U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Contract No. 68-W9-004i
ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER MATERIALS
FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
RCRA Implementation Contract
Zone II
Regions VI-X
EJBD
ARCHIVE
EPA
530-
R-
92-
024
nnc
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
In Association with:
NUS Corporation
ICF Technology. Inc.
Versar, Inc.
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
-------
ry
Permanent Collection
ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER MATERIALS
FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
'I
o p»— $ o
" o "^ < °
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................. !
1.1 FUNCTIONS OF A DAILY COVER ...................... 2
1.1.1 Functions Specified in Federal Regulations .............. 3
1.1.2 Other Expected Functions ......................... 4
1 .2 PROBLEMS WITH THE CONVENTIONAL SOIL DAILY COVER 4
1.3 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OFFERED BY ADCMS 5
1.4 REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ADCMS ................. 6
2.0 INDIGENOUS MATERIALS ..................................... 6
2.1 ASH-BASED MATERIAL ................ 7
2.2 AUTOMOBILE RECYCLING FLUFF ......... ........... g
2.3 COMPOST-BASED MATERIAL ............. ....... ..... 9
2.4 PETROLEUM-CONTAMINATED SOIL ........ ........... 10
2.5 DREDGED MATERIAL ..... ....... 10
2.6 FOUNDRY SAND ........... ........ H
2.7 GREEN WASTE ..................... " ............ n
2.8 SLUDGE-BASED MATERIAL ............ .............. 12
2.9 OTHER INDIGENOUS MATERIALS .......... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 12
3.0 COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS ....................................... 13
3.1 FOAM-TYPE PRODUCTS ............................. 14
3.1.1 AC-645 .................................... 14
3. 1.2 SaniFoam™ ................................ \\ 15
3.1.3 TerraFoam™ ............... '.'.'.'.'. ............. 16
3.1.4 TopCoat™ ............................... .'.'.' 17
3.2 GEOSYNTHETIC PRODUCTS .......................... 17
3.2.1 Airspace Saver™ ........................... lg
3.2.2 Fabrisoil™ ........................ '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'." 19
3.2.3 Typar* ................................. .' .' ' 19
3.3 SLURRY-TYPE PRODUCTS ........................... 20
3.3.1 ConCover™ ................................. 20
3.3.2 Land-Cover Formula 480 ......................... 21
3.4 OTHER COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS ...................... 22
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.0 SHREDDED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 22
5.0 SUMMARY 23
5.1 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING AN ADCM 24
5.1.1 Effectiveness in Meeting the Functional Requirements of a
Daily Cover 24
5.1.2 Availability 25
5.1.3 Suitability 25
5.1.4 Equipment Requirements 26
5.1.5 Cost 26
5.1.6 Specific Technical Factors 26
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 26
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 29
7.0 REFERENCES 31
Appendices
A NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF INDIVIDUALS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF
ADCMS
LIST OF TABLES
Table £ggg
1 COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE-, EQUIPMENT-, AND COST-RELATED
FACTORS FOR COMMERCIAL ADCMS 28
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of an information search for materials that can be used
instead of the 6-inch-thick layer of soil currently used as daily cover at municipal solid waste landfills
(MSWLF). Alternative daily cover materials (ADCM) are being used at landfills that lack adequate
soil to provide a 6-inch-thick daily cover or at landfills where operators wish to save landfill space.
The information search was conducted by PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC), for the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9, under Contract No. 68-W9-0041 and Work
Assignment No. R2919. This EPA project is intended to provide information on ADCMs to
government agencies and operators of landfills.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) mandate that solid waste disposed of in a MSWLF be
covered with 6 inches of soil at the end of each working day or at more frequent intervals, if
necessary [see 40 CFR Subparts 257.3-6 (a)1, 257.3-6 (c) 4, and 258.21 (a)]. The daily cover is
intended to control or prevent disease vectors, fire, odor, blowing litter, and scavenging. The federal
regulations also allow for the use of ADCMs at MSWLFs [see 40 CFR Subpart 258.21 (b)], if the
ADCM is approved by the director of a state regulatory agency that has an EPA-approved MSWLF
permit program.
The information presented in this report does not constitute EPA's endorsement or
recommendation of any product, nor is it intended as an overall ranking of ADCMs. Likewise, the
discussion presented here does not imply EPA's regulatory approval of any ADCM. ADCMs must
be approved by state regulatory agencies, and those agencies should be consulted to obtain approval to
use ADCMs. In addition, the information in this report neither addresses the use of ADCMs as an
intermediate or final cover, nor does it discuss their use at disposal facilities other than MSWLFs.
Performance of some ADCMs for a period longer than 1 day is mentioned in this report only for
comparative purposes. Federal regulations require the daily application of a cover. Appropriate
regulatory agencies should be consulted regarding use of an ADCM for periods longer than 1 day,
such as for intermediate cover.
Regulations provided by 40 CFR Subparts 257.3-6 (a) and 257.3-6 (c) 4 would be applicable
only through October 9, 1993; after that regulations provided by 40 CFR Subpart 258.21
would become effective.
1
-------
Because published information on ADCMs is limited, the information presented in this report
is based primarily on interviews with ADCM users and manufacturers and regulatory personnel
familiar with ADCMs. ADCMs reviewed in this report are divided into two categories: indigenous
and commercial. Indigenous ADCMs generally consist of materials that are conventionally disposed
of as wastes at MSWLFs; they are developed by individual landfill operators and are not
commercially available. Commercial ADCMs are developed and manufactured by businesses that
market and sell them to landfill operators. This report also discusses the disposal of shredded waste
as an option to daily cover. Shredded waste is not an ADCM, but shredding waste before its disposal
addresses many of the problems necessitating the use of a daily cover.
This section of the report discusses the functions of a daily cover; the problems associated
with conventional, soil daily cover; the benefits of ADCMs; and the regulations that apply to
ADCMs. Section 2.0 describes ADCMs developed by individual landfill operators (indigenous
ADCM). Section 3.0 describes commercial ADCMs. Section 4.0 describes disposing of shredded
waste as an alternative to daily cover. Section 5.0 summarizes the information gathered under this
project and recommendations for future investigations. Section 6.0 presents a list of ADCM-related
publications identified under this project, and Section 7.0 lists references cited in this report. The
names, addresses, and phone numbers of selected people who have experience with each ADCM are
presented in Appendix A.
1.1 FUNCTIONS OF A DAILY COVER
The regulations in 40 CFR Subpart 258.21 (a) specify that a daily cover should control or
prevent disease vectors, fire, odor, blowing litter, and scavenging. A daily cover is also generally
expected to control dust, improve general site aesthetics, and act as a moisture barrier to prevent
precipitation from infiltrating the waste. These functions are discussed below.
-------
1.1.1 Functions Specified in Federal Regulations
The following functions of a daily cover are specified in federal regulations:
• Disease Vector Control
Disease vectors are animals or insects that help spread diseases. Common
disease vectors include birds, rodents, and mosquitos. The daily cover should
control disease vectors by covering the waste that attracts them and by
minimizing insect breeding areas at MSWLFs.
• Fire Prevention
The daily cover should be nonflammable and should minimize potential fire
hazards by (1) limiting the movement of atmospheric oxygen into the waste
and (2) impeding the spread of fire in the landfill.
• Odor Control
Decaying organic waste in MSWLFs produces foul odors that may escape to
the atmosphere from the uncovered surface of the waste. The daily cover
should control odors by preventing them from escaping to the atmosphere.
• Blowing Litter Control
Waste disposed of at MSWLFs includes paper, plastic sheets, and rags that
may be picked up and carried away by the wind. The daily cover should
control blowing litter by keeping it in place and protecting it from the wind.
• Scavenging Control
Scavenging animals, such as pigs, dogs, and birds, may be attracted to waste
disposed of at MSWLFs. Scavenging animals seeking food and shelter at
MSWLFs may be a nuisance or hazard to residents and activities in the
general area of the landfill. For example, birds populating areas near
MSWLFs are often a hazard to air traffic, especially when birds flock together
-------
over the landfill. The daily cover should control scavenging by protecting
waste from animals seeking food and shelter.
1.1.2 Other Expected Functions
Controlling dust, improving site aesthetics, and providing a moisture barrier are other
functions a daily cover is generally expected to perform. These functions are discussed below.
• Dust Control
Some soil, ash, and other fine-sized waste disposed of at MSWLFs may create
dust-related problems during high winds. Therefore, the daily cover should
control dust by protecting such wastes from being dispersed by the wind.
• Site Aesthetics
Different shapes, sizes, and colors of wastes disposed of at MSWLFs may
produce an unsightly appearance at active portions of landfills. The daily
cover should improve the general aesthetics of the landfill by providing a
uniform color and surface over the waste.
• Moisture Barrier
Moisture infiltrating through uncovered waste at MSWLFs may generate
leachate that can contaminate ground water if the landfill leaks. Therefore,
the daily cover should provide a barrier to minimize the infiltration of
moisture into the waste.
1.2 PROBLEMS WITH THE CONVENTIONAL SOIL DAILY COVER
Soil is the most common daily cover material. When used properly, it performs all functions
of the daily cover very well. Most landfills use native soil available on site. However, after more
than a decade of regular use, the availability of soil has decreased at many landfills. Some landfills
now purchase and transport soil from off-site sources, increasing the cost of operation. In areas with
-------
limited access to soil suitable for use as daily cover, such as islands, transporting suitable soil from
off-site sources is too costly.
Even where soil is readily available, its use for daily cover consumes landfill space that could
be used for waste disposal. Weather conditions can also complicate the use of soil as daily cover. A
daily cover of soil can create dust problems in dry and windy weather. After heavy rains, soil cover
may become muddy, interrupting further waste disposal over itself until it dries. Therefore, even if
soil is readily available without cost to the landfill operator, its use as a daily cover has an indirect
cost in terms of reducing space available for waste disposal and suspending operations due to
unworkable conditions at the working face.
1.3 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OFFERED BY ADCMS
The use of ADCMs helps landfill operators overcome cost and availability problems
associated with the use of conventional, soil daily cover. Indigenous ADCMs are generally available
to landfill operators at no cost. Using some indigenous materials may actually generate revenue when
a landfill operator charges a fee to accept a waste and then uses this waste as an ADCM.
Commercial ADCMs must be purchased by landfill operators at costs that are generally competitive
or lower than the cost of soil purchased for use as daily cover material.
Shredding waste before disposal is another alternative to the conventional, soil daily cover.
Shredded waste is not an ADCM, but the disposal of shredded waste addresses many of the problems
necessitating the use of daily cover, thereby potentially eliminating the need for daily cover.
A conventional, soil daily cover takes up at least 6 inches of landfill space each day.
ADCMs, however, generally consume much less than 6 inches of landfill space, often consuming no
additional space. Indigenous ADCMs eliminate consumption of any landfill space for daily cover,
because they form a daily cover when disposed of in a planned way. Reusable commercial ADCMs,
such as Fabrisoil™ and Typar* Daily Cover, do not consume any landfill space on a daily basis.
Commercial ADCMs that cannot be reused, such as SaniFoam™ and ConCover™, consume only
negligible landfill space. In short, ADCMs may cost less than a conventional, soil daily cover.
-------
ADCMs save landfill space, thereby extending the life of the landfill, and increase revenue by
increasing the landfill volume available for waste disposal.
1.4 REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ADCMS
In addition to federal regulations provided in 40 CFR Subpart 258.21, state regulations may
also apply to the use of ADCMs. Such state regulations vary widely in their nature and scope. For
example, some states, such as Pennsylvania, allow the use of ADCMs only on case-by-case basis,
with provision for immediate action if a problem is found with a permitted ADCM (Dexter, 1991).
California's Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has established guidelines and is
currently developing a demonstration program to evaluate ADCMs (Smith, 1991).
Regulations provided in 40 CFR Subpart 258.21 were promulgated in October 1991; as a
result, some states may soon revise or modify their regulations pertaining to ADCMs. Therefore,
MSWLF operators should consult appropriate state agencies for the latest information on ADCM
regulations.
Except under certain conditions, ADCMs discussed in this report satisfactorily perform all
functions of the daily cover discussed in Section 1.1. The discussion of each ADCM in Sections 2.0
and 3.0 highlights its cost, possible difficulty in its application, and any special equipment needed for
its preparation and application.
2.0 INDIGENOUS MATERIALS
All indigenous ADCMs reviewed in this report are based on materials that are conventionally
disposed of as wastes in MSWLFs. Such materials include the following:
• Ash from municipal waste incinerators and utility companies
• Automobile recycling fluff
• Compost-based material
• Petroleum-contaminated soil
• Material dredged from water bodies
-------
• Foundry sand
• Green waste
• Sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plants
• Other indigenous materials
Using indigenous materials for daily cover avoids the availability- and cost-related problems
associated with conventional, soil daily cover. More importantly, using indigenous ADCMs is the
most efficient use of the landfill space, because indigenous materials are not only disposed of as waste
but also form the daily cover.
All indigenous materials are applied with conventional earth-moving equipment available at
most landfills, such as front-end loaders and scrapers. Therefore, application equipment and costs are
not included in the following discussion of indigenous ADCMs.
2.1 ASH-BASED MATERIAL
Several landfills in the United States and other countries, including the United Kingdom, use
ash-based materials for daily cover. Bottom and fly ash from sources such as utility companies and
municipal waste incinerators are used for daily cover, either separately or in combination. In
addition, ash can be combined with sludge, soil, and lime to improve the consistency and workability
of the daily cover. The thickness of ash-based daily cover varies from 3 to 6 inches, depending
primarily on local regulations and the availability of ash. Some ash that contains hazardous
contaminants, such as heavy metals, may be regulated as hazardous waste and barred from disposal at
MSWLFs and cannot be used as an ADCM.
Almost all landfills using ash for daily cover receive the ash in a damp condition. Ash
performs very well as daily cover as long as it remains damp. When ash is dry, however, it creates
the potential for a number of problems. Once it dries, ash-based daily cover becomes very difficult to
handle and can create dust-related problems in moderate to high winds. In addition, birds and other
scavengers can pick through the dry ash-based cover. Wood and coal ash may contain partially
burned material that may sustain a landfill-fire, especially if the fire starts when the ash is dry. For
such reasons, some landfill operators use water sprinklers to keep the ash moist. Also, in warm
-------
temperatures, fly ash-based material is not used over weekends and holidays because it may dry out
and lose its effectiveness as a daily cover.
Ash-based ADCMs also cause problems when they are too wet. Ash-based materials do not
perform well in heavy rains, because they may be washed away. Slope failure can also be caused by
some ash that becomes slippery when very wet. In addition, ash with a high moisture content hinders
the movement of heavy equipment.
For most landfills, using ash for daily cover costs nothing, and it is mutually beneficial to
both the landfill operators and the ash-producing facilities. Some landfills charge a fee for accepting
the ash, increasing their revenue when ash-based materials are used for daily cover. However, the
current economics of ash-based daily cover may soon change in some areas, where ash is finding
economically more beneficial uses, such as in manufacturing cement.
2.2 AUTOMOBILE RECYCLING FLUFF
Automobile recycling fluff (ARF) is obtained by shredding nonmetallic automobile
components. ARF primarily consists of pieces of foam, rubber, and plastic from automobile
upholstery and insulation.
ARF is usually delivered to landfills in a moist condition and, as with ash, it performs well as
an ADCM until it dries. However, unlike ash, ARF performs well in wet weather for the following
reasons:
• Unlike wet soil or ash, ARF does not become slippery when wet, and wet
ARF supports the movement of heavy equipment at the landfill.
• Wet ARF is easier to handle than wet soil because, unlike wet soil, it does not
form mud.
• ARF with a high moisture content helps prevent landfill fires and erosion of
daily cover by high winds.
In heavy rains, however, water can infiltrate through the ARF, possibly generating leachate. Other
problems associated with the use of ARF as an ADCM include the following:
8
-------
• Dry ARF may be flammable because of its foam and plastic contents.
• Small, dry pieces of foam may be blown away by winds.
• Small pieces of foam in ARF may catch on the application equipment, which
may then disperse them to areas outside of the working face.
• Sharp objects in ARF may increase the wear on tires of equipment used on the
working face.
Automobile recyclers often put home appliances in the trunk of automobiles before crushing
and shredding them. In such cases, any polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in the appliances may
contaminate the ARF. Asbestos in the brake pads of some automobiles may also contaminate the
ARF. In addition, the ARF may be contaminated with lead or other hazardous substances in
automobile components. Contaminated ARF may be regulated as a hazardous waste and barred from
disposal at MSWLFs. Such contaminated ARF cannot be used as an ADCM.
23 COMPOST-BASED MATERIAL
Compost is satisfactorily used as an ADCM either by itself or in combination with sewage
sludge and wood waste. Like ash- and ARF-based ADCMs, compost-based ADCMs perform well
only in damp conditions. Dry compost-based materials may create dust-related problems or help
sustain landfill fires.
The cost of compost-based ADCMs may depend on several factors, including the following:
• Sorting of waste before composting
• Method of composting
• Distance of composting facility from the landfill
• Cost of purchasing compost from external sources, if required.
The limited availability of compost may restrict its regular use as an ADCM.
-------
2.4 PETROLEUM-CONTAMINATED SOIL
Petroleum-contaminated soil from sources such as gasoline stations is used as an ADCM at
some landfills. It performs as a conventional, soil daily cover. Depending on the types and
concentrations of contaminants in the soil, it may be regulated as a hazardous waste and barred from
disposal at MSWLFs. Such contaminated soil cannot be used as an ADCM.
2.5 DREDGED MATERIAL
Material obtained by dredging surface water bodies is drained for 10 to 48 hours before it is
used as an ADCM. It performs well as an ADCM, except if it is not conditioned well before use or
is used under extreme weather conditions. Dredged material may produce odors if it is obtained from
benthic deposits and used without sufficient drying. In addition, it may attract birds and other
scavengers if it contains worms and insects.
In wet weather, dredged material does not perform well as an ADCM, because it becomes
slippery after absorbing excessive water. Very wet dredged material hinders vehicular traffic over the
landfill and may cause slope failure. Very dry dredged material may create dust problems in heavy
winds.
Using dredged material as an ADCM may be costly if it is normally marketed for other uses.
For example, dredged material is often marketed as a soil conditioner, in which case the cost of using
it as an ADCM would be prohibitively high.
Dredging itself may cause environmental degradation, and dredging operations may be
regulated. If the dredged material is contaminated with hazardous constituents, it may be regulated as
a hazardous waste and barred from disposal at MSWLFs. Such dredged material cannot be used as
an ADCM.
10
-------
2.6 FOUNDRY SAND
Foundry sand is generated when a foundry discards used dies. Some landfills use it
successfully as an ADCM, and it performs well except under extreme weather conditions. Heavy
rains may erode foundry sand and allow precipitation to infiltrate through the cover to the waste,
possibly generating leachate. Warm temperatures and high winds may disperse the foundry sand,
creating dust problems. Foundry sand is not regularly used as an ADCM because of its limited
availability. Depending on the metals used for casting and their concentrations in the foundry sand,
as well as the binder used to maintain the die's form, foundry sand may be regulated as a hazardous
waste and barred from disposal at MSWLFs. Such foundry sand cannot be used as an ADCM.
2.7 GREEN WASTE
Green waste, such as lawn clippings, leaves, and tree branches, is used as an ADCM after
grinding it and shredding it to particles that are under 5 inches in size. Green waste meets the
requirements for a daily cover except under extreme weather conditions. Heavy rains may erode the
cover material and allow precipitation to infiltrate through the cover to the waste, possibly generating
leachate. High temperatures may dry out green waste, making it susceptible to fires. In addition,
one landfill operator reported that using green waste as an ADCM increased the fly count in hot
weather; however, this observation was not supported by comments from other operators. Birds tend
to avoid green waste, perhaps because it emits odors. An advantage of using green waste is that it
can be tightly compacted after grinding, thereby reducing the space required for its disposal.
Most landfills charge a fee for accepting green waste, and the final cost of using it for daily
cover depends on the following factors:
• Fee charged for accepting green waste
• Cost of sorting green waste
• Cost of grinding green waste
Green waste is commonly used in southern California, primarily because of the infrequent
precipitation in the area. In areas with heavy rains, it may not be possible to use green waste as
11
-------
ADCM, because it is much more permeable than soil. California's Assembly Bill No. 939 (Afi 939)
provides additional incentives for the future use of green waste as an ADCM. Under AB 939
landfills using green waste as a daily cover may be entitled to a credit for waste recycling (Coke,
1991).
2.8 SLUDGE-BASED MATERIAL
Several landfills treat sludge with lime and ash or mix it with soil before using the sludge
mixture for daily cover. Currently, the BKK landfill in West Covina, California, uses a 1-foot thick
layer of sludge-based material as a foundation for a 1-foot thick soil layer that serves as daily cover.
At the BKK landfill, sewage sludge is mixed with sodium silicate, fly ash, and cement. The mixture
is allowed to cure for 2 hours before being used as a foundation for the daily cover. The heat
released during the curing process reduces the pathogens and odors in the sewage sludge (Wackerly,
1991). Cured material is applied as a foundation for daily cover and compacted by dozers.
A detailed study at the BKK landfill found treated sewage sludge-based material to be an
acceptable alternative to a conventional, soil daily cover (GeoResearch, 1990). As a result of the
study, CIWMB approved a 1-year demonstration of treated sludge as an ADCM at BKK landfill.
Federal regulations, specifically 40 CFR Section 257, may apply to the use of sludge-based
material for daily cover. In addition, state and local regulations may also apply to the use of sludge-
based ADCM.
2.9 OTHER INDIGENOUS MATERIALS
Wastes other than those mentioned above have also been used or considered for use as
ADCMs. A few examples of such other wastes are presented here for illustrative purposes.
Available information regarding the use and performance of these ADCMs is limited.
Rice husk is used for daily cover at some landfills in Japan. It performs satisfactorily only in
damp weather and poses a fire hazard in dry weather. Construction and demolition debris was once
used at a landfill in Florida; however, its use as an ADCM is currently not permitted in Florida
12
-------
(Lurix, 1991). A landfill in Virginia uses shredded automobile tires for daily cover (Watson, 1992).
Other possible ADCMs include discarded carpets and grit from municipal wastewater treatment
plants.
3.0 COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
Commercially developed ADCMs have been on the market for nearly a decade. Currently
available commercial ADCMs include foam-type, geosynthetic, and slurry-type products. Some of
the commercial ADCMs require specially designed application equipment, while others use equipment
generally available at all landfills. Commercial ADCMs and the application equipment for them are
marketed directly by manufacturers as well as through other outlets.
Commercial ADCMs identified in this project are discussed below; other products may also
be available. The discussion below includes available information on product description, preparation
and special equipment needs, costs, and performance.
The material costs presented below are the average cost experienced by users when the
ADCM is applied according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Actual material costs
experienced by individual users may vary, depending on the degree to which waste is compacted
before the ADCM is applied. Manufacturers assume waste is well compacted and the surface of the
landfill is fairly smooth and uniform. In actual practice, the surface of the landfill may be very rough
and irregular, depending on the nature of the waste and its degree of compaction, both of which may
vary widely.
The performance of ADCMs presented below is primarily based on information obtained from
users of ADCMs. However, some ADCMs discussed below, such as TopCoat™, have only recently
been made available to the commercial markets, and users' opinions on their performance was not
available. The performance- and cost-related information presented below for such ADCMs is based
on the information provided by the manufacturers.
The order of the following discussion in no way implies a ranking of the products.
13
-------
3.1 FOAM-TYPE PRODUCTS
PRC identified the following foam-type products:
• AC-645 and AC-900 foams, from Rusmar Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania
• SaniFoam™ and Vapor Suppressing Foam, from 3M in St. Paul, Minnesota. Several
years ago, 3M also test-marketed another foam-type ADCM called Foamat which is
no longer marketed (Spoo, 1991).
• TerraFoam™, from Chubb National Foam in Exton, Pennsylvania
• TopCoat™, from Central Fiber Corporation in Wellsville, Kansas
AC-645, SaniFoam™, TerraFoam™, and TopCoat™ are designed for use at sanitary landfills.
AC-900 and Vapor Suppressing Foam are designed for use at hazardous waste landfills and,
therefore, were not included hi this review. Foam-type ADCMs used at MSWLFs are discussed
below.
3.1.1 AC-645
AC-645 is a single component, surfactant-based foam. The product is supplied hi
concentrated form and is diluted with water before application. Rusmar Inc., recommends applying a
3-inch-thick layer of the material for effective performance. According to the manufacturer, the
product has no shelf-life restriction, but it requires a heated storage unit in freezing temperatures.
The color of the product is usually white, but it can be varied.
AC-645 is diluted with water and stored in a storage unit before being transferred to the
application equipment. The application equipment, called the Pneumatic Foam Unit (PFU), is also
sold by Rusmar Inc. The PFU does not require cleaning after each use.
The cost of the material is reported to be between 6 and 7 cents per square foot (C/ft2), and
the PFUs cost from $44,600 to $225,000 for each unit. The smallest PFU can cover the working
face of a landfill at a rate of 12,000 to 15,000 ft2 in 40 to 60 minutes. The largest PFU can cover
30,000 to 35,000 ft2 in 40 to 60 minutes.
14
-------
Users of AC-645 expressed satisfaction with the performance of AC-645 and its application
equipment. According to its users, AC-645 performs well from 8 to 20 hours, depending on the
weather. Light rains do not affect AC-645, but even moderate rains can wash it away from the
working face. High winds may dry and blow the foam from the working face. One of the users
reported not using AC-645 if the chance of rain is greater than 30 percent or if the wind speed is
expected to exceed 25 miles per hour. AC-645 is also reported to perform well in freezing
temperatures and in very hot weather.
3.1.2 SaniFoam™
SaniFoam™, manufactured by 3M, is an improved version of SaniBlanket,which was
manufactured by SaniFoam™, Inc., of Costa Mesa, California. SaniFoam™, Inc., was acquired by
3M, which now manufactures and markets the improved version. 3M currently markets two
ADCMs: SaniFoam™ and Vapor Suppressing Foam. Vapor Suppressing Foam is designed for use at
hazardous waste landfills and is not discussed in this report.
SaniFoam™ has two components: a foaming agent and a foam stabilizer. The two
components are mixed together and diluted with water according to the manufacturer's instructions for
the application equipment. Compressed air is used to apply the final mixture to the working face.
3M recommends applying Sanifoam in a 1- to 2-inch-thick layer, which sets in about 1 minute.
When set, SaniFoam™ forms a white daily cover that is somewhat softer than styrofoam. Unmixed,
SaniFoam™ stabilizer has a shelf-life of approximately 90 days and should be stored in a heated area
during cold weather. SaniFoam™ foaming agent has no shelf-life restriction.
SaniFoam™ requires special application equipment sold by 3M. Prior to application, the
foaming agent is diluted with water within the tank in the application equipment. The application
equipment ranges from 200 to 1,000 gallons in size. The nozzles used to spray the foam require
cleaning after each use, and the equipment should be flushed with hot water. According to 3M, the
equipment must be flushed to prevent the foam stabilizer from hardening inside the equipment.
Mixing of SaniFoam™ components and equipment flushing are done automatically by the equipment.
15
-------
The reported cost of SaniFoam™ is approximately lOc/fi2. The application equipment costs
between $43,000 and $128,000 per unit, depending on the unit's size. The application equipment is
capable of applying the foam to an area of 10,000 ft2 in approximately 1 hour.
SaniFoam™ users expressed satisfaction with its performance. According to its users,
SaniFoam™ can be applied in light to moderate rains and, once hardened, is unaffected by rams; it
can also sustain high winds. Users find SaniFoam™ performs well from 18 hours to 14 days, after
which it may crack or disintegrate depending on its applied thickness and exposure to sunlight.
Users of SaniFoam™ application equipment expressed mixed opinions about its performance.
The main problem identified with the equipment was that it required cleaning after each use.
According to one user, refilling the tank and cleaning the nozzles requires between 1 and 1-1/2 hours
every day. He recommended that the users of SaniFoam™ should keep spare nozzles. In addition,
the equipment and the fluid foam must be kept warm during cold weather.
3.1.3 TenraFoam™
TerraFoam™, from Chubb National Foam in Exton, Pennsylvania, is a natural protein-based,
biodegradable foam that stays moist after its application. A 6-inch-thick foam cover is recommended
by the manufacturer. TerraFoam™ can be applied during moderate to heavy rains, and it is resistant
to wind. After application, it begins degrading through evaporation; nonetheless, it stays effective
from 8 hours to 9 days, depending on the climate.
f
TerraFoam™ is applied using TerraMAC, a custom-designed, foam application vehicle.
TerraMAC was engineered to be operated by one person, and it does not require cleaning after each
use. The average cost of a 6-inch-thick cover of TerraFoam™ is ISC/ft2. The cost of TerraMAC
varies from $30,000 to $350,000 per unit, depending on the unit's size and features. No users were
available for comment on TerraFoam™.
16
-------
3.1.4 TopCoat™
TopCoat™ is a recently introduced product that consists of two components supplied in liquid
form that are mixed and applied with a modified hydroseeder sold by Central Fiber Corporation.
Both components of TopCoat™ are stored in separate tanks in the hydroseeder and are mixed together
in the spray nozzle before application. The mixed product begins foaming within 30 seconds and
cures within 5 to 10 minutes to form a 2-inch-thick layer of foam. According to the manufacturers,
TopCoat™ can be applied during extreme temperatures and moderate rains. The product has no
shelf-life restriction. However, it should not be stored at temperatures below 15°F. The projected
cost of TopCoat™ is between 10 to ttc/ft2, and the application equipment costs approximately
$25,000. Users' comments on TopCoat™ are not available because the product has only recently
been made available to commercial markets.
3.2 GEOSYNTHETIC PRODUCTS
Geosynthetic products from a number of vendors are currently used as ADCMs. Some of the
geosynthetic products being used were not originally manufactured for use as ADCMs; however,
three geosynthetic products are marketed specifically as ADCMs: (1) Airspace Saver™ from Wire
Rope Specialists, (2) Fabrisoil™ from the Phillips Fibers Corporation (Phillips), and (3) Typar* Daily
Cover (Typar*) from Exxon (Reemay Inc.). These geosynthetic ADCMs are discussed below.
Geosynthetic ADCMs are panels that are usually supplied on pallets or rolls and are deployed
onto the working face of the landfill. Geosynthetic daily covers are applied at the end of each
working day and are removed the next day. The panels are applied manually or by earth-moving
equipment available at most landfills. If the working face is small (about 30 feet by 50 feet), two
people can easily install a geosynthetic daily cover by pulling its edges along the working face.
Loaders or dozers may be necessary to install a geosynthetic daily cover on a larger working face.
Unfolded or unrolled cover is generally held down with tires, concrete blocks, or sand bags to
prevent it from blowing loose in high winds.
17
-------
One of the regulatory officers contacted by PRC was concerned that a geosynthetic ADCM
may cause slope failure if it is buried between two layers of refuse (Bhalla, 1991). However, the
officer's concerns were not shared by users of geosynthetic ADCMs. Most of the users do not
dispose of waste on top of an unfolded geosynthetic daily cover unless it is on a flat surface. Landfill
operators who use geosynthetic ADCMs say that a cover to be discarded is bunched together, rather
than left in place, before being disposed of in the landfill, thereby preventing the potential for slope
failure.
Some individuals familiar with geosynthetic ADCMs recommended not using them when there
is a good possibility of precipitation and freezing temperatures. Under such conditions, the
geosynthetic ADCM may be difficult to remove without damaging it, especially if it is covered with a
large amount of snow or ice. In addition, if a frozen geosynthetic cover is buried in place with
waste, it may cause slope failure.
Users of geosynthetic ADCMs have reported reusing the same panels for many weeks.
Therefore, the unit cost of geosynthetic ADCMs presented below is the cost of purchasing the
ADCM; the average daily cost will depend on the number of days a panel is actually used. Because
geosynthetic ADCMs do not require special application equipment, the cost of application equipment
is not included in the following discussion.
3.2.1 Airspace Saver™
Airspace Saver™ is a woven, polyethylene fabric panel that is coated on both sides with
polyethylene to make it water resistant. The manufacturer also plans to coat Airspace Saver™ panels
with a fire-retardant (Yarborough, 1992). The maximum size of a single panel is limited to 48 feet
by 50 feet, and multiple panels can be used to cover larger working faces. Panels are applied and
removed using D-rings attached to the straps covering the panel perimeter. Panels are held in place
on the working face by concrete blocks, tires, or sand bags. As an option, the manufacturer will sew
3/8-inch-thick steel chains to the panels to hold them down in high winds. The unit costs of panels
and steel chains are We/ft2 and $2.00 per foot, respectively. The average daily cost is approximately
2.7C/ft2, based on the average use of an individual panel for 15 days. Users of Airspace Saver™
expressed satisfaction with its performance as a daily cover.
18
-------
3.2.2 Fabrisoil™
Fabrisoil™ panels are fabricated from nonwoven fabrics made from polypropylene staple
fibers. The panels are custom-made to conform to the dimensions of the size of the working face to
be covered. The maximum size of a single panel is about 150 feet by 150 feet, and multiple panels
can be used to cover a larger working face. Fabrisoil™ panels come factory-seamed with sleeves
along their perimeter. Users can insert chains, bars, or ropes in the sleeves to facilitate handling the
panels. The unit cost of Fabrisoil™ ranges from 19 to 22c/ft2, depending on the quantity purchased.
The average daily cost varies from 1.3 to l.SC/ft2, based on the average use of an individual panel for
15 days.
Users of Fabrisoil™ expressed satisfaction with its performance, except for mixed opinions
about unfolding and folding the panels in rainy weather. One user reported that initially water-
repellant panels began absorbing water after continued use in rainy weather. The water absorbed on
the Fabrisoil™ makes it heavy and, hence, difficult to manipulate. Over-used panels may also
become heavy because they tend to pick up dirt. Because of their increased weight, wet or over-used
panels also become prone to tearing when pulled over the refuse.
Phillips acknowledged that panels are heavy when wet. The company representative
recommended avoiding over-use of panels and suggested a number of ways for efficient handling of
panels. According to Phillips, Fabrisoil™ panels should always be rolled on or unfolded over the
working face to cover the waste. For removal from the working face, a Fabrisoil™ panel should
always be pulled over itself and not over the refuse. Pulling panels over refuse may damage the
panels. In addition, on a sloping working face, the panels should be rolled down from the top of the
working face and rolled back from the bottom of the working face.
3.2.3 Typar*
Typai* is a thermally-spunbonded material made from polypropylene fibers. It is currently
available in a standard size of 46 feet by 100 feet, but can be custom-made to any size. The unit cost
of Typar* is ISC/ft2; the average daily cost is ic/ft2, based on the average use of an individual panel
19
-------
for 15 days. Typar* is sold folded on pallets or on rolls. The cover is unfolded or unrolled on the
working face of the landfill and held in place with tires, concrete blocks, or sand bags.
Typar* users expressed satisfaction with its performance as a daily cover. One user reported
that Typar* has a smooth surface that helps it slide easily over compacted refuse (Harrenberg, 1992).
One consultant on geosynthetics reported that Typar* sheds water easily (Drew, 1992).
3 J SLURRY-TYPE PRODUCTS
ConCover™ from Newastecon, Inc., of Perrysburg, Ohio; Land-Cover Formula 480 from
Enviro Group of Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Posi-Shell from Landfill Technologies, Inc., of West
Sand Lake, New York, are three slurry-type ADCMs. Posi-Shell is not discussed in this report
because representatives of Landfill Technologies, Inc., did not respond to PRC's request for
information. Information on ConCover™ and Land-Cover Formula 480 is presented below.
3.3.1 ConCover™
ConCover™ is a fiber-based product that derives some of its fibers from recycled newspaper
and wood chips. It has two components: a fiber matrix and a polymer binding agent. Both
components are supplied in solid form and are mixed with water to form a slurry that can have
several colors, including green. The slurry is applied on the working face of the landfill with
proprietary application equipment and it dries to form a 1/8- to 1/4-inch-thick crust. The drying time
for the slurry is approximately 1 hour, but may vary depending on the weather conditions during
drying. ConCover™ components have no shelf-life restriction, but once mixed, they should be used
within 24 hours to avoid any settling of components within the application equipment (Savage, 1992).
ConCover™ components are mixed and diluted with water in the ConCover™ All Purpose
Sprayer (CAPS) that is used to apply this ADCM. CAPS can also be used for other landfill
applications, including fire fighting and power washing. The application equipment ranges in size
from 300 to 3,300 gallons and can cover a working face of 10,000 ft2 in approximately 1 hour. The
cost of CAPS ranges from $16,000 to $40,000 for each unit. The cost of ConCover™ is
approximately 60/ft2.
20
-------
Users of ConCover™ expressed satisfaction with its performance. According to its users,
ConCover™ can be applied in light to moderate rain but not during heavy rains. However, dried
ConCover™ is unaffected by heavy rains and high winds, and it may perform well for several
months. The application equipment is reported to be easy to use and relatively trouble-free.
3.3.2 Land-Cover Formula 480
Land-Cover Formula 480 is a clay-based product. It is a liquid, clay concentrate,
manufactured from clay and proprietary polymers. The product has a clay-type smell and is generally
sold in a black color. However, it can be colored green for aesthetic reasons and can also be seeded.
According to manufacturers, one part of concentrate is diluted with three parts of water. The
mixture is sprayed to a thickness of 1/8-inch to form a daily cover of very low permeability. The
sprayed product dries in 1 to 1-1/2 hours, depending on weather conditions. The dilution of the
concentrate can be varied to produce a wide range of permeability in the daily cover. For example,
one part of concentrate diluted with three parts of water forms a low-permeability daily cover for use
at a hazardous waste landfill. More dilute concentrations form a relatively permeable daily cover,
which can be used at a sanitary landfill, for slope stabilization in a landfill cell, and for dust control
on roads at the landfill.
Land-Cover Formula 480 has no shelf-life or storage temperature restriction. It can be
applied using a hydroseeder generally available at most landfills. However, Enviro Group
recommends using a modified hydroseeder that it sells.
Comments on the product's cost and performance are not available because Enviro Group did
not identify any of its users to PRC. According to Enviro Group, the average cost of Land-Cover
Formula 480 is SC/ft2; the cost of the application equipment is currently unavailable. Enviro Group
also informed PRC that the product can be applied to 10,000 ft2 in approximately 1 hour. After
drying, it performs well for several months. The product can be sprayed in light rains, but not in
heavy rains. However, once the product dries and forms a crust over the waste, it is not affected by
heavy rains or high wind. PRC attended a demonstration of Land-Cover Formula 480, and the
product's performance appeared to support the claims made by the manufacturer.
21
-------
3.4 OTHER COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
Commercial products other than those discussed above are also available. However, some of
these products, such as Naturite and Naturfill from Chemfix Technologies, Inc., of Ventura,
California, are available only in limited geographical regions and, therefore, they are not discussed in
this report. Other products, such as Aqua-Shed, are currently being marketed as intermediate cover
materials but they can also be used as ADCMs. Aqua-Shed is a flypaper-like product manufactured
by Aqua-Shed, Inc., of Costa Mesa, California. A detailed discussion of these products is not
included in this report because they are not primarily intended for use as a daily cover. In general,
products marketed as an intermediate cover cost more and last longer than ADCMs. The
manufacturers of these products, listed in Appendix A, may be contacted for more details.
4.0 SHREDDED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Shredded municipal solid waste is not an ADCM. However, shredding waste before
disposing of it eliminates many problems that necessitate the use of a daily cover (Reinhardt and
Ham, 1974). The State of Florida allows landfills to dispose of shredded waste without a daily cover
(Castro, 1991). Canada and several European countries also permit the disposal of shredded waste
without daily cover. The advantages of shredded waste over unshredded waste include the following:
• It does not attract birds and flies the way unshredded waste does.
• It does not produce as many odors as unshredded waste.
• It has a more aesthetic appearance than unshredded waste, because individual waste
items are no longer recognizable.
• It can be compacted more densely than unshredded waste.
• It does not cause as much wear and tear on landfill equipment as unshredded waste,
because shredded waste is more uniform in size and does not contain large, sharp,
irregularly shaped items.
22
-------
The disadvantages of shredded waste include the following:
• It is a costly operation requiring a large initial capital investment.
• It is a labor intensive operation, because the waste has to be sorted before shredding
to remove items such as carpets, large plastic sheets, and gas tanks that can damage
the shredder.
• It may create hazardous working conditions because explosions and fires may occur if
an explosive material finds its way into the shredder.
• It is more prone to fire hazard than unshredded waste, because shredded waste has a
greater reactive surface area.
• It is more permeable and allows more infiltration of rain than unshredded waste.
A combination of improved operational practices, effective fire-prevention methods, and use
of a daily cover in wet weather may make shredding an effective alternative to a daily cover.
5.0 SUMMARY
This report summarizes the findings of PRC's research on ADCMs currently available for use
at MSWLFs. A variety of materials are currently being used as alternatives to the 6-inch-thick layer
of soil conventionally used for daily cover. Some materials, conventionally disposed of as waste in
MSWLFs, can be used as indigenous ADCMs. Commercial products are also available for use as
ADCMs.
Indigenous ADCMs, such as ash, offer the following advantages over their commercial
counterparts:
• Using indigenous ADCMs saves money for the landfill operators because no
special application equipment is needed. Most indigenous ADCMs are
obtained by landfill operators as waste to be disposed of in their landfills;
earth-moving equipment available at most landfills can be used to apply these
materials.
• Applying indigenous ADCMs does not involve the additional labor costs
associated with preparing and applying some commercial ADCMs. Labor
costs are not increased because the indigenous material already is a waste to
23
-------
be disposed of in the landfill and can form a daily cover when disposed of in
a planned way.
• Using indigenous ADCMs optimizes the use of available landfill space;
materials that were to be disposed of in the landfill as waste are disposed of as
cover, saving landfill space that would be consumed by a soil or by those
commercial daily covers that take up landfill space.
However, indigenous ADCMs may not always be available for regular use. Storing indigenous
materials that are delivered irregularly may create space- or routing-related problems. In addition,
weather conditions may limit the use of some indigenous ADCMs. Considering such restrictions on
the use of indigenous ADCMs, a combination of indigenous and commercial ADCMs may be a more
effective alternative to conventional, soil daily cover.
5.1 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING AN ADCM
Selecting an indigenous ADCM for regular use at a'particular landfill may not always be
possible, primarily because of the limited availability of such materials to most landfill operators.
Commercial ADCMs should be considered when indigenous ADCMs are not readily and regularly
available. Landfill operators should consider the following general factors when selecting a
commercial ADCM for their facilities: effectiveness in meeting the functional requirements of a daily
cover, availability, suitability, equipment requirements, and cost. In addition to these general factors,
operators should also consider specific, technical factors related to ADCM performance. These
factors are discussed below.
5.1.1 Effectiveness in Meeting the Functional Requirements of a Daily Cover
To be considered as an ADCM, the material should effectively perform all functions of a
daily cover specified by federal regulations (see Subsection 1.1.1). The effectiveness of a material in
performing other functions of a daily cover, such as controlling dust, improving site aesthetics, and
providing a moisture barrier (see Subsection 1.1.2) is also desirable, but not necessary.
24
-------
5.1.2 Availability
For the regular use of a commercial ADCM at a landfill, the material should be readily
available to the landfill operator. Shelf-life and any storage restriction associated with the ADCM
should be considered. Such restrictions may be especially important to landfill operators having
facilities in remote areas or where weather conditions may affect storage requirements. Materials
such as geosynthetic ADCMs can be purchased in bulk and stored safely until needed. However,
some material requiring special storage conditions, such as AC-645, may be difficult or costly to store
for long periods.
Continued future availability of a material should also be considered, especially if a capital
investment is required to acquire application equipment. Such a consideration is important because if
the material selected as an ADCM is discontinued by its manufacturer, capital used to purchase
application equipment may not provide an adequate return on investment.
5.1.3 Suitability
The nature and size of the waste surface should be considered when selecting a suitable
ADCM. Some ADCMs, such as TerraFoam™, may not be suitable for covering the steeply sloping
surface of the landfill's working face, especially if waste is disposed of in the form of bails. ADCMs
applied in liquid form may fall off a steeply sloping working face before they can dry and form a
cover. Some ADCMs, such as geosynthetic products-, may be better suited to smaller areas than other
ADCMs. For example, SaniFoam™ requires preparations and costly equipment, and it would be
more time- and cost-effective if it is used to cover a large area.
Commercial ADCMs do not perform equally well under all climatic conditions. Some
ADCMs, such as Airspace Saver™, can be used during heavy rains, whereas others, such as
TopCoat™ may not perform well in heavy rains.
25
-------
5.1.4 Equipment Requirements
Some commercial ADCMs, such as TerraFoam™, require costly application equipment,
whereas others, such as Fabrisoil™ and Typar*. may not require any additional equipment. Among
ADCMs that require application equipment, some ADCMs, such as SaniFoam™, require regular
maintenance of the equipment; others, such as AC-645, may need only occasional equipment
maintenance.
5.1.5 Cost
ADCMs requiring special application equipment may require substantial capital investment
and may add to equipment maintenance costs. In addition, the average daily cost of reusable
ADCMs, such as geosynthetic products, may be much lower than that of single-application ADCMs,
such as foam- or slurry-type products.
5.1.6 Specific Technical Factors
In addition to the above-mentioned general factors, specific, technical factors related to the
performance of individual ADCMs should also be considered. Such factors may include hydraulic
conductivity, water retention, gas permeability, flammability, flash point, melting point, and tensile
strength of the ADCM. All of these factors may not apply to every ADCM, and a testing method for
measuring some of the factors may not be currently available. For example, measuring tensile
strength would not apply to foam-type ADCMs. Likewise, it may not be possible or necessary to
measure the melting point of a clay-based ADCM. The information available on factors such as
performance, equipment, and cost requirements is presented in Table 1.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Further investigation is recommended for a detailed evaluation and comparison of available
ADCMs. A detailed investigation of ADCMs should include the following tasks:
• Identify parameters that affect the performance of ADCMs, including physical
and chemical properties.
26
-------
Identify testing methods available to measure performance parameters.
Measure the identified performance parameters for samples of representative
ADCMs, using the identified testing methods.
Evaluate the performance of representative ADCMs in the field.
Provide guidelines to public and regulatory organizations for selecting and
evaluating ADCMs based on findings from the above tasks.
27
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE-, EQUIPMENT-, AND COST-RELATED FACTORS FOR COMMERCIAL ADCMS
Factor
Controls Disease Vectors
Controls Fired
Controls Odors
Controls Blowing Litter
Prevents Infiltration
Controls Dust
Improves Site Aesthetics
Adversely Affected by Sunlight
Performance Duration (Single Application)
Maximum Rain Intensity During Application
Application Possible During High Winds
Application Possible During Freezing Temperatures
Maximum Rain Intensity Sustained After Hardening
Period, If Required
Maximum Winds Sustained After Hardening Period, If
Required
Can Sustain Freezing Temperature After Hardening
Period, If Required
Can Sustain Precipitation During Freezing Temperature
After Hardening Period, If Required
Storage Temperature Restrictions
Shelf Life Restrictions
Preparation Time Required
Reusable
Application Equipment Requires Special Maintenance
Cost of Application Equipment
Unit Cost of Material [in cents per square foot (C/ft2)
Average Daily Cost of Material (in C/ft2)
Hes: '-- Land Cover Formula (LCR 480 °~ A.
LCP
NEIA
Yes
Yes
NEIA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Long"
No
NK
High
High
Yes
Yes
No
No
1 Hour
1 Hour
No
No
NK
3
3
AC-645
NEIA
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Low"
No Rains
No
NK
Low
Low
Yes
NK
Yes
No
1 Hour
1 Hour
No
No
$85,000 to
$290,000
6 to 7
6 to 7
C Kl
San i Foam
NEIA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Moderate1
Moderate
Yes
NK
High
High
Yes
Yes
Yes
90 Days
1 .5 Hour
1 Hour
No
Yes
$43,000 to
$128,000
10
10
TerraFoam
. NEIA
NEIA
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Moderate
Moderate
Yes
NK
Low
Low
NK
NK
Yes
NK
NK
NK
No
Yes
$30,000 to
$350,000
15
15
TopCoat
NEIA
NEIA
Yes
Yes
Yes
NKf
Yes
Yes
NK
NK
NK
NK
NK
NK
NK
NK
NK
Yes
NK
NK
NK
No
NK
$25,000
10 to 12
10 to 12
ASS"
NEIA
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Long
High
No
Yes
High
High*
Yes
Yes1
No
No
0.5 Hour
Yes
No
None
40
2.7-
Fabrisoil
NEIA
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes«
Yes
Yes
No
Long
High
No
Yes
Low
High'
Yes
Yes1
No
No
0.5 Hour
Yes
No
None
19 to 22
1.3 to 1.5"
NEIA
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes«
Yes
Yes
No
Long
High
No
Yes
Moderate
High*
Yes
Yes1
No
No
0.5 Hour
Yes
No
None
15
r
NEIA
NEIA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Moderate
Yes
Yes
High
High
Yes
Yes
No
No
1 Hour
0.5 Hour
No
No
$16,000 to
$40,000
5 to 7
5 to 7
. • 1 • —• •••**» %«»vu£ii iiiiui mmiuii avjuiau
-- Evaluation based on assumption that fire is controlled by covering waste with the ADCM
'-- Evaluation based on assumpt.on that controllmg odor and appearance of waste would control scavenging '-- Not Known (NK) «- Prevents infiltration only ,n light ram
," „ r* lha" ,2 Weeks '" From 8 •<» 2* hours '- From 8 hours to 2 weeks »- Assum.ng that panels are we.ghed down
-- Panels would have to be abandoned ,f covered with excessive snow or ,f frozen -_ Assuming that the same cover is reused 15 tunes
28
-------
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Water Works Association Sludge Disposal Committee, 1978, Water Treatment Plant
Sludges - An Update of the State of the Art: Part 2. Water Technology/Quality October
p. 548-554.
Belken, J.D. and R.D. Yabroff, 1990, Use of Nonwoven Geotextile as a Substitute for Landfill Daily
Cover. Proceedings of Thirteenth Annual Madison Waste Conference, Department of
Engineering Professional Development, University of Wisconsin-Madison, September 19-20.
BioCycle, 1986, Garbage Compost for Landfill Cover (March).
Bonaparte, R., and others, 1988, Survivability and Durability of a Nonwoven Geotextile.
Proceedings of Symposium on Geosynthetics for Soil Improvement, GT Division/ASCE
National Convention, Nashville, Tennessee (May 9), p. 68-91.
Butler, L., 1991, Vapor-Suppressing Foam Covers Waste Disposal Site, Pollution Engineering (May).
Carson, David A., 1991, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Daily Cover Alternatives. Paper presented
at the 5th Annual Geosynthetic Research Institute Symposium (December), Drexel University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Drew, Dawn M., 1991, Alternative Daily Cover Material for Landfill Use. Environmental Network
Weare, New Hampshire.
Emanual, Greg, 1988, Operational Costs of Applied Daily Cover Material at Sanitary Landfills in
North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina. Master's Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering
North Carolina State University.
Firstman, Sidney I., 1982, A Technical Introduction to Sani-Blanket Daily Landfill Cover. Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
GeoResearch, 1990, The Suitability of Treated Sewage Sludge for Daily Landfill Cover, BKK
Landfill, 2210 S. Azusa Ave., West Covina, California.
Glick, H.B., 1984, Coal Ash Used For Landfill Cover, World Wastes (December), p. 22-24.
Graven, J.T. and F.G. Pohland, 1987, Urea-Formaldehyde Foam as a Landfill Cover Material:
Simulated Landfill Investigations. Waste Management and Research, No. 5, p. 41-53.
Graven, J.T., and others, 1985, Method Development for the Determination of Trace Levels of
Formaldehyde in Polluted Waters. Advances in Chemistry Series No. 210, American
Chemical Society, Victor Turoski, Editor.
Hatcher-Sayre, Inc., 1988, Evaluation of 3M Foamat™ Synthetic Daily Cover Performance,
Shoosmith Landfill, Chesterfield County, Virginia (September 28).
29
-------
Hatheway, Allen W. and Colin C. McAneny, 1987, An In-Depth Look At Landfill Covers, Waste
Age (August), p. 135-156.
Horn, G.H., 1991, Landfill Cover More Than Dirt. Waste Dynamics of New England, Vol. 2
No. 5, p. 3. '
Jesitus, J., 1992, Soil Substitutes Slush Daily-Cover Needs. MSW Management (March/April),
p. 34-45.
Modjeski, Dorian and others, 1990, Hernando County Buys More Landfill Time. World Wastes
(April), p. 110-134.
Perkins, Ken and Pete Dohms, 1989, Using Wood Ash for Landfill Cover. Solid Waste and Power
(August), p. 32-39.
Pohland, Frederick G., 1983, The Use of Plastic Foam as a Cover Material During Landfilling of
Solid Wastes. School of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Georgia.
Reinhardt, John J. and Robert K. Ham, 1974, Solid Waste Milling and Disposal on Land Without
Cover. National Technical Information System (NTIS) No. PB 234 930.
Rohr, J.J., and others, 1990, The Use of Geosynthetics as Daily Cover at Solid Waste Landfills
Paper presented at the ASTSWMO 1990 National Solid Waste Forum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
(July 16-18).
Salimando, J., 1987, Why Outagamie County Uses Foam, Waste Age (March).
Schaper, Laurence T. and Gerald A. Neely, 1985, Synthetic Foam Covers for Sanitary Landfills: An
Examination and Update, Public Works, May 1985, p. 60-62.
Solid Waste Management, 1980 Country Shreds Refuse For Landfilling, Making Daily Cover
Unnecessary (January), p. 26-44.
Spleen, Tony, 1988, Daily Cover Is Where You Find It, Waste Age (February), p. 125-126.
Vasuki, N.C., and others, 1992, Plush, Pile, or Shag? Reuse of Carpets on Landfills: an Intriguing
Possibility.
Ventura Regional Sanitation District, 1988, Evaluation of Naturite For Use As Cover Material.
Progress Report, 1001 Partridge Drive, Suite 150, Ventura, CA 93003-5562.
Waste Age, 1973, Position on Landfilling of Milled Solid Waste (March/April).
30
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
Bhalla, Sukhdev, 1991, Bureau of Landfill Engineering, Region of SW Waste Management, New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, Telephone
Conversation with Manoj Mishra, PRC, June 18.
Castro, Vincent, 1991, South Dade Landfill, 24000 West 97th Ave., Miami, Florida, 33170,
Telephone Conversation with Manoj Mishra, PRC, June 26.
Coke, Janet, 1991, L.A. County Sanitation District, Whittier, California, Telephone Conversation
with Manoj Mishra, PRC, June 27.
Dexter, Ed., 1991, Maryland Department of Environmental Engineering, Telephone Conversation
with Manoj Mishra, PRC, May 23.
Drew, D.M., 1992, Environmental Network, Weare, New Hampshire, Comments on Draft Final
Report for Alternative Daily Cover Materials, May 18.
GeoResearch, 1990. The Suitability of Treated Sewage Sludge for Daily Landfill Cover, BKK
Landfill, 2210 S. Azusa Ave., West Covina, California.
Harrenberg, Steve, 1992, Tazewell County Landfill, East Peoria, Illinois, Telephone Conversation
with Manoj Mishra, PRC, May 26.
Lurix, Joe, 1991, West Palm Beach Office of Department of Environmental Regulations, West Palm
Beach, Florida, Telephone Conversation with Manoj Mishra, PRC, June 27.
Reinhardt, J.J. and R.K. Ham, 1974. Solid Waste Milling And Disposal On Land Without Cover
Vol. 1, NTISNo. PB-234930.
Savage, Bob, 1992, Newastecon Inc., 7365 Fremont Pike, Perrysburg, Ohio, Telephone Conversation
with Manoj Mishra, PRC, May 26.
Smith, Steve A., 1991, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, California,
Telephone Conversation with Manoj Mishra, PRC, June 20.
Spoo, Bruce, 1991, Environmental Protection Products, 3M, St. Paul, Minnesota, Telephone
Conversation with Manoj Mishra, PRC, June 18.
Wackerly, Thomas, 1991, BKK landfill, 2210 S. Azusa Avenue, West Covina, California, Comments
on Draft Report for Alternative Daily Cover Materials, August 28, 1991.
Watson, Richard, 1992, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, Dover, Delaware, Comments on Draft
Final Report for Alternative Daily Cover Materials, May 14.
Yarborough, Marlon, 1992, Wire Rope Specialists, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Telephone Conversation
with Manoj Mishra, PRC, May 23.
31
-------
APPENDIX A
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF INDIVIDUALS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ADCMS
-------
APPENDIX A
This appendix lists the information needed to contact individuals with knowledge of and
experience with ADCMs discussed in this report. The following list includes users of ADCMs and,
when available, regulatory personnel familiar with ADCMs. Contact information for manufacturers
or distributors of commercial products is also included.
Ash-Based Material
INDIGENOUS MATERIALS
User and Regulatory Organization Contact
David E. Berglund Mark Eyeington, Director of Operations
Town Landfill Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
1 87 Main Street 7501 North Jog Rd.
Foxboro, MA 02035 West Palm Beach, FL 33412
Phone: (508)543-3419 Phone: (407)640-4000 ext. 303
Auto Recycling Fluff And Foundry Sand-Based Material
User
Henry Sommer, Landfill Superintendent
Sunnyview Landfill
100 W. County Road Y
Oshkosh, WI 54901
Phone: (414)424-1192
Compost-Based Material
User and Regulatory Organization Contact
Dan Flegal, Sanitarian
Cowlitz Wahkiakum Health District
P.O. Box 458
Longview, WA 98632
Phone: (206)425-7400
A-l
-------
Dredged Material
User and Regulatory Organization Contact
Mark Eyeington, Director of Operations
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
7501 North Jog Rd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33412
Phone: (407)640-4000 ext. 303
Green Waste-Based Material
User
Doug London, Manager
Solid Waste Division
Kern County Public Works Department
2700 M. Street, Suite 500
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (805)861-3636
Shredded Municipal Waste-Based Material
User and Regulatory Organization Contact
Dan Flegal, Sanitarian
Cowlitz Wahkiakum Health District
P.O. Box 458
Longview, WA 98632
Phone: (206)425-7400
Sludge-Based Material
User
Thomas Wackerly
BKK Landfill
2210 South Azusa Avenue
WestCovina, CA 91792-1510
Phone: (818)965-0911
User/Regulatorv Organization Contact
Janet Coke, Project Engineer
L. A. County Sanitation District
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier.CA 90607
Phone:(213)699-7411 ext. 2461
A-2
-------
Rice Husk-Based Material
PRC's Japanese Contact
Dr. Kunitoshi Sakurai
Senior Development Specialist (Environmental Health)
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Institute for International Cooperation
10-5 Ichigaya-Hommurachoh, Shinjuku
Tokyo 162
Japan
Phone: 81-3-3269-3851
Construction And Demolition Waste-Based Material
User and Regulatory Organization Contact
Mark Eyeington, Director of Operations
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
7501 North Jog Rd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33412
Phone: (407)640-4000 ext. 303
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
Foam-Tvpe Product
AC-645
Manufacturer/Distributor User
Scott Butville Logan Miller, Facilities Engineer
Rusmar Inc. Central Solid Waste Management Center
216 Garfield Street Delaware Solid Waste Authority
West Chester, PA 19380 P.O. Box 455
Dover, DE 19903
Phone: (215)436-4314 Phone: (302)284-3933
A-3
-------
SaniFoam™
Manufacturer/Distributor
Bruce H. Spoo
Market Development Manager
Environmental Protection Products
3M Center Building 223-6S-04
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
Phone: (612)7364236
Regulatory Organization Contact
Mary Nogas
Solid Waste Supervisor, North-East District
7825 Bay Meadows Way, Suite 200B
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Phone: (904)448-4300 ext. 355
TerraFoam™
Manufacturer/Distributor
Giff Swayne
Chubb National Foam
P.O. Box 270
Exton, PA 19341-1350
Phone: (215)363-1400
TopCoat™
Manufacturer
Dr. Ravi Bhaskar
Central Fiber Corporation
4814 Fiber Lane Road
Wellsville, KS 66092
Phone:(800)654-6117
User
Donald Loup
Location Consultants
P.O. Box 31686
Lafayette, LA 70593
Phone: (318)984-3556
User
Nolan Perin
Grand Central Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
1963 Pen Argyl Road
Pen Argyl, PA 18072
Phone: (215)863-6057
Distributor
Erosion Control Systems
1800 McFarland Blvd. North, Suite 180
Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
Phone: (205)759-5151
A-4
-------
Geosvnthetic Product
Airspace Saver™
Manufacturer/Distributor
Marlon Yarborough
Wire Rope Specialists
P.O. Box 77757
Baton Rouge, LA 70879
Phone: (800)673-1570
Fabrisoil™
Manufacturer
Gerald Barry
Phillips Fibers Corporation
421 North NorthWest Highway, Suite 201
Harrington, IL 60010
Phone: (708)382-9666
Regulatory Organization Contact
Ed Bakowski
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: (217)782-2829
User
John Peterson
Waste Management Skyline Landfill
P.O. Box 400
Ferris, TX 75125
Phone: (214)225-7503
User
Doug Nord
McLean County Landfill
Rural Route Number 3
Box 142
Bloomington, IL 61704
Phone: (309)827-8631
Typar* Daily Cover
Manufacturer/Distributor
BUI Hawkins
Reemay Inc.
70 Old Hickory Boulevard
Old Hickory, TN 37138
Phone: (615)847-7000
Steve Harenberg
Tazewell County Landfill
3550 East Washington Street
East Peoria, IL 61611
Phone: (309)694-0295
A-5
-------
Slurrv-TYoa Product
ConCover™
Manufacturer/Distributor
Tim Johnson
Newastecon Inc.
7365 Fremont Pike, P.O. Box 941
Perrysburg, OH 43552
Phone: (419)837-2686
Regulatory Organization Contact
Irene North
Ohio EPA, Northwest District
1035 Devlac Grove Drive
Bowling Green, OH 43402
Phone: (419)352-8461
Land-Cover Formula 480
Manufacturer/Distributor
David Fisher
Enviro Group
P.O. Box 3023
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Phone: (313)930-0761
Posi-Shell
Manufacturer/Distributor
Thomas Hoffman
Landfill Technologies, Inc.
P.O. Box 519
West Sand Lake, NY 12196
Phone: (518)674-8694
User
Mike Olson
Wayne Disposal Inc.
1349 Huron
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Phone: (313)485-6460
A-6
-------
Sludee And Other Waste Streams-Based Product
Naturfill and Naturite
Manufacturer/Distributor
Lisa B. Kistler
Chemfix Technologies, Inc.
1536 Eastman Avenue, Suite A
Ventura, CA 93003
Phone: (805)654-1900
Intermediate Covers
Aqua-Shed
Manufacturer/Distributor
Mark C. Cunniffe
Aqua-Shed, Inc.
3001 RedHill Ave., Suite 4-108
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714)557-5671
User/Reeulatory Organization Contact
David Jackson
Ventura Regional Sanitation District
4105 West Gonzales Road
Oxnard, CA 93030
Phone: (805)658-4672
A-7
------- |