• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>The Solid Waste Association of North America~(~R) 7th Annual Landfill Symposium Jun 17-19, 2002 Louisville, Kentucky >A RISK BASED SYSTEM FOR POST-CLOSURE CARE ― REFORMING THE 30-YEAR TIME-BASED SYSTEM OF RCRA SUBTITLE D
【24h】

A RISK BASED SYSTEM FOR POST-CLOSURE CARE ― REFORMING THE 30-YEAR TIME-BASED SYSTEM OF RCRA SUBTITLE D

机译：封闭后关怀的基于风险的系统-改造RCRA字幕D的30年基于时间的系统

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In 1991, the U.S. EPA promulgated regulations governing the disposal of non-hazardous wastes in landfills under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). By 1996, there were approximately 3,100 permitted landfills, and landfills are projected to remain the dominant form of municipal solid waste (MSW) management in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. Once a landfill is closed, the site owner is required to monitor and maintain the site for what is referred to as the post-closure care period. Post-closure care activities include leachate collection and treatment, groundwater monitoring, inspection and maintenance of the final cover, and monitoring to insure that landfill gas does not migrate off site or into on-site buildings. Subtitle D specifies a 30-year post-closure care period unless this period is extended or shortened by the governing regulatory agency on a site-specific basis. The decision to extend or shorten the post-closure care period is based on whether the landfill is a threat to human health or the environment. Financial management practices of private landfill owners provide funds for maintaining the closed landfill through the required 30-year post-closure period. The implication of Subtitle D is that, by the end of the 30-year interval, the landfill will be allowed to cease post-closure care. However, federal regulations are unclear as to whether the post-closure period will actually end, and the regulations contain no procedure to define when a landfill no longer poses a threat to the environment other than referencing three risk assessment guidance documents for evaluating leachate management. Such criteria are needed to enable regulators to make defensible decisions on maintaining, extending, or reducing the 30-year post-closure care period. The objective of this paper is to present a new conceptual model to define when to end post-closure care. This paper describes processes that are needed and that will help reform the current 30 year time based system under Subtitle D. The new model addresses all aspects of landfill post-closure monitoring and maintenance including leachate collection and treatment, gas collection and treatment, monitoring, and maintenance of the final cover. The approach includes a series of decision points at which the source, point(s) of compliance, and potential environmental receptors are evaluated in a manner consistent with existing regulations. Rather than rely on a determination that post-closure monitoring is either complete or must be continued at the same level of intensity, the model evaluates each potential release and exposure mechanism individually and allows for the possibility that certain aspects of post-closure care could be discontinued before others. For example, it may be appropriate to discontinue active gas collection due to very low gas production rates or groundwater monitoring due to acceptable risk factors. At the same time, it may be entirely appropriate to continue cover inspections and maintenance to insure that cracks do not lead to increased leachate production. The conceptual approach presented in this paper represents a more realistic and environmentally protective strategy for the management of closed landfills than the current approach under Subtitle D. The approach would enable the owner/operator to identify those operational practices that can best mitigate environmental risk, and where practicable, implement certain practices at closed sites (e.g. leachate recirculation) to help reduce long-term risk to the environment. The authors believe that the proposed approach will result in increased protection of human health and the environment because assessments of environmental impact and potential risk posed by the source will be required before any aspect of post-closure care may be discontinued. Implementation and refinement of this approach will require discussions with regulators and demonstration of its appropriateness thro
机译：1991年，美国EPA颁布了《资源保护和回收法》（RCRA）副标题D中有关处置垃圾填埋场中非危险废物的法规。到1996年，大约有3,100个允许的垃圾填埋场，并且在可预见的将来，垃圾填埋场预计仍将是美国城市生活垃圾（MSW）管理的主要形式。垃圾填埋场关闭后，要求场地所有者在所谓的“封闭后护理期”内监视和维护场地。封闭后的护理活动包括沥滤液的收集和处理，地下水监测，最终覆盖物的检查和维护，以及进行监测以确保垃圾填埋气体不会迁移到现场或进入现场建筑物。副标题D规定了封闭后的30年护理期，除非该期限由主管的监管机构根据特定地点延长或缩短。延长或缩短封闭后护理期的决定取决于垃圾填埋场是否对人类健康或环境构成威胁。私人垃圾掩埋场所有者的财务管理做法可提供资金，以在规定的封场后30年内维持封闭的垃圾场。字幕D的含义是，在30年的间隔期结束之前，将允许填埋场停止封闭后的护理。但是，对于关闭后的期限是否真正结束，联邦法规尚不清楚，除了参考三项风险评估指导文件以评估渗滤液管理外，法规没有包含定义填埋场何时不再对环境构成威胁的程序。需要此类标准，以使监管机构能够做出合理的决定，以维持，延长或缩短封闭后30年的护理期。本文的目的是提出一个新的概念模型，以定义何时结束封闭后护理。本文介绍了必要的过程，这些过程将有助于改革字幕D下当前的30年制。新模型涵盖了填埋场封闭后监测和维护的各个方面，包括渗滤液的收集和处理，气体收集和处理，监测，和维护最后的封面。该方法包括一系列决策点，在这些决策点上，将以与现有法规一致的方式评估来源，法规遵从点和潜在的环境接受者。该模型不依赖于确定封闭后监测是否已经完成或必须在相同强度下继续进行，而是单独评估每种潜在的释放和暴露机制，并考虑到封闭后护理的某些方面可以在其他人面前停产。例如，由于非常低的气体产生速率而停止收集活性气体或由于可接受的风险因素而对地下水进行监测可能是适当的。同时，继续进行覆盖层检查和维护以确保裂缝不会导致渗滤液产量的增加可能是完全合适的。与副标题D下的当前方法相比，本文中提出的概念方法代表了一种用于封闭垃圾填埋场管理的更为现实和环保的策略。该方法将使所有者/经营者能够确定能够最有效地减轻环境风险的那些经营实践，以及在可行的情况下，在封闭的地点实施某些做法（例如，沥滤液再循环），以帮助减少对环境的长期风险。作者认为，提议的方法将导致对人类健康和环境的保护得到增强，因为在终止封闭后护理的任何方面之前，都需要对源所造成的环境影响和潜在风险进行评估。要实施和完善此方法，需要与监管机构进行讨论并证明其适当性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号