SEPA A
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-16/303 | July 2016 | www.epa.gov/research
Sustainable Approaches for
Materials Management in
Remote, Economically
Challenged Areas of the Pacific
III m m m l\V. Vv
If ''' 1 "
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
Sustainable Approaches for Materials
Management in Remote, Economically
Challenged Areas of the Pacific
by
Timothy Townsend
IWCS LLC, Gainesville, FL 32606
David Carson
U.S. EPA/National Risk Management Research
Laboratory/Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division,
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Norwood Scott
U.S. EPA/Region 9
San Francisco, CA 94105
Interagency Agreement/Grant/Contract Number
Project Officer
Thabet Tolaymat Ph.D.
Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268
i
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
Notice/Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and
Development, funded and conducted the research described herein under an approved
Quality Assurance Project Plan (Quality Assurance Identification Number L-20614-QP-
1-0). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support
and nurture life. To meet this mandate, US EPA's research program is providing data and
technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how
pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) within the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from
pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in
public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water;
prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL
collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce
the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that
protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information
to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and
information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and strategies
at the national, state, and community levels.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
Table of Contents
Notice/Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations viii
Executive Summary ix
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Background and Objectives 1
1.2. Report Organization 1
1.3. Quality Assurance and Control Plan 2
2. Background 3
2.1. The US Pacific Islands Territories 3
2.1.1. Guam 4
2.1.2. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 6
2.1.3. American Samoa 9
3. Site Visits 12
3.1. Trip Timeline and Objectives 12
3.2. Guam 12
3.3. The commonwealth of the Norther Mariana Islands 13
3.3.1. Saipan 13
3.3.2. Tinian 16
3.3.3. Rota 17
3.3.4. American Samoa 18
4. The Importance of Proper Waste Management 26
5. Integrated Solid Waste Management System Fundamentals 29
5.1. Waste characterization 29
5.2. Waste reduction 30
5.3. Waste collection 31
6. Resource Recovery 35
6.1. Recycling 35
6.2. Organics Recovery 37
6.2.1. Composting 38
6.2.2. Anaerobic Digestion 40
6.3. Energy from Thermal Waste Treatment 43
7. Waste Disposal 44
7.1. Combustion 44
7.2. Landfilling 46
7.2.1. Summary of the Subtitle D Landfill Requirements 46
7.2.2. Site location 47
7.2.3. Fundamental Sanitary Landfill Practices 48
7.2.4. Leachate Control 52
7.2.5. Gas Control 53
8. Hazardous and Special Waste 55
8.1. Medical Waste 55
8.2. Other Hazardous Waste 56
9. Contracting for New Solid Waste Treatment Technologies 57
10. Summary 59
11. References 60
iv
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
v
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Guam (Google Earth August 2016) 6
Figure 2. The main islands of the commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Saipan,
Tinian and Rota (Google Earth August 2016) 7
Figure 3. Map of American Samoa islands 10
Figure 4. Observed waste along utility corridor in Guam 13
Figure 5. Aerial view of the Marpi Landfill in Saipan, CNMI 14
Figure 6. Lined leachate pond (left) and wetland leachate treatment system (right) 15
Figure 7. Lower Base Refuse Transfer Station (left) recyclable hand sorting at LBRT (right) ..16
Figure 8. The Tinian Dump 17
Figure 9. Garbage at the Rota Dump 18
Figure 10. Household hazardous waste (left) Used electronic waste (right) at the Rota Dump.. 18
Figure 11. Example of anti-litter public campaign promoted by the American Samoa
Environmental 19
Figure 12. Separating aluminum cans (left) aluminum can storage (right) at the Futiga solid
waste facility 20
Figure 13. Steep side slopes (left) and leachate ponding (right) observed at the Futiga solid waste
facility 20
Figure 14. Metal scrap yard at site of aggregate quarry 21
Figure 15. Recovered aluminum cans and scrap metal at the T&T recycling facility 21
Figure 16. Historic image showing the construction of the Tafaigata Fukuoka-style Landfill... 23
Figure 17. Historical image indicating the layout of the Tafaigata Fukuoka-style Landfill 23
Figure 18. Lined leachate pond at the Tafaigata Fukuoka-style Landfill showing a large-
diameter leachate pipe entering from the landfill 24
Figure 19. Vertical air/gas vent at the Tafaigata Fukuoka-style Landfill 24
Figure 20. Roadside burning of garbage 26
Figure 21. Observed surface water potentially polluted with landfill leachate 27
Figure 22. Plastic wastes observed on the beach of an island community 28
Figure 23. Results from a waste composition study conducted on American Samoa 30
Figure 25. An open-bed truck for collecting household garbage 33
Figure 26. Signage indicating appropriate disposal areas at a municipal waste disposal site 33
Figure 27. Waste recycling facility equipped with storage capacity for recovered materials 37
Figure 28. Equipment built for screening compost 40
Figure 29. Floating drum (left) and Tubular (right) anaerobic digester 42
Figure 30. Compactor on working face of landfill at Marpi Landfill in Saipan, CNMI 48
Figure 31. Landfill gas well built with rock encased in wire 54
vi
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
List of Tables
Table 1. US Pacific Island Territory land area, population and Population density 3
Table 2. US Pacific Islands Territory economic data 4
Table 3. 2009 Futiga solid waste facility waste material characterization (by mass) conducted by
SCS (2009) 11
Table 4. Waste Reduction Methods at government and community level (UNEP 2005, USEPA
2012) 31
Table 5. Summary of incinerators used for agricultural waste management 45
Table 6. Summary of RCRA Subtitle D (40 CFR Part 258) Landfill Requirements (consult
40CFR-258 for complete regulations) 49
Table 7. Typical community hazardous wastes and recommended management practices 56
vii
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACI
Air curtain incinerators
ASEPA
American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency
ASPA
American Samoa Power Authority
BECQ
Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality
BMP
Best Management Practices
BOS
Batch Oxidation System
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CNMI
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
DPW
Department of Public Works
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FML
Flexible membrane liner
HHW
Household hazardous waste
LCRS
Leachate collection and removal system
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
NREL
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NRMRL
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
PPA
Power Purchase Agreement
RARE
Regional Applied Research Efforts
RFP
Request for Proposals
RFQ
Request for Qualifications
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SPREP
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
ISWM
Integrated Solid Waste Management
TOS
Thermal Oxidation System
UNEP
United Nations Environmental Programme
US
United States
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
WTE
Waste to Energy
viii
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
Executive Summary
Remote, economically challenged areas in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands
(CNMI) and American Samoa in the US Pacific island territories face unique challenges with
respect to solid waste management. These islands are remote and isolated, with some islands
supporting only small populations, thus limiting options for pooling resources among
communities in the form of regional waste management facilities, as is common on the US
mainland. This isolation also results in greater costs for waste management compared to those
encountered in the mainland US, a consequence of, among other factors, more expensive
construction and maintenance costs because of the necessary transport of facility components
(e.g., landfill liner materials) and the decreased attractiveness of waste recovery for recycling
because of lower commodity prices after off-island transportation. Adding to these economic
limitations, the gross domestic product and per capita income of the Pacific territories is less than
half what it is in parts of the US.
The first section of this report outlines a snapshot of the current state of solid waste management
overall in the US Pacific island territories, primarily based on site visits. Steps involved in this
work included a review of selected existing published information related to the subject; site
visits to Guam, Saipan, Tinian, Rota, Tutuila, and Apia; and an assessment of the technical and
economic feasibility of different solid waste management technologies for remote, economically
challenged areas in the US Pacific island territories.
Landfills designed to meet the minimum criteria for municipal solid waste landfills at 40 CFR
Part 258 (herein referred to as Subtitle D requirements) are currently operated on Guam and
Saipan. Waste disposal on the other islands (including Tinian, Rota, Tutuila, Aunu'u, Tau, Ofu,
and Olosega) occurs through some form of unlined landfilling or open dumping or off-island
transport of wastes. Site visits to Tinian and Rota found that the local government authorities
maintained disposal sites at distinct locations and that these facilities were being upgraded from
open dumping to more controlled sanitary landfills. The America Samoa Public Works
Authority currently employs sanitary landfill practices at the Tutuila disposal facility, including
waste compaction and cover soil placement.
A preferred waste management solution is one focused on waste reduction and enhanced
materials recovery through recycling and energy recovery. A number of recycling operations
were observed during the site visits, particularly on the larger islands, with metals being the most
commonly recycled material. Discussions with government officials and a review of existing
information found that construction of waste-to-energy facilities had been considered on a
number of occasions, but may not be economically viable, and/or are prohibited by local law.
The second part of the document provides guidance to remote, economically challenged areas in
the US Pacific island territories (and other similar locations) focused on management practices
that promote sustainable materials management and minimize risk to human health and the
environment. The information presented was derived from current waste-management practices
along with experience gathered from waste-management practices from isolated communities
outside the continental US.
ix
-------
EPA/600/R-16/303
July 2016
The environmental and human health risks posed by improperly managed solid wastes are
described. Fundamentals, such as understanding local waste characteristics, opportunities for
waste reduction, and waste collection are reviewed. Recycling can be more challenging in
remote, economically challenged locations because transportation costs often outweigh
recoverable market value. High community participation rates and sufficient storage capacity for
stockpiling materials are essential features of a successful program that recycles large quantities
of materials at rates comparable to the US mainland. Source-segregating and biological
treatment of organics by composting or anaerobic digestion provide a landfill diversion step not
generally limited by transport distances. Both organic treatment methods produce a residual
which can be beneficially used, with an added benefit of anaerobic digestion involving the
production of gas usable for fuel. Energy recovery from waste through traditional thermal
treatment methods will, in most cases, not be feasible because of the small amount of wastes
produced and the high capital costs of these technologies.
A number of design and operational approaches are required to reduce environmental impacts
from landfills. (Please see 40 CFR 258 for the minimum federal criteria for municipal solid
waste landfills.) Site location is critical to avoid sources of drinking water and sensitive
environments. Waste compaction, cover soil placement, and proper configuration of the landfill
disposal area help minimize issues such as fires, odors, and disease vectors, and can reduce the
potential for off-site migration of pollutants from leachate and landfill gas. Landfill gas
problems can be reduced through implementation of good cover soil practices and installation of
gas vents constructed with locally available materials. Lined MSW landfilling capacity can be
preserved by the construction of non-municipal landfills accepting only certain non-hazardous,
non-municipal waste materials, operating in compliance with 40 CFR 257, and by sustainable
management practices that divert certain materials from the disposal waste stream. For areas
seeking to adopt compliant alternative waste management technologies, contract development
issues are also discussed.
x
-------
1, I 1
1 kqround and Objectives
Local governments have the responsibility of providing solid waste management services
for their residents. Elements of a modern integrated solid waste management (ISWM)
system include collection, transport, resource recovery, and disposal of waste.
Challenges associated with planning and implementing any ISWM system include (1)
providing services that meet residential, commercial, and institutional needs in an
economically feasible manner, and (2) utilizing technologies that meet regulatory
requirements and best protect human health and the environment. The disposal of solid
waste in the US, which is governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Subtitle D landfill regulations (40 CFR 258, herein referred to as Subtitle D),
require that landfilled municipal solid waste (MSW) be disposed of in lined, solid waste
management units that meet minimum federal criteria for location, design, operation, and
monitoring criteria. Open MSW dumps are prohibited under RCRA. As for the disposal
of non-municipal wastes, sanitary landfills meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 257 have
been utilized, along with sustainable materials management methods, to preserve subtitle
D MSW landfill capacity for MSW. It is noteworthy to mention that this report focuses
primarily on MSW disposal in remote, economically challenged areas in CNMI and
American Samoa in the US Pacific territories.
Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa
are three US territories in the Pacific visited for this research project. Guam was visited
to gather background information while materials management practices were examined
in more detail in CNMI and American Samoa. Within CNMI and American Samoa are a
number of isolated communities with relatively small populations. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is invested in improving solid waste
management in these communities, a particular challenge because of their isolated
location, small population size, significant seasonal fluctuations in waste generation (due
to tourism) and limited land available for development. These communities also tend to
be economically disadvantaged, lacking the funds (as well as access to advantageous
financing options), and technical expertise to develop, operate, and maintain integrated
solid waste management systems. Island nations where these remote, economically
challenged areas are located, are also vulnerable to extreme weather events, and the
typical location of most island landfills, in flat coastal areas, further increases exposure to
storms, and thus, the potential for dispersion of solid waste into the aquatic environment
from unsecured coastal landfills is a real possibility (Eckelman et al. 2014). In 2014, US
EPA Region 9 applied for and was awarded a Regional Applied Research Efforts
(RARE) project to provide technical assistance on solid waste management for remote,
economically challenged communities in CNMI and American Samoa in the US Pacific
territories.
1.2. Report Organization
i
-------
This report is organized into seven sections. Section 2 describes the challenges faced by
remote, economically challenged communities in managing their wastes. Section 3
outlines the site visits and presents field observation. Section 4 describes the importance
of proper waste management and the consequences of inadequate waste management.
Section 5 discusses the fundamentals of integrated solid waste management, including
details on waste characterizations, methods of waste reduction, and waste collection.
Section 4 discusses resource-recovery methods, including recycling, organic material
recovery through composting and anaerobic digestion, and energy recovery from the
thermal treatment of materials. Section 6 provides an overview of resource recovery and
recycling. Section 7 consists of a detailed discussion of combustion technologies and
landfilling, considered methods of waste disposal. Section 8 describes different types of
hazardous and special wastes that communities typically encounter, including medical
waste, household hazardous waste, e-waste, batteries, and other materials. Section 9
discusses recommendations for contracting for new solid waste technologies. Section
lOprovides the report references.
i ' , '.'c.'FfU',, t'f nee ah-1. Control Plain
This project entailed the collection and analysis of secondary data. The appropriateness
of the data and their intended use was assessed with respect to data source, data collection
timeframe, and the waste management facility capacity or the community size that the
data represent. The highest preference was given to materials management program-
specific data/information collected through interviews with US Pacific islands territories
community decision-makers. For other sources, preference was given to data from well-
developed, peer-reviewed reports/papers (e.g., those published in government reports and
peer-reviewed journals) over information that had not undergone a peer review process
(e.g., conference proceedings, trade journal articles, personal estimates). Data from
communities of a size representative of the small communities in the US Pacific island
territories were preferred over those representative of larger-sized communities.
Preference was given to more recent data over older data. The report includes the sources
of all data and identifies any data limitations.
2
-------
2. Background
t, fl[-.« U: [ . ific Island* I til ties
The focus of this report is remote, economically challenged areas in CNMI and American
Samoa, which were visited as part of this research. Although Guam is not a focus of this
study, Guam was visited for purposes of obtaining an overview snapshot of Guam's solid
waste management. Guam demographics and other statistics are provided for
informational purposes relative to the focus areas of the report.
The islands are a great distance from the US mainland (e.g., American Samoa is closer to
New Zealand, and Guam and the CNMI are closer to Asia than to the US) and have a
much smaller population and size compared to most US states. Guam is a single island
with a land mass of approximately 211 square miles; the CNMI and American Samoa
consist of smaller land masses comprised of multiple islands.
Table 1 provides basic demographics of the territories, including a list of the primary
islands, their land area, and their populations compared to the US mainland. Of the
islands visited, Guam is the largest island and most populated. The next were American
Samoa and CNMI, Tutuila and Saipan, respectively, which are comparable in size and
population. While the larger islands of Guam, Tutuila, and Saipan have relatively large
population densities, many of the smaller islands are much less densely populated.
Table 1. US Pacific Island Territory land area, population and Population density
Population
Approximate
Population3
Density
Territory
Island
Area (mi2)
(2010)
(People/mi2)
Guam
Guam
211b
159,358
760
AS Total
76.14
55,519
726
Tutuila
53c
53,770
1,015
Aunu'u
0.59c
589d
998
American
Ofo
2.79c
176
63
Samoa
Olosega
1.99°
177
89
Ta'u
17.11°
790
46
Swains Island
0.58c
17
29
Rose Island
0.08c
0
0
CNMI Total
179.15
53,883
296
Saipan
48e
48,220
1,005
CNMI
Rota
33f
2,527
77
Tinian
39.2s
3,136
80
Northern Islands
58.95h
0
0
United States mainland
3,531,905'
318,857,056'
87'
"US Census Bureau (201 la, b, c)
bGingerich (2013)
°US Census Bureau (2003)
Population was estimated by using US Census 2000 percent of Sa'ole county designated as Aunu'u village
and applying the same percentage to the US Census 2010 for Sa'ole county.
eCarruth (2003)
fCarruth (1999)
3
-------
gGingerich (2002)
hBased on subtracting the other CNMI islands from the total land area estimated by (CIA nd.c).
'US Census Bureau (2015a), population data is from 2014
Table 2 compares the economies of the US Pacific island territories to that of the US
mainland. The per capita income is much greater for the US mainland than for the island
regions (nearly two times larger than Guam and more than four times greater than
American Samoa and CNMI). Median household incomes are similar between Guam
and the US mainland, but American Samoa and CNMI are less than half that of the US
mainland. The economic disparity between the US mainland and American Samoa and
CNMI is further demonstrated when comparing poverty rates; these two US Pacific
island territories have nearly four times the percentage of residents living below the
poverty line than does the mainland US (US Census Bureau 201 lb, 201 lc and 2015b).
Table 2. US Pacific Islands Territory economic data
Territory
2013 GDP
(million
dollars)
Per Capita
Income
(GDP/Population)
2009 Median
Household
Income
Guam
$4,882a
$30,635
$48,274®
American Samoa
$71 lb
$12,806
$23,892f
CNMI
$682c
$12,657
$19,958s
United States
mainland
$17,078,300d
$56,185
$50,221h
aBEA 2014a
bBEA 2014b
CBEA 2014c
dBEA 2014d
eU.S. Census Bureau (2011a)
fU.S. Census Bureau (201 lb)
gU.S. Census Bureau (2011c)
hU.S. Census Bureau (2015b)
2.1.1. Guam
Guam is a single-island territory in the North Pacific Ocean, approximately three-
quarters of the way from Hawaii to the Philippines. As previously described, Guam
is the largest and most populous of the three US Pacific island territories; Guam has
a residential population around 159,000. The population of Guam consists of a
broad range of ethnicities, with Chamorro and Filipino being most prominent.
English is the predominant language; however, a variety of other languages are
spoken. Hagatna is the capital of Guam, the location of which can be seen in Figure
1. Average temperatures in Guam range from about 75-90°F throughout the day, and
the annual rate of precipitation typically ranges from approximately 80-120 inches
(NAOO 2014).
4
-------
In addition to being the largest, most populous of the pacific territories, Guam also
has the strongest economy. The gross domestic product (GDP) for Guam was 4.9
billion dollars in 2013. As the island houses a strategic US military base, Guam's
economy relies heavily on US national defense spending. Tourism is the next most
important source of income for the island. The unemployment rate in Guam is 8%,
and the percent of the population living below poverty is about 22%. Guam is
predominately dependent on fossil fuels for its energy demands; however, the
territory is expanding and exploring other alternative fuel sources. The island has
four airports with paved runways and one major sea harbor, Apra Harbor (CIA nd.a).
In Guam, solid waste management is primarily under federal Receivership, and much
of the solid waste infrastructure is under federal litigation and, therefore, not the
subject of this report. The Receiver was not interviewed for purposes of this report.
Consequently, discussion is limited to some basic published information to help
provide a snapshot of solid waste management in Guam. For more information, the
reader is directed to the Receiver's website at www.guamsolidwastereceiver.org.
Nothing in this report should be construed as a federal position on the litigation or
the work being performed under the federal Consent Decree.
The relatively newly constructed Lay on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF),
compliant with Subtitle D requirements, began accepting waste in September 2011,
coinciding with the Ordot dump ceasing waste acceptance. The Layon MSWLF has
an estimated design capacity of 15.8 million cubic yards and approximately 127
acres. The published tipping fee for commercial haulers ranges from $156/ton for
customers in good standing to $171.60/ton. The cost for household curbside
collection is $30 per month for the first 96-gallon bin and an additional $15 for a
second bin (DCG 2014, GSWA 2015), and includes curbside single stream recycling
bin for paper, cardboard, metal, plastic, and aluminum. Residents may also drop off
household hazardous waste at the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility in
Harmon at no charge.
5
-------
0 6 1 2 krn
1 1 —' 1
0 6 12 mi
/X
eer i
/
.Yigo f
Apra "SSS
Harbor^==~g* HAGATNA
Cocas
J A
*Agat // North
¦ (J
< Pacific
1 ft ree/
B
J Ocean
Merizo
Island
Figure 1. Map of Guam (Google Earth August 2016)
2.1.2. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) is just north of Guam
and consists of a three-hundred-mile archipelago that includes 14 islands, with a total
land area of approximately 180 square miles. The average annual temperature for
CNMI ranges during the day from 75 to 88°F with an annual rainfall of about 83
inches. CNMI has a population of 53,900, with a majority of inhabitants living on
the islands of Saipan, Rota, and Tinian (Figure 2). Saipan is the capital of CNMI,
and approximately 90% of the population resides here. Figure 2 is a map of CNMI
in which the three most important islands can be identified. The population of
CNMI is comprised of a range of ethnicities, primarily people of Asian or Pacific
Islander decent. The official languages of the territory are Chamorro, Carolinian and
English; however, Tagalog is commonly spoken (CIA nd.c).
6
-------
Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands
| For»«t
|__ Urban
Q Nonforest v«g«tation
Q Barren
¦ Water
B Miles
8
Saipan
PH? Phiipph«s Nortv*esT
\ Pacific Ocean
£ jS \*yrt©rn Marions
/stands
I W |n Jor.Mla * >¦ J **\v
~™^Lk "• * <
{>sy 'Vr;' ^ ,
«J .'•atone JL
I ^
Saipan ^
n»an
Tinian
Figure 2. The main islands of the commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands: Saipan, Tinian and Rota (Google Earth August 2016)
The four municipalities of CNMI are Saipan, Tinian, Rota, and the Northern Islands.
The US Legal system applies in CNMI, with the exception of customs, wage,
immigration, and taxation laws. CNMI's economy benefits greatly from the
assistance of the US; 80% of funds for the construction of the Marpi Landfill were
provided under the CEP of the Office of Insular affairs from the Department of the
Interior (the same source of funds used for closure of the Puerto Rico Dump in
Saipan), with the remaining 20% provided by CNMI (Leavitt 2005). The primary
industries of CNMI are tourism, banking, construction, fishing, handicrafts, and
other services; the tourism industry accounts for approximately 25% of the
employment and GDP. CNMI's GDP in 2013 was $682 million, the lowest of the
three territories (BEA 2014c). The unemployment rate for CNMI is estimated at
11%, and the percentage of people living below poverty is about 52% (US Census
Bureau 201 lc). The territory is home to three airports with paved runways, one
heliport, and major seaports on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota (CIA nd.c).
7
-------
CNMI is an approved state under RCRA Subtitle D and issues permits to solid waste
facilities. Currently, the Marpi landfill in Saipan is the only landfill in CNMI
designed to be RCRA Subtitle D compliant, the site visit to which is discussed in
Section 3.3.1. The Marpi landfill opened in February 2003 and according to a
January 24, 2005 article in the Saipan Tribune, it cost approximately $20 million to
construct (Saipan Tribune 2005). Saipan also has a transfer station and a co-located
recycling facility. Tinian and Rota each operate their own open dump; these
facilities have been confronted with issues such as odors and fires, and they are
under administrative orders to improve conditions. A waste characterization study
was completed by Allied Federated Energy in 2011 as part of an effort to implement
a plasma gasification WTE facility. To date, no agreements have been reached with
regard to the construction of any WTE facility.
Currently, construction of a large-scale resort and casino (over 4,000 hotel rooms) is
planned for Saipan, with the first phase scheduled for completion in late 2016 and
the final phase of construction scheduled for 2022 (Cohen 2015). The additional
waste generation from these construction activities will cause an increased burden on
the existing Marpi landfill. The assessment of impact fees associated with new
development may provide a future opportunity to obtain funds to assist with solid
waste infrastructure costs related to increase waste generation from construction
activities and attraction of greater population to the island. Many municipalities and
governments utilize impact fees (specific to solid waste but also commonly assessed
for other infrastructure needs, e.g., fire rescue and correctional facilities) for new
development (e.g., based on building permits issued) to offset the added support
burdens associated with development.
A proposed US CNMI joint military training (CJMT) area (live-fire ranges) is
tentatively planned for construction on the island of Tinian, as reported in a draft
document, though no final decisions have been made. The proposed facility would
accommodate a maximum of 3,095 personnel (only 95 year-round permanent
employees, 850 average) (NAVFAC 20km , 15). Expected waste generation as a
result of these activities is approximately 534 tons per year (not including an
assumed diversion rate of 55% based on data from Guam military bases), assuming a
20-week period of live-fire training yearly though it was reported that training
frequency may increase to up to 45 weeks of live-fire training annually, thus
expected waste generation would increase to more than double (NAVFAC 2015).
The tentative plan is for the military to construct a transfer station for packaging of
collected waste generated at CJMT, as well as sorting and packaging of recyclables,
into shipping containers for transit to the Port of Tinian and then to the Marpi landfill
facility on Saipan through barge transport (either through a dedicated barge for
CJMT wastes or contracted through a third party operator) (NAVFAC 2015).
Details related to operation and conditions at the Marpi Landfill are discussed in
Section 3.3.1. Costs for construction and operation of the transfer station were
estimated at approximately $4.0 million and $768,000/yr, respectively (NAVFAC
2015). Green waste generated as part of CJMT operations is anticipated to be
mulched, and land applied on site (NAVFAC 2015).
8
-------
Because DOD facilities are not permitted to dispose of waste in facilities which are
not compliant with Federal RCRA Subtitle D regulations, the Tinian Municipal Open
Disposal site would thus not suffice as a waste management option. Development of
Cell 3 at the Marpi landfill is required to provide a continued and assured location
for legal disposal of waste from CJMT activities; a proposed timeline including 12
months for design and permitting, 4 months for construction bidding and 8 to 10
months for cell construction (NAVFAC 2015). It was also recommended that Cells
4 to 6 be designed concurrently with the design of Cell 3 for economic reasons
(NAVFAC 2015). Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds are being used to
construct a new transfer station on Tinian for transport of wastes to the Marpi
Landfill on Saipan (Chan 2015).
The capacity of the Marpi landfill is being utilized at an increased rate from previous
years due to both developments on the island, as well as Typhoon Soudelor, a storm
which affected the island in August 2015. The storm was severe enough to prompt
authorization of FEMA assistance under a major disaster declaration. As a result of
the storm, solid waste received at the Marpi landfill increased by 64% for the August
through December 2015 period, up to 81.88 TPD over the waste acceptance rate of
64.42 TPD based on operation during the same time period during 2014. It should
also be noted that waste acceptance in 2014 was up from the 49.67 TPD accepted in
2012. CNMI's population is estimated to increase by 10,000 (from 2016) due to
worker populations corresponding to hotel development by 2019. The two cells
present at the Marpi site may be filled to capacity within a period of approximately
five years due to increased waste disposal resulting from development on CNMI
(Chan 2016).
2.1.3. American Samoa
American Samoa consists of a group of five volcanic islands (Tutuila, Ofu, Olosega,
Tau, and Aunu'u) and two coral atolls (Rose Island and Swains Island) located
halfway between Hawaii and New Zealand, to the southeast of Guam and CNMI.
The total land mass of American Samoa is approximately 76 square miles; it is the
smallest of the US Pacific island territories. The capital city of American Samoa is
Pago Pago on the isle of Tutuila, the largest and most populated (over 95% of the
population resides on the island) of the American Samoan islands (Figure 3). Pago
Pago has one of the best natural deep-water harbors in the South Pacific because it is
sheltered from rough seas and protected by the mountains from high winds. The
average annual temperature in American Samoa ranges from 70-90°F, and an
average annual rainfall at Pago Pago Airport is about 120 inches (Keener et al.
2013).
9
-------
AMERICAN SAMOA
National Park of
American Samoa •
0 Pago
Fagamalo pag0
Tuluila
• Lconc
• Vaitogi
Fagatele
Bay
Kainmnkrr
Mountain
<523ml
A •
Faga'itua
Tuluila
O
Pago Pago
M Wt 'A
(;roi r
SO km
BO miles
• Tula
Aunu'u
Ofu'
Ml '1 uniuttumu
(4X6[ii)
Olitsrgll
i Mt I'iumufu.i
k , (628m)
Olosega
MAN'U'A
(•ROUP
Ta'u •
Judds
Ta'u crater
Mt I at*.®
I *>51 in i _
National Park of
American Samoa
Figure 3. Map of American Samoa islands
The population of American Samoa is approximately 55,500 people. Over 90% of
the population speaks Samoan, and most residents are bilingual. American Samoa
contains three districts - Eastern, Manu'a, and Western - and two islands - Rose
Island and Swains Island. The legal system in American Samoa is mixed, with
aspects of US common law and customary law (CIA nd.b).
American Samoa has a traditional Polynesian economy in which more than 90% of
the land is communally owned. The American Samoa GDP was estimated at
approximately $711 million in 2013 (BEA 2014c). Economic activity is strongly
linked to the US, American Samoa's primary trading partner. Tuna fishing and tuna
processing plants represent the primary industry, supporting 80% of the territory's
employment. In late September 2009, an earthquake and resulting tsunami
devastated American Samoa, disrupting transportation and power generation and
resulting in about 200 deaths. The US Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) oversaw a nearly $25 million relief program. Although tourism is a
promising sector for the economy, the remote location, limited transportation, and
potential tropical cyclones have hindered attempts by the government to expand the
economy (CIA nd.c). As of 2005, unemployment was high, at 29.8%, and the
percentage of people living below the poverty line was approximately 57% in 2009
(US Census Bureau 201 lc). In terms of international access, American Samoa has
three airports with paved runways (CIA nd.c).
10
-------
American Samoa does not have an RCRA Subtitle D state-approved program and the
territory has one unlined disposal facility (Futiga solid waste facility) on Tutuila that
implements fundamental sanitary landfill practices (e.g., cover soil, compaction).
The facility was anticipated to reach capacity in 2015 (Conrad et al. 2013). Solid
waste collection and operation of the Futiga solid waste facility are provided by the
American Samoa Power Authority (ASPA). Waste collection and disposal on the
other islands is also provided by ASPA. As part of a WTE facility feasibility study
for American Samoa, SCS Engineers (2009) conducted a waste characterization
study at the Futiga solid waste facility in 2009. Over 27% of the waste resulted from
residential sources, with the rest produced by commercial sources. Tables 3 present
the material composition of the waste. Paper and organics comprised the most
significant portion of waste sent to the Futiga solid waste facility and were estimated
to comprise nearly 50% of the waste stream (Table 3). Cardboard and kraft paper
(19.P/o) followed by ferrous cans (16%>) were the two specific materials found in
greatest mass. The SCS study also estimated the heating value for the waste as 2,900
BTU/lb excluding tires and waste oil and 4,060 BTU/lb including these components.
American Samoa is currently pursuing a waste conversion project that would utilize
the combustible portions of waste to produce electricity. The total waste disposed of
annually at the Futiga solid waste facility was estimated to be 20,960 tons (SCS
2009); the actual measured annual tonnages of material disposed at the landfill over
the past four years has increased from 21,000 tons in 2011 to 28,000 tons in 2014
(ASPA 2015).
Table 3. 2009 Futiga solid waste facility waste material characterization (by mass)
conducted by SCS (2009)
Material
%
Paper
26.4
Glass
3.4
Metal
7.9
Plastic
12.8
Organics
19.6
Textiles
4.2
Construction and Demolition
2.8
Hazardous
0
Special
6.8
Mixed Residue
16.0
11
-------
. Uh> /It ft
slime and Objectives
One aspect of this project included site visits to obtain a snapshot of solid waste
management in the overall Pacific Island territories, including Guam. Two site visits
were conducted over the course of the study. The first visit took place between
September 14-19th 2014 and included visits to Guam and CNMI (Saipan, Tinian, Rota).
The second site visit was conducted from January 26-30th 2015 and included visits to the
territory of American Samoa (Tutuila) and the country of Samoa (the latter is not part of
the U.S. Pacific Island territories). Although solid waste management on Guam is
comparable to that on the US mainland (high recycling rate, federally compliant MSWLF
and operations), Guam is included here only for completeness and informational
purposes. This section of the report summarizes the site visits; photographs are included.
3.2. if it Hit
As noted earlier, solid waste management in Guam is primarily under federal
Receivership, and much of the solid waste infrastructure is under federal litigation and,
therefore, not the subject of this report. The Receiver was not interviewed for purposes
of this report. For more information, the reader is directed to the Receiver's website at
www.guamsolidwastereceiver.org. Nothing in this report should be construed as a
federal position on the litigation or the work being performed under the federal Consent
Decree.
Preliminary activities after arrival in Guam included a drive-by visit to the Agat
residential transfer station on the west side of Highway 2. Agat is one of four residential
transfer stations in Guam (one of the transfer stations is now closed pursuant to the
decision of the Guam EPA Administrator). The Agat transfer station consists of an
elevated tipping area for disposal into a roll-off box and a separate container for
cardboard. Later conversations with waste professionals on Guam suggested that this
type of facility is similar to other transfer stations. Upgrades to the transfer stations are
being completed by the federal Receiver.
A meeting was held with Guam EPA to among other things, discuss the current status of
the landfills on the island. As noted earlier, under the federal Receiver, the Ordot dump
stopped accepting waste in 2011, and the physical closure work was completed in early
2016. The Layon MSWLF opened in 2011 and, in response to public concern, was
designed with a liner system that includes redundant protection from potential release of
leachate. Guam is a positive example of how a territory which once only had a large
unlined landfill as the sole option for MSW disposal can design, construct, and operate a
state-of-the-art MSWLF. The Layon MSWLF commercial tipping fee and residential
rate are noted in Section 2.1.1. Residents have the option to subscribe to curbside service
for trash and recyclables. There are also three residential transfer stations for disposal of
residential trash and recyclables. Residents may also drop off household hazardous waste
at the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility in Harmon at no charge. This state-
of-the art HHW facility provides for the safe disposal of HHW and is the first of its kind
in the U.S. Pacific Islands territories.
12
-------
During the meeting, Guam EPA noted several locations where illegal dumping was
known to occur (Figure 4 illustrates observed waste dumped in some of these locations).
The dumping areas that were visited were along utility corridors; some areas were labeled
with signs to discourage dumping garbage. A large number of television sets were
observed, and the waste appeared to be from local businesses. It is not known when the
dumping occurred or how long the dumped items had been there.
Figure 4. Observed waste along utility corridor in Guam
3.3. The commonwealth of the Norther Mariana Islands
3.3.1. Saipan
The CNMI visit began on Saipan. A meeting was held with the CNMI Bureau of
Environmental & Coastal Quality (BECQ), the CNMI environmental regulatory
agency). A quick overview of the RARE project was provided to BECQ. BECQ
gave an overview of the issues they are having with the dumps on Tinian and Rota.
In a subsequent meeting with BECQ, the Department of Public Works (DPW),
APEC (the consultant contracted to perform groundwater sampling at the Marpi
landfill), and Tang Corp (the firm contracted to operate the Marpi landfill), the
RARE project was introduced to the meeting attendees. DPW provided copies of
budget information with regard to solid waste funds for Saipan, Tinian, and Rota and
the operational checklist for the Marpi landfill were reviewed. Following review of
the operation procedures required for the Marpi landfill, operational and maintenance
challenges were discussed with APEC and Tang Corp. One topic discussed was the
purchase of equipment by DPW for use on all three islands, including a wood grinder
and earth moving equipment.
13
-------
EA Engineering provided information regarding the current status of the open dumps
on Tinian and Rota in CNMI (they have been contracted to assist with the
improvement of these dump sites). Site improvements are being made to the Tinian
and Rota dumps based on an Order from BECQ The site improvements do not
involve any liner construction; rather they entail upgrading facility control operations
(e.g., controlled access, defined waste disposal areas, etc.) and moving, compacting,
and covering existing waste. The improvements also call for the development of a
site operations plan. The funds used to conduct this work come from the
Construction Improvement Project (CIP) within the DOI Office of Insular Affairs.
CIP funds have been allocated for improving the Tinian and Rota Dump sites and for
closing the Puerto Rico Dump on Saipan. Equipment has been purchased for each of
the sites, including bulldozers and a grinder. More information on each of these
locations will be presented in the section describing the site visits.
The Marpi Landfill was designed as a Subtitle D landfill and began operation in
February 2003; Figure 5 is an aerial view of the landfill site. The previous disposal
facility was the Puerto Rico Dump, which was being closed at the time of the site
visit. The Marpi landfill consists of six cells (two are currently lined and the others
are planned). In Cell 1, waste was visually observed to cover the majority of the
liner system; the peak elevation of landfilled waste reached above the highest
elevation of the cell's lined outer perimeter with ample capacity remaining in the
cell. The cover soil was observed to be in relatively good condition, though a few
leachate seeps were evident from the access road. A small amount of waste appeared
to extend over the separation berm between Cell 1 and 2 into Cell 2. Cell 2 is lined
in a similar manner to Cell 1, and its bottom was relatively overgrown with
vegetation; what appeared to be ponded liquids was also observed in Cell 2. Based
on information gathered at the site, waste was not being placed in Cell 2 at the time
of the visit because the termination berm between Cell 2 and the currently unlined
Cell 3 was inadequate.
Figure 5. Aerial view of the Marpi Landfill in Saipan, CNMI
14
-------
Cells 1 and 2 are equipped with leachate removal pumps (three pumps per cell);
these pumps were reported as inadequate for leachate removal. At the time of the
visit, it was observed that the Cell 1 leachate pump station was not operating and had
not been operated recently. Reported issues with the pumping system included pipe
clogging, a consequence attributed to a leachate collection and removal system
(LCRS) drainage material with a high concentration of calcium carbonate (CaCCh)
(which can cause deposition of precipitates in the piping system). Issues with pump
operation due to a fluctuating diesel power supply were also noted. The pumps for
Cell 2 were operating but, apparently, could not keep up with the existing leachate
flow rate as evidenced by the ponded liquid in the cell. The BECQ determined the
liquid was leachate, but it was reported to be very dilute. The conditions of the
pumping system suggest that a significant amount of leachate is built up on the liner
system.
The perimeter of Cell 1 (where the waste met the liner system) was observed to be
constructed in a manner that caused storm water runoff intercepted by the landfill to
be retained within the cell. This additional water entering Cell 1 likely resulted in a
substantial amount of additional leachate. The leachate treatment system was
located at the end of the site with the highest elevation, which was noted as a flaw.
Leachate treatment at the facility consists of a large lined pond, a seri es of aeration
chambers, and a submerged vegetation bed as presented in Figure 6. After the
leachate travels through the submerged vegetation bed, it is pumped to an infiltration
basin on the lower end of the site. Issues regarding maintenance of the leachate
treatment system were discussed; at least one of the vegetation beds was not being
used as designed because a valve was not functioning properly.
Figure 6. Lined leachate pond (left) and wetland leachate treatment system
(right)
For waste processing activities, the landfill was equipped with a waste compactor
The waste acceptance amount at the facility was approximately 75 tons per day.
Most of the waste is hauled directly to the landfill, with some material sent to the
Lower Base Refuse Transfer Station (LBRTS, shown in Figure 7). The LBRTS
includes a household hazardous waste facility and is operated by DPW.
15
-------
Figure 7. Lower Base Refuse Transfer Station (left) recyclable hand sorting at
LBRT (right)
A recycling facility is also located at the transfer station; this facility is subsidized by
DPW and operated by a private contractor. The biggest challenge for the recycling
program was identified as the high shipping costs to transport materials off the
island. Costs were cited as ranging from $5,000 - $10,000 per 40-foot container to
ship to the market. The workers at the transfer station went to great efforts to
improve the quality of the materials they were sending to market (e.g., removing
plastic labels and rings from PET bottles) as presented in Figure 7. The facility also
recovers and compacts waste tires and, as previously mentioned, collects household
hazardous wastes. The cost to build the transfer station, which also includes a green
waste processing and storage area as well as full utility connections, was estimated at
$4.3 million (Leavitt 2005).
The tipping fee for the Marpi landfill is around $25 per ton, an amount that is
reportedly not enough to cover the costs of the $9.4 million facility and its associated
infrastructure; the island's beautification tax was reported as providing some
additional support. Additionally, residents are permitted to dispose of up to 500 lbs.
of refuse at no cost; this alleviates the incentive for open dumping which exists when
proper disposal is a more expensive option. The next site-management
improvements for the Marpi landfill include plans to construct a diversion berm
between Cells 1 and 2 and to construct Cell 3, which will handle the Department of
Defense (DOD) generated waste on Tinian, should development of the CJMT occur.
Planned Saipan developments (hotel and casino), discussed in Section 2.1.2, will
cause added burdens on the Marpi Landfill.
3.3.2. Tinian
16
-------
A visit was also made to the Tinian dump site. The site is located adjacent to a
paved road, and waste is dumped on the west side of the road (the ocean side). Most
of the dump site was covered by vegetation such that the extent of waste was not
readily visible. The active waste movement took place during the site visit (a
bulldozer was pushing waste) as shown in Figure 8. Fencing was put between the
dump and the road in a portion of the site. Slight waste smoldering was observed
during the site visit. On the side of the paved road opposite the landfill, yard trash
was segregated for future grinding; the grinder was reported to be the one purchased
as part of CEP funding discussed earlier. No waste was observed during the site visit
of an unpaved perimeter road that looped around the west side of the dump.
Figure 8. The Tinian Dump
A meeting was held at the mayor's office to discuss the project and the RARE
project was introduced. The mayor's staff expressed an opinion that the dump
needed to be closed and a new dump site located. Plans to upgrade the site on Tinain
from open dumping to a more controlled sanitary landfill practice were discussed.
The staff voiced the opinion that some alternative technology for waste management
was desired; the specific example of a waste incinerator was highlighted. The staff
suggested that if the military were to purchase an incinerator, they would operate the
facility. Flowever, more recently, the tentatively planned course of action, based on
a draft feasibility study (no final decisions have been made), is shipment of wastes
from the proposed facility on Tinian to Saipan's Marpi landfill, should construction
of the proposed facili ty occur (NAVFAC, 2015). According to a May 8, 2015 article
in the Saipan Tribune, the existing dump site is also part of property recently leased
by a developer planning a new casino resort (Saipan Tribune 2015).
3.3.3. Rota
A meeting was also held at the mayor's office in Rota, an island where the
population is decreasing and currently estimated at less than 2,000 people. The
RARE project was introduced, and a discussion on the Rota Dump site followed.
The mayor's office understood that the current dump is an issue and that the location
of another possible dump site has been considered. The acting mayor expressed a
desire to improve Rota's solid waste situation.
17
-------
At the time, the Rota Dump site had no cover which allowed a significant amount of
exposed waste as presented in Figure 9. Materials observed at the dump site
included recyclables like aluminum cans. While a designated sign for recyclables
was present, garbage dominated the area (Figure 9). Furthermore, household
hazardous wastes like oil filters and paint cans were observed, as well as some used
electronic waste (Figure 10). While the municipality has placed signs throughout the
site to provide guidance on placement of specific items, different wastes were
scattered throughout the site. Although the area exhibiting exposed garbage was
large, observations at the back of the site indi cated that additi onal waste was present
and overgrown with vegetation.
The possible future dump site, a rock quarry, was visited. The team also visited the
seaports to evaluate possible waste unloading and shipping options, and other
potential sites for waste disposal were assessed. The Rota medical center was
visited, and medical waste issues were examined. Currently, the medical center
stores red bag waste and sharps for subsequent transport off-island. The medical
center reported that it was in the process of obtaining an autoclave for sterilizing the
waste.
HOUSEHOLD
Figure 9. Garbage at the Rota Dump
Figure 10. Household hazardous waste (left) Used electronic waste (right) at the
Rota Dump
3.3.4. American Samoa
18
-------
The visit to American Samoa took place from January 26, 2015, to January 30, 2015.
The first portion of the visit (January 26-28th) included observations of typical waste
management practices on the main island of Tutuila; meetings were held with
American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) and ASPA to discuss
the RARE project and visit the Futiga solid waste facility and other material
processing facilities. During the tour of Tutuila, a strong advertising campaign by
the ASEPA related to controlling litter was noted both on billboards and on the radio.
An example of the anti-litter campaigning on Tutuila is shown in Figure 11.
Collection practices for residential homes and commercial entities were also
observed while visiting Tutuila. Residential homes were provided a single bin that
was collected curbside, and commercial entities used standard collection dumpsters.
Several areas throughout Tutuila were still observed where some illegal dumping has
occurred.
ASEPA
Our
environment
is in your
hands
Please Stop Littering I
Qf C A f
Figure 11. Example of anti-litter public campaign promoted by the American
Samoa Environmental
After the preliminary tour of Tutuila, a meeting was held with ASEPA to explain the
RARE project, to discuss logistics pertaining to the visit, and to gather initial
thoughts on the project. A meeting was then held with ASPA to explain the RARE
project and to discuss the current situation related to solid waste management on
Tutuila. Discussion included the Futiga solid waste facility and the remaining dump
capacity, tipping fees, groundwater monitoring activities, permits, illegal dumping,
and future plans for waste-to-energy and ash disposal. After the meeting, the team
visited the Futiga solid waste facility with ASPA.
19
-------
While the Futiga solid waste facility was not equipped with a Subtitle D liner, the
operator has integrated basic sanitary landfill practices such as placement of cover
soil and compaction of waste (a compactor was operating on site). Workers hand
pick aluminum cans from the trash after it was unloaded from the garbage trucks and
the salvaged aluminum cans were stored in sacks on site (Figure 12). Tires were also
segregated from other waste materials. The outer edge slopes of the Futiga solid
waste facility, however, were noted to be steep and greater than the 3:1 observed in
most U.S. landfill sites (Figure 13). Also, as shown in Figure 13, an area of ponded
liquid was present at the base of the landfill and appeared to be part of a natural
drainage system. While no testing was performed, the liquid did, by visual
assessment, appear to be impacted by the landfill; a small fanning area was observed
in close proximity to the ponded liquid.
Figure 12. Separating aluminum cans (left) aluminum can storage (right) at the
Futiga solid waste facility
Figure 13. Steep side slopes (left) and leachate ponding (right) observed at the
Futiga solid waste facility
20
-------
On 28 January 2015, the team visited a scrap metal yard that ASPA has been
utilizing; this operation was located in an active quarry (Figure 14). While on site,
baling of scrap metal was observed, and some collected E-waste materials were also
observed. A visit was also made to another recycling operation, T&T recycling,
which also is primarily focused on recovering scrap metal. As shown in Figure 15,
the aluminum cans that were sorted at the Futiga solid waste facility were sent to the
T&T operation. The facility was equipped with a small baler for the aluminum cans;
however, most the material being recycled was scrap steel, as shown. The team also
examined the local hospital's medical waste treatment system, which included an
autoclave and a shredder for treating infectious waste. The sterilized and shredded
medical waste was shipped to the Futiga disposal facility.
Figure 14. Metal scrap yard! at site of aggregate quarry
Figure 15. Recovered aluminum cans and scrap metal at the T&T recycling
facility
21
-------
As part of the field investigation to American Samoa, a side trip was made to Apia,
Samoa, to visit the Tafaigata Landfill in Upolu. Please note that Apia, Samoa, is not
part of the U.S. Pacific Island territories. A meeting was held with representatives
from Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), as well as the operator of the site to
discuss the RARE project, the facility, and general US Pacific island territories waste
management challenges. Historically, the Tafaigata Landfill was the site of an open
dump with odors issues and fires. The dump was later converted to a Fukuoka-style
landfill. Figure 16 is an aerial view of the construction of the site, and an aerial view
of the completed layout of the landfill is shown in Figure 17. This Fukuoka-method
landfill was not designed with a composite liner system (i.e., not compliant with
Subtitle D), but was constructed with a compacted soil liner graded to allow gravity
drainage of leachate. If this method is to be implemented in the US, there will be the
need to install a liner system that is in compliance with the Subtitle D regulation.
However, the main leachate collection pipe in the landfill is large in diameter and
drains into a lined leachate pond. At the same time, the exit of the leachate
collection pipe is exposed to the atmosphere and allows air to enter the landfill to
promote waste decomposition (Figure 18). While non-compliant with federal
regulations, some elements of the approach used at this facility could be utilized at a
Subtitle D compliant landfill with potential benefits in terms of operational costs and
long-term performance.
The Fukuoka-style landfill technique is also commonly referred to as a semi-aerobic
landfill. Under this concept, the presence of air in the leachate collection system
(due to the large diameter pipe and limited waste compaction) fosters aerobic
biological activity at the bottom of the landfill, thus providing some leachate
treatment that would not otherwise occur. Air entry into the landfill is further
facilitated by the addition of vertical "chimneys" through the landfill that allow
increased venting, as shown in Figure 19. The leachate is less concentrated than
typical anaerobic landfill leachate (because liquids are more rapidly removed from
the landfill and treatment occurs within the landfill), and is treated through a series of
low maintenance treatment steps before being allowed to discharge; the use of
mechanical pumps to move leachate is minimized to reduce maintenance costs.
22
-------
Figure 16. Historic image showing the construction of the Tafaigata Fukuoka-
style Landfill
Figure 17. Historical image indicating the layout of the Tafaigata Fukuoka-style
Landfill
23
-------
Figure 18. Lined leachate pond at the Tafaigata Fukuoka-style Landfill showing
a large-diameter leachate pipe entering from the landfill
Figure 19. Vertical air/gas vent at the Tafaigata Fukuoka-style Landfill
24
-------
On 30 January 2015, another meeting was held with ASEPA, including a site visit to
several illegal dumping sites. During the site visits, illegally dumped waste on
Tutuila as well as debris aggregated on the shoreline was observed. These areas had
recently been cleaned up, and ASEPA described continuing efforts to minimize
illegal dumping activities. Solid waste management on Ofu and Olosega were also
discussed. ASEPA provided photographs of waste management from each of these
islands.
25
-------
4. The Importance of Proper Waste Management
The potential adverse effects of improperly managed solid waste are numerous. Garbage that is
stored for a prolonged time or disposed of without appropriate controls may promote the spread
of disease by attracting disease vectors such as rats, flies, and mosquitoes. Disease-carrying
organisms are attracted to food scraps, fecal matter, and similar materials in the waste stream,
and exposed garbage brings these vectors into closer contact with humans, facilitating possible
transmission of infectious agents. When located near a water source, stormwater runoff from
waste may also contaminate surface and groundwater that may be used for drinking.
A common practice observed in some remote, economically challenged areas of the Pacific is to
open burn trash (in an uncontrolled manner), either at the point of generation or at the dump site
(Figure 20). The US EPA warns of the adverse health effects associated with the uncontrolled
burning of waste because of the numerous health problems that may result, including respiratory
illnesses; nervous system, kidney, or liver damage; and reproductive or developmental disorders
(US EPA 2003). In these cases, and in addition to the health issues associated with the smoke
generation particulate matter, and harmful chemicals may be released into the air.
Figure 20. Roadside burning of garbage
26
-------
Another practice that has been observed is the open dumping of MSW. When garbage is
dumped on land, the contact of the waste with rainwater, surface water, or groundwater produces
a contaminated water source referred to as leachate. If not managed in a controlled manner,
leachate can pose a number of human health and environmental concerns. Leachate can contain
contaminants resulting from hazardous materials in the waste (e.g., lead, mercury, benzene);
these constituents pose a long-term health risk to humans if they are exposed to leachate
contaminated water, through pathways such as drinking or bathing. Chemicals produced as a
result of decomposing food waste, and paper products are also found in leachate, and these
chemicals may harm the ecosystem by reducing oxygen levels in surface water and introducing
levels of salts and nutrients that are toxic to many types of aquatic organisms. Without
provisions for control, leachate often builds up at the base of dumps and unlined landfills (Figure
21) and may contaminate surrounding water bodies. Furthermore, leachate that mixes with
groundwater and/or surface water may travel off site and further contaminate water supplies or
reemerge in off-site aquatic environments.
Figure 21. Observed surface water potentially polluted with landfill leachate
Another concern with the open dumps seen at some locations are the gasses generated as a result
of the anaerobic decomposition process. When garbage decomposes, the majority of the gas
produced is methane and carbon dioxide along with smaller amounts of organic and sulfur
compounds. Methane, is flammable; when mixed with the proper quantity of oxygen, methane
may become explosive. Thus, fires can become a concern at these sites not only because of
explosive gasses but also with the combustible materials inherently present in the waste. When
emitted, these gases can also pose a nuisance (e.g., odor) or exposure concerns. These
compounds can range from those that can cause odor issues to those that are toxic to human
health and the environment. Finally, when waste is placed in steep, elevated piles at large dump
sites, the slope of these piles can fail and potentially injure or kill those in the path of the sliding
waste.
27
-------
Consequences beyond direct human health risks from improper waste management methods also
motivate the implementation of appropriate ISWM systems. As presented earlier, garbage
disposed of in drainage canals or litter that washes into the waterways can promote the breeding
of disease vectors by clogging drainage canals which result in standing, stagnant water. Stagnant
water conditions also encourage mosquito breeding, producing subsequent resultant human
health problems. In addition, litter can reduce the property value and tourism potential of
contaminated lands. Even though littered materials may be washed away after a storm, it is very
likely that some material will be washed back ashore in a different location (Figure 22). Wastes
that enter the oceans are increasingly recognized as a threat to marine wildlife and ecosystems,
all of which have a direct economic benefit, especially to island communities.
Figure 22. Plastic wastes observed on the beach of an island community
Thus, local communities should implement policies, such as an ISWM plan, and enforce waste
regulations, such as the Subtitle D landfill rules, that are designed to minimize the negative
consequences associated with solid waste management. Most of the practices needed to keep
garbage from posing a health risk are addressed as part of providing systems for collection,
transport, resource recovery, and disposal; these are the subjects of the remaining sections of this
report. However, one important element of a successful ISWM system that cannot be addressed
by infrastructure and technology is public participation. The generators of the waste, community
residents, and businesses, are integral in ensuring that discarded materials are deposited in the
appropriate waste container or management location and not indiscriminately dumped. In some
communities, movement away from long-standing, status quo waste management practice is
challenging. To facilitate this, municipal and regulatory agencies can play a role in promoting
positive participation in the community's ISWM system (Figure 11).
28
-------
5. N :h.igt hi, nf ^y^.m I i Hf r. Krik:ru"l
Prior to the discussion of options related to waste recycling, energy recovery, and disposal,
several fundamental concepts concerning solid waste management must first be discussed. One
step essential to developing an ISWM system (and associated goals with respect to waste
reduction and landfill diversion) is understanding the waste stream in terms of waste composition
and generation rate (waste characterization). An element of ISWM planning neglected in many
cases is the promotion of waste reduction. Another critical feature of solid waste management
infrastructure is the system for collecting discarded materials from their point of origin and
transporting them to the appropriate facility. These three aspects are described further in this
section.
The ISWM system may contain provisions for solid waste infrastructure funding by an
assessment of impact fees on development (e.g., hotels, military installations) expected to cause
or actively causing increased burdens on such infrastructure. In CNMI planned development
includes hotels and casinos on Saipan (after the legislature passed a casino bill in early 2015) and
potential military training facilities to be constructed on Tinian (Cohen 2015, NAVFAC 2015).
Waste generated on Saipan and Tinian is expected to be taken to the Marpi landfill on Saipan
(NAVFAC 2015). Waste quantities deposited in the Marpi landfill increased by 29.7% from
2012 to 2014, increasing the burden on the landfill's operation. Baring-Gould et al. (2011)
estimated that the tipping fee for the Marpi landfill would need to be increased to cover the real
costs of landfill operation, as current tip fees charged are insufficient to do so.
ste characterization
The US EPA estimates that on average approximately 4.4 lb of MSW is produced per
person every day in the US and that the largest components of the waste stream are paper
products, yard trash, food waste, and plastics products (US EPA 2015a). While these
numbers may be sufficient to develop a general understanding of the waste stream, waste
composition and generation vary by region as a result of a number of factors. Given the
significantly different set of conditions on these islands, it is useful to gather location-
specific waste data. Production amounts can be determined from existing waste
collection data if available. Methodologies have been developed for conducting site-
specific waste composition studies (US EPA 2015b). Figure 24, for example, shows the
results of a waste characterization study conducted for American Samoa (SCS Engineers
2009); this study was done by examining disposed waste at the community site; 27.7% of
the total waste mass was generated in residential areas while 72.3% came from
commercial sources.
29
-------
Waste-composition study results are useful for a number of reasons. Materials that can
be prioritized for waste reduction and recycling can be identified. Estimates of the
volume of biodegradable materials (e.g., food waste, paper products) present provide
valuable information when assessing the potential for source-segregated organics
composting and anaerobic digestion, as well as estimating quantity and composition of
the gas produced at a landfill after disposal. In addition, problem items that could pose
hazards to human health and the environment can be identified. While a waste
composition study can be a relatively large effort that takes place over multiple weeks
and several seasons, procedures for more rapid studies in developing countries, have been
recommended (Krause and Townsend 2014). The waste composition can change over
time, depending on industries present in the areas studied. Thus, it is important to update
waste composition studies periodically (e.g., the decline of the garment industry in
Saipan caused a decrease in garment factory related waste from 33% to 6%) (Leavitt
2005).
Mixed
Residue, 16%
Special, 7%
Hazardous,
0%
¦ C&D, 3%
¦ Textiles, 4%
¦ Organics, 20%
Paper, 26%
¦ Glass, 3%
¦ Metal, 8%
¦ Plastic, 13%
Figure 23. Results from a waste composition study conducted on American Samoa1
5.2. Waste reduction
The hierarchy of an ISWM system places waste reduction at the top, followed by
recycling, energy recovery, and, last, landfilling last (US EPA 2002). Waste reduction
refers to the prevention of materials from becoming waste components at the source of
generation. In most cases, this relates to the mass of waste produced, but in some
contexts, it also refers to a reduction in the toxicity (or other harmful properties) of a
waste material. Increased use of durable goods (e.g., reusable packaging, rechargeable
batteries) contributes to waste reduction efforts.
1 (SCS Engineers 2009)
30
-------
From a municipal government perspective, waste reduction involves promoting public
knowledge, awareness, and willingness to devote time and energy to reducing waste
amounts and the associated impacts. Table 4 provides examples of waste reduction often
promoted by communities. Public outreach is paramount and highly encouraged in most
of the areas visited by our scientists. Waste reduction outreach programs can include, but
are not be limited to, print advertising, radio and television commercials, community
events, and presentations and activities at local schools.
aste collection
A routine and reliable system of waste collection is essential for encouraging proper
disposal techniques and for delivering waste materials to their appropriate destinations.
In the major cities, waste collection typically occurs with multiple vehicles (often with
automated collection) to collect distinct waste streams that have been separated by the
local residents (e.g., recyclables, organic, garbage). In remote areas, economically
challenged areas, options for collection might be more limited. Mohee et al. (2015)
reported that issues with waste collection often directly result in illegal dumping (either
on land or in the sea) or open burning of generated wastes.
Table 4. Waste Reduction Methods at government and community level (UNEP 2005,
USEPA 2012)
Waste-Reduction Methods
Government
Level
Set regulations and rules.
Educate and promote community awareness.
Establish donate and exchange program.
Work with manufacturers and consumers to design and implement a
packaging return program.
Understand product life-cycle and restrict importing products with high
waste residues.
Limit commercial media such as hard copy flyers and cards.
Community
Level
Use reusable bags and containers for shopping, traveling, packing.
Choose products that are durable, reusable, refillable, and repairable.
Compost food scraps and yard waste.
Purchase items in concentrated forms such as dish soap and laundry
detergents.
Buy used products.
Buy bulk items, reducing packaging from consumption of individual
items.
Lessen the use of material that cannot be recycled; that have less
recycling value; that can be hazardous at end of their life cycles (e.g.,
antifreeze, engine oil, grease).
31
-------
Other challenges related to the collection observed in the visited small, remote islands on
CNMI and American Samoa are difficulties with obtaining and maintaining reliable
collection vehicles, as well as the road infrastructure that may sometimes be inaccessible
for these collection vehicles, (Mohee et al. 2015). In some communities, collection from
each home or business may be an option, but in other cases, the waste generator, or an
individual hired by the waste generator, may be required to transport the waste to a
centralized container or disposal site.
Collection vehicles can be as simple as open-bed trucks as observed at one remote,
economically challenged location (Figure 25). This type of collection program may be
staffed by a driver and at one or two waste collectors. Given the need to manually lift and
place the trash in the back of the vehicle, residents would generally be encouraged to put
the garbage in bags (instead of larger heavier containers). Participation in the collection
program is greatly enhanced when a routine collection schedule is maintained. The use
of a tilt-frame truck further makes unloading the waste easier at the final destination. In
some locations, bags that are heavy with recyclables are placed in a designated part of the
truck bed so they can be more easily separated at the tipping location; using different
colored or labeled bags for recyclables can also promote recycling. While the
implementation of a routine collection may cost communities in terms of transportation
vehicles purchase and maintenance, it will generate much needed green jobs for the
community and will have a positive impact on the environmental quality of these
communities.
In locations where residents or businesses (or hired haulers) are required to take the waste
directly to a local disposal facility, public education and outreach are needed so that the
location of the designated facility and instruction for disposal are well-understood by the
waste generators. At the facility, proper road maintenance and signage directing vehicles
to the appropriate disposal site are critical to keeping waste from being improperly
disposed of along the route to the facility (Figure 26). An essential component in
preventing illegal dumping in areas other than the designated disposal site is cleaning up
existing areas with excessive litter and improperly disposed of waste, which may promote
propagation of illegal dumping; this may need to be a routine maintenance activity as part
of an ISWM, especially in areas where new systems have been introduced. Our
researchers observed such cleanup practices at the CNMI's Marpi Landfill which further
promotes proper disposal of wastes by allowing self-haul residents to dispose of waste at
no charge, avoiding standard tip fees for loads up to 500-lbs in weight (weight limit
waived in times of high waste disposal demand, e.g., a natural disaster) (Leavitt 2005;
Saipan Tribune 2015).
32
-------
y* J»^*T
Figure 24. An open-bed truck for collecting household garbage
HOUSEHOLD
DEBRIS
Figure 25. Signage indicating appropriate disposal areas at a municipal waste
disposal site
33
-------
A final component of the collection system, and the ISWM plan as a whole, is the
system for collecting fees to pay for the waste-management system. In many cases,
this is one of the most problematic features of introducing a new regime. Most local
governments find that the fairest and easiest approach is to charge the residents based
on their use of the waste-collection service and, in many cases, this service is
mandatory. However, care must be taken with implementing any new fee structure
so that residents do not resort to illegal dumping. Standard payment mechanisms
include a monthly fee as part of a utility bill, an assessment as part of property taxes,
or the mandatory purchase of particular bags for waste collection.
34
-------
6. Resource Recovery
Modern ISWM systems target the recovery of beneficial products from the waste prior to
disposal. Such recovery takes place through recycling and recovery of specific waste
components (e.g., aluminum cans, cardboard), biological treatment of organic elements of the
waste stream and the production of compost and other commodities, and the recovery of energy
from waste through thermal treatment processes (e.g., incineration). Recovery of materials and
energy from waste is a dominant practice in larger municipalities, but in smaller communities,
similar levels of recovery can be hard to justify economically. Maximizing resource recovery
limits the overall volume of disposed material, reducing risks associated with landfilling.
Segregation of the incoming waste stream provides the maximum opportunity to reduce disposed
quantities. This section discusses issues with each of these different recovery options, with a
particular focus on remote, economically challenged communities. It is also important that
communities continue to comply with all applicable laws and regulations to ensure the protection
of human health and the environment. Furthermore, it should be recognized that some
management solutions discussed here may not be appropriate for all communities.
ling
In larger communities, residential recycling is accomplished either through a curbside
collection program (where recyclables are separated from the garbage and collected
separately) or by providing centralized facilities where recyclables can be dropped off.
Recycling in remote, economically challenged areas is challenging for several reasons. A
key factor in determining the economic viability of a recycling program is the proximity
of the recovered materials to respective end markets. Materials recovered in remote,
economically challenged areas often require shipping over vast distances to reach an end
user, and the transportation costs often outweigh the value of the recovered commodities.
Smaller population sizes, and thus less recovered material to offset necessary
infrastructure costs, further add to the economic challenges. In more developed areas,
recycling programs are often heavily subsidized by government tax dollars, a practice not
commonly encountered in small island developing states (Mohee et al. 2015).
35
-------
Remote, economically challenged communities need to be selective with respect to the
materials in the waste stream targeted for recycling. Metal products tend to be the most
widely recycled. Ferrous metal (e.g., iron, steel) has a sufficiently established market and
is generated in large enough quantities that collection, storage, and off-island shipment
for recycling have been economically viable. While the widespread recycling of
aluminum was not observed at all communities evaluated, aluminum products,
particularly beverage containers, have sufficient value to warrant stockpiling for eventual
shipment to a recycler. For comparison, the high cost of aluminum makes it
economically feasible even for isolated communities in Alaska to transport by air to
recycling centers in more populated areas (Alaska DEC 2011). Other standard
components of MSW (e.g., paper, cardboard, plastic) may have established markets, but a
larger volume of these materials are needed for the recycling to be economical.
Additionally, effort should be made to remove potentially hazardous materials from the
recycled waste stream. While able to be landfilled, in designated subtitle D landfills,
alternatives to disposal are preferred (e.g., reuse, processing to remove hazardous
constituents) if they originate from household sources. Bulky white goods (refrigerators,
freezers, etc.) can also be segregated so the Freon or other refrigerants may be
appropriately recovered, and the appliances may be crushed to reduce the size and
shipped for recycling.
Isolated municipalities can implement several mechanisms to promote recycling once a
town has decided to target a given material. Providing a location for stockpiling and
processing commodities allows time for the accumulation of sufficient materials for
shipment to market, an ample amount of which will generally be necessary, given the
disperse populations on many remote, economically challenged islands. Sufficient
storage capacity is also beneficial as market values for recovered materials vary with time
and external economic conditions, so the ability to retain materials until market prices are
high enough is desired as observed in Saipan (Figure 27). That particular facility
contained sufficient storage space to allow both waste processing (e.g., baling) and
storage of recovered materials; materials are shipped off the island to market when a
sufficient quantity are present, and the conditions are suitable.
36
-------
Figure 26. Waste recycling facility equipped with storage capacity for recovered
materials
In the absence of formalized recycling infrastructure, informal recycling was observed at
some disposal site through manual sorting (e.g., for reusable or recyclable automotive
and equipment parts). Some landfill operators instituted a more formalized process of
on-site recycling in which employees sort through loads of incoming waste to recover
specific waste components (Figure 12). It is noted that this practice should include
appropriate health and safety protocols for contact with waste and work around heavy
machinery.
The success of a recycling program relies heavily on the level of community
participation, further highlighting the need to implement an outreach program (discuss
earlier) and the need for educational tools necessary to inform residents of new policies
or how they can change their behavior in support of the program. Some recycling
programs are more expensive than others, but there are lower-cost options available to
improve recycling in a community and reduce the number of recyclable materials
landfilled. Some state and local governments have developed zero waste goals and
implemented policies and practices to engage stakeholders to reach this aim.
Zero Waste program planning has been performed by some remote, economically
challenged communities with some success. These programs may provide some
community education, rally support among stakeholders, and provide a framework for the
implementation of new policies. On CNMI, high recycling rates (36% in 2004 for waste
incoming to the Marpi Landfill) were observed and attributed to diversion efforts aimed
at a variety of waste types, including green waste, concrete, cardboard, white goods, tires,
paper, and plastic; diversion efforts are promoted by CNMI's Organization of
Conservation Outreach (COCO) (Leavitt 2005). COCO outreach efforts include
integration of environmental curriculum in schools, open dump cash for trash cleanup
events, and distribution of literature at solid waste management facilities (Leavitt 2005).
6.2. Organics Recovery
37
-------
The biodegradable organic material, including food waste, yard trash, and paper products,
is one of the largest components of the MSW stream (SPREP 2010a). Many larger
communities with a goal of materials recovery and landfill diversion target organic
components (those without established recycling markets) for treatment through
composting or anaerobic digestion. Unlike the recycling markets described in the
previous section, successful implementation of organics recycling is not dependent on an
end-user market located far from the remote, economically challenged community
(Hoornweg et al. 1999, UNEP 2013). Given the issues with waste collection and
transport in rural areas, where roads may be inaccessible or narrow, the ability to practice
composting or anaerobic digestion at the point of waste generation increases
attractiveness for communities in the US Pacific island territories. Rural US Pacific
island territory households tend to produce a waste stream which has a relatively high
fraction of organic material in comparison to homes on the US mainland, approximately
50% versus 35% on the US mainland making organics recovery a critical component of
sustainable materials management strategy (US EPA 2015a, SPREP 2014). The reason
for this differential waste composition are the consumption trends in these areas, where
there is less consumption of pre-packaged foods and ready-made items. Composting of
organics also improves leachate quality at landfills by reducing the organic fraction of the
disposed waste (Richards and Haynes 2014). Thus, organics recycling is one of the more
feasible as well as important (for the purposes of environmental protection and
maximizing landfill space) alternatives for waste diversion in isolated communities where
transport issues abound (Mohee et al. 2015). The potential for composting and anaerobic
digestion is described in the following sections.
6.2.1. Composting
Composting is the process of aerobically decomposing organic materials such as
food waste, yard trash, and paper. This is essentially the same process that occurs in
nature, where bacteria and other organisms break down organic wastes in the
presence of oxygen into a nutrient rich product. Numerous benefits have been
attributed to the practice of composting organic wastes. In addition to diverting
materials from a landfill where they would contribute to methane formation, the
resulting compost product is high in carbon and nutrients and thus serves as a
valuable soil amendment. Soil quality on the islands would benefit from composting
practices because it allows the return of nutrients to the ground. Composting is also
a technology that is relatively simple to implement on multiple scales, including at
the household and community levels and has been explored in pilot programs on
other Pacific island communities through the Japanese Technical Cooperation
Project for Promotion of Regional Initiative on Solid Waste Management in Pacific
Island Countries (J-PRISM) project (US EPA 2009, Richards and Haynes 2014).
Both organics only (yard waste) and mixed-waste MSW composting were observed
in small island communities, undertaken by private (e.g., hotels composting garden
wastes generated on site) as well as public entities (Mohee et al. 2015).
38
-------
The solid waste industry has considerable experience in composting mixed MSW,
but quality limitations of the final product (presence of contaminants) have prompted
a transition to organics-only composting as the predominant composting approach.
The key to successfully implementing such an approach is, of course, the ability to
collect a segregated feedstock. Composting of food scraps at the household level is a
relatively straightforward process, if sufficient land area is available and if an
adequate supply of vegetative material and soil exist to mix with the waste. At the
community level, a more complex suite of issues must be considered, including
collecting a segregated feedstock, promoting an appropriate environment for aerobic
waste decomposition, and processing the final product prior to use (NSWMSC
2009). Some organic waste collection was reported at some community's
marketplace. Alternatively, the municipality may encourage the separation of
organic waste at the source (the household or the business), but in communities that
have very simple collection systems, this might prove to be a challenge. One
approach that has found success in some communities is the designation of separate
community containers for disposing of organic waste separate from other waste
stream components. It was observed that CNMI, Saipan's Lower Base Refuse
Transfer Station, incorporates an area devoted to sorting, grinding, and storing green
waste, processing necessary to improve composting conditions (with sufficient
exposure to oxygen, this smaller particle size increases the rate of decomposition),
thus increasing the amount of green waste diverted (Leavitt, 2005).
The ideal compost recipe includes both brown and green organic materials. Brown
materials provide carbon and can include paper (e.g., shredded paper, cardboard) and
dry yard waste (e.g., leaves, small branches, straw, sawdust). The green material
provides nitrogen and includes wet yard waste (e.g., grass, green leaves) and food
scraps (e.g., vegetable and fruit peels, coffee grounds). Brown and green materials
are typically mixed at a ratio of approximately three to one (brown to green), by
volume. Although all biodegradable organic materials can be composted, vegetable
and yard wastes typically work best. Meat and dairy food scraps have the potential
to increase odor and pest problems, but as long as they are mixed with sufficient
plant-based material, the composting process can accommodate them. Shredding of
green materials for size reduction and corresponding increased surface area is a
recommended practice to enhance the rate of material decomposition; the increased
surface area provides a greater number of surface sites for oxygen to react,
accelerating aerobic decomposition (Ragazzi et al. 2014). In addition to food scraps
and vegetation, incorporation of sewage sludge at a rate of 0.25-0.5 sludge fraction
(in relation to high carbon organics, e.g., yard waste) could further increase compost
quality, though typically some dewatering processing is necessary to reduce the
moisture content of sewage sludge (contributing significant nitrogen and moisture),
without dewatering, the maximum recommended sewage sludge fraction decreases
to 0.1 (Ragazzi et al. 2014).
39
-------
As composting is an aerobic process, the compost piles or windrows must be
maintained in a manner that promotes the presence of oxygen within the compost.
Several approaches are employed to ensure an aerobic environment. While the use
of small piles may allow sufficient air intrusion, it limits insulation and thus piles
may not reach a temperature conducive to rapid waste decomposition. Larger piles
retain heat better, but they need to be regularly turned (with hand tools or with
mechanical equipment). The longer the composting process is allowed to continue,
generally the higher quality the end product; a 90-day maturation time was
recommended for sewage sludge co-composted with high carbon MSW materials
(yard wastes) (Ragazzi et al. 2014). In some cases, pipes or vents are added to
promote air migration into the piles. Moisture represents another factor of
importance with respect to maintaining aerobic conditions. The compost pile must be
sufficiently wet to keep the necessaiy environment for the microorganisms, but if the
pile becomes too wet, anaerobic conditions may develop and result in greater odors.
The resulting compost product can be used for a variety of agricultural and
landscaping benefits, including improved soil structure for plant root growth,
enhanced water-holding capacity, and nutrient and organic matter addition (USCC
2001). Prior to reuse, the compost may first need to be screened to remove oversized
pieces of woody material as well as different items. Screens can be purchased
specifically for this type of application, but they can also be fabricated relatively
easily from local supplies (Figure 29).
Figure 27. Equipment built for screening compost
6.2.2. Anaerobic Digestion
40
-------
In contrast to the composting process, anaerobic digestion functions in the absence of
air; a different group of microorganisms is responsible for the decomposition of the
organic matter. Historically, the primary feedstocks used for anaerobic digestion
have included animal waste or sludge from wastewater treatment operations, but
more commonly today segregated organics from MSW are being treated
anaerobically. During anaerobic digestion, microbes digest the organic materials
under conditions similar to those encountered in a landfill and produce a biogas
consisting primarily of carbon dioxide and methane. Additionally, a solid product
similar to compost can be retrieved, as can a liquid digestate that can be utilized as a
fertilizer. Conditions for successful anaerobic digestion are harder to achieve
relative to aerobic composting, but the added benefit of fuel product (biogas)
production makes this practice desirable for some communities. Use of the gas
produced by the digester decreases emission of greenhouse gasses from the overall
waste management scheme; gasses generated by waste decomposition are not
released to the environment. Additionally, energy needs, which would otherwise be
filled by some other greenhouse gas producing activity are offset.
Implementing anaerobic digestion in large communities requires rather extensive
capital infrastructure and dedicated operating personnel. These types of systems
may not be appropriate for remote, economically challenged communities.
However, anaerobic digestion has been applied at a small scale in developing
countries (Vogeli et al. 2014, Miiller 2007). A significant potential benefit to
anaerobic digestion in these cases is the production of biogas, which can be used as a
fuel substitute (e.g., for a gas cooking stove). This decentralized power generation is
helpful in remotely located communities, where reliable power supply may not be
available. Additionally, the use of biogas reduces the need for combustion of
firewood, which produces smoke harmful to air quality.
To create anaerobic conditions for the formation of biogas, enclosed-vessel fixed-
dome digesters, floating-drum digesters, and tubular digesters are available to
designer as options (Vogeli et al. 2014). Fixed-dome digesters are typically
constructed underground and composed of two chambers. Organic material is added
to a primary chamber where the resulting biogas is collected in the chamber's dome;
a second chamber operates as an outlet and overflow tank. Floating-drum digesters
consist of a cylindrical reservoir (buried or above ground) equipped with a floating
drum over the top of the tank that rises and falls as a function of the biogas pressure
developed under the drum. Figure 29 shows an above-ground floating-drum digester
used to produce biogas for a cooking stove and a tubular or flexible-membrane
digester which utilize plastic or rubber bags (or balloons) as the primary digestion
vessel as well as a storage system for the biogas.
41
-------
Figure 28. Floating drum (left) and Tubular (right) anaerobic digester
An anaerobic digester requires a microbial seed; a mix of water and cow manure is
commonly added in increments to build up the microbial population over time.
Anaerobic digestion can work under most climatic conditions; however, at lower
temperatures the process becomes less efficient and a heating and/or insulation
system may need to be installed. A consistent temperature regime is best. The
optimal pH range for an anaerobic digester is 6.5 to 7.5. Because of the nature of the
microbial process responsible for the anaerobic degradation, the system may become
acidic, and the addition of lime, sodium bicarbonate, or sodium hydroxide may be
necessary to increase the pH. The appearance and odor of the slurry should be
checked regularly. Well-digested effluent should not have an acidic smell, and the
pH can be monitored by using litmus paper or a pH meter. If the pH is below 5.5,
feeding should be stopped until the pH has stabilized.
The organic material should be fed to the digester on a regular basis, and some
amount of size reduction may be required if the waste pieces are too large. Larger
size operations may require dedicated personnel to collect waste for digester
feedstock, operate size reduction equipment, and ensure gas producing conditions are
stable. The hydraulic retention time (the amount of time that the liquid portion
remains in the reactor) varies depending on the type of reactor, system temperature,
and waste composition, and can range from just several days up to 40. Each ton of
feedstock produces approximately 80 to 200 cubic meters of biogas; each cubic
meter of biogas is estimated to have the capacity to power a gas stove for two hours
(Voegeli and ZurbrUgg 2008). If biogas is used as cooking fuel, stoves should be
cleaned regularly to avoid clogging and moving parts greased and checked to ensure
they are gas tight. Leaks need to be immediately repaired. Condensed water in the
pipes should regularly be drained to provide adequate gas flow. Gas pipes above
ground, valves, fittings, appliances, and gas storage containers should be checked
regularly for leaks.
42
-------
nergy from 1 hernial Was> * I ir > -Hineiiil
Many larger communities rely on incineration as an effective MSW management
option. In this process, combustible components in the waste (primarily paper,
wood, and plastic products) are converted into ash, flue gas, and heat, under excess
air conditions. The heat generated from the incineration process can be used to
produce electricity, and thus this technology is commonly referred to as waste to
energy (WTE) in the US. The WTE process reduces the volume of waste requiring
landfill disposal. While WTE is a proven technology and is relatively common in
Europe, Asia, and some parts of the US, these facilities require a significant capital
investment and a highly trained operational staff. As such, WTE plants are typically
only feasible in locations where the amount of waste combusted is several hundred
tons or more per day. In the US, the smallest plant is rated at a capacity of 175 tons
per day (Berenyi 2012). Thus the application of WTE technology or other emerging
thermal waste processes (e.g., gasification) for remote, economically challenged
communities is likely not feasible. Furthermore, some communities, may prohibit
WTE and waste incineration by statute, so local regulatory rules should be consulted
as part of an investigation of this technologies feasibility.
Opportunities do exist for the use of thermal waste treatment as a disposal method in
remote, economically challenged communities (without the recovery of energy).
The reasons such technologies are not advisable, since they don't include energy
recovery, are described in the next section for completeness of the report.
43
-------
7, Waste Disposal
The least preferable options as part of an ISWM system hierarchy are disposal through
combustion (with no energy recovery) and landfilling. In the US as a whole, the burning of
MSW without energy recovery is rare. Despite the growth of the recycling industry and the
ongoing operation of a number of WTE facilities, landfilling remains the predominant
management technique for US MSW (ash remaining after waste combustion-', comprising about
15 to 25% by mass of the initial waste, is typically landfilled). As stated at the beginning of this
document, most communities in the US dispose of their MSW in Subtitle D (or equivalent)
landfills.
It is noted that some combustion information presented here comes from guidance provided to
locations that may currently meet the Subtitle D small-community exemption (e.g., remote,
economically challenged Alaskan communities, Native American communities in the arid
Western US) Nothing in this section should be viewed as a regulatory determination on whether
these technologies are permissible under current US regulations. Local regulations should
always be consulted to ensure waste management practices do not violate any existing specific
rules.
ustioin
Waste combustion reduces the overall volume and mass of material which will ultimately
require disposal. Combustion of wastes must be practiced in compliance with 40 CFR
257, which prohibits the open burning of solid waste; 40 CFR 257 defines open burning
to mean combustion without 1) control of combustion air to maintain adequate
temperature for efficient combustion, 2) containment of the combustion reaction in an
enclosed device to provide sufficient residence time and mixing for complete
combustion, and 3) control of the emissions of the combustion process. In the open
burning process, waste is allowed to burn with little control of the combustion process,
and there is a high potential for uncontrolled fires. During open burning, temperatures
may not be high enough to destroy entirely the combustible materials. Thus, higher
temperatures are preferred (generally above 1,200 °F). Incomplete combustion at low
temperatures produces an ash which is attractive to scavenging animals and has the
potential to produce a higher strength leachate at landfills when disposed of (Emswiler
and Crimp 2004). The prohibition on open burning does not apply to facilities
combusting agricultural wastes.
44
-------
It is noteworthy at this point to mention that the presentation of the various thermal
technologies are included here for completeness of the report and is not intended to
support such technologies. Communities should always evaluate and adhere to all
regulatory requirements before implementing a solid waste management system.
However, in general, incinerators are engineered to control the combustion process better
by creating a high-temperature environment that leads to more efficient waste destruction
and less air pollution, in contrast to the open burning process. Several types of
incinerators - burn boxes, air-curtain incinerators, and multiple-chamber/batch starved-air
systems - may be appropriate only for the occasional burning of agricultural wastes in the
field, silviculture wastes for forest management purposes, land-clearing debris, diseased
trees, debris from emergency clean-up operations, and ordnance. It is noted that these
technologies are not allowed for municipal waste management. These incinerator types
are summarized in Table 5 and described in greater detail below.
Table 5. Summary of incinerators used for agricultural waste management
Incinerator
Description
Burn Box
Burning process occurs in a single enclosed chamber equipped with a
smoke stack. Air is usually supplied passively to the burning
chamber; however, a powered blower could be added to enhance air
flow. Waste is placed on grates inside the upper portion of the
chamber to allow air access to the reaction from all sides. Ash is
accumulated in the lower portion of the chamber during and after
burning.
Air-Curtain
Incinerator
An air-curtain incinerator is equipped with a blower forcing a thin
curtain of air at high velocity across an open, burning chamber. The
air-curtain stalls and slows down the smoke particles on their way out
of the chamber. In doing so, a higher temperature is maintained inside
of the chamber and smoke particles are re-burned to reduce emissions.
Multiple-
Chamber,
Batch
Starved-Air
System
This dual-chamber, batch-feed, starved-air incinerators are usually
referenced as Thermal Oxidation System (TOS), or Batch Oxidation
System (BOS). Waste is loaded using conventional equipment into a
primary gasification chamber, where waste is burned under a
controlled low oxygen conditions and is converted to a synthetic gas.
The synthetic gas enters into a secondary oxidation chamber where the
temperature is increased to a higher level (e.g., 1200 °C), where toxic
air pollutants are destructed. This type of incinerator is the most
efficient at reducing air pollution from incineration.
45
-------
7.2. te 3
Land disposal remains a dominant method of waste disposal worldwide (Hoornweg and
Bhada-Tata 2012). However, given the limited space available on the islands, land
disposal is not a preferred waste management option. In the remainder of this section, the
requirements for a Subtitle D Part 258 MSW landfill (generally just referred to as
'Subtitle D') and Part 257 non-MSW landfill are first described, followed by a detailed
discussion of specific operational aspects of landfilling. Additional guidance for
operating land disposal sites in remote, economically challenged communities such as the
Pacific territories can be found in several other documents (Rushbrook and Pugh, 1999;
SPREP, 2010b; Munawar and Fellner 2013). In addition to federal criteria, local
regulatory criteria may also apply; and thus, it is important to consult local regulatory
agencies for specific rules.
7.2.1. Sumrrn « the Subtil " andfill Requirements
The solid waste regulations part of RCRA ban the open dumping of all solid waste;
regulations require landfills for household waste (i.e., MSW landfills) comply with
detailed minimum protective measures, such as use of liners and leachate collection
systems. Landfilling of other types of wastes (e.g., C&D debris) are also governed
by US regulations, which require certain basic environmental protection measures
(e.g., location restrictions, control of disease vectors), including groundwater
monitoring if hazardous wastes are accepted as part of the waste stream. For the
complete requirements, please see 40 CFR 258, and/or applicable state regulations.
Subtitle D Part 258 regulations (40 CFR 258) relevant to MSW landfills in the US
Pacific island territories include location restrictions, operating criteria, design
criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective actions, closure and post-closure
care, and financial assurance criteria for MSW landfills. Table 5-2 summarizes the
key requirements of the regulations. Some of the practices outlined in the Subtitle D
rules are fundamental elements of sanitary landfill practice (e.g., covering the waste),
but key features that distinguish a Subtitle D landfill from a sanitary landfill are the
requirements of an engineered liner system and a leachate collection and removal
system (LCRS). The criteria of Subtitle D Part 258 are the minimum national US
standards determined to provide protection of public health and the environment. In
one community, due to concerns of the local regulatory agency and local residents, a
landfill was constructed with an engineered liner that includes redundant protection
from potential release of leachate.
46
-------
A Subtitle D landfill liner consists of 2 feet of compacted soil with a maximum
hydraulic conductivity of 10-7 cm/sec overlain by a geomembrane liner (typically a
60-mil HDPE geomembrane). The liner creates a barrier to intercept leachate
produced in the landfill. The LCRS consists of a network of drains placed over the
sloped bottom liner so that the depth of leachate resting on top of the liner does not
exceed 30 cm. Leachate is removed from the landfill by placing pumps at low spots
in the LCRS, and the pumped leachate is then treated before being discharged to the
environment. Groundwater surrounding the landfill unit must be monitored, and off-
site migration of gas must be controlled. Suspension of groundwater monitoring
requirements via approval of a submitted non-migration petition showing negligible
potential for migration of hazardous constituent, though not inapplicable to landfills
on US Pacific island territories per se, generally have been only successfully
implemented at sites experiencing lower rainfall rates (<25 inches per year) than the
US Pacific island territories. The Subtitle D regulations contain provisions for
closing the landfill with an engineered cap as well as maintaining and monitoring the
landfill for at least 30 years following closure.
Other types of landfills that are allowed under current federal regulations are
described in 40 CFR 257. While location restrictions and groundwater monitoring
requirements are similar for both Part 257 and Part 258 sites, these landfills can only
accept industrial, construction and demolition type wastes and septic tank waste
(municipal waste is not allowed at these locations). Furthermore, these types of
landfills do not require a liner system, and the daily cover is needed, but the
thickness and type are not prescribed. Overall, in the continental US, the cost of
constructing and maintaining a Part 257 site are lower than those for a Part 258
MSW site. Thus, the implementation of a successful waste segregation regime
where waste that can be disposed of in a Part 257 landfill may provide a significant
reduction in cost and an increase in MSW-landfill capacity for communities.
7.2,2, Site location
Solid waste disposal facilities should be located to minimize potential impacts on
human health and the environment. Disposal sites should be located away from
residential areas and sources of drinking water. The flow direction of underlying
groundwater should be considered, as should any nearby surface water that could be
affected by waste-disposal operations. Sensitive ecosystems, both terrestrial and
aquatic, should be evaluated with respect to potential adverse effects posed by
landfilling.
Other considerations for locating a disposal site include the availability of cover soil,
proximity to other community activities where heavy equipment may be available,
and conditions of the site with respect to leachate drainage and treatment. As
described in the following section, application of cover soil to waste offers numerous
advantages and a nearby source of soil is necessary. Waste compaction is also
important; if a community does not have the resources to purchase dedicated waste
compaction equipment, shared use of material from other community activities (road
construction, soil moving) may be a viable alternative. A disposal site that has a
natural land slope provides the opportunity for gravity leachate drainage without the
use of mechanical pumping equipment.
47
-------
7.2.3. Fundamental Sanitary Landfill Practices
General basic sanitary landfilling practices (not specifically described in 40 CFR
258, with which US Pacific island landfills must comply) are applicable to all
disposal sites. Waste compaction is an essential tenet of sanitary landfilling, and
allows more waste to be placed in a given landfill area (thus minimizing overall land
area requirements), helps prevent air intrusion into the trash pile (a potential source
of fires), and decreases the rate of water infiltration into the waste. Equipment
specifically designed for waste compaction is typically utilized at larger sites (Figure
30), but other types of earth-moving equipment (e.g., bulldozers) can also be used to
achieve a degree of compaction.
Figure 29. Compactor on working face of landfill at Marpi Landfill in Saipan,
CNMI
One of the most important features of a sanitary landfill is the daily placement of soil
or alternative (e.g. ash, compost) cover on top of the waste, after the waste has been
dumped (6 inches daily is required by Part 258, unless a variance is granted).
Covering the waste with soil significantly decreases opportunities for fires at the
landfill surface, reduces nuisance odors, minimizes attraction of disease vectors to
the waste, and keeps garbage from being blown off site by the wind. A good layer of
cover soil, especially in combination with an adequately sloped landfill surface,
helps shed rainwater from the site, thus minimizing leachate generation. The soil
retains some of the moisture that does not run off and allows for evaporation, and the
biological and chemical reactions in the soil help mitigate the release of odorous and
harmful chemicals contained in landfill gas. Size-reduced woody debris (e.g., yard
trash) has been used as a cover soil amendment and has been found to assist further
in removing chemicals in landfill gas.
48
-------
Table 6. Summary of RCRA Subtitle D (40 CFR Part 258) Landfill Requirements
(consult 40CFR-258 for complete regulations)
40 CRF Part 258 landfill requirements
Location restrictions
• New landfills or expansions of existing landfills may not be constructed in the following areas without approval from EPA or the
director of an EPA-approved state solid waste permit program: within 5,000 to 10,000 feet of an airport (depending on the type of
aircraft used at the airport) due to bird hazards to aircraft, a floodplain, a wetland, fault areas, a seismic impact zone, or in an
unstable area.
• To gain approval, appropriate demonstrations must be made proving that the MSW landfill site will not have detrimental effects
on human health and the environment (as is specified in Part 258).
Operating criteria
• MSW landfill facilities should exclude the acceptance of hazardous waste by implementing random inspections, records of
inspection, training personnel to recognize hazardous waste, and notifying the state director for authorized States under Subtitle C
of RCRA (or the EPA Regional Administrator if in an unauthorized State) of discovered unauthorized hazardous waste.
• Six inches of earthen cover material should be placed over solid waste at the end of each operating day or at more frequent intervals,
if needed (alternative materials and thickness may be approved).
• A facility should prevent or control on-site disease vectors.
• MSW landfill facility is to monitor the potential for explosive gas by not allowing methane gas generated to exceed 25% of the
lower explosive limit for methane in facility structures or at the property boundary, and the facility must implement a routine
methane monitoring program
• The facility is not to violate the Clean Air Act, and open burning of solid waste is prohibited (except in the specified circumstances).
• Public access to the facility must be controlled.
• Landfill owners are to design, construct, and maintain a run-on control system to prevent flow onto the active portion of the landfill
and a run-off control system to collect and control runoff from the landfill.
• MSWLFs cannot discharge pollutants to surface water, including wetlands (with the exception of engineered permitted wetlands
designed to contain and treat leachate).
• Bulk or non-containerized liquids cannot be accepted at MSW facilities unless specified restrictions are met.
• An MSW facility must maintain adequate recordkeeping as specified by 258.29.
Design criteria
• An MSW facility must be constructed so that concentrations of specified constituents will not be exceeded in the uppermost aquifer
at relevant points of compliance.
• The MSW landfill is to be built with a composite liner consisting of the upper component a minimum 30-mil flexible membrane
liner (FML) and a lower component of two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1x10 7 cm/sec.
FML layers of HDPE should be at least 60-mil thick.
• Liner construction must include a leachate collection system that is designed and constructed to maintain less than a 30-cm depth
of leachate over the liner.
Groundwater
monitoring
• Groundwater monitoring for MSW landfills is to be conducted throughout the active life of the landfill and during landfill closure
and post-closure care
• A sufficient groundwater control system is to be installed such that monitoring wells are of appropriate location and depth, and
ensure monitoring results that provide an accurate representation of ground-water quality at the background and downgradient
wells installed in compliance with §258.51(a). The groundwater monitoring program must include consistent sampling and analysis
to ensure the accuracy of results.
49
-------
Table 6. Summary of RCRA Subtitle D (40 CFR Part 258) Landfill Requirements
(consult 40CFR-258 for complete regulations)
• Detection monitoring is required at monitoring wells for the provided list of specified inorganic (copper, nickel) and organic (e.g.,
acetone, benzene) constituents (at a minimum).
• When a statistically significant increase over background levels is detected for one or more constituents, assessment monitoring is
required which involves additional sampling and monitoring. When constituents are detected at levels significantly exceeding
groundwater production standards, an assessment of corrective measures must be completed and based on the findings of the
assessment; a remedy is then selected to remediate the situation with corrective actions.
• Groundwater monitoring requirements may be suspended by the director of an approved State RCRA Subtitle D program if it can
be demonstrated that there is no potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the MSW landfill unit to the uppermost
aquifer during the active life of the landfill and post-closure care period. The demonstration must be certified by a qualified
groundwater scientist and approved by the Director of an authorized state, based on site-specific field collected measurements and
contaminant fate and transport predictions.
Corrective Action
• Assessment of corrective action to remedy exceedances of groundwater protection standards must be initiated within 90 days of
such exceedance and completed within a reasonable period of time.
• Corrective action may not be required if contamination is from multiple sources and cleanup of MS WLF release site would provide
no significant reduction in risk, contaminated water is not a current or potential source of drinking water and not hydrologically
connected with waters to which hazardous constituents are migrating or are likely to migrate in a concentration that would exceed
the groundwater protection standard, or remediation is not technically feasible/would result in unacceptable cross-media impacts.
• Remedy selected must be assessed for long and short term effectiveness potential.
• After the solution is selected, it must be implemented by the landfill owner/operator, a schedule must be selected for completion
of all remediation activities, and a groundwater monitoring program must be established to indicate efficacy of selected remedy
(as well as comply with minimum requirements of assessment monitoring program).
• Corrective action must continue until all required steps have been completed and the site is in compliance with groundwater
protection standards for three consecutive years, or an alternative period of time specified by the director of the state enforcement
agency.
• Site owner/operator must obtain certification that the remedy is completed and notify the director of the state enforcement agency.
Closure and post-
closure care
• A final cover system meeting the specified criteria must be installed when the landfill is closed.
• Post-closure care is to be conducted for 30 years after closure of the landfill. This includes maintaining the LCRS, groundwater
monitoring, and maintaining and operating the landfill gas monitoring system.
Financial Assurance
• The regulations requires demonstration of responsibility for the costs of closure, post-closure care, and known corrective action.
• Adequate funds must be available to ensure that if the primary responsible parties cannot meet their obligations (e.g.,
owner/operator declares bankruptcy or lacks technical expertise required), a third party can be hired to complete required activities.
The possibility of a third party completion of closure, post-closure, and corrective action should be assumed when calculating costs
and preparing the written site-specific estimates.
• Costs are calculated on a conservative basis, assuming the most expensive closure and post-closure conditions and must be annually
adjusted to account for inflation.
• Financial mechanisms available include trust fund, surety bonds guaranteeing payment or performance, letter of credit, insurance,
corporate financial test, local government financial test, corporate guarantee, local government guarantee, state-approved
50
-------
Table 6. Summary of RCRA Subtitle D (40 CFR Part 258) Landfill Requirements
(consult 40CFR-258 for complete regulations)
mechanism, or state assumption of financial responsibility.
51
-------
Another critical element of sanitary landfill practice is the controlled placement of
the waste. The area where waste is unloaded (tipped) and compacted should be
minimized (a large exposed working face should be avoided). This applies in
particular to the areas of US Pacific island territories subject to extreme weather
events because of the potential for waste scattering and high leachate generation
volumes due to increased ability for liquids to infiltrate into the waste mass where
waste is uncovered (Eckelman et al. 2014). The waste should be placed so that cover
soil can be applied most efficiently. This may involve placing the waste in an
excavated trench that is later covered with soil (from the excavation, i.e., the trench-
and-fill technique). In other cases, waste is placed on the ground surface and then
covered with soil that is stockpiled nearby. Fencing the landfill area helps keep
wildlife and unauthorized people from the waste and can contribute to control blown
litter.
7,2,4. Leachate Control
A primary pathway for chemicals to migrate from the landfill to the surrounding
environment is through contact with water. As described in Section 2, leachate
resulting from the interaction of garbage and water can contaminate groundwater and
surface water. Locations with high rainfall volumes, groundwater tables relatively
near the surface, and nearby surface water bodies should be especially aware of the
potential for off-site contamination through leachate.
A fundamental step in leachate control is preventing leachate generation. Disposal
of wet wastes (e.g., septage, wastewater) with other garbage should be avoided.
Many of the sanitary landfill practices outlined above minimize leachate formation.
When the area of the waste placement is reduced, less leachate will result. Waste
compaction and cover soil application will reduce the amount of rainfall that
infiltrates into the garbage and forms leachate. The landfilled waste should be
graded to drain stormwater away from the waste, surrounding terrain should be
graded to minimize the flow of stormwater onto the waste, promote drainage, and
control runoff from the landfill. Standing water on, adjacent to, or near the landfilled
waste should be avoided.
The Subtitle D Part 258 landfill regulations for sites accepting MSW require a liner
and an LCRS; thus, the leachate is removed from the landfill before it migrates into
the underlying soil groundwater. Operators of disposal sites without a Subtitle D
liner may still have the opportunity or need to drain leachate from the landfill. For
example, as discussed later in this section, the Fukuoka-style landfill typically uses a
leachate collection system placed above a natural earthen liner without the utilization
of a geomembrane. However, in order to comply with federal regulations, the
Fukuoka-style landfill would have to be constructed with a Subtitle D Part 258 liner.
Furthermore, waste has to be covered to minimize odors and disease transmission.
52
-------
Subtitle D Part 258 requires that the depth of leachate on the liner be maintained at
30 cm or less; typically pumps are employed to convey leachate from the LCRS and
comply with this regulation. Where possible, original site grades should be utilized
so that leachate can be drained by gravity to comply with the 30 cm head on the liner
requirement while minimizing costs. This is particularly the case for sites in remote,
economically challenged locations. This should be part of the original planning of
the disposal site as construction of the LCRS must precede waste placement. Large
landfill facilities that collect leachate will often transport collected leachate to a
wastewater treatment facility or provide some form of treatment on site. For
landfills serving remote communities, treatment systems that rely on power,
chemicals, and intensive operating involvement may not be feasible. Thus these
communities may want to consider other options allowed under Subtitle D.
7.2.5. Gas Control
The potential risks posed by landfill gas were described in Section 2. Landfills
address the problems created by landfill gas by constructing and operating a gas
collection and control system (GCCS). Most GCCS utilize gas wells placed within
the waste (usually vertically, but sometimes horizontally) to provide a controlled exit
point for gas to leave the landfill. When waste decomposes, gas pressures build up
in the landfill, and the gas migrates to the surrounding environment following the
path of least resistance (ideally installed gas wells). At large landfills the wells are
connected to a mechanical extraction system and the collected gas is either flared or
used for energy production. At smaller sites, similar to those which operate in the
US Pacific island territories, the gas wells provide passive venting of the landfill gas
to the atmosphere, thus minimizing potential off-site migration of the gas through the
surrounding soil.
Installation of a GCCS is mandated by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) rather than Subtitle D RCRA, and only for landfills with
a design capacity >2.5 million metric tons with a predicted gaseous release of >50
Mg/year of nonmethane organic carbons (NMOCs). While some smaller remote,
economically challenged community's waste sites may not reach this threshold, a
degree of gas control may be provided through the use of good cover soil practices.
If active gas collection system is not required, communities may want to construct
the gas wells as the waste is being filled, using locally available materials as
presented in Figure 32. The figure shows a landfill site where gas wells have been
constructed with rock kept in place with wire (similar to a rock gabion); a vent pipe
is positioned in the center of the well. Waste is placed in the well as part of disposal
operations, and when an appropriate waste height is reached, the well is extended
upward. Other materials have been used in a similar fashion to construct gas wells,
including drums and tires.
53
-------
Figure 30. Landfill gas well built with rock encased in wire
54
-------
8. Hazardous and Special Waste
Another waste challenge faced by communities is the management of hazardous and special
wastes that should be handled differently than typical garbage. Remote, economically
challenged communities face additional challenges with respect to these wastes because
appropriate treatment technologies for these materials may not be locally available.
8.1. Medical Waste
Healthcare activi ties lead to the production of medical waste that, if poorly managed, can
result in serious threats to human health and the environment. These wastes include
infectious wastes, chemical or pharmaceutical wastes, expired pharmaceuticals, soiled
bandages and dressings, contaminated sharps, and radioactive or cytotoxic wastes.
Where possible, these residues should be retained at the point of generation (e.g., a
medical clinic or hospital) until they can be shipped to any appropriate treatment or
disposal location. In cases where large volumes of these materials are produced making
long-distance transport difficult, purchase of appropriate treatment equipment may be
necessary. This may be the case with infectious medical waste.
Options for medical waste treatment include incineration or sterilization. Infectious
waste should be properly segregated from normal garbage at the point of generation to
minimize the amount of material requiring additional treatment. The most common
method for sterilization is autoclaving, a sterilization process that utilizes high-pressure
steam for 15 to 20 minutes. Several vendors sell sterilization systems designed for
smaller hospitals and clinics. Figure 33 shows an autoclaving system installed at a
hospital on American Samoa. Following autoclave sterilization, the material is size
reduced and disposed of in a landfill.
Figure 32. Autoclave at the medical clinic in American Samoa
55
-------
8.2. Other Hazardous Waste
A number of other potentially hazardous wastes may be encountered as a result of
household and commercial activities. Table 8 summarizes a number of these, along with
recommended management practices. For many of these materials, collection, storage,
and shipment to an appropriate recycler is the best option.
Table 7. Typical community hazardous wastes and recommended management practices
Waste
Description
Recommended management practice
Used oil
and filters
Motor oil, transmission fluid,
differential oil, brake fluid, power-
steering fluid, and transaxle fluid
° Used oil that is not mixed with other substances such as gas,
antifreeze, or solvents is typically recyclable.
° Burning used oil is a common practice and can be integrated with
waste to energy system.
° Setting up a central collection point is a good way to simplify the
collection process.
° Any used oil that cannot be burned or otherwise utilized in the
community must be shipped out of the community for disposal by a
licensed contractor.
Household
Hazardous
Waste
(HHW)
Hazardous materials disposed of by
residents from their homes,
including cleaners, paints,
pesticides, and other chemicals that
are hazardous but are not
specifically exempted from
regulation as hazardous waste
° Although HHW could be disposed of with regular trash in
compliant Subtitle D MSW landfills, it cannot be disposed in open
dumps, and it is recommended that HHW is treated separately at a
designated treatment or disposal facility.
° Educate residents about HHW categories and the importance of
separating them from regular trash.
° Organize collection events for HHW on a regular basis.
° Store and organize HHW in a clear, labeled space, off the ground
and under cover; preferably in a containment area
° Work with contractors for a safe and efficient way of disposal.
Antifreeze
Antifreeze contains chemicals that
can be toxic to people, plants, and
animals.
° Antifreeze must be managed and stored to prevent impacts to the
environment and public health, similar to how HHW is managed.
Batteries
Button cell batteries
Rechargeable batteries
Alkaline batteries (including zinc
carbon and zinc chloride batteries)
Lead-acid batteries
° Batteries should be stored in an intact-plastic container or on an
impervious surface and under cover to protect them from the
weather.
° Leaking batteries should be separated from non-leaking ones; acids
from the leaking batteries can corrode the other batteries.
° Keep the seal loose on the storage containers to avoid the buildup of
explosive hydrogen gas.
° Batteries should be stored away from sources of sparks or flames.
Asbestos
Asbestos is a group of naturally
occurring minerals composed of
long, thin fibers and fiber bundles.
The minerals have high tensile
strength, excellent insulating
properties, and are a fire retardant.
Inhalation of asbestos fibers may
result in serious health issues,
including cancer in humans.
° Environmentally sound asbestos disposal options are likely to be
restricted to either local disposal in a secure landfill, transport to and
disposal in a secure offshore landfill, or disposal at sea encased in
concrete.
° Stabilizing asbestos in occupied buildings prior to its eventual
removal should be considered an urgent priority to minimize future
exposure of the public to asbestos fibers.
E-waste
E-waste typically refers to end-of-
life electrical and electronic
products, including computers,
printers, photocopy machines,
television sets, washing machines,
radios, mobile phones and toys,
which are made of sophisticated
blends of plastics, metals, and other
materials.
° The electrical and electronic waste contains hazardous but also
valuable and scarce materials such as metal and alloys that can be
recovered and recycled.
° Proper management and disposal of E-waste are essential to the
long-term protection of local and regional Pacific environments, as
well as to the maintenance of long-term regional sustainability.
° Hold regular collection events and accept E-waste.
° Collect E-waste until enough has been gathered to make off-island
shipping more affordable.
56
-------
V ¦7i>IE ti'l' l4|kv> tV-hV1 1 '' "'AO If I ¦ a.h i. II ct 1 V F iff f -h X, II' >.
Local governments are often approached by outside vendors offering technologies or
services for treating or disposing of solid waste. Commonly marketed technologies
include thermal treatment systems (incineration, gasification, pyrolysis), often with an
energy recovery component; biological treatment technologies (composting, anaerobic
digestion); and processing for advanced recycling. These technologies may indeed offer
many benefits to local communities with respect to waste management, but because they
may have a limited operational track record and since they often necessitate relatively
long-term contractual obligations related to waste input and energy/materials revenue,
local government officials should conduct a careful evaluation before entering into any
agreement.
Unfortunately, there are many examples of communities investing in technologies that
promised benefits but for a variety of different reasons, were not successful. Examples of
questions and considerations that should be examined as part of the evaluation of any
new solid waste management technology include:
• At what scale is this proposed technology currently used? Has this technology been
implemented beyond the laboratory or pilot scale, and if so, for how long? Are there
any facilities of a similar size (as proposed) in operation elsewhere and can they be
visited? The decision makers should consider visiting some of the existing facilities
using the proposed technology.
• What are the land and related infrastructure requirements, and who provides these?
• What minimum level of waste input must be guaranteed for this technology to operate
correctly or to be economically feasible?
• What are the process residuals (e.g., ash) and their associated chemical and physical
characteristics? How will these residuals be managed and who is responsible for
managing these?
• How are the revenues associated with the sale of any energy or recovered materials
shared? What happens if the markets for energy or recovered materials dramatically
change?
• What is the minimum contract duration?
• Who maintains ownership of the property after the facility has closed or otherwise
ceased operation?
• If the facility were shut down, who would be responsible for disposing of any
remaining waste or dismantling the facility?
• Are contractual safeguards in place to ensure provision for any legal dispute which
should arise between the municipality and the public entity?
57
-------
When waste treatment technologies result in the generation of electricity or other forms
of power, care must be taken to negotiate an appropriate power purchase agreement
(PPA) in the event the community owns the power generation facility. A PPA is a long-
term contract (typically up to 30 years) between an energy company and an entity
(municipality, county) that agrees to purchase electricity generated by the project.
Worldwide, such agreements are used by solar facilities, biomass plants, wind energy
projects, and waste to energy (WTE) plants. The agreement specifies a payment to be
made only for power actually delivered within a predetermined output range. The
customer is often obligated to take all power delivered. In the US, the private ownership
of the renewable energy facility can allow the project to qualify for federal and state tax
incentives (US DOE 2011).
For a community with little experience in alternative energy or beneficial use contract
procedures, obtaining appropriate guidance from experienced legal, financial, and
technical professionals is of critical importance. It is of particular importance to specify
options for the renegotiation of the contract and the terms for ending the contract if either
the energy producer or buyer defaults on contractual obligations (Marron et al. 1997).
US EPA (2015c) highlights the importance of considering taxation issues in terms of
which entity legally owns the system, providing an insurance policy, and obtaining
demonstrations of good standing and previous success by the proposed operator. Equally
important is the set-up of procedures and timeframes for financial statements and
payments, the establishment of loans and necessary accounts, site sale and/or lease
agreements, and significant land use and environmental permitting.
Local governments that own power generation facilities should evaluate the following
questions and considerations when negotiating a PPA with a vendor or utility:
• What are the estimated power generation and predicted changes over the life of a
proposed contract?
• How will the implementation of waste reduction measures impact the size of a new
system?
• Are prospective vendors required to compete through a request for qualifications
(RFQ) or request for proposals (RFP) process?
• Has the proposed system been reviewed by parties with relevant expertise (e.g., legal,
environmental, financial, engineering)?
• Has the contractual duration been minimized for greater flexibility in
implementing/considering other alternatives?
• Have power wheeling charges been taken into account? The utility may pose power
wheeling charges, potentially applicable when power is transferred from one utility's
service area to another if the power is sold to a utility that does not own the power
grid at and around the site.
58
-------
Ik!, MiitiFti 47
The report presented the environmental and human health risks posed by improperly managed
solid wastes are described. Fundamentals, such as understanding local waste characteristics,
opportunities for waste reduction, and waste collection are reviewed. Recycling can be more
challenging in remote, economically challenged locations because transportation costs often
outweigh recoverable market value. High community participation rates and sufficient storage
capacity for stockpiling materials are essential features of a successful program that recycles
large quantities of materials at rates comparable to the US mainland. Source-segregating and
biological treatment of organics by composting or anaerobic digestion provide a landfill
diversion step not generally limited by transport distances. Both organic treatment methods
produce a residual which can be beneficially used, with an added benefit of anaerobic digestion
involving the production of gas usable for fuel. Energy recovery from waste through traditional
thermal treatment methods will, in most cases, not be feasible because of the small amount of
wastes produced and the high capital costs of these technologies.
A number of design and operational approaches are required to reduce environmental impacts
from landfills. (Please see 40 CFR 258 for the minimum federal criteria for municipal solid
waste landfills.) Site location is critical to avoid sources of drinking water and sensitive
environments. Waste compaction, cover soil placement, and proper configuration of the landfill
disposal area help minimize issues such as fires, odors, and disease vectors, and can reduce the
potential for off-site migration of pollutants from leachate and landfill gas. Landfill gas
problems can be reduced through implementation of good cover soil practices and installation of
gas vents constructed with locally available materials. Lined MSW landfilling capacity can be
preserved by the construction of non-municipal landfills accepting only certain non-hazardous,
non-municipal waste materials, operating in compliance with 40 CFR 257, and by sustainable
management practices that divert certain materials from the disposal waste stream. For areas
seeking to adopt compliant alternative waste management technologies, contract development
issues are also discussed.
59
-------
11.
Alaska DEC. (2011). Tips for Solid Waste Management in Rural Alaska.
https://dec.alaska.gov/eh/docs/sw/Tips for SW Managment Rural%20AK.pdf. Accessed on 27
May 2016.
American Samoa Power Authority (ASPA) (2015). American Samoa Landfill Production Report.
Excel file.
Baring-Gould, I., Hunsburger, R., Visser, C., and Voss, P. (2011). Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands Initial Technical Assessment Report. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Technical Report NREL/TP-7A40-50906, July 2011.
Berenyi, E. (2012). Municipal Waste to Energy in the United States: 2012-2013 Yearbook and
Directory, Ninth Edition.
BEA (2014a). The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Releases 2013 Estimates of Gross
Domestic Product for American Samoa. Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of
Commerce, News Release BEA 14-43, September 15, 2014.
BEA (2014b). The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Releases 2013 Estimates of Gross
Domestic Product for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Bureau of Economic
Analysis and U.S. Department of Commerce, News Release BEA 14-56, November 14, 2014.
BEA (2014c). The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Releases 2013 Estimates of Gross
Domestic Product for Guam. Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Commerce,
News Release BEA 14-57, November 19, 2014.
BEA (2014d). The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Releases 2013 Estimates of Gross
Domestic Product for United States. Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of
Commerce, News Release BEA 14-06, February 28, 2014.
Cagurangan, M.V. (2015). Solid Waste Tipping Fees Likely to Increase to Cover Landfill Costs.
Marianas Variety 26 June 2015. http://www.mvarietv.com/cnmi/cnrm-news/local/78264-guam-
solid-waste-tipping-fees-likelv-to-increase. Accessed 19 May 2016.
Carruth, R. L. (1999). Construction, Geologic, Hydrologic Data from Five Exploratory Wells on
Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 1999. U.S. Department of the Interior
and U.S. Geological Survey, prepared in cooperation with the Commonwealth Utilities
Corporation and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Open-File Report 2005-1042.
Carruth, R. L. (2003). Ground-Water Resources of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey, prepared in
cooperation with the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation and Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4178.
Chan, D.B. (2015). Stakeholders Agree to Ship Tinian Waste Off-Island.
http://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/stakeholders-agree-to-ship-tinian-waste-otY-island/.
Accessed 10 May 2016.
Chan, D.B. (2016). Landfill Cells Maxed Out 'in a Little Over 5 Years'.
http://www.saipantribime.com/index.php/landfill-cells-maxed-little-5-vears/. Accessed 10 May
2016.
60
-------
CIA (nd.a). World Factbook, Guam, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/gq.html. Accessed 12 June 2015.
CIA (nd.b). World Factbook, American Samoa, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook/geos/aq.html. Accessed 12 June 2015.
CIA (nd.c). World Factbook, Northern Mariana Islands.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cq.html. Accessed 12 June
2015.
Cohen, M. (2015). Saipan's $7 Billion Integrated Resort Promise Starts With a Casino in a
Shopping Mall, http://www.forbes.com/sites/muham.madcohen/2015/08/14/saipans-7-billion-
integrated-resort-promise-starts-with-a-casino-in-a-shopping-mall/#2f4790df7a5b. Accessed 10
May 2016.Colville, E., Harrington, J. and McFeron, N. (1994). The Basics of Equipping
Transfer Stations, World Wastes, Vol. 37, Issue 4, p34.
Conrad, M, Esterly, S, Bodell, T, Jones, T. (2013). American Samoa Energy Strategies.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fv 14osti/60556.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2015.
DCG (2014). District Court of Guam. Guam Solid Waste Receivership Information Center.
Guam Solid Waste Management Division, Services - Tipping Fees.
Eckelman, M.J., Ashton, W., Arakaki, Y., Hanaki, K., Nagashima, S., Malone-Lee, L.C. (2014).
Island Waste Management Systems. Journal of Industrial Ecology 18(2):306-317.
Emswiler, B. and Crimp, P. (2004). Burning Garbage and Land Disposal in Rural Alaska, A
Publication for Small Alaskan Communities Considering an Incineration and energy recovery.
Prepared by State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, May 2004.
Gingerich, S. B. (2002). Geohydrology and Numerical Simulation of Alternative Pumping
Distributions and the Effects of Drought on the Ground-Water Flow System of Tinian,
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S.
Geological Survey, prepared in cooperation with the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Headquarters, Honolulu, Hawaii, Water-
Resources Investigations Report 02-4077.
Gingerich, S. B. (2013). The Effects of Withdrawals and Drought on Groundwater Availability
in the Northern Guam Lens Aquifer, Guam. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological
Survey, prepared in cooperation with Headquarters, United States Marine Corps. Scientific
Investigations Report 2013-5216.
GSWA(2015). Residential Trash Services, http://www.guamsolidwasteauthority.com/gswa-
residential-trash.shtml. Accessed 9 July 2015.
Hoornweg, D., Thomas, L., and Otten, L. (1999). Composting and Its Applicability in
Developing Countries. Published for the Urban Development Division, The World Bank,
Washington DC, March 2000.
Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a Waste, A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Urban Development and Local Government Unit, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Keener, V., Hamilton, K., Izuka, S., Kunkel, K., Stevens, L., and Sun, L. (2013). Regional
Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 8. Climate of the
61
-------
Pacific Islands, NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-8. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
Information Service, January 2013.
Krause, M., and Townsend, T. (2014). Rapid Waste Composition Studies for the Assessment of
Solid Waste Management Systems in Developing Countries. International Journal of Waste
Resources, 4:2 (2014).
Leavitt. (2005). Success of Saipan's Solid Waste Management System Serving as Example to
Other South Pacific Islands. June 2015. http://leavcom.com/2005f/mactec_061505.htm.
Accessed on 17 May 2016.
Marron, S., Tyurin N. E., Wile, J.H., Trader, G., (1997). Everyone wins: renegotiating purchase
power agreements, The Electricity Journal, Volume 10, Issue 3, April 1997, Pages 76-82Miller,
M, Voss, P, Warren, A, Baring-Gould, I, Conrad, M. (2012). Strategies for International
Cooperation in Support of Energy Development in Pacific Island Nations. Technical Report
NREL/TP-6A20-53 188. htt£ ://www.nrel.gov/docs/fvl2osti/53188.pdf
Mohee, R., Mauthoor, S., Bundhoo, Z.M.A., Somaroo, G., Soobhany, N., Gunasee, S. (2015).
Current Status of Solid Waste Management in Small Island Developing States: A Review. Waste
Management 43:539-549.
Miiller, C. (2007). Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Solid Waste in Low- and Middle-
Income Countries, Overview over existing technologies and relevant case studies. Eawag -
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology Department of Water and Sanitation
in Developing Countries (Sandec), Diibendorf, Switzerland, May 2007.
Munawar, E. and Fellner, J. (2013). Guidelines for Design and Operation of Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills in Tropical Climates. International Solid Waste Association, February 2013.
NAOO (2014). NOWData - NOAA Online Weather Data.
http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=guam. Accessed 7 July 2015.
NAVFAC. (2015). Draft (Version 1) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint
Military Training Solid Waste Study.
NSWMSC (2009). Design Manual for Small Scale Composting Plants (Version 1, 2009), in
cooperation with JICA Expert Team.
Ragazzi, M., Catellani, R., Rada, E.C., Torretta, V., and Salazar-Valenzuela, X. (2014).
Management of Municipal Solid Waste in One of the Galapagos Islands. Sustainability 6:9080-
9095.
Richards, E. and Haynes, D. (2014). Solid Waste Management in Pacific Island Countries and
Territories. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia and the Pacific Islands, Environmental
Science and Engineering 255-279.
Rushbrook, P. and Pugh, M. (1999). Solid Waste Landfills in Middle- and Lower- Income
Countries, A Technical Guide to Planning, Design, and Operation. The World Bank, Technical
Paper No. 426, February 1999.
Saipan Tribune. (2005). Marpi Landfill Filling Up Fast. January 24 2005.
http://www.saipantribime.com/index.php 1Jije91~ldfh 1 I>' i-aedf-250bc8c9958e/. Accessed
Lav 2016.
62
-------
Saipan Tribune. (2015). Transfer Station, Marpi Landfill Resume Normal Hours. August 25
2015. http://www.saipantribime.com/index.php/transfer-station-marpi-landfill-resiime-normal-
hours/. Accessed on 17 May 2016.
SCS Engineers (2009). Waste Characterization and Waste to Energy Facility Study, Final
Report. Presented to American Samoa Power Authority, presented by SCS Engineers. File No.
01208155.00, September 17, 2009.
SPREP (2010a). Pacific Regional Solid Waste Management Strategy 2010-2015.
SPREP (2010b). A Practical Guide to Landfill Management in Pacific Island Countries and
Territories, Volume 1: Inland-based waste disposal (2nd Edition). March 2010.
SPREP (2014). Waste Management Practices Critical to Sustainable Consumption and
Production in SIDS. Accessed 11 May 2016, from: https://www.sprep.org/sids/waste-
management-practices-critical-to-sustainable-consumption-and-production-in-sids
UNEP (2005). Solid Waste Management. The United Nations Environment Programme, ISBN:
92-807-2676-5.
UNEP (2013). Guidelines for National Waste Management Strategies, Moving from Challenges
to Opportunities. The United Nations Environment Programme, ISBN: 978-92-807-333-4.
USCC (2001). Field Guide to Compost Use. The U.S. Composting Council.
US Census Bureau (2003). American Samoa: 2000, Social, Economic, and Housing
Characteristics, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. PHC-4-AS, Issued June 2003.
US Census Bureau (201 la). 2010 Census, Guam.
US Census Bureau (201 lb). 2010 Census, American Samoa.
US Census Bureau (201 lc). 2010 Census, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
US Census Bureau (2015a). 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey.
US Census Bureau (2015b). State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population
Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, State and County
Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census,
Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Last Revised: Monday, 08-Jun-2015.
US DOE (2011). Exploring Power Purchase Agreements-The Basics. Accessed 2015 from
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/wip/solutioncenter/pdfs/exploringpowerpurchaseagreementsthebasi
cspartl.pdf
US EPA (2002). What is Integrated Solid Waste Management? United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA530-F-02-026a, May 2002.
US EPA (2003). The Hidden Hazards of Backyard Burning. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA530-F-03-012, August 2003.
US EPA (2009). Backyard Composting, It's Only Natural. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA530-F-09-026, October 2009.
US EPA (2012). Reducing Waste.
http://www.epa.gOv/greenhomes/ReduceWaste.htm#homemaintenance. Accessed on 7 July
2015.
63
-------
US EPA (2015a). Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2013 Fact Sheet, Assessing
Trends in Material Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA530-R-15-003,
June 2015.
US EPA (2015b). Wastes - Resource Conservation - Conservation Tools, List of MSW
Characterization Studies, http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/recmeas/msw_st_rpt.htm.
Accessed on 7 July 2015.
US EPA (2015c). Solar Power Purchase Agreements. Accessed 2015 from
http ://www3. epa. gov/green power/buy gp/solarpower. htm
Vogeli, Y., Zurbriigg, C. (2008). Decentralized Anaerobic Digestion of Kitchen and Market
Waste in Developing Countries- "State of the Art" in South India. Proceedings Venice, Second
International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste, Venice, Italy.
Vogeli, Y., Lohri, C., Gallardo, A., Diener, S., and Zurbriigg, C. (2014). Anaerobic Digestion of
Biowaste in Developing Countries, Practical Information and Case Studies. Eawag - Swiss
Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology Department of Water and Sanitation in
Developing Countries (Sandec), Diibendorf, Switzerland.
64
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED
STANDARD POSTAGE
& FEES PAID EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research
and Development
(8101R)
Washington, DC
20460
Offal Business
Penalty for Private Use$300
1
------- |