LANDFILL FIRES

THEIR MAGNITUDE, CHARACTERISTICS,

AND MITIGATION

May 2002/FA225

Federal Emergency Management Agency

United States Fire Administration
National Fire Data Center

FA225

LANDFILL FIRES

THEIR MAGNITUDE, CHARACTERISTICS,

AND MITIGATION

M A Y 20 0 2

Prepared by
TriData Corporation
1000 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22209

for
Federal Emergency Management Agency
United States Fire Administration
National Fire Data Center

U.S. FIRE ADMINISTRATION

MISSION STATEMENT
As an entity of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the mission of the U.S. Fire
Administration is to reduce life and economic losses due to fire and related emergencies through
leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support. We serve the Nation independently, in coordina
tion with other Federal agencies and in partnership with fire protection and emergency service
communities. With a commitment to excellence, we provide public education, training, technol
ogy, and data initiatives.

CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Regulation

Characteristics

Extinguishing Landfill Fires

Prevention

Statistical Analysis

Case Studies

SOURCES OF DATA

WHY STUDY LANDFILL FIRES?

CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFILLS

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

Other Types of Landfills

Landfill Emissions

Number of Landfills

The Development of Landfill Regulation1

CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFILL FIRES

Surface Fires

Underground Fires

Health Effects of Landfill Fires

EXTINGUISHING LANDFILL FIRES

Wind/Weather

Water Supply

Multi-Agency Response

Personnel Safety

Access to and Maneuverability of Heavy Equipment

Logistics

Environmental Impact

Landfill Contents

LANDFILL FIRES: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Type of Landfill Fires
Causes of Landfill Fires
When Landfill Fires Occur
LANDFILL FIRE PREVENTION
Landfill Management

Methane Gas Detection and Collection

CASE STUDIES
Finland

Canada

Hawaii

Other Examples

CONCLUSION

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The United States Fire Administration greatly appreciates the help of the following
persons who provided information or reviewed this report:
Rodney Slaughter

Rodney Slaughter is the President of Dragonfly Communications

Network, a fire service training and consulting firm.

Todd Thalhamer

Todd Thalhamer, P.E., is a waste management engineer with the

California Integrated Waste Management Board. Mr. Thalhamer
specializes in investigating and mitigating landfill and tire fires
for the State of California.

Dr. Tony Sperling

Dr. Sperling is the President of Sperling Hansen Associates and

the founding partner of Landfillfire.com (http://www.Landfill
fire.com). Since 1997, he has specialized in landfill fire risk
reduction training and landfill fire extinguishment on more than
30 landfill fire projects.

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Landfills can be controversial in and of themselves. Homeowners and business owners
tend not to support the siting and development of landfills in their neighborhoods due to per
ceived notions about noxious fumes, health and environmental effects, and adverse influences on
property values. Fires occurring in landfill sites are an ongoing, complex problem that has existed
for decades.
Although relatively uncommon, fires in landfills generally receive substantial media
attention and have the potential to become politically damaging events. Landfill fires threaten the
environment through toxic pollutants emitted into the air, water, and soil.
Landfill fires are particularly challenging to the fire service. A large landfill fire normally
requires numerous personnel and a significant period of time before it is contained. Both of these
circumstances can strain a jurisdiction, particularly one dependent on volunteer staffing.
Landfill operators, members of the fire service, and community residents need to learn as
much as possible from past experience to prevent and mitigate future landfill fires.
REGULATION. In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), which gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control haz
ardous waste from cradle-to-grave. RCRA covers the generation, transportation, treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous waste and provides a framework for the management of nonhazardous wastes. A turning point in landfill regulation and remediation occurred in 1980, first
with the Superfund legislation, followed by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) in 1984, which finally gave the EPA regulatory authority over landfills. The Compre
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as Superfund, governs closed and abandoned hazardous material waste sites, provides for the liability of
persons responsible for the release of hazardous materials at these sites, and established a trust
fund to provide for cleanup where no responsible party could be identified.
CHARACTERISTICS. The most common type of landfill is one that is designed to accept
municipal solid waste (MSW). Other types of landfills include hazardous materials landfills, con
struction and demolition landfills, and industrial landfills. Each type of landfill has specific char
acteristics based on the type of waste it is designed to accept.

The passage of liquid through solid waste in a landfill creates leachate, which contains
potentially dangerous pollutants. As such, landfills must operate in a manner that protects the
environment, particularly surface and ground waters, from leachate contamination. To do this,
landfill designs generally incorporate a composite liner and a leachate collection system, and
landfill procedures require that the waste collected each day be completely covered.

Because of the methods normally adopted to deposit, compact, and cover waste in landfills, the decomposition of waste is largely anaerobic, which results in the production of large
quantities of methane and carbon dioxide. Landfills are the largest source of methane emissions
in the United States; in 1999, 35 percent of methane emissions were from landfills. Methane is
highly flammable and plays a large role in the ignition of landfill fires.
EXTINGUISHING LANDFILL FIRES. The different dynamics, characteristics, and regu
lations of landfills and the fires that occur in them suggest that firefighting tactics need to be de
termined on a case-by-case basis depending on the materials buried in the landfill, which materi
als have ignited, depth of the fire, and the fires ignition source. Challenges explored in this
report include wind/weather; water supply; multi-agency response; personnel safety; access to,
access by and maneuverability of heavy equipment; logistics; environmental impact; and landfill
contents (potentially hazardous or illegal).
PREVENTION. Fire prevention actions can reduce property damage and the risk of in-

jury and death, as well as decrease health and environmental hazards associated with landfill
fires. As a rule, the cost of prevention is less expensive than the cost of fighting and cleaning up a
fire. In many cases, particularly at larger landfills, fire prevention activities are mandated by law.
The principal methods for landfill fire prevention include effective landfill management and ap
propriate methane gas detection and collection.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. Data from the National Fire Incident Reporting System

(NFIRS) does not include MSW landfills as a fixed property use category. Rather, the NFIRS
data set includes a category for dump or sanitary landfill under NFIRS Fixed Property Use code
932. Although this definition is broader than the definition of a landfill, it is the closest match
available in NFIRS. Based on extrapolation of the NFIRS data, each year in the United States an
average of 8,400 dump and landfill fires are reported to the fire service. This represents less than
a half percent of all reported fires. Undoubtedly, some landfill fires go unreported because they
burned undetected or were on private property and extinguished by the landfill operator. Reported
fires are responsible for less than 10 civilian injuries, 30 firefighter injuries, and between $3 and
$8 million in property loss each year.1 Deaths (civilian or fire service) are rare in these fires.
Since NFIRS represents a sample of data, it may be that fatalities occurred during the study
period and were not reported or captured in the data.
CASE STUDIES. A sample of landfill fires throughout the world sheds light on the land-

fill fire problem. Waste disposal practices and the regulation of landfill sites are similar in the
comparison countries. Landfill fires have been investigated and studied in more detail in these
jurisdictions than in the United States. In addition to presenting U.S. case studies, this report in
cludes brief synopses of interviews and media reports detailing landfill fires in the United States
and the lessons that were learned from them.

National estimates are based on NFIRS data (19961998) and the National Fire Protection Associations (NFPA)
annual survey, Fire Loss in the United States.

LANDFILL FIRES

THEIR MAGNITUDE, CHARACTERISTICS,

AND MITIGATION
Fires occurring at landfill sites across the United States are an ongoing, complex problem
that has existed for decades. Landfill fires threaten the environment through toxic pollutants emit
ted into the air, water, and soil. These fires also pose a risk to firefighters and civilians who are
exposed to the hazardous chemical compounds they emit. The degree of risk depends in part on
the contents buried in the landfill, the geography of the landfill, and the nature of the fire. There
can be great difficulty in the detection and extinguishment of landfill fires, which is compounded
because these fires often smolder for weeks under the surface of the landfill before being
discovered.
This report was prepared by TriData Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, under contract to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), National Fire
Data Center. It presents an overview of the landfill fire problem. Issues examined include the
landfill components that create fire hazards; the effect of Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulations and landfill cleanup efforts; a profile of landfill fires including their character
istics, methods of extinguishing, and safety issues for firefighters; prevention efforts to reduce
landfill fires; and past examples of significant landfill fires and lessons learned.

SOURCES OF DATA
Data on the number of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill sites in the United States
and their current regulations regarding disposal, including those open for disposal and those
retired from service, were obtained from the EPA. Data and regulation information pertaining to
the Superfund project, including current maps outlining ongoing landfill cleanup efforts, were
also obtained from the EPA.
The EPA derives their landfill statistics from BioCycle magazine, which conducts an
annual survey called The State of Garbage in America. BioCycle magazine sends the survey to
state officials and follows up the collected data with phone calls, e-mails, and letters to obtain as
complete and accurate information on each participating state as possible. The survey collects
data on MSW disposal practices in the United States, including information on national recycling
rates, number of municipal solid waste landfills, and disposal rates.
Other information on landfill definitions, landfill dynamics, landfill regulations, and
chemical compounds contained in emissions were derived from several sources within the EPA.

Landfill fire statistics presented here are based on data from the National Fire Incident
Reporting System (NFIRS). NFIRS, established in 1975, is a data system maintained by USFA
and today is the largest fire data set in the world. Not all fire departments participate in NFIRS,
but the distribution of participants in NFIRS is reasonably representative of the entire nation,
even though the sample is not random. Since the data set is incomplete and represents only a
sample of American fire departments (<40 percent), many of the numbers in this analysis are na
tional estimates or percentages rather than raw totals or absolute numbers.
Technical information on the characteristics of landfill fires was gathered from sources
ranging from the textbook The Essentials of Firefighting2 to various international studies on landfill fires.
Interviews were conducted with fire department representatives who have dealt with
landfill fires. Examples of these fires are included in the report, along with lessons learned by the
departments in suppressing the fires. Media reports (newspapers, magazines) provided further
information about those fires discussed during the interviews.

WHY STUDY LANDFILL FIRES?

Landfills tend to be controversial in and of themselves. Homeowners and business own
ers may not be inclined to support new siting or development in their areas due to perceived
notions about noxious fumes, health effects, and adverse influences on property values. As such,
landfill fires can raise political issues and have implications for elected officials on election day.
Further, the costs associated with fire suppression and environmental monitoring during a landfill
fire can be enormous. This raises questions as to who is responsible for those coststhe munici
pal jurisdiction, a private company that operates the landfill, a combination of both, or some other
entity.
Although relatively uncommon, fires in landfills generally receive substantial media at
tention. In some cases, landfill fires can smolder for weeks, producing odorous and noxious
smoke that can be a community annoyance and that pose a health risk to civilians, firefighters,
and others who are exposed.
Depending on the type of landfill and its contents, the smoke from a landfill fire may
contain dangerous chemical compounds, which can cause respiratory disorders and other medical
conditions. Even if the smoke is benign, it can still aggravate existing respiratory conditions and
reduce visibility around the landfill. In addition, contrary to conventional thinking, the use of
large amounts of water to suppress a landfill fire can actually make the fire worse by increasing
the rate of aerobic decomposition, which increases the heat available inside the landfill. Further,
runoff from suppression efforts can overwhelm a landfills leachate collection system and con
taminate ground or surface water sources.

Essentials of Firefighting 4th Edition, International Fire Service Training Association, 2001.

Landfill fires are particularly challenging to the fire service. A large landfill fire will gen
erally require numerous personnel and significant amounts of time to contain. Both of these cir
cumstances can strain a jurisdiction, particularly one dependent on volunteer staffing. Depending
on the type and location of the fire, extinguishing it may require specialized personnel and
equipment that may not be immediately available. For example, fires involving hazardous materi
als require specially trained personnel who are equipped with specialized protective gear. Underground fires generally necessitate the use of heavy equipment (bulldozers, excavators, etc.) to dig
out burning waste to be extinguished. Fire may also compromise the structural integrity of a landfill, posing a collapse hazard for personnel operating on the fireground.
Because these fires are relatively uncommon, it is important for communities and the fire
service to learn as much as possible from past experience to prevent and mitigate future landfill
fires and, if one occurs, to understand the best methods for extinguishing it.

CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFILLS
Landfills have a variety of unique characteristics, which are primarily determined by the
type of waste they are designed to accept. Landfills are regulated by different agencies at the fed
eral, state, and local levels. (Regulatory mechanisms are discussed in detail later in this report.)
The characteristics of landfills constructed before 1984, however, may not conform to
those discussed in this section. Prior to 1984, no federal agency had the jurisdiction to regulate
landfills. Although some state-based agencies may have had regulatory authority before then,
older landfill sites may have accepted both hazardous and nonhazardous waste if they were in
operation prior to federal or state regulation. Further, older facilities may not have been con
structed with leachate collection systems, gas-monitoring systems, or composite liners that meet
the specifications required today.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL. The most common type of landfill is designed

for the disposal of municipal solid waste. MSW includes household waste such as product packaging, food scraps, furniture, clothing, and grass clippings. In 1999 alone, Americans generated
nearly 230 million tons of MSW.3 Table 1 illustrates the components of the MSW produced in
1999 by material category. Only 57 percent of this waste, however, went to a landfill for disposal;
the remainder was either recovered through recycling (28 percent) or incinerated (15 percent).4
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defines an MSW landfill (MSWLF) as a dis
crete area of land or an excavation site that receives household waste, and that is not a land appli
cation unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pileMSWLF unit may also
receive other types of RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] Subtitle D wastes, such

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 258.2 (Title 40Protection of Environment Chapter IEnvironmental Pro
tection Agency. Part 258 Criteria For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills).
4
Municipal Solid Waste Basic Facts, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, January 4, 2002.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm.

Table 1. Components of MSW Produced in 1999

(prior to recycling)5
Component

Percent of Waste

Paper
Yard Waste
Food Waste
Plastics
Metals
Rubber, Leather and Textiles
Glass
Wood
Other

38.1
12.1
10.9
10.5
7.8
6.6
5.5
5.3
3.2

as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity of generator waste and industrial solid waste. Such a landfill may be publicly or privately owned.6
The passage of liquid through the solid waste in a landfill creates leachate. Leachate is
defined as a liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble,
suspended, or miscible materials removed from such waste.7 As such, MSW landfills must oper
ate in a manner that protects the environment, particularly surface and ground waters, from
leachate contamination. To do this, MSW landfills generally use a combination of a composite
liner and a leachate collection system. A composite liner combines an upper liner of a synthetic
flexible membrane and a lower layer of soil at least 2 feet thick with a hydraulic conductivity of
no greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec8 (Figure 1). A leachate collection system consists of a network of
pipes that collect the leachate. The collected leachate is typically pumped to the surface of the
landfill so that it can be treated and decontaminated. The leachate collection system must be
designed to keep the depth of the leachate over the liner to no greater than 30 centimeters.9
While an MSW landfill is in operation, waste is disposed of in layers. These layers are
compacted to the smallest practical volume and covered with earthen material at the end of each
operating day, except at facilities exempt from cover placement or that use an alternate daily
cover such as a tarp.
When a landfill reaches its capacity for waste disposal, a final cover is constructed. The
final cover must be designed and constructed to minimize the flow of water into the closed landfill. It must also contain an erosion layer to prevent the disintegration of the cover. This layer
must be composed of a minimum of 6 inches of earthen material capable of sustaining plant

Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1999 Facts and Figures, Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 258.2 , op. cit.
7
Ibid.

8
Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: A Guide for Owners/Operators, Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA/530-SW-91-089, March 1993.

9
Ibid.
6

Figure 1. Landfill Components10

growth. An independent engineer must certify that the landfill was closed in accordance with fed
eral regulations. For the next 30 years, landfill owners or operators are required to maintain the
integrity of the final cover, monitor groundwater and methane gas, and continue leachate man
agement. Finally, the property deed must reflect the propertys prior use as a landfill, which
restricts the future development of the site.11
OTHER TYPES OF LANDFILLS. Some types of waste (e.g., industrial waste and hazard
ous waste) cannot necessarily be disposed of in an MSW landfill. Instead, these materials must be
disposed of in specially designed landfills or in MSW landfills in limited quantities.

Construction and Demolition. Waste from construction and demolition (C&D) projects,
including untreated lumber, drywall, plaster, plumbing materials, etc., is not considered MSW.
These wastes can be deposited either in MSW landfills or in specially constructed C&D landfills
that are required to meet less stringent regulations than MSW landfills. Based on anecdotal
remarks by landfill fire suppression professionals, C&D landfills are at a much higher risk for a
significant fire than other types of landfills.12

10

Courtesy of the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Faciliities, op. cit.

12
From information received in e-mail correspondence with Dr. Tony Sperling, P.Eng.

11

Industrial. Each year, about 7.6 billion tons of industrial waste are generated and managed by manufacturing facilities. The majority of this waste is wastewater or non-wastewater
sludges and solids. Nearly 97 percent is wastewater managed in surface impoundments; the
remainder is managed in landfills, waste piles, and land application units.13 Industrial waste is
classified as neither MSW nor hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C, which places industrial
landfills under the regulatory authority of states and local government, not the federal authorities.
Hazardous Materials. In 1999, 1.4 million tons of hazardous waste were disposed of in
landfills.14 Hazardous waste landfills are similar in character and design to MSW landfills, but
they are required to meet more stringent regulations for leachate collection and decontamination.
LANDFILL EMISSIONS. Landfill emissions are the result of the decomposition of
organic materials in the landfill (including yard waste, household waste, food waste, and paper).
Because of the nature of the construction of landfills, this decomposition is anaerobic15 and
results in the production of large quantities of methane (which is highly flammable) and carbon
dioxide. In fact, landfills are the largest source of methane emissions in the United States,
accounting for 35 percent of methane emissions in 1999.16 MSW landfills generate about 93 percent of U.S. landfill emissions; industrial landfills account for the remaining emissions.17 Meth
ane emissions from landfills are affected by site-specific factors such as waste composition,
available moisture, and landfill size.18 Approximately 28 percent of the methane generated in
landfills in 1999 was recovered.19 The remainder of landfill-generated methane was dispersed in
the air.

Approximately 50 percent of gas emitted from landfills is methane; carbon dioxide

accounts for about 45 percent, and the remainder is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and
other gases.20 Both methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases that pose environmental
problems. Of the two gases, methane is far more potent than carbon dioxide. Methane has a
global warming potential (GWP)21 of 21 over a 100-year period. This means that on a kilogramfor-kilogram basis, over a 100-year period, methane is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide
in causing climate change.22

13

Guide for Industrial Waste Management, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA530-R-99-001, June 1999.

National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA530-S-01-001, June

2001, p. ES-8.

15
An anaerobe is an organism, such as a bacterium, that can live in the absence of atmospheric oxygen. Conversely,

an aerobe is an organism that requires oxygen to live.

16
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 236-R-01-001,

April 2001, p. ES-19.

17
U.S. Methane Emissions 1990-2000: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions, Environmental

Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-99-013, September 1999 , p. 2-1.

18
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, op. cit.

19
Ibid.

20
Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Environmental Protection Agency, FAQ Sheet, June 2001.

21
The term global warming potential has been developed by the EPA to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to

trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. This measurement of GWP relies on carbon dioxide as the refer

ence gas. The GWP of a greenhouse gas is the ratio of global warming (both direct and indirect) from one unit mass of

a greenhouse gas to one unit mass of carbon dioxide over a set period of time.

22
Climate Change, Methane and Other Greenhouse Gases, Environmental Protection Agency, July 2001.

14

Current EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act and the New Source Performance Stan
dards and Emissions Guidelines specify that many landfills must collect and combust landfill gas
(regulated by size of the landfill). To comply with these regulations, landfill owners can either
burn the gas off by flaring23 it or capture the gas by installing a landfill gas-to-energy system.
(This is discussed in detail later in this report.)
In addition to regulations governing the emission of landfill gases, federal law also regu
lates the incineration or open burning of waste. Federal law specifically prohibited open burning
of MSW at municipal landfills in 1979 (40 CFR 257).24 The incineration of MSW is strictly regu
lated by a variety of federal, state, and local policies.
NUMBER OF LANDFILLS. The amount of MSW produced in the United States has risen
substantially over the past 50 years, from 88.1 million tons in 1960 to 230 million tons in 1999.25
On the other hand, the number of landfills has significantly decreased over the last 10 years, from
about 8,000 in 1988 to about 2,200 in 1999.26 Figure 2 shows the decline over the past 14 years;
Figure 3 and Table 2 show the number of landfills per state. This decrease in the number of landfills is generally due to stricter regulations imposed by the EPA regarding landfill gas emissions,
safety regulations, and content regulations of a landfill. Over the same period, the size of the re
maining landfills has grown steadily to accommodate the increased production of MSW.

The number of landfills recorded by the EPA, however, does not take into account all of
the individual, and in many cases illegal, dumping sites that were common in the early 1980s.
Many businesses, factories, and enterprises had their own dumping sites where they disposed of
various types of unregulated wastes. This was a widespread practice before environmental groups
began lobbying against such sites and publicizing links between diseases such as cancer and the
dumping of hazardous chemicals and toxic wastes that were contaminating water, soil, and air.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANDFILL REGULATION.

27

The EPA was established in

1970 after scientists, elected officials, and citizens recognized the need to protect the environ
ment. The new agency was pieced together from programs elsewhere in the federal government,
including from the Department of Health, Department of the Interior, and Food and Drug Administration. It was not until 1984 that the EPA gained regulatory authority over landfills. Over
the intervening years, various legislative acts have strengthened the EPA's regulatory authority
over these sites.
In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which
gave the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the cradle-to-grave. RCRA covers
the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste and provides a

23

In this context, flaring is the controlled burning of methane collected from a landfill.

Volume IIIArea Sources, Chapter 16, Open Burning, Revised Final: Emission Inventory Improvement Program

Document Series, Environmental Protection Agency, Section 2.1, January 2001.

25
Municipal Solid Waste in 1999: Facts and Figures, Environmental Protection Agency. Some EPA sources quote this

numbers as being closer to 2,300.

26
Environmental Fact Sheet, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Environmental Protection Agency, 1998.

27
Information on federal regulations was taken from the EPA website, Major Environmental Laws.

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/laws.htm.

24

9,000

8,000

7,924
7,379

7,000
6,326
5,812

6,000

5,386
5,000
4,482
4,000

3,558
3,197

3,091

3,000

2,514

2,314

2,216

1998

1999

2,000

1,000

0
1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Figure 2. MSW Landfills in the United States, by Year28

54 to
30 to
21 to
0 to

Figure 3. Distribution of Landfills29

28
29

Municipal Solid Waste in 1999, op. cit., p. 15.

BioCycle, June 1999.

10

322
54
30
21

(13)
(13)
(11)
(14)

Table 2. Landfills by State30

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas

Landfills
30
322
54
23
188
68
3
3
0
95
76
8
27
56
45
60
53

State

Landfills

Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico

26
25
8
22
47
58
26
19
26
33
35
15
23
25
19
11
55

State
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Landfills
28
52
41
33
51
4
19
15
34
181
45
5
70
21
19
46
66

framework for the management of nonhazardous wastes. RCRA focuses only on active and future
facilities.
The turning point in landfill regulation and remediation occurred in 1980, first with the
Superfund legislation, then by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) in 1984,
which finally gave the EPA regulatory authority over landfills.
Technically known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), the Superfund legislation governs closed and abandoned hazardous
material waste sites, provides for the liability of persons responsible for the release of hazardous
materials at these sites, and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup where no responsible
party could be identified.
In 1984, the HSWA amended RCRA. HSWA required the phasing out of land-based dis
posal of hazardous waste and gave the EPA regulatory authority over landfills. The final major
piece of legislation, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), was passed in
1986 as an amendment to CERCLA. SARA increased the participation of states in the Superfund
program and expanded the size of the cleanup trust fund.
In recent years, federal, state, local, and private programs have increased the emphasis
placed on reducing the production of municipal waste to conserve resources and reduce pollution
while delaying the entry of waste into the waste collection and disposal system. Source

30

Ibid.

11

reduction focuses on designing, manufacturing, purchasing, or using materials in ways that re

duce the amount or toxicity of trash created.
Some such programs include pay-as-you-throw, where residents pay for each can or
bag of trash they have collected for disposal rather than funding this collection by a flat rate or
through the tax base. This provides tangible financial benefits for households that reduce the
amount of waste they produce. Other programs target businesses and corporations in an effort to
promote waste-reducing manufacturing processes and business practices.31 The benefits of these
practices include a reduction of the combustible material that enters the waste stream. Although
MSW facilities will still contain large amounts of combustible materials, this reduction in waste
can be a factor in the reduction of landfill fires.

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F L A N D F I L L F I R E S 32
Landfill fires fall into one of two categories, surface and underground fires. Depending
on the type of landfill and type of fire, landfill fires can pose unique challenges to the landfill/
waste management industry and the fire service. This section addresses the particular challenges
and the specific types of fires found in landfill sites and describes their characteristics and causes.
SURFACE FIRES. Surface fires involve recently buried or uncompacted refuse, situated

on or close to the landfill surface in the aerobic decomposition layer, generally 1 to 4 feet in
depth.33 These fires can be intensified by landfill gas (methane), which may cause the fire to
spread throughout the landfill.
Surface fires generally burn at relatively low temperatures and are characterized by the
emission of dense white smoke and the products of incomplete combustion. The smoke includes
irritating agents, such as organic acids and other compounds. When surface fires burn materials
such as tires or plastics, the temperature in the burning zone can be quite high. Higher tempera
ture fires can cause the breakdown of volatile compounds, which emit dense black smoke. Sur
face fires are classified as either accidental or deliberate.
Surface fires include the following:
Dumping of undetected smoldering materials into the landfill. Hot load fires are
caused by the disposal of refuse that is still burning on arrival to the landfill (e.g.,
cleared brush).
Fires associated with landfill gas control or venting systems. Landfill gas control sys
tems can themselves pose a fire hazard. Landfill gas (predominantly methane) can be

31

Source Reduction and Reuse, Environmental Protection Agency, April 23, 2002.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/sourcred.htm.
32
Much of this section represents a synopsis of a report prepared for the New Zealand Ministry of the Environment.
The report, Landfill Guidelines: Hazards of Burning at Landfills, was published in December 1997.
33
E-mail correspondence with Todd Thalhamer, California Integrated Waste Management Board.

12

ignited as it escapes from the vents or from leaks in the collection pipe network.
Excessive gas extraction can also be a fire cause. The vacuum created by excessive
extraction can increase the airflow and thereby increase the oxygen level in the landfill, which can cause underground fires (as discussed further in the following
section).
Fires caused by human error on the part of the landfill operators or users. Landfill
operators and users can cause fires through careless smoking on the landfill, which
can ignite waste or landfill gas. Also, as some hazardous substances can ignite when
mixed, operators must take care to prevent the dumping of reactive materials into the
landfill.
Fires caused by construction or maintenance work. Fires can occur while construc
tion and maintenance takes place, including fires caused by sparks from vehicles used
in the landfill (dump trucks, bulldozers, backhoes, etc.). A surface fire could also be
ignited when drilling or while driving metal pipes through layers of buried waste if a
hard object buried in the landfill is struck. Usage of welding or electrical equipment
on site poses a fire hazard, due especially to the increased presence of methane gas.
Spontaneous combustion of materials in the landfill. The mixing of certain materials
in a landfill can result in spontaneous combustion. Even in small quantities, some
chemicals can ignite if exposed to one another. Also, some materials, such as oily
rags, can spontaneously combust under certain conditions. Spontaneous combustion
can also result from bacterial decomposition, which is discussed in more detail later
in this section.
Deliberate fires, which are used by the landfill operator to reduce the volume of
waste. Landfills contain refuse such as dry garden waste, grass, leaves, and branches.
Sometimes these materials are deliberately set on fire to reduce refuse volumes,
reduce operating costs, and increase a landfills operating life. This is an accepted
practice under strictly controlled conditions.34 Uncontrolled, these deliberate fires
could escalate into larger fires, cause explosions, or create hazardous products from
the ash and residue burned.
Deliberate arson fires, which are set with malicious intent. Arson is a serious prob
lem in the United States; therefore, it is not surprising that landfills are targets for
malicious fires.
UNDERGROUND FIRES. Underground fires in landfills occur deep below the landfill
surface and involve materials that are months or years old.35 These fires are generally more diffi
cult to extinguish than surface fires. Underground fires also have the potential to create large

34

This controlled combustion at landfills is regulated by U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 60 (Title 40
Protection of Environment Chapter I Environmental Protection Agency. Part 60 Standards Of Performance For
New Stationary Sources).
35
This report addresses operating landfills. Closed landfills are subject to a variety of restrictions on future develop
ment, maintenance, etc. It would be difficult to determine the frequency of fires in closed landfills because such sites
are likely to be coded in NFIRS according to their property use at the time of the fire (e.g., open land, park, golf
course).

13

voids in the landfill, which can cause cave-ins of the landfill surface. Further, they produce flam
mable and toxic gases (such as carbon monoxide) and can damage leachate containment liners
and landfill gas collection systems.
The most common cause of underground landfill fires is an increase in the oxygen content of the landfill, which increases bacterial activity and raises temperatures (aerobic decomposi
tion). These so-called hot spots can come into contact with pockets of methane gas and result in
a fire. Of particular concern with these long-smoldering, underground fires is the fact they tend to
smolder for weeks to months at a time. This can cause a build up of the byproducts of combustion
in confined areas such as landfill site buildings or surrounding homes, which adds an additional
health hazard.
Underground fires are often only detected by smoke emanating from some part of the
landfill site or by the presence of carbon monoxide (CO) in landfill gas. In the event of an underground fire, CO may be present at toxic levels near the landfills surface. Generally an underground fire can be confirmed by:36
Substantial settlement over a short period of time.
Smoke or smoldering odor emanating from the gas extraction system or landfill.
Elevated levels of CO in excess of 1,000 parts per million (ppm).
Combustion residue in extraction wells or headers.
Increase in gas temperature in the extraction system (above 140F).
Temperatures in excess of 170F.
To confirm a subsurface fire using CO, the results must be acquired through quantitative
laboratory analysis (using portable monitors may result in artificially high concentrations). In
California, levels of CO in excess of 1,000 ppm are considered a positive indication of an active
underground landfill fire. Levels of CO between 100 and 1,000 ppm are viewed as suspicious and
require further air and temperature monitoring. Levels between 10 and 100 ppm may be an

indication of a fire but active combustion is not present.37

HEALTH EFFECTS OF LANDFILL FIRES. In addition to the burn and explosion hazards

posed by landfill fires, smoke and other byproducts of landfill fires also present a health risk to
firefighters and others exposed to them. Smoke from landfill fires generally contains particulate
matter (the products of incomplete combustion of the fuel source), which can aggravate preexisting pulmonary conditions or cause respiratory distress. As with all fires, those in landfills
produce toxic smoke and gases. The danger and level of toxicity of these gases depend on the
length of exposure one has to them and on the type of material that is burning.

36

Response to Landfill Fires Guidance Document, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Internal Bulletin
2001.
37
Ibid.

14

Underground fires can result in CO levels in excess of 50,000 ppmthe Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit for CO is 50 ppm. OSHA
standards prohibit worker exposure to more than 50 parts of the gas per million parts of air averaged during an 8-hour time period. Carbon monoxide is harmful when breathed because it dis
places oxygen in the blood and deprives the heart, brain, and other vital organs of oxygen, which
can cause permanent damage or death.38
Another serious concern in landfill fires is the emission of dioxins. Accidental fires at
landfills and the uncontrolled burning of residential waste are considered the largest sources of
39
dioxin emissions in the United States. The term dioxins refers to a group of chemical com
pounds with similar chemical and biological characteristics that are released into the air during
the combustion process. Dioxins are also naturally occurring and are present throughout the envi
ronment. However, exposure to high levels of dioxins has been linked to cancer, liver damage,
skin rashes, and reproductive and developmental disorders.40

EXTINGUISHING LANDFILL FIRES

This section is not intended to address or recommend specific tactical approaches for
landfill firefighting. It is important to note that the different dynamics, characteristics, and regula
tions of landfills and the fires that occur in them suggest that tactics need to be determined on a
case-by-case basis depending on the materials buried, which materials have ignited, depth of the
fire, and the fires ignition source. This section explores some of the challenges posed in the
suppression of landfill fires.
WIND/WEATHER. Wind and inclement weather can increase the health hazards for firefighters operating on the fireground (e.g., in extremely hot or cold weather) and can directly
affect fire spread.
WATER SUPPLY. The use of water to suppress landfill fires is controversial. The appli

cation of large volumes of water may actually exacerbate a fire by contributing to the process of
aerobic decomposition. Further, adding water to the landfill creates additional leachate, which
may overwhelm the leachate collection system in the landfill (if one exists). If the collection sys
tem is overwhelmed, the additional leachate could contaminate ground and surface waters
surrounding the landfill. Depending on the landfills location, there might not be an adequate
supply of water available for fire suppression. Firefighters may have to establish a water supply
using tankers and nearby static water sources (e.g., lakes, reservoirs).

38

OSHA Fact Sheet, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 2002. http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/carbonmonoxide-factsheet.pdf
39
Questions and Answers About Dioxins, Environmental Protection Agency, July 2000, p. 6.
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/dioxin%20questions%20and%20answers.pdf.
40
Idem, p. 4.

15

Foam is an important consideration in landfill fire suppression. There are two primary
types of firefighting foam. Class A foam is a special formulation of hydrocarbon surfactants.
These surfactants reduce the surface tension of water, which provides for better water penetration
and increased effectiveness. When aerated, Class A foam coats and insulates fuels, protecting
them from ignition. Class B foam is used to extinguish fires involving flammable and combusti
ble liquids. It is also used to suppress vapors from unignited spills of these liquids.41 As with all
fires, there are advantages and disadvantages to using foam during fire suppression operations on
landfills. The on-scene incident commander makes the decision to use foam based on the specific
tactical situation at hand.
MULTI-AGENCY RESPONSE. A major landfill fire will likely require the expertise of
personnel from multiple agencies (e.g., the EPA, Department of Natural Resources). Some fire
departments have Standard Operating Procedures in place that define all landfill fires as hazard
ous materials incidents, which require a specialized response. To ensure that all personnel (re
gardless of their agency affiliation) are operating according to the same plan, landfill fires require
a strong Incident Command System.
PERSONNEL SAFETY. Fires, particularly those underground, can undermine the integ
rity of the landfill, which could cause a collapse under the weight of landfill employees, firefight
ers, or equipment. Such a collapse could necessitate a confined space, trench, or other type of
technical rescue operation in addition to fire suppression.

Given the potential adverse effects of exposure to burning landfill contents or the smoke
produced by a landfill fire, personnel may have to use specialized personal protective equipment,
which may be difficult to obtain.
ACCESS TO AND MANEUVERABILITY OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. To access waste

below the landfill surface or move burning waste away from the landfill, it may be necessary to
use heavy equipment such as bulldozers. Landfill operators may already own this equipment and
have staff trained in its use. If not, this equipment will need to be located and brought to the fireground. If a fire affects the structural stability of a landfill, operating heavy equipment on the
landfill surface would be dangerous. Finally, depending on the landfills location and design,
operating heavy equipment on the site could be quite difficult.
LOGISTICS. As with any protracted fire suppression operation, Incident Commanders at
landfill fires must address a variety of logistical concerns to facilitate operations. These include
rotating personnel on a regular basis, compensating personnel for overtime spent operating at the
landfill or filling in at fire stations in the jurisdiction, keeping firefighters on the landfill hydrated
and fed, and, keeping records for future reimbursement. (Depending on the nature and location of
the incident, local fire departments can seek reimbursement from the federal government or the
landfill operator for costs associated with fire suppression.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. The smoke and runoff from landfill fires can be dangerous

to those living in the area and to the environment. It is important that air and water quality issues

41

Essentials of Firefighting 4th Edition, International Fire Service Training Association, 2001, p. 500.

16

be addressed early in a fire suppression operation to prevent contamination as much as possible.

As mentioned earlier, water used to suppress a landfill fire can overwhelm a facilitys leachate
collection system, if one exists (older facilities may have been constructed prior to regulations
requiring leachate collection systems).
LANDFILL CONTENTS. Fires occurring in landfills where hazardous wastes are buried

can be particularly difficult. In past years, illegal dumping of hazardous and toxic materials in
landfills and other dumping sites was relatively common. When a fire occurs and rescue workers
have wrong or misleading information about the buried contents (e.g., illegal or unknown toxic or
radioactive wastes), the fire suppression operation can be extremely dangerous.
Although not a landfill fire, the Wade Dump fire in February 1978 clearly illustrates the
dangers posed by fires involving unknown hazardous materials. Firefighters responded to a sus
pected tire fire at an abandoned rubber shredding plant on the Delaware River outside of Phila
delphia. They were unaware that the propertys owner and namesake, Melvin Wade, had transformed the plant into one of the most toxic hazardous waste dumpsites in U.S. history. By the
night of the fire, more than 3 million gallons of cyanide, benzene, toluene, and other chemicals
were stored on the siteplus thousands of junk tires. The burning chemicals produced multicolored smoke and noxious fumes, which alerted firefighters to the unusual nature of the fire they
were fighting. Intensified by chemicals and other fuels, the fire raged for hours. Drums of chemi
cals exploded, injuring firefighters and even damaging fire trucks. As the night progressed, firefighters and other emergency workers noticed that the chemicals were dissolving their protective
gear and making it difficult for them to breathe; more than 40 firefighters were sent to a nearby
hospital for treatment. Over the past 20 or more years, dozens of those who were present at the
Wade Dump fire have become ill, and many have died from cancers and other diseases. Melvin
Wade and others responsible for creating the toxic site were found criminally responsible for their
actions.42

LANDFILL FIRES: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data from the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) does not include MSW
landfills as a fixed property use category. Rather, the NFIRS data set includes a category for
dump or sanitary landfill: included are refuse disposal areas, trash receptacles, and dumps in
open ground (NFIRS Fixed Property Use code 932). Although this definition is broader than the
definition of a landfill, it is the closest match available in NFIRS. As such, despite the broader
definition, this section refers to these fires as landfill fires for the sake of clarity.
Based on extrapolation of the NFIRS data, each year in the United States an average of
8,400 landfill fires are reported to the fire service. This represents less than a half percent of all
reported fires. Undoubtedly, some landfill fires go unreported because they burned undetected or
they were on private property and extinguished by the landfill operator. Reported fires are
responsible for less than 10 civilian injuries, 30 firefighter injuries, and between $3 and
42

This paragraph is a synopsis of an investigative report published by the Philadelphia Inquirer in April 2000.

17

$8 million in property loss each year.43 Deaths (civilian or fire service) are rare in these fires;
since NFIRS represents a sample of data, it may be that fatalities occurred during the study period
and were not reported or captured in the data.
TYPE OF LANDFILL FIRES. Table 3 shows the five types of fires that occur on landfills.
The prevalence of refuse fires is not surprising, but it is interesting that other types of fires occur
on landfill properties. Vehicle fires involve dump trucks, compactors, and other vehicles com
monly found in landfills. Brush fires may occur when landfill fires spread to the surrounding
lands. Structure fires at landfill sites probably involve small offices or other facilities constructed
for the landfill staff.
Table 3. Types of Fires Occurring on Landfills44
Type of Fire

Percent of Fires

Refuse
Trees, brush, grass
Outside structure, where material burning has value
Vehicle
Structure

77
12
6
4
1

CAUSES OF LANDFILL FIRES. Over half of the landfill fires reported to NFIRS have

no information available as to the primary ignition factor. This makes it particularly difficult to
accurately pinpoint the cause of landfill fires. Of those fires with reported ignition factors, nearly
40 percent are of an incendiary or suspicious nature. Another 20 percent are attributed to lit or
smoldering materials that have been abandoned or discarded, which include cigarettes, matches,
or ashes that were discarded without being properly extinguished. Spontaneous heating accounts
for about 5 percent of landfill fires. Other leading factors influencing fire ignition include rekin
dling from a previous fire and inadequate control of open fires.
WHEN LANDFILL FIRES OCCUR. Landfill fires occur most often between March and

August. This half-year period accounts for nearly 60 percent of landfill fires, with the peak (11
percent) occurring in July (Figure 4). This monthly incidence of fires generally applies to the ma
jor causes of landfill fires (incendiary/suspicious and smoldering materials). Rekindled fires and
spontaneous ignition fires, however, are exceptions. Rekindled fires have a peak period in April
and May that accounts for one-third of these fires with an additional peak in July (15 percent).
Landfill fires that result from spontaneous combustion gradually increase as the weather warms,
dropping in September. The peak period, however, occurs in October and November, when 22
percent of the spontaneous combustion fires occur. Figure 5 illustrates the incidence of spontane
ous combustion fires by month.

43

National estimates are based on NFIRS data (19961998) and the National Fire Protection Associations (NFPA)
annual survey, Fire Loss in the United States.
44
U.S. Fire Administration NFIRS data (19961998).

18

12.0%

11.2%
10.6%
9.9%

10.0%

9.1%

8.0%

8.9%

8.8%

7.7%
7.0%

7.0%

7.1%
6.6%
6.2%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 4. Incidence of Landfill Fires by Month45

12%
10.6%

10.6%

9.9%

10%

9.5%
8.7%

8.7%

8.7%
8.0%

8%
7.2%
6.5%
6.1%
6%
5.3%

4%

2%

0%
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Figure 5. Incidence of Spontaneous Combustion

Landfill Fires by Month46

45
46

Ibid.
Ibid.

19

Nov

Dec

The spring peaks in rekindled fires and the fall peaks in spontaneous combustion fires
may result from increased winds during these months as many landfills may have inadequate caps
(particularly if they use alternate daily covers) to prevent air infiltration. Inadequate caps can
allow large volumes of air to enter the landfill, accelerating the oxidation reaction. The air intru
sion is due, in part, to the differential in barometric pressure between the landfill and the atmos
phere. This condition occurs most frequently in the late fall and spring with the large, naturally
occurring atmospheric changes in conjunction with land surface heating and cooling. The
increased oxidation raises the temperature in the landfill and can increase spontaneous combus
tion events. Some of the rekindled fires may be the result of earlier smoldering underground fires
that, with the increase in airflow brought by winds, are oxygenated enough to break through to
the surface.47

LANDFILL FIRE PREVENTION

Fire prevention can reduce property damage, injury, health, and environmental hazards of
landfill fires. The cost of prevention is usually much less expensive than the cost of fighting and
cleaning up a fire. In many cases, particularly for larger landfills, fire prevention activities are
required by law. This section outlines some of the principal methods in landfill fire prevention.
LANDFILL MANAGEMENT. Effective landfill management is a vital key to efficient

landfill fire prevention tactics. Management measures include prohibiting all forms of deliberate
burning, thoroughly inspecting and controlling incoming refuse, compacting refuse buried to prevent hot spots from forming, prohibiting smoking onsite, and maintaining good site security.
METHANE GAS DETECTION AND COLLECTION. Landfill gas emissions can be a haz

ard to the environment and to the health of residents surrounding landfill sites. Methane gas, a
flammable gas, can present a fire hazard. Federal regulations require all MSW landfill operators
to monitor the emission of methane on a quarterly basis. If methane levels in or around the landfill become explosive, the landfill operator must take immediate steps to mitigate the danger. The
operator must also implement a remediation program to prevent future explosive buildups.48
Federal regulations currently require MSW landfills that opened after November 8, 1987,
and have a capacity of over 2.5 million cubic meters to install a gas collection and control system.49 These regulations, however, affect only about 4 percent of operating landfills in the United
50
States as the vast majority of landfills do not have such a large capacity. Some states, however,
(e.g., California) have stricter regulations for gas collection systems, which affect a higher per
centage of facilities; these jurisdictions may include closed facilities as well.
47

E-mail correspondence with Dr. Tony Sperling and Todd Thalhamer.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 258.23 (Title 40Protection of Environment Chapter IEnvironmental

Protection Agency. Part 258 Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills).

49
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 60.33c (Title 40Protection of Environment Chapter IEnvironmental

Protection Agency. Part 60 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources).

50
Air Rule for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Environmental Protection Agency, January 10, 2002.

http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/airregulations/ap22/landfil2.htm.

48

20

Methane gas collection systems actively remove landfill gas using gas recovery wells and
vacuum pumps with an interconnected pipe network. Operators must take care to ensure the sys
tem is not overdrawn, which can lead to fire ignition. Once the gas is collected, landfill owners/
operators have two choices: (1) burn off the gas (flaring); or (2) convert the gas to an energy
commodity.
Flaring. Burning landfill gas is the method most large landfills use (as opposed to the
more costly waste-to-energy projects). Burning the landfill gas converts methane to carbon diox
ide, which not only is less harmful to the environment, but also destroys the components of landfill gas that cause odor, stress vegetation, create smog, and increase the risk for fire or explosion.
Shallow gas venting trenches or gas venting pipes can also be installed in the landfills
surface. These vents allow gas from interior regions of the landfill to escape naturally to the sur
face where flares can burn off the gas.
Converting Landfill Gas to Energy. The conversion of landfill gas to energy turns this
landfill byproduct into a marketable resource. The converted gas can be used to generate electric
ity, heat, or steam. According to the EPA, landfill gas is the only renewable energy source that,
when used, removes pollution from the atmosphere.51 By converting the landfill gas to energy,
the harmful emissions causing global warming are removed from the air and converted to a useful
form such as electricity to power a home. Reducing landfill gas emissions is imperative as it
reduces local ozone levels and smog formation while simultaneously decreasing explosion and
fire risks and unpleasant odors produced by the landfill.52
As of September 2001, the EPA estimates that there were more than 335 landfill gas
recovery and utilization projects operating in the United States; another 500 landfills are consid
ered good candidates for future program development.53

CASE STUDIES
A sample of landfill fires throughout the world sheds light on the landfill fire problem.
Waste disposal practices and the regulation of landfill sites are similar in the comparison coun
tries. Landfill fires have been investigated and studied in more detail in several countries outside
the continental United States. The concluding portion of this section contains brief synopses of
interviews and media reports detailing landfill fires in the United States and the lessons that were
learned from them.

51

Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Frequently Asked Questions, Environmental Protection Agency, updated June
5, 2001. http://www.epa.gov/lmop/faq.htm.
52
Ibid.
53
Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Current Projects and Candidate Landfills, Environmental Protection Agency,
January 10, 2002. http://www.epa.gov/lmop/projects.htm.

21

FINLAND.

54

An experimental study that sheds significant light on methods of

extinguishing landfill fires was conducted in Finland in 1993. The study was conducted in two
parts: a questionnaire was distributed to landfill operators throughout Finland, and an
experimental landfill was constructed with similar characteristics to an MSW landfill. To
determine the most effective methods for extinguishing landfill fires, an underground fire was
ignited and allowed to burn in the experimental landfill. The fire was extinguished by smothering
it with soil and dousing it with water.
From the questionnaires, the study determined that most landfill fires are small and tend
to be of short duration. It concluded that using soil and water to extinguish the fires was insuffi
cient and that a potentially significant factor in landfill fires is the improper compaction of waste
in the landfill. The study suggested that one way to prevent landfill fires is to sufficiently compact
all waste buried in the landfill site. Only one-quarter of the fires reported to the study team were
underground; those fires were particularly difficult to extinguish and tended to last over 2 months.
In fact, for underground fires, it was found that covering the smoldering refuse with layers of soil
actually prolonged some fires. Another serious concern raised in the study was that by using
water to extinguish landfill fires, the runoff could contaminate the surrounding soil and ground
water.
Ultimately, based on both the questionnaire and the experimental landfill, the study con
cluded that the most effective way to suppress landfill fires is by digging out the burning material
and cooling it with water, soil, or snow.55
CANADA.

56

In November 1999, a fire ignited at the Delta Shake and Shingle Landfill, a
C&D landfill outside Vancouver, British Columbia. Although smoke and steam had been emanat
ing from the landfill for weeks, the fire was finally discovered when flames broke through the
landfill surface. The landfill operator originally attempted to extinguish the fire without fire
department assistance; his efforts only served to exacerbate the fire. After several weeks, resi
dents began to complain about the smoky haze hovering over Vancouver, and officials were con
cerned about air and water contamination from the suppression efforts. Ultimately, local officials
declared a state of emergency and requested assistance from both the private sector and the
provincial government.
To contain the fire and starve it of oxygen, officials covered the burning materials with a
thick layer of refuse. Next, they determined that although using high-pressure water worked to
extinguish the surface fire, it did not extinguish the burning refuse underground. To increase the
waters effectiveness, firefighters misted the water and added Class A foam. Once the fire was
contained, the firefighters used heavy machinery to excavate burning materials and move them to
54

Ettala et al., Landfill Fires in Finland, Waste Management & Research (1996) 14, pp. 377-384.

Other landfill fire suppression professionals, however, have found that landfill fires can be extinguished by excavat

ing and extinguishing the burning debris layer-by-layer using soil and a suppressant agent, or simply by temporarily

shutting down the gas extraction system.

56
Sources for this section: Landfill Fire in Delta Gets Provincial Emergency Funding, British Columbia Ministry of

Environment, Lands, and Parks. Press Release 330-30:ELP99/00-340, November 30, 1999. Sperling, Tony. Extin-

guishing the Delta Shake and Shingle Landfill Fire: Case Study, Sperling Hansen Associates, January 18, 2002.
http://www.landfillfire.com/delta1.html.
55

22

areas offsite where they could be fully extinguished. Firefighters used infrared technology to
determine which loads were hot and required extinguishment and which ones were cool enough
to be left alone. After the materials were fully extinguished using foam and water, they were
returned to the reconstructed landfill.
A private contractor involved in the suppression effort summarized the following as les
sons learned from this fire:
Soil berms are effective at containing fire spread.
Trenches that do not fully penetrate the refuse pile are ineffective; trenches should
only be excavated if they penetrate the full thickness of the refuse to inert material.
HAWAII. In the late 1990s, fires in legal and illegal landfills were a serious concern for
officials on all of the Hawaiian Islands. In July 1996, a fire at an illegal dumpsite in Lualualei,
Oahu, attracted government and media attention. The site contained municipal waste, C&D
debris, and hazardous materials. After explosions involving gas cylinders or drums, the State
Department of Health hired a hazardous waste contractor to remove drums containing chemicals
and some hazardous waste. Despite the attention, government officials had difficulty shutting
down the dumpsite, as the property changed hands over the years and the cost of cleaning up the
site exceeded the lands value.57

In January 1998, an odd odor at a C&D landfill in Maalaea led to the discovery of an
58
underground fire. Efforts to extinguish the fire with carbon dioxide were unsuccessful and,
while the fire was contained, it smoldered for months.
Hawaii has less rigorous air quality standards than other areas of the United States
because of its tradewinds, low population density, and isolation. Contractors are allowed to burn
brush before depositing it in landfills. This practice decreases the waste volume and amount they
are charged for using the landfills. Burned material goes through two inspection sites to check for
hot loads. In the Maalaea fire, it appears the ignition source was a smoldering palm tree. Palm
trees are spongy inside and, though the outside may have appeared cool, the inside was still sim
mering. Once inside the landfill, the tree continued to smolder until it ignited surrounding waste.
Although relatively small, the fire sparked a debate involving the landfill operator, EPA,
and different divisions of the Department of Health. The debate revealed that there were no regu
lations on methods to control landfill fires. This motivated government officials to develop guidelines that address underground fires and study the health effects of landfill fires. Also, the fire
emphasized the need to thoroughly inspect suspected hot loads to ensure that smoldering materi
als do not accidentally enter the landfill.

57

State Health Department To Close Illegal Dump in Lualualei, Environment Hawaii, Volume 11, Number 3, Sep
tember 2000.
58
Maalaea Landfill Sparks State Effort To Develop Guidelines, Environment Hawaii, Volume 9, Number 4, Octo
ber 1998.

23

OTHER EXAMPLES. The following examples were taken from media reports and inter-

views with fire officials in the affected jurisdictions. These examples shed light on firefighting
tactics and local concerns associated with landfill fires.
Fairfax County, Virginia.59 Fairfax County Fire Station 19 (Lorton) has two landfills
within its call range. In November 2000, a fire broke out at the I-95 Landfill, near Lorton, VA. A
250-foot by 50-foot pile of debris, consisting of trees, stumps, and mulch, was ignited. Firefight
ers used water and foam to control and extinguish the fire. A fire technician who participated in
the suppression effort stated that the most important tactic used in the fire was having firefighters
and machinery overhaul the burning or smoldering areas to ensure that the fire did not rekindle.
Cumberland County, North Carolina.60 In July 1998, flames at a landfill sent plumes of
smoke over a large area. Firefighters were forced to contain the fire and let it burn since it was too
hot for water to extinguish it effectively. An estimated 26 trailer loads of mulch were in the landfill. The mulch was very finely packed, the heat remained at the core, and water would not have
cooled or extinguished the fire. Firefighters assured the fire did not spread to nearby tire piles by
digging a ditch all around the fire, containing it. The fire burned itself out after several weeks.
Montezuma County Landfill, Colorado.61 In June 2001, smoke from this 6-acre fire
spread high over the Montezuma Valley. The 320-acre landfill was filled with compressed, baled
trash and municipal and industrial waste.62 Attempts were made to douse the fire with water, but
they were ineffective. State landfill officials and other experts decided the best way to attack the
blaze was to remove the smoldering bales of refuse, break them apart, and extinguish them indi
vidually. The cause of the fire was not determined. Landfill officials reported that confining the
fire and smothering it proved to be the most effective method of extinguishing it.
Danbury, Connecticut.63 In 1996 and 1997, numerous underground landfill fires
occurred at the Danbury city landfill. These fires were caused by spontaneous combustion of
decomposing waste and were rekindled and continued smoldering underground over 18 months.
Different underground hotspots increased the intensity of landfill odors. These fires in the 47acre landfill were the subject of extensive media coverage and residential complaints. As elsewhere, water was ineffective in extinguishing these fires, and its use added to the stench, causing
additional citizen complaints. Residents filed lawsuits for damages caused by exposure to hydro
gen sulfide gas from the smoke. As a result of the lawsuits, the landfill was forced to close. A 40foot high permanent flare had to be installed to burn off landfill gas and reduce the odors.
Bend, Oregon.64 A youth fell into a burning sinkhole on the site of an old landfill and
suffered third-degree burns across 30 percent of his body. The youth and his friend had noticed a
thin trail of smoke coming from the ground while walking home and went to investigate. There
59

Telephone interview with David Sweedland, Technician, Fairfax County Station 19, and I-95 Landfill Debris Fire,
Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department News Release, November 7, 2000.
60
Landfill Fire Continues To Burn, WRAL 5 Cumberland County News, July 30, 1998.
61
Landfill Fire Fills Valley With Smoke, Cortez Journal, June 19, 2001.
62
Telephone interview with Montezuma County Landfill official.
63
The News-Times, Danbury, CT, December 1996October 1997.
64
Youth Slips Into Burning Bend Sinkhole, The Oregonian, December 28, 1991.

24

was a small hole at the surface. While investigating the hole, the ground collapsed around the
youth. The sinkhole was on a parcel of park district land on the outskirts of Bend, Oregon. The
former landfill was owned by the county, and the land was later given to the park district. The
original dump was used for wood waste. The decomposing waste smoldered and ignited through
spontaneous combustion. Burned out pockets caused the landfill's earthen cover to weaken and
collapse. Most of the problem areas were along the edges of the landfill where the earthen cap
was the thinnest. The park district originally planned to put children's baseball fields on an un
used portion of the old landfill, but reconsidered after conferring with the local Department of
Environmental Quality.
Colerain Township, Ohio.65 In 1996, the Colerain Township landfill experienced a major
landslide that filled a nearby limestone quarry with acres of landfilled waste. The quarry was
being excavated to hold additional waste in the landfill site when the landslide occurred. The area
that had collapsed was dangerous; garbage was exposed and equipment was buried underneath,
which made removal of the waste dangerous. The landfill officials could not move equipment to
the site due to enormous voids in the exposed area; they feared bulldozers would be swallowed
into the pile.
A series of four fires subsequently ignited, covering a 35-acre area. The first was a small
100-square-yard fire ignited by lightning. The second fire was as a result of combustion of decomposing waste and lasted 7 days covering a 20-acre area. Firefighters used pumped water and
heavy equipment to tear down the fire area and then smothered it with dirt. Fifteen to 20 million
gallons of water were used in the 7-day period. The last two fires were also a result of spontane
ous combustion, but they were smaller in size. Water and heavy equipment were used to extin
guish these two fires as well. Ultimately, restoring the landfill took approximately 2 years to
complete.
San Bernardino County, California.66 In 1999, funding was approved for the cleanup of
a smoldering fire at an illegal dumpsite in Cajon Pass. The illegal dumpsite had been in operation
for about 3 years. At the time of the fire, the dumpsite contained 200,000 cubic yards of waste,
which filled an area about 60 feet high and 450 feet long. Most of the waste consisted of rubble,
telephone poles, railroad ties, whole trees, shrubs, and large stumps. About 80,000 cubic yards
(60,000 tons) were organic wastes, which spontaneously ignited, causing the fire. The smoldering
fire posed a significant risk to nearby residences, wildlands, power lines, and railroad tracks, and
it threatened serious water contamination. Agencies from the state and local level were involved
in the funding effort.

65

Telephone interview with Ohio Colerian Township Dept. of Fire and EMS Fire Chief Bruce Smith.
State Waste Board Approves Funding for Cajon Pass Dump Cleanup, California Integrated Waste Management
Board, May 27, 1999, 99-053. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/pressroom/1999/may/nr053.htm.

66

25

CONCLUSION
Landfill fires are not common occurrences. When they do occur, however, they tend to
attract a great deal of public attention and challenge the fire service. Illegal dumping continues to
be a problem for regulatory agencies and the fire service. Illegal sites are particularly hazardous
to firefighters, because the firefighters may be unaware of the presence or nature of chemicals or
other toxic substances involved in the fire. Landfill fires in regulated facilities also challenge
Incident Commanders, who must make a series of tactical decisions in a situation far different
from that found at a normal structure fire.
Closed landfills are another area of concern, from both a regulatory and a fire service per
spective. By federal law, landfill operators must commit to maintaining a landfill for at least 30
years after it has closed. Landfills continue to emit methane and other dangerous gases even after
they are closed. As a result, buildings constructed on former landfills are often required to have
automatic methane detectors, which sound an audible alarm in the event that methane levels
become unsafe. Construction on closed landfills must not damage the final cover or the existing
liners and leachate collection system. The true implications of closed landfills are not clear,
largely because, for data collection purposes, these sites are likely coded not as landfills but as the
property use at the time of an incident (fire, explosion, etc.).
Through EPA regulation and cleanup efforts of landfills, landfill fires are less likely to
contain toxic chemicals than they were decades ago. Also, fire departments are gaining the
experience to more efficiently and safely extinguish the fires that occur. Working in conjunction
with the public and landfill operators, the fire service can reduce the occurrence of landfill fires,
thereby better protecting the public, the environment, and emergency responders.

26