Prepublication issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies'
POLLUTION PREDICTION TECHNIQUES
FOR WASTE DISPOSAL SITING
A State-of-the-Art Assessment
This report (SW-262c) describes work performed
for the Office of Solid Waste under contract no. 68-01-4268
and is reproduced as received from the contractor.
Ttie findings should be attributed to the contractor
and not to the Office of Solid Waste.
Copies will he available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
This report was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania,
under Contract No. 68-01-4368.
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of commercial products constitute endorsement by the
U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-162c) in the solid waste
management series.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sect! on
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
II INTRODUCTION
Background
Scope and Objectives
Introduction 1
Scope and Objectives 1
Literature Search 3
Processes Influencing Mobility and
Attenuation of Chemical Waste
Constituents in Soil-Water Systems 3
Attenuation Mechanisms k
Physical Processes k
Chemical Processes k
Biological Processes
(Blodegratlon) 7
Sufficiency of Attenuation 7
Pollution Prediction Techniques 8
Criteria Listing 9
Criteria Ranking 12
Matrix 15
Classification System (Decision Tree) 18
Simulation Models 20
Survey of Existing Mathematical
Models 22
Sol 1-Leachate Column Studies 25
Batch or Shaker Tests 25
Thin-Layer Chroma tography 25
Dl lution Model 27
On-Going Research 27
Assessment 27
Regulatory Agency Practices 29
Permit Procedures Utilized 29
Modes of Disposal 31
Recommended Development Plans 33
Criteria Listing 33
Classification Systems 35
Simulation Models 36
Conclusions and Recommendations 37
Conclusions 37
Recommendations Al
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(conti nued)
Section
I I I LITERATURE SEARCH i»9
IV PROCESSES INFLUENCING MOBILITY AND
ATTENUATION OF CHEMICAL-WASTE
CONSTITUENTS IN SOIL-WATER SYSTEMS 53
Definition 53
The Soil-Water System 5*t
Attenuation Mechanisms 55
Physical Processes 55
Molecular Diffusion 55
Hydrodynamic Dispersion 56
Dilution 58
Chemical Processes 58
Adsorptfon-Desorpt?on or Ion Exchange 58
Precipitation 6k
Oxidation/Reduction 66
Biological Processes 67
Biodegradation 67
Sufficiency of Attenuation 68
V SUMMARY OF POLLUTION PREDICTION TECHNIQUES 73
Introduction 73
Criteria Listing 76
Description 76
State of Development/Application 76
Assessment 83
Availability 85
Criteria Ranking 86
Description 86
State of Development/Application 86
Assessment 98
Availability 101
Matrix 1 °1
Description 101
State of Development/Application 101
Assessment 111
Availability 116
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Classification System (Decision Tree) 117
Description 117
State of Development/Application 117
Assessment 124
Availabi1ity 126
Simulation Models 128
Description 128
Descriptive Models 129
Physical Models 129
Analog Models 131
Mathematical Models 131
Empirical versus Conceptual
Models 132
Stochastic versus Deterministic
Models 132
Static versus Dynamic Models 133
Spatial Dimensionality of the
Model 13**
State of Development/Application 136
Analytical Methods 1^2
Numerical Methods 1^2
Existing Mathematical Models 1^7
Partially-Saturated Transport
Models 1^7
Saturated-Only Transport Models 156
Unsaturated-Only Transport
Models 157
Analytical Models 159
Existing Non-Mathematical Simulation
Models 160
Soi1-Leachate Column Studies 160
Batch or Shaker Tests 165
Thin Layer Chroma tography 168
Dilution Model 171
On-Going Research 1 7*»
USGS Modeling Activities 17^
Pacific Northwest Laboratories 176
Oak Ridge National Laboratory 176
(ORNL)
University Modeling Activities 177
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Assessment 183
Advantages 18^4
Quantitative Predictions 18^
Predictions Before the Fact 18A
Identification of Soil/Waste
Parameters 18A
Multiple Site/Waste Analysis 185
Versatile Tool 185
Research Tool 185
Disadvantages 185
Lack of Testing and Verification 186
Input Parameters 186
Complexity of Models 187
Equipment and Facilities 187
Accuracy and Precision 187
Costs 188
t Availability 190
"Model" Decision Procedure 191
VI REGULATORY AGENCY PRACTICES 195
Regulatory Agencies Contacted 195
Assessment of Regulatory Practices 197
Decision Procedures Utilized 199
Relevancy and Completeness of
Data Requirements 201
Ease of Data Acquisition and
Analysis 202
Consistency of Permit Procedure 20^
Comprehensiveness of Procedure 205
Level of Confidence 205
Permi t Costs 206
Process Time 207
Self Assessment 212
Current/Future Trends 212
VIII RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLANS 217
Criteria Listing Development Plan 219
Background 219
Analysis of Development Needs 220
Timing, Staffing, and Funding
Estimates 222
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Classification System Development Plan 223
Background 223
Analysis of Development Needs 223
Timing, Staffing, and Funding
Estimates 228
Mathematical Model Development Plan 231
Background 231
Analysis of Development Needs 232
Time, Staffing, and Funding
Estimates 235
A LITERATURE SEARCH
Part I - Toxic Metals A-1
Part II - Toxic Organics A-10
Part III - Critical Parameters for
Waste Disposal A-23
Part IV - Disposal Procedures, Models,
and Guidelines A-26
Part V - Reviews, Symposia Procedings
and State-of-Art Publications A-3^
Part VI - Mathematical Models A-38
B NON-REGULATORY EXPERT CONTACTS
C REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS
California Regional Control Water
Quality Control Board C-1
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency C-8
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency C-15
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation C-21
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources C-27
Texas State Department of
Health Resources C-31
Texas Water Quality Board C-^7
Oatario Ministry of the Environment C-55
SVA (Stichting Verwijdering
Afvalstoffen—The Institute for
V/aste Disposal) C-61
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont inued)
Section Page
Department of the Environment
Queen Anne Chambers C-66
Office of the State of Bovaria
for Environmental Protection C-7^*
D* LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR PERMIT
PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND PROCESSING
E* SELECTED CASE HISTORIES
^Separate Document - Available at Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous
Waste Management Division, Washington, D0C0
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Fjgure No. Ti tie Page
1 Attenuation by Dispersion 5
2 Dispersion for Conservative and
Non-Conservative Ions 6
3 Example of Site-Dependent Matrix (Phillips) 17
*4 Classification System (Decision Tree) 19
5 Thin-Layer Chromatography 26
6 Attenuation by Dispersion 57
7 Attenuation by Adsorption/Desorption 60
8 Dispersion for Conservative and
Non-Conservative Ions 61
9 Dispersion as Affected by Source Concentration 63
10 Format of Soil-Waste Interaction Matrix 109
11 Site Independent Submatrix 110
12 Example of Site Independent Submatrix 112
13 Example of Site Dependent Matrix 113
^^ Classification System (Decision Tree) 118
15 Sol 1-Leachate Column Analysis 163
16 Simulated Adsorption Isotherms Described by
the Freundllch Relationship 167
17 Thin-Layer Chromatography 170
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(con 11 n ue d)
Figure No. Ti tie Page
C-1 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Permit Review Scheme C-10
C-2 Permit Application Review Procedure Used
by the Texas Department of Health Resources C-32
C-3 Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Application Process Flow Sheet C-58
C-k Review of the Disposal of Chemical Wastes
is Indicated for The Netherlands C-63
C-5 Sequence of Decision is Shown for Grouping
the Residual Materials Occurring in the
Operation with Regard to Re-Use and Removal C-77
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
1 Waste Characterization-Criteria Listing ' 10
2 Site Characterization-Selected Criteria
Listing 11
3 Summary Assessment of Criteria Listing 12
k Completion of Numerical Rating 1*»
5 Summary Assessment of Criteria Ranking 15
6 Waste Parameter for Input to Matrix 16
7 Summary Assessment of the Matrix 18
' 8 Summary Assessment of Classification
System (Decision Tree) 20
9 California State Water Resources Control
Board Disposal Site Design Requirements 21
10 Example Models and their Classification
Into Different Groupings 23
11 Summary of Model Development by Type 2A
12 Summary Assessment of Models 28
13 Selected Factors In the Assessment of
Regulatory Agency Permit Practices 30
1A U.S. Potentially Hazardous Waste Quantities
(1975 data) kU
15 Solubility Product Constants for Various
Compounds 65
16 Drinking Water Quality Criteria 69
17 Non-Regulatory Experts Contacted ~Jk
18 Waste Characterization-Criteria Listing 77
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table No. Title Page
19 Site Characterization-Criteria Listing 78
20 Summary Assessment of Criteria Listing 85
21 Completion of Numerical Rating 88
22 Summary Assessment of Criteria Ranking 100
23 Waste Parameter for Input to Matrix 102
2k Soil Parameters for Input to Matrix 106
25 Summary Assessment of the Matrix System 115
26 California State Water Resources Control
Board Disposal Site Design Requirements 120
27 Texas Department of Health Resources
Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste
Disposal 121
28 Texas Water Quality Board Industrial
Solid Waste Management 122
29 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Land/Noise Pollution Control 123
30 Summary Assessment of Classification System
(Decision Tree) 127
31 Example Models and their Classification into
Different Groupings 135
32 Explanation of Symbols Used in the Mass
Transport and Flow Equations 138
33 Partial List of Equations Used to Describe
Adsorption Reactions 1^0
3A Partial List of Available Transport Models for
Application to Groundwater Quality Problems
XI i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table No. Title Page
35 Summary of Model Development by Type 158
36 Aquifer Properties 172
37 Dllution Factors 172
38 Dilutlons in Well Discharge 173
39 Status of Groundwater Modeling, U.S.
Geological Survey 175
40 Summary Assessment of Models 189
41 "Model" Decision Procedure 192
42 Selected Factors in the Assessment of
Regulatory Agency Permit Practices 198
43 Level of Effort for Criteria Listing
Development 22k
44 Criteria Listing Development Sequence 225
45 Level of Effort for Classification System
Development 229
46 Classification System Development Sequence 230
47 Level of Effort for Models Development 237
48 Model Development Sequence 240
49 Staffing and Manpower Requirements for
Model Development 242
xm
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(cont i nued)
Table No. Title Page
B-1 Chemical Character isitcs of Landfill
Leachates B-30
B-2 Rank of Chemical Constituents in Municipal
Leachate According to Relative Mobility
Through Clay Mineral Columns B-32
C-1 California State Water Resources Control
Board Disposal Site Design Requirements C-6
C-2 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste Management Site Guidelines
(Approval Pending) C-13
C-3 New York DEC Site Criteria C-26
C-k Texas Department of Health Resources—
Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste
Disposal C-AO
C-5 Texas Department of Health Resources Permit
Application Review Agencies C-^5
C-6 Texas Water Quality Board Industrial Solid
Waste Management Draft Site Guidelines for
Landfills for Industrial Solid Waste C-50
C-7 Criteria Used for Waste Disposal Site
Licensing (Department of the Environment,
United Kingdom) C-70
C-8 Classification of Landfill Sites (Department
of the Environment, United Kingdom) C-71
E-1 Summary of Selected Case Histories E-1
K1 v
-------
ACK.i-,T-'-'Lr: CLEMENTS
Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston) wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and
invaluable input to both the technical and procedural aspects of this
project. Specifically, more than *»0 non-regulatory experts in the field
of waste management were contacted as listed in Table 17 and as described
in Appendix B. In addition, regulatory agencies in the States of
California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas and in
the Countries of Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and West
Germany were contacted to identify and assess their permit procedures as
described in Appendix C.
Project Participants
Weston also wishes to acknowledge the following personnel for their
contribution to this project:
EPA: Mrs. Alexandra G. Tarney
Project Officer
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Weston: Mr. Ronald A. Landon
Project Manager
Dr. Lawrence P. Beer
Principal-In-Charge
Dr. Amir A. Metry
Project Engineer '
Mr. George Noble
Project Engineer
Ms. Katherine A. Sheedy
Project Geologist
Subcontractors: Dr. James M. Davidson
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Dr. Joseph L. Pavoni
Tentch Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Louisville, Kentucky
XV
-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduct ion
Scope and Objectives. Passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) has mandated the restoration and
protection of the quality of our Nation's surface waters, which wi]l result
in the decrease of a number of point-source discharges of wastes directly
into streams. A significant potential for adverse impact on the.Nation's
groundwaters now exists due to this increased land disposal of solid and
liquid residual wastes, particularly hazardous wastes.
Concurrently, there has been an increase in the amount of waste being
generated, and many wastes continue to be disposed of in a "least-cost" way
which contributes to environmental degradation. Landfi11 ing, ponds, lagoons,
and other indiscriminate land-disposal methods have proven in numerous
instances to be ineffective for adequate protection of the health of both
the public and the environment, particularly where hazardous wastes are.
involved. This can also be attributed to poor management practices, since
technological and management guidelines regulating such disposal practices
have, for the most part, been only recently enacted. With respect to
hazardous wastes, a number of state regulatory agencies have only recently
initiated the writing or adoption of such guidelines.
Sub-title C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1976 (PL 9/»~580) will0 regulate hazardous waste on a national level for the
first time. Section 300**, Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, and Section
3005, Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of Hazardous Waste, deals
specifically with the disposal aspects of hazardous wastes. In order for
such regulations to be effective, technologically-sound pollution prediction
techniques of a national uniform nature must be used for the siting of
waste disposal and management facilities.
1
-------
Techniques which would predict the potential for groundwater
pollution prior to the disposal of specific wastes at specific sites
would be a useful tool for regulatory and enforcement agencies. However,
contradictory expert opinion exists relative to the mechanisms and
effectiveness of attenuation processes for waste renovation which are
an integral part of the land-disposal/land-treatment process. This, in
turn, has inhibited effective and consistent decision-making for
determining the confidence with which one can dispose of a specific waste
at a specific site.
The overall objective of this investigation is to provide a
state-of-the-art assessment of pollution prediction techniques for
waste-disposal siting. This assessment includes both current research
and regulatory procedures relative to the land disposal/treatment of
waste for the entire waste spectrum, exclusive of radioactive wastes.
The emphasis, however, will be on that research and those regulatory
procedures that deal specifically with hazardous waste. Furthermore,
the emphasis is to be on those techniques which lead to pollution
prediction through an assessment of attenuation of waste leachates.
J
-------
3. Identify and assess the most useful water/soil/waste interaction
and attenuation machani 'jrns which are indicative of the ability of
a potential >ite to accept a specific waste for land disposal/
treatment in an environmentally-safe manner. I
k. Prepare detailed development plans for those techniques which
best predict the groundwater pollution potential and the suit-
ability for permitting of land disposaI/treatment sites for
both th;'. short-term (within three years) and the long-term (within
ten years).
Literature Search. A literature search was conducted to identify
pertinent references on the behavior of contaminants in subsurface
environments. A major.portion of the literature search was conducted
using the computerized Lockheed Dialog Retrieval Service. Additional
references were obtained during expert interviews throughout the project.
A general discussion of literature search methodology can be found
in Section III of this report. Specific discussion on related work and
research can be found in Sections IV, V, and VI and in Appendix A of this
report.
Processes Influencing Mobility and Attenuation of Chemical Waste
Constituents in Soil-Water Systems
The soil is a dynamic system in which numerious chemical, physical,
and biological reactions occur singly or simultaneously with time. Soil,
under normal conditions, is able to transform or stabilize some hazardous
constituents to equilibrium soii components.
For the purpose of this study, "attenuation" is defined as: "Any
physical, chemical, and/or biological reaction or transformation occurring
in saturated and/or unsaturated zones that brings about a temporary or
-------
permanent decrease in the maximum concentration or in the total quantity of
an applied chemical or biological constituent in a fixed time or distance
traveled."
Attenuation Mechanisms, the attenuation mechanisms can be categorized
as physical, chemical, or biological. A description of the important
mechanisms follows.
Physical Processes
1. Molecular diffusion is a spontaneous process resulting from the
natural thermal motion of dissolved substances. This is generally
considered an Insignificant transport process; however, it
modifies abrupt concentration differences between solutions of
different concentrations in contact with one another.
2. Hydrodynamic dispersion is the result of variations in pore water
velocity vectors within the soil. As shown in Figure 1, it tends
to spread or reduce abrupt concentration changes in the soil
with time. The process is effective in attenuating the maximum
concentration of a pulse or slug of waste with time and distance
as it moves through a soil profile.
3. Pi 1ut ion of leachate by soil moisture and groundwater can provide
effective attenuation of a given contaminant.
Chemical Processes
1. Adsorption-desorption or ion exchange inf1uences the mob i1i ty of
a hazardous constituent. When the reaction is reversible (which
is generally the case for cation exchange), the attenuation is
only an apparent one resulting from a reduction in constituent
mobility. Figure 2 Illustrates the influence of adsorption-desorption
on constituent concentration distribution in the soil-water
phase and compares It with a non-adsorbed constituent.
-------
Co = 1.0
FIGURE 1 ATTENUATION BY DISPERSION:
(A) The crosshatched areas are soil particles, the solid
area represents a soil solution with a constituent con-
centration of C,,, and white area represents a soil solu-
tion with a constituent concentration of zero.
(B) Average constituent concentration distribution in
the soil as a function of soil length.
-------
Constituent Concentration, C
50
.C
Q.
&
100
150
= 8 cm
I = 64
I = 320 cm
' I = 64 cm
FIGURE 2 DISPERSION OF CONSERVATIVE AND
NON-CONSERVATIVE IONS:
The solid line represents a constituent that exchanges with
cations on the soil solid phase and the dashed line
represents a conservative constituent such as chloride.
The water content of the soil is 0.4 cmVcm and the
constituent concentration in the solution entering the
soil is 1.0. The amount of solution that has been added at
the soil surface is represented by I. The initial eight cm of
solution entering the soil contained both contituents,
whereas that which followed contained neither
constituent.
-------
2. Precipi tat ion, as adsorption, involves the removal of a
constituent from the soil water. Changing the constituent from
a soluble to an insoluble phase reduces both the maximum as well
as the total amount of constituent in the soil-water phase.
This reaction is pH dependent and often occurs simultaneously
with adsorption, which makes it difficult to separate the two
processes.
3. Oxi dat ion-reduct ion reactions influence the mobility and
attenuation of constituents (especially trace and/or heavy
metals) and are often initiated by biological activity.
Oxidized constituents are less mobile than the reduced forms
of the constituent, and reduced soil conditions contain more
soluble constituents than the oxidized soil environment at
the same soi1 pH.
Biological Processes (Biodegradation). Micro-organisms (e.g.,
bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi and algae, are an integral part of the
soil. They transform wastes by such processes as oxidation, reduction,
mineralization, and immobilization. The end products of these
transformations are generally harmless, but some toxic metabolites have
been produced.
Sufficiency of Attenuation. The degree of attenuation required
for a waste constituent is generally based upon the maintenance of an
acceptable groundwater quality. This is dependent on the amount and
concentration of waste constituents and groundwater quality objectives.
In general, no single process or reaction (physical, chemical, or
biological) is responsible for the total observed attenuation of a
waste constituent.
-------
Several factors play key roles in attenuation. These include:
waste quantity, potential for infiltration, type and concentration of
contaminants in leachate, rate of leachate migration from the disposal
site, and mass transport of the constituent in saturated and
unsaturated media at the vicinity of the disposal site.
Pollution Prediction Techniques
Interviews were conducted with more than kO non-regulatory experts
in various professional disciplines relative to assessment of the
attenuation of waste leachates and the development of pollution-prediction
techniques. Numerous research endeavors have either been completed or are
currently in progress. A summary assessment of those categorical techniques
is given below, with a more detailed assessment found in the main report
and its appendices.
Interviews were conducted with selected regulatory agencies to
identify the decision procedures currently being used in the permitting
(or rejection) of waste-disposal operations. It must be emphasized that
many wastes categorized as hazardous wastes are not permitted for disposal
with reliance on attenuation. It became readily apparent in the course of
this investigation, therefore, that the presently used techniques which
do not emphasize attenuation would also require inclusion and assessment.
Those pollution prediction techniques identified to date and assessed
in this report can be categorized as follows:
« Cri teria Li sting
« Criteria Ranking
• Matrix
•Classification System (Decision Tree)
•Models (Mathematical)
• Laboratory Simulation (Column Studies)
-------
It should be noted that a number of these techniques are interrelated
(e.g., Criteria Listing with each of the others) or constitute "sub-routines'
within a more encompassing decision-making technique (e.g., column studies
and the Classification System).
Criteria Listing. The most basic and universally-applied identified
is that of Criteria Listing. This approach was found to be used to a
varying degree by each of the domestic and foreign regulatory agencies
contacted.
The Criteria Listing approach consists of listing factors for both
waste and site characterization and of obtaining data to adequately
define each factor listed. An assessment of these data is then made by
the review personnel on the basis of their level of expertise, the
empirical data base gathered, and by comparison with pertinent appropriate
examples.
The basic elements of the Criteria Listing approach are as follows:
a Waste characterization: type, amount, physical characteristics,
chemical characteristics, and biological characteristics.
• Site characterization: location, topography, climatology, land
use, soils, geology, and hydrology.
Examples of waste characterization and selected site characterization
for Criteria Listing are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. A summary
assessment of Criteria Listing is given in Table 3-
-------
TABLE 1
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION - CRITERIA LI STING *
Type:
Amount:
Phys i cal:
Chemi cal:
Biological
Indust ri al
SIC
Plant name/location
Waste stream
Municipal - Specify waste/source
Other - Specify waste/source
Volume or wei ght
Rate of generation
Sol id
Liquid
S1udge
PH
Toxi ci ty
Major constituents
Minor constituents
Degradab i1i ty
Organic content
(* Compiled by Weston)
10
-------
TABLE 2
SITE CHARACTERIZATION-
SELECTED CRITERIA LISTING
c
o
GEOLOGY
Backhoe Pits
Bori ngs
Description of Geologic
Profi le
Consolidated Deposits
Bedrock Type(s)
Formation Name
Outcrop
Degree of Weathering
Depth to Bedrock
Unconsolidated Deposits
Type(s)
Formation Name
Texture
Structure
Fold Axis
Bedding Planes
Joint Planes
Fault Planes
Fracture Traces
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water
Distance to Nearest Body
Type
Qua 1i ty
Ground Water
Depth to Water Table
Maximum
Minimum
Location and Date
Measured
Seasonal Fluctuations
O u 00
«- 3 CO)
— O — i'
— ul — O
E O
tJ E
— c
>- O
l/> l-
<-> c
(A 0)
— E
I —
o >
— c
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF CRITERIA LISTING
Pros
& Site-specific and quantitative data indentified.
® Comprehensive site description.
o Presently used by regulatory agencies
© Moderate cost/expertise requirements.
o Applies to hazardous and non-hazardous wastes
Cons
o No quanti fi cation of pollution potential.
o Potential high costs.
e Reliability largely dependent on the expertise of agency review
personnel.
Criteria Ranking. The Criteria Ranking approach is based on measurements
or estimates of waste and site parameters which are arbitrarily weighted
based on their potential impact on the environment. Approaches have been
developed which rate or rank wastes and landfill sites individually in
order to allow a quantitative numerical comparison of various wastes and
sites to one another. Those ranking approaches developed to date were
intended to serve as a first step in waste and site evaluation. To date,
however, neither approach has been applied to the prediction process for
a new site.
A Numerical Rating System has been developed by LeGrand and Brown
(1977) for a standardized approach for evaluation of groundwater
12
-------
contamination potential from waste disposal sources and other contamination
sites with land disposal. The system evaluates four key geologic and
hydrogeologic characteristics of the site and assigns a numerical value
ranging from 0, indicating extremely poor conditions or a high
contamination potential, to a 3 (5 in one case), indicating good conditions
or a low contamination potential. The Numerical Rating System for a given
site consists of a sequence of numbers and letters to provide a general
overall rating of the site indicating its specific weak and strong charac-
teristics. The system is designed to provide a quick first round assessment
of site suitability, but is not intended to be adequate or substitute for
the more advanced or detailed study which may be required for certain
critical contamination potential situations. Step 9, Completion of the
Site Numerical Rating, is shown on Table J».
Another Criteria Ranking approach was developed by Pavoni, Haggerty
and Lee in 1971-72, entitled Environmental Impact Evaluation of Hazardous
Waste Disposal in Land. Five waste ranking formulae and ten site ranking
formulae were developed to assign weighted values and to assess potential
site suitability by comparison with each other. A full description of
each of these Criteria Ranking approaches is given in Section V.
A summary assessment of the Criteria Ranking approach is given in
Table 5.
13
-------
TABLE 4
STEP 9
Completion of
site numerical
rating
COMPLETION OF NUMERICAL RATING
(from LeGrand and Brown, 1977)
The total point value determined In Step 5 Is recorded and then followed In sequence by the
Individual point values for the four key hydrogeologlc factors: distance, depth to water table,
water-table gradient, and permeablllty-sorptlon. This Is followed, In turn, by the special site
Identifier suffixes: aquifer sensitivity, degree of confidence, and miscellaneous Identifiers.
An example of a site rating with brief explanations and Interpretations Is shown below.
Full explanations of site ratings are in Sections 5.0 and 6.0.
Step 3
Gradient.
Step 2
Water Table
Step 1
Distance
Step 5
Total Rating
Step 4
,Permeabillty-sorption
Step 6
Aquifer Sensitivity
Step 7
Degree of Confidence
Step B
Miscellaneous Identifier
12-5025ABBM
Explanation of sequence of digits and letters
12 - Total point value as shown in Step 5
5 - The first digit is rating for ground distance - Step 1
0 - The second digit is rating for depth to water table -.Step 2
2 - The third digit is rating for water-table gradient - Step 3
5 - The fourth digit is rating for permeablllty-sorptlon - Step U
A - Represents a closely defined position (5A) in permeability-sorptlon scale - Step
B - Represents sensitivity of an aquifer to be contaminated - Step 6
B - Represents degree of confidence or reliability of overall rating - Step 7
M - Indicates special conditions (mounding of water table in this case) - Step'8
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF CRITERIA RANKING
Pros
• Site-specific data identified.
• Quantitative data.
• Low to moderate cost/expertise involved.
•Quantitative predictive tool.
Cons
• Confidence of assigned values.
• Lack of testing and calibration.
• Not presently used by regulatory agencies.
Matrix. The use of a Matrix as a prediction technique in waste dis-
posal siting is dependent upon the formulation of relationships between two
major sets of interrelated variables (e.g., waste characteristics and
soil characteristics). A Matrix approach of this type has been identified
In this study as given in the Development of a Soil-Waste Interaction
Matrix by C.R. Phillips.
It should be noted that this soil-waste interaction Matrix procedure
does not entail the development of a "new" procedure, but rather basically
combines soil and waste ranking systems that had previously been developed
with little, if any, revision by LeGrand (196A site ranking) and by Pavoni,
Hagerty, and Lee (waste ranking).
An example of the waste-ranking parameters and calculations for
weighted value assignments is shown in Table 6. A waste/site dependent
matrix with values for all of the parameters considered is shown in
Figure 3- A summary assessment of the Matrix approach is given in Table 7.
15
-------
TABLE 6
WASTE PARAMETER FOR INPUT TO MATRIX
Factor Summary
WASTE
(1 ) Effects Group Range
1. Human Toxicity, Ht 0-10
2. Groundwater Toxicity, Gt 0-10
Gt = -^ (k - Iog10 Cc)
but for Cc >10i( mg/1, Gt = 0
and for Cc <10~3' mg/1, Gt = 10
3. Disease Transmission Potential, NDp 0-10
NDp = £ (contribution of subgroup A, B and C)
(2 ) Behavioral Group
( i ) Behavioral Subgroup
k. Chemical Persistence, Cp 1-5
Cp = 5 exp (-kt)
but if Cp < 1 , Cp = 1
where C^/^ = exp (-kt)
5. Biological Persistence, Bp 1-^
16
-------
SOIL-
SITE
WASTE
Hunan
Toitclty
Ht
(0-10)
Groundwater
To*icity
Gt
(0-10)
SOIL GROUP
Pemeajillty
NP
(2S-10)
«0
Sorptton
NS
(1-10)
20
HYDROLOGY GROUP
Utter Table
HT
(1-10)
40
25
Gradient
NG
(1-10)
Infiltration
NI
(1-10)
30
SITE GROUP
Distance
NO
(1-10)
Disease
Transmission
Potential
Op
(0-10)
E
9
Chemical
Persistence
Cp
(1-S)
3X
IX
18
21
biological
Persistence
Bp
(1-4)
24
28
Sorption
So
(1-10)
a '
3
25
10
30
35
Viscosity
VI
(1-5)
10
10
12
14
is
L.
8
^Solubility
' 8-s)
Acidity/
10-5)
= 3
t_>
< UJ
O- t—
52
Waste
Appl icatlon
Rite
Ar
(1-10)
20
16
20
24
28
FIGURE 3 EXAMPLE OF SITE DEPENDENT MATRIX
(C.R.PHILLIPS)
17
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF THE MATRIX
Pros
©Quantitative predictive tool.
o Identification of soil/waste parameters.
o Assessment of pollution potential.
o Low-moderate operating cost.
Cons
o Confidence of assigned values.
® Lack of testing, calibration and field verification.
® Not presently used by regulatory agencies.
© Difficulty of laboratory and field quantification of
parameters.
® Specialized skills usually required.
Classification System (Decision Tree). The Decision Tree approach is
a logical step-by-step process for assessment of the pollution potential
in the site selection process. The Decision Tree approach begins with
the most important question followed by a hierarchy of questions of
decreasing criticality. In this manner, a "no" answer to an early
important question can eliminate the site from further consideration and,
from a practical standpoint, the expenditure of unnecessary money for
additional site investigation. A "no" answer may also indicate that an
alternative type of waste disposal site or disposal method should be
utilized. This approach is in effect that developed by the California
State Water Resources Control Board in their waste/site Classification
System (as shown in Figure A). A summary assessment of the Classification
System is given in Table 8.
18
-------
Yes:
Group 1
Wastes
Is Waste
Hazardous?
No
Class I Site
Total Containment
K of 10"8 cm/sec
Is Waste Inert
and Insoluble?
Class II Site
11-1—Containment
K of 10-6 cm/sec
II-2—Hydraulic continuity
permitted with attenuation
No:
Group 2
Wastes
Class III Site
Protection provided by
location, construction
and operations
Yes:
Group 3
Wastes
Based on "Disposal Site Design and Operation Information.'
California State Waste Resources Control Board
FIGURE 4 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (DECISION TREE)
19
-------
The basic approach taken in the California Classification System is a
determination of the degree to which waste \s hazardous and its assignment
to one of three main classes of disposal sites. For each site class,
varying degrees of protection are provided for surface and groundwater,
with the system permeability being defined as the single most important
and controlling site parameter. The wastes are classified as Group 1,
2 or 3, and the sites are classified as Class I, II, and I I I as shown
in Table 9.
TABLE 8
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(DECISION TREE)
Pros
©Site/waste comprehensive.
© Specifically addresses hazardous wastes.
© Presently used by regulatory agencies.
© Tested and verified.
© Low cost/expertise requirements.
Cons
o Insufficient data requirements.
o Local and regional availability of low permeability deposits.
• Little quantification of pollution potential.
® Possibly too conservative.
Simulation Models. Predicting the potential for groundwater pollution
from waste disposal operations is complex because of the interactive and
simultaneous processes that occur in a soil-water system. However, models
can serve as a tool to simulate the performance of a certain disposal
site. Models can be classified as: (l) descriptive models; (2) physical
models; (3) analog models; and (A) mathematical models,,
20
-------
TABLE 9
Site Type
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
SIte Classification
Waste Classification
Permeabi 11 ty
cm/sec
Soils
% Passing a
No. 200 Sieve
Liquid
Limit
Plastic!ty
Index
ro
Class I Complete protection Is provided
for all time for the quality of
ground and surface water.
Geological conditions are natur-
ally capable of preventing
vertical and lateral hydraulic
continuity between liquids and
gases from the waste In the site
and usable surface and ground
waters. The disposal area can
be modified to prevent lateral
continuity. Underlain by usable
ground water only under excep-
tional circumstances.
Class II Protection Is provided to water
quality from Group 2 and Group
3 wastes.
11-1 Overlying usable ground water
and geologic conditions arc
either naturally capable of pre-
venting lateral and vertical
hydraulic continuity or site has
been modified to achieve such
capabi11ty.
11-2 Having vertical and lateral hy-
draulic continuity with usable
ground water but geological
and hydraulic featuies and
other factors assure protection
of water quality.
Class III Protection Is provided from Group
3 wastes by location, construc-
tion and operation which prevent
erosion of deposited material.
Group I
Consisting of or containing
toxic substances and substances
which could significantly Im-
pair the quality of usable
waters.
Also accepts Group 2 and 3
wastes.
i: I x 10
CL, CH or
OH
Not less than
30
Not less than
30
Not less than
30
Group 2
Consisting of or containing
chemically or biologically
decomposable material which
dues not include toxic sub-
stances or those capable of
significantly Impairing the
quality of usable water.
Also accepts Group 3 Wastes.
Group 3
Consist entirely of non-water
soluble, non-decomposable
Inert solids.
- I x 10
-6
CL, CH or
OH
Not less than
30
Not less than
30
Not less than
30
Not specified Not specified Not specified Nol specified Not specified
-------
In additition to the above groupings, models could be classified as:
(1) empirical versus conceptual models; (2) stochastic versus deterministic
models; (3) static versus dynamic models; and CO spatial dimensionabi1ity
(one, two or three dimensions considered). Table 10 lists a few example
models and their classification into various groupings.
Of the different models discussed above, conceptua1-mathematical
models appear to be the most promising, but these are also the most
complex for evaluating potential groundwater contamination for a given
site. These models are generally based upon a set of equations which
describe the relationships between different input and output variables
and system parameters. These equations are derived using the principles
of conservation of mass, energy and momentum, and constitutive
relationships which define certain systems. Several models of this type
are currently available.
Equations 6 and 7 (in Section V of this report) are examples of
constituent-transport and water-flow equations, respectively. Mathematical
solutions of Equations 6 and 7, or simplified versions of them, may
be generated in several ways: (l) analytical methods, and (2) numerical
methods which include finite differences, finite element, and method of
character!sties.
Survey of Existing Mathematical Models. The literature contains
hundreds of solutions of different variations of mathematical models.
Section V of this report includes a detailed discussion of these solutions,
a wide variety of models, and identifies methods for their solution and
application.
Several problems related to model use are identified in Section V;
however, they can be considered a promising tool for predicting groundwater
contamination potential. Further research and investigations are needed
prior to full implementation of such tools. Table 11 summarizes model
development by type.
22
-------
Model
Definition
TABLE 10
EXAMPLE MODELS AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION INTO DIFFERENT GROUPINGS
TYPE OF MODEL
Descriptive (D)
Physical (P) Conceptual (C) Stochastic (S)
Mathematical (M) Empirical (E) Deterministic (De)
On-site inspection and decision
using engineering judgment.
The Drexel University experimental
landfi11 (field site only)
Batch equilibrium study to determine
adsorption; shaker test; solid waste
evaluation leachate test (subsystem
models)
Column study to determine adsorption
;and/or migration of certain chemicals
in given soil; thin-layer chromatog-
raphy (subsystem models)
Criteria listing; classification system
of the California State Water Control
Board; matrix method.
One-dimensional unsaturated transport
model of Bresler (1973) (subsystem
mode 1)
Two-dimensional saturated-unsaturated
transport model of Duguld and Reeves
(1976)
Model for groundwater flow and mass
transport under uncertainty of Tang
and Pinder (1977).
D
P
M
D and
M (Matrix)
M
E
E
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
Static (St)
Dynamic (Dy)
Dy
Dy
St
Dy
' St
Dy
Dy
Dy
Spatial
Dimension
(1, 2. 3)
3
3
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF MODEL DEVELOPMENT BY TYPE
STATE OF DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY
1. Mathematical formulation
of any model
2. Numerical solution
of any model
3. Field calibration and testing:
saturated/unsaturated transport
saturated-only transport
unsaturated-onl y transport
4. Field verification:
saturated/unsaturated transport
saturated-only transport
unsaturated-only transport
5. Methodology for laboratory and>
field quantification of major
parameters ' (any model)
6. Methodology for quantification
of leachate qual i ty
7. Standard procedures for field
testing, calibration and
verification (any model)
8. Ready for use as a decision proce
saturated/unsaturated transport
saturated-only transport"'
unsaturated-only transport '
FLUID
FLOW
0
*
0
0
0
0
D3
0
0
0
NA
03
dure
NA
NA
NA
MASS TRANSPORT
SINGLE-ION TRANSPORT
NO ADSORPTION
NO DECAY
0
0
03
0
0
03
03
0
03
NA
03
03
03
03
WITH ADSORPTI
WITH DECAY
D3
03
06
03
03
06
03
03
03
0
06
06
D6
03
MULT 1- ION
3N TRANSPORT
(+EXCHANGE)
03 - ?
03 - ?
D6 - ?
D6 - ?
D6 - ?
D10 -?
06 - ?
06 - ?
D6 - ?
0
010 -?
D10-?
D10-?
06 -?
0 = operat ional;
D3 = under development
D6 «» under development
010= under development
? «• under development
NA a not appl icable
likely to be operational within three years;
likely to be operational within six years;
likely to be operational within ten years;
not likely to be operational within ten years;
1) adsorption/exchange constants, dispersion coefficients, soil hydraulic properties, etc
2) ?f the Indicated transport model is suitable for application at given site.
-------
Soi1-Leachate Column Studies. Soil-column studies have been
used to simulate natural field conditions and to quantify the potential
for a given soil to attenuate specific constituents. Most laboratory
experiments are conducted using water-saturated soil or clay systems.
Unsaturated soil-water conditions are difficult to control, and the
soil water flow rates are extremely small for these cases. Soil-column
studies are useful, but are frequently improperly interpreted. It is
difficult to quantify the degree of attenuation based on presence or
absence of leachate constituents in the column effluent. However, they
remain a useful tool in determining hydraulic properties and dispersion
coefficients for specific soil or clay materials.
Batch or Shaker Tests. Several types of experiments can be used
for measuring adsorption characteristics, but the most widely used is the
"batch" or "shaker" method. This procedure consists of combining a known
volume of waste leachate of a predetermined composition with a given mass
of air dry soil. The mixture is shaken until equilibrium is attained.
Adsorption coefficients can be determined from the distribution of the
constituents between the adsorbed and water phases. Batch or shaker
adsorption tests can be useful In evaluating constituent mobility, but
it may be misleading if appreciable complexing of constituents occurs
during the contact period. However, if properly conducted, these tests
can be used to provide necessary parameters for mathematical models.
Thin-Layer Chromatography. Soil thin layer chromatography (soil
TLC) is analogous to conventional TLC, with soil substituted for the paper
or solid absorbent phase. This procedure appears to correlate well with
mobility "trends" observed In laboratory-column studies and in
batch-adsorption experiments. The procedure consists of coating a-glass
plate with soil slurry (500-750/j) followed by drying. The "mobility" of
constituents is then measured in relationship to migration of the water
front as shown in Figure 5.
25
-------
R< = 1.0
(Chloride)
•Water Front
Rt = 0.5
Initial Location of Spot
R. = 0.2
FIGURE 5 THIN-LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY
The shaded areas represent three different constituent
locations after the waterfront has migrated to 10-cm height
above the initial location of each spot. The shaded area
with an Rr equal to one represents a non-adsorbed
constituent such as chloride with the least mobile
constituent in the illustration having a Rt of 0.2.
26
-------
D i 1 ut ion Mode 1. This type .of model defines the potential for
groundwater contamination strictly on the basis of: leachate dilution in
groundwater, dilution in down-gradient well discharge, and travel times
for leachate migration both to down-gradient wells and streams.
On-Going Research. Several researchers, research institutions
federal agencies, and universities have developed, and are currently
in the process of developing, mathematical models for the prediction
of contaminant migration in subsurface environments. These include:
the U.S. Geologic Survey; Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories; Oak
Ridge National Laboratory; Colorado State University; Cornell
University; Drexel University; Ecole de Mines, Fontainbleu, France;
Institue de Mecanique des Fluides de Starbourg, Strass, France; New
Mexico State University; Princeton University, the University of
California, Davis; the University of Florida; the University of
Cottingen, Germany; the University of New Mexico; Oregon State University
of Oregon; the University of Waterloo; Utah State University; Technion -
Israel; Institute of Technology and Intera/Intercomp Resources Development
and Engineering, Inc.
Assessment. Models to be used as a decision procedure, whether
they be mathematical or non-mathematical, should: (l) be rational; (2)
represent the physical system; (3) be easy to understand; and (k) be
economical to run. Modeling has the following advantages:
• Provide a quantitative prediction.
• Predict contamination potential before the fact.
e Identify soil/waste parameters.
27
-------
0 Perform multiple site/waste analysis.
o Can be versatile as a tool for ranking the site, for optimizing
monetary design, and for defining waste management requirements.
e Can be a research tool.
«
Use of models as a decision procedure has the following limitations
and disadvantages:
e Lack of testing and verification.
• Difficulty of quantifying input parameters.
® Complexity and requirements for a wide variety of expertise.
© Unknown accuracy and precision parameters and outputs.
Q Unavailability of ready-to-use packaged models.
A summary assessment of models is given in Table 12.
TABLE 12
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF MODELS
Pros
© Quantitative - predictive tool.
© Identification of soil/waste parameters.
©Assessment of pollution potential.
© Versati 1 ity.
• Research tool.
Cons
® Insufficient understanding of some processes.
• Insufficient testing and calibration.
• Lack of field verification.
» Difficulty of laboratory and field quantification of parameters.
© Requires specialized skills and equipment,
* High operating cost.
28
-------
Regulatory Agency Practices
Permit Procedures Utilized. Nine state regulatory agencies in six
states and regulatory agencies in four foreign countries were contacted for
an assessment of their waste-permitting procedures. Those agencies
contacted are shown in Table 13. Also shown are selected factors in these
programs with respect to: the permit procedure utilized for waste
disposal siting; the status of regulations pertaining to both municipal
and hazardous waste regulations; the mode of disposal required, i.e.,
containment or attenuation; the containment permeability required; and
estimates of applicant costs, agency processing time in months, and agency
review time by personnel type in hours.
The permit procedures utilized by each of those regulatory agencies
contacted are the Criteria Listing or Classification System. The
Classification System is used by regulatory agencies in California (see
Table 8), Illinois, Texas, and the United Kingdom. The Criteria Listing
approach is utilized by the other regulatory agencies contacted in
Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Ontario, Canada, The Netherlands and
West Germany.
It Is noteworthy that the same basic rationale and permit procedures
utilized by the domestic regulatory agencies contacted are also utilized
by the foreign regulatory agencies in Ontario, Canada and Western Europe
for the permitting of waste disposal operations. As stated above, either
the Criteria Listing or Classification System approach is utilized by the
foreign regulatory agencies. In addition, a major consideration of waste
disposal permitting relates to the attenuation or containment of waste
leachate. Containment of both municipal and hazardous wastes is required
in West Germany. Municipal waste disposal and the co-disposal of industrial
waste that may sometimes be hazardous municipal waste is, on the other hand,
permitted with reliance on attenuation of waste leachates produced in
Ontario, Canada, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
29
-------
TABLE 13
SELECTED FACTORS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY AGENCY PERMIT PRACTICES
1
Regulatory Agency
Domestic
Cal i f orn i a Reg ion a 1 Water
Quality Control Board
Cal i forn ia State Sol id
Waste Management Board
California Department of
Health
1 1 1 i noi s Env i ronmenta 1
Protect ion Agency
M i nnesota Pol 1 ut i on
Control Agency
New York Department of
Env i ronmenta 1 Con ser vat ion
Pennsy Ivan i a Department of
Env i ronmenta 1 Resources
Texas Department of
Heal th Resources
Texas Water Qual i ty
Board
Fore i gn
Canada - Ontario Ministry
of the Env i ronment
Netherlands - SVA
Un i ted K i ngdom - Greater
London Couiici 1
West Germany - Office of
State of Bavaria for
Env i ronmenta 1 Protect ion
Permit
Procedure
Class! ficat i on
System
C lass! f i cat ion
System
C lass i f icat ion
System
C lass! f icat ion
System
Cr i ter i a
Li St i ng
Cr i ter i a
Li st i ng
Cr i ter i a
Li st i ng
C 1 ass i f i cat ion
System
C lassi f icat i on
System
Criteria
Li st ing
Cr i ter ia
Listing
Classification
System
Criteria
Li sting
Status of
Regular ions
Rev i sed
December 1976
Revised 1976
Feb. 1975
Be ing Rev i sed
Rev i sed-Pend i ng
Approva 1 ml d-
1978
Be ing Prov i ded
(Draft Reg.
June 1977)
Rev i sed
August 1977
Rev i sed
June 1977
Rev i sed
Apri 1 1977
Rev i sed-Pend ing
Approva 1 Late
1977
SW-Revised
Feb. 1976
HW-Being Drafted
Being Revised
Revised 1976
SW-Revised
Sept. 1976
HW-Being
5
Regulatory Authority
Mun ic ipal Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Both
Both
Both
Both
Mun ici pa 1 Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Both
separate sect ion s
Both
Both
Both
Modd of
D i sposa 1
C on t a i nme n t
Conta i nment
Conta i nment
Conta i nment
Conta i nment
Both as
spec i f ied
Both as
spec i f ied
Conta inment
Con ta inment
Attenuat ton
Attenuat ion
Attenuat i on
Conta inment
Contai
nment
Permeabi 1 i ty
HW :
MW:
HW:
MW:
HW:
MW
HW:
MW:
HW:
HW:
HW:
MW:
i
HW:
MW:
HW,
MW:
not
not
no t
HW:
MW:
(cm
•*£ \ x
^ 1 X
•^1 X
^1 X
-^l X
^1 X
1-^
1 1-^
^
^1 X
^1 X
^1 X
^1 X
f spec
^r 1 X
^ 1 X
-^1 X
^1 x
speci
spec i
spec i
not
^1 x
i/ sec)
,o-8
io'6
10~8
10
10"?
10"6
1 x ID'S*
5 x icf°
1 x 10 '
ID'7
,o-7
10 7
10 ,
if ied
io"7
io"7
IO"7
io"7
f ied
fied
f ied
spec i f ied
io-6
Appl i cant Costs for
Permi t Aqu
Technical
$250,000
to
800,000
25,000
to
50,000
25,000
to
200,000
1 5 , 000*
50,000
to
200,000
50,000
up to 52.63
tota 1
20,000
to
90,000
isi t ion5
Hear i nq
5100,000
up
to
50,000
up to
60,000
5,000
to
10,000
20,000
mill! on
Time Process Regulatory Staff
Permits - . Processing Time
Drafted
Indicates agency responsible for hazardous waste regulation.
Includes both municipal (MW) and hazardous wastes (HW) unless specified.
••Municipal and/or hazardous wastes.
Municipal wastes only, all hazardous wastes require containment unless otherwise specified.
5costs given are gross est imates general ly for off-site facilities.
"Information not available.
Range and Average
(months)
8-18; 12
8-18; 12
8-18; 12
1-3; H
6-12; 8
3-6; 3
6-18: 12
2J-16; 7
6-12; 8
8-36; 2k
NA
2-9; 3
6-2
-------
The basic decision procedure utilized by each of the regulatory
agencies contacted is based upon: (1) an objective quantification of both
waste and site characteristics; (2) the combined technical expertise of
the permit review team; and (3) by comparison with empirical data generated
from analagous waste disposal operations. in the final analysis,
therefore, a subjective decision is made based upon utilization of
objective data and analysis to the degree that the data will permit. It
is universally agreed by both regulatory and non-regulatory experts that
this final decision must of necessity be subjective since no alternative
procedure presently exists or is anticipated to exist within the near
future that could be relied upon for a final objective decision.
Modes of Disposal. From an assessment of these regulatory programs,
it has become clear that three major modes of land disposal of wastes
exist. The first mode of disposal places reliance on the containment of
wastes and waste leachates produced to avoid adverse impacts on surface
and groundwater quality. The second mode of deposition relies on the
assimilation of waste leachates into the environment to an acceptable
degree by the various mechanisms of attenuation. The third mode relies
on neither containment nor attenuation, but on the site construction and
aestheti cs.
Accordingly, three major classes of waste disposal sites have been
defined with three corresponding major groupings of wastes. This
Classification System is best exemplified in the California Waste
Regulatory Program. It does apply generally, however, to those
Classification Systems developed elsewhere, such as Texas, Illinois,
(pending) and the United Kingdom.
These Classification Systems may be most aptly summarized as
follows:
31
-------
S i te Type Mode of Disposal Waste Type
Class I Containment Group 1 - Hazardous
Class II Limited containment, Group 2 - Decomposable,
with attenuation non-hazardous
Class III Few controls, no Group 3 ~ Inert,
containment or insoluble
attenuation
It is nearly universally agreed that hazardous wastes should be
deposited in a Class I type site. Co-disposal of certain "hazardous"
wastes with municipal wastes, however, is permitted on a case-by-case
basis in a non-contained (Class II) site by some regulatory agencies.
In addition, it is recognized that certain hazardous wastes must undergo
some form of pretreatment (such as neutralization, fixation, or
complexing) prior to land disposal or some other form of disposal such
as incineration.
Although municipal wastes to date have been considered by many to
represent Group 2 wastes, the current trend by an increasing number of
regulatory agencies is for municipal wastes to be disposed of in a
containment site as well. The third type of waste (Group 3), by virtue
of it being inert and insoluble, requires little control other than
obvious site construction and aesthetic considerations.
The over-riding element of consideration becomes one of the degree
of risk associated with adverse environmental and public health impacts.
It has become equally clear that, with few exceptions, attenuation has
limited application to the safe disposal of many hazardous wastes given
the current state of the art of prediction capabilities and economics of
land disposal. The element of risk is simply too high for attenuation
to be considered, particularly in light of the "maximum site
utilization" philosophy mandated by current economics. This may change
as the ability to model solute movement is improved. The Group 3
32
-------
wastes, on the other hand, do not require the use of pollution-prediction
procedures s:ince no polluting wastes or 1 eachates a re involved.
The Group 2 wastes, those that are decomposable but non-hazardous,
therefore, become the prime area for concentrated application of
pollution-prediction techniques that emphasize attenuation. Pollution
prediction techniques are needed that will more specifically define
those wastes that can be reliable and permanently assigned to Group 1
and Group 3 wastes. Concurrently, pollution-prediction techniques
are needed which will permit the assignment of wastes to a Group 2,
Class II classification to maximize the beneficial attenuation cap-
abilities of the environment while minimizing waste disposal costs.
Recommended Development Plans
Several types of pollution prediction techniques have been identified
in the course of this study; these are: Criteria Listing, Criteria
Ranking, Matrix, Classification System, and Simulation Models. Among
these techniques, it is recommended that the following be more fully
developed to provide a "standard" technique for waste disposal siting:
(l) Criteria Listing, (2) Classification System, and (3) Simulation
Models. Each of these development plans will require the
multi-discipiinary team approach utilizing earth sciences (soils and
hydrogeology), engineering, environmental, and chemical personnel.
The Simulation Models development plan will require applied
mathematicians and computer technician personnel as well.
Cri teria L i st ing. It has been determined that Criteria Listing is
currently the most widely-accepted approach utilized by regulatory
agencies. Objectives of development of this procedure include: (1)
development of a Criteria Listing for waste/site characterization; and
(2) describing the best state-of-the-art methodology to quantify each of
the Criteria Listed.
33
-------
Q Development Tasks:
1. Develop a comprehensive Criteria Listing for waste/site
characterization, where reliance will be placed upon
attenuation of leachates produced.
2. Develop a similar list for waste/site characterization,
where containment of leachate would be required.
3. Develop a matrix for Tasks 1 and 2 which will specify those
criteria necessary for waste/site characterization with
respect to different types of disposal.
^4. Develop procedures based on the best state-of-the-art
methodology to evaluate field and laboratory data
relative to each of the criteria listed.
5. Develop a methodology for utilization of attenuation and
containment practices.
6. Prepare a user's manual for applying the procedure for
assessment of site suitability.
o Development Time:
The development of a Criteria Listing for various types of waste
disposal will require an estimated four man years of effort by
a multi-disciplinary team within the next three years.
• Development Cost:
Costs estimated at $200,000 for the above-described level of effort
can be expected.
-------
Class i-fi cat ion System. Several state regulatory agencies have been
identified which presently utilize a Classification System approach for
waste disposal siting. However, there is a need for further development
of this procedure to achieve the following: (l) more definitive waste
characterization; (2) more uniform site characterization; and (3) more
uniform waste management techniques. To achieve these objectives, the
following tasks have been identified:
• Development Tasks:
1. Identify and develop waste characterization techniques such
as leaching tests, shaker tests, and thin-layer chromatography.
2. Develop uniform criteria for site characterization,
particularly for containment, permeability, and thickness
of the containment media.
3. Develop waste management requirements for different waste
and site classes.
4. Establish a waste management task force with a balanced
representation of governmental, industrial, consulting,
and academic personnel.
5. Develop methodology for using the Classification System.
6. Prepare a user's manual and update reports.
e Development Time:
Due to the comprehensive nature of the Classification System
approach, both short-term (within three years) and long-term
(within ten years) development will be required. It is estimated
that approximately five man-years of effort will be required for
short-term development and a minimum of one man-years for each
suceeding year of long-term development (seven additional years).
35
-------
9 Development Costs:
Costs associated with these estimated times for development are
estimated at $250,000 for the short term, and an additional
$350,000 is estimated for the long term.
Simulation Models. Development of implementable simulation models
will require a substantial effort both in the short term and the long
term.
® Development Tasks:
1. Establish and maintain a library of simulation models.
2. Develop standardized sensitivity test procedures for
numerical solutions of the models.
3. Develop mathematical formulation and numerical solution of
selected simulation models.
A. Develop methodology for laboratory and field quantification
of major model and simulation parameters.
5. Develop methodology for quantification of waste leachate
for specific soil and environmental conditions.
6. Perform field testing, calibration, and verification of the
models.
7. Develop specific management models from detailed models.
8. Obtain implementation assistance.
-------
« Development Time and Costs
The level of effort for the above development activities is
significant and is estimated to be as high as 150 man-years. The
bulk of the output from these development tasks is expected to be
beyond the short term (greater than three years); however, certain
outputs can be expected within the short term. The associated
development costs are also significant and are estimated at
approximately $6 million over the next ten years.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions. The overall objective of this study was to provide
a state-of-the-art assessment of pollution prediction techniques for
waste disposal siting. Emphasis was placed on current research and
regulatory procedures. Furthermore, the emphasis was on techniques
which lead to pollution prediction through assessment of attenuation
of waste leachates especially those from hazardous constituents. The
following conclusions can be drawn from this broad-scoped investigation.
1. A number of pollution prediction techniques, many of them
interrelated, have been identified which constitute useful tools
to objectively assess to varying degrees the suitability of
specific waste and waste/site disposal situations. It must be
emphasized, however, that a team of mul t i.di sci p 1 i nary professionals
and not the pollution prediction technique itself provides the
ultimate "yes or no" decision. In addition to technical con-
siderations, economic, politcal and legal considerations must
also be given.
2. Each waste disposal site is permitted by the regulatory agencies
contacted on a case-by-case basis. Specific waste types are
likewise permitted or rejected on a case-by-case basis from
these disposal sites.
37
-------
3. A definition of attenuation has been developed for this project
as follows: "Any physical, chemical and/or biological reaction
or transformation occurring in saturated and/or unsaturated zones
that brings about a temporary or permanent decrease in the maximum
concentration or total quantity of an applied chemical or
biological constituent in a fixed time or distance traveled."
k. Several attenuation mechanisms play a role in reducing the
potential for groundwater contamination: physical processes
include - molecular diffusion, hydrodynamic dispersion, and
dilution; chemical processes include - precipitation, oxidation/
reduction, and ion exchange; and biological processes include
b iodegradat ion.
5- Soil/waste interactions and attenuation mechanisms are
becoming better understood, but are in need of additional
definition and quantification, particularly for the waste
streams that commonly contain more than one type of waste.
6. Attenuation mechanisms are capable of renovation of leachates
from many non-hazardous wastes and some hazardous wastes, provided
that the application rate does not exceed the soi1-attenuation
capacity. Examples of the former include on-lot septic systems.
Examples of the latter include land farming of petro-chemical
wastes, sludges and pesticides.
7. Attenuation that is adequate to prevent pollution, for those
wastes amenable to attenuation, may in large part be dependent
upon assimilation by dilution into either groundwater or surface
water.
38
-------
8. Within the limits of current knowledge, many wastes categorized
as hazardous are not amenable to attenuation in the soil profile
and must rely upon containment in secured landfills or other
methods of disposal.
9. It was established that three modes of disposal exist: (1)
reliance on containment of waste and/or leachate; (2) discharge
of leachate with reliance on varying degrees of attenuation;
and (3) no reliance on either containment or attenuation. These
modes generally correspond to disposal of hazardous waste,
non-hazardous waste, and inert (innocuous) waste, respectively.
10. The following pollution prediction techniques have been identified
in this state-of-the-art assessment: Criteria Listing, Criteria
Ranking, Matrix, Classification System, Models and Laboratory
S imulation.
11. The identified pollution prediction techniques and procedures that
are currently available, or could be further developed, can be
viewed as tools for gathering information for waste and site
characterization to provide the decision-making professionals with
a systematic and rational approach for site selection, evaluation,
and permitting.
12. Criteria Listing is the most basic and commonly-used procedure
by regulatory agencies for evaluating groundwater pollution
potential from land-disposal sites.
13. The Criteria Ranking and Matrix approaches to pollution prediction
are useful techniques for an evaluation of a site or waste/site
disposal situation on a preliminary or "first-cut" basis, particularly
for the comparison between several candidate sites. They do not,
39
-------
however, provide the degree of detailed waste/site characterization
necessary for final evaluation and approval of a permit.
1 *K The Classification System (Decision Tree) is being increasingly
utilized as a tool for waste-disposal siting. This procedure
is comprehensive for both waste type and site type, and could
be developed into a "uniform" procedure for site selection
and approval.
15. Numerous types of simulation models exist including descriptive,
physical, analog, and mathematical models, with Conceptual-mathematical
models appearing to be the most promising tool for simulation of
groundwater contamination potential.
16. The potential for using mathematical models as a groundwater
simulation tool depends on developing standardized methodology
for leachate characterization, attenuation parameters, and
numerical solutions; however, the degree of field testing,
calibration, and verification of these models does not yet
allow for wide application as uniform pollution prediction
techn iques.
17. The degree of sophistication and level of development of
mathematical- and computer-simulation models far exceed those
of parameter quantification, laboratory simulation, and field
testing and verification.
18. Several laboratory procedures, such as Thin-Layer
Chromatography and Shaker and Column tests, measure the
potential for attenuation; however, their results could best
be used as "subroutines" in a permit procedure since they
do not account for all the interacting parameters that relate
to the site-permitting process.
-------
19. European and Canadian waste disposal permitting procedures
including hazardous waste disposal closely parallel those
permitting procedures identified in the United States. The
two basic philosophies of containment versus attenuation apply
in these countries as well but it is noteworthy that, with the
exception of West Germany, reliance is placed on attenuation of
leachates from municipal and many hazardous wastes to a much
larger degree than,in the United States.
Recommendat ions.
1. It is recommended that the following pollution prediction techniques
be further developed for implementation to waste disposal
siting: (l) Criteria Listing; (2) Classification System,
and (3) Simulation Models.
2. The recommended development plan for the short-term (within
3 years) is the Criteria Listing approach. This plan
includes: development of a uniform criteria listing, waste
containment requirements, an assessment matrix, field- and
laboratory-quantification methodology, data use
requirements, and preparation of a user's manual.
3. A recommended development plan which encompasses both the
short-term (within 3 years) and the long-term (within 10 years)
is the Classification System. This plan includes: identifying
waste characterization techniques, developing criteria for
site characterization, and establishing a waste management task
force.
4. The recommended development plan for the long-term, although
short-term outputs can be expected, is that associated with
simulation models.
-------
5. Decisions for waste/site selection and permitting must be made
by a team of professionals with expertise in earth science,
environmental science and engineering, chemistry and chemical
engineering, and, where appropriate, applied mathematics and
computer science, using the techniques identified in this study
as tools to reach decisions which are environmentally sound,
consistent, rational, and defensible.
1*2
-------
SECTION I I
INTRODUCTION
Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500)
have placed great emphasis on the restoration and protection of the quality
of our Nation's surface waters. This emphasis has resulted in the decrease
of large numbers of point-source discharges of wastes directly into streams.
Increasingly, however, the land has become the major waste depository. A
great potential for adverse impact on the Nation's groundwaters now exists
due to this increased land disposal of solid and liquid residual wastes,
particularly hazardous wastes.
Concurrent with these changes in waste disposal practices has been
an increase in the amount of waste being generated. The recent (1977) EPA
Fourth Report to Congress - Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction - 1975
states that past consumer gross discharge was 136.1 million tons or 3.2
pounds/capita/day. Similarly, recent EPA-generated figures for I'* major
industrial waste sectors, presented at The National Conference on Hazardous
Waste Management, indicate an annual total production of approximately 28.8
million metric tons and approximately 10.7 million metric tons of wet and
dry potentially hazardous wastes, respectively, as shown in Table 1*».
To further intensify the problem, many wastes continue to be disposed
of in a "least-cost" way. Numerous case histories (including those in the
EPA report (SW-63^: 68-01-3703) entitled: Development of a Data Base for
Determining the Prevalence of Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances
into the Ground Water at Industrial Land Disposal Sites) attest to the
fact that groundwater pollution is occurring from such practices.
Indiscriminate landfill ing, ponds, lagoons, and other land-disposal methods
have clearly proven in numerous instances to be ineffective for adequate
-------
TABLE 14
U.S. POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES (1975 DATA)
(Million Metric Tons Annually)
Industry Dry Basis Wet Basis
1. Batteries 0.005 0.010
2. Inorganic Chemicals 2.000 3-400
3. Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, Explosives 2.150 6.860
4. Electroplating 0.909 5.276
5. Paints 0.075 0.096
6. Petroleum Refining 0.624 1.756
7. Pharmaceuticals 0.062 0.065
8. Primary Metals 4.429 8.267
9. Leather Tanning and Finishing 0.045 0.146
10. Textiles Dyeing and Finishing 0.048 1.770
11. Rubber and Plastics 0.205 0.785
12. Special Machinery 0.102 0.162
,*
13- Electronic Components 0.025 0.035
14. Waste Oil Re-refining 0.075 0.057
Totals (To Date) 10.731 28.811
-------
protection of health of both the public and the environment. To a
large degree, this can be attributed to poor management practices, since
technological and management guidelines regulating such disposal practices,
for the most part, have been enacted only recently. A number of state
regulatory agencies are currently writing or adopting such guidelines for
the regulation of hazardous wastes.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (PL 9^-580)
will regulate hazardous waste on a national level for the first time.
Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management - mandates the EPA to promulgate
regulations governing the following aspects of hazardous waste management
within 18 months after the date of enactment (21 October 1976):
Section 3001 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.
Section 3002 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste.
Section 3003 - Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous
Waste.
Section 300^ - Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Faci1ities.
Section 3005 - Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of
Hazardous Waste.
Section 3006 - Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs.
Section 3007 - Inspections.
Section 3008 - Federal Enforcement.
Section 3009 - Retention of State Authority.
Section 3010 - Effective Date.
Section 3011 - Authorization of Assistance to States.
-------
Sections 300^ and 3005 deal specifically with the disposal aspects
of hazardous wastes. In order for such regulations to be effective,
technologically-sound decision procedures must be used for the siting
of waste-disposal operations. Furthermore, it is necessary that these
decision procedures be of a uniform nature on a National level. Decision
procedures, which would at least in part predict the potential for
groundwater pollution from the disposal of specific wastes at specific
sites, could be a helpful tool for regulatory and enforcement agencies.
Such decision procedures could:
1. Evaluate the potential for groundwater degradation from a
potentially-hazardous waste.
2. Determine whether a polluting quantity of waste is present in
a given waste-disposal situation.
3. Ideally, determine the maximum safe loading of a given waste on
a given land parcel.
Some contradictory expert opinion exists, however, regarding the
mechanisms and effectiveness of attenuation processes for waste renovation
which are an integral part of the land disposal/land treatment process.
This, in turn, has inhibited effective decision making relative to the
permitting of land disposal/treatment operations. The development of
procedures for a uniform approach to the decision-making process by
regulatory agencies would provide a consistent and effective basis for
determining the confidence with which one can dispose of a specific waste
at a specific site.
-------
Scope and Objectives
The overall objective of this investigation is to provide a
state-of-the-art assessment of the pollution prediction techniques for
waste-disposal siting. This assessment is to include both current research
and regulatory procedures relative to the land disposal/treatment of waste
for the entire waste spectrum exclusive of radioactive wastes. The
emphasis, however, will be on that research and those specific regulatory
procedures which deal specifically with hazardous waste.
An assessment of the techniques currently being utilized or proposed
for waste disposal/management will be made with particular attention given
to their pollution-prediction capability. This assessment will be based
upon: an identification of each procedure, their state of development,
and their potential usefulness to regulatory agencies. In conducting
this investigation, efforts were directed toward the formulation of
several "standard" procedures.
The specific objectives of this investigation are as follows:
1. Conduct interviews with acknowledged experts in the field of
waste attenuation/management to assess current laboratory and
field research procedures relative to pollution prediction
techniques.
2. Conduct interviews with select domestic and foreign regulatory
agencies to assess current regulatory procedures being utilized
for waste-disposal siting, with emphasis on hazardous waste
disposal.
3. Identify and assess the state of the art of techniques to predict
and describe the pollution potential from specific wastes being
disposed of at specific sites.
A. Identify and assess the most useful water/soil/waste interaction
and attenuation mechanisms which are indicative of the ability
of a potential site to accept a specific waste for land disposal/
treatment in an environmentally-safe manner.
-------
5. Identify and assess the pollution prediction techniques currently
utilized or under development which would be candidate procedures
for further development into a "standard" procedure.
6. Estimate the cost, work scope, and time requirements associated
with each candidate procedure identified.
7. Prepare a detailed development program for those techniques
which best predict the groundwater pollution potential and the
suitability for permitting of land disposal/treatment sites for
both a short-term (within three years) and long-term (within ten
years) basis.
-------
SECTION I I I
LITERATURE SEARCH
A literature search was conducted to identify pertinent references
on the behavior of contaminants associated with waste-disposal projects.
Primary emphasis was given to hazardous waste constituents excluding
radioactive wastes. Unpublished material and administrative regulations
at all governmental levels were excluded from consideration. The search
was limited primarily to material published in the United States, with
the exception of a few Canadian and European reports. Only a few
references predate I960.
Literature dealing with waste disposal with respect to environmental
quality is voluminous, and no attempt was made to cover all references on
the topic. References were selected on the basis of their significance
and relevance to hazardous waste disposal. Where an abstract was not
available to judge the value of the reference, the original reference
was consulted to determine its pertinence. In a few cases, only reference
titles could be located using available library facilities and within the
time constraint of the study. When the title appeared to so warrant, the
reference was included.
A major portion of the literature search was conducted using the
computerized Lockheed Dialog Retrieval Service. Files searched include:
(1) CAIN, which is the cataloging and indexing data base of the National
Agricultural Library (NAL); (2) ENVIROLINE, which is produced by the
Environment Information Center; (3) CA CONDENSTATES, which is the
computer-readable file corresponding to the printed Chemical Abstracts;
and (k) COMPENDEX, which is the machine-readable version of the Engineering
Index.
-------
Each file was searched using index words associated with hazardous
waste disposal and processes influencing the fate of various contaminants
frequently associated with municipal and industrial waste leachates. The
same index words were not suitable for all files owing to the different
terminologies used by various research groups. Numerous references
contained in published bibliographies were also considered and included
where the topic related directly to the disposal and fate of hazardous
waste constituents.
It should be emphasized that the literature search effort in this
project is not limited to the presentation in this section; rather it is
integrated with various sections of the report. This approach was selected
because of the wide variety of topics dealt with in this study. Instead
of limiting the discussions pertaining to previous work and research
activities to one section, it was incorporated in appropriate sections
in the report as follows:
® Section IV includes discussion of work related to processes influencing
mobility and attenuation of contaminants in soil-water systems.
© Section V includes discussion of work related to different decision
procedures (Criteria Listing, Matrix, Decision Tree, Models, and
Simulation).
® Appendix A includes a listing of key references related to attenuation.
All references selected for inclusion in this report were placed
under one of five topical areas and are found in Appendix A. The topical
areas are: Part I - Toxic Metals; Part II - Toxic Organics; Part III -
Critical Parameters for Waste Disposal; Part IV - Disposal Procedures,
Models, and Guidelines; and Part V - Reviews, Symposia Proceedings, and
State-of-the-Art Publications. Additional references on mathematical
modeling are given as Part VI - Mathematical Models.
50
-------
Because many papers and reports embrace more than one subject,
references were assigned to the topic which seemed most appropriate.
Consequently, the reader is advised to consider closely-related topics.
Key publications of the various non-regulatory experts contacted
are provided with their respective write-up in Appendix B.
51
-------
SECTION IV
PROCESSES INFLUENCING MOBILITY AND ATTENUATION OF
CHEMICAL-WASTE CONSTITUENTS IN SOIL-WATER SYSTEMS
The soil is a dynamic system in which numerous chemical, physical,
and biological reactions occur singly or simultaneously with time. Because
of these reactions, the soil is frequently considered a good receptacle
for the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. Under normal
conditions, the soil is able to transform or stabilize many hazardous
waste constituents to equilibrium soil components. These reactions occur-
in both water-saturated and unsaturated soils, and are frequently referred
to as attenuation processes or reactions.
Defini tion
The word "attenuation" has been used by many to describe a beneficial
result frequently obtained following the application of a waste to a soil.
Because of the variable usage of the word attenuation, its use in this
report will be understood to mean:
"Any physical, chemical, and/or biological reaction or
transformation occurring in saturated and/or unsaturated zones
that brings about a temporary or permanent decrease in the
maximum concentration or total quantity of an applied chemical
or biological constituent in a fixed time or distance traveled."
This definition infers nothing about the mobility of a waste
constituent contained in the soil and is consistent with the dictionary
definition (Funk and WagnalIs Standard College Dictionary, 1971):
"Attenuate; To reduce in value, quantity, size, or strength;
weaken, impai r."
53
-------
The Soil-Water System
Soils are composed of mineral, organic, solution, and gaseous phases.
The mineral phase consists of various particle sizes (sand, silt, and clay)
which together form a rigid or semi-rigid porous skeleton. The quantity
of each size fraction contained in a soil influences the pore-size
distribution of a soil, and the solution- and gaseous-phase content. Clay
particles possess large surface areas and are generally electrically
charged and adsorptive in nature. Aluminum and iron hydroxide gels,
oxides, and mixed hydroxide/oxide compounds coat, as well as form,
particles which react with constituents in the soil water.
The organic phase is composed of stable organic components (lignin,
waxes, and resins) from plants and living and dead micro-organisms. This
phase is generally confined to the soil surface, but may extend to a
considerable depth in decreasing quantities. The organic phase is dynamic
and effective in transforming or attenuating many toxic or hazardous
organic constituents into acceptable substances under proper soil conditions,
The soil-water phase is the medium responsible for transporting most
constituents through the soil. Soil water, as used in this report, is both
soil moisture in the unsaturated zone and groundwater in the saturated
zone. The soil water is constantly moving in response to differences in
potential energy originating from water additions, gravitational field,
soil-water pressure head, evaporation, temperature, osmotic effects, and
plant extraction of water. The rate at which the soil water moves through
a soil is important in predicting the distribution and depth to which a
potentially-hazardous constituent may move in a given time.
The gaseous phase and its composition is influenced by pore-size
distribution, degree of soil-water saturation, and biological activity.
The composition of the gas or air phase includes oxygen, carbon dioxide,
nitrogen, and methane. Under anaerobic (water saturated or high biological
activity) conditions, the solubility and chemical form of a material may
change drastically.
-------
The soil water, organic, and gaseous phases of the soil are changing
constantly and, as a result, play a major role in the reactions that
occur in the soil. These reactions influence the mobility and attenuation
of hazardous waste constituents. In the following discussion, specific
examples are used to illustrate how various reactions influence the
mobility and attenuation of selected waste constituents. The reactions
will be classified as either physical, chemical, or biological, even
though some could be correctly considered under more than one classification,
Attenuation Mechanisms
Physical Processes. Three physical processes influence the mobility
and attenuation of a waste constituent in a soil system; these are:
molecular diffusion, hydrodynamic dispersion, and dilution.
Molecular Diffusion. Molecular diffusion is a spontaneous
process resulting from the natural thermal motion of dissolved substances.
Experimentation has shown that the net rate of movement of a chemical
component from a region of high concentration to one of low concentration
is proportional to the difference in concentration between the two
regions, and is essentially independent of the absolute concentration in
each region.
These observations have been developed into what is known as Pick's
Law. The proportionality constant in Pick's Law, D, is called the
diffusion coefficient. Molecular diffusion coefficients in free solution
are greater than those in soils where the solid phase obstructs and
restricts the motion of the molecule. Reversible adsorption-desorption
or cation-exchange reactions also reduce the apparent diffusion coefficient
of a substance in a soil.
55
-------
Diffusion is generally considered an insignificant transport process
when the soil water is transient. Molecular diffusion, however, does
modify abrupt concentration differences between solutions of different
concentrations in contact with one another. The interface between a
landfill leachate front and the soil water which is devoid of any
constituents found in the leachate is an example. This apparent
attenuation occurs over a short soil depth.
Hydrodynamic Dispersion. The soil solution flowing through a
soil does not move at the same rate in pore sequences of different sizes.
Within a given pore the flow rate is slower near the walls than in the
center of the pore. The soil water also flows faster in the larger pores
than in the small pores. These two effects, plus the tortuous (twisting)
path the water must follow as it moves through the soil, tend to spread
or reduce abrupt concentration changes in the soil with time. This
phenomenon is called hydrodynamic dispersion and is illustrated in Figure 6.
Hydrodynamic dispersion differs from molecular diffusion in that it
occurs only in the presence of a net movement of soil water. Experimentation
has shown that the hydrodynamic dispersion phenomenon can be described
analytically by an equation similar in form to that of Pick's Law for
molecular diffusion. However, the magnitude of the dispersion coefficient
is larger than the molecular diffusion coefficient, and is generally equal
to or larger in magnitude than the average pore-water velocity or interstitial
flow rate. The dispersion coefficient includes both molecular diffusion
and hydrodynamic mixing owing to pore-size distribution.
Hydrodynamic dispersion is effective in attenuating the maximum
constituent concentration in a pulse or slug of waste with time and
distance as it moves through a soil profile. This apparent attenuation
does not apply to the total quantity of the constituent in the pulse,
only its maximum concentration. For large leachate inputs such as those
associated with large landfills, hydrodynamic dispersion will not be an
effective attenuation process.
56
-------
Co = 1.0
FIGURE 6 ATTENUATION BY DISPERSION
(A) The crosshatched areas are soil particles, the solid
area represents a soil solution with a constituent
concentration of Co, and white area represents a soil
solution with a constituent concentration of zero.
(B) Average constituent concentration distribution in
the soil as a function of soil length.
57
-------
Pilution. A dilution in constituent concentration frequently
occurs when the soil water in the unsaturated zone enters the zone of
saturation below the water table. If the region of soil between the
water table and the bottom of a landfill is unsaturated, the vertical
transport rate of the leachate from the disposal site will be orders
of magnitude smaller than that when the soil is saturated. As the waste
leachate approaches the zone of saturation, which is flowing approximately
perpendicular to the leachate, the flow or stream lines in the unsaturated
zone near the water table are altered by the presence of the water table.
The change in degree of water saturation and flow rate as the leachate
enters the groundwater results in a reduction in the leachate concentration.
The dilution is enhanced further as the leachate moves downgradient through
the aquifer.
The amount of dilution occurring depends upon the water flow rate
in both zones. This process can provide further attenuation of the
contaminant entering the saturated zone. Attenuation by dilution should
be given more serious consideration when evaluating a site for waste
disposal since it is considered by many to be the most important
attenuation mechanism.
Chemical Processes. There are three types of reactions which are
basically chemical in their nature: adsorption-desorption or cation
exchange, precipitation, and oxidation/reduction.
Adsorption-Desorption or Ion Exchange. The mobility of a
soluble hazardous constituent in a soil-water system is significantly
influenced by adsorption-desorption or cation-exchange reactions between
the constituent and soil. In order to quantitatively describe the
influence of adsorption on mobility, the adsorption-desorption or cation
exchange characteristics of the constituent and soil must be described
analytically. Numerous equations have been developed to describe the
58
-------
adsorption characteristics of various soluble constituents to soils. The
Freundlich, Langmuir, and first-order kinetic equations are the most
commonly-used adsorption equations. Adsorption equations based on
thermodynamics are difficult to use in systems as complex as hazardous
waste leachates because of the number of constituents present.
When a soil and waste constituent are combined, a specific fraction
of the constituent is associated with the solution phase and another
portion with the solid or soil phase. This partitioning between the
solid- and soil-water phases can be used to predict the mobility of a
constituent in a soil-water system. If the soil-water and adsorbed
phases are in equilibrium, their relationship to one another can
frequently be described with the Freundlich Equation:
S = KCN (1)
where: S is the adsorbed constituent concentration per mass of soil
(e.g., Mg/g)J C is the constituent concentration in solution (e.g.,
Mg/ml); and K and N are empirical coefficients that vary with the
constituent, composition of the waste, and soil.
Adsorption-desorption or cation exchange are the most common reactions
generally associated with the attenuation of hazardous constituents in
soils. However, when the reaction is reversible, which is generally the
case for cation exchange, the attenuation is only an apparent one
resulting from a reduction in constituent mobility. For example, the
larger the value of K in Equation (l), the less mobile the constituent is,
and the more time that is required for the contaminant to move to a given
depth in the soil. The mobility of a constituent is reduced because each
time a constituent is adsorbed to the soil phase, its migration is
temporarily stopped. As shown in Figure 7, when a constituent such as
+2
cadmium (Cd ) becomes adsorbed, it remains that way an average finite
time, t, (time for desorption to occur), before it is desorbed. In this
59
-------
time interval, its downstream motion through the soil pore is halted,
while a nonadsorbed constituent such as chloride (Cl ) continues to move
at the average pore-water velocity. Once the constituent is desorbed by
another cation, a mean time, t (time for adsorption to reoccur), elapses
a
before it is adsorbed again. During this time, the constituent is carried
forward at the mean pore-water velocity. Thus, the greater the t ., the
more adsorption and slower a given constituent moves. K in Equation (1)
is proportional to t ./t .
u a
td
FIGURE 7 ATTENUATION BY ADSORPTION/DESORPTION
If the pulse of leachate containing the contaminant is small, then
the maximum concentration of the contaminant in the soil water will be
attenuated owing to hydrodynamic dispersion. This is Illustrated in
Figure 8 where the dashed line represents a conservative ion (e.g.,
chloride) and the solid line represents a cation (e.g., cadmium) that
exchanges with other Ions on the solid phase of the soil as it moves
through the soil profile. Because of cation exchange, it takes five
times more water (320 cm versus 6k cm) to move the cadmium to the same
soil depth as that of the chloride. The spreading or smearing of the
constituent pulse as it moves through the soil profile is approximately
proportional to the square root of time. Because of ion exchange, part
of the constituent is now associated with the solid phase, and part is
60
-------
Constituent Concentration, C
50
f.
0)
Q
100
I = 8 cm
I = 64
150 -
I = 320 cm
• I = 64 cm
FIGURE 8 DISPERSION FOR CONSERVATIVE AND
NON-CONSERVATIVE IONS
The solid line represents a constituent that exchanges
with cations on the soil-solid phase and the dashed line
represents a conservative constituent such as chloride.
The water content of the soil Is 0.4 cm7cm3 and the
constituent concentration in the solution entering the
soil is 1.0. 1 is the amount of solution that has been
added at the soil surface. The initial eight cm of solution
entering the soil contained both constituents, whereas
that which followed contained neither constituent.
61
-------
in the soil-water phase. When the waste source is large and enters the
soil for a long time period, the maximum constituent concentration in
the soil water will not exhibit appreciable attenuation. However, if
the waste pulse is small in comparison to the vertical distance to the
water table, attenuation of the maximum concentration may be observed.
The mobility of a waste constituent will also be influenced by the
concentration of the substance in solution when the adsorption isotherm
is non-linear (e.g., N = 0.7 in Equation (l)). Figure 9 presents a
simulated relative-concentration distribution in a soil profile
receiving two input constituent concentrations (C = 10 and 5,OOOMg/ml),
C represents the input concentration or leachate concentration at the
waste-soil interface. For the simulations presented in the figure, the
soil bulk density, soil-water content by volume, average pore-water
3 33
velocity, and dispersion coefficient were 1.A g/cm , 0.3 cm /cm ,
2
3.0 cm/hr, and 1.0 cm /hr, respectively.
A pulse of leachate with a constituent concentration of C =10 and
5,000 /Lig/ml was introduced at the soil surface for 22 hours and followed
by an input of water without the constituent for an additional *»8 hours
(total of 70 hours). The curves in the figure were simulated assuming
adsorption was reversible and described by Equation (1). The figure
illustrates that a hazardous waste constituent will be more mobile at
high concentrations than at low concentrations when N is less than 1.0.
Both curves are asymmetrical in shape owing to the nonlinearity
(N = 0.7) of the adsorption isotherm. Results similar to those shown
have been observed for 2,4-D amine.
The cation-exchange capacity of a soil will vary with the type of
clay mineral present, quantity of clay, amount of organic matter, and,
in some instances, soil pH. Surface area of the solid phase has in
many cases been shown to be proportional to the K in Equation (1). In
general, increases in soil pH result in higher cation-exchange capacities.
However, over a pH range of 5 to 7, the increase in cation exchange
probably does not generally exceed 30 percent of the original value.
62
-------
Relative Concentration, C/Co
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
I I T
Co = 10 Mg/ml
s
= 4
34
C°
7
1.0
v = 3 cm/hr
t = 70 hrs
Co = 5,000 /u.g/mg
IDOL-
FIGURE 9 DISPERSION AS AFFECTED BY SOURCE
CONCENTRATION
Simulated relative 2^4-D concentration distributions in
the soil solution phase; the soil solution is flowing
through the pores at an average velocity, V, of 3 cm/hr.
63
-------
A major problem in defining the mobility of a given constituent in
a soil is that it varies with the composition of the waste and species
of initial cations on the soil-exchange complex. The exchange of metal
+2 +2 +2 +
cations (e.g., Cu , Zu , Cd , etc.) with common cations such as Na
+2 + +2
and Ca is reduced in the presence of large quantities of Na and Ca
This competition of exchange sites varies with each waste and soil.
From a practical standpoint, cation exchange does not effectively lower
the total-salt concentration in the soil water, and toxic metal cations
are not significantly retained by cation exchange under soil conditions
where soluble salts are present in high concentrations.
Prec ip itat ion. Adsorption and precipitation reactions are
difficult to distinguish from one another in soils. Both processes involve
the removal of a constituent from the soil water. Precipitation in the
following discussion will be defined in its strictest chemical sense,
i.e., formation of well-defined solid phases. Precipitation reactions
involving trace and heavy metals in soils are so closely related to pH
that it is nearly impossible to separate the two.
Numerous references can be cited to the effect that trace and heavy
metals, in general, form insoluble or very slightly soluble precipitates
at neutral or greater than neutral pH values. This is an effective
attenuation reaction in that it reduces both the maximum as well as the
total amount of a constituent in the soil water. Conversely, a decrease
in soil pH will result in an increase in the solubility of many
precipitates. The solubility of a group of common trace and heavy metal
compounds is given in Table 15. When a saturated aqueous solution of a
sparingly soluble salt such as PbSO, is prepared, the following equilibrium
exists:
Pb+2 + SO'2 (2)
-------
TABLE 15
SOLUBILITY PRODUCT CONSTANTS FOR VARIOUS COMPOUNDS*
Solubi1i ty P roduct
Substance Constant (mo1en/1n)
Carbonates
Cadmium carbonate 8.5 x 10~13
Cobolt carbonate 1. *4 x 1 0" 1 3
Cupric carbonate 2.3 x 10~10
Lead carbonate 7.3 x 10"1**
Zinc carbonate 1.6 x 10~^
Chlori des
Lead chloride 1.0 x TO"'4
Mercurous chloride 2.1 x 10~1^
Hydroxi des
Cadmium hydroxide 5.3 x 10~^5
Chromic hydroxide 7.0 x 10~3^
Cupric hydroxide 1.6 x 10~^9
Lead hydroxide ^.0 x 10"^
Mercuric hydroxide 3.0 x 10~2^
Zinc hydroxide 1.8 x 10"^
Sulfates
Q
Lead sulfate 1.06 x 10
Sulfides
Cadmium sulfide 3.6 x 10~29
Cobalt sulfide 3.0 x 10~26
Cupric sulfide 8.5 x 10~4->
Lead sulfide 3>.k x 10"28
Nickel sulfide 1.A x 10~2/*
Zinc sulfide 1.2 x 10~23
"These compounds could form from chemicals in wastewater
at approximately room temperature.
-------
2 2
The solubility product, K , for the above case is (Pb) X (SO.)
where (Pb) and (SO.) are expressed in moles of solute per liter of water.
Thus, the smaller the solubility product, the more sparingly soluble the
salt. The type of precipitate formed is dependent upon the composition of
the waste and the soil water and solid phases. Also, microbial activity
can significantly alter the soil pH and C02 concentration, which in turn
would change both the solubility of a precipitate and the forms In which
it could exist.
Hydrous oxides of Mn and Fe furnish the principal mechanisms for the
precipitation (attenuation) of Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn and other metals in
soils. Very small amounts of hydrous oxides of Mn and/or Fe are sufficient
to control the heavy-metal concentration in soil water and, thus, attenuate
or reduce the concentration of the constituent in the soil water. The
ultimate depth to which a constituent can move is significantly influenced
by the precipitation rate, constituent concentration in the soil water,
and velocity at which the soil water is flowing through the soil.
Precipitation results in a net decrease in the amount of a constituent
remaining in solution with time, whereas, for cation exchange, the amount
of an exchangeable constituent in the soil water does not change with time.
Since precipitation and adsorption occur simultaneously in the soil, it is
difficult to separate the two processes.
OxI dat ion/Reduction. Oxidation-reduction reactions influence
the mobility and attenuation of waste constituents (especially trace and
heavy metals). Most such reactions in soils are initiated by biological
activity. The inorganic ions released are free to take part in a
multitude of strictly chemical reactions. Oxidation-reduction reactions
in soils are important in a waste management program since oxidation can
be initiated to produce complexes and compounds that are less mobile.
Reduced forms are generally more soluble than oxidized forms of heavy
metals.
66
-------
Biological Processes
Biodegradation. Micro-organisms are an integral part of the
soil. The primary micro-organisms are bacteria, act inomycetes , fungi,
algae, and soil animals. These organisms transform waste components by
such processes as oxidation, reduction, mineralization, and immobilization.
The end products of these transformations are generally harmless, but some
toxic metabolites have been known to be produced.
The bacteria are the most numerous and biochemically active group.
Bacteria are responsible for such important processes as nitrification,
deni tri f i cat ion , nitrogen fixation, and sulfur transformations. The fungi
are involved in humus formation and certain mineral transformations.
The actinomycetes are very effective in transforming resistant organic
compounds. The nitrogen-fixing ability of algae in flooded soils is very
important agriculturally and ecologically. Earthworms are important in
maintaining the soil structure and aeration of certain soils.
The importance of soil micro-organisms to attenuation may not be
readily apparent at first, but they are quite important. Generally,
pesticides are transformed and/or degraded by micro-organisms to less
toxic compounds. For example:
2.A-D + 02 > C02 + H20 + Cl" ' (3)
or
2, + 02°xi^tlon 2, 1,-D Metabolite + 02 oxidation CQ2 +
H20 + Cl"
67
-------
A microbiological process common in municipal waste disposal is
denitrification. This reaction occurs under anaerobic conditions in the
presence of a carbon source. For example:
NO N02 N2, N20 (gases) (5)
These reactions represent attenuation processes that are irreversible;
thus, these reactions should be employed or encouraged were possible.
o
Sufficiency of Attenuation
The degree of attenuation required for a waste constituent is
generally established based upon that necessary for the maintenance of
an acceptable groundwater quality. Two factors impact on this goal:
identification of the amount of waste constituent that will be attenuated
for a given waste disposal site, and definition of acceptable groundwater
quality. ° Groundwater quality limits are established from limits set for
safe drinking water (Table 16). In a number of instances the natural
groundwater quality may be poor. Under these conditions, background data
and the advice of State and Federal government agencies should be consulted
for groundwater quality constraints. From these sources and guidelines,
the required groundwater quality can be established and the required
attenuation for a given site and waste constituent can be identified.
In general, no single process or reaction (physical, chemical, or
biological) is responsible for the total observed attenuation of a waste
constituent. For example, the cadmium solution concentration is reduced
as a result of chemical and biological processes which produce
precipitation, with these latter reactions occurring near the waste
application site. The equilibrium cadmium solution concentration depends
upon the chemical form of the precipitate and its solubility (Table 15).
Attenuation of the cadmium by precipitation may not be sufficient to meet
drinking water standards (Table 16); however, the dilution that occurs as
the cadmium enters the zone of saturation below the waste disposal site
68
-------
TABLE 16
DRINKING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Parameter
CHEMICAL • INORGANIC. mg/L
Arsenic
Bar i um
Cadmium
Chloride
if.
Chromium (Cr )
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nitrate - Nitrogen
Selenium
SI Ivor
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Zinc
CHEMICAL - ORGANIC, mg/L
A Iky I Benzene Sulfonate (ABS)
Used before 1965
Carbon Chloroform Extract (CCE)
Phenols
PHYSICAL
Turbidity. TU
Color, Units
EPA 1977
National Interim
Primary Drinking
Water Standards
Odor, Number
PESTICIDES -
mg/L
(a) Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
(Insecticides)
Endrln
Llndane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphona
(b) Chlorphenoxys (Herbicides)
2.<»-0 (Dlchlorophenoxy
acetic acid)
2.^,5-TP Silvex (Trichloro-
phanoxyprop Ionic acid)
Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLS)
0.05
1 .0
0.010
0.05
0.2
Limits set according to
annual average of Che
maximum dally air temperatures
0.05
O.OOZ
10
0.01
0.05
0.7
1 desirable
5 max.
0.0002
0.004
O.t
0.005
O.I
0.01
USPHS 1962 Drinking
Uater Standards
Recommended
Limi t
0.01
250
1
0.01
'•3
0.3
0.05
to
250
500
5
0.5
0.2
0.001
5 max.
15
3
69
-------
may provide the necessary attenuation to meet groundwater-quality standards.
The sufficiency of attenuation Is thus achieved through a series of reactions
and not one single reaction.
Obviously the greater the amount of waste applied at a given site,
the greater the amount of leachate that will be produced with time, and
the greater the potential for adverse environmental impact. The amount
of waste alone, however, is not generally as important as: the type of
waste applied, the concentration of the potential contaminants within
that waste, and the solubility of those potential contaminants. The
rate of hydrologic flux or flushing of the waste by rain which infiltrates
and moves through the landfill to produce the leachate is also of
significant importance. Undiverted surface water runoff onto the site
and groundwater flow within the base of the site can also contribute to
this hydrologic flux.
A very important factor in the waste management aspect to minimize
the hydrologic flux is the type and permeability of the cover material
used at the disposal site. The permeability of the cover material will
control the rate of water movement through the waste, and, therefore,
the rate of leachate migration through the soil to the underlying water
table. A slow rate of leachate migration from a disposal site, in many
cases, can result in significant attenuation due to hydrodynamic dispersion
and dilution of the leachate constituents in both the unsaturated and
saturated portions of the flow system by soil water and grounflwater,
particularly the latter. In this way, the "attenuation capacity" of the
site is not exceeded. Management of the waste disposal site resulting
in slow rates of leachate migration, however, will prolong the active
life of the site undergoing biological and chemical degradation and
leachi ng.
70
-------
The sufficiency of attenuation for a given waste constituent may
be acceptable at one site and inadequate at another location owing to
differences in hydrology. Arid regions in the United States have had
fewer groundwater contamination problems resulting from waste disposal
operations than the more humid regions for this reason. This difference,
however, does not mean that greater attenuation exists under arid
conditions. In the arid regions, less water passes through the unsaturated
zone per year; thus, it takes longer for a constituent to travel a given
distance in the soil. Also, the arid-region soils frequently have a
higher soil pH, which is beneficial in reducing the toxic- and heavy-metals
concentration in the soil water by precipitation.
Good management practices and economic considerations also affect
the sufficiency of attenuation. Many disposal operations have developed
leachate problems with significant adverse environmental impacts due to
poor management practices even though the engineering design and site
characterization were sound. Operational functions, such as depth of
filling, proper placement and maintenance of cover material, and
acceptance and concentration of liquid wastes, are examples of poor
management practices. In addition, the emphasis on disposal operations
today is the large multi-lift landfill due to the economy of scale and
the great difficulty in acquiring disposal sites. Such "mega-sites" in
many instances automatically preclude the reliance on attenuation due to
the great potential for exceeding the attenuation capacity of the given
si te.
Because of the number of reactions that may occur within the
unsaturated and saturated zone of soil, it is difficult to simulate the
behavior of a specific waste constituent. Many of the conceptual models
that have been developed are complex with numerous coefficients and
parameters. Calibration of these models has established the coefficients
and parameters for a given waste constituent and site, but these values
may or may not be applicable to another waste and/or site. Therefore,
71
-------
procedures are needed to measure these coefficients independently. With
reliable models, the sufficiency of attenuation could be better
established prior to waste application for a given waste and site as well
as the management procedures necessary to ensure such sufficiency of
attenuation.
72
-------
SECTION V
SUMMARY OF POLLUTION PREDICTION TECHNIQUES
Introduction
Numerous research activities are currently underway to define and
to clarify the various attenuation mechanisms and their importance in
the renovation of municipal and industrial solid, liquid, and sludge
wastes. Much research is also being conducted for developing additional
techniques that will provide an assessment of the potential for
pollution of surface and groundwaters in a given waste/soil situation.
Interviews were conducted therefore with a number of non-regulatory
experts engaged in work related to the attenuation of wastes and the
development of pollution prediction techniques. A list of those experts
contacted and their affiliatfon can be found in Table 17. A contact
form which summarizes the interviews and pertinent material published
by each expert and their associates is found in Appendix B (arranged
alphabetically). Concise comments on the approach taken, state of
development, and availability as a prediction technique are given. A
more detailed presentation and assessment of those techniques which
warrant consideration for further development is given below and in
Section VII, Recommended Development Plans.
Interviews were also conducted with selected regulatory agencies,
both domestic and foreign, to identify and to assess their waste disposal
permitting procedures. A listing of those regulatory agencies contacted,
the rationale for their selection, and an overall assessment of their
permitting procedures is given in Section VI, Regulatory Agency
Practices. The permit procedures identified that are presently being
used by these regulatory agencies are Criteria Listing and Classification
System.
73
-------
TABLE 17
NON-REGULATORY EXPERTS CONTACTED
Dr.L. Boersma
Or. Eugene Elzy
Or. Thomas Lindstrom
Oregon State University
Dr. Herman Bouwer
U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory
Mr. John 0. Bredehoeft
U.S. Geological Survey
Or. J. Bromley
Dr. A. Parker
Dr. O.C. WiIson
Dr. I. Karri son
Harwell Laboratory
Institute of Geological Sciences
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Mr. Nolan A. Curry
Private Consultant
Or. El Iiot Epstein
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Dr. Graham J. Farquhar
University of Waterloo
Dr. AlIan Freeze
Geologic Survey
British Co Iumb i a
Dr. Wallace H. Fuller
University of Arizona
Dr. James Glbb
Illinois State Water Survey
Dr. Eugene A. Glysson
University of Michigan
Dr. Robert A. Griffin
Dr. Neil F. Shimp
Dr. Keros Cartwright
Illinois State Geologic Survey
Dr. D. Joseph Hagerty
University of Louisville
Dr. Robert K. Ham
University of Wisconsin
Mr. Martin J. Houle
Ougway Proving Ground
Department of Army
Or. Lenny Konikow
Mr. David Grova
U.S. Geological Survey
Dr. Donald Langmuir
Pennsylvania State University
Mr. Harry i. LeGrand
Private Consultant
Dr. Hans rtoolj
Environment Canada
Dr. Michael R. Overcash
North Carolina State University
Mr. John G. Pacey
Emcon, Inc.
Dr. Albert L. Page
University of Callfornia--
at Riverside
Or. Col 1 in R. Phil Iips
Chemical Engineering Research
Consultants, Ltd.
Dr. George Pinder
Dr. Robert deary
Dr. M. van Genuchten
Princeton University
Dr. Frederick G. Pohland
Dr. Wendel I Cross
Mr. James Hudson
Georgia Institute of Technology
Mr. Frank A. Rovers
Conestoga - Rovers and Associates
Dr. Dwight A. Sangrey
Cornel 1 Univers I ty
Mr. Michael J. Stiff
Mr. P.J. Maris
Mr. Chris Young
Water Research Centre
(Medmenham Lab)
Stevenage, United Kingdom
Mr. William H. Walker
Geraghty & Miller
Or. Raul Zaltzman
West Virginia University
-------
The interviews with these regulatory agencies and non-regulatory
experts have resulted in the identification of procedures which
warrant further consideration as "standard" waste disposal-siting
procedures.
s The procedures identified to date can be categorized as follows:
© Cri teria Li st ing.
© Cri ter ia Ranking.
© Matrix.
©Classification System (Decision Tree).
e Models (Mathematical).
9 Laboratory Simulation (e.g., soil columns).
For each of these procedures, a description, its state of development
and application, an assessment of its advantages and disadvantages, and
its availability as a "standard" decision procedure are presented. It is
noteworthy that a number of the techniques identified are interrelated
(e.g., Criteria Listing with each of the others) or constitute "sub-routines"
within a more comprehensive decision procedure (e.g., column studies with
the classification system).
While many promising procedures are under development or have in
fact been developed, only the Criteria Listing and Classification
System approaches have been sufficiently tested to be routinely used.
In addition, due to the complex nature and definition of attenuation
mechanisms, and.the number of approaches that are available both to
define these interactions and to predict the resultant pollution
potential, it must be emphasized that differences of opinion exist
among both the experts and the regulatory agencies.
75
-------
Criteria Listing
Descri ption. The most basic and universally-applied decision
procedure identified is that of Criteria Listing. This approach is
utilized to a varying degree by each of the regulatory agencies
contacted, both domestic and foreign.
The Criteria Listing approach consists of listing factors for both
waste and site characterization and of obtaining data to adequately
define each factor listed. An assessment of these data is then made
on the basis of the ability (or lack of it) for a given site to
attenuate or renovate a given waste. When a given waste/site situation
does not lend itself to the prevention of adverse environmental impacts
(particularly groundwater pollution), the waste/site characteristics
must be evaluated from the standpoint of containment or "storage". Such
containment of wastes must be provided by virtue of the natural site
conditions, with reliance predominantly on the natural low permeability
of the deposits or on the utilization of engineered modifications such
as 1iners.
The basic elements of the Criteria Listing approach are as follows:
o Waste characterization - type, amount, physical characteristics,
chemical characteristics, and biological characteristics.
o Site characterization - location, topography, climatology, land use,
soils, geology, and hydrology.
In the Criteria Listing approach, quantitative data are obtained,
but there is no attempt to rank or assign weighted values to the criteria,
with the result that each is assumed to have equal importance in the
assessment of pollution potential.
State of Development/Application. A composite waste characterization
has been compiled by the contractor based on those regulatory agencies
contacted, as shown in Table 18.
76
-------
Type:
Amount:
Physical
Chemical
TABLE 18
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION — CRITERIA LISTING*
Industrial
SIC
Plant name/location
Waste stream
Municipal - Specify waste/source
Other - Specify waste/source
Volume or weight
Rate of generation
Sol id
Liquid
Sludge
PH
Toxici ty
Major constituents
Minor constituents
B iological; Degradabi1ity
Organic content
^(compiled by Weston)
A detailed and generally complete Criteria Listing has been compiled
for site characterization as shown in Table 19. The criteria are those
that would both independently and dependently affect site suitability and
the prediction of pollution potential. The predominant dependent
influence of these criteria results from complex interrelationships
among the parameters. For example, the mere presence of limestone (as
an independent variable) may lead to the prediction of a high potential
for pollution of groundwater. Other pertinent parameters which act in
a dependent manner and require evaluation for an adequate assessment of
the pollution potential in a given waste disposal situation on limestone
77
-------
TABLE 19
SITE CHARACTERIZATION — CRITERIA LISTING*
c
O
Q) It
4-J 0
to oc
0) 4-'
4-> c;
to o
i o
ro
— I/)
a>
o
o i-
>+- 3
— O
ui
OJ (!)
C
U
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Site Location
Topographic Map
Site Boundaries
Topographic Setting
Topography
LAND USE - Surrounding Site
Water Wells
Spri ngs
Swamps
Streams
Reserve!rs
Other Bodies of Water
Sinkholes
Underground and/or Surface Mines
Mine Pool Discharge Points
Mining Spoil Piles or Mine Dumps
Quarries
Sand and Gravel Pits
Gas and Oil Wells
Diversion Ditches
Water Quality Monitoring Points
Occupied Dwellings
Roads
Power Lines
0)
-. g >.
0) O CO
O C
0)
01
UJ C
o o
C 0)
o
o
o c
0)
a>
— ui — o
o oc — a.
o_
i
03
O —
i/i O
c c
— o
z: o
4->
C.
I1
4J
U
03
ca-
ll)
O
1
4-1
OJ
>
l_
0)
I/)
o
(_>
03
4_l
i
4->
C
(U
E
4-1
1_
o>
QL
(U
Q
1
.—
c
0)
I/I
0)
u
i_
3
0
in
a)
a:
"TO
JJJ
c
i
-o
i- oj
01 O
4-1 CO
03
u-
O
,,,
i_
4->
.!2
c
z
4->
C
£
c
0
1_
O O
(U
c
>- o
UI !_
c —
c >
a) c
a. u)
oi —
X 03
d) 3
I- Cf
o >
— c
ro
c
o
0)
*Black denotes information specifically requested,
78
-------
TABLE 19
(CONTINUED)
(TJ
C
o
C.
O
tft
a)
c
0)
in
C
c
0)
Q.
'.M
fO
X
a)
C
o
Pipelines
Public BuiIdings
Abandoned Canal
Public Park
CLIMATOLOGY
Precipitation Data
Maximum
Average
Maximum Monthly
Station of Record
Length of Historical Record
Runoff
Flooding Frequency
Source of Information
SOILS
Auger Holes (Borings)
Backhoe Pits
SCS Mapping
Physical Properties
Texture (USDA)
Depth to Mott1 ing
Depth to Fragipan
% Coarse Fragments
Permeability (Percolation)
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Sieve Analysis
Chemical Properties
Soil pH
Cation Exchange Capacity
79
-------
TABLE 19
(CONTINUED)
(0
c
i_
o
O
C
(/)
u —
o >-
3 c
0) 0)
z o.
0)
c
o
GEOLOGY
Backhoe Pits
Borings
Description of Geologic
Profile
Consolidated Deposits
Bedrock Type(s)
Formation Name
Outcrop
Degree of Weathering
Depth to Bedrock
Unconsolidated Deposits
Type(s)
Formation Name
Texture
Structure
Fold Axis
Bedding Planes
Joint Planes
Fault Planes
Fracture Traces
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water
Distance to Nearest Body
Type
Quality
Ground Water
Depth to Water Table
Maximum
Minimum
Location and Date
Measured
Seasonal Fluctuations
80
-------
TABLE 19
(CONTINUED)
-
c
(0
in
c
c
4)
O-
TO
C
o
Depth to Perched Water
Table
Direction(s) of Flow
Rate of Flow
Point(s) of Discharge
Aquifer Characteristics
Monitoring Points
Number
Locat ion
Type
Quality
Baseine
Frequency of Sampling
Specified Parameters
_J
81
-------
bedrock are: the thickness, texture, and drainage characteristics of
soils overlying this bedrock; the lithology, actual degree of fracturing,
and solution activity in the bedrock; and the depth to the water table.
The format for this site-characterization Criteria Listing is
Module 5A- Supplementary Geology and Groundwater Information — which is
used by the Division of Solid Waste Management and the Division of Water
Quality Management, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Table 15 presents those site factors considered in Criteria Listing by
Pennsylvania and five other states as well as the Province of Ontario.
The required criteria are those that are specifically listed in the
guidelines, rules and regulations, or permit applications currently in
effect for each agency. In certain cases, a "hydrogeologic report" is
required which may not individually require the criteria shown in the
table, but would in fact require that those items be described. This
table does give some indication of the variable degree of detail required
by those regulatory agencies contacted.
It is noteworthy that the Criteria Listing approach is used by such
regulatory agencies as the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Netherlands Institute for Waste
Disposal, West Germany Bavarian Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Personnel in each of these agencies
have stated that the decision for waste/site permitting is based upon
objective description and quantification of both waste and site
characteristics, the combined expertise of the permit review personnel,
and by comparison with empirical data generated from existing analogous
waste/site disposal situations. In the final analysis, therefore, a
subjective decision is made based upon utilization of objective data and
analysis to the degree that the data will permit.
82
-------
It is important to realize that there is near unanimous agreement
among the experts, both regulatory and non-regulatory, that the final
decision for approval or denial of a waste permit must be made by the
multidisciplinary review personnel, using but not relying totally on
the pollution prediction techniques available to them. This fact results
from the realization that there are complex interrelationships between
waste/site characteristics which are variable in space and time.
Furthermore, these interrelationships are not sufficiently understood
at present, nor are expected to be sufficiently understood in the
foreseeable future to place complete reliance on the prediction techniques.
This is not to say that other procedures do not exist which will prove
invaluable aids in making the final decision, but rather, each waste/site
situation can be taken to be somewhat unique and, therefore, judgment
value and subjective decision making will always be necessary. It is
important to realize that economic, political and legal considerations
must also be given.
Assessment. There are both advantages and disadvantages to the
use of Criteria Listing as a pollution prediction technique. The
advantages of this approach by comparison with the other techniques
are described as follows:
1. Data Requirements - The data requirements for the Criteria
Listing approach are comprehensive in that waste-specific data
are required for waste characterization. In addition, site-
specific data are required to describe soils, geology,
groundwater, and groundwater/surface water interrelationships
for site characterization. Quantitative data are also required
to adequately define the aerial distribution and variation
with depth of the various deposits present at a given site.
This approach provides the application reviewer with a
three-dimensional definition of the physical features present
83
-------
at the site in order to better assess their impact on
attenuation of waste leachates for prevention of groundwater
pollution. This approach also affords an assessment of the
range in values or variations of the quantitative data defined.
2. Moderate Cost/Expertise Requirements - This approach is
generally used at moderate cost and expertise requirements in
comparison with the other techniques. However, this approach
requires the application of a great deal of judgment on the
part of the reviewer. Therefore, a high level of expertise of
the various disciplines involved with waste site assessment
(e.g., soils, geology, environmental and chemical engineering,
and biology) would be beneficial to the permitting process.
3. Presently Being Used - The Criteria Listing approach is the
most universal approach taken by consultants for assessment and
design of waste disposal facilities, and by regulatory agencies
which permit such facilities.
There are potential disadvantages, however, to the use of Criteria
Listing as a decision procedure. The disadvantages of this approach are
as follows:
1. No Quantification of Pollution Potential - Utilization of this
approach does not result in a direct quantification of the
pollution potential. Rather, an assessment is made based upon
experience, data development for the site in question, and by
comparison with empirical data developed at other sites for the
pollution potential at the proposed site. As such, the
assessment of a candidate site relies heavily on the level of
expertise of the reviewing personnel.
-------
2. Potential High Cost - Variation and complexities in the natural
site conditions may result in a high cost to the applicant to
obtain the quantitative data necessary for site assessment.
This potential cost can be avoided by terminating further site
investigations once this condition is recognized. The actual
cost can also be offset by the value associated with obtaining
a site in a critical location.
A summary assessment of the pros and cons of Criteria Listing is
given in Table 20.
TABLE 20
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF CRITERIA LISTING
Pros
• Site-specific and quantitative data identified.
• Comprehensive site description.
• Presently used by regulatory agencies.
• Moderate cost/expertise requirements.
• Applies to hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
Cons
• No quantification of pollution potential.
• Potential high costs.
• Reliability largely dependent on the expertise of agency
review personnel.
Availabi1i ty. The Criteria Listing represents an on-line decision
procedure presently being used by research groups, consultants, and
regulatory agencies in each of the states contacted for the design and
permitting of land disposal facilities. It must be re-emphasized that
85
-------
the assessment of the pollution potential relies largely on the level of
expertise of the reviewing personnel. Despite this limitation, the
Criteria Listing approach is and will continue to be a major decision
procedure due to the basic site and waste characterization data which it
defines.
Criteria Ranking
Descri ption. Criteria Ranking approaches have been developed by
several investigators and were intended to enable decision-making personnel
to determine whether or not the placement of a waste in a specific land
site would have a deleterious effect on the surrounding landfill ecosystem.
Approaches have been developed which rate or rank waste and landfill sites
individually in order to allow a quantitative numerical comparison of
various wastes and sites to one another. These Criteria Ranking systems
are based on measurements or estimates of waste and site parameters which
are arbitrarily weighted based on their potential impact on the environment.
State of Development/Application. Criteria Ranking approaches
developed to date were intended to serve as a first step in waste and site
evaluation that was to be verified and upgraded by others. Unfortunately,
the Criteria Ranking systems developed to date have not been adequately
ve r i f i ed.
LeGrand-Brown Numerical Rating System. A Criteria Ranking approach
has been developed by LeGrand and Brown (1977) which is described as a
Numerical Rating System. This system, entitled, "Evaluation of Ground
Water Contamination Potential from Waste Disposal Sources" (see
LeGrand-Brown Contact form, Appendix B), replaces the earlier point
count system developed by LeGrand in 196** entitled, "System for Evaluation
of Contamination Potential from Some Waste Disposal Sites".
86
-------
The Numerical Rating System is based upon the experience gained by
many individuals to establish the more favorable and least favorable
conditions for prevention of ground water contamination. Four key
hydrogeological factors or variables are used. These four factors which
are considered to represent the simplest and most easily determined and
effective factors for a wide variety of applications are as follows:
1. Distance from a contamination source to the nearest well or
point of water use;
2. Depth to the water table;
3. Gradient of the water table;
A. Permeability and sorption capacity of the subsurface materials
through which the contaminant is likely to pass. (Permeability
and sorption were separate factors in the earlier point count
system).
The Numerical Rating System has been developed by assigning a 0
rating for the least favorable setting for each factor and a 9 rating
(5 in one case) for the most favorable setting for each factor as shown
on Table 21. Intermediate numerical values will be defined by
interpolating between the least favorable and the most favorable settings
on a scale or nomograph. For each site, the estimated numerical value
for each of the four factors is added, and the total expressed is the num-
ber between 0 and 32 that characterizes the site.
As shown on Table 21 the rating and expression of identifying
characteristics are performed in steps. The first four steps involve
the recording of estimated values for each of the four hydrogeological
parameters indicated above. The fifth step is accomplished by adding
87
-------
TABLE 21
COMPLETION OF NUMERICAL RATING
oo
oo
KEY HYDROLOGIC FACTORS
STEP 1
Point Value 0
Determine distance on Distance in feet 30
ground between contami-
nation source and water *Where
supply
Record Point Value
STEP 2
Estimate the depth
. to water table
Record Point Value
1 2* 3 4 5
50 75 100 150 200
water table lies in permeable
6 7
89
300 500 1000 2500 or more
consolidated
rocks (II in Step 4) ,
no more than 2 (followed by •) points ^should be allotted on distance
scale
Point Value
Depth in feet of water
table below base of con-
tamination source more
than 57, of the year
.
0 1 2* 3 4 5
0 2.4 7 15 25
6 7
50 75
8 9
100 200 or more
*Where wateV table lies in permeable or moderately permeable
consolidated rocks (II in Step
4) , no more
by •) points should be allotted, regardless
STEP 3
Estimate water-
table gradient
from contami-
nation site
Record Point Value
Point Value 0
Water-table gradient
gradient and greater
flow direction than 2
(related, in percent
part, to land toward
slope) water supply
and is the
anticipated
direction
of flow
to water table.
1 2
gradient gradient
greater less than
than 2 2 percent
percent toward water
toward supply and
water supply is the
but not the anticipated
anticipated direction of
direction flow
of flow
3
gradient
less than 2
percent
toward water
supply but
not the
anticipated
direction of
flow
than 2 (followed
of greater depth
4 5
gradient gradient
almost away from
flat all water
supplies
that are
closer
than
2500 feet
--'from LeGrand and Brown, 1977
-------
TABLE 21
(continued)
oo
STEP 4
Estimate
permeability-
sorption for the
site of the con-
tamination source.
(See Sect. 5.1)
o
Record Point
Value
Point Value is
determined from
Matrix.
For single type
of unconsolldated
material over
bedrock, point value
is determined by its
thickness alone. For
combination of uncon-
solidated materials,
point value must be
interpolated.
Thin Even
Clean Clean Clean Sand with Layers of Mixture
Coarse Coarse Fine a Little Sand and Clayey of Sand Sandy
Gravel Sand Sand Clay Clay Sand and Clay Clay Clay
(1)
100+
100
«T> 90
S 2 80
** -S u 70
52 ?i 60
S 1 ° 50
«i o a .* 40
1 I S 2 30
•2 2 £ 20
S "S 3 S 10
(2) 0
I II
3A OA
OB OJ
OB OJ
OC OK
OC OL
OD OL
OD OM
OE OM
OF ON
OG OP
OH OQ
5Z OZ
I II
OA OA
OB OJ
OB OJ
OC OK
OC OL
OD OL
OE OM
OE OM
OF ON
OG OP
OH OQ
5Z OZ
I II
2A 2A
2B 2D
2B IE
2B IE
2B IF
2C IF
2C 1C
IB OS
1C OT
ID OU
OQ 0V
5Z OZ
I II
4A 4A
4B 3D
4B 3D
4B 3D
4C 3E
4C 2E
AC 2E
4D 2F
3B 2F
3C 1H
2D U
5Z OZ
I II
5A 5A
5B 4H
5B 4H
5B 4H
5C 4J
5C 3G
4D 3G
4E 3H
4F 3H
4G 2G
3F 1J
5Z OZ
I II
6A 6A
5D 4K
5D 4K
5D 4K
5E 4L
5E 3J
5F 3J
5F 3K
5G 2G
5H 2H
4G U
5Z OZ
I II
7 A 7A
7B 5K
6B 5K
6B AM
6C AM
6C AN
6D 3J
6E 3K
6F 2J
5H 2K
5J IK
5Z OZ
I II
8A 8A
8B 6K
7C 5L
7C 5L
7D AP
7D AP
7E AQ
6G AQ
6G 3L
6H 2L
6J 1L
5Z OZ
I II
9A 9A
9B 61-
8C 6h
8C 5h
8D 5^
8D 51*
8E AR
7F AS
7G 3h
7H 3N
6L 2f
5Z OZ
100+
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I - over shale or other poorly permeable, consolidated rock
II - over permeable or moderately permeable, consolidated rocks (some bgsalts, highly
fractured Igneous and metamorphlc rocks, and cavernous carbonate rocks - also
fault zones).
(1) - suffix A means because of depth, bedrock is not to be considered, for example, a
coastal plain situation (see sect. 5.1)
(2) - suffix Z means bedrock is at surface, I.e., there is no soil (see sect. 5.1)
STEP 5
Add all Point Values
determined in Steps
1 through 4 above.
Record Total
Point Value
Total Point Value
Description of Site
in Relative Hydro-
geologlc Terms only.
(without regard to
type of contaminant . )
0-5 6-7
VERY POOR to POOR
because one or
more key factors
must have values
of less than 2.
8-13
FAIR
if no
separate
value is
less
than 2
14 - 20
GOOD to
if all
separate
values
are 3 or
greater
21 - 25
VERY GOOD
If all
separate
values
are 3 or
greater
26 - 32
EXCELLENT
if all
separate
values are
3 or
greater
-------
TABLE 21
(continued)
STEP 6
Sensitivity of
Aquifer (choose
appropriate category)
SPECIAL SITE IDENTIFIER SUFFIXES
B
A permeable, extensive
aquifer capable of easy
contamination.
Aquifer of moderate
permeability not likely
to be contaminated over
a large area from a single
contamination source.
Limited aquifer of low
permeability, or slight
contamination potential
from a source.
STEP 7
Degree of confidence
in accuracy of rating
values (choose
appropriate category)
B
Confidence in estimates
.of ratings for the para-
meters is high, and
estimated ratings are
considered to be fairly
accurate
Confidence in estimates
of ratings for the
parameters is fair
Confidence in estimates of
ratings for the parameters is
low, and estimated ratings are
not considered to be accurate
--D
O
STEP 8
Miscellaneous
Identifiers
(add if
appropriate)
A. Alluvial valley - a common hydrogeologic setting - especially Important because of the
general high permeability and prevalence of down-gradient water supplies
B. Designates property boundary when ground distance from a contamination site is to
boundary rather than to a water supply
C. Special conditions require that a comment or explanation be added to the evaluation
D. Cone of pumping depression near a contamination source, which may cause contaminated
ground water to be diverted toward the pumped well
E. Distance recorded Is that from a water supply to the estimated closest edge of an
existing plume rather than to the original source of contamination
F. Indicates the contamination source is located on a ground water discharge area, such as
a flood plain, and would likely cause minimal ground water contamination
M. Mounding of the water table beneath a contamination site - common beneath waste sites
where there is liquid input or reduced infiltration capacity
P. Percolation may not be adequate - the permeabllity-sorption digit suggests the degree to
which percolation may be a problem, a digit of 7 or more being a special warning of
poor percolation
Q. Designates a "recharge or transmission" part of an extensive aquifer that is sensitive to
contamination - may be suggested by a low rating on the permeabillty-sorption scale and
A or B rating for Step 6
S. Indicates that the most likely water supply to be contaminated is a surface stream,
rather than a well or spring
-------
TABLE 21
(continued)
STEP 9
Completion of
site numerical
rating
COMPLETION OF NUMERICAL RATING '.
The total point value determined in Step 5 is recorded and then followed in sequence by the
individual point values for the four key hydrogeologlc factors: distance, depth to water table,
water-table gradient, and permeability-sorption.This is followed, in turn, by the special site
identifier suffixes: aquifer sensitivity, degree of confidence, and miscellaneous identifiers.
An example of a site rating with brief explanations and .interpretations is shown below.
Full explanations of site ratings are in Sections 5.0 and 6.0.
Step 3
Gradient
Step 2
Water Table
Step 1
Distance
Step 5
Total Rating
Step 4
Perraeability-sorption
Step 6
Aquifer Sensitivity
Step 7
Degree of Confidence
Step 8
Miscellaneous Identifier
12-5025ABBM
Explanation of sequence of digits and letters
12 - Total point value as shown in Step 5
5 - The first digit is rating for ground distance - Step 1
0 - The second digit is rating for depth to water table - Step 2
2 - The third digit is rating for water-table gradient - Step 3
5 - The fourth digit is rating for permeability-sorption - Step 4
A - Represents a closely defined position (5A) In pertneabllity-sorption scale - Step
B - Represents sensitivity of an aquifer to be contaminated - Step 6
B - Represents degree of confidence or reliability of overall rating - Step 7
M - Indicates special conditions (mounding of water table in this case) - Step'8
-------
the separate point values determined in the four steps and describing
the site in relative terms on a scale from very poor to excellent. It
should be emphasized that descriptive terms are only expressions of the
site hydrogeologic conditions relative to those conditions for all
possible sites and do not relate to a site in terms of specific wastes
or contaminant characteristics.
A useful feature of this updated Numerical Rating System is that
a given site may rate high on several parameters and be unacceptable
because of the serious problem of one of the parameters. For example,
the site may be ideal in all respects except for a high water table.
The total point value from Step 5 is, therefore, not expected to stand
alone, but is followed in sequence with the values of the separate
parameters which allows both the weak and strong features of the site
to be graphically recorded.
The Numerical Rating System is designed to provide a quick assessment
on a first round or preliminary basis of the contamination potential
from a given waste disposal site, but it is not intended to be adequate
or substitute for a more detailed study that will in most cases be
required. The authors state that two apparent problems with the system
are the need for good data and the skill required to use the system.
They go on to state that, "the relation between certain factors is not
always distinctive and the determination of specific values for such
factors as permeability, sorption, and water table gradient woud be
almost impossible to obtain at early stages of a particular evaluation
of contamination potential". They further state that, "the proper weight
to be assigned to values of each factor and a good formulation of these
values are difficult". Rough approximate values of the factors are
readily available at early stages for many waste disposal situations and
serves as a useful qualitative evaluation on a preliminary basis.
Examples of application of these systems to septic tank operations,
92
-------
sanitary landfills, water lagoons, non-point contamination sources on
land, and burial grounds for radioactive and other toxic wastes are
given. In addition, a series of questions and problems with discussion
relating to the use of the Numerical Rating System is also provided.
Pavoni, Hagerty, and Lee Rating System. Another Criteria
Ranking system was developed by Pavoni, Hagerty, and Lee in 1971~1972
and published as Environmental Impact Evaluation of Hazardous Waste
Disposal in Land. (See Hagerty contact form, Appendix B.) This
procedure was intended to serve as a decision-making tool to determine:
(1) the hazardousness of various waste substances; (2) the suitability
•of various land sites to contain waste substances; and (3) the feasibility
of disposing of a specific waste substance at a specific site.
This procedure basically encompasses two ranking formulae: one for
waste products, and one for landfill sites. Each ranking formula is
comprised of weighted parameters which characterize the waste or site.
Waste parameters which were interpreted to result in direct impairment
to living organisms were weighted highest, followed in order by parameters
which indicated persistence in the environment, and parameters which
indicated mobility in landfill ecosystems. Site parameters which would
immediately affect waste transmission were weighted highest, followed in
order by parameters which would affect waste transmission once the waste
was in contact with water, parameters which characterized the receiving
groundwater, and parameters which represented factors outside the
immediate disposal site.
93
-------
The five waste ranking formulae developed by Pavoni, Hagerty, and
Lee are as follows:
• Human Toxicity (HT) - Range of 0 to 39
Ht = 13 Sr
where Sr = Sax rating
• Groundwater Toxicity (Gt) - Range of 0 to A2
Gt = 6 (1* - log Cc)
where Cc = smallest critical concentration (mg/1) for humans,
aquatic life, or plants.
but if Cc > 1CT mg/1, Gt = 0
and if Cc < 10"3 mg/1, Gt = ^2
• Disease Transmission Potential (Dp) - Range of 0 to 105
Dp based on mode of disease contraction, pathogen life state, and
ability of pathogen to survive in various environments
« Biological Persistence (Bp) - Range of 0 to 16
Bp = 16 [ 1 - BOD )
\ TOD/
where BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand of waste
TOD = Theoretical oxygen demand of waste
® Waste Mobility (M) - Range of 0 to 16
M=7-c+logs
where c = net valence of waste
s = solubility of waste (mg/1) in water
The total waste rank is developed by totaling the results of the
five waste-ranking formulae as follows:
Hazardous Waste Rank = Ht + Gt + Dp + Bp + M
9**
-------
The hazardousness of a waste is then correlated with its total
waste rank as follows:
Rank
0-30
31-60
61-80
> 80
Hazardousness
Nonhazardous
SIightly hazardous
Moderately hazardous
Hazardous
Examples of waste rankings were developed by Pavoni, Hagerty, and
Lee and are shown as follows:
Waste Compound
Waste Paper
Inert Ash
Sulfur
Anthracene
Steel Wool
Benzole Acid
Ferrous Sulfate
2 Ethyl Hexanol -1
Prop ionic Acid
Monoethanolamine
Furfural
Aluminum Oxide
Maiic Anhydride
Napthlene
Acetic Acid
Acridine
Methyl Bromide
DDT
Aluminum Sulfate
Ani1ine
Copper Sulfate
Phenol
Acetone Cyanhydrin
Cadmium Chloride
Potassium Cyanide
Dieldrin
Primary Sludge
Arsenic Diethyl
Rank
7
18
21
27
31
38.6
45
51
59
62
63.
68
68.
68.
72
72
74
76
78
86
88
91
99
102
103
104
107
95
-------
The ten site-ranking formulae developed by Pavonl, Hagerty, and Lee
are as follows:
• Infiltration Potential of Site (lp) - Range of 0 to 20
where I = infiltration (Inches)
FC = field capacity of the soil expressed as a decimal
H - thickness of cover soil layer (inches)
• Bottom Leakage Potential of Site (Lp) - Range of 0 to 20
1000
where K = bottom soil permeability (cm/sec)
T = bottom soil thickness (ft)
• Filtering Capacity of Soil (Fc) - Range of 0 to 16
, , 2.5 x IP"5
Fc = -k log ^
where 0 = average particle diameter (Inches)
e Adsorptive Capacity of Soil (Ac) - Range of 0 to 10
Ac = 10 (Or)
(log CEC) + 1
where Or = organic content expressed as a decimal
CEC = cation exchange capacity
@ Organic Content of Groundwater (Oc) - Range of 0 to 10
OC = 0.2 BOD
where BOD = biochemical oxygen demand of groundwater (mg/l)
• Buffer Capacity of Groundwater (Be) - Range of 0 to 10
Be = 10 - Nme
where Nme = smallest number of mi 11leguivalents of either an acid
or base required to displace the groundwater pH below
^.5 or above 8.5.
• Potential Travel Distance (Td) - Range of 0 to 5
Td based on distance groundwater must travel to nearest water supply.
96
-------
• Groundwater Velocity (Gv) - Range of 0 to 20
Gv = log (1/K + 1)
where S = gradient (ft/mile)
K = permeability (cm/sec)
o Prevailing Wind Direction (Wd) - Range of 0 to 5
Wd based on relation of prevailing wind direction to population
density surrounding site.
• Population Factor (Pf) - Range of 0 to 7
Pf - log p
where p = population within a 25-mile radius of the site.
The total site rank Is developed by totaling the results of the
ten site-rank ing formulae as follows:
Landfill Site Rank = Ip + Lp + Fc + Ac + Oc + Be + Td + Gv +
Wd + Pf
The lower the landfill site rank, the more suitable the site may
be considered for waste disposal. Examples of site rankings were
developed by Pavoni, Hagerty, and Lee for the two landfill sites described.
as follows:
Parameter Site No. 1 Site No. 2
Yearly rainfall ^3 In. A3 in.
Soil type clean sand heavy clay
InfIItration rate 75 10
(% of rainfal1)
Field capacity 0.05 °'
Permeability 10~3 10
Soil cover (Inches) 60 2k
Bottom thickness (feet) 20 15
Average particle diameter (mm.) 0.25 0.002
Organic content of soil 0.5 0
Groundwater BOD 10 10
Cation exchange capacity 0 80
Buffering capacity (meg) 7 k
Groundwater travel distance 750 750
Gradient (ft/mile) 5, 56
Population within 25 miles 10 10
Prevailing wind direction WNW WNW
97
-------
• Site No. 1 ranking parameters are as follows:
Ip = 10.8 Be = 7.0
Lp = 5.0 Td = 5.0
Fc = 10.4 Gv = 1.66
Ac = 5.0 Wd = A.05
Oc = 2.0 Pf = 6.0
• Site No. 2 ranking parameters are as follows:
Ip = 0.45 Be = 4.0
Lp = 0.145 Td = 5.0
Fc = 2.0 Gv = 0.625
Ac = 0.0 Wd = 2.9
Oc = 2.0 Pf = 6.0
The total landfill rank for Site No. 1 is 56.9. The total landfill
ranking for Site No. 2 is 23.1. Consequently, Site No. 2 which has a much
smaller ranking than Site No. 1 would be more conducive to land disposal.
In summary, the numerical ranking system developed by Pavonl,
Hagerty, and Lee was Intended to provide decision makers with a quantitative
assessment of both the hazardousness of various wastes and the suitability
of various land sites for waste disposal. The approach for both waste
ranking and site ranking appears to be arbitrary. It should be noted here
that the waste ranking portion of the Pavonl, Hagerty, and Lee system was
incorporated with minor revisions Into the soil/waste interaction matrix
described later in this report.
Assessment. Generally, the Criteria Ranking approach is useful in
that it results in a quantifiable assessment of waste/site characteristics.
This quantifiable assessment affords an Identification of the more important
variables by assigned point counts, and a comparison of the total waste/site
situation (bottom-line figures). Its greatest use lies In the comparison
between two or more sites under consideration for disposal of a given
waste.
98
-------
The following advantages are associated with the Criteria Ranking
approach:
1. Data Requirements - As in the Criteria Listing approach,
site-specific data are necessary to adequately assess the
potential for pollution. Quantitative site-specific data,
however, may not be developed as comprehensively as in the
Criteria Listing, since the weighted values assigned in the
Criteria Ranking are generally assigned to what is assumed to
be a representative value for a given parameter and may not
accurately account for the variation in one or more site
parameters.
2. Low to Moderate Cost/Expertise - The cost and level of expertise
requirements utilizing this approach are generally in the
low-to-moderate range in comparison with the other procedures.
3. Quantitative Predicting Tool - The Criteria Ranking approach is
structured to be a predictive tool based upon quantitative inputs
and outputs. Its predictive capacity results from the "bottom
line" figure or output that affords a comparison of the site in
question with some "standard" or, as may commonly be the case,
a comparison between two proposed sites.
The major disadvantages of the Criteria Ranking approach at present
are as follows:
1. Confidence of Assigned Values - Perhaps the most significant
disadvantage of the Criteria Ranking approach is the confidence
level of the arbitrarily-assigned values or points of a given
parameter. The representativeness of the quantitative data
obtained for a given parameter cannot be assumed. More important,
99
-------
however, is the question of the weighted value assigned to a
given parameter, both in the range of points associated with
that parameter and in the absolute value assigned. As a result,
the validity of the "bottom line" number generated by a series
of arbitrarily-assigned values can be questioned, particularly
since verification of this approach has not been conducted.
i
2. Lack of Testing and Calibration - The several Criteria Ranking
systems identified have had insufficient testing and calibration
to be relied upon for use as a predictive tool at this time.
This would include assessment of the representativeness and
validity of the range and actual points assigned to a given
parameter. In addition, there is a lack of field verification
of the approach.
A summary assessment of the Criteria Ranking approach is given in
Table 22.
TABLE 22
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF CRITERIA RANKING
Pros
© Site-specific data identified.
© Quantitative data.
• Low-to-moderate cost/expertise involved.
e Quantitative predictive tool.
Cons
• Confidence of assigned values.
e Lack of testing and calibration.
« Not presently used by regulatory agencies.
100
-------
Avallabi1ity. The Criteria Ranking approach could be available as
a prediction tool within three years provided that it were to undergo
actual case-history testing, calibration, and verification.
Matrix
Descri ptJon* The use of a Matrix as a decision tool in waste-disposal
siting is dependent upon the formulation of relationships between two major
sets of interrelated variables, i.e., waste characteristics and soil
characteristics. A Matrix approach of this type has been identified in
this study as given in the Development of a Soil/Waste Interaction Matrix
by C.R. Phillips. (See Phillips contact form in Appendix B.)
State of Development/Application. It should be noted that the
soil-waste interaction Matrix presented by Phillips does not entail the
development of a "new" procedure. The approach basically combines soil-
and waste-ranking systems that had previously been developed with little,
if any, revision. The site-ranking portion of the Phillips' system was
developed by LeGrand in "\S6kt whereas the waste-ranking portion of Phillips'
system, with minor revision, was developed by Pavoni, Hagerty, and Lee in
1972 (both of which were described previously).
In this Matrix, wastes are described by parameters arranged into:
an effects group (human toxicity, groundwater toxicity, and disease
transmission potential); a behavioral performance subgroup (chemical
persistence, biological persistence, and sorption); a behavioral properties
subgroup (viscosity, solubility, and acidity/basicity); and a capacity-rate
group (waste application rates). Points are arbitrarily allocated to each
waste parameter based on empirical formulae (Table 23).
Soil sites are described in this Matrix by parameters arranged into:
a soil group (permeability and sorption); a hydrology group (water table,
gradient, and infiltration); and a site group (distance to point of use,
101
-------
TABLE 23
WASTE PARAMETER FOR INPUT TO MATRIX
Factor Summary
WASTE
(1) Effects Group Range
1. Human Toxtcity, Ht 0-10
Ht « —=• Sr, (Sr = Sax rating)
2. Groundwater Toxicity, Gt 0-10
Gt " —j (*4 - Iog10 Cc)» Cc = smallest critical
' concentration)
L
but for Cc >10 mg/t, Gt «• 0
and for Cc
-------
TABLE 23
(continued)
WASTE Range
6. Sorption, Sp 1-10
Sp - 11 - CQ/C1
but If CQ/C1 >10, Sp - 1
where CQ » Initial concentration
C- » concentration after 1 day contact
(II) Behavortal Properties Subgroup
7. Viscosity, VI 1-5
VI - 5 - log1Q „
where M ™ cent I poises
but If M >10\ VI - 1
and if n <1 , VI - 5
8. Solubility, Sy
Sy - 3 + 0.5 log1Q S
where S » mg/1 of a constituent
but if S <10~\ Sy = 1
and If S >10** , Sy « 5
9. Acidity/Basicity, Ab
From table of waste pH vs Ab factor. 0-5
pH - 7 or 8 gives Ab • 0; acid pH gives
higher Ab than alkaline pH
103
-------
TABLE 23
(continued)
WASTES Range
(3) Capacity-Rate Group
10. Waste Application Rate, Ar 1-10
Ar
log (Rf.Co)*.NS + 1
where NS <=• sorptlon parameter for site
Rf o volumetric rate factor,
defined from table of Rf vs volumetric
2
application rate (gall/ft , day)
Co ra 5 + 1.25 logi c wnere c ™ rog/l concentration
but If C <10~\ Co • 0
and If C >10 , Co « 10
-------
and thickness of the porous layer for two-media sites). Points are
arbitrarily allocated to each soil-site parameter based on empirical
formulae (Table
A total waste score and a total soil-site score is obtained by
summing the individual point scores for the parameters. A combined
waste-soil-site score is obtained as the product of the total waste
and the total soil-site point scores, and is scaled to one of ten
possible classes of acceptability, with class 5 (barely acceptable)
dividing the acceptable classes (l to 5) from the unacceptable classes
(6 to 10).
Waste-Soil-Site Classes
_ Acceptable _ _ Unacceptable _
1234 5 67 8 9 10
Waste-Soil-Site k$- 100- 200- 300- AOO- 500- 750- 1000- 1500- 2500-
Point Score 100 200 300 1*00 500 750 1000 1500 2500
A Matrix approach is also used to combine waste-parameter point
scores, enabling the interactions between individual waste parameters
and individual soil-site parameters to be entered as matrix elements.
These interactions are represented by the product of the waste parameter
and the soil-site parameter point scores.
This Matrix Approach also defines a site-dependent Matrix (requiring
data pertaining to a specific site) versus a site-independent submatrix
(requiring data for only a given soil without reference to a specific
site's topography, hydrology, depth, etc.). The site-dependent Matrix
is the complete Matrix as shown in Figure 10, while the s ite- independent
submatrix is an abbreviated matrix as shown in Figure 11. Phillips
recommends the following decision procedure using the s ite- independent
and site-dependent approach: (1) define specific waste characteristics;
105
-------
TABLE 2'i
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR INPUT TO MATRIX
SOIL-SITE
(1) Soil Group Range
1. Permeability, NP 2i-10
"* <" * ' - p>
- + „,„
max
where P ™ permeability point score from LeGrand
P » maximum value of P from LeGrand
max
(P =3 for loose granular single media sites,
rndx
two media sites and radioactive disposal sites)
2. Sorption, NS 1-10
max
- s)
where S a sorption point score from LeGrand
S ° maximum value of S from LeGrand
max
(S « 6 for loose granular site or for two media site;
max
S •> 7 for radioactive disposal site.)
max
106
-------
TABLE 2k
(continued)
(2) Hydrology Group Range
3. Water Table, NWT 1-10
NWT • i^ 10 ^ i (WT + i - WT)
WT + 1 max
max
where WT ° water table point score from LeGrand
WT =• maximum value of WT from LeGrand
max
(WT " 10 for loose granular and two media sites,
ffldX
and for radioactive waste disposal sites.)
I*. Gradient, NG 1-10
NG » « 1C* . (G + 1 - G)
G +l max
max
where G •» gradient point score from LeGrand
G *> maximum value of G from LeGrand
max
(G a 7 for loose granular and two media sites;
max
G «° 3 for radioactive disposal sites)
max r
5. Infiltration, Nl 1-10
Nl Is defined from infiltration i
into site by table of I vs Nl
(3) Site Group
6. Distance, ND 1-10
ND - ND 10 .1 (Dmax + ' ' D)
max
107
-------
TABLE 24
(continued)
where 0 » distance point score from LeGrand
D = maximum value of 0 from LeGrand
max
(D » 11 for loose granular media sites and two-media
max y
sites; 0 « 13 for radioactive disposal sites.)
max
7. Thickness of Porous Layer, NT 1-10
(For two-media sites only; thickness of layer <100 ft. If
thickness >100 ft, omit factor and consider as single media
site or granular material.
NT + ¥ 1° . (T * 1 - T)
T + T x max
max
where T = thickness of porous layer point score from LeGrand
T » maximum value of T from LeGrand
max
T - 6.
max
108
-------
HYDROLOGY CROUP
Infiltration
Nl
Thickness of
Porous Liycr
HT
(1-10)
Human
Toil city
Nt
(0-10)
tiroundwater
ToJilclty
Gt
(0-10)
OlseaM
Transmission
Potential
Op
(0-10)
Chemical
Persistence
CP
(l-S)
dlologlcal
Persistence
Bp
(1-4)
viscosity
V1
(1-5)
Solubility
Sy
(1-5)
Acidity/
Basicity
I pH
1 (O-b)
waste
Appl 1cat1on
Rate
Ar
(1-10)
FIGURE 10 FORMAT OF SOIL-WASTE INTERACTION MATRIX
(C.R. PHILLIPS)
109
-------
--
33
SOIL-
SITE
HASTE
Hunan
ToKiclty
Ht
(0-10)
Toaldty
Gt
(0-10)
SOIL GHOt'?
Permgaol 11 ty
NP
(2S-10)
OlSOOM
TranimUslon
Potential
Op
(0-10)
Chemical
Perilitanco
CP
(l-S)
diologlcal
Persistonco
Bp
(1-4)
Solubility
Sy
(l-S)
Acidity/
Basicity
)H
U-b)
Watto
Appl I cation
Rate
Ar
(1-10)
Sorptlon
NS
(1-10)
FIGURE 11 SITE INDEPENDENT SUBMATRIX (C.R. PHILLIPS)
110
-------
(2) define specific common soil characteristics; (3) enter site-independent
submatrix; (A) if outcome favorable (point score less than 225), define
specific site characteristics; and (5) compare site using complete Matrix.
A hypothetical example of how the Matrix can be util ized as a
decision tool for a single-media site has been developed by Phillips.
In this example, the specific-waste and common-soil characteristics
are defined in a site-independent Matrix. (See Figure 12.) The total
waste-soil point score from the site-independent Matrix is 297 which
is unacceptable, but reasonably close to the suggested acceptance
criterion of 225. Entry into the complete site-dependent Matrix is
desirable for the confirmation of the conclusion with site-specific
information. (See Figure 13.) The total waste-soil point score
from the site-dependent Matrix is 957, which results in a waste-soil
site class of 7 and is unacceptable according to Phillips' proposed
waste-soil site classes.
A similar soil/waste interaction Matrix is being developed in
Canada for the evaluation of municipal refuse disposal siting. (See
Rovers contact form in Appendix B.) This matrix was not available
at the time of preparation of this report, but is expected to be
available by late 1977.
Assessment. Utilization of the Matrix approach as a decision
procedure offers several distinct advantages:
1. Quantitative Predictive Tool - The Matrix approach is structured
to be a predictive tool based upon quantitative data inputs and
outputs. Its predictive capacity results from the "bottom line"
figure or output that affords a comparison of the site in question
with some "standard" or, as may commonly be the case, a comparison
between two proposed sites.
111
-------
*- a.
SOIL-
SITE
WASTE
Hueun
Toxicity
Ht
(0-10)
viroondwotar
To»1c1ty
Gt
(0-10)
01 setts
TransnUilon
Potential
Op
(0-tO)
Chcnlcal
Persistence
CP
(1-5)
dtologlcal
Persistenco
Bp
(1-4)
Acidity/
I Basicity
I pH
(u-b)
Waste
Appt(cation
Rate
Ar
£ (i-io)
SOIL GROUr
Permejoll ity
NP
(2S-10)
"+0
20
20
Sorpdon
US
(1-10)
32
20
12
16
FIGURE 12 EXAMPLE OF SITE INDEPENDENT SUBMATRIX
(C.R. PHILLIPS)
-------
SOIL-
SITE
WASTE
Human
Tonicity
HC
(0-10)
Groundwater
To*Ui tjr
Gt
(0-10)
SOIL GROUP
Pertnc Jot 1 tty
NP
(24-10)
Sorption
NS
(1-10)
20
HYDROLOGY GROUP
Hater Table
HT
(1-10)
48
25
Gradient
NG
(1-10)
Infiltration
Nl
(1-10)
30
SITE GROUP
Distance
NO
(1-10)
Thickness of
Porous Layer
HT
(1-10)
Disease
Transmission
Potential
Op
(0-10)
Chemical
Persistence
Cp
(1-5)
ia
21
9
Sf
-5
Biological
Persistence
8p
(1-4)
20
28
Sorption
So
(1-10)
20
25
2 /
10
30
35
Viscosity
VI
(1-5)
8L C
10
12
IS
i*
lOlubility
Sy
(1-5)
Acidity/
Pws
10-5)
a. i—
S2
Waste
Appl 1 cation
Rate
Ar
(1-10)
20
16
20
28
FIGURE 13 EXAMPLE OF SITE DEPENDENT MATRIX
113
-------
2. Identification of Soil/Waste Parameters - Because the Matrix is
structured to generally result in a "bottom line" figure, this
approach does result in the ability to predict pollution potential
by comparison of that figure with a standard or with another site
under consideration.
3. Low to Moderate Cost - The Matrix approach would have the same
general cost requirements as the Criteria Ranking approach,
which is low to moderate.
o
The Matrix system does have the following disadvantages:
1. Confidence of Assigned Values - As in the Criteria Ranking
approach, perhaps the most significant disadvantage of the
Matrix is the level of confidence of the generally
arbitrarily-assigned values or points of a given parameter.
The representativeness of the quantitative data obtained
for a given parameter and the appropriations of the weighted
value assigned to that parameter, both in the range of points
associated with that parameter and in the absolute value
assigned, can be questioned. As a result, there would be
some question as to the validity of the "bottom line" number
generated by a series of arbitrarily-assigned values until
field verification can be conducted.
2. Lack of Testing and Calibration - The single Matrix approach
developed to date has not been tested or calibrated, and cannot
be relied upon at this time for use as a predictive tool. In
addition, the representativeness and validity of the range and
points assigned to a given parameter and points actually assigned
for a given waste/soil interaction have not yet been assessed.
There has also been a lack of field verification of this approach.
-------
3. Difficulty of Data Quantification - As in the Models and
Simulation techniques described in the following pages, use of
the Matrix approach factors such as sorption, has inherent
limitations due to the difficulty in quantification by present
laboratory and field methods.
A. Level of Expertise - Utilization of the Matrix approach may
require a high level of expertise for proper assignment of
values and assessment of the interrelationship of the parameters
as well as a proper assessment of the "bottom line" output
values.
A summary assessment of the Matrix approach identified is given in
Table 25.
TABLE 25
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF THE MATRIX SYSTEM
PROS
©Quantitative predictive tool.
o Identification of soil/waste parameters.
©Assessment of pollution potential.
e Low-moderate operating cost.
CONS
e Confidence of assigned values.
o Lack of testing, calibration and field verification.
e Not presently used by regulatory agencies.
o Difficulty of laboratory and field quantification of parameters.
a Specialized skills usually required.
115
-------
Avai labi1? ty_. The Phillips' Matrix has not been verified to date;
however, it will shortly be applied to a case study industrial waste
disposal site in Canada. Information regarding the application of
Phillips' Matrix to this case site will not be available until late 1977.
If the system proves to be reliable, following verification in Canada,
it could be utilized as a decision procedure within three years.
116
-------
Classification System (Decision Tree)
Descri pt ion. The Decision Tree approach is a logical step-by-step
process which can be particularly useful as a decision tool for
assessment of the pollution potential in the site-selection process.
The Decision Tree approach begins with the most important question
followed by a hierarchy of questions of decreasing criticality. In
this manner, a "no" answer to an early important question can eliminate
the site from further consideration and, from a practical standpoint,
the expenditure of unnecessary money for additional site investigation.
A "no" answer may also indicate that an alternative type of waste
disposal site or disposal method should be utilized. An example of
the Decision Tree approach is given in Figure Ik. The initial question
and subsequent question in this example relates to the degree of
hazardousness of a given waste. This approach is, in effect, that
developed by the California State Water Resources Control Board in their
waste/site Classification System.
State of Development/Application. The Classification System was
developed in California and was adopted in December 1972 by enactment of
the Disposal Site Design and Operation Information, as published by the
State Water Resources Control Board. This system has been revised
somewhat, with the latest revision made in December 1976. (See
California, Appendices C and D.) It is noteworthy that this approach
was also in use on an informal basis for a period of approximately ten
years.
The basic approach taken in this Classification System is a
determination of the degree to which waste is hazardous and its
assignment to one of three main classes of disposal sites. For each
site class, varying degrees of protection are provided for surface and
groundwater, with the system permeability being defined as the single
most important and controlling site parameter. The wastes are classified
117
-------
I
Yes:
Group 1
Wastes
Is Waste
Hazardous?
Class I Site
Total Containment
K of 10 * cm/sec
Is Waste Inert
and Insoluble?
Class II Site
11-1—Containment
K of 106 cm/sec
II-2—Hydraulic continuity
permitted with attenuation
No:
Group 2
Wastes
Class III Site
Protection provided by
location, construction
and operations
Yes:
Group 3
Wastes
Based on "Disposal Site Design and Operation Information."
California State Waste Resources Control Board
FIGURE 14 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (DECISION TREE)
118
-------
as Group 1, 2 or 3, and the sites are classified as Class I, 11-1, 11-2,
and III. A description of the characteristics of each waste/site type
is given in Table 26.
Similar Classification System approaches have been developed by the
Texas Department of Health Resources for municipal wastes and the Texas
Water Quality Board for industrial wastes. These Classification Systems
are shown in Tables 27 and 28, respectively. The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency has new solid/industrial waste management guidelines,
and a classification system approach, as shown on Table 29, is expected
to be enacted by late 1977.
Interestingly, the Department of the Environment in the United
Kingdom has stated that "At first sight it might be thought that the way
to deal with the selection of landfill sites was to categorize wastes
on the basis of their pollution potential and sites on the basis of their
ability to contain wastes. Particular categories of waste could then be
linked with particular categories of sites to produce a series of definitive
recommendations. Unfortunately neither wastes nor sites lend themselves
to such categorization and it is necessary to produce a more generalized
scheme which can be modified and adapted for local use."
In the licensing of waste disposal sites, as indicated in Waste
Management Paper No. k (See United Kingdom, Appendix C and D), three
classes of disposal sites are recognized: (1) those providing a
significant element of containment for wastes and leachates; (2) those
allowing slow leachate migration and significant attenuation; and (3)
those allowing rapid leachate migration and insignificant attenuation.
They recognize that these classes will not be as well defined as this
and, for example, many sites which provide an element of containment
will also permit the slow migration of leachates. However, they considered
that such a generalized classification is a useful guide and, if
correctly used, is capable of practical application.
119
-------
TABLE 26
Si te Type
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Site Classification
Waste Class!f Icatlon
Permeabl I I ty
cm/sec
Soils
% Passing a
Ho. 200 Sieve
Liquid
Limit
Plastic!ty
Index
to
O
Class I Complete protection Is provided
for all time for the quality of
around cind surface water.
Geological conditions are natur-
ally capable of preventing
vertical and lateral hydraulic
continuity between liquids and
gjses from the waste In the site
and usahle surface and ground
waters. The disposal area can
be modified to prevent lateral
continuity. Underlain by usable
ground water only under excep-
tional circumstances.
Class II Protection Is provided to water
quality from Group 2 and Group
3 wastes.
I 1-1 Overlying usable ground water
and geologic conditions are
either naturally capable of pre-
venting laterol and vertical
hydraulic continuity or site has
been modifleu to achieve such
capablIi ty.
11-2 Having vertical and lateral hy-
draulic continuity with usable
ground water but geological
and hydraulic features and
other factors assure protection
of water qua)Ity.
Class III Piotectlon Is provided from Group
3 wastes by location, construc-
tion and operation which prevent
erosion of deposited material.
Group I
Consisting of or containing
toxic substances and substances
which could significantly Im-
pair the quality of usable
waters.
Also accepts Group 2 and 3
wastes.
S I x 10
CL, CH or
OH
Not
30
less than
Not
30
less than
Not less than
30
Group 2
Consisting of or containing
chemically or biologically
decomposable material which
does not Include toxic sub-
stances or those capable of
significantly Impairing the
quality of usable water.
Also accepts Group 3 Wastes.
Group 3
Consist entirely of non-water
soluble, non-deconiposable
Inert solids.
I x IO
-6
CL, CH or Not less than Not less than Not less than
OH 30 30 30
Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified
-------
TABLE 27
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RESOURCES
REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL'
Site
Type
Sanitary Landfl 1 Is
Si te Type I
Site
Classification
Considered to be tlie
standard sanitary land-
fill for disposal of
municipal solid waste
and 1$ encouraged In all
cases. Required In a
county with a population
> 100, 000 or sites serv-
ing >5, 000 persons, or
tie same population
equivalent.
Permea-
Sol I blllty Liquid Plasticity Drinking Water
Thickness cm/sec Limit Index Protection
•.v* <• .7**
3' - 1 x 10 Not less Not less Not within 500* of
(0.9' IT) tlian 30 than 15 drinking water supply
we 1 1 , Intake of a
water treatment plant.
or raw water Intake
which furnishes water
to a public water sy-
system for human con-
sumption. If closer
than 500', engineer-
Ing data shal 1 be pre-
sented to show that
adequate protection to
drinking water sources
Is provided.
Flood
Protection
Levees construct-
ed to provide
protection from a
50 yr. frequency
flood.
Frequency of
Compact Ion
and Cover
All solid waste
shall be compacted
and covered at
least dal ly except
for areas desig-
nated to receive
only brush and/or
construct lon-
demol 1 tlon wastes
which shall be
covered at least
monthly.
Sanitary LandfI I Is
Site Type II
San Itary LandflI Is
Si te Type 111
San!lary Landfl I Is
Type IV
Hay be authorized by the "
Department for a site sur-
vey serving <5.000 or some
population equivalent when
relevant factors Indicate a
frequency of less than dally
compact I on and cover will not
result In any significant
health problems.
Hay be authorized by the "
Department for a site serv-
ing •• Minor amounts (5% or less by weight or volume) of Class I Industrial solid waste may be accepted under certain conditions,
at Type I sites which have a permit fran or have filed a permit application with the.Texas Department of Health Resources
without special Department approval.
•••••••••• or equivalent (e.g.. liner equivalent degree of Impermeability).
Up to seven (7)
days.
Up to thirty (30)
days.
As necessary.
-------
TABLE 28
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
(PENDING APPROVAL)
Waste
Class
Wastes
Included
Imp)ace
Soil
Thickness
Compacted
Soil Liner
Thickness
Permea-
blllty
cm/sec
% Passing
No. 200
Sieve
Liquid
Umlt
Plasticity
»"dex
Monitor
Wells
Leachate
Collection
Depth to
Water,.
Table
Flood
Protection
- 1 x I0~7
I Any Industrial solid waste V 3*
or mixture of Industrial (1.22 m) (0.91 m)
solid viastes, which, because
of Its concentration, or phy-
sical or chemical character-
istics, Is toxic, corrosive,
flammable, a strong sens I-
tlzer or Irritant, generates
sudden pressure by decompo-
sition, heat or other means,
and may pose substantial pre-
sent or potential danger to
human health or the environ-
ment when Improperly treated,
stored, transported, or dis-
posed of or otherwise managed;
Including hazardous wastes
Identified or listed by the
iiJmlnlbt rotor of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency pur-
suant to the Federal Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
II Any Industrial solid waste or 3' 2' - I x 10
combination of Industrial (0.91 m) (0.61 m)
solid waste which cannot be
described as Class I or
Class II I as defined In this
reyulotion.
Ill Essentially Inert and essen-
tially insoluble Industrial
solid wastes, usually Includ-
ing bride, rock, glass, dirt,
certain plastics, rubber,
etc. not readily decomposable
- Depends on permeability and thickness of material at site.
- 30
- JO
-IS
Yes
Yes
50'
-7
>30
Yes
10'
Below SO yr. flood - di-
version dikes 2* above
SO yr. flood elevation
around perimeter of site.
Above SO yr. flood -
structure for diverting
all surface water runoff
from 21* hr., 25 yr. storm.
Above 50 yr. flood -
structure for diverting
all surface water runoff
from 2*i hr., 25 yr. storm.
-------
TABLE 29
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DIVISION OF LAND/NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL
(PENDING APPROVAL)
NJ
10
Site
Class 1
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Thickness
Maximum of Confining
Penneabl 1 1 ty Layer
IxlO"8 cm/sec 10'
natural (j-OS m)
5xlO~ 10'
natural (3.05 m)
IxlO"7 10'
natural or (3.05 m)
engineered
5xlo"7 5'
natural or (1 .52 m)
engineered
Theoretical
Depth to Flood Confinement
Aquifer Frequency Time Monitoring
10* 100 yr. line or 500 yrs Yes
(3.05 m) maximum known
elevation. No
marginal lands.
10' 100 yr. line or 250 yrs. Yes
(3.05 m) maximum known
elevation. No
marginal lands.
10' 100 yr. line or 150 yrs. Usually
(3.05 m) maximum known yes
elevation. No
marginal lands.
O1 No marginal lands - Hay
Site
Pol lutlon
Potential Waste
Very low All wastes ex-
cluding
radioactive
Low General put res -
clble, specla 1 ,
specif! e'l hazard-
ous wastes , all
Class III, IV
and V.
Low to General municipal
Moderate certain special,
al 1 Class IV and
V.
Moderate Demolition and
construction.
bulky, landscape
wastes and inert,
Insoluble mater-
ials. All Class
Module
E
A
F
E
A
F
,E
A
F
A
F
V.
.B.C
,B,C
,B.C
,8,C
Class V Little or no
confinement, or
sufficient si te
Information to
determine the pollution
potential of the site has
not been provided.
Inert, noncombusl- G
ible material.
-------
Assessment. The following advantages are associated with the
Classification System approach:
1. Site/Waste Comprehensive - The Classification Systems
identified to date are comprehensive from a site/waste
standpoint, in that all wastes, excluding radioactive wastes,
will be assigned to a specific site type or class for either
containment or attenuation of pollutants. It is noteworthy
that the majority of wastes following the on-line and
impending guidelines of the Classification System wi11
undergo land disposal for prevention of surface and
groundwater pollution by containment rather than reliance
upon attenuation. In each state contacted, hazardous waste
will be contained by natural low-permeability deposits.
2. Addresses Hazardous Wastes - Each of the Classification
Systems identified specifically addresses hazardous wastes or
hazardous "substances".
3. Presently Being Used - The Classification System in California
has been on-line and used for a period of nearly five years
and has, in that time, been tested and verified in a number of
specific instances. The Illinois and Texas Classification Systems
are just coming on-line and, therefore, have yet to be tested
and verified.
k. Low Cost/Expertise Requirements - As a result of the rather
simplified breakdown of wastes, primarily into two end-member
categories (hazardous and inert insoluble wastes), use of
this system can be expected to result in lower cost and
expertise requirements in comparison with the other decision
procedures.
124
-------
The following disadvantages are associated with the Classification
System:
1. Insufficient Data Requirements - Although the Classification
System is relatively simplistic in its format, an argument
could be made that there is insufficient required input data in
comparison to the other decision procedures. Comparison of
Table 20 (California Classification System) with the Criteria
Listing (Table ^k) readily indicates the difference in the
degree of quantification required. Reliance is generally placed
on a limited amount of data necessary to define the containment
capability of a site and its proximity to surface and
groundwater resources. The key site parameters in the
Classification System are the depth to water, thickness of the
confining layers and, most important, the permeability of the
confining layers. This latter parameter is addressed in the
fo11ow i ng pa rag rap h.
2. Availability of Low Permeability Deposits - Each of the
Classification Systems previously identified relies on the
presence of a deposit with a natural low permeability. Artificial
liners or synthetic permeability reduction materials are
utilized only in certain instances, and are generally held in
questionable (at best) or low esteem. The presence of
naturally-occurring deposits with a permeability of 1 x 10-7
cm/sec or less is not common in many areas. In fact, such a
permeability may be totally absent within large geographic areas.
Disposal practices with reliance on containment, therefore,
would be required to utilize synthetic liners at certain sites
to meet the low permeability requirements, or waste would be
transported to adjacent states (or areas) where the required
permeability conditions are present.
125
-------
3. Little Quantification of Pollution Potential - Utilization of
the Classification System, in effect, results in a relative
quantification of pollution potential by definition of the
waste/site characteristics. This by itself is not necessarily
a disadvantage, but, coupled with the conservatism of the
approach (described next), results in it being a potential
limitation to the cost-effective utilization of this approach.
*4. Possibly Too Conservative - Use of the Classification System
for the placement of decombustible waste in sites where the mode
of deposition is by containment as opposed to attenuation of
migrating pollutants can possibly lead to an overly-conservative
approach. Given the unknowns of many soil/waste interactions,
however, most regulatory agencies feel that this approach,
although admittedly conservative, must be taken in light of
the current state of the art for prediction of pollution
potential.
The major potential disadvantage of the approach is that wastes
which would be amenable to disposal with reliance on attenuation would,
in fact, be relegated to a containment site where they would occupy
"valuable space".
A summarization of the advantages and disadvantages of the
Classification System is given in Table 30.
Availabi1i ty. The Classification System is presently being utilized
as the basic decision procedure for waste disposal siting for seven
individual regulatory agencies contacted. Its on-line utilization and
comprehensive nature relative to a variety of waste types makes it
ideally suited as a "standard" decision procedure. This approach,
however, is in need of continuing refinement, particularly in what may
126
-------
TABLE 30
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(DECISION TREE)
Pros
o Site/waste comprehensive.
•Specifically addresses hazardous wastes.
e Presently used by regulatory agencies.
• Tested and verified.
•9 Low cost/expertise requirements.
Cons
•Possible insufficient data requirements.
• Local and regional availability of low permeability deposits.
• Little quantification of pollution potential.
o Possibly too conservative.
127
-------
be most often called "sub-routines" for waste characterization. Such
refinements are discussed in Section VII, Recommended Development Plan.
Simulation Models
Descri ption. Predicting the potential magnitude of groundwater
pollution associated with the land disposal of wastes (solid or liquid)
is a complex technological undertaking. The simultaneous presence of
numerous interactive mechanisms (physical, chemical, and biological)
makes it difficult to obtain a description in advance of a potential
pollution by a given waste for a specific hydrogeologic setting.
Consequently, many investigators have resorted to the construction of
"models" for evaluating the performance of a certain waste disposal site.
Several definitions pertinent to this discussion are given below.
A waste disposal system (e.g., landfill or lagoon) is defined as a
set of physical, chemical, and biological processes which act upon specific
input variables (precipitation, amount and type of waste, etc.), and
convert these into output variables (amount and concentration of leachate
leaving the landfill, pollutant concentration in groundwater, etc.). From
a management viewpoint, the waste disposal system should, in addition to
the disposal site itself, include the groundwater aquifer under or
immediately downgradient to the site.
In the above definition, a variable is understood to be a
characteristic of the system that can be measured, and may take on
different values at different times (amount and type of waste,
precipitation/evaporation, etc.). A parameter, on the other hand,
is a characteristic of the system which remains essentially constant
with time (permeability of the underlying aquifer, geometry of a landfill,
soil/waste adsorption constants, etc.).
128
-------
A waste disposal (landfill) model may be considered to be a simplified
representation of a real system. As a result of simplifications, different
types of models exist; for example, a scaled-down replica of the system
is as much a model of the system as is a highly sophisticated mathematical
model using partial differential equations. Even when an experienced
engineer evaluates a proposed waste disposal site and uses his experience
to make a decision regarding the suitability of the site for waste disposal,
he uses a certain "model", since subjective judgment is a decision tool.
Models can be classified in several ways. A possible classification
is given below. (For a more extensive discussion of models and simulation
procedures, see Fishman, 1973f or Maisel and Gnugnoli, 1972; note all
references cited in this section are given in Appendix A, Part VI.)
Descriptive Models. These models are expressed in one's "native"
language (Emshoff and Sisson, 1970). An expert may not rely upon well-defined
procedures, but may use their general qualitative judgment to evaluate a
proposed waste disposal site (descriptive model). An important advantage
of this type of model is its low cost. The greatest limitation of this
modeling technique, however, is that its predictions are subjective.
Different experts may reach different conclusions based upon this modeling
approach.
physical Mode1s_. Physical models are those which represent
scaled-down versions of the true situation (i.e., a globe is a physical
model of the earth). Unfortunately, only a few physical models of waste
disposal sites exist today, for example, the laboratory and scaled-down
field landfills built by Drexel University in cooperation with the
Pennsylvania Department of Health (Fungaroli and Steiner, 1973). This
laboratory facility was operated under controlled environmental conditions,
and the field site was maintained under natural (no control) conditions.
129
-------
Although these scaled-down facilities were constructed primarily to
study the behavior of a sanitary landfill, the field site should be viewed
as a physical model of the landfill later constructed in the immediate
vicinity of the experimental landfill. In fact, the field facility may
still be regarded as a physical model for other sites in Pennsylvania or
elsewhere, provided the hydrogeological environment remains essentially
the same, and similar wastes and management procedures for the landfill
are used. Generally, extrapolation outside the region of study is
difficult due to the occurrence of unique local conditions such as waste,
soils, hydrology, and management. Additional examples of scaled-down
simulated laboratory landfills are given by Quasim (1965) and Pohland (1975).
Although physical (scaled-down) models of waste disposal sites are
generally lacking, experiments can be conducted to aid field personnel in
making accurate predictions. Data may be generated, either through
field or laboratory experimentation which can be used to assess the
behavior of specific waste constituents associated with a given disposal
site. Experimentation may include column leachate studies to determine
the rate at which certain constituents move through a soil, thin-layer
chromatography leading to estimates of constituent migration rate, or
batch equilibration studies (all described below) to characterize constituent
adsorption to soils. Unfortunately, this information does not define a
waste disposal "model", and as such cannot be used as a prediction tool.
On the other hand, it may provide necessary information (i.e., dispersion
coefficient, adsorption constants, etc.) for use in mathematical models.
While it is obvious that scaled-down physical models can provide useful
information about the type and concentrations of chemicals expected from a
certain waste/soil combination, their practicability as a decision tool
appears doubtful. They are not only costly to build, but time-consuming
to use, expecially when one considers the number of chemical and biological
processes that may occur over a period of several years or decades.
130
-------
Analog Models. These models employ the convenient transformation
of a given property into another which behaves in a similar manner. The
problem in question is then solved in the substitute state, and the answer
is translated back into the original properties. Examples of analog
models are block diagrams, slide rules, or plant layouts. Electronic
analog models have found widespread application in groundwater flow
modeling. Electronic devices and properties (currents, voltages, diodes,
and resistors) are used to simulate the components of the groundwater
system. Because of the cost of building large-scale geometric problems,
it appears doubtful that many analog models will be used in the near
future to simulate large water-quality problems. An application of an
analog model for chemical transport through soils is given by Bennet
et al. (1968).
Mathematical Models. These models are concise mathematical
expressions of the waste disposal system. Generally, mathematical equations
can be used to express relationships that exist between various system
parameters and the input and output variables. Depending upon the
method of analysis, this type of model may range from a few simple
equations (criteria ranking) to hundreds of complex mathematical expressions
which can be solved only through the use of digital computers. In the
latter case, a set of partial differential equations is derived, based
on physical principles (such as the equations of continuity and mass
transport), which is subsequently solved using either analytical or numerical
techniques. These models have been viewed by several researchers as a
potentially-useful approach for describing contaminant migration from a
waste disposal site into an underlying groundwater system. This modeling
approach will be described in greater detail below.
In addition to the above classification of models, several distinctions
between models can be made, depending upon the method of analysis defined
by the model and the approach used to solve a particular problem. These
classification schemes, among others, include the following.
131
-------
Empirical versus Conceptual Models. Models can be classified as
empirical or conceptual depending upon whether or not the assumed physical
processes use input variables to produce output variables. Empirical
models are based completely on observation and/or experimentation. However,
the distinction between empirical and conceptual models is not always clear.
Several models describing adsorption of a particular chemical onto soil are
empirical in nature (e.g., linear adsorption, Freundlich isotherm), while
others are based upon physio-chemical theory (e.g., cation exchange
equations). The use of column-leach ing studies to measure the migration
of contaminants through soil is an empirical approach, although it may
yield certain parameters (dispersion coefficients and adsorption constants)
required in conceptual models.
Differential equations used to describe mass transport of a constituent
through a porous media constitute a conceptual model. These equations are
generally based upon conservation of mass, energy, and momentum. However,
empirical relations are frequently used in their derivation (adsorption,
zero- or first-order degradation effects, and Darcy's law for fluid flow).
Certain writers have used the term "black box" to indicate the empirical
nature of certain models, while the term "white box" or synthetic model
has been used to describe conceptual models.
Stochastic versus Deterministic Models. In a deterministic model,
all input variables and system parameters are assumed to have fixed
mathematical or logical relationships. As a consequence, these relationships
completely define the system, and a single solution is obtained. Stochastic
or probabilistic models, on the other hand, take into account the randomness
or uncertainties that are associated with system parameters or input
variables. Several stochastic models exist, depending upon the basic
assumptions made about the physical processes and the type of mathematics
used in the model. Two groups of stochastic models of interest in simulating
water-quality problems are:
132
-------
1. Stochastic models where the system parameters and input variables
are characterized by assumed probability distributions (normal,
log-normal, etc.). Using the Monte-Carlo simulation technique,
output variables are generated which are characterized by certain
probability distributions. In this approach, the basic model
is thought to be exact, but the complexity of the system under
consideration is such that its parameters are more properly defined
by probability (or frequency) distributions. The one-dimensional
stochastic groundwater flow model discussed by Freeze (1975) is
an example of such a model.
2. Another type of stochastic model results when the system parameters
or input variables are uncertain, either because of a lack of
reliable input data or due to measurement errors. Uncertainty
may also result from the use of an over-simplified model where
different mechanisms are sometimes lumped together, thus leading
to less well-defined parameters. The appropriate parameters are
then characterized by a mean and variance, but no probability
distributions are assumed. The model then generates a mean and
variance for each output variable which can be used to construct
a confidence interval, but no frequency distribution. An example
of this type of approach is given by Tang and Finder (1977) who
describe a model for flow and mass transport based on uncertainties.
Static versus Dynamic Models. This distinction depends upon how
the time dimension is viewed in the model. Static models are those which
evaluate steady-state conditions, i.e., where the input variables do not
change with time. When the input variables change with time, dynamic models
result. Although static models, which are much simpler and require less
computational effort than dynamic models, could be used to describe certain
subsystems of the waste disposal/groundwater system (for example, description
of fluid flow in the unsaturated zone under the disposal site), it appears
that the whole system is dynamic and should be modeled accordingly.
133
-------
Spatial Dimensionality of the Model. Although a waste disposal
site and the underlying groundwater system constitute a three-dimensional
model, useful and accurate results can often be obtained with models which
consider only one or two spatial dimensions. For example, a one-dimensional
model can be used successfully to describe the rate of contaminant migration
through and below a landfill to the groundwater table. While considerable
insight can be obtained with such a model, it stops short of providing
accurate information regarding groundwater pollution under and immediately
downgradient to the landfill because of the dilution of the landfill
leachate by the flowing groundwater. This process cannot be evaluated
with a one-dimensional model. An exception to this obviously occurs when
the water table lies far below the soil surface and evaporation greatly
exceeds the average yearly precipitation. In general, however, it seems
that, at a minimum, a two-dimensional cross-sectional model must be formulated.
Two-dimensional models can also be applied on an areal basis. Here the
system parameters and the input and output variables represent averaged
quantities along the vertical dimension.
Table 31 lists a few example models and their classification into
different groupings. When these models are used to evaluate the
physical/chemical behavior of constituents present in proposed waste
disposal sites, including an evaluation of the pollution potential of
the underlying groundwater aquifer, the model is said to "simulate" the
system. The following definition for simulation is used here (adapted
from Shannon, 1975):
"Simulation is the process of designing a model of a real
system and conducting experiments with this model for the
purpose of either understanding the behavior of the system,
or of evaluating various strategies, within the limits imposed
by a criterion or set of criteria, for operation of the system."
134
-------
TABLE 31
EXAMPLE MODELS AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION INTO DIFFERENT GROUPINGS
Model
Defi ni tion
On-site inspection and decision
using engineering judgment.
The Drexel University experimental
landfill (field site only)
Batch equilibrium study to determine
adsorption; shaker test; solid waste
evaluation leachate test (subsystem
models)
_ Column study to determine adsorption
and/or migration of certain chemicals
in given soil; thin-layer chromatog-
raphy (subsystem models)
Criteria listing; classification system
of the California State Water Control
Board; matrix method.
One-dimensional unsaturated transport
model of Bresler (1973) (subsystem
model)
10
vn
Descriptive (D)
Physical (P)
Mathematical (M)
TYPE OF MODEL
Conceptual (C)
Empirical (E)
Stochastic (S)
Determi ni stic (De)
Two-dimens ional
transport model
(1976)
saturated-unsaturated
of Duguid and Reeves
Model for groundwater flow and mass
transport under uncertainty of Tang
and Pinder (1977).
D
P
M
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
Static (St)
Dynamic (Dy)
Dy
Dy
St
Dy
St
Dy
Dy
Dy
Spatial
Dimension
(1, 2, 3)
3
3
-------
The process of simulation hence includes both construction of a
model and its actual use for studying the system, i.e., for evaluating
groundwater pollution potential due to the construction of a proposed
waste disposal site.
State of Development/Application. Of the different models discussed
above, conceptual-mathematical models appear to be the most promising,
but also the most complex for evaluating potential groundwater
contamination problems for given waste-disposal sites. Conceptual-mathematical
models are generally based upon a set of equations which describe
relationships between different input and output variables and system
parameters. These equations are derived using the principles of conservation
of mass, energy, and momentum, and constitutive relationships which define
certain systems. After suitable simplifications, the governing equations
generally reduce to a set of coupled non-linear partial differential
equations. One of these equations will describe fluid flow, and the
others pertain to the transport and behavior of different chemical
constituents associated with the waste leachate.
Several models of this type are currently available, the differences
between them stemming mostly as a result of the number of simplifications
made during derivation of the basic equations, the method of solving
the equations, or the type of boundary conditions used.
The following partial differential equations for the mass transport
of soluble waste constituents (density independent) and water in a
saturated-unsaturated three-dimensional medium can be used to simulate
a land disposal site and the underlying groundwater system.
136
-------
« Constituent Transportation Equation (See also Duguid and Reeves,
1976; van Genuchten, et al., 1977)
P3Sk
at
(a)
''/
Z o
m=l \
30Ck
at
(h)
\
-------
TABLE 32
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS USED IN THE
MASS TRANSPORT AND FLOW EQUATIONS
Symbol Explanation
C. Solution concentration of chemical species k (ML )
K
C* Constituent concentration of the source or sink term (ML )
C Specific soil-water capacity, (L )
o — 1
D.. Dispersion coefficients (tensor) (L T )
h Soil-water pressure head (L)
K.. Soil hydraulic conductivity (tensor) (LT~1)
n Porosity (L°)
q. Volumetric water velocity (LT )
Q Soil-water source or sink term, 0_ = 0 (x. - x .) (T )
Q Strength of source or sink term (L T )
Rk Rate term expressing soil/chemical or chemical/chemical
interactions (ML'V*1)
S. Adsorbed constituent concentration of chemical
k
species k (M )
S Specific storage coefficient (L )
S Degree of water saturation (L )
w
t Time (T)
x. Distance in i-th coordinate direction (L)
x . i-th coordinate of source or sink
wi
m m-th order rate constant for production or decay (M L T )
<* Dirac delta function
p Soil (dry) bulk density (ML*3)
0 Volumetric water content (L°)
138
-------
Equation 6 reveals that the volumetric water velocity, qj, is
necessary to obtain a solution to the equation. For this it is
necessary to solve Equation 7. This may be done once, leading to a
steady-state flow field ( !: = 0), or may be done continuously during
ot
the solution process, i.e., in a transient manner. Whatever solution
procedure is used, the volumetric flux, q., is obtained from Darcy's
I
law:
q. = - K. . 3 h + K. . ,0.
• J — U (8)
The constituent transport equation is also coupled to the water
flow equation through the dispersion coefficient, DJJ. The magnitude
of D.. depends upon the volumetric flow velocity, q., and the soil-water
content (determined from the pressure head).
When k = 1 in Equation 6, transport of only a single chemical
constituent is considered (e.g., chloride, pesticide, or trace metal).
Adsorption, if present, can then be modeled by employing an equation
describing the dependency of the sorbed constituent concentration,
s, on the solution concentration, c, through the use of an appropriate
adsorption isotherm. Several models for describing adsorption and/or
ion exchange are available. These equations may be classified into
two broad categories: equilibrium models which assume instantaneous
adsorption of the chemical, and kinetic models which consider the
rate of approach towards equilibrium. Table 33 presents some of the
most frequently-used adsorption models. Not included in the table are
those models which describe competition between two ionic species,
such as the commonly-used cation exchange equations. Except for a few
cases (e.g., Lai and Jurinak, 1971), generally two or more transport
equations must be solved for such multi-ion problems (k = 2,3,...).
139
-------
TABLE 33
PARTIAL LIST OF EQUATIONS USED TO DESCRIBE ADSORPTION REACTIONS
MODEL
1. Equilibrium
1.1 (linear)
1.2 (Langmulr)
EQUATION
s - k. c +
k, c
1 +
REFERENCE
Lapldus and Amundson (1952)
Llndstrom et al (1967)
TanJI (1970)
Ballaux and Peas lee (1975)
1.3 (Freundllch) s - ^ c
-2 k, s
s » k. c e
Llndstrom and Boersma (1970)
Swanson and Dutt (1973)
Llndstrom et al (1971)
van Genuchten et al (197^)
1.5 (Modified
Kjel land)
c + k, (1-cJ exp [k2 (cm - 2c)]
Lai and Jurinak (1971)
2. Non-equl1Ibrlum
2.1 (linear)
2.2 (Langmuir)
2.3 (Freundllch)
2.It
2.5
2.6
(k, c + k2 - s)
.
at
k2c
s)
s'
(k, c 2 - s)
k s -2k s
- kr e (k, c e 2 - s)
- kr (sm - s) s.nh L (Jill.)
L n I
ds , ki k?
— - k c ' s z
_3s
at
Lapldus and Amundson (1952)
Oddson et al (1970)
Horns by and Davidson (1973)
van Genuchten et al (197't)
Llndstrom et al (197D
Fava and Eyring (1956)
Leenheer and Ahlrichs (1971)
(Enfield et al , 1976)
k.and k? are constants, k represents a rate constant (T ), and s. and s represent Initial and
final (or maximum) adsorbed concentrations, respectively (after vcn GenucRten and deary, 1977).
I'tO
-------
Most of the equilibrium models in the table are special cases of
non-equilibrium models and follow directly from them by setting the time
-\c
derivative, 4jp equal to zero. All adsorption models in the table, except
model 2.6, represent reversible adsorption reactions. Model 2.6 was used
by Enfield and Bledsoe (1975) to describe orthophosphate adsorption. This
model represents an irreversible reaction which does not allow for
desorption of the chemical (adsorption remains positive at all times).
To complete the mathematical description of the system considered,
one needs additional relations describing the geometry of the system and
the initial and boundary conditions imposed on the partial differential
equations. These auxiliary conditions may, or may not, include such
information as: (1) initial constituent concentration distributions;
(2) type and concentration of potential contaminants; (3) geometry of
the waste disposal site; (A) aquifer configurations (two- or
three-dimensional); (5) precipitation/evaporation data; and (6) location
(and concentration) of rivers, open surface water bodies, or wells.
Once the governing equations and the initial and boundary conditions
are defined, solutions for the concentration of the constituent can be
generated by straight-forward, albeit very sophisticated, mathematical
manipulations. The solution procedure is generally such that the flow
equation is solved first to develop values of the soil-water pressure
head distribution and estimates of the volumetric flow velocity, q,
dispersion coefficient, D»;, and soil-water content, 6. In order to do
this, and provided an unsaturated zone is considered in the model, one
needs additional information on the relationships between the soil-water
pressure head, hydraulic conductivity, and soil-water content. Extensive
and time-consuming experimentation is required to obtain these functional
relationships. This places a significant burden on the reliability of
the description of water transport processes in the unsaturated zone.
-------
Mathematical solutions of Equations (6) and (7), or simplified
versions of them, may be generated in several ways. Basically two
approaches are currently used for this purpose: analytical and numerical
methods. These two approaches are discussed briefly.
Analytical Methods. In order to obtain an analytical solution
of the transport equation (Equation 5), one generally must assume a
constant fluid velocity, dispersion coefficient, physical parameters, and
input variables. Exact, explicit expressions for the constituent
concentration can then be generated through the use of integral and
differential calculus. Although the advantages of having analytical
solutions are numerous (ease of use, and low cost of operation once
derived), the necessity of having to make various simplifying assumptions
in order to solve Equation 6 severely restricts the applicability of
analytical solutions to waste disposal/groundwater contamination problems.
In spite of these restrictions, it appears that some of the available
two- and three-dimensional analytic solutions (Kuo, 1976; Want et al,
1977; Yeh and Tsai, 1976) may be applied to well-defined hydrogeologic
systems and should not be excluded from consideration. Another example
is the analytical study by Larson and Reeves (1976) who describe a
transport model which predicts the flow of water and trace contaminants
through a layered unsaturated soil medium.
Numerical Methods. While some situations may lend themselves
to analytical methods, most field problems of interest have such complex
physical and chemical characteristics that the flexibility of a numerical
approach is required. When numerical techniques are used, the partial
differential equations are generally reduced to a set of approximating
algebraic equations, which subsequently are solved using methods of
linear algebra. The most common numerical methods used are finite
differences, finite element, or the method of characteristics.
-------
When finite difference techniques are used, the derivatives .in the
governing partial differential equations are approximated with appropriate
difference equations. This method has been used successfully in groundwater
flow problems, but its application to groundwater,qua!ity studies is ,
limited. This is partly a result of the procedure's inability to reproduce
accurately the irregular boundaries of the system. Also, the.possible
introduction of numerical dispers.ion (the artificial smearing of a
concentration front) or of the occurrence of undesirable oscillations in
calculated concentration distributions has limited its use when dispersive
transport was small compared to convective transport.
In general, finite difference techniques are numerically the simplest
to use and the easiest to program. The method can yield accurate results
when the area of interest is subdivided into a sufficiently fine grid of
square or rectangular elements. The finite difference procedure has
found frequent application in the simulation of one-dimensional unsaturated
transport problems (Bresler, 1973; Wood and Davidson, 1975, among others).
Two-dimensional applications are limited (Bresler, 1975; Fried and
Ungemach, 1971).
The dependent variables in the finite element method, pressure head
and concentration, are generally approximated by a series of basic trial
or shape functions and associated coefficients. The approximating series
is then substituted into the governing equations, and the resulting
errors or "residuals" are minimized through the use of weighted-residual
theorems. In the Galerkin method, the locally-based shape functions a.re
the same as the weighting functions. The approximate integral equations
derived in this way are evaluated using the finite-element method of
discretion to minimize computational effort. Generally, a set of
linear equations is obtained which can be solved by using appropriate
matrix inversion subroutines or other methods. The domain of interest
is again subdivided into elements which, unlike finite differences, can
-------
attain nearly any particular shape desired (triangular, rectangular,
including elements having curved sides). A more-detailed discussion of
the finite element method can be found in several recent studies (Mutton
and Anderson, 1971; Finder, 1973; Pinder and Gray, 1977).
The finite element method has been successfully applied to field
problems involving mass transport. In some cases, numerical dispersion
remained a problem, but it is less than that observed using the finite
difference method. While the finite element method requires a somewhat
more complex manipulation in generating solutions than the finite difference
method, its solutions are generally more accurate, assuming the same net.
Important advantages of the finite element method are its flexibility in
describing irregular geometrical boundaries, its ease of introducing
nonhomogeneous properties and anisotropy, and the possibility of using
small elements in areas of relatively rapid change.
The method of characteristics, as generally used in groundwater
quality simulation studies, employs a finite difference approach for the
flow equation, while the constituent transport equation is solved with a
set of characteristic equations. These characteristic equations are
obtained from the main equations by deleting the convective transport
terms and including them in separate equations. One must design for this
purpose a standard finite difference network and insert "marker particles"
or moving points into each finite difference cell. The marker particles
are moved through the network as prescribed by local fluid velocities,
thereby describing exactly the effects of the convective transport terms.
The effects of the remaining terms in the transport equation are
superimposed on the updated positions of the marker particles using the
concentrations at these moving points and an appropriate finite difference
scheme. The method is fairly simple in concept and has been shown to
-------
produce acceptable results for a wide variety of field problems (Bredehoeft
and Finder, 1973; Robertson, 197*4; Konikow and Bredehoeft, 197'*). An
important drawback of this particular method is that it is not easy to
program in two or three dimensions.
There exists a variety of other numerical models which can be applied
to groundwater contamination problems. Most of these methods are not
based upon direct solution of the governing partial differential equations.
The most primitive are those using a lumped parameter approach, i.e.,
models which do not take into account the spatial variability of the
system parameters or input and output variables (Hornsby, 1973; Gelhar
and Wilson, 197*»; Donigian and Crawford, 1976; Mercado, 1976). The mass
balance equations are generally formulated, and the different input and
output variables are a function of time. For the distributive approach,
the mass balance equations are applied directly to a number of well-defined
cells, layers, or elements. The elements assume instantaneous mixing,
and the values of the independent variables are represented by the node
located in the center of each element.
A rigorous analysis of this approach shows that, for an explicit time,
a finite difference approximation of the governing equations is obtained.
This approach assumes that all significant physical and chemical mechanisms
are taken into account when formulating the mass balance equation. Examples
of this type of approach are given by Tanji et al. (1967) and Orlob and
Woods (1967).
A very similar approach was followed by Elzy et al. (197*0, who
applied a vertical-horizontal routing model to the transport of hazardous
wastes from a landfill site. A more elaborate, but still somewhat similar
model, is the "polygonal finite difference model" of Hassan (197**). The
two-dimensional elements take the form of a polygonal network. Hassan used
his model to estimate concentrations of total dissolved solids in a
-------
multi- layered groundwater basin in the Santa-Calleguas area of California.
Additional refinement of this method will eventually lead to an "integrated
finite difference" approximation of the governing partial differential
equations.
Each of the numerical schemes discussed above appear to have specific
advantages and disadvantages for application to field problems. These
may be separated into factors affecting the accuracy, efficiency, and
assessibi1ity of the particular method. While important differences in
accuracy and efficiency between the finite element and finite difference
methods are known to exist (Gray and Finder, 1976; van Genuchten, 1977),
it is not clear to what extent these differences become important when
simulating large-scale field problems. The accuracy and efficiency in
programming, as well as the general setup of the model and its assessibi1ity,
are also important factors which determine the usefulness of a particular
solution scheme.
-------
Existing Mathematical Models. A compilation is given in this
section of the different types of models currently available for possible
use in groundwater quality evaluation studies. The list of models in
Table 3*» is not intended to be complete; other models exist as either
published, unpublished, or under development by various organizations.
The purpose of Table 3*» is to demonstrate the existence of a wide variety
of models, to characterize their most important capabilities and
limitations, to identify the method of solution, and to show their
application. The models are differentiated into four distinct groups:
1) both saturated and unsaturated transport models; 2) saturated-only
model; or 3) unsaturated-only transport models; and k) analytical
transport models. Each group will be discussed briefly.
Unfortunately, no one model exists as yet which simulates all of the
physical, chemical, and biological processes associated with a waste
disposal site, i.e., a model which solves Equations 6 and 7 when k is
large. The complexity of the processes which operates simultaneously
and in an interactive manner are such that the resulting program would
be impractical to use, Assuming for the moment that the knowledge for
construction of such a general model was available and that the vast
amount of input data needed was available, the resulting program would
be so large and bulky that the cost of operating it would be too high.
Partially-Saturated Transport Models. The models in this group
are based upon Equations 6 and 7 (see page 135), or upon appropriate
simplifications of these equations. The different models simulate
either a three-dimensional system (model A2), or a two-dimensional
cross section. No cation-exchange reactions are considered in any of
the models in this group, although at least three take into account
adsorption (single-ion) and/or decay (models A1, A3, and A5).
-See Appendix A, Part VI: (6) Dungund and Reeves, 1976 and Van Genuchten
et. al., 1977; (7) Reeves and Dungund, 1975 and Newman, 1973.
-------
TABLE
PARTIAL LIST OF AVAILABLE TRANSPORT MODELS FOR APPLICATION
TO GROUND WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
Model
No
Model
References
A. SATURATED-UNSATURATED TRANSPORT MODELS
Al
A2
A3
A*»
A5
A6
Duguid and Reeves (1976, 1977)
Segol (1976, 1977)
van Genuchten et al (1977)
Sykes (1975)
Elzy et al. (197M
Perez et al. (197M
B. SATURATED-ONLY TRANSPORT
Bl
Gupta et al (1975)
Geometry
°f 1)
model1'
2D.C
2D.3D
2D.C
2D.C
2D.C
2D.C
3D
Method
of 2)
solut ion.
LFE
HFE
HFE
HFE
0
FD
HFE
Type
of 3)
f1owJ'
Tr
Tr
Tr
St
Tr
Tr
Tr
Type
"fl")
soil '
L.An
L,An
L.An
L.An
-
L
L, An
Type of
chemical c
interactions
Ad, De
-
Ad, De
-
Ad, De
-
) appl Icat Ion/
comments
transport of radionuclldes
from a waste-disposal site
-
leachate movement from a
hypothetical landfill
contaminant movement from
a landf i 1 1
contaminant movement from
a landfill
groundwater pollution from
agricultural sources
r
Simulates rising connate water
through a vertical fault in
multi-aquifer system (s*teady
state flow application only)
-t-
co
-------
TABLE 3k
(continued)
Model
No
B2
B3
B/4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
BIO
Bll
Model
references
Gureghian and Cleary
(1977)
Pickens and Lennox
(1976)
Schwartz (1975, 1977)
Bredehoeft and Plnder
(1973)
Konlkow and Bredehoe
(1974a b)
Robertson (197M,
Robertson and Barraclou;
(1973)
\ ' tf 1 J f
Robson (197M
Robertson (1975)
Konlkow (1976)
Helweg and Labadle
(1976)
Geometr
of ,v
model
3D
20, C
20, C
20, A
t 20, A
20, A
h
20, A
2/3D
20, A
20, A
Method
of 2)
solution'
LFE
TFE
MOC
MOC
MOC
MOC
MOC
A/MOC
MOC
MOC
Type
of ,
flow3'
St
St
St
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
St
Tr
Type
of M
sol 1
An
L.An
An
An
An
An
An. L
An
Type of I
chemical • r\
Interactions appl Icat lons/com-nents
AT), De
Ad
Ad.Ce.De
—
Ad, De
Ad, De
Ad, De
-
applied to an existing landfill on
long Island
contaminant transport from a hypothetical
landfill
hypothetical study of subsurface pollution
by radioactive wastes (1975); model analysis
of a proposed waste-management site (1977)
movement of salt water In confined limestone
aquifer; predicted future concentrations and
tested effects of protective pumping.
used calibrated model to evaluate effects of
different irrigation practices on salinity
changes In an alluvial stream-aquifer system.
Transport of industrial and low-level radio-
active wastes into the Snake River Plain
aquifer, Idaho. Simulated 20 year history of
pol lution.
Pollution of shallow aquifer by seepage from
sewage treatment ponds; predicted future con-
centrations and tested alternative watermana-
gement pi ans .
Three-segment model for flow, Including ablllt1
to simulate perched water In the unsaturated
zone (see also B7)
Simulated 30 year history of groundwater pol-
lution by chloride from an unllned disposal
pond into the underlying alluvial aquifer.
Adapted version of B6 ; used as a cost-
effective salinity management technique for
stream-aquifer systems.
-------
TABLE 31*
(continued)
Model
No
B12
813
Bl1*
BI5
B16
B17
818
B19
Model
references
Grove (1976)
Reddell and Sunada
(1970)
Ahl strom and Baca
(197M
Pinder (1973)
Thorns et al. (1977);
Martinez et al. (1975)
Besbes et al (1976)
Fried (1971,1975)
Fried and Ungemach
(1971)
Lessl (1976)
Geometr
of ,)
model
20,
2D, A,C
20, A
20, A
20, A
2/30, A
20, A
20, C
Method
°f 2)
solut ion
FE
HOC
MOC
HFE
HFE
FD
FD
HFE
Type
of ,\
flow3'
Tr
St/Tr
St
St
Tr
Tr
Tr
Type
of.,M
SOI 1
An
An
An
_
L
«.
L
Type of |
chemical * r\
interactions applications/comments
Ad, De
_
Ad, Ce
-
Ad, De
— . *
_
-
Transport of Industrial and low-level radio-
active wastes into Interbedded basalt flows
and unconsol idated sediments.
Three-dimensional formulation, two-d Imens lona
appl i cat ion only.
Considers adsorption and exchange of several
macro- and micro-ions.
described and predicted future concentrations
of hexavalent chromium seeping from a waste
disposal pit into underlying glacial outwash
aqui fer
describes groundwater pollution from salt
dome leachates.
Areel model for multllayered aqui fersystem;
predicted concentration changes after dam
construction in the Kalrouan Plain, Tunesla.
flow part based on Boussinesq equation;
describes pollution by NaCl from large salt
dumps Into alluvial aquifer in Northeastern
France.
applied to solute transport In a heteroge-
neous aquifer.
-------
TABLE 3k
(continued)
Model
No
SALTV
B25
B26
827
B28
B29
Model
references
ATER INTRUSION MODELS
Pinder and Page
C977)
Segol, Pinder and Gra
(1975)
Lee and Cheng (197**)
Green and Cox (1966)
Pinder and Cooper
(1970)
Geometr
of })
model
20, A
2D.C
20,
2D,
20, C
Method
of 2)
solution
TFE
HFE
MOC
MOC
MOC
Type
of ..
flow3'
Tr
St
Tr
St
Type
of M
soil ;
An
An
-
Type of
chemical
Jnteractlo
—
-
-
_
ns applications/comments
vertically integrated sharp- i nterf ace salt
water intrusion model. No transport equation
is solved.
calculating the position of the saltwater
front .
seawater encroachment in coastal aquifers.
storage of fresh water in underground
reservoirs containing saline water.
calculating the transient position of
a saltwater front.
-------
TABLE 31*
(continued)
Model
No
c w
Cl
C2
C3
Ck
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
CIO
Cll
Model
references
SATURATED-ONLY TRANSPOR
Brosler (1975)
HI 1 deb rand and
H!mmelbau(1977),
Hlldebrand(1975)
Bresler (1973)
Wood and Davidson( 1975
Davidson et al.(1975a,
1975b)
Ungs et al. (1976)
Sellm et al. (!97&a)
Shah et al. (1975)
Kirda et al, (1973)
Tanjl et al. (1967a,b)
Tanjl et at- (1972)
Dutt et al. (197^.)
Rubin and James(1973)
Geomet r
Of ,j
model
T MODELS
20, C
ID
ID
1 ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Method
of 2)
solution'
FD
FD
FD
FD
FD
FD
FD
FB
FD
FD
LFE
Type
of ,v
flow"
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
St
Tr
St
Tr
St
Type
of M
soil ;
-
-
-
~
-
-
L
-
L
L
-
Type of I
chemical D r\
Interact Ions appl 1 cat Ions/comments
-
-
-
Ad
Ad, De
Ad
Ad
Ad, Ce,
Ad, Ce
Ad, Ce
describes two-dimensional transport of solutes
under a trickle source
transport of nitrate In a sand column
compared results with field data on chloride
transport during Infiltration
applied to pesticide transport
compared results with observed field data
on chloride transport during infiltration
applied to transport of 2,^-D in soils
applied to phosphorus transport Is soils;
assumes constant dispersion coef f 1 cientand
kinetic model for phorphorus adsorption
applied to an ion movement In soil columns
approximate solutions for cation exchange
In field sol Is
-------
TABLE 3*»
(continued)
Model
No
02
C13
CH»
CIS
C16
CI7
CIS
Model
references
van Genuchten and
Pinder (1977)
Gureghian et al. (1977
King and Hanks(1973,
1975)
Gaudet et al. (1977)
Sellm et al. (1977)
Warrlck et al. (1971)
Smajstrala et al.
(1975)
Geometr
Of ,j
model
ID
iO
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Method
of .
solution'
HFE/FD
FD
FD
FD
FD
FD/A
MOC
Type
of -
flow5'
Tr
Tr
Tr
St
St
Tr
Tr
Type
of M
soil '
L
L
-
-
L
-
.
Type of B
chemical * r\
interact Ions appl 'cat Ions/comments
Ad.De.Ce
Ad.De.Ce
Ad,De,Ce
-
Ad
-
-
modeling of leachate and soil
interactions in an aquifer.
simulation of pollutant
transport in Long Island, N.Y.
applied to irrigation return flow quality
studies. Includes plant root uptake of water.
applied to soil with mobile and Immobile
water
applied to Cl and 2,^-D movement in two-layere
soil column.
approximate analytical solution of transport
equation; applied to field Irrigation study
with chloride.
miscible Displacement in soils
un
V-O
-------
TABLE 3*»
(continued)
Model
No
Model
references
Geometr
of
model
1)
Method
of }
solution'
Type
of
flow
3)
Type
of
soil
Type of I
chemical ' r\
Interactions applIcatlons/comment3
D ANALYTICAL TRANSPORT MODELS
Dl
D2
ui
-C-
Kuo(1976), Shen(1976)
deary et al. (1973),
Wang et al. (1977),
Yeh and Tsal(197&),
deary (1976),
others
2,3D
St
(Ad.De)
among
Lapidus and Amundson
(1952), Brenner (19&2)
Lindstrom et al (19&7)
Lindstrom and Boersma
(1971, 1973), Lindstroi
and Stone (1971+a,b) ,
deary and Adrian(1973
Marino(l97/+) . Ogata
(1961), «j»an Genuchten
and W.lenenga (1976) ,
Selim and Hansel 1
(1976), among others
ID
St
(Ad, De)
various applications and assumptions
various applIcatlonsf Including
- zero and first order decay
- linear equilibrium adsorption,
- first order kinetic adsorption
- solute transfer between mobile
Immoblie water
- decaying boundary conditions
and
1)
ID = one-dimensional
2D = two-dimensional
3D = three-dimensional
A = Area! (20 only)
C = Crossectional (20 only)
2)
A = Analyt ical
FD = finite differences
LFE = linear finite elements
TFE = triangular finite elements
HFE = mixed/higher order
finite elements
HOC = method of characteristics
0 = other
" 3)
Tr = Transient
St = Steady-state
L = layered
An = anisotropic
5)
Ad = adsorpt ion
Ce = cation exchange
(multi-ion transport)
De = decay
-------
The models in this group are probably the most appropriate because
they consider the unsaturated-flow conditions in a landfill or under the
waste-disposal site. For example, aerobic decomposition of hazardous
organic wastes (including pesticides) and certain oxidation-reduction
reactions could be taken into account in such models. Also, one of the
more important attenuation mechanisms, dilution of leachate by flowing
groundwater, can be much more clearly defined with saturated-unsaturated
transport models. Unfortunately, inclusion of the unsaturated zone also
places a considerable burden on the effective and economical use of the
model. The highly non-linear character of the governing equations during
saturated-unsaturated flow makes its solution more difficult, and,
generally, small time steps in the numerical algorithm are necessary to
ensure a correct solution. This can lead to high computer costs when
simulations are to be made for a period of several years (Segol, 197^;
Duguid and Reeves, 1976).
Several simplifications can be made to circumvent some of these
problems. For example, the use of monthly average rain/evaporation data
(van Genuchten et al, 1977; Duguid and Reeves, 1977) rather than hourly
or daily data or assume steady-state flow conditions altogether (Skyes,
1975). While steady-state flow conditions may be justified in some cases,
it appears that predictions of the amount and quality of leachate reaching
the groundwater may be inaccurate when evaporation on a yearly basis is
of equal magnitude or high than precipitation. Also, seasonal water
changes cannot be described with the steady-state model.
Another problem associated with the unsaturated zone is the need for
additional input data. For example, the nonlinear relationships between
moisture content, pressure head, and hydraulic conductivity have to be
determined for each soil type present in the system. In addition, and of
equal importance, the different soi1-chemical interactions occurring in
the unsaturated zone have to be quantified. Thus, it appears that the
155
-------
technology for modeling contaminant transport is far less advanced than
that for modeling fluid flow, especially with respect to adsorption and
exchange reactions in the unsaturated zone.
Notwithstanding these problems, the partially-saturated transport
models appear to be the most promising tools for evaluating potential
groundwater contamination from waste disposal sites. Much research is
still needed before the models in this group can be applied in a
practical, accurate, and economical way. Problems related to contaminant
transport and the need for quantification of the many adsorption/exchange
reactions in the unsaturated zone will require more study.
Saturated-Only Transport Models. In these models, the dynamics
of the unsaturated zone between the waste disposal site and the
groundwater table are ignored. Hence, important mechanisms associated
with unsaturated flow and contaminant transport are not taken into
account, unless they are represented in an approximate way through data
adjustments. To use these models it is necessary to have a method of
quantifying the amount and quality of leachate reaching the groundwater
table. Given that this can be done beforehand, i.e., in a predictive
way, the models listed in this group appear to be useful tools for
groundwater contamination simulations. The need for describing the
unsaturated zone becomes much less when the waste disposal site is in
direct contact with the saturated zone.
Many of the models listed in this category use the method of
characteristics (HOC) for solution of the transport equation, and are
either extensions, simplications, or otherwise adaptations of the areal
models for fluid flow and mass transport (Pinder and Bredehoeft, 1968;
Bredehoeft and Pinder, 1973).
156
-------
Models of this type have found application in a wide variety of
practical field problems, mostly in cases where groundwater pollution was
observed and wehre calibration of the model to field data was possible.
Some additional work seems necessary to determine the accuracy of these
models for use in a purely-predictive context, i.e., where calibration
of the model is not possible, or purposely sidestepped. Also, for the
models in this group, it seems again that the technology for describing
fluid flow is well ahead of that for describing mass transport of
adsorbing chemicals (generally for non-conservative species). Provided
the necessary data can be obtained, models in this group are probably
sufficiently tested, and, hence, could be used within a few years for
prediction of IDS (total dissolved solids) concentrations.
A special class of saturated-only transport models is provided by
the salt water intrusion models (models B25-B29). These models differ
from the other (cross sectional) models in this group in that they
consider density-dependent flow, and, as such, are applicable to
contaminant transport from water disposal sites. Table 35 gives a
summary assessment of the models in this group.
Unsaturated-Only Transport Models. Because these models consider
only the unsaturated zone, they cannot be used to describe contaminant
migration in groundwater systems. The models (one-dimensional) in this
category are useful when studying the mechanisms of pollutant transport
in the unsaturated zone, especially the transient waste/soil interactions
associated with column-leaching studies. Another and important
application of these models results when they are used simultaneously
with saturated-only transport models. These models can be used to
predict the amount and type of leachate reaching the groundwater table,
information which is used as input for the saturated-only transport model
(see, for example, model A6).
157
-------
TABLE 35
SUMMARY OF MODEL DEVELOPMENT BY TYPE
STATE OF DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY
1. Mathematical formulation
of any model
2. Numerical solution
of any model
3. Field calibration and testing:
saturated/unsaturated transport
saturated-only transport
unsaturated-onl y transport
b. Field verification:
saturated/unsaturated transport
saturated-only transport
unsaturated-only transport
5. Methodology for laboratory and
field quantification of major
parameters ' (any model)
6. Methodology for quantification
of leachate qual i ty
7. Standard procedures for field
testing, calibration and
verification (any model)
8. Ready for use as a decision proce
saturated/unsaturated transport
saturated-only transport '
unsaturated-only transport '
FLUID
FLOW
0
0
0
0
0
D3
0
0
0
NA
D3
dure
NA
NA
NA
MASS TRANSPORT
SINGLE- ION TRANSPORT
NO ADSORPTION
NO DECAY
0
0
03
0
0
03
D3
0
D3
NA
03
D3
D3
03
WITH ADSORPTI
WITH DECAY
03
03
06
D3
D3
06
D3
03
D3
0
06
06
06
D3
MULT 1- ION
ON TRANSPORT
(+EXCHANGE)
03 - ?
03 - ?
06 - ?
06 - ?
D6 - ?
010 -?
06 - ?
06 - ?
06 - ?
0
010 -?
D10-?
D10-?
06 -?
0 = operat ional ;
03 = under development, likely to be operational within three years;
D6 = under development, likely to be operational within six years;
010= under development, likely to be operational within ten years;
? = under development, not likely to be operational within ten years;
NA •= not appl i cable
1) adsorption/exchange constants, dispersion coefficients, soil hydraulic properties, etc
2) If the indicated transport model is suitable for application at given site.
158
-------
Analytical Models. Analytical transport models, especially the
two- and three-dimensional models, appear to have limited application to
actual (field) groundwater contamination problems. Their application is
restricted to those cases wherein the geohydrology of the area is very
simple (flow in one direction, constant porosity, dispersivity, and
conductivity). The different one-dimensional analytical models (Models
Ds) are again potentially fuseful as tools for identification and
quantification of waste/soil interactions when used in conjunction with
column-leaching experiments for quantification of adsorption constants,
dispersion coefficients, etc.
159
-------
Existing Non-Mathematical Simulation Models. Numerous
non-mathematical simulation models currently exist which may be
generally categorized into: (1) soi1-leachate column studies;
(2) batch or shaker tests; (3) thin layer chromatography; and (A) a
dilution model. Considerable research has been conducted to date in
utilizing soi1-leachate column studies. (See Appendix B.) Significant
column studies have been conducted by: Fuller and Korte, at the
University of Arizona; Griffin, et al., at the Illinois State Geological
Survey (IGS); Farquhar and Rovers at the University of Waterloo, Canada;
and Bromley, et al., at Harwell Laboratory, the United Kingdom.
Batch or shaker test research has also been conducted by Griffin,
et al. (IGS) and is currently being utilized or proposed for use as a
waste characterization procedure by most of the regulatory agencies
contacted. Thin layer chromatography research is also being conducted
by Griffin et al. (IGS). A dilution model has been described by
D.B. Oakes of the Water Research Centre, the United Kingdom.
Each of these basic procedures is described in the following text.
So?1-Leachate Column Studies. Because of the complex nature
of most waste leachates and the number of processes that may occur within
the saturated or unsaturated soil to influence the behavior of a waste
constituent, soil-column studies have been used to simulate natural field
conditions. These experiments have been used to quantify the potential
for a given soil to attenuate specific constituents commonly present in
municipal and industrial waste. These experiments have used soils which
represent the major soil orders throughout the United States and clays
commonly used for liners in landfills. Regression equations using this
data base have been developed to estimate the mobility or attenuation
of various constituents using fundamental chemical and physical
properties of the soil.
160
-------
The soils or clays used in laboratory column studies are initially
air-dried and passed through a 2-mm screen. The size (radius and length)
of the columns (glass or plastic) used to confine the soil or clay varies,
but it generally exceeds 2.5 cm in radius and 15 cm in length. The
air-dried materials are uniformly packed into columns using various
techniques. A procedure frequently used to pack the columns consists
of adding increments of soil and tamping the soil with a rod approximately
1 cm in diameter. Uniformity of packing is determined based upon the
amount of soil packed into equal-column increments. The average bulk
density for the packed materials is approximately 1.5 g/cm3 for silt and
clay materials, and greater than 1.6 g/cm^ for sands.
Most laboratory experiments are conducted using water-saturated soil
or clay systems. Unsaturated soil-water conditions are difficult to
control, and the soil-water flow rates are extremely low for these cases.
In order to water saturate these materials it is necessary to evacuate
the soil columns or purge the air from the porous materials with C02.
The soils or clay should be initially wet with a dilute calcium salt
solution (for example, 0.01 N CaCl2 or CaSO^). The calcium prevents
dispersion and maintains constant pore geometry.
The columns should be constructed in such a manner that the inflow
solution can be changed without seriously interrupting the experiment.
The outflow end of the column should be designed to facilitate effluent
solution collection for analysis. Measurements of the input solution
volume with time should be possible for monitoring the solution or
leachate flow rate through the soil column. The physical position
(vertical or horizontal) of the column is not important except in
regulating solution flow rates for some experimental cases. The
solution flow rate through the saturated porous material may be
controlled: with a peristaltic pump, with constant solution head on
the top of the soil or clay material, or by gas pressures. The
161
-------
procedure used generally depends upon funds available and necessity of
maintaining a constant flow rate. Flow rate is an important variable for
many soil or clay materials and specific adsorbed constituents. Inadequate
equilibrium conditions or resident times in the column can influence a
waste constituent's mobility. Insofar as possible, constant solution
flow rates should be maintained.
The solution used to initially wet the soil or clay column is
generally applied until three to five pore volumes (amount of water
contained in the saturated or unsaturated soil column) have been eluted.
This procedure aids in establishing equilibrium conditions prior to the
application of a waste leachate. Anaerobic conditions similar to those
existing for natural conditions under landfills are also established
during this period.
After preconditioning the soil or clay column, the waste leachate is
applied. If anaerobic conditions are to be maintained, the waste
leachate must also be kept anaerobic. Following the application of the
leachate, effluent sample collection is initiated- The effluent sample
size depends upon the number of analyses to be performed and the volume
required for each analysis. Maintaining the effluent solution anaerobicly
may be necessary if the chemical form (oxidized or reduced) of a given
constituent is one of the experimental variables to be measured.
Constituents that do not interact with the solid matrix (for example,
chloride) should reach approximately one-half their inflow concentration
in the effluent following the application of one leachate pore volume.
Constituents which interact with the soil matrix (ion exchange) will
be retarded in their movement through the column. The extent of the
retardation depends upon the ease with which a constituent exchanges
with the other materials existing on the exchange complex. This is
illustrated in Figure 15.
162
-------
Input
1.0
03
01
c
o
03
1 0.5
o
o
O
0
o
O
Non-Adsorbed Constituent
(e.g., Chloride)
Adsorbed Constituent
(e.g., Cadmium)
1.0
2.0 3.0
Pore Volumes, V/Vo
4.0
5.0
FIGURE 15 SOIL-LEACHATE COLUMN ANALYSIS
Simulation of constituent concentration in the effluent
leaving a soil column versus the number of pore volumes
of water that have passed through the column. Pore
volume is total volume of effluent passed through the
column (V) divided by volume of water held by the soil
column (Vo). Input concentration of each constituent is 1.0
163
-------
The number of pore volumes required for a specific constituent to
reach a given concentration in the effluent has been used to develop
"attenuation numbers". These attenuation numbers generally are more
directly related to constituent mobility (ion exchange) than attenuation
as defined in this report. The number of pore volumes required for a
constituent to appear in the effluent may be used to define ion exchange
or adsorption-desorption parameters for a constituent and soil or clay
system.
The distribution of specific constituents within a column of soil
or clay at the end of an experiment can be measured by sectioning the
column and analyzing each increment for the constituent(s) in question.
This procedure provides insight into the presence of chemical and
physical processes other than ion exchange. For example, if the
concentration of a given constituent in a soil increment near the input
is higher than the constituent concentration in the leachate (following
correction for adsorbed fraction), the constituent may have precipitated.
Concentration distributions are useful in identifying chemical and
physical processes occurring within the saturated or unsaturated soil or
clay system.
Modifications of the previously-described column studies have been
used to simulate various natural field conditions. For example, the
leachate is frequently applied directly to the dry soil or clay system
without the pretreatment. Also, a series of columns have been used with
the effluent from one column being the input to the next column. These
modifications and others are used in order to more closely simulate
natural field conditions. However, the results are interpreted in a
similar manner.
Soil-column experiments are useful, but are frequently improperly
interpreted. If a leachate constituent appears in the effluent,
-------
attenuation as described in this report may or may not have occurred to
a significant degree. Also, if after a predesignated number of pore
volumes have passed through the column and the constituent is not in the
effluent, this does not mean that the constituent was attenuated. For
example, if the constituent's mobility is reduced to a very low value,
it will require a long time for it to reach the effluent end of the
column, but it will appear eventually in the effluent. These and other
misinterpretations are commonly made using column studies.
Column studies are also useful in determining hydraulic properties
and dispersion coefficients of specific soil or clay materials. Because
the dispersion coefficient is a function of fluid flow rate and degree
of water saturation, several displacements of a constituent through the
porous material may be necessary.
Batch or Shaker Tests. Interest In the adsorption-desorption
characteristics of specific constituents in various waste leachates and
soils and soil combinations has increased significantly in the past
decade. This interest is a result of the fact that adsorption-desorption
parameters can be used to predict the mobility of waste constituents in
field soils and the efficiency and/or environmental safety of given wastes
applied to or buried in the soil.
Several types of experiments can be used for measuring adsorption
characteristics, but the most widely used is the "batch" or "shaker"
method. This procedure consists of combining a known volume of waste
leachate of a predetermined composition with a given mass of air dry
soil. The mixture is shaken until equilibrium is attained. If the
constituents of interest are adsorbed, their concentration in the
solution phase of the mixture will decrease. The equilibrated solution
is generally separated from the solid phase by centrifugation or filtering.
The resulting relative distribution of the constituents between the adsorbed
165
-------
and soil-water phases depends on factors such as: soil properties,
temperature, and salt concentration of the original leachate and soil.
The batch method has been specified in the Protocol for Adsorption Tests,
recently published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
in its guidelines for registering pesticides in the United States
Federal Register, 1975, ^Q (123): 26881-26895.
Adsorption equilibria data are generally described by the empirical
Freundlich equation:
S = KCN
log x/m = log K + N log C
where S is the amount (x) of adsorbed constituent per unit amount of soil
(m); C is the equilibrium solution concentration of the constituent; and
K and N are empirical constants. The adsorption coefficient, K, can be
obtained by plotting log x/m ( C - Co /m) where Co is the original
concentration of the constituent in the leachate) versus log C, yielding
a linear curve of slope N. The units of x/m and C are often in Mg/g
and^g/ml, respectively. When C is 1.0 pig/ml, the corresponding value of
log x/m is equal to log K. Deviations of the value of N from unity, a
common observation, reflects the nonlinearity of the adsorption process.
If N were unity, the K would be identical with the partition coefficient.
Adsorption isotherms which follow the Freundlich relationship given
by Equation 8 may be obtained using the above procedure and various
original solution concentrations, Co. The adsorbed constituent
concentration S, is plotted versus the equilibrium solution
concentration of the constituent, C, for each Co. The results of such
an experiment are illustrated in Figure 16 for two constituents. The
absorption isotherm described by S = 10 C represents a constituent which
is less mobile in the soil than that described by S = 1.0 C. Both
constituents are adsorbed and would be retarded in their movement through
a column of the type used in the adsorption experiments.
166
-------
if)
.2
to
-*— '
§
w
o
O
T3
03
.Q
O
(/)
•o
100
10
3 1.0
0.1
S = 10C
S = 1.0C
I
I
J_
0.1 1.0 10
Solution Concentration of Constituent, C
100
1,000
FIGURE 16 SIMULATED ADSORPTION ISOTHERMS
Described by the Freundllch Relationship
In Equation 8; Isotherms are Linear (N = 1.0).
167
-------
The batch adsorption experiments are useful in evaluating
constituent mobility, but may be misleading if appreciable complexing
of the constituents occurs during the contact period over which the
batch experiment is conducted. The complexing of the constituent
would result in a reduction in the equilibrium solution concentration
over and above that associated with adsorption. These results would
suggest that the constituent was adsorbed to the soil in larger amounts
than was actually the case. Using this type of information, one would
conclude that the constituent was less mobile than the data obtained
from a column experiment. The complexing of the constituent would
represent attenuation as described and used in that report.
The batch adsorption experiments, if properly conducted, can be
\
used to provide necessary parameters for mathematical models. This is
a procedure that has found wide acceptance as a good indication of
constituent mobility. However, the procedure has not been adequately
tested with complex leachate wastes where various processes may occur
si multaneously.
Batch or shaker test procedures have been developed by many of
the regulatory agencies contacted. Where utilized, they are described
in Appendix C.
Thin Layer Chroma^tography - Until recently, methods for
investigating the mobility of various waste constituents in soils were
based upon field- or soil-column studies. These studies were time
consuming and costly to conduct. The soil thin-layer chromatography
procedure (soil TLC) is an alternate technique. The method is
analogous to the conventional TLC, with soil substituted for the paper
or solid adsorbent phase. The procedure appears to correlate well with
mobility "trends" observed in 1aboratory-column studies and batch
adsorption experiments.
168
-------
The procedure consists of dry-sieving coarse-textured soils to less
than 500/i, and medium- or fine-textured soils to less than 250/i. Frequently
it is necessary to put the soil through a crusher-siever to obtain this
size range. Clean glass plates 20 by 20, 10 by 20, or 5 by 20 cm are
used to hold the soil layer. The soil is slurried with water until
moderately fluid, then promptly applied to the glass plate using a
variable-thickness TLC spreader. Thicknesses of SOOju for medium- and
fine-textured soils, and 750/j for coarser soils are generally used.
Plates may be stored air-dry indefinitely.
A horizontal line is scribed across the soil 11.5 cm above the base
to stop water movement during chromatography development. A radioactive
isotope of the constituent of interest is added to the leachate from
the disposal site for use as a tracer. The leachate is then spotted
at 1.5 cm from the base; thus, the constituent can potentially move 10
cm. After spotting, the plate is immersed in 0.5 cm of water and removed
when the water front reaches the scribed line made on the plate. The
plates"during development are kept in a closed chamber to prevent
evaporation during the vertical upward movement of water.
After the soil has wet to 10 cm, the plate is air dried and an
X-ray film is placed in direct contact with the soil plate. The
resultant autograph indicates the distance a constituent has moved which
is measured as the frontal or retardation factor, Rf. The Rf value is
the distance the center of the constituent spot moved up the plate
divided by the distance the water front moved (10 cm). This is
illustrated in Figure 17.
The Illinois Geological Survey Laboratory is currently using the
soil thin layer chromatography procedure to identify the extent of
adsorption and its impact upon a given constituent's mobility in the
soil. This research group is also using multiple-regression equations
169
-------
= 1.0
(Chloride)
•Water Front
R. = 0.5
Initial Location of Spot
R. = 0.2
FIGURE 17 THIN-LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY
The shaded areas represent three different constituent
locations after the water front has migrated to the 10-cm
height above the Initial location of each spot. The shaded
area with an Ri equal to one represents a non-adsorbed
constituent such as chloride with the least mobile
constituent In the illustration having a Rt of 0.2.
170
-------
to determine the relative importance of various soil parameters to the
Rf values obtained from a number of-soils and given waste constituents.
These equations would then allow mobility predictions to be made for a
given waste constituent (assuming similar leachate composition) using a
few basic soil (physical and chemical) parameters.
The soil TLC procedure does not measure attenuation or the
potential for a given constituent to attenuate after being placed in a
soil. This procedure measures only the mobility of a constituent in
comparison to water which does not interact with the solid matrix. The
retardation factor, Rf, measured by TLC is inversely ( /Rf) proportional
to the adsorption coefficient, K, measured in the batch or slurry tests
for adsorption.
Pilution Model. D.B. Oaks, of the Water Research Center,
Medmenham Laboratory, published a paper in January 1976 entitled
Dilution of Tip Percolates in Groundwater. This paper describes a
mathematical "model" approach to define and evaluate the effects of
leachate attenuation strictly by: dilution in groundwater, dilution
in down-gradient well discharge, and travel times for leachate
migration both to down-gradient wells and streams.
Consider a tip of dimension L meters in the direction of groundwater
flow, and W meters transverse to this direction. If the infiltration
rate from the tip to the water table is I m/a (meters/annum) and the
concentration of some pollutant in the tip leachate is C mg/1, then the
volume of leachate reaching the water table each year is IWL m-$, and the
mass of pollutant carried with the leachate is IWLC gm/a (gram-meter/annum).
If the groundwater flow rate is U m/a and the depth of mixing of percolate
and groundwater is B m., then the effective volume of groundwater with
which the leachate mixes is UWB mVa and the concentration of pollutant
in the groundwater is given by:
IWC 1C
IWL + UWB I + UB/L
171
-------
Hence the dilution factor, defined here as the ratio of concentration
in groundwater beneath the tip to concentration in the leachate, is given
by
d =
I
I + UB/L
Typical values of UB are given in Table 36 for chalk, sandstone, and
gravel aquifers.
TABLE 36
AQUIFER PROPERTIES
Aquifer UB (m2/d)
Chalk
Sandstone
Gravel
3 to 10
0.5 to 2
10 to 20
Two sizes of tip were considered, with lengths of 50 m and 300 m,
respectively. A recharge rate, I, equal to 0.3 m/a (meter/year), was
used in all calculations. The calculated dilution factors are given in
Table 37.
TABLE 37
DILUTION FACTORS
Tip length L (m)
Aq u i f e r
Chalk
Sandstone
Gravel
0
0
0
.k
.2
.2
10-2
10-1
10-2
5£
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
1
7
k
10-1
10-1
10-2
0
0
0
.2
.1
.1
10-1
10-1
300
- 0.7
- 0.3
- 0.2
ID'1
10-1
172
-------
Of practical interest is the concentration of pollutant in water
discharged from a pumping well in the vicinity of a landfill site. If
a well is located directly down gradient from a tip, it is likely that
all of the percolate will be induced to flow to the well. The dilution
factor, defined now as the ratio of concentration of pollutant in the
well discharge to concentration in the tip percolate, has been estimated
for each size of tip and is shown in Table 38. The dilution factors in
this case are independent of the aquifer type, but are dependent on the
abstraction rate.
TABLE 38
DILUTIONS IN WELL DISCHARGE
Tip Dimensions (m)
Well Discharge
Rate (mgd) 50 x 50 300 x 300
0.5 0.9 10~3 0.3 10"1
1 0.5 10"3 0.2 10"1
2 0.2 10-3 0.8 10~2
5 0.9 10"A 0.3 ID"2
173
-------
On-Going Research. Several researchers, research institutions,
federal agencies, and universities have developed, and are currently in
the process of developing, mathematical models for the prediction of
contaminant migration in subsurface environments. The following modeling
activities are the most pertinent to this study:
USGS Modeling Activities. The U.S. Geological Survey is probably
the single-most active agency modeling quantitative and qualitative
aspects of groundwater. Their degree of sophistication, level of effort,
and expertise in modeling parallels or exceeds the capabilities of most
agencies and research institutes working in this field. From its
multimillion dollar modeling program, the U.S.G.S. has developed, or is
developing, the following: (1) two-dimensional models for coupled flow
of water and transport of conservative and non-conservative trace
constituents in saturated media. (2) two-dimensional models for transport
of conservative and non-conservative constituents in unsaturated media.
Table 39 gives a listing of the status of groundwater quality and
quantity modeling within the U.S.G.S. Currently several of the two- and
three-dimensional models for describing the transport of conservative
species in saturated media have been field tested and verified. U.S.G.S.
personnel recognize that the mathematical development and numerical
solution procedures far exceed their ability to quantify the major
leachate and hydrogeologic parameters required for conducting simulations.
The effective use of simulation models is apparently greatly impaired by
a lack of data and procedures to quantify the various system parameters
and input data, and future research should address itself to these
shortcomi ngs.
-------
TABLE 39
STATUS OF GROUNDWATER MODELING,
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Con-
Op- linoed pnMJpj us GeoIoeSeal
FLOW
Saturated
Two-dj manaJcaaj
JUaljtioal
X S. B. Panadapulos, B. L.
• Finite different*
Finite ilmiinl C
X B. M
X P. O. Traaeott
X G. F.
Pindar-. R. L. Cooler ....
FLoiw
Tkna-dbncraunal
•-C Anatoff Nctvorka
B. T. Bon
xrloJ (Finite diUrr.no.)
(or entirely) unaaturaud
Ooa-dimfluiona)
Analytical* ......... -
S. U. Lon»wflJ
P. C Traacoa
Numerical—Finite difference
Finite element—Caierku
NttmrricaJ — Finite difference
C D. BippU. 1. Rubin.'T. E .A.
Van Hykaama.
J. Rubin and C. D. Ripple
__..do .... ._._.._.._._..
Sumeriril—Finite .foment—Galerkin
LAND SUBSIDENCE—Induced or around water enrarxun
R-C
__ and Analytical _
COUPLEU GROUND WATEH—elrran ey«
Numerical—Finite diffei
Non-ricaJ and
F. S. Riley
D. G. Jonrenam
D. C B.lm
.. G. F. Finder • and S. P. Saner .
.. A. F. Moench. V. B. Saoer.
M. E. J.omno-
COUPLED GROUND WATEH—RAINFALL-RUNOFF
MODELS—Numerical
COUPLED GROUND WATER—ECONOMIC SYSTEMS—
Nnmerieal
1. E. R~<) and M.
and John Tcrrr.
T. Haddock. Ill and J. D.
COUPLED PLOW AND TKANSPORT OF CHEMICAL
CONST mjEvra
Sunnted tfftfm
Gonkcrvativ* (or noneonaemtiv* tnw« c
Uniforn dmaltr. ioorniiie
T-0-dunnuiooal
~
_ X
X U F. Kcmiko. and J. D.
Bivbboaft.
Finite di>«rciu»
MniU al«>cB>--Cal. Cooper u>d other*
(1968).
Bklbnake (19CO). Patten
(19461. Slallmar. <19Ub).
TmroU (1973). Finder
(19691. Uaddaek 11970).
Pindwd Fnnd (1972y.-
Fruvd «nd Pimtar (1>73).
Bgrr (1BT7).
Skibkrk. (lHO).SuIlm»o
a«i (1866).
Traeon (197SI. Bmkholfl
•n4 Pinter (1970).
Ripple. Rubin, and Van
Hylrkama (1971). Sta
man and Reed 119661.
Rubin (1967. 196&al.
Robin (19«8b)
Dnbertr (1971).
Riley (19C9).
Jonrenaen 11976).
Helm (1974. 1976).
Pinder and Saner (1971).
Uoencb. Sauer. and Jenoin
(1974); Lockey and Lie
mt-aton (1975).
BradcKoeft and T«onK
(1970). Younr and
B~d.bo
-------
Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Pacific Northwest Laboratories
(Richland, Washington), operated by Batelle for the U.S. Energy Research
and Development Administration, has been involved for several years with
modeling both water quality and water quantity. This work is needed
for nuclea.r waste management at the Hanford Atomic Energy complex at
Hanford, Washington. This complex has served as a depository for wastes
from spent fuel in nuclear reactors. The major emphasis of this
modeling effort is related to the movement of radio-nuclides in
partially-saturated soils. Their work has resulted in many research
publications on partially-saturated flow, radionuclide transport, and
characterization of the hydraulic properties of the unsaturated zone
(Reisenauer, 1973; Reisenauer, et al, 1975; Ahlstrom and Baca, 197^;
among others).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The ORNL has been
extensively involved in modeling transport processes in saturated- and
partly-saturated zones. Part of their research effort is concerned with
the behavior of intermediate-level radioactive liquid wastes. This
waste was deposited at the ORNL between 1951 and 1965 and contains a
variety of fission products. The major radioactivity is associated with
137cs and 1^°Ru, although lesser amounts of 90$r ancj other waste products
are present in the waste. Because of the long half-life of " Sr (28
years), the transport of this constituent through the soil should be
followed (simulated) for a period of at least 100 years. Current
research at this laboratory is concerned with the use of average
steady-state rainfall data instead of transient values in the models:
this speeds up the calculations for the unsaturated zone, making
partially-saturated transport models more practical and economical to use.
Modeling efforts have resulted in many research reports (Reeves and
Duguid, 1975; Duguid and Reeves, 1976; Larson and Reeves, 1976; Endelman,
et al, 197M.
176
-------
University Modeling Activities. Several universities are
currently actively involved with the modeling of groundwater contamination
or closely-related problems. A list of some of the most active groups
is given below (see also Appendix B).
The Department of Civil Engineering at Colorado State University has
long been actively involved with the modeling of water quality and quantity
problems. Much of this research is published in the series Hydrology Papers,
issued by this university. Recent work includes research by Helweg and
Labadie (1976) and and Kraeger and Rovey (1975). Drs. D. Me Whorter and
O.K. Sunada have recently developed a saturated-only model for application
to land areas distrubed by mining activities. This model, based on
Boussinesq's equation, is applicable to both confined and unconfined aquifers,
No dispersion is considered in the model.
Dr. A. Klute and co-workers at the same university have been involved
with the formulation of transport processes in the unsaturated zone. Recent
work is published by Cameron and Klute (1977) and by Gilham, et al., (1976).
Dr. D.A. Sangry and others (K. Wheeler) of Cornell University are
presently developing a two-dimensional finite element model for simulation
of contaminant migration in soils. The model, however, is not expected to
be ready for another three years.
Dr. A.A. Metry and co-workers at Drexel University have developed and
applied several two-dimensional transport models to contaminant migration
from an experimental landfill in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. Results of
this work is documented in several publications by Metry (1972, 1976).
177
-------
J. Jessi and P. Goble at Ecole des Mines, Fontainebleu, France have
developed a finite element transport model for application to radionuclide
transport in a single-layered confined aquifer. A. Dreyfus and co-workers
(M. Besbes, P. Armisen, J.P. Delhomme) at the same school have developed an
integrated finite difference model for the simulation of solute transport
in a multi-layered aquifer. The model has been applied to several field
problems (P. Goblet, E. Ledoux, Centre d1informatique Geologique, Ecole
des Mines, 35 Rue Saint-Honore, 77305—Fontainebleau, France).
Dr. J.J. Fried and co-workers (M.A. Combarnous, P.O. Ungemach) at
Institut de Mecanique des Fluides de Strasbourg, France are actively
involved with the modeling of salt transport in single- and multi-layered
aquifer systems. J. Lessi at this Institute recently completed a thesis
on the numerical simulation of pollutant transport in a saturated porous
medium. Other research work has been reported in many publications,
references of which can be found in a recently published book by Fried
(1975). (Institut de Mecanique des Fluides de Strasbourg, Universite
Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France).
G. Vachuad and co-workers (M. Vauclin, J.L. Thony, J.P. Gaudet, R.
Haverkamp, and D. Khanji) at Institut de Mecanique, Grenoble, France are
actively involved with the description of fluid flow and mass transport
in saturated-unsaturated soils. Recent work concerns the existence of
mobile/immobile water fractions in unsaturated soils, and attempts are
being made to include this concept in existing one- and two-dimensional
flow models (Vachuad, et al, 1976; Gaudet, et al., 1977; Khanji, et al.,
197**; Haverkamp, et al., 1977). (Institute de Mecanique, Universite
Scientiflque et Medicale de Grenoble, B.P. 53, 380^0—Grenoble-Cedex,
France).
178
-------
Dr.'P.J. Wierenga and co-workers (F. De Smedt, M.Th. van Genuchten,
J.H. Dane and B. Sisson) at New Mexico State University have developed
several models for describing transport processes in the unsaturated zone.
These models have been applied for heat transfer (Westcot and Wierenga,
197*0, fluid flow (Dane and Wierenga, 1975); and the movement of adsorbing
chemicals (Wierenga et al., 1975; O'Connor et al, 1976; van Genuchten and
Wierenga, 1976, 1977). A one-dimensional, transient, finite difference
model was recently developed for the simulation of pesticide movement in
layered soiIs.
Dr. G.F. Pinder and co-workers (M.Th. van Genuchten, A.M. Shapiro) at
Princeton University have developed several one- and two-dimensional finite
element models for contaminant transport in unsaturated and saturated/
unsaturated soils. A two-dimensional cross-sectional model (van Genuchten
et al., 1977) is currently being tested using an existing landfill site in
Pennsylvania. A similar model is under development for multi-ion transport
from land disposal sites.
Dr. R.W. Cleary and co-workers (A.B. Gureghian and S. Ward), also at
Princeton University have developed a one-dimensional multi-ion finite
difference transport model for application to a wastewater recharge area
on Long Island (Gureghian et al., 1977), and a three-dimensional finite
element saturated-only transport model for application to an existing
landfill, also on Long Island (Gureghian, 1977). Application of these
models is currently being tested in the field.
Dr. S.K. Gupta and others at the University of California, Davis have
recently developed a three-dimensional finite element, saturated-only
transport model (Gupta, et al., 1975). Its application to actual field
problems is currently being tested. Drs. D.R. Nielsen and J.W. Biggar and
co-workers at the same university are actively involved with field testing
179
-------
several one-dimensional transport models. Major emphasis of current research
is directed to the spatial variability of field soils, including proper
formulation of the soil-hydraulic parameters in the unsaturated zone.
Recent research is documented in several publications (Warrick, et al.,
1977; Biggar and Nielsen, 1976; Van de Pol, 1977; Nielsen, et al., 1973).
Dr. J.M. Davidson and Co-workers (H.M. Selim, R.S. Mansel1, P.S.C.
Rao) at the University of Florida have developed and applied several
one-dimensional transport models to the movement of adsorbed chemicals
in soils. These models include a one-dimensional, transient, unsaturated
finite-difference model for 2,A-D movement in soils (Selim', et al., 1976),
and several steady-state models for study of the adsorption mechanisms
of pesticides and phosphorus into soil (Davidson, et al., 1972; Davidson
and McDougal, 1973; Rao, et al., 1976; Selim, et al., 1976).
Drs. R.R. van der Ploeg and W. Ehlers at the University of Gottingen,
Germany have developed several one- and two-dimensional soil-water flow
models for application to field infiltration and redistribution. Current
research is concerned with the transport of solutes in the unsaturated
zone in combination with the unsaturated flow programs (van der Ploeg and
Bennecke, 197^; van der Ploeg, 197*»; Ehlers and van der Ploeg, 1976).
(Institut fur Bodenkunde und Waldernahrung, Georg-August Universitat,
Gottingen, Germany).
Dr. Logan and co-workers at the University of New Mexico have developed
several transport models for simulating the behavior of radionuclides in
soil. Their work includes a fault-free model for determination of the
release of radionclides and their impact on the environment. Part of this
investigation is a groundwater multi-ion transport model for radionuclides
in soiIs.
180
-------
Dr. E. Elzy and others at the University of Oregon have developed a
simple, vertical-horizontal routing model for simulation of hazardous
contaminants from landfills (Elzy, et al., 197*0. This model is currently
being updated (October, 1976). The model was used by the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality to evaluate the impact of pesticides on groundwater
quality. Another model has recently been developed (Ungs, et al., 1976)
for the simulation of one-dimensional transport of adsorbing chemical in
unsaturated soils. Research at this university has been directed towards
the formulation and analytical solution of one-dimensional, saturated-only
transport models for the movement of adsorbing chemicals in soils (Lindstorm
and Boersma, 1971, 1973; Lindstorm and Stone, 197*0.
Dr. G.J. Farquhar and co-workers at the University of Waterloo are
presently constructing a three-dimensional finite-element model for
predicting leachate concentrations at given points downgradient from a
landfill. Several other researchers at this university have developed or
are presently developing and testing two- and three-dimensional transport
models. They include: a three-dimensional saturated/unsaturated transport
model (Segol, 1975); a two-dimensional cross-sectional, saturated/unsaturated
model (Sykes, 1975); and a two-dimensional saturated-only model (Pickens
and Lennox, 1976).
Dr. R.J. Hanks and co-workers (L.G. King, S.W. Chi Ids, D. Melamed) at
Utah State University have developed several one-dimensional transport
models for application to irrigation return flow studies (King and Hanks,
1973, 1975; Chi Ids and Hanks, 1975). Recent work is concerned with the
presence of sources and sinks in the root zone due to solute precipitation
and dissolution processes (Melamed, et al., 1977).
181
-------
Drs. J. Bear, D. Zoslovasky, S. Irmoy, and co-workers at Technion -
Israel Institute of Technology have developed and solved various water- and
solute-transport models for evaluating problems associated with irrigation
and groundwater quality. Many of these models were developed to study
processes and, thus, were not applied to large 1'and areas or aquifer systems.
Considerable expertise exists in this laboratory, and many of the projects
currently underway should be of value to other scientists working in this
area.
Several other organizations, notably consulting firms, have developed
or are presently developing groundwater transport models. A three-dimensional
FD/MOC model has been developed by INTERA/INTERCOMP Resource Development
and Engineering, Inc. for simulation of contaminant transport in heterogeneous
aquifers. The model considers adsorption processes and has been applied to
groundwater contamination from surface mining, and to tritium transport
at the Hanford Reservation, Washington (INTERA Environmental Engineers, Inc.,
INTERCOM? Resource Development and Engineering, Inc., 1201 Dairy Ashford,
Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77079).
182
-------
Assessment
While present assessments of the state of the art in groundwater
contamination modeling demonstrate that mathematical models can be used
successfully for evaluating potential pollution problems from waste
disposal sites, it is not clear whether or not they possess the inherent
capability to serve as tools for site selection or approval procedures.
If a mathematical model were to be used as a decision procedure, it
should have at least the following characteristics:
1. The model should be rational, mathematically sound, and
accurately represent the complete system.
2. The model should include all significant physical, chemical,
and biological mechanisms that would influence the migration
of contaminants from the waste disposal site through the
unsaturated zone into the groundwater system.
3. The model should be sufficiently simple so that it would be
accessible to individuals other than the modeler himself
(i.e., to engineers and other experts).
J*. The model should also be economic. Costs associated with
execution of the model and for maintaining a technical staff
for quantification of the model parameters should be kept to
a "reasonable" minimum.
Assuming for the moment that a model, either currently available
or under development, can be found which satisfies all of the above
requirements, its use as a decision procedure has numerous advantages.
The following discussion gives a brief description of the advantages
and benefits associated with the use of simulation models as a
183
-------
decision procedure. (See also Grimsrud et al., 1976 for an excellent
discussion of the main advantages and limitations of the use of
mathematical models for water-quality simulations.)
Advantages. The following advantages can be stated for the use of
development and simulation models.
Quantitative Predictions. The simulation of a proposed waste
disposal system in a given hydrogeologic setting can result in the
quantitative prediction of the contamination potential to a receiving
groundwater system. This feature alone gives a computer simulation
model a unique advantage over other procedures. Types and levels of
contaminants at various points and at different time Intervals can
easily be quantified. In addition, the shape of a contamination plume,
if present, can be described by such a model.
Predictions Before the Fact. Simulation of possible leachate
migration from a proposed waste disposal site Into the groundwater
system would give decision makers an advance picture as to the potential
for groundwater pollution before a sIte Is formally accepted for waste
disposal. Such Information can be used to modify the design, to alter
management procedures, or to reject the site as an acceptable site
for waste disposal.
Identification of Soil/Waste Parameters. If a computer
simulation model is used to simulate the behavior of a proposed site,
it may be possible to determine the key parameters that control the
pollution potential of that site, and hence lead to suggestions for
proper modification of these key parameters. For Instance, If the lack
of reactive earth materials (e.g., clays) is the key factor for migration
of certain toxic elements, another sfte could be selected or clays
could be imported to the original site.
-------
Multiple Site/Waste Analysis. Simulations can be a useful
tool in matching different types of wastes and disposal sites. Models
could optimize the waste/site interactions in a manner that would
minimize the pollution potential from each site.
Versat i1e Tool. A simulation model is a versatile tool;
useful applications include: (1) ranking of several candidate sites
with respect to their pollution potential; (2) optimization of monitoring
locations for early detection of contaminants; (3) design and location of
contaminant retrieval systems (e.g., wells) for optimum recovery of
contaminants from current sites when it is clear that unacceptable
pollution is present; and (A) potential use as a tool to determine
effective management practices of waste disposal sites (e.g., waste
segregation, lining, impervious covers, etc.).
Research Tool. An advantage of simulation models, not directly
associated with its use as a decision procedure, but of equal importance,
results when the model is used to study the performance of established
waste disposal sites. Because many of the interactive soil-physical and
chemical processes operating on the waste are not sufficiently understood,
simulation of existing disposal sites with given waste/soil combinations
may lead to a greater understanding of how these complex interactive
processes behave. This in turn may lead to the formulation of new theories,
for example, regarding the existence of certain adsorption mechansims, or
certain chemical chain or precipitation reactions. Thus, the models are
a valuable research tool for studying certain components in the system.
Pi sadvantages. The following is a brief discussion of the main
disadvantages and limitations associated with simulation models as a
decision procedure.
105
-------
Lack of Testing and Verification. Probably the most serious
limitation for the Immediate application of simulation models to site
selection and approval procedures Is the general lack of testing,
calibration, and field verification of available models. This
shortcoming Is significant In that It can be expected that decisions
based on predictions by untested, uncallbrated and/or unverified
models will be challenged In the courts and, hence, may create an
unnecessary burden on regulatory agencies.
Input Parameters. A successful simulation Is dependent upon
the availability and accuracy of the different system parameters and
input variables. This is another significant limitation for direct
application of models as a decision procedure. Some of the difficulties
in quantifying such parameters are:
1. Lack of understanding of certain soil/waste Interactions.
Although much has been learned In recent years about the
physical and chemical Interactions between soils and certain
chemicals, much remains to.be done to quantify these relations
into formulas for use In simulation models. This is especially
true for those systems containing adsorption and/or exchange
reactions, chemical chain reactions, and decay.
2. Lack of standard procedures for quantifying major input
variables (for example, adsorption and/or exchange constants,
decay constants, and dispersion coefficients).
3. General lack of field data on hydrogeologIc parameters and
behavior of contaminants (especially non-conservative ones) In
subsurface environments. There is uncertainty about precision
and accuracy of major hydrologlc and geochemical parameters.
186
-------
*4. Difficulty and cost of conducting laboratory and field experiments
for quantification of Input data.
Complexity of Models. Computer simulation models are generally
not easily understood by the "average" technical staff that would be
associated with site selection or approval. The use of simulation models
requires a degree of expertise for analyzing the system, quantifying the
model Input parameters, executing the model, and interpreting Its results.
While simplification of such models would overcome some of these limitations,
it would also Impair the accuracy of the model and Its capability to
describe the true processes In the system. Furthermore, using models
without an understanding of their logic, capabilities, and limitations
may result In misrepresentations of the physical system and lead to
unrealistic results. Some of the required expertise Includes: (1)
mathematics (computer science, programming, and systems analysis);
(2) engineering; (3) earth sciences (soil physics, soil chemistry, and
hydrogeology); and (A) laboratory and field experimentation.
Equipment and Facilities. The use of simulation models
requires that sophisticated equipment and certain facilities be available.
These include: (1) a computer, and possibly plotters and other data-processing
facilities for execution of the model; and (2) laboratory and field
equipment for quantification of waste/soil characteristics and major
input parameters (adsorption and cation exchange properties, dispersion
coefficients, soil hydraulic properties, etc.).
Accuracy and Precision. The accuracy and precision of most
existing models are still uncertain. Many factors contribute to this:
187
-------
1. Unknown accuracy of the main parameters entering the model
(as discussed above).
2. Many of the transport phenomena simulated in currently-available
models are limited to those which can be expressed in an
explicit manner. The successful use of a simulation model
requires that the different mechanisms present in the system can
be quantified. Because many of the complex soi1-physical,
chemical, and biological processes are still under discussion,
their quantification into reliable mathematical expressions
remains doubtful (if not impossible). For example, it is known
that extreme variations in quantity and quality of leachate
occur in time, probably as an interplay between such variables
as rainfall/evaporation, temperature, pH, and age of the waste.
Reliable predictions of leachate generation cannot be obtained
before these interrelationships have been studied in detail
and certain quantitative relationships have been established.
3. Oversimplification of the actual physical processes occurring
at the site and/or the receiving aquifer in order to complete
the simulation. For example, heterogeneity of the site and the
receiving aquifer are generally only included in a very
approximate manner (e.g., channeling processes in a sanitary
landfill, fractured flow in an aquifer, etc.).
Costs. The above limitations of using simulation models
generally result in higher costs. These costs are associated with
modeling expertise, sophisticated computers, laboratory and field
experimentation, calibration and field verification of the model, and
defending the model results. A summary assessment of models is given
on Table 40.
-------
TABLE ^40
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF MODELS
PROS
• Quantitative - predictive tool.
• Identification of soil/waste parameters.
• Assessment of pollution potential.
• Versati1ity.
• Research tool.
CONS
• Insufficient understanding of some processes.
• Insufficient testing and calibration.
• Lack of field verification.
• Difficulty of laboratory and field quantification of parameters.
« Requires specialized skills and equipment.
• High operating cost.
189
-------
Avallabili ty
In spite of the many limitations described above, the use of
computer-simulation models as a decision procedure for landfill siting
has an excellent potential because of its predictive approach. The
usefulness of a simulation model is a direct consequence of the type
of questions being asked since the model should be commensurate with
these questions. For example, many currently-available models possess
the capability of describing the migration of a contaminant plume or
of IDS, chloride, BOD, etc. Provided some additional field verifications
are carried out, these models could be available as a decision procedure
within approximately three years. (See Table 29.) For the more complex
cases, such as the migration of certain toxic trace elements or organic
chemicals, additional study appears necessary, but it is estimated that
appropriate models for these constituents will be available within a
period of approximately 6 to 10 years.
While it is obvious that no clear picture exists as to whether a
model will ever simultaneously simulate all physical and chemical
processes present in the system, it is also doubtful that such a model
should be used. Many situations lend themselves to analysis without
needing a complete model. When certain waste/soil combinations can be
identified, models can lead to relatively-accurate predictions, even if
more than one ion has to be considered in the simulations.
Considerable expertise is available, but it must be integrated into
a few relatively accurate, simple conceptual mathematical models. This
will require the cooperation of experts in widely different fields, such
as soil-physicists, soil-chemists, civil engineers, hydrogeolegists,
mathematicians, and computer modelers. Considerable progress in simulation
technology has been obtained in the last ten years; however, much research
is obviously still needed. This research will likely result in new and/or
improved models, thereby continuously updating existing capabilities for
simulating the behavior of proposed and operative waste disposal systems.
190
-------
"Model" Decision Procedure. A "Model" Decision Procedure has been
prepared by Weston as shown in Table It1!. The intent of this "Model"
Decision Procedure is to show the basic steps involved, which are:
(1) input - specify and aqulre the basic data base for waste and site
characterization; (2) analysis - compile, assimilate, and evaluate these
data to determine probable waste/site interactions and potential impacts;
and (3) output - the decision to issue (or reject) a permit and the type
of disposal operation that will be required.
This "Model" Decision Procedure is not meant to be adopted as the
"standard" decision procedure, but is presented here to indicate the steps
in the overall decision making process. It is also intended to show how
and where the various identified decision procedures and "subroutines" fit
into this overall procedure.
191
-------
TABLE in
"MODEL" DECISION PROCEDURE
INPUT - AQUIRE BASIC DATA
Procedure
Criteria Listing
Criteria Ranking
Matrix
Waste Characterization
Type: Industrial
SIC
Plant name/location
Waste stream
Municipal
Speci fy waste/
source
Other
Speci fy waste/
source
Amount: Volume or weight
Rate of generation
Physical: Solid
Liquid
Sludge
Chemica1: pH
Toxicity
Major constituents (by volume, weight or concentration)
Minor constituents (by volume, weight or concentration)
Biological: Degradabi1ity
Organic content
I I. Site Characterization
Location
Topography
Climatology
Land use
Soils
Geology
Hydrology
Criteria Listing
Criteria Ranking
Matrix
192
-------
TABLE J»1
(continued)
ANALYSIS - ASSIMILATE AND EVALUATE DATA
Procedure
II
Waste
Solubil ity
waste/water
Leachability
waste/leachate
Toxicity index
Site
Water budget
Water flux
infi1tration
underflow
Permeability (cm/sec)
Depth to water table
and/or bedrock
III. Interaction/Attenuat ion
Soi1/waste/leachate,
ground water/leachate,
ground water/ surface water
IV. Impacts
Ground water,
surface water
Shaker test
Standard leachate test
Texas Water Quality Board
Illinois State Geological Survey
Other agencies
Standard: P = R + ET + GWR +_ GWS
(Precipitation = Runoff +
Evapotranspiration + ground water
runoff (baseflow) +_ ground water
storage.
(Baseflow) +^ Ground Water Storage)
Moisture routing models
Field/lab procedures
Backhoe pits, borings
Shaker test
column test
Oakes dilution model
Mathematical computer models
Soil/waste interaction matrix
Criteria Ranking
Background water quality,
drinking water standards,
stream standards
Mathematical/computer models
Criteria Ranking
193
-------
TABLE 1*1
(continued)
OUTPUT - DECISION TO PERMIT AND TYPE OF OPERATION
Procedure
I. Permit Disposal (Methodology) Classification System (C.S.)
(California, Texas, Illinois)
Direct land disposal
Containment (note: Criteria Listing inherent
Attenuation in C.S.; matrix and models
Controlled discharge used as "subroutines" in
Uncontrolled discharge analysis steps above)
P re treatment - then above
II. Reject permit application
-------
SECTION VI
REGULATORY AGENCY PRACTICES
In order to assess actual waste disposal permit procedures being
utilized, selected domestic and foreign regulatory agencies were visited
and Interviewed. Those agencies contacted were chosen on the basis of
their being considered most progressive with respect to the type and
comprehensiveness of their waste regulatory programs and extent of
application. Emphasis was placed on selecting those regulatory agencies
that have specifically addressed the problem of hazardous waste disposal.
Regulatory Agencies Contacted
The following regulatory agencies were contacted during the course
of this Investigation:
• Domestic;
1. California State Water Resource Control Board (WRCB),
California State Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB), and
California Department of Health.
2. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
3. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA).
^. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
5. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER).
6. Texas Department of Health Resources (DHR), and Texas Water
QualIty Board (WQB).
195
-------
© Fore I gn;
7. Canada - Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME).
8. Netherlands - The Institute for Waste Disposal (SVA).
9. United Kingdom - Department of the Environment (DOE), and
The Greater London Council (GLC).
10. West Germany - Office of the State of Bavaria for
Environmental Protection, and Institute for Wasser and
AbfalIwlrtschaft.
A contact form for each of these agencies Is provided In Appendix C,
Regulatory Agency Contacts. Information provided In these forms and
attachments to them describe the type of permit procedure utilized and
the permit application review and processing procedure. A discussion Is
also provided covering salient points of that particular procedure, with
emphasis placed on the manner In which hazardous wastes are regulated.
Copies of supporting documents for each regulatory agency contacted
are provided In Appendix D, Supporting Documents for Permit Application
and Processing. These documents Include the following categorical Items:
(1) permit application forms and modules; (2) guidelines for
specifications and criteria for waste disposal facility construction;
and (3) other pertinent diagrams on a select basis, such as organizational
flow charts for the permit review process.
196
-------
Assessment of Regulatory Practices
A detailed assessment of the waste-permitting procedures for each
of the regulatory agencies contacted on an individual basis is extremely
difficult. This difficulty results from the fact that the existing
procedures for waste disposal siting and, In particular, those for
hazardous waste disposal, are either generally being developed or are
undergoing further development and modification. For most of the agencies
contacted, these changes are considered by them to be significant, both
in content and Impact, on their waste management program.
A more beneficial assessment of the regulatory procedures is
considered to be provided by a discussion and comparative assessment of
the various approaches taken, with emphasis on an overview perspective.
Such an approach can better Identify and assess areas of common approach
and areas where different approaches are taken. Some salient points for
each of the regulatory programs identified have been summarized, as
shown In Table k2, to facilitate this overview assessment. Those points
considered that could be most easily identified and specified include
the following: the decision procedure utilized; the status of
regulations for hazardous waste disposal; whether hazardous wastes are
regulated separately, or jointly with municipal wastes; the mode of
waste disposal (containment versus attenuation); the permeability
required for containment; cost to acquire permits, where estimates are
available; time requirements for permit review and processing; and
regulatory manpower requirements to process the permits.
The mode of disposal for hazardous wastes for each of the agencies
contacted Is by containment, with few exceptions; Those few exceptions
include the co-disposal of limited amounts of hazardous wastes with
municipal refuse on a waste- and site-specific basis. This practice Is
permitted in Pennsylvania, New York, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Municipal wastes, on the other hand, are permitted for disposal primarily
197
-------
CO
TABLE k2
SELECTED FACTORS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY AGENCY PERMIT PRACTICES
Regulatory Agency
Perml t
Procedure ,
Status of
Regulations
Regulatory Authority
Model of 4
Disposal
Containment
Permeabi 1 Ity
(cm/ sec)
Domestic
California Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Cal ifornia State Sol id
Waste Management Board
.California Department of
Health
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Texas Department of
Health Resources
Texas Water Quality
Board
Foreign
Canada - Ontario Ministry
of the Environment
Netherlands - SVA
United Kingdom - Greater
London Counci 1
West Germany - Office of
State of Bavaria for
Environmental Protection
Indicates agency responsible
^Includes both municipal (MW)
Class i f i cat ion
System
C I ass if i cat ion
System
C lass i f icat ion
System
Classification
System
Cr i ter ia
Listing
C r i te r i a
Listing
Criteria
Li st i ng
C lass! f icat ion
System
C lass! f icat ion
System
C r i te r,; a
Li st ing
Criteria
Li st ing
C lass if icat ion
System
C r i te r i a
Li st ing
for hazardous
and hazardous
Revised
December 1976
Revised 1976
Feb. 1975
Being Revised
Rev i sed-Pending
Approval mid-
1978
Being Provided
(Draft Reg.
June 1977)
Rev i sed
August 1977
Revi sed
June 1977
Rev i sed
Apri 1 1977
Rev i sed-Pend ing
Approval Late
1977
SW-Rev i sed
Feb. 1976
HW-Being Drafted
Being Revised
Revised 1976
SW-Rev i sed
Sept. 1976
HW-Being
Drafted
waste regulation.
wastes (HW) unless
Hazardous Wastes
Municipal Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Both
Both
Both
separate sect ions
Both
Municipal Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Both
separate sections
Both
Both
Both
specified.
Containment
Containment
Conta inment
Conta i nment
Conta i nment
Both as
spec if ied
Both as
speci f ied
Conta inment
Conta inment
Attenuat ion
Attenuat ion
Attenuat ion
Conta inment
m-<*\ x
MW:^£I x
HW'-^l x
MW:^1 x
HW:^1 x
MW ^1 x
HW: !--=
1 l-£
MW: £
HW:iSl x
HW:^1 x
HW-^1 x
MW: ^1 x
if spec
HW:*^1 x
HU:^1 x
MW:==1 x
not speci
not speci
not speci
HW: ' not
MW:^I x
'°1
10'6
101
to"6
'°1
10 6
1 x lO-8^
5 x 10
1 x 10 '
lO'7
lO'7
10-;
10'7,
if ied
lO'7
10'7
10'7
io"7
f ied
f ied
f ied
spec i f ied
io-°
Time Process
Applicant Costs for Permits -
Permit Aqulsition^ Range end Average
Technical Hearing (months)
$250,000 $100,000 8-18; 12
to
800,000
8-18; 12
8-18; 12
25,000 1-3; 1i
to
50,000
25,000 up 6-12; 8
to to
200,000 50,000
3-6; 3
15.000* up to 6-18; 12
60,000
2i-l6- 7
50,000 5,000 6-12; 8
to to
200,000 10,000
50,000 20,000 8-36; 2U
NA
up to $2.63 mi 1 1 ion 2-9; 3
total
20,000 6-2l»; 12
to
90,000
Regulatory Staff
Processing Time
(hours)
Technical Admltt.
80 12
NA6 NA
NA NA
80 16
320 80
35 5
280 20
83 17
2<*0 112
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
^Municipal and/or hazardous wastes.
-Municipal wastes only, all hazardous wastes require containment unless otherwise specified.
jjcosts given are gross estimates general Jy for off-site facilities.
"Information not available.
-------
by containment In California, Illinois, Texas, and West Germany.
Municipal waste disposal with reliance on attenuation of waste leachates
Is permitted by the remaining agencies contacted, unless specified
differently on an Individual case basis.
Decision Procedures Utilized. The decision procedures utilized
for waste disposal siting and permitting for each of those regulatory
agencies contacted are the Criteria Listing or Classification System.
As shown in Table ^2, the Classification System is used by California,
Illinois, Texas, and the United Kingdom. The Criteria Listing approach
is utilized by the other agencies contacted.
A basic approach to the land disposal of wastes In the United
Kingdom Is outlined in Circular 39/76, published by the Department of
the Environment entitled, "A Balancing of Interests between Water
Protection and Waste Disposal" (see Appendix D). This circular presents
the dilute and disperse approach as the most reasonable for most wastes.
Factors that are to be considered in assessing the environmental risks
associated with dilute and disperse are:
e The volume of the aquifer considered to be at risk, present and
future uses of the water. If the usefulness of a aquifer is not
great, then an alternate water supply should be made.
« Hydrogeologic characteristics of the site, Including the ability
to attenuate leachate.
e Volume and rate of waste to be deposited, Including the possible
interaction of wastes and the ability of leachate to be attenuated.
199
-------
This dilute and disperse philosophy entails not only the dispersion
of hazardous wastes throughout non-hazardous wastes (municipal) at a
given site, but the disposal of a given hazardous waste at several
different disposal sites such that the concentration of that waste Is
within the limits of acceptability. Attitudes of other regulatory
agencies, particularly the water resource oriented agencies, and public
pressure, however, are such that an Increasing amount of wastes are
being deposited utilizing the method of containment.
Each agency has stated that the waste/site permitting procedure Is
based upon: (1) an objective description and quantification of both waste
and site characteristics; (2) the combined expertise of the permit review
personnel; and (3) by comparison with empirical data generated from
existing analagous waste/site disposal situations. In the final analysis
therefore, a subjective decision Is made based upon utilization of
objective data and analysis to the degree that the data will permit. It
Is universally agreed by both regulatory and non-regulatory experts that
this final decision must of necessity be subjective since no alternative
procedure presently exists or Is anticipated to exist within the near
future which could be relied upon for a final objective decision.
This fact results from the realization that there are complex
Interrelationships between waste and site characteristics which are
variable In space and time. Futhermore, these Interrelationships are
not presently sufficiently understood or expected to be sufficiently
understood In the foreseeable future for such an objective decision-making
procedure. This Is not to say that other procedures do not exist which
will prove Invaluable In aiding to make the final subjective decision,
200
-------
but rather each waste/site situation can be taken to be somewhate unique
and, therefore, judgement value and subjected decision making will always
be necessary.
The following additional categories are addressed In the overview
assessment of the permit procedures.
Relevancy and Completeness of Data Requirements. Each of the
regulatory agencies contacted consider that the data requirements
requested In their respective permit application forms and supplemental
reports are both relevant and complete for the purposes of making a
decision for the permitting of a specific waste disposal site or a
specific waste being assigned to an existing site. The detailed Criteria
Listing chart shown In Appendix D Indicates those site characterization
criteria required by some of the regulatory agencies contacted and,
further, Indicates an apparent wide range In the degree of specific
detailed information requested. It should be noted, however, that each
regulatory agency contacted does require a hydrogeologic report for
adequate site characterization which would Include most, if not all, of
those Individual parameters shown on the Criteria Listing.
An area of potential weakness, however, is that of "adequate or
sufficient" site characterization. Some of the regulatory agencies
contacted Indicate that borings may be required, but In fact are not
routinely required. For wastes other than truly inert, insoluble,
demolition type waste, It Is considered that borings are necessary to
ver'lfy, at a minimum, the texture and type of soils and geologic deposits
present at a given site and to quantitatively and qualitatively determine
and assess the underlying groundwater conditions.
201
-------
Waste characterization is required by each agency contacted. Those
waste characteristics requiring definition are type, volume or amount,
source, concentration of certain parameters (i.e., anions, cations heavy
metals, pH), and the nature of the waste (liquid, solid, sludge). Many
agencies now require a Teachability test for hazardous materials to
determine the degree of solubility of critical constituents. Some
agencies will permit the direct disposal of liquid acid waste directly
into a landfill, while others will require that waste be in a sludge
form, with a minimum percentage solids specified, and that pH
neutralization be provided.
Public hearings are required by most of the agencies contacted and,
where not required, are becoming more commonplace due to increased public
pressure. These hearings do result in additional costs which are often
significant to both parties due to the general public attitude that
insufficient data have been acquired to properly assess or ensure that
adverse environmental impacts will not occur. Such public attitudes
exist even when lined disposal sites are proposed with the provision for
leachate collection and treatment.
Ease of Data Acquisition and Analysis. The ease of data gathering
on the part of the permit applicant is highly variable. Generally, the
more uniform the soils and geology of the proposed waste disposal site,
the greater the ease in acquisition of the required data for site
characterization. Obviously, larger sites with a greater natural
variation of physical parameters will require more time and, accordingly,
greater cost for data acquisition. Waste characterization is also
variable and is dependent upon the type and complexity of the waste
itself and whether it is largely a single component or mixed-waste
stream. Ease of data acquisition, therefore, is largely a function of
variability, i.e., the greater the waste and site variability, the
greater the cost.
202
-------
A side issue, which can become a major issue, is the need for mutual
understanding by both the permit applicant and grantor as to what is
required to adequately characterize both the waste and the disposal site
and the method of disposal to be utilized. Not infrequently, there may
be a lack of understanding of the adequacy of characterization on the
part of the permit applicant. In addition, there may also be a "changing
on the ground rules" by the regulatory agencies to require additional
data or a more-sophisticated characterization of the initial data.
Meetings between parties at the outset of a proposed waste disposal
operation and at critical stages throughout the permit review process
will minimize such difficulties.. Most if not all agencies encourage
this approach, but applicants may be reluctant to pursue this course of
action for various reasons.
The aspect of ease of data analysis is also directly associated
with the variability of both the waste and the site. More effort is
required for analysis for more complex and variable waste/site
s i tuations.
The type of personnel and their level of experience and competency
in the field of waste management has a significant direct bearing on the
ease of data analysis on the part of both parties. A balanced team of
sanitary and chemical engineers, hydrogeologists, and soil scientists at
a minimum will greatly enhance the ease of data analysis. Inexperience
or lack of personnel in the key disciplines mentioned above can and often
does lead to extended difficulties in data analysis and timely permit
process ing.
203
-------
Consistency of Permit Procedure. Those regulatory agencies contacted
have stated that the interpretation and enactment of the permit
application procedure is consistent at different sites within their area
of jurisdiction. Realistically, however, there is a varying degree of
stringency of application among at least some of the agencies contacted.
This flexibility relates to such variables as: the need for a disposal
site in that particular area; the occasional emergency situation for
waste disposal due to such acts as flooding or major accidents or spills;
the proximity to urban areas or, conversely, the location in an extremely
remote rural area; the proximity to significant aquifers; and the degree
of involvement and activity of public and environmental groups.
One specific area of variable application of the permit procedure
has been identified with the New York State DEC. Landfill sites are
permitted for the disposal of municipal refuse in the majority of the
state except Long Island proper with reliance upon natural attenuation
of waste leachates. Those sites permitted on Long Island, however, do
require liners which preferably are natural clay materials for the
containment of waste leachates to facilitate their collection and
subsequent treatment. This more stringent control of land disposal sites
on Long Island is directly related to the need to protect the underlying
groundwater resources which are the sole source of water supply for that
area.
The permeability required for containment of hazardous wastes ranges
-7 -8
from ^1 x 10 ' cm/sec to < 1 x 10 cm/sec. The permeability requirement
for containment of municipal wastes ranges from < 1 x 10 cm/sec to
-8
5 x 10 cm/sec. There is a need to standardize the permeability
requirement for both hazardous waste and municipal waste containment,
particularly the former. There is also a need to standardize the minimum
requirement for the depth to water below a disposal site and the thickness
of the confining layer for the standardization of the specified
permeability control. These needs will be addressed in the Section VII,
Recommended Development Plan.
20 A
-------
Comprehensiveness of Procedure. Each agency contacted considers
that the permit procedure utilized is sufficiently comprehensive to
account for variation of both waste and site characteristics. As
previously stated, each waste/site disposal operation is evaluated on an
individual case-by-case basis. It is felt that these procedures do
provide the best assurance that waste and site variables are sufficiently
identified and assessed prior to permit approval.
The Classification System, in itself, is a comprehensive procedure
in that all waste types, exclusive of radioactive waste, are identified
if only in a general sense. These waste types are then assigned to
disposal site types with specified natural or manmade waste leachate
control criteria. The Criteria Listing approach in actual operation
leads to a Classification System analysis and assignment of waste or
site construction criteria, although it is not inherently so structured.
Level of Confidence. Those regulatory agencies contacted also
expressed a high level of confidence in the decision procedures utilized
for the permitting of waste disposal operations. Since each waste/site
disposal operation is handled on a case-by-case basis, decisions can be
made with confidence that minimum or no adverse impacts will occur. This
degree of confidence is reinforced by the increasingly stringent disposal
standards which are placing greater reliance on a mode of deposition by
waste containment. With this form of deposition, most of the "guess
work" with respect to the adequacy of attenuation of leachates produced
is removed from the decision making process, since attenuation will not
be utilized except as a back-up mechanism should the containment
mechanisms fai1.
205
-------
While certain landfills designed for leachate containment have in
fact caused leachate breakouts, it is extremely difficult at best to
ascribe a "failure rate" to the decision-making process. One and
possibly two of the eleven permitted Class I disposal sites in California
have resulted in limited leachate discharges. However, these breakouts
cannot be considered a failure or shortcoming of the decision procedure.
Rather, the presence of leachate breakouts is thought to be the result
of a localized permeability that was higher than the specified criteria
in the site design. Actual numbers were rarely available on court
hearings related proposed site denials, but it was repeatedly stated by
the agencies contacted that both "very few" and "no" site denials had
been issued following the technical regulatory permit review and approval.
In the great majority of cases where site problems have developed,
these problems can be shown to be primarily related to actual .site
operation and not site design or a shortcoming of the decision procedure
to permit the site. Poor site management, imporper daily practices, and
practices that do not conform to site design criteria are the major
contributory reasons resulting in subsequent problems arising.
Permit Costs
Costs incurred by the regulation agencies in the permit review
process were not available. Those costs incurred by the applicant are
given in Table 38, but it must be emphasized that these are gross
estimates. Cost estimates do range from a low of several thousand dollars
for a demolition disposal site or a small landfill to over $1 million
for a large municipal landfill or "secured landfill" for hazardous waste
di sposal.
206
-------
Process Time
The time required for the review of the permit application and the
issurance of that permit varies substantially between regulatory agencies,
As shown in Table 38, the processing time required ranges from a low of
1 month (Illinois) to up to three years (Canada). The overall average
processing time is approximately 9 months.
The internal time requirements for processing range from a low
estimate of 40 hours (New York) to more than 330 (Texas Water Quality
Board). The time required for some of the agencies contacted is given
in Table 38 where it can be seen that it is a highly variable factor, if
in fact it can be estimated.
Self Assessment
A detailed "self assessment" has been prepared by the staff of the
Texas Department of Health Resources of their permit procedures program.
This assessment relates to the municipal solid waste facilities permit
program. The following self assessment has been made:
1. Assess the relevancy and completeness of information requested
of permit applicants for making permit decisions:
The "Design Criteria" section of the January 1976
"Municipal Solid Waste Management Regulations" stated that
design factors to be considered should provide for
safeguarding the health, welfare, and physical property of
the people through consideration of geology, soil
conditions, drainage, land use, zoning, adequacy of
access, economic haul distances, and other conditions as
the specific site indicates. Information obtained from the
applicant generally addressed all design factors in
sufficient detail on which to base a sound decision.
207
-------
However, less than half of the applicants initially submit
relevant and complete data with the application. Therefore,
in more than half of the cases, additional data must be
requested before the application can be processed. This
problem is more prevalent with small cities, counties, and
operators which are applying for permits for facilities
serving less than 5,000 persons. More difficulty is
experienced in obtaining data for existing sites than for
proposed sites.
2. Evaluate the ease of data gathering and analysis on the part of
the permit applicant and the permit grantor:
The majority of the applicants for permits for large
facilities apparently have very little trouble in
obtaining the required data for a permit application. The
applicants for small facility permits (less than 5fOOO
population served) have relatively more difficulty in
obtaining data due to more limited staff and budget.
The ease of analysis on the part of the permit grantor is
directly related to the amount and quality of data submitted
by the applicant. Considerable effort is frequently
required to obtain necessary data from small operators.
3. Assess the consistency in interpretation and application of the
permit application process at different sites within the
jurisdi ction:
208
-------
The Department is aware that consistency is of great
importance and has designed its internal procedures with
that goal in mind. Because Texas contains extreme
variations in population densities, rainfall, hydrogeology,
and other principal design factors, a policy of consistency
is sometimes difficult to follow but is generally achieved.
b. Evaluate how well the procedure accounts for both site and
waste parameters, and determine the applicability of the
procedure to a range of sites and waste characteristics:
The procedure followed by this Department has worked quite
well. The range of site and waste characteristics varies
from small rural communities to large metropolitan areas.
The Department has been able to adapt the permit procedures
to both extremes and those occurring in between.
5. Identify the level of confidence in decisions made, both as to
site rejection and site approval:
There is little doubt that the proper decisions have been
made. This is backed up by the fact that out of **36
permits which have been issued and 18 permits which have
been denied during the past 2 1/2 years only four decisions
(2 approvals and 2 denials) have been taken to court. The
court upheld the decision in three cases and voided one
approval on the basis of procedural error (a complete list
of adjacent property owners had not been submitted by the
applicant and consequently all affected persons had not
been advised of the opportunity to attend the public
hearing). As a result, a rehearing was held which resulted
in the denial of the permit. Also, as a result of the
209
-------
court's ruling, the procedure of individually notifying
adjacent property owners of public hearings was deleted
from the regulations.
One recent approval and one denial are expected to be
appea1ed.
6. Determine costs of obtaining the permit decision:
See case history for City of Carrol 1 ton, Permit No. 750 and
City of Mesquite, Permit No. 556.
In addition to the Department's costs, other Federal, State,
or local agencies incur costs as a result of reviews which
those agencies must make due to jurisdictional
responsibilities they may have. In some cases, up to 10
other agencies may evaluate a specific application. Their
costs are probably low, but in the case of the City of
Carroll ton's permit application, the Texas Water Development
Board estimated its costs as $1,800 inasmuch as it had to
issue a formal approval, after a hearing, for construction
of required levees in a floodplain.
7. Determine the time (maximum, minimum, average) required to obtain
a permit.
Since the start of the program in October 197^, the
Department received approximately 625 permit applications
within a three (3) month period and has received
approximately 500 additional permit applications since that
time. Considerable difficulty has been experienced in
obtaining information on existing sites. During the past
210
-------
2 1/2 years, *»36 permits have been issued, 18 denied, and
69 permit applications have been withdrawn during processing,
mainly either because of public opposition to the site
operation or the applicant found it too expensive to proceed.
(a) The maximum time to issue a permit for a proposed
site has been 16 months. This was for the City
of Victoria (Permit No. 120) which was opposed
and involved the reopening of the hearing.
(b) Minimum programmed time to issue a permit after
permit application is complete when processed on
a normal basis is A months and 3 weeks:
2 weeks to review application 15 days
*» weeks for review agency comments 30 days
2 weeks to schedule public hearing 15 days
3 weeks for public hearing notice 20 days
60 days for final decision 60 days
1*<0 days
The actual minimum time to issue a permit for a
proposed site has been 2 1/2 months. This was
for a transfer station for Travis County (Permit
No. 119).
(c) Average time to obtain a permit under this program,
since its start in 197** is 7 months (for proposed
sites, which are given priority and processing of
applications starts as soon as received).
211
-------
8. Determine staff requirements to process permit applications
(man hours by labor class per permit application) by the
regulatory agency.
Engineering Supervisory Review
Project Engineer
Secretarial
Legal Staff
Legal Secretarial
Regional Engineer-Inspection & Review
Regional Secretarial
Staff Geologist
Supervisory Review
Court Reporter
8 man
36 man
12 man
15 man
k man
15 man
2 man
3 man
3 man
2 man
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
100 man hours
This is an average figure over a 2 1/2-year period although
several highly-contested cases have required over 200 man hours.
Current/Future Trends
Based upon the foregoing discussion, It has become clear that three
major modes of land disposal of wastes exist. The first mode of disposal
places reliance on the containment of wastes and waste leachates produced
to avoid adverse impacts on surface and groundwater quality. The second
mode of deposition places reliance on the assimilation of waste leachates
into the environment to an acceptable degree by the various mechanisms of
attenuation. The third mode of deposition does not rely on containment
of waste or attenuation of leachate because of the inert nature of waste.
212
-------
Accordingly, three major classes of waste disposal sites have been
defined with three corresponding major groupings of wastes. This
Classification System is best exemplified in the California waste
regulatory program. It does apply generally, however, to those
Classification Systems developed elsewhere, such as Texas, Illinois, and
the United Kingdom.
These Classification Systems may be most aptly summarized as
fo11ows :
S i te Type Mode of Disposal Waste Type
Class I Containment Group 1 - Hazardous
Class II Limited containment, Group 2 - Decomposable,
with attenuation non-hazardous
Class III Few controls, no Group 3 - Inert, i n-
containment or soluble
attenuation
It is nearly universally agreed that hazardous wastes should be
deposited in a Class I type sites. Co-disposal of certain "hazardous"
wastes with municipal wastes, however, is permitted on a case-by-case
basis in a non-contained (Class II) site by some regulatory agencies.
In addition, it is recognized that certain hazardous wastes must undergo
some form of pretreatment (such as neutralization, fixation, or
complexing) prior to land disposal or some other form of disposal such as
incineration.
213
-------
Although municipal wastes have been considered by many to represent
Group 2 wastes, the current trend by an increasing number of regulatory
agencies is for municipal wastes as well to be disposed of In a
containment site. The third type of waste (Group 3) by virtue of these
wastes being Inert and insoluble require little control other than
obvious site construction operation and aesthetic considerations.
The overriding element of consideration becomes one of the degree of
risk associated with adverse environmental impact. The greater the
unknowns for a given waste/site situation, the greater the risk factor.
It Is clear from the assessment of those Identified pollution prediction
procedures that their applicability to "real world" disposal situations
is inversely proportional to the generally-accepted risk or hazard
involved for a given waste/site situation. It has become equally clear
that with few exceptions, pollution-prediction procedures have no
application to the safe disposal of hazardous wastes given the current
state of the art of prediction capabilities and economics of land
disposal. The element of risk is simply too high for them to be
considered, particularly in light of the "maximum site utilization"
philosophy mandated by current economics. The Group 3 wastes on the
other hand do not require the use of pollution-prediction procedures,
since no polluting wastes or leachates are involved.
The Group 2 wastes, those that are decomposable but nonhazardous,
become therefore, the prime area for concentrated application of
pollution-prediction procedures. Techniques to more specifically define
those wastes that can be reliable and permanently assigned to Group 1
and Group 3 wastes are needed. Concurrently, pollution prediction
techniques are needed which will permit the assignment of wastes to a
Group 2, Class II classification to maximize the beneficial attenuation
capabilities of the environment while minimizing waste disposal costs.
2 Hi
-------
The decision procedures and pollution-prediction procedures
described in the next section have been recommended for further
development with these objectives in mind.
215
-------
SECTION VI I
RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLANS
It is worth restating at this point that several types of decision
procedures have been identified in the course of this state-of-the-art
assessment. These procedures are as follows:
« Cr i ter ia Li st ing.
• Cri teria Ranking.
« Matrix.
•Classification System.
• Models.
The Criteria Listing procedure provides a basis for objective site
characterization data which the review personnel can use to predict the
potential for pollution and upon which to formulate a decision for
issuing or rejecting a site operation permit. The Criteria Listing is
not structured to inherently be a predictive or decision tool, but does
provide the basic data on which experienced review personnel can
formulate such action. It is the most basic of the decision procedures
identified and is presently utilized by over half of the regulatory
agencies contacted. For this reason, it is recommended as a decision
procedure for further refinement and improvement within a three-year
development period. This development plan is described below.
The Criteria Ranking and the Matrix approaches are both very similar
decision procedures in that both assign weighted values to various waste
and site criteria within an established range. While these approaches
are predictive in nature by virtue of their format, they do possess
major weaknesses. The most significant weakness results from the fact
that the assigned weighted values for both the range of values and the
actual value assigned to a specific parameter is somewhat arbitrary. In
addition, the "bottom line" number developed by the ranking or matrix
217
-------
analysis is then compared against some "standard" which is itself arbitrary.
The lack of testing, calibration, and verification associated with these
approaches is another area of significant weakness. Due to these major
weaknesses and the fact that these procedures have had only extremely-
limited applications, they are not being recommended for further development
at this time. They are, however, useful techniques for a preliminary
assessment of site suitability and particularly for comparative assessment
of several candidate sites.
The Classification System approach has been identified to have undergone
rather extensive on-line use (California) and to be comprehensive in the
assignment of all wastes (excluding radioactive wastes) to specific types
of disposal sites. Because of this comprehensive treatment of wastes,
with emphasis on hazardous waste disposal, and the indication that additional
regulatory agencies are utilizing this approach (i.e., Texas, Illinois),
the Classification System has also been selected for further development.
The rapidly changing waste disposal technology and legislative controls
for waste disposal, together with the "subroutines" such as leaching tests,
shaker tests, and mathematical modeling for waste/site characterization
and interaction, indicate a need for a program of continual updating and
refinement. The Classification System Development Plan described below
will encompass, therefore, both a short-term time frame (3 years) and
a long-term time frame (ten years).
Various forms of simulation models, such as soil-leaching column
studies, shaker tests, and thin layer chromatography, are useful tools
for the evaluation of the pollution potential for a waste/site situation.
These tools are in effect "subroutines" with respect to the larger
framework necessary for a usable decision procedure for waste disposal
siting. In addition, serious questions can and have been raised as to
218
-------
the reproducibi1ity, representativness, and reliability of their results.
For these reasons, no further concentrated effort is recommended for these
approaches at this time.
Numerous mathematical models have been developed which also attempt
to simulate an actual or proposed waste/site situation. Serious questions
have also arisen as to the reproducibi1ity, representativeness, and
reliability of the mathematical modeling approach. However, some of
these models have undergone on-line testing, calibration, and verification.
The major advantages of such models is that they can be a strong predictive
tool for use in the permit decision-making process. Mathematical models
are recommended, therefore, for further development as described below.
This development plan can be expected to encompass a long-term time
frame (up to and probably exceeding 10 years).
Criteria Listing Development Plan (Short Term)
Background. Two basic modes of land deposition/treatment of waste
have been identified in this state-of-the-art assessment of Pol 1ution
Prediction Techniques for Waste Disposal Siting. These approaches are
as follows: (1) attenuation of waste leachates, and (2) containment of
waste with collection and treatment of leachates.
The basic philosophy for the former is that leachates produced from
certain wastes (generally non-hazardous) will be afforded renovation by
the various mechanisms of attenuation to an acceptable degree to avoid
adverse environmental impacts. Such an approach Is dependent upon a
proper "match up" of waste/site characterization, proper design and
operation, and, perhaps most Important, proper management and maintenance.
The basic philosophy for the latter approach is that leachates
produced by certain wastes (generally hazardous), by virtue of their
219
-------
concentration, physical and chemical properties, and solubility, would
result in significant adverse human or environmental impacts without
containment of the waste. Such containment does entail for most regions
of the country the collection and treatment of leachate to avoid the
"bathtub" effect.
It has been determined that the Classification System and the
Criteria Listing approaches for waste/site characterization are currently
the most widely-accepted and utilized by regulatory agencies in their
decision procedures for waste disposal siting.
Analysis of Development Needs. A need has been recognized to develop
a comprehensive Criteria Listing for waste/site characterization in a
format that will be suitable for utilization by regulatory agencies in
a uniform manner for the land disposal/treatment of waste. The specific
objectives of this development plan will be to:
1. Develop a Criteria Listing for use in waste/site characterization
for both wastes that are: (1) amenable to attenuation of leachates
produced from them; and (2) wastes that will require containment
and the collection and treatment of leachates produced to avoid
adverse environmental impacts. In addition, develop a matrix
which wi11 i ndicate which of the cri teria 1 isted wi11 be requi red
for every disposal/treatment site and which will be required for
certain waste/site disposal situations.
2. Describe the best state-of-the-art methodology to quantify
each of the criteria listed, and describe the proper utilization
of such data. Finally, prepare a manual for use by regulatory
agencies which presents in a uniform fashion the criteria
necessary, the quantification methodology, and the use of
information gathered for assessment of proper waste-disposal
siting.
220
-------
In order to meet the objectives of this development plan, the
following tasks are to be conducted:
e Task 1 - Develop a comprehensive Criteria Listing for waste/site
characterization where reliance will be placed upon the attenuation
of leachates produced.
a. Identify and list those waste/site characterization criteria
required by regulatory agencies.
b. Assimilate those criteria currently being utilized by
regulatory agencies. These criteria will be obtained from
the most "progressive" regulatory agencies.
c. Assess the comprehensiveness of those criteria listed and
the need for additional criteria.
d. Develop the comprehensive list of criteria.
The comprehensive list of criteria should include the following:
1. Waste characterization criteria: type, amount and physical,
chemical and biological properties
2. Site characterization criteria: location, topography,
climatology, land use, soils, geology and hydrology
3. Waste behavior criteria: solubility, 1eachabi1ity, toxicity
and hazardous properties
A. Site suitability criteria: water flux patterns, permeability
and attenuation
5. Environmental quality criteria: ground and surface water
quality standards, land use and air quality objectives
6. Site management criteria: means of disposal, erosion and
runoff control, leachate management, and site reuse.
e Task 2 - Develop a similar list for waste/site situations where
containment of leachates produced from the waste would be required.
a. See steps a through d above.
221
-------
• Task 3 ~ Develop a matrix for Task 1 and 2 above which will specify
those criteria necessary for waste/site characterization with respect
to each of the following land disposal practices.
a. Landfilling of municipal refuse.
b. Land farming/spreading of oily wastes and municipal and
industrial sludges.
c. Spray irrigation of treated sewage effluent.
d. Other identified land disposal/treatment practices, such as
deep wel1 di sposal.
o Task *4 - Present the best state-of-the-art methodology to obtain
both field and laboratory data relative to each of the criteria
listed for their quantitative and qualitative assessment. For
example, definition of the groundwater flow system will require depth
to water measurements which can be obtained in backhoe pits, boring
wells or piezometers. The need for each type should be addressed.
o Task 5 ~ Describe in a "how to use" fashion, data required for an
assessment of site suitability, for example, utilization of a mixing
zone for waste assimilation, waste application rates, or containment
of waste by the use of natural site factors and/or engineered controls
(1 i ners).
o Task 6 - Prepare a manual on Utilization of the Criteria Listing
Approach for Waste Disposal Siting for use by regulatory agencies.
This manual will describe in a step-wise fashion the Criteria
Listing necessary for waste/site characterization, the methodology
to obtain quantitative and qualitative data relative to those criteria,
and the assessment procedure to evaluate those criteria.
Timing, Staffing, and Funding Estimates. The development of a
comprehensive Criteria Listing and a matrix for selected types of waste
222
-------
disposal will require the input from an interdisciplinary team. This
team should be comprised of technical personnel in the following areas:
environmental, civil and chemical engineering, soils science, and
hydrogeology. Balanced input from these team members will be required
for an estimated total four-manyear effort as shown on Table A3- These
tasks should be conducted In a sequential manner as shown on Table 44
with some concurrent effort to result in an estimated total project
period of 15 months.
Project funding is estimated at $200,000 based on this level of
anticipated work effort.
Classification System Development Plan (Short and Long Term)
Background. Several state regulatory agencies have been identified
which presently utilize a Classification System approach for waste disposal
siting. California has utilized this approach for some five years, while
Texas and Illinois have recently initiated a similar approach. The
Classification System approach fs comprehensive in that all wastes,
including hazardous wastes but excluding radioactive wastes, are assigned
to specific site types. These site types are defined on the basis of
certain characteristics, primarily permeability requirements, for waste
leachate control to avoid or minimize the risk of surface and groundwater
contami nation.
Analysis of Development Needs. An assessment of the identified
Classification Systems has led to the recognition that: (1) certain key
parameters such as the maximum permeability allowed for waste containment
in a "secured landfill" vary by a least one order of magnitude; and
(2) waste types are often characterized in only general and not specific
terms.
223
-------
TABLE 43
LEVEL OF EFFORT FOR CRITERIA LISTING DEVELOPMENT
Development Task
1. Develop a comprehensive
cri teria 1i sting for
reliance on attenuation
2. Develop a comprehensive
cri teria 1i sting for
reliance on containment
3. Develop a matrix
designating different
criteria and disposal
methods
k. Develop procedures for
field and laboratory
evaluation of parameters
5. Develop methodology for
utilization of attenuation
and containment practices
6. Prepare user manual and
report
TOTAL
Total Funding, assuming
$50,000 per man year
Level of Effort
(Man Months)
12
man years)
$200,000
22*4
-------
TABLE M
CRITERIA LISTING DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE
Development
Task
123^5 _ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time - Months
15
Develop a comprehensive
cri teria 1i sting for
reliance on attenuation
Develop a comprehensive
criteria listing for
reliance on containment
Develop a matrix
designating different
criteria and disposal
methods
Develop procedures for
field and laboratory
evaluation of parameters
Develop methodology for
utilization of attenuation
and containment practices
Prepare user manual and
report
225
-------
It has become apparent, therefore, that a more detailed and uniform
approach to both waste and site characterization is necessary for waste
management to minimize or avoid adverse environmental impacts while at
the same time maintaining associated costs at an affordable level. To
meet these needs, the following overall objectives can be stated: (1)
more definitive waste characterization, by uniform methods and descriptions;
(2) more uniform site characterization; and (3) more specific and
uniform waste management techniques, such as waste segregation, pretreatment,
lift thickness and cover requirements.
The following tasks will be conducted to fulfill these stated
object i ves:
* Task 1 - Waste Characterization; Techn iques will be i dent i fied and
assessed as to their capability for more definitive and uniform waste
characterization. Such techniques will include, but not be limited
to:
a. A standard leaching test.
b. A shaker test.
c. Thin film chromatography.
Specific wastes will be identified which will require disposal in
a Class I Type site as well as those specific waste types which are
suitable for Class II and III site disposal. In addition, specific
wastes will be identified which will require pretreatment prior
to disposal in a Class I site or some other form of disposal such as
incineration. (See task on Waste Management below.)
e Task 2 - Site Characterization: Criteria for site definition are
presently designated in both the Criteria Listing and Classification
System approaches to waste disposal siting. These criteria will be
assessed and a uniform set of limits will be placed on such key
226
-------
parameters as: (1) maximum permeability required for containment
(2) minimum depth to the highest measured water level and (3)
minimum thickness of the low permeability confining unit.
Uniform site characterization criteria applicable to all waste
classes, equivalent to Class I, II, and III of the California
System, will be specified.
« Task 3 " Waste Management Requirements; A set of requirements for
matching types of waste with types of sites should be developed and
would cover; 1) criteria for reliance on attenuation, 2) criteria
for reliance on containment, and 3) criteria for site design,
operation and management.
e Task ^ - Waste Management Task Force; A Waste Management Task
Force should be established to keep abreast of the rapidly-changing
waste disposal program. This Task Force will be comprised of
approximately 10 members with a balanced representation of
governmental, Industrial, consulting, and academic personnel. This
Task Force will meet no less than annually to review the current
waste disposal technology and current waste disposal regulations.
A primary function of this Task Force will be to continually update
and specify those waste management techniques most environmentally
sound for specific waste types.
Specific wastes are to be identified that: will require disposal
in a Class I type site; are permissible for disposal in Class II
and III type sites; will require pretreatment and the method of
pretreatment prior to land disposals; and that will require a
specified form of disposal other than to the land (i.e.,
incineration).
227
-------
Q Task 5 ~ Methodology of Using Classification System: Different
methodologies for using the classification system must be developed.
These will include: 1) data requirements, 2) data qualification
and quantification and 3) analysis and interpretation.
® Task 6 - Prepare Manuals and Reports; A series of users manuals
and reports should be prepared and updated. The task of review,
modification and updating of these manuals is part of the function
of the Waste Management Task Force.
Timing, Staffing, and Funding Estimates. While the Classification
System approach to waste disposal siting is presently being utilized,
the above described tasks readily attest to the need for refinement and
continued updating with changing technology and legislation. This
development plan encompasses, therefore, both a short-term and long-term
timeframe. As the "subroutines" for waste characterization (i.e.,
leaching tests) and waste/site interactions (i.e., modeling) become more
reliable, the utilization of the Classification System for waste disposal
siting will likewise become more reliable and cost effective.
Due to the comprehensive nature of this development plan and the
rapidly-changing waste technology and legislative controls, timing
estimates for the conduct of this plan are difficult to formulate. It
can be anticipated however, that short-term development (within three
years) will require an estimated 5-manyear effort over the three-year
period as shown on Table 45. Once a uniform Classification System is
being used and the Task Force is operative, it is estimated that approxi-
mately one man-year of effort will be required for the duration of the
long-term period (to 10 years). The concurrent tasks and sequence for
further development of the Classification System is shown on Table 46.
228
-------
TABLE A5
LEVEL OF EFFORT FOR CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
Development Task
Level of Effort
short term | long term
1 . Develop waste
character? zation
techn iques
2. Develop site
character!zation
techniques
3. Develop waste
management re-
qui rements for
different waste
and site classes
k. Create and support
a waste management
task force
5. Develop methodology
for using classifi-
cation system
6. Prepare user manual
and update reports
TOTAL MAN YEARS
TOTAL Funding, assuming
$50,000/ man year
1/2
1/2
1
5
$250,000
$350,000
included in long term estimated for supporting task force (Task
229
-------
TABLE 1»6
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE
Development
Task
1
3
Time in Years
5 6 7
10
1 . Develop waste
character!zation
techniques
2. Develop site
characterization
techn iques
3. Develop waste
management
requirements for
different waste
and s i te classes
k. Create and support
a waste management
task force
5. Develop methodology
for using classifi-
cation system
6. Prepare user manual
and update reports
Short Term Development
Long Term Development
-------
An EPA selected contractor would conduct the tasks indicated for
the short term (3 year) effort and would work with EPA to create the
Waste Management Task Force. Thereafter, the Waste Management Task Force
would meet annually to review, modify and update the users manual,
including the associated tasks that are inherent to that manual, under
direct contract to the EPA.
Staffing for the contractor selected to perform the short-term work
will require the input from a multi-disciplinary team as indicated in the
Criteria Listing Development Plan. Staffing requirements for the Task
Force should include: technical representation in environmental, civil
and chemical engineering, soils science, hydrogeology, and applied
computer science; industrial representation from several of the key
industrial sectors; academic representation in applied waste management
research; regulatory representation from a minimum of one state regulatory
agency, and EPA; and legal representation at the federal level. Input
from these varied personnel should be on a "balanced" basis.
Funding estimates for this development program are also extremely
difficult to determine. Assuming $50,000 per manyear effort, and the
assessment timing requirements stated above, a minimum cost of $250,000
will be required for the short-term period (3 year) and an additional
$350,000 for the long-term period (up to 10 years).
Mathematical Model Development Plan (Long Term)
Background. The very nature of waste disposal into a physically,
chemically, and biologically active environment results in such a
complex of interrelated processes that a comprehensive description of
the system becomes extremely difficult. Frequently, the system is too
complicated for any reasonable model to include all the factors that
might be considered important, thus leading to criticism, particularly
231
-------
from non-modeling personnel, of the model being non-representative and
incomplete. On the other hand, a model which includes the major processes
may be too complex to be used by average technical personnel.
It must also be realized and emphasized that detailed models do not
provide absolute "yes" or "no" answers to questions of disposal-site
suitability. The user of any mathematical model must make site suitability
recommendations on the basis of model outputs which describe the presence
of various waste constituents in the soil/water system below and down
gradient from a disposal site. Perhaps the most effective application of
models is that they can be used to evaluate various management schemes
that will make a given waste disposal site more acceptable in terms of
minimizing its impact on the environment.
During the past decade, the level of activity in modeling water and
waste leachate transport through different types of porous media has increased
significantly. Thus, effort has occurred in various government, educational
and private sectors and has been undertaken by personnel in various technical
disciplines. Many models, however, are similar in their conception of the
processes which exist in a waste disposal system and how they may be described,
Analysis of Development Needs. The specific objectives of this
development plan will be:
o Task 1 - Simulation Library; Develop a central library which contains
existing models and their numerical solution and appropriate
documentation. The concern that some individuals may misuse a model
developed by another group Is not sufficient justification for the
general reluctance to establish a central library of available models.
An interdisciplinary team of individuals capable of understanding
model development and computer programming would establish guidelines
232
-------
for model presentation, documentation, and limitations. The material
in the library should be available to anyone upon request. There will
be an annual need to update the entries in the library.
e Task 2 - Test Model Sensitivity: Develop procedures to evaluate
model output sensitivity to input parameters, initial and boundary
conditions, and the assumptions made. Most of the available numerical
models are too complex for previously-developed sensitivity analysis
techniques. Th i s capabi1i ty wJ11 i denti fy the p rec is ion with wh ich
each model parameter and variable will have to be measured in the
laboratory and/or field to give reliable output from the model.
Some of the available statistical procedures for conducting sensitivity
tests are too costly and time consuming for general use in complex
waste-leachate and soi1-interactlon models.
e Task 3 " Formulation and Validation of Models: Develop mathematical
models (one and two dimensional) for describing water and waste
constituent transport through water saturated/unsaturated porous media.
The numerical treatment of complex partial differential equations for
an empirical model using high-speed digital computers is very advanced
and sophisticated. The major problem to date appears to center
around the use of valid relationships for describing the processes
occurring in the soil-waste leachate system. Therefore, it is
recommended that interdisciplinary programs be used to bring
experimentalists and modelers together to work on the problem of
modeling waste disposal. A closer working relationship between
these two groups will enhance our progress in describing the behavior
and performance of given waste leachates in a specific soil environment.
• Task k - Model Parameters and Variables: Develop standard procedures
for measuring the major parameters and variables used in models for
describing the transport and interaction of single and/or multiple
233
-------
constituents in saturated/unsaturated porous media. This task is
related to the need for better sensitivity analysis techniques for
identifying the major input parameter which significantly influences
the output from a model.
Processes with specific parameters that appear to be of primary
importance are adsorption-desorption, ion exchange, constituent
precipitation, biological decay or transformation of constituent,
water transport (saturated/unsaturated), and waste leachate
composition. Parameters required to describe water transport in
one and two dimensions are sufficiently understood and documented
at the present time. The processes which describe the chemical
and biological (equilibrium and transient) behavior of waste
constituents will require the greatest effort.
The product from this task should be presented in a manner similar
to the "Protocol for Adsorption Tests" Federal Register (1975),
ItO (123) 26881-26895, in the EPA guidelines for registering
pesticides in the United States.
o Task 5 ~ Waste and Waste Leachate Characterization; Develop standard
procedures for describing leaching characteristics of wastes under
simulated environmental conditions (leaching tests and data). Without
this information, it will be impossible to use the models to
describe the fate of given waste constituents in a disposal site.
© Task 6 - Field Testing, Calibration, and Verification: Develop a
sufficient data base from a given waste and disposal site to
provide an opportunity for model comparison and verification. These
data would not be used for calibration purposes, but rather for
evaluating the conceptual validity of the model. The output
23k
-------
from the model would be compared with data from the site which
describes the movement and distribution of various waste constituents
leaving the waste disposal area. Model verification requires
that the data base be independent of that used for calibration or
test ing.
a Task 7 ~ Management Models: Develop models designated as "management
models". These should be synthesized from the detailed simulation
models developed by Interdisciplinary research groups. These models
should be simplified versions suitable for use in smaller computers.
The models are not Intended to provide the detail or level of
sophistication associated with research or technical models, but
they should help provide initial evaluations of many waste disposal
sites. The management models, if process oriented, would b§ useful
in familiarizing non-technical regulatory personnel with the use
and benefits of the more detailed models.
Such models would include calculating maximum spatial concentration
maximum travel distance, and required degree of contaminant removal.
® Task 8 - Implementation Assistance: Develop a procedure for training
non-technical personnel in the use of models. Write manuals which
describe the major processes responsible for the mobility and
attenuation of waste constituents associated with water disposal.
The manuals should be written in such a manner that non-technical
personnel could use and benefit from the material presented.
Time, Staffing, and Funding Estimates. The above-described tasks for
model development needs Indicate an obvious long-term and costly development
program. This program can be broken down into certain tasks, however, which
can be completed in the short term (within three years) as well as a
number of tasks that can be conducted concurrently.
235
-------
Due to the extremely complex nature of both the subject matter
(the waste/soil interaction system) and the method to analyze that
system (mathematical models and estimates of the time), staffing and
funding necessary to fully develop reliable and representative models
are, at best, reasonable estimates. Such reasonable estimates have been
made as indicated in Tables 47, 48, and 49.
The staffing requirements reflect the interdisciplinary approach
that is vital to the model development program if these models are to
be representative of the complex waste/sol 1 interactions. The staffing
needs, as shown, indicate a high level of activity of an estimated 150
manyears. Using the generally acceptable rate of $50,000/manyear, the
model development program is estimated to cost approximately $6 million.
236
-------
TABLE l»7
LEVEL OF EFFORT FOR MODELS DEVELOPMENT (MAN YEARS)
Development Activity 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 I98A 1985 1986 1987 1968 Total (Man Year:,)
1. Simulation Library.
• Start Compilation of Material 2 2
cMaintain Current Information 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5
2. Develop a Standardized Test Procedure for
Numerical Models.' Ill 3
3. Mathematical Formulation and Numerical Solution.
a. One-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model
with No Adsorption or Decay of Single
Constituent 2 2
b. One-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model
for Adsorption and Decay of Single
Const i tuent 12] 14
c. One-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model
for Adsorption and Decay of Several
Constituents 1221 6
d. Two-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model
with No Adsorption or Decay of Single
Cc-nsti tuent 2 2
e. Two-Dimensipnal Saturated/Unsaturated Mode I
for Adsorption and Decay of Single
Constituent 1111 It
f. Two-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model
for Adsorption and Decay ofeSeveral 111111 6
Constituents
g. Three-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model
for Adsorption and Decay of Several
Constituents 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5
-------
TABLE It?
(continued)
UJ
OO
Developnent Activity
4. Develop Methodology for Laboratory and Field
Quantification of Major Model Parameters.
a. Saturated/Unsaturated Models with No
Adsorption or Decay of Single Constituent
b. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for
Adsorption and Decay of Single
Const i tuent
c. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for Adsorption
and Decay of Several Constituents
5. Develop Methodology for Quantification of
Waste Leachate for Specific Soils and
Environmental Conditions.
a. Leaching characteristics
b. Soil/Constituent Interaction
6. Field Testing, Calibration, and Verification.
a. Saturated/Unsaturated Models with No
Adsorption or Decay of Single Constituent
b. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for
Adsorption and Decay of Single
Const!tuent
c. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for
Adsorption No Decay of Several
Consti tuents
1978 1979 '980 1981 1932 1983 1981* 1985 1986 1987 1988 Total (Man Years)
1 2 1
111111
1111111111
1 1
1 2 2
1 1
2332
2 3
10
2
7
10
20
33333333
-------
TABLE <(7
(cont inued)
Development Activity
7. Develop Management Models from Detailed Models.
a. Saturated/Unsaturated Models with No
Adsorption of Decay of Single Constituent
b. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for
Adsorption and Decay of Single
Const!tuent
c. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for
Adsorption No Decay of Several
Consti tuents
8. Implementation Assistance.
a. Saturated/Unsaturated Models with No
Adsorption or Decay of Single
Const!tuent
b. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for
Adsorption and Decay of Single
Const!tuent
c. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for
Adsorption No Decay of Several
Const!tuents
1978 1979 i960 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Total (Man Years)
11111
11111111
111111
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
1 1
TOTAL
150
-------
TABLE 1»8
MODEL DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE
Development Activity
O
1. Simulation Library.
Start Compilation of Material-
Maintain Current Information—
2. Develop a Standardized Test Procedure for Numerical
Models.__ ___^
3. Mathematical Formulation and Numerical Solution.
a. One-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model with
No Adsorption or Decay of Single Constituent
b. One-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model for
Adsorption and Decay of Single Constituent
c. One-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model for
Adsorption and Decay of Several Constituents
d. Two-Dimensiona) Saturated/Unsaturated Model with
No Adsorption or Decay of Single Constituent
One-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model for
Adsorption and Decay of Single Constituent
Two-dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Model for
Adsorption and Decay of Several Constituents
g. Three-Dimensional Saturated/Unsaturated Models for
Adsorption and Decay of Several Constituents
<«. Develop Methodology for Laboratory and Field Quantification
of Major Model Parameters.
a. Saturated/Unsaturated Models with No Adsorption or
Decay-of Single rnn»t-jfn»m-
b. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for Adsorption and Decay
of Single Constituent
c. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for Adsorption and
Decay of Several r.nn*r j tiu>n<-»
-------
TABLE A8
(continued)
Development Activity
5. Develop Methodology for Quantification of Waste Leachate
for Specific Soils and Environmental Conditions.
b. So i 1 /Const i fiiflnt Interaction ....
6. Field Testing, Calibration, and Verification.
a. Saturated/Unsaturated Models with No Adsorption or
b. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for Adsorption and
c. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for Adsorption No
7. Develop Management Models from Detailed Models.
a. Saturated/Unsaturated Models with No Adsorption or
Ppray of Sing'" fO"<;ri tupnr
b. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for Adsorption and
c. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for Adsorption No
8. Implementation Assistance
a. Saturated/Unsaturated Models with No Adsorption or
b. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for Adsorption and
c. Saturated/Unsaturated Models for Adsorption No
1978
mwugMBj
iSSBSSJ
SSSffimH
1979
88888888
W&SBSSSK
1980
gjSSgggSS
1981
aaBHaaScB
8S88SS8&5
1982
MMMOWHffll
*asassass&
I888S888S388!
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
feSSSSSffig
jjggggffijjjSjj
1988
8888888888
BflflaaoSsSS
-^
-Tfc-
-------
TABLE k9
STAFFING AND MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
FOR MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Breakdown of Staffing, %
Development Activity Manyears TD U5 TTJ W (5)
1. Simulation Library 7 30 20 20 20
2. Standardized Test Pro-
cedure for Numerical Models 3 70 10 5 10 5
3. Mathematical Formulation
and Numerical Solutions 29 45 20 10 20 5
4. Methodology for Laboratory
and Field Quantification
of Major Model Parameters 20 10 20 30 35 5
5. Methodology for Quantifi-
cation of Waste Leachate,
Specific Soi1, and
Environmental Conditions 9 10 15 40 30 5
6. Field Testing, Calibration,
and Verification 5*» 5 20 20 50 5
7. Management Models from
Detailed Models 19 60 10 5 20 5
8. Implementation Assistance 9_ 20 20 15 20 5
TOTAL 150
Type of Staff: (1) Applied mathematician, computer scientists,
programmer, etc.
(2) Environmental, chemical, civil engineer, etc.
(3) Chemist, lab technician, etc.
(k) Soil scientist, hydrogeologist, field technician, etc.
(5) Secretary/clerical, administrative, etc.
242
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
PART 1 - TOXIC METALS
1. Alloway, B.S. and B.E. Davis. Heavy metal content of plants
growing on soils contaminated by lead mining. Journal of
Agricultural Science, 76:321, 1971.
o
2. Andersson, A. Mercury in Soils. Grundforbathing, 20:95, 1967.
3. Andersson, A. and K.O. Nilsson. Enrichment of trace elements from
sewage sludge fertilizer in soils and plants. Ambio, 1:176,
1972.
4. Andren, A.W. and R.C. Harriss. Observations on the association
between mercury and organic matter dissolved in natural waters.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 39:1253, 1975.
5. Angino, E.E., L.M. Magnuson, and T.C. Waugh. Mineralogy of
suspended sediment and concentration of Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn, Cu, and
Pb in water, and Fe, Mn, and Pb in suspended load of selected
Kansas streams. Water Resources Res., 10:1187, 197**.
6. Aomine, S. and K. Inoue. Retention of mercury by soils. II.
Adsorption of phenyImercuric acetate by soil colloids. Soi1
Sci. & Plant Nutr.. 13:195, 1967.
7. Argo, D.G. and G.L. Gulp. Heavy metals removal in wastewater
treatment processes: Part 1. Water and Sewage Works, 119:62,
1972.
8. Baes, C.F., Jr. and R.E. Mesmer. Hydrolytic behavior of toxic
metals. J_n_ Ecology and Analysis of Trace Contaminants, Progr.
Rept. June 1972-January 1973. ORNL-NSF-EATC-1. Oak Ridge
Natl. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1973. p. 227-2^5.
9. Banat, K. , et^ jj_. Experimental mobilization of metals from Aquatic
sediments by nitrilotriacatic acid. Chem. Geol., 1^:199, 197^.
10. Benes, P. and E. Steinnes. Migration forms of trace elements in
natural and fresh waters and the effect of water storage.
Water Res., 9:7^1, 1975.
«
11. Bingham, F.T., T.J. Ganje, R.J. Mahler, and A.L. Page. Growth and
cadmium accumulation of plants grown on a soil treated with a
cadmium-enriched sewage sludge. Journal of Environmental
Quality. ^4:207, 1975.
A-1
-------
12. Bisogni, J.J., Jr. and A.W. Lawrence. Kinetics of mercury
methylatlon in aerobic and anaerobic aquatic environments.
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed.. 1*7:135, 1975.
13- Bittell, J.E. and R.J. Miller. Lead, cadmium and calcium selectivity
coefficients on a montmori1lonite, illite, and kaolinite.
Journal of Environ. Quality, 3:250, 1971*.
11*. Blanton, C.J.,\et_aj_. A survey of mercury distribution in the
Terlingua Area of Texas. 9th Conference Trace Substances in
Environ. Health, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, 1975.
15- Bloomfield, C. and G. Pruden. The effects of aerobic and anaerobic
incubation on the extractabi1ities of heavy metals in digested
sewage sludge. Environ. Poll., 8:217, 1975.
16. Buel1 , G. Some biochemical aspects of cadmium toxicology. Jour.
Occupational Medicine, 17:189, 1975.
17. Buffle, J. Ph. and J. Mallevialle. Humic matter as accumulating
agent and carrier of toxic substances in water. Techniques
et Sciences Municipales 1'Eau., 69:331, 197**.
18. Carter, D.L., M.J. Brown, and C.W. Robbins. Selenium concentrations
in alfalfa from several sources applied to a low selenium
alkaline soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.. 33:715, 1969.
19. Chaney, R.L. Metals in plants - adsorption mechanisms, accumulation
and tolerance. In Proc. Symp. Metals in the Biosphere, Dept.
Land Resource Science., Univ. Guelph, Ontario, Canada., 1975.
21 p.
20. Chen, K.Y., C.S. Young, T.K. Jan, and N. Rohatgi. Trace metals in
wastewater effluents. Journal Water Poll. Control Fed..
ii6:2663, 197**.
21. Chester, R. and J.H. Stoner. Trace elements in sediments from the
Lower Severn Estuary and Bristol Channel. Marine Pol 1ut. Bui 1. .
6, 1975.
22. Chromium - Report Committee Biologic Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants,
Natl. Academy of Sciences, Natl. Research Council, Washington,
D.C. 197*1.
23. Clifton, A.P. and C.M.G. Vivan. Retention of mercury from an in-
dustrial source in Swansea Bay sediments. Nature, 253:621,
1975.
A-2
-------
2A. Collins, J.F. and S.W. Buol. Effect of fluctuations, in Eh-pH
environment on iron and/or manganese equilibria. Soil Sci . ,
110:111, 1970.
25. Cox, D.B. Cadmium - a trace element of concern in mining and
manufacturing. Jour. Environ. Health, 36:361, 197**.
26. Cross, C.H., M.K. John, and C.J. Vanl aekhoven . Cadmium, lead and
zinc accumulation in soils near a smelter complex. Envi ronmental
Letters. 10:25, 1975.
27. Cross, R.J. and C.M. Jenkins. Chemical studies relating to
environmental organomercur ials . Envi ron. Pol 1 . , 8:179, 1975.
28. Cunningham, R.S., et_ a]_. Water quality implications of strip-mine
reclamation by wastewater sludge. 2nd Natl. Conf. Complete
WateReuse, Amer. Inst. Chem. Engr. , Chicago, Illinois, 1975.
20 p.
29. Davids, H.W. and M. Lleber. Underground water contamination by
chromi urn wastes. Water and Sewage Works. 98:528, 1951.
30. Davis, J.A., III and J. Jacknow. Heavy metals in wastewater in
three urban areas. Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., ^7:2292,
1975.
31. de Groot, A.J. Occurrence and behavior of heavy metals in river
deltas, with special reference to the Rhine and Ems rivers.
Proc. NATO North Sea Science Conf., Avedmore, Scotland,
308, 1971.
32. Elder, J.F. Complexation side reactions involving trace metals
in natural water systems. Llmnol. & Oceanog.. 20:96, 1975.
33. Engler, R.M. and W.J. Patrick, Jr. Stability of sulfides of
manganese, iron, zinc, copper and mercury in flooded and
nonflooded soil. Soil Sci.. 119:217, 1975.
3*». Estes, G.O., W.E. Knoop, and F.D. Houghton. Soil-plant response
to surface-applied mercury. Journal of Environmental Quality.
1973.
35. Faveretto, L. and L.F. Gabrielli. Lead mobilization by detergent
sequestering agents. Rev. Intern. Oceanogr. Med. , 33:61,
36. Feick, G. , et_ £J_. Control of mercury contamination in freshwater
sediments. Environ. & Ecological Effects of Dredging (A
Bibliography w/abstr.) - NTIS/PS- 75/050, 1975. 160 p.
A- 3
-------
37. Fleischer, M., et al. Environmental impact of cadmium: A review
by the paneTbnThazardous trace substances. Environ. Health
Perspectives, 253, 1974.
38. Frissel, M.J., N. Van der Klugt, P. Poelstra, and W. Tap.
Behavior of mercury compounds in soils: accumulation and
evaporation. Comparative Studies of Food and Environmental
Contamination. Proceeding Series. Vienna: International
Atomic Energy Agency, 1974. p. 281-292.
39. Fulkerson, W., et_ aj_. (Editors). Cadmium - the dissipated element,
Oak Ridge, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Report No. ORNL
NSF-EP-21, 1973. 473 p.
40. Fulkerson, W. Cadmium - the dissipated element - revisited. Proc.
2nd Conf. Complete WateReuse, Amer. Inst. Chem. Engr.,
Chicago, Illinois, 1975.
41. Fuller, W.H. Movement of selected metals, asbestos and cyanide in
soils: Applications to Waste Disposal Problems, EPA 60012-77-
020, April, 1977. Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Div.
Rept. EPA. MERL. Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268. 257p.
42. Gadde, R.R. and H.A. Laitinen. Study of the sorption of lead by
hydrous ferric oxide. Environmental Letters, 5:223, 1973.
43. Gardiner, J. and M.J. Stiff. The determination of cadmium, lead,
copper and zinc in ground water, estuarine water, sewage and
sewage effluent by anodic stripping voltammetry. Water Res.,
9:517, 1975.
44. Gross, M.G. Analyses of dredged waters, fly ash, and waste
chemicals - New York metropolitan region. Environ. £
Ecological Effects of Dredging (A Bibliography s/abstr.).
NTIS/PS-75/050, 1975.
45. Hahne, H.C.H. and W. Kroontje. The simultaneous effect of pH and
chloride concentration upon mercury (ll) as a pollutant.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 37:838, 1973.
46. Harrison, R.M., R. Perry, and R.A. Wei lings. Lead and cadmium in
precipitation: Their contribution to pollution. Air Pollution
Control Association Journal, 25:627, 1975.
47. Helz, G.R., et al. Behavior of Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb
discharged" TFom a wastewater treatment plant into an estuarine
environment. Water Res., 9:631, 1975.
A-4
-------
48. Hem, J.D. Chemistry and occurrence of cadmium and zinc in water
and groundwater. Water Resources Research, 8:661, 1972.
49- Holm, H.Wi and M.F. Cox. Mercury in aquatic systems: methylation,
oxidation-reduction, and bioaccumulation. U.S. EPA Report
660/3-74-021, 1974. 38 p.
50. Holt, R.F., D.R. Timmons, and J.J. Latterell. Accumulation of
phosphates in water. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 18:781, 1970.
51. Huckabee, J.W. and B.C. Blaylock. Transfer of mercury and cadmium
from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems. J_n_ Metal Ions in
Biological Systems, Dhar, S.K. (Ed.), Plenum Publishing Corp.,
New York, 1975. 125 p.
52. Jacobs, L. Methylation of mercury in lake and river sediments
during field and laboratory investigations. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Dept. of Soil Science, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, 1973. 98 p.
53. Jenkins, S.H., D.G. Keight, and A. Ewins. The solubility of heavy
metal hydroxides in water, sewage, and sewage sludge - II.
The precipitation of metals by sewage. Int. J. Ai r Water Pol 1.,
8:679-693, 1964.
5^. Jenne, E.A. Controls on Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn concentrations
in soils and water: The significant role of hydrous Mn and Fe
oxides. Adv. in Chem. Ser., 73:337, 1968.
55. John, M.K., H.H. Chuah, and C.J. Von Laerhoven. Cadmium
contamination of soil and its uptake by oats. Environ. Sci.
and Technol.. 6:555, 1972.
56. John, M.K. Cadmium uptake by eight food crops as influenced by
various soil levels of cadmium. Envi ron. Pol 1., 4:7, 1973.
57. Jones, R.L., T.D. Hinesly, and E.L. Ziegler. Cadmium content of
soybeans grown on sewage-sludge amended soil. J. Environ.
Quality, 2:351, 1973.
58. Jurinak, J.J. and J. Santi1lan-Medrano. The chemistry and
transport of lead and cadmium in soils. Government Reports
Announcements. 75=117, 1975.
59. Klein, L.A., et al. Sources of metals in New York City wastewater.
Jour. Water FcTl 1. Control Fed.. 46:2653, 1974.
A-5
-------
60. Konrad, J.G. and S. Kleinert. Removal of metals from wastewaters
by municipal sewage treatment plants. In Surveys of Toxic
Metals in Wisconsin. Tech. Bull. No. T^T Dept. of Natural
Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, 197^. P- 2-7.
6l. Kopp, J.F. and R.C. Kroner. Trace metals in water of the United
States. Water Pollution Control Administration, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1970.
62. Korte, N.E., J. Skopp, E.E. Niebla, and W.H. Fuller. A baseline
study on trace metal elution from diverse soil types.
Water. Air and Soil Poll.. 5:1^9, 1975.
63. Krusen, G.C., et al . Removal and recovery of vanadium from power
plant effluent. 2nd Natl. Conf. Complete WateRuse, Amer.
Inst. Chem. Engr. , Chicago, Illinois, 1975.
6k. Kudo, A., et_ a\_. Factors influencing desorption of mercury from
bed sediments. Can. Jour. Earth Sci., 12:1036, 1975.
65. Lahann, R.W. Molybdenum hazard in land disposal of sewage sludge.
Water. Air and Soil Poll., 6:3, 1976.
66. Land, J.E., ejj^ a\_. Nature and stability of complex mercury
compounds in surface and ground waters. Water Resources Res.
Inst. Bull. 17, Auburn Univ., Alabama (NTIS PB-226-226) ,
1973. A6 p.
67. Leddy, D.G. Factors controlling copper (II) concentrations in
the Keweenaw Waterway. Office of Water Resources Research
Rept., A-065-MICH, NTIS PB-222-463, 1973- 105 p.
68. Leeper, G.W. Reactions of heavy metals with soils with special
regard to their application in sewage wastes. DDept. of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DAEW 73~73-C-0026,
1972. 70 p.
69. Levi-Minzi, R. and R. Riffaldi. Adsorption and desorption of Cd
on humic acid fraction of soils. Water, Air and Soil Poll.,
5:179, 1975.
70. Lieber, M. and F.W. Welsch. Contamination of groundwater by
cadmium. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. , A6:A51,
71. Lindberg, S.E., et_ a\_. Geochemistry of mercury in the estuarine
environment. Estuarine Res. , 1:6^, 1975.
A-6
-------
72. Lund, L.J., A.L. Page, and C.O. Nelson. Movement of heavy metals
below sewage disposal ponds. J. Envi ron. Q.ual i ty, 5:330, 1976.
73. Martin, J.M., e_t_ jal_. The physico-chemical aspects of trace element
behavior in estuarine environments. Thalassia Jugoslavica,
7:619, 1971.
Ik. Morel, P.M., et^al. Fate of trace metals in Los Angeles county
wastewater dTTcharge. Environ. Sci. £ Technol., 9:756, 1975.
75. Murray, C.N. and S. Meinke. Influence of soluble sewage material
on adsorption and desorption behavior of cadmium, cobalt,
silver and zinc in sediment-freshwater, sediment-seawater
systems. Jour. Oceanogr. Soc. Japan, 30:216, 197**.
76. Nickel-Report Committee Medical and Biologic Effects of
Environmental Pollutants, Natl. Academy of Sciences, Natl.
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1975.
77. Olson, B.H., and R.C. Cooper. In situ methylation of mercury in
estuarine sediment. Nature, 252:682, ^^7^.
78. Papakostidis, G., et_ al. Heavy metals in sediments from the
Athens sewage out?a"l 1 area. Marine Pol 1. Bull.. 6:136, 1975.
79. Pasternak, K. The spreading of heavy metals in flowing waters in
the region of occurrence of natural deposits and of the zinc
and lead industry. Acta Hydrobiol. , 15:1*»5, 1973.
80. Perhac, R.M. Water transport of heavy metals in solution and by
different sizes of particulate solids. Water Resources Center
Rept. A-023-TENN(3), Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville, 197^. Al p.
81. Peterson, P.J. and E.K. Porter. Arsenic accumulation by plants on
mine waste. Science of the Total Environment. 4:365, 1975.
82. Ratsch, H.C. Heavy metal accumulation in soil and vegetation from
smelter emissions. Government Reports Announcements, 75:118,
1975.
83. Rohatgi, N. and K.Y. Chen. Transport of trace metals by suspended
particulates on mixing with seawater. Jour. Water Pol 1.
Control Fed.. ^7:2298, 1975.
8k. Skidaway Institute of Oceanography. Transport, fate and
geochemical interactions of mercury, cadmium and other inorganic
pollutants in the coastal littoral-salt marsh environment of
the Southeastern United States. Progress Report, U.S. EPA
Project R-800372 (NTIS PB 227 035). 130 p.
A-7
-------
85- Sommers, L.E. and M. Floyd. Microbial transformation of mercury
in aquatic environments. Water Resources Research Report 5^,
Purdue Univ., 197*». 80 p.
86. Standiford, D.R., et_ £J_. Mercury in the Lake Powell ecosystem.
Lake Powell Research Project Bull. 1, Univ. New Mexico,
Albuquerque, 1973- 21 p.
87- Theis, T.L. The potential trace metal contamination of water
resources through the disposal of fly ash. 2nd Natl. Conf.
88. Thomas, G.W. The relation between soil characteristics, water
movement, and nitrate contamination of ground water. Kentucky
University, Water Resources Institute, Lexington. Research
Report No. 52, 1972. 38 p.
89. Thornton, I. and J.S. Webb. Trace elements in soils and surface
waters contaminated by past metalliferous mining in parts of
England, 1975. 9th Conf. Trace Substances in Environ. Health,
Univ. of Missouri, Columbia.
90. Valentine, J. Distribution of trace elements in water in the
Houston environment: Relationship to mortality from
arteriosclerotic heart disease. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of
Public Health, University of Texas, Houston, 1973. 158 p.
91. Van der Walt, S.R., et_ ^J_. The recovery of Fe, Mn, and Al from
a mine water effluent. Water Res. . 9:865, 1975.
92. Villa, 0., Jr., e_t_ a\_. Distribution of metals in Baltimore
Harbor sediments. Tech. Rept. 59, U.S. EPA, Annapolis Field
Office-Region III (NTIS PB 229 258), 197^.
93. Warren, H.V., R.E. Delavault, and K.V. Fletcher. Metal pollution -
a growing problem in industrial and urban areas. Can. Min.
Metal 1. Bull., 1971. p. 3^-45.
9A. Weber, J.H. Metal complexes of components of yellow organic acids
in water. Rept. Project A-022-NH, Water Resources Research
Center, New Hampshire Univ., Durham, 1973. 20 p.
95. Wood, O.K. and G. Tchobanoglous. Trace elements in biological
waste treatment. Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed.. ^7:1933,
1975.
96. Woolson, E.A., J.H. Axley, and P.C. Kearney. The chemistry and
phytotoxicity of arsenic in soils:1. contaminated field
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 35:938, 1971.
A-8
-------
97. Yasso, W.E. Trace metals in sediments of the New York bight.
Marine Poll. Bull.. A:132, 1973.
98. Zimdahl, R.L. Entry and movement in vegetation of lead derived
from air and soil sources. Air Pollution Control Association:
68th Annual Meeting and Exhibition Abstracts, 1975. 89 p.
A-9
-------
PART II - TOXIC ORGAN ICS
1. Acharl , R.G., et al. Chlorinated hydrocarbon residues in
groundwater. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 13:9^, 1975.
2. Adams, V.D., et al . Organic residue in a recycled effluent,
part I ar7cT II. Water and Sew. Works, 122:82, 1975.
3. Aharonson, N. and U. Kafkafi. Adsorption of benzimi dazole
fungicides on montmori 1 loni te and kaolinte clay. Jour. Agr.
Food Chem., 23:^, 1975.
k. Alford, A.L. Environmental application of advanced instrumental
analyses: Assistance projects F^-7^. Report 660A-75-OOA,
Office of Research and Development, 1975.
5. Andrade, P., et al . Identification of a mirex metabolite.
Bull. En"vTron. Contam. Toxicol., 1A:A73, 1975.
6. Anhoff, M. and B. Josefsson. Clean up procedures for PCB analysis
on river water extracts. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.,
13:159, 1975.
7. Atchison, G.J. and H.E. Johnson. The degradation of DDT in brook
trout eggs and fry. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc., 10^:782, 1975.
8. Austern, B.M., et_al. Gas chromatographic determination of
selected organTc compounds added to wastewater. Environ. Set.
and Technol., 9:588, 1975.
9. Babiker, A.G.T. and H.J. Duncan. Mobility and breakdown of asulam
in the soil and the possible impact on the environment.
Biol. Conserv. , 8:97, 1975.
10. Bender, D.F., W.J. Kroth, G. Meyer, M.L. Wilson, and R.O. Carter.
Constituents of incinerated and pyrolyzed solid wastes:
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in fly ash and residue
from municipal incinerators. Presented at 158th National
Meeting, American Chemical Society, New York, September 7-12,
1969.
11. Bloom, S.C. and S.E. Degler. Pesticides and pollution.
Washington, Bureau of National Affairs (BNA's Environmental
Management Series.), 1969. 99 p.
A-10
-------
12. Blumer, M. and W.W. Youngblood. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
In soils and recent sediments. Science, 188:53, 1975.
13. Bourquin, A.W. Microbial-malathion interaction in artificial salt
marsh ecosystem: effects and degradation. Report
660/3-75-035, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
14. Bovey, R.W. , E. Burnett, C.W. Richardson, M.G. Merkle, J.R. Baur,
and W.G. Knisel. Occurrence of 2,4,5-T and picloram in
surface runoff water in the Blacklands of Texas. J. Envi ron.
Qual.. 3:61,
15. Breidenbach, A.W. Application of solid waste research to pesticide
disposal. _[JT_ Proceedings, National Working Conference on
Pesticide Disposal, Beltsville, Md., June 30-July 1, 1970.
(Washington), U.S. Department of Agriculture and President's
Cabinet Committee on the Environment, Subcommittee on Pesti-
cides (Research Panel), p. 120-123.
16. Breidenbach, A.W. , J.J. Lichtenberg, C.F. Henke, and D.J. Smith.
Identification and measurement of chlorinated hydrocarbon
pesticides in surface waters. Washington, U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1966. 70 p.
17. Brodtmann, N.V., Jr. Quanti tation of chlorinated pesticides - a
comparison of methods. Jour. Amer. Water Works Assn.,
67:558, 1975.
18. Burrows, W.D. and R.S. Rowe. Ether soluble constituents of landfill
leachate. Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., ^7:921, 1975.
19. Canonne, P. and G. Mamarbachi. Organochlorine insecticide
residues in the sediments of the upper estuary of the
St. Laurent River. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 1^:83,
1975.
o
20. Carlson, D.A. Mi rex in the environment; its degradation to kepone
and related compounds. Science, 19^:939, 1976.
21. Caro, J.H., H.P. Freeman, and B.C. Turner. Persistence in soil
and losses in runoff of soil incorporated carbaryl in a small
watershed. J. Agr. Food Chem. , 22:860, 1975.
22. Caro, J.H., A.W. Taylor, and H.P. Freeman. Comparative behavior
of dieldrin and carbofuran in the field Archives. Envi ron.
Contam. and Toxicology, 1975.
A- 11
-------
23. Catalog of federal pesticide monitoring activities in effect
July 1967. Washington, Federal Committee on Pest Control,
December 1968. 131 p.
2k. Chang, S.K. and G.W. Harrington. Determination of
dimethyln itrosamine and ni trosoprol ine by different pulse
polarography. Anal. Chem. , ^7:1857, 1975.
25. Claeys, R.R. Chlorinated pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls
in marine species, Oregon/Washington Coast, 1972. Pesticides
Monitoring Jour., 9:2, 1975.
26. Conte, F.S. and J.C. Parker. Effects of aerially applied malathion
on juvenile brown and white shrimp Penaeus aztecus and P.
setiferus. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. , 10^:793, 1975.
27. Degens, E.T. and K. Mopper. Early diagenasis of organic matter in
marine soils. Soil Sci., 119:65, 1975.
28. deGroot, G., ^ a_K A microcoulometric method for the
determination of nanogram amounts of sulfur organic compounds.
Anal. Chim. Acta. 79:279, 1975.
29. Deinzer, M. , ejt_ aj_. Trace organic contaminants in drinking water;
their concentration by reverse osmosis. Water Res., 9:799,
1975.
30. Dennis, W.H. and W.J. Cooper. Catalytic dechlorination of
organochlorine compounds DDT. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.,
, 1975.
31. Dimond, J.B., et al . DDT residues in forest biota; further data.
Bull. EnvTrbn. Contam. Toxicol., 13:117, 1975.
32. Dill Ing, W.L., et_ a_l_. Evaporation rate and reactivities of
methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1 trichloroethane,
trlchloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated
compounds in dilute aqueous solutions. Environ. Sci. and
Technbl., 9:833, 1975.
33. Dobson, A.L. Microbial decomposition investigations in sanitary
landfills. Ph.D. Thesis, University of West Virginia,
Morgantown, 196A. 71 p.
3^. Elchelberger, J.W., ejt_ aj_. Analytical quality assurance for trace
organic analyses by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.
Report 600/^-75-007, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
A-12
-------
35. Eichers, T., P. Andrilenas, R. Jenkins, and A. Fox. Quantities
of pesticides used by farmers in 1964. Agricultural Economic
Report No. 131. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1968. 37 P.
36. El-Dib, M.A., et_ aJL 4-Aminoantipyrine as a chromogenic agent for
aromatic amine determination in natural water. Water Res.,
9:513, 1975.
37. El-Dib, Mohamed A. and Osama A. Aly. Persistence of some
phenylamide pesticides in the aquatic environment - III.
Biological degradation. Water Res., 10:1055, 1976.
38. El-Dib, Mohamed A. and Osama A. Aly. Persistence of some
phenylamide pesticides in the aquatic environment - II.
Adsorption on clay minerals. Water Research, 10:1051, 1976.
39. Farmer, W.J., W.J. Spencer, R.A. Shepherd, and M.M. Cliath.
Effect of flooding and organic matter applications on DDT
residues in soil. J. Environ. Qual., 3:343, 1974.
40. Fine, D.H., e_t_ aj_. Analysis of volatile N-nitroso compounds In
drinking water at the part per trillion level. Bull. Environ.
Contarn. Toxicol., 14:404, 1975.
41. Flashinskl, S.J. and E.P. Lichtensteih. Environmental factors
affecting the degradation of dyfonate by soil fungi.
Can. Jour. Mlcrobiol.. 21:17, 1975.
42. Floyd, E.P. Occurrence and significance of pesticides In solid
wastes; a Division of Research and Development open-file
report (RS-02-68-15). (Cincinnati), U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (Restricted Distribution),
1970. 34 p.
43. Floyd, E.P. and A.W. Breidenbach. Preliminary estimate of the
significance of pesticide residues in solid wastes and
problems of reduction or elimination of these residues.
(Cincinnati), U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, 1968. 6 p.
44. Forbes, M.A., et al. Confirmation of organophosphorus
insecticicles by chemical reduction. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol.. 13:141, 1975.
45. Fredeen, J.J., et al. Residue of methoxychlor and other
chlorinated"hydrocarbons in water, sand and selected fauna
A-13
-------
following injections of methosychlor, black fly larvicide
into the Saskatchewan River, 1972. Pesticides Monitoring
Jour., 8:241, 1975.
46. Freeman, H.P., A.W. Taylor, and W.M. Edwards. Heptachlor and
dieldrin disappearance from a field soil. J. Ag. Food Chem.,
1975.
47. Freidman, D. and P. Lombardo. Photochemical technique for the
elimination of chlorinated aromatic interferences in the gas
liquid chromatographic analysis for chlorinated paraffins.
Jour. Assn. Offie. Anal. Chem.. 58:703, 1975.
48. Glaze, W.H. and J.E. Henderson, IV. Formation of organochlorine
compounds from the chlorination of a municipal secondary
effluent. Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 47:2511, 1975.
49. Gledhill, W.E. Biodegradation of 3,3,4'-Trichlorpcarbani1ide,
TCC, in sewage and activated sludge. Water Res., 9:649, 1975.
50. Grimes, D.J. and S.M. Morrison. Bacteriol bioconcentration of
chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides from aquous systems.
Microbial Ecol.. 2:43, 1975.
51. Gruger, e_t_al. Accumulation of 3,4,3', 4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl
and 2,^75,2',4',5'-and 2,4,6,2',4',6'-Hexachlorobiphenyl in
juvenile coho salmon. Environ. Sci. and Technol., 9:121,
1975.
52. Haile, C.L., e_t_ a_l_. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario
ecosystem. Report 660/3-75-022, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1975.
53. Harrison, e_t_ a_l_. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in raw,
potable and waste waters. Water Res., 9:331, 1975.
54. Hasebe, K. and J. Osteryoung. Differential pulse polarographic
determination of some carcinogenic nitrosoramines. Anal.
Chem., 47:2442, 1975.
55. Heller, S.R., e_t^ aJL Trace organics by GC/MS. Environ. Sci. and
Technol., 9:210, 1975.
56. Helling, C.S., D.G. Dennison, and D.D. Kaufman. Fungicide
movement in soils. Phytopathology^, 65:1091, 1974.
A-14
-------
57. Horvath, R.S., et_al. Co-metabolism of M-chlorobenzoate by
natural microFTal populations grown under cosubstrate
enrichment conditions. Bull. Environ^ Contam. Toxicol.,
13:357, 1975.
58. Hrutfiord, B.F., e_t_ aj_. Organic compounds in pulpmill lagoon
discharge. Report 660/2-75-028, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1975.
59. Hurlbert, S.D. Secondary effects of pesticides on aquatic
ecosystems. Residue Review, 57:81, 1975.
60. lammartino. Wastewater cleaning processes tackle inorganic
pollutants. Chem. Eng., 83:118, 1976.
61. Isensee, A.R. and G.E. Jones. Distribution of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodlbenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in an aquatic model
ecosystem. Environ. Sci. Tech., 9:668, 1975.
62. Jackson, T.A. Humic matter in natural waters and sediments.
Soil Sci.. 119:56, 1975.
63. Jenkins, R.I. and R.B. Baird. The determination of benzidine in
wastewaters. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 13:436, 1975.
64. Jensen, S. and R. Rosenberg. Degradabi1ity of some chlorinated
aliphatic hydrocarbons in sea water and sterilized water.
Water Res., 9:659, 1975.
65. Juengst, F.W. and M. Alexander. Effect of environmental
conditions on the degradation of DDT in model marine
ecosystems. Marine Biol., 33:1, 1975.
66. Katan, J. Binding of (I^C)parathion in soil: a reaccessment of
pesticide persistence. Science, 193:891, 1976.
67. Kaufman, D.D. Degradation of pesticides by soil microorganisms.
J_n_ Pesticides in Soil and Water. Chapter 8. Amer. Soc.
Agron. Special Publ., 1974. p. 133-202.
68. Kawahara, F.K. and A.W. Breidenbach. Pesticides and water
quality—potentials for their removal. Presented at the
Symposium on Pesticides and Soil and Water Quality, Soil
Society of America, Columbus, November 3, 1965. Cincinnati,
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1965. 10 p.
A-15
-------
69. Kearney, P.C., J.R. Plimmer, V.P. Williams, U.I. Klingebiel,
A.R. Isensee, T.L. Laanio, G.E. Stolzenberg, and R.G. Zaylskie.
Soil persistence and metabolism of N-sec-butyl-^-tert-butyl-
2,6-dinitroaniline. J. Agr. Food Chem., 22:856, 1975.
70. Keith, L.W. Analysis of organic compounds in two kraftmi11
wastewaters. Report 660/A-75-005, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1975.
71. Kpekata, A.E. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) in the rivers
Avon and Frome. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 1^:587,
1975.
72. Krutz, M. Investigations on analysis for amino-acid in surface
water. Zeits. Anal. Chem., 273:123, 1975.
73. Krzeminski, S.F., e^ aj_. Fate of microbicidal 3-isothiazolone
compounds in the environment, modes and rates of dissipation.
J. Agr. Food Chem.. 23:1060, 1975.
Ik. Leistra, M. and W.A. Dekkers. Computed leaching of pesticides
from soil under field conditions. Water^ Ai r, and Soi1
Pollution. 5:^*91, 1975.
75. Li 1 lard, D.A. and J.J. Powers. Aqueous odor thresholds of organic
pollutants in industrial effluents. Report 660/^-75-002,
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
76. Lu, P.Y., et al. Evaluation of environmental distribution and
fate oT liexachlorochcylpentadiene, chordene, heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide in a laboratory model ecosystem. Jour.
Agr. Food Chem.. 23:967, 1975.
77. Lunde, G. and E. Steinnes. Presence of 1ipid-soluble chlorinated
hydrocarbons in marine oils. Environ. Sci. and Technol.,
9:155, 1975.
78. Lunde, G., et^ aj_ The sum of chlorinated and of brominated nonpolar
hydrocarbons in water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.,
13:656, 1975.
79. Mangravite, F.J., Jr., e_t_al. Removal of humic acid by
coagulation and microTTotation. Jour. Amer. Water Works Assn..
67:88, 1975.
A-16
-------
80. Mantoura, R.F.C. and J.P. Riley. Analytical concentration of
humic substances from natural waters. Anal- Chim. Acta.,
76:97, 1975.
81. Manual for decontamination and disposal of empty pesticide
containers. Washington, National Agricultural Chemicals
Association, June 1965. 22 p.
82. Manual on waste disposal. Washington, National Agricultural
Chemicals Association, 1965. 44 p.
83. Martel, J.M., et_ aj_. PCB's in suburban watershed, Reston, Va.
Environ. Sci. and Techno 1., 9:872, 1975.
84. McKenzie, L.R. and P.N.W. Young. Determination of ammonia-,
nitrate- and organic nitrogen in water and wastewater with
an ammonia gas-sensing electrode. Analyst, 100:620, 1975.
85. Mead, B.E. and W.G. Wilkie. Leachate prevention and control from
sanitary landfills. Albany, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. 42 p.
86. Merz, R.C. and R. Stone. Special studies of a sanitary landfill.
Los Angeles, University of Southern California. (Distributed
by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.,
Publication PB 196 148), 1968.
87. Metcalf, R.L., at_al. Degradation and environmental fate of 1-
(2,6-difluoroEenzoyl)-3~(4-chlorophenyl) area. Jour. Agr.
Food Chem.. 23:359, 1975.
88. Miyazaki, S., e_t_ aj_. Metabolism of dichlobenil by microorganisms
in the aquatic environment. Jour. Agr. Food Chem., 23:365,
1975.
89. Mrkva, M. Automatic UV-control system for relative evaluation of
organic water pollution. Water Res., 9:587, 1975.
90. Murphy, K.L., et_ a_l_. Effect of chlorination practice on soluble
organics. Water Res., 9:389, 1975.
91. Murray, D.S., e_t_ aj_. Comparative adsorption, desorption and
mobility of dipropetryn and prometryn in soil. Jour. Agr.
Food Chem., 23:578, 1975.
92. Musselwhite, C.C. Automated method for determination of residual
methanol in (sewage) effluents. Water Poll. Control, 74:110,
1975^.
A-17
-------
93. Newbold, C. Herbicides in aquatic systems. Biol. Conserv., 7:97,
1975.
94. Nicholson, A.A. and 0. Meresz. Analysis of volatile, halogenated
organics in water by direct aqueous injection-gas
chromatography. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 14:453, 1975.
95. Nilles, G.P. and M.J. Zabik. Photochemistry of bioactive compounds:
multiphase degradation and mass spectral analysis of basagran.
Jour. Agr. Food Chem., 23:410, 1975.
96. Oettinger, P.E., ej^al. Liquid chromatograph detector for trace
analysis non-voTa~ti le N-nitroso compounds. Anal .^ Letters,
8:411, 1975.
97. Paris, D.F., e_t_ al. Microbial degradation and accumulation of
pesticides Tn" aquatic systems. Report 660/3-75-007, Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
98. Parr, J.F. Organic matter decomposition and oxygen relationships.
J_n_ Factors Involved in Land Application of Agricultural and
Municipal Wastes, USDA-ARS Special Publication, 1974.
p. 121-139.
99. Phillips, J.H., e_t_ aj_. Analysis of the dynamics of DDT in marine
sediments. Report 660/3-75-013, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1975.
100. Picer, N., et_ a_l_. Determination of I^C-DDT radioactivity in
seawater and marine suspended matter by liquid scintillation.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 14:565, 1975.
101. Ping, C.L. Variation in plcloram leaching pattern for several
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 39:470, 1975.
102. Plimmer, J.R. and U.I. Klingeblel. Photochemistry of N-sec-butyl-
4-tert-butyl-2, 6-dinitroani1ine. J. Agr. Food Chem.,
22:689-693, 1974.
103. Price, P., et_ a_K Chemical ionization mass spectrometric
determination of organic compounds in solution at the part
per million level. Anal. Chem., 47:190, 1975.
104. Rawls, R.L. Nitrosamines found in commercial pesticides. Water
and Wastes Eng., 13:18, 1976.
A-18
-------
105. Rogers, C.J. and T.C. Purcell. Production of organic compounds
from waste cellulose by biosynthesis. Presented at American
Chemical Society, 15oth National Meeting, Division of Water,
Air and Waste Chemistry, New York, Sept. 7-12, 1969.
106. Roserberg, R., e_t_ aj_. Toxic effects of aliphatic chlorinated by-
products from vinyl chloride production on marine animals.
Water Res., 9:607, 1975.
107. Sachdev, Dev R., JJ. Ferris, and N.L. Clesceri. Apparent
molecular weights or organics in secondary effluents.
Journal WPCF, 48:570-579, 1976.
108. Safe disposal of empty pesticide containers and surplus pesticides.
(Washington), U.S. Department of Agriculture, August, 1964.
6 p.
109. Sanborn, Y.R., et_ a]_. Uptake of three polychlorinated biphenyls,
DDT, and DDE by the green sunfish, Lepomis cyanel1 us raf.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 13:209, 1975.~
110. Saunders, R.A., et_ aj_. Identification of volatile organic
contaminants in Washington, D.C. municipal water. Water Res.,
9:1143, 1975.
111. Schofield, F.W. and P.A. Gorton. Instrumental methods of
monitoring organic pollution. Water Pollut. Control, 75:47,
1976.
112. Schmitz, W. and W. Kolle. Biogenic and non-biogenic organic
pollutants. Swiss Jour. Hydro!., 37:85, 1975.
113. Schuth, C.K., A.R. Insensee, E.A. Woolson, and P.C. Kearney.
Distribution of 1^C and arsenic derived from cacodylic acid
in an aquatic microecosystem. J. Agric. Food Chem., 22:999,
1974.
114. Scoggins, M.W. and J.W. Miller. Spectrophotometric determination
of water soluble organic amides. Anal. Chem., 47:152, 1975.
115. Sethuraman, V.V. and B.C. Rayniahashay. Color removal by clays;
kinetic study of adsorption of cationic and anionic dyes.
Environ. Sci. and Technol., 9:1139, 1975.
116. Shuster, W.W. Partial oxidation of solid organic wastes. Report
SW-7rg, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Environmental Health Service, 1970.
A-19
-------
117. Sikka, H.C., et al. Uptake, distribution and metabolism of
endothalTin fish. Jour. Agr. Food Chem., 23:8^9, 1975.
118. Siniegoski, P.J. An examination of the concentration of organic
components water-extracted from petroleum products. Water
Res., 9:^21, 1975.
119. Skinner, S.I.M. and M. Schnitzer. Rapid identification by gas-
chromatography-mass spectrometry-computer of organic compounds
resulting from degradation of humic substances. Anal. Chim.
Acta., 75:207, 1975.
120. Smith, J.H. Decomposition in soil of waste cooking oils used in
potato processing. J. Environ. Qual., 3:279, 197^.
121. Smith, V.K. Long-term movement of DDT applied to soil for termite
control. Gulfport, Southern Forest Experiment Station, 1967.
122. Smyth, W.F., e_t_ aj_. A polarographic and spectral study of some
C- and N-nitroso compounds. Anal. Chim. Acta., 78:81, 1975.
123. Sontheimer, H. The impact of chemical pollution on water
utilization. Swiss Jour. Hydrol.. 37:118, 1975.
124. Spencer, W.F. and M.M. Cliath. Factors affecting vapor loss of
trifluralin from soil. J. Agr. Food Chem., 22:987, 197**.
125. Spencer, W.F. and M.M. Cliath. Vaporization of chemicals. J_n_
Environ. Dynamics of Pesticides (Haque and Freed, Ed.),
Plenum, New York, 1975. p. 61-78.
126. Spencer, W.F., M.M. Cliath, W.J. Farmer, and R.A. Shepherd.
Volatility of DDT residues in soil as affected by flooding
and organic matter applications. J. Environ. Qual., 3:126,
1974.
127. Symons, J.M., e^ aj_. National organics reconnaissance survey for
halogenated organics. Jour. Amer. Water Works Assn., 67:634,
1975.
128. Terriere, L.C. and R.J. Burnard. Uptake, tissue distribution and
clearance of the selective pesticide 1,1' methylene di-2-
naphtol (squoxin) by the rainbow trout and squawfish.
Jour. Agr. Food Chem., 23:714, 1975.
129. Trotter, W.J. Removing the interference of DDT and its analogs
in the analysis for the residues of polychlorinated biphenyls.
Jour. Assn. Offic. Anal. Chem.. 58:461, 1975.
A-20
-------
130. Tucker, E.S., et al. Activated sludge primary biodegradation of
polychlorTnated biphenyls. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol.,
14:705, 1375.
131. Van Dyk, L.P., et_ a_l_. Total population density of Crustacea and
aquatic insects as an indicator of fenthion pollution of river
water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 14:^26, 1975.
132. Walker, E.A., et_ a_l_. Use of a clean-up method to improve
specificity in the analysis of foodstuff for volatile
nitrosoamines. Analyst, 100:817, 1975.
133. Webb, R.G. Isolating organic water pollutants: XAD resins,
urethane foams, solvent extraction. Report 660/4-75-003,
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
134. Weber, J.H. and S.A. Wilson. The isolation and characterization
of fulvic acid and humic acid from river water. Water Res.,
9:1079, 1975.
135. Westmacott, D. and S.J.L. Wright. Studies on the breakdown of
p-chlorophenyl methylcarbamate II in cultures of a soil
arthrobacter Sp. Pesticide Sci., 6:61, 1975«
136. Willis, G.H., R.L. Rogers and L.M. Southwick. Losses of diuron,
linuron, fenac and trifluralin in surface drainage water.
J. Environ. Qua!., 4:399, 1975.
o
137. Wolf, D.C. and J.P. Martin. Microbial decomposition of ring ^c
atrazin, cyanic acid and 2-chloro-4, 6-diamino-5-trazine.
Jour. Environ. Qual., 4:134, 1975.
138. Wolfe, N.L., £t_ aj_. Kinetic investigation of malathion degradation
in water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 13:707, 1975.
139. Wong, P.T.S. and K.L.E. Kaiser. Bacterial degradation of
polychlorinated biphenyls, II. Rate studies. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol., 13:249, 1975.
140. Woolson, E.A. Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide extraction
from soil: A collaborative study, 1973. J.A.O.A.C.,
57:3:60^-609, 1974.
141. Yu, C.C. and J.R. Sanborn. The fate of parathion in a model
ecosystem. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 13:543, 1975.
A-21
-------
Yu, C.C., e_t_ a]_. Fate of dicamba in a model ecosystem. Bui 1 .
Environ. Con tarn. Toxicol., 13:280, 1975.
Yu, C.C., e_t_ a]_. Fate of alachlor and propachlor in a model
ecosystem. Jour. Agr. Food Chem., 23:877, 1975.
Zepp, e_t_ aj_. Dynamics of 2,^-D esters in surface waters, hydrolysis,
photolysis and vaporization. Environ. Sci. and Technol.,
1975.
A-22
-------
PART III - CRITICAL PARAMETERS FOR WASTE DISPOSAL
1. Anon. Evaluation of land application system. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report No. EPA-^30/9-75-001 , 1975.
2. Ayers, R.S. Water quality criteria for agriculture. UC Committee
of Consultants, SWRCB, 1973.
3. Baker, D.E. and L. Chesnin. Chemical monitoring of soils for
environmental quality and animal and human health. Adv. Agron.,
27:305, 1975.
k. Bell, J.W. Spray irrigation for poultry and canning waste.
Publ ic Works. 9:111, 1955.
5. Bolton, P. Cannery waste disposal by field irrigation. Food
Packer, 38:1*2, 19*»7.
6. Bouwer, H. and R.L. Chaney. Land treatment of wastewater. Adv. Agron.,
26:133,
7. Braids, O.C., M. Sochan-Ardakani , T.D. Hinesl, and J.A.E. Molina.
Disposal of digested sewage sludge on farm land as evaluated by
a lysimeter study. Agronomy Abstracts, 1968. p. 132.
8. Burge, W.D. Health aspects of applying sewage wastes to land.
Proceedings of the North Central Regional Conference Workshop,
Educational Needs Associated with Utilization of Wastewater
Treatment Products on Land. Kellogg Center, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 197**.
9. Burge, W.D. Pathogen considerations. J_n_ Factors Involved in Land
Application of Agricultural and Municipal Wastes. USDA
National Program Staff; Soil, Water and Air Sciences, Beltsville,
Md., \31k. p. 37-^9.
10. Gas and leachate from landfills: Formation, collection and treatment.
Proceedings of a research symposium at Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, New Jersey. March 25-26, 1975. E.J. Genetelli and
John Cirello, Eds. EPA-600/9-76-OOA. Environ. Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976.
11. Gilbert, R.G., C.P. Gerbo, R.C. Rice, H. Bouwer, C. Wallis, and
J.L. Milnick. Virus and bacteria removal from wastewater by
land treatment. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
32:33, 1976.
A-23
-------
12. Gray, H. and C.A. Moore. Control of gas flow from sanitary landfills.
Am. Soc. C.E. Proc., 101 (EE4 no. 11525) :555, 1975.
13. Gray, R. Toxic waste disposal. Water Pol 1 . Control , 76:30, 1977.
Ik. Hershaft, A. Sol id waste treatment and technology. Envi ron. Sci .
and Technol., 6:412, 1972.
15- lammartino. Wastewater cleanup processes tackle inorganic pollutant.
Chem. Eng.., 83:118, 1976.
16. Johansen, O.J. and D.A. Carlson. Characterization of sanitary
landfill leachates. Water Research, 10:1129, 1976.
17. Katzenelson, E. Risks of communicable disease infection associated
with wastewater irrigation in agriculture settlements. Science,
, 1976.
18. Larson, W.E., J.R. Gil ley, and D.R. Linden. Consequences of waste
disposal on land. Proc. 29th Annual Meeting, Soil Conservation
Society of America, 1974. p. 127-132.
19. Lin, Y.H. Acid and gas production from sanitary landfills. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of West Virginia, Morgantown, 1966. 97 p.
20. Merz, R.C. and R. Stone. Landfill settlement rates. Publ ic Works,
93:103, 1962.
21. Morris, C.E. and W.J. Jewell. Land application of wastes; a 50
state overview. Publ ic Works, 107:89, 1976.
22. Perpich, W.M. Considerations for land disposal of paper and pulp
mill sludge. Tappi , 59:56, 1976.
23. Sexsmith, P.O., M.A. Wilson, and R.G. Graham. Selection criteria,
methods and scoring system for sanitary landfill site selection.
Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Land for Waste Management, Ottawa,
Canada - Oct. 1973, published by Department of Environment and
Nat. Research Council of Canada, 1973. p. 300-306.
24. Steiner, R.L. and A. A. Fungaroli. Analytical procedures for chemical
pollutants research project on pollution of subsurface water by
sanitary landfill. Philadelphia, Drexel Institute of Technology,
June 1968. 27 p.
25- Stone, R. , S.M. Cristofano, and E.T. Conrad. Mechanical aeration
of a landfill. ASME Paper 69-WA/P I D-20. New York, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1969. 12 p.
A-24
-------
26. Vaughan, R.D. Land disposal for solid wastes: the present state
and concepts for the future. Rockville, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1971. 7 p.
27. Vydra, 0. and A. Grumin. County treats shredfill leachate. Civil
Eng., A6:55, 1976.
28. Walker, J.M. Sewage sludges - management aspects for land
application. Compost Science, 16:12, 1975.
29. Wigh, R.J. Evaluation of the MC-300A soil moisture meter to
determine in-place moisture content of refuse at land disposal
sites; progress report; a Division of Research and Development
open-file report. (Cincinnati), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1971. 19 p.
30. WMcomb, M.J. and H.L. Hickman. Sanitary landfill design,
construction and evaluation. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971. 11 p.
31. Young, C.E. The cost of land application of wastewater: A
simulation analysis. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Technical Bulletin No. 1555, 1976. 59 p.
32. Zen, D.R. Environmental impacts of land application of sludge.
WPCFJ, i*8:2332, 1976.
A-25
-------
PART IV - DISPOSAL PROCEDURES, MODELS, AND GUIDELINES
1. Alexander, T. Where will we put all that garbage? Fortune, 76:149,
189, 192, 194. October, 196?.
2. Allen, G.O. Pulverization—the bulk reduction of refuse for land
reclamation. Presented at Institute of Public Cleansing 72nd
Annual Conference, Torbay, England, June 2-5, 1970. 22 p.
3. Allen, W. Regional solid waste management policy. Water, Air and
Soil Poll.. 4:237, 1975.
4. Andersland, O.B., e_t_ a_l_. An experimental high ash papermtll sludge
landfill. First Annual Report, Natl. Tech. Info. Service,
Springfield, Va., PB 239 869, 1974.
5. Andersland, O.B., £t_al. An experimental high ash papermtll sludge
landfill. SeconcTAnnual Report, Natl. Tech. Info. Service,
Springfield, Va. PB 239 618, 1974.
6. Beluche, R.A. , e_t_ aj_. Effective use of high water table areas for
sanitary landfill. Volume I. Natl. Tech. Info. Service,
Springfield, Va., PB 236 462, 1973.
7. Beluche, R.A., e_t_a1. Effective use of high water table areas for
sanitary landTTll. Volume II. Natl. Tech. Info. Service,
Springfield, Va., PB 236 463, 1973.
8. Bendixen, T.W., R.D. Hill, W.A. Schwartz, and G.G. Robeck. Ridge
and furrow liquid waste disposal In a northern latitude.
Cincinnati, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Jan. 1967. 24 p.
9. Bjornson, B.F. and M.D. Bogue. Keeping a sanitary landfill sanitary.
Public Works. 92(9):112, 1961.
10. Black, R. Recommended standards for sanitary landfill operations.
Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Sept. 1961. 45 p.
11. Black, R.J. A review of sanitary landfill Ing practices in the
United States. Presented at International Research Group on
Refuse Disposal, 3rd International Congress, Trento, Italy,
May 24-29, 1965. 11 p.
A-26
-------
12. Bodner, R.M. and W.T. Hemsley. Evaluation of abandoned strip mines
as sanitary landfills. Proc. 3rd Mineral Waste Utilization
Symposium, U.S. Bureau of Mines and NT Research Inst.,
Chicago, 111., 1972. 129 p.
13. Bouwer, H. Ground water recharge design for renovating waste water.
J. Sanitary Eng. Div. Proc. ASCE., 96:59, 1970.
14. Bouwer, H. Design and operation of land treatment systems for
minimum contamination of groundwater. Groundwater, 12:140,
197*.
15. Bouwer, H., J.C. Lance, and M.S. Riggs. High-rate land treatment
II: Water quality and economic aspects of the Flushing Meadows
Project. J. Water Poll. Control, 46:845, 1974.
16. Bouwer, H., R.C. Rice, and E.D. Escarcega. High-rate land treatment
I: Infiltration and hydraulic aspects of the Flushing Meadows
Project. J. Water Pol 1. Control, 46:834, 1974.
17. Brunner, D.R. and J. Keller, 1972. Sanitary landfill design and
operation. U.S.E.P.A. 72. Ss-65ts, 1972.
18. Burchinal, J.C. Microbiology and acid production in sanitary
landfi.lls; an interim report. Morgantown, West Virginia
Universi ty, 1967. 23 p.
19. Burnett, N.C. A biological evaluation of the effect of flood plain
sanitary landfill site on groundwater quality. Water, 1974.
II. municipal wastewater treatment, AlChE Symposium Series,
71, 145, 295, 1975.
20. Caffrey, P., e_t^ aj_. Evaluation of environmental impact of
landfills. Jour. Environ. Eng. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil
Eng., 101:55, 1975.
21. Cherry, J.A., G.E. Grisak, and R.E. Jackson. Hydrogeological
factors in shallow subsurface waste management in Canada.
Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Land for Waste Management, Ottawa,
Canada - Oct. 1973, published by the Dept. of Environment and
Nat. Research Council of Canada, 1973. p. 131-146.
22. Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Characterization and treatment of
leachates generated from landfills. Water, 1974. II. municipal
wastewater treatment, AlChE Symposium Series, 71, 145, 319,
1975.
A-27
-------
23. Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Compilation of methodology for
measuring pollution parameters of sanitary landfill leachate.
Ecological Research Ser., EPA-600/3-75-011, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1975.
2k. Clark, T.P. Survey of groundwater protection methods for Illinois
landfills. Groundwater, 13:321, 1975.
25. Cooper, R.C., e_t^ £]_• Virus survival in solid waste leachates.
Water Res., 9:733, 1975.
26. Cummins, R.L. Effects of land disposal of solid wastes on water
quality. Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, 1968. 29 p.
27. Davidson, J.M., et_ a\_. Use of soil parameters for describing
pesticide movement through soils. Report 660/2-75-009, Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
28. Emcon Associates. Sonoma County solid waste stabilization study.
Natl. Tech. Info. Service, Springfield, Va., PB 236 778, 1975.
29. England, C.B. Relative leaching potentials estimated from hydrologic
soil groups. Water Res. Bui 1., 9, No. 3, 1973. 590 p.
30. Farquhar, G.J. and F.A. Rovers. Leachate attenuation in undisturbed
and remoulded soils. j_n_ Gas and Leachate From Landfills:
Formation, Collection and Treatment. EPA-600/9-76-004:5^-70,
1976.
31. Favroden, R., H.M. Hill, G.J. Farquhar, and D. Weatherbe. Sanitary
landfill study; phase 1 report. Waterloo, Ontario, University
of Waterloo, Industrial Research Institute, 1970. 68 p.
32. Fenn, D.G., et_ a_j_. Use of the water balance method for predicting
leachate generation from solid waste disposal sites.
EPA/530/SW-168, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975.
33. Fleming, R.R. Sol id waste disposal. American City, 81:101; 81:9^.
Jan. 1966.
34. Frere, M.H., C.A. Onstad, and H.N. Holtan. Modeling the movement of
agricultural chemicals. Proc. 197^ Summer Computer Simulation
Conf., Houston, Texas, 1974 p. 271-274.
A-28
-------
35. Frere, M.H. Integrating chemical factors with water and sediment
transport from a watershed. J.Envi ron. Quali ty. A:12.
36. Fuller, W.H. The "state of the art" of migration and attenuation
of some potentially hazardous polluting trace and heavy metals,
asbestos and cyanide in soil. U.S. E.P.A. Contract No.
(68-03-0208), Solid Waste Research Laboratory, 197**.
37. Fungaroli, A.A., R.L. Steiner, G.H. Emrich, and I. Remson. Design
of a sanitary landfill field experiment installation. Drexel
Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
Mechanics, Series 1, No. 10, Philadelphia, 1968. 27 p.
38. Fungaroli, A.A., R.L. Steiner, and I. Remson. Design of a sanitary
landfill lysimeter. Drexel Institute of Technology, Department
of Civil Engineering Mechanics, Series I, No. 9, Philadelphia,
1968. 27 p.
39. Fungaroli, A.A. Pollution of subsurface water by sanitary landfills.
Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, 3 v., 1970.
AO. Fungaroli, A.A. Pollution of subsurface water by sanitary landfills;
annual report—year 1. Drexel Institute of Technology,
Philadelphia, 1970. 66 p.
J»1. Garland, G.A. and D.C. Mosher. Leachate effects of improper land
disposal. Waste Age., 6:3, 1975.
k2. Gazda, L.P. and J.F. Malina, Jr. Land disposal of municipal solid
wastes in selected standard metropolitan statistical areas in
Texas. Austin, Univeristy of Texas, Civil Engineering
Department, 1969. 113 p.
*»3« Geswein, A.J. Liners for land disposal sites: An assessment.
EPA/530/SW-137., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975.
kk. Geyer, J.A. and R.J. Wigh. Landfill temperature sampling interval
analysis; solid waste management open-file report (.118). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. 20 p.
A5. Goeppner, J. Sanitary landfills: No place for leaching. Water &
Wastes Eng., 12:9, 1975.
**6. Gray, D.A., e_t_ a\_. Review of groundwater pollution from waste
disposal sites in England and Wales, with provisional
guidelines for future site selection. Jour. Engng. Geol.,
7:181, 197^.
A-29
-------
kl . Gray, H. and C.A. Moore. Control of gas flow from sanitary
landfills. Am. Soc. C.E. Proc. 01 (EE *t no. 11525): 555,
1975.
**8. Ham, R.K. The generation, movement and attenuation of leachates
from solid waste land disposal sites. Waste Age, 6:6, 1975.
1*9. Ham, R.K. and C.R. Anderson. Pollutant production by refuse
degradation in test lysimeters. Waste Age, 5:9, 197**-
50. Ham, R.K. and C.R. Anderson. Pollutant production by refuse
degradation in test lysimeters. Waste Age, 6:1 and 2:38, 1975.
51. Ham, R.K. and R. Karnauskas. Leachate production from milled and
unprocessed refuse. ISWA Inform. Bull., lA/15, 3, Dec. 197^.
52. Hart, S.A. Agricultures contribution to the solid waste problem.
Water, Air and Soil Poll., A:l89, 1975.
53. Hart, S.A. , W.J. Flocker, and G.K. York. Refuse stabilization in
the land. ASME Paper 69-WA/PID-5. New York, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, 1969. 9 p.
5**. Harvey, W.B. Spray irrigation solves disposal problem. Water and
Wastes Eng., 13:31, 1976.
55. Havlichek, J. Solid wastes--a resource? American Journal of
Agricultural Economics. 51:1, 598-1, 602, 1969.
56. Hrudey, S.E., et_ a]_. The composition of residues from municipal
refuse incinerators. Environ. Research, 7:29^,
57. Hughes, G.M., R.A. Landon, and R.N. Farvolden. Hydrogeology of
solid waste disposal sites in northeastern Illinois; an
interim report on a solid waste demonstration grant project.
Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
1969. 137 p.
58. Johnson, H. A study of hazardous waste materials, hazardous effects
and disposal methods. Vol. I by Booz-Al len Applied Research,
Inc., for U.S.E.P.A. PB-221 *»56, 1973. p. 133-157.
59. Johnson, Victor R. , Jr. Managing industrial wastes excluded from
the sewer. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, ^:201, 1975.
60. Katzenelson, E. and others. Risk of communicable disease infection
associated with wastewater irrigation in agriculture
settlements. Science, ^^^:^^l^, 1976.
A-30
-------
61. Kimmel, G.E. and O.C. Braids. Preliminary findings of a leachate
study of two landfills in Suffolk County, New York. Jour.
Research U.S. Geol . Survey, 3:273, 1975.
62. Kinderman, E.M. Economics of solid waste recovery. Water, A? r and
Soil Pollution, ^:2**5, 1975.
63. Klefstad, G. , et_ a_J_. Limitations of the electrical resistivity
method in landfill investigations. Groundwater, 13:418, 1975.
6^. Koenig, A. and D.P. Loucks. Management of model for wastewater
disposal on land. Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division. Proceedings of the ASCE, 103:181, 1977-
65. Koshal , Rajindar K. Water pollution and human health. Water, Air
and Soil Pollution, 5:289, 1976.
66. Legrand, H.E. System for evaluation of contamination potential of
some waste disposal sites. J.A.W.W.A. , 56:959, 1964.
67. Morekas, S. Criteria for the selection of sites for treatment and
disposal of hazardous wastes. Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on
Land for Waste Management, Ottawa, Canada-Oct. 1973.
Published by the Dept. of Environmental and Nat. Research
Council of Canada, 1973. p 308-316.
68. National Solid Wastes Management Association, and Bureau of Solid
Wastes Management. Sanitary landfill operation agreement and
recommended standards for sanitary landfill design and
construction. Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, 1969. 44 p.
69. Nordstedt, R.A. Analysis of animal waste storage and land disposal
systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University Research
Foundation, Columbus, 1969. 101 p.
70. Nordstedt, R.A. , L.B. Baldwin, and L.M. Rhodes. Land disposal of
effluent from sanitary landfill. J. Water Poll. Control,
47:1961, 1975.
71. Palmquist, R.C. and L.V.A. Sendlein. The configuration of
contamination enclaves from refuse disposal sites on floodplains.
Groundwater, 13:167, 1975.
72. Partridge, J.W. Disposal of solid waste in rural areas.
International Research Group on Refuse Disposal, 2nd
International Congress, Essen, Germany, May 22-23, 1962.
A-31
-------
73. Pavoni, J.L., D.J. Hagerty, and R.E. Lee. Environmental impact
evaluation of hazardous waste disposal in land. Water Res.
Bull. 8. No. 6, 1972. p. 1091.
74. Perpich, W.M. Consideration for land disposal of paper and pulp
mill sludge. Tappi, 59:56, 1976.
75. Phillips, C.R. Development of a soil-waste interaction matrix.
Solid Waste Management Report EPS 4-EC-76-10. Environment
Canada, 1976. 89 p.
76. Phillips, K.J. and J.A. DeFilippi. A matrix approach for
determining wastewater management impacts. Water Pol 1. Con.
Fed. J.. 7:1759, 1976.
77. Pohland, F.G. Sanitary landfill stabilization with leachate recycle
and residual treatment. Environ. Protection Technol. Ser.,
EPA-600/2-75-043, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975.
78. Pohland, F.G. and S.J. Kang. Sanitary landfill stabilization with
leachate recycle and residual treatment. Water, 1974. II.
municipal wastewater treatment, AlChE Symposium Series, 71, 145,
308, 1975.
79. Pol it, Tarapoda and Syed R. Qasim. Biological treatment kinetics
of landfill leachate. ASCE, 103:353, 1977.
80. Pppkin, R.A. and T.W. Bendixen. Improved subsurface disposal.
Cincinnati ,-,.UvS. Department of the Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Aug. 1967. 33 p.
81. Reinhardt, J.J. and R.K. Ham. Solid waste milling and disposal on
land without cover. Volume II. Natl. Tech. Info. Service,
Springfield, Va. , PB 234 931, 1973.
82. Rouse, J.V. Hydrologic relationship of Jefferson County, landfill
leachate and Meramec Heights Area Springs, Jefferson County,
Missouri. Natl. Tech. Info. Service, Springfield, Va., PB 227
040, 1973.
83. Sax, N.I. Dangerous properties of industrial materials. Van
Nostrand Reinhqld Co. 3rd Edition, 1969. p. 1-2.
84. Saxtpn, J.C. and M. Kramer. Industrial chemicals solid waste
generation: The significance of process change, resource,
recovery and improved disposal. Natl. Tech. Info. Service,
Springfield, Va., PB 233 464, 1974.
A-32
-------
85. Sendlein, L.V.A. and R.C. Palmquist. A topographic hydrogeologi c
model for solid waste landfill siting. Groundwater, 13:260,
1975.
86. Shaver, R.G., et_ a\_. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste
practices inorganic chemicals industry. Natl. Tech. Info.
Service, Springfield, Va. , PB 2kk 832, 1975.
87. Steiner, R.L. and A. A. Fungaroli. A computer program for moisture
routing through an unsaturated sanitary landfill. Publication
No. SWUE-13. Philadelphia, Drexel University, Feb. 1970.
15 P.
88. Stollar, R.L. and P. Roux. Earth resistivity surveys - a method
for defining groundwater contamination. Groundwater, 13:1^5,
1975.
89. Waldrip, D.B. and R.V. Rube. Solid waste disposal by land burial
in Southern Indiana. Natl. Tech. Info. Service, Springfield,
Va., PB 239 225,
90. Walker, J.M. Sewage sludges — management aspects for land
application. Proceedings of the North Central Regional
Conference Workshop, Educational Needs Associated with
Utilization of Wastewater Treatment Products on Land. Kellogg
Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, and
also i n Compos t Sc i ence 16:12, 1975.
91. Walker, J.M. Trench incorporation of sewage sludge. Proc. of the
National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management.
Pittsburgh, Pa. Information Transfer, Inc., Washington, D.C.,
197A. p. 139-1^9.
92. Weist, W.G., Jr., and R.A. Pettijohn. Investigating ground water
pollution from Indianapolis landfills - the lessons learned.
Groundwater, 13:191, 1975.
93. Williams, R.E. Field report: Landfills*, the 1977 fate of air and
waterborne wastes. Groundwater, 13:367, 1975.
3k. Zen, D.R. and others. Environmental impacts of land application
of sludge. WPCFJ. 48:2332, 1976.
95. Zenone, C. , et_ a]_. Groundwater quality beneath solid waste
disposal sites at Anchorage, Alaska. Groundwater, 13:182,
1975.
A-33
-------
PART V - REVIEWS, SYMPOSIA PROCEEDINGS,
AND STATE-OF-ART PUBLICATIONS
1. Applications of sewage sludge to cropland: Appraisal of potential
hazards of the heavy metals to plants and animals. CAST
Report No. 6k, EPA-^30/9-76-013, November 15, 1976.
2. Battelle Memorial Institute. A state-of-the-art review of metal
finishing waste. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1968. 81 p.
3. Biological Implications of metals In the environment. 15th Hanford
Life Sciences Symp., Rlchland, Wash., Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 1975.
4. Bouwer, H. and R.L. Chaney. Land treatment of wastewater. Advances
In Agronomy. Vol. 26, 197**. p. 133-176.
5. Carlile, B.L. and J.A. Phillips. Evaluation of soil systems for
land disposal of Industrial and municipal effluents.
UNC-WRRI-76-118. Water Resources Research Institute of the
University of North Carolina, 1976. 63 p.
6. Copenhaver, E.D. and B.K. Wilkinson. Transport of hazardous
substances through processes. Vol. 1. Arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, selenium,
zinc and others. ORNL-EIS-7^-70, 197**. p. H»8.
7. Disposal of environmentally hazardous wastes. Task Force Report
for EH SC, Oregon State University, 197*». 210 p.
8. Epstein, E. and R.L. Chaney. Land disposal of industrial wastes.
Proc. Nat. Conf. on Management and Disposal of Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Residues, 1975.
9. Ewing, B.B. and R.I. Dick. Disposal of sludge on land. In Water
Quality Improvement by Physical and Chemical Processes, edited
by E.F. Goloyna and W.W. Eckenfelder, Jr., Univ. of Texas
Press, Austin, Texas, 1970.
10. Factors involved In land application of agricultural and municipal
wastes. USDA National Program Staff; Soil, Water and Air
Sciences, Beltsvllle, Md., 197^.
11. Gar and leachate from landfills - formation, collection and
treatment. Genetelll and Clrello (Ed.) Dept. of Environ. Sci.,
Rutgers Univ., EPA-600/9-76-OOA. March 25-26, 1976. 190 p.
-------
12. Gilde, L.C. Food processing waste treatment by surface filtration.
1st National Symposium on Food Processing Waste Proceedings,
Portland, Oregon, 1970. 311 p.
13. Glotfelty, D.E. and J.H. Caro. Introduction, transport and fate
of persistent pesticides in the atmosphere. Advances in
Chemistry, American Chemical Society, 1975.
o
14. Gray, J.F. Practical irrigation with sewage effluent. Proceedings
of the Symposium on the Use of Municipal Sewage Effluents for
Irrigation, Louisiana Polytechnic Institute, July 30, 1968.
15. Hall, K.J. and K. Fletcher. Trace metal pollution from a
metropolitan area: Sources and accumulation in the Lower
Fraser River and estuary. Proc. Internatl. Conf. Transport
Persistent Chemicals Aquatic Ecosystems, Ottawa, Canada,
1-83, 1974.
16. Hanks, T.G. Solid waste/disease relationships - a literature
survey. Report SW-1C. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and
Welfare. Public Health Service. Solid Waste Program,
Cincinnati, 1967.
17. Internatl. Conf. Heavy Metals in the Environment, Inst.
Environmental Studies, University of Toronto-Abstr.
Program, Toronto, Ontario, Oct. 27-311 1975.
18. Land application of wastewater. Proceedings of a Research Symposium
sponsored by EPA (EPA 903-9-25-017). University of Delaware,
Newark, Delaware. Nov. 20-21, 1974.
19. Morris, C.E. and W.J. Jewell. Land application of wastes; a
50-state overview. Pub. Works, 107:89-92, 1976.
20. Natl. Research Council Canada, Proc. Internatl. Conf. Transport
Persistent Chemicals in Aquatic Ecosystems, Ottawa, Ontario,
1974.
21. Page, A.L. Fate and effects of trace elements in sewage sludge
when applied to agricultural lands. Environ. Protection Tech.
Series, EPA-670/2-74-005. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974.
22. Pesticides in soil and water. Ed.-W.D. Guenzi ; published by the
Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, 1974.
23. Phillips, C.R. and J. Nathwani. Soi1-waste interactions: A
state-of-the-art review. Solid Waste Management Report
EPS-3-EC-76-14, Environment Canada, 1976. 214 p.
A-35
-------
24. Proceedings of the Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, Tucson,
Arizona. W.H. Fuller, Ed. EPA-600/9-76-015, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
Feb. 2-4, 1976. 280 p.
25. Proceedings of National Conference on Solid Waste Disposal Sites,
Washington. Chicago, American Public Works Association,
March 1-2, 1971. 105 p.
26. Proceedings of National Working Conference on Pesticide Disposal,
Beltsvllle, Md. (Washington), U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and
President's Cabinet Committee on the Environment, Subcommittee
on Pesticides, June 30-July 1, 1970.
27. Proceedings of Symposium on Metals in the Biosphere, Dept. Land
Resource Science, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 1975.
28. Recycling municipal sludges and effluents on land. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges, Champaign, Illinois, July 9-13, 1973. 244 p.
29. Sabadell, J.E. (Ed.) Proc. symp. traces of heavy metals In water
removal processes and monitoring. Center for Environmental
Studies, Princeton University, 1973. 342 p.
30. Sopper, W.E. and L.T. Kardos. Recycling treated municipal
wastewater and sludge through forest and cropland. The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1973.
31. Stone, Ralph and Company, Inc., Engineers. Solid wastes landfill
stabilization: an Interim report. Cincinnati, U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1968. 145 p.
32. Sullivan, R.H., M.M. Cohn, and S.S. Baxter. Survey of facilities
using land application of wastewater. Report of the American
Public Works Association to U.S.E.P.A. EPA-430/9-73-006, 1973.
33. Thomas, R.E. and J.P. Law, Jr. Soil response to sewage effluent
irrigation. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Use of
Sewage Effluents for Irrigation. Louisiana Polytechnic
Institute, July 30, 1968.
34. Todd, O.K. and D.E. McNulty. Polluted ground water: a review of
the significant literature. Environmental Monitoring Series
Rept. PB-2355 56, Gen. Elec. Co., Santa Barbara, California,
1975.
A-36
-------
35. Trace metals In water supplies: Occurrence, significance, and
control. Proc. 16th Water Quality Conf., University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champalgn, ^^7l^• 139 p.
A-37
-------
PART VI - MATHEMATICAL MODELS
1. Ahlstrom, S.W. and R.G. Baca. Transport model user's manual.
Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Report BNWL-1716,
UC-70, 197*. 25 p.
2. Ballaux, J.C. and D.E. Peaslee. Relationship between sorption
and desorption of phorphorus by soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc., 39:275-278, 1975.
3. Bennett, G.D. and E.P. Patten, Jr. Constanthead pumping test of
a multiaquifer well to determine characteristics of individual
aquifers. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-G, 1962.
p. 181-203.
k. Besbes, M., E. Ledoux, and G. de Marsily. Modeling of the salt
transport in multilayered aquifers. \j\_ System simulation in
Water Resources. vanSteenkiste, G.C., ed. North-Holland
Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1976. p. 229-2*45.
5. Biggar, J.W. and D.R. Nielsen. Spatial variability of the leaching
characteristics of a field soil. Water Resources Research,
12(0:78-81*, 1976.
6. Bredehoeft, J.D. and G.F. Pinder. Mass transport in flowing
groundwater, Water Resources Research, 9(1):194-210, 1973.
7. Bredehoeft, J.D. and R.A. Young. The temporal allocation of
groundwater - a simulation approach. Water Resources Research,
6(0:3-21, 1970. '.
8. Bredehoeft, J.D. and G.F. Pinder. Digital analysis of areal flow
in multiaquifer groundwater systems; a quasi three-dimensional
model. Water Resources Research. 6(3):883-888, 1970.
9. Brenner, H. The diffusion model of longitudinal mixing in beds of
finite length; numerical values. Chem. Eng. Sci., 17:229-243,
1962.
10. Bresler, E. Simultaneous transport of solutes and water under
transient unsaturated flow conditions. Water Resources
Research. 9 (V :975-986, 1973.
11. Bresler, E. Two-dimensional transport of solutes during nonsteady
infiltration from a trickle source. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc., 39(M:604-613, 1975.
A-38
-------
12. Cameron, D.R. and A. Klute. Convective-dispersive solute transport
with a combined equilibrium and kinetic adsorption model.
Water Resources Research, 13(1):183-188, 1977.
13. Chi Ids, S.W. and R.J. Hanks. Model of soil salinity effects on
crop growth. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 39CO:6l7-622,
1975.
14. Cleary, R.W. Unsteady-state, multi-dimensional analytical
modeling of water quality. Proceedings of the Conference on
Environmental Modeling and Simulation, Wayne Ott (ed.), EPA
600/9-76-016, 1976. p. 434-438.
15. Cleary, R.W. and D.D. Adrian. Analytical solution of the convective-
dispersive equation for cation adsorption in soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc., 37(2):197-199, 1973.
16. Cleary, R.W., J.J. McAvoy, and W.L. Short. Unsteady-state three-
dimensional model of thermal diffusion in rivers. Water,
1972, American Institute of Chemical Engineers Sympos i urn
Series 129, vol. 69, 1973. p. 422-431.
17. Cooper, H.H., Jr. The equation of groundwater flow in fixed and
deforming coordinates. J. Geophysical Research, 71 (20):4785-
4790, 1966.
18. Cooper, H.H., Jr., J.D. Bredehoeft, I.S. Papadolulos, and R.R. Bennet.
The response of well-aquifer systems to seismic waves. J.
Geophysical Research. 70:3915-3936, 1965.
19. Dane, J.H. and P. Wierenga. Effect of hysteresis on the prediction
of infiltration, redistribution and drainage of water in a
layered soil. J. Hydrology. 25:229-242, 1975.
20. Davidson, J.M. and J.R. McDougal. Experimental and predicted
movement of three herbicides in a water-saturated soil.
J. Environmental Quality. 2:428-433, 1973.
21. Davidson, J.M., R.S. Hansel 1, and D.R. Baker. Herbicide distributions
within a soil profile and their dependence upon adsorption-
desorption. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc., 32:36-41,
1972.
22. Davidson, J.M., G.H. Brusewitz, D.R. Baker, and A.L. Wood. Use of
soil parameters for describing pesticide movement through
soils. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, EPA-660/2-75-009, 1975.
A-39
-------
23. Davidson, J.M., D.R. Baker, and G.H. Brusewitz. Simultaneous
transport of water and adsorbed solutes through soil under
transient flow conditions. Tran. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.,
18:535-539.
2k. Doherty, P.C. Unsaturated Darcian flow by the Galerkin method.
U.S. Geological Survey Comput. Contribution, Program, C938,
1972.
25. Donigian, A.S., Jr. and N.H. Crawford. Modeling pesticides and
nutrients on agricultural lands. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens,
Georgia, EPA-600/2-76-0*»3, Feb. 1976. 318 p.
26. Duguid, J.O. and M. Reeves. Material transport through porous
media: a finite-element Galerkin model. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, ORNL-^928, 1976. 198 p.
27. Duguid, J.O. and M. Reeves. A comparison of mass transport using
average and transient rainfall boundary conditions. In
Finite Elements in Water Resources, W.G. Gray, G.F. PInder
and C.A. Brebbia (eds.), Pentech Press, London, 1977. p. 2.25-
2.35.
28. Dutt, G.R., M.J. Shaffer, and W.J. Moore. Computer model of dynamic
blophysio-chemical processes in soils. University of Arizona
Technical Bulletin 196, 1972. 101 p.
29. Ehlers, W. and R.R. van der Ploeg. Simulation of infiltration into
tilled and until led field soils derived from loess. _hj_
System Simulation in Water Resources. G.C. vanSteenkiste (ed.).
North-Holland Publ. Co., 1976. p. 157-167.
30. Elzy, E., T. Lindstrom, L. Boersma, R. Sweet, and P. Wicks. Analysis
of the movement of hazardous waste chemicals in and from a
landfill site via a simple vertical-horizontal routing model.
Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report .*»1A, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 197^. 109 p.
31. Emshoff, J.R. and R.L. Sisson. Design and use of computer simulation
models. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1970. 302 p.
32. Endelman, F.J., et_ a_K The mathematical modeling of soil-water-
nitrogen phenomena. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, EDFB-IBP-
7*»-8, 197*». 66 p.
-------
33. Enfield, C.G. and B.E. Bledsoe. Kinetic model for orthophosphate
reactions in mineral soils. Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon,
EPA-660/2-75-022, 1975. 133 P.
3*K Enfield, C.G., C.C. Harlin, Jr., and B.E. Bledsoe. Comparison of
five kinetic models for orthophosphate reactions in mineral
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 40:2^3-249, 1976.
35. Faust, C.R. and J.W. Mercer. Mathematical modeling of geothermal
systems. Second United Nations Symposium on the Development
and Use of Geothermal Resources, San Fransisco, California.
May 20-29, 1975.
36. Faust, C.R. and J.W. Mercer. An analysis of finite-element and
finite-difference techniques for geothermal applications.
Paper presented at Fourth LPE Symp. on Numerical Simulation
and Reservoir Performance, Los Angeles, Calif., Feb. 19"20,
1976.
37. Fava, A. and H. Eyring. Equilibrium and kinetics of detergent
adsorption; A generalized equilibration theory. J. Phys. Chem.,
65:890-898, 1956.
38. Fishman, G.S. Concepts and methods in discrete event digital
simulation. John Wiley 6 Sons, New York, 1973. 385 p.
39. Freeze, R.A. A stochastic-conceptual analysis of one-dimensional
groundwater flow in nonunlform homogeneous media. Water
Resources Research. 11 (5) :725-741, 1975.
40. Fried, J.J., J.L. Gamier, and P.O. Ungemach. Etude quantitative
d'une pollution de nappe d'eau souterraine: la salure de la
nappe phreatique dans le department du Haut-Rhin. Bull. Bur.
Rech. Geol. Min., Sect III, 1:105-115, 1971.
41. Fried, J.J. Groundwater pollution: theory, methodology, modelling
and practical rules. Developments in Water Science 4, Elsevier,
1975, 330 p.
42. Fried, J.J. and P.O. Ungemach. A dispersion model for a quantitative
study of a groundwater pollution by salt. Water Research,
5:491-495, 1971.
43. Frind, E.O. and G.F. Pinder. Galerkin solution of the inverse
problem for aquifer transmissivlty. Water Resources Research,
9(5):1397-1410, 1973.
A-41
-------
^A. Fungaroli, A.A. and R.L. Steiner. Investigation of sanitary landfill
behavior. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-R2/2-7, 1973. 310 p.
J»5. Gaudet, J.P., H. Jegat, G. Vachaud, and P. Wierenga. Solute transfer
with exchange between mobile and stagnant water, through
unsaturated sand. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 1*1:000-000, 1977.
^6. Gelhar, L.W. and J.L. Wilson. Ground-water quality modeling.
Groundwater, 12 (6) :399-**08, 1971*.
*»7. Gilham, R.W., A. Klute, and D.F. Heerman. Hydraulic properties of
a porous medium: measurement and empirical representation.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J.t 1+0(2) :203-207, 1976.
A8. Gray, W.G. and G.F. Pinder. An analysis of the numerical solution
of the transport equation. Water Resources Research, 12(3):
5^7-555, 1976.
^9. Green, D.W. and R.L. Cox. Storage of fresh water in underground
reservoirs containing saline water, Phase I, Completion Report
3. Kansas Water Resources Research Institute., Manhattan,
Kansas, 1966. 2k p.
50. Grimsrud, G.P., E.J. Finnemore, and H.J. Owen. Evaluation of water
quality models: A management guide for planners. Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. EPA-600/5-76-OOA, 1976. 176 p.
51. Grove, D.B. A method to describe the flow of radioactive ions in
ground water—final report, December 1, 1966 through June 30,
1968. Springfield, Va., Nat'l. Tech. Inf. Ser., 1970. k\ p.
52. Gupta, S.K., K.K. Tanji, and J.L. Luthin. A three-dimensional finite
element groundwater model. University of California, Water
Resources Center, Contribution Series No. 152, 1975. 119 p.
53. Gureghian, A.B. and R.W. Cleary. Three-dimensional modeling of
pollutant transport. 208 Project, final report. Nassau
Suffolk-County Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, New York,
1977.
5*». Gureghian, A.B., R.W. Cleary, and S. Ward. One-dimensional modeling
of unsaturated pollutant transport. 208 Project, final report.
Nassau-Suffolk County Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, New
York, 1977.
-------
55. Hassan, A. A. Mathematical modeling of water quality for water
resources management. Volume 1. Development of the groundwater
quality model. District Report, Department of Water Resources,
Southern District, The Resources Agency, State of California,
1974. 190 p.
56. Haverkamp, R. , M. Vauclin, J. Touma, P.J. Wierenga, and G. Vachaud.
A comparison of numerical simulation models for one-dimensional
infiltration. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., Al (2) :285-29A, 1977;
57. Helm, D.C. Evaluation of stress-dependent aquitard parameters by
simulating observed compaction from known stress history.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 197*». 175 p.
58. Helm, D.C. One-dimensional simulation of aquifer system compaction
near Pixley, California, 1. Constant parameters. Water
Resources Research, 11:A65~/»78, 1975.
59. Helweg, O.J. and J.W. Labadie. A salinity management strategy for
stream-aquifer systems. Hydrology Paper No. 8*», Colorado
State University, 1976.
60. Henry, H.R. Effects of dispersion on salt encroachment in coastal
aquifers. j_n_ Sea water in coastal aquifers. H.H. Cooper, Jr.,
F;A. Kohout, H.R. Henry and R.E. Glover (eds.). U.S. Geological
Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1613-C,C70-C8^,
61. Henry, H.R. and J.B. Hilleke. Exploration of multiphase fluid flow
in a saline aquifer affected by geothermal heating. Final
report to the U.S. Geological Survey by the Bureau of Engineering
Research, University of Alabama, 1972. 105 p.
62. ' Hildebrand, M.A. The transport of nitrate during unsteady water flow
through unsaturated sand media. Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1975.
63. Hildebrand, M.A. and D.M. Himmelbau. Transport of nitrate ion in
unsteady unsaturated flow in porous media. A I ChE Journal ,
23(3):326-335, 1977.
6k. Hornsby, A..G. Prediction modeling for salinity control in irrigation
return flows. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
EPA-R2-73-168, 1973.
65. Hornsby, A.G. and J.M. Davidson. Solution and adsorbed fluometuron
concentration distribution in a water-saturated soil. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. , 37:823-828, 1973.
-------
66. Hurr, R.T. Modeling groundwater flow by the finite-element method.
J_n_ Proceedings of an International Conference on Variational
Methods, held at University of Southampton, Sept. 25, 1972,
v. 1, p. 5/39-5/49.
67. Mutton, S. and D. Anderson. Finite element method: a Galerkin
approach J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE. 96:1503-1519, 1971.
68. Intercomp Resource Development and Engineering Inc. A model for
calculating effects of liquid waste disposal in deep saline
aquifers. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Resources Inv. 76-61, U.S.
Geol. Survey contract No. 14-08-0001-14703, 1976.
69. Jorgenson, D.G. Analog-model studies of groundwater hydrology
in the Houston District, Texas. Water Development Board
Report 190, 1975. 84 p.
70. Khanji, D., M. Vauclin, and G. Vachaud. Infiltration non permanente
et bidimensionelle dans une tranche de sol non saturee. Analyse
numerique et resultats experimentaux. C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris
278:381-384.
71. King, L.G. and R.J. Hanks. Irrigation management for the control
of quality of irrigation return flow. Office of Research and
Monitoring, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. EPA-R2-73-265, 1973. 307 p.
72. King, L.G. and R.J. Hanks. Management practices affecting quality
and quantity of irrigation return flow. Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-
660/2-75-005. Corvallis, Oregon, 1975.
73. Kirda, C., D.R. Nielsen, and J.W. Biggar. Simultaneous transport
of chloride and water during infiltration. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc., 37(3):339-345, 1973.
74. Konlkow, L.F. and J.D. Bredehoeft. Simulation of hydrologic and
chemical-quality variations in an irrigated stream aquifer
system—a preliminary report. Colorado Water Resources
Circular 17, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver,
Colorado, 1973.
75. Konikow, L.F. and J.D. Bredehoeft. Modeling flow and chemical
quality changes in an irrigated stream-aquifer system. Water
Resources Research, 10(3) :5/»6-562, 1974.
76. Kraeger Rovey, C.E. Numerical model of flow in a stream-aquifer
system. Hydrology Paper No. 74, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 1975.
A-44
-------
77. Kuo, E.Y.T. Analytical solution for 3-D diffusion model.
J. Environmental Eng. Div.. ASCE 102:805-820, 1976.
78. Lai, Sung-Ho and J.J. Jurinak. Numerical approximation of cation
exchange in mtscible displacement through soil columns. Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 35:89^-899, 1971.
79. Lapidus, L. and N.R. Amundson. Mathematics of adsorption in beds,
VI. The effect of longitudinal diffusion in ion exchange and
chromatographic columns. J. Phys. Chem., 56:98^-988, 1952.
80. Larson, N.M. and M. Reeves. Analytical analysis of soil-moisture
and trace-contaminant transport. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
ORNL/NSF/EATC-12, 1976. 180 p.
81. Lee, C.H. and R.T. Cheng. On seawater encroachment in coastal
aquifers. Water Resources Research, 10(5):1039-10^3, 1974.
82. Leenheer, J.A. and J.L. Ahlrichs. A kinetic and equilibrium study
of the adsorption of carbaryl and parathion upon soil organic
matter surfaces. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 35:700-70^, 1971.
83. Lessi, L. Simulation numerique de la propagation d'une pollutant
dans un milieu poreux sature. These de Docteur-Ingenieur,
Universite de Mecanique des fluides de Strasbourg, Universite
Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France, 1976. 157 p.
8*». Lindstrom, F.T., R. Haque, V.H. Freed, and L. Boersma. Theory on
the movement of some herbicides in soils. Env. Sci. & Techn.,
1:561-565, 1967.
85. Lindstrom, F.T. and L. Boersma. Theory of chemical transport with
simultaneous sorption in a water-saturated porous medium.
Soil Science. 110:1-9, 1970.
86. Lindstrom, F.T. and L. Boersma. A theory on the mass transport of
previously distributed chemicals in a water saturated sorbing
porous medium. Soil Science, 111(3):192-199, 1971.
87. Lindstrom, F.T., L. Boersma, and D. Stockard. A theory on the mass
transport of previously distributed chemicals in a water-
saturated sorbing porous medium: isothermal cases. Soi1
Science. 112:291-300, 1971.
88. Lindstrom, F.T. and L. Boersma. A theory on the mass transport of
previously distributed chemicals in a water-saturated sorbing
porous medium III. Exact solution for first-order kinetic
sorbtion. Soil Science, 115(1):5-10, 1973.
-------
89. Lindstrom, F.T. and W.M. Stone. On the start up or initial phase of
linear mass transport of chemicals in a water saturated sorbing
porous medium. I. SIAM J. Applied Math., 26(3):578-591, 1974.
90. Lindstrom, F.T. and W.M. Stone. On the start up or initial phase of
linear mass transport of chemicals in a water saturated sorbing
porous medium. II. Integral equation approach. S1AM J. Appl.
Math.. 26(3):592-606, 1974.
91. Luckey, R.R. and R.K. Livingston. Reservoir release routing model
for the Upper Arkansas River Basin of Colorado. Colarado Water
Conserv. Board, Water Resources Ser. Circ. 27, 1975. 44 p.
92. Maddock, T., III. A program to simulate an aquifer using alternating
direction implicit-iterative procedure. U.S. Geol. Survey open-
file report, 1970. 73 p.
93. Maddock, T., III. Algebraic technological function from a simulation
model: Water Resources Research, 8:129-134, 1972.
94. Maddock, T., III. Management model as a tool for studying the worth
of data: Water Resources Research, 9:270-282, 1973.
95. Maddock, T., III. A tax system for ground water management: Water
Resources Research, 11:7-1 A, 1975.
96. Maisel, H. and G. Gnugnoli. Simulation of discrete stochastic
systems. Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago, 1972.
465 p.
97. Marino, M.A. Distribution of contaminants in porous media flow.
Water Resources Research, 10(5):1013-1018, 1974.
98. Martinez, J.D., D.H. Kupfer, R.L. Thorns, C.G. Smith, and R.C. Kolb.
An investigation of the utility of Gulf Coast salt domes for
the storage or disposal of radioactive wastes. Institute for
Environmental Studies, LSU, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1975.
99. Melamed, D., R.J. Hanks, and L.S. Willardson. Model of salt flow
with a source-sink term. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 4l(l):29-33,
1977.
100. Mercado, A. Nitrate and chloride pollution of aquifers: a regional
study with the aid of a single-cell model. Water Resources
Research, 12(4) :731-747, 1976.
101. Mercer, J.W. and C.R. Faust. Simulation of water- and vapor-dominated
hydrothermal reservoirs: Paper presented at 50th Annual Fall
Meeting of Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, Texas,
Sept. 28- Oct. 1, 1975.
A-46
-------
102. Mercer, J.W., G.F. Pinder, and I.G. Donaldson. A Galerkin-Finite
element analysis of the hydrothermal system at Wairakei, New
Zealand. Water Resources Research, 80(17):2608-2621, 1975.
103, Mercer, J.W. and G.F. Pinder. A finite-element model of two-
dimensional single-phase heat transport in a porous medium.
U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Report 75-571*, 1975. 115 p.
10*f. Metry, A.A. Mathematical modeling of pollutant migration in an
unconfined aquifer. Ph.D. Thesis, Drexel University, 1972.
105. Metry, A.A. Modeling of pollutant migration in subsurface
environments. Proceedings of the Conference on Environmental
Modeling and Simulation, Wayne Ott (ed.), EPA 600/9-76-016,
1976.
106. Metry, A.A. Fate of pollutants in a subsurface environment.
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Technical Meeting, Inst. of
Environmental Sciences, 1976.
107. Moench, A.F., V.B. Sauer, and M.E. Jennings. Modification of
routed streamflow by channel loss and base flow. Water Re-
sources Research. 10(5):963-968, 197**.
108. Neuman, S.P. Saturated-unsaturated seepage by finite elements.
J. Hydraulics Division. ASCE. 99(HY12):2233-2250, 1973.
109. Nielsen, D.R., J.W. Biggar, and K.T. Erh. Spatial variability of
field-measured soil-water properties. HiIgardia, A2(7):215~
259, 1973.
110. O'Connor, G.A., M.Th. van Genuchten, and P.J. Wierenga. Predicting
2,A,5-T movement in soil columns. J. Environmental Quality,
5(A):375-378, 1976.
111. Oddson, J.K., J. Letey, and L.V. Weeks. Predicted distribution of
organic chemicals in solution and adsorbed as a function of
position and time for various chemical and soil properties.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 31»:l*12-Al7, 1970.
112. Ogata, A. Transverse diffusion in saturated isotropic granular
media. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper *t11-B, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, 1961. 8 p.
113. Ogata, A. Mathematics of dispersion with linear adsorption. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper *t11-H, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, 1969. 9 p.
-------
11^. Ogata, A. Theory of dispersion in a granular medium. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper ^11-1, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, 1970.
115. Orlob, G.T. and P.C. Woods. Water-quality management in irrigation
systems. J. Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, 93(lR2):
A9-66, 1967.
116. Papadopulos, I.S. Nonsteady flow to multiaquifer wells.
J. Geophysical Research, 7.1 (20) :**791-A797, 1966.
117. Papadopulos, I.S. Drawdown distribution aroung a large-diameter
well. Proc. Natl. Symposium on Ground Water Hydrology, San
Francisco, Calif., Nov. 6-8, 1967. p. 156-168.
118. Patten, E.P., Jr. Design, construction and use of electric analog
models. Bulletin 6508, U.S. Geological Survey and Texas Water
Commission, 1965.
119. Perez, A.I., W.C. Huber, J.P. Heaney, and E.E. Pyatt. A water
quality model for a conjunctive surface-groundwater system.
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-600/5-7/t-013, Washington, D.C., "\31k.
323 p.
120. Pickens, J.F. and W.C. Lennox. Numerical simulation of waste
movement in steady groundwater flow systems. Water Resources
Research, 12 (2):171-180, 1976.
121. Pinder, G.F. and J.D. Bredehoeft. Application of a digital computer
for aquifer evaluation. Water Resources Research, A(5):1069-1093,
1968.
122. Pinder, G.F. An iterative digital model for aquifer evaluation.
U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report, 1969. *»3 p.
123. Pinder, G.F. A Galerkin-finite element simulation of groundwater
contamination of Long Island, New York. Water Resources
Research, 9(6):1657-1669, 1973.
12^. Pinder, G.F. and H.H. Cooper, Jr. A numerical technique for
calculating the transient position of the saltwater front.
Water Resources Research. 6(3):875-882, 1970.
125. Pinder, G.F. and V.B. Sauer. Numerical simulation of flood wave
modification due to bank storage effects. Water Resources
Research, 7:63-70, 1971.
-------
126. Pinder, G.F. and E.O. Frind. Application of Galerkin Procedure to
aquifer analysis. Water Resources Research, 8(1):108-120, 1972.
127. Pinder, G.F. and R.H. Page. Finite element simulation of salt water
intrusion on the South Fork of Long Island. In Finite Elements
in Water Resources, W.G. Gray, G.F. Pinder an
-------
137. Rlley, F.S. Analysis of borehole extensometer data from Central
California. Association Internationale d'Hydrologie
Sclent i fique. Acte du Colloque de Tokyo, Affaissement du
sol., 1969. P
138. Ripple, C.D., J. Rubin, and I.E. van Hylckama. Estimating steady
state evaporation rates from bare soils under conditions of
high water table. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper
2019-A, 1972. 39 P.
139. Robertson, J.B. Digital modeling of radioactive and chemical waste
transport in the Snake River plain aquifer at the National
Reactor Testing Station, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-
file report IDO-2205^, 197^. Al p.
1^0. Robertson, J.B. and J.T. Barraclough. Radioactive and chemical-
waste transport in groundwater at National Reactor Testing
Station, Idaho: 20-year case history, and digital model.
In Underground waste management and artificial recharge, vol.
TT291-322, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1973.
1*»1. Robson, S.G. Feasibility of water-quality modeling illustrated by
application at Barstow, California. Water Resources Invest.
Report ^6-73, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California,
66 p.
Rubin, J. Numerical method for analyzing hysteresis-affected post-
irrigation redistribution of soil moisture. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc., 31:13-20, 1967.
Rubin, J. Theoretical analysis of two-dimensional, transient flow
of water in unsaturated and partly saturated soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc., 32 (5) :607-615, 1968.
Rubin, J. Numerical analysis of ponded rainfall infiltration,
Symposium on Water in the Unsaturated Zone. Proceedings
Vol. 1:MO-451. Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1968.
Rubin, J. and R.V. James. Dispersion-affected transport of reacting
solutes in saturated porous media: Galerkin method applied to
equilibrium-controlled exchange in unidirectional steady water
flow. Water Resources Research, 9(5) : 1332-1356.
Schwartz, F.W. On radioactive waste management: an analysis of
the parameters controlling subsurface contaminant transfer.
Journal of Hydrology. 27:51-71, 1975.
A-50
-------
147. Schwartz, F.W. On radioactive waste management: model analysis of
a proposed site. Journal of Hydrology, 32:257-277, 1977.
148. Segol, G. A three-dimensional Galerkin finite element model for
the analysis of contaminant transport in variably saturated
porous media. User's Guide. Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Waterloo, 1976. 171 p.
149. Segol, G. A three-dimensional Galerkin-finite element model for
the analysis of contaminant transport in saturated-unsaturated
porous media. _!JT_ Finite Elements in Water Resources, W.G.
Gray, G.F. Finder and C.A. Brebbia (eds.), 1977. p. 2.123-2.144.
150. Segol, G., G.F. Pinder, and W.G. Gray. A Galerkin-finite element
technique for calculating the transient position of the
, . salt-water front. Water Resources Research, 11(2):343~347, 1975.
151. Selim, H.M., R.S. Mansell, and A. Elzeftawy. Distributions of 2,4-D
and water in soil during infiltration and redistribution.
Soil Science, 121:176-183, 1976.
152. Selim, H.M. and R.S. Mansell. Analytical solution of the equation
- for transport of reactive splutes through soils. Water
Resources Research, 12:528-532, 1976.
153. Selim, H.M., J.M. Davidson, and P.S.C. Rao. Transport of reactive
solutes through multilayered soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J.,
41(0:3-10, 1977.
154. Selim, H.M., R.S. Mansell, and L.W. Zelazny. Modeling reactions
and transport of potassium in soils. Soil Science, 122(2):
77-84, 1976.
155. Shah, D.B., G.A. Coulman, L.T. Novak, and B.G. Ellts. A mathematical
model for phosphorus movement in soils. J. Environmental
Quality. 4(0:87-92, 1975.
156. Shannon, R.E. Systems simulation, the art and science. Prentice-
: Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975. 387 p.
157. Shen, H.T. Transient dispersion in uniform porous media flow.
J. Hydraulics Division, ASCE. 102(HY6):707-716, 1976.
158. Skibitzke, H.E. Electronic computers as an aid to the analysis of
hydrologic systems. IASH Publication 52, 1961. p. 347-358.
A-51
-------
159. Smajstrala, A.G., D.L. Redell, and A.E. Hiler. Simulation of
miscible displacement in soils using the method of
characteristics. ASAE Trans., 18(2):281, 1975.
160. Sorey, M.L. Numerical modeling of liquid geothermal systems. Ph.D.
Thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif, 1975.
161. Stallman, R.W. Calculation of resistance and error in an electric
analog of steady flow through non-homogeneous aquifers. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1544-G, 1963. 20 p.
162. Stallman, R.W. Electric analog of three-dimensional flow to wells
and its application to unconfined aquifers. U.S. Geological
Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1536-H, 1963. 242 p.
163. Stallman, R.W. and J.E. Reed. Steady flow in the zone of aeration.
UNESCO Symposium on Water in the Unsaturated Zone, 1966.
164. Swanson, R.A. and G.R. Dutt. Chemical and physical processes that
affect atrazine movement in distribution in soil systems.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 37:872-876, 1973.
165. Sykes, J.F. Transport phenomena in variably saturated porous media.
Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Waterloo, 1975.
166. Tang, D.H. and G.F. Finder. Simulation of groundwater flow and
mass transport under uncertainty, 1977.
167. Tanji, K.K. A computer analysis on leaching of boron from stratified
soil columns. Soil Science, 110:44-51, 1970.
168. Tanji, K.K., G.R. Dutt, J.L. Paul, and L.D. Doneen. Quality of
percolating waters. II. A computer method for predicting
salt concentrations in soils at variable moisture contents.
Hilgardia, 38:307-318, 1967.
169. Tanji, K.K., L.D. Doneen, and J.L. Paul. Quality of percolating
waters. III. Predictions on the quality of waters percolating
through stratified substrata by computer analysis. H?Igardia,
38:319-347, 1967.
170. Tanji, K.K., L.D. Doneen, G.V. Ferry, and R.S. Ayers. Computer
simulation analysis on reclamation of salt-affected soils in
San Joaquin Valley, California. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.,
36(0:127-133, 1972.
A-52
-------
171. Thorns, R.L., C.G. Smith, and J.D. Martinez. Domal salt plumes
ground water. In Finite Elements in Water Resources, W.G.
Gray, G.F. Pinder and C.A. Brebbia (eds.). Pentech Press,
London, 1977. p. 2.37-2.^9.
172. Trescott, P.C. Iterative digital model for aquifer evaluation.
U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report, 1973. 18 p.
173. Trescott, P.C. Documentation of finite-difference model for
simulation of three-dimensional groundwater flow. U.S.
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 75-^38, 1975. 32 p.
17^. Ungs, M., R.W. Cleary, L. Boersma, and S. Yingjajaval. The
quantitative description of transfer of water and chemicals
through soils, 1976.
175. Vachaud, G., P.J. WIerenga, J.P. Gaudet, and H. Jegat. Simulation
of miscible displacement in unsaturated porous media. In
System Simulation in Water Resources, C.G. vanSteenkiste
(ed.). North-Holland Publ. Co., 1976. p. 129-1^0.
176. Van De Pol, R.M., P.J. Wierenga, and D.R. Nielsen. Solute movement
in a field soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 41 (1):10-13, 1977.
177. van der Ploeg, R.R. Simulation of moisture transfer in soils:
one-dimensional infiltration. Soil Science, 118:3^9-357, 197^.
178. van der Ploeg, R.R. and P. Benecke. Unsteady, unsaturated,
n-dimensional moisture flow in soil: a computer simulation
program. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 38:881-885, 1971*.
179. van Genuchten, M.Th. and P.J. Wierenga. Mass transfer studies
in sorbing porous media: I. Analytical solutions. Soi1
Sci. Soc. Amer. J.. kO:k73~WO, 1976.
180. van Genuchten, M.Th. On the accuracy and efficiency of several
numerical schemes for solving the convective-dispersive
equation. ±r\_ Finite Elements in Water Resources. W.G. Gray,
G.F. Pinder and C.A. Brebbia (eds.). Pentech Press, London,
1977. p. 1.71-1.90.
181. van Genuchten, M.Th., J.M. Davidson, and P.J. Wierenga. An
evaluation of kinetic and equilibrium equations for the
prediction of pesticide movement through porous media.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 38:29-35, 197A.
A-53
-------
182. van Genuchten, M.Th., G.F. Pinder, and W.F. Saukin. Modeling of
leachate and soil interactions in an aquifer. In Proceedings
of the Third Annual Symposium on the Management of Gas and
Leachate from Landfills. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977.
183. van Genuchten, M.Th. and G.F. Pinder. Mass transport in saturated-
unsaturated media. I. One-dimensional solutions. Research
Report 77-WR-O Water Resources Program, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Princeton, N.J., 1977.
184. van Genuchten, M.Th. and R.W. Cleary. Movement of solutes in soil:
computer-simulated and experimental results. In Soil
Chemistry, Part B, Chapter 10, G.H. Bolt and M.G.M. Bruggewert
(eds.), Developments in Soil Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1977.
185. van Genuchten, M.Th. and P.J. Wierenga. Mass transfer studies in
sorbing porous media: II. Experimental evaluation with
tritium (3^0). Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. . 41 (2) :272-278, 1977.
186. Wang, S.T., A.F. McMillan, and B.H. Chen. Analytical model of
dispersion in tidal fjords. J. Hydraulics Division, ASCE,
103(HY7):737-751, 1977.
187. Warrick, A.W., J.W. Biggar, and D.R. Nielsen. Simultaneous solute
and water transfer for an unsaturated soil. Water Resources
Research, 7(5):1216-1225, 1971.
188. Warrick, A.W., G.J. Mullen, and D.R. Nielsen. Predictions of the
soil water flux based upon field-measured soil-water
properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 4l(l):l4-19, 1977.
189. Warrick, A.W., G.J. Mullen, and D.R. Nielsen. Scaling field-
measured soil hydraulic properties using a similar media
concept. Water Resources Research, 13(2):355-362, 1977.
190. Wierenga, P.J., M.Th. van Genuchten, and F.W. Boyle. Transfer of
boron and tritiated water through sandstone. J. Environmental
Quality, 4:83-87, 1975.
191. Wood, A.L. and J.M. Davidson. Fluometuron and water content
distribution: measured and calculated. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc., 39:820-825, 1975.
-------
192. Yeh, G. and Y. Tsal. Analytical three-dimensional transient
•modeling of effluent discharges. Water Resources Research,
12(3):533-5*»0, 1976.
193. Young, R.A. and J.D. Bredehoeft. Digital computer simulation for
solving management problems of conjunctive groundwater and
surface water systems. Water Resources Research, 8(3):533-556,
1972.
A-55
-------
APPENDIX B
NON-REGULATORY EXPERT CONTACTS
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Aff?1iation;
Dr. Herman Bouwer
Laboratory Director
and Research Hydraulic Engineer
• Agricultural Research Service
UoS. Water Conservation Lab
^331 Broadway Road
'Phoenix, Arizona 850*»0
Phone: 603-26l-**356
Type of Procedure;
Field Investigation
Discussion:
Approach Taken. This approach involved field investigation for
renovating secondary sewage effluent by groundwater recharge with rapid
infiltration basins. The data base will be used to develop decision and
design criteria.
Ten years of experimental work in renovating secondary sewage
effluent by groundwater recharge with rapid infiltration basins in
the sandy and gravel materials of the salt river bed west of Phoenix,
Arizona have established the following information:
The infiltration of the secondary effluent through the sands and
gravel resulted in essentially complete attenuation of suspended solids,
biological oxygen demand, viruses, and fecal coliform bacteria. However,
the renovated water still contained about 5 mg/1 of total organic carbon.
Almost all of the fecal coliform bacteria were attenuated in the first
two feet of the soil, but further penetration was observed for the
first few days of a new flooding period following a dry period.
The total nitrogen load at the design hydraulic loading rate of
300 ft/yr was about 2^,000 Ib/acre. Sequences of short, frequent flooding
and drying periods of several days each yielded essentially complete
conversion of the nitrogen in the effluent to nitrate in the renovated
water, but no a'ttenuation of nitrogen. With flooding and drying periods
of two weeks each, ammonia was adsorbed in the soil during flooding and
nitrified and then partially denitrified during the drying period. This
yielded renovated water with alternating low nitrogen levels and nitrate
B-l
-------
peak and a net nitrogen removal of about 30 percent. If the hydraulic
loading rate was reduced to 200 ft/yr (by using 9-day flooding periods)
nitrogen attenuation was increased to about 60 percent.
Phosphate attenuation was about 50 percent after 30 feet of
underground travel. At least 300 feet were required to attenuate more
than 90 percent of the phosphate. Phosphate gradually precipitated in
the sands and gravel, probably as calcium phosphate. The phosphate
removal continued to be stable after ten years of operation of the
project.
Copper and zinc concentrations were attenuated about 80 percent,
whereas those of cadmium and lead remained about the same as the water
moved through the sands and gravels. Metal concentrations were below
maximum limits for irrigation.
Results/Conclusions to Date. The project has demonstrated that a
high quality renovated water suitable for unrestricted irrigation and
recreation can be obtained with a rapid-infiltration system in the Salt
river bed. The cost of putting the .effluent underground and pumping
it up as renovated water on a large scale was estimated at about $5.3/
acre-foot in 19&9. This is much less than the cost of equivalent
in-plant treatment to produce a renovated water of similar quality.
State of Development. The project is nearly completed with some
mathematical simulations being made using the experimental data. No
effort is being made at this time to develop a complete mathematical
model to describe the behavior of the various constituents in the
secondary sewage effluent. Experience with the system is serving as
the basis for the development of additional sites for treating
secondary sewage effluent. Based on the results, the City of Phoenix
in 1975 installed a 40-acre rapid-infiltration system to produce
renovated influent for an irrigation district.
Availability as Decision Procedure. Their data base is available
immediately to design infiltration basins for secondary sewage effluent
treatment in other parts of the United States.
Key Publications;
1. Bouwer, H. Ground water recharge design for renovating waste water
J. Sanitary Eng. Div.. Proc. ASCE. 96:59'7/», 1970.
2. Bouwer, H. Design and operation of land treatment systems for
minimum contamination of ground water. Groundwater, 12:140-1^7,
1974.
B-2
-------
3. Bouwer H. , R.C. Rice, and E.D. Escarcega. High-rate land treatment
infiltration and hydraulic aspects of the Flushing Meadows
project. J. Water Pollution Control, A6:834-8**3, 197*4.
*t. Bouwer, H., J.C. Lance, and M.S. Riggs. High-rate land treatment II
water quality and economic aspects of the Flushing Meadows
project. J. Water Pollution Control, 1*6:8^5-859,
5. Bouwer, H. Zoning aquifers for tertiary treatment of wastewater.
Groundwater, 1*4, 1976.
6. Gilbert, R.G., C.P. Gerba, R.C. Rice, H. Bouwer, C. Wallis, and
J.L. Melnick. Virus and bacteria removal from wastewater by
land treatment. Applied and Env. Microbiology, 32:333-338, 1976.
B-3
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Mr. John D. Bredehoeft
Acting Assistant Chief Hydrologist
for Research and Technical Coordination
• U.S. Geological Survey
Reston, Virginia 22092
Type of Procedure;
Models/Simulation - Flow and Solute Transport Models
Discussion;
Approach Taken. Mr. Bredehoeft and other U.S.G.S. researchers
(e.g., Konikow and Rubin) have outstanding expertise in their respective
fields. The survey is spending $6 million on research related to
groundwater quality and quantity modeling, with emphasis on radioactive
waste disposal sites.
Results/Conclusions to Date. The U.S.G.S. has documented and has
available a program which handles solute transport, with heat and
reactions in both two and three dimensions.
State of Development. The U.S.G.S. has developed, through a control
to Intercomp, and documented two- and three-dimensional solute transport
models with heat reaction. The survey also has in press the documentation
of a two-dimensional method for a characteristics program for solute
transport with first order chemical reaction. Research is in progress
on transport codes with higher order chemical reactions; they should be
available within the next year or two.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. Some computerized mathematical
models can be made available for application as tools for pollution
prediction in the near future. More sophisticated models (two- and
three-dimensional, with high-order chemical reactions) could be available
after research and testing is completed. A key element in the availability
of these models as a universal tool for site selection depends on the
extent of model testing, calibration and field verification, which
requires several years of effort after model development.
Key Pub!icationst
The key publications are numerous. See "Status of Ground-Water
Modeling in the U.S. Geological Survey," Appendix D.
-------
CONTACT FORM
Persons Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. John Bromley
Research Manager, Chemist
Dr. Allen Parker
Dr. Ian Harrison
Geologist
Institute of Geological Sciences based at Harwell
Dr. David C. Wilson
Chemical Engineer
• Harwell Laboratory
Environmental Safety Group
Building 151
Oxfordshire 0X11 ORA
United Kingdom
Phone: 0325-24141, #2121
Dr. John Bromley heads up the Environmental Safety Group at the Atomic
Energy Research Establishment in Harwell. This group of selected personnel
is conducting extensive research for application to environmental problems
with emphasis'on toxic and hazardous materials. It is noteworthy that
Harwell does have a well-established chemical data bank to catalogue various
types of chemicals and hazardous wastes, as well as a chemical emergency
center which is manned 2k hours a day for response to emergency spill
situations.
Type of Procedure:
Field/Laboratory Investigations
Discussion;
Approach Taken. The major work currently underway at Harwell is a
three-year Investigation of some 20 landfills, with emphasis on hazardous
waste landfills and the co-disposal of hazardous waste with municipal
refuse. This study is being conducted cooperatively with the Water
Research Centre, and is funded by the Department of the Environment at a
cost of approximately $2,000,000. The final report is to be submitted
to the Department on or about September 1, 1977.
B-5
-------
Investigation is expected to be continued for an additional two
years with the following scope of work proposed: (1) additional bore
holes at selected landfills; (2) a continuation of leachate column
studies; (3) additional analysis of leachate volume and composition
from landfill wastes; and (*») additional investigation, both in the
field and in the laboratory, of co-disposal of industrial and municipal
waste.
Two philosophies of waste management (identified at Harwell and by
others) are being persued; these philosophies include: (1) containment
of wastes for the purpose of containment and concentration of leachate;
and (2) assimilation of leachate into the environment at an acceptable
rate utilizing dilution and dispersion.
Earlier work by Gray, Mather and Harrison in Review of Ground Water
Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites in England and Wales, With Provisional
Guidelines for Future Site Selection identified a waste categorization
approach to site selection. Three waste categories were identified as ,
fo11ows:
• Category 1 - Hazardous waste.
• Category 2 - Domestic and related waste.
• Category 3 " Inert waste.
A flow diagram was proposed whereby specific waste categories were
permissible for disposal, based upon avoidance of interception of the
water table and the definition of permeability of both surficial deposits
and'bedrock. It is noteworthy, however, that additional work along these
lines led to the conclusion that (as published in Waste Management Paper 4,
The Licensing of Waste Disposal Sites by the Department of the Environment)
unfortunately neither wastes nor sites lend themselves to such categorization,
and it is necessary to produce a more generalized scheme which can be
modified and adapted for local use. Site classification, however, is
preserved whereby three classes of sites are recognized as follows:
Class 1. Those providing a significant element of containment for
waste and leachate.
Class 2. Those allowing slow leachate migration and significant
attenuation.
Class 3. Those allowing rapid leachate migration and i nsign i.f i cant
attenuation.
A thickness of 15 meters of impermeable strata was stated as the
minimum requirement of a site receiving Category 1 waste; however, this
figure was admittedly arbitrary and subject to some reservation. Current
B-6
-------
thinking on the thickness of impermeable strata indicates that a maximum
of 5 meters-would be appropriate. Ideal attenuation would be obtained
with a clayey sand to optimize both adsorption and dilution of leachate
constituents. Extrapolation however remains questionable at this time
due to the state of the art of prediction of pollution potential;
therefore, attenuation must be addressed on a site-by-site basis.
Personnel at Harwell had been active in the mathematical modeling
approach to the prediction of groundwater pollution by land disposal of
waste. Models are currently reviewed with some reservation on anything
other than a site-by-site basis. An earlier project by Bromley and
Hebden. on An Interactive Computer System for Advising on the Safety of
Waste Disposal to a Landf?1 IS?te has been discontinued due to changes
"in project personnel and the fact that the degree of specificity for
the model, became unattainable due to the inability of laboratory
analytical procedures to identify low concentrations of leachate
constituents. One important publication relative to modeling by D.C.
Wilson, entitled Mathematical Modeling of Pollution Migration from a
Landf111 .Site to a Ground Water Abstraction Point - A Survey of the
Literature in 197**,. presented a summary of the significant models in
exlstance as well as their scope and limitations.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Since the final report has not yet
been submitted, printed conclusions of the 20-site study could not be
obtained; however, the following major conclusions of the three-year
study were verbally obtained:
1. Heavy metals have been found to be effectively tied up in the
:tips (landfills) primarily by the process of precipitation as
metal sulfides, metal carbonates, and metal hydroxides.
2. Once the addition of leachate to the field lysimeters at
Uffington ceased, the leachate front ceases migrating deeper
into the soil column and the leachate discharge continues
at a very slow and dilute rate.
3. The organics, particularly phenols, are the most troublesome
material to deal with; however, some organics are volatilized
(such as cleaning fluids), some are biodegraded, and others are
. adsorbed onto plastics within municipal refuse.
4. There has been a good correlation between the degree of metal
precipitation and leachate front migration utilizing both
rapid saturated methods in laboratory column studies and the
lysimeters. Leachate was applied at twice the normal rate of
flushing at the unsaturated field lysimeters.
B-7
-------
5. Considerable emphasis is placed on the importance of the
unsaturated zone for the attenuation of both municipal and
many "hazardous" waste/leachate constituents.
6. Investigation of some 20 landfills in the field has indicated
no evidence of significant pollution except where such would
be obvious, such as disposal over abandoned mine shafts,
fractured bedrock, or highly-permeable gravel.
7. A pragmatic "common sense" approach to utilize moderate
permeability for dilution and dispersion is favored over either
a high permeability for rapid leachate transport and contamination
or a low permeability for leachate ponding and concentration
which would require collection and treatment to avoid adverse .
impacts from concentrated leakage.
8. The United Kingdom does not experience groundwater pollution
from waste disposal to any significant degree based upon this
current study and an earlier desk-top study whereby only 51
sites out of 2,^9^ in England and Wales were assessed to
represent a serious pollution risk to major or minor aquifers.
Significant conclusions of the modeling efforts are as follows:
1. Simulation models of pollutant migration from a landfill into
and through the aquifer hold some promise for future development
within their limitations. These are primarily computational
incompetence in solving huge numbers of simultaneous equations
and more particularly in a lack of detailed data input.
2. For routine site evaluation, the inescapable conclusion is that a
mathematical model, even if it worked perfectly, would demand
too much time and effort to be practicable.
State of Development. Emperical data and conclusions drawn from a
detailed analysis and assessment of that data will serve as useful
guidelines in decisions relative to waste disposal siting.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. Results of this study will be
available for reference and use in late 1978.
Key Pub!ications;
1. Harwell Laboratory (Cooperative with Water Research Centre).
Programme of research on the behaviour of hazardous wastes in
landfill sites. Interim Report on Progress, Sept. 1975 (Final
report late 1977).
B-8
-------
2. Gray, D.A., J.D. Mather, and I.B. Harrison. Review of groundwater
pollution from waste disposal sites in England and Wales, with
provisional guidelines for future site selection. Harwell
Laboratory, 197^. Reprinted from The Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology, Vol. 7, No. 2.
3. Mather, J.D. and J. Bromley. Research into leachate generation
and attenuation at landfill sites. Hydrogeological Department,
Institute of Geological Sciences, Hazardous Materials Service,
Harwell Laboratory, Didcot. Presented at Land Reclamation
Conference, Oct. 1976.
k. Wilson, D.C. Mathematical modeling of pollution migration from
a landfill site to a groundwater abstraction point - a survey
of the literature. Aere Harwell, Dec.
B-9
-------
CONTACT FORM
Persons Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Robert V/. Cleary
Assistant Professor
Dr. A.B. Gureghian
Research Associate
• Princeton University
V/ater Resources Program
Princeton, New Jersey 085^0
Phone: 609-^52-^653
Types of Procedures;
Mode 1s/S i mu1 a t i on
Field and Laboratory Data
Discussion;
Approach Taken. As part of a large 208 project for Long Island,
New York, analytical and numerical mathematical models of pollutant
transport in saturated and unsaturated groundwater systems have been
developed. In particular, a one-dimensional, multi-solute, multi-layer,
numerical model has been constructed to simulate transient simultaneous
movement of solutes and moisture in unsaturated soils. This model is
being calibrated and verified with unsaturated solute/moisture field
data from a wastewater recharge basin whose depth to water is
approximately 25 feet.
Several multi-dimensional models for saturated water and solute
transport have also been constructed including a three-dimensional
finite element-Galerkin model. Four closed-form analytical solutions
which describe pollutant transport in two- and three-dimensional systems
subject to time-varying distributed (Gaussian and step) boundary
conditions have also been developed.
The analytical solutions serve as checks on the multi-dimensional
numerical models and the two and three-dimensional versions of the
modular numerical model. These models have been calibrated with field
data collected on a monthly basis (since October 1975) from a
three-dimensional well network which has approximately 120 wells in the
leachate plume of the sanitary landfill.
B-10
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation:
Nolan A. Curry, P.E.
Acting Chief, (Retired) Chemical Systems Section
• New York State Department Present Address:
of Environmental Conservation 10 Diana Lane
50 Wolf Street Troy, New York 12180
Albany, N.Y. Phone: 518-279-9135
Type of Procedure:
Engineering Evaluation and Judgment (Non-procedural)
D? scuss ion;
Approach Taken. Site evaluation is performed by the application of
engineering principles.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Mr. Curry applies basic engineering
concepts(e.g., mass balance) as a site-selection method (non-procedure).
He feels that some form of Criteria Listing may be feasible as a Decision
Procedure; however, the final selection or evaluation of sites will depend
heavily on the judgment of the engineers and scientists evaluating or
approving the site.
Key Publications;
1. Curry, N.A. Hazardous waste management and disposal, chemical and
industrial. Presented at the Engineering Foundation Conference,
Land Application of Residual Materials, Easton, Maryland,
.Sept. 26-Oct. 1, 1976.
2. Curry, N.A. Management of organic materials in landfills. Presented
at 32nd Purdue Industrial Conference, May 1977.
3. Curry, N.A. PCB movement in the environment. Presented at 9th
mid-Atlantic Industrial Conference, Bucknell University, Aug. 1977,
k. Curry, N.A. Aluminum sludge generation and disposal. Presented at
American Water Works School Program, Lake Placid, N.Y., Sept.
1977. Journal Amer. W.W. Assoc., July 1978.
B-11
-------
CONTACT FORM
Persons Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Eugene Elzy
Mr. Thomas Lindstrom
Dr. Larry Boersma
• Oregon State University
Department of Chemical Engineering and
Agricultural Chemistry
Corval1 is, Oregon
Phone: 503-75^-^951
Type of Procedure:
Models/Simulat ion
Pi scuss ion;
Approach Taken. Basically, the model landfill and the soil region
is divided into a simple two-dimensional grid. Each compartment of the
grid has dimensions of length DELX, depth DELZ = 2 feet, and width WIDTH
sufficient to encompass the contaminated zone of the landfill.
SIM-1 is considered to be a two-dimensional model since calculations
account for distribution of the chemical in two directions only, i.e.,
vertical and horizontal. (Although dispersion of the chemical in a
lateral direction does occur, for the purpose of the model, it is assumed
to be zero; therefore, the model tends to calculate a higher groundwater
concentration.)
The elevation of the top of each landfill and soil column and the
elevation of the bottom of each landfill column are specified as input
data.
The model logic is based upon a chemical mass balance at each point
in time and space to allow concentration estimates inside of, as well
as exterior to, a landfill disposal site. The model incorporates the
following important physical-chemical parameters:
1. Hydrodynamic flow velocity based upon the porosity and
hydrodynamic gradient of the porous medium.
2. Variable water table.
B-12
-------
3. Variable rainfall.
k. Reversible adsorption-desorption phenomena.
5. First-order irreversible sorption or first-order chemical
reaction.
6. First-order microbial degradation kinetics.
State of Development. Basically, the model is capable in its
present form to approximate the conditions within and in the adjacent
vicinity of a working landfill. However, it is still a very simplified
technique. Improvements have been undertaken by Canadian research
personnel. The model now has capability to simulate the following
parameters:
1. Variations in soil character for each cell which allows the
modeling of layered soil conditions. Also included in these
amendments is a water balance check.
2. Cell dimensions can be varied in both the vertical and the
horizontal directions. This allows greater flexibility in
choosing a cell size.
3. Time increments for each interaction of the program can be
varied according to the estimated column drainage time of the
site being modeled. The column drainage time is the time for
a column of soil above the water table to drain to field
capaci ty.
4. Mass transport is considered in both the horizontal and
vertical directions to allow for density effects and vertical
gradients.
5. The maximum number of cells below the water table is a variable
according to the site characteristics. This allows a more
complete modeling of the saturated layers between water table
and underlying impermeable layers.
Pros and Cons. The main advantage of the Oregon model is that
it represents a simple and easy-to-use procedure. The basic logic of
the model can be readily understood without recourse to complex math.
Input parameters are clearly identified, and the output is easy to
interpret.
However, a number of the simplifying assumptions are embodied in
the logic of the program which are not readily apparent to the user.
B-13
-------
It would be valuable if these assumptions were spelled out as input
requirements needing the authority of the user to specify the input.
The procedure by which flow in the water table is modeled may be overly
simplistic. The assumption is basically one-dimensional flow. It is
not known whether an increase in the number of cells below the water
table, which are capable of passing saturated flow, will in itself solve
this problem.
Known Application. Basically, the model was developed for use
in a study of the Brown's Island Site near Salem, Oregon. The feature
of the model which simulates periodic inundation of the site is a
representation of Brown's Island conditions. However, since the
monitoring information available for Brown's Island was extremely limited,
the application of the model to Brown's Island conditions cannot be
viewed as a valid verification procedure. An evaluation of the impact
of various organic pesticides upon groundwater conditions has been
conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, but it is
not apparent that the results of these evaluations were in any way
incorporated in landfill design requirements. No other application has
been identified.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. With the provision that the
required adsorption constants in biodegradation rates should be available,
the model In present form could be used as a decision procedure.
However, the standard methods available by which these parameters can
be obtained are open to question even in single-element situations.
The prospect of modeling interactive chemicals or interactive 1eachate
flow is probably a long way off. In addition, the simplifying assumptions
referred to earlier, presently require considerable finesse on the part
of the user. In the present state of the art, this special ingredient
will always be needed, though not necessarily in the form incorporated
in this model. Further sophistication of the modeling procedure itself
is probably unwise since the basic building-block approach is already
an overriding sim.pl istic assumption. Further development to overcome
this simplification would lead automatically to the more sophisticated
finite-element or finite-difference models.
Key Publication;
1. Elzy, E., L. Boersma, F.T. Lindstrom, and C. Wang. Disposal of
environmentally hazardous waters. Task Force Report for
Environmental Sciences Center, Oregon State University, Dec.
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. El lot .Epstein
Soil Scientist
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Beltsvllie, Maryland 20705
Phone: 301-3AA-3163
Type of Procedure;
Field;-and Laboratory Analyses of Sludge Application to Land
Discussion; '
Approach Taken. Dr. Epstein has authored and coauthored publications
on composting and sludge application to land. Dr. Epstein was one of.,a
project team.whlch Investigated the "Trench Incorporation of Sewage Sludge
in Marginal Agricultural Land" for an experimental operation In the
Beltsvllie, Maryland area. This Investigation evaluated the effects of
trench Incorporation of limed, undigested (raw-limed) sewage sludgb and;'
of digested sewage sludge on groundwater quality. The de-watered sludges
(20-25 percent solid) were placed In trenches that were 60-cm wide by
60-cm deep by 60-cm apart or 60 x 120 x 120 cm. Some kQ test wills were '
drilled to monitor groundwater quality beneath and adjacent to the
entrenchment site.
Results/Conclusions to Date. The Investigation entailed an
evaluation of the movement of nitrate, chlorides, pathogens, and
heavy metals. The major conclusions to data (September 1975) are
as follows:
1. Analyses of well waters did not show Increased concentrations of
nitrate or ammonia nitrogen.
2. There was evidence of increasing movement of nitrogen downward
from the entrenched sludge with time.
3. Greater levels of organic materials moved Into the soil from the
raw limed sludge than the digested entrenched sludges and provided
a greater potential for dlnltrlfIcatlon.
A. Elevated chloride concentrations and elevated conductivities were
sporadically detected.
B-15
-------
5. Movement of fecal coliform or salmonella bacteria was not
detected out of the entrenched sludge Into the surrounding
soil or down to the groundwater.
6. Raw sludge limed to a high pH decreased tremendously the number
of salmonella and fecal coliform bacteria. With a sludge pH
drop, these organisms showed only a temporary Increase In
numbers.
7. There was essentially no movement of zinc or copper out of the
entrenched raw limed sludge.
8. As the entrenched sludge became aerobic, DTPA-TDA extractable
metals Increased.
9. A major conclusion was that since the effects of entrenchment
had been studied for a short time under limited conditions, any
limited plan to use trenching and large-scale land application
of sludge should Include careful monitoring.
State of Development. Research Is continuing to date on this method
of sludge disposal. Of particular concern Is the monitoring of heavy
metals from the sludge Into the underlying sol Is and groundwater.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. Data can be expected to be
aval liable wl thin three years that would aid In the permitting of sludge
application to land sites. No formal decision procedure, however, Is
planned as an output of this research.
jCey Publ I cat ions;
1. Epstein, E., J.M. Taylor, and R.L. Chaney.
and sludge compost applied to soil on
chemical properties. J. Environmental
Oct.-Dec. 1976.
Effects of sewage sludge
some soil physical and
Quality, Vol. 5, No. V
2. Walker, J.M., W.D. Burge, R.L. Chaney, E. Epstein, and J.D. Menzles.
Trench Incorporation of sewage sludge In marginal agricultural
land. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-75-03^4,
Sept. 1975.
B-16
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation:
Dr. Grahame J. Farquhar
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
• University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario
Canada N2L 3G1
Phone: 519-885-1211
Types of Procedures:
Models/Simulation
Empirical Data, and Laboratory and Field Investigations
Discussion;
Approach Taken. Dr. Farquhar has authored and coauthored (primarily
with Mr. F. Rovers) numerous papers relative to the attenuation of landfill
leachate and Industrial waste through soil columns, landfill leachate
and gas generation and characterization, and methodologies for landfill
leachate treatment. The approach taken In his Investigations relative
to leachate generation and attenuation shows the following evolutionary
process:
1. Initial laboratory Investigations to evaluate leachate flow and
attenuation through soil columns.
2. Field investigations relative to leachate concentration and
attenuation with distance and texture of deposits down
gradient from actual landfill sites.
3. Development of a three-dimensional finite element model for the
prediction of leachate concentration at given points down
gradient from a landfill.
The series of landfill studies conducted to date has cost approximately
$250,000. Dr. Farquhar is particularly Interested In waste interactions
and in the development of adsorption Isotherms, assessment of biological
activities, and physical chemical reactions. The approaches taken include
the following:
1. Research to measure and predict contaminant removal from soil by
passage of leachate applied by batch dispersal methods on both
B-17
-------
disturbed and undisturbed soil columns. A range of soil types
were investigated under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions,
and the soils were described in terms of grain size, ion
exchange capacity, organic carbon content, and resident ion
distribution both before and following exposure to leachate.
2. Investigation of the use of dispersed soil experiments for
examining soil contaminant interactions.
3. Evaluation of the attenuation of two liquid industrial wastes
and soil columns typical of the environment in Ontario, Canada.
k. An assessment of leachate production, characteristics, migration
into the environment, control and treatment based upon analysis
of actual field case histories and certain laboratory procedures.
5. An assessment of the effect of the season on landfill leachate
and gas production.
6. Development of guidelines for landfill location and management
for water pollution control.
7. An assessment of the state of the art of groundwater contaminant
model ing.
8. Continued evaluation of landfill leachate monitoring data generated
at existing sites.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Significant results and conclusions
from the numerous investigations conducted have been arrived at to date.
These are as follows:
1. Dilution is an important mechanism of attenuation for all of the
liquid waste contaminants in the two industrial wastes studied
(steel plant liquors and alkaline cleansing wastes).
2. Desorption was exhibited by all contaminants studied and was most
prominant for those which were attenuated primarily by the
mechanism of. dilution.
3. Attenuation data collected from the dispersed soil experimentations
can be used to project soil water concentrations in a field situation
by the use of a correction factor; however, this was not determined
during the project.
^. The zone of influence of the disposal operation is closely related
to the waste loading.
B-18
-------
5. A soil/waste Interaction matrix (see Dr. C.R. Phillips) was
developed during the course of the contaminant attenuation in
disperse soil Investigations.
6. It was observed that the remolded soils provided more
attenuation by dilution than did the undisturbed soils.
7. Removal Isotherms constructed from the dispersed soil studies
can be used to predict the breakthrough curves for some
contaminants resulting from remolded soil column experiments.
8. The types and amounts of chemicals leached from refuse were
sufficient to create a serious pollution hazard to groundwaters
In a proximity of landfill sites.
9. Definitive conclusions can be drawn for gas and leachate
production relative to seasonal climatic changes.
10. Once refuse attains a moisture content equal to field capacity,
leachate production becomes equivalent to the net Infiltration.
11. The yearly dissolved and suspended contaminant load discharge
to the environment by a landfill is significantly less than that
of a pollution controlled plan where both serve the same
population.
12. The major factors affecting leachate composition and strength
are refuse composition, rate of Infiltration, and site age.
13. Most inorganics disposed of In a landfill will apparently be
leached to the environment eventually.
lA. A growing body of Information exists on the field assessment of
leachate contaminant attenuation under a variety of conditions.
15. Existing data show that, with intergranular flow, leachate
attenuation Is significant for fine grain soils.
16. Waste disposal sites should be located and designed In a manner
that takes advantage of natural processes to minimize problems
with water pollution control.
In addition, some direct personal conclusions have been derived as
fo11ows:
1. Before any meaningful prediction can be made, there Is a need
to define the hydrogeologlc system, the fluid flux through that
B-19
-------
system, and the contaminant flux which Is a waste
characterization and waste Interaction.
2. To date, the most definitive approach will be to develop models
for the fluid flux and contaminant soil Interactions for the
prediction of pollution concentration at a given point down
gradient from a disposal site.
S^tate of Development. A large empirical data base has been
developed from both laboratory and field Investigations which would
serve as a useful decision procedure for new waste disposal operations
by comparison with existing operations and their documented degree of
attenuation. The three-dimensional model mentioned above Is currently
under development and will not be calibrated, tested, verified and made
available for use for a period of approximately three years.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. It Is proposed that the
empirical data developed to date, coupled with a hydrologic site
investigation and monitoring data of a geologically similar site,
could be used now to predict the contaminant migration from a proposed
disposal site. The matrix development, testing, verification, and
actual use can be expected to be on line within three years.
Key Publ Icatlons:
1. Farquhar, G.J. Contaminant movement from a landfill. Presented at
the Ontario Pollution Control Association Meeting, Brampton,
March 1973.
2. Farquhar, G.J. and F.A. Rovers. Landfill contaminant flux - surface
and subsurface behaviour. 21st Industrial Waste Conference,
MOE, June
3. Farquhar, G.J. Research In Canada on .groundwater contamination
from waste disposal In soil. Presented at the London Geological
Society, Feb. 1976.
A. Farquhar, G.J. Experimental determination of leachate contaminant
attenuation In soils. Presented at Eldgenoss ische Technlsche
Hochschulen, EAWAG, Zurich, Switzerland, April 1976.
5. Farquhar, G.J. and F.A. Rovers. Evaluation of contaminant
attenuation In the soil to improve sanitary landfill
selection and design. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Land for Waste Management, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, Oct. 1-3, 1973.
B-20
-------
6. Farquhar, G.J. and P.M. Huck. Water quality modelling using the
Box-Jenkins method. Journal of Environmental Engineering
Division, 100, EE3, June 197*».
7. Farquhar, G.J. and F.A. Rovers. Leachate attenuation In
undisturbed and remoulded soil. _l_n_ proceedings of
Symposium on Leachate and Gas Production, Rutgers Univ.,
Cook College, New Brunswick, N.J., March 1975.
8. Farquhar, G.J., H.M. Hill, and R.N. Farvolden. Phase I report,
sanitary landfill study. Ontario Department of Health and the
Grand River Conservation Authority, IRI Project 8083, March
1970.
9. Farquhar, G.J., H.M. Hill, and R.N. Farvolden. Phase II report,
Sanitary landfill study. Ontario Department of Health and the
Grand River Conservation Authority, IRI Project 8083, March
1971.
10. Farquhar, G.J. and F.A. Rovers. Sanitary landfill study final
report, vol. I, field studies on groundwater contamination.
Ontario Department of Health and the Grand River Conservation
Authority, Waterloo Research Institute Project 8083, Oct. 1972.
11. Farquhar, G.J. and F.A. Rovers. Sanitary landfill study final
report, vol. II, effect of season on landfill leachate and
gas production. Ontario Department of Health and the Grand
River Conservation Authority, Waterloo Research Institute
Project 8083, Oct. 1972.
12. Farquhar, G.J. and F.A. Rovers. Monitoring contaminants from a
landfill, study plan. Canada-Ontario Committee, Canada-U.S.
Agreement, March 197^.
13. Farquhar, G.J. and W. Seltz. Sanitary landfill study, volume III,
A mapping technique for landfill location. Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, April 1975.
^k. Farquhar, G.J. and F.A. Rovers. Sanitary landfill study, volume IV,
Guidelines to landfill location and management for water pollution
control. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, April 1975.
15. Farquhar, G.J. Liquid industrial waste attenuation in the soil.
Waste Management Branch, Environmental Protection Service,
Environment Canada, May 1975.
B-21
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Aff 1 Nation
Dr. Allen Freeze
® University of British Columbia
Department of Geological Science
Vancouver, British Columbia
Phone: 60^-228-6462
Type of Procedure;
Groundwater Modeling
Discuss ion;
»
Approach Taken. In a telephone conversation with Dr. Freeze, it
became apparent that his work Is entirely concerned with the sophisticated
quantitative modeling of groundwater movement. Dr. Freeze is of the
opinion that efforts to adequately model changes In groundwater quantity
are unlikely to prove useful given the present state of the art.
B-22
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Wallace H. Fuller
® University of Arizona
Department of Soils, Water
and Engineering
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Type of Procedure;
Criteria Listing
Discussion;
Approach Taken. Dr. W.H. Fuller is studying factors which attenuate
contaminants in leachates from municipal solid waste landfills. Although
the work is associated with municipal waste, the impact of co-disposal of
municipal and hazardous waste was also considered. This project emphasizes
the influences of soil and contaminant properties on constituent migration
and attenuation.
The project is concerned with contaminants normally present in
leachates from municipal landfills and with contaminants that are introduced
or increased in concentration by co-disposal of hazardous wastes. These
contaminants are: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide,
iron, mercury, lead, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc. Eleven soils
representing seven major orders were collected and used in this study.
A landfill leachate was continuously flushed through a column of
soil, and the effluent from the soil was evaluated. Two types of variables
were considered for regression analysis of the results: (l) those
representing soil properties—clay, sand, percent of free iron oxide,
surface area, total manganese, pH, and electrical conductivity of the
saturated extract; and (2) those measurements characterizing the migration
and/or attenuation of the trace metals (mass absorbed per gram of soil
per ml of added leachate). A mass balance for each soil column was
calculated from daily measurement of the effluent from the soil and input
at the soi1 surface.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Based on the data analysis completed
to date, Dr. Fuller has concluded that clay content, surface area of soil,
and content of hydrous oxides (free iron) and free lime will be the soil
properties most useful in selecting safe disposal sites for municipal
B-23
-------
and hazardous waste. Data suggested that the use of clay, lime, and
iron oxides should be examined as practical management tools for
minimizing the movement of contaminants from landfills.
State of Development. The project is nearing completion, and the
data base and regression equations should be available for use within
three years. However, the application of this data to other leachates
and soils has not been tested.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. A more thorough validation of
the procedure must be performed before wide use is made of the procedure.
Key Pub!ications:
1. Fuller, W.H. Some microbiological transformations in soil. Proc.
of Agr. and Pollut. Seminar, U of A Engr. Exp. Sta. EES
Series Rep. 35, 1971. 60 p.
2. Amoozegar-Fard, A., W.H. Fuller, and A.W. Warrick. Migration of
salt from feedlot waste as affected by moisture regime and
aggregate size. J. Environ. Qual., 4:468-^72, 1975.
3. Korte, N.E.,-J.M. Skopp, E.E. Niebla, and W.H. Fuller. A baseline
study of trace metal elution from diverse soil types. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollu.. 5:1^9-156, 1975.
A. Marion, G.M., D.M. Hendricks, G.R. Dutt, and W.H. Fuller. Aluminum
and silica solubility in soils. Soil Sci.. 121:(2)76-85, 1976.
5. Alesii, B.A. and W.H. Fuller. The mobility of three cyanide forms
in soils. In Residual Management by Land Disposal. Proceedings
of the Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, February 2-^, 1976.
Tucson, Arizona. W.H. Fuller, ed. EPA-600/9-76-015, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 280 p.
6. Fuller, W.H. and N. Korte. Attenuation mechanisms of pollutants
through soils. j_n_ Gas and Leachate from Landfills, Formation,
Collection and Treatment. Proceedings of a research symposium,
March 25-26, 1975, New Brunswick, New Jersey. E.J. Genetel1i
and J. Cirello, eds. EPA-600/9~76-OOif, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 196 p.
7. Fuller, W.H., C. McCarthy, B.A. Alesii, and E. Niebla. Liners for
disposal sites to retard migration of pollutants. In Residual
Management by Land Disposal. Proceedings of the Hazardous
Waste Research Symposium, February 2-4, 1976, Tucson, Arizona.
W.H. Fuller, ed. EPA-600/9-76-015, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 280 p.
-------
8. Korte, N.E., W.H. Fuller, E.E. Niebla, J. Skopp, and B.A. Alesii.
Trace element migration in soils: desorption of attenuated
ions and effects of solution flux. J_n_ Residual Management by
Land Disposal. Proceedings of the Hazardous Waste Research
Symposium, February 2-4, 1976, Tucson, Arizona. W.H. Fuller,
ed. EPA-600/9-76-015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 280 p.
9. Fuller, W.H., ed. Residual management by land disposal. Proceedings
of the Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, February 2-4, 1976,
Tucson, Arizona. EPA-600/9-76-015, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 280 p.
10. Fuller, W.H., N.E. Korte, E.E. Niebla, and B.A. Alesii. Contribution
of the soil to the migration of certain common and trace elements.
Soil Science. 122(4):223-235, 1976.
B-25
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
James P. Gibb
Associate Engineer
© Illinois State Water Survey
Water Resources Building
605 East Springfield, IL
Phone: 217-333-0236
Type of Procedure;
Research into investigative and monitoring techniques for identifying
leachate from surficial toxic waste sites.
PIscuss ion:
Approach Taken. The vertical and horizontal migration patterns of
zinc, cadmium, copper, and lead through the soil and shallow aquifer
systems at two secondary zinc smelters were identified through the use
of soil-coring and monitoring-wel1 techniques. The vertical migration
of these elements at a third zinc smelter was also defined. The
migration of metals that occurred at the three smelters has been limited
to relatively shallow depths into the soil profile by attenuation
processes.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Cation exchange and precipitation of
insoluble metal compounds, as a result of pH changes in the infiltrating
solution, were determined to be the principal mechanisms controlling
the movement of the metals through the soil. Increased metals content
in the shallow groundwater system has been confined to the immediate
plant sites. At a fourth site, it appeared that the glacial materials
were retarding the migration of organic pollutants. Problems associated
with sampling and analyses for chlorinated hydrocarbon waste products
prohibited further definition of the effectiveness of the soils in
retaining the pollutants from this site. No detectable organic pollutants
were found in the shallow groundwater system.
Soil coring was determined to be an effective investigative tool,
but was not suitable by itself for routine monitoring of waste disposal
activities. However, it should be used to gather preliminary information
in determining the proper horizontal and vertical locations for monitoring
well design. The analysis of water samples collected in this project
generally did not provide a stable reproducible pattern of results. This
B-26
-------
indicates the need for development of sampling techniques to obtain
representative water samples. The failure of some well seals in a highly
polluted environment also indicates the need for additional research in
monitoring well construction.
Key Pub!icat ion;
1. Gibb, J.P., K. Cartwright, D. Lindorff, and A. Hartley. Field
verification of toxic waste renovation by soils at disposal
sites. EPA Grant No. R 803216-01-3 (unpublished report).
B-27
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Eugene Glysson, P.E.
Professor, Civil Engineering
® University of Michigan
Civil Engineering Department
Ann Arbor, Michigan 18109
Phone: 313-76^-9^12
Type of Procedure:
Non-procedure Engineering Evaluation
Discussion:
Approach Taken. Dr. Glysson is one of many experts in the field that
does not rely on specific procedures; instead, he evaluates disposal sites
through the use of engineering concepts/judgments. He feels that if all
waste/site elements were put into a list of criteria, this list would be
of help to those people making these decisions.
B-28
-------
CONTACT FORM
Persons Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. R.A. Griffin
Assistant Geochemist
Dr. N.F. Shimp
Principal Chemist
Dr. K. Cartwright
Geologist
• Illinois Geological Survey
Natural Resource Building
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Phone: 217-333-2210
Types of Procedures;
Laboratory Simulation
Criteria Ranking
Discussion;
Approach Taken. In general, the approach is derived entirely from a
column leaching study with some supporting field verification. The
leachate was taken from the 15-year old DuPage County Sanitary Landfill.
Chemical characteristics are shown in Table B-1.
Treated clay minerals (montmori1lonite, illite, kaolinite) formed
the soil medium through which the "standard" leachate was run for periods
of up to 10 months. Effluents were collected periodically throughout
this period and were analyzed for 16 chemical constituents. The column
contents were then cut into sections and analyzed to determine the
vertical distribution of chemical constituents in each column. A general
table of attenuation levels is suggested by the study.
The results of the tests were analyzed to determine the mechanisms
of attenuation. By the use of various statistical methods comparing the
results of the analysis through three different clays, it was concluded
that the four chemical constituents with the highest ATN ranking (lead,
zinc, cadmium, mercury) were in fact attenuated by a precipitation
mechanism. Table B-2 identifies the attenuation mechanisms.
B-29
-------
TABLE B-1
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFILL LEACHATES
Component
Range of Al1
Values Given
by Garland and
Mosher (1975)
mg/L
Du Page Leachate Used
in Column Study
Chemical oxygen demand
(COD)
Biological oxygen demand
(BOD)
Total organic carbon
Organic acids
Carbonyls as acetophenone
Carbohydrates as dextrose
PH
Eh (oxidation potential) (mv)
Total dissolved solids
Electrical conductivity
(mmhos/cm)
Alkalinity (CaCO )
Hardness (CaCO )
Total phosphorus
Ortho-phosphate
NH,-nitrogen
NO_+N02-nitrogen
kO - 89,520
9 - 5^,610
256 - 28,000
~
-
-
A -
-
0 ,-
3 -
0 -
0 -
o -
6 -
0 -
0 -
9
^2,276
17
20,850
22,800
•ISA
85
1,106
1,300
333.
57.6
12.
6.9
+7.
5,120
10.20
•
-
0.1
-
862.
-
290.
90.
11.
7.
+75.
5,280
10.
-
-
0.
-
773.
-
1
2
1*2
1
B-30
-------
TABLE B-1
(cont inued)
Component
Range
Values
by Garl
Mosher
of Al 1
Given
and and
(1975)
mg/L
Al uminum
Arseni c
Boron
Calci um
Chloride
Sod i um
Potass i um
Sulfate
Manganese
Magnesi um
Iron
Chromi um
Mercury
Nickel
S i 1 i con
Zi nc
Copper
Cadmi um
Lead
—
-
-
5 -
34 -
0 -
3 -
1 -
0 -
16 -
0 -
-
-
-
-
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
4,080
2,800
7,700
3,770
1,826
1,400
15,600
5,500
1,000
10
17
5
Du Page Leachate Used
In Column Study
mg/L
Natural
0.1
0.11
29.9
46.8
3,484.
748.
501.
0.01
0.01
233.
4.2
0.1
0.0008
0.3
14.9
18.8
0.1
1.95
4.46
Steri le
0.1
0.14
28.5
43.2
3,311.
744.
491.
0.01
0.1
230.
3.0
0.1
0.87*
0.3
15.0
16.3
0.1
1.88
4.26
*Added as a result of sterilization maintenance.
B-31
-------
TABLE B-2
RANK OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN MUNICIPAL LEACHATE
ACCORDING TO RELATIVE MOBILITY
THROUGH CLAY MINERAL COLUMNS
Chemical
Const i tuent
Pd
Zn
Cd
Hg
Fe
Si
K
NH/,
Mg
COD
Na
Cl
B
Mn
Ca
Mean
Attenuat ion
Number
99.8
97.2
97.0
96.8
58.
38!
37.
29.3
21.
15.
10.
-11
-95-4
-656.7
dual i tat ive
Group!ng
High
Moderate
Low
Negat i ve
(elut ion)
Principal
Attenuat ion
Mechanism
Precipi tat ion/exchange
Precipi tat ion/exchange
Precipi tat ion/exchange
Precipitat ion/exchange
Anaerobic reduction
Cation exchange
Cation exchange
Cation exchange
Microbial degradation
Cation exchange
Dispers ion
Artifact
Elution from clay
Desorbed from clay
B-32
-------
However, in discussions with Keros, Cartwright, and Bob Griffin, the
point was made that the exchange mechanism can only be considered a
long-term storage system since adsorption and desorption are taking place
continuously.
A significant determinant of exchangeability is the sorption isotherm
for the particular material. For any given solution, sorption may be
expressed as the ratio of the quantity of material sorbed to the equilibrium
concentration of the material:
Sorption =
.1 ,.
Equilibrium concentration
A complete isotherm is a curve representing this ratio for a variety
of equilibrium concentrations (at fixed temperatures and pH conditions).
In general, adsorption of the cationic heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu,
and Cr+3) was found to increase as the pH increased. Adsorption of the
anionic heavy metals (Cr+6, As, and Se) decreased as the pH increased.
It was concluded that removal of the heavy metal cations from
solution is primarily a cation-exchange adsorption phenomenon that is
affected by pH and ionic competition.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Griffin has developed a pollution
hazard factor which uses the ATM number generated by the column tests.
To overcome objection to a formula developed by EPA for determination
of a pollution hazard index for municipal leachates, the ranking equation
was changed to read as follows:
R = (Q) (HI)
where R and Q. are as previously defined and HI is the pollution hazard
index for the waste. The pollution hazard index (HI) is a toxicity
index for the element within a given leachate, multiplied by a mobility
index for the element in a particular leachate-clay system.
The pollution hazard for the whole leachate is that for the
constituent with the highest hazard within the particular leachate.
HI = (jjgg-) (100 - ATM)
where:
e
C = The effective concentration of the chemical constituent.
DWS = The drinking water standard (U.S. EPA, 1973b).
ATN = the attenuation number for the given element.
B-33
-------
The effective concentration is defined as the concentration of the
chemical constituent in the leachate plus the concentration of the
constituent that may be leached from the soil or clay. When attenuation
is occurring, the effective concentration is merely the concentration of
the constituent in the influent leachate. When elution from the columns
is occurring, as it did for the three elements B, Ca, and MM, the
effective concentration is the leachate concentration plus the
concentration eluted from the column.
State of Development. The proposed system of ranking pollution
hazards in municipalleachates overcomes the objections posed for the
CP component of the Priority Ranking System. The toxicity index can,
in most cases, be readily computed from a chemical analysis of the
leachate.
The evaluation of the toxicity index is flexible in that drinking
water standards need not be the criteria. L^Q (lethal dose of 50
percent of the population) values, or some other toxicity evaluation, can
be used in place of drinking water standards. What is important is the
computation of the ratio of the actual waste concentration relative to
whichever toxicity evaluator is used. The mobility index, however, must
be determined experimentally or be estimated from the data presented in
the paper. The results of this study indicate that the mobility index
will be function of: the CEC of the earth material, the cations initially
present on the exchange complex, the chemical composition of the leachate,
and the pH of the leachate.
Ultimately, the value of this or any other procedure rests entirely
on the accuracy of the analytical procedure used. In the case of Griffin's
work, long-term column tests were used. Shaker tests and TLC methods
have also been used, but no specific standard method has evolved. There
seem to be limitations in the use of each method depending upon the nature
of the leached material under test.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. There is no further specific
development of the formula presently contemplated, although further
research into attenuation (or retardation) mechanisms continues.
Key Publ icat!ons_;
1. Griffin, R.A. and R.G. Burau. Kinetic and equilibrium studies of
boron desorption from soil. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings, v. 38, 197^. p. 892-897.
2. Griffin, R.A. and N.F. Shimp. Attenuation of pollutants in municipal
landfill leachate by clay minerals. Final report for contract
68-03-0211, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1976.
-------
3. Griffin, R.A., K. Cartwright, N.F. Shimp, J.D. Steele, R.R. Ruch, W.A.
White, G.M. Hughes, and R,H. Gilkeson. Attenuation of pollutants
in municipal landfill leachate by clay minerals, part 1-column
leaching and field verification. Illinois State Geological Survey.
Environmental Geology Note 78, 1976. 3** p.
k. Griffin, R.A., R.R. Frost, A.K. Au, G.D. Robinson, and N.F. Shimp.
Attenuation of pollutants in municipal landfill leachate by clay
minerals, part 2-heavy-metal adsorption. Illinois State
Geological Survey, Environmental Geology Note 79, April 1977.
B-35
-------
CONTENT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. D. Joseph Hagerty
Associate Professor
© University of Louisville
Department of Civil Engineering
Louisville, Kentucky 40208
Phone: 502-588-6276
Type of Procedure
Criteria Ranking
D? scussion:
Approach Taken. The criteria ranking procedure developed by Pavoni,
Hagerty, and Lee in 1971-1972 was intended to serve as a decision making
tool to determine:
1. The hazardousness of various waste substances.
2. The suitability of various land sites to contain waste substances.
3. The feasibility of disposing of a waste substance at a specific
si te.
The development of this procedure was undertaken as a master's thesis
by Robert E. Lee from September 1971 to May 1972 and was not funded.
The procedure basically encompasses two ranking formulas: one for
waste products, and one for landfill sites. The waste ranking consists
of five quantified parameters: human toxicity, groundwater toxicity,
disease transmission potential, biological persistence, and waste mobility.
The total waste ranking is correlated with the hazardousness of wastes
as follows:
Rank Haza rdousness
0-30 Nonhazardous
31 - 60 Slightly hazardous
61 - 80 Moderately hazardous
> 80 Hazardous
B-36
-------
The site ranking consists of ten qualified parameters: infiltration
potential, bottom leakage potential, organic content, filtering capacity,
adsorptive capacity, buffering capacity, potential travel distance,
groundwater velocity, prevailing wind direction, and population factor.
Again, the total site ranking is correlated with the suitability of the
site for waste disposal.
Results/Conclusions to Date. The ranking system developed was
intended to serve as a first step in waste and site evaluation which
would be verified and upgraded by others. Unfortunately, that was not
the case.
Hagerty's major comment with regard to the Decision Procedures study
was that it would be a major mistake to publish a "cookbook" on site
evaluation and/or selection. His suggested approach was:
1. Planning should be conducted initially to determine, In general,
what areas of a state or region are amenable to waste disposal.
This general planning could be done with a crude approach similar
to LeGrand's.
2. Wastes should be classified with a system similar to that used
in California or the waste ranking developed by Pavoni, Hagerty,
and Lee. This would enable planners to develop site-waste
match-ups, i.e., which wastes could be deposited in what
general areas.
3. When two or three specific sites are chosen from a general area,
then a more-sophisticated, site-evaluation approach is needed
in which competent soiIs-hydrogeologist professionals must be
involved.
Hagerty's comments of Phillips' work are as follows:
1. The chemical persistence factor is really biological in nature,
and should be combined with the biological persistence factor
or be omitted.
2. Chemical persistence is also related to the leachate flushing
characteristics of the site.
3. Weighting of groundwater gradient toward an existing water
supply is a bad assumption.
4. The viscosity factor is not important and should be omitted.
5. The pH factor is debatable. It depends to a large extent on
flow and soils characteristics of site. Decrease in importance
or omi t.
B-37
-------
6. The waste application rate should be related to infiltration
characteristics of the site, since acceptable "rates" could
vary drastically from site to site.
7. Hagerty disagrees with Phillips' comment that ranking sites is
more difficult than ranking wastes. He feels just the opposite.
8. Any site or waste rankings should be multiplied (not summed) to
emphasize poor rankings.
9. Disease transmission is weighted too low in Phillips' approach.
10. Phillips' soil-site approach is over simplified and, in some
cases, is incorrect. Approach is qualitative and broad-brush.
It neglects important factors such as containment layer thickness
and incorrectly defines clay as an unconsolidated granular
material.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. Could be available within 3
years with testing and validation.
Key Publications;
1. Pavoni, J.L., D.J. Hagerty, and R.E. Lee. Environmental Impact
evaluation of hazardous waste disposal in land. Water Resources
Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 6, Dec. 1972.
2. Hagerty, D.J., J.L. Pavoni, and J.E. Heer, Jr. Solid waste management.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1973.
B-38
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Robert K. Ham
Associate Professor of Civil
and Environmental Engineering
• University of Wisconsin
3232 Engineering Building
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Phone: 608-262-1776
Type of Procedure;
Development of a Standard Leaching Test
Discussion;
Approach Taken. Under contract to the Environmental Protection
Agency, Dr. Ham is engaged in the development of a Standard Leaching
Test which could be used to predict the leachate from any known waste.
A wide variety of complex wastes is being tested, including milled
refuse, paint sludge, paper mill sludge, fly ash, wastewater treatment
sludge, and copper oxide/sodium sulfate slurry. The aim is to develop
a laboratory procedure which would be standard repeatable and be
applicable for a variety of waste types not specifically limited to
hazardous wastes.
This "leach test" should not be confused with leachate tests which
are typically laboratory procedures used to determine changes in
leachate concentration after passage through a soil column.
Results/Conclusions to Date. The results and conclusions are not
avallable at this time.
Key Publications;
1. Ham, R.K. and R. Karnauskas. Leachate production from milled and
unprocessed refuse. ISWA Bulletin No. 1V15:3~16, Dec. 197^.
2. Reinhardt, J.J. and R.K. Ham. Final report on a demonstration
project at Madison, V/isconsin to investigate milling of
solid wastes between 1966 and 1972 - vol. 1. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1973. p. 48-63.
B-39
-------
3. Ham, R.K. The generation, movement and attenuation of leachates from
solid waste land disposal sites. Waste Age, June 1975.
B-l»0
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation:
Mr. M.J. Houle
Research Scientist
O Department of the Army
Dugway Proving Ground
Dugway, Utah 8A022
Phone: 801-522-5^17
Type of Procedure;
Laboratory Simulation
Discussion:
Approach Taken. Experimental evaluation of leachate composition
from various industrial wastes and of the movement of these leachates
through selected soils is being conducted. The data being collected
will be used as a data base to develop mathematical models or decision
tools.
The potential increase in hazard resulting from the co-disposal of
industrial wastes with municipal refuse was tested using wastes from
several different industries, namely, electroplating waste, inorganic
pigment waste, and nickel-cadmium battery production waste. Known
weights of each waste were mixed with municipal landfill leachate and
water. The samples were extracted for 2k and 72 hours, filtered, and
the filtrates were analyzed for cadmium, chromium, copper, and nickel by
atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The wastes were recovered, mixed
with fresh aliquots of municipal landfill leachate or water, and were
re-extracted. This serial batch extraction was carried out seven times.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Results of this study show that the
migration of hazardous materials in soils Is largely controlled by the
physical and chemical composition of the soil. However, differences in
waste composition cause large differences in the migration of specific
elements or compounds through soils. This is demonstrated by comparing
the migration of cadmium from four different industrial wastes through
one soil type. The wastes were: nickel-cadmium battery, electrical
plating, water-base paint, and inorganic pigment waste. The
distribution of cadmium in the soil was related to differences In the
water.
-------
The concentrations of cadmium, cooper, and nickel in the municipal
landfill leachate extracts were much higher than was found in water
extracts. Depending on the waste, metal, and extraction number, the
increase in solubi1ization of the metals by the municipal landfill leachate
ranged from approximately 100 to 3,000 times higher than with water.
Chromium was the only exception. The concentration of Cr metal in both
solvent extracts was approximately the same (or slightly greater in the
water extracts). These findings dramatically demonstrate the potential
hazard that may result from the disposal of certain industrial wastes
together with municipal refuse. This raises the serious question as
to the advisability of co-disposal in general.
State of Development. The results of this study give insight into
waste leachate composition and the importance of this composition on
the mobility of a given constituent in the waste. These experiments
have been underway for a short period of time, and the data have not
been analyzed or used to develop regression equations to define the
mobility and attenuation of given waste constituents.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. The results of these
experiments are at least 5 to 10 years away from being used for management
decisions involving waste and site selection.
Key Pub!ication:
1. Houle, M.J., D. Long, R. Bell, J. Soyland, and R. Grabbe. Effect
of municipal landfill leachate on the release of toxic metals
from industrial wastes. Chemical Laboratory Division, U.S.
Army Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah.
-------
CONTACT FORM
Persons Contacted and Affiliation:
Dr. Lenny Konikow
Mr. David Grove
• U.S. Geological Survey
Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 250^*6
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Phone:
Type of Procedure;
Models/Simulation
Discussion;
Approach Taken. Lenny Konikow has been involved with solute
transport modeling for the U.S.G.S. for the last three years. His
modeling work is based mainly on the logic developed by Pinder and
Bredehoeft (1968).
Like Pinder, he is chiefly concerned with the solution of: (l) the
equation of flow; and (2) the solute-transport equation.
Flow Equation. By following the derivation of Pinder and
Bredehoeft (1968), the equation describing the transient two-dimensional
flow of a homogeneous compressible fluid through a non-homogeneous
anisotropic aquifer may be written in cartesian tensor notation as:
3 (T 9h ) = s j^ + w (x t)j --12
where:
TJ: = is the transmissivity tensor, L /T;
h = is the hydraulic head in the aquifer, L;
S = is the storage coefficient, L^;
t = is the time, T; and
W = is the volume flux per unit area, L/T.*
Solute Transport Equation. The equation used to describe the
two-dimensional transport and dispersion of a given dissolved chemical
*See Key Publication for complete discussion.
-------
species in flowing groundwater was derived by Reddel1 and Sunada (1970),
Bear (1972), and Bredehoeft and Pinder (1973), and may be written as:
|£. * (D.. |L-) - -L. (C V.) - SiSU ZR. i,j = 1,2
3t dx. ij 3x. 3x. i nb k >J '
J ' i/—i
where: K~'
C = is the concentration of the dissolved chemical species,
D.. = is the dispersion tensor, L^/T;
b = is the saturated thickness of the aquifer, L;
C1 = is the concentration of the dissolved chemical in a source or
sink fluid, M/1.3; and
R|< = is the rate of production of the chemical species in reaction
k of s different reactions, M/L3T.*
Methods of Solving These Equations. Three general classes of
numerical methods have been used to solve the solute-transport equation:
finite-difference methods, finite-element methods, and the method of
characteristics. Each method has some advantages, disadvantages, and
special limitations for applications to field problems. Each method also
requires that the area of interest be subdivided by a grid into a number
of smaller subareas.
The method of characteristics was orginally developed to solve
hyperbolic equations. If solute-transport is dominated by convective
transport, as is common in many field problems, then this equation may
closely approximate a hyperbolic equation and be highly compatible with
the method of characteristics. Although it is difficult to present a
rigorous mathematical proof for this numerical scheme, it has been
successfully applied to a variety of field problems. The development
and application of this technique to problems of flow through porous
media have been presented by Carder and others (196A), Pinder and Cooper
(1970), Reddel 1 and Sunada (1970), and Bredehoeft and Pinder (1973).
The numerical solution is achieved by introducing a set of moving
points that are traced with reference to the stationary co-ordinates of
a finite-difference grid. Each point has a concentration associated with
it and is moved through the flow field in proportion to the flow velocity
at its location. The moving points simulate convective transport because
the concentration at each node of the grid changes as different points
enter and leave its area of influence. The additional change in concentration
*0p. Cit.
B-Mt
-------
due to dispersion, fluid sources, and chemical reactions is computed with
an explicit finite-difference equation. This method has generally been
coupled with finite-difference solutions to the flow equations. Because
the movement of points is analogous to the flow of small volumes of water,
it is relatively easy to visualize the relation of the model to the field
problem.
Finite-difference methods solve an equation that is approximately
equivalent to the partial differential equation. Problems of numerical
dispersion, overshoot, and undershoot may induce significant errors for
some problems; however, these problems can be solved by selecting
proper finite-difference grid sizes to satisfy the convergence criteria.
In general, the finite-difference methods are the simplest mathematically
and the easiest to program for a digital computer. Lantz and others (1976)
describe a three-dimensional, transient, finite-difference model that
simultaneously solves the pressure, energy, and mass-transport equations.
Finite-element methods use assumed functions of the dependent
variables and parameters to evaluate equivalent integral formulations of
the partial differential equations. Recent articles by Pinder (1973),
Segol and Pinder (1976), and Gupta and others (1975) have indicated that
Galerkin's procedure is well suited to solve solute-transport problems.
These methods generally require the use of more sophisticated mathematics
than the previous two methods, but for many problems may be more accurate
numerically and more efficient computationally than the other two
methods. A major advantage of the finite-element methods is the
flexibility of the finite-element grid, which allows a close spatial
approximation of irregular boundaries of parameter zones. However, Gupta
and others (1975) report that, in problems dominated by convection, the
finite-element methods may also have difficulties.
The selection of a numerical method for a particular problem depends
on several factors, such as accuracy, efficiency/cost, and usability.
The first two factors are related primarily to the nature of the field
problem, availability of data, and scope or intensity of the investigation.
A trade-off between accuracy and cost is frequently required. The
usability of a method may depend more on the availability of a documented
program and on the mathematical background of the modeler. Greater
efficiency is usually attainable if the modeler can modify a selected
program for adaption to the specific field problem of interest."
Results/Conclusions to Date. One of the most impressive features
of the work Konikow has been doing is the number of practical field
applications of his model. The two most significant are the Arkansas
River Valley and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. More recently, the model
was applied to a brine disposal problem in Indiana.
^Substantial portions of this discussion have been excerpted from the
Key Publication.
-------
In each case, the movement of conservative chlorides has been very
accurately modeled. The model generates isopleths of dissolved-solids
concentration over time, and these compare very closely with monitored
data in both studies.
Unfortunately, in spite of the accuracy of this type of modeling,
there are at least two major drawbacks: (1) extensive data needs; and
(2) only conservative species in the saturated environment area are
modeled. The former of these drawbacks is difficult to analyze since
many such models are set so that extensive data needs seem to follow
automatically.
There is much discussion in the U.S.G.S. at present over the second
drawback of modeling, and an effort is currently under way to model the
interactive processes attendant upon non-conservative solute-transport.
State of Development. The model is verified for conservative ions
only.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. Currently, the sophistication
of the modelfar exceeds the sophistication of the data available to run
it. This is true for conservative substances; for non-conservative
substances, the problems are greater.
As a decision procedure, development within a time frame of 10+ years
offers some promise.
Key Pub!Icatlon;
1. Konikow, L.F. Modeling chloride movement in the alluvial aquifer
at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 20kb, United States Government Printing
Office, Washington, 1977.
B-A6
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Donald Langmuir
Professor of Geochemistry
• Pennsylvania State University
235 B. Deike Building
University Park, PA 16802
Phone: 81^-865-1215
Type of Procedure;
Empirical Data
Discussion;
Approach Taken. Soils of loamy sand on weathered, sandy dolomite
were cored from 6 holes up to 70 feet beneath a municipal waste landfill
in Central Pennsylvania. Total and less than 15 m soil samples were
analyzed for Mn, Fe, Ni, Co, Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb, and Ag.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Soil extractable Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn
could be predicted from the Mn extracted. Based in part on factor
analysis of the data, Mn-rich oxides had at least 10-fold higher
heavy-metal percentages than Fe-rich oxides, thus reflecting their greater
co-precipitation potential. Because of this potential and because of the
generally higher solubility of Mn than Fe oxides, more heavy metals may
be released from Mn-rich than from Fe-rich soils by disposal of
organic-bearing waste. Leaching of the moisture-unsaturated soils in
situ, however, is rarely severe enough to completely dissolve both Mn
and Fe oxides. Based on the Mn content, Cd, Cu and Pb were depleted in
soil moisture beneath the landfill relative to their amount in the soil.
This depletion may reflect factors including: heterogeneity in metal
content of the soil oxides; preferential resorption of these metals;
and removal of the Cd, Cu and Pb as organic precipitates or as inorganic
precipitates such as carbonates.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. These empirical data will be
usefulin assessment of attenuation of metals from municipal landfill
leachate; however, no formal decision procedure process will result from
this and associated landfill research at Penn State.
-------
Key Publications;
1. Suarez, D.L. and D. Langmuir.
Pennsylvania soil. 1976.
PP. 589-598.
Heavy metal relationships in a
Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v.
2. Apgar, M.A. and D. Langmuir. Ground water pollution potential of a
landfill above the water table. Groundwater, v. 9, No. 6,
1971. p. 76-96. Proc. Natl. Ground Water Quality Symposium,
Denver, Colo., Aug. 25-27, 1971. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Ser. 16060, p. 76-96.
B-l»8
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Harry E. LeGrand Henry S. Brown
Hydrogeolegist
9 Private Consultant Geological Resources, Inc.
331 Yadkin Drive 1»00 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27609 Raleigh, N.C. 27605
Phone: 919-787-5855
Type of Procedure;
Criteria Ranking - Numerical Rating System, 1977
(Updates Point Count System, 196*0
Discussion;
Approach Taken. A Numerical Rating System has been established
(which replaces the 196^ Point Count System by LeGrand) which weighs
four geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics to evaluate the ground
water contamination potential from waste disposal sources and other
contamination sites at the land surface. The four factors are as
fo11ows:
1. Distance from a contamination source to the nearest well or
point of water use.
2. Depth to the water table.
3. Gradient of the water table.
*». Permeability and adsorption capacity of the subsurface materials.
(note that permeability and adsorption were separate factors in
the earlier point count system.)
The rating system was developed by assigning a 0 rating for the
least favorable setting for each factor and a 9 rating (5 in one case)
for the most favorable setting for each factor. For each site the
estimated numerical or point value for each of the four factors is
added and the total expressed is a number between 0 and 32 that
characterizes the site. A full presentation of this approach is given
in the section of "Criteria Ranking".
-------
Results/Conclusions to Date. The rating and expression of these key
characteristics is performed in five steps with the first four steps
involving the recording of estimated values for each of the four key
hydrogeological parameters and the fifth step that of adding the
separate point count values determined in the first four steps and
describing the site in relative descriptive terms on a scale from poor
to excellent. These descriptive terms are an expression of the site
hydrogeology relative to those conditions for all possible sites and do
not relate to a site in terms of these specific waste or contamination
characteristics.
Two apparent problems with the system are the need for good data
and the skill required to use the system.
State of Development. The Numerical Rating System has been
expanded from the earlier point count system to include a more refined
and detailed point value breakdown for the thickness of unconsolidated
material over bedrock in 10-foot increments from 0 to greater than 100
feet. Descriptive categories of very poor to poor, fair, good, very
good and excellent constitutes step 5 on a basis of the summation of the
point counts derived in the assessment of the four key factors described
above. Examples of the Numerical Rating System as applied to various
waste disposal site and wastes types are given. These waste types
include septic tank systems, sanitary landfills, surface impoundments,
spills and leaks, stock piles of highway salt, mining wastes, selected
burial grounds, pipe line and sewer line breaks, agricultural and
waste - broadcast operations and disposal through wells. These examples
include a numerical point count assessment of these types of facilities
in different hydrogeologic settings. It is noteworthy that a statement
is made that "the complexities of sanitary landfill requirements
emphasize that the total point value of a site may be only slightly
helpful and does not include specific information that is needed. The
sequential listing of the total value followed by the specific value for
each variable, however, indicates the positive and negative features,
as well as the compromises and trade-offs.
It must be emphasized that the Numerical Rating System is designed
to provide a quick, first-round approximation of all sites but is not
intended to be adequate or substitute for more advanced detailed
studies that may be required for certain critical contamination
potential situations. The rating system was developed to provide a
standardized method of evaluation of sites.
Aval lab?1ity as a Pollution Prediction Technique. This procedure
is available now for use in assessment of waste disposal situations.
B-50
-------
Key Publ i cations:
1. LeGrand, H.E. and Brown, H.S., Evaluation of ground water
contamination potential from waste disposal sources. Prepared
for Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, EPA, Washington,
D.C. Contract #68-01-M»05.
2. LeGrand, H.E. System for evaluation of contamination potential of
some waste disposal sites. Journal American Water Works
Association. 56(8): 959-97**, Aug.
3. LeGrand, H.E. Environmental framework of ground-water contamination.
Groundwater. 3(2): 11-15, Apr. 1965.
4. LeGrand, H.E. Management aspects of groundwater contamination.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 36(9): 1133-1145,
Sept. 1964.
5. LeGrand, H.E. Patterns of contaminated zones of water in the ground.
Water Resources Research, 1(1): 83-95, First Quarter 1965.
B-51
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Michael R. Overcash
Associate Professor
• North Carolina State University
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Phone: 919-737-3121
Types of Procedures;
Criteria Listing
Criteria Ranking
Discussion;
Approach Taken. Using the available data base, Dr. Overcash
and his colleagues have developed what they believe to be the best
alternatives for industrial waste disposal. This information has
been compiled into a manual which is used for teaching a course on
landspreading of industrial wastes. The course is taught on request
through the American Society of Chemical Engineering.
The book and course describe what is necessary to establish land
application rates for various industrial waste constituents. Actual
land area requirements are defined by waste generation rate and waste
loading capacity. The process and typical constraints to be utilized
in defining the land application rate include: (l) the plant-soil
system design, (2) environmental and groundwater constraints, (3)
securing relevant local data on geoclimatic and associated factors,
and (k) the established land assimilative capacity for certain prevalent
industrial constituents. These design stages are discussed in the
book with examples cited for certain typical industrial effluent
parameters.
State of Development. The procedure and its validation are in
the initial stages of development. Although the book has been used as a
text, the soundness of the approach has not been validated. The approach
appears sound, but considerable management is involved.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. The procedure is available
immediately, but requires that the user be knowledgeable regarding the
behavior of waste constituents in soils. The procedure also requires
B-52
-------
large land areas for the disposal of large quantities of industrial waste,
although it is still often the most cost-effective with respect to BAT
and toxic substances regulations.
Key Pub! i cat ions;
1.
Overcash, M.R., J.C. Lamb,
application, 1977.
and D. Pal. Industrial waste land
B-53
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
John G. Pacey
President
® Emcon Associates, Inc.
1420 Knoll Circle
San Jose, California
Phone: 408-275-iMrt
Type of Procedure;
Criteria Listing
Discussion;
Approach Taken. Emphasis is on containment of wastes with low
permeability deposits and, to a lesser extent, utilization of artificial
1iners.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Leachate generation is basically
understood but not adequately applied in a moisture-rout ing approach.
There is a general lack of a sufficiently-detailed geotechnical model.
Attenuation is a valid concept; however, site management and controls
are necessary. We are just beginning to understand the aspects of waste
loading and attenuation capacity.
-------
CONTACT FORM
person Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Albert L. Page
Professor of Sol 1 Science
and Director of Kearney Foundation
• University of California
Department of Soil Science
and Agricultural Engineering
Riverside, California 92502
Phone: 71/»-787-365/»
Types of Procedures;
Laboratory Simulation
Field Investigation
Discuss Ion;
Approach Taken. Laboratory and field experiments are being
conducted on the mobility and attenuation of trace and heavy metals.
This data is being used to Illustrate the effectiveness of the soil to
attenuate contaminants from municipal and Industrial waste. No modeling
effort is being made at this time, except perhaps to develop a Criteria
Listing.
This group has measured plant uptake of trace and heavy metals from
soils treated with municipal and Industrial wastes. In conjunction with
these studies, they have also measured the concentration distribution of
various contaminants In the soil below waste disposal sites. Concentration
distributions below sewage disposal ponds have also been considered.
Concentration distributions of metals were greater under disposal ponds
than when the waste was spread on the soil surface. Metal enrichment
was evident to depths as great as three meters under some ponds. The
depth and degree of the metal enrichment depended upon pond type and
composition of the waste.
Results/Conclusions to Date. This research group readily concludes
that the soil has a great capacity to attenuate trace and heavy metals
applied to It with time. Much of this work has been conducted In the
arid regions of the United States, and It Is not well known how the
wastes would have behaved under more humid conditions. The experience
in this laboratory Is sufficient to make qualitative recommendations
about western U.S. sites and wastes.
B-55
-------
State of Development. A well defined decision procedure is at
least ten years away in this laboratory.
Key Publi cations ;
1. Garcia-Miragaya, J. and A.L. Page. Influence of ionic strength
and inorganic complex formation on the sorption of trace
amounts of Cd by montmorellonite. Soi1 Sci. Soc. Am. J.,
1976 (in press).
2. Page, A.L. and P.P. Pratt. Effects of sewage sludge on effluent
application to soil on the movement of nitrogen, phosphorus,
soluble salts and trace metals to groundwaters. Proceedings:
Second National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management and
Disposal. Information Transfer Inc., Rockville, Ma., 1975.
p. 179188.
3. Pratt, P.P., A.C. Chang, J.P. Martin, A.L. Page, and C.F. Kleine.
Removal of biological and chemical contaminants by soil systems
with groundwater recharge by spreading or infection of treated
municipal wastewater. j_n_ State of the art review of health
aspects of wastewater reclamation for groundwater recharge.
State Water Resources Control Board, 1975- P. iv-3 to iv-92.
k. Lund, L.J., A.L. Page, and C.O. Nelson. Movement of heavy metals
below sewage disposal ponds. J. Envi ron. Q.ual 1 ty, 5:330-33**,
1976.
5. Page, A.L. Fate and effects of trace elements in sewage sludge
when applied to agricultural lands. Environmental Protection
Technology Series, EPA 670/2-7^-005, 1971*. 96 p.
6. Page, A.L. Trace metals in soils. McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science
and Technology, 197**. p. 381-382.
B-56
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Col in R. Phi 11ips
Professor
9 University of Toronto
Department of Chemical Engineering
and Applied Chemistry
Toronto, Canada
Phone: ^16-978-6182
Types of Procedures;
Crlterla Listing
Matrix
Discussion;
Approach Taken. The decision procedure study was performed by
Dr. Pmlllps and a graduate student In his Department, Jatln Nathwani,
through a consulting firm (Chemical Engineering Research Consultants,
Ltd.) composed of approximately 30 professors In the Department of
Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry at the University of Toronto.
This study was funded for $10,750 by the Solid Waste Management Branch,
Environmental Conservation Directorate, Environment Canada -- Mr. Hans
Mooij, Project Director. The time period of the study was June 1975 to
April 1976.
This study was Intended to provide guidance for the land disposal
of hazardous (industrial) wastes In Canada. Another study Is currently
underway by Environment Canada to develop a procedure for selecting
municipal waste disposal sites and is anticipated to take into account
economic and political criteria In addition to technical criteria.
It should be noted that the soil-waste Interaction matrix presented
by Phillips does not entail the development of a "new" procedure. His
approach basically combines soil and waste ranking systems that had
previously been developed with little, If any, revision. The site
ranking portion of Phillips' system was developed by LeGrand in 196A,
whereas the waste ranking portion of Phillips' system (with minor
revision) was basically developed by Pavonl, Hagerty, and Lee in 1972.
A full discussion of this procedure Is given In the section entitled
Matrix.
B-57
-------
Results/Conclusions to Date. Concise technical comments regarding
Phillips' system discussed during the interview follow:
1. The system is not time dependent; however, it was not determined
whether or not this is a detriment.
2. The matrix is intended as a tool to determine best site for
industrial waste disposal.
3. Parameters of both the waste and site should be incorporated in
such a procedure.
^4. The system allows for s i te-i ndependent versus site-dependent
analys i s.
5. The system should be verified.
6. The system does not consider capacity of site to contain leachate
from a given quantity of refuse. Whether or not this can be done
is debatable.
7. Multiple sites or wastes are considered in the system by adding
or multiplying rankings for individual sites or wastes. Phillips
agreed that this approach could not be justified, but did not have
any thoughts on an alternate approach.
8. When industrial wastes are combined in landfills, a negative
impact (less detrimental) usually results; however, Phillips
admitted combinations of wastes were very difficult to quantify.
9. The system includes both a biological persistence factor and a
chemical persistence factor. However, the chemical persistence
factor is basically biological in nature. It is recommended
that the biological persistence factor be removed from the system
and that the chemical persistence factor be renamed "persistence".
10. The system takes into account whether or not groundwater gradient
is toward an existing water supply. This is a bad assumption
since the purpose of the system should be to protect all groundwater
and not just groundwater that moves toward existing water supplies.
This parameter could be omitted.
11. The viscosity factor which is included in the system is probably
not a significant parameter and could be omitted.
12. pH of waste is taken into account instead of buffering capacity.
The significance of pH in a ranking system is debatable.
B-58
-------
13. Capacity rate (Co) Is Improperly defined; however, the capacity
rate is an important factor.
1**. LeGrand's approach to one layer versus two layer soil media may
not be viable.
15. An application rate factor Is not Included In the system, but
should be Included In future systems If possible.
16. The major contribution of Phillips' system was redefining the
"sorptlon" term.
17. Too little emphasis was placed on disease transmission potential
by Phillips.
S^tate of Development. It should be noted that this matrix was
recently applied to various Industrial waste disposal sites in Canada.
The results of the application, however, are not presently available.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. If the system proves to
be reTlable following verification In Canada, It could be usable as a
decision procedure within three years. However, ft should be stressed
that this system Is not Intended to evaluate the attenuation potential
of sites.
Key PublI cat Ions;
1. Phillips, C.R. Soil-waste Interactions: a state-of-the-art review.
Solid Waste Management Report EPS 3-EC-76-14, Environmental
Conservation Directorate, Oct. 1976.
2. Phillips, C.R. Development of a soil-waste Interaction matrix.
Solid Waste Management Report EPS A-EC-76-10, Environmental
Conservation Directorate, Oct. 1976.
B-59
-------
CONTACT FORM
Persons Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. George F. Pinder
Director, Water Resources Program
Dr. Martinus Th. van Genuchten
Research Staff Member
@ Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey 085^0
Phone: 609-^52-^602
Type of Procedure;
Models/Simulat ion
Pi scussion;
Approach Taken. These studies involved simulation of contaminant
transport processes.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Several one- and two-dimensional
transport models have been developed. A one-dimensional transient,
saturated/unsaturated multi-ion transport model is currently being tested
using experimental leachate quality data obtained from several (laboratory
and field) experimental landfills. This has been done to determine if
the ability exists to describe mathematically the migration of adsorbing
chemicals in multi-ion systems. A two-dimensional, saturated/unsaturated
cross-sectional finite element model has been developed and is presently
being tested on an existing landfill in Pennsylvania.
State of Development. Models are being tested, and some field
verifications are being carried out.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. Drs. Pinder and van Genuchten
believe that, if appropriate funding were made available and a concentrated
effort made, a sufficiently-tested transport model could be operational
as a Decision Procedure for general use within three years. The model
would be perfected in ten years.
B-60
-------
Key Publications:
1. van Genuchten, M. Th., G.F. Finder, and W.P. Saukin. Modeling of
leachate and soil interactions in an aquifer. Management of
Gas and Leachate in Landfills, S.K. Baniyi (ed) . Third Annual
Municipal Solid Waste Research Symposium, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio *»5268. EPA-600/9-77-026 (1977). pp. 95-103.
2. Pinder, G.F. A Galerkin-finite element simulation of groundwater
contamination on Long Island, New York. Water Resour. Res.,
9(6):1657-1670, 1973.
3. Pinder, G.F., W.P. Saukin, and M.Th. van Genuchten. Use of
simulation for characterizing transport in soils adjacent to
land disposal sites. Research Report 76-WR-6, Water Resources
Program, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Princeton University,
Princeton, N.J., 1976.
k. van Genuchten, M.Th., G.F. Pinder, and E.O. Frind. Simulation of
two-dimensional contaminant transport with isoparametric
Hermitian finite elements. Water Resour. Res., 1977
B-61
-------
CONTACT FORM
Persons Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Frederick G. Pohland
Professor
Dr. V/endel 1 Cross
Research Scientist
Mr. James Hudson
Graduate Student
© Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Civil Engineering
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Phone: ^OA-89^-2265
Discussion;
Approach Taken. There has been a variety of research studies
conducted during the last 3 to *» years at Georgia Tech under Dr. Fred
Pohland. These studies have dealt with leachate generation,
characterization, and treatment. Almost all this work has been
supported with U.S. EPA grants.
The significant comments received during the interview were:
1. The Decision Procedures project is not feasible at this time.
2. The current state-of-the-art is not even to the point where
leachate characterization and/or generation information is
reliable.
3. Information regarding the mass loading of leachate from a given
amount of refuse is not available.
A. Rainfall is a very important parameter in the consideration of a
Decision Procedure.
Key Pub!ications;
1<> Pohland, F.G. Sanitary landfill stabilization with leachate recycle
and residual treatment. Environmental Protection Technology
Series, EPA-600/2-75-0^3, Oct. 1975.
B-62
-------
2. Chaw-Ming Mao, M. and F.G. Pohland. Continuing investigations on
leachate stabilization with leachate recirculation,
neutralization, and seeding. Special Progress Report,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Sept. 1973.
3. Pohland, F.G. Accelerated solid waste stabilization and leachate
treatment by leachate recycle through sanitary landfills.
Progress in Water Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3A, p. 753-765.
B-63
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation;
Mr. Thomas A. Prickett
Associate Hydrologist
©State Water Survey Division
Department of Registration and Education
Box 232
Urbana, 111. 61801
Type of Procedure;
Groundwater Modeling
Discussion;
Mr. Prickett is a member of the International SCOPE Groundwater
Modeling Steering Committee and is well versed in the field of
groundwater modeling.
To date, no specific in-house pollution prediction model has been
developed in the Water Survey. Work is continuing on several aspects
of groundwater modeling, with particular interest in the development of
a model which would be useful from a practical standpoint.
In partnership with C.G. Lonnquist, Mr. Prickett has coauthored a
number of important papers on the subject of groundwater modeling. In
particular he coauthored "Selected Digital Computer Techniques for Ground
Water Resource Evaluation" - which is an invaluable summary of the
principal groundwater modeling procedures available at the time of
writing in 1971.
Key Publicat ions :
1. Comparison between analog and digital simulation techniques for
aquifer evaluation. IWSR114.
2. Aquifer simulation program listing using alternating direction
impli cit method.
3. Aquifer simulation model for use on disc supported small computer
systems. . IWSR11A.
B-6A
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation:
Frank A. Rovers
Partner
9 Conestoga-Rovers and Associates
1*21 King Street North
Waterloo, Ontario N2J kEk
Phone: 519-88*4-0570
Types of Procedures:
Cri teria Listing
Matrix
Mode 1s/S i mu1 at I on
Empirical Data from Laboratory and Field Investigations
Discussion;
Approach Taken. Mr. Rovers has coauthored (primarily with Dr. G.
Farquhar) numerous papers dealing directly with the attenuation of
contaminants, with migration through laboratory soil columns and in-place
field soils. Those contaminants investigated include leachate from
municipal and industrial refuse and liquid industrial waste. Several
approaches have been taken in the extensive research conducted. These
approaches include the following:
1. Research to measure and predict contaminant removal from soil
by passage of leachate applied by batch dispersal methods on
both disturbed and undisturbed soil columns. A range of soil
types were investigated under both aerobic and anaerobic
conditions, and the soils were described in terms of grain size,
ion-exchange capacity, organic-carbon content, and resident-ion
distribution both before and following exposure to leachate.
2. Investigation of the use of dispersed soil experiments for
examining soil-contaminant interactions.
3- Evaluation of the attenuation of two liquid industrial wastes
and soil columns typical of the environment in Ontario, Canada.
b. An assessment of leachate production, characteristics, migration
into the environment, control and treatment based upon analysis
of actual field case histories, and certain laboratory procedures
B-65
-------
5. An assessment of the effect of the season on landfill leachate
and gas production.
6. Development of guidelines for landfill location and management
for water pollution control.
7. An assessment of the state of the art of groundwater contaminant
model ing.
8. Continued evaluation of landfill leachate monitoring data
generated at existing sites.
Results/Conclusions to Date. A number of definitive conclusions
have been reached relative to the above research and various approaches
taken. The primary conclusions reached in these investigations are as
fo11ows:
1. Dilution is an important mechanism of attenuation for all of
the liquid waste contaminants in the two industrial wastes
studied (steel plant liquors and alkaline cleansing wastes).
2. Desorption was exhibited by all contaminants studied and was
most prominant for those which were attenuated primarily by the
mechanism of dilution. ,
3. Attenuation data collected from the dispersed soi1
experimentations can be used to project soil water concentrations
in a field situation by the use of a correction factor; however,
this was not determined during the project.
k. The zone of influence of the disposal operation is closely
related to the waste loading.
5. It was observed that the remolded soils provided more attenuation
by dilution than did the undisturbed soils.
6. Removal isotherms constructed from the dispersed soil studies
can be used to predict the breakthrough curves for some
contaminants resulting from remolded soil column experiments.
7. The types and amounts of chemicals leached from refuse were
sufficient to create a serious pollution hazard to groundwaters
in near proximity of landfill sites.
8. The yearly dissolved and suspended contaminant load discharge to
the environment by a landfill is significantly less than that of
a pollution controlled plan where both serve the same population.
B-66
-------
9. A growing body of information exists on the field assessment
of leachate contaminant attenuation under a variety of conditions,
10. Existing data show that, with intergranular flow, leachate
attenuation is significant for fine grain soils.
11. Waste disposal sites should be located and designed in a manner
that takes advantage of natural processes to minimize problems
with water pollution control.
The following personal opinions relate to waste attenuation and
management:
1. The most valid approach for present use relative to decision
procedures for waste disposal siting would be to evaluate
groundwater quality data from existing landfills and waste
disposal sites for assessment and feedback as to the degree of
attenuation and renovation to be expected from various types of
soils and geologic materials.
2. Smaller waste disposal operations would be favored so as not to
overload the system, particularly with respect to the
assimulative capacity whereby dilution and distance of travel
are major factors in the attenuation of those wastes to
acceptable 1imits.
State of Development. A significant empirical data base has been
generated relative to leachate production and attenuation with distance
from various landfills and laboratory investigations. This information
provides a useful check by affording a comparison of actual leachate
concentrations in various textured materials at distance from the
landfill with proposed sites. In addition, a matrix is being developed
similar to the one developed by C.R. Phillips for industrial wastes, which
will identify a procedure for the siting of municipal refuse landfill
si tes.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. It is proposed that the
empirical data developed to date, coupled with a hydrologic site
investigation and monitoring data of a geologically-similar site, could
be used now to predict the contaminant migration from a proposed disposal
site. The matrix development, testing, verification, and actual use can
be expected to be on line within three years.
Key Publicat ions;
1. Farquhar, G.F. and F.A. Rovers. Landfill contaminant flux - surface
and subsurface behavior. 21st Industrial Waste Conference, MOE,
June 197^.
B-6?
-------
2. Farquhar, G.F. and F.A. Rovers. Evaluation of contaminant
attenuation in the soil to improve sanitary landfill
selection and design. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Land for Waste Management, National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Oct. 1-3, 1973.
3. Farquhar, G.F. and F.A. Rovers. Leachate attenuation in undisturbed
and remoulded soil, \_r\_ Proceedings of Symposium on Leachate and
Gas Production, Rutgers University, Cook College, New Brunswick,
N.J. , Mar. 1975.
A. Farquhar, G.F. and F.A. Rovers. Sanitary landfill study final
report, volume I, field studies on groundwater contamination.
Ontario Department of Health and the Grand River Conservation
Authority Waterloo Research Institute Project 8083, Oct. 1972.
5. Farquhar, G.F. and F.A. Rovers. Sanitary landfill study final
report, volume II, effect of season on landfill leachate and
gas production. Ontario Department of Health and the Grand
River Conservation Authority, Waterloo Research Institute
Project 8083, Oct. 1972.
6. Farquhar, G.F. and F.A. Rovers. Monitoring contaminants from a
landfill, study plan. Canada-Ontario Committee, Canada-U.S.
Agreement, Mar.
7. Farquhar, G.F. and F.A. Rovers. Sanitary landfill study, volume
IV, guidelines to landfill location and management for water
pollution control. Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
April 1975.
B-68
-------
CONTACT FORM
Persons Contacted and Affiliation;
Dr. Dwight A. Sangrey
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
Mr. Kevin J. Roberts
Graduate Student
• Cornell Univeristy
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Hoi lister Hall
Ithaca, New York U853
Phone: 607-256-3506
Types of Procedures;
Criteria Listing
Models/Simulation
Discussion:
Approach Taken. Natural soils which had been in contact with
leachate from actual refuse disposal sites were sampled in the field and
tested in the laboratory with two major objectives in mind: (1) determine
the maximum assimilative capacity for various leachate constituents by
different soils in New York state; and (2) define in more detail the time
and space variation in leachate attenuation by soils.
The overall objective of the four-year study is to define better
ways to engineer landfill sites by the development of a rational approach
such that assimilative capacity of soils can be defined and utilized to
reduce the undesirable impact of leachate. In addition, a two-dimensional
finite-element model is currently being developed by Keith Wheeler.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Key conclusions drawn to date from
the first two years of research are as follows:
1. Chemical and physical interactions of landfill leachate with soil
are very complex.
2. Effective leachate saturation on a chemical-reduction environment
and on contaminated soils is a very significant influence on the
type of chemical interactions which occur.
B-69
-------
3. It is an unreasonable simplification to assume that there will
be predictable, simple reactions when adding landfill leachate
to soi1.
*». A large number of different mechanisms may be responsible for
attenuation of leachate as it flows through soil. Some are
highly resistant to displacement or decomposition (such as
precipitation and certain adsorption reactions), while others
are reversible (such as cation exchange).
5. Precipitation, dissolution, complex-ion formation, and
hydrous-oxide sorption are the most significant mechanisms
affecting trace-metal attenuation.
6. Three zones, with the attenuation of trace metals different
for each zone, are possible within the soil system. They depend
primarily on the oxidation potential: Zone I - an oxidized zone
furthest from the disposal site; Zone II - a moderately-reduced
zone; and Zone III - a strongly-reduced zone nearest the disposal
si te.
7. Trace metals are very effectively removed from leachate in
strongly-reduced zones (Zone III). Favorable conditions for
Zone III are: low permeability (less than 10~3 cm/sec),
moderately high to high clay content (greater than 25 percent),
and moderate to high available moisture content (greater than
0.12 cm water per 1.0 cm of soil).
8. Impermeable liners should be placed beneath landfills overlying
coarse-textured deposits to protect groundwater resources with
regard to trace metals.
9. The relative potential of different soils in New York state to
attenuate contaminants in landfill leachate varies over a wide
range.
10. Data are now available however for ranking different soils of
New York state in terms of their potential leachate contaminant/
assimilation capacities.
State of Development. The second year of research has been
completed and published as indicated below. The model which is currently
under development is not expected to be on line for a period of
approximately three years.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. The large empirical base
generated by this research would be available now for use as a decision
B-70
-------
procedure to compare the concentration of leachate which has traveled
through various textured soils from existing landfills with proposed
new sites. The model currently under development is not expected to be
on line, tested, and validated for a period of approximately three years.
Key Publications:
1. Roberts, K.J., G.W. Olson, and D.A. Sangrey. Attenuation of sanitary
landfill leachate in soils of New York State. Department of
Agronomy and School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell
University, 1976.
2. Roberts, K.J. and D.A. Sangrey. Attenuation of inorganic landfill
leachate constituents in soils of New York. School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Report
77-2, Cornell University, 1977.
B-71
-------
CONTACT FORM
Persons Contacted and Affiliation;
Mr. Michael J. Stiff
Chemi st
Mr. P.J. Maris
Chemi st
Mr. Chris Young
Geologist (Medmenham Laboratory at Marlow)
© Water Research Centre
Stevenage Laboratory
Elder Way
Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1-1TH
United Kingdom
Phone:
Types of Procedures;
Field/Laboratory Investigations
I deal ized Models
D? scuss ion ;
Approach Taken. The Water Research Centre (WRC) is conducting a
landfill investigation cooperatively with the people at Harwell Laboratory
for the Department of the Environment (DOE) at a cost of approximately
$2 million. Twenty sites are being investigated (9 by WRC), and the final
report will be completed in 1977. The approach taken was to sample
leachate and surface breakouts, sample existing wells, and sample additional
bore holes drilled on a grid basis. Some undisturbed sampling was also done.
In a second investigation, six pilot-scale (concrete tanks of 5.0 m^
size) and six small-scale (PVC pipes of 0.071 m size) experimental
landfills were operated at Stevenage over a three-year period (Nov. 1973 to
Nov. 1976) to study the leaching of three industrial wastes: an aqueous
oil emulsion, a cyanide heat-treatment waste, and a metal -hydroxi de sludge
containing nickel and chromium when mixed with domestic waste under aerobic
and anaerobic conditions. The pilot-scale experiments were leached by
natural rainfall for much of the time; in the small-scale experiments, an
artificially high leaching rate (four times the natural rate) was used,
thus making them less representative of typical landfill conditions.
B-72
-------
A third investigation used an idealized model to predict the dilution
of tip percolates (leachate) in groundwater. This approach considered
both dilution/dispersion and pollutant travel times with respect to
groundwater flow and discharge to streams.
Results/Conclusions to Pate. Interpretation of the results of the
landfill study will be in the final report to DOE; however, one major
conclusion thus far is that there is no real problem with heavy metals
since there has been no metal migration. Leachate plums were present,
but were not found to have migrated to the extent anticipated. For
example, in a worst-case condition, chromium wastes were placed in a
mined-out dike area and were diluted to acceptable limits in groundwater
within 250 meters. The metals are felt to be very effectively tied up
by precipitation as metal sulfides, carbonates, and hydroxides. Solid
organics including PCBs were readily tied up by actually being soaked up
in the municipal refuse. Soluble organics such as phenols are the biggest
problem; however, It was felt that phenols could be biodegraded with
domestic waste.
Major conclusions of the lysimeter investigation were:
1. Decomposition of the domestic waste gave rise to a typical
leachate whose composition varied between different experiments,
but was not obviously affected by the presence of the industrial
waste except in the case of the small-scale cyanide experiments.
a
2. The major effect of allowing access of air to the base of the
landfill was that the leachates from the aerobic experiments
typically contained considerably-lower concentrations of
organic carbon and were of higher pH value than those from the
anaerobic experiments. The only clear effect of aerobic
conditions on the concentrations of the industrial wastes in
the leachate was a small reduction in the concentrations of
metals.
3. The quantity of oil leached in 2i years was less than two
percent of that added, and the maximum concentration in leachate
was 300 mg/1. The data are consistent with the hypothesis
that the oil was retained on the domestic waste, although the
quantity of oil added was small in relation to that already
present in the waste.
4. The quantity of cyanide leached in 3 years- was less than three
percent of that added. The maximum concentration in leachate
was 270 mg/I, but this may have been a consequence of the
artificially-high leaching rate used in the small-scale
experiments. Under conditions of leaching by natural rainfall,
no concentrations exceeding 7 mg/1 were measured.
B-73
-------
5. The quantities of nickel and chromium leached in 2£ years were
less than 0.2 percent of the weights added as metal hydroxides.
Over a 2^-year period, the increase in mean concentration in
leachate over background values caused by the presence of the
sludge was no more than sixfold for nickel and twofold for
chromium.
Significant conclusions of the dilution model approach are as follows
1. Pollutant travel times through the saturated zone are rapid
in comparison to those in the unsaturated zone, and more
research must be done to evaluate the role of solute diffusion
processes in saturated flow.
2. The results show a wide range of variation even for a single
aquifer and, consequently, must be used with care.
State of Development. The empirical data developed from the current
20-site field and laboratory landfill investigation should be available
in final report form by late 1977. Data from the lysimeter study is
available now, and additional data will be forthcoming. The dilution
model is developed for typical hydrogeologic settings, but has not yet
been calibrated or verified for a specific field situation.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. The results of the field and
laboratory studies and the assessment of the empirical data generated
are available for immediate use to substantiate the judgment value
decision-making process.
Key Pub!ications;
1. Water Research Centre (Cooperative with Harwell Laboratory).
Programme of research on the behaviour of hazardous wastes in
landfill sites. Interim Report on Progress, Sept. 1975 (Final
report late 1977).
2. Newton, J.R. Pilot-scale studies of the leaching of industrial
wastes in simulated landfills. Water Research Centre, Stevenage
Laboratory, Feb. 1977.
3. Oakes, D.B. Dilution of tip percolates in groundwater. Water
Research Centre, Medmenham Laboratory, Medmenham, Marlow, Bucks,
United Kingdom, WL_R 53, Jan. 1976.
A. Oakes, D.B. Use of idealised models in predicting the pollution of
water supplies due to leachate from landfill sites. Water
Research Centre, Paper 16.
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation:
Mr. William H. Walker
Director, Midwest Operations
• Geraghty 6 Miller, Inc.
Groundwater Hydrologists & Geologists
501 South 6th Street
Suite 201
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Phone: 217-352-0101
Type of Procedure:
Empi rical Studies
Discussion;
Mr. Walker initiated the core studies which have recently been
completed for the Illinois Water Survey and Geological Survey. He has
a wealth of experience in this area and remains skeptical of the real
practical values of modeling the attenuative mechanisms. His years in
the field prompt the suggestion that the natural system is too varied
and complex to model, and any approximations possible are unlikely to
be applicable to more than one site.
He is the author of several important papers on the subject of
hazardous wastes. In particular he authored "Monitoring Toxic Chemicals
in Land Disposal Sites", Pollution Engineering, September 197**, in which
he proposed that in fine-grained sediments of low permeability core
sampling might be an appropriate supplemental technique for location of
the optimum water sampling point in the vertical sequence.
Mr. Walker is a seasoned and pragmatic professional with a
considerable amount of practical experience in the vagaries of land and
natural systems.
Key Pub!ication;
1. Walker, W.H. Monitoring toxic chemicals in land disposal sites.
Pollution Engineering, Sept. 197^.
2. Walker, W.H. Field verification of hazardous waste migration from
land disposal sites. Solid and Hazardous Waste Research
Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati,
Ohio *»5268. U.S. EPA R-803216-01-2. Fall, 1977.
B-75
-------
CONTACT FORM
Person Contacted and Affiliation:
Dr. Raul Zaltzman
Professor, Civil Engineering
• West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
Types of Procedures;
Matrix - Simplified Matrix Analysis
Mode 1s/S i mu1 at ion-Ana 1og Computer
Djs cuss ion;
Approach Taken. Dr. Zaltzman evaluates landfills using a set of
criteria arranged in a matrix.
Results/Conclusions to Date. Although no formal conclusions have
been developed, Dr. Zaltzman recognizes the need for developing a set of
decision precedures. He feels that both predictive tools (such as models)
and non-predictive tools (such as Matrix or Criteria Listing/Ranking)
could be used. However, he sees such procedures used only as tools to
assist qualified scientists and engineers in making decisions regarding
site suitability for disposal.
State of Development. Experimental, not fully developed.
Availability as a Decision Procedure. None of the specific procedures
used are documented in a manne'r that makes it usable as a standard Decision
Procedure.
B-76
-------
APPENDIX C
REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS
CONTACT FORM
Agency;
Persons Contacted;
Mr. Hank Yacoub
Water Quality Control Engineer
Peter L. Huff, Chief
Technical Assistant and
Training Section
James L. Stahler, P.E.
Consultant
California Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Los Angeles Region
107 South Broadway
Room A027
Los Angeles, CA
Phone: 213-620-A460
State Sol id Waste
Management Board
1709 11th Street
Sacramento, CA
Phone: 916-322-268**
California State Depart-
ment of Health
ikk P Street
Sacramento, CA
Phone: 916-322-2337
Type of Procedure;
Classification System
Permit Procedure:
The procedure utilized to make application for a permit for all
waste disposal operations (hazardous or non-hazardous) Is as follows:
This procedure Is to be applied only to new solid waste disposal
sites and transfer stations proposed to be placed In operation
prior to Board approval of the applicable county plan.
1. Filing a Notice of Intent:
a. Persons planning to commence operation of a new solid
waste disposal site or transfer station which has been
granted land-use approval by a city or county shall
notify the Board of their Intent.
b. Persons proposing to place a waste processing facility
In operation must Inform the Board of such a proposal
C-1
-------
and submit to the Board adequate Information to permit
the Board to determine If the facility Is governed by
these procedures.
2. Information to be submitted with Notice of Intent.
Information to be submitted shall Include:
a. County map showing: site location of proposed facility,
existing transfer stations and disposal sites; the
service area of proposed facility; and communities within
and Immediately adjacent to the service area.
b. Facility Information such as: acreage, projected site
life, and type and volume of wastes handled.
c. Certification of local land-use approval, Including
evidence of CEQA compliance (EIR or Negative Declaration),
d. Statement on justification of public need and necessity
by the project proponent.
3. The local entity granting land-use approval shall submit a
statement of any Information relative to public need and
necessity as Identified at the local level.
A. The agency of the county responsible for development of the
county solid waste management plan shall:
a. Comment on the relationship of the proposed facility to
the proposed county plan.
b. Determination that the distance from the facility
(disposal site) to the nearest residential structures
Is In compliance with the Minimum Standards for Solid
Waste Handling and Disposal, and especially that the
distance of residences from the site Is sufficient to
permit adequate control of noise levels, odor nuisances,
traffic congestion, litter nuisances, and vectors as
required by Government Code Section 6678*4.1.
5. Review by the Board. Within 30 days of receipt of the
Notice of Intent, the Board shall review the Notice of
Intent and Inform the project proponent of any additional
Information needed.
C-2
-------
6. Determination of Findings by the Board. Within forty-five
(^5) days after the receipt of complete Information, the
Board at a public meeting shall make a finding for or against
the need of the facility to protect the public health or
because of public need and necessity. The project proponent,
the local government and, where applicable, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board shall be notified of the Board's
action.
7. Exemptions. Any facility Is exempt from these requirements
If prior to August 28, 197^, either an environmental Impact
report notice of completion was filed with the State or
land-use approval was Issued for the facility by a city
or county.
This procedure Is to be applied to new solid waste disposal sites,
transfer stations, waste processing or resource recovery facilities
proposed to be established and operated after completion and
Board approval of the county solid waste management plan.
1. Filing a Notice of Intent:
Persons planning to establish or operate a new solid waste
disposal site, transfer station, waste processing or
resource recovery facility shall notify the Board of their
Intent at least kS days prior to the scheduled commencement
of construction of the facility. A copy of the notice
shall be submitted to the local agency that has been
selected to maintain the solid waste management plan
of the county In which the proposed facility Is to be
located.
2. Information to be submitted with the Notice of Intent shall
Include:
a. County map showing site location of proposed facility,
existing transfer stations and disposal sites, the
service area of proposed facility, the communities
within and Immediately adjacent to the service area
of the proposed facility.
b. Facility Information such as: owner, operator,
acreage, projected site life, and type and volume of
wastes to be handled.
c. Evidence of CEQA Compliance (EIR or Negative
Declaration).
C-3
-------
d. Reference to page or pages In the approved county
solid waste management plan where the facility Is
discussed.
3. Evaluation by County:
Within 15 days after receipt of the notification from the
project proponent or at the request of the Board, the
local agency that has been selected to maintain the county
solid waste management plan shall Inform the Board of
thelr:
a. evaluation of whether the proposed facility conforms
or does not conform with the county plan.
b. Determination that the distance from the facility
(disposal site only) to the nearest residential
structures Is in compliance with the Minimum Standards
for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal, and especially
that the distance of residences from the site Is
sufficient to permit adequate control of noise levels,
odor nuisances, traffic congestion, litter nuisances
and vectors as required by Government Code Section
66784.1.
4. Determination of Findings by the Board:
Within forty-five C*5) days after the receipt of a
notification of a proposed facility, the Board at a
public meeting shall make a finding of conformance or
non-conformance with the county plan. The Board may
extend the time period to obtain additional Information
If necessary.
5. Determination of Non-Conformance:
If after a review of the necessary information the Board
determines the proposed facility to not be In conformance
with the county plan, the Board may, after public hearing,
Inform the county and the project proponent that:
a. The proposed facility Is not In conformance with the
county solid waste management plan and cannot be
Implemented.
b. An amendment to the plan can be submitted to the Board
to Include the proposed facility. Any amendment to a
county solid waste management plan shall be subject to
-------
the requirements of Section 66780 of the Government
Code and Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 2, Articles 1
through 7 of the Administrative Code,
Discussion:
The Classification System approach to waste management has been in
effect on an informal basis in California for some 20 years. Formal
regulations for "Waste Discharge Requirements for Waste Disposal to
Land-Disposal Site Design and Operational Criteria" were adopted in
December 1972 by the California State Water Resource Control Board.
These requirements were last revised in December 1976 and are included
in Appendix D. Nine regional water quality control boards assist the
State board in carrying out its responsibility in water quality controls.
The regional boards are responsible for regulating all liquid and solid
waste disposal sites for protection of water quality. All waste disposal
sites are subject to waste discharge requirements and criteria
established by the regional boards. This Board sets statewide policy,
enforces PL 92-500, and is concerned primarily with the protection of
surface and ground waters. The California Department of Health and the
Solid Waste Management Board are concerned with other waste management
aspects such as overall resource recovery and the overall operation of
disposal sites.
The Solid Waste Management Board either issues waste disposal
permits directly for all waste disposal sites including transfer
stations, or designates the appropriate state department or county agency
to issue a facility permit. Waste discharge requirements issued by the
regional water quality control board are prerequisite to facility
permi ts.
The Department of Health established new guidelines for handling,
storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous and extremely hazardous
wastes, set forth in "Hazardous Waste Regulations" (adopted Fall, 1977),
a copy of which is included in Appendix D.
The California Classification System represents the earliest
formalized procedure for waste disposal siting that has been identified
and has, by far, the longest history of on-line utilization. This
system establishes criteria to define both site classifications and
waste groupings. Class I, 11-1, I 1-2, III sites and Group 1, 2 and 3
wastes have been defined as shown in Table C-1.
As indicated in the table, the mode of deposition for hazardous
wastes is that of containment by utilizing natural deposits with a
permeability of 1 x 10"° cm/sec or less. Municipal wastes generally
rely on containment of waste leachates with a required permeability of
C-5
-------
TABLE C-1
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN REQUIREMNTS
Site Type
Si te Classification
Waste Classification
Permeabi I i ty
cm/sec
Soils
% Passing a
No. 200 Sieve
Liquid
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Class I Complete protection is provided
for all time for the quality of
ground and surface water.
Geological conditions are natur-
ally capable of preventing
vertical and lateral hydraulic
continuity between liquids and
gases from the waste In the site
and usable surface and ground
waters. The disposal area can
be modified to prevent lateral
continuity. Underlain by usable
ground water only under excep-
tional circumstances.
, Class II Protection is provided to water
quality from Group 2 and Group
3 wastes.
o
I
Overlying usable ground water
and geologic conditions are
either naturally capable of pre-
venting lateral and vertical
hydraulic continuity or site has
been modified to achieve such
capabiIi ty.
11-2 Having vertical and lateral hy-
draulic continuity with usable
ground water but geological
and hydraulic features and
other factors assure protection
of water qua)ity.
Class III Protection Is provided from Group
3 wastes by location, construc-
tion and operation which prevent
erosion of deposited material.
Group 1
Consisting of or containing
toxic substances and substances
which could significantly im-
pair the quality of usable
waters.
Also accepts Group 2 and 3
wastes.
<1
x 10
CL, CH or
OH
Not less than Not less than
30 30
Not less than
30
Group 2
Consisting of or containing
chemically or biologically
decomposable material which
does not include toxic sub-
stances or those capable of
significantly impairing the
quality of usable water.
Also accepts Group 3 Wastes.
Group 3
Consist entirely of non-water
soluble, non-decomposable
inert sol ids.
- 1 x 10
-6
CL, CH or
OH
Not less than
30
Not less than
30
Not less than
30
Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified
-------
1 x 10~° cm/sec or less. Attenuation is utilized to some extent for a
Class 11-1 situation however, since a permeability of 10 cm/sec will
permit the slow migration of waste leachates, !n addition, the
definition of a Class 11-2 site strongly implies that some attenuation
will take place. Assured protection of water quality is required even
though vertical and lateral hydraulic continuity may exist.
Examples of waste discharge requirements for Class I, limited
Class I, Class 11-1, Class 11-2, and Class III disposal sites are given
in pages 37-63 of the Waste Disposal Design and Operational Criteria.
(See Appendix E.) Copies of sample permit application forms issued by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the County Planning Department
(Ventura Co.) including an Environmental Assessment Application, and a
City Planning Commission (Oxnard) are also included in Appendix E. A
copy of "Revised Waste Discharge Requirements for Palos Verdes Landfill
in Los Angeles County" is also included. Finally, a flow chart for the
waste permit application review and processing procedure is included in
Appendix D.
C-7
-------
CONTACT FORM
Agency:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Land/Noise Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Phone: 217-782-6760
Persons Contacted;
Thomas E. Cavanagh, Jr.
Civil Engineer
Manager, Land Permit
Section
Michael W. Rapps
Engineer
Land Technical Operations
Section
Permit Section
Thomas P. Clark
Hydrogeologi st
Environmental Protection
Speciali st
Land Technical Operations
Section
Technical Support Unit
Types of Procedure;
Criteria Listing (current)
Classification System (expected enactment by mid-1978)
Permit Procedure;
The Illinois EPA is currently processing waste disposal permit
applications under the Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and
Regulations (Chapter 7, Solid Waste) adopted 27 July 1973. These rules
and regulations require site and waste characterization that utilize a
Criteria Listing approach. A draft set of guidelines has been developed
for land disposal criteria for special wastes (liquids, sludges, and
hazardous or potentially hazardous waste) which are to some extent also
currently being utilized. These draft guidelines are expected to be
enacted and operative by mid-1978. A copy of these guidelines is
included in Appendix D.
C-8
-------
A flow diagram for the site permitting procedure showing the
review process, the agencies Involved and the timing is given in
Figure C-1 . The following steps are taken:
1. An applicant may submit an Informal request for review by the
EPA and/or Illinois State Geologic Survey (IGS) prior to full
formal submittal In order to obtain a positive decision prior
to the expenditure of considerable funds.
2. The applicant must submit a general solid waste application form
for concurrent review by the Division of Water Pollution Control,
Division of Noise Pollution Control, Division of Public Water
Supply, and the Illinois State Geologic Survey. The IGS will
provide a technical review and the first three agencies mentioned
will assess whether that location would have adverse effects on
existing or future land-use activities. Proper notification of
adjacent landowners and public officials is required as well as
a land-use assessment analysis.
3. The Illinois EPA Is mandated to provide a decision by 90 days
unless extended due to hearing. No action within 90 days would
result In a permit being Issued by the State.
4. A technical review which entails geology, engineering, and land
use Is made by the Central Office staff only. The Regional Office
will review the development and site preparation including
monitoring wells to see that there is conformance between
designed and implemented facilities.
5. A permit is then Issued, following that field inspection. If
there are deficiencies, they must be corrected prior to permit
issuance. Subsequent activities are at the Regional level with
Inspection of operations performed on a monthly or bimonthly
basis. Central Office staff becomes involved again only when
there is a major problem. Once permitted, the permit is good
for the life of the site unless there are modifications or unless
there are violations which are In need of correction.
6. The present system does not provide automatically for a public
hearing at each and every site. Once the Illinois EPA has issued
a permit, the citizens may contest the same with a hearing before
the Pollution Control Board or the Circuit Court. It can be
appealed higher to the Appellate Court and eventually to the
State Supreme Court. A very Important aspect of the permitting
procedure is that, by ruling of the State Supreme Court in
October 1975 based upon the Carlson vs. Worth case, local zoning
cannot overrule an EPA decision to Issue a permit to a site.
There Is no zoning for landfills In Illinois, however, and
C-9
-------
Division of Water Pollution Control
Division of Noise Pollution Control
Division of Public Water Supply
Illinois State Geologic Survey
(1)
Receive
('l / Additional
Technical
Information
o
I
£» I 0)
/ DENY \ A f Rec
[No Land-Use] <3) & A (9> ^ [ Land
\ Information/ / \ ~*^\ 'n'orrr
(a) I
k L
eive\ f DENY>v
Use ] [ Site Will \
ation/ I NeverBe /
/ \ Suitable /
— *S \- — s \^_^
(9)1
|
0
Preliminary Review and Accumulation of Information
•^ — — — ^>-
(16 days)
©
Permit Review
,^-r -^ — |!
(9 days)
Legend
O = Operation
= Transportation (Permit Unit)
= Transportation (Applicant)
C] = Inspection (Review)
D = Delay
V = Storage (File)
A = Applicant
I — > = Clock Starts
i (3) = Days
©
Land Use Evaluation
(14 days)
16
25
FIGURE C-1 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PERMIT REVIEW SCHEME
-------
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PERMIT REVIEW SCHEME (CONTINUED)
Legend
(3)
D
D
V
A
(3)
= Operation
= Transportation (Permit Unit)
= Transportation (Applicant)
= Inspection (Review)
= Delay
= Storage (File)
= Applicant
= Clock Starts
= Days
o
i
Director
Schedules
Public
Hearing
Second
Land Use
Meeting
i
to Public Hearing
79
-------
emphasis is placed on compatible land use. The Illinois EPA
expects this ruling to be changed In the near future, but It
does offer them, at present, extensive power In the permitting
of sites.
Pi scuss ion;
A complete package of that information required by the Illinois EPA
as well as supporting documents and information is contained in the
booklet "Sanitary Landfill Management", Issued December 1973. Copies of
the permit application form are found on pages 39 through 53 of that
document, and It Is also Included In Appendix D. The pending draft
guidelines list and describe the land disposal criteria for special
wastes. Once adopted the following modules will be required:
Module A & B - Development Permit;
Module C - Operation Permit;
Module D or E - Supplemental Permit -- D Is for site modifications,
E Is waste specific for a change to or addition of waste types;
Module F - Intra Agency Permit;
Module G - Class 5 Site Development and Operation.
A copy of Module E and Instructions for Its use Is also included in
Appendix D. It must be emphasized, however, that revisions will be made
including the proposed procedure for a leaching test.
A table of site types and suitable methods of disposal for wastes
of varying properties Is given In Table C-1.
There Is generally no distinction made between municipal and
industrial waste except that general municipal refuse is accepted at
Class III sites. Class I sites accept all waste excluding radioactive
waste and are the main repository for hazardous wastes. A Class I sfte
must meet all the physical criteria, Including a naturally low
permeability of 10-8 cm/sec. Engineered site characteristics are
permitted for Class III sites and lower which accept no hazardous wastes.
There are two groups of site types: Class I, II and Ht sites form
one group and Class IV and V sites form the other. The wastes that are
disposed of In the first group are those that pose a potential for
contamination while the wastes that are disposed of In Class IV and V
sites are those that pose virtually no environmental threat.
C-12
-------
TABLE C-2
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SITE
GUIDELINES
(APPROVAL PENDING)
Thickness
Maximum of Confining
Site Permeability Layer
Class 1 1xlO~8 cm/sec 10'
na tura 1
o
Class II 5xlO~ 10'
natural
Class III 1x10 10'
natural or
{••)
1 engineered
U)
tljss IV 5x10 5'
natural or
enyi neered
Theoretical
Depth to Flood Confinement
Aquifer Frequency Time Monitoring
10' 100 yr. line or 500 yrs Yes
maximum known
elevation. No
marginal lands.
10' 100 yr. line or 250 yrs. Yes
maximum known
elevation. No
marginal lands.
10' 100 yr. line or 150 yrs. Usually
maximum known yes
elevation. No
marginal lands.
0' No marginal lands - May
Site
Pol lution
Potential Waste
Very low All wastes ex-
cluding
radioactive
Low General put res -
cible, spec i a 1 ,
specified hazard-
ous wastes , al 1
Class III, IV
and V.
Low to General municipal
Moderate certain special,
al 1 Class IV and
V.
Moderate Demolition and
construct ion.
bulky, landscape
wastes and inert ,
insoluble mater-
ials. All C lass
Module
E
A
F
E
A
F
,E
A
F
A
F
V.
,B,C
,B,C
,B,C
,B,C
f. lass V Li tt le or no
confinement, or
sufficient si te
info rma t i o n to
determine the pollution
potential of the site has
not been provided.
Inert, noncombust- G
ible mater ial.
-------
The Illinois EPA relies very little on attenuation of waste leachates
even though the existing "Sanitary Landfill Management" guidelines
discuss attenuation. Rather, they favor, and In fact require, containment
of both municipal and hazardous wastes by reliance on deposits with a
natural low permeability. They do not favor the use of synthetic liners
due to their unknown long-term Integrity, and, for that matter, their
short-term integrity.
-------
CONTACT FORM
Agency;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Hazardous Waste Management Section
1935 West County Road, 82
Rosevilie, MN 55113
Phone: 612-296-7317
Person Contacted;
Mr. James Kinsey, Chief
Hazardous Waste Management Section
Type of Procedure;
Criteria Listing
Permit Procedure;
The following steps comprise the permit procedure:
1. A contact between the person interested in permitting a site and
the agency often results in an appointment with the MPCA staff
to discuss the permitting procedure.
2. A pre-applicatton conference is held with the MPCA staff to
discuss the following:
a. The concept of disposal
b. Environmental control
c. Permitting procedure
d. Local agency's involvement
e. Timing and schedules, etc.
3. A preliminary application is then submitted to the agency for
review. This application includes:
a. Hydrogeologic report for the site
b. Conceptual design of the proposed facility
c. General discussion of environmental concerns and controls
*4. After review of the preliminary application, and the receiving
of an indication of site acceptability to the agency, a final
application is prepared. This application includes a complete
engineering design package, operational plan, proposed
monitoring, etc. Details of such package are found in Appendix D.
C-15
-------
5. An Environmental Impact Statement may be required for major or
critical waste disposal projects. When required, the applicant
is notified at early phases of permit processing; however, the
EIS could be presented at an advanced phase of the review.
6. When required by citizens or by the agency a public hearing(s)
may be scheduled. This is only required for major and/or
critical waste disposal facilities.
7. Local agencies' input is a part of the state permit requirements
and permit review process. County permits, land disposal
facilities, zoning, etc., must be obtained by the applicant
prior to receiving final approval from MPCA.
Pi scuss ion :
In June, 1977, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency published a
draft of rules and regulations for hazardous waste management. The
provisions of these regulations govern the identification, classification,
storage, labeling, transportation, treatment, processing and disposal
of hazardous waste and the issuance of permits for construction, operation
and closure of a hazardous waste facility.
Key definitions In the proposed regulations are the following:
1. Corrosive material: a material that has any one of the following
propert ies :
a. a pH that is greater than 12 or less than 3 for a liquid,
semisolid, sludge, or saturated aqueous solution of a solid
or gas;
b. the ability to cause a visible destruction or irreversible
alteration of skin tissues at the site of contact following
an exposure period of four hours or less when tested by the
technique described in 16 C.F.R. #1,500.^1 (1977);
c. a corrosion rate of 0.250 inch per year or more on Society
of Automotive Engineers' 1020 Steel when tested in accordance
with the minimum requirements described in the National
Association of Engineers' Standard TM-01-69, at a test
temperature of 130°F
2. Flammable material; any material that:
a. has a flash point below 200°F (93-3°C), except the following:
C-16
-------
1) a material comprised of miscible components having one
or more components with a flash point of 200°F (93.3°C),
or higher, that make up at least 99 percent of the total
volume of the mixture;
2) a material that has a flash point greater than 100°F
(37.8°C) and that when heated to 200°F (93-3°C) will not
support combustion beyond the flash;
3) an explosive material;
b. may ignite without application of a flame or spark including,
but not limited to, nitro cellulose, certain metal hydrides,
alkali metals, some oily fabrics, processed meals, and acidic
anhydri des.
Explos i ve material : a material that has the property either to
evolve large volumes of gas that are dissipated in a shock wave
or to heat the surrounding air so as to cause a high pressure
gas that is dissipated in a shock wave. Explosive materials
include, but are not limited to, explosives as defined in A9
C.F.R. #173,300 (1976).
I rri tati ve materi al ; a noncorrosive material which has the
property to cause a local reversible injury to a biological
membrane at the site of contact as determined by either of the
fol lowi ng :
a. Practical experience with the waste where short term
exposures have caused first degree burns and where long
term exposures may cause second degree burns;
b. Skin irritation of an empirical score of five or more as
determined pursuant to 16 C.F.R. #1,500.^1 (1977).
Oxidative material: any material with the property to readily
supply oxygen to a reaction in the absence of air. Oxidation
materials include, but are not limited to, oxides, organic and
inorganic peroxides, permanganates, perrhenates, chlorates,
perchlorates , persulfates, nitric acid, organic and inorganic
nitrates, iodates, periodates, bromates, perselenates ,
perbromates, chromates, di schromates , ozone, and perborates.
Bromine, chlorine, fluorine, and iodine react similarly to
oxygen under some conditions and are therefore also considered
oxidative materials.
C-17
-------
6. Toxi c material: a material with any one of the following
properties:
a. An oral 1050 less than 500 milligrams of material per
kilogram of body weight of test animal.
b. A dermal 1.050 less than 1,000 milligrams of material per
kilogram of body weight of test animal.
c. An inhalation 1650 (when the material or a component is in
a form that may be inhaled) less than:
1. 2,000 milligrams of material as dust or mist per cubic
meter of air, or
2. 1,000 parts per million of material as gas or vapor.
d. An aquatic LC5Q less than 100 milligrams of material per
1 i ter of water.
7. Median lethal concentration (1650): the calculated concentration
at which a material kills 50 percent of a group of test animals
within a specified time.
a. Aquatic LC5Q: the 1050 determined by a test in which the
specified time is 96 hours, the test animals are at least
10 fathead minnows, and the route of administration follows
accepted static or flow-through bioassay techniques.
b. Inhalation 1.050: the 1.050 determined by a test in which
the specified time is 14 days, the group of the test animals
is at least ten white laboratory rats of 200 to 300 grams
each, half of which are male and half of which are female,
and the route of administration is continuous respiratory
exposure for a period of one hour.
8. Median lethal dose (1050): the calculated dose at which a
material kills 50 percent of a group of test animals within a
speci fled time.
a. Oral 1.050: the 1050 determined by a test in which the
specified time is 1A days, the group of test animals is at
least ten white laboratory rats of 200 to 300 grams each,
half of which are male and half of which are female, and
the route of administration is a single oral dose.
C-18
-------
b. Dermal LDtjrj' tne 1050 determined by a test ?n which the
specified time is 1** days, the group of test animals is ten
or more white rabbits, half of which are male and half of
which are female, and the route of administration is a
2n-hour exposure with continuous contact on bare skin.
Generators of Hazardous Waste are required to disclose all types of
hazardous waste and submit a report to the MPCA. Generators are also
responsible for management and disposal of waste. Shipping papers
prepared by the generator track waste to disposal. Generators are
required to properly prepare and label all hazardous waste shipments.
Location, Operation and Closure for the Hazardous Waste fac i1i ty has
to be in accordance with MPCA regulations.These Include locating facilities
in a hydrogeologically suitable area and in a computable environment.
Storage and disposal must be in areas with liners having permeability no
greater than 10-7 cm/sec. The regulations require keeping records and
procedures for reporting to MPCA and proper closing of hazardous waste
facilities after termination of operation.
The draft regulations outline permit requirements for all hazardous
waste facilities, including submission, granting and reissuance, review
and general or special conditions and exceptions of permits. The contents
of hazardous waste permit applications include: 1) preliminary application
documenting, soils and hydrogeologIc conditions, 2) description of
surface and ground water resources, 3) utilities at site vicinity, and
A) general environment conditions and support information.
In addition to the above requirements, reports on land disposal
facilities include: 1) logs and borings, 2) plot plans delineating
surface and ground waters, 3) placement of monitoring wells, A) cross
sections showing soil profile, ground water aquifers, etc. 5) a comparison
of the findings of the field investigation with previous literature and
research, 6) water balance, 7) a section that addresses seasonal
fluctuations of ground water levels, and 8) a section on ground water
quality, both present and anticipated after operation of the facility.
All land disposal facility applications must be also supported by an
engineering report that conceptually addresses the following: 1) type
of waste, 2) treatment processes, 3) plot plans, 4) liner specifications
and leachate collection, treatment and disposal facilities, 5) discussion
of the operation of the proposed facility, and 6) a report on impact of
vapor gas and dust and the potential of their migration.
Most Interestingly, these regulations require inclusion in the interim
report of a section that addresses the porosity and permeability of major
soil types that were encountered in the field investigation, including
a description of the procedures used In the testing of the major soil
types. The section shall discuss:
C-19
-------
1. The ability of the soil to attenuate the hazardous waste and the
leachate thereof through Ion exchange, adsorption, adsorption,
precipitation, and other such mechanisms.
2. A review of the anticipated products from such mechanisms
including both final and intermediate biochemical metabolites
and chemical degradation products.
3. An assessment of how effective the soil attenuation processes
will be in providing treatment to the hazardous waste and
leachate thereof.
After review and acceptance of the preliminary permit, the facility
owner submits a final application which includes: l) response to comments
on the preliminary application, 2) an engineering report including plans
and specifications for the construction of the facility, 3) operations
and management plans, and k) a site closure manual and other support
materi als.
C-20
-------
CONTACT FORM
Agen cy:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Solid Waste Management
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12201
Phone: 518-1*57-6607
Persons Contacted:
G. David Knowles, P.E.
Sanitary Engineer
Division of Solid Waste Management
Charles N. Goddard, Chief
Hazardous Wastes Section
Type of Procedure:
Criteria Listing
Permit Procedure:
The permit procedure is described in detail on pages 6-11 of Part
360, "Solid Waste Management Facilities", which became effective 28
August 1977. A copy of these rules and regulations is included in
Appendix D.
The following steps highlight the permit procedure:
1. The operator of any solid waste management facility in operation
on the effective date of this Part for which a currently
effective approval was issued by this Department, pursuant to
regulations of the Department in effec| from September 1973
until repealed hereby, shall submit an application for an
operation permit on forms provided by the Department not later
than eighteen months after the effective date of this Part
unless otherwise notified in writing by the Department.
2. The operator of any solid waste management facility in operation
on the effective date of this Part for which no approval as
aforesaid was issued shall submit an application for an
operation permit on forms provided by the Department not later
than six months after the effective date of this Part unless
otherwise notified in writing by the Department.
C-21
-------
3. A complete application, timely submitted pursuant to this
Subdivision, shall be deemed a permit until such application
is acted upon.
k. If an application submitted pursuant to this Subdivision is
determined by the Department to be incomplete, the Department
shall notify the applicant in writing concerning the respects
in which the application is incomplete. Unless the applicant
completes the application, consistent with such notice, within
30 days after the date of notice, the application shall be
deni ed.
5. Every application pursuant to this Subdivision shall, in
addition to complying with Subdivision (d) of this Section,
include a detailed report describing the plan of operation and
a contingency plan setting forth in detail the applicant's
proposal for corrective or remedial action to be taken in the
event of equipment breakdowns, ground or surface water or air
contamination attributable to the facility's operation, fires,
and spills or releases of hazardous or toxic materials. In
addition, every application to this Subdivision shall
reasonably demonstrate that the subject solid waste management
facility meets the standards of operation.
6. Proposed facilities. Any person proposigg to construct a solid
waste management facility shall submit to,the Department, on
forms provided by the Department, not less than 90 days in
advance of the date on which it is proposed to commence such
construction, a complete application for a construction permit.
7- Proposed modifications to existing facilities. Any person
proposing to modify the use of a solid waste management facility
in a manner which is not reflected in either a construction
permit or operation permit issued pursuant to this Part, or its
predecessors, shall submit to the Department, on forms provided
by the Department, not less than 90 days in advance of the date
on which it is proposed to so modify, a complete application
for a construction permit reflecting such proposed modification.
8. Applications submitted pursuant to this Part shall be
accompanied by such data as the Department may reasonably
require for the purpose of fulfilling its responsibilities
under the ECL and this Part in accordance with guidelines
furnished by the Department.
C-22
-------
9- If an application submitted pursuant to this Section (excepting
Subdivision (b) hereof) is determined by the Department to be
incomplete, the Department shall notify the applicant in writing
concerning the respects ?n which the application is incomplete.
The effective date of application shall be the time at which
the applicant completes the application consistent with such
notice.
10. Within 90 days following receipt of a complete application
pursuant to this Part, or such longer period as may be agreed
upon in writing by the Department and the applicant, the
Department shall either approve the application and issue the
appropriate permit or disapprove the application or may proceed
to a public hearing. If an application for a construction or
operation permit is disapproved, the Department shall notify
the applicant in writing of the reasons therefor.
11. Any permit holder who intends to continue construction or
operation beyond the period of time covered in such permit must
file for reissuance of such permit at least 30 days prior to
its expiration. Filing for reissuance shall be made by the
permit holder on forms authorized by the Department. The
provisions of this Part relative to submittal and processing
of initial applications shall apply to reissuance applications
under this Section to the extent indicated by the Department
in instructions accompanying reissuance application forms.
12. After notice and opportunity for a hearing, any permit issued
pursuant to this Part may be modified, suspended, or revoked
in whole or in part during its term for causes stated on p. 11.
The Department may revise or modify a schedule of compliance or
other terms in an issued permit if it determines good cause
exists for such revision.
Pi scussion;
The Solid Waste Management Facility "Content" and "Guidelines for
Plans and Specifications" have been prepared*in draft form to aid the
applicant in satisfying the requirements of Part 360. Copies of these
two documents as well as the following application forms are included in
Appendix D:
1. Application for Approval to Construct a Solid Waste Management
Facility.
2. Application for Approval to Operate a Solid Waste Management
Facility.
C-23
-------
3. Application for Variance from 6NYCRR360.
k. Application for Use of a Construction and Demolition Debris
Disposal Site.
The newly-written guidelines contain procedures applicable to all
facilities as well as those specific to sanitary landfills, resource
recovery and processing facilities, and hazardous wastes and special
wastes (sewage sludge and power plant wastes) facilities. A list of
hazardous substances Is included in Appendix G of the "Guidelines". Note,
however, that this Is a working draft and not for publication. An
Industrial and hazardous waste disposal application form and a leaching
potential test reporting form are also Included in these "Guidelines" at
the end of Section 5, Industrial and Hazardous Waste Disposal. The
leaching potential test Is required only If requested by the Department.
The following procedure should be used to evaluate a waste for its
potential to readily leach deleterious substances. Triplicate samples of
the wastes should be analyzed to obtain representative results.
1. A representative sample of the waste should be taken according
to ASTM Standard Methods.
2. Any free liquid associated with the sample should be removed
by decanting or filtering. Such free liquid should be analyzed
in accordance with 3- below and the "dry" material in accordance
with k. below.
3. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of any associated free
liquid should be performed in accordance with accepted standard
methods. Suspended partlculate matter should be removed before
analysis by filtering the supernatant solution through a
0.^5-micron glass filter.
k. The following procedure should be used on the residual "dry"
material :
a. A 250-gram sample of the "dry" residual should be mixed
with one liter of distilled or deionlzed water.
b. The mixture should be agitated for *»8 hours by shaking or
slow stirring.
c. The sample container should be stoppered and the sample
allowed to settle for at least three days.
d. The supernatant water should be decanted and filtered
through a O.A5-micron glass filter.
C-21*
-------
e. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the supernatant
should be performed by standard methods.
Paragraph 36Q.8(a)(l7) states that "hazardous wastes shall be
accepted only at facilities which have been specifically approved by
the Department for the processing or disposal of the specific wastes".
Paragraph 360.8(b)(1)(xi) goes on to state that "No hazardous or
industrial wastes nor materials which when combined together will
produce hazardous wastes shall be disposed of in a sanitary landfill
except pursuant to specific operation permit authorization".
"Guidelines for Plans and Specifications" provides information
regarding on-site data. Such items as soil description, soil boring
identification and location (Unified Soil Classification), groundwater
depth and flow directions, and estimates of leachate formation are
included. Permeability is considered an important parameter; specific
requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis. Municipal wastes
are not classified. There are separate sections on industrial and
hazardous waste disposal and/or special wastes. The form includes
criteria for identifying hazardous substances, the list of hazardous
substances, and the leaching potential test. The latter includes sewage
and septic waste treatment and disposal, waste lagoon, ground spreading,
and injection into the land.
Wastes classified as hazardous may be required to be disposed of in
a "Secure landburlal facility". The site requirements for such a facility
are more detailed and more stringent than for a sanitary landfill. The
requirements are shown on Table C~3- Permeability of 1 x 10~7 cm/sec is
required for a site liner; a thickness is not specified. An impermeable
cover is also required for the facility in order to prevent infiltration
of rain water. The combined effect of the two impermeable barriers is to
provide total containment of waste and hydrologic isolation.
It is noteworthy that two modes of deposition of municipal solid wastes
exist within New York State. Waste deposition with reliance on the
natural attenuation of leachate is generally permitted in those areas of
the State except on Long Island. Waste containment with subsequent
leachate collection and treatment is generally required on Long Island
to ensure protection of the "sole source" groundwater supply present in
the underlying permeable sand and gravel aquifers. Liners are required
which preferably are clays with a natural low permeability rather than
synthetic liners for waste/1eachate containment.
C-25
-------
TABLE C-3
NEW YORK DEC SITE CRITERIA
Site
Character istics
Hazardous
Waste
ro
ON
Permeability of liner <1 x 10~7 cm/sec
Impermeable cap
Leachate col lection
and treatment
Surface dra inage
On-site soil
permeabi1ity
Depth to groundwater
or bedrock
Proximity to surface
water
Groundwater monitor
wel Is
Requ i red
Required
Collection and treatment
1 x 10 cm/sec
10 feet
Site - specific require-
ments may be indicated
min 3 ~ 2 downgradient
Other
Wastes
Site - specific requirements
may be i nd icated
Final cover such to mini-
mize ponding, erosion, and
infi1tration.
Site - specific requirements
may be indicated
Designed to minimize ponding,
erosion, and infiltration.
Not specified
5 feet
Site - specific requirements
may be i nd icated
Same
-------
CONTACT FORM
Agency:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Land Protection
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: 717-787-7381
Persons Contacted;
John Rosso, Chief Gary Merritt, Geologist
Program Development Section Program Development Section
Gary Galida Dwight Worley
Program Development Section Operations and Compliance Section
Type of Procedure:
Cri teria Li sti ng
Waste management including hazardous waste is regulated by Chapter 75,
Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations. These Rules and Regulations
were recently revised to include standards for sanitary landfill liners,
standards for hazardous solid waste management, and general standards for
industrial and hazardous waste disposal sites. These and other modifica-
tions became effective 27 June 1977.
Permit Procedure:
1. The applicant notifies DER of his intent to open a new landfill
site. DER encourages the applicant to meet with the State at
an early date to discuss his proposed plan and concept of opera-
tion and to obtain suggestions by DER personnel for site utiliza-
tion in an environmentally-acceptable manner. DER also encourages
local involvement, particularly with local zoning and local plan-
ning offices. This initial meeting may be held in the DER
Regional Offices; in many cases, however, the meeting is held
with the Central Office staff in Harrisburg.
2. A formal application is submitted to the Regional Office and
includes the following items: an Application for Permit for
Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Facilities; a Solid Waste
Disposal and/or Processing Site Application Module, Phase I;
and Module 5A - Phase I, Supplementary Geology and Ground Water
Information.
C-27
-------
3. Technical review Is provided In the Regional Office with Input
from the Central Office technical staff as required In the soils
and geology areas. All review comments are compiled by the
Regional Solid Waste Program Manager; he also reviews comments
by additional agencies such as the Bureau of Water Quality Manage-
ment, the Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control and Radiolo-
gical Health (if such comments are appropriate). This coordi-
nated review is made at the Phase I level and, In many cases,
the applicant Is Informed by DER that certain changes will be
required prior to submlttal of the Phase II application. The
Bureau of Water Quality Management must review and permit those
operations where leachate collection facilities are provided
with a point discharge. The Bureau of Air Quality and Noise
Control provides Input for those wastes generated by air pol-
lution control measures such as stack preclpitators and the
ensuing ash.
**. A formal Phase II submittal then follows; it Involves completion
of the solid waste disposal and/or processing site application
module, Phase II and the groundwater module, Phase II monitoring
points. Technical review is provided by soil scientists, geol-
ogists, and engineers with their comments coordinated by the
Regional Program Manager and, If necessary, a letter is sub-
mitted by htm to the applicant with deficiencies that need
resolution. Following their resolution, the Phase II submittal
is returned to the Operations and Compliance Section for proc-
essing and assurance that all Items are completed. The final
and formal permit Is prepared by the Operations and Compliance
unit for the Bureau Director's signature and is then issued.
5. A public hearing is not required; however notification of the
intended action must be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin
on two occasslons:
When the permit application Is made.
When the permit has been approved for Issuance.
If considerable protest arises prior to the Issuance of the per-
mit and a written request is made, an Informal (non-legal) fact-
finding hearing will be held by a DER hearing examiner who will
make recommendations on the course of action. Following the DER
advertisement of permit Issuance, there is a 15-day period in
which complaints may be filed to the hearing board. Formal hear-
ings, If required, are held by the Environmental Hearing Board
within 30 days of permit Issuance. Following acquisition of
expert testimony, the hearing board will render a decision which
C-28
-------
may be appealed (by either the applicant or by citizens groups)
to the Commonwealth Court and, if not resolved there, the appeal
may be taken to the State Supreme Court.
Pi scuss ion;
The philosophy of waste management and waste site permitting cur-
rently in effect is that the waste leachates must not adversely affect
groundwater quality. DER does not necessarily advocate containment of
waste and collection and treatment of leachates, but the trend is
definitely in that direction; attenuation is considered on a site-by-site
basis. Waste/site permitting is conducted on a case-by-case basis for
both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Certain industrial waste may be
given approval if the waste type remains constant for the life of that
waste being generated and deposited in a specific approved site. Where
the unit process changes frequently, wastes are permitted on a
"load-by-load" basis as long as the waste characteristics remain the same.
When the waste type does change, the landfill operator must acquire an
amendment to the permit to accept that type of waste.
DER provides the applicant with an array of»modules, rules and regu-
lations, guidelines, and applications according to the waste type proposed
for disposal. A listing of these items is as follows: Application for
Permit for Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Facilities; Solid Waste
Disposal and/or Processing Site Application Module, Phases I and II;
Module 5A-Phase I, Supplementary Geology and Groundwater Information;
Ground Water Module, Phase II Monitoring Points; Module for Sewage Sludge
and Septic Tank or Holding Tank Waste; Interim Guidelines for Sewage,
Septic Tank, and Holding Tank Waste on Agricultural Lands; a Spray Irriga-
tion Manual (which is administered by the Bureau of Water Quality Manage-
ment); and Coal Refuse Disposal Application for Permit. (Copies of these
forms are included in Appendix E.)
With respect to hazardous waste, there is no standardized form for
waste characterization; however, specific information is required relative
to the volume and nature of the waste to be disposed. A chemical analysis
of the waste must be provided, as well as a leaching analysis using methods
approved by the department. A waste leachate analysis procedure has been
established by the department and is attached. This procedure has been
in use for more than five years.
Based upon the waste characterization and leaching analysis, DER
determines the manner in which the waste is to be handled. Waste handling
methodologies include landfill ing, isolation within the landfill by con-
tainer ization, physical separation or lime encapsulation, chemical stabil-
ization, and incineration. It is noteworthy that there is no site
designated within Pennsylvania specifically and solely for the disposal
of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste being disposed of are either
C-29
-------
incorporated in existing approved landfills, are treated and disposed of
by using other methodologies, or are exported from the State. There is
no formal waste site classification with the exception of three classes
of waste (I, II, III) for construction and demolition wastes.
Disposal site characterization is provided by an extensive listing
of soils, geology, and surface and groundwater criteria that must be de-
fined to adequately describe the physical site conditions. This site
characterization is well defined in Module 5A and in various sections of
Chapter 75, Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations. A one-to-one
ratio of refuse to unsaturated thickness of soil deposits is required
where attenuation is relied upon for renovation of leachates produced
from the waste. As stated above, however, the trend is definitely toward
the collection and treatment of leachates generated by municipal waste
and, in most cases, hazardous waste. The utilization of man-made and
natural liners, particularly the former, is becoming more commonplace.
Synthetic liners of the membrane type must have a minimum thickness of
20 mils and a natural permeability of 1 x 10~7 cm/sec or less. If natural
deposits are used, they must have a uniform thickness of greater than 2
feet and must have a permeability of less than 1 x 10 ' cm/sec. If the
uniform thickness is greater than A feet and there is an upward ground-
water flow, the permeability may be increased to 1 x 10~° cm/sec or less.
C-30
-------
CONTACT FORM
Agency;
Texas State Department of Health Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
1100 W. 29th Street
Austin, Texas 78756
Phone: 512-^58-7271
Persons Contacted;
Mr. Jack C. Carmlchael Hector H. Mendieta
Director Chief, Facilities Evaluation
Branch
Mr. Lou B. Griffith, Jr. George King
Chief, Technical and Geologist
Regulatory Branch
Types of Procedure;
Criteria Listing
Classification System
The Department of Health Resources (DHR) has undergone an 18-month
program and has published new regulations for municipal solid waste
management that became effective 20 April 1977. (A copy of these
"Municipal Solid Waste Management" regulations Is included in Appendix E.)
Permit Procedure;
A flow chart Illustrating the review process, the agencies involved,
and the timing is presented In Figure C-2. A detailed description of this
permit review process is as follows:
Upon receipt of an application, the Department will make a prelim-
inary evaluation to determine if the application is administratively
and technically complete. If additional information is required,
it will be requested of the applicant before continuing with the
processing of the application.
1. Application Processing
a. Following receipt of all required information, the De-
partment will provide copies of the application to those
C-31
-------
o
I
Log in Code
I
Permit
Application
Received
\Merge /
13roposed>N.Y§S__\ /
Site / \/
NO
Request and
Receive
Part "B"
Preliminary
Review
Check List
Request Additional
Information as Required
•" ^^
Hearing X. YES
Store /
"C." Z_
Tentative
Schedule
To Region
FIGURE C-2 PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURE USED BY
THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RESOURCES
-------
90 DAYS
75 DAYS
Tentative
Schedule To
Region
75 DAYS
o
UJ
Request
Legal To
Schedule
Hearing
Evaluate,
Request
Agency
Comment
Conteste
Potential
Denial
Check
MIS Status
I
YES
Estab. 90 Day /
Req. Contested,/
Potential /""*"
Denial /
Public
Hearing
Record
Closed
Review With
Technical &
Regulatory
Branch
PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURE USED BY
THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RESOURCES
(continued)
-------
40 DAYS
30 DAYS
o
o
10
-c-
Record
Closed
Engineering
Evaluation
10 DAYS
Division of
Solid Waste
Management
Review
5 DAYS
Legal
NLT 45 Days Prior to
"Final Date"
Proposal
For
Decision
PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURE USED BY
THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RESOURCES
(continued)
-------
agencies which have or may have a jurisdictional
interest in the case and request their comments or
recommendations. The agencies include:
l) Texas Water Quality Board.
2) Texas Air Control Board (A separate permit may be
requi red).
3) Texas Water Development Board (A separate permit
may be requi red).
k) State Department of Highways and Public
Transportation.
5) Federal Aviation Administration.
6) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (A separate permit
may be required).
7) Mayor of the city in whose territorial or extra-
territorial jurisdiction the site is located.
8) Health authority of the city in whose territorial
or extraterritorial jurisdiction the site is
located.
9) County Judge of the county in which the site is
located.
10) Health authority of the county in which the site
is located.
11) Others as determined appropriate by the Department.
Additionally, a copy of the application is provided to
the appropriate Regional Engineer of the Department for
his conduct of a site evaluation, verifying insofar as
possible the data submitted and technical feasibility
of the proposed operation. In submitting his comments
and recommendations, the Regional Engineer will consider
the past operating record and current status of
an existing site. The site operator's ability or lack
of ability to comply with the Department's regulations
will also be discussed at the public hearing.
C-35
-------
c. Normally, the entities to whom copies of the
application are mailed shall have thirty (30) days to
present comments and recommendations on the permit
application. If any of the review agencies or the
Department requires additional data in order to
conduct a proper evaluation, the additional data will
be requested by the Department. Following receipt of
comments and recommendations from the various review
agencies, a professional engineer from the Department
will make a detailed engineering evaluation of the
application taking into consideration all comments
received from the review agencies. The Department
will give consideration to any recommendation or
action taken by the governing body of a city or county
within whose jurisdiction the proposed site is to be
located concerning implications of the application with
respect to public health welfare and physical property,
including proper land use, reasonable projection of
growth and development, and any other pertinent
consi derations.
2. Scheduling and Preparation for a Public Hearing
a. Upon completion of the evaluation of the permit
application, the Department will normally make
arrangements with the applicant for a time and place
for the conduct of the required public hearing.
b. The Department will provide the applicant with a
public hearing notice announcing the time, place and
purpose of the public hearing, and advising all
citizens of their right to present comments for or
against the issuance of a permit. The applicant shall
be responsible for ensuring that such notice of the
public hearing is published at least once in a
newspaper regularly published or circulated in the
county in which the disposal site is located. The
applicant shall be responsible for paying for and
publishing the hearing notice. The Department, at its
option in any individual case, may require that
publication of the notice be made in additional
newspapers in the county or other counties.
Publication shall not be less than twenty (20) days
before the date of the hearing. The applicant shall
provide the Department with proof that the publication
was timely by submitting prior to the date of the
hearing an affidavit of the publisher which shows the
date of publication. The affidavit shall be accompanied
by a copy of the published notice.
C-36
-------
3. Conduct of the Public Hearing
a. The public hearing will be conducted by a Hearing
Examiner from the Department's legal staff and a
professional engineer from the Division of Solid Waste
Management.
b. The applicant or his duly-authorized representative
will be present at the public hearing to present the
application and answer any questions that may arise
during the hearing or to clarify any of the information
previously submitted. In view of the possibility that
legal questions may arise, the applicant should be
accompanied by his legal counsel. If a professional
engineer prepared the engineering plan for the site,
he should also be present at the hearing to answer any
technical questions. Failure of an applicant to be
present at the public hearing, or to be properly
represented, could result in the denial of a permit.
c. All hearings held by the Department on solid waste
permit applications are conducted in accordance with
the "Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act",
which requires that evidence submitted by legally
admissible (as opposed to hearsay) if such evidence is
to be used as a basis for a final decision. Because
this statute requires that administrative hearings
follow the same rules of evidence as those used in
non-jury District Court cases, applicants are advised
to seek assistance from their attorneys in preparing
for a hearing and, although not required, it is
advisable that the applicant's attorney actually
participate in the hearing, particularly if there is
opposition to the permit application.
d. The hearing record may be closed by the Hearing
Examiner upon conclusion of the public hearing, or he
may keep the record open for a specified period of
time to receive specific documents or additional
information not available during the hearing.
k. Final Determination on Application
a. Unopposed Cases
After the record is closed, the Department will complete
the engineering and legal evaluation of all data
submitted prior to and during the hearing and before
C-37
-------
the closing of the record, including comments received
from the various review agencies. The Director of the
Department reviews the findings and recommendations
and either approves or denies the issuance of a permit.
Normally the final decision will be made within 60 days
after the closing of the hearing record, but this may
be extended by the Hearing Examiner at the public
hearing up to 90 days when required by circumstances.
The applicant will be advised by the Department of the
Director's final decision by letter.
b. Design Adjustments
l) If during the public hearing additional engineering
or design data are considered necessary as a result
of questions raised or introduction of conflicting
data by opponents, the Department will request the
data to resolve such conflicts. Any data thus
received at the public hearing or subsequent
thereto and prior to the closing of the hearing
record will be made a part of the application and
be subject to consideration during the final
evaluation.
2) Any data received at, or as a result of, the public
hearing will be provided to those designated as
parties to the action or review agencies who have
an apparent interest and whose original comments
could be influenced by the additional data.
3) Following the receipt of comments on the
supplemental data, the Department reevaluates all
data and prepares a Proposal for Decision in
opposed cases or in such cases when an intended
decision may be detrimental to the applicant. The
Proposal for Decision may contain special
requirements that could necessitate a redesign of
the facility or a revision in operating procedures.
c. Opposed Cases
In opposed cases in which the departmental Director
neither hears the evidence nor reads the complete
record, a Proposal for Decision shall be provided to
all parties to the action after the closing of the
record. All parties to the action will be provided
with a specified period of time to file exceptions and
briefs to such Proposal for Decision. Notice of this
C-38
-------
time limitation will be provided to all parties in
each case. Following his review of the Proposal for
Decision, exceptions and briefs to such Proposal, and
the staff recommendations, the Department Director
shall issue a final decision in the form of either a
permit, with special provisions attached thereto, or a
denial order, containing the grounds for such denial.
Subsequent to this final decision by the Director, a
Motion for Rehearing may be filed by any person
affected by the decision. This must be filed within
fifteen (15) days of the Director's decision, and
persons opposing or otherwise responding to the Motion
for Rehearing will be provided an opportunity to file
a reply to the Motion. The Director shall have
forty-five (^5) days from the time of the final
decision (i.e., the issuance of the permit or denial
order) to rule on the Motions for Rehearing, unless
such time is extended by the Director by written order,
Anyone who has filed a Motion for Rehearing may appeal
the Agency's final decision to a District Court in
Travis County within thirty (30) days after a Motion
for Rehearing has been overruled either by written
Order of the Director or by operations of law. Time
limitations for the filing of Motions, responses,
exceptions and briefs shall be governed by the
provisions of the "Administrative Procedure and Texas
Register Act", Article 6252-13a, Texas Civil Statutes.
Di scussion:
The responsibility for disposal of solid waste is divided between
the Texas Water Quality Board (WQB) which is responsible for industrial
waste and the Texas State Department of Health Resources (DHR) which is
responsible for municipal waste. When wastes are combined, the DHR has
responsibility. The two agencies differ somewhat in their approach, and
the regulations for the two waste types are different. DHR uses a site
type classification system for municipal waste. The various site types
have specific physical criteria which must be met but, as seen in Table C
the site types are primarily distinguished by the population served by
the site and the frequency of covering. The site criteria are then
applied according to the population. Type I (which serves the highest
population) has the strictest criteria and is considered to be the
standard for disposal of municipal solid waste.
The site type classification system makes a distinction not only on
the basis of population served, but also on the basis of waste type.
The Department does not regulate the acceptability of industrial or
C-39
-------
TABLE C-
Site
Type
Sani tary Landf i I Is
Site Type I
Site
Classification
Texas Department of Health Resources
Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Disposal
Minimum Acceptable Ground Water Protection
Permea-
Soi I bility Liquid Plasticity
Thickness cm/sec Limit Index
~
Dri nki ng Water
Protect ion
Flood
Protect ion
Frequency of
Compact ion
and Cover
Sani tary Landfi I Is
Si te Type I I
r>
i
x-
o
Sani tary LandfiI Is
Si te Type I I I
Sani tary Landfi1 Is
Type IV
Considered to be the 3'
standard sanitary land-
fill for di sposal of
municipal solid waste
and is encouraged in all
cases. Required in a
county with a population
> 100,000 or sites serv-
ing >5,000 persons, or
the same population
equivalent.
May be authorized by the
Department for a site sur-
vey serving <5,000 or same
population equivalent when
relevant factors indicate a
frequency of less than daily
compaction and cover will not
result in any significant
health problems.
May be authorized by the
Department for a site serv-
ing <1,500 persons or same
population equivalent using
the same considerations as
applicable to a site Type II
operat ion.
For disposal of brush and con-
struction-demolition wastes
that are free from other solid
wastes.
< 1
x 10 Not less Not less Not within 500' of
than 30 than 15 drinking water supply
wel 1 , intake of a
water treatment plant,
or raw water intake
which furnishes water
to a public water sy-
system for human con-
sumption. If closer
than 500', engineer-
ing data shall be pre-
sented to show that
adequate protection to
drinking water sources
i s provided.
Levees construct-
ed to provide
protection from a
50 yr. frequency
flood.
-.'. Minor amounts (5% or less by weight or volume) of Class I industrial solid waste may be accepted under certain conditions,
at Type I sites which have a permit from or have filed a permit application with the Texas Department of Health Resources
without special Department approval.
-.•.••:.• or equivalent (e.g., liner equivalent degree of impermeability).
AlI sol id waste
shalI be compacted
and covered at
least daily except
for areas desig-
nated to receive
only brush and/or
const ruct ion-
demolition wastes
wh ich shalI be
covered at least
monthly.
Up to seven (7)
days.
Up to thirty (30)
days.
As necessary.
-------
municipal solid waste by its point of origin. Municipal, agricultural,
or industrial waste can contain hazardous material and, therefore, the
Department regulates such wastes in relationship to the degree of hazard
the waste will create In specific municipal solid waste collection,
handling, storage, or disposal activities. Class ! industrial solid
waste may be accepted at a municipal solid waste site only if special
provisions for such disposal and special handling procedures are approved
by the Department.
Minor amounts of Class I industrial solid wastes (an estimated 5
percent or less by weight or volume) may be accepted at Type I sites
which have a permit from or have filed a permit application with the
Texas Department of Health Resources without special Department approval
If certain conditions are met. Significant amounts of Class I industrial
sol id wastes, which are in excess of an estimated 5 percent by weight or
volume of the total combined waste during any phase of collection,
handling, storage, transportation or disposal shall not be accepted by
or deposited in a municipal solid waste disposal site unless prior
written approval has been obtained from the Texas Department of Health
Resources. Requests for approval to accept Class I industrial solid
wastes shall be submitted to the Texas Department of Health Resources
by the municipal solid waste disposal site operator.
Furthermore, Class I industrial solid wastes shall not be accepted
for disposal at a Type II or III site without written approval from the
Department and hazardous wastes shall not be accepted for disposal at
any solid waste facility without prior written approval of the Department.
The specific conditions and requirements for co-disposal of municipal
and industrial wastes are found on pages 71~75 of the Regulations.
All municipal waste basically undergoes a mode of deposition relying
upon containment and not attenuation, since a permeability of 1 x 10'
cm/sec or less Is required. A variance may be issued which Is site
specific, whereby a greater permeability may be approved due to such
factors as size of site, amount and types of waste received, isolation of
the site, depth of water table, or lack of usable water. Relative to
liners, natural clays, either on-site or transported in and reworked,
are favored. There has been one permitted artificial liner, an asphalt
liner; however, the DHR does not favor the use of synthetic liners.
Even though site types are specified, as shown in the table, an
extensive Criteria listing is required for site characterization. The
specific site definition criteria are stated on pages 38 through 55 of
the Regulations.
C-M
-------
Pertinent documents relative to the permit process are included in
the regulations booklet. Specifically they include: "Application for
a Permit to Operate a Municipal Solid Waste Facility, Part A - General
Data (3 pages, Appendix A); Part B - Technical Data (5 pages, Appendix
B) ; Notice of Appointment, relative to submission of engineering plans
(Appendix C) ; and Affidavit to the Public, relative to the land owner/
operator (Appendix D) .
A "self assessment" of the Municipal Solid Waste Management
regulatory program has been completed by the DHR staff as follows:
1. Assess the relevancy and completeness of information requested
of permit applicants for making permit decisions:
The "Design Criteria" section of the January 1976 "Municipal
Solid Waste Management Regulations" stated that design
factors to be considered should provide for safe-guarding
the health, welfare, and physical property of the people
through consideration of geology, soil conditions,
drainage, land use, zoning, adequacy of access, economic
haul distances, and other conditions as the specific site
indicates. Information obtained from the applicant
generally addressed all design factors in sufficient
detail on which to base a sound decision. However, less
than half of the applicants initially submit relevant and
complete data with the application. Therefore, In more
than half of the cases, additional data must be requested
before the application can be processed. This problem is
more prevalent with small cities, counties, and operators
which are applying for permits for facilities serving less
than 5,000 persons. More difficulty is experienced in
obtaining data for existing sites than for proposed sites.
luate the ease of data gathering and analysis
the permit applicant and the permit grantor:
2. Evaluate the ease of data gathering and analysis on the part
of
The majority of the applicants for permits for large
facilities apparently have very little trouble in
obtaining the required data for a permit application. The
applicants for small facility permits (less than 5,000
population served) have relatively more difficulty in
obtaining data due to more limited staff and budget.
The ease of analysis on the part of the permit grantor is
directly related to the amount and quality of data
submitted by the applicant. Considerable effort is
frequently required to obtain necessary data from small
operators.
-------
3. Assess the consistency in interpretation and application of the
permit application process at different sites within the
jurisdiction:
•The Department is aware that consistency is of great
importance and has designed its internal procedures with
that goal in mind. Because Texas contains extreme
variations in population densities, rainfall, hydrogeology,
and other principal design factors, a policy of consistency
is sometimes difficult to follow, but is generally achieved.
A. Evaluate how well the procedure accounts for both site and waste
parameters, and determine the applicability of the procedure to a
range of sites and waste characteristics:
The procedure followed by this Department has worked quite
well. The range of site and waste characteristics varies
from small rural communities to large metropolitan areas.
The Department has been able to adapt the permit procedures
to both extremes and those occurring in between.
5. Identify the level of confidence in decisions made, both as to
site rejection and site approval:
There is little doubt that the proper decisions have been
made. This is backed up by the fact that, out of ^36 permits
which have been issued and 18 permits which have been denied
during the past 2 1/2 years, only four decisions (2 approvals
and 2 denials) have been taken to court. The court upheld
the decision in three cases and voided one approval on the
basis of procedural error (a complete list of adjacent property
owners had not been submitted by the applicant and,
consequently, all affected persons had not been advised of
the opportunity to attend the public hearing). As a
result, a rehearing was held which resulted in the denial
of the permit. Also, as a result of the court's ruling,
the procedure of individually notifying adjacent property
owners of public hearings was deleted from the regulations.
One recent approval and one denial are expected to be
appealed.
6. Determine costs of obtaining the permit decision:
See case history for City of CarrolIton, Permit No. 750 and
City of Mesquite, Permit No. 556.
-------
In addition to the Department's costs, other Federal, State, or
local agencies Incur costs as a result of reviews which those
agencies must make due to jurIsdletlonal responsibilities they
may have. (See Table C-5.) In some cases, up to 10 other
agencies may evaluate a specific application. Their costs are
probably low, but, In the case of the City of Carrollton's
permit application, the Texas Water Development Board estimated
its costs as $1,800 inasmuch as it had to issue a formal
approval, after a hearing, for construction of required levees
in a floodplain.
7. Determine the time (maximum, minimum, average) required to
obtain a permit:
Since the start of the program In October 197*»» the Department
received approximately 625 permit applications within a three
(3) month period and has received approximately 500 additional
permit applications since that time. Considerable difficulty
has been experienced in obtaining information on existing sites.
During the past 2 1/2 years, ^36 permits have been issued, 18
denied, and 69 permit applications have been withdrawn during
processing, mainly either because of public opposition to the
site operation or the applicant found it too expensive to
proceed.
a. The maximum time to issue a permit for a proposed site has
been 16 months. This was for the City of Victoria (Permit
No. 120) which was opposed and involved the reopening of
the hearing.
b. Minimum programmed time to Issue a permit after permit
application is complete when processed on a normal basis is
A months and 3 weeks:
2 weeks to review application 15 days
4 weeks for review agency comments 30 days
2 weeks to schedule public hearing 15 days
3 weeks for public hearing notice 20 days
60 days for final decision 60 days
140 days
The actual minimum time to issue a permit for a proposed site
has been 2 1/2 months. This was for a transfer station for
Travis County (Permit No. 119).
Average time to obtain a permit under this program, since
its start in 1 97A Is 7 months (for proposed sites, which
are given priority and processing of applications starts as
soon as received).
-------
TABLE C-5
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RESOURCES
PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW AGENCIES
PERMIT
Copies of DENIAL No.
individuals:
REVIEW AGENCIES AND MISC.
were mailed to the following review agencies and
INDIVIDUALS REQUESTED BY LEGAL
Region
TWQB
TACB
TWDB
SDHPT
Mayor of
TDHR
OTHER INDIVIDUALS
Senator -
Representative -
County Judge _
City-County Health Department
City Health Department
County Health Department
City Health Officer ~
County Health Officer
FAA
USAGE ZHZZHIZIIIIIIIIZ!ZZZZIZZZZ!
Trinity River Authority (N)
Texas Pollution Report ^_^^__^________^___________
The Process Company, Inc.
Legal, TDHR ' ZZZZZHZZZZHHZZZHHZZIII
Permit File (By Date Issued)
Permit File (By PA Number)
File Folder
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority (Chambers, Galveston, & Harris Counties)
Mailed by: Checked by:
Date:
Date:
TDHR - Division of Solid Waste Management
-------
8. Determine staff requirements to process permit applications (man
hours by labor class per permit application) by the regulatory
agency:
Engineering Supervisory Review 8 manhours
Project Engineer 36 manhours
Secretarial 12 manhours
Legal Staff 15 manhours
Legal Secretarial k manhours
Regional Engineer-Inspection and Review 15 manhours
Regional Secretarial 2 manhours
Staff Geologist 3 manhours
Supervisory Review 3 manhours
Court Reporter 2 manhours
100 manhours
This is an average figure over a 2 1/2-year period although
several highly-contested cases have required over 200 manhours.
Several excellently documented case histories which both describe
and highlight the permit procedure utilized by DHR have been prepared
by their staff. The case history for the City of Carroll ton, Permit No.
750 (Appendix E) was considered a typical contested case which did result
in the issuance of a permit.
-------
CONTACT FORM
Agency:
Texas Water Quality Board
Industrial Solid Waste Branch
P.O. Box 13246
Capital Station
Austin, Texas 78?11
Phone: 512-1*75-6625
Persons Contacted;
Jay Snow Chesley Blevins
Acting Chief, Industrial Engineer Assistant Director
Industrial Solid Waste Branch Hearings Division
J.C. Newell Greg Tipple
Assistant Director Geologist/Clay
Central Operations Division Mineralogist
Rod Kimbro
Chemist
Types of Procedures:
Criteria Listing
Classification System
Permit Procedure;
1. Initially, there Is a request from a proposed disposal operation
to discuss a need for a site and how best to proceed.
2. A pre-applIcatlon conference is held with the proposed operator
and WQB staff with some direction on where to look, the advisability
of the hiring of consultants, and preliminary assessment of office
data. There is a possibility of a second pre-applIcation conference
If some limited amount of data is gathered and recommendations
can then be made whether to proceed further or not. The State
may visit the site for recommendations on a "go/no go" situation
prior to spending considerable dollars and will encourage this
approach. Existing soils and geologic maps are used in the
assessment process; however, a field visit is generally made
unless it is obvious that, based on existing mapping, the site
Is not suitable.
3. Certain parameters are evaluated such as access, permeability,
land use in the area, proximity to streams, and groundwater use.
C-J.7
-------
'(. A detailed site definition is performed including engineering
plans, detailed operational manual, staffing, waste
characterization, and proposed monitoring.
5. Technical review is conducted by the State, and a second site
visit may be made. A permit is written based upon the
application and any modifications made to it, if necessary, on
a site-by-site basis. This generally entails a resubmittal.
There is no time limitation on the application review. A public
hearing is required for both municipal and industrial landfill
permits, and a date of action by the Water Quality Board on the
application is set at that hearing, generally at 60 days. Copies
of the draft report are sent to the District Office and the
following other state agencies for in-house review: the Health
Department; the Water Development Board, which will write a
report on the groundwater water-quality impacts; and the Parks
and Wildlife agency.
6. Local notification of the public hearing is set 20 days prior
to the hearing. The public hearing is held before a hearing
examiner who is a staff attorney of the Board. The hearing
examiner hears all the evidence, summarizes the proceedings in
a report, and makes a recommendation which is then mailed to
all pertinent parties attending the hearing at least 10 days
prior to the Board meeting. The Board meeting is public and
the Board makes the final decision needing the majority of
votes (*0 for permit approval. If there is disagreement
between the applicant and the technical review of that
application by the technical staff, the hearing examiner may
get third party advice.
A flow chart showing the agencies involved in the permit review
process is included in Appendix D.
A series of nine Technical Guidelines has been prepared by the WQ.B
relative to the regulation of wastes, exclusive of municipal refuse.
These Technical Guidelines are as follows:
Number Topi c
1 Waste Evaluation/Classification
2 Site Selection and Evaluation
3 Landfills
A Ponds and Lagoons
5 Landfarming
6 Monitoring/Leachate Collection Systems
7 Supporting Facilities
8 Records
9 Non-Compatible Wastes
048
-------
Technical Guideline No. 1 has been revised several times and the
latest draft copy (August 1977) is included in Appendix D. This copy is
expected to be distributed for use after 1 October 1977- The other eight
Guidelines will undergo some modification in the near future.
Pi scuss ion:
The Texas Water Quality Board regulates and permits the disposal
of industrial solid wastes unless they become mixed with municipal
wastes. When the wastes are mixed, the Texas Department of Health
Resources assumes responsibility. (See Discussion Section for this
agency.)
As with municipal waste disposal sites, industrial waste disposal
sites rely upon containment of wastes rather than attenuation of waste
leachates. A permeability of 1 x 10"? cm/sec or less is required for
containment.
Waste characterization is required. A solid waste evaluation
leachate test is required (a copy is included at the end of this
section). A hazardous index (Hi) has also been developed by the WQB.
Two methods to calculate the HI have been devised: one which is
non-analytical, for organic materials; and one that is analytical for
inorganic materials. A copy of these two methods is also attached.
Industrial solid waste is classified by the Water Quality Board (WQ.B)
on the basis of the hazardous potential of the waste. Site criteria have
also been assigned to each of the three waste classes. (See Table C-6.)
The following definitions of waste classes have been established:
11
Class III - Essentially inert and essentially insoluble
industrial solid waste, usually including materials such as
rock, brick, glass, dirt, certain plastics, rubber, etc., that
are not readily decomposable.
Class I I - Any industrial solid waste or combination of
industrial solid wastes which cannot be described as Class I
or Class III as defined in this regulation.
Class I - Any industrial soli d waste or mixture of wastes, wh i ch
because of its concentration, or physical or chemical
characteristics, is toxic, corrosive, flammable, a strong
sensitizer or irritant, generates sudden pressure by decomposition,
heat or other means and may pose a substantial present or potential
danger to human health or the environment when improperly
treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed;
including hazardous wastes identified by the administration of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to
the Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act."
-------
TABLE C-6
Texas Water Quality Board
Industrial Solid Waste Management
Draft Site Guidelines for Landfills for Industrial Solid Waste
Waste
Class
Wastes
Included
Imp)ace Compacted Perinea- % Passing
Soil Soil Liner billty No. 200 Liquid plasticity Monitor
Thickness Thickness cm/sec Sieve Limi t Index Wei Is
Depth to
Leachate Water_.
Collect ion Table
Flood
Protection
O
I
<1
Any industrial solid waste V 3'
or mixture of industrial
solid wastes, which, because
of its concentration, or phy-
sical or chemical character-
istics, is toxic, corrosive,
flammable, a strong sensi-
tizer or irritant, generates
sudden pressure by decompo-
sition, heat or other means,
and may pose substantial pre-
sent or potential danger to
human health or the environ-
ment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or dis-
posed of or otherwise managed;
including hazardous wastes
identified or listed by the
t^ administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency pur-
suant to the Federal Sol id
Waste Disposal Act.
II Any industrial solid waste or 3' 2'
combination of industrial
solid waste which cannot be
described as Class I or
Class III as defined in this
regulat ion.
Ill Essentially inert and essen-
tially insoluble industrial
solid wastes, usually includ-
ing brick, rock, glass, dirt,
certain plastics, rubber,
etc. not readily decomposable
•'•' Depends on permeability and thickness of material at site.
x 10
-7
^30
>30
Yes
Yes
50'
<1
x 10
-7
>3o
>30
15
Yes
10'
Below 50 yr. flood -di-
version dikes 2' above
50 yr. flood elevation
around perimeter of site.
Above 50 yr. flood -
structure for diverting
all surface water runoff
from 2k hr., 25 yr. storm.
Above 50 yr. flood -
structure for diverting
all surface water runoff
from 21* hr., 25 yr. storm.
-------
Class I contains those wastes with the highest potential for
environmental damage and Class III contains wastes that have virtually no
potential for environmental damage. Class !! wastes are 1ntermed5ate,
but do not include any hazardous waste. The primary differences between
Class I and Class II waste sites are thickness of the confining layer,
depth to water table, and flood protection. The permeability of the
lining soil does not change. Class I sites have leachate collection
systems whereby leachate is either recycled or taken to a disposal well.
On Class I sites, encapsulation is strived for by using low permeability
cover material as well- as lining material. Criteria have also been
established for a reclassification of wastes if it can be shown that
they are less toxic than presumed and could be disposed of under less
stringent standards.
Guidelines for site selection and evaluation using a Criteria
Listing approach are given in Technical Guidelines No. 2 Attachment B in
that report presents a discussion on "Geologic Formations Suitable for
Disposal Site Locations". Copies of each of the Technical Guidelines
and the permit application forms are given in Appendix D. In addition,
an alphabetic "Waste Classification Code Report" is also included in
Appendix D.
A detailed case history for the Conservation Services, Inc., Class
I, II, III waste disposal site is included in Appendix E.
C-51
-------
Sol id Waste Evaluation Leachate Test - Texas WQB
1. A 250 gm (dry weight) representative sample of the waste
material should be taken and placed in a 1,500-ml Erlenmeyer
flask.
2. One liter of deionized or distilled water should be added
to the flask and the material stirred mechanically at a low
speed for five (5) minutes.
3. Stopper the flask and allow to stand for seven (7) days.
k. Filter the supernatant solution through an 0.^5-micron
filter.
5. The filtered leachate from (2) should be subjected to a
quantitative analysis for those component or ionic species
determined to be present in the analysis of the waste itself.
Note: Triplicate samples of the waste should be leached in order to
obtain a representative leachate.
C-52
-------
Hazardous Index - Texas WQB
The Hazardous Index (Hi) of a material is a parameter developed by the
Texas V/ater Quality Board by which a material's possible environmental
impact from improper disposal may be calculated based on the materials
solubility and toxicity.
The parameter HI may be defined by either of the following equations.
_50
1) HI = S or 2) HI = N
where S = the solubility of the waste in milligrams per liter
Tox = the toxicity of the waste as Oral LD(-n in milligrams per
kilogram
C. = the concentration of component i in a liquid waste or the
leachate from a dry solid waste
Tox. = the toxicity of component ? expressed as Oral LD,..., Oral
1 LDL or Oral TDL ^
o o
Oral LD,-n = a calculated dose of a chemical substance which is
expected to cause the death of 50 percent of an entire
population of an experimental animal species, as
determined by exposure to the substance by an oral route
o,f a significant number of that population
Oral LDL = the lowest dose of a substance other than the LD,_n
introduced by an oral route over any given period of time
and reported to have caused death in man or the lowest
single dose introduced orally in one or more divided
portions and reported to have caused death in animals
Oral TDL = the lowest dose of a substance, introduced by an oral
0 route over any given period of time and reported to
produce any toxic effect in man or to produce carcinogenic,
teratogenic, mutagenic or neoplastigenic effects in
humans or animals
The HI equation was derived through a rearrangement of Finney's
mathematical model for additive joint toxicity, which predicts the
reciprocal of the composite LDcQ to be equal to the sum of the proportion
of each constituent divided by its characteristic LD™ value, or
C-53
-------
1 N Px
TK— waste = , , - A
LD50 x=1 LD5Ox
where PX is the fraction of constituent x in the waste. The factor of
50 which appears in the numerator is present to correlate the effect of
the component concentrations on an average human with a body weight of
50 kg (110 Ibs). The rearrangement, in terms of units or measurement,
gives the parameter HI in liters of waste orleachate which would
necessarily have to be ingested orally to deliver toxic or lethal dose to
a human.
-------
CONTACT FORM
George M. Hughes, Ph.D.
Chief, Ground Water Protection
Hydrology and Monitoring Sections
Water Resources Branch
G. Martin Wood
Head, Solid Waste Unit
Pollution Control Branch
Agency:
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Suite 100
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
Phone: 41 6-965-6421
Persons Contacted:
John Patterson
Supervi sor
Environmental Approvals Branch
Industrial Approvals Section
J.R. McMurray
Supervisor
Environmental Approvals Branch
Municipal and Private Approvals
Sect Ion
Indulis Kulnieks
Head, Environmental Approvals
Branch
Municipal and Private Approvals
Section
Waste Management Approvals Unit
Type of Procedure;
Cri teria Li sting
Procedure:
The following Waste Management Systems must be approved by this
Min istry.
1. Municipal Waste Management Systems.
2. Private Waste Management Systems.
3. Hauled liquid and hazardous waste collection systems.
4. Organic Waste Management Systems.
C-55
-------
All the preceding, with the exception of the organic waste
management system, are applied for on the standard "Application for
a Certificate of Approval for a Waste Management System" which is
supported by a Standard "Supporting Information Form". All such
applications Involve approval of sites, and It Is the procedure to
certify the site separately. If an application Is made which Involves
a new site, both forms are to be completed. The Organic Waste Management
System will be dealt with later.
1. The applications for waste disposal sites and waste management
systems under part V of the Environmental Protection Act are
submitted to the Municipal and Private Abatement Section of
The Regional District Office. The Environmental Officer (E.O.)
receives the applications, reviews them from the Central Region
point of view, attends public hearings, and presents the
Central Region's position on the application. The E.O. may draw
on the staff of. the Technical Support Section and hydrogeologists
with the Water Resources Assessment Unit, Central Region. The
hydrogeologists help the E.O. review the hydrogeologleal setting
of the landfill Ing sites and any monitoring program that may be
requi red.
2. After an application and supporting documents are reviewed by
the Regional Staff, the package Is forwarded to the Environmental
Approvals Branch, Municipal and Private Approvals Section,
together with a recommendation for approval or rejection of the
application as well as a recommendation as to whether a public
hearing of the Environmental Assessment Board should or should
not be held.
3. A decision Is then made by the Director of the Environmental
Approvals Branch on the recommendation of his staff (In some
Instances with the assistance of the Legal Services Branch)
whether a hearing should or should not be held.
A. If a hearing is mandatory or If It Is decided by the Director
that a hearing is required, then the application together with
the appropriate supporting documents Is forwarded through the
Waste Management Approvals Unit to the Board together with a
memorandum from the Director to the Board Secretary, Environmental
Assessment Board Instructing the Board to hold a hearing under
the appropriate sections of the Environmental Protection Act.
The hearing Is attended by the Regional staff Environmental
Officer who assembled and reviewed the documents. On the more
major and complex applications, these may be coordinated by a
working group (e.g., the Maple site) composed of Head Office
and District Staff.
C-56
-------
5. The Environmental Assessment Board Report is forwarded to the
Director by the Board Chairman for his consideration. It is
then forwarded by the Waste Management Approvals Unit to the
Regional Staff, usually the District Officer, for review with
particular emphasis on any recommendations made by the
Environmental Assessment Board. The Regional Staff would then
discuss the Board report with the applicant and resolve how any
recommendations are to be dealt with.
6. The revised support documents are then forwarded to the
Municipal and Private Approvals Section by the District Staff
together with the Regional recommendation on what basis the
application is to be approved or In some Instances rejected.
There may also be further documents submitted to the Director
of the Environmental Approvals Branch by Interested parties.
These are usually reviewed by the Municipal and Private
Approvals Section; where hydrogeology Is Involved these documents
are reviewed either with the District hydrogeologIsts or the
Chief, Ground Water Protection Section, Water Resources Branch.
7. A Certificate or Provisional Certificate of Approval Is then
prepared by the Municipal and Private Approvals Section. The
conditions, If any, and reasons are checked with the Legal
Services Branch and the documents are signed by the Director,
Environmental Approvals Branch. Formal Notice of Appeal Is
included with any conditional certificate or Notice of Refusal.
8. In the event that the conditions on a refusal are appealed, the
Municipal and Private Approvals Section co-ordinates the appeal
through the Environmental Appeal Board, but the Ministry is
represented by the Regional Staff at the Appeal Board hearing.
9. The Environmental Appeal Board report is forwarded by the Board
Secretary to the Director, Environmental Approvals Branch, and
the Certificate or Provisional Certificate of Approval is
ammended in accordance with the Board's Order.
10. The Applicant after receipt of the decision of the Board, can
appeal on a question of law to the county court. The final
appeal may be made to the Minister.
A flow diagram showing the review process and agencies involved is
given in Figure C-3.
Discuss ion:
The regulation of both municipal and Industrial wastes are handled
in a similar manner by the above-stated agencies following the procedural
C-57
-------
Evidence to be presented
at hearing by the applicant
Set up hearing
Summary of
Application &
Supporting
Information
U1
CO
Letter
Requesting
Hearing
Summary Outline
and Letter to
the Board
Final Technical
Report with
Recommendations
FIGURE C-3 ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
APPLICATION PROCESS FLOW SHEET
-------
format described. There are no set criteria for either waste or site
characterization. Disposal of industrial and hazardous materials
utilizes the same "General Guidelines for Landfill Site Selection" as
are used for municipal wastes. These guidelines were prepared by the
Water Resources Branch and are included In Appendix D. The guidelines
are general and flexible In nature and contain no specific requirements
relative to site characterization. Rather, they are highly dependent
on such factors as the size, location, potential for contamination, and
significance of effects associated with the specific site/waste
si tuation.
It Is noteworthy that the permit approval places almost total
reliance on the natural attenuation of waste leachate rather than waste
containment with associated leachate collection and treatment. Several
key sections of the Guidelines are as follows:
"Under certain hydrogeologlc conditions, there is little
hazard of polluting ground and surface waters. These
Include:
a. the absence of significant aquifers;
b. the presence of thick, fine-grained overburden
materials and a thick, unsaturated zone;
c. location near, but not within, a ground water
discharge zone;
d. slight to moderately permeable deposits to
allow some infiltration of the leachate,
stabilization during percolation and reduction
of ponding or excessive surface runoff.
"The presence of a major potable aquifer near a site
should preclude its use without engineering works to
collect and treat leachate. There should be no users
of ground water between the site and the discharge
zone for ground water moving beneath the site that
will be adversely affected by leachate migration.
Alternate, adequate sources of water supply must be
available for downgradient water users in the event
that the prediction model for pollution migration fails."
Containment utilizing naturally low permeability deposits or
artificial liners Is being considered. There Is presently only one
sIte ut11izing a 1iner.
C-59
-------
Copies of the following items are included in Appendix D: the
General Guidelines; Application for a Certificate of Approval for a Waste
Management System; Supporting Information to an Application for a Waste
Management System; a completed Recommendation of the District Office;
Provisional Certificate of Approval for a Waste Disposal Site, with
conditions; and supporting letters stating reasons for the imposition of
the conditions on the Provisional Certificate.
C-60
-------
CONTACT FORM
Agency:
SVA (Stichting Verwijdering Afvalstoffen—
The Institute for Waste Disposal)
Natriumweg 7
Postbus 181*
Amersfoort
Netherlands
Phone: 033-1290*4
Persons Contacted;
Ir. E.J. Mesu Ir. F. Van Veen
Soil Scientist, Hydrogeologist Chemist
Type of Procedure:
Cri teria Listing
Permit Procedure;
The legislation for land disposal of waste is as follows:
• Chemical Waste Act - Expected to be effective in January 1978.
• Waste Disposal Act - Currently in parliament, with passage
expected soon.
•Soil Protection Act - In the development stage.
At present then, none of these regulations are in force.
The SVA is a semi-governmental agency which provides advice to
federal and provincial governments, municipalities, and industry. It
has no regulatory functions, but will review licensing applications and
will write the guidelines for disposal practices. Each of the 11 provinces
has an Inspector for Environmental Health who reviews applications for
site licensing.
Pi scuss ion:
The approach to land disposal of waste in the Netherlands, at present,
is relatively informal. Permits are required for landfill ing, but soils
and specific hydrogeologic information are not required. There is also
no requirement for monitoring wells, however, new regulations are being
C-61
-------
drafted to require a ditch around the site to control and monitor
drainage. Recommendations have been drafted to require a soils and
hydrogeologic report as part of the permitting procedure. (A report,
written in Dutch entitled "Recommendations for the Design, Installation
and Executing of Landfills", is included in Appendix D.)
At present, the following requirements generally apply to landfill
si ti ng:
• No sites in a residential area.
« A distance of 2 kilometers between the landfill and a municipal
well or point of water use as established by the Institute for
Drinking Water.
© Not in parks or historical areas.
© 20 to 30 cm above the average highest ground water table; this
requirement is being rewritten to state 20 to 30 cm above the
highest groundwater table in 10 years.
The emphasis is placed on limiting the amount of water that enters
a landfill. This is accomplished in several ways by:
© Encouraging tips (above ground disposal) rather than fills.
o Requiring disposal above the water table. It is also considered
advantageous to have a fairly shallow water table to allow for ready
removal of contaminated water.
® Using slopes of 1:50 on the top surface to encourage runoff.
©Using impermeable covers to limit the infiltration of precipitation.
Containment is not practiced. An ideal site is considered to have
a permeability of 10"^ cm/sec in order to allow for release and attenuation
of leachate. Containment is considered to result in a more-concentrated
leachate which is more likely to pollute.
Land disposal is discouraged for chemical wastes as described in The
Chemical Waste Act. This act deliberately avoids an exact definition of
chemical waste because such a definition is considered to have a subjective
and changing meaning. A draft list of chemical components in relation to
concentration is available. Four concentration levels have been
established: 50 mg/kg, 5,000 mg/kg, 20,000 mg/kg and 50,000 mg/kg. The
most hazardous components fall into the 50-mg/kg limit (arsenic, mercury,
cadmium, etc.). Heavy metals such as lead, copper and organics fall into
C-62
-------
o
I
Chemical
Wastes
10.
20.
70.
80.
90.
Classification
Reuse
Treatment
Special
Storage
Not
Classifiable
Reuse
Regeneration
and
Treating
Methods
Final Disposal To:
• Air
• Water
• Sea/Ocean
Special Storage
and Chemical
Landfill
FIGURE C-4 REVIEW OF THE DISPOSAL OF CHEMICAL WASTES IS
INDICATED FOR THE NETHERLANDS
-------
the 5,000-mg/kg limit,, The hazardous materials such as aliphatic
hydrocarbons are in the 20,000- and 50,000-mg/kg groups- There is also
a list of exceptions which includes residuals of municipal waste. This
is one of the few attempts that have been made by a regulatory agency
to characterize waste on the basis of concentration.
Chemical wastes are considered for reuse and/or treatment before
land disposal. Land disposal is permitted only under exceptional cases.
The requirements for such exceptions have not yet been defined, but will
probably require that no emissions occur, i.e., a contained site.
Discussions are taking place regarding the use of double liners at
chemical waste disposal sites. Figure C-b (adapted from SVA) shows the
types of disposal considered for chemical waste,, The waste classification
shown is divided into subgroups with assigned treatment codes. The wastes
that are included in the subgroups are not identified,,
A standard leaching procedure is being developed and tested using
both a partial extraction shake test and a continual extraction column.
Various types of waste are being analyzed in this $AO,000 study.
Solubility of the waste is considered the most important characteristic.
(A full description of this test is included in Appendix D.)
The entire process of waste disposal permitting in the Netherlands
is in its infancy. The present lack of regulation is being changed, but,
at present, land disposal is to uncontrolled landfills, and no licensed
si tes yet exist.
The present practice of treatment shows an actual reuse of chemical
waste of 15 percent and an actual landfill practice of 25 percent.. Since
no chemical landfills presently exist, this 25 percent figure is practiced
under uncontrolled conditions.
The purpose of the proposed Chemical Waste Act is to prevent pollution
of the environment by chemical wastes. Because of the special situation
in the Netherlands with respect to tipping and landfilling, the Act is
designed for a proh ib i tion to dispose of chemical wastes by deposition
in or on the soil. Only in exceptional cases will permission be granted.
In order to obtain an exact delimitation of its juridical scope, the
Act refrains from defining the term "chemical wastes", because it has a
subjective and changing meaning,,
Industries generating chemical wastes can dispose of these wastes
by: treating under their own control, or by transferring to specialized
disposal industries.
-------
All plants used for the treatment, whether under their own control
or by special industries, are controlled by other acts such as the Public
Nuisance Act, the Air Pollution Act, and the Pollution of Surface Waters
Act.
Transfer of chemical wastes, as collection and treatment of the
wastes, will be tied to a notification and a license system. In order to
handle chemical wastes, it will be necessary to connect the wastes with
the corresponding treatment and disposal methods. The desirable
procedure is divided into three important groups: regeneration and reuse,
treatment, and storage and landfill.
The aim of treating is to transform chemical wastes into a number
of components which can either be reused, or which are not considered to
be chemical waste anymore. The most important treating methods are:
incineration; detoxification, neutralisation, and dewatering; treating
of emulsions; and special methods, e.g., for mercury-containing waste.
In the preliminary stage, each of these disposal methods will cause
certain environmental emissions at a substantial level. However, when
more knowledge is available about the nature and background of the wastes,
these emissions can be decreased to an acceptable level. Each disposal
method has its own specific residuals; generally, it is not possible to
treat or reuse these residuals in a way which conforms to the
environmental requirements.
When it proves impossible to avoid the generation of these residuals
(for example, by change of process), "special storage" is the only
possible alternative. The term "special storage" includes several
techniques, such as chemical landfill and storage in abandoned salt mines,
a practice in West Germany. In the Chemical Waste Act, chemical landfi11
is not considered to be an efficient disposal method and therefore is
prohibited. Only in exceptional cases will exceptions be granted. The
requirements for exceptions are not yet known, but it is very likely that
a chemical landfill will only be allowed when no emissions occur and
under specific conditions.
For certain types of wastes which cannot be treated or reused, the
possibility exists for temporary storage. Because of the economics (very
expensive) and uncertainty for recycling and other available alternatives,
temporary storage can be expected to be an inappropriate and inefficient
method.
-------
CONTACT FORM
Agency Contacted:
Department of the Environment
Queen Anne Chambers
28 Broadway
London SW1H 9JY
United Kingdom
Phone: 01-273-5207
Persons Contacted;
Mr. Raymond G.D. Osmond
Superintendent
Toxic Waste Section
Waste Division
Water Engineering Directorate
Mr. Derrick Bond
Chemist
Greater London Council
Department of Public Health
Engineer! ng
Solid Waste Branch
10 Great George Street
London SWIP 3AB
United Kingdom
Phone: 01-633-AOAO
Peter Jarrett
Assistant Division Engineer
Division Solid Waste, Design
and Development
Anthony Marchant
Project Engineer
Ray Carpenter
Chemi st
Type of Procedure;
Criteria Listing
Permit Procedure:
The procedure adopted by the GLC Licensing Unit is as follows:
1. Original enquiry from the prospective applicant.
2. Dispatch of application forms comprising Parts I, II and III.
3. Part I is completed by the applicant and gives rudimentary facts
about the waste disposal/handling facility.
*». Site visit by Site Licensing Unit Officers (proficient in
Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Geology and waste disposal
techniques) for assessment of the site and discussion over the
completion of Parts II and I I I of the License application by
the appli cantu
C-66
-------
5. Receipt of Part II and III by the Site Licensing Unit.
6. Formulation of a draft disposal license by the Site Licensing
Unit using guidelines given by the Department of the
Envi ronment.
7. The whole application (Parts I, II and III) and the draft
disposal License are sent for consultation with various
author!t ies:-
a. Water Author!ty
b. Health and Safety Executive
c. Local Authority including Planning, Environmental Health
and Waste Collection departments
d. Institute of Geological Sciences if disposal is by deep
well injection or into disused mines.
e. Fire Brigade
Each Authority is invited to give observations within 21 days
of receiving the documents.
8. Observations received by SLU.
9. Discussion where necessary with Authorities that highlight
problems arising from particular sites, e.g., Water Authority
may envisage possible pollution to groundwater or surface
drainage. The Fire Brigade may request further fire prevention
measures, etc.
10. Issue or refusal of license by GLC Committee.
11. Possible Appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment
against a refusal to grant a Waste Disposal License or to
conditions included within the License. The Secretary of State
then has the final decision.
Pi scuss ion:
The permitting (licensing) of waste disposal sites in the United
Kingdom was provided for by the Control of Pollution Act of 197^.
According to the provisions of the Act as of 1A June 1976, the deposit
of controlled waste on land will, with certain specified exceptions, be
punishable offences except when carried out in accordance with a valid
disposal license. Sites in operation for six months or more prior to
that date are not required to be licensed until 1*» June 1977.
C-67
-------
The license granting agency is the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA)
which is a local agency. Each WDA has jurisdiction over a designated
area (counties in England). The WDA for the Greater London Metropolitan
Area is part of the Greater London Council. Although licensing
application is made to the WDA which is the decision-making body, the WDA
is required to consult with other agencies before issuing the license.
In order to issue a license, the WDA and the relevant Water Authority
must reach agreement on the license and on the conditions applied to that
license. When agreement cannot be reached, either agency may refer the
matter to the Secretary of State. In exceptional cases where agreement
is not reached, the Department of the Environment makes the final
decision.
The other agency that has a major role in the licensing procedure is
the Local Planning Commission. In order for a license to be issued,
planning permission must be obtained. Once such permission has been
obtained, the WDA can refuse a license only when the Authority is
satisfied that rejection is necessary for preventing pollution of water
or danger to public health. For example, the fact that a site is not
compatible with the Authority's waste disposal plan is not sufficient
reason for rejection. In effect, planning considerations and technical
considerations are kept separate in the licensing procedures.
Public hearings are not required for licensing; however, when one is
held, it is chaired by the Planning Inspector. The Department of the
Environment is only part of the decision procedure in the event of a
deadlock as described above. The function of the Department is to
establish policy for waste disposal and waste management.
Guidelines for completion of the Disposal License Application Form
are given in Waste Management Paper No. k, "The Licensing of Waste
Disposal Sites." (A copy of this paper and the application form are
included in Appendix D.)
The Disposal License Application Form that is used is standard in
the United Kingdom. Application is made in writing to the relevant Waste
Disposal Authority. The information required by the form is of a general
nature, but the WDA may request additional information (such as a geologic
report) judged to be appropriate to the site in question. The form is
divided into three parts. Part I deals with general information on site
location, ownership, type, and brief description of the waste to be
accepted. Part II addresses the waste types, quantities, and sources in
more detail. Part III is a separate submission in that it is not part
of the form as such; it includes the site location plan and the working/
operational plan for the facility. It is strongly suggested by the
Department of the Environment (DOE) that Part I of the application be
filled out and submitted prior to completion of Parts II and III. Part
C-68
-------
I can then be used as the basis for informal discussion between the
applicant and the WDA. The data that can be required of an applicant
are not specified and presumably would be clarified on a case-by-case
basis after the submission of Part I.
The decision procedure that is used in considering a site licensing
application is that of criteria listing applied on a case-by-case basis.
Criteria that are used are described in Waste Management Paper No. ^4,
but the criteria are not quantified. Table C-7 is a brief summary of the
factors that are considered to be related to waste characteristics and
site conditions. Planning considerations and legislative interaction
are not shown in this table. It is notable that most of the items in the
table are considered in balance, and not as absolute values; the monetary
or other cost is considered in conjunction with the risk associated with
the alternative action. The lack of quantification of criteria is
intentional because the philosophy of the Department of the Environment
is to allow enough leeway for the balance to be achieved,, They do not
want extensive quantification because they do not want to be bound by
numbers. The emphasis is on subjective evaluation based upon: waste and
site specific data, experience at similar disposal sites, and professional
judgment.
The DOE has developed a site classification scheme (Table C-8) for
the selection of landfill sites indicative of the non-quantified approach.
The generality of the classification scheme is justified in the following:
"At first sight it might be thought that the way to deal with
the selection of landfill sites was to categorize wastes on the
basis of their pollution potential and sites on the basis of
their ability to contain wastes. Particular categories of waste
could then be linked with particular categories of sites to
produce a series of definitive recommendations,, Unfortunately
neither wastes nor sites lend themselves to such categorization
and it is necessary to produce a more generalized scheme which
can be modified and adapted for local use."
Class 2 sites appear to be considered the least likely to cause
pollution if the site is properly selected and managed. According to DOE,
the majority of pollution form domestic landfills involve surface water
resources rather than groundwater resources. At Class 1 sites, leachate
cannot move away from the site, and saturated conditions result. In time,
the leachate overflows the impermeable base of the landfill to form a
polluting surface discharge. Impermeable linings are recommended only
where there is a shortage of potential disposal sites, and a site must
be located so close to water supply wells that pollution would almost
certainly occur.
C-69
-------
TABLE C-7
CRITERIA USED FOR WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LICENSING
(DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, UNITED KINGDOM)
Cri teria
Site Characteristics
a. Past History
b. Hydrogeology
c. Aquifers
d. Rainfall
e. Site Works
f. Wet Sites
II. Waste Characteristics
a. Type of Waste
b. Quantity of Waste
c. Mix of Waste
Descri ption
Existing site near end of completion may
be allowed to continue even with undesir-
able features particularly if features have
no lasting ill effects and would be unduly
expensive to correct.
Geology of the underlying rock types, their
permeability and ability to attenuate leach-
ate, depth of the unsaturated zone, and the
direction of groundwater flow are of major
importance.
Whether the water is used at present or is
likely to be used in the future, and the
type of use are weighed against the risk
from the site.
Quantity of residual rainfall must be taken
into account as it affects leachate perco-
lation and site stability. Net transmission
of rainfall within the site must be consid-
ered when liquid waste is deposited.
The cost of control of drainage into the
site must be assessed against the reduction
of pollution risks thereby achieved.
As a general rule, only inert wastes should
be deposited.
Whether the waste is biodegradable or cap-
able of reacting with other waste, and its
behavior are to be considered.
It should be determined that the proposed
quantity of waste does not exceed the physi-
cal or operational site capacity.
Positive and negative effects of waste inter-
action should be considered.
C-70
-------
TABLE C-8
CLASSIFICATION OF LANDFILL SITES
(DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, UNITED KINGDOM)
Class 2
Class 3
Class
Si tes provi di ng
a significant
element of
containment
Si tes allow!ng
slow leachate
mi grat ion
Si tes allowi ng
rapid leachate
movement
Generalized Description
Located on impermeable or relatively imperme-
able strata which contain wastes and leachates
within landfill or immediate vicinity. Strata
include fine grained compact rocks of low per-
meability such as slates, shales, and mud-
stones as well as soft clay and marls. Thick-
ness required is computed by: Q/A = K x i
Poor permeable material is used for daily
cove r.
Sites which do not provide containment but
allow leachate to migrate at slow rates so
that attenuation and dilution can occur before
leachate reaches potential or developed ground-
water resources. Major points in site char-
acteristics are the presence of a thick un-
saturated zone and large distance from ground-
water withdrawal points. Sites on fissured
rock are generally not suitable. Ideal site
characteristics are: pit in silt or fine sand,
permeability of 10"• m/day, and underlain at
depth by impermeable clay to.protect deeper
aqu.i fers.
Sites having insignificant attenuation. They
are located in a variety of settings; examples
are river terraces with high water table and
limestone with solution enlarged fractures.
Wastes Suitable
Suitable for solid wastes but not
recommended for large volumes of
liquid waste because of build-up
of head in landfill and potential
for surface water contamination
when completely saturated.
Suitable for readily degradable
materials such as domestic waste
and many industrial wastes, par-
ticularly those whose leachates
are comparable to those from do-
mestic waste; suitable for liquid
waste where liquids can be de-
graded, dispersed and diluted be-
fore reaching groundwater resources
which are so limited that some
pollution would cuase no problems.
Normally suitable only for rela-
tively inert materials unless
site is insensitive to contamin-
ation or there is a large dilution
factor.
-------
A basic approach to land disposal of wastes in the United Kingdom
is outlined in Circular 39/76 published by the Department of the
Environment, entitled "The Balancing of Interests between Water
Protection and Waste Disposal". (See Appendix D.) This circular
presents the dilute and disperse approach as the most reasonable for
most wastes. Factors that are to be considered in assessing the
environmental risk associated with dilute and disperse are:
Q The volume of the aquifer considered to be at risk, and the present
and future uses of the water. If the usefulness of an aquifer is
not great, the provision of an alternate water supply should be
made.
© Hydrogeologic characteristics of the site including the ability
to attenuate leachates.
©Type, volume, and rate of waste to be disposited including the
possible interaction of wastes and the ability of leachate to
be attenuated.
According to a recent (January 27, 1977) article in New C i v i 1
Engi neer, the dilute and disperse approach, as outlined in Circular
39/76, has not as yet been accepted by water authorities who are not
convinced that water supplies can be adequately protected. Again
according to the same article, the water authorities are using their
advisory role to
"...preserve total separation of potentially harmful discharges
from any present or planned water resources. That generally
means vetoing license applications unless there is a guarantee
that the site is completely impermeable - the 'contain and
concentrate' philosophy."
Although is is not possible to determine how many applications are
actually vetoed by water authorities, it is interesting that most
present landfill sites rely on containment, with leachate collected
and hauled to a local sewage treatment plant.
It seems clear that attitudes toward land disposal of hazardous
waste in the United Kingdom are now in the process of changing. Despite
the controversy that is associated with the "dilute and disperse"
approach, it is apparent that this approach is the one that is favored
by the Department of the Environment and the Waste Disposal Authorities.
Recent guidelines prepared by the Department of the Environment
(Waste Management Paper No. k, "The Licensing of Waste Disposal Sites",
1976) considers two facets of dilute and disperse. One facet is the
C-72
-------
obvious approach of allowing some seepage of 1eachate from a site and is
dependent on attenuation mechanisms and isolation to prevent ground water
contami nat ion.
The other facet considered relates to the disposal of very hazardous
wastes.
"The risk of long-term environmental problems can sometimes
be minimized by dividing the waste to be disposed of between
a number of sites so that the quantity going to each is within
the limits of acceptability. This is one facet of the so-called
'dilute and disperse1 approach to waste disposal which the
Department considers is in most cases preferable to that of
concentration and containment, and should be adopted where
there are not good reasons for acting otherwise."
This form of industrial waste disposal is rather common in the
United Kingdom. The number of sites taking solely toxic wastes is
presently less than 25 with some of them relying upon waste containment.
C-73
-------
CONTACT FORM
Landesanstalt fur Umwelt
Institut fur Wasser
and AbfalIwirtschaft
State of Baden-Wurttemberg
Hirschstrabe 12-U
7500 Karlsruhe
West Germany
Phone: 0721-13-523-** 1
Mr. Gerhard
Chemi st
Kreischer
Agency:
Office of the State of Bavaria
for Environmental Protection
Bayerisches Landesamt
fur Umweltschintz
Rosenkavalierplatz 2
8000 Munich 81
West Germany
Phone: 089-92U-2551
Persons Contacted:
Mr. Wolfgang Knorr
Engineer and Assistant Manager
Department of Solid Wastes
Dr. B. Matthes
Chemist
Type of Procedure:
Criteria Listing.
Permit Procedure;
Each state has its own government and procedures (Bavaria is a
state.) Technical review and approval comes from the State Office;
however, the formal approval comes from each District Office and is
issued by the lawyer in charge. Review and approval must also come from
the Water Office and from the Office of Security and Safety. The
District Office summarizes each agency evaluation and makes the final
decision for approval. Legal hearings are held if there is a split
decision0 Public hearings are required by law in all of Germany prior
to final approval. Inspection and enforcement is conducted from the
Central Office.
Pi scussion:
The licensing procedure involves a listing with required definition
of waste and site characteristics. The decision is a subjective one
based on assessment of these characteristics and on empirical data from
existing sites. There is an aversion to using specific numbers, with a
preference for using working guidelines which allow for flexibility to
assess each site and waste on a case-by-case basis*
-------
The approach to land disposal in West Germany emphasizes
containment rather than attenuation and/or dilution. There are some
variations in the approach within West Germany since each state has its
own procedures. The States of Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg both have
guidelines for waste disposal. The guidelines for Bavaria, however,
are not written. They require containment with a permeability of 1 0~"
m/sec (10~" cm/sec). Although this is a low permeability, it does not
ensure complete containment.
Leachate collection and underdrain systems are generally required;
it is discharged either to a river if there is adequate dilution or to
a sewage treatment plant. Leachate from hazardous waste may require
pretreatment before discharge to the sewage treatment plant.
Although there are no specified site criteria for depth to bedrock/
water table and discharge to surface water or wells, site definition is
required. A description of on-site soils, geology, depth to groundwater,
direction of groundwater flow, and an environmental analysis must be
included in the site report. Borings are required for hazardous waste
sites and most municipal waste sites. Additional site requirements
include a thickness of one meter of clay, either in place or imported
and compacted. An artificial liner is in use in at least one landfill.
Monitoring wells and drainage control are required at disposal sites.
State Office personnel perform sample analyses twice each year. The
analyses are performed in their own laboratory. A copy of "Guidelines
for Designing, Erecting, and Operating Dumps for Household Refuse and
Materials Similar to Household Refuse" is included in Appendix D.
Waste characteristics must be defined including analysis of the
waste itself; 100 grams of waste are mixed with 1 liter of water and
mechanically agitated for 8 hours. The liquid is then filtered and
analyzed for the components characteristic of that type of waste. The
critical factors include: the volume of waste, its concentration, and
the solubility of its constituents. Liquids are either solidified or
incinerated; they are not put directly into landfills. Sludges and
solid waste are accepted, but only with a pH greater than 7; acid wastes
must be neutralized first. The biggest problem of landfills is the
treatment of various wastes coming in as a mixed waste stream, and not
necessarily the individual types of wastes.
There is a detailed waste catalogue which indicates a code number,
the name of the waste, a category, and the products of that waste. The
category numbers range from I to V; I is the most difficult to dispose
of, not necessarily toxic, and V is the least difficult to dispose.
The breakdown is arbitrary and qualitative; it is not a quantitative
system. The wastes are catalogued into the following general categories:
C-75
-------
organic wastes, metals and minerals, chemicals-synthetics (the newer
technology), radioactive, and municipal and other wastes. There are
nine series in all, with Series 2, **, 6 and 8 presently omitted to allow
for the system to be expanded and greater detail to be added.
A decision tree approach has been developed to aid industry in
evaluating whether a waste can be co-disposed with municipal waste,
recycled, or disposed of at an industrial site. This approach is
attached as Figure C~5.
The guidelines that have been published by the State of Baden-
Wurttemberg are similar to those in use in most of the country. They
address leachate collection, treatment and disposal, and subsurface
conditions and drainage control; these guidelines require a permeability
of 10~8 m/sec (10~° cm/sec) as do the unwritten guidelines for Bavaria.
A map (not included in this document) has been prepared which shows those
areas in Baden-Wurttemberg where landfills are not permitted, based on
groundwater use and sensitive areas such as wetlands and flood plains.
Wastes are assessed as they are in Bavaria; special or hazardous
wastes are separated, with certain wastes requiring incineration or
pretreatment. Centrally-located waste collection points exist within 50
kilometers of any industry in order to facilitate waste handling.
A basic part of the approach in West Germany is cooperation with
industry. The agencies work with industry to minimize waste quantities
and to develop in-house processes to change waste characteristics for
easier disposal. Also, 30 percent of the funding for District Offices is
supplied by industry.
C-76
-------
Production of
Specific Waste
Materials
Is the Waste Material Expressly
Excluded from the General Removal
with Household Waste by Statute or
Regulation?
Is the Removal Prescribed in
a Special Garbage Removal
Installation in the Federal
Republic of Germany?
No
Testing in the Individual Case Whether
Removal Together with Household
Garbage is Possible
o
I
Is Common Removal Basically Possible
in the Available Waste Removal Installation
According to Type and Composition of
the Waste Material?
No
No
Is Removal Economical in
the Special Waste Removal
Installation Compared with
Erecting our own Installation?
Yes
Yes
Is Reduction of Special Garbage
Removal Costs Possible by
Pretreatment or Sorting Within
the Operation?
Yes
Does the Amount (Ratio) of Waste Material
to Household Garbage Permit Removal in
the Available Household Garbage
Removal Installation?
No
Is Common Removal
Possible After Pretreatment
Within the Operation,
e.g.. by Removal of
Water?
No
Yes
Is the Capacity of the
Installation Sufficient?
I Waste Removal I
—3^-1 Similar to I-
I^Housenold Wastejj
No
Yes
Undertake Sorting or
Preliminary Treatment
Within the Operation
Yes
Household Waste
Removal
Installations
Separate Garbage
Removal Installations
FIGURE C-5 SEQUENCE OF DECISIONS IS SHOWN FOR GROUPING
THE RESIDUAL MATERIALS OCCURRING IN THE
OPERATION WITH REGARD TO RE-USE AND REMOVAL
-------
APPENDIX D*
CALIFORNIA
Applications
State Solid Waste Management Board
1. Solid Waste Facility Permit Application
2. Preparation of Report on Disposal Site Information
3. Preparation of Report on Station Information and Plan of Operation
for Small Volume Transfer Stations
4. Report of Waste Discharge
5o Procedure for Implementing SB 1797 (1977)
Section 6678'* of the Government Code
6. Procedure for Implementing SB 1797 (197*0
Section 66783.! of the Government Code
7. Application for Rubbish Dump Permit Form #LE-3*»
8. Appendix B Sample Permit Application c/o
Ventura County Planning Dept.
9. City of Oxnard -
Environmental Impact Report Questionnaire
10. South Central Coast Regional Commission
Application for Permit
Regulations and Guidelines
C.S.W.M.B. Disposal of Environmentally Dangerous Wastes in California,
August, 1976
California Department of Health
1. Hazardous Waste Management
2. Law, Regulations and Guidelines for the Handling of Industrial Waste
California State Water Resources Control Board
1. Waste Discharge Requirements for Non-Sewerable Waste Disposal to
Land, "Disposal Site Design and Operation Information",
December 1976 (latest)
*Separate Document—Aval Table at Office of Solid Waste.
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Washington, D.C.
D-i
-------
ILLINOIS
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Land/Noise Pollution Control
Appl icat ions (ioC., , Solid Waste Management Site Application)
1. Application for Permit to Allow the Disposal of Special and/or
Hazardous Waste at an I EPA Permitted Disposal Site - Module E
2. Application for Permit to Develop and/or Operate a Solid Waste
Management Site (pp. 39 - 53 in Sanitary Landfill Management)
Regulations and Guidelines
1. Special and/or Hazardous Waste; Permit Information Instructions
Module E
2. Special V/aste - Land Disposal Criteria
3. Sanitary Landfill Management
D-2
-------
MINNESOTA
Pollution Control Agency
Appli cat!ons
1. "Sanitary Landfill Permit Applications" - Soil Boring
2. Permit Application for Construction of a Solid Waste Disposal System
3. Form #MPCA 651 "Preliminary Site Investigation of Proposed Sanitary
Landfi11"
Regulations and Guidelines
HW-1 - General Applicability, Definitions, Abbreviations, Incorporations,
Severabillty and Variances
HW-2 - Classifications, Evaluation, and Certification on Waste
HW-3 - Generation of Hazardous Waste
HW-** - Location, Operation and Closure of a Hazardous Waste Facility
HW-5 - Transportation of Hazardous Waste
HW-6 - The Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Program
HW-7 - Contents of Hazardous Waste Facility Permit
HW-8 - Hazardous Waste Shipping Papers Applications
HW-9 - County Regulation of Hazardous Waste Management
HW-10 - Spillages and Leakages of Hazardous V/aste
D-3
-------
NEW YORK STATE
Department of Environmental Conservation
Appl?cat ions
1. #SW-7 (11/73)
Application for Approval to Construct a Solid Waste Management
Facility
2. #1,7-19-11 (6/77) Formerly SW-22
Application for Approval to Operate a Solid Waste Management
Faci1i ty
3. A7-19-5 (6/77) Formerly SW-23
Application for Variance from 6 NYCRR 360
*». A7-19-6 (6/77) Formerly SW-2*t
Application for Use of a Construction and Demolition Debris
Disposal Site
Guidelines and Regulations
1. Application for Construction of Solid Waste Management Facility
Content Guidelines and Specifications
2. Part 360, Solid Waste Management Facilities Approved by Environmental
Review Board May 17, 1977, Effective August 28, 1977
D-A
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
Department of environmental REsources
Appl ications
1. Application for Permit for Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing
Facility Form #ER-BLP-10 Rev.
2. Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Site Application Module -
Phase I Form #H712.122 Rev. 1/71
3. Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Site Application Module -
Phase II Form #ER-BLP-25 3/75
'*. Module 5A - Phase I Supplementary Geology and Groundwater Information
Form #ER-BLP-189.5A1 3/75
5. Ground Water Module - Phase II, Monitoring Points
6. Permit for Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Facility
Form #ER-BLP-23 Rev. B/Jk
7. Module for Sevyage Sludge. and Septic Tank or Holding Tank Waste
Form # Module 75.32
8. Land Disposal Inspection Report
Form #ER-BLP-09 Rev.
Regulations and Guidelines
1. Chapter 75 - Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations
20 Spray Irrigation Manual
Bureau of Water Quality Management Publication #31
3. Laboratory Procedure for the Conduct of a Leachate Analysis
*». Interim Guidelines for Sewage, Septic Tank, and Holding Tank Water
Use on Agricultural Lands
5. Title 25
Part 1 - D.E.R.
Article III -Air Resources
Chapter 125 - Coal Refuse Disposal Areas
D-5
-------
TEXAS
Department of Health Resources
Applications
Application for a Permit to Operate a Municipal Solid Waste Facility
Appendix A in Municipal Solid V/aste Management Regulations
Regulations and Guidelines
1. Municipal Solid Waste Management Regulations
April 1977
D-6
-------
TEXAS
Water Quality Board
Appli cations
1. Permit Application for Commercial Industrial Solid Waste Management
Sites
#WQB 90 (Rev. 3-76)
2. Technical Questionnaire for Non-Commercial Industrial Solid Waste
Management Sites
#WQB 90A (Rev. 3~76)
Guidelines and Regulations
Industrial Solid Waste Management Regulations
Supplemental Technical Guidelines
1. Waste Evaluation
?.. Site Selection and Evaluation
3. Landfills
^4. Ponds and Lagoons
5. Land Farming
6. Monitoring/Leachate Collection Systems
7. Supporting Facilities
8. Records
9. Non-Compatible Wastes
10. Texas Water Qaulity Board Waste Code Catalogue
11. Alphabetic Waste Classification Code Report
(Computer Print-out) Form 030807
D-7
-------
ONTARIO, CANADA
Ministry of the Environment
Appli cat ions
1. Application for a Certificate of Approval for a Waste Disposal Site,
MOE - 1*4203 - 7/7**
20 Supporting Information to an Application for Approval of a Landfill
Disposal Site. MOE - U202 - 7/71*
3. Application for a Certificate of Approval for a Waste Management
System
*». Supporting Information to an Application for a Waste Management
System MOE - 1^*305 - 9/73
Guidelines and Procedures
1. Guidelines and Criteria for Water Quality Management in Ontario
2. General Guidelines for Landfill Site Selection
3. Procedures for the Certification Process
(Paper presented at West Central Region Waste Management Seminar)
**„ Guidelines for Sewage Sludge Utilization on Agricultural Lands
D-8
-------
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
Department of Public Health Engineering
Solid Waste Branch
Applications
1. Disposal License Application Form
Form HF. 1 SWIL.1
Part I , Part I I, Part I I I
Regulations and Guidelines
1. Department of the Environment
Waste Management Paper No. ^ - The Licensing of V/aste Disposal
Sites.
2. Department of the Environment
The Balancing of Interests Between Water Protection and Waste
Disposal Circular 39/76
D-9
-------
WEST GERMANY
Appli cat Ions
None
Guidelines and Regulations
1. Guidelines for Designing, Erecting, and Operating Disposal Sites for
Household Refuse and Material Similar to Household Refuse,,
2. New Waste Removal Law (in German, Table of Contents in English is
attached)
D-10
-------
s: Q
I (-•
M ON
ON VD
to »J
n
APPENDIX E*
Table E-1
Summary of Selected Case Histories
1.
2.
3.
it.
Agency
Ca) Ifornla
Regional Water
Quality Board
New York State
Department of
f nv! ronmen tal
Conservation
Pennsylvania
nepartnierit of
Envl ronmental
Resources
Texas Depart-
ment of Environ-
mental Resources
Decision
Procedures
Classlf icat Ion
System
Criteria
Listing
Criteria
Listing
Criteria
Listing
Class if lead on
System
Facility
Type
Landfill
Landf II 1
serving
1(2,000
persons
Regional
Land fill
Type 1
Facility
Location
Los Angeles
County
Columbia
County
Al lenwood
Prison
Camp .
Dal las
County
Texas
Waste
Type
Group 1 and
I'un i c i pa 1
Sol id waste
Sol id waste
Municipal
Sol id waste
Application Permit
Process Time Granted Denied
(months)
2 15 Granted
22 Pending
months +
1 Granted
5 Granted
months
Special
Provl s Ions
Leachate collection
wells. Low permeability
barrier wall at station
of site boundary
Special screening from
nearby historic site
Two natural 1 Iners
and one art i f ical
(30 mil PVC) liner
Change In design to
preserve a stand of
virgin hardwood
Remarks
Case history is of application
to upgrade one parcel of
existing landfill to accept
Group 1 waste
There is considerable opposition
to site use by citizens groups.
Permit Is now being delayed due
to questions of compliance with
new regu 1 at ions .
Considerable opposition from
citizens groups delayed permit
aqulsl t Ion .
There was only minimal public
opposl tion
5. Texas Water Criteria
Qujlll/ board, Listing
Industrial Solid Classification
Waste Branch System
6. Ontario Ministry Criteria
of the Environ- Listing
men t
Industrial Jefferson
Landfill County,
Texas
Class I and
I I
Municipal Municipality primarily
Landfill of Hal ton municipal
sol id waste
months
N.A.
Granted
Applicat ion
to quash was
granted
Collection and spray
Irrigation of surface
wa te r
Municipal Ity can
proceed wi th
necessary preliminary
work.
Although the site is approved
for Class I waste, each time
a new type of Class I waste
Is proposed fci disposal, special
permission must be obtained.
The procedure occurred prior
to permit application.
*Separate Document—Available at Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Washington, D.C.
------- |