SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (5102G)
EPA 542-F-11-024
December 2011
Green Remediation Best Management Practices:
Landfill Cover Systems & Energy Production
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Principles for
Greener Cleanups outline the Agency's policy for evaluating
and minimizing the environmental "footprint" of activities
undertaken when cleaning up a contaminated site.1 Use of
the best management practices (BMPs) recommended in
EPA's series of green remediation fact sheets can help project
managers and other stakeholders apply the principles on a
routine basis while maintaining the cleanup objectives,
ensuring protectiveness of a remedy, and improving its
environmental outcome.
Remediation at thousands of sites across the United States
involves hazardous waste from former industrial landfills
or waste piles, aged municipal landfills, or illegal dumps.
A cover system is commonly installed at these areas as
part of proper closure to serve as a surface barrier that
contains the source material, reduces contaminant
exposure or migration, and manages associated risk. Also
known as a cap or cover, a cover system is typically used
where:
• A hazardous, municipal, or co-disposal landfill was
created before the 1976 enactment of, and subsequent
amendments to, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
• An existing unit such as a closed impoundment has been
designated as a consolidation area or a decision is
made to build a new onsite landfill, and/or
• Direct contact or groundwater leaching presents a risk.
Cover systems can benefit from innovative designs that
increase long-term performance while reducing
maintenance needs. When properly designed and
maintained, a final cover system for a closed landfill or
consolidation unit can also provide significant
opportunities for site reuse (typically on a restricted basis).
The environmental footprint of activities needed to install
and maintain a cover system can be reduced by adhering
to EPA's Principles for Greener Cleanups. The core
elements of a greener cleanup involve:
Materials
& Waste
Energy
Land&
Ecosystems
Air&
Atmosphere
Water
Reducing total energy
use and increasing the
percentage of renew-
able energy
Reducing air pollutants
and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions
• Reducing water use and negative impacts on water
resources
• Improving materials management and waste reduction
efforts, and
• Protecting ecosystem services.
Green remediation BMPs for addressing landfills focus on:
> Designing and installing a cover system through
approaches such as materials life cycle assessment for
conventional covers or selection of alternative caps
> Landfill gas recovery for beneficial use as a
renewable source of energy
> Integrating landfill cover designs with reuse of
a site for generating energy from solar or wind
resources or for other beneficial use, and
^Maintaining and monitoring a final cover
through streamlined operation and maintenance (O&M)
activities and automated equipment.
Landfills built to contain hazardous wastes are governed
by Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR 264.300), while those
constructed for non-hazardous waste such as municipal
solid waste (MSW) are covered by RCRA Subtitle D (40
CFR 258). In addition to RCRA requirements, closure and
capping of a landfill or former waste area can be subject
to requirements of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
and other federal, state, or local regulations. In cleanup
programs such as Superfund, these regulations can be
applied to parts of a remedy as applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs).
Designing and Installing a Cover System
A Subtitle C or D conventional cover system, also
known as a barrier cover, is linked to the landfill liner
system. This type of cover consists of a layer of compacted
soil with permeability below or equal to that of the liner or
the natural soils present (or for Subtitle D, permeability no
greater than 1 x 1 0~5 cm/sec). Since the liner of a Subtitle
C cover system often consists of a geomembrane, its
corresponding cover needs to be constructed in a fashion
resulting in equivalent permeability. Other layers for
drainage or gas collection or to serve as a biobarrier can
be added. Green remediation BMPs for designing
and installing a conventional cover system include:
• Design in ways that mimic rather than alter the site's
natural setting, to improve the cover's long-term
-------
performance and protect ecosystem services2 such as
potable water, wildlife habitat, and carbon storage
Design a cover accounting for potential effects of
climate change, which could involve changes in onsite
soil development or increased vulnerability to flooding
Use uncontaminated soil or sediment from onsite
excavation instead of imported soil/sediment for the
cover's frost prevention and erosion control layers;
similarly, uncontaminated sand, gravel, and rocks from
onsite instead of offsite areas may be used for drainage
Apply low impact development3 strategies such as
installing earthen berms to manage stormwater
Choose geotextile fabric or drainage tubing composed
of 100% recycled materials rather than virgin materials
for lining, erosion control, and drainage
Select materials with biobased content for daily activities
during cover construction, including those designated
for procurement by federal
agencies4
Use clean fuel and emission
control technologies for routine
field vehicles and machinery such
as backhoes and bulldozers to
reduce fuel consumption and
emission of air pollutants such as
GHGs and particulate matter,5"
and
Investigate onsite solar and wind
resources to power equipment
such as leachate pumps and flare
u n its.
An alternative design for a landfill can be proposed in
lieu of a RCRA barrier design if it demonstrates equivalent
performance for criteria such as infiltration reduction and
erosion resistance. Subtitle D landfill regulations also
allow installation of equivalent alternative covers and
innovative covers that support research. One alternative
design involves covers composed of asphalt or
concrete. Systems based on this design are best applied
to sites where minimal settlement is expected. BMPs to
reduce the environmental footprint of this design include:
• Consider using asphalt rubber (containing recycled
tires) where the cover system includes a layer of asphalt
• Substitute concrete with high albedo pavement, which
reflects sunlight and heat away from the cover surface
and may aid growth of nearby vegetation
• Consider using concrete containing a high percentage
of industrial waste
by-products as a
substitute for cement,
if tests show no
contaminant leach-
ing, and
• Use concrete wash-
outs to assure proper
disposal of mix
water.
Another alterrnative design is an evapotranspiration
(ET) cover system, which prevents infiltration of water
into the contained waste.6 An ET cover relies on a thick
soil layer with vegetative cover capable of storing water
until it is transpired or evaporated. ET covers perform best
in arid and semi-arid environments such as those found in
parts of the Great Plains and western states.7
. capillary harrier ET cover at the Monticello Mill
Tailings NPL Site in Utah was designed to mimic the
area's ecology and follow the natural progression of
revegetation. Native species existing atop the cover after
seven years include gray rabbitbrush and sagebrush.
ET cover designs present two alternatives. A monolithic
design uses a vegetated, relatively homogeneous, fine-
grained soil layer to retain water and limit deep drainage.
In contrast, a capillary barrier design consists of a fine-
grained soil layer overlaying coarser material such as
sand or gravel. The coarse
layer forms a capillary break A capillary barrier EJ
at the layer interface, cover system can be
allowing the fine-grained
layer to retain more water
than a monolithic cover
system of equal thickness.
i the
capillary break layer to
act as a biobarrier or gas
collection layer.
In addition to BMPs that apply to conventional covers,
BMPs for designing and installing an ET cover include:
• Choose recycled (crushed) concrete for biobarriers or
capillary breaks instead of natural rock
• Select native drought-resistant plants for the upper
vegetative layer to reduce maintenance needs
• Preserve biodiversity and related ecosystem services by
installing a suitable mix of native shrubs, grasses, and
forbs, and
• Use nonsynthetic amendments such as compost instead
of chemical fertilizers if the soil or vegetation is found to
need supplementation over time.
Information on alternative landfill covers at more than
200 sites is available in EPA's alternative landfill
database.8 Additional BMPs that can apply at many
landfills undergoing cover installation are described in
Green Remediation: Best Management Practices for
Excavation and Surface Restoration.5
-------
Landfill Gas Recovery for Beneficial Use
EPA encourages owners or operators of sites with landfills
to use landfill gas (LFG) as a source of energy. Evaluating
the options for a waste gas-to-energy system before,
rather than after, waste is placed in a new landfill or
consolidation unit can maximize this potential throughout
the life of a landfill. Similarly, integration of the
components for an LFG collection system into the design
for a final cover at a closed landfill can help avoid later
retrofitting and additional costs if site or administrative
conditions change over time.
The capacity of LFG to provide useable energy generally
depends on its proportion of methane, a potent GHG
traditionally destroyed through combustion (flaring). LFG
from recently closed MSW landfills with properly operated
gas collection systems, for example, often contains 40-
60% methane; the remainder consists primarily of carbon
dioxide (CO2), another GHG.
As a landfill ages, its methane
generation decreases at a rate
depending on the volume and
type of organic waste content
and site conditions such as average rainfall. In contrast,
an industrial landfill or a construction and debris landfill
typically emits very little LFG throughout its life. Additional
characteristics to consider when evaluating feasibility of an
LFG-to-energy system include depth of the waste,
impermeability of the cap and liner, and local electricity
prices.
The global warming
potential of methane
is 21 times higher
than that of CO,,.9
As a small facility, the Crow Wing County SLF municipal
landfill in Bra/nerd, MN, is not required to collect and combust
its LFG. Accelerated generation of LFG after startup of the
landfill's leachate collection system, however, led to voluntary
installation of a ID-well LFG recovery system. With a
throughput of only 30 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm),
the LFG is now recovered for direct use to fuel a boiler
that heats the facility's onsite buildings. Since 2009 installation
of the LFG recovery system, the facility's natural gas
consumption has decreased by nearly 70%. The County
estimates a $5,000 annual savings in utility costs due
to lower natural gas consumption and a return on the LFG
recovery system investment within eight to nine years.
With appropriate treatment, LFG can be channeled for
direct use to power equipment operating on low or
medium BTU gas (about 50% of the heating value of
natural gas) for onsite operations. Medium BTU gas also
could be piped to an adjacent facility to fuel equipment
such as industrial boilers and cement kilns or to provide
heating in commercial businesses such as plant nurseries.
LFG can also be routed to internal combustion engines,
turbines, or microturbines that generate electricity.
Internal combustion engines are typically the choice for
LFG projects sized at 800 kW and larger, while
microturbines are used for smaller projects (as little as 30
kW). Unlike most
internal combustion
engines, microtur-
bines can operate
with low LFG flow or
methane content.10
Most engines or
turbines can be used
singularly or in paral-
lel configuration.
Points of Reference
LFG energy content varies but
averages about 500 BTU/cubic
foot.
The output of one 30-kW
microturbine can power a 40-hp
motor.
A 1-MW generator could meet
the annual electricity needs of
1,070 U.S. homes.
The Lowry Landfill Superfund Site in Aurora, CO,
occupies over 500 acres formerly used for municipal,
hazardous, and industrial waste disposal. Contamination was
partially addressed by constructing a conventional four foot-
thick soil cover over the landfill. The landfill is located adjacent
to the Denver Arapahoe Disposal Site (DADS), an active
municipal landfill facility. Instead of being flared, the LFG from
both sites is converted into electricity by four internal
combustion engines. Since 2008, the Lowry Landfill/DADS
landfill gas-to-energy plant has converted 630 million cubic
feet of LFG into 3.2 MWh of electrical energy each year. The
local utility distributes the generated electricity under a
renewable energy purchase agreement.
Electricity generated through
technologies can be used to:
these LFG recovery
Power other landfill operations such as leachate
collection and treatment systems
Provide energy for
long-term cleanup
operations such as
groundwater pump-
and-treat systems,
or
Supplement the
local utility grid
through sale or
credit mechanisms.
Six 70-kW microturbines replaced the flaring system used to
treat LFG at the Operating Industries, Inc. Superfund site
cleanup project in Monterey Park, CA. The LFG was extracted
at an average rate of 4,200 scfm, with a methane content
of 29-39%. Upon turbine start-up, sufficient electricity was
generated to meet approximately 70% of the 600-kWh
demand made by the project's combustion blowers, thermal
oxidizers, and auxiliary equipment. Over eight years of
microturbine operations, the project realized cumulative net
savings of $647,000.
-------
Selecting a suitable
landfill gas-to-energy
system considers the
short- and long-term
benefits gained by
economy of scale
and reductions in
utility expenses.
Electricity Generation
Technology
Internal Combustion Enc
Turbine
Microturbine
Based on information in the
Typical LFG
Flow Range
(cubic feet per minute
(cfm) at 50% methane)
'ne 38-1,140
Power Range
(kW or MW)
1 00 kW - 3 MW
1,300-2,100 800 kW- 10.5 MW
20-200
Landfill Methane Outreach Program
30 kW - 250 kW
Typical
Capital Cost
($/kW)
$2,000
$1,400
$5,500
Typical
O&M Cost
($/kWh)
$195
$130
$380
"Project Development Handbook"1 '
These technologies may also produce waste fieaf that
can be captured and used to generate combined heat
and power (CHP). In addition to providing heat for
buildings, water, or industrial processes, CHP could
produce steam (from a gas turbine) which in turn can
power a steam generator to produce more electricity.
LFG can also be processed on site to remove oxygen,
CO2, nitrogen, and other trace gases to produce fuels
with a high BTU content, such as pipeline-quality gas,
compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied natural
gas. An auto manufacturing plant at a former brownfield
in Orion, Ml, for example, relies on LFG from
neighboring landfills as a substitute for natural gas in a
significant portion of the plant operations.
LFG Flow
(scfm)
250
500
1,250
2,500
5,000
CNG Production from LFG11
Production Volume
(gallons of gasoline
equivalent (GGE)/day)
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
Cost
($/GGE)
$1.40
$1.13
$0.91
$0.82
$0.68
Cleanup managers may explore these opportunities by:
• Applying EPA's Landfill Gas Energy Screening Tool to
initially screen the potential for landfill methane
recovery, associated cost, technical practicality, and
anticipated reduction in GHG emissions12
• Working closely with potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) and owners or operators to design and
implement methane recovery projects on a voluntary
basis
• Procuring technical assistance from experts experienced
in LFG energy systems to evaluate feasibility at sites
where initial screening indicates significant potential
• Engaging utilities or developers for sites with potential to
generate "excess" electricity (beyond onsite needs) that
contribute to state renewable energy portfolios
• Soliciting partners to demonstrate technologies that are
emerging for electricity generation from LFG, such as
Stirling engines (external combustion engines), organic
Rankine cycle engines, and fuel cells,13 and
• Using energy savings performance contracts to finance
and obtain technical assistance for LFG projects
undertaken by federal agencies.14
Information to help evaluate the options is available from
EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP); the
program's tools include the Landfill Gas Energy Pro/ecf
Development Handbook and decision-making software.15
Continuously updated information about state, local,
utility, and selected federal incentives promoting LFG as a
source of renewable energy is available from the
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy.16
A system to recover LFG at the Grand River Landfill in
Grand Ledge, Ml, has expanded twice since 1990 start-up to
become a 4.0-MW electricity generator. The system relies on
189 horizontal and vertical wells that transfer LFG to a power
plant adjacent to this active MSW landfill, which includes
closed treatment cells for coal-burning ash. The plant uses five
800-kW internal combustion engines fueled by LFG averaging
1,350 scfm, with a steady 51% methane content. About
5% of the generated electricity is used to operate the plant
and the remainder is sold to the local utility. Six mechanical
windmills drive pumps that remove the waste cell leachate,
which is treated onsite before discharge to the sanitary sewer.
Integrating Landfill Cover Designs with Reuse
The options for reuse activities, which in some cases
involves long-term cleanup in other areas of a site, can
take advantage of contact covers. These cover systems
are designed to create a biobarrier against intrusion by
people, animals, and in some cases vegetation. This type
of cover is generally used with metal contaminants but
can also be used for organic contaminants with low
mobility. Depending on site-specific reuse goals, contact
covers can be constructed of asphalt, concrete, or soil.
When properly designed, landfill covers can provide
significant opportunities to host economic enterprises such
as power production from solar and wind
resources. EPA, other government agencies, and
developers have begun investigating the potential for
-------
reusing formerly contaminated lands and mining
properties on a large-scale basis. EPA's RE-Powering
America's Land initiative has tracked this potential at sites
across the United States.17
EPA recommends that designs for solar farms atop closed
and properly covered landfills consider technical aspects
such as weight of photovoltaic (PV) or concentrated
solar power equipment, landfill cover thickness, waste
settlement, wind or
snow loading, and
cover maintenance
requirements.18 Pro-
ject planners also
need to account for
potential challenges
such as ongoing
cleanup activities or
liabilities.19
A I.48-MW solar farm began operating in late 2010
above the 28-acre El cover at "Site 7" of the Box Canyon
Landfill at Marine Corp Base Camp Pendleton, CA. The
farm comprises 225 fixed-tilt PV panels in a 28-module
configuration covering six acres. Each panel is mounted on a
self-ballasted, non-penetrating foundation spaced sufficiently
apart from others to accommodate vegetation maintenance
and other cover requirements specified in the site's record of
decision. Over the first year of operation, the PV system
produced over 2,425 MWh of electricity for transmission to the
local utility. This resulted in an electricity savings of about
$340,000, demand savings of about $95,000, and an
estimated CO2 offset exceeding 1,540 tons. More solar
energy will be captured through solar farm expansion and
solar-powered ignition systems for LFG vents.
Another option is use of a solar geomembrane
cover, which can meet Subtitle D alternative cap
requirements while converting solar energy to useable
power. A solar geo-
membrane cover also
can be integrated with
a LFG recovery system
to maximize produc-
tion of electricity from
renewable resources.
The landfill cover system at the Hickory Ridge Landfill in
Conley, CA, relies on a 60-mil reinforced, synthetic
membrane covering 45 acres. The exposed geomembrane
overlays 12 inches of an intermediate cover and a compacted
grading layer. Approximately 7,000 flexible PV panels are
bonded to the membrane, which is positioned on about
10 acres with 18° southern and western slopes. Power cables
in flexible conduit extend to the edge of the cap where they
connect to an inverter. The 1-MW facility is expected to
annually generate 1.3 million kWh of electricity that will be
sold to the local utility under a renewable energy purchase
agreement.
Depending on the cover type, project managers can
explore other compatible uses of land with properly
covered landfills, such as:
• Greenspace for wildlife preservation or recreation20
• Agriculture such as hay production, and
• Seed harvesting to revegetate other sites.
Project managers also can explore approaches for
recycling portions of the onsite waste, as an alternative to
capping that provides economic and land use benefits.
Cleanup at the Fairmont Coke Works-Sharon Steel Site in
Fairmont, WV, for example, involves excavating, sorting,
and blending the various consitutents to form feedstock
sold to a local synfuel power plant.
Waste not contained in landfills or in disposal pits but left
in place may provide other reuse opportunities while
significantly reducing land and ecosystem disturbance
during cleanup. This approach requires assessment of
potential human health risk posed by the remaining
hazardous substances or constituents and likely involves
long-term institutional controls, restricted use, and
ongoing liability to site owners.21 Low human health risk at
a high-elevation mining site, for example, may not affect
anticipated use of a site for purposes such as community
recreation or power production from renewable resources.
In 2007, a 2-MW solar farm was installed atop a 12-acre
monolithic ET cover for construction debris at Fort Carson,
CO. The design included selecting a native seed mix that
would yield shade and drought-tolerant vegetation with a short
height. Monitoring and O&M indicates more successful
vegetative growth in areas shaded by the ground-mounted PV
panels than in non-shaded areas, with no evidence of erosion
caused by the panels. Vehicle traffic inside the fenced solar
farm is kept to a minimum to avoid land disturbance,
particularly under wet conditions. No irrigation has been
needed despite the site's semi-arid climate, and no chemical
pesticides/herbicides have been applied.
One round of early summer mowing to a four-inch height is
typically sufficient to control weeds, minimize wildfire fodder,
allow year-round light access across the site, and prevent
shading of the PV panels. Periodic hand-washing of the solar
modules is performed by using low-pressure hosing and
heavily diluted vinegar. This maintenance is performed
by the solar developer (Conergy) under a 20-year
contract with Carson Solar I, LLC, the project owner. In return,
the owner sells the generated electricity to Fort Carson at a
reduced rate under a 20-year power purchasing agreement.
Monitoring and Maintaining a Final Cover
Proper O&M of a cover system and landfill closure
elements such as a gas collection system is needed to
ensure they are performing as intended. Monitoring and
maintenance BMPs can involve simple but efficient
procedural changes as well as advanced field equipment
to increase efficiencies, such as:
-------
• Minimize frequency of grass mowing, to reduce fuel
consumption and disruption to ground-nesting birds
• Explore using controlled grazing by goats or sheep to
eliminate woody growth and control vegetation height
while adding organic matter to the soil
• Integrate onsite structures to capture rainfall as a source
of water for work such as rinsing field equipment
• Use remotely controlled or non-invasive techniques, to
avoid cover damage and minimize field visits; for
example, open path spectroscopy techniques can be
used to periodically check for escaping LFG22
• Explore onsite renewable energy to power auxiliary
equipment such as weather stations, and
• Evaluate natural settings as indicators of long-term
changes in the cover.
EPA encourages PRPs and owners or operators of sites
requiring landfill cover installation to work closely with
states and other agencies or organizations responsible for
oversight of the system over time (commonly 30 years or
more) and any site reuse. Partners may include non-profit
groups serving the local or regional community.
Landfill Cover Systems & Energy Production:
Recommended Checklist
Designing and Installing a Cover System
Design with the intent of maintaining natural settings
and addressing potential effects of climate change
Maximize use of onsite rather than offsite materials
Maximize use of materials with recycled or biobased
content
Reduce consumption of petroleum-based power
through clean fuel/emission technologies and
renewable energy resources
Landfill Gas Recovery for Beneficial Use
Explore opportunities for direct use of treated LFG
Install LFG recovery technologies to generate
electricity and use any associated waste heat
Partner with other organizations to produce fuel
Integrating Landfill Cover Designs with Reuse
Consider a contact cover to serve as a biobarrier
Explore electricity production from solar and wind
resources, for onsite use or credit/sale
Identify other activities that could maximize use of a
covered area without jeopardizing the cover system
Maintaining and Monitoring a Final Cover
Schedule periodic inspection of cover system
components and quickly complete needed repair
Use non-disruptive techniques and the site setting to
monitor cover system performance
Explore partnerships to integrate cover maintenance
with site reuse
References [Web accessed: December 2011 ]
1 U.S. EPA; Principles for Greener C/eonups; August 27, 2009;
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/greencleanups
2 Slack, Sarah; EPA/OSWER fellowship; The Incorporation of an
Ecosystem Services Assessment into the Remediation of Contaminated
Sites; August 201 0; http://www.clu-
in.org/download/studentpapers/sarah-slack-ecosystem-services.pdf
3 U.S. EPA; Low Impact Development;
http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/lid/
4 U.S. Department of Agriculture; Federal Biobased Product
Procurement Preference Program;
http://www.dm.usda.gov/procurement/business/biopreferred.htm
5 U.S. EPA; Green Remediation Best Management Practices:
° Clean Fuel & Emission Technologies for Site Cleanup; EPA 542-F-
10-008; August 2010
b Excavation and Surface Restoration; EPA 542-F-08-01 2; December
2008
6 U.S. EPA; CLU-IN; Evapotranspiration Covers;
http://www.cluin.org/products/evap/
7 U.S. EPA; Fact Sheet on Evapotranspiration Cover Systems for Waste
Containment; EPA542-F-1 1 -001; February 201 1
8 U.S. EPA; CLU-IN; Alternative Landfill Cover Project Profiles;
http://www.clu-in.org/products/altcovers/
9 U.S. EPA; High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases; Table 2.14
(Errata); http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html
10 U.S. EPA; Powering Microturbines with Landfill Gas; EPA 430-F-02-
012; http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1001 12N.PDF
11 U.S. EPA LMOP; Project Deve/opmenf Handbook;
http://www.epa.gov/lmop/publications-tools/handbook.html
12 U.S. EPA; Superfund Landfill Mefhane-to-Energy Pilot Project;
http://www.clu in.org/green re mediation/docs/Landfill_Methane_Final_
Report_051011.pdf
13 Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration;
Strategies for the Commercialization and Deployment of Greenhouse
Gas Intensity-Reducing Technologies and Practices; DOE/PI-0007
14 U.S. Department of Energy; Federal Energy Management Program;
Landfill Gas to Energy for Federal Facilities; ORNL 2004-02580/abh,
July 2004; http://wwwl .eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/bamf_landfill.pdf
15 U.S. EPA; LMOP; Publications and Tools;
http://www.epa.gov/lmop/publications-tools/index.html
16 DSIRE; http://www.dsireusa.org/
17 U.S. EPA; RE-Powering America's Land;
http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland
18 Sampson, Gabriel; EPA/OSWER fellowship; Solar Power Installations
on Closed Landfills: Technical and Regulatory Considerations;
September 2009; http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/Solar-
Power-lnstallations-on-Closed-Landfills-Sampson.pdf
19 U.S. EPA; Siting Renewable Energy on Contaminated Properties:
Addressing Liability Concerns; EPA-330-F-1 0-001; March 201 1
20 U.S. EPA; Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Recreational Use of
Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas; EPA 540-K-01 -
002; March 2001
21 U.S. EPA; Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS);
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa/index.htm
22 U.S. EPA; Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground-Based
Optical Remote Sensing Technology; EPA/600/R-07/032
EPA/OSWER appreciates the many contributions to this fact sheet, as
provided by EPA regions and laboratories or private industry.
The Agency is publishing this fact sheet as a means of disseminating
information regarding the BMPs of green remediation; mention of specific
products or vendors does not constitute EPA endorsement.
Visit Green Remediation Focus online:
http://www.cluin.org/greenremediation
For more information, contact:
Carlos Pachon, OSWER/OSRTI (pachon.carlos@epa.gov)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
------- |