I.' ..

1
TECHNOMIC
PUelISHlNGCO.I~
1 ANCAsrER . BASEl,
 ?2

Siting
DESIGN WIlH NATURE
,
From the early daysof the town planning movementthe ideal resolution of land use problems
has been to identify the highestand best use for everypiece of land that comesunder the sway
of the planners rule.
Early plannerssuchas Francis Law Olmsted,Sir Patrick Geddes,and EbenezerHoward sought
to identify the distinguishingfingerprint of an area of real estatewhich marked it for a special
use. Ian McHarg in his book Planning With Nature showed how this might be achievedby
mapping the various aspectsof large metropolitan areason huge acetatesheets,and overlaying
them to sieve-outthe salient featureswhich point the way to future plans.
Clearly when applied to metropolitan areasthe processis complexand frustrating becausethere
is so much which the planner must acceptas a given. When applied to the selectionof a site for
a LULU however,the processis relativelystraightforward. Here the exerciseis to find the areas
which developmenthasoverlookedand choosethe bestcandidatefor useas a landfill, incinerator
or whichever LULU is under consideration.
This book takes as it's starting point the landfill siting problem, and seeksto show how this
processworks in somedetail. Later the book extendsthe sameprocedure and points the way to
the application of the sameprocedurefor other LULUs.
The landfill siting problem has been around for a long time. How has it been handled in the
past? What can we learn from thesemethodologies?
We know from almost daily stories of massiveopposition to landfill siting that the sure way to
failure is to have no siting system.
We know that there are also many other siting systemsaside from the one espousedin later
chaptersof this book. Someof thesesystemswill be discussedhere as there is much to learn
from their general approach.

DRASTIC

A criteria selection systemcalled DRASTIC has been developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Water Well Association (EPA/NWWA 1985)for
evaluating groundwaterpollution potential using hydrogeologicsettings. A wide range of siting
criteria were consideredin the developmentof this scheme,however,the availability of mapping
data was a major concern,and in the final systemonly criteria which are readily available in m~
form were used. The systemcomparesareasby assigningratingsand weightsto sevenparameters
that affect groundwatercontamination. Briefly, thesesevenparametersare:

3
 -
D Depth to Water Table
-
R Recharge(net infiltration)
-
A Aquifer Media
-
S Soil Media (surfacesoils)
-
T Topography (Slope)
I - Impact of the UnsaturatedZone Media
C - Conductivity (Hydraulic) of the Aquifer

These factors have been arrangedto fofDl the acronym,DRASTIC for easeof reference.

Each DRAS11C factor has been evaluatedwith respectto the other to detennine the relative
importance of each factor. Each DRASllC factor hasbeen assigneda relative weight ranging
from 1 to 5 (Table 2-1). The most significantfactors have weights of 5; the least significant. a
weight of 1.
The depth to water and the impact of the unsaturatedzone media are consideredto be the most
important criteria in the seven. Thesetwo criteria are followed in order of importance by net
recharge.
Each DRAffiC factor hasbeen divided into either rangesor significant media typeswhich haye
an impact on pollution potential. Each of theserangesor media types is then assigneda rating
which varies between 1 and 10. SeeTables 2-1 to 2-8. The highestrating indicatesthe highest
pollution potential. For example,in Table 2-2 if the depth to Water Table is in the range 0-5
feet, the pollution potential rating is 10. On the other hand, if there is over 100feet to the water
table, the pollution potential is only 1.

TABLE 2-1
ASSIGNED WEIGHTS FOR DRASTIC FEATURES

FEAroRE WEIGHT

Depth to Water Table 5

4
Recharge
Aquifer Media 3

Soil Media z
1
Topography

Impact of the UnsaturatedZone Media 5

Hydraulic Conductivity of the Aquifer 3

4
 TABLE 2-7
RA 11NGS FOR IMPACf OF DIFFERENT TYPES
OF UNSA1URATED ZONE MEDJ,A

MEDIUM RA11NG TYPICAL

RA11NG .I
Confining Layer 1. 1.
This
Silt/Clay 1-2 3 by u~

Shale 2--5 3 DR}.

Umestone ~1 6 Whe
each
Sandstone 4-8 6

Bedded Umestone, Sandstone,Shale 4-8 6

Sand and Gravel with Significant

Silt and Clay 4-8 6
To f(
Metamorphic/Igneous 1-8 ~ awei
exam
Sand and Gravel 6-9 8

Basalt 2-10 9
ORA
Karst Limestone 8-10 10 the ~
romp

I
 TABLE 2-8
RANGES AND RA11NGS FOR HYDRAUliC CONDUcrIVrrY

HYDRA U U C co ND U CI1VITY RANGE RA11NG

IN GPD/Ff 2

1-100 .1

100-300 2

300-700 4

700-1(XX) 6

1 (XX). 2(XK) 8

2(XX)+ 10

This systemallows the user to determinea numericalvalue for any hydrogeologicsetting

by using an additive model. The equationfor determining the DRASTIC Index is:

Where the subscriptsRand W indicate the rating and the weight respectivelyas identified for
each quantity in the drastic index.

In Summary:

R = rating
W = weight
To return to the examplederived from Table 2.2, we already know that Depth to Water carries
a weight of 5. If the depth to water table is in the range 0-5, then the rating is 10. Thus, in this
example,the total contribution towardsthe pollution potential is:

5 x 10 = 50

DRASTIC is basicallya comparativetool which is usedto compareone site to another.However,

the systemcan also be utilized to comparea given site with idealized scoresin order to judge
comparativelywhether or not a site has merit.

9
 TABLE 2-9
COMPUTATION OF BEST AND WORST DRASTIC SCORES

DRASTIC WEIGHT RAllNGS RA llNGS

BEST WORST BEST WORST

Depth of Water Table 5 1 10 5 50

oS
Recharge 4 1 9 4- 36
1
Aquifer Media 3 2 10 6 30
I
Soil Media 2 1 10 2 20

Topography 1.. 1 10 . 10 J
Impact of the 5 1 10 s 50
6
Unsaturated Zone Media F

Hydraulic Conductivity 3 .. 10 3 30

TOTAL 26 m 1
The computation of best and worst scorespossibleis identified in Table 2-9.

EXAMPlE
A criterion-by-crlterion discussionof the selectedratings for a hypothetical landfill site follows.
Consider the caseof "Hellova Landfill".
t
Dellth to Water Table )
UIJ
According to data availablethe depth to water table is 15-40feet below the original land
surface.
Rating = 6
')
Total Score = 5 x 6 = 30
The
Net Rechar&e(weight = 4)
The
According to a designreport let us saythat the areaexperiencesan infiltration rate of 70%
of annual precipitation and that the net rechargeworks out to be greater than 10~ The
According to Table 2-2, a net rechargeof greater than 10 inches has a rating of 9.
In th
Total score = 4 x 9 = 36 regia

10
 A(!uifer Media (weight = 3)

The site consistsof fractured carbonatebedrockaquifer overlain by sand and gravel.

Rating = 8

Total score = 3 x 8 = 24 .,'

C'

Soil Media (weight = 2)

There is sand at the surface.

Rating = 8

Total score = 2 x 8 = 16

To~ogra~hx(weight = 1)

6-12% is a conservativeestimateof the rangeof slopeson the site.

Rating = 5

Total score = 1 x 5 = 5

Im~act of UnsaturatedZone Media (weight = 5)

Sand and gravel with somesilt and clay.

Rating = 7

Total score = 5 x 7 = 35

Hydraulic Conductivi~ (weight = 3)

Laboratory and singlewell testssuggestfield valuesin the 10-4 to 10 -3 range for the sand
units.

Rating = 8

Total score = 3 x 8 = 24

The total DRASllC score for the Hellova Landfill is: 170.

The best score is 26.

The worst score is 226.

In the range of 26 to 226, a score of 170 is 72% above the best possible score. In any
regionwide screeningprocess,this site would not be expectedto win approval.

11

~
r

PROS AND CONS

The advantageof this method is that mapsare readily available for each of the chosencriteria, (.
so with relatively few resourcesa community could apply this DRAsnC Index and compare
severalsites.
The disadvantageis that the procedureis limited to only sevencriteria and there are so many
more to be consideredthat the resultsof a DRASTIC evaluationcould only be considereda small
step in the process.The secondand more significantdisadvantageis that thesesevencriteria are The
not the most important criteria. There are, for example,severalcriteria which are so important the
that they are often consideredto be exclusionary,that is to say,if anyone of thesefactors exists crit(
at the site then the site should be excludedfrom any further consideration.
(
Take for examplethe questionof fault zones. It is commonlyrecommendedthat landfills should
not be located within 200 feet of a fault zone that has had displacementin Holocene time
(roughly in the last 11,000years). This criterion is not a function of DRASTIC. One can imagine
the reaction in a local communitywhich hasspentseveralmonths of anguishin comparingsites
by the DRASTIC method only to find that the highestrated site has to be discardedbecauseit
happensto lie over a major fault zone. ,(

This criticism raisesa third objectionand that is the weightingprocessitself. Statedsimply if an

area is excludedby reasonof one criterion why go through the trouble of judging what weight to
give it.
(.

INTRINSIC SUITABILITY
Before 1989the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency(MPCA) had a systemwhich attemptedto
solvethe problem of exclusionaryand non exclusionaryfactors. In Minnesotathere were thirteen
criteria which had been adoptedby the MPCA to evaluatesuitability for sanitary landfill. The
criteria fell into two distinct categories.The first six criteria were exclusionaryand failure to meet (I
anyone of these six resulted in exclusionfrom further consideration. The next sevencriteria
could be overcomeby engineering. The important considerationin administeringeachof these ('
criteria was: how well does the engineeringovercomethe deficiency? The criteria were as
follows:
Corn
The First Six first
The fill and trench areasof the proposedlandfill area cannot be within:

1,CXX>
feet of the normal high water mark of a lake, pond or flowage;
(1)
(~
(2) 300 feet of a stream;

(3) a regional (100 year) floodplain; or

(4) a wetland.

12

I
 I

In addition to the four (4) criteria mentionedabove,a site is not intrinsically suitable if:

(5) it would presenta bird hazardto an airport; or

(6) there is karst developmenton the site.

~
The SecondSeven
,'I
These seven(7) secondarycriteria can also render a site intrinsically unsuitable dependingupon
the extent to which engineeringmeasurescan be relied upon to overcomethem. These seven
criteria are:
(1) proposedfill and trench areasare within 1000feet of the nearestedgeof the right-of-way
of any state, federal, or interstatehighway;any public park or an occupied
dwelling;
(2) any wetlandsor public waterswould be impactedduring developmentof the site;

(3) there are erosion,drainageor other natural processesoccurring in the area which
could lead to problemsat the site or site failure;

(4) a drinking water supplyreservoirwould be impactedby the site;

(5) any ground water which is presentis:

(a) a water supply

(b) is capableof being withdrawn at a sustainedyield of one gallon per minute
(c) rechargingto another aquifer;

(6) ground water is not protectedby an aquiclude;and

(7) ground water cannot be monitored by routine methods.

EXAMPLE
Consider the caseof Hellova Landfill. Let us assumethat this site is not excludedby any of the
first six criteria. Having passedthe first test we move on to the secondsevencriteria.
~

(1) The site is 500 feet from the highway,but the proponent proposesa high berm
with fast growing hybrid trees at the top to limit the overview.

(2) There are no wetlandsor public waterson the site.

(3) There are no erosion,drainage,or other natural processesin the area which could
lead to problems.

13
 (4) There is no drinking water supplyreservoirwhich would be impacted by the site.

(5) The area is a natural rechargezone for an existingmunicipal water supply. The
possibility existsof importing clay to the site and recompactingit to form an artificial
aquitard, but this is not consideredadequateprotection and the site is excludedfrom
further consideration.

PROS AND CONS

The advantageof this systemis that it coversmanyof the exclusionarycriteria and applies them
first Thus, the ability to narrow the field of study is built into this approach.

There are severaldisadvantages.The first concernsitem one of the secondseven. The exclusion
of siteswithin 1000feet of any state,federal or interstatehighwayseemsto be unduly broad even
though it does allow for mitigation.

In many siting studies actual proximity to state, federal or interstate highways is a positive
criterion because it minimizes the cost of construction of the access road. In almost all cases
proximity to a highway can be mitigated by a combination of berms and landscaping treatment
such that this element of criterion (1) is easily overcome.

A seconddisadvantageis that there is no exclusionfor valuable wildlife habitat.

A third disadvantageis that the secondsevenall depend upon an exerciseof judgement and
without some systematicweighting processthe application of the secondseven can fuzzy and
contentious.

REVIEW OF CURRENT METHODS

Although there are many different lists of criteria, the two presented above are indicative of the
selection procedures available. In general, there are clearly some criteria which are so important
that they preclude landfill no matter what mitigation is considered. These criteria should be
mapped as exclusion zones. There are many other criteria which are simply problematic and
these must be considered by application of a weighting process which clarifies their level of
importance compared to one another.

From these concerns grows the two part application of siting criteria espoused in this book. The
first part applies the exclusionary items in order to narrow the area of search. This is often
referred to as the Regional Study. The second part applies the remaining criteria in an effort to
locate specific sites. This is the time for weighting since none of these second round factors is
necessarily exclusionary. This round is often referred to as the Local Study.

14

~
 SIEVING TECHNIQUES

The Mechanical Method

As mentioned earlier the early planners used large acetate overlays to sieve out the desired
criteria. There is no reasonwhy this techniqueshould not continue to be used,particularly for
small areas,althoughit can be extremelytediouswhenapplied to large areas. Take for example
the first of the above criteria: Depth to Water Table.

JO
~n
Many areasof the country haveaquifer mapsavailablewhich identify depth to water table and
this information can very simply be applied to an acetate sheet by using a wax pencil or by
transferring the information photographicallyto a sheetof clear overlay at the required scale.

Obviously, some attention needs to be paid to choosing a scale. The maps need to be
I
manageableas tools for choosingprospectivesites. The mapsalso need to be capableof use at
meetings and hearings to illustrate how areas were selected. They must also be capable of
ve reduction into the form of a report.
.e5
:ot Here we begin to seesomeof the practical difficulties of this techniquebecausein practice the
scaleneedsto be large enoughto identify local featuressuchas roads,bridges,housesand other
aspectsof land use while capableof easyreduction to be comprehensiblein a report.

When you add an additional criterion - flexibility, the acetate overlay processbecomesvery
'.nd unwieldy.
IDd
The systemneedsto be flexible becauseit may be necessaryto changecriteria at somepoinL It
needsto be flexible becausenew information may alter the map.

ComRuterization
the
ant Since we first began to receive geographical information from EAR1HSA T the computer bas
be been increasingly used as a vehicle for storage of geographical data. While the initial work of
and transferring mapped information to the computer is very labor intensive, the ability to vary scale
lof and select specific data more than repays the initial investment.

Geographical infomtation is stored by the use of a digitizer which is a small magnifying glass with
The a painted target at the center. The digitizer also contains ~veral buttons, one of which is pressed
ften by the operator when specific infomtation is to be recorded. See Figure 2-1. The digitizer can
:t to only be used on a digitizing board which is a large drawing board implanted with an electronic
rsis array capable of identifying precisely the location of the digitizer on its surface.

The outline of a specific item of geographical infonnation is rendered as an irregular polygon by

the digitizer rather in the way children connect dots to make a picture. A computer record is
made at each dot. Each dot represents that point where the straight line changes direction.
Under magnification the work of a digitizer looks like a series of straight lines connecting dots.
A conscientious digitizer can render a map to a very close approximation to the original.

15
 Once the work of the digitizer is completed it is a simple matter to "overlay" the criteria maps and
produce a composite or sieve map which shows only those areas left over after all excluded areas
have been omitted.

FIGURE2-1
OBJEt

I In sele
proces
the sitc
certain
incr~
a land!

As we'
siting I
site ha
suburb
comm\
a site \'
large e
a landt
If a zel
selecti(
If the I
Whye
unaltel
faciliti(
which j
criteria
A DIGmzER FOR USE IN COMPUTER MAPPING limits)
require
PHOTO BY PERMISSION OF INTERGRAPH CORPORATION the l~
recomp
as 50 fc
Alterna
of a fie:
existing
maybe
of the 1
siting p:
for eacl

16

~
 By Jeffrey D. Smith

T HE PLACEMENT OF LINERS BE-
neath landfills and surface impound-
ments has generally become acceptedas
benchmark protection against soil and
groundwater contamination. Yet despite this
understanding, a recently completed series
of studies conducted by Environmental In-
formation Ltd. (EI), a Minneapolis research
and information firm, reveals that many
state agencies continue to allow operators
of nonhazardous waste treatment and dis-
posal facilities to o~rate without these pr0-
tective requirements. The findings, funded
by EI and based on extensive phone inter-
views with officials in all 50 states, pol1ray
a bad news/good news scenario for the liner
industry. The bad news is that many states
often don't require liners at these facilities;
the good news is that these markets could
improve in corning years and generate sig-
nificant businessopportunity.
EI's nonhazardous wasteregulatorystud-
ies focusedon five types of land disposal
units: industrial wastewaterlagoons,non-
hazardousindustrial wastelandfills, waste
piles, land applicationfacilities andmunic-
ipal solid waste(MSW) landfills.The stud-
ies evaluatedthe regulatory requirements
for morethan 20 enviromnentalcriteria for
eachtype of unit, including standardsfor
emissions,design, operatingand closure.
Major reportswereproducedfor eachtype
of unit exceptwastepiles.
Pernapsthe most surprisingfinding was
the generallack of basicinventoryinfonna-
tion that stateshaveon thesefacilities. Of
the five types of disposal units studied,
stateshad accurate information only on
MSW landfills.Every statewasableto pro-
vide EI with the precisenumberor a close
estimate of the number of its MSW land-
fills, an estimate on the number having lin-
ers and leachate collection systems (see
map) and the number of proposed MSW
landfills. In sharp contrast, only three states
could estimate the number of nonhazardous
industrial wastewater lagoons, and esti-
mates on the number of lined lagoons were
essentially nonexistent. Only 26 states
could provide information on the number
of nonhazardous industrial waste landfills.
EI attributes the more complete informa-
tion on MSW landfills to the existence of
a feA:feralprogram for these facilities. It ap-
pears that without some sort of federal re-
quirement to inventory the facilities, many
states, for various reasons, are unwilling to
commit the resources needed to do so.
While the lack of basic inventory informa-
tion on land disposal units does not in itself

Two-thirds of the 3,000 MSW landfills in the United States operate without liners and leachate collection systems.An independently funded
study by Environmental Information Inc. provides a breakdown for each state's MSW landfills.

...
0-
!:

~
~
of
f
..
=
!
.
~
1-,
c
-c
i
II.
...
U
C
.c
~
0
41
13

28
 presentan environmentalproblem,it sug-
geststhat the facilitiesarebeingignoredby
state regulatory staff and most likely are
continuing to operatewithout modemen-
vironmental controls. This assumptionis
supportedby statestaff reportsthat oneof
the most common problems found with
theseunits is treesgrowing in lagoons.
EI wasalsosurprisedto find thatexemp-
tions within the federal and state MSW
landfill standards~e~ all~ed two-~$
gf the natinn's 3.<XX>MSW~~
~~ue o~ratin~withOllt linersaI1dleaciWe
<:2!Lec~nsyste~Many small landfills
Exemptionshaveal-
lowed two-thirds of
the nation's 3,000
MSWlandfills to con-
tinueoperating
with-
out linersand leachate
dtat acceptlessdtan20 tonsof wastea day
and landfills that expandvertically areex-
empt from federalliner standards. It should
be noted,however,that~ l!!ghn!!!!!-
ber of small, unlined landfills skewsdte
~-~~ But evenw';n Alaska's--rocli-
itles are removed from the calculation,
more than half of the nation'sMSW land-
fills remainwidtout ~ andleachatecol-
lection systems.
Widt dIe nearlyuniversalunderstanding
within thelandfill industrythatliquid in un-
lined landfills leads to environmentalre-
leases,one would expectto seeregulatory
agenciespushingoperatorsof wastewater
lagoonsto line theseunits.This is unfortu-
nately not dte casein many states.One of
EI's most startling findings was that state
environmentalagencyofficials continueto
allow wastewaterlagoonsto operatewidI-
out liners and leak detectionsystems,de-
spite acknowledgingdIat soil andground-
waterproblemsareprobablyresultingfrom
suchPf1)ctices. Many stateagenciesappear
, to havetakenan out-of-sight,out-of-mind
approach to managing dte facilities, ~
most states do not require lagoon operators
to install groundwater monitoring systems
to detennine dte environmental impact of
the units. The situation perllaps stems from
the heavy and expensive caseload already
facing state cleanup officials.
One official in a heavily industrialized
state agreed that environmental releasesare
almost certainly occuning at thesefacilities,
yet cxpressOOa certain capitulation, saying,
"nobody in the state has dte stomachfor an-
od1erbig cleanup program." It's noteworthy
dtat the state where this official works has
a non-degradation standard for groundwa-
ter, as do many of the statesthat choose not
to check for releases under dtese facilities.
a believes dtat the marlcetfor liners at non-
hazardous wastewater lagoons offers porefl-
tiaI-if policy change can be brought alx>ut
In 1985 the EPA estimated dtat more dtan
18,<xx>such facilities were operating. While
state officials could not provide accurate
cuttent estimates, EI believes dte number
has fallen, but remains high.
a also sees potential for liner business
within the wri~of nonhazaJOOus indus-
trial waste landfills. Again, however, atti-
tudes will have to change at the state level
to bring this business to fnrition. While in-
ventory information is sketcl1y,a estimates
that between 800 and I ,<XX> nonhazardous
industrial waste landfills operate nation-
wide, but a relatively small number, perlIaps
50, are commercially operated. Given dte
lack of information on these units, a be-
lieves dtat a high percentage are unlined,
mostly within the on-site universe.
a's series of studies into stateregulation
of nonhazardous waste land disposal units
suggests a strong need for additional envi-
ronmental protection at these units, espe-
cially for such benchmark PlVteCtions as
liners and leachate collection systems. A
unified effort by the liner industry, backed
by sound research, may be required, how-
ever,to spurstateenvirornnental officials to
make the changesthey know are ~ but
are unwilling or unable to impose in the
cun-ent regulatory climate.
For more infonnation, contact EI, 480 I
W. 81st St, Suite 119, Minneapolis, MN
55437 USA; 612/831-2473, fax 612/831-
650, e-mail ei@mr.net. Or, access the
company's Internet site at www. enviro-
biz. com. CD
About d1e author JeffreyD. Smid1is a se-
nior associateat Environmental Information
Ltd., Minneapolis.