United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 600/R-11/218 | February 2012 | www.epa.gov/ord
Report on the 2011 Workshop
on Chemical-Biological-
Radiological Disposal in
Landfills
-
^
x
^**•-'-»-
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
-------
EPA/600/R-11/218
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-B iological
Radiological Disposal in Landfills
February 2012
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Homeland Security Research Center
Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Contract No. EP-C-07-015
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
directed the research described herein under contract EP-C-07-015 with Eastern Research
Group, Inc. (ERG), as a general record of discussions for the "2011 Workshop on Chemical-
Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills." This report captures the main points of the
scheduled presentations and summarizes the issues and discussions among the workshop
participants but does not contain a verbatim transcript of all issues discussed. This document is
not intended to provide technical, operational, or regulatory guidance or be a prescriptive
document in how to dispose of waste generated in a chemical, biological, or radiological
incident. It does not substitute for the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, other statutes or
EPA's regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Any decisions regarding disposal of a particular
waste at a particular facility will be made on a site-specific basis based on the applicable
statutes and regulations. This manuscript has been subject to an administrative review but does
not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. No official endorsement should be inferred.
EPA does not endorse the purchase or sale of any commercial products or services.
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 2
2.0 Presentations and Question-and-Answer Periods 4
2.1 Context of the Problem (Juan Reyes) 4
2.2 Structure of the Meeting (Paul Lemieux) 4
2.3 Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills (Craig Dufficy) 5
2.4 Landfill Gas Control (Susan Thorneloe) 7
2.5 State Perspectives on GBR Landfill Disposal (Robert Phaneuf) 10
2.6 Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate (Wendy Davis-Hoover) 12
2.7 Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills (Mort Barlaz) 14
2.7.1 Distribution of Chemical Agents in Landfills 14
2.7.2 Sorption and Desorption of Organics in Landfill Simulations 15
2.7.3 Fate and Transport of Chemicals in Packed-bed Reactors Containing Simulated
Solid Waste 16
2.7.4 Transport of Microbial Agents in Landfills 16
2.8 Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares (Paul Lemieux) 18
2.9 Waste Streams Generated from GBR Events (Bill Steuteville) 19
2.10 Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills (David Allard) 20
3.0 Moderated Discussions 24
3.1 Question 1: Waste-Specific Considerations 24
3.2 Question 2: Design, Construction, and Operational Requirements 25
3.2.1 Responses for Biological Agents 26
3.2.2 Responses for Radiological Agents 27
3.2.3 Responses for Chemical Agents 28
3.3 Question 3: Other Strategies and General Comments 29
3.4 Final Comments 32
4.0 References 35
5.0 Attachments 37
1. List of Workshop Participants 37
2. Workshop Agenda 41
3. Seed Questions for Moderated Discussions 43
4. Presentation Slides 44
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
List of Abbreviations
°C Degrees Celsius
GBR Chemical, biological, and radiological
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CWA Chemical warfare agent
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
LCRM Landfill Coupled Reactor Model
LCRS Leachate collection and removal system
LRN Laboratory Response Network
MOCLA Model for Organic Chemicals in Landfills
MSW Municipal solid waste
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NORM Naturally occurring radioactive material
NYS New York State
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OHS Office of Homeland Security
ORD Office of Research and Development
PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TENORM Technologically-enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Executive Summary
This report summarizes discussions from the "2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-
Radiological (GBR) Disposal in Landfills." The workshop was held on June 14-15, 2011, in
Washington, DC. The workshop objective was to address technical issues to consider when
designing, constructing, and operating new landfill facilities for disposal of GBR wastes in an
emergency scenario.
The approximately 40 workshop participants included representatives from multiple federal
agencies (e.g., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture), state
agencies, academia, and waste management companies. The workshop included scheduled
presentations, question-and-answer sessions, and moderated discussions.
This report documents the main points raised during the workshop, but several issues were
raised repeatedly throughout the discussions. The recurring issues include:
• GBR events are generally not expected to result in large debris fields of comingled
wastes. Instead, these events will more likely result in contaminated surfaces and
structures, from which highly homogeneous waste streams will be generated. These
waste streams can be handled individually or mixed in a fashion most suitable for
disposal (or other waste management option). As a result, biodegradable wastes that
can lead to formation of landfill gases will generally be separated from inert material.
• For larger GBR events, the quantities of waste expected to be generated will likely far
exceed the capacity of nearby landfills, and new landfill cells could take several months
to construct. These observations, combined with external pressure to have affected
communities quickly return to normalcy, suggest that temporary waste staging areas will
likely be an important element of the overall response. Waste can be first moved to
these temporary locations while landfill capacity is being constructed or negotiated.
• Several opportunities were identified for state and local agencies to begin preparing and
planning for waste management of GBR events. Examples included specifying criteria
for landfill siting, drafting engineering and planning documents required for new landfill
cells, and assessing transportation infrastructure based on anticipated volumes of
wastes. Resolving these and other matters as part of preparedness activities is generally
preferred to trying to assess these issues in the wake of a GBR event.
• Numerous insights were offered on technical issues associated with landfill design.
These issues addressed a broad array of topics, including siting, construction quality
assurance, fill progression plans, landfill gas control systems, leachate control systems,
long-term monitoring, and post-closure care. Specific comments on these—and how
they might pertain to different classes of GBR agents—are presented throughout this
report.
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
1.0 Introduction
This report summarizes presentations and
discussions from the "2011 Workshop on
Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in
Landfills," which was held June 14-15, 2011,
in Washington, DC. The technical content of
this report is based entirely on information and
discussions from the workshop.
Approximately 40 individuals from federal
agencies, private industry, state programs, and
academia participated in the workshop, either
in person or via webinar (see Attachment 1).
The workshop allowed these participants to
share information and discuss issues
associated with the disposal of waste resulting
from cleanups from chemical, biological, and
radiological (GBR) events. The workshop was
specifically designed to address technical
issues to consider when designing,
constructing, and operating new landfill
facilities for disposal of GBR wastes in an
emergency scenario; use of existing landfill
space for this purpose and other waste
management strategies (e.g., incineration)
were outside the scope of the workshop
discussions. Policy and public perception
issues were acknowledged as being very
important considerations when managing
wastes from GBR events, but these topics also
were not the focus of this workshop.
The workshop agenda included two distinct
discussion formats (see Attachment 2):
• First, ten invited speakers delivered
presentations on various topics,
including landfill design features,
segregation of the waste stream, and
considerations for leachate and landfill
gas control measures. Participants also
discussed research conducted on how
GBR agents would persist and migrate
within a landfill. A question-and-answer
period followed each presentation.
Section 2 of this report briefly
summarizes the presentations and
documents main discussion points
raised during the question-and-answer
periods.
• Second, the workshop included several
hours of moderated open discussions
among the participants. These
discussions were framed around six
questions that were circulated in
advance of the meeting (see
Attachments) and culminated with
every workshop participant providing
their individual overarching comments
on the workshop discussions. Section 3
of this report documents key discussion
points from the free-flowing
discussions.
This report documents comments made by
participants, and the report notes instances
where multiple participants supported a given
statement. However, this workshop was not
designed to reach consensus on technical
matters or rank suggestions in terms of
importance. In addition, the intent of the
workshop was to not attribute comments to
specific attendees to encourage open
discussion. Accordingly, the report catalogs
the entire range of feedback provided, without
attempting to assign priorities to the various
recommendations and suggestions that
participants offered.
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
2.0 Presentations and Question-and-Answer Periods
This section of the report briefly summarizes
presentations given by ten invited speakers
and documents key points from the ensuing
question-and-answer periods. Attachment 4
lists the presentation topics and speaker
names, and original electronic copies of the
presentations are available from the EPA
workshop coordinator
(lemieux.paul@epa.gov).
2.1 Context of the Problem 0 uan Reyes)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CBR Disposal
Context of the Problem and Goals of the
Workshop
Deputy Associate Administratm
U.S. EPA Office of Homeland Security
•—114, 2011
Juan Reyes, Deputy Associate Administrator
of EPA's Office of Homeland Security (OHS),
gave the workshop's opening presentation,
which addressed "Context of the Problem and
Workshop Goals." The presentation
underscored the importance of planning waste
management as a key element of preparing for
CBR events and described what EPA has
already done in this regard. Mr. Reyes noted
that EPA has already conducted multiple
workshops and field exercises to assess and
evaluate CBR waste management
challenges—one of which was the potential for
these incidents generating massive quantities
of waste; some calculations based on planning
scenarios suggested that CBR events can lead
to the need for disposal of up to 40 million tons
of potentially contaminated solid waste.
Mr. Reyes listed five broad categories of
barriers to effective CBR waste management
efforts. These categories were regulatory and
statutory, policy and guidance, technical and
scientific, socio-political, and capacity and
capability. He provided specific examples of
these five general issues, but emphasized that
the focus of this particular workshop is the
technical and scientific considerations. For
instance, a greater scientific understanding of
the fate and transport of CBR agents in landfill
environments is needed to inform decisions
about how landfill cells should be designed,
constructed, operated, and maintained.
Mr. Reyes then noted that the current
workshop is the latest in a series of workshops
and exercises that different EPA Offices have
organized to investigate issues concerning
CBR waste management. He listed the recent
workshops that EPA-OHS organized (or
contributed to) and noted that these workshops
recommended increased U.S. capability to
effectively address regulatory challenges,
major impediments, research issues, and state
and local preparedness (1-3). A common
theme expressed across these workshops was
the need to rapidly construct, operate, and
maintain a state or federal facility to dispose of
waste generated from CBR events. This
potential facility would be built relatively soon
after the incident response had initiated, and in
relatively close proximity to location of the
incident. He concluded his presentation by
stating the objective of this workshop: "The
goal of this workshop is to identify the technical
and scientific requirements [for disposal of
CBR wastes] so that the policy discussions are
based on the best available science."
A brief question-and-answer session followed
the presentation. The questions addressed risk
communications to the public regarding the
protectiveness of CBR disposal strategies. Mr.
Reyes said effective communications will
undoubtedly be critical for any event requiring
disposal of CBR wastes. However, this issue
was not discussed in extensive detail, given
that the workshop focused on technical and
scientific issues of landfill design, construction,
and operation.
2.2 Structure of the Meeting (Paul
Lemieux)
Dr. Lemieux, Associate Division Director,
Decontamination and Consequence
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Management Division, National Homeland
Security Research Center of EPA's Office of
Research and Development, gave a brief
presentation on the structure of the workshop.
He began by noting that EPA has held
workshops to discuss GBR waste
management issues since 2003 (4), with the
individual workshops focusing on specific
topics. He emphasized that the focus of the
current workshop was technical issues to be
considered when designing, siting,
constructing, and operating a new landfill
facility to dispose of waste from a GBR event.
He acknowledged that GBR disposal often
raises a number of related issues (e.g., risk
communication to the public), but asked
participants to stay focused on the underlying
technical and scientific issues.
2.3 Existing Requirements and
Capabilities of Landfills (Craig Dufficy)
The first presentation was given by Mr. Dufficy,
Environmental Engineer, Materials Recovery
and Waste Management Division, Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery of
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. He provided background
information on the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and its Subtitle C and
Subtitle D requirements for managing
hazardous waste and solid wastes,
respectively. He reviewed the roles and
responsibilities of EPA, states, and tribes for
implementing and enforcing RCRA
requirements. Mr. Dufficy then provided an
overview of hazardous and municipal solid
waste management in the U.S.:
Hazardous waste. Mr. Dufficy reviewed
the regulatory definition of hazardous
waste (5) and then noted that
approximately 20,000 facilities each
generate at least 1 ton of hazardous
waste annually. RCRA Subtitle C
provides standards for the treatment of
hazardous waste, places restrictions on
its disposal, and sets forth design
requirements for landfills. Mr. Dufficy
explained that RCRA Subtitle C landfills
must be equipped with properly
designed leachate collection and
removal systems, composite liners
comprised of a low-permeability soil
layer overlaid with geomembrane, and
leak detection systems to ensure that
landfill leachate does not contaminate
groundwater; and groundwater
monitoring is required to detect the
presence of any such contamination.
Solid waste. Mr. Dufficy explained that
"solid waste" can include municipal
solid waste (MSW), industrial non-
hazardous waste, and special wastes.
He defined these terms and listed the
approximate quantities of wastes
generated annually. For instance,
residences, commercial
establishments, and industrial
operations generate approximately 230
million tons of MSW annually. Mr.
Dufficy reviewed design and operation
requirements for RCRA Subtitle D
landfills. These landfills either (1) must
be designed to ensure that specific
groundwater contamination levels will
not be exceeded in the uppermost
aquifer at the relevant point of
compliance or (2) they must be
designed with composite liners that
achieve a hydraulic conductivity within
a required range. Mr. Dufficy showed
illustrations of both liners used to
protect groundwater from leachate and
covers applied to limit the infiltration of
precipitation.
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Mr. Dufficy offered several considerations for
GBR waste management. For instance, he
listed important pre-planning activities, such as
identifying potential debris types, forecasting
waste amounts, taking inventory of existing
landfill capacity, and selecting sites for
temporary waste staging. Other activities
included identifying applicable federal, state,
and local environmental regulations;
developing a communication plan and debris
removal strategy; and considering waste
management options other than disposal (e.g.,
recycling, incineration). As an example of a
useful resource, Mr. Dufficy referred to the
Directory of Waste Processing and Disposal
Sites, published by the Waste Business
Journal. This publication includes an inventory
of available landfill facilities nationwide and
recently proved beneficial when selecting
disposal sites for debris generated by
tornadoes in the Midwest. He concluded by
underscoring the importance of advanced
planning for managing GBR wastes, given that
waste management is an integral element of
the overall disaster recovery process.
The question-and-answer session following
this presentation addressed several topics:
• One participant acknowledged that
published inventories of landfill facilities
can be useful, but added that directly
consulting with state environmental
agencies has proven to be more
effective at assessing the capacity and
compliance status of individual
facilities. That participant added that
information from state agencies is likely
to be more current and accurate than
what can be gleaned from published
inventories. During this discussion,
another participant commented that
EPA has developed a decision support
tool for disaster debris management,
and this software can also help users
identify, locate, and assess the
capacity of landfills and other waste
management facilities (e.g.,
incinerators). More information about
this tool and how to access it is
available on EPA's website at
http:///iMW. epa.gov/hhsrc/hews/hews05
1'209.html'(6). Another participant
noted that EPA Region 5 has online
resources for state-specific disaster
debris management plans, and the
Region has also developed an online,
searchable inventory of landfills and
other waste management facilities. The
Region 5 resources can be accessed
at:
http:/fa/ww.epa.gov/i'eg5rcra/b/ptdiv/soli
dwaste/debris/disaster_ debris_ resourc
es.html(l). Finally, the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) publishes
similar disaster debris guidance
information
(http://www. dec.ny.gov/chemical/23682
.html} (8).
Several participants emphasized the
need for advanced planning of landfill
capacity for certain waste disposal
events. For example, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has already
made arrangements with rendering
facilities, landfills, and other sites for
disposing of animal carcasses following
disease outbreaks and other
unexpected events. Additionally, some
states prone to hurricanes have taken
proactive measures to identify and plan
for landfill capacity to address large
volumes of disaster debris that a major
hurricane can generate. Establishing
agreements and contracts in advance
of CBR events was cited as one
example of effective planning for landfill
capacity.
One participant asked how EPA
currently classifies waste material that
contains anthrax spores. The response
provided is that wastes containing
anthrax spores might not automatically
be classified as hazardous waste under
the agency's current regulations,
unless the waste exhibited a hazardous
characteristic due to other constituents.
However, state regulations might
require classification of wastes
containing anthrax spores as medical
waste or infectious waste, which would
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
therefore dictate disposal options.
Another participant added that the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
classifies anthrax-containing waste and
other medical wastes as hazardous
material, which might be prohibited
under a landfill's permit. The extent to
which the waste has undergone
decontamination procedures also
affects waste classification and
disposal options. Overall, the question
and follow-up discussion emphasized
the need for clearly articulating the
current federal and state regulatory
framework for handling wastes
containing biological agents.
During this discussion, a participant
remarked that limited capacity of the
Laboratory Response Network (LRN)
can affect waste management
decisions. Following a large-scale CBR
event, laboratories might be inundated
with samples and not be capable of
analyzing them within the desired time
frames. Because sampling results from
LRN laboratories may be needed to
measure residual agent concentration
in the waste, officials responsible for
managing CBR wastes might handle all
materials—including those that have
been subjected to decontamination
operations—as if they were still
contaminated in order to provide the
timeliest response.
Though some participants
acknowledged that regulatory
frameworks might not be fully
developed for certain types of CBR
wastes, performance-based criteria for
landfill design might still be developed
based on a scientific understanding of
the specific CBR agents and their
chemical and physical properties. The
participants revisited these
performance-based measures on the
second day of the workshop (see
Section 3).
2.4 Landfill Gas Control (Susan
Thorneloe)
The next speaker was Ms. Thorneloe,
Senior Environmental Engineer, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory of EPA's Office of
Research and Development. She
presented background information on
the formation, characteristics, and
control of landfill gas. She opened by
noting that landfill gas forms primarily
when biodegradable waste
decomposes, though chemical
decomposition can also release landfill
gas. Landfill gas is composed primarily
of carbon dioxide and methane; other
constituents are found in trace amounts
(e.g., volatile organic compounds,
sulfur compounds) and their
concentrations vary from one landfill to
the next. Landfill gas emissions can
occur for decades following disposal of
biodegradable wastes, and these
emissions present various safety,
health, and environmental concerns.
Ms. Thorneloe also briefly discussed
factors that affect landfill gas
emissions. For instance, most large
landfills are now equipped with landfill
gas collection systems, which
dramatically reduce the amount of
landfill gas that would otherwise be
emitted to the air, but these controls
are typically not installed immediately
after landfill cells open. Some sites are
equipped with landfill gas flares, which
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
reduce landfill gas emissions but emit
various combustion by-products. Other
landfill design and operational
features—such as leachate
recirculation and breaches in landfill
covers—affect the magnitude of landfill
gas generation and emission rates. A
general theme expressed was that
increased infiltration and leachate
recirculation rates may cause landfills
to generate more gas. Another factor
influencing landfill gas emissions is the
waste composition, which can be
influenced by enhanced recycling
efforts, source reduction programs, and
other factors. Exposures to landfill
gases are largely dictated by the
emission rates, proximity of receptors,
and institutional controls on closed
landfills.
Ms. Thorneloe described different
approaches that have been taken to
estimate and measure landfill gas
emission rates. For modeling
emissions, EPA's Landfill Gas
Emission Model (LandGEM) is still one
of the most widely-used software
programs for estimating landfill gas
emissions (9). The model is based on
first order decomposition rate equations
and estimates how landfill emissions
are expected to vary over time,
including post-closure. For measuring
emissions from area sources, EPA has
already developed a remote sensing
test method ("Other Test Method 10")
(10); and the agency is currently
developing additional guidance on how
to apply this method specifically to
measure landfill gas emissions. Such
measurement technologies are needed
to quantify efficiencies of landfill gas
collection systems, and Ms. Thorneloe
acknowledged that a wide range of gas
control efficiencies have been reported
by multiple parties.
In terms of regulations, Ms. Thorneloe
described the existing New Source
Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP). She noted that
applicability of regulations is driven by
measured or estimated emissions.
When measured or estimated
emissions of non-methane organic
compounds or hazardous air pollutants
exceed regulatory thresholds, various
landfill gas emission controls and other
actions must be implemented. A full
review of air regulations pertaining to
landfills is not provided here.
• Ms. Thorneloe concluded her
presentation by describing various
technical and operational issues for
ensuring effective landfill gas capture
and control. She emphasized the need
for effective monitoring and
maintenance of landfill caps and gas
wellhead pipes. However, even the
most efficient landfill gas capture and
control systems do not collect all of the
gas generated. She also described how
many landfills use the collected gas for
purposes of energy recovery, while
some quantities ofgas may be burned
in open flares or closed flares.
The question-and-answer session following
this presentation addressed several topics:
• The first question asked about the
factors that cause landfill gas
generation rates to vary across
landfills. Ms. Thorneloe listed several
factors that affect landfill gas
generation rates. First, the amount of
biodegradable waste within a landfill
largely determines the total amount of
gas that might be generated within a
landfill (though participants later
acknowledged that landfill gas is also
generated by other mechanisms).
Because MSW typically has more
biodegradable waste than hazardous
waste and construction and demolition
waste, MSW landfills tend to generate
more gas than other types of landfills.
In addition, landfill design, delays in
use of water circulation, waste content,
and climate also affect landfill gas
generation. For example, Florida has
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
large quantities of yard waste in its
MSW stream and many above-ground
landfills, which results in increased gas
emissions due to the biodegradable
content and infiltration rates. Ms.
Thorneloe also emphasized that "wet"
landfill designs (i.e., landfills with
leachate recirculation, infiltration of
precipitation) have considerably higher
landfill gas generation rates than "dry"
landfill designs.
The second question asked if EPA has
conducted field studies to compare
landfill gas emission rates estimated by
LandGEM to measured emission rates.
Ms. Thorneloe noted that EPA is
currently collecting field data to assess
model performance, and the results
from these studies are expected to help
EPA better parameterize the model.
Another question asked Ms. Thorneloe
to comment on the duration (in years)
for which landfill gas monitoring should
occur. She responded that no
prescriptive guidance has been
established on the duration of long-
term landfill gas monitoring, though she
acknowledged that even some older
landfill sites continue to have
considerable landfill gas emission
rates. Another participant clarified that
monitoring requirements are in part
dictated by whether a given landfill was
closed prior to, or after, implementation
of RCRA Subtitle D. State
environmental agencies have some
discretion in deciding the long-term
duration of landfill gas monitoring, and
this determination is typically made
based on an evaluation of the long-
term emission trends.
The final question asked how waste
solidification practices can affect landfill
gas generation rates. No participants
were aware of studies that specifically
characterized this issue. However, a
workshop participant noted that pre-
treatment of wastes using solidification
(and other practices) can effectively
add large quantities of liquids to
landfills. Consequently, she suspected
that the presence of liquids might affect
how quickly a given landfill cell starts
generating gas and the rate at which
gas is initially formed.
During this discussion, participants also
offered related comments. First, one
participant explained that landfill
facilities typically have multiple landfill
cells, and the individual cells can be
designed differently. Thus, a new
landfill need not have a single design to
accommodate all possible wastes, but
can instead have multiple cells with
varying designs that are tailored to
specific waste types. Second, another
participant emphasized that the various
types of wastes generated during many
GBR event types (e.g., yard waste,
soils, building debris) will likely be
highly segregated at the site of the
response—a concept that was echoed
during a later presentation (see Section
2.9). In such cases, landfills used for
GBR events might actually receive
relatively homogeneous waste streams,
rather than co-mingled wastes.
However, another participant indicated
that event-specific nuances might
determine the extent to which wastes
can be effectively separated prior to
disposal. Regardless, Ms. Thorneloe
noted that EPA's decision support tool
for disaster debris management (77)
includes modules that allow users to
estimate the different types of wastes
that are expected to be generated
during actual events.
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
2.5 State Perspectives on CBR Landfill
Disposal (Robert Phaneuf)
CBR Debris Disposal Landfilling Issues
A NYS DEC Perspective
I'S EPA Workshop on Landfill Design for CBR Disposal
June 14-15. 2(11 I
Washington. DC NYS'S Landfill status
Liner Performance Overview
Overview of NYS LF Design & Operational
Requirements
Robert Plianaif.PE
NTSDEC
Division of Materials.
Albany. AVir York
Phone: (518}-102-8652
NYS's Approach to Landfill Design.
Construction. Operation and Petforman
Monitoring and how that may be differei
igement CBR Debris Disposal
Mr. Phaneuf, Acting Assistant Division
Director, Materials Management, New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) gave a presentation
that focused on the state of New York's landfill
inventory and its experience with disposing of
CBR material. Currently, 26 active MSW
landfills operate in the State of New York,
down from approximately 1,600 in the 1960s.
The large number of closed landfills includes
many facilities (e.g., open dumps) that do not
meet current design standards, while the
remaining active landfills are large, regional
facilities—all with double-liner systems and
other features designed to minimize human
health and environmental impacts. However,
the annual permitted disposal capacity across
all 26 active landfills is still less than the waste
generation rates that could conceivably occur
from a single CBR event, suggesting that new
landfill capacity will likely be needed for a
large-scale scenario.
Mr. Phaneuf shared information on the time
needed to construct new landfill cells. Based
on recent experience in the State of New York,
individual 10-acre landfill cells generally can be
constructed over the course of a construction
season, not counting the time needed to
develop construction plans and contracting
agreements. As the best case scenario, a new
17-acre landfill cell was fully constructed in the
1990s with a double-composite liner over a 90-
day time frame. The time frame needed to site
new landfills is typically much longer, and can
take between 5 and 10 years. Therefore, when
planning for CBR events, waste management
officials should determine what type and size
of landfill cells are needed and how long they
will take to construct. Also, the potential landfill
construction season needs to be accounted
for, since ambient conditions profoundly impact
the construction timeline for a landfill. This
limitation will impact temporary waste staging
decisions.
Mr. Phaneuf reviewed the typical landfill design
considerations currently applied in the State of
New York, including leachate management,
load inspections, and monitoring. He
emphasized that New York has requirements
beyond those outlined in the corresponding
Federal RCRA regulations. As just two
examples, the state has prescriptive
specifications for design and construction of
double liner systems and requires landfill
owners to proactively monitor the performance
of their upper liner systems. This monitoring
serves as an indicator of the overall
effectiveness of leachate collection and
removal systems (LCRS) and provides
assurance that liner systems have not been
compromised or are in need of maintenance.
The presence of the lower liner provides
further protection against groundwater
contamination in the event that the upper
system fails. Mr. Phaneuf attributed the
ongoing success of landfill liners to multiple
factors, such as attention to detail during
construction, a requirement that 5 feet of
"select waste material" (being free of large,
rigid waste that could impact the liner system)
be disposed atop the upper liner before
general MSW can be disposed of, and ongoing
monitoring and maintenance of LCRS.
Monitoring requirements are also useful for
alerting system operators of potential
maintenance issues associated with LCRS.
Mr. Phaneuf presented results from a 2003
survey that NYSDEC conducted of all active
landfills to determine the most common
maintenance issues associated with LCRS.
Reported operationa/problems included
drainage layer clogging, LCRS pipe and sump
clogging, faulty flow meters, and landfill side-
slope surface seeps; and reported design
problems included inadequate access for
10
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
maintenance and the presence of potentially
unsafe confined spaces that maintenance
personnel must access. Note that proper
design needs to address the fact that
operational maintenance will be necessary.
As further evidence of the effectiveness of
landfill liner systems, Mr. Phaneuf presented
information on indicators of groundwater
contamination for the state's active landfills.
This included analytical sampling of water
quality collected from pore pressure relief
systems and from perimeter groundwater
monitoring wells. Both types of data continue
to indicate that the double-liner systems used
throughout the State of New York continue to
have no groundwater impacts attributed to
releases from engineered barrier systems. In
short, the various liner performance and
groundwater monitoring data, Mr. Phaneuf
noted, continue to demonstrate that the
containment systems are functioning
properly—a finding he viewed as consistent
with conclusions in the National Research
Council's 2006 report on the Assessment of
the Performance of Engineered Waste
Containment Barriers (12).
Finally, to illustrate the importance of the need
for quality construction, Mr. Phaneuf presented
data on liner defects, based on data previously
published (13). That previous work found that
97% of all liner defects take place during
construction, when heavy equipment is needed
to install geomembranes and drainage
systems and to place protective soils atop the
liners. Proposed regulations in New York will
require improved construction quality
assurance requirements, including electrical
resistivity testing and other measures to
ensure the integrity of the liner system is not
compromised during construction.
In the context of disposing of waste from GBR
events, the demonstrated long-term
effectiveness of containment systems in New
York's double-lined landfills may help inform
decisions about the minimum landfill design
features recommended for GBR material. Mr.
Phaneuf noted that NYSDEC's landfill permit
application requirements could provide useful
insights for the technical issues to consider for
designing landfills specifically for CBR events.
Specifically, numerous technical reports must
be submitted and approved during the landfill
permitting process, and these various
requirements address a broad array of
technical and scientific landfill design
considerations. Based on this model, Mr.
Phaneuf noted that EPA could consider
developing the following documents as part of
its planning efforts for constructing new landfill
capacity in support of CBR events, and
separate documents could be tailored to
different types of anticipated waste streams
and constituents:
• Potential site description and analysis,
including waste characterization
• Geotechnical stability analysis,
considering actual waste densities
• Sub-base settlement assessment
analysis
• Seismic stability analysis
• Leachate collection and removal
system design
• Leachate storage facility design
• Storm water management plan
• Construction quality assurance plan
• Facility operations and maintenance
manual
• Comprehensive environmental
monitoring plan
• Fill progression plan
• Facility closure and post-closure plan,
including long-term institutional controls
In addition to these and other analyses
typically completed for landfill permit
applications, Mr. Phaneuf listed numerous
considerations specific to CBR waste that will
likely factor into the technical analyses.
Examples of these specific considerations
include designing landfills with adequate space
for staging areas and equipment
decontamination; the need for exclusion
zones, heightened security to prevent
trespassing, and vector control; the nature of
11
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
personal protective equipment required for
different landfill employees; and design and
operation of water treatment facilities to handle
both leachate and decontamination water.
Mr. Phaneuf concluded the presentation by
presenting photographs and information from
previous waste management responses to the
anthrax letters mailed to various New York City
locations and removal of debris from the World
Trade Center (WTC) disaster. For context, he
noted that the WTC disaster generated
approximately 1.3 million tons of debris that
was transferred to the Fresh Kills Landfill—a
quantity considerably smaller than projected
debris quantities for a larger scale GBR event.
Mr. Phaneuf also discussed the daily capacity
for movement of the debris from the WTC site
to the Fresh Kills Landfill. It should be noted
that approximately 12,000 tons per day was
the highest capacity at which the debris was
able to be moved, with nominal daily capacities
on the order of 6,000 tons per day, in spite of
the fact that barge access was close to the
location of the WTC site. These data highlight
the importance of transportation issues as key
to management of the potential large quantities
of waste that will likely be generated from a
GBR incident.
The question-and-answer session following
this presentation addressed several topics:
• One question asked about the
assumptions inherent in estimates of
geomembrane lifetimes. Mr. Phaneuf
clarified that these estimates typically
address estimated service life of the
geosynthetic components of the liner
system and did not consider the
additional mitigation that would be
offered by the natural clay components
of the liner systems that underlie the
geomembranes. Thus, even if
geomembranes were to fail
catastrophically, the secondary clay
liner beneath these membranes would
provide additional containment
following this failure. Therefore, the
lifetime of the composite liner would be
expected to be longer than the
estimates provided.
• The only other question pertained to
landfill ownership. Mr. Phaneuf noted
that roughly one-third of the MSW
landfills in New York are privately
owned and operated. Most of the
remaining landfills in the state are
publicly owned by municipalities,
though some of these are operated by
private entities.
2.6 Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill
Leachate (Wendy Davis-Hoover)
Persistence of CB Agents in
MSW Landfill Leachate
n PC
June I-1 ;o 11
•vii-Hoovw. Ph 0
Dr. Davis-Hoover, Research Microbiologist,
Land Remediation and Pollution Control
Division, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory of EPA's Office of Research and
Development, presented results of recent EPA
research on the persistence of chemical and
biological (CB) agents in MSW landfill
leachate. After presenting background
information on waste quantities generated
during previous incidents, she outlined the
design and scope of the research. The
purpose of the research was to determine
whether building decontamination debris
containing CB agents can be safely stored or
detoxified in MSW landfills. This was done by
assessing whether—and for how long-
selected CB agents could persist in conditions
that simulate MSW landfill leachate.
Dr. Davis-Hoover then described the
experimental design of the research. In the
study, known quantities of selected CB agents
were placed in separate 3-milliliter microcosms
designed to simulate anaerobic landfill
conditions. The microcosms containing
biological agents were incubated at 12°C and
12
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
37°C to consider typical soil and body
temperatures, respectively. Triplicate
microcosms were used for each agent
considered. Persistence was assessed by
drawing samples from the microcosms at
regular intervals, with more frequent sampling
(weekly) occurring in the first few months of
the study and less frequent sampling (monthly)
occurring several months into the study.
Sampling was terminated when two
consecutive sampling periods result in no
agent detections across all three microcosms.
Results were presented separately for
biological and chemical agents.
The study evaluated persistence of selected
bacteria and viruses in landfill environments.
The four bacteria considered were Bacillus
anthracis (anthrax), Yersinia peso's (plague),
Francisella ft//aAe/75/5(tularemia), and
Clostridiumbotulinum(botulism). Specific
details were provided on the culture medium,
incubation temperature, and incubation time
used for the different biological agents, before
they were charged to the microcosms. Dr.
Davis-Hoover presented the following results
for the data collected to date, noting that
results exhibited little difference for the two
microcosm incubation temperatures
considered:
• Both Yersinia pestisand Francisella
tularensisdied in less than 20 days.
• The two spore-forming bacteria—
Bacillus anthracis and Clostridium
botulinum— both persisted for 5 years
and continue to exist in the
microcosms; a sixth year sampling
event is scheduled to occur in the near
future.
The study attempted to evaluate the
persistence of viruses in landfills. However, the
MSW landfill leachate used in the experiment
proved to be toxic to the tissue cultures in
which the viruses were grown. Therefore, no
data could be generated on viruses within the
current experimental design, but future
research was encouraged due to the fact that
previous studies have suggested that certain
viruses (e.g., polio) can survive in the landfill
environment.
Dr. Davis-Hoover also summarized findings
pertaining to the persistence of six chemical
agents, which included both vesicants and
nerve agents. She first reviewed the analytical
methods and detection limits for these agents,
noting that the microcosms were examined at
a single incubation temperature (12°C). The
following results were shared for the sampling
that has occurred to date, and the experiment
is ongoing. Note that each chemical agent is
presented both as its common name (e.g.,
sarin) and abbreviated name (e.g., "GB").
• Mustard gas (HD) and tabun (GA) did
not persist longer than 14 days.
• Three nerve agents—sarin (GB),
soman (GD), and VX—have continued
to persist in sampling conducted
approximately 6 months into the
experiment. However, sarin and soman
were classified as having "low
persistence" in terms of the quantities
detected in the samples.
• For lewisite, sampling was conducted
for chlorovinyl arsenious acid, a toxic
derivative of the agent. This derivative
was found to persist at a relatively high
concentration in sampling conducted
approximately 6 months into the
experiment.
The question-and-answer session following
this presentation addressed several topics:
• A participant asked if the study results
have been published. Dr. Davis-Hoover
indicated that the information shared
during the workshop has not yet been
published, in part because the
experiment is ongoing.
• Another participant asked for further
information on the landfill leachate
used in the study. Dr. Davis-Hoover
explained that leachate was drawn
from a "young" MSW landfill in the
northeastern United States. This
particular landfill was selected to
examine how newer landfills would be
expected to detoxify selected agents.
13
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
She encouraged additional research to
investigate how results vary with
leachate samples.
• A third participant asked how the
persistence of Bacillus anthrac/s'm
landfill leachate compared to its natural
occurrence and persistence in soils. Dr.
Davis-Hoover acknowledged that this
agent exists in native soils in selected
parts of the country, but did not directly
compare the study results to soil
persistence, given the inherent
differences in the two scenarios (e.g.,
the study considered inoculated
samples).
• Finally, a participant encouraged EPA
to consider the pH of the leachate
when interpreting the results for the
chemical agents, given that hydrolysis
rates are known to vary with pH.
2.7 Fate and Transport of CB Agents in
Simulated Landfills (Mort Barlaz)
Fate and Transport of Chemical
and Biological Agents in a Landfill
Morton A. Barlaz
North Carolina State University
Dr. Barlaz, Professor and Head, Department of
Civil, Construction, and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State University,
summarized findings from a series of projects
pertaining to fate and transport of chemical
and biological agents in simulated landfills.
These studies were conducted with a common
overall purpose, which was to provide
underlying scientific information needed for
developing effective strategies for managing
contaminated debris from GBR events.
Information on the individual studies and their
results follow, organized by topic:
2.7.1 Distribution of Chemical Agents in
Landfills
Dr. Barlaz first reviewed results from a
modeling study of how chemical agents would
be expected to partition among the gas, solid,
and liquid phases in landfills. The Model of
Organic Chemicals in Landfills (MOCLA) was
used in the research (14). MOCLA is a
spreadsheet-based model that estimates
equilibrium partitioning behavior and
transformation and degradation activity, based
on published partitioning coefficients and
reaction rate constants.
The purpose of the initial modeling was to
perform equilibrium-based bounding
calculations so that the most important
physical and chemical phenomena could be
identified. The bounding calculations were
then used to help design experiments to
measure these important phenomena.
The first set of modeling results indicated the
anticipated distribution of selected chemical
agents in waste. The chemical agents that
were modeled included a variety of nerve
agents (e.g., GB, VX), blister agents (e.g.,
HD), and toxic industrial chemicals (e.g.,
carbon disulfide). The initial simulation
considered equilibrium conditions after initial
disposal, before abiotic transformation occurs.
While individual results varied from one
chemical agent to the next, the general finding
was that the selected chemical agents would
initially be expected to be found primarily in the
landfill's solid phase (e.g., adsorbed to waste),
with relatively limited quantities partitioned to
leachate—a finding that is consistent with the
high octanol-water partition coefficient for the
selected chemical agents. Additional modeling
results were presented to assess the impacts
of abiotic transformation, by considering
equilibrium conditions 6 months and 30 years
after disposal. The 6-month simulation
indicated that roughly 5% to 20% of the most
volatile chemical agents were lost due to
advective gas flow; and the other chemical
agents exhibited some evidence of abiotic
transformation, with the relative amounts
determined by the agents' hydrolysis rates.
The 30-year simulation indicated that the most
14
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
volatile chemical agents had almost entirely
been released via advective gas flow (i.e., in
landfill gas emissions), while nearly every
other chemical agent considered was entirely
broken down by abiotic transformation (i.e.,
hydrolysis). For most of the chemical agents
considered, the initial, 6-month, and 30-year
results were roughly similar in wet climate and
arid climate modeling scenarios. The most
notable impact of climate was that volatile
chemicals persisted longer in arid scenarios,
due to the decreased amount of landfill gas
formation.
Overall, the modeling analysis revealed
several insights of relevance to landfill design
considerations for GBR events, with the
modeling results driven largely by the chemical
and physical properties of the various agents
studied. Every chemical agent considered in
the modeling was found to be largely
associated with the solid phase in landfills. In
terms of chemical fate, abiotic transformation
(hydrolysis) and advective gas flow were the
most significant mechanisms, underscoring the
importance of rapid landfill gas collection and
control for the volatile agents. Some chemical
agents were predicted to transform relatively
quickly (over a period of roughly 6 months),
while others were predicted to persist for
longer than 5 years. The effect of climate was
minimal for most chemical agents studied; and
in cases where landfills are promptly sealed,
climate effects would be further minimized due
to decreased water infiltration rates. Further
information on the research described in the
previous paragraphs is documented in multiple
publications (15, J0j.
2.7.2 Sorption andDesorption ofOrganics
in Landfill Simulations
Further research was conducted to assess
how partitioning behavior in landfills varies with
the composition of the solid phase. This
research involved two studies: estimating
equilibrium partitioning parameters for selected
combinations of organic chemicals and waste
components and evaluating the factors that
affect desorption of organic chemicals from
waste material.
The first study estimated underlying
parameters needed to model sorption behavior
of organic chemicals to plastics commonly
found in MSW. Dr. Barlaz reviewed data from
earlier research that evaluated chemical
sorption to soils and sediments. While those
results have been used to assess landfill
environments, soils and sediments are not
representative of the actual waste streams
generated during GBR events, which will
include a broad array of other materials, like
plastics, carpeting, computer casings, and
other building materials. The purpose of the
research was to estimate sorption behavior for
various combinations of chemicals and waste
materials that are typically found in MSW,
including "rubbery" or "soft" plastics (e.g.,
high-density polyethylene) and "glassy" or
"hard" plastics (e.g., polystyrene, polyvinyl
chloride). Dr. Barlaz presented results
demonstrating how material-specific partition
coefficients vary across waste materials, which
has important implications given that older and
newer landfills have considerably different
compositions of plastics, food waste, and other
materials. Specifically, the research suggested
that glassy plastics are important sinks for
organic chemicals in landfills—a finding with
direct implications on the fate of chemical
agents in landfill environments. Overall, the
model developed for this study highlighted the
importance of considering landfill composition
when assessing chemical sorption behavior. It
must be noted that landfill composition is
uncertain; however, a waste stream with a
significant quantity of plastics such as
computer casings, is likely to be more sorbent
than general MSW that typically has a
significant fraction of paper and less computer
casings/carpet.
The second study examined the factors that
contribute to desorption of organic chemicals
from various materials in a simulated landfill
environment, such as plastics, office paper,
newsprint, and food waste. Dr. Barlaz first
reviewed the experimental setup for the
laboratory apparatus, and then presented
measured desorption rates for selected
alklybenzenes and tetrachloroethylene. The
experiments were generally consistent with
15
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
important findings from modeling, such as the
fact that desorption rates were rapid for
rubbery polymers and slow for glassy
polymers. Dr. Barlaz then presented modeling
results for the fraction of sarin that would be
expected to remain in a landfill after 6 months.
Predicted sarin persistence was found to be
much less for a model based on generic
partitioning coefficients for MSW than on a
model based on material-specific partitioning
data for individual constituents of synthetic
building debris. In short, the study found that
chemicals in landfills exhibit different
desorption rates for different materials typically
found in MSW, and desorption behavior can be
reasonably portrayed by mathematical models.
Further information on the research described
in the previous paragraphs is documented in
multiple publications (17-19).
2.7.3 Fate and Transport of Chemicals in
Packed-bed Reactors Containing Simulated
Solid Waste
While the previous research projects focused
on individual mechanisms, the persistence of
chemicals in landfills is ultimately determined
by the net effect of multiple fate and transport
mechanisms (e.g., biodegradation, sorption,
abiotic transformation). Additional research
was conducted to develop laboratory
experiments that represent landfill conditions,
such that chemical fate and transport behavior
can be directly measured and used to assess
and enhance the performance of chemical fate
and transport models. Dr. Barlaz reviewed the
experimental design of this research, which
tracked phenol transport in a mixture of
degraded newsprint and glass beads under
anaerobic conditions. Fate and transport
modeling for this setup was conducted with
HYDRUS-1D, a commercially available model.
Results were shown comparing observed and
modeled indicators of fate and transport, with
and without considering contributions of
biodegradation.
Dr. Barlaz reviewed several conclusions and
discussed their implications for landfill disposal
of GBR material. The research confirmed the
complexities associated with modeling the
combined effect of multiple different fate and
transport processes. The HYDRUS model
provided a reasonable simulation of phenol
fate and transport in an anaerobic and fully
saturated waste column, in which sorption and
biodegradation are the prevailing fate
processes.
After discussing his modeling results, Dr.
Barlaz presented information on the newly
developed Landfill Coupled Reactor Model
(LFCR). This model not only simulates
fundamental chemical fate and transport
mechanisms, but also is believed to include
realistic algorithms for simulating landfill filling
and covering. LFCR also includes time-
variable parameters (e.g., for landfill gas
production) that other models hold constant.
Given that the model offers one of the most
sophisticated and realistic representations of
landfill processes, further research was
recommended to validate the model and
assess its performance. Further information on
the research described in the previous
paragraphs is documented in multiple
publications (20, 21].
2.7.4 Transport of MicrobialAgents in
Landfills
Dr. Barlaz presented results from recent
experimental research designed to examine
how microbial agents are expected to move
through landfill leachate and landfill gas. He
explained that all research was conducted
using surrogates for biological agents (e.g.,
Bacillus atrophaeuswas used as a surrogate
for Bacillus anthracis), given the restrictions
and safety concerns associated with working
with actual biological agents; and he described
how detection methods were developed for the
surrogates. The experimental setup consisted
of columns filled with synthetic building
materials to a depth of 12 inches and spiked
with surrogate organisms. Water infiltration
was simulated in some experiments, and
leachate recirculation in others. Greater
quantities of the surrogates eluted in leachate
for the water infiltration experiments, in
comparison to the leachate recirculation
experiments; and the main inference from
these observations was that disposal of
biologically contaminated debris in landfills
16
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
with water infiltration will most likely have
biological agents in the leachate. However, Dr.
Barlaz encouraged EPA to compare these
findings to those presented earlier in the
workshop on persistence and survival of
biological agents in landfill environments (see
Section 2.6).
The final set of experiments evaluated
microbial transport from waste into landfill gas.
The principal experimental apparatus was an
aerosol chamber specifically designed to
represent movement of landfill gas out of MSW
waste, and the research also involved
considerable methods development for
detecting and measuring the surrogates in air.
Results for two surrogates were presented.
Serratia marcescenswas never detected in
chamber air samples, even for experiments
involving high initial concentrations and gas
flow velocities. Similarly, Bacillusatrophaeus
was rarely detected in the gas samples,
considering the same extreme experimental
conditions. While the high gas flow velocities
used in the studies might not be characteristic
of typical gas flow in landfills, they could be
representative of gas flow rates in close
proximity to well heads at sites with landfill gas
collection systems. Emissions of biological
agents in landfill gas may be minimized by
ensuring that wastes potentially containing
these agents are not disposed of in the
immediate proximity of the gas wells. Further
information on the research described in the
previous paragraphs is documented in multiple
publications (22-24).
To summarize, Dr. Barlaz acknowledged that
scientists could develop ideal landfill design for
many different combinations of GBR agents
and waste materials. However, the actual
waste generated during an event might differ
from specific combinations considered in such
planning efforts. Therefore, some overarching
guiding principles could also prove beneficial,
such as the need to ensure that GBR wastes
are securely buried and sealed rapidly in
landfills equipped with liners, leachate
collection and removal systems, and landfill
gas controls. Models and experimental studies
can continue to be conducted to evaluate the
long-term fate and transport behavior for the
landfills that are eventually used.
The question-and-answer session following
this presentation addressed several topics:
• One participant asked whether the
research included any experiments on
actual biological agents to demonstrate
the representativeness of the selected
surrogates. Dr. Barlaz said this was not
done, primarily because his laboratory
is not licensed to work with select
agents. However, he noted that the
specific surrogates have also been
used by other researchers conducting
similar work. This precedent, combined
with other considerations, suggested
that the use of surrogates was
appropriate for assessing the transport
(as opposed to the survival} of the
corresponding biological agents. He
acknowledged, however, that the use
of surrogates is an inherent limitation of
the study but maintained that the
surrogates did and can continue to
provide valuable information, especially
given the cost and difficulty of working
actual live biological agents.
• Another participant asked why the
packed-bed reactor experiments were
conducted with glass beads, instead of
plastic beads. Dr. Barlaz explained that
these particular experiments were
carefully designed to ensure that
detectable amounts of the chemical
being studied (phenol) would be
present in the different landfill phases
(leachate and gas) within a reasonable
amount of time. Initial modeling
analyses indicated that use of glass
beads would help ensure that these
design criteria were met.
• A third participant asked for additional
information on the methods developed
for identifying pathogens in leachate.
Dr. Barlaz indicated that methods
development was a major undertaking
for the projects involving surrogates for
biological agents. For example, roughly
one year of research was needed to
17
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
develop the detection technique used
for identifying surrogates in leachate.
2.8 Destruction of Spores in Landfill
Gas Flares (Paul Lemieux)
AEPA Thermal Inactivation of Viable
Bacillus AnthracisSurrogate Spores in
a Bench-scale Landfill Gas Flare
Dr. Lemieux presented work performed by Ms.
Jenia Tufts, Environmental Scientist/Student
Services Contractor, Decontamination and
Consequence Management Division, National
Homeland Security Research Center of EPA's
Office of Research and Development, which
presented research findings on thermal
inactivation of spores in landfill gas flares
(using Bacillus atrophaeus and Ceobacillus
stearothermophilusas surrogates for Bacillus
anthracis). Because previous research has
found the spores to be highly thermally
resistant and extremely persistent, questions
were raised about the possibility of viable
spores being emitted in landfill gas and
whether spores can survive after passing
through flares. At landfills, flares are either
open or enclosed designs. The main difference
between these designs is where combustion
occurs—in and above the stack in an open
flare system and within an enclosure for the
enclosed flares. The research focused on
simulating the conditions in enclosed flares,
which represent the better control technology
for landfill gas control.
Dr. Lemieux then reviewed the experimental
design for the study, which considered two
surrogates for Bacillus anthracisthat have
been used in many previous research efforts:
Ceobacillus stearothermophilus and Bacillus
atrophaeus. Like Bacillus anthracis, the two
surrogates are Gram-positive (those that are
stained dark blue or violet by Gram stain),
spore forming, rod-shaped, and thermally
resistant. The research was conducted inside
a laboratory fume hood using a bench-scale
apparatus designed to simulate a landfill gas
flare. The simulated landfill gas was a mixture
of air and methane, into which a spore solution
was injected. Multiple quality control steps
were implemented to ensure that no stray
spores contaminated the gases or equipment
used in the experiment. The experimental
flame had a temperature of approximately
1,000 °C at flare edges, with a gas residence
time of 0.2 seconds; and both values closely
correspond to what is typically observed in
landfill gas flares. However, the air flow in the
experimental system was considerably less
turbulent than what is typically observed in the
field. This was not considered an important
limitation, because less turbulent air flow would
be expected to provide a more conservative
account of spore viability (due to less effective
heat transfer to materials passing through the
flame). Seven tests were conducted with each
surrogate: five tests were performed with the
flare on and two with the flare off. Any spores
recovered from the experiment exhaust were
cultured in nutrient broths to assess viability of
the spores, rather than to characterize their
mere presence.
Dr. Lemieux concluded by presenting results
from the spore viability measurements.
Overall, the bench-scale experimental set-up
was found to be reasonably comparable to
actual enclosed flare conditions. For every
flare test considered, no positive test results
were observed for either Bacillus atrophaeus
or Ceobacillus stearothermophilus. These
findings suggest that, within the parameters of
the experiment, spores that do happen to enter
landfill gas will not likely survive after passing
through well-operated landfill flares.
The question-and-answer session following
this presentation addressed several topics:
• One participant noted that the
experiment was found to represent a
well-operated landfill flare, but
wondered about the implications for
flares operating outside typical bounds
18
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
or during process upsets. Dr. Lemieux
said the experiments conducted to date
did not address non-ideal operating
conditions, such as changes in
stoichiometric ratios of landfill gases or
unexpected increases or decreases in
flame temperature. However, the
bench-scale setup can be used in
future experiments to examine these
scenarios.
• Another participant asked if EPA is
considering experiments to assess the
fate of spores in landfill gas collection
systems. Dr. Lemieux acknowledged
that many landfills with active gas
collection systems process the gas for
purposes of energy recovery, but the
experiments conducted to date focused
specifically on landfill gas flares and not
other types of internal combustion
engines. Further research would be
needed to assess the fate of spores in
engines, boilers, and other combustion
systems that could be installed at newly
sited landfills designed to receive GBR
wastes. However, Dr. Lemieux also
noted that many internal combustion
engines have temperatures and
residence times similar to those used in
landfill gas flares.
2.9 Waste S treams G enerated from CB R
Events (Bill Steuteville)
Mr. Steuteville, On-Scene Coordinator in
EPA's Region 3, discussed key findings from
the Liberty Radiation Exercise (Liberty RadEx)
and their implications for waste management
following GBR events. Liberty RadEx was an
exercise conducted in 2010 to test emergency
response to the detonation of a radiological
dispersal device in downtown Philadelphia and
associated cleanup activities. The hypothetical
event was an explosion that released 2,300
curies of cesium-137. The initial explosion for
this exercise would have damaged only
adjacent buildings, but caused radiological
contamination up to five times background
levels at downwind distances up to 50 miles
away. In this scenario, up to 140,000 residents
would likely have been temporary relocated
while decontamination and cleanup activities
occurred in the most heavily impacted area.
Waste generation estimates for this exercise
depend on the acceptable risk levels adopted,
with some estimates suggesting removal of
40,000,000 tons of waste.
Mr. Steuteville emphasized that the waste
streams generated by GBR events should not
be considered debris. Natural disasters, such
as the recent outbreaks of tornadoes in
Missouri in Alabama and the tsunami in Japan,
can destroy numerous buildings and other
infrastructure, resulting in large debris fields of
comingled wastes. In contrast, GBR events are
generally not expected to result in massive and
widespread physical destruction (though some
destruction can occur), and much of the
wastes from these events will be removed from
intact structures. This distinction has major
implications for waste management strategies
for GBR events: once contaminated areas are
defined, wastes can be segregated during
cleanup such that multiple relatively
homogenous waste streams are prepared for
disposal, rather than hopelessly comingled
waste streams. Examples of separate waste
streams from cleanup of residential
neighborhoods with surface contamination
would include, but not be limited to, soils,
cement, carpet, white goods, ceiling tiles, and
roofing material. Thus, multiple landfill cells
can be designed and optimized for the
anticipated waste streams generated during
these events, rather than trying to plan for a
single cell that would accommodate a
complex, mixed waste stream.
The question-and-answer session following
this presentation addressed several topics:
• One participant asked if extensive
waste segregation can truly be
anticipated for most GBR events. Mr.
Steuteville replied that this should be
feasible, based on his experiences with
the hypothetical Liberty RadEx event
and on actual cleanup activities at sites
with chemical contamination. As a
result, biodegradable wastes that can
lead to formation of landfill gases will
generally be separated from inert
19
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
material. He acknowledged that these
events can include small areas where
waste segregation is not practical or
possible, but the majority of the
cleanup area will likely result in
relatively homogeneous waste streams.
• Another participant asked how wastes
would likely be transported to landfills
following major GBR events. Mr.
Steuteville indicated that most wastes
from these events would first be sent to
staging areas for waste
characterization, decontamination, and
temporary staging, rather than being
sent immediately and directly to
landfills. The need for rapid removal of
wastes is driven by many factors,
particularly the need to return
communities to normalcy.
• Another participant expressed concern
about prolonged staging of wastes in
staging areas for events involving
highly volatile chemical agents. Mr.
Steuteville agreed that this is an
important consideration, but noted that
extensive waste removal for large-scale
GBR attacks will likely take several
weeks to initiate and implement, at
which point the most volatile chemicals
will have largely evaporated and
dispersed.
2.10 Disposal of Radiological Wastes in
Landfills (David Allard)
Mr. Allard, Director, Bureau of Radiation
Protection, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, provided an
overview of Pennsylvania's regulations and
guidance for dealing with radioactivity in solid
waste. As background, Pennsylvania is a net
importer of approximately 10 million tons of
solid waste per year, largely due to the
available landfill capacity and low tipping fees.
The infrastructure for managing MSW and so-
called residual waste include 54 landfills,
approximately 70 transfer stations, and six
waste-to-energy facilities. Current regulations
in Pennsylvania require that RCRA Subtitle D
landfills be designed to RCRA Subtitle C
landfill standards. Therefore, most active MSW
landfills in the state have much more extensive
control than is required by federal regulation.
Several factors have complicated efforts for
disposing of radiological material at solid waste
facilities around the country. For example,
many MSW landfills have permit provisions
that prohibit disposal of "radioactivity," without
providing meaningful definitions and criteria for
identifying what materials in the solid waste
stream are acceptable and what are not. One
state (Pennsylvania) has a very
comprehensive approach of (requiring via their
solid waste regulations) radiation monitors at
all facilities, and Action Plans in place to
identification of the type of radioactive material
present. Without such an approach, facilities
find it particularly problematic given the
ubiquitous nature of radioactivity, including
many natural sources, as well as the very
common scenario of medical patient-
contaminated solid waste setting off radiation
alarms. Without regulations and guidance,
MSW landfills have installed radioactive
material monitors, but the detection devices,
alarm settings, on-site responses, and other
factors vary considerably from one landfill to
the next. Again, a major complicating factor is
that these monitors would frequently alarm
when encountering patient-contaminated
wastes with little or no radiological
significance. In fact, these wastes that are
exemptfrom NRG and DOT regulation, such
are the actual patients and excreta from
individuals or pets receiving nuclear medicine
procedures and therapies. On occasion,
orphan sources or low-level technologically-
enhanced naturally occurring radioactive
20
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
materials (TENORM) wastes have been
identified in wastes sent to MSW landfills; after
detection, these materials are removed from
the waste stream, assessed and handled
accordingly for disposal.
Mr. Allard provided numerous examples of
waste items that contain naturally occurring
radioactive materials (NORM) or TENORM.
These examples included various industrial
wastes (e.g., metal processing slags, coal fly
ash, residuals from hydraulic fracturing) and
consumer products (e.g., fertilizers, sheet rock,
smoke detectors). He also referred to self-
luminous "EXIT" signs that contain radioactive
tritium gas, because these have contributed to
elevated tritium levels recently detected in
leachate samples from MSW landfills. Due to
the prevalence of these signs in landfills,
groundwater monitoring for tritium could be a
useful indicator for leachate leakage and liner
breaches.
Mr. Allard then reviewed specific regulations
and guidelines that the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) developed both to protect the
environment, the public, and workers from
unnecessary radiation exposure and to protect
solid waste facilities from contamination. The
regulations specifically prohibit disposal of
certain materials, such as low-level radioactive
waste, special nuclear material, and
transuranic radioactive material. The
regulations also allow for facilities to process
and dispose of certain radioactive materials
(e.g., short-lived radioactive materials from
patients undergoing medical procedures,
TENORM), but only after receiving written
approval from PADEP. The regulations and
guidance include various other requirements,
which facilities address in Radiation Protection
Action Plans. These plans present approaches
for monitoring, detecting, and characterizing
radioactive material, notifying regulators when
certain conditions are met, and recordkeeping.
Mr. Allard reviewed several other regulatory
requirements and protocols, such as PADEP's
radiation action levels (and how background
radiation is considered when evaluating these),
corresponding actions that must be
implemented when action levels are exceeded,
and the specific radiation dose model the
agency uses when evaluating waste disposal
petitions.
Mr. Allard then reviewed various lessons
learned from implementing PADEP's
regulatory framework for disposing of
radiological wastes. For instance, the agency
recently analyzed the underlying causes for
alarm conditions triggered by radiation field
measurements at solid waste management
facilities. This analysis found that:
• 90% of alarms resulted from nuclear
medicine radioactive material in
household waste.
• 9% of alarms were due to the presence
of NORM or TENORM.
• 1 % of alarms resulted from nuclear
medicine radioactive material detected
on drivers.
• Less than 1% of the alarms were due
to regulated or controlled radioactive
material.
Other important insights were gleaned from a
landfill leachate study that the agency
conducted in 2004. In the study, more than
1,000 leachate samples were collected from
54 active landfills, and the samples were
analyzed for some combination of gross alpha,
gross beta, tritium, total uranium, and radium
isotopes. Tritium was found well above
background concentrations in more than 90%
of the leachate samples. More than half of the
landfills considered in the study had tritium
concentrations in leachate greater than 20,000
picocuries per liter—EPA's current drinking
water standard for tritium; and one landfill
leachate sample contained tritium at more than
350,000 picocuries per liter. Follow-up
sampling in more recent years has generally
confirmed the findings from the 2004 study.
Mr. Allard also reviewed key points from the
Liberty RadEx exercise (see Section 2.9 for a
brief overview of Liberty RadEx). One of many
challenges faced was how to select acceptable
radiation dose values and then back-calculate
cleanup levels for contamination in soils, on
surfaces, and other media—all while balancing
21
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
health protectiveness against the feasibility
and cost of disposing massive quantities of
potentially contaminated waste. The estimated
waste volume was several hundred thousand
cubic feet of waste for the 2-year PAG area,
and half of the total cost for managing this
waste was due to transportation.
He concluded by reporting that the
Pennsylvania regulatory framework and
guidance for disposing of radiological wastes is
currently being considered as the basis for (1)
model regulations to be developed by other
states and (2) a new standard published by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
Thus, concepts from this regulatory framework
could also prove beneficial for designing and
operating landfills to receive GBR wastes.
The question-and-answer session following
this presentation addressed several topics:
• One participant asked if other states
have reported detection of tritium in
landfill leachate. Mr. Allard said
California has conducted a similar
survey, which found leachate tritium
levels comparable to those measured
in samples from the Pennsylvania
landfills. That study also indicated the
potential for tritium to be found in
condensate from landfill flares.
• Another participant asked about
additional lessons learned from Liberty
RadEx and the current response to the
tsunami in Japan. Mr. Allard said a
critical, initial decision in these events
is determining which lands will be
dedicated to build new disposal
facilities. For events involving
radiological dispersal devices, multiple
types of disposal facilities with different
designs will likely be necessary to
handle materials with varying degrees
of contamination. When extremely
large quantities of waste must be
removed, consideration should also be
given to constructing and operating
interim staging areas.
• A participant asked how best to pre-
identify locations for constructing
staging areas and disposal facilities.
Mr. Allard said that, during Liberty
RadEx, community involvement proved
to be a critical factor when identifying
candidate locations for these facilities.
A reasonable approach could be to
identify in advance specific siting
criteria that must be met for these
facilities, because one does not know
in advance where a GBR event will
actually occur. He added that it might
be easier to first identify areas that
would be excluded as potential facility
locations, such as flood plains, certain
urban areas, state forests, and sites of
cultural significance.
Another participant asked if responders
should segregate tritium-based exit
signs when removing materials from
buildings following contamination with
biological agents. Mr. Allard said
decontamination would be an important
first step. The preferred subsequent
steps would likely be considered on a
case-by-case basis; options could
include sending the signs to facilities
that can recover the tritium or
stabilizing the signs or the tritium
components in a manner to prevent
release of the tritium.
A participant asked if PADEP had
planned any public education
campaigns or outreach programs to
inform the public of waste management
issues surrounding GBR events (e.g.,
safeguards for transportation and
landfill siting). Mr. Allard supported
developing these efforts and
acknowledged the benefits of
stakeholder and public participation,
but education and outreach was not a
focus during Liberty RadEx.
A participant asked if disposal of
radiological waste would be expected
to shorten the service life of a landfill
facility. It was the general view that the
radiation levels in most building debris
from GBR events would not be
expected to physically affect
22
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
geomembranes or clay liners. Higher
level radiological waste may be of
concern, but that could be addressed
by stabilizing this material or diverting it
to specialized facilities.
23
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
3.0 Moderated Discussions
The moderated discussions were framed
around discussion questions circulated to
participants in advance of the workshop (see
Attachments). Each question considered
during the workshop is listed below, and these
questions prompted workshop participants to
discuss specific topics. This section of the
report chronicles the participants' responses
and discussions for each question and
culminates by documenting the participants'
final comments.
3.1 Question 1: Waste-Specific
Considerations
The first question considered in the moderated
discussions asked: "Based on projections of
the different types of waste that might be
generated as a result of the response, are
there any considerations that might be waste-
specific that could affect the land disposal
technology selection?" The workshop
participants provided multiple responses to this
question and raised several additional points.
A summary of the responses and discussion
points follows:
• Waste segregation and implications.
Based on discussions earlier at the
workshop (see Section 2.9), the likely
scenario following a GBR event is that
wastes will be highly segregated at the
time they are generated. Thus, landfill
cells can be designed to most
effectively manage the different solid
waste streams that are anticipated. As
necessary, waste streams can be
handled individually or mixed, while
achieving narrow windows of bulk
density and ensuring that
biodegradable wastes and other
materials with high gas-formation
potential are separated to the extent
desired from building components and
other "inert" materials. Additionally, the
most heavily contaminated materials
will be managed separately from
wastes likely to have low or minimal
contamination. A participant
encouraged consideration for the
minimal or perhaps optimal amount of
segregation at the point of generation
that would facilitate downstream waste
management, but without leading to an
unnecessarily prolonged response.
Knowing in advance which waste
streams should be comingled could
help simplify the initial waste removal
and staging following a GBR event.
Transportation issues and implications.
Transportation of waste was identified
as a potential "bottleneck" in the waste
management response to GBR events.
For events that generate more than
10,000,000 tons of solid waste,
transportation is expected to account
for a large fraction of waste
management costs and could take
three or more years to complete, based
on an assumption that standard dump
trucks typically used for moving debris
haul 12,000 tons of waste per day; this
also assumes that local transportation
infrastructure has not been
compromised by the event itself. This
estimated time for waste removal was
supported by the recent experience of
transporting material from the World
Trade Center to the Fresh Kills landfill
using a combination of trucks and
barges. Consideration for large waste
staging areas near the event location
can help accelerate the initial waste
removal response and allow for waste
accumulation, decontamination,
dewatering (if necessary),
consolidation, and compaction while
the ultimate disposal facility is being
constructed —an issue that was
revisited multiple times during the
workshop.
Liquids and sludge. Some GBR events
can result in large quantities of liquid
waste (e.g., decontamination water
generated following a radiological
event). Plans can be established now
for how best to handle and treat
wastewater, considering lessons
24
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
learned from the Liberty RadEx
exercise and from current practices
used to manage wastewater generated
during hydraulic fracturing activities.
For events resulting in significant
quantities of sludge, the landfill design
will need to consider slope stability
concerns.
Site-specific considera tions. Events
that occur in heavily industrialized
areas or at key transportation nodes
could result in large quantities of
hazardous waste, manufacturing
equipment, vehicles, and other
materials that might need to be
decontaminated or handled separately
from other materials. A participant
agreed with this statement, but also
encouraged that this particular
workshop focus on the components of
the GBR waste stream that are
expected to account for the greatest
percentage of the overall waste (i.e.,
building components, soil, trees and
shrubs, scarified concrete). Sludge,
vehicles, and drums of hazardous
waste will likely account for a relatively
small fraction of the overall waste
stream.
Animal carcasses. GBR events with
plumes passing over agriculture areas
can lead to significant numbers of
animal carcasses that must be
managed. For example, an event that
contaminates (or otherwise affects) a
single cattle feed lot could conceivably
result in well over 50,000 tons of animal
carcasses. Specific challenges posed
by this waste stream are rapid
decomposition, the significant water
content (approximately 60% to 70%) of
animal carcasses, and vector control.
These challenges argue for the
developing and deploying onsite
processing technologies, rather than
attempting to transport decomposing
carcasses. Examples given were use of
mobile rendering technologies that
remove water content from the
carcasses and therefore reduce the
volume of waste, along with temporary
staging strategies (e.g., refrigeration,
tanks with preservatives) that slow or
stop decomposition while waste
management decisions are made.
3.2 Question 2: Design, Construction,
and Operational Requirements
The second question considered in the
moderated discussions asked: "What special
design, construction, or operational
requirements might be appropriate for different
types of contaminating agents? What types of
routine and long-term monitoring might be
appropriate for different types of wastes and
for different contaminating agents?"
Two general comments were raised before the
participants discussed agent-specific
recommendations. One participant noted that
preferred landfill ofes/gwstrategies might not
vary considerably between chemical,
biological, and radiological agents, because
landfills receiving GBR wastes will likely all
have liners, designated decontamination
areas, gas control measures, and other
various features. However, certain operational
requirements, such as the nature and extent of
long-term monitoring and long-term
institutional controls, probably should vary
across agent types. One method suggested for
documenting specific design, construction, and
operational requirements is to populate a multi-
dimensional matrix: a user would specify the
agent category (e.g., chemical) and waste
matrix (e.g., office furniture and carpeting), and
the matrix would output a list of the preferred
landfill design and operational features. This
could include certain elements that apply to all
GBR events and special considerations for the
agent-waste combination. The output list could
also specify landfill features that should be
avoided for a given event. Such a matrix can
be expanded to account for various other
inputs that might be expected to affect landfill
design, operation, and maintenance (e.g.,
extent of decontamination, local climate).
25
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
A summary of the responses and discussion
points specific to the three categories of
agents follows:
3.2. J Responses for Biological Agents
• Unique properties of biological agents.
Biological agents have some unique
aspects, when compared to chemical
and radiological agents. First,
measurement methods are not widely
available for biological agents. While
polymerase chain reaction can detect
the presence of an agent, the
measurement does not indicate
whether the agent is viable. Time is
needed to develop culturing methods
for biological agents. Second, unlike
chemical and radiological agents,
whose concentrations will generally
decrease over time after initial disposal,
the amount of certain biological agents
can potentially increase inside landfills.
Finally, biological agents have widely
varying persistence, with some that die
quickly in an open environment and
others (e.g., prions, spores) that can
persist for decades. These various
properties should be considered when
disposing of wastes potentially
contaminated with biological agents.
• Siting. During previous responses to
anthrax incidents, including instances
of naturally occurring anthrax and
anthrax spores sent in the U.S. mail,
environmental agencies reported
difficulties finding landfills that would
accept the waste. The reasons for
these difficulties included: public
perception of unacceptable risk; the
lack of clear direction from
governmental agencies on exactly how
the waste should be packaged,
transported, and handled; and
indemnification concerns. Several
suggestions were proposed to help
overcome these obstacles. Effective
risk communication and public
involvement was one strategy listed for
addressing public health concerns.
Siting and constructing new
government-owned landfills on state- or
federally-owned land, which might
include land obtained through eminent
domain, would help address siting
issues and alleviate the need to
indemnify entities that own existing
landfills. Further, guidance could be
developed to specify how these wastes
should be handled, from point of
generation through staging to disposal.
The significant transportation costs
observed during previous exercises
provide a compelling case for siting and
constructing landfills relatively close to
the GBR event location. It was
recommended that identification of
siting criteria and identification of which
sites are clearly inappropriate for such
a facility would be a less controversial
approach than to recommend sites.
Landfill gas control. Presentations
earlier in the workshop indicated that
certain biological agents have the
potential to enter landfill gas, although
they may resist this due to being tightly
bound to the waste, and experimental
data suggest that spores that do
happen to enter landfill gas will not
survive after passing through well-
operated landfill flares. While the
experimental results were encouraging,
a participant noted that uncontrolled
landfill gas emissions can still occur
through seeps and cracks, or when gas
collection wells are originally being
installed. Several considerations were
suggested for minimizing air releases
of biological agents from these
sources. First, steps could be taken to
ensure that gas collection wells are not
drilled directly into areas known to have
contaminated wastes. Second, pre-
treatment of wastes could minimize
transport of biological agents into
landfill gas. For instance, to the extent
practical, specific waste items known or
suspected to be contaminated with
biological agents can be wrapped,
containerized, stabilized, or solidified in
order to effectively immobilize the
26
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
material of greatest concern. Further,
concerns about landfill gas generation
can be minimized by having certain
landfill cells dedicated primarily to
"inert" wastes with minimal gas
formation potential. For cells expected
to have landfill gas generation issues,
the cover material and cap must
effectively control gas emissions, with
routine inspection, maintenance, and
monitoring implemented to identify and
control seeps. Finally, the landfill gas
that is collected will likely need to be
burned onsite, without being treated
and distributed into commerce.
Leachate control. Presentations earlier
in the workshop indicated that
biological agents can transfer into, and
persist in, landfill leachate —findings
that argue against a landfill design with
leachate recirculation system. The
remaining two options mentioned were
(1) permanently sealing the landfill after
disposal is completed (along with any
leachate that may exist in the cell) or
(2) collecting and treating the leachate.
For the former option, decisions will
have to be made regarding how
specifically to minimize leachate
formation (e.g., should t waste with
moisture content above a certain
threshold be required to t be dried or
stabilized before disposal?). For the
latter option, specific consideration
would have to be given to whether, and
to what extent, leachate treatment
should occur at the landfill and what
type of off-site water treatment facility
would be able to receive potentially
contaminated leachate.
Related regulatory frameworks. EPA's
existing regulatory framework for
managing, transporting, and disposing
of asbestos-containing material was
promulgated in part to minimize fugitive
air emissions of a hazardous
substance. Accordingly, some
participants encouraged EPA to
consider whether certain requirements
in the asbestos NESHAP (National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants) should also be applied to
biological agents, given the similar
concern about minimizing or eliminating
all possible sources of fugitive air
emissions. Referring to the asbestos
NESHAP can also provide insights into
required protective measures for
minimizing worker exposures.
3.2.2 Responses for Radiological Agents
• Unique properties of radiological
agents.One unique characteristic of
radiological agents is the known half-
lives and decay products of individual
radionuclides. These parameters have
direct bearing on waste management
decisions for various reasons. For
example, the half-lives can factor into
the proposed duration of long-term
monitoring and institutional controls for
future uses, and the formation and
toxicity of decay products must also be
considered when managing these
wastes (e.g., uranium decay eventually
generates radon gas).
• R ela ted regula tory frameworks and
guidance. EPA, the Department of
Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission all have extensive
experience with managing various
types of radioactive waste, including
mixed wastes, low-level radioactive
waste, and high-level radioactive
waste. Regulations have been
developed for routine waste
management activity, and guidance
has been published for emergency
response (e.g., accidents at nuclear
power plants). These agencies have
developed a wide range of information
resources to guide responders through
waste management activities involving
radioactive waste.
• Anticipa ted waste volumes and waste
managementimplications. Experience
has indicated that certain types of
events involving radioactive materials,
such as attacks using radiological
dispersal devices, can result in
27
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
widespread contamination. Waste
volumes following these events have
been estimated to exceed 40,000,000
tons, with exact quantities depending
on the size of exclusion zones and
contamination areas. Within this
volume will be a range of materials, in
terms of radioactivity. Responders
therefore need to be prepared for
handling this magnitude of waste, and
external pressures from the public and
politicians might result in the need to
remove the waste as quickly as
possible. These factors would further
support an idea raised earlier: the
preferred response might involve
moving massive quantities of materials
first to staging areas, while landfill
space is being constructed or
negotiated.
Consideration for decontamination
residues.Decontamination activities
will likely occur as part of the waste
management response. Therefore, all
facilities expected to handle radioactive
wastes—landfills, and staging areas-
should be designed with a specific area
dedicated to decontamination activities,
which could include decontaminating
large vehicles. These sites will also
need to be equipped with means for
handling, and possibly treating, large
volumes of decontamination water that
are expected to be generated.
Monitoring considerations. A participant
noted that leachate and
decontamination water are likely to be
discharged to water treatment facilities.
The extent of contamination in the
water at the treatment facilities can be
evaluated with monitoring or by
calculating concentration reductions
due to dilution from water received from
other sources. But, a possibility
remains that trace amounts of
radionuclides gradually accumulating
and concentrating in the sludge
generated at these facilities. In cases
where sludge material is used for land
application purposes, some
consideration should be given to
monitoring the sludge for presence of
the radionuclides of concern.
• Other considera tions. While
acknowledging thatwaste management
responses must comply with existing
regulations, several participants
indicated a preference for guidelines
and guidance for certain response
activities involving radioactive wastes,
as opposed to entirely prescriptive
requirements. For instance, guidance
could indicate when it is preferred to
use fixatives in the field to immobilize
contamination, under what conditions
should wastes be stabilized prior to
disposal, and so on. As noted
previously, public acceptability will be
an important factor in the waste
management process, and this can be
addressed through effective outreach
and educational materials, possibly
drawing from experiences gained from
the Liberty RadEx exercise and existing
documents posted on EPA's website
(25} (http://www.epa.gov/libertyradex/).
3.2.3 Responses for Chemical Agents
• Spec/a/ considera tions for chemical
agents susceptible to hydrolysis.
Presentations earlier in the workshop
noted that certain chemical agents
(e.g., sarin) undergo rapid abiotic
transformation via hydrolysis.
Therefore, exposing these particular
wastes to water, whether through
leachate recirculation or infiltration of
rainwater, would help accelerate the
principal mechanism for hydrolyzing
and potentially detoxifying the waste.
This was the only case where
workshop participants noted that
leachate recirculation or infiltration of
precipitation could be advantageous. In
short, the landfill can be designed and
viewed as a treatment operation,
instead of merely storing the waste.
• Timeliness of response for volatile
chemical'agents.To minimize potential
inhalation exposures to the most
28
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
volatile chemical agents, some
incidents would ideally have rapid
waste disposal with prompt installation
of landfill gas collection and treatment
systems. However, because waste
removal following a GBR event is
expected to last several weeks, if not
longer, a considerable portion of the
most volatile constituents may
evaporate from wastes, hydrolyze, or
possibly disperse before the material
ever reaches a landfill.
• Selection of liner material.
Presentations earlier in the workshop
reported on the extent to which certain
chemical agents are expected to
adhere to different types of plastics. For
example, the earlier presentation
indicated that certain chemical agents
adhere more readily to polyvinyl
chloride than they do to high-density
polyethylene. Such knowledge could be
one of many factors to consider when
choosing liner material.
• Additional evidence of persistence.
Presentations earlier in the workshop
reviewed recent experimental and
modeling studies indicating that certain
chemical agents are highly persistent in
landfill environments. Consistent with
this observation is the fact that some
World War l-era chemical weapons that
were previously buried in soil have
been recently unearthed, with
detectable quantities of the chemical
agent still present. This provided
additional evidence of persistence,
though participants acknowledged
differences between burial and disposal
in landfills.
3.3 Question 3: Other Strategies and
General Comments
The third question considered in the
moderated discussions asked: "What else can
be done as part of the entire spectrum of the
waste management process (e.g., segregation,
reuse/recycling, volume reduction, treatment,
staging, disposal) that could add to the
capacity to operationally recover from a GBR
incident?" A general sentiment expressed is
that the response for a GBR event will likely
need to consider all possible waste
management options listed in the question,
especially when large volumes of waste need
to be moved in short time frames. A summary
of specific responses follow, organized roughly
into the sequence of events that occurs before,
during, and after GBR events:
• Preparedness. Multiple
recommendations were offered to state
agencies and other jurisdictions for
becoming better prepared to manage
wastes following a GBR event. First,
agencies should access existing
inventories of landfills and other waste
management facilities, possibly
drawing from EPA's decision support
tool for disaster debris management,
though this resource obviously would
not be expected to inform decisions
about siting new facilities. Second,
agencies were encouraged to evaluate
and assess their existing inventory of
equipment needed to respond to
events (e.g., waste hauling vehicles,
barges). Third, participants voiced
support for conducting additional
emergency exercises and drills that
specifically include waste removal and
management. Further, agencies can
enhance their preparedness by
developing emergency operation plans,
transportation plans, and the various
planning documents that typically
support landfill construction and
operation (e.g., construction quality
assurance plan, facility operations and
maintenance manual, and
comprehensive environmental
monitoring plan).
• Segregation of wastes. As noted
previously, the wastes initially removed
from areas affected by GBR events are
expected to be highly segregated.
Separate waste streams could be
generated for a wide range of
materials, including soils, concrete,
trees and shrubs, vehicles, and so on.
29
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Advanced planning should consider the
full range of anticipated waste streams
and the preferred waste management
strategies for these waste streams,
whether handled individually or in
combination. Another option raised was
the possibility of co-disposal of GBR
wastes with MSW. Reuse and recycling
may not be feasible, given public
perception of risk associated with
recovering and reusing material that
might have been contaminated with a
GBR agent.
• Role ofstagingareas. Following large
GBR events, response teams will be
under extreme pressure to quickly
remove waste material from affected
communities to restore order. On the
other hand, construction of new landfill
facilities is expected to take months,
even in cases where extensive
planning has occurred. The exact time
needed to construct new landfill cells
will depend on many factors, some of
which are unpredictable (e.g., the
weather, unanticipated delays). These
two driving forces—the need to remove
waste quickly and the likelihood that
new landfills will not be ready for
several months—make a very strong
case for initially transferring waste to
safe and secure staging areas.
Participants noted that these facilities
might need to hold wastes for months,
or even years, while landfill capacity is
constructed.
Agencies expected to manage GBR wastes
were encouraged to start thinking about
potential locations for staging areas,
recognizing that transporting material over long
distances can increase costs substantially.
Further, agencies were encouraged to
consider what pre-processing activities might
occur at these sites in order to facilitate
downstream waste disposal. Examples include
crushing, compacting, packaging, dewatering,
and mixing of waste streams. The one
precaution expressed was that repeated or
excessive handling of potentially contaminated
GBR waste increases the likelihood of further
releases of harmful agents and also raises
occupational exposure concerns (see below).
Thus, some pre-processing activities might be
more appropriate to implement at the waste
generation site, at the landfill facilities, or in the
landfill cells.
• Transportation. Previous experience
from GBR events and exercises has
indicated that transporting waste can
account for a large fraction of the
overall costs of waste removal and
management. Agencies that will
oversee waste management I were
encouraged to research and develop
detailed transportation plans that
specify shipping procedures for all
transportation modes (e.g., rail, truck,
and barge)—an activity that should
occur as part of preparedness efforts.
Close coordination with DOT was also
advised. DOT currently requires
security plans for private companies
that handle and transport small
quantities of select agents, but this
approach will likely not apply to the
very large quantities of waste that must
be transported after a large GBR event.
However, DOT officials would likely
work with the agency overseeing the
waste response to determine minimum
requirements for ensuring that material
is transported in a safe and secure
manner.
• Landfill gas. Landfill gas was viewed by
some participants as being the most
likely route by which GBR agents can
be released from landfills in an
uncontrolled manner. The gas issues
were viewed as problematic not only
because the gas can be difficult to
control (e.g., due to cracks and seeps
in cover material), but also because
emissions are difficult to monitor. A
possible solution to this issue was to
only landfill "inert" materials from GBR
events and divert all biomass to
incineration facilities, particularly for
wastes that are potentially
contaminated with chemical and
biological agents. A participant said this
30
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
option is worth investigating, given that
waste materials are expected to be
highly segregated upon removal from
the event site, as discussed earlier in
this report (see Section 2.9).
Liners. Selection of liner material
should be based on the type and
composition of waste that it will contain,
and not entirely on ease of
construction. While landfills with geo-
synthetic liners can be constructed
more quickly than landfills with natural
clays in composite liners, wastes with
high calcium content will degrade geo-
synthetic clay liners. The liner material
used should ultimately offer the
greatest containment for the specific
wastes above it.
Monitoring. Long-term monitoring at
landfills that receive GBR wastes can
provide assurance that the agents
continue to be contained, which is likely
to be an important public acceptability
issue. Landfills already have monitoring
requirements that extend into the post-
closure period. Participants noted that
the existing monitoring requirements
that look for evidence of leakage are
adequate, but questioned whether gas
monitoring protocols required under the
New Source Performance Standards
would be sufficient for detecting landfill
gas emissions. One specific suggestion
for assessing air emissions was to
consider monitoring for bio-aerosols at
sites that receive biological agents, as
is reportedly done at selected medical
waste handling operations. As noted in
the discussion above for radiological
agents, consideration should also be
given to monitoring sludge generated at
water treatment facilities that handle
leachate from landfills, especially when
the sludge is used for land application
purposes. For GBR wastes, additional
criteria will need to be developed to
specify which agents should be
measured and when long-term
monitoring and post-closure care
activities can cease. However, even in
cases where available data might
support a decision to cease monitoring
(e.g., continued non-detects over
multiple sampling periods), public
concern about risk might lead to
continued monitoring over even longer
time frames, though possibly at
decreased frequencies.
Prescriptive or performance-based
guidance. Participants discussed two
different approaches that EPA could
follow when developing guidance or
requirements for disposal of GBR
wastes: an entirely prescriptive
approach that specifies exactly how
landfills must be designed and
operated or a performance-based
approach that outlines general
performance criteria and allows the
landfill owner to determine how best to
meet those criteria. Arguments were
made supporting both approaches.
Prescriptive approaches would have
the benefit of leaving no ambiguity to
agencies that manage GBR wastes.
Occupa tional exposures. E P A' s
incident response focus is on managing
waste in a manner that protects public
health and the environment. However,
occupational exposures are an
important concern for response
workers, waste haulers, and other
individuals whose jobs could bring
them into contact with GBR agents.
These exposures could potentially
occur when removing waste from
incident sites, transporting waste,
decontaminating equipment, disposing
of waste, and during various other
activities (e.g., installation of gas
collection wells). The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration has
authority for ensuring that workers are
adequately protected from exposures
to harmful materials, and landfills
already implement measures to protect
their workers from harmful exposures.
Some participants noted that EPA's
asbestos NESHAP is an example of a
regulation with provisions to ensure
31
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
that waste removal workers and landfill
operators are not exposed to unhealthy
levels of harmful materials.
Considera tion of cost-benefit analyses.
Participants encouraged EPA to
consider the full range of costs and
benefits when making decisions that
affect landfill disposal options. One
example cited was weighing the
increased cost of conducting more
extensive decontamination activities at
the event site against the decreased
disposal costs that could result from
having less contaminated material. A
participant noted that cost-benefit
analyses can be important when
investigating many other
recommendations mentioned
throughout the workshop (e.g., the
feasibility of diverting all biomass from
an event to incineration facilities).
Other issues. Participants raised
various other issues when responding
to this question. First, slope stability
issues must be considered in these
events, particularly because such
events will result in rapid filling of
landfill cells and the possibility that
some waste material will not be
compacted prior to disposal. Second,
while some closed MSW landfills have
been developed into parks,
entertainment venues, and for other
uses, much stricter long-term
institutional controls will likely be
implemented for landfills that receive
GBR wastes in order to err on the side
of precaution. Third, participants noted
that indemnification will be an important
consideration if GBR wastes are to be
disposed of at privately-owned landfills
or at government-owned, contractor-
operated landfills. Fourth, a participant
encouraged EPA to consider
developing private sector partnerships
through the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's "Support Anti-
terrorism by Fostering Effective
Technologies Act" (SAFETY Act),
which was designed to spur innovation
and create new technologies pertaining
to homeland security. Opportunities
may exist to have the private sector
investigate specific technical issues
that would help agencies in the
preparedness activities for siting,
designing, and operating landfills and
staging facilities. Finally, under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), EPA has already
developed specific criteria for onsite
disposal of hazardous waste. A
participant encouraged EPA to
consider those criteria when developing
design specifications for landfills that
will receive GBR waste.
3.4 Final Comments
• The workshop concluded with every
participant sharing final comments.
Some comments emphasized points
raised earlier in the workshop; those
issues are not discussed here, because
they are already documented in other
sections of this report. This section
summarizes the final comments that
raised new issues or new insights on
topics raised during the earlier
workshop discussions:
• Several comments underscored the
importance of advanced planning and
preparedness. Many technical and
engineering analyses to inform landfill
design and construction can occur prior
to events, even if the actual landfill site
is not known. Developing plans for
construction, operation, and closure
should be done in advance so that
response efforts can begin immediately
following a GBR event; and peer review
of these plans by state agencies and
other stakeholders was encouraged.
Having an agreed-upon landfill design
for GBR wastes (or possibly multiple
approved designs that states can
choose from) will help facilitate waste
response activities following future
events.
32
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
State and local agencies will play
critical roles when responding to GBR
events. These entities should be
encouraged to move forward in
coordination with EPA to plan for future
events, whether through workshops,
field exercises, or other planning
activities. Engaging relevant private
sector entities was also encouraged.
Exercises that simulate waste removal
and disposal following GBR events will
enhance preparedness. While resource
constraints may not allow for additional
exercises to the scale of Liberty RadEx,
smaller exercises that focus specifically
on waste management can be
developed and implemented in different
states.
Many integrated components make up
the overall waste removal and
management response, and planning
efforts need to consider these
relationships. As an example, when
disposal facilities cannot be
constructed in a timely manner, staging
areas and pre-treatment of wastes
becomes increasingly important. These
and other interactions should be
considered in future planning efforts.
Extensive waste segregation during the
response effort raises many options for
managing the waste. For example, the
individual waste streams can continue
to be handled separately, mixed with
certain other waste streams, or
possibly even co-disposed of with
MSW. An issue revisited during the
final comments was whether biomass
should be managed separate from
"inert" wastes, and possibly even
incinerated instead of disposed to avoid
excessive formation of landfill gas and
the technical challenges that
accompany it (e.g., concerns about
emissions from seeps and cracks and
drilling gas collection wells into wastes
that might contain GBR agents).
In events with widespread
contamination, waste minimization will
be an important issue. The agencies
responding will need to be prepared to
make science-based decisions
regarding which materials are
contaminated versus which materials
are "clean," and the wastes should be
handled appropriately.
One specific recommended activity was
to establish a realistic timeline for
siting, constructing, and operating new
landfill cells. This timeline could be
used to identify "bottlenecks" in the
overall waste management response,
such that those can be addressed in
advance. The timeline would also
inform many other decisions, such as
the need for, and required capacity of,
temporary waste staging areas. This
analysis could also help planners
optimize the overall waste response
and determine how GBR wastes can be
handled in the quickest and most cost-
effective manner, while avoiding
excessive handling of the material.
Another planning activity suggested
was to develop rough estimates of
landfill cell sizes that might be needed
for disposing of different quantities of
waste. While participants had
previously expressed concern about
constructing large landfill facilities
during a single construction season,
staged construction can help alleviate
this concern. For larger events, small
landfill cells can be constructed and
begin to receive waste while additional
cells are being constructed.
Additional research and modeling on
the fate and transport of various
chemical, biological, and radiological
agents will allow regulators to make
science-based decisions regarding
design, operation, and monitoring of
landfills.
33
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Public outreach and public acceptance
will be important components of the
response effort. Keeping the public
educated and informed of the cleanup
operations and disposal processes can
help ensure citizens that the waste is
being handled in a manner that does
not adversely affect human health or
the environment.
34
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
4.0 References
1. U.S. EPA, "Discussion Summaries: 10.
Waste Disposal Workshops on a
Radiological Dispersal Device Attack
in an Urban Area. Prepared by EPA
Office of Homeland Security" (2010). 11.
2. U.S. EPA, "Discussion Summaries:
Waste Disposal Workshops on a Wide
Area Anthrax Attack in the Urban
Area" (2011).
3. A. M. Lesperance, J. F. Upton, S. L. 12.
Stein, C. M. Toomey, "Waste Disposal
Workshops: Anthrax Contaminated
Waste. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Energy" (2010).
4. U.S. EPA, "Report on the Homeland
Security Workshop on Transport and
Disposal of Wastes From Facilities 13.
Contaminated With Chemical or
Biological Agents" EPA/600/R-04/065
(2003).
5. U.S. EPA, "Hazardous Waste
Characteristics: A User-Friendly
Reference Document"
http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/waste
types/wasteid/char/hw -char.pdf.
6. U.S. EPA, "Suite of Tools to Support 14.
Disposal Decisions for Waste and
Debris. Version 5.1 released in 2011"
http://www.epa.gov/nhsrc/news/news05
1209.html.
1. U.S. EPA, "Disaster Debris 15.
Management Resources Compiled by
EPA Region 5"
http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/sol
idwaste/debris/disaster debris resourc
es.html. 16.
8. NY State DEC, "Online Inventory of
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in
New York"
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/23682.
html.
9. U.S. EPA, "Landfill Gas Emissions
Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02 User's
Guide" (2005).
U.S. EPA, "Optical Remote Sensing for
Emission Characterization from Non-
Point Sources. Final ORS Protocol"
(2006).
U.S. EPA, "Incident Waste
Management Planning and Response
Tool"
http://www2. ergweb. com/bdrtool/login.
asp November 22, 2010.
National Research Council,
"Assessment of the Performance of
Engineered Waste Containment
Barriers. National Research Council,
Division on Earth and Life Studies,
Board on Earth Sciences and
Resources" (2007).
V. Nosko, T. Andrezal, T. Gregor, P.
Ganier, SENSOR Damage Detection
Systems (DOS) - The Unique
Geomembrane Testing Method, paper
presented at the Geosynthetics:
Applications, Design, and Construction,
Proceedings of the First European
Geosynthetics Conference, EuroGeo 1,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1996.
P. Kjeldsen, T. Christensen, A simple
model for the distribution and fate of
organic chemicals in a landfill:
MOCLA, Waste Management 19, 201
(2001).
S. Bartelt-Hunt, M. Barlaz, D. Knappe,
P. Kjeldsen, Fate of Chemical Warfare
Agents and Toxic Industrial Chemicals
in Landfills, Environmental Science
and Technology 40, 4219 (2006).
S. Bartelt-Hunt, D. Knappe, M. Barlaz,
Evaluation of CWA Simulants for
Environmental Applications, CRC
Critical Reviews in Environmental
Science and Technology 38, 112
(March, 2008).
35
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
17. J. M. Saquing, C. D. Saquing, D. R. U.
Knappe, M. A. Barlaz, Impact of
Plastics on Fate and Transport of
Organic Contaminants in Landfills,
Environmental Science and Technology
44, 6396 (2010).
18. J. M. Saquing, L. A. Mitchell, B. Wu,
T. B. Wagner, D. R. U. Knappe, M. A.
Barlaz, Factors Controlling
Alkylbenzene and Tetrachloroethene
Desorption from Municipal Solid Waste
Components, Environmental Science
and Technology 44, 1123 (2010).
19. E. L. Teuten, J. M. Saquing, D. R. U.
Knappe, M. A. Barlaz, S. Jonsson, A.
Bjorn, S. J. Rowland, R. C. Thompson,
T. S. Galloway, R. Yamashita, D. Ochi,
Y. Watanuki, C. Moore, P. H. Viet, T.
S. Tana, M. Prudente, R.
Boonyatumanond, M. P. Zakaria, Y.
Ogata, H. Hirai, S. Iswasa, K.
Mizukawa, Y. Hagino, A. Imamura, M.
Saha, H. Takada, Transport and Release
of Chemicals from Plastics to the
Environment and to Wildlife,
Philosphical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 2027 (2009).
20. M. Lowry, S. L. Bartelt-Hunt, S. M.
Beaulieu, M. A. Barlaz, Development
of a Coupled Reactor Model for
Prediction of Organic Contaminant Fate
in Landfills, Environmental Science
and Technology 42, 7444 (2008).
21. J. M. Saquing, D. R. U. Knappe, M. A.
Barlaz, Fate and Transport of Phenol in
a Packed Bed Reactor Containing
Simulated Solid Waste, Waste
Management accepted, (2011).
22. R. Prevost, Aerosolization and
Quantification of Surrogate Biological
Warfare Agents under Simulated
Landfill conditions, North Carolina
State University (2010).
23. P. Saikaly, M. Barlaz, F. de los Reyes,
Detection and Quantification of
Surrogate Biological Warfare Agents in
Building Debris and Leachate using
Quantitative Real-Time PCR, Applied
and Environmental Microbiology 73,
6557 (October, 2007).
24. P. E. Saikaly, K. Hicks, M. A. Barlaz,
F. L. de los Reyes III, Transport
Behavior of Surrogate Biological
Warfare Agents in a Simulated
Landfill: Effect of Leachate
Recirculation and Water Infiltration,
Environmental Science and Technology
44, 8622 (2010).
25. U.S. EPA, "Liberty RadEx"
http://www.epa.gov/libertyradex/May
26, 2011.
36
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
5.0 Attachments
1. List of Workshop Participants
2. Workshop Agenda
3. Seed Questions for Moderated Discussions
4. Presentation Slides
37
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological (CBR)
Disposal in Landfills
Embassy Suites at Chevy Chase Pavilion
Washington, DC
June 14-15, 2011
Participant List
"David J. Allard, CHP
Director
PA Department of Environmental
Protection
PO Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105
717-787-2480
djallard@state.pa.us
* Morton Barlaz
Professor
NC State University
Box 7908
Raleigh, NC 27695-7908
919-515-7212
barlaz@ncsu.edu
David Carson
Branch Chief
Waste Management Branch
Land Remediation and
Pollution Control Division/ORD/NRMRL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7527
carson.david@epa.gov
Neal Cole
Support Contractor
Science and Technology Directorate
Chemical/Biological Division
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20460
202-254-6796
neal.cole@associates.dhs.gov
Eva Davis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
davis.eva@epa.gov
"Wendy Davis-Hoover
Research Microbiologist
SSMB/LRPCD/ORD/ NRMRL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7206
davis-hoover.wendy@epa.gov
Annette De Havilland
Lead Engineer
OH Department of
Environmental Protection
614-728-5373
annette.dehavilland@epa.state.oh.us
*Craig Duff icy
Environmental Engineer
Energy Recovery and Waste Disposal Branch
Materials Recovery and Waste Management
Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
703-308-9037
dufficy.craig@epa.gov
Rebecca Geyer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Region 5)
Geyer.rebecca@epa.gov
Kenneth Grumski
VP of Federal Services
Waste Control Specialists LLC
Three Lincoln Center
5430 LBJ Freeway- Suite 1700
Dallas, TX 75240
724-591-8770
kgrumski@valhi.net
Jacob Hassan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Region 5)
Hassan.jacob@epa.gov
Names in italics denote individuals who registered to participate via conference call and
webinar.
Asterisks (*) indicate invited speakers.
38
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Charles Hochman
U.S. Department of Transportation
charles.hochman@dot.gov
Nicholas Icks
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
lcks.nicholas@epa.gov
Mario E. lerardi
Homeland Security Team Leader
Waste Characterization
Materials Recovery and Waste
Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
703-308-8894
ierardi.mario@epa.gov
Alice Jacobsohn
Director, Education / Director,
Healthcare Waste Institute
National Solid Wastes Management
Association
4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW - Suite
300
Washington, DC 20008
202-364-3724
alicej@envasns.org
Nancy Jones
On-Scene Coordinator
Prevention &Response Branch
Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Region 6)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8041
jones.nancy@epa.gov
Jonathan Kang
Office of Disposal Operations
Office of Environmental Management
U.S. Department of Energy
301-903-7178
Jonathan.kang@em.doe.gov
Melissa Kaps
Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division
Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5304P)
Washington, DC 20460
703-308-6787
Kaps.melissa@epa.gov
Fran Kremer
Senior Science Advisor
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7346
kremer.fran@epa.gov
Paul Kudarauskas
Environmental Scientist
National Decontamination Team
Office of Emergency Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5104-A)
Washington, DC 20460
202-564-2415
kudarauskas.paul@epa.gov
"Paul Lemieux
Acting Associate Director
DCMD/NHSRC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive E343-06
RTP, NC 27711
919-541-0962
lemieux.paul@epa.gov
"James F. Michael
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division (5304P)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania, NW
Washington, DC 20460
703-308-8610
michael.james@epa.gov
Lori P. Miller
Senior Staff Officer
National Center for Animal Health
Emergency Management
Veterinary Services
U.S. Department of Agriculture-APHIS
4700 River Road - Unit 41 - Room 5D-
03.3
Riverdale, MD 20737
301-734-4917
lori.p.miller@aphis.usda.gov
Cayce Parrish
Senior Advisor
Administrators Office
Office of Homeland Security
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC, DC 20460
202-564-4648
parish.cayce@epa.gov
"Robert J. Phaneuf
Acting Assistant Division Director
Materials Management
NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, New York 12233-7250
518-402-8652
rjphaneu@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Stacie Pratt
Program Advisor
Land and Chemicals Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-5173
pratt.stacie@epa.gov
Dale Rector
TDEC-DOE-Oversight Division
761 Emory Valley Rd
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
dale.rector@tn.gov
Edward Repa
Director, Environmental Programs
NSWMA
4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW - Suite
300
Washington, DC 20008
202-364-3773
erepa@envasns.org
Names in italics denote individuals who registered to participate via conference call and
webinar.
Asterisks (*) indicate invited speakers.
39
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
*Juan Reyes
Deputy Associate Administrator
Office of Homeland Security
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
202- 564-6978
reyes.juan@epa.gov
Tim Rice
Environmental Quality
Materials Management
NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233
tbrice@gw. dec.state. ny. us
Deirdre Rothery
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Region 8)
1595 Wynkoop Street (8EPR-SA)
Denver, CO 80202
303-312-6431
rothery.deirdre@epa.gov
Paul Ruesch
Emergency Response Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard (SE-5J)
Chicago, IL 60604
312-886-7898
ruesch.paul@epa.gov
Daniel Schultheisz
Environmental Engineer
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (6608J)
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9349
Schultheisz.daniel@epa.gov
Bill Steuteville
Homeland Security Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Region 3)
1650 Arch Street (3HS30)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3264
steuteville.william@epa.gov
""Susan Thorneloe
Senior Environmental Engineer
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division/NRMRL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-2709
Thorneloe.Susan@epa.gov
Thabet Tolaymat
Environmental Engineer
Waste Management
Land Remediation Pollution Control
5995 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224
513-487-2860
tolaymat.thabet@epa.gov
Jenia Tufts
Student Grantee
ORD/DCMD/NHSRC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27511
919-541-0371
jtufts@epa.gov
Chris Wagner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
c/o VA DEQ
629 E. Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-337-3049
wagner.christine@epa.gov
Alan G. Woodard
Environmental Program Specialist
Environmental Quality
Materials Management
NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233
518-402-8678
agwoodar@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Names in italics denote individuals who registered to participate via conference call and
webinar.
Asterisks (*) indicate invited speakers.
40
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological (CBR)
Disposal in Landfills
Embassy Suites at Chevy Chase Pavilion
Washington, DC
June 14-15, 2011
Agenda
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011
7:30 am Registration/Check-in
8:30 am Welcome and Opening Remarks ERG
PART 1: CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM
8:40 am Context of the Problem and Workshop Goals Juan Reyes (EPA/OHS)
9:00 am Structure of the Meeting Paul Lemieux (EPA/ORD)
PART 2: WHAT DO WE KNOW NOW?
9:30 am Existing Requirements and Capabilities for Subtitle C & Subtitle D Landfills
and for Landfilling Low Activity Radiological Waste Craig Dufficy (EPA/ORCR)
10:15 am BREAK
10:30 am Landfill Gas Control Susan Thorneloe (EPA/ORD)
11:15 am CBR Landfill Disposal Issues - A NYSDEC Perspective Robert Phaneuf(NYSDEC)
12:00 pm LUNCH (on your own)
1:30 pm Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate Wendy Davis-Hoover (EPA/ORD)
2:15 pm Fate and Transport of CB Agents in a Landfill Mart Barlaz (NCState University)
3:00 pm BREAK
3:15 pm Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares Paul Lemieux (EPA/ORD)
41
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
4:00 pm Waste Streams Generated from CBR Events Bill Steuteville (EPA/OHS)
4:15 pm Q&A Panel
4:30 pm ADJOURN
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2011
8:30 am Goals and Structure for Day 2 ERG
9:00 am Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills David Allard (PA DEP)
PART 3: HOW CAN WE USE WHAT WE KNOW?
9:45 am Panel Discussion
10:30 BREAK
10:45 am Panel Discussion (Continued)
12:00 pm LUNCH (on your own)
1:00 pm Synthesis of Panel Discussion EPA/ERG
2:00 pm BREAK
3:00 pm ADJOURN
42
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological (CBR) Disposal in
Landfills
Seed Questions for Panel Discussion on Day #2
The focus of the workshop is to identify technical issues to be considered when landfilling waste
resulting from cleanups from chemical/biological/radiological (CBR) events. Although it might
be possible to use an existing landfill or re-open a closed landfill to support the response for the
CBR event, this workshop is focusing on what criteria would be used for construction of new
landfill capacity to support the response for the CBR event.
Here are a few questions to think about before the workshop that might be used to initiate a
productive panel discussion on Day 2.
• Based on projections of the different types of waste that might be generated as a result
of the response, are there any considerations that might be waste-specific that could
affect the land disposal technology selection?
What considerations might be needed to address wastes generated during pre-treatment
activities that generate residues that will eventually be landfilled (e.g., incineration,
autoclaving, solidification, vitrification, etc.)?
What special design, construction, or operational requirements might be appropriate for
different types of contaminating agents?
What types of routine and long-term monitoring might be appropriate for different types
of wastes and for different contaminating agents?
Thinking outside the box, what type of design and operational criteria/considerations
could be identified now to expedite the decision-making for construction of a landfill
under an emergency CBR scenario?
What else can be done as part of the entire spectrum of the waste management process
(e.g., segregation, reuse/recycling, volume reduction, treatment, storage, or disposal)
that could add to the capacity to operationally recover from a CBR incident?
43
-------
Report on the 2011 Workshop on Chemical-Biological-Radiological Disposal in Landfills
Workshop Presentation Files
S peaker
Juan Reyes
Craig Dufficy
Susan Thorneloe
Robert Phaneuf
Wendy Davis-Hoover
Mort Barlaz
Paul Lemieux
David Allard
Title of Presentation
Context of the Problem and Workshop Goals
Existing Requirements and Capabilities for Subtitle C and Subtitle D
Landfills and for Landfilling Low Activity Radiological Waste
Landfill Gas Control
GBR Landfill Disposal Issues— A NYSDEC Perspective
Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate
Fate and Transport of CB Agents in a Landfill
Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares
Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills
44
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
i
GBR Disposal
Context of the Problem and Goals of the
Workshop
Juan Reyes
Deputy Associate Administrator
U.S. EPA Office of Homeland Security
June 14, 2011
Background
EPA tasked with the responsibility for supporting
state and local decontamination actions following a
CBR attack
• Statutory / Regulatory / Presidential Directives
Decontamination actions include waste
management
Waste Disposal Capacity is significant
preparedness gaps for CBR threat agents
Presentation Slides: Context of the Problem, Juan Reyes
-------
Background
Volume of waste from a CBR incident depends on a
number of factors
EPA has conducted a number of workshops,
exercises, investigation to examine the waste
issue
Wide Area Anthrax attack - waste estimates
• 20 million gallons of liquid waste
• 12 million tons of solid waste
ROD Attack - waste estimates
• Up to 40 million tons
Definition of Waste
Uncontaminated Waste (Solid Waste)
Verified Decontaminated/Treated Waste
Not Verified Decontaminated/Treated Waste
Contaminated Waste
Decontamination Effluent/By-Products
Prob ematic Waste
Presentation Slides: Context of the Problem, Juan Reyes
-------
Barriers to Disposal
Regulatory/Statutory
• Process-laden and/or unclear regulatory or statutory
authority for disposing of CBR threat agent derived waste
Policy/Guidance
• Missing or insufficient national policy or guidance
regarding disposal of CBR threat agent derived waste
Technical/Scientific
• Gaps in technical or scientific understanding regarding
disposal options for CBR threat agent derived waste
Barriers to Disposal
Socio-political
• Community-oriented or stakeholder concerns related to
risk associated with disposal of CBR threat agent derived
waste.
Capacity/Capability
Lack of capacity/capability at treatment/disposal
facilities to treat/dispose of CBR threat agent derived
waste and a lack of laboratory capacity to effectively
characterize the waste.
Presentation Slides: Context of the Problem, Juan Reyes
-------
Disposal Workshops
EPA conducted a series of disposal workshops
• Wide Area Anthrax Attack Seattle, WA (October 2009)
ROD Waste Workshop in Philadelphia, PA (November 2009)
• Wide Area Anthrax Attack Columbus OH (September 2010)
Workshop design
• 3 separate groups
• Local (Owner/operators)
• State Agencies
• Federal Department / Agencies
• Discussions based on issues raised prior to workshops by
participants
Disposal Workshops
Each of the 3 groups identified issues /
recommended priority actions
Issue Areas
Regulatory issues
Major Impediments
Research Issues
• State and Local Preparedness
Key Findings
• Large volumes + scientific uncertainty + public perceptions = Trouble
Presentation Slides: Context of the Problem, Juan Reyes
-------
Goal of Today's Meeting
Existing facilities may be inadequate / unavailable in a large
scale event
Workshop recommendations to develop an incident-specific
state or Federal facility
No policy decision at this time
Critical to examine technical, scientific and policy
requirements to be able to:
• Site / construct / operate / eventually close landfills
The goal of this workshop is to identify the
technical and scientific requirements so that the
policy discussions are based on the best
available science
Presentation Slides: Context of the Problem, Juan Reyes
-------
Biological-Radiological Disposal in
landfills
Craig Dufficy
Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery
Tune 14-15, 2011
RCRA
Background
Roles and Responsibilities
Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste
- Waste Identification,Waste Standards, RCRA
Subtitle D - Solid Waste
- Municipal Waste, Non-hazardous Industrial Waste
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
-------
RCRA - Background
minority
- RCRA 1976 - enacted to address huge volumes of municipal and
industrial solid waste generated nationwide. Basic framework for
regulating waste generators, waste transporters and waste
management facilities
- Subtitle C - ensures that hazardous waste is managed safely from
generation to final disposal - "cradle to grave" - and encourages
minimization and elimination of hazardous waste
- Subtitle D - encourages environmentally sound solid waste
management practices that maximize the reuse of recoverable
Background (cont)
Amended Significantly in 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA)
- Lacked confidence in EPA's ability to develop effective program
- HSWA extremely detailed & comprehensive: established a
prescriptive set of over 70 statutory requirements
- Added Corrective Action and Land Disposal Restrictions as key
program features
- Tightly controlling and paper-intensive program
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
-------
Roles and Responsibilities
Headquarters - Works in partnership with states, tribes,
regulated community, and environmental community.
- Defines hazardous waste/promulgates and reforms management
requirements
- Provides national direction to Corrective Action and other
hazardous waste program implementation
- Provides risk assessments for waste rules
- Develops hazardous waste minimization and recycling strategies
- Issues guidances on non-hazardous industrial waste
- Provides national leadership for municipal source reduction and
recycling; establishes minimum national MSW landfill criteria
- Defines national data needs and develops and implements national
"ata management program 5
Roles and Responsibilities (cont)
States
- Primary implementers of much of RCPxA program
• 47 of 50 states, Guam and the District of Columbia authorized to
administer the hazardous waste base program
• 38 states and Guam have Corrective Action (RCRA cleanup)
authority
• 50 state municipal solid waste landfill programs
- Administer and enforce hazardous waste programs where
authorized
- Administer municipal solid waste program, including approval for
permitting Municipal Solid Waste landfills
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
-------
Roles and Responsibilities (cont)
Tribes
- Use OSW and regional grants to develop capability on solid and
hazardous waste, especially closure of open dumps
Regions
- Authorize/approve state partners to run waste programs
- Manage hazardous waste program (including Corrective Action) in
states not authorized
- Provide technical assistance and oversight to states and tribes for
hazardous waste and solid waste issues
- Workload sharing with states - particularly for certain expertise
-1- —sessment)
Subtitle C: Hazardous Waste - Scope
Universe:
- 20,000 generating facilities (1 ton or more); 41 million tons
hazardous waste annually (excluding wastewaters)
- Approx. 3,500 industrial facilities w/ Corrective Action
obligations. Cleanup similar to Superfund via Corrective Action
Program
- Over 2,750 active facilities including combustion facilities,
operating treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) and
post-closure facilities from point of generation through
transportation, storage, treatment and final disposal
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
-------
Subtitle C: Waste Identification
Wastes identified as hazardous (and subject to regulation)
when they are "listed" or meet"characteristic"criteria -
ignitable, reactive, corrosive, toxic - of 41M tons - 23%
listed; 54% characteristic; 23% both
Listings
- Major consent decree obligation
- Significant resource burden but will scale down as milestones
completed
HW Recycling
- Work with industry on hazardous waste recycling opportunities
Subtitle C: Waste Standards
Treatment Standards/Land Disposal Restrictions
- Provides extra level of protection to ensure that land disposal of hazardous
wastes is safe (e.g., mercury doesn't respond to traditional treatment
processes - working with ORD, DOE on new treatment methods, associated
with Agency mercury strategy)
- No facilities currently permitted to treat dioxins
Combustion Strategy
- MACT emission standards for HW burning boilers & furnaces
- MACT emission standards for HW burning incinerators, cement kilns (per
Court)
Waste Minimization
- Voluntary programs to encourage reduction of HW - especially worst
chemicals
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
-------
Subtitle C: Design Standards
Tn general, geomembrane over a composite liner must be
used to prevent a threat to surface or groundwater.
Leachate collection system installed directly above the
geomembrane liner (no more than 30 cm on the
geomembrane); leak detection system between
geomembrane and composite.
Segregation of incompatible constituents of hazardous
wastes, including separation of solid wastes from liquid
wastes.
Groundwater monitoring wells placed at both upgradient
and down gradient of facility.
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
-------
Stindpip* (infernal tea chat* moniioring god withdraws^
Comparted e)*y (wilh synthetic Iner below)
Internal leachalt eoltedion
and withdrawal
Sludge and bulk rttldu*
Subtitle D: Solid Waste
1980 - Elimination of solid waste as focus shifted to hazardous waste;
1989 - Garbage barge & landfill capacity crisis forced EPA to again
address solid waste
Resources for Subtitle D programs are highly leveraged yet yield
strong, positive responses from our stakeholders
Universe:
- Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) - 230 million tons of generated annually
from residences, commercial establishments, institutions and industrial
non-process operations
- Industrial Non-hazardous Waste - More than 70.000 sites: 8 billion tons
per year - most from 6 industries: pulp & paper; iron & steel; electric
power; inorganic chemicals; stone/glass/clay/concrete; and food
- Special Wastes - Cement Kilns - 3 million metric tons; Mining and
Mineral Processing - 3.4 billion
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
-------
Subtitle D: Solid Waste (cont)
[unicipal Solid Waste (MSW)
- National leader for MSW recycling and source reduction programs
• Waste Wise - 1,100 partners(businesses, state & local governments
and tribes); growth is maintained by leveraging Climate Change
resources - availability uncertain from year to year
• Pay-as-You-Throw -economic incentives that residents pay based on
the quantity of trash they throw away; since 1994, from 200 to 6000
communities using PAYT
Tribal - Support to close open dumps - interagency effort with
BIA, IHS, Transportation, Agriculture, etc.
Subtitle D: Solid Waste (cont)
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
8
-------
Subtitle D: Solid Waste (cont)
Designed to ensure that specific concentration values will not be
exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of
compliance as determined by the Director of an approved State or
Designed with a composite liner- flexible membrane over at least 2
feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity no more than
2 X 10 7 cm/sec
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
9
-------
Bottom Liners
Used to protect groundwater from Leachate
Three types of liners:
- Single
- Double
- Composite (Synthetic Geomembrane liner/Clay
or low permeability soil)
Leachate collection pipes
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
10
-------
(^»^^V»tji^jy£^ - - and removal system
-Bottom liner (composite)
Legend
i • • Geotexlite
(synthetic fibers-woven, nonvwven, or knit)
..... Geonet
[plastics formed into an open, netlike
configuration (used here in a redundant manner}}
^^^^ Geomembrane
Composite Liner
Comprised of two dissimilar materials
usually a synthetic geomembrane placed
directly on top of a clay/ low permeability
soil.
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
11
-------
Subtitle D-Landfill Covers
^ Aie final cover serves to limit the inflow of
water into the fill from outside sources
(precipitation)
And to reduce the expense of long term care
and to reduce adverse environmental inpacts
while
Promoting productive use of the closed
landfill.
Surface (vegetative support)
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
12
-------
Cover soil
Geosynthetic
drainage
Geosynthetic Clay
Liner
Gas collection
Cover soil
Geosynthetic drainage
Geomembrane
Geosynthetic Clay
Liner
Gas collection
Gas collection
Geotextile
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
13
-------
Ls Learned on Debris
Management
"he key elements for pre-event planning are:
likely debris types and forecast amounts
c. Inventory current capacity for debris
management and determine debris
tracking mechanisms
i debris storage site
/essons learned on Debris
Management (con't)
) communication plan
'reate a disaster debris prevention strategy
Create a debris removal strateg
itenals identification and handling
Waste-to-energy optii
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
14
-------
Waste Business Journal's
Directory of
Waste Processing &
Disposal Sites 2010
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
15
-------
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
16
-------
Joplm Transfer Station
Locatiou: 3700 West /thMreet
Joplm. MO (Jasper County)
Days A Hours: Mon-Fri 8am-3:30prn
Facility Access: Highway
Avg. Daily Intake: MSW: 201 Tons Day-
Waste Slied: County Metro.
Chvnei
Operator:
(Pnvate)
Title:
Dept./Div.:
WCA Waste Corporation (WCA)
Mr. Tim Meier
Operations Manager
Joplin Transfer Station
3700 West 7th Street. PO Box 1667
Joplm. MO 64801
Phone:(417)623-6620
Fas: (417) 623-8238
Avg. Tipping Fee: MSW: $43.00 Ton
Permit Number: 0409701
Wastes Accepted: C&D. MSW. Recyclable
Conclusion
Effective disaster debris management has far wider
implications in disaster response and recovery than is
currently recognized. There is real social, economic and
environmental value in planning for the management of
disaster debris.
list a logistical exercise - it is an
integral part of the disaster recovery process.
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
17
-------
Presentation Slides: Existing Requirements and Capabilities of Landfills, Craig Dufficy
18
-------
\-
Outline
Health and environmental concerns
Update on Clean Air Act regulation for
MSW Landfill air emissions
Ongoing research to reduce uncertainties
associated with quantifying landfill gas
emissions
Conclusions
Presentation Slides: Landfill Gas Control, Susan Thorneloe
-------
Background
Over 1650 active municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills as well as
several thousand closed landfills.
MSW landfill refers to entire disposal facility where waste is placed in
or on land. Waste landfilled includes
- Household waste
- RCRA Subtitle D waste
- Industrial waste
- Small quantity generator hazardous waste
- Disaster-generated waste and debris
- Special wastes
Landfill gas is comprised of -50/50%
methane and CO2 with traces constituents that include GHGs,
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), persistent bioaccumulative
toxics (PBTs), H2S, H2, and volatile organic compounds
(VOC).
\-
Background (Cont.)
Once waste is deposited in a landfill,
emissions are generated for decades.
Most immediate concern is for the explosive
potential of the gas.
Landfill fires can occur
resulting in combustion
by-product emissions of
concern to human health!
and the environment.
Presentation Slides: Landfill Gas Control, Susan Thorneloe
-------
v>EPA Trends Impacting Landfill Gas (LFG)
Emissions in the U.S.
Most large landfills have gas collection and control
Expect continued reliance on landfills for waste discards
Changes in landfill design and operation such
wet/bioreactor operation. Could lead to increased
emissions if there is
• Delay in gas control from onset of liquid additions
such as adding liquid to work face
• Use of alternative covers or porous materials to
promote infiltration
• Incorrect sizing of gas capture and control
technology, and
• Flooding of gas wells due to leachate build up.
v>EPA Trends Impacting LFG Emissions in
the U.S. (Cont.)
Changes in waste composition due to
- Implementation of recycling & source reduction
programs
- Potential increase in metals due to addition of
leachate, sewage sludge, treated wood, and
industrial waste
Potential increased exposure due to urban sprawl
and wider use of landfills for recreation or
development
\-
Presentation Slides: Landfill Gas Control, Susan Thorneloe
-------
Modeling LFG Emissions
il*rllr,H *^
Use 1st order decomposition rate
equation to predict emissions over time.
Released software for developing
emission estimates - EPA's Landfill Gas
Emission Model (LandGEM) (Vsn 3.02)
Different values are recommended in
modeling emissions depending upon the
use of the estimate
Defaults for model inputs based on
analysis of gas recovery data
Megjgtiims Per Ye.it
Measuring LFG Emissions
For area source emissions including landfills, EPA recommends
use of optical remote sensing based on EPA OTM10.
Because of the complexity of measuring LFG emissions, EPA is
developing additional guidance for landfill applications of OTM10.
Recent field test conducted at three MSW landfills to compare
fugitive methane loss to header pipe gas.
Results in an EPA report
-will be released within the next few months
-suggest that gas collection efficiency can
from 30s to 80s%
Current EPA guidance for gas collection
ranges 60 to 90% with being 75% the average.
Presentation Slides: Landfill Gas Control, Susan Thorneloe
4
-------
vvEPA
MSW Landfill Regulations
• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission
Guidelines (EG)
- Large landfills > 2.5 million Mg design capacity
- Control of landfill gas is triggered by emissions of non-methane organic
compounds (NMOC), the trace organic compounds in landfill gas
- Emission threshold: 50 Mg NMOC must collect and control or treat LFG
- 30 months to design and install controls
- Must control gas within 5 years for active cells and 2 years for closed or
inactive cells
• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Requirements similar to NSPS and EG
- Added procedures for start-up and shutdown as well as timely control of
bioreactors
\-
Landfill Gas Capture and Control
Area source emissions - with temporal and
spatial variability.
Effective gas capture requires maintenance
and monitoring over time of the cover
material, gas well field and header pipes, and
combustion technology.
When landfill gas is collected and controlled,
combustion by-products are formed.
Even the best landfill gas capture and control
systems do not collect all of the gas that is
generated.
Presentation Slides: Landfill Gas Control, Susan Thorneloe
-------
Crack Found on Slope of landfill
Crack Observed at LFG Well Head
\-
Presentation Slides: Landfill Gas Control, Susan Thorneloe
6
-------
Technology Options
Open Flare
- Consists of method of regulating gas flow,
pipe for pumping gas and pilot light
Closed flare
- Considered more efficient than open flare
- Series of burners within fire resistant walls,
maintains peak temperature through limited
supply of combustion air
Achieves at least 98% destruction
efficiency of NMOC or meets mass
emission rate cutoff (20 ppmv, dry basis,
expressed as hexane at 3% O2)
Often used at landfills with energy
recovery operations for combustion of
excess gas and use when equipment is
off-line
4>EFA Technology options that
recover energy from LFG
Presentation Slides: Landfill Gas Control, Susan Thorneloe
-------
vvEPA
Disclaimer
• This research has been subject to Agency review but
does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency.
No official endorsement should be inferred.
Questions?
\-
Clean Air Act regulatory contact:
-Hillary Ward, USEPA/OAR/Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards-RTP
Ward.Hillary@epa.gov
Landfill gas research contact:
-Susan Thorneloe, USEPA/ORD/NRMRL-RTP
Thorneloe.Susan@epa.gov
Presentation Slides: Landfill Gas Control, Susan Thorneloe
8
-------
CBR Debris Disposal Landfilling Issues
A NYS DEC Perspective
US EPA Workshop on Landfill Design for CBR Disposal
June 14-15,2011
Washington, DC NYS'S Landfill status
Liner Performance Overview
Overview of NYS LF Design & Operational
Requirements
Robert Phaneuf, PE
NYS DEC
Division of Materials Management
Albany, New York
Phone: (518) 402-8652
E-mail: rjphaneu@gw.dec.state.ny.us
NYS's Approach to Landfill Design,
Construction, Operation and Performance
Monitoring and how that may be different for
CBR Debris Disposal
Number
OfNYS
MSW
Attrition ofNYS MSW Landfills
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
793
622
•>18 WJ
rn n 354
O53 220
127
1 1 „" ™
1964 1979 1984 1988 1992 2002
1974 1982 1986 1990 1994
Year
T2011
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
-------
Location of NYS's 26
MSW Landfills
Remaining Site Life at Active MSW Landfills
The Department posts the annual
reporting data that is collected
pursuant to the State's solid waste
regulations on the Department's ftp
site. The direct link to this annual
report data is:
ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dshm/SWMF/
• •,
Albany
Chautauqua
Allegany
Franklin
Ontario
Auburn
Chemung
Mill Seat
DANC
Allied Niagara
Colonie
Steuben
Chaffee
Hyland
SMI
Clinton
Delaware
Modern
Cortland
High Acres
Chen an go
Broome
Bristol Hill
Fulton
OHSWA
Madison
275,100
408,000
56,680
125,000
1,200,000
96,000
120,000
598,650
346,320
800,000
170,500
151,000
600,000
312,000
1,866,000
175,000
52,800
815,000
44,500
1,074,500
41,550
232,000
100,000
134,000
312,000
478,351
2,243,724
249,600
574,861
7,349,795
761,301
1,243,383
6,893,846
3,505,060
9,242,609
4,004,593
2,422,279
6,084,000
7,708,367
37,611,560
7,644,201
508,111
22,140,000
709,513
44,400,000
1,104,009
10,554,066
3,352,607
9,450,845
21,388,497
1
2
4
7
7
8
8
11
12
13
15
15
17
17
17
20
20
24
28
41
42
50
60
63
67
61,000
7,769,992
106
6
49
26
16
4
I | Denotes Self-Sufficient or Limited Service Area MSW Landfills
• The Sullivan Landfill Closed In 2009.
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
-------
Electrical Resistivity Testing
(as part of construction specifications)
Case 1-13 defects/9.85 acres = 1.3 defects/acre (3 defects found at pipe penetration)
Const Cert 30-day ave start-up ALR = 6.4 gpad
Case 2 - 2 defects/5.52 acres = 0.4 defects/acre ( Typical LF Ceil being built
in NYS is about 10-12
acres. If everything goes
„ ,.,,,,,,„ n£r,ft, I - well can typically be built
Case 3-4 delects/6.9 acres = 0.6 defects/acre ( -m 1 construction season.
Const Cert 30-day ave start-up ALR = 0.48 gpad
Case 4-27 defects/13.35 acres = 2 defects/acre
Const Cert 30-day ave start-up ALR = 5.8 gpad (average for 3 new cells)
Case 5-4 defects/5.05 acres = 0.8 defects/ acre
Case 6 - 109 defects/23.6 acres = 4.6 defects/acre
Const Cert 30-day ave start-up ALR = 6.08 gpad (average for 3 new cells)
Case 7 - 11 defects/ 7.7 acres = 1.4 defects/acre
Const Cert 30-day ave start-up ALR = 5.06 gpad
Some Start-up ALRs still suffer slightly from: Excessive Construction Water; Problems
with Pipe Penetrations; and, Upper & Lower Liner "Edge" Seams.
Conventional Modern Landfill Concepts
Landscaping and cover
maintenance
Landlill gas management
GBS conversion
Final cover design
E nyifonmenia! monitoring
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
3
-------
NYS Modem Landfill Operations - Plus
Over 37 Active Double Lined Landfills in NYS (some in operation since!987)
No known GW impacts to date from the double-lined part of these Landfills
Attention to detail during construction = proper containment system performance.
Attention to Upper Liner Performance Monitoring during operation = proper
regulatory/permit compliance & containment system performance.
NYS's regulations require upper liner system performance
monitoring as a barometer of the LF's leachate collection
and removal system's effectiveness/condition.
A proactive function for ensuring adequate GWprotection.
Req'd max 30-day ave ALR of 20 gpad for the upper liner system
Top Composite Liner
Performance Monitoring
Ton Composite
Liner
5 Feet to 10 Feet to
Groundwater Bedrock
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
4
-------
Maintenance ofLCRSs to Ensure Acceptable ALRs
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
-------
Leachate Management Related
Problems Experienced at NYS Landfill
Operational LCRS Problems
- Drainage Layer/GT Clogging
- LCRS Pipe & Sump Clogging
- Flow Meter Problems
- LF Side-slope Surface Seeps
Design Related LCRS Problems
- Inadequate access for maintenance
- Confined space (more of a concern)
- Sump Design
Operator Observation: Simple gravity systems worked well. Need
for flow monitoring, and concern for liner penetrations, and deeper
landfills caused sump systems to evolve to be the norm.
Groundwater Monitoring Data
Supporting Liner System Effectiveness
NYSDEC has GW monitoring
data from 37 separate double-lined
landfills, some since 1988 or
longer. These landfills collectively
possess GW monitoring data from
monitoring over 1,000 lined acres
lined disposal facilities.
Approximately 65% of the 37
double-lined landfills (74% of
MSW LFs) have a pore pressure
relief systems that are routinely
monitored for GW quality.
No GW impacts attributed to
release from the engineered
barrier system!!!
Do GW Monitoring Systems Wort ? YES
GW impacts are detected from leaking conveyance lines outside
the liner system and other GW Impacts from adjacent operations or
spills outside the disposal areas.
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
-------
2006 - National Academies of
Engineering Science - Performance of
Post-RCRA C & D Engineered Barrier
Systems (EPA, DOE, NRC, & NSF)
Report concludes that while a
containment system's individual
components may fail. However, notes
that the overall performance of the
entire containment "system" is robust
and that engineered systems work.
Maintenance is and will always be
necessary to ensure long-term
performance.
Should the Minimum Regulatory Standards fora
CBR Landfill be any different from what we
require fora typicalMSWlandfill ??
Application Processes - Community Outreach - EJ Policies
Siting Requirements
Prescriptive Liner Systems - Double-liner Systems
CQA & Construction Certification Approval Prior to Operation
Comprehensive Environmental Monitoring
Waste Characterization
Operational Controls
Corrective Measures
Closure and Post-Closure Care & Maintenance
Long-term Institutional Controls
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
-------
Part 360 Landfill Permit
Application Requirements
Engineering Drawings
Plans and Drawings
Engineering Drawings - construction plans...
Operational Drawings - fill progression plans - first waste lift...
Landscape Plans - end use, stormwater mgt plans...
Engineering Report
Detailed Site Description and Analysis - siting, waste characterization
Geotechnical Stability Analysis - waste densities and other properties
Subbase Settlement Assessment Analysis
Seismic Stability Analysis - use latest seismic hazard maps
Leachate Collection and Removal System Design - hydraulic, structural, ...
Leachate Storage Facility Design
Facility Closure and Post-Closure Design - service life of liner system components
Supporting Documents
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
Facility Operation and Maintenance Manual
Comprehensive Environmental Monitoring Plan
Contingency Plans
Preliminary Closure Plan
8 NYCRR Part 360-2 Landfills at this web linkfor the current version of the State's landfill regulations:
http:7Awww.dec. ny.gov/regs/2491 .html
Part 360 Facility Operation &
Maintenance Manual
(a) LF Disposal Methods
(b) Personnel Req'ts
(c) Machinery & Equip Description
(d) LF Operational Controls
(e) Fill Progression Plans
(f) Waste Amounts & Characterization
(g) SW Receiving Process
(h) Cover Mat'l Mgt Plan
(i) EMP
(j) Leachate Mgt Plan
(k) Odor Control Plan
(1) Gas Monitoring Plan
(m) Inclement Weather Plan
(n) Convenience Station Operation
(o) First Lift Placement
(p) Fire Prevention Plan
CBR Issues
Are debris staging areas needed?
How is CBR debris being transported,
handled?
Equipment differences ?
PPE, Exclusion Zones, DeCon areas for
equipment & personnel ?
DeCon water mgt ?
Operational restrictions?
Leachate generation, storage & treatment
concerns?
Could treatment barriers be pre-designed
?
LF gas collection and emission/dust
control sensitivities?
Climate controlled working environment?
Added vermin/vector control issues ?
Security issues?
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
8
-------
CQC/CQA Regulatory Refresher
CQC/CQA Plan is an important permit document that provides the skeleton / basis
for the final Construction Certification Report that establishes that the landfill was
built in accordance with the Department approved plans.
NYS's regulations require that the Department approve a final
Construction Certification Report prior to authorizing
operation: 360-1.8(d)(2); 360-1.10(b); and 360-1.1 l(e).
V v
PCC Period Issues - Concerns for long-term
liner & cover system performance and
compliance - demands that the regulations
ensure the best possible quality in construction
Survey Data on Occurrence of Liner Defects
Nosko(1996)
Preliminary
Construction Phase
(Geomembrane installation)
Final Construction
Phase
(Drainage/protective soil placement)
Post-Construction,
Early Operational
Phase
(Waste placement)
"=>
24%
73%
97% of defects are
construction
related!
2%
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
9
-------
Improved Construction Quality Requirements In the Proposed Regs
I y Proposed regs will require "Electrical Resistivity Testing" after
placement of the soil drainage media on both upper & lower liners
where slopes are 10% or less, will require written findings report as
part of Construction Certification Report.
PRIMARY GtOHEUBRANE
"This method is considered by the Geosynthetic Institute (GSI) to be the ultimate diagnostic
method to assure an environmentally safe and secure geomembrane liner system.'"
Decrease destructive seam testing frequency to one every 1000'contingent on acceptable
performance and in areas where slopes are 10 % or less, destructive seam testing may be
optional if approved by the design engineer via assurance demonstrated in the CQA Plan
that field seam strength is otherwise being adequately addressed for this area.
Required geomembrane installer certification, enhanced attention to qualifications and the
numbers of COA inspection staff needed on-site.
The Broome County 2002 ERT (Liner Integrity Survey)
ASTM D 6747 - Standard Guide for Selection of
Techniques for electrical Detection of Potential
Leak Paths in Geomembranes
ASTM D 7002 - Standard Practice Leak Location
on Exposed Geomembranes
ASTM D 7007-Electrical Methods for Locating
Leaks in Geomembranes Covered with Water or
Earth Materials
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
10
-------
How Well Are New York State's Double-Lined
Landfill Designs Working ?
Top Composite Liner
Performance Monitoring
LCS {•: •_
Top Composite
Liner
From 2009 Annual Reports
(data on 31 Landfills)
Primary LCRS Flows:
Max: 9,249 gpad; Min: 233 gpad;
Mean: 1,281 gpad
Secondary LCRS Flows:
Max: 30.63 gpad; Min: 0.40 gpad;
Mean: 5.96 gpad
Upper Liner System Efficiency:
Max: 99.98 %; Min: 95.64 %;
Mean: 99.28 %
B'« PERFORATED HOPE (SOfl 11)
PRIMARY COLLECTION PIPE
COMPOSITE CEONET
BENEATH TYPE B SELECT FILL
TYPE 4 CEOTEXTIl£
UN. l'-6" OVERtAP ONTO
COMPOSire OEONET (T»P.)
•^TYPE B SELECT FILL^— /-IS' WDE STRIP OF
•MO.. ____—/% / COUPOS1TE G
8*1 PERFCBATED HOPE (SDR t!)
CHOUNOWMER SUPPRESSION
COUf C'nON PIPE
•TYPE S SEUCT FILL
TYPICAL VALLEY DETAIL
SCALE: l/2"-l'-0'
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
11
-------
B.EWION (FT)
250
Town of Babylon Ashfill Vertical Expansion
An Innovative Landfill Project
390,000 cy of Airspace & 3 + years of Site Life Gained
Dbl Liner "Leachate Barrier" Above
Landfill Final Cover System of old
Unlined Inactive Haz Waste Landfill
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
12
-------
24 • COVER SYRACUSE
CASTING NO- I302A
SHOVE IN COVER
FROM EXISTING
CELL NO. 2
SIDERISER BULOING
6/10 CONVEYANCE PIPE
a' BLIND FIANCE
6". 90' ELBOW
10 30,000 GALLON
PUMP STATION
CONC. CRADLES
BELOW
PROVIDE AIR
RELEASE VALVE-
t'e SOLID GAS COLLECTION
PIPE (FROM PHASE III)
6'«e"x6' TEE
6'» 45" ELBOW
FLANGE
e'/'O' LEACHATE FORCEMAIN
FROM PHASE V PUMP STATION
CORE DRILL EXISTING
MANHOLE AS REQUIRED
TIE-IN AT CELL 3 LEACHATE CONVEYANCE
HEADER fLCI-n MANHOLE PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
2001: 56 Buildings in 9 States and
Washington DC Impacted by Anthrax Letters
Other Impacts:
> Twelve cases of cutaneous (skin) anthrax
> Eleven cases of inhalational anthrax &
five deaths
Testing of
- 125,000 clinical samples
- >1 million environmental samples
- postal facilities in 34 states tested
Billions of dollars in restoration costs
Disposal of tons of contaminated waste
Connecticut
Missouri
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
13
-------
2001 NYC Anthrax Cases - 5 Manhattan Locations
Media offices, postal facilities and residences (not shown)
contaminated directly or through secondary contamination.
2006 Anthrax Incident
31 Downing Street Set Up
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
14
-------
31 Downing Street Cleaning & Disinfection
Loading Waste on the Truck to Treatment
B-25 Boxes for "Rad" Related
Material Shipping and
Disposal
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
15
-------
WTC Debris variety required
multiple transport options.
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
16
-------
f ^
Daily Tons of Debris
Transporrted to Fresh KillsLandfill
Section 1/9 of the Staten Island Landfill offered a 200 + acre
relatively flat, secure area for WTC debris (evidence) screening.
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
17
-------
EXCLUSION ZONE
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
18
-------
WTC Debris Management Statistics at the Landfill
(as of 7/29/02 from our files)
Total Man Hours at LF: 1,723,228 hours
Total WTC Debris Rec'd at LF: 1,460,889 tons
Total Steel Recovered From LF: 190,568 tons
Total amount of WTC deposited at LF: 1,275,171 tons
No. of WTC Vehicles Processed Out of LF: 1358
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
19
-------
Thanks for Listening
Presentation Slides: State Perspectives on CBR Landfill Disposal, Robert Phaneuf
20
-------
Persistence of CB Agents in
MSW Landfill Leachate \
Washington DC
June 14 2011
Wendy Davis-Hoover, Ph. D.
Homeland Security Related
Contaminated Building Debris
Example: 2001 Anthrax Letters
> 5 letters mailed
> 23 confirmed cases of anthrax
• 11 inhalation, 5 fatal
• 12 cutaneous
> Contaminated 56 buildings in 10
States and Washington DC
Connecticut
Jersey
Figure Courtesy of Thea McManus, US EPA
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
-------
Hart Senate Office Building
Cleanup
Solid waste
Liquid waste
Steel drums
166 tons
15000 gallons
600
Ft. Detrick
(incineration)
Ft. Detrick
(Sterilization)
Micro-Med
(Autoclave)
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
-------
Landfill Cover Design
Cover Sol I
Geosyntrelic Drainage System
HOPE Geomembrane
Bentofix® GCL
Geosyntheiic Drainage System
Levelling Layer
Needlepuncned Nonwoven
Figure Courtesy of Naue Fasertechnik
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
-------
Project Purpose
Can agent contaminated building debris
be safely stored or detoxified in MSW
landfill?
• Will agents survive in leachate?
• How long?
Sampling of Agents
Month
1-2
3-7
8-12
Frequency
Every 7 Days
Every 14 Days
Every 30 Days
. Sampling will be altered if statistical analysis of the data show
merit in more or less frequency.
. Sampling is terminated when two consecutive sampling periods
result in no detects in all replicates.
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
-------
Assumptions Made
> Triplicate leachate microcosms will allow us to
understand the world.
> 3 ml microcosms will mimic anaerobic conditions of
landfills.
> Incubate at 12 °C with bacteria and also run at body
temperature (37 °C).
> Agents will always encounter undiluted leachate before
release.
Bacterial Methods i®
\sP
Bacteria
Bacillus
anthracis
Spores
Yersinia pestis
Francise/la
tu/arensis
Clostridium
botulinum
Culture Media
Polymyxin Lysozyme EDTA
Thallous-Acetate
Yersinia Selective
Chocolate
Phenylethanol
Anaerobically
Incubation
Temperature
37°C
28°C
35°C
37°C
Incubation Time
24 hours
48 hours
3-5 days
48 hours
&
r
Sff^ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
: ft,;.' ; •-...., . |
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
-------
Hypotheses
> Bacterial spore formers will survive.
> Facultative anaerobic bacteria will
survive longer than aerobic bacteria.
> Viruses will survive.
RESULTS
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
6
-------
Bacterial Weapons Summary J|
*5fi
Little Difference in Results between 12 and 37 °C ^~
Francisella
tularensis
Yersinia pestis
Clostridium
botulinum
Bacillus anthracis
Hypothesis
Persist
Persist
Persist
Persist
Data
Die < 20 Days
Die < 20 Days
Persist >1 113 Days
Persist > 1127 Days
&
ys
XKv RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
le+8
le+7-
•o le+6 -
Q le+5 -
S^
-D le+3 -
% le+2 H
le+1 -
le+0
B. anthracis spores
12 degrees C
37 degrees C
200 400 600 800
Incubation Time (days)
__
1000 1200
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
-------
le+7
le+6 -
le+5 -
§
.rt
QJ
Q
~
T3 le+2 -
C
rt
C le+l
rt
01
^ le+O
Clostridium botulinum
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Incubation Time (days)
Viruses in Landfills ?
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
8
-------
Chemical Agents
Sampling
of Agents
Month
1-2
3-7
8-12
Frequency
Every 7 Days
Every 14 Days
Every 30 Days
. Sampling will be altered if statistical analysis of the data show
merit in more or less frequency.
. Sampling is terminated when two consecutive sampling periods
result in no detects in all replicates.
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
9
-------
.^P"™" t3/ Ojo
Chemical Analytical Methods
All extracted by USEPA 3500 series method \ij£$
^"securtW*
Analyte
Lewisite (L)
Mustard (HD)
Sarin (GB)
Soman (GD)
Tabun (GA)
VX
Primary
ATT-005 (HPLC)
USEPA 8270D*
USEPA 8270D*
USEPA 8270D*
USEPA 8270D*
USEPA 8270D*
Secondary
USEPA200.8(ICP-MS)
ATT101*/ATT-003**
ATT101*/ATT-001 **
ATT101*/ATT-002**
ATT101*/ATT-006**
ATT101*/ATT-004**
*GC-MS ** GC-FID
.,«-». RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
/M
Detection Limits TO
**5ssS
Name of Chemical Agent
GA
GB
GD
HD
L
VX
Minimum Detection Limit
in MSW Leachate (ppm)
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.004
Derivative CVAA
5.3 ug/mL
0.010
1
y
SZf^ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
: ft,;.' ; •-...., . |
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
10
-------
Hypotheses
>Chemicals will mostly dissipate
before arrival to landfill or
hydrolyze in landfill except for
Mustard Gas and VX.
RESULTS
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
11
-------
.^oo"™1 *a/ Ojo
Chemical Weapons Summary
^"securtW*
Tabun (GA)
Sarin (GB)
Soman (GD)
Mustard Gas
(HD)
Lewisite
VX
Hypothesis
Not Persist
Moderate
Persistence
Moderate
Persist
Not Persist,
Derivative
Unknown
Persist
Data
Not Persist <14 Days
Low but Persist >182 Days
Low but Persist >168 Days
Not Persist < 7 Days
Derivative Persists >168 Days
Persists >182 Days
1
XKv RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Persistence of Lewisite Toxic
Derivative. Soman and VX
Mean Concentration (ug/
and Standard Deviation
0 20 40 60 80 1 00 1 20 1 40 1 60 1 80
Time(Days from S pike into 12 degrees C Raw MSW Leachate)
- • - Toxic Lewisite Derivitive (chlorvinyl arsenious acid)
-- v- — S oman (C D)
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
12
-------
Persistence of Mustard Gas, Sarinl
and Tabun
Figure 2. Persistence of Mustard Gas, Sarin
and Tabun in Raw MSW Landfill Leachate
V)
I
* Mustard Gas (HD)
•? — Sarin (GB)
• Tabun (GA)
A
I-
0 50 100 150 200
TimefQays from Spike into 12 degrees C Raw MSW Leachate)
Thankyou.
Questions ?
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
13
-------
Disclaimer
This research has been subject to Agency review but
does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. No
official endorsement should be inferred.
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Presentation Slides: Persistence of CB Agents in Landfill Leachate, Wendy Davis-Hoover
14
-------
Fate and Transport of Chemical and
Biological Agents in Simulated Landfills
Morton A. Barlaz
North Carolina State University
NCSTA
Objectives
Provide information to inform the
development of plans for the
management of contaminated debris
Summarize major findings
-Chemical fate and transport
- Microbial fate and transport
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
-------
Transformation mechanism
Importance of transformation products?
Chemical signature of daughter products
- Chlorinated aliphatics, PFCs
>.
1
<\ *
o*.
EHF O.O-tinpdt
Figure 1. De^crytiou of the pathways obtained by Wolfe et al (1977) on the hydrolysis of malathioo.
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
-------
Approach
MOCLA - a simple model to capture major
partitioning and fate of organics in landfills
Experimental work to evaluate ability to
parameterize predictive models
Experimental work to measure microbial
transport in leachate and landfill gas
- tremendous effort in technique development
MOCLA
Model assumes equilibrium between the
solid, liquid and gas phases and calculates
partitioning
- Requires parameters to characterize the landfill
and the contaminant of concern
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
-------
fs (solid)
fw(leachate)
D fa (gas)
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
-------
Results: Base-case scenarios
30 year
simulation:
arid climate
30 year
simulation:
wet climate
d Wet scenario
n Arid Scenario
• 1 OX Wet Scenario
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
-------
Findings and Implications
All CWAs studied are largely associated with the solid
phase in the landfill due to high log Kow values
- Consider models that account for different solid phases
Significant fate routes are abiotic hydrolysis and gas
phase advection
- Rapid gas collection and control is essential
Blister agents (HD, HN-2, ED, L) and some G-agents
(GA and GB) are predicted to be transformed quickly
(~6 months)
- Understand transformation products
VX, GD, CS and toxic industrial chemicals are
predicted to persist in landfills for 5 yr or longer
- Minimize infiltration in perpetuity
Findings and Implications
Effect of climate is minimal for chemicals studied
- Slight increase in Fa (advective loss) due to
increase in gas production rate
- No effect on abiotic hydrolysis rate
- Climate not significant if cell is sealed quickly
Decreasing biotic half-life to 10 days impacts fate
only for compounds with long abiotic hydrolysis half-
lives relative to the simulation period
Knowledge of fate of hydrolysis products is critical
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
-------
(De)Sorption of Organic Contaminants in
Landfill Simulations
Study 1: Estimating Equilibrium Parameters of
Organic Contaminants in Landfills
Study 2: Factors Controlling Alkylbenzenes and
PCE Desorption from MSW Components
Estimating Equilibrium and Kinetic Parameters
of Organic Contaminants in Landfills
q = solid phase concentration
(ug/kg)
Ce= equilibrium liquid phase
rmation needed: ~~l concentration (ug/L)
Information needed:
• foc of sorbent
• K„, for sorbate/sorbent pair
One parameter - linear free energy
relationship (op-LFER) between Koc
Kp = partition coefficient (L/kg)
K^ = partition coefficient
normalized to organic
carbon (L/kg)
fx = fraction of organic carbon
Kow= octanol-water partition
coefficient
(sorbent-specific)
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
7
-------
Characteristics of Plastics
organic matter
amorphous region (sorption sites)
crystalline
higher cohesive forces
more condensed
more mobile
more flexible
Polypropylene (PP)
Glassy or "hard" plastics
Rubbery or "soft"
plastics
Estimating Sorption Equilibrium Parameters for
Organic Contaminants in Landfills
Objectives
• To establish op-LFERs that relate organic-carbon-
normalized partition coefficients (Koc) and to sorbate
octanol-water partition coefficients (K0J for a range of
MSW components
• To validate op-LFERs estimate of toluene's Kp in mixed
solid wastes
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
8
-------
Son 1/Seen merits
(Option 1)
MSW (Option 2)
Predicted !(„ for toluene
(log* =2.69):
Option 1:KOC = 267
Option 2: K= 235
Predicted Koc for toluene
(log Kow = 2.69):
Option 3:
KOC-PVC= 1,940
- HDPf = 98
oc- FRF = 65
Koc- FNP = 29
- FOP = 6
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
-------
Organic Matter Composition
'..
Predicted Toluene Kp
Soil
op-LFER
Mixed MSW
op-LFER
MSW
Component
op-LFER
Measured
Toluene Kp
\ Old Landfill (1960)
43.3 % office paper & newsprint
56.0 % food & yard wastes
0.7 % plastics
Modern Landfill (2007)
22.2 % office paper
17.1% newsprint
42.1 % food & yard wastes
13.0 % rubbery plastics
5.6 % glassy plastics
| Solid Wastes Mixture 1
75% office paper
20% newsprint
5% HOPE jug
I Solid Wastes Mixture 2
73% office paper
20% newsprint
5% HOPE jug
2% PS solo cup
0.418 112 98 20
0.474 127 111 68
0.412 110 97
0.421 113
Food & Yard
Newspri nt
Office Paper
Paper
Plasti cs
Glassy plastics
are potential
"sinks"
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
10
-------
Estimating Sorption Equilibrium Parameters for
Organic Contaminants in Landfills
Conclusions
Current models to predict organic contaminant sorption to
MSW overestimate sorption for older MSW and could
underestimate sorption for MSW with considerable glassy
plastics (PET, PS, PVC) content.
The model developed in this research shows that glassy
plastics (PET, PS, PVC) are important sinks for organic
contaminants.
Factors Controlling Alkylbenzene and PCE
Desorption from MSW Components
Objectives
• Determine desorption rates of model HOCs (toluene, o-xylene
and PCE) from model organic MSW components:
1 high density polyethylene (HOPE), poly(vinyl chloride)
(PVC), newsprint (NP), office paper (OP), rabbit food (RF)
as a model food and yard waste
• Examine the effects of (i) sorbent decomposition; (ii) sorbate
properties; (iii) aging; and (iv) leachate composition on
desorption rates of model HOCs.
Background
• For some materials, equilibrium will be achieved slowly and
the desorption rate could control leachate concentrations
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
11
-------
Factors Controlling Alkylbenzene and PCE Desorption
from MSW Components
Effects of Sorbent Properties
'glass/ or
'rubbery'
polymers
One-compartment polymer
diffusion model
D =4.2 E-14 cm2/s
D =2.2 E-10 cm2/s
4PVC
• HOPE
Two-compartment polymer
diffusion model
L
ib
fe^/
Dr=4.84E-09cm2/s
Ds = 1.98E-13 cm2/s
/OS = 0.31
• FOP OOP
AFNP DNP
XDRF
1 f
- IT- T Y ¥ +
Tirre (Hours)
O-xylene desorption in ultra pure water
Time (Hours)
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
12
-------
Comparison of o-xylene desorption data and one-compartment
diffusion model fits as well as predictions of o-xylene desorption
rates from PVC and HOPE spheres of different diameters
5 '
e 40
1 >
1 i
£ ~
§104
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 JO 32
lime
PVC 0,14 mm
model PVC 1.7 mm
model PVC 0.14 mm
HOPE O.S dim
— nudelHDPCO.Jmn — model HOPE l mm
model HDPE 2 mm model HOPE 5 ram
These data illustrate
the significance of the
diffusion length and
the behavior of a
glassy (PVC) and
rubbery (HOPE)
polymer.
Effect of polymer type on sorbed toluene mass
remaining and released per gram of sorbent.
90 •
so
70
60
50 •
40
30
20
10 •
k.
^-**.
""•— — *-
* v—
o PVC toluene ma» remjiinitig
" HOPE toluene mass femaininf
• PVC toluene mu-s ivfcujtd
• HDPE toluene mass released
.
1
0 !
•
234
time idi
1 -6
,
•'
- w
- 80
- 70
- 60
- 50
- 40
- 30
- 20
- 10
5 6
'-,
-•
-
•a
Jj
U
I
-
a
1
c
HOPE loses mass faster
but more toluene is lost
from PVC because there
was more mass sorbed
initially
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
13
-------
Predicted Kp values describing HD (sulfur
mustard) sorption to different SBD mixtures by
various op-LFERs
Electronics (plastic parts)
Ceiling tiles
Folders
White paper
Mixed off ice paper
Furniture
polyurethanefoam
formica sheet
medium density fiberboard
Carpet
Vinyl flooring
Closely SBD SBD SBD
Related mixture 1 mixture 2 mixture 3
Model
Material
Predicted Kp values describing HD (sulfur
mustard) sorption to different SBD mixtures by
various op-LFERs
Sorbent
Mixture 1 Mixture 2 Mixture 3
op-LFERs
Soils/Sediments
MSW mixture
Individual MSW
components
Predicted HD/fp(L/kg)
62 173
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
14
-------
Predicted fraction of Sarin remaining in a landfill after
0.5 yr using Kp estimated by three alternatives for
three SBD mixtures
I Option 2 D Option 3
Kp estimated by op-LFER for
individual MSW components
predicted 38% of sarin would
remain in a landfill when SBD
contains 16.5% electronics,
while Kp estimates from
Options 1 and 2 predicted
negligible sarin remaining after
0.5 yr. Sarin has a short
hydrolysis half-life but has some
hydrophobicity (log /Cow = 0.3).
Conclusions
HOC desorption rates from plastics were rapid for HOPE (D =
10-10cm2s-1), a rubbery polymer, and slow for PVC (D = 1Q-13-
10"14cm2s"1), a glassy polymer.
For biopolymer composites, a large fraction of sorbed HOCs
was rapidly released (Dr = Id'9 to 10-10cm2 s'1) while the
remaining fraction desorbed slowly (D = 10~nto 10"16cm2s"1).
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
15
-------
Fate and Transport of Phenol in a Packed
bed Reactor Containing Simulated Solid
Waste
Conduct column experiments to measure the fate and
transport of an organic contaminant (OC) in a simulated solid
waste mixture
Compare the results of column experiments to model
predictions using HYDRUS-1D (version 4.13)
Determine model input parameters from independently
conducted batch experiments
Model Contaminant and MSW
Phenol
• model organic contaminant
• frequently detected in landfill leachates
• sorbs to refuse
-• biodegrades in decomposing refuse
Degraded newsprint (DNP)
• representative MSW component
• sorbent
' biodegradable
• lignocellulosic
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
16
-------
Solute Transport
INPUT
PARAMETERS
-Bulk density
-Dispersivity
-Tortuosity
-Diffusivity in water, gas
Solute Reaction
-Henrys Constant
-Sorption parameters (/Cp, /Cf, n)
-Biodegradation rate constant (kfa)
Distance from column inlet (cm)
Biodegradation t1/2(day)
kj(day')
Kpphenol-DNP(L/kg)
Kr column (L/kg)
Q(mL/min)
Q(L/day) BMP Medium
HRT (days)
Glass beads mass (g)
DNP mass (g)
Weighted particle density (kg/L)
Bulk density (kg/L)
Porosity (8)
Dispersivity (cm)
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
17
-------
Batch Experiments
Q 4 fl -21C202*2fil23S4I>444fl
0 4 3, 12 'G 1C 2« 24 32 .
Linearized first-order biodegradation of phenol.
Mean anaerobic biodegradation rate of phenol was 1.0 ± 0.24 d"1
resulting in an average half-life of 16.7 ± 3.1 hr.
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
18
-------
Bromide Tracer Tests
Observed and simulated relative concentrations of bromide as a function of time in (A)
first and (B) second tracer tests.
Model fits for (A) used porosity and dispersivity parameters derived for each sampling
port. Model fits for (B) used porosity from first tracer test and derived dispersivity for
respective sampling ports.
1.0 2.D S.Q 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 fi.O
Time (days]
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
19
-------
Biodegradation-Sorption Column Test
UN)
A
o.ao
0-50
°-4D / ***^~
0.20 *^y^
CLO 1 .0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Time (days)
• El ..-f -i .!•... C ,._:>• MI HYDRUS FiL Butoli HP. Kl>_20 cm
Eio^jr;:iort»is_4ucn K, DSL5 Fir Eac:h Hp. Ka_4i cm
1.00
B
0.30
^
0
0.40
D.20
0.00
• K:^-
/*"
/-"
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Tint {days)
M-ption ftma_l'> cm HYDRUS Fil Batch Kp. 7 hr Kb_»cin
Bm-Sorptmn Daia_4U cm HY DRUS Fil BXck Kp. f. Mir Rb_40 rm
Relative concentrations of phenol as a function of time in biodegradation plus sorption
column test with model fits using (A) batch K and kb (B) batch K , fitted kb.
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
20
-------
Biodegradation parameters for phenol
Batch Test Measured
Biodegradation Rate '
Column Test
Fitted Biodegradation Rate
20cm
40cm
60cm
1.19 (032)
1.02° (0.28)
1.00f(0.24)
2.32 (1.6E-02) 2.28
2.23 (7.6E-02) 2.11
2.35
2.46
Average of replicate analyses, based on linearized first order anaerobic biodegradation of phenol.
values in parentheses represent standard error.
values at 95% confidence interval.
Average value for 40 cm sampling port includes 20 cm data.
Average value for 60 cm sampling port includes 20 cm and 40 cm da'
Conclusions and Implications for
Landfill Disposal
Simulating the effects of various fate processes during transport of organic
contaminants is complex.
HYDRUS-1D appears to reasonably simulate the fate and transport of
phenol in an anaerobic and fully saturated waste column, in which
biodegradation and sorption are the prevailing fate processes.
Agreement between model predictions and column data for sorption plus
biodegradation test was about a factor of 2 and mainly attributed to
difficulty in measuring a biodegradation rate that is applicable to the
column conditions.
Given the extended retention time and engineering controls on leachate
release in lined landfills, differences in biodegradation rate within a factor
of 2 or even 5 is considered reasonable.
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
21
-------
Landfill Coupled Reactor Model (LFCR)
Work done with Dr. Shannon Bartelt-Hunt
(Nebraska) and RTI outside of ORD
The most sophisticated fate and transport model
available for a landfill
• LFCR is an extension of MOCLA
• Utilizes a fully-mixed reactor approach.
More realistic landfill filling algorithm
Time variable parameters (changing gas production,
gas transport, losses during filling, fill sequence).
MOCLA cannot do this.
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
22
-------
Microbial Transport
Solids (synthetic building debris)
Leachate
Gas
All work done with surrogates
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
23
-------
Microbial Transport - Leachate
Substantial work to develop PCR assays that were specific to
the selected microbial surrogates in live and spore form
Demonstrated ability to quantify the presence of surrogate
bacteria and spores in leachate and after extraction from a
solid phase
1 Multiple extraction and spore lysis methods were
tested
' Detection limits of 10 to 100 cells
Microbial Transport - Leachate
Columns filled with synthetic building debris and spiked with
the surrogate organisms were operated under conditions of
water infiltration and leachate recirculation
In the leachate recirculation reactors, <10% of spiked
surrogates were eluted in leachate over 4 months.
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
24
-------
Microbial Transport - Leachate
Less than 3% of the total spiked S.marcescens cells and no 6.
atrophaeus spores were detected in SBD at the termination
of the experiment, suggesting that significant fractions of the
spiked surrogates were strongly attached to SBD
Concentration of
attached S. marcescens
cells over depth in a
water infiltration
reactor
l.OE+05 2.IE+06 4.1E+06
Cells/g dry SBD
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
25
-------
Microbial Transport - Leachate
Test represent a worst case
- high concentrations
- high flow
- movement through layers of waste
We have to assume some microbial transport
in leachate if there is water
movement/leachate generation in a cell.
- Moisture content at filling?
- Infiltration?
NC STATE UNIVERSITY
Microbial Transport - Gas
Aerosol Chamber
Designed aerosol chamber using BGI nebulizer. (1)
compressor air intake; (2) open fitted valve; (3) flow of
the aerosol and suspended surrogates; (4) fan; (5) Closed
valves; (6) sampler buttons with gelatin filters
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
26
-------
Microbial Transport - Gas
jf Metal Grid
^>r supporting SBD
W\
,•«-!.--:*,- J,.!.^ ,»',;" '
Microbial Transport - Gas
Substantial technique development to show
that we could measure microbes in the gas
phase
Even at very high velocities and high cell
concentrations, B. atrophaeus cells and
spores were barely detected and there was
no detection of S. Marcescens
No detection in solid phase, showing strong
adherence to building debris.
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz 27
-------
Final Comments
The mix of materials will not be know ahead
of time as events are not predictable
Expect waste to be securely buried and sealed
rapidly in landfills with liners and gas and
leachate control
Models and experiments could be run after
the fact to estimate long-term fate and
partitioning
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
28
-------
References
Bartelt-Hunt, S. L, Barlaz, M. A., Knappe, D. R. U. and P. Kjeldsen," 2006, Fate of Chemical Warfare Agents and
Toxic Industrial Chemicals in Landfills," Environ. Sci. & Technol., 40, 13, p. 4219 - 25.
Bartelt-Hunt, S. L, Knappe, D. R. U, and M. A. Barlaz, 2008, "Evaluation of Chemical Warfare Agent Simulants
for Environmental Applications," Crit. Rev. in Env. Sci. & Technol., 38, p. 112-36.
Saquing, J. Mitchell, L., Wu., B, Wagner, T. B., Knappe, D. R. U. and M. A. Barlaz, 2010, "Factors Controlling
Alkylbenzene and Tetrachloroethene Desorption from Municipal Solid Waste Components," Environ. Sci. &
Technol., 44, 3, p. 1123 - 29.
Saquing, J. Saquing, C. D., Knappe, D. R. U. and M. A. Barlaz, 2010, "Impact of Plastics on Fate and Transport of
Organic Contaminants in Landfills," Env. Sci. Technol., 44, 16, p. 6396-402.
Teuten, E. L., Saquing, J. M., Knappe, D. R. U., Barlaz, M. A., Jonsson, S., Bjorn, A., Ro'
Thompson, Galloway, T. S., Yamashita, R., Ochi, D., Watanuki, Y., Moore, C., Viet, P. H., Tana, T. S. Prudente,
M., Boonyatumanond, R., Zakaria, M. P., Ogata, Y., Hirai, H., Iwasa, S., Mizukawa, K., Hagino, Y., Imamura,
A., Saha, M., and H. Takada, "Transport and Release of Chemicals from Plastics to the Environment and to
Wildlife," 2009, "Transport and Release of Chemicals from Plastics to the Environment and to Wildlife," Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B, 364, p. 2027-2045.
Saquing, Barlaz, Knappe, submitted Fate and Transport of Phenol in a Packed Bed Reactor Containing
Simulated Solid Waste
Lowry, M., Bartelt-Hunt, S. L., Beaulieu, S. M. and M. A. Barlaz, 2008, "Development of a Coupled Reactor
Model for Prediction of Organic Contaminant Fate in Landfills," Environ. Sci. & Technol., 42, 19, p. 7444-
51.
Saikaly, P. E., Barlaz, M. A., and F. L. de los Reyes, III, 2007, "Development of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assays
for the Detection and Quantification of Surrogate Biological Warfare Agents in Building Debris and
Leachate," Appl. Env. Microbiol., 73, 20, p. 6557 - 65.
Saikaly, P. E., Hicks, K., Barlaz, M. A. and Francis L. de los Reyes III, 2010, "Transport Behavior of Surrogate
Biological Warfare Agents in a Simulated Landfill: Effect of Leachate Recirculation and Water Infiltration,"
Environ. Sci. and Tech., 44, 8622 - 28.
Prevost, Rossana, Aerosolization and Quantification of Surrogate Biological Warfare Agents under Simulated
Landfill conditions, M.S. Thesis, NC State University.
Presentation Slides: Fate and Transport of CB Agents in Simulated Landfills, Mort Barlaz
29
-------
&EPA
Thermal Inactivation of Viable
Bacillus Anthmcis Surrogate Spores in
a Bench-scale Landfill Gas Flare
Jenia A. Tufts
University of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering
Chapel Hill, NC
Jacky A. Rosati
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Homeland Security Research Center
Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
vvEPA
United Slalea
Environmental Protection
Agency
Funding and Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through
its Office of Research and Development, National
Homeland Security Research Center, funded the
research described here under Cooperative Training
Agreement number CR83323601 to the Department
of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, UNC -
Chapel Hill.
This research has been subject to Agency review but
does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency.
No official endorsement should be inferred.
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
-------
United Slalos
Environmental Prolnc-tinr.
Agency
Outline
Background
Overview of MSW Landfills
Overview of Real-World Landfill Flares
Description of Test System
Experimental Methods
Results
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Decontamination Limitations
B.onthrocis spores very hardy, can survive for
long periods under harsh conditions
Viable spores could escape detection and
decontamination
Contaminated materials could be transported
to a landfill
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
-------
&EPA
Decontamination and Cleanup
2001 event produced extensive quantities of potentially
contaminated wastes
Included PPE, office furniture, computers, printers, carpets,
draperies, ceiling panels, and wallboard
Some debris was shipped to a RCRA Subtitle D solid waste
landfill for final disposition
Critical to understand the fate and transport of B. anthracis
spores should they survive the decontamination and landfill
process
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
vvEPA
United Slales
Environr
Agency
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Gas Header Pipe Intermediate/Final
Cover
Flare
Leachate
Plant
Gas Extraction
Wells
Monitoring Probes
Figure source: EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
3000 active
landfills in US
Landfill Gas :
~ 49% CH4
~ 49% CO2
NMOCs
H2S and
other sulfur
compounds
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
-------
&EPA
Open Flare
Landfill Flares
Enclosed Flare
Image source: New York Power Authority
http://www.nvDa.aov/ar02/annual02web/Daaes/Da4 l.htm
Image source: Organlcs
http://organics.com/ProductB/21/Flare Svstems.html
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
vvEPA
Untwtf sum
Enclosed Landfill Flares
Federal operating requirements
Net heating value > 11.2 MJ/scm
Exit velocity < 37.2 m/s
Industry standards
Operating temperature of enclosed flare
Optimal temperature depends on LFG constituents
Residence time
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
-------
Why is This Research Important?
The variety of materials and surface properties
of cleanup waste makes the fate of land-filled
spores less certain
Research investigates the fate of spores
carried within landfill gas and exiting through
an enclosed flare
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Objectives
Characterize the bench-scale landfill flare
system
Compare velocities, residence times, and system
temperatures with real-world systems
Determine the viability of heat-resistant,
surrogate biological spores that pass through
the flare
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
-------
&EPA
Experimental Methods
Bacteria
B. onthrocis surrogates used
Geobacillus stearothermophilus and Bacillus atrophaeus
Spore Type
B. anthracis
G. steam.
B. atrophaeus
Gram
Pos
•/
^
•/
Endospore
Forming
•/
•/
•/
Rod
Shaped
•/
^
•/
Hardy
•/
^
•/
Size Range (|jm)
Length
0.95-3.5
2-3.5
2-3
Width
NR
0.6-1
0.7-0.8
Office of Research and Development j Q
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
vvEPA
Unfwf Bum
Environmental
Agency
Bench Scale System
ii
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
6
-------
System Schematic
|" f
Q
Biosampler
Sampler
Probe
~t
•
a
a
1
i
"
HEPA
Pilot
5
| Exhaust]
•n
01
i
H
E
o-
n
P L~
t_
O
. Spores and N2
1
J=L
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
vvEPA
United Sidles
Envi(onm«nt»l
Agoncy
Detail of Flare Stack
Pilot Port
TC Port
Combustion Air
O
V I Combustion Air
Spores + N2
Office of Research an
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
-------
United SlaOB
Eiwircnmitntnl
An
Protection
5.0
Temperature Profile
.". iiia,,,
J--—^ ® ^--^
0.0 4— 1 1 1 " r-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
cm from flare tube wall (from probe port side;
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
4.5 5.0
14
vvEPA
Exhaust & BioSampler Temperatures
Stack exhaust
temperature
Measured at the top of
the stack in the center
at the BioSampler
probe inlet
BioSampler
temperatures
Inlet and four internal
locations
Inlet Probe
Location
Internal Location 1
Internal Location 2
Internal Location 3
Internal Location 4
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
8
-------
Residence Time and Turbulence Estimates
Flare residence time
Stack height/stack velocity
Spore residence time in the flare
Flare height/flare exit velocity
Reynolds number calculated for the stack at
1000° C
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
16
United Slates
Environmental Prelection
Agency
Spore Inactivation Experiments
Sterile test constituents
Seven tests conducted with each organism
5 with the flare on
2 control runs with flare off
Spore suspensions concentrated
Solution concentrations optimized
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
-------
&EPA
Spore Inactivation Experiments
Spore
Type
G. Stearo
B. Atro.
Test
Solution
Conc'n,
Spores/mL
1.52xl08
1.26 xlO8
% of Drops
Containing
Spores
10
7
Estimated Spores
per Test
From
Nebulizer
3.81 xlO7
3.15 xlO7
Collected by
BioSampler
1.89 xlO7
1.56 xlO7
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
L8
vvEPA
Untwtf sum
Spore Inactivation Experiments
Testing Overview
Sample Preparation
Nutritive broth
used to culture the samples because it could
promote growth of spores that were injured but
still viable
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
10
-------
&EPA
Spore Inactivation Experiments
Control Samples
11 Negative
23 Positive
Ensured aseptic techniques were used
Verified spore test solutions were viable
Used for comparison to test samples
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
20
vvEPA
Untwtf sum
BioSampler Spike Tests
Tested that spores inactivation did not occur in
BioSamplers from the heat of the sample stream
Spiked BioSamplers installed on sampling port
Sampled with flare on for duration of other tests
Negative and positive controls
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
11
-------
oERr\ Rpcnltc
un itcd Slaloi I* C 3 U 1 1, 3
Environmental Prnlection
Temperature Traverse
50 47 43 40 36 32 30 25 24 18 11 08
1 200 '
1000 •
£
jj) 800 •
1
8" 600 •
1-
400 •
200 •
0 •
i i 1 1 i 1
< Fli
.
•
X A
X
A
Wti
f
X
X *
•
• • • *
re Tube
;stODo
i
I
• .
X X
Orifice 1C
^ i i i
/Vail
x *
*
Flare
i
m
*
X X
01 04 08 11 18 24 25 30 32 36 40 43
_ offio.rfR.s.archandD.v.iopm.nt Distance from flare tube wall (cm)
| National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
04
1
• POSH
• POS^
APO"
XPCM
t
X
4 7
0 1
1
X
1 <1UU
1000
800
600
400
200
n
5 0
22
v>EPA
IMMdSUM
tijI Prolection
Internal BioSampler Temperatures
20
Office of Resserch and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
360 360 360 36
EA,a7CCTe8
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
12
-------
&EPA
iMhdSMH
Bench Scale System:
Similarities to Full-Scale Flares
Conformance with Federal Regulations
Net heating value ~ 34 MJ/scm
Meets > 11.2 MJ/scm requirement
Exit velocity ~ 0.43 m/s
Meets < 37.2 m/s requirement
Operating temperature ~ 1000 C at flare edges
Within typical operating temp (870 ° C-10370 C)
Residence time ~ 0.2 (flare) and 0.6 s (stack)
Within standard 0.6 to 1 s range
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
24
Results of Spore Activation Experiments
For all G. stearothermophilus and B.
with flare on
No positive results were observed by the plating or
broth methods
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
13
-------
ntal Prolnc-tinr.
Summary
System flare comparable to real-world
operating conditions
Both B. onthrocis surrogates inactivated in the
flare
Dissemination of results
Manuscript in preparation
Abstract submitted to AAAR
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
26
Presentation Slides: Destruction of Spores in Landfill Gas Flares, Paul Lemieux
14
-------
Disclaimer -
Any products or manufacturers mentioned or
shown in photographs or text of this
presentation, does not represent an endorsement
by the author or the Department of
Environmental Protection.
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
-------
Legislative Authority
Solid Waste Management Act (Act 1980-97)
Radiation Protection Act (Act 1984-147)
Appalachian States LLRW Compact Act
(Act 1985-120)
LLRW Disposal Act (Act 1988-12)
LLRW Disposal Regional Facility Act (Act
1990-107)
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
-------
PENNSYLVANIA CODE
Title 25 Environmental Protection
> Article VIII and IX Municipal and Residual Waste
- 271. Municipal Waste Management - General
Provisions
- 273. Municipal Waste Landfills
- 277. Construction/Demolition Waste Landfills
- 279. Transfer Facilities
- 281. Composting Facilities
- 283. Resource Recovery Facilities (RRF)
PENNSYLVANIA and SW
Traditionally the state has had low transport and
"tipping" fees for solid waste (SW)
Millions of tons of solid waste are imported
annually into PA for disposal
SW import is controlled by federal statutes as
"interstate commerce"
Not within the control of the Commonwealth or
local host communities
DEP does issue SW operating permits
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
-------
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
-------
Why did we need regulations and guidance
for rad. in solid waste?
Permits at SW facilities said no "radioactivity"
Some SW facilities had installed radiation / radioactive
materials (RAM) monitors
Differences between monitors, policies, alarm set point,
sensitivity, modes of use, etc.
Alarms required response by facilities and BRP
BRP staff responding to several alarms a week
A "quagmire" of national regulations and standards
regarding RAM involved and follow-up
Nuclear medicine (NM) major cause of alarms
Why regs and guidance? (cont.)
Most of the alarms are of little or no radiological
significance (i.e., NM RAM)
High costs of response if not NM RAM and T% is
> 65 days
If an "orphan" source and classified as low-level
rad waste (LLRW) who pays?
Hauler or SW Facility may have to pay if
originator can't be identified
The entity in possession of the source or RAM
contaminated solid waste is responsible to act
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
5
-------
Why do we have this problem?
• Almost everything in the world contains some
radioactivity, mostly of natural origins; BUT
• There is no accepted legal definition of what may be
detectable as "radioactive," but of such a low public
dose impact (i.e., health risk) as having little need for
regulatory control
• NAS Report and NRC tabled action on "clearance" issue
• Some SW facilities had monitors, others didn't
• Now SW facility permit holders have to install radiation
monitors and develop an "Action Plan" for alarm
detection response
PA DEP RP Program Experiences
4.2 Ci Ir-192 source left in a patient / waste!
Am-241 GL source shredded w/ "auto-fluff
(2) Ra-Be neutron sources found in trash
(4) 3 mCi Cs-137 sources incinerated at a
Resource Recovery Facility (RRF)
(100s) Ra-226 luminescent devices in SW
(1) c!940 Ra-226 therapy needle in SW
(2) c!950 Ra-226 industrial sources in SW
(5) yellow bags Co-60 LLRW in 'cold' SW from
nuclear power plant in PA!
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
6
-------
RP Program Experiences (cont.)
150 mCi Am-241 GL source, w/ open shutter
Cyclotron component activated with Co-56
(83) Ra-226 check sources in a mason jar
(2) glass test tubes with 5 mCi Ra-226 each
(~12) Ra-226 military deck markers
Sludge from nuclear laundry with Co-60
Many alarms with NORM / TENORM
K-40 in potassium permanganate for odors
1-131 re-concentrated in biosolids from STPs
Vast majority of the SW alarms 1-131, Tc-99m
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
-------
Sources of Radioactivity -
Nuclear Medicine Procedures
• Short-lived NM radioisotopes w/ Tl/2 < 65 days
• NM diagnostic or therapy procedures w/1-131
• No longer controlled to 30 mCi, use dose limit
• Once in the patient, now dose based to determine if patient
leaves facility
• Excreta to sanitary sewer - biosolids with NM RAM, or
contaminated "household waste"
• While in licensed facility, contaminated items are to be
controlled, but may get in trash accidentally
• Patients can be human or animal
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
8
-------
Sources of Radiation -
Items containing NORM or Technologically Enhanced
(TENORM)
Coke slags
Metal processing slags
Media from water
purification - U & Rn
Fire brick - w/ zircon
Mineral Sands
Soils
K compounds
Rocks
Minerals
Fertilizer
Gypsum
Sheet rock
Oil & gas brines
and frac sludges
Coal fly ash
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
9
-------
Regulations Applicable to Nuclear
Medicine Procedures
• NRC regulations in 10CFR35.75
Release of individuals containing
radiopharmaceuticals or permanent implants.
• Reg Guide 8.39 Release of patients
administered radioactive materials
• NRC regulations in 10CFR20.2003
Disposal by release to sanitary sewerage
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
10
-------
Objectives of PA Regs and
Guidance on RAM in SW
To protect environment, public and workers
from unnecessary exposure
To protect SW facility property from RAM
contamination and costly decontamination
To help prevent unlawful disposal of specific or
generally licensed RAM
revised regulations and permits
To conserve PA DEP / RP Program resources by
reducing unnecessary response activity
SW Regulations - Basic Limitations
The following radioactive material controlled under
specific or general license or order authorized by any
federal, state or other government agency shall not be
processed at the facility, unless specifically exempted
from disposal restrictions by an applicable
Pennsylvania or federal statute or regulation:
NARM
Byproduct material
Source material
Special nuclear material
Transuranic radioactive material
Low-level radioactive waste
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
11
-------
SW Regulations - Basic Limitations (cont.)
The following radioactive material shall not be disposed / processed at
the facility, unless approved in writing by the department and the
disposal / processing does not endanger the health and safety of the
public and the environment:
Short lived radioactive material from a patient having undergone a
medical procedure
TENORM
Consumer products containing radioactive material
The limitations in subsections () and () shall not apply to radioactive
material as found in the undisturbed natural environment of the
Commonwealth.
General Guidance for Action Plans
Definitions (RAM, NARM, NORM, TENORM, etc.)
• Background; reg drivers, sources, past events
• General Considerations
- Personnel Training
- Monitoring and detection of radiation
- Awareness of items containing RAM
- Initial response to detection
- Notifications; internal/external (PA DEP)
- Characterization
- Disposition; reject, dispose / process onsite
- Record keeping
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
12
-------
Action Plans
SW Facility must have a RP Action Plan
Can have a disposal option for NM RAM, and
small quantity of TENORM and consumer
products
Plan summary posted for facility personnel
Facility personnel trained to Action Plan
Monitoring equipment in place
Proper response if monitors alarm
Customer and waste hauler awareness
Ensure that at least one trained person on duty
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
13
-------
SW Regs - Action Levels
• Below, average background* + 10 mR h"1 (max) NO
ACTION REQUIRED - treat waste in normal manner.
ACTION LEVEL 1
• Above average background + 10 mR h1 (alarm set point)
shall cause an alarm, facility INVESTIGATES!
ACTION LEVEL 2
• Above 2 mR h"1 in vehicle cab, 50 mR h"1 on any other
surface, or contamination - NOTIFY PaDEP / BRP and
isolate waste and / or vehicle.
'Note: 10 mR h"1 limit on instrument background.
Guidance -
Detection and Initial Response
System must alarm with 10 mR h"1 radiation field at
detector element, with Cs-137
Must detect 50 keV and above gamma rays
Having a set point no higher than average instrument
background + 10 mR h"1 - maximize sensitivity,
minimize false alarms
Background is instrument response AT THAT
LOCATION; may need to shield to get < 10 mR Ir1
If vehicle exceeds alarm set point, test again
Still above alarm set point - survey driver & truck
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
14
-------
Guidance
Detection & Initial Response
Facility must have a site-specific Action Plan
Initial measurements below Action Level 2,1%
< 65 days and NM RAM, facility may have PaDEP
blanket approval for a disposal or process option
If > 2 mR h-1 cab, > 50 mR h * on surface, or > 22
dpm/cm2 removable contamination - isolate and call
PaDEP/BRP
DO NOT send driver back on road until proper action
determined, and if needed, DOT Exemption obtained
from PaDEP/BRP
If waste is to be rejected, PaDEP will need to know
destination to notify other state agencies
DOT Exemption
MoU between CRCPD and U.S. DOT
DOT- E11406 for shipment of solid waste with
low-levels of external radiation (expired April
Approved by state radiation control official
One-way transport exemption from certain DOT
regs on packaging and labeling
No contamination, < 50 mrem/hr on side
In PA, add < 2 mrem/hr in vehicle cab
If NM RAM and "household waste" no DOT
Exemption needed, just a PA Transport
Exemption Form
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
15
-------
Guidance -
Characterization
Identification of radioisotope - use portable
multi-channel analyzer (MCA) for gamma
spectroscopy
Tl/2 < 65 days and NM RAM, see guidance
Tl/2 > 65 days, see guidance
May have to unload or hold onsite in the
"Designated Area"
- Isolate vehicle, bag, or container
- STOP, isolate vehicle from people, call
PaDEP if Action Level 2 exceeded
Guidance - Disposal Option
Examples of Common Nuclear Medicine RAM *
Isotooe
1-131
Tc-99m
Tl-201
Ga-67
T-l/2
8 days
6 hours
3.0 days
3.3 days
* Over 90% of alarms to date are from NM RAM
and patient contaminated solid waste
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
16
-------
Guidance - Disposition
• Ok to dispose or process NM RAM with half life less
than 65 days (if determined by DEP not to endanger
health and safety of site staff, public and environment)
• Small quantity TENORM and consumer products can
be pre-approved too
• Most SW facilities wanted blanket approval for NM
RAM in Action Plan
• PaDEP can approve TENORM case by case
• RAM disposed of as LLRW at a licensed facility
• New DEP Fact Sheet on LLRW disposal options
• RAM returned to point of origin (with DOT Exemption
manifest from PaDEP / BRP)
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
17
-------
Guidance - Disposition
T1/! > 65 days, except NORM / TENORM
Above ACTION LEVEL 1 - reject and return
to point of origin (with DOT Exemption Form
from BRP), or arrange for proper recovery and
disposal as LLRW
Above ACTION LEVEL 2 - respond in
consultation with PaDEP / BRP, and perhaps
DEP Fact Sheet noting LLRW brokers
PA / CRCPD orphan source disposal
Agreement may provide funding
Guidance - Disposal Option (cont.)
TENORM
TENORM, surface dose rate < 50 mR Ir1
@ 5 cm, combined radium activity < 5.0 pCi/g, and
below 1m3- facility can dispose / process without
DEP approval
Higher levels permitted with BRP Director approval,
if pathways analysis demonstrates dose to maximum
exposed person is less than 25 mrem yr1 from all
exposure pathways (i.e., using "resident farmer" and
RESRAD code)
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
18
-------
Guidance - Disposal Option (cont.)
TENORM -
RESRAD Code: "resident farmer"
evaluation, public dose limit 25 mrem/yr,
all pathways (i.e., radon, ground shine
and drinking water), looking out 1000
years.
Pennsylvania DEP Standard RESRAD Model
Input Parameters / Assumptions for
TENORM Landfill Disposal
Use the "Resident Farmer" exposure sc
turned on (including radon], the dose m
for 1,000 years post TENORM was1« pla.
1) Vertical profile:
on top of the landfill, with all pathways
less than 25 millirem per year (mrem/yr)
Standard Landfill and
RESRAD Assumption*
*«
Cover
mer mediate Cover
Total Cover
Contaminated Zone"
UnsaturatedZone 1
Linsaturated Zone 2
UnsjtiirniedZone 3
Unsatuf ate d Zone 4
Toul Unsauiiiileit Zone
Depth
inches
24
12
36
96
6
12
24
138
Depth
meters
rUiO.nl
fi.VMB
0,'.H44
v.viil-'l"
:
0.1524
n. ,, 50
0.6100
3.505
itodu
Soil
Soil
Soil
ion
'71,1V
S.tiiil
Soil
Density
igi'cmj)
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.20
.50
.50
Hydraulic
Conductivity
invyr)
10-300
10
40.5
1600
10
The Contaminated Zone may vary from 3-10 meters in thicknc
volume TENORM disposals; but model it m contact with trie Co1
2) For intermediate lo large
material. Area of the Contaminated Z<
TENORM disposals. ;
hould notexce
^sumptions regarding the Horizontal
MUs) used and volume of contaminated
•n 61 by 61 meters as a typical Cell.
4) For intermediate to large volume TENORM disposals, the source term Dilution Factor may vary
depending upon volume of TENORM contaminated material; limit lo no greater than 3:1 without
prior DEP approval.
5) All other input parameters shall be default values, unless site specific values are apt
prior to use and-or the landfill's Operational Plan is modified appropilately.
The RESRAD family of codes home page: htlp:.iw^h>'.i.i.,ini iinv fesrddVhome2
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
19
-------
New techniques, better recovery
Two technologies relatively new to the Appalachian
are employed in wells drilled into the Ma reelius formation
The first, horizontal
drilling, is one In
which a vertical well
is directed horizontally
so that it penetrates
a maximum number of
vertical rock fractures.
The second is hydrofracm&
a process in which a portion
of a well is sealed and wa-
ter is pumped in. This pro-
duces pressure that frac-
tures the surrounding rock
to form a reservoir.
These new techniques allow
for more gas recovery over
a wider underground area.
6,000 to 8.000
feet deep
._..._.
ce: Geology.com,
ki 1 Imountai nkeeper.org
SW Facility Guidance -
Records & Notification
Daily Operational
Records
Date / time / location
w/ brief narrative
- Any info on origin
- Isotope ID if known
Name, address,
tel.# of hauler /
supplier / driver ID
- Final deposition
(dispose /reject)
DEP Notification
For DOT Exemption
For disposal NM RAM
w/ T1/! < 65 days
If identify RAM w/ lYi
> 65 days
Immediate if Action
Level 2 exceeded
Annual report of
detected RAM
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
20
-------
Implementation Update
Over 170 SW facility permit modifications for
RP Action Plans
Over 140 initial onsite inspections
Annual Reports being reviewed
Hundreds of DOT Exemptions issued
Official DOT "interpretation" on RAM in
"household waste" in 2004 - not subject to
hazmat regs in 49CFR
• RP Action Plans for POTWs / STPs / CWTs
Implementation Update (cont.)
Hundreds of onsite radiation alarm
~ 90% NM RAM in household waste
- 9% NORM or TENORM
~ 1% NM RAM in driver
< 1% Regulated or controlled RAM
DEP Fact Sheets on tritium and "orphan
source" / LLRW disposal
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
21
-------
Landfill Leachate Study
Base-line landfill leachate radiological survey
Sampled 54 active landfills in 2004
Initially had ~ 1050 samples
Gross alpha, beta, gamma spec., and tritium
Had to do ~ 60 follow-up samples, for
Total uranium and radium-226 / -228
Most data could be related to NORM, but,
Tritium (H-3) found well above background in >
90% of the leachate samples; over 50% of the
landfills had > 20,000 pCi/L (i.e., EPA DW
standard)
Follow-up tritium sampling 2005, 2008, present
Leachate Tritium Concentration
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
22
-------
ASTSWMO Radiation Focus Group /
Board Actions
Letter to the Health Physics Society,
requesting a related ANSI N13 Standard
be developed
Letter to the Conference of Radiation
Control Program Directors, requesting
related model [SSR] regulations be
developed
LibRadEx - "The Week That Was!"
Liberty RadEx
National Tier 2 Full-Scale Radiological Dispersion Device Exercise
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania April 26-30, 2010
Liberty RadEx Agencies and Organizations
- Liberty RadEx Exercise Scenario
Liberty RadEx Venue Maps
EPA Mobile Command Post
Cleanup and d
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
23
-------
LibRadEx: After-action Report
Lessons learned relate to:
• PAGs, 1st year, EPA vs PA
• Secondary limits: dpm/100 cmA2, pCi/g
• Radioactive Waste, LLRW?, volume, cost $!
• City Government & community involvement
• Communications within responders
• Logistics of a large scale cleanup response
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
24
-------
Acknowledgements
All PA DEP RP and WM Program staff
William P. Kirk, PhD, CHP
Kristen Furland and Marylou Barton
Rick Croll, Scott Wilson and Jim Barnhart
DEP's HP consultants (Andy Lombardo,
CHP, Anita Mucha and staff)
Reference URLs
BRP httn://www.den.state.Da.us/den/denutate/airwaste/rD/rn.htm
CRCPD httu://www.crcnd.org/
CDC httD://www.bt.cdc.20v/radiation/index.asD
HPS httiK//www.bns.or2/ httn://hiis.or2/Dubliciiiformation/ate/
AAPM httD://www.aanm.or2/
ACR httD://www.acr.or2/denaitments/educ/disaster oren/do nrimenhtml
SNM httn://mteractive.snm.or2/index.cfm?Daseid=10&rnid=1977
NCRP httn://www.ncrn.com/
ANS httn://www.ans.org/
FEMA httn://www.fema.2ov/hazards/nuclear/
NRC httn://www.nrc.sov/
EPA htto://www.ena.sov/
IAEA
httD://www-Dub.iaea.or2/MTCD/nublications/PDF/P074 scr.ndf
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
25
-------
Contact Information -
David J. Allard, CHP
PADEP / Bureau of Radiation Protection
PO Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA, 17105-8469
Tel.: 717-787-2480
Fax: 717-783-8965
E-mail: djallard@state.pa.us
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us
"radiation"
Presentation Slides: Disposal of Radiological Wastes in Landfills, David Allard
26
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |