[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
L4 (-4 Q C01"t' STPL ZO.NIE INFORMIATIOIN CENTER 4= Levs protect our earth fl - NEW JERSEY AL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT TD 795 H47 "I 4i 1976 COASTAL Z0NE INFORMATI0N CENTER SOLID WASTE AND THE COAST A Staff Working Paper Kenneth Hess U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413 November, 1976 Property of CSC Library New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Marine Services Office of Coastal Zone Management P. 0. Box 1889 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 ..Note: This.staff working paper is one of a series. of Issue and Policy Alternative-Papers presdnting facts, analyses, and conceptual policy alternatives on coastal resources and coastal land and water uses. *The purpose of this draft document is to stimulate discussion and comments that will assist preparation of the management program for the New Jersey coastal zone. This-report was prepared in part with financial assistance from federal Coastal Zone Management Act, P.L. 92-583. Comments, criticism, additions, and suggestiDns are welcome and should be addressed to the New Jersey Office of Coastal Zone Management. CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . I. ISSUE o 9 a o e 9 a e 3 II. POLICY ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . 5 III. WASTE DISPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . 8 IV. ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 APPENDICES A . -.,Regional Reports . . . o o . . . . . . . . . . 19 1. Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 2. North Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. Central Shore ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4. South Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5. .,Delaware Bay 30 6. Delaware River Waterfront . . . . . . . . . . 32 B. Management Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 C. Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 D. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 E. Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 INTRODUCTION New Jersey's dense development and growing population generates. a considerable quantity of solid waste. The coastal area currently provides sites for the disposal of both coastal and non-coastal generated wastes. The amount of land suitable for waste disposall however, is diminishing, necessitating the consideration of new approaches. An additional problem is the extensive damage to groundwater supplies caused by the dumping of soluble chemical wastes into on-site disposal facilities. This paper is intended to further debate on important solid waste disposal issues. The first two sections briefly define these issues in the coastal area and then present alternative policies which could be part of the coastal zone management program in New Jersey. Section III describes current waste disposal practices and problems in New Jersey's coastal area. Section IV analyzes the issues mentioned in Section I in the light of existing and potential disposal methods. Five appendices conclude the paper. First, the six coastal zone regions are examined individually and problems specific to the region are highlighted. The second appendix briefly discusses possible management tools which could be used to implement waste disposal policies. Ib Appendix C contains ten tables which provide supporting data on solid and liquid waste disposal, differentiated between the coastal plain counties and the northeast counties. Appendix D defines the various solid waste types discussed in the text and in the tables. The final appendix provides the sources used to support the text. -2- -ISSUE Solid waste @isposal raises two basic issues. First, the number of landfill sites capable of handling the increasing volume of solid waste is declining. Second, the disposal of chemical wastes in landfills is damaging groundwater supplies, particularly in the coastal plain. Both of these issues suggest that new solid waste disposal methods and attitudes may become necessary in future years. Though the problem associated with the lack o-f suitable landfill sites is most critical in the northeastern counties, it is becoming increasingly pressing in the coastal zone and the rest of the state as well. Although ample open land is still available in coastal counties, only a limited portion of this land is actually suitable for solid waste disposal. This is due to a"variety of factors, including incompatibility with the physical environment, incompatibility with existing land uses, and the failure of landfilling practices to achieve environmental and health acceptability. The shortage of suitable landfill sites can lead to other problems which need analysis: the encroachment of waste disposal sites into unsuitable areas or increased costs resulting from the hauling of wastes to appropriate disposal sites. Obviously, all wastes must be disposed*of somewhere. Economic factors could cause continuation of current methods resulting in continued landfilling of unsuitable areas. Such action, which would create environmental and health hazards, could be a necessary alternative, unless general changes in the methods of disposal become accepted The other problem related to lack of suitable land for landfilling relates to cost. Since the cost of hauling wastes from the collection point to the disposal site is high, landfill sites relatively close to population centers may be economically desirable from a municipal point of view. The lack of suitable land is greatest near these population cen- ters, however, so landfills will be pushed increasingly further away -into more rural areas. It is likely that the urbanized areas of Camden and Trenton and the rapidly developing eastern New Jersey shoreline will soon experience this problem. The second major solid waste issue is the spilling and disposal of liquid chemical wastes in the coastal zone. Such wastes, which may be inadequately treated or have a tendency to leak or spill onto the ground, are particularly damaging to groundwater supplies because they are often soluble in water and thus are leached downward through the soil to the groundwater table. Chemical waste generation and dis- posal is particularly high in Camden and Gloucester Counties where-the majority of the chemical manufacturing plants in the coastal zone are located. Middlesex, Atlantic, and Salem Counties also receive large amounts of chemicalwastes from other coastal counties and areas outside the coastal zone-. -4- POLICY ALTERNATIVES 1. Sanitary landfill sites could be limited to those areas which are environmentally and socially suitable. Criteria would be developed in order to identify suitable areas. Such criteria would include soil suitability, groundwater level, topography, proximity to surface waters, proximity to major transportation routes, proximity to population centers, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. This designation of criteria would be done separately for each'category of solid waste. 2. The amount and type of solid waste which would be accepted for landfill disposal in coastal counties each year could be limited. The ceiling level placed on disposal in each county would be based on the amount of land identi- fied as being suitable for landfilling. This policy would tend to reduce the amount of solid waste which would be accepted from outside the coastal region as well. 3. A more regionalized approach could be adopted for com- batting solid waste problems. Though it is largely the local governments which will be experiencing the problem of lack of suitable land for landfilling, the generation and flow of wastes is a regional phenomenon. Thus, a regional solid waste management system would be better able to coordinate all collection, transfer and disposal activities. 4. A coordinated system of transferring the wastes from points of collection to disposal sites could be insti- tuted. Such a system would tend to.reduce municipal costs of disposal but may require some sort of state financial assistance. This procedure would be of particular benefit to those municipalities required to dispose their wastes in other counties having greater landfill capacities. 5. The increased use of shredding, baling, and other methods of greater volume reduction of wastes could be encouraged. Maint:enance of such methods would be the responsibility of each of the municipalities using the facility, with -possibly, some s;rt of state financial assistance. The large number of municipalities using each facility would minimize individual costs. 6. Industries in the coastal zone could be encouraged to treat, process and reuse as much of their wastes as is economically feasible. Guidelines would be issued by the Department of Environmental Protection in order to provide industries with technological and economic develop- ments relating to resource recovery and recycling. 7. Citizens in the coastal zone could be encouraged to separate and sort their wastes in the home. This front- end separation would tend to reduce costs involved in recycling materials, resulting in the increased feasi- bility of this form of waste reduction. Information on recycling and existing solid waste problems would be issued by the Department of Environmental Protection in order to educate the general public. 8. Methods of preventing severe environmental degradation by landfilling could be adopted and enforced. In order to eliminate environmental and health hazards associated with landfills, existing regulations would require broad- ened inspection and enforcement procedures of landfill sites. 9. No special consideration could be given to the determin- ation of suitable landfilling sites and methods of waste disposal. Such issues have traditionally been the respons- ibilities of the individual municipalities, although recent legislation has established county solid waste management districts. There is a substantial amount of legislation which already exists in order to regulate municipal and private waste disposal practices. This policy assumes that alleviation of the solid waste problem can be adequately achieved at a lower government level (i.e. municipal and/or county). These practices often stress economics above other considerations. -7- III. WASTE DISPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS The amount of solid waste generated is highly dependent on population, commercial, industrial, agricultural activity, and other factors. In New Jersey, these factors combine to produce a significant amount of solid waste. Most per capita estimates for domestic waste production for New Jersey fall between 3.5 and 4.5 pounds per day. The domestic wastes are largely composed of paper products, plastics, glass, lawn substances, metals and food wastes. Though the more-densely populated northeastern counties com- prised more than half of the state's domestic solid waste generation in 1968, the rapidly-growing southern coasta!l counties are increasing their proportions of the state total. Commercial activity has been steadily increasing over the years in New Jersey, as a whole, and in each of the coastal counties, leading to significant accumulations of commercial wastes. Wastes produced from commercial activity are basically the same as domestic wastes. An added component is provided by health-related institutions which generate pathological wastes. Less than 35 percent of the state's industrial activity occurs in the eleven coastal counties. Much of ihe industrial wastes which are disposed in these counties, however, are 8- transported from Northern New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware and other areas. In contrast, few wastes are trans- ported out of the coastal area. Major state industries include chemical manufacturing, plastics, apparel, food products and textiles. The wastes produced by industrial activity vary depending on the type of industry. Agricultural wastes have not yet proven to be a major solid waste problem in New Jersey due to the frequency of on-site disposal. However, the problem is likely to grow as expansion of residential development onto agricultural lands precludes continuation of these disposal techniques which can be unsanitary and odor-producing. In addition, new technological developments may tend to produce more con- centrated crops and animal-grazing, thereby concentrating the resultant.wastes as well. The principal wastes in the state attributed to agriculture are animal manure, orchard prunings, crop residues, animal carcasses, and greenhouse wastes. Other miscellaneous wastes include street litter, dis- carded auto bodies, sewage sludge, oils,'tires, hazardous wastes, and construction-demolition materials. This latter type of waste produced from con struction activities has often been illegally used as a filling material in wetlands areas,' though the amount of land reclaimed each year is minimal. Most of this disposal in the wetlands has been eliminated as a result of the Wetlands Act of 1970, but small, isolated instances do still exist. The major method oi solid waste disposal used in New Jersey is the sanitary landfill. These landfills vary through- out the state in si-ze and types of waste accepted. Generally,. the landfills are located in undeveloped land areas outside of the higher density urban and suburban areas which they ser- vice. Since the transport of solid wastes is one of the most costly asl5ects of solid waste systems, landfills are usually located within easy access to the population centers. Landfills in New Jersey can be either privately or pub- licly owned. Most are used to dispose of wastes generated elsewhere though some collect on-site generated wastes. Landfills which accept refuse for a fee from municipalities are registered with the Public Utilities Commission for the purpose of fee regulation. All known landfills are environmentally regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection. The process of sanitary landfilling theoretically consists of-compacting the wastes, placing in layers, and covering with soil material. Such landfilling may occur either in trenches or on top of the earth's surface. This process, as opposed to open dumping, is intended to reduce the problems associated,with rodent and insect infestation, gas emissions, fires, and the carrying of litter by the wind. Also, any facility receiving pesticides, chemical wastes, hazardous _10- wastes, and other liquids must have a system installed for the interception, collection and treatment of all leachates gener- ated. Unfortunately, violations are often reported and reduc- tion of these hazards is not always achieved. Other methods of solid waste disposal also exist in New Jersey to a limited extent. These methods are presently used mainly in the Northeast Aegion where' the lack of land- fill sites is the most severe. The southern coastal counties have made very little use of alternate methods since the need is not yet as critical as in the Northeast. The reason that alternatives to landfill disposal have not yet gained widespread acceptance is one of economics. For instance, incinerators were once fairly common but the additional cost burden required for compliance with recently enacted air pollution regulations has greatly contributed to their disappearance throughout the state. In addition, a very limited number of composting, resource recovery, and recycling facilities exist. Composting and resource recovery are not widely practiced in the coastal zone because only a limited market exists for the finished products. Further- more, recycling may be uneconomical if waste separation and sorting is not done before the wastes enter the facility. Many of these problems arise because recyclingr resource recovery and other new technological.advances-challenge traditional modes of operation. Efforts to increase their acceptability and availability may, however, be necessitated by the decreasing.availability of landfill sites. IV. ANALYSIS Total solid wastes disposed in coastal counties in 1974 measured approximately 9.75 million tons. In addition, liquid wastes deposited in these counties measured 166 million gal- lons. Of these totals, 30 percent of solid wastes and 36 percent of liquid wastes were generated outside of the coastal planning area.* The landfills in the coastal counties there- fore, play an important role in solid waste disposal for many areas. This is primarily due to the even lower landfill capacitiem available in these other areas. It is anticipated that the need for disposal of non- coastal generated wastes in the coastal area may increase in the near future due to recent developments in the Hackensack Meadowlands. These marshlands of northeastern New Jersey have long been used as a cheap disposal site for wastes generated in 118 New Jersey communities.and a number of communities in New York State, including New York City. In 1973, the region was accepting a total of 50,000 tons of wastes each week. That year however, the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission prohibited all out-of-state dumping in the Meadowlands in order to prolong the life of existing landfills for use by the New Jersey communities. Even so, five of the six remaining land- fills are expected to be phased out by 1977 and.the last by *The coastal planning area, for the purposes of this report, is defined as all of Atlanticl Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth,.Ocean and Salem Counties. A separate analysis for Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Passaic and Union Counties is given in the Northeast regional report. -12- 1979. Many of the communities served by the Meadowlands will seek other areas for disposal and the coastal area i,s a likely location. The amount of land area required each year for disposal of wastes depends not only on the amount of wastes generatede but also, on the amount of volume compaction which is achieved before depositing in the landfill. In addition, the ideal sanitary landfill situation would add one unit of cover soil to every four units of solid waste in order to reduce rodent, insect, firer gasi and odor problems. Such a situation would tend to use up a considerable amount of land in solid waste disposal, thereby presenting the need to continually seek out new landfill sites. An example of acreage requirements for a population of 1,000 persons assuming a solid waste generation rate of 4.5 pounds per capita per day is given below-. Compaction Density in pounds per cubic yard 700 1000 1200 cubic yards per year 2933 2053 1711 acre-feet per year 3.00 2.12 1.75 source: Greenberg, keport on Intuitive-Interactive Model, 1976. -13- At present, bulldozer compaction is the primary method in use. This type of compaction yields an average density of 700 pounds per cubic yard, resulting in the most extensive land requirement. Greater compaction could be achieved through shredding or baling. As existing disposal sites approach capacity, new s-ites become necessary. These new sites will be increasingly difficult to find due to the short- age of compatible open spaces. One reason for the lack of suitable landfill sites is environmental factors. The coastal plain, which essentially covers all eleven coastal counties in southern New Jersey, is characterized by minimum slopes, sandy soils, good.perco- lation, and a high water table. The potential for leaching of soluble wastes into the ground of the coastal zone then, is quite high. This creates a possible danger to the people in the coastal zone and elsewhere in the state dependent on the groundwater supply. Surface water quality is also an important factor to consider. In order to prevent environmental and health hazards to as great an extent as possible, landfills must be located only in areas in which damage can be minimized. The expanding urban, suburban, and seasonally-populated@ areas within the coastal zone also reduces the amount of land available for landfilling. Not only does such development physically reduce the open space which could be used,lbut the land uses adjacent to open space makes waste disposal -14- an incompatible use as well. Because of the various environ- mental and health hazards, odors, and ugly appearance asso- ciated with landfills, property values and quality of life of the adjacent areas could be affected. Also, because of the rapid residential development in recent years, citizens often oppose the loss of additional open lands. Landfilling is certainly not one of the most appealling uses to take the place of open spaces, even though proper landfilling may be reclaimed for recreational and open space purposes at completion of the process. Many people would prefer to have the open spaces for immediate use or Preserved in a natural condition, rather- than waiting for the sites to be reclaimed at some future date. The existence of such factors and characteristics presents three alternatives for solid waste disposal: disregard envi- ronmental factors and locate landfills anywhere vacant land exists, relocate landfills in suitable areas even though such areas may be located at a distance from population centers, or adopt new methods of solid waste disposal The first of these alternatives, that of locating land- fills anywhere regardless of impacts, is unlikely since state regulations preventing environmental degradation have already been adopted. The second alternative, which requires a relocation of landfills to more rural areas while complying with envi- ronmental considerations,-would increase public costs of hauling solid wastes from the population centers to the disposal sites. Since the hauling of wastes from the col- lection point to the disposal site is among the highest cost categories in the total solid waste system, each additional mile could contribute significantly to costs. The third alternative is the adoption of costly new solid waste disposal and volume reduction methods, including incineration, composting, recycling, and various types of resource recovery. Such practices would greatly reduce odors, disposal hazards and nuisances, and the volume of wastes requiring final disposal. In addition, these methods have the advantage of producing marketable resources which can be reused in the system rather than requiring land disposal with no economic value. For instance, pyrolysis yields a low BTU value oil and/or gas from the solid waste, as well as a con- glomerate of burnt char which may be used as a road-grading material. A dry fuel process also yields a low BTU value fuel and water-wall incineration produces steam for fuel. Com- posting creates a fertilization maierial for soils. Recycling allows for the reuse of glass, paper, metals and other original waste products. At present, however, there is a lack of experimentation, confidence, and economic commitment to such -16- waste-reducing techniques. Because of the high cost of these processes, they may be introduced in urbanized areas rather than the less densely developed areas of the coastal zone. Their use anywhere in the state, however,. could lessen the waste disposal load falling on the coast. The second issue related to solid waste in the coastal zone is the generally uncontrolled dumping and spilling of liquid chemical wastes which occurs at existing chemical disposal sites. Though state legislation requires the instal- lation of a system for the interception, collection, and treatment of all leachates generated before a facility may be approved for accepting chemical wastes, violations and acci- dental spillings do exist. Thus, this potential pollution problem occurs at many on-site chemical processing and treat- ment facilities. Unlike many of the waste types deposited in the coastal area which have only minimal.effects on the environment, chemical wastes create a significant problem. This is due to the permeable nature of the coastal soils and the soluble character of many of the chemical wastes. Once the chemicals are mixed with rain water, leaching from the landfill occurs. The chemicals easily pass through the soils until they reach the generally high groundwater level. in contrast, liquid sewage sludge and septic tank clean-out wastes are often filtered outbefore they reach the groundwater. -17- Because of the heavy use of groundwater.wells in the coastal zone, chemical pollution to the groundwater may have severe consequences. In fact, where chemical generation and disposal rates are among the highest in the coastal area, the groundwater characteristics are probably the most incom- patible for receiving these wastes. This occurs along the Delaware River area where the outcrop for the widely-utilized Raritan-Magothy aquifer formation exists. -18- APPENDIX A REGIONAL REPORTS 1. The-Northeast (Bergen, Passaic, Hudson, Essex, and Union Counties) The problem of solid waste disposal in the Northeast region is by far the most severe of all the regions in the state. For this reason, the region has been treated as a separate entity and was not included in the analysis of the main report. Virtually no vacant open space suitable for future landfilling exists in the Northeast. As a result, alternate solid waste disposal facilities have become increasingly popular. General Characteristics The population of the five-county region comprises about 50 percent of the state's total population. This figure represents an average population density of 4,895 persons/sq. mi. in com- parison to the overall state density of 957 persons/sq. mi. Obviously, the domestic wastes generated in this region would also exceed those of any other region in the state. Industrial and commercial waste generation is also very high due to the heavy activity of both sectors. Agricultural wastes on the other hand, are slight as very few farms are inter- spersed with the urban and suburban development. Only a small fraction of total solid wastes disposed in the region is generated outside the region although more than half of the liquid wastes fall into this category. The major -20- solid.wa.ste types are municipal wastes, industrial non-chemical wastes, construction-demolition wastes, bulky wastes, and junked autos.* The major liquid wastes are septic tank clean-out wastes, chemical wastes, liquid sewage sludge, and bulk and semi-liquids. Unlike the other regions, alternative methods of waste dis- posal and/or volume reduction to landfilling are being used to a larger degree, although landfills are still extensively,used. Compost facilities are already fairly numerous. Several resource recovery facilities also now exist. Of the 42 landfills situated in the-five counties, many have already been closed and most of the others are expected to close before 1980. Analysis Although waste disposal by landfilling in the Northeast region is very high, continuation of this practice will be impos- sible in the future. Due to the heavy d6velopment which has occurred in the past, there is literally no more land available for meeting the high acreage requirements of sanitary landfills. Envirorunental regulations prevent future haphazard use of the Hackensack Meadowlands which is the only open section of the region. With five of the six heavily used landfills which are now used in the Meadowlands scheduled to close in 1977 and the last in 1979, the need for additional methods of waste reduction and disposal is immediate. *The dFfI'nition8 of these and other waste types as defined by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management are provided in Appendix D. -21- Fortunately, the solid economic base, the large amount of waste generation, and the availability of a market for recovered resources make alternate methods appear more feasible here than in any of the other regions. In fact, plans have been made for the use of a large resource recovery facility and baling facility in the Meadowlands, and construction is awaiting funding. The wide- spread use of alternate disposal methods in the Northeast region could also help to alleviate the problem of disposal in some of the other regions since fewer wastes would have to be exported. -22- 2. North Shore (Middlesex and Monmouth Counties) The North Shore region is a major disposal area for a large -generating areas. If present practices continue, number of waste however, the existing landfill sites in this region will be almost exhausted within 25 years. General Characteristics The geographical location of the North Shore region, par- ticularly Niddiesex County, has made it an attractive 'area for solid waste disposal by New York and some of the counties of northern New Jersey. The origins of liquid wastes disposed in Middlesex County are even more widespread than those of solid wastes, coming from New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and all but four New Jersey counties. Approximately 44 percent of all solid wastes and 82 percent of all liquid wastes deposited in the county come from outside the North Shore reqion. The total amount of wastes deposited in the two-county region comprise@ 43 percent of all solid wastes and 29 percent of all liquid wastes disposed in the eleven-county.coastal planning area. The major solid waste types disposed in the region are municipal wastes, industrial non-chemical wastes, institutional wastes, construction-demolition wastes, and bulky wastes. The major liquid wastes are sewage sludge, chemical wastes, and septic tank clean-out wastes. -23- The primary method of disposal is the sanitary landfill with a total of 50 in the two counties. In contrast, only 8 composting facilities and 3 chemical processing and treatment facilities exist. A 1973 study indicates that only 8 of the 38 landfills reporting have estimated remaining lives in excess of 25 years. Another 15 landfills have 1O.or less years remaining. Analysis Many of the existing'landfills are subject to flooding and several are lodated on wetlands and aquifer recharge areas. These landfills were so, located due to the cheap land available and the lack of environmental restrictions on solid waste disposal. Some of these landfills have closed while others have remained open due to convenience, haul distance, availability of cheap land, and local dependence. Environmental and health violations abound, even in areas used for liquid chemical wastes. Kin-Buc Landfill in Edison, for instance, has been a center of controversy for several years. Future landfills would be prohibited from being located in many environmentally-sensitive areas as in the past due to legis- lation preventing contact of disposal sites with water sources. Such a restriction would greatly reduce the amount of land capable of accepting solid wastes. In addition, the large, year-round populations of both counties, in comparison to the other coastal counties, has caused heavy suburbanization and development-of land to occur, reducing the number of suitable landfill sites even further. -24- Because of the amount of industry which exists in the region, primarily in Middlesex County, and the close proximity to the urbanized north, this region probably holds a good potential for resource recovery and other waste-v.olume reducing methods. The large amount of wastes which come into the region and the presence of a potential market for recovered materials makes consideration of these other alternatives a practicality. -25- 3. Central Shore (Ocean County) The rapid increase in seasonal and nonseasonal development in Ocean County has created,a rise in waste generation while existing landfill sites approach capacity. Prospects for ac- quiring new landfill sites locally appear to be poor. General Characteristics Ocean County has experienced more residential development in recent year@ than any other county in New Jersey. In fact, more than 17 percent@ of all housing units constructed in the state between 1971 and 1972 were located in Ocean. Most of these have been year-round homes rather than summer homes. The county population has increased by more than 20 percent between 1970 and 1974. Obviously, the rapid increase in population has been accom- panied by a rapid increase in domestic waste generation as well. These internally-generated solid wastes comprise the major portion of total solid wastes disposed in the county, although liquid wastes originate from a wider area. The five major solid waste types disposed in the county, in decreasing order of tonnage are: construction-demolition wastes, municipal wastes, tree stumps, bulky wastes, and vegetative and tree wastes. The largest liquid wastes in gallons are: septic tank clean-out wastes.and liquid sewage sludge. -26- There are presently 20 sanitary landfills for disposal in the county. Of the 14 landfills reported in 1973 (this figure may not be complete because of the number of facility owners who did not report), five were listed as having five or less years of remaining life and another one having less than ten. Seven were reported to have more than 25 years of remaining life. Analysis Ocean County soils are not particularly conducive to sanitary landfilling of wastes. The soils are generally sandy, thus pro- viding excellent subsurface drainage and rapid recharge of the aquifers underlying the county. The 36 percent of the county which lacks rapid drainage is considered to be wetlands, charac- terized by shallow ponds and standing water bodies. The presence of such geological conditions indicates that locating landfills without degrading water supplies could be a difficult task. Solid waste disposal costs have already escalated for some communities as the hauling distance to the landfills has increased. This is particularly true of several of the barrier beach island communities which must transport their wastes over a limited number of bridges to the mainland. The problem is augmented by the fact that there are virtually no prospects for future landfills in the heavily populated mainland municipalities of Dover and Brick. -27- 4. South Shore (Burlington, Atlantic and Cape May Counties) The quantity of solid waste generated.in.the South Shore region is largely attributable to the seasonal influx of pop- ulation which occurs in resort communities each year. The wastes produced during this period are sufficient to create disposal problems within the region. General Characteristics The South.Shore region is highly dependent on its attraction as a summer resort area for its economic base. Because of this dependency, seasonal migrations into the region are actually encouraged. As a result, the volume of waste produced in the region during the summer is roughly equivalent to the wastes generated during the remainder of the year. In comparison to most of the other planning regions, the quantity of solid waste disposed in the region is small. The quantity of liquid wastes, however, is fairly high. Almost all of these wastes are generated within the region. The major solid waste types being disposed are municipal--was-tes, -bulky wastes, construction-demolition wastes, vegetative and tree wastes,.and tree stumps. The major liquid waste type is septic tank clean-out wastes, although Cape May County also receives liquid sewage sludge and chemical wastes. -28- There are a total of 41-landfills in the region (excluding those located in the Burlington County portion) in addition to several composting facilities. Of the 30 landfills identified in 1973 (this figure only re flects those facilities reported by the owners) only 7 were estimated to have more than 25 years of remaining life. On the other hand, 12 had life expectancies of only 10 years or less. Analysis The pr6blems which plague the other coastal regions.exist in the South Shore region. The lack of available land for landfilling is particularly evident in the barrier island resort cities, although many of the inland townships are also becoming quite developed. Farther inland, the region is characterized by a more rural setting. However, caution must be stressed when searching for adequate landfill sites since wetlands and other environmentally- sensitive lands abound. Due to the inconsistent waste flows, the lack of industry and year-round population, and the tourism-oriented economic base, methods of disp osal other than landfilling seem econom- ically impractical in most of this region. The same is true of expensive and intufficiently-tested volume reduction tech- niques such as resource recovery. The options for this region are quite limited so it appears necessary that potential land- fill sites be acquired before additional development can occur. -29- 5. Delaware Bay (Cumberland and Salem Counties) The Delaware Bay region receives only a small portion of the total quantity of waste disposed in the coastal planning area. At the present time, it appears that this region has the least demand for additional, large-acreage landfill sites. General Characteristics Solid waste disposal in the Delaware Bay region comprises a mere three p@rcent of the total quantity of solid wastes dis- posed in the eleven-county planning area. Liquid wastes in the region, however, account for almost twenty percent of total liquid wastes disposed in the planning area. The high percentage of liquid wastes in the region is largely attributed to the heavy reliance on septic tanks. The small quantity of wastes disposed in the two counties is primarily due to the area's low population level. The Delaware Bay region is neither a popular seasonal attraction nor a popular year-round living area. As a result, the population of the region is on!_y___-s`ix-pe-r_cent of the total population in the planning area. An additional reason for the small amount of disposal activity is the lack of easy access -into the region from other areas. Though some wastes are transported iInto the region from nearby areas, inter-regional disposal is quite limited. -30- The principle solid waste types disposed in the region are municipal wastes, industrial non-chemical wastes, construction- demolition wastes, and tree stumps whereas the major liquid wastes are septic-tank clean-out wastes and liquid sewage sludge. These wastes are mainly disposed in any of the 39 landfills which exist, although some composting facilities are also available. Of the 31 landfills reported in 1973, only three are shown to have more than 25 years of remaining life while 17 have'10 or less years. Analysis Though the Delaware Say region is primarily rural, a sig- nificant portion of the land area consists of wetlands and en- vironmentally-sensitive areas. Locating future landfills, there- fore, should be done with caution. Fortunately, the small volume of waste received for disposal in the county minimizes the future land area that will be needed in order to handle the wastes after existing landfills have closed. Future growth in this region is anticipated to be rather limited so this trend of a light volume of waste disposal should remain constant. This region, probably Tnore than any other region in the coastal zone, is limited to the use of landfills rather than other techniques for the disposal of future wastes. The small population and lack of a solid economic. base makes widespread use of alternate techniques economically infeasible. -31- 6. Delaware River Water Front (Gloucester, Camden,-Burlington, 'and Mercer Counties) The Delaware River Water F.ront region presently serves as an important disposal site for wastes generated in the Philadelphia area in addition to its own internally-generated wastes. Many of the wastes which are deposited on the land are dangerous chemical wastes. Though much undeveloped land still exists in the region, suburbanization is rapidly eliminating potential landfill sites. General Characteristics Due to the region's close proximity and easy access to the Philadelphia area, a large portion of the total quantity of wastes which are landfilled in the region originate across the river. In fact, 39 percent of the solid wastes and 27 percent of the liquid wastes deposited in the region are from Philadelphia and its sub- urbs. Overall, the disposed solid wastes from all sources in the four counties comprise 44 percent of the total tonnage received in the coastal planning area. Liquid wastes in the region represent about 23 percent of the total volume in the planning area.- The principle solid wastes being disposed include municipal wastes, construction-demolition wastes, industrial non-chemical wastes, dry sewage sludge, and bulky wastes, in decreasing order of tonnage. The major liquid wastes in decreasing number of gallons are bulk and semi-liquids, septic tank clean-out wastes, and liquid-sewage sludgeo Unlike many of the other regions, -32- chemicalwastes and waste oils are also disposed in large quanti- ties in the region due to the chemical plants and oil refineries located on the river. There are presently 71 land;ills in the four-county region (the actual number is slightly lower due to part of Burlington County's inclusion in the South Shore region). A total of nine composting facilities also.exist.. In 1973, only three of the 47 landfills reported were estimated to have more than 25 years of remaining life while 27 have less than 10 years. Analysis Heavy manufacturing, including manufacturing of chemicals, is located primarily along the Delaware River. The important Raritan and Magothy aquifer formation also outcrops along the river. On-site chemical disposal at some of the industrial sites has serious implications for the widely-used groundwater from this aquifer. Though treatment of the wastes is generally enforced, violations and spills are believed to be frequent. Urban development has also occurred mainly along the river where cities such as Camden and Trenton and their suburbs have been built. more recently however, development has been expanding into the more rural central and eastern portions of the region. h1though adequate open space still exists in these areas, develop- ment is rapidly reducing lands available for landfilling. This is particularly true of the central portion which has become part of Philadelphia's suburban ring. -33- The regulation of solid waste collection, disposal and manage- ment is an indirect control on both local and regional growth. Sanitary landfill sites are now regulated or are capable of being regulated by numerous laws. Groundwater quality is a primary consideration in state approval for new sites or maintenance of operations on existing sites. Within the coastal area, the CAFRA statute requires a permit for a sanitary landfill pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:9-5. Sanitary landfills outside the coastal area but within the coastal zone will in many c@ses require a Stream Encroachment Permit pursuant to N.J.S.A. 58:1-26 et seq. or if the site is on a navigable water- way a permit must be obtained from the Division of Marine Services pursuant to N.J.S.A. 12:5-3. The Division has broad discretion to protect the public health, safety, and welfare in making the initial determination of waterfront development applications. These statutes can use a wide range of environmental criteria both site specific and regional in evaluating applications for sanitary landfills. The type and amount of solid waste is regulated pursuant to the S.olid Waste Management Act of 1910., N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 7:26-1 et seq. No new solid waste facility can operate without first installing a groundwater monitoring system. No sewage.sludge or other fecal material-may be lagooned under the -35- .00, solid waste regulations. These regulations further provide that any solid waste facility accepting pesticides, chemical, bulk liquids, semi-liquids or hazardous wastes on or in fhe ground must install monitoring wells approved by DEP. A coordinated system of transferring waste from points of collection to disposal may be desirable. Municipalities are authorized to create joint facilities for the disposal of garbage and other refuse pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:66A-1 et seq. Revenue bonds may be issued by such authority. Financial assistance by the state to such intra-municipal authority could be authorized pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:66A-1 31.11 et seq. which allows the State to pur- chase such bonds. Industries within the coastal area could be required as part of the utilities plan of the proposed CAFRA Rules and Regulations,' 8 NJR 176(a) section 12-4(g) to identify, locate and describe the proposed type and capacity of solid waste and garbage collection and disposal. These regulations if adopted could serve as an informational basis for developing solid waste guidelines outside the coastal area for the remainder of the coastal zone. These regulations can encourage or require recycling of wastes in larger industrial project applications, subject of course, to reasonable economic limitations. Prevention of severe environmental degradation by irresponsibly operated landfills is an ongoing process within DEP. By Depart- mental Order, dated July 1976, and for violations of NJAC 7:26-1 et -36- seq. the Kin-BUC Solid Waste*Disposal Facility landfill in Middlesex County was ordered closed. The landfill occupies 40 acres and fronts on the Raritan River. Under the closure order, Kin-BUC -is required to submit a detailed plan for closure including the building of a dike for containing leachate and preventing surface water from entering the site, as well as a plan for treating the leachate to protect the groundwater. The closure order resulted in Kin-BUC refusing to accept wastes tainted with hazardous chemicals. The goal of complete closure of the facility is the subject of a joint hearing to be held by the Public Utility Commission and DEP. New Jersey has addressed the problem of receiving wastes from other states by enacting the Waste Control Act of 1973, N.J.S.A. 13:11-1 et seq. The Commissioner of DEP has the authority to prohibit control and condition the disposal of solid wastes within the state which originated or were collected outside the territorial limits of the state. This statute and appurtenant regulations were upheld by the State Supreme Court in the case of Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission v. Municipal Sanitary Landfill AuthoriLZ 68 N.J. 451, 348 and 505 (1975). This case has been consolidated with the City of Philadelphia v. State of New Jersey case and is now awaiting argument before the U. S. Supreme Court. -37- In summary, the state has comprehensive controls to regulate construction and operation of all solid waste facilities throughout the coastal planning area. The state has authority to require.the .existence of adequate sanitary waste disposal facilities, however, only in the CAPRA area. Other types of landfills are not regulated by the CAPRA statute. In addition, the state lacks the authority to the use of alternative treatment methods such as recycling. However, through the application of existing controls, the state may be able to markedly increase the economic feasibility and attractiveness of the alternative methods. -38- APPENDIX C TABLES -39- TABLE I TYPES OF WASTES DISPOSED IN COASTAL ZONE COUNTIES IN 1974 (First 11 waste type categories are given in tons. second 6 waste type categories are given In gallons) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- WestIe Type Atlantic Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Giouces er Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Cc ean Salem TOTAL SO-rfa-wa-ste - -16REM-87' 157,975 750,421 525,567 32,331 176.789 60Z.73T 5Z?,g?2 1,470.631 276,941 173,997 10,500 4.700,stio Institutional 6.192 30.632 5,686 0 2,481 38,707 3,512 57,519 508,437 3.250 0 656.416 Cry Sewage Sludge 224 134.379 172.186 542 1 0 0 1,772 156 2,210 0 311.470 Bulky Waste 16,329 42,895 129,299 100,476 936 13,380 8,321 245.232 27,605 72.395 28 658,896 Construction Demolition 42,859 26.047 344.508 2.666 19,681 177.129. 40.408 361.202 174,549 218.720 1,155 1.408,924 Dry Pesticides 0 0 0 0 0 40 a 0 0 0 42 Hazardous Waste Containers 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 107 0 0 0 112 Cry Hazardous Wastes M 0 7 0 0 1.780 0 1,00 0 0 0 3.107 Dry Chemical Wastes 145 5.100 2,438 0 562 2,282 0 .7.822 0 0 0 18,349 Junked Autos 10 0 2 In 0 448 0 0 1 60 0 530 Tires 62 383 5,273 130 1 W9 4.170 11,765 23.522 200 234 0 106.748 Vegetative & Tree Wastes 7,567 3,794 12,227 10,779 3.005 2,884 145.562 115,045 9,879 21.850 35 332,627 Tree Stumps 16,345 13,975 734 684 20,632 1,356 2,160 81,690 2,282 72,680 25 212.563 Dead Animals 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 14 Food Processing Wastes 347 5 18,242 0 700 0 0 7.413 7SO 221 0 27.678 (continued) Atlantic Burlinoton Camden Cape Mal Cumberland Gloucester fiercer Middlesex Salem TOTAL Monmouth Ocean - Oil Spill Cleanup Wastes 1 0 2 0 20 780 0 37,757 0 92 0 38.652 Industrial Mon- 6.393 75.705 232.557 1,050 28,226 79,858 79,729 695.2Z6 45.219 1,509 26,983 1,272,454 Chemical TOTAL TONS 256.600 1.083.337 1.448,728 148.668 254.042 925.554 874.380 3,106.116 1,046,025 567,218 38.776 9,749,444 id stes @eWa 0 0 1,755,057 0 2,000 306,500 252,500 2.071.161 0 150 0 4,387,368 Semi-Solid Waste Oil & Sludges 0 0 786,552 0 so 435,500 148,125 5,489.590 0 225,017 7.084,834 Bulk Liquid Semi-Liquids 0 18.000 3.784.224 0 10 16,025,750 302,000 2,430,850 0 95.000 0 22,655,834 Septic-Tank Clean-Cut Wastes 26.207.300 4.403,10D 116,750 2.999,400 2.4.435,100 2.837,386 678,550 4,980,100 743,700 12.353,900 5.046,500 84,801,786 Liquid Sewage Sludge $49.800 303.000 2,145,000 0 2,074,000 1,369.345 0 17,510.000 0 4,414.775 4.000, 28,369,920 Pesticide. Chemical & Hazardous Waste Liquids 410,000 0 456.286 0 0 2,773,359 63,333 15,131,919 192 0 232.000 19,067,089 TOTAL GALLONS 27,167.100 4.724,100 9,043,869 2,999,400 26,511,160 23,747,840 1,444,508 47,613,620 743.892 17.088,842 5.282.500 166.366.831 -Definitions of waste types as defined by Bureau of Solid Waste Management are provided In Appendix D. SOURCE: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental Protection, County Disposal Data. 1974 Disposal SOLID WASTE FLOWS UWIN COASTAL ZONE COUNTIES Origin nty Counv AtIA-qtic @t@r I i n_qA o n Camden Cape Hay Cumberland Gloucester Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Ocean Salem TOW Atlantic 248,334 0 495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248,329 a Bergen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,788 0 0 0 3, NO : urlington 2,600 547.030 40,00;4 0 a 39.800 0 0 0 15.000 0 644,494 amden 24 14,151 643,146 0 1,000 89.045 0 0 0 0 0 744,368 Cape May 5,601 0 0 140,668 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154,269 Cumberland 0 0 0 0 253,042 5,050 0 0 0 0 0 258,092 Essex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38.069 0 0 0 38,069 Gloucester 24 755 51,740 0 0 239.026 0 22 0 0 1.300 292,867 Hudson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.388 0 2 0 3,390 Hunterdon 0 0 0 0 0 35,639 9,134 0 0 0 44,7 73 Mercer 0 P4,648 102 0 0 100 838,158 166,028 1.841 2J60 0 1,092,937 Middlesex 0 0 1,300 0 0 1,190 579 1,692,486 2,066 360 0 1,698,781 Monmouth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,071 1,023,209 16.678 0 1,085,958 Morris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,271 0 0 0 2.271 Ocean 17 0 a 0 397 4 22 18,058 '532013 0 550,611 Passaic 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Salem 0 0 10 0 0 3,507 0 0 0 0 30.451 33,968 Somerset 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109,938 1 0 0 109,939 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Sussex 0 0 0 0 0 Union 0 0 0 0 60 0 343,889 120 0 344,069 (continued) Atlantic BurlitLton amqen La@ma Tot-i I Cumberland Gloucester Mercer H ddlesex LIRMOV4 ocean Sa..Iem Warren 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,640 0 673 .333 0 0 682 023 New York 0 0 Pennsylvania 0 436,651 710,465 0 0 @541,069 0 2 . 714 0 0 7.025 1,698.124 Delaware 0 0 30 0 0 670 0 0 0 0 0 700 Unk/Other 0 0 1 . 3 7 6 0 0 0 0 14 91 3 50 784 0 17,123 TOTAL 256,600 1 08 3 . 3 3 7 1 4 4 8 .7 28 148,668 254,042 925,554 874,380 3,106.116 1,046.025 557.218 38,776 94749,444 SOURCE: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental Protection County Disposal Data, 1974 TABLE 3 LIQUID WASTE FLOWS (GALLONS) IN COASTAL ZONE COUNTIES Disposal Origin ,uty Total County Atlantic Burlington Camd Cape may Cumberland Gloucester He cer Middlesex Nowouth Ocean Salem Atlantic 25,814,100 0 0 153,000 20.500 0 0 0 0 25.987.&OD Bergen 0 0 0 0 0 33,750 97,083 239.846 0 0 0 370,679 Burlington 5,000 3,783,000 459,500 0 0 100.700 0 15.010 )Do 572,00D 0 4.935,300 Camden 680,000 13S,OD0 2,134,750 0 0 246.790 0 2.317.7iO 0 719,375 0 6.233.665 Cape May 456.000 0 941.500 2,846,400 0 0 0 0 0 412,000 0 4,661,900 Cumberland 0 0 0 0 26.423.660 8.000 0 0 0 50.000 7.000 26.488.660 -Essex 0 0 0 0 0 107.000 0 152.975 .0 0 0 259,975 filouceste .r 0 0 14.843 0 12,000 3.853.876 0 130,0)0 0 0 23.40D 4.034.119 Hudson 0 0 862.474 0 a 232.750 211,2SO 587,433 0 0 0 1,893,907 Hunterdon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.000 0 0 0 S,000 Mercer 0 0 26.600 0 0 4.000 981,800 52,1500 0 462,000 %0 1,527.000 Middlesex 0 0 125.970 0 0 591,620 7,500 7.331,123 43.900 0 a 8.100.113 Nortmouth 0 792,400 0 0 0 96,300 0 1,020.820 699,892 3.219,000 0 S,828.412 Morris 0 0 0 0 0 1.019.500 a 900.405 0 0 0 1,919,905 Ocean 2.000 13,700 0 0 0 U3,200 0 2,615 0 1.654.467 0 11,856.182 Passaic 0 0 0 0 a 23,900 0 50.560 0 0 0 74,460 Salem 0 0 667.706 0 55.000 1,022.900 0 13,185 0 0 5,020.100 6,778,891 Somerset 0 0 0 0 0 256,300 0 1,850.626 0 0 232.000 2.338.926 Sussex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Continued) Atlantic Burlington Camden Ca-3e May Cuniberland Gloucester Mercer Middlesex Ocean Salem TOTAL Union 0 0 a 0 0 379,200 145,000 1,594,413 0 0 0 2,118,61? Warren 0 0 0 0 0 79.500 0 3,748,015 0 0 0 3,827.515 New York 0 0 0 0 0 3,890,000 0 1.159,960 0 0 0 5.049.960 Pennsylvania 0 0 2,902,566 0 0 7.860,104 1.875 920.258 0 0 0 11,684.803 Delaware 0 0 879,850 0 0 1.851,450 0 768.100 0 0 0 3.499.400 Unk/Other 210,000 22,110 0 0 1,907,000 0 24,752.736 0 0 0 26,891.846 Total 27.167,100 4.724.100 9,043,869 2.999,400 26,511.160 23.747,840 1.444.508 4 7.613,6ZO 743.89Z 17.088.842 5,282.500 166,366,831 SOURC.E: Bureau of Solid Waste Kanagement, Department of Environmental Protection County Disposal Data, 1974 Table 4 Existing and Proposed Solid Waste Facilities in the Coastal Counties Chemical Processing Other -County Sanitary Lpndfill Compost Facility I Resource Recovery & Treatment Facility Facility Existing q Existing Existing & Existing & Existing clos.ed Proposed closed 'Proposed closed Proposed closed Froposed closed Prop. Atlantic 27 Burlington 27 3 Camden -12 4 3 Cape May 14 1 2 3 Cumberland 20 2 Gloucester 22 1 Mercer 10 3 2 Middlesex 30 4 3 2 Monmouth 20 4 Ocean 20 Salem 19 TOTAL 221 7 24 1 6 5 Source: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental Protection, Sanitary Landfill Dlreet6ry, 5/25/76. TABLE 5 EXPECTED REMAINING LIFE (IN YEARST OF SANITARY LANDFILLS IN COASTAL ZONE COUNTIES: 1973 Data --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Less than More than County 3 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 yea 16-20 yea 21-25 yea 25 years Unknown Total Ls- Ls- Ls- Atlantic 1 3 2 1 5 4 16 Burlington 2 5 5 2 2 1 1 18 Camden 3 2 1 1 7 Cape @ay 2 6 1 2 3 14 Cumberland 2 2 S 2 2 1 14 Gloucester 4 3 2 3 2 is Mercer I 1 1 4 7 Middlesex 1 5 5 2. 5 1 6 1 26 Monmouth 4 3 2 3 12 Ocean 5 1 1 7 14 Salem 1 2 2 1 3 3 17 Total 8 29 40 12 14 8 28 21 160 SOURCE: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Cooperative Project on Solid Waste Management with Glassboro State,College, 1975. Table 6 TYPES OF WASTES DISPOSED IN NORTHEAST COUNTIES IN 1974 (First 17 waste type categories are given in tons; second 6 waste type categories are given in gallons) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bergen Essex Ifudson Passaic Union TOTAL Waste Type Solid Waste Municipal 1,446,208 60,352 1,394,741 8,736 5,93S 2,915,972 Institutional 4,898 6 22,715 0 0 27,619 Dry Sewage Sludge 0 0 110 0 0 110 Bulky Waste 37,970 2,589 86,430 0 175 127,164 Constr/Demo. 118,779 42,060 85,893 4,270 1,S06 252,508 Dry Pesticides 0 0 250 0 0 250 liaz. Waste Cont. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry Haz. Waste 4 0 0 0 0 4 Dry Chem. Waste 1,912 0 9,902 0 0 11,814 Junked Autos 0 0 114,800 0 0 114,800 Tires 3,493 0 1,952 0 1 5,446 Vegetatives and Tree Wastes 42,156 672 13,904 1,520 3,155 61,407 Tree Stumps 5,888 8S 742 0 46 6,761 0 Dead Animals 17 0 0 0 0 17 Food Proc. Waste 8,941 0 6,806 0 0 1S,747 (con t) Bergen Essex Hudson Passaic Union TOTAL Waste Type Solid Waste Oil Spill Cleanup 100 0 493 0 59,134 59,727 Indus. Non-chem. 240,262 4,252 1,048,308 0 209 1,293.031 TOTAL TONS 1,910,628 110,016 2,787,046 14,526 70,161 4,892,377 Liquid Wastia Waste Oil 335,700 55,000 51,250 0 21,025 462,975 ,Semi Solid 0 352,S40 0 0 0 352,540 Waste Oil & Sludge Bulk Liquid & Semi Liquids 0 0 7,721,915 0 0 7,721,91S Septic Tank Cleanout 2,056,000 1,573,000 10,552,510 0 0 14,181,510 Liq. Sewage Sludge 0 0 8,710,780 0 33,000 8,743,780 Liq. Pesticides Haz. Waste Liq. 2,186,174 0 6,233,989 0 1,686,218 10,106,381 Chem. Waste Liq. TOTAL TONS 4,577,874 1,980,540 33,270,444 0 1,740,243 41,569,101 Source: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental Protection, County Disposal Data, 1974. Table 7 Solid Waste Flows (Tons) in Northeast Counties )osal Bergen Essex Hudson Passaic Union TOTAL Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bergen 1,476,160 0 541,081 0 0 2,017,241 Burlington 0 0 0 0 0 0 Camden 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cape May 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 Cumberland 0 0 0 0 0 0 Essex 143,329 102,729 473,165 0 94 719,317 Gloucester 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hudson 57,020 4,104 1,172,079 0 i7 1,233,220 Hunterdon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middlesex 83 0 8,092 0 0 8,975 Monmouth 0 0 10 0 38 48 (con't) Origin/Disposal Bergen Essex Hudson Passaic Union TOTAL Morris 6,501 0 30,895 0 0 37,396 Ocean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passaic 211,535 200 263,673 .5,790 0 481,198 Salem 0 0 0 0 1,325 1,325 ? .Somerset 0 0 1,672 0 0 1,672 Sussex 0 0 0 0 0 0 Union 4,276 2,983 293,124 0 9,553 309,936 Warren 0 0 0 0 0 New York 1,030 0 2,120 8,736 0 11,886 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unk/Other 14 0 335 0 59,1341 59,483 TOTAL 1,899,9118 110,016 2,787,046 14,526 70,161 4,881,697 Source: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental Protection. County Disposal Data. 1974 7@6'ble8 Liquid Waste Flows (Gallons) in Northeast Counties Origi 'I\Disposal r County unty Bergen Essex Hudson Passaic Union TOTAL 'Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bergen 2,153,956 .3,000 2,830,261 0 20,000 5,007,217 Burlington 0 0 0 0 0 0 Camden 4,000 0 719,375 0 0 723,375 Capi@ May 0 0 0 0 18,725 18,725 Cumberland 0 0 0 0 .0 0 Essex 1,104,400 29,100 2,140,800 0 10,000 3,284,300 Gloucester 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hudson 213,250 0 1,446,500 0 0 1,659,750 Hunterdon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer 9,400 0 0 0 400,000 409,400 Middlesex 129,500 0 7,500 20,609 157,609 (con' 0 Bergen Essex Hudson Passaic Union TOTAL Monmouth 1 0 0 41535,000 0 0 4,535,000 Morris 2,000 512,000 7,492,310 11 0 0 8,006,310 .ocean 21,000 0 0 0 0 21,000 Passaic 104,000 382,000 4,929,877 0 300,000 5,715,877 Salem 9,120 0 0 0 0 9,120 Somerset 193,000 0 111,000 0 20,000 324,000 Sussex 0 2,000 10,000 0 0 12,000 Union 501,000 0 0 0 488,000 989,000 Warren 6,000 0 0 0 0 6,000 New York 0 0 2,225,000 0 451,300 2,676,300 Pennsylvariia 127,248 352,440 230,716 0 11,609 722,013 Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0 (con't) Bbrgen Essex Hudson Passaic Union TOTAL Unk/Other 0 700,000 1 6,592,105 0 0 7,292,105 TOTAL 4,577,874 1,980,540 33,270,444 0 1 7LI0,243 41,569,101 Source: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental Protection. County Disposal Data, 1974 Table 9 Existing and Proposed Solid Waste Facilities in the Northeast Counties County Chemical Processing Other Sanitary Landfill Compost Fa.11ity Resource Recovery & Treatmen Facility Facility Existing & Existing & Existing & Existing & Existing &, closed Proposed Closed IProposed i closed Proposed closed Prop sed closed IPr2r.- Bergen 18 23 2 1 Essex 7 10 Hudson 9 2 1 1 Passaic 5 1 Union 3 1 3 3 TOTAL 42 1 37 2 6 1 Source: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental Protection, Sanitary Landfill Directory, May 25, 1976. TABLE 10 EXPECTED REMAINING LIFE (IN YEARST-0-F-9ANITARY LANDFILLS IN NORTHEAST COUNTJES: 1973 DATA Less than IMore than 1 3 years 3-5 years 6-10 years. 11-15 yeais. 16-20 years 21-2S ye.ars @2S years Unkown Total Bergen 2 4 1 1 1 11 Essex 2 3 Hudson 2 2 2 7 Passaic 2 1 4 Union 1 3 Total 9 7 3 1 0 1 1 6 28 Source: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Cooperative Project on Solid Waste Management with Glassboro State College, 1975. APPENDIX D DEFINITIONS -57- ,SOLID WASTES DEFINITIONS*(see end-of list) Municipal Waste originating in the community con- (Household, Commercial) sisting of household waste from private residences & commercial waste which ori- ginates in wholesale, retail or service establishments such as restaurants, stores,, markets, theatres, hotels & warehouses. Any one truckload may include small quan- tities of other waste. Institutional Waste material originating in schools, hospitals, research institutions & public buildings. Laboratory waste & infectious wastes are not included in this category. Dry Sewage Sludge Sludge from a sewage treatment plant which has been digested and dewatered and does not require liquid handling equipment. Bulky Waste Large items of waste material such as appliances, furniture, large auto parts, whole trees, branches & tree trunks. Not included are items for which there is a specific waste category. -58- .Construction and Waste building materials & rubble resulting Demolition from construction, remodeling, repair &-demolition operations on houses, commer- cial buildings, pavements and other struc- tures. Pesticides Dry A non-liquid chemical substance intended for use to control or manage insects, plant diseases, weeds & some other or- ganisms troublesome to man. Hazardous Waste Emptied containers that were used for Containers the shipment and/or storage of Hazardous Waste. Hazardous Waste-Dry Non-liquid waste materials which are inherently dangerous to handle or dispose of. Included in this category are waste materials which are toxic, corrosive, irritating or sensitizing, radioactive, biologically infectious, explosive or flammable. Chemical Waste-Dry- Non-liquid material normally generated Non Hazardous by or used in chemical, petro-chemical, plastic, pharmaceutical biochemical or microbiological manufacturing processes that is not included in the hazardous waste or pesticide category. _59- SOLID WASTES (cont'd) DEFINITIONS Junked Autos Discarded automobiles, trucks and trailers, usually devoid of easily-salvaged parts. Tires Discarded tires, in truckload quantities. Dead Animals Does not include the occasional dead animals included in municipal waste. Leaves and Chopped -Tree wastes that have been processed Tree Waste through a wood chipper, or fallen leaves. Agriculture Vegetative waste materials from farms, plant nur- Waste series, & greenhouses produced from the raising of plants. This waste includes such crop residues as plant stalks, hulls and leaves. Tree Stumps The part of a tree trunk remaining after the tree has been felled. Food Processing Wastes Processing waste materials generated in canneries, slaughterhouses, packing plants or.similar industries. _60- Oil Spill Clean-Up Wastes generated during an oil spill Wastes clean-up operation which include but are not limited to oil soaked sand and straw. Industrial Solid waste materials resulting from (Non-Chemical) the manufacturing industry. Specifically, not included is waste material of a chem- ical nature which is normally generated by or used in chemical, petro-chemical, plastic, pharmaceutical, biochemical or microbiological manufacturing processes, which has been selected for waste dis- posal & which is known to hydrolize, ionize or decompose, which is soluble, burns or oxidizes, or which may react with any of the waste,materials.which are introduced into the landfill, or which is bouyant on water, or which has a viscosity less than that of water or which produces a foul odor. LIQUID WASTES. DEFINITIONS Waste Oil Automotive crank case drainings & other discarded free flowing oils from indus- trial,.aviation & miscellaneous appli- cations. -61- 'LIQUID WASTES (cont'd) DEFINITIONS Semi-Solid Waste Waste oils and materials which are in Oils & Sludges the form of a highly concentrated slushy residue. Bulk Liquid and Liquid or a mixture consisting of solid Semi-liquids matter-suspended in a liquid media which is contained within, or is discharged from, any one vessel, tank or other con- tainer which has the capacity of 20 gal- Ions or more. Included are bulk or semi- liquids for which there is not a specific waste category. Septic Tank Pumpings from septic tanks and cesspools. Clean-Out Wastes Not included are wastes from a sewage treatment plant. Liquid Sewage Sludge Liquid residue from a sewage treatment plant consisting of sewage solids com- bined with water & dissolved materials. Pesticide Liquids Chemical substance capable of flowing or of being poured intended for use to control or manage insects, plant diseases, weeds and some other organisms trouble- some to man, _62- Hazardous Waste Free flowing material which is inherently Liquids dangerous to handle or dispose of. Included in this category are waste materials which are toxic,, corrosive, irritating or sensi- tizingy radioactive biologically infectious, explosive or flammable. Chemical Waste Free flowing material normally generated Liquids by or used in chemical, petro-chemicalt plastic, pharmaceutical, biochemical or microbiological manufacturing processes. This material is known to hydrolize, ionize or decompose, is soluble, burns or oxidizes, or may react with any of the waste materials which are introduced into the landfill, or produces a foul odor. Not included is any chemical waste liquid for which there is a specific waste category. *These definitions are utilized by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management of the Department of Environmental Protection. -63- Bureau of Solid Waste Management, New Jersey Department of Envi- ronmental Protection, Cooperative Project on Solid Waste Management with.Glassboro State College, Trenton: 1975. Bureau of Solid-Waste Management, New Jersey Departme nt of Envi- ronmental Protectidn, County Disposal Data for 1974. Bureau of Solid Waste Management, New Jersey Department of Envi- ronmental Protection, New Jersey State Solid Waste Management Plan,.Newark: Planners Associates, Inc., July 1970. Bureau of Solid Waste Management,-New Jersey Department of Envi- ronmental Protection. Sanitary Landfill Directory for 1974. Camden County Planning Board. Solid Waste 1970. Pennsauken, New Jersey: Camden County Planning Board, 1970. Cape May County Planning Board, Refuse Disposal in Cape May County, New Jersey, Cape May Court House: Cape May County Planning Board, 1968. Day & Zimmermann, Inc., Mercer County, New Jersey Comprehensive Plan: Solid Waste Disposal Study and Plan, Mercer County Improvement Authority, June 1971. Disko, M., Associates, Ocean County Solid Waste Disposal and Resource Recovery Management Study, Vol. 1: Inventory of Existing Solid Waste Systems and Background Information, West Orange, New Jersey: M. Disko Associates, 1975. -65- Greenberg, Michael, Report on Intuitive-Interactive Model 2: Initial Report, March 6, 1976. Greenberg, Michael R. and others, Solid Waste Planning in Metro- politan Regions, Rutgers University: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1976. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, A Solid waste Strategy and A Park Proposal, 1975. Havens and Emerson, Ltd., Report on Refuse Collection and Disposal for Monmouth Shore Refuse Disposal Committee, March 1970. Kaczorski, Al, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, Interview June 25, 1976o Middlesex County Planning Board, Middlesex County Solid Waste Management Program, Vol. 1, New Brunswick: Middlesex County Planning Board, 1975. New Jersey, P.L. 1975, Chapter 326, approved February 23, 1976. New Jersey, Rules of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, N.J.A.C. 7:26-1 et seq. (1974). -66- Pereira, Lino, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of EnvironImental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, Interview, June 23, 1976. Solid Waste Management: Analysis of Problems and Recommendations for*Possible Solutions. Princeton University. June 1972. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management, Washington, D.C.: U. S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, 1976. Williams, R. E. and B. Bocciarelli, The Plan for Solid Waste Management in Burlington County, N.J., Moorestown, New Jersey: Applied Information Industries, 1972. -67- COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER DATE DUE GAYLORbINO. 2333 PfUNTED 114 U.S.A. 3 6668 14106 7779