MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE 665
in Europe and are marketed by a number of United States
companies. American ReFuel (Browning Ferris), Blount,
Ogden Martin, and Waste Management currently hold the
largest market share in terms of facilities operational and/or
under construction.
Air pollution controls utilized include electrostatic pre-
cipitators or baghouses (sometimes both) as well as acid gas
scrubbers where removal of HCl emissions is required. The
newest plants will also incorporate thermal treatment to limit
nitrous oxide emissions. The specific air pollution control
equipment employed at individual facilities depends upon the
requirements of the regulatory/permitting agencies (generally
states with federal oversight) and the ambient air classifica-
tion of the region in which the plant operates/will operate.
Nine plants continue to produce refuse derived fuel
(“RDF”) which supplements fossil fuel or is fired alone in
dedicated boilers. The average RDF plant processes 953 tons
per day of incoming solid waste.
Virtually all of the technology demonstration projects
originally funded by the federal government have ceased to
operate due to technical and or economic reasons. The only
exception is the Delaware Solid Waste Authority facility in
Wilmington, Delaware. This plant, originally designed and
built by Raytheon, continues to operate as part of an inte-
grated waste management system operated by the Authority.
The writer is unaware of any proposed new installations of
this particular technology.
A number of other alternative technologies have been
offered to communities by private entrepreneurs. They are
generally materials separation processes and a few more highly
technical approaches such as laser destruction of raw waste
and/or incinerator ash. These processes claim some success at
laboratory or bench scale demonstrations for mixed municipal
waste with some larger applications handling specific homo-
geneous waste streams. To the extent that larger operations
(on the order of at least several hundred tons per day through-
put) are built and evaluated over a number of years on mixed
municipal waste streams, their viability may be determined.
Environmental controls required at sanitary landfills
have become substantially more stringent over the past
several years as states have revised regulations due at least
in part to serious ground and surface water pollution prob-
lems arising from older sites without such controls. As a
result of these stricter regulations many environmentally
deficient sites were forced to close. This has resulted in a
disposal capacity shortfall in many areas, particularly in
the urbanized areas of Northeastern states.^43 Those sites
which remain as well as the limited number of new sites
being built must incorporate a variety of specialized con-
trols which a few years ago were not even required for
hazardous waste facilities. While it is impractical to list
the many variations in individual state regulations, an
overview of the proposed revised federal criteria for land
disposal mentioned above will serve to provide a good
indication of the minimum standards which will apply
nationally if the final regulation is adopted as proposed.
Obviously, there is no assurance that this will be the case
but the proposal certainly reflects the federal government’sbest analysis of the degree of control necessary. As such
it is worthy of some brief analysis. The discussion below
highlights only the technical aspects of the proposed cri-
teria and not the administrative concern such as facility
registration and similar issues.Location Restrictions: Areas of Special Concern- landfi lls within 10,000 feet of an airport would be
required to operate in a manner that precludes birds
attracted by solid waste from creating a hazard to
aviation - landfi lls located in 100-year fl oodplain would be
prohibited from restricting the fl ow of the 100-
year fl ood, reducing the temporary water stor-
age capacity of the fl oodplain, or resulting in the
washout of solid waste so as to pose a threat to
human health and the environment - new landfi lls may not be sited in wetlands absent a
demonstration that there is no practical alternative,
no signifi cant adverse environmental impacts, and
that relevant discharge standards will be met. - new landfi lls may not be sited within 200 feet
of faults which have had displacement during
Holocene time (i.e., within 11,000 years) - new landfi lls in seismic impact areas would be
required to be designed to resist ground motion
from earthquakes - landfills in unstable areas such as Karst terrain
would be required to incorporate engineering safety
design measures
Operating Criteria: Minimum Requirements- procedures for excluding the receipt of hazardous
waste - application of daily cover material
- control of disease vectors
- monitoring and control of explosive gases
- prohibition of open burning
- limitation of site access
- control of storm water run-on and run-off
- limitation of surface water discharges
- prohibition of bulk liquids
- record keeping
In addition to the above requirements, the proposed criteria
call for site closure and post-closure care criteria including
a minimum of 30 year maintenance and monitoring, estab-
lishment of financial security to ensure that these activities
are carried out. Finally there is a requirement that corrective
actions be taken in the event of identification of groundwater
contamination. 44,45
One area of note is increasing interest in landfill mining
as a source of combustible fuel, cover material for current
landfills, and the creation of new fill capacity in the airspace
vacated by the mined sections of a site. One such project wasC013_002_r03.indd 665C013_002_r03.indd 665 11/18/2005 2:27:22 PM11/18/2005 2:27:22 PM