1. Jae K. Park, Professor Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison 1

2. Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Municipal solid waste (MSW) Industrial/commercial/institutional (ISI) waste Handling & separation, storage & process at the source Reduce, reuse & recycle Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) Collection & Transport Biological treatment Aerobic/anaerobic compost Anaerobic digestion Thermal treatment Incineration Pyrolysis Gasification Thermolysis Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) Landfill MSW Hazardous waste ‘Dry tomb’ concept ‘Bioreactor’ concept 2 Recent trend

3. Hierarchy of ISWM 3 Reduction Reuse Recycling and composting Incineration Landfill

4. Hazardous Waste – Legal Definition 1.Listed in EPA regulations (40 CFR 261 Subpart D)40 CFR 261 Subpart D a.F-list: non-specific source wastes, 40 CFR §261.3140 CFR §261.31 b.K-list: source-specific wastes, 40 CFR §261.3240 CFR §261.32 c.P-list and U-list: discarded commercial chemical products, 40 CFR §261.3340 CFR §261.33 2.Ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic (40 CFR 261 Subpart C)40 CFR 261 Subpart C 3.Declared by the generator Federal hazardous waste regulations: 40 CFR Parts 260-26840 CFR Parts 260-268 4

5. Schematic of a Landfill 5

6. History Waste: a material that is cheaper to throw away than to use Solid waste management: concerned with the generation, on-site storage, collection, transfer, transportation, process and recovery, and disposal of solid wastes Limited resources and increased cost of waste management 6

7. History (continued) Because of siting difficulties and advanced containment technologies, landfilling is becoming increasingly expensive and is forcing the reexamination of options of dealing with solid wastes. Mismanaged wastes: e.g., the Love Canal incident - public hysteria over hazardous waste management There has been a rapid evolution in the technologies utilized in land disposal practices. 7

8. Love Canal William T. Love: developed an industrial park and accompanying housing development in the late 1800s. Energy intensive electrochemical or chemical synthesis industries settled near the 8-mile long canal. Hooker company produced DDT, 2,4,5-T, and chlorinated solvents. Hooker used the unfinished canals for the disposal of chemical waste. A school and a subdivision were developed around the dump site. Liquid and gaseous wastes migrated into the school and into the basements of houses. The exposure was through the inhalation. The incident of cancer and birth defects soared. 8

9. Love Canal 9

10. History (continued) Fifth century B.C. in Greece - earliest known forms of waste management Roman empire: first garbage collection service 1880 in major U.S. cities: minimal sort of garbage collection Until the 1900s, dumped directly on the land Around 1910, created sanitary landfills Until the 1950s, careless open-pit dumping and intentional burning without proper planning and engineering procedures 10

11. History (continued) 1959: sanitary landfill was the major method of solid waste disposal in the U.S. It was realized that a liner across the base of landfills with an engineered cap system to reduce long-term leachate generation and the escape of leachates to the environment were minimum requirements. Changes in legislation were the driving force. 11

12. History (continued) Concept of controlled tipping - sealed in cells formed from earth or other cover material - to change the physical characteristics of the buried solid wastes to make it relatively free from odor, less attractive to vermin, and less dangerous to health Not In My BackYard (NIMBY) 3Rs - reduce, reuse, and recycle Understanding of the impact of 3Rs separation programs on the character of the waste to be landfilled will be an important consideration. 12

13. Live in “Never-Never Land” We prohibit new power plants and believe in cheap electricity. We prohibit oil drilling and refining, impede independent gas stations, legislate costly antipollution additives, and believe in cheap gasoline. We blackmail developers into “donating” land for open space and believe in cheap housing. We sabotage nuclear waste disposal, hide our waste within our communities, and believe in a pure, safe environment. We mandate health benefits, and believe in cheap care. It is only consistent that we look to politicians for solutions, the very same who created the problems by running on anti-utility, anti-oil, anti-development, anti- nuclear, and anti-HMO platforms. September 2000 Thomas W. Schoene La Jolla, California 13

14. Definition Sketch for Landfill Operations and Processes Landfill closure Landscaping and cover maintenance Surface water control Gas conversion to electricity Gas flaring Gas well and ambient air Environmental monitoring Groundwater Vadose zone Leachate management Landfill operations Placement Weight Load inspection Leachate collection Leachate treatment Reactions occurring in landfills Final cover design Landfill design Surface water drainage Site planning Gas collection system design Liner design Landfill gas management 14

15. Leachate collection pipe Liner Monitoring facilities Liner Gas collection trench Typical waste cell Landscaping Final cover Typical waste cell Leachate collection Gas collection trench 15

16. Reference web site: http://nrc-recycle.org/Data/Sites/1/Climate%20Change/MSWcharacterization_revise_v10.pdf 16 Why? Stringent regulations forced many old landfills to shut down. Number of Landfills in the United States 1988~2006

17. Contents of 40 CFR Part 258 Section 258.16 CLOSURE OF EXISTING MSWLFS Performance Standard: 258.16(a) Existing MSWLF units that cannot make the demonstration specified in sec. 285.10(a) pertaining to airports, 258.11(a) pertaining to floodplains, or 258.15(a) pertaining to unstable areas, must close by October 9, 1996, in accordance with sec. 258.60 of this part and conduct post-closure activities in accordance with sec. 258.61 of this part. 258.16(b) The deadline for closure required by paragraph (a) of this section may be extended up to two years if the owner or operator demonstrates to the Director of an approved State that: 258.16(b)(1) There is no available alternative disposal capacity; 258.16(b)(2) There is no immediate threat to human health and the environment. Location Restrictions (Subpart B) NEW AND LATERAL EXPANSIONS: Proximity to airports Floodplains Wetlands Fault areas Seismic impact zones Unstable areas EXISTING UNITS: Proximity to airports Floodplains Unstable areas 17 Review 40 CFR Part 258.10

18. 18 Exclude hazardous waste Daily cover Disease vector control Explosive gases Access control Run-on & run-off control Surface water requirements Liquid management Record keeping Operating Criteria (Subpart C)

19. 19 In Approved States: Design must ensure that maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) will not be exceeded at the relevant point of compliance (cannot be more than 150 meters from unit boundary and must be on property of owner/operator) In Unapproved States: Composite liner consisting of an upper flexible membrane liner (FML) and a lower soil layer at least 2 ft thick and a leachate collection system Design Criteria for New MSW Landfill Units and Lateral Expansions (Subpart D)

20. 20 Design Criteria for New MSW Landfill Units and Lateral Expansions (Subpart D) Composite Liner & Leachate Collection System Design (Unapproved State) Approved Design that Meets Performance Standard (Approved State)

21. 21 Design Criteria for Existing MSW Landfill Units Requires installation of final cover that prevents infiltration after closure Does not require retrofitting with liners or leachate collection systems

22. 22 Groundwater Monitoring Requirements (Subpart E) Requires monitoring of groundwater to detect releases and determine if corrective action is necessary New MSW landfill units must comply prior to accepting wastes Existing MSW landfill units and lateral expansions must comply within 5 years.

23. 23 Part 257 & 258 Corrective Action Program Steps leading to corrective action: Establish groundwater monitoring program Detection monitoring Statistically significant increase over background Assessment monitoring Statistically significant increase over groundwater protection standard Corrective action

24. 24 Closure Requirements (Subpart F) Final cover consists of: Erosion layer: min. 6” earthen material of sustaining native plant growth Infiltration layer: min. of 18” of earthen material with a permeability equal to or less than the permeability of any bottom liner system or natural subsoils present or < 1 × 10 -5 cm/sec Note: An approved State may allow an alternative cover.

25. if demonstrated 25 Post Closure Care Requirements (Subpart F) Prepare post-closure plan Post-closure care must be conducted for 30 years. Time period may be reduced or increased by Approved State.

26. 26 Financial Assurance (Subpart G) Requires demonstration of financial assurance for closure, post-closure care, and corrective action for known releases Acceptable funding mechanisms include: Trust Funds, Surety Bonds, Letters of Credit, Insurance Policies, Guarantees, State Assumption of Responsibility, and State- approved mechanisms Exempts States and Federal Government