Superfund site remediation by landfilling—overview of landfill design,operation, closure,and postclosure issues

This article discusses the appropriateness of using landfills as part of remediating hazardous chemical and Superfund sites, with particular emphasis on providing for true long‐term public health and environmental protection from the wastes and contaminated soils that are placed in the landfills. On‐site landfilling or capping of existing wastes is typically the least expensive approach for gaining some remediation of existing hazardous chemical/Superfund sites. The issues of the deficiencies in US EPA and state landfilling approaches discussed herein are also applicable to the landfilling of municipal and industrial solid “nonhazardous” wastes. These deficiencies were presented in part as “Problems with Landfills for Superfund Site Remediation” at the US EPA National Superfund Technical Assistance Grant Workshop held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in February 2003. They are based on the author's experience in investigating the properties of landfill liners and the characteristics of today's landfills, relative to their ability to prevent groundwater pollution and to cause other environmental impacts. Discussed are issues related to both solid and hazardous waste landfills and approaches for improving the ability of landfills to contain wastes and monitor for leachate escape from the landfill for as long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

New paradigms for hazardous waste engineering

Today's hazardous waste engineering practice is based on the premise that the current technologies for conducting hazardous waste remediation are sufficient to solve most problems. The premise is false: Except for simple sites, the current practice cannot deliver answers with the required accuracy and precision. This article describes the huge uncertainties present in complex hazardous waste remediation efforts. It also discusses the “observational” method, which originated in the geotechnical engineering field, as a means of coping with these uncertainties during site characterization and remediation. The article includes case-study examples illustrating the use of the observational method at hazardous waste sites.     

Approaches for assessing hazards and risks to workers and the public from contaminated land

Many public agencies and private entities are faced with assessing the risks to humans from contamination on their lands. The United States Department of Energy (US DOE) and Department of Defense are responsible for large holdings of contaminated land and face a long‐term and costly challenge to assure sustainable protectiveness. With increasing interest in the conversion of brownfields to productive uses, many former industrial properties must also be assessed to determine compatible future land uses. In the United States, many cleanup plans or actions are based on the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act, which provides important but incomplete coverage of these issues, although many applications have tried to involve stakeholders at multiple steps. Where there is the potential for exposure to workers, the public, and the environment from either cleanup or leaving residual contamination in place, there is a need for a more comprehensive approach to evaluate and balance the present and future risk(s) from existing contamination, from remediation actions, as well as from postremediation residual contamination. This article focuses on the US DOE, the agency with the largest hazardous waste remediation task in the world. Presented is a framework extending from preliminary assessment, risk assessment and balancing, epidemiology, monitoring, communication, and stakeholder involvement useful for assessing risk to workers and site neighbors. Provided are examples of those who eat fish, meat, or fruit from contaminated habitats. The US DOE's contaminated sites are unique in a number of ways: (1) huge physical footprint size, (2) types of waste (mixed radiation/chemical), and (3) quantities of waste. Proposed future land uses provide goals for remediation, but since some contamination is of a type or magnitude that cannot be cleaned up with existing technology, this in turn constrains future land use options, requiring an iterative approach. The risk approaches must fit a range of future land uses and end‐states from leave‐in‐place to complete cleanup. This will include not only traditional risk methodologies, but also the assessment and surveillance necessary for stewards for long‐term monitoring of risk from historic and future exposure to maintain sustainable protectiveness. Because of the distinctiveness of DOE sites, application of the methodologies developed here to other waste site situations requires site‐specific evaluation © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Managing petroleum refining wastes by thermal desorption

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has developed regulations under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 to restrict the land disposal of hazardous wastes. As a result of the regulations, all hazardous wastes to be placed on the land must meet treatment standards based on the performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) identified for individual waste classifications. The Marathon Oil Company is currently evaluating innovative technologies for managing listed waste materials, with a focus on waste minimization and recycling. Remediation Technologies, Inc. (ReTeC) has conducted testing on wastewater treatment sludges from three Marathon refineries using a proprietary thermal desorption technology. The results from these tests have demonstrated that the technology has the ability to consistently meet BDAT treatment standards, while preferentially separating and condensing residual moisture and oils from the material.     

Management of hazardous waste in Thailand: present situation and future prospects

 This paper deals with the present scenario of hazardous waste management practices in Thailand, and gives some insights into future prospects. Industrialization in Thailand has systematically increased the generation of hazardous waste. The total hazardous waste generated in 2001 was 1.65 million tons. It is estimated that over 300 million kg/year of hazardous waste is generated from nonindustrial, community sources (e.g., batteries, fluorescent lamps, cleansing chemicals, pesticides). No special facilities are available for handling these wastes. There are neither well-established systems for separation, storage, collection, and transportation, nor the effective enforcement of regulations related to hazardous wastes management generated from industrial or nonindustrial sectors. Therefore, because of a lack of treatment and disposal facilities, these wastes find their way into municipal wastewaters, public landfills, nearby dump sites, or waterways, raising serious environmental concern. Furthermore, Thailand does not have an integrated regulatory framework regarding the monitoring and management of hazardous materials and wastes. In addition to the absence of a national definition of hazardous wastes, limited funding has caused significant impediments to the effective management of hazardous waste. Thus, current waste management practices in Thailand present significant potential hazards to humans and the environment. The challenging issues of hazardous waste management in Thailand are not only related to a scarcity of financial resources (required for treatment and disposal facilities), but also to the fact that there has been no development of appropriate technology following the principles of waste minimization and sustainable development. A holistic approach to achieving effective hazardous waste management that integrates the efforts of all sectors, government, private, and community, is needed for the betterment of human health and the environment. Received: February 26, 2001 / Accepted: October 11, 2002     

Chemical fixation,solidification of hazardous waste

Efficient, cost effective measures for the safe disposal of hazardous wastes have been developed to meet the needs of industries in Brisbane and the surrounding area. Liquid hazardous wastes are neutralised, oxidised, or reduced as appropriate, and fixed (solidified) by the addition of fly-ash and cement kiln dust to form a material of the consistency of coarse gravel. Fixation is performed in cells dug in solid clay, holding about 70 tonnes. Fixed material containing pesticides, paints or organic solvents is left in the clay cells, capped with clay; fixed inorganics and waste oils having no toxic contaminants are used for land contouring on the site. Leachate tests on the latter have been uniformly below 10 times USEPA Drinking Water guidelines — that is, 10 times better than the limits nominated by the EP Leach Test (1980). Bores around the site have detected no leachates during the past seven years. A simple but effective management system keeps wastes segregated and confirms the identity of each batch of waste on receipt. All costs are charged to the waste generator including costs of correcting errors.     

Efficiency of energy recovery from waste incineration,in the light of the new Waste Framework Directive

This paper deals with a key issue related to municipal waste incineration, which is the efficiency of energy recovery. A strong driver for improving the energy performances of waste-to-energy plants is the recent Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives), which allows high efficiency installations to benefit from a status of “recovery” rather than “disposal”. The change in designation means a step up in the waste hierarchy, where the lowest level of priority is now restricted to landfilling and low efficiency wastes incineration. The so-called “R1 formula” reported in the Directive, which counts for both production of power and heat, is critically analyzed and correlated to the more scientific-based approach of exergy efficiency. The results obtained for waste-to-energy plants currently operating in Europe reveal some significant differences in their performance, mainly related to the average size and to the availability of a heat market (district heating).     

The Ümraniye-Hekimbaşi open dump accident

The open dump of Ümraniye-Hekimbaşi was the main solid disposal site of the Asiatic side of Istanbul. At this site, which was in operation since 1976, 1500–2000 tonnes of solid wastes were disposed of daily. No waste compaction was undertaken during placement. The slope formed by the solid wastes was very steep (3 vertical to I horizontal), and recently demolition wastes were disposed of on top of these wastes. On 28 April 1993, an “explosion” took place, followed by the displacement of a large mass of solid wastes which engulfed II houses causing the death of 39 people. This paper investigates the possible reasons for this accident and concludes that it was caused by the initial sliding of the solid wastes, which were not deposited in a stable way, followed by an explosion of the methane generated and retained in the landfill.     

Hazardous and solid waste issues in Europe and related who activities

The overall goal of WHO is to co-operate with its Member States, and provide them with assistance on demand or as needed. Towards this end, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has implemented, over many years, programme activities related to the management of municipal and industrial solid waste, sewage sludge, hazardous waste, waste from hospitals and other health care facilities, and radioactive waste. The published results of the various activities include conclusions and recommendations addressed to national public and environmental health authorities and to the scientific and professional community, as a whole.In more specific terms, work has been completed in recent years on the impact on health from microbes and chemicals in sewage sludge applied to land, and from emissions of dioxin, furan, PAH and heavy metal compounds from municipal waste incinerators. Policy guidelines and a code of practice for the management of hazardous waste, prepared together with the United Nations Environment Programme UNEP, were published in six languages, including Chinese. At present, the emphasis is shifting to hazardous waste, and a study is under way on the health impact of hazardous waste containing certain identified “priority chemicals”. A code of practice is currently being used in work for the site selection for hazardous waste facilities, including landfills. There is also a plan for the training of national trainees in the sound management of hazardous waste. WHO/HQ, together with UNEP and the World Bank, are completing a text on the management of hazardous waste in developing countries. The first two volumes are expected to be published in 1988. A third volume with a number of national case studies is also being prepared. To assist WHO in its tasks, increase the effectiveness of results, and avoid duplication of activities, co-operation is being maintained with various individual experts, national institutes and authorities, and other international governmental and non-governmental organizations. Co-ordination of work and exchange of information is a matter of routine by means of periodic interagency consultations, participation in meetings of other organizations and country visits.     

How changing regulations determine biotreatment options for petroleum wastes

Remediation of refinery wastes is regulated by three major federal environmental statutes: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); other statutes apply, but to a lesser degree. During the past two years, RCRA's rules have effectively outlawed the passive biological treatment of primary refinery waste sludges in waste ponds and lagoons, even though the law recommends active biological treatment as the second stage in the waste treatment train. RCRA's land disposal restrictions may also outlaw land farming treatment for the bottom sludges involved in crude oil storage. Since 1980, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency listed an initial group of five waste streams as hazardous, the agency has listed two more waste streams and twenty-five organic constituents, several found in petroleum wastes. Now it is about to list fourteen more petroleum refining wastes and is studying the addition of fifteen more waste streams. Treatment standards and restrictions have also been promulgated. This article explores the biotreatment techniques and technologies that are still available to petroleum and environmental engineers.     

Managing transfrontier hazardous waste transport forms

The present study evaluates the implementation of the EC Directive concerning transfrontier movements of hazardous wastes. Two of the identified bottlenecks, i.e. “the surplus of forms” and “too long delay in returning forms,” were studied in greater detail. A comparison of the forms used in the international waste transport in Europe showed a redundancy of information in comparison with the EC form. This indicates substantial cost savings when the existing forms are replaced by a “single administrative document”, for which the EC form can serve as an example.     

Long-term leaching scenarios for cement-based waste forms

Cement-based waste forms (solidified wastes) are used for the long-term land disposal of industrial hazardous wastes. A cement-based waste form can be prepared by mixing a hydraulic cement and, if needed, a bulking agent with an aqueous waste to cause it to solidify.This article presents eight long-term leaching scenarios based on various properties of waste forms and contaminants as well as different hydraulic regimes and characteristics of groundwater. Each scenario takes the form of a simplified mathematical model used to predict leaching rates for periods of up to 100 years.The analysis demonstrates the importance of chemically fixing the contaminants in the matrix and illustrates the advantages of avoiding situations where ground-water flows through the waste. In situations where advective transport is negligible, leaching rates are limited by pore diffusion and tend to decrease with time.     

The incineration research facility

The Cincinnati-based Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA operates the Incineration Research Facility (IRF) in Jefferson, Arkansas. This facility's pilot-scale experimental incineration systems include a Rotary Kiln System and a Liquid Injection System. Each system incorporates primary and secondary combustors and associated waste handling equipment, process controllers, safety equipment and air pollution control devices. These “state-of-practice” incinerators are fully permitted to test the entire range of RCRA hazardous wastes normally encountered in the hazardous waste treatment industry. This paper reports the principal features and capabilities of the IRF.     

A study of the dental solid waste produced in a school of dentistry in Turkey

Dental wastes are regulated under medical waste control regulations in most countries. Even though the quantity of hazardous wastes in dental solid wastes is a small proportion, there is still cross infection risk and potential danger for environment associated with mismanaged wastes. For this reason, knowledge of waste composition and development of proper management alternatives are necessary. In this study, the composition of solid wastes coming from eight clinics of the dental school of a University hospital in Turkey is examined. Although the waste has some variations between the two samplings, the general picture is such that the major components remain pretty much the same (in terms of %) for a fixed clinic. The composition of waste changes from one clinic to the other as expected. However, one can deduce from the data obtained that at about 35%, rubber gloves constitute close to the half of the total solid waste in almost all the clinics. Other major component is paper forming approximately 30% of the solid waste. In general, total waste coming from the clinics is related with the number of procedures conducted on patients at the clinics. Only a small fraction of the waste is hazardous indicating that at Hacettepe University School of Dentistry, hazardous waste collection rules are obeyed in most of the times.     

Optimization of regional hazardous waste management systems: an improved formulation

The planning and design of regional hazardous waste management system (RHWMS) involves selection of treatment and disposal facilities, allocation of hazardous wastes and waste residues from generator to the treatment and disposal sites and selection of the transportation routes. An improved formulation based upon multi-objective integer programming approach is presented to arrive at the optimal configuration of RHWMS components. This formulation addresses important practical issues like unique characteristics of the hazardous wastes reflecting on waste–waste and waste–technology compatibility. A utility function approach is presented to integrate both cost and risk related objectives. An illustrative case example is presented to demonstrate the usefulness of the improved formulation as a tool which can be used by environmental planning agencies in regional planning for hazardous waste management.     

Hazard property classification of waste according to the recent propositions of the EC using different methods

Hazard classification of waste is a necessity, but the hazard properties (named “H” and soon “HP”) are still not all defined in a practical and operational manner at EU level. Following discussion of subsequent draft proposals from the Commission there is still no final decision. Methods to implement the proposals have recently been proposed: tests methods for physical risks, test batteries for aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity, an analytical package for exhaustive determination of organic substances and mineral elements, surrogate methods for the speciation of mineral elements in mineral substances in waste, and calculation methods for human toxicity and ecotoxicity with M factors.In this paper the different proposed methods have been applied to a large assortment of solid and liquid wastes (>1 0 0).Data for 45 wastes – documented with extensive chemical analysis and flammability test – were assessed in terms of the different HP criteria and results were compared to LoW for lack of an independent classification. For most waste streams the classification matches with the designation provided in the LoW. This indicates that the criteria used by LoW are similar to the HP limit values.This data set showed HP 14 ‘Ecotoxic chronic’ is the most discriminating HP. All wastes classified as acute ecotoxic are also chronic ecotoxic and the assessment of acute ecotoxicity separately is therefore not needed. The high number of HP 14 classified wastes is due to the very low limit values when stringent M factors are applied to total concentrations (worst case method). With M factor set to 1 the classification method is not sufficiently discriminating between hazardous and non-hazardous materials. The second most frequent hazard is HP 7 ‘Carcinogenic’. The third most frequent hazard is HP 10 ‘Toxic for reproduction’ and the fourth most frequent hazard is HP 4 “Irritant – skin irritation and eye damage”. In a stepwise approach, it seems relevant to assess HP 14 first, then, if the waste is not classified as hazardous, to assess subsequently HP 7, HP 10 and HP 4, and then if still not classified as hazardous, to assess the remaining properties.The elements triggering the HP 14 classification in order of importance are Zn, Cu, Pb, Cr, Cd and Hg. Progress in the speciation of Zn and Cu is essential for HP 14. Organics were quantified by the proposed method (AFNOR XP X30-489) and need no speciation. Organics can contribute significantly to intrinsic toxicity in many waste materials, but they are only of minor importance for the assessment of HP 14 as the metal concentrations are the main HP 14 classifiers. Organic compounds are however responsible for other toxicological characteristics (hormone disturbance, genotoxicity, reprotoxicity…) and shall be taken into account when the waste is not HP 14 classified.     

Environmental audits of hazardous waste disposal and treatment facilities

Hazardous waste generators have a duty of care in ensuring that their wastes are disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. Increasingly, generators are being made liable for environmental damage at the site of a waste disposal contractor if their wastes have been accepted by that facility. An audit procedure is described, that permits generators to examine the performance of waste vendors and to assess their potential liability as a result of using the site. Post-audit decisions in estimating the degree of risk and selecting appropriate waste contractors are also discussed.The purpose of this paper is to guide the prospective auditor through the site assessment procedure, highlighting areas of particular concern in relation to present or future potential liabilities. The audit procedure that is described, applies to all types of waste disposal operations in all countries, since the principles of good waste management do not vary.     

Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal

The main aim of this study was to develop a procedure that minimizes the wasting of space for the siting of hazardous waste landfills as part of a solid waste management system. We wanted to tackle the shortage of land for waste disposal that is a serious and growing problem in most large urban regions. The procedure combines a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach with a geographical information system (GIS). The GIS was utilised to obtain an initial screening in order to eliminate unsuitable areas, whereas the MCDA was developed to select the most suitable sites. The novelty of the proposed siting procedure is the introduction of a new screening phase before the macro-siting step aimed at producing a “land use map of potentially suitable areas” for the siting of solid waste facilities which simultaneously takes into consideration all plant types. The issue of obtaining sites evaluations of a specific facility was coupled with the issue of not wasting land appropriate to facilitate other types of waste management options. In the developed case study, the use of an innovative criteria weighting tool (the “Priority Scale”) in combination with the Analytic Hierarchy Process was useful to easier define the priorities of the evaluation criteria in comparison with other classic methods such as the Paired Comparison Technique in combination with the Simple Additive Weighting method.     

Hazardous chemical site remediation through capping: Problems with long-term protection

The capping of waste management units and contaminated soils is receiving increasing attention as a low-cost method for hazardous chemical site remediation. Capping is used to prevent further groundwater pollution by existing waste management units and contaminated soils through limiting the moisture that enters the wastes. In principle, for wastes located above the water table, the construction of an impermeable cap can prevent leaching of the wastes (leachate generation) and groundwater pollution. In practice, appropriately designed and constructed RCRA caps can provide for only short-term prevention of groundwater pollution. Alternative approaches are available for capping of wastes that can be effective in preventing moisture from entering the wastes and concomitant groundwater pollution. These approaches recognize the inability of the typical RCRA cap to keep wastes dry for as long as waste constituents will be a threat and, most importantly, provide the necessary funds to effectively address all plausible worst-case scenario failures that could occur at a capped waste management unit or contaminated soil area.     

Stabilization and delisting of hazardous wastes: An effective approach for reducing high sludge disposal costs

Delisting (up-front or not) of hazardous waste streams (with or without stabilization or any other form of treatment) can be an effective approach for reducing high sludge disposal costs because a nonhazardous classification of the waste will alleviate the financial burden associated with the disposal costs. Facilities may petition EPA to remove individual waste streams from regulation as listed hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA encourages the use of up-front delisting petitions because they have the advantage of allowing the applicant to know what treatment levels for constituents should be sufficient to render specific wastes nonhazardous before investing in new or modified waste treatment systems. Thus, up-front delisting allows new facilities to receive exclusions prior to generating wastes that, without upfront exclusions, would unnecessarily have been considered hazardous. On July 18, 1991, EPA proposed to use the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) when considering delisting petitions and evaluating the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. The use of the EPACML provides consistency in delisting decisions. Further, this new model allows a two-to-three-times higher dilution than the previously used Vertical and Horizontal Spread (VHS) model. This article presents case studies from several industry sectors where stabilization and delisting were used to manage wastes in a reliable, cost-effective, and environmentally sound manner.