-------
4.12.23 Current Economic Costs
In "general, leachate treatment costs range from $5.80 ($6.50), $1.10
($1.23), and $0.50 ($0.56) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100, and 300
ton per day landfill sites respectively.
4.12.3 Environmental Impact Summary
Leachate treatment serves to remove organic matter and inorganic
ions, as well as odor and color, from collected landfill leach-
ate before it is discharged to surface waters. If properly
and effectively implemented, leachate treatment technology en-
sures that any landfill leachate discharge to surface waters
will meet the provisions of the NPDES permit which would be re-
quired under Section 402 of the 1977 Clean Water Act (Public Law
95-217). The consequent environmental impacts of uncontrolled
discharges are thereby avoided.
-68-
-------
4.13 LEACHATE RECYCLING
4.13.1 Introduction
Leachate recycling is the controlled collection and recircu-
lation of leachate through the landfill for the purpose of promot-
ing rapid stabilization of re/use and leachate constituents. Re-
cycling may also result in reduction of leachate strength and thus
may serve as a pretreatment arrangement prior to leachate treat-
ment processes or direct leachate discharge.
The Guidelines indicate that "recirculation of collected
landfill leachate onto active or completed sections of the land-
fill can reduce leachate constituent concentrations by chemical,
physical and biological processes and may be effective in re-
ducing leachate volume." The following discusses in more detail
the technology and environmental impacts of leachate recycling.
Since leachate recycling is a relatively new landfill technology,
the following evaluation must be considered preliminary in nature.
4.13.2 Technology Summary
4.13.21 Leachate Control
The precise mode of operation of leachate recycling is still
poorly understood since it has only been recently investigated in
experimental landfill simulations and very little practical appli-
cation of the concept has yet been achieved. The generally hypoth-
esized and accepted explanation is that recirculation of leachate
through a landfill promotes faster development of an active population
of anaerobic methane forming bacteria, which effect the bulk of
the waste decomposition process. This, in turn, increases the rate
and predictability of biological stabilization of the organic con-
stituents in the waste. While initial recycling may result in
higher leachate constituent concentrations than would normally be
experienced, the potential increase in degradation rates theoretically
should result in reduction of leachate constituents in a short time
frame. A variety of constituents, particularly non-organics, such
as metallic ions, may remain relatively unaffected. Depending on
site specific considerations, requirements for long-term post-closure
landfill leachate monitoring and management may be reduced in certain
instances.
-69-
-------
While actual development of and experience with leachate re-
cycling systems is limited, some alternative arrangements can be
described. First, the leachate must be collected using one of
the techniques identified in Section 4.11. The actual recircu-
lation technique utilized depends on whether the landfill section
through which the leachate is to be recycled is active or completed,
and on the permeability of the cover material. For permeable covers,
the most practical system for leachate recycling is to distribute the
leachate by utilizing a truck equiped with a spray bar. Alternatively,
the leachate can be recycled by utilization of a spray irrigation
system or a number of well points. Landfills incorporating imperme-
able final covers may be more amenable to leachate distribution via
pressure or gravity lines to a system of perforated pipes buried
beneath the cover material.
The rate of biological stabilization can be accelerated by adding
sewage sludge to the cover material to seed a methane forming bacteria
population and/or by initially neutralizing the landfill pH through
addition of lime, etc. so that optimum conditions for immediate
development of a bacteria population can be achieved. These measures
can reduce landfill stabilization time to a matter of months as
opposed to a matter of years.
Once the leachate has been recycled, it may be suitable for direct
discharge to surface waters, depending on the condition of the
receiving waters and/or on the specific applicable regulatory requirements,
In some cases, the landfill may completely reabsorb the recycled leachate,
resulting in zero leachate discharge. This is particularly true where
leachate generation has primarily resulted from short-circuiting of
leachate through the waste mass. In many cases, however, the effluent
leachate will require further treatment by separate biological and/or
physical-chemical processes (see Section 4.12, Leachate Treatment) to
remove residual organics, inorganics such as hardness, chloride, and
calcium, and odor, color and metals, etc.
4.13.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for this technology average $0.45 ($0.50),
$0.10 ($0.11), and $0.04 ($0.06) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100,
and 300 ton per day landfill sites respectively.
4.13.3 Environmental Impact Summary
Leachate recycling, especially with pH control and initial
sludge seeding, may increase the rate and predictability of
biological stabilization of the readily available organic
pollutants in landfill refuse and leachate.
Since leachate recycling accelerates landfill stabilization
and may reduce the requirements for long-term post-closure
leachate monitoring and management, the completed landfill
site may be reclaimed for final use much more rapidly.
-70-
-------
4.14 IMPERMEABLE BARRIERS
4.14 Introduction
A major product of landfill waste decomposition processes is a
gaseous mixture consisting largely of methane (55 percent) and carbon
dioxide (45 percent), with trace amounts of elemental nitrogen, hydrogen
and oxygen, and varying trace constituents such as ammonia, carbon
monoxide, ethylene and water vapor. The extent of gas production
depends primarily on landfill age, percent and type of waste organic
materials, cover material permeability and thickness, landfill tempera-
ture variation, waste density and moisture content. Once generated,
methane can migrate radially by diffusion and convective flow processes
through the gas permeable waste and the adjacent and overlying soil.
Under certain conditions, the methane can collect in explosive concen-
trations (5 to 15 percent in the presence of air) in conduits or buildings
adjacent to the landfill. The presence of methane can also result in
damage, to a variety of plant species due to reduced oxygen concentrations
in the plant root zone. Carbon dioxide will dissolve in groundwater
forming carbonic acid, therefore mineralizing and contaminating it. A
common methodology utilized to predict the potential extent of methane
migration is to assume that ten feet of horizontal methane migration may
occur for each foot of landfill depth. The resulting value is only a
very general estimate, since site specific subsurface conditions such as
an impermeable cover and porous substrata can result in methane migration
on the order of hundreds of feet.
One method of methane gas control is to to minimize waste decomposition
rates by minimizing waste moisture content, thus reducing gas generatic .
rates. Many of the landfill unit technologies discussed in this repo- -
aid in minimizing infiltration of moisture into the waste mass and
consequently potentially result in reduced gas generation rates. Given
adequate methane gas control measures, an alternative approach is to
provide more optimum decomposition conditions, i.e. by shredding (increasing
waste surface area) or by increasing moisture content (leachate recycling),
consequently resulting in more rapid gas generation over a decreased time
frame.
The primary methane gas control methodologies involve physical chan-
nelling or containment of the gas itself. In some cases, natural soil,
hydrologic, and geologic site conditions combined with a permeable
landfill cover can result in venting of the decomposition gases directly
into the atmosphere. Where these conditions do not occur and where
adjacent land use patterns dictate, installation of gas control systems
engineered to vent decomposition gases safely into the atmosphere is
required. These systems include impermeable barriers, vertical risers,
permeable trenches, gas collection systems, and a variety of combination
systems.
-71-
-------
With regard to impermeable barriers, the Guidelines suggest using
compacted moist clays, asphaltic materials or polymeric materials which
are gas impermeable. The Guidelines further recommend that the cutoff
wall extend from the ground surface down to a gas impervious layer below
the bottom of the landfill.
The following sections describe in more detail the technology and
environmental impacts associated with utilizing impermeable barriers for
gas control.
4.14.2 Technology Summary
4.14.21 Gas Control
Impermeable barriers function by blocking the lateral migration of
landfill gas through the surrounding more permeable material. An imper-
meable barrier is normally constructed around the periphery of a land-
fill where subsurface conditions might lead to potential migration; The
barrier should be installed to a depth below the maximum depth of waste
deposition and preferably to an impervious layer (see Figure 4-4). This
bottom seal could include certain bedrock types, the groundwater table,
or an impermeable landfill liner such as a natural clay liner or a
synthetic liner.
While an impermeable barrier can be effective under certain conditions,
an adjoining permeable pathway located on the interior edge of the imperme-
able barrier may result in more positive methane controls. For instance,
an adjoining trench can be backfilled with gravel to the same depth as the
impermeable barrier. In turn, the permeable trench results in vertical
gas movement to the atmosphere (see Section 4.16). This approach may be
required even in relatively permeable substrata where the adjacent land
uses require strenuous gas control measures. Vertical risers (see Section
4.15) may also be installed in the permeable trench if there is a danger.
of the trench being sealed off by freezing of the land surface.
4.14.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for impermeable barriers average $1.30 ($1.46),
$0.30 ($0.34), and $0.15 (SO.17) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100,
and 300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
-72-
-------
FIGURE 4-4
BARRIER AND TRENCH GAS CONTROL SYSTEMS
Gas
iK witi) talM rwiaii
*NS-*S^>.->V
3 Barrier system. Migra'ir.g gas is ur-2£ie :o cross impermeable barrier
and is forced to vent to atrrcsphef e. "'e^.^ is e*c3va:ed to continuous-.
bottom seal {bedrock or water tails): ta/ri & memora/ie is installed; trench
is backfilled. Ba/rie< can be impervious membrane or clay.
Gas,
Trench with granular backC-li. Gas travsis to trench ar.d is Dented to
surface becausa granular backfill is more ^rrreabis t.^an surrounding soi!.
Trench is excavated to bottom sea! (tod/ccX c.- water tabie) ado backfilled
-.vi'n crushed stone or clean gravel.
Source: Reference 10.
-------
Environmental Impact Summary
If effective at controlling gas migration to offsite areas, ver-
tical impermeable barriers can have several environmental impacts:
1. Gas buildup in explosive concentrations in nearby offsite
buildings or conduits is minimized, therefore reducing fire
and explosion hazard.
2. Vegetation kills due to landfill gas creating deleterious anaerobic
conditions in plant root zones are minimized.
3. Gas movement control minimizes mineralization of ground water due
to the formation of carbonic acid caused by the dissolution of land-
fill generated carbon dioxide.
4. Manufacture, transport, and installation of a barrier system may
have a variety of secondary negative environmental impacts.
-74-
-------
4.15 PERMEABLE TRENCHES
4.15.1 Introduction
A gas permeable, gravel-filled trench can also be utilized to control
the laterial migration of landfill generated gas, and thus to minimize land-
fill explosion and fire hazards, vegetation kills, and potential groundwater
mineralization. (See Section 4.14 for a more detailed discussion of the
causes, characteristics, and control of landfill gas generation and migration.)
Under certain conditions permeable trenches can provide adequate con-
trol of methane movement. However, the trenches still may permit gas
migration through diffusion processes and are susceptible to clogging due
to infiltration, snow or ice cover or biomass growth. The Guidelines
indicate that gravel-filled trenches equipped with vertical perforated pipes1
functioning as methane vents have been shown to reduce the effect of
temporary covers such as ice or snow. The Guidelines also recommend equip-
ping trenches for removal of water or leachate from the trench bottom to
facilitate gas movement.
The following sections describe in more detail the technology and environ-
mental impacts of permeable trenches.
4.15.2 Technology Summary
4.15.21 Gas Control
Permeable, gravel-filled trenches are usually located on the landfill
perimeter or occasionally incorporated between daily cells. These trenches
operate by intercepting laterally migrating landfill gas and by providing a
low resistance path to the atmosphere. These trenches should normally
extend to at least the bottom of the landfill. They may be excavated
vertically or placed diagonally (see Figure 4-5). The trench should drain
naturally, and the filler material should be graded to avoid infiltration
and clogging by sediment washed in from surface runoff. The upper surface
of the trenches should be maintained free of soil and vegetation to maximize
gas access to the atmosphere.
Permeable trenches are most effective at existing landfills in which the
surrounding soil is relatively less permeable than the trench backfill material
and the water table is relatively deep. For somewhat permeable subsurface
-75-
-------
Figure 4-5
GRAVEL VENT AND GRAVEL-FILLED TRENCHES
Stop*
final cov«r malarial
-* V«nl«d
C.ll
Gravel vents or gravel-filled trenches
can be used to control lateral gas movement in a
sanitary landfill.
Source: Reference 2
-76-
-------
soils, the trench should be backed up by an impermeable barrier of the type
discussed in Section 4.14. Furthermore, if freezing of the land surface
and resultant sealing of the trench is a possibility, vertical pipes may
be utilized as vents. These vents may or may not be equipped with pump or
blower units for induced exhaust.
As in the case of impermeable barriers, Stone (Reference 10) reports
that in certain cases permeable barriers may not provide adequate gas
control if utilized alone. Failure detection is also difficult; however,
maintenance of the barrier is relatively simple.
4.15.22 Current Economic Costs
Per ton (per metric ton) costs for perimeter gravel trenches are
$1.60 ($1.79), $0.35 ($0.39), and $0.20 ($0.22) for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and
300 TPD sites, respectively.
4.15.3 Environmental Impact Summary
Utilization of permeable trenches can result in a number of positive
environmental impacts including:
1. Gas buildup in explosive concentrations can be minimized,
therefore reducing potential explosion hazards.
2. Vegetation kills due to gas migration can be minimized.
3. Groundwater mineralization due to carbon dioxide dissolution
can be minimized.
4. Odors, particularly from hydrogen sulfide generation, can be
confined to the immediate landfill area.
5. The transport and installation of barrier materials may result
in secondary environmental impacts such as energy use, air
emissions due to transport, site specific impacts due to gravel
quarrying, etc.
-77-
-------
4.16 VERTICAL RISERS
4.16.1 Introduction
Vertical risers provide a low resistance path to the atmosphere
for laterally migrating landfill gas. Vertical riser construction
can consist of perforated pipe vents or gravel-filled well systems.
Section 4.14 provides a more detailed discussion of the rationales for
control of landfill gas generation and migration.
The Guidelines do not recommend utilizing perforated pipes alone
for methane control since venting effectiveness is generally limitetl
to the immediate vicinity of the pipe. For more effective control
a closely spaced grid of vents or wells could be installed.
The Guidelines also distinguish between natural ventilation using
vertical risers and induced exhaust wells equipped with a pump or
blower. The Guidelines state that properly designed and installed
exhaust well systems are substantially more effective than natural
ventilation systems. Additionally, the Guidelines state that induced
exhaust systems are not limited to shallow landfills on shallow im-
permeable strata, and that induced systems may potentially be used to
recover exhaust gases. However, induced exhaust systems require
significant operating expenditures and maintenance.
-78-
-------
4.16.2 Technology Summary
4.16.21 Gas Control
Vertical risers can operate either by providing a low resistance
path to the atmosphere for laterally migrating landfill gas, or, if
equipped with a pump or a blower, by inducing gas ventilation by
creating a negative pressure gradient within the waste mass. Vertical
risers are usually utilized when the final cover is relatively imper-
meable. Risers can be installed around the landfill perimeter, but
are most effective when also placed in the landfill interior. In areas
adjacent to building structures, discharges should be limited to above
the roof line.
The riser sizes and spacings depend on the type and severity of
waste deposition, the rate of gas production, and the gas permeability
of both cover and surrounding soil. The recommended spacing is
30 to 60 feet on centers (Reference 11). Once drawn through the riser,
landfill gas is vented to the atmosphere, flared, or recovered and
cleaned for on-site or off-site energy use.
Actual construction of vertical risers (see Figure 4-6) involves:
(1) drilling the wells to a continuous bottom seal such as bedrock or
the groundwater table; (2) inserting the perforated pipes into the wells
and backfilling with gravel, or simply backfilling the 'well with gravel;
and (3) if desirable, connecting each riser to a pump or blower to
induce ventilation. Section 4.17 discusses gas collection systems
whereby vertical risers are connected via a header to a central pump
or blower. As mentioned in Section 4.15, risers can also be installed
in permeable trenches when there is a danger of freezing and sealing
of the trench surface.
As in the case of permeable trenches, Stone (Reference 10) reports that
/ertical risers depending only on natural ventilation have been shown to
ie ineffective at many sites. Alternatively, there are two types of
'orced flow or induced exhaust systems: high flow and low flow. High
low systems cause large volumes of gas to flow laterally through the land-
ill and, consequently, through the exhaust system. The negative
ressure gradient created is also sufficient to draw atmospheric air
.hrough the cover material into the landfill. This type of system pro-
/ides an effective barrier to gas migration. However, high flow systems
entail several disadvantages:
1. explosion hazards are increased by'reducing
methane concentrations from the normal 50%
found in landfills toward the explosive
range (5-15%);
-79-
-------
",'iy,- PERFORATED PIPE
Gas Extractibn
Well Design
FINE SAND
COARSE GRAVEL
Source: Reference 11
-------
2. fire hazard from spontaneous combustion within the
fill is increased by drawing oxygen into the nor-
mally anaerobic environment,
3. methane recovery is made more difficult and expensive
by dilution with air; and,
4. energy requirements, and, therefore, operating
costs, are higher.
Low flow systems also work by creating a negative pressure sys-
tem between wells which result in gas movement towards the riser
venting points. This system differs from the high flow system by
providing only the minimum head differential required to establish
a negative pressure gradient towards the risers. The low pumping
requirements and consequent lower difference in pressure between the
atmosphere and the waste mass result only in minimum intrusion of
atmospheric air into the landfilled waste.' Consequently, low flow
systems as compared to high flow systems reduce potential fire and
explosion hazards, require less energy expenditures, and are more con-
ducive to methane gas recovery operations.
Stone (Reference 10) compares induced exhaust systems to natural
ventilation vertical riser systems in terms of effectiveness, maintain-
ability, and controllability. When adequately designed and installed,
an induced exhaust system is considered a "fail-safe" means of methane
migration control, especially when wells are also installed in the
interior of the landfill. While forced flow systems require more
maintenance, it is easier to detect failures and maintenance is less
hampered by lack of assessibility.
It is also possible to control lateral gas migration by forcing
air into the landfill. Such an induced recharge system can be
designed very similarly to induced exhaust systems. Such systems
generally consist of a perforated header pipe in a surface-sealed,
gravel-filled trench connected to a central pump or blower. The
system operates by displacing gases to the atmosphere by providing a
positive gradient in the landfill interior. While the recharge system
generally requires less energy, and thus less operating expense, and
does not require incorporation of final gas disposal technologies, it
does preclude recovering the gas for energy use. Furthermore, forcing
air into the landfill increases the likelihood of explosion and fire
hazards as explained above for high flow induced exhaust systems
(Reference 10). Additionally, under certain conditions, it is
theoretically possible for forced air systems to result in methane
migrations over longer distances than would normally be expected. To
some degree this could be alleviated by the presence or provision of
impermeable barriers or permeable escape routes at the landfill site
perimeter.
-81-
-------
4.16.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for these technologies average
$0.90 ($1.01), $0.45 ($0.50), and $0.40 ($0.45) per ton (per metric
ton) for 10, 100, and 300 ton per day landfill sites respectively.
4.16.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Naturally vented vertical risers and low flow induced ex-
haust systems can be effective at controlling lateral land-
fill gas migration and therefore minimize both fire and ex-
plosion hazards in buildings and conduits adjacent to the
landfill site.
2. High flow induced exhaust systems and induced recharge sys-
tems can also effectively control lateral gas migration, thus
reducing both fire and explosion hazards at and adjacent to
the landfill site. However, these systems also force air
into the landfill, thereby reducing the methane concentration
from the normal 50% found in the landfills toward the explosive
range (5-15%). These systems, then, increase the explosion
hazards of the landfill site itself. Both systems also
increase the fire hazard from spontaneous combustion at the
landfill site by supplying oxygen to the normally anaerobic
environment.
3. All of the vertical riser systems minimize vegetation kills
which are due to landfill gas creating deleterious anaerobic
conditions in the root zones.
4. All of the vertical riser systems minimize the mineralization of
ground water due to the formation of carbonic acid by dissol-
ution of landfill generated carbon dioxide.
5. All of the vertical riser systems minimize odor pollution of
off-site areas due to the controlled, on-site release to the
atmosphere of hydrogen sulfide and other gases.
6. The manufacture, transport, and installation of all of the
vertical riser systems entail a variety of secondary negative
environmental impacts.
-82-
-------
4.17 GAS COLLECTION SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Introduction
Gas collection systems consist of vertical risers connected via
header pipes or permeable surface-sealed trenches generally equipped
with perforated header pipes. Both types of systems are generally
equipped with a central pump or blower to facilitate gas collection.
Otherwise, these systems are designed, constructed, operated, and main-
tained similarly to vertical risers, permeable trenches, and induced
exhaust or induced recharge systems. Likewise, gas collection systems
can minimize methane explosion hazards, vegetation kills, and minera-
lization of ground water. (See Section 4.14 for a fuller discussion of
the causes, characteristics, and control of landfill gas generation and
migration.)
The Guidelines describe induced exhaust well collection systems as
very effective when properly designed and installed; as not limited to
shallow landfills or shallow impermeable substrata; as allowing the options
of flaring or recovering the exhaust gases; and as requiring significant
maintenance. The Guidelines describe induced exhaust trenches:as consis-
ting of surface-sealed, gravel-filled trenches equipped with perforated
header pipes connected to a pump or blower; as more effective than in-
duced exhaust wells, especially at shallow landfills; as requiring more
extensive construction; as potentially requiring significant mainte-
nance: and'as less likely to be useable with recovery systems due to the
introduction of air.
The Guidelines describe induced recharge trenches as being of the
same design as induced exhaust trenches,, but operating in reverse, sup-
pressing horizontal migration of methane via provision of a positive
pressure gradient beneath the landfill surface. This results in dis-
persion of gases to the atmosphere across the trench and ground surface.
The Guidelines claim induced recharge trenches require less energy than
exhaust trenches, and that flaring is not necessary since the gases are
not concentrated.
The following sections describe in more detail the technology and
environmental impacts of gas collection systems.
-83-
-------
4.17.2 Technology Summary
4.17.21 Gas Control
Given the technologies for permeable trenches, vertical risers,
and for induced exhaust and induced recharge systems (see Sections 4.15
and 4.16), the technology of gas collection consists of: (1) connecting
the vertical risers via a header pipe to a central pump or blower for
induced exhaust; or (2) in the case of surface-sealed induced exhaust or
induced recharge trenches, connecting a perforated header pipe to a cen-
tral pump or blower. With the exception of one or the other of these
additional elements, gas collection system design, construction, operation,
and maintenance is very similar to that of its component technologies of
vertical risers or permeable trenches, and induced exhaust or induced re-
charge. For this reason, gas collection systems involve virtually the
same advantages and disadvantages in terms of effectiveness, maintainability,
and controllability as those listed for individual components in Sections
4.15 and 4.16.
4.17.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for these technologies average $2.50 (S2.80),
$0.55 ($0.62), and $0.30 ($0.34) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100, and
300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.17.3 Environmental Impacts Summary
Low flow induced exhaust collection systems can be effective at con-
trolling lateral landfill gas migration and therefore minimize both
fire and explosion hazards adjacent to the landfill site.
High flow induced exhaust collection systems can also effectively
control lateral landfill gas migration, thus reducing both fire and
explosion hazards in buildings and conduits adjacent to the landfill
site. However, this type of system can draw air into the landfill,
thereby reducing the methane concentration from the normal 50% found
in landfills toward the explosive range (5-15%). Therefore, the
high flow systems increase the on-site explosion potential. Both
the low flow and the high flow induced exhaust collection systems
increase the fire hazard from spontaneous combustion at the landfill
site by drawing oxygen into the normally anaerobic environment
(Reference 10).
-84-
-------
3. All of the gas collection and recharge trench systems minimize vege-
tation kills which are due to landfill gas creating anaerobic con-
ditions in subsurface soil layers.
4. All of the gas collection and cecharge trench systems minimize the
mineralization of ground water by restricting movement of carbon
dioxide.
5. Gas collection and recharge trench systems minimize odor pollution
of off-siteareas due to the uncontrolled release to the atmosphere
of hydrogen sulfide and other gases.
6. The manufacture, transport, and installation of gas collection and
recharge trench systems entail a variety of secondary negative envi-
ronmental impacts.
4.18 ACCESS CONTROL
4.18.1 Introduction
Because of the nature of landfill operations and the potential
hazards involved, it is important to control access to the site
in order to ensure the safety and health of personnel and visitors.
The Guidelines specify that a disposal facility should be designed,
constructed, and operated to permit strict supervision of site
access. Access to the site should be controlled and should be only
by established roadways. Additional controls include traffic signs
or markers to direct traffic to and from the discharge area.
The following section will detail the functions of access control
and specify design and construction methods. The costs of providing
access control are also presented. A final section will assess the
environmental impacts of access control on various aspects of land-
filling.
4.18.2 Technology Summary
4.18.21 Access Control Functions
The primary aim of access control is to prevent trespassing
and unauthorized use of the disposal site, which will enable land-
fill operators to maintain safe working conditions and protect the
health of personnel and visitors. Peripheral fences are commonly
used to control or limit access, thereby preventing trespassing,
keeping children and animals out of potentially hazardous areas,
and discouraging vandalism and scavenging. Fences also serve to
prevent unauthorized use of disposal sites and limit the types of
wastes accepted to those for which the landfill was specifically
designed. Finally, certain fence types can provide a visual screen
for landfill operations and can consequently result in localized
aesthetic improvement.
-85-
-------
Additional access control is furnished by providing perma-
nent and temporary roadways, and traffic signs or markers- that
promote an orderly traffic flow to and from the discharge area. In
combination proper fences and road systems provide the measure of
access control that will enable site operators to maintain efficient
operating conditions.
4.18.22 Access Control Design and Construction
Fencing used to control or limit access to landfill disposal
facilities may be permanent or portable, and may be constructed
of wood or chain links, wood, or other similar materials. At
some locations it may be desirable to install several strands of
barbed wire on fence tops, projecting at an angle, to further dis-
courage trespassing and vandalism. Peripheral fencing should
limit access to one or two gates that are clearly marked and can
be locked when the site is unattended. Landfill sites should be
open only when operators or other supervisory personnel are on
duty.
Fencing requirements are dependent on the degree of isolation
of the site location. In areas adjacent to urban centers and resi-
dential developments, more expensive fencing may be required to
protect residents and children, and to screen landfill operations.
Landfills located in more isolated rural areas may need less ex-
pensive fencing or fencing only at entrances and other places of
possible unauthorized access.
Permanent, all-weather roads should be constructed from the
public road system to the site. Design of the roads should ac-
comodate the anticipated volume of delivery vehicles and other
vehicular traffic. destruction and maintenance of the grade of
access roads should accomodate the limitations of the equipment.
Permanent on-site roads represent a higher initial cost than
temporary roads. However, this cost can be balanced by overall
savings in equipment repair and maintenance. Temporary roads
are more often used to connect permanent road systems to the con-
stantly changing location of the working face.
4.18.23 Current Economic Costs
Provision of fencing as an upgrading technology currently costs
$0.90 ($1.01), $0.20 ($0.22), and $0.10 (SO.11) per ton (per metric
ton) for 10, 100, and 300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
-86-
-------
4.18.3 Environmental Impacts Summary
1. Use of access control techniques aids in siting landfills in
more densely populated areas by mitigating possible hazards
to the health and safety of surrounding populations. This
results in positive environmental impacts because waste trans-
port distances are minimized.
2. Proper access controls limit trespassing, vandalism, scavenging
and other disruptions to landfill operations, and prevent unauthor-
ized dumping, thus allowing more efficient and environmentally
beneficial use of the disposal facility.
3. Strict access controls, by limiting trespassing, not only promote
efficiency in operations, but also contribute to maintaining safe
working conditions, and the health and safety of personnel and
visitors.
4. Access controls can be employed to visually screen landfill
sites, and therefore promote a more aesthetic appearance to the
landfill operations.
-87-
-------
4.19 SAFETY
4.19.1 Introduction
A variety of operation and maintenance procedures contribute
towards providing safety for personnel and visitors, and towards effi-
cient working conditions. In addition to measures for fire control (Sec-
tion 4.20), vector control (Section 4.21), and access control (Section
4.18), the Guidelines present a number of specific recommendations for
ensuring safety at the disposal site. For example, the Guidelines recom-
mend that personal safety .devices such as hard hats, gloves, safety
glasses, and footwear should be provided to facility employees. In gene-
ral, the Guidelines suggest that a landfill site be designed, constructed,
and operated in a manner so as to protect the health and safety of personnel
and users through compliance with relevant provisions of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (Public Law 91-596) and regulations
promulgated thereunder.
The following sections further summarize applicable Guideline recommen-
dations and associated environmental impacts.
4.19.2 Technology Summary
4.19.21 Operation
The main objective of implementing safety procedures is to maintain
the health and welfare of facility personnel and site visitors. Addi-
tionally, safety measures contribute to lower costs through increased
efficiency of operations and decreased equipment maintenance. In con-
junction with the aforementioned recommendations, the Guidelines speci-
fically suggest the following:
1. safety manuals should be provided and employees instructed
in application of its procedures;
2. safety devices such as rollover protective structures and
seat belts should be provided on all equipment used to spread
and compact solid wastes;
-------
3. communications equipment should be available on site
for emergency situations;
4. quantitative and qualitative records of solid wastes
received and location of disposal should be maintained;
5. a source of water should be provided on-site for fire
and dust control and for employee convenience; and,
6. following closure of a completed landfill a long-term
maintenance program should be initiated.
4.19.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Incorporating safety measures in the design, construction, and oper-
ation of a landfill facility serves to promote the safety of landfill
personnel and users.
-89-
-------
4.20 FIRE CONTROL
4.20.1 Introduction
Although the open burning of wastes is prohibited at all
landfills, fire hazards can still result from a variety of conditions.
Dumping of hot or burning waste loads or sparks from vehicles and land-
filling equipment can accidently ignite solid wastes. Additionally, the
potential for heat energy generation by exothermic chemical reactions in
decomposing wastes results in conditions favoring spontaneous combus-
tion. Therefore, solid wastes that can smolder or burn even after being
covered necessitate the on-site availability of some method of fire
control.
The Guidelines, besides prohibiting open burning, recommend the
following measures to minimize fire hazards:
1. provisions should be made to extinguish any fires in wastes
being delivered to the site or which occur at the working
face or within equipment or personnel facilities;
2. a source of water should be provided at the disposal facility
and safety devices should include fire extinguishers to be
provided on all equipment used to spread and compact solid
wastes or cover material; and,
3. cover material should be applied, as necessary, to minimize
fire hazards.
These measures, particularly the application of cover material as a
fire control method are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
4.20.2 Technology Summary
4.20.21 Operation
The major functions of fire control are to maintain safe working
conditions and to promote efficient fill construction by minimizing the
initiation and spread of waste combustion. Secondarily, fire control
protects air quality by minimizing contributions of participates and
other constituents from burning wastes.
-90-
-------
In addition to supplying water and equipment to extinguish fires,
proper landfill design and construction can manipulate the two main con-
ditions that contribute to fire hazards:-the availability of flammable
material in the waste cell, and the availability of an oxygenated air
supply necessary to combustion. With regard to the first condition,
landfills can be operated so that wastes regarded, as highly flammable
may be excluded or disposed of in a separate area utilizing special dis-
posal procedures such as immediate encapsulation with cover materials,
wetting, etc. However, due to the highly variable nature of solid
wastes, and particualarly of municipal wastes, some flammable type
materials always exists in waste cells, so that this measure by itself
is not totally effective in controlling fire hazards.
The second condition, the availability of oxygen for combustion,
can be successfully restricted by judicious and regular application of
cover material. Well-compacted daily soil cover, as utilized to form the
floor, sidewalls, and top of a waste cell during fill construction, tends
to constitute an effective barrier to oxygen migration and also provides
for physical containment of any fire outbreak.
The moisture content of cover material and of constituent solid
wastes is also important in minimizing initiation and spread of fire. A
fine grained soil such as clay, which can absorb more water and maintain
a higher degree of saturation than coarse soils, results in reduced
oxygen migration into the waste mass. Saturated cover soils are also
temporarily effective in stabilizing landfill conditions approaching
spontaneous combustion or in extinguishing an existing fire. The moisture
content of waste fill is also an important factor in spontaneous combustion,
Although it is difficult to estimate the specific or average water content
of variable solid wastes, some studies indicate that when moisture levels
drop below 50% of the original water content, conditions are favorable
for spontaneous combustion. However, maintaining high soil water content
by regular additions of water for the life of site may not be feasible due
to leachate generation considerations.
4.20.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for fire control average 50.04 ($0.04), $0.01
($0.01) and $0.01 ($0.01) per ton (metric ton) for 10, 100, and 300 ton per
day landfill sites, respectively.
4.20.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Fire control serves to minimize the accidental or spontaneous
initiation and spread of waste combustion, resulting in im-
proved safety of landfilling operations and personnel, and
improved efficiency of operations.
2. Secondarily, fire controls aid in rapid extinguishing of fires,
which in turn protects air quality by reducing contributions of
particulates and gaseous emissions from burning refuse.
-91-
-------
4.21 VECTOR CONTROL
4.21.1 Introduction
The constituents of solid wastes, especially municipal wastes, may
provide a potential source of food and harborage for a variety of vectors.
These vectors, generally defined by the Guidelines as agents capable of
carrying and transmitting disease pathogens, can include rats, flies,
mosquitoes, and occasionally birds. While a properly designed and con-
structed sanitary landfill minimizes animal attraction and vector breed-
ing, it may be necessary to institute additional vector control measures
to ensure the health and safety of persons on and around the disposal site.
Towards this goal, the Guidelines suggest that disease and nuisance
vectors should be controlled at landfill disposal facilities through mini-
mization of food and harborage, by judicious application of cover materials
and through initiation of eradication programs if vector populations be-
come established.
The remainder of this evaluation presents an overview of various
aspects of vector control methods and their impact on the environment.
4.21.2 Technology Summary
4.21.21 Operation
The control of vector breeding and harborage functions mainly to
ensure the health of on-site personnel and adjacent communities by mini-
mizing carriers of disease pathogens. The main objective of such control
then is to restrict the availability of food and harborage. Along these
lines, daily and intermediate cover soils can be instrumental in imple-
menting effective vector control because they can provide durable and
complete coverage of solid wastes.
Daily or more frequent applications of cover material are necessary
to deter burrowing animals such as rats and control the breeding of flies and
-92-
-------
mosquitoes. Rats and other burrowing animals are attracted to land-
fills by the availability of waste food scraps and shelter. While daily
cover application can eliminate open exposure of solid wastes, burrowing
can continue, and the resulting tunnels damage the structural integrity
of the cover and may provide pathways for infiltration of surface waters.
This problem can be alleviated by selection of soil types that will not
structurally support tunneling.
Flies are also attracted by the availability of breeding areas and
food sources. Well-graded and well-compacted soil cover will impede vec-
tor larvae emergence. Studies have shown that 6 inches of daily cover is of
sufficient thickness to serve vector control functions.
Since mosquitoes utilize water-filled areas for propagation, mosquito
control is best achieved by preventing development of stagnant water bodies
on the surface of the site. Continuous grading may be required to fill in
depressions resulting from incomplete compaction or differential settling
of wastes.
Additionally, birds are attracted in large numbers by the availability
of food. The problem can be minimized by quickly covering wastes with
a thick layer of cover material sufficient to discourage bird scavenging.
In the event vector populations become established or show a seasonal
increase, extermination using insecticides and rodenticides may be nece-
ssary. Such programs should be carefully controlled and monitored so
that they do not pose a health or safety hazard.
4.21.3 Environmental Impact Summary
Vector control serves to promote safe working conditions and the
health of persons on and around the disposal site by minimizing
potential disease transmitting agents.
-93-
-------
4.22 LITTER CONTROL
4.22.1 Introduction
Due to the amounts of solid wastes handled and the nature of landfill
operation methods, disposal sites must contend in varying degrees with the
problem of controlling litter on and around the site. In regard to litter
control, the Guidelines specify only that, along with its other functions,
cover material can be applied to minimize blowing litter. However, the
Guidelines generally recommend that the landfill facility should be main-
tained in an aesthetic manner. In addition, containment and cleanup of
litter contributes to the safety of operations and personnel.
The function of litter control and the various techniques that function
in that capacity are detailed in the following sections. The evaluation
concludes with a summary of the current economic costs and the environmental
impacts of litter control.
4.22.2 Technology Summary
4.22.21 Operation
Solid waste, particularly pacer and other light density wastes, may
be subjected to wind or other elements as it is being transported, dis-
charged, and compacted prior to actual incorporation into the waste
cell. This situation results in problems with blowing litter. Contain-
ment and periodic cleanup of such litter on and around the landfill
facility contributes mainly to maintaining an aesthetic appearance and
consequently contributes towards promoting public acceptance of the
facility.
The major objective in controlling blowing litter is to minimize the
amount of refuse exposed to wind and weather. This can be effected by a
number of techniques including limiting the size of the working face,
proper application of cover materials in daily operations, provision of
temporary fencing, provision of regular maintenance operations, and pro-
hibition of indiscriminate dumping.
Blowing litter can be minimized by keeping the size of the working
face at a nimimum; covering portions of the waste cell as it is constructed
serves the same function.
-94-
-------
To contain wastes that escape coverage at the working face, litter
fences can be placed downwind of the working face. Since the location
of the working face is constantly shifting, such fences are usually
portable. As a general rule, trench operations require less fencing
because the walls of the trench usually aid in confining solid wastes.
At a very windy trench site, a 4-foot fence will usually be sufficient
for litter control. Area operations usually present a greater litter
problem and may require fences as high as 6 to 10 feet in order to contain
blowing wastes.
Additionally, litter control requires periodic cleanup near the oper-
ating area and along roadways on or near the disposal site. The refuse
picked up, as well as any resulting from indiscriminate dumping, should
be returned to the working face to be covered near the daily close of
operations.
4.18.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for the provision of litter control are $0.05
($0.06), $0.01 ($0.01), and $0.01 ($0.01) per ton (metric ton) for 10,
100, and 300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.22.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Litter control measures enable landfill facilities to present a
more aesthetic appearance which may facilitate public acceptance
of the site.
-95-
-------
4.23 GAS MONITORING
4.23.1 Introduction
A landfill gas monitoring program evaluates methane gas migration
to evaluate the effectiveness or requirements for on-site gas control
measures. The Guidelines call for monitoring all on-site enclosed
structures to detect potential hazardous explos.ive conditions. The
Guidelines also recommend monitoring gas migration and explosive con-
ditions at the landfill property boundary.
4.23.2 Technology Summary
4.23.21 Gas Control
Methane monitoring should occur at regularly spaced intervals
around the landfill perimeter and at any buildings or other enclosed
structures on or immediately adjacent to the landfill site, where
feasible. Samples should be taken at depth intervals from the immed-
iate subsurface down to the landfill base. Points below the water
table or otherwise similarly isolated do not require monitoring.
Sampling frequencies must be determined on a site-by-site basis
but should generally be completed at least quarterly. Monthly monitoring
should occur when gas migration is more probable as for example during
periods of frozen cover. More urgent situations where landfill gas is
posing a potential hazard may require daily monitoring.
Gas sampling devices include both permanent probe installations
(See Figure 4-7) and portable probe samplers. (See Figure 4-8). Both
types draw samples from the soil pore spaces by utilizing vacuum force.
Permanent probe installations must be sealed at the surface to prevent air-
contamination of the soil air sample. Care must be exercised not to cross
contaminate samples taken at several depth intervals in the same sampling
location. Portable samplers are hand-driven and can normally extract
samples to only 5 feet deep.
Detailed gas analysis generally occurs in a laboratory via utilization
of a gas partitioner. Several constitutents, however, such as methane,
carbon dioxide, and oxygen can be analyzed in the field utilizing portable
devices incorporating electrovoltaic components.
-96-
-------
#£#
-V>Z.'-O'
%m
W$
}±£>x-'.
CAP
'-S^y-f^-lS,*-! (1
?:^t-->cfxi>
-j>S:^;£2y-£
h^^tf^
' ^ ^ ^** _>
W^r^:^
^§s%^
^^ r ^^ * i* ' - *
srsj-'r^fl-*s-7'
^fjr>^^
4" - \Za
-1/4" - 1/2" P.V.C. PIPE
PERFORATED P.V.C.
PIPE COVERED WITH
FIBREGLASS CLOTH
BOREHOLE ANNULUS
WATER TABLE
V
~LEGEND-
;_..
M^l
IMPERMEABLE PLUGS
PEA GRAVEL
BOREHOLE CUTTINGS
FIGURE 4-7
Multi-Level Permanent
Gas Probe Installation
Source: Reference 11
91
-------
\
/
-INLET
HARDENED STEEL
SLIDING TIP -
WHEN DRIVEN BACK
STEEL TIP SLIDES
TO OPEN PROBE.
GAS SAMPLING
CHANNEL CLOSED
SLIDE HAMMER
GAS SAMPLING
PORT
l"0 DRILL STEEL
GAS SAMPLING
DETACHABLE
j HAMMER
SHAFT ( IS "or 36"}
X
INLET
PROBE TIP
LEGENO-
GAS MOVEMENT
FIGURE 4-8
Source: Reference 11.
Portable Gas
Sampling Probes
(Schematics)
-------
4.23.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for the technology average $0.15
($0.17), $0.03 ($0.03)., and $0.01 ($0.01) per ton (per metric.
ton) for 10, 100, and 300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.23.3 Environmental Impact Summary
To the extent that a landfill gas monitoring program im-
proves the effectiveness of the implemented landfill gas con-
trol measures, it:
1. Minimizes fire and explosion hazard in buildings
and other enclosures on or near the landfill site.
2. Minimizes vegetation kills due to the creation of
anaerobic conditions in the root zones of some
oxygen-sensitive plant species.
3. Minimizes the mineralization of ground water due
to the dissolution of carbon dioxide in ground-
water to form carbonic acid.
4. Minimizes odor pollution of off-site areas due to
the potential off-site release of hydrogen sul-
fide to the atmosphere.
-99-
-------
4.24 LEACHATE MONITORING
4.24.1 Introduction
Landfill leachate is monitored primarily to facilitate the protec-
tion of ground and surface water resources beneath and adjacent to the
landfill site before, during and after landfill operation. A leachate
monitoring program detects and evaluates existing or potential pollution
caused by leachate by periodically measuring the extent and rate of
leachate migration from the landfill site, and the degree and nature of
leachate contamination. This inf'-r.ration can aid in determining the
need for and nature of leachate c -.truls, and in evaluating their effec-
tiveness once they are implemented. As such, leachate monitoring functions
in long-term landfill site environmental protection and in the detection
and abatement of imminent contamination hazards.
The Guidelines call for monitoring groundwater and leachate para-
meters at those landfill sites having the potential for discharge to
drinking water supply aquifers. The Guidelines refer to EPA's "Procedures
for Groundwater Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" for further
information (Reference 12). In that document, EPA recommends leachate
monitoring prior to landfill operation to obtain baseline data, and at
least annual leachate sample analysis from all monitorina wells. Finally,
the proposed Guidelines suggest following the leachate samele analysis
methods described in EPA's "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for
the Analysis of Pollutants" (40 CFR Part 136).
The following discusses in more detail the technology and environ-
mental impacts of leachate monitoring.
4.24.2 Technology Summary
4.24.21 Leachate Control
Leachate monitoring aids in developing long and short term pre-
dictive models for environmental impacts of landfills under varying
hydrogeological and climatic conditions. Several types of leachate
monitoring technologies can be identified, including both active and
passive types. Active monitoring involves continuous pumping at wells
intercepting potentially contaminated groundwater flow, and is best
suited for point source groundwater contamination due to spills or tank
leaks. Several disadvantages of active leachate monitoring include
(Reference 12):
-100-
-------
1. the larger ( in area ) the contaminant source, the
greater the number of pumping wells required to in-
tercept groundwater flow;
2. disposal of the pumped water can pose a problem,
especially when the water is contaminated;
3. over a period of years, cumulative pumping costs
and well maintenance costs may be high;
4. pumping may accelerate the spread of leachate
through the aquifer, and the monitoring system
may eventually become a pumped withdrawal system; and,
5. improper selection of screen depth could prevent
the well from intercepting the leachate plume.'
Passive leachate monitoring techniques include well monitoring in
the zones of both aeration and saturation, field inspection and other
methods. These approaches minimize groundwater flow pattern disruptions,
and are discussed more completely herein.
Passive monitoring involves periodical sampling at stations located
in the path of groundwater flow for changes in the concentrations of
chemical constituents of groundwater. Prior to monitoring, hydrogeologic
studies, especially geophysical resistivity studies should be conducted
to establish the setting and most effective permanent monitoring system
design. Data to be gathered include (Reference 12):
1. groundwater flow direction;
2. distribution of permeable and impermeable ground material;
3. permeability and porosity;
4. present or future effects of pumping on the flow
system; and,
5. background water quality.
The information is best determined by field inspection, but can be
obtained more economically from already published information. From
this site specific data, a monitoring station network can be designed.
EPA suggests that a minimally acceptable monitoring network should con-
sist of (Reference 12):
1. one line of three wells downgradient from the land-
fill and situated at an angle perpendicular to ground-
water flow, penetrating the entire saturated thickness
of the aqu.ifer;
-101-
-------
2. one well immediately adjacent to the downgradient edge of
the filled area, screened so that it intercepts the water
table; and,
3. a well completed in an area upgradient from the landfill
so that it will not be affected by potential leachate
migration.
The size- of the landfill, hydrogeologic environment, and budgetary restrict-
ions are factors which will dictate the actual number of wells used. However,
every effort should be made to have a minimum of three wells at each landfill
and no less than one downgradient well for every 250 ft. (76 meters) of land-
fill frontage.
A station, located in or adjacent to the landfill, can act as an early
warning that leachate is reaching the groundwater table and monitoring at
downgradient points should be intensified, possibly by adding more sampling
locations or by utilizing more comprehensive analysis techniques.
The particular type, design, installation, and use of individual moni-
toring stations varies and depends upon site hydrogeologic conditions, eco-
nomics, and the purpose of the monitoring. For example monitoring in the
zone of aeration may occur when (Reference 12):
1. scientific research such as measurement of attenuation
is involved;
2. there are unusual geologic or hydrologic considerations;
3. extremely toxic chemicals are suspected in the leachate
which would demand closer attention; and,
4. sampling is to be used as an early-warning system to
check the effectiveness of engineering techniques.
Aeration zone monitoring techniques include soil analysis, pressure vacuum
lysimeters, and trench lysimeters.
Monitoring in the zone of saturation must consider groundwater flow
characteristics as well as soil-leachate interactions, techniques include:
(1) wells screened or open over a single vertical interval (Figure 4-9);
(2) piezometers (Figure 4-10); (3) well clusters (Figure 4-11); (4) single-
wells with multiple sample points; (5) sampling during drilling, and (6)
pore-water extraction from core samples. Detailed descriptions of the design,
installation, and sampling methodologies for each of these techniques is be-
yond the scope of thie EIS (the reader is referred to Reference 12). Table
4-8 presents EPA's evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each of
the above techniques.
-102-
-------
FIGURE 4-9
TYPICAL MONTIORING WELL SCREENED
UVER A SINGLE VERTICAL INTERVAI
CAP
LAND SURFACE
BOREHOLE
SCHEDULE 40 PVC
CASING
SLOTTED SCHEDULE
40 PVC SCREEN
LOW PERMEABILITY
BACKFILL
GRAVEL PACK
WATER TABLE
Source: Reference 12.
-103-
-------
FIGURE 4-10
DETAILS OF A LOW COST PIEZOMETER
MODIFIED FOR COLLECTION OF WATFR SAMPLES
PRESSURE-VACUUM
LINE
LOW PERMEABILITY
MATERIAL
BOREHOLOE
POROUS OR SLOTTED
PVC PIPE
CHECK VALVE
SAND BACKFILL
DISCHARGE LINE
LAND SURFACE
POLYETHYLENE TUBING
END CAP
"T"AND ELBOW FITTINGS
SAMPLE COLLECTION
CHAMBER
END CAP
Source: Reference 12.
-104-
-------
o
<_n
i
E -
O O
CD
I
H O O
a. K) o
ui
a
FIGURE 4-11
TYPICAL WELL CLUSTER CONFIGURATIONS
O DEPTH
12 meters
(40 ft.)
O DEPTH
24 meters
(80 ft.)
DEPTH
30m«l«rt
(100 ft.)
DEPTH
6 meter*
(20 ft.)
DEPTH
I8m«ten
(60 ft.)
PLAN VIEW
ss
a> u>
-^ LAND
6SfSUR-
FACE
*CO few f5t
"l? f_f'
pO^!S»5lP*^
WATER
TABLE
SCREENED
INTERVAL
SECTION VIEW
(After Yare, 1975):
WELL CASINGS
LAND SURFACE
LARGE
DIAMETER
BOREHOLE
SAND
BACKFILL
IN SCREENED
INTERVAL
LOW
PERMEABILITY
MATERIAL
Source: Reference 12.
-------
TABLE 4-8
PASSIVE LEACHATE MONITORING WELL TECHNIQUES FOR
SAMPLING IN THE SATURATED ZONE, ADVANTAGES AMD DISADVANTAGES
Well Screened or Open Over a Single Vertical Interval
Advantages
Small diameter, shallow wells
are quick and easy to install.
Can provide composite ground-
water samples if screen covers
saturated thickness of aquifer.
Can be drilled by a variety of
methods.
Disadvantages
No information is given on
the vertical distribution
of the contaminant.
Improper completion depth
can cause error in deter-
mining leachate distribution.
Screening over much of the
aquifer thickness can contri-
bute to vertical movement of
contaminant.
Leachate may become diluted
in the composite sample, re-
sulting in lower than actual
concentrations.
Piezometers
Sample is collected from a
selected vertical section
of the aquifer.
If properly constructed, tech-
nique prevents downward migra-
tion of leachate in borehole.
Can be installed inexpensively
and rapidly if casing diameter
is small.
Modification of an engineering
piezometer will allow vertical
sampling of contaminant.
Restricted number of drilling
methods.
Improper completion depths can
cause error in determination
of leachate distribution.
Improper construction can con-
tribute vertical migration of
contamination.
-106-
-------
TABLE 4-8 (continued)
Well Clusters
Advantages
Simple installation does not
always require hiring a dril-
1 ing contractor.
Excellent vertical sampling
made possible if sufficient
number of wells are con-
structed.
"Tried and true" methodology,
accepted and used in most con-
tamination studies where ver-
tical sampling is required.
Low cost if only a few wells per
cluster are involved and if
the drilling contractor has
equipment suitable for instal-
lation of small-diameter wells.
Disadvantages
If only a few wells are in-
stalled, large vertical
sections of the aquifer are
unsampled. Artificial con-
straint on data by completion
depths.
If jetting rigs or augers are
used, installations are usual-
ly limited to total depths of
38 to 46 meters (125 to 150
feet).
Small diameter wells can be
used only for monitoring.
They cannot be used in abate-
ment schemes.
In small-diameter wells, devel-
opment and sample collection .
become tedious and difficult if
water level is below suction
lift.
Single Well -- Multiple Sample Points
3.
4.
Excellent information is gained
on vertical distribution of the
contaminant.
If necessary, well diameter is
large enough to use in a pumped-
withdrawal pollution abatement
program.
Sampling depths are limited only
by the size of the sampling pump.
Rapid installation possible.
Expensive.
Proper well construction and
sampling procedures are cri-
tical to successful application.
-107-
-------
TABLE 4-8 (concluded)
Sampling During Drilling
Advantages
1. The best technique currently
available for defining verti-
cal distribution of contami-
nants in thick aquifers.
2. Completed well can be used for
water-quality monitoring and/or
pumped withdrawal of contami-
nant.
Disadvantages
1. Considerably expensive.
Careful supervision of drilling
and sampling is necessary.
Potential cross-contamination
of samples exists.
Pore-Water Extraction from Core Samples
1. Generally inexpensive.
2. Pore water extract is amenable
to field chemical analyses
such as: chloride concentra-
tion and specific conductivity.
3. Excellent vertical sampling
when mud invasion into core
sample is monitored.
4. Samples can be obtained from
almost any depth when wire-
line coring apparatus is used.
5. Qualitative use of pore water
extract allows for presence/
absence determination.
6. Can be used with consolidated
rock as well as unconsolidated
sediment samples.
1. Quantitative analysis requires
careful control during sample
collection.
2. Interstitial water can drain
from unconsolidated sand and
gravel reducing volume of the
collected water sample.
3. Core recovery in coarse sand
and gravel can be difficult
and time consuming.
4. Small sample volume available
for chemical analysis.
5. Can be expensive.
Source: Reference 12.
-108-
-------
Leachate monitoring in the aerated and saturated zones can be
economically supplemented by field inspection techniques for evidence of
leachate contamination. These methods include inspection for seeps and
vegetation stress, determination of Soil specific conductance, tempera-
ture,and electrical earth resistivity, and seismic surveys. Table
4-9 lists the advantages and disadvantages of each of the above.
Additional leachate monitoring techniques include surface water quality
measurements, aerial photographic interpretation, and geophysical well
logging (see Table 4-10).
A program for leachate monitoring must specify sampling frequencies
and sampling parameters. According to EPA, sampling frequency depends
on such factors as (Reference 12}:
1. Characteristics of groundwater flow;
2. The location and purpose of the particular monitoring
wel 1;
3. Trends in the monitoring data;
4. Legal and institutional data needs; and
5. Climatological characteristics-
Environment and Fisheries Canada, however, has generalized potential
sampling frequencies for sites where groundwater contamination has not
been evidenced, as follows.(Reference 13):
Calculated Groundwater Sampling
Velocity (ft/yr) Frequency
75 annually
75 to 150 semi-annually
150 quarterly
Prior to landfill operation, seasonal samples should be collected
and analyzed for nitrogen, heavy metals, sulfates, hardness, alkalinity,
pH, BOOg, COD (or TOC) and specific conductance. When the landfill
operation has commenced, samples should be taken especially at wells
nearest the operation. Initial routine sampling need consider only such
key parameters as total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity,
chlorides, and possibly hardness. If a change of significance occurs in
one or more of these key variables, then a more comprehensive sample
analysis should be performed for hardness, alkalinity, pH, iron, sulfate,
chloride, specific conductance, BODs, COD (or TOC), and any other site
specific chemicals which may reflect landfill content and condition. A
long-term, post-closure leachate monitoring scheme may extend several
-109-
-------
TABLE 4-9
PASSIVE LEACHATE MONITORING FIELD INSPECTION TECHNIQUES.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
General
Advantages
1. Can be carried out quickly and
inexpensively.
2. Helps place the overall problem
in perspective.
Establishes the extent of addi-
tional investigations which may
be required.
When combined with a literature
survey on available data, in-
spection procedure may be used
by an experienced hydrologist
to roughly establish the over-
all situation.
Disadvantages
1. Untrained inspector may over-
look subtle but valuable data.
2. Findings are not always con-
clusive in detecting ground-
water contamination.
3. Time factors are not indicated
relative to condition changes.
Few, if any, analyses or actual
physical measurements are made.
1. Where present, definite indi-
cation of leachate generation.
2. Convenient point of collection
for leachate sample.
Changes in flow rates or loca-
tions of seeps are indicative
of internal landfill changes.
May not indicate presence of
contaminated groundwater
Chemical quality not neces-
sarily representative of bulk
of leachate in the landfill or
entering the groundwater
Source: Reference 12.
-110-
-------
TABLE 4*-9 (continued)
Vegetation Stress
Advantages
Qualitative indicator of leach-
ate and gas contamination.
Mapping extent of stressed
vegetation may provide an indi-
cation of the limits and source
of contamination.
Stressed vegetation can be
mapped remotely by aerial
photographic methods, allowing
wide coverage in a short period
of time.
Stress change is a good indi-
cator for monitoring purposes.
More effective if selected
species are planted, then
observed.
Disadvantages
Evidence of stressed vegeta-
tation, especially in early
stages, is not always evident
except to a trained, botanist.
Stress may be caused by many
factors, some unrelated to the
presence of the landfill.
Determination of the responsible
factor or factors is usually ex-
tremely difficult.
Certain stresses will not occur
unless physical or chemical
change occurs at the surface or
within the vadose zone. There-
fore, it provides no indication
of problems at depth.
Specific Conductance and Temperature Probes
Providing equipment is properly
calibrated and insertion proce-
dures carefully implemented,
positive determination as to
presence and degree of contami-
nation can be made.
Provides accessibility to other-
wise restricted areas, such as
marsh or swampland.
Not an absolute method. Equip-
ment subject to malfunctioning,
causing erroneous information.
Equipment must be checked for
malfunctioning against a stan-
dard solution.
Requires hiring personnel trained
in the use and handling of the
equipment.
-Ill-
-------
TABLE 4-9 (concluded)
Electrical Earth Resistivity
Advantages
Definition of subsurface geol-
ogy and contaminated water
bodies can be derived at a
faster and cheapter rate than
drilling.
Greatly reduces the number of
sampling wells required.
Disadvantages
Surveys can
odically to
data.
be duplicated peri-
provide monitoring
1. Indirect method. Requires
some substantiation by
drilling.
2. Many natural and man-made
field conditions preclude
resistivity surveys.
3. Data interpretation in complex
situations is often question-
able.
4. Background data on natural -
water quality are prerequisite.
Seismic Surveys
Can provide subsurface geologic
information must faster and
cheaper than drilling.
Can be used to extend geologic
data over broad areas on a
limited budget.
Can be used in certain areas
where access for a drilling rig
would be difficult.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Provides no direct information
about leachate.
Requires more direct substanti-
ation such as drilling.
In complex geologic formations,
interpretation is difficult and
substantial errors may occur.
Requires the hiring of a trained
person and the use of a computer
to reduce and interpret data.
Subject to noise interference
many field situations.
in
Source: Reference 12.
-112-
-------
TABLE 4-10
OTHER PASSIVE LEACHATE MONITORING TECHNIQUES.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Surface Water Quality Measurements
Advantages
Useful in locating leachate
discharge points.
Can be a quick and inexpensive
means of estimating environ-
mental impact of the landfill.
Disadvantages
Surface water may be subject
to contamination from other
sources not defined.
Dilution may be too great to
provide useful information.
Aerial Photography
Frequently can detect stressed
vegetation which indicates
contamination.
Can be used to prepare contour
maps relatively inexpensively.
Also provides certain geologic
information.
Much less costly than a detailed
ground survey of vegetation
stress.
Yearly photographs can provide
unbiased and indisputable evi-
dence of surface changes such
as: landfill configuration,
vegetation conditions, and sur-
face water body locations.
Can be used to precisely map
key wells and sampling points
of the landfill site.
Enables a quick familiarization
of the landfill site conditions
without visiting the site.
Availability of aerial photo-
graphs and photographic ser-
vices is sometimes limited.
Little information concerning
sub-surface conditions.
Little indication as to pre-
cise causes of detected sur-
face changes.
-113-
-------
TABLE 4-10 (concluded)
Geophysical Well Logging
Advantages Disadvantages
1. Provides back-up data to sub- 1. Requires special equipment and
stantiate driller's and geolo- the hiring of trained operators;
gist's log of borehole. thus, adding considerable ex-
pense.
2. Allows a more accurate deter- 2. Is not an absolute for quanti-
mination of depth to formation tative hydrogeologic determi-
change than might be achieved nations.
with routine sampling.
3. Allows a rough geological log
to be constructed from an
existing well that was not
logged when drilled.
4. May be useful in locating top
and bottom of a contaminated
ground water body.
Source: Reference 12.
-114-
-------
decades. If long-term monitoring takes place, a thorough sample analysis
of the kind discussed above should be performed at least every two years
(Reference 13). It has been suggested that leachate monitoring can be
terminated if, at the landfill property boundary or other agreed upon dis-
tance from the landfill, the chloride concentration is reduced or has
stabilized to 50 parts per million above background, or if drinking water
standards are met, whichever test is more restrictive (Reference 12).
Details of leachate sample withdrawal, preservation, storage, and
analysis are beyond the scope of this EIS. The reader is referred to
Reference 12 and 13.
4.24.23 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for leachate monitoring average $ 0.60 ($0.67),
$0.10 ($0.11), and $0.05 ($0.06) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100, and
300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.24.3 Environmental Impacts Summary
Leachate monitoring data can aid in determining the need for and nature
of leachate controls at new or existing landfill sites, and can facil-
itate the evaluation of their effectiveness once they are implemented.
The ultimate environmental effect of leachate monitoring, then, is the
protection of ground and surface water resources adjacent to the landfill
site.
-115-
-------
4.25 REVEGETATION
4.25.1 Introduction
Natural vegetation serves several vital functions including physically
stabilizing earth materials, reducing precipitation infiltration, and
eihancing the appearance of a site. Revegetation is the process of reesta-
blishing viable grasses, shrubs, trees, and other vegetation after the com-
pletion of a waste fill and .placement of the final earth cover.
The Guidelines recommend that a "completed landfill should be covered
with 15 cm of clay with permeability less than 1 X 10-7 cm/sec or the
equivalent, followed by a minimum cover of 45 cm of top soil to complete
the final cover and support vegetation." Depending on the depth of veget-
ation roots, an even greater depth of top soil may be required. The Guide-
lines further specify that vegetation aids leachate control by minimizing
erosion and maximizing evapotranspiration, and aids runoff control by
encouraging runoff while still minimizing erosion of cover soil on sloped
surfaces.
The following sections will discuss in more detail the specific functions
fulfilled by revegetation, and the design and construction considerations
necessary for successful revegetation implementation. In conclusion, the
evaluation summarizes the current economic costs of and the environmental
impacts of revegetation.
4.25.2 Technology Summary
4.25.21 Leachate Control
Revegetation Functions. Revegetation plays a role in leachate control
by reducing precipitation infiltration via evaporative processes and by mini-
mizing rates of runoff. Lack of vegetative cover results in uncontrolled
water and wind erosion of cover material. Vegetation functions to stabilize
cover materials, impede erosion, and maintain cover integrity, consequently,
infiltration into the waste mass due to loss of cover integrity is minimized.
Revegetation Design and Construction. The design and implementation of
revegetation processes begins with preparation of the final cover to provide
support for vegetative growth. It is the uppermost layer of top soil that is
most important in designing revegetation plans for completed landfill sites.
Relevant factors to be considered include the composition or type of soil
utilized, the soil's physical, chemical, and biological properties, and the
depth or thickness of the top soil layer. Soil type should be compatible
-116-
-------
with the planned vegetations nutrient and other requirements. Soils such as
clay loam or silty loam have been suggested as suitable for a large variety
of plant growth. Analyses of soil sample fertility and pH may be useful in
determining plant type for optimum growth.
The required depth of soil for effective revegetation depends upon the'
type of cover vegetation selected. Plants such as native grasses have shallow
root systems and may need only 2 feet or less of top soil, while larger trees
with deep tap root systems may require as much as 8 to 12 foot thicknesses of
top soil.
The nature of plant root systems is also important in determining the speed
of vegetation establishment and the degree of cover soil stabilization that can
be achieved and maintained. Vegetation with shallow but dense root systems
such as hay, meadow grasses, rye, and other native grasses, lend themselves
to revegetation because they establish quickly, are more effective for surface
stabilization, are inexpensive and are easy to maintain. Table 4-11 lists
examples of grasses and shrubs with extensive shallow root systems that can
provide these desired properties. Other plants, including legumes such as
clover, or crops such as alfalfa, have deeper lateral root systems usually
requiring up to 4 feet of top soil, and are more effectively used for stab-
ilizing sloped areas. Shrubs and trees with large tap root systems are
generally not recommended for landfill revegetation because planned depths
of top soil layers are usually not thick enough to sustain these root systems.
In addition, plants must be selected to accomodate a number of local
growth factors. Climate and soil fertility are two major factors affecting
the success of revegetation efforts. Native species are more likely to be
acclimated to the amount of rainfall and other seasonal conditions unique to
the site. On the other hand, soil fertility can be influenced by adding
nutrients in the form of organic or commerically prepared fertilizers. Organic
fertilizers are preferred because they improve the soil structure and release
nutrients at a slower rate.
Finally, the actual process of revegatation entails preparation of the
soil surface prior to planting, including grading and spreading fertilizer,
and the application of some cover such as mulch following planting to provide
interim soil stabilization. Where grasses or crops have been selected, hvdro-
seeding, a technique of spraying a mixture of seeds, soil supplements, and
water, is an efficient and cost-effective method of planting.
4.24.22 Runoff Control
While it is desirable to maximize surface runoff in order to reduce infil-
tration, increased runoff can pose substantial erosion and pollution problems.
Revegatation addresses these problems because it can assist in control of runoff
while stabilizing landfill cover material, especially on sloped surfaces. Its
main function in runoff control, then, is to reduce potential erosion and minimize
the amounts of sediment that are accumulated in surface runoff.
-117-
-------
TABLE 4-11
SuME GRASSES AND SHRUBS WITH EXTENSIVE ROOT SYSTEMS
Alpine Rockcress
Arrowwood Viburnum
Bittersweet
Bristly Locust
Chinese Matrimony Vine
Creeping Cotoneaster
Drooping Leucothoe
Dryland Blueberry
English Ivy
Fragrant Sumac
Grape
Heather
Henry Honeysuckle
Japanese Barberry
Japanese Spurge
Kentucky Bluegrass
Kudzu Vine
Leadwort
Lowbush Blueberry
Moss Phlox
Mountain Sandwort
Nannyberry Viburnum
New Jersey Tea
Periwinkle
Prarie Rose
Red Osier Dogwood
Rock Cotoneaster
Scotch Broom
Silver Vein Creeper
Thyme
Turfing Daisy
Virginia Creeper
Virginia Rose
White Chinese Indigo
Wintercreeper
Yellowroot
Source: Reference 14
-118-
-------
4.25.23 Other Functions
In addition to leachate, gas, and runoff control, revegetation techniques
serve an aesthetic function in enhancing the final appearance and use of the
completed site. Landfill design and planning can provide vegetation that will
complement the planned ultimate use.
In a different vein, problems with revegetation can function as an indi-
cator of landfill generated gas migration or other degradation related prob-
lems. Some of these are:
1. concentrations of methane, carbon dioxide,.and other
toxic gases can migrate vertically to the atmosphere
through cover soil or laterally through permeable sub-
strata to areas adjacent to the site. These gases can
displace oxygen supplies necessary to plant growth, and
can alter soil properties and quality. Studies show
many instances of correlation between subsurface con-
centrations of gases and damage to vegetation on and
around the site; and,
2. elevated soil temperatures resulting from subsurface
spontaneous combustion reactions have also been cor-
related to poor vegetation growth.
4.25.24 Current Economic Costs
Revegatation of 10 TPD, 100 TPD, and 300 TPD landfill sites currently
costs approximatley $0.25 ($0.28), $0.10 ($0.11), and $0.10 ($0.11) per dis-
posed ton (per metric ton).
4.25.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Revegatation techniques physically stabilize surface soil
and minimize water erosion, therefore reducing the potential
for siltation of receiving surface waters by surface runoff
discharge.
2. Potentially reduced infiltration due to evaporative processes
resulting from revegetation also serves to minimize leachate and
gas generation and subsequent impacts on the adjacent environ-
ment.
3. Revegetation improves the aesthetic appear?r.ce of the site
and enhances its final use.
-119-
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Brunner, D.R. and D.J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and
operation. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1972. 59 p.
2. Lutton, R.J. and G.I. Regan. Selection and design of cover for
solid waste; interim report. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati (Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG-D7-
01097). 153 p.
3. Stewart, W.S. State-of-the-art study of landfill impoundment
techniques. Cincinnatti, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1978. 77 p.
4. Haxo, H.E., Jr., R.S. Haxo, and R.M. White. Liner materials ex-
posed to hazardous and toxic sludges; first interim report. Cin-
cinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1977. 63 p.
5. Shilesky, D.M. et al. 1st draft final report; solid waste landfill
practices, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sep-
tember 1978. Various pagings.
6. Griffin, R.A. and N.F. Shimp. Attenuation of pollutants on muni-
cipal landfill-leachate by clay minerals. Cincinnati, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, August 1978. 147 p.
7. Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of leachate treatment;
volume I and II; biological and physical-chemical processes. EPA-
600/2-77-186b. Cincinnati, Municipal Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Nov. 1977. 245 p.
8. Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Sanitary landfill leachates and
their treatment. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, 102(EE2): 411-431. April 1976.
9. Banerji, S.K., ed. Proceedings; management of gas and leachate in
landfills; third annual municipal solid waste research symposium
St. Louis; March 14-16, 1977. EPA-600/9-77-026. Cincinnati,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Sept. 1977. 289 p.
10. Stone R. Reclamation of landfill methane and control of off-site
migration hazards. Solid Wastes Management 21 ( 7); 52-54, 69.
11. Mooij, H., F.A. Rovers, and J.J. Tremblay. Procedures for land-Mil
gas monitoring and control; proceedings of an international seminar.
Waste Management Branch Report EPA 4-EC-77-4. Environmental Impact
Control Directorate, Oct. 1977.
12. Office of Solid Waste. Procedures manual for ground water moni-
toring at solid waste disposal facilities. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-611. 269 p.
-120-
-------
REFERENCES CITED (continued)
13. Mooij, H., F.A. Rovers, and A.A. Sobanski. Recommended procedures
for landfill monitoring programme design and implementation; pro-
ceedings of an international seminar. Waste Management Branch
Report EPS 4-EC-77-3. Environmental Impact Control Directorate,
May 1977. 25 p.
14. Flower, F.B., et. al. A study of vegetation problems associated
with refuse landfills. [Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, May 1978. 130 p.
-121-
-------
5.0 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF GUIDELINES IMPACTS
The following sections present a summary analysis of the
environmental, economic, and energy impacts associated with im-
plementing the proposed Guidelines.
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY
The following paragraphs provide an analysis of the en-
vironmental impacts of the proposed Guidelines in terms of im-
plementations for landfill siting, design, leachate control,
gas control, runoff control, operation, and monitoring.
5.1.1 Site Selection
Past landfill site selection processes have, in many cases,
not adequately considered environmental protection. The siting
recommendations contained in the proposed Guidelines, however,
should result in greater avoidance and protection of environ-
mentally sensitive areas (ESA), and greater environmental pro-
tection in terms of selecting landfill sites in general. Guide-
lines' recommendations regarding landfill technologies addition-
ally have implications for landfill siting which can also im-
pact the environment.
The Guidelines recommend the avoidance of environmentally
sensitive areas, such as wetlands, floodplains, permafrost areas,
critical habitats, and recharge zones of sole source aquifers. Karst
terrian and active fault zones are also identified as areas to
avoid in landfill siting. Such considerations will lead to a
number of positive environmental impacts associated with each type
of ecosystem:
1. Wetlands: Maintenance of wetland ecological
functions and values, including downstream
flood protection, regional aquifier recharge
or discharge, suspended sediment filtration,
nutrient absorption, terrestrial wildlife
and aquatic habitat, provision of recreational
and open space.
2. Floodolains: Maintenance of floodplain func-
tions and values, such as flood protection,
and regional aquifier recharge or discharge.
-122-
-------
3. Permafrost areas: Protection of a fragile eco-
system based upon the integrity of the perma-
frost layer.
4. Critical habitats: Protection of endangered
species.
5. Recharge zones of sole source aquifers: Protec-
tion of ground water drinking supplies.
6. Karst ten Ian c. active rauH zones: Avoidance
of areas which are particularly amenable to
potential leachate migration and subsequent
pollution effects.
Several other Guidelines siting recommendations can result
in positive environmental impacts. Incorporating the landfill
site into an existing or future regional solid waste disposal
system can facilitate solid waste processing (baling, shredding,
compacting) and resource recovery, thus increasing landfill life
and minimizing environmental degradation.
Finally, several Guidelines recommendations for environ-
mental control technologies have implications for landfill sit-
inQ« . Leachate, gas, and runoff controls may depend, in many
cases, on either natural or artificial materials. When natural
materials, such as natural clay liner material, are to be utilized
transport costs may dictate that sources of those materials must
play a role in the site selection process. Alternatively, when
artificial materials are used, more siting flexibility is pos-
sible. However, there may be secondary impacts involved in the
manufacture, transport, and installation of these materials.
Additionally, the alternative technologies identified in the
Guidelines may permit utilization of sites that may not have been
suitable for landfill use without modification. This similarly
adds flexibility to the site selection process and offers the po-
tential to maximize considerations of site specific environmental
factors.
5.1.2 Design
The Guideline's landfill design recommendations emphasize
environmental protection considerations. The design provisions
-123-
-------
in particular, recommend comprehensive design procedures,
provide a consistent framework for design, and present a variety
of alternative environmental control technologies from which a
landfill environmental protection strategy can be developed to
meet a set of specific requirements.
5.1.3 Leachate Control
The Guidelines provide several recommendations regarding
leachate control that will result in positive environmental im-
pacts. Recommended practices relate to cover selection, design,
and construction; on-site and off-site surface runoff controls;
landfill depth relative to the groundwater table; liner selec-
tion, design, and construction; natural leachate attenuation
mechanisms; landfill closure; leachate collection methods; lea-
chate treatment techniques, including leachate recycling; and
leachate monitoring. The result of these Guidelines' recommen-
dations and information will be an overall reduction in contami-
nation of ground and surface water resources by landfill lea-
chates.
5.1.4 Gas Control
The Guidelines provide several alternative landfill gas
control measures which improve landfill operation, safety, and
environmental protection. These measures relate to cover
selection, design, and construction; acceptable waste types;
leachate and runoff control measures; and passive and active
gas barriers and gas venting systems. Gas control measures
generally result in the prevention of gas migration and build-
up in explosive concentrations in nearby enclosed structures;
the minimizing of vegetation kills; and the prevention of
groundwater mineralization. Objectionable landfill odors
will also be reduced.
5.1.5 Runoff Control
The Guidelines recommend a variety of surface runoff and
erosion control measures which should result in improved-levels
of environmental protection. These measures include provision
of surface runoff diversion structures; grading of landfill
slopes; selection of cover soil type; revegetation of landfill
surfaces; and ponding to prevent stream siltation. Implementa-
tion of these measures generally reduce infiltration at the
landfill site, thus minimizing consequent landfill gas and lea-
chate generation. In addition, on-site surface runoff is con-
trolled such that erosion and subsequent stream siltation are
minimized.
-124-
-------
5.1.6 Operation
The Guidelines make numerous recommendations regarding land-
fill operation which will result in positive environmental im-
pacts with respect to health, safety, and environmental consider-
ations. These measures cover waste type acceptability; waste
pre-treatment; waste compaction or other volume reduction methodol-
ogies; cover selection, design, and construction; employee health
and safety; site traffic controls; record-keeping; etc. As a
whole, these types of controls minimize landfill accidents, fires,
explosions, rodents, vectors, litter, noise, and odors, and con-
tribute to the efficiency of the landfill operation. Similarly,
adequate operating control minimizes the potential for pollutant
discharges to the environment, and consequently directly reduces
air, water and groundwater pollution.
5.1.7 Monitoring
The Guidelines recommend that landfill monitoring operations
include both groundwater and leachate monitoring and gas monitoring.
In effect, then, monitoring results in positive environmental
impacts resulting from the reductions in air, groundwater, and
surface water pollution.
5.1.8. Summary
In general, the Guidelines will result in improved environ-
mental protection of landfill sites. The recommended practices
regarding landfill siting, design, leachate control, gas control,
runoff control, operation, and monitoring will:
1) protect environmentally sensitive areas; 2) minimize ground and
surface water pollution due to leachate contamination; 3) minimize
explosion hazards and vegetation stress due to landfill gas
migration; 4) minimize erosion and subsequent stream siltation due
to surface runoff; and 5) minimize landfill litter, vectors, rodents,
odor, noise, and accidents.
-125-
-------
5.2 ECONOMIC IMPACT SUMMARY
5.2.1 Development of Upgrading Costs
Development of upgrading costs for the three selected waste types and
the three representative size categories followed a multiple step methodology.
The first step in the analysis was to identify model landfills to be used as
the bas-is of cost estimates. Several factors were considered in choosing the
models: (a) typical waste types; (b) prevalence of the model types; (c) dif-
ferences in costs due to scale eonomics; and (d) compatability with the models
utilized in the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Criteria
for Classificaiton of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" under Section 4004 of
RCRA. Since cost estimates for both Section 4004 Criteria and Guidelines re-
quire many of the same technologies and operating procedures, choosing a com-
patible model made possible a comparison of these estimates.
Final selection of model types included municipal, industrial and pollu-
tion control residues for both environmentally sensitive and non-sensitive areas,
for 10 ton per day, 100 ton per day, and 300 ton per day landfill sites . Two
additional waste types were evaluated: agricultural wastes and construction and
demolition debris. In both cases, only a very limited number of single purpose
sites potentially existed and further cost analysis was not considered significant.
A second step in the analysis is the development of baseline cost data
for capital and operating and maintenance expenses for landfills. Several of
these sources graphically portrayed this information in a cost per ton vs. daily
waste tonnage chart. To estimate current landfill costs a composite graohical
approach was utilized. To accomplish this, the graphical data presented in
Sanitary Landfill. 1974:Public Works, 100 (3): 79, March 1969; Handbook of
Solid Waste Management/1974; and Sanitary Landfill: Planning, Design, Opera-
tion Maintenance, 1971, were updated to 1977 dollars. Figure 5-1 presents a
composite curve development by avenging per ton costs in the range of 0 to
1000 tons per day.
As indicated in Figure 5-1, current disposal costs (including capital and
operating expenses) range from approximatley $2.00 to $12.00 per ton ($2.24 to
$13.44 per metric ton). Disposal costs at ten ton per day sites average approx-
imately $11.15 per ton ($12.49 per metric ton). One hundred ton per day sites
exhibit economy of scale effects with disposal costs averaging $6.65 per ton
($7.45 per metric ton). Similarly, 300 ton per day sites average approximately
$3.95 per ton ($4.42 per metric ton). Approximately 20 to 30 percent of these
costs represent design and construction expenses with the remaining 70 to 80
percent representing operating expenditures.
-126-
-------
25.00.
20.00-
o
0
f-
0>
15.CO-
to
to
O
O
10.00.
o
a.
)
« 5.00
0
FIGURE 5-1
COMPOSITE LANDFILL COSTS
(0- TOGO TONS PER DAY)
100 200 300 400
WASTE QUANTITY
500 600
TONS PER DAY
700
800
900
1000
-------
To determine upgrading costs for the landfill models previously
identified, both existing technologies and assumed upgrading technolo-
gies were identified. The existing practice of Guidelines level tech-
nologies can be broadly sorted by waste type and site characteristics.
Table 5-1 was based on an assessment of available literature and pro-
vided a checklist of environmental protection'technologies currently
employed by a "typical" landfill for a given type of waste in both
environmentally sensitive and non-sensitive areas. Table 5-1 also
presents the upgrading technologies which have been assumed as repre-
sentative of required upgrading and average upgrading costs.
Following the identification of upgrading technologies, unit costs
for each technology were developed via examination of case studies and
via utilization of an engineering estimation methodology. Appendix B
presents the design assumptions and calculations utilized to identify
technology unit costs and disposal costs per ton of waste. Tables 5-2
and 5-3 present disposal costs per ton for each of the upgrading tech-
nologies. The set of technologies identified on Table 5-2 were previ-
ously identified in Table 5-1 as technologies selected for developing
upgrading costs for each of the model landfills. Table 5-3 presents
cost alternatives as presented in the Guidelines.
By comparing the additional costs of upgrading technologies to
baseline costs, an estimate of increased landfill ing costs can be de-
veloped. Tables 5-4 through 5-7 present dollars and percent increase in
disposal costs for the model landfills previously selected. Increases
in disposal costs for 10 ton per day sites range from 53 to 88 oercent,
for 100 ton per day sites from 41 to 55 percent, and for 300 ton per day
sites from 46 to 58 percent.
Projections for increased disposal costs at the nationwide level
can be completed by estimating the total number of landfills for each
landfill tyoe, size, and sensitive/non-sensitive category, and by ao-
plying increase in costs of disposal as generated above. An analysis
completing the above was previously completed in the background docu-
ments "Analysis of Technology-, Prevalence, and Economics of Landfill
Disposal of Solid Waste in the United States (Volume II) "by Fred C. Hart
Associates, Inc. This nationwide estimate is formally presented in the
Criteria EIS document. The implicit assumotion is that costs generated
by upgrading of landfills are Criteria induced costs.
-128-
-------
TABLE 5-1
EXISTING TECHNOLOGY LEVELS AND ASSUMED UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY
Assumed Current
Technology Levels
MUNICIPAL (Sensitive)
Waste Processing:
Gas Control:
Leachate Control:
None
None
Clay Liner
Daily Cover
Surface Runoff: Ditching
Monitoring:
Waste Processing:
Gas Control:
Leachate Control:
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
Waste Processing:
Gas Control:
Leachate Control
None
MUNICIPAL (Non-Sensitive)
None
None
Permeable Cover
Ditching
None
INDUSTRIAL (Sensitive)
None
None
Infrequent Permeable Cover
-129-
Assumed Up-
grading Technologies
Vertical Impermeable Barriers
Impermeable Cover
Leachate Collection &
Treatment (New Facility)
Ponding
Dike Construction
Gas & Leachate
Vertical Impermeable Barriers
Impermeable Cover
None
Gas & Leachate
None
Impermeable Cover
Liner (New Facility)
Leachate Collection &
Treatment(New Facility)
-------
TABLE 5-f(concluded)
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
INDUSTRIAL (Sensitive) (continued)
None
None
Ponding
Dike Construction
Leachate
Waste Processing:
Gas Control:
Leachate Control:
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
INDUSTRIAL (Non-Sensitive)
None
None
Infrequent Permeable Cover
Ditching
None
None
Impermeable Cover
Liner (New Facility)
Ponding
Leachate
POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUES (Sensitive)
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control:
Leachate Control:
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
None
None
Ditching
None
None
Impermeable Cover
Liner (New Facility)
Leachate Collection &
Treatment (New Facility)
Ponding
Dike Construction
Leachate
POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUES (Non-Sensitive)
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control:
Leachate Control:
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
None
None
Ditching
None
None
Impermeable Cover
Liner (New Facility)
None
Leachate
-130-
-------
I
CO
I
TABLE 5-2
UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY COSTS
Technology
Vertical Impermeable
Barrier
Dike Construction
Impermeable Daily Cover*
(on-site source)
Impermeable Daily Cover*
(off-site source)
Ponding
Gas Hou;t.oring
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Natural Clay Liner
(off-site source)
Leachate Collection
Dacilities
Leachate Monitoring,
Removal and
Treatment
Cost/Ton
$1.30
2.40
0.75
5.30
0.10
0.15
0.60
3.20
0.95
5.80
10 TPD
(Cost/Metric Ton)
($1.46)
(2.69)
(0.84)
(5.94)
.(0.11)
(0.17)
(0.67)
(3.58)
(1.06)
(6.50)
Cost/Ton
$0.30
0.55
0.35
2.65
0.05
0.03
0.10
1.50
0.40
1.10
100 TPD
(Cost/Metric Ton)
($0.34)
(0.62)
(0.39)
(2.97)
(0.06)
(0.03)
(0.11)
(1.68)
(0.45)
(1.23)
Cost/Ton
$0.15
0.30
0.25
1.75
0.04
0.01
0.05
1.35
0.30
0.5P
300 TPD
(Cost/Metric
($0.17)
(0.34)
(0.28)
(1-96)
(0.04)
(0.01)
(0.06)
(1.51)
(0.34)
(0.56)
"Impermeable" refers to a cover type with relatively low permeability i.e.,1 X 10'7 cm/sec.
-------
TABLE 0-3
ALTERNATE UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY COSTS
Technology
Shredding
Baling
Permeable Daily Cover
(on-site source)
Permeable Daily Cover
10 TPD
Cost/Ton (Cost/Metric Ton)
100 TPD
Cost/Ton (Cost/Metric Ton)
$0.60
($0.67)
$0.30
($0.34)
(off-site source)
Vertical Pipe Vents
Perimeter Gravel Trenches
Gas Collection
Synthetic Liner
Leachate Recycling
(not including
collection)
Ditching
Final Impermeable Cover*
(on-site source)
Final Impermeable Cover*
(off-site source)
1.90
0.90
1.60
2.50
4.00
0.45
0.15
0.45
3.20
(2.13)
(1.01)
(1.79)
(2.80)
(4.48)
(0.50)
(0.17)
(0.50)
(3.58)
0.95
0.45
0.35
0.55
1.90
0.10
0.04
0.20
1.50
(1.06)
(0.50)
(0.39)
(0.62)
(2.13)
(0.11)
(0.04)
(0.22)
(1.68)
0.65
0.40
0.20
0.30
1.65
0.05
0.02
0.20
1.35
(0.73)
(0.45)
(0.22)
(0.34)
(1.85)
(0.06)
(0.02)
(0.22)
(1.51)
* "Impermeable" refers to a cover type iffth relativity 1-fiW permeability, i.e., 1 X 10'7 cm/sec.
-------
TABLE 5-3 (concluded)
CJ
OJ
Technology
10 TRD
Cost/Ton (Cost/Metric Ton)
100 TPD
300 TPD
Final Permeable Cover
(on-site source)
Final Permeable Cover
(off-site source)
Revegetation
Fire Control
Access Control
Litter Control
Compaction
$0.40
1.30
0.25
0.04
0.90
0.05
1.90
($0.45)
(1.46)
(0.28)
(0.04)
(1.01)
(0.06)
(2.12)
$0.15
0.60
0.10
0.01
0.20
0.01
0.20
($0.17)
(0.67)
(0.11)
(0.01)
(0.22)
(0.01)
(0.22)
$0.15
0.55
0.10
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.05
($0.17)
(0.62)
(0.11)
(0.01)
(0.11)
(0.01)
(0.06)
-------
I
CO
I
TABLE 5-4
IMPACT OF GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL COSTS (COSTS/TON)
Required Technologies
Gas Control
Vertical Impermeable Barriers
Leachate Control
Imper. Daily Cover (off-site source)
Dike Construction*
Surface Runoff
Ponding
Dike Construction
Monitoring
Gas Monitoring
Groundwater Quality Monitoring
Total Incremental Costs
Baseline Costs
Total Post-Guidelines Costs
Percent Increase
10
Sensitive
$1,30
5.30
1.20
0.10
1.20
0.15
0.60
$~O5"
11.15
$21.00
88%
TPD
Non-Sensitive
$1.30
5.30
0.15
0.60
$"735"
11.15
$18.50
66%
Site Size Categories
100 TPD
Sensitive Non-Sensitive
$0.30 $0.30
2.65 2.65
0.28
0.05
0.27
0.03 0.03
0.10 0.10
$"3768 |O8
6.65 6.65
$10.33 $9.73
55% - 46%
300
Sensitive
$0.15
1.75
0.15
0.04
0.15
0.01
0.05
$Oo
3.95
16725
58%
TPD
Non-Sensitive
$0.15
1.75
_..
0.01
0.05
$O6~
3.95
I579T
50%
1 Dike construction costs were divided equally between leachate and surface runoff control functions.
-------
TABLE 6-5
IMPACT OF GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE LANDFILLS (COSTS/TON)
Site Size Categories
10 TPD 100 TPD 300 TPD
Required Technologies Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive
Gas Control - -
Leachate Control
Imper. Daily Cover (off-site source) $5.30 $5.30 $2.65 $2.65
Surface Runoff
Ponding 0.10 - 0.05 -
Dike Construction 2.40 - 0.55 - -
Monitoring
Gas Monitoring 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.03
Ground Water Quality Monitoring 0.60 0.60 0.10 O.*0
Total Incremental Costs
Due to Guidelines ;$3.55 $6.05 $3.38 $2.78
Baseline Costs 11.15 11.15 6.65 6.65
Total Post-Guidelines Costs $19770 $17.20 $10.03 $9.43
Percent Increase 77% 54% 51% 42%
-------
TABLE 5-6
IMPACT OF GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUE WASTE LANDFILLS (CQSTS/TON)
Required Technologies
Site Size Categories
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive SensitiveNon-Sensitive
Gas Control
Leachate Control
Imper. Dally Cover (off-site source)
$5.30
$5.30
$2.65
$2.65
$1.75
$1.75
en
i
Surface Runoff
Ponding
Dike Construction
Monitoring
Groundwater Quality Monitoring
Total Incremental Costs
Due to Guidelines
Baseline Costs
Total Post-Guidelines Costs
Percent Increase
8.40
11.15
19755"
75%
5.90
11.15
$17.05.
53%
3.35
6.65
$10.00
50%
2.75
6.65
$9.40
41%
2.14
3.95
$6.09
54%
1.80
3.95
"£5775
46%
-------
TABLE 5-7
SUMMARY OF IMPACT OF LANDFILL GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF LANDFILLS (COSTS/TON)*
Site Size Categories
CJ
Landfill Baseline Costs
Waste Types
Mu n i c i pa 1
Post-Guidelines Costs
Percent Increase"
Industrial
Post-Guidelines Costs
Percent Increase
Pollution Control Residues
Post-Guidelines Costs
Percent Increase
10 tpd
100 tpd
300 tpd
Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive
$11.15(12.49) $11.15 (12.49)$6.65 (7.45)$6.65 (7.45) $3.95 (4.42) $3.95 (4.42)
21.00(23.52) 18.50 (20.72) 10.33 (11.57)9.73 (10.90) 6.25 (7.00) 5.91 (6.62)
88% 66% 55% 46% 58% 50%
19.70 (22.06) 17.20 (19.26) 10.03 (11.23)9.43 (10.56)
77% 54% 51% 42%
19.55 (21.90) 17.05 (19.10) 10.00 (11.20)9.40 (10.52) 6.09 (6.82) 5.75 (6.44)
75% 53% 50% 41% 54% 46%
* Costs in parentheses are costs/metric ton
-------
5.2.2 Economic Effects of Increased Landfill Disposal Costs
The data presented in the previous section outlined the probable
impact of increased technology utilization on unit operating costs of
such facilities. However, it is the reaction to these additional costs
by those commercial, industrial and government sectors directly and
indirectly affected that will determine the long-run net costs and
overall effectiveness of the Guidelines. Hhen a particular business
or government agency is faced with higher operating costs, it can
adjust through one of the followina routes:
1. change operating methods or technologies
to avoid the costs;
2. absorb the higher costs in the form of
lower profits (higher subsidies);
3. shift the higher costs backward on to
suppliers (e.g.» lower wages); and
4. shift the cost forward in the form of higher
rates or prices to its customers.
These four methods are of course not mutually exclusive, and typi-
cally occur in various combinations as the affected parties search for
ways to minimize the burden of the added costs. In the landfill "in-
dustry" this type of situation is complicated by the fact that much of
the nation's solid waste handling capacity is publicly owned (although
frequently privately operated), so the profit element is essentially
replaced by various public mandates or regulations dealing with sub-
sidy limits, bond retirement guarantees based on user changes, and nu-
merous other economic, financial or political constraints. Because of
the multiple objectives of the public sector, an analysis of the impact
of additional costs is more difficult.
The overall incidence patterns of these costs, that is who bears
the burden of those costs, will be determined by the particular mix
of reactions outlined above. These can be roughly divided into two
categories which are discussed in the following sections:
1- Sunply Effects: reactions by the suppliers
of the landfill services.
2. Demand effects: reactions by those demanding
these landfillinq services (i.e., solid waste
generators).
-138-
-------
5.2.21 Supply Effects
The landfill operator faced with higher operating costs can either
absorb the costs or seek out some method of avoiding them or shifting
them elsewhere. The analysis of these reaction patterns is similar in
nature to those dealing with the incidence of various government taxes
or fees; both depend principally on the financial conditions of the
firms and the characteristics of the markets in which they are invol-
ved. Any increases in business costs will eventually be borne either
by those who provide the various factors of production (labor, capi-
tal, equipment), or by those buying the business's goods or services.
The only remaining alternative is to revise the technological or in-
stitutional structure of the firm (i.e., new equipment, consolidation
with other firms, etc.) to avoid or minimize the impact of these
costs by lowering costs in other areas. The following sections add-
ress five major market and operational effects most applicable to land-
fill operation.
Increase Disposal Fees For Landfill Users. The ability of land-
fill operators to pass costs forward in the form of higher user
charges typically depends on the nature of the demand for their ser-
vices. If the demand is very price elastic, the potential increase in
revenue will be minimal as many of the landfill users will find al-
ternative methods of meeting their waste handling needs. This is
demonstrated in Figure 5-2:
FIGURE 5-2
DEMAND IMPACT OF HIGHER USER CHARGE
quantity handled (tons)
A hypothetical landfill is used by two waste generators repre-
sented by demand curves D, and D2 each of which disposes of Q tons
of waste annually at the site. MS the landfill raises its rates from
R to R,, the more price-sensitive of the two, represented by demand
curve DJ, reduces its demand from QQ to QQ,. The more price inelastic
generator, represented by curve D5, shows a more modest drop from QQ
to QQ0. d
-139-
-------
The principal effect of the increase in rates is a decline in
quantity disposed and, if demand is elastic, a decline in total reve-
nues for specific landfills. However, the problems created by a
highly elastic market demand go beyond those of insufficient revenue
generation. All wastes formerly handled by the landfill must either
be deposited elsewhere or not disposed of. The first of these options
raises the possibility of illegal dumping as well as the increased
likelihood that various landfill operators might avoid compliance,
both of which are serious enforcement problems. The second option
would be that generators might reduce their waste generation rates
and/or expand recycling efforts. This question is covered in more
detail in a later section.
Higher Taxes For Landfill Support. A response available to pub-
lic landfill operations is to pass the additional costs on to tax-
payers in the form of higher subsidies for landfill operations. Some
municipalities that have formerly assumed that all or a specified por-
tion of landfill costs would be paid by landfill users may be faced
with the problem of maintaining operating ratios (operating revenues/
operation costs) while not wanting to provide any significant disincen-
tives to those generators who should be using these facilities. As
the portion of total costs covered by user charges drops, other public
revenue sources would be required. Some private landfill operating
costs could also be indirectly subsidized by taxpayers through in-
vestment, tax credits or loan guarantees for landfill upgrading or
construction, research and development grants, or other forms of sub-
sidy. The specific policy of the agencies involved, the prevailing
methods used to finance everyday operating costs or retire bonds, and
numerous other factors would have to be considered with the eventual
reaction tending to be highly site specific.
Decreases In Supplier Costs. The theoretical possibility exists
that landfills could reduce their additional costs through decreases
in supplier costs (i.e. lower wages, fuel costs, etc.). This possibi-
lity is raised for the sake of completeness only. It is not con-
sidered a practical possibility for most landfill operations, except
as a part of a regionalization and consolidation effort.
Change In Profits Of Private Landfill Operators. If a landfill
operator cannot recover all of its additional costs through rate in-
creases, subsidies, or decreases in supplier costs, the impact will
be borne by the firm's stockholders in the form of a lower return on
invested capital. Small impacts in the area will probably not cause
any substantial adjustments by these firms, especially in the short
run, but the decreased profitability could reduce the level of invest-
ment in such operations and make it more difficult to raise the capi-
tal necessary to upgrade existing operations or build new ones. For
those landfills that are publicly owned but privately operated, the
situation would entail a pass-through of costs to the relevant public
-140-
-------
agency with whom the operator has contracted. The affected agency
would then be forced to either authorize higher user charges, pro-
vide alternative financial support to the operator to cover the
extra operating costs, or implement a substantial revision in its
operation.
Change In Profits Of Industries With On-Site Disposal. For
those firms that handle part or all of their solid wastes at sites
owned and operated by the firm, the higher disposal costs may mean
a substantial financial loss if the firm has a high waste generation
rate and their disposal represents a significant element in their
overall operating costs. Conversion from open dump operations to
landfill operations could, in extreme cases, mean closure for some
financially vulnerable firms. Others would be left virtually un-
affected. Industries that would be expected to face relatively sub-
stantial solid waste handling costs include food processing, apparel
wood products, fabricated metals and non-electrical machin^y.
Regionalization And Consolidation Of Waste Handling. The analy-
sis of economics of scale in landfill operations previously presen-
ted showed that disposal cost savings could be realized through con-
solidation of smaller sites into one large landfill operation. The
implementation of the RCRA landfill Criteria and Guidelines will
probably increase the benefits of consolidation due to lower unit
disposal costs of large sites and the sharing of the initial finan-
cing burden of landfill capacity among more waste generators.
The major economic factors that affect the consolidation de-
cision are the potential for scale economics, the density, disper-
sion, and total volume of the waste sources, and the relevant costs
of transportation.
5.2.22 Demand Effects
Source Reduction. The previous section demonstrated how
higher disposal costs (or rates) can reduce the demand for landfill
services. Either an alternative waste disposal method will then be
used (larger landfill, landspreading, illegal dumping, etc.) or the
volume of the waste stream will be reduced. Adjustments in the raw
materials used in production processes, changes in food packaging
techniques, bottle deposit regulations, and similar actions could be
used to reduce the volume of waste produced from various industrial,
commercial or residential activities. Part of this may occur as the
disposal costs are internalized into various operations which then
independently adjust their waste generation; other areas may only
occur if given the impetus of State or Federal regulations. Increased
disposal costs should make legislation aimed at source reduction more
attractive.
-141-
-------
Energy And Resource Recovery. The combined forces of higher
waste disposal costs and increased petroleum cost and concern over
possible disruptions in energy supplies have improved the cost-
effectiveness of many resource and energy recovery systems and app-
roaches. The number of existing, under-construction, or planned re-
covery plants across the country has increased substantially in re-
cent years. The added costs of RCRA will encourage this trend, es-
pecially in or near large urban areas where suitable landfill sites
are scarce and expensive and the waste density exists that is neces-
sary for large scale recovery plants. Much of this same type of ac-
tivity may occur in the industrial sectors that also face similar.
disposal cost increases. In combination with waste reduction, energy
and material recovery techniques will be applied more frequently, de-
pending on the market for the received materials, the incremental pro-
duction costs of the recovery processes, and the regional costs of
electricity and other energy forms.
Other Legal Waste Disposal Methods. Other legal disposal methods
that will continue to exist after implementation of the Guidelines are
surface impoundment and landspreading. The costs of these two disposal
methodologies options will also be affected by RCRA, Decisions concern-
ing waste disposal options by industry and municipalities will change to
reflect the changing costs of these options. Since the costs of future
surface impoundment and landspreading activities are not yet determined,
it is not yet possible to estimate how the increases in the cost of land-
filling identified in this report will affect the choice of these other
legal disposal options.
Illegal Dumping. One option that is unfortunately available to
generators and landfill operators is the continued use or operation of
disposal facilities not meeting the provisions of the criteria. The
enforcement problem will be most severe for the thousands of very small
sites in rural areas that would face very large increases in disposal
costs. The enforcement costs for such operations, due to their geograoh-
ic dispersion, small sites, the overall detection difficulty, will be
rather high as well, forcing agencies to concentrate only on large sites.
-142-
-------
5.3 ENERGY IMPACTS SUMMARY
5.3.1 Introduction
Guidelines implementation will result in increased energy consumption
for both the construction (including upgrading) and operating phases
of landfill operations. Construction energy use will increase due to the
requirements for improved levels of environmental protection with the con-
committant use of more complex technologies such as liner installation,
gas venting and collection systems, leachate collection and treatment sys-
tems, etc. Similarly, energy use associated with the operating phase will
increase due to energy requirements for leachate pumping, more frequent
cover application, etc. As previously referenced, Table 5-1 presents those
technologies which have been defined as required upgrading technologies
and which will result in increased construction energy use. The table also
indicates those technologies which will, in addition, be required for new
facilities. Similarly, Table 5-9 indicates those technologies which will
result in increased energy use associated with landfill operation.
5.3.2 Estimating Construction Energy Impacts
Data detailing construction energy use (gas, oil,diesel fuel,
electricity) for construction of landfills is currently unavailable.
To estimate the potential increase in construction energy use, the assump-
tion has been made that increased energy use is directly proportional to
increased capital expenditure. The baseline costs for existing landfill
operations, as previously develped in Section 5.2, are $11.15, $6.65 and
$3.95 per ton for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD facilities, respectively.
Approximately 25% of those costs are attributable to construction costs,
as follows: 10 TPD - $2.78; 100 TPD - $1.66; 300 TPD - $0.99.
By utilizing required upgrading unit costs for the technologies
identified in Table 5-2, total upgrading capital costs can be deter-
mined. Table 5-10 presents the capital costs for those technologies
incorporated into existing facilities. Increased construction energy
use has been assumed to be proportional to increased capital costs of
the required upgrading technologies. A more detailed explanation can
be found in "Analysis of Technology, Prevalence and Economics of Land-
fill Disposal in the United States (Volume II) "by Fred C. Hart Associates
Inc. Consumption use is expected to be primarily in the form of gas,
oil, and diesel fuel utilization.
5.3.3 Estimating Operating Energy Impacts
Table 5-9 describes upgrading technologies which will result in
-143-
-------
TABLE 5-8
UPGRADING TECHNOLOGIES RESULTING IN INCREASED
ENERGY OPERATING COSTS
SENSITIVE FACILITIES
Municipal1
Industrial
Pollution Control
Residues
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Gas Monitoring
Impermeable Daily
Cover
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Impermeable Daily Cover
Groundwater Water Quality
Monitoring
NONSENSITIVE FACILITIES
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Gas Monitoring
Impermeable Daily
Cover
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Impermeable Daily Cover
Groundwater Water Quality
Monitoring
* Daily cover assumed as existing technology; no increased energy use.
-144-
-------
I
-p.
en
i
TABLE 5-9
TOTAL INCREASED CAPITAL COSTS PER TON AND PERCENT INCREASE IN ENERGY USE FOR UPGRADED FACILITIES
Municipal :
Industrial
Pollution
Residues:
«
Sensitive*
Nonsensltlve
: Sensitive
: Nonsensltlve
Control
Sensitive
Nonsensltlve
10 TPD
Increased Capital
Cost/Ton %
$3.99
1.49
2.62
0.22
2.62
0.12
Increase
144%
54%
94%
8%
94%
8%
100 TPD
Increased Capital
Cost/Ton
$0.93
0.33
0.62
0.07
0.62
0.02
% Increase
56%
20%
37%
4%
37%
1%
300 TPD
Increased Capital
Cost/Ton « %
$0.51
0.17
0.35
0.05
0.35
0.01
Increase
52%
17%
35%
5%
35%
1%
Baseline construction costs: 10 TPD, $2.28; 100 TPD, $1.66; 300 TPD, $0.99.
-------
Increased energy use during landfill operation. For existing facilities
the primary energy consuming technology is that of impermeable cover. It
has been assumed that municipal facilities for both sensitive and non-
sensitive areas apply daily cover. Consequently, energy costs will not
increase. For the remainder of the waste types, it has been assumed that
daily cover is not a common practice and that impermeable cover application
is energy intensive, a 100% increase in energy requirements for those sites
which currently do not apply daily cover might be a reasonable estimate.
Consumption is primarily in the fuel energy resource area.
-146-
-------
6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE USES;
SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
6.1 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE USES
Since the Guidelines focus on improving environmental conditions,
it is important to examine the nature of the changes that they will
induce. Implementation of the Guidelines would involve the irre-
trievable expenditure of certain resources. The technologies se-
lected over and above those currently used to meet Guidelines objec-
tives would necessitate the increased use of manpower and energy to
design, install and operate landfill facilities. Once expended, this
energy and labor would be irretrievable for other uses.
Certain materials are required for implementing specific tech-
nologies such as cover soils, impermeable liners or barriers, lea-
chate and gas collection devices, and monitoring devices. Under
the Guidelines, these materials would be committed to use at the
site for at least the lifetime of the landfill and until potential
pollution problems have, abated. Given the difficulty in.determining
when the landfill has completely stabilized, and the fact that
certain materials will suffer varying degrees of deterioration within
the site, these materials should be considered as irreversibly incor-
porated into the landfill.
Waste materials buried in a landfill undergo varying amounts
of decomposition. The heterogenous nature of many landfills con-
tributes to the difficulty in recovering recyclable materials. Given
the current state of resource recovery technology and the high
cost of excavating a site, metals and other elements would poten-
tially not be retreivable for recycling or other resource recovery
programs.
In addition to materials, the costs incurred by landfill owners
and operators to initiate and maintain improved construction and
operating procedures, as well as the increased administrative and
managerial costs incurred by all levels of government for inspec-
tion, surveillance, and monitoring of facilities, would be irre-
trievable.
In summary, certain irreversible commitments of resources will
be required as a result of Guidelines implementation. In effect,
however, the reduction or elimination of potential negative
environmental impacts in the air, surface water, and groundwater
arenas, will result in an increase in the long term productivity of
the nation's environs and will result in increased levels of pro-
tection of public health and safety.
-147-
-------
6.2 SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM USE
Certain short-term demands on the environment, in addition
to irretrievable usage of some resources, are necessary to meet
the Guidelines requirements of promoting long-term environ-
mental protection.
Planning requirements involved with implementing the Guide-
lines necessitate some short-term economic and manpower ex-
penditures. As a result of planning and incorporating additional
technology, increases can be expected in the capital energy
expenditures of operating a landfill disposal facility. Increases
in the economic costs of disposal can therefore be expected. However,
these initial short-term uses potentially can be mitigated by the
eventual-energy savings and overall economic savings in reduced
diposal problems, and in reduced air and water pollution cleanup
efforts that are now required by presently inadequate disoosal methods
These and other short-term uses, such as construction effects
associated with installing additional control techniques, may in-
crease noise levels, create dust, temporarily disrupt the environ-
ment and place immediate demands on particular resources, but they
will result in minimizing the widespread effect of ground water,
surface water, and air pollution and will protect certain environ-
mentally sensitive areas.
Increased economic costs of landfill ing will also affect re-
search and development in resource recovery areas. While more ef-
ficient and effective landfill ing practices may reduce the need
for alternative disposal methods, the initial increased cost of
meeting the Guidelines and the growing limitations on land availa-
bility, especially in densely populated urban areas, can give added
incentive to long-term resource recovery programs.
In summary, while a variety of short term requirements and
impacts in the environment will ensue as a result of technology imple-
mentation, in the longterm the result will be an increased level of
protection for the environment, which in turn implies best use of the
nation's environmental resources. Additionally, increased costs of
landfill ing provide additional imoetus towards resource recovery
technology develooment, which in turn results in reduced environmental
demands due to landfill ing disposal requirements.
-148-
-------
7.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
7.1 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
As per the Summary statement, this impact statement has been distrib-
uted to a substantive number of organizations for public comment.
-149-
-------
7.2 PERTINENT PUBLIC HEARING
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
Public hearings on this draft impact statement have been scheduled
as follows:
Washington, D.C. May 15, 1979
Houston, Texas May 17, 1979
-150-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Defense Preparedness Association.
treatment in the military explosives and
3 vol. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
pagings.
Technical report; wastewater
propel!ants production industry,
Protection Agency, 1975. Various
American Society of Civil Engineers. Sanitary landfill; ASCE manuals and
reports on engineering practice, No. 39. New York, 1976. Various pagings.
American Society of Planning Officials. State solid waste management; No. 1,
landfill siting and state government relations. Contract No. S-804732-011.
[Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 1977. 33 p.
American Society of Planning Officials. State solid waste management; v.2.,
six case studies. Contract No. S-804732-01-1. [Washington], U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Dec. 1977. 134 p.
American Society of Planning Officials. State solid waste management; v.3,
technical aids for landfill siting. Contract No. S-804732-01-1. [Wash-
ington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 1977. 38 p.
Applied Management Sciences, Inc.
ment; a profile of its resources
posal. Environmental Protection
Environmental Protection Agency,
The private sector in solid waste manage-
and contribution to collection and dis-
Publication SW-51d.l. 'Washington, U.S.
1973.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Economic assessment of potential hazardous waste con-
trol guidelines for the inorganic chemicals industry. Washington,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office of Solid Waste Management, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Oct. 1976. 320 p.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Integrated economic impact assessment of hazardous.
waste management regulations; preliminary draft report. Washington,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, May 1978.
ASCE Solid Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Engineering
Division. Sanitary landfill. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1976.
Attenuation of inorganic landfill leachate constituents in soils of New
York; executive summary, (unknown author). 28 p.
Augenstein, D.C., et. al. Fuel gas recovery from controlled landfilling *f
municipal wastes. Resource Recovery and Conservation, 2(2):103-117.
Balefill costs more initially, but can pay off in public acceptance, lower
operating dollars. Solid Waste Systems, 6(2):16-18, Mar./Apr. 1977.
-151-
-------
Banerji, SVK., ed. Proceedings; management of gas and leachate in land-
fills; third annual municipal solid waste reserach symposium, St. Louis,
March 14-16, 1977. EPA-600/9-77-026. Cincinnati, Municipal Environ-
mental Research Latoratory, Sect. 1377. 233 p.
Battelle Colunbus Laboratories. Cost of compliance with hazardous waste
management regulations. Washington, D.C.: Hazardous Waste Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May 1978. Various pagings.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final report; assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices - electroplating and metal finishing industries -
captive shops. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.
52 p. + Appendixes.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final report; assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices - electroplating and metal finishing industries -
job shops. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
Various pagings.
Bendersky, D. Resource recovery from municipal wastes - a review and analysis
of existing and emerging technology. Albany, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, Undated. 33 p.
Black, R.J., A.J. Mohich, A.J. Klee, H.L. Hickman, Jr., and R.D. Vaughan.
The national solid wastes survey; an interim report - 1968 national sur-
vey of community solid waste practices. U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare. Public Health Service, Consumer Protection and En-
vironmental Health Service, Environmental Control Administration, 1968. 53p.
Blanjet, M.J. Treatment and utilization of landfill gas. Mountain View pro-
ject feasibility study. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1977. 115 p.
Bond, R.G. and C.D. Straub. Handbook of environmental control; vol. II.
CRC Press, 1973.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Cost estimating handbook for transfer, shredding
and sanitary landfill ing of solid waste. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1976. 77 p.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Draft environmental impact statement, proposed
regulation, criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities;
application of sludge to land used for production of food chain crops:
evaluation of the cost methodology and recommendations for revision.
[Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978. 19 p. + Appendixes.
-152-
-------
Boyd, G.B., and M.B. Hawkins. Methods of predicting solid waste charac-
teristics. Environmental Protection Publication SW-23c. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 28 p.
Brown, C.D. Treatment of leachate from landfills. Presented to Dr.
R.L. Johnson, May 16, 1978. 23 p.
Brown, J.A., ed. Proceedings of the American Defense Preparedness Asso-
ciation's Symposium on demilitarization of conventional munitions.
Hawthorne, Nevada, April 20-22, 1976. Defense Documentation Center and
National Technical Information Service. Unpaged.
Brunner, D.R. and D.J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and operation.
[Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. 59 p.
Brunner, D.R., S.J. Hubbard, D.J. Keller, and J.L. Newton. Closing open
dumps. Environmental Protection Publication SW-61ts. [Washington], U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. 19 p.
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical abstracts
of the U.S.; 98th annual edition. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1977.
Caffrey, P., M. David, and R.K. Ham. Evaluation of environmental impact
of landfills. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, 101 (EEI):
55-69.
Carlson, J.A. Recovery of landfill gas at Mountain View; engineering site
study. Environmental Protection Publication SW-587d. Washington, U,S.
Government Printing Office, 1977. 63 p.
Caterpillar, Inc. Planning a successful sanitary landfill. Form No.
AEDG 5409 Rev. 01.
Cavanagh, T.E. Jr. Sanitary landfill management. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Land/Noise Pollution Control, Land Permit
Section, undated. Various pagings.
COM, Inc. A case study nf the Los Angeles County Palos Verdes landfill gas devel
opment project. ' [Cincinnati] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,1977. 101 p.
Chan, P.C., et al. Sorbents for fluoride, metal finishing, and petroleum
sludge leachate contaminant control. [Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, March 1978. 84 p.
Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of leachate treatment;
volume I; characterization of leachate. EPA-600/2-77-186a. -Cincinnati,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Sept. 1977. 210 p.
-153-
-------
Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of leachate treatment;
volume II; biological and physical-chemical processes. EPA-600/2-77-
186b. Cincinnati, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Nov.
1977. 245 p.
City phases out landfill for balefill with lower costs. Waste Age, Apr.-May
1976, p. 12.
Coe, J.J. Effect of solid waste disoosal on groundwater quality. Journal
of the American Water Works, Association, December 1970. pp 776-783
Conolly, J.A. Solid waste management; worldwide solid waste literature -
collection/retrieval services available from EPA. 3rd ed. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-636. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977. 8 p.
Costle, D.M. EPA policy to protect and preserve the Nation's environmentally
significant agricultural lands. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977.
Costle, D.M. EPA policy to protect environmentally significant agricultural
lands. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 8,
1978. 8 p. (Unpublished memorandum).
County landfill gives as it receives. Public Works, 109(2):75-76, Feb. 1978.
Grumpier, E.P., Jr. Management of metal-finishing sludge. Environmental Pro-
tection Publication SW-561. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1977. 62 p.
Cummins, R.L. Effects of land disposal of solid wastes on water quality. [Cin-
cinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968. 30 p.
Dawson, R. Leather tanning industry; sludge problems ahead. Sludge Magazine;
Municipal & Industrial Residuals Management. (5):24-27 (Sept.-Oct.'1978),
Day, H.R. Disposal of dilute pesticide solutions. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-519. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
18 p.
DeGeare, T.V., Jr. Section 4004: two views of the landfill criteria; a land-
fill or a«dump? the EPA explains the new criteria. Waste Age, Apr. 1978.
6 p.
Delaney, J.E., ed. Proceedings; sanitary landfilling; joint conference of the
National Solid Waste Management Association and the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Kansas City, Missouri, November 14-15, 1972. [Washington],
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. 190 p.
-154-
-------
Department of Natural Resources. Report on the state of Wisconsin solid
waste management plan. State of Wisconsin. 1974. 104 p.
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. Economic impact analysis
of anticipated hazardous waste management regulations on the leather
tanning and finishing industry. Springfield, Va,, National Technical
Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1978. 113 p.
District of Columbia Department of Sanitary Engineering. Kenilworth model
sanitary landfill; interim report on a solid waste demonstration
project, December 1967-January 1969. Washington, U.S.'Government
Printing Office, 1969. Various pagings.
Division of Environment. Article 29 - solid waste management standards and
regulations. Topeka, Kansas, Kansas Department of Health and Envi-
ronment, Undated. 116 p.
Dunne, N.G. Successful sanitary landfill siting: county of San Bernar-
dino, California. Environmental Protection Publication SW-617.
[Washington] , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. 31 p.
Easterbrook, G.E. Modern landfill planning: no game of chance. Waste Age,
September 1977, pp. 30-31.
Eichenberger, B., J.R. Edwards, K.Y. Chen, and R.D. Stephens. A case
study of hazardous wastes in class I landfills. [Cincinnati], U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, June 1978. 106 p.
Ellison, W., and R.S. Kaufmann. Pollution control; toward safe scrubber
sludge disposal. Power, 54-57. July 1978.
Energy recovery from solid wastes; considerations for determining national
potential. Technical Bulletin 6(10):]-6. Nov. 1975.
Energy Resources Company. Economic impact analysis of anticipated hazar-
dous waste regulations on the industrial organic chemicals, pesticides,
and explosives industries. Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jan.
1978. 277 p.
Engdahl, R.B. Solid waste processing; a state-of-the-art report on unit
operations and processes. Public Health Service Publication No. 1856.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 72 p.
Engdahl, R.B., and N.L. Drobny. Emerging technologies for municipal solid
waste. Battelle Research Outlook, 3(3):-16-19t 1971.
Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Chemical and physical effects of municipal landfills on un-
derlying soils and groundwater. [Cincinnati'},U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1978. 140 p.
-155-
-------
Environmental Protection Agency; pesticides and pesticide containers -
regulations for acceptance and recormended procedures for disposal
and storage. Federal Register, 39(85):15235-15341, May 1974.
Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyl-containing
wastes-disposal procedures. Federal Register, 41(64) :14133-14136, "
April 1976.
ERT. Working paper #1; approach to guideline development for disposal of
municipal waste water sludges and related residuals. Washington,
October 1977. Various pagings.
Esmali, H. Control of gas flow from sanitary landfills. Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division. 101(EE4):555-565.
Everett, Lome G., et. al. Monitoring groundwater quality: methods and
costs. EPA-600/4-76-023. Las Vegas. Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, May 1976. 140 p.
E.V.S. Consultants Ltd. Leachate toxicity measurements using the residual
oxygen bio assay method. Solid Waste Management Branch Report EPS
4-EC-76-11. Environmental Conservation Directorate, Dec. 1976.
Farb, D.G. Upgrading hazardous waste disposal sites; remedial approaches.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-677. Washington , U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1"978. 40 p.
Farb, D. and S.D. Ward. Information about hazardous waste management
facilities. Environmental Protection Publication SW-145. [Washington],
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 130 p.
Federal Power Commission. The status of flue gas desulfurization appli-
cations in the United States: a technological assessment. Washington,
July 1977. 79 p.
Federal Solid Waste Management Programs. Cost estimating handbook for
transfer, shredding and sanitary landfill ing of solid waste. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-124C. [Washington], U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1976. 78 p.
Fenn, D.G., K.J. Hanley, and T.V. DeGeare. Use of the water balance method
for predicting leachate generation from solid waste disposal sites.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-168. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1975. 40 p.
Fields, T., Jr., and A.W. Lindsey. Landfill disposal of hazardous wastes:
a review of literature and known approaches. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-165. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975. 36 p.
-156-
-------
Fighting leachates in the trenches. Waste Age. January 1978, 3 p.
Flint, R.F. Glacial and quaternary geology. New York, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1971. 892 p.
Flower, F.B., et. al. A study of vegetation problems associated with refuse
landfills. [Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental Research Labora-
tory, May 1978. 130 p.
Floyd G. Brown and Associates Ltd. Comparing conventionally landfilled
' solid waste with processed landfilled solid waste. [Washington],
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.
Foster D. Snell, Inc. Final report; assessment of industrial hazardous
waste practices, rubber and plastics industry; executive summary.
[Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 55 p.
Fred C. Hart Associates, Int, Analysis of Tgchc.o1.ogy? Prevalence and
Economics of Landfill Disposal in the United States.U,S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1979,
' Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. Final reoort; demonstration/instructional
materials for technical assistance in hazardous waste management.
[Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. Various
pagings.
Fuller, W.H. Investigation of landfill leachate pollutant attenuation by
soils. [Cincinnati] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
219 p.
Fuller, W.H. Movement of selected metals, asbestos, and cyanide in soil:
applications to waste disposal problems. [Cincinnati], U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, April 1977. 243 p. and Addendum.
Fuller, W.H., ed_. Residual management by land disposal; proceedings of the
hazardous waste research symposium. Environmental Protection Agency
600/9-76-015. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 270 p.
Fuller, W.H., ed_. Residual management by land disposal; proceedings of the
hazardous waste research symposium held at The University of Arizona,
Tucson, February 2,3 and 4, 1976, and Co-sponsored by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
and by the Department of Soils, Water and Engineering Agricultural
College, The Univeristy of Arizona, July 1976. Cincinnati. 270 p.
Fungaroli, A.A. Pollution of subsurface water by sanitary landfills. V. 1.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-12rg. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1971.
Gas from garbage a reality in Southern California. Pipeline and Gas Journal.
-157-
-------
Genetelli, E.J. and J. Cirello, eds. Gas, and Leachate from Landfills;
Formation, Collection and Treatment; Proceedings of a Research Sym-
posium held at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, March 25
and 26, 1975, and cosponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division and Region II,
and by the Department of Environmental Science, Cook College, Rutgers
University. Cincinnati, March 1976. 190 p.
Geswein, Allen J. Liners for land disposal sites; an assessment. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-137 (Washington) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1975. 66p.
Ghassemi M. et al. Disposing of small batches of hazardous wastes.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-562. (Washington), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 22 p.
Ghassemi, M. and S.C. Quinlivan. Landfills for pesticide waste disposal.
Environmental Science S Technology, 10:1209, Dec. 1976.
Gibb, J.P. et al. Field verification of toxic waste retention by soils
at disposal sites. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Undated. 166p. (Preliminary Draft)
Goldberg, Theodore L. Improving rural solid waste management practices.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-107. (Washington), U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1973. 83 p.
Goodwin, R.H. and W.A. Niering. Inland wetlands of the United States;
evaluated as potential registered, natural landmarks. NPS Pub.144
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975, 550 p.
Greco, J.R. How some states are defining sanitary landfills. Solid
Wastes Management 20(4): 26 (5p|,
Greco, J.R. The marriage may succeed but the proposal needs work.
Waste Age, June 1978, 5p.
Greco, J.R. Renewing the land; new uses for landfill. Solid Wastes
Management, 26, 28, 32, 36, 79, March 76..
Griffin, R.A. and N.F. Shimp. Attenuation of pollutants on municipal
landfill-leachate by clay minerals. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1978. 147 p.
Handbook of solid waste management. Wilson, D.G. &* New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1977. 752 p.
Hass, J.C. and K. Ladd. Environmentally acceptable Landfill for air
quality control system sludge. Oklahoma State University, 7 p.
-158-
-------
Haxo, H.E. Jr. and R.M. White* Evaluation of liner materials exposed to
leachate; second interim report. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, September 1976. 54 p.
Haxo, H.E. Jr., R.S. Haxo, and R.M. White. Liner materials exposed
to hazardous and toxic sludges; first interim report. Cincinnati,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, June 1977. 63 p.
Hekimian, K.K. Landfill siting calls for engineering, EIR and good
public relations.. Solid Waste Systems, 20-22, Aug. 1977.
Hickman, H.L. Jr. Solid waste management. District Heating 57 (1):
18-19, 22-24 (Summer 1971).
Hillmer, T.J. Jr. Economics of transporting waste water sludge.
Public Works 108 (9)mo-m, Sept. 1977.
Hitte, S.J. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste and sewage sludge into
methane; an evaluation of the potential for processing organic wastes
by using a controlled anaerobic digestion process to produce maximum
amounts of methane and recyclable materials without causing air pollu-
tion. Compost Science-Journal of Waste Recycling, 17(1); Jan.-Feb.
1976.
Houle, M.J. et al. Migration of hazardous substances through soil;
Part I, electroplating, chlorine production, nickel-cadmium battery,
water base paint, and pigment wastes. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air , Land and Water Use, Municipal En-
vironmental Research Laboratory, Undated. 258 p. (Preliminary draft,
Interagency Agreement EPA-IAG-04-0443)
How to determine acreage requirements and disposal costs based on popula-
tion and refuse generation rates. Solid Waste Management / Refuse
Removal Journal, Jan 73.
Industrial Waste Management: Seven Conference Papers Presented at the
National Conference on Management and Disposal of Residues from the
Treatment of Industrial Wastewaters, Washington, DC., February
1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ill p.
Ivaska, J.S. ABC's of landfill operation and equipment selection.
Public Works, 108(1) : 44-46, Jan. 1977.
Jacobs Engineering Co. Assessment of hazardous waste practices in the
petroleum refining industry. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1976. 353 p.
-159-
-------
James, S.C. Metals in municipal landfill leachate and their health
effects. American Journal of Public Health, 67(5):429-432,
May 1977. :
Jensen, .Michael E. Observations of continental European solid waste
management practices. Public Health Service Publication No. 1880.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 46 p.
John Deere. Refuse control; where to start... points to consider...
operating methods .... A-1821-8-76, 31 p.
Johnson, P.C. and S.J. Endlich. Landfill hearings can speed or slow
approval permits. Solid Waste Systems, 6(1):28^30, Jan/Feb. 1977.
Jones, J. Disposal of power plant wastes. Washington, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1978. 20 p.
Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.
Hazardous waste in Kentucky; a survey. Frankfort, Kentucky: Division
of Hazardous Material and Waste Management, Bureau of Environmental
Protection, Jan. 1978. 130 p.
Kentucky State Department of Health. An industrial solid waste manage-
ment program for Kentucky. Division of Solid Waste Disposal, July
1971. Ill p.
Kentucky State Department of Health. Solid waste service system
administration. Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Feb. 1972. 81 p.
Kispert, R.G., S.E. Sadek, and D.L. Wise. An economic analysis of
fuel gas production from solid waste. Resource Recovery and Conser-
vation l(l):95-109.
Knap, A.H. Solid waste sampling; a field and laboratory technique.
Waste Age, June 1977, 3 p.
Kohan, A.M. A summary of hazardous substance classification systems.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-171. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975. 55 p.
Kones, T.P. , R.L. Barrows, D.A. Yanggen. Implementing cooperative
solid waste management in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin -
Extension , G2622. Wisconsin Department of .Natural Resources and
Local Affairs and Development, 24 p.
Kruth, M.A., D.H. Booth, and D.L. Yates. Creating a countywide solid
waste management system; the case study of Humphreys County,
Tennessee. Environmental Protection Publication SW-110.- Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 15 p.
-160-
-------
Landfill criteria "reasonable" but need some work. NSUMA Reports,
July 1978, 2 p.
Landfill-generated gas: time bomb or town benefit? American City and
County, April 1978, 3 p.
Larson, G. Utility concept dsecribed as key for managers wanting practical,
effective solid waste plans. Solid Waste Systems, 21-22, 24-28, Aug.-
Sept. 1976.
Leachate control system tested at landfill. Public Works, 107(12)r
74, Dec. 1976
League of Women Voters. Municipal sludge: what shall we do with it?;
disposal alternatives. Washington, League of Women Voters, 1976. 8 p.
Lehman, J.P. Federal surveys of industrial waste. Environmental Pro-
tection Publication SW-545. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1976. 31 p.
Le Grand, H.E. System for evaluation of contamination potential of
some waste disposal sites. 12 p.
Linehan, T.F., Jr. Sanitary landfill leachate generation, composition,
and travel. Presented to Professor Rein Laak, Solid Waste Engineering.
Little, H.R. Design criteria for solid waste management in recreational
areas. Environmental Protection Publication SW-91 ts. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 68 p.
Lofy, R. and J.R. Perry. Environmental Assessment of Subsurface disposal
of municipal wastewater treatment sludge; interim report. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-547C. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1977. 112 p.
Lutton, R.J. and G.L. Regan, Selection and design of cover
for solid waste; interim report. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati (Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG-D7-01097).
153 p.
Madison study focuses on financial aspects of landfilling 'cmilled trash.
Solid Wastes Management 17(2):30 (4 p).
Madoro, A.W. and J.F. Duffield. Alternative sources for landfill cover.
Public Works 109 (5):82-83, May 1978.
Mahoney, P.P. ANSWERS project: an answers to a munipal problem. Public
Works, 109 (2):61-64, Feb. 1978.
Mantell, C.L. Solid wastes: origin, collection, processing and disposal.
New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1975. 1,127 p.
-161-
-------
Massey, D.T. Attitudes of nearby residents toward establishing sanitary
landfills. ESCS-03. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1978. 58. p.
Materials recovery; solid waste management guidelines for source separation.
Federal Register, 41(80):16?950-16,956, April 23, 1976.
Meyers, P.O. Selection of advanced solid waste disposal techniques.
Public Works, 70-71, 96. Aug. 1975.
MITRE Corp. Preliminary working draft environmental impact statement
for Subtitle C, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA);
Vol. II-Appendices A-T-Supporting Documentation (Washington), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Feb. 1978.
Montgomery, R.L. and M.J. Bartos. Dredging and the landfill. Waste Age,
Oct. 1977, 3 p.
Mooij, H. Landfill research activities in Canada. Environmental Impact
Control Directorate, Environmental Protection Service Report, Waste
Management Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 16 p.
Mooij, H. Procedures for the analysis of landfill leachate; proceedings
of an international seminar. Solid Waste Management Report EPS-4-EC-
75-2. Environmental Conservation Directorate , Oct. 1975. 26 p.
Mooij, H. Solid waste research activities in Canada. Presented at
Fourth Annual Research Symposium "Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes,"
EPA-SRI, San Antonio, Mar.. 6-8, 1978. 5 p.
Mooij, H. and F.A. Rovers. Recommended groundwater and soil sampling
procedures; proceedings of an international seminar. Solid Waste
Management Branch Report EPS-4-EC-76-7. Environmental Conservation
Directorate, June 1976.
Mooij, H., P.A. Rovers, and A.A. Sobanski. Recommended procedures for
landfill monitoring programme design and implementation; proceedings
of an international seminar. Waste Management Branch Report EPS 4-
EC-77-3. Environmental Impact Control Directorate, May 1977. 25 p.
Mooij, H., F.A. Rovers,and J.J. Tremblay. Procedures for landfill gas
monitoring and control; proceedings of an international seminar.
Waste Management Branch Report EPS 4-EC-77-4. Environmental Impact
Control Directorate, Oct. 1977.
Munich, A.J., A.J. Klee, and P.W. Britton. Preliminary data analysis;
1968 national survey of community solid waste practices. U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Public Health Service;
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service; Environmental
Control Administration, 1968. U.S. Government Printing Office,
483 p.
-162-
-------
Munnecke, D..H.R. Day, and H.W. Trask. Review of pesticide disposal
research. Environmental Protection Publication SW-527. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 76 p.
National Association of Counties Research Foundation. Suggested solid
waste management ordinance for local government. Environmental Protec-
tion Publication SW-73d. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1974. 23 p.
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. Sanitary landfill, a state-
of-the-art study. Lexington, Mass., 1974. 119 p.
National Commission on Productivity. Report of the solid waste management
advisory group on opportunities for improving productivity in solid
waste collection. Washington, National Commission on Productivity,
1973. 46 p.
National League of Cities and United States Conference of Mayors.
Municipal solid waste disposal ... how cities site landfills.
Grant No. T906607010. 72 p.
National monitoring survey. Waste Age, Sept. 1977, pp 18-19.
Neely, G.A. Landfill planning and operation. APWA Reporter, 16-19,
Dec. 1972.
Nesheim, E.E. Land application of wastewater sludge. Public Works,
109 (6): 98-100, June 1978.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Draft. New
York State comprehensive resource recovery and solid waste management
plan. February 1970.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Sanitary landfill;
planning, design, operation, maintenance. Bureau of Solid Wastes En-
gineering, 1971. 33 p.
Newest homes in town border on the landfill. Solid Wastes Management
18(9):16 (3 p). '
Newton, M. Model state hazardous waste management act (annotated).
Environmental Protection Publication SW-635. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1977. 55 p.
Noble, G. Sanitary landfill design handbook. Westport, Conn.: Techno-
mic Publishing Company, Inc. 1976. 285 p.
Office of Land Use Coordination. Background paper in support of an EPA
policy to protect environmentally significant agricultural lands.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Undated. 34 p. 5
Appendixes.
-163-
-------
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President of the
United States. Standard industrial classification manual, 1972.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 649 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices,
inorganic chemicals industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975.. Various pagings.
Office of Solid Waste. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices:
organic chemicals, pesticides and explosives industries. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Various pagings.
Office of Solid Waste. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices:
paint.and allied, products industry, contract solvent reclaiming oper-
tions, and factory application of coatings. Washington, U.S. En.-i-;-;.-
mental Protection Agency, 1976. 296 p.
Office of Solid Waste Mangement Programs. Decision-makers guide in solid
waste management. Environmental Protection Publication SW-500. Washing-
ton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 158 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Development of construction and
use criteria for sanitary landfills. Environmental Protection Publica-
tion SW-19d. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.
Office of Solid Waste. Draft environmental impact statement; proposed
criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1978. Various
pagings.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. EPA activities under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976; annual report to the
President and the Congress fiscal year 1977. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-663. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
80 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Evaluation of solid waste
baling and balefills. V.I. v.2. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-111 c. 1. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,1975.
153 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Guidelines for local govern-
ments on solid waste management. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-17C. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 184 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Hazardous waste disposal
. damage reports. Environmental Protection Publication SW-151.
(Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 8 p.
-164-
-------
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Pharmaceutical industry;
hazardous waste generation, treatment, and disposal. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-508. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1976. 178 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Procedures manual for ground water monitoring
at solid waste disposal facilities. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-611. 269 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Process design manual; municipal sludge landfills.
EPA-625/1-78-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oct. 1978.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Report to Congress; disposal
of hazardous wastes. Environmental Protection Publication SW-115.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 110 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Solid waste facts, SW-694. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, May 1978. 13 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Solid waste management;
available information materials-interim catalog. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-58.27. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1977. 190 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Source separation; the
community and awareness program in Somerville and Marblehead,
Massachusetts. Environmental Protection Publication SW-551.
(Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 81 p.
Office of Water Program Operations. Municipal sludge management:
environmental factors. EPA 430 /9-77-004 (MCD-28). Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
Office of Water Program Operations. Municipal sludge management:
environmental factors. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, October 1977. 30 p. § Appendixes.
Office of Water Program Operations. Municipal sludge management: EPA
construction grants progran; an overview of the sludge management
situation. EPA-430/9-76-009 (MCD-30). Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976. 64 p.
Office of Water Program Operations. Technical bulletin; Evaluation of
land application systems-evaluation checklist and supporting commen-
tary. EPA-430/9-75-001. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office ,
Mar. 1975. 182 p.
Office of Water Supply. Draft environmental impact statement, state
underground injection control program; proposed regulations (40CFR
Part 146). Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Undated.
Various pagings.
-165-
-------
Office of Water Supply, and Office of Solid Waste. The report to Congress:
waste disposal practices and their effects on ground water.(Report)
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. 512 p.
Pacey, J. Methane gas in landfills: liability or asset? in Waste
Management Technology and Resource § Energy Recovery. Washington,
D.C. : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976, pp. 168-190.
Park, W.P. Engineering economics; the sanitary landfill-"there goes
the neighborhood!" Consulting Engineer, March, 1976.
Perry, J.R. Sanitary landfill guidelines compliance program; survey of
Federal facilities-Feb. 1976. Office of Solid Waste, 1976.
Personal communication. W. Anderson, P.E. Pickard and Anderson, Inc.
June. 1978 (Unpublished information).
Personal communication. Federal Insurance Administration. Flood Insurance
Program, Philadelphia, August 1977.
Personal communication. C. Fogg, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Environmental Services Division, September 22,
1978.
Personal communication. Mikohler, U.S. Department of Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, May 31, 1978.
Personal communication. J. Sanislow, Division Representative, New York
City, Army Corps of Engineers, Emergency Operations Branch, September22,
1978.
Personal communication, K. Schreiner, Official Contact, U.S. Department
of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species,
September 29, 1978.
Pesticides-EPA proposal on disposal and storage. Federal Register, 39
(220):36847-36950, Oct. 15, 1974. "
Pohland, Frederick G., Sanitary landfill stabilization with leachate
recycle and residual treatment. EPA-600/2-75-043. Cincinnati, Mmicipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Oct. 1975. 106 p.
Polychlorinated bif.henyl-containing wastes; disposal procedures. Federal
Register. 41(64):14136, April, 1976.
Porter, K.W., D.A. Yanggen, M.T. Beatty, J.A. Gams, S. Gronbeck, and
T.P. Kures. Technical guide for solid waste management; a compendium
of published and original material. University of Wisconsin-Extension,
G2427. Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources and Local Affairs
and Development, 62 p.
-166-
-------
Porter, W.X. D.A. Yanggen, T.P. Kimes, S. Gronbeck, M.T. Beatty, and
J.A. Gams. Planning for cooperative solid waste management in Wisconsin.
University of Wisconsin-Extension, G2426. Wisconsin Departments of
Natural Resources and Local Affairs and Development, Oct. 1972.
Proceedings of the Fourth National Congress on Waste Management Technology
and Resource and Energy Recovery, Atlanta, Nov. 12-14, 1975. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-8p. (Washington), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1976. 382 p..
Processes Research, Inc. Alternatives for hazardous waste management in
the organic chemical, pesticides and explosives industries. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Various pagings.
RCRA poses grave problems for landfill operators, state and local agen-
cies, and EPA itself. Solid Wastes Management, 21(2):42,44, Feb. 1978.
Regional planning, wise equipment choice behind successful landfill
operations. Solid Waste Systems, 5(4):8-10, Aug./Sept. 1976.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; interrelationships within the solid wastes
system. Solid Wastes Management, 22-23, 54-57, Apr. 1977
Reindl, J. Landfill course; examining disposal and recycling techniques
for solid wastes. Solid Wastes Management, 66,68,70,92,94, May 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; solid wastes disposal depends on landfill
techniques. Solid Ifastes Management, 22-24,48 June 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; managing gas and leachate production on
landfills. Solid Wastes Management, 30-31, 68, 86, 88, 90, July
1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; proper site selection requires balancing of
established criteria. Solid Wastes Maiagement, 26-27, 71, Aug. 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; gathering data; most important step in
designing landfill. Solid Wastes Management, 42,44, 74, 76, 78,
Sept. 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; evaluating design alternatives for landfill
construction. Solid Wastes Management, 44, 46, 48, 50 66, Oct. 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; operational efficiencies must be built into
sites at design stage. Solid Wastes Management, 60, 62, 64, 66, Nov.
1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; equipment needs determined by site operational
factors. Solid Wastes Management, 34, 36, 38, 52, Dec. 1977.
-167-
-------
Reindl, J. Landfill course; closing of landfill needs to avoid future
site problems. Solid Wastes Management, 22-24, 26, o4, 06, Jan
1978.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; solid wastes disposal depends on landfill
techniques. Solid Pastes ?-knagement 20(6);22 (4p).
Reindl , J. Landfill course; managing gas and leachate production on
landfills. Solid Wastes Management 20(7):so (7p).
Research publications of solid and hazardous waste research division
disposal branch. SHWRD Research Reports relating to waste disposal,
July 1973. Sept. 1977.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Public Law 94-580,
94th Congress. Oct. 21, 1976.
Resource Technology Corporation. Guidelines for resource recovery fror.i
municipal wastes. Apr.1977. 26 p.
The report to Congress; waste disposal practices and their effects on
groundwater. Washington,D.C.: Office of Water Supply and Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Jan. 1977. 512 p.
Rossoff, J., et. at., Disposal of by-products from nonreqenerable flue gas
desulfurization systems: second progress report. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, May 1977, 278 p.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Pollution prediction tecliniques for waste disposal
siting; a state-of-the-art assessment. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-162c. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1978
Russell, J.R. Solid waste management systems in the rural Southeast.
Agricultural Economic Report No.333. Washington, U.S. Department
of Agriculture , Economic Research Service, 1976. 19 p .
Sather, J.H. ed. Proceedings of the National Wetland Classification
and Inventory Workshop, University of Maryland, College Park, Mary-
land, July 20-23, 1975. Washington, U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services.(conducted
by the Wildlife Management Institute ), July 1976. 248 p. + Addendum.
Schalit, L. , et al. Hazardous solid waste streams from organic chemicals
manufacturing and related industries. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Undated. Various pagings.
Schomaker, N.R. Current research on land disposal of hazardous wastes,
in Residual Management by Land Disposal; Proceedings of the Hazardous
Waste Kesearcn symposium, Feb. z-4, 1976.University of Arizona.
-168-
-------
Schomaker , N.B. and M.H. Roulter. Current EPA research activities in
solid waste management, in Research Symposium on Gas and Leachate
from Landfills; Formation, Collection and Treatment , March 25-26,
1975, kutgers, State University" of New Jersey.
Schultz, D.T. Landfill recycles waste papermill sludge. Public Works,
109($):83-85, June T978.
SCS Engineers. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices--
leather tanning and finishing industry. Washingtion, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1976. 233 p.
SCS Engineers. Data base for standards/regulations development for
land disposal of flue gas sludges. EPA-600/7-77-118. Cincinnati,
Ohio, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Dec. 1977. 284 p.
(USEPA, Office of Research and Development Series in Research Reporting).
SCS Engineers. Study of engineering and water management practices that
will minimize the infiltration of precipitation into trenches containing
radioactive waste; final report. Contract No. 68-03-2452. Las Vegas,
National Environmental Research Center, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Sept. 1977. 85 p.
Serper, A. Anticipation of environmental impacts of facilities urged.
Solid Wastes Management, 21(3): 60,62,64,88, Mar. 1978.
Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Circular 39, Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1956. 67 p.
Shea, T.G. and J.D. Stockton. Wastewater sludge utilization and disposal
costs. EPA-430/9-75-01-5 (MCD-12). Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975. 13 p.
Shilesky, U.M. et al. 1st draft final report; solid waste landfill
practices. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September
1978. Various pagings.
Shultz, D.W. ed. Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes; Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual Research Symposium held at San Antonio, Texas, March 6,
7 and 8, 1978. Cosponsored by Southwest Research Institute and the
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Cincinnati,undated. (Preliminary draft) 425 p.
Shuster, K.A. Leachate damage assessment: an approach. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 56 p.
Shuster, K.A. Leachate damage assessment. Case study of the Peoples
Avenue solid waste disposal site in Rockford, Illinois. Environmental
Protection Publication .SW-517. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1976. 25 p.
-169-
-------
Skinner, J.H. Reduce the incentive to waste. Presented at 30th National
Meeting, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Boston, Sept. 8,
1975. 9 p.
Sludge disposal: the problem, the search, the solution. Public Works,
1C#(3):58-61, Mar. 1978.'
Smith, F.A. Comparative estimates of post-consumer solid waste.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-148. (Washington), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 18 p.
Smith, Frank Austenin. Quantity and composition of post-consumer solid
waste: material flow estimates for 1973 and baseline future projections.
Waste Age, April 1976.
Smith, F.A. Resource recovery plant cost estimates: a comparative
evaluation of four recent dryshredding designs. Environmental Pro-
tection Publication' SW-163 in the Solid Waste Management Series.
Washington, July 1975. 20 p.
Smith, F.L. Jr. A solid waste estimation procedures material flows
approach. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 56 p.
Smith, J.E. Inventory of energy use in wastewater sludge treatment
and disposal. Industrial Water Engineering, July/August 1977, p. 20-
26.
Solid and hazarous waste research division outputs. Disposal Technology
PFOgram, Sept. 1977. Prepared for OR § D Program Review.
Solid waste shredding: blueprint for progress. Waste Age, July 1975,
p. 10-15.
Sorg, T.J. and H.L. Larder, Jr. Sanitary landfill facts. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-4ts. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971. 30 p.
Spindletop Research Inc. Transfer stations; solid waste management
handbook. Kentucky State Department of Health, Division of Solid
Waste Disposal, May 1971. 49 p.
State hazardous waste programs; proposed guidelines. Federal Register.
43(22):4366-4373, Feb. 1, 1978.
State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Solid Waste
Management Unit. Operating Connecticut's land disposal areas; a text-
book for the man on the land disposal site. Environmental Protection
Publication, Region 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.90 p.
-170-
-------
Stearns, R.P. and J.P. Wbodyard. The impact of resource recovery on urban
landfill requirements. Waste Age Jan. 1977, 6 p.
Stearns, R.P. and J. P. Wbodyard. Resource recovery and the need for
sanitary landfills. Public Works, 108(9):106-109, Sept. 1977.
Steiner, R.L. and R. Kantz. Sanitaty landfill; a bibliography. rPublic
Health Service Publication no. 1819. (Environmental Protection Pub-
lication SW-4 rg. 1). [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1974. 34 p.
Stewart, W.S. State-of-the-art study of land impoundment techniques.
Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research
and Development, Municipal, Environmental Research Laboratory, Undated,
77 p. (Prepublication Report). Grant no. R-803585.
Stone, R. Reclamation of landfill methane and control of off-site migration
hazards. Solid Wastes Management 21(7): 52-54, '69.
Stump, P.L. ed. Proceedings of a Symposium; Solid Waste Demonstration
Projects,Tincinnati, Ohio, May 4-6, 1971. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-4 p. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
256 p.
Sussman, D.B. Co-disposal of sewage sludge and solid wastes-it works.
American City and County, Oct. 1977.
Sverdrup S. Parcel and Associates, Inc. Sludge, handling and disposal
practices at selected municipal wastewater treatment plants. Washing-
ton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1977. 56 p.
Swartzbaugh, J.T., R.L. Hentrich, Jr.,and G. Sabel. Evaluation of
landfilled municipal and industrial solid wastes. Cincinnati, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,.
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Undated. 130 p. (Pre-
publication Copy). Contract No. 68-03-2120
Teipel, J.A. Dallas'solid waste plan in its second decade. Public Works,
109(5):60-61, May 1978.
Thermal processing and land disposal of solid waste. Federal Register,
39(158):29, 328-29338, Apr. 14, 1974.
Thompson, B. and I. Zandi, Future of sanitary landfill. Journal of
the Environmental Engineering Division. 101 (EEl):4i-54.
Thompson, J.W. Shredding vs remote landfill costs. Solid Waste
6(3):6-7, May/June 1977.
Toftner, Richard 0. Developing a local and regional solid waste
management plan. Environmental Protection Publication SW-101 ts.
(Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. 29 p.
-171-
-------
Toftner, Richard 0. Developing a state solid waste management plan.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2031 (Environmental Protection
Publication SW-42 ts). (Washington), U.S. Department of Health Education,
and Welfare, 1970. 50 p.
Tolman, A.L. et al. Guidance manual for minimizing pollution from waste
disposal sites. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
83 p.
Transcript; Public hearing on proposed classification criteria for solid
waste Disposal facilities, Washington, D.C., Apr. 21, 1978. Environmental
Protection-Publication SW-38 p. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1978.
Transcript; Public fuearing on proposed classification criteria on Sxslid
Waste disposal facilities, Kansas City, Missouri, Apr. 24, 1978.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-39 p. (Washington), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
Transcript; Public tearing on Proposed classification Criteria for solid
w-iste disposal facilities, Portland, Oregon, Apr. 26, 1978. Environmen-
tal Protection Publication SW-40 p. (Washington), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1978.
Transcripts; Regional Public meeting on the f3source conservation and
recovery act of 1976 and appendix: Conference on the management of
non-nuclear hazardous wastes, New York City) Feb. 23, 1977. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-14 p. (Washington), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977. 270 p.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental effects
Laboratory. Chemical and physical effects of municipal, landfills on
underlying soils and groundwater. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory , May 1978. 140 p.
U.S. Department of Energy. Potential costs to coalfired generating
plants of compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery
A=t of 1976. Washington, 1978, Unpaged.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Public iiealth Service
Development of construction and use criteria for sanitary landfills;
an interim report. Cincinnati, 1969. Various pagings.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Composting of municipal solid
wastes in the United States. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-47r. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
103 p.
-172-
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cost estimating handbook for trans-
fer, shredding and sanitary landfilling of solid waste. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-124 c. (Washington ), U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1976. 77 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Disposal of sewage sludge into a
sanitary landfill. Report SW-71d. (Washington), U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1974. 418 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Recommended standards for sanitary
landfill design, construction, and evaluation and model sanitary land-
fill operation agreement. Environmental Protection Publication Sw-
86ts. (Washington). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. 23 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sanitary Landfill: Clark County,
Arkansas.
Vermont plan: "Only economic disposal method is landfill." Solid Wastes
Management 16(T3):50 (4 p.).
Veraar, Inc., General Technologies Division. Alternatives for hazardous
waste management in the inorganic chemicals industry. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-149c. (Washington), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977.
Versar, Inc. Draft report; alternatives for hazardous waste management
in the inorganic chemicals industry, Washington, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977. Various pagings.
Vigh, C. Sanitary landfill location and design; solid waste management
guide. Kentucky State'Department of Health, Division of Solid Waste
Disposal, Nov. 1971. 120 p.
Vigh, C. Sanitary landfill operations; solid waste management guide.
Kentucky State Department of Health, Division of Solid Waste Disposal,
Nov. 1971. 76 p.
Vitale, W.V. Subject: FAA guidance concerning sanitary landfills on or
near airports. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Oct. 1974, 3 p.
Vydra, 0., and A. Grimm. County treats shred fill leachate. Civil
Engineering-ASCE. 46(12):55-57, Dec. 1976.
Wainio, P. Baling facility serves growing county. Public Works,
108(5):85, May 1977.
Walker, W. Where have all the toxics gone? Ground Water. 11 (2),
Mar.-Apr. 1973.
-173-
-------
NAPORA, Inc. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices--
electronic components manufacturing industry. Washington,U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. 145 p. * Appendixes.
WAPORA, Inc. Final report; assessment of industrial hazardous waste
practices-special machinery manufacturing industries. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. 230 p. « Appendixes.
Water Resources Council, Executive Office of the President of the
United States. The nation's water resources; the second nation's
water assessment by the U.S. Water Resources Council, March 1978/
review copy; summary report. Washington. 52 p.
Wentworth, M. Resource recovery: truth § consequences. Washington,
Environmental Action Foundation, 1977. 77 p.
Wilcox, J. Municipal waste: economic aspects of technological alterna-
tives, p. 149-166, 1977.
Wilkinson? R.R., G.L. Kelso, and F.C. Hopkins. State-of-the-art report,
pesticide disposal research. Cincinnati; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory , August 1978. 225 p.
Winfrey, A.J. Financing solid waste services; solid waste management
guide. Kentucky State Department of Health, Division of Solid Waste
Disposal, May 1972. 41 p.
Wingerter, E.J. EPA must be flexible but consistent when applying land-
fill criteria. Solid Wastes Management, 20(12)j;?7, Dec. 1977.
Wingerter, E.J. 1977-a year of new respect for waste management.
Solid Wastes Management, 21(1);28, 30, 78, Jan. 1978.
Wraw, R. Section 4004: two views of the landfill criteria; criteria
for judging each criterion; a commentary ..aste Age , Apr. 1978, 6 p.
Zausner, E.R. An accounting system for sanitary landfill operations.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2007 (Environmental Protection
Publication SW-15 ts). (Washington), U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1969. 18 p.
Zausner, E.R. Financing solid waste management iu small communities.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-S7 ts. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1971. 14 p.
1977 updp.te for land disposal practices survey. Waste Age, Jan. 1978,
6 p.
-174-
-------
APPENDIX A
LINER MATERIALS EVALUATIONS
Admixed and Asphaltlc Materials
(Source: Reference 3)
Asphalt Concrete
Asphalt concrete is a carefully controlled mixture of asphalt cement and
graded aggregate that is placed and compacted at elevated temperatures. As-
phalt concrete is especially well adapted to the construction of linings for
all types of hydraulic structures. It may lie used for the entire lining
structure, or it may be a principal part of a more complex lining. Depending
on mix design and placement, it may serve as an impermeable layer or as a
porous layer. Properly mixed and placed, asphalt concrete forms a stable,
durable, and erosion-resistant lining.
Asphalt cements of *M) to 50 or 60 to 70 penetration grades are preferable
for hydraulic concrete linings. The lower penetration grades produce har-
der asphalt concrete linings that are more resistant to the destructive action
of water, the growth of vegetation, and extremes of weather. They are more
stable on side slopes than linings made with sulfur asphalt cements, but they
retain sufficient flexibility to conform to slight deformation of the sub-
grade.
Mix design of asphalt concrete for hydraulic linings follows general
principles such as those described in publications of the Asphalt Institute,
Table 11 lists some typical mix compositions. The maximua stone size will
generally be from 1.2? to 2.5^ cm (1/2 to 1 in.) in size, and the amount of
mineral filler passing a No. 200 sieve will usually be froa %fa to 1$%. The
mix should have 6$ to 9^ asphalt content by weight of the total mix. The
aggregate gradation and asphalt content should be such that the nix will be
stable, yet easily compacted to less than *$. air voids.
Soil Asphalt
Soil asphalt embraces a wide variety of soils, usually those of low
plasticity mixed with a liquid asphalt. Generally, soil asphalt mixtures
are avoided for lining purposes. There ar& always exceptions, but soil
asphalt mixes containing cutback asphalts are usually not suitable for lin-
ings. (Cutback asphalts are liquid solutions of asphalt in a volatile sol-
vent. Upon evaporation of 'the solvent, cutback asphalts assume a heavy con-
sistency typical of the base asphalt. ) Those soil asphalts containing
emulsified asphalts require a waterproofing seal, membrane, or asphalt con-
crete to be placed on top of them. (Asphalt emulsions are dispersions of
microscopic asphalt particles in a continuous aqueous phase containir^ small
amounts of chemicals or clay as emulsifiers. They can be classified as
anionic, cationic, or nonionic, depending on the electrical charge on the
asphalt particles. Asphalt emulsions are normally liquid, reverting to the
solid or semisolid state of the base asphalt after application by means of
evaporation or breaking out of the water. )
-175-
-------
Sprayed Asphalt Membranes
An asphalt menbrane lining (hot-sprayed type) consists of a continuous
layer of asphalt, usually without filler or reinforcement of any kind. It is
generally covered or buried to protect it from mechanical damage and to pre-
vent weathering (oxidation) of the surface. Its cover may be another layer
of a multilayer lining structure, but generally it is native soil, gravel,
asphalt macadam, or other substances specifically placed for this purpose.
Asphalt membranes are placed to thicknesses of 0.^8 to 0.79 cm (3/i6 to 5/16
in.) and constitute continuous waterproof layers extending throughout the
length and breadth of the structure being lined. Asphalt of special charac-
teristics is used to make these membranes into tough, pliable sheets that
readily conform to changes or irregularities in the subgrade. Buried under a
protective coating, an asphalt membrane will retain its tough, flexible qual-
ities indefinitely. It is one of the least expensive types of current liners.
Asphalts used to make membranes must have very low temperature suscepti-
bility and a high degree of toughness and durability. Furthermore, asphalt
for membrane linings must have a high softening point to prevent sagging or
flow down a slope if the cover material should be accidently removed and the
membrane exposed to the sun. The material must also be sufficiently plastic
at operating temperatures to minimize the danger of rupture from earth move-
ment. Also, it must not exhibit excessive cold flow tendencies in order to
effectively resist the hydraulic head to which it is subjected.
Considerable laboratory research and field trials have gone into the
selection of suitable asphalts. Those that meet the requirements are usually
asphalts produced from selected feedstocks by the use of air-blowing tech-
niques. (Some manufacturers employ chemical modifiers, which are most often
termed, catalysts, in the blowing process.)
Bituminous Seals
Bituminous seals are generally used to seal the surface pores of an as-
phalt mixture serving as a lining or to provide additional assurance for
waterproofing. They are also considered in some cases where there may be some
reaction between the aggregate in the mix and the liquid to be stored. There
are basically two types of bituminous seals. One is simply an asphalt cement
(sometimes emulsified asphalt is used instead) sprayed over the lining surface
at a rate of about 1.1 liter/m2 (l qt/yd2). This method provides a film
approximately 0.18 cm (1/32 in.) thick. The second type of seal consists of
an asphalt mastic that may contain 2$% to 50$ asphalt cement. The remainder
ia a nineral filler such as limestone dust or an inexpensive reinforcing
fiber such as asbestos. This mixture is generally squeegeed on at an applica-
tion rate of about 2.7 to 5.^ kg/m2 (5 to 10 lb/yd2).
-176-
-------
BENTONITE/SOIL
High-swell clay minerals have been widely used to control excessive
seepage in natural soils by decreasing their permeability. Bentonite, one of
the most widely used clays, is a heterogeneous substance composed of mont-
morillonite and small amounts of feldspar, gypsum, calcium carbonate, quartz,
and traces of other minerals. Bentonite has colloidal properties because of
its very small particle size and the negative charge on the particles. About
?0# to 90# of the particles are smaller than 0.6 micron.25 Bentonite has the
capacity of absorbing approximately five times its weight in water and occu-
pies .a volume of 12 to 15 times its dry bulk volume at maximum saturation.2°
It is this swollen mass that fills the voids in soils that normally would
permit water seepage. These high-swell bentonites are found in Wyoming,
South Dakota, Montana, Utah, and California.
The level of ionic salts found in certain industrial wastes is often
sufficient to reduce the swelling of bentonite and therefore impair its use-
fulness as a sealant. Since the water that initially contacts the bentonite
is most critical to its effectiveness, swelling of the bentonite can often
be effected by prehydrating the bentonite in fresh water. This forms an
effective seal in the presence of contaminated wastewater. But in the pres-
ence of high quantities of dissolved salts, the prehydrated clay eventually
deteriorates. The use of a specially formulated form of bentonite (Saline
Seal) reportedly assures that after prehydration, the bentonite will remain
swollen for a long time and will not deteriorate as rapidly when exposed to a
high level of ionic contaminants.
Saline Seal bentonite can be distributed over a prepared lagoon surface
at a rate of about 1.82 kg/0.09 m2 (2.0 lb/ft2) and mixed thoroughly into the
top 5-1 to 15.2 cm (2 to 6 in.) of soil. The area is then covered with a
minimum of 1 in. of fresh water to effect prehydration. After 2 to 4 days,
industrial waste can be put into the lagoon.
Saline Seal can also be placed on unstable or wet soil surfaces as a
slurry. Slurries are made'by mixing approximately 0.23 kg (1/2 It) of
Saline Seal per 3.8 liters (gal) of water. Vhen distributed over the soil
surface, the slurry will effectively seal the soil surface.
Table 18 compares the relative performance of a bentonite and Saline Seal,
both of which were prehydrated with fresh water. The soil tests were per-
formed on sandy soil, with 3.6 kg (4.0 Ib) of each applied per 0.09 m2 (ft2)
and thoroughly mixed into the top 5-1 cm (2 in.) of soil. As the data indi-
cate, the prehydrated bentonite seal showed signs of deterioration on the
second day and failed completely on the seventh day, whereas the Saline Seal
maintained and even improved the seal. The contaminated water used in the
test contained 3«^ sodium chloride and J.6& sodium sulfate.
-177-
-------
Day
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF BENTONITE AND
SAUHZ SEAL BENTONITB IN A SOIL TEST27
Prehydratad Bentonite
Prehydrated Saline Seal
Permeability*
(cm/sec)
Leakage Rate#
Tin.)
Permeability*
(cm/sec)
Leakage Rate#
cm (in.)
1
2
3
i*
5
7*
1.0 x
2.0 x
5.0 x
1.0 x
" 6.0 x
1.0 x
io-4
10-6
lo-*
io-5
io-5
10-*
0.318
0.635
1.905
3.18
19.1
31.8
(o.
(o.
(o.
(1.
(7.
(12.
125)
250)
750)
25)
5)
5)
1
1
0
0
0
0
.0 x
.0 x
.8 x
.9 x
.7 x
.7 x
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
.318
.318
.25^
.28**-
.221
.221
(0.125)
(0.125)
(0.100)
(0.112)
(0.087)
(0.087)
*1.0 x 10"6 cm/sec represents an effective seal (equivalent to 1 ft of
compacted native clay).
of water at a 1.22-m (*4~ft) head.
failed.
Low-swell clays such as hydrated mica and kaolin have had limited use as
sealants. However, some research has been conducted on their sealing charac-
teristics, 28 and perhaps additional investigations are needed. The low-swell
clays are affected less by increased concentrations of magnesium or calcium
in water, and the damage from drying may be less severe. Low-swell clays
are generally found in Nevada and other western states.
The cost of bentonite-type clays varies from about $10/ton to more than
$25/ton (FOB the clay-processing plant), with $20/ton a typical cost.28 The
.price variation is a function of the quality of the clay, the degree of carried
out processing, and the quantity purchased. In addition to the basic cost,
shipping is expensive unless the site is located near the clay-processing
plant. Typical shipping costs range from $20 to $30/ton, depending on the
mode of transportation and the distance traveled. Note, however, that if clay
suitable for an impoundment site lining is available on the site itself the
coat could be as low as $1.00/0.8 m2 (yd2) if ^ ciay c^ ^ bulldozed'into
position, 'f
-178-
-------
SOIL CEMENT
Soil cement la prepared by compacting a mixture of Portland cement, water,
and a wide variety of soils. As the Portland cement hydrates, the mixture be-
comes a hard, low-strength Portland cement concrete. Soil cement Is sometimes
used to surface pavements with low-volume traffic, and it is extensively used
for the lower layers of pavements, where it is generally referred to as ce-
ment-treated base. Soil cement is also widely used in water control construc-
tion, more specifically to protect the slopes at earth dams and other embank-
ments. See Appendix 0 for Information regarding contract awards for soil
cement water control projects.
Strong soil cement linings can be constructed using many types of soils,
but the permeability of the resulting liners varies with the nature of the
soilt The more granular it is, the higher the permeability. By using fine-
grained soils, soil cements with permeability coefficients of about 10"° cm/sec
can be obtained. In actual practice, surface sealants are often applied to
soil cement linings to obtain a more waterproof structure. Aging and weather-
ing characteristics of soil cement linings are fairly good, especially those
associated with the wet-dry and freeze-thaw cycles. Some degradation of soil
cement linings can be expected in an acidic environment, however.
-179-
-------
Polymeric Membranes
(Source: Reference 4)
Butyl
Butyl rubber is a copolymer of a major amount of isobutylene (97%) and a
minor amount of isoprene to introduce un saturation in the rubber as sites for
vulcanization. A vulcanized butyl rubber compound is used in the manufacture
of the sheeting, which is available in either unsupported or fabric-reinforced
versions of 20 to 125 mil thickness. Butyl rubber has excellent resistance to
permeation of water and swelling in water. This rubber has poor resistance to
hydrocarbons, but is quite resistant to animal and vegetable oils and fats.
Butyl rubber compounds generally contain low amounts of extracts hi a material
and swell little in water. Overall they age very well, although some butyl
compounds ozone crack. Some recent compounds contain minor amounts of EPDM to
improve ozone resistance. In outdoor exposure in water management use, butyl
rubber liners have shown no degradation after 20 years of service. Obtaining
good splices of butyl sheeting/ particularly in the field, .continues to be a
problem, as cold curing adhesives are required,
Chlorinated Polyethylene (CP5>
This relatively recently, developed polymer is an inherently flexible
thermoplastic produced by chlorinating high density polyethylene. Sheeting of
CPE makes durable linings for waste, water, or chemical storage pits, ponds,
or reservoirs. CPE withstands ozone, weathering and ultraviolet and resists
many corrosive chemicals, hydrocarbons, microbiological attack, and burning.
Compounds of CPE are serviceable at low temperatures and are nonvolatile.
Membranes of CPE are available in 20 to 40 mil thicknesses in supported and
reinforced versions. They are generally unvulcanized and are spliced with
solvent adhesives by solvent welding.
Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene
synthetic rubber is made by the chlorosulfonation of polyethylene.
It can be used in both vulcanized and unvulcanized compounds; however, liners
of this rubber are generally based on unvulcanized compounds containing at
least 45% of the rubber. They are available in sheeting of 30 to 45 mil thick-
nesses; most are made with fabric reinforcement of either nylon or polyester
scrim. Liners of this rubber have good puncture resistance, are easy to seam
in the factory or field with solvents, cements, or heat, and have excellent
resistance to weathering, aging, oil, and bacteria. Membranes of this ma-
terial have been used in the lining of pits and ponds where highly acid-con-
taminated fluids are encountered.
After polyvinyl chloride, this is the most used polymeric material for
liners.
Slasticized Polyolefin
Membrane liners of an elasticJjsed polyolefih have been recently intro-
duced. This material is unvulcanized and thermoplastic and can be easily
-180-
-------
seamed with heat either in the field or factory. It features excellent resis-
tance to weathering and oils. Films of this material are supplied in 20-foot
widths in 20 to 30 mil thickness.
Ethylene-Propylene Rubber (EPDM)
This synthetic rubber is a terpolymer of ethylene, propylene, and a small
amount of a diene monomer that introduces double bonds onto the polymer chain.
these double bonds are sites for vulcanization of the rubber and, as the unsat-
uration is in the side chain of the polymer molecule and not in_ the main chain,
ozone, chemical, and aging resistance are excellent. The rubber is compatible
with butyl and is often added to butyl to improve resistance of the latter to
oxidation, ozone, and weathering. As it is a wholly hydrocarbon rubber like
butyl, EPDM has excellent resistance to water absorption and permeation, but
has relatively poor resistance to some hydrocarbons. EPDM liners are supplied
in vulcanized sheeting of 20 to 125 mils thicknesses, both supported and un-
supported. ^Special attention is required in splicing and seaming «-hiqt ma-
terial, as vulcanizable adhesives must be used.
Neoprene or polycnioroprene
Neoprene is a synthetic rubber based primarily on chloroprene. It fea-
tures good weathering and oil resistance and has been used where these prop-
erties are required. It is supplied in vulcanized sheeting of 30 to 125 mils
thicknesses. As it is a vulcanized rubber, vulcanizing cements and adhesives
must?'be used for seaming.
Polyester Elastomer
This is an experimental thermoplastic rubber which has recently been in-
troduced as a liner material. It has excellent resistance to oils and can be
heat sealed. It is supplied in relatively wide sheets of 7 to 10 mils thick-
nesses.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Polymeric membranes based upon PVC are the most widely used flexible lin-
ers. They are available in wide sheets of 10 to 30 mils thicknesses; most is
used as unsupported film, but fabric reinforcement can be incorporated. PVC
compounds contain 30 to 50% of one or more plasticizers to make the films
flexible and rubber-like. They also contain 2% of a chemical stabilizer and
various amounts of fillers. There is a wide choice of plasticizers that can
be used with PVC, depending upon the application and service conditions under-
which the PVC compound will be used. PVC polymer generally holds up well in
burial tests; however, plasticized compounds of PVC films have deteriorated,
presumably due to the biodegradability of the plasticizer. Also,
some plasticizers are soluble to a limited extent in water. On exposure
to weather with its wind, sunlight, and heat, PVC liner materials can deterio-
ate badly due to loss of p]^sticizer and to polymer degradation. Consequently,
they are generally covered. Plasticized PVC films are quite resistant to pun-
sture and relatively easy to splice by solvent welding, adhesives and heat.
-181-
-------
APPENDIX B
UNIT COST CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
For the purposes of developing final upgrading unit costs a calcu-
lation methodology was adopted which was similar in approach to the
"Draft Environmental Impact Statement Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities." Major assumptions are as follows:
Utilization of 10 TPD, 100 TPD, and 300 TPD sites
Corresponding total acreages of 6 acres, 28 acres
and 75 acres respectively
Corresponding total perimeter lengths of 2,000 ft., 4,400 ft.
and 7,200 ft. respectively
260 days operation per year
In place refuse to soil cover ratios of 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 respectively
26,000, 260,000 and 780,000 total ten year life capacity
for 10 TPD, 100-TPD and 300 TPD facilities respectively
More detailed assumptions for the selected and alternative upgrading
technologies are as follows:
VERTICAL IMPERMEABLE BARRIER
20' depth, 60 cu.-ft./ft. perimeter installation
excavation @ $0.50/cu. yd., clay material @ $3.00/cu. yd.,
placement @ $0.30/cu. yd.
total unit cost $17.00/ft. ($55.76/meter)
DIKE CONSTRUCTION
10' depth, 567 cu. ft./ft.
3:1 slopes
materials and placement @ 1.50 cu. yd.
total unit cost $31.50/ft. ($103.32/meter)
IMPERMEABLE DAILY COVER (ON-SITE SOURCE)
total unit cost $0.60/cu. yd. ($0.78/cu. meter)
IMPERMEABLE DAILY COVER (OFF-SITE SOURCE)
transport @ $1.00/cu. yd., clay material @ $3.00/cu. yd.
olacement @ $0.30 cu. yd.
2 mile average transport distance
total unit cost $4.30/cu. yd. ($5.62/cu. meter)
PONDING
2" 24 hr. rainfall event
runoff storage required for twice the site landfill area
excavation @ $0.50/cu. yd. (0.65/cu. meter) land @ $3,000/acre
($7,410/hectare)
10.TPD, 0.4 acres, 5' depth; 100 TPD, 1.85 acres, 5' depth;
300 TPD, 2.5 acres, 10' depth
-182-
-------
PERIMETER GRAVEL TRENCHES
20' depth, 60 cu. ft/ft, perimeter installation
excavation @ $.50/cu. yd, gravel material @ $4.00/cu. yd,
placement @ $.30/cu. yd.
total unit cost $21.00/ft. ($68.88/meter)
GAS COLLECTION
perimeter installation
total unit cost @ $20.00/ft for 10 TPD and 100 TPD sites,
$15.00/ft for 300 TPD sites ($65.50/meter, $65.60/meter, $99.20/meter
respectively
Annual operating costs for 10 TPD, $4,000; 100 TPD, $8,800; 300 TPD, $10,800.
SYNTHETIC LINER
total unit costs including site preparation and earth cover
$3.60/sq yd. ($4.31/sq. meter)
LEACHATE RECYCLING
30" infiltration/year, .
10 TPD, $6,000 piping, $2,000 pump station, $500 annual costs;
100 TPD, $13,200 piping, $4,000 pump station, $1000 annual costs;
300 TPD, $21,600 piping, $10,000 pump station, $2000 annual costs
DITCHING
total unit cost $2.25/ft. ($7.38/meter)
FINAL IMPERMEABLE COVER (ON-SITE SOURCE)
unit cost $0.60/cu. yd. @ 2' depth ($0.78/cu. meter)
FINAL IMPERMEABLE COVER (OFF-SITE SOURCE)
unit cost $4.30/cu. yd. @2' depth ($6.02/cu. meter)
FINAL PERMEABLE COVER (ON-SITE SOURCE)
unit cost $0.50/cu. yd. @ 2' depth ($0.65/cu. meter)
FINAL PERMEABLE COVER (OFF-SITE SOURCE)
unit cost $1.75/cu. yd.(a 2' depth ($2.29/cu. meter)
REVEGETATIQN
total unit cost $1000/acre ($2471/hectare)
The following table presents the development of technology unit
costs in more detail:
-183-
-------
GAS MONITORING
10 TPD, 4 wells; 100 TPD, 8 wells; 300 TPD, 12 wells
wells @ $200/each, labor @ $100/day
sampling labor for 10 TPD, 4 man-days/year; 100 TPO
8 man-days/year; 300 TPD, 12 man-days/year
$1000 monitoring' equipment
GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY MONITORING
10 TPD, 3 wells; 100 TPD, 4 wells; 300 TPD, 7 wells
quarterly sampling @ $150/sample, SlOOO/well
sampling labor for 10 TPD, 3 man-days/year; 100 TPO, 4 man-days/year;
300 TPD, 7 man-days/year @ $100/day
NATURAL CLAY LINER (OFF-SITE SOURCE)
transport @ $1.00/cu. yd., clay material @ $3.00/cu. yd.,
' placement @ $.30/cu. yd.
2-foot depth clay material
2-mile average transport distance
total unit cost @ $4.30/cu. yd. ($5.89/cu. meter)
LEACHATE COLLECTION FACILITIES
10 TPD, 3500' collector pipe; 100 TPD, 14,300' collector pipe-
300 TPD, 36,000' collector pipe
100' collector pipe spacing plus perimeter
total unit cost @ $7.00/ft. ($22.96/meter)
LEACHATE MONITORING. REMOVAL AND TREATMENT
6" infiltration/year, 450 gal/day/acre
10 TPD, 2700 gal/day, 2.5c/gal; 100 TPD, 12,600 gal/day, U/gal;
300 TPD, 33,750 gal/day, 0.5<£/gal (18.74/cu.ft., 7.5c/cu.ft., 3.7
-------
FIRE CONTROL
one fire truck unit @ $1,000,. $2,000, and $10,000 per site
for 10 TPD, TOO TPO and 300 TPD sites respectively
ACCESS CONTROL
perimeter installation
total unit cost 9 $12.00/ft. ($39.36/meter)
LITTER CONTROL
litter control fencing, 130 ft., 280 ft. and 450 ft. per
10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD sites respectively 9 $10.00/ft.
($32,80/meter)
COMPACTION
one machine @ $50,000
-185-
-------
UNIT COSTS Of CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Capital Casts
0 t M Costs
Technology
Vertical Inper-
neable Barrier
Dike Construction
lapemeable
Dally Cover (on-
slte source)
tape ratable
Dally Cover (off-
site source)
Ponding
Gas
Monitoring
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Gas Collection
Facilities
Site Size Unit Casts
10
100
300
10
100
300
10
100
300
10
100
300
10
100
300
10
100
300
10
100
300
10
100
300
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPD
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
TPO
$17.00/ft.
$31. 50/ft.
-
-
$ O.SO/cu. yd.
H
$200/well
N
$l,000/well
M
$ 20/ft.
2
4
7
Quantity
,000'
,400'
.200'
2.000'
4,400'
7.200'
3
IS
40
2
4
7
-
-
,200 cu.
,000 cu.
,200 cu.
4
a
12
3
4
7
,000*
.400'
.200'
Total
$ 34,000
74,800
122,400
$ 63.000
138.000
226.800
-
-
yd. $ 2.800*
yd. 13.000*
yd. 27,500*
$ 1.800**
2.600**
3.400**
$ 3.000
4,000
7,000
$ 40.000
88,000
144,000
Unit Cost Quantity
Yearly
Costs
Present
Worth
Total Costs/Ton
(1977 dollars)
$ 1.30
~ ~ ~ . ~ 0.30
I I II. °-15
-
$0.60/cu. yd. 5,200 cu. yd.
26,000 cu. yd.
52.000 cu. yd.
$4.30/cu. yd. 5,200 cu. yd.
26.000 cu. yd.
52.000 cu. yd.
-
$100/day 4 days/year***
8 days/year* **
12 days/year***
$150/saap1e 3 days/year****
" 4 days/year****
7 days/year**"
-
- "
$ 3,120
15,600
31.200
$ 22.400
111.800
223,600
-
$ 400
800
1.200
$2.100
2.800
4,900
$ 4,000
8.800
14.400
-
$ 19.200
95,800
191.600
$ 137,300
686,500
1.372.900
-
(2.400
4,900
7,400
$ 12,900
17,200
30,100
$ 24,600
54,000
88,400
$ 2
0
0
$ 0
0
0
$ s
2
1
$ 0
0
0
$ 0
0
0
$ 0
0
0
$ 2
0
0
.40
.55
.30
.75
.35
.25
.30
.65
.75
.10
.05
.04
.15
.03
.01
.60
.10
.05
.50
.55
.30
Includes land costs
** Include* oqutpawit cost* at $1.000
8 sa>ples/weU/y«ar
4 sa>ple*/wH/jre*r
Capital Costs
0 t M Costs
Technology
Natural Clay
Liner
Leachate
Collection
Leach* te
Treataent
Peneable Daily
Cover (on- site
source)
Pewable Daily
Cover (off- site
source)
Vertical Pipe
Vents
PerlattUr Sravel
Trendies
Site Size Unit Costs
10 TPO J4.30/CU. yd.
100 TPO
300 TPO
10 TPO >7.00/ft.
100 TPO
300 TPO "
10 TPO
100 TPO
300 TPO ;
10 TPO
'100 TPO
300 TPO ~
10 TPO
100 TPO
300 TPO ~
10 TPO $2000 per
100 TPO
300 TPO
10 TPO ttl.OO/ft.
100 TPO
300 TPO
Quantity
19,350 cu.
90,340 cu.
242,000 cu.
3,500'
14,300'
36.000*
-
-
-
12
56
150
2.000'
4.400'
7,200'
Total
yd. t 83,200
yd. 388,500
yd. 1.040.600
{ 24.500
100.100
252.000
-
-
-
t 24,000
112.000
300,000
$ 42,000
92.400
151.200
Unit Cost
-
-
2.5 u.i wwwewiT Bwmofncfc an -420-007/3774
-186-
UCT1806
-------