Ground-water pollution and sanitary landfills. A critical review


Zanoni, A.E.

Ground water 10(1): 3-16

1972


The principal studies concerned with the groundwater pollution potential from sanitary landfills and dump grounds have been conducted in California, South Dakota, Illinois and England. These studies have all demonstrated that leachates are highly pollutional in characteristics, but once they pass into the surrounding soil regime, the attenuation mechanisms of dilution, adsorption and microbial degradation tend to reduce the impact of this loading on the underground-water supply. A survey of practice in twenty-one States in the United States regarding ground-water pollution from landfill operation showed that not much new research was underway; there was much variation in the code and laws dealing with ground-water pollution; and suggested distances from landfill to water wells varied from 50 to 1000 feet. Finally, based on the literature findings plus the result of the State survey, a set of recommendations are offered to minimize ground-water pollution problems stemming from landfill operations.

Ground
-Water
Pollution
and
Sanitary
Landfills
A
Critical
Review'
by
A.
E.
Zanoni
b
ABSTRACT
The
principal
studies
concerned
with
the
ground-
water
pollution
potential
from
sanitary
landfills
and
dump
grounds
have
been
conducted
in
California,
South
Dakota,
Illinois
and
England.
These
studies
have
all
demonstrated
that
leachates
are
highly
pollutional
in
characteristics,
but
once
they
pass
into
the
surrounding
soil
regime,
the
attenuation
mechanisms
of
dilution,
adsorption
and
micro-
bial
degradation
tend
to
reduce
the
impact
of
this
loading
on
the
underground
-water
supply.
A
survey
of
practice
in
twenty-one
States
in
the
United
States
regarding
ground
-water
pollution
from
land-
fill
operation
showed
that
not
much
new
research
was
underway;
there
was
much
variation
in
the
code
and
laws
dealing
with
ground
-water
pollution;
and
suggested
dis-
tances
from
landfill
to
water
wells
varied
from
50
to
1000
feet.
Finally,
based
on
the
literature
findings
plus
the
result
of
the
State
survey,
a
set
of
recommendations
are
offered
to
minimize
ground
-water
pollution
problems
stemming
from
landfill
operations.
INTRODUCTION
Ground
water
can
be
polluted
in
numerous
ways
in
spite
of
the
protective
mantle
which
nature
has
provided.
Liquid
pollutants
can
originate,
for
example,
from
waste
water
stabilization
ponds,
sludge
lagoons,
barnyard
runoff,
septic
tank
leach-
ing
fields
or
seepage
pits,
pit
privies
and
the
deep
well
disposal
of
certain
industrial
wastes
or
treat-
ment
plant
effluents.
Pollutants
can
also
originate
from
the
leachates
of
decomposing
solid
wastes
as
in
the
case
of
open
dumps,
sanitary
landfills,
solid
waste
composting
sites,
industrial
refuse,
and
treat-
ment
plant
sludges.
In
the
first
case
the
pollutants
are
already
dissolved
or
conveyed
by
the
liquid
stream,
whereas
in
the
second
case,
sufficient
water
must
pass
through
the
decomposing
mass
to
"leach
-
out"
the
pollutants
and
convey
them
to
the
ground
-water
source.
There
is
no
doubt
that
a
large
amount
of
the
solid
wastes
generated
in
the
coming
years,
or
the
residues
and
by-products
of
solid
waste
treatment
methods
presently
known
or
to
be
developed,
will
a
Presented
at
the
National
Ground
Water
Quality
Symposium,
Denver,
Colorado,
August
25-27,
1971.
bAssociate
Professor
of
Civil
Engineering,
Marquette
University,
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
53233.
Discussion
open
until
June
1,
1972.
Vol.
10,
No.
1
—GROUND
WATER
—January
-February
1972
be
deposited
on
the
land.
Vaughan
(1968),
in
his
interpretation
of
the
preliminary
findings
of
the
National
Solid
Wastes
Survey,
stated
that
the
aver-
age
amount
of
solid
waste
collected
in
the
U.
S.
is
over
5.3
pounds
per
person
per
day,
or
more
than
190
million
tons
per
year.
It
is
predicted
that
these
values
will
increase
to
8
pounds
per
person
per
day
and
340
million
tons
by
the
year
1980.
The
amount
of
waste
actually
generated
is
considerably
more
than
noted
above,
amounting
in
1967
to
10
pounds
of
household,
commercial
and
industrial
wastes
for
every
man,
woman
and
child
per
day,
totalling
over
360
million
tons
per
year.
It
is
fur-
ther
estimated
that
the
current
annual
expenditure
to
handle
and
dispose
of
these
wastes
in
this
country
is
$4.5
billion
per
year.
This
paper
is
concerned
with
the
ground
-water
pollution
potential
associated
with
the
operation
of
dumps,
sanitary
landfills,
and
any
other
practices
of
the
land
disposal
of
solid
wastes.
The
paper
first
includes
a
critical
review
of
the
important
literature
covering
the
area
of
the
ground
-water
pollution
potential
from
sanitary
landfills
and
dump
grounds.
This
is
followed
by
a
review
of
the
practices
in
21
States
in
the
U.
S.
related
to
this
same
topic.
Based
on
the
information
derived
from
these
two
sources,
a
series
of
recommendations
are
suggested
to
a
"regulatory
agency"
concerned
with
the
task
of
approving
and
licensing
of
solid
waste
disposal
sites.
Confusion
often
exists
in
a
paper
of
this
type
as
to
what
is
actually
meant
by
a
"sanitary
land-
fill."
An
often
quoted
definition
has
been
supplied
by
ASCE
(1959)
as
follows:
"Sanitary
landfill
is
a
method
of
disposing
of
refuse
on
land
without
creating
nuisances
or
hazards
to
public
health
or
safety,
by
utilizing
the
principles
of
engineering
to
confine
the
refuse
to
the
smallest
practical
area,
to
reduce
it
to
the
smallest
practical
volume,
and
to
cover
it
with
a
layer
of
earth
at
the
conclusion
of
each
day's
operation
or
at
such
more
frequent
intervals
as
may
be
necessary."
Using
the
above
definition
it
is
apparent
that
there
are
many
operations
involving
the
land
disposal
of
solid
wastes
which
certainly
do
not
come
under
the
strict
egis
of
a
sanitary
landfill.
This
fact
has
been
substantiated
by
Klee
(Vaughan,
1968)
who
ana-
3
lyzed
the
data
obtained
from
the
National
Solid
Wastes
Survey
on
over
6000
land
disposal
sites.
Using
the
modest
criteria
that
a
sanitary
landfill
is
one
in
which
there
is
daily
cover
of
refuse,
no
open
burning,
and
no
water
pollution
problem,
it
was
estimated
that
only
6
percent
of
the
6000
can
be
reasonably
characterized
as
"sanitary
landfills."
In
view
of
the
above
it
was
decided
for
the
purposes
of
this
paper
to
use
the
term
"sanitary
landfill"
or
simply
"landfill"
in
the
very
broadest
sense.
The
primary
concern
was
simply
what
effect
land
dis-
posal
of
refuse
or
solid
wastes
of
any
kind,
either
in
the
form
of
a
true
sanitary
landfill
or
an
open
dump,
has
on
the
ground
-water
quality
in
the
vicinity
of
the
operation.
LITERATURE
REVIEW
Major
Studies
After
examining
some
of
the
literature
in
this
area,
it
became
readily
apparent
that
certain
groups
or
States
had
conducted
and
are
still
conducting
most
of
the
research.
Without
doubt
since
the
early
1950's
there
has
been
more
activity
in
the
State
of
California
in
this
regard
than
any
other
State
in
the
country.
One
of
the
first
studies
was
an
in
depth
investigation
on
the
leaching
of
soluble
salts
and
alkalies
from
incinerator
ash
dumps
(State
of
Calif.,
1952).
Following
this
study,
the
City
of
Riverside
sanitary
landfill
was
used
as
the
site
for
the
in-
vestigating
of
the
leaching
properties
of
a
typical
municipal
refuse
(State
of
Calif.,
1954a;
Univ.
of
Calif.,
1955;
Univ.
of
Calif.,
1956).
Two
often
quoted
conclusions
from
this
study
regarding
the
effects
of
landfills
on
ground
-water
quality
are:
1.
"A
sanitary
landfill,
if
so
located
that
no
portion
of
it
intercepts
ground
water,
will
not
cause
impairment
of
the
ground
water
for
either
domestic
or
irrigational
uses."
2.
"A
sanitary
landfill,
if
so
located
as
to
be
in
inter-
mittent
or
continuous
contact
with
ground
water,
will
cause
the
ground
water
in
the
vicinity
of
the
landfill
to
become
grossly
polluted
and
unfit
for
domestic
or
irriga-
tional
uses."
In
1961
another
report
was
written
entitled,
Effects
of
Refuse
Dumps
on
Ground
-Water
Quality
with
the
main
purpose
of
collecting
all
available
data
on
the
extent
of
pollution
of
ground
water
from
dump
leachates,
and
to
make
recommendations
for
future
research
programs
to
fill
any
gaps
in
knowledge
available
(State
of
Calif.,
1961).
The
report
in-
cluded
a
good
literature
review
of
such
topics
as
vertical
water
movement,
decomposition
process,
gas
production
and
movement,
leaching,
and
travel
of
pollution.
The
concern
about
gas
production
in
recent
years
was
the
impetus
for
the
initiation
of
another
study
entitled,
In
-situ
Investigation
of
4
Movements
of
Gases
Produced
from
Decomposing
Refuse
(State
of
Calif.,
1965;
State
of
Calif.,
1967;
Bishop,
Carter
and
Ludwig,
1966).
This
study
proved
to
be
of
interest
since
up
to
that
time
most
work
had
been
done
on
the
question
of
refuse
leachates
affecting
ground
-water
supplies,
whereas,
practically
no
work
had
been
done
on
refuse
-
produced
gases
as
potential
ground
-water
pol-
lutants.
Merz
and
coworkers
(Merz,
1969)
of
the
University
of
Southern
California
conducted
a
five
year
study
on
sanitary
landfills
using
four
specially
constructed
cells
at
the
Spadra
Landfill
operated
by
the
Los
Angeles
County
Sanitation
District.
Finally,
in
1965,
the
California
Legislature
directed
that
a
study
be
made
of
water
quality
problems
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
-Delta
area
including
water
contami-
nation
and
pollution.
resulting
from
disposal
of
solid
wastes.
This
study
resulted
in
the
preparation
of
a
report
entitled,
A
Study
of
Solid
Wastes
Dis-
posal
and
Their
Effect
on
Water
Quality
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
-Delta
Area
(Calif.
Water
Board,
1968).
One
chapter
in
the
report
entitled,
"Influ-
ence
of
Solid
Wastes
on
Water
Quality"
presents
a
short
review
of
some
of
the
literature
on
leachates
and
gas
production
from
disposal
sites.
Reference
is
particularly
made
to
past
California
studies.
In-
cluded
also
is
a
rather
extensive
survey
of
all
land
disposal
sites
in
the
Bay
-Delta
area
from
the
stand-
point
of
surface
and
ground
-water
quality.
A
water
quality
evaluation
scheme
was
worked
out
and
ap-
plied
to
each
disposal
site.
Andersen
and
Dornbush
(1967,
1968)
of
South
Dakota
State
University
have
been
studying,
over
a
period
of
almost
ten
years,
the
effects
on
ground
-water
quality
of
dumping
refuse
from
the
city
of
Brookings
in
an
abandoned
gravel
pit
lo-
cated
2
miles
south
of
the
community.
The
ground-
water
table
at
the
site
is
about
6
1
/
2
feet
below
ground
surface
and
the
principal
geological
feature
of
the
area
is
a
sandy
-gravel
outwash
covered
at
the
surface
by
about
a
one
foot
clay
and
silt
alluvium.
The
cation
exchange
capacity
of
the
area
was
felt
to
be
very
low.
The
estimated
ground
-water
veloci-
ties
are
in
the
range
of
1
to
3
feet
per
day.
Through-
out
the
study
period,
a
total
of
45
test
wells
have
been
constructed
"upstream"
and
"downstream"
of
the
dump
area.
After
some
preliminary
studies,
they
found
that
chloride,
sodium,
specific
conduct-
ance,
and
total
and
calcium
hardness
were
the
inorganic
parameters
of
ground
-water
quality
which
could
be
used
most
effectively
to
denote
any
changes
attributable
to
leachates
from
the
disposal
area.
On
the
basis
of
statistical
studies
they
found
that
chloride
level
is
the
most
sensitive
parameter
with
wells,
for
example,
in
the
center
of
the
dis-
posal
area
experiencing
a
50
fold
increase
in
con-
centrations
in
comparison
to
the
unaffected
ground
water.
Isoconcentration
lines
drawn
for
hardness
and
specific
conductance
demonstrated
clearly
that
the
significant
leaching
effects
of
these
two
param-
eters
on
ground
-water
quality
remained
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
disposal
area.
High
con-
centrations
of
these
parameters
were
confined
to
a
relatively
narrow
band
but
extended
as
far
as
1000
feet
from
the
landfill
disposal
area.
The
most
recent
work
at
the
Brookings
site
has
been
directed
toward
an
evaluation
of
the
effects
of
constructing
a
long
trench
on
the
quality
of
the
degraded
water
fl
ow-
ing
from
the
disposal
area.
The
trench
was
con-
structed
along
the
downstream
edge
of
the
disposal
site.
Upon
an
evaluation
of
the
water
quality
data
above
and
below
the
trench,
it
was
concluded
that
the
intercepting
trench
improved
the
quality
of
the
degraded
ground
water
fl
owing
from
the
fill
area.
It
was
felt
that
this
beneficial
effect
was
caused
by
the
dilution
and
photosynthetic
activity
afforded
by
the
surface
water.
A
number
of
studies
have
also
been
conducted
in
England
through
the
years.
One
often
referred
to
study
is
called,
Pollution
of
Water
by
Tipped
Refuse
(Ministry
of
Housing
and
Local
Govern.,
1961)
in
which
the
leaching
properties
of
a
landfill
were
compared
under
"dry"
and
"wet"
conditions.
In
the
case
of
the
former,
the
refuse
was
dumped
under
dry
conditions
and
a
known
amount
of
water
was
applied
to
the
refuse;
whereas
in
the
case
of
the
latter,
the
refuse
was
dumped
into
water.
Con-
siderably
more
pollutional
matter
was
leached
from
the
refuse
under
the
wet
conditions
and
during
a
shorter
period
of
time.
The
publication
also
in-
cludes
some
work
on
the
possibility
of
setting
up
a
landfill
site
to
collect
all
leachates,
direct
them
to
a
central
point
and
provide
treatment
prior
to
dis-
posal
just
like
any
other
waste
water,
and
the
possibility
of
removing
stabilized
refuse
from
an
"ideal"
site
for
the
reuse
of
a
fresh
refuse.
More
recently,
a
symposium
was
held
on
"The
Effects
of
Tipped
Domestic
Refuse
on
Ground
-Water
Quality"
in
which
the
results
of
four
investigators
were
re-
ported
(Water
Treatment
and
Examination,
1969).
None
presented
evidence
of
any
serious
degradation
in
ground
-water
quality
resulting
from
the
land
disposal
of
solid
wastes.
Some
of
the
most
useful
studies
in
recent
years
on
landfill
site
selection
and
evaluation
from
the
standpoint
of
practical
applicability
of
the
information
have
been
conducted
by
investigators
of
the
Illinois
State
Geological
Survey.
Hughes
(1967),
for
example,
wrote
a
very
helpful
publica-
tion
on
a
methodology
for
evaluating
a
disposal
site
considering
the
hydrologic
environment
of
the
site
and
the
method
of
disposal.
He
stressed
that
climatic,
hydrologic,
and
geologic
factors
strongly
influence
the
production
and
spread
of
contami-
nants
from
landfill
sites,
and
therefore
it
is
danger-
ous
to
over
-generalize
the
findings
from
one
area
to
another.
Cartwright
and
McComas
(1968)
con-
ducted
earth
resistivity
and
soil
temperature
sur-
veys
around
four
sanitary
landfills
in
northeastern
Illinois
and
concluded
that,
"Geophysical
surveys
are
not
a
substitute
for
hydro
-
geologic
studies,
but
can
be
used
with
moderate
control
as
a
preliminary
tool
in
the
investigation
of
sanitary
landfills,
and
can
be
extremely
useful
in
the
location
of
piezometerc
for
detail
studies."
Bergstrom
(1968a,
1968b)
discussed
the
feasibility
of
disposing
of
industrial
wastes
into
deep
geo-
logical
formations
in
the
State
of
Illinois.
He
(Bergstrom,
1968c)
also
discussed
in
general
the
disposal
of
wastes
of
all
types
in
the
ground
from
the
broad
standpoint
of
waste
management.
He
stated
that
instead
of
viewing
waste
disposal
on
land
immediately
as
a
ground
-water
pollution
prob-
lem,
many
ground
-water
workers
are
beginning
to
take
a
more
positive
role
by
studying
and
classify-
ing
hydrogeologic
environments
relative
to
waste
disposal.
Cartwright
and
Sherman
(1969)
wrote
an
interesting
and
very
useful
document
entitled
Eval-
uating
Sanitary
Landfill
Sites
in
Illinois
in
which
they
point
out,
among
other
things,
that
limestone
quarries
and
gravel
pits
are
rarely,
if
ever,
accepta-
ble
refuse
disposal
sites
from
a
hydrogeologic
stand-
point,
but
that
sanitary
landfills
can
be
located
in
relatively
impermeable,
or
slowly
permeable,
ma-
terial
so
that
movement
of
refuse
leachate
will
be
retarded.
Hughes,
Landon
and
Farvolden
(1969)
have
reported
on
a
study
describing
the
hydro
-
geologic
environments
in
the
vicinity
of
four
existing
landfill
sites
in
northeastern
Illinois,
in
order
to
determine
the
controls
on
the
movement
of
the
ground
water
and
the
solids
dissolved
in
the
ground
water.
The
intention
was
that
this
informa-
tion
can
then
be
used
by
regulatory
agencies
to
help
determine
environments
most
suitable
for
near
-surface
disposal
of
waste
insofar
as
contamina-
tion
of
ground
water
and
surface
water
is
con-
cerned.
The
report
has
a
great
deal
of
practical
information
to
aid
the
reader
in
this
regard.
Remson,
Fungaroli
and
others
of
the
Drexel
Institute
of
Technology,
have
been
involved
in
studies
on
ground
-water
pollution
potential
of
sanitary
landfills
for
several
years.
Two
recent
reports
were
published
containing
useful
informa-
tion
on
the
design
of
a
laboratory
lysimeter
for
sanitary
landfill
investigations,
and
the
design
of
a
sanitary
landfill
field
experiment
installation
(Fungaroli,
Steiner
and
Remson,
1968;
Fungaroli,
Steiner,
Emrich
and
Remson,
1968).
Though
both
5
of
these
publications
do
not
contain
any
actual
operating
data
and
results,
they
do
provide
useful
hints
for
anyone
interested
in
instigating
an
investi-
gation
of
this
type.
In
another
publication
(Remson,
Fungaroli
and
Lawrence,
1968)
the
authors
proposed
a
method
of
moisture
routing
first
through
the
soil
cover
and
then
through
the
underlying
compacted
refuse.
Their
method
was
illustrated
by
its
application
to
a
hypothetical
landfill.
A
series
of
papers
have
been
published
by
LeGrand
(1964a,
1964b,
1965,
1968)
of
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
on
the
general
topic
of
ground-
water
contamination
from
various
sources.
In
these
papers
he
presents
a
point
evaluation
system
for
assessing
the
contamination
potential
of
a
waste
disposal
site,
a
very
basic
and
informative
discussion
on
the
management
aspects
of
ground
-water
con-
tamination,
the
use
of
"malenclaves"
for
estimating
the
areal
extent
of
contaminants
in
the
ground,
and
a
methodology
of
approaching
a
ground
-water
monitoring
program.
Other
Studies
In
addition
to
the
groups
or
States
which
have
been
reported
above,
a
number
of
other
studies
have
been
conducted
on
the
general
topic
of
ground
-water
pollution
from
sanitary
landfills.
Qasim
and
Burchinal
(1970a,
1970b)
studied
the
chemical
and
pollutional
characteristics
of
leachates
from
different
heights
of
refuse
columns
containing
similar
fill
materials
of
approximately
the
same
age,
and
operating
under
similar
conditions
of
percola-
tion
and
leaching.
An
interesting
conclusion
from
their
study
was
the
suggestion
that
deeper
fills
pose
less
of
a
pollution
problem
than
do
the
shallow
fills
simply
because
the
rate
of
pollution
production
is
greater initially
in
the
case
of
the
latter.
Kaufmann
(1969a,
1969b)
has
written
a
good
review
on
the
topic
of
hydrogeological
aspects
of
the
disposal
of
solid
wastes
on
the
ground,
in
addition
to
presenting
some
preliminary
findings
on
his
current
investigation
on
the
over-all
hydro
-
geology
of
two
sanitary
landfills
in
the
Madison,
Wisconsin
area.
Landon
(1969),
who
feels
that
site
selection
for
final
disposal
of
solid
wastes
is
one
of
today's
most
critical
solid
wastes
problems,
wrote
an
interesting
paper
to
show
the
necessity
and
application
of
hydrogeologic
knowledge
and
con-
cepts
to
the
selection
of
refuse
disposal
sites.
The
use
of
resistivity
measurements
for
economically
obtaining
hydrogeological
information
on
a
poten-
tial
landfill
site
and
operating
landfill
sites
appears
to
have
merit,
according
to
findings
of
Page
(1968)
and
Warner
(1969).
Finally,
Hart
(1967)
reported
briefly
on
a
study
which
has
been
going
on
for
6
three
years
at
the
West
Berlin,
Germany
landfill
to
determine
the
effect
of
the
compaction
of
refuse
upon
the
water
regime
within
the
fill.
General
References
There
are
a
number
of
references
which
in-
clude
a
general
discussion
of
the
relationship
be-
tween
sanitary
landfills
and
ground
-water
pollution
problems.
Most
of
these
sources
present
brief
summaries
of
the
studies
which
have
already
been
presented
in
this
paper,
particularly
the
California
studies.
Some
are
fairly
complete
and
helpful
while
others
are
quite
brief
and
of
limited
usefulness
regarding
the
topic
at
hand.
The
main
point
is
that
by
reviewing
several
of
these
sources
one
can
obtain
a
general
overview
on
the
ground
-water
pollution
solid
waste
disposal
relationship.
Cummins
(1968)
wrote
a
short
review
-type
report
entitled,
Effects
of
Land
Disposal
of
Solid
Wastes
on
Water
Quality.
Most
of
the
important
studies
are
included
in
the
15
references
cited,
but
very
little
detail
on
results
is
included.
Golueke
(1968)
wrote
a
300
page
report
which
includes
ab-
stracts
and
excerpts
from
the
literature
on
the
broad
topic
of
solid
waste
management.
Because
of
the
nature
of
the
topic,
it
is
not
surprising
that
some
of
the
important
investigations
in
the
area
of
ground
-water
pollution
do
not
appear
in
this
publication.
Two
of
the
ASCE—Manuals
of
Engi-
neering
Practice
(ASCE,
1959;
1961)
include
a
short
discussion
on
ground
-water
pollution.
The
same
is
true
for
the
APWA
book,
Municipal
Refuse
Disposal
(APWA,
1966).
All
three
of
these
dis-
cussions
draw
mainly
from
the
California
studies.
Sorg
and
Hickman
(1968)
have
written
a
small,
semitechnical
report
for
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
entitled,
Sanitary
Landfill
Facts
which
includes
some
discussion
of
water
pollution
prob-
lems.
A
bibliography
is
added
to
the
end
of
the
report.
The
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
has
also
made
available
a
number
of
helpful
bibliographies
on
the
topic
of
sanitary
landfills
specifically,
and
refuse
collection
and
disposal
in
general
(Steiner
and
Kantz,
1968;
U.
S.
Dept.
of
H.E.W.,
1954-
1963).
The
sanitary
landfill
bibliography
was
pre-
pared
by
Steiner
and
Kantz
of
Drexel
Institute
of
Technology
and
covers
the
literature
for
the
period
1925
to
1968.
Finally
Weaver
(1956)
and
Black
(1965)
have
briefly
discussed
the
ground
-water
pollution
problems
in
some
of
their
writings
on
sanitary
landfills.
Health
and
Nuisance
Problems
Considering
the
tremendous
amount
of
solid
wastes
which
have
been
deposited
on
the
land,
there
are
still
relatively
few
recorded
instances
of
serious
ground
-water
pollution
problems
linked
to
leachates
from
landfills
and
dump
grounds.
No
doubt
there
have
been
probably
many
small
localized
nuisance
conditions
which
have
never
been
reported.
There
have
also
been
and
still
are
many
cases
in
which
impairment
of
water
quality
has
not
been
detected
because
there
have
been
no
noticeable
deleterious
effects
traceable
to
the
water
being
used.
A
review
of
some
of
the
health
and
nuisance
problems
recorded
is
presented
below.
Some
of
the
information
on
instances
reported
are
quite
detailed
and
very
specific;
whereas,
many
others
are
similar
to
the
following
statement
taken
from
a
1953
Joint
Study
of
the
HEW
Department
and
APHA
entitled,
Refuse
Collection
and
Disposal
for
the
Small
Community
(1953):
"Landfills
should
be
so
located
that
seepage
from
them
will
not
cause
hazards
or
nuisances."
Forty
years
ago,
Calvert
(1932)
reported
on
the
deterioration
of
a
well
water
caused
by
the
pit
disposal
of
liquor
drained
from
cooked
garbage.
The
well
water
before
and
after
contamination
showed
a
substantial
increase
in
iron,
total
hard-
ness,
total
solids,
CO,
and
total
organic
nitrogen.
The
University
of
California
(1952)
in
1952
con-
ducted
field
studies
on
refuse
collection
and
dis-
posal
operation
in
13
California
cities.
In
the
section
on
public
health
problems,
no
mention
was
made
of
ground
-water
pollution
problems
other
than
a
minor
reference
that
the
possibility
of
ground
-water
contamination
should
be
considered
in
selecting
a
site for
landfill
disposal
of
refuse.
Publication
No.
24
of
the
California
State
Water
Pollution
Control
Board
(State
of
Calif.,
1961)
includes
several
pages
on
the
reported
experiences
from
the
literature
on
health
and
nuisance
prob-
lems.
The
ASCE
publication
Ground
Water
Basin
Management
(ASCE,
1961)
makes
reference
to
potential
ground
-water
pollution
problems
from
disposal
of
wastes
of'any
kind
on
the
land.
A
listing
of
typical
industrial
wastes
together
with
common
characteristics
affecting
ground
water
are
presented
in
the
document.
Anderson
(1964)
(APWA,
1963)
has
written
on
the
general
topic
of
the
public
health
aspects
of
solid
waste
disposal
and
includes
potential
water
pollution
problems
as
one
of
the
matters
of
public
health
concern.
Hanks
(1967)
in
1967
wrote
a
very
detailed
and
well
referenced
report
for
the
Solid
Wastes
Program
of
the
U.S.P.H.
S.
on
the
Solid
Waste
-Disease
Relationships.
Under
the
topic
of
diseases
associated
with
chemical
wastes,
several
references
are
cited
on
the
pollution
of
ground
water
from
the
leachates
of
sanitary
landfills.
A
frequently
mentioned
report
on
the
subject
of
ground
water
is
one
entitled,
Ground
Water
Contamination
which
presents
the
proceed-
ings
of
a
1961
symposium
(Robert
A.
'Taft
San.
Engrg.
Center,
1961).
In
the
session
dealing
with
specific
incidents
of
contamination
of
ground
wa-
ter,
Weaver
discussed
the
significance
of
refuse
disposal
in
this
regard,
using
to
a
great
extent
data
from
the
California
studies
of
Merz
and
others.
Chapter
five
of
Sanitary
Landfill,
(ASCE,
1959),
a
publication
of
ASCE,
is
entitled
"Public
Health
and
Nuisance
Considerations,"
and
includes
a
section
on
water
pollution.
Walker
(1969)
recently
wrote
a
very
interesting
paper
on
ground
-water
pollution
in
Illinois,
and
one
of
the
pollution
categories
he
considered
was
that
of
garbage
disposal.
He
makes
the
statement:
"Serious
contamination
of
the
ground
-water
reservoirs
near
these
dumps
(garbage
dumps)
can
readily
occur
if
the
bottom
of
the
depressions
is
below
the
water
table,
or
if
the
earth
material
separating
the
dump
from
the
aquifer
is
primarily
silt,
sand,
or
other
relatively
permeable
material."
He
presented
two
actual
cases
of
pollution
of
ground
-water
supplies
traceable
to
leachates
from
garbage
dumps.
As
pail
of
the
City
of
Santa
Clara
demonstration
landfill
study,
Stone
and
Friedland
(1969)
conducted
a
survey
of
American
cities
with
populations
greater
than
10,000.
They
received
replies
from
120
landfill
sites
operated
by
102
governmental
agencies
serving
a
combined
popula-
tion
of
17,800,000.
Ground
pollution
problems
were
reported
at
11
of
the
sites
or
approximately
9
percent
of
the
total
120
sites.
Williams
(1969),
who
discussed
the
over-all
topic
of
ground
-water
pollu-
tion,
claimed
that:
"Sanitary
landfill
seepage
into
sand
or
an
overly
deep
excavation
for
a
lagoon
so
that
shallow
subsurface
water
in
the
stream
alluvium
is
intercepted,
are
two
of
the
most
common
ways
of
polluting
shallow
ground
-water
supplies."
An
interesting
case
of
the
contamination
of
a
ground
-water
supply
by
an
industrial
waste
has
been
reported
(Mpls.
Trib.,
1968).
A
large
company
in
the
Minneapolis
-St.
Paul
area
dumped
isopropyl
ether
in
a
disposal
site
for
several
years
before
it
was
realized
that
the
industrial
solvent
contami-
nated
the
aquifer.
The
company
had
to
spend
$600,000
to
remedy
the
situation.
Another
exam-
ple
of
how
an
industrial
waste
landfill
can
affect
a
public
water
supply
is
the
case
of
Kansas
City,
Missouri,
reported
by
Hopkins
and
Popalisky
(1970).
Two
additional
interesting
publications
should
be
noted
at
this
point,
though
they
are
not
specif-
ically
addressed
to
the
topic
of
ground
-water
pollu-
tion
from
refuse
decomposition
on
the
land.
One
of
the
reports
entitled
Investigation
of
Travel
of
Pollution
(State
of
Calif.,
1954b)
is
concerned
with
the
artificial
recharge
of
aquifers
with
sewage
treat-
ment
plant
effluents,
and
thus
the
principal
item
of
7
concern
is
the
fate
of
microorganisms,
and
organic
and
inorganic
chemicals
as
the
liquid
passes
through
the
subterranean
soil.
The
report
includes
a
litera-
ture
review
on
the
subject.
The
second
report
entitled
Status
of
Knowledge
of
Ground
Water
Contaminants
(Stanley
and
Eliassen,
1961)
includes
a
very
comprehensive
literature
search
including
better
than
700
references
on
the
characteristics
and
status
of
knowledge
on
the
various
contami-
nants
which
can
be
found
in
ground
water.
This
report
can
serve
as
a
valuable
reference
when
specific
information
is
desired
on
the
effects
of
a
particular
leachate
chemical.
DISCUSSION
OF
THE
LITERATURE
FINDINGS
After
some
review
of
the
literature
on
sanitary
landfills,
one
point
becomes
clear
almost
immedi-
ately;
that
is,
there
are
very
few
case
histories
of
serious
or
even
troublesome
contamination
of
ground
water
which
are
directly
attributable
to
the
leachates
from
sanitary
landfills.
To
be
sure
there
may
have
been
many
such
instances
which
were
simply
not
reported.
Even
more
probable,
there
may
be
many
unknown
cases
currently
of
people
routinely
using
water
impaired
in
quality
somewhat
as
the
result
of
the
land
disposal
of
solid
wastes.
The
writer,
for
example,
has
not
learned
of
a
single
person
who
has
died
as
the
result
of
ground
water
being
contaminated
by
a
landfill.
Consider-
ing
the
number
of
landfills
past
and
present
and
the
amount
and
variety
of
solid
wastes
generated
in
our
modern
technological
society,
this
is
a
remarkable
situation.
This
statement
is
not
made
at
the
outset
of
this
discussion
to
belittle
the
potential
for
serious
harm
to
many
people
through
this
mechanism,
nor
to
cast
any
aspersions
on
the
fine
research
which
has
been
and
currently
is
still
being
done
in
this
area.
But,
nonetheless,
this
point
is
most
critical
when
considering
recommendations
for
future
action
in
this
area,
since
it
is
this
type
of
statistic
which
ultimately
motivates
action
in
any
similar
activity.
For
example,
the
greatest
impetus
for
improved
public
water
treatment
and
distribu-
tion
works
at
the
turn
of
the
century
was
no
doubt
the
20
to
30
typhoid deaths
per
100,000
popula-
tion
per
annum
occurring
at
that
time.
This
situation
attests
to
the
almost
miraculous
capability
of
most
soils
to
attenuate
the
leachates
generated
from
sanitary
landfills.
From
the
results
of
the
literature,
there
is
no
question
that
these
concentrated
leachates
are
of
extremely
high
pollu-
tion
strength.
There
are
few
industrial
waste
flows
that
would
match
this
material
and
without
doubt
no
responsible
governmental
agency
would
tolerate
the
discharge
of
a
material
like
this
untreated
into
a
surface
body
of
water.
There
is
an
important
8
difference
in
the
subterranean
regime,
however.
The
soil
provides
the
site
for
active
microbial
degrada-
tion
of
the
organics
which
are
present
in
the
leachates.
The
inorganics
are
adsorbed
to
the
soil
surface
and
many
of
the
more
undesirable
ions
are
exchanged
for
the
more
desirable
ones.
The
ex-
tremely
low
velocity
of
the
underground
-water
resource
provides
the
necessary
time
for
these
activities
to
reach
a
fair
degree
of
stabilization,
thus
confining
most
of
the
degradation
processes
to
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
landfill.
The
soluble
end
products
are
attenuated
even
further
by
the
sheer
vastness
of
the
underground
-water
body
by
the
simple
mechanism
of
dilution.
The
highly
soluble
chloride
ion
provides
a
useful
tracer
for
the
situa-
tion
described
above.
In
most
of
the
research
studies
examined,
the
chloride
concentration
in
the
leachate
directly
below
the
landfill
was
always
extremely
high.
The
chloride
concentration
dropped
drastically
in
water
samples
taken
only
a
short
distance
from
the
landfill
operation.
At
dis-
tances
of
several
hundred
feet
the
concentration
drops
down
to
almost
native
or
background
levels.
Unfortunately
the
described
process
does
not
hold
true
to
the
same
degree
for
all
geological
formations,
and
therein
lies
the
crux
of
the
prob-
lem.
The
above
will
usually
hold
true
for
uncon-
solidated
formations
consisting
of
varying
propor-
tions
of
clay,
silt,
fine
sand
and
loam
with
low
to
medium
permeabilities.
For
unconsolidated
materi-
als
of
coarse
sand
and
gravels
with
high
permeabili-
ties
or
consolidated
materials
such
as
limestone
or
shale
with
fissures,
faults
or
fractures
of
any
kind,
the
protective
mechanism
breaks
down
because
of
one
important
reason,
that
is,
time.
In
formations
of
the
latter
type
there
is
much
less
time
available
for
the
degradation
process
to
take
place
within
the
vicinity
of
leachate
generation
because
the
underground
velocities
are
much
higher.
Thus
par-
tially
"treated"
and
poorly
diluted
leachates
can
appear
at
greater
distances
from
the
landfill.
The
assumption
made
here
is
that
the
ground
-water
fl
ow
is
through
and
away
from
the
landfill
site.
If
all
the
flow
lines
are
directed
toward
the
site
this
situation
will
not
necessarily
occur
and
what
probably
will
happen
is
that
the
ground
water
will
discharge
at
the
surface
somewhere
nearby.
Such
a
situation
could
then
have
a
deleterious
effect
on
the
surface
supply.
It
is
convenient
to
think
of
a
mass
of
refuse
stored
in
a
landfill
site
as
representing
a
certain
mass
or
quantity
of
pollutants.
Some
of
the
re-
searchers
have
in
fact
done
just
this
when
they
express
specific
leachate
constituents
in
terms
of
weight
per
cubic
yard
or
per
ton
of
deposited
refuse.
This
mass
of
pollutants
will
eventually
be
generated
from
the
landfill,
since
the
processes
of
weathering
and
biological
degradation
always
take
place.
The
important
variable
again
is
time.
In
order
to
speed
up
the
degradation
and
weathering
proc-
ess,
moisture
and
favorable
temperature
are
neces-
sary.
Usually
temperature
is
not
a
restricting
factor
even
in
northern
latitudes
since
the
interior
of
the
refuse
mass
is
insulated
from
the
ambient
tempera-
ture
and
the
degradation
process
is
exothermic
in
character.
Available
moisture
then
becomes
the
limiting
factor.
Rapid
degradation
will
occur
in
a
more
loosely
packed
landfill
where
surface
waters
are
permitted
to
percolate
freely
through
the
refuse.
The
degradation
process
can
be
slowed
up
considerably
by
allowing
less
surface
water
to
pass
through
the
fill.
It
is
virtually
impossible
to
abate
completely
this
activity.
Obviously
if
the
degrada-
tion
process
is
retarded
by
restricting
passage
of
water
in
any
way,
more
time
will
be
allowed
for
the
natural
attenuation
process
to
take
place
be-
yond
the
landfill
site.
A
combination
of
retarded
degradation
in
a
geologic
formation
of
ideal
attenu-
ation
provides
the
least
likelihood
of
serious
ground
-water
deterioration.
Speeding
up
the
degra-
dation
process
imposes
a
greater
load
on
the
sur-
rounding
geologic
formation;
and
if
the
geologic
formation
is
a
poor
one,
the
problem
is
com-
pounded.
Again
it
must
be
remembered
that
the
same
pollutional
mass
is
involved
in
both
cases.
It
is
possible
to
engineer
and
operate
a
landfill
operation
with
the
intent
of
minimizing
the
amount
of
percolation
through
the
deposited
material.
Bottom
liners
of
various
types,
high
degree
of
refuse
compaction,
shredding,
and
highly
impervious
earth
covers
are
examples
of
what
can
be
done.
These
measures
would,
on
the
other
hand,
be
highly
ineffective
in
situations
where
the
moisture
sources
originate
from
below
the
landfill.
There
is
no
question
that
in
areas
where
wide
fl
uc-
tuations
in
the
ground
-water
table
occur
to
the
point
where
the
refuse
becomes
repeatedly
satu-
rated
with
water
and
then
drained,
the
degradation
process
is
intensified
to
probably
its
optimum
level.
If
the
attenuation
capability
of
the
geologic
forma-
tion
surrounding
this
site
is
limited,
a
situation
again
exists
for
serious
pollution
of
the
ground
water.
Some
in
the
field
of
solid
waste
disposal
argue
that
a
landfill
should
be
designed
for
optimum
degradation
and
weathering
to
occur.
This
means
that
an
ample
amount
of
water
should
be
per-
mitted
to
percolate
through
the
fill.
It
also
means
that
the
leachates
must
then
be
collected
in
a
drain
system
and
treated
prior
to
discharge
to
a
surface
water
body
or
possibly
back
through
the
fill.
After
a
reasonable
degree
of
stabilization
has
occurred
the
leachates
will
no
longer
be
collected
in
the
drain system
but
allowed
to
pass
into
the
surround-
ing
soil.
In
this
way
they
argue
that
the
degradation
process
can
be
controlled
as
desired
and
the
possi-
bility
of
future
pollution
problems
is
reduced
considerably.
Some
for
example
argue
that
huge
quantities
of
stored
refuse
located
in
the
earth
close
to
large
population
centers
are
akin
to
geo-
logic
pollutional
"time
bombs"
which
could
be
very
troublesome
to
future
generations.
There
is
no
doubt
that
landfill
sites
can
be
engineered
to
speed
up
the
degradation
process
and
collect
and
treat
the
leachate.
However,
the
economics
of
this
arrange-
ment
may
favor
other
disposal
methods
which,
relative
to
traditional
landfills,
were
formerly
con-
sidered
too
expensive.
Another
point
becomes
quite
apparent
after
reviewing
the
literature
in
this
area.
Much
more
geologic,
or
more
specifically,
hydrogeologic
ex-
pertise
should
be
employed
prior
to
the
selection
of
a
landfill
site.
Someone
with
training
in
hydro
-
geology
can
establish
with
a
fair
degree
of
accuracy
upon
an
examination
of
the
site
and
often
with
a
limited
amount
of
field
testing
what
the
leachate
attenuation
potential
of
a
site
will
be
and
if
the
cover
material
will
permit
a
slow
or
rapid
percola-
tion
of
water
into
the
fill.
Too
many
landfill
sites
are
selected
on
a
purely
political,
economic
or
con-
venience
basis
with
no
or
little
attention
given
the
geology
of
the
site.
It
is
surprising
that
regulatory
agencies
have
been
somewhat
lax
in
this
regard,
also.
The
writer
is
convinced
that
attention
to
this
matter
alone
will
minimize
many
future
ground-
water
pollution
problems
attributed
to
landfills.
The
major
threat
to
ground
-water
quality
in
the
future
will
likely
be
from
the
land
disposal
of
industrial
wastes.
Many
of
these
wastes
decompose
slowly
or
are
nondegradable,
which
means
the
protective
mechanism
of
attenuation
afforded
by
the
soil
is
no
longer
available.
Many
industrial
wastes
can
impart
odor,
taste
and
even
toxic
problems
to
ground
waters
at
extremely
low
con-
centrations.
With
advances
in
technology
and
the
increase
in
over-all
affluence
there
will
undoubtedly
be
an
increase
in
the
amount
and
complexity
of
solid
industrial
wastes
produced.
Many
new
com-
pounds
will
also
be
synthesized
in
the
future
which
can
pose
either
acute
or
chronic
threats
to
the
health
of
future
users
of
ground
water.
The
present
trend
toward
more
stringent
surface
water
quality
standards
will
cause
some
industries
to
look
toward
land
disposal
for
the
solution
to
their
industrial
waste
problems.
It
is
important
to
keep
in
mind
in
this
regard
that
much
empirical
evidence
is
availa-
ble
to
substantiate
the
generally
innocuous
effects
to
humans
resulting
from
the
decomposition
of
9
ordinary
municipal
refuse
in
the
ground.
On
the
other
hand,
practically
each
new
solid
industrial
waste
completely
nullifies
the
dependence
on
this
past
evidence
as
the
primary
basis
for
establishing
guidelines
to
dispose
of
the
new
material.
For
this
reason
alone
it
is
imperative
that
extreme
caution
be
exercised
in
the
land
disposal
of
all
solid
indus-
trial
wastes
in
the
future.
SURVEY
OF
STATE
PRACTICES
As
a
means
of
becoming
acquainted
with
the
numerous
problems
associated
with
ground
-water
pollution
from
disposal
of
solid
wastes,
it
was
de-
cided
to
conduct
a
survey
of
the
activities
and
policies
related
to
this
area
in
21
of
the
States
in
the
U.
S.
The
States
selected
comprise
a
total
present
population
of
approximately
140,000,000
which
amounts
to
70
percent
of
the
U.
S.
popula-
tion.
The
basis
for
selection
was
somewhat
arbi-
trary,
but
the
list
was
intended
to
include
the
larger
States,
States
in
the
midwestern
part
of
the
country
and
States
in
which
it
was
known
that
some
activity
in
this
area
was
taking
place.
The
States
included
in
the
survey
were:
California,
Florida,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Iowa,
Kansas,
Maryland,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
Missouri,
New
Jersey,
New
York,
North
Dakota,
Ohio,
Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania,
South
Dakota,
Texas,
Washington
and
Wisconsin.
Letters
were
sent
in
June,
1969
to
the
regula-
tory
officials
in
the
various
States
who
were
known
to
be
familiar
with
the
solid
waste
practices
within
their
particular
State.
The
letters
first
explained
the
reasons
for
the
information
requested
and
specif-
ically
solicited
comments
on
the
following
four
questions:
1.
Are
you
aware
of
any
research
activities
in
your
State
that
are
concerned
with
ground
-water
pollution
from
sanitary
landfill
and
open
dump
type
of
operation?
2.
Does
your
State
have
published
codes
or
guidelines
regarding
site
selection
for
sanitary
land-
fills
and
dump
grounds?
Do
you
have
regulations
pertaining
to
the
operation
of
such
areas?
3.
Does
your
State
specify
a
minimum
dis-
tance
that
a
water
well
can
be
located
from
a
landfill
or
dump
ground?
4.
Do
you
anticipate
that
your
State
will
be
engaged
in
some
aspect
of
this
question
in
the
immediate
future,
such
as
writing
new
or
revising
old
codes,
field
research
programs,
etc.?
Upon
an
examination
of
the
replies
received,
which
varied
in
detail
from
"yes"
and
"no"
answers
10
on
the
original
letter
mailed
to
voluminous
replies
containing
complete
laws,
codes
and
research
re-
ports,
it
became
readily
apparent
that
there
has
not
been
a
great
deal
of
research
activity
in
the
area
of
ground
-water
pollution
from
the
land
disposal
of
solid
wastes.
A
little
more
than
half
the
States
queried
responded
that
no
research
activities
of
this
type
were
taking
place
in
their
own
particular
State.
Probably
the
most
extensive
work
in
the
past
has
been
confined
to
three
States,
namely,
California,
Illinois
and
South
Dakota.
Most
of
the
recent
work
which
has
been
published
in
this
area
has
originated
from
universities
and
public
and
private
research
agencies
within
these
States.
A
few
other
States
are
beginning
to
become
a
little
more
active
in
this
regard.
They
are
Maryland,
Pennsyl-
vania,
and
Wisconsin.
Another
interesting
observa-
tion
was
that
a
number
of
States
are
beginning
to
or
are
making
plans
to
monitor
the
ground
-water
quality
in
the
vicinity
of
landfill
sites.
It
is
the
writer's
opinion
that
other
States
will
become
involved
in
this
activity
in
the
future.
It
was
also
readily
apparent
that
there
is
much
variation
in
the
details
given
to
codes
and
guide-
lines
pertaining
to
the
selection
of
landfill
sites,
particularly
with
reference
to
the
possible
ground-
water
pollution
problems.
These
range
from
a
few
States
which
do
not
have
any
published
codes
or
guidelines
to
others
like
California
where
one
of
the
Water
Quality
Control
Boards
recently
published
a
ten
page
"Statement
of
Policy"
going
into
numer-
ous
details
on
classification
of
wastes
and
disposal
sites
primarily
to
guard
against
the
pollution
of
ground
and
surface
waters.
Many
of
the
State
regu-
lations
merely
included
broadly
worded
statements
of
the
type
"Sanitary
landfill
and
other
solid
waste
disposal
activities
shall
not
pollute
the
ground
waters
and
surface
waters
of
the
State."
Of
the
States
queried,
California,
Illinois,
Maryland,
Michi-
gan,
Minnesota,
New
York,
Ohio
and
Wisconsin
have
made
the
most
detailed
reference
to
ground-
water
pollution
potential.
On
the
most
part,
these
States
require
as
a
matter
of
policy,
geological
data,
water
table
elevations
and
other
hydrological
data
prior
to
the
approval
of
landfill
sites.
Other
States
may
have
local
health
departments
which
require
the
same
information,
but
it
was
not
expressed
as
a
matter
of
State
policy.
It
was
also
evident
that
the
States
with
the
most
stringent
regulations
in
this
regard
were
the
ones
with
the
most
recently
enacted
laws.
The
policy
on
landfill
to
water
well
distance
employed
by
the
States
surveyed
appeared
for
the
most
part
to
be
a
very
tenuous
one.
Eight
States
would
not
commit
themselves
to
a
specific
dis-
tance,
stating
in
effect
that
each
case
was
con-
sidered
individually
before
a
specific
distance
was
set.
For
the
States
that
gave
a
value,
the
distances
varied
from
50
to
1000
feet
with
most
of
the
values
in
the
100
to
500
feet
range.
Some
States
indicated
that
no
specific
value
was
used
for
sanitary
land-
fills,
and
thus
they
gave
the
values
used
for
the
location
of
water
wells
from
any
known
sources
of
contamination.
Most
of
the
States
which
estab-
lished
a
distance
cautioned
that
the
value
was
only
used
as
a
rough
guide
and
it
was
by
no
means
a
rigid
one.
The
tenor
of
the
remarks
in
this
regard
was
that
no
one
really
knows
what
a
"correct"
value
is
and
empirical
evidence
from
the
past
indicates
that
a
particular
value
was
used
in
the
past
without
any
adverse
effects.
The
lack
of
ground
-water
monitoring
in
the
vicinity
of
landfill
sites
is
probably
the
primary
reason
for
this
dilemma.
Very
little
research
activity
was
being
con-
templated
in
the
States
surveyed
in
the
immediate
future.
As
was
noted
previously,
some
ground
-water
quality
monitoring
around
landfill
sites
will
be
conducted
in
a
few
of
the
States.
Most
of
the
States,
however,
will
be
active
in
the
area
of
rules
and
regulations
pertaining
to
solid
waste
disposal.
Many
States
were
either
in
the
process
of
revision
of
current
laws
or
have
new
laws
pending.
It
also
appeared
that
more
emphasis
will
be
placed
on
ground
-water
pollution
problems
in
the
new
regu-
lations.
There
also
appeared
to
be
a
trend
toward
more
rigid
State
control
of
these
activities
than
there
had
been
in
the
past.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO
A
REGULATORY
AGENCY
A
review
of
the
literature
on
the
subject
of
the
relationship
between
land
disposal
of
solid
wastes
and
ground
-water
pollution,
plus
the
survey
of
practice
employed
by
21
States
in
this
regard,
have
suggested
certain
steps
that
regulatory
agencies
can
take
to
minimize
problems
in
this
area.
The
term
"regulatory
agency"
in
the
recommendations
to
follow
pertains
to
the
governmental
entity,
agency
or
department
which
has
the
primary
responsibility
of
regulating
and
licensing
sanitary
landfill
operations
within
the
State.
1.
The
regulatory
agency
should
have
availa-
ble
a
geologist
on
its
staff,
preferably
one
trained
in
the
area
of
hydrogeology,
to
assist
in
the
sanitary
landfill
site
selection
processes
within
the
State.
2.
The
geologist
on
the
staff
should
begin
to
accumulate
geological
data
within
the
State
and
broadly
outline
areas
considered
to
be
either
good
or
poor
potential
landfill
sites.
The
activities
in
the
State
of
Illinois
serve
as
a
good
example
in
this
regard.
3.
The
trend
should
be
towards
the
require-
ment
of
more
hydrogeologic
and
hydrologic
field
data
for
sites
that
are
questionable
for
landfill
operations.
The
burden
of
proof
should
be
placed
on
the
landfill
operator
or
owner.
The
staff
geolo-
gist
should
be
given
the
responsibility
of
deciding
when
additional
field
data
are
required.
It
is
the
opinion
of
the
writer
that
much
useful
information
can
be
obtained
even
with
a
modest
amount
of
field
testing.
4.
The
regulatory
agency
should
be
very
cautious
when
it
comes
to
the
approval
of
the
ground
disposal
of
industrial
wastes.
An
up-to-date
file
should
be
maintained
on
various
types
of
industrial
wastes,
their
degradation
properties
and
their
effects
on
the
aquatic
environment.
A
litera-
ture
search
should
be
made
periodically
on
this
topic.
5.
The
use
of
ground
-water
monitoring
wells
should
be
considered
in
those
cases
where
some
doubt
exists
as
to
future
effects
of
a
particular
landfill
operation.
This
is
somewhat
akin
to
re-
quiring
that
water
samples
be
periodically
taken
downstream
of
an
effluent
discharge
to
maintain
a
check
on
waste
water
disposal
operations.
6.
The
regulatory
agency
should
follow
as
its
basic
policy
the
concept
of
trying
to
slow
down
the
refuse
degradation
process
by
minimizing
water
percolation
through
the
refuse
mass.
Slowing
down
degradation
provides
more
time
for
leachate
attenu-
ation.
Past
experiences
have
demonstrated
that
longer
times
provide
the
most
effective
safety
measure
when
it
comes
to
separating
sources
of
ground
-
water
contamination
from
points
of
ground
-water
use.
7.
The
regulatory
agency
should
not
dis-
courage
novel
methods
of
collecting
and
treating
refuse
leachates
for
certain
installations
where
proper
monitoring
and
control
can
be
exercised.
When
considering
facilities
of
this
type,
an
impor-
tant
lesson
to
be
learned
from
waste
water
treat-
ment
plant
operations
is
that
the
smaller
and
the
more
remote
the
treatment
facility
is,
the
greater
the
likelihood
of
poor
operation
regardless
of
the
original
design
and
the
degree
of
automation.
8.
It
is
virtually
impossible
to
hold
to
a
speci-
fied
distance
between
a
point
of
water
use
such
as
a
well
and
the
site
of
a
sanitary
landfill.
Tre-
mendous
variations
in
the
hydrogeology
surround-
ing
each
site
precludes
the
establishment
of
such
a
published
figure.
However,
lacking
any
field
data
11
the
distance
should
be
as
long
as
possible
in
order
to
have
the
built-in
safety
factor
of
greater
time
as
stated
previously.
Figures
of
500
to
1000
feet
are
not
unrealistic
if
adequate
field
data
are
insufficient
to
prove
otherwise.
9.
The
regulatory
agency
should
encourage
the
practice
of
regional
or
district
approaches
to
solid
waste
collection
and
disposal.
Economic
incentives
should
be
available
to
provide
funds
to
make
area
-wide
feasibility
studies.
This
approach
will
reap
great
benefits
in
the
control
of
solid
waste
disposal
practices.
10.
As
a
general
rule,
the
regulatory
agency
should
prohibit
the
use
of
abandoned
rock,
gravel
or
sand
quarries
as
sites
for
the
disposal
of
refuse
of
any
type.
Standing
water
in
such
depressions
is
usually
nothing
more
than
a
visible
direct
link
to
the
ground
-water
supply.
The
leachate
attenuation
mechanism
under
such
conditions
is
completely
lost.
If
extensive
hydrogeologic
studies
demonstrate
that
the
depression
is
in
a
discharge
ground
-water
zone
it
is
possible
that
such
a
site
can
be
used
for
landfill
disposal.
However,
nearby
future
ground-
water
withdrawals
may
change
the
flow
network
around
such
a
site
considerably.
The
burden
of
proof
plus
any
remedial
safeguards
should
be
placed
on
the
owner
of
such
a
site.
As
a
rule,
such
sites
should
not
be
used
unless
a
thorough
hydro
-
geologic
study
is
made.
11.
The
regulatory
agency
should
support
some
research
work
in
this
area.
Some
good
exam-
ples
are
the
studies
on
existing
landfills
which
have
been
conducted
in
California,
Illinois
and
South
Dakota.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This
investigation
was
supported
by
funds
supplied
by
the
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
A
report
on
the
complete
findings
of
this
study
was
submitted
to
the
Department
in
July,
1970.
The
writer
wishes
to
express
his
grati-
tude
to
E.
D.
Cann
and
C.
D.
Besadny
of
the
Wis-
consin
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
as
well
as
the
officials
from
the
other
States
which
partici-
pated
in
the
survey
for
their
assistance
and
cooperation.
REFERENCES
Andersen,
J.
R.
and
J.
N.
Dornbush.
1967.
Influence
of
sanitary
landfill
on
ground
-water
quality.
Jour.
AWWA.
v.
59,
p.
457.
Andersen,
J.
R.
and
J.
N.
Dornbush.
1968.
Quality
changes
of
shallow
ground
water
resulting
from
refuse
disposal
at
a
gravel
pit.
Report
on
Project
SRI
3553,
Brook-
ings,
South
Dakota.
41
pp.
Anderson,
R.
J.
1964.
The
public
health
aspects
of
solid
12
waste
disposal.
Public
Health
Reports.
v.
79,
p.
93.
APWA.
1963.
Proceedings
-National
conference
on
solid
waste.
Special
Report
no.
29.
228
pp.
APWA.
1966.
Municipal
refuse
disposal.
2nd
Ed.,
Interstate
Printers
and
Publishers,
Inc.,
Ill.
528
pp.
ASCE.
1959.
Committee
on
sanitary
landfill
practice
of
the
sanitary
engineering
division,
sanitary
landfill.
Manuals
of
Engineering
Practice
no.
39.
61
pp.
ASCE.
1961.
Ground
water
basin
management.
Manuals
of
Engineering
Practice
no.
40.
160
pp.
Bergstrom,
R.
E.
1968a.
Feasibility
of
subsurface
disposal
of
industrial
wastes
in
Illinois.
Illinois
State
Geological
Survey,
Circular
426.
18
pp.
Bergstrom,
R.
E.
1968b.
Feasibility
criteria
for
subsurface
waste
disposal
in
Illinois.
Ground
Water.
v.
6,
no.
5,
p.
5.
Bergstrom,
R.
E.
1968c.
Disposal
of
wastes:
scientific
and
administrative
considerations.
Illinois
State
Geological
Survey,
Environmental
Geology
Notes.
no.
20,
12
pp.
Bishop,
W.
D.,
R.
C.
Carter,
and
H.
F.
Ludwig.
1966.
Water
pollution
hazards
from
refuse
-produced
carbon
di-
oxide.
Advances
in
Water
Pollution
Research.
Proc.
3rd
Intern.
Conf.,
Munich,
Germany.
v.
1,
pp.
207-
228.
Black,
R.
J.
1965.
A
review
of
sanitary
landfill
practices
in
the
United
States.
Proceedings,
3rd
International
Congress.
International
Research
Group
on
Refuse
Disposal,
Trento,
Italy,
May
24-29.
pp.
40-47.
California
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board.
1968.
Special
study
-solid
waste
disposal.
Task
VII
-IC,
San
Francisco
Bay
-Delta
Water
Quality
Control
Program.
Calvert,
C.
K.
1932.
Contamination
of
ground
water
by
impounded
garbage
waste.
Jour.
AWWA.
v.
24,
p.
266.
Cartwright,
K.
and
R.
McComas.
1968.
Geophysical
surveys
in
the
vicinity
of
sanitary
landfills
in
northeastern
Illinois.
Ground
Water.
v.
6,
no.
5,
p.
23.
Cartwright,
K.
and
F.
B.
Sherman.
1969.
Evaluating
sanitary
landfill
sites
in
Illinois.
Illinois
State
Geological
Survey
Environmental
Geology
Notes.
no.
27,
15
pp.
Cummins,
R.
L.
1968.
Effects
of
land
disposal
of
solid
wastes
on
water
quality.
Report
no.
SW-2ts,
Dept.
of
Health,
Educ.
and
Welfare,
U.S.P.H.S.
Cincinnati,
Ohio,
29
pp.
Fungaroli,
A.
A.,
R.
L.
Steiner,
G.
H.
Emrich,
and
I.
Remson.
1968.
Design
of
a
sanitary
landfill
field
experiment
installation.
Drexel
Institute
of
Technol-
ogy,
Dept.
of
Civil
Engineering.
Series
1,
no.
10,
32
pp.
Fungaroli,
A.
A.,
R.
L.
Steiner,
and
I.
Remson.
1968.
Design
of
a
sanitary
landfill
laboratory
lysimeter.
Drexel
Institute
of
Technology,
Dept.
of
Civil
Engi-
neering.
Series
1,
no.
9,
27
pp.
Golueke,
C.
G.
1968.
CoUiprehensive
studies
of
solid
wastes
management
-abstracts
and
excerpts
from
the
litera-
ture.
Univ.
of
Calif.,
Sanitary
Engineering
Research
Laboratory.
SERL
Report
no.
68-3,
308
pp.
Hanks,
T.
G.
1967.
Solid
waste/disease
relationships;
a
literature
survey.
Public
Health
Service
Publication
no.
999-UIH-6.
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office.
179
pp.
Hart,
S.
A.
1967.
Solid
wastes
management
in
Germany;
report
of
the
U.
S.
study
team
visit,
June
25
-July
8.
Public
Health
Service
Publication
no.
1812.
Govern-
ment
Printing
Office.
18
pp.
Hopkins,
G.
J.
and
J.
R.
Popalisky.
1970.
Influence
of
an
industrial
waste
landfill
operation
on
a
public
water
supply.
Jour.
WPCF.
v.
42,
p.
431.
Hughes,
G.
M.
1967.
Selection
of
refuse
disposal
sites
in
northeastern
Illinois.
Illinois
State
Geological
Survey,
Environmental
Geology
Notes.
no.
17,
18
pp.
Hughes,
G.
M.,
R.
A.
Landon,
and
R.
N.
Farvolden.
1969.
Hydrogeology
of
solid
waste
disposal
sites
in
north-
eastern
Illinois.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Health,
Educ.
and
Welf.,
U.S.P.H.S.
Bureau
of
Solid
Waste
Management,
Dem.
Grant
no.
D01-111-00006,
137
pp.
Kaufmann,
R.
F.
1969a.
Hydrogeological
aspects
of
solid
waste
disposal.
Univ.
of
Wisconsin
Extension,
Solid
Waste
Management.
Aug.
13-14.
Kaufmann,
R.
F.
1969b.
Personal
communication,
Universi-
ty
of
Wisconsin,
Dept.
of
Geology,
Madison,
Wisconsin.
Landon,
R.
A.
1969.
Application
of
hydrogeology
to
the
selection
of
refuse
disposal
sites.
Ground
Water.
v.
7,
no.
6,
p.
9.
LeGrand,
H.
E.
1964a.
System
for
evaluation
of
contamina-
tion
potential
of
some
waste
disposal
sites.
Jour.
AWWA.
v.
56,
p.
959.
LeGrand,
H.
E.
1964b.
Management
aspects
of
ground-
water
contamination.
Jour.
WPCF.
v.
36,
p.
1133.
LeGrand,
H.
E.
1965.
Patterns
of
contaminated
zones
of
water
in
the
ground.
Water
Resources
Research.
v.
1,
p.
83.
LeGrand,
H.
E.
1968.
Monitoring
of
changes
in
quality
of
ground
water.
Ground
Water.
v.
6,
no.
3,
p.
14.
Merz,
R.
C.
1969.
Special
studies
of
a
sanitary
landfill.
Final
Report
to
Bureau
of
Solid
Waste
Management,
Grant
no.
U100518-08,
Univ.
of
Southern
California.
Ministry
of
Housing
and
Local
Government.
1961.
Pollution
of
water
by
tipped
refuse.
Her
Majesty's
Stationery
Office,
London.
141
pp.
Mpls.
Trib.
1968.
3M
pumps
polluted
water
from
dump.
Feb.
28,
1968.
Page,
L.
M.
1968.
Use
of
the
electrical
resistivity
method
for
investigating
geologic
and
hydrologic
conditions
in
Santa
Clara
County,
California.
Ground
Water.
v.
6,
no.
5,
p.
31.
Qasim,
S.
R.,
and
J.
C.
Burchinal.
1970a.
Leaching
of
pollutants
from
refuse
beds.
J.
of
S.E.D.
of
ASCE.
v.
90,
p.
49.
Qasim,
S.
R.,
and
J.
C.
Burchinal.
1970b.
Leaching
from
simulated
landfills.
Jour.
WPCF.
v.
42,
p.
371.
Refuse
collection
and
disposal
for
the
small
community.
195.3.
A
joint
study
of
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Health,
Educ.
and
Welf.
and
the
Am.
Public
Health
Assoc.
Remson,
I.,
A.
A.
Fungaroli,
and
A.
W.
Lawrence.
1968.
Water
movement
in
an
unsaturated
sanitary
landfill.
J.
of
S.E.D.
of
ASCE.
v.
94,
p.
307.
Robert
A.
Taft
San.
Engrg.
Center.
1961.
Proceedings
of
1961
symposium
-ground
-water
contamination.
Tech-
nical
Report
W61-5.
Cincinnati,
Ohio.
218
pp.
Sorg,
T.
J.,
and
H.
L.
Hickman.
1968.
Sanitary
landfill
facts.
U.
S.
Dept.
Health,
Educ.,
and
Welfare,
Public
Health
Service.
Publication
no.
1792,
Cincinnati,
26
pp.
Stanley,
W.
E.,
and
R.
Eliassen.
1961.
Status
of
knowledge
of
ground
water
contaminants.
Published
by
Federal
Housing
Administration,
Technical
Studies
Program.
465
pp.
State
of
Calif.
1952.
Report
of
the
investigation
of
leaching
of
ash
dumps.
SWPCB
Publication
no.
2.
100
pp.
State
of
Calif.
1954a.
Report
on
the
investigation
of
leach-
ing
of
a
sanitary
landfill.
SWPCB
Publication
no.
10.
92
pp.
State
of
Calif.
1954b.
Report
on
the
investigation
of
travel
of
pollution.
SWPCB
Publication
no.
11.
218
pp.
State
of
Calif.
1961.
Effects
of
refuse
dumps
on
ground-
water
quality.
SWPCB
Publication
no.
24.
101
pp.
State
of
Calif.
1965.
In
-situ
investigation
of
movements
of
gases
produced
from
decomposing
refuse.
State
Water
Quality
Control
Board.
Publication
no.
31.
211
pp.
State
of
Calif.
1967.
Final
report
on
in
-situ
investigation
of
movements
of
gases
produced
from
decomposing
refuse.
State
Water
Quality
Board.
Publication
no.
35.
Steiner,
R.
L.,
and
R.
Kantz.
1968.
Sanitary
landfill:
a
bibliography.
Public
Health
Service
Publication
no.
1819.
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office,
37
pp.
Stone,
R.,
and
H.
Friedland.
1969.
National
survey
of
sanitary
landfill
practices.
Public
Works.
v.
100,
p.
88.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
H.E.W.
1954-1963.
Refuse
collection
and
dis-
posal
-an
annotated
bibliography,
supplements
B,
C,
D,
E,
and
F.
Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Univ.
of
Calif.
1952.
Sanitary
engineering
research
project,
an
analysis
of
refuse
collection
and
sanitary
landfill
disposal.
Tech.
Bulletin
no.
8,
Series
37.
133
pp.
Univ.
of
Calif.
1955.
Report
on
continuation
of
an
investi-
gation
of
leaching
of
rubbish
dumps.
Sanitary
Engi-
neering
Research
Laboratory.
(Supplement
to
Publi-
cation
no.
10),
26
pp.
Univ.
of
Calif.
1956.
Report
on
continuation
of
an
investi-
gation
of
leaching
of
rubbish
dumps.
Sanitary
Engi-
neering
Research
Laboratory.
(Supplement
to
Publi-
cation
no.
10),
29
pp.
Vaughan,
R.
D.
1968.
The
national
solid
wastes
survey,
an
interim
report.
Presented
at
the
1968
Annual
Meeting
of
the
Institute
for
Solid
Wastes
of
the
American
Public
Works
Association,
Miami
Beach,
Florida.
53
pp.
Walker,
W.
H.
1969.
Illinois
ground
water
pollution.
Jour.
AWWA.
v.
61,
p.
31.
Warner,
D.
L.
1969.
Preliminary
field
studies
using
earth
resistivity
measurements
for
delineating
zones
of
contaminated
ground
water.
Ground
Water.
v.
7,
no.
1,
p.
9.
Water
Treatment
and
Examination.
1969.
Symposium
on
effects
of
tipped
domestic
refuse
on
ground
-water
quality.
v.
18,
part
1,
pp.
15-69.
Weaver,
Leo.
1956.
The
sanitary
landfill
-part
II:
selection
of
site.
American
City.
v.
71,
p.
132.
Williams,
J.
H.
1969.
Can
ground
-water
pollution
be
avoided?
Ground
Water.
v.
7,
no.
2,
p.
21.
13
DISCUSSION
The
following
questions
were
answered
by
A.
E.
Zanoni
after
delivering
his
talk
entitled
"Ground
-
Water
Pollution
and
Sanitary
Landfills
—A
Critical
Review."
Q.
These
questions
pertain
to
the
closing
remarks
that
have
to
do
with
new
research:
What
research
would
you
suggest
regarding
ground
-water
pollu-
tion
due
to
sanitary
landfills?
Do
you
feel
that
we
now
have
sufficient
knowledge
of
the
hydrogeology
of
sanitary
landfills
to
design,
operate,
and
manage
solid
waste
disposal
using,this
method?
Also,
why
no
more
research
activity
in
the
future?
Do
the
States
feel
we
know
enough
now?
This
conflicts
with
your
recommendation
for
new
concepts,
research,
etc.
A.
To
answer
the
first
question,
I
think
the
studies
of
the
type
Illinois
is
doing
right
now
are
certainly
in
the
right
direction.
Also
more
studies
on
the
hydrogeology
of
sites
would
be
in
the
right
direc-
tion.
I
think
that
with
the
data
available
now,
we
can
do
a
better
job
if
more
is
known
about
the
hydrogeology
of
the
specific
site
involved.
As
far
as
the
degradation
of
the
refuse
is
concerned,
this
mechanism
is
fairly
well
understood.
The
big
question
is
what
happens
to
the
leachate
once
it
leaves
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
disposal
site.
To
extrapolate
information
and
data
from
one
site
to
another
is
very
dangerous.
We
need
to
know
more
of
the
hydrogeology
of
the
site
in
question
in
order
to
be
able
to
predict
more
accurately
what
the
progression
of
the
leachate
will
be
and
what
the
impairment
in
ground
-water
quality
will
be
at
a
specified
distance
from
the
landfill
site.
Did
I
contradict
myself?
Q.
Someone
thought
you
said,
"We
need
no
more
research
activity
in
the
future."
The
question
is,
"Why
no
more
research
activity
in
the
future?"
A.
No,
what
I
said
was
the
survey
of
States
indi-
cates
little
research
activity
in
this
area
will
be
done
in
future
years.
My
personal
feeling
is
that
there
should
be
more.
There
is
no
question
about
that.
As
for
State
agencies,
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
much
interest
in
this
research
area.
I
feel
it
is
be-
cause
we
have
had
no
long
history
of
troublesome
pollutional
situations
and,
quite
frankly,
this
is
what
we
normally
respond
to.
I
am
certain
that
people
in
the
political
area
would
be
more
recep-
tive
to
research
activities
if
they
were
hearing
of
numerous
cases
of
public
health
and
nuisance
prob-
lems
resulting
from
sanitary
landfill
leachates.
Very
candidly,
these
are
the
types
of
things
which
motivate
politicians
and
others
to
act.
14
Q.
Let
me
take
advantage
of
the
moment
and
ask
a
question.
In
any
of
the
literature
work,
have
you
found
anyone
working
on
such
things
as
trace
organics
or
perhaps
carcinogens?
A.
No.
I'm
not
aware
of
any
such
work.
Trace
ele-
ments,
yes.
We
have
some
indication
of
this
from
work
in
Pennsylvania
and
Brookings.
There
is
very
little
work
on
the
degree
of
bacterial
travel
from
landfill
sites.
Q.
Couldn't
your
miracle
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
most
landfill
sites
are
deliberately
located
far
from
habitations?
A.
I
think
that
it
is
just
simply
the
environment
provided
by
the
soil
regime.
The
active
sites,
the
availability
of
bacterial
degradation
activity,
the
combination
of
moisture
and
air;
it
is
just
an
ex-
cellent
environment
for
the
breakdown
and
degra-
dation
of
organics.
It
is
like
a
good
trickling
filter
in
a
sense
and
then
beyond
that,
it's
merely
a
dilution
of
the
inorganics.
Most
soils
provide
an
excellent
site
for
this
active
microbial
degradation
activity,
and
perhaps,
if
the
permeability
is
too
high,
then
this
attenuation
mechanism
drops
off
because
the
active
sites
are
less
available.
Under
this
situation
we
haven't
got
as
much
time
for
the
degradation
to
take
place.
Of
course,
when
the
leachate
starts
getting
into
the
rocks
and
crevices,
none
of
the
attenuation
mechanism
is
available.
No
doubt
the
distance
that
landfill
sites
are
placed
from
habitation
helps,
but
we
should
not
forget
that
nature
does
an
excellent
job
of
treating
these
leachates.
Q.
Might
one
not
wish
to
maximize
rather
than
minimize
the
rate
of
refuse
degradation
if
leachate
is
being
collected
for
treatment?
A.
Absolutely.
No
question
about
it.
Q.
This
should
be
the
most
economical
approach
if
collection
of
leachate
is
practiced,
correct?
A.
Absolutely.
If
the
design
is
such
that
you
are
going
to
collect
leachate,
then
you
bring
it
into
the
treatment
plant
at
maximum
rates.
In
other
words,
you
maximize
biological
activity
in
order
to
save
on
dollars.
This
is
a
treatment
cost
we
are
not
accus-
tomed
to
spending
for
this
type
of
municipal
function,
and,
I
would
be
very
skeptical
about
approving
something
like
this
unless
it
was
con-
trolled
and
regulated
properly.
We
all
know
of
the
sophisticated
waste
water
treatment
plants
built
in
small
towns
and
2
weeks
after
the
engineer
leaves,
the
rural
policeman
operates
it
once
in
awhile
and
the
treatment
completely
breaks
down.
This
is
what
might
happen
with
this
type
of
installation
unless
it
is
monitored
properly,
so
I
would
never
favor
this
without
good
control.
I
would
favor
the
traditional
approach
with
slow
degradation
because
then
time
is
on
your
side.
If
you
produce
these
leachates
and
don't
know
what
to
do
with
them
after
you
produce
them,
then
you
have
a
problem.
Q.
Do
you
believe
that
surface
water
pollution
by
landfills
may
often
be
masked
by
other
kinds
of
pollution
already
present
so
that
surface
water
pollution
by
landfills
may
often
be
undetected?
A.
That
is
partly
true.
I
have
not
run
across
too
much
data
on
this.
Hughes
of
Illinois
had
some
data
on
this
situation.
He
showed
colored
slides
of
leachate
oozing
out
of
the
sides
of
landfills
and
then
running
into
streams.
There
was
a
case
in
Kansas
City
where
an
industrial
waste
deposited
for
many
years
began
leaching
into
a
river
supply.
Some
of
this
happens
and
goes
undetected.
Some
of
it
has
happened
and
has
been
detected
but
I
haven't
run
across
a
great
deal
of
this
type
of
information
in
the
literature.
Q.
Wasn't
the
California
leachate
data
collected
under
conditions
of
forced
leaching?
A.
Yes.
In
one
of
the
studies
when
the
water
was
added
to
the
refuse
bins
in
an
amount
equal
to
precipitation
in
the
area,
no
leachate
was
generated
so
the
researchers
had
to
turn
on
the
faucet
to
get
some
data.
This
is
the
main
reason
why
in
southern
California
there
is
not
generally
a
leachate
problem.
There
is
not
sufficient
precipitation
to
generate
significant
amounts
of
leachate.
Remember,
how-
ever,
that
a
serious
leachate
problem
can
still
occur
if
the
ground
-water
table
rises
up
in
the
refuse
mass.
This
situation
really
causes
active
degradation
of
organics
with
subsequent
leachate
production.
Q.
Can
the
data
that
were
collected
in
California
be
applied
to
a
true
sanitary
landfill?
A.
No.
You
have
to
be
very
careful
in
extrapo-
lating some
of
these
data.
This
is
one
point,
I
think,
that
comes
out
very
clearly
from
all
these
studies.
Q.
Will
all
sanitary
landfills
produce
a
leachate?
A.
It
depends
on
the
amount
of
water
passing
through
the
refuse.
There
have
been
some
sites
that
have
remained
relatively
unaltered
for
20
years.
But
we
must
always keep
in
mind
that
anything
organic
must
degrade
eventually.
It
is
just
a
matter
of
time.
And
if
you
maintain
these
semi-
dry
conditions,
it
may
not
happen
in
2
years
but
it
certainly
will
happen
in
200
years.
It
has
to
degrade
if
it
is
organic.
It's
only
the
rate
that
is
the
big
variable
here.
Q.
What
are
the
moisture
holding
capabilities
of
solid
waste?
A.
I
don't
know
a
number
to
give
you.
This
would
depend
very
much
on
the
degree
of
compaction.
Q.
Would
you
describe
how
solid
waste
disposal
can
be
designated to
operate
at
a
normal
rate
of
pollution
so
that
solid
waste
decomposition
and
resulting
leachate
production
is
manageable.
A„
Well,
I
think
with
proper
hydrogeologic
data
inputs
it
is
possible
to
arrive
at
a
fairly
reliable
idea
of
the
degree
of
leachate
production
expected
as
well
as
what
eventually
will
happen
to
the
leachate
once
it
gets
into
the
surrounding
terrain.
I
don't
think
we'll
be
able
to
predict
accurately
the
progression
of
the
leachate
but
at
least
we'll
be
able
to
determine
if
potentially
we
are
in
a
problem
area.
The
type
of
cover
material
and
degree
of
its
compaction
are
extremely
important,
for
example.
Another
important
item
is
how
we
handle
the
surface
water.
If
you
grade
most
of
the
surface
precipitation
away
from
the
landfill
site
and
you
have
a
relatively
impervious
top
layer,
you
are
cutting
down
the
degradation
rate
to
a
very
mini-
mal
extent
and
the
impact
of
leachate
production
will
be
quite
minimal.
There
is
no
wonder
that
we
have
potential
water
pollution
problems
after
you
see
how
some
of
these
landfill
sites
are
operated.
With
the
type
of
data
Illinois
is
beginning
to
put
out,
we
can
approach
this
design
a
little
more
rationally
than
we
have
in
the
past.
At
the
present
time
sufficient
funds
are
not
being
expended
in
the
process
of
selecting
a
suitable
site
for
disposal
of
refuse.
Some
government
officials
think
if
you
spend
more
than
several
hundred
dollars
for
this
purpose
you
are
being
extravagant.
It
is
just
not
a
very
popular
governmental
activity.
0.
I'm
glad
you
said
that
because
it
is
very
important
to
the
next
question,
which
I
think
is
a
gig.
What
profession,
geologist,
hydrologist
or
engineer,
is
presently
best
suited
to
conduct
site
evaluation
and
design
studies?
A.
I
would
say
a
geologist.
If
I
had
$100
and
had
to
pick
one,
I
would
pick
a
geologist,
or
a
hydro
-
geologist.
If
I
could
afford
it,
I
would
use
both
because
some
of
the
planning,
some
of
the
surface
soil
quantity
calculations,
the
grading,
things
of
this
nature,
are
more
in
the
engineer's
bag,
but
with
limited
funds
I'd
stick
to
a
geologist.
Q.
Is
there
a
general
tendency to
locate
landfills
in
quarries,
ravines
and
valleys
that
are
very
important
resources
of
ground
-water
recharge?
If
so,
would
a
change
in
approach
help
to
protect
ground
water?
For
example,
bailing
and
stacking
the
solid
waste.
15
A.
Absolutely.
I
think
there
is
this
trend
simply
because
these
areas
—just
as
they
are
—are
totally
worthless
for
any
other
application,
and
if
you
can
show
someone
a
restoration
plan
with
these
pretty
pictures
I
told
you
about
before,
where
you
can
show
usable
land
being
developed
from
some
of
these
sites,
it's
very
attractive
to
the
city
fathers
and
political
leaders,
particularly
from
a
tax
base
standpoint.
So
these
sites
are
looked
at
first
and
I
agree
with
the
comment
that
oftentimes
these
are
recharge
areas,
and
you
have
to
be
extremely
care-
ful
about
using
these
sites.
I
had
some
experience
with
one
site
northwest
of
Milwaukee
that
was
a
gravel
deposit
site.
It
was
used
to
mine
gravel
for
about
10
years
and
I
was
asked
to
look
at
it
for
possible
use
as
a
landfill
site
and
I
was
convinced
that
it
could
be
used.
After
taking
30
to
40
borings
we
found
there
was
a
very
thick,
dense
clay
layer
underlining
the
whole
area.
The
site
was
simply
a
gravel
glacial
outwash
sitting
on
top
of
a
very
impervious
Tense
of
clay.
This
is
an
example
of
a
gravel
-sandy
area
that
could
be
used
for
the
land
disposal
of
solid
wastes.
In
contrast
to
the
previous
example,
deep
limestone
quarries
with
standing
water
are
generally
very
poor
landfill
sites
because
this
water
is
usually
a
direct
outcrop
of
the
ground-
water
supply.
Q.
Do
you
feel
that
the
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
will
respect
your
recommenda-
tion
to
hire
a
geologist?
A.
There
has
been
discussion
of
obtaining
a
geolo-
gist
for
assistance
in
two
areas:
water
wells
and
refuse
disposal.
Nothing
has
been
done
as
of
this
date.
I've
talked
to
some
of
the
people
there
and
they
agreed
with
me
but
Wisconsin,
like
all
States,
is
presently
going
through
fiscal
problems
that
demand
just
about
a
total
moratorium
on
hiring.
In
summation,
they
have
not
listened
to
that
particular
recommendation
yet,
but
I
suspect
they
will.
The
people
I
have
talked
to
seem
to
be
favorable
to
that
direction.
Q.
Could
you
add
to
your
recommendations
the
desirability
of
each
State
establishing
ground
-water
quality
standards
to
add
to
those
established
by
HEW
for
surface
waters?
A.
That
has
been
talked
about
a
great
deal.
I've
talked
to
people
personally
about
this.
The
enforce-
ment
and
the
monitoring
of
something
like
this
would
be
awesome
now.
Maybe
in
the
future
we
can
look
in
that
direction
or
try
this
in
isolated
cases,
but
the
degree
of
variation
in
ground
-water
characteristics
from
area
to
area
precludes
setting
up
any
kind
of
rigid
standards.
As
you
can
imagine,
monitoring
of
the
water
quality
would
be
very
expensive.
Nonetheless,
there
are
people
who
feel
that
this
is
the
direction
we
have
to
go.
Eco-
nomically
I
can't
see
how
we
can
justify
it
yet.
It's
much
easier
to
sample
a
moving
stream
than
it
is
to
get
to
a
ground
-water
table
100
feet
below
the
ground
surface.
Technical
Division
NWWA
Membership
is
open
to:
"those
who
are
engaged
in
occupations
pertaining
to
the
supervision,
regulation,
or
investigation
of
ground
water
or
ground
-water
supply
installations
or
who
are
teachers
or
students
at
recognized
institutions
in
academic
fields
related
to
the
study
of
ground
water."
The
purposes
of
this
Division
are:
"to
cooperate
with
other
Divisions
of
the
N.W.W.A.
in
fostering
ground
-water
research,
education;
standards,
and
techniques;
to
advance
knowledge
in
engineering
and
science,
as
related
to
ground
water;
and
to
promote
harmony
between
the
water
well
industry
and
scientific
agencies
relative
to
the
proper
development
and
protection
of
ground-
water
supplies."
Individual
membership
dues
in
the
Technical
Divi-
sion
($15.00
per
year
include
a
subscription
to
Ground
Water
in
addition
to
the
Water
Well
Journal.
Membership
application
forms
available
upon
request.
National
Water
Well
Association,
Inc.
88
East
Broad
Street
Columbus,
Ohio
43215
16