -M- CN rx
o^-o —
fixed +
Operating +
^- ~o — o
o o o o
•* o co co
O CO ^- o
O 0 0 —
tx co co co
1 — rx i — o
o o o —
-* "O -* CO
O CN i — i —
CM IO K •*
CN. O. r- CO
o o o •—
^o co o ix
O  D
                                            >-CN 8

                                            e ^F

                                            ^ °~°
                                            _g CO E
                                            ti E



                             "o    -o    -a
                             in    T-    T~

                             •a    "o    "o
                             •O     CD     CD
                             d)    .—    r—





               The Role of Processed Refuse m Landfilling. Yesterday's Experience, Today's Status,
                               Tomorrow's Forecast-SHREDDING
                                         R K.Ham
                  Professor, Qvtl & Environmental Engineering, The University of Wisconsin
                                    Madison, Wisconsin


This presentation will begin with a history of shredding, trying to trace major factors
leading up to  the present  situation.   The  second section provides a summary of reasons
previously cited for shredding,  and as presently applied.  Third will be a discussion01
present shredded refuse landfill practices,  criteria  for  proper  operation of  such  landf:
and a  critique of present  landfills.   Finally, there will be predictions as to the
future of solid waste  shredding  for landfill disposal.

This presentation will emphasize the  landfilling aspects of solid waste shredding.
This was suggested  by  the  title  of the paper as determined by conference leaders.
Please note, however,that  certain aspects  of the equipment and its role in the overall
field  of solid waste management  and resource recovery do affect the landfilling
aspects, and this will be  discussed briefly.

                            HISTORY OF SOLID WASTE SHREDDING

Originally, the shredding  of solid waste was conceived primarily as a preparation of
refuse for landfill disposal.  There  was some associated concern for resource recovery
and there are  installations to be found in Europe which, over the years, have had
a  degree of resource recovery in addition  to the shredding and landfilling aspects,
The original experience  in shredding  for landfill disposal was in Europe where the
concept dates  back  some  25 years in England and in France.  The concept was largely
unknown in the U.S. until  about  ten years  ago when various reports and publications
appeared in this country.   These reports indicated that shredding so changed the
characteristics of  refuse  that  it could be landfilled without daily cover.  In the
late 1960's and early  1970's a  rapid  expansion in the number of shredders took place
in Europe.  By 1970 shredding was an  established practice in most European countries
and was considered  a viable alternative to other then common methods of  refuse

In the U.S., early  shredding installations were installed largely for reducing bulky
or industrial  wastes to  improve  their handling characteristics.  It was never a common
practice,and many  of these units are  no longer operating. Quite often these shredders
prepared material  for  incineration in order to allow a wider range of wastes to be
burned in the  normal residence  time available.  In 1966 reports of European experience
and claims led to  the  second demonstration project ever funded in solid waste by the
then U.S. Public Health  Service.  The Madison, Wisconsin, project was a major effort,
portions of which  are  still under way, designed to demonstrate the feasibility of
shredding American refuse  and to determine  if shredded refuse could be placed in a

landfill without daily cover.  Because of the state of landfill knowledge at that
time, this project was called upon to develop data and testing techniques which
advanced knowledge about both shredded refuse landfills as well as sanitary landfills.
For a variety of reasons the results were too often unavailable or misrepresented
for several years, and conflicting rumors and reports of the utility of shredders for
landfill operations were commonplace.

Additional installations started appearing in the U.S. in the early 1970's.  These
installations were established generally to gain experience in shredding, for public
relations purposes, to avoid daily cover, and for other basically adventurous reasons.
Little data was generated at these installations and simple matters such as continuous
weighing programs were seldom addressed.

In drawing from European and early U.S. experience, supplemented by the Madison testing
program, there are some statements which can be made regarding the shredding and
placement of shredded refuse in landfills.   (1) Shredding can be accomplished and,
depending upon the choice of equipment, good reliability can be achieved in grinding
residential, commercial, and most industrial wastes.  Materials excluded are major
pieces of metal or wood, flammable or explosive materials, and shock loadings of other
specific wastes as hose, wire, etc.   (2) The shredding installation presents new
problems not ordinarily faced by many solid waste management agencies.  These problems
relate to the necessary orientation of  the management of such a facility to production,
with  the various  long term  implications of this orientation.  Host municipalities
have  not been in  a position of operating anything similar to a factory where production
is the objective.  For this reason some unusual managerial problems have been
observed at shredding installations.

(3)   Many solid waste professionals have determined that a shredded solid waste
landfill can be operated without daily  cover without causing rodent, insect, odor,
fire, blowing debris, aesthetic or other problems, the lack of which are commonly
considered indicators of quality landfilling operations.  Most observers will find
such  a landfill more acceptable on a day to day basis than they will the normal
sanitary landfill.   (4) Landfill sites will be easier to obtain using shredded
refuse,for the public has been shown to be more likely to accept it.  In some cases
this  acceptance may have no other basis than the refuse being"treated"and, thus, no
longer recognizable as such, and what is not recognized is not recognized  as a problem.

(5)   Because the  refuse is  shredded but, more importantly, because of the  lack of
daily cover, dispersion of  landfill gas is more readily obtained and leachate quality
is altered.  Leachate quality will be worse  than the normal sanitary landfill for a
period of time, but it will rapidly improve  to levels better than those of the normal
sanitary landfill.   (6) Because of the  lack of cover, mud tracking and operational
problems caused by wet or frozen weather conditions need not be a problem.  A further
result of the use of less cover is the  relatively low level of activity on the site,
which improves the acceptability of the site to the public.  (7) The density of the
refuse will be increased, where the dry refuse density will increase some  ten to
twenty percent through shredding.  The  overall density increase, including provision
for cover in the  case of a  sanitary landfill, will be in the neighborhood  of 30%.
This  represents the air space savings which  can be achieved through the use of
shredded refuse without daily cover compared to the normal sanitary landfill.

(8)  The above advantages are not necessarily needed, useful, or even applicable
in all situations.  Thus, local input is necessary for each site in order to
determine if these advantages are, in fact, worthy of the cost.  Even if the
advantages are substantial, these must be weighed carefully against the costs, which
are also substantial.  Depending largely on the fraction of plant capacity actually
achieved, shredding operation and depreciation costs generally range from a low
of approximately $3.00 per ton to a high of approximately $7.00 per ton.  This cost
must be weighed against the decreased landfilling costs, landfill quality, and
any savings in hauling costs made possible by the acceptance of a closer site or
the use of the shredding facility as a transfer situation.

                                     WHY SHRED?

It is appropriate at this point to draw from history and present day experience to
discuss the question: why shred refuse?  As was mentioned previously, initial interes
in shredding installations emphasized landfill aspects.  Reasons cited were
extending site life, improved public relations and site acceptability, doing somethin
progressive or new, avoiding daily cover, and generally improving landfill quality.
Experience spanning two decades has resulted in three of these reasons being emphasiz
in England: improved density, the "treatment" of refuse to gain public acceptance,
and better all round landfill quality.

In the last few years in the U.S. several new factors have emerged, while other facto
have become less important.  The increased concern of the public exerts pressure, now
to "do something".  People are less willing to settle for poor systems, even at
increased cost.  Another impetus for shredding relates to the regulatory agencies
clamping down on bad practices and bad sites, forcing reevaluation of present methods
This reevaluation typically incorporates shredding as one available alternative, and
once one realizes the inevitable increased costs associated with trying to do a
better job, shredding can appear to be viable.  Other factors which have enhanced
greatly the acceptance of shredding as an option include the facts that other
people are doing it and that shredding is usually a first step in advanced processing
schemes.  The interest in resource recovery, spurred by concerns for materials and
energy conservation, coupled with the lack of widely acceptable resource recovery
systems, makes it desirable to keep one's options open in developing a final system,
yet, at the same time, maintaining a progressive attitude by improving present methoc
Shredding followed by magnetic separation of iron is available; hence, this is often
reason enougt to initiate a shredding operation with the idea that additional separat
or resource recovery modules will be incorporated as they become feasible.

Thus, it appears that the major reasons for shredding seem to be less concerned with
the landfill than they were in the past,and more concerned with keeping future option
open  and resource recovery.  There seems to be less concern with saving money
per se, and more concern with the quality of the reduction-disposal systom.  Unfortur
it appears that in some places shredding is still used as an excuse to run an open
dump.  This is of great concern, for bad operations breed adverse acceptance by the
public and regulatory agencies and future problems in imoroving waste management-resc
recovery systems.


I must approach this section with some sense of insecurity, for at one time I had
the good fortune to have personal knowledge of most of the shredding installations
in this country and had toured and discussed extensively the application of shredding
in European countries.  The tremendous increase in the number of shredders has made
it Impossible for any one person to be on top of the rapidly moving field and makes
it difficult to try to describe any state of the art on shredding technology and
subsequent landfilllng practices.  What I will do is supplement my experience with
two surveys of shredder installations and one survey of state regulatory agencies.
The first survey is the recent Waste Age (July, 1975) listing of shredder installations.
Following this will be some comments from a survey by Mr.Richard DeZeeuw of Green
Bay, Wisconsin, who checked by personal contact most of the shredder installations.
The original objective of this study was to attempt to relate costs of shredding to
basic variables such as tonnage shredded, rated capacity, shredder manufacture, etc.
In so doing, Mr. DeZeeuw obtained some very up to date information on the status of
various operations around the country.  The final source of data for this paper is
a survey made by the author of state regulatory agencies.  The purpose of this survey
was to learn of regulatory opinions regarding landfills containing shredded solid
waste and, in particular, to learn of any unusual positive or negative aspects of such

The Waste A^e survey of 1975 indicated 126 shredding installations operating or under
construction in the U.S.  Of these, 46 were listed as being primarily for bulky or
industrial refuse reduction, 59 for municipal refuse only, and 21 units were cited
as working with both types of refuse.  Of the 126 shredding installations, 66 were
listed as preparing refuse for landfill with some possible interest in resource
recovery, while 60 were listed as preparation for some further processing.  Usually
this processing was resource recovery of some sort, hut in some cases it would be
nothing more than bulky refuse reduction prior to incineration.  Undoubtedly, all
installations involve some landfill aspects for final disposal of residuals, but
in many cases little or no information is available regarding the landfill.  Note that
some of these installations will recvcle only iron for the forseeahle future and
cannot truly be classified as resource recovery installations.

One of the results of the Green Bay and state agency surveys is knowledge that the
comprehensive listing in Waste Age does not indicate the present status of the various
installations.  In many cases in the Green Hay survey, no local person could be
found with any knowledge whatsoever about the installation.  Tt is likely that many
of these units were for industrial,research, or other private purposes, and are not
of immediate concern to this conference. Some  are located outside the U.S. and were
not contacted. Of 63 installations for which knowledgeable people were found, 9 were
closed or had never been constructed, 33 were operating and had been operating for
at least several months and had some degree of operating experience, and 21 were
too new to have any experience or data.  Many of the latter were still under
construction as of July or August, 1975, indicating the rapid recent expansion in
the number of shredders.

In the author's survey of state solid waste agencies, 37 states responded.  According
to the Waste Age survey, these states had 57 municipal refuse shredders and 37
industrial or special waste shredders for a total of 9i installations.  The state
regulatory agencies listed 38 municipal refuse shredders and 11 industrial or special

waste shredders for a total of 49 installations.  It is obvious that the states
may not be aware of in-house industrial shredders, but the discrepancy for the
municipal refuse shredders is not so easily explained. These same states cited 32
known operating shredders, and 25 Vnown shredded waste landfills.  Thus, according
to both the Green  'ay an
left unattended.  Every site the author has observed with both shredded and
unprocessed refuse being filled together has had problems.  These, problems include
rodents, flies, fires, blowing debris, odors, and others.  The only exception to this
was a site in the United Kingdom where decomposed shredded refuse ten to fifteen
years old is excavated and placed over industrial and bulky unprocessed refuse in a
carefully run operation.  We have a test site in Madison, i-hich has been monitored
closely, in which two feet of shredded refuse was placed over two feet of compacted
unprocessed refuse in a 30 x 60 ft. area.  No unprocessed refuse was visible,
yet rodent problems were documented, with extensive burrow development on the site.

     4.  In order to change the characteristics of refuse to the extent that the
material can be landfilled without dailv cover, there are some particle size require-
ments which must be met.  The absolute particle size requirement is for no food
waste to be visible upon careful inspection of the shredded solid waste.  The only
exception would be an occasional beaten piece of orange peel or some such item.
If food waste particles are observable by humans, thev will be even more observable
to rodents and insects, and they will undoubtedlv cau^e infestation problems and
probably odors.  Experience suggests that if material is ground so that at least
90% of the material passes a 3 inch screen, this will be adequate.  Note that
different shredders tend to produce different particle size distributions.  Some
shredders may change food waste particle characteristics considerably, while others
may not, even though both shredded products pass the three inch particle size
criteria.  It is apparent that additional information is needed regarding particle
size requirements for landfill disposal for the various shredder configurations.

Critique and Experience of U.S. Shredded Landfills

Personal experience and contacts, together with information from state regulatory
officials, provides a degree of experience which can be drawn upon in attempting to
determine the success and problems '-'ith shredded refuse landfills. It is observed that
states often lack the field personnel to evaluate properly such landfills.  Thus,
much of the information one obtains does not come from first hand experience, but
rather by word of mouth and hearsay evidence.  There appears to be a real need for
a well documented survey where a few experts visit many of the shredded solid waste
landfills to assess problems properly, operating experience, etc.

A shredding facility is not without problems and this has to affect the landfill as
well.   Frequently the emphasis in running a shredding-landfill facility is placed on
the plant, which is the most interesting and crisis prone part of the system in
some respects, to the neglect of nroper operation of the landfill.  Explosions
continue to be a hazard at shredding plants, but these explosions appear to be not
of great concern if the plant is designed for their inevitable occurrence.  The
Wilmington, Delaware,plant, for example, has had nine explosions in the last one and
one-half vears.  One item that was fortunately caught before it entered the plant
was a live landmine.   The conveying and feeding of refuse is still difficult; even
though it is less of  a problem now than it used to be.  Other problems relate to
the fact that appropriate manpower is often not available for proptr operation and
naintenance, with provision for contingencies, of the plant and landfill.  There
may he no provision for long-term maintenance on a routine basis.  Finally, it is
noted that the equipment still is not off-the-shelf.  There is a shakedown period
*rhich wjll he required, including some experimentation on the part of the plant
operators to determine the best way of operating their particular plant.

Information and opinion regarding certain features o£ the shredded waste landfills


is contradictory.  From the replies of the 37 state agencies that responded to the
questionnaire, it is interesting that of the reasons cited for shredding in
the installations in their states,14 were to avoid daily cover, 11 to provide resoi
recovery, and 7 to increase refuse density.          in     18 cases no daily
cover was applied to shredded solid waste landfills, but in 7 landfills daily
cover was provided.   In 10 landfills unprocessed refuse was placed on the fill
along with shredded.  In 8 landfills no unprocessed refuse was disposed on site.  1
critique of the sites by state agencies indicated a lack of common experience or
common guidelines for critiquing.  Several agencies reported that the sites were
causing no problems at all and that they were very bappv with them.  Other agencies
described problems which they thought were serious.  Problems cited included
leachate, blowing paper, insect problems, rdor, and mechanical problems.  On the
other hand, positive aspects cited were increased density, easier operation, lack
of odor, lack of flies, and the ability to operate in a situation where cover was

It was interesting to observe the lack of uniformity of experience or knowledge
with respect to shredded solid vaste landfills.  This indicates a lack of acceptanc
of information available, a lack of knowledge of information available, or incorrec
information being available.  For example, there is at least one city that has tolc
the state regulatory agency that no_ leachate will be produced as long as they shrec
the solid waste before landfilling.  On the other hand, another state specifically
required daily cover of shredded solid waste in order to avoid leachate problems.
It is obvious that at least one of these two statements is wrong and, according to
studies performed by the author, it appears that both are incorrect (1).  At least
one state apparently requires daily cover unless a shredded refuse landfill has
leachate collection; however, data in reference (1) indicated that the lack of covs
improves overall leachate quality.

Other areas of disagreement or misinformation are the questions of odor and fly
problems.   Some state agencies and other professionals say they have specific
knowledge of odor and fly problems on shredded refuse landfills; whereas others sa^
they have specific knowledge of no odor problems or fly problems on such landfills.
Apparently, there is lack of criteria for judging,a lack of first hand knowledge, c
the sites are, in fact, very different.  One rather unfortunate comment that came i
several times in the response from state agencies was that there are several
situations where shredded refuse is placed in what is otherwise an open dump, think
that the problems of the open dump would, thereby, be solved.  Of course, this is
incorrect,  and it is unfortunate that these kinds of operations are allowed to

From personal experience and contacts, it does appear that odor is more of a proble
than was commonlv thought.  The odor is musty and soil-like at a minimum, which is
not as  strong nor as disagreeable as the odor of unprocessed refuse.  However, to
some people it is still disagreeable.  Claims of shredded refuse    having no odor
are absolutely false.   It appears that odor problems are sometimes related to the
moisture content of the refuse and, if any water is allowed to be in continuous
contact with shredded solid waste,maintaining saturation conditions over a period t
tune, odor  problems are likely.

This section has attempted to look at both the number and purpose of shredder

installations in order to evaluate the status of shredding in this country.
Guidelines based on U.S. and European experience concerning the right way to run a
shredded refuse landfill were presented, along with a qualitative critique of landfills
from experience gained by the author personally and from contacts with state
regulatory agencies.  In concluding this section, the significant discrepancies
observed in trying to develop information about the number  of shredding installations
and the success of shredded refuse landfills should be emphasized.  I had assumed,
perhaps naively, that the field was becoming more mature and that a realistic
appraisal of shredding was being accomplished, both from a prospective shredder
operator's viewpoint as well as that of a regulatory agency.  It is obvious that
there are still some major problems in this area, and that additional documentation
needs to be provided.  There is confusion regarding who is operating what facilities
and for what purpose, guidelines for operating a shredded refuse landfill, and the
degree of success of these landfills.

                              THE FUTURE OF SHREDDING

Drawing from information already presented in this paper, one can make some
predictions regarding the future of iolid waste shredding.  First of all, editorially,
t'"u' aut'ior certainlv hopes that the futurp vill brinp, about a norf nature evaluation
and use of shredding technology.  There '.-'ill be, hopefully, a day when those people
who need a shredder will realize they need it, and those people who do not need a
shredder will realize they do not need it.  Perhaps this is too much to ask, but at
least it appears that we could he closer to that day than we are now.  Also, we
should have criteria for running a shredded refuse landfill  operation established
and accepted to a wider degree than we have today.  These points are significant,
in my opinion, for they will impact on the number and purposes of shredding
installations, and whether shredding is considered an independent, useful solid waste
management tool or an Interesting side venture.

The field of shredding has changed rapidly in the last five years.  Remembering that
it was conceptually visualized only 25 years ago, that virtually no literature on
the subject was available until about ten years ago, and that the first U.S.
experience receiving any documentation was available not more than five years
ago, it is amazing that the field has come along as far as it has.

It is obvious that there will continue to be an increasing number of shredding
installations.  These installations will continue the trend toward larger systems
having multiple shredders which are able to handle a wider range of solid wastes.
The trend to the shredding of bulkv and industrial wastes, along with municipal solid
wastes, will undoubtedly continue.  It appears that shredding will be done primarily
to facilitate resource recovery as opposed to strictly sanitary landfill purposes,
but the landfill is an inevitable part of any forseeable shredding installation
and, so, must be of professional concern.

There appear to be several areas for which further study or documentation is needed.
There is confusion as to the importance and effect of particle size on the successful
landfilling of shredded solid waste.  It is likely that in future years the emphasis
on resource recovery as part of the reason for shredding will, in turn, dictate
the particle size distribution required.  Even at that point, however, one must be

sure that the particle size distribution of the material to be lane1  . jed is
adequate for running a good nuisance free landfill.  Another problerr  :. lau-d to the
effect of incorporating resource recovery in shredding installations  is the effect
on refuse quality of removing various components of the waste prior to landfilling.
Changes in waste composition may invalidate experimental results and experience
regarding shredded refuse landfills.

There is continuing concern about leachate production from shredded solid waste
landfills.  Considerable data is available on the quantity and quality of leachate
produced, but this data has not included some of the very practical considerations
found in any actual landfill.  For example, it seems of less importance to determin
the leachate quality from one layer of refuse than it does to determine the leachat
quality from multiple layers of refuse, as one would have in an operating landfill.
The first study, of which the author is aware, to examine the effect of placing fresh
refuse over aged refuse in a landfill has just been Initiated at Madison, Wisconsin
This is just one of several areas needing study before the leachate question can be

Finally, there is considerable confusion as to the importance of daily cover and it
relation to site acceptance.  There is need for a comprehensive survey of existing
sites to document problem areas and make recommendations regarding appropriate desl
and operational procedures for shredded refuse landfills.  Until this kind of
documentation exists, we will continue to have hearsay evidence and conflicting
opinions on the worth and reliability of these landfills.  Ultimately, this confusi
will reflect back to the acceptability of the shredding concept whether it be
primarily for landfill or resource recovery purposes.

(1) Ham, R.K. and R. Karnauskas, "Leachate Production from Milled and Unprocessed
    Refuse", 1SWA Bulletin, No. 14/15, p.3, Dec. (1974).

                              Cecil Iglehart, Jr., P.E.
                       Civil Engineer, SCA Services, Inc., Kentucky

     Different types of solid waste  are handled  by different methods

depending upon the size of the landfill and  characteristics of  the waste to

be disposed of.

     Size of landfill, in my discussion, means volume of waste  to be  disposed

of daily.  High volume landfills will have no problems  handling many  types of

bulky wastes because of more equipment and personnel on site, the larger

working face, and the large volume of residential waste to mix  with and  cover

the bulky or special waste.  A small operation handling only a  few hundred

yards of solid waste per day will have a hard time handling even one  tandem

dump load cf logs.  Tliexefoie, sifce  of landfill  plays a very major role  in

determining how to handle the different waste types.

     Landfill foreman and operators  must become  familiar with every load of

solid waste entering the landfill.   Solid waste  coining  to the landfill is

either residential, commercial, industrial,  residential trash,  construction

or deraolation waste.  Residential waste usually  comes to the site in  rear loaders,

is well broken up, and easy to spread and compact.  Commercial  waste  usually

comes to the landfill in large front-end loaders and is also well broken up.

Industrial waste usually comes to the landfill in large open top or closed

roll-off containers holding from 20  to 50 cubic  yards.   Industrial waste can

be anything and is the hardest to handle and sometlines  requires special  techniques.

     Residential trar>h usually comes in on dump  trucks  or flat  bed trucks and

consists of tree liipbs, whito goods, old  furniture, old torn up shed:>, tires,

and other bulky Items.  Construct ion waf-ti? is wood, plaster board, large plastic

sheets, tree roots and logs, old tai roofs,  broken up concrete  and asphalt.


Demolation material is large tandem dumps or sixty five yard open top trailers

filled with broken up buildings usually loaded with a two or three yard bucket

on a crane or track loader.  Material is mostly broken up wood,  brick, and

concrete with some metal pipes and steel beams.

     Landfill personnel can become familiar with every contractor hauling to

the site.  The operators can observe industrial waste being unloaded from roll-

off s and can ask the driver where certain loads come from.  Since certain

industrial waste are the hardest to handle, the landfill operator can soon

recognize  the problem loads and can direct the driver to the proper unloading

area.  By becoming familiar with the haulers using the site, and knowing where

his load is coining from, the operator is in a better position to spot some

hazardous material or unknown substance which should not be in the solid waste.

     In large metropolitan areas where there are large volumes of industrial

vaste, there are larger landfill operations where the site has two or more piec

of landfilling equipment and large volumes of residential and commercial solid

waste.  Landfills of this size usually operate by unloading trucks at the base

of the sloping working face where earthmoving equipment then push, spread, and

compact the solid waste upslope.  In a majority of cases, wastes which cannot

be spread easily are pushed up against the toe of the slope, but not pushed

upslope.  The landfill operator usually directs the driver of a load such as tt

to the side of the working face which may be 150 fio 250 feet wide.  When this

is pushed into place the next several loads of residential waste can be directe

to dump in the same general area.  The residential waste loads are then pushed

in around and over the industrial waste load, and compacted to form a new

working slope.  It may take several residential loads to completely establish

a new working face over the hard to handle industrial waste load.  An example

of this vould be a twenty yard open top full o£ old coble and cable reels

from a telephone company.  If this"cable were spread out and pushed upslope

it would become entangled  in the dozer tracts or compactor wheels nod would can1


serious equipment problems.  By keeping the load pushed together and moving it

as little., as possible it can be covered with other trash which can be worked

in and around it where eventually a machine will be compacting by running over

the load.

     I have several slides which I will show later, showing different types of

industrial waste and how they are handled.  On large sites however,  a general

statement can be made:  almost all industrial waste can be handled on the main

working face of the landfill by spreading upslope or by pushing against the

toe of slope and filling over the special waste with residential and

commercial refuse.

     Residential trash which comes in by dump truck and contains a lot of brush

and white goods are best handled by breaking the load loose,  spreading it out

and running over it before it is pushed upslope.  All loads being pushed upslope

should be spread and run over by the dozer or compactor before the machine starts

back down the slope.  This process breaks the load up, mashes it into the previous

load and makes it possible to push the next load over it.

     Work    with the haulers using the landfill and let them know of some of the

operational problems they generate.  It can sometimes be helpful to have certain

loads come to the landfill before noon or even before the first loads of

residential trash start coming in.  Large loads of rubber tires are a good

example of this.  These loads can be spread along the entire base of the working

face and ten feet of solid waste placed over then before the day is over.  It

would be ideal to have these tires cut up, shredded, or split before they enter

the landfill, but only one state regulates tire disposal E.t this time.

     Pick-up trucks and other hand unloaders themselves are considered a

special waste problem simply because of the space they take up and the time

to unload.  If the sane, guys come in regular they ran usually be talked into

coming in before or qf tc-r peak traffic times and sometimes they will stay away on

very muddy dnys.  Large landfill may have a separate working face for hand

unloaded trucks.                    139

     Some construction and demolation waste can be used  to  build  all  weather

access roads on site.  Talk to the contractor,  let him dump broken up asphalt,

brick., dirt and concrete free if he keeps it seperated from other wastes which

must be covered daily.

     Sludges are usually best handled by pushing upslope and letting  the sludge

waste spread and mix with the other wastes which are mostly paper. This

spreading allows for maximum absorption of the liquid in the sludge and causes

the least operational problems.

     Special waste problems can start with the land clearing of  the site for a

sanitary landfill.  If the site is heavily wooded, you've got problems.  Many

urban areas will allow no open burning even for land clearing.   In some cases t

property can be logged and the timber sold.  In a majority  of cases,  however,

the timber is pushed down with dozers and windrolled. It can be  pushed in the

bottom of trenches later, stockpiled between rolls or spread over the bottom of

a lift.

     Every T^ndf-OI site will receive some druu.s.  They  may be empty, they may

contain some solid which has set up and can't be removed or they  may  contain sot

non-hazardous liquids.  If your dumping ia a trench, push them to the bottom

and cover with refuse.  If you're pushing upslope, try to keep them at the toe

of the slope and cover.  There is a market for a clean drum in good condition

if you've got time and people to handle them.  Some drums can even te used for

traffic control.  Like everything else, drums are handled by whatever method

works best based on volume of site.  The wide wheel of an LF280 Michigan

compactor on an 826 B Caterpillar can easily mash a drum flat with no problems.

      Small trench  type landfills can usually handle special wastes easl   then

small area-filled  type landfills.  They just push the waste over  the  slope and

continue pushing other vaste over the slope until the special waste is covered.

The slope is then  reworked and compacted.


     Some small landfills in urban areas where larger landfills are available

should not even attempt to handle large industrial waste loads which present

special waste handling problems which could mess up the working face for  a whole

day or may present a danger to the equipment.

     The manager of a landfill operation which is having problems with a  special

type industrial waste because of the size or contents of the  material or  because

of its volume relative to the size of the landfill can visit  the plant manager

and discuss the situation.  It could be the material could be handled differently

at the plant to put it in a more acceptable form.  This statement may sound

ridiculous to a manager of a Los Angeles County landfill or from a site in Chicago,

but for a mojority of cases it is a very direct approach to a very difficult problem.

The savings in operating costs at the landfill because of less handling or

equipment breakdown can also make that customer easy to live  with instead of

dreading to see that load come in.

     Another example of a special waste is a rubber dust from a tire recapper

or a carbon dust from a paint or ir.k maker.   These materials  are like powder

and blow up and cover the equipment spreading  them.  This material can be drawn

into the radiator by the fan blades or it can  be drawn into the engine air intake.

The idea here is to move this type waste as little as possible and to get other

waste over the carbon or rubber as soon as possible.  Sometimes the industrial

plant can change this material into a slurry which is much easier to handle.

     Pushing logs and large limbs is another special problem  because of the

possibility of running one of the limbs through the radiator  of the landfill

machine or tearing up a hydraulic hose.

     Sometimes a landfill operator will be called upon to handle a special

problem.  An example could be a grocery store  fire, where the entire contents

of the store must be buried under the eyes of  a federal or state inspector.   In

this case it uill usually be easier to dig a special trench Cor all  the grocery

waste where it can be dumped, compacted and buried.


     There is also special types of hot loads which must be handled,,   I am

familiar with a diatomaceous earth type material used as a filter  for  cleaning

vegetable oil.  This material must be spread in thin layers and allowed to

cool down.  If it is not spread heat will build up and the material will start

to smoke.  If this material is dumped on other material it could start a fire.

This material must be spread and allowed to cool in a separate location from

the working face.  Once the material has cooled it can be mixed with dirt and

covered.  Loads of incinerator ash should also be dumped in a separate location

and allowed to cool.

     Some of the factors which lead to good sanitary landfill operations are

also needed to properly handle special type wastes.

     A site can be engineered to prevent pallution, but proper operating

procedures are also important and necessary to insure proper pollution control.

Spreading refuse in thin layers, compacting, and covering with six inches of

soil at the end of each day is good operating procedure which also help control


     To me, one of the most important factors effecting the good operation of

a sanitary landfill is the access road.  This road is important relative to

handling  special type waste because if your access road is not adequate to

handle the heavy loads coming to the site, you won't have any special  waste to

worry about.

     The  all weather access road must extend as close as possible to  the working

face of  the landfill.  A wet weather dumping area near the entrance to the landfil

is  an  important part of any operation and  i=; a good way to keep up the other

roads which have a way of deteriorating very rapidly when they are used in bad

weather  without being properly  crowned and  '-caled, especially when they are over

filled or completed areas of  the site.  Maintaining access roads is a daily job

just like providing daily cover and  if oporntinp po t>onnel arc made to realize

this  they will  soon considci  it part of  their daily job.


                          Chris Klmck
                     Product Manager, Rexnord, Inc
It's a pleasure to address such a wide cross section of the

Solid Waste Industry and to share the speakers' plattorm wi'.h

such knowledgeable and experienced leaders as Cecil Iglehart,

Mike Lawler, Dick Mollenhouse, Dick Eldredge, Fred Pohland

Ron Schwegler, Bob Sterns, Mike Heker and Lonnie Hickman.

I am told that in colonial days, land disposal of solid waste

was accomplished by turning pigs loose on the accumulated

garbage.  It was a simple way to handle the solid waste dis-

posal problem.  As the years passed, our society has become

more complex and the resultant problem of how to dispose of

the waste that this complex society produces has also become

more complex.  As the title of the conference suggests, this

has become quite a puzzle.  It is, therefore, necessary for us

to fit the various bits and pieces of the gigantic puzzle of

solid waste management together correctly so that it will

provide a picture that makes sense.  One of the reasons the

pieces of the puzzle don't always go together properly can be

blamed on Murphy's Law.  For those of you who are not familiar

with Murphy's Law, it is the general hypothesis on why things

go wrong.  Simply stated, it says - "if anything can go wrong,

it will" - or said another way, it states - "That of two possible

events, only the undesired one will occur".  Murphy's Law explains


why a board cut to the exact length will always be too short or

why your air conditioner only breaks down during the middle of

the July heat spel]  or why the $300.00 color picture tube in

your TV set will protect its 10c fuse by blowing first.

I'm afraid  that Murphy's Law creeps  Into all of our lives from

time  to time.  I guess  it also explains why some landfills do

not turn out as well as we hoped they would.  I'm glad that I

was assigned to talk about selecting landfill equipment this

morning, because it is my opinion that of all the phases of

sanitary landfill planning, noniis more critical than machine

selection.  Although the landfill operation may be carefully

planned with all operating techniques outlined, a refuse dis-

posal  system can't be a success if the wrong size or type of

equipment is used.  There aren't any hard and fast rules govern-

ing machine selection.  The particulars of your operation --•

whether it  is  an area method or a trench method, site charac-

teristics,  volume of refuse, type of refuse, land geography,

type  of soil -  sand or  clay,-weather conditions - do heavy rains

make  traction  tough or  in cold weather operation, must frozen

material be dug or used for cover material, how far must cover

dirt  be transported, and the end use of the landfill are all

factors that must be considered in selecting landfill equipment.


Of all the different types of machines used in a landfill,  the

crawler tractor has been used in more operations than any other

type of machine.  The reason for this is that the crawler

tractor has outstanding dozing ability.  It can be used for

pioneering and to strip top soil as well as for excavation and

to move cover dirt up to 250' to 300".  It can also be used for

spreading and placing refuse as well as spreading and placing

cover dirt.

Crawler loaders are often used in smaller trench type landfill

operations because while they can be used in pretty much the

same manner as crawler tractors, their bucket is about the same

width as the machine so they can work up closer to the side of

the trench, than can crawler dozers.  They can also be used to

load dirt into trucks if dirt is being hauled out of the land-

fill for other uses.  Also in small communities where the

landfill is open only 2 or 3 days a week, they can do double

duty and be used to do other road maintenance work that may be

required by the community.

The tendency is to use a crawler tractor or crawler loader in a

small landfill where only one machine can be afforded because

of its versatility.  However, this is the situation where Murphy's

Law will probably come into play in landfills.  If you're trying

to operate a landfill with just one piece of equipment and without

a back-up machine, Murphy's Law of landfill machine behavior will

cause that machine to break down when the landfill is the busiest.

This usually occurs just before the EPA inspector drops in for

a routine evaluation of your landfill.  Frankly, I don't believe

it is practical to run a true landfill with only one machine.

Many times the size of the landfill and the accompanying econo-

mics don't justify more than one machine.  This is one of the

best cases for a regional approach to sanitary landfills, where

a number of small communities band together so there is suffi-

cient volume and funds to have the right equipment to do a

proper job of sanitary landfilling.
As the volume of material coming into the landfill starts to

increase, definite efficiencies can be achieved by using

specialized equipment.  One cost savings that can be realized

is to increase the density of the refuse placed in the landfill.

Longer land use, less trench area required if this landfill

method is used, less cover dirt required and increased value of

the completed landfill are some of the cost savings that can be

achieved through better compaction.  Proper machine operational

methods, such as thin lifting of the refuse, will increase density.


Another way to increase refuse density is by the use of steel

wheel compactors to spread and compact the refuse that is

brought into the landfill.  The reason that a 50,000# steel

wheeled compactor is capable of achieving more density in a

landfill than a 50,000# crawler tractor is that the compactor

concentrates its weight on the steel wheels, which results in

more compactive effort being exerted on the refuse, while the

crawler tractor spreads its weight over a large track area

which results in less compactive effort being exerted on the



wheel compactors are also used to spread and compact cover dirt

in many landfills.

Another specialized machine that can produce definite cost sav-

ings for digging trenches, preparing sites, stripping top soil

and for moving cover dirt is the tractor-scraper.  Without

question, wheel scrapers are the most prevalent earthmoving

system in the construction industry today.  Their ability to

handle a wide variety of material, combined with a relatively

low loading cost, are the key factors in their economic per-

formance and accounts for their wide acceptance.  There are

numerous variations and sizes of scrapers.  You should select

the one that best fits your needs.

The crawler drawn scraper, which is the original scraper config-

uration, can move dirt efficiently for distances of 300' - 600'.

It is an all-weather machine which can be an advantage in some

areas of the country — especially, in northern climates.  The

tractor can also be disconnected from the scraper to serve as a

back-up machine for spreading and placing refuse.

The effort to perfect the economies of dirt hauling has produced

many money-saving and innovative modifications to the crawler

drawn scraper.  Once the haul distance starts to approach the

600' and up area, rubber tire scrapers become the most economical

way to move dirt.  Rubber tired scrapers can be placed into two

classes - conventional and elevating.  The biggest difference

between the two is that the elevating scraper has the ability to

self-load many types of soil.  Because of this, the elevating

scraper can move dirt at a lower cost than its conventional

counterpart.  It is important to remember, however, that push

loading of elevating scrapers should be avoided.  The

conventional scraper on the other hand has the ability to load

material, such as wet clay containing rocks with the help of a

pusher tractor.  All wheel drive - twin engine, self-propelled

scrapers also have better traction and can handle steeper grades
                                              twin-enqine scraper
than single engine conventional scrapers.  The A can also self-

load certain soil types.

In some operations, wheel type loaders are used to haul cover

dirt in the neighborhood of 600'.  This works out best in small

landfill operations where the wheel loader can be used to load

trucks with gravel or can serve double duty on road maintenance

work, snow removal or other loading jobs.

In landfills using the trench method, drag lines can be used

effectively where conditions do not lend themselves to scraper

excavation.  Drag lines are particularly useful when working in

highly plastic, wet clays.  The drag line has the ability to dig

in wet conditions and can cast the dirt to either side of the

trench where it can then be used later for cover dirt.  When

the conditions are right, this can be the most economical way

to provide the necessary trench.

As I said earlier, there are no hard and fast rules.  If you

have doubts concerning the best dirt moving equipment for your

particular needs and site characteristics, I suggest that you

consult an experienced equipment distributor.

No matter what equipment will provide the best and most econom-

ical landfill for you, it must be kept in mind that landfills

are severe duty equipment applications, that must operate in

all types of weather, 52 weeks a year.  The equipment must be

optioned with this in mind.

For instance, consideration should be given to:

1)  An enclosed cab with sound suppression and equipped with

    tinted glass and windshield wipers so the operator can

    work in bad weather.

2)  A Roll Over Protection Structure is also a good idea.

3)  A Heater and Defroster, along with an air conditioner or

    cab pressurizer, are popular options in many climates.

    However, I should point out that air conditioners require

    special maintenance considerations.

4)  Special protection is required for landfill use -

    a.  Underneath the machine must be protected with heavy

        steel plate to prevent damage.

    b.  Special radiator guards are also necessary.

    c.  Fenders to deflect flying objects or pipe are also a

        good idea.

    d.  Perforated engine enclosures help keep debris out of

        the engine compartment.

    e.  An Anti-Vandalism Kit is a good idea if the machine is

        left parked on the landfill overnight.

I would like to emphasize at this point that the special protec-

tion required for landfill use should also permit easy access

into the machine for service and cleaning.

5)  Signal horns mounted on the machine are used by many operators

    to direct truck drivers.

6)  Since many landfills work in dusk or dark conditions,

    especially during the winter months, lights, front and rear,

    are also a good idea.

7)  Fire suppression equipment mounted on the machine is also

    good insurance.  A clean machine will also help to prevent

    heavy damage from fire.

Murphy's Law also applies to those of you in the public sector

of the waste management business who must decide on the type

of equipment you need and then must write a specification that

gets you what you need and also encourages competitive bidding.

The low buck buy is not always the best buck buy.  Evaluate and

analyze the equipment bid, not just in terms of the dollars

involved in the equipment itself, but also in terms of the

overall cost of operation.  It may very well turn out that the

rubber tired scraper that costs more may have better traction

and gradability, and therefore, will increase your dirt moving

production and thus reduce your cost of operation by much more

than its price differential.  It is very important to not only

evaluate the initial cost of the equipment, but also to analyze

the effect that the equipment will have on the overall cost: of

the landfill operation.

Another important consideration in selecting landfill equipment

is choosing the proper size equipment.  Even though a certain

size equipment may be adequate for today's needs, the tendency

is for landfill volume to increase.  Since landfills are the

cornerstone of the solid waste disposal industry and most

experts do not see any change in this for the next decade,

you should size your landfill equipment to not only meet

today's needs, but also to meet your future needs.  Select

large, heavy-duty equipment for your landfill — it will be

much cheaper in the long run.

Gentlemen, I guess Murphy's Law is a fact of life just as

gravity is a fact of life.  However, just as we don't go

looking for harm from gravity by standing under a falling

boulder, I recommend that we shouldn't ask for trouble from

Murphy's Law by selecting the wrong landfill equipment.

                              Richard Molenhouse
                    General Manager, C I.D./Waste Management, Inc.
     To begin this discussion of sanitary landfill equipment maintenance,

I'd like to express confidence in the future of the sanitary landfill  as

a prime factor in the waste processing and disposal systems of the future.

I feel just as strongly that systematic operational controls are an absolute

requisite if sanitary landfill is going to be fully responsive to future

solid waste management needs.  Let me explain what we face in the age  of

environmental concern — all of us, whether we're managers of large or

small sanitary landfills, and whether we represent governmental waste

management agencies or private industry.

     Equipment needs have substantially increased during the past decade

as state, regional and local regulatory agencies have begun to mandate the

open dump out of existence.  Increased demand for environmental control

and improved housekeeping practices -- long overdue-- have become the  rule

rather than the exception.

     At the same time, equipment costs have risen -- both as a result  of

the larger and more specialized equipment required and as a result of

inflationary pressures that have seen equipment costs soar by 50 percent

and more in the past two years.  Real estate, labor and engineering costs

are also increasing as the availability of close-in disposal  sites diminishes,
as the standard of living escalates, and as broadening environmental  regu-
lations are applied.
     It is generally accepted that operating an environmentally sound san-
itary landfill wil cost at least two to three times what it formerly  cost
to operate the uncovered, open dumps which unfortunately, still serve many
urban areas of this nation.
     If we are to upgrade    our disposal  practices to meet ever increasing
and badly needed environmental legislation -- if we are to "clean up  our
act" in solid waste disposal  -- some operational  cost increases will  be
unavoidable.   But, the successful  sanitary landfill operator must discover
and eliminate the wasteful practices of a  simpler era past.
     We cannot avoid spiraling land costs.  We must compete financially
for qualified equipment operators.   Therefore, I  belive that the one  area
in sanitary landfill management that promises true opportunity for cost
control is to be found in effective selection, maintenance, and utilization
of sanitary landfill equipment.
     I am responsible for the management of three sanitary landfills,  re-
ceiving and disposing of several thousand  tons of refuse each day, and
utilizing approximately 25 pieces  of earthmoving  equipment and support
vehicles.  I  would like to challenge you -- fellow solid waste management
and sanitary landfill professionals -- to  answer a few basic questions.
     What does it cost per hour to own, operate and maintain a 24-yard
scraper?  What does it cost per hour to operate a 30-ton tracked dozer?

What does it cost per hour to operate a steel-wheeled sanitary landfill  com-

pactor?  What is the most common parts failure on  any of these machines,  and

how large an inventory of replacement parts and supplies should your shop

supervisor carry in order to avoid the delays  necessitated  by reliance  on

outside suppliers in the event of equipment failure?

     For example, let me give you a brief maintenance history of one of our

firms  more than 300 pieces of sanitary landfill and  earthmoving equipment.

It is a 30-ton dozer, manufactured in 1972.   It has  logged  6,058 hours,  of

sanitary landfill operation.  The track assembly was  rebuilt at 3,378 hours,

and the engine has operated 6,058 hours without a  major overhaul.   In 1974

we spent a total of $5,004.75 on preventive maintenance, $4,472.31  for  fuel

and lubricants, and $7,291.76 on major repairs. To  date,  this machine  has

cost $16.16 per hour to operate.

     This history record -- that's what it really  is  — tells me that the

machine was last lubricated on November 3, 1975, and  that we will  probably

have to perform a major on the engine in about another 4,000 to 6,000

operating hours.  We record all  maintenance performed on every machine

we operate.  By consolidating these individual   operating  histories, we

have, in fact, been able to establish true hourly  operating costs  for each

type and manufacture of equipment in our fleet.

     Armed with this type of information, we have  been able to develop

effective parts inventories, to design a more  effective maintenance program,

and to discover and eliminate individual machine abuses which were formerly

accepted as a normal cost of doing business.

     This program is now used to train managers and  shop supervision at each

of Waste Management's 53 sanitary landfills across the nation.  Even equipment


manufacturers and dealers are turning to our shops for methods of improving
their parts supply and customer service procedures.
     To organize an equipment maintenance program of this scope our mainten-
ance record system is the foundation of our entire maintenance program, and
the results we have achieved since instituting this program 3 years ago
are, we think, quite dramatic.  We have realized nearly a 30-percent increase
in engine life, and a substantial reduction in drive chain and undercarriage
repairs.  We have even reduced the total number of machines necessary to
serve our disposal sites.
     The first step in this detailed record systems is the Employee's
Daily Work Sheet, which must be completed each day by every employee at
any of the three sites.  One side of the form is completed by the equipment
operator, and identifies the unit operated, the job assignment performed
the hours worked, and the operator's comment on the condition of the unit
at day's end.
     The other side of the form is completed by the night service man —
at our high volume CID site in Illinois, and by the operator who is responsi-
ble for daily equipment maintenance at our two smaller outlying sites.
     In either case, the individual performing equipment maintenance records
fuel consumptions, engine oil consumption, hydraulic oil added, trans-
mission oil added, radiator coolant added, and whether the machine was  greased
or not.  He is also asked to report any conditions that should be brought
to the supervisor's attention.
     A second key report in successfully tracking and controlling unit
maintenance costs and needs is our Monthly Fuel  Consumption Report which

enables operational  personnel  to record the amount of fuel  consumed each day.

One side of the Report records daily fuel  meter readings at each disposal

site, gallons used each day, daily fuel pruchases  and fuel  inventories in

the storage tanks.  In Illinois these records are  required  to qualify for

non-highway use fuel tax rebates.  This report also gives dailv fuel  con-

sumption for each machine by unit number.   This provides a  centralized

check point for comparison of unit and fleet fuel  use as each month pro-

gresses, and provides management with a visual check of day-to-day equipment

utilization and fuel consumption patterns.

     A third element in our maintenance reporting  system is the Daily

Maintenance Report,  a copy of which is maintained  on each piece of equipment.

This sheet is numbered 1 through 31, and provides  for daily entry of fuel,

lubricant, hydraulic fluid, radiator coolant usage, and remarks on daily

maintenance performed.  This report allows our shop supervisor to construct

a month-to-date recap of the general condition of  each piece of equipment

at the end of the month.

     Next is the Equipment Repair Report maintained on each piece of equip-

ment, where a detailed history of parts and repairs is kept.  This informa-

tion is transferred to the Work Order as future repairs become necessary, and

provides both mechanics and supervisors with a cross check  on replacement

parts failures or improper repair work.  It also provides information on

hard to get parts, or parts not listed in the maunufacturer's parts book.

Finally, these reports aid in selection and maintenance of  parts inventories.

     We also maintain a Daily Charge Out Sheet on  the parts room counter.

All materials removed from inventory are recorded  on this form, showing the


parts number, quantity used, and a brief description of each item.  Entries

from this form are transferred to a repair order, and are also posted to the

Calrdex  Inventory System.

     This index system -- the Vicotr Visual Cardex System is fundamentally a

written  visual record of repair parts in stock, and the flow of inventoried

items through the shop.  Cardex listings reveal the part number and des-

cription or model of machine on which the part is used, the sub-assembly in

which the part in installed, and the exact location of the part within the

parts room itself.  Entries are made to show the date each part was received,

the order number on which it was purchased, the quantity received, and the

balance on-hand.

     Working with these various forms, the shop supervisor completes a

Daily Report of Expenses, which is turned in to my office at the conclusion

of the day.  This enables me to immediately review what was purchased during

the previous day.  The report provides an explanation of use for any items

purchased, including the vendor, the price, and the specific machine or

function for which the item was purchased.

     I also receive a Daily Report Sheet which records exactly what each

machine and each employee did during the previous work period.   This report

provides accurate costing on a project-by-project basis, and is completed by

the supervisor from individual employee's daily work reports.  It shows which

operator was assigned to a particular machine, and the number of hours the

machine was employed in a particular function, such as compacting, earthmoving,

trenching, or road maintenance.  It also tells me how many hours employees

spent in these functions,  or in various  equipment and  site  maintenance
functions, or on assignment to one  of our outlying disposal  sites.
    finally, we consolidate entries from these various forms on  a  Summary
of Cost History maintained for each piece of equipment.   This form allows
us to construct accurate hourly operating costs on each  and every  machine.
computations are based on  the actual  work hours,  rather than on  the hours
meter of the machine itself.  These reports  record the accumulation of  hours
from one month to the next, allowing  us  to effectively spread periodic
major repairs over the operating life of the machine,  rather than  showing
an uneven swing in operating costs  during a  month of major  repairs.
    In this way, we accurately track  each operator's wages, without dis-
counting for time consumed in equipment  warmups,  engine  tests, etc.   The
form incorporates all costs -- including parts, operating labor, maintenance
labor, oils, fuels, lubricants, and taxes -- providing a total monthly  cost
which reflects both operating and maintenance costs.  It is then a simple
matter to compute capital  costs, and  to  arrive at an accurate monthly and
lifetime hourly cost on each and every piece of equipment.   It  is  even
possible to trace those job functions and maintenance  procedures which  create
major positive or negative swings in  equipment operating costs.
    In conclusion, I should point out that maintenance of all this paperwork
is not as time consuming as its sounds in explanation.  Still,  the reporting
system  itself would not be worth the effort if the cross-reporting system
was not  thoroughly studied for the insight  it provides in  improving establish
maintenance practices.  These studies have enabled us  to expand  our service
to other Waste Management operating divisions with no  addition  to  either staff

or facilities.  We have also been able to accurately weigh comparative costs

of sending mechanics into the field versus bringing a piece of equipment into

the shop for repairs.

    Using these reports as a basis of comparison, we charted both equipment

utilization and maintenance costs for both of our smaller outlying landfills,

to develop new and improved field maintenance procedures.  We purchased a

boom truck that is used as a portable hoist for field repairs, as well as a

vehicle on which engines, transmissions, undercarriages, compactor wheel assemblies,

and other heavy equipment parts could be transported to and from the field.

The unit is used as a portable crane, saving multiple investment in permanent

hoists at smaller, infrequently used shops.  It has also provided considerable

savings in time formerly spent rigging field hoists.

    We discovered that in some cases, it is cost effective to remove a major

component — such as an engine, transmission or track assembly — and bring it

to the central maintenence facility for repair.  In others, the disabled machine

is brought to the shop, and a spare machine is provided for the field operation.

    We have, consequently, placed a 50-ton, low-boy into service — increasing

our ability to effectively service machinery for an expanding number of sites.

But, none of this outside service was possible before institution of our sys-

tematized maintenance reporting system.  We were, quite simply, failing to imploy

either manpower or equipment in a truly cost-effective manner.  We were working

harder and accomplishing less. Consequently, we had neither the space nor the staff

to accommodate outside work which has since become an integral part of our main-

tenance function.

    More importantly,  we have been able to establish a vastly improved parts

inventory — reducing our per-unit investment in infrequently used replacement


ment parts, and eliminating much of the equipment downtime resulting from

parts shortages.  For example, standardization and on-site fabrication of

hydraulic lines and couplings has eliminated costly delays in repairing

hydraulic leaks and failures.  In many cases, a mechanic can repair hydraulic

leaks on the actual face of the working landfill. Similar saving?, in time and

investment are being experienced in filters and other items necessary to an

effective preventive maintenance program because we can accurately calendarize

our PM needs.

    Also as a result of these studies, we have been able to more effectively

employ both manpower and physical facilities by standardizing daily PM pro-

cedures and work assignments.  Major repairs are normally completed during the

day when our maintenance facility is staffed by the supervisor,  three mechnanics,

and one apprentice mechanic.  This crew, as I said, handles major engine, under-

carriage and drive chain repairs, plus normal day shift equipment failures, and

any outside work we assume for the other Waste Management sanitary landfills.

    The night shift is staffed by a mechanic, one apprentice, and a greaser

and is responsible for normal preventive maintenance activities.  Machines

returning from the day shift are parked in a staging area, where the apprentice

cleans all tracks and undercarriages.  This completed, he moves  each machine to

the fueling area where he checks engine oil levels and reviews the Employee's

Daily Work Sheet for possible operating irregularities.  Finally, each machine

is moved to a cleansing area where radiators and engine compartments .are cleaned

with high-pressure hoses to control overheating which might result from the build

ups of dust and debris so common to sanitary landfill operation.

    The mechanic, meanwhile, is responsible for scheduled lubrication and
 ireventive maintenance, and for on-site repairs of any equipment failures
 >ccurring within his shift.  In many cases, repairs are assigned as a result
 )f comments entered on the Employee's Daily Activity Report at the conclusion
 if the previous shift.
    As equipment operators and maintenance personnel have become familiar with
 :he reporting system, the entire maintenance program has become more and more
 responsive to our needs.  Every employee knows his responsibility, and the PM
 jrogram, in particular, requires relatively little day-to-day supervision.
 :ven at smaller sites, where preventive maintenance is performed by the equip-
 ment operator, we have been able to affect a substantial improvement in our
 PM program.  Supervisors and employees alike know their responsibilities, and they
 know that failure to complete assigned and scheduled maintenance on any machine
can be easily traced on the maintenance and operating history of a given machine.
 In addition, operators and maintenance personnel alike appreciate working with
quality equipment.
    Visitors, in fact, are often amazed at the pride our people show in a par-
ticular machine.  It's not at all uncommon to see an employee point to a parti-
cular machine and proclaim with pride that it has logged so many thousand hours
without a major repair.  This pride in doing a job correctly is ceratainly not
unique to our people, and it is not exclusively the result of our maintenance record
system.  But, it's there.  You can feel it when you first step into the shop and,
believe me, this enthusiastic attitude can impact positively on improved maintenance
and to control cost.

                                      David W. Miller
             Partner, Geraghty & Miller, Consulting Ground-Water Geologists and HydrologisK

    Why the monitoring program is being initiated should be the first basic question con-
sidered  before strategies are developed for collecting information on geology, hydrology,
and water quality at a particular landfill site.  There are four principal reasons for mon-

           1) You wish to set up a  monitoring program for a brand new site in which
           modern sanitary landfilling techniques will be used. In this case you are
           not expecting significant ground-water contamination to take place, and
           the monitoring system will be one in which you are only trying  to establish
           whether your design against pollution has been successful.  Such a  program
           might  call for four  to six  monitoring wells with a total  installation cost of
           $5,000 to $20,000, depending on the geology of the site,  depth to the
           water  table, etc.

           2) You wish to develop  proof for potential or existing  litigation.  The
           principal work to be carried out  in this type  of program might be  limited
           simply to establishing that pollution of a water supply source (ground
           water) has taken place.   In some instances the installation  of a few tem-
           porary wells in or near the  landfill site for water sampling purposes may
           be all  that is required to  prove that ground-water quality has been  de-
           graded.  One monitoring well could be installed in the suspected plume
           of contaminated ground water and a second monitoring well in an area
           that is considered underlain by natural,  unaffected ground  water.   In
           fact,  litigation has been  initiated at several  landfill sites in the north-
           east on the basis of field  inspection and the sampling and analysis of
           water  from seeps issuing from the base of the  landfill.  An example of
           this  type of situation is one in which a small  number of shallow monitor-
           ing wells were installed  in addition to an inventory and sampling program
           of water from  nearby domestic wells.  Enough information was developed
           to bring about, under threat of litigation, corrective action by the land-
           fill owner. Costs for the effort normally required in such an instance range
           from $5, 000 to $10, 000.

           3)  You wish to develop enough information to assess the impact on ground-
           water quality from an existing  landfill in order to determine whether it can
           be  expanded or,  conversely, it should be shutdown and a ground-water pol-
           lution abatement program initiated.  In this case, a scientific evaluation is
           carried out somewhat similar to that described under Item 4,  except that ad-
           ditional work may be required.  This would include soil borings to determine
           whether slopes have stabilized, detailed gas analysis to establish whether a
           gas venting program is needed, and collection of geologic and hydrologic
           data  in areas adjacent to the existing landfill operation.  The cost of such
           a monitoring program can be as much as $20,000 fora small  landfill  site to
           $150,000 for a landfill serving a population of several hundred thousand.

           4)  You wish to carry out a very scientific analysis of ground-water pollution
           including the volume of contaminated water, rate of ground-water movement,
           overall  effects of variations in geology, profiles of ground-water quality,  de-
           tails  of attenuation, etc. An example of such a study is the research that has
           been  carried out  by the U.S. Geological Survey in  Long  Island, New York,
           over  the past four years at two landfills, one in Babylon and the other in Islip.
           The purpose of this investigation was to generate data that could be applied
           to  landfills in similar geologic environments throughout the country. The
           project involved  the installation of a number of monitoring wells and the col-
           lection  of numerous water samples for detailed chemical analysis.  In addition,
           evaluations were made of aquifer characteristics and how they might affect the
           movement of the  contaminated fluid.  Plumes of contaminated ground water
           were  traced for as much  as 4,000 feet from one  landfill site.  The estimated
           cost of the study  was $125,000 per landfill.

    In all of these  situations there are a number of tools available to the investigator for use
in determining the effects of landfilling on the geohydrologic environment.  The wide variety
of such  tools and how they are applied can best be illustrated by describing two actual case
histories of landfill investigations in the northeast.  Both instances fall under the conditions
listed for Item 3.  Determination was needed to establish whether the landfills should be
shut down because of ground-water pollution.  Also,  if shut down, then a pollution abate-
ment program  was required.

    At one or  another of these two sites the following techniques were used with some de-
gree of  success in establishing and evaluating ground-water conditions.  The technique and
a brief description of its purpose are listed.

    A.  Field  Inspection:  Identify the  presence of leachate in springs and seeps; determine
    configuration of the landfill, surface drainage patterns and potential vegetative stress,
    and surface  geologic features.

    B.  Analysis of Seeps:  Map locations of small springs or seeps of leachate; take samples
    for water-quality determinations.

    C.  Specific Conductance and Temperature Profiles:  Gather data on conductance and
    temperature of shallow ground water by using specialized remote sensing probe equipment.

    D.  Electrical Earth Resistivity:  Conduct resistivity surveys  to define the areal extent of
    the body of contaminated ground water.

    E.  Seismic Surveys:  Determine the thickness of unconsolidated materials  overlying bed-

    F.  Surface Water Quality  Measurements:  Establish if leachate discharge  has affected
    the quality of surface water bodies in the general area;  obtain water samples for anal-
    ysis of standing  surface-water bodies associated with the  landfill.

    G.  Landfill Gas Measurement:  Determine the pattern of methane gas accumulation.

    H.  Aerial Photography:  Employ multi-spectral photographic techniques to define the
    extent of stressed vegetative species;  use standard aerial photographic techniques to
    construct contour and  location maps of the site.

    I.  Hydrologic Parameters:  Determine water  balance  by means of infiltration rests; ob-
    serve run-off patterns on the landfill surface.

    J.  Construct Monitoring Wells:  Drill single-point wells within and nearby to the land-
    fill in order to collect water samples for physical and chemical analyses;  drill cluster
    wells (screened at different depths) in order to establish water level and water-quality
    relationships beneath and adjacent to the landfill.

    K.  Geophysical Well Logging:  Run resistivity and spontaneous potential  profiles in
    open boreholes to help locate zones of highly mineralized ground water.

    L.  Zone of Aeration:  Install  suction or trench lysimeters;  examine and analyze soil

    The first case investigated involved  a large municipal landfill in southern  New York State.
The site was located in a marshland on a penninsula extending two miles into  the Hudson  River.
Operations have been carried out for 15  years,  and the refuse covers an area  of approximately

70 acres. When the study began,  the landfill was approximately 60 feet thick. Many of the
tools described above were used to establish the generation, movement, and discharge of
leachate from the landfill and into surrounding land areas and the Hudson River.  For example,
specific conductance and temperature profiles were taken in the marsh surrounding the landfill
by means of specialized remote sensing probe equipment.

    The data obtained permitted an accurate mapping of the areal extent of the contaminated
ground-water body.   It was shown that temperature of ground water affected by leachate, as
much as 400 feet away from the  base of the landfill, had been raised in excess of 5°F.  Later
exploration  with monitoring wells  penetrating  the landfill itself revealed that  ground-water
temperatures at the base  of the landfill were in excess of 120°F.   Normal ground-water tem-
perature in the area  is 52°F.

    Construction of cluster wells,  which tapped formation zones at different depths,  allowed
for  the development  of a hydraulic profile through the landfill and surrounding areas.  It was
revealed that the landfill had become a significant recharge area for the penninsula. Water
levels had been artificially raised as much as  14 feet  beneath the  landfill. Approximately
80,000 gallons per day of leachate was being  discharged into the Hudson  River from the  land-
fill. The hydraulic profile also  permitted computation of the average rate of ground-water
movement, which was slightly less than 1  foot per day.

    The second landfill investigated is located in southern Connecticut adjacent to Long
Island Sound, again  in a marshy area.  Filling operations cover an area of about 50 acres,
and the refuse is about 40 feet thick.   Measurements of dissolved oxygen in the stream
draining the marsh area showed that leachate was being discharged and affecting that sur-
face-water body.

    Another tool used successfully at the Connecticut site was electrical  earth  resistivity.
Based on marked differences in ground-water quality underlying various portions of the
site, a map  could be prepared which defined several ground-water quality zones:  one
underlain by ground  water of high quality unaffected  by leachate; a second underlain by
ground water which had been degraded by the  presence of leachafe;  and a third that was
underlain by brackish ground water related to  intrusion of sea water  from Long  Island
Sound.  Later installation of  monitoring wells  verified the results of  the geophysical  sur-

    Another technique used successfully at the Connecticut site was  mulri-spectral aerial
photography.  Stressed vegetation indicated on the photographs showed portions of the
landfill site where high water table conditions created by the refuse  pipe had affected trees,
shrubs, and  marsh grass.  Water  level  data collected in monitoring wells showed that the
water table  had been artificially raised three feet or more beneath much  of the marsh area.

                                John Pacey
                          President, Emcon Associates

     Sanitary landfilling, a modification of the historically ancient

open dump, is currently the prevalent method utilized for solid waste

disposal in this country.  Sanitary landftlling practice evolved  in

response to increasing concern for environmental protection.  In  the

majority of areas it has proven an effective solution to these concerns.

Sanitary landfills do, however, provide an environment conducive  to the

production of methane gas, as contrasted to the old methods where

burning destroyed the decomposable wastes and non-covering fostered an

aerobic environment, toxic to methane-producing micro-organisms.   The

assets and liabilities associated with production of methane  in landfills

are the subject of this paper.

     Nearly every landfill produces methane gas, varying only in  total

quantity and the time frame in which  It is produced.  Methane is  highly

combustible In certain concentrations in air, a characteristic that:

gives methane a dual personality.  On the positive side, methane  can be

a definite asset, representing, in certain cases, an economically recover-

able energy resource.  On  the negative side are hazards and  liabilities

associated with uncontrolled release of the gas from the fill confines,

with an accompanying possibility of fire, or when accumulated in  confined

areas, explosion.


     This paper first examines the production potential for landfill-

generated methane gas, and then describes the energy and use potential,

as well as the liabilities associated with gas production.  It is the

intent of this paper to lay a basis for better understanding landfill-

generated methane gas potential, whether it be an asset or liability.



     Methane gas is a by-product of degradation of susceptible organic

(carbon-containing) materials by methoanogenic bacteria under certain

limited conditions.  From extensive experience with sewage digestion

systems, we know that these methane-forming bacteria operate most effec-

tively under conditions of complete anaerobiosis (absence of oxygen),

moisture saturation  (preferably continuously mixed), and within a pH

range of 6.5 to 8.  While these optimum conditions are approximated in

the typical anaerobic sewage digester, they are certainly far from

satisfied in a landfill.  In estimating probable methane production,

whether from a sewage digestion system or landfill, one generally commences

with 100 percent theoretical conversion, which is then adjusted downwards

for less than ideal conditions.  We believe that landfill system efficien-

cles may result in conversion of between 25 and 75 percent of the theoreti-

cal maximum amount.  Ongoing research being conducted at the Georgia

Institute of Technology and Sonoma County, California field scale test

cells Indicate that landfill degradative efficiency may be enhanced by

operations such as pH control and/or leachate recirculation.


Potential Total

     The maximum methane production from composite refuse by methane

fermentation has been estimated stoichiometrical 1y to be approximately

*» cubic feet per pound refuse.  Estimations utilizing an empirical

chemical formula for composite refuse agree  with those in which indi-

vidual biodegradable constituents of composite waste are assessed separately

and then summed.  Anal ternate estimation of methane production incorporates

the gross characteristics of the organic fraction of the waste expressed

in terms of volatile solids content and effective biodegradabi1ity.

Each degradable organic constituent of composite waste is evaluated and

weighted according to its fraction present in refuse.  This approach

yields a methane production capability of approximately 1 cubic foot

methane per pound of refuse.  In actuality, the production ultimately

obtained probably lies in the range of 1 to 3 cubic feet per pound.

Kinetics of Production
     Methane production from a given refuse fill will take many years to

complete,  the active gas production life being dependent on site specific

conditions.  Life may range from a few years in cases where controlled

leachate recirculation and pH control are practiced to hundreds of years

in certain environments.  The rate of gas production is dynamic, respon-

ding to numerous conditions, but being principally dependent upon the

levels of oxygen present, refuse moisture content, and environmental pH.

Typically, landfill refuse degradation might be generalized as an

Initial rapid breakdown of the easily decomposable fraction due to both

aerobic and anaerobic processes, followed by a slower anaerobic decomposi-

tion of the remaining decomposables.  For purposes of simplification In

model •  aluatlon, two assumptions are proposed.   First,  the biodegradable

organlcs In the refuse can be subdivided Into rapidly decomposable (food

and garden wastes), moderately decomposable (paper, textiles, wood), and

refractory (plastics, rubber) portions.  Second, at the  extremes,  condi-

tions In landfills will  promote either a maximum rate of decomposition

or a minimal  rate, and these rates can be expressed as a set of half-

lives.  The half-lives (time required for half of the organlcs to  decom-

pose) chosen for the rapidly decomposables were one-half year under

maximum conditions, and 1J years under minimal conditions.  Those  chosen

for the moderately decomposables were 5 years for maximal and 25 years

for minimal conditions.

     Using the above assumptions, zero, first, and second order mathema-

tical kinetic models were tested under both maximal and minimal conditions.

The results of the zero and second order models were not found relatable

to experiences in either the production of gas in landfill or in anaerobic

sewage digester operation.  The first order model appeared reasonable,

however, and was chosen as an approximation of the kinetics of methane

production In a landfill.  The results of applying this  model to a

landfill of 1 million tons, and utilizing the probable production  range

of from 1  to 3 cubic feet of methane per pound of refuse derived previously,

are presented in Figure 1 for the mean of maximal and minimal conditions.

     800 H
     400 H
     2oo -
                           Figure. I

                     OF M£THAME PRODUCED BY
                          MILLION TON
                                                    ^ "
                                                    U) Vj
                           £ years)

Gene ra1

     Methane gas is continuously produced within a landfill and, as it

has an Inherent heating value, can be considered a potential energy or

fuel source, and hence a potential asset.  The recoverabi1ity and use of

the gas are now generally recognized, although the evaluation of the

economic viability of recovery is yet in its infancy.

     The determination as to whether or not to recover landfill-produced

methane is obviously an economic one, although in some cases credence

might be given to resource utilization even though a certain level of

subsidization is necessary.  A thorough study of the viability of gas

recovery for a given landfill involves an estimation of the gas production,

both total and time variant; determination of the percent of the gas

produced which could be realistically (economically) recovered; and an

evaluation of the processing and marketability of the gas.  Expressed

another way, can sufficient gas be recovered to return enough revenues

to be economically compatible with the cost of producing, processing,

and transmitting the gas?

Gas Recoverabi1ity

     Of particular concern in evaluating a landfill for recovery is the

determination of what portion of the gas predicted to be produced can

realistically be recovered.  Methane production in a given fill starts

shortly after refuse placement.  The gas produced prior to commencement

of gas recovery operations Is therefore lost.   This time lag from place-

ment to commencement of recovery must be considered In evaluation of a

fill as a resource.  Other loss potentials Include areas not affected by

the recovery well field, loss of gas through cover and sides, and the

likely lack of economy In continuing recovery operations after the

production tails off In later years.

     For practical purposes,.a landfill can be modeled as a shallow

(compared to other dimensions) layer of more or less densely compacted

wastes of a homogeneous nature.  As a further simplifying assumption,

any point in the fill that would be a likely candidate for location of

an extraction well can be considered to have only the upper surface of

the fill as an interface with atmospheric gases.   The principal  method

utilized for gas recovery is by pumping from recovery wells in a manner

analogous to extracting from groundwater reservoirs.  The yield or

deliverabi1 Ity of a particular section of a landfill when tapped by a

well and pumped at a given rate is determined by  several factors, among

which are rate of gas production, refuse permeability, and cover integrity.

A theoretical approach to estimation of production has already been


     Methane production by microbiologic activity is strictly anaerobic.

The microorganisms are poisoned by contact with oxygen, the source of

which, for purposes of this discussion, is the atmosphere.  To simplify

the discussion, assume that the only path of access of oxygen to the

fill during the gas extraction phase is through the cover layer.-  The


inflow of oxygen will alter the upper layer environment of the refuse to

an aerobic decomposition system.  The thickness of this layer will be

largely determined by the rate of oxygen inflow.  The aerobic process

will consume the oxygen by respiratory mechanisms and produce carbon

dioxide.  Thus, as atmospheric gases pass through the aerobic zone, the

percentage of oxygen will decrease and carbon dioxide increase.  At the

point where the oxygen has been eliminated, the anaerobic, methanogenic

processes may again occur, assuming other conditions are favorable.

     Establishment of a given differential pressure gradient on a landfill

zone by well pumping has two important effects.  First, it causes gases

produced in a region of the fill to flow to the well, and second, it

may, if a negative gradient is established relative to barometric, cause

the flow of atmospheric gases into the fill through the cover.  The goal

of a landfill gas recovery program should be to extract gases at the

approximate rate at which they are produced, without creating a large

inflow of air.  This objective might best be accomplished by installation

of a large number of closely spaced wells, each operated at a low flow

rate.  Well field design and operation must, of course, satisfy the

criteria of cost effectiveness, a consideration that, with various site

specific parameters, will tend to limit the extent of well fields and

Increase the rate of flow per well.  If few wells are utilized to extract

gas from a given landfill section, a relatively high differential pressure

must be established at each well to assure scavenging of the gases in

the interval between adjacent wells.  This procedure increases the

likelihood that negative differential pressures will be developed across

the cover, resulting in air inflow and loss of system efficiency.


     Previous sections of this paper discussed theoretical  and probable

gas production (both total  and time dependent) and factors  which  govern

the amount of gas recoverable.  The following table illustrates the theo-

retical, probable, and recoverable gas production for 1  million tons of

mixed refuse.  Comparable figures for larger, or smaller,  landfills can

be roughly prorated based on tonnage of waste contained in  the landfill.
1 ,000,000
Methane Gas
(billion cubic ft.)
Heat Content*
(trillion BTU)
*Methane @ 1000 BTU/cubic foot STP.

     Field testing is required to define the approximate productivity

of a given fill.  A program formulated for landfill  evaluation designed

to empirically  integrate the production and actual recoverabi1 Ity with

suitable control points is presented in Table 1.  This program should

yield a gas recovery system design and operation oriented toward recovery

of a high percentage of the gas produced from a landfill without degrading

the quality of  the gas.

     Once the methane gas yield is known or has been predicted,  consider-

ation can then  be given to the most effective means of utilizing it.

Table II presents various ways In which landfill gas might be utilized.

These methods are presently under evaluation in an EPA-supported study

                                TABLE I


                    Fill volume and density
                    Fill configuration
                    Cover material and integrity
                    Geologic and hydrologic setting
                    General refuse characteristics
                    Utility system and market


     A.    Refuse Characterization

          1.   Recover representative samples by boring
          2.   Conduct laboratory analysis of samples

                    Moisture content profile
                    Volatile solids profile
                    Biodegradabll1ty profile

     B.    Gas Production and Recoverabi1ity

          1.   Install test wells and probe network
          2.   Observe landfill response to various extraction rates
                    Well head gas composition
                    Landfill pressure field
                    Gas movement through cover
     C.   Data Analysis
                    Reduce and correlate data
                    Predict deliverability of the fill
                    Estimate kinetics of production
                    Design well field configuration
                    Specify operation of withdrawal system
                    Evaluate alternative gas use systems as to
                    compatibility with fill deliverability and
                    market characteristics
                    Select a gas use system
                    Design necessary facilities
                    Install and operate plant

                          TABLE I I

1.    Injection of low BTU gas directly from landfill  Into
     an existing natural  gas transmission line.
2.    Delivery of low BTU gas to adjacent interruptible gas
3.    On-site treatment of landfill gas to produce pipeline
     quality synthetic natural gas (ft^lOO percent methane).
 .    On-site generation of electric power through use of
     raw landfill gas as fuel.
5.    On-site conversion of landfill methane to methanol.

6.    Conversion of methane to liquified natural gas.

being conducted jointly by the City of Mountain View, California and

Pacific Gas and Electric Company.  The first two process options are

those with the lowest capital cost, wherein gas from the landfill Is

sold as Is (approximately 50 percent methane, 50 percent carbon dioxide,

500 BTU per cubic foot).  The third option requires construction of a

processing facility to develop almost pure pipeline-quality methane by

stripping of the carbon dioxide, water, hydrogen sulfide, and other

undesirable components from a typical, landf111 gas stream.  Processes in

use or possibly suitable for gas purification are molecular sieving, as

used by the NRG Company, or possibly an amine  (MEA) system.  These

processes will yield a gas consisting of almost 100 percent methane with

a heat content of nearly 1000 BTU per cubic foot (STP).  The fourth

option, on-slte power generation, Is presently being demonstrated by the

Los Angeles Department of Water Power and Department of Public Works at

the Sheldon Arleta Landfill.  This project utilizes landfill gas as fuel

for a 300 horsepower, specially modified Internal combustion engine

which drives a 200 kilowatt generator.  The energy produced is distributed

on the existing subtransmlsslon system.  Options five and six are rela-

tively costly, and may be suited only to landfills with very high gas

del I verabi II ty.


     Whereas gas recovery represents a feasible option at a relatively

small percentage of landfills, the potential for gas hazard is orobably

present to varying degrees at the majority.   The liability aspects of

landfill-produced methane are generally recognized throughout the industry,

although understandably considerably less well  publicized than gas

recovery.   Gas liability can range from a nuisance level, as when vegeta-

tive growth Is affected, to having fatal  consequences.   This section of

the paper will concentrate on defining the various general situations

under which migration might result in hazard to public safety, and on

various approaches that have proven effective in their mitigation.


     Concern for methane stems from its combustibility when present in

concentrations between 5 and 15 percent by volume in air.  While fire

alone is concern enough, combustion initiated within a confined space

can result in an explosion.  Also, methane is not necessarily contained

in the refuse fill in which it Is generated, being able, as a gas, to

migrate subterraneously, often to great distances through permeable

media such as porous soils, trench backfill, and utility or drainage

corridors.  If migrating methane accumulates in a poorly-ventilated area

(i.e., building subfloor, basement, closet, utility vault, storm drain)

and achieves combustible concentrations,  a hazard to public safety

and/or property exists.  Since methane is usually present In concentrations

above the combustion range  in landfills,  it always must pass through the

combustion range when diluted with air.  Fortunately, under the majority

of circumstances, a combustion energizer such as an open flame is not

present during passage  through the critical range and combustion does

not occur.  The numerous  instances on  record of fires and explosions

resulting from landfill-originating methane, however serve to warn that

all too often gas migration proves hazardous.

     In 1968, seepage of gas from a landfill caused an explosion in a

National Guard armory in Winston-Salem, North Carolina that took the

lives of three men and seriously injured two others.  Two workmen were

killed when methane seeping into a deep storm sewer trench ignited.  In

1975, buildings at two separate fills in Michigan suffered structural

damage due to methane explosions.  In Vancouver, Canada this year, a

newly-poured foundation slab was structurally destroyed by an explosion

in the underslab air space initiated by a cigarette.  The list of similar

incidents is certainly much larger and continues to increase annually.

Law suits are beginning to evolve around methane hazard and its effect

on adjacent property value, public safety and health, and on vegetation.

Responsive to the increasing concern for methane and its effects were

special hazard studies conducted this year in San Diego, City of Carson,

Newport Beach, Duarte, and Los Angeles, all in California; Franklin,

Madison, and Glenview in Wisconsin; Battle Creek, Michigan; and Winnipeg,



     The movement of gas to the limits of a refuse fill and into the

surrounding soils occurs by two basic processes: convection, or movement

In response to pressure gradients; and diffusion, or movement from areas

of high gas concent ratior to regions of lower concentration.  Gas flow

is greater in materials with large pore spaces and high permeability

(I.e., sands, gravels)  and lower In materials of lower permeability

(I.e., clays).  Gas migration from landfills Is therefore dependent in

part on the geological  environment of the site.  In general,  a landfill

constructed In a sand-gravel  environment experiences greater vertical

and lateral movement of gases than one in a clay environment (Figure 2).

     Being lighter than air,  methane tends to rise and will  exit preferen-

tially through the landfill cover if It is of sufficient permeability.

A cover of clay with small diameter pores is relatively impermeable, and

tends to restrict gas loss.  Also, any type of soil may be made less

permeable by saturation with  rain or irrigation water, or by paving or

frost.  Gas flow through the  cover will then be impeded or restricted,

and lateral migration will be encouraged.  Also, rain water may infiltrate

the refuse and increase the moisture content, which in turn Increases

the rate of decomposition, and thus the gas production.  This condition,

occurring  in combination with the decreased permeability of surface

soils, can result in significant seasonal variation in the extent of gas

migration.  Also, methane gas is essentially insoluble in water, and

where a groundwater table exists beneath a disposal site, it provides  an

absolute limit to the depth of gas migration.

     The gas produced within a landfill must escape; the geologic-

hydrologic environment and construction of a particular site combining

to determine  the direction the gas will flow, either through the cover,

laterally, or  in both directions.   In certain conceivable Instances, a

structure  located direcHv atop a fill may be  in less danger than one

located some distance beyond the edge of fill.  This situation, and the

                Figure 2
          -Impervious cover
           2' mot'sf clay
-Impervious topsail
 (frosf, irrigation, e/c.)
                                .              .
                                -Permeati!? so/7
                EXAMPLE  "A"
                   i—Porous cover
        Impervious liner    '—Impervious soil
                      VERTICAL  MfGRATfOfiJ

converse, are depicted in Figure ?..   Example A shows  a fill  enclosed In

an environment of permeable material  (sand or gravel).  The  cover of the

landfill  is constructed of impermeable material  and the surface  of the

adjacent  ground has been made impermeable as a result of water infiltra-

tion, paving, snow, or frost.  At a  significant  distance from the fill

Is a building with a subfloor or basement.  Under these conditions,  the

methane produced within the fill, being confined by the landfill  cover

and the impermeable surface of the surrounding soils, migrates laterally,

possibly  entering the building.   This situation  of permeable lateral

soils with seasonal surface sealing  due to freezing has frequently been

encountered in the Great Lakes Region.  If the landfill cover is  exception-

ally impermeable and the building on  top of the  fill  of appropriate

design, then it may be completely safe.

     Case B, wherein the landfill is  constructed in an impermeable

environment, illustrates a situation  in which a  building might be located

almost at the edge of fill and yet be totally free ot hazard.  A building

or facility immediately above the refuse, however, must be concerned

with potential gas hazard as, with lateral migration  precluded,  the

cover becomes the principal means of  gas egress.

Hazard Mitigation

     Recognizing that nearly every landfill represents a potentially

hazardous condition, remedial and/or preventive  action must  be considered

when public safety is threatened or decline in property value, property

damage or litigation is likely.   In the future this might be accomplished

by controlling the production itself, but at present, this does not

appear to be generally applicable or economical.  Practical solutions

center on either preventing migration by introduction of impervious

barriers to flow, or by encouraging the gas to take an alternate flow

path by venting.  Additionally, but of long-term significance only, is

the possibility of changing operational methods and design details to

shorten the fill gas production life, or to improve recovery efficiency.

The following discussion describes general  mitigatory solutions.

Area I Protection:  Impermeable membranes consisting of natural clay;

plastic, rubber, or similar film sheet; asphalt; and other materials can

be utilized to control gas flow.  Soil barriers are generally most

effective when maintained at a high moisture content.  Soils utilized

for cover sealing may develop cracks as a result of large differential

settlement occurring across the surface of the fill.  For this reason,

the thinner flexible membranes made of heavy gauge plastic such as PVC

or reinforced rubber are often preferred for migration control.  Barriers

typically are best implaced during landfill construction, as subsequent

installations are often costly, less extensive than required, and occa-

sionally impossible to accomplish.  During construction, barriers can be

placed to cover the base and lateral surfaces of the fill space.  Instal-

lation after fill completion might be  limited to trenching in the area

requiring protection and insertion of a membrane into the trench, followed

by backfilling.

     Venting systems may be either passive (relying on naturally occurring

pressure or diffusion gradients) or  induced exhaust  (oumps are utilized

to create a pressure gradient) with selection being dependent on site

conditions.  The passive systems rely on imposition of material  of high

permeability, such as gravel, in the path of the gas flow,  the intent

being to present a path for gas flow more conducive to flow than the

surrounding medium, and thereby redirecting flow to a point of controlled

release.  Passive systems are most effective in controlling convective

gas flow, less so in instances of diffusive flow.

     Induced flow systems, particularly those employing suitably designed

vertical wells, have proven very effective in migration control.  Typically

these systems incorporate a series of vertical wells emplaced in large

diameter bore holes not unlike those utilized in gas recovery for fuel

systems.  Systems combining both recovery and migration control  should be

considered whenever practical.  The wells are spaced at intervals along the

margin of the landfill requiring protection, either located interior

to the  limit of fill, or externally  in the surrounding native soils,

depending on system requirements.  The wells are connected by manifolding

to a central exhaust pump which draws gas from the well field.  The gas

flow in the volume of refuse or soil influenced by each well  is  therefore

toward  the well, effectively controlling migration.

     Gases collected by exhaust systems are generally disposed of by

direct  stacking,  incineration, or by passage through various  sorption

media.  Gases from passive vent systems usually are allowed to direct

discharge; in certain cases,  the gases are combusted as in "tiki torches."

In all  instances, uncombusted gas must be exhausted at a location where

It is not  subject to careless  ignition, generally  in a protected enclosure,

or above normal  reach.


Structural Protection:  Frequently, only a portion of the landfill

surface or adjacent area is considered as warranting hazard corrective

action.  These cases usually involve structures,  utility lines or other

facilities where it Is less costly to protect the facility than provide

a large-scale control  system.  Buildings with slab or grade floors

should be designed, as a minimum, with impervious membranes between the

slab and subgrade.   A permeable blanket with exhaust pipes between  the

membrane and subgrade  provides an improved system where intercepted gas

can be vented passively or by exhaust.  An additional feature which

further adds to system credibility is a thin layer of permeable material

between the membrane and slab in which automatic  methane gas sensors

are positioned.  The sensors should be selected to trigger an alarm

should the methane  gas concentration exceed a selected value, say,  one

percent.  Where buildings are designed with an air space between subgrade

and floor, similar protection can be provided by  a system of vent and

barrier layers progressing upward of subgrade, permeable material with

exhaust piping, membrane, and a ventilating and monitoring system in the

air space.  In all  cases, vertical risers through the floor slab and/or

membrane should be sealed to preclude upward gas  migration.

     Building codes generally incorporate requirements for good ventila-

tion and undoubtedly have precluded many methane  related incidents  from

happening.  However, we cannot relax in thinking  that building ventila-

tion is sufficient  hazard protection in itself.  Many homeowners or

building operators  are unaware of the potential problem and unknowingly

block the vent system, thus, in effect, creating  a gas hazard.  Buildings

Immediately over the landfill must be specially suspect as cracks in the


soil cover, settlement of the building, and resultant rupture or crack-

ing of slabs may allow gas flow into the building.  It is recommended

that future additions to building codes consider the requirement that a

building or grading permit not be issued for development within 1000

feet of a  landfill unless the developer provides adequate safeguards

during construction and  submits  a report and design signed by a quali-

fied engineer addressing the gas condition.

System Effectiveness Monitoring:  The success of any of the migration

control systems described above must be continuously appraised through-

out the gas production life of the landfill.  In areal protection syscems,

probes may be permanently empiaced at suitable locations in the interval

between the migration control system and the facilities to be protected.

These may  either be monitored on a frequent; schedule by gas sampling and

analysis or in-situ gas detectors connected to an alarm system might be

employed.  Structural protection systems also must incorporate apparatus

for measurement of gas concentrations above the protective layers.

Again, probes or electronic detection may be utilised.

     Decomposition of  refuse  in nearly all  landfills produces methane

     gas which csn be  used as  fuel and hence  is a potential energy

     source, or,  if  allowed to disperse naturally to the environment,  it

     may be a potential hazard to public safety and health and may

     adversely affect  property value and vegetative yrcwth.


The theoretical maximum production potential for methane generation

Is k cubic feet of methane per pound of mixed refuse, whereas the

estimated probable production in a landfill environment is in the

range of 1 to 3 cubic feet per pound of mixed refuse.

The recovery potential of the methane gas produced in a landfill is

dependent upon numerous site specific factors and is probably in

the range of 0.5 to 2.5 cubic feet per pound of mixed refuse.

Most of the landfills of today provide methane in sufficient concen-

tration as to produce a hazard potential.  Fire and explosion

incidents are being reported in increasing frequency; however,

present and future technology should be able to provide adequate

safeguards, where necessary.

Methane migrates vertically through the cover soil and laterally,

if conditions permit.  Buildings, utilities or other facilities

could be subject to serious hazard potential if the gas is able to

concentrate in its combustion range and then is ignited.

Remedial and preventive measures are available to prevent vertical

and lateral gas migration.  Impermeable membranes and vent systems

are suitable for the control of methane gas.

Special design details should be considered for buildings, utilities

and other facilities on or near landfills.

A monitoring system should be provided at locations where a gas

hazard concern exists.

In the future, permits for development within 1000 feet of a landfill

should require a gas report and special design details addressing

the gas condition by a qualified engineer.

                        GAS RECOVERY. NATIONAL POTENTIAL
                                Robert H Collins, III
                           President, NRG Nu Fuel Company
If I were to stand here and say that there was presently an  energy  shortage

in this country, it would be about the same as telling General  Custer  at

the Battle of Little Big Horn that there were Indians in the area.   At the

present time, everyone in the country is well aware of the fact that our

affluent approach to consumption, combined with governmental  control of

prices, has caused us to over-consume our energy resources to the point

where we are now scrambling for survival.  Both new and alternate sources

of energy are being sought out as never before.

In the general field of energy recovery from solid waste, there are literally

dozens of front-end systems which take refuse as it is being collected and

convert it to a variety of different forms for use as fuel.   The cost  of

the commercial versions of these plants and processes may run anywhere from

$20-$50 Million Dollars per project, and while a few of them are operational,

most are still plagued with major operational problems, or are in the

developmental stage.


I do not intend to belittle these projects,  but am merely stating  a  fact  of

life.  The development of a practical  front-end system for recovery  of  energy

from waste is a difficult and  costly process.   These  efforts  should  nonetheless

be pursued to the utmost, since they represent a tremendous potential in

helping to satisfy the energy  needs of the country.

But let us look at where most  of the refuse has already gone  and will continue

to go for many years to come - into landfills.

A survey taken in January 1975, showed that there are over 18,000  known land

disposal sites in the United States.  While almost half of these sites  have

been closed since 1967 as a result of new solid waste disposal  legislation,

there are still almost 5,600 authorized disposal sites in operation, 3,800 of

which fall into the category of sanitary landfills.'Obviously,  not all  of

these sites would be feasible  for commercial recovery of methane.  Many of

them serve areas too sparsely populated to accummulate a large  enough volume

of refuse.  Others handle only demolition-type wastes, such as  concrete,

asphalt and building materials, which generate little or no gas whatsoever.

The configuration of a landfill or lack of depth might also make  it  impractical

to extract methane.  Extreme dryness may result in no gas being produced,


while at the other end of the scale, excess moisture may result in standing

liquids within the landfill, making it difficult or impossible to extract the

gas.  If only 5% of the sanitary landfills within the country were suitable

for methane recovery, however, this could mean from 175 to 200 sites with the

potential for providing methane for today's energy markets.   This potential

would, of course, still be subject to confirmation by extensive testing, but

it does give you an order-of-magnitude picture.

Now let's talk about the gas supply picture.  Until 1970 everyone had gas to

burn.  But then something odd happened.  In 1970, the annual  demand exceeded

domestic production by one trillion cubic feet.  This year, demand will  exceed

production by five trillion cubic feet, and in 1980, it will  be 10 trillion

cubic feet.

Landfill gas is but a small portion of the national gas supply picture.

However, any new source of fuel is needed and desirable.  We see a potential

recovery on the order of 10 million cubic feet per day of pipeline standard

gas (virtually pure methane) from the largest landfills, ranging down to as

little as 200,000 cu. ft. or less for others.  We also see problems in collecting

and converting that gas for actual use:  problems with landfill size, configuration,


moisture content, gas composition, to mention but a few.   If we consider

primarily those landfills in large metropolitan areas where garbage can be

piled fast and deep, with ideal  characteristics, we might project 120 billion

cubic feet per year of recoverable gas, only 1.2% of the estimated shortfall

in 1980 - not much in a game where shortages are measured in multi-trillions -

 but every little bit helps.

In evaluating and testing sites across the country, we have found that there

is no easy way to qualify or categorize landfills for potential methane

recovery without detailed investigation of operational history and on-site

inspection.  Even then, accumulated information is subject to question because

many landfills have poor or nonexistent operational history data.  It is more

or less a "Garbage in - garbage out" situation, if you'll pardon the pun.

In order to properly ascertain the potential methane recoverability of any

particular site, an extensive and complex testing program, with proper

interpretation and evaluation of accumulated data, must be accomplished.  No

one has ever written a book on the subject,  so this information can be developed

only through extensive experience in the field.


We have found a tendency on the part of landfill owners and operators to over-

estimate the potential of their landfill sites for commercial methane recovery.

This is due in large part to the wide degree of publicity which resource

recovery, in particular landfill gas production, has received.  Since this

business opportunity is still in its infancy, only through extensive operational

history will we really be able to prove out the viability of commercial methane


While all fairly large landfills with a reasonable percentage of volatile

organics can be considered potential methane recovery prospects, the economics

of extraction and purification, the price which can be obtained for the gas,

the proximity to existing gas distribution lines, and the end users of the gas

dictate what landfills can be considered as realistic sources of recoverable

methane.  The size of the landfill and the characteristics that would qualify

for commercial recovery will change, of course, as technologies improve change

and as the cost of all forms of energy escalates.

If maximum energy is to be recovered from sanitary landfills as a whole,

operational specifications and guidelines must be set up and adhered to.

At some landfills, accelerated decomposition may be accomplished through


various techniques,  such as the addition of water.   This may be in contrast to

some state environmental regulations,  but we believe the two can be tied

together under the supervision of experienced "landfill  gas experts".

Our experience has shown that the gas  MUST BE cleaned up to some degree,

regardless of its eventual  use.  This  may range from dehydration and removal

of toxics all the way to full purification to pipeline standard.  I stress

that the gas must be cleansed to some  degree.  Although small in percentage of

the total gas composition,  toxics are  present in all landfill gas streams, and

present a real hazard to life if not properly handled.

We see three primary categories of use for methane  recovered from landfills.

First, is utilization of low BTU gas as a source of fuel for steam generation

or direct gas turbine power generation.  In this case energy utilization is

low as compared with utilizing the gas as a source  of energy directly.  Such

applications could be subject to state utility commission jurisdiction.  Where

such usage is considered low priority, it could be  curtailed so that the gas

could be purified to pipeline standards for higher  priority residential



The second category is direct sale of partially cleaned up low BTU gas to

industrial customers.  This application could have the same regulatory problems

as stated previously.  Also, many high cost redundancy features may have to be

built in to satisfy industrial  customers.  In most cases new pipeline systems

will have to be installed and maintained, and many such industrial user's do

not need gas 24 hours, 7 days a week.  This makes for extensive operational


Our comparative analysis of the potential uses of methane indicates that the

most logical and economically sound alternative is the third alternative,

conversion of the refuse gas to pipeline standard fuel for injection into the

nearby utility company pipeline.  Regulatory problems are eliminated, since

the utility company will bring their distribution system to the processing

facility and the cleansed gas will serve the entire distribution area.  This

also provides greater flexibility in distribution of the gas.

In considering the alternatives for gas cleanup, we have evaluated the positive

and negative features of ten different gas cleanup systems.  They are:  Selexol,

Fluor Solvent, MEA, DEA, TEA, Purisol, Rectisol, Benfield, Sulfinol and Pressure

Swing Adsorption.  Several factors resulted in the selection of the PSA process

as the best for landfill gas cleanup.

First, all  of the processes considered, except PSA were found to be cost

effective only at volumes greater than 10 million cubic feet per day, which is

larger than the anticipated volumes of gas from most landfills.   Some of the

systems do not reach optimum cost efficiency until flow rates of 50 million

cubic feet per day are reached.

Secondly, PSA is the only dry adsorbent process.  All of the other processes

use an aqueous solution which results in a saturated product gas.  Consequently,

another step of dehydration may be required to reach pipeline standard.  In

over half of the systems considered, this solvent is highly corrosive, requiring

extensive use of stainless steel in the construction of the facility, thereby

increasing capital costs.

Third, all of the other processes considered are more mechanically intensive

than the PSA system.  For example, in some of the systems, the height of the

towers required for solvent purification is in excess of fifty feet as opposed

to only thirty feet for the PSA system.  These other systems also have much

higher operating pressures, some as high as 500 psi, since they are normally

used in chemical plants or gas field operations and have inlet pressures as

high as 1500 psi.  When applied to a landfill where the inlet pressure is


vacuum, much larger compressors would be required to bring the gas up to

system pressure.   The noise levels associated with the larger compressors,

plus the extreme height of the towers would make these systems much less

environmentally acceptable than the relatively quiet, low profile, PSA system.

Fourth, the PSA system has a higher energy efficiency.  Most of the other

processes contain extensive recirculation systems requiring additional pumps

and resulting in a greater loss of energy within the system itself.

The considerations which I have just listed were sufficient by themselves to

result in our selection of the PSA process as the best for landfill gas

purification.  In addition, after extensive laboratory and actual  plant testing,

we found molecular sieve manufactured from high grade natural zeolite ore to

be the best adsorbent for removal of the main contaminant of the gas, which is


Anyone who performs a detailed analysis such as we have of the various gas

cleanup systems available, will probably find that in terms of operating

efficiency, net energy savings, system flexibility and overall cost effec-

tiveness, the PSA molecular sieve process is the most efficient for cleanup of


the volumes of gas to be found in the vast majority of landfills throughout

the country.

The final factor which must be considered in selecting a cleanup system is the

fact that none of the systems mentioned can be used by itself.  The composi-

tion of raw landfill gas is such that major modifications to these systems

must be made in order to remove all contaminants not acceptable in pipeline

quality gas.  Our own modification of the PSA molecular sieve process., for

example, has been so extensive as to result in a pending patent on the overall


Where does the country stand in the development of this relatively small, but

very important energy market?  At the present time, there are three active

landfill methane recovery projects underway, only one of which is commercially


In Mountain View, California, a joint effort is underway between the City of

Mountain View, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Easley and Brassy, with

partial  funding from the EPA.  This project is still in its infancy with

questionable test results.  The program is to be expanded with federal  funding

for a  total collection system with PG&E funding a gas cleanup system.

The second project is a pilot plant operated by the City of Los Angeles

Department of Sanitation and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at

the Sheldon-Arleta landfill for gas turbine power generation.  Full scale

testing of the Los Angeles fill will determine commercial potential.  The

Department of Water and Power would purchase refuse gas as fuel for a nearby

power plant, or a separate power generator would be constructed adjacent to

the landfill site for direct conversion to electricity.

Our own project at Palos Verdes, California, is operated by Reserve Synthetic

Fuels, Inc., for the joint venture between NRG and Reserve Oil and Gas.  The

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and the City of Rolling Hills Estates

are also participants.  Approximately two million cubic feet of refuse gas is

being converted to one million cubic feet of pipeline standard gas, for sale

to Southern California Gas Company.

As with any first-of-its-kind facility, operation of the plant to date has not

been without its problems.  Since the Palos Verdes Landfill accepts liquid

industrial wastes, some gaseous compounds are extracted which can cause serious

problems if not completely removed.  Some modifications of our original plant

were necessary to eliminate these problems.

While it is not anticipated that other landfills which do not accept liquids

would create the same problems, it is not inconceivable that other refuse of

unknown composition, decomposing over longer periods,  could combine to produce

other hazardous compounds.  Future plant design of any type must therefore

incorporate these anti-hazards features.

And so you see, even with three years of experience in direct testing of

landfills throughout the country and many years of related technological

experience, we are still learning. We are at the present time actively involved

with several other projects that are already under initial construction.

Scores of other landfills have been tested or are in the process of being


As detailed above, the recovery and purification of refuse gas will not solve

the energy problems of the nation.  We must be careful not to over-emphasize

the potential impact of landfill gas on the national energy scene.  However,

since sanitary landfilling is and will continue to be used for refuse disposal,

and the by-product is both a new and alternate source of fuel, we feel that it

is important that this relatively small, but important energy market will

continue to be actively developed.


Resource Recovery

                             Donald K. Walter
               Chief, Urban Waste Branch, Division of Inter-Program Applications
                   U S. Energy Research and Development Administration

  Ladies and Gentlemen,  first  let  me  place the Energy  Research

and Development Administration in  Perspective.  On October  11,

1975, Congress recognizing  a need  to  make the nation self-sufficient

in energy passed the Energy  Reorganization Act of 1974.   That act

split the Atomic Energy  Commission into a research arm  and  a

regulatory arm and  then  added  to  the  research arm certain  elements

of the Department  of the  Interior, National  Science Foundation

and EPA to form ERDA.

  Now let's briefly  consider the  background  of the waste  disposal


  During our early  years  we  were  blessed with extensive empty land

areas.  In certain  portions  of the country we still are.  We  had

plenty of room for  the  little  waste  we had.   It could  be  thrown

in a nearby gully  or, in  urban areas,  dumped on nearby  vacant land

or dumped in rivers  or  oceans.   Until  World  War II this generally

worked.   During that war  the formation of large training

installations led  the Army  to  search  for a disposal means  and to the

development of the  sanitary  landfill.   At the same time we  undertook

one of our first recycling  efforts with scrap metal, tin  foil, tin

cans, steel and paper drives.   After  that war, the United  States

underwent an economic boom.   Technology proceeded rapidly  and

convenience items  mushroomed.   The returnable bottle became  the


 lisposal can, the local butcher's cut meat became prepackaged
 neat, the meal prepared from scratch and cooked individually at
 lome became the frozen TV dinner and on and on.  As a result, the
 amount of material discarded also mushroomed.  As for disposal, the
 sanitary landfill became popular.  Recycling became too expensive
 or too much trouble and stopped.  We had extensive natural resources
 available within our borders.  Among these were sources of cheap
 energy.   In addition, our government encouraged development,
 sometimes through fiscal incentives, that tended towards development
 of the new rather than reuse of the old.  The final point, the
 competitive system led to separation of the function of trash
 disposal from the function of energy production and particularly
 from the function of electric generation.
  The expanding disposal problem and the increasing concern for
 the environment led Congress to action.   In the mid-60's the
 Clean Air Act was amended to include a section entitled the
 Solid Waste Disposal Act whose purpose states that trash quantities
 and disposal  problems are rising and that failure to salvage and
 reuse materials results in unnecessary waste.

  This act was further amended in 1970 with the purpose expanded
 to promote solid waste management and methods of collection,
separation, recovery, recycling and environmentally safe disposal.
The thrust of this act remains to reduce the volume so that trash
 is easier to  handle, but it also displays an awaking concern for

energy available from trash.   In fact,  this  act is the basis for
several  Federal  demonstration grants.

  The oil  embargoes of 1973 perhaps more than any other single
event gave credence and stature to what some had been saying for
some time.  Oil  is  limited in quantity  and alternate sources of
power are  necessary.   The AEC had within its authority the task
to develop nuclear  power which had been amended to include
nonnuclear energy resources.   However,  other sources were ava-'lable
to be developed.  To  encourage tnat development, Congress passed
the Federal  Nonnuclear Energy Research  and Development Act of 1974
which charged ERDA  with and I quote, "(A)  to advance energy
conservation technologies including but not  limited to (i)
productive use of waste including garbage, sewage, agricultural
waste and  industrial  waste heat; (ii)  reuse  and recycling of
materials  and consumer products . . .  ."

  Other paragraphs  charge us  to produce low  sulphur fuels, substitutes
for gas and  oil, determine economics and accelerate demonstrations
all of which are things we may also accomplish in waste systems
and utilization.  That sums up where the United States is today.

  In fewer words,what happened in other countries most notably
western Europe and  Japan?  These countries were and are land
poor where we are land rich.   History tells  us that the conflicts

of Europe were primarily related to nations desiring to expand
their territory because they were confined and desired to control
natural resources.  They generally shared our early frugality and
did not have a great deal  of waste for disposal.  They also
developed into compact towns and cities often with central district
steam heating systems surrounded by apartments heated with
individual coal or wood fired space heaters.   Thus, much of their
waste was ash that had a fairly high energy content remaining.
Also, one entity was responsible, for energy production (either
steam or electricity) and  waste disposal.

  Finally, the quantity of fossil fuel available within their
borders and under their direct control was limited.  A series
of Franco-German wars centered on the coal rich saar.   The end
result seems obvious.  With little land to bury waste of a fairly
high energy content why not burn it for heat  value.  Thus, they
developed incinerators to  produce steam instead of our traditional
incinerator which was designed to reduce volume.
  What is the way out of our dilemma?  We  use one-third of the
worlds energy to sustain the world's highest  standard of living and
to produce an inordinate share of the world's food and manufactured
goods.  We are heavily dependent on oil and our internal  supplies
are dwindling while our external supplies  are not under our control
and the price is soaring.   As an overall  strategy, ERDA will
develop a series of alternatives including solar, nuclear, enhanced

oil and gas recovery and environmentally sound coal  uses.

  The area of your- and my- interest is  in  ERDA's objective to
develop, demonstrate and foster implementation of technologies
to recover energy and materials resources from urban (including
sewage sludge),  industrial, agricultural (including  animal  manures)
and forestry wastes.  The specific short range objective is to
achieve sufficient implementation  of technologies to supply the
equivalent energy of 1  million barrels  of oil  per day from
wastes 1985.  To put that in a different light,  1 million  barrels
of oil per day while only amounting to  2 percent of  our estimated
1985 energy consumption of 95 quads at  the  best  ERDA scenario that
million barrels  still represents 4 billion  dollars per year at a
cost of $11 per  barrel.  By the way, in  case  you're  not familiar
with the term, a quad is a quadrillion  or lo""* BTU.

  How do we plan to get there?  We propose  to  accomplish our
research by both software and hardware  programs.  The greater
part of waste is produced in small amounts  over  large areas, but
some are sufficiently concentrated to be economically collected
and processed now.  Secondly, wastes are highly  regional in
character ranging from the wood wastes  of Maine, the urban  wastes
of the East Coast megapolis, the agricultural  wastes of the
Midwest, the animal wastes of the  Southwest and  back to the


wood wastes of the Northwest.  Obviously, this list is not all
inclusive.  This conference is held in the center of a very large
poultry industry with very large problems in disposing of chicken
manure (and you don't know how hard it is to say that and not what
I'm accustomed to saying).  This program will characterize wastes
and their source and quantity.  It will  concentrate on the
demonstration and acceleration of implementation of existing tech-
nology and will foster research and development in innovative
technologies, particularly those that will convert wastes that are
now discarded in relatively small amounts.

  The research will  cover the spectrum of combustion, pyrolysis,
bioconversion, and chemical processes as well as combinations of
these processes.  Whether the waste is domestic grass cuttings,
paper, garbage, agricultural  manure, field waste, forestry slash
or the organic waste streams  of industry, its composition permits
conversion by similar means.   The task of sorting out and recycling
those items which represent net energy and virgin materials economies
will not be neglected.  For instance,a pound of aluminum can be
separated and reprocessed at  an estimated 5 percent energy cost
compared to the production of a pound of virgin aluminum.  The
task remains to determine the means to optimize the energy production
fr'om waste materials and to select the most valuable product for the
particular application.

  While the principal  thrust of the program is energy production,
there will  be a threefold umbrella over the program; removing the
social, industrial  and political  barriers to using wastes; preserving
the environment; and as an incidental  but important benefit,
reduction of the waste disposal burden.

  That is a broad brush strategy  of how we intend to save the
equivalent  of 1 million barrels of oil  per day.   Let's consider

  As I mentioned, our  task is broad-based.  Many papers and figures
have been presented on how much trash  is produced, where and when
and how much is collectable.   Those figures vary widely.  For
instance, I can quote  to you 210, 125  or 55 million tons of forest
and wood industry waste depending on the source  of data.  The
difference  is obviously significant.  We must  know the very base
of our action.   We  hope while updating  and accuratizing both the
total and the collectable quantities,  to stimulate thought and
research in improved collection methods.  As an  example, many
agricultural harvesters strip-off the  food portion and leave the
waste behind to be  plowed in or burned.  It is better to have the
harvester also  collect that waste to be converted to energy with the
waste of that process  to be fertilizer?  What  is the overall effect
on fertilizer products and what is the  economics?

  In this same area of studies we will be considering the
feasibility of projects.   One of the major elements missing in
most of our proposals is  an energy balance to determine the overall
energy efficiency of the  process and if the process produces a
net energy increase.  That idea of energy balance is a tough nut
to crack.  The variables  are numerous and many of the so-called
knowns argumentative.

  Before leaving studies, .work must be done in the area of
identifying and breaking  down the political, social and insti-
tutional barriers to waste utilization.   EPA addressed the political
problems on the Federal  level in their Second Annual Report to
Congress.  For instance,  they concluded that rail freight rates
discriminated against scrap steel.   That work must be updated,
expanded and implemented.   Beyond this, the local political
problem must be addressed.   Before joining ERDA I worked for a
small  city.   It was the  only self-functioning municipality in the
surrounding country primarily, in my opinion, because of state
laws.   The two entities,  although they occasionally tried, had
extreme barriers to cooperation and joint ventures.  In the social
and industrial field, convincing the market that the material  is
useful and developing techniques for its use is crucial.   For
example, the steel  industry is reluctant to purchase other than

home or prompt scrap because of stated potential  contamination
problems.   Tin and aluminum are two products  that frequently
appear in  conjunction with  steel  that are particularly demaging.
It is analogous to your reaction  if your home town officials
announced  that they were going to feed your sewage plant effluent
directly to your water plant.   The answer,  "no way,"  but if they
expand capacity by building an intake in the  local river,  you're
not concerned even though the  effluents of  sewage plants empty
into that  river upstream.  The dilution and out of sight,  out of
mind effect takes place.  Although our major  thrust is not
environmental, that area belongs  to EPA and elsewhere in EROA,
we do plan to keep an overlook on this vital  area to  insure a process
we are developing does not  create irreversible results elsewhere.
Of course  simple success in our program will  benefit  the environment
by reducing waste problems.  I only needed  a  quick description of
a West Texas feedlot processing 200,030 cattle each producing
7 pounds of manure a day each  to  be assured of that.

  Now let's discuss the processes we will be  looking  at.  They
generally  are not really new and  at least in  the  short term we
do not plan much basic research.   We will be  doing a  great deal
of work in applied research, that is, trying  to adapt existing
technology and knowledge to the very heterogenous mass of wastes
and attempting to optimize  the processes that now exist.

  As I prepared this, it occurred to me that up to this point I
had not stated why the Federal government is or should be in the
energy business.  After all, think about the waste to energy field.
Without Federal help waterwall incineration is being slowly
imported from Europe; companies, notably Union Carbide, Monsanto,
Occidental and Combustion Power Company and a host of others,have
developed and tested pilot size waste pyrolysis systems, source
separation of recyclables was started, etc.  The answer lies in
the heavy capital, long lead time and high risk associated with
the scaleup to full size operation and the need to develop
innovative systems to utilize small quantities of waste and to
utilize regional wastes to produce regional product needs.

  These demand Federal assistance to accelerate demonstration and
implementation of technologies ancl to stimulate and encourage
work on the mroe innovative ideas.

  The first process I'd like to mention is combustion to produce
energy.  As I have stated, this technology is well developed and
has been slowly implemented.  There does appear to be valuable
work to be done on corrosion  and control and gaining a more complete
knowledge of the process of incineration.  There is also a need for
feasibility studies to prove out the economics and markets for a
proposed system prior to detailed design and funding work.  We
conceive that assistance in conducting these studies will be

the catalyst necessary to convince areas, to implement these systems.
Incidentally, there is available off the shelf a number of small
incinerators (up to 1  ton per hour) which can be married with waste
heat boilers for small applications, such as a single building.
Since these are here and available, we will not provide much
hardware support but will be interested in assisting in implementation
by feasibility or economic studies.

  A question, if incineration has been demonstrated from small
incinerator/waste heat boiler through 1200 ton or larger units why
not, as I said in the introduction,get on with it and stop "messing"
with other processes.   The basic answer lies in several areas.  One
is the regional, widely diversified type, and scale of waste available;
another, the amount of  waste that can be assembled and the last is
the use of the end product.  Very wet wastes, such as sewage sludges
and some chicken manures cannot  be incinerated at a net energy
increase because of the mass of  water to be heated.  Electricity is
an energy form can be  used anywhere but cogeneration, that is
generation from a large number of small sources, needs research.
Steam cannot be used everywhere  as has been proven at Chicago
Northwest and Harrisburg.  Other processes are necessary.  New
combustion processes need investigation.  Among these are high

temperature and fluidized bed processes.  The latter utilizes a
heated bed of granular material, such as sand, and a fluid
introduced from below, such as hot air.   At a sufficient volume
of air, the bed becomes a floating mass like quicksand.  When
substances are placed on the bed, the reaction occurs rapidly and
because of the fluid nature, hot spots are eliminated.   The off gases
can be used for a variety of purposes depending on their composition.
If excess air is used, they are like any other incinerator gas and
can be used to produce steam.   If there is a deficiency of air, the
process approaches pyrolysis and depending on temperature and
oxygen available, the waste products can be varied.  This leads to
the next process, pyrolysis.  Simply stated,pyrolysis is destructive
distillation or heating in an oxygen deficient atmosphere.  Depending
on the temperature, pressure and oxygen  levels,a series of products
are available ranging from heavy to light oils, and various gas
compositions from low to medium BTU value.  Char that is essentially
carbon and molten slag may be produced along always with ash and
possibly other waste products.

  The heavy and light oils may be substituted for fossil oils.
The gas may be burned for energy as in Monsanto's landguard system
or used as a synthesis gas to produce a  variety of chemicals.
Processes have been researched at least  on paper to economically
produce methanol, anhydrous ammonia and  ethylene.

These processes are in varying levels of implementation from
demonstration to bench stage.   Each is different in its front end
process, its feed, its fuel  and its off products.   One process will
use manure that is only 15 to  25 percent moisture and the method
would not work well on a local layer chicken ranch where moisture
content may exceed 8 percent.

  What to do with that chicken manure?  One process to be considered
is again a familiar one, anaerobic digestion.   This has been
utilized for many years to reduce the bulk of and stabilize sewage
sludge.  For years the methane has been used to power the plants
where produced.  For various  reasons the practice has fallen into
disfavor and incineration and  other sludge treatment systems have
been slowly adopted.  These  because of energy consumption and polluti
implications are no longer desirable solutions, although they do star
as monuments to the era of reducing volume to solve waste problems.
Anaerobic digestion research  needs exist to optimize the process,
shorten the digestion time and increase methane production.  One of
these at the bench level promises to produce twice as much as in half
the time.  This process has  potential for serving rather small
applications.  Since the 1950's, farmers in India have supplied
their cooking and heating needs from anaerobic digesters fueled
wfth cattle manure.

  In this same bioconversion field is an enzymatic process to convert
cellulose to glucose which can then be fermented to ethanol or other
products.  Think, your old newspapers could be converted to your
favorite beverage.  The process itself was discovered in New Guinea
during World War II.  Cotton cloth kept disappearing and no one
knew why.  Research demonstrated that an organism was producing
an enyzme that converted the cellulose of the cotton to glucose which
the organization then fed upon.  We expect to support the Natick
Laboratories of the U. S. Army on prepilot plant activity for this

  Perhaps least developed of the processes is hydrogenation.   Again,
this is borrowed technology from the  chemical industry, but needs
a great deal of examination as a process when applied to the
heterogenous mass of wastes.   These processes have operated at bench
scale under high pressure and temperature regimens.

  Supporting these processes  as well  as standing alone, will  be work
on resource recovery and feedstock preparation systems.  As I stated
earlier,  a pound of recycled  aluminum represents a 95 percent savings
in energy as well as $200 to  $300 per ton on the economic side.
In addition to other potential projects in this area, we expect to
support the NCRR Test and Evaluation  Facility.  This facility is a
pilot plant developed to test separate components in a complete

plant chain to determine the efficiency of recovery.   Further
projects will  develop economic  end  uses for the  products of the
separation system.

  We are formulating a program  while  awaiting  appropriation of funds.
That program will  stimulate research  and unsolicited  ideas, conduct
feasibility studies and encourage and assist pilot plant construction.
Depending on the funds and authorities available,  i.e.,  loan guarantees
we may be funding  or assisting  in demonstrations.   We are particularly
interested in  the  latter authority  since throughout our  programs we
are most interested in working  with sources that are  willing to put
effort into their  proposal.  That effort can be  indirect, that is
prior laboratory work, remission of overhead costs, etc.  That is
not to say that we  will not totally finance good ideas where the
proposer has no capability to support.

  In addition  to the proposed projects I have  mentioned  previously,
we will  be conducting a 50 to 100 ton/day experiment  converting
urban waste and sewage sludge to methane for the next several years.
This program was inherited from NSF.   A letter contract  is in being
and the final  contract being negotiated based  upon a  request for
proposals.  The selected contractor is Waste Management, Inc., who
is to supply the site and some  front  end processing.   The plant will

be located at Pompano Beach, Florida, and will operate as follows.
Mixed municipal refuse will be shredded to minus 3 inches with a
nominal size of 1-1/4 inches.   The ferrous fraction is then removed
by magnetic separation and the waste stream split.  The pilot process
stream split.   The pilot process stream will pass through a trommel
screen (1/4 to 1/2 inch hole size) to remove fines (principally
glass, sand, etc.).   The stream will  then be air classified to light
and heavy fractions.  The light fraction consisting mainly of orgam'cs
with some plastic will be conveyed to a surge bin to buffer the
5 day per week front end system against the 7 day per week digester
system.  From the light fraction will be transferred to a mixing
tank where water, sewage sludge and filtrate recycle as well  as
ammonia,  lime and phosphorous  will be mixed.  The mixed material
will  be transferred  to two anaerobic digesters.   The off gas  and
wastes from the digesters will  be collected and  analyzed.   Several
parameters are to be varied to maximize gas production.  They include
the digestion temperature, retention time, percent solids applied,
amount of recycle liquid, mixing energy applied, waste/sludge
mixture and nutrient level.

  The most significant responses to be measured  are methane
production per unit  of solids  fed, gas composition, reduction of
solids remaining for ultimate  disposal, dewatering characteristics
of waste  slurry, process stability, energy requirements for
operation and  chemical costs for nutrient and pH control.

  The waste stream will  undergo a series of operations.   Some will
be recycled without processing.  Various filter systems  will be
tried to separate the solids and liquid.  As much liquid as
possible will  be recycled.   The remaining liquid may be  disposed
of by treatment in a packaged treatment plant or most likely sprayec
on the nearby landfill.   That landfill is monitored for  leachate;
and,  therefore, groundwater quality can  be checked while the
spraying is being done.   The filter cake will  have a BTU content
of 5  to 7000 BTU per pound.  If,at 35-40 percent moisture, it will
sustain combustion.  Any excess may be buried  on the landfill, but
some  will  be utilized at a  nearby Incinerator  to test its
burnability.  Other uses for the waste solids  will also  be sought.

  Principally, in the wastes systems and utilization program we
will  be conducting studies  on waste, its composition, its
collectabi1ity, economic feasibility and on the systems  to convert
it directly or indirectly to useful energy, particularly in
smal1er scales.

  To  close, let me tell  a true story I heard recently.   An
American Company in an attempt to solve  a small portion  of the
waste problem economically, is completing installation  of
shredders  and feed mechanisms to use wood in a boiler that
is not coal fired.  When they applied for their air pollution

control permit they were told that to burn trash they would need
electrostatic precipitators since the trash state-of-the-art said
they could attain 3000 pounds of particulate per day from the same
boiler; however, using coal, 6000 pounds is acceptable.  Despite
the investment already made, the company in effect said okay I'll
burn coal  and put out 6000 pounds of particulate and bury my wood
in a landfill rather than go to further expense.  This type barrier
to solving the waste to energy problem must be stopped.  Government
must train its bureaucracy to look at total problems and not to
limit itself to narrow interpretations.

                            Samuel Hale, Jr.
              Vice President, Market Development, SCA Services, Incorporated

As the leadoff speaker this morning,  I would like to discuss.
the resource recovery implementation  process, from the point  of
view of the resource recovery systems industry  (that is,  those
companies in the business of designing, constructing and  operating
resource recovery facilities).  This  also will be, to some
extent, an overview, with more specifics in the papers to follow.
At the outset, let me present two caveats to my remarks.  First,
there are other  "industry" points of  view besides that of the
so-called "systems" companies — the  view of the consulting
engineers, for example.  Second, although I am confident  that
the general sense of my remarks is  supported by most of the
system companies, there obviously is  not unanimity of opinion
on every point.  With these caveats,  then,  let me proceed.

The Problem

The first question to be answered is  why the resource recovery
systems industry would even bother  to articulate a point  of
viev; on how a State, region, or city  should go about selecting
and installing a resource recovery  system.  There are, in fact,
many reasons:

1.  From our perspective, progress  in implementing resource
    recovery systems has been slow  and extremely frustrating.
    I can count  on one hand the number of full-scale resource
    recovery plants that have commenced operation over the; last
    two years and on two fingers the  number that are expected
    to do so next year .   (Also, interestingly, of those  that
    have started up, two were entirely private  industry vemtures
    and two tohers are having  very serious problems.  None  was
    based on a competitive  system procurement.  These  seven
    systems compare with estimates  around EPA two years aqo  of
    50 to 100 systems up and running  by 1980-1985.

2.  We see major problems with the  system  selection and procurement
    process generally employed to date, in  at least two respects.
    First, most municipal Requests  for Proposals, to which various
    of the companies have responded (at a  cost  of well over
    $100,000 per company in most cases), have gone absolutely
    nowhere.  My list, which I'll  say at the outset is subjective
    and not necessarily complete,  shows tvcprojects -- Milwaukee
    and Monroe County, N.Y. -- which  appear to  be going ahead
    after one round of competitive  proposals and a third  project —
    New Orleans  — which is proceeding after two rounds of
    competitive  proposals  (together with grants or other   financial
    incentives provided by  the EPA  and NCRR).   Against this,  three
    municipalities have cancelled  their RFP's after bids  were
    received, and no new RFP's have been issued.  Seven projects


    are "under development" or (more generally)  in limbo after
    receiving one set of competitive bids,  and four other
    projects are in limbo after having had  two or three
    different sets of competitive bids (that is,  having issued
    two or more separate RFP's at various times).

    Some of the projects I have included still may go forward
    (although each has slipped well past its original schedule),
    but certainly the record to date is one predominantly of
    false starts and little in the way of concrete results.
    Certainly, a batting average of 3 for 23 -- the number of
    "go" projects versus the total number of RFP's issued —
    is not impressive.

    A second distrubing aspect of the process is that there have
    been some obviously poor system choices.  For example, two
    municipalities selected companies with  an idea but with no
    assets, no experience  (in this or any other field), no
    engineering staff, and so forth.  Not surprisingly, both
    the companies and the projects subsequently folded.

3.   In an infant industry, any system failure anywhere in the
    country could jeopardize the future of  the industry.
    Resource recovery has had two systems which recently have
    had very bad  (and very visible) problems -- problems which,
    if repeated elsewhere, could cause the  entire resource
    recovery effort to be aborted.  Thus, we feel that we all
    must do everything possible to insure that the likelihood
    of selecting a "white elephant" is minimized.   A proper
    selection process should provide such insurance.

4.   Finally, large-scale municipal resource recovery involves
    very large system capital costs, the need to make a long-
    term commitment to a particular system and set of products,
    the need to allocate risks in areas where there is very
    little experience, and so forth.  As a  result, the system
    procurement and contracting process, under the best of
    circumstances, is much more difficult and time-consuming
    than we initially thought.  For example, the Connecticut
    Resourch Recovery Authority selected and publicly announced
    the teams  (on one of which SCA was a member)  for the first
    two plants in its statewide system in May 1974, yet at
    this point it still is not certain that either project will
    go forward.  A major reason for the delay and present
    uncertainty has been the difficulty in  agreeing on allocation
    of risks among the many parties involved -- the State, the
    participating municipalities, the system contractor, the
    fuel/energy user, and the bondholders.

In view of this "litany of woes", it is no wonder that the major
concern expressed at three recent formal meetings of industry


members has been that the system selection and procurement process
must be improved.  I might add that some members of the industry
wonder whether even this will be enough.

System Selection as a Phased Process

So much for the problem.  What do we do about it?  To the extent
that improvements in the system selection process constitute a
solution  (and I recognize that this is only a partial solution),
I would like to describe how we generally feel that process
should look.

We see system selection as a phased process, with different
objectives and outputs at each stage.  The first step in this
process is not to issue a Request for Proposals, tempting as it
may be to do so, to short-cut the process.  Rather, we see the
following sequence of phases  (and I present these to convey our
general sense of what is required rather than to lay down a
rigid set of rules:

    1.  A study phase, during which the State, region or
        municipality assesses its disposal situation, its
        energy and materials markets, the general system alternativ
        available to it, financial-legal-political constraints,
        its possible system objectives, and so forth.

    2.  A system selection and specification phase, during which
        decisions must be made as to what the community's
        objectives are, where the wastes will come from, what
        markets are most favorable, what system type or types
        seem best suited to the area's particular conditions and
        objectives, what legal entity and what financing methods
        will be used, and so  forth.

    3.  The system procurement and contracting phase, during which
        a Request for Proposlas is issued  (if this is the
        procurement method chosed), proposals are received, and
        contracts are negotiated.

    4.  The implementation phase,  from design through construction
        to actual operations  and marketing of the recovered outputs

The sense of these phases is  obvious, so I will not try to
  elaborately detail each phase  (this detail is available, with
  some differences in the conceptual  framework, from the EPA).
  However, I do want to make some points, from a purely subjective
  point of view,  about each phase preceeding actual implementation.


I.  Study Phase

The study phase should begin by answering the question, "Is
resource recovery really a good idea for us at this time?"  The
answer clearly will not be "yes" everywhere.   For example,
SCA has a 300 ton per day prototype waste-to-dry-fuel plant
in Fort Wayne, Indiana which works very well  but which, given
Fort Wayne's combination of low-cost landfills and plentiful
local coal, is not economic there.  This plant, on the other-
hand, would be quite economic in Boston or many other locations
with different disposal-cost and energy market combinations.

I do not mean to suggest that the answer to the question "is
resource recovery for us" should be a function of economics
alone.  It should include an assessment of what disposal alter-
natives will be available a few years hence,  the environmental
impacts of those alternatives, the benefits of the potentially
recoverable materials and/or energy for the area's development,
and so forth.  It also should include an assessment of what the
public wants.  It certainly is entirely legitimate for a com-
munity to take the public policy position that it wants resource
recovery even where less expensive, environmentally acceptable
disposal alternatives will continue to be available  (some
communities already have taken this position.  Rather, my point
is this:  be explicit and be honest in assessing your particular

While a number of other issues also should be addressed in the
study phase, I believe a few are particularly critical:

-  What are the specific markets in the area, especially for
   the organic fraction  (as a fuel, as energy, as compost, or
   in other forms)?  Because this will be a major determinant
   of what system types are best for a given area, it is not
   enough merely to identify potential users.  At some, potential
   users' actual willingness to commit to a long-term contract,
   and on what terms, must be pinned down.

-  Where will the waste come from  (since most systems require
   large waste volumes to be economic?  Also, where waste from
   more than one community will be involved,  what be the
   mechanism for bringing those communities together?   (The
   difficulty in securing regional compacts should not be
   underestimated:  it took Newton and Waltham, Massachusetts
   three years to get together even with pressing incinerator
   closure deadlines and an EPA grant, on a simple transfer

   What are the legal constraints  (such as competitive bidding
   laws or laws limiting the duration of contracts), financial
   constraints, and political-institutional constraints which will
   influence both what system  is selected and how that system
   is procured?

   What  should  be  the  community's  resource recovery objectives?
   One must  make tradeoffs  among the various possible objectives  —
   to minimize  risk, to maximaze resource recovery, to minimize
   environmental discharges,  to maintain maximum flexibility
   to adopt  emerging new  technology, and so forth.

 Finally,  let me make a few  points  about the study phase process.
 First, there obviously is no  single  "best" resource recovery
 system.   Rather, what  is  best for  a  given area can be judged
 only by  answering  questions such as  those above.  Second,  use
 experts  --  financial experts,  legal  experts, political experts,
 and  above all a good consulting engineering firm with extensive
 resource recovery  experience.  A relatively small expenditure
 at this  stage (generally  1% or less  of the ultimate systen
 cost) will  save millions  of dollars  later.  Third  (which  is
 easier to say than to  achieve), use  this phase to build your
 political consensus and support, through broadly-bases task
 forces,  keeping the decision-makers  informed and involved, or
 whatever works  best in you  situation.  Finally,  from the  systems
 companies'  perspective, please do  not use KFP's  at this stage
 to get information or  advice.  Companies will  spend money need-
 lessly,  many will  be  "turned  off"  and will not come back  for
 the  "real"  RFP  later,  and you won't  get much useful information.
 A reputable consulting engineer  is skilled in  obtaining the
 information you will  need,  without RFP's, so use him.

II.  System Selection  and  Specification Phase

 The  second phase  — system  selectioi and  specification  — is
 that in  which the  municipality must  make  decisions, based on
 input  from the  study phase.  It  involves  a number  of  things:

   Selection of the general type of  recovery  system or  systems
   adjudged best  for the  area.

    Decisions on  such issues  as  the  system users'  organizational
    form   (authority, district, separate  contracts,  etc.) where
   more  than one community  will  use  the  system,  how  the  system
   will  be procured (traditional A & E  approach,  turnkey  design-
    construction-operation contract)  and  how  it will be  financed
     (general obligation bonds vs.  State  or city revenue  bonds
    vs.  industrial revenue bonds  vs.  other alternatives),  whether
    the system will be publicly or  privately  operated  (and, if
    public operated, who will market the  outputs),  and  so  forth.

 Again,  let me make a few subjective  points  about this  phase.
 First,  one issue to be faced in a "total system" or  even turnkey
 procurement  is how narrowly to specify the  system (and hence
 the end-use of particular the organic fraction)  on which  you will


seek bids.   Everyone has  a different answer to  this question  -
I personally favor  providing some flexibility to bid  alternative
end-uses,  to take advantage of the private sector's strength  in
securing,  e.g.,  favorable fuel or energy  contracts.   So far,
based on  an admittedly small sample, the  more narrowly  defined
system procurements (e.g., New Orleans  and Monroe County, N.Y.)
generally  have progressed better  than more "open" procurements
such as Connecticut (although Milwaukee's RFP was quite broadly
defined).   This  may be due to other factors, or it may  be that
it  is harder to  consummate an agreement where the range of
possibilities is broader.

The second  point I  would like to make is this:  given the very large capital
outlay,  the long-term commitment,  the complex and still-Corking technology,
and the range of economic and market uncertainties inherent in resource recovery
 (which,  let us remember, still is in its infancy), one should commit the  time,
effort,  and attention to the problems thoroughly  at this  stage, to avoid
surprises,  long delays, or even failure  later on.  I strongly recommend,  for
example, that you identify all the risks—technological  risks, market risks,
economic risks,  force majeure-type risks, and so  forth—at this stage and
think through those that you are willing to take, those  that you are not,  and
the costs of not taking a particular risk  (since  if you  don1t take a certain
risk inherent in a  given system, some other party must--and that party, public
or private, will exact a price for taking that risk).  Also, I recommend  that,
as you make your decisions, you get written opinions from  legal counsel,  bond
counsel, and other  experts approving  (and more particularly, passing on the
legality of) what you intend to do.  A depressing number of RFP's have been
declared illegal after the fact because of failure to take this simple step.

III.  System Procurement

The final stage before actual implementation consists of:  system procurement
and actual  contacting.  With respect to  this phase, my first recommendation is
to use,  under your  direction, consulting agencies and other experts.  1 must
add three other recommendations:

   1.  Regardless of the procurement method chosen, contractor experience
       and  other qualifications (size, general reputation, willingness to
       assume risks, etc.) should be a major selection criterion.   Because
       this field is in its infancy,and  no system has been replicated in
       great numbers, you will of necessity, be taking the chance that the
       contractor actually can perform.  Thus,  a  normal  competitive
       procurement  where the lowest bid  is accepted pretty much automatically
       is inappropriate in resource recovery at this time, because one must
       use 3udgement to decide both what system is best  and whether in fact a
       given contractor can make his system work  as well  as he has said in his
       proposal  that it will work. Thus, either  through a separate qualifying

       round prior to issuance of the RFP or  through other means,  give  your-
       self room legally to excercise that judgement.

   2.  Wherever possible, standardize the RFP,  in  terms of format  and of
       assumptions as to system scale and redundancy,  the interest rate and
       auortization period to be used,  future levels of secondary  materials
       prices, residue disposal costs,  and so forth.   Let me give  but one
       example of why standardization is  important:   our Ft. Way'na plant and
       CEA's East Bridgewater, Massachusetts  resource recovery plant are almost
       exactly the same size in terms of  the  number  of lines, primary  (one
       line a piece) ,- and physical origins of the  equipment

                                       ,  yet  while we call ours  a  300 ton
       per day plant, E. Bridgewater  has  been referred to as a 1200 ton per
       day plant.  Clearly, these two figures by themselves would  be highly
       misleading.  My point is this:  it is  hard  enough to conduct an
       accurate comparative evaluation where  everything is standardized; it
       is a lot more difficult where  such standardization of facts and
       assumptions is not imposed.

   3.  Because of the interaction of  risk-assumption,  the financing
       mechanism chosen, and pricing, spell out, in  the RFP, the risks  proposed
       to be allocated to the contractor.   Wherever  possible, an actual draft
       contract should be included as an  attachment  to the RFP.  I would
       add that, even under the "total system" procurement method, (1)  no
       contractor will take 100% of the risk  (especially in those  areas over
       which he has no control ,  such as  the  risk  of changes in  waste
       composition or of changes in environmental  standards or of  loss  of
       his major energy user caused by, say a strike or plant shut down)
       and (2) no contractor will take any risk without expectation of  what
       he feels is a reasonable reward (i.e., contractors don't  take risks
       for free) .  As a result, the risk  allocation  process under  the  "total
       systems" approach can be difficult. I would  point out, however, that
       the traditional ASE-and-public-operation approach, in which the  issue
       of risk allocation usually is  not  raised and  hence does not constitute
       a source of delay, the municipality generally takes all of  the risks
       I have talked about as well as the risk of  absolute systeir  failure  or
       deterioration of system economics  down the  road.  From their base,
       virtually anything is an improvement in terms of risk allocation.

Let me make one final point about this phase:  besides using experts,  learn
from others' experience.  I would recommend that you get and use others'
RFP's (both those that have resulted  in actual contracts and tho&e that have
not), publicly available systems evaluation,  and examples of actual signed
contracts and bond prospectuses.   Unfortunately, there currently is no  single
clearing house for this information,  although EPA  is a logical focus for such
an activity and hopefully will provide such a service at some point.


I have presented a fairly gloomy view of the  present  and a hodgepodge of ideas
about how to improve in the future.   Let me pull  these  together with the
following list of recommendations:

   1.  Undertake a phased program, with study and decision phases  preceding
       actual system procurement.

   2.  Budget for and make use of legal,  financial, engineering, and other

   3.  Take advantage of the small but growing body of  experience  in system
       evaluation, procurement, risk allocation,  contracting and financing.

   4.  Be prepared for a lengthy, frustrating process—one that will lead
       nowhere without thorough analysis,  political support and, above all,
       an aggressive public catalyst pushing  to make  it happen.

                           ENERGY RECOVERY PROGRAM
                                David J. Damiano
                    Commissioner, Department of Streets, City of Philadelphia

     The fundamental  problem  faced by an urban area is to identify

viable energy  recovery opportunities.  There is no substitute for

professional engineering investigations and planning.  However,  I

have yet to meet  the  municipal manager who is not deluged by myriads

of proposals from self-appointed experts,  salesmen, politicians,

contractors, charlatans, whose problems are solved by signing on

the dotted line.   The cardinal rule  to follow is that the advice

is worth the price paid for it;  Nothing;

     Philadelphia's approach  to energy recovery dates to 1961 when

the sixth municipal incinerator plant was under final engineering

design.  One option was an incinerator boiler unit to produce steam

and sell to an adjacent Philadelphia Electric power plant 1/4 mile

away.  The cost study including operation and capital amortization

was 71C/1.000  Ibs. of steam as compared to fossil fuel of 55C/1,000 Ibs

which  resulted in abandoning  the concept at that time.

     More recently the Penna. Dept.  of Environmental Resources par-

tially funded  a $60,000. Resource Recovery or Energy Recovery Study.

Recognizing that the recent energy crisis has made solid waste com-

petitive as a  substitute fuel, a renewed interest has developed  to

identify markets for steam or energy.

     The first phase of our Resource Recovery Study was evaluation

of six refuse-to-energy options which was a result of prior investi-

gations and were prepared to be implemented.  These opportunities were

rank ordered in technical-economic feasibility, interest of the ener-

gy and/or steam consumer, time phasing with our refuse disposal needs,

ability to integrate with the logistics of our system.

     The second phase is a survey to identify new markets for energy

or steam as well as R.D.F. preparation as a fossil fuel substitutes.

However, although studies of markets are continuing capitalizing on

present opportunities is a prudent course for cities to follow.  One

such opportunity is an existing center-city steam loop, owned and

operated by Philadelphia Electric Company, serving five square mile

area of downtown Philadelphia.  Customers include department stores,

office buildings, hotels, apartment houses, 13 major hospitals, two

universities, two newspaper plants, and most of the federal, state,

and city properties in this area.  In addition to space heating,

this steam is used for numerous process requirements and for air-

conditioning.  The load varies from 2,500,000 Ib/hr. in the winter to

roughly 500,000 Ib/hr. in the summer, thus providing a year-round

market.  All of the steam is generated in oil fired boilers, and

300,000 to 500,000 Ib/hr. of new oil fired capacity is anticipated

to be required by 1978 or 1979.  Philadelphia's energy conservation

project proposes to substitute a refuse fired boiler plant for the

Philadelphia Electric planned new oil fired facility.  The refuse

fired energy conservation plant proposed consists of a modern, aesthetic-


ally designed building completely enclosing the required refuse

receipt and storage facilities, four, 400 tons per day furnaces

and their ancillaries.  The energy plant is geared to steam demamd

requirements of the Philadelphia Electric steam loop, details of

which are being developed with Philadelphia Electric.  This partner-

ship is a unique situation involving a major urban area and its

utility company.

     The alternatives available for reliable production of re::use

derived steam have been narrowed to the most feasible, based on cur-

rent and emerging technology, which can be easily implemented without

waiting for technological developments.  This concept involves fur-

naces of waterwall construction for direct combustion of received

refuse on a mechanical grate system providing useful low pressure

steam.  Each furnace unit will have comprehensive air pollution con-

trol systems consisting of a conditioning tower, electrostatic pre-

cipitators, induced draft fan, and stack.  Provision will l)e made for

recovering ferrous material from the residue and its sale to scrap


     Some of the developments in Phase I that surface as criteria may

be of interest to other cities.

     1.  In addition to the market opportunity, one of the essential

ingredients in developing a successful refuse-to-energy program, is

to have an interested, willing, and cooperative customer.  Both the

President and staff of Philadelphia Electric Company have extended

themselves to the fullest in analysis, data, planning and programming


the project.  Their  singular  effort  and commitment to the refuse-

to-energy project is the most iraportant factor contributing to its


     2.  Refuse collection  and disposal being the second highest

municipal expenditure,  the  City cannot afford to subsidize alternate

systems or processes. Initial studies of our system and anticiapted

income from steam sales indicate the project is self-sustaining and/

or a savings will result attributable to the reduction of our present

disposal costs.

     3.  The impact of  this facility on refuse collection requires

no major changes in scheduling, routing, and transfer location making

it very favorable from  a sanitation operations point of view.  There-

fore, we will not face  any  additional collection costs to take advan-

tage of this opportunity.

     4., Time phasing is a  three to five year term to provide on line

steam to the customer and is the normal time period for engineering

study, design, and construction for public works facilities to ob-

tain the optimum bid and construction costs.  No unnecessary costs

will be found for time phasing the on lire steam demand.

     5.  Competent technical consulting engineering services with

particular expertise in refuse-to-energy systems is essential.  In

addition to technical-economic feasibility of each refuse-to-energy

project, the consultants sensitivity to systems, reliability, per-

formance,  legal,  contractural, financial,  requirements are some


factors which constitute part of the overall project.

     6.  One of the most important factors in a refuse-to-

energy project is siting.  In urban areas, land is scarce.  In

this case, an abandoned railroad yard is conveniently  located with-

in a 1/4 mile of the steam loop of the center-city business dis-

trict of the Philadelphia Ecletric Company.   There is  sufficient

land area to site the plant with suitable access and egress for

refuse collection trucks and trailers from an expressway.   Little

or no change will take place with the traffic pattern  in adjacent

neighborhoods, an important factor to community acceptance.

     7.  The benefits of the Philadelphia Electric Company's refuse-

to-energy project are:

     Conservation — Energy conservation; refuse being substituted

for oil, conserving an estimated 630,000 barrels per year,  roughly

equivalent to 30,000 domestic oil heated homes per year.  This is

enough oil saved to provide heating requirements for 100,000 people

or 5% of the City's population.

     Economics -- A potential reduction in refuse disposal costs of

10% from $10/ton conventional method to $9/ton.

     Environmental — Reduction in air pollution in critical center

city location of Philadelphia's basin and in land requirements for

refuse disposal.

     Employment — Underprivileged low income residents facing 14%

unemployment crisis, will have an additional 100 jobs  of higher skill

and training opportunities available to them.

     Uniqueness -- Demonstrate a government-utility partnership

acting with one another in the consumers' interest.

     Urban Crisis — Independent of social and educational programs,

the urban crisis that is faced is a fiscal dilemma.  The second

highest municipal expenditure is refuse handling and disposal.  Future

costs are escalating at an unprecedented rate.  This project will

affect 30% of the total refuse disposal budget of the City.

     Timeliness — Energy crisis has demanded exploration of new oppor-

tunities for energy conservation.  This is reflected in the Federal

Energy Program and the Energy Research and Development Agency Program

and policies.  The Philadelphia Program offers an immediately imple-

mentable energy conservation measure which does not require a decade or

more of research to become useful to the customers of our urban area.

     The preliminary investigations of the aforementioned seven points

is more than ample incentive for the City of Philadelphia to pursue

a refuse-to-energy project.  The subsequent steps are the traditional

final engineering design,  bid, construction, and operation of the

facility.  However, several unique considerations in the implementation

phase should be elaborated on for the guidance and information of other


     1.  Contract for steam sales.  Terms and conditions for contract

with the customer Philadelphia Electric Company will be fully developed

and executed before any major capital commitments are made.  Contract


must address a term of 25 years, rate structure with percentage credits

of fossil fuels, capital facilities credit, base load demand,  peak

load demand, summer/winter load with appropriate guarantees and penal-

ties for consumer protection shall be developed.

     2.  With capital requirements in excess of $50 million, this is

beyond the normal financing capability  of the City.  New institution-

al arrangements, via utility, authority or alternate form of a public

agency must be investigated to carry out project.  Concurrently an

I.R.S, ruling will be pursued to take advantage of an unique private/or

authority arrangement to benefit the investment tax credit and accel-

erated depreciation for the eligible components of the facility and the

low cost financing through bonds for a public agency.  It is possible

to realize an interest rate in five to eight per cent range for financ-

ing capital cost of this facility.

     3." A unique approach saving time, construction cost, an unneces-

sary duplication of efforts from the conventional specification bid

and construction routine will be employed.  It is commonly known that

the incinerator-boiler furnaces and appurtances constitute some 45%

of the total construction cost and the building enclosure is normally

tailored to fit the equipment manufactured.  The unique approach to be

employed will be prior to final engineering building design, the pre-

purchase of incinerator-boiler equipment on performance specifications

will be made directly from the manufacturer.

     With known equipment and manufacturer and supplier,  the consul-

tants will then be directed to proceed with final building design

of the supports and enclosure around details furnished by manufacturer.

     The successful bids by the building contractor will stipulate

installation of the equipment pre-purchased by the City to be furnished

and installed concurrent with the building and mechanical trades cont-


     This will result in an overall savings in time and costs to the

City and a more efficient installation.

     4.  In conclusion, to demonstrate the confidence level and cooper-

ation in a unique government-private utility arrangement, an agree-

ment was reached to carry out the next phase of this project.  The

$400,000 in design and engineering funds to move the project to the

 ext stages of completion will be shared equally between the City of

Philadelphia and Philadelphia Electric Company.  This reinforces the

point made in the beginning of our discussion where the most important

ingredient is a successful refuse-to-energy project is an interested,

willing and cooperative joint venture by the government and the cus-


                        Dorsey H. Lynch
             Assistant Vice President, The First Boston Corporation

         The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, acting  by
and through its Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
delivered on September 3, 1975, its Third Report to Congress
on Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction.  This report  con-
tained what I believed at first to be a startling conclusion -
"financing of resource recovery systems does not appear to be
a problem.  Any existing constraints can be overcome  by experience
and information, and a strong Federal program to develop informatioi
and provide technical assistance." While EPA's report was
liberally sprinkled with self-justification and examired financing
of resources recovery systems from a long-term, marco-economic
viewpoint, I had to agree that the conclusion reached,  although
almost totally unsupport by present experience, was never-
theless very perceptive and, in my own opinion, quite accurate.
While I am sure that many of you, based upon your own personal
experiences, disagree with this statement, 1 would like to defer
further discussion of it until later in my speech.  Instead,  I
would like to launch into the general topic of financing resource
recovery systems.

         Traditionally solid waste collection and disposal have
been a highly decentralized combination of local goveriment
services and private small business with relatively low and
dispersed capital requirements.  Thus, capital for solid waste
operations has been provided either by local commercial bank
business lending  (for private firms) or from general  revenues
or by general obligation bond financing  (for municipalities).

         While these traditional sources of capital continue to
be important, there is reason to believe that new sources  of long-
term capital wi11 have to be tapped  to meet the growing nood
for capital resulting from rapidly changing solid waste technology.
While the ultimate nature of this new technology may  bo in some
doubt as new labor and fuel saving devices and resource recovery
techniques arc being tested, the financing implications are  un-
mistakeably clear:

          (1)   solid waste collection and disposal will require
               much more capital in  the future than it  has

          (2)   the capital will tend to be concentrated in
               fewer and larger facilities;

         (3)    capital will .1 .ve to be amortized over a longer
               term than allowed by traditional bank lending;

         (4)    the revenue potential of resource recovery will
               introduce a new element of entrepeneurial risk
               and reward not previously contemplated by
               traditional lenders.  Because of these trends,
               we believe financing solid waste operations is
               a whole new ballgame for bankers as well as for
               municipalities and industry.

         With this overview, I would like to discuss the outlook
for financing both traditional solid waste operations and new
large scale resource recovery facilities.

         As we all know, private waste collection firms have
been hard hit during the past year by a combination of inflation,
depressed industrial collections and high interest rates on bank
loans.  In addition, those firms with significant revenues from
paper sales have been further hurt by the collapse of the secondary
paper market.  To make matters worse, the structure of most
collection and disposal contracts has made it difficult or
impossible to pass these added costs on to the municipalities
and industrial clients.  None of this looks good to bankers and
investors.   Therefore, I suspect the current bearish attitude
toward the industry will persist for some time until a more
favorable profit picture emerges.  This will make it extremely
difficult for most solid waste firms to obtain the two kinds of
financing they desperately need—increased equity and long-term
fixed rate debt.  So the banks will have to continue to carry
the industry on relatively short-term business loans.

         And now for the good news.  Interest rates on bank loans
will be much lower than they have been for the past year, so the
overall debt service burden of waste collection firms should
decline.  I do not share the view that short-term interest rates
will rise significantly in response to hugh federal borrowing in
the next few months, and I expect, therefore, that current bank
lending rates will be available for some time.  Furthermore, as
banks attempt to maintain profitability in the face of declining
business loan demand, it should be possible for waste collection
firms to negotiate somewhat longer term bank loans than have
been available during the past year.

         In the long run, though, private waste collection firms
will have to find additional long-term capital to meet the
growing cost and possibly longer depreciable life of new technology
and equipment.  This may require placement of new debt instruments
with long-term investors such as insurance companies and pension
funds.  Such a restructuring of debt would also help to insulate
solid waste firms from some of the worst cyclical effects of
short-term bank borrowing.


         With regard to large-scale resource recovery financing,
the picture is more complicated and confusing.  Basically
resource recovery plants can be viewed either as municipal servi
facilities (much like water and sewer facilities) or as
entrepeneurial ventures which consume raw materials, manufacture
products for sale and hopefully make a profit (much like a paper
manufacturer or a chemical plant).   Financing a municipal servici
function is,  of course, quite a different matter from financing
an entrepeneurial enterprise.  The basic financing mechanism is
tax-exempt municipal bonds (either general obligation bonds or
revenue bonds) and the primary security behind the bonds is the<
promise of a responsible public body to pay debt service on the
bonds either from taxes or user charges.  Financing an
entrepeneurial enterprise, on the other hand, requires an assess-
ment of business risk and reliance on the creditworthiness and
experience of the entrepeneur.  The basic financing mechanisms
are corporate bonds, taxable bonds, equity and tax-exempt
industrial revenue bonds.

         Much of the current confusion regarding resource recover
financing results from inability to decide whether such facilitie
should be financed as a municipal service function or as a privat
corporate entrepeneurial activity.   Both the public and private
sectors would like to lay off financing risks on the other party
while maintaining control and retaining profit for themselves—
an unlikely solution, in my view, since control and profit are
usually associated with risk assumption in our economy.

         The major types of resource recovery financing being
utilized at the present time are:

         1.    General Obligation Bonds (tax-exempt) - backed
               by the full faith and credit of the issuing
               municipality - used by Ames, Iowa and to be
               used by Monroe County, N.Y. and Dade County,

         2.    Revenue bonds with additional security pledge
               (tax-exempt) - backed by revenues from project
               and pledge of debt service back-up from the
               general funds of a municipality - to be used by
               Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority.

         3.    Revenue bonds secured by pledge of controllable
               revenues  (tax-exempt) - backed by promise of
               municipality to charge rates sufficient to cover
               debt service - used by Nashville Thermal Transfer

         4.    Industrial revenue bonds (tax-exempt) - promise
               of corporation to make lease or sale payments
               sufficient to cover debt service on the bonds -
               Saugas, Massachusetts and to be used by Southern
               Essex, Massachusetts.

         5.    Corporate bonds or equity (taxable) - full faith
               and credit of the private corporation - used by

         On the basis of my experience, I believe that there will
be increasing reliance upon the public financing  (examples 1-3)
rather than private corporate credit (examples 4 and 5).  Uncer-
tainties about long-term operating costs, composition of the waste
stream and value and marketability of recovered energy and materials
make private long term investment in resource recovery plants
relatively unattractive to most firms without the active and forcible
participation of the public sector.  While a few private firms,
such as American Can, may be willing to finance one or two projects
in order to establish themselves in the business, I believe that
private financing will be the exception rather than the rule.

         Public financing of resource recovery will probably
evolve toward some form of revenue bond financing along the lines
of example 3.  This is basically the same kind of financing used
predominately for water and sewer systems where the key element
is a pledge of controllable revenues sufficient to cover operating
costs and debt service.  As applied to resource recovery systems
this means that the key element in financing will be the ability
of a public body to collect gross disposal fees large enough to
cover gross costs, if necessary.  Revenues from the sale of
energy and recovered materials will reduce actual disposal fees,
of course, but the bond investor will not rely on such revenues
as primary security for financing.

         Given the hard-nosed requirements for resource recovery
financing described above, the question is whether municipalities
will be willing to commit themselves to the relatively high gross
disposal fees typically required by resource recovery even though
there is reasonable expectation that revenues from the sale of
recoverables will reduce net disposal foes to levels competitive
with sanitary landfill.  For example, gross disposal fees presently
appear to range from §12-525 per ton whi]e expected revenues from
sale of recoverables appear to range from about $4-$13 per ton,
with a range of expected net disposal fees of about $8-$12 per ton.
These are very rough numbers but they demonstrate the type of
economic risk decision confronting many communities which are
committed in principle to full scale resource recovery.  A
further problem is that communities financing resource recovery
systems must commit themslves to recovery technology which could
well become outdated, economically uncompetitivc or even environ-
mentally unacceptable long before the capital costs have been

         Tho successful imp I - .acntation of a resource recovery
system by state, regional aiid local governments or by private
companies is a tremendous challenge because resource recovery
systems are complex and expensive and carry large potential risks,
both technical and economic.   Therefore, such implementations
require detailed planning and analysis and, in almost all cases,
the use of new procurement and acquisition techniques.  To date,
several proposed implementations have encountered serious problems
which have led to long delays, costly price increases and
partial or complete failure.

         The reason why I initially disagreed with the EPA's con-
clusion that financing will not be a probem is that several
proposed implementations have fallen apart during the contractural
and financing process after apparent successful acquisitions -
that is, selection by a municipality of a company to supply the
resource recovery system.  At a very minimum., contractura]
negotiations and financing arrangements have been a torturous

         These failures have improperly created the impression
that contract and financing process is a more difficult and
formidable process than the acquisition or procurement process
itself.  These impressions are misleading because the contracting
and financing process are an integral part of the overall
acquisition.  If the misunderstandings, disagreements or un-
resolved issues exist at the outset of the contractual or financing
process, they will become evident during contractual negotiations
and will require further negotiations before a definitive contract
and financing can be accomplished.

         While it is difficult to determine the precise reason
why any particular project failed, some clearly have been caused
by inadequate planning and research and impractical system
concepts.  More than any other reason, however, most failures
are directly attributable to a lack of understanding of the
acquisition process and the financial, technical, institutional,
organizational and financing implicacions of a particular
acquisition approach.

         In summary, financing for well-conceived resource
recovery systems is no problem.  However, most projects never
develop a workable basis for contractual and financing arrange-
ments and are doomed to failure from the outset.  No matter how
simple the eventual financing of a resource recovery system, it
is the job of financial advisors and bankers to help communities
understand the acquisition process so that a sound basis can be
developed for the eventual financing of the resource recovery
system.  I find this a challanging and rewarding task ard look
forward to many successful implementations in the future.

                               Bruce Hendrickson
                 Vice President, Engineering Services, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

    It  would  not  be feasible in the following discussion  to  try  to  cover

 .  of the  detailed  technical and engineering factors that  must be  consid-

 ;d  in  the design of transfer stations and resource recovery plants.   I

 .1  discuss some  of the most important factors that determine the  success-

    operation of  these systems both from the standpoint of markets  and

 :ual plant operation.

    Transfer  stations and resource recovery plants have many things in

 nmon.   Prom the  standpoint of the collection vehicle they serve the  same

 iction;  that is, they are a point of disposal and therefore should be

 aluated  by private collection companies and municipalities  collecting

 ste based upon their ability to serve their disposal needs.   These needs

 n  be summarized  by the following factors:

                   (1) Convenience of location

                   (2) lifficient traffic handling

                   (3) Reasonable waiting time

    Whether you represent public or private interests,  you must  also

 cognize  a fourth factor in that you must make sure that  the potential

 ansportation savings offered by the transfer station justifies the  higher

 st  of  disposal normally charged at the transfer point.   In  the  area  of

 onomic evaluation  we arc finding that many transfer stations have  a  use-

il  life of only five to eight years because of changing waste collection

•actices.   This type of situation can be overcome by obtaining long-term

intracts,  but it  is sometimes impossible to obtain  long-term contracts from

micipalities because of local limitations on contractural commitments by

lose governing bodies.  In cases where long-term commitments cannot be

:ached, we feel that a more rapid rate of depreciation  would have  to  be


developed to account for the probable short-terra life of the facility.

This, of course, increases the operating costs of the facility and raises

the rate which must be charged.

     New transfer stations should be designed so that they can be con-

verted to resource recovery plants if at all possible.   It is unlikely

that waste can be economically processed through a transfer station for

delivery to a resource recovery plant at some other location since double

handling is involved.   While there will be exceptions to this rule, we

feel that the basic economics of waste handling argue against it.

     Providing for expansion of transfer stations to resource recovery

facilities basically involves providing sufficient expansion area and

adequate transportation capabilities.  The need for additional space and

transportation capabilities will become more evident as we discuss some

of the factors involved in designing resource recovery facilities.

     The need for resource recovery has become a vital concern in most

industrialized countries,  particularly during the last several years when

we began to realize that our supply of raw materials was not inexhaustable

nor would we forever have  land available fcr disposal of wastes.   One shoult

not automatically assume,  however, that because of our need for conserva-

tion of materials and because conventional disposal becomes more  difficult

each year, that resource recovery, which helped solve both of these prob-

lems, will automatically be successful.  Whether you represent a  private

firm or a governmental gioup, you must still consider basic economics.

No recovery system, whether designed to recover paper, metals, glass, or

energy, will be successful if there arc no reasonable markets for the re-

covered materials once the plant is in operation.  By reasonable  markets,

I mean markets that will support the cost of extracting the recovered


material from the waste stream.

     There are numerous examples of resource recovery systems developed

during the past ten years that have failed, not because of technical prob-

lems or faulty design, but because they recovered a material or prepared

a product that could not be sold at a competitive price, or in some cases,

at any price.  Since most of these recovery plants were single purpose

facilities, they are too costly to serve as conventional transfer stations;

and their owners have suffered accordingly.

     You should, therefore, consider marketing of recovered materials as

an essential prerequisite of good system design.  After a thorough market

study has been completed and realistic recovery goals have been established,

actual engineering design can be initiated.  You may find that a phased or

staggered implementation plan would be best because limited markets exist

for recovered materials at the present time in many areas.

     Major resource recovery systems have little chance of success in com-

petitive  disposal  markets unless they include use of the major part of the

solid waste stream made up of low grade paper, plastics, wood, yard wastes,

food wastes, and other organic materials.  Collectively these components

represent approximately 75'i by weight of solid waste.  Most recovery sys-

tems being offered today obtain energy m some form from these components

of waste though fiber iccovery, chemical production and composting systems

are under development.  Most of these processes reduce the volume to be

disposed of by from 70 to 90».  This ieduction represents a real improve-

ment over the more generally used sanitary landfill system, provided the

revenue cost relationship provides an adequate return on equitv for the

owner of the system, or in the case of the municipality, adequate debt

retirement.  hith both the iccovery and the sale of energy (or other bulk


product) and the resulting significant reduction of residue,  most recovery

systems will not stand the test of a truly competitive market.   There are

exceptions to tnis rule vvhere governmental subsidies alter the  basic eco-

nomics of the situation so that normally non-competitive systems are put

into operation.   Sociological and environmental factors can be  ecually im-

portant as economic factors however, complete reliance on them  will jeop-

ardize true progress in recovery and reuse of waste materials.   Progress

in resource recovery is and will continue ,vith or without direct subsidies.

IVe feel that tax incentives, research grants, and some types  of limited

loan guarantees  which promote development of markets for recovered mater-

ials offer a hotter way to support this now industry.

     As previously stated, most existing technologies  and mos^  developing

technologies produce energy products such as solid fuel, steam, electricity

or gas that were too expensive to be competitive until the oiL  crisis of

1974.  The rising cost of energy has thus been the most important factor

in the development of major recovery systens.  IVith oil at $3.00 per bar-

rel there was little liklihood that an industrial plant or a  utility would

consider using a prepared waste fuel at any price.  Kith oil  at approxi-

mately $12.00 per barrel and with the supply not always dependable at that

price, we have a whole ncu market place £01 prepared solid fuel, gas, oil

or possibly steam produced from solid waste.

     An important advantage of the energy market is that it  LS  so large

that the entire  solid waste stream from a najor metropolitan  area will

often provide only a small percentage of the energy requirements for the

area.  For example, a medium-sized chemical plant might require enough

process heat to use all of the combustible waste from a city as large as

Chicago.  Uith this situation, it is unlikely that conventional fuel pro-


 ;ers  will  feel  that  their  markets  ar'_  threatened.   Large  volume  recovery

 ints  with  their  higher  efficiencies  are  therefore  possible.

    While considering the  subject of  processing  volume,  it might  be  help-

   to  make  note  of  some  design  considerations  that  are  directly  related

  volume.   Properly designed waste  processing  equipment  and systems  cannot

 tfays  be  scaled  up  or down  to match the volume of waste.   Additional equip-

 it and processing  lines can be added to  increase capacity but  equipment

 rmot  be  decreased  below a  size which provides proper  flow of  the waste

 livercd  to the  plant.   The unit capital  and operating  cost arc  thus higher

 r small  volume  plants.  We believe that  tins  fact  makes  it much  more dif-

 cult  for small  communities to  have efficient  recovery  plants.

    When  most  people  speak  about our  waste  problems, they  are  thinking in

 rms of the type  of waste  that  goes in their household  garbage  can.   Uhen

 u design a resource  recovery plant it  is important to  know that  there are

 veral types of  waste which must normally be   processed  in order  to  have

 fficient tonnage for efficient operation.  Municipal,  commercial, and

 dustrial waste  with  their  differing  characteristics must  all  be  received

 d handled  efficiently in  order to  obtain the  maximum  economic  benefits  from

 'Cycling.   Each  of  these waste  streams  has  its own  particular  characteristics

 id creates  its own  difficulties i\hcn  processed through  .1  recovery plant.

 ifortuantely,  the scaracity of  operating  experience with  these  different

 'pes of wastes makes  it  difficult to  anticipate  all of  the design prob-

 :ms and you should, therefore,  plan on a  few adiustmcnts  in the  system

 ) obtain  best  efficiency.

    It is important in the  early planning stages of a  resource  recover}'

reject to obtain  a  thorough working knowledge  of the t\pe  of markets avail-

ale for each potential recovered material.  An example  tnat might help


you understand the influence of market.; would be the effect that various

ferrous can markets have on the processing equipment required for ferrous

metal recovery from municipal waste.  If the recovered ferrous cans are

to be sold to the detinning industry or to the copper refining industry,

you must choose shredding and magnetic clean up equipment that does not

completely crush the can body because fully exposed metal surfaces are

required for both markets.  On the other hand, the basic steel industry

normally requires a dense ferrous product which may require fine shredding

and/or compaction.  A close working relationship with your market partners

is essential because they can give you valuable technical guidance that

will make marketing of your recovered materials easier and more profitable.

     We have found that availability of low cost freight is a fundamental

requirement in marketing several of the materials you normally expect to

recover in a resource recover}' plant.  In many cases the actual cost of

freight hill be equivalent to the cost paid for the recovered material

FOB the recoxery plant, so thorough consideration must be given the type

of freight system that will be used.

     Because of the bulk nature of recovered materials, rail freight will

often prove to be more economical than shipping by truck.  An adequate rai."

siding may, therefore, be an essential requirement of your recovery plant

sjte.  In most cases, you should locate the recovery facility with access

to both rail anJ truck lines.

     We have already discussed the fact that a customer for some type of

refuse-derived fuel will be essential  for  nost resource recovery projects,

therefore, the potential fuel customer becomes the most critical link in

the entire project.  In some areas of  the country, a dry fuel product,

consisting primal il> of the combustible components found in solid waste,


y find a market with existing coal-fired steam plants or perhaps with a

earn user who may install new boiler equipment specially-designed to burn

dry waste fuel product.  The primary design consideration in any of the

y fuel systems, except the water wall incinerator, is the particle size

quired for the fuel product.  With these systems, we generally feel that

u should start with the largest particle size consistent with efficient

mbustion since any unnecessary particle size reduction reduces the net

ergy available and will, therefore, raise either the fuel cost and/or

e disposal cost.

   Particle size is determined by the shredding equipment.  Since shredder

eration and maintenance cost will be your largest non-capital expense you

ould provide ample engineering time to properly evaluate the various shred-

rs available.  It will be extremely valuable to you to visit as many of

e existing shredder installations as possible in order to get first hand

erating knowledge of the various types of equipment.  You can learn by

her peoples' mistakes, and there have been a number of mistakes made.

   Shredders should be selected on the basis of a number of factors.

me of these are listed below to help in your selection:

   (1) Durability
   (2) Cutting surface maintenance cost
   (3) Power requirements per ton processed
   (4) Throughput capacity (tons per hour) for various types of waste
   (5) Feed opening (ability to handle large objects)
   (6) Original cost
   (7) Explosion resistence
   The raw waste storage facility required for any resource recovery plant

st be given careful consideration if steady economical operation is to be

hieved.   The storage system or area should be designed so that the first

ste received is the first waste fed to the processing plant.  Ke feel

at the two best techniques to achieve this first-in first-out requirement

are: (1)  storage pit  with  bucket  cranes  and,  (2)  covered  floor storage wit

front end loader feed onto conveyors.  Both of  these  systems  are versatile

in that the waste can be  fed  as  required and  adequate back-up equipment is

easy to provide.  Positive air  control should also  be provided for these

storage facilities to eliminate  unnecessary odors  from the  surrounding are;

     While not a source of large direct  operating expense,  the feed system

used to transfer the  unprocessed waste  from  the storage area  to the shred-

ders is an important  element  of a well designed system because plant capac

cannot be achieved without a  consistent  waste flow through  the plant.  The

rated capacity of a shredder  is  based on a  steady flow of material.  Sixty

tons per hour also means  one  ton per minute.  Normally, you cannot average

highs and lows on a feed  conveyor to give you the  rated capacity.  You mus

make sure your feed system gives  you adequate agitation and surge leveling

capacity to provide a steady  input flow  in  order  to maintain  a higher

throughput at your plant.   A  skilled operator in  the  feed conveyor area of

the plant will greatly improve  your ability to  maintain high  throughputs.

     We feel that additional  test data must be  developed  by the boiler

manufacturers and their customers to determine  the  most efficient particle

size for a refuse-derived  fuel.   The general  opinion  of the boiler manu-

facturers at the present  time is  to keep the  particle size  very small in

order to achieve complete  combustion, but there have  been few technical

or economic evaluations to determine the effects  of burning larger partial

sizes with slightly less  complete combustion.   Because secondary shredding

is so expensive, we anticipate  that a slightly  higher carbon  loss through

the boiler would be less  expensive than  requiring  a smaller particle size.

Comprehensive testing of  this characteristic  of refuse-derived fuel has

not been completed to our  knowledge.   25o

    Some waste fuel systems involve more complex processing but produce

 gher quality fuel products than simply shredding waste with air separa-

_on to remove the non-combustible fraction.   The waste fuel products pro-

iced by these systems,  which include both oil and gas, have broader

irketability than the simpler solid fuels.   In some areas, markets for

icse fuels may represent the only ones available and will, therefore,

;termine the type of system required for successful operation.  The higher

-ices normally paid for these premium fuels  may cover the more expensive

•occssing cost involved.  A number of test  programs are underway to prove

le large scale economics of these relatively new systems and, hopefully

ley will pave the way for broader application of them.

    In any discussion of particle size,  it  is very important to develop

proper definition for  the method of particle size determination.   In our

m tests we have  found  that a high percentage of particles (percentage by

:ight)  will go through  a much smaller screen opening than is apparent by

joking at  a sample of the shredded material.  Most of the large particle

.zes are made up  of paper and film plastic which should have a fast burn-

ig time regardless of particle size.

    The degree of redundancy in processing equipment is a factor of tre-

:ndous  importance to the economics of any resource recovery plant.   If the

ant becomes  the  only disposal site available to an area, it must  normally

ive back-up systems to  insure that it can operate enough hours per  day

•  per week to process all waste received.  Many recovery plants achieve

cost savings in  this area by providing  less expensive conventional trans-

:r  equipment  as back-up  for their processing equipment.   The cost  for

•ansferring unprocessed  waste to  the  residue disposal site for short  periods

iring unscheduled maintenance will often be  more than offset by the capital

cost savings realized by having less redundancy  in the process equipment.
Considering economics only,  this method will  usually be chosen.   A firm
energy or fuel commitment however,  may  require adequate back-up  equipment
to guarantee a minimum delivery rate.   As  an  example,  a steam contract wi
probably require uninterrupted delivery of steam so back-up equipment wil
be a necessity and plant costs will be  higher.  In some cases, the use of
conventional oil or gas-fired equipment as back-up will be the most eco-
nomical solution to this guaranteed supply requirement.
     During the period when  actual  disposal and  supply contracts are writ
it is very important for everyone to understand  the processing equipment
operating cost relationships so that equipment requirements can  be optimi
to give the best overall economics  for  the customers and the recovery pla
From the private sector standpoint, providing adequate return on investme
for most of these new systems will  require careful planning.  Too often t
separate parties involved in these  contractural  relationships each set th
own standards without realizing the others' problems and costs and the op
timum cost situation is never obtained.
     In summary, technology  and engineering skills presently exist to re-
cover most of the valuable materials from  our waste stream, but  the marke
to reuse these recovered materials  must be thoroughly  developed  before re
source recovery will be a truly practical  solution to  some of our long ra
raw material and disposal problems.  The shortage of basic raw materials
the rising cost of conventional disposal are  both contributing to the dev
opment of these market conditions and will help  make resource recovery ec
nomically competitive and, therefore, a grouth area of our  industry.

                                   Irving Handler, P.E.
                     Principal Mechanical Engineer, Waste Management, Inc.

       The  selection and arrangement of equipment to process solid waste entails

immense  effort,  and must be approached in a logical manner to achieve the desired



       The  essential first step is to establish a Flow Sheet.  A thorough Flow Sheet

will include the following elements:

       1.   Identification of basic families of equipment to be used.

       2.   Consideration of alternate lines for the refuse to follow when

            the basic line experiences problems.

       3.   Quantitative analysis of the amount of material entering each

            point of the total process, and the split of material leaving the

            process, generally presented in tons per hour.  Some of these

            values are known  from data derived from tests in processing

            plants or in pilot plants; some  are theoretical.

       4.   The rate of material processing any piece of equipment is to handle,

            specified in terms of  surges, or the maximum rate of material


       5.   Qualification of refuse before  and after each sf :>ge of the total

            process.  For example, before the primary shredding process, the

            refuse is described at New Orleans as "municipal solid waste as

            discharged from a packer truck," including "occasional refri-

          - gerators." This discription clarifies what the first equipment

           has to handle.  After the primary shredding process, the material is

           called (-5").  This means that a horizontal shredder requires grates

           of a certain spacing  and an electric motor of a specific horsepower;

           a vertical shredder will require a specific motor horsepower and hammer


       The total process bulk density is another value required of a thorough flow

sheet at each step.  This must be known to determine the  volume of material to be

handled by each piece of equipment.  For example, if the bulk density of packer

truck waste is given at 280 Ib/yd ,  and the maximum tonnage per hour  (or surge)

is 75 tons, then the volume of refuse handled by the primary conveyors  is:

       75 ton x 2000]^ x l_hr_xj_yd3 x 27 ft3 = 24| ft3
          "hT"       ton 60 min  280 Ib   yd3    Min.

This value, coupled with conveyor speed calculations,  is necessary to arrive at

a cross section for the conveyor.

       For many portions of the process,  a minimum bulk density is a required value.

Again an example - if a primary shredder discharges 75 tons per hour of refuse with an

average bulk density  of 6lb. the volume per minute to be conveyed by a discharge
conveyor would be:

       75 ton x 2000 jb._ x 1 hr.  x 1 ft.3 = 417^
          fir         ton   60 min   6 Ib        min
However, if the minimum bulk density for this process is 4 Ib/ft   , then the volume
                            „        3
per minute becomes 6 x 417 ftj = 6 26 ft
                   4 min         min

This means a (626-417)100 ~50% increase in the volume of material to be handled,
directly affecting the conveyor width, skirt height, and conveying speed.


       The physical arrangement of the equipment requires basic decisions relating

to reliability of flow, access to equipment, and costs, including that of the building

structure.  The receiving and shredding buildings and the primary infeed conveyors,

involving considerations of significant proportions, will be discussed in detail.

       At Recovery 1,  two separate lines of equal capacity conveyors and primary

shredders were layed out to give complete  stand-by or reliability to the process.

Should one line of equipment be down, the process can continue on the other line.

Ours is to be a tipping floor operation, therefore, the two (2) lines require two

(2) pit conveyors.

       The next decision point is the direction of flow desired for the  primary

onshredded refuse, which, in turn,  affects the component equipment design.   We

felt that  handling the waste  in a straight line from receiving conveyors through the

shredders presented fewer problems, and, thus, greater reliability.  Once oriented,

long items of construction demolition, bulky items and brush cannot change direction

or interfere with conveyor skirts,which results in bridging or jams.  If,  for instance,

the refuse is fed at right angles and dropped onto another conveyor, reliability of

feed has  to depend upon a speed differential between  the conveyors and some  good

design in transfer chutes.

       The receipt of large  volumes of material per day — usually in  short but con-

centrated bursts — requires a large  size tipping floor  and receiving building.  We

looked at the primary conveyor design to assist  in minimizing building  construction costs.

       The movement of refuse from a pit conveyor into the opening of a shredder

infeed hood requires a significant elevation change.  For a large (75 TPH) unidirectional

horizontal shredder, the height of the conveyor head shaft centerline is approximately

17 feet above the shredder base.  At Recovery 1, the horizontal shredder is mounted

on a massive pedestal, adding 12 feet more to height.  Consequently, the conveyor

leading to the shredder is 29 feet above the floor.  Maximizing the incline of a

conveyor minimizes the horizontal  component of the conveyor and thus, permits a

shorter building, with consequent cost savings.

       Although most conveyor manufacturers recommended a 30  maximum incline

for metal pan refuse conveyors,in-field observation revealed such a conveyor

operating effectively at more than the recommended angle.  Consequently,  we

specified a 35° incline, to which all the bidding companies finally agreed.  Analysis

indicates how much building structure is saved this way.  By triangulation, the

horizontal  conveyor component is the vertical leg divided by the tangent of the

        29ft.  =29  =50 ft.
        Tan 30° .577

        29 ft.  =  29  = -41 ft.
       Tan 35°  .70      9ft. saved

       (9ft.) 100 = 18% savings

This says that 9 ft. x (building width) = area saved.  Also, triangulation shows the

actual conveyor length shortens 8 feet,  affording additional savings in equipment

purchase price.


       Design decisions concerning the primary infeed conveyors were primarily

based on other shredder considerations.

       Vibrations coursing the shredder structure must be dampened before encounter-

ing conveyor structures to avoid damage to the conveyor structure and anchor bolts.

A flexible member for insertion between the conveyor and shredder hood should be

included in one of the two (2) equipment specifications.  Conveyor head end supports

also should be provided independent of the shredder hood, or any portion of  the

shredder structure.  Adding any portion  of this weight to the shredder not only

transmits vibrations, but also adds to the static loading to be considered for the

shredder foundation.

       The introduction of an even material flow is an extremely important require-

ment.  Wide  material load fluctuations have a resulting similar fluctuation in

shredder motor loading.  This, in turn, can force the power to be cut off, stopping

the shredder.  Such motos cannot be stopped and started at will.

       Shredders for given capacity ranges have infeed hoods with fairly defined

width dimensions, and since infeed conveyors slightly penetrate the hood, conveyor

widths cannot exceed this opening.  To  do so introduces a restriction to refuse flow

and can result in  bridging or  jams.


       What logical conveyor arrangement provide even or mefered flow?  We

selected a separate pit conveyor feeding onto an inclined conveyor, in turn

emptying into the shredder. With two (2) separate drives, the inclined conveyor

can be run  at a speed much aster  than the pit conveyor.  This speed differential

reduces the burden depth on the incline, reducing "roll back" problems, and

spreads the material so it can enter the shredder throat without major inter-

ference. This provides less fluctuation of work required for the shredder motor.

If bridging  occurs in the pit, the  separate pit conveyor can be reversed to aid

in breaking the jam.  A single pit and incline conveyor cannot do this.

       Another design provides a single  conveyor with a pit and inclined

section feeding onto an oscillating or vibrating conveyor, which, in turn,

feeds into the shredder.  Vibratory motion will  level the refuse and introduce

a more constant flow of refuse. Given the shredder silhouette previously

mentioned, the vibrating conveyor must be supported high above the floor, requiring

significant supporting structure design.  Yet another consideration was the reliability

of feed of a heavily loaded flat and 35  inclined single drive conveyor.  The linear

velocity of the conveyor is constant from pit to incline.  Heavy burdens will stay

in the same relation on the incline as in  the pit and the tendency is to experience

"roll  back".  Refuse falls back down the conveyor causing a build up or "balling"

of material at the transition point,  in turn resulting in  erratic feed and occasional


       Splitting these conveyors forced design decisions at the transfer points

between them.  "Carryback", or the refuse clinging to the conveyor return strand,

creates a "housekeeping" or neatness problem.  The basic solution is to have the

pit conveyor head shaft located forward of the inclined conveyor foot shaft. Thus,

the returning material, most of which drops within 3 ft.  of backward travel, can be

intercepted  and carried upward on the  inclined conveyor.

       Two variations of design exist here;

       1.  The foot shaft and a portion of the inclined conveyor is actually

           horizontal, parallel to and beneath the pit conveyor. Essentially,

           the  inclined conveyor is still a compound conveyor with flat and

           inclined section.

       2.  The inclined conveyor is in one plane only,  with the foot shaft

           below and back of the pit conveyor head shaft.

       A compound conveyor may have some better housekeeping results, and it

permits a shallower pit. A compound conveyor, however, is more expensive,

requires additional horsepower to pull the  conveyor strand around the transition

point, calls for more maintenance, and may be costly to install. Since the function

of either design was equal,  total  cost factors, including operation  and maintenance,

over a contract period of 12 years determined the selection of a straight incline.

       For housekeeping purposes, be sure to consider keeping the return  conveyor

strand enclosed by means of a continuous fixed surface of metal, called a  dribble

pan.  As refuse carried back on the return strand drops,  it can be contained in the

pan.  Cleats,  or projections, on the  conveyor can sweep this pan's debris  to the

foot shaft area.  Here,  a removable cover would permit removal of accumulated

waste periodically.  The alternative  is to let the debris fail on the floor or pit

and sweep daily.  Certain metal pan conveyor designs don't require cleats for

feeding, and it would be necessary to hose the dribble pans to thoroughly  clean



       A basic requisite in determining the final size of the pit conveyors is to

have sufficient volume provided so that a wheel (or front) loader can alternate

its duties.  The loader must push tipping floor refuse into loading patterns, sort some

refuse such as tires,  and also load the pit conveyor.

       Data needs to be developed,  with distributors  of wheel loaders, to determine

the estimated  time for loading given tons per hour, using the plant layout chosen.

Similar data are needed for tipping floor work and for conveyor loading.  At

Recovery I, our objective was at least 5 minutes storage on the conveyor before

the loader had to replenish the waste pile.  Final dimensions provided a conveyor

4 feet deep from top of pans to floors, 7 feet wide,  and 60 feet long (between

shaft conveyors).  As previously mentioned, storage is correlated not only with

conveyor volume but also with conveyor speed.

       Assume 10 FPM for conveyor

       1.  Cross section of refuse to be stored at

           75 TPH:

               241 Ft.3  =24.1ft.2
       2.  Storage on conveyor in:

           (a)  Tons  - (24.1 ft.2) (60 ft.) (I yd.3   (280 Ib.   (1	
                                       27ft.3)  ydT3""" )  2'OOOlt).   =7.5 ton

           (b)  Minutes -
                           (60Min.) (1 hr.  ) (7.5 ton) = 6 min.
                              hr.     75 ton

       The hopper must be considered part of the available cross section to be totally

clear on  storage capacity.  Hopper design also should include a steel wall of practical

height opposite the load side to avoid housekeeping problems.  Hopper wall thickness

and bracing is also important,  because impacts will  produce dents and misshape the

wall unless it is stoutly braced. Abrasion will wear away thin walls quickly.  At

Recovery 1, our pit walls are 4 feet above the tipping floor — above the  foot shaft

and on the side opposite the loading — and are of 3/8" steel plate.


       Three basic designs of metal pan conveyors are presently offered for refuse

service.  They are:

       1.  Double beaded

       2.  "Z" Bar

       3.  Piano Hinge

Each offers certain advanfages not found in the other two (2) designs.  Selection

of the pan design requires special care because they can affect the operating

efficiency and definitely affect maintenance.

       Piano hinges have no gaps between pans as they articulate around head and

tail sprockets, and damage to the pans by refuse entering the joints should not  occur.

Cleanliness on the top of the return strand also is enhanced since fine size refuse

has no gaps in the top strand to fall through.

       "Z"  bars offer ready-made pockets for transporting material, particularly

up inclines.  They also offer a clever increase in the moment of inertia without

adding a lot of metal.

       Double beaded pans offer a fairly stiff section modulus, and a simplified

arrangement for disassembly.

       Several other design features should be analyzed for successful conveyor

application.  A retaining wall is required on  either side  of the pan to keep material

from easily falling off the conveyor, creating major  housekeeping problems.

These walls,  or end plates,  can vary in height, thickness, and method of

attachment to the pan.  Some conveyors offered use  the walls of the links, or

side bars, as retaining walls.  However, because of  construction,  there is

necessarily a continuous, though small, gap between pans and links.

       The moment of inertia for each style pan offered  on the pit conveyors must

be checked because impact loading is continuous. This is a measure of the stiffness

of the structure and indicates how well  the pan resists being under load.   Fixed

 mpacf rails — used to provide intermediate support points along the width of

the conveyor to prevent any pan deflections from reaching major proportions and

permanently damaging the pan — vary between manufacturers in quantity,

material, and structure.  The pit conveyor purchaser should insist on some restrain-

ing member for lateral or side motion on the pit conveyor metal  pans.  For example,

at Recovery I, the refuse is loaded completely from the conveyor side, creating

a force which pushes  the pans at right angles to their normal travel.  Without

a restraining  member, the conveyor support rolls would have been forced off their

tracks resulting in downtime.

        Conveyor manufacturers provide allowable  chain tension for their specific

conveyors.  These values should be  compared, because the higher the value the

more load the conveyor can pull.


        The length of  contract, or number of years  of desired life, should be the

starting point in maintenance considerations.  If a  line of conveyors is to operate

for four years, asking for features which extend the wear life of "perishable"

items on the conveyors significantly beyond 4 years will needlessly raise the

purchase price.  However, if the contract or operating life is 12 years, then

extended wear life and the resultant increased cost has logic.  For example,

conveyor support rolls can be purchased with chilled rims or completely hardened.

Chilled rims are hardened skins of about 1/8 inch thickness . They can wear

through into the  soft metal of the roller in much less time than the completely

hardened roll.  The chilled rims could be acceptable for four years, but definitely not 12 years


because you can expect to replace the chilled rim rollers in that time. The

comparisons between drive sprockets for the conveyor chain are in the same

category.  These are offered flame cut or chilled rim.  The flame cut style

offers no hardness at all and thus becomes the first to need replacement.

       Maintenance requirements should be given extra thought in restricted

areas of movement, such as pits and inside shredder  pedestals.  Such problems

as removal of pins from piano hinge conveyors and their replacement,  versus

bolt on features of other conveyor styles, become decision points of importance.

Be sure to have access for head and foot shaft removal for any conveyor style

in these situations, either by allowing lateral clearances in the concrete walls

or by provision for lifting  vertically from the conveyor  frames.

       For other maintenance features, consider grease fittings on support tolls,

ease of access to remove support rolls, and how well conveyor links retain their

fit after two or three re-assemblies.


       It is evident that significant analysis can be devoted to conveyor  design

specifications. Other major  items for consideration are:

       1.  OSHA regulations

       2.  Need for ladders  and walkways

       3.  Type of conveyor drive desired

       4.  Provisions for  conveyor drive stands

       5.  Conveyor supports minimized for floor access and for neatness

       6.  Skirt dimensions

       7.  Shipping procedures and assembly  requirements

       8.  Controls required

       9.  Transfer chutes

      10.  Standardization of drive components


       The experience gained in analyzing and arranging  lines of equipment for

Recovery I suggests a number of ways in which the procedures might be made more


       1 .  Allow ample time for vendor discussions.  Equipment suppliers

           have developed specialized knowledge that should be exchanged

           during discussion periods.  In presenting equipment proposals,

           suppliers can clarify and enlarge  upon the information being

           offered, to the benefit of both buyer and seller.  Adequate time

           also should be provided for proposal  development by supplier.

       2.  Scheduled field trips to resource recovery plants or shredding

           and landfill facilities for observation of actual operating situations.

           Knowledge gained in  this way will enable you to analyze equipment

           requirements with more insight.

       3.  With additional experience gained in the relatively new field of refuse

           shredding and resource recovery,  as well as advanced landfill

    operations, standardize equipment arrangements and equipment

    specifications.  Rather than rely on performance specifications,

    switch to detailed equipment requirements.  This will give all

    suppliers common ground for bidding.
4.  Take advantage of opportunities to gain "state of the art" infor-

    mation,  such as this meeting. More data will be forthcoming

    and it should be assembled and assessed to aid in the decision-

    making process.  An important aspect of this is greater knowledge

    of the requirements of prospective purchasers of recovered

    materials, which, in turn, bears on equipment decisions.

                                 Ned R.Mann
                Marketing Manager, Energy Systems Division, Carrier Corporation
          This morning  I want to spend a few minutes  talking about  the

resource recovery activities underway at Carrier Corporation.   In particular,

I will discuss the project that we  are designing for Onondaga County of

New York State.

          First, let me spend a few minutes on social  studies to refresh

your memory on New York State geography and political  matters that  one

encounters in attempting to implement any resource  recovery  project.

          Onondaga County is located almost in the  geographic center  of

New York State, about halfway between Buffalo and Albany.  It has a

population of about a half million people, half of  whom  live in  the City

of Syracuse.  The other half live in a number of towns and villages that

make up the entire metropolitan area.  Within the area,  there is a  mixture

of light, medium and heavy industrial activity.  Because of  the  location

in New York State, Onondaga County has become quite a  distribution  center

for Upstate New York and there are many warehouses, sales offices,  and

other service activities.  In most respects, one can think of Onondaga

County as a very typical American metropolitan area.

          There are many levels of government active   in the county,

including the County government, City government, plus the independent

towns and villages around the city.  Almost every one  of these governmental

units has some involvement in solid waste management,  either in  the

collection or the disposal end.  The trend,  however, is for the County

government to assume a greater responsibility,  especially for waste

disposal.  Already, we have an Onondaga County Solid Waste Disposal

Authority actively in the disposal business.   The Solid Waste Authority

operates three shredder units and three landfills, plus the transport

system used to convey the shredded refuse.  The major customers of the

Authority are the City of Syracuse and now three of the surrounding towns.

          The rationale for installing the shredder was based on the

Madison, Wisconsin experience with landfilling of shredded refuse without

daily cover.  Many of the landfills used in Onondaga County do not have

cover material available at the site, and purchase and acquisition of cover

is a major expense.  Although there was some thought given to resource

recovery when the shredders were committed for, there were no plans or

facilities provided other than magnetic separation of ferrous material at

one of the units.

          Subsequently, the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation has decreed that landfill of shredded refuse without cover

would not be permitted and, therefore, the County is not realizing the

hoped-for benefit of the shredder operation.

          When resource recovery became a matter of general interest,

we had an idea that Carrier might have something to offer in the field.

Carrier already has a major stake in the solid waste management business

through its Dempster Dumpster Systems Division, a leading manufacturer of

solid waste handling equipment.  Also we were aware that many existing

waste disposal projects in Europe" use energy produced from solid waste

to provide steam for district heating systems and we have considerable

expertise in such systems.  With the help of an outside consultant, we

evaluated the idea of energy resource recovery from solid waste with

district steam systems at the specific end user.  The results of this

evaluation were encouraging.

          We learned that it is possible to produce low pressure and low

temperature steam from the direct combustion of refuse,  but that if one

were to produce high pressure superheated steam such as is used in modern-

day power plants, there were apt to be severe corrosion problems.  District

steam systems,  on the other hand, use low pressure, low temperature steam.

A typical district steam system might deliver steam at less than 200 psi

and 500°F.

          Also, we learned that the energy requirement of the solid waste

typically available in an area is about in line with the energy requirement

for many district steam systems.  A typical district heating boiler produces

in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 pounds of steam per hour,  which is the

output of larger refuse combustion units.

          But most importantly, we learned that district steam customers

 are  able  to  pay a much higher price for steam than industrial or utility

 customers because the cost of providing heat themselves is higher yet.

 It is not unusual today for district steam systems to charge $5 or $6 per

 1000 pounds  of steam and we know of some whose rates exceed $9 per 1000

 pounds.  With this kind of revenue, it is possible for energy sales to

 provide 75%  or more of the revenue for a district heating-resource recovery-

 refuse disposal system.

          There are two major district heating systems in the cLty of

 Syracuse.  One, owned and operated by Syracuse University, provides heating

 and  cooling  for many campus buildings and dormitories.  Also, it supplies

 steam to  six hospitals, two large senior citizens housing developments,

 and  several  hundred units of low-income housing, plus two units of the

 State University of New York.  Currently, this steam system is fueled by

 natural gas, and the supply is threatened with curtailment.

          The second district heating and cooling system is owned by the

 County itself.  It provides service for six county-owned buildings in the

downtown area.  It, too, is fueled by natural gas, but on several occasions,

 this plant has been forced to switch to oil during months of peak demand.

          The two systems are not interconnected, but they are less than

2000 feet apart and the cost of installing a connecting steam pipe will

be a small portion of the total project.

          These two district heating systems are ideal as the major

customers for an energy resource recovery project.

          It is no coincidence that the headquarters of Carrier Corporation

is located in Syracuse.  Therefore, the local political situation is well

known and we did not face the problem of establishing credibility that an

outsider might.

          The first phase of the project, completed about a year ago, was

a feasibility study designed to show that the pieces would fit together,

the amount of solid waste would match the steam demand, and the economics

of the project were favorable.  The outcome of the feasibility study was

a report affirming the idea and suggesting that the County proceed with the

project.  Therefore, the first phase of the design study was authorized by

the Legislature and has just been completed.  We expect that the project

will proceed to completion in the next three years.

          The Onondaga Resource Recovery Project, as it is now called,

will involve the purchase by the County of the existing district steam

system from the University.   On the site of the present steam plant will

be built a refuse burning boiler with a capacity of 1000 tons of refuse

per day, capable of producing 250,000 pounds of steam per hour.  This

steam will be distributed to the existing customers of the University's

steam station and the system will be extended to include the County

buildings now served by the  smaller district steam plant.  We expect

that about 80% of the energy needed for this system will come from solid

waste, the other 20% being provided by peaking facilities using fossil

fuel.  In all, the project will release about 2 billion cubic feet of

natural gas badly needed by  residential and industrial customers in the


          Economically, the  objectives for this project are to produce

and distribute steam at a price competitive with the present price which

is about $4.50 per 1000 pounds of steam while accepting refuse at a

tipping charge, the objective for which is $4.00 per ton.  These prices

would be subject to some escalation, of course, but the escalation should

be less than that brought about by the increasing price of oil alone.

          Technologically, the objective of the project is to minimize

the risk inherent in all resource recovery projects.  A local municipal

government is not in a position to take large risks in this type of

project since there is very  little to gain for doing so, but much to lose.

Resource recovery projects are risky ventures.    The performance may not

meet standards, for example, atmospheric emissions or burnout of the

solid waste.  The sale of the recovered resource may not yield the expected

revenue.  Or the operating cost of the plant may higher than predicted.

          We are minimizing the risks in Onondaga County by insisting on

the use of technology proven in the plants of a comparable size which

have operated over a period of years.  The heart of an energy resource

recovery plant is the combustion system, that is the equipment between the

charging chute and the stack.  This includes not only the grates and the

boilers, but also the electrostatic precipitators, the fans, the controls

and probably the ash handling system.  This part of the project will be

supplied to the county on an installed basis under a single contract.

          A draft specification for the "chute-to-stack" system has been

prepared and responses obtained.   A key part of this specification calls

for the supplier to show that a system comparable to one that he proposes

has been operated successfully with municipal solid waste as the fuel.

Responses to the draft specification indicate that there will be between

three and six qualified suppliers.

          In one item of the specification, we are being somewhat venturesome.

We are asking for systems that can burn solid waste either as-received or

coarsely shredded, as produced by the existing shredders.  The units must

also be able to burn mixtures of processed and unprocessed material.

This ability will enable the Onondaga Resource Recovery Project to practice

front-end material recovery of steel or aluminum or even glass if that is

economically justified.  At the same time, the energy recovery process

will not be jeopardized by a "weak link" in that it will not be necessary

for the refuse to be processed in order to extract its energy values.

          From the vendors' reactions to the specification for burning

processed or unprocessed refuse, we have positive evidence that this

requirement can be met.

          Even though the Onondaga County Project is based on established

proven technology, there have been challenging engineering tasks.  The

site chosen for the project is on 2j acres of land in an urban area.

This is a much smaller plot than is normally committed for projects of

1000 tons per day capacity.

          Transport of refuse to the site has required considerable effort

to develop routes and schedules to minimize impact on the urban roadways.

Transportation will be entirely by truck from transfer stations to the

steam plant site.  The location has been chosen to make maximum use of the

interstate highway system and keep vehicles off local streets.

          We are often asked whether the Onondaga Resource Recovery

Project will be a steam plant or a refuse disposal plant, by which the

questioner really means:  "Are you going to guarantee to dispose of

refuse or deliver  steam?"  The answer is:  "Both."  This project will

include standby systems to insure that solid waste can be accepted and

disposed of while steam can be produced and distributed under almost

any circumstance.

          In summary, the Onondaga Resource Recovery Project looks like

one of the best opportunities to bring into existence a real resource

recovery project.  The economic, political, and technical factors are all

favorable so that in 1978 "cash for trash" should be a reality in Syracuse.

-------OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000B3A\tiff\2000YBPG.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000B3A\tiff\2000YBPG.T$F.T$F" failed.

Technical Symposium
Selected Papers

                       AT A LAND DISPOSAL SITE
                          James S. Atwell, P.E.
         Director, Solid Waste Management Services, Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc.


     Groundwater contamination can be a serious long-term result of  the
improper disposal of solid waste on land.  For the last two years  EPA
has been actively studying the environmental effect of leachate result-
ing from solid waste disposal.  Yet many municipal officials remain  una-
ware of this problem, which may already be affecting the ground and
surface water quality in their communities.  For most towns and cities,
preventive or corrective action is spurred only by a gross pollution
problem observed in a nearby well, lake or stream.

     Such was the starting point in this case study for Saco, Maine, a
city of approximately 14,000.  The study was prompted when a property
owner adjacent to a city dump reported a deterioration in the quality of
a small spring feeding a pond on his land.  The city had operated  the
land disposal site,  partly as a burning dump and later as a landfill,
for a period of about 15 years.  When the water quality problem was
first noticed, the city was in the final stages of the development of a
sanitary landfill at a new site.  The original disposal area was aban-
doned approximately six months after the problem was discovered.  A  site
plan of the abandoned city disposal site and adjacent area is shown  in
Figure 1.

     A dump was operated at this site for approximately 15 years.
During the initial years of the dump operation, burning was commonplace.
The frequency of burning decreased gradually, however, as a reS'jlt of
citizen complaints and problems associated with fire control.  As  the
disposal operation moved towards the easterly corner of the site, a  high
groundwater table was encountered and refuse was often placed in direct
contact with exposed groundwater.   Without an operating plan, cover  was
provided only on an intermittent basis using highly permeable soils.
The principal purpose of the cover material was to control blowing
papers and allow vehicle access; it did riot prevent surface water per-
colation.  This disposal area was not a sanitary landfill.

     The problem was aggravated in 1973, when a primary wastewater
treatment facility serving a large Saco tannery was placed in operation.
This facility produced 4 to 5 tons per day of sludge (dry basis} which
was transported to the site for disposal.  The solids content in the
sludge was generally no more than 5 to 1C percent.  The sludge was
handled separately from other solid wastes.  The sludge was placed
directly on the ground or in shallow trenches, occasionally in contact
with groundwater; cover was provided only intermittently.

                                           EDWARD C. JORDAN CO JNC

     The neighboring property owner's water quality complaint in April
1974 prompted an initial series of surface water testing and analysis by
the city's engineer and by the Maine Department of Environmental Protec-
tion (DEP).   This study found that leachate was contaminating surface
and groundwater in the vicinity.  In order to determine the most envi-
ronmentally and economically acceptable means for correcting this prob-
lem, the city undertook a program designed to trace the path of the
contamination migrating from the disposal area, characterize the nature
of the contaminants, and come up with alternative solutions to the
problem.  The Edward C. Jordan Company of Portland, Maine, was; selected
to provide consulting engineering services to the city, as well as
testing and laboratory services in conjunction with the Maine DEP.

     The city's program was undertaken in two phases:

     1.   Hydrogeological investigation

     2.   Evaluation of alternate corrective measures

The objective of the hydrogeological investigation was to identify sub-
surface soils conditions, groundwater levels and to install groundwater
monitoring wells.  These wells permitted the measurement of groundwater
levels and the sampling of groundwater.  During Phase  2 alternative
corrective measures were identified and evaluated based on the existing
site conditions.

Hydrogeological Investigation and Groundwater Monitoring Progr;im

     A subsurface investigation and groundwater monitoring program was
designed and initiated.  Thirteen soil borings were taken, and monitor-
ing wells installed in eleven of these bore holes.  In addition, a study
was made of the groundwater and surface water hydrology of the area.

     A marine clay is found beneath the abandoned disposal area at a
depth of approximately 25 ft.  This clay is overlain by a fine permeable
sand.  The grouudwater varies seasonally between five and fifteen ft.
Refuse depth averages ten ft.  In several areas refuse was found to be
in the groundwater.  Where this occurred, the submergence did not
exceed five ft.

     The major groundwater recharge area in the vicinity of the disposal
site is the Heath, a large, partially forested land area about 7,500 ft
north of the site.  From the Heath, groundwater moves outward ii a
radial pattern as indicated by several small surface and underground
streams, one of which is Sandy Brook.  As shown in Figure 1, Sandy Brook
runs along the west side of the abandoned dump.  A small well defined
drainage ditch is located on the east side.

     Groundwater and surface water level measurements were taken to
develop the groundwater contours shown in Figure 2.  Typical of most


land disposal areas, a. groundwater mound has developed beneath the fill
area.  This mound causes a hydrostatic pressure in all directions,
however, the primary groundwater movement is in a southerly direction.
This movement is confirmed by the groundwater analysis which showed the
greatest groundwater contamination to be in this direction.  The primary
area of leachate contamination lies south of the disposal area between
Sandy Brook and the small stream.

     Surface water samples taken over an 18-month period were supple-
mented by sampling at the new monitoring wells, as well as at several
private wells in the vicinity.  Samples were analyzed1 to identify the
extent of groundwater contamination and the direction of its movement.
The location of the borings and sampling wells is shown in Figure 3.

     Samples taken within the dump and adjacent to it show contamina-
tion, as shown in Table 1.  There is some upstream dispersion because of
the mounding effect; however, the highest levels of contamination occur
south of the site.  The dump and immediate vicinity are believed to be
the major groundwater recharge source for the area contaminated by the

     Chromium, believed to be from the tannery sludge, occurred at a
peak concentration of approximately 2.0 mg/1 in samples taken within or
directly south of the area.   The high iron and manganese concentrations
do not indicate that inordinate amounts of these elements were disposed
of at the dump site.  What they may indicate is that the soil is being
affected by the leachate plume.  The plume produces low pH levels and
reducing conditions in the natural soils, resulting in the release of
iron and manganese from the soil which is then detected in the samples
to indicate the plume's presence.

     Two basic philosophies are available for the control of leachate at
an existing site:  (1) collection and treatment, and (2) prevention of
refuse-water contact.  The effective use of a collection and treatment
system is very dependent upon the character of the site.  Normally, this
alternative is very difficult and expensive to implement once a problem
has developed.  Prevention of refuse-water contact requires that both
surface and groundwaters be controlled.   This is a major goal in the
design of all sanitary landfills.  When no refuse-water contact occurs,
leachate will not be a problem.
Collection and Treatment

     Leachate collection can best be accomplished by installing an
"^Results of water analyses performed by the Jordan Company and the Maine
 Department of Environmental Protection are appended.


                                     EDWARD C. JORDAN CO ,INC.

                                TABLE 1

                        WATER QUALITY FINDINGS
Groundwater              ^.0.1

Surface Water             50-75

Groundwater Beneath
Disposal Area            300-1500

Groundwater South
of Disposal Area         200-1900




underdrain system and associated works surrounding the site, in conjunc-
tion with the proper closing and capping of the area.  In Saco this
system involves installation of underdrains in the area defined by wells
B-101, 102, 103 and 104 as shown in Figure 4.  During and immediately
following installation, a substantial amount of contaminated water would
be collected and would require treatment prior to discharge to Sandy
Brook.  The leachate collected initially would have been in contact with
the refuse for varying periods of time.  In addition to the iron, mangan-
ese and chrome, the leachate would contain a wide range of complex
organic compounds resulting from the decomposition of materials placed
in the landfill.  Temporary treatment would be required during this
period, however, treatment would not need to continue after the system
reaches a steady state and no contaminated water was being collected.

     Treatment of this temporary flow of leachate which might last for
several months could not be economically accomplished in any system re-
quiring a large initial capital expenditure.  As an economical alterna-
tive, a treatment system consisting of two holding ponds in series sepa-
rated by a dike of graded filter sand was initially considered.

     However, systems of this type are still being tested and evaluated
and there were considerable problems associated with achieving suffi-
cient treatment prior to discharge to Sandy Brook.  Since a proven
system including chemical and/or biological treatment was not economi-
cally feasible and since no suitable receiving water was located nearby,
collection and treatment was not given further consideration as an
overall solution to the leachate problem.
Prevention of Refuse-Water Contact

     Leachate formation may be controlled by preventing water from
coming in contact with refuse.  Water may reach the refuse by percola-
ting through the surface or by lateral movement of groundwater.  Both of
these sources of water must be controlled to eliminate the formation of
leachate.  The percolation of surface water into the buried refuse can
be controlled by properly grading the surface of the landfill and cover-
ing with an impervious layer.  The lateral movement of groundwater
through the refuse and the movement of leachate away from the landfill
may be controlled by constructing a vertical barrier to prevent this
movement.  These objectives can be met by any of several alternative

     The prevention of surface water percolation involves the placement
of an impervious cover.  The placement of the cover involves several
steps:  (1) site grading, (2) placement of necessary soil to cover the
refuse and to protect the barrier, (3) placement of impervious barrier,
and (4) placement of topsoil, fertilizer, and seed.  The area to be
covered at the Saco dump covers about 9 acres (42,500 sq yd).  Several
alternative impervious liner systems were studied.  Since each of these
systems is capable of effectively restricting percolation of water into
the refuse, the cost is the major factor in selection.  Cost data is

presented following a brief description of alternative systems.

     Synthetic Liners.  Synthetic materials such as Hypalon and EPDM
(Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) have been used to contain water in
lagoons and holding ponds.  These materials could also be effective in
providing a water tight seal for this application.  The installation of
the liner must be handled with care to assure that no breaks occur.

     Soil-Bentonite Mixture.  The use of bentonite clay as an additive
to native soils can be used to form an impervious barrier.  Bentonite is
an imported form of naturally occurring clay which has enormous swelling
properties when placed in contact with water.  When it swells, it fills
voids in the soil and reduces permeability.  This system has also been
used extensively in the construction of ponds and lagoons.  After site
preparation, the bentonite is spread using conventional farm machinery
at an application rate of 1.5 to 2.0 Ibs/sq ft.  The material is mixed
to a predetermined depth  (2 to 6 inches), then rolled and covered.

     Soil-Cement Mixture.  A soil-cement liner is similar to the soil-
bentonite system described previously; however, cement is used as the
admixture rather than clay (bentonite).  Liquid asphalt is sprayed over
the surface (0.25 gal/sq yd) to aid the curing process.

     Natural Clay.  Natural marine clays or other impervious soils can
be used to form a. watertight liner.  The location of a source of this
material within an acceptable haul distance determines the feasibility
of this method.

     Since much of the coastal areas of southern Maine are underlain by
an impervious marine clay, this material offers an inexpensive, readily
available source of a suitable liner material.

     In Saco this alternate would involve grading of the site, placement
of 6 inches of soil, placement of a 1-ft layer of clay, and finally
placement of a 6-inch soil layer suitable for supporting a grass crop.
Minimum surface grade would be 2 percent to encourage efficient runoff.
Once the impervious liner has been covered with topsoil, fertilizer and
seed would be placed according to the schedule in Table 2.

     In conjunction with each of the surface sealing systems, provisions
must be made to improve surface runoff from the vicinity of the aban-
doned disposal area.  The drainage system would consist of well-defined
impervious drainage channels leading to the major natural drainage areas
in the vicinity.  Improved surface runoff will reduce percolation and
reduce recharge of the groundwater beneath the disposal area.
     In addition to controlling percolation, a complete encapsulation
system must include a vertical barrier to prevent lateral groundwater
movement.  The vertical barrier would extend from the ground surface to
the impervious clay layer which lies beneath the disposal area at a
depth of approximately 25 feet.  Vertical barrier alternatives are


                       TABLE 2

                  SEEDING SCHEDULE

Tall Fescue  (ky.  31)

Red Fescue

Red Top

Landino Clover

Annual Ryegrass
50 ///acre

20 ///acre

 6 ///acre

 4 ///acre

10 ///acre

90 ///acre


Fertilizer (15-15-15)
2 tons/acre

1000 ///acre

described below.

     Slurry Trench.  The slurry trench method involves the construction
of an impervious bentonite clay wall around the abandoned disposal area.
As the soil is removed during trench excavation, the space created is
filled with a bentonite slurry.  The slurry pressure forces the benton-
ite into the pores of the soil, thus restricting groundwater flow and
stabilizing the trench wall.  After the excavation has proceeded for a
short distance (about 100 ft), the trench is backfilled with a soil-
bentonite mix to form an impervious wall 18 to 24 inches thick.  No site
dewatering is required.  Additives to the bentonite prevent Its break-
down in the presence of leachate.

     Grouting.  Grouting is a process which involves the injection of a
material such as bentonite clay, cement, or various chemical grout
compounds into the pores of the soil to form an impervious seal.  The
grout wall is installed by pumping the mixture into the soil through a
pipe.  As the grout fills the voids, pressure increases and the tube is
manually removed.  Since close spacing is required to form a tight
barrier, the quantity of material and the long installation time make
this an expensive alternative.

     Imper-Wall.  The Imper-Wall system is a proprietary grouting tech-
nique which increases the efficiency of grout injection.  In this process,
a special 24- to 48-inch steel I-beam with a grout pipe attached is
driven by a vibrating hammer through the soil to the underlying clay
layer.  As the beam is driven into and extracted from the soil, a grout
of bentonite is pumped through the pipe into the soil.  As the beam is
removed, the void space is filled with the grout forming an impervious
barrier.  Subsequent sections are formed by overlapping to form a con-
tinuous wall.  The Imper-Wall method is faster than conventional grout-
ing and requires less material, thereby reducing cost.

     Steel Sheeting.  Leachate movement may also be controlled by plac-
ing steel sheet piling around the abandoned disposal area.  The piles
would be driven into the clay layer beneath the refuse and interlocked
to form a watertight barrier.  The cost of protecting the piles against
corrosion and subsequent failure makes this alternate extremely expen-

     Concrete Wall.  A concrete wall could be used to form a barrier to
prevent water movement.  However,  the high groundwater and unstable soil
conditions complicate the excavation process.  In order to permit trenches
to be excavated and forms placed,  dewatering of the site would be neces-
sary.  Since the dewatering process would require the pumping of contam-
inated water, this method does not offer a feasible alternative.
     Based on our evaluation of the alternatives presented above, the
following conclusions were reached:

     1.   The use of a locally available clay for the surface cover

          offers the city of Saco the most cost-effective means of pre-
          venting percolation of surface runoff into the refuse.

     2.   The use of the Imper-Wall technique with a bentonite barrier
          offers the most cost-effective means of constructing a verti-
          cal barrier to restrict lateral groundwater movement and to
          encapsulate the buried refuse.

     Since the cost of the corrective system is a major factor in selec-
tion, preliminary cost estimates were developed for the various alterna-

     Table 3 summarizes the capital costs associated with closing the
abandoned dump area and placing an impervious liner.  These costs in-
clude site preparation and grading; cover material; the impervious
liner, including installation; fertilizer and seed; additional wells to
monitor the effectiveness of the system; and contingencies and engineer-
ing.  The majority of these items do not vary from system to system.
The principal factor which contributes to the cost range of $0.40/sq ft
to $0.60/sq ft is the impervious liner and associated cover material.
This portion of the cost varies from $179,000 for a synthetic membrane
to $100,000 for a natural clay system.  Table 4 compares the total cost
of the various landfill cover systems, while Table 5 compares total
encapsulation (vertical barrier) costs.

     Cost estimates for the vertical barriers were developed from a
review of recent contractors' bids for similar projects, and were com-
puted primarily on the basis of cost per square foot of wall.  These
costs, as summarized in Table 5, include material and installation.
     Based on available geotechnical information,  the abandoned refuse
disposal area and the adjacent land to the northwest of Foss Road are
the major recharge areas for the groundwater found in the area of con-
tamination between Sandy Brook and the small stream.

     Water levels in the dump area are slightly higher than the adjacent
areas, creating a gradient for flow in all directions.  The gradient to
the north, however, is very gradual and only a minimum dispersion of
contaminants occurs.  The movement of leachate from the dump appears to
be generally confined to the area between Sandy Brook and the stream
located to the east of the abandoned dump.

     The use of a leachate collection and treatment system to control
the groundwater contamination was discarded for the following reasons:

     1.   The high degree of uncertainty in being  able to provide suf-

                                TABLE 3

                            LANDFILL COVER
                         CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
Synthetic Liner

Site Preparation - Grading                                  $ 11,000
Cover Material (Include Placement)                            49,000
Synthetic Liner                                              130,000
Seed and Fertilizer                                           10,000
Off-site Drainage                                              5,000
Monitoring Wells                                               1,000
Contingencies and Engineering                                 25,000
                                                        ($0.60/sq ft)
Soil Bentonite

Site Preparation - Grading                                  $ 11,000
Cover Material (Include Placement)                            60,000
Bentonite - Material                                          60,000
Bentonite - Placement                                         30,000
Seed and Fertilizer                                           10,000
Off-site Drainage                                              5,000
Monitoring Wells                                               1,000
Contingencies and Engineering                                 25,000
                                                        ($0.53/sq ft)
Soil Cement

Site Preparation - Grading                                  $ 11,000
Cover Material (Include Placement)                            60,000
Soil Cement Liner (Include Preparation and Placement)          60,,000
Seed and Fertilizer                                           10,000
Off-site Drainage                                              5,000
Monitoring Wells                                               1,000
Contingencies and Engineering                                 25,000
                                                        ($0.45/sq ft)
Native Clay

Site Preparation - Grading                                  $ 11,000
Cover Material (Include Placement)                            30,000
Clay Liner (Include Placement)                                70,000
Seed and Fertilizer                                           10,000
Off-site Drainage                                              5,000
Monitoring Wells                                               1,000
Contingencies and Engineering                                 25,000
                                                        ($0.40/sq ft)

                                TABLE 4

                            LANDFILL COVER
                            COST COMPARISON
     Native Clay

     Soil Cement


     Synthetic Liner
           $152,000 ($0.40/sq ft)

           $172,000 ($0.45/sq ft)

           $202,000 ($0.53/sq ft)

           $231,000 ($0.60/sq ft)
                                TABLE 5

                         ENCAPSULATION SYSTEMS
                            COST COMPARISON
Slurry Trench ($6/sq ft)

Imper-Wall ($4/sq ft)

Grouting ($15/sq ft)

Concrete Wall ($6.75/sq ft)
$80,000        $290,000

$40,000        $200,000





          ficlent treatment to permit discharge to Sandy Brook or to the

     2.   High cost.

     To prevent refuse-water contact, a two-phase control program was
recommended.  Phase I includes the following steps:

     1.   Cover the area delineated in Figure 4 with an impervious liner
          of local clay.

     2.   Improve the efficiency of surface runoff in the vicinity of
          the disposal area by constructing drainage ditches to convey
          runoff to natural drainage courses.

     3.   Institute an expanded monitoring program to measure ground-
          water levels and groundwater quality.

     Phase I includes grading, covering and seeding of the area outlined
on Figure 4.  In conjunction with this, the flow of surface water in the
vicinity of the abandoned dump must be improved to encourage runoff to
the nearby drainage areas.  The use of locally available clay soil
offers the most economical method of covering the dump and preventing
percolation of surface water into the refuse.  The estimated cost of the
cover and associated work is $152,000.  The covering of the abandoned
dump is a normal part of the closing of a land disposal area and is a
step which must be undertaken as an integral part of any leachate con-
trol system.  Therefore, any further steps which may be necessary to
control the leachate may be undertaken at a later date without affecting
the integrity of the surface cover.

     The covering and improved surface flow will prevent the percolation
of surface water through the buried refuse and will lower the ground-
water in the vicinity of the disposal area.  Although the change in
groundwater level cannot be precisely predicted, there is a good chance
that the change will be sufficient to lower the water below the refuse.
If successful, this will minimize refuse-water contact and will prevent
further generation of leachate.

     The effectiveness of these measures will be determined by continued
monitoring of the groundwater through the use of the existing wells as
well as several additional wells to be installed as part of this program.

     If the Phase I steps fail to lower the groundwater table suffi-
ciently to prevent the generation of Leachate, additional measures will
be necessary.  The actual steps to be taken will be dependent on the
efficiency of the initial steps.  The Phase II alternatives would in-
clude an underdrain system or the Imper-Wall vertical barrier.

     The installation of an upstream underdrain system is the preferred
alternate because it has a lower initial cost and fewer potential long-
term risks.  The underdrain system would be installed on the north side


of the disposal area to further lower the groundwater level.   The objec-
tive would be to collect uncontaminated water.  However, as a safety
measure, water collected by this system would be pumped to the area
south of the landfill but would not be treated.  Based on preliminary
conceptual data, the cost of this system is estimated at $75,000.

     If the groundwater cannot be lowered sufficiently by the underdrain
system, it may be necessary to completely encapsulate the refuse.  If
this is necessary, the use of the Imper-Wall technique is recommended,
at an estimated cost of $240,000.  The use of complete encapsulation
would pose substantial long-term problems related to gas production,
venting and leakage; such hazards would require detailed evaluation
prior to implementation.

     It is felt that Phase I recommendations—a more impervious surface
cover and better management of surface runoff—have a good probability
of lowering the groundwater table sufficiently to minimize refuse-water
contact at the site and to economically reduce future leachate production.

     Recommendations for dealing with the leachate-groundwater contam-
ination problem at the abandoned Saco dump basically consist of the same
steps involved in the proper closing of any land disposal area—sanitary
landfill or otherwise.

     It must be recognized that the steps described herein will control
the generation of additional leachate and prevent an increase in the
contamination of groundwater.  These steps will not immediately improve
water quality in the plume area.  Water quality improvement in the plume
area will occur gradually as uncontaminated water migrates through the
area and the contaminants are leached from the soil by natural ground-
water movement.  The complete improvement of water quality to its; initial
state may take many years.

                          APPENDIX: WATER QUALITY ANALYSES

                                                                            DATE: May 5, 1975
                                      Fe     Mn      Zn   NH3-N     NOj-N    pH
Bucci Well
Tripp Well
Angers Well
Vachon Well
Blunt Well
Cousens Well
Tyrell Well
Austin Well
Cousens Spring
Cousens Fond Influent
Sandy Brook Near B-112


< 2












Cr - Total Chromium mg/1
Fe - Total Iron mg/1
Mn - Manganese mg/1
Zn - Zinc rag /I
NH3-N - Ammonia As Nitrogen mg/1
N03-N - Nitrate As Nitrogen mg/1
pH - In pH Units
Cond - Specific Lcm'ucLance
                                                                       Analysis  by DEP

                                                                N03-N   pH
Buccl Well
Tripp Well
Angers Well
Vachon Well
Blunt Well
Cousens Well
Tyrell Well
Austin Well
Cousens Spring
Cousens Pond Influent
Sandy Brook Near B-112

< .06
< .06






  Cr  - Total Chromium mg/1
  Fe  - Total Iron mg/1
  Mn  - Manganese mg/1
  Zn  - Zinc mg /I
  NH3~N - Ammonia As Nitrogen mg/1
  N03~N - Nitrate As Nitrogen mg/1
  pH  - In pH Units
  Cond  - Spcnftc Condu. tance £2l
Analysis by DEP

                                                                               DATE:  August  8.19'/
                                                    Zn   NH3-N    NOj-N   pH
Bucci Well
Tripp Well
Angers Well
Vachon Well
Blunt Well
Cousens Well
Tyrell Well
Austin Well
Cousens Spring
Cousens Pond Influent
Sandy Brook Near B-112



















<. 01














Cr - Total Chromium mg/1
Fe - Total Iron mg/1
Mn - Manganese mg/1
Zn - Zinc mg /I
NH^-N - Ammonia As Nitrogen mg/1
N03-N - Nitrate As Nitrogen mg/1
pH - In pH U'lt t-5
Cond - Si>cnfir Co.idn, t.incei^°i
                                                                       Analysis by E.G.  Jordan

                                                                            DATEAugust 13,
                                                  Zn   NH3-N    N03-N   pH
Bucci Well
Trlpp Well
Angers Well
Vachon Well
Blunt Well
Cousens Well
Tyrell Well
Austin Well
Cousens Spring
Cousens Fond Influent
Sandy Brook Near B-112

< .02

0. 15











  Cr - Total Chromium mg/1
  Fe - Total Iron mg/1
  Mn - Manganese mg/1
  Zn - Zinc mg /I
  NHj-N - Ammonia As Nitrogen mg/1
  N03~N - Nitrate As Nitrogen mg/1
  pH - In pH I'nits
  Cond - Specific Conductance ^HtS£
Analysis by DEP

                                                                            DATE.AUg.  20,  1975
                                     Fe    Mn     Zn   NH3-N    NOj-N    pH
Buccl Well
Trlpp Well
Angers Well
Vachon Well
Blunt Well
Cousens Well
Tyrell Well
Austin Well
Cousens Spring
Cousens Pond Influent
Sandy Brook Near B-112

<; .025
< .025

< .025
< .025




< .025


< .01

< .015








 Cr - Total Chromium mg/1
 Fe - Total Iron  mg/1
 Mn - Manganese mg/1
 Zn - Zinc mg II
 NHj-N - Ammonia  As  Nitrogen  mg/1
 N03-N - Nitrate  As  Nitrogen  mg/1
 pH - In ;>1  I'm is
 Cond -
            ifi'  '.inductance
                                                                Analysis  by  E.G. Jordan

                                                                             DATEiAug 28r 19
                                     Fe    Mn     Zn   NH3-N    NO-j-N   pH
Bucci Well
Tripp Well
Angers Well
Vachon Well
Blunt Well
Cousens Well
Tyrell Well
Austin Well
Cousens Spring
Cousens Pond Influent
Sandy Brook Near B-112



< .025
< .025
< .025

< .01

< .01
< .01
< .06
r^ 9


6. '


 Cr - Total Chromium mg/1
 Fe - Total Iron mg/1
 Mn - Manganese mg/1
 Zn - Zinc mg /I
 NH-j-N - Ammonia As Nitrogen mg/1
 N03-N - Nitrate As Nitrogen mg/1
 pH - In pH Units
 Cond - Specific tor.du, Uince*
                                   Analysis  by  E.G.  Jordan

                                                                             DATE:  9/20/75
                                                  Zn   NH3-N    N03-N   pH
Buccl Well
Tripp Well
Angers Well
Vachon Well
Blunt Well
Cousens Well
Tyrell Well
Austin Well
Cousens Spring
Cousens Pond Influent
Sandy Brook Near B-112





< O.V







 Cr - Total Chromium mg/1
 Fe - Total Iron mg/1
 Mn - Manganese mg/1
 Zn - Zinc mg/1
 NHj-N - Ammonia As Nitrogen  mg/1
 N03-N - Nitrate As Nitrogen  mg/1
 pH - In pH Units
 Cond - Specific Conductance j"»ho_s
                                                                      Analysis by DEP

                   LIVING WITH LEACHATE
                      Joseph Bern, P E
     Vice-President, Research & Development, U.S Utilities Services Corporation
                   Monroeville, Pennsylvania

       A well  known axiom regarding landfills  is "when

yearly precipitation exceeds evaporation  generation of

leachate is  a  foregone conclusion".  In the  Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania,  where the above holds true,  all land-

fills are considered leachate generators.  Therefore,

compliance with  regulations dictates the  need for treat-

ment of leachate  where natural renovation is not avail-


       Chambers  Landfill located in the Pittsburgh

region is one  disposal site that includes an operating

leachate treatment facility.  The  system  has been in

operation for  almost two years.  Leaching data has been

accumulated  for  conditions before  and after  the construc-

tion and operation of the plant.   It appears to be

achieving its  objective (i.e. compliance  with the water

effluent standards), however this  may be  due to a chain

of fortuitous circumstances.  Comparison with leaching

data from another disposal site, approximately 25 miles

distant, would indicate that utilization of all possible

attenuation techniques is necessary to meet water quality

requirements, if tertiary treatment is to be avoided.

       Leachate treatment plants must be designed on the

basis of influent characteristics.  There is a difference

between raw leachate (as it seeps out of the toe of the

fill area)  and that which enters the plant.

       At this point in time almost all of the leachate

treatment plants in planning, design, construction, or

operation in Pennsylvania use chemical treatment (lime

addition),  sludge sedimentation, biological treatment, and

post chlorination to some extent.  The installations

range from massive lagoons  (2% million gallons at Chambers)

to small oxidation ponds (150,000 gallons at Southern

Alleghenies).  Automatic pH control may be used in the

chemical treatment section with automatic feeding of the

lime.  Batch treatment with hand feeding of lime (on a

guess basis)  is also practiced in many locations.

       Normally, untrained labor and minimal time are

alloted for the operation and maintenance of the treatment

facility.  Great difficulty in starting up the system and

in bringing the process into equilibrium with the required

effluent quality may be attributed to the use of untrained

personnel.  Daily high tonnage operations and large

capacity sites are necessary to sustain this added cost

of operation.

                 Leachate Characteristics

       In order to obtain a clear understanding of the

wastewater or leachate under consideration, we will look

at it in a number of ways.  Raw leachate as it comes

directly from the degrading refuse, treatment plant in-

put, and treated leachate effluent are examined.  Con-

ditions at two landfills  (Chambers and Lower Burrell) are

illustrated as a case study for this presentation.

A.  Raw Leachate

       Soluble fractions of the deposited wastes will

eventually dissolve in the water moving through the fill.

Samples were collected at the toe of the disposal area

 (seeps) and are outlined  in Table I.  Four water quality

parameters, pH, 8005, Total Iron and Ammonia-Nitrogen,

are the descriptors of the leachate character.

       The values are well within the ranges of leachate

quality reported in the EPA publications.  Acceptance of

some high 3005  (organic) wastes at the Lower Burrell

landfill  (the refuse comes from a less urbanized area

with practically no commercial rubbish) may account for

the higher values.  The high iron content at Chambers may

be due to acid mine drainage discharges for this is a

former strip mine-ravine type fill.

B.  Treatment Facility Influent

       Allegheny County Sanitary Authority laboratory

personnel carried out an extensive sampling and analytical

program (over a two month period) on the leachate from

Chambers Landfill.  The main objective of the endeavor was

to determine the feasibility of handling untreated leac-

hate in the sewerage system.  The water samples were ob-

tained at the discharge of a large clay pipe which runs

through the center of the existing fill and acts as a

leachate main.  This pipe was ultimately connected to

the wet well unit of the treatment system.  Results were

compiled for:  Fourteen water quality parameters (not

including heavy metal ions) such as pH, alkalinity, dis-

solved oxygen, BOD5, COD, chlorine demand, greases,

chlorides, phenols, cyanides, etc.;  two bacteriological

parameters including fecal and strep coliform; and eight

heavy metals including lead, manganese, total chromium,

iron, selenium, cadmium, zinc, and copper.  Figure 1 shows

frequency distributions of some selected parameters (ap-

proximately eighteen values for each variable).

       Analyses of samples collected on the same day (raw

leachate seeps - See Table I and plant influent) indicate

a considerable difference in leachate quality parameters.

See Table II for the modified leachate.

       In the case of Chambers, we believe there are two

factors operating to attenuate the leachate.  They are

dilution due to infiltration of surface water and abandoned

mine discharges, and some natural renovation.  Chambers

landfill is an existing dump which was upgraded to a sani-

tary landfill.  Until 1970 there was no attempt to isolate

the refuse from mine discharges.  In fact, a former lake

bed acts as the main leachate sump in the collection

system.  In addition, the leachate moves laterally almost

500 feet to reach the collectors and possibly providing

some attenuation.

       Conditions at the Lower Burrell operation are quite

different.  The site was first used as a household waste

landfill in 1970.  Refuse was deposited in high ground

water table areas and several springs were covered at the

lower end of the fill.  This fill area is located less

than 200 feet from the property line.  Inlet to the treat-

ment facility is located 25 feet from the toe of a (75 foot

deep) leaching refuse cell allowing small opportunity for

natural renovation despite the fine quality of the soils

in the area.  Dilution is not a great factor as evidenced

by the leachate volumes - 8-10,000 gpd when compared to

the 25-40,000 gpd at Chambers.

       Leachate quality also varies seasonally and over

the years.  Table III shows this variation at both sites.

The low BODs values at Lower Burrell (in 1971) may be due

to this being a young fill and full leaching had not

started.  High iron at Chambers is due to mine discharges.

C.  Treated Leachate

       The treated leachate (plant effluent) completes the

cycle of living with this waste water.   Acceptable dis-

charges are based on stream criteria and discharge stan-

dards which are established by regulation and not on the

capabilities of treatment unit processes or plant per-

formance.  Table IV reflects the results of treating the

leachate at both landfill facilities.  It also shows the

required water quality of the discharges.

       Chambers' treatment facility appears to be meeting

the effluent standards for the tabulated parameters.

This only applies to the summer months.  The critical

operating period may be between November and July,  We

cannot account for the low 8005 readings in the last two

months at the inlet to the plant.  It may be due to the

excessive and above normal precipitation experienced this

year during that time period.  The Lower Burrell facility

cannot hope to comply with the BODs requirement with the

strong leachate coming into the system.

                   Treatment Facilities

       A tabulation of the various configurations util-

ized in Pennsylvania for treating leachate is shown in

Table V.  Most facilities depend on chemical treatment

(lime addition) to render the heavy metals (mainly iron

and manganese) insoluble.  In the case of the two plants

with stream discharge, (Southern Alleghenies and Penn Twp.)

which do not provide neutralization, the preliminary

leachate analyses were low in iron and manganese and had

neutral pH readings.  Chemical treatment will most likely

be added after operation begins since compliance with

effluent standards is required.  Some municipal sewage

plants have agreed to accept partially or totally untreated

leachate.  There are some questions which must be answered

before this can become a viable solution to leachate

treatment.  Almost all of the facilities depend on hydra-

ted lime for the neutralizing agent mainly due to availa-

bility and price.  Concomitant with this process is the

large volumes of sludge that are generated.

       Sludge produced by the chemical treatment section

of the plant is essentially insoluble metallic hydroxides,

untreated lime, and calcium hydroxide.  The settling ponds

will concentrate the sludge to 5 - 10 percent solids.  In

order to reduce the sludge volumes to be handled and allow

for easier removal, clarifiers are used in some of the

installations listed.  Plant operation can continue

during the sludge removal phase.  Disposal of this resi-

due is in the landfill.  Some enforcement agencies require

deposition of this material in a highly alkaline environ-

ment such as a clay lined disposal area with a bed of

alkaline fly ash, slag, or crushed limestone.

       The biological section of the treatment plant is

the weakest link in the system.  Most landfill operators

do not have personnel with the necessary training to

start-up and maintain the unit.  Some expert technical

help will be needed to evaluate the efficiency and oper-

ation of the biological treatment unit.  Will seeding of

the diffused aeration unit be required?  Are additional

nutrients needed to insure proper and continued operation

with maximum BOD5 removal?

       Post chlorination is used at Chambers for two

reasons.  During the design period very little infor-

mation was available on the leachate characteristics and

there were no leachate treatment plants in existance.

The need for disinfection was not clear and conservative

engineering practices required its inclusion.  Addition

of chlorine does provide an opportunity albeit an

expensive one to further reduce the 8005 by overdosing.

       Figures 2 and 3 show the flow diagrams of the two

leachate treatment facilities described in the above

case history.  Table VI lists the design specifications

of both plants.  While BOD5 removal rates of 85 percent

are possible theoretically by biological treatment, it

would require a very efficient plant with model operations.

To attain a removal rate of 98.5 percent is questionable.

The leachate data presented above would lead to the con-

clusion that a weak influent is very desirable if ef-

fluent standards are to be met.

                     Treatment Costs

       After two years of actual operation, we have ac-

cumulated some cost data for the treating of landf:.ll

leachate at Chambers Landfill.  U. S. Utilities Services

Corporation is in the process of building two leachate

treatment facilities at its other landfills, (Arden and

Southern Alleghenies).  One system includes lime addition

and mechanical aeration in an oxidation pond with a

polishing pond following to collect the sludge.  The other

proposed operation includes chemical treatment  (lime ad-

dition) , sludge settling  (in a clarifier) and discnarge

to the adjacent sewage treatment plant.  Table VII

lists the comparative costs of each system based on a

ten year life  (of the landfill) at Chambers and fifteen

years at the other sites.  Cost of capital is based on

a six percent add-on interest and escrow funds are re-

quired by state regulation to provide funds to operate the

facility for a ten year period after closure of the land-


       Cost of leachate treatment ranges from 2.6 mils/

gallon to 3.5 mils which is an actual cost at the Chambers

installation.  However, when the costs are based on

refuse tonnages, they range from 14 cents/ton to 91 cents/

ton.  The above costs are equivalent to 5 percent of the

disposal price at Chambers, 6 percent at Arden, and 37

percent at the Southern Alleghenies landfill operation.

High quantities of solid wastes must be processed at the

landfill site to bear the cost of leachate treatment.


       Leachate treatment is technically and economically

feasible when:  (1)  the chemical characteristics of the

leachate are established;  (2) any opportunities for at-

tenuation is utilized;   (3) resources (personnel and money)

are allocated for maintenance; and (4)  the landfill

operation is at a sufficiently high level to sustain the


       Unit processes now being used to treat the Leachate

are marginal and must be upgraded in order to meet the ef-

fluent requirements.  The other alternative is to set

realistic effluent standards for this waste water.

Raw Leachate
PennDER (BuWQM) Standards
Chambers 4/30/74
Lower Burrell 7/29/74
Fe, Total
     All readings in mg/1 except pH and Specific Conductance (mircomhos)
TABLE I:  Raw Leachate Quality at two Pennsylvania Landfills.
Modified Leachate

PennDER (BuWQM) Standards
Chambers 4/30/74
Lower Burrell 7/29/74
Fe, Total
     All readings in mg/1 except pH and Specific Conductance (mircomhos)
TABLE II:  Leachate Quality (Plant Influent) at two Pennsylvania Landfills.


-H r-
13 5
S o


- c> ^r ci ^J1
. • > •
» ^S* LO LO ^O

* I \ \ \

- m o m o
~> •*? m m ^D
•n n





^. 8
r-- ra
Cr fi
1 C b
0 T3
10 /I
r- 0) 4
n '2
1 n c o

« o
— o
in rH
— in




rH O rH
m u~t in
rH m ro

n i ^
'H >
o O
n n


PennDER(BuWQM) Standards
Chambers 6/12/72
Lower Burrell


Fe, Total


TABLE III:  Leachate Quality  (Plant Influent) Over Time
            at Two Pennsylvania Landfills

PennDER(BuWQM) Standards
Chambers 4/24/75
Lower Burrell


Fe, Total


TABLE IV:  Leachate Quality  (Plant Effluent) at
           Two Pennsylvania Landfills

i 0)
o) rt
3 J3
>w -H
a a
M >
1 1
rH dJ
to pi
n) 4-J
a a
•H d)
CD a
!—t CO
•H J-i
oo >
T3 O
rH dJ
CO Crf
a a a e a a a
QJ Q> d) QJ dJ QJ d)
to co to co co co co
0 O 0 0 0 O 0
rH rH rH
4-1 4-1 4-J
cn cn  J-< 4-1 4J
4J 4-1 nJ 4-) 4-1
a e a as
•H -H -H -H -H
Lower Burrell
Penn Twp.
So. Alleghenies
Lower Paxton
QJ »
>* >> to
U O >-i
Oi Crf CO

S-J ^
•H -rH
•H -H
V4 l-l
CT) Cfl
rH rH
d) d)
•H -H
rJ hJ
Derry Twp.
Kelly Run
Hidden Valley
* J
* * a s
d) d) dJ it QJ
CJ CJ 4-> U dJ
>> >, CO CO tO
0 0
-i rH rH rH
-H O cfl O rH rH
"4H rH CO (1) 0)
TJ !>* O l-J )-4
C IH Td ^ Td Mr*
tO dJ O 3 QJ 33
l-i O 3 -H CO
'O QJOOC> QJ l-ii-J
G J-lCrHAi 00 33
•H nj o I-H nj 3 o o


(Lime Additio:



[Mech. Aeratic
FIGURE 3:  Flow Diagram for Leachate Treatment Facility at Lower Burrell


Average Influent Flow - 94,000 gpd
Max. Influent Flow - 150,000 gpd
Reduction - BOD5 85%
COD 707,
Susp. Solids 98%

Waste Flow, gpd
Susp. Solids
Total Fe
Raw Treated
94,000 94,000
6.8 7.5
158 20
56.4 10
5.65 5
120 10
Max. BOD5 10
12,000 gpd
15,000 gpd

Raw Treated
12,000 12

Same as Chambers
mg/1 ave. of 5 consecutive samples or

               20 mg/1 max. on any  reading
Disinfection    200/100 ml Fecal Coliform (a geometrical
               average value no greater than 1000/100 ml
               in more than 10% of  samples tested)
Lime Dosage
               7.5#/day C12
 TABLE VI:   Design Specifications for  Two Pennsylvania
              Landfill  Leachate  Treatment Plant  Facilities




Level of

Operation, tons/day
Useful Life of Site, years


Treatment Plant Volumes gpd
Treatment Facility:
Costs: Construction, $
Costs: Construction
Capital (6% Add-on)
Escrow Account
Annual Fixed Costs:
Sludge Removal ****
Variable Costs (Annual)
Unit Cost $/gallon


Unit Cost $/ton of refuse




So. Alleghenies*


$ 9,100

*    Actual Costs at Chambers Landfill
**   Already in operation for two years with ten years remaining
***  15  year plant life

****  Sludge removal every three years
TABLE VII:   Leachate Treatment  Facility Costs.

                              Daniel J. McCabe
               Environmental Engineer, Systems Technology Corporation
     Thus study is  investigating the quantitative and qualitative

production of gases and  leachates produced in simulated landfill

cells.   Five tost cells  are  involved in this study, and they are

designed to sinulate  municipal  refuse deposited in landfills

under the following conditions:

     3el]                       Cell Composition

     #1                         Baled Shredded .Solid rtaste

     #2                         Baled ",/hole Solid laste

     *3                         3aled ,Vhole Solid Waste  (Saturated;

     A                         Shrpdded Solid Wasto

     15                         '.-(hole Solid Waste

     7nece test cells permit the conparison of .^as and leaohate

production fron processed  and unprocessed solid waste in both  the

loose anJ bale] forms ana  also  provides dr.ta on the effect of

.-•at.iraticn w:t'-ir. a iar.i3:'!!l.   rhei-e"'o"C, the specific objective

of this  project is to determine the pas production, rate quantita-

tively ana qua] itr. tively in  municipal solid waste in a simulated

l^ndfil1 environment.  A second objective is to raoritor simultaneously

the quality and quart!tv of  leachate produced during this research.

     Fn,s paper discusses  the construction of the test cells,  the

loadi"" of the test cells, an-1  all analytical data collected for

the first ter nor.ths  of  the  study.


     A facility consisting of five identical test cells and an

instrumentation cell was designed and constructed to fulfill the

research objectives.  The facility layout (figure 1) illustrates

the arrangement of the cells.  This arrangement provides for good

cell accessibility without creating instrumentation difficulties

or causing temperature influence problems between cells.  The

design of the test cells was determined by both the size of the

baled refuse as well as the requirements for compacting refuse in

the test cell.  Instrumentation access was provided by casting

sleeves into the cell walls and then installing bulkhead fittinzs.

Test cells were constructed of reinforced concrete and have irside

dimensions of 2.1 meters x J.k meters x 3.7 meters (? ft. x 11 ft. x

12 ft.;.  The instrumentation cell is centrally located on one side

of the test cells.   This contains the terminals and collection

ports for the seas, leachate, temperature, and moisture measuring

' qulpner.t.

     The contents of the charged or completed cell, as illustrated

in Figure 2, consists of the following  a 15.2 cm. (6 in.) base

of non-reactive silica gravel; 3 layers of baled refuse, or 2,7

meters (9 ft.) of compacted refusej  3Q.5 of.  (12 in.) of clay

soil compacted to a density of 1V*2 ksc/m* (9C Ibs./ft,^); 30.5 cm.

(12 in.) of pea gravel; and 15.2 cm.  (6 in.)  of freeboard.  This

simulation typifies a sanitary landfill environment in that it does

contain compacted refuse with soil cover and  a water source (water

injection rake buried in the pea travel;, but differs due to its



2.T M C3'
                        ^**&xs*e***»(totig4s^^                            o
                                                                    0 °ql-«
                <>  0
                                           FIGURE  2
                                      TEST CELL CONTENTS

smaller size and sealed environment.   The pea gravel  was  used  to

aid in moisture distribution while  silica gravel  provided a porous,

non-reactive base to support the compacted refuse.

     The on site instrumentation for this facility  consists of temper-

ature, moisture, and pas volume measuring equipment.

     Temperature monitoring equipment  consists  of a total of 125

copper oor.stantan thermocouples with each cell  having 2k  probes

distributed throughout the refuse.  Temperature probes are  located

at the top, middle, and bottom portions  of each test  cell.

     The moisture monitoring instrumentation  consists of  both  gypsum

soil blocks and porous cup tensiometers.  Each  cell contains 9

gypsum blocr1 moisture probes.  These probes are located in  the top,

middle, and bottom portions of the  cells so moisture  routing through

the ref"usp .•r.th watr-~' applications  can be noted.

     The ijas monitoring system consists  of 10 collection  probes for

each cell which are connected to a  common manifolding arrangement

inside the instrumentation cell.  The  gas collection  piping within

each of the test cells consists of  3 gas probes in  the top,  middle,

and bottom portions of each test cell.   One collection port is in

the cell freeboa^-fl so that the oxygen  content of  the  gas  over  the

clay layer can be measured.


Refuse Composition Data

     The solid waste loaded into all of  the test  cells was  sorted in

order to ascertain the composition  of  the waste.  This categorization

of the municipal waste was necessary In order to draw meaningful
conclusions about the waste composition and decomposition products.
The waste material was separated Into eleven categories as follows)
     1)  Pood Waste
     2)  Garden Waste
     3)  Paper
     4)  Plastics, Leather, Rubber
     5)  Textiles
     6)  Wood
     ?)  Metals
     8)  Glass
     9)  Ash, Rocks, Dirt
    10)  Diapers
    11)  Fines (less than 2.5^ cm. (1 In.) ).
Figure 3 gives the refuse composition comparison averages for the
Oakwood and Atlanta refuses.  (The baled refuse was secured from
Atlanta, Georgia due to compaction densities required by contract.)
Table 1 gives the quantities of silica gravel, refuse, clay, pea  gravel,
and densities  for each of the five teet cells at the  Franklin test facility.
Temperature Data
     Figures k and 5 indicate typical average temperature data for the
 top, middle, and bottom sections of the test cells during the reporting
 period.  Figure fr indicates representative temperature data for the
 baled teat cells.  The temperature shows a peak during the initial


o o
CD 0
3 §
ft &.

O to
2 O
§ fa
01 O
£3 S


0 rf j

| 5 r-
o < JL_
D0 ^

a L.
• L


< [
z 1
5 ' 	

g d
§ r

* L 	
1 —

[ _


IiHia ?


1ViL3W oi

s HsaanH
31dW₯S iHOS  JO !N3DH3d


-------OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000B3A\tiff\2000YBQX.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000B3A\tiff\2000YBQX.T$F.T$F" failed.

loading period and a gradual decrease in temperature thereafter.

The cool ambient temperatures recorded during January and February

had the effect of reducing the peak temperature in the top and

middle sections of the test cells.  'The initial high temperature

is the result of aerobic decomposition of the solid waste.  The

subsequent reduction in temperature is an indication of the charge to

anaerobic conditions.  Due to logistics the initial increase in the

temperature in the bales occurred before placement in the test cells,

As can be seen from these figures the temperature decrease from the

initial aerobic peak took JO days to drop in the top portion of the

cell and approximately twice that long to drop in the bottom portion

of the cell.  The temperatures during the colder months showed a

temperature gradient which indicated a loss of heat to the atmosphere.

The top and middle portions of the cell were cooler than the bottom

section of the cell by a minimum of 2°C.  This trend reversed itself

when warmer temperatures occurred due to seasonal changes.  A warming-

trend is evident for the months of April, May, and June.  It is antici-

pated that future temperature variations will be due to seasonal varia-


     Figure 5 presents typical temperature data recorded for the

shredded and whole refuse cells .   This  refuse  was placed directly

in the test cells on the same day as it was collected, so that iritial

peak temperatures due to aerobic decomposition were observable.  This

initial peak temperature was more noticeable in the middle and bottom

portions of the cell due to the loss of heat to the atmosphere and

cell cover material.  These cells nlso show the same warming trend

during the months of April, Kay, June, and July.
Moisture Data
     Eleven moisture probes  (gypsum block and porous  cup  types)  are
being used to measure the mositura content of the  refuse  within  the
test cells.  Figures 6 through 10 present the measured moisture
contents of the Franklin test cells.   The moisture probes in cells 1,
2, 3« and 5 "ere placed in a wet condition, and  thus  the  initial
readings on the probes placed in this  cell are higher than that
actually in the refuse.  A period of time (as long as 60  days) was
required for the equalization of the probe with  the refuse.   Thus,
the initial readings on these cells are  high.  The opposite was  the
case for cell k.  The moisture probes  were placed  in  an extremely dry
condition upon placement in the cells.   Thus, the  initial moisture
probe readings on this cell were lower than that encountered in  the
refuse itself.  It appears as if a 60  day period was  also required for
the equilibration of these moisture probes as well.   The  moisture probe
data for all the test cells was very useful in noting the moisture routing
through the cells (the increases in moisture contents in  various
portions of the cell with the water additions),  and predicting when
leachate was to be obtained from the test cells.   It  is now apparent
that plug flow is approximated in the  test cells.   Hater  was added by
means of a distribution rake at the clay-pea gravel interface covering
the refuse.  Generally, the moisture probes in the top portions  of the
cell reached saturation first, followed  by the middle and bottom
probes respectively.
       In one of the baled cells (Cell 2), it was  evident from the




                              *    s




moisture probe data that short circuiting had occurred in the cell.

Short circuiting was also observed in the shredded waste cell,

but to a lesser extent.

     The quantity of moisture retained within each of the test cells,

as determined by the quantities of water added and the quantities

of leachate withdrawn, are given in Figures 11, 12, 13i and 1U

for cells 1, 2, **, and 5.  As expected, shredded baled cells retain

more moisture than the whole refuse baled cells, but the contrary was

true for the shredded and whole unbaled refuse.  The possibility exists

that this unexpected variation was due to the apparent short circuiting

within cell 4 (shredded refuse).  The gypsum block moisture probes have

generally proven to be unreliable in their operation.  A total of 1? of

these probes out of ^5 have failed thus far.

Gas Data

     The gas composition data is given in Figures 15 through 19.

These figures present graphically the percentages of the components

in the gas stream.  Several trends in the gas composition data can

be identified.  The first noticeable trend is the increase in nitrogen

content due to the selective absorption of oxygen in these test cells.

This trend indicates that the selective absorption of oxygen has

occurred in the initial phases.  The oxygen content is reduced due

to aerobic bacterial respiration.  This in turn increases the percentage

component of the nitrogen gas.

     The second trend which is noticeable in all the cells is the

increase in C02 or "C02 bloom."  This "CO,, bloom" exceeds 60$ on all

of the cells! and on cells 3, ^, and 5, exceeds 90?S by volume.  The

carbon dioxide bloom is accompanied by a. decrease in the nitrogen content


•stara.L.i-i m i v\

Figure  13

         figure 14

   tr   __L_-r



___j	 ^__ ___ i  „ I	    	i_	_. .   ' 	h.- -


and the elimination of oxygen within the test cells.  This  is not as

noticeable in cells 1 and 2 due to air contamination  in several of  the

gas samples.  Another occurrence which is evident from the  gas data

is the appearance of methane at a late point in the C02 bloom curve.

This has occurred in all of the cells except cell 5-  Cell  5 is

currently experiencing a drop in the W  bloom curve, and methane

production is expected in the near future.  It is evident from the

gas production data thus far that the gas production  pattern has

entered the phase 3 stage , or methogenic unsteady phase, for cells

1, 2, 3, and b.  Cell 5 is still within phase 2 (anaerobic  non-methogenic

phase).  One important exception to the pattern for sanitary landfill

gas production proposed by Farquhar is the absence of significant

concentrations of hydrogen gas during the COg bloom period.  Only

trace quantities (less than . 01>-') of hydrogen gas were encountered

on the franklin test cells.  The tine required to complete  the aerobic

and anaerobic non-methogenic phases was approximately 165 days froa

the time they were loaded for cells 1 through 4,  Cell 5 should enter

the third phase shortly,

     Gas production for all of the cells at Franklin  has been insignificant

in terms of volume to date.  Gas volumes have been measured following

water additions.  However, it is believed that this does not represent

actual gas volumes produced, but rather displacement  of volumes within

the cells.   With the occurrence of methane in the gas samples secured

at the Franklin site, it was suspected that gas production  should have

been taking place.   A close investigation of the test cells revealed that
1. "Gas Production during Refuse Composition," by G.J. Farquhar, and
    F.A. Rovers from Mater. Air, and Soil Pollution, 2,  (1973),


the wet test gas meters were incapable of measuring the gas volume

produced due to the low production rate.  The gas system was modified

to allow the collection of gas over a longer period of time with

subsequent accurate volume measurements at a proper flow rate

through the wet test gas meters.  Current gas production rates

measured using this system average less than 1 liter per day per

cell.  With the present low gas production rate in an early methogenic

phase, it is postulated that little gas was generated in the initial

phases of the study.

Leachate Data

     Leachates have been collected monthly since January, 1975-

All of the leachate data thus collected thus far is contained in

Tables 2 through 6.

     The volume of leachate collected is related to the amount of

water additions made to the cell and the quantity of water absorbed

by the refuse.  The highest quantities of leachate obtained ha.ve

been from the baled test cells, 1, 2, and 3.  It is also evidesnt from

Figures 11 through 14- that the lowest quantities of moisture retained

within the test cells are also for the baled cells.  Cell 1 has a

higher quantity of moisture retained p«r unit of refuse because the

shredded nature of the refuse within the bales contains more :3ites

for moisture absorption.

     The pH of the leachate shows an initial downward trend in all

cases.  This is due to the formation of organic acids which is the

initial step in the anaerobic decomposition of refuse.   The initial

drop of pH has leveled out, and in some cases started to rise.  This

is due to the breakdown of organic acids into their components.

     The oxygen reduction potential values are all negative with

respect to the hydrogen electrode.  Most of the ORF values are  in

the range of -200 to -400 millivolts.  Cell k, the shredded refuse cell,

shows initial ORP values of -400 and -500.  This  is possibly due to the

high initial strength of the leachate collected from  this cell.

     The TOG and COD values for all test cells show increases with

time and leachate collections.  Initial values from the "squeezings"

from the refuse during compaction were extremely  low.  These have

increased to TOG values of 10,000 and COD values  approaching Jk-,000

milligrams per liter.  There is no correlation between TOO and  GOD for

the baled shredded refuse cell; however, the baled and baled saturated

refuse cells have a high degree of correlation; and the shredded and

whole refuse cells have a moderate degree of correlation for these

parameters.  In general, cells exhibiting high TCG values exhibit high

COD values and vice versa.  Cell b (shredded refuse cell) exhibits the

highest COD and TOC concentrations.  Cells 3 (baled whole saturated)

and 1 (baled shredded) also indicate high initial TOC and COD values.

Cell 2 (baled whole refuse) exhibits the lowest concentrations  of both

these parameters.  It is apparent that both shredding and moisture

additions have the effect of increasing the initial leachate strengths

whereas baling has the general effect of decreasing the leachate strength.

     Leachate color at the time of collection is  generally yellow,

yellowish green, or dark green.  Black or iron oxide colored leachate is

leachate which has been aerated due to the oxidation of iron and manganese

compound!; within the leachate, giving rise to their colors.  The color of the

initial squeezings from the refuse was a very pale yellow to clear

liquid.  This is not typical of normal leachates.

     The odors of the leachates have been generally very pungent.

However, during the initial leachate collections,  putrid odors or faint

organic solvent odors could be detected.  The initial squeezing from

the refuse had no detectable odor.

     The conductivity, chloride, hardness, and alkalinity show continuous

increases with time.  Cell #H  (shredded refise) leachate contains the

highest concentration of the above parameters and Cell #2 (baled whole

refuse; the xowesb.

     The total solids is relatable to a high extent to dissolved solids

concentration, n.oving a correlation coefficient of .998 with this

parameter.  This ij also relatable with the hardness, conductivity,

chloride, and alKalinity values obtained for all the cells.

     The total Kjeldahi nitrogen values vary from a low of 9 mg/1 to a

high of 480 mg/1 and their concentration values show a steadily increasing

trend.  Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, indicates the same general trends;

exhibited by the other cells with respect to the physical form of the

refuse.  Ce'j-'' A .'shredded refuse) has once again the highest con-

centration vajueG,  followed by cell 1 (shredded whole refuse).  Cell 2,

(baled whole refuse) generally exhibits the lowest concentration.


     The initial concentrations of lead, copper, and cadmium appear to

be higher than the normal concentrations obtained in the leachates.

These parameters show decreases from the initial concentrations found

in the squeezings.  Their present concentrations do not show any

significant trends.  The concentrations of iron, zinc, and nickel show

increases in strength with time of  leachate collections.  Values for

chromium generally have been in the low range in the order of  .2 to

.4 mg/1 except for one value for cell 1 obtained in July.  It  is

suspected that this value is a result of analytical error.

     The bacteriological results for total coliform and fecal  strep-

tococcus show a high degree of variation.  No significant trends can

be interpreted from this data at this time.  All Salno'ella determinations

(total of 10J have been negative.  However, the following organisms

have been identified in the leachate:  pseudomonas, alcaligenes,

enterobacter, proteus, citrobacter freundii, and Arizona.  Other

organisms which have been isolated include klebsiella and shigella.


     The first year of this project included the installation and

loading of the test cells, and the first eight months of data collection

on the project.   It appears from the data at this point that the shredded

refuse cells (cell 1, shredded baled refuse, and cell 4, shredded refuse)

produced the strongest initial leachates.  It is also obvious that the

quantity of moisture and shredding contribute to the strength of the

initial leachates.

     The highest volumes of leaohate have been from the baled cells.

Consequently, the lowest quantities of moisture retained within the

test cells are also for the baled cells.  Cell 5 (whole refuse) retains

a larger amount of moisture than the shredded waste cell.  This is

unexpected due to the physical nature of the material.  The moisture

probe data indicates that short circuiting has occurred within the

shredded waste cell.  Cell 1 (baled shredded refuse) has a higher

quantity of moisture retained per unit weight of refuse because the

shredded nature of the refuse within the bales allows more sites for

moisture absorption.

     Data colleoted on temperature indicates that the baled cells in

general have higher initial temperature peaks due to aerobic decomposition

than the nonbaled test cells.  This is relatively independent of the

temperature upon loading because similar temperatures were encountered

on the loading of baled and nonbaled test cells.

     The gas composition data indicates that the shredded and baled

wastes entered the methogenic phases at approximately the same time,

whereas the whole refuse cell is somewhat slower in its decomposition

as indicated by the gas data.  This cell is approximately one month

behind the others with respect to gas composition data.  This is possibly

due to the lack of physical treatment of the refuse.


3 &
H *£


C 0
m >
rH <
s •
-i; ai
a >
0 <
T3 'O
O (1)
o vj
(0 C
O 3

•O •
O T3
S 4'
(8 .3
O &
t) •
O T3
o -a
S o)
>; .j
1! JS
0 tfi

a £
J3 »
o c
U 3
S) X

0 C
o o
tt (U
'S X
Q (O

o: o
0 0
U) O
CTl rsl rH T
... .
VD rH CTl f^

vo en o in
* 1 . .
r~ r- o ^r

f*l in ^D in

r-- in co in

en o in ^*
CO O *3* ^*
rH -<3-

vc m o h-

vx> cc r~ m

in O fN) rH
> • i i
oo rH m us

"^J" cri oo ^3*

•^r o co cr>

cr. 1C CM «i
r* rH in ^£>
^T p4
E-C a
[J W P-
EH < - W
cn 3 cn s;
rt u H
S Z M <

D Q W 10 >J
O « (X <
0 < < tJ
Cn c Cu CL
                                 «  H
                                                            D :

                                 TABLE  2 -
                       LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS' CELL #1
                            BALED SHREDDED REFUSE

Total Solids
Total Diss. S.
Fecal Strep
Total C.

1/13/75 5/12/75
1.0 696.4
N.D. Strong
Clear Dark
5.7 5.4
455 14,674
74 5,800
4,100 11,800
232 5,600
Dark yellow

0. 05
60. 0

 * As CaC03
 **As Phosphorous

           TABLE    3
lonductivity umhos
'otal Solids
'otal Diss. S.
'ecal Strep
'otal C.
*As CaC03
**As Phosphorous

+ . -
Faint or- slight pungent
ganic solv. pungent
Lt. yellow Lt.yellov Lt.
6.2 5.85 5.5
It, 600
— •
slightly pungent
Lt. yellow Yellow
5-1* 5.6
0. 05
0. 1*1
0. 02
0. 05
38.3 1
Pale yellow
0. 05

           TABLE    \i


Total Solids
Total Diss. S.
Fecal Strep
Total C.
» As CaCOj
**As Phosphorous



+ f _

1/13/75 2/17/75
1.0 83.8
N.D. Musty

Red-yellov Light
6.1* 5.9
957 5,322
1*10 1,550
3,000 It ,100
1,320 2,780
50 180
1.0 .002
0.5 0.5
0.20 0.96
.25 0.25
0.5 0.5
O.U 0.5


Very Strong
-lit It

Lt . gray

Lt.gr ay
It, 580


10, (


                                 TABLE   5
                      LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS CELL #4
                                  SHREDDED REFUSE

                    UNITS  1/13/75  4/14/75  .5/12/75  6/9/75
Total Solids
Total Diss. S.
Fecal Strep
Total C.
0. 05
0. 05
0. 06
0. 5
 * As CaC03
 **As Phosphorous


Total Solids
Total Diss. S.
Fecal Strep
Total C.
Vi mhos
light Dark Gray
yellow green
5.8 5.8
It. 2
urine odor
4, 000
80. 0
10. 0
1.1 X 106
 * AS CaC03
 **As Phosphorous

                                  Dale A. Carlson
                          Professor, University of Washington, and
                                 Ole Jakob Johansen
                        Norwegian Institute for Water Research

     The various organic and  inorganic  substar.ces in a sanitary landfill can

be leached by water moving through  tha  refuse.  Tb.it> is especially true in

huffid climates as a resalt of infiltrating rain or xrovelling ground vater. The

leachate produces in these landfills  can  seriously degrade the quality of both

surface and gxouncwater and hence can be  c. potential hazard for hunan health.

These water pollution prob]ems have increased because of the increased disposal

of solid vasts to landfills and  the selection of improper hydrogeological

landfill sites. Therefore more and more landfills must be built with provision:,

for collection and treatment  of  the leachate, thereby making the selection of

the fill site and operation of the  fill more flexible.

     Aerobic and anaerobic stabilization  of landfill leachate have been studied

by Boyle and Har, (1972). They also  evaluated chemical treatment of leachates

using such parameters as COD, iron, chlorides and total solids. Aerobic and

anaerobic treatabxlity studies also have  been reported by Force and Cook (1972),

Foree and Reid (1973) and Chian  and DeWalle (1971*). Other biological treatability

studies of leachates are described by Knoch and Stegmann (1971) and Knoch (2972)

(1973). The composition of leachates  has  beer, studied by Qasim and Burchinal

(1970), Fungaroli and Steiner (1971)  and  Chian  and DeWalle (1971*). KLotter and

Hantge (196S) and Keuss (1971) have studied the leachate productions from

sanitary landfills.

     The objective of this study was  to evaluate leachate treatability and

provide design criteria for biological treatment of leachate from sanitary

landfills.  Two leaohate sources from the Seattle area and six frcir the Oslo

area, were investigated. Of these, four sources were treated aerob.v:ally and

t«ro anaerobically.  In this paper only the results from the aerobic treatment

studies will be discussed.

                          LEACHATS CHARACTERISTICS

     The most important parameters affecting the composition and quality of

leachate are, annual reinfall, runoff, infiltration, age of fill, mean and

annua] tfir.peralure, waste- composition, type of disposal, initial moisture conto

and depth of the landfill. However, rainfall, runoff and infiltration are the

most important, Therefore, depending on the amount of water allowed to enter

the landfill, the composition of leachate and its production may vary consider-


     Typical suirmer constituent concentrations for the leachatas investigated

in this study ere shown  in  tables 1 and  2.  For the data shown,  no

precipitation had occurcd in the weeK in August preceding sampling for the six

Norwegian stations. Dry veather had prevailed for several weeks prior to trJtiag

the American samples.

     Considerable variation in constituent concentrations occur between the

sites. Note in the tables that concentrations of organics, nitrogens, iron and

zinc are high while the concentrations of other heavy metals are low.

     To identify the organics in the leacha-ce samples analyses of carbohydrates

and organic acius were run. The concentrations of proteins were calculated from

the concentrations of organic nitrogen. The results are giver, in table 2.

     Table 2 show3 that for the leachate sources with high concentrations of


Table  1.  j>g_Wgs.ther Analysis  of Leaehates From _ Norway

          and the  Pacific Northwest.
Parameter • — ^_^
C01. me 0/1
BOD tc+^i mg 0/1
TOr . mg C/l
Total 3 0£ »/i
tll^-Il nt, 11/1
KOj-Ii mg H/l
Oiganic if mg fl/1
Total P mij P/l
Suspended KO'-GE cg/1
Volatile » j.5
as the dn'ferancc be*.vise:, total R and KH,-S.


                                                                            g   g
                                                                    CM   -O  SO  rH  CO

                                                                             o   o   o  o  o   o
                                                                        "?   -S   d  -"S   o   "H
                                                                        .J   -<       (J   i-f   O
                                                                             S'J   u  s>   h   a)
                                                                             fl)   3       S

                                                                             U   O  •"   3

                                                                        '3   +J   Si  X
>   C

O   R-

organics, the organic acids naks up the largest fraction of the organics.

Acetic-, propionic - and "butyric acids are the most important. These contri-

buting up to 7J percent of the total organics. The characteristic bad odor

from leachate is due to the high concentration of butyric t-cids.


     For the leachate sources from Noiway, respiration tc-sts were used to provide

a preliminary orientation of their biodegradability and toxicity  effects. For

these tests, leachate at different dosages were added to samples of domesti"

sewage. The velimes added to each test flask were so that the additions of the

leacnates should contribute a prefixed amount of total organic carbon. The samples

were then run in oanometric BOD apparatus.

     The domestic sewage which was sampled after sedimentation, had the following


                         COD    =  120 mg/1
                         TOC    =   30 mg/1
                         Tot-II  =   16.8 mg N/l
                         Tot-P  =    !».5 wg P/l

     To compare  the respiration results of the different leacnate sources, figure

1 to figure 1+ are given. The curves are all drawn by means of the manome"cric HOD

values and vith  the domestic wastewater as reference. This is done by reducing

the respiration  values (BOD) of the samples added leachate by a factor:  TOC

domestic sewage/TOC for the actual sample added leachate.

     Figures 1 to U show how respiration rates are suppressed or  stimulated by

increasing amounts of leacnates.  For example, with leachates from landfills at

                                 O Grdnnio
                                 D Bronosdnlen
                                —: Reference Domestic wostewater
                           INCUBATION T!ME DAYS
Figure 1  Relative  respiration vs, incubation  time, TCC contribution
          from  ieacha'oes 15$-
                                   O Grormo
                                   O Branosdalen
                                   V Toronrod
                                   A Isi I
                                  — Reference Domestic wostewoter
         2    uo-
         P    120-
         E    100
         K I  6^


                         5        10       15        20
                           INCUBATION  TIME DAYS
 Figure 2  Relative respiration vs. incubation time, TOO contribution
           from leachates 303*.

                                O  Grdnmo
                                O  Pronosdolen
                                0  Yggcscth

Figure 3




100 -
" 80-
^ 60-

Vv lafojirua
a IslI
• — ~ Reference Domestic wastewater
-O^rt „.. „ 	

a XA'I^5tv"X^x^-1=Jit) ^J *~~
^>C^aaGtH^ 	 0
^o^o0i:! \^^ "o^-a^^^8 	 D
""^KitKr^0^ ^~*
^£t — — A-^**^

1 1 1 1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25
                         INCUBATION  TIME DAYS
Figure k  Relative respiration vs.  incubation time,  TOC contribution
          froE leachates 65%.

Yggeseth and Taranr^d contributing ^5 percent of -che TOG, the respiration rates

were stimulated. On the other hand, the SOD curves are significantly suppressed

when receiving leaohates fron the Gr^lnmo and Isi I landfills. The curves show

decreasing degradabilities of the leachate iu the following order:  Yggeseth,

Taranr^d, Branasdalen, Isi I and GrjzJnmo.  These results were confirmed 'ay later

experiments with biological treatment.


     The biological treaiability of the different leachate sources  war, studied

by the treatment methods given in table 3 following.
                                  Treatment Studies

Kent Highland


Type of
No of
5 Batch units
3 Continuous units
     For the activated sludge experiments, conducted at the leachate source from

Kent Highland, five 10 liter batch activated sludge units were used. The treatn-


bility of this leachate source was also studied in three continuous units with

aeration volumes of two liters.

     The activated sludge units treating the leachate from SrjzJnmo, brauasdalen

and Yggeseth consisted of six continuous activated sludge units, each with

aeration volumes of 39 liters.

     The aerated lagoons consisted of 200 liter plastic tanks filled to a

level corresponding to ito liters of leachate.

     The tjiodisc consisted of a half cylindrical trough of plexiglass, discs

of wood fixed to a steel axis and a slow-rotating motor. The 16 discs had a

total wetted area of 3.3 m .

     The trickling filter of the Floccor type had the dimensions 0.6'6.1-1.8 i.

vhich gave a filter volume of 650 liters. The filter was equipped with a recireu

latior. pump.


     Biological processes are only expected to give high removals of organics.

The results discussed in this paper thus will mainly be directed -co the

reductions of organics and oxidation of nitrogen compounds. Due to the toxicity

effects of leachate and the time aspect for BOD analyses, COD was selected as

the main parameter for organic matter.  Samples for TOG were also taken, but not

as frequently as the sampling for the COD analyses.

                        AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

     The program cf experimentation vas designed to determine the performance

of different aerobic treatment processes under the following conditions:

     1.   Operation at different organic loadings

     2.   Treatment of different leaohate sources with high and low
          concentrations of organics

     3.   Influence of pre-treatrient on the organic removal efficiencies
     Treatment by the activated sludge process gave the "best results, Therefore,

the main attention will be given TO the discussion of the result? fron these


     The experimental conditions for the activated sludge studies art: given

in table 1*. With the exception of test run No 4, the activated sludge studies

were performed in continuous ur.its.

            Table 1*.  Experimental Conditions, Activated Sludge

Test run









3k 38-3658

Days of


No of

Hansre 01"
kg MLVSS clay
     x  CCL  «s Chemically precipitated leachate
        RL   = Raw leachate
     Pretreatment of the raw leachate tefore biological treatment wc.s assumed

to have beneficial affects, mainly duo to removal of heavy metals. Therefore,

for two of the leachate sources chemically precipitation was performed before


feeding tha leachate to the activated sludge units.  In  test run  Ko  !*,  aluminium

sulphate, Al (SO, )   « 18 H^O, in dosages 200 ng/1,  was  used as coagulant.  Due

to the low pit, about 6.0, the 'removals of the heavy metals were  less than

50 percent.

     In test run No III and IV the lenchate was treated in an existing plant

for chemical precipitation. In this plant treating  leachate from Gr^nir.o sanitary

landfill, the iron  content in the leachate, roughly 50  mg/1, is  used as coagulant.

When the pH is increased to about 8.0 with sodium hydroxide, efficient coagulation

and precipitation occur. The removal of iron was normally higher than  95 percent.

The other heavy metals normally occur in concentrations lower than  C.I mg/1,  so

the removals of these were not as high as for iron.

     A disadvantage with the pretreatment of the leaehate is the removal of

phosphorus. This increases the BOD:P ratio so that  phosphorus could limit  ths-

degradation processes. The raw leachates, shown in  table I, all  have low concen-

trations of phosphorus. Thus the BOD:P ratio is considerably hicher than 100:1

vhich is assumed to be the ratio where phosphorus are limiting to growth.  This

problem will be discussed later.

                              ORGANIC REMOVALS

Leachate Source Kent Highland

     The experimental results of Lreating leachate  from Kent Highland  ure  shown

in figure 5. The filled and open signs are results  obtained by treating precipi-

tated ar.d raw leachate respectively. The results from test run Ho k shov that

the plants treating rav and chemically precipitated le&chate at  tre oame- loading,

gave the same COD removal efficiencies. At organic  loading less  than 0.1* ks

COD/kg MLVS3 day, tha COD concentrations of the raw respectively chemirally

^ 100-

Lu  80~

o  60-
<->  40-
                          1 Test run no 4

                           Test run no 5
 0      0.2      (U

O.G     0.8

   kg COD
                          kg MLVSS day

Figure 5,  COD removal vs. organic loading, Kent Highland.
0 40-
i —
0 0-
~ o— - Test run
— V — Test run
van,.i__^7 — *~~ ^est run
G"v&<— ^V, — 7 — Jest run
• e ^S7
7 ^^^

f*. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
a- kq COD
noriAMir i n A ri i M r; =*



                          kg MLVSS doy

   Figure 6  COD removal vs. organic loading, Gr^nmo.



0 0.2 0.4 0.6
rvPr.AMir ir\AniMr. 	 ..„. " -Vlr.- 	 	
Figure 7  COD removal vs. organic loading, Bran&sdaler.,
 > 100-
 "  80-
 0  40H
 UJ  20-
 ce  (
 ID  l
 0.2     0.4


                     kg MLVSS day
Figure 8. COD removal vs. organic loading, Yggeseth.


precipitated leaehate were effectively reduced from 3658 and 3^*58 mg/I to

values of about 100-150 itg/1. This corresponds to COD removals of about

96 percent. Some BOD measurements were also performed. At low loading the

effluent BOD values were about 10-20 rng/1, corresponding to 99 percent BOD


     At higher loadings than about Q.k kg COD/kg MLVSS the orgunic removal

efficiencies began to fall spyerly.  When overloading occurred, analyses of the

effluent showed very high concentrations of organic acids.  These  acids

reflected little or no degradation of the influent organic  acid during treatment,

Leachate source Gr0nrpo

     Activated sludge treatment of leachate from the Gr^nrco sanitary  landfill

was investigated in four test runs.  In two of these, treatment of chemically

precipitated leachate was studied. Thes results,  given in figure  6, show very

lov COD removal efficiencies. Organic loadings as low as 0.03 kg  COD/kg MLVSS

day did not give higher efficiencies than about 35 percent.  Many  of the samples

analyzed for TOC also gave the same removal efficiencies.  The somewhat different

results from tha different test rons were related to the influent COD. The

results showed that the organics expressed as COD could be  removed to a threshold

value of about £50-300 mg/1.  Therefore, the test  series with low  strength

leachate gave lorfer organic removal efficiencies.

     The 303 removal efficiencies at low organic  loadings were normally higher

than 90$. Thus a very high fraction of the organics in the  treaced effluent

was inert to biological degradation.

     In test run Mo III, where chemically coagulated leachate was treated, one

of the activated sludge plants was given daily phoshorus additions to provide

BOD:P ratios of about 50:1. The other plants, without phosphorus  additions,

operated with BOE:P ratios in the range of (1000-2000):!.  The plant witn

phosphorus additions which operated at an organic loading of 0.1 kg COD/kg

MLVSS day, gave no higher treatment performance than the other plants. Non  of

the results obtained in this test run or in test run No k (Kent Highland)

indicated that phospliorus was a limiting nutrient.

     Dae to the very low COD removals, the curve in figure 6 does not have a

sharp decrease to denote the critical organic loading. The  results, however,

indicate that no higher organic loading than 0-3 kg COD/kg MLVSS day should be

applied in treatment of this leacbate. The few effluent BOD analyses perforinad

confirmed this.

Leachate source Bra.nasda.len and Yggeaeth

     1'he results of treating raw leachate from Branasdalen and Yggeseth sanitary

landfills are shown in figure 7 and figure 8.

     Treatment of the leachate source from Yggeseth showed very high COD removaJ

at low organic loadings. Thus at organic loadings lower than about 0.2 kg

COD/kg MLVS§ day the COD values were reduced from 9^25 mg/1 to values of about

150-200 Eife/l- Ihis corresponds to the COD removal efficiences of about So percent.

Corresponding samples analyzed for TOG gave nearly indentical removal efficiencies.

     The results indicated a relatively sharp decrease in the organic removal

efficiencies at organic loadings higher than about 0.3 kg COD/kg MLVSS day.

     For the leachate source from the Branlsdalen sanitary landfill the results

showed relatively high COD removals for oragnic loadings lower than about 0.3 kg

COD/kg MLVSS day. Ilia COD values were then reduced from an average influent

value of 1260 to values of about 200-250 mg/1. This corresponds to COD removal

efficiencies of about 82 percent. Good agreement was obtained between organic

removal efficiencies based on COD and TOC.


                             NITF.OGEK COMPOUNDS

     All the investigated leachate sources had high contents of nitrogen

compounds. These are mainly present in the for:a of ammonia. Under aerobic

conditions a gradual oxidation of airaioaia to nitrites and nitrates occurs.

For a ccnplete oxidation of 100 rag NH,--N/1 the stoiohometric calculations

show an oxygen ds.iand of h^J jsg 0/1.  According to this, the oxidation of

the wmnor.ia compounds in the lot; strength leachates in table 1 may correspond

to a biologjcsj oxygon demand higher than the chemical oxygen denp.r.d. This is

possible because oxidation of ammonia compounds does not take place in the

method used for determination of COD. To reduce the oxygen demand in treated

water, it is therefore important to apply sufficient low organic loading ',o

secure a hi^h degree of nitrification.

     In figure 9 the degree of nitrification for treating leachate from 3rjz(n:iio

is plotted as a function of the organic loading. The experiment gave no diffe-

rence in the degree of nitrification for treatment of raw nor chemically treated

leachate. If the leachate had contained higher concentrations of heavy metals, a

difference in the shape of the nitrification curve would have been expected.

Among the organisms normally present in activated sludge, the nitrification

bacteria is one of the species most sensitive to heavy metal toy.ici~:y. "'h^refore,

at higher concentrations of heavy metals, the nitrification processes are


     At higher organic loadings thac about 0.3-0.1+ kg COD/kg MLVSS day, the

degree of nitrification falls sharply.  The maximum obtainable degree of nitrifi-

cation seems to be about 75 percent.  Thus, about 25 percent of the nitrogen

compounds are not biologically degradable.


                     LEACHATE  SOURCE : GRONMO
                      -o— Nitrification T r II
                      -•—Nitrification T r !Y
                       »   Effluent T r II
                       »   Effluent T r  IV           Total
                           Influent T r  II-l02mgN/l  nitrogen
                           Influent T r  !V.l28rng N/l
< 80-
t 60-
5 40-
5 20-
K °-
» » * ,

— {?--*»- o- — o-«
~T T —I 	 1 	 1 	


iu D 02 04 06 06 10
r\or-_ ..mr* i n* niiir- 9

                                           kg MLVSS day

  Figure 9. Nitrification end removal  Of  nitrogen vs.  organic loading, Grpmao.
     Figure 9 also shows the concentration of total nitrogen  in the influent and

effluent. For "both test runs no significant reduction  of  total  nitrogen took


     For treatment of the leachate source from Brauasdalen, the nitrification

processes, drawn in figure 10, show the same form and  degree  of nitrification

as the leachate source from Grjzfnmo. At low organic loadings the removal of total

nitrogen was atout 30 percent.

     In the treatment of leachate from Yggeseth the degradation of the nitrogen

compounds appeared quite differently than for the leachate sources from

Bran&sdalen and Gr^imo. Figure 11 shows very high removal efficiencies i'or


                            Influent j Total
                            Effluentj nitrogen
o 100-
0 80-
o; 60-
Z 40-
5 20-
fv r*
UJ °.
— — — v— - — ^\"
-250 Z
-200 E
-.50 UJ
-100 K
•50 *
0 <
n i r\ L n K *-'
                   ORGANIC LOADING
                                       kg COD
                                    kg MLVSS day
Figure 10. Nitrification and removal  of nitrogen vs. organic loading,
                            Influent j Tc,,ol
                            Effluent ( nitrogen
                 if 100-
                 o 80-
                 .   0     02

kg COS
                                              250 z
                                              200 E



                                    kg MLVSS day
Figure 11. Sitrificfttion aad renoval of nitrogen vs.  organic  loading,

total nitrogen. Thus at organic loadings lower than about 0.2, the removal

of total nitrogen was higher than 80 percent. The degree of nitrification,

however, appeared to be lower than for treating leachate from Gr^rimo and

Br&nasdalen. This was caused by the very low concentrations of nitrogen in the

treated effluent and because the remaining nitrogen compounds showed high

degree of resistance to nitrification.

     The treatment of leachate from Branasdalen and Yggeoeth were treated in

parallel units. So avoid vigorous recirculation of sludge from the settling

chambers, the recirculation pumps were timer operated with an interval of 1

hour between each retirculation and with a pumping time of three minutes.

Therefore, very little replacement and oxygen supply took place in the settling

chambers. For the leachate from Yggeseth this provided efficient denitrification.

The difference in the nitrogen removal efficiency between the two leachate

sources may be attributed to the differnece in the biodegradability of the two

leachate sources. Thus, the carbon source in the treated effluent from the

leachate source Yggeseth is obviously more readily available for the denitrifi-

eation processes.


     In all the treatment studies the settleability of the activated sludge was

good at all organic loadings.  For instance, the sludge volume index was very

seldom higher than 100. Among the factors contributing to the good settleability

are probably the high concentrations of iron in the leachates.  The general

improvement of the se^tleability caused by iron has been studied by Pfeffer (1967)

and Carter et al. (1973).

     Heufeld et al. (1973) also discussed the improved settleability caused


by iron. Bat they also indicated that e. deflocaulation may occur, and that

this increases in severity with increasing metal concentrations.  This agrees

very well with the results found in this study.  The activated sludge settled

very fast, but the supernatant contained relatively high concentrations of

suspended solids. This was especially a problem in treating leachate from the

Grjzinmo sanitery landfill.  For this leachate source the deflocculat ion was so

severe that the loss of cells in the effluent was about the sain=  as the growth.

Thus, no sludge wss withdrawn as excess sludge in spite of more than 80 days

of operation. Another factor contributing to lack of sludge production was the

.low fraction of the organics in the leachate available for nicrobial grovth.

Hence the actual food to organic ratio given for the leachate source from Gr^naio

is much lower than the given organic loadings.

     In treating the leachate sources from Kent  Highland,  Brniiiisdalcn and
Yggeseuh, the deflocculation of the activated sludge vas not sc severe as for
treatment, of leachate from Gr^nmo. Especially the treatment of the- leachate
sources from Kent Highland and Yggeseth gave effluents with low concentrations

of suspended solids. In these two leachate sources the concentrations of iron

was low compared to the concentrations of organics.

     The sludge production as a function of organic  loadings for  the examined

leachate sources is given  i figure 1?.


     Treatment of leachate by the above mentioned treatment processes did not

give as promising results  as did treatment by the activated sludge prpcess.
Therefore, the results obtained by those different treatment processes will be

only briefly described.


u "
O 01
Q •*

Leachate source
o Kent Highland
v Yggeseth
• Branasdalen
0 nA
0 Ufc-

01 02 03 06 05 05
kg MLVSS • day
                  Figure 12. Sludge production vs. organic loading.
     Raw 3.eaohate from Grftamo sanitary landfill was treated in aerated lagoons
with detention tines of 10 and 35 days. The influent COE was on the a"eraire
reduced from ^29 ng/1 to values of 311 and 28? mg/1 for the 10 and 35 day
detention times respectively. This corresponded to COD removals of ?1,^ and
32.7 percent. Tho average degrees of nitrification at the 10 and 35 day dent,ion
times were 39-7 and 77.5 percent respectively. Compared to treatment ty the
activated sludge process the aerated lagoon at a 35 day detention time gave a
slightly lower organic removal efficiency than the activated sludge process
operating at organic loadings lower than about 0.3 kg COD/kg ML7SS day. The
aerated lagoons, however, gave an effluent with considerably lower concentration:
of suspended solids than the activated sludge process.
     Chemically precipitated leachate froa Grfzinmo sanitary landfill was treated
in a plastic media trickling filter. The organic loading applied vas about

0.9 kg COD/m  day which is a value frequently used in treating domest-.c waste-

water. During the 90 days of operation no attached growth on the filter media

was observed. The analyses of the treated effluent also showed that no organic

removal efficiency had occurred.

     The sam? precipitated leachate as used in the trickling filter study was

also treated by e. rotating biodisc. To initiate attached raicroba] growth, the

biodisc was first used to treat municipal sevage. After three weeks of operation

che.nieally coagulated leachate from Gr^nmo was used as ths feed al ar, organic
leading of 6.2 g COD/m  day. In spite of this low loading the average- COD

removal efficiency in a 110 day period was not higher than 15-9 percent. The

average nitrification in th« same period was 21.U percent. The activated sludge

process treating the identical leachnte gave av an organic loading o:.' O.P-0.3 kg

COD/kg MLVSS day, a COD removal efficiency of ibout 35 percent and a nitrifi-

cation of aboat 75 percent.

     The rotating biodisc was also used for treatment of leachate from
Branasdalen. The organic loading was then as low as 1.8 g COD/m  day. 1'ne

average COD removal ootained was U7.1 percent and with no degree of nitrifi-

cation. A parallel study with the activated sludge process opera/ting at the

sane temperature and organic loading O.l6 kg COD/kg MLVSS day, gave an average

removal of 60 percent and a degree of nitrification of 7't percent.

1.   The composition of the eight leachate soirees investigated exhibited
     a significant range of values.

2.   In the high strength leachates organic a^ids contributed up to PO percent
     of the total organics.

3.   High concentrations of nitrogen compounds, mainly as ammonia, prevailed
     in all the leachate sources.


U.   Of the heavy metals iron was found in high concentrations  in all  the
     leachate sources. Hextto iron, zinc had the highest concentrations.
     For Cr, Hi, Cu, Cd and Fp the concentrations were very low.

5.   Bespiratdon tests for the different leachate sources showed  a significant
     difference in the treatability and biodegradability.

6.   The results of the respiration tests to study the treatatility and
     biodegradabiiity of the different leachates coincided very welj  with  the
     results froci the treatment studies obtained by the activated sladge process.

7.   Of the aerobic biological treatment systems examined, the  activated  blud^o
     process gave the most promising results.

8.   The results of the treatment studies showed big differences  in the organic
     removal efficiencies of the different, leachate sources. The  rair.oval
     efficiencies increased significantly with increasing conccntr-allo'is  of
     organics in the influent.

9.   No difference in the treatment efficiencies was founc in treating chraically
     precipitated or raw leacahte.

10.  In spite of very low phosphorus concentrations in the raw  leachate phosphorus
     was not found to limit biodegration.

11.  At sufficient low organic loadings the degree of nitrification was about
     75 percent.

12.  For the leachate sources highest in organics, denitrification in the
     settling chamber caused a nitrogen removal higher than 90  percent. The
     organic loading was then below 0.2 kg CODAg MLVSS day. For  the other
     leachate sources investigated the nitrogen reiaoval was low.

13-  Treatment of the leachates low in organics resulted in def]occupation of
     the activated sludge. This was probably caused by high iron  cortents  'n
     the leachates.

lU.  Good settleability of the activated sludge was observed in all the treatment

15-  Treatment by rotating biodisc and trickling filter both gave low organic
     removals and lov degree of nitrification.

16.  Treatment by aerated lagoons at sufficient detention times gavt slightly
     lower organic removals than corresponding activated sludge treatment.


Boyle, W. C. and Ham, H.  K.,  "Treatment  of Leach&te from Sanitary Landfills1',
Presented at 27th Annual  Purdue  Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette,
Indiana, May 3, 197^.

Heufeld, R. D. and Hermann, E, R.,  "Effects of Iron on Activated Sludge Treatment"
ASCL, No 12, 966-968, ( Dec.  1973).

Chian, F. S. K. and DeWalle,  F.  B.,  "Characterization and Treatment of
Leachetes generated from  Landfill?",  Presorted at the 76th Ifetioiial Meeting
AIChE, Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 10-13,  197i»-

Faroe, E. 0. and Reid, V. M,  "Anaerobic  Biological Stabilization cf Sanitary
Landfill. Lea'_-h?te", Technical Report, University of Kentucky, TP. 65-'?3-C?-17,
January, 1973.

Force, 3. C-. and Cook, E. K., "Aerobic Biologicr.1 Stabilization of Sanitary
Landfill Leasha-te", Technical Heport, University of Kentucky, TR 53-7;;'-CE21,
Septer'ber. 1972.

Pun^arcli, A. A., "Pollution of Subsurface Water by Sanitary Landfill", Fir.a]
Kepoil VSPH3 Grant No 5-R03-VI00516,  PP-  132,  1970.

Klotter, H. E. and Hantge, E., "Abfallbeseitigu'ig und Crundwas^erscbulti",
Mull ur.d Abfal.1 3: 1-8, 1968.

Kuoch, J., "Reinigung von ^5ullsickerwasser mit beluffeten Teicher:", Hull und
Abfall k: 123-133, 1972.

Knock, J. and Slegmann, R., "Versuche zur Reirdgung von Mullsickerwasser",
Mull und Abfc.ll 3: 3.60-66, 1971-

Qasim. S. R.  and Burchinal, J. C., "Leaching fron Simulated Landfills",
JVffCF, '