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- ------- |