United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste
Washington DC 20460
Solid Waste
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
On the Proposed Guidelines
for the Landfill Disposal
of Solid Waste
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED REGULATION
'GUIDELINES FOR LANDFILL
DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
(40 CRF PART 241}
PREPARED BY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
W. PLEHN
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR SOLID WASTE
MARCH 1979
-------
SUMMARY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE
PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR THE LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
1. Name of Action
Administrative Action (regulatory)
2. Brief Description of Action
Under authority of Section 1008(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (Public
Law 94-850), EPA has issued a proposed set of “Guidelines for the Landfill
Disposal of Solid Waste”. The proposed action presents recommended consid-
erations and practices for the location, design, construction, oDeration,
and maintenance of solid waste landfill disposal facilities. Application
of these recommended practices on the case-by-case basis should assist such
facilities in meeting the provisions contained in EPA’s “Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities”.
3. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
a. Foremost, application of the proposed Guidelines will
contribute to significant overall improvements in
environmental quality. Specifically, beneficial
impacts can be expected for groundwater quality,
surface water quality, and air quality, as well as
in the areas of increased protection of public
health and safety.
b. Existing facilities employing Guidelines recommended
technologies to upgrade operations should eliminate
or reduce to acceptable levels the adverse environ-
mental effects resulting from present practices.
c. Utilization of the Guidelines’ recommendations
should enable new and planned landfill disposal
facilities to be sited, constructed, operated,
and maintained in a manner that ensures a reason-
able degree of Drotection for environmental re-
sources and for the public welfare.
d. Incorporation of the Guidelines recommended consid-
erations and practices in landfilling solid wastes
will increase energy usage for the design, instal-
lation, and operation of new technologies and con-
sequently, increase the economic cost of landfill
disposal of solid wastes.
—111—
-------
4. Alternatives Considered
a. No action
b. Delay of action
c. Proposed action (technical and approach alternatives)
d. Alternative action
5. Federal, State, and Local Agencies From Which Written Comments Have
Been Requested
The proposed guidelines are being distributed to hundreds of individuals
and organizations representing all sectors of our society. The draft EIS is
also being distributed to a diverse group of individuals and organizations
including, but not limited to, the following examples:
Other Federal Agencies
Department of Interior (U.S.G.S., Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Mines,
MESA, Office of Surface Mining)
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Food and Drug)
Department of Agriculture
Department of Comerce
Department of Energy
Department of Defense
State Government
All 50 State solid waste management offices
National Governors’ Association
National Conference of State Legislators
National Association of State Attorneys General
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers
Local Government
National Association of Regional Councils
National Association of Counties
National League of Cities/U.S. Conference of Mayors
International City Management Association
— iv-
-------
Solid Waste Management Professional Groups
National Solid Waste Management Association
Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal Association
American Public Works Association
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities
Professional Associations
American Society of Civil Engineers
Water Pollution Control Federation
American Water Works Association
National Water Well Association
Environmental, Health, and Citizens Groups
Citizens for a Better Environment
Environmental Action, Inc.
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
National Environmental Health Association
Izaac Walton League
League of Women Voters
6. Date Statement Available to the Public
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been provided to the
Office of Federal Activities, EPA, for the purpose of publishing an
official public notice of availability in the Federal Register . This
notice is anticipated by March 1 , 1979. The 60-day public comment period
for the Draft ETS will be concurrent with the public comment period on
the proposed Guidelines. Copies of the Draft EIS may be obtained by
writing: DRAFT EIS, Office of Solid Waste, WH564, U.S. EPA, Washington,
D.C. 20460, Attention: Bernard Stoll. Comments should be sent to the
same address.
- v—
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS’
This EIS was prepared by Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., under EPA
contract number 68—01-4895. The major contract personnel contributing
to this EIS were:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc .
William H. Crowell
Fred C. Hart (Project Director)
James E. McCarthy
Wayne K. Tusa (Assistant Project Manager)
Timothy D. Van Epp
Barbara M. Wong
Sandy P. Wright (Project Manager)
The EPA Project Officer was Bernard J. Stoll, Office of Solid Waste.
Additional assistance was gratefully received from numerous EPA, State
and industry personnel.
-vi—
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECT ION PAGE
SuniTlary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . • . . • • • . • • • • • • ‘ 1 1
Ackno 1edge ents . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
List of Tables x
List of Figures . . . . . . xi
1.0 Executive Suniiiary . . .. 1
2.0 Introduction 3
2. 1 Probi em Description . . . . . . 3
2.2 Legal Basis for Action . .. .. 5
2.3 Suninary of Proposed Action ............... 7
9
2.5 EIS Scope of Work . . . . . 10
3.0 Approach . 11
3.1 Background Information and Sources . 11
32 EvaluationMethods andApproach ..................... 11
4.0 EvaluatIon of Alternative Technologies . 13
4.1 Compaction . . . .. . . . . . .. !. . 14
4.2 Shredding ......... 16
4.3 BalIng . . •1•• •• • • . . . . . . •1•S • • • • • • • . . . . .. . 18
4.4 Surface Runoff Diversion ...... .;., 20
- v ii —
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION PAGE
4.0 ( continued )
4.5 GradIng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.6 Diking . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.7 Ponding 30
4.8 DaIly and Final Cover . . . . . . . . . .. 32
4.9 Synthetic Liners . . . . . 45
4.10 Natural Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.11 Leachate Collection . . . . . . . •. 57
4.12 Leachate Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.l3Leachate.Recycliflg . . . . . .. 69
4.14 Impermeable Barriers . 71
4.15 Permeable Trenches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.16 Vertical Risers 78
4.17 Gas Collection . 82
4.18 Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.19 Safety 88
4.20 Fire Control . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.21 Vector Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.22 Litter Control •. . . . .• 94
4.23 Gas Monitoring 96
4.24 Leachate Monitoring . . . . . . 100
4.25 Revegetatlon . . . • . . . . 116
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . 120
—viii —
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION PAGE
5.0 Summary Evaluation of Guidelines Impacts • 122
5.1 Environmental Impact Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.2 Economic Impact Summary . . . . . . 126
5.3 Energy Impact Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Uses: Short-term
Use vs. Long-term Productivity 147
6.1 Irreversible and Irretrievable Uses . 147
6.2 Short-term Use vs. Long-term Use . 148
7.0 Summary of Public Participation 149
7.1 OrganizationS and Persons Consulted . 149
7.2 Pertinent Public Hearing Questions
andResponses 150
Bibliography . 151
Appendix A: Liner Materials Evaluation 175
Appendix B: Unit Cost Calculations and Assumptions 182
—ix—
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
4—1 Ranking of USCS soil types according to performance 34
of cover functions. . . . . .
4—2 Current covercosts . . . . . . 42
4—3 Attenuation and permeability properties of clays. . . • • 52
4—4 ChemIcal characterization of the clay minerals 55
used in attenuation studies of leachate pollutants.
4—5 Leachate treatability by alternate treatment methods. . .
4—6 Results of physical-chemical treatment processes 62
4—7 Results of biological treatment processes . . . 67
4—8 Passive leachate monitoring well techniques for sampling 106
in the saturated zone, advantages and disadvantages.
4..9 Passive leachate monitoring field inspection techniques) 110
advantages and disadvantages. . . . . . . . . . . .
4—10 Other passive leachate monitoring techniques, 3
advantages and disadvantages. . . . • 11
4—11 Some grasses and shrubs with extensive root systems . • 118
5—1 ExistIng technology levels and assumed upgrading
e c no og . . . . .
5—2 Upgrading technology costs. 131
5—3 Alternate upgrading technology costs 132
5—4 Impact of Guidelines on operating costs of municipal 134
solid waste landfills (cost/ton) . .
5—5 Impact of Guidelines on operating costs of industrial
waste landfills (cost/ton) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5—6 Impact of Guidelines on operating costs of pollution 136
control residue waste landfills (cost/ton)
5—7 Summary of impact of landfill Guidelines on operating 137
costs of landfills (cost/ton) .
5-8 Upgrading technologies resulting in increased energy
operating costs 144
5—9 Total increased capital costs per ton and percent increase
in energy use for upgraded facilities 145
- x-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
4—1 Surface runoff diversion ditch . . . . . . . . 22
4-2 Surface and Interceptor ditches. . . . . . 23
4-3 Rates of heave as related to silt—clay content 38
4—4a. Impermeable barriersystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
b. Impermeable barrier combined with permeable trench. . . . 73
4-5 Gravel vent and gravel—filled trench . . . . . . . . . . . • . 76
4—6 Vertical riser gas extraction well design 80
4—7 Multi—level permanent gas probe installation . . 97
4—8 Portable gas sampling probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4-9 Typical monitoring well screened over a single
vertical Interval. . . . 103
4-10 Details of a low cost plezometer modified for collection
of water samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 104
4—11 Typical well cluster configurations 105
5—1 Composite landfill costs . . 127
5—2 Demand impact of higher landfill user charges 139
- xi -
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This summary provides a brief description of subsequent sections
2.0 through 7.0 as contained in this EIS.
Section 2.0 of this analysis identifies the nationwide problem of
improper landfill disposal as it relates to consequent air, surface
water, anSI groundwater pollution. The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (herein referred to as the “Act” or “RCRA”) legislates a
potential solution to those problems by requiring identification and upgrading
of those sites responsible for threats to the public safety and welfare.
Section 1008 of the Act provides the legal basis for the preparation of
technical and economic guidelines for the disposal of solid waste. In
response EPA is promulgating “Guidelines”) and has voluntarily prepared
this environmental impact statement (EIS) to identifiy potential environ-
mental and economic effects of implementing this proposed administrative
action.
In effect the Guidelines provide descriptions of alternative siting,
design, operating leachate control, gas control, surface runoff control,
and monitoring approaches and technologies which may be utilized to meet
site specific levels of environmental protection. As such, the environmen-
tal impacts of implementation of the Guidelines are positive in nature since
greater levels of air, surface water, and groundwater protection should
result.
The scope of this analysis is limited to the landfill disposal of
solid waste, excluding hazardous waste disposal in accordance with regu-
lations to be promulgated under RCRA Subtitle C. Separate guidelines
are being prepared for landspreading and surface impoundment disposal
technologies.
Section 3.0 describes specific methodology approaches utilized in the
analysis. In general, reliance was placed on an extensive literature search
and contact with EPA, State, industry, and other knowledgeable sources.
Economic approaches required evaluation of reference sources to determine
baseline costs of existing landfill operations, and development of a model
format to estimated landfill upgrading costs. The model development neces-
sitated selection of model types, and identification of baseline and re-
quired upgrading technologies. For the model landfills selected, unit up-
grading technology costs and increased disposal rates were identified.
Results indicated a potential range of increase in landfill disposal costs
from approximately 40 to 90 percent. Existing baseline costs ranged from
approximately $3.95 to $11.15 per ton ($4.42 to $12.49 per metric ton).
Section 4.0 identifies the rationale for selecting the proposed
“guidance” format as the most suitable approach for presenting the landfill
Guidelines. Subsequent subsections identify functions, design considerations,
economic costs, and environmental impacts of utilizing the variety of tech-
niques available to mitigate or avoid potential pollution problems.
Section 5.0 identifies overall impacts of implementing the Guidelines
with respect to siting, design, operation, leachate control, surface runoff
—l —
-------
control, and monitoring approaches. The economic analysis briefly
described In Section 3.0 is presented in detail and indicates that
disposal costs could Increase on the order of approximately $1.80 to
$9.85 per ton ($2.01 to $11.02 per metric ton) if the recomended prac-
tices of the Guidelines are applied.
This section also presents estimates of increased construction energy
utilization based upon estimates of increased construction costs. The
energy impacts suninary section also indicates that operating energy expen-
ditures will increase depending on specific technologies employed at each
site.
Section 6.0 identifies Irreversible and irretrievable uses and short-
term uses versus long-term productivity of the environment. In effect while
short-term impacts and expenditures will be required to implement upgrading
technology and operations, long-term benefits will accrue in terms of preven-
tion of air, groundwater, and surface water pollution in minimization of risks
to the public health and welfare, and in increased productivity of the environ-
ment.
Section 7.0 provides a suninary of the public participation process.
-2-
-------
2 O LANDFILL EIS INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The national problem of solid waste disposal has been dramatized by the
increasing amounts of solid wastes produced today, and the environmental con-
sequences for past disposal practices that have proved to be inadequate for
present needs. Enormous amounts of solid wastes are generated by every sec-
tor of society. Important classes of waste generation include municipal solid
wastes, industrial waste, pollution control residues, construction and demo-
lition waste, and agricultural wastes. As the nation grows in population and
level of technology utilization, the amount and composition of wastes in each
of these categories is constantly increasing and changing.
A majority of this refuse is disposed of on land. Lack of planning,
finance, public interest, and availability of comDrehensive technical guidance
has led to a situation wherein disposal methodologies have often resulted in
air, surface water, and groundwater pollution problems.
Although proper landfilling is a controlled method of land disposals adverse
environmental effects can still result from lack of planning, provisions of
adequate environmental safeguards, and maintenance of high quality daily oper-
ations. The major problems associated with improper landfilling that need to
be addressed are possible groundwater pollution, air pollution, surface water
pollution and public health and safety hazards.
As solid wastes in a landfill degrade, chemical and biological reactions
produce a variety of solid, liquid, and gaseous products. Biological activity
within a landfill generally begins with aerobic degradation and produces carbon
dioxide, water, sulfates, nitrates, and a broad mix of organic and inorganic
compounds. When the available oxygen supply Is depleted, ar erobic microorganisms
predominate and, consequently, generate methane, carbon dioxide, alcohols and
organic acids, and a variety of other substances. Significant amounts of these
inorganic and organic substances and microbial agents can be leached from decom-
posing refuse by moisture produced in and/or infiltrating through the landfill.
The resulting liquid solution, consisting of dissolved and suspended solids, is
termed leachate.
Groundwater and surface water pollution can result from landfill leachate
percolating into subsurface soil and water systems. The composition and quan-
tity of leachate produced is important in determining the effect on resultant
water quality. Leachate characteristics vary with the solid waste composition
and time as decomposition reactions proceed. The quantity of leachate also
varies with time, waste type, incident precipitation, and operational controls.
In order to minimize or control water pollution from landfill sites, it is
advisable to reduce the production of leachate and to prevent or minimize the
movement of contaminants away from the landfill sites.
A fraction of waste decomposition product includes a gaseous mixture com-
posed of methane and carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen, oxygen, and hydro-
gen sulfide. The level of gas production depends primarily on the amount and
-3-
-------
type of organic material in the wastes, moisture content, and temperature
variations in the landfill. In the early stages of aerobic degradation,
carbon dioxide is the most commonly produced gas with only small amounts of
methane being generated. Concentrations of carbon dioxide decrease when
anaerobic degradation begins to dominate the decomposition process, resulting
in increasing amounts of methane production.
These gases are important considerations in evaluating the environmental
effects of a landfill because they migrate outward from the site, and can
travel large distances laterally through permeable soils. Methane represents
a pollution and safety hazard because it is explosive when present in air at
concentrations between 5 and 15 percent. In addition, damage to surrounding
vegetation can be caused by low oxygen concentrations in the root zone when
CO , and other gases replace the oxygen normally occupying the interstices of
soil. Landfill generated gas movement can be controlled by several engineering
methods to minimize these adverse effects.
Another potential source of water pollution from landfill sites is sur-
face runoff. Direct runoff from the active face and uncontrolled runoff from
incident precipitation may erode the soil cover and entrain solid wastes, as
well as other suspended or dissolved solid matter. These contaminants may
ultimately be received by adjacent surface water systems. Proper surface run-
off control can present direct contamination of the runoff and minimize the
possibility of off-site pollution of receiving waters.
An improperly constructed or inadequately maintained landfill can pose
additional health and safety hazards. If decomposing solid wastes are left
accessible, they can attract rodents, flies, and other carriers capable of
transmitting pathogens. Other safety considerations which may affect site
employees and visitors include explosion and fire hazards. Proper site
operation and access control can minimize potential health and safety problems.
In recognition of the seriousness of existing and potential problems, and
the large numbers of sites which have exhibited the types of problems described
above, Congress in October of 1976 passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), Public Law 94-580.
-4-
-------
2.2 LEGAL BASIS FOR ACTION
The 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act marked the beginning of Federal
regulation of solid waste disposal. Under this act, grants were made
available to conduct surveys of solid waste disposal practices, and to
establish a national reserach and development program to improve methods
of disposal. In 1970, the Resource Recovery Act amended the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. This measure provided specific funding for resource recovery
programs. In 1976 an expansive and highly significant piece of environmental
legislation was enacted that finally attempted to address the scope of the
nation’s solid and hazardous waste disposal problems, and the accompanying
role of resource conservation. This act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), proposed to:
1. provide technical and financial assistance for
improved solid waste disposal practices;
2. provide training grants in solid waste dispo-
sal occupations;
3. prohibit open dumping;
4. regulate hazardous wastes;
5. promulgate guidelines for solid waste collec-
tion, transport, recovery, and disposal;
6. promote a national reserach and development
program;
7. promote demonstration and construction pro-
jects utilizing improved solid waste and
resource recovery technologies; and,
8. establish cooperative solid waste management
among all levels of government and private
enterprise.
In particular, RCRA Sections 1008 and 4004 address the problems of en-
vironmentally acceptable solid waste disposal. Section 4004 required EPA
to establish criteria for determining which solid waste disposal facilities
shall be classified as having no reasonable probability of adverse effects
on health or the environment. The classification criteria as proposed
identify environmentally seisitive disposal locations (wetland, floodplains,
permafrost areas, sole source aquifers, and critical habitats) and require
that groundwater, surface water, and air resources be adequately protected.
Section 1008 required EPA to develop guidelines which:
1. “provide a technical and economic description
of the level of performance that can be
attained by various available solid waste
management practices;”
-5-
-------
2. describe levels of performance, including
appropriate methods and degrees of control,
that will result in the protection of pub-
lic health, ground and surface water quality,
ambient air quality, disease and vector
control, safety, and aesthetics; and,
3. provide minimum criteria to define solid
and hazardous waste dumping.
With respect to landfill disposal EPA has prepared “Proposed Guidelines
for the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste”. This accompanying EIA analyzes
the technical, economic, and enviornmental impacts of implementing these
guidelines.
-6-
-------
2.3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
As directed by Section 1008(a) of RCRA, EPA has begun developing guide-
lines to aid in meeting Section 4004 solid waste disposal criteria. The
9rst set of guidelines, under discussion here, deals specifically with the
andfilling method of solid waste disposal. The stated purpose of the pro-
posed guidelines is “to suggest preferred methods for the design and oper-
ation of landfill facilities for disposal of solid wastes.” By examining
the various available technologies and expected levels of performance, EPA
is providing guidelines that should assist disposal facilities in meeting
required levels of environmental and public health protection.
In keeping with the stated goals and objectives of the Act, the scope
of the “Guidelines for the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste” encompasses
seven areas, as follows:
SECTION TOPIC
241 .200 Site Selection
241 .201 Design
241.202 Leachate Control
241 .203 Gas Control
241 .204 Runoff Control
241 .205 Operation
241 .206 Monitoring
In summary, the Guidelines identify a variety of approaches and tech-
nologies which may be implemented, on a site specific basis, to provide or
maintain the required levels of environmental protection. As such, the
following provides a very brief summary of the major sections of the proposed
Guidelines:
1. The site selection section of the Guidelines
indicates that site selection should be based
on thorough consideration of hydrogeologic,
economic, and environmental factors. Site
selection hou1d aviod environmentally sen-
sitive areas, identified as wetlands, flood-
plains, permafrost areas, critical habitats,
and recharge zones of sole source aquifers.
The Guidelines also suggest that zones of
active faults and karst terrain be avoided
as landfill sites. Site evaluations should
include consideration of possible incorpor-
ation into existing or future regional solid
waste disposal systems.
2. The Guidelines design section emphasizes
that design of a facility should analyze
tradeoffs among environmental impacts,
economic considerations, future use alter-
natives and nature of the wastes. The
—7—
-------
2. (con’t)
major goal of maintaining ground and
surface water quality can be attained
by controlling leachate and gas as a
prime objective.
3. The leachate control se tion is con-
cerned with controlling production of
leachate and its escape from the site,
and consequent impact on the environ-
ment. Synthetic and natural clay
liners are technologies that are avail-
able to control leachate production by
restricting groundwater intrusion into
the site, and to prevent leachate es-
cape into the environment. Leachate
collection techniques also assist in
minimizing leachate escape from the
site, while leachate treatment and re-
cycling techniques more directly mini-
mize the impact of leachate on the
surrounding envi ronment.
4. The gas control section is concerned
primarily with reducing methane gas
production by minimizing moisture
infiltration, with controlling escape
of gases into the atmosphere, and with
minimizing the migration of gases into
adjacent soils. These objectives can
be achieved by utilizing various combin-
ations of vertical impermeable barriers,
vertical pipe vents, horizontal gravel
trenches, and other gas collection tech-
nologies.
5. Recommended practices in the runoff
control section include diversion
of runoff through channeling devices
such as dikes or other runoff diversion
techniques, and maxmizing runoff from
the landfill surface by the use of
cover material, grading and revegetation.
Ponding can be used to remove eroded
sediment or other solid materials sus-
pended in runoff that may otherwise con-
taminate receiving waters.
6. The section on landfill operation êncom—
passes the full range of landfilling
from construction of waste cells to per-
sonal safety on the site. Compaction,
shredding, and baling are specific tech—
nology alternatives employed in the con-
struction of waste cells that are iden-
tified in the Guidelines. Other operating
-8-
-------
6. (con’t)
techniques which are discussed further
include access control, safety, fire
control, vector control, and litter
control.
7. The monitoring section indicates that
monitoring of leachate and gas produc-
tion should continue during construction
and after completion of a landfill facil-
ity. Once baseline conditions are estab-
lished for groundwater supplies, leachate
generation and migration should be moni-
tored regularly. Explosive and toxic
gas generation and migration should also
be monitored regularly in the adjacent
soils and in structures adjacent to the
landfill.
Although the Guidelines recommend these methods to satisfy the
‘!Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities,” they
are not intended to be “exclusive or discourage or preclude the develop-
ment or use of equally effective and economical technologies.” In effect
the Guidelines provide a set of technologies which may be available for
incpropration into landfill operations for a variety of waste types and
environmental settings. Since the primary objective is adequate protection
of the environment, which is generally achievable by providing the necessary
air, groundwater, and surface water controls, the actual technologies re-
quired at any one location are highly site specific. In a large number of
sites a variety of combination of technologies may be available to meet the
fixed goal 0 f environmental protection.
2.4 PURPOSE OF EIS DOCUMENT
In the past, the lack of technical guidance, coupled with the lack of
uniformly enforceable regulation concerning methods of land disposal of solid
wastes, has resulted in a widespread national problem of environmental degra-
dation affecting air, water, and land resources. The health and environmentally
related problems that are facing us today due to inadequate disposal serve to
underline the need for guidelines that will promote a consistent level of envir-
onmental protection commensurate with the variety of siting and disposal require-
ments present across the country. The purpose of preparing this document is to
identify the environmental impact of implementing those proposed Guidelines.
As a result it has been useful to individually summarize, analyze, and evaluate
the performance of a major available technologies suggested by the Guidelines.
As a result, the technologies can be examined with respect to their possible
impacts on environmental, energy, and economic resources. Although there are
numerous site specific considerations that must be included in planning a
landfill facility, this generalized discussion of the Guidelines’ recommenda-
tions will assist the EPA, the states, and representatives of individual land-
fill sites in comparing trafeoffs among alternative technologies. Preparation
of the EIS will also enable the public to understand EPA decisions and partici-
pate in the agency decision-making process.
-9-
-------
2.5 EIS SCOPE OF WORK
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, directs the EPA to develop and publish
guidelines for comprehensive solid waste management. In order to imple-
ment this legislation, recommended practices for landfilling, impoundment,
and landspreading techniques are being prepared in three separate sets of
guidelines. This document is intended to summarize the technical, environ-
mental, economic, and energy impacts of implementing the landfill Guidelines.
As such, this EIS excludes consideration of impoundment and landspreadlng
methods and focuses solely on the Guidelines pertaining to the landfill
method of solid waste disposal.
-10-
-------
3.0 APPROACH
3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SOURCES
A major research effort was initiated in developing the detailed
descriptions and analyses of the currently available landfilling practices.
This effort incorporated pertinent background information acquired from a
variety of sources including contact with regulatory agencies and private
concerns. Special emphasis was placed on obtaining data on current research
and development areas in landfill technology.
The literature search, which formed the major segment of the data
collection work, covered previous environmental impact analyses, various
EPA studies, state-of-the-art analyses, technical references, and a variety
of other sources. The extensive information base thus accumulated, was
supplemented by contacts with EPA regions, appropriate state and local agencies,
and private organizations and individuals. In addition to •reviewing all aspects
of landfilling technology and relevant environmental and public health consid-
erations, particular attention was paid to recent documents on newer technolo-
gies provided by the Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division of the Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratories, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati EPA.
3.2 EVALUATION METHODS AND APPROACH
3.2.1 Introduction
The remainder of this EIS provides detailed technical and environmental
evaluations of potential landfill technologies; environmental, economic and
energy impacts of Guidelines implementation; identification of short and long-
term impacts and irretrievable committments of resources due to Guidelines
implementation; and a sumary of the public participation process. The fol-
lowing sections provide a more detailed summary of the specific methodologies
utilized in identifying environmental, economic and energy impacts.
3.2.2 Environmental Methodology
Technical and environmental descriptions and impacts as identified in
Section 4.0 were developed primarily via the literature review process de-
scribed in Section 3.1
—11—
-------
3.2,3 EconomIc Methodology
To estimate the per ton increase In disposal costs which may occur as
a result of the increased use of a variety of technologies to achieve ade-
quate levels of environmental protection, a three-step methodology was
employed. The following is a summary of the methodology that was developed
in “Analysis of the Technology, Prevalence and Economics of Landfill Disposal
of Solid Waste in the United States” - Volume II by Fred C. Hart Associates,
Inc.
The first step was the selection of model landfills. Existing data on
landfill types and sizes were utilized to characterize the set of real world
model landfills. In essence, three model waste types were chosen municipal,
industrial, and pollution control residue. Three model sizes were chosen in-
cluding 10 ton per day, 100 ton per day, and 300 ton per day sites. For all
sites, differences in environmental conditions were assessed by evaluating
each model type and size in environmentally sensitive and non-sensitive set-
tings. As per the “Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Fa-
cilities (43 Fed. , 49R) sensitive settings are identified to be wetlands,
floodplains, permafrost areas, critical habitats, and recharge zones of sole,
source aquifers. All other land settin9s are identified as non—sensitive.
Additional details regarding the selection of model landfills are provided in
Section 5.2.
The second step was to identify baseline costs for facilities within
each of the three model sizes. Baseline costs are defined as the unit costs
incurred by facilities with the mix of technologies and operating procedures
currently in use. Case histories and general cost references were analyzed
to estimate per ton costs for disposal sites in each of the above three size
categories.
The third step was to estimate the costs of implementing alternative
technologies as described in the Guidelines. This first required estimation
of the type of technologies which on average best represent those technologies
currently in use for each of the waste types in both sensitive and non-sen-
sitive environs. Secondly, a set of upgrading technologies were assumed
which would best meet requirements for environmental protection and which
would be most representative of expected upgrading costs. Instrumental in
this analysis was the development of cost estimates for potential upgrading
technologies. Estimates were based upon an examination of a variety of case
studies and engineering cost estimates. Section 5.0 presents technology per
ton cost estimates for each of the three size categories. Appendix A oresents
technology unit costs and calculation assumptions for the same technologies.
3.2.4 Energy Methodology
Section 5.3 presents an estimation of potential increased energy consum-
ption that will result from both construction and operating phases of land-
fill operations. Construction energy impacts were estimated by assuming that
energy use was directly proportional to increased capital expenditure. For
operating energy impacts, estimates on increased energy expenditures has been
related to specific technology incorporation. The results of these analyses
were originally presented in “Analysis of the Technology, Prevalance and
Economics of Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste in the United States” Volume II)
by Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
-12-
-------
4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
In developing the “Proposed Guidelines for the Landfill Disposal of
Solid Waste” the Office of Solid Waste has evaluated a variety of alterna-
tives to the proposed action. These alternatives include no action, delay
of action, and alternative emphasis, as well as the proposed action.
The no action alternative is clearly not an appropriate option. The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 was passed “to provide
technical and financial assistance for the development of management plans
and facilities for the recovery of energy, and other resources from discarded
materials and for the safe disposal of discarded materials, and to regulate
the management of hazardous waste.” In keeping with those goals Section 1008
required EPA to publish suggested guidelines for solid waste management which
would provide technical and economic descriptions of available solid waste
management practices. In completing the Guidelines, EPA is fulfilling in part
this legislative mandate.
Similarly, the delay of action alternatiye is not viable. Section 1008
of the Act specified a limited time frame in which EPA was required to publish
the Guidelines. Current problems being experienced throughout the country
demonstrate the immediate need for a unifying set of guidelines designed to
provide the required levels of environmental protection.
In evaluating alternative emphases or approaches to be potentially
utilized in the Guidelines’ development, It is first essential to understand
the basic implications of the proposed Guidelines. In fact, the word “Guide-
line” embodies the central theme of this document. As such, the Guidelines
are intended to function in an advisory capacity by providing detailed infor-
mation on planning approaches and detailed technologies which might be utilized
in meeting the goals of air, surface water, and groundwater protection iden-
tified in the “Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities”
and as embodied in the Act. As such, the Guidelines have attempted to define
a variety of technological alternatives which might be utilized to meet in-
dividual, site specific requirements for air, surface water, and groundwater
protection, as well as for the broader goal of protection of public health and
safety.
In this respect, alternative approach terminologies such as less restric-
tive vs. more restrictive, mandatory vs. suggested, prescriptive vs. descrip-
tive, etc., have no real significance. The Guidelines provide only potential
approaches and methodologies to meet the goals of environmental protection and
as such are not enforceable by law. Enforceability provisions and other impli-
cations suggested by the terminologies listed above are intended to be managed
at the state level. In essence this is the only viable approach due to the
widely varying disposal conditions experienced from state to state across the
country.
With the above in mind, the remainder of this section attempts to acquaint
the reader with the functions, design considerations, economic costs, and en-
vironmental impacts of available landfilling technologies. Section 5.0 also
provides insights on the effects of providing comprehensive landfilling Guide-
lines in terms of the resulting improved levels of environmental protection in
the air, surface water, groundwater, and public health and safety sectors.
-13-
-------
41 COMPACTION
4.1.1 Introduction
Compaction of solid wastes to achieve volume reduction can significa,ntly
increase the capacity and life of a santtary landfill. Compaction also re-
sults in minimization of vectors and potenttal fire hazards.
The Guidelines recommend that “in order to conserve landfill disposal
site capacity and preserve land resources solid wastes should be incorporated
into the landfill in the smallest practicable volume,” While compaction occurs
to some degree in the placement of wastes in the daily cell, special landfill
compaction equipment may be necessary for maximum volume reduction. The fol-
lowing sections describe in more detail the technology and environmental impacts
of compacting solid wastes.
4.1.2 Technology Sumniary
4.1.21 Operation
Solid waste compaction can be achieved via utilization of appropriately
selected standard landfill equipment. However, more efficient compaction can
be achieved via utilization of specialized equipment.
Mobile waste compaction equipment includes a variety of machine types
and power train components which have been modified to produce a machine type
which is excellent for spreading and compacting solid wastes on a relatively
level terrain at moderate speed ranges (up to 23 mph). Steel wheels as gener-
ally provided on landfill compactor equipment, result in significantly greater
compaction (10 to 15%) that rubber-tired or tracked machines of comparable weight.
Solid waste compaction in the landfill is achieved by the compressive forces
developed by repeated passes of a landfill machine on the waste mass. Depending
on waste type and moisture content, two to five passes are completed over each
layer of waste placed during the daily operations.
Mobile landfill compactors should be equipped with the appropriate
accessories to alleviate the problems associated with overheating due
to clogged radiators, broken fuel and hydraulic lines, tire punctures,
and damage incurred when waste becomes lodged in the tracks or between
the wheels and the machine body.
4.1.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs of this technology average $1.90 ($2.12), $0.20
($0.22), and $0.05 ($O.06)per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100, and 300 ton
per day landfill sites, respectively.
-14-
-------
4,1.3 Environmental Impact SumAry
1. Volume reduction through solid wastes compaction allows
utilization of smaller volume capacity landfills in a
given waste management region. Therefore, the landfill
siting process is simplified as a smaller area of land
must be selected possibly resulting in reduced adverse
environmental impacts.
2. Compaction of solid wastes serves to reduce landfill
fire hazard, since it minimizes waste oxygen content
in the landfill.
3. Increased compaction improves vector and litter control.
4. Compaction potentially slows gas and leachate pro-
duction by deterring waste decomposition. However,
this potentially extends the period during which the
landfill will continue to generate gas and leachate
possibly requiring long-term post-closure landfill
monitoring and management.
—13-
-------
4.2 SHREDDING
4.2.1 Introduction
Shredding is a solid waste volume reduction technique which con-
sists of milling the wastes to reduce waste constituents to smaller, more
uniformly sized particles. The Guidelines recommend that in order to
conserve landfill disposal site capacity and preserve land resources,
solid wastes should be incorporated into the landfill in the smallest
practicable volume. The Guidelines state that compaction or other
volume reduction may take place at or before delivery to the landfill,
by utilizing balers, shredders, or stationary compactors.” The Guide-
lines add that “Compaction of solid waste and cover soil also aids in
minimization of rodents, vectors and fires.”
The following sections describe in more detail the technology and
environmental Impacts of shredding.
4.2.2 Technology Summary
4.2.21 p ration
A shredding operation normally consists of a shredding unit, a
transport network, and the shredf ill (landfill accepting shredded wastes).
Several types of shredding devices are used; including vertical and
horizontal axis hammer mills, vertical axis grinders, and horizontal
axis impactors. These shredders also usually include a variety of
conveyors for waste routing scales, truck loading and unloading platforms,
and storage bins or areas.
In the shredding process, solid wastes are milled to produce uniform
particle sizes on the order of two to four inches in diameter. Waste
size reduction results in up to 30 percent greater in—place waste density
at the shredf ill site. On a site specific basis, daily cover may not be
required, since litter and vector problems are reduced. Decreased
settlement and improved operation during cold and wet weather have also
been noted. Negatively, mechanical difficulties can occur with the
shredder unit, and rapid wear of contact components requires a high
level of maintenance effort.
4.2.22 Current Economic Costs
Full scale shredder technology Is currently economically unfeasible
at small disposal sites. For a 300 TPD facility, current costs are on
the order of $7.00 per ton ($7.89 per metric ton).
-16-
-------
4.2.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. VolUme reduction through solid waste shredding reduces dis-
posal volume requirements for existing and planned facilities
and consequently reduces environmental impacts associated with
landfill expansion or initiation. Siting difficulties are
also minimized due to the smaller amount of land required.
2. The potential for reducing daily cover material requiret
ments for shredfills also minimizes impacts associated with obtain-
ing cover material and reduces related siting considerations.
3. SolId waste shredding improves landfill aesthetics by poten-
tially reducing odor and litter problems typically associated
with non—shredded landfills.
4. Shredding reduces vector problems and consequent potential
health related problems.
5. Shredded solid waste presents less risk of landfill fire and
consequent air pollution and safety hazards.
6. Waste decomposition, and therefore leachate and gas produc-
tion, initially may occur at a faster rate in a shredf ill due
to the Increased waste surface area. Thus, shredding may be
considered advantageous in that it promotes rapid landfill
stabilization.
7. Shredding units pose a danger to employees from flying objects,
explosions, fires, and noise.
8. Shredding is often the first step in implementation of a
resource recovery facility, which in turn can result in
significient reduction of impacts due to disposal processes.
—17-
-------
4.3 BALING
4.3.1 Introduction
Baling is a solid waste volume reduction technique which consists
of compacting solid wastes in high density, (approximately 1800 lbs/cu.
yd.) rectangularly shaped bales. The Guidelines recommend that “in order
to conserve landfill disposal site capacity and preserve land resources
solid wastes should be incorporated into the landfill in the smallest
practicable volume.” The Guidelines state that “compaction or other
volume reduction may take place at or before delivery to the landfill, by
utilizing balers, shredders, or stationary compactors.” The Guidelines
add that “compaction of solid waste and cover soil also aids in minimization
of rodents, vectors and fires.”
The following sections describe in more detail the technology and
environmental impacts of incorporating baling into a landfill disposal
Si te.
4.3.2 Technology Summary
4.3.21 Operation
An on—site solid waste baling operation includes a baling plant and,
a specially designed balefill (landfill accepting baled wastes). Alterna-
tively, the baling plant may be located at a large quantity source of solid
waste or at a waste transfer collection point.
A typical baling plant may consist of stationary equipment sucfl as
horizontal and inclined conveyors, a load—cell scale, a high density
baler, a central control tower with control panels, hydraulic bale
push rams, and a bale truck loading platform. Mobile equipment might
include an articulated front-end loader, a small general purpose “bobcat”
loader, and a forklift.
Once processed, the bales are stacked for disposal at the active
face. Soil cover may be applied periodically.
-18-
-------
The basic advantages of the process include reductions in required
landfill volume, ease of waste transport and placement,vector and litter
reduction, decreased settlement, and reduced requirements for cover material.
A potential disadvantage is that the compaction process slows the decompos-
ition process, thus potentially extending the period of time during which
the landfill will continue to generate gas and leachate. Accordingly, the
conditions which favor this alternative are in areas In which long hauls
are needed to reach the landfill, and in areas In which there is a shortage
of landfill sites thus requiring maximum utilization of available land.
4.3.22 Current Economic Costs
Full scale baling technology Is currently economically unfeasible at
small disposal sites. For a 300 TPD facility current costs are on the order
of $5.00 per ton ($5.60 per metric ton).
4.3.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Since solid waste baling can double the potential volume
capacity of a landfill site, the adverse impacts related
to landfill development and expansion can be decreased.
Similarly, siting problems can be minimized since the site
selection process need not be as constrained by limited
site availability.
2. Since solid waste baling reduces cover material require-
ments, impacts normally associated with cover material
acquisition can be minimized. Less siting dependence
on obtaining suitable cover supplies can also permit the
siting selection process to more adequately address other
environmental considerations.
3. Similarly, since volume reduction achieved at transfer
stations by baling facilitates waste transport, conse-
quent possibilities for longer haul routes to disposal
sites permits additional flexibility in the siting pro-
cess .
4. The increased compaction resulting from baling of solid
waste serves to reduce landfill fire potential by minimizing
atmospheric oxygen intrusion to the landfill.
5. Baling of solid waste results in improved vector and
litter control.
6. With the current level of technology,resource recovery
as a disposal option is not feasible once the waste is
baled and landfilled.
-1 9-
-------
4.4 SURFACE RUNOFF DIVERSION
4.4.1 Introduction
Surface runoff diversion utilizes a variety of techniques or combi-
nation of techniques to minimize the infiltration of surface water into
the solid waste cells. In addition, surface drainage systems incorporate
design features that help control significant erosion of cover material.
These drainage techniques are utilized not only to prevent runoff from
adjacent areas from penetrating the site, but also to control on-site
runoff, particularly in minimizing runoff onto the active face. -
The Guidelines recomend that landfill disposal facilities be equipped
with suitable channeling devices, such as ditches, berms, or dikes to di-
vert surface runoff from land areas contiguous to the landfill. More spe-
cifically, the surface runoff structures constructed should be capable of
diverting all surface water runoff from a 10 year, 24 hour storm.
4.4.2 Technology Summary
4.4.21 Runoff Control
Surface Runoff Diversion Functions . Two main functions in the area
of runoff control are served by surface runoff diversion techniques. Soil
erodibility is primarily a result of soil grain size distribution, soil
structure and soil permeability (see the Section 4.8 discussion of daily and
final cover). However, erodibility is also dependent upon surface runoff
velocity, water flow characteristics and other hydraulic factors. By
reducing on-site runoff flow and velocity, diversion of surface drainage
and control of on-site drainage reduce the sediment load of runoff waters
and minimizes siltation of adjacent receiving water bodies.- Additionally,
minimization of cover erosion helps the cover material to maintain lts inte-
grity and to resist percolation of surface waters.
Design and Construction . The actual design features of a system including
the type of diversion structures selected, the actual dimensions of the
structures, and the specific construction techniques , are dependent upon
a number of interrelated site specific factors. These design considerations
include the sit&Stopographic, hydrogeologic and hydraulic features.
Major topographic considerations include slope steepness, slope length and
slope shape. Other important factors are rainfall intensity, soil water
content and surface permeability.
-20-
-------
A number of structures can be used singly or in combination to
achieve leachate control through runoff diversion including: sur-
faced channels, natural drainage ditches, dikes, berms, collector pipe
systems, and pump installations.
There is a variety of construction techniques for open channels and
drainage ditches that can be located upland of the site to intercept and
direct surface waters around or away from the site (e.g., Figures 4-1 and
4-2). Depending on substrata permeability and soil erodibility, drainage
channels can be constructed of earth, lined with sod, stone, asphalt or
rubble, or fabricated from half sections of concrete or corrugated metal pipe.
In addition to permanent drainage structures, temporary channels and ditches
can be utilized to minimize on-site runoff onto the active face.
In addition to the ditches and channels that form the basis of a
runoff diversion system, structures such as berms, dikes, and check dams
can be utilized to increase control of runoff by reducing flow intensities.
Natural or artificially constructed berms reduce runoff velocity and minimize
erosion across the landfill surface by decreasing the slope of the flow.
While berms do not divert surface runoff, a series of berms can decrease
flow velocities.
Check dams are constructed within the drainage channels where a
heavy flow is anticipated to allow more control over diverted surface run-
off. By providing runoff storage capacity, runoff can be regulated to
maintain acceptable hydraulic discharge characteristics.
4.4.22 Leachate Control
A system of surface runoff diversion structures can assist in accom-
plishing the function of leachate control. In effect, diversion channels
or ditches act to minimize the volume and rate of surface runoff flow across
a landfill site, which in turn reduces uncontrolled infiltration of preci-
pitation and other surface water into the solid waste. Since waste moisture
content is a major factor in the rate of waste decomposition and the amount
of leachate generated, surface runoff diversion techniques, by acting to
reduce the moisture content, mayalso potentially result in reduced rates
of degradation, reduced rates of contaminant escape, and decreased volume
of leachate generation.
As previously mentioned, runoff diversion structures are utilized
in two capacities: at locations upgrade from a landfill facility to in-
tercept and prevent natural drainage of surrounding off-site areas from
-21-
-------
Uplood è&noq. fI.w
FIGURE 4 -1
SURFACE RUNOFF DIVERSION DITCH
PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS
I
I
Source: Reference 1.
I
Dêv.rs on d .ch
/
,
/
(I-
Prop.s.d Iwidlill or..
1
I
I
/
/
/
Propos.d landfill
MAN
SECTION
-22-
-------
FIGURE 4-2
SURFACE AND INTERCEPTOR DITCHES
Sodded Ditch Riprapped Ditch
Source: Reference 2.
DtPc
Sod
lyp*s of Linings
Sod Ripvap
Cloy Concrete
Lumber Asphalt
SURFACE DITCH LININGS
Veqit.tlvs
Construct Check Dam When
Velocity Is Gr.ot Enough To
Cause Scouring.
-23-
-------
entering the site, and at on-site locations to control runoff and minimize
surface runoff onto and off of the active face. Since runoff design pro-
cedures focus on minimizing on—site runoff and infiltration, no specific
leachate function design considerations are required.
4.4.23 Gas Control
Surface runoff diversion measures can potentially result in decreased
problems associated with methane gas generation and migration. Namely, by
reducing the volume and intensity of runoff flow across the landfill cover and
reducing erosion that weakens cover integrity, channels, dikes, and other
structures act to minimize precipitation infiltration. Since waste moisture
content is an important factor in gas generation, provision of surface
runoff controls ultimately influences rates of waste degradation and land-
fill gas production.
The same considerations and design factors relevant to reducing
infiltration and consequent leachate generation are also applicable to
minimizing waste moisture content and consequent gas generation.
4.4.24 Current Economic Costs
For a 10 TPD site, a 100 TPD site, and a 300 TPD landfill site, sur-
face runoff control measures currently cost $0.15 .($0.17), $0.04 ($0.04),
and $0.02 ($0.02) per ton (per metric ton) respectively.
4.4.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Surface runoff diversion structures channel runoff from precipitation
and other sources around or away from landfill sites, thereby minimiz-
ing uncontrolled infiltration of moisture into the waste mass. Diver-
sion structures also provide surface drainage away from the active face
of fill construction and if necessary, can divert runoff from the active
face to leachate treatment facilities. These measures ultimately re-
duce rates of waste degradation, reduce rates of contaminant leaching
and minimize impact of landfill generated leachate on adjacent water
systems.
-24-
-------
2. Surface runoff diversion techniques also function in the same manner
to minimize waste moisture content, reduce rates of waste degradation,
an& therefore, reduce rates of gas generation.
3. Runoff diversion structures, by diverting and reducing the intensity
of surface flows, can significantly control the erosion of landfill
cover material. This results in increased cover stability and in-
tegrity, as well as minimizing siltation of adjacent receiving water
bodies by runoff discharge.
4. Considerations relating to the Drovisions of surface runoff diversion
can impact the siting of a landfill disposal facility. For example,
the Guidelines recommend that localized high ground areas such as
ridges and divides should be selected for disposal sites to minimize
or avoid the potential for surface drainage onto the landfill from
contiguous areas.
4.5 GRADING
4.5.1 Introduction
Incident precipitation at a landfill will either evaporate,
runoff or infiltrate into the landfill mass. The Guidelines sug-
gest, in order to minimize leachate generation from infiltrated
moisture, that landfills should be covered with soil materials
which are graded such that water does not pool on the landfill
surface. Surface slopes can be graded to maximize runoff while
still minimizing the potential effects of erosion processes. In
order to minimize erosion the final grade should not exceed approxi-
mately 30%. The Guidelines also suggest that slopes longer than
25 feet may require additional erosion control measures such as con-
struction of horizontal terraces, of sufficient width for equipment
operation, for each rise in elevation of approximately 20 feet.
The following sections will discuss grading in terms of leachate
control, gas control, and runoff control, its function in each of
these areas, and appropriate design and construction considerations.
These discussions are followed by an assessment of current economic
costs of implementation and a summary of the attendant environmental
impacts.
—25-
-------
4.5.2 Technology Sumary
4.5.21 Leachate and Gas Control
Grading Functions . Grading affects the environment surround-
ing a landfill facility in essentially the same manner as does sur-
face runoff diversion techniques (see details in Section 4.4). To
briefly sumarize, construction of sloped or graded daily and final
cover soils serves to:
1. reduce ponding and minimize infiltration
of surface water;
2. reduce soil erosion and help maintain cover
integrity, which further influences perco-
lation;
3. minimize waste moisture content, resulting
in a reduced rate of aeaerobic waste deg-
radation; and
4. reduce the rate of leaching of landfilled waste
contaminants.
Grading, therefore, functions to minimize the volume of land-
fill generated leachate and reduce the severity of its impact on
adjacent groundwater supplies. Additionally, grading functions to
ultimately reduce the rate of decomposition, the rate of gas gener-
ation and minimizes hazards due to accumulation of explosive and/or
toxic gases in adjacent structures.
Grading Design and Construction . The design of graded cover
materials must be based upon a variety of interrelated hydrogeologic
and hydraulic factors. Some of these factors include general site
topography, soil type, runoff intensity, size of drainage area, vege-
tative type, slope stability, planned final site use, etc. In general,
the attempt is to maximize runoff while maintaining cover integrity
and efficiency of operations.
Studies indicate that surface grades between a minimum of
2% and a maximum of 10% to 12% are most effective for both pro-
moting runoff to reduce infiltration and reducing surface flow velo-
cities to minimize soil erosion. Figure 4-2, Section 4.4, illus-
trates possible slope ratios for use in conjunction with surface runoff
diversion systems to channel runoff around a landfill site or off the
active face of fill construction. The active grading contouring
requirements of a site are dependent upon the afore-mentioned site
specific factors and should complement the planned final use of the
facility.
-26-
-------
4.5.22 Runoff Control
Surface grading as a runoff control measure mainly impacts surface
water quality by reducing the potential for stream siltation from sedi-
ment-laden surface runoff waters. This is accomplished in part, by mini-
mization of runoff and erosion at any landfill location and in part by
directing runoff to on-site runoff diversion and sedimentation control
structures.
4.5.3 Environmental Impact Sunn iary
1. Grading influences the quality of adjacent groundwater supplies
by minimizing quantities of landfill leachate and leachate contam-
inants on subsurface systems. Since waste degradation rates are
moisture dependent, grading may possibly function in inhibiting
surface ponding, and subsequent infiltration and leachate generation.
2. Similarly, arading techniques may potentially reduce landfill gas
generation rates and minimize potential hazards from accumulations
of explosive and/or toxic gases in the atmosphere and adjacent
structures.
3. Carefully graded landfill cover also functions to minimize erosion
and therefore, impacts surface water quality by reducing the poten-
tial for siltation of surface water systems receiving landfill run-
off discharges.
4. Joint usage of grading with surface runoff diversion techniques
increases the efficiency of channelingruflOff waters away from
the site or away from the working face.
5. Long-term maintenance to resurface and regrade final cover subject
to differential subsidence or erosion may be required to maintain
adequate site runoff patterns and the implied positive environmen-
tal impacts.
-27-
-------
4.6 DIKING
4.6.1 Introduction
Diking involves construction of a low wall or embankment from re-
latively impermeable material such as clay soils. Dikes can be used as
part of a runoff control program, but are primarily incorporated to pre-
vent potential flooding. Flood waters pose a larger, if less constant, pro-
blem in leachate and gas generation and cover erosion than incident pre-
cipitation. This section discusses diking in the context of flood water
protection, while surface runoff diversion is discussed separately in Sec-
tion 4.4.
In this regard the Euidelines define a floodplain to mean “the low-
land and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, includ-
ing flood-prone areas of off-shore islands, which are inundated by the base
flood.” Correspondingly, the base flood is defined as “a flood that has a
1 percent or greater chance of recurring in any year or a flood of a magni-
tude equalled or exceeded once in 100 years on the average over a signifi-
cantly long period.” The Guidelines therefore suggest if all or part of a
landfill facility lies within a 100-year floodplain, a suitable dike of suf-
ficient heiqht to prevent inundation should be included in the site design.
Because a floodplain has been designated as an environmentally sensitive
area, siting of a landfill facility in a floodplain may require additional
measures for minimizing potential impacts on surrounding ecosystems.
The remainder of this evaluation will discuss the functions, design
and construction of diking for the purposes of leachate, gas and runoff
control. The section concludes with an assessment of the current economic
costs for implementation and a summary of possible environmental impacts of
diking at a floodplain location.
4.6.2 Technology Summary
4.6.21 Runoff Control
Diking Functions . The functions of diking in runoff control are
similar to those performed by surface runoff diversion systems in
redirecting upland drainage (Section 4.4), except that diking and
diversion systems differ in magnitude. Unlike the effects of run-
off from orecipitation sources, flood waters that can inundate a
landfill facility will potentially result in large scale erosion of
cover materials, subsequent loss of cover integrity and increased
-28-
-------
possibility of siltation of adjacent water bodies receiving runoff flows.
The loss of cover integrity has significant implications, particularly in
the area of leachate control.
Diking Design and Construction . The design and construction of im-
pervious perimeter dikes are dependent upon a variety of interrelated site
specific factors. Diking can be designed to act in conjunction with other
surface runoff diversion techniques. The actual dimensions of the struc-
ture and the specific construction techniques can be determined by hydrau-
lic considerations and the site topography. Additionally, construction
techniques may also be dependent upon the type and availability of materials
for diking. One of the most common and preferred materials utilized is
clay soil, due to relative impermeability and stability characteristics.
4.6.22 Leachate and Gas Control
Flooding of a landfill site will likewise result in larger scale pro-
blems in leachate and gas control. The major consideration is prevention
of large scale erosion of the cover and waste materials. Secondarily, inun-
dation of solid wastes by flood waters will potentially produce larger quan-
tities of contaminants leached, larger volumes of leachate, and potentially
greater volumes of gas generated.
4.6.23 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for dike construction average $2.40 ($2.69),
$0.55 ($0.62), and $0.30 ($0.34) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100, and
300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.6.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Diking around a facility located in a floodplain impacts groundwater
quality by preventing potential long-term leachate contamination pro-
blems that could result from large scale erosion and inundation of
landfilled solid wastes by flood waters.
2. Since landfill gas generation rates are also related to waste mois-
ture content, diking serves to minimize gas volumes and developement
of hazardous conditions.
3. Diking functions to divert flood waters around a landfill site and
minimize large scale erosion of cover material, thereby reducing the
potential for sedimentation of surface waters that receive runoff dis-
charge.
-29-
-------
4.7 PONDING
4.7.1 Introduction
Surface water, from precipitation events, that runs off the landfill
surface will invariably erode the soil surface to some degree, and in the
process may entrain significant amounts of susoended sediment and solids.
Design of landfill surface runoff controls can include ponding, the use of
stilling or sedimentation basins to separate the suspended solids from the
surface runoff before it is discharged to a receiving body of water. This
technique can remove sufficient sediment to minimize siltation of downstream
surface water systems. Ponding requires the conjunctive use of other sur-
face runoff diversion techniques to channel runoff waters to the ponding
basins.
The Guidelines suggest that ponding may be the only treatment necessary
for surface runoff before final discharge. The runoff, however, must not
be contaminated by contact with the active face or via intermingling with
other leachate sources.
4.7.2 Technology Summary
4.7.21 Runoff Control
Ponding Function . The primary function of settling oonds in a system
of landfill runoff controls is to remove suspended sediment from surface
runoff, thereby minimizing its potentially deleterious impact on receiving
surface waters. The velocity and turbulent flow characteristics of surface
runoff determine the maximum size and amount of solid particles which can be
retained in suspension. In other words, the greater the velocity and turbu-
lence, the greater the erosive capacity of any runoff channel. Ponding achieves
its function by reducing velocity and turbulent flow thereby allowing sediment
particles to settle out of suspension.
Ponding Design and Construction . There are no rigid guidelines for
the actual design and construction of sediment settling ponds for landfill
runoff control due to the dominant influence of site specific factors. In
general the size and depth of sedimentation basins or series of basins should
accomodate the anticipated rate and volume of surface runoff. The volume
and intensity of runoff, and therefore the required size and denth of the
ponds, is influenced by numerous factors including:
-30-
-------
1. area climate and resulting water balance of site;
2. intensity and seasonal amounts of precipitation;
3. total drainage area of site;
4. site topography and slope features; and
5. vegetation type and density.
Additionally, the basin depth and required holding time should be determined
by the effective sedimentation rate, which in turn is affected by character-
istics of the suspended particles and the type of settling basin DrOvided.
4.7.22 Current Economic Costs
Ponding construction costs are approximately $0.10 ($0.11), $0.05 ($0.06),
and $0.04 ($0.04) per ton (inetric.ton) for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD sites
respectively.
4.7.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Utilization of ponding prevents the discharge of suspended
solids to streams from surface runoff sources, minimizing
possible siltation of downstream surface water systems and
other secondary negative impacts.
2. Additionally, ponding intercepts surface runoff and controls
runoff intensity thereby potentially reducing further off-
site erosion and stream siltation.
3. Ponding places additional constraints on siting because
supplementary landfill acreage is required. This may
become a restrictive factor in areas of limited land
availability.
4. Sedimentation basin construction and the required periodic
dredging may engender a number of secondary environmental
impacts.
-31-
-------
4.8 DAILY AND FINAL COVER
4.8.1 Introduction
Daily cover is defined as the placement, at the end of each day’s
operation, of a compacted layer of soil over the solid waste on the
working face. Intermediate or final cover is a thicker soil layer
designed for long-term landfill protection after intermediate or
final cell completion. The Guidelines call for 15 centimeters (cm.)
(6 inches) of daily cover, and 30 cm. (12 inches) of cover on landfill
cells “which will not have additional wastes placed on them for one
month or more.” The Guidelines also recommend for final cover 15 cm.
(6 inches) of clay with permeability less than 1 X i0 7 cm/second or the
equivalent, followed by a minimum cover of 45 cm. (18 inches) of top
soil to complete the final cover and support vegetation. A more im-
permeable final cover might require a minimum of 60 cm. (24 inches) of
low permeability soil.
The principal functions of cover in the context of the Guidelines are
leachate, gas, and runoff control. Other functions include vector, odor,
litter, fire hazard, wind erosion, and dust control, and support of vehi-
cular traffic, vegetation, and post-closure construction. Daily and final
cover must accommodate the planned final use of the completed landfill
site.
This section is organized by cover function: leachate control, gas con-
trol, runoff control, and other controls. Each section identifies the
cover properties and processes critical in serving the cover function,
and discusses the various cover design and construction techniques for
attaining these goals. A final section summarizes the implications of
daily and final cover for landfill siting, design, operation, and joint
use of different landfill technologies. In addition, the summary section
identifies environmental, energy and economic impacts of daily and final
cover.
-32-
-------
4.8.2. Technology Summary
4.8.21 Leachate Control
Cover Functions . Several properties of cover material act in
concert to accomplish the function of leachate control. Principally,
the cover material reduces water movement from the landfill surface
into the buried waste. Lower permeability cover soil decreases in-
filtration into the waste mass and increases the opportunity for run-
off and evaporation (see Table 4-1). More specifically, depending on
the specific overall site strategy of leachate control, cover selec-
tion, design, and application acts to minimize or maximize infiltration,
snowmelt, or surface drainage. Minimizing water movement into the
waste via utilization of a cover soil maintains a lower waste moisture
content which, in turn, plays a role in minimizing the rate of anaerobic
waste degradation. Reduced waste decay rates result in reduced rates
of landfill leachate generation and thus might decrease the ultimate
contaminant load in leachate.
Alternatively when recycling is the chosen leachate control
technology, It may 1 e desirable to faci1it te watPr mnvement through
the cover soil. Collection or recycling of the generated leachate
material may result in accelerated stabilization of the landfilied
waste. Greater quantities and concentrations of leachate may re-
sult, but the time frame over which contaminated materials may es-
cape may be significantly shortened.
In addition to soil permeability, there are several other, more
secondary, cover soil properties which should be considered for ef-
fective leachate control. In general, these other properties relate
to maintaining cover continuity and integrity, thus preventing any
hydraulic connection between landfill surface water and buried waste.
Specifically, the cover should not subside and must resist cracking
upon wetting and drying or upon freezing and thawing. The selected
cover material must also minimize wind and water erosion, and must
be capable of maintaining stable slopes.
Cover Design and Construction Techniques . A variety of cover de-
sign and construction techniques exist to achieve the function of lea-
chate control. To minimize infiltration and percolation, the cover
soil should be fine-grained and have a small coefficient of permea-
bility and vice versa to maximize infiltration and percolation.
To resist dessication and crackinq, the soil should have a low shrink-
swell potential upon wetting and drying. For instance, a soil with
low clay content or soil whose clay component is largely kaolinite or
illite, as opposed to montmorillonite, resists dessication and cracking
under typical landfill conditions. Frost heave rates are related to
-33-
-------
TABLE 4-1
RANKING OF USCS SOIL TYPES ACCORDING
TO PERFORMANCE OF COVER FUNCTIONS
ir ifttcabttity Vater Pirvolaiton Las 14
UCCC Co—lb Go, Otickiness, Slippertnui, umpeds Maui. Impede M ust
S lrmt,oli typical Boil. 1W! Value’ clay ( ) ,id/Cravsi. (J) (Ii , cii! .)’ (pr, en/a)’ (IL , cii)’ ( Ib , , cm) ’
C V Veil—graded gravels, gravel—sand I I I X I I I I X I
mixture,, hub or no tine, (‘200) (0—5) (9 5— 100) (10 3 (6)
OP Poorly gr .ded gravili, grsv.t. I I I X II I X X 1 !
•and iaixtures, 11111. or no ()20 0) (0—5) (95— 1 .00) ( 10
fin i
014 611t31 gT&Ve1S , gravel—sand—silt II ! I L ! Ii ! VI ) V I VI ! IV
mui Lur es ( iii) (0—20) (60.95) (5 X 10 ) (68)
CC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand—clay V V I Y iv viz
iaixture, ( 1 50) ( 10—5o) (50—90) (10 )
—l 0
Velt—gnade4 sands, gravelly I ii i i xi 2 x x v ii i i i i
eandi, little or no rines (‘200) (0—101 (9 5—100) (5 * 30 ) (6o )
SP Poorly graded oanda, gnavel .3 .). I TI I! U I V VII IV
land., Iliti. or flO tIns, (‘200) (0—10) (ps—lao) ( 1o 3 ———
CM OL lty sand,, sand—ill. mixture. I I IV IV V I ! ! V Vi V ‘
( 179) (0—20) (60—95) (los) (u 2)
I I
(I . ) CC Chaysy linda, siind—chsy mixtures V II VI V i VIZ ,! V VI
(1ST) ( 1 0— 5 0) (50—90) (2 ii 10 ) ———
N!. Inorganie lilt, and very tins IX V VU I V , IX III VII I
lands, rock flour, .iity or (1.0 ) ,) (0—20) (0—60) (10’) (180)
cuayey tine . ndi, or ctsyey
alit. vith slight puaeUclt.y ,
CL Inorganic cI ym or by to msdiua VI I VIII VU! 11 X I x i i x
pinutietty, gravelly clay,, ( h i) (10— 50) (0—s) (3 * 10 ) (180)
,andy clays, silty cls)’i , lean
clays
0!. Organic .111. and organic silty I V VIZ
clays of low plieticity (61i) (0—20) (0-60)
MU Inorganic .tit., mLe ceou , or VIII IX I X fl , I
distomsceou rine sandy or silty (107) ( 50— 100) (0—50) (10 ‘)
soils, elao?.ic .11..
C I I Inorganic clays of high VI X I XII I X
piecticity, t t clays (I l i s) (50—100) (0—50) (10 ) - (2 0 0- ) iOOs)
0 ) ) Organic clays or m dIu* to high Xi — —— —— —— — — — —
plasticity, organia silt, (62)
Pt Peal and other highly organic II I .——
sails (1 i6 )
-------
ca.)
C i i
TABLE 4—1 (continued)
Pt ——— III
RCI is ratln8 cons 1ndc , K is coefficient of perneabliity, 118 La capillari hcod, and K—Factor is tbe soil erod lbilitj factor.
UGCO
Oyiubol
fiI e 0bps - DL scour a a
Gcepogs Drainage Eurrovind
lir.pcd c
Vcct.op
crgcnco
DLocoura o
Dirda
Gt.pport
VeEcLation
\iture U c
NA .u;o1
Fou 4at oi
OIabIltLy
ol
K
K
GP
K
K
Gil
cc
SW
Cr
G M
::
161
CI I
o .4 .
.41 I
“I 4” .11
I.
at
ui
. 41
V.1 I l .i
I, , - ‘
i
1. I I ‘—
1.1 •
. UI I
ap
o i • 1 1 .91
a
i
. 9 .11 DI
1i
“I
I . v ii
o 8
a
a 2 a
2
a
a
I ‘
n
UI
::
vi UI 2
a,
VIII
V
ix
Ix
viz
IV
‘:
I
II
l
i
a
j
a
,
.4
o
a
VI
V
xx
I X
I
::
iv
VIII
C I I
.41
ol
.1’
I
I
:I
§
‘
UI ,
i .
0
a
a
I C
I I
. 9
P.
4
J
j
‘ I
.41
— I
‘I
411
U I
—‘I
‘.1
l ”I
c
.I
I
I
t i
I
‘
‘.
a
a
a
a
a
.j
Il l
. i
a
V i
oil
———
VIII
-------
TABLE 4-1 (concluded)
fco tt tnuedj
£roaion Control. Reduce Ireeze c%1oij Crack
7 tre Wuter Wind Duet Feet Irceis 8 urattoA,
CynboL fleeta nce t_Foc ore Saetd/Grrtvel (%) Control (Ue e )e heave (am/day) Exj enaIon 1%)
CW I I I I I
k .05) (95—100) (0. 1—3 ) (0 )
i i x x r
195-100) (0.1—3) (0)
G!4 IV IT! VU I V III
(60—95) (0. — )
CC ii ! V IV VIZ V
(50—90) (1-8 1 ——
C.
C V II I X U VIII I I I
(.051 (95— 100) (0.2-2) (0)
op u ii vu n
(A) —.- (9s-loo) I ” (0.2-2) (0)
0•i I.
CM VI IV VI V it
(.12 —.27J (60-95 ? 1. (0.2—7)
4.
SC V ii VI us V VI 1!
(.Ib —.27) (50—90) 11—7)
ML VII Ill 1 VI
(.Go) (0-Go) (2-27)
CL X l i V III g VIII VII !
(.20 —. 8) (0—55) (1—6) (1—10)
Oh. X I V I I VIII VII
C.2 1—.29) (0-Go) ——• — —
1411 I IX IX U
(.25) (0—50) —
C I I IX I I XI X I
(.13 —.29) (0—50) (o.C )
Oil VIII —— I I
Pt V .—— —— ._;_
(. )
(voiflhit aed)
Source: Reference 2.
-------
silt-clay content as shown in Figure 4—3, To slow freezing
and to avoid freezing to great depth, fine grained soils should be
used. However, coarse soils are more workable in cold climates,
since these drain freely, therefore retaining less water to act as
a bonding agent under freezing conditions.
Several other cover design and construction techniques serve
to impede water infiltration including;
1. increasing surface slope to facilitate runoff;
2. mixing cover soil to achieve uniform permeability;
3. blending other soils for better gradation;
4. using additives;
5. increasing cover thickness;
6. compacting (with special compacting equipment); and
7. using a layered cover system.
Increasing surface slope results in increased runoff rates and
consequently in less infiltration. Mixing of cover soil to achieve
uniform permeability is useful where cover soil is obtained from a
source consisting of soil layers of varying permeability. Similarly,
blending impedes infiltration and percolation by combining soils of
different grain sizes to broaden cover soil grain size distribution.
This decreases overall soil porosity (void ratio) and lowers per-
meability. Blending is expensive and energy consuming, but can pro-
duce an increased source of acceptable cover soil if well-graded
soils are not readily available.
Utilizing additives can result in a lower permeability soil.
The process may permit utilization of a soil type which otherwise
might be unacceptable for cover material
Increasing cover thickness can result in a less direct contact
of waste with incident precipitation during the daily operation. A
greater depth of cover soil can also support a larger variety of
cover vegetation species and consequently may promote higher evapo-
transpiration rates and surface runoff rates.
Compaction impedes infiltration and percolation by reducing po-
rosity and thus permeability. Some compaction is generally achieved
during routine waste and cover application. Additional compaction is
achievable via utilization of special compaction equipment.
-37-
-------
FIGURE 4-3
RATES OF HEAVE AS RELATED TO SILT-CLAY CONTENT
FROST
SUSCEPTIBILITY
CL:A S S IFIC ATION S
VERY HIGH
LOW
5 . 0
&
.4
• hi
I
hi
p.
4
hi
•0
.4
hi
.4
GRAVELLY SOILS F—I F—3-— - —
SANDS F—2— F - -
SILTS AU. SILTS F-4
CLAYS (P1 >12) and YARVED CLAYS (uniform subçcod.) .F—3
CLAYS (PT <12) and VA RVEO CLAYS ( non-unit. subqr ad.) • P —4
HIGH
MEDIUM
VERY LOW
N EG LI 01 L E
S 4 5 . 4 1
PERC NTAG( &Y #(IGiIT FIr C THAN 0.02 a —
SUMMARY OF ENVELOPES FOR THE VARIOUS SOIL GROUPS
HolEs: S,oado,d 1.51$ p.rfarm,d by A c?ic Ccn f,i,cfi n and F /oil (Ill /Is Loboratory sp.c/m.nl 61n. dia.
by 6in. high, froZ,i, C l pansl ’ /ion cola of cppcaiim laIy 0.25 in pa’ doy, v,lh f,ae vol,, of 38P con—
liauouJl, oacil;bI• a! bas . of sp.c,n,.n. Sp.cim.n, .co’,pocr.d o 95% o b.lF.c of opplicobi. slondo,d,
.sc.pl undislu b .d Ioys. Sc !uolionj b.fo,, f s .zing g.n.rolIy 95% 0, b•,,S .
W Indicclsd h.ar• cola cu. Fe upon lion in pc/urn., if a/I o iginal 01., in 100% s,/,,,afad ,p.cirn.i, w.,.
frozen, wi/h ,o/. el/ce, .’ pan./rol,o ., 0.25 inch p. day.
Source: Reference 2
-38-
-------
Layering of separate soils or other materials in the final cover
achieves a level of leachate control not obtainable with one material.
For most situations, it is sufficient to compact a layer of very im-
permeable clay beneath a layer of silty sand to provide soil erosion pro-
tection and to help retain capillary water in the clay layer.
To assist infiltration and percolation for the recycling option
potential techniques include:
1. selection of high permeability cover soils;
2. reducing surface slope;
3. decreasing cover thickness; and
4. decreasing compaction efforts.
4.8.22 Gas Control
Cover Functions . Cover material functions in a number of ways
to control landfill gas generation, build-up, and migration. Prin-
cipally, the cover may be designed and constructed to either impede
or assist the passage of gas from landfill to atmosphere. This choice
depends on whether the particular landfill design requires an active
system of gas collection and venting or a passive system permitting
gas migration. An active system may be preferred when leachate control
dictates an impermeable cover, when neighboring land uses pose rela-
tively few problems, or when gas is collected and used for its energy
value. Otherwise, a passive system in combination with vertical gas
movement through the cover material may suffice as least complicated
and least expensive.
Besides directly regulating gas diffusion processes, the cover
must be designed and constructed to maintain its continuity and in-
tegrity to prevent more direct escape of methane and other gases.
More importantly though, those cover leachate control measures that
minimize the rate of waste decay also minimize the consequent rate
of gas production. This, in turn, may increase the period of time
over which gas is produced.
Cover Design and Construction Techniques . The most important
technique for controlling gas migration through the cover is the
selection of the appropriate cover soil. A very fine impermeable
soil impedes gas movement, while coarse granular soil assists gas
movement (see Table 4-1). Maintaining a high degree of cover soil
saturation also impedes gas migration. Incorporating gas venting
or barrier systems, or combinations thereof, restricts gas movement
to specific paths or areas.
-39-
-------
4.8.23 Runoff Control
Cover Functions . Cover design and construction can result in
control of surface runoff and accompanying erosion processes. Cover
selection can minimize the potential erodibility of the cover soil.
For example, gravels, gravel—sand mixtures, and sands are resistant
to erosion effects. Proper cover design and application can also re-
duce erosion by reducing surface runoff rates. Erodibility and runoff
depend on a number of interrelated factors including topographic fea-
tures, soil water content, rainfall intensity, compaction, vegetation,
and general cover management. Important topographic features include
slope steepness, slope length, and slope shape. Soil erodibility de-
pends on soil particle-size distribution, organic matter content, soil
structure and soil permeability.
Cover Design and Construction Techniques . There are several
cover design and construction techniques available to achieve the
water erosion control functions discussed above. First, an erosion
resistant soil should be selected using published tables of erodi-
bi’lity (K-factor) values for different soil grain sizes (see Table 4—1)
Other techniques include:
1 . specifying coverages and conipactive effort;
2. reducing surface slope;
3. establishing vegetation quickly;
4. providing mulch and other temporary slope protection; and
5. using additives;
Compaction, used to control gas and leachate movement by re-
ducing infiltration, also reduces erosion. The value of reducing
surface slope to control erosion must be weighed against the value
of maintaining some surface slope to prevent surface pondinq and
increased infiltration. Vegetation should be established as quickly
as possible on final and, if feasible, on intermediate cover. Like-
wise mulch or other suitable materials should be placed on bare inter-
mediate or final cover soil, especially in the interval before vege-
tation emerges. Additives such as chemical soil stabilizers and
cement-stabilized soils can also be effective against erosion, but
are more costly than straw mulch treatment followed by natural grass
cover. In general, interior and perimeter surface drainage con-
trols are also used in concert with general cover management to
minimize the effects of surface runoff.
-40-
-------
4.8.24 Other Functions
Landfill cover also serves a variety of other landfill functions.
These include:
a. Health considerations:
1. minimizing vector breeding areas and animal
attraction by controlling:
a) fly and other insect emergence and entrance.
b) rodent burrowing for food and harborage.
c) bird scavenging.
b. Minimizing fire hazard potential by:
1. controlling movement of atmospheric oxygen.
2. providing barrier cell walls.
c. Asthetic considerations
1. minimize blowing paper.
2. control noxious odors.
3. provide sightly appearance to the landfill operation.
4. minimize wind erosion and dust generation.
d. Site usage considerations.
1. minimizing settlement and maximizing compaction to:
a) assist vehicle support and movements
b) insure equipment workability under all weather conditions
c) provide for future construction.
2. Providing for vegetable growth..
Table 4-1 ranks cover soil types for these cover functions.
4.8.25 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for implementina these technologies for
the three landfill site classes, as estimated utilizing the method-
ology outlined in Section 5.0, are presented in Table 4-2.
-41-
-------
TABLE 4-2
CURRENT COVER COSTS
10 TPD ($ Cost/Metric 100 TPD 300 TPD
Technology $ Cost/Ton Ton). i/Ton ($/MT) $/Ton ($/MT )
Impermeable Daily Cover
(On-site source) 0.75 (0.84) 0.35 (0.39) 0.25 (0.28)
Impermeable Daily Cover
(Off-site source) 5.30 (5.94) 2.65 (2.97) 1.75 (1.96)
Permeable Daily Cover
(On-site source) 0.60 (0.67) 0.30 (0.34) 0.20 (0.22)
Permeable Daily Cover
(0ff-site source) 1.90 (2.13) 0.95 (1.06) 0.65 (0.73)
Final Impermeable Cover
(On-site source) 0.45 (0.50) 0.20 (0.22) 0.20 (0.22)
Final Impermeabe Cover
(Off-site source) 3.20 (3.58) 1.50 (1.68) 1.35 (1.51)
Final Permeable Cover
(On-sipe source) 0.40 (0.45) 0.15 (0.17) 0.15 (0.17)
Final Permeable Cover
(Off-site source) 1.30 (1.46) 0.60 (0.67) 0.55 (0.62)
Source: Summarized from Tables 5-2 and 5-3.
-42-
-------
4.8.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Landfill cover soil selection and cover design and construction
techniques which impede or reduce infiltration of incident precipi-
tation, snowmelt, and surface drainage into the waste mass result
in improved water quality. Decreased infiltration serves to maintain
a lower waste moisture content, thus minimizing the rate of anaerobic
waste degradation and the rate of contaminant generation. These
controls affect primarily the readily decomposed organics and biotic
pollutants such as coliform bacteria.
2. Landfill cover soil selection, and cover design and construction
techniques which impede or reduce infiltration of landfill surface
water (discussed under No. 1 above) also minimize the rate of
decomposition gas generation and control vertical gas migration.
This reduces the likelihood of gas migration to and build-up of
explosive concentrations in buildings on or near the landfill site.
Since some plant species are adversely affected by landfill gas, it
also allows a greater variety of cover plant species to be planted
to control cover soil erosion and surface runoff. Finally, the
mineralization of groundwater is reduced, since the amount of
carbon dioxide dissolving in leachate is minimized.
3. Landfill cover soil selection and cover design and construction
techniques which assist infiltration of landfill surface water into
the waste mass, and therefore facilitate leachate recycling, result
in accelerated stabilization of the landfilled waste. Greater
quantities and concentrations of leachate and gas may result, but
the time frame over which these substances may escape may be signifi-
cantly shortened. A permeable cover also permits a passive
system of gas control with vertical gas venting safely to the atmos-
phere.
4. Landfill cover soil selection and cover design and constrLction
techniques which minimize surface runoff and cover soil erosion serve
to minimize siltation of surface waters adjacent to the landfill site.
5. Landfill cover soil selection and cover design and construction
techniques which protect the cover from subsidence, dessication,
cracking, and wind and water erosion serve to prevent any hydraulic
connection between landfilled waste and surface water. This mini-
mizes direct contamination of surface waters by leachate.
-43-
-------
6. Use of daily and final cover also: minimizes fire hazard
potential; maximizes the safety of the landfill site opera-
tions; minimizes vector breeding areas and animal attraction;
minimizes wind erosion and dust generation; preserves slope
stability; provides efficient operating surfaces; minimizes
differential settlement and maximizes compaction; provides
for vegetative growth and subsequent site use; and provides
an aesthetic appearance to the landfill site.
7. The extraction, transport, and application of cover soil causes
a variety of secondary environmental impacts. Furthermore, any
manufacturing, transportation, construction, or maintenance
activity associated with any of the aforementioned cover
selection, cover design or construction techniques also
has secondary environmental impacts.
-44-
-------
4.9 SYNTHETIC LINERS
4.9.1 Introduction
Groundwater and infiltrating p’ c ntat’io . in conjunction with
liquid waste constituents, can produce 1 c chate, a solution consisting
of dissolved and suspended solid matt. r ana microbial waste products.
Depending on specific site conditions, natural attenuation character-
istics may not be. adequate to provide the required degree of protection
for adjacent groundwater systems. Physical containment of the leachate
generated over the life of a site may be possible by using a synthetic
liner.
In this light, the Guidelines call for “a suitable structure which
allows the desired volumetric release of leachate for the maximum leach-
ate storage capability without failure due to liner placement.” This
requires incorporation ot a number of specific design and engineering
features. For instance, according to the Guidelines, the practical
minimum thickness for membrane liners is 20 mils. The Guidelines also
recommend careful liner subgrade preparation and liner protection above
grade. And finally, the Guidelines suggest that the liner be sloped
to one or more points and incorporate easily drained granular material
to facilitate leachate removal.
The following sections discuss the function of synthetic liners in
leachate control and gas control. The liner properties required to
achieve each function are identified, and the available materials and
construction methods to provide these properties are briefly evaluated.
A final section summarizes the major environmental impacts of synthetic
liners utilization as leachate and gas control measures.
-45-
-------
4.9.2 Technology Sumary
4.9.21 Leachate Control
Liner Functions . Because of the potential for ground and surface
water pollution, solid waste and groundwater must not be allowed to
interact. Maintaining a separation of several feet may effectively pre-
vent direct contact between the waste and the seasonal high groundwater
table. However, the effects of downward movement of leachate into the
groundwater system may result in substantial pollution of the ground-
water system. Consequently,a liner installation may be utilized to pre-
vent downward migration of leachate constituents and to provide a greater
measure of safety with respect to direct groundwater intrusion into the
waste.
Proper liner selection, design, and construction depend on several
factors, including waste type, subsurface soil conditions, landfill
type, current and projected regional water resource uses, the potential
effect of leachate on groundwater quality, direction of groundwater
movement, and the interrelationship of the aquifer with other aquifers
and with surface water. To be effective in controlling leachate,
all liners must be relatively impermeable to leachate, and must be
sufficiently durable to maintain their integrity over the expected
period of landfill leachate generation. Specifically, the liner must be
capable of withstanding the stresses associated with:wetting and drying,
freezing and thawing, periodic shifts of the earth and subgrade settling,
and liner installation and initial operation of equipment on the lined
base. it must resist attack from ozone, ultraviolet radiation, soil
bacteria, mold, fungus, and vegetation. Furthermore, a liner must resist
laceration, abrasion, and puncture by any waste material landfilled
above it. The liner must be amenable to field splicing and to repair as
necessary. Finally,the liner should be as economical as possible
given the specific job it must perform.
Liner Selection, Design, and Construction . There are several
broad categories of synthetic liners: admixed and asphaltic
materials, treated soils, soil sealants, and polymeric membranes. A
number of each of these liner types have been developed and are being
evaluated by industry and by EPA for their effectiveness and feasibility
for controlling both hazardous and non—hazardous solid wastes. Of these
liner categories, the admixed and asphaltic materials and polymeric
membranes have received the most attention, and tentative conclusions
have been drawn regarding their overall effectiveness.
-46-
-------
Admixed and Asphaltic Materials. Admixed and asphaltic liner
materials include:
1. modified bentonite and soil;
2. asphalt concrete;
3. soil asphalt;
4. soil cement;
5. sprayed asphalt membranes; arid
6. bituminous seals.
Admixed materials are normally formed in place. Asphalts are placed
using conventional roadway paving equipment, and are sealed with a number
of passes using spray bar equipment. Appendix A contains descriptions
of a number of the major admixed materials listed above, and lists specific
advantages and disadvantages.
Admixed liner material evaluations in simulated landfill situations
over short periods of time have so far concluded:
1. admix liners containing asphalt maintain their impermeability
to leachate, but significantly lose compressive strength;
2. to avoid inhomogeneities and leakage, paving asphalt and soil
asphalt liners should be greater than 2 to 4 inches thick;
3. soil cement becomes less permeable to leachate over time, but
loses compressive strength initially;
4. wholly asphaltic membrances maintain their impermeability to
leachate, but swell slightly;
5. oily wastes cannot be safely contained by asphalt-based liners;
6. bentonite and polymeric modified bentonite liners may not be
satisfactory for confining strong acids and bases and concentrated
brines; and
7. wastes containing both aqueous and oily phases may pose special
problems because of the need of the liner to resist simultaneously
two fluids inherently different in their compatibility with
materials.
Polymeric Membranes. A large variety of polymeric membrane liners
are being developed and evaluated, including:
butyl rubber
chlorinated polyethylene
chiorosul fonated polyethylene
elasticized polyolefiri
ethylene propylene rubber
neoprene
polyester elastomer
polyvinyl chloride
-47-
-------
Appendix A contains descriptions for the more commonly utilized membranes
and lists specific advantages and disadvantages.
Basic liner materials can be strengthened by laminating fabric
between layers of the liner material. Typical reinforcing “scrim”
materials include nylon, dacron, polypropylene, and fiberglass fabrics.
The reinforced liner material exhibits better puncture resistance and
overall loading capacity than liner materials alone. Disadvantages
include less flexibility and elongation prior to rupture, and greater
cost.
Liner installation requires a number of specialized construction
techniques. The base upon which the liner will be placed must be even
and free from objects capable of rupturing the liner. Six inches of
graded sand are commonly used as a liner base. Actual liner installa-
tion requires joining large membrane sheets over the landfill base and
adjacent to such features as vents, sampling wells, collection pipes,
etc. A number of adhesives and solvents are used for this field splicing.
Specific instructions must be carefully followed to maintain the structural
integrity of the liner.
Once the liner installation is complete, continued emphasis must be
placed on maintaining liner integrity. The most common approach is to
provide a two foot graded sand or soil layer over the liner to prevent
rupturing of the liner by waste materials and to permit operation of
landfill equipment on the lined base. The first layer of waste should
be relatively free of large objects.
4.9.22 Gas Control
A secondary role for synthetic liners is the control of decomposition
gas movement. Downward or lateral gas movement may occur as landfill
gas is generated. If the gas migrates through permeable substrata it
may collect in dangerous concentrations in buildings near the landfill.
Synthetic liners may be placed horizontally or on a slope to block
downward and lateral gas movement, respectively.
The liner properties required to successfully perform this role are
essentially the same as for leachate control with the exception that a
liner material’s permeability to gas may differ from its permeability to
water or leachate. Recent synthetic liner evaluations have not dealt
with gas control effectiveness.
-48-
-------
.9.23 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for synthetic liners average $4.00 ($4.48),
$1.90 ($2.13), and $1.65 ($1.85) per ton (metric ton) for 10, 100, and
300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.9.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Synthetic liners prevent downward migration of leachate pollutants
from the waste to groundwater supplies, thus protecting groundwater
from pollution.
2. Synthetic liners also prevent groundwater from directly intruding
on the waste mass, thus protecting groundwater from pollution.
3. synthetic liners may reduce the likelihood of a groundwater mound
from forming beneath a landfill, since a liner minimizes the flow of
water directly through the landfill to the groundwater table below.
This, then, minimizes the chances that the groundwater table will
intersect the waste mass.
4. Installation of a synthetic liner requires collection and removal of
the contained leachate. This permits leachate treatment or leach-
ate recycling, the ultimate consequence being minimization of
groundwater and surface water pollution.
5. synthetic liners control downward and lateral gas movement, or
provide a base for vertical impermeable gas barriers. The control
of gas movement out of the landfill reduces the chances of gas
migration through permeable strata and build up in explosive con-
centrations in buildings on or near the landfill site.
6. The manufacture, transport, and installation of synthetic liners
results in a variety of secondary environmental impacts.
7. Use of a synthetic liner allows more flexibility in landfill site
selection, since natural soil pollutant attenuation is not relied
upon, nor is an on-site source of natural liner material required.
Consequently, potential reduction in waste transport distances can
result in positive secondary environmental impacts.
-49-
-------
4.10 NATURAL CLAY LINERS
4.10.1 Introduction
Landfill leachate, an effluent generally high in dissolved and sus-
pended solids, is produced when groundwater and precipitation percolate
into the solid waste and combine with waste liquids and degradation gene-
rated moisture. When natural hydrogeologic characteristics of a site
would not result in adequate leachate containment, additional measures
may be required to protect adjacent groundwater systems. Natural clay
liners can facilitate the containment of leachate to the on-site environs
and potentially may offer the possibility of attenuation of various leach-
ate contaminants.
In this light, the Guidelines call for “a suitable structure which
allows the desired volumetric release of leachate for the maximum leachate
storage capability without failure due to liner placement.” This requires
incorporation of a number of specific design and engineering features.
For instance, according to the Guidelines, natural soil liners should
have a low permeability (1 x l0 cm./sec., or less) and a practical
limiting thickness of 12 inches. The Guidelines also suggest that the
liner slope to one or more points and incorporate easily drained granular
material to expedite leachate removal.
The following sections discuss the function of natural clay liners in
leachate control and gas control. The liner properties essential to
achieving each function are identified, and the materials available and
construction techniques to provide these properties are briefly evaluated.
A final section summarizes the major environmental impacts of using natural
clay liners as leachate and gas control measures. The evaluation assumes
an off-site source of natural clay materials since on-site conditions were
not initially suitable to provide the required levels of leachate containment.
-50-
-------
4.10.2 Technology Summary
4.10.21 Leachate Control
Liner Functions . Maintaining a physical separation between solid
wastes and groundwater reduces the potential production of leachate and
the potential contamination of surface water and qroundwater by leachate.
Vertical separation of the waste above the historical high groundwater level
can prevent intrusion of groundwater into the waste and consequent leach—
ate contamination. However, leachate has the potential for downward mi-
gration into groundwater systems and therefore, physical separation bf the
waste and groundwater supply is not generally adequate to prevent ground-
water contamination. The technique discussed here utilizes a natural
clay liner which can both minimize the downward movement of leachate
pollutants and prevent direct intrusion of groundwater into landfilled
solid wastes.
Several site specific factors, particularly landfill type, solid
waste type, subsurface soil conditions, direction of groundwater flow,
possible interconnection between the aquifer and other aquifers, the
effects of the specific leachate on the groundwater supply and the current
and projected regional water resource uses, must be considered in the
selection, design and construction of natural clay liners. In addition,
since natural clay materials also may exhibit attentuation properties for
specific leachate constituents, selection of a natural liner based upon
specific attenuation propertiPs for a particular waste type can provide an
additional degree of protection for adjacent groundwater supplies.
Liner Selection, Design, and Construction . Natural clay minerals
are among those materials most commonly used for lining landfill sites.
Montmorillonite, illite and kaolinite are the three mo t common clay mine-
rals that are used singly or in combination for landfill liners. The
physical properties of clay soils, and therefore of natural clay liners,
are primarily dependent on clay particle sizes and on the clay’s mineral-
ogy or crystalline structure. Chemically, all clay minerals consist of
hydrous aluminum silicates and therefore, all possess certain common
features. However, individual clay minerals incorporate differing amounts
of water and accessory ions such as calcium and magnesium which result in
other features that depend upon the individual characteristics of the
particular clay minerals. Table 4-3 gives several examples of variable
clay properties, specifically, with respect to permeability and attenuation
characteristics.
Clay liners have a relatively low permeability attributable to small
constituent grain sizes and the reduction of the sediment/pore space ratio
under wet conditions. The ability of clay aggregates to swell and expand
derives from the existence of ionic charges that attract surficial layers
-51-
-------
TABLE 4-3
ATTENUATION AND PERMEABILITY
PROPERTIES OF CLAYS
a. Quartz sand added to make 100%.
b. Meq equals milliequivalents.
c. Exponential notation: E-O3 means x io:
Source: Reference 5
Cation
Initial
a
Percent Material
Exchange
Capacity
(meq/lOOg)b
Bulk
Density
(9/cm 3 )
1.71
Hydraulic
ConductivityC
(cm/sec)
1.27E—03
0.0
0
Montmoril lonite
2
Montmoril lonite
1.7
1.71
9.45E—04
4
Montmoril lonite
3.3
1.77
4.34E-04
8
Montmoril lonite
6.8
1.79
4.70E-04
16
Montmoril lonite
13.3
1.87
1.22E-05
32
Montmorillonite
27.3
1.55
1.27E-05
64
Montmoril lonite
50.7
1.23
3.05E-07
100
Montmorillonite
79.5
0.84
7.26E-07
2
Kaolinite
0.2
1.68
7.44E-04
4
Kaolinite
0.5
1.76
4.78E-05
8
Kaolinite
1.0
1.80
990E-04
16
Kaolinite
2.2
1.87
2.86E-05
16
Kaolinite
-
1.94
1.O9E-06
32
Kaolinite
4.3
1.66
2.40E-06
64
Kaolinite
8.2
1.22
5.45E-07
100
Kaolinite
15.1
0.90
2.98E-07
4
Illite
0.7
1.80
8.17E-04
16
Illite
2.7
1.83
2.68E-05
8
Montmorillonite
+ 8 Kaolinite
7.6
1.95
5.35E-07
8
Kaolinite
+ 8 Illite
2.8
1.95
1.48E-06
8
Kao linite
+ 8 Illite
+ 8 Montmorillonite
9.2
1.64
8.08E-06
-52-
-------
of molecular water, as well as the tendency of some clays, particularly
montmorillonite, to absorb additional interlayer water molecules. There-
fore, when clay particles contact water, the effective diameter of the
particles is increased and concurrently available pore space is diminished,
resulting in decreased permeability rates. Maintaining moisture content
is therefore relevant to ensuring low permeability and liner effectiveness
in containing leachate... Moisture content is also important to the degree
to which clays can be con’p9cted in order to achieve the lowest permeability
possible. Some clays sucn as montmorillonite have a greater tendency to
absorb water than other types. For each clay type, an optimum moisture
level exists for maximum compaction.
The particular ability of clay minerals to absorb moisture is con-
gruent with an equivalent tendency to dewater and shrink. Therefore, pro-
longed exposure of clay liners to air will increase shrinkage and result
in cracking which would increase passage of leachate through and accelerate
failure of the liner. As a consequence of these properties, natural clay
liners should be installed only as fill construction progresses.
The base upon which the liner will be placed should be cleared and
graded. Actual construction of the liner requires placement of layers of
clay material on the landfill base and compaction with appropriate equip-
ment until the desired liner thickness is obtained. Moisture may be added
as needed to ensure hydration of clay minerals, to allow optimum compaction
for maximum density, and to prevent drying and cracking. Until waste place-
ment occurs, continued emphasis must be placed on maintaining clay moisture
content and liner continuity. Careful operation of landfill equipment and
deposition of the first layer of waste on the lined base is required to
maintain liner integrity.
In addition to containing landfill generated leachate, natural clay
liners have a limited capability to provide in-site treatment or attentuation
of leachate constituents. Due to the liner’s low permeability, leachate
movement is extremely slow and allows physical, chemical, and biological
interaction between leachate constituents and clay minerals and pore water.
This results in attentuation of pollutant elements by filtration, adsorbtion,
ion-exchange processes, chemical precipitation, complexation and biodegra-
dation. The relative dominance of one mechanism over another is not well
documented. However, some studies indicate that the cation exchange capa-
city (CEC) of clay minerals is the major removal mechanism for substances
such as ammoniurn, potassium and magnesium. As such, CEC is the principal
property utilized to estimate potential attenuation effects of natural clay
liners.
The cation exchange cap?Icity arises from the fact that clay minerals
consist of interlocking layers of silica and aluminium oxides with interlayer
water molecules and cations such as sodium, calcium, and potassium. This struc-
ture lends itself to the existence of unbalanced molecular bonds and therefore to
-53-
-------
the capacity to adsorb ions that may be contained in the leachate. Of the
three clay minerals mentioned here, montmorillonite has the greatest
CEC, followed by illite and kaolinite. Cation exchange capacities also
depend upon the composition and pH of the leachate. Therefore, natural
clay liners can be chosen and constructed to selectively attenuate par-
ticular leachate pollutant elements. Table 4-4 provides differential CEC 1 s
for three sample clay minerals.
4.10.22 Gas Control
A secondary role for natural clay liners is the control of decom-
position gas movement. Downward or lateral gas movement may occur as
landfill gas is generated. If the gas migrates through permeable sub-
strata, it may collect in dangerous concentrations in buildings near the
landfill. Natural clay material can be placed as a horizontal liner or
installed as a semi-vertical or vertical wall to block downward and lateral
gas movement, respectively. In actual practice, clay liners as dis-
cussed in this section can primarily provide an impermeable base for alter-
nate gas control measures such as venting systems or perimeter barrier
systems.
The liner properties required to successfully perform this role are
essentially the same as for leachate control with the exception that a
clay material ‘s permeability to gas will differ from its permeability to
leachate or water. Certain features incorporated into the design and con-
struction of a natural clay liner will help minimize gas movement. Selec-
tion of a natural soil type should aim to maintain a high degree of satu-
ration which will reduce liner porosity and minimize gas movement. Addi-
tional compactive effort will also decrease permeability and reduce gas
migration. Another direct and effective procedure is to increase the
thickness of the liner.
4.10.23 Current Economic Costs
For a 10 TPD site, 100 TPD site, and 300 TPD site natural clay liners
cost $3.20 ($3.58), l.50 ($1.68), and $1.35 ($1.51) per ton (per metric
ton) respectively.
-54-
-------
TABLE 4-4
CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CLAY MINERALS USED
IN ATTENUATION STUDIES OF LEACHATE POLLUTANTS
Element
Kaolinite (Pike
County, Illinois
Exch.*(ppm) Total
Mon tmori 11 oni te
(American Colloid
Co., southern
bentoni te ) _____
Exch.*(ppm) Total
liii te
(Minerva
Co. Mine)
Exch.*(ppm )
Total
Total Carbon (%)
Organic Carbon (%)
Inorganic Carbon (%)
CEC (meq/lOOg)
Surface area (m 2 /g)
Source: Reference 6.
0.54
0.51
0.03
15.1
34.2
0.93
0.92
0.01
79.5
86.0
2.19
1.81
0.38
20.5
64.6
Ca
2,592
3,700
13,120
22,300
5,248
23,350
Mg
76.8
1,800
680
25,500
800
10,430
Na
43.2
929
24.0
178
115.2
1,050
K
87.2
8,200
240
1,100
800
56,270
NH4
13.0
40
43
38
50
62.5
Fe
2.0
6,600
2.0
25,500
2.0
28,730
Mn
0.06
29
0.02
25
0.37
390
Pb
2.0
46
2.0
15
2.0
93.8
Cd
0.2
3
0.2
3
0.3
18.8
Zn
0.80
20
1.00
40
2.5
37.5
B
-
46
-
3
-
43.8
Al
-
22 1,800
-
95,600
-
130,100
Si
217,700
-
284,800
-
226,500
Ti
14,700
-
1,300
4,010
-.55-
-------
4.10.3 Environmental Impact Sumary
1. Natural clay liners can minimize downward migration of leachate
pollutants from waste mass to groundwater supplies, thus protec-
ting groundwater aquifers from pollutant effects.
2. Natural clay liners may reduce the likelihood of a groundwater
mound from forming beneath a landfill, since it minimizes the flow
of water directly through the landfill to the groundwater table
below. This, ther , minimizes the chances that the groundwater table
will intersect the waste mass.
3. Installation of a natural clay liner may require collection and
removal of the contained leachate. This may require incorporation
of treatment technologies which ultimately result in minimization
of groundwater and surface water pollution.
4. Natural clay liners control downward and lateral gas movement by
providing a base for semi-vertical or vertical impermeable gas
barriers. The control of gas movement out of the landfill reduces
the chances of gas migration through permeable strata and build-
up in explosive concentrations in buildings on or near the landfill
site. Additionally, controlling gas migration minimizes minerali-
zation of groundwater by minimizing the amount of carbon dioxide that
contacts and dissolves in groundwater.
5. Use of a natural clay liner allows more flexibility in landfill site
selection, since sites with previously unacceptable subsurface char-
acteristics can potentially be utilized for solid waste disposal.
Consequently, for example, landfill siting can better minimize waste
transport distances, resulting in positive secondary environmental
impacts.
6. The excavation, transport, and installation of off-site natural
clay materials results in a variety of secondary environmental impacts.
-56-
-------
4.11 LEACHATE COLLECTION
4.11.1 Introduction
Groundwater and infiltrating surface water percolating through
landfilled solid waste may produce leachate, a solution of dissolved
and suspended matter and microbial waste products. Depending on its
composition and concentrations, this leachate may pose a danger of
severe contamination of underlying groundwater and/or adjacent surface
water.
A number of the landfill unit technologies evaluated in this EIS
influence leachate control in a variety of ways. These include daily
and final cover (Section 4.8) and synthetic and natural clay liners
(Sections 4.9 and 4.10). However, the most effective insurance against
leachate pollution is leachate collection and treatment or recycling.
In actuality, the emplacement of a synthetic or natural clay liner to
protect water resources from leachate usually dictates some form of
collection and removal of the accumulated leachate. Once removed, the
leachate must be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.
The Guidelines suggest that “removal of collected leachate for
disposal should be incorporated into the design of lined landfills to
avoid overflowing of collected leachate”. The Guidelines go on to
recommend that “all liner materials should be sloped to one or more
points and covered with a layer of granular material to facilitate
removal of leachate.”
The following pages describe in more detail the technology and
environmental impacts of leachate collection.
-57-
-------
4.11.2 Technology Summary
4.11.21 Leachate Control
Leachate collection is normally accomplished, by gravity drainage
with a synthetic or natural clay liner designed to slope to one or
more sump collection points. The liner can be overlain by a layer
of porous material, such as sand or gravel, to facilitate drainage.
This material may be six inches to two feet in thickness and usually
also serves to protect the liner from mechanical damage by solid
wastes and landfill equipment. Alternatively, the liner can in-
corporate clay tile drainage systems designed to channel leachate
to the collection sumps. Once collected, the leachate may be treated
immediately or pumped to a storage tank where it is held for eventual
treatment or recycling.
4.11.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for leachate collection for 10, 100 and
300 ton per day landfills are: $0.95 ($1.06), $0.40 ($0.45) and $0.30
($0.34) per ton (per metric ton) respectively.
4.11.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Since leachate collection presumes and facilitates leachate
treatment and/or leachate recycling, its environmental impacts are
essentially comparable to those for leachate treatment and/or lea-
chate recycling. These impacts, generally, are reductions in the
contamination of ground and surface water.
-58-
-------
4.12 LEACHATE TREATMENT
4.12.1 Introduction
To avoid contamination of soil, groundwater, and surface water by
high concentrations of organic matter and inorganic ions in landfill leach—
ate, the percolating leachate can be collected and treated. This section
evaluates leachate treatment methodologies which are generally one of two
types: biological and/or physical-chemical. Land application of raw lea-
chate and piping leachate to a municipal secondary wastewater treatment
plant are alternative disposal methodologies.
The Guidelines point out that any leachate treatment system effluent
discharge to surface water will require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDE-S ) permit under Section 402 of the 1977 Clean Water
Act (Public Law 95-217). The Guidelines identify a variety of wastewater
treatment techniques which may potentially be adequate to meet the provisions
of an NPDES permit, depending on a variety of factors, including age of the
fill and the influent leachate’s chemical oxygen demand (COD). See Table
4-5 for an indication of potential treatment methodologies.
TABLE 4-5
LEACHATE TREATABILITY BY ALTERNATE TREATMENT METHODS
Leachate Quality Treatment Efficiency
Age of Fill COD, mg/i
Biolog-
ical
Chemical
Precipi-
tation
Chemical
Oxid-
ation
Ozon-
ation
Reverse
Osmosis
Activated
Carbon
Ion
Ex-
change
Young
(5 year) 10,000
Medi urn
(5-10 year) 500-10,000
Old (10 year) 500
G
F
P
P
F
p
p
F
F
p
F
F
F
G
G
F
G
p
F
F
Source: Reference 8.
* (COD removal: G = Good; F = Fair; P = Poor)
-59-
-------
The Guidelines conclude that:
1. “Leachates containing a significant fraction of high molecular
weight organic compounds (i.e. those in excess of 50,000)
are best treated by physical-chemical methods such as lime
addition followed by settling”;
2. “Leachate containing primarily low molecular weight organic
compounds are best treated by biological methods such as acti-
vated sludge”;
3. “Leachates treated by combinations of chemical, physical and
biological methods are often the most effective in achieving
discharge standards”.
The following sections describe in more detail the technology and
environmental impacts of incorporation of leachate treatment.
4.12.2 Technology Summary
4.12.22 Leachate Control
Several wastewater treatment techniques have been tested, primarily
on a laboratory scale, for their effectiveness in treating landfill
leachate contaminated by organic matter and inorganic ions. These tech-
niques are broadly categorized as physical-chemical, biological treatment
processes, land application, and combinations thereof. While many
researchers have been involved in landfill leachate treatability studies,
this evaluation relies most heavily on the more recent and comprehensive
investigations by Chian and DeWalle. (References 7 and 8).
To estimate leachate strength and leachate treatment efficiency,
most researchers have measured influent chemical oxygen demand (COD)
and percent COD removal in effluent, respectively. COD is a relative-
ly accurate and simple measure of a wastewater’s water-soluble organic
compounds. In addition, Chian and DeWalle have proposed ratios of in-
fluent leachate biological oxygen demand (BOD) to COD, and of COD to
total organic carbon (TOC), to approximate landfill leachate organic
matter composition. BOD/COD and COD/TOC ratios can be used in turn to
predict the effectiveness of biological versus physical-chemical leachate
treatment methods. The COD/TOC ratio decreases with landfill age, since
the organic carbon becomes more oxidized and less readily available for
microbial growth as degradation of landfill waste proceeds. Therefore,
older leachate is less amenable to biological treatment, since such
treatment is simply a controlled microbial degradation process. Similarly,
BOD reflects leachate organic matter composition. A high BOO indicates
a high proportion of low molecular weight, free volatile fatty acids in
the leachate. These high energy compounds are subject to microbial
degradation and, therefore, are indicative of a relatively young landfill.
Thus, a high BOD/COD indicates a young landfill or a biologically unstable
refuse whose leachate is amenable to biological treatment, and vice versa.
-60-
-------
Table 4-5, summarizes the implications of this concept by comparing
the relative efficiencies of various leachate treatment methods for
varying landfill ages and their corresponding leachate strengths and
compositions. The following paragraphs briefly describe each of these
leachate treatment techniques.
Physical-chemical treatment methods, which have been tested to date,
include activated carbon and ion exchange adsorption, reverse osmosis,
chemical oxidation, chemical precipitation, and various combinations of thesE
processes. In general, physical-chemical treatments have not proven to be
effective on raw leachate generated from a recently installed landfill, since
this leachate contains a hiqh DroDortlon of low molecular weight, volatile
fatty acids which are more amenable to biological treatment processes
(Reference 8). Table 4-6 summarizes the results of several physical-
chemical treatment investigations.
Activated carbon and ion exchange adsorption resins have not been able
to adsorb the volatile fatty acids and have resulted in unsatisfactory
effluent concentrations. As Table 4-6 indicates, literature reports of
COD removal in raw leachate of young landfills has ranged from 34 percent
using activated carbon batch treatment to 71 percent using activated carbon
column treatment. Activated carbon treatment of various biological
treatment effluents and leachate from relatively stabilized landfills
using known chemical dosages, however, has resulted in COD removal ranging
from 70 to 91 percent. Ion exchange treatment of an activated sludge
effluent resulted in only a 58 percent COD removal.
Reverse osmosis at pH 8.0 using a cellulose acetate membrane has
yielded 89 percent COD removal from raw leachate of a young landfill, while
only 56 percent COD removal was possible at pH 5.5 using the same method.
However, the necessary upward pH adjustment may be economically unattractive.
Reverse osmosis of biological treatment effluent was more successful,
averaging over 95 percent COD removal. Severe membrane fouling creates
significant operating diffulties and may require incorporation of biological
pre-treatment techniques.
Chemical oxidation, including chlorination and ozonation, of both
raw leachate and biological treatment effluent resulted in values for COD
removal ranging from 0 to 18 percent (Reference 8). Oxidation of the
prevalently acidic landfill leachate is generally too slow to be effective.
Also, use of some oxidants results in large amounts of sludge to be handled.
-61-
-------
TABLE 4-6
RESULTS OF TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES OBTAINED IN DIFFERENT PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT STUDIES
Treatment
Process Author
Inital BOD/ COD/
COD COD TOC
Per-
centage
COD
Removal Dosages
Chemical Pre-
cipitation
Activated Carbon
and Ion-Exchange
Adsorption
Cook and Foree 14,900
Ho. et al. (15) 9,100
(24)
Thornton and
Blanc (50)
Van Fleet
et al (51)
This study
9,100
10,800
558
139
3,400
0.81
-
1,240
0.66
2.78
1,234
0.68
2.88
1,234
0.68
2.88
-
5,033
0.60
-
12,923
0.57
0.36
-
2,000
Cook and Foree 330 0.07 2.57
(15)
- Alum
- Lime
- Lime treatment
of anaerobic
digestor effluent
- Lime treatment of
anaerobic digestor
effluent polished
by aerated lagoon
Alum and lime
Ferrosul fate
Li me
Li me
Lime and aeration
Iron
Al urn
Lime
Li me
Al urn
Activated carbon
batch treatment
of aerated lagoon
effluent
Activated carbon
column treatment
of lime pretreated
1 eac hate
13 2,760 mg/iCa(OH) 2
16.3 1,000 mg/i
40 2,250 mg/i
A1!,(SOA) 3 and
800 mgll CaO
13 2,500 mg/i
FeSO 7H 0
0 i,oo8 mg 1
O 1,000 mg/i
8 210 ml saturated
lime/i leachate
0 200 mg/i FiC1. 3
11 180 mg/i Al 2 (0 4 )
24 1,350 mg/i
26 1,200 mg/i
31 2,700 mg/i
26 450 mg/i
70
81 15 mm HRT, after
initial volume
turnovers
Treatment
System
0.45 3.45 Lime
0.75 - Ferric Chloride
0.75
0.74
0.27
5.3 1,000
3.5 1,840
7.7 2,700
366 0.11
Karr (28) 4,800 0.66 2.73
mg/i
mg/i
mg/i
29 1,400 mg/i
Roy Weston Inc.
Rogers (44)
Simensen and
Odegaard (45)
and aeration
and aeration
2,820 0.65 2.89 Lime
3,290 0.45 3.45
-62-
-------
TABLE 4-6 (continued)
Per-
centage
Treatment Initial BOO! COD! Treatment COD
Process Author COD COD TOG System Removal Dosages
Ho, et al. (24) 4,920 0.75 - Activated carbon, 34 16,000 mg/i
batch
7,213 0.75 - Activated carbon 59 45 mm HRT
column after volume
turnover
Karr (27) 5,500 0.66 2.73 Activated carbon, 60 160,000 mg/i
batch
Pohiand and 184 0.18 1.5 Carbon batch treat- 91 O,0OO mg/i
Kang (38) ment of activated
sludge eff1u ’nt
120 0.18 1.5 Ion exchange treat- 58 5,000 mg/i
ment of activated cation and
sludge effluent anionic mixture;
Roy Weston, Inc. 127 0.04 2.1 Activated carbon, 85 10,000 mg/i
batch
Van Fleet, 2,000 0.36 - Activated carbon 71
et. al. (51) column treatment
of leachate
Activated carbon 94
column treatment
of alum pretreated
leachate
This study 632 0.65 289 Activated carbon 70 decreased
column treatment to 13 after
of leachate 140 By
546 Q.i 2 5 Activated carbon 70
column treatment
of effluent of
aerated lagoon
-63 -.
-------
TABLE 4-6 (continued)
527 0.1 2.46 Ion exchange coluno.
treatment of effluent
of aerated lagoon
932 — 2.9 Activated carbon
column treatment of
effluent of anaerobic
filter
522 0.1 2.7 Aotivated carbon
column treatment
of aerated effluent
of anaerobic filter
Reverse Os—
mos i S
Cook and Foree
(15)
Ho, et.al.(24)
Karr (28) 4,800
Roy Weston,Inc. 139
139
This study 1,250
627
- Chlorination with
calcium hypo-
chlorite
- Ozonation
0.66 2.73 Chlorination
0.04 2.1 Chlorination with
calcium hypo-
c hi on te
0.04 2.1 Ozonation
— 2.9 Ozonation of an-
aerobic filter ef-
fluent
- 2.5 Ozonation of aerat-
ed lagoon effluent
- 2.1 Reverse osmosis
33 65 ml bleach/i
sample
8 8,000 mg/i
Ca(ClO) 2
after 2 hr
37 4 hr, 7,700 mg
0 . /l-hr
22 2, 00 mg/i Cl 2
0 1,000 mg/i Ca
(dO) 2
22 4 hr 34 mg 03/1-
37 hr 3 hr, 600
mg/i —hr
48 3 hr, 400 mg
0/i—hr
80 80% Permeate
yield
56 50% Permeate
yield
89 50% Permeate
yield
Treatment
Initial BOD/ COOl Treatment
Process Author COD COD COD
System
Dosaaes
Per-
centage
COD
Removal
50
50
70
Chemical Oxi-
dation
330 0.07 2.57 Chlorination
1,500 0.75
7,162 0.75
Roy Weston,Inc. 265
This study 53,330 0.65 2.89 Reverse osmosis of
leachate at pH
5.5, cellulose ace-
tate membrane
53,300 0.65 2.89 Reverse osmosis
of leachate at
pH 8.0, cellulose
acetate memb.
-64-
-------
TABLE 4-6 (concluded)
Per-
centage
Treatment Initial BOO! COD! Treatment COD
Process Author COD COD COD System Removal Dosages
900 - 2.9 Reverse osmosis of 98 77% Permeate
anaerobic filter ef— yield
fluent DuPont B—9
536 - 2.5 Reverse osmosis of 95 50% Permeate
aerated lagoon ef— yield
fluent, cellulose
acetate mentrane
-65-
-------
Similarly, chemical precipitation (including lime, alum, alum and lime,
ferric chloride, ferrosulfate, lime and aeration, alum and aeration, and
iron and aeration processes) of both raw leachate and biological treatment
effluent achieved COD removal values ranging from 0 to 40 percent (Reference
No. 8). Using chemical precipitants normally generates large amounts of
sludge and additional disposal costs and often requires significant oper-
ation and maintenance expenditures.
Aerobic biological treatment of leachate has been studied using labor-
atory scale aerated lagoons and activated sludge tanks seeded with sludge
from municipal wastewater treatment plants (Reference 9). These processes
have resulted in up to 99 percent COD removal in raw leachate in two studies
(See Table 4-7). In addition, investigators have commonly achieved 95 to 99
percent BOD reduction, 60 to 70 percent removal of volatile suspended solids
(VSS), and excellent odor reduction. Further, Chian and DeWalle report
high removals of heavy metals in aerated lagoons, especially for iron
(99.9%) zinc (99.9%), calcium (99.3%), and magnesium (75.9%), due to chemical
precipitation and flocculation. Problems identified in some investigations
of aerobic treatment include: high sludge yield, poor solids-liquid separation,
foaming, high power requirements, lower removal efficiencies with increased
process loadings, and process failure with detention times of two and five
days.
Effluent from an anaerobic digester treated in an aerated lagoon in one
study achieved sufficient BOO removal, but still required physical-chemical
treatment to remove resistant organics and lower COD. For influents with
high COD concentrations, aerobic treatment may require additional physical-
chemical treatment to remove resistant organics and lower the COD.
Biological treatment of leachate by anaerobic digester and anaerobic
filter processes has resulted in COD removals ranging from 89 to 98 percent
(Reference 9). These values compare favorably with COD removals achieved
with aerobic methods, but reflect longer detention times. One investigation
concluded that anaerobic treatment of leachate is superior to other treatment
technologies since anaerobic digestion units are readily adapted to treatment
of landfill leachate, the landfill gas generated can be recovered, and the
longer detention times are suited to the relatively small volumes of leachate
generated at a landfill site.
Studies of rotating biological discs and aerobic trickling filters, to
date, have resulted in only low COD removal.
Land application of landfill leachate has sustained little actual
testing or experience to date as a viable leachate treatment process. However,
results from land application of municipal wastewater can to some extent be
extended to land application of landfill leachate. Key variables in
evaluating the potential of this type of process include: soil type, depth to
groundwater, topography, application rates, season of application, and the
limitations that certain leachate constituents might place on the process.
-66-
-------
TA81 E 4-7
RESULT OF TREATMENT EFFICI N IES OBTAINED IN
DIFFERENT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Percent- -
age
S b- ml. COD Ds
IoØcaI tisI BOD/ TOOl Treatment re-
peocess AUthOr COD COD TOC system moval
( 1) ( 2 ) (3) (4) (5) ( 6 ) (7)_ —
Mrs ic Doyle and 8.800 080 Aeralcd lagoon 74 3
Ham (5)
Cook and li.bU0 045 345 Aerated lagoon 911 lOd
Force (19)
Karr (211) 7.550 064 320 Aerated lagoon 77 oe.
Foblind and 500 0 52 I % Aerated lagoon 511 Ut.
Kay (37)
Roy We ion 139 003 2 I Aerated lagoon I)
Inc.
This study 30.000 0.65 Aerated lagoon 99 7 d
Anaerobic Boyle and 1(1.600 0.79 Anaerubi 97 18d
Ham (5) d,gc Ier
Force and 12.900 0.43 2.81 Anaerobic lOd
Reid 120) digc .tcr
Ksrr (28) 16.500 062 2 92 Anaerobic lid
digester
5.500 078 2.82 Anaerobic 93 lId
digester
Rogers 144) 1.300 081 Anaciubic 87 l2 .
filter using
lime treated
leachate
This study 30.000 0.65 Anaerobic 97
1 1 1cr
Ai,obic/ Boyle and 0.18 Aerated lagoon 40 Sd
A erobbc Ham (5) treatment 01
anacrobsc di-
gester ciflu-
cnt -
Force and 510 2.33 Aerated lagoon 22 I
Reed (20) Irc tment of
anerobic fil-
ter effluent
ibis study 1.000 2.35 Aerated lagoon 17 U
treatment of
anerobbe fil-
ter .m nt L
Source: Reference
—67-
-------
4.12.23 Current Economic Costs
Ingeneral, leachate treatment costs range from $5.80 ($6.50), $1.10
($1.23), and $0.50 ($0.56) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100, and 300
ton per day landfill sites respectively.
4.12.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Leachate treatment serves to remove organic matter and inorganic
ions, as well as odor and color, from collected landfill leach-
ate before it is discharged to surface waters. If properly
and effectively implemented, leachate treatment technology en-
sures that any landfill leachate discharge to surface waters
will meet the provisions of the NPDES permit which would be re-
quired under Section 402 of the 1977 Clean Water Act (Public Law
95-217). The consequent environmental impacts of uncontrolled
discharges are thereby avoided.
-68-
-------
4.13 LEACHATE RECYCLING
4.13.1 Introduction
Leachate recycling is the controlled collection and recircu-
lation of leachate through the landfill for the purpose of promot-
ing rapid stabilization of refuse and leachate constituents. Re-
cycling may also result in reduction of leachate strength and thus
may serve as a pretreatment arrangement prior to leachate treat-
ment processes or direct leachate discharge.
The Guidelines indicate that “recirculation of collected
landfill leachate onto active or completed sections of the land-
fill can reduce leachate constituent concentrations by chemical,
physical and biological processes and may be effective in re-
ducing leachate volume.” The following discusses in more detail
the technology and environmental impacts of leachate recycling.
Since leachate recycling is a relatively new landfill technology,
the following evaluation must be considered preliminary in nature.
4.13.2 Technology Sumary
4.13.21 Leachate Control
The precise mode of operation of leachate recycling is still
poorly understood since it has only been recently investigated in
experimental landfill simulations and very little practical appli-
cation of the concept has yet been achieved. The generally hypoth-
esized and accepted explanation is that recirculation of leachate
through a landfill promotes faster development of an active population
of anaerobic methane forming bacteria, which effect the bulk of
the waste decomposition process. This, in turn, increases the rate
and predictability of biological stabilization of the organic con-
stituents in the waste. While initial recycling may result in
higher leachate constituent concentrations than would normally be
experienced, the potential increase in degradation rates theoretically
should result in reduction of leachate constituents in a short time
frame. A variety of constituents, particularly non-organics, such
as metallic ions, may remain relatively unaffected. Depending on
site specific considerations, requirements for long-term post-closure
landfill leachate monitoring and management may be reduced in certain
instances.
-69-
-------
While actual development of and experience with leachate re-
cycling systems is limited, some alternative arrangements can be
described. First, the leachate must be collected using one of
the techniques identified in Section 4.11. The actual recircu-
lation technique utilized depends on whether the landfill section
through which the leachate is to be recycled is active or completed,
and on the permeability of the cover material. For permeable covers,
the most practical system for leachate recycling is to distribute the
leachate by utilizing a truck equiped with a spray bar. Alternatively,
the leachate can be recycled by utilization of a spray irrigation
system or a number of well points. Landfills incorporating imperme-
able final covers may be more amenable to leachate distribution via
pressure or gravity lines to a system of perforated pipes buried
beneath the cover material.
The rate of biological stabilization can be accelerated by adding
sewage sludge to the cover material to seed a methane forming bacteria
population and/or by initially neutralizing the landfill pH through
addition of lime, etc. so that optimum conditions for inuiediate
development of a bacteria population can be achieved. These measures
can reduce landfill stabilization time to a matter of months as
opposed to a matter of years.
Once the leachate has been recycled, it may be suitable for direct
discharge to surface waters, depending on the condition of the
receiving waters and/or on the specific applicable regulatory requirements.
In some cases, the landfill may completely reabsorb the recycled leachate,
resulting in zero leachate discharge. This is particularly true where
leachate generation has primarily resulted from short-circuiting of
leachate through the waste mass. In many cases, however, the effluent
leachate will require further treatment by separate biological and/or
physical-chemical processes (see Section 4.12, Leachate Treatment) to
remove residual organics, inorganics such as hardness, chloride, and
calcium, and odor, color and metals, etc.
4.13.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for this technology average $0.45 ($0.50),
$0.10 ($0.11), and $0.04 ($0.06) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100,
and 300 ton per day landfill sites respectively.
4.13.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Leachate recycling, especially with pH control and initial
sludge seeding, may increase the rate and predictability of
biological stabilization of the readily available organic
pollutants in landfill refuse and leachate.
2. Since leachate recycling accelerates landfill stabilization
and may reduce the requirements for long-term post-closure
leachate monitoring and management, the completed landfill
site may be reclaimed for final use much more rapidly.
-70-
-------
4.14 IMPERMEAB [ .E BARRIERS
4.14 Introduct4on
A major product of landfill waste decomposition processes is a
gaseous mixture consisting largelyof methane (55 percent) and carbon
dioxide (45 percent), with trace amounts of elemental nitrogen, hydrogen
and oxygen, and varying trace constituents such as ammonia, carbon
monoxide, ethylene and water vapor. The extent of gas production
depends primarily on landfill age, percent and type of waste organic
materials, cover material permeability and thickness, landfill tempera-
ture variation, waste density and moisture content. Once generated,
methane can migrate radially by diffusion and convective flow processes
through the gas permeable waste and the adjacent and overlying soil.
Under certain conditions, the methane can collect in explosive concen-
trations (5 to 15 percent In the presence of air) in conduits or buildings
adjacent to the landfill. The presence of methane can also result in
damage to a variety of plant species due to reduced oxygen concentrations
In the plant root zone. Carbon dioxide will dissolve in groundwater
forming carbonic acid, therefore mineralizing and contaminating it. A
common methodology utilized to predict the potential extent of methane
migration is to assume that ten feet of horizontal methane migration may
occur for each foot of landfill depth. The resulting value is only a
very general estimate, since site specific subsurface conditions such as
an impermeable cover and porous substrata can result in methane migration
on the order of hundreds of feet.
One method of methane gas control is to to minimize waste decomposition
rates by minimizing waste moisture content, thus reducing gas generation
rates. Many of the landfill unit technologies discussed in this report
aid in minimizing infiltration of moisture into the waste mass and
consequently potentially result in reduced gas generation rates. Given
adequate methane gas control measures, an alternative approach is to
provide more optimum decomposition conditions, i.e. by shredding (increasing
waste surface area) or by increasing moisture content (leachate recycling),
consequently resulting in more rapid gas generation over a decreased time
frame.
The primary methane gas control methodologies involve physical chan-
nelling or containment of the gas itself. In some cases, natural soil,
hydrologic, and geologic site conditions combined with a permeable
landfill cover can result in venting of the decomposition gases directly
into the atmosphere. Where these conditions do not occur and where
adjacent land use patterns dictate, installation of gas control systems
engineered to vent decomposition gases safely into the atmosphere is
required. These systems include impermeable barriers, vertical risers,
permeable trenches, gas collection systems, and a variety of combination
systems.
—71-
-------
With regard to impermeable barriers, the Guidelines suggest using
compacted moist clays, asphaltic materials or polymeric materials which
are gas impermeable. The Guidelines further recommend that the cutoff
wall extend from the ground surface down to a gas impervious layer below
the bottom of the landfill.
The following sections describe in more detail the technology and
environmental impacts associated with utilizing impermeable barriers for
gas control.
4.14.2 Technology Summary
4.14.21 Gas Control
Impermeable barriers function by blocking the lateral migration of
landfill gas through the surrounding more permeable material. An imper-
meable barrier is normally constructed around the periphery of a land-
fill where subsurface conditions might lead to potential migration: The
barrier should be installed to a depth below the maximum depth of waste
deposition and preferably to an impervious layer (see Figure 4-4). This
bottom seal could include certain bedrock types, the groundwater table,
or an impermeable landfill liner such as a natural clay liner or a
synthetic liner.
While an impermeable barrier can be effective under certain conditions,
an adjoining permeable pathway located on the interior edge of the imperme-
able barrier may result in more positive methane contrculs. For instance,
an adjoining trench can be backfilled with gravel to the same depth as the
impermeable barrier. In turn, the permeable trench results in vertical
gas movement to the atmosphere (see Section 4.16). This approach may be
required even in relatively permeable substrata where the adjacent land
uses require strenuous gas control measures. Vertical risers (see Section
4.15) may also be installed in the permeable trench if there is a danger
of the trench being sealed off by freezing of the land surface.
4.14.22 C rrent Economic Costs
Current economic costs for impermeable barriers average $1.30 ($1.46),
$0.30 ($0.34), and $0.15 (S0.17) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100,
and 300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
-72-
-------
FIGURE 4-4
BARRIER AND TRENCH
GAS CONTROL SYSTEMS
*
— . -. _ a. .- —-(
— .- . - — - -
—s’--’
-
a Barrier system. Migrating gas is unable to cross impermeab le barrier
and is forced to vent to atmosphere. Trench is excavated to continuous
bottom seal (bedrock or water table): barrer membrane is installed; trench
is backrifled. Barrier can be impervious membrane or clay.
Gas
::: :::::::::::::: :
Trench with granular back?ill. Gas travels to trench and is vented to
surface because grar.ular backfill is more permeabte than surrounding soil.
Trench is excavated to bottom seal (bedrock or water table) and backlilled
nth crushed stone or clean gravel.
Source: Reference 10.
-73-
-------
Environmental Impact Summary
If effective at controlling gas migration to offsite areas, ver-
tical impermeable barriers can have several environmental impacts:
1. GJs buildup in explosive concentrations in nearby offsite
buildings or conduits is minimized, therefore reducing fire
and explosion hazard.
2. Vegetation kills due to landfill gas creating deleterious anaerobic
conditions in plant root zones are minimized.
3. Gas movement control minimizes mineralization of ground water due
to the formation of carbonic acid caused by the dissolution of land-
fill generated carbon dioxide.
4. Manufacture, transport, and installation of a barrier system may
have a variety of secondary negative environmental impacts.
-74-
-------
4.15 PERMEABLE TRENCHES
4.15.1 Introduction
A g as permeable, gravel-filled trench can also be utilized to control
the laterial migration of landfill generated gas, and thus to minimize land-
fill explosion and fire hazards, vegetation kills, and potential groundwater
mineralization. (See Section 4.14 for a more detailed discussion of the
causes, characteristics, and control of landfill gas generation and migration.)
Under certain conditions permeable •trenches can provide adequate con-
trol of methane movement. However, the trenches still may permit gas
migration through diffusion processes and are susceptible to clogging due
to infiltration, snow or ice cover or biomass growth. The Guidelines
indicate that gravel-filled trenches equipped with vertical perfo ’ated pipes
functioning as methane vents have been shown to reduce the effect of
temporary covers such as ice or snow. The Guidelines also recommend equip-
ping trenches for removal of water or leachate from the trench bottom to
facilitate gas movement.
The following sections describe in more detail the technology and environ-
mental impacts of permeable trenches.
4.15.2 Technology Summary
4.15.21 Gas Control
Permeable, gravel-filled trenches are usually located on the landfill
perimeter or occasionally incorporated between daily cells. These trenches
operate by intercepting laterally migrating landfill gas and by providing a
low resistance path to the atmosphere. These trenches should normally
extend to at least the bottom of the landfill. They may be excavated
vertically or placed diagonally (see Figure 4-5). The trench should drain
naturally, and the filler material should be graded to avoid infiltration
and clogging by sediment washed in from surface runoff. The upper surface
of the trenches should be maintained free of soil and vegetation to maximize
gas access to the atmosphere.
Permeable trenches are most effective at existing landfills in which the
surrounding soil is relatively less permeable than the trench backfill material
and the water table is relatively deep. For somewhat permeable subsurface
-75-
-------
Figure 4-5
GRAVEL VENT AND GRAVEL-FILLED TRENCHES
Final cover material
V.ni.d ga l
--- .- ----- - -/
cell
I i
L ’
Gravel vents or gravel-f illed trenches
C2fl be used to control lateral gas movement in a
sanitary landfill.
C
a
0
Source: Reference 2
-76-
-------
soils, the trench should be backed up by an impermeable barrier of the type
discussed in Section 4.14. Furthermore, if freezing of the land surface
and resultant sealing of the trench is a possibility, vertical pipes may
be utilized as vents. These vents may or may not be equipped with pump or
blower units for induced exhaust.
As in the case of impermeable barriers, Stone (‘ eference 10) reports
that in certain cases permeable barriers may not provide adequate gas
control if utilized alone. Failure detection is also difficult; however,
maintenance of the barrier is relatively simple.
4.15.22 Current Economic Costs
Per ton (per metric ton) costs for perimeter gravel trenches are
$1.60 ($1.79), $0.35 ($0.39), and $0.20 ($0.22) for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and
300 TPD sites, respectively.
4.15.3 Environmental Impact Summary
Utilization of permeable trenches can result in a number of positive
environmental impacts including:
1. Gas buildup in explosive concentrations can be minimized,
therefore reducing potential explosion hazards.
2. Vegetation kills due to gas migration can be minimized.
3. Groundwater mineralization due to carbon dioxide dissolution
can be minimized.
4. Odors, particularly from hydrogen sulfide generation, can be
confined to the immediate landfill area.
5. The transport and installation of barrier materials may result
in secondary environmental impacts such as energy use, air
emissions due to transport, site specific impacts due to gravel
quarrying, etc.
-77-
-------
4.16 VERTICAL RISERS
4.16.1 Introduction
Vertical risers provide a low resistance path to the atmosphere
for laterally migrating landfill gas. Vertical riser construction
can consist of perforated pipe vents or gravel-filled well systems.
Section 4.14 provrdes a more detailed discussion of the rationales for
control of landfill gas generation and migration.
The Guidelines do not recommend utilizing perforated pipes alone
for methane control since venting effectiveness is generally limite J
to the immediate vicinity of the pipe. For more effective control
a closely spaced grid of vents or wells could be installed.
The Guidelines also distinguish between natural ventilation using
vertical risers and induced exhaust wells equipped with a pump or
blower. The Guidelines state that properly designed and installed
exhaust well systems are substantially more effective than natural
ventilation systems. Additionally, the Guidelines state that induced
exhaust systems are not limited to shallow landfills on shallow im-
permeable strata, and that induced systems may potentially be used to
recover exhaust gases. However, induced exhaust systems require
significant operating expenditures and maintenance.
-78-
-------
4.16.2 Technology Sumary
4.16.21 Gas Control
Vertical risers can operate either by providing a low resistance
path to the atmosphere for laterally migrating landfill gas, or, if
equipped with a pump or a blower, by inducing gas ventilation by
creating a negative pressure gradient within the waste mass. Vertical
risers are usually utilized when the final cover is relatively imper-
meable. Risers can be installed around the landfill perimeter, but
are most effective when also placed in the landfill interior. In areas
adjacent to building structures, discharges should be limited to above
the roof line.
The riser sizes and spacings depend on the type and severity of
waste deposition, the rate of gas production, and the gas permeability
of both cover and surrounding soil. The recommended spacing is
30 to 60 feet on centers (Reference 11). Once drawn through the riser,
landfill gas is vented to the atmosphere, flared, or recovered and
cleaned for on-site or off-site energy use.
Actual construction of vertical risers (see Figure 4-6) involves:
(1) drilling the wells to a continuous bottom seal such as bedrock or
the groundwater table; (2) inserting the perforated pipes into the wells
and backfilling with gravel, or simply backfilling the well with gravel;
and (3) if desirable, connecting each riser to a pump or blower to
induce ventilation. Section 4.17 discusses gas co’’ection systems
whereby vertical risers are connected via a header t a central pump
or blower. As mentioned in Section 4.15, risers can also be installed
in permeable trenches when there is a danger of freezing,-and sealing
of the trench surface.
As in the case of permeable trenches, Stone (Reference 10) reports that
‘ertical risers depending only on natiral ventilation have been shown to
)e ineffective at many sites. Alternatively, there are two types of
orced flow or induced exhaust systems: high flow and low flow. High
low systems cause large volumes of gas to flow laterally through the land-
ill and, consequently, through the exhaust system. The negative
ressure gradient created is also sufficient to draw atmospheric air
hrough the cover material into the landfill. This type of system pro-
iides an effective barrier to gas migration. However, high flow systems
entail several disadvantages:
1. explosion hazards are increased by’reducing
methane concentrations from the normal 50%
found in landfills toward the explosive
range (5-15%);
-79-
-------
COLLECTION HEADER
COUPLING
P.V.C. 4’.6”Ø
PIPE
FILL
—LEGEND-
FIGURE 4-6
Gas ExtracticSn
Well Design
REFUSE
FINAL C ER -
FINE SAND
Source: Reference 11
-------
2. fire hazard from spontaneous combustion within the
fill is increased by drawing oxygen into the nor-
mally anaerobic environment,
3. methane recovery is made more difficult and expensive
by dilution with air; and,
4. energy requirements, and, therefore, operating
costs, are higher.
Low flow systems also work by creating a negative pressure sys-
tem between wells which result in gas movement towards the riser
venting points. This system differs from the high flow system by
providing only the minimum head differential required to establish
a negative pressure gradient towards the risers. The low pumping
requirements and consequent lower difference in pressure between the
atmosphere and the waste mass result only in minimum intrusion of
atmospheric air into the landfilled waste. Consequently, low flow
systems as compared to high flow systems reduce potential fire and
explosion hazards, require less energy expenditures, and are more con-
ducive to methane gas recovery operations.
Stone (Reference 10) compares induced exhaust systems to natural
ventilation vertical riser systems in terms of effectiveness, maintain-
ability, and controllability. When adequately designed and installed,
an induced exhaust system is considered a “fail-safe” means of methane
migration control, especially when wells are also installed in the
interior of the landfill. While forced flow systems require more
maintenance, it is easier to detect failures and maintenance is less
hampered by lack of assessibility.
It is also possible to control lateral gas migration by forcing
air into the landfill. Such an induced recharge system can be
designed very similarly to induced exhaust systems. Such systems
generally consist of a perforated header pipe in a surface-sealed,
gravel-filled trench connected to a central pump or blower. The
system operates by displacing gases to the atmosphere by providing a
positive gradient in the landfill interior. While the recharge system
generally requires less energy, and thus less operating expense, and
does not require incorporation of final gas disposal technologies, it
does preclude recovering the gas for energy use. Furthermore, forcing
air into the landfill increases the likelihood of explosion and fire
hazards as explained above for high flow induced exhaust systems
(Reference 10). Additionally, under certain conditions, it is
theoretically possible for forced air systems to result in methane
migrations over longer distances than would normally be expected. To
some degree this could be alleviated by the presence or provision of
impermeable barriers or permeable escape routes at the landfill site
perimeter.
-81-
-------
4.16.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for these technologies average
$0.90 ($1.01), $0.45 ($0.50), and $0.40 ($0.45) per ton (per metric
ton) for 10, 100, and 300 ton per day landfill sites respectively.
4.16.3 Environmental Impact Sumary
1. Naturally vented vertical risers and low flow induced ex-
haust systems can be effective at controlling lateral land-
fill gas migration and therefore minimize both fire and ex-
plosion hazards in buildings and conduits adjacent to the
landfill site.
2. High flow induced exhaust systems and induced recharge sys-
tems can also effectively control lateral gas migration, thus
reducing both fire and explosion hazards at and adjacent to
the landfill site. However, these systems also force air
into the landfill, thereby reducing the methane concentration
from the normal 50% found in the landfills toward the explosive
range (5-15%). These systems, then, increase the explosion
hazards of the landfill site itself. Both systems also
increase the fire hazard from spontaneous combustion at the
landfill site by supplying oxygen to the normally anaerobic
environment.
3. All of the vertical riser systems minimize vegetation kills
which are due to landfill gas creating deleterious anaerobic
conditions in the root zones.
4. All of the vertical riser systems minimize the mineralization of
ground water due to the formation of carbonic acid by dissol-
ution of landfill generated carbon dioxide.
5. All of the vertical riser systems minimize odor pollution of
off-site areas due to the controlled, on-site release to the
atmosphere of hydrogen sulfide and other gases.
6. The manufacture, transport, and installation of all of the
vertical riser systems entail a variety of secondary negative
envi ronmental impacts.
-82-
-------
4.17 GAS COLLECTION SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Introduction
Gas collection systems consist of vertical risers connected via
header pipes or permeable surface-sealed trenches generally equipped
with perforated header pipes. Both types of systems are generally
equipped with a central pump or blower to facilitate gas collection.
Otherwise, these systems are designed, constructed, operated, and main-
tained similarly to vertical risers, oerrneable trenches, and induced
exhaust or induced recharge systems. Likewise, gas collection systems
can minimize methane explosion hazards, vegetation kills, and minera-
lization of ground water. (See Section 4.14 for a fuller discussion of
the causes, characteristics, and control of landfill gas generation and
migration.)
The Guidelines describe induced exhaust well collection systems as
very effective when properly designed and installed; as not limited to
shallow landfills or shallow impermeable substrata; as allowing the options
of flaring or recovering the exhaust gases; and as requiring significant
maintenance. The Guidelines describe induced exhaust trenches:as consis-
ting of surface-sealed, gravel-filled trenches equipped with perforated
header pipes connected to a pump or blower; as more effective than in-
duced exhaust wells, especially at shallow landfills; as requiring more
extensive construction; as potentiall9 requiring significant mainte-
nance: andas less likely to be useable with recovery systems due to the
introduction of air.
The Guidelines describe induced recharge trenches as being of the
same design as induced exhaust trenches, but operating in reverse, sup-
pressing horizontal migration of methane via provision of a positive
pressure gradient beneath the landfill surface. This results in dis-
persion of gases to the atmosphere across the trench and ground surface.
The Guidelines claim induced recharge trenches require less energy than
exhaust trenches, and that flaring is not necessary since the gases are
not concentrated.
The following sections describe in more detail the technology and
environmental impacts of gas collection systems.
-83-
-------
4.17.2 Technology Summary
4.17.21 Gas Control
Given the technologies for permeable trenches, vertical risers,
and for induced exhaust and induced recharge systems (see Sections 4.15
and 4.16), the technology of gas collection consists of: (1) connecting
the vertical risers via a header pipe to a central pump or blower for
induced exhaust; or (2) in the case of surface-sealed induced exhaust or
induced recharge trenches, connecting a perforated header pipe to a cen-
tral pump or blower. With the exception of one or the other of these
additional elements, gas collection system design, constructipn, operation,
and maintenance is very similar to that of its component technologies of
vertical risers or permeable trenches, and induced exhaust or induced re-
charge. For this reason, gas collection systems involve virtually the
same advantages and disadvantages in terms of effectiveness, maintainability,
and controllability as those listed for individual components in Sections
4.15 and 4.16.
4.17.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for these technologies average $2.50 ($2.80),
$0.55 ($0.62), and $0.30 ($0.34) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100, and
300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.17.3 Environmental Impacts Summary
1. Low flow induced exhaust collection systems can be effective at con-
trolling lateral landfill gas migration and therefore minimize both
fire and explosion hazards adjacent to the landfill site.
2. High flow induced exhaust collection systems can also effectively
cOntrol lateral landfill gas migration, thus reducing both fire and
explosion hazards in buildings and conduits adjacent to the landfill
site. However, this type of system can draw air into the landfill,
thereby reducing the methane concentration from the normal 50% found
in landfills toward the explosive range (5-15%). Therefore, the
high flow systems increase the on-site explosion potential. Both
the low flow and the high flow induced exhaust collection systems
increase the fire hazard from spontaneous combustion at the landfill
site by drawing oxygen into the normally anaerobic environment
(Reference 10).
-84-
-------
3. All of the gas collection and recharge trench systems minimize vege-
tation kills which are due to landfill gas creating anaerobic con-
ditions in subsurface soil layers.
4. All of the gas collection and recharge trench systems minimize the
mineralization of ground water by restricting movement of carbon
dioxide.
5. Gas collection and recharge trench systems minimize odor pollution
of off-siteareas due to the uncontrolled release to the atmosphere
of hydrogen sulfide and other gases.
6. The manufacture, transport, and installation of gas collection and
recharge trench systems entail a variety of secondary negative envi-
ronmental impacts.
4.18 ACCESS CONTROL
4.18.1 Introduction
Because of the nature of landfill operations and the Dotential
hazards involved, it is important to control access to the site
in order to ensure the safety and health of personnel and visitors.
The Guidelines specify that a disposal facility should be designed,
constructed, and operated to permit strict supervision of site
access. Access to the site should be controlled and should be only
by established roadways. Additional controls include traffic signs
or markers to direct traffic to and from the discharge area.
The following section will detail the functions of access control
and specify design and construction methods. The costs of providing
access control are also presented. A final section will assess the
environmental impacts of access control on various aspects of land-
filling.
4.18.2 Technology Summary
4.18.21 Access Control Functions
The primary aim of access control is to prevent trespassing
and unauthorized use of the disposal site, which will enable land-
fill operators to maintain safe working conditions and protect the
health of personnel and visitors. Peripheral fences are commonly
used to control or limit access, thereby preventing trespassing,
keeping children and animals out of potentially hazardous areas,
and discouraging vandalism and scavenging. Fences also serve to
prevent unauthorized use of disposal sites and limit the types of
wastes accepted to those for which the landfill was specifically
designed. Finally, certain fence types can provide a visual screen
for landfill operations and can consequently result in localized
aesthetic improvement.
-85-
-------
Additional access control is furnished by providing perma-
nent and temporary roadways, and traffic signs or markers that
promote an orderly traffic flow to and from the discharge area. In
combination proper fences and road systems provide the measure of
access control that will enable site operators to maintain efficient
operating conditions.
4.18.22 Access Control Design and Construction
Fencing used to control or limit access to landfill disposal
facilities may be permanent or portable, and may be constructed
of wood or chain links, wood, or other similar materials. At
some locations it may be desirable to install several strands of
barbed wire on fence tops, projecting at an angle, to further dis-
courage trespassing and vandalism. Peripheral fencing should
limit access to one or two gates that are clearly marked and can
be locked when the site is unattended. Landfill sites should be
open only when operators or other supervisory personnel are on
duty.
Fencing requirements are dependent on the degree of isolation
of the site location. In areas adjacent to urban centers and resi-
dential developments, more expensive fencing may be required to
protect residents and children, and to screen landfill operations.
Landfills located in more isolated rural areas may need less ex-
pensive fencing or fencing only at entrances and other places of
possible unauthorized access.
Permanent, all-weather roads should be constructed from the
public road system to the site. Design of the roads should ac-
comodate the anticipated volume of delivery vehicles and other
vehicular traffic. Construction and maintenance of the grade of
access roads should accomodate the limitations of the equipment.
Permanent on-site roads represent a higher initial cost than
temporary roads. However, this cost can be balanced by overall
savings in equipment repair and maintenance. Temporary roads
are more often used to connect permanent road systems to the con-
stantly changing location of the working face.
4.18.23 Current Economic Costs
Provision of fencing as an upgrading technology currently costs
$0.90 ($1.01), $0.20 ($0.22), and $0.10 ($0.11) per ton (per metric
ton) for 10, 100, and 300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
-86-
-------
4.18.3 Environmental Impacts Sumary
1. Use of access control techniques aids in siting landfills in
more densely populated areas by mitigating possible hazards
to the health and safety of surrounding populations. This
results in positive environmental impacts because waste trans-
port distances are minimized.
2. Proper access controls limit trespassing, vandalism, scavenging
and other disruptions to landfill operations, and prevent unauthor-
ized dumping, thus allowing more efficient and environmentally
beneficial use of the disposal facility.
3. Strict access controls, by limiting trespassing, not only promote
efficiency in operations, but also contribute to maintaining safe
working conditions, and the health and safety of personnel and
visitors.
4. Access controls can be employed to visually screen landfill
sites, and therefore promote a more aesthetic appearance to the
landfill operations.
-87-
-------
4.19 SAFETY
4.19.1 Introduction
A variety of operation and maintenance procedures contribute
towards providing safety for personnel and visitors, and towards effi-
cient working conditions. In addition to measures for fire control (Sec-
tion 4.20), vector control (Section 4.21), and access control (Section
4.18), the Guidelines present a number of specific recommendations for
ensuring safety at the disposal site. For example, the Guidelines recom-
mend that personal safety devices such as hard hats, gloves, safety
glasses, and footwear should be provided to facility employees. In gene-
ral, the Guidelines suggest that a landfill site be designed, constructed,
and operated in a manner so as to protect the health and safety of personnel
and users through compliance with relevant provisions of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (Public Law 91-596) and regulations
promulgated thereunder.
The following sections further summarize applicable Guideline recommen-
dations and associated environmental impacts.
4.19.2 Technology Summary
4.19.21 Operation
The main objective of implementing safety procedures is to maintain
the health and welfare of facility personnel and site visitors. Addi-
tionally, safety measures contribute to lower costs through increased
efficiency of operations and decreased equipment maintenance. In con-
junction with the aforementioned recommendations, the Guidelines speci-
fically suggest the following:
1. safety manuals should be provided and employees instructed
in application of its procedures;
2. safety devices such as rollover protective structures and
seat belts should be provided on all equipment used to spread
and compact solid wastes;
-88-
-------
3. coninunications equipment should be available on site
for emergency situations;
4. quantitative and qualitative records of solid wastes
received and location of disposal should be maintained;
5. a source of water should be provided on-site for fire
and dust control and for employee convenience; and,
6. following closure of a completed landfill a long-term
maintenance program should be initiated.
4.19.3 Environmental Impact Suninary
1. Incorporating safety measures in the design, construction, and oper-
ation of a landfill facility serves to promote the safety of landfill
personnel and users.
-89-
-------
4.20 FIRE CONTROL
4.20.1 Introduction
Although the open burning of wastes is prohibited at all
landfills, fire hazards can still result from a variety of conditions.
Dumping of hot or burning waste loads or sparks from vehicles and land—
filling equipment can accidently ignite solid wastes. Additionally, the
potential for heat energy generation by exothermic chemical reactions in
decomposing wastes results in conditions favoring spontaneous combus-
tion. Therefore, solid wastes that can smolder or burn even after being
covered necessitate the on—site availability of some method of fire
control.
The Guidelines, besides prohibiting open burning, recommend the
following measures to minimize fire hazards:
1. provisions should be made to extinguish any fires in wastes
being delivered to the site or which occur at the working
face or within equipment or personnel facilities;
2. a source of water should be provided at the disposal facility
and safety devices should include fire extinguishers to be
provided on all equipment used to spread and compact solid
wastes or cover material; and,
3. cover material should be applied, as necessary, to minimize
fire hazards.
These measures, particularly the application of cover material as a
fire control method are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
4.20.2 Technology Summary
4.20.21 Operation
The major functions of fire control are to maintain safe working
conditions and to promote efficient fill construction by minimizing the
initiation and spread of waste combustion. Secondarily, fire control
protects air quality by minimizing contributions of particulates and
other constitutents from burning wastes.
-90-
-------
In addition to supplying water and equipment to extinguish fires,
proper landfill design and construction can manipulate the two main con-
ditions that contribute to fire hazards:-the availability of flammable
material in the waste cell, and the availability of an oxygenated air
supply necessary to combustion. With regard to the first condition,
landfills can be operated so that wastes regarded as highly flammable
may be excluded or disposed of in a separate area utilizing special dis-
posal procedures such as immediate encapsulation with cover materials,
wetting, etc. However, due to the highly variable nature of solid
wastes, and particualarly of municipal wastes, some flammable type
materials always exists in waste cells, so that this measure by itself
is not totally effective in controlling fire hazards.
The second condition, the availability of oxygen for combustion,
can be successfully restricted by judicious and regular application of
cover material. Well-compacted daily soil cover, as utilized to form the
floor, sidewalls, and top of a waste cell during fill construction, tends
to constitute an effective barrier to oxygen migration and also provides
for physical containment of any fire outbreak.
The moisture content of cover material and of constituent solid
wastes is also important in minimizing initiation and spread of fire. A
fine grained soil such as clay, which can absorb more water and maintain
a higher degree of saturation than coarse soils, results in reduced
oxygen migration into the waste mass. Saturated cover soils are also
temporarily effective in stabilizing landfill conditions approaching
spontaneous combustion or in extinguishing an existing fire. The moisture
content of waste fill is also an important factor in spontaneous combustion.
Although it is difficult to estimate the specific or average water content
of variable solid wastes, some studies indicate that when moisture levels
drop below 50% of the original water content, conditions are favorable
for spontaneous combustion. However, maintaining high soil water content
by regular additions of water for the life of site may not be feasible due
to leachate generation considerations.
4.20.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for fire control average $0.04 ($0.04), $0.01
($0.01) and $0.01 ($0.01) per ton (metric ton) for 10, 100, and 300 ton per
day landfill sites, respectively.
4.20.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Fire control serves to minimize the accidental or spontaneous
initiation and spread of waste combustion, resulting in im-
proved safety of landfilling operations and personnel, and
improved efficiency of operations.
2. Secondarily, fire controls aid in rapid extinguishing of fires,
which in turn protects air quality by reducing contributions of
particulates and gaseous emissions from burning refuse.
-91-
-------
4.21 VECTOR CONTROL
4.21.1 Introduction
The constituents of solid wastes, especially municipal wastes, may
provide a potential source of food and ha rborage for a variety of vectors.
These vectors, generally defined by the Guidelines as agents capable of
carrying and transmitting disease pathogens, can include rats, flies,
mosquitoes, and occasionally birds. While a properly designed and con-
structed sanitary landfill minimizes animal attraction and vector breed-
ing, it may be necessary to institute additional vector control measures
to ensure the health and safety of persons on and around the disposal site.
Towards this goal, the Guidelines suggest that disease and nuisance
vectors should be controlled at landfill disposal facilities through mini-
mization of food and harborage, by judicious application of cover materials
and through initiation of eradication programs if vector populations be-
come established.
The remainder of this evaluation presents an overview of various
aspects of vector control methods and their impact on the environment.
4.21.2 Technology Summary
4.21.21 Operation
The control of vector breeding and harborage functions mainly to
ensure the health of on-site personnel and adjacent communities by mini-
mizing carriers of disease pathogens. The main objective of such control
then is to restrict the availability of food and harborage. Along these
lines, daily and intermediate cover soils can be instrumental in imple-
menting effective vector control because they can provide durable and
complete coverage of solid wastes.
Daily or more frequent applications of cover material are necessary
to deter burrowing animals such as rats and control the breeding of flies and
-92-
-------
mosquitoes. Rats and other burrowing animals are attracted to land-
fills by the availability of waste food scraps and shelter. While daily
cover application can eliminate open exposure of solid wastes, burrowing
can continue, and the resulting tunnels damaqe the structural intearity
of the cover and may provide pathways for infiltration of surface waters.
This problem can be alleviated by se1ection of soil types that will not
structurally support tunneling.
Flies are also attracted by the availability of breeding areas and
food sources. Well-graded and well-compacted soil cover will impede vec-
tor larvae emergence. Studies have shown that 6 inches of daily cover is of
sufficient thickness to serve vector control functions.
Since mosquitoes utilize water-filled areas for propagation, mosquito
control is best achieved by preventing development of stagnant water bodies
on the surface of the site. Continuous grading may be required to fill in
depressions resulting from incomplete compaction or differential settling
of wastes.
Additionally, birds are attracted in large numbers by the availability
of food. The problem can be minimized by quickly covering wastes with
a thick layer of cover material sufficient to discourage bird scavenging.
In the event vector populations become established or show a seasonal
increase, extermination using insecticides and rodenticides may be nece-
ssary. Such programs should be carefully controlled and monitored so
that they do not pose a health or safety hazard.
4.21.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Vector control serves to promote safe working conditions and the
health of persons on and around the disposal site by minimizing
potential disease transmitting agents.
-93-
-------
4.22 LITTER CONTROL
4.22.1 Introduction
Due to the amounts of solid wastes handled and the nature of landfill
operation methods, disposal sites must contend n varying deqrees with the
problem of controlling litter on and around the site. In regard to litter
control, the Guidelines specify only that, along with its other functions,
cover material can be applied to minimize blowing litter. However, the
Guidelines generally recommend that the landfill facility should be main-
tained in an aesthetic manner. In addition, containment and cleanup of
litter contributes to the safety of operations and personnel.
The function of litter control and the various techniques that function
in that capacity are detailed in the following sections. The evaluation
concludes with a summary of the current economic costs and the environmental
impacts of litter control.
4.22.2 Technology Summary
4.22.21 Operation
Solid waste, particularly pacer and other light density wastes, may
be subjected to wind or other elements as it is being transDorted, dis-
charged, and compacted prior to actual incorporation into the waste
cell. This situation results in problems with blowing litter. Contain-
ment and periodic cleanup of such litter on and around the landfill
facility contributes mainly to maintaininq an aesthetic aDpearance and
consequently contributes towards promoting public acceptance of the
facility.
The major objective in controlling blowing litter is to minimize the
amount of refuse exposed to wind and weather. This can be effected by a
number of techniques includina limiting the size of the working face,
proper application of cover materials in daily operations, Provision of
temporary fencing, provision of regular maintenance operations, and pro-
hibition of indiscriminate dumping.
Blowing litter can be minimized by keeping the size of the working
face at a nimimum; covering portions of the waste cell as it is constructed
serves the same function.
-94-
-------
To contain wastes that escape coverage at the working face, litter
fences can be placed downwind of the working face. Since the location
of the working face is constantly shifting, such fences are usually
portable. As a general rule, trench operations require less fencing
because the walls of the trench usually aid in confining solid wastes.
At a very windy trench site, a 4-foot fence will usually be sufficient
for litter control. Area operations usually present a greater litter
problem and may require fences as high as 6 to 10 feet in order to contain
blowing wastes.
Additionally, litter control requires periodic cleanup near the oper-
ating area and along roadways on or near the disposal site. The refuse
picked up, as well as any resulting from indiscriminate dumping, should
be returned to the working face to be covered near the daily close of
operations.
4.18.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for the provision of litter control are $0.05
($0.06), $0.01 ($0.01), and $0.01 ($0.01) per ton (metric ton) for 10,
100, and 300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.22.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Litter control measures enable landfill facilities to present a
more aesthetic appearance which may facilitate public acceptance
of the site.
-95-
-------
4.23 GAS MONITORING
4.23.1 Introduction
A landfill gas monitoring program evaluates methane gas migration
to evaluate the effectiveness or requirements for on-site gas control
measures. The Guidelines call for monitoring all on-site enclosed
structures to detect potential hazardous explosive conditions. The
Guidelines also recommend monitoring gas migration and explosive con-
ditions at the landfill property boundary.
4.23.2 Technology Summary
4.23.21 Gas Control
Methane monitoring should occur at regularly spaced intervals
around the landfill perimeter and at any buildings or other enclosed
structures on or immediately adjacent to the landfill site, where
feasible. Samples should be taken at depth intervals from the immed-
iate subsurface down to the landfill base. Points below the water
table or otherwise similarly isolated do not require monitoring.
Sampling frequencies must be determined on a site-by-site basis
but should generally be completed at least quarterly. Monthly monitoring
should occur when gas migration is more probable as for example during
periods of frozen cover. More urgent situations where landfill gas is
posing a potential hazard may require daily monitoring.
Gas sampling devices include both permanent probe installations
(See Figure 4-7) and portable probe samplers. (See Figure 4-8). Both
types draw samples from the soil pore spaces by utilizing vacuum force.
Permanent probe installations must be sealed at the surface to prevent air
contamination of the soil air sample. Care must be exercised not to cross
contaminate samples taken at several depth intervals in the same sampling
location. Portable samplers are hand-driven and can normally extract
samples to only 5 feet deep.
Detailed gas analysis generally occurs in a laboratory via utilization
of a gas partitioner. Several constitutents, however, such as methane,
carbon dioxide, and oxygen can be analyzed in the field utilizing portable
devices incorporating electrovoltaic components.
-96-
-------
- V2” P.V.C. PIPE
PERFORATED
BOREHOLE ANNULUS
—LEGEND—
IMPERMEABLE PLUGS
PEA GRAVEL
BOREHOLE CUTTINGS
FIGURE 4-1
Multi -Level Permanent
Gas Probe Installation
Source: Referencell
-------
20 LB. SLIDE
HAMMER
GAS SNIFFER
GAS SAMPUNG
CHANNEL CLOSED
DETACHABLE
HAMMER
GAS SAMPLING
CHANNEL
DRILL STEEL
SHAFT ( 18”or 36’)
/
.i ..—INLET
---HARDENED STEEL
SLIDING -TIP -
WHEN DRIVEN BACK
STEEL TIP SLIDES
TO OPEN PROBE.
— LEGEND -
— GAS MOVEMENT
Portable Gas
Sampling Probes
(Schematics)
SAMPLING
Source
Referer ce 11
-------
4.23.22 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for the technology average $0.15
($0.17), $0.03 ($0.03), and $0.01 ($0.01) per ton (per metric
ton) for 10, 100, and 300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.23.3 Environmental Impact Summary
To the extent that a landfill gas monitoring prbgram im-
proves the effectiveness of the implemented landfill gas con-
trol measures, it:
1. Minimizes fire and explosion hazard in buildings
and other enclosures on or near the landfill site.
2. Minimizes vegetation kills due to the creation of
anaerobic conditions in the root zones of some
oxygen-sensitive plant species.
3. Minimizes the mineralization of ground water due
to the dissolution of carbon dioxide in ground-
water to form carbonic acids
4. Minimizes odor pollution of off-site areas due to
the potential off-site release of hydroqen sul-
fide to the atmosphere.
-99-
-------
4.24 LEACHATE MONITORING
4.24.1 IntroductIon
Landfill leachate is monitored primarily to facilitate the protec-
tion of ground and surface water resources beneath and adjacent to the
landfill site before, during and after landfill operation. A leachate
monitoring program detects and evaluates existing or potential pollution
caused by leachate by periodically measuring the extent and rate of
leachate migration from the landfill slte, and the degree and nature of
leachate contamination. This Information can aid in determining the
need for and nature of leachate controls, and in evaluating their effec-
tiveness once they are Implemented. As such, leachate monitoring functions
in long—term landfill site environmental protection and in the detection
and abatement of Imminent contamination hazards.
The Guidelines call for monitoring groundwater and leachate para-
meters at those landfill sites having the potential for discharge to
drinking water supply aquifers. The Guidelines refer to EPA’s “Procedures
for Groundwater Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities” for further
information (Reference 12). In that document, EPA recommends leachate
monitoring prior to landfill operation to obtain baseline data, and at
least annual leachate samole analysis from all monitorina wells. Finally,
the proposed Guidelines suggest followina the leachate samole analysis
methods described in EPA’s “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for
the Analysis of Pollutants” (40 CFR Part l3G).
The following discusses in more detail the technology and environ-
mental impacts of leachate monitoring.
4.24.2 Technology Summary
4.24.21 Leachate Control
Leachate monitoring aids in developing long and short term pre-
dictive models for environmental impacts of landfills under varying
hydrogeological and climatic conditions. Several types of leachate
monitoring technologies can be Identified, including both active and
passive types. Active monitoring Involves continuous pumping at wells
intercepting potentially contaminated groundwater flow, and is best
suited for point source groundwater contamination due to spills or tank
leaks. Several disadvantages of active leachate monitoring Include
(Reference 12):
-100-
-------
1. the larger (in area ) the contaminant source, the
greater the number of pumping wells required to in-
tercept groundwater flow;
2. disposal of the pumped water can pose a problem,
especially when the water is contaminated;
3• over a period of years, cumulative pumping costs
and well maintenance costs may be high;
4• pumping may accelerate the spread of leachate
through the aquifer, and the monitoring system
may eventually become a pumped withdrawal system; and,
5. improper selection of screen depth could prevent
the well from Intercepting the leachate plume.
Passive leachate monitoring techniques include well monitoring In
the zones of both aeration and saturation, field inspection and other
methods. These approaches minimize groundwater flow pattern disruptions,
and are discussed more completely herein.
Passive monitoring involves periodical sampling at stations located
in the path of groundwater flow for changes in the concentrations of
chemical constituents of groundwater. Prior to monitoring, hydrogeologic
studies, especially geophysical resistivity studies should be conducted
to establish the setting and most effective permanent monitoring system
design. Data to be gathered include (Reference 12):
j• groundwater flow direction;
2. distribution of permeable and impermeable ground material;
3• permeability and porosity;
4. present or future effects of pumping on the flow
system; and,
5. background water quality.
The information is best determined by field inspection, but can be
obtained more economically from already published information. From
this site specific data, a monitoring station network can be designed.
EPA suggests that a minimally acceptable monitoring network should con-
sist of (Reference 12):
1. one line of three wells downgradient from the land-
fill and situated at an angle perpendicular to ground-
water flow, penetrating the entire saturated thickness
of the aqu.ifer;
-101-
-------
2. one well immediately adjacent to the downgradient edge of
the filled area, screened so that it intercepts the water
table; and,
3. a well completed in an area upgradient from the landfill
so that it will not be affected by potential leachate
migration.
The size of the landfill, hydrogeologic environment, and budgetary restrict-
ions are factors which will dictate the actual number of wells used. However,
every effort should be made to have a minimum of three wells at each landfill
and no less than one downgradient well for every 250 ft. (76 meters) of land-
fill frontage.
A station, located in or adjacent to the landfill, can act as an early
warning that leachate is reaching the groundwater table and monitoring at
downgradient points should be intensified, possibly by adding more sampling
locations or by utilizing more comprehensive analysis techniques.
The particular type, design, installation, and use of individual moni-
toring stations varies and depends upon site hydrogeologic conditions, eco-
nomics, and the purpose of the monitoring. For example monitoring in the
zone of aeration may occur when (Reference 12):
1. scientific research such as measurement of attenuation
is involved;
2. there are unusual geologic or hydrologic considerations;
3. extremely toxic chemicals are suspected in the leachate
which would demand closer attention; and,
4. sampling is to be used as an early-warning system to
check the effectiveness of engineering techniques.
Aeration zone monitoring techniques include soil analysis, pressure vacuum
lysimeters, and trench lysimeters.
Monitoring in the zone of saturation must consider groundwater flow
characteristics as well as soil-leachate interactions. Techniques include:
(1) wells screened or open over a single vertical interval (Figure 4-9);
(2) piezometers (Figure 4—10); (3) well clusters (Figure 4-11); (4) sinqle-
wells with multiple sample points; (5) samDling during drilling, and (6)
pore- ater extraction from core samples. Detailed descriDtions of the desicin,
installation, and sampling methodologies for each of these techniques is be-
yond the scope of thie EIS (the reader is referred to Reference 12). Table
4-8 presents EPA’s evaluation of the advantages and disadvantaqes of each of
the above techniques.
-102-
-------
FLGURE 4-9
TYPICAL MONTIORING WELL SCREENED
OVER A SINGLE VERTICAL INTERVAL
LAND SURFACE
/1
BOREHOLE
SCHEDULE 40
CASING
SLOTTED SCHEDULE
40 Pvc SCREEN
LOW PERMEAB$LITY
BACKFILL
GRAVEL PACK
WATER TABLE
Source: Reference 12.
CAP
-103-
-------
FIGURE 4-10
DETAILS OF A LOW COST PIEZOMETER
MODIFIED FOR COLLECTION OF WATER SN1PLES
“1 “AND ELBOW FITTINGS
COLLECTION
CHAMBER
PRESSURE-VACUUM
LINE
LOW PERMEABILITY
MATERIAL
— DISCHARGE LINE
LAND SURFACE
POLYETHYLENE TUBING
END CAP
POROUS OR
PVC PIPE
SAND BACKFILL
CHECK
VALVE
END CAP
Source: Reference 12.
-104-
-------
FIGURE 4-11
TYPICAL WELL CLUSTER CONFIGURATIONS
o DEPTH
12 mstsrs
(40 It.)
DEPTH
0 3Qmsters
(100 ft.)
ODEPTH
24 mitsrs
(80 ft.)
DEPTH
6 m.tsrs
(20 ft.)
DEPTH
018 mst•rs
(60 ft.)
PLAN VIEW
(After Yare, 1975)24
LAND SURFACE
LOW
PERMEABILITY
MATERIAL
WELL CASINGS
Q
( -7 ’
•: .... •.:
E _ .-
ox o
• •:
E 0 E 0
I-
•
.- .
•.
00-
mO.
—m
00
7,
/7,’ /
__ /7/ /
LARGE
DIAMETER / 4
BOREHOLE /7 1/
&
• •: — - .. . z.•.
— ••i••
SAND _i t
BACKFILL I ___ =
IN SCREENED \ E
INTERVAL
‘ I i
(.)
4
I L
C l )
0
z
4
-J
0
-J
I ii
x
I .-
a-
U i
0
TABLE
0
SECTiON VIEW
Source: Reference 12.
-------
TABLE 4-8
PASSIVE LEACHATE MONITORING WELL TECHNIQUES FOR
SAMPLING IN THE SATURATED ZONE, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Well Screened or Open Over a Single Vertical Interval
Advantages Di sadvantages
1. Small diameter, shallow wells 1. No information is given on
are quick and easy to install, the vertical distribution
of the contaminant.
2. Can provide composite ground- 2. Improper completion depth
water samples if screen covers can cause error in deter-
saturated thickness of aquifer. mining leachate distribution.
3. Can be drilled by a variety of 3. Screening over much of the
methods. aquifer thickness can contri-
bute to vertical movement of
contaminant.
4. Leachate may become diluted
in the composite sample, re-
sulting in lower than actual
concentrations.
P1 ezometers
1. Sample is collected from a 1. Restricted number of drilling
selected vertical section methods.
of the aquifer.
2. If properly constructed, tech- 2. Improper completion depths can
nique prevents downward migra- cause error in determination
tion of leachate in borehole. of leachate distribution.
3. Can be installed inexpensively 3. Improper construction can con-
and rapidly if casing diameter tribute vertical migration of
is small, contamination.
4. Modification of an engineering
piezometer will allow vertical
sampling of contaminant.
-106-
-------
TABLE 4-8 (continued)
Well Clusters
Advantages
Di sad vantaaes
1. Simple installation does not
always require hiring a dril-
ling contractor.
2. Excellent vertical sampling
made possible if sufficient
number of wells are con-
structed.
3. “Tried and true” methodology,
accepted and used in most con-
tamination studies where ver-
tical sampling is required.
4. Low cost if only a few wells per
cluster are involved and if
the drilling contractor has
equipment suitable for instal-
lation of small-diameter wells.
1. If only a few wells are in-
stalled, large vertical
sections of the aquifer are
unsampled. Artificial con-
straint on data by completion
depths.
2. If jetting rigs or augers are
used, installations are usual-
ly limited to total depths of
38 to 46 meters (125 to 150
feet).
3. Small diameter wells can be
used only for monitoring.
They cannot be used in abate-
ment schemes.
4. In small-diameter wells, devel-
opment and sample collection
become tedious and difficult if
water level is below suction
lift.
Single Well -- Multiple Sample Points
1. Excellent information is gained
on vertical distribution of the
contaminant.
2. If necessary, well diameter is
large enough to use in a pumped-
withdrawal pollution abatement
program.
1. Expensive.
2. Proper well construction and
sampling procedures are cri-
tical to successful application.
3. Sampling depths are limited only
by the size of the sampling pump.
4. Rapid installation possible.
-107-
-------
TABLE 4—8 (concluded)
Sampling During Drilling
Advantag es
Disadvantages
1. The best technique currently
available for defining verti-
cal distribution of contami-
nants in thick aquifers.
2. Completed well can be used for
water-quality monitoring and/or
pumped withdrawal of contami-
nant.
Pore-Water Extraction
1. Considerably expensive.
2. Careful supervision of drilling
and sampling is necessary.
3. Potential cross—contamination
of samples exists.
from Core Samples
1. Generally inexpensive.
2. Pore water extract is amenable
to field chemical analyses
such as: chloride concentra-
tion and specific conductivity.
3. Excellent vertical sampling
when mud invasion into core
sample is monitored.
4. Samples can be obtained from
almost any depth when wire-
line coring apparatus is used.
5. Qualitative use of pore water
extract allows for presence/
absence determination.
6. Can be used with consolidated
rock as well as unconsolidated
sediment samples.
1. Quantitative analysis requires
careful control during sample
collection.
2. Interstitial water can drain
from unconsolidated sand and
gravel reducing volume of the
collected water sample.
3. Core recovery in coarse sand
and gravel can be difficult
and time consuming.
4. Small sample volume available
for chemical analysis.
5. Can be expensive.
Source: Reference 12.
-108-
-------
Leachate monitoring In the aerated and saturated zones can be
economically supplemented by field inspection techniques for evidence of
leachate contamination. These methods Include inspection for seeps and
vegetation stress, determination of soil specific conductance tempera-
ture,and electrical earth resistivity, and seismic surveys. Table
4-9 lists the advantages and disadvantages of each of the above.
Additional leachate monitoring techniques include surface water quality
measurements, aerial photographic interpretation, and geophysical well
logging (see Table 4-10).
A program for leachate monitoring must specify sampling frequencies
and sampling parameters. According to EPA, sampling frequency depends
on such factors as (Reference 12):
1. CharacteristIcs of groundwater flow;
2. The location and purpose of the particular monitoring
well;
3• Trends In the monitoring data;
4. Legal and institutional data needs; and
5. Cl Imatological characteristics.
Environment and Fisheries Canada, however, has generalized potential
sampling frequencies for sites where groundwater contamination has not
been evidenced, as follows (Reference 13):
Calculated Groundwater Sampling
Velocity Cf t/yr) Frequency
75 annually
75 to 150 semi—annually
150 quarterly
Prior to landfill operation, seasonal samples should be collected
and analyzed for nitrogen, heavy metals, sulfates, hardness, alkalinity,
pH, BODç, COD (or TOC) and specific conductance. When the landfill
operatl n has commenced, samples should be taken especially at wells
nearest the operation. Initial routine sampling need consider only such
key parameters as total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity,
chlorides, and possibly hardness. If a change of significance occurs In
one or more of these key variables, then a more comprehensive sample
analysis should be performed for hardness, alkalinity, pH, iron, sulfate,
chloride, specific conductance, BOD5, COD (or bC), and any other site
specific chemicals which may reflect landfill content and condition. A
long—term, post-closure leachate monitoring scheme may extend several
-109-
-------
TABLE 4-9
PASSIVE LEACHATE MONITORING FIELD INSPECTION TECHNIQUES,
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
General
Advantages Disadvantages
1. Can be carried out quickly and 1. Untrained inspector may over-
inexpensively, look subtle but valuable data.
2. Helps place the overall problem 2. Findings are not always con-
in perspective. clusive in detecting ground-
water contamination.
3. Establishes the extent of addi- 3. Time factors are not indicated
tional investigations which may relative to condition changes.
be required.
4. When combined with a literature 4. Few, if any, analyses or actual
survey on available data, in— physical measurements are made.
spection procedure may be used
by an experienced hydrologist
to roughly establish the over-
all situation.
Seeps
1. Where present, definite mdi- 1. Flay not indicate presence of
cation of leachate generation, contaminated groundwater
2. Convenient point of collection 2. Chemical quality not neces-
for leachate sample. sarily representative of bulk
of leachate in the landfill or
entering the groundwater
3. Changes in flow rates or loca-
tions of seeps are indicative
of internal landfill changes.
Source: Reference 12.
-110-
-------
TABLE 4’-9 (continued)
Vegetation Stress
Advantages
Di sadvantacies
1. Qualitative indicator of leach-
ate and gas contamination.
2. Mapping extent of stressed
vegetation may provide an indi-
cation of the limits and source
of contamination.
3. Stressed vegetation can be
mapped remotely by aerial
photographic methods, allowing
wide coverage in a short period
of time.
4. Stress change is a good indi-
cator for monitoring purposes.
More effective if selected
species are planted, then
observed.
1. Evidence of stressed vegeta-
tation, especially in early
stages, is not always evident
except to a trained botanist.
2. Stress may be caused by many
factors, some unrelated to the
presence of the landfill.
Determination of the responsible
factor or factors is usually ex-
tremely difficult.
3. Certain stresses will not occur
unless physical or chemical
change occurs at the surface or
within the vadose zone. There-
fore, it provides no indication
of problems at depth.
Specific Conductance and Temperature Probes
1. Providing equipment is properly
calibrated and insertion proce-
dures carefully implemented,
positive determination as to
presence and degree of contami-
nation can be made.
1. Not an absolute method. Equip-
ment subject to malfunctioning,
causing erroneous information.
Equipment must be checked for
malfunctioning against a stan-
dard solution.
2. Provides accessibility
wise restricted areas,
marsh or swampland.
to other-
such as
2. Requires hiring personnel trained
in the use and handling of the
equipment.
—111—
-------
TABLE 4-9 (concluded)
Electrical Earth Resistivit y
Advantages Di sadvantages
1. Definition of subsurface geol- 1. Indirect method. Requires
ogy and contaminated water some substantiation by
bodies can be derived at a drilling.
faster and cheapter rate than
drilling.
2. Greatly reduces the number of 2. Many natural and man-made
sampling wells required. field conditions preclude
resistivity surveys.
3. Surveys can be duplicated pen- 3. Data interpretation in complex
odically to provide monitoring situations is often question-
data. able.
4. Background data on natural-
water quality are prerequisite.
Seismic Surveys
1. Can provide subsurface geologic 1. Provides no direct information
infornT tion must faster and about leachate.
cheaper than drilling.
2. Can be used to extend geologic 2. Requires more direct substanti-
data over broad areas on a ation such as drilling.
limited budget.
3. Can be used in certain areas 3. In complex geologic formations,
where access for a drilling rig interpretation is difficult and
would be difficult. substantial errors may occur.
4. Requires the hiring of a trained
person and the use of a computer
to reduce and interpret data.
5. Subject to noise interference in
many field situations.
Source: Reference 12.
—112-
-------
TABLE 4-10
OTHER PASSIVE LEACHATE MONITORING TECHNIQUES,
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Surface Water Quality Measurements
Advantages Disadvantages
1. Useful in locating leachate 1. Surface water may be subject
discharge points, to contamination from other
sources not defined.
2. Can be a quick and inexpensive 2. Dilution may be too great to
means of estimating environ- provide useful information.
mental impact of the landfill.
Aerial Photography
1. Frequently can detect stressed 1. Availability of aerial photo-
vegetation which indicates graphs and photographic ser-
contamination, vices is sometimes limited.
2. Can be used to prepare contour 2. Little information concerning
maps relatively inexpensively, sub-surface conditions.
Also provides certain geologic
information.
3. Much less costly than a detailed 3. Little indication as to pre-
ground survey of vegetation cise causes of detected sur-
stress. face changes.
4. Yearly photographs can provide
unbiased and indisputable evi-
dence of surface changes such
as: landfill configuration,
vegetation conditions, and sur-
face water body locations.
5. Can be used to precisely map
key wells and sampling points
of the landfill site.
6. Enables a quick familiarization
of the landfill site conditions
without visiting the site.
-113—
-------
TABLE 4-10 (concluded)
Geophysical Well Logging
Advantages Disadvantages
1. Provides back-up data to sub- 1. Requires special equipment and
stantiate driller’s and geolo- the hiring of trained operators;
gist’s log of borehole. thus, adding considerable ex-
pense.
2. Allows a more accurate deter- 2. Is not an absolute for quanti-
niination of depth to formation tative hydrogeologic determi-
change than might be achieved nations.
with routine sampling.
3. Allows a rough geological log
to be constructed from an
existing well that was not
logged when drilled.
4. May be useful in locating top
and bottom of a contaminated
groundwater body.
Source: Reference 12.
-114-
-------
decades. If long-term monitoring takes place, a thorough sample analysis
of the kind discussed above should be performed at least every two years
(Reference 13). It has been suggested that leachate monitoring can be
terminated if, at the landfill property boundary or other agreed upon dis-
tance from the landfill, the chloride concentration is reduced or has
stabilized to 50 parts per million above background, or if drinking water
standards are met, whichever test is more restrictive (Reference 12).
Details of leachate s mple withdrawal, preservation, storage, and
analysis are beyond the scope of this EIS. The reader is referred to
Reference 12 and 13.
4.24.23 Current Economic Costs
Current economic costs for leachate monitoring average $ 0.60 ($0.67),
$0.10 ($0.11), and $0.05 ($0.06) per ton (per metric ton) for 10, 100, and
300 ton per day landfill sites, respectively.
4.24.3 Environmental Impacts Summary
1. Leachate monitoring data can aid in determining the need for and nature
of leachate controls at new or existing landfill sites, and can facil-
itate the evaluation of their effectiveness once they are implemented.
The ultimate environmental effect of leachate monitoring, then, is the
protection of ground and surface water resources adjacent to the landfill
Si te.
-115-
-------
4.25 REVEGETATION
4.25.1 Introduction
Natural vegetation serves several vital functions including physically
scabilizing earth materials, reducing precipitation infiltration, and
e ihancing the appearance of a site. Revegetation is the process of reesta-
blishing viable grasses, shrubs, trees, and other vegetation after the com-
pletion of a waste fill and placement of the firal earth cover.
The Guidelines recommend that a “completed landfill should be covered
with 15 cm of clay with permeability less than 1 X 10-7 cm/sec or the
equivalent, followed by a minimtin cover of 45 cm of top soil to complete
the final cover and support vegetation.” Depending on the depth of veget-
ation roots, an even greater depth of top soil may be required. The Guide-
lines further specify that vegetation aids leachate control by minimizing
erosion and maximizing evapotranspiration, and aids runoff control by
encouraging runoff while still minimizing erosion of cover soil on sloped
surfaces.
The following sections will discuss in more detail the specific functions
fulfilled by revegetation, and the design and construction considerations
necessary for successful revegetation implementation. In conclusion, the
evaluation summarizes the current economic costs of and the environmental
impacts of revegetation.
4.25.2 Technology Summary
4.25.21 Leachate Control
Revegetation Functions . Revegetation plays a role in leachate control
by reducing precipitation infiltration via evaporative processes and by mini-
mizing rates of runoff. Lack of vegetative cover results in uncontrolled
water and wind erosion of cover material. Vegetation functions to stabilize
cover materials, impede erosion, and maintain cover integrity, consequently,
infiltration into the waste mass due to loss of cover integrity is minimized.
Revegetation Design and Construction . The design and implementation of
revegetation processes begins with preparation of the final cover to provide
support for vegetative growth. It is the uppermost layer of top soil that is
most important in designing revegetation plans for completed landfill sites.
Relevant factors to be considered include the composition or type of soil
utilized, the soil’s physical, chemical, and biological properties, and the
depth or thickness of the top soil layer. Soil type should be compatible
-116-
-------
with the planned vegetations nutrient and other requirements. Soils such as
clay loam or silty loam have been suggested as suitable for a large variety
of plant growth. Analyses of soil sample fertility and pH may be useful in
determining plant type for optimum growth.
The required depth of soil for effective revegetation depends upon the
type of cover vegetation selected. Plants such as native grasses have shallow
root systems and may need only 2 feet or less of top soil, while larger trees
with deep tap root systems may require as much as 8 to 12 foot thicknesses of
top soil.
The nature of plant root systems is also important in determining the speed
of vegetation establishment and the degree of cover soil stabilization that can
be achieved and maintained. Vegetation with shallow but dense root systems
such as hay, meadow grasses, rye, and other native grasses, lend themselves
to revegetation because they establish quickly, are more effective for surface
stabilization, are inexpensive and are easy to maintain. Table 4-li lists
examples of grasses and shrubs with extensive shallow root systems that can
provide these desired properties. Other plants, including legumes such as
clover, or crops such as alfalfa, have deeper lateral root systems usually
requiring up to 4 feet of top soil, and are more effectively used for stab-
ilizing sloped areas. Shrubs and trees with large tap root systems are
generally not recommended for landfill revegetation because planned depths
of top soil layers are usually not thick enough to sustain these root systems.
In addition, plants must be selected to accomodate a number of local
growth factors. Climate and soil fertility are two major factors affecting
the success of revegetation efforts. Native species are more likely to be
acclimated to the amount of rainfall and other seasonal conditions unique to
the site. On the other hand, soil fertility can be influenced by adding
nutrients in the form of organic or commerically prepared fertilizers. Organic
fertilizers are preferred because they improve the soil structure and release
nutrients at a slower rate.
Finally, the actual process of revegatation entails preDaration of the
soil surface prior to planting, including grading and spreading fertilizer,
and the application of some cover such as mulch following planting to provide
interim soil stabilization. Where grasses or crops have been selected, hvdro-
seeding, a technique of spraying a mixture of seeds, soil supplements, and
water, is an efficient and cost-effective method of planting.
4.24.22 Runoff Control
While it is desirable to maximize surface runoff in order to reduce infil-
tration, increased runoff can pose substantial erosion and pollution problems.
Revegatation addresses these problems because it can assist in control of runoff
while stabilizing landfill cover material, especially on sloped surfaces. Its
main function in runoff control, then, is to reduce potential erosion and minimize
the amounts of sediment that are accumulated in surface runoff.
—117—
-------
TABLE 4-11
SUME GRASSES AND SHRUBS WITH EXTENSIVE ROOT SYSTEMS
Alpine Rockcress Henry Honeysuckle Prarie Rose
Arrowwood Viburnum Japanese Barberry Red Osier Dogwood
Bittersweet Japanese Spurge Rock Cotoneaster
Bristly Locust Kentucky Bluegrass Scotch Broom
Chinese Matrimony Vine Kudzu Vine Silver Vein Creeper
Creeping Cotoneaster Leadwort Thyme
Drooping Leucothoe Lowbush Blueberry Turfing Daisy
Dryland Blueberry Moss Phlox Virginia Creeper
English Ivy Mountain Sandwort Virginia Rose
Fragrant Sumac Nannyberry Viburnum White Chinese Indigo
Grape New Jersey Tea Wintercreeper
Heather Periwinkle Yellowroot
Source: Reference 14
-118-
-------
4.25.23 Other Functions
In addition to leachate, gas, and runoff control, revegetation techniques
serve an aesthetic function in enhancing the final appearance and use of the
completed site. Landfill design and planning can provide vegetation that will
complement the planned ultimate use.
In a different vein, problems with revegetation can function as an indi-
cator of landfill generated gas migration or other degradation related prob-
lems. Some of these are:
1. concentrations of methane, carbon dioxide, and other
toxic gases can migrate vertically to the atmosphere
through cover soil or laterally through permeable sub-
strata to areas adjacent to the site. These gases can
displace oxygen supplies necessary to plant growth, and
can alter soil properties and quality. Studies show
many instances of correlation between subsurface con-
centrations of gases and damage to vegetation on and
around the site; and,
2. elevated soil temperatures resulting from subsurface
spontaneous combustion reactions have also been cor-
related to poor vegetation growth.
4.25.24 Current Economic Costs
Revegatation of 10 TPD, 100 TPD, and 300 TPD landfill sites currently
costs approximatley $0.25 ($0.28), $0.10 ($0.11), and $0.10 ($0.11) per dis-
posed ton (per metric ton).
4.25.3 Environmental Impact Summary
1. Revegatation techniques physically stabilize surface soil
and minimize water erosion, therefore reducing the potential
for siltation of receiving surface waters by surface runoff
discharge.
2. Potentially reduced infiltration due to evaporative processes
resulting from revegetation also serves to minimize leachate and
gas generation and subsequent impacts on the adjacent environ-
ment.
3. Revegetation improves the aesthetic appear 1 ce of the site
and enhances its final use.
-119-
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Brunner, D.R. and D.J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and
operation. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1972. 59 p.
2. Lutton, R.J. and G.L. Regan. Selection and design of cover for
solid waste; interim report. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati (Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG-D7-
01097). 153 p.
3. Stewart, W.S. State-of-the-art study of landfill impoundment
techniques. Cincinnatti, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1978. 77 p.
4. Haxo, H.E., Jr., R.S. Haxo, and R.M. White. Liner materials ex-
posed to hazardous and toxic sludges; first interim report. Cin-
cinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1977. 63 p.
5. Shilesky, D.M. et al. 1st draft final report; solid waste landfill
practices, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sep-
tember 1978. Various pagings.
6. Griffin, R.A. and N.F. Shimp. Attenuation of pollutants on muni-
cipal landfill-leachate by clay minerals. Cincinnati, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, August 1978. 147 p.
7. Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of leachate treatment;
volume I and II; biological and physical—chemical processes. EPA—
600/2-77-l86b. Cincinnati, Municipal Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Nov. 1977. 245 p.
8. Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Sanitary landfill leachates and
their treatment. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE , l02(EE2): 411—431. April 1976.
9. Banerji, S.K., ed. Proceedings; management of gas and leachate in
landfills; third annual municipal solid waste research symposium
St. Louis; March 14-16, 1977. EPA-600/9—77-026. Cincinnati,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Sept. 1977. 289 p.
10. Stone R. Reclamation of landfill methane and control of off—site
migration hazards. Solid Wastes Management 21 ( 7 : 52-54, 69.
11. Mooij, H., F.A. Rovers, and J.J. Tremblay. Procedures for landtiiI
gas monitoring and control; proceedings of an international seminar.
Waste Management Branch Report EPA 4-EC-77-4. Environmental Impact
Control Directorate, Oct. 1977.
12. Office of Solid Waste. Procedures manual for ground water moni-
toring at solid waste disposal facilities. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-6l1. 269 p.
-120-
-------
REFERENCES CITED (continued )
13. Mooij, H., F.A. Rovers, and A.A. Sobanski. Recommended procedures
for landfill monitoring programme design and implementation; pro-
ceedings of an international seminar. Waste Management Branch
Report EPS 4-EC-77—3. Environmental Impact Control Directorate,
May 1977. 25 p.
14. Flower, F.B., et. al. A study of vegetation problems associated
with refuse landfills. [ Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, May 1978. 130 p.
- 121-
-------
5.0 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF GUIDELINES IMPACTS
The following sections present a summary analysis of the
environmental, economic, and energy impacts associated with Vm-
plementing the proposed Guidelines.
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY
The following paragraphs provide an analysis of the en-
vironmental impacts of the proposed Guidelines in terms of im-
plementations for landfill siting, design, leachate control,
gas control, runoff control, operation, and monitoring.
5.1.1 Site Selection
Past landfill site selection processes have, in many cases,
not adequately considered environmental protection. The siting
recommendations contained in the proposed Guidelines, however,
should result in greater avoidance and protection of environ-
mentally sensitive areas (ESA), and greater environmental pro-
tection in terms of selecting landfill sites in general. Guide-
lines’ recommendations regarding landfill technologies addition-
ally have implications for landfill siting which can also im-
pact the environment.
The Guidelines recommend the avoidance of environmentally
sensitive areas, such as wetlands, floodplains, permafrost areas,
critical habitats, and recharge zones of sole source aquifers. Karst
terrian and active fault zones are also identified as areas to
avoid in landfill siting. Such considerations will lead to a
number of positive environmental impacts associated with each type
of ecosystem:
1. Wetlands: Maintenance of wetland ecological
functions and values, including downstream
flood protection, regional aquifier recharge
or discharge, suspended sediment filtration
nutrient absorption, terrestrial wildlife
and aquatic habitat, provision of recreational
and open space.
2. FloodDlains Maintenance of floodplain func-
tions and values, such as flood protection,
and regional aquifier recharge or discharge.
-122-
-------
3. Permafrost areas: Protection of a fragile eco-
system based upon the integrity of the perma-
frost layer.
4. Critical habitats: Protection of endangered
species.
5. Recharge zones of sole source aquifers: Protec-
tion of ground water drinking supplies.
6. Karst tert a. active rault zones: Avoidance
of areas which are particularly amenable to
potential leachate migration and subsequent
pollution effects.
Several other Guidelines siting recommendations can result
in positive environmental impacts. Incorporating the landfill
site into an existing or future regional solid waste disposal
system can facilitate solid waste processing (baling, shredding,
compacting) and resource recovery, thus increasing landfill life
and minimizing environmental degradation.
Finally, several Guidelines recomendations for environ-
mental control technologies have implications for landfill sit-
ing. Leachate, gas, and runoff controls may depend, in many
cases, on either natural or artificial materials. When natural
materials, such as natural clay liner material, are to be utilized
transport costs may dictate that sources of those materials must
play a role in the site selection process. Alternatively, when
artificial materials are used, more siting flexibility is pos-
sible. However, there may be secondary impacts involved in the
manufacture, transport, and installation of these materials.
Additionally, the alternative technologies identified in the
Guidelines may permit utilization of sites that may not have been
suitable for landfill use without modification. This similarly
adds flexibility to the site selection process and offers the po-
tential to maximize considerations of site specific environmental
factors.
5.1.2 Design
The Guideline’s landfill design recommendations emphasize
environmental protection considerations. The design provisions
-123-
-------
In particular, recommend comprehensive design procedures,
provide a consistent framework for design, and present a variety
of alternative environmental control technologies from which a
landfill environmental protection strategy can be developed to
meet a set of specific requirements.
5.1.3 Leachate Control
The Guidelines provide several recommendations regarding
leachate control that will result in positive environmental im-
pacts. Recommended practices relate to cover selection, design,
and construction; on-site and off-site surface runoff controls;
landfill depth relative to the groundwater table; liner selec-
tion, design, and construction; natural leachate attenuation
mechanisms; landfill closure; leachate collection methods; lea-
chate treatment techniques, including leachate recycling; and
leachate monitoring. The result of these Guidelines’ recomnien-
dations and information will be an overall reduction in contami-
nation of ground and surface water resources by landfill lea-
chates.
5.1.4 Gas Control
The Guidelines provide several alternative landfill gas
control measures which improve landfill operation, safety, and
environmental protection. These measures relate to cover
selection, design, and construction; acceptable waste types;
leachate and runoff control measures; and passive and active
gas barriers and gas venting systems. (as control measures
generally result in the prevention of gas migration and build-
up in explosive concentrations in nearby enclosed structures;
the minimizing of vegetation kills; and the prevention of
groundwater mineralization. Objectionable landfill odors
will also be reduced.
5.1.5 Runoff Control
The Guidelines recommend a variety of surface runoff and
erosion control measures which should result in improved levels
of environmental protection. These measures include provision
of surface runoff diversion structures; grading of landfill
slopes; selection of cover soil type; revegetation of landfill
surfaces; and ponding to prevent stream siltation. Implementa-
tion of these measures generally reduce infiltration at the
landfill site, thus minimizing consequent landfill gas and lea-
chate generation. In addition, on-site surface runoff is con-
trolled such that erosion and subsequent stream siltation are
minimized.
-124-
-------
5.1.6 Operation
The Guidelines make numerous recommendations regarding land-
fill operation which will result in positive environmental im-
pacts with respect to health, safety, and environmental consider-
ations. These measures cover waste type acceptability; waste
pre-treatment; waste compaction or other volume reduction methodol-
ogies; cover selection, design, and construction; employee health
and safety; site traffic controls; record-keeping; etc. As a
whole, these types of controls minimize landfill accidents, fires,
explosions, rodents, vectors, litter, noise, and odors, and con-
tribute to the efficiency of the landfill operation. Similarly,
adequate operating control minimizes the potential for pollutant
discharges to the environment, and consequently directly reduces
air, water and groundwater pollution.
5.1.7 Monitoring
The Guidelines recomend that landfill monitoring operations
include both groundwater and leachate monitoring and gas monitoring.
In effect, then, monitoring results in positive environmental
impacts resulting from the reductions in air, groundwater, and
surface water pollution.
5.1.8. Summary
In general, the Guidelines will result in improved environ-
mental protection of landfill sites. The recommended practices
regarding landfill siting, design, leachate control, gas control,
runoff control, operation, and monitoring will:
1) protect environmentally sensitive areas; 2) minimize 9rOund and
surface water pollution due to leachate contamination; 3) minimize
explosion hazards and vegetation stress due to landfill gas
migration; 4) minimize erosion and subsequent stream siltation due
to surface runoff; and 5) minimize landfill litter, vectors, rodents,
odor, noise, and accidents.
—125-
-------
5.2 ECONOMIC IMPACT SUMMARY
5.2.1 Development of Upgrading Costs
Development of upgrading costs for the three selected waste types and
the three representative stze categories followed a multiple step methodology.
The first step in the analysis was to identify model landfills to be used as
the bas’is of cost estimates. Several factors were considered in choosing the
models: (a) typical waste types; (b) prevalence of the model types; Cc) dif-
ferences in costs due to scale eonomics; and (d) compatability with the models
utilized in the “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Criteria
for Classificaiton of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities” under Section 4004 of
RCRA. Since cost estimates for both Section 4004 Criteria and Guidelines re-
quire many of the same technologies and operating procedures, choosing a com-
patible model made possible a comparison of these estimates.
Final selection of model types included municipal, industrial and pollu-
tion control residues for both environmentally sensitive and non-sensitive areas,
for 10 ton per day, 100 ton per day, and 300 ton per day landfill sites . Two
additional waste types were evaluated: agricultural wastes and construction and
demolition debris. In both cases, only a very limited number of single purpose
sites potentially existed and further cost analysis was not considered significant,
A second step in the analysis is the development of baseline cost data
for capital and operating and maintenance expenses for landfills. Several of
these sources graphically portrayed this information in a cost per ton vs. daily
waste tonnage chart. To estimate current landfill costs a composite graDhical
approach was utilized. To accomplish this the graphical data presented in
Sanitary Landfill , 1974; Public Works , 100 3): 79, March 1969; Handbook of
Solid Waste Management , 1974; and Sanitary Landfill: Planning Design, Opera-
tion Maintenance , 1971, were updated to 1977 dollars. Figure -1 presents a
composite curve development by avenging per ton costs in the range of 0 to
1000 tons per day.
As indicated in Figure 5-1, current disposal costs (including capital and
operating expenses) range from approximatley $2.00 to $12.00 per ton ($2.24 to
$i3.44 per metric ton). Disposal costs at ten ton per day sites average approx-
imately $11.15 per ton ($12.49 per metric ton). One hundred ton per day sites
exhibit economy of scale effects with disposal costs averaging $6.65 per ton
($7.45 per metric ton). Similarly, 300 ton per day sites average approximately
$3.95 per ton ($4.42 per metric ton). Approximately 20 to 30 percent of these
costs represent design and construction expenses with the remaining 70 to 80
percent representing operating expenditures.
-126-
-------
FIGURE 5—1
COMPOSITE LANDFILL COSTS
25.00. ( 0- 1000 TONS PER DAY )
C l )
20.00.
-J
-J
0
0
0 )
15.00.
z
0
—
C l )
1O.O0_
0
U
-J
Co
0
C,)
5.00,
_- - F
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
WASTE QUANTITY TONS PER DAY
-------
To determine upgrading costs for the landfill models previously
identified, both existing technologies and assumed upgrading technolo-
gies were identified. The existing practice of Guidelines level tech-
nologies can be broadly sorted by waste type and site characteristics.
Table 5-1 was based on an assessment of available literature and pro-
vided a checklist of environmental protection technologies currently
employed by a “typical” landfill for a given type of waste in both
environmentally sensitive and non-sensitive areas. Table 5-1 also
presents the upgrading technologies which have been assumed as repre-
sentative of required upgrading and average upgrading costs.
Following the identification of upgrading technologies, unit costs
for each technology were developed via examination of case studies and
via utilization of an engineering estimation methodology. Appendix B
presents the design assumptions and calculations utilized to identify
technology unit costs and disposal costs per ton of waste. Tables 5-2
and 5-3 present disposal costs per ton for each of the upgrading tech-
nologies. The set of technologies identified on Table 5-2 were previ-
ously identified in Table 5—1 as technologies selected for developing
upgrading costs for each of the model landfills. Table 5-3 presents
cost alternatives as presented in the Guidelines.
By comparing the additional costs of upgrading technologies to
baseline costs, an estimate of increased landfilling costs can be de-
veloped. Tables 5-4 through 5-7 present dollars and percent increase in
disposal costs for the model landfills previously selected. Increases
in disposal costs for 10 ton per day sites range from 53 to 88 oercent,
for 100 ton per day sites from 41 to 55 percent, and for 300 ton per day
sites from 46 to 58 percent.
Projections for increased disposal costs at the nationwide level
can be completed by estimating the total number of landfills for each
landfill tyoe, size, and sensitive/non-sensitive cateaory, and by aD-
plying increase in costs of disposal as generated above. An analysis
completing the above was previously completed in the background docu-
ments “Analysis of Technology-, Prevalence, and Economics of Landfill
Disoosal of Solid Waste in the United States (Volume II) “by Fred C. Hart
Associates, Inc. This nationwide estimate is formal ly presented in the
Criteria EIS document. The implicit assumotion is that costs generated
by upgrading of landfills are Criteria induced costs.
-128-
-------
TABLE 5-1
EXISTING TECHNOLOGY LEVELS AND ASSUMED UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY
Assumed Current Assumed Up-
Technology Levels grading Technologies
MUNICIPAL (Sensitive )
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control: None Vertical Impermeable Barriers
Leachate Control: Clay Liner Impermeable Cover
Daily Cover
Leachate Collection &
Treatment (New Facility)
Surface Runoff: Ditching Ponding
Dike Construction
Monitoring: None Gas & Leachate
MUNICIPAL (Non-Sensitive )
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control: None Vertical Impermeable Barriers
Leachate Control: Permeable Cover Impermeable Cover
Surface Runoff: Ditching None
Monitoring: None Gas & Leachate
INDUSTRIAL (Sensitive )
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control: None None
Leachate Control Infrequent Permeable Cover Impermeable Cover
Liner (New Facility)
Leachate Collection &
Treatment (New Faciljty)
-129-
-------
TABLE 5-f (concluded)
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
INDUSTRIAL (Sensitive) (continued )
None
None
Ponding
Dike Construction
Leachate
Waste Processing:
Gas Control:
Leachate Control:
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
INDUSTRIAL tNon—Sensi tiy I
None
None
Infrequent Permeable Cover
Ditching
None
None
Impermeable Cover
Liner (New Facility)
Ponding
Leacha te
POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUES (Sensitive )
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control: None
Leachate Control: None
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
Ditching
None
None
Impermeable Cover
Liner (New Facility)
Leachate Collection &
Treatment (New Facility)
Ponding
Dike Construction
Leachate
POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUES (Non-Sensitive )
Waste Processing: None
Gas Control: None
Leachate Control: None
Surface Runoff:
Monitoring:
Di tch I ng
None
None
Impermeable Cover
Liner (New Facility)
None
Leachate
-130-
-------
Technology
Vertical Impermeable
Barrier
Dike Construction
Impermeable Daily Cover*
(on-site source)
Impermeable Daily Cover*
(off-site source)
Ponding
Gas Mon b’torlng
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Natural Clay Liner
(off-site source)
Leac hate Coil ecti on
Dacilities
Leac hate Moni tori ng,
Removal and
Treatment
TABLE 5-2
UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY COSTS
Cost/Ton
10 TPD
(Cost/Metric Ton) Cost/Ton
(Cost/Metric Ton)
Cost/Ton
(Cost/Metric Ton)
$1.30
($1.46)
$0.30
($0.34)
$0.15
($0.17)
2.40
(2.69)
0.55
(0.62)
0.30
(0.34)
0.75
(0.84)
0.35
(0.39)
0.25
(0.28)
5.30
(5.94)
2.65
(2.97)
1.75
(1.96)
0.10
(0.11)
0.05
(0.06)
0.04
(0.04)
0.15
(0.17)
0.03
(0.03)
0.01
(0.01)
0.60
(0.67)
0.10
(0.11)
0.05
(0.06)
0.95 (1.06)
0.40 (0.45)
0.30 (0.34)
5.80 (6.50) 1.10 (1.23) 0.50
* “Impermeable” refers to a cover type with relatively low permeability i.e.,1 X i0 cm/sec.
(0.56)
-------
TABLE 6-3
Shredding
Baling
Permeable Daily Cover
(on-site source)
Permeable Daily Cover
(off-site source)
Vertical Pipe Vents
Perimeter Gravel Trenches
Gas Collection
Synthetic Liner
Leachate Recycling
(not including
collection)
Ditching
Final Impermeable Cover*
(on-site source)
Final Impermeable Cover 1
(off-site source)
ALTERNATE UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY COSTS
Technol oav
Cost/Ton
(Cost/Metric Ton) Cost/Ton
(Cost/Metric
Ton)
Cost/Ton
$J.00
(Cost/Metric Ton)
($7.84)
5.00
(5.60)
$0.60
($0.67)
$0.30
($0.34)
0.20
(0.22)
1.90
0.90
1.60
2.50
4.00
(2.13)
(1.01)
(1.79)
(2.80)
(4.48)
0.95
0.45
0.35
0.55
1.90
(1.06)
(0.50)
(0.39)
(0.62)
(2.13)
0.65
0.40
0.20
0.30
1.65
(0.73)
(0.45)
(0.22)
(0.34)
(1.85)
0.45
0.15
(0.50)
(0.17)
0.10
0.04
(0.11)
(0.04)
0.05
0.02
(0.06)
(0.02)
0.45
(0.50)
0.20
(0.22)
0.20
(0.22)
3.20
(3.58)
1.50
* “Impermeable” reqers to a cnver type with relett$’Iy 7 , permeability, i.e., 1 x i - cm/sec.
-------
TABLE 5-3 (concluded )
100 TPD
Cost/Ton (Cost/Metric Ton )
300 TPD
Cost/Ton (Cost/Metric Ton )
Final Permeable Cover
(on—site source)
Final Permeable Cover
(off-site source)
$0.15 ($0.17)
$0.15 ($0.17)
TechnoloQv
10 TP.D
Cost/Ton (Cost/Metric Toni
Revegetati on
Fire Control
Access Control
Litter Control
Compaction
$0.40
($0.45)
1.30
(1.46)
0.60
(0.67)
0.55
(0.62)
0.25
(0.28)
0.10
(0.11)
0.10
(0.11)
0.04
(0.04)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.90
(1.01)
0.20
(0.22)
0.10
(0.11)
0.05
(0.06)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
1.90
(2.12)
0.20
(0.22)
0.05
(0.06)
-------
TABLE 5-4
IMPACT OF GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL COSTS (COSTS/TON )
Site Size Categories
10 TPD 100 TPD 300 TPD
Required Technologies Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non—Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive
Gas Control
Vertical Impermeable Barriers $1.30 $1.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.15 $0.15
Leachate Control
Imper. Daily Cover (off-site source) 5.30 5.30 2.65 2.65 1.75 1.75
Dike Construction’ 1.20 -- 0.28 -- 0.15 --
Surface Runoff
Ponding 0.10 0.05 0.04
Dike Construction 1.20 0.27 0.15
Monitoring
Gas Monitoring 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01
Groundwater Quality Monitoring 0.60 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05
Total Incr nenta1 Costs •$ 9.85 $ 7.35 $1T $2.30
Baseline Costs 11.15 11.15 6.65 6.65 3.95 3.95
Total Post—Guidelines Costs $21.00 $18.50 $10.33 $5.91
Percent Increase 88% 66% 55% 46% 58% 50%
9ike construction costs were divided equally between leachate and surface runoff control functions.
-------
TABLE 8 5
IMPACT OF GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE LANDFILLS (COSTS/TON )
Site Size Categories
10 TPD 100 TPD 300 TPD
Required Technologies ____ Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive
Gas Control — — — —
Leachate Control
Imper. Daily Cover (off-site source) $5.30
Surface Runoff
Pondirig 0.10
Dike Construction 2.40
Monitoring
Gas Monitoring 0.15
Ground Water Quality Monitoring 0.60
Total Incremental Costs
Due to Guidelines $8.55
Baseline Costs 11.15
Total Post—Guidelines Costs $19.70
Percent Increase 77%
$5.30
$2.65
$2.65
-
-
0.05
0.55
-
-
0.15
0.60
0.03
0.10
0.03
0.40
$6.05
$3.38
$2.78
11.15
6.65
6.65
$17.20
$10.03
$9.43
54%
51%
42%
-------
TABLE 5-6
IMPACT OF GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF !0LLUTI0N CONTROL RESIDUE WASTE LANDFILLS (COSTS/TON )
Site Size Categories
10 TPD 100 TPD 300 TPD
Regui ed Technologies Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive
Gas Control
Leachate Control $5.30 $5.30 $2.65 $2.65 $1.75 $1.75
Imper. Daily Cover (off-site source)
Surtace Runoff
onding 0.10 0.05 0.04
Dike Construction 2.40 0.55 0.30
Monitoring
Groundwater Quality Monitoring 0.60 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05
Total Incremental Costs
Due to Guidelines 8.40 5.90 3.35 2.75 2.14 1.80
Baseline Costs 11.15 11.15 6.65 6.65 3.95 3.95
Total Post-Guidelines Costs $19.55 $17.05 $10.00 $9.40 $6.09 $5.75
Percent Increase 75% 53% 50% 41% 54% 46%
-------
TABLE 5-7
SUMMARY OF fl’lPACT OF LANDFILL GUIDELINES ON OPERATING COSTS OF LANDFILLS (COSTS/TON)*
Site Size Categories
10 tpd 100 tpd 300 tpd
Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non-Sensitive Sensitive Non—Sensitive
Landfill Baseline Costs $l1.15(12.49) $11.15 (12.49)$6.65 (7.45)$6.65 (7.45) $3.95 (4.42) $3.95 (4.42)
Waste Types
Municipal
Post-(uidelines Costs 21.00(23.52) 18.50 (20.72) 10.33 (11.57)9.73 (10.90) 6.25 (7.00) 5.91 (6.62)
Percent Increase 88% 66% 55% 46% 58% 50%
Industrial
Post-Guidelines Costs 19.70 (22.06) 17.20 (19.26) 10.03 (11.23)9.43 (10.56)
Percent Increase 77% 54% 51% 42%
Pollution Control Residues
Post-Guidelines Costs 19.55 (21.90) 17.05 (19.10) 10.00 (11.20)9.40 (10.52) 6.09 (6.82) 5.75 (6.44)
Percent Increase 75% 53% 50% 41% 54% 46%
* Costs in parentheses are costs/metric ton
-------
5.2.2 EconomicEffectsof Increased Landfill Disposal Costs
The data presented in the previous section outlined the probable
impact of increased technology utilization on unit operating costs of
such facilities. However, it is the reaction to these additional costs
by those commercial, industrial and government sectors directly and
indirectly affected that will determine the long-run net costs and
overall effectiveness of the Guidelines. When a particular business
or government agency is faced with higher ooerating costs, it can
adjust through one of the followina routes:
1. change operating methods or technologies
to avoid the costs;
2. absorb the higher costs in the form of
lower profits (higher subsidies);
3. shift the higher costs backward on to
suppliers (e.g., lower wages); and
4. shift the cost forward in the form of higher
rates or prices to its customers.
These four methods are of course not mutually exclusive, and typi-
cally occur in various combinations as the affected parties search for
ways to minimize the burden of the added costs. In the landfill “in-
dustry” this type of situation is complicated by the fact that much of
the nation’s solid waste handling capacity is publicly owned (although
frequently privately operated), so the profit element is essentially
replaced by various public mandates or regulations dealing with sub-
sidy limits, bond retirement guarantees based on user changes, and nu-
merous other economic, financial or political constraints. Because of
the multiple objectives of the public sector, an analysis of the impact
of additional costs is more difficult.
The overall incidence patterns of these costs, that is who bears
the burden of those costs, will be determined by the particular mix
of reactions outlined above. These can be roughly divided into two
categories which are discussed in the following sections:
1. Sunply Effects: reactions by the suppliers
of the landfill services.
2. Demand effects: reactions by those demanding
these landfillina services (i.e., solid waste
generators).
-138-
-------
5.2.21 Supply Effects
The landfill operator faced with higher operating costs can either
absorb the costs or seek out some method of avoiding them or shifting
them elsewhere. The analysis of these reaction patterns is similar in
nature to those dealing with the incidence of various government taxes
or fees; both depend principally on the financial conditions of the
firms and the characteristics of the markets in which they are invol-
ved. Any increases in business costs will eventually be borne either
by those who provide the various factors of production (labor, capi-
tal, equipment), or by those buying the business’s goods or services.
The only remaining alternative is to revise the technological or in-
stitutional structure of the firm (i.e., new equipment, consolidation
with other firms, etc.) to avoid or minimize the impact of these
costs by lowering costs in other areas. The following sections add-
ress five major market and operational effects most applicable to land-
fill operation.
Increase Di 2osal Fees For Landfill Users . The ability of land-
fill operators to pass costs forward in the form of higher user
charges typically depends on the nature of the demand for their ser-
vices. If the demand is very price elastic, the potential increase in
revenue will be minimal as many of the landfill users will find al-
ternative methods of meeting their waste handling needs. This is
demonstrated in Figure 5-2:
FIGURE 5-2
DEMAND IMPACT OF HIGHER USER CHARGE
D
:\ ‘N.
o handled (tons)
20
A hypothetical landfill is used by two waste cienerators reore-
sented by demand curves D 1 and D!, each of which disooses of Q tons
of waste annually at the ite. As the landfill raises its ra es from
R to R 1 , the more price-sensitive of the two, reDresented by demand
cBrve D , reduces its demand from QQ to QQ 1 . The more price inelastic
generat r, represented by curve D 2 , hows a more modest drop from QQ 0
to QQ 2 .
-139-
-------
The principal effect of the increase in rates is a decline in
quantity disposed and, if demand is elastic, a decline in total reve-
nues for specific landfills. However, the problems created by a
highly elastic market demand go beyond those of insufficient revenue
generation. All wastes formerly handled by the landfill must either
be deposited elsewhere or not disposed of. The first of these options
raises the possibility of illegal dumping as well as the increased
likelihood that various landfill operators might avoid compliance,
both of which are serious enforcement problems. The second option
would be that generators might reduce their waste generation rates
and/or expand recycling efforts. This question is covered in more
detail in a later section.
Higher Taxes For Landfill Support . A response available to pub—
lic landfill operations is to pass the additional costs on to tax-
payers in the form of higher subsidies for landfill operations. Some
municipalities that have formerly assumed that all or a specified por-
tion of landfill costs would be paid by landfill users may be faced
with the problem of maintaining operating ratios (operating revenues/
operation costs) while not wanting to provide any significant disincen-
tives to those generators who should be using these facilities. As
the portion of total costs covered by user charges drops, other public
revenue sources would be required. Some private landfill operating
costs could also be indirectly subsidized by taxpayers through in—
vestment, tax credits or loan guarantees for landfill upgrading or
construction, research and development grants, or other forms of sub-
sidy. The specific policy of the agencies involved, the prevailing
methods used to finance everyday operating costs or retire bonds, and
numerous other factors would have to be considered with the eventual
reaction tending to be highly site specific.
Decreases In Supplier Costs . The theoretical possibility exists
that landfills could reduce their additional costs through decreases
in supplier costs (i.e. lower wages, fuel costs, etc.). This possibi-
lity is raised for the sake of completeness only. It is not con-
sidered a practical possibility for most landfill operations, except
as a part of a regionalization and consolidation effort.
Change In Profits Of Private Landfill Operators . If a landfill
operator cannot recover all of its additional costs through rate in-
creases, subsidies, or decreases in supplier costs, the impact will
be borne by the firm’s stockholders in the form of a lower return on
invested capital. Small impacts in the area will probably not cause
any substantial adjustments by these firms, especially in the short
run, but the decreased profitability could reduce the level of invest-
ment in such operations and make it more difficult to raise the capi-
tal necessary to upgrade existing operations or build new ones. For
those landfills that are publicly owned but privately operated, the
situation would entail a pass-through of costs to the relevant public
-140-
-------
agency with whom the operator has contracted. The affected agency
would then be forced to either authorize higher user charges, pro-
vide alternative financial support to the operator to cover the
extra operating costs, or implement a substantial revision in its
operation.
Change In Profits Of Industries With On-Site Disposal . For
those firms that handle part or all of their solid wastes at sites
owned and operated by the firm, the higher disposal costs may mean
a substantial financial loss if the firm has a high waste generation
rate and their disposal represents a significant element in their
overall operating costs. Conversion from open dump operations to
landfill operations could, in extreme cases, mean closure for some
financially vulnerable firms. Others would be left virtually un-
affected. Industries that would be expected to face relatively sub-
stantial solid waste handling costs include food processing, apparel,
wood products, fabricated metals and non-electrical machinpb’v.
Regionalization And Consolidation Of Waste Handling . The analy-
sis of economics of scale in landfill operations previously presen-
ted showed that disposal cost savings could be realized through con-
solidation of smaller sites into one large landfill operation. The
implementation of the RCRA landfill Criteria and Guidelines will
probably increase the benefits of consolidation due to lower unit
disposal costs of large sites and the sharing of the initial finan-
cing burden of ldndfill capacity among more waste generators.
The major economic factors that affect the consolidation de-
cision are the potential for scale economics, the density, disper-
sion, and total volume of the waste sources, and the relevant costs
of transportation.
5.2.22 Demand Effects
Source Reduction . The orevious section demonstrated how
higher disposal costs or raths) can reduce the demand for landfill
services. Either an alternative waste disposal method will then be
used (larger landfill, landspreading, illegal dumping, etc.) or the
volume of the waste stream will be reduced. Adjustments in the raw
materials used in production processes, changes in food packaging
techniques, bottle deposit regulations, and similar actions could be
used to reduce the volume of waste produced from various industrial,
commercial or residential activities. Part of this may occur as the
disposal costs are internalized into various operations which then
independently adjust their waste generation; other areas may only
occur if given the impetus of State or Federal regulations. Increased
disposal costs should make legislation aimed at source reduction more
attractive.
-141-
-------
Energy And Resource Recovery . The combined forces of higher
waste disposal costs and increased petroleum cost and concern over
possible disruptions in energy supplies have improved the cost-
effectiveness of many resource and energy recovery systems and app-
roaches. The number of existing, under-construction, or planned re-
covery plants across the country has increased substantially in re-
cent years. The added costs of RCRA will encourage this trend, es-
pecially in or near large urban areas where suitable landfill sites
are scarce and expensive and the waste density exists that is neces-
sary for large scale recovery plants. Much of this same type of ac-
tivity may occur in the industrial sectors that also face similar,
disposal cost increases. In combination with waste reduction, energy
and material recovery techniques will be applied more frequently, de-
pending on the market for the received materials, the incremental pro-
duction costs of the recovery processes, and the regional costs of
electricity and other energy forms.
Other Legal Waste Disposal Methods , Other legal disposal methods
that will continue to exist after implementation of the Guidelines are
surface impoundment and landspreading , The costs of these two disposal
methodologies options will also be affected by RCRA, Decisions concern-
ing waste disposal options by industry and municipalities will change to
reflect the changing costs of these options. Since the costs of future
surface impoundment and landspreading activities are not yet determined,
it is not yet possible to estimate how the Increases in the cost of land-
filling identified in this report will affect the choice of these other
legal disposal options.
Illegal Dumpinq . One option that is unfortunately available to
generators and landfill operators is the continued use or operation of
disposal facilities not meeting the provisions of the criteria. The
enforcement problem will be most severe for the thousands of very small
sites in rural areas that would face very large increases in disposal
costs. The enforcement costs for such operations, due to their geograDh-
ic dispersion, small sites, the overall detection difficulty, will be
rather high as well, forcing agencies to concentrate only on large sites,
-142-
-------
53 ENERGY IMPACTS SUMMARY
5.3.1 Introduction
Guidelines implementation will result in increased energy consumption
for both the construction (including upgrading) and operating phases
of landfill operations. Construction energy use will increase due to the
requirements for improved levels of environmental protection with the con-
committant use of more complex technologies such as liner installation,
gas venting and collection systems, leachate collection and treatment sys-
tems, etc. Similarly, energy use associated with the operating phase will
increase due to energy requirements for leachate pumping, more frequent
cover application, etc. As previously referenced, Table 5-1 presents those
technologies which have been defined as required upgrading technologies
and which will result in increased construction energy use. The table also
indicates those technologies which will, in addition, be required for new
facilities. Similarly, Table 5-9 indicates those technologies which will
result in increased energy use associated with landfill operation.
5.3.2 Estimating Construction Energy Impacts
Data detailing construction energy use (gas, oil) diesel fuel,
electricity) for construction of landfills is currently unavailable.
To estimate the potential increase in construction energy use, the assump-
tion has been made that increased energy use is directly proportional to
increased capital expenditure. The baseline costs for existing landfill
operations, as previously develped in Section 5.2, are $11.15, $6.65 and
$3.95 per ton for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD facilities, respectively.
Approximately 25% of those costs are attributable to construction costs,
as follows: 10 TPD - $2.78; 100 TPD - $1.66; 300 TPD - $0.99.
By utilizing required upgrading unit costs for the technologies
identif led in Table 5-2, total upgrading capital costs can be deter-
mined. Table 5-10 presents the capital costs for those technologies
incorporated into existing facilities. Increased construction energy
use has been assumed to be proportional to increased capital costs of
the required upgrading technologies. A more detailed explanation can
be found in “Analysis of Technology, Prevalence and Economics of Land-
fill Disposal in the United States (Volume II) “by Fred C. Hart Associates,
Inc. Consumption use is expected to be primarily in the form of gas,
oil, and diesel fuel utilization.
5.3.3 Estimating Operating Energy Impacts
Table 5-9 describes upgrading technologies which will result in
-143-
-------
TABLE 5-8
UPGRADING TECHNOLOGIES RESULTING IN INCREASED
ENERGY OPERATING COSTS
SENSITIVE FACILITIES
Municipal*
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Gas Monitoring
Industrial
Impermeable Daily
Cover
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Pollution Control
Residues
Impermeable Daily Cover
Groundwater Water Quality
Monitoring
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Gas Monitoring
NONSENSITIVE FACILITIES
Impermeable Daily
Cover
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
Impermeable Daily Cover
Groundwater Water Quality
Monitoring
* Daily cover assumed as existing technology; no increased energy use.
-144-
-------
TABLE 5-9
TOTAL INCREASED CAPITAL COSTS PER TON AND PERCENT INCREASE IN ENERGY USE FOR UPGRADED FACILITIES
10 TPD 100 TPD 300 TPD
Increased Capital Increased Capit.al Increased Capital
Cost/Ton % Increase Cost/Ton % Increase Cost/Ton • % Increase
Municipal: Sensitlve* $3.99 144% $0.93 56% $0.51 52%
Nonsensjtiye 1.49 54% 0.33 20% 0.17 i7%
Industrial: Sensitive 2.62 94% 0.62 37% 0.35 35%
: Nonsensitlve 0.22 8% 0.07 4% 0.05 5%
“ Pollution Control
Residues: Sensitive 2.62 94% 0.62 37% 0.35 35%
Nonsensitive 0.12 8% 0.02 1% 0.01 1%
* Baseline constructton costs: 10 TPD, $2.28; 100 TPD, $1.66; 300 TPD, $0.99.
-------
Increased energy use during landfill operation. For existing facilities
the primary energy consuming technology is that of impermeable cover. It
has been assumed that municipal facilities for both sensitive and non-
sensitive areas apply daily cover. Consequently, energy costs will not
increase. For the remainder of the waste types, it has been assumed that
daily cover is not a common practice and that Impermeable cover application
• is energy intensive, a 100% increase in energy requirements for those sites
which currently do not apply daily cover might be a reasonable estimate.
Consumption is primarily in the fuel energy resource area.
-146-
-------
6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE USES;
SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
6.1 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE USES
Since the Guidelines focus on improving environmental conditions,
it is important to examine the nature of the changes that they will
induce. Implementation of the Guidelines would involve the irre-
trievable expenditure of certain resources. The technologies Se-
lected over and above those currently used to meet Guidelines objec-
tives would necessitate the increased use of manpower and energy to
design, install and operate landfill facilities. Once expended, this
energy and labor would be irretrievabl9 for other uses.
Certain materials are required for implementing specific tech-
nologies such as cover soils, impermeable liners or barriers, lea-
chate and gas collection devices, and monitoring devices. Under
the GuideVines, these materials would be committed to use at the
site for at least the lifetime of the landfill and until potential
pollution oroblems have abated. Given the difficulty in determining
when the landfill has completely stabilized, and the fact that
certain materials will suffer varying degrees of deterioration within
the site, these materials should be considered as irreversibly incor-
porated into the landfill.
Waste materials burled in a landfill undergo varying amounts
of decomposit f on. The heterogenous nature of many landfills con-
tributes to the difficulty in recovering recyclable materials. Given
the current state of resource recovery technology and the high
cost of excavating a site, metals and other elements would poten-
tially not be retreivable for recycling or other resource recovery
programs.
In addition to materials, the costs incurred by landfill owners
and operators to initiate and maintain improved construction and
operating procedures, as well as the increased administrative and
managerial costs incurred by all levels of government for inspec-
tion, surveillance, and monitoring of facilities, would be irre-
trievable.
In summary, certain Irreversible commitments of resources will
be required as a result of Guidelines implementation. In effect,
however, the reduction or elimination of potential negative
environmental Impacts in the air, surface water, and qroundwater
arenas, will result in an increase in the long term productivity of
the nation’s environs and will result in increased levels of pro-
tection of public health and safety.
-147-
-------
6.2 SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM USE
Certain short-term demands on the environment, in addition
to irretrievable usage of some resources, are necessary to meet
the Guidelines requirements of promoting long-term environ-
mental protection.
Planning requirements involved with implementing the Guide-
lines necessitate some short-term economic and manpower ex-
penditures. As a result of planning and incorporating additional
technology, increases can be expected in the capital energy
expenditures of operating a landfill disposal facility. Increases
in the economic costs of disposal can therefore be expected. However,
these initial short-term uses potentially can be mitigated by the
eventual.energy savings and overall economic savings in reduced
diposal problems, and in reduced air and water pollution cleanup
efforts that are now required by oresently inadequate disoosal methods.
These and other short—term uses , such as construction effects
associated with installing additional control techniques, may in-
crease noise levels, create dust, temporarily disrupt the environ-
ment and place immediate aemands on particular resources, but they
will result in minimizing the widespread effect of groundwater,
surface water, and air pollution and will protect certain environ-
mentally sensitive areas.
Increased economic costs of landfilling will also affect re-
search and development in resource recovery areas. While more ef-
ficient and effective landfilling practices may reduce the need
for alternative disposal methods, the initial increased cost of
meeting the Guidelines and the growing limitations on land availa-
bility, especially in densely populated urban areas, can give added
incentive to long-term resource recovery programs.
In summary, while a variety of short term requirements and
impacts in the environment will ensue as a result of technology imple-
mentation, in the lang--term the r su1t will be an increased level of
protection for the environment, which in turn implies best use of the
nation’s environmental resources. Additionally, increased costs of
landfilling provide additional Irirnetus towards resource recovery
technology develoornent, which in turn results in reducerl environmental
demands due to landfilling disposal requirements.
-148-
-------
7.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
7.1 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
As per the Summary statement, this impact statement has been distrib-
uted to a substantive number of organizations for public com nt.
-149-
-------
7.2 PERTINENT PUBLIC HEARING
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
Public hearings on this draft impact statement have been scheduled
as follows:
Washington, D.C. May 15, 1979
Houston, Texas May 17, 1979
-150-
-------
BIBL IOGRAPHY
American Defense Preparedness Association.
treatment in the military explosives and
3 vol. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental
pagings.
Technical report; wastewater
propellants production industry,
Protection Agency, 1975. Various
American Society of Civil Engineers. Sanitary landfill; ASCE manuals and
reports on engineering practice, No. 39. tlew York, 1976. Various pagings.
American Society of Planning Officials. State solid waste management; No. 1,
landfill siting and state government relations. Contract No. S—804732-Oll.
[ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 1977. 33 p.
American Society of
six case studies.
mental Protection
Planning Officials. State solid waste management; v.2.,
Contract No. S-804732-O1-l. [ Washington], U.S. Environ-
Agency, Dec. 1977. 134 p.
American Society of Planning Officials. State solid waste management; v.3,
technical aids for landfill siting. Contract No. S-804732-Ol—l. [ Wash-
ington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 1977. 38 p.
Applied Management Sciences, Inc.
ment; a profile of its resources
posal. Environmental Protection
Environmental Protection Agency,
Arthur 0. Little, Inc. Economic assessment of
trol guidelines for the inorganic chemicals
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office
Environmental Protection Agency, Oct. 1976.
potential hazardous waste con-
industry. Washinqton,
of Solid Waste Management, U.S.
320 p.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Integrated economic impact assessment of hazardous
waste management regulations; preliminary draft report. Washington,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protectiarv
Agency, May 1978.
ASCE Solid Waste Management Committee of the Environmental
Division. Sanitary landfill. American Society of Civil
Attenuation of inorganic landfill leachate constituents in
York; executive summary. (unknown author). 28 p.
Enqineering
Engineers, 976.
soils of New
Augenstein, D.C., et. al. Fuel gas recovery from controlled landfilling .f
municipal wastes. Resource Recovery and Conservation , 2(2):103-117.
Balefill costs more initially, but can pay off in public acceptance, lower
operating dollars. Solid Waste Systems , 6(2):16_i8, Mar./Apr. 1977.
The private sector in solid waste manage-
and contribution to collection and dis-
Publication SW-5ld.l. Washington, U.S.
1973.
-151-
-------
Banerji, S K., ed. Proceedings; management of gas and leachate in land-
fills; third annual municipal solid waste reserach symposium, St. Louis,
March 14-16, 1977. EPA-600/9-77—026. Cincinnati, Muricioal Environ-
ment3l Rese irch Laboratory, Scot. 1977. 2 p.
Batt 11e Coluribus Laboratories. Cost of coripliance with hazardous waste
management regulations. Washington, D.C.: Hazardous Waste Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May 1978. Various pagings.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final report; assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices - electroplating and metal finishing industries -
captive shops. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.
52 p. + Appendixes.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final report; assessment of industrial
hazardous waste practices - electroplating and metal finishing industries
job shops. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
Various pagings.
Bendersky, D. Resource recovery from municipal wastes - a review and analysis
of existing and emerging technology. Albany, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, Undated. 33 p.
Black, R.J., A.J. Mohich, A.J. Klee, H.L. Hickman, Jr., and R.D. Vaughan.
The national solid wastes survey; an interim report - 1968 national sur-
vey of community solid waste practices. U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare. Public Health Service, Consumer Protection and En-
vironmental Health Service, Environmental Control Administration, 1968. 53p.
Blanjet, M.J. Treatment and utilization of landfill gas. Mountain View pro-
ject feasibility study. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1977. 115 p.
Bond, R.G. and C.D. Straub. Handbook of environmental control; vol. II.
CRC Press, 1973.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Cost estimating handbook for transfer, shredding
and sanitary landfilling of solid waste. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1976. 77 p.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Draft environmental impact statement, proposed
regulation, criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities;
application of sludge to land used for production of food chain crops:
evaluation of the cost methodology and recommendations for revision.
[ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978. 19 p. + Appendixes.
-152-
-------
Boyd, G.B., and M.B. Hawkins. Methods of predicting solid waste charac-
teristics. Environmental Protection Publication SW—23c. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 28 P.
Brown, C.D. Treatment of leachate from landfills. Presented to Dr.
R.L. Johnson, May 16, 1978. 23 p.
Brown, J.A., ed. Proceedings of the American Defense Preparedness Asso-
ciation’s Symposium on demilitarization of conventional munitions.
Hawthorne, Nevada, April 20-22, 1976. Defense Documentation Center and
National Technical Information Service. Unpaged.
Brunner, D.R. and D.J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and operation.
[ Washington], U.S. Environmenta1 Protection Agency, 1972. 59 p.
Brunner, D.R., S.J. Hubbard, D.J. Keller, and J.L. Newton. Closing open
dumps. Environmental Protection Publication SW-6lts. [ Washington], U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. 19 p.
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Coninerce. Statistical abstracts
of the U.S.; 98th annual edition. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1977.
Caffrey, P., M. David, and R.K. Ham. Evaluation of environmental impact
of landfills. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division , 101 (EEl):
55-69.
Carison, J.A. Recovery of landfill gas at Mountain View; engineering site
study. Environmental Protection Publication SW-587d. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1977. 63 p.
Caterpillar, Inc. Planning a successful sanitary landfill. Form No.
AEDG 5409 Rev. 01.
Cavanagh, T.E. Jr. Sanitary landfill management. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Land/Noise Pollution Control, Land Permit
Section, undated. Various pagings.
CDM, Inc. A case study nf the Los Angeles County Palos Verdes landfill gas devel-
opment project. [ Cincinnati] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,l977. 101 p.
Chan, P.C., et al. Sorbents for fluoride, metal finishing, and petroleum
sludge leachate contaminant control. [ Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, March 1978. 84 p.
Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of leachate treatment;
volume I; characterization of leachate. EPA-600/2-77-l86a. Lincinnati,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Sept. 1977. 210 p.
-153-
-------
Chian, E.S.K. and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of leachate treatment;
volume II; biological and physical-chemical processes. EPA-600/2-77-
186b. Cincinnati. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Nov.
1977. 245 p.
City phases out landfill for balefill with lower costs. Waste Age , Apr.-May
1976, p. 12.
Coe, J.J. Effect of solid waste disoosal on groundwater auality. Journal
of the American Water Works, Association , December 1970. pp 776-783
Conolly, J.A. Solid waste management; worldwide solid waste literature -
collection/retrieval services available from EPA. 3rd ed. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-636. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977. 8 p.
Costle, D.M. EPA policy to protect and preserve the Nation’s environmentally
significant agricultural lands. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977.
Costle, D.M. EPA policy to protect environmentally significant agricultural
lands. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 8,
1978. 8 p. (Unpublished memorandum).
County landfill gives as it receives. Public Works , l09(2):75-76, Feb. 1978.
Crumpler, E.P., Jr. Management of metal-finishing sludge. Environmental Pro-
tection Publication SW-561. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1977. 62 p.
Cummins, R.L. Effects of land disposal of solid wastes on water quality. [ Cin-
cinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968. 30 p.
Dawson, R. Leather tanning industry; sludge problems ahead. Sludge Magazine;
Municipal & Industrial Residuals Management . (5):24-27 (Sept.-Oct. 1978),
Day, H.R. Disposal of dilute pesticide solutions. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-5l9. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
18 p.
DeGeare, T.V., Jr. Section 4004: two views of the landfill criteria; a land-
fill or a dump? the EPA explains the new criteria. Waste Age , Apr. 1978.
6 p.
Delaney, J.E., ed. Proceedings; sanitary landfilling; joint conference of the
National Solid Waste Management Association and the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Kansas City, Missouri, November 14-15, 1972. [ Washington],
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. 190 p.
-154-
-------
Department of Natural Resources. Report on the state of Wisconsin solid
waste management plan. State of Wisconsin. 1974. 104 p.
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. Economic impact analysis
of anticipated hazardous waste management regulations on the leather
tanning and finishing industry. Soringfield, Va ., National Technical
Information Service, U.S. Department of Comerce, 1978. 113 p.
District of Columbia Department of Sanitary Engineering. Kenilworth model
sanitary landfill; interim report on a solid waste demonstration
project, December 1967-January 1969. Washington, U.S. ‘Government
Printing Office, 1969. Various pagings.
Division of Environment. Article 29 - solid waste management standards and
regulations. Topeka, Kansas, Kansas Department of Health and Envi-
ronment, Undated. 116 p.
Dunne, N.G. Successful sanitary landfill siting: county of San Bernar-
dino, California. Environmental Protection Publication SW-617.
[ Washington] , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. 31 p.
Easterbrook, G.E. Modern landfill planning: no game of chance. Waste Age ,
September 1977, pp. 30-31.
Eichenberger, B., J.R. Edwards, K.Y. Chen, and R.D. Stephens. A case
study of hazardous wastes in class I landfills. [ Cincinnati], U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, June 1978. 106 p.
Ellison, W., and R.S. Kaufmann. Pollution control; toward safe scrubber
sludge disposal. Power , 54-57. July 1978.
Energy recovery from solid wastes; considerations for determining national
potential. Technical Bulletin 6(10):l—6, Nov. 1975.
Energy Resources Company. Economic impact analysis of anticipated hazar-
dous waste regulations on the industrial organic chemicals, pesticides,
and explosives industries. Washington, D.C’_: Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jan.
1978. 277 p.
Engdahl, R.B. Solid waste processing; a state-of-the-art report on unit
operations and processes. Public Health Service Publication No. 1856.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Olfice, 1969. 72 p.
Engdahl, R.B., and N.L. Drobny. Emerging technologies for municipal solid
waste. Battelle Research Outlook , 3(3):16.. 19, 1971.
Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Chemical and physical effects of municipal landfills on un-
derlying soils and groundwater. [ Cincfnnatf],U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1978. 140 p.
-155-
-------
Environmental Protection Agency; pesticides and pesticide containers -
regulations for acceptance and recommended procedures for disposal
and storage. Federal Register , 39(85):15235-15241, May 1974.,
Environmental Protection Agency. Polychiorinated biphenyl-containing
wastes-disposal procedures. Federal Register , 41(64):14133-14136,
April 1976.
ERT. Working paper #1; approach to guideline development for disposal of
municipal waste water sludges and related residuals. Washington,
October 1977. Various pagings.
Esmali, II. Control of gas flow from sanitary landfills. Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division , lOl(EE4):555-565.
Everett, Lorne G., et. al. Monitoring groundwater quality: methods and
costs. EPA-600/4-76-023. Las Veqas, Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, May 1976. 140 p.
E.V.S. Consultants Ltd. Leachate toxicity measurements using the residual
oxygen bio assay method. Solid Waste Management Branch Report EPS
4-EC-76-11. Environmental Conservation Directorate, Dec. 1976.
Farb, D.G. Upgrading hazardous waste disposal sites; remedial approaches.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-677. Washington , U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1978. 40 p.
Farb, D. and S.D. Ward. Information about hazardous waste management
facilities. Environmental Protection Publication SW-145. [ Washington],
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 130 p.
Federal Power Commission. The status of flue gas desulfurization appli-
cations in the United States: a technological assessment. Washington,
July 1977. 79 p.
Federal Solid Waste Management Programs. Cost estimating handbook for
transfer, shredding and sanitary landfilling of solid waste. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-124C. [ Washington], U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1976. 78 p.
Fenn, D.G., K.J. Hanley, and T.V. DeGeare. Use of the water balance method
for predicting leachate generation from solid waste disposal sites.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-168. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1975. 40 p.
Fields, T., Jr., and A.W. Lindsey. Landfill disposal of hazardous wastes:
a review of literature and known approaches. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-165. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975. 36 p.
-156-
-------
Fighting leachates in the trenches. Waste Age , January 1978, 3 p.
Flint, R.F. Glacial and quaternary qeoloqy. New York, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1971. 892 p.
Flower, F.B., et. al. A study of vegetation problems associated with refuse
landfills. [ Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental Research Labora-
tory, May 1978. 130 p.
Floyd G. Brown and Associates Ltd. Comparing conventionally landfilled
solid waste with processed landfilled solid waste. [ Washington],
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.
Foster D. Snell, Inc. Final report; assessment of industrial hazardous
waste practices, rubber and plastics industry; executive summary.
[ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 55 p.
Fred C. Hart Associates, In c 1 Analysis c,f T.echuology , Prey.alence and
Economics of Landfill Disposal In the United States . US, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1979.
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. Final reDort; dèmonstration/instruction 1
materials for technical assistance in hazardous waste manaaernent.
[ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. Various
pagings.
Fuller, W.H. Investigation of landfill leachate pollutant attenuation by
soils. [ Cincinnati] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
219 p.
Fuller, W.H. Movemeni. of selected metals, asbestos, and cyanide in soil:
applications to waste disposal problems. [ Cincinnati], U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, April 1977. 243 p. and Addendum.
Fuller, W.H., ed. Residual management by land disposal; proceedings of the
hazardous waste research symposium. Environmental Protection Agency
600/9-76-015. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 270 p.
Fuller, W.H., ed. Residual management by land disposal; proceedings of the
hazardous waste research symposium held at The University of Arizona,
Tucson, February 2,3 and 4, 1976, and Co-sponsored by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
and by the Department of Soils, Water and Engineering Agricultural
College, The Univeristy of Arizona, July 1976. Cincinnati. 270 p.
Fungaroli, A.A. Pollution of subsurface water by sanitary landfills. V. 1.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-l2rg. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1971.
Gas from garbage a reality in Southern California. Pipeline and Gas Journal .
-157-
-------
Genetelli, E.J. and J. Cirello, eds. Gas, and Leachate from Landfills;
Formation, Collection and Trei6i nt; Proceedings of a Research Sym-
posium held at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, t rch 25
and 26, 1975, and cosponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Solid and I lazardous Waste Research Division and Region II,
and by the Department of Environmental Science, Cook College, Rutgers
University. Cincinnati, ?v rch 1976. 190 p.
Geswein, Allen J. Liners for land disposal sites; an assessment. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-137 (Washington) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1975. 66p.
Chassemi M. et al. Disposing of small batches of hazardous wastes.
Environmei iTI’rOtectiOfl Publication SW-562. (Washington), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 22 p.
Ghassemi, M. and S.C. Quinlivan. Landfills for pesticide waste disposal.
Environmental Science Technology , 10:1209, Dec. 1976.
Gibb, J.P. et al. Field verification of toxic waste retention by soils
at disposal sites. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, M.inicipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Undated. l66p. (Preliminary Draft)
Goldberg, Theodore L. Improving rural solid waste management practices.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-l07. (Washington), U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1973. 83 p.
Goodwin, R.H. and W.A. Niering. Inland wetlands of the United States;
evaluated as potential registered, natural landmarks. NI’S Pub.144
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975, 550 p.
Creco, J.R. How some states are c1 fining sanitary landfills. Solid
Wastes ?v nagement 20(4): 26 (5p).
Greco, J.R. The marriage may succeed but the proposal needs work.
Waste Age , June 1978, 5p.
Greco, J.R. Renewing the land; new uses for landfill. Solid Wastes
! nagement , 26, 28, 32, 36, 79, ! rch 76.
Griffin, R.A. and N.F. Shimp. Attenuation of pollutants on municipal
landfill-leachate by clay minerals. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1978. 147 p.
Handbook of solid waste management. Wilson, D.G. . New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1977. 752 p.
Hass, J.C. and K. Ladd. Environmentally acceptable indf ill for air
quality control system sludge. Oklahoma State University, 7 p.
-158-
-------
Haxo, H.E. Jr. and R.M. White; Evaluation of liner materials exposed to
leachate; second interim report. Cincinnati, u.s. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, September 1976. 54 p.
Haxo, I-I.E. Jr., R.S. Haxo, and R.M. White. Liner materials exposed
to hazardous and toxic sludges; first interim report. Cincinnati,
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, June 1977. 63 p.
Hekimian, K.K. Landfill siting calls for engineering, EIR and good
public relations. Solid Waste Systems , 20-22, Aug. 1977.
Hickman, H.L. Jr. Solid waste management. District HeatinZ 57 (1):
18-19, 22-24 (Sumner 1971).
Hilimer, T.J. Jr. Economics of transporting waste water sludge.
Public Works 108 (9):11o-111, Sept. 1977.
Hitte, S.J. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste and sewage sludge into
methane; an evaluation of the potential for processing organic wastes
by using a controlled anaerobic digestion process to produce maximum
amounts of methane and recyclable materials without causing air pollu-
tion. Compost Science-Journal of Waste Recyc1in , 17(1) Jan. -Feb.
1976.
Houle, M.J. et al. Migration of hazardous substances through soil;
Part I, electroplating, chlorine production, nickel-cadmium battery,
water base paint, and pigment wastes. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air , Land and Water Use, Municipal En-
vironmental Research Laboratory, Undated. 258 p. (Preliminary draft,
Interagency Agreement EPA- IAG-04-0443)
How to determine acreage requirements and disposal costs based on popula-
tion and refuse generation rates. Solid Waste Management / Refuse
Removal Journal , Jan 73.
Industrial Waste Management: Seven Conference Papers Presented at the
National Conference on Management and Disposal of Residues from the
Treatment of Industrial Wastewaters, Washington, DC., February
1975. u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. ill p.
Ivaska, J.S. ABC’s of landfill operation and equipment selection.
Public Works, 108(1) : 44-46, Jan. 1977.
Jacobs Engineering Co. Assessment of hazardous waste practices in the
petroleum refining industry. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1976. 353 p.
-159-
-------
James, S.C. Metals in immicipal landfill leachate and their health
effects. American Journal of Public Health , 67(5):429-432,
!‘ y 1977.
Jensen, Michael E. Observations of continental European solid waste
management practices. Public Health Service Publication No. 1880.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 46 p.
John Deere. Refuse control; where to start.., points to consider...
operating methods .... A-l82l-8-76, 31 p.
Johnson, P.C. and S.J. Endlich. Landfill hearings can speed or slow
approval permits. Solid Waste Systems , 6(1):28 30, Jan/Feb. 1977.
Jones, J. Disposal of power plant wastes. Washington, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1978. 20 p.
Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.
I-kzardous waste in Kentucky; a survey. Frankfort, Kentucky: Division
of lkzardous Waterial and Waste Menagement, Bureau of Environmental
Protection, Jan. 1978. 130 p.
Kentucky State Department of Health. An industrial solid waste manage-
ment program for Kentucky. Division of Solid Waste Disposal, July
1971. 111 p.
Kentucky State Department of Health. Solid waste service system
administration. Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Feb. 1972. 81 p.
Kispert, R.G., S.E. Sadek, and D.L. Wise. An economic analysis of
fuel gas production from solid waste. Resource Recovery and Conser-
vation 1(1):95-109.
Knap, A.H. Solid waste sampling; a field and laboratory technique.
Waste Age , June 1977, 3 p.
Kohan, A.M. A sunm ry of hazardous substance classification systems.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-l7l. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975. 55 p.
Kones, T.P. , R.L. Barrows, D.A. Yanggen. Implementing cooperative
solid waste management in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin -
Extension , G2622. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and
Local Affairs and Development, 24 p.
Kruth, M.A., D.H. Booth, and D.L. Yates. Creating a countywide solid
waste management system; the case study of Humphreys County,
Tennessee. Environmental Protection Publication SW-hO.. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 15 p.
-160-
-------
Landfill criteria “reasonable” but need some work. NSUMA Reports ,
July 1978, 2 p.
Landfill-generated gas: time bomb or town benefit? American City and
County , April 1978, 3 p.
Larson, G. Utility concept dsecribed as key for managers wanting practical,
effective solid waste plans. Solid Waste Systems , 21-22, 24-28, Aug.-
Sept. 1976.
Leachate control system tested at laidfill. Public Works , 107(12);
74, Dec. 1976
League of Women Voters. ! tinicipal sludge: what shall we do with it?;
disposal alternatives. Washington, League of Women Voters, 1976. 8 p.
Lehman, J.P. Federal surveys of industrial waste. Environmental Pro-
tection Publication SW-545. Washin rton, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1976. 31 p.
Le Grand, H.E. System for evaluation of contamination potential of
some waste disposal sites. 12 p.
Linehan, T.F., Jr. Sanitary landfill leachate generation, composition,
and travel. Presented to Professor Rein Laak, Solid Waste Engineering.
Little, H.R. Design criteria for solid waste management in recreational
areas. Environmental Protection Publication SW-9l ts. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 68 p.
Lofy, R. and J.R. Perry. Environmental Assessment of Subsurface disposal
of nunicipal was tewater treatment sludge; interim report. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-547C. Washington, U.S. (‘overnment Printing
Office, 1977. 112 p.
Lutton, R.J. and G.L. Regan. Selection and design of cover
for solid waste; interim report. !tmicipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati (Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAC-D7-01097).
153 p.
Madison study focuses on financial aspects of landfilling uiiiUed trash.
Solid Wastes Management l7(2):30 (4 p).
Madoro, A.W. and J.F. Duff ield. Alternative sources for landfill cover.
Public Works 109 (5):82-83, May 1978.
Mahoney, P.F. ANSWERS project: an answers to a munipal problem. Public
Works , 109 (2):61-64, Feb. 1978.
Mantell, C.L. Solid wastes: origin, collection, processing and disposal.
New York, John Wiley Sons, 1975. 1,127 p.
-161-
-------
Massey, D.T. Attitudes of nearby residents toward establishing sanitary
landfills. ESCS-03. Washington, U.S. ( overnment Printing Office,
1978. 58. p.
Materials recovery; solid waste management guidelines for source separation.
Federal Register, 4l(80):16,950—16,956, April 23, 1976.
Meyers, P.C. Selection of advanced solid waste disposal techniques.
Public Works , 70-71, 96. Aug. 1975.
MITRE Corp. Preliminary working draft environmental impact statement
for Subtitle C, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA);
Vol. Il-Appendices A-T-Supporting Documentation (Washington), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Feb. 1978.
!‘bntgomery, R.L. and M.J. Bartos. Dredging and the landfill. Waste Aje ,
Oct. 1977, 3 p.
Mooij, H. Landfill research activities in Canada. Environmental Impact
Control Directorate, Environmental Protection Service Report, Waste
Management Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 16 p.
Meoij, H. Procedures for the analysis of landfill leachate; proceedings
of an international seminar. Solid Waste Management Report EPS-4-EC-
75-2. Environmental Conservation Directorate , Oct. 1975. 26 p.
Meoij, H. Solid waste research activities in Canada. Presented at
Fourth Annual Research Symposium “Land Disposal of I-hzardous Wastes,”
EPA-SRI, San Antonio, Mar.. 6-8, 1978. 5 p.
Maoij, H. and F .A. Rovers. Recommended groundwater and soil sampling
procedures; proceedings of an international seminar. Solid Waste
Management Branch Report EPS-4-EC-76-7. Environmental Conservation
Directorate, June 1976.
Mooij, H., F .A. Rovers, and A.A. Sobanski. Recommended procedures for
landfill monitoring programme design and implementation; proceedings
of an international seminar. Waste Management Branch Report EPS 4-
EC-77-3. Environmental Impact Control Uirectorate, May 1977. 25 p.
Meoij, H., F.A. Rovers,and J.J. Tremblay. Procedures for landfill gas
monitoring and control; proceedings of an international seminar.
Waste Management Branch Report EPS 4-EC-77-4. Environmental Impact
Control Directorate, Oct. 1977.
Mahich, A.J., A.J. Klee, and P.W. Britton. Preliminary data analysis;
1968 national survey of community solid waste practices. U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Public Health Service;
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service; Environmental
Control Administration, 1968. 13.5. Covernment Printing Office,
483 p.
-162-
-------
Munnecke, D.,H.R. Day, and H.W. Trask. Review of pesticide disposal
research. Environmental Protection Publication SW-527. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 76 p.
National Association of Counties Research Foundation. Suggested solid
waste management ordinance for local government. Environmental Protec-
tion Publication SW-73d. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1974. 23 p.
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. Sanitary landfill, a state-
of-the-art study. Lexington, Mass., 1974. 119 p.
National Commission on Productivity. Report of the solid waste management
advisory group on opportunities for improving productivity in solid
waste collection. Washington, National Commission on Produ tivity,
1973. 46 p.
National League of Cities and United States Conference of Mayors.
Municipal solid waste disposal ... how cities site landfills.
Grant No. T906607010. 72 p.
National monitoring survey. Waste Age , Sept. 1977, pp 18-19.
Neely, G.A. Landfill planning and operation. APWA Reporter , 16-19,
Dec. 1972.
Nesheim, E.E. Land application of wastewater sludge. Public Works ,
109 (6): 98-100, June 1978.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Draft. New
York State comprehensive resource recovery and solid waste management
plan. February 1970.
New York State Depar.tment of Environmental Conservation. Sanitary landfill;
planning, design, operation, maintenance. Bureau of Solid Wastes En-
gineering, 1971. 33 p.
Newest homes in town border on the landfill. Solid Wastes Mana einent
l8(9):16 (3 p).
Newton, M. Model state hazardous waste management act (annotated).
Environmental Protection Publication SW-635. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1977. 55 p.
Noble, G. Sanitary landfill design handbook. Westport, Conn.: Techno-
mic Publishing Company, Inc. 1976. 285 p.
Office of Land Use Coordination. Background paper in support of an EPA
policy to protect environmentally significant agricultural lands.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Undated. 34 p.
Appendixes.
-163-
-------
Office of nagement nd Budget, Executive Office of the President of the
United States. Standard industrial classification manual, 1972.
Washington, US. Government Printing Office, 1972. 649 p.
Office of Solid Waste, Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices,
inorganic chemicals industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975. Various pagings.
Office of Solid Waste. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices:
organic chemicals, pesticides and explosives industries. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Various pagings.
Office of Solid Waste. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices:
paint and allied products industry, contract solvent reclaiming oper-
tions, and factory application of coatings. Washington, U.S. En i -‘ -
mental Protection Agency, 1976. 296 p.
Office of Solid Waste Mangement Programs. Decision-makers guide in solid
waste management. Environmental Protection Publication SW-S0O. Washing-
ton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 158 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Development of construction and
use criteri a for sanitary landfills. Environmental Protection Publica-
tion SW-19d. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.
Office of Solid Waste. Draft environmental impact statement; proposed
criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1978. Various
pagings.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. EPA activities under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976; annual report to the
President and the Congress fiscal year 1977. Environmental Protection
Publication SW- 663. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
80 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Evaluation of solid waste
baling and balefills. V.1. v.2. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-lll c. 1. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,1975.
153 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Guidelines for local govern-
ments on solid waste management. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-17C. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 184 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Hazardous waste disposal
damage reports. Environmental Protection Publication SW-lSl.
(Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 8 p.
-164-
-------
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Pharmaceutical industry;
hazardous waste generation, treatment, and disposal. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-508. W hington, U.S. ( overnment Printing
Office, 1976. 17g p.
Office of Solid Waste. Procedures manual for ground water monitoring
at solid waste disposal facilities. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-611. 269 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Process design manual; municipal sludge landfills.
EPA-625/1-78-019. US. Environmental Protection Agency, Oct. 1978.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Report to Congress; disposal
of hazardous wastes. Environmental Protection Publication SW-uS.
Washii gton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 110 p.
Office of Solid Waste. Solid waste facts, SW-694. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, May 1978. 13 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Solid waste management;
available information materials-interim catalog. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-58.27. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1977. 190 p.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Source separation; the
coninunity and awareness program in Somerville and Marblehead,
Massachusetts. Environmental Protection Publication SW-551.
(Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 81 p.
Office of Water Program Operations. Minicipal sludge management:
environmental factors. EPA 430 /9-77-004 (MCD-28). W hington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
Office of Water Program Operations. !tinicipal sludge management:
environmental factors. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, October 1977. 30 p. Appendixes.
Office of Water Program Operations. M.inicipal sludge management: EPA
construction grants progran; an overview of the sludge management
situation. EPA-430/9-76-009 (MCD-30). Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976. 64 p.
Office of Water Program Operations. Technical bulletin; Evaluation of
land application systems-evaluation checklist and supporting coitrien-
tary. EPA-430/9-75-O01. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office
Mar. 1975. 182 p.
Office of Water Supply. Draft environmental impact statement, state
underground injection control program; proposed regulations (4OCPR
Part 146). Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Undated.
Various pagings.
-165-
-------
Office of 1 ter Supply, and Office of Solid Waste. The report to Congress:
waste disposal practices and their effects on ground water. (Report)
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. 512 p.
Pacey, J. Methane gas in landfills: liability or asset? in Waste
Management Techno1 gy and Resource Energy Recovery . Washiiigton,
D.C. : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976, pp. 168-190.
Park, W.P. Engineering economics; the sanitary landfill-”there goes
the neighborhood ” Consulting Engineer , March, 1976.
Perry, J.R. Sanitary landfill guidelines compliance program; survey of
Federal facilities-Feb. 1976. Office of Solid Waste, 1976.
Personal conimmication. W. Anderson, P.E. Pickard and Anderson, Inc.
June. 1978 (Unpublished information).
Personal conuminication. Federal Insurance Administration. Flood Insurance
Program, Philadelphia, August 1977.
Personal conmunication. C. Fogg, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Environmental Services Division, September 22,
1978.
Personal coninunication. Mikohier, U.S. Department of Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, May 31, 1978.
Personal conmuinication. J. Sanislow, Division Representative, New York
City, Army Corps of Engineers, Thnergency Operations Branch, September22,
1978.
Personal conmunication, K. Schreiner, Official Contact, U • S. Department
of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serviee, Office of Endangered Species,
September 29, 1978.
Pesticides-EPA proposal on disposal and storage. Federal Register , 39
(220) :36847-36950, Oct. 15, 1974.
Pohiand, Frederick G., Sanitary landfill stabilization with leachate
recycle and residual treatment. EPA-600/2-75-043. Cincinnati, M.micipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Oct. 1975. 106 p.
Polychiorinated bij henyl -containing wastes; disposal procedures. Federal
Register , 41(64):l4136, April, 1976.
Porter, K. W., D . A. Yanggen, M. T. Beatty, J .A. Gams, S. ( ronbeck, and
T.P. Kures. Technical guide for solid waste management; a compendium
of published and original material. University of Wisconsin-Extension,
G2427. Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources and Local Affairs
and Development, 62 p.
-166-
-------
Porter, W.K. D.A. Yanggen, T.P. Kunes, S. ( ronbeck, M.T. Beatty, and
J.A. Gains. Planning for cooperative solid waste management in Wisconsin.
University of Wisconsin-Extension, G2426. Wisconsin Departments of
Natural Resources and Local Affairs and Development, Oct. 1972.
Proceedings of the Fourth National Congress on Waste Management Technology
and Resource and Energy Recovery, Atlanta, Nov. 12-14, 1975. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-8p. (Washington), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1976. 382 p.
Processes Research, Inc. Alternatives for h&ardous waste management in
the organic chemical, pesticides and explosives industries. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Various pagings.
RCRA poses grave problems for landfill operators, state and local agen-
cies, and EPA itself. Solid Wastes Management , 21(2):42,44, Feb. 1978.
Regional planning , wise equipment choice behind successful landfill
operations. Solid Waste Systems , S(4):8-l0, Aug./Sept. 1976.
Reindi, J. Landfill course; interrelationships within the solid wastes
system. Solid Wastes Management , 22-23, 54-57, Apr. 1977
Reindi, J. Landfill course; examining disposal and recycling techniques
for solid wastes. Solid Wastes Management , 66,68,70,92,94, May 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; solid wastes disposal depends on landfill
techniques. Solid Wastes Management , 22-24,48 1 ,June 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; managing gas and leachate production on
landfills. Solid Wastes Management , 30-31, 68, 86, 88, 90, July
1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; proper site selection requires balancing of
established criteria. Solid Wastes Maiagement , 26-27, 71, Aug. 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; gathering data; most important step in
designing landfill. Solid Wastes Management , 42,44, 74, 76, 78,
Sept. 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; evaluating design alternatives for landfill
construction. Solid Wastes Management , 44, 46, 48, 50 66, Oct. 1977.
Reindl, J. Landfill course; operational efficiencies must be built into
sites at design stage. Solid Wastes Management , 60, 62, 64, 66, Nov.
1977.
Reindi, J. Landfill course; equipment needs determined by site operational
factors. Solid Wastes Management , 34, 36, 38, 52, Dec. 1977.
-167-
-------
Reindi, J. Landfill course; closing of landfill needs to avoia future
site problems 0 Solid Wastes Management , 22-24, 2 , o4, t , Jan
1978.
Reindi, J Landfill course; solid wastes disposal depends on landfill
techniques. Solid 1 stes Management 20(6):22 (4p).
Reindi , J. Landfill course; managing gas and leachate production on
landfills. Solid Wastes Management 20(7):30 (7p).
Research publications of solid and hazardous waste research division
disposal branch. SHWRD Research Reports relating to waste disposal,
July 1973. Sept. 1977.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Public Law 94-580,
94th Congress. Oct. 21, 1976.
Resource Technology Corporation. Guidelines for resource recovery froi.i
municipal wastes. Apr.1977. 26 p.
The report to Congress; waste disposal practices and their effects OIL
groundwater. Washington,L).C.: Office of Water Supply and Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Jan. 1977. 512 p.
Rossoff, J., et. at., Disposal of by-products from nonregenerable flue gas
desulfurization systems: second progress report. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Hay 1977, 278 p.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Pollution prediction techniques for waste disposal
siting; a state-of-the-art assessment. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-162c. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1978
Russell, J.R. Solid waste management systems in the rural Southeast.
Agricultural Economic Report No • 333. Washington, U.S. iiepartment
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1976. 19 p
Sather, J.H. ed. Proceedings of the National Wetland Classification
and Invent y Workshop, thiversity of Maryland, College Park, Ziary-
land, July 20-23, 1975. Washington, U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. (conducted
by the Wildlife Management Institute ), July 1976. 248 p. + Addendum.
Schalit, L. , et al. Hazardous solid waste streams from organic chemicals
manufacturing and related industries. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Undated. Various pagings.
Schomaker, N.R. Current research on land disposal of hazardous wastes,
in Residual Management by Land Disposal: Proceedings of the Hazardous
Waste xesearcli symposnun , Feb. 2-4, L976.University of Arizona.
-168-
-------
Schonmker , N.B. and M.I1. Roulter. Current EPA research activities in
solid waste management, in Research Sy sium on Gas and Leachate
from Landfills: Formation, collection and Treatment , krc1i Z5-Z6,
19Th, Riitgers, State University of New Jersey .
Schultz, D.T. Landfill recycles waste papermill sludge. Public Wor$ ,
l09( ):83-85, June 1978.
SCS Engineers. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices- -
leather tanning and finishing industry. Washingtion, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1976. 233 p.
SCS Engineers. L ta base for standards/regulations development for
land disposal of flue gas sludges. EPA-600/7-77-118. Cincinnati,
Ohio, I’tinicipal Environmental Research Laboratory, A)ec. 1977 • 284 p.
(USEPA, Office of Research and Development Series in Research Reporting).
SCS Engineers. Study of engineering and water management practices that
will minimize the infiltration of precipitation into trenches containing
radioactive waste; final report. Contract No. 68-03-2452. Las Vegas,
National Environmental Research Center, U.S. linvironmental Protection
Agency, Sept. 1977. 85 p.
Serper, A. Anticipation of environmental impacts of facilities urged.
Solid Wastes Management , 21(3): 60,62,64,88, tbr. 1978.
Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Circular 39, Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1956. 67 p.
Shea, T.G. and J.D. Stockton. Wastewater sludge utilization and disposal
costs. EPA-430/9-75-0l-5 (I tD-12). Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975. 13 p.
Shilesky, D.M. et al. 1st draft final report; solid waste landfill
practices. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September
1978. Various pagings.
Shultz, D.W. ed . Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes; Proceedings of the
Fourth Aniiii . Research Symposium held at San Antonio, Texas, t rch 6,
7 and 8, 1978. Co sponsored by Southwest Research Institute and the
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Cincinnati,undated. (Preliminary draft) 425 p.
Shuster, K. A. Leachate damage assessment: an approach. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 56 p.
Shuster, K.A. Leachate damage assessment. Case study of the Peoples
Avenue solid waste disposal site in Rockford, Illinois. Environmental
Protection Publication .SW- 517. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1976. 25 p.
-169-
-------
Skinner 1 J.H. Reduce the incentive to waste. Presented at 80th National
Meeting, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Boston, Sept. 8,
1975. 9 p.
Sludge disposal: the problem, the search, the solution. Public Works ,
l( (3):58—6l, Mar. 1978.
Smith, F.A. Comparative estin tes of post-consumer solid waste.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-148. (Washington), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 18 p.
Smith, Prank Austenin. Quantity and composition of post-consumer solid
waste: naterial flow estimates for 1973 and baseline future projections.
! ! 2.L ApriL 1976.
Smith, F.A. Resource recovery plant cost estimates: a comparative
evaluation of four recent dryshredding designs. Environmental Pro-
tection Publication SW-163 in the Solid Waste Management Series.
Washington, July 1975. 20 p.
Smith, F.L. Jr. A solid waste estimation procedures material flows
approach. Emiironnental Protection Agency, 1975 • 56 p.
Smith, J.E. Inventory of energy use in wastewater sludge treatment
and disposal. Industrial Water Engineering , July/August 1977, p.20-
26.
Solid and hazarous waste research division outputs. Disposal Tec} nology
Program, Sept. 1977. Prepared for OR D Program Review.
Solid waste shredding: blueprint for progress. Waste July 1975,
p. 10-15.
Sorg, T.J. and H.L. Lanier, Jr. Sanitary landfill facts. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-4ts. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971. 30 p.
Spindletop Research Inc. Transfer stations; solid waste management
handbook. Kentucky State Department of Health, Division of Solid
Waste Disposal, May 1971. 49 p.
State hazardous waste programs; proposed guideJ .ines. Federal Register ,
43( 2):4366-4373, Feb. 1, 1978.
State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Solid Waste
Management I.kiit. Operating Connecticut’s land disposal areas; a text-
book for the man on the land disposal site • Environmental Protection
Publication, Region 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.90 p.
-170-
-------
Stearns, R.P. and J.P. Woodyard. The impact of resource recovery on urban
landfill requirements. Waste Age Jan. 1977, 6 p.
Stearns, R.P. and J. P. ,odyard. Resource recovery and the need for
sanitary landfills. Public 108(9):106-109, Sept. 1977.
Steiner. R.L. and R. Kantz. Sanita$’y andfiII; a bibliography. i’Public
Health Service Publication no. 1819. (Environmental Protection Pub-
lication SW-4 rg. 1). [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1974. 34 p.
Stewart, W.S. State-of-the-art study of land inçotmdment techniques.
Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research
and Development, Municipal, Environmental Research Laboratory, Undated,
77 p. (Prepublication Report). Grant no. R.-803585.
Stone, R. Reclamation of landfill methane and control of off-site migration
hazards. Solid Wastes Management 21(7): 52—54, ‘69.
Stump, P.L. ed. Proceedings of a Symposium; Solid Waste Demonstration
Projects,tincinnati, Ohio, y 4-6, 1971. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-4 p. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
256 p.
&*ssnmn, D.B. Co-disposal of sewage sludge and solid wastes-it rks.
American City and County . ( t. 1977.
Sverdrup S. Parcel and Associates, Inc. Sludge, handling and disposal
practices at selected municipal wastewater treatment plants. Washing-
ton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1977. 56 p.
Swartzbaugh, J.T., R.L. Hentrich, Jr.,and G. Sabel. valuation of
landfilled municipal and industrial solid wastes. Cincinnati, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,.
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Undated. 130 p. (Pre-
publication Copy). Contract No. 68-03-2120
Teipel, J.A. Ekllas’solid waste plan in its second decade. Public Works ,
109(5):60-61, May 1978.
Thompson, B. and I. Zandi, Futtne of sanitary landfill. Joi.nnal of
the Environmental Engineering Division . 101 (EE1):41 -54. -
Thompson, JW. Shredding vs remote landfill costs. Solid Waste
System , 6(3):6-7, May/June 1977.
Toftner, Richard 0. Developing a local and regional solid waste
menagement plan. Environmental Protection Publication SW-101 ts.
(Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. 29 p.
Thermal processing and land disposal of solid waste. Federal Register ,
39(158):29, 328—29338, Apr. 14, 1974.
—171—
-------
Toftner, Richard 0. Developing a state solid waste management plan.
Public Health Service Publication No • 2031 (Environmental Protection
Publication SW-42 ts). (Washington), U.S. Department of Health i4 ation,
and Welfare, 1970. SO p.
Tolmen, A.L. et al. Guidance manual for minimizing pollution from waste
disposal sites. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
83 p.
Transcript; Public hearing on proposed classification criteria for solid
vaste &isposal facilities, Washington, D.C., Apr. 21, 1978. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-38 p. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection.
Agency, 1978.
Transcript; Public t earing on proposed classification Criteria on Solid
taste disposal facilities, Kansas City, Missouri, Apr. 24, 1978.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-39 p. (Washington), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
Transcript; Public h2aring on Proposed classification criteria for Solid
wsste disposal facilities, Portland, Oregon, Apr. 26, 1978. Environmen-
tal Protection Publication SW-40 p. (Washington), U.S. En rironmental
Protection Agency, 1978.
Transcripts; Regional Pdblic m eting on the I’ source conservation and
recovery act of 1976 and appendix: Conference on the Db nagenent of
non-nuclear I izardous wastes, New York City; Feb. 23, 1977. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-14 p. (Washington), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977. 270 p.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental e ffects
Laboratory. Chemical and physical effects of municipal. landfills on
underlying soils and groundwater. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory , ? y 1978 • 140 p.
U.S. Department of Energy. Potential costs to coalfired generating
plants of compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery
kt of 1976. Washington, 1978. kipaged.
U.S (”Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Public 1Iealth Service
Development of construction and use criteria for sanitary landfills;
an interim report. Cincinnati, 1969. Various pagings.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Composting of nunicipal solid
wastes in the thited States. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-47r. (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
103 p.
-172-
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cost estimating handbook for trans-
fer, shredding and sanitary landfilling of solid waste. Environmental
P otection Publication SW-124 c. (Washington ), U • S. Government Printing
Office, 1976. 77 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Disposal of sewage sludge into a
sanitary landfill, Report SW-71d. ington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1974. 418 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Recommended standards for sanitary
landfill design, constriction, and evaluation and nxxtel sanitary land-
fill operation agreement. Environmental Protection Publication Sw-
86ts. (Washi.ngton). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. 23 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sanitary Landfill: Clark County,
Arkansas.
Verment plan: “Only economic disposal method is landfill.” Solid Wastes
nagement 16(13):50 (4 p.).
Versar, Inc., General Technologies Division. Alternatives for hazardous
waste management in the inorganic chemicals industry. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-149c. (Washington), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977.
Versar, Inc • Draft report; alternatives for hazardous waste management
in the inorganic chemicals industry. Washington, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977. Various pagings.
Vigh, C. Sanitary 1andfi1] . location and design; solid waste management
guide. Kentixky State Department of Health, Division of Solid Waste
Disposal, Nov. 1971. 120 p.
Vigh, C. Sanitary landfill operations; solid waste management guide.
Kentixky State Department of Health, Division of Solid Waste Disposal,
Nov. 1971. 76 p.
Vitale, W.V. Subject: FAA guidance concerning sanitary landfills on or
near airports. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Oct. 974. 3 p.
Vydra, 0., and . Grim. County treats shred fill leachate. Civil
Engineering-ASCE . 46(12):55-57, Dec. 1976.
Wainio, P. Baling facility serves growing county. Public Works ,
108(5):85, May 1977.
Walker, W. Where have all the toxics gone? Ground Water , 11 (2),
Mar.-Apr. 1973.
—173—
-------
WAPORA 0 Inc. Assessntent of industrial hazardous waste practices--
electronic compoments nmnufacturing industry, Washington,U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency 1977. 145 p. Appendixes.
WAPORA 0 Inc 0 Final report; assessment of industrial hazardous waste
practices-special machinery manufacturing industries. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. 230 p. + Appendixes.
Water Resources Cou cil 0 Executive Office of the President of the
Iliited States. The n ation° s water resources; the second nation’ s
water assessment by the U 0 S. Water Resources Council, March 1978/
review copy; summary report. Washington. 52 p.
Wentworth 0 H 0 Resource recovery: truth consequences. Washington,
Environmental Action Foundation , 1977. 77 p.
Wilco i 0 J. Municipal waste: economic aspects of technological alterna-
t1V’ 5SO P l49 166 1977.
Wilkinson R .R . 0 G.L . ICelso 0 and F .C . Hopkins. State-of-the-art report,
pestic .de disposal research . Cincinnati; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 0 Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory August 1978 225 p.
Winfrey 9 A .J. Financing solid waste services; solid waste management
guide 0 Kentucky State Department of Health, Division of Solid Waste
Disposals May 1972. 41 o
Wingerter 0 EJ. EPA must be flexible but consistent when applying land-
fill criteria. Solid Wastes Mana.geme t , 20(12)L27, Dec. 1977.
Wingerter 0 E.J. 1977-a year of new respect for waste n nagement.
Solid Wastes nag nt , 2l(1);28, 30, 78, 1978.
Wraw 0 R 0 Section 4004: two views of the lândfiU criteria; criteria
for judging each criterion: a connnantary a3te A e , Apr. 1978, ô p.
Zausner , E. R 0 An accounting system for sanitary landfill operations.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2007 (Environmental Protection
Publication SW-iS ts). (Washington), U.S. Depart.ment of Health,
Education, and Welfare 0 1969. 18 p.
Zausner 0 E .R. Financing solid waste management in small convainities.
Environntenta Protection Publication SW-57 ts. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office 0 1971. 14 p.
1977 upd te for land disposal practices survey. Waste Age , Jan. 1978,
6 p.
-174-
-------
APPENDIX A
LINER MATERIALS EVALUATIONS
Admixed and Asphaltic Materials
(Source: Reference 3)
Asphalt Concrete
Asphalt concrete is a carefully controlled. mixture of asphalt cement and
graded. aggregate that is placed. and, compacted. at elevated. temperatures. As-
phalt concrete is especially well adapted. to the construction of lini igs for
all t7pes of hydraulic structures. It may be used, for the entire lining
structure, or it may be a principal part of a more complex lining. Depending
on mix d.esign and, placement, it may serve as an impermeable layer or as a
porous layer. Properly mixed and placed., asphalt concrete forms a stable,
durable, and, erosion-resistant lining.
Asphalt cements of iO to 50 or 60 to 70 penetration grades are preferable
for hydraulic concrete linings. The lower penetration grades produce har—
der asphalt concrete linings that are more resistant to the destructive action
of water, the growth of vegetation, and. extremes of weather. They are more
stable on side slopes than linings made with sulfur asphalt cements, but they
retain sufficient flexibility to conform to s]ight deformation of the sub—
grade.
Nix design of asphalt concrete for hydraulic linings follows general
principles such as those described in publications of the Asphalt Institute
Table 11 lists some typical mix compositions. The maximum stone size will
generally be from 1.27 to 2.514 cm (1/2 to 1 in.) in size, and the amount of
mineral filler passing a No. 200 sieve will usually be from 8% to 15%. The
mix should have to 9% asphalt content by weight of the total mix. The
aggregate gradation and asphalt content should be such that the iaix will be
stable, yet easily compacted to less than 14% air voids.
Soil Asphalt
Soil asphalt embraces a wide variety of soils, usually those of low
plasticity mixed with a lIquid asphalt. Generally, soil asphalt mixtures
are avoided for lining purposes. There are always exceptions, but soil
aspha:!.t mixes containing cutback asphalts are usually not suitable for lin-
ings. (Cutback asphalts are liquid solutions of asphalt in a volatile sol—
vent. Upon evaporation of the solvent, cutback asphalts assume a heavy con-
sistency typical of the base asphalt. ) Those soil asphalta containing
emulsified asphalts require a waterproofing seal, membrane, or asphalt con-
crete to be placed on top of them. (Asphalt ei ulsions are dispersions of
microscopic asphalt particles in a continuous aqueous phase containix’g small
amounts of chemicals or clay as einu].sifiers. They can be class 4 ri as
anionic, cationic, or nonionic, depending on the electrical charge ai the
asphalt particles. Asphalt emulsions are normally liquid, reverting to the
solid or semisolid. state of the base asphalt after application by means of
evaporation or breaking out of tho water. )
—175—
-------
Sprayed Asphalt Membranes
An asphalt menbrane lining (hot-sprayed type) consists of a continuous
layer of asphalt, usually without filler oi reinforcement of any kind. It is
generally covered or buried to protect it from mechanical dante.ge and to pre-
vent weathering (oxidation) of the surface. Its cover may be another layer
of a multilayer lining structure, but generally it is native soil, gravel,
asphalt macadam, or other substances specifically placed for this purpose.
Asphalt membranes are placed to thicknesses of 0. 8 to 0.79 cm (:3/16 to .5/16
in.) and constitute continuous waterproof layers extending throughout the
length and, breadth of the structure being lined. Asphalt of spe’ ial charac-
teristics is used, to make these membranes into tough, pliable sheets that
readily conform to changes or irregularities in the subgrade. Buried under a
protective coating, an asphalt membrane will retain its tough, flexible qual-
ities indefinitely. It is one of the least expensive types of current liners.
Asphalts used to make membranes must have very low temperature suscepti-
bility’ and, a high degree of toughness and durability. Furthermore, asphalt
for membrane linings must have a high softening point to prevent sagging or
flow down a slope if the cover material should be accident].y removed and the
membrane exposed to the sun. The material must also be sufficiently plastic
at operating temperatures to minimize the danger of rupture from earth move-
ment. Also, it must not exhibit excessive cold flow tendencies in order to
effectively resist the hydraulic head to which it is subjected.
Considerable laboratory research and field trials have gone into the
selection of suitable aspha] .ts. Those that meet the requirements are usually
asphalts produced from selected feedatocks by the use of air-blowing tech-
niques. (Some manufacturers employ chemical modifiers, which are most often
termed. catalysts, in the blowing process.)
Bituminous Seals
Bit’imi nous seals are generally used to seal the surface pores of an as-
phalt mixture serving as a lining or to provide additional assurance for
waterproofing, They are also considered, in some cases where there may be some
reaction between the aggregate in the mix and, the liquid to be stored. There
are basically two types of bituminous seals. One is simply an asphalt cement
(sometimes emulsified asphalt is used, instead) sprayed over the lining surface
at a rate of about 1.1 liter/rn 2 (1 qt/yd 2 ). This method provides a film
appro,rlinately 0.18 cm (1/32 in.) thick. The second type of seal consists of
an asphalt mastic that may contain 25% to 5C% as ha1t cement. The remainder
is a mineral filler such as limestone dust or an inexpensive reinforcing
fiber such as asbestos. This mixture is generally squeegeed on at an applica-
tion rate of about 2.7 to 5.4 kg/rn 2 (5 to 10 lb/ydZ).
-176-
-------
BENTONITE/SOIL
High-swell clay minerals have been widely used to control excessive
seepage in natural soils by decreasing their permeability. Bentonite, one of
the most widely used, clays, is a heterogeneous substance composed of mont-
morillonite and 1l amounts of feldspar, gypsum, calcium carbonate, quartz,
and, traces of other minerals. Bentonite has colloidal properties because of
its very small particle size and the negative charge on the particles. About
70% to 90% of the particles are smaller than 0.6 microl. 25 Bentonite has the
capacity of absorbing approximately five times its weight in water and occu-
pies a volume of 12 to 15 times its dry bulk volume at maximum saturation.2 6
It is this swollen mass that fills the voids in soils that normally would
permit water seepage. These high-swell bentonites are found in Wyoming,
South Dakota, Montana, Utah, and California.
The level of ionic salts found in certain industrial wastes is often
sufficient to reduce the swelling of bentonite and therefore impair its use-
fulness as a sealant. Since the water that initially contacts the bentonite
is most critical to its effectiveness, swelling of the bentonite earl often
be effected by prehydrating the bentonite in fresh water. This forms an
effective seal in the presence of contaminated wastewater. But in the pres-
ence of high quantities of dissolved. salts, the prehydrated. clay eventually
deteriorates. The use of a specially formulated form of bentonite (Saline
Seal) reportedly assures that after prehydration, the bentonite will remain
swollen for a long time and, will not deteriorate as rapidly when exposed to a
high level of tonic contaminants.
Saline Seal bentonite can be distributed over a prepared lagoon surface
at a rate of about 1.82 kg/0.09 m 2 (2.0 lb/ft 2 ) and mixed. thoroughly into the
top 5.1 to 15.2 cm (2 to 6 in.) of soil. The area is then covered with a
minimiun of 1 in. of fresh water to effect prehydration. After 2 to L days,
industrial waste can be put into the lagoon.
Saline Seal can also be placed. on unstable or wet soil surfaces as a
slurry. Slurries are made by mixing approximately 0.23 kg (1/2 lb) of
Saline Seal per 3.8 liters (gal) of water. When distributed over the soil
surface, the slurry will effectively seal the soil surface.
Table 18 compares the relative performance of a bentonite and Saline Seal,
both of which were prehydrated with fresh water. The soil tests were per-
formed. on sandy soil, with 3.6 kg (Li..o lb) of each applied per 0.09 in 2 (ft 2 )
arid thoroughly mixed, into the top 5.1 cm (2 in.) of soil. As the data indi-
cate, the prehydrated. bentonite seal showed signs of deterioration on the
second. day and failed. completely on the seventh day, whereas the Saline Seal
maintained and, even improved the seal. The contaminated water used in the
test contained 3.$ sodium chloride and 3.6% sodium sulfate.
-177—
-------
C PARATIVE PERFORMA NcE OF Bk JTCIILTm AND
SALINE SEAL B ITONITE} IN A SOIL TEZT 27
Prehydrated
Ben tonite
Prehydrated
Saline Seal
Perlneability*
(cm/eec)
Leaica e Rate#
cm (in.)
Day
Permeability*
(cm/see)
Le ’ e Rate#
cm (in.)
1
2
1.0 x iø-6
2.0 10 6
0.318 (0.125)
0.635 (0.250)
1.0 x io- 6
1.0 X 10 6
0.318 (0.125)
0.318 (0.125)
3
.o x 10 6
19o.5 (0.750)
0.8 10 6
o.25L . (0.100)
1
1.0 x 10 .5
3.18 (1.25)
0.9 x 10 6
o.2s i (0.112)
,5
6.0 x 105
19.1 (7.5)
0.7 x 10 6
0.221 (0.087)
7
1.0 x lO
31.8 (12.5)
0.7 x 10 6
0.221 (0.087)
x iO 6 cm/sec represents an effective
compacted native clay).
GLoss of water at a 1.22-rn (li—ft) head.
seal failed.
seal (equivalent to 1 ft of
Low-swell clays such as hydxated. mica and kaolin have had limited use as
sealants. However, some research has been conducted on their sealing charac-
teristics 28 and., perhaps e4ditiona]. investigations are needed. The low-swell
clays are affected less by increased concentrations of magnesium or calcium
in water, and, the & -mag . from dxying may be less severe • Low—swell clays
are generally found in Nevada and, other western states.
The cost of bentonite-type clays varies from about $10/ton to more tl,an
$25/ton (FOB the clay-processing plant) N with $20/ton a typical cost.2 8 The
price variation is a function of the quality of the clay, the degree of carried
out processing, and the quantity purchased. In addition to the basic cost,
shipping is expensive unless the site is located near the clay-processing
plant. Typical shipping costs zange from $20 to $30/ton, depending on the
mode of transt,ortation and the distance traveled. Note, however, that if clay
si itab1e for an impoundment site lining is available on the site itself, the
cost could be as low as $1.0O/o.8 m 2 (yd 2 ) if the clay- can be bulldozed into
position. 29
-178-
-------
SOIL CEMENT
Soil cement is prepared by compacting a mixture of PortlAnd cement, water,
and, a wide variety of soils. As the Portland cement hydrates, the mixture be-
comes a hard., low—strength Por+ l t d. cement concrete. Soil cement is sometimes
used. to surface pavements with low-volume tra, and it is extensively used
for the lower layers of pavements, where it is generally referred to as Ce-
ment-treated, base • Soil cement is also widely used in water control construc-
tion, more specifically to protect the slopes at earth dams and other embank—
ments. See Appendix D for information regarding contract awards for soil
cement Water control projects.
Strong soil cement linings can be constructed using many types of soils,
but the permeability of the resulting liners varies with the nature of the
soils The more granulAr it is, the higher the permeability. By using fine-
grained soils, soil cements with permeability coefficients of about 10 cm/sec
can be obtnined • In actual practice, surface sealants are often applied to.
soil cement 11 nI gs to obtain a more waterproof structure. Aging and weather-
ing characteristics of soil cement linings are fairly good, especially those
associated with the wet-dry and freeze-thaw cycles. Some degradation of soil
cement linings can be expected in an acidic environment, however.
-179-
-------
Polymeric Membranes
(Source: Reference 4)
Butyl Rubber
Butyl rubber is a copolymer of a major amount .of isobutylene (97%) and a
minor amount of isoprene to introduce unsaturation in the rubber as sites for
vulcanization. A vulcanized butyl. rubber compound is used in the manufacture
of the sheeting, which is available in either unsupported or fabric—reinforced
versions of 20 to 125 mu thickness. Butyl rubber has excellent resistance to
permeation of water and swelling in water. This rubber has poor resistance to
hydrocarbons, but is quite resistant to animal and vegetable oils and fats.
Butyl rubber compounds generally contain low amounts of extractable material
and swell little in water. Overall they age very well, although some butyl
compounds ozone crack. Some recent compounds contain minor amounts of EPDM to
improve ozone resistance. In outdoor exposure in water management use, butyl
rubber liners have shown no degradation after 20 years of service. Obtaining
good splices of butyl sheeting, particular].y in the field, continues to be a
problem, as cold curing adhesives are required.
Chlorinated Polyethylene (CPE )
This relatively recently. developed polymer is an inherently flexible
thermoplastic produced by chlorinating high density polyethylene. Sheeting of
CPB makes durable linings for waste, water, or chemical storage pits, ppnds,
or reservoirs. CPE withstands ozone, weathering and ultraviolet and resists
many corrosive chemicals, hydrocarbons, microbiological attack, and burning.
Compounds of CPE are serviceable at low temperatures and are nonvolatile.
Mem ranes of CPB are available in 20 to 40 mu thicknesses in supported and
reinforced versions. They are generally unvulcanized and are spliced with
solvent adhesives by solvent welding.
Chiorosulfanated Polyelhyleme
This synthetic rubber is made by the chlorosulfonatjon of polyethylene.
It can be used in both vulcanized and unvulcanized Compounds; however, liners
of this rubber are generally based on unvulcanized compounds containing at
least 45% of the rubber. They are avki1â th in sheeting of 30 to 45 mil thick-
nesses; most are made with fabric reinforcement of either nylon or polyester
saris. Liners of this rubber have good puncture resistance, are easy to seam
in the factory or field with solvents, cements, or heat, and have excellent
resistance to weathering, aging, oil, and bacteria. Membranes of this ma-
terial have been used in the lining of pits and ponds where highly acid-con-
taminated fluids axe encountered.
After polyvin ,l chloride, this is the most used polymeric material for
liners.
Zlasticized Polyolef in
I4 ans liners of an elasticized polyolef in have been recently intro-
duced. This material is unvulcanized and thermoplastic and can be easily
-180-
-------
seamed with heat either in the field or factory. It features excellent resis-
tance to weathering and oils. Films of this material are supplied in 20-foot
widths in 20 to 30 mu thickness.
Ethylene-ProPYlene Rubber (EPDM )
This synthetic rubber is a terpolymer of ethylene, propylene, and a small
amount of a diene mo omer that introduces double bonds onto the polymer chain.
These double bonds are sites for vulcanization of the rubber and, as the imsat—
uration is in the side chain of the polymer molecule and not in the ‘- - “ chain,
ozone, chemical, and aging resistance are excellent. The rubber is compatible
with butyl and is often added to butyl to improve resistance of the latter to
oxidation, ozone, and weathering. As it is a wholly hydrocarbon rubber like
butyl, EPDM has excellent resistance to water absorption and permeation, but
has relatively poor resistance to some hydrocarbons. EPC 4 liners are su ]ied
in vulcanized sheeting of 20 to 125 mile thicknesses, both supported and un—
suppo t d. Special attention is required in splicing and seaming thL
terial, as vulcanizable adhesives must be used.
Neoprene or polycnioroprene
Neoprene is a synthetic rubber based pr4inavily on chioroprene. It fea-
tures good weathering and oil resistance and has been used where these prop-
erties are required. It is supplied in vulcanized sheeting of 30 to 125 mile
thicknesses. As it is a vulcanized rubber, vulcanizing cements and adhesives
must be used for seaming.
Polyester Elastomer
This is an experimental thermoplastic rubber which has recently been in-
troduced as a liner material. It has excellent resistance to oils and can be
heat sealed. It is supplied in relatively wide sheets of 7 to 10 mile thick-
nesses.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC )
Polymeric membranes based upon PVC are the most widely used flexible 1in
ers. They are available in wide sheets of 10 to 30 mile thicknessee most is
used as unsupported film, but fabric reinforcement can be incorporated. PVC
compounds contain 30 to 50% of one or more plasticizers to make the f41
flexible and rubber—like. They also contain 2% of a chemical stabilizer and
various amounts of fillers. There is a wide choice of plasticizers that can
be used with PVC, depending upon the application and service conditions under
which the PVC compound will be used. PVC polymer generally holds up well in
burial tests; however, plasticized compounds of PVC films have deteriorated)
presumably due to the biodegradability of the plasticizer. Also,
some plasticizers are soluble to a limited extent in water. On exposure
to weather with its wind, sunlight, and heat, PVC liner materials can deterio—
ate badly due to loss of p1 sticizer and to polymer degradation. Consequent)y,
they are generally covered. Plasticized PVC films are quite resistant to pun—
sture and relatively easy to splice by solvent welding, adhesives and heat.
-181-
-------
APPENDIX B
UNIT COST CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
For the purposes of developing final upgrading unit costs a calcu-
lation methodology was adopted which was similar in approach to the
“Draft Environmental Impact Statement Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities.” Major assumptions are as follows:
- Utilization of 10 TPD, 100 TPD, and 300 TPD sites
- Corresponding total acreages of 6 acres, 28 acres
and 75 acres respectively
— Corresponding total perimeter lengths of 2,000 ft., 4,400 ft.
and 7,200 ft. respectively
- 260 days operation per year
- In place refuse to soil cover ratios of 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 respectively
- 26,000, 260,000 and 780,000 total ten year life capacity
for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD facilities respectively
More detailed assumptions for the selected and alternative upgrading
technologies are as follows:
VERTICAL IMPERMEABLE BARRIER
— 20’ depth, 60 Cu. .ft./ft. perimeter installation
- excavation @ $0.50/cu. yd., clay material @ $3.00/cu. yd.,
placement @ $0.30/cu. yd.
— total unit cost $17.00/ft. ($55.76/meter)
DIKE CONSTRUCTION
- 10’ depth, 567 cu. ft./ft.
— 3:1 slopes
- materials and placement @ 1.50 cu. yd.
- total unit cost $31.50/ft. ($103.32/meter)
IMPERMEABLE DAILY COVER (ON-SITE SOURCE )
- total unit cost $0.60/cu. yd. ($0.78/cu. meter)
IMPERMEABLE DAILY COVER (0FF-SITE SOURCE )
- transport @ $1.00/cu. yd., clay material @ $3.00/cu. yd.
Diacement @ $0.30 cu. yd.
- 2 mile average transport distance
— total unit cost $4.30/cu. yd. ($5.62/cu. meter)
PONDING
- 2” 24 hr. rainfall event
- runoff storage required for twice the site landfill area
- excavation @ $0.50/cu. yd. (0.65/cu. meter) land @ $3,000/acre
($7 ,410/hectare)
- 10 TPD, 0.4 acres, 5’ depth; 100 TPD, 1.85 acres, 5’ depth;
300 TPD, 2.5 acres, 10’ depth
-182-
-------
PERIMETER GRAVEL TRENCHES
- 20’ depth, 60 cu. ft/ft, perimeter installation
- excavation @ $.50/cu. yd, gravel material @ $4.00/cu. yd,
placement @ $.30/cu. yd.
- total unit cost $21.00/ft. ($68.88/meter)
GAS COLLECTION
- perimeter installation
- total unit cost @ $20.00/ft for 10 TPD and 100 TPD sites,
$15.00/ft for 300 TPD sites ($65.50/meter, $65.60/meter, $99.20/meter
respectively
- Annual operating costs for 10 TPD, $4,000; 100 TPD, $8,800; 300 TPD,
$10,800.
SYNTHETIC LINER
- total unit costs including site preparation and earth cover
$3.60/sq yd. ($4.31/sq. meter)
LEACHATE RECYCLING
- 30” infiltration/Year,
- 10 TPD, $6,000 piping, $2,000 pump station, $500 annual costs;
100 TPD, $13,200 piping, $4,000 pump station, $1000 annual costs;
$10,000 station, $2000 annual costs
•
DITCHING
— total unit cost $2.25/ft. ($7.38/meter)
FINAL IMPERMEABLE COVER (ON-SITE SOURCEI
— unit cost $0.60/cu. yd. @ 2’ depth ($0.78/cu. meter)
FINAL IMPERMEABLE COVER (0FF-SITE SOURCE )
- unit cost $4.30/cu. yd. @2’ depth ($ .O2/cu. meter)
FINAL PERMEABLE COVER (ON-SITE SOURCEI
— unit cost $0.50/cu. yd. @ 2’ depth ($0.65/cu. meter)
FINAL PERMEABLE COVER (OFF-SITE SOURCE )
— unit cost $1.75/cu. yd.@ 2’ depth ($2.29/cu. meter)
REVEGETAT ION
- total unit cost $1000/acre ($2471/hectare)
The following taLle presents the development of technology unit
costs in more detail:
-183-
-------
GAS MONITORING
- 10 TPD, 4 wells; 100 TPD, 8 wells; 300 TPD, 12 wells
- wells @ $200/each, labor @ $100/day
- sampling labor for 10 TPD, 4 man-days/year; 100 TPD
8 man-days/year; 300 TPD, 12 man-days/year
- $1000 monitoring equipment
GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY MONITORING
- 10 TPD, 3 wells; 100 TPD, 4 wells; 300 TPD, 7 wells
— quarterly sampling @ $150/sample, $1000/well
- sampling labor for 10 TPD, 3 man-days/year; 100 TPD, 4 man-days/year;
300 TPD, 7 man-days/year @ $100/day
NATURAL CLAY LINER (0FF-SITE SOURCE )
- transport @ $1.00/cu. yd., clay material @ $3.00/cu. yd.,
placement @ $.30/cu. yd.
- 2-foot depth clay material
— 2—mile average transport distance
— total unit cost @ $4.30/cu. yd. ($5.89/cu. meter)
LEACHATE COLLECTION FACILITIES
— 10 TPD, 3500’ collector pipe; 100 TPD, 14,300’ collector pipe
300 TPD, 36,000’ collector pipe
- 100’ collector pipe spacing plus perimeter
- total unit cost @ $7.00/ft. ($22.96/meter)
LEACHATE MONITORING, REMOVAL AND TREATMENT
— 6” infiltration/year, 450 gal/day/acre
- 10 TPD, 2700 gal/day, 2.5tt/gal; 100 TPD, 12,600 gal/day, 1 /ga1;
300 TPD, 33,750 gal/day, O.5 t/gal (l8.7Ucu.ft., 7.5 /cu.ft., 3.7st/cu.ft.
respectively
PERMEABLE DAILY COVER (ON-SITE SOURCE )
— total unit cost $.50/cu. yd. ($0.65/cu. meter)
PERMEABLE DAILY COVER (OFF-SITE SOURCE )
transport @ $.75/cu. yd, material @ $.30/cu. yd, placement
@ $.50/cu. yd.
- 1-mile average transport distance
— total unit cost $1.55/cu. yd. ($2.03/cu. meter)
VERTICAL PIPE VENTS
- 2 per acre (3 $2,000/vent
-184-
-------
FIRE CONTROL
- one fire truck unit @ $1,000, $2,000, and $10,000 per site
for 10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD sites respectively
ACCESS CONTROL
- perimeter installation
- total unit cost @ $12.00/ft. ($39.36/meter)
LITTER CONTROL
- litter control fencing, 130 ft., 280 ft. and 450 ft. per
10 TPD, 100 TPD and 300 TPD sites respectively @ $10.00/ft.
($32. 80/meter)
COMPACT I ON
- one machine @ $50,000
-185-
-------
WIlT COSTS OF CCMTROL TECIBIOLOSIES
Quantity Total
2,000’ $ 34,000
4.400’ 74,800
7.200’ 122,400
19,350 cu. yd. $ 83.200
90,340 cu. yd. 388,500
242,000 Cu. yd. 1,060,600
*US GO1WN ITPIUITIN6O flC1 gg-62O-OO7I3774
• $1.30
— 0.30
0.15
Present Total Costs/Ton
Worth . L1 ? dollars )
$ 3.20
1.50
— — 1.35
$ 0.95
0.40
0.30
Technol y
Vertical leper—
ineable Barrier
Capital osts
Site Size
10 TPD
100 TPO
300 TPD
Unit Costs
$1 7.00/ft.
U
U
N Coats
Yearly Present Total Costs/Ton
Unit Cost Quantity Costs Worth ( 1977 dollars )
Dike Construction
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
$31.50/ft.
‘
N
2,000’
. 4,400
7.200’
$ 63,000
138,000
226,800
:
:
— —
: :
$ 2.40
0.55
0.30
Impermeable
Daily Cover (on—
site source)
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
$0.60/cu. yd.
N
.
5,200 cu. yd.
26,000 Cu. yd.
52,000 Cu. yd.
$ 3,120$ 19,200
15,600 95,800
31 .200 191 .600
$ 0.75
0.35
0.21,
Impermeable
Daily Cover (off—
site source)
10 TPO —
100 TPD —
300 TPD —
$4.30/cu. yd.
•
5,200 Cu. yd.
26,000 Cu. yd.
52,000 Cu. yd.
$ 22,400 S 137,300
111,800 686,500
223,600 1,372,900
$ 5.30
2.65
1.75
Ponding
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
$ 0.50/cu.
N
•
yd.
3,200 cu.
15,000 cu.
40,200 Cu.
yd. $ 2,800*
yd, 13,000
yd. 27,500*
,
— —
: =
$ 0.10
0.05
o.o i
Gas
Monitoring
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
$200/well
‘
•
4
8
12
$1 ,800
2 ,600
3,4O0
$l00/d.y
•
N
4 days/year
8 days/year***
12 days/year*
$ 400 $2,400
800 4,900
1,200 7,400
$ 0.15
0.03
0.01
Groundwater Water
Quality Monitoring
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
$1,000/well
•
•
3
4
7
$ 3,000
4,000
7,000
$lSOIsample
N
3 days/year
4 dsys/year
1 days/year
$2,100 $12,900
2,800 17,200
4,900 30,100
$ 0.60
0.10
0.05
Gas Collection
Facilities
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
$ 20/ft.
•
•
2,000’
4,400’
7,200’
$ 40,000
88,000
144,000
$ 4,000 $ 24,600
8,800 54,000
14,400 88,400
$ 2.51)
0.55
0.31)
* includes land costs
includes equi nt costs at $1,000
8 samples/well/year
‘ 4 s les/w.11/yssr
Technology Site Size Unit Costs
Natural Clay 10 TPD $4.30/cu. yd.
Liner 100 TPD
300TPD
ap i tal Costs
Yearly
Quantity Total Unit Cost Quantity Costs
0 & N Coats
Leachate
Collection
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
$7.00/ft.
N
3,500’
14,300’
36,000’
$ 24,500
100,100
252,000
:
:
Leachate
Treatment
10 TPD
100 TPO
300 TPO
:
:
:
2.54/gel.
1.04/gal.
0.54/gal.
2,700 gal/day
12,600 gal/day
33,750 gal/day
$24,600
46,000*
61,600*
$151,300
282,400
378,200
$ 5.80
1.10
l).50
Permeable Daily
Cover (on—site
source)
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
$0.50/cu. yd.
‘
•
5,200 Cu. yd.
26,000 cu. yd.
52,000 Cu. yd.
$ 2,600
13,000
26,000
$ 16,000
79,800
159,600
$ 0.60
0.30
0.20
Pen.eable DaIly
Cover (off-sIte
source)
10 TPD
100 TN)
300 TPO
$1.55/cu. yd.
‘
“
5,200 Cu. yd.
26,000 Cu. yd.
52,000 Cu. yd.
$ 8,100
40,300
80,600
$ 49,500
247,400
494,900
$ 1.90
0.95
0.65
Vertical Pipe
Vents
10 TPD
100 TPO
300 TPD
$2000 per
•
•
12
56
150
$ 24,000
112,000
300,000
$ 0.90
0.45
0.40
Perimeter Gravel
Trench4s
•
10 TPD
100 TPD
300 TPD
$21.00/ft.
•
2,000’
4,400’
7,200’
$ 42,000
92,400
151,200
$ .60
0.35
0.20
* trea4ient 7 days/week
-186-
------- |