LAND DISPOSAL RESEARCH NEEDS
A FORWARD ORIENTED REVIEW
by
Raymond C. Loehr
David E. Daniel
David R. Ramsey
Civil Engineering Department
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712
Cooperative Agreement No. CR-815538
Project Officer
Robert E. Landreth
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
NOTICE
Agency
The information in this document has been funded whol y
by the United States Environmental Protection
Cooperative Agreement CR-815538 to The University of Texas
It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative
and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document
of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
or recommendation for use.
review,
Mention
endorsement
or in part
under
at Austin.
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products
and practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if
improperly dealt with, can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance
between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.
These laws direct the EPA to perform research to define our environmental problems,
measure the impacts, and search for solutions. ,
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible \ for planning,
implementing, and managing research, development, and demonstration programs to
provide an authoritative, defensible 'engineering basis in support of the policies,
programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water, wastewater,
pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes, and Superfund-related
activities. This publication is one of the products of that research and provides a vital
communication link between the researcher and the user community. ;
This document summarizes the land disposal research activities that have been
supported by the EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, evaluates the
effectiveness and impact of such research, and identifies important questions that
remain to be answered by results from additional land disposal research. This
evaluation focused on the use of landfills, surface impoundments and waste piles for
disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
-------
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been a leader in evalu-
ating and developing land disposal methods that will protect human Health and the
environment and in providing technical guidance to regulatory agency personnel,
practicing engineers, and the public on these issues. This review focused on the use
of landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles for disposal of hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes. The objectives were to: i
(a) summarize the research activities that have been supported by the
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) on these land
disposal methods to identify what has been done, the resources
used, and the information transmitted;
(b) evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the land disposal research
that has been done in terms of the extent to which the research
results have improved these disposal options, provided improved
protection of the environment, and reduced long-term costs jassoci-
ated with management of solid waste; and '<
(c) identify the important questions still unanswered and the existing
needs that may be met by results from additional land disposal
research.
The evaluation indicated that there continues to be a need for a strong land
disposal research program in EPA. The major components of an EPA core land
disposal research program should be: waste characterization, land dijsposal facility
performance, risk evaluation and risk reduction options, cost evaluations, and
technology transfer.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE ! jj
i
FOREWORD ! jjj
i
ABSTRACT. ; iv
FIGURES I.... *. Vji
TABLES.. [ jx
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i xi
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ! 1
Scope of Study j "." -\
Objectives i "."] 2
Intent \ " 2
Approach '."'.""".'.'."."'.".".".'.!".'.'.!".!*.!!'.!!!!J!!!!!!."!!.'." 2
SECTION 2. CONCLUSIONS ! 5
SECTION 3. HISTORICAL SUMMARY i 9
Background i 9
Legislative and Regulatory i 9
Research Direction and Products i 12
LDRP Staff Activities [ ."' 13
SECTION 4. IMPACT OF EPA LAND DISPOSAL RESEARCH.. 15
Impact on Users 15
Publications !...!""l!""!"!!! 16
Technology Transfer L."...'.." 16
Impact on Regulations '•.....'..".".". 17
RREL-LDRP Research Contributions ,.........." 1 8
Summary i 20
-------
SECTION 5. CURRENT SITUATION ., L 21
Introduction ; 21
Toxic Chemicals ; 21
Non-Hazardous and Hazardous Solid Waste Characteristics ; 22
Municipal Solid Waste 1 24
Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste '. 30
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Sludge ] 30
Municipal Waste Combustion Ash 31
Construction and Demolition Waste 31
Hazardous Household Waste 32
Small Quantity Generator Waste 32
Hazardous Waste 32
Landfill Performance 34
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) Characteristics : 35
Leachate Characteristics : 38
Landfill Gas 45
Performance 45
Subtitle D Solid Waste Disposal Requirements ! 49
Costs 57
SECTION 6. RESPONSIBILITY FOR LAND DISPOSAL
RESEARCH : 62
SECTION 7. LAND DISPOSAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ;
DIRECTIONS 64
Program Need „ , 64
Program Content 66
SECTION 8. REFERENCES j 79
APPENDIX A LIST OF REPORTS BY RREL AND AVAILABLE !
THROUGH NTIS ON LAND DISPOSAL OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ....• 84
APPENDIX B LIST OF REPORTS BY PREL AND AVAILABLE !
THROUGH NTIS ON LAND DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE 91
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Annual Funding for Land Disposal Research at RREL 11
2 Research Reports on Land Disposal Produced by RREL
and Distributed through the National Technical Information ;
Service (NTIS) ; 14
3 Per Capita Generation Rates for Selected Countries ; 25
4 Gross Discards, Recovery, and Net Discards of Municipal !
Solid Waste in the United States from 1960 to 2000 i
in Terms of Total Discard '• 26
5 Gross Discards, Recovery, and Net Discards of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States from 1960 to 2000 on a '.
Per Capita Basis 26
6 Estimated Materials Discarded into the Municipal Solid :
Waste Stream in the United States for 1990 ; 27
7 Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States
from 1960 to 2000 27
8 Physical Characteristics of RCRA Hazardous Waste i. 33
9 Age Distribution of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Establishments (Number of Units) in 1986 37
10 Trends in .Solid Waste Management in the State of Texas
from 1940 to 2000 59
11 Pollution Abatement Capital Expenditure Costs for
Manufacturing Establishments from 1978 to 1986 60
12 Pollution Abatement Gross Operating Costs for
Manufacturing Establishments from 1978 to 1986 60
13 Pollution Abatement Costs for Manufacturing
Establishments for Hazardous and Non-Hazardous
Wastes from 1978 to 1986 , 61
VII
-------
Number ! Page
14 Allocated Federal Research and Development Aid to
States and Local Governments as a Percentage of the Total
Grants-in-Aid from 1973 to 1986 • 61
15 Major Components of a National U.S. EPA Land Disposal \
Research Program 68
16 Appropriate Waste Characterization Research Activities • 69
[
17 Appropriate Land Disposal Facility Performance Research |
Activities ^...: 72
18 Appropriate Risk Evaluation and Risk Reduction Research
Activities 74
19 Appropriate Cost Evaluation Research Activities 77
20 Appropriate Land Disposal Technology Transfer Activities..; 78
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
C i Page
1 RREL Land DisposalProject Planned for Fiscal Year 1990 13
2 References Cited for Technical Support of the EPA Minimum;
Technology Guidance Document i 18
3 Amount of Toxic Chemicals Released by Industry in the I
United States in 1987 i 22
4 Characteristics of Subtitle D Waste from 1978 to 1986 { 24
5 Municipal Waste Composition from 1960to2000 >. 28
6 Comparison of Selected Municipal Solid Waste :
Characterization Results as a Percentage of Total Discard 28
7 Waste Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Establishments.! 29
8 Estimated Generation of Industrial Hazardous Waste by :
Industry Type in 1983 33
9 Disposal Options for the Quantity of Hazardous Waste i
Managed in 1983 : 34
10 Characteristics of Subtitle D Facilities from 1978 to 1986 1 35
11 Numbers of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) :
with Selected Design and Operating Characteristics 1 36
12 Number of Planned Municipal Solid Waste Units by I
Type of Liner 37
13 Number of Active and Planned Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills by Type of Leachate Management Practice : 38
14 Number of Active and Planned Municipal Solid Waste !
Landfills by Cover Type I 38
15 Comparison of Municipal Solid Waste Leachate Data i
Between Recent and Previous Research ; 40
16 Comparison of Conventional and Inorganic Pollutants
Found in Leachate from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
and Hazardous Waste Sites .' 41
IX
-------
Number
17 Priority Pollutant Organics Detected in Municipal Solid
Waste Leachates
18 Priority Pollutant Organics Detected in Hazardous Solid
Waste Leachates.
42
44
19 Typical Composition of Gas from Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills , 45
20 Adverse Environmental Impact Resulting from 163 MSWLFs
Identified by the U.S. EPA as Having Adversely Affected ,
Human Health and the Environment j, 46
21 Adverse Offsite Environmental Impact Resulting from 71 i
MSWLFs Identified by the U.S. EPA as Having Adversely i
Affected Human Health and the Environment j 46
22 Aggregate Data of Environmental Contamination at :
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in 1984 : 47
23 Causes of Adverse Environmental Impacts at the 97 i
MSWLFs for Which Sufficient Operating Data Exist 47
24 Causes of Adverse Environmental Impacts at 44 MSWLFs
that Accepted Hazardous Waste Prior to RCRA 47
25 Type of Corrective Action Initiated at 163 MSWLFs Identified
by the U.S. EPA as Having Adversely Affected Human Health
and the Environment , • 43
26 Waste Management Systems for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Required Under State Statutes for Selected States in 1989 ' 54
27 Comparison of Waste Management Systems for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills and Subtitle C Regulations for i
Selected States in 1989 ; 55
28 Comparison of Waste Management Systems for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills and Subtitle C Regulations for
Selected States in 1989 56
29 Need for a Strong EPA Land Disposal Research Program '. 65
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The interest of the many individuals who provided valuable input and comments
are appreciated. Of particular note are the individuals in state agencies, private
practice, professional organizations, academia and in the program and research
offices of EPA who provided very useful insights about historical trends, use of
available information, costs, and continuing needs. |
i
We also appreciate the assistance and advice of the EPA-RREL project officer,
Mr. Robert E. Landreth, who had responsibility for the project throughout its duration.
The project was completed in May, 1990. i
XI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE OF STUDY j
To paraphrase what some have called a basic law of solid waste disposal,
everyone wants garbage, trash and other municipal and industrial wastes to be picked
up but no one wants the solid wastes to be put down, at least not near them. Yet
municipal and industrial solid wastes must be put down and managed and disposed of
in an economic and environmentally sound manner. The United States is moving
toward a materials management approach for solid wastes. This includes waste
reduction (pollution prevention) as a first step, followed by recycling, treatment and
disposal. This represents a logical approach from the standpoints of policy, science
and technology, pollution control and natural resource utilization. However, land
disposal always will remain a very important and needed disposal option in this
approach. :
There are only three ultimate disposal locations for the wastes and residues
produced by man: air, land and water. Although other waste management and
disposal options exist and will be used, land disposal has a continuing and inevitable
waste management role for the nation. A variety of wastes will continue to be land
disposed and the disposal methods used must be protective of human fjiealth and the
environment. Environmentally sound land disposal practices will continue to be
needed for municipal and commercial solid wastes; household hazardous wastes;
very small quantity generator hazardous wastes; residues resulting from the treatment
of hazardous wastes; high volume wastes such as fly ash, bottom ash, and mining
wastes; Superfund remediation wastes; incinerator residues; demolition wastes; and
contained wastes with no other technically feasible or economic disposal alternative.
i
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been a leader in: (a)
evaluating and developing land disposal methods that will protect human health and
the environment, and (b) providing technical guidance to regulatory agency personnel,
practicing engineers and the public on these issues. This evaluation was undertaken
to summarize the land disposal research that has been done by EPA and the needs
that may still exist. ;
-------
This evaluation focused on the use of landfills, surface impoundments and
waste piles for disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. These disposal
options are used at the largest number of land disposal sites in the!United States.
Excluded from this review are other land disposal methods such as land treatment,
deep well injection, underground storage tanks, and waste storage in mines.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this evaluation were to: '
a) Summarize the research activities that have been supported by the
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) on th|e noted
land disposal methods. The summary was to identify: (1) what has
been accomplished, (2) the resources that were utilized, ancl (3) the
information that was transmitted.
b) Evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the land disposal research
that has been performed. Effectiveness was to be evaluated in terms
of the extent to which the research results have improved the noted
disposal options, provided improved protection of the environment,
and reduced long-term costs associated with management iof solid
waste.
c) Identify the important questions that are still unanswered and the
existing needs (if any) that may be met by results from additiohal land
disposal research.
The land disposal components that were to be evaluated included final covers,
liners, leachate collection and removal systems, leak detection systems, groundwater
monitoring, maintenance, corrective action, and closure and post-closure procedures.
Relevant aspects of construction quality assurance and operations also were within
the scope of this evaluation. i
i
INTENT
The intent of this evaluation is to provide an analysis that will be helpful to: (a)
EFV\ Office of Research and Development as it develops research plans, (b) the EPA
program offices (Office of Solid Waste and Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response) as guidelines and regulations are developed, (c) Congress as it considers
resources and legislation to assure protection of the environment, (d) practitioners who
need design information about construction, operation, and closure of land disposal
facilities, and (e) researchers who desire advice on the needs to which they can
contribute. i
AF'PROACH ;
To obtain pertinent information for this evaluation, individuals who have been
and continue to be active in the use of land disposal options and in research related to
these options were contacted. Personal and telephone interviews, careful review of
-------
research reports and available peer reviews of the RREL land disposal research
program, and written comments from those contacted were the means by which
information was obtained for this evaluation. The knowledge and experience of the
authors of this evaluation also were included as part of the information obtained and
synthesized. ;
i
The information was obtained from individuals in: (a) EPA (JGincinnati and
Washington) who were familiar with the EPA land disposal research efforts, (b)
organizations that have conducted land disposal research (Corps of Engineers,
universities, and consulting firms), and (c) the user community (EPA Regional Offices,
state regulatory agencies, consultants, and firms operating land disposal facilities).
The following indicates the type of contacts that were made and the types of
knowledge and information that were acquired: ,
RREL. Cincinnati - Discussions were held with individuals who have been
involved with the EPA land disposal research activities to:
a) identify factors that have provided the focus of these activities,
b) obtain details about the resources devoted to such research in the
past 10 years,
c) review research reports, technical resource documents and related
research outputs to identify specific achievements,
d) identify currently funded research and plans for future research,
e) determine how and to whom the research results have been
transmitted, and the perceived needs of the practical and regulatory
"user" community, and ;
f) review five-year plans and peer reviews of the Land disposal
Research Program such as the 1987 EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB) review and the periodic ORD program reviews.
EPA. Washington - Several offices were visited and discussions held with
knowledgeable individuals. The offices included the Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology Demonstration (OEETD), Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR). The types |of information
elicited included:
a) knowledge of the land disposal research that has been performed by
11 /\,
b) use of the RREL research results by the EPA program offices,
c) questions and concerns that may need to be addressed by additional
research, and <
-------
I
d) type of research that is still needed, the resources required for such
research, and what organization should do the research. :
User Community - A number of the organizations who make use of the results
from the RREL land disposal research program (user community) vyere contacted
and/or visited. These included state regulatory agencies, consulting firms, operators of
land disposal facilities and several professional organizations. Individuals in the
organizations were asked to provide information about: i
a) their knowledge of the land disposal research that has been per-
formed by EPA and their use of the research results, j
b) questions and concerns that still need to be addressed, i
c) type of research that should be conducted, the resources needed for
such research, and the organizations or locations for such research,
and
d) interest in and possibilities for joint involvement with EPA in research
projects and the likelihood of independently sponsored researjch.
Specifically, these individuals were asked to comment on the following: How
useful has the past research been? Has the research led to important technological
advances or has the research been of secondary importance? If the; research has
been important, what have been the most significant accomplishments? If the
research has not been particularly useful, why not? Are most of 'the important
problems solved, or are there still important technological challenges to^be overcome,
either in hazardous or nonhazardous waste disposal? If the need for research is high,
why do you believe this is so? If the need is low, is this because sthe important
problems are largely solved or because RREL cannot solve them? What problems
concerning land disposal of waste most urgently need study? What practical
suggestions can be made to make the research more useful? i
Research Community - Individuals who have conducted land disposal research
with and without EPA support also were contacted. Information was obtained about:
a) their perceived use of the EPA research results, and
b) the type of additional research that is needed and the logic for such
research.
The material included in the subsequent sections of this report and the
conclusions and recommendations resulted from the information acquired by the
above approach. ;
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The objectives of this evaluation were to: !
a) Summarize the research activities that have been supported by
the EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREjL) on
specific land disposal methods. The summary was to identify: (1)
what has been accomplished, (2) the resources that were utilized,
and (3) the information that was transmitted. i
b) Evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the land disposal
research that has been performed. Effectiveness was !to be
evaluated in terms of the extent to which the research results have
improved the noted disposal options, provided improved
protection of the environment, and reduced long-term !costs
associated with management of solid waste.
c) Identify the important questions that are still unanswered and the
existing needs (if any) that may be met by results from additional
land disposal research.
The evaluation focused on the use of landfills, surface impoundments and
waste piles for disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The I land disposal
components evaluated included final covers, liners, leachate collection and removal
systems, leak detection systems, groundwater monitoring, maintenance, corrective
action, and closure and post-closure procedures. I
The evaluation was conducted by obtaining information from individuals who
have been and continue to be active in the use of land disposal options and in
research related to these options. Personal and telephone interviews, careful review
of research reports and available peer reviews of the RREL land disposal research
program, and written comments from those contacted were the means by which
information was obtained for this evaluation. The knowledge and experience of the
authors of this evaluation also were included as part of the information ^obtained and
synthesized. ;
-------
The conclusions of the evaluation were: :
1. The existence of the RREL land disposal research program
(LDRP) has made a positive difference in assuring use of land
disposal methods that are protective of human health and the
environment. The LDRP has had an important impact upon
regulations (state and federal), technology employed in landfills
(double liner systems employing flexible membranes and soil, in
conjunction with leachate collection systems), and people
responsible for design, construction, and regulation of landfills
(mainly through education and the data base generated from the
research). Importantly, the RREL-sponsored research has been
independent, has been of sufficient quality to make the
conclusions credible, and has provided an enduring and reliable
base of information. \
2. The shift of federal support away from land disposal research and
development appears to parallel stricter regulatory requirements.
This seems to imply that the regulatory requirements will take care
of any existing problems and that further research and
development related to solid waste disposal is not needed.
However, in the face of the increasing volume of non-hazardous
and hazardous wastes that are being generated, the tjapidly
increasing disposal costs of such wastes, and the impact jof the
regulations and costs on the public, such an assumption is very
fragile. Based on these three facts - increased volume, costs and
impact - a case can be made for more rather than less solid1 waste
research and development.
3. Solid wastes are the by-product of society and therefore1 are a
societal and governmental responsibility. EPA is the federal
governmental agency given the responsibility to protect human
health and the environment posed by wastes, residues and
contaminants. Although the nation is moving toward a maferials-
and waste management approach that emphasizes preventing
waste generation, recycling, and treatment of wastes, land
disposal always will remain a very important and needed waste
management option. ;
4. It cannot be expected that the private sector will assume
responsibility for the land disposal research and development
needed to assure protection of human health and the environ-
ment. Land disposal options are a central need for the nation for
municipal and industrial wastes. Therefore, land disposal
research should be a core research area for EPA. The need for
economic and environmentally sound land disposal options .
continues to increase, not decrease. Thus to fulfill its
-------
responsibilities, it is imperative that EPA have a strong land
disposal research program and adequate resources for that
program. !
5. The need for a strong EPA land disposal research program is
based on the following facts:
a) Large volumes of municipal wastes, non-hazardous
wastes and treated hazardous wastes will continue to be
disposed of using land disposal options.
b) Land will continue to be a major disposal location for the
by-products of society.
c) The private sector is not likely to develop or share the
technical information needed by municipalities and
other public entities. '
d) Technical data developed by the private sector often are
questioned as being self-serving; EPA generated data
tend to be believed and to form the foundation for policy
and regulatory decisions. :
e) Better knowledge of the volume and characteristics o|f
land disposed material is needed for smarter and better
technical and regulatory decisions; the composition of
land-disposed waste is changing making older data less
valid. ;
f) Land disposal facility performance needs to be known to
determine whether the current improved contaminant
options and regulatory decisions are functioning as
envisioned. ;
g) Corrective action, retrofitting and closure options are
needed for many existing land disposal facilities. '
h) The extent to which risk to human health and the:
environment is reduced by improvements in contain-!
ment options, monitoring and regulatory decisions'
needs to be determined. '
i) Evaluations are needed to: (1) develop more cost effec-
tive land disposal options and (2) determine the
relationship between the cost of improved options and1
reductions in risk. 1
j) Technical information needs to be transferred to the user
community. ;
-------
6. The major components of a strong EPA land disposal research
program should include: I
- characterization of wastes '*•
\
- performance of land disposal facilities j
- risk evaluation and risk reduction options ,
- cost evaluations I
- technology transfer
7. Research activities that should receive highest priority are: ;
- characterize the solid wastes that will be land!
disposed when the current and proposed regulatory;
changes are implemented !
- determine performance of older and modern landfills I
- determine performance of hazardous waste land i
disposal facilities after the RCRA land disposal i
restrictions are fully implemented ;
- determine the actual risks to human health and the ;
environment from land disposal facilities to (
understand (a) the extent to which the changes to :
date have reduced risks and (b) whether further
technical and regulatory changes (and the ;
associated increase in costs) are needed.
- develop cost information that can identify (a) cost [
effective land disposal options, (b) the cost
effectiveness of the mandated technical and i
regulatory requirements, and (c) the costs of any '
subsequent changes that may be required. ;
- continue a technology transfer program that focuses !
on: (a) providing an understanding of the pertinent i
technical and scientific fundamentals, (b) the field
application of the available technical information, ;
and (c) summarizing the results of actual field scale :
land disposal options. ;
-------
SECTION 3
HISTORICAL SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Legislative and Regulatory :
Throughout its existence, the objective of the EPA land disppsal research
program (LDRP) has been to conduct research that will improve the technology for
containing hazardous and non-hazardous waste on or beneath the land' surface. The
intent of the research is to prevent the escape of pollutants from the| waste to the
surrounding land, air and water. The research provides EPA with |the database
necessary for the development of regulations and the guidance fqr the design,
construction, operation and closure of land disposal units such as landfills and surface
impoundments. ;
i
Land disposal has been a popular, economical, and convenient method of
waste management for decades and has been the mainstay of domestic solid waste
disposal. Federal involvement in the management of solid wastes increased with the
passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) in 1965. This Act recognized the
national scope of the municipal solid waste problem, but not the nature or scope of the
hazardous waste problem. SWDA provided for the initiation of a federal research
program and for federal funding assistance in state planning for solid waste disposal.
The current EPA land disposal research activities evolved from ithe program
established under SWDA. i
I
Initially, most of the research carried out under the SWDA was conducted
internally in EPA laboratories. The research was directed at improving the efficiency of
municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal methods, identifying waste components and
decomposition processes, developing analysis techniques, and identifying pathogenic
organisms residing in the MSW. Early projects on landfills included;physical and
chemical characterization of leachate, decomposition processes and products in,
landfills, treatment of leachate, gas recovery, composting, source reduction, and
related topics. i
SWDA was amended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. Several more
provisions were added, principally directed at recovery of materials and energy from
-------
solid waste. Research was authorized for resource recovery, reduction of waste
generation, and potential incentives toward these ends. The amendments of 1970
contained the first major recognition of the growing hazardous waste prpblem. During
this period, groundwater pollution from land disposal began to be recognized as
serious. Research increased in the area of solid waste incineration processes and
effects. Resource recovery tasks were undertaken to evaluate the recoyery of various
specific materials and improve disposal practices. In this period, a shift' occurred from
an in-house EPA research activity toward extramural research. ;
:
It was not until the enactment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) in 1976 that significant federal control was exercised in the municipal solid
waste (Subtitle D of RCRA) or the hazardous waste (Subtitle C) areas; By that time,
the municipal solid waste research program had become well-established and
continued to be the main focus of the research for another three years. Research
projects included leachate treatment, the development of leaching tests and other
analytical techniques, research toward accelerating waste decomposition, assessing
soil attenuation of leachate pollutants, and considering alternatives to landfilling. The
energy crisis at that time caused greater emphasis to be placed bn converting
municipal solid waste to fuel and burning it efficiently to recover the lenergy value.
Municipal solid waste research supported by EPA decreased in 1979 when a series of
RCRA regulations were promulgated dealing with resource recovery waste
incineration, and solid waste land disposal. j
Research was needed to produce a technical basis for the implementation of
the comprehensive hazardous waste control program called for in ;RCRA. This
research quickly overshadowed and replaced the municipal solid waste research
program. By 1980 nearly all of the EPA land disposal research dealt with hazardous
wastes. The major hazardous waste land disposal research efforts were related to the
requirements of RCRA which required EPA to promulgate regulations establishing
performance standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities.
The primary means of (temporarily) storing and (permanently): disposing of
hazardous waste was seen as containment using surface impoundments and landfills.
Many research needs arose because the restrictive containment riecessary for
hazardous wastes had never before been required. The land disposal research effort
at that time focused on the location, design and construction of hazardous waste
storage and disposal facilities. Pioneering research was conducted on flexible
membrane liners, soil liners, leachate collection and removal systems, and cover
systems for landfills. This strong effort continued until about 1985-86, when funding
pressures and the desire of Congress to avoid land disposal of hazardous waste (in
favor of treatment or destruction) caused a reduction in funding for such research
(Figure 1). |
Even with state-of-the-art containment designs and increasingly restrictive
regulatory requirements, a public uneasiness remained regarding land disposal. This
lack of confidence inspired Congress to enact the Hazardous and,Solid Waste
10
-------
Amendments (HSWA) in 1984 with its main premise that the land disposal of
hazardous waste was to be banned unless one or more methods could be shown to
HQ£? 'Ve JUman health and the environment. To minimize iland disposal
Avan^lpnCT°pUrra?o? wafRenm!"'mi25ion,. resource recovery, and Best' Demonstrated
Availab e Technology (BOAT) performance standards for hazardous waste land
u 2tc ™,ethods- .Bv sPecific dates. treatment to BOAT standards for all hazardous
hPf±SZ' rbe/HqUir^d t0 reduce the toxicity and mj9ration Poten*ia' of such waste!
th Jn L f!?, Td,ues can be land disP°sed- ^ is assumed that the residuals win
then be acceptable for land disposal in an approved hazardous waste disposal facimy
D)
C
Z3
4
3
2
0 ^
,; -*v -
K
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Year
FIGURE 1 Annual Funding for Land Disposal Research at RREL
nnn h Pasf a9eu °^ "SWA, the disposal of municipal solid waste! and of other
on M^aLd°HUS Wa?6S h,ad been relative'y ne9'ected and the EPA research program
on MSW and non-hazardous wastes had been dormant. HSWA required an analyst
SLSto SSlSSi^hSfS?"1^ f0rIh°Se fadlitieS that receive nazLous househyold
wastes and those that accept hazardous wastes from "small-quantity generators".
th , ic aPProaches nave been required by RCRA and applied in combattina
ot^Ms im^mJnt0^ *?? land dl'SP°SaI pr°blem' °ne is sour^ control and hi
has bepn thP n?S ?h conta'n+rPent technology. The latter, containment technology,
has been the pnmary theme of the most recent EPA land disposal research program.
11
-------
Such research has emphasized covers to exclude infiltration and control gas
emissions, liners to prevent liquid (leachate) escape, and systems to collect and
remove liquid and gas whose presence cannot be prevented. HSWA added a
requirement to control air emissions from land disposal facilities resultihg in research
on control of such emissions. !
The RREL-LDRP recognized that some land disposal methods will be needed
for both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Most of the present and past research
dealing with the problems of hazardous waste containment (RCRA Subtitle C) also is
applicable to non-hazardous waste land disposal (RCRA Subtitle D); There may,
however, be different designs and economic impacts when such research is applied to
non-hazardous waste land disposal options. |
The EPA land disposal research program has helped meet thp shifting and
diverse needs to develop and evaluate land disposal options that are protective of
human health and the environment. However, the changing research directions over
the years, in response to congressional mandates and required regulations, has
produced a dichotomy. The HSWA legislation considers land disposal as the least
favored method of hazardous waste management leading to a perception that further
research on land disposal options is not needed. At the same time, there are large
quantities of non-hazardous municipal and industrial wastes, and Superfund
remediation wastes that continue to require environmentally sound land disposal.
Research Direction and Products
The EPA land disposal research activities respond to the legitimate EPA
program office needs for information to support Congressional mandates and court
deadlines to develop required regulations. Changes in program office! requirements
over the years have resulted in redirections of the EPA land disposal research effort.
These activities have responded to EPA's short-term priorities, particularly those
priorities associated with promulgation of hazardous waste land disposal regulations
by the Office of Solid Waste. !
The EPA-LDRP staff work with the EPA program offices to identify research
needs, assist in establishing priorities and funding levels, solicit and review proposals,
coordinate and oversee research, monitor progress, arrange for peer review of
proposals and project reports, and help disseminate the research findings. The
decision about how much money to spend .on land disposal research is made by the
EPA Office of Research and Development, which must weigh the land disposal
research needs against other pressing needs for environmental research.
The LDRP is part of the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) located
in Cincinnati, Ohio. RREL is part of the EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD), headquartered in Washington, D.C. Funding for RREL's activities comes
mainly from the ORD budget, but may also come from program offices such as the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW). RREL, and the divisions and branches within RREL,
compete for limited research funds - as priorities shift, funding shifts. i
12
-------
By fiscal year 1989, funding for land disposal research had reached a level that
threatened the viability of the program. Funding for renewed MSW research in the last
three years has helped to stabilize research funding, but the future of land disposal
research at RREL is unclear. A summary of projects anticipated for FY 90 is listed in
Table 1. ;
i
!
TABLE 1 RREL LAND DISPOSAL PROJECTS PLANNED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990
Category Brief Title of Project i
Hazardous Waste Landfills - Chemical Compatibility of Geosynthetics
- Stress Cracking of HOPE LineriSeams
- Computer Program HELP i
- Temporal Changes in Soil Barriers
i
Municipal Solid Waste - Guidance Document for MSW j
- Behavior/Assimilation of Priority Pollutants
- Biological Clogging of Drainage1 Materials
- Field Scale Verification of MSW
- Bio/Photo Degradation of Plastics
- Barrier Equivalence of Liners &;Caps
- Composting '.
The EPA land disposal research has been performed primarily by universities,
the Army Corps of Engineers, non-profit research institutes, state and federal
agencies, and various private organizations. The RREL-LDRP staff has served as an
important link between the researchers and EPA program office needs. !
The primary product of EPA research is information that is disseminated through
reports and other means. The report production is summarized in Figure 2, which
shows the trend of decreasing emphasis on MSW and increasing i emphasis on
hazardous waste. Other outputs of RREL-sponsored research include presentations at
the annual research symposium in Cincinnati, presentations at a variety of other
technical meetings, and numerous publications in refereed journals. Greater details
on the publications and reports from the LDRP are presented in Section 4.
LDRP Staff Activities
In addition to assuring that sound research is undertaken and corrjpleted, and to
assuring the production of research reports, RREL-LDRP project officers serve as
technical consultants to various program offices in EPA, including the Superfund
program and the Office of Solid Waste, as well as to the EPA regional offices and state
regulatory agencies. The consultation may take the form of advice concerning
enforcement cases, input to the process of regulatory development, or comment on
proposed regulations. In addition, project officers provide guidance '(especially in
13
-------
pointing out and interpreting recent research findings) to engineers and scientists
involved in design of new facilities or remediation of older facilities^. The LDRP
technical expertise in the area of land disposal technology (as well as the subset
areas of liners, leachate quality, leachate collection systems, cover ^ystems, etc.)
represents an important EPA in-house capability and resource. i
~O
(D
O
o
ol
CO
-»—'
O
Q_
CD
rr
80
60
40
20
0
Haz. Waste
MSW
1973 to 77 1978 to 82 1983 to 87
5-Year Period
FIGURE 2 Research Reports on Land Disposal Produced by RREL and Distributed
through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
14
-------
SECTION 4
IMPACT OF EPA LAND DISPOSAL RESEARCH
IMPACT ON USERS \
The impact of the RREL-LDRP is difficult to quantify because one cannot
determine how land disposal practices might have differed had RRELinot conducted
its land disposal research. However, the interviews and discussions that provided
input to this evaluation indicated that the LDRP has made a difference and is
recognized as an important source of information as noted in Ithe following
paragraphs. ;
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response - The EPA Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is responsible for! promulgating
regulations concerning land disposal of solid waste. The use of the RREL land
disposal research program and of the research results varies among individuals within
OSWER. Those who have been in OSWER for many years have worked closely with
researchers from RREL, have used the research results extensively, and view the
RREL land disposal experts as an invaluable human resource that can be drawn upon
during the development and review of draft regulations and guidance documents.
Others in OSWER do not have a long-term working relationship with RREL
researchers, and the pressures of everyday duties at both RREL and OSWER have not
allowed adequate time to develop such interaction. Individuals contacted at OSWER
believed that RREL is best suited for long-term studies of scientific arid engineering
issues; short-term (< 6 months) requirements of OSWER are considered ito be best met
through use of contractors. 1
\
States - States with sophisticated requirements for solid waste ^disposal have
made extensive use of RREL research on land disposal of waste; some states with
minimal regulations have apparently made little use of RREL research.' Officials with
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) report that the
past EPA land disposal research has been "... extremely useful to the Division of Solid
Waste in assisting us in better understanding the technology of containment system
design." I
Regulated Community - The usefulness of RREL-sponsored research on land
disposal of waste has been uneven in the view of the representatives of the regulated
15
-------
community. On the positive side, the RREL research has been exceptionally useful in
defining requirements for flexible membrane liners and in providing a scientific data
base for all components of a liner or cover system. Some individuals from the
regulated community believe that the data generated from EPA-sponsored research is
the most credible data available; results from their own studies are often not given
nearly as much weight as the results of EPA-sponsored research. One consultant to
many owner/operators of land disposal units noted that, "EPA research data is the only
independent information available to landfill designers and operators," and that, "...
there would be a vacuum without it." On the other hand, the RREL-sponsored
research has not been as closely linked to regulations as some of;the regulated
community would like and has not always addressed what industry perceives to be the
most pressing problems. For example, some hazardous waste producers believe that
disposal requirements for hazardous waste should be linked to the best demonstrated
available technologies (BOAT) used for treatment, i.e., with more complete treatment of
a waste, less should be required for containment in the disposal unit, and vice-versa.
Researchers - The research community points to the work done 0n liners (both
soil and flexible membranes), leak detection systems, leachate collectioh and removal
systems, control of leachate and gas generated in landfills, development of laboratory
and field testing methods for components of liner and cover systems^ and work on
construction and construction quality control as the most important contributions of
RREL-sponsored research on land disposal of waste. The general impression is that
the work has been of good scientific quality and has been useful in building a sound
basis for the disposal technologies that exist today.
PUBLICATIONS
Technical reports represent a major product of RREL-sponsored research. The
research reports produced by RREL on land disposal of waste and available through
the National Technical Information Service are listed in Appendix A (non-hazardous
waste) and Appendix B (hazardous waste). ;
i
Individuals conducting land disposal research for RREL have prepared
numerous peer-reviewed and other publications. Each year, RREL1 sponsors an
annual research symposium that highlights findings from its research projects. The
papers are peer reviewed and published in the conference proceedings. Although a
compilation of refereed journal articles that has resulted from RREL research is
unavailable, the scientific information in the literature generated from EPA-sponsored
research on land disposal of waste is an important contribution to' the body of
knowledge in this area. ;
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER !
The transfer of technology from the RREL-LDRP occurs through: (a)
publications, (b) the RREL annual research symposium on treatment, destruction, and
disposal of wastes, (c) workshops and training seminars, and (d) direct communication
with RREL project officers. The attendance at the annual research symposium has
16
-------
been approximately 1,000 people in recent years. The symposium provides direct
transfer of technology through presentations, poster sessions, and preprints to papers,
as well as indirect exchanges among the many individuals from the1 EPA proqram
offices, RREL, academia, industry, and the scientific/engineering community "who
attend. i
In addition, a series of training seminars at 10 locations throughput the U.S. on
requirements for design, construction, and closure of hazardous waste disposal
facilities was held in 1988. The seminars each attracted 100 - 200 people, with
particularly strong attendance from state regulatory agencies that must enforce EPA
and state regulations. I
Direct communication with RREL project officers also is a significant mechanism
for dissemination of information. Project officers respond to numerous written and
telephone requests for information from regulatory officials, scientists/engineers, and
members of the public interested in or concerned about waste disposal. I
IMPACT ON REGULATIONS [
Two examples of the impact of RREL research on regulations carji be illustrated.
One is the EPA 1985 Minimum Technology Guidance (MTG) for hazardous waste
landfills, "Minimum Technology Guidance on Double Liner Systems for Landfills and
Surface Impoundments -- Design, Construction, and Operation,"(1i) which is the
technological "teeth" of landfill requirements for wastes regulated under Subtitle C of
RCRA. The second example is New York State's 6 NYCRR, Part 360, Solid Waste
Management Facilities^), which is the document describing regulations in New York
State for management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The New York State
regulations, which were promulgated in December, 1988, are the moststringent solid
waste regulations of any state and will probably serve as a guide for other states that
are in the process of revising their regulations for solid waste management.
MTG for Subtitle C Wastes - The MTG document*1) for double;-lined landfills
and impoundments requires a leachate collection system (for solid wastes), a primary
flexible membrane liner, a secondary leachate collection and removal system, and a
composite (membrane/soil) secondary liner. Research sponsored by RREL was
crucial to development of the MTG document. Evidence of the importance of RREL-
sponsored research may be evaluated by examining the bibliography of the
document. Table 2 summarizes the source of the 47 documents listed in the biblio-
graphy. Almost half of the documents are reports, theses, refereed journal articles, or
other journal articles that describe RREL-sponsored research. The impprtance of the
RREL-derived publications is probably larger than these figures indicate because
many of the non-RREL-related publications are books and manuals that are cited as
general references and are not necessarily at the heart of the requirements of the MTG
document. If the articles describing RREL-sponsored research on land disposal of
waste were removed from the bibliography, there would be insufficient scientific data
upon which to base and to justify the MTG criteria. i
17
-------
New York State Requirements for Subtitle D Waste - The New York State
requirements for solid waste landfills go even further that the EfpA 1985 MTG
document for hazardous waste and require that both the top and bottom liner in a
landfill be a composite membrane/soil liner. The New York State regulation writers
took EPA's MTG requirements as a starting point and added an additional degree of
protection by requiring that the top liner be a membrane/soil composite rather than just
a membrane, as required by the MTG document for Subtitle C wastes. IMr. Norman H.
Nosenchuck, Director, Division of Solid Waste, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, noted that, "The mandatory minimum landfill liner
requirements specified in the enclosed 6 NYCRR Part 360 were in a large part derived
on the basis of information gained from past EPA research on landfill liner system
performance" (personal communication with D.E. Daniel). Without the ;I985 MTG and
without the RREL-sponsored research, there would likely have been an inadequate
technical basis to justify current New York State regulations for land disposal of
municipal solid wastes. i
TABLE 2 REFERENCES CITED FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT OF
EPA MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY GUIDANCE DOCUMENT (1)
THE
Number of Publications
Type of Publication
RREL
Sponsored
Non-RREL
Sponsored
Books
Re ports/Th eses/Manu als
Refereed Journal Articles
Other Journal Articles
9
7
1
5
9
4
2
TOTAL
17
20
RREL-LDRP RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS
This evaluation indicated that there have been many important'technical and
scientific contributions from the LDRP in the past several decades. Examples of these
other contributions to environmentally sound land disposal practices and to the
identified regulatory needs are:
18
-------
Detailed characterization of municipal solid waste and the physical
and chemical characteristics of leachate and gas derived from buried
(landfilled) municipal solid waste. This data base was and still is the
most extensive base of data on the character of municipal solid waste
in landfills. However, the composition of land-disposed waste is
changing as a result of the current regulations making older data less
representative of current and future conditions. :
Discovery that concentrated organic solvents can destroy the integrity
of clay liners; this discovery was a driving force behind banning of
liquid wastes from landfills in the early 1980's. . ;
Discovery that compacted clay liners alone were insufficient to
contain hazardous waste in landfills; this discovery led! to the
requirement that (a) landfills for hazardous waste be double lined,
and (b) flexible membrane liners constitute the primary line of defense
against leakage of leachate out of landfills.
Development of testing technology for evaluating the chemical
compatibility between flexible membrane liners and chemical wastes;
EPA Method 9090 was developed and is the industry standard for
such evaluations.
.. . .. !
The technology of flexible membrane liners was studied, advanced,
and documented. This led to widespread use of flexible mernbrane
liners (geomembranes) in landfills and surface impoundments.
Research sponsored by RREL on the properties of flexible membrane
liners constitutes the bulk of the scientific data base available; on the
physical and chemical characteristics of membrane liners, field
installation and quality control techniques, and long-term i perfor-
mance of the membranes. In a recent article for Waste AgeW, the
authors note, "The credibility of geomembranes was established in
the Eighties as a result of both intensive research work on
geomembrane/waste chemical compatibility sponsored by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the development of the
concept of geomembrane construction quality assurance.?' The
development of EPA Method 9090 for testing the compatibility
between membranes and waste materials was an important output
from the research and provided a mechanism for ensuring that
membrane liners could contain buried wastes for extended periods.
Discovery that laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests did not
necessarily provide a reliable evaluation of the in-field- performance of
soil liners; the concept of a test pad to verify low in-field hydraulic
conductivity was developed under EPA sponsorship as were| in-situ
methods of measurement of hydraulic conductivity. Problems with
compacted soil liners were better understood, and it was recognized
that (a) soil liners could not withstand some concentrated chemical
19
-------
wastes, and (b) laboratory tests alone did not necessarily predict the
hydraulic properties of field-scale liners. The concept of a jtest pad
was born from RREL-sponsored research and is a part of EPA 1985
MTG document noted above. '
- Design aids were developed. These aids ranged from technical
resource documents to computer programs. Among the most Icompre-
hensive and useful documents are: ;
i
a) Technical Guidance Document: "Construction Quality
Assurance for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities,"
EPA-530-SW-86-031, 1986. '<
b) Technical Resource Document, "Design, Construction, and
Evaluation of Clay Liners for Waste Management Facilities,"
EPA/530/SW-86/007F, 1988. '.
c) Technical Resource Document, "Lining of Waste
Containment and other Impoundment Facilities,"
EPA/600/2-88-052, 1988.
- Another significant contribution was the development of the computer
program HELP (Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Eerformance),
which is the state-of-the-art method for predicting how much leachate
will be produced in solid waste landfills and from closure of
remediated sites that are capped with low-permeability materials.
i
SUMMARY
The existence of the RREL-LDRP has made a positive difference in assuring
use of land disposal methods that are more protective of human health and the
environment. The land disposal research conducted by RREL has had an important
impact upon regulations (state and federal), technology employed in landfills (double
liner systems employing flexible membranes and soil, in conjunction with leachate
collection systems), and people responsible for design, construction, and regulation of
landfills (mainly through education and the data base generated from the research).
Importantly, the RREL-sponsored research has been independent, has been of
sufficient quality to make the conclusions credible, and has provided an! enduring and
reliable base of information. :
20
-------
SECTION 5
CURRENT SITUATION
INTRODUCTION ;
In order to identify potential future land disposal research and information
needs;, it is important to: (a) review what has been done (Sections 3 and 4) and (b)
assess the current situation and discuss potential changes that are likely to occur as a
result of regulations that have been promulgated. This Section presents and
discusses the current technical, regulatory and economic aspects related to the land
disposal of non-hazardous and hazardous solid wastes. The following material
examines the current state of knowledge about a particular topic and summarizes
available data. The significance and potential implications of the data: are analyzed
and comparisons between hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in terms of waste
characteristics, landfill performance, regulatory requirements, and land Disposal costs
are discussed., |
5
TOXIC CHEMICALS !
Over the past several years, there has been a growing awareness and fear of
the toxic chemicals that are part of our lives and that result from our standard of living.
To increase the public knowledge about this issue, in 1986, Congress passed the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, which is a self-contained law
comprising Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986. This legislation commonly is referred to as SARA Title 111 and is uhique in that it
is different from the traditional mode of prescriptive regulations and standards
governing industrial behavior. This legislation does not force companies to take
actions to reduce pollution or environmental risks. Rather, SARA Title ill requires
companies to disclose an unprecedented amount of information about the types and
quantities of chemicals they produce, use, and routinely and accidentally discharge
into the environment. Virtually all of the information submitted under the law is publicly
available. :
Information from the first year of such reporting(4) indicates that abput 1.2 million
tons of toxic chemicals are released to on-site land disposal options and about 1.6
million tons of such chemicals are disposed of by underground injection (Table 3).
This is about 25% of all the toxic chemicals reported released in 1987. As is indicated
21
-------
by this data and by information in the following sections, there are large volumes of
toxic chemicals and hazardous and non-hazardous wastes disposed of on and in the
land. Such disposal must be done in an economic and environmentally sound
manner.
TABLE 3 AMOUNT OF TOXIC CHEMICALS RELEASED BY INDUSTRY
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 198?(4) ;
Percent of
Release Quantity Released Total Amount
Category (million tons) Released
Air Emissions 1.33 11.8
i
Surface Water Discharges 4.81 42.7
Transfers to Public Sewage Systems 0.97 8.6
On-Site Land Releases 1.23 10.9
Underground Injection 1.62 14.4
Off-Site Transfers 1.31 11.6
NON-HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Non-hazardous wastes are regulated under Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and are classified as Subtitle D solid wastes.
When used in the profession, the term "solid waste" normally refers to Subtitle D solid
waste which is defined as: i
". . . any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water
supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded
material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous rfiaterial
resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations,
and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved
materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation
return flows, or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits .. ."(5). ;
Hazardous wastes are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA and ate defined as
a solid waste which ;
". . . because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or
infectious characteristics may |
22
-------
(a) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness; or
(b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to huma!n
health and the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise
managed."(5) ;
Hazardous household wastes are exempt from Subtitle C regulations and are
classified as Subtitle D solid waste. Hazardous household wastes are hazardous
wastes generated by households that meet the RCRA technical definition of a
hazardous waste contained in 40 CFR 261. Small quantity generator
(SQG) wastes
are hazardous wastes as defined by 40 CFR 261 and are conditionally exempt from
Subtitle C regulations if the amount of hazardous wastes is generated at a rate of less
than 100 kg/month. SQG hazardous wastes between 100 kg/month and 1000
kg/month are subject to reduced Subtitle C regulations.
Subtitle D wastes are a heterogeneous mixture of wastes from
and frequently are described in broad categories based on familiar
commercial utility. For this report, the composition of Subtitle D waste
the following categories!6):
« Municipal solid waste
• Household hazardous waste
• Municipal sludge
• Municipal waste combustion ash
• Industrial non-hazardous waste
• Small quantity generator waste
• Construction and demolition waste
• Agricultural waste
• Oil and gas waste
• Mining waste
Current generation data for these categories are compared in Table 4.
varied sources
industries or
is divided into
23
-------
TABLE 4 QUANTITIES OF SUBTITLE D WASTE GENERATED IN 1978
AND 1986(6»7'8'9) !
Quantity
Category
1978
1986
Municipal Solid Waste
Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste
Municipal Wastewater Sludge
Municipal Combustion Ash
Construction and Demolition Waste
Hazardous Household Waste
Small Quantity Generator Waste
Agricultural Waste
Oil and Gas Waste
Mining Waste
118 million tons (MT)
266 MT (dry)
5.0 MT (dry)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
158 MT
430 MT (dry)
8.4 MT (dry)
2.3 MT
31JOMT
!
<131,000 tons
660,000 tons
N/A
2-3 billion tons
1.4 billion tons
Municipal Solid Waste :
In 1987, about 160 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) wpre generated
per year. In 2000, this is expected to be about 190 million tons generated per year.
On a per capita basis, the U.S. public generates about 4 pounds of MSW per person
per day, up from 2.7 pounds per day in 1960. This amount is greater thah that of other
industrialized countries (Figure 3). In 1984, about 84% of the MSW generated was
landfil!ed(9). !
In 1976, there were about 30,000 landfills in operation. By 1984,; the operating
MSW landfills numbered about 9200 and in 1990 there are estimated to be about
6,000,, About 2,000 of these are estimated to close in five years and 80% will reach
capacity in the next 20 years(11). Thus, at the same time that permitted MSW landfill
capacity is decreasing, MSW generation continues to increase. ;
EPA commissioned a solid waste characterization report of the United States as
part of RCRA's Subtitle D requirements^). This report has become a basis for
comparison, and is often used in the determination of national averages.1 Results from
this report are summarized in Figures 4-7 while a comparison of MSW characterization
data for the years 1960 through 2000 is contained in Table 5.
The composition of MSW is variable and is dependent on geographic location,
climatic conditions, population characteristics, legislation, and public attitude(6-12.13).
24
-------
The physical characterization of MSW commonly is described in broad categories
based on familiar commercial items. The number of component categories can range
from three to as many as 153. An example of the heterogeneity and variability of MSW
is shown in Table 6. In this example, The University of Florida, located in Alachua
County, Florida, is a subset of the County, which in turn is a subset of the State.
Observation of Table 6 shows that as the waste shed is decreased and becomes
defined by site specific, unique characteristics, MSW characteristics frequently show
variation from the national average. !
The quantity of MSW continues to increase as well as change in composition.
Figure 4 and Table 4 show that the gross amount of waste generated in 2000 is
projected to exceed 190 million tons; a 22% increase over the 1990 MSW generation
rate. Energy and material recovery processes are expected to increase j 11 % over the
same time period. This will result in the net effect being only a 4% increase in net
discarded waste and a "flattening out" of the net discarded waste after |1986(8). This
indicates that demand for the disposal of such waste may remain relatively constant.
Per capita waste generation of MSW is expected to decrease as a resiilt of recycling
and reuse efforts (Figure 5). !
4-
a
T3
a.
a
U
to
a
o
U)
Norway Japan Canada Germany UK United States
Country
FIGURE 3 Per Capita Generation Rates for Selected Countries(8.1o,H)
25
-------
250-1
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 19952000 ;
Year ;
FIGURE 4 Gross Discards, Recovery, and Net Discards of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States from 1960 to 2000 in Terms of Total Discard^8)
5.00-1
0.00
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
FIGURE 5 Gross Discards, Recovery, and Net Discards of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States from 1960 to 2000 on a Per Capita Basisf8!)
26
-------
1.9%
19.8%
8.4%
7.9%
36.8%
0 Paper and Paperboard
E3 Glass ,
H Metals \
[Q Plastics :
D Other :
9 Food Waste :
H Yard Waste \
B Misc. Inorganic Waste
7.9%
8.3%
8.9%
FIGURE 6 Estimated Materials Discarded into the Municipal Solid W^ste Stream
in the United States for 1990(8) :
100.0%
£: so.0% -
Tl
el
o
J»
Cl 60.0% -
J5
"o
c
o
40.0% •
o
n.
D
Organics
Non-Organics
Paper
Plastics
Food waste
20.0% -
0.0%
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year l
FIGURE 7 Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States
from 1960 to 200CK8) •
27
-------
TABLE 5 MUNICIPAL WASTE COMPOSITION FROM 1960 TO 200<)(8)
Percent of Total Discard
Material
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Plastics
Rubber, Leather, Textiles,
Wood and Other
Food Waste
Yard Waste
Miscellaneous Inorganic Waste
1960
30.0
7.8
12.1
0.5
0.2
0.5
7.9
14.9
24.5
1.6
1986
35.6
8.4
7.6
1.2
0.2
7.3
8.9
8.9
20.1
1.8
2000
39.1
7.1
6.7
1.6
0.2
9.2
7.9
7.3
19.0
1.9
TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF SELECTED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ;
TOTAL DISCARD(8'14'15'16) i
Category
Paper and Paperboard
Plastics
Metals
Glass
Food Waste
University
of
Florida
64%
12%
4%
2%
7%
Alachua
County
56%
7%
6%
9%
8%
State
of
Florida
37.6%
4.2%
1 .8%a
12.8%
21 .5%
: National
'• Average
; 35.6%
I 7.3%
' 8.9%
! 8.4%
': 8.9%
a Does not include ferrous metals
28
-------
The type of materials that constitute MSW are noted in Figure 6. Paper,
paperboard and yard wastes are the largest constituents. Packaging and containers
in MSW have increased from 24 million tons in 1960 to 43 million tons in 1986 and
over 50 million tons are expected to be part of MSW in 2000. In this pe;riod, there has
been replacement of heavy materials in packaging (glass and ferrous metals) with
lighter materials, such as aluminum and plastics. :
A trend toward an increasing percentage of organic materials in MSW is
expected (Figure 7). The percentage of organic material in 2000 is projected to be
83%; an increase of 2% from 1986 and 6% from 1960. This increase is a result of
increasing percentages of paper and plastics even though the percentage of other
organic material sources (food waste and yard waste) is expected to decrease (Table
5). An increase in the organic fraction implies that greater energy recovery could be
possible from the net discarded waste. ;
The type of Subtitle D waste disposed of at Subtitle D landfills by waste type is
shown in Table 7. The data indicate that 72% of MSW results from households, 17%
from commercial establishments, and 5% from construction and demolitibn sources.
TABLE 7 WASTE COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (17>
Waste Type
Waste Composition Percentage
(Mean Value) ;
Household Waste
Commercial Waste
SQG Hazardous Waste
Asbestos Containing Waste
Construction/Demolition Waste
Industrial Waste Processes
Infectious Waste
Municipal Incinerator Ash
Other Incinerator Ash
Sewage Sludge
Other Waste
71.9
17.2
0.08
0.16
5.83
2.73
0.05
0.08
0.22
0.50
1.18
29
-------
Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste
Approximately 430 million tons of non-hazardous industrial | wastes were
generated in 1986 (Table 4) with 65% of the wastes disposed of or managed off-site(6).
However, the amount of non-hazardous industrial wastes disposed of in Subtitle D
landfill facilities is not known(6). The EPA has studied 22 industries known to generate
significant quantities of non-hazardous industrial wastes. High concentrations of
heavy metals and organic constituents are present in the non-hazardous industrial
wastes of 12 of the 22 industries^). Even though the amount of non-hazardous
industrial wastes landfilled is unknown, any increase in waste generation will lead to
an increase of such industrial wastes that must be disposed of in an environmentally
sound manner. From 1978 to 1986, approximately 62% more nbn-hazardous
industrial wastes were disposed of or recycled in some fashion. Without knowledge of
industrial waste characterization results and trends, similar to those! available for
MSW, it may be reasonable to assume a roughly similar increase in waste generation.
A 50% to 70% increase in non-hazardous industrial wastes from 1986 quantities
would result in the generation of 645 to 731 million tons of non-hazardous industrial
wastes by the year 2000. The volume and potential environmental impact type of this
waste is unknown. j
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Sludge \
About 46% of the 8.4 million tons of municipal wastewater treatment sludge
generated in 1986 were landfilled or lagooned(6). In 1978, 25% of this sludge was
disposed of in this fashion(7). The exact quantity of municipal sludge landfilled in
Subtitle D facilities is uncleaK6). The quality of the sludge is variable but consists
mainly of organic matter from the biological treatment of sewage and^organics and
inorganics from water treatment processes. The total amounts of water treatment
sludges are probably much smaller in quantity than those of sewage sluc(ge(6).
Municipal wastewater treatment sludge waste quantities have increased 68%
from 1978 through 1986 (Table 4). This increase has resulted frorrijthe fact that
wastewater treatment plants now must meet increasingly stringent effluent discharge
and water quality standards. Increased removal of contaminants in!these plants
results in increased quantities of primary, biological and chemical sludges that must
be managed and disposed of properly. j
Currently, municipal wastewater sludges are defined legally as non-hazardous
wastes. However, the toxicity characteristic determination that has been promul-
gated(54) for hazardous wastes may cause some municipal wastewater isludges to be
declared characteristic hazardous wastes. As a result, such sludges would be subject
to me RCRA regulations, including the land disposal restrictions. This bhange would
have a large technical and economic impact on the municipalities producing such
sludge. Information on the land disposal methods appropriate for these sludges and
technical assistance to states and municipalities facing this problem will be needed.
The quantity of municipal sludges facing this problem is unknown.
30
-------
The total quantity of industrial wastewater sludge produced i!n the U.S. is
unknown. The quantity of such sludge is expected to increase since industrial
wastewater treatment plants also must now meet increasingly stringent effluent
discharge and water quality standards. '
Many of these industrial wastewater sludges are listed hazardous wastes and
thus subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions. The best demonstrated available
technology (BOAT) requirements will result in the sludges being treated and reduced
in volume prior to land disposal. The assumption behind the BOAT requirements is
that wastes treated to BOAT standards can be disposed of in RCRA (Subtitle C) land
disposal facilities and will not adversely affect the environment, such as leach to
groundwater. ;
BOAT requirements have only now (1990) been finally promulgated and the full
implication of these requirements, in terms of quantities and characteristics of BOAT
treated sludges that will need proper disposal, and the impact of the kDAT treated
sludges on landfill performance, is unknown. j
Municipal Waste Combustion Ash i
Combustion residues are generated from industries and establishments that
burn their own solid waste or from the burning of collected MSW. The\ latter source,
estimated at 2.3 million tons in 1986, accounts for the disposal of approximately 5% of
all Subtitle D generated solid waste. The quantity of MSW combustion ash is likely to
increase as landfill space becomes restricted and approaches are used to minimize
the volume of material that must be disposed. MSW incinerators offer- a technically
viable way to reduce the waste volume for disposal and to produce energy from the
combustion. The amount of combustion residue landfilled is unclear. Previous studies
of incinerator bottom ash and fly ash have been shown to have high concentrations of
heavy metals(6).
Concern has centered around the potential impact of metal migration from
combustion residues disposed of in landfills. EPA has identified the importance of
minimizing toxic materials, such as lead and cadmium, in MSW(18). Consequently,
EPA is evaluating the characteristics and management practices appropriate for
combustion residues(9'19). If additional controls are found to be necess'ary, the costs
of managing the residue would increase substantially^9), i
Construction and Demolition Waste I
Construction and demolition wastes accounted for 31 million tons of solid waste
in 1986. These wastes contain concrete, asphalt, brick, stone, lumber, glass, metals,
and many other building materials. The generation rate of construction and demolition
wastes is dependent on the structure, geographic location, and community. These
wastes are often disposed of in municipal, industrial, and demolition debris landfills as
well as waste piles. The distribution of construction and demolition wastes between
these different options is unknown. Typically, the potential for adverse impacts
31
-------
resulting from these wastes are perceived as being less than that for MSW. As a
result, construction and demolition wastes are often disposed of in landfills requiring
less stringent requirements^). ;
Hazardous Household Waste
Hazardous household wastes (HHW), estimated between 13J100 tons and
131,000 tons in 1986, are discarded in the municipal solid waste stream with a small
fraction collected by special collection services (estimated at f%)(6). Exact
characterization of HHW is not known, but products frequently encountered in HHW
include household cleaners, automotive products, home maintenance1 products, and
lawn and garden products. It is believed that the disposal options most employed for
liquid HHW are municipal sewer systems and septic tanks(6). The EPA policy of toxic
substance reduction in MSW(18) would provide a greater emphasis towards reducing
the amount of HHW in MSW. The proposed criteria for solid waste disposal, 40 CFR
Parts 257 and Part 258(9), may require owner/operators of MSWLfs to inspect
incoming waste for hazardous wastes. I
Small Quantity Generator Waste •
About 660,000 tons of SQG wastes are generated each year. Approximately
5% of SQG wastes, or 33,300 tons, are landfilied off-site. Over half of the municipal
landfills (53%) receive SQG waste in some quantity(2°). Typical industries that are
SQGs are vehicle maintenance, laboratories, schools, textile manufacturing and
cleaning, and photographic printing. SQG wastes are a potential source;of toxicity and
the land disposal of these wastes may present adverse impacts to the environment.
Hazardous Waste ;
The quantity of hazardous wastes, or Subtitle C wastes, generated in 1978 was
approximately 29 million tons(7). In 1990 it is estimated that between 2'09-255 million
tons of hazardous wastes will be generated(21). The physical characteristics of RCRA
hazardous wastes are shown in Figure 8 and reveal that less than 3% of hazardous
waste is organic, as compared to approximately 80% for MSW. Tables 8 and 9
describe the major industrial generators of hazardous waste and! predominant
disposal technologies employed, respectively. Table 9 indicates that 13% of industrial
hazardous wastes were disposed of in Subtitle C secure landfills while sanitary
(MSW) landfills were estimated to have received 10% of all hazardous wastes.
The quantity and characteristics of the hazardous wastes that will require
disposal will change in the next decade due to: (a) pollution prevention efforts by
industry to reduce the volume and toxicity of the hazardous wastes generated and (b)
the full implementation of RCRA land disposal restrictions and application of BOAT
requirements for disposal in Subtitle C land disposal facilities. This implementation is
only beginning in 1990 and the full impact will not be seen for several years. It is clear
that the hazardous wastes and BOAT residue that will require disposal will contain
less liquid, will be reduced in volume, will have less mobile constituents: and will have
less organics. It is assumed that these changes will be more protective of human
32
-------
health and the environment since the resultant wastes and residues will contain less
leachable constituents. Because of the legal and technical effort to meet these
requirements, it is appropriate to evaluate this assumption and to (determine the
performance of the Subtitle C land disposal facilities that are used for disposal of these
resultant wastes and residues. :
5.5%
1.5%
Organic Liquids
0.7%
Inorganic Solids
Inorganic Sludges
91.6%
Inorganic Liquids
0.7%
irganic Sludges
FIGURE 8 Physical Characteristics of RCRA Hazardous Waste<53)
TABLE 8 ESTIMATED GENERATION OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
BY INDUSTRY TYPE IN 1983(25) i
Major Industry
Percent of Total
Chemicals and Allied Products
Primary Metals
Petroleum and Coal Products
Fabricated Metal Products
Rubber and Plastics Products
Other
47.9
18.0
11.8
9.6
5.5
7.2
33
-------
TABLE 9 DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR THE QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGED IN 1983(25>
Technology Percent of Total
Injection Well 25 \
Sewer and Direct Discharge 22
Surface Impoundment 19 ;
Hazardous Waste Landfill 13
Sanitary Landfill 10
Distillation 4 '.
Industrial Boilers 4
Other 3 !
LANDFILL PERFORMANCE
Landfills have been and continue to be a major disposal method; for MSW and
for most industrial and solid wastes. Current EPA objectives(18) are to retain landfilling
as a component of the nation's overall waste management policy! Thus, it is
appropriate to consider the general design and performance of solid waste landfills.
Prior to the 1980s, it was believed that there was a potential for adverse impacts
from the landfilling of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes but the! extent of the
problem was unknown(22>23). EPA conducted several studies in 1986 to determine
facility design and operating characteristics, leachate and gas characteristics, and
potential environmental and human health impacts associated with Subtitle D
facilities^). Designed and operating MSW landfills are less that 3% of all Subtitle D
facilities (Table 10). Such landfills are distributed throughout the nation, occurring in
virtually every hydrogeologic setting, and are more concentrated near populated areas
(9). ;
Approximately 84% of municipal solid waste generated i;n 1984 was
landfilled(9). The source of municipal solid waste was noted in Table 7:and indicated
that 72% of municipal solid waste resulted from households, 17% from commercial
establishments, and 5% from construction and demolition sources. i
34
-------
TABLE 10 NUMBER OF SUBTITLE D FACILITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES FROM 1978 TO 1986(7>9>24)
Number
Type of Facility
Total Subtitle D Facilities
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Open Dumps
1978
150,000
18,500
N/A
1986 ;
227,000
6,034
1,850
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) Characteristics
The characteristics of MSWLFs are contained in Table 11. The extent of landfill
design and operation is extremely varied. Over 40% of landfills have a capacity of less
than 10 acres with approximately 90% having a capacity of 100 acres or less. Design
characteristics of MSWLFs vary with 61% operating runon/runoff controls, 28%
employing liners, 11% operating leachate collection systems, and 2% operating
methane control systems. Groundwater is monitored at 25% of the facilities, 12% of
the facilities monitor surface water, and 4% monitor gas generated fro'm the landfill.
The age distribution of MSWLFs shows (Figure 9) that approximately 45% of MSWLFs
have been in operation ten years or less and 22% have operated longer than 20
years. EPA also conducted an industrial screening survey to provide basic information
on the characteristics of industrial solid waste disposal facilities. Results from this
survey are generally consistent with the survey(2°) of MSW facilities. |
i
Tables 12-14 detail the number of planned facilities by liner type, leachate
management practice, and cover type. Data indicates that future landfills will
incorporate clay liners, either natural or recompacted, in the majority of cases.
Leachate management will incorporate discharge or trucking the leachatp to a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) at approximately 43% of the facilities. Soil and
recompacted clay will comprise the majority of covers. i
This information indicates that the majority of the current MSW landfills are over
ten years old and therefore have not been built to the most up-to-date standards.
Consultants as well as state and local agencies will need research information and
technical guidance and assistance concerning: (a) proper monitoring methods to
protect surface and groundwaters, (b) satisfactory leachate collection systems that can
be used with older, existing landfills and (c) closure and post-closure mejthods that will
be protective of human health and the environment. In addition, research information
and technical guidance will continue to be needed for the new landfills that will be built
to handle MSW and industrial wastes. i
35
-------
TABLE 11 NUMBERS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS (MSWLFs) WITH
SELECTED DESIGN AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS*6.17)
Percent of all |
Subtitle D Municipal
Characteristic Waste Landfills
Size ;
< 10 acres 42 ,
10-100 acres 51 !
> 100 acres 6
Waste Received j
< 30,000 cubic yards/yr 67 i
30,000 - 600,000 cubic yards/yr 28 '
> 600,000 cubic yards/yr 5 :
Design Characteristics ;
i
Liners (includes synthetic, soil/clay,
and slurry walls) 28 ;
Leachate Collection 11
Methane Collection 2 '
Runon/Runoff Controls 61
Operating Characteristics !
Waste Restrictions (includes liquids ;
and/or specific wastes 48 i
Monitoring Systems
Ground Water 25 ;
Surface Water 12 <
Air 4 ;
Methane 5 ;
36
-------
30.0%
20.0%
CO
•**
c
10.0%
0.0%
<5 5-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 >30
Age of Facility [years]
FIGURE 9 Age Distribution of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in the United States
(Numberof Units) in 1986(17) ;
TABLE „ NUMBER OFyPLANNE0FMSAL SOUD WASTE UNlTS
Number of Planned Units
Natural Liners
Soil
Clay
Re-Compacted Clay
Synthetic Liners
Other Liners
No liners or Unknown
532
1,015
673
201
271
1,163
37
-------
TABLE 13 NUMBER OF ACTIVE AND PLANNED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
LANDFILLS BY TYPE OF LEACHATE MANAGEMENT PRACTICED7)
Number of Landfills
Type of Leachate Management Practice
Recirculate by Spraying
Recirculate by Injection
Recirculate by Other Means
Land Spreading
Truck to POTW
Discharge to Sewer to POTW
Discharge to Surface Water
Other or Unknown Off-Site Treatment
On-Site Biological Treatment
On-Site Chemical/Physical Treatment
TABLE 14 NUMBER OF ACTIVE
LANDFILLS
Active
158
36
34
84
76
118
81
21
102
61
AND PLANNED MUNICIPAL
BY COVER TYPE(17)
! Planned
| 185
: 16
I 22
60
: 245
; 135
i 26
23
: 108
\ 60
r
SOLID WASTE
I
Number of Landfills
Cover Type
Soil
Sand or Gravel
Recompacted Clay
Synthetic Membrane
Topsoil
Other
Unknown
Active
3,278
939
2,132
110
2,448
339
393
I Planned
1,672
j 350
1,093
79
1,243
346
146
Leachate Characteristics
Typical MSWLF leachate constituents are presented in Table 15. The
implementation of new MSWLF design and management criteria,.'• such as the
38
-------
reduction of toxic substance disposal at MSWLFs, should affect leachate quality. The
data in Table 15 do not indicate any trends in contaminant characteristics from older
landfill data to newer landfill data. This is not unexpected since much 6f the analyses
from post-1980 MSWLF leachate studies are of older landfills. Even if post-1980
MSWLF leachate data existed, it is uncertain whether any correlation between
MSWLF design and management and leachate quality could be derived, given the
short operational period of post-1980 landfills and the heterogeneous riature of MSW.
The data in Table 15 indicate that MSW leachate does contain high concentrations of
many contaminants. :
A comparison of leachate characteristics from hazardous waste sites and
MSWLFs is shown in Table 16. The data indicate that concentrations of conventional
and inorganic constituents from MSWLF leachates can be very similar to those
detected at hazardous waste landfills. ;
i
Data on priority pollutant organic contaminants detected in MSW.LF leachate is
presented in Table 17. Sable and Clarke performed volatile organic contaminant
analyses on six MSWLFs in Minnesota from 13 leachate contaminated I welis(28). The
EPA assembled leachate contaminant data from 15 municipal landfill case studies
performed by the Office of Solid Waste (OSW)(6). Kmet and McGinley performed
analyses on MSWLF leachates from 16 landfills in Wisconsin(29). Brown and Donnelly
presented the results of 9 prior studies on MSWLFs and co-disposal facilities(3°).
Much of the summary data on MSWLF leachate is related: Brown and Donnelly cite
Sabel and Clarke's research, Kmet and McGinley's research is referenced by Sabel
and Clarke as well as Brown and Donnelly, and the U.S. EPA's case studies reference
both Kmet and McGinley's and Sable and Clarke's research.
MSWLF leachate may pose as great a risk as hazardous waste leachate. Data
presented in Tables 15, 16 and 17 indicate that constituents typically associated with
hazardous waste landfill leachate have been detected in MSWLF leachate in
comparable concentrations. Moreover, the frequency of detection in MSWLF leachate
of those constituents appears great enough to warrant concern over the potential
adverse impacts should the leachate be mismanaged. |
i
Historical and contemporary hazardous waste landfill leachate data for selected
priority pollutant organics are presented in Table 18. The U.S. E|PA data was
compiled in 1982 and is a summary of analyses performed at 30 sites(27). The
Chemical Waste Management data is a recent(31) compilation of analyses performed
at 10 different sites operated by Chemical Waste Management, In0. and Waste
Management of North America, Inc. The concentrations of contaminants! are extremely
variable. Based on the data noted, there is no obvious difference in the characteristics
of such leachate. i
39
-------
TABLE 15 COMPARISON OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LEACHATE DATA BETWEEN
RECENT AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH(26)+
LeachateOuaKvRanne
Pollutant
Conventional (mg/liter)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
pH, (standard units)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Nitrate and Nitrite-Nitrogen
Sulfate
Chloride
Calcium
Sodium
Inoraanic fyio7litert
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Older Municipal
Solid Waste Data
6 - 57,000
0 - 750,000
6.2 - 27,700
10-1,243
0 - 44,900
3.7-11.5
0-936
0-1,106
0 - 27.2
0-1,558
0-3,900
0 - 7,200
0 - 7,700
ND
0-375
10 - 18,000
0 - 9,900
0 - 5,500,000
0 - 2,000
0-160
40 - 13,000
Contemporary Municipal
Solid Waste Data
10- 100,000
62 - 100,000
21 - 25,000
5 - 18,800
950 - 50,000
5.0-8.4
2-1,850
1 - 1,000
ND - 250
ND- 1,800
2 - 10,000
0.001 - 5,000
33 - 5,000
70-200
ND- 10,000
ND - 5,600
ND--J 0,000
60 - 2,000,000
ND - 12,300
ND-10
ND - 3,300
ND Not Detected
The column heading "Older Municipal Solid Waste Data" refers to data obtained from 51 analyses of
MSWLF leachates and laboratory simulations performed in 1979 or earlier. The column heading
"Contemporary Municipal Solid Waste Data" refers to data summarized from p6st-1979 landfill
leachate analyses. |
40
-------
TABLE 16 COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND INORGANIC POLLUTANTS FOUND
IN LEACHATE FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES*26'27) |
Leachate Quality Range
Pollutant
Hazardous Waste
Sites
Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills+
Conventional (mg/liter)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
pH, (standard units)
Alkalinity
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammo nia-Nitrogen
Nitrate and Nitrite-Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Sulfate
Chloride
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Inorganic (fig/liter)
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
NR Not reported
+ From summary of Table 1 5
42-10,900
24.6-41,400
10.9-8,700
<3- 1,040
1,455- 15,700
3-7.9
20.6 - 5,400
<1 - 984
<0.10- 1,000
0.01 -0.10
<0.1 - 3.2
1.2-505
3.65 - 9.920
164-2,500
25 - 453
4.6 - 13,350
6.83 - 961
2,000
11 - <10,000,000
7
5 - 8,200
1 - 208,000
1 -16,000
0.5 - 14,000
NR
1 - 19,000
0.5 - 7.0
20 - 48,000
3-590
1 -10
'
6 - 57,000
0 - 750,000
6.2 - 27,700
5 - 18,800
0 - 50,000
3.7-11.5
0 - 20,350
0-1,850
0-1,106
! 0-250
0-98
0-1,800
0-10,000
:o- 7,200
0 - 15,600
,0-7,700
2-3 - 3,770
,
; NR
ND - 200
NR
ND- 10,000
ND- 18,000
ND- 10,000
• NR
0 - 5,500,000
0 - 12,300
! 0-160
ND- 13,000
• NR
NR
'
41
-------
00
GD
Leachal
Q5
w S
03 ^t
> D.
"> UJ
CA
"o
CO
15
.9-
"o
"c
^
c:
TJ
_o ^
"o S"
© £S
•*-' ' *n
03 CD
Q 55
CO .w
C5 ^^
•"•" rrl
c: —
03 0
O3 -o
ir c
O m
. ^ "35
c "S
iS w
Jl
"Q
a.
s»%
^-^
"C
.2
CL
N-
T—
111
ffl
*~*-
^
•••— •
CD
D
C
CO
a:
a
4- M
CD >
o-g
E <
CO ~~:
CO -i
O ^
* CD
O
JO
. "3
CD
a
c;
co
DC
^
CD
N
+ To
to c
•3 $
Q. **-
E -J
CO
0 §
* E
"£
Chemica
o o co h-
i- i- o co
TT -r- I 1 CO CM
CM CO- CM OJ
i i i i i i
0 0
•<*• CO
"? ' ' . ' 'in
•^- •—
CO , • &
co CM
CD
CO
"cO
JZ 2 CD
o. .55 12
CD £ 55 CD
r= 5 <=
_^ E ">, 75 N
a, 75 £ co
S CM £ JO 0 O
s ~" 1 !£••£ s
§ .» 2 3 CO 2
tS CQ CQ CD O O
O 0
o in in °
, « , -c •''•' CO
o
CO CD
o in
CD
f—
r— Ctf
« 2 £ c
.g CD CD CO CD CO
° J= J= J= E o
| E 2 £ Q. £ -
1 it i-f j!
° — 2 -1 c J- '
j= _£; JO CD t O T—
O O Q Q Q Q T-
i
I
;
i
i
,
o o oin cnoScsoo^o oo
° o eoeo !!-••— coTr:° oo
^"••r- iin' 'VTS0^ ~_riin i'--^-
II ' '° •e-c\ICNJl't~Cvl1 ' '
'^ CM w T- ^ ' r»- • > CM -^j- o
0 o c\j 0!
i
i
tlllltitlll'llllfl
1
1
j
:
.- o ' o o ; in
"*" , Ix^
°^ •»- ^ r^ : o
co i
!
1
'
i
COCO CD CO COCOiCDCOCOco
oco 'CO -^- CO T- :o vo T- i-
1
'
i
CD
c
C8
CD , - CD ' CD c
*~ C , CD O CO | CO (-•
C — CO >> 73 O £i£ CD 75
CO 5^* Q. Q. "j; — CD 1 CD C C
-=£00 o -§ °'°°)0m
CDCOQ.Q.CD J= CO OiO>^i:-S
ESeSci ° § - s!! £ § •=
OOOON®(])®CD {§'r-jCV.J=J=-5:
c\i -A CM co j= o 75 co" .•s j? "-" "5 -~ ; ^ -e -c .£
c
.0
"o
To
•o
CD
CD
O
CO
. CD
Q)
To
T3
CD
15
C
CO
to
CD
Q.
CO
CO
"o
cp
JO
E
c
CD
JZ
_03
JO
|
=
CO
CD
•b"
CD
N
"co
C
CO
w
CD
n
CO
CO
"o
X.
5
E
c
CD -o
i- ^
•— C
fe "ffl
1 "E
c jr
-O C5
5 CD
8 |
CD
CO >-
f 1
42
-------
E
ued
Con
as*
CM
>.
CD
"c
b
:1
•o
«
15
E
it:
«^-
c
*—
C
D
C
n
CC
"c
<]
;
+ (0
CO c
J2 <
03 °
"o ffl
3i C
^
"CO
O
'E
CD
O
o
05 W
, 1
co
in in
T- in '
jg
15
to
~£3
Benzene
Bis [2 ethylhexy] Ph
Bromoform
o
in
i . i ,
in
CM
in
CM
m
Butylbenzyl Phthalat<
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
0
o
m~ ID
, "* — •«—
CO CM
V—
in in
CO CO
Chlorobromomethane
Chloroform
Dibutyl Phthalate
_.
°E
romomethan
U. — -U
>. o
-^_ JC Jr
^"* ^^ O
rCT QJ """"
75 E o
5 b b
o
o
co_
co"
1
o
in
in
CO
CD
c
CD
0
o
o
b
0
O O CD
o w co" °. °
t— ' i "**" , i i— O O5 ., —
m *~ o o "*
in in in in co in in
CM - CO CM CO ,- CM
CD
CD § g §
QJ Q C — - Q)
C — TO >•• -Q
§§§•§•? § CD
O O O O N ® fr\ ® QJ
J il !» !« m i -2 •§ I
QQQQ — jc^S-g
' i i ' ^ CL « 75 O
CM-r-CMCOJC o CD cfl.-*3
O)
1^.
in" .
Si ^
CM
in in
CO -
©
C
CO
-~
Phenol
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroe
i
'
i
o
S ° o
T— 5JL rS
§ ^"^
w !
F
in in in
in - ^
;
(
1
;
m m'
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethani
1,1 ,2rTjJchLoroeJham
Trichloroethylene
E^J
—
r~
^- QJ
'w o
U^ CD
in T—
T- CD
5°. «
£
oromethar
ide
= 0
O JT
l — >
CD is
5 w
•- £
CD .±i
f =
n! _O
o) 7j
_0) 0)
CL a)
E ^"^
nl ...
co J2
"5 "T
•-• §
CD §
O f i
i-S
i 2
CD-i
JC >
CO CO
J—
+ The second number
of samples analyzed t
LU
_J
CQ
43
-------
c:
o
o
4)
0,1
CO
o
-*—'
03
_c
o
03
CD
03
TJ
"5
CD
CO
13
O
"a
03
N
03
IE
-a
a>
•+— •
o
CO
o
'c
03
S>
o
c:
03
O
QL
CO
UJ
_l
CD
£
T—
£i
c
05
05
O
to
c
.to
•^
05
To
_to
5
"to
o
"E
05
6
C--
OJ_
*£
f>.
C0|
^
•k..
05
D
(Z
to
a:
"^
0
+ N
05 >
flj ™~
-— . C
g- C
E <
CO -
o 0
^fe 0
c
,.— •
"B
O5
D
C
03
(X
TD
05
N
+ "n
15
<
to
o
'E
CD
0
0
in
en
co'
en
r*.
o
f-
co_
*
o
CO
in
Jenzene
uu
1
co'
en
CO
o
o
co"
o
CO
T—
05
75
to
•£
jz
O.
">^
X
05
JC
>^
f~^
ffl
£i
_to
1
I
k_
Jromofo
U-l
1
en
o
,
i
O5
To
to
JC
Q.
">.
N
1
>,
13
'
0)
O
,
1
05
^
0
JZ
O
2
c
to
jr
75
E
o
E
o
"
JO
o
^
JC
o
o 0 o 0
°" W ° o ^~
i— ' ' ' ' i in" i— ' ' ' '
' CO ' .
. T~ ^1 c"
CO
en 05 en en en en en en 05 en
— i -^ -» • — CO^ — ~- ~» — — i
in ooo coT-oo"4-
S ogo „
•*" , , , , - ^r en" w , "^ ,
W -r- ^ T ^
• in n', m rn
O ^ OJ }
O O O O O O
CO CO CO CO CO CO
CD 05
tO c ® 05
ToTS'toE-cjc^oo
toto£2tDcoa5Q.Q.a5
^IJZjcCOOOoOC
o D- D- — -Sjrjrjcjzjz: c o
2 ">•» ">•« ^£ o^cx^r^' — r^ ^
0 ° O ' 0
CMl ' ° ^ '"'' ^Z CO Jv ' yj
CM CO i i T ' CO ' '
^l_m oooc\irv;^r\ £j
^j- *•* -r~ co to , in
OJ
cncncncncncncncncn ^
cocooincAj^cocMco co
T~ I
I
05 1
o en o i
O CO o ° O . O O
C3 •• r^. CD c^ '• ^D ^^
«. gQ ^J {^ ^-^ ^ ^^ ^-^ ^^
coT° -Scj'cnoScs"03^
•f— ^D Is*. — C5 CO *i tD ^^
O o fX V CD ! i 2
CO 0 T- ' -r-
ooooooopooo
cocococococococ6coc*Dfo
^tj ^\| ^~~ ^J- ^_~ ^N^ |^ f^J ^J- ,— ^^
I
05 :
c
10 !
.« 05 05 c;
O tO tO r-
® ^— r™ ^ *r~^
T3 O 'S •£? 0> 05
'»_ ~ CD 0) c C
O 7; O O CD Q
~ y ^_ i— — o CD
fD m ^15 "^" "^ ^^ "^ O
f||i§|||jj5
SZZD-'r-^l— -r-^T-TH-H->
1
.a
03
£
O>
"S
OS
to
t/J
_05
O.
fO
U)
^
CD
Z3
C
05
•a
<35
N
_>>
tO
to
t/5
_05
Q.
to
U5
S
05
•
to
_o
•05
JZ
o
o
o
05
fl
44
-------
Landfill Gas
Landfill gas is of concern because of: (a) the high concentrations of methane
generated from anaerobic decomposition of solid waste and (b) the concentrations of
other constituents that may be in the gas and the gas condensate. The jcomposition of
gas from MSWLFs indicates that the major constituents of landfill gas are methane
(44-53%), carbon dioxide (34-47%), and nitrogen (4-21%). Other characteristics; of
MSW landfill gas are presented in Table 19. I
i
In 29 landfill gas migration damage cases identified by EPA, there were 21
instances of explosion or fire, five fatalities, and several injuries^7). M6st of the sites
where injuries and death occurred did not have a landfill gas control system(9).
Furthermore, trace quantities of chemicals that have been considered hazardous
wastes have been observed in methane gas recovery condensate! at Subtitle D
facilities(17). These facts suggest that inadequate consideration of landfill gas
generation at MSWLFs could lead to significant problems. ;
TABLE 19 TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF GAS FROM MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS*17)
Component
Component Percentage (dry-volume ibasis)
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 ' Study 4
M€rthane
Carbon Dioxide
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Paraffin Hydrocarbons
Aromatic and Cyclic Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbon Monoxide
Trace Compounds
44.0%
34.2%
20.8%
1 .0%
-
-
-
0.4 - 0.9%
-
-
47.5%
47.0%
3.7%
0.8%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.01%
0.1%
0.5%
50.0% '•
35.0% •
13.0% ',
1 .7%
-
-
0.3% !
;
;
j
53.4%
34.3%
6.2%
0.05%
0.17%
-
0.005%
0.005%
0.005%
-
Performance ;
Case study information of groundwater and surface water contamination
incidents related to MSWLFs was compiled by EPA in 1988. The results are
summarized in Tables 20 and 21. For most of the MSWLFs, information |on the type of
waste received was not available or was incomplete, although some (44 of the 163
MSWLFs) were known to have received hazardous waste. Groundwater contami-
nation occurred in 89.6% of the MSWLFs identified as having adversely affected
human health and the environment, and surface water contamination iin 43.6%. At
approximately 50% of the facilities .with groundwater contamination, specific
contaminants were identified. The most common constituents were |ron, chloride,
manganese, trichloroethylene, benzene, and toluene(9.17). Ecological impacts, such
45
-------
as fish kills or flora kills, occurred in 8% of the instances. Data relating types of
environmental contamination at MSWLFs and the number of violations are shown in
Table 22.
Table 23 presents the apparent causes for the ground and [surface water
impacts that were noted. Site conditions were implicated as a probable1 cause in 85%
of the MSWLFs, the bottom liner in 59%, the leachate collection system in 54%, poor
management or waste control in 42%, and drainage or runoff in 40%. Table 24
provides information on the 44 MSWLFs known to have accepted hazardous waste.
Site conditions were implicated as the most frequent cause (77%) of adverse impacts.
Poor management or control was implicated in 59% of these MSWLFs and previous
hazardous waste disposal was implicated in 43% of the cases. ;
An EPA case history study in 1984 on hazardous waste mismanagement found
that of the sites evaluated, most were located in poor hydrogeologic and environ-
mental settings, were under-designed, and contained no liners or leachate or runoff
collection systems*33). The fact that 46% of MSWLFs were within one mile of drinking
water wells(17) emphasizes the potential for direct contamination. | Problems at
MSWLFs were further highlighted from the observation that 184 of the original 850
sites proposed for the National Priority List were facilities that had been identified as
receiving municipal wastes*17). ;
TABLE 20 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RESULTING FROM 163 MSWLFs
IDENTIFIED BY THE U.S. EPA AS HAVING ADVERSELY AFFECTED
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT*32) ',
Type of Impact Number of Sites
Ground Water Contamination 146 (89.6%)
Onsite Contamination 90 (55.2%)
Offsite Contamination 56 (34.4%)
Surface Water Contamination 71 (43.6%)
Ecological 13 (8.0%)
TABLE 21 ADVERSE OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RESULTING FROM 71
MSWLFs IDENTIFIED BY THE USEPA AS HAVING ADVERSELY
AFFECTED HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT*32);
Type of Impact Number of Sites
Ground Water Contamination
Surface Water Contamination
Ecological
56
37
13
(78.9%)
(52.1%)
(18.3%)
46
-------
TABLE 22 AGGREGATE DATA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AT
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS IN 1984<17) |
I
i
Type of Contamination
(around Water Contamination
Surface Water Contamination
Air Contamination
Methane Control Deficiencies
TABLE 23 CAUSES OF ADVERSE
Number of Facilities
With at Least One
Violation
586
660
845
180
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Percentage of
Total Active
Landfills
!
6.3%
7.1%
9.1%
i
1 .9%
AT THE 97 MSWLFs
FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT OPERATING DATA EXIST(32) !
Cause
Site Conditions
Bottom Liner
Leachate Collection System
Poor Management/Control
Drainage/Runoff Controls
Past Hazardous Waste Disposal
Final/Present Cover
Past Industrial or Liquid Waste Disposal
Past PCB Disposal
Number of Sites
82
57
52
41
39
22
21
5
3
(84-5%)
(58.8%)
(53.6%)
(42.3%)
(40.2%)
(22.7%)
(21.6%)
(5.2%)
(3.1%)
TABLE 24 CAUSES OF ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AT 44 MSWLFs THAT
ACCEPTED HAZARDOUS WASTE PRIOR TO RCRA(32) '
Cause
Site Conditions
Poor Management/Control
Past Hazardous Waste Disposal
Drainage/Runoff Controls
Bottom Liner
Leachate Collection System
Final/Present Cover
Past Industrial or Liquid Waste Disposal
Past PCB Disposal
Number of Sites
34
26
19
14
13
12
11
4
3
(77.3%)
(59.1%)
(43.2%)
(31!.8%)
(29.5%)
(27.3%)
(25.0%)
(9.1%)
(6.8%)
47
-------
The EPA groundwater and surface water contamination study lalso identified
corrective actions initiated at the MSWLFs (Table 25). The most common corrective
action was additional investigation and monitoring (23%), followed' by operating
improvements (22%), site closure (17%), and supplying alternative drinking water to
affected parties (10%). In 30% of the cases, no corrective action was initiated. State
estimates of the potential corrective actions necessary at MSWLFs ofjen differ from
federal estimates. For example, the State of Florida estimated in 1985 that 30% of the
active MSWLFs likely to be closed in ten years would require extensive remedial
action(34). Continued technical assistance and new information will|be needed to
accomplish the needed remedial action. '
Generally, those facilities causing groundwater contamination were more than
ten years older than facilities reporting no impacts. Groundwater contamination was
more severe in locations characterized by high infiltration rates and groundwater flow
rates,, Tables 23 and 24 do not indicate any difference in the causes ofjcontamination
between MSWLFs and MSWLFs known to have accepted Subtitle |C waste (co-
disposal facilities). Given the potential for high pollutant concentrations in MSWLF
leachates, performance failure may cause severe impacts upon human health and the
environment. ,
Continued research and field investigations are needed to: (a) prevent landfill
leachates from contaminating surface and groundwaters, (b) monitor landfill leachate
loss and control gases generated at landfills, (c) design, construct and operate landfills
so as to protect human health and the environment, (d) develop and use remediation
methods for existing landfills, and (e) close landfills that are full or thjat need to be
closed to stop environmental contamination. ;
TABLE 25 TYPE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION INITIATED AT 163 MSWLFs IDENTIFIED BY
THE USEPA AS HAVING ADVERSELY AFFECTED HUMAN;
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT^7) i
Corrective Action Number of Sites
Additional Investigation/Monitoring
Operating Improvements
Site Closure
• Supply Alternative Sources of Drinking Water to Affected Parties
Additional Corrective Actions
NPL Site investigation/Superfund Site
Drinking Water Wells Closed or Abandoned
Site Capped
No Corrective Action Initiated
37
35
27
17
13
7
6
5
50
(22.7%)
(21.5%)
(16.6%)
(10.4%)
(8.0%)
(4.2%)
(3.7%)
(3-1%)
(30.7%)
48
-------
SUBTITLE D SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of this Section is to identify the current requirements for the land
disposal of non-hazardous solid wastes, particularly in landfills. Also included is a
summary of the regulatory changes that have resulted in the current technical
requirements. j
I
The practice of disposing of solid waste on land was one of the first solid waste
management methods employed. Low technological requirements, economics, and
convenience were important factors in the institutionalization of land disposal as the
primary disposal option for municipal and other solid wastes. By the early 1900s, the
most commonly used disposal methods were placement on land, discharge to water,
plowing into the soil, and feeding to hogs(13>35).
Because of the odors and aesthetic concerns associated with uncontrolled land
disposal, over time municipalities moved local and convenient dumping grounds to
more isolated areas(36). As municipalities grew and the demand ifor land near
populated areas increased, solid waste often was used as fill to reclaim land for
development. Burial of the solid waste was the most frequently employed method.
Cities such as Champaign, Illinois (1904), Columbus, Ohio (1906-19ilO), and New
Orleans, Louisiana (1916), used solid waste as fill material^5'36). One of the better
known land reclamations utilizing solid waste as fill was the filling of marshes on
Rikers Island near New York City. \
The mid-1930s saw a change in the land disposal of solid waste with the
introduction of specialized heavy equipment designed to compact refuse, increase
landfill space and save disposal costs. In particular, the city of New York; was forced to
abandon its solid waste disposal method, dumping at sea, in favor of land disposal by
virtue of a 1933 United States Supreme Court ruling(13'36). The concept of controlled
solid waste disposal to mitigate potential solid waste problems evolved. The term
"sanitary landfill" was developed during this time from a pioneering land disposal
operation in Fresno, California(13'36). |
When solid waste was disposed of on level, dry areas, the "trench!" method was
often employed. This consisted of filling an excavated trench with waste and covering
the filled trench with excavated soil. It was generally accepted that odd>rs emanating
from landfills would be unnoticeable at distances of more than 300 ft(35). Traditional
operating procedures of these landfills during this period were to comp'act wastes in
single layers of 2-15 ft using bulldozers or other equipment35-36). Volume reduction
during compaction was typically 40-60% of the original volume(35). After the trench
was filled, the wastes were covered with approximately 2 ft of soil at slopes ranging
from 1:1 to 5:1 (37). The major reason for covering the wastes was to: limit disease
vectors and prevent rats from burrowing into the wastes. ;
49
-------
Throughout the 1940s, the Army developed newer methods f0r solid waste
management including using equipment such as scrapers, front-end loaders, and
bullclams. By the end of this period, sanitary landfilling was the reconrlmended waste
disposal option at military installations in the United States(36). By thie end of 1945,
approximately 100 municipalities in the United States had adopted this method of land
disposal and by the beginning of 1960, more than 1,400 municipalities1 were reported
using it(36). j
Landfills were a low cost solid waste disposal option. Before World War I, land
disposal costs of solid wastes ranged from 6-26 cents per ton. The costs of sanitary
landfilling in 1948 was estimated to be from 40-50 cents per ton(37)i In 1959, the
average costs of sanitary landfill operation were $0.50-2.00 per ton of wastes
delivered(36). :
i
Until the 1960s, the disposal of MSW was performed in the most economical
fashion with little attention to environmental concerns. It was not uncommon for waste
to be disposed of in marshes, highly permeable rock quarries, and natural
springs(36'37). The American Public Works Association published guidelines as Jate
as 1966 related to solid waste disposal in tidal areas(36). However, an' awareness of
potential problems associated with unsanitary waste disposal was emerging.
Guidelines for waste disposal stressed consideration of environmental issues such as
surface water pollution, groundwater pollution, and disease vectors(36.37).
As noted in Section 3, the federal government's role in' solid waste
management greatly increased with the passage of the Solid Waste; Disposal Act
(SWDA) in 1965. Prior to SWDA, the federal government had limited ifs involvement
to public health concerns related to solid waste and not to the actual nrjanagement of
solid waste. In 1965, only two states had statewide solid waste! management
programs and 31 states reported no such programs. Throughout the early 1970s,
solid waste was considered a local or regional issue. The assumed federal role was
one of information dissemination and waste management counseling to, willing states.
With the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976, the
problems of municipal solid waste and hazardous waste were addressed in greater
detail^?). j
Subtitle D of RCRA established a framework for federal, state and local
government cooperation in controlling the management of non-hazardous solid waste.
Under the authority of §1008(a)(3) and §4004(a) of RCRA, EPA promulgated the
"Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" on
September 13, 1979. Minor revisions to these Criteria were issued on September 23,
1981. The Criteria established minimum national performance standards necessary to
insure that "no reasonable probability of adverse effects on helalth and the
environment" will result from solid waste disposal. The actual planning and direct
implementation of the solid waste programs initiated under Subtitle D remain state and
local functions under guidance from EPA(9).
50
-------
Revisions to Subtitle D in 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste amendments
(HSWA), required EPA to "conduct a study of the extent to which the (Criteria) . . .
applicable to solid waste management and disposal facilities, including!but not limited
to landfills and surface impoundments, are adequate to protect human; health and the
environment from groundwater contamination^)". To fulfill these responsibilities, EPA
conducted a series of studies and analyses of solid waste characteristics, waste
disposal practices, and environmental and public health impacts resulting from solid
waste disposal including the disposal of sewage sludge in municipal solid waste
landfills (MSWLFs). |
\
EPA has proposed to amend 40 CFR Part 257 and to create a new section, Part
258(£|). This new Part will contain minimum Criteria for MSWLFs, primarily in the form
of performance standards and closure and post-closure requirements. The revision to
Part 257 is to be done in phases. The first phase applies to MSWLFs and was the
subject of the regulations proposed in August, 1988. The second phase will apply to
industrial solid waste facilities and will be proposed at such time ithat EPA has
adequate data(9). ,
To meet the goal of protection of human health and the environment, EPA
considered four options: uniform design standards, performance standards, and two
methodology-based standards. The option proposed was a performance requirement
for each facility requiring site-specific analyses to determine the appropriate controls.
The proposed Part 258 identifies minimum criteria for the location, design,
operation, cleanup, and closure of MSWLFs. A MSWLF that does not meet these
criteria would be considered an open dump and be prohibited under §4005 of RCRA.
Part 258 would apply to all new and existing MSWLFs as defined exc4pt those units
closed prior to the effective date of the rule. Existing units would have different
performance standards; namely, only the installation of a final cover system.
The MSWLF owner/operator would have to implement a program to detect and
prevent disposal of hazardous wastes at the facility. Furthermore, any MSWLF that
receives municipal waste combustion (MWC) ash would fall under regulatory control.
However, the Agency is developing guidelines on MWC ash disposal^), j
Many differences exist between the initial Subtitle D regulations modified in
1981 and the proposed Part 257 and proposed new Part 258(9): I
• The proposed new requirements require owner/operators to:design
new units to meet a protective groundwater-based risk level. ;
• The proposed design goal is an overall risk level that encompasses
risk from a comprehensive set of constituents limited to the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations. '
51
-------
• EPA is proposing to limit the maximum distance an alternative
boundary (used to determine the point of compliance) may be from the
facility. The original Criteria left this up to the state. i
• The regulations^) propose different standards for new and!existing
MSWLFs whereas the original Criteria established one; design
standard for both types of units. . i
• These regulations propose a groundwater monitoring and corrective
action requirement for new and existing MSW facilities. <
The proposed new Criteria should reduce the potential for adverse
environmental impacts from co-disposal of hazardous waste to some degree. Part of
the proposed requirements for owner/operators are to detect and prevent the amount
of hazardous waste landfilled at their facility through a dedicated inspection plan and
random inspections^). This policy should reduce the amount of hazardous wastes
disposed of at MSWLFs.
An overview of seven current state requirements for MSWLFs is presented in
Table 26. All states require some type of bottom liner, leachate collection system, and
engineered cap. Bottom liner requirements range from a recompactedi liner in Illinois
to a double composite liner in New York. A single leachate collection system is
required in five of the seven states while New York and Pennsylvania require an
additional leachate detection system. All states require either a synthetic membrane
or a low permeable soil/clay cap. :
Monitoring of groundwater, landfill gas, and leachate also is required in some
form by all seven states. The type of monitoring requirements are extremely varied
and range from periodic "explosive limit" testing for methane contained! in landfill gas
to lea.chate constituent monitoring. All states require some type of repohing of landfill
parameters such as quantity of landfilled wastes, remaining landfill volume and
monitoring results. ;
The current state MSWLF requirements can be compared to EPA! requirements
for hazardous waste landfills (Table 27). Hazardous waste landfills are required to
have a double liner, leachate collection system, and leachate detection systemC16).
These regulations were developed to achieve the greatest protection of ihuman health
and the environment. Table 27 shows that only two states, New York and
Pennsylvania, approximate hazardous waste landfill requirements in itheir MSWLF
regulations. An evaluation of the effect of Subtitle C requirements on MSWLFs is
needed to determine the beneficial health and environmental impact of these more
stringent requirements. However, such requirements are relatively recenf and MSWLF
operational data to evaluate the effect of hazardous waste landfill requirements as v/ell
as the proposed MSWLFs criteria are not available. '•
52
-------
The role of EPA in the development of state regulations provides some
indication of the utility of research sponsored by EPA. References to specific EPA
documents or guidance contained in seven state regulations are listed in Table 28.
Illinois will promulgate regulations "identical in fashion" to those of the EPA. It is
apparent that EPA regulations and research play a significant role in the development
of state solid waste regulations. i
53
-------
tO
o
•4-*
75
CO
CD
CO
CO
»_
CD
T5
0)
'5
CT
0)
cc
c
CO
03
O
CO
"cc c\T
^r "—'
2 ^3-
CO
05
CO
O5
"•CO
05
CD C
ii
0)
3 O
CO 0)
CD
CM
UJ
CD
<
O
_0
D.
D)
~O ~ C
x— r> t^
o9l
ir
= 0:0
c
0)
"co.a
^cS
05
0
O
QO1
CD
CO
CO
§f
5
CO
to
O5
GW.Gas,
Leachate
CO
05
>-
0
o 75
a. c
CO
o
C\J
o"
CO-
05
GW.Gas,
Leachate
CO
O5
>-
CO
a.
o
T~
CO
co"
S
S
CO
05
05
E
CO
Q.
05
Q
0
T—
Leachate
CO
1
t
CO
05
5
co
>
i_ •—
O O5
CO .£
a. c
~J to"
o
CO
o"
to
CO '5
t §-
i
0
w
re
O5
C/5
„
£2 o
o> 'j/5 i; '•""
So ° <2
3 Q. CO £
£ E. . 0, c
Q O -J.^
o w
t!
CO
CO
X
CO
TJ
J
U.
CO
05
o o
1-2
fiS
CO
a S
X «
53
-
0
1
_o
05 "re
co
a.
o
CM
*
•o
05
O
.5
CO
CO
05
a.
to
O5
,
e
CO
O5
TS
05
!§
o
05
CC
CO
05
_o
t3 ^5
05 £ O)
O C C
CO >> CO
1-21-
§•11
CC CO
a.
.S
o
>->
CO
D)
II
o>
2 .-2 £ J
0)C
05 O
51
I
ii
05
E
i_ 05
o co
CO -=
o S
o? ~
O co
T3 '
roS
-J co
, x:
w ro
CO n>
C5 J
E 5 E
S "w o
CO O
'o J35 5
= 8 ~ •
O ° CO O5
_05 CO ^
CO rt CS- CT
O
co
0)
CO
Q5 -^
O is -s
05
c
CO
111
Q>
>,^s ^
*_ TJ CU i
I § go
CL CO "T* ^
1 ' tO E
O O 0. >N
T- CN —I CO
54
-------
TABLE 27
Comparison of Waste Management Systems for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Subtitle C
Regulations for Selected States in 1989
[2,38,39,40,41,42].
Subtitle D Non-Hazardous
State
California
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Waste Requirements
Liner Leachate
Tvpe Collection
Single
Composite
Double
Composite
LPS or
Synthetic
LPS, Synthetic,
or Approval
10-Synthetic
20-Synthetic or
LPS
Compacted
LPS
Recompacted
10
10,20
10
10
10,20
10
10
Subtitle C Hazardous
Waste Requirements
Leachate
Liner Svstem
20 liner
none
20 liner
20 liner
nonea
20 liner
20 liner
20
non|e
2Q
i
20
none
;
20
I
20
LPS with Synthetic
\
a Would not be in complete compliance with Subtitle C regulations without a composite
20 liner. ;
NOTES! • ;
1 ° - Primary liner or leachate collection system. j
20 - Secondary liner or leachate collection system. ;.
LPS -Low Permeable Soil (k less than 10-7 cm/s).
Synthetic - Synthetic membrane.
55
-------
TABLE 28 Comparison of Waste Management Systems ton
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Subtitle.C;
Regulations for Selected States in 1989(2,38,39,40.41.42).
State
EPA Reference
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Suggest using appropriate EPA guidance documents for acquiring
hydrogeplogical information. •
Must search publications of EPA regarding regional and site
specific hydrogeological conditions. i
Adopts any identified or listed hazardous waste identified by EPA as
a hazardous waste as their definition of a municipal hazardous
waste. !
i
Suggest using EPA document SW-168, Use of Water Balance
Method for Predicting Leachate Generation from Solid Waste
Disposal Sites. . . . i
Mandates that the construction and installation of liner|s be in
accordance with EPA document SW-870, Lining of Waste
Impoundments and Disposal Facilities.
Suggest EPA document SW-850 for testing in-place saturated
hydraulic conductivity. i
I
Suggest EPA document SW-611, Procedures Manual for Ground
Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Sites. ' \
Adopts EPA's rule on financial requirements for owner/operators
of hazardous waste facilities as requirements for solid ;waste
facilities.
Defines liquid waste by EPA Method 9095 contained in SW-846,,
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods. i
!
Suggest Method 9090 in SW-846 to determine leachate and
material compatibility. \
Suggest EPA document SW-168 to estimate potential Iqachate
generation. !
Suggest waiting for EPA action regarding solid waste regulations
and adopting regulations "identical in fashion" to Federal ones.
i
Test pad is required for confirmation of the re-compacted soil
liner, re-compacted soil barrier in cap, and the geomembrane.
56
-------
COSTS
Traditionally, the costs of solid waste disposal have been low compared to other
services and utility costs. However, the increasingly stringent regulations are causing
such costs to rise. This Section provides information about such disposal costs and
the changes that are occurring. Cities and counties typically spend tess than 1 % of
their budgets on municipal solid waste management. In comparison, an average
community spends 36% on education, 5% on police protection, and $% on sewage
disposal. Section 4010 of RCRA states that EPA may consider the "practical
capability" of owner/operators of facilities that may receive household hazardous
wastes (HHW) or small quantity generation (SQG) wastes in determining the revisions
to the Criteria. In developing the solid waste Criteria(9), technical land economic
factors related to financial capability were addressed. These considerations are
evident in the new Criteria in terms of different requirements for new and existing
facilities, lack of requirements to retrofit existing units with liners! and leachate
collection systems, and a phase-in period(9). i
Tipping fees (the amount charged to dispose of a waste) are related to
geographic location, waste disposal options, and quantity and qualify of the solid
waste. Location and other potential disposal options also affect the: economics of
landfilling. In New Jersey, landfill tipping fees exceed $100 per ton, a reflection of the
lack of landfill space and cost-effective solutions. However, in Las V£gas, Nevada,
where space is not as precious a commodity, landfill tipping fees are as low as $6 per
ton(18). The cost for landfill units implementing new standards could be as high as $45
to $159 per ton(19). In 1976, the total costs associated with municipal solid waste
collection and disposal were estimated at $30 per ton(7). The reduction of future
landfill capacity and the implementation of proposed new Criteria(9) virtually ensure
that tipping fees, therefore overall landfill operational costs, will rise substantially.
Between 1983 and 1986, the average nationwide tipping fees for waste-energy
plants increased over 100%, more than 4 times the increase in landfill tipping fees(22).
Even in states with some of the highest landfill tipping fees, for example jNew York and
New Jersey, tipping fees for new incinerators make landfilling ; economically
favorable(22). •
I
There is little data regarding costs associated with the implementation of landfill
disposal regulations. In 1978, EPA estimated that the additional costs ip industry and
municipalities of complying with expected federal Criteria and existing state
regulations would be $1.7 billion (37% attributed to the Criteria and1 63% to state
standards)(7). Total state solid waste budgets in the U.S. were estimated at $28 million
in 1977(7) while in 1984 California alone spent over $9 million on its solid waste
budget^).
EPA estimated that 13% of all municipal solid waste landfill facilities have
resource damage (costs to replace drinking water) in excess of $1 million, 31% have
levels exceeding $200,000, and 29% will have no resource damage(17>. In 1985, the
57
-------
State of Florida estimated it would spend between $108,000 and $15;0,000 per acre
for closure of municipal solid waste landfills over the next ten years*34). ; For the 30% of
municipal solid waste landfills requiring remedial action during closure^ in Florida, the
remedial action costs will be approximately $30,000 per acre and the post-closure
costs will be about $20,000 per acre(34). i
The costs of landfill components and management are continuing to increase.
In 1975, the costs of constructing a lined landfill was typically $25,000 ito $50,000 per
acre not including costs associated with ieachate treatment, utilities, buildings, roads,
and drainage control structures. These costs were estimated to be $65,000 to
$150,000 per acre in 1986(44). The estimated cost of a ten-acre landfill in 1986 often
exceeded $1.5 million for the liner and Ieachate collection system*44). A regional solid
waste management study of seven landfills in the State of Texas estimated the cost of
landfill operation would increase an average of 135% from 1980 tb 1990 with a
maximum increase of 220%*45). These figures indicate that over the last 10-15 years,
landfill construction and operating costs have increased an average of 189% and
178%, respectively. \
In addition to a rise in operating costs, landfill closure can'be extremely
expensive. A final cover incorporating clay and sand can cost between $30,000 and
$50,000 per acre. For example, the closing of the 60-acre landfill servicing Worcester,
Massachusetts, cost $2.7 million, or approximately $45,000 per acreH4). Moreover,
the potential for problems associated with pollutant release could ^increase final
estimiates of landfill closure substantially. I
The economic impact of new solid waste management criteria also will be
significant. The U.S. EPA estimates that the annualized costs of the proposed new
Criteria could range from $691 to $880 million*9). i
i
If the proposed new Criteria are based on technology-based standards, similar
to those regulating hazardous waste facilities, the anticipated costs! will be much
greater. EPA estimates that the annualized costs associated with technology-based
standards would be $3,341 million, an increase of approximately 280% over the
current Criteria cost estimates*9). l
i
Current community expenditures for solid waste disposal will rise significantly.
Estimates indicate that communities serviced by village or town-owned landfills will
have a much higher cost per household increase than communities serviced by large,
privately-owned landfills. The potential for a reduction in costs does exist if a greater
percentage of small communities participate in large regional landfills*9).;
Figure 10 indicates the trends in costs of solid waste collection anp: the amounts
requiring disposal in Texas. From 1970 to 2000, the costs of waste collection and
disposal are estimated to increase 155% while the amount of waste generated will
increase 162% over the same time period. i
58
-------
Pollution abatement capital costs and operating costs for manufacturing
establishments are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Solid waste expenditures for manu-
facturing industries are rising, similar to that of MSW disposal. Figure 13 compares
pollution abatemerit costs for manufacturing establishments for hazardous and non-
hazardous waste management. Figure 14 presents the percentage of federal grants-
m-aid to state and local governments that is allocated for research and: development
Even though total grants-in-aid have increased from $1.056 billion in 1^73 to $5.726
billion in 1986(48), a 440% increase, the amount of funds allocated for; research and
development has decreased considerably over the same time period Also the
percentage of funds allocated to research and development from the total grants-in-aid
has decreased 92%.
I
The shift of federal support towards abatement of pollution arid away from
research and development appears to parallel stricter regulatory requirements This
seems to imply a feeling that the regulatory requirements will take care of any existing
problems and that further research and development related to solid waste disposal is
not needed. However, in the face of the increasing volume of non-h&zardous and
hazardous wastes that are being generated, the rapidly increasing i costs of the
disposal of such wastes, and the impact of the regulations and costs on the public
such an assumption is very fragile. Based on these three facts - increased volume'
costs and impact - a case can be made for more rather than less solid waste research
and development. ;
at
c.
o
c
o
m
-------
c
o
75
C
0
Q.
X
111
Q.
O
$4000
$3000
$2000
$1000
Solid Waste
W«t»r
Air
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 ' 1986
Y.ar
Costs for Manufacturing
"to 1986(46,47)
$15000
Solid Waste
Water
AJr
$0
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 ' 1986
Year
^
Manufacturing
60
-------
$4000
M
c
o
ee
o
o
c.
o
E
_»
"S
JO
c
o
o
0.
$3000 -
Non-Hazardous Waste
$2000 -
$1000 -
Hazardous Waste
1983
1984 1985
Year
1986
FIGURE 13 Pollution Abatement Costs for Manufacturing Establishments^ in the United
States for Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Wastes from 1978 to 1986(46'47)
c
o
E
Q.
O
a
o
en
o
oc
8.00%
6.00% -
4.00% -
2.00% -
0.00%
'73 '75 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83 "84 '85 '86
Year
FIGURE 14 Allocated Federal Research and Development Aid to States and Loca!
Governments as a Percentage of the Total Grants-in-Aid from 1973 to! 1986(48)
61
-------
SECTION 6
RESPONSIBILITY FOR LAND DISPOSAL RESEARCH
Solid wastes are the by-product of society and therefore are a societal and
governmental responsibility. EPA is the federal governmental agency given the
responsibility to protect human health and the environment posed by wastes, residues
and contaminants. As noted in Section 1, although the nation is moving toward a
materials and waste management approach that emphasizes presenting waste
generation, recycling, and treatment of wastes, land disposal always will remain a very
important and needed waste management option. I
EPA has the responsibility for research that affects the public sector, such as
land disposal research. This has been stated most recently by the:EPA Science
Advisory Board(49): !
EPA is the only entity that has a dear mandate to conduct research to
gather information on effective approaches and to transfer that
information to all who could use it nationwide. This information
collection, evaluation, and dissemination role is a key component of the
research function and one that EPA is uniquely suited to serve, in short,
no individual, local government, or private business is likely io fund
research needed by many local governments and private businesses to
help reduce and manage their waste streams. Yet, as more and more
elements of our society become directly involved in the business of risk
reduction, such research is clearly needed. ;
It can be questioned as to whether the private sector, and not EPA, should be
responsible for research related to the land disposal of municipal and industrial
wastes. However, the private sector is unlikely to take total responsibility for land
disposal research efforts(50,5l,52). For several reasons, EPA must perform such
research if the nation is to achieve its environmental goals. One is that! land disposal
research and development is a "public good". Another is that there a're insufficient
economic incentives for the private sector to perform basic land disposal research.
Such research has a low chance of commercial success. Short deadlines for
compliance with regulations encourage the use of existing technology. No one
company or industry is likely to have a unique, important stake in improved land
62
-------
disposal management thus making individual action hard to justify to itianagement or
investors. The industrial or private sector has little economic incentive to develop
technologies which significantly reduce the emissions of pollutants to below regulatory
levels, knowing that such technology may result in lower emission standards being
set. in addition, most pollution control companies do not have the financial strength to
devote significant resources to research and development. A final reason is that the
disposal of municipal and some industrial solid wastes commonly is!performed by
municipal governments which can hardly afford existing technology and have
traditionally invested very little in research and development. i
EPA also is viewed by state and local government, industry, the general public
and by people and institutions in other nations as a world leader in control of pollution
caused problems affecting public health and the environment. In this context, EPA is
viewed as an organization which must provide leadership on scientific and policy
issues involved in environmental protection and must balance environmental goals
with other societal goals. A major responsibility in carrying out this mission is to
provide information to state and local government, industry and the public about risk
reduction strategies that will achieve human health and environmental gpals.
Land disposal is a central need for the nation and, as noted by the, EPA Science
Advisory Board(49), land disposal research should be a core research area for EPA.
The need for economic and environmentally sound land disposal options continues to
increase, not decrease. Thus to fulfill its responsibilities, it is imperative that EPA have
a strong land disposal research program and adequate resources for that program.
i
i
As part of that program, it is important that EPA involve other sources of
expertise. Researchers and practitioners outside of EPA have much to offer that EPA
cannot duplicate. Thus there should be a strong extramural component to the land
disposal research program. This component should have industry, Academic and
public government involvement. This is important to encourage fresh interdisciplinary
ideas, to make the best use of the talent that exists in the nation, and tq leverage the
available EPA resources. !
63
-------
SECTION 7
LAND DISPOSAL RESEARCH PROGRAM DIRECTIONS
PROGRAM NEED \
There continues to be a need for a strong land disposal research program in
EPA. This conclusion is based upon the information obtained and evaluated in this
study and presented in the previous Sections. This need is summarized in Table 29
and discussed in this Section. The need is due primarily to the following' items.
a) Land disposal technologies will continue to be used for the volumes
of municipal wastes, non-hazardous industrial wastes and treated
hazardous wastes generated in the United States. As noted earlier,
the land remains one of the major disposal locations for 'the by-
products of society and economic and environmentally sound land
disposal technologies must be available for the public. i
b) There needs to be a better understanding of the volum'es and
chemical characteristics of the wastes and treated residues that will
be land disposed. Both the volumes and characteristics are changing
as a result of changing life styles, recycling efforts, mandated
regulatory changes such as the requirement for treatment of
hazardous wastes prior to land disposal, and to the increasing use of
thermal processes. Without better information on the volume and
chemical characteristics, such as relative mobility and toxicity, of the
current and future wastes, policy and technical decisions on
appropriate land disposal options will be based on older, possibly
outdated information. •
i
There is a need not only to make better decisions to protect human
health and the environment but to make smarter decisions. Better
knowledge about the characteristics of the material requiring land
disposal allows smarter as well as better decisions. '.
i
c) Knowledge is needed of the performance of the land disposal
options, such as landfills, that have resulted from the improved
containment options (covers, liners, monitoring, etc.). There is the
64
-------
assumption that these containment options provide better protection
of groundwater and reduce risks to human health. ;
i
The extent to which modern control technologies funqtion as
envisioned by those involved in developing and regulating land
disposal units needs to be determined. Informed decisions of
whether more or different control technologies are needed cannot be
made until the performance of the existing improved technologies is
documented.
TABLE 29 NEED FOR A STRONG EPA LAND DISPOSAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
- Large volumes of municipal wastes, non-hazardous wastes and treated hazardous
wastes will continue to be disposed of using land disposal options. i
- Land will continue to be a major disposal location for the by-products of society.
- The private sector is not likely to develop or share the technical information needed
by municipalities and other public entities. ;
i
- Technical data developed by the private sector often are questioned as being self-
serving. ;
EPA generated data are credible and form the foundation for policy and regulatory
decisions. •
- Better knowledge of the volume and characteristics of land disposed material is
needed for smarter and better technical and regulatory decisions. ;
- Land disposal facility performance must be evaluated to determine whether the
current improved contaminant options and regulatory decisions are functioning as
envisioned. :
- Corrective action, retrofitting and closure options are needed for many existing land
disposal facilities. '
- The extent to which risk to human health and the environment is reduced by
improvements in contaminant options, monitoring and regulatory decisions (needs to
be determined. ;
- Evaluations are needed to: (a) develop more cost effective land disposal options and
(b) determine the relationship between the cost of improved options and reductions
in risk.
- Technical information continues to be needed by the user community. ;
d) Better corrective action, retrofitting and closure options continue to be
needed. There are a large number of land disposal facilities that
were not constructed using the most modern guidance and
65
-------
containment ^options. Many of these are in need of approaches to
correct deficiencies and to be closed properly.
e) There should be an evaluation of the relative risk of existing land
disposal facilities and of the reduction in risk that has resulted from
improved technologies. The goal of land disposal is to minimize risk
to human health and the environment. A comprehensive analysis of
the extent to which risk has been minimized from modern landfills has
not been performed. Further, consideration has not been given to
which aspects of land disposal of waste best minimize risk pid the
extent to which treatment/destruction of waste minimizes risk ihas not
been evaluated. For instance, does the land disposal of combustion
wastes create a leachate which inherently poses a high risk? Jo what
extent does the addition of more control technology in landfills
materially reduce risk? Which components of the landfill system are
crucial to the minimization of risk?
i
f) The costs of land disposal for municipalities are increasing the need
for disposal facility designs and operations that lower costs or iat least
reduce the rate of cost increases. Particularly important is a better
understanding of the extent to which the improvements in land
disposal facilities minimize risk to human health and the environment.
g) The technical knowledge needs to be disseminated to practitioners,
governmental agencies and the public. Without a strong technology
transfer mechanism, the technical information will not be' widely
known and utilized. \
PROC3RAM CONTENT
The major components of an active and strong land disposal research program
are noted in Figure 15. These components and suggestions for needed research are
discussed in the following paragraphs. !
i
Waste Characterization \
The characteristics of wastes requiring land disposal is changing. Land dis-
posal restrictions and requirements for implementation of best demonstrated available
technology (BOAT) for treatment are changing the composition of hazardous wastes
disposed of to the land. Shifts in materials use (increase in plastics,
increased recycling, and increased combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW) may
significantly alter the character of MSW that is disposed of in landfills. There is a long-
term need to determine shifts in the composition of wastes going to land
disposal units
and to define the physical and chemical characteristics of leachate and gas derived
from such wastes.
66
for instance),
-------
Research activities that appear appropriate are (Figure 16):
• Characterize MSW. Define the composition of MSW and project how
that composition is likely to change over the next 10 years.
• Characterize MSW Leachate. Define the physical and chemical
characteristics of MSW leachate and project how the characteristics
are likely to change over the next 10 years. Compile a resource
document that identifies the chemicals found in MSW leachate and
determine the important characteristics, e.g., solubility of the
chemicals, vapor pressure, Henry's constants sorption constants,
health parameters (carcinogenicity, etc.), and biological and chemical
degradation rates. Consider how owner/operators of land disposal
facilities may provide useful data through more complete reporting of
the characteristics of the wastes received. Consider the probable
effects of co-disposal of combustion ashes and/or sewage sludge with
MSW. Consider the effects of recycling efforts and composing on
characteristics of MSW leachate. Consider the influence of product
bans and the positive or negative effects of those bans on leachate
characteristics. '
0 Characterize MSW Gas. Define the chemical composition o;f MSW
gases, including decomposition products and other sources of prganic
vapors. Determine how the composition is likely to change over the
next 10 years. Consider the probable effects of co-disposal of sewage,
sludge, recycling, composting, and product bans on the quantity and
quality of gas generated from MSW landfills. Characterize condensate
in gas collection systems. !
• Investigate MSW Decomposition. Biodegradation of waste occurs in
MSW landfills to varying degrees. Study whether landfills should be
designed as active bio-reactors (and, if so, how the biological
reactions can be enhanced and accelerated while protecting water
and air quality) or to be dry initially and remain dry thereafter. Develop
criteria to determine which design philosophy is appropriate. •
Determine whether biodegradable plastic and various product bans
(such as disposable diapers) have a significant influence on biological
degradation processes. •
' Investigate Productive Uses of Wastes in MSW Landfills. Study the
possible use of waste materials, such as combustion ash or crushed
glass, as daily cover, and the use of other waste materials, such as
combustion ashes or sewage sludge, as additives in liner or cover
systems. Study methods to use MSW combustion ashes and sewage
sludge for productive purposes rather than landfill these materials.
67
-------
• Minimize Quantity of MSW to be Landfilled. Paper, yard wastes, and
plastics are the three largest components in MSW. Investigate
approaches to reduce the volume of these MSW components by
pollution prevention, recycling and reuse.
• Evaluate Landfill Mining. Determine the desirability and technical
feasibility of mining old landfills for resources contained in landfills.
LAND DISPOSAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
I
Waste
Characterization
i
Risk Evaluation
and Risk
Reduction Options
i
Technology
Transfer
Land Disposal
Facility
Performance
Cost
Evaluations
[Within Each Program Area, a Number of Research Tasks
have been Identified -- See Text] ;
FIGURE 15 Major Components of a National U.S. EPA Land Disposal
Research Program :
68
-------
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Project future characteristics of
- municipal solid waste
- MSW leachate
- MSW gases and condensate
- combustion ashes
- non-hazardous industrial waste
- hazardous waste leachate
Investigate
- MSW decomposition
- productive uses of wastes currently
landfilled
- landfill mining
- leachate treatment
- controls for exempt hazardous
wastes
Minimize MSW that is landfilled and
identify characteristics of resultant MSW
FIGURE 16 Appropriate Waste Characterization Research Activities
Investigate Leachate Treatment. Based on data on the chemical
composition of leachate, evaluate treatment options for treatment of
leachate from municipal, non-hazardous and hazardous! waste
landfills. Determine whether changes in leachate quality expected
over the next 10 years are likely to alter requirements for leachate
treatment. Develop methods for treating leachate at relatively small,
remotely located landfills.
Characterize Combustion Ashes. Incinerators and other thermal
combustion units will be used increasingly to recover energy and
reduce the volume of MSW to be landfilled. Identify the volumes and
characteristics of combustion ash that will be produced. Determine the
characteristics of leachate produced from ash monofills and determine
the appropriate means for collection of leachate with drainage systems
and minimization of release of leachate with lining systems.
Determine the effect on leachate quantity and quality if ash is co-
69
-------
disposed with other MSW and determine whether greater protection is
afforded with monofills or co-disposal. Determine whether ash should
be stabilized prior to disposal and, if so, how the stabilization! should
be accomplished. '
Characterize Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste. Determine the
volumes and characteristics of non-hazardous industrial solid!wastes
and project likely changes over the next 10 years. Identify appropriate
treatment, reuse and disposal methods for such wastes and| project
how changes expected in the near future, e.g., in treatment
methodologies, will likely affect the character of waste to be disposed
of in landfills. ;
!
Investigate Controls for Exempt but Otherwise Hazardous Materials.
Some materials, such as combustion ash, sewage sludge,| small-
quantity generator hazardous waste, and household hazardous
materials may be exempt as a hazardous waste under RCRAJ Study
the need, if any, to handle these materials separately and define the
impacts expected upon leachate and gas produced from MSW landfills
that contain these wastes. Develop methods for MSW disposers to
screen out unacceptable materials at the landfill site. !
i
Characterize Hazardous Waste Leachate. The RCRA land restriction
regulations will be fully implemented in 1990 causing changes in the
types, volumes and characteristics of hazardous wastes requiring land
disposal. Determine the physical and chemical characteristics of
BOAT residues, evaluate the acceptability of land disposal o|f these
residues with current land disposal methods, and determine the! impact
of such residues on performance of land disposal facilities. Determine
the chemical composition and characteristics of hazardous; waste
leachate and project changes expected over the next 10i years.
Develop analytical methods for leaching procedures th'at are
appropriate to determine the mobility of constituents in BOAT residues.
Compare the composition of hazardous waste leachate to that pf MSW
leachate. and evaluate, based upon those differences, determine
differences in control technologies that are appropriate. Determine
appropriate treatment technologies for the leachate and changes that
will be required in the treatment methodology over the next 10 years.
Characterize Gas from Hazardous Waste Landfills. Characterize the
composition of gases released (if any) from hazardous waste (andfills
and determine the appropriate control technologies for treatment or
release of the gases. Project likely changes in gas composition over
the next 10 years. ;
70
-------
Land Disposal Facility Performance i
i
Owner/operators and regulatory agencies assume that the control technologies,
e.g., liners and leachate collection systems, in use today work well and ^protect human
health and the environment. However, the public perceives that landfills leak. The
extent to which modern control technologies function as envisioned by those involved
in the design, construction, and permitting of land disposal units must be determined.
Further, mechanisms for collecting and disseminating the type of data needed to
evaluate the performance of landfills must be created. Informed decisions about
additional needs for liners and other control technologies in landfills cannot be made
until the performance of those technologies is documented. •
Research activities that appear appropriate for this component are (Figure 17):
• Determine Performance of Older MSW Landfills. The majority of MSW
landfills are older than 10 years. Determine appropriate procedures
for leachate collection and treatment, control of pollutant migration into
the subsurface, covering the waste, maintenance of the site, and
monitoring. Develop a data base on performance of the older facilities
to determine the risk posed by these facilities. Evaluate the risks and
determine whether extensive controls, e.g., exhumatidn and
reinterment, are appropriate, and the appropriate approaches to close
such facilities. Results will help reduce the long-term costs of solid
waste management. •
• Develop Procedures for Determining Landfill Performance. One
means to document landfill performance is to examine data from
monitoring wells. However, faulty performance may not be indicated
by monitoring wells for many years after the problem, such as a! leak in
a liner, first developed. Modern landfills contain drainage layers, and
in some cases leak detection zones. Strategies are needed to
evaluate performance of landfills. Such strategies may include
monitoring and reporting quantities of liquid collected in drainage
layers (in covers and liners) and installation of probes in the; landfill
that will yield useful information. Tools for managing and interpreting
the data that are collected are needed. Computer simulations, such as
the HELP program, need to be modified for analysis of landfill
performance so that the simulators are able to analyze, from;perfor-
mance data, how well the components of the landfill are functioning.
• Document Performance of Modern Landfills. The performance of
modern landfills has never been adequately documented. Further-
more, the performance of the various components within the
increasingly complex liner and cover systems is unknown.
71
-------
LAND DISPOSAL FACILITY
PERFORMANCE
Develop procedures for determining facility
performance
Determine
- performance of older MSW landfills
- performance of modern MSW landfills
- performance of hazardous waste land
disposal facilities after BDAT is fully
implemented
- appropriate corrective action and
closure options
- efficiency of gas and leachate collection
systems
Develop improved methods to determine
effectiveness of covers, liners and
monitoring
Compile data from test pads
FIGURE 17 Appropriate Land Disposal Facility Performance
Research Activities
Representative landfills for study need to be identified, monitoring
probes (if needed) installed, data collection initiated, and performance
monitored and analyzed for a period of at least several years. The
performance data should not only identify the overall degree tp which
the quality of air, surface water, and groundwater is impacted from the
disposal facility, but how well the various components in the liner and
cover system are functioning.
Determine Efficiency of Gas Collection Systems. Determine the
efficiency with which landfill gases are captured with active and
passive collections systems. Compare the quantity and quality of gas
with what was expected. Determine the characteristics of condensate
from the gas collection systems. I
Develop Improved Monitoring Methods for Covers. Groundwater
monitoring wells provide a means for detecting leaks in landfills, but
72
-------
methods for earlier and more efficient identification of a leak are
needed. For example, if a section of a cover over a landfill has
become excessively permeable, location of that defect would facilitate
repair and minimization of future problems. Develop probes th;at might
be buried beneath a landfill, within the waste, or within the cover to
indicate a need for repair. Study nonintrusive testing techniques, such
as ground-penetrating radar, for location of areas needing repair.
i
• Determine Appropriate Corrective Actions. Corrective actions will be
needed at many landfills and may range from minor maintenance of
the cover to extensive remediation. Provide continuing technical
information and guidance on corrective actions for landfills that will
reduce any adverse impact.
I
• Compile Data from Test Pads. The EPA's 1985 Minimum Technology
Guidance document for double liner systems recommends the
construction and instrumentation of a test pad to verify that the
compacted soil liner can function as the design requires. The
performance of the test pads represents an invaluable data base on
the soil liner component. The data need to be collected and analyzed;
conclusions should be drawn concerning construction practices and
soil materials that worked and did not work. \
Risk Evaluation and Risk Reduction Options
—— r— -— ,
The technical and regulatory changes that have been implemented have been
made to reduce the risk to human health and the environment. However, the extent to
which the actual risks have been reduced has not been documented, the public still
perceives land disposal options as generating considerable risk to hurrian health and
the environment. It is important to determine the actual, versus the perceived, risks to
understand (a) the extent to which the changes to date have reduced risks and (b)
whether further technical and regulatory changes (and the associated increase in
costs) are needed.
In addition, it has only been in recent years that landfills with sophisticated
control technologies have been constructed. The monitoring of these landfills is in its
infancy. Monitoring requirements are not well understood and will become an
increasingly important issue. !
Research activities that appear appropriate are (Figure 18): i
• Define the Risk Posed bv Past and Improved Landfills. Select several
landfills for study. Characterize the leachate and gas from the units,
determine how well the components of the lining and cover systems
are performing, identify potential pathways of release, and estimate the
risk associated with the landfills. Examine the importance of Various
73
-------
control technologies on the existing level of risk. Study methods that
might have been reasonably employed to reduce risk further. ;
i
Determine Whether Risk Can Be Reduced with Improved Designs or
Materials. New materials are being developed that might be; used in
landfills. For instance, bentonitic blankets are being manufactured that
might be used as an added control measure in landfills. The extent to
which these and other new materials would reduce the risk should be
studied. Changes in operational procedures that would reduce risk,
e.g., from air emissions, should be investigated. The impact of
changes in landfill design or configuration on risk, e.g., use of above-
ground landfills, should be evaluated. •
USK EVALU,
RISK REDUCTION
OPTIONS
• Determine risks posed by older and j
improved MSW landfills ;
• Determine how current unacceptable risks ;
can be reduced
• Determine the relative importance of BDAT
treatment technologies in reducing risks ;
• Develop :
- siting criteria :
- construction quality assurance \
- predictive tools and approaches :
i
• Identify ground water indicator parameters ;
for land disposal facilities
I
• Monitor cover and leachate collection ;
system performance :
• Develop guidance on cover, leachate ;
collection systems and air quality
monitoring procedures ;
i
i
FIGURE 18 Appropriate Risk Evaluation and Risk Reduction Research Activities
74
-------
!
Determine the Relative Importance of BOAT Treatment andl Landfill
Control Technologies. Hazardous waste must be treated j prior to
disposal. The relative importance of treatment versus: control
technologies in landfills needs to be investigated. The relationship
between treatment and disposal needs to be studied; the dxtent to
which control technologies in landfills should be linked to the treatment
of waste prior to disposal or to the leachate expected needs to be
investigated. i
Siting Criteria. Risk-based siting criteria do not exist but, if they did,
they would provide an excellent means of risk management. ! Criteria
need to be developed for owner/operators to select sites that will
minimize risk. Data need to be developed to support the jcriteria.
Analytical tools, such as appropriate risk-based models, need to be
developed. \
\
Construction Quality Assurance. Many landfills are in the final stages
of design and soon will be constructed. Regulatory agencies h|ave few
guidelines on how risk can be minimized through proper construction
quality assurance. Guidance needs to be developed for regulatory
agencies so that as they oversee construction and review construction
quality assurance reports, appropriate steps can be taken. Methods of
construction quality assurance that minimize risk, rather than simply
monitor the performance of contractors, need to be developed. !
Identify Groundwater Indicator Parameters. The analytical costs of
groundwater monitoring can be large. Substantial savings can |result if
samples of groundwater are routinely monitored for parameters that
are indicative of potential problems from solid waste land disposal
facilities rather than the full range of chemicals that might be found.
Work is needed to define appropriate indicator parameters, sampling
frequency, and testing protocol. :
Monitoring of Covers. Regulatory agencies need guidance on: how to
monitor the performance of landfill covers. Research is needed to
define the frequency required for monitoring, the type of mohitoring
that is needed, and appropriate corrective action. '•
i
Monitoring of Leachate Collection Systems. Leachate collection sys-
tems can plug due to precipitation of compounds, biological Activity,
and other causes. Methods need to be developed for monitoring the
performance of leachate collections systems and techniques' devel-
oped fofcorrecting significant problems. |
Develop Predictive Tools and Approaches. It is not appropriate, to wait
until problems develop before seeking solutions or developing
75
-------
prevention procedures. Problem prediction measures should be
developed that can help prevent future problems. Such measures
could include: (a) predicting actual leachate characteristics be|fore the
material is added to a land disposal facility, (b) predicting the
performance of facility components (liners, leachate collection
systems, covers, etc.) over time, and (c) predicting the possibility of
corrective action and component replacement. :
Cost Evaluations
The capital and operating costs of land disposal facilities are increasing due to
mandated technical and regulatory requirements. These costs will haye a significant
impact on the budgets of all municipalities and industries and such costs ultimately are
passed on to the public. Information is needed about: (a) cost effective land disposal
options, (b) the cost effectiveness of the mandated technical and regulatory
requirements, and (c) the costs of any subsequent changes that may be required.
Such cost evaluations can be used with the risk evaluation information to better
identify the costs and benefits that may be needed to better protect human health and
the environment when land disposal facilities are sited and operated.
i
Research activities that appear appropriate are (Figure 19):
!
» Determine Land Disposal Facility Costs. The increased costs of MSW
and hazardous waste landfills for municipalities and industries will
place increased pressure on disposal method modifications that lower
costs or at least reduce the likely rate of cost increase. Studies should
be undertaken to relate disposal process options and components to:
(a) overall process costs and (b) improved protection of human health
and the environment. Attempts should be made to identify the extent to
which the increased costs of the newer criteria do result in increased
protection. i
• Relate Facility Costs to Facility Performance. A performance-based
cost sensitivity analysis should be conducted, with a retrospective
evaluation of existing land disposal facility options. On the basis of this
evaluation, predictive models should be developed to help choose the
better cost effective and environmentally protective recycling,: reuse,
treatment and disposal options for municipal and industrial solid
wastes.
• Develop Cost Information That Can Be Used for Future Changes. Cost
information is needed to assess the actual costs of proposed changes
that may be required. Such information will be helpful to: (a) identify
the actual costs of proposed changes and (b) the relative cost
effectiveness for any risk reduction that may result from the proposed
changes. !
76
-------
COST EVALUATIONS
Determine costs of land disposal
- facility components
- replacement, corrective action and
retrofitting
- monitoring requirements
Relate facility costs to facility performance
- for older facilities
- for newer facilities
Develop cost information that can be
relayed to future
- technical changes
- regulatory changes
FIGURE 19 Appropriate Cost Evaluation Research Activities
Technology Transfer
Technical information must be easily available to practitioners,
industries, and other organizations if such information is to be useful.
considerable current effort to provide such information, engineers and
have difficulty knowing what is available and how to obtain it. In the past
RREL-sponsored land disposal research have been transferred to potential
variety of mechanisms. Such transfer of technology must continue.
Technology transfer activities that appear appropriate are (Figure 20):
• Increase Availability of the LDRP Staff. Efforts should be made to
increase the availability of such EPA professionals to states,
municipalities and EPA regional offices to facilitate transfer of technical
information. This should include increasing the opportunity for
professionals from the EPA-LDRP to participate in technical meetings
and present the results of EPA sponsored and other research.
c Annual Research Seminar. The annual RREL research symposium
has been an effective tool for dissemination of research results and
77
municipalities,
In spite of the
the public still
findings from
users by a
-------
should be continued as long as there is a significant research program
on land disposal of waste. I
i
Hotline. A technical assistance hotline should be established to
provide to interested individuals access to the most current information
concerning land disposal of waste. i
I
Seminars and Training Courses. Technology transfer courses and
seminars should be continued. The courses or seminars should be
focused on: (a) an understanding of the pertinent technical and
scientific fundamentals, (b) the field application of the available
technical information, and (c) the results of actual field sc&Ie land
disposal options. '
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Increase availability of the LDRP staff
Continue annual research seminar
Establish a technical assistance hotline
Continue seminars and training courses on
- relating research results to field
applications
- discussing results of actual field scale
facilities
FIGURE 20 Appropriate Land Disposal Technology Transfer Activities
78
-------
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Minimum Technology 'Guidance on
Double Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Impoundments —Design
Construction and Operation," Draft, EPA/530-SW-85-014, Hazardous Waste
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1985. :
2. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, I Solid Waste
Management Facilities. 6 NYCRR Part 360, Title 6 of the Official Compilation of
Codes, Rules and Regulations, Division of Solid Waste, Albany, N.Y., December
1988. ;
3. Gjiroud, J.P. and l.D. Peggs, "The Geomembrane Waste Age: The Eighties and
Nineties," Waste Age. 21. 20-22, 1990. ;
i
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Toxic Release Inventory: National
Perspective, Office of Toxic Substances, EPA 560/4-89-005, Washinqton D C
1989. . y , . .,
i
5. United States Congress, Resource Conservation and Recovery ActT U S
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1986. i
i
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Subtitle D Study Phase I Report USEPA
Washington, D.C., EPA/530-SW-86-054, October 1986. :
!
i
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Facts: :A Statistical
Handbook, USEPA, Washington, D.C., EPA/530-SW-694, August 1978.
8. Franklin Associates, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
State?. 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988^: Final Report. Prairie Village, Kansas, March
1988. I
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Criteria: Proposed Rule, USEPA, Washington, D-C., (40 CFR
Parts 257 and 258), August 30, 1988.
79
-------
10. Bonomo, L and A.E. Higginson, International Overview on Solid Waste
Management. Academic Press. Inc., San Diego, California, 1988. '
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Research Agenda.
Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., Draft,!December 22,
1989. | .
12. SCS Engineers, Municipal Solid Waste Survey Protocol. SCS Engineers, Long
Beach California, 1979. '*
i
13. Tchobanogolous, G., H. Theisen, and R, Eliassen, Solid Waste!: Engineering
Principals and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, 1977.
14. Murphy, R.J., Research Requirements for the Recycle and Reuse 'of Solid Waste
Material. Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, University of South
Florida, Tampa, Florida, 1989. I
15. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Final Report: ! Solid Waste
Disposal and Resource Recovery Study. Environmental iScience and
Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, Florida, 1979.
i
16. Ramsey, D.( Characterization of Solid Waste Generated at the University of
Florida. (Master's Thesis), University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida; August 1989.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Disposal1 in the United
States. Volume II, USEPA, Washington, D.C., EPA/530-SW-88-011B, October
1988. '
i
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda
for Action. USEPA, Washington, D.C., EPA/530-SW-88-052B, September 1988.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Waste Combustion Study:
Report to Congress, USEPA, Washington, D.C., EPA/530-SW-021a, June 1987.
i
20. Westat, Inc., Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste
Programs, Contract No. 68-01-7047, USEPA, Washington, D.C., 1987.
21. Congressional Budget Office, Hazardous Waste Management: Recent Changes
and Policy Alternatives. United States Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., May 1985. |
22. Blumberg, L. and R. Gottlieb, War on Waste: Can America Win Its Battle with
Garbage. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1989. i
80
-------
23. Harris, C., W.L Want, and M.A. Ward, Hazardous Waste: Cbnfronting the
Challenge. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C., 1987. •
i
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of Open Dumps. USEPA,
Washington, D.C., EPA/530-SW-84-003, May 1984. j
25. Congressional Budget Office, Hazardous Waste Management: Recent Changes
and Policy Alternatives. May 1985.
i
26. l_u, J.S.C., B. Eichenberger, and R.J. Stearns, Leachate from Municipal Landfills:
Production and Management. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey,
Pollution Technology Review No. 119, 1985. ',
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Management of Hazardous Waste
Leachate. USEPA, Washington, D.C., EPA/530-SW-871, September 1982.
28. Sabel, G.V. and T.P. Clark, "Volatile Organic Compounds as! Indicators of
Municipal Solid Waste Leachate Contamination", Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Roseville, MN, July 1983. ;
29. Kmet, P. and P.M. McGinley, Chemical Characteristics of Leachate from
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Wisconsin. Fifth Annual Madison Conference
of Applied Research and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste, Madison,
Wisconsin, September 1982. '
30. Brown, K.W. and K.C. Donnelly, "An Estimation of the Risk Associated with the
Organic Constituents of Hazardous and Municipal Waste Landfill Leachates,"
Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials. 5. 1-30. 1988. ',
31. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Leachate Treatability Study. Chemical Waste
Management, Inc., Riverdale, Illinois, September 25, 1989. :
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria for Municipal Waste Landfills.
Case Studies on Ground Water and Surface Water Contamination from Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills. USEPA, Washington, D.C., PB88-242466, July 1988.
i
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment of Hazardous Waste
Mismanagement Damage Case Histories. USEPA, Washington, D.C., EPA/530-
SW-84-002, April 1984. i
i
34. University of Florida, An Investigation of Solid Waste Landfill Closure in Florida.
Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Florida, Feb'ruary 1985.
i
35. Hering, R. and S.A. Greeley, Collection and Disposal of Municipal Refuse.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1921. ;
81
-------
36. American Public Works Association, Municipal Refuse Disposal. Public
Administration Service, Washington, D.C., 1966.
i
37. Ehlers, V.M. and E.W. Steel, Municipal Refuse Disposal. Public Administration
Service, Washington, D.C., 1966. j
38. Texas Department of Health, Municipal Solid Waste Management Regulations.
Vol. 1, Austin, TX, April 1985. :
39. State of Florida, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 17-701, Tallahassee, FL,
August 2, 1989. :
40. State of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Bulletin. Vol. 18, No. 15, Harrisburq PA
April 9, 1988. ;
41. Illinois Pollution Control Board, Recommendations for a Non-Hazardous Disposal
Program in Illinois. R84-17, Springfield, IL, March 7, 1988.
42. State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Revisions to Solid Waste
Regulations. OAC 3745-27, Columbus, OH, Draft, April 17, 1989. :
43. Fund for Renewable Energy and the Environment, The State of the States
Washington, D.C., 1987.
!
44. Beatty, C., "Containing Landfill Leaks", American Citv land County.
Communications Channels, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, 101. April 1986.;
i
45. South Texas Development Council, Regional Solid Waste Management Plan:
1980-1990. South Texas Development Council, 1980. i
46. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures. 1980
1MA-200(80)-1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 11981.
47. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures. 1986,
MA-200(86)-1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., J1989.
48. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1989. (109th
Edition), Washington, D.C., 1989. i
49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Future Risk: Research Strategies for the
1990s. Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C., SAB-EC-88-040, 1988.
50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Report of the Environmental Engineering
Committee," Science Advisory Board, SAB-86-013, February 1986.i
82
-------
51. Rothermal, T.W., "The Economic Effects of Environmental Regulations on the
Pollution Control Industry," Arthur D. Little, Inc., September 1978. j
52. IICF Corporation, "Pollution Control Technology Research and 'Development:
Private Sector Incentives and the Federal Role in the Curreint Regulatory
System", prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984.
53. Center for Economics Research, 1986 National Screening Survey; of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal and Recycling Facilities - Summary
Results for TSDR Facilities Active in 1985, prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Research Triangle Institute, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., December 1986. ;
!
54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Hazardous Waste Management System;
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Toxicity Characteristic Revisions;
Final Rule", Federal Register, pages 11798-11877, March 29, 1990.
83
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF REPORTS BY RREL
AND AVAILABLE THROUGH NTIS*
ON LAND DISPOSAL OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
*National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(713-487-4650)
-------
APPENDIX A
Leachate Forecasting
1. Physical, Chemical and Microbiological Methods of Solid Waste Testing, 1973,
NTIS #PB 220479/AS. !
i
2. Physical, Chemical and Microbiological Methods of Solid Waste Testing, Four
Additional Procedures, 1974, NTIS #PB 231203/AS. !
3. Evaluation of Health Hazards Associated with Solid Waste Sewage Sludge Mixtures,
1975, NTIS #PB 241810/1BA.
l
i
4. Compilation of Methodology Used for Measuring Pollution parameters of Sanitary
Landfill Leachate, 1975, NTIS #PB 248102/AS. :
5. Forecasting the Composition & Weight of Household Solid Wastes Using Input-
Output Techniques: Executive Summary, 1977, NTiS #PB 266684/AS; Volume 1,
1976, NTIS #PB 257499/AS; Volume 2, 1976, NTIS #PB 257500/AS.
6. Chemical and Physical Effects of Municipal Landfills on Underlying Soils &
Groundwater, 1978, NTIS #PB 286836/AS. :
7. Investigation of Sanitary Landfill Behavior: Volume 1, Final Report,: 1980, NTIS
#PB 80-109051; Volume 2, Supplement to the Final Report, 1980
80-109069.
8. Comparison of Leachate Characteristics from Selected Municipal Solid
Cells, 1984, NTIS #PB 84-220276.
9. Municipal Solid Waste Generated Gas and Leachate, 1985, NTIS #PB
NTIS #PB
Waste Test
85-127504.
10,. Simulation of Leachate Generation from Municipal Solid Waste, 1987, NTIS #PB
87-227005.
Controlled Decomposition
1. Hospital Solid Waste Disposal in Community Facilities, 1973, NTIS #PB
222018/AS.
2. Study of Institutional Solid Wastes, 1973, NTIS #PB 223345/AS.
3. Hospital Solid Waste: An Annotated Bibliography, 1974, NTIS #PB 227708/AS.
4. Sanitary Landfill Stabilization with Leachate Recycle and Residual: Treatment,
1975, NTIS #PB 248524/AS. ;
5. Environmental Assessment of Future Disposal Methods for Plastics in Municipal
Solid Waste, 1975, NTIS #PB 243366/AS. I
85
-------
6. A Study of Vegetation Problems Associated With Refuse Landfills, 1978, NTIS #PB
285228/AS. •
7. Boone County Field Site Interim Report, Test Cells 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D,;1979, NTIS
#PB 299689/AS.
8. Compendium on Solid Waste Management by Vermi-composting, 1980, NTIS #PB
81-109696. ;
9. A Survey of Pathogen Survival During Municipal Solid Waste and Manure
Treatment Processes, 1980, NTIS #PB 81-177602. i
i
10. Particle Size Variation Effects on Land Filled Solid Waste: Cold Climate Studies,
1981, NTIS #PB 81-152050. ;
i
11. Time Settlement Behavior of Processed Refuse 4-volume set, 1981; NTIS #PB
81-228546. ;
i
Controlled Decomposition :
1. Field Assessment of Site Closure, Boone County, Kentucky, 1983, NTIS #PB 83-
251629.
2. Landfill Research at the Boone County Field Site, 1984, NTIS #PB 84-161546.
3. Isolation, Characterization, and Identification of Microorganisms from Laboratory
and Full-Scale Landfills, 1984, NTIS #PB 84-212737. ;
4. Landfill Gas Production from Large Landfill Simulators, 1984, NTIS #PB 84-
235779. :
5. Evaluation of Processed Municipal Wastes in Landfill Cells, 1985, NTIS #PB 85-
- 117109. j
6. Evaluation and Disposal of Waste Materials Within 19 Test Lysimetefs at Center
Hill, 1986, NTIS # 86-176336. j
7. Gas Characterization, Microbiological Analyses, and Disposal of Refuse in GRI
Landfill Simulators, 1986, NTIS #PB 86-179504. ,
8. Critical Review and Summary of Leachate and Gas Production frdm Landfills,
1986, NTIS #PB 86-240181.
9. Municipal Landfill Gas Condensate, 1988, NTIS #PB 88-113246.
Co-Disposal ;
1. Study of Co-disposed Municipal and Treated/Untreated Industrial Waste, 1985,
NTIS #PB 85-235588. :
!
I
2. Retrospective Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Industrial Wastes on Municipal
Solid Waste Stabilization in Simulated Landfills, 1987, NTIS #87-198701.
Leachate Treatment
86
-------
1. Evaluation of Leachate Treatment: Volume 1, Characterization of Leachate, 1977,
NTIS #PB 272885/AS. - I
2. Evaluation of Leachate Treatment: Volume II Biological and Physical-Chemical
Processes, 1977, NTIS #PB 277038/AS. ;
i
3. Sorbents for Fluoride, Metal Finishing and Petroleum Sludge Leachate Contaminant
Control, 1978, NTIS #PB 280696/AS.
4. Municipal Solid Waste Disposal in Estuaries and Coastal Marshlands,'1981, NTIS
#PB 81-129223. ;
5. Evaluation of Mixing Systems for Biogasification of Municipal Solid Waste, 1981,
NTIS #81-171597. ;
i
6. Production and Management of Leachate from Municipal Landfills: Summary and
Assessment, 1984, NTIS #PB 84-187913. '•
Resource Recovery - Facilities/Equipment Design (includes
Environmental Effects, Process Evaluations, Refuse Derived Fuels &
Others)
1. Industrial Chemicals Solid Waste Generation - The Significance ;of Process
Resource Recovery, and Improved Disposal, 1974, NTIS #PB 233-464-7BA.
2. Obtaining Improved Products from the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste,
1981, NTIS #PB 81-110-918. ;
3. Evaluation of the Ames Solid Waste Recovery System. Part I - Summary of
Environmental Emissions: Equipment, Facilities, and Economic Evaluations, 1977,
NTIS #PB 274-552. :
4. The Preparation of Fuels and Feedstocks from Municipal Solid Waste, 1977, NTIS
# PB 279-077.
5. Significance of Size Reduction in Solid Waste Management, Volume I,; 1977, NTIS
#PB 272-096; Volume II, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-107-096; Effects of Machine
Parameters on Shredder Performance, Volume III, 1983, NTIS #PB 83-154-
344.
6. Assessment of Bacteria and Virus Emissions at a Refuse Derived Fuel Plant and
Other Waste Handling Facilities, 1078, NTIS #PB 288-513.
7. Comparison of Methods for Sampling Bacteria at Solid Waste Processing Facilities,.
1980, NTIS #PB 80-118-516. ,
8. Analytical Methods Used for Measurement of Numbers of Viable Bacterial and
Viruses in Airborne Emissions at Solid Waste Handling and Processing Facilities,
1980, NTIS #PB 80-102-338. ;
i
9. Processing Equipment for Resource Recovery Systems, Volume I, State of the Art
and Research Needs, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-141-590; Volume II, Magnetic
Separators, Air Classifiers, & Ambient Emissions Tests, NTIS #PB 81-141-
87 i
-------
590; Volume III, Field Test Evaluation of Shredders, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-151-
557.
!
10, Small Scale and Low Technology Resource Recovery, 1980, NTIS *fPB 80-182- •
694. i
11. Recovery, Processing and Utilization of Gas From Sanitary Landfills,: 1979, NTIS
#PB 293-165/AS.
12.. Impediments to Energy and Materials Recovery Facilities for Municipal Solid
Waste, 1982, NTIS #PB 82-102-302. , |
I
13.. Comparative Study of Air Classifiers, 1982, NTIS #PB82-106-121. j
i
14.. Options for Resource Recovery and Disposal of Scrap Tires: Volume I,! 1982, NTIS
#PB 82-107-491.
15, Compatibility of Source Separation and Mixed Waste Processing for Resource
Recovery, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-213-308. . [
16,. Magnetic Drum Separator Performance Scalping Trommel Underflow, at Nominal
Design Conditions: Test No. 4.01, Recovery 1, New Orleans, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-
213-308. :
17, Magnetic Drum Separator Performance Scalping Shredded Trommel'Overflow at
Nominal Design Conditions: Test No. 4.03, Recovery 1, New Orleans,: 1981, NTIS
#PB 81-213-316.
18. Improvement of Magnetically Separated Ferrous Concentrate by Shredding: A
Performance Test: Test No. 4.07, Recovery 1, New Orleans, 1981, N"hS #PB 81-
213-332.
1 9. Test of an Eddy Current Separator for the Recovery of Aluminum from Municipal
Waste: Test No. 5.01, Recovery 1, New Orleans, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-217-663.
20. Further Testing of an Eddy Current Separator for the Recovery of Aluminum from
Municipal Waste: Test No. 5.02, Recovery 1, New Orleans, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-
217-671.
21. Performance of an Air Classifier to Remove Light Organic Contamination from
Aluminum Recovered from Municipal Waste by Eddy Current Separation: Test No.
5.03, Recovery 1, New Orleans, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-217-689. '.
22. Test of a Double-Deck Vibrating Screen Employed as an Aluminum and Glass
Concentrator: Test No. 5.07, Recovery 1, New Orleans, 1981, NT|IS #PB .81-
217-697. :
23. Resource Recovery from Plastic and Glass Wastes, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-223-
471. ;
24. Considerations in Selecting Conveyors for Solid Waste Applications,'1983, NTIS
#PB 83-107-482.
i
88 !
-------
25. A Pneumatic Conveying Test Rig for Solid Waste Fractions, 1983, NTIS #PB 83-
107-474. i
26. Determination of Explosion Venting Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste
Shredders, 1983, NTIS #PB 83-149-088. ,
[
Resource Recovery - Refuse Derived Fuel (see other categories for
additional applicable reports)
i
1. A Field Test Using Coal: d-RDF Blends in Spreader Stoker-Fired Boilers, 1981,
NTIS #PB 81-111-106. , !
2. Selective Enhancement of RDF Fuels, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-179-269.j
I
3. Fundamental Consideration for Preparing Densified Refuse Derived; Fuel, 1982,
NTIS #PB 82-101-668. :,
4. Densification of Refuse Derived Fuels: Preparation Properties and iSystems for
Small Communities, 1982, NTIS #PB 82-103-904. ;
5. Coal: dRDF Demonstration Test in an Industrial Spreader Stoker Boiler, Volume I,
1982, NTIS #PB 82-100-868.
i
6. Coal: dRDF Demonstration Test in an Industrial Spreader Stoker Boiler - Volume
II, Use of Coal: dRDF Blends in Stoker-Fired Boilers, Appendices A, B, C, and D,
1982, NTIS #PB 82-100-876.
Resource Recovery - Secondary Materials (Includes Economics,
Impediments & Similar Activities) i
I
1. Composted Municipal Refuse as a Soil Amendment, 1973, NTIS #PB 222-422.
2. Forecasting the Composition & Weight of Household Solid Waste Using! Input-Output
Techniques, Volume I, 1976, NTIS #PB 257-499; Volume II, 1976, NTIS #PB
257-500. ;
!
i
3. Evaluation of Economic Benefits of Resource Conservation, 1978, NTIS #PB 286-
973.
4. An Analysis of Scrap Futures Market for Stimulating Resource Recovery, 1978,
NTIS #PB 291-882. !
5. Specifications for Materials Recovered from Municipal Refuse, 1975, NTIS #PB
242-540/AS.
6. Single-Cell Protein and Other Food Recovery Technologies from Wastes, 1977,
NTIS #PB 270-048. ,
... i
7. Energy and Economics Assessment of Anaerobic Digesters and Biofuels for Rural
Waste Management, 1978, NTIS #PB 296-523. '
8. Economics of Municipal Solid Management - The Chicago Case, 1978, NTIS #PB
286-360/AS.
89 :
-------
9. Assessment of the Impact of Resource Recovery on the Environment,; 1979, NTIS
#PB 80-102-874. ;
1.0. Fuel and Energy Production by Bioconversion of Waste Materials, 197$, NTIS #PB
258-499/AS. |
i
11. Foam Glass Insulation from Waste Glass, 1977, NTIS #PB 272-761. I
12. European Developments in the Recovery of Energy and Materials from Municipal
Solid Waste, 1977, NTIS #PB 270-219. '•
13. Pretreatments and Substrate Evaluation for the Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Cellulosic
Wastes, 1977, NTIS #PB 272-104/AS.
14. A Case Study of the Los Angeles County Palos Verdes Landfill Gas Development
Project, 1977, NTIS #PB 272-241/AS. I
I
15. Synthetic Fuel Production from Solid Wastes, 1977, NTIS #PB 272-$23/kS.
1 6. The Feasibility of Utilizing Solid Wastes for Building Materials, 1977; NTIS #PB
271-007/AS. '•
17. A Study of the Feasibility of Utilizing Solid Wastes for Building Materials, (date
not available) Phase I, NTIS #PB 279-440; Phase II, NTIS #PB 279-1441; Phase
III, NTIS #PB 285-437/AS. I
18. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Energy Conversion Processes for
Agricultural & Forest Products Residues, 1978, NTIS #PB 281-189/AS.
I
19. Energy Conservation Through Source Reduction, 1978, NTIS #PB 290-126/AS.
!
[
20. Impact of Federal Tax Code on Resource Recovery: A Condensation, 1977, NTIS #PB
272-329/AS. ;
21. Forecasts of the Quantity & Composition of Solid Waste, 1980, NTIS #PB 81-
157-877. ;
22. Wage Incentives for Solid Waste Collection Personnel, 1977, NTiS #PB 273-
5227 AS. I
23. Ferrous Metals Recovery at Recovery 1, New Orleans; Performance of the Modified
System: Test No. 4.05 and Test No. 4.09, Recovery 1, New Orleans, '1981, NTIS
#PB 81-213-324.
90
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF REPORTS BY PREL
AND AVAILABLE THROUGH NT1S*
ON LAND DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
*Nationai Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(713-487-4650)
-------
APPENDIX B j
Landfills - Pollutant Control - Liners
1. Factors in Assessing the Compatibility of FML's and Waste Liquids,: 1988, NTIS
#PB 88-173372.
2. Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Cover Designs, 1988, NTIS #PB 88-
171327. |
3. Technical Considerations for DeMimimis Pollutant Transport Through Polymeric
Liners, 1988, NTIS #PB 88-238332. '
4. Loading Point Puncturability Analysis of Geosynthetic Liner Materials, 1988,
NTIS #PB 88-235544. :
5. The Electrical Leak Location Method for Geomembrane Liners, 1988, NTIS #PB
88-220496. i
6. Determination of Effective Porosity of Soil Materials, 1988, NTIS #PB 88-
242391. !
i
7. Quick Indicator Tests to Characterize Bentonite Type, 1988, NTIS #PB 88-
244033. i
!
8. Freeboard Determination and Management in Hazardous Waste Surface
impoundments, 1988, NTIS #PB88-243787. I
9. Consensus Report of the AD HOC Meeting on the Service Life: in Landfill
Environments of Flexible Membrane Liners and Other Synthetic Polymeric
Materials of. Construction, 1978. No NTIS # available.
Landfills - Pollutant Control - Models and Expert Systems :
1. Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model - Version I: Volume
1, User's Guide, 1985, NTIS #PB 85-100840; Volume 2, Documentation, 1985,
NTIS #PB 85-100832. . j
2. SOILINER Model: Documentation and User's Guide for Version 1, 1987!, NTIS #PB
87-100038. !
i
3. SOILINER Software on 5 1/4 inch, DS/DD disks for IBM XT, AT or IBM compatible
PC'S, 1987, NTIS #PB 87-130951.
4. Geotechnical Analysis for Review of Dike Stability (GARDS), Technical Manual,
1987, NTIS #PB 87-130951. !
5. GARDS Software on 5 1/4 inch, DS/DD disks for IBM XT, AT or IBM! compatible
PC's, 1987, NTIS #PB 87-130969. i
6. A Requirements Study of an Automated Advisory System for Review of RCRA
Permits, 1986, NTIS #PB 86-176674. i
32
-------
7. Verification of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model
Using Field Data, 1987, NTIS #PB 87-227518. ;
8. Evaluation of Hydrologic Models in the Design of Stable Landfill Covers, 1988,
NTIS #PB 88-243811. j
9. Technical Guidance Document: Construction Quality Assurance for Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal Facilities, 1987, NTIS #PB 87-132825. ;
10. Geosynthetic Design Guidance for Hazardous Waste Landfill Cells and Surface
Impoundments, 1988, NTIS #PB 88-131263. :
Landfills - Pollutant Treatment I
1. Recommended Methods of Reduction, Neutralization, Recovery or ;Disposal of
Hazardous Waste, 1973. !
Part 1, Summary Report, NTIS #PB 224580/AS.
Part 2, Toxicological Summary, NTIS #PB 224581/AS. |
i
i
Part 3, Disposal Process Descriptions: Ultimate Disposal Incineration and
Pyrolysis Processes, NTIS #PB 224582/AS. ;
Part 4, Disposal Process Descriptions: Biological and Miscellaneous Waste
Treatment Processes, NTIS #PB 224583/AS. '
Part 5, National Disposal Site Candidate Waste Stream Constituent Profile Report -
Pesticides and Cyanide, NTIS #PB 224584/AS. ;
I
Part 6, National Disposal Site Candidate Waste Stream Constituent Profile Report -
Mercury, Arsenic, CR, Cadmium, NTIS #PB 224585/AS. ;
Part 7, National Disposal Site Candidate Waste Stream Constituent Profile Report -
Propellants, Explosives, Chemical Warfare, NTIS #PB 224586/AS. ;
Part 8, National Disposal Site Candidate Waste Stream Constituent Profile Report -
Miscellaneous Organic and Inorganic Compounds, NTIS #PB 224587/AS.
Part 9, National Disposal Site Candidate Waste Stream Constituent Profile Report -
Nuclear, NTIS #PB 224588/AS. :
Part 10, Industrial and Municipal Disposal Candidate Waste Stream: Constituent
Profile Interim Report - Organic Compounds, NTIS #PB 224589/AS. j
Part 11, Industrial and Municipal Disposal Candidate Waste Stream!Constituent
Profile Interim Report - Organic Compounds, NTIS #PB 224590/AS. <
Part 12, Industrial and Municipal Disposal Candidate Waste Stream!Constituent
Profile Interim Report - Inorganic Compounds, NTIS #PB 224591/AS;
I
Part 13, Industrial and Municipal Disposal Candidate Waste Stream! Constituent
Profile Interim Report - Inorganic Compounds, NTIS #PB 224592/AS:
i
93 !
-------
Part 14, Summary of Waste Origins, Forms and Quantities, ' NTIS #PB
224593/AS. !
Part 15, Research and Development Plans, NTIS #PB 224594/AS.
i
Part 16, References, NTIS #PB 224595/AS. j
2. Concentration Technologies for Hazardous Aqueous Waste Treatment,' 1981, NTIS
#PB 81-150583.
3. Treatment of Reactive Wastes at Hazardous Waste Landfills, 1984, NflS #PB 84-
124833. !
4. "Stringfeltow Leachate Treatment with RBCs" by E.J. Opatken. ; Printed in
Environmental progress. 7:1, February, 1988. |
5. State-of-the-Art Study of Land Impoundment Techniques, 1978,; NTIS #PB
291881/AS. i
6. Assessment of Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundment Technology Case! Studies and
Perspectives of Experts, 1985, NTIS #PB 85-117059.
Underground Mines
1. Evaluation of Hazardous Wastes Emplacement in Mined Openings, 1975, NTIS #PB
250701/AS. ;
i
2. Using Mined Space for Long-Term Retention of Nonradioactive Hazardous Waste,
Volume 1, Conventional Mines, 1985, NTIS #PB 85-177111; Volume; 2, Solution
Mined Salt Caverns, 1985, NTIS #PB 85-177129. j
Solidification/Stabilization - Technology Development and Evaluations
1. Development of a Polymeric Cementing and Encapsulating Process for Managing
Hazardous Wastes, 1977, NTIS #PB 272309/AS. ;
2. Survey of Solidification/Stabilization Technology for Hazardous industrial Wastes,
1979, NTIS #PB 299206/AS.
i
3. Securing Containerized Hazardous Wastes with Polyethylene Resins and Fiberglass
Encapsulates, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-232449.
4. Securing Containerized Hazardous Wastes with Welded Polyethylene Encapsulates,
1981, NTIS #PB 81-231292. '
i
5. Securing Containerized Hazardous Wastes by Encapsulation with Spray-on/Brush-
on Resins, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-231284.
6. Development of Methods for the Stabilization of Pyrolytic Oil, 1982,: NTIS #PB
82-108150. !
7. Stabilization, Testing, and Disposal of Arsenic Containing Wastes, 1983, NTIS #PB
83-190975.
-------
Solidification/Stabilization - Physical and Chemical Characterization.
!-
1. Pollutant Potential of Raw and Chemically Fixed Hazardous Industrial!Wasfes and
Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludges, 1976, NTIS #PB 256691/AS. i
2. Physical and Engineering Properties of Hazardous Industrial Wastes and Sludges,
1977, NTIS #PB 272266/AS. |
3. Elutriate Test Evaluation of Chemically Stabilized Waste Materials, < 1980, NTIS
#PB 80-147069. |
4. Physical Properties and Leach Testing of Solidified/Stabilized Flue G'as Cleaning
Wastes, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-217036. '
(
5. Physical Properties and Leachate Testing of Solidified/Stabilized Industrial
Wastes, 1983, NTIS #PB 83-147983. ;
Solidification/Stabilization - Prediction & Evaluation of Long Term
Performance :
1. Field Investigation of Contaminant Loss from Chemically Stabilized Industrial
Sludges, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-246332. ;
2. Investigation of Stabiex® Material Emplaced at West Thurrock Facility, England,
1984. Not NTIS # available. j
3. Solidification/Stabilization of Sludge and Ash from Wastewater Pretreatment
Plants, 1985, NTIS #PB 85-207504. !
!
Uncontrolled Sites - Evaluation and Management
1. Evaluation of Pollution Abatement Alternatives: Picillo Property, Coventry, Rhode
Island, 1981, NTIS #PB 82-103888. ;
i
2. Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites,; 1978, NTIS
#PB 286905/AS.
3. Use of Remote Sensing Techniques in a Systematic Investigation of an Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Site, 1981, NTIS #PB 82-103896. :
4. Modeling Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, 11985, NTIS
#PB 85=211357. i
Uncontrolled Sites - Delivery and Recovery Systems
!
1. Compatibility of Grouts with Hazardous Wastes, 1984, NTIS #PB 84-139732.
i
2. Grouting Techniques in Bottom Sealing of Hazardous Waste Sites, 1986, NTIS #PB
86-158664.
3. Block Displacement Method: Field Demonstrations and Specifications,, 1987, NTIS
#PB 87-170338. i
35
-------
4. Investigation of Slurry Cutoff Wall Design and Construction Methods for Containing
Hazardous Wastes, 1987, NTIS #PB 87-229688. !
5. Reactivity of Various Grouts to Hazardous Wastes and Leachates, 1988, NTIS #PB
88-186936. :
Uncontrolled Sites - In-Situ Treatment
1. Feasibility of in Situ Solidification/Stabilization of Landfiiled Hazardous Wastes,
1983, NTIS #PB 83-261099. !
2. Review of In-Place Treatment Techniques for Contaminated Surface Soils, Volume
1, Technical Evaluation, 1984, NTIS #PB 85-124881; Volume 2, Background
Information, 1984, NTIS #PB 85-124899. j
3. Testing and Evaluation of Permeable Materials for Removing Pollutants from
Leachates at Remedial Action Sites, 1986, NTIS #PB 86-237708. !
4. Groundwater and Leachate Treatability Studies at Four Superfund Sites, 1986,
NTIS #PB 86-171436. !
Uncontrolled Sites - Case Studies
1. Survey of On-Going and Completed Remedial Action Projects, 1981;, NTIS #PB
82-134115. ;
2. Case Studies of Remedial Response at Hazardous Waste Sites, Volume 1!, 1984, NTIS
#PB 85-121721. !
3. Case Studies 1-23: Remedial Response at Hazardous Waste Sites, Volume 2, 1984,
NTIS #PB 85-121739. :
4. Reclamation and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land, Volume 1, U.S. Case Studies,
1987, NTIS #PB 87-142121. '
5. Construction Quality Control and Post-Construction Performance Verification for
the Gilson Road Hazardous Waste Site Cutoff Wall, 1987, NTIS #PB 88-1133295.
6. U.S. Production of Manufactured Gases: Assessment of past Disposal Practices,
1988, NTIS #PB 88-165790. !
7. Case Studies Addendum: 1-8. Remedial Response at Hazardous Waste!Sites, 1988,
NTIS #PB 88-204284. ;
Symposia
1. Gas and Leachate from Landfills: Formation, Collection, and Treatment -
Proceedings of the First SHWRD Symposium, March 25-26, 1975, RUtgers, State
University of New Jersey, 1976, NTIS #PB 251161/AS. j
2. Residual Management by Land Disposal - Proceedings of the Second SHWRD
Symposium, February 2-4, 1976, University of Arizona, 1976, NTIS #PB
256768/AS. ;
96 ;
-------
3. Management of Gas and Leachate in Landfills - Proceedings of the Third SHWRD
Symposium, March 14-16, 1978, Southwest Research Institute, 1978, NTIS
#PB 272595/AS. - '.
i
4. Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes - Proceedings of the Fourth Annual SHWRD
Research Symposium, March 6-8, 1978, Southwest Research Institute, 1978,
NTIS #PB 286956/AS. . j
5. Municipal Solid Waste Land Disposal - Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Research
Symposium, March 26-28, 1979, University of Central Florida, i979, NTIS
#PB 80-114291. i
6. Municipal Solid Waste: Resource Recovery - Proceedings of the Fifth Annual
Research Symposium, March 26, 1979, University of Central Florida, 1979,
NTIS #PB 80-114283. !
7. Disposal of Hazardous Waste - Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Research
Symposium, March 17-20, 1980, Southwest Research Institute, 1980, NTIS
#PB 80-175086. • . \
8. Treatment of Hazardous Waste - Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Research
Symposium, March 17-20, 1980, Southwest Research Institute, NTfS #PB 80-
175094. ;
9. Proceedings of a Symposium on Economic Approaches to Solid Waste Management,
May 1980, NTIS #PB 80-212848. i
1 0. Land Disposal: Municipal Solid Waste, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Research
Symposium, March 16-18, 1981, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, , Southwest
Research Institute, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-173874. :
11. Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste - Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Research
Symposium, March 16-18, 1981, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, i Southwest
Research Institute, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-173882. \
12. Municipal Solid Waste: Resource Recovery - Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Research Symposium, March 16-18, 1981, Philadelphia, PA, Southwest Research
Institute, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-173890. '
13. Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste - Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Research
Symposium, March 8-10, 1982, Fort Mitchell, KY, Southwest Research Institute,
1982, NTIS #PB 82-173022.
i
14. Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste - Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Research
Symposium, May 2-4, 1983, Fort Mitchell, KY, Southwest Research Institute,
1983, NTIS #PB 84-118777. j
15. Land Disposal, Remedial Action, Incineration, and Treatment of Hazardous Waste -
Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Research Symposium, April 21-23, 1986,
Cincinnati, Ohio, JACA Corporation, 1987, NTIS #PB 87-233151. \
1 6. Land Disposal, Remedial Action, Incineration, and Treatment of Hazardous Waste -
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Research Symposium, May 0-11, 1988,
Cincinnati, OH, JACA Corporation, 1988, NTIS #PB 89-174403. ;
96
-------
17. Land Disposal, Remedial Action, incineration, and Treatment of Hazardous Waste -
Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Research Symposium, April 10-12, 1989,
Cincinnati, OH, JACA Corporation, No date or NTIS # available. j
!
Economics
i
\
1. Cost Assessment for the Emplacement of Hazardous Materials in a Salt Mine, 1977,
NTIS #PB 276730/AS. ;
i
2. Socioeconomic Analysis of Hazardous Waste Management Alternatives: Methodology
and Demonstration, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-218968.
3. Cost of Alternative Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Sludge Disposal Regulations:
Phase II, 1980, NTIS #PB 81-118895. • i
4. Cost Comparisons of Treatment and Disposal Alternatives for Hazardous Wastes:
Volume 1, 1980, NTIS #PB 81-125814; Volume 2, 1980, NTIS #PB 81-
128522. i
i
5. Costs of Remedial Response Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, 1982,
NTIS #PB 83-164830. . '
|
6. Economic Analysis and Risk Management: An Application to Hazardous Wastes,
1984, NTIS #PB 84-125012. j
7. Optional Cost Models for Landfill Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste, 1985, NTIS
#PB 85-176808. i
8. Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites: Worker Health
and Safety Considerations, 1986, NTIS #PB 86-176344. \
9. Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual, 1987, NTIS #PB 88-113691.
Technical Publications - Resource Documents •
1. Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste, 1987, NTIS #PB 87-
154894. :
2. Landfill and Surface Impoundment Performance Evaluation, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-
166357. !
3. Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities, 1986, NTIS #PB
86=192796.
i
4. Management of Hazardous Waste Leachate, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-189359.
5. Guide to the Disposal of Chemically Stabilized and Solidified Wastes,11987, NTIS
#PB 87-154902.
6. Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface impoundments, 1987, NTIS #PB 87-
155537.
i
7. Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, 1981, NTIS #PB 81-182107. •
97
-------
8. Technical Guidance Document: Construction Quality Assurance for Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal Facilities, 1986, NTIS #PB 8.7-132825. '
9. Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model - Version I: Volume
1, User's Guide, 1984, NTIS #PB 85-100840; Volume 2, Documentation, 1984,
NTIS #PB 85-100832. I
10. Solid Waste Leaching Procedures Manual, 1987, NTIS #PB 87-152054.
11. Soil Properties, Classification, and Hydraulic Conductivity Testing, :1987, NTIS
#PB 87-155784.
i
12. Design, Construction, and Evaluation of Clay Liners for Waste Management
Facilities, 1986, NTIS #PB 86-184496. j
!
13. Batch-Type Adsorption Procedures for Estimating Soil Attenuation of Chemicals,
1987, NTIS #PB 87-146155. '
14. Lining of Waste Containment and other Impoundment Facilities, 1988, NTIS #PB
89-129670. ;
Technical Publications - Handbooks
1. Handbook for Evaluating Remedial Action Technology Plans, 1983, NTIS #PB 84-
118249. |
2. Handbook for Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites, 1982, NTIS #PB 82-
23054. ;
3. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution Migration Control, 1984,; NTIS #PB
84-177831. i
4. Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, 1985, NTIS #PB 87-119483.
5. Guide for Decontaminating Buildings, Structures and Equipment at Superfund Sites,
1985, NTIS #PB 85-201234. :
i
6. Handbook: Dust Control at Hazardous Waste Sites, 1985, NTIS #PB 86-190105.
i
7. Leachate Plume Management, 1985, NTIS #PB 86-122330. ;
8. Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous Wastes, 1986|, NTIS #PB •
87-201034. ;
9. Systems to Accelerate In Situ Stabilization of Waste Deposits, 1986, NTIS #PB~
87-112306. !
1 0. Geotextiles for Drainage, Gas Venting and Erosion Control at Hazardous Waste Sites,
1986, NTIS #PB 87-129557.
11. Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA, 1985, NTIS #PB 85-
238616. i
98 ;
-------
12. Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, 1985, NTIS #PB 85-238590
13. Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Technologies, 1987,
17771278.
NTIS
14. Guide to Technical Resources for the Design of Land Disposal Facilities
NTIS # available.
15. Lining of Waste Containment and Other Impoundment Facilities, 1988
available.
Miscellaneous Publications - Land Treatment
1. Land Treatment Field Studies, 1983, NTiS #PB 83-241265.
2. Land Treatability of Refinery and Petrochemical Sludges, 1983, NTIS #PB 83-
247148.
3. Literature-Review Screening Techniques for the Evaluation of Land Treatment of
Industrial Wastes, 1983, NTIS #PB 84-110386.
99
#PB 87-
, 1988, no
no NTiS #
------- |