DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APPENDICES
PROPOSED REGULATION
CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
\
*•
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APRIL 1978
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APPENDICES
PROPOSED REGULATION
CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
(40 CFR PART 257)
PREPARED BY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
STEFFEN W. PLEHN
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR SOLID WASTE
APRIL 1978
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDICES
I. TEXT OF CRITERIA 1-1
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
VOLUME
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
RELEVANT FEDERAL LAWS
A. CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
B. CRITERIA-RELATED FEDERAL LAWS
TYPES OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES
A. LANDFILLS
B. LANDSPREADING
C. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
ADVERSE EFFECTS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE AREAS
B. SURFACE WATER
C. GROUND WATER
D. AIR
E. APPLICATION TO LAND USED FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF FOOD CHAIN CROPS
F. DISEASE VECTORS
G. SAFETY
H. AESTHETIC AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. ANALYSIS OF STATE STANDARDS VS. FEDERAL CRITERIA
B. METHODOLOGY FOR EACH DISPOSAL METHOD
WASTE AGE SURVEY OF LANDFILLS
EPA MEMO ON LANDSPREADING
REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MAJOR CRITERIA ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES, FOR EACH ADVERSE EFFECT
IMPACT EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ACTION
REFERENCES
II-l
II-2
II -4
III-l
III-l
III-8
111-24
IV-1
IV-1
IV-14
IV-24
IV-45
IV-50
IV-63
IV-66
IV-77
V-l
V-l
V-5
VI-1
VII-1
VIII-1
IX-!
1-1
II-l
III-l
IV-1
V-i
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table page
1 Relevant Federal Laws II-5
2 Landfill Data Base III-4
3 Land-Intensive Residuals - Management Practices 111-10
4 Landspreading Data Base 111-13
5 Estimated Sludge Quantities Resulting from 111-15
Pollution Control Activities
6 Estimate of Numbers of Impoundment Sites, for 111-27
All Categories, by States
7 Major Categories of Surface Impoundments by Size 111-28
and Type
8 Mechanisms Involved in Incidents of Damage by 111-30
Disposal Method for Industrial Wastes
9 Industrial Wastewater Parameters Having Significant 111-32
Ground-Wate0r Contamination Potential
10 Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Control IV-9
Technologies and Unit Costs
11 Surface Water: Control Technologies and IV-22
Unit Costs
12 Summary of Leachate Characteristics IV-30
13 Ground Water: Control Technologies and IY-38
Unit Costs
14 Possible Ground-Water Criteria IV-42
15 Air: Control Technologies and Unit Costs IV-48
16 Critical Cadmium Levels . IV-51
17 Cadmium Intake That May Give A Certain Response IV-52
Rate At Age 50
18 Land Application for Beneficial Utilization: IV-59
Control Technologies and Unit Costs
-------
Table Page
19 Disease Vectors: Control Technologies and IV-65
Unit Costs
20 Safety: Control Technologies and Unit Costs IV-75
21 Aesthetics: Control Technologies and Unit Costs IV-81
22 Analysis of State Regulations vs. The Proposed V-3
Federal Criteria
23 Regulatory Alternatives V-9
24 Landfill Site Size Data V-ll
Figure Page
1 Water Withdrawn for Drinking Water by Source IV-25
and Supply, 1970
2 Water Withdrawn by Public Water Systems, Mgd. IV-2-6
3 How Waste Disposal Practices Contaminate the IV-27
Ground-Water System
4 Possible Scheme for On-Site Treatment of IV-35
Nonrecycled Leachate
5 Scheme of Gas Control Systems IV-70
-------
APPENDIX I
TEXT OF CRITERIA
-------
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6,1978
PART II
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
Proposed Classification Criteria
i-i
-------
4952
PROPOSED RULES
Dated: January 27,1978.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
PART 257—CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF
SOLD WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Sec.
257.1 Scope and purpose.
257.2 Definitions.
257.3 Criteria for classification of solid
waste disposal facilities.
257.3-1 Environmentally sensitive areas.
257.3-2 Surface water.
257.3-3 Ground water.
257.3-4 Air.
257.3-5 Application to land used for the
production of food chain crops.
357.3-6 Disease vectors.
257.3-7 Safety.
257.4 Effective date.
AUTHORITY: Sec. 1008(aX3). sec. 4004(a>,
Pub. L. 94-580; 90 Stat 2803 and 2815; (42
U.S.C. 6907UX3) 6944); sec. 405(d). Pub. L.
95-217.
§ 257.1 Scope and purpose.
(a) These Criteria are for use in de-
termining which solid waste disposal
faculties pose no reasonable probabil-
ity of adverse effects on health or the
environment. Facilities failing to meet
these-Criteria will be considered open
dumps for the purposes of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act of 1976 (the Act). Sections
4005(c) and 4003 of the Act prohibit
open dumping, and require that such
facilities must be closed or upgraded.
except for facilities operating on a
State-established compliance schedule
which specifies an enforceable se-
quence of actions or operations.
(b) These Criteria also provide
guidelines for sludge utilization and
disposal, under section 405(d) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977 (Pub. L. 95-217). The owner or
operator of any publicly owned treat-
ment works must comply with the Cri-
teria in accordance with section 405(e)
of that Act.
(c) These Criteria apply to all solid
waste disposal facilities as these terms
are defined In the Act, with the follow
ing exceptions: (1) Facilities for the
disposal of hazardous waste must
comply with the regulations promul-
gated under Subtitle C of the Act; (2)
regulations for the State Underground
Injection Control Program (40 CFR
Part 146) developed under authority
of the Safe Drinking Water Act of
1974 (Pub. L. 93-523. 88 Stat. 1660 et.
seq., 42 U.S.C. 300 et. seq.) will apply
to undergound well Injection in lieu of
these Criteria; (3) agricultural wastes,
including manures and crop residues,
which are returned to the soil as fertil-
izers or son conditioners are not sub-
ject to classification by these Criteria;
and (4) overburden resulting from
mining operations, including mining
and milling waste, which is returned to
the mine is not subject to classifica-
tion by these Criteria.
As used in these criteria:
(a) "Aquifer" means a geologic for-
mation, group of formations, or part
of a formation that is capable of yield-
ing usable quantities of ground water
to wells or springs.
(b) "Base flood" means a flood that
has a 1 percent or greater chance of
recurring in any year or a flood of a
magnitude equalled or exceeded once
in 100 years on the average over a sig-
nificantly long period. In any given
100-year interval such a flood may not
occur, or more than one such flood
may occur.
(c) "Beneficial utilization" means
the application of solid waste to land
for the purpose of supplying nutrients
or conditioning the soil.
(d) "Cation exchange capacity"
means the sum of exchangeable ca-
tions a soil can absorb expressed hi
milliequivalents per 100 gr&ms of soil
as determined by the pH 7.0 ammoni-
um acetate procedure (Schollenberger,
C.J. and Simon, R.H.. "Determination
of exchange capacity and exchange-
able bases in soil-ammonium acetate
method", SOIL SCIENCE, 59: 13-25.
1945).
(e) "Contiguous zone" means the
entire zone established or to be estab-
lished by the United States under art!'
cle 24 of the Convention of the Terri-
torial Sea and the Contiguous Zone
(Pub. L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 886. 33 U.S.C.
1362).
(f) "Discharge of pollutants" means
(1) any addition of any pollutant to
navigable waters, (2) any addition of
any pollutant to the waters of the con-
tiguous zone or the ocean from any
source other than a vessel or other
floating craft.
(g) "Disposal" means the discharge.
deposit, injection, dumping, spilling,
leaking, or placing of any solid waste
or hazardous waste into or on any land
or water so that such solid waste or
hazardous waste or any constituent
thereof may enter the environment or
be emitted Into the air or discharged
into any waters. Including ground
waters (Pub. L. 94-580. 90 Stat. 2799.
42 U.S.C. 6903).
(h) "Endangerment" means the in-
troduction of any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological substance or
matter into ground water in such a
concentration that (1) makes it neces-
sary for a ground-water user to in-
crease treatment of the water (includ-
ing treatment to meet any maximum
contaminant level set forth in any pro-
mulgated National Primary Drinking
Water Standard), (2) makes it neces-
sary for a future user of the ground
water to use more extensive treatment
of the water than would otherwise
have been necessary (based on current
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 25—MONDAY, FEBRUARY «, 1978
1-2
-------
PROPOSED RULES
4953
technology), or (3) otherwise makes
the water unfit for human consump-
tion.
(i) "Facility" means any land and ap-
purtenances thereto used for the dis-
posal of solid wastes.
(j) "Facility structures" means any
buildings and sheds, or utility or
drainage lines on the facility.
(k) "Floodplain" means the lowland
and relatively flat areas adjoining
inland and coastal waters, including
flood-prone areas of offshore islands,
which are inundated by the base flood.
(1) "Food chain crops" means tobac-
co; crops grown for human consump-
tion; and pasture, forage, • and feed
grain for animals whose products are
consumed by humans.
(m) "Ground water" means water
below the land surface in the zone of
saturation.
(n) "Leachate" means liquid contain-
ing dissolved or suspended materials
that emerges from solid waste.
(o) "Navigable waters" means the
waters of the United States, including
the territorial seas (Pub. L. 92-500. 86
Stat. 886. 33 U.S.C. 1362).
(p) "Non-point source" means any
origin from which pollutants emanate
hi an unconfined and unchannelled
manner, including but not limited to
surface runoff and leachate seeps.
(q) "Open burning" means the com-
bustion of solid waste without (1) con-
trol of combustion air to maintain ade-
quate temperature for efficient com-
bustion, (2) containment of the com-
bustion reaction in an enclosed device
to provide sufficient residence time
and mixing for complete combustion,
or (3) control of the emission of the
combustion products.
(r) "Open dump" means a site for
the disposal of solid waste which does
not comply with these Criteria (Pub.
L. 94-580, 90 Stat. 2800, 42 U.S.C.
6903).
(s) "Periodic application of cover ma-
terial" means the application of soil or
other suitable material over disposed
solid waste at such frequencies and in
such a manner as to Impede vectors
and infiltration of precipitation;
reduce and contain odors, fires, and
litter; and to enhance the facility's ap-
pearance and future utilization.
(t) "Permafrost" means permanently
frozen subsoil.
(u) "Pesticide" means (1) any sub-
• stance or mixture of substances in-
tended for preventing, destroying, re-
pelling or mitigating any pest, and (2)
and substance or mixture of sub-
stances intended for use as a plant reg-
ulator, defoliant, or deslccant (Pub. L.
92-516. 86 Stat. 975, 7 U.S.C. 136).
(v) "Point source" means any dis-
cernible, confined and discrete convey-
ance, including but not limited to any
pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,
well, discrete fissure, container, rolling
stock, concentrated animal feeding op-
eration, or vessel or other floating
craft, from which pollutants are or
may be discharged (Pub. L. 92-500, 86
Stat. 887, 33 U.S.C. 1362).
(w) "Pollutant" means any sub-
stance added to air, land, or water
which impairs its chemical, physical.
biological, or radiological quality.
(x) "Putrescible wastes" means solid
waste which contains organic matter
capable of being decomposed by micro-
organisms and of such a character and
proportion as to be capable of attract-
ing or providing food for birds and po-
tential disease vectors (such as rodents
and flies).
(y) "Recharge zone" means an area
through which water enters an
aquifer.
(z) "Sanitary landfill" means a facili-
ty for the disposal of solid waste
which meets these Criteria (Pub. L.
94-580, 90 Stat. 2800, 42 U.S.C. 6903).
(aa) "Sludge" means any solid, se-
mlsolid, or liquid waste generated
from a municipal, commercial, or in-
dustrial wastewater treatment plant,
water supply treatment plant, or air
pollution control facility or any other
such waste having similar characteris-
tics and effects (Pub. L. 94-580, 90
Stat. 2800, 42 U.S.C. 6903).
(bb) "Solid waste" means any gar-
bage, refuse, • sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treat-
ment plant, or air pollution control fa-
cility and other discarded material, in-
cluding solid, liquid, semlsolld, or con-
tained gaseous material resulting from
industrial, commercial, mining, and ag-
ricultural operations, and from com-
munity activies. but does not include
solid or dissolved material in domestic
sewage, or solid or dissolved materials
hi irrigation return flows or industrial
discharges which are point sources
subject to permits under section 402 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or
source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68
Stat. 923). (Pub. L. 94-580, 90 Stat.
2801, 42 U.S.C. 6903.)
(cc) "Stabilization" means any
chemical, physical, thermal, or biologi-
cal treatment process that results in
the significant reduction of pathogen-
ic organisms.
(dd) "State" means any of the sever-
al States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Is-
lands. (Pub. L. 94-580, 90 Stat. 2801, 42
U.S.C. 6903.)
(ee) "Wetlands" means those areas
that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence- of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated
soil condition. Wetlands generally in-
clude swamps, marches, bogs, and
similar areas. (33 CFR Part 323—Per-
mits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill
Material into Waters of the United
States.)
§ 257.3 Criteria for classification of solid
waste disposal facilities.
For the purposes of classification
under Sections 4004(a) and 1008(a)(3)
of the Act, a facility for the disposal of
solid waste poses no reasonable prob-
ability of adverse effects on health,
safety, or the environment if it is so lo-
cated, designed, constructed, operated,
completed, and maintained that it
meets the following criteria.
§ 257.3-1 Environmentally sensitive areas.
(a) Wetlands. The facility shall not
be located in a wetland unless:
(1) The facility obtains an NPDES
permit under Section 402 of the Feder-
al Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500,
86 Stat. 880, 33 U.S.C. 1342), and
(2) If a levee or other type of con-
tainment structure is to be placed in
the water as part of the disposal activ-
ity, the facility obtains a permit issued
under authority of Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500,
86 Stat. 884, 33 U.S.C. 1344) according
to the Army Corps of Engineers Per-
mits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill
Material into Waters of the United
States (33 CFR Part 323).
COMMENT.—There Is a strong presumption
against the issuance of an NPDES permit
for the discharge of solid waste into wetland
areas. Only upon a showing of extraordi-
nary circumstances—including a demonstra-
tion of alternative methods of disposal, an
assessment of environmental Impact for
each alternative, an assessment of the tech-
nical and economic feasibility of each alter-
native, and a justification for the wetlands
disposal alternative in view of the environ-
mental impact and feasibility—will an
NPDES application be considered and an
NPDES permit issued. Any NPDES permit
Issued for the discharge of solid waste into
wetland areas must assure that the facility
utilizes appropriate technologies and/or
best management practices to minimize any
adverse effects.
(b) Floodplains. The facility shall
not be located hi a floodplain unless it
is clearly demonstrated that:
(1) The facility will not restrict the
flow of the base flood or reduce the
temporary water-storage capacity of
the floodplain such that increased
flooding upsteam or downstream may
result from the base flood, and
(2) The facility is designed, con-
structed, operated, and maintained so
as to protect against inundation by the
base flood, unless .the facility is for
land application of solid waste for
beneficial utilization as agricultural
soil conditioners or fertilizers.
(c) Permafrost areas. The facility
shall not be located in permafrost
areas unless:
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 25—MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1978
1-3
-------
4954
PROPOSED RULES
(1) Other alternatives such as recy-
cling or salvaging of materials, inciner-
ation and energy recovery of combusti-
bles, deep well injection, and transport
of the wastes back to more temperate
regions are evaluated and determined
to be technologically or economically
infcasible, and
(2) The facility is sited on relatively
dry and workable soils where minimal
or no vegetative cover exists, and the
facility is designed, constructed, and
operated so as to rniniraze erosion and
to minimize surface area consumed,
and
(3) Regional disposal facilities are
developed to the maximum extent fea-
sible (including technological and eco-
nomic considerations).
(d) Critical habitats. The facility
shall not be located in critical habitat
areas listed in 50 CFR Part 17, Sub-
part F: Critical Habitat. 1760 et sect..
unless: It is demonstrated that such
disposal operation will not jeopardize
the continued existence of endangered
species, and approval of the disposal
plan is obtained from the Office of En-
dangered Species. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Department of Interior.
(e) Sole source aquifers. The facility
shall not be located in the reeharee
zone of an aquifer which is the sole or
principal source of drinking water for
an area designated under Section
1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-523 88 Stat.
1661, 1678. 42 UJS.C. 300f, 300h-3(e)>
unless:
(1) Other alternative sites and waste
disposal methods have been evaluated
and determined to be technologically
or economically infeasible.
(2) It is located, designed, construct-
ed, operated, maintained, and moni-
tored to prevent endangerment of the
aquifer.
NOTB.—Comments are specifically solicited
on the completeness, adequacy, and impact
oX the environmentally Sensitive Areas cri-
teria.
§257.3-2 Surface water.
The facility does not adversely
affect surface water quality and com-
plies with the following:
(a) Point source discharge of pollut-
ants, including channelled surface Ica-
chate, leachate seepage, surface
runoff, and leachate treatment efflu-
ent, to off-site surface waters, com-
plies with an NPDES permit issued for
the facility according to Section 402 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-
500, 83 Stat. 880, 33 U.S.C. 1342).
(b) Non-point sources, including sur-
face leachate. leachate seepage, and
surface runoff are controlled so as to
prevent or minimize non-point source
discharges of pollutants into any off-
site surface water.
§ 2374-3 Ground Water.
The facility does not adversely
affect ground water quality in accor-
dance with Case I or Case II below.
(a) Case I. (1) For aquifers contain-
ing ground water which (i) is currently
used or designated by the State for
future use as a drinking water supply
for human consumption, or (ii) con-
tains less than 10,000 mg/1 total dis-
solved solids and has not received des-
ignation pursuant to Case II; the qual-
ity of the ground water beyond the
disposal facility property boundary is
not endangered by the facility.
(2) For acquirers described in para-
graph (aXl) of this section the facility
snail employ one of the following two
operational means to assure that en-
dangerment of the ground water qual-
ity Is prevented:
(i)-Any leachate produced shall be
collected through use of artificial
liners. Collected leachate shall be re-
moved, recirculated, or treated as ap-
propriate.
(U) The facility shall control the mi-
gration of leachate by utilizing the
site's natural hydrogeclogic condi-
tions, soil attenuation mechanisms
and/or recovej-y and treatment of con-
taminated water. Where appropriate,
infiltration cf water into the solid
w aste shaJl be prevented or minimized
so as to reduce leachaie generation,
(3) For as long as leachate may enter
ground water in such quantities and
concentrations that the ground water
quality may be endangered, monitor-
ing of ground water, prediction of lea-
chate migration, and a current and ac-
ceptable contingency plan for correc-
tive action are required.
(b) Case 11. (1) For ground water
which is currently used or designated
by the State for use other than as a
drinking water supply for human con-
sumption, the quality of the ground
water beyond the disposal facility
property boundary is maintained at
such quality as specified by the State.
O
(2) A State may designate a ground-
water source for use other than as a
drinking water supply for human con-
sumption if:
(i) The source is impractical for use
as a drinking water supply due to the
extent of its contamination, its depth.
or the potential yieid of the aquifer;
or. after public hearings, it is deter-
mined that adequate alternative drink-
Ing water supplies are available for all
users in the affected area into the
foreseeable future, taking into account
projected population growth, the
extent, location, and nature of existing
sources of drinking water, and other
potential sources of ground water pol-
lution, and
(ii) The waters of an adjacent State
or country will not be endangered and
adequate hydrogeologic conditions
exist separating the ground water to
be designated from waters to be pro-
tected so that protected waters are not
endangered.
§257.3-4 Air.
The facility controls air emissions
(including emissions by evaporation,
sublimation, and oxidation) so as to
comply with all applicable Federal,
State,, and local air regulations and to
protect public health and welfare, and
complies with the following prohibi-
tions:
(a) Open burning of residential, com-
mercial, institutional, and industrial
solid waste is prohibited.
(b) Open burning of other folid
waste (e.g. agricultural and silvicul-
tural) is prohibited unless in compli-
ance with State and local regulations.
§ 257.3-5 Application to land used for the
production of food chain crops.
A facility for the beneficial utiliza-
tion of solid wsu-te by application to
land used for the production of food
chain crops complies with the follow-
ing In addition to the other criteria
contained in this regulation.
(a) Cadniitm. Any site that is cur-
rently or will in the future be us«j for
the production of food chain crops
complies with either subparagraph (1)
or subparagraph (2) of this paragraph.
(1) (i) The annual application of cad-
mium fronv solid waste does not
exceed the maximum additions below.
Jfozfnum ar.nvvl
Cd (M£di£iQn* (k&/
2.0
1.25
0.5
Present to Dec. 31.1981
Jan. 1.19
-------
PROPOSED RULES
4955
comparable to those levels present in
similar crops or meats produced local-
ly where solid waste has not been ap-
plied. A contingency plan is necessary
which identifies alternative courses of
action which may be taken if crop cad-
mium levels are not found to be com-
parable (e.g., restrictions on crop mar-
keting, future land use, and sludge ap-
plication rates). The contingency plan
must also provide adequate safeguards
to preclude risks from alternative land
uses following the closure of the dis-
posal site. This alternative is only
available to those facilities which dem-
onstrate that they possess the neces-
sary resources and expertise to ade-
quately manage and monitor their op-
erations.
(b) Pathogens. (1) If solid waste of
concern due to its pathogen content is
applied directly to the surface of the
land it is stabilized to reduce public
health hazards.
(2) Land which has received solid
waste of concern due to its pathogen
content is not used for the production
of human food crops which are nor-
mally eaten raw (except crops such as
orchard fruits, where there is no con-
tact between the solid waste and the
crop) for at least one year following
application or longer.
(c) Pesticides and persistent organ-
ic*. The application of solid waste con-.
taining pesticides on land that is cur-
rently or will in the future be used for
the production of food chain crops
does not result in pesticide residues in
or on crops in excess of the tolerances
set pursuant to Section 408 of the Fed-
eral Pood, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA; 21 U.S.C. 346a) and the regu-
lations thereunder (40 CPR Part 180)
and Section 409 of the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA; 21
U.S.C. 348) and the regulations there-
under (21 CPIi Part 561).The applica-
tion of solid wastes containing persis-
tent organlcs on land that is currently
or will in the future be used for the
production of food chain crops does
not result in persistent organic levels
in or on foods in excess of those estab-
lished by FDA (21 CFR Part 109).
(d) Direct ingestion. Solid waste of
concern due to its pathogen, toxic or-
ganic or heavy metal content (e.g..
lead and PCB) is not applied to a site
so that the freshly applied solid waste
may be directly ingested by animals
raised for milk or by humans.
§ 257.3-6 Disease vectors.
The facility protects public health
by controlling disease vectors. This
shall be accomplished through mini-
mizing the availability of food and
harborage for vectors through the pe-
riodic application of cover material or
other techniques where appropriate.
§ 257.3-7 Safety.
The facility does not pose a safety
hazard to facility employees and users
and to the public in accordance with
the following:
(a) Explosive gases. The concentra-
tions of explosive gases in facility
structures (excluding gas control or re-
covery system components), or in the
soil at the facility property boundary
do not reach the lower explosive limits
for the gases.
(b) Toxic or asphyxiating gases.
Toxic or asphyxiating gases are not al-
lowed to migrate off site, or accumu-
late in facility structures (excluding
gas control or recovery components) in
concentrations harmful to human,
animal, or plant life.
(c) Fires. All fires are extinguished
expeditiously; and fire hazards are
minimized through proper site con-
struction and design, and the periodic
application of cover material where
appropriate.
(d) Bird hazards to aircraft. Disposal
facilities which receive putrescible
wastes that may attract birds are not
located (1) within 3.048 meters of any
runway used or planned to be used by
turbojet aircraft, or (2) within 1,524
meters of any runway used or planned
to be used only by piston-type aircraft,
unless it is determined that the dispos-
al facility does not pose a bird hazard
to aircraft. Determinations shall be
made on a case-by-case basis for those
facilities which are not within the
above distances but are within the
conical surfaces described by Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 77 as ap-
plied to an individual airport.
(e) Access. Entry to the facility is
controlled so as to minimize exposure
of the public to hazards of heavy
equipment operation and exposed
waste.
§ 257.4 Effective date.
These Criteria become effective 30
days after final publication.
tFR Doc. 78-3151 Piled 2-3-78; 8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 25—MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1978
1-5
-------
II. RELEVANT FEDERAL LAWS
The first significant Federal effort in solid waste manage-
ment and resource recovery was initiated in 1965 with the passage
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (P. L. 89-272). It
called for a research and development program and provided funds
to the States for making surveys of waste disposal practices and
for developing waste disposal plans. The Resource Recovery Act
of 1970 (P. L. 91-512) broadened the R&D approach to include
major demonstrations and shifted the emphasis from disposal to
recovery of materials and energy from solid wastes. It also
required several studies and directed the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to issue guidelines on waste management and recovery
which are mandatory for Federal agencies, but merely advisory to
others.
On October 21, 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (P. L. 94-580) became law, amending the original
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. As stated in Section 1003,
"The objectives of this Act are to promote the protection of
health and the environment and to conserve valuable material and
energy resources by ... prohibiting future open dumping on the
land and requiring the conversion of existing open dumps to
facilities which do not pose a danger to the environment or to
health ..."
Congress was particularly concerned with:
(1) protecting public health and the environment from solid
waste disposal (both hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes);
(2) plugging the loopholes left by other environmentally-
oriented Federal laws and regulations (now land and
ground-water protection in addition to surface water
and air protection);
II-l
-------
(3) managing the proper disposal of the increasing amounts
of pollution control residuals destined for land
disposal (e.g., as a result of the Clean Air Act and
Federal Water Pollution Control Act); and
(4) implementing resource conservation and recovery.
A. CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
In the February 6, 1978, Federal Register (43 Fed. Reg.
4942), EPA proposed "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 257).* The Criteria are
proposed under the authorities of Sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a)
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-480) and
Section 405(b) of the Federal Waster Pollution Control Act
(FWPCA) as amended by the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 (Pub.
L. 95-217).
According to RCRA, the proposed regulations are to contain
minimum criteria for determining which solid waste disposal
facilities shall be classified as posing no reasonable
probability of adverse effects on health or the environment.
Facilities not meeting the Criteria are classified as open dumps,
are prohibited, and must be closed or upgraded according to a
State-established compliance schedule containing an enforceable
sequence of actions leading to compliance.
*These proposed regulation are hereinafter referred to as "the
Criteria." The full text of the Criteria appear in Appendix I.
The preamble which also appeared in the Federal Register contains
a lengthy background discussion and explanation, but is not re-
produced in the EIS.
II-2
-------
1. Basic Provisions of RCRA Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal
The basic provisions of RCRA pertaining to solid waste
disposal included the following:
(1) EPA is to develop criteria which define acceptable
solid-waste disposal practices (Sections 1008(a)(3) and
4004(a)).
(2) All Facilities which do not meet EPA's criteria are
classified as open dumps (Sections 4004(a) and 4005
(a)).
(3) EPA is to publish an inventory of all open dumps in the
U.S. (Section 4005(b)).
(4) Open dumping is prohibited (Sections 4003 (a) and 4005
(O).
(5) States receiving EPA solid-waste grants are to prohibit
the establishment of new open dumps and are to close or
enforce upgrading of existing open dumps within a
reasonable time, not to exceed five years from the date
of publication of the inventory (Sections 4003(a) and
(3), 4004(b) , and 4005(c)).
(6) Citizen suit and imminent hazard suit provisions enable
other enforcement mechanisms in addition to the State
programs (Sections 7002 and 7003).
Section 1008(a)(3) of RCRA calls for EPA to develop guide-
lines which "provide minimum criteria to be used by the States to
define those solid waste management practices which constitute
the open dumping of solid waste or hazardous waste." Section
4004(a) calls for EPA to "promulgate regulations containing
criteria for determining which facilities shall be classified
as...posing...no reasonable probability of adverse effects on
health or the environment from disposal of solid waste, at such
facilities."
II-3
-------
2. Basic Provisions of the Clean Water Act Pertaining
to Solid Waste Disposal
The Criteria are also proposed as partial fulfillment of the
requirement contained in Section 405{d) of the Clean Water Act of
1977 (CWA) which calls for EPA to develop guidelines for the dis-
posal or utilization of sludge. Under Section 405(e), all public
treatment works owners and operators must comply with any appli-
cable guidelines developed by EPA under Section 405(d). Thus,
all public works owners and operators who dispose or utilize
sludge 0£ the 1 and must comply with these Criteria.
3. Other Federal Regulations
EPA determined that whenever possible, the Criteria should
utilize existing Federal, State, and local regulations or
approaches in order to avoid duplication, inconsistencies, and
unnecessary new regulations. For example, the wetlands and
surface-water criteria utilized the NPDES permit system
established for point-source discharge of pollutants under
Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-500). Also, the ground-water criterion utilizes
the approach of the Underground Injection Control Program
proposed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523).
B. CRITERIA-RELATED FEDERAL LAWS
There are a number of Federal laws and regulations and
Executive Orders related to the proposed Criteria.
To avoid duplication, inconsistencies or conflicts, the pro-
posed Criteria use existing laws and regulations or approaches
wherever feasible. Table 1 lists the major relevant Federal
laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. Brief summaries of each
of these are presented below.
II-4
-------
TABLE 1
RELEVANT FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Criterion
Law/Regulation/Executive Order
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Wetlands
Floodplai ns
Critical Habitat
Sole-Source
Aquifers
Historical Pre
servation and
Archaeological
Areas
Surface Water
Ground Water
Air
Land Application
P.L. 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (Section 402, 404)
33 CFR Part 323, Permits for Discharges of
Dredged or Fill Material Into Waters of the
U.S/
Executive Order 11900, Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management
P.L. 93-205, Endangered Species Act
(Sections 4, 7)
50 CFR Part 17, Subpart F, Critical Habitat
P.L. 93-523, Safe Drinking Water Act (Section
1424(e))
Proposed Procedures for Sole-Source Aquifer
Designations (42 Federal Regulation 51620)
P.L. 93-291, Archaeological and Historical
Preservation Act, National Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1966
Executive Order 11593
P.L. 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control
Act as amended (Section 402)
P.L. 93-523, Safe Drinking Water Act, Pro-
posed Underground Injection Control Program
(41 Fed. Reg. 36726)
P.L. 95-217, Clean Water Act (Section 304)
P.L. 93-319, Clean Air Act, as amended
P.L. 94-140, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act as amended.
P.L. 94-460, Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
P.L. 95-217, Clean Water Act (Section 405(d))
II-5
-------
Table 1. Relevant Federal Laws and Regulations (continued)
Criterion Law/Regulation/Executive Order
Safety
Bird Hazards FAA Order No. 5200.5, FAA Guidance Concern-
ing Sanitary Landfills On or Near Airports
Aesthetics
Noise 40 CFR Part 205, Noise Emission Standards for
New Transportation Equipment
General
Landfills 40 CFR Part 241, Guidelines for the Land Dis-
posal of Solid Wastes
1. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
a. Wet!ands
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, was
developed "to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-
term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modifica-
tion of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new
construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alter-
native. To further this end, the Order directs that each agency
shall provide leadership and shall take action to minimize the
destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and
enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying
out the agency's responsibilities" (Ref. 40).
II-6
-------
The adverse effects of solid waste disposal on wetlands have
been widely studied and noted. The wetlands portion of the
criterion for environmentally sensitive areas reflects the
emerging EPA policy toward wetlands which complements and
enhances this Executive Order.
In the July 19, 1977, Federal Register, the Army Corps of
Engineers published their final regulations for Permits for Dis-
charge of Dredged or Fill Material Into Waters of the United
States (33 CFR Part 323).
The authorities for these regulatory programs are based
primarily on various sections of the River and Harbor Act of 1899
(33 U.S.C. 401, et. seq.), commonly referred to as "The Refuse
Act," and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (U.S.C. 1344). With regard to the discharge
of solid wastes into wetlands, the definition of fill material is
clarified as follows:
The term fill material means any
material used for the primary purpose of
replacing an aquatic area with dry land
or of changing the bottom elevation of a
waterbody. the term does not include
any pollutant discharge into the water
primarily to dispose of waste, as that
activity is regulated under Section 402
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
In this definition, the Corps has classified discharges
according to their primary purpose. Thus, if solid wastes are
being discharged into a landfill located in a wetland for the
primary purpose of waste disposal, an NPDES permit will be
required under section 402, FWPCA. Solid waste discharge for the
primary purpose of altering the elevation of land beneath water
or of impounding water is considered a fill activity, subject to
section 404, FWPCA.
II-7
-------
With this point of law so settled, a person wishing to open
a landfill in a wetland will apply to the regional EPA for an
NPDES permit (or to a State, if the State has been designated by
EPA to administer its own NPDES program). If the site requires
preparation and/or construction of dikes for containing the
garbage, then a section 404 permit will be processed for the site
at the same time by the District Engineers Office. The Corps
will withhold final action on the 404 permit until final action
on the NPDES permit is taken.
The proposed Criteria embody the concept of this regulation
and require an NPDES for facilities in wetlands.
b. Floodplai ns
The floodplains portion of the criterion for environ-
mentally sensitive areas complies with Executive Order 11988,
Floodplain Management; its approach is to bring Federal regula-
tions and procedures into conformity with the provisions of the
"United National Program for Floodplain Management" of the Water
Resources Council (Ref. 87).
The Executive Order seeks "to avoid, to the extent possible,
the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or
indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a
practicable alternative," by providing leadership and taking
action "to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact
of floods on human safety, and to restore and preserve the
natural and beneficial values served by floodplains" (Ref. 87).
II-8
-------
c. Critical Habitats
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(P. L. 93-205), all Federal agencies are required to cooperate in
the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Section 7
of the Act states that:
The Secretary (of Interior) shall review
other programs administered by him and
utilize such programs in furtherance of
the purposes of this Act. All other
Federal departments and agencies shall,
in consultation with and with the assis-
tance of the Secretary, utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the
purposes of this Act by carrying out
programs for the conservation of
endangered species and threatened
species listed pursuant to Section 4 of
this Act, and by taking such action
necessary to insure that actions author-
ized, funded, or carried out by them do
not jeopardize the continued existence
of such endangered species and
threatened species or result in the des-
truction ip_r modi f icati on o_f habitat erf
such species which is determined by the
Secretary, after consultation as appro-
priate with the affected States, to be
critical." (Emphasis added)
The Secretaries of Interior and Commmerce requested the
cooperation of other Federal agencies in implementing this act
(December 3, 1974); a mechanism has been established for deter-
mining the "critical habitat" for endangered and threatened
species pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (see Federal Register, April 22, 1975, 40 CFR 17764-17765).
Proposed regulations have been issued which define "critical
habitats" as:
II-9
-------
any air, land or water area (exclusive
of those existing man-made structures or
settlements which are not necessary to
the survival and recovery of a listed
species) or any constituent thereof, the
loss of which would appreciably decrease
the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of a listed species or a
distinct segment of its population. The
constituent elements of critical habitat
include, but are not limited to,
physical structures and topography,
biota, climate, human activity, and the
quality and chemical content of land,
water and air. Critical habitat may
represent any portion of the present
habitat of a listed species and may
include additional areas for reasonable
population expansion.
In addition, the term "modification" cited above was changed
to mean "adverse modification" which has been defined as:
a direct or indirect alteration of
critical habitat which appreciably
diminishes the value of that habitat for
survival and recovery of a listed
species. Such alterations include, but
are not limited to, those diminishing
the requirements for survival and
recovery listed in Section 17.94(b).
There are many types of activities which
could be carried out in a critical
habitat without causing such diminution.
The Department of Interior has currently designated critical
habitats of the snail darter, the American crocodile, the
California condor, the Indiana bat, and the Florida manatee
(50 CFR, Part 17, Subpart F). These habitats may not be used for
the disposal of solid waste unless it is demonstrated that the
facility design, construction, operation, and maintenance will
not jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered species,
and unless approved or concurrence is obtained from the Office of
11-10
-------
Endangered Species, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of
Interior.
d. Sole-Source Aquifers
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
(Pub. L. 93-523) makes it possible for EPA to designate areas
which are solely or principally dependent on an aquifer for its
drinking water supply. If EPA determines upon its own initiative
or by petition that an area has an aquifer which is the sole or
principal drinking water source for the area and which, if con-
taminated, will cause a significant health hazard, EPA may delay
or stop commitment of any Federal funds for projects which may
result in contamination of the sole-source aquifer. The Federal
projects which are covered are not limited to underground injec-
tion but can include ground-water development or other activities
in recharge zones or any other activity which may contaminate
ground water.
2. Surface Water
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),
amended in 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500), requires the development of a
comprehensive coordinated national program to control all sources
of water pollution to meet the goals of swimmable, fishable, and
navigable waters. The objective of the Act is to restore and
maintain the natural chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the nation's waters with the intent that the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated by 1985. This
policy, supplemented by other provisions of the Act relative to
the control of toxic pollutants, construction of waste treatment
facilities, research and demonstration, and regional waste
management, provides an overall identification of program goals
and methods of program implementation.
II-ll
-------
FWPCA is related to the proposed Criteria in four major
aspects. First, in a physical mode, certain sections of FWPCA
and their corresponding regulations result in the increased
generation of waste which will have to be disposed of, according
to the Criteria, through one of the following methods:
(1) impounding, (2) subsurface methods, (3) 1andspreading, or
(4) resource recovery. Specific portions of FWPCA related to the
Criteria include sections 208, 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 402 and
404.
Of special importance to the generation of wastes are regu-
lations issued under Section 402 of the Act, the National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is a permit
system "for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of
pollutants."
Each point source under FWPCA must comply with specific
effluent characteristics attainable by "Best practicable
Technology" and "Best Available Technology". Furthermore, these
regulations also detail performance and pretreatment standards
for new sources (40 CFR, Parts 405-460).
Municipal sludges will increase as a result of mandates
under 40 CFR Part 133, "Secondary Treatment", issued under
Sections 304 (a) (1) and 301(b) and (c) of the Act. Speci-
fically, these regulations require that by July 1977, municipal
wastewater treatment plants three years or older must show
secondary treatment capacity. New plants must have secondary
treatment capacity as of July 1983.
Second, as a result of a recent ruling by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, all landfills with the potential to pollute
surface waters must have a NPDES permit.* The Corp's authority
is pursuant to Section 404 of FWPCA. Although the implications
*Federal Register. Vol. 42, No. 138, July 19, 1977, p.37130.
11-12
-------
of this measure have not been fully explored at this time, the
potential impact is important.
Third, in an institutional/pianning mode, section 208(b) (2)
(J) and (K) (Area-wide Waste Treatment Management) places the
disposal of residual wastes in a management planning context.
Specifically, this section calls for "a process to control the
disposition of all residual waste generated in such areas which
could affect water quality," and "a process to control the
disposal of pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations
within such area to protect ground and surface water quality."
With the promulgation of the RCRA Criteria and subsequent
guidelines for delineating acceptable practices, the efforts of
FWPCA to promote higher water quality will be considerably
strengthened. To avoid duplication, the Criteria require NPDES
permits for (1) disposal in wetlands and (2) point source dis-
charge of pollutants into off-site surface waters.
3. Ground Water
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (Pub.
L. 93-523) authorizes EPA to establish Federal standards for pro-
tection of all harmful contaminants (applicable to all public
water systems), and to establish an on-going Federal-State system
for assuring compliance with these standards for protecting
underground sources of drinking water. The drinking water
standards promulgated under the SDWA establish -ground-water
quality goals pertinent to the ground-water portion of the
Criteria.
EPA recognizes the importance of avoiding overlaps and
inconsistencies between the SDWA and the Criteria; in general,
the SDWA protects ground water from the practice of underground
wastewater injection and the Criteria protect ground water from
solid waste disposal facilities. Section 1421 (a)(l) of SDWA
11-13
-------
addresses the protection of current and future ground-water
drinking supplies through the development of State Underground
Injection Control Programs (UICP). The criterion for ground
water in the proposed Criteria uses a conceptual framework
analogous to that of the UICP. The important concept of
"endangerment" of the ground-water resource upon which the ground
water criterion is based, comes from the usage of this term in
EPA's "Proposed Regulations: State Underground Injection Control
Programs" (40 CFR Part 14) developed'under the SDWA.
According to the definitions of "solid waste" and "disposal"
in RCRA, well injection of wastes constitutes a solid waste
disposal practice. To avoid duplication, the proposed Criteria
exempt well injections controlled under the SDWA's UICP.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, requires the
Administrator of EPA to integrate the provisions and enforcement
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act with other Acts under the Admini-
strator's authority, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, to
the maximum extent practicable. There is a potential overlap
between the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the SDWA with regard to
surface impoundments such as pits, ponds, and lagoons.
The Criteria proposed by EPA apply to all solid waste
disposal facilities, including surface impoundments. Thus, the
inventory of open dumps would include those surface impoundments
which, through application of the Criteria, are determined to
pose a reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the
environment. EPA intends to develop the inventory through grants
to State agencies.
To this end, the studies and assessments planned under the
SDWA will be used as the basis for identifying those surface
impoundments that have the greatest potential for adverse effects
and thereby will help the States in developing the inventory
required under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Those impoundments
11-14
-------
which are identified as having the greatest potential for serious
impact on ground-water quality would be considered high priority
for development of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Inventory. Such
impoundments which are found to violate the Criteria proposed by
this action would be placed on the inventory and be liable for
closure or upgrading in accordance with the State planning and
plan implementation provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
and the Federal prohibition of open dumping.
However, the Agency has not yet determined the best regu-
latory approach to the control of surface impoundments. While
this initial action will begin to bring such facilities under
State control under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, EPA will
continue to explore and reevaluate its authorities under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, the SDWA, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act in order to
determine the best regulatory approach under any or a combination
of these various authorities.
4. Air
The intent of the Clean Air Act (as amended June 1974
(Pub. L. 93-319)), is "to protect and enhance the quality of the
nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population," An
important consideration in the standard is reflected by this
Act's mandate on particulate emissions. In particular, Section
111, (Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources) and
Section 112 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu-
tants) and their corresponding regulations have a great impact
upon open burning of wastes.
During open burning, emissions of particulates into the air
are relatively high. The particulate problem has become acute in
major metropolitan areas and within critical air basins. The air
quality criterion of these regulations, in effect, constitutes a
11-15
-------
prohibition of open burning for residential, commercial, institu-
tional, and industrial wastes in major metropolitan areas. Thus,
the Criteria in effect strengthen the Clean Air Act by closing
open burning dumps, thereby eliminating one source of air
pollution.
5. Application to Land Used for Food Chain Crops
The Criteria require that any food crops grown on soils
amended with solid wastes meet all applicable food quality stan-
dards. For food chain crops, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (Pub. L. 94-460) and its regulations (40 CFR Part 180) are
applicable to the control of pesticide use.
Also, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
of 1947 (FIFRA) (Pub. L. 94-140) provides a conceptual basis for
regulating the supply and use of. pesticides. Control of supply
is directed toward marketing pesticides which are safe and
effective when used as directed and includes the initial
registration of products in accordance with the statutory
standard, re-registration and renewal, removal of products which
do not meet the standard and compliance with the registration
decision. Control or regulation of access to the more hazardous
pesticide products promotes good application techniques by
establishing standards of "good use practices".
Section 19 of FIFRA requires that the EPA Administrator
"establish procedures and regulations for the disposal or storage
of packages and containers of pesticides and for disposal or
storage of excess amounts of such pesticides, and accept at
convenient locations for safe disposal a pesticide whose
registration is cancelled."
11-16
-------
6. Safety and Health
a. FAA Order 5200.5, "FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary
Landfills"
This Federal Aviation Administration order addresses
the problems of bird hazards to aircraft. The order states that
disposal sites have been found by study and observation to be
artificial attractants to birds and are, therefore, "incompatible
with safe flight operations" when located in the vicinity of an
airport. The bird hazard criterion uses the separation distance
restrictions contained in the FAA order.
b. EPA's "Noise Emission Standards for (new) Trans-
portation Equipment: Medium and Heavy Trucks"
(40 CFR Part 205)
This regulation applies to solid waste transport
vehicles and should minimize truck noise due to acceleration and
load discharge.
11-17
-------
III. TYPES OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES
A. LANDFILLS
1. General Description of Practice
The term landfill is used in this EIS to denote open dumps
and solid waste disposal sites where soil cover is periodically
applied over the wastes. Operations range from uncontrolled,
polluting, unaesthetic, open-burning dumps to landfills which,
when properly designed and operated, are nonpolluting and
nuisance-free. Landfilling is a popular solid waste disposal
method because of the following advantages:
The general availability of land suitable for disposal
facilities.
Ability to use otherwise marginal or nonproductive land
such as borrow pits and quarries and, through filling,
to increase the utility of such land.
Relatively low capital and operating costs.
Traditional acceptance by the public and regulatory
authori ti es.
The adaptability and flexibility of operation to
accommodate fluctuating quantity, quality, and type of
waste.
Pretreatment of waste is not required.
Various landfill construction and operating procedures are
used, depending on the physical configuration of the site. The
operation may be referred to as cut and cover, area fill, trench
and cover, and similar terminology. Common to all operations is
the sequence of dumping and compacting the waste in layers and
covering the waste with compacted earth. Each day's operation
when covered with earth is referred to as a cell. Refuse is
III-l
-------
placed and compacted in layers until the desired height of the
cell is reached (normally 6 to 14 feet); this cell height
dimension is commonly referred to as a lift. Succeeding lifts
may be placed until the final grade of the disposal area is
achieved.
In recent years, concern for conservation of resources has
generated considerable interest in resource recovery and waste
reduction measures. Even if widely applied, however, such
practices cannot eliminate solid waste altogether; thus,
communities and industries will continue to require an
environmentally acceptable means of final disposal. The largest
component of municipal waste is paper, but substantial food
wastes, yard wastes, glass, metals, plastics, rubber, and liquid
wastes are also included. Many municipal sites also receive
industrial process residues and pollution control system sludges
in addition to septic tank pumpings, sewage sludge, bulky wastes,
street sweepings, and construction/demolition wastes.
The basic large-scale environmental problems associated with
landfilling of solid wastes are water pollution, air pollution,
public health effects, ecosystem degradation, and effects on land
quality. On a national basis, land disposal is a significant
contributor to ground-water and surface-water contamination from
landfill leachate (with large potential public health impacts),
to fires and explosions (resulting from improper waste disposal
and landfill gas production), and to disease vectors such as
flies and rats. Of these effects, the primary problem that has
been recognized to date is ground-water contamination.
Additional environmental impacts are either localized and/or
infrequent or they are geographically specific (such as use of
wetlands for waste disposal). However, some of these impacts are
potentially of great concern; therefore, they are being regulated
now.
III-2
-------
ihe general thrust of this EIS and the Criteria themselves
is to 'identify and address adverse effects of improper solid
waste disposal practices. Proper solid waste disposal practices,
such as true sanitary landfills, do not have these problems. It
is beyond the scope of this report, however, to list the positive
aspects of proper solid waste disposal practices.
2. Number of Sites, Distribution
A national inventory of landfills has not been conducted
since 1967-69; however, State solid waste management programs do
maintain various forms of information on landfills within their
respective States. During the latter part of 1976, Waste Age
magazine conducted a National Survey of Waste Control Practices.
The survey was published in January, 1977 and was conducted by
the Waste Age staff with the cooperation of each State's solid
waste control agency as a source of information. This survey is
the most up-to-date compilation of landfill data and has been
used in this report as the national data base. Information on
disposal sites is presented by States and includes total number
in each State; number permitted, or otherwise recognized as
sanitary landfills in compliance with State regulations; number
of authorized landfills; ownership; operation; and operating
capacity. The survey presents additional information on the
sites and the State regulatory program and is included in its
entirety in Appendix VI. A summary of the information on
landfills by State used for the data base in this report is shown
in Table 2.
The survey recorded information on 15,821 disposal sites
within the 50 States. Approximately 40 percent of these disposal
sites were recognized as sanitary landfills in compliance with
existing State regulations.
III-3
-------
TABLE 2
LANDFILL CAT* BASE
Scat*
AllbatM
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
doif.la
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
loui
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mlchts«
Minnesota
Misslsst??!.
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Net/ Hj-r.pshlre
Sev/ Jersey
Sci/ Xexico
Xev York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklaho-ij
Oregon
Pcnnsylv.irua
Rhode Island
South Carolin.i
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Ctah
Vermont
Virginia
Vjihln^con
U'cst Virginia
Wisconsin
Vyonln;
Total
Permitted
1J7
34
73
74
430
67
H
30
233
123
21
40
238
126
94
103
141
SO
13
'. i8
101
295
134
78
117
1 ^4
62
31
52
210
30
420
170
23
212
io5
167
111
35
2.7
"
109
293
9
40
:->•>
:-o
51
24-?
10
6. 160
Authorized
3
WO
-
$7
-
- 126
115
•-
67
123
t>
47
42
-
109
95
167
60
132
-
199
255
136
78
117
121
2 CO
39
56
63
319
-
-
oO
-
163
-
202
-
~
*
12
752
i)
JO
-
323
61
I. Oil
«5
6.150
. Illegal
5
16
06
239
-
38
-
-
50
379
-
33
m
23
97
-
33
145
-
31
60
ISO
135
118
19
"
133
-
47
t>0 i
171
242
-
117
3
177
-
102
-
5
243
5
52
i;s
s
'fc
-0
15
-
.'3
).5U
10 TPO
do
3V8
127
335
275
173
120
10
24?
ill
17
50
213
91
255
150
322
255
441
43
300
316
371
206
T9
239
397
US
157
273
537
363
69
196
26
227
137
323
JO
113
jo*
31
1 .003
1JO
V
1)1
3,9
1S2
1.220 .
"1
12.342
100 TPO
51
1
H
14
30
47
48
14
71
75
9
90
112
il
;o
43
13
-
*
19
43
2-J5
34
32
6
1
1
7
23
3
260
95
4
135
i;j
4
71
->
40
»
d3
-3
J3
1
12
-,0
i-
>!
:
:. :et
300 TTO
4.
L
i
L
35
2.
T.
22
25
2
10
47
14
L
2
5
10
-
5
10
69
-
25
&
-
2
-
t
12
-
7
6
-
'5
52
4
4
3
47
-
4
15
5
-
24
5
j
15
-
591
700 TPD
5
-
3
-
40
4
-
3
15
14
2
-
88
3
1
3
2
-
-
12
7
, '0
-
11
j
-
j *
1 1
-
I 20
i
32
1 -
I -
14
( 50
1 -!
1 1-
i -
i "
-
! A
25
1 7
I
|
' 6
i -
1 12
1
j 499
Total
Tonnage /Day
10.600
4.J50
4,770
5.550
i9.250
8,230
6.600
'.,500
26,6'0
29.910
3.070
9.500
53,530
11,310
3.^50
8.500
15,620
5.550
4,310
5,730
20.460
97,340
7,110
2C.^fcO
o • 90
2,990
4.670
1.930
2,3;0
23.i50
5,570
5., 130
11.390
2.360
46,060
70.670
4,570
19.930
l.iCO
34, -,30
3.130
27.410
37,530
ID. 200
i.oro
15.7)0
IS.Orj
4.020
JO., 00
1.1. 10
85l.2'iO
Tons/Year
2.756.000
1.133. =00
1.240.200
1.443.000
12,305.000
2,152,300
i.: 16. coo
1,170.000
6,934,200
7,776,600
798.200
2,470.000
14,003,600
2,9-0.503
2,197,000
2,: 10, SCO
1,321,200
L, 443. 000
1,2 53, 600
:.269,.vjO
5,319,600
23.:!3,<--OC
1.648,600
>.J19.-iC'3
"• 3i».4v3
! "•>.;;:>
1, 214,200
5 14. SCO
660. 2CC
6,026,5"jO
1.174,:-;.:
J 14,073,c:-0
i i. 117. -GO
| 613,600
] 11. 575, 600
; 13.374,;:-'3
1.15S.2CO
5,194,.--,0
36i,JC.O
| 9,C03,^Lj
52i,;0-J
7 , 1 2o , 3^0
i 9.770.J7U
<. . 2 1 2 . ;oo
2T3..00
4,ic5,.;j
3,923.^::
t.j-5.:7i
T.I-'.- .;••.-)
' 2'/n . i -•"'
^:7.ji:.3-'->
III-4
-------
Only partial information (34% response) is available on site
ownership and operation, but in the information obtained in the
survey, publicly owned and operated sites outnumber privately
owned and operated sites on a 3:1 basis.
The number of landfills in each State varies considerably
but generally reflects the population and area of the State;
thus, the larger and more populated States have more landfills.
The approximate total waste tonnage received by sites included in
the data base is 860,000 tons per day, at 227 million tons per
year.
3. Site Conditions
a. General
Improperly controlled disposal of municipal solid waste
in landfills results in damage to public health and the environ-
ment in several forms. Solid waste constituents may leach into
surface streams and ground-water aquifers and significantly
impair their quality. The migration of explosive gases may
result in injuries and fatalities, destruction of buildings, and
damage to vegetation. Open burning of solid wastes may
contribute to local air pollution problems, interfere with
aircraft operations, and reduce highway visibility, sometimes
causing automobile accidents. Facilities at which solid waste is
improperly disposed may provide harborage and breeding grounds
for vectors, vermin and parasites resulting in public health
hazards. Dust, odor, litter, noise, and traffic conditions
associated with solid waste disposal at landfills also have had
adverse impacts on the aesthetic quality of the environment.
Landfills have frequently been located on land that is
considered to have little or no value for other uses, for
example: marshlands, abandoned sand and gravel pits, old strip
mines, floodplains, or limestone sinkholes, all of which are
III-5
-------
susceptible to ground-water contamination problems. In one
eastern State, 85 percent of the existing landfills were
originally designed as "reclamation" projects to fill marshlands
and abandoned sand and gravel pits.
b. Specific Environmental Impacts
Wetlands have been used extensively for solid waste
disposal because the land was cheap, the resistance to disposal
site location was small, the location was close to major coastal
and riverine cities, and filled-in wetlands could be used for
other more direct economic activities. The effect of this
practice has been to eliminate some wetlands and reduce the value
or productivity of adjacent wetlands. Disposal sites in wetlands
often degrade adjacent surface-water quality. The alteration and
destruction of wetlands through draining, dredging, landfilling,
and other means has had a cumulative adverse impact on hydrologic
stability and the ecosystems involved. Recent estimates indicate
that about 40 percent of the 120 million acres of this country's
wetlands that existed 20,0 years ago have been destroyed
(Ref. 109).
Disposal of solid wastes in floodplains (especially along
rivers) may have several significant adverse impacts: (1) if not
adequately protected from flooding, wastes in a disposal site may
be inundated by water and flow from the site, impacting water
quality and aquatic life in downstream waters, and also causing
erosion, siltation, and flooding; (2) filling in the floodplain
may restrict the flow of flood waters and/or reduce the size and
effectiveness of the floodplain in assimilating flood waters
which may result in higher flood levels and greater flood
damages; downstream or upstream; and, (3) since floodplains
generally have a hydraulic connection to wetlands, surface water,
and ground water, locating disposal sites in floodplains may
result in leachate contamination.
III-6
-------
Solid waste disposal in landfills has often led to surface-
water contamination from runoff of leachate, accidental spills,
and drift of spray. One study cited 162 cases of surface-water
contamination from industrial waste disposal of which 49 (30%)
occurred at landfills or dumps.
The principal source of surface-water contamination from
landfills is leachate, caused by water percolating through the
refuse. Leachate, a highly mineralized fluid, typically contains
such constituents as chloride, iron, lead, copper, sodium,
nitrate, and a variety of organic chemicals. Where manufacturing
wastes are included, hazardous constituents are often present in
the leachate (e.g., cyanide, cadmium, chromium, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, and PCB). The particular makeup of the leachate is
dependent upon the city and/or industries using the landfill.
The types and concentrations of contaminants in leachate are of
great importance in determining its potential effects on the
quality of surface water.
Leachate production is common in the United States because
most sites are subjected to substantial precipitation and
although many have run-off/run-on controls, very few have liners
to prevent percolation to the wastes. It is impractical to cover
the working face, and uneven settlement, erosion, etc. result in
ponding and percolation. Furthermore, wastes at many sites have
been placed directly in contact with surface or ground waters
(e.g., in streams, marshes, and sand and gravel pits). Once
produced, leachate usually migrates from the disposal area and
enters surface or ground waters.
It may take decades or even centuries for a ground-water
resource to purge itself even after a contamination source has
been removed. The mechanisms of soil attenuation (e.g.,
adsorption, ion exchange, precipitation, or dispersion) have a
limited capacity, are not always available, and are reversible
since attenuation is a function of soil and leachate
III-7
-------
characteristics, thickness of unsaturated zone, soil homogeneity,
flow rate, concentration, and pH. Because of this, soil
attenuation alone is not always sufficient to assure prevention
of ground-water contamination from a waste disposal source.
B. LANDSPREADING
1. General Description of the Practice
Spreading of wastewater on the land has been practiced in
European and American agriculture for over 100 years—a natural
outgrowth of the age-old practice of returning human and animal
manures to the land.
The use of manures is a time-tested enhancement practice,
representing an ancient key technical development in the history
of man. It allowed certain civilizations to develop geographic
stability, since fertilization with manures permitted a sustained
yield on lands that would have otherwise been rapidly depleted of
plant nutrients. Thus, in our own time, 1andspreading represents
the continuation of a well established practice and, some will
argue, is vital for our continued well being.
In recent years, increasing generation of municipal sewage
sludge and industrial wastewater residuals has led to renewed
interest in land disposal of sludges. For example, Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has been applying sewage
sludge from the equivalent of 2.5 million people to 6070 hectares
(15,000 acres) of land in west central Illinois at rates up to
27.5 dry tonnes/hectare (25 dry/tons/acre) annually since 1971
(Ref. 21, pp. 53-60).
In the United States, the use of human and animal waste
products of waste water treatment is encouraged under both the
FWPCA and RCRA. A wide variety of industries generate many
sludges which are similar in composition to human and animal
III-8
-------
wastes. Thus, they contain nutrients as well as organic matter
of natural origins, and appear to have the same potential to
enhance the productivity of soils.
Some types of industrial and municipal wastewater sludges,
while containing nutrients and organics of natural origin, also
contain trace quantities of chemicals which are persistent and/or
biologically active. Two examples are the heavy metals and
refractory organic chemicals (that is, PCB's, DDT, PBB, etc.).
The known detrimental^ impacts of these contaminants on biological
systems can effectively counter the otherwise beneficial aspects
of nutrient and origin organics. These impacts include: direct
toxicity to plants; second order toxicity to animals; third order
toxicity to people; and effects on all food chain components.
Obviously, the productivity of soils having such impacts on the
biota is highly compromised. The degradation of soil quality can
be short term (salt contamination) or long term (PCB's). Thus,
just as in the case of air and water media, pollution can render
soils unsuitable as a habitat or as a growth medium.
Table 3 illustrates management practices for land intensive
residuals, identifying representative types of sludge which may
be 1 andspreadabl e for each category of land use. Municipal
wastewater sludges, depending on their level or industrial
character, may be stored, treated and disposed of by the entire
range of methods described. Other industrial sludges have for
the most part a more narrow range of options.
Table 3 emphasizes two key factors: (1) land use and
(2) contaminant level of the .residual. The land use designation
shown is clearly related to contaminant level. Under good
management practices, the productivity of the land is enhanced
and maximum protection of the land and environment is achieved.
This implies spreading sludges with lowest toxicant levels, while
restricting the spreading of contaminated materials which would
have an adverse effect on the food chain.
III-9
-------
TABLE 3
LAND INTENSIVE RESIDUALS
WWBBBff PRACTICES (Ref. 128)
DRY STORAGE C J LANDFILL
IMPOUNDMENTS I HAZARDOU9 | SANITARY
\
AGRICULTURE
I LAND I MULCH
RECLAMATION I APPLICATIONS J SILVICULTURE J FIBER CROPS | ANIMAL FEED j HUMAN FOO
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER SLUDGES
OIL REFINERY
SLUDGES
•ORGANIC CHEMICAL SLUOGES-
i
*_J
o
-PLASTICS-
ECTRIC UTILITY SLUDGES-
•INORGANIC CMEMICAb-
IRON AND STEElf
•CLECTROPLATINS'
-ANIMAL MANURES-
-FOOD PROCESSIN3-
•MINING-
-PULP AND PAPER-
5YNTHETHIC FIBER
1 TEXTILE—I
NATURAL FIBER
TEXTILE "
DECREASING CONTAMINENT LEVEL"*
-------
Only a few industries have well established practices of
spreading sludge on land. The canned fruit and vegetable
industry generates simple, easily biodegradable wastes. Nearly
40% of these plants use land disposal of wastes. The petroleum
industry spreads sludges containing oils, chemicals and sewage
solids. The pulp and paper industry utilizes extensive land-
spreading of organic residuals.
A discussion of industries that are known to landspread
their sludges is presented in the following section.
A larger population, industrial growth, and higher degree of
waste-water treatment in the future will cause an increase in
sludge production. For example, EPA projects an increase of
about 50 percent in annual dry weight production of municipal
sludge in the United States in 1985. (Ref. 7).
2. Number of Sites, Distribution
Landspreading of solid, wastes is practiced by municipal
waste treatment plants and by at least seven industrial groups
(not all on food chain crops)--food processing, textiles, pulps
and papers, Pharmaceuticals, tanneries, feed lots, and petroleum
products. When this report was prepared, information was
unavailable concerning waste composition and quantities of the
residuals that are landspread; hence, the analysis of the
economic impact of the land considered only sludges from waste
treatment plants.
a . Waste Treatment Sludges
Over the past few years, EPA has sponsored a survey of
municipal waste treatment plants to obtain information concerning
liquid sludge 1andspreading operations. Of the 987 respondents
to a survey, 225 are currently 1andspreading liquid sludge on a
routine basis.
III-ll
-------
Over 68 percent of the plants responding indicated they have
been 1andspreading liquid sludge for less than 10 years. It is
estimated that 20 percent of the total municipal sludge
production is utilized in application to land used for food chain
crops (Ref. 7).
For this report, the municipal waste-water sludge data base
was derived from an unpublished EPA report on sludge disposal
practices of 141 cities (Appendix 7). This report provided data
on (1) the amount of sludge currently spread on agricultural
land, and (2) the amount that could not be spread at 10 and
20 mt/ha (based on the proposed reduction in the annual quantity
of cadmium which can be applied to land used for the production
of. food chain crops.
Table 4 presents the 1 andspreading data base used for
evaluating the economic impact of the proposed criterion for land
application for food chain crops. A discussion of the
methodology for the economic analysis is presented in Appendix V.
Some treatment plants are "joint municipal-industrial" and
are specifically designed to accept otherwise incompatible
wastes; the usual criteria for joint operation is treatabi1ity.
From a biochemical point of view, treatability is related to two
types of substances; suspended and dissolved organic pollutants
that exert a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and by those (i.e.,
phosphorus wastes) that aid biomass consumption of organics at
the secondary treatment stage.
The sludge from municipal plants can range from being the
product of treatment of only domestic sewage all the way to being
more nearly like the sludge of a specific industry. In general,
though, the jointly included industrial sewage will be treated by
the same biological secondary unit processes used for domestic
sewage.
111-12
-------
TABLE 4
LANDSPREAOING DATA BASE*
(Quantity of Sludge Affected by "Operation Controls"
on Application of Cadmium)
Regulatory Alternative
(Based on Maximum Annual
Cadmium Addition)
Number of Sewage
Treatment Plants
That Can Meet The
Criteria
Quantity of
Sludge
Landspreadable
Quantity
of Sludge
Eliminated
(drymetric tons/year)
Proposed
2.0 Kg/ha cadmium limitation
-Applied at rate of 20 mt/ha
-Applied at rate of 10 mt/ha
1.25 Kg/ha limitation
-Applied at rate of 20 mt/ha
-Applied at rate of 10 mt/ha
0.5 Kg/ha limitation
-Applied at rate of 20 mt/ha
-Applied at rate of 10 mt/ha
More Restrictive"1"
-Applied at rate of 20 mt/ha
-Applied at rate of 10 mt/ha
Most Restrictive"*"
50
54
47
50
41
45
41
45
None
159,140
172,645
151,110
159,140
125,378
153,851
90,155
144,905
None
19,170
6,205
27,740
19,710
44,348
16,973
88,695
33,945
All
* For 58 cities, sources of information include consultation with major cities and
EPA regional offices, construction grant design and planning reports, research
reports and published articles. Metric units in this table may be converted to
English units, as follows: 1 Kg/ha = .89 Ib/acres, and 1 mt/ha = .45 ton/acre.
+ More restrictive would immediately restrict maximum annual cadmium addition to
0.5 Kg/ha (rather than waiting until 1986 to implement); most restrictive is a ban
on application to food chain crops.
111-13
-------
Sludges have greatly increased as a result of the FWPCA, as
stricter effluent levels have caused a shift to processes that
produce greater sludge amounts. Another factor in the increased
rates is the decline from favor of anaerobic sludge digestion.
This often troublesome unit process significantly reduces sludge
amounts while producing methane gas; however, very few recently
constructed plants make provisions for this process. (Ref. 128).
b. Industrial Sector Sludges
An unpublished EPA report provides preliminary
estimates on industrial sector sludges that are principally
organic in nature, and thus are likely to be landspread for
beneficial purposes. (Ref. 128).
Table 5 summarizes the estimated yearly sludge quantities
resulting from pollution control activities. The numbers are
considered "soft" estimates due to: (1) the imprecise
distinction in definition between sludges and other solid wastes;
(2) the fact that nonlinear reality has been adjusted to linear
based models; (3) the reliance on projections rather than
measurements, in most cases; and (4) the lack of data in sectors
such as the sugar industry.
A brief description of the estimated volume and
characteristics of the sludge/residuals produced by selected
industries follows. (Ref. 128).
111-14
-------
TABLE 5
ESTIMATED SLUDGE QUANTITIES RESULTING FROM
FROM POLLUTION CONTROL ACTIVITIES
(Late 70s) (Ref. 128)
Sector Yearly Quantities
(millions of(millions of
metric tons) tons)
Municipal Sewage 4.5 5.0
Water Treatment 0.02 0.02
Food Products
Meat 0.45 0.5
Dairy 0.09 0.1
Canned or Frozen 0.05 0.05
Textiles 0.27 0.3
Pulp 1.8 2.0
Paper 0.18 0.2
Organic Chemicals (not propylene oxide) 0.09 0.1
Plastics 0.45 0.5
Fibers (not rayon) 0.05 0.05
Pharmaceutical 0.18 0.2
Propylene Oxide 0.27 0.3
Petroleum 0.77 0.85
Rayon 0.05 0.05
Leather 0.09 0.1
Cement 0.45 0.5
Electric Power (lime: sulfur removal) 54.5 60.0
Asphalt 5.9 6.5
Steel 6'3 6-9
Inorganic Chemicals (not phosphoric acid) 3.6 4.0
Phosphoric Acid 12.7 14.0
111-15
-------
(1) Food Industry
The food industry generates an estimated 0.59 million metric
tons per year (0.65 million tons/year) of sludge. Of this
amount, meat products account for 0.45 million metric tons per
year (0.5 million tons/year); dairy products, 0.09 million metric
tons per year (0.1 million tons/year); and canned and frozen
foods, 0.05 million metric tons per year (0.05 million
tons/year).
The waste products from these industries are otherwise in
the food chain. Since the raw materials are from plants and
animals, they are mainly organic. Landspreading or irrigating
are the preferred methods of disposal of these wastes where land
is available. In a recent survey, it was determined that 41
percent of the vegetable processing plants and 37 percent of the
fruit processing plants used land disposal. An application rate
of 22 to 45 metric tons/ha/yr (10 to 20 tons/acre/yr) for solid
waste was reported.
(2) Textile Industry
The textile industry generates an estimated 0.27
million metric tons/year (0.3 million tons/year) of sludge; a
significant portion of this solid waste is organic. Although the
dyes are complex organics, they should not occur in concen-
trations that are harmful. Sludges will result from detergents,
sizing and other chemicals, but these ingredients are not
considered dangerous per se, as they are common components in
municipal sewage.
The textile sludges can be divided into those that are
derived from natural products such as cotton and those derived
from synthetic fibers such as polyester. The fate and effects of
111-16
-------
the degradation products of cotton are likely to be known; of
synthetic fibers; however, they are largely unknown.
Waste production in the textile industry includes organic
and inorganic wet chemicals and purely dry products. There are
four types of textile products — animal s, vegetable, regenerated,
and synthetic.
Waste treatment usually terminates with lagoons. The
sludges have been used for soil conditioning, but costs of
transport and application exceed the benefits derived. Since
spreading solid waste on land is of economic advantage to the
industry, this practice will probably increase in popularity.
(3) Pulp Industry
The pulp industry generates an estimated 1.8 million
metric tons per year (2 million tons per year) of sludge. These
wastes are highly carbonaceous, resulting from undegraded
cellulose fibers and biomass grown from the liquors of chemical
solvents and dissolved liquor. Though technically not a food
chain product, the raw material is derived from plant life.
Landspreadi ng has been practiced in this industry for at least
20 years. (Ref. 128).
Land disposal of the sludge is almost universal. The
materials in the sludge are generally beneficial to soils and
crops, and the aerobic soil environment minimizes odors.
(4) Paper Industry
An estimated 0.18 million metric tons of sludge per
year (0.2 million tons) are generated by the paper industry;
cellulose is the major organic constituent of these sludges.
Also resulting from paper making are inorganic fillers, dyes and
sizing. Municipal sewage traditionally carries paper in
111-17
-------
considerable quantities, and the cellulose, etc. would find its
way to municipal sludge.
The most common types of paper produced are kraft, sulfite,
neutral sulfite, semichemical , and groundwood. Some textile
fibers are grown for use in specialty papers; these include flax,
cotton, and jute.
Paper wastes exert a high biochemical oxygen demand load
because they contain compounds such as sugars, resins, tannins,
and lignins. Inorganic compounds which are in a reduced state,
such as sulfite, also utilize oxygen as they oxidize after being
discharged.
( 5) Pharmaceutical Industry
An estimated 0.18 million metric tons per year (0.2
million tons per year) of pharmaceutical sludges are generated.
Solvents and hazardous biologicals and mineral wastes are
incincerated or otherwise handled separately. The remaining 0.18
million tons per year are organic and considered nonhazardous.
(6) Leather Industry (Tanneries)
The leather industry generates about 0.09 million
metric tons per year (0.1 million tons per year) of sludge.
Sodium chloride salt is washed out of the cured hides, and lime
and other alkalies are used to dehair and prepare hides for
tanning and dying. Although tanning is organic, chrome tanning
agents are commonly used. In some cases, chrome recovery may be
practiced; when it is not, as much as 1% of the dry weight of the
sludge may be chromium, thereby posing potential environmental
problems.
111-18
-------
(7) Feed Lots
Feed lots generate an estimated 45.5 million metric
tons per year (50 million tons per year) of manure. Although
collected directly rather than as a sludge from a unit process,
manures can be likened to domestic primary sewaqe sludge. It is
considered a traditional residue, not the result of another
pollution control effect. Landspreading has been the preferred,
time-honored disposal method, since manure is used extensively as
a soil conditioner and has a recognized fertilizer value. When
supplies exceed demand, this useful commodity acquires a negative
worth at the point of generation, and can generate a nuisance or
health hazard if improperly managed.
(8) Petroleum Industry
An estimated 0.77 million metric tons per year (0.85
million tons per year) of petroleum residuals are produced.
Solid wastes resulting from petroleum production include spent
lime from boiler feed water tanks, plus various organic sludges.
About 10% of the residue is presently treated, while the rest is
landfilled and lagooned. One treatment involves land application
for aerobic biological oxidation of organic or oily wastes and
for photochemical oxidation of tetraethyl lead wastes.
3. Site Conditions
a. General
Landspreading of most solid wastes on agricultural land
usually requires a minimum of land preparation. For example,
berms may be required to contain runoff, but leveling is seldom
required. Landspreading on strip-mine spoils frequently requires
leveling, terracing, or even bulldozing of large amounts of over-
burden to fill gullies and trenches. Costs for site preparations
of this scale can amount to several thousands of dollars per
111-19
-------
acre. If leveling is a requirement, regardless of revegetation
method, solid waste irrigation may be economically advantageous.
Siting is a major technological consideration because the
impact of solid waste on the environment can be maximized or
minimized by the choice of spreading site. The physical aspects
of siting include some political considerations as well as those
more tangible. The proximity to the waste source to a degree
determines the transportation cost; transportation, as might be
expected, accounts for most of the cost associated with land-
spreading of sludge.
Zoning of the site and adjacent properties may enhance or
greatly complicate its utilization. For example, problems such
as the transmission of odors and disease may be slight with the
utilization of properly stabilized sludge; on the other hand,
public antipathy to sludge spreading can make real problems for
the administrators of the program. Locating a sludge farm in a
residential neighborhood can be done (Hanover Park, Illinois),
but it requires a good public-relations program ahead of time.
(Ref. 7).
Related to the zoning considerations is the recognition that
expansion will likely take place, so land should either be
acquired or be available for future growth. Space for storage,
roads, and buildings should also be provided.
b. Public Health Impacts
Although 1 andspreading of solid wastes provides the
benefits of resource use and fertilizer and soil conditioning
ability, there exists the potential for significant adverse
health and environmental impacts from this practice due to the
presence in the waste of heavy metals, particularly cadmium, as
well as pathogens, and persistent organics.
111-20
-------
(1) Cad ml inn
Excessive amounts of cadmium added to the soil may have
serious adverse impacts because of the uptake of cadmium by food
chain crops.
Cadmium overloading on food chain lands or lands that may at
some future time be used to raise these crops can have long-term
human health impacts. Contamination of the soil may require that
this land not be used for the growth of food chain crops for many
years to come, depending on the degree of overload.
The uncontrolled disposal of municipal wastewater treatment
sludge on agricultural land has been identified as a potential
source of increased cadmium in the human diet through the
contamination of food crops. This same potential would hold true
for the addition of any cadmium-laden waste to agricultural
soils.
Cadmium is of concern in the 1 andspreadi.ng of., solid wastes
because the metal (1) can be readily taken up by crops unless the
proper precautions are taken, (2) has the potential for bio-
accumulation is tissue, and (3) is toxic to humans.
(2) Pathogens
Pathogenic organisms, including a wide variety of
bacteria, viruses, and intestinal parasites, can be found in
certain wastes (e.g., hospital wastes, municipal wastewater
treatment sludge). The fact that these organisms are present in
solid waste and are capable of persisting in various environments
is a fundamental concern whenever sludge is applied to the land.
Routes of infection to humans and animals can. be through direct
contact with contaminated environments or through the ingestion
of contaminated food and water.
111-21
-------
(3) Pesticides and Persistent Orgam'cs
The principal chemical substances of concern are
chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's), and insecticides such as DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, and
Chlordane; several of these are suspected of being carcinogens.
What happens to people or animals when they consume such new
chemical substances and what happens to these substances in the
environment are very complex and primarily unanswered questions.
PCB's are a member of a class of chlorinated aromatic
organic compounds which have given rise to concern because of
their wide dispersal and persistence in the environment and their
tendency to accumulate in food chains, with possible adverse
effects on higher animals and people.
c. Ground Water
Very few municipal sludge disposal facilities are
monitored for their effects on water quality, and even fewer
industrial sludge disposal sites have been studied. Ground-water
quality has usually not been degraded by 1andspreading of solid
waste except at sites with poor management practices.
Municipal sludge disposal to land can cause chemical contam-
ination of ground water, especially through the leaching of such
elements as nitrates (which can spoil ground water for drinking);
in addition, public health is endangered by the presence in
sludge of heavy metals such as cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc,
copper, and mercury — all of which are toxic to humans in very
small quantities.
Chemical contamination of ground water can, to a great
extent, be controlled by proper siting. Thus, the distance to
surface water and depth to ground water should be reasonable.
Runoff directly entering a stream or lake, and percolate entering
111-22
-------
ground water without passing through an aerobic, unsaturated zone
can degrade the quality of the receiving waters.
Physical aspects of siting can be used to help protect the
ground-water supply. The deeper the water table, the greater the
chance for renovation of percolate before it enters the ground-
water system. A water table several tens of feet below ground
surface allows chemical and biological reactions to occur which
remove some of the components in percolate. (Ref. 7)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated in 1969 that
1.5 billion metric tons (1.7 billion tons) of cattle wastes are
generated annually. This total probably exceeds waste production
from any other segment of the national agricultural, commercial,
and domestic complex. Of this total, only about 5 percent is
deposited in feedlots, but the potential environmental threat of
waste concentrated on feedlots is disproportionately large
relative to the total cattle wastes (Ref. 7, p. 396). Up to
100 million metric tons (113 tons) per year of feedlot wastes may
be landspread. The potential, for ground-water contamination from
all types of animal wastes is substantial even when compared to
potential problems from human wastes, because the volume of
animal wastes is equal to about 10 times the amount generated by
the human population.
There are several potential contaminants in manure, but only
one is frequently encountered in ground water--nitrate. Nitrate
is the oxidation product of organically bound nitrogen, ammonium
and nitrate. Ground water is vulnerable to nitrate contamination
because nitrate is soluble in water, and its concentration is
essentially unchanged by contact with the soil matrix. Bacteria
and phosphate, other manure-borne contaminants are generally
highly attenuated by soils and thus do not constitute a serious
threat to ground water (Ref. 7, p 396).
111-23
-------
C. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
1. General Description of Practice
Surface impoundments, which include a wide variety of
facilities referred to as pits, ponds, lagoons, basins, and
pools, are another major solid waste disposal method that can
introduce contaminants into ground water.
Surface impoundments are used in essentially all processes
relating to treatment of community, industrial, and agricultural
water and wastewater, and as well as in processing by major
industries engaged in such activities as manufacturing, food
production, mining, oil and gas production, and animal feedlot
operations. Because most impoundments are unlined and leak part
of their contents downward into the soil, ground-water
contamination from these sources is believed to occur throughout
the nation; indeed, instances are known of contamination from
surface impoundments in nearly every State. Many of the bodies
of contaminated ground water are localized; some are so far
removed from populated areas that they constitute no immediate
threat to the water supply of any community. Others, however,
have developed into extensive plumes of contamination that have
already degraded or may degrade the quality of local ground-water
supplies. (Ref. 107).
Most plumes of contaminated ground water associated with
surface impoundments have been found to be small and widely
scattered throughout the country. A major difficulty in
identifying the source of contamination is that the existence of
a plume may not be known until the contaminated water reaches a
nearby well or stream and is detected either by the taste, color,
or odor of the water or by routine water sampling and analysis.
111-24
-------
In the most definitive study on this subject to date, a
surface impoundment is defined as a "natural topographic
depression, artificial excavation, or dike arrangement with the
following characteristics: (1) it is used primarily for storage,
treatment, or disposal of wastes in the form of liquids, semi-
solids, or solids; (2) it is constructed above, below, or
partially in the ground, and (3) it may or may not have a
permeable bottom and sides allowing infiltration of its contents
into ground water". (Ref. 107).
Omitted from this study, were fresh-water impoundments such
as natural lakes, reservoirs, farm ponds used for water supply,
storm, water basins, and flood-control and irrigation impound-
ments, not designed to treat, store, or dispose of wastes. These
impoundments number several million and mainly contain fresh
water; hence, many States do not recognize them as potential
sources of contamination.
Concrete-lined basins and prefabricated tanks, and steel
vessels that are used in waste treatment and industrial
processing were not included in the definition of impoundments in
the recent preliminary national inventory of surface
impoundments. (Ref. 107).
2. Number of Sites, Distribution
Few States have actually counted impoundments or compiled
detailed records of their construction and operation. The
preliminary national inventory (Ref. 107) indicates that a
minimum of about 13,700 domestic waste impoundment sites
(municipal, institutional, and commercial) 77,000 industrial
impoundment sites, and 19,500 agricultural impoundment sites have
been identified and recorded, making a minimum overall total of
about 110,000 sites. .Each site has one or more impoundments and
the best estimate is that there may be 2 to 3 per site on the
111-25
-------
average. Table 6 shows the estimated numbers of impoundment
sites by State from all waste sources.
The majority of the impoundments are at facilities relating
to oil and gas extractions, coal and other mining, and animal
feedlots. The analysis in this report excludes municipal waste-
water and agricultural impoundments since domestic sewage is not
a solid waste under the RCRA definition, and it was felt that
Federal and State water quality control regulations effectively
control surface-water pollution from these types of impoundments.
Moreover, feedlots are considered to be point sources of
discharge that can be regulated under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, 1972 Amendments.
For purposes of analysis in the EIS, impoundment sites were
divided into two groups based on industrial classification and
size; site size was the major distinguishing factor between the
two groups. A total of 73,235 surface impoundments fell into the
categories shown in Table 7.
Further assumptions used for analyzing impacts of the
Criteria on surface impoundments are presented in Appendix V.
3. Site Conditions
The national survey of impoundments (Ref. 107) found that
most impoundments are unlined and built on permeable earth
materials, with a high potential for leakage. In regions where
rainfall exceeds potential evapotranspiration, the dominant
mechanism for wastewater loss is through seepage into ground
water.
111-26
-------
TABLE 6
ESTIMATE OF NUMBERS OF IMPOUNDMENT SITES, FOR ALL CATEGORIES,
BY STATES
State
No.
State
No.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Cal i form"a
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Loui siana
Maine
Mary! and
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mi nnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
1,590
130
339
834
3,727
717
96
50
1,948
1,440
78
584
3,591
2,470
1,466
6,057
1,279
9,751
235
534
73
3,224
1,540
1,715
2,776
2,189
2,192
276
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Vi rginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyomi ng
Grand Total
105
247
595
848
1,026
2,775
13,196
2,015
757
15,341
31
912
650
775
8,439
364
179
1,818
1,031
6,612
986
538
110.150
111-27
-------
TABLE 7
MAJOR CATEGORIES OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
BY SIZE AND TYPE
Group I (20 hectares (50 acres)/site)*
Coal and Other Mining
Paper Products ^ 9,082 sites
Utility and Other Services
Group II (3 hectares (7.5 acres)/site)**
Oil and Gas
Food Products and Textiles ^ 64,153 sites
Chemicals and Refining '
Miscellaneous Mining
*0ne 20-hectare (50 acre) impoundment per site.
**Three 1-hectare (2.5 acre) impoundments per site
It is likely that at least some leakage into ground water is
taking place from most unlined impoundments. In many places,
impoundments could not function at all if leakage were prevented.
In those instances, the owners would have to turn to costly
alternatives such as treatment, liners, or recycling of wastes in
order to remain in operation. Moreover, the cost for correcting
an individual leaky impoundment might range from several tens of
thousands to several hundreds of thousands of dollars and, in
some places, the remedial action would cost in the millions.
Many States require permits or have some other type of regula-
tions concerning impoundment construction and operation, but many
of these regulations are not very specific in regard to contamin-
ation prevention or are not enforced because financial resources
are limited.
111-28
-------
In addition, impoundments were found to contain fluids with
almost every known chemical substances, and many of these
substances were also identified in ground water contaminated by
leaky impoundments. Nearly all States have reported cases of
significant ground-water contamination from impoundments.
Thus far, it is primarily water in shallow aquifers which
has been adversely affected by leakage from impoundments, but the
potential for contamination of deeper waters could exist in some
ground-water recharge areas.
Numerous case studies attest to air, ground-water and
surface-water pollution as a result of land disposal of
industrial wastes. EPA's Office of Solid Waste has documented 30
case studies of industrial land disposal sites that have created
public health and environmental hazards. Also, through contract
efforts, fifty randomly chosen industrial land disposal sites
were investigated and ground-water contamination was observed at
47 of these sites.
Case studies on the different industrial waste disposal
methods have shown different mechanisms for causing environ-
mental, economic or health damage, as shown in Table 8. This
information suggests that the waste stream has often been shifted
between impoundments, landfills, and other disposal methods,
making it more productive to focus on protecting the particular
resource from all disposal methods than focusing only on
particular industrial waste disposal methods.
111-29
-------
TABLE 8
MECHANISMS INVOLVED IN INCIDENTS OF DAMAGE BY DISPOSAL METHOD
FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTES*
Disposal Method (No. of Cases)
Surface Landfills
Impoundments Dumps
Damage Mechanisms
(no. of cases) 89 99
Ground water (248) 57
Surface Water (162) 42
Air (17) 3
Fires, Explosions
(14)
Direct Contact 1
Poisoning (52)
64
49
5
11
6
Other Land
Disposal **
203
117
71
9
3
40
Storage
of Waste
15
10
.
-
-
5
Wells Affected (138)
32
28
74
*The tabulation refers to 406 cases studied thus far. The numbers ii
the matrix add up to more than 406 because several damage incidents
involved more than one damage mechanism.
**Hazphazard disposal on vacant properties, on farmland, spray
irrigation, etc.
"j"Not included as a damage mechanism.
Note: The data presented in this table have been derived solely from
case studies associated with land disposal of industrial wastes
Source: House Committee Print No. 20
As previously stated, most impoundments are unlined and,
therefore, may leak part of their contents down into the soil
(leachate). In many areas, any contamination of ground water
also threatens the quality of surface water. The basic
111-30
-------
mechanisms and effects of leachate damage are described in
Appendix IVC. It has been estimated that over 380 million cubic
meters (100 billion gallons) per year of industrial effluents
enter the ground water system, based on standard leakage
coefficients and on the estimated 6.4 billion cubic meters
(1,700 billion gallons) of industrial wastewater pumped annually
to oxidation ponds or lagoons for treatment (or as a step in the
treatment process). Contaminants documented as having degraded
ground-water quality include phenols, acids, heavy metals and
cyanide. The potential ground-water contaminants for each
industry are shown in Table 9. (Ref. 7).
111-31
-------
TABLE 9 INDUSTRIAL WASTE-WATER PARAMETERS HAVING OR INDICATING
SIGNIFICANT GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL. (Ref. 7
PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
COD
TOC
Ammonia
Pulp and Paper Industry
Phenols
Sulfite
Color
Heavy metals
Nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorus)
Total Dissolved
PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS
Ammonia
Chromium
COD
pH
Phenols
Sulfide
Total Dissolved Solids
Petroleum Refining Industry
Chloride
Color
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Mercaptans
Nitrogen
Odor
Total Phosphorus
Sulfate
TOC
Turbidity
Zinc
PRIMARY METALS
PH
Chloride
Sulfate
Ammonia
Steel Industries
Cyanide
Phenols
Iron
Tin
Chromium
Zinc
CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
COD
pH
Total Dissolved Solids
Organic Che mica is Industry
TOC
Total Phosphorus
Heavy metals
Phenols
Cyanide
Total Nitrogen
111-32
-------
Table 9(Continued). INDUSTRIAL WASTE-WATER PARAMETERS HAVING OR
INDICATING SIGNIFICANT GROUND-WATER CON-
TAMINATION OR POTENTIAL.
CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS.(Continued)
Inorgonic Chemicals, Alkalies and Chlorine Industry
Acidity/Alkalinity
Total Dissolved Solids
Chloride
Sulfate
COD
TOC
Chlorinated Benzenoids and Chromium
Pol/nuclear Aromatics Lead
Phenols Titanium
Fluoride Iron
Total Phosphorus Aluminum
Cyanide Boron
Mercury Arsenic
Plastic Materials and Synthetics Industry
COD
pH
Phenols
Total Dissolved Solids
Sulfate
Ammonia
Chloride
Chromium
Total Dissolved Solids
Nitrate
Calcium
Dissolved Solids
Fluoride
PH
Phosphorus
Phosphorus Ammonia
Nitrate Cyanide
Organic Nitrogen Zinc .
Chlorinated Benzenoids and Mercaptans
Polynuclear Aromatics
Nitrogen Fertilizer Industry
Sulfate COD
Organic Nitrogen Iron, Total
Compounds pH
Zinc Phosphate
Calciun. Sodium
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Acidity Mercury
Aluminum Nitrogen
Arsenic Sulfate
Iron Uranium
111-33
-------
IV. ADVERSE EFFECTS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Chapters III and IV of Volume I summarized the environmental
and economic consequences of the proposed Criteria, as well as
the effects of more and less restrictive alternatives.
This section presents a more detailed discussion of the
adverse effects from improper disposal in terms of (1) the magni-
tude of each adverse effect, (2) the alternative technologies and
unit costs to control these effects, and (3) the range of regula-
tory approaches for each adverse effect.
A. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
1. Importance; Adverse Effects from Improper Disposal
Environmentally sensitive areas are natural assets which are
especially ecologically productive or important, are particularly
vulnerable or sensitive to solid waste disposal, and may not be
adequately protected by the other criteria. These are areas
where current Federal policy has already established a national
interest in protecting the resource (Ref. 40,41,115). In
general, these areas should be avoided for solid waste disposal;
if no feasible alternative exists, however, disposal facilities
in these areas require special design, construction, operation,
and maintenance considerations.
a. Wet!ands
The nation's coastal and inland wetlands are vital
natural resources of great hydrological, ecological, and social
importance. Wetlands provide natural flood and storm control,
sediment and erosion control, recharge of aquifers, natural pur-
ification of waters, and flow stabilization of streams and
rivers. Wetlands produce large quantities of nutrients which
IV-1
-------
support complex ecosystems extending into estuaries and streams,
well beyond the marshes and wetland areas. Wetland habitats
support fish, shellfish, mammals, waterfowl, and other wildlife
fauna and flora. Moreover, wetlands are used in the production
of many agricultural products (food and fiber) and timber, as
well as for recreational, scientific, and cultural pursuits.
b. Floodplai ns
Disposal of solid wastes in floodplains (especially
along rivers) may have several significant adverse impacts:
(1) if not adequately protected from flooding, wastes in a dis-
posal site may be inundated by water and flow from the site,
impacting water quality and aquatic life in downstream waters,
and also causing erosion, siltation, and flooding; (2) filling in
the floodplain may restrict the flow of flood waters and/or
reduce the size and effectiveness of the floodplain in
assimilating flood waters which may result in higher flood levels
and great flood damages downstream or upstream; and (3) since
floodplains generally have a hydraulic connection in wetlands,
surface water and ground water, locating disposal sites in flood-
plains may result in leachate contamination.
c. Permafrost Areas
Permafrost areas, characteristic of arctic Alaska, are
very fragile ecosystems with significant potential erosion and
ground-water contamination problems. Permafrost is permanently
frozen ground, occurring where the freezing depth each winter
exceeds the summer thaw depth. In portions of arctic Alaska the
depth of thaw or active zone is less than 18 inches.
Disposal of solid waste in permafrost areas presents three
environmental problems. First, any disturbance of the delicate
Insulating plant and moss cover increases the depth of annual
thaw. Since permafrost is commonly composed of supersaturated
IV-2
-------
soils and ice, an increased depth of thaw can alter the surface
contour, create lakes, and cause significant erosion. Moreover,
an activity to correct erosion by surface and subsurface waters
tends to increase the thaw and erosion problem.
Second, disposal in the active zone may cause difficult
water pollution problems. All seasonal water movement occurs in
this active zone and leachate contamination is very likely.
Since the active zone of permafrost areas is commonly the only
source of drinking water, prevention of contamination is essen-
tial in order to preserve this vital resource.
Third, waste deposited in permafrost areas is generally
deposited on the surface and undergoes very little change over
time and therefore accumulates and remains as a hazard to future
generations.
According to Section 3 of RCRA, steps are to be taken to
remove existing solid waste on Federal lands in Alaska.
d. Critical Habitats
Many species of animals and plants have become rare or
endangered in the past through the cumulative effects of human
activity in habitat destruction, excessive killing, and,
recently, release of toxic substances into the environment. Con-
struction and operation of waste disposal facilities may restrict
the movement of or otherwise temporarily or permanently disturb
natural habitats of rare and endangered wildlife in certain areas
of the country. Habitats critical to the continued existence of
endangered species should be protected from any disturbance
caused by waste disposal practices.
IV-3
-------
The Department of Interior has currently designated critical
habitats of the snail darter, the American crocodile, the
California condor, the Indiana bat, and the Florida manatee (50
CFR, Part 17, Subpart F).
e. Recharge Zones of Sole-Source Aquifers
Aquifers are water-bearing, geologic formations which
often yield significant quantities of water to wells or springs;
a large percentage of the population in this country obtains its
drinking water supply from these sources. Aquifers are replen-
ished through recharge zones which are permeable to rainfall and
surface runoff and through which the aquifer is susceptible to
contamination. Removal of areas from recharge zones reduces the
recharge and therefore reduces the amount of water available for
use.
The contamination process begins with sources of contamina-
tion such as waste disposal facilities. The type of contaminant,
of course, depends on the source and can range from hazardous
chemicals in landfill leachates or waste lagoons to high con-
centrations of salt in oil-field brines. Either deliberately
(septic tanks) or unintentionally (industrial waste-water
impoundments), contaminants can leak, percolate, be discharged
to, or be injected into water-supply aquifers.
As the contaminant travels through the soil and into the
ground-water system, it can be modified by various attenuation
processes such as adsorption, cation exchange, and precipitation.
These processes are very complex, are finite in capacity, are
dependent on soil factors as pH and soil type, and are revers-
ible. However, once in an aquifer, certain substances are highly
mobile. Since ground water frequently is very slow novino, con-
taminants within the ground-water system do not mix readily with
native water (i.e., they usually do not become diluted or
IV-4
-------
dispersed, but rather move slowly as slugs or plumes of
contamination).
Although ground water travels through an aquifer slowly, it
is in constant motion and must eventually discharge to the
surface because all aquifer systems are being recharged to some
degree. In humid areas, discharge of contaminants is relatively
quick for shallow water-table aquifers and slow for deep-artesian
aquifers. In some arid regions, recharge and discharge are so
slow that some aquifers can actually be considered sinks similar
to the ocean. Points of discharge include wells and springs used
for water supply and surface-water bodies such as rivers and
1akes.
2. Control Technologies and Unit Cost
1. Wet!ands
In addition to the application of standard technology
for landfills in wetlands, one must also consider the preserva-
tion of an ecosystem which provides habitat for flora and fauna.
Also, wetlands are almost always associated with a floodplain
area and should receive, therefore, all considerations necessary
for sites located in floodplains. Although there appears to be
no satisfactory way to site a facility in the wetlands without
significant adverse impact, there are methods for mitigating the
impact on the environment. The primary adverse impact on the
disposal site in the wetlands is the destruction of a portion of
an ecosystem which provides habitat, food material, breeding,
and/or activity areas for plant and animal life. When
considering a site in a wetlands area, the local areal and
regional system should be studied to determine locations for
candidate sites out of the wetlands as well as inside them.
Candidate sites could then be ranked and a chosen site selected
to have the least significant impact on the ecosystem. Further,
local sites similar in size and nature could be restored or
IV-5
-------
returned to the ecosystem to keep the same total area in
wetlands.
Every effort should be made to contain the wastes within the
site and prevent seepage of contaminants. As a minimum, the
entire site should be confined within a dike or 10-foot high
levee. In addition, restoration or preservation activities else-
where in the wetlands may provide tradeoffs to mitigate the
adverse impacts of disposal activities within such a fragile eco-
logical environment.
Where feasible, the final end use of the site could be
blended with the ecosystem so as to provide additional habitat,
nutrients, or food supply for the plant and animal system in the
vicinity of the disposal facility.
The sites located within wetlands could be utilized in a
more efficient manner by using higher density disposal methods
and higher final contours, to minimize the amount of land used
while getting the maximum .capacity from the landfill itself.
High density can be achieved by preprocessing of the waste
through baling or shredding, and/or by use of high compaction
equipment on-site to increase refuse density. The benefit
achieved is increased site life, with fewer landfills and less
total wetlands are required.
b. Fl oodplains
Floodplains require certain special considerations.
The primary contamination potential from landfills sited in
floodplain areas is the degradation of the ground and surface
waters caused by the adverse impact of flooding, which removes
the waste from the site by erosion or adds significant leachate
to the ecosystem. In addition to the standard counter-measures
of preventing seepage and controlling leachate required for all
IV-6
-------
landfills, perimeter protection is most frequently utilized to
preclude the effects of flooding on water quality.
Perimeter berms or dikes are usually constructed around the
waste disposal area. Such berms rise above the 100-year flood
level and are protected from flood erosion by adequate erosion
mechanisms including rip-rap, vegetation, and erosion-resistant
materials. The perimeter system, while it isolates sites from
the impact of flood waters, itself create some impacts on the
flood regime. By the mere process of isolating the site from
flooding, perimeter protection reduces the storage capacity of
the flood basin. This results in back-water impacts, affecting
the direction and magnitude of the flow of water through the
floodplain, and occasionally causing flooding of new lands. This
impact of perimeter protection can be precluded or minimized by
siting the solid waste facility at a location which will not
impact on the water flow basin storage capacity or the "back-
water curve." For example, the disposal facility might be shaped
in a more streamlined configuration to minimize its impact on the
water velocity or flow directions. Creating an equal storage
volume for flood waters is often a suitable alternative for
retaining the storage capacity of the floodplain. By approriate
siting of the replacement volume, the back-water effects might be
totally eliminated. Drainage ways, channel improvement,
deflector systems, and berms are all techniques available to
assist in the control of the flood-water flow velocity and back-
water consequences.
c. Permafrost Areas and Recharge Zones of
Sole-Source Aquifers
The standard control methods for operating in these
areas are described in detail later in this section in the
discussion of recommended technology for surface water and ground
water (Sections IIIB and IIIC, respectively).
IV-7
-------
Control methods include encapsulating wastes in these areas
with top and/or bottom liners or barriers to prevent or minimize
leachate generation; contouring cover materials and vegetating
the site surface to encourage runoff and prevent or minimize
erosion; and constructing dikes, berms, and/or ditches, culverts,
basins, sump pumps, or similar collection systems to control
leachate seeps and discharges.
Before locating a disposal site in permafrost areas or
recharge zones of sole-source aquifers, it must be demonstrated
that alternative locations are not feasible.
d. Critical Habitats
If other feasible alternatives exist, critical habitat
areas should not be used for solid waste disposal. Disposal
facilities that are located in such areas must be designed, con-
structed, operated, and maintained so as not to jeopardize the
continued existence of the endangered species. The final end use
of the site could be blended with the ecosystem so as to provide
additional habitat or food supply for the animal species in the
vicinity of the disposal facility.
Table 10 shows control techologies and unit costs as a func-
tion of site size for the proposed criterion; costs are identi-
fied for each disposal method impacted by this criterion.
3. Regulatory Alternatives
Areas considered for special consideration in the Criteria
were wetlands, floodplains, permafrost zones, critical habitats
for rare/endangered species, recharge zones of sole-source
aquifers, active fault zones, karst terrain, and areas with
shallow depths to the water table. The first five were selected
for inclusion in this criterion and the approach chosen was to
have restrictive criteria with State/local controls. All three
IV-8
-------
TABLE 10
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIT COSTS
Disposal
Method
Landfill
Wetlands
& Flood -
plains
Permafrost
Sole-
Source
Aquifers
Critical
Habitats
Technology
Containment Levee
Study of Alternatives
Study of Alternatives
N/A
Site Size
TPD (TPD)
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
N/A
N/A
N/A
Capital Costs
Unit
($)
> 196/m3 (1.50/cuyd)
10,000 LS
10,000 LS
Quantity
m cu yd
32,130 42,000
70,686 92,400
115/668 151,200
167.076 218,400
10,000 1
1
N/A N/A
Total
($)
63,000
139,000
227,000
328,000
10,000
10,000
0
Operation and
Maintenance Costs
Unit
($)
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Quantity
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual Cost
(10-Yr Life)
($)
10,200
22,500
36,800
56,100
1,600
1,600
0
-------
areas occur nationwide and all are considered of critical
environmental and social importance, having been the subject of
Executive Orders (Refs. 40,41).
a. Regulatory Alternatives for Areas Included
in ESA Criterion
In Volume I, Chapter III of this report, three
regulatory alternatives were described for each of the five areas
considered in the ESA criterion. These alternatives as well as
additional regulatory options for these areas, are sumsmarized
below.
(1) Wetlands
Alternatives include requiring a .402 permit and
404 permit, if applicable; banning disposal of wastes in
wetlands, and not addressing the issue of waste disposal in these
areas.
(2) Floodplains
A wide range of alternatives is available for
floodplains, including (1) determining that a disposal facility
will not restrict the flow of the 100-year floodplain and
protecting against inundation by the 100-year flood by means of
proper design, construction, and maintenance of the site;
(2) same approach as alternative (1) above, for the 50-year
floodplain; (3) protecting against inundation and damming of
rivers in floodplains; (4) protecting against inundation only;
(5) banning disposal of all wastes in these areas; and (6) not
addressing the problem of waste disposal in these areas, with the
assumption that the ground- and surface-water criteria will
adequately protect floodplains.
IV-10
-------
(3) Permafrost Areas
Regulatory alternatives include using environ-
mentally acceptable alternative sites, banning disposal in these
areas, and not addressing the problem of waste disposal in these
areas.
(4) Critical Habitats
Alternatives include (!) locating sites in areas
identified in 50 CFR, Part 17, Subpart F, only i_f disposal
practices pose no threat to endangered species and the siting
receives approval by the Department of the Interior; (2) locating
sites in areas identified in Section 4 or 7 of the Endangered
Species Act only j_f_ they pose no threat to endangered species;
(3) banning disposal in areas identified in alternative 1 above;
(4) banning disposal in areas identified in alternative 2 above;
and (5) not addressing the problem of waste disposal in these
areas.
(5) Sole-Source Aquifers
Alternatives include (1) sitinq only if no other
feasible alternative is available and in such cases employing the
best available technology and monitoring disposal practices to
ensure that the aquifer is not endangered; (2} following the pro-
cedures outlined in alternative 1 above, but only for the
recharge zone (i.e., not over the aquifer); C3) banning disposal
in the recharge zone and above the aquifer; C4) banning disposal
in the recharge zone only; and (5) not addressing the issue of
disposal in these zones.
IV-11
-------
b. Regulatory Alternatives for Areas Not Included
in ESA Criterion
For the environmentally sensitive areas not included in
this criterion, EPA felt that they were generally of such limited
geographical extent and required such particular engineering
measures and local agency control procedures that they did not
belong in a national standard. Also, EPA felt that the surface-
and ground-water criteria and other Federal regulations provided
sufficient protection for important health and environmental
features.
(1) Active Fault Zones
Reasons for not considering certain areas varied.
For example, surficial distrubances by active faults may result
in shifts in waste disposal sites which may damage any liners if
used and/or expose wastes. Certainly, hazardous wastes and some
less inert types of solid waste should not be disposed in sites
located over truly active fault zones. Separate regulations are
being developed for hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Active fault zones with a history of surficial disturbances are
very few in the United States and well known. It was felt that
those few States with such unique areas already have adequate
controls so that the Criteria did not need to include these
areas.
In addition to not addressing the issue of disposal in
active fault zones, regulatory options for these zones include
locating sites in these areas only i_f no feasible alternative is
available and in such cases ensuring that the best available
technology is applied in designing, operating, and maintaining
the facility; alternatively, waste disposal in active fault zones
could be prohibited, thereby protecting such areas from the
adverse effects of disposal in the event of surficial
di sturbance.
IV-12
-------
(2) Karst Terrain
Karst terrain is terrain which has been formed
over limestone, dolomite, or gypsum as a result of solution pro-
cesses; it is characterized by closed depressions or sink holes,
caves, and solution channels, and commonly has underground
drainage. Disposal of solid wastes on such a terrain faces
problems distinctive to this unique geological setting: leachate
produced at a site may be channeled without attenuation via solu-
tion cavities beneath the site into ground water and transported
rapidly over substantial distances to unpredictable locations via
turbulent ground-water flow through solution channels in the bed-
rock; and a cavern of sink hole beneath a site can, in effect,
ingest large quantities of waste into the ground-water channels
within the bedrock.
Because the characteristics and potential impacts of karst
terrain are so variable and complex and because the ground-water
criterion addresses the major concerns of disposal in karst
terrain, EPA decided not to include karst terrain in the
criterion for environmentally sensitive areas. However, care
should be taken in evaluating risks on a site-by-site basis
before solid wastes are disposed of on karst terrain.
Another regulatory option for karst terrain includes loca-
ting disposal facilities in such terrain only i f no other feas-
ible alternatives exist and in such cases only after extensive
hydrogeologic study indicates that endangerment of ground water
is highly unlikely; in addition, the best available technology
should be implemented in designing, operating, and maintaining
the disposal facility in karst terrain. A third regulatory
alternative--one that provides maximum protection of these sensi-
tive areas--involves banning disposal in these areas.
IV-13
-------
(3) Historical Presevation and Archaeological Areas
Historical preservation and archaeological areas
represent valuable cultural, scientific, and aesthetic resources
that merit environmental protection. Regulatory alternatives for
these areas include (1) consulting the State Historic Preserva-
tion Officer, in compliance with the Archaeological and Historic
Preservation Act (P.L. 93-291) in cases where waste disposal
poses a threat of irreparable damage to these areas; (2) banning
disposal; and (3) not addressing the issue of disposal in these
areas.
B. SURFACE WATER
1. Importance; Adverse Effects from Improper Disposal
The quality of this country's rivers, lakes, and streams is
of vital concern from both an aesthetic and ecological point of
view. These resources serve as recreational places for people
and living environments for a wide variety of fish and aquatic
organisms that depend on an oxygen-sufficient, uncontaminated
living environment. Contamination of these valuable resources,
including the widespread pollution of several of the Great Lakes
and large stretches of lakes and rivers, dramatizes the need for
regulatory measures to control these environmental impacts; the
surface-water criterion has been developed to control adverse
impacts caused by improper disposal of solid wastes.
Solid waste disposal has often led to surface-water con-
tamination from runoff of leachate, accidental spills, and drift
of spray occurring at dumps, landfills, surface impoundments,
farmlands, and 1andspreading operations.
IV-14
-------
One study cited 162 cases of surface-water contamination
from industrial waste disposal alone, of which 42 (26%) occurred
at surface impoundments, 49 (30$) at landfills or dumps, and 71
(44%) at landspreading operations or from haphazard disposal on
farmland (Ref. 79).
In most areas of the country, except the arid zones, any
contamination of ground water usually threatens the quality of
surface water. The actual extent of degradation depends on
numerous factors, including:
the travel distance (and time of travel) between the
source of ground-water contamination and the surface-
water body;
the degree of hydraulic connection between the aquifer
and the surface-water body;
the nature and quantity of contaminants that actually
enter the aquifer;
the physical nature of the aquifer, i.e., granular or
fractured, and the nature of the aquifer materials,
which together determine the treatment that will occur
in the aquifer and the ultimate quality of the ground-
water discharge;
the ratio of baseflow discharge from upstream sources
to the contaminated discharge (i.e., how much dilution
occurs);
the quality of baseflow from upstream sources; and
pumping wells between the area of contamination and the
line of discharge.
The principal source of surface water contamination is
leachate, caused by water percolating through the refuse.
Leachate, a highly mineralized fluid, typically contains such
constituents as chloride, iron, lead, copper, sodium, nitrate,
and a variety of organic chemicals. Where manufacturing wastes
are included, hazardous constituents can be present in the
leachate (e.g., cyanide, cadmum, chromium, chlorinated hydro-
carbons, and PCBs). The particular makeup of the leachate is
IV-15
-------
dependent upon the city and/or industries using the landfill or
dump. The types and concentrations of contaminants in leachate
are of great importance in determining its potential effects on
the quality of surface water.
The amount of infiltration from precipitation that falls on
a disposal site is the major factor affecting the quantity of
leachate that can be generated. Therefore, the extent of the
potential problem of surface-water contamination resulting from
leachate is greatest in areas where average annual precipitation
exceeds the potential water losses by evaporation and transpira-
tion. Such areas are generally found east of the Mississippi
River and in the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest. About
71 percent of the municipal refuse disposal sites found in the
United States are located in these water surplus areas.
While the most common economic damage resulting from
leachate is the contamination of domestic, industrial, and public
supply wells, there are numerous cases where leachate has
directly contaminated surface waters. In confined, slow-moving,
or relatively low-volume surface waters, leachate has killed
vegetation and fish, wiped out spawning areas, and ruled out the
use of existing and planned recreational areas (Ref. 7, p. 152).
Fishkills by leachate have been reported at 47 disposal sites in
20 States, involving over 65 miles of steams, 42 acres of lakes,
and at least 215,000 dead fish. Up to 8 miles of a stream and 12
acres of a lake were contaminated in an individual instance
(Ref. 10).
Industrial wastewater impoundments clso pose a serious
threat to surface water because of their large number and their
potential for leaking hazardous substances which are relatively
mobile in the surface-water environment. Faulty design, acci-
dent, or failure of surface impoundments containing industrial
effluent can cause surface-water contamination because of leakage
of wastewaters into streams, lakes, or rivers. Potential
IV-16
-------
contaminants cover the full range of inorganic chemicals and
organic chemicals normally contained in industrial wastewaters.
Those documented as having degraded surface-water quality include
phenols, acids, heavy metals, and cyanide.
In Maryland, discharge of phenolic wastewater to several
clay-lined lagoons had been going on for 10 years before it was
discovered that the lagoons were leaking. Contaminated ground
water had migrated downslope to a fresh-water pond and a small
stream. Geophysical surveys and monitoring wells installed under
the direction of the State's Water Resources Administration
indicated that an extensive zone of ground-water contamination
existed in the water-table aquifer. Phenolic concentrations were
at a highly toxic level of 14.4 ppm. Discharge of this contamin-
ated ground water had adversely affected the entire stream, from
the industrial plant site to a marshy area two miles away.
Because of the slow rate of movement of the contaminated ground-
water body, it has been estimated that a century or more will be
required before the stream can fully recover, even though the
leaky lagoons are presently being removed (Ref. 7, p. 108).
In another investigation conducted in the Northeast, a
stream adjacent to a chemical company was found to have arsenic
concentrations of 40 ppm (highly toxic). The source of con-
tamination was an unlined surface impoundment containing arsenate
compounds. Although the lagoon was subsequently abandoned, the
stream still shows evidence of arsenic concentration (Ref. 7).
Although the effect on surface water of diffuse land dis-
posal of industrial sludge is not documented, one would expect to
find some contamination caused by runoff in the heavily indus-
trialized regions of the country. Indeed, surface-water con-
tamination from 1andspreading of industrial residuals is con-
sidered a regional problem (Ref. 7).
IV-17
-------
Industrial residuals create the greatest potential for
surface-water contamination in areas where net recharge to ground
water from precipitation is greatest. The soluble substances in
the waste solids are transported to ground water percolating
through soil, and, depending on the geological conditions, may
ultimately be carried to streams, lakes, or rivers. The Great
Lakes and mid-Atlantic industrial regions receive enough pre-
cipitation to virtually assure that soluble waste components will
be carried to ground water, barring geochemical attenuation or
geological barriers. Along the Gulf Coast, evapotransporation
rates are higher and reduce the net recharge rate. However, the
shallow ground-water table in the region increases the vulner-
ability of the ground-water system to contamination, and poses a
threat to surface water as well. In southern California and
other southwestern States, recharge from precipitation is only
associated with unusally intense storms, or storms of long dura-
tion (Ref. 7).
2. Control Techniques and Unit Costs
a. Control Techniques
Proper site selection, as well as the proper design and
maintenance of a facility, are the principal techniques available
for minimizing surface-water contamination problems. Such tech-
nology as advanced waste treatment and physical containment,
drainage control, and management, play major preventive roles
where economic considerations dictate that the sites be located
in areas of critical surface-water use or high-contamination
potential. In areas where land disposal is neither economically
nor environmentally feasible, such alternatives as waste
transport, resource recovery, ground-water injection, and air
discharge should be investigated and may be environmentally more
acceptable.
IV-18
-------
This section presents a general discussion of control tech-
nologies for surface-water protection; a more detailed evaluation
of technology for surface-water and ground-water protection,
including recommended leachate control methods, is presented in
the discussion of ground-water technology (Section IIIC).
(1) Impoundments
The primary contamination potential from
impoundments is the degradation of the surface water from seepage
or spillage of liquids. One countermeasure is to prevent such
seepage or spillage by installing an impermeable barrier to fully
contain the liquid. Another approach is to provide adequate
freeboard so as to minimize spray or wave overtopping. A third
approach is to chose an alternative treatment method which can
perform the function of the impoundment to be replaced, i.e.,
additional treatment, storage, or disposal.
(2) Landfills
The primary contamination potential from some sub-
surface disposal sites is the discharge of leachate effluent
either as a point source or nonpoint source. The way to prevent
such, effects is through proper design, operation, and management
of the landfill with particular attention to the control of
leachate generation and discharge. Methods available to limit
le.ach.ate. .generation, include surface capping with relatively
impervious soil, thickened soil cover, compacted sci!4 capping
with synthetic materials, adequate surface gradients, vegetation
to facilitate transpiration and minimize erosion, and subsurface
interceptor drains to control ground-water infiltration. Methods
available to dispose of leachate include discharge to a sewer and
on-site treatment.
IV-19
-------
The same technology for control or mitigation of the seepage
to the ground water is equally applicable to the protection of
surface waters. A detailed discussion of technology to control
percolation from impoundments, 1 andspreading sites, and sub-
surface disposal sites is presented in Section IIIC.
A wide range of design tools is available for the control
and management of surface waters which flow toward the disposal
area or come from a disposal area. Ditches, berms, dikes,
levees, pipes, retention and storage ponds, surface grade
control, surface vegetation, flow deflectors, and energy dissi-
pators are among the techniques useful in the control and manage-
ment of surface water flows to, through, and from disposal site
areas. A wide range of products is utilized in constructing and
maintaining these systems, including asphalt, natural soils,
concrete, synthetic membranes, pipe material of all types, wood,
and metal products. The selection of such materials is subject
to local availability, economics, judgment, and experience.
Selection and use of these systems is not a guarantee against
eventual infiltration of surface waters to produce percolate, nor
protection from erosion which might expose the refuse to off-site
movement of contaminants through surface water contact with the
refuse. Proper selection of such systems and their maintenance
are important in the successful performance of the system in the
protection of the environment.
The primary preventive method for adverse impacts on surface
water from adjacent areas is to direct all surface waters around
the disposal facility. If they must go through the disposal
facility, then a conveyance system should be used which is sound
and protects the water from adverse impacts. Another approach is
to encapsulate the disposal areas so that any surface water will
not have the opportunity of entering the waste materials.
Surface caps, barriers, linings, steep slopes, and thick cover
materials, are all design mechanisms which have been successfully
used to accomplish this objective.
IV-20
-------
Erosion of cover soil and wastes can be minimized by reducing
water velocity, revegetating bare soils, and lining water convey-
ance facilities. Where erosion is a problem, its impacts may be
reduced by constructing settling ponds, check dams, brush and
straw dikes and filter cloth fences.
(3) Landspreadi ng
Proper site selection, design, operation, and
maintenance of a controlled rate of waste applications are the
principal techniques avaiable for minimizing the surface-water
contamination problems from sludge disposal.
The primary surface-water contamination potential from land-
spreading is degradation caused by runoff of contaminated liquids
emanating from the 1andspreading area. The main countermeasure
is to use good agricultural management practices that control
surface-water runoff and incorporate the solid waste into the
soil .
Table 11 shows control technologies and unit costs as a
function of site size for the proposed criterion; costs are
identified for each disposal method impacted by this criterion.
(4) Regulatory Alternatives
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) established the policy of restoring and
maintaining the integrity of the surface water of the United
States. Any point-source discharge of pollutants including
surface leachate or leachate treatment effluent must comply with
a NPDES permit for the facility issued according to Section 402
of P.L. 92-500. No other options exist for a criterion related
to point-source discharges because of this regulatory procedure.
IV-21
-------
TABLE 11
SURFACE WATER! CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIT COSTS
Disposal
Method
Landfill
Technology
Major channel along one
side; ditches on three
sides; and tterma
Kevegetatlon:
$/ha ($/Ac)
Grade 494 200
Topsoil 2.965 1,200
Seed 2.471 1.000
5.930* 2,400
Totals
Site Size
TPD (TPD)
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
Capital Costa
Unit
(«)
7.38/tn* (2.25/ft)*
^Average unit costs
5,930/ha (240Mc)
Quantity
(ft)
762 2,500
1,737 5,700
2,713 8,900
3,779 12,400
ha (Ac)
2.43 6
11.33 28
30.35 75
62.73 155
Total
(?)
5,600
12,800
20,000
28,000
14,400
67,200
180,000
372,000
20,000
80,000
200,000
400,000
Operation and
Maintenance Costs
Unit
($)
0
0
0
Quantity
0
0
0
Total
($>
0
0
0
Annual Cost
(10-Yr Life)
($)
3,200
13,000
32,000
65,000
r«o
ro
-------
The major control options for nonpoi nt-source discharges
(i.e., those not coming out of a pipe, such as levee seeps and
surface runoff) to surface waters are (1) no criterion, (2) mini-
mizing discharges, (3) discharging only in conformance with
adopted "208" implementation plans, and (4) prohibiting all
nonpoint-source discharges.
Since the unregulated discharge of nonpoint-source dis-
charges can have adverse effects on surface water and since tech-
nology exists for control of and management of such sources, a
criterion is definitely warranted. The total prohibition of non-
point discharges does not seem logical, since point-source dis-
charges are permitted under regulated conditions and should have
similar environmental consequences. Therefore, options 1 and 4
are not considered reasonable alternatives.
The "208" standards are being developed in consort with
other surface-water quality policies and will provide a useful
criterion for control of nonpoint-source discharges. However,
the "208" control standards are not well established, are still
being developed, are not uniform, and will be implemented on
varying schedules. Due to the varied nature and limited avail-
ability of such standards, they are not useful as national
criteria at this time; however, they are useful in policy
guidance and development.
Technology exists to economically minimize the chance of
direct discharge from nonpoint sources through facility design,
operation, and maintenance. If such wastewaters are collected
for treatment, they then become a point source which require a
NPDES permit if discharged to off-site surface waters.
Therefore, nonpoint sources should be controlled so as to
minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants into any off-site
surface water. This will protect surface waters just as well as
current and future regulations and implementation plans allow.
IV-23
-------
C. GROUND WATER
1. Importance; Adverse Effects from Improper Disposal
a. General
The importance of protecting ground water from con-
tamination is evidenced by the following facts (Ref. 43):
Ground water accounts for about half of all domestic
water use. (Ground-water withdrawals for public
supplies and rural domestic water in 1970 are shown in
Fi gure 1. )
The U.S. population is heavily dependent on ground
water as a source of drinking water in 32 States, as
shown in Figure 2.
Once an aquifer is contaminated, it may remain so for
many decades.
Contamination in ground water tends not to be dispersed
or diluted but rather moves slowly in "plumes" or
"slugs."
The dynamics of ground-water flow make it difficult to
predict movement of contaminants as they depend on
unknown future pumping patterns.
Severe impacts have been identified as 50,000 industrial
impoundments yielding over 380 million cubic meters (100 billion
gallons) of contaminants per year to ground water; moderate to
severe impacts are occurring at 16,000 municipal solid waste land
disposal sites yielding about 340 million cubic meters (90
billion gallons) of contaminants per year to ground water; and
23,000 municipal waste water treatment plants are causing low to
moderate impacts of an unknown amounts through a variety of dis-
posal practices (Ref. 7).
Figure 3 shows schematically and graphically the various
routes by which contaminants reach ground water from a variety of
waste generators and disposal methods.
IV-24
-------
SURFACE WATER-
PUBLIC SUPPLIES
64 %
GROUND WATER-
PUBLIC SUPPLIES
33%
/ GROUND WATER
RURAL DOMESTIC
SUPPLIES 12 %
SURFACE WATER
RURAL DOMESTIC
SUPPLIES 0.5%
Figure 1 Water withdrawn for drinking water by source and supply, 1970.
*Source: Ref. 7, P. 21
Environmental
Protection Agency
Region 9
SEP 2 7 H
IV-25
-------
ro
• ROUND WATER
0 200 400 600 BOO
KILOMETERS
Figure 2 Wafer withdrawn by public water systems, mgd.
^Source: Ref. 7, P. 26
-------
>"
UNO imADIMO
ON IHKICiTION
(\. , PKCC1MTATIOH
' k. V. '
X-j^ ^-
SPOJAI.
)« Y
CCTIOM
*CLL SE/TIC TAHX
/ CVAPO
^f. J
CVAPOTKANlPlltATtON
fUUPlMOWftt A LAHOflU, BUMJt
on ncrusc PILE
.-..r:
Lrjtior
on ccairooi
,,'X;]/
vnt
'• ••;':•! . '\' WATfn - TAOLE- '•••• v^-^QUIFEft '"'iyn'CSl'i ) ; '•':}':. ^V-V'::.-^-
CO
JFIWIfJC 20WE
•:'•*"•'•• '•;••:'.•.-•'. •."•."'••'.'•. :'/.iV-::":-'-":-'-••' ' ••J''';:':i''.''';"'-v:'':V:".';.'
'•.•/••••..•'•."•'.•' '.'.'"•.'•.'•Vv.V.'-. r; •v'.'-'"'^_ 5"CM*l'c-.::/,':";".'>.'''-;''.;.V'.-'.'
'"' • v-V\!.''?ij^;&v-:!7:i^V';-/^."!,J.f'cT'°"VS'i--•,•££•'*>:'"
; , • ';.. i. . • . > — /v/\ f^~*** -^ fL ^} !:;.;_, rt n i fc tj i M ii « w u 11 i- «i i ••***<• ii • t- :•;.•. j'j ••'. ,i- •••;.••;,-. \ ;* i' 'i " ,' • . J •. i •. \ • "t * « I1."-" j »
1NING ZOKE " ~ _ ~i-ii; "~
o f 3 A LIW £ 1 ***•*"•*** ' ***• •
<5=>
UMlMTfMTJOMAL
OI«tCTIOU OP
UOVtUtMT
MOT TO ICAltl
Figure 3 How v/asfo disposal pracMcos contamfnafe the ground-wajor system*(Ref.
-------
b. Leachate Contamination
Leachate is contaminated water which is produced when
water (precipitation, ground water, or suface water) passes
through wastes in a land disposal site. Contamination can occur
through direct contact with ground water, disposal of wet
residues such as sludges, and through rainfall. The latter
effect gives rise to contamination most freouently in humid
regions, where the available moisture gain from precipitation
exceeds the potential moisture loss through evaporation, trans-
piration, and surface runoff. Leachate production is common in
the United States because most sites are subjected to substantial
precipitation and very few have liners to prevent infiltration.
Furthermore, wastes at many sites are placed directly in surface
or ground waters (e.g., in streams, marshes, and sand and gravel
pits). Once produced, uncontrolled leachate migrates from the
site and frequently enters surface or ground waters.
Ground water contaminated by leachate has been measured up
to 2 miles from two disposal sites in the United States, and up
to five miles from a site in Germany. Frequently, the extent of
migration in ground water is cut off by ground-water discharge
into surface waters.
The characteristics of leachate are primarily a function of
the types of wastes, amount of infiltrating water, and pH. High
concentrations of heavy metals, other inorganics, organics, and
biological contaminants, generally higher than waste water, are
common in raw leachate.
At least 25 percent of the disposal sites in the U.S. are
thought to be contaminating ground-water resources, with esti-
mates ranging up to 90 percent. In the U.S., there are about
16,000 recognized municipal waste disposal sites currently in
operation, at least 13,000 additional sites have been closed in
the past 10 years, and as many as 100,000 unauthorized roadside
IV-28
-------
or promiscuous dumps currently exist (Ref. 7). The number of
industrial waste sites is unknown. The impacts of both existing
and closed sites are cumulative and long term since it generally
takes several years for disposal sites to reach field capacity
and produce leachate. Leachate is produced for many years, and
leachate migration in ground water is very slow since ground
water frequently moves only a few feet each year and only a few
hundred feet each year even through very permeable substrata.
Due to increased utilization of water resources and
increased land disposal activities, the long-term duration of
leachate production and persistence in ground water, and the
generally high cost of corrective actions, the economic impacts
of improperly located, designated, operated, controlled, and
monitored disposal sites is sure to be severe on local and
regional levels, if not nationally. Such is already the case in
several areas of the country such as New Castle County, Delaware,
where the demand for water is approaching the existing uncon-
taminated surface and ground water supplies (Ref. 7).
The potential effects of leachate on ground and surface
waters depend on its characteristics and volume. Latest esti-
mates indicate that 122 million tonnes (135 million tons) of
residential and postconsumer commercial wastes are disposed of
annually in the U.S. (not including sludges, industrial wastes,
demolition/construction residue, discarded automobiles and parts,
street sweepings, and trees), with an additional 218 million
tonnes (240 million tons) of industrial wastes disposed of
annually to the land (Ref. 7, pp. 149,151). Characteristics of
leachate from municipal waste are shown in Table 12.
Because of the lack of ground-water monitoring around dis-
posal sites, water supply wells located near disposal sites have
often become d_e_ facto indicator wells. Fortunately, however,
most disposal sites have been located far from water supply wells
in remote areas, in ground-water discharge zones (e.g., in
IV-29
-------
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON 20 SAMPLES
FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES
(Ref. 7, P.148)
Components
Median Value
(ppm)a)
Ranges of all Values
(ppm)a)
Alkalinity (CaC03)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 days)
Calcium (Ca)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Copper (Cu)
Chloride (Cl)
Hardness (CaCO,)
O
Iron, Total (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Nitrogen (NH4)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Sulfate (S04)
Total Dissolved Solid (TDS)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Phosphate (P04)
Zinc (Zn)
PH
3,050
5,700
438
8,100
0.5
700
2,750
94
0.75
230
0.22
218
371
767
47
8,955
220
10.1
3.5
5.8
0
81
60
40
0
4.7
0
0
<0.1
17
0.06
0
28
0
1
584
10
0
0
3.7
-20,850
-33,360
- 7,200
-89,520
- 9.9
- 2,500
-22,800
- 2,820
- 2.0
-15,600
- 125
- 1,106
- 3,770
- 7,700
- 1,558
-44,900
-26,500
- 130
- 370
- 8.5
a) Where applicable
IV-30
-------
lowlands and marshes, or near streams), in industrially zoned
areas or next to sewage treatment facilities where contamination
already exists or there are no wells. Nevertheless, at least 36
disposal sites in 21 States have contaminated drinking water
supply wel1s (Ref. 7 ).
The social, psychological, and economic impacts of well con-
tamination are quite severe. Typically, the well owner noes for
a year or more without a permanent water supply, using bottled
water and any other sources available. In one case involving
domestic wells, the cost for permanent supply, excluding the cost
of inconvenience, was over $20,000 per affected home. With
public supply well fields, the costs are even higher. In one
case, over $2 million has been spent already and another $8
million is very possible. In another case, $4 to $18 million is
anticipated to correct the problem (Ref. 7).
c. Landspreading Impacts
Very few municipal sludge disposal facilities are moni-
tored for their effects on water quality, and even fewer indus-
trial sludge disposal sites have been studied. Ground-water
quality has usually not been degraded by 1andspreading of solid
waste except at sites with poor management practices.
d. Impoundment Impacts
The basic effects of leachate damage have been des-
cribed above. It has been estimated that over 380 million cubic
meters (100 billion gallons) per year of industrial effluents
enter the ground-'water system, based on standard leakage coeffi-
cients and the estimated 6.4 billion cubic meters (1700 billion
gallons) of industrial wastewater pumped annually to oxidation
ponds or lagoons for treatment or as a step in the treatment
process. Contaminants documented as having degraded ground-water
IV-31
-------
quality include phenols, acids, heavy metals, and cyanide
(Ref. 7).
2. Control Techniques and Unit Cost
a. Overview
Ground water is protected by minimizing or preventing
(1) leachate generation and (2) the flow of leachate and wastes
from the site; these are achieved through proper site selection,
design, and maintenance. Such technology as advanced waste
treatment and physical containment play a major preventive role
where economic considerations dictate that sites be located in
areas of critical ground-water use. If land disposal of wastes
is not environmentally feasible in some areas, such alternatives
as waste transport, resource recovery, and surface-water or air
discharge should be investigated as they may be more environ-
mentally acceptable.
b. Leachate Control Technology
The primary contamination potential from subsurface
disposal is from seepage of leachate. Methods for preventing,
reducing, or managing leachate are (1) natural attenuation,
(2) prevention of formation, (3) collection and treatment,
(4) pretreatment capable of reducing the volume or solubility of
the waste, and (5) detoxification of hazardous wastes prior to
disposal.
Descriptions of the first three of these processes are given
below, including the effectiveness of protecting ground-water
resources. Pretreatment options are generally not available to
the disposal site operator, while detoxification of hazardous
wastes will be an option covered by forthcoming EPA regulations
for hazardous wastes.
IY-32
-------
(1) .Natural Attenuation
As leachate migrates through soil, it undergoes
natural attenuation by various chemical, physical, and biological
processes. The ability of a proposed sanitary landfill site to
attenuate the leachate generated should be estimated on a site-
by-site basis; if natural attenuation appears inadequate, it may
be desirable to line the site and collect and treat the leachate.
(2) Prevention
The second control method involves preventing
leachate generation. If water is restricted from entering the
site, then the amount of leachate generated will be greatly
reduced. Water cannot be completely prevented from entering in
some locations, but through proper design and operation, the
quantity can be minimized.
Control measures available to the design engineer and oper-
ator include diversion of upland drainage; use of relatively
impermeable soils for cover material; compacting, grading, and
sloping of the daily and final cover to allow runoff; planting of
high-transpiring vegetation; use of impermeable membranes, over-
lying the final life of solid waste; maintenance of final grades;
and use of subsurface drains and ditches to control ground water.
The use of impermeable membranes and soil cover requires vents to
control landfill gases and drains to manage the intercepted
leachate.
(3) Collection and Treatment
The third control method is to collect and treat
the leachate. A relatively new technique involves use of an
impermeable liner to prevent the movement of leachate into the
ground. The long-term durability of impermeable liners has not
IV-33
-------
been proven; nevertheless, their potential is very promising.
Figure 4 shows a schematic for a leachate treatment system.
Impermeable liners can be made from different types of
materials, including: natural clay, soil additives, conventional
paving asphalt, hot sprayed asphalt, polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), butyl rubber, Hypalon, polyolefin, chlorinated
polyethylene (CPE), and ethylene propylene rubber (EPDM).
Where landfills use collection for control of leachate,
provisions must be made for treatment prior to discharge to the
surrounding environment. Biological treatment methods are effec-
tive when treating fresh, high-strength leachate generated in a
new site. Physical-chemical treatment methods show better
results than biological methods when treating leachate of inter-
mediate to low strength. Industrial leachate may require more
specific treatment techniques, depending upon the wastes
involved.
c. Control Technology for Landspreading
Ground water may be protected from contamination due to
1andspreading of solid waste by proper site selection, design,
and operational management controls. Site selection criteria
must consider the hydrologic regime and geologic setting. The
selection criteria for soils and land surface features focus on
protection of surface water and ground water by promoting maximum
on-site retention of wastes.
Climate and geology are two important components of the
hydrologic cycle that strongly influence the distribution,
circulation, and chemical properties of water. The site
selection process should document watershed or drainage basin
characteristics, water resources and management, and water
quality. Key factors in evaluating the hydrologic regime are
quantity and timing of water fluxes, and resulting water quality.
IV-34
-------
Clarification
Biological
Treatment
Solids Recycle
Raw Leachate
Solids
Carbon
Adsorption
Recovery or
y»Final Disposal
Cation
Exchange
Regenerant /'
5%H2S04'
Recovery or
XFinal Disposal
Anion
Exchange
Regenerant
10% NaOH
Figure 4 Possible Scheme for On-Site Treatment of
Non-Recycled Leachate
Source: Ref. 46
IV-35
-------
Sludge applications do not usually involve high-liquid loading
rates; thus, the water regime can be viewed as a natural flow
system. The water budget for a potential site is important for
maximum crop production and adequate retention time to prevent
contaminant movement to ground water. Hydrologic limitations
will influence the design and operation management of sludge
application sites.
d. Control Technology for Impoundments
The primary contamination potential from impoundments
is degradation of ground waters from seepage of liquids. One
countermeasure is to prevent seepage by installing an impermeable
barrier. Another approach is to choose an alternative treatment
method which can perform the function of the impoundment to be
replaced (i.e., additional treatment, storage, or disposal).
Seepage can also be stopped by chemical or physical soil sealant
applications.
«
A wide range of materials are useful as barrier membranes
for impounding liquids and sludges. Many are being used in the
lining of ponds, reservoirs, lagoons, and canals for reducing or
eliminating the seepage of liquids into ground water. Today an
increasing number of industries are installing synthetic liner
materials, especially Hypalon and polyvinyl chloride, to meet
environmental quality standards.
Soil sealants take the form of chemical additives which
either form a seal coating at the soil-liquid interface or
restrict the flow space of the soil-void system. Lagoons used
primarily for storage can be replaced by leakproof facilities,
such as above-ground tanks or concrete basins. The major
criteria for storage tank selection involve quantity of the waste
and the expected length of storage, and the physical and chemical
properties of the waste; thus, a waste containing volatile con-
taminants should be stored in properly vented closed tanks. In
IV-36
-------
the cases in which volatility or odors pose no problem, wastes
can be stored in open facilities.
A waste which is not corrosive can be stored in a concrete
or steel tank; storage of wastes which are corrosive would
require tanks made of other materials. Reinforced-wal 1 design is
required for concrete basins, and the concrete must be water-
proofed with a suitable paint or plastic coating. Short-term or
temporary storage basins would have less stringent construction
criteria than long-term or permanent storage.
More effective and environmentally sound techniques are
available to replace wastewater treatment operations now
performed in ponds and lagoons or to reduce the volume of waste-
water now discharged to impoundments. Solids separation can be
more effectively performed in clarifiers, by infiltration or
centrifugation. Another example is biological stabilization
through use of activated sludge or trickling filtration rather
than lagoons. Digestion (anaerobic, aerobic) can be used as an
alternative treatment for sludges or wastes with high-organic
content. Chemical treatment is occasionally carried out in
lagoons. The same reactions can be carried out in other facil-
ities less prone to causing contamination.
In general, an alternative to on-site treatment is connec-
tion to a municipal treatment plant, assuming that it has the
capacity and capability of treating the particular waste.
Table 13 shows control technologies and unit costs as a
function of site size for the proposed criterion; costs are
identified for each disposal method impacted by this criterion.
IV-37
-------
GROUND WATER:
TABLE 13
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIT COSTS
Disposal
Method
Landfill
Technology
Clay Lining
Leachate Collection
Facilities
Leachate Monitoring
Removal & Treatment*
Ground Water Monitoring
Wells
Totals
Site Size
TPD (TPD)
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
Capital Costs
Unit
($)
•20,015/ha 8,100/ha
1
'22.97/m 7.00/ft
1
1
f 0
>
)
1,000 ea.
Quantity
ha Ac
2.43 6
11.33 28
30.35 75
62.73 155
m ft
610 2,000
1,342 4,400
2,196 7,200
3,172 10,400
0
3
4
7
10
Total
($)
49,000
227,000
608,000
1,256,000
14,000
31,000
50,000
73,000
0
3,000
4,000
7,000
10,000
66,000
262,000
665,000
1,339,000
Operation and
Maintenance Coats
Unit
($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400/
Well
Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
7
10
Total
($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
9,000
24,100
49,800
1,200
1,600
2,800
4,000
32,000
10,600
26,900
53,800
Annual Cost
(10-Yr Life)
($)
12,200
45,500
114,700
( }
I
u>
oo
*Tvo-inch per year infiltration assumed to be quantity of leachate to be handled annually after
site closure. 10 TPD - $ 3,258/yr
Cost to handle assumed: IC/gal., $543/acre/year 100 TPD - 15,204/yr
300 TPD - 40,725/yr
700 TPD - $84,165/yr.
*Disburseraent to a trust fund at 6Z
to be able to pay for other costs
at end of landfill life.
-------
TABLE 13 (Continued)
GROUNDWATER: CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIT COSTS
DISPOSAL METHOD
Surface Impoundments
TECH-
NOLOGY
Clay lining
$.36 sq.ft.
SITE
Group I
Group I
SIZE
50 acres
7.5 acres
CAPITAL COSTS
UNIT
$.36/sq.ft.
$.36/sq.ft.
QUANTITY
2,178,000 sq. ft.
327,000 sq. ft.
TOTAL
$ 784,000
$ 117,000
0+M
0
0
ANNUAL COST
(10 YEARS)
$127,000
$ 19,000
I
CO
10
-------
3. Regulatory Alternatives
The major regulatory issues for ground water are:
definition of ground water to be protected
place of compliance
criterion alternatives
Ground water can literally include all the water under the
earth's surface. Classification or definition of this water is
necessary to identify under what conditions this water is a valu-
able resource requiring protection. Generally, the occurrence of
this water may be divided into zone of saturation and zone of
aeration. The water occurring within the zone of saturation is
commonly referred to as ground water and it is this water that is
considered for coverage by the Criteria. Identifying ground
water for protection should also consider the following factors:
quantity (yield-transmissivity, e.g., usable quanti-
ties)
usage (existing or planned)
quality (e.g., 10,000 mg/1 TDS or less)
Providing protection for ground water must also address the
place of compliance such as:
all usable ground water
specific distance from waste disposal
property boundary
nearest usable well
The last major issue is what impact, if any, is allowable.
The criterion may specify allowable impact, or it may specify
technology level which is based on probable impact. Examples of
such criteria alternatives are:
IV-40
-------
zero discharge
zero degradation beyond background quality
zero degradation beyond a specific limit
zero impact on treatment required
specific technology--best management practice
The basic regulatory alternatives would limit the acceptable
degradation of ground water to either no degradation beyond
specified limits (at the property boundary) or to no degradation
of background water quality (under the site). The effect of
these criteria would be to require lining and leachate treatment
for all new existing sites. The effect on existing sites would
probably be to close many of them.
It must be recognized that most solid wastes in landfills
located in areas with rainfall of any significance will leach; to
some extent there are exceptions, such as landfills which use
liners (in most instances, coupled with a leachate collection
system). The use of a collection system requires the removal of
leachate on a periodic basis. The leachate then does not dis-
appear, but just changes its location and must be made available
for subsequent management, treatment, and introduction into the
environment at some other location and condition. Such systems
are extremely expensive, and to be truly effective, the collec-
tion system has to be maintained for many years after the facil-
ity ceases to receive wastes.
Most known instances of ground-water contamination have been
discovered only after a drinking water source has been affected.
Effective monitoring of potential sources of ground-water con-
tamination is almost nonexistent.
There are many variants of performance and operational
criteria available for ground-water protection, as shown in
Table 14.
IV-41
-------
Table 14
POSSIBLE GROUND-WATER CRITERIA
Performance Criteria
1. Effects (control of ground-water characteristics)
a. Zero degradation
b. Degradation allowed up to level of treatability,
based on ambient conditions
2. Emissions (control of leachate characteristics)
a. Zero discharge
b. Effluent discharge limits, based on ambient
conditions
Operation Criteria
1. Best management practice
2. Best practical/feasible technology, i.e., that which is
readily available and economical"to achieve adequate
treatment.
3. Best available technology, i.e., state-of-the-art tech-
nology, independent of cost or availability, which can
meet criteria of zero degradation or zero discharge.
4. Land-use planning to classify important ground-water
areas and keep uses with potential of degradation
away from them.
Since removing the source of contamination still does not
clean up the aquifer once contaminated, the contamination of an
aquifer can rule out usefulness as a drinking water source for
decades and possibly centuries. Thus, the most effective means
for protecting ground water is to control and monitor the poten-
tial source of contamination.
IV-42
-------
Proper site location, ground-water/land use planning, and
proper design, construction, operation, and maintenance of facil-
ities are the principal techniques available for minimizing
ground-water contamination problems.
The ground-water criterion should establish a comprehensive
ground-water protection standard for all solid waste disposal
practices. The goal is to protect all current users of the
ground water and to protect other designated ground water for
future usage. Of primary concern is protection of current and
future ground water used for drinking water supply.
The possible options EPA considered for the protection of
ground water were (1) zero discharge, (2) zero degradation beyond
background ground-water quality, (3) zero degradation beyond
specific limits (above background quality), (4) alteration of
quality up to the point of endangering current and future bene-
ficial uses, and (5) no criterion.
Classifications of ground water may be based on current or
future designated use (quality level) and yield (quantity). The
standard may be applied under the site (in the unsaturated or
saturated zone) or at a given distance away from the waste dis-
posal area, either at the property boundary or at the point of
use.
Earlier sections of this document have clearly identified
the potential adverse effects solid wastes may have on ground
water and the legal mandate to include protection on this
national resource. The "no criterion" option is not responsive
to this need, and was eliminated from further consideration.
The zero discharge option appears overly restrictive since
there are many desirable exceptions; for example, certain solid
wastes (concrete, bricks, ceramics, etc.) are essentially inert
and do not need to be segregated and disposed of in special
IV-43
-------
facilities, since they can have no adverse effect on ground-water
quality. This objection could be overcome by selecting the
second option of not having degradation beyond background water
quality (at the -site). In essence, this option would require
every facility containing potentially Teachable wastes (in areas
with accessible ground water to be totally contained (fully
lined). In addition, leachate would accumulate within the con-
tainment features and ultimately would need to be removed and
disposed of, probably with treatment. As a liquid, the only
other alternative would be discharge to surface waters, either
directly with an NPDES permit or indirectly through a community
sewage system (which itself would be regulated by an NPDES
permit). In the latter case, pretreatment of leachate might be
necessary prior to discharge to the sewage system. In summary,
if no contamination of ground water is'allowed, another receptor
of the potential contaminants must be found, and the cost of pro-
viding the containment and collection system as well as any sub-
sequent treatment must be paid for.
Alternative options 3 and 4 (zero degradation and alteration
of quality) would allow for some discharge of contaminants into
the ground water, providing for some trade-offs of leachate
between ground-water and surface-water discharges.
Zero degradation would establish specific limits of
contaminants and or concentrations in ground water. The highly
variable quality of ground water would make this a very difficult
task. Acceptable contaminant levels could be highly variable
throughout the nation and would depend on present or future water
use.
IV-44
-------
D. AIR
1. Importance; Adverse Effects From Improper Disposal
The Clean Air Act of 1970 was enacted with the primary goal
of safeguarding human health and the secondary goal of protecting
crops and plants from the adverse effects of air pollution.
Although automobile emissions constitute the major cause of
air pollution, particulates (smoke and ash) from open burning of
wastes to achieve volume reduction have contributed to the
degradation of air quality in rural areas of the country. Open
burning is defined as uncontrolled or unconfined burning.
Uncontrolled means (1) the air or oxygen to fuel ratio (which
determines the temperature and efficiency of combustion) is not
governed, (2) the combustion residence time and mixing is not
governed, or (3) the emissions of pollutants into the air are
unchecked. Emissions of pollutants into the air from open burning
are high compared to controlled burning such as municipal
incinerators with air pollution control equipment (Ref. 109).
Tests indicate that smoke from most open burning can cause
definite eye irritation up to 400 feet from the fire (Ref. 79,
p. 37). In addition, smoke from open burning of wastes can
reduce air and auto traffic visibility, and has resulted in
incidents of multiple car accidents and deaths on expressways.
Unconfined fires at dumps may spread and result in damage to
property (Ref. 109).
Both open burning of wastes and the gaseous emissions from
wastes disposed of in surface impoundments may be the source of
such potentially harmful pollutants as sulfur dioxide, nitric
oxides, oxidants, hydrocarbons. Evaporation, sublimation and
oxidation of impounded wastes from the chemical, mining and
petroleum industries can pose a serious threat to public health.
IV-45
-------
Vegetation may also be adversely impacted by air pollution
caused by improper disposal of wastes. EPA is currently
conducting research on the effects of air pollutants on land life
other than humans. The primary purpose of the research program
is to strengthen the scientific basis for air pollution control
strategies directed toward effects on welfare, as mandated by the
Clean Air Act. Among the first results of this work is the
finding that air pollutants impede natural nitrogen fixation—an
effect previously unrecognized.
Atmospheric nitrogen is converted into organic form by
legumes, such as Alfalfa and soybeans. This conversion is an
essential natural process by which nitrogen fertilizer is added
to the environment. In laboratory studies to determine the
influence of polluted air on nitrogen fixation, alfalfa plants
were exposed to low levels of ozone and sulfur dioxide throughout
the growing season. The nitrogen content of the plants was used
as a measure of the nitrogen fixation process. Ozone at
concentrations below the primary standard reduced nitrogen
fixation by 40 percent. Sulfur dioxide also significantly
reduced nitrogen fixation when the median concentration exceeded
0.06 parts per million (ppm), which is approximately twice the
annual primary standard.
Other preliminary results show that sulfur dioxide and
photochemical oxidants substantially inhibit growth of selected
crops. Crops in the field were subjected to varying concentra-
tions of the pollutants, simulating real air quality conditions
as measured at selected sites. Results of the research, which
began in 1975, are being used to improve economic loss
assessment. (Ref. 92).
IV-46
-------
2. Control Techniques and Unit Costs
The primary air contamination potential from solid waste is
participate matter created by open burning. The principal means
of controlling this problem is the elimination of all open
burning. Deliberate open burning can be controlled by
regulations and enforcement; however, naturally occurring
spontaneous combustion can develop if organic matter is left
exposed to free oxygen. Soil cover on a daily, or more frequent
basis, is a very effective method of limiting free oxygen,
thereby precluding spontaneous combustion.
Other sources of air contamination potential from solid
waste occur as liquid evaporates or sublimates from surface
impoundments. A detailed discussion of alternative technological
controls for surface impoundments was presented in the ground-
water section of the Appendix (Section III-C). Technical
solutions to air pollution problems caused by impounded wastes
include covering the impoundment surface with membrane, covers
and evaporation suppressants or storing liquid materials in
closed containers. The gases from the impoundments can be
collected with the aid of induced exhaust and taken to an area
where they are either incinerated or properly cleaned before they
are released to the environment. If these alternative technolo-
gies are neither practical nor economical, another solution is to
completely shut down the impoundment and substitute the other
waste-disposal methods.
Table 15 shows control technologies and unit costs as a
function of site size for the proposed criterion; costs are
identified for each disposal .method impacted by this criterion.
IV-47
-------
TABLE 15
AIR: CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIT COSTS
Disposal
Method
Landfill
Technology
Additional land
required for unbumed
wastes (55Z of site
area).
Site Size
TPD (TPD)
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
Capital Costs
Unit
($)
4,942/ha 2,000/ave
Quantity
ha (Ac)
1.34 3.3
6.23 15.4
16.70 41.3
34.50 85.3
Total
(S)
6,600
30,800
82,500
170,500
Operation and
Maintenance Costs
Unit
(?)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Quantity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
($)
0
0
0
0
Annual Cost
(10-Yr Life)
(?)
1,000
5,000
13,300
27,600
t
-p.
00
-------
3. Regulatory Alternatives
Regulatory alternatives to control participate emissions
from open burning include (1) ban on emissions (ban of open
burning), (2) prohibition of open burning with variance
(exception) provisions, or (3) levels established by the air
quality/State implementation plans. Such bans or levels may be
established for specific wastes or all wastes. Due to variations
in atmospheric, climatic and other conditions, it is difficult to
control or predict air emissions from open burning. Therefore, a
ban on open burning (option 1) provides the best means of control
of municipal and industrial wastes. However, EPA decided to let
local conditions and authorities dictate the control of burning
of agricultural wastes (option 2). In addition, other air
emissions must meet applicable air quality standards.
As previously noted, surface impoundments may contribute to
degradation of air quality in regions of the county where mining,
petroleum or chemical wastes are impounded. The proposed air
criterion does not address this concern. An alternative approach
would involve identifying permissible levels for specific
pollutants, and requiring pretreatment of the offending waste, or
collection of the harmful gases in cases where emissions from
impoundments exceeded these levels. An outright ban on the
impoundment of certain wastes that emit harmful gases would
ensure that the public health and the environment in general is
protected.
IV-49
-------
E. APPLICATION TO LAND USED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
FOOD CHAIN CROPS
1. Importance; Adverse Effects From Improper Disposal
The landspreading of solid wastes provides the benefits of
resource use and fertilizer and soil conditioning ability.
However, there exists the potential for adverse health and
environmental impacts from this practice due to the presence in
the waste of heavy metals, particularly cadmium, as well as
pathogens, pesticides and persistent organics.
a. Cadmium
Excessive amounts of cadmium added to the soil may have
serious adverse impacts because of the uptake of cadmium by food
chain crops.
Cadmium overloading on food chain lands or lands that may at
some future time be used to raise these crops can have long-term
human health impacts. Contamination of the soil could require
that this land not be used for the growth of certain food chain
crops for many years to come, depending on the degree of
overload.
Cadmium is of concern in the landspreading of solid wastes
because the metal (1) can be readily taken up by crops, (2) has
the potential for bioaccumulation in tissue, and (3) is toxic to
humans.
The pathological condition associated with the chronic
ingestion of cadmium is renal tubular damage. This condition
occurs when cadmium accumulates beyond approximately 200 ug/g in
the renal cortex of the kidney. The damage becomes apparent with
the presence of protein accompanied by elevated levels of cadmium
IV-50
-------
In the urine.
protei nuri a."
The condition is referred to as "tubular
Table 16 below indicates the daily cadmium intake which will
result in critical concentrations in the kidney cortex at age 50,
based on daily cadmium excretion.
TABLE 16 (Ref. 42)
CRITICAL CADMIUM LEVELS
Cadmium Excretion
Per Day
(% of body burden)
Corresponding Biological
Half-Time (yrs)
Cadmium Daily Intake
(q) to Reach Critical
Level (200 ug/g)
0
0.002
0.005
0.010
0.020
i nf i ni te
95
38
19
9.5
164
196
248
352
616
There are, however, still considerable uncertainties rela-
tive to the accumulation of cadmium in body organs. Data from
certain animal studies indicate that under some circumstances,
such as calcium and protein deficiency, cadmium retention in
humans may reach 10 percent, while a high zinc intake may lessen
cadmium retention. Also, the critical level of 200 ug/q of
cadmium in the kidney represents a level at which gross physio-
logical changes to the kidney occur; cellular damage may occur at
a much 1ower 1 eve! .
Table 17 shows the percent of the population that would be
affected at age 50 given various daily intake of cadmium in food.
Based on this information, 2.5 percent of the European population
and about 6% of the Asian population would have renal cortex
IV-51
-------
damage at a daily intake of 80 ug cadmium; there are no figures
available for the United States population.
TABLE 17
CADMIUM INTAKE (ug Cd/day) THAT MAY GIVE A CERTAIN
RESPONSE RATE AT AGE 50 (REF. 42)
Response Rate (Proportional With Renal Tubular Damage)
Europeans-
body weight
(70 kg.)
0.1%
32
n
60
2.5%
80
5%
100
10%
148
50%
440
Japanese
body weight 24 44 60 76 100 325
(53 kg.)
A recent study investigating the effects of utilizing
municipal sludge for agricultural purposes at nine study sites in
the United States found that one of the sites had a potential for
adverse environmental impact. This site used a sludge containing
an extremely high concentration of cadmium (Ref. 104). Two of
the sites studied had no useful remaining life for receipt of
sludge, based on a comparison of the actual cumulative metal
loadings at each site with guidelines proposed .by the North
Central Regional Committee, NC 118 (1976) (Ref. 104).
Data obtained from this study illustrates the high levels of
cadmium in crops that may be reached at specific sites, depending
on such factors as pH, soil type, and background levels. Thus,
one of the nine sites in this study had an annual cadmium loading
rate of 45 kg/ha (41 Ib/acre); the loading rates at the other
eight sites ranged from 0.08 to 1.0 kg/ha (Ref. 104).
IV-52
-------
Based on 1975 actual application rates, and an annual
maximum Cd loading of 2.0 kg/ha (1.8 Ibs/acre) as proposed by
this regulation and the EPA Municipal Sludge Management Bulletin
(Ref. 115), utilization practices at one of the nine sites
resulted in cadmium quantities in excess of this maximum.
b. Pathogens
Pathogenic organisms occurring in solid waste (e.g.,
hospital wastes and municipal wastewater treatment sludges) cover
a wide variety of bacteria, viruses, and intestinal parasites.
Among the bacteria that are commonly found in wastewater sludge,
is the group referred to as the "enteric bacilli" that naturally
inhabit the gastrointestinal tract of humans. The second group
of pathogenic organisms found in wastewater treatment sludge are
the enteric viruses. Biologically, the most important difference
between viruses and bacteria is that viruses invade the living
tissue cells and multiply within them, whereas the bacteria do
not invade the cells of the host which they parasitize. These
viruses include polio and hepatitis viruses. The third group of
pathogenic organisms found in wastewater treatment sludges are
the intestinal parasites, including protozoa and helminths.
All of these pathogens can be controlled through various
stabilization processes. In a study conducted for the EPA of
nine sites using 1andspreading of municipal sludge,
Salmonella sp. organism (enteric bacilli) were not isolated in
any of the stabilized sludges. This finding confirms similar
research that indicates that Salmonella sp.- and Shi pel la sp.
organisms do not normally survive sludge stabilization processes.
(Ref. 104, p. 11-10). However, stabilization processes do not
always render the sludge totally free of all pathogenic
organisms; indeed, those organisms that survive the stabilization
process, or are present in raw sludge, are capable of persisting
in the environment for periods of days to months. The viability
of most pathogenic organisms in soil is from a few hours to a few
IV-53
-------
weeks. However, the ova of the Ascari s lumbriocoides, an
intestinal nematode, are able to remain viable in the soil for
numerous months under favorable conditions.
In summary, since crops grown on land treated with sludge
can contain viable pathogenic organisms, they pose a public
health hazard to consumers, particularly when the contaminated
crops are eaten raw.
c. Pesticides and Persistent Organics
The principal chemical substances of concern are
chlorinated hydrocarbons such as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's), and insecticides such as DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, and
Chlordane. What happens to people or animals when they consume
such new chemical substances and what happens to these substances
in the environment are very complex and primarily unanswered
questions.
PCB's are a member of a class of chlorinated aromatic
organic compounds which have given rise to concern because of
their wide dispersal and persistence in the environment and
tendency to accumulate in food chains, with possible adverse
effects on higher animals and people.
One study of 1 andspreading of municipal sewage sludge did
find low-level quantities of DDT, Dieldrin and/or PCB's at eight
of nine sites studied (Ref. 104, pp. II-9-10). The study
provided the following findings:
DDT was found in sludge in measureable quantities in
five communities (of nine studied). Concentrations
ranged from 0.9 to 160.4 ppb.* The highest residual
found in soil was 0.29 ppb.
*ppb = parts per billion (by weight)
IV-54
-------
Dieldrin was found in the sludge and/or in the treated
soil at all (nine) study sites except one. Detectable
concentration levels found in five study site sludqes
ranged fom 0.4 to 114 ppb. The maximum level found in
soil at six of the sites was 0.84 ppb.
In the respective sludges, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's) were detected in measurable quantities at all
study sites except one. The maximum concentration
measured was 5,872 ppb {5.9 ppm) with five other sites
reporting values above 3,300 ppb (3.3 ppm).
Increased levels of PCBs (over background levels) were
detected in the solid waste-amended soils at four
sites. However, there were no significant increases in
the PCB concentration of the crops grown on the solid
waste-amended soils.
(4) Direct Ingestion
Grazing animals are known to ingest soil (and probably
wastes) in amounts ranging,from 2 to 14 percent of their diet.
When solid waste is spread on grazing land, the animals will
ingest the solid waste along with the soil. This direct inges-
tion of waste contaminants, which are present at higher levels
than in crops, could result in, increased ingestion of heavy
metals.
Studies reporting animal infections caused by the land-
spreading of waste-water sludge on pasture land include one
conducted at a dairy farm in the Netherlands where waste-water
sludge is applied to the land on a regular basis. Here
4.7 percent of the cows were infected with salmonella, whereas
the average of infected cows found to be in the entire country
was only 0.3-0.5 percent (Ref. 42).
IV-55
-------
An epidemiologial relationship between agricultural sludge
spreading infections in dairy farms was suggested by studies
conducted by the Institute for Veterinary Bacteriology in Zurich,
Switzerland. The analysis of the 13,877 samples indicated that
cattle infections occurred during the green fodder period. The
high incidence of cases in August and September (7 to 8 times the
numbers reported in early spring) were attributed to the massive
spreading of sludge after haymaking. (This reference did not
indicate whether or not the sludge was stabilized.) (Ref. 42).
2. Control Technologies and Unit Costs
Land used production of food chain crops is protected from
the adverse effects of toxic metals, pathogens, and persistent
organics in solid wastes by one or more of the following methods:
(1) pretreatment of wastes, (2) control of application rates,
(3) sterilization of wastes by heat, or radioactive exposure (to
control pathogens), (4) good site management practices that con-
trol the solid waste, and (5) banning application of solid wastes
to land used for food chain crops and finding an alternative
disposal method such as landfilling.
Since the major concern of this criterion is the amount of
cadmium applied to land used for food chain crops, the main
thrust of the control technology is directed toward protecting
public health from the harmful effects of cadmium in solid waste.
The chemistry of cadmium in the soil environment is not well
known. However, solubility of the metal (and, therefore, avail-
ability for plants) appears to be influenced by soil organic
matter, clay content and type, hydrous oxide content, redox
potential, and soil pH. For the most part, the scientific
community believes that the total amount of cadmium added to the
soil would ultimately control the amount of soluble cadmium in an
available form. Soil has a saturation limit for cadmium at which
IV-56
-------
the addition of more cadmium results in a nearly equivalent
increase in soluble cadmium in the soil.
However, recent research with the land application of
municipal waste-water treatment sludge indicates that the current
or most recent loading rate has a greater effect upon the crop
uptake of cadmium than does the total cumulative amount of
cadmium. The relationship between annual amounts with crop
uptake and total cumulative amounts with crop uptake is not yet
completely understood, and the number of years for plant uptake
to resume background levels of cadmium (after sludge application
has ceased) has not been established. (Ref. 42).
The best available research and recommendations indicate
that one effective control technique for minimizing cadmium
uptake is the setting of a maximum annual cadmium loading rate
and a maximum cumulative cadmium addition limit.
Maintaining a near neutral soil pH and preventing the pH
from falling below 6.5 can limit the translocation of metals to
crops as well as the movement of those metals to ground water,
because of the formation of insoluble compounds and other
effects.
All of the research data on cadmium indicate that leafy
vegetables, root crops and tobacco should not be grown on cadmium
enriched soils since they tend to accumulate cadmium to a greater
degree than grains do. Research data is incomplete at this time
and the basic reaction mechanism of Cd in soil is not known.
Although research data indicate that the annual cadmium loading
rates are more important than the cumulative loading rate, the
site data show that the total application rates cannot be
ignored. Exactly where the curves of annual versus cumulative
rates meet is not known, but preliminary data indicate that there
is a relationship. (Ref. 42). •
IV-57
-------
Pretreatment can be an effective way to reduce concentra-
tions of toxic metals, particularly cadmium, in highly
contaminated sludges. Whether pretreatment will provide economi-
cal means to achieve the designated permissible levels remains to
be seen. Pretreatment regulations will be delineated by EPA in
the future; these regulations are system-specific, making uniform
criteria difficult to implement.
Control options for cadmium include:
control pH of soil/solid waste mixture;
reduce application rate of cadmium;
pretreatment to reduce cadmium concentrations to
permissible levels;
dewatering and disposal by landfilling, or by
incineration; and
application only to nonfood chain crops.
Table 18 below shows control technologies and unit costs for
the proposed criterion. The first row gives the unit costs and
technology for sites where 1andspreading is terminated; the
bottom row of the table shows the control technology and unit
costs for sites that landspread and use "operational controls."
IV-58
-------
TABLE 18
LAND APPLICATION FOR BENEFICIAL UTILIZATION:
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIT COSTS
Type of Capital and
Impact Technology 0+M Costs Annual Cost
($/metric ton) ($/metric ton)
Elimination Dewatering and $78 2.0 Kg/ha $73.80
of Practice landfilling 1.25 Kg/ha $71.20
0.5 Kg/ha $67.24
Operation Liming and $11.53 (plus $11.53 (plus $320
Monitoring $320 per sewage per sewage treat-
treatment plant) ment plant)
3. Regulatory Alternatives
Limiting the 1 andspreading criterion to land intended for
food chain crops will not affect the current practice of applying
solid waste to land in environmentally safe ways for the enhance-
ment of parks and forests, as well as for reclamation of poor or
damaged terrai n.
A problem could arise if previously unproductive terrain is
converted to farmland; if such land has been spread with sludge
having unrestricted heavy metal, pathogen, and pesticide levels,
public health could be threatened. These and other discrepancies
in the criterion governing the application of sludge to pro-
ductive land may create the need for supplementary regulations.
IY-59
-------
a. Cadmium
Chapter III of Volume I discussed four regulatory
alternatives for the control of cadmium in food chain crops — the
proposed criterion, a less restrictive alternative, and two more
restrictive alternatives. Two additional regulatory alternatives
for cadmium are discussed below:
(1) Control the Addition of Cadmium to the
Food Chain by Using a Maximum Cadmium
Concentration in the Solid Waste.
This regulatory alternative does not allow for
variabilities in crop uptake of cadmium or the widely differing
natural background levels of cadmium throughout the country.
Thus, some areas of the country have significant levels of
naturally-occurring cadmium in the soil, while others have almost
none. Consequently, regulating the maximum cadmium addition to
food chain crops may be too stringent an approach for some areas,
but too lenient for others.
(2) Regulate Cadmium Addition to the Food Chain
by Setting a Maximum Concentration for
Cadmium in Various Soil Types.
As indicated above, the natural background level
of cadmium varies considerably throughout the country. As a
result, this regulatory approach would significantly impact land-
spreading practices in areas where natural background levels of
cadmium are high. Furthermore, such an approach probably would
allow too great an increase of cadmium in the food chain.
IV-60
-------
b. Pathogens
In addition to the three regulatory alternatives
discussed in Chapter III, Volume I, another regulatory option is
increasing the delay period to three years before growing food
crops (that are to be eaten raw) on sludge-amended soil.
Although this would lessen the risk of disease transmission,
it may be unnecessarily strict, since research indicates that the
probability of encountering numerous viable pathogenic organisms
after a one-year time period is remote.
Thus, research has shown that in soils receiving wastewater
treatment sludge, most pathogens will perish or be reduced to low
numbers in two to three months. Although some pathogens have
long survival time in soil most do not survive long on plant
surfaces. When long survival times have been reported, initial
inoculation levels were high, most pathogens were detected in low
numbers, and no indication was given of the actual disease poten-
tial (Ref. 42).
c. Persistent Organics
An alternative to the regulatory approaches discussed
in Volume I would involve setting maximum permissible levels for
chlorinated hydrocarbons suspected of beinn carcinogens--DDT and
its metabolites, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Chlordane, and PCB's.
Currently, there is only limited data available on plant uptake
of persistent organics from solid waste application to land;
additional study is needed in order to set maximum permissible
limits for these potentially toxic organic compounds in sludge.
Therefore, until further research is available, persistent
organics will have to be controlled by limiting residuals on
crops; this approach is the proposed criterion.
IV-61
-------
d. Other Regulatory Concerns
At this time the landspreading criterion addresses only
cadmium, pathogens, pesticides, persistent organics, and direct
ingestion of waste. The Criteria will be revised in the future
to address other metals, organics, and toxic compounds as more
information becomes available on the human health implications of
their application to land (e.g., PCB's and other persistent
organics). Future revisions of the Criteria may also address
substances which could adversely affect the productivity of agri-
cultural land. Potentially phytotoxic metals such as zinc,
copper, and nickel will be considered for inclusion. In the
interim, additional guidance on maximum application rates and
application of solid wastes to nonfood chain lands can be
obtained from State and Federal agricultural departments, as well
as from EPA's Technical Bulletin entitled "Municipal Sludge
Management: Environmental Factors" (EPA 430/9-77-004).
IV-62
-------
F. DISEASE VECTORS
1. Importance; Adverse Effects From Improper Disposal
One of the major health problems of open dumps has been that
they provide food and harborage for common disease vectors such
as rats, other rodents, flies and birds. In addition, surface
impoundments can often breed mosquitos, with attendant disease
problems.
Rats, in particular, pose a serious threat to human health,
being responsible for more human illness and deaths than any
other group of mammals. Rats are responsible for the spread of a
number of diseases, either by contaminating food directly, or by
attracting flies and mites. The more common diseases include
rat-bite fever, 1 eptospirosis (a mild to severe infection);
trichinosis (an infection of the intestine and muscles) and
murine typhus fever. (Ref 72).
Flies and birds pose less of a threat to human health than
do rats; nevertheless, they do act as mechanical carriers of such
diseases as salmonel1osis, or food poisoning. Mosquitos may
transmit such diseases as encephalitis, malaria, and yellow
fever.
2. Control Technologies and Unit Costs
The most effective method of controlling disease vectors is
to minimize harborage and readily available foodstock, thereby
creating an inhospitable habitat.
Proper and adequate control of rodents and insects requires
a well operated and maintained landfil-1. Rat and fly control can
be achieved by maximum compaction of the refuse and daily place-
ment of an adequately compacted soil cover.
IV-63
-------
Studies have shown that a daily cover consisting of 152 mm
(6 inches) of compacted low-clay-content soil will discourage rat
propagation as well as fly emergence. However, even under the
best of conditions, a landfill should have a regular inspection
and a rat and fly control program. Local officials can best
dictate the specific controls used in any such program. Shredded
or milled waste and baled waste may also discourage rat attrac-
tion depending in part on how well these operations are done and
how available other food sources are.
Mosquito control at landfills is best obtained by preventing
development of stagnant water bodies anywhere on the site.
Certain fish thrive on mosquito larvae and are effective in
aerobic impoundments.
Landspread wastes which could provide surface harborage or
food stock can be ground or chipped and then spread, disked or
otherwise turned into the ground as part of the routine site
operation procedures.
Other rodent controls include rodenticides and repellants.
In summary, the principal method for vector, bird, and
animal control is to minimize harborage and readily available
food and to create an inhospitable habitat.
Table 19 shows control technologies and unit costs as a
function of site size for the proposed criterion; costs are
identified for each disposal method impacted by this criterion.
3. Regulatory Alternatives
Several options for the control of disease vectors were
studied, including (1) quantifiable performance standards (e.g.,
maximum number of rats per acre), (2) operational standards
(e.g., use of cover material at specified frequencies or use of
IV-64
-------
TABLE 19
DISEASE VECTORS: CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIT COSTS
Disposal
Method
Landfill
Technology
Placement of soil
covtir (unit O&M
cost includes
equipment, man-
power, quantity
based upon refuse
to soil ratio of
1,2,3 to 4:1
respectively)
Site Size
TPD (TPD)
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
Capital Costs
Unit
0
0
0
0
Quantity
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
Operation & Maintenance Costs
Unit
.0.65/m3 0.50/cy
Quantity
2,831 ra3 ( 7,400 cy)
2,800 m3 ( 36,600 cy)
55.845 ra3 ( 73,000 cy)
•5
97,920 mJ (128,000 cy)
Total
($)
3,700
18.300
36,500
64,000
Annual Cost
(10-Yr Life)
($)
3,700
18,300
36,500
64,000
en
-------
rodenticides), or (3) general (e.g., operated so as not to
provide food or harborage for vectors.) The latter criterion was
chosen, although it will probably require use of cover material
at landfills. However, surface impoundments will use other means
to control disease vectors, such as covers. EPA chose to use a
general performance criterion to allow for local choice of cost-
effective measures for landfills and to allow impoundment
operators to make the necessary site-specific determinations.
G. SAFETY
1. Importance; Adverse Effects From Improper Disposal
Safety hazards posed by solid waste disposal include
explosions and asphyxiation caused by landfill gas, fires, bird
hazards to aircraft, and injuries associated with improper access
to landfills or impoundments. The degree of hazard is related to
waste characteristics, disposal site environment, population
activity, and physical proximity to disposal activities.
Documented accounts of explosions, fires, and accidents at
or near disposal sites serve to warn of the safety hazards
associated with improper disposal of wastes (Ref 79, p. 37):
An explosion occurred in an armory in 1969, in Winston-
Salem, N.C. The explosion was the result of methane
gas migration from an adjacent dump. Three men were
killed and five others were seriously injured.
Gas migration from dumps in Richmond, VA., in 1975,
required the closing of two public schools and resulted
in an explosion in a multi-family apartment unit. No
one was seriously injured. The City anticipated the
expenditure of over $1 million to control the gas.
IV-66
-------
In 1968, a seven-year old boy died in a fire at the
(now closed) Kenilworth Dump, in Washington, D.C.
An older man died while fighting his own trash fire,
and one child was severly burned in a trash fire in
1972, in St. Joseph, Missouri.
A study of solid waste management practices at Indian
reservations, in 1970, found open dumping common. U.S.
Public Health Service physicians reported treating
large numbers of cuts and punctures received by Indian
children playing in the dumps.
Tests indicate that the smoke from most open dump
burning contains sufficient aldehydes to cause painful
eye irritation up to 400 feet away from the fire.
In the summer of 1972, a major fire at a dump in
Easton, PA., required the expenditure of large sums of
public funds to extinguish.
/
Smoke from dump fires has reduced visibility on nearby
traffic arteries and caused multiple-vehicle accidents,
i.e., on the Oakland (Calif.) Nimitz Freeway; on the
New Jersey Turnpike, on the night of October 23-24,
1973 when there were 9 separate multiple-vehicle
accidents, involving 66 vehicles and resulting in 9
fatalities and 34 p/ersons being injured.
A crash of a private jet aircraft near Atlanta,
Georgia, on February 27, 1973, resulted in seven
fatalities. The crash has been attributed to jet
ingestion of starlings which, allegedly, were- congre-
gated near an uncovered, shredded refuse disposal site
near the end of one runway of the DeKalb County
(Georgia) Airport.
IV-67
-------
2. Control Technologies and Unit Costs
Control technologies are available for the safety criteria:
explosive and toxic gases, fires, bird hazards to aircraft, and
injuries due to improper access. These technologies are
discussed below.
(a) Explosive and Toxic Gases
Gases generated within landfills will migrate through
the cover soil, base, and side walls. Many above-ground
landfills and those below-ground landfills in an impermeable soil
or rock environment will require no special lateral gas control
features. On the other hand, a gas control system such as 'vents
or barriers must be provided where refuse extends below ground in
landfills with permeable side walls or base. Lateral control
features must also be provided where utility or other man-made
features of a permeable nature penetrate the refuse perimeter.
Such facilities could otherwise serve as gas conveyors and thus
foster a hazard condition.
Certain climatic effects may reduce the permeability of the
soil, thus restricting the passage of gas through the cover
resulting in lateral gas migration and potential gas hazard. For
example, sufficient rain or frost will render any type of soil
less permeable, encouraging the lateral migration of the gas. In
addition to decreasing the permeability of surface soils, rain
water or snow melt may infiltrate the refuse; the resulting
increase in moisture may stimulate the rate of waste
decomposition and gas production. This combination of decreased
permeability of the cover and increased gas production may cause
a significant increase in lateral migration of the gas during the
rainy season. On the other hand, the low temperature snow-melt
water may reduce gas generation by slowing microbial metabolism.
IY-68
-------
Since gas migration may ultimately result in such hazards as
fire or explosion, special control systems have been developed to
alleviate this problem.
Methods of controlling landfill gas migration include one or
more of the following:
1. Placement of impervious liner materials to block the
subsurface flow of gas to adjacent lands or into
buildings.
2. Selective placement of granular materials for gas
venting and/or collection.
3. Atmospheric or pumped wells for evacuation and venting
of gas from the landfill itself.
Figure 5 shows schematics of several gas control systems.
Impervious liner materials used to control gas flow include
plastic, rubber, similar synthetic films, natural clay and
asphalt. Plastic film is the most widely used synthetic material
since it not only has the ability to contain gases, but also has
a high resistance to deterioration. On the other hand, a
disadvantage of plastic liners is their susceptibility to
puncture during placement and their somewhat limited life-span.
Polyolefin or rubber products have potentially longer life than
other synthetics.
Natural soil barriers such as saturated clay may furnish a
highly efficient barrier to gas migration, provided the soil is
kept nearly saturated; dry soils, however, are ineffective, since
cracks may develop across the surface or perimeter boundary of
the fill. Barriers typically are best installed during landfill
construction, as subsequent installations are often costly, less
extensive than required, and occasionally impossible to
accomplish. During construction, barriers can be placed to cover
the base and lateral surfaces of the fill space. Installation
IV-69
-------
GAS FLOW
L\OAS FLOW L \
0 0
_r>s
— \s^
\r
=C>
=o
. II .'„•
• . » • '
• ' « 0
"".e.0-;
^ O » • o
-:-V:
0 ° «* 0 ,
•V,'BO
"••
'.' • ,.«„«
•
* - * 0 *
• «
• V,
v, , £ o
' /»*"
„* »•' *»
Vv
^
0 ^ •
^ ^ *\ ' ^ ^
^*o o^ ^o
• ~o^
_£>
OAS FLOW n=T>
^
PERMEABLE
ill" •
;;jV-'
/?'"•*'
•* f •_
•o'0.0"'
:••/•••
F • ^
• » » * «
'• °, • .'
' • » " 1
" * * •
/.% '•
• _
o • •."
* -"'« i
• 0 • *
• •> • • •>
• 0
••*/ 0 o
••: t*o.
•
rx
—PVC MEMBRANE
=c>
=o
*
'
• •
°t»
t'o .
* "t
0*
*
» «
' -c
• c
«• *
i
•* 0
»
* " f
• * •
DO.
'
-*
.
VENT PIPE ^
•****»,
-t
i ,
*
^ »
t
• ^
.
i
*
.
,«
, •
• |f
^
— PVC MEMBRANE
Pv^
OAS FLOW 1=^>
— PERFORATED
PIPE
=c>
PERMEABLE
^
."(-
p
*
•
* ^
•
* t
, \
•
t* '^
* •
• *
•
,
•
• ,
* .
^~t — EXHAUST
^ BLOWER
1
'.'
•(
•
f
, '
- .
•
•
. •
1
•
*
- PVC
MEMBRANE
-PERFORATED
PIPE
PERMEABLE IMPERMEABLE PIPE INDUCED
MATERIAL BARRIER VENT EXHAUST
Figure 5: SCHEMATIC OF GAS CONTROL SYSTEMS
-------
after fill completion might be limited to trenching in the area
requiring protection and inserting a membrane into the trench,
followed by backfilling.
Gravel trenches, perimeter rubble vent stacks, gravel-fi 1 led
vent wells and combinations thereof are examples of perimeter
vent systems. (See Figure 5). Venting systems may be either
passive (relying on naturally occurring pressure or diffusion
gradients) or active (inducing exhaust by using pumps to create a
pressure gradient), with selection beina dependent on site
conditions. Passive systems can be effective in controlling
convective gas flow, but not diffusive flow. Since there are
numerous instances where passive flow controls have been
ineffective, the user should question the value of a passive
perimeter control system; nevertheless, many have been
constructed. (Ref. 117).
Induced flow systems, particularly those employing suitably
designed vertical wells, have proven very effective in migration
control. From a practical, standpoint, systems combining both
migration control and gas recovery are finding increased favor.
These systems usually incorporate perforated pipe in grouped
vertical gravel-fi11ed wells similar to those used in gas
recovery for fuel systems. The wells are spaced at intervals
along the margin of the landfill, located either inside the limit
of fill or outside it in the surrounding nature soils, depending
on system requirements. The wells are connectedly manifolds to
a central exhaust pump which draws gas from the well field. The
gas flow influenced by each well, therefore, is directed toward
the- well, effectively controlling migration. Alternatively, the
collection pipe can also be placed in a gravel-fi11ed trench and
then connected to a vacuum exhaust system to enhance the control
ability of the trench system.
IV-71
-------
Gases collected by exhaust systems are generally disposed of
by direct stacking, incineration, or by passage through various
absorption media. Gases from passive vent systems usually are
combusted in torches. In all instances, uncombusted gas must be
exhausted at a location where it is not subject to careless
ignition, i.e., generally in a protected enclosure or above
normal reach. Malodors associated with uncombusted gas may
dictate some form of odor control; ignition is the simplest and
most effective malodor control.
A combination of gravel-fi1 led trench and barrier membrane
can be a very effective passive system if the control trench
depth is within the backhoe depth limit and an impermeable
barrier exist within this depth limit. In this instance, the
trench is dug and a membrane is placed across the bottom and up
the wall away from the landfill. Gravel is then used to backfill
the trench; a vent pipe may or may not be included. This fairly
common passive vent system is well suited to a landfill of
shallow depth located in an area with a high water table.
(b) Fi res
Fires in landfills can result from the dumping of a hot
load, sparks from vehicles, or deliberate ignition; the latter is
inhibited at a well-run landfill. Hot Toads can be minimized by
proper policing of incoming trucks; these loads should be
deposited away from the working face and immediately extinguished
by water or covering with soil. Adequate daily soil cover is
essential to smother any potential fire and to provide a natural
barrier to a fire and prevent it from spreading.
Fires at landfills are infrequent; those that break out in
the fill close to the surface should be dug out and smothered.
Deep tires should be smothered by placing moist soil on the
surface and by constructing soil barriers around the fire. Where
this smothering technique fails, the material must be excavated
IV-72
-------
and smothered or quenched with water once it is brought to the
surface. Water is usually not effective unless it can be applied
directly to the burning material. As a precaution, the fire
department should always be called to the site when a fire is
being extinguished.
(c) Bird Hazards to Aircraft
The principal method for controlling bird hazards to
aircraft is to minimize harborage and readily available food at
sanitary landfills and to locate sites so as to reduce the
potential for collisions of aircraft and birds. Periodic
application of cover is the principal method of discouraging the
attraction to birds to disposal sites. To determine whether
birds constitute a hazard to low-flying aircraft, a site-specific
study is needed for each disposal site.
(d) Access
Fencing is used to control or limit access to the
disposal site. Permanent or portable, or both, woven and chain
link fencing is commonly used for these purposes. A gate should
be provided at the site entrance and should be closed and locked
when the site is unattended or otherwise closed to users.
A prominently located sign should identify the disposal
site, the hours of operation, fees, and any restrictions on users
or materials acceptable for delivery. It may be beneficial to
provide drop-box containers at the landfill entrance gate. This
will allow for wastes delivered by individual citizens to be
deposited properly and for keeping traffic away from the working
face of the landfill.
IV-73
-------
Uncontrolled scavenging by the public should not be allowed;
where regulations do allow controlled salvage, strict safety
practices must be followed. All salvagable materials must be
placed in containers and not allowed to accumulate on the site.
The persons doing the salvaging should be under the control of or
employed by the landfill operator to ensure strict compliance
with rules governing the practice.
(e) Other Safety Concerns
Safety management and control techniques include worker
safety training programs, equipment selection and maintenance
programs, good site maintenance programs, environmentally safe
disposal practices, adequate posting, and well organized public
relations programs.
Each disposal site should be properly investigated, and
adequate design safeguards should be incorporated to provide for
future public and environmental safety or protection.
All employees at a disposal site must be provided with and
instructed in the use of safety equipment as required by the
Occupational Safety and Health Act and by other regulations. All
landfill equipment should be fitted with roll-over protective
cabs that are completely enclosed to protect the employee from
accidents, inclement weather, and flying debris. The windows of
the equipment should be of safety glass or nonbreakable scratch-
resistant plastic. Normal safety precautions should be observed
while around and operating the heavy equipment. The Construction
Industry Manufacturers' Association has safety manuals available
for instructing workers in proper procedures.
Table 20 shows control technologies and unit costs as a
function of site size for the proposed criterion; costs are
identified for each disposal method impacted by this criterion.
IV-74
-------
TABLE 20
SAFETY: CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES ANT) UNIT COSTS
Disposal
Method
Landfill
Gas
Control
Fire
Recess
Bird
Hazard
Surface
Impound-
ment
Technology
Gas vencor extraction
system a/mg site
perimeter
Fire/water truck and
slochpile of soil cover
(O&M unit cost for
4-man crew)
Low-cost perimeter
fence and gate to
restrict access
Assess bird hazard
Low-cost perimeter
fence and gate to
restrict access
Site Size
TPD (TPD)
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
N/A
Group 59
I acres
Group 7.5
II acres
Capital Costs
Unit
(5)
«
65.62/ra (20/ft)
65.62/ra (20/ft)
49.22/m (15/ft)
49.22/m (15/ft)
1,000 ea.
2,000 ea.
10,000 ea.
20,000 ea.
'4.92/m 1.50/ft
10,000 LS
1.50 ft
Quantity
610m ( 2,000 ft)
1342m ( 4,400 ft)
2196m ( 7,200 ft)
3172m (10,400 ft)
1
1
1
1
610m ( 2,000 ft)
1342m ( 4,400 ft)
2196m ( 7,200 ft)
3172m (10,400 ft)
1
5 ,900 ft
2,300 ft
Total
($)
40,000
88,000
108,000
156,000
1,000
2,000
10,000
20,000
3,000
6,600
10,800
15,600
10,000
8,800
3,400
Operation and
Maintenance Costs
Unit
($)
10% of
> Capital
Cost
>20/hr
0
0
0
0
N/A
0
0
Quail-
city
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5 hr
25 hr
50 hr
100 hr
0
0
0
0
N/A
0
0
Total
(S)
4,000
8,800
10,800
15.600
1QO
500
1,000
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual Cost
(10-Yr Life)
<$)
10,500
23,000
28,000
40,800
2fiQ
800
2,600
5,200 X
500
1,100
1,700
2,500
1.600
1.400
500
-------
3. Regulatory Alternatives
For the many safety problems associated with landfill and
impoundment operations, EPA considered it desirable to set
•
standards for explosive and toxic gases, fires, bird hazards, and
public access.
Bird hazard options are (1) general (e.g., operated so as
not to cause a bird hazard to aircraft), (2) FAA limits, or (3)
combination (e.g., if within 10,000 or 5,000 feet of an airstrip,
then a site operator must do a bird hazard appraisal and then get
FAA approval). Since the latter appeared to be the most
realistic approach, it was chosen.
Explosive and toxic gases are best controlled by use of
various venting or extraction technologies to prevent migration
off-site or accumulation in facility structures. Explosive
limits are well established, but toxic limits are harder to set.
Options include (1) listing of explosive and toxic aases, (2)
setting of limit concentrations, or (3) general prevention
criteria with or without references to hazards at off-site
locations whether or not they represent preexisting or possible
hazards (given local land-use planning). EPA chose to limit all
off-site hazardous gas migration because of some toxic and
explosive limits and the feeling that no landfill operator should
be allowed to create a potential for future safety impacts.
Improper access and fires are potential safety hazards that
are readily controllable, lending themselves to the performance
criterion chosen.
IV-76
-------
H. AESTHETIC AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1. Importance; Adverse Effects From Improper Disposal
Dust, dirt, litter, noise and odors associated with solid
waste disposal facilities have long caused aesthetic discomfort
to the public. These environmental problems are dynamic,
frequently requiring daily operational responses, most of which
are readily implemented.
Dust has caused excessive wear of equipment, health hazards
to people operating disposal sites, and damage and nuisance to
property and people at nearby residences. The travel of
collection trucks on untreated dirt roads and operation of site
equipment for earth excavation are responsible for most of the
dust and dirt problems associated with land disposal operations.
Litter problems are a function of type of waste (e.g., paper
and plastics), site location (e.g., topography), operation (e.g.,
use of cover material, fence controls), and weather conditions
(e..g, winds).
Noise occurs at landfill sites due to the passage of
collection trucks and the operation of landfill equipment
(bulldozers, scrapers, compactors). The major collection truck
noise occurs when vehicles accelerate (e.g., after crossing
scales) and when they discharge their load on the working face of
a fill. The community impact of noise at disposal facilities is
directly related to the surrounding land-use patterns; as
expected, the impact is most severe where residential and sensi-
tive institutional areas adjoin the facility. Noise at disposal
sites is generally intermittent rather than continuous, and the
distance from the working face (area of operation) to the
property line is constantly changing.
IV-77
-------
Odors caused by the decomposition of putrescible waste at
disposal sites may have a decidedly adverse affect on the
immediate environment. The occurrence of odors is a function of
the daily and seasonal conditions at the site.
2. Control Technologies and Unit Costs
The control methods to minimize the adverse impacts of
noise, dust, odor and litter at disposal sites are site-specific;
therefore, EPA feels State and local governments should make
site-by-site determinations of the impact of there parameters and
the corrective actions necessary.
a. Noise
EPA has promulgated "Noise Emission Standards for [New]
Transportation Equipment: Medium and Heavy Trucks" (40 CFR
Part 205, Federal Register. April 13, 1976, p. 15538-58). The
daily operation of landfill equipment (dozers, scrapers, com-
pactors, etc.) is another source of noise. EPA has proposed
noise regulations for new wheel and crawler tractors and is
developing noise regulations for other heavy equipment.
The impact of noise at disposal facilities should be deter-
mined at the property boundary, and is directly related to the
surrounding land use patterns. More stringent requirements
should be set when residential and institutional areas adjoin the
facility than when the site is remotely situated or situated in
industrial areas. Noise at disposal sites is also generally
intermittent rather than continuous, and the distance from the
working face (area of operation) to the property line is con-
stantly c-hanging.
IV-78
-------
By properly maintaining equipment and establishing accept-
able buffer zones between the area of operation and the property
line, effects due to noise can be minimized to avoid a nuisance
problem. Buffer zones may include wooded or treed areas and
stockpiled dirt of embankments.
b. Dust and Dirt
Dust problems caused by collection and site equipment
can be controlled by the application of water or waste oils to
unpaved roads, and. by proper construction and upkeep of access
roads.
c. Odor
In general, the application of cover material will
minimize odors caused by decomposition of putrescible waste.
Odors resulting from leachate can be controlled by the
installation of a leachate collection system and the controlled
aeration and enclosure of any treatment impoundments.
d. Li tter
Blowing litter can be kept to a minimum by maintaining
a small working area and covering portions of the site as they
are constructed. Portable fences can be positioned around the
working area to catch blowing paper and plastic; in addition,
buffer zones, site contours, and peripheral fencing help control
wind and litter. At the end of each working day, site personnel
should clean up all litter and should cover trucks to prevent the
blowing of litter. Litter resulting from improper, after-hours
disposal can be reduced by providing a fenced off area with
public access to temporary storage containers.
IV-79
-------
Table 21 shows control technologies and unit costs as a function
of site size for the proposed criterion.
3. Regulatory Alternatives
Since these environmental effects are so dynamic, dependent
on adjacent land use and numerous site-specific factors,
generally temporary, of relatively minor degrees of environmental
concern, and readily correctable, EPA proposes not to address
these problems in the Criteria.
EPA's position is that State and local governments are
better qualified to make site-by-site determinations of the
impact of these parameters and to recommend the necessary correc-
tive actions. Also, there are several Federal noise standards
being developed applicable to mobile solid waste collection and
heavy disposal equipment.
A more restrictive alternative would be to specify that
disposal facilities must prevent or minimize noise, dust, dirt,
odor, and litter migration off-site so as to avoid causing damage
or inconvenience. Another more restrictive alternative would be
to specify operational criteria for control of aesthetic impacts,
by requiring specific on-site controls of dust, litter, noise,
and odors. Such .an alternative, while preserving the integrity
of local environments, might reduce the number of available,
otherwise feasible sites, by overly restrictive and thus
unnecessarily increased operating costs, and not reflect the
myriad of local conditions and individual values. Moreover,
alternative sites might pose more serious health and safety
problems.
IV-80
-------
TABLE 21
AESTHETICS: CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIT COSTS
Disposal
Muthod
Landfill
Noise
Odor
Litter
Dust
Technology
Not addressed
Not addressed
Portable litter fencing
and litter cleanup
labor
Water truck O&M unit
cost for operational
units
Site Size
N/A
N/A
TPD (TPD)
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
9.1 10
91 100
272 300
635 700
Capital Costs
Unit
<$)
N/A
N/A
\
• 32.80/ra 10/ft
1,000 ea.
2,000 ea.
10,000 ea.
20,000 ea.
X
Quantity
N/A
N/A
39.6 m (130 ft)
85. A m (280 ft)
137 m (450 ft)
183 m (600 ft)
Total
(S)
N/A
N/A
1.300
2,800
4,500
6,000
1,000
2,000
10,000
20,000
Operation and
Maintenance Costs
Unit
(S)
N/A
N/A
5.00/
Man-
Hour
5.00/
Hour
Quantity
N/A
N/A
M;m-Hrs.
100
500
1,000
2,000
Hrs.
20
100
200
400
Total
($)
N/A
N/A
500
2,500
5,000
10,000
100
500
1,000
2,000
Annual Cost
(10-Yr Life)
($)
N/A
N/A
700
2,950
5,700
11,000
200
600
900
6,400
I
00
-------
V. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Chapter III, Volume I, summarized the economic impacts of
three regulatory approaches — the proposed, a more restrictive,
and a less restrict!'ve--i dentifyi ng these as Criteria-induced
costs and combined (State-standard-induced plus Criteria-induced)
costs for landfills, surface impoundments, and landspreading.
Chapter IV, Volume I, briefly discussed the approach and method-
ology used in analyzing the economic impacts of the Criteria,
outlining the major assumptions for each disposal method.
In this chapter the methodology underlying the economic
impact analysis is discussed in greater detail; included are:
(1) an explanation of the methodology used to differentiate
between State-standard-induced and Criteria-induced costs; (2) a
summary of the analysis used to evaluate the proposed, more-
restrictive, and less-restrictive alternatives, including the
assumptions underlying this analysis; (3) information concerning
the data base; and (4) calculations used in developing the data
base and costs.
A. ANALYSIS OF STATE STANDARDS VS. FEDERAL CRITERIA
The cost figures developed for the Economic Impact Analysis
(EIA) represent the increments or additional cost above current
disposal costs to bring existing facilities into compliance with
the Criteria. By comparing the Criteria to existing State
standards, it is possible to divide these incremental costs into
two categories: State-standard-induced cost (cost to come into
compliance with existing State standards) and Criteria-induced
cost (cost beyond those needed to achieve compliance with State
standards). This breakdown was necessary because a number of
disposal sites do not yet comply with existing State standards
(corrective or compliance technologies and methods often take
V-l
-------
years to implement). Without the Federal Criteria, sites can be
expected to eventually come into compliance with State standards.
The combined costs demonstrate the total additional expenditures
necessary to bring existing sites into compliance with State
standards and the Criteria.
In order to determine State-standard-induced and Criteria-
induced costs, State standards and regulations were reviewed and
evaluated; State regulations were then compared with the proposed
Criteria to establish their degree of conformance with the pro-
posed Criteria.
This legislative analysis is summarized below and in
Table 22; the latter identifies the specific criteria addressed
in the regulations of each State.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The ESA criterion has five
components: wetlands, floodplains, permafrost, critical
habitats, and sole-source aquifers. A review of State solid
waste legislation showed that only 11 States (22%) had provisions
for protection of wetlands, while 23 States (46%) had regulations
that are intended to avoid adverse impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of floodplains. The remaining three
components of the ESA criterion address themselves to specific
problems that are applicable to only a limited number of States.
Table 22 shows those States whose regulations address these
concerns.
Surface Water. The surface water criterion was addressed in
existing regulations of all but three States. Only Kansas,
Louisiana, and Mississippi, fail to address the problems of
surface-water contamination from landfills in their environmental
laws and regulations.
V-2
-------
TABLE 22
ANALYSIS OF STATE REGULATIONS VS. THE PROPOSED FEDERAL CRITERIA
State
Alabaaa
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
lova
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Ut»h
Vermont
Virginia
War.hinKtnn
Went Vlri'.lnl'i
UlaconHln
Wyoming
Tjtnl
* t.l Total
Environmentally Sensitive Arua«
Vetlanda
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Flood
Plains
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x i
X
X
11/50
221
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23/y.'
46X
Perma-
frost
X
l/M)
H
Critical
Habitats
X
1/i'J
2Z
Sole-Source
Aquifers
X
X
X
X
4/">0
HI
Surface
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ground
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x i x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
W/jO
t- :z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
37/511
74Z
Air
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
''. 1. 1 SCJ
8'.»
Vectors
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SO/ fill
I>.(,S
Safety
Explosive
Cases
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
l-'./W
IK
Fires
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
41 I'M
81~.
Toxic
Cases
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n/.riO
21,;
Bird
Hazards
X
X
X
X
X
•>/5
HM^
I of
Total*
507.
60
50
70
100
60
70
60
100
70
40
60
60
80
60
40
70
20
50
90
60
70
100
50
90
60
70
60
90
30
50
50
?f
30
50
50
70
70
60
50
70
70
100
40
40
50
90
40
90
Ml
\7
*ESA counted a« one criirrl"n fur row totnlv.
V-3
-------
Ground Mater. The ground-water criterion was determined to
be met in 37 of the 50 States (74%).
Ai_r. The air criterion was addressed in 42 states (84%).
Disease Vectors. Control of disease vectors was provided in
all 50 states. This criterion was met largely because of provi-
sions in each State for periodic cover of waste material.
Safety. The five components of the safety criterion were
met in varying degrees by the States; 41 states (82%) required
provisions for prevention and control of fires, while 42 states
(84%) included provisions for the control of site access in their
solid waste regulations. Safety provisions which address the
problems of explosive and toxic gases were less common in State
rules and regulations. Fourteen States (28%) required controls
for explosive gases, of which 13 (26%) mandated controls for
toxic and asphyxiating gases. The criterion which addressed
potential bird hazards to airports was met in the rule and
regulations of only 5 States.
On the average, State solid waste rules and regulations
addressed between 6 and 7 of the 10 proposed criteria. (The 5
components of the ESA criteria were considered together.) The
number of criteria met by individual States ranged from a minimum
of 2 to a maximum of all 10. Louisiana and North Dakota con-
formed to 2 and 3 criteria, respectively, while 4 States had
provisions which would meet all 10 of the proposed criteria; the
latter included California, Florida, Minnesota, and Texas. The
modal value for all 50 States was 7 criteria out of the proposed
10.
V-4
-------
B. METHODOLOGY FOR EACH DISPOSAL METHOD
The methodology for the economic impact analysis was
developed with the aid of fairly complete data on the number of
landfills and on State solid waste disposal regulations, but with
very limited data on the number of 1andspreading operations and
surface impoundments and overall conditions or current impacts of
all three types of land disposal facilities. Although some
industrial landfills and surface impoundments may be regulated by
the hazardous waste regulations of RCRA and not by these
Criteria, no attempt was made to estimate how many sites may be
so affected; therefore, Criteria costs may include estimates for
some facilities that are regulated by the hazardous waste regula-
tions of RCRA.
Unfortunately for the EIS, the inventory of disposal facil-
ities to be developed under RCRA is to occur after the regulation
4
is finalized. Consequently, a number of assumptions had to be
made because the following information is sketchy or not well
known:
(1) number and size of on-site industrial landfills;
(2) number and size of surface impoundments (an estimate--
considered to be incomplete or , conservative--is
available on the number of surface impoundments
(Ref. 107));
(3) number and size of 1 andspreadi ng operations on food
Chain cropland--specifically, industrial sludges and
sludges from the smaller municipal wastewater treatment
works; and
(4) the specific locations and conditions of all categories
of solid waste disposal facilities.
In analyzing the economic impacts of the proposed Criteria,
the basic method used on a state-by-state basis was fourfold:
(1) estimate the number of disposal sites (by size and
location);
V-5
-------
(2) estimate the condition (environmental impact) of
existing sites (by size and location);
(3) identify control technologies (by adverse effect and
regulatory alternative) and estimate unit costs (based
on site size) to meet each criterion; and
(4) derive total control costs of closure or upgrading for
the major regulatory alternatives by summing costs of
each criterion for the three types of disposal "for the
total number of affected sites.
All costs in this report are in terms of annualized 1977
dollars. The methodology for cost calculations is based upon
three assumptions:
o facilities or sites have a life of 10 years;
o interest (including inflation) is 10%; and
o compliance will begin at the third year after promulga-
tion of the criteria.
Thus, costs were developed by calculating annual payment
spread over 10 years, with initial costs occurring 3 years hence.
For capital expenditures (Al), the following calculation was
used:
Al = (K) (0.163) = cost spread over 10 years
where K = capital = present worth
0.163 = annuity factor to 10 years at 10%
For operation and maintenance (0+M) calculations (A2), the
following calculation was used:
A2 = (0+M) (6.144)
V-6
-------
Overall, the economic calculation to develop unit costs was:
(Al + A2) (0.751) = annualized unit costs
where 0.751 = annuity factor for 3 years
at 10%
1. Methqdol og_y_ and Assumpti ons for Landfills
a. Data Source
The Waste Age survey provided most of the data base for
the economic impact assessment. Information regarding State
regulations is from the BNA's Environmental Reporter "State Solid
Waste — Land Use." Other information came from phone calls to
various State solid waste offices.
b. Assumptions and Other Data Considerations
(1) Impact Receptors
All known landfill sites, whether "permitted,"
"authorized," or "illegal,"* as documented by the Waste Age
survey, were considered to be affected by the Criteria. The
degree of impact varied according to four factors: numbers of
authorized sites; numbers of illegal sites; the degree to which
State regulations met the requirements of the Criteria; and the
location of sites based upon the percentage of land within a
given State that could be classified as environmentally
sensitive.
These are assumed to be open dumps and thus require closing under
RCRA within five years.
V-7
-------
(2) Applicable Criteria
All criteria were considered to have the potential
to generate economic impacts except the point-source requirements
of surface water, land application, and disease vectors. The
following assumptions were made:
o Land ^application was not considered for landfills
because traditional landfill wastes are usually not
spread on land for beneficial utilization.
o Disease vectors were not considered because costs are
reflected in closure. (An analysis of State solid
waste rules and regulations reveals that all States
require periodic application of cover material at land-
fill sites to control disease vectors. Since permitted
and authorized landfills already apply cover material,
these costs are assigned only to those sites requiring
closure and are, therefore, counted in closure costs to
avoid double counting of costs.)
(3) R e g u 1 a t o ry A It ej* n ajbi _v_e_s
Table 23 shows, on a criterion-by-criterion basis,
which regulatory alternatives were considered in analyzing the
economic impacts of the Criteria on landfills.
The following assumptions were made in regard to the regula-
tory alternatives:
o For ground water, the regulatory alternatives are a
function of numbers of sites and State regulations.
The proposed alternative addressed all authorized sites
and permitted sites in States whose ground-water
regulations were less stringent than the Criteria. The
more-restrictive alternative impacted all authorized
and permitted sites in those states in which regula-
tions were less stringent than a zero discharge. The
less-restrictive alternative addressed only authorized
sites.
o For safety, more- and less-restrictive alternatives
were not considered feasible for gas, fire, and access.
V-8
-------
TABLE 23
REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
CRITERIA -
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas
- Wetlands
- Floodplains
- Permafrost
- Critical Habitats
- Sole Source Aquifers
• Surface Waters
- Point Source
- Nonpoint Source
• Groundwater
• Air
• Safety
- Explosive and Asphyxiating Gas
- Fires
- Bird Hazards
- Access
• Disease Vectors
• Aesthetics
PROPOSED
X
X
X
X
X
N/A+
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Status quo
MORE
RESTRICTIVE
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
Not practical
Not practical
X
Not practical
Not practical
X
LESS
RESTRICTIVE
Status quo*
Status quo
Status quo
Status quo
Status quo
N/A
Status quo
X
X
Not practical
Not practical
Status quo
Not practical
Not practical
Not practical
* Status quo refers to regulatory alternative which will not change current practices
t This is not applicable because point source regulation is the function of water programs
-------
o Only a more-restrictive alternative was considered for
aesthetics.
(4) Technologies and Cost Considerations
Applicable technologies and unit costs on a
criterion-by-criterion basis are discussed in Chapter IV. Costs
were based upon three factors: numbers of sites, site size, and
quantity of control needed; and site size was based upon a
scenario of average conditions. Table 24 summarizes the assump-
tions regarding site size.
The ground-water criterion had the most detailed cost con-
siderations. Clay lining, monitoring wells, and leachate collec-
tion and treatment facilities were considered to be the best
available technology for purposes of upgrading. Leachate removal
and treatment was considered an operation and maintenance (O&M)
cost; the assumptions to calculate costs for leachate were as
follows:
o Funds in the form of a surcharge would be collected
annually and put in a trust fund at 6% interest. Funds
accrued during the life of the landfill would be used
for leachate removal and treatment.
o Leachate infiltration is 2 inches/year and treatment
costs are l£/gallon or $543/acre.
o At the end of the site's life, money from the trust
fund would be used.
For closure costs the following assumptions were made:
o 10 ton per day (TPD) illegal sites would be replaced on
a 6:1 basis, with half of the replacements becoming
100 TPD sites (e.g., 60 illegal 10 TPD sites would
become 50 new 10 TPD and 5 new 100 TPD sites).
o 100 TPD illegal sites would be replaced on a 3:1 basis.
o 300 TPD and 700 TPD sites would be replaced on a 1:1
basis.
Y-10
-------
TABLE 24
LANDFILL SITE SIZE DATA*
Site Category,
tons/day
y,
i ty , m 3
(yd3)
m
(ft)
Hectare
(acre )
9.1
(10)
55,800
(73,000)
152
(500)
2.4
(6)
= =^ ===;:== ^= =?==
91
(100)
558,400
(730,000)
336
(1,100)
11.3
(28)
272
(300)
1,675,000
(2,190,000) (
549
(1,800)
30.4
(75)
635
(700)
3,909,000
5,110,000)
793
(2,600)
62.8
(155)
Edge**
Area
Refuse-to-Soi1 Cover
Ratio (Daily and 1:1 2:1 3:1 4:1
Intermediate Cover)
*Assumptions are as follows:
(1) Refuse is placed in 3 successive 2.43-meter (81) high lifts
f2) 365 days per year
(3) Soil cover excavated on site
(4) In-place refuse density of 593 kg/m3 (1000 lb/cy)
(5) Perimeter fill slopes are 3 horizontal to 1 vertical
**Edge distance is based on a square site, with a 30.5 m (1001) set-
back from top of fill to property line.
c. Data Base
(1) Site Co n d it ion s
Evaluation of site conditions was based upon cate-
gories of disposal sites, as provided by the Waste Age survey and
an assessment of the stringency of State regulations, as dis-
cussed in Chapter IIIA.
Landfill sites were divided into three categories: per-
mitted, authorized, and illegal. The following assumptions were
made:
V-ll
-------
Permitted Sites. The site conditions are a function of
the degree to which their States' solid waste regula-
tions comply with the new Criteria. (This assumes that
the permitted sites comply with the State regulations.)
Thus, for any given State, if the condition of their
landfills can be said to be XI and the Federal Criteria
mandate a condition of X2, then the difference between
these two conditions is the amount of upgrading needed
on a cri terion-by-cri terion basis.
State permitted site Federal criteria
condition mandates
XI - - * X2
Authorized Sites. An authorized site, according to the
Waste Age survey, is one which is not quite ready to be
permi tted. However, there is no available definition
of "quite ready;" therefore, in order to maintain
consistency, it is necessary to define this condition
with respect to the State regulations and the Federal
Criteria. For example, if authorized sites are at
condition XO, then they have to reach both conditions
XI (State regulations) and X2 (Federal Criteria).
Authorized State regulations Federal
condition condition Criteria
XI X2
XO »X1 *X2
In addition to being upgraded from State permit condi-
tion to new Federal Criteria (X2-X1), all authorized
sites need to be upgraded to the level of current State
regulations (Xl-XO) for ground-water and surface-water
criteria. With respect all other disposal criteria,
these authorized sites were assumed to already meet
current State regulations. The basis for this assump-
tion is that it is relatively easy and inexpensive to
comply with other criteria; hence an assumption was
made that authorized sites are probably in compliance.
The Haste Age survey provides the numbers of disposal sites
according to the above two categories, and by inference, a third
category--!'llegal sites. For example, in a given State, there
may be 300 known disposal sites, of which 94 are permitted and
108 are authorized, leaving 98 sites which were considered
illegal. The formula for this computation is:
V-12
-------
Illegal sites = (known sites) - (permitted sites) - (authorized sites)
Thus, the following assumption was made for illegal sites:
o Illegal Sites. The remaining, or illegal sites within
a State will be assumed to be open dumps, which are
mandated by RCRA to be closed within five years. In
other words, illegal dumps meet none of the criteria,
and consequently, costs for these sites will be deter-
mined by both costs for closing and by costs for
obtaining and developing a new site.
In regard to closure, EPA is currently developing policy and
procedural guidance on what constitutes closure of solid waste
disposal sites. The following assumptions were made:
o A closed site by definition does not receive any more
sol id wastes.
o All closed sites shall be "window dressed" or "topped
off" (to minimize infiltration, disease vectors, bird
attractions, and waste exposure). In regard to land-
fills and dumps, a minimum of 2 feet of cover material
suitable to support vegetation, and vegetation adequate
to prevent soil erosion is necessary.
o No open burning.
o Gas vents provided where explosive or asphyxiating
gases may be a problem.
o One year after closure site shall be inspected for
settlement, vegetation, cover material, and effective-
ness of vents.
o No other corrective actions.
These assumptions are based on a large extent on the
following information: (1) corrective actions for ground-water
contamination are very expensive and generally don't clean up the
aquifer, but merely inhibit additional leachate migration,
(2) revenue sources at closed sites have ceased and the property
may have changed hands so that the desired outcome of any suit
for corrective action is doubtful, and (3) in general, it is
V-13
-------
better to concentrate on protecting clean ground water from
damage than to dwell on corrective actions.
It is further assumed that closure requirements are the same
for abandoned sites as for active sites.
Whether closure costs are classified as State or Federal
costs depends on the requirements of existing State regulations.
(2) Site Location
In order to assess the impact of the environ-
mentally sensitive areas criterion, assumptions had to be made
regarding the number of sites located in an ESA. The basic
assumption is that:
o The number of sites located in an ESA is related to the
amount of land within a State that can be classified as
environmentally sensitive.
Thus, if 10% of the land within a given State could be
classified as environmentally sensitive, then the assumption was
made that 10% of the landfills were located in ESA's. The per-
centage of land classified as ESA in each State was calculated as
follows:
% of sq. miles of [wetlands + floodplains (0.5) + critical
ESA = habitats + sole-source aquifers + permafrost]
total number of sq. miles of land in State
The number of square miles of floodplains was divided in
half to avoid double counting, since many wetlands are in flood-
plains.
Site location was also important in determining the impact
of the bird hazard criterion. The assumption was made that:
V-14
-------
o 1% of all authorized and permitted sites in any given
State are located near an airport facility.
Thus, if a State had a total of 300 authorized and-permi tted
sites, 3 were considered to be located near an airport.
(3) Site Size
The Waste Age survey breaks site sizes into six
categories. For ease of computation, these site sizes were
grouped into four categories and a modal value chosen for each
category, as follows:
Waste Age Mew Modal
Categories Categories Value
No. Si'tes (tons/day) (tons/day No. Sites in TPD
12,342 0-50 »> 0-50 12,342 10
1,401 50-100V »50-200 - 2,389 100
987 100-200/
591 200-500 *200-500 591 300
351 , 500-1000X ^500 499 700
148 >1000 /
(4) Data Base Calculations
Data base calculations were designed to provide
information on a state-by-state basis for a number of sites by
category (permitted, authorized, illegal); by size (10 TPD,
100 TPD, 300 TPD, or 700 TPD); and by location (in or out of an
ESA). Once these calculations were made, they were used for
determinations of cost. The following steps detail the method-
ological approach:
o Number of sites located in or outside of EASs. Based
on the assumption that the number of sites located in
an ESA is related to the amount of land in a State than
can be classified as environmentally sensitive, the
percentage of ESA land is known. Assuming the number
of sites to be a function of percentage of land in
ESAs, we find, for example, that a State with 300 sites
V-15
-------
and 5% ESA land will have 15 sites located in ESAs.
o Sites by Size by Location
Next, the number of si'tes both in and out of ESA\,
according to size, must be determined. This can be
done by assuming that the number of sites within a
given size category by their location is a function of
the percentage of land classified as an ESA. The com-
putational formula becomes:
Number of sites
in size category = (% ESA land) x (sites in a TPD category)
by location
The number of sites in a size category can be found in
the Waste Age survey. Thus, for a given State, the
following data are given:
Distribution 0-50 50-100 100-200 200-500 500-1000 >10QQ
No. of sites 225 25 15 4 1 0
Using the new site size categories, the following data
are generated:
Distribution
Modal Value
No. of sites
0-50
10
225
50-200
100
40
200-500
300
4
>500
700
1
The number of landfills in and the number outside of
the State's ESAs can now be developed:
Site Size 10 TPD 100 TPD 300 TPD 700 TPD
Raw Data 255 40 4 1
Sites in ESA
(size x 0.05) 13 2 negligible negligible
Sites out of
ESA (raw no. ) 242 38 4 1
V-16
-------
Number of Sites by Size and by Category
The third step is to determine the number of sites by
size which are permitted, authorized, and illegal. We
know, for example, in a given State, there are 94 per-
mitted sites, 108 authorized sites, and 98 illegal
sites. What we do not know is how many of these types
of sites are in each size category. This can be deter-
mined by assuming that the type of landfill by size is
a function of the percentage of landfill types divided
by the total number of landfills, times the number of
sites by size. The computational formula for this is:
Percentage of
sanitary
(1) landfills or =
authorized
or illegal
number of types of landfills
total number of landfills
(2)
Number of
landfills by
category and
si ze
no. of type of landfills x no. of sites by size
total number of landfills
This must be done for landfills both in and out of
ESAs. Thus, for a given State, the following is
generated:
Sanitary landfills = 94/300 = 31.3%
Authorized landfills = 108/300 = 36.0%
Illegal sites= 98/300 = 32.7%
In turn, this information is used in conjunction with
our knowledge of the number of sites by size capacity
to obtain:
(1) Non-ESA Areas
Sanitary (31.3%)
Authorized (36%)
Illegal (32.7%)
Total
10 TPD
76
87
79
242
100 TPD
12
14
12
38
300 TPD
1
2
1
700 TPD
1
1
V-17
-------
(2) ESA Areas
10 TPD 100 TPD 300 TPD 700 TPD
Sanitary (31.3%) 4
Authorized (36%) 51----
Illegal (32.7%) 4 1
Total 13 2
o Cost Calculations
Cost calculations were based upon a state-by-state
assessment of upgrading needs. For each criterion,
unit costs for the best available technology were
developed according to site size. Cost calculations
were based upon the following formula:
Costs = (quantity) x (price) x (applicable numbers of sites by size)
In this formula, quantity refers to the amount of con-
trol technology needed (i.e., the square feet, cubic
yards, lineal feet, etc.)
State costs were developed by summing costs for each
criterion; national costs were developed by summing all
State costs on a criterion-by-criterion basis.
Combined Cost
Costs were assessed on the following basis:
V-18
-------
AB1 = Federal costs (difference between State
standards and Federal Criteria)
AB2 = Costs to upgrade or comply with State stand-
ards (for surface water and ground water)
AB3 = Cost to obtain and develop a new site
AB4 = Cost to close an illegal site
Nl = Number of permitted sites
N2 = Number of authorized sites
N3 = Number of illegal sites
N4 = Number of replacement sites
o Permitted Sites
costs = Nl (AB1)
o Authorized Sites
costs = N2 (AB2) + N2 (AB1) = N2 (AB2 +AB1)
o Illegal Sites
costs = N3
-------
Total Combined
costs = N3 (AB4) + N4 (AB3) + N2 (A.B2 + AB1)
+ Nl (AB1)
Federal Criteria-Induced Costs vs.
State Standard-Induced Costs
Federal-criteria-induced costs:
Cost = AB1 (Nl + N2) + (X) (N4) (AB3)
h Y - Criteria-induced costs
wnere * total costs
Cost = N2 (AB2) + N3 (AB4) + Y(N4) (AB4)
u,h0 v State-standard-induced costs
wnere Y total costs
2. Methodology and Assumptions for Surface Impoundments
a. Data Source
This methodology is predicated on data from an unpublished
EPA report, USEPA Contract No. 68-10-4342: Surface Impundments
and Thei r Effect m^ Groundwater i_n the United States—A Prel im-
i nary Survey (Ref. 107). In addition to the above, The Ground-
water Report ;to Congress (Ref. 7) and telephone interviews pro-
vided necessary information.
V-20
-------
b. Assumptions and Other Data Considerations
(1) Impact Receptors
For purposes of this analysis, the following
industrial groups were considered:
SIC 10, 11, 12, 14, 144 - Mining
SIC 26, 261, 266 - Paper Products
SIC 49 - Utility Services
SIC 13 - Oil and Gas
SIC 15, 16 - Construct!' on
SIC 20, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 208, 209 - Food Products
SIC 24, 243 - Lumber
SIC 28, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286,
289 - Chemical Products
SIC 29 - Petroleum Refining
SIC 30 - Rubber Products
SIC 33 - Metal Products
SIC 31, 311, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 - Misc. - Other
Information as to number of sites by industry by State came
from the Surface Impoundments report referenced above (Ref. 107).
(2) Applicable Criteria
Only the criteria for ground water, environ-
mentally sensitive areas, and the access consideration of the
safety criterion were considered to have economic impacts. The
following assumptions were made:
o Costs incurred for the surface-water criterion were
more appropriately a function of the NPDES program.
o No open burning at surface impoundments occurs on a
regular basis as a means for volume reduction of waste.
V-21
-------
o The disease vectors under consideration in these
criteria are not problems at surface impoundments.
o No enough information exists on the land application of
surface impoundment wastes. It was assumed that this
was not a viable practice.
o The gas control, fire, and bird hazards to aircraft
components of the safety criterion were considered to
have a minimal economic impact on surface impoundments.
The following assumption was made concerning the ESA
criterion:
o All sites located in an ESA would be closed, but
replaced on a 1:1 basis. Therefore, the ESA criterion
was used to attribute costs for closure.
(3) Regulatory Alternatives
Due to the nature of the applicable criteria, and
lack of adequate data regarding site conditions, only two regula-
tory alternatives were considered--the proposed and one which is
more restrictive.
(4) Technologies and Cost Considerations
To upgrade existing sites to meet the ground-water
criterion, site lining with clay was deemed to be the most cost-
effective method. Access considerations were considered to be
met through use of a minimal perimeter fence and gate.
With respect to the ESA criterion, closure constituted two
aspects—physically closing the site through use of a fence, and
replacing the old site with a new site (necessitating land
purchase, excavation, and lining).
For purposes of assessing costs, assumptions had to be made
as to site sizes and configurations. The following assumptions
were made:
V-22
-------
o All sites are square
o Site are grouped in two categories based upon the
nature of the industries and the size of the impound-
ment site. Site size was the major distinguishing
factor between the two groups. Consequently, some
industries (coal and other mining, paper products, and
utility services) having both small and large impound-
ments were listed in both categories. Group I and
Grouptll sites were defined as follows:
Group I. Industries having one 20-hectare (50-acre)
surface impoundment per site; included are:
0 SIC 10,11,12,14,144 - Mining
o SIC 26,261,266 - Paper Products
o SIC 49 - Utility Services
Group II. Industries having three 1-hectare (2.5-acre)
impoundments per site, totaling 3 hectares (7.5 acres)
per site; included are:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SIC
SIC
SIC
SIC
SIC
SIC
SIC
SIC
SIC
SIC
13 - Oil and Gas
15,16 - Construction
20,201,202,203,204,205,206,
209 - Food Products
22,221,222,223,226 - Textiles
24,243 - Lumber
28,281,282,283,284,285,286,
287,289 - Chemical Products
29 - Petroleum Refining
30 - Rubber Products
33 - Metal Products
31,311,32,34,35,36,37,38,
39 - Misc. - Other
An assumption was made that:
o Half of the sites in Group I had one 20-hectare
(50-acre) surface impoundment per site, while
the other half had three 1-hectare (2.5-acre)
impoundments per site, totaling 3 hectares (7.5
acres) per site.
Furthermore, because no data exist on the condition of the
sites, the following assumptions were made:
o To meet the proposed alternative, 50% of all sites
within a given State need upgrading to meet both the
ground-water criterion and the access component of the
safety criterion.
V-23
-------
o To meet the more restrictive alternative, 7B% of all
sites within a given State need upgrading to meet the
above criteria.
o All sites located in an ESA would have to be closed;
neither a less- or more-restrictive alternative was
considered.
Thus, if in a given State there were a total of 32 Group I
sites and 100 Group II sites for the proposed alternative, 8
Group I sites would be considered [(32)x(0.5)/2], and 58 Group II
sites would be considered [(32)x(0.5)/5 + 100/2]. For the more-
restrictive alternative, 12 Group I sites would be considered
C(32)x0.75/2], and 50 Group II sites would be considered
[(32)x(0.75)/2 + (100)x(0.75)/2].
c. Data Base
(1) Site Sizes and Conditions
Supplementing the above assumptions concerning
site sizes by group, and the percentages of sites needing
upgrading, was information relating to the numbers of sites by
group, by State, and their location.
Other than dividing the numbers of sites in Group I indus-
tries in half (according to an earlier assumption), information
regarding the number of sites by group, by State, was derived
from the Surface Impoundments report. Finally, the location of
the sites was determined, facilitating the determination of the
data base.
As was done for landfills, the number of sites located in an
ESA was assumed to be a function of the percentage of land within
the State classified as environmentally sensitive. Thus, if 5%
of the land in a given State was considered to be environmentally
sensitive, then 5% of all applicable Group I sites and 5% of all
Group II sites were considered to require closure and
V-24
-------
replacement.
d.
Combined Cost
The combined cost was derived by summing the costs for
upgrading and closure on a state-by-state basis. The
computational formula is:
Combined Costs =
50
1=1
Group II applicable sites x (closure costs (ESA))
+ lining costs (ground water) + fencing costs
(access, safety) _
50
£
1 = 1
Group I applicable sites x (closure costs (ESA))
+• lining costs (ground water) + fencing costs
(access, safety)
(1) Federal Criteria-Induced Cost vs.
State Standard-Induced Cost
In order to assess cost distributions, State solid
waste regulations were analyzed; if the State's ESA, ground
water, and access regulations were as stringent as the Federal
Criteria, then costs were considered to be State-standard-
induced. On the other hand, if the State's standards were not as
stringent as the Federal Criteria, then costs were considered to
be Criteria-induced.
3. Methodology and Assumptions for Landspreading
a.
Data Source
The data sources for calculating the economic impact of
the criteria upon 1andspreading practices were:
V-25
-------
(1) Unpublished EPA report on sludge disposal practices of
141 cities (Appendix 7).
(2) Ground Water Report to Congress (Ref. 7).
(3) Telephone conversations with major cities and EPA
regional offices.
(4) Construction grant design and planning report.
(5) Other research reports and published articles.
b. Assumptions and Other Data Considerations
(1) Impact Receptors
Initially, information regarding industrial groups
plus municipal waste treatment plants were examined. Of all
industrial groups examined, seven were thought to have wastes
which could feasibly be landspread: pulp and paper, pharmaceu-
ticals, tanneries, feedlots, food processing, textiles, and
petroleum products. However, due to a lack of data regarding
their landspreading practices, these industrial are not included
in the data base for 1andspreading. Consequently, only sludges
from municipal waste treatment plants comprise the landspreading
data base.
(2) Applicable Criteria
All criteria were analyzed to determine their
economic impact upon this disposal practice. The following
assumptions were made:
o Surface-water controls are currently in effect at agri-
cultural sites through use of erosion control tech-
niques such as contour plowing.
o The agricultural utilization of solid waste, in partic-
ular municipal wastewater treatment sludge, should have
little impact on ground water because of its generally
low application rate, and agricultural management
controls.
V-?6
-------
o Sludges are not burned on agricultural land and, there-
fore, wi 11 not be affected by ther air criterion.
Sludges which are incinerated are subject to air pollu-
tion control measures.
o Safety control measures will have a negligible effect
on landspreading practices.
o The aesthetic criterion will have a negligible effect
on landspreading practices.
Thus, only the land application criterion was considered to
have the potential to economically impact landspreading
practices.
Although this criterion has four subsections, only the
cadmium controls were considered in developing the economic
impact on current 1andspreading practices. The following assump-
tion was made:
o Economic considerations of impacts resulting from the
pathogen, pesticides persistent organic, and direct
ingestion elements of the proposed land application
criterion were not addressed because their impact was
considered to be minimal and indeterminate. Since only
municipal waste treatment plant sludges were considered
in the economic assessment, each of the above subsec-
tions will require that treatment plant operators moni-
tor the chemical and biological characteristics of
their sludge; furthermore, operators must insure that
sludge not meeting Federal specifications be banned
from application to land used for food chain crops.
(3) Regulatory Alternatives
Four regulatory alternatives were examined: the
proposed, two more restrictive, and one less restrictive. The
less restrictive alternative was not addressed from an economic
perspective because it would not affect current practices.
V-27
-------
(4) Technologies and Cost Considerations
There are numerous technologies to deal with
sludge containing cadmium levels exceeding the proposed
criterion. Among the options considered were:
control pH of soil/solid wate mixture;
reduce application rate of cadmium;
pretreatment to reduce cadmium concentrations to
permissible levels;
dewatering and disposal by landfilling, or by incin-
eration; and
application only to nonfood chain crops.
Cost considerations were divided into two concerns: cost
for upgrading or compliance and cost due to the quantity of
sludge which would not be able to be landspread because of
cadmium level restrictions. In regard to upgrading and compli-
ance costs, the following assumptions were made:
o It was assumed that 10 mt/ha/yr would be near the lower
end of the economically viable ranqe of application
rates.
o At sites where 1andspreading will be terminated, the
sludge was assumed to be landfilled.
o Land costs were assumed to be negligible for cities
selecting the "operational controls" approach since
they generally do not purchase or lease agricultural
1 and.
o Land costs for communities selecting the "crop moni-
toring" approach were not included because the amount
of land necessary is dependent on site-specific
variables.
V-28
-------
o The amount of sludge eliminated at the proposed
0.5 kg/ha of cadmium restriction was halved because it
was assumed communities would have pretreatment pro-
grams reducing cadmium levels to acceptable concentra-
tions in 1986.
o No cost increase was included for reduced application
rates because small communities were assumed to be able
to find additional land at no additional capital costs
and large communities that purchase land were assumed
to use the monitoring approach which would not control
application rates.
o All soils receiving solid waste would have an average
cation exchange capacity of 10 and an average pH of
6.0. These soil characteristics were used to calculate
the costs for necessary limestone additions to comply
with the pH requirement of 6.5 or greater. It was
estimated that 2.5 tons of lime per acre at $35 per ton
($87.50/acre) would be needed.
o Costs for monitoring soil pH and cation exchange
capacity are similar to analytical costs at State
laboratories ($3/sample). It was further estimated
that at least 2 samples per acre would be necessary.
Cost for cadmium analysis would be $80 per sample.
Each solid waste disposal facility would need an aver-
age of 4 different sampling times per year, at a cost
of $320 per facility.
Therefore, only costs for those sludge quantites which could
not be landspread due to cadmium restrictions and compliance
costs (options 1 and 2) were developed. Furthermore, since the
best available information on 1andspreading practices
(Appendix 7) accounts for only 2Q% of all sludge estimated to be
landspread, an assumption was made that:
o A national projection of costs could be derived by
multiplying the known quantities of sludge which could
not be landspread (developed from the 141-city study)
by a factor of five.
Y-29
-------
c. Data Base
The data base for landspreading is expressed in metric
tons for the whole country because of the lack of data on
specific numbers and sizes of sites in each State.
(1) Site
The 141-city study provides information on:
(1) the cities 1andspreading sludge, (2) present sludge disposi-
tion, (3) sludge quantity in dry mt/day, (4) sludge cadmium
content in mg/kg, (5) total sludge landspread in dry mt/day, and
(6) sludge quantity which cannot be landspread in dry/mt/day for
a given maximum annual cadmium addition (2.0 kg/ha/yr,
1.25 kg/ha/yr, 0.5 kg/ha/yr) and a given maximum application rate
in mt/ha. Concerning the latter, an assumption was made that:
o The maximum annual cadmium additional restrictions
would take effect at an application rate or 10 mt/ha;
that is, when the application rate was reduced to less
than 10 mt/ha in order to meet the annual application
rate, the practice was assumed to be eliminated,
because of economic constraints.
Consequently, the study provided information on a city-by-
city basis on the quantity of sludge which could not be land-
spread at an application rate of 10 mt/day given a specific
cadmium restriction.
To calculate annual tonnage of sludge that could not be
applied from the 58 cities, the following formula was used:
/metric tons per day^X annual dry
/ eliminated for each \ (365 day/yr) = metric tons/yr
I of the 58 cities I eliminated
\ known to landspread /
V-30
-------
Because different cadmium restrictions had different rami-
fications on total tonnage restrictions, the following calcula-
tions were made to calculate tonnages eliminated for the 58-city
survey (Appendix 7):
[1] for the 2.0 kg/ha/yr restriction:
annual dry
tons elimin-
ated at 2.0
restriction
= (
metric tons
elimi nated/day
) (365 days/yr)
at the
2.0 kg/ha
restriction
annual dry
tons land-
spreadable
at 2.0 kg/ha
restriction
(current annual
metric tons
1andspread)
(annual dry tons
eliminated at
2.0 kg/ha
restriction)
[2] for the 1.25 kg/ha/yr restriction:
annual dry tons
eliminated at _ /
metric tons \ /3fi
l.2bkg/ha
restriction
eliminated/day
(365 days/yr)
at the
1.25 kg/ha
restriction
annual dry
tons 1 a n d-
spreadable
at 1.25 kg/ha
restriction
(current annual
metric tons
1andspread)
(annual dry tons
eliminated at 1.25
kg/ha restriction)
For the 0.5 kg/ha/yr restriction, the following assumption
was made:
By the time the 0.5 kg/ha restriction goes into effect,
half of the municipalities would have pretreatment pro-
grams reducing cadmium levels to acceptable concen-
trations.
V-31
-------
Based on the above, the following calculation was made
annual dry tons
[3] el inn nated at
0.5 kg/ha/yr
annual dry
tons land-
spreadable
at 0.5 kg/ha
restriction
(current annual
metric ton
1andspread)
(annual dry tons
eliminated at 0.5
kg/ha restriction)
The more-restrictive alternative is an immediate restriction
of cadmium to the 0.5 kg/ha/yr level; to calculate annual dry
tons eliminated by this alternative, the following calculation
was made:
[4] annual dry tons elimi nated at 0.5 kg/ha/yr =
(
eli'^nlted/day
{365
at the 0.5 kg/ha restrict!'
annual dry
tons land-
spreadable
at 0.5 kg/ha
per year
(current annual
metric tons
1andspread)
(annual dry tons
elimi nated at
0.5 kg/ha)
The most restrictive alternative calls for a ban on all
sludges spread on agricultural land. Therefore, quantities were
based on the information in the 141-city study, using the follow-
ing calculation:
(metric tons/yr
[5] annual dry tons = spread on agri'
cultural land)
(365 days/yr)
V-32
-------
d. Cost Calculations
Cost calculations were based upon costs/ton, the time-
phased nature of the criterion, tonnages, and the present worth
of money. The following assumptions were made:
o Costs forCurrent Practice: $30/dry metric ton
(Ref. 127)
o Costs for Dewatering: $75/dry metric ton
o Costs for landfilling: $33/dry metric ton
o Costs for Meeting "Operational Controls": $11.53/dry
metric ton for meeting pH controls, pH and CEC
monitoring, plus S320/sewage treatment plant for sludge
cadmium analysis.
Because costs for current 1andspreading practices are, in
fact, a cost saving, they must be subtracted from the total costs
to landfill sludges. Thus, the elimination cost/dry metric ton
becomes $78.00 to dewater and landfill.
In order to express costs in annualized 1977 dollars,
adjustments must be made to account for the time value of money
due to the time-phased nature of the criterion. Thus, both the
capitol recovery factor and present worth must be calculated:
Years Annualized
Restricti on Hence Cost/Ton Cost/Metric Ton
(kg/ha/yr)
2.0 3 $78 $73.80
1.25 5 $78 $71.20
0.5 8 $78 $67.24
For both the more and most restrictive cost cal-cul ati ons,
$73.80/ton was used.
V-33
-------
e. Total Cost
To arrive at total costs for each regulatory alter-
native, the following calculations were made:
o Proposed:
no. of tons # of metric tons
Total Cost* = £ (eliminated at 0.5 kg/ha) ($67>24)
i = 1.0 2
+ {# of tons landspread at 0.5 kg/ha) ($11.53)
+ {# of STP** landspreading at 0.5 kg/ha) ($320.00)
o More Restrictive:
Total Cost* = '(# of tons eliminated at 0.5 kg/ha) ($3.80)
+ (# of tons landspread at 0.5 kg/ha) ($11.53)
+ (# of STP** landspreading at 0.5 kg/ha) ($320.00)
o Most Restrictive:
Total Cost* = (# tons spread on agricultural land) ($73.80)
f. Criteria-Induced Costs vs. State-Standard
Induced Cost
Unlike surface impoundments and landfills, land-
spreading is not yet subject to formal regulations in most
States. Therefore, in order to distribute costs, the following
assumption was made:
*National Projection = (Total Cost) (5)
**Sewage Treatment Plant
V-34
-------
0 Cost distributions for 1 andspreading are a function of
the percentage of State costs for upgrading landfills.
State-standard-induced costs were assumed to be 25%,
and Criteria-induced costs, 75%, which is the national
average.
V-35
-------
APPENDIX VI
WASTE AGE SURVEY OF LANDFILLS
-------
An Overview of the land Disposal Problem
Exclusive WASTE AGE Survey
Of the Nation's Disposal Sites
The editors of WASTE AGE take great pleasure in
presenting to our readers the 1976 edition of The
National Survey of Waste Control Practices. The
survey was accomplished by the WASTE AGE staff
and utilized the offices of each state's solid waste
control agency assuring our readers of the very latest
comprehensive review of trends, attitudes and
accomplishments in solid waste control.
The preparation of a National Survey of this
magnitude is quite a challenge. Regardless of the
care exercised in question construction, the reader
may misinterpret the intent. To reduce the incidence
of such problems Waste Age used a combination of
written questionnaires, followed by first person
telephone contact for clarification of important data.
Richard W. Eldredge P.E. our Technical Editor again
personally directed the effort and reviewed each
response in detail. Where conflicting data occurred,
Mr. Eldredge was the sole arbitrator, and thus
variation of interpretation, though not eliminated, has
been minimized.
As the survey entails some 50 questions, ranging
from the number of state employees, to the number of
sites receiving less than 50 tons per day, we have
elected to present it in sections of related data. Thus
this month's issue contains basic state agency
information, as well as the descriptive data for each
state, such as population, degree of urbanization and
area, etc. This issue also includes those answers
related to landfill, including ownership, capacities and
quality.
To the best of our knowledge, the data reflects the
answers as provided by the state agencies queried. In
some instances, numbers were editor-supplied based
on typical responses from similar programs and
JANUARY, 1977
VI-1
practical experience. Where new and better knowl-
edge conflicts with the editor-supplied data, we
apologize and hope to perfect the data collection and
analysis to reduce such conflicts to a minimum in the
future.
The reader should refer to footnotes as provided,
and consider that each of the reporting agencies is a
separate unit of government and even the definition of
"regulation," "legislation," "authorized" and "permit-
ted," is not consistent throughout the nation. The staff
at WASTE AGE has, through personal contact and
discussion, attempted to make the answers reflect as
closely as possible the definitions as translated in the
survey. Therefore, in order to provide a clear report,
one may find instances where the words "permit",
"license", "approve", "authorize" and "recognize,"
have received a common definition somewhat
different from local usage.
As a convenience to the reader we have grouped
responses by regions, selecting the Federal Environ-
mental Protection Regions for that purpose. Those
states with similar climate, geography and history are
thus grouped for easy reference and comparison.
Some regional trends are obvious, while other factors,
such as urbanization, major trade cities and income-
producing activities, can be shown as major influ-
ences.
The 1974 "WASTE AGE Survey of United States
Disposal Practices" included data on control practices
for liquids and sludges, hazardous waste, resource
recovery and incineration. These items have not been
omitted from our 1976 survey. The new and expanded
1976 data will be featured in the next issues of
WASTE AGE.
(Continued on Page 22)
21
-------
WASTE AGE SURVEY ...
(Continued from Page 21)
Each data column is accompanied by a description
of its contents. Where difficulty was encountered in
obtaining the data, or where the answers were
estimated with little hard data at hand, that estimate is
noted.
Overview of Part I
National Survey of Waste Control Practices
The reporting of sites, services, attitudes, regula-
tions and practices, more often than not, is colored by
such factors as population density, urban population
percentages, climate, geology, and even local
prejudices and preferences. The direct comparison of
state programs should be avoided unless these
factors are known and their impacts understood.
WASTE AGE has provided current data for some of
these considerations in column Nos. 1 through 8.
Column No. 8 attempts to define the areas of
personnel utilization within each state agency and
may yield a clue as to the state's emphasis in
developing improved solid waste control practices. In
most states the actual individuals reported have more
than one field of expertise and, thus, a state reporting
12 man-years of total effort might well be reporting the
collective efforts of more than twelve persons.
WASTE AGE has shown man-years of effort to the
nearest tenth; where less than one tenth of a
man-year was devoted to an area or responsibility we
have reported zero effort.
A comparison of 1974/1976 data indicates during
that two year period of time state agencies have
received a 50% increase in funding, and a similar
increase in personnel. More than 30% of the states'
personnel is occupied in the enforcement of solid
waste control rules and regulations. There is less than
7/10 of a person per state involved in training, and a
like number in programs considered to be research.
Certainly the average of 7/10 of a man-year to train
personnel etc., contrasts significantly with the almost
51/2 man-years devoted for enforcement of those
procedures not taught.
The 1974 Survey reported the "extent of State
Authority," dividing the extent into "planning", "Public
Health" and "Environment". The 1976 WASTE AGE
Survey asked this same question and discovered:
1) That little, if any, change was reported.
2) Most states have all three responsibilities to
some degree.
3) Where two or more state agencies exist, it is
almost impossible to limit extent based on the
1974 classification of authority.
WASTE AGE therefore has removed this data from
the reported list in the interests of streamlining the
report, providing only that data which varies from the
norm sufficiently to be of interest. Based on other
responses received, the question might better have
been, "what is the extent of your state's authority
concerning solid waste control?"
a. All solid waste disposal
b. Sludges and semi solids
c. Hazardous wastes
d. Resource recovery processes and wastes
e. Industrial wastes and processes
f. Municipal waste
g. Thermal energy processes and methods
h. Collection methods and systems, public and
private.
The WASTE AGE survey of future years will include
this, or a similar evaluation of authority, and include
herein a preliminary comment that not all states have
the above divisions included as part of their authority.
An interesting comparison is the states' attitudes
with respect to regionalization and interstate transfer
of waste. Although no state discourages regionaliza-
tion, 16 states discourage interstate transfer; thus
regionalization is thought to have limits—probably to
units of local government. Many of our enquiries were
met with comments such as, "We haven't had that
problem", "With equal standards there is no problem,"
or, "We encourage interstate transfer out of our state
and discourage the inflow of waste."
One of the questions which should have been
asked in conjunction with those involving regionaliza-
tion and interstate transport was, "When does solid
waste, as recovered as part of a resource recovery
operation, become something other than solid waste
whose transport across state lines is discouraged?"
WASTE AGE editors think the success or failure of
some resource recovery practices may depend upon
the answer received. Experience to date is so limited,
there would be no answers to such a question in our
'76 survey. But the question remains an important
one, and will be asked when, in our opinion,
experience factors will permit knowledgeable an-
swers.
Permitted Sites
As in the WASTE AGE survey of 1974 the total
number of approved, permitted or otherwise identified
sanitary landfills, represents the most current listing
provided by the states. Insofar as the identification
also relates ownership and/or operation by public or
private entities, WASTE AGE cautions that this is an
approximation, devised by the state agency, and is
not precise, nor can the number of sites as given be
used to represent the proportion of the population
served. WASTE AGE has published herein both the
22
WASTE AGE is printed on paper containing recycled secondary fibers
VI-2
-------
1974 and 1976 data to assist those who watch trends
and care to draw conclusions from the state's
responses.
The 1976 survey shows a decrease in the total
number of known land disposal sites by some 13%.
The sanitary landfill category shows a modest 144 site
(3%) gain. This figure may be misleading in that the
1974 survey included 1300 sites in Wisconsin as
sanitary landfills. It was discovered during the 1976
survey that the 1300 sites are "authorized" by
Wisconsin law. However, all but 289 fall short of the
usually accepted standards for sanitary landfills and,
therefore, were excluded in the 1976 data. With this
correction in mind, it becomes obvious that the actual
increase in sanitary landfill numbers for the country
was 1155, or a whopping 25% of those which were
actually sanitary landfills in 1974! A 25% increase in
two years appears to the WASTE AGE editors to be
excellent progress towards a most desirable goal.
A review of both the surveys of 1974 and 1976
indicates little change in the proportion of those sites
which are publicly or privately operated. While it is
estimated ^ that licensed or permitted sites are the
larger-capacity sites, little correlation between size
and ownership can be drawn. An analysis of the data
shows regional preferences for ownership, which may
be the result of the ability, or lack of ability, for a state
to enforce or control that portion of the solid waste
control sector.
A new feature of the 1976 survey is the breakdown
of sites by size. Granted this data is probably more
accurate for the larger and better known sites, but
WASTE AGE feels the survey is the most accurate
assessment of landfill volume or capacity to date.
Consider the fact that approximately two-thirds of the
known sites receive less than 50 tons per day, and
that those sites in the unknown volume category most
probably would be appropriately placed in that same 0
to 50 T.P.D. category. Consider that those sites,
recognized by the state agencies as being the number
required to geographically serve their states (col. 13)
is 10,000, and would eliminate 5000 of the known
sites, or approximately half of the sites in the 0-50
T.P.D. range.
The fact that regionalization increases landfill
operating size, and increases the significance of
transportation of wastes, makes the survey of landfill
capacity an important trend indicator. Equipment
needs on site will reflect site consolidation and new
markets and methods of transportation will become
more apparent to both public and private system
operators.
The 1974 survey showed that 17 states allowed
landfilling of shredded waste without the daily
application of cover material; 11 states reported they
would consider such a project on a case by case
basis. The current study reports 7 states which do not
require cover of milled or shredded waste and 24
.which would consider topless milled waste on a case
by case basis. Although the number of states which
would allow topless operation without question has
decreased, the number considering the site, situation
and technology has increased. WASTE AGE editors
interpret this to mean that an increasing number of
state agencies are accepting research and develop-
ment to guide their interpretation of "acceptable," but
are reserving their prerogative to determine where
and when the technology is applicable.
The 1976 survey shows a modest number of
impermeable liners and leachate treatments being
employed. Interestingly, more leachate treatment
facilities than liners have been installed. Editors of
WASTE AGE attribute this to the same cause as
indicated in 1974, either the facilities were installed to
correct existing conditions, or the fact that select soil
linings were excluded from those reported and,
therefore, the reported number of "liners" is less than
those actually installed.
Requirements for Sanitary Landfill permits
WASTE AGE again confirmed that most states
adhere rather closely to the federal guidelines for
landfill design. The data, although reported, is not
provided as it was felt that due to the uniformity of
response it might be concluded that:
Most States routinely require:
1) Topographic site surveys.
2) Legal description or survey of site.
3) Description of equipment for operation.
4) Some degree of zoning, land use, or
planning concurrence.
5) Fencing or access control.
Most states consider separately the specific
requirements for:
6) Observation wells or sampling points.
7) Impermeable barriers or site linings.
Few states require as a routine:
8) Scales for weighing incoming refuse.
Next month the survey will present that portion of
the survey related to the collection and transfer and
storage of wastes. Succeeding issues will cover
resource recovery, processing, hazardous wastes and
sludges.
WASTE AGE has been attempting to expand this
survey to include all of North America and United
States Possessions. To this end, we have included
reports from those received to date. Data from
Manitoba, Canada was received but is not included as
other Canadian Provinces did not respond similarly.
We appreciate the cooperation and assistance from
those agencies which did respond, and hope that this
section of the venture can be materially improved for
the next survey. •
JANUARY, 1977
VI-3
23
-------
EXCLUSIVE WASTE AGE SURVEY
(i)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(See Footnotes
(7)
REGION (*1
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
REGION #2
Delaware
New York
REGION #3
Maryland
Virginia
REGION #4
Alabama
Georgia
Mississippi
So. Carolina
REGION #5
Illinois
*
Michigan
Minnesota
REGION #6
Arkansas
New Mexico
Oklahoma
REGION #7
Iowa
Missouri
REGION #8
Colorado
Utah
No. Dakota
REGION #9
Arizona
•f . •.•).:„
Hawaii
REGION #10
Alaska
'•Jane
Oregon
Washing! on
TOTAL STATES
TERRITORIES
American Samoa
i'uerto Rico
GRAND TOTAL
State
Population
/ Provisional \
( 1975 Data ]
3,095,000
1.059.000
5,828,000
818.000
927,000
••..'1.000
12.198,000
579,000
-';'5.000
18.120.000
26,015,000
4,098,000
-> i 827.000
4,967,000
1.803.000
22,695,000
3.614.000
8.357.000
4.926,000
2.396.000
2,346,000
•3-i-YI.OOO
2,818,000
-1 -68.000
35,096,000
11,145,000
53H.OOO
9,157,000
10 759.000
3,926,000
•i. 607.000
44,905,000
2,116,000
3.791.000
1.147.000
12.237.000
2,712,000
22,003,000
2,870,000
2.267.000
4,763.000
1.546.000
11,446,000
2,534,000
748.000
1,206.000
374.000
635,000
683.000
6,180,000
2,224,000
21.185.000
865,000
592.000
24.866.000
352,000
820.000
2,288,000
3.S44.000
7,004,000
212.408,000
(1970 Data)
27,159
2,712.033
2,739,192
215,147,192
Metropolitan
Population
/ Provisional \
1974 Data
2,849,200
322,100
5,610,900
399.100
854,400
10,035,700
395,300
6 799.80C
16.057,900
23,253,000
3,495,400
9.546.SOC
3,228,300
669.500
16,929,000
2,204,600
6.778.200
2,760,300
1.563.700
604,700
2J36.400
1.338,700
•i 600.200
20,286,800
9,064,700
3.507400
7,442,100
8.600.500
2,473,200
2.752.500
33.840.400
793,000
2.370.900
378.900
9.418.800
1,507.300
14,468,900
1,055,100
976.300
3,050,100
685.100
5,766.600
2.030.200
178.800
928,500
79,000
98.400
3.314,900
1.598.000
19,448.800
691,200
462.200
22,201,000
148.800
131.500
1,368,700
2.495.500
4,144,500
154,241,000
(1970 Data)
2,451 x
1.408.482XX
1,410.933
155,651,933
x Capital-Pago Pago
xx Total Pop. of
4 Major
Metropolitan Areas
Number
of Cities
Over SHOO
93
15
15
12
204
5
206
210
421
45
271
46
29
391
56
100
62
43
39
66
41
199
83
116
193
77
80
37
56
23
183
.5?
351
58
46
81
24
34
14
24
8
12
12
104
19
266
9
7
301
5
18
35
45
103
3,294
0
43
43
3,337
Square
Miles of
Area
5,009
33.215
8,257
9.304
1,214
9.609
66,608
2,057
7.836
47,939
57,832
10,577
JO 333
39.838
24.181
119,929
51,609
58.560
58,876
40.395
47,716
52.712
31,055
42.244
383,167
55,930
36.291
58,216
41.222
84,068
56.154
331.881
53,104
45.106
121,666
267.338
68.887
556,101
56,032
82.264
77.227
285,209
104,247
147.138
84,916
97.281
70,665
77.047
581,294
113,909
158.693
6,424
109.788
388,814
586,400
83.557
96.248
68.192
834,397
3,605.232
76
3.435
3.511
Revision
State Solid
Waste
Legislation
Since 1974?
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
State Solid Waste
Bodget—$
1974 1976
3,608.734
372,21*
130,690
SSftOOO
1*000.
mass
234,891
1,017,000
1125,000
'64,000
1,460,891
65,000
330,000
704*34
.443.800
89,000
170,000
307,042
313,000
2,421,276
900,000
229,378
336,100
500.000
350,000
350,000
2,665,478
88,000
160,000
133,000
128,860
579,860
243,653
86,960
180,000
64,848
595,461
110.000
612,700
40,000
ssos
96,600
200,000
450,000
320,000
130,000'
425,000
75.000
349,000
90.000
1,389.000
100.000
560.000
871,548
1,531,548
218,445
1,333.000
200,000
±126.000
1,877,445
67.180
361.000
2,718,627
501.000
120,000
238.000
307.042*
314.400
4,625,249
801,000
276.200
524,000
535.000
420,000
500,000
3,056,200
100,000
70,000
136,460
713,580
120.000
1.140,040
285,000
118.000
197.000
132.334
732,334
150,000
750,000
81,000
53.592
65,000
117.000
1,216,592
158,758
2,000,000
50,000
96,392
2,305.150
312.000
134,000
387,953
650,000
1,383,953
19,257,511
0
160,000
19,417,511
24
WASTE AGE is printed on paper containing recycled secondary fibers
VI-4
-------
On Page 28)
(8)
Number of
State
Solid Waste
Employees
1974 1976
If
M
*4
ii2>
W'
tft'*
b*W
£»
fV
'3ft
t$s
-*ft$
^IAa
$N
I * '
,17 '
"•$$
-25
;,*
1'9
27
is13
135
•*»
10
*1,5
25
23
25
133.5
S
5
13
13
5
41.
16
4
13
e
39
4
10
3
0
2
5
24
4
22
4
2
32
6.5
16
7
14
5
S
5.3
S4.3
10
35
54
99
16
66
10
g
101
5
17
33
30
10
12
29
20
158
38
13
13.5
17.6
27
24
133.1
e
3.5
10
63
9
93.5
14
6
13
7
40
6
10.5
4
2
3
6
25.5
6
73
4
2.9
. 85.9
10
7 9
IS 20
19 23
46.5 62
651.5 ' B58.3
1.5
17
18.5
651.S 876.8
v^r
U<
.3.
(9)
1976
L^l
or\
^JDl
Utilization of State
A
2
1
2
0
0
0
5
1
5
3
9
1
4
0
0
5
0
5
2
1.5
2
0
2
1
13.5
1
1
0
1
15
2
20
D
1
2
2
.9
5.9
6
1
1.5
1
9.5
1
1
.5
0
.3
0
2.8
1.5
8.5
0
.3
10.3
1
^
2
2
e
89
0
1
1
90
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
6
0
1
0
1.35
2.35
1
0
1
1
1
1
3
2
10
1
1
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
2
.9
2,9
0
.5
0
1
1.5
1
1
.5
0
0
0
2.5
0
1
0
.2
1.2
1
0
0
0
1
32.46
0
. 1
1
33.45
tA-Planning
B-Training
C-Research
Solid
C
0
1
1
1
0
0
3
2
3
1
8
0
.1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
i
3
1
7
1
0
0
2
.9
3.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
o-
1
0
5
0
.2
5.2
0
0
2
G
2
32.1
0
0
0
32.1
Waste Perspnnelt
0
7
2
2
0
1
2
14
1
5
18
24
8
9
3.5
1.35
21.85
1
3
0
1.5
4
4
15
10
38.5
9
1
3
7.5
2
8
30.5
1
1.5
1
5
.9
9.4
1
.5
2
1
4.5
2
1
.5
1.5
.3
i
6.3
1.5
205
1
.3
23.3
2
3
7
10
22
194.35
0
1
1
195.35
E
5
2
&
Z
2
1.5
17.5
1
15
16
32
3
39
3.5
1.35
46.85
1.5
6
16
20
1
4
S
1
54.5
18
6
6
5.5
2
6
43.5
4
0
6
24
2.5
36.5
7
2
3.5
2
14.5
2
1.5
.5
0 -
.4
3.5
7.9
1.5
8
t
1
11.5
5
2
5
A
16
280.75
1.3
6
7.3
288.05
f
3
1
4
Z
2
1.8
13.8
3
5
11
19
4
12
3
2.70
21.70
1.5
0
6
3
1
3
4
4
22.5
4
4
4.5
2.6
5
3
23.1
2
1
1
14
2.9
20.9
0
2
3
2
7
0
4
2
.5
1
1.5
9
1.5
19
2
.9
23.4
1
1
4
4
10
170.4
.2
4
4.2
174.6
G .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3s
3
0
0
0
2.253
2.25
0
3'
10
3s
0
0
0
0
16
3
0
0
0
0
21
S
0
0
0
146
0
14
0
0
3s
0
3
0
1
O1
0
111
0
2
0
t1'2
0
0
11
0
0
0
3s
3
59.25
0
4s
4
63.25
"\L r
(18)
State
Attitide
Toward
Regional
Authority
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
All.
Encg.
All.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
AH.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
All.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
Encg.
All.
All,
All.
All.
Encg.
Encg.
All.
Encg.
Encg.
Ign.
All.
Encg.
All.
Encg.
Ign.
All
Encg.
Encq
Ign.
Encg.
K/A
(ID
State
attitude
Toward
Interstate
Transfer
Sup.
Disc.
Disc.
Disc.
Disc.
Disc.
Sup.
Disc.
Sup.
Ign.
Sup.
Sup.
Disc.
Sup.
Sup
Disc.
Sup.
Disc.
Disc.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup,
Disc
Disc.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
Disc.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
No. Nd.
Disc.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
Sup.
N/A
Disc.
N/A
Disc.
Sup.
Sup.
N/A
N/A
E-Enforcement
F-Administration
G-Other
D-Technicai Assistance
PRACTICES
112) (13) (14)
Number Number of Number el
of Sites Landfill Sites With
With Im- Impermeaile Leachate
permeable Linings Treatment
Linings Installed Facilities
In 1974 Since 1974 In 1974
o oo
o oo
o oo
0 00
o oo
1 0 0
0 1 1
1 2 1
3 1 0
0 02
5 66
1 0 1
0 09
~7 H 18
0 0 1
0 26
0 00
0 04
0 00
o oo
0 00
J? _0 _2
0 2 13
1 0 0
0 00
3 53
0 02
2 2» 1
_0 _6 _2
6 13 8
0 0 1
1 0 0
0 00
2 SO1 12
J> _0 J>
3 50 13
0 1.0
0 00
0 03
0 00
0 30
0 00
0 00
UK 1 0
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 1 0
0 00
0 0 1
0 00
0 1 0
0 03
21 82 61
82 61
See Notes for Survey Data
on page 28
JANUARY, 1977
VI-5
25
-------
EXCLUSIVE WASTE AGE SURVEY
REGION #1
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION #2
Delaware
New Jersey
New York
REGION #3
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
REGION #4
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
No. Carolina
So. Carolina
Tennessee
REGION #5
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Minnesota
Wisconsin
REGION #6
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
REGION #7
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION #8
Colorado
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
No. Dakota
So. Dakota
REGION #9
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
REGION #10
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL STATES
TERRITORIES
American Samoa
Puerto Rico
GRAND TOTAL
(15)
Number of
Leacnate
Treatment
Facilities
Installed in
Landfills
Since 1974
213,1,
4
0
14
0
0
0
80
1
0
0
0
0
1
82
0
0
2
4
0
5
0
20
0
0
20
1
1
8
_6
16
154
154
(16)
Application
of Daily
Coyer (her
Milled Refuse
Is
Req.
Cs. Del
Req.
Cs. Det.
Req.
Req.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Req.
Req.
NR
Req.
Req.
N/A
Req.
NR
Req.
Req.
Req.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Req.
NR
Req.
Cs. Det.
Req.
Cs. Det.
Req.
Cs. Det.
NR
Cs. Det.
Req.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
NR
NR
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Req.
Cs. Det.
Req.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Cs. Det.
Req.
(17)
Number of
Known Land
Disnosal Sites
1974 1976
144
367
324
180
38
95
1,148
150>
307
+800
1,257
91
379
188
+ 300
958
143
500
62S
147
274
162
276-
250
2,377
404
1.51
888
290
800
1,314
3,647
±450
387
1,000
1,525
607
3,869
500
300
390
400
1,590
+255
514
272
±80
412
369
1,902
160
441
42'
120
763
200
190
241
397
1,029
18,539
,
18,539
170
445
360
165
35
98
1,273
30
338
662
1,030
79
415
235
207
936
140
355
625
344
274
170
222
126
2,256
465
149
700
250
405
1,300
3,269
400
265
540
1,097
507
2,809
300
198
253
400'
1,151
231
245
200
100
200
300
1,276
144
430
30
120
724
400
120
167
410
1,097
15,821
+3
69
69
15,893
(18)
No. of Sites
Licensed Permitted
Or Otherwise
Recognized As
Sanitary Landfill
In Compliance With
State Regulations
1974 1976
SO
6
•w
42
• 7
20
225
39-
138
_M
6M
39
129
t73
42
383
111
35
150
147
64
156
178
102
931
S25
110
214
260
111
1.200
2,120
47
61
50
236
lit
805
NH
" 40
48
53
141
125
70
3
D/N/A
D/WA
16
214
70
107
0
17
194
42
30
160
30
288
5,596
,
5,598
54
15
100
61
35
60
325
30
210
421
661
49
111
210
52
422
126
238
122
144
78
170
217
112
1,207
287
126
295
242
135
289
1,374
74
60
SO
293
165
642
94
103
117
62
376
67
124
9
10
23
28
261
78
UK
21 1
32
131
84
40
167
50
341
5,740
2
36
38
5,778
(See Footnotes
(19)
Number of
Authorized
Landfills
1974 1976
144
0
75
138
0
55
412
0
f38
+378
514
67
0
173
24
264
23
179
125
0
0
UK
100
10
437
• 0
110
165
10
20
UK
305
UK
0
400
110
243
753
38
120
66
70
314
255
UK
4
D/N/A
D/N/A
+ 16
m
0
195
24
103
322
0
20
133
43
196
3J92-
3,792
170
445
200
56
35
60
966
30
278
421
729
49
200
210
60
519
134
66
122
167
78
170
217
121
1,075
330
126
445
242
135
1,300
2,578
87
60
319
1,045
165
1,676
108
198
117
200
623
126
124
13
65
60
34
422
N/A
430
21
120
571
300
47
167
320
834
9.993
3
36
39
10.032
26
WASTE AGE is printed on paper containing recycled secondary fibers
VI-6
-------
On Page 28}
OF U.S. DISPOSAL PRACTICES
(20)
(21)
•TONS PER DAY
A-0-50
B-50-100
C-100-200
D-200-500
E-500-1,000
F-1,000 or more
G-Unknown
(22)
Number of Approved Sites
Publicly Publicly Privately Number of
Owned Owned and Owned Number of Landfills Landfill
And Contractually And With Daily Operating Closures
Operated Operated Operated Capacities of" Since
1974 1976 1974 1976 1974 197E A 8 C 0 E F G 1974
65
—
90
36
4
5
m
UK
69
340
409
28
52
129
31
240
, 100
35
too
65
$2°
140
UK
67
559
SO
49
K19
130
j 23
1,050
1.421
35
14'5
90
5710.15
22
30
248
4
0
—
—
0
-~
$
5
UK
100 0
336
440
4515
49' 5
190
31
315
117
209'5
99
71
70
155
81
24
24
2
0
3
0
—
1
1
10
15
6
0
Si 16 120 33 15 2 0 0 0 -5
— 11! 441 310000 -20
6 10 300 30 13 10 5 2 0 24
6 3 157' 521000 0
3 i 12 30 113000 4
10 | 20 97' i 0 0 0 0 0 22
', "30 62 1,145 73 32 16 5 2 0 75
IflC 20 10 10 4 3 2 1 0 12
69 110 200 13 15 12 11 9 78 8
0 60 85 363' 150 110 7 25 7 0 135-140
6
1«
129 215 573 173 129 22 38 17 78 160
9 . 315 43 10 9 5 10 2 0 ±10
1 12 77 5015 328 59 12 4 2 10 0 56
35 0
1 0
39 j 13
S
Q
5
Z
0
4
UK
102 25
6
9 20 139 48 24 24 0 0 0 20
10 ' 21 192 663000 45
105 94 702 123 51 36 12 12 ~0 ±131
3 3 80 41 10 4 4 1 0 27
0 0 I 29'5 232 37 34 23 10 4 15 85
2 45 21 511 50 25 25 10 4 0 204
1 SO ' 72 322 13 2 5 1 1 0 200
0 ' 8 8 206' 14 18 25 10 1 0 160
0 12 15 0 0 69 20 75 fi d n
1
4
UK 135 113' 17 23 47 20 2 0 10
10 6 31 30 53 4 3 5 0 12
904 44 j 14 152 289 1,495 202 234 153 133 24 15 698
63 " Q 20
32
145
105
25
*M?
0
50
5
0
17S 204 218' 75 37 47 52 36 0 102
36 44 91' 22 19 1 -1 2 1 0 UK
8S 145 700 50
»30 137 26' 60 75 75 12 2 0 20
45 i 36 30 S2 60 371 34 0 0 0 0 0 2
214
604
28
49
49
224
62
412
26
' 30
17
25
88
0/N/A
50
3
0
0/N/A
14
~67
60
87
0/N/A
11
158
26
9
125
IS
m
3^89
•5Sj
52
45
46
265
110
518
68
65
36
55
224
10 3 14O 72 1.220 30 23 15 10 2 0 130
81
0
0
«
0
0
1
S
6
1
19
108 618 662 1,926 221 154 151 76 41 700 ±304
'
1 19 21 385 10 4 1 0 0 0 5
0 12 15 0 0 0 :o 0 o' 255 6
4
3
0
8
13
32
9
2
31 I 56
i
33
89
8'
5
21
8
164
64
No. Upd.
17
19
100
5
5
94"
40
144
3,661
2
36
38
3,699
O/N/A
17
0
X
D/N/A
0
17 I
1
25
1'
0
0
16
43
10 8
0 i No. Upd.
DMA
6
18
2
21
5
10
38
0
8
16
39
34
26
5
104
29$ j 383
"*""*' i
^
0
J)
0
383
0 0 537 210000 UK
12 25 1.009 30 18 '14 22 4 0 40'
49 55 507 ±100
92 116 1,931 42 23 25 22 4 762 ±151
5 13 255' 25 15 4 1 0 0 1
4 6 150 43 0 2 2 1 0 150
30 72 211' 22 2 6 4 0 8 285
9 5 397 102000 32
48 96 1,013 91 17 14 7 ~T ~8 468
BWA 33 178 24 23 2 2 2 0 25
3 10 239 240000 -60
0 0 100 70 18 5 7 0 0 41
0 5 98 2 0 r 0 0 0 7
D/N/A 2 196 400000 60
Z 4 298 2 0 C 0 0 C 0
S 54 1,109 104 45 7 9 2 0 193
9 6 127 653300 28
20 No. Upd. 230 45 35 35 20 20 45 UK
OWA 4 17' 362200 1
' O 5 l 18 '0 1 0 1 0 0 UK
20 15 492 54 47 40 26 20 45 29
t4 40 397 012000 6
'0 1 50 30 30 10 0 0 :< 30
50 47 157 224020 36
S 5 140 50 10 5 3 3 199 90
*9 93 744 82 43 21 3 5 199 162
1,268 1,696 11,130 1,165 775 485 331 128 1,807 2,371
Ols 2 100000 2
' 0 33' 29 6 0 0 1 0 0
0 35 30 6 0 0 1 0 2
IS] 1,696 11,165 1,195 781 485 331 129 1,807 2,373
JANUARY, 1977
VI-7
27
-------
NOTES FOR SURVEY DATA
Abbreviations
All. = Allows
Cs. Del. = Case Determination
Disc. = Discoucages
Enog. = Encourages
Ign. = Ignores
N/A = Not Applicable
No. Nd. = No Need
NR = Not Required
Req- = Required
Sup. = Supports
UK = Unknown
D/N/A = Did Nol Apply
No. Upd. = Not Updated
Footnotes
(1) Editor supplied number based on typical responses
from similar programs.
utilized where new data was not
Inspection and Permits.
Hazardous waste.
Clay liners only.
Program development.
11 permits—3 hazardous waste.
Financial assistance.
Includes 5 sites privately owned and publicly operated.
Abandoned auto program.
(2) 1974 number
supplied.
(3) Surveillance.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12) Data management and demonstration studies.
(13) Spray irrigation.
(14) Recirculation method not reported.
(15) Number reported here by state was total for all sites
which editor proportioned to equal answer in question
#14.
The following notes are intended to provide the reader with
further information about specific questions asked in the
WASTE AGE survey.
GENERAL
Where ± symbol exists totals were not altered to reflect
inexact knowledge on part of respondents.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 5
States have reported current dates and amendments as
appropriate.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 6
Interviewees were asked to provide gross budget figures
making no differentiation between fund sources. The figures
provided are intended to reflect working budgets including
manpower and minor contractual expenditures.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 8
The answer to this question was generally made in terms
of man-years of effort rather than full time employees. Most
states have other employee support not indicated in this
total, such as county, local or regional health and environ-
mental control personnel.
The interviewers attemped to conform all answers to the
format shown. In general the distribution of personnel re-
flects the state's interests and activities as presently viewed.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 10
This question evoked great discussion especially from
states where there is current legal action over interstate
movement and those states for whom interstate transfer is
of doubtful value such as Alaska and Hawaii.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 11
This question referred specifically to the use of shredding
equipment with respect to landfilling, not waste control
facilities in general.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 12
The responses include artificial lining, asphalt, concrete,
rubber, plastic, etc., as opposed to recompacted on-site
soils.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 13
The interviewers tried to limit "treatment facilities" to
those having actual process equipment. Some respondees
may have included lagoons and temporary basins.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 14
This question includes all sites the state wished to report
as a total: including dumps, sanitary landfills and other land
disposal classifications. Please note where this number was
not provided by the state's representative, the WASTE AGE
editors have provided an estimate.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 15
Where states did not report any numbers, the sanitary
landfill permitting program had not been established by the
date of the survey.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 16
This question was interpreted to mean those sites which,
because of the service performed, should be in compliance
with state regulations. It includes modified sanitary landfills,
a classification which could not be reported in' col. 15. These
sites do include the permitted fills identified in col. 15.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 17
This question was answered to the best of the respon-
dent's ability. In most cases, the knowledge of sites which
were publicly owned, but privately contracted for operation,
was less relible than the knowledge of sites which were
either publicly owned and operated, or privately owned and
operated.
It must be remembered that the above category divisions
may not be precisely correct, as they represent the best
estimtes of those interviewed. The numbers in this column
equal the total number of permitted landfills as recorded in
col. 15. It must also be remembered that this percentage
breakdown between public and private operation is based
on a count of only those sites which have actually been
permitted to date.
The reader should know that there are distinct prefer-
ences for either public or private operations that are re-
gionally noticeable, but not necessarily predictable.
These figures refer only to the actual number of sites and
do not reflect volume or tonnage -handled.
NOTE FOR COLUMN 18
The answers to this question -are somewhat suspect.
Each state itemized in accordance with their record keeping.
Closure is a nebulous term in most instances.
28
WASTE AGE is printed on paper containing recycled secondary fibers
VI-C
-------
APPENDIX VII
EPA MEMO ON LANDSPREADING
-------
Impact of Annual Cadmium Application Rates
on Current Municipal Sludge Landspreading Practices
The proposed Solid Waste Disposal Criteria required
under Section 4004 of RCRA include a phased reduction in the
total annual quantity of cadmium which may be added to
agricultural land. The phasing begins at 2.0 kg/ha/yr and
decreases to 0.5 kg/ha/yr by 1986. The following assessment
is an attempt to quantify the impact of selected cadmium
loading rates on current practices.
Data
This assessment is based on the best available data
from 141 cities. It is widely assumed that the total sludge
generated is approximately 5 million dry metric tons per
year and 20% of that is agriculturally landspread. Based on
those assumptions, this assessment represents approximately
thirty percent of the total sludge generated and about one-
quarter of the total sludge currently being landspread on
agricultural land. The 13 largest cities and 20 of 48
cities whose population exceeds 300,000 are included.
Sources of information include telephone conversations with
major cities and EPA regional offices, construction grant
design and planning reports, research reports and published
articles.
Findings
The impact on current practices of initiating the
phased reduction in maximum annual cadmium additions at 1.0
VII-1
-------
rather than 2.0 kg/ha is difficult to predict. However the
impact on the 141 cities included in this survey indicates
the following:
° Impact on communities currently landspreading;
Excluding Chicago, the percentage of sludge currently
being landspread in this assessment which could
not be applied at a rate of 20 mt/ha/yr increases
from 11% (at 2.0 kg/ha) to 19% (at 1.0 kg/ha). A
significantly higher (but unknown) percentage of
the communities in the survey will be affected by
this change. This impact wi.ll be in the form of
increased costs due to the increase in land
required for application at lower rates.
0 Impact on communities considering converting from ocean
disposal to landspreading; The total quantity of
sludge in this survey which is disposed of in the
oceans is 615 dry mt/day. If 50% of this volume
were diverted to land application the percentage
which could not be applied at a rate of 20 mt/ha/yr
increases from 20% (at 2.0 kg/ha) to 33% (at 1.0
kg/ha). If this entire volume was diverted to
land application, the percentage which could not
be applied at a rate of 20 mt/ha/yr increases from
25% to 60%.
VII-2
-------
Impact on sludge give away/sale programs; The
impact of initiating the annual cadmium restriction
at 1.0 kg/ha rather than 2.0 kg/ha on the 758 dry
metric tons of sludge which is given away or sold
daily is impossible to quantify. This is due to
the fact that there is no practical way to assure
compliance by the end user. Several State regulatory
approaches are possible (e.g., restrictions based
on sludge quality, end use or labeling requirements).
While the annual cadmium application will have
little direct impact on giveaway/sale programs,
the severity of the cadmium restrictions will
impact the regulatory approach selected by the
States.
Impact on future alternatives available to cities
which do not currently landspread: While not
specifically included in this assessment, the
Criteria will affect sludge disposal decisions
which are currently being made. Of the 77 communities
in the survey which neither landspread nor ocean
dump, 20 would be restricted from applying 20
mt/ha/yr at 2.0 kg/ha/yr while 26 would be restricted
at the 1.0 kg/ha/yr Jevel.
VII-3
-------
Assumptions
This assessment examines the impact of various maximum
annual cadmium limitations on cities which desire to landspread
municipal sludge at 10 and 20 metric tons per hectare per
year. It was assumed that these would be typical application
rates following the promulgation of these Criteria. This
assumption is based on the following:
- The Technical Bulletin suggests "as a guide,
sludge application rates should provide total
plant available nitrogen equivalent to the nitrogen
fertilizer requirement of the crop grown." (The
Bulletin does recognize that higher'rates have
been successful.)
- Plant available nitrogen in sludge typically
ranges from 0.5-4% (higher and lower percentages
can be found).
- An OSW study of nine landspreading operations
showed a median pla^it available nitrogen content
of 1.3%.
- In qrder to maximize the total amount of sludge
necessary to meet crop nitrogen needs we selected
a common but relatively low available nitrogen
concentration in sludge. (1%) and a high nitrogen
demanding crop (corn).
Under these conditions, approximately 20 mt/ha/yr
of sludge would be required to meet the nitrogen
demands of corn.
VII-4
-------
- It was assumed that 10 mt/ha/yr would be near the
lower end of the economically viable range of
application rates.
It is important to recognize that annual application rates
in excess of 20 mt/ha are not uncommon today. Many of the
facilities employing these higher rates will be able to
continue their current practices, particularly if their
sludge has low concentrations of nitrogen and cadmium.
Other communities will be forced to modify their -practices.
With the1 exception of major land reclamation projects, it is
unlikely that a maximum application rate of approximately 20
mt/ha would force many site closures other than for sites
applying high cadmium sludges.
Attachment 1 shows current practices including land-
spreading, landfilling and ocean disposal. Fifty nine of
these cities landspread all or a portion of their sludge on
agricultural (food chain) land. The left side of the chart
entitled "Sludge Quantity Which Cannot be Landspread"
pertains only to those cities which currently landspread
sludge. It does not include the 758 dry metric tons of
sludge per day which is given away or sold. This volume was
excluded because there is no practical way to assure user
compliance with the cadmium loading rate Criteria.
Attachment 2 shows the potential impact of the suggested
cadmium limitations on those cities which currently dispose
of sludge in the oceans. It was assumed that in one case
VII-5
-------
50% of the sludge volume in each city would be landspread
and the remainder would be landfilled, incinerated, etc. A
second case assuming 100% conversion to landspreading is
also included.
Analysis
This data includes 672 dry metric tons per day of
sludge spread on land used for the production of food chain
crops. This represents 25% of the total 2,700 dry metric tons-
per day landspread.
The City of Chicago will most likely select the crop
quality alternative to controlling cadmium rather than the
phased reduction in permissible annual application. There-
fore, the following analysis does not include Chicago's
sludge.
Table I summarizes Attachment 1. It shows the quantity
of sludge which cannot be landspread at 10 and 20 metric
tons per hectare per year for the various maximum annual
cadmium additions being considered. No attempt has been
made to extrapolate this data beyond the 58 cities surveyed.
The first row 'of the chart shows that the total volume of
sludge in the sample which could not be landspread at rates
in excess of 20 mt/ha/yr would increase from 54 mt/day to 93
rat/day if the maximum annual cadm'ium limitation was changed
from 2.0 kg/ha to 1.0 kg/ha. The bottom portion of the
chart shows that the number of cities impacted increases from
8 to 13 (out of a total of 58).
VII-6
-------
TABLE I
TOTAL SLUDGE WHICH CANNOT BE LANDSPREAD
IN THE CITIES SURVEYED*
Sludge Quantity Which Cannot be Landspread
(Dry mt/day)
Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (Cd/ha/yr)
2.0 kg 1.25 kg 1.0 kg 0.5 kq
10
20
Maximum Application Rate (mt/ha)
10 20 10 20 10
20
Total Volume
(mt/day)
% of Current
Volume being
landspread in
58 Cities
Number of
Cities
17
54
11
54
11
76
16
11
54
11
93
19
13
93
19
13
243
50
17
* Based on the 58 cities surveyed which landspread sludge (does not include Chicago)
-------
It is important to note that a greater number of
facilities will be impacted to various degrees of severity
by these limitations. This impact, for the most part, will
be in the form of increased land requirements resulting from
the need to reduce current application rates. Unfortunately
data simply is not available to predict these impacts.
It is interesting to note that the annual cadmium
limitation is not likely to eliminate current landspreading
practices in any of the cities surveyed having a population
greater than 150,000. This is due to the following:
Most of these cities do not*'landspread on agricultural
land.
Several compost, heat dry, sell or give away their
sludge. The Criteria has minimal control over
these practices. However, the levels established
may have a secondary impact on such practices
(e.g., the establishment of State regulations
governing the quality of sludge which is suitable
for give away or sale).
- Those that landspread (except Chicago) do not
have exceedingly high sludge cadmium concentrations.
Attachment 2 provides an assessment of the impact the
Criteria would have on cities currently using the ocean
for sludge disposal. Since it may not be realistic to
assume that all of this sludge would be diverted to food
chain lands, two assessments were performed. The- first
VII-8
-------
assumes that 50% of the sludge produced in each city would
be landspread. In this case, Los Angeles, and to a lesser
degree Boston, would be restricted from spreading sludge on
agricultural land if the annual cadmium limit was changed
from 2.0 kg/ha to 1.0 kg/ha.
These cities are served by several treatment plants
having widely varying cadmium concentrations. It was assumed
that each city would choose to landspread its less con-
taminated sludge first. Therefore, the impact of the
Criteria will increase as the total percentage of sludge
being diverted from the oceans to lanQ'spreading increases.
The second assessment shown in Attachment 2 (100% conversion
to landspreading) confirms this fact.
Attachment 1 includes 758 dry metric tons of sludge
which is given away or sold each day. The maximum annual
cadmium application rate restriction will not directly
impact much of this volume since there is no reliable way
for the sewage treatment plant operator to assure user
compliance. However, it is likely that States may decide to
regulate these practices by the implementation of alternative
controls. There •<•• -e three general enforcement methods which
may be selected. These are:
Labeling; Particular uses of bagged products could be
encouraged or discouraged in printing on the bag. Bulk
sales and giveaway programs would have to identify
recommended uses.
VII-9
-------
Controlled Distribution: The community could be
required to control the distribution of sludge to
assure that certain types of users (e.g., homeowners)
could not use the product.
Sludge Quality Limitations: Some States may control
the sale or giveaway of sludge by limiting the amount
of Cadmium which is allowed in these products.
While the establishment of sludge quality limitations
would provide the greatest protection, this approach would
have the greatest impact on current practices. For example,
if the maximum cadmium concentration was established at 25
rag/kg, the Cities of Chicago, Los Angeles and "Milwaukee
would be forced to select different disposal options.
The establishment of labeling requirements would have
varying effects on sludge giveaway and sale programs since
the wording of the label could significantly affect product
sales.
Given the fact that some States will select one or a
combination of the above approaches, the posture which the
Agency takes on the level at which we initiate the phased
reduction in annual cadmium additions will impact State
decisions on how restrictive their own regulations should
be.
VII-10
-------
Attachment 1
Impact of Annual Cadmium Application Rates on Current Landspreading Practices
Sludge Quantity Which Cannot be Landspread
(Dry mt/day)
Present Sludge
Sludge Quantity
City Disposition (Dry mt7da
New York, NY
(and sections
of metro area)
Chicago, IL
(metro area)
Los Angeles
Co., CA
Philadelphia,
PA
Detroit, MI
Houston, TX
Ocean
Agri. Land
(Fulton County)
Heat Dried for
Brokerage Sale
Nu Earth
Othf>r Disposal
Ocean
Sale for
Compost
Ocean
Compost
Incineration
Heat Dried for
228
182
109
55
172
127
295
168
14
145
91
Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (Cd/ha/yr)
Sludge 2.0 kq 1.25 kg 1.0 kg 0.5 kg
Cd Total
Content Landspread Maximum Application Rate (mt/ha)
y) (mg/kg) (Dry mt/day) 10 20 10 - 20 10 - 20 .10 - 20
6-189
300 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182
10.-210
120
60
26- 93
290
17- 22
Brokerage Sale
Baltimore, MD Landfill
112
7- 9
-------
Sludqo Quantity Which Cannot bo LnmlRprn.Tid_( Wr.y/w
Sludge
Present Sludge Cd Total
Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (Cd/hn/yr)
2.0 kg 1.25 kg 1.0 ko
0.5 kg
Slucl«jQ Quantity Content Landspread Maximum Application Rate (mt/lia) " ""
City Dir.uosition (Drv mt/dav) (mq/ko) (Dry mt/day 10 - 20 - - 10 - 20 10-20 10 20
Dallas, TX
hMr.hinqton,
DC
Cleveland,
Oil
Indianapolis,
IN
Milwaukee Co.,
VII
*— 1
i San Francisco
f^ Co. CA
Boston, MA
Denver, CO
Seattle, WA
Atlanta, CA
Newark, NJ
Unknown
Miami, FL
Tampa, FL
Lngoon
Landfill
Compost
LandCill
Incineration
tlcat Dried
(Milorganite)
Retail &
Brokerage
Agric. Land
Landfill
Public Park Use
Ocean
Agric. Land
32
33Q
14
114
140
171
82
45
2
78
64
Landfill and 33
Non-Agric. Land
Landfill and 20
Non-Agric. Land
Incineration
Agric. Land
Non-Agric.
Land
Non-Agic.
Land
104
45
15
9
59
22
22
390-570
240-260
107
50 82 82
50
10
35-115
46 64 6*
48
104
173
19 45
150
10
-------
Sludge
Sludge Quantity Which Cannot be Landspread (Dry/mt/day)
Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (Cd/ha/yr)
City
Unknown
Little Ferry,
NJ, Regional
Unknown
Unknown
Grand Rapids,
MI
Flint, MI
Syracuse, NY
Madison, WI
Unknown
Warren, MI
Unknown
Unknown
Macon, GA
Present Sludge
Sludge Quantity
Disposition (Dry mt/dayj
Agric. Land 30
Plant
Agric.
Agric.
Solvay
Agric.
Agric.
Agric.
Agric.
Land
Land
Process
Land
Land
Land
Land
Elizabeth, NJ
Camden, NJ
Springfield
MO
Ocean
Agric.
Land
38
23
23
23
23
22
14
18
17
14
14
15
25
14
13
Cd Total
2.0 kg 1.25 kg 1.0 kg 0.5 k<
Content Landspread Maximum Application Rate (mt/ha)
) (mg/kg) (Dry mt/day 10 - 20 10 20 10 20 10 -
11 30
240
9 23
13 23
480
20
200
73
160 18
110
100 14
5 14
« 15
72
41
54 13
18 18 18 18 18 18 3
14 14 14 1
13 13 1
Page 3
-------
City
Saginaw, MI
Pontiac, MI
Kalamazoo, MI
Ann Arbor, MI
Unknown
Unknown
Anderson, in-
Unknown
Unknown
Kokomo, IN
Wyoming, MI
Bay City, Ml
Jackson, MI
Unknown
Danville, Va
Muskegon, MI
Linden, NJ
Battle Creek, MI
Unknown
Present Sludge
Sludge Quantity
Disposition (Dry nit/day)
11
I
I
Agric. Land
Agric. Land
Agric. Land
Agric. Land
Agric. Land
Lagoon
Agric. Land
Agric. Land
, MI
Agric. Land
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
Sludge
Cd Total
Content Landspread
(mg/kg) (Dry mt/day
48
12
12
4
10 9
269 9
170 9
176 8
17 8
806
14
80
520
7 5
18 5
166
65
8
683 5
Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (Cd/ha/yr)
2.0 kg 1.25 kg 1.0 kg 0.5 kg
Maximum Application Rate (mt/ha)
10-20 ' 10 20 10 20 10 20
99999999
9999999
8 8 8 8 888
3
55555555
Page 4
-------
Sludge Quantity Which Cannot be Landapread (Dry/mt/day)
Sludge
Present Sludge Cd Total
Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (Cd/ha/yr)
2.0 kg 1.25 kg 1.0 kg 0.5 kg
Sludge Quantity
City Disposition (Dry mt/day)
Unknown Agric . Land
Unknown Agric. Land
Port Huron, MI
E. Lansing, MI
Unknown Landfill and
Agric. Land
Ithaca, NY Non-Agric . Land
Easton, PA Landfill
Midland, MI
Unknown Agric. Land
i-i Unknown Agric. Land
— ' Unknown Agric. Land
en
Columbus, IN Agric. Land
Holland, MI
Ypsilanti, MI
sayreville, NJ
(Regional Plant)
Unknown Agric. Land
Hopkinsville, Agric. Land
IN
Xenia, OH Agric. Land
"nknown Aaric. Land
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
61
3
3
3
3
Content Landopread
i (mg/kg) (Dry mt/day 10 - 20
95 ' 5
16 5
e
6
4 2
66
16
10
61 4
38 4
11 4
2 3
10
166
39
12 3
18 3
BO 3
7 3
Maximum Application Rate (mt/ha)
10 20 10 20 10 - 20
5 555
444
4
3 333
Page 5
-------
cr>
Sludge
Present Sludge Cd Total
Sludge Quantity Which Cannot be Landspread (Drv/mt/day)
Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (Cd/ha/yr)
1.25 kg 1.0 kg 0.5 kg
Sludge Quantity Content Landspread Maximum Application Rate (mt/ha)
City Disposition (Dry lat/dav) (tna/ka) (Drv mt/dav 10 20 10-20 10-20 10 - 20
Monroe, MI
Unknown Agric. Land
Marque tte, MI
Muskegon Heights,
MI
Mt. demons, MI
Trenton, MI
Sault St.
Marie, MI
Logansport, IN
Transverse City, MI
Adrian, MI
Owosso, MI
Mt. Pleasant, MI
Benton Harbor, MI
Escanaba, MI
Dixon, IL Agric. Land
Frankfort, IN Agric. Land
Las Virgenes, Agric. Land
CA
Unknown Agric. Land
Peru, IN
•— •
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
10 3
2
150
12
8
2
663
10
260
1,110
14
220
10
16 2
3,171 2 22222222
5 2
8 2
154
Page 6
-------
Sludge
Present Sludge Cd Total
Sludgo Quantity Which Cannot be Landsprcnd (Dry/rat/day)
Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (Cd/ha/yr)
2.0 kg 1.25 kg 1.0 kg 0.5 ko
City
Crawfordsvillo,
IN
Unknown
Iron Mt., MI
Albion, MI
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Niles, MI
Grand Haven, MI
Menominee, MI
Cadillac, MI
Lebanon, IN
Noblesville, IN
Marshall, MO
Wilmington, I
Unknown
Unknown
Charlotte, MI
Sludge Quantity Content Landspread Maximum Applicatlbn1"Rate' (mt/ha)
Disposition (Dry mt/dav) (rug/kg) (Dry mt/day 10 - 20 10 20 10 20 10 - 20
•o,
Agric.
Agric.
Agric.
Agric.
MI
Agric .
IN
Agric .
)H Agric.
Agric.
Agric.
r
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
16D
6
48
16
9
19
14
14
4
36
40
12
16
15
7
1
14
""' ' '
2 2222222
2
2
2
1 1
1
1
1
1
Page 7
-------
Sludge
Present Sludge Cd Total
Sludge Quantity Which Cannot bo Landanread (Dry/mt/day)
Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (Cd/ha/yr)
2.0 kq 1.25 kq 1.0 ko 0.5 kg
Sludge Quantity
City Disposition (Dry mt/day)
Ironwood, MI 1
Hancock, MI
Three Rivers, MI
Chippewa
Falls, WI
Litchfield, IL
Kendallville,
IN
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
~ Marshall, Ml
i
-? Gladstone, MI
Howell, MI
Manistique, MI
Tipton, IN
Unknown
Unknown
Milford. MI
Essexville, MI
Agric.
Agric.
Agric.
Agric.
Agric.
Agric.
Agrio.
Agrio.
Agric.
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
X
1
1
1
1
.5
.5
.5
.5
Content Landspread Maximum Application Rate (mt/ha)
(mg/kq) (Drv mt/day 10 - 20 10 20 10-20 10 20
4
4
44
7 1
61 !
28 1
22 1
18 1
970 1 11111111
16 1
16
4
18
4
11
10 .5
9 .5
2
4
Page 8
-------
tJj
Present Sludge
Sludge Quantity
City Disposition (Dry rot/day)
Norway, MI
St. Ignacc,MI
Unknown Agric.
Unknown Agric.
Unknown Ayric.
Unknown Agric.
Constantino, MI*
Ucxtor, MI
Ldnse, MI
Unknown Ayric.
TOTALS*
.5
.5
Land . 5
Land . 5
Land . 5
Land . 5
.5
.5
15
Land . 3
3,706
S1"j9° Maximum Annual Cadmium Addition (t.'el/li.Vyr)
£ r , , T<^tal , 2*° kq • K:25 Vt> *-° kf' o.
/mn'/v^ in "?*% ,« Maximum Application Knto (mi./hnl ' ~
JjgqAg) (Dry mt/day 10 - 20 10 - 20 10 - ?o 'n
2
4
7 .5
23 .5
9 .5
8 .5
16
36
e
13 .3
672 x 17 54 54 75 54 03 93
490*
20
3,706 « 30% of
sludge generated
in U.S.
672 « 25% of sludge
agriculturally Inndspread
490 - Landsprarfding total
excluding Chicago
Chicago will select the crop monitoring approach. Therefore it
is not included in the "sludge quantity which cannot be landsprcnd"
totals.
-------
Attachment 2
Impact of Annual Cadmium Application Rates on Cities Converting
50% and 100% of Sludge Currently Being Disposed in the Ocean to Agricultural Landspreading
Sludge Quantity Which Cannot be Landspread
(Dry mt/day)
«s
ro
o
City
50% OF SLUDGE TO
New York, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Boston, MA
Los Angeles, CA
Camden, NJ
TOTALS
Sludge
Quantity
(Dry mt/dav)
LANDSPREADING
228
168
78
127
14
615
Sludge
Cd
Content
(mg/kg).
6-189
26- 93
35-115
120
41
100% OF SLUDGE TO LANDSPREADING
New York, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Boston, MA
Los Angeles, CA
Camden, NJ
228
168
78
127
14
6-189
26- 93
35-115
120
41
Maximum Annual
2.0 kg 1.25 kg
Cadmium Addition
1.0 kg
Maximum Application
10-20 10 20 10
10
63 63
0 63 0 73
6 6 81
84
20 20
127 127
10
63
73
6
20
127
(Cd/ha/yr)
0.
Rate (mt/ha)
20 10
39
63
102
81
84
78
127
39
63
102
81
84
78
127
5 kg
20
3
84
39
63
7
196
147
168
78
127
13
TOTALS
615
153
312
153
370
370
534
-------
REFERENCES*
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Strategic environmental assessment system: residuals
forcasting. International Research and Technology
Corporation, February 1976. 59p. (Distributed by NTIS,
Springfield, VA as PB-252041.)
Comparing conventionally landfilled solid waste with
processed landfilled solid waste. Floyd G. Brown and
Associates, Ltd. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency 1973. 136p. (Distributed by National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, as PB-253 304).
Effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources and
standards of performance for new sources, National Field
Investigation Center, Environmental Protection Agency.
August "1974 (Distributed by NTIS, Springfield, VA. as
PB-257 300).
Disposal of
Systems, Vol
Springfiel d,
Disposal of
Systems, Vol
Springfield,
wastewater residuals,
1. March 1976, 1031p.
VA. as PB-251 371-01).
wastewater residuals,
2. March 1976. 548p.
VA. as PB-251 371-02).
Envi ronmental
(Di stributed
Envi ronmental
(Distributed
Q u a 1i ty
by NTIS,
Quali ty
by NTIS,
Resource conservation and recovery act of 1976; Public Law
94-580, 94th Congress •5.2150, Oct. 21, 1976. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 44p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. The report to
waste disposal practices and their effects on
Congress;
ground water.
Washington, D.C.
as PB-265 081).
U.S. Environmental
January 1977. 512p.
Protecti on
(Di stributed
Agency.
by NTIS
Coe, Jack J. Effect of solid waste disposal on ground water
quality. Journal. American Water Works Association
776-782p. Dec. 1970.
Proceedings; Kentucky Coal Refuse Disposal and Utilization
Seminar (1st) Held at Cumberland, Kentucky, May 22, 1975.
47p.
References cited in the text by number correspond to numbered refer-
ences in this list. Appendix IX (Volume II) presents a bibliography
organized according to subject matter.
VIII-1
-------
10. Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage: a national
assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. September 1976 (Unpublished Report).
11.
12.
13.
14
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Procedures manual for monitoring solid waste disposal sites.
(Office of Solid Waste Management Programs), Wehran
Engineering Corporation and Geraghty & Miller,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 287p.
Inc. U.S.
Garland,
improper
44-48.
George A. 4 Dale
land disposal.
C. Mosher.
Waste Age,
Leachate effects of
March 1975, pgs 42,
Feldsman, Jim.
March 21, 1977.
Ground water pollution standards chapter.
30p.
Geswein, Allen J. Liners for land disposal sites; an
assessment. EPA publication SW-137. U.S. Government
Printing Office 1975. 66p.
Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment; Case study
of the Fox Valley solid waste disposal site in Aurora,
Illinois. Environmental Protection Agency publication
SW-514. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 34p.
Shuster, Kenneth A. Environmental impact of leachate.
Outline of presentation; gas and leachate generation and
control in landfills. Presented at Madison, Wisconsin,
March 29-31, 1976. 14p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Decision -
Makers guide in solid waste management. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-500. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976. 158p.
Proceedings; Conference on Geotechnical Practice for
Disposal of Solid Waste Materials, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, June-13 15, 1977, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1977. 885p.
Proceedings; Fourth National Congress on Waste Management
Technology and Resource & Energy Recovery. Atlanta,
Georgia, November 12-14, 1975. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1976. 382p.
Soil Conservation Society of America, Land application of
waste materials. Ankeny, Iowa, 1976. 313p.
21. Land Application of Residual Material; Proceedings
Selected Papers; Engineering Foundation Conference, Easton,
Maryland, September 25 - October 1, 1976. American Society
of Civil Engineers. 183p.
VIII-2
-------
22. Smith, F.A. Quantity and Composition of post-consumer solid
waste: material flow estimate for 1973 and baseline future
projections. Waste Age, 2-10, April 1976.
23. Boyd, G.B. and M.B. Hawkins. Methods of predicting solid
waste characteristics. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-23C Washinaton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971,
28p.
24. American Chemical Society. Solid wastes. An Environmental
Science and Technology reprint book. 87p. CA., 1971.
25. National Environmental Research Center. Municipal solid
waste generated gas and leachate. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1974.
119p.
26. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Programs. National
interim primary drinking water regulations. Federal
Register, Vol. 40, No. 248, December 24, 1975, 2p.
27. Sommers, L.E. Chemical composition of sewage sludges and
analysis of their potential use as fertilizers.
J. Environ. Qual. 6(2): 225-231. 1977.
28. Jelinck, C.F. and G.L. Brande. Management of sludge use on
land, F.D.A. Considerations. 35-37.
29. Municipal Sludge: what shall we'do with it? Current Focus.
League of Women Voters of the United States. 5p.
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid
Waste. Proposed criteria for classification of solid waste
disposal facilities. (40 CFR Part 257). Docket No. 4004.
43 Fed. Reg. 4942-4955, February 6, 1978.
31. Jones, R.L., T.D. Jfinesly, R.J. Johnson. Selenium in
agricultural ecosystems; a bibliography of the literature.
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
August, 1973. 79p.
32. Landspreading of municipal sludges (Draft), USEPA, 1977
(unpublished report).
33. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972: Enforcement
Vol. 1, October, 1975. 479p. (Distributed by NTIS,
Springfield, Va. as PB-246 321).
34. Chian, E.S.K., & F.B. Dewalle. Compilation of methodology
for measuring pollution parameters of landfill leachate.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October, 1975. 164p.
VIII-3
-------
35. Office of Water Supply. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Draft Environmental Impact Statement; State
underground injection control program. Proposed
regulations. 40 CFR, Part 146. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976. 207p.
36. Brunner, D.R. and D.J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and
operation. Environmental Protection Agency Publication
SW-65ts. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
59p.
37. Subsurface application solves community sludge disposal
^problems. Public Works 67-68. December 1976.
39. Issue Paper: Proposed regulations for classification of
solid waste disposal facilities, 40 CFR, Part 257, July 20,
1977, lip.
40. Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990, May 24, 1977.
41. Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988, Federal
Register, Vol. 42, No. 101. May 25, 1977, 7p.
42. Background document, Land criteria. (Unpublished Draft).
June 24, 1977, 121pp. .Docket 4004.
43. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental impacts of
land disposal. (Unpublished Draft). 26pp. Docket 4004.
1977.
44. Sanitary landfill criteria, Issue No. 3, 15p. EPA, 1977.
45. Gray, Donald H., Environmental concerns related to disposal
fills. Department of Civil Engineering, the University of
Michigan. January 1976. 20p.
46. Pohland, F.G. and R.S. Engelbrecht, Impact of Sanitary
Landfills: An Overview of Environmental Factors and Control
Alternatives. Prepared for American; paper Institute.
February 1976. 82p.
47. RCRA land disposal criteria: coverage of surface impound-
ments, July 15, 1977, 7p.
48. Personal Communications. Joseph Hile, Acting Associate
Commissioner for Compliance, Food and Drug Administration to
Dr. Andrew W. Breadenbach, U.S. Envirenmental Protection
Agency, September 22, 1976.
49. Anderson, R. Kent. Case studies of the cost of landspread-
ing and hauling sludge from municipal wastewater treatment
plants (unpublished document) U.S.E.P.A.
VIII -4
-------
50. Emcon Associates, Evaluation of clay liner materials
following in-field exposure to landfill leachate. Prepared
for USEPA, July 1977.
51. Shuster, K.A. Leachate damage assessment: Case study of
the Peoples Avenue solid waste disposal site in Rockford,
Illinois, Report EPA/530/SW-517, USEPA, 1976.
52. Stewart, W.S. State-of-the-art study of landfill impound-
ment techniques. Prepared by Exxon Research and Engineering
Co., Linden, N.J., for USEPA, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati. Project R-803585.
53. USEPA, Industrial waste management: seven conference
papers. EPA/530/SW-156, January" 1975, lllp.
54. American Society of Civil Engineers, Sanitary landfill
manuals and reports of engineering practice - No. 39.
Revised 1976.
55. World Health Organization. Evaluation of certain food
additives and the contaminants mercury, lead, and cadmium.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives. FAO and WHO, Geneva, 1972. 32p.
56. The City of Scottsdale, Arizona. A handbook for initiating
or improving commercial refuse collection. Environmental
Protection Agency Publication. f SW-85d, Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, August 1975, 68p.
57. Berman, E.B. WRAP. A model for regional solid waste
management planning. User's Guide. Environmental
Protection Agency Publication. SW-574. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1977. 124p.
58. Environmental Protection Agency - Solid waste planning and
disposal advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal
Register, Vol. 42, No. 128. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1977. 124p.
59. Environmental Protection Agency. Materials recovery. Solid
waste management guidelines for source separation. Federal
Register, Vol. 41, No. 80. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, April 23, 1976. 8p. *
60. Environmental Protection Agency. Resource recovery
facilities. Guidelines. Federal Register, Vol. 41,
No. 184. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
September 21, 1976. 4p.
61. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyl -
containing wastes. Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 64.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1, 1976.
3p.
VIII -5
-------
62. Environmental Protection Agency. Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 23.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, February 17,
1977. lp.
63. Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of regions
and agencies for solid waste management. Interim
Guidelines. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 94. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, May 16, 1977. 5p.
64. Environmental Protection Agency. Vinyl chloride.
Recommended procedure for disposal of aerosol cans. Federal
.Register, Vol. 41, No. 112. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, June 9, 1976. 2p.
65. Terry, Jr. R.C. and J.B. Berkowitz, A.D. Little, Inc. C.H.
Porter. Waste clearing houses and exchanges. Chemi cal
Engineering Progress, 58-62. December 1976.
66. Ghassemi, M., S.C. Quinlivon and H.R. Day. Landfills for
pesticide waste disposal. Environmental Science and
Technology. 10. 1209-1214. December 1976.
67. Anderson, K. and M. Cowart. Don't walk away from an open
dump. The American City and County. February 1976. 2p.
68. Hatte, S.J. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste and sewage
sludge into methane. Compost Science ^ Journal of Waste
Recycling, 17(1): January - February 1976. 5p.
69. Environmental Protection Agency. Winter sewage treatment
plant performance study report. 1977.
70. Emcon Associates - City and County of Honolulu. Liners.
July, 1977. 5p.
71. Geswein, Allen J. Liners for disposal sites, an assessment.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-137.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. 66p.
72. Wolcott, R.M. and B.W. Vincent. The relationship of solid
waste storage practices in the inner city to the incidence
of rat infestation and fires. Environmental Protection
Agency Publication SW-150. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, May 1975. 14p.
73. Smith, F.A. Comparative, estimates of post-consumer solid
waste. Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-148.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1975. 8p.
74. Smith, F.L., Jr. A solid waste estimation procedure:
material flows approach. Environmental Protection Agency
Publication SW-147. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, May 1975. 55p.
VIII-6
-------
75. Stanton, W.S. and J.G. Langerton. Pesticide container
processing in commercial reconditioning facilities.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-88d.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1976.
20p.
76. Exclusive Waste Age survey of the nation's disposal sites.
Waste Age. 21-28. January 1977.
77. Cost of solid waste management facilities. Board of County
Commissioners. Johnson County, Kansas, March 1975.
78. Inglehart, Cecil. How do you measure the costs of landfill
design and operation? (unpublished report).
79. U.S. House of Representatives. Report of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H.R. 14496, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Report No. 94-1491,
94th Congress, Second Session, September 9, 1976. 136pp.
80. FAA "Bird Hazards to Aircraft" Advisory Circular AC
150/5200-3A, 1972.
81. FAA Advisory Circular. Use of chemical controls to repel
flocks of birds at airports (AC 150/5200-8, May 2, 1968).
82. FAA Advisory Circular, Bird reactions to scaring devices.
(AC 150/5200-9, June 26,1968).
83. FAA Advisory Circular, Announcing the availability of the
international civil aviation organization airport services
manual, DOC-9137-AN/898, Part 3, 'Bird control and reduction.
(AC 150/5200-22).
84. FAA Order 5200.5 FAA guidance concerning sanitary landfills.
October 16, 1974.
85. EPA Noise emissions standards for (new) transportation
equipment: medium and heavy trucks. (40 CFR Part 205)
Federal Register, V. 41, N72, April 413, 1976. p.15538-58.
86. EPA Noise regulations for new wheel and crawler tractors and
other heavy equipment.
87. U.S. Water Resources Council. A Unified National Program
for Floodplain Management. Washington, D.C., July 1976.
88. James, Stephen C., Metals in Municipal Landfill Leachate and
Their Health Effects. Am. J. of Public Health 67, 5, May
1977, 429-432.
VIII -7
-------
89. Environmental Protection Agency, Bird/airport hazards at
airports near solid waste disposal sites, SW-116, 1974.
90. Environmental Protection Agency Technical Bulletin:
Municipal sludge management technical factors, and Notice of
availability of proposed technical bulletin. 1977.
91. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Development of a data base for
determining the prevalence of migration of hazardous
chemical substances into the ground water at industrial land
disposal sites. Project Synopsis. EPA Contract No.
68-01-3707. February 1977.
92. Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality
1976, Seventh Annual Report, Washington, D.C., September
1976.
93. Cogswell, Howard L. Proceedings on the Conference on the
Biological Aspects of the Bird/Aircraft Collision Program,
Clemson University, South Carolina, February 1974.
94. Hinesly, Thomas D. Agricultural benefits and environmental
changes resulting from the use of digested sludge on field
crops. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 375p.
(Distributed by NTIS, Springfield, VA. as PB-236 402).
95. Recycling sludge and sewage effluent by land disposal;
Envi ronmental Science and Techno!ogy 6(10): 871-873,
October 1972.
96. Walker, John, Sewage sludges - management aspects for land
application, Compost Science 12-21, March-April, 1975.
97. Bjornson, B.F., Pratt, H.D. and Littig, K.S. Control of
domestic rats and mice. Public Health Service Publication
No. 563. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
41p.
98. Ham. Robert K^. Vectors. Conference of Engineering
Foundation Research. Deerfield, Massachusetts. 1970 14p.
99. Manson, Robert and Merritt, Clifford. Land application of
liquid municipal wastewater sludges. Journal o_f the Water
Pollution Control Federation (Vol. 47, No. 1) January 1975.
24-24.
100. Singh, R.N., Keefer, R.F., and Hovath, D.J., Can soils be
used for sewage sludge disposal? Compost Science 22-25,
March-April 1975.
VIII -8
-------
101. U.S. Senate Report No. 94-988, 94th Congress, Second
Session, 1976.
102. LA/OMA Project, Sludge management activities for the Los
Angeles/Oranoe County metropolitan area, Whittier, CA.,
May 1977.
103. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
Working Draft—proposed regulations for classification of
solid waste disposal facilities. July 12, 1977.
104. SCS Engineers. Municipal sludge agricultural utilization
practices—an environmental assessment. Volume I. Prepared
for Office of Solid Waste, USEPA. 1977. 151p.
105. Impact assessment of annual cadmium limitations on the
agricultural utilization of municipal sludge. (Draft)
106. Municipal sludge management: EPa construction grants
program. An overview of the sludge management situation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations. April 1976. (Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, as
.PB-266-695).
107. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Surface impoundments and their
effects on ground-water quality in the United States—A
preliminary survey. Prepared for the Office of Water
Supply, U.S. Environmental Protection Aaency. September,
1977. 267p.
108. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research
and Development. Environmental Protection Technology
Series. Movement of selected metals, asbestos, and cyanide
in soil: applications to waste disposal problems. EPA
600/2-77-020. Cincinnati, Ohio. April 1977. 242p.
109. U.S. Water Resources Council. A Uniform Technioue for
Determining Flood Flow Frequencies, Bulletin No. 15.
Washington, D.C., December, 1976.
110. The carcinogen assessment group's assessment of cadmium.
1977 26p. (unpublished report)
111. Dotson, G. Kenneth, et. a_]_. An appraisal of the relative
health risks associated with land application of municipal
sludge. 50th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, Philadelphia, PA, October 2-6, 1977.
22p.
112. Bruade, G.L. and Jelinck, C.F. Management of sludge use on
land, FDA considerations. Food and Drug Administration,
Washington, D.C.
VIII .9
-------
113. Troast, Richard, et. al . , Cadmium. {Position Document 1).
Office of Special Pesticide Reviews. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
114. Otte, A.D. and K.Z. LaConde, Environmental assessment of
municipal sludge utilization at nine locations in the U.S.,
Ninth Annual Food, Fertilizer and Agricultural Residues
Conference. Syracuse, New York. April 27, 1977.
115. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water
Program Operations. Municipal Construction Division.
Municipal sludge manaqement: environmental "factors.
EPA 430/9-77-004. Washington D.C. October 1977. 31p.
116. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Engineer
Corps. Regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers. (42
Fed. Reg. 37122-37164, July, 19, 1977).
117. Emcon Associates. Methane gas hazard. In-house report.
1977 6p.
118. Riggs, James L. Economic decision models for engineers and
managers. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. 1968.
119. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. General
Summary, 1972 Census of Manufacturers, Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975.
120. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, RCRA solid waste disposal criteria,
(unpublished memorandum from Thomas C. Jorling to Assistant
Administrators). December 1977.
121. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as
amended. Public Law 94-140.
122. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Environment Reporter:
State Solid Waste - Land Use (Washington: The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc. 1976).
123. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of the Population:
Number of Inhabitants, Vol. I. United States Summary»
Table II, Area, 1970, and population per square mile, 1920
to 1970 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1972).
124. Gordian Associates, Inc. (draft) An economic analysis of
municipal waste water sludge treatment and disposal.
Washington: Gordian Associates, Inc., July 1977.
125. Clean Water Act. Public Law 95-217.
VIII -10
-------
126. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Public Law 95-217.
127. Anderson, R. Kent. Case studies on the cost of 1andspreading
and hauling sludge from municipal wastewater treatment
plants (unpublished document) USEPA.
128. Environmental Protection Agency. Working Paper #1.
Approach to guideline development for disposal of municipal
wastewater sludges and related residuals (unpublished report
from Docket No.'4004). EPA WA77-B399, October, 1977.
129. Endangered Species Act. Public Law 93-205.
130. Critical habitat. 50 CFR Part 17, Subpart F.
131. Safe Drinking Water Act. Public Law 93-523.
132. Proposed procedures for sole-source aquifer designations.
42 Fed'. Reg. 51620.
133. Clean Air Act. Public Law 93-319.
134. Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment: an
approach. (Unpublished Draft). December, 1975.
135. Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment; case study
of the Islip (Long Island) New York solid waste disposal
site. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976.
136. Brunner, D.R., S.J. Hubbard D.J. Keller, and J.L. Newton.
Closing open dumps. Environmental Protection Agency
Publication SW-61ts. Washinoton, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971, 19p.
137. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Second Report to
Congress; resource recovery and source reduction.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-122. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 112p.
138. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Third Report to
Congress; resource recovery and waste reduction.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication SH-161.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
139. Thermal processing and land disposal of solid waste;
guidelines. 40 CFR Part 241. 39 Federal Register 29327-
29338, August 14, 1974.
VIII -11
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976: Related Con-
gressional Reports.
Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of regions
and agencies for solid waste management. Interim
Guidelines. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 94. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, May 16, 1977. 5p.
Environmental Protection Agency. Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 23.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, February 17,
1977. Ip.
Resource conservation and recovery act of 1976; Public Law
94-580, 95th Congress 5.2150, Oct. 21, 1976. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 44p.
U.S. House of Representatives. Report of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H.R. 14496, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Report No. 94-1491,
94th Congress, Second Session, September 9, 1976. 136pp.
U.S. Senate Report No. 94-988, 94th Congress, Second
Session, 1976.
CRITERIA: Support Documents and Issue Papers.
Environmental Protection Agency. Solid waste planning and
disposal; advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal
Register, Vol. 42, No. 128. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1977. 124p.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste.
Proposed criteria for classification of solid waste disposal
facilities. (40 CFR Part 257). Docket No. 4004. 42 Fed.
Reg. 4942-4955, February 6, 1978.
Issue Paper: Proposed regulations for classification of
solid waste, disposal facilities, 40 CFR, Part 257, July 20,
1977, lip.
RCRA land disposal criteria: coverage of surface impound-
ments, July 15, 1977, 7p.
Sanitary landfill criteria, Issue Paper No. 3, 15p. EPA,
1977.
IX-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, RCRA solid waste disposal criteria,
(unpublished memorandum from Thomas C. Jorling to Assistant
Administrators). December 1977.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
WETLANDS: Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations
Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Engineer
Corps. Regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
(42 Fed. Reg. 37122-37164, July 19, 1977).
Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990, May 24, 1977.
FLOODPLAINS: Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations
Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988, Federal
Register, Vol. 42, No. 101. May 25, 1977, 7p.
U.S. Water Resources Council. A Unified National Program
for Floodplain Management. Washington, D.C., July 1976.
U.S. Water Resources Council. A Uniform Technique for
Determining Flood Flow Frequencies, Bulletin No. 15.
Washington, D.C., December, 1976.
CRITICAL HABITATS: Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations
Endangered Species Act. Public Law 93-205.
Critical Habitat. 50 CFR Part 17, Subpart F.
SOLE-SOURCE AQUIFERS: Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations
Safe Drinking Water Act. Public Law 93-523.
Proposed procedures for sole-source aquifer designations.
42 Fed. Reg. 51620.
SURFACE WATER: Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations
The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972-: Enforcement
Vol. 1, October, 1975. 479p. (Distributed by NTIS, Spring-
field, VA as PB-246 321).
GROUND WATER: Regulatory, Policies, Issues
Background document, Land criteria. (Unpublished Draft).
June 24, 1977, 121pp. Docket 4004.
IX-2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency. Water Programs. National
interim primary drinking water regulations. Federal
Register, Vol. 40, No. 248, December 24, 1975, 2p.
Feldsman, Jim. Ground water pollution standards chapter.
March 21, 1977. 30p.
Landspreading of municipal sludges (Draft), USEPA, 1977
(Unpublished Report).
Office of Water Supply. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Draft Environmental Impact Statement; State
underground injection control program. Proposed regu-
lations. 40 CFR, Part 146. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976. 207p.
GROUND WATER: Damage, Environmental Issues
Coe, Jack J. Effect of solid waste disposal on ground water
quality. Journal, Ameri can Water Works Association
776-782p. December, 1970.
Garland, George A. and Dale C. Mosher. Leachate effects of
improper land disposal. Waste Age, March 1975, pgs 42,
44-48.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Development of a data base for
determining the prevalence of migration of hazardous
chemical substances into the ground water at industrial land
disposal sites. Project Synopsis. EPA Contract
No. 68-01-3707. February 1977.
James, Stephen C., Metals in Municipal Landfill Leachate and
Their Health Effects. Am. J., of Public Health 67, 5, May
1977, 429-432.
Jones, R.L., T.D. Hinesly, R.J. Johnson. Selenium in
agricultural ecosystems,; a bibliography of the literature.
The Metorpolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
August, 1973. 79p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. The report to
Congress; waste disposal practices and their effects on
ground water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C., January 1977. 512p. (Distributed by NTIS
as PB-265 081).
Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage: a national
assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, D.C. September 1976 (Unpublished Report).
IX-3
-------
Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment; Case study
of the Fox Valley solid waste disposal site in Aurora,
Illinois. Environmental Protection Agency publication
SW-514. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 34p.
Shuster, Kenneth A. Environmental impact of leachate.
Outline of presentation; gas and leachate generation and
control in landfills. Presented at Madison, Wisconsin,
March 29-31, 1976. 14p.
Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment: Case study
of the Peoples Avenue solid waste disposal site in Rockford,
Illinois, Report EPA/530/SW-517, USEPA, 1976.
Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment: an
approach. (Unpublished Draft). December, 1975.
Shuster, Kenneth A. Leachate damage assessment; case study
of the Islip (Long Island) New York solid waste disposal
site. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976.
World Health Organization. Evaluation of certain food
additives and the contaminants mercury, lead, and cadmium.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives. FAO and WHO, Geneva, 1972. 32p.
GROUND WATER: Data, Technology, and Costs
Chian, E.S.K., and F.B. Dewalle. Compilation of methodology
for measuring pollution parameters of landfill leachate.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October, 1975. 164p.
Emcon Associates, Evaluation of clay liner materials
following in-field exposure to landfill leachate. Prepared
for USEPA, July 1977.
Emcon Associates - City and County of Honolulu. Liners.
July, 1977. 5p.
Geswein, Allen J. Liners for land disposal sites; an
assessment. EPA publication SW-137. U.S. Government
Printing Office 1975. 66p.
Procedures manual for monitoring solid waste disposal sites.
(Office of Solid Waste Management Programs). Wehran
Engineering Corporation and Geraghty & Miller, Inc. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 287p.
Proceedings; Conference on Geotechnical Practice for
Disposal of Solid Waste Materials, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, June-13-15, 1977, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1977. 885p.
IX-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research
and Development. Environmental Protection Technology
Series. Movement of selected metals, asbestos, and cyanide
in soil: applications to waste disposal problems. EPA
600/2-77-020. Cincinnati, Ohio. April 1977. 242p.
AIR: Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations
Clean Air Act. Public Law 93-319.
LANDSPREADING: Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations
Environmental Protection Agency. Working Paper #1.
Approach to guideline development for disposal of municipal
wastewater sludges and related residuals (Unpublished
Report). EPA WA77-B399, October, 1977.
SCS Engineers. Municipal sludge agricultural utilization
practices—an environmental assessment. Volume I. Prepared
for Office of Solid Waste, USEPA. 1977. 151p.
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
Working Draft--proposed regulations for classifcation of
solid waste disposal facilities. July 12, 1977.
LANDSPREADING: Damage, Environmental Issues
Dotson, G. Kenneth, et^ al . An" appraisal of the relative
health risks associated with land application of municipal
sludge. 50th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, Philadelphia, PA. October 2-6, 1977.
22p.
Hinesly, Thomas D. Agricultural benefits and environmenal
changes resulting from the use of digested sludge on field
crops. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 375p.
(Distributed by NTIS, Springfield, VA. as PB-236 402).
The carcinogen assessment group's assessment of cadmium.
1977 26p. (Unpublished Report).
Troast, Richard, et. a! ., Cadmium. (Position Document 1).
Office of Special Pesticide Reviews. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water
Program Operations. Municipal Construction Division.
Municipal sludge management: environmental factors.
EPA 430/9-77-004. Washington, D.C. October 1977. 31p.
IX-5
-------
LANDSPREADING: Data, Technology, Costs
Anderson, R. Kent. Case studies of the cost of landspread-
ing and hauling sludge from municipal wastewater treatment
plants (Unpublished Document) USEPA.
Bruade, G.L. and Jelinch, C.F. Management of sludge use on
land, FDA considerations. Food and Drug Administration,
Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. Winter sewage treatment
plant performance study report. 1977.
Environmental Protection Agency Technical Bulletin: Muni-
cipal sludge management technical factors, and Notice of
availability of proposed technical bulletin. 1977.
Gordian Associates, Inc. (draft) An economic analysis of
municipal waste water sludge treatment and disposal.
Washington: Gordian Associates, Inc., July 1977.
Impact assessment of annual cadmium limitations on the
agricultural utilization of municipal sludge . (Draft).
Jelinch, C.F. and G.L. Brande. Management of sludge use on
land, FDA Considerationa. 35-37.
Land Application of Residual Material; Proceedings
Selected Papers; Engineering Foundation Conference, Easton,
Maryland, September 25 - October 1, 1976. American Society
of Civil Engineers. 183p.
LA/OMA Project. Sludge management activities for the Los
Angeles/Orange County metropolitan area, Whittier, CA., May
1977.
Manson, Robert and Merritt, Clifford. Land application of
liquid municipal wastewater sludges. Journal of_ the Water
Pollution Control Federation (Vol. 47, No. 1) January 1975.
24-24.
Municipal sludge management: EPA construction grants
program. An overview of the sludge management situation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations. April 1976. (Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA as
PB-266-695).
Municipal Sludge: what shall we do with it? Current Focus.
League of Women Voters of the United States. 5p.
IX-6
-------
Personal Communication. Joseph Hile, Acting Associate
Commissioner for Compliance, Food and Drug Administration to
DR. Andrew W. Breadenbach, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, September 22, 1976.
Recycling sludge and sewage effluent by land disposal;
Environmental Science and Technology 6(10): 871-873,
October 1972.
Singh, R.N., Keefer, R.F., and Hovath, D.J., Can soils be
used for sewage sludge disposal? Compost Science 22-25,
March-April 1975.
Soil Conservation Society of America, Land application of
waste materials. Ankeny, Iowa, 1976. 313p.
Sommers, I.E. Chemical composition of sewage sludges and
analysis of their potential use as fertilizers. J. Environ.
Qua!. 6(2); 225-231. 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs (Unpublished Report). Sewage sludge
data on U.S. Cities compiled October 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Managment Programs (Unpublished Document). Impact
assessment of annual cadmium limitations on the agricultural
utilization of municipal sludges, 1977.
Walker, John, Sewage sludges - management aspects for land
application, Compost Science 12-21, March-April, 1975.
DISEASE VECTORS: Environmental Issues, Technology
Ham, Robert K. Vectors. Conference of Engineering Foun-
dation Research. Deerfield, Massachusetts. 1970 14p.
Bjornson, B.F., Pratt, H.D. and Littig, K.S. Control of
domestic rats and mice. Public Health Service Publication
No. 563. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
41p.
SAFETY: Explosive and Asphyxiating Gases
Emcon Associates. Methane gas hazard. In-house report.
1977 6p.
Hatte, S.J. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste and sewage
sludge into methane. Compost Science ^ Journal of_ Waste
Recycling, 17(1): January - February 1976. 5p.
IX-7
-------
SAFETY: Bird Hazard to Aircraft
Cogswell, Howard L. Proceedings on the Conference on the
Biological Aspects of the Bird/Aircraft Collision Program,
Clemson University, South Carolina, February 1974.
Environmental Protection Agency. Bird/airport hazards at
airports near solid waste disposal sites, SW-116, 1974.
FAA Advisory Circular. Use of chemical controls to repel
flocks of birds at airports (AC 150/5200-8, May 2, 1968).
FAA Advisory Circular, Bird reactions to scaring devices.
(AC 150/5200-9, June 26, 1968).
FAA Advisory Circular, Announcing the availability of the
international civil aviation organization airport services
manual, DOC-9137-AN/898, Part 3, Bird control and reduction.
(AC 150/5200-22).
FAA "Bird Hazards to Aircraft" Advisory Circular AC
150/5200-3A, 1972.
FAA Order 5200.5 FAA guidance concerning sanitary landfills.
October 16, 1974.
AESTHETICS: Noise
EPA Noise emissions standards for (new) transportation
equipment: medium and heavy trucks. (40 CFR Part 205)
Federal Register, V. 41, N72, April 13, 1976. p.15538-58.
EPA Noise regulations for new wheel and crawler tractors and
other heavy equipment.
GENERAL LANDFILL INFORMATION: Laws, Executive Orders,
Regulations,Issues
Exclusive Haste Age survey of the nation's dispsal sites.
Waste Age. 21-28. January 1977.
Ghassemi , M., S.C. Quinlivon and H.R. Day. Landfills for
pesticide waste disposal. Envi ronmental Science and
Technology. 10. 1209-1214. December 1976.
Gray, Donald H., Environmental concerns related to disposal
fills. Department of Civil Engineering, the University of
Michigan. January 1976. 20p.
National Environmental Research Center. Municipal solid
waste generated gas and leachate. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1974.
119p.
IX-8
-------
Pohland, F.G. and R.S. Engelbrecht, Impact of Sanitary
Landfills: An Overview of Environmental Factors and Control
Alternatives. Prepared for American Paper Institute.
February 1976. 82p.
Stewart, W.S. State-of-the-art study of landfill impound-
ment techniques. Prepared by Exxon Research and Engineering
Co., Linden, N.J. for USEPA, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati. Project R-803585.
GENERAL LANDFILL INFORMATION; Damage, Environmental Issues
American Society of Civil Engineers, Sanitary landfill
manuals and reports of engineering practice - No. 39.
Revised 1976.
Brunner, D.R. and D.J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and
operation. Environmental Protection Agency Publication
SW-65ts. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
59p.
Brunner, D.R., S.J. Hubbard, D.J. Keller, and J.L. Newton.
Closing open dumps. Environmental Protection Agency
Publication SW-61ts. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971, 19p.
Comparing conventionally landfil-led solid waste with pro-
cessed landilled solid waste. Floyd G. Brown and Asso-
ciates, Ltd. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency
1973. 136p. (Distributed by National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA as PB-253 304).
Cost of solid waste management facilities. Board of County
Commissioners. Johnson County, Kansas, March 1975.
Inglehard, Cecil. How do you measure the costs of landfill
design and operation? (Unpublished Report).
Fourth National Congress on Waste Management Technology and
Resource and Energy Recovery. Atlanta, Georgia,
November 12-14, 1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 382p.
Subsurface application solves community sludge disposal
problems. Public Horks 67-68. December 1976.
Thermal processing and land disposal of solid waste; guide-
lines. 40 CFR Part 241. 39 Federal Register 29327-29338,
August 14, 1974.
IX-9
-------
GENERAL SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT INFORMATION
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Surface Impoundments and their
effects on ground-water quality in the United States—A
preliminary survey. Prepared for the Office of Water
Supply, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September,
1977. 267p.
GENERAL INFORMATION: Environmental Issues, Decision Models
Anderson, K.^and M. Cowart. Don't walk away from an open
dump. The American Ci ty and County. February 1976. 2p.
Disposal of wastewater residuals, Environmental Quality
Systems, Vol. 1. March 1976, 1031p. (Distributed by NTIS,
Springfield, VA as PB-251 371-01).
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality
1976, Seventh Annual Report, Washington, D.C., September
1976.
Disposal of wastewater residuals, Environmental Quality
Systems, Vol. 2. March 1976. 548p. (Distributed by NTIS,
Springfield, VA. as PB-251 371-02).
Effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources and
standards of performance for new sources, National Field
Investigation Center, Environmental Protection AGency.
August 1974 (Distributed by NTIS, Springfield, VA as PB-257
300).Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental impacts
of land disposal (Unpublished Draft). 26pp. Docket 4004.
1977.
Riggs, James L. Economic decision models for engineers and
managers. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. 1968.
Strategic environmental assessment system: residuals
forcasting. International Research and Technology Cor-
poration, February 1976. 59p. (Distributed by NTIS,
Springfield, VA as PB-252041.)
Wolcott, R.M. and B.W. Vincent. The relationship of solid
waste storage practices in the inner city to the incidence
of rat infestation and fires. Environmental Protection
Agency Publication SW-150. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, May 1975. ,14p.
GENERAL INFORMATION: General Solid Waste Management
American Chemical Society. Solid wastes.. An Environmental
Science and Technology reprint book. 87p. CA., 1971.
IX-10
-------
Bergman, E.B. WRAP. A model for regional solid waste
management planning. User's Guide. Environmental
Protection Agency Publication. SW-574. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977. 124p.
Environmental Protection Agency. Materials recovery. Solid
waste management guidelines for source separation. Federal
Register, Vol. 41, No. 80. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, April 23, 1976. 8p.
Environmental Protection Agency. Resource recovery
facilities. Guidelines. Federal Register, Vol. 41,
No. 184. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office,
September 21, 1976. 4p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Decision -
Makers guide in solid waste management. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-500. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976 158p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Second Report to
Congress: resource recovery and source reduction.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-122. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 112p.
Office of Solid Waste Managment Programs. Third Report to
Congress; resource recovery- and waste reduction.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-161.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Environmental Reporter:
State Solid Waste - Land Use (Washington: The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc. 1976).
The City of Scottsdale, Arizona. A handbook for initiating
or improving commercial refuse collection. Environmental
Protection Agency Publication. SW-85d, Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, August 1975. 68p.
GENERAL INFORMATION: Amounts and Character of Solid Waste
Boyd, G.B. and M.B. Hawkins. Methods of predicting solid
waste characteristics. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-23C Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971,
28p.
Smith, F.A. Quantity and composition of post-consumer
solid waste; material flow estimate for 1973 and baseline
future projections. Waste Age. 2-10, April 1976.
Smith, F.A. Comparative estimates of post-consumer solid
waste. Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-.148.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1975. 8p.
IX-11
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION: Industrial Wastes, Mining Wastes
Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyl-
containing wastes. Federal Regi ster. Vol. 41, No. 64.
Washington, US. Government Printing Office, April 1, 1976.
3p.
Environmental Protection Agency. Vinyl chloride.
Recommended procedure for disposal of aerosol cans. Federal
Regi ster, Vol. 41. No. 112. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, June 9, 1976. 2p.
Proceedings; Kentucky Coal Refuse Disposal and Utilization
Seminar (1st) Held at Cumberland, Kentucky, May 22, 1975.
47p.
Smith. F.L., Jr. A solid waste estimation procedure:
material flows approach. Environmental Protection Agency
Publication SW-147. Washington, Lf.S. Government Pringing
Office, May 1975. 55p.
Stanton, W.S. and J.G. Langerton. Pesticide container
processing in commercial reconditioning facilities.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-88d.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1976.
20p.
Terry, Jr. R.C. and J.B. Berkowitz, A.D. Little, Inc. C.H.
Porter. Waste clearing houses and exchanges. Chemical
Engineering Progress, 58-62. December 1976.
USEPA, Industrial waste management: seven conference
papers. EPA/530/SW-156, January 1975, lllp.
GENERAL INFORMATION: Census Data
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. General
Summary, 1972 Census of Manufacturers, Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of the Population:
Number of Inhabitants, Vol. I. United States Summary,
Table II, Area, 1970, and population per square mile, 1920
to 1970 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1972).
IX-12
------- |