DAMAGE CASES:
CONSTRUCTION AND
DEMOLITION WASTE
LANDFILLS
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
by
ICF Incorporated
Contract No. 68-W3-0008
January 1995
May 18,1995 Draft Document'
-------
ES-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-2
Background ES-1
Purpose of This Report ES-1
Methodology ES-1
Results ES-2
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
Regulatory Background 1-1
Focus on C&D Landfills 1-1
Purpose and Organization ofThis Report '. 1-2
CHAPTER2. IDENTIFYING DAMAGE CASES 2-1
Criteria for Selecting Damage Cases 2-1
Existing Studies 2-1
Superfund Program 2-2
EPA Regions 2'3
State and County Agencies 2-3
CHAPTERS. DAMAGE CASES 3-1
Fair Street C&D Site, Patterson, New York 3-4
Garofalo C&D Site, Islip, New York 3-7
Moran C&D Site, Phihnont, New York 3-9
Route 52-Hills Holding Corporation Site, Fallsburg, New York 3-12
Cox's Darbytown Road Landfill, Henrico County, Virginia 3-15
Crippen Stump Dump, Fairfax County, Virginia 3-18
Furnace Road Debris Landfill, Lorton, Virginia 3-21
Qualla Road Landfill, Chesterfield County, Virginia 3-24
Schuylkill Debris Landfill, Prince George County, Virginia 3-27
Janesville Demolition Waste Landfill, Janesville, Wisconsin 3-29
Terra Engineering Demolition Waste Landfill, Dane County, Wisconsin 3-31
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 4-1
Summary of Damages and Contributing Factors , 4-1
Conclusions 4-8
APPENDIX A. CONTACTS A-l
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
ES-3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing a rule addressing non-municipal
facilities (industrial waste facilities, including construction and demolition waste landfills) that may receive hazardous
wastes from conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs), or generators of less than 100 kilograms per
month of hazardous waste. This report, prepared in support of EPA's rulemaking, presents information on
environmental damages from construction and demolition (C&D) waste landfills, i.e., landfills that receive materials
generated from the construction or destruction of structures such as buildings, roads, and bridges. C&D waste landfills
are being examined because the Agency believes that the largest potential impact from this rulemaking will be on these
facilities.
BACKGROUND
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) required EPA to revise the existing standards and guidelines governing the management of household
hazardous wastes and hazardous wastes from small quantity generators. EPA responded in 1991 by revising the existing
criteria for solid waste disposal facilities and practices (40 CFR Part 257). In 1991 EPA issued revised criteria in 40
CFR Part 258 for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) that receive household hazardous wastes and CESQG
wastes. EPA did not establish revised criteria for non-municipal facilities and subsequently was sued by the Sierra Club.
A consent agreement was reached in January 1994, and EPA is now fulfilling the remainder of the HSWA mandate by
regulating CESQG wastes that are disposed in non-municipal facilities. The final rule must be signed by the EPA
Administrator by May 15,1995. The rule will require facilities receiving CESQG wastes to have adequate ground-
water monitoring, corrective action requirements, and location restrictions.
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The purposes of this study were to (1) determine whether the disposal of C&D waste in landfills has led to
contamination of ground water or surface water, or damages of ecological resources, and (2) examine whether these
environmental damages can be attributed to specific aspects of the site such as the types of waste received, design and
operating practices, and environmental setting/location.
METHODOLOGY
To compile documentation of environmental impacts resulting from C&D waste landfills, EPA searched for
sites that met the following criteria:
• The landfill received predominantly C&D waste, with or without CESQG waste mixed in. Landfills
that were known to have received significant quantities of municipal, industrial, or hazardous wastes
were excluded.
The use of the site as a C&D landfill had to be the only potential source of the observed
contamination. Sites located near other potential sources of the contamination such as underground
storage tanks were excluded.
• There had to be documented evidence of ground-water contamination, surface water contamination, or
ecological damage at the site. "Contamination" was defined as an increase in constituent levels above
background, or an exceedance of an applicable regulatory standard or criterion attributable to releases
from the site.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
ES-4
EPA searched for sites meeting these criteria using four information sources:
• Existing studies ofC&D waste landfills. Two studies provided particularly useful background
informational) Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Issues: An Alachua County
Perspective (Hanrahan, 1994); and (2) Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal: Management
Problems and Alternative Solutions (Lambert and Domizio, 1993).
• Materials available through the Superfundprogram. Superfund databases were searched to identify
C&D waste landfills on the National Priorities List or under investigation. None of the Superfund
sites were found to be appropriate damages cases, typically because they received a wide variety of
wastes in addition to C&D waste.
• Representatives of EPA Regions were contacted. Because C&D waste landfills are regulated by the
states rather than EPA, the representatives provided lists of state contacts.
• Representatives of state and county environmental agencies were contacted in 32 states. Only three
states -- New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin — clearly identified C&D waste landfills that met the
criteria listed above. These states allowed EPA to review documentation on potential damage cases
to obtain more detail on the cases reported here. Documentation reviewed included preliminary site
assessments for New York sites, C&D site background files and monitoring data for Virginia sites,
and a ground-water impact investigation for Wisconsin sites.
RESULTS
Only 11 damage cases were identified using the above methodology. All 11 sites reported ground-water
contamination within the property boundary, none reported ground-water contamination offsite. This does not mean
that there was no off-site ground-water contamination; in most cases, ground-water monitoring was not performed
beyond the site boundary.
Although most of the sites monitored ground water for a wide range of organic and inorganic constituents,
virtually all of the contamination was associated with inorganics. Constituents that exceeded state ground-water
protection standards or federal drinking water criteria most frequently were iron, manganese, total dissolved solids
(TDS), and lead. Two of these constituents — iron and manganese — were found to exceed applicable standards by a
factor of 100 or more in at least one sample at many landfills (i.e., at 5 of the 11 sites for iron, and at 4 of the 11 sites for
manganese). It is noteworthy that for both constituents, the standard that was exceeded is a secondary, rather than
primary, drinking water standard (MCL). Secondary MCLs are set to protect the water supply for aesthetic (e.g., taste)
rather than health-based reasons.
Six sites had surface water contamination; three of these sites also had some contamination of sediments. At
two sites, the surface water and sediment contamination was offsite as well as on site. As with ground water, most of
the contamination was associated with inorganic constituents. Constituents that exceeded state surface water standards
or EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life most frequently were
iron, zinc, lead, copper, and acidity (pH). Two of the sites reporting contamination of sediments had elevated levels of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs).
The source documents rarely examined the possible link between environmental damages observed at a site
and the design, operating, or location attributes of the site. Factors that might have contributed to the damages at the 11
sites are as follows:
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
ES-5
• Seven landfills contained other types of wastes that had been disposed of legally or illegally, including
tires, household hazardous wastes, and other materials.
• Environmental controls were typically inadequate or absent. Only two landfills were equipped with
partial bottom liners and leachate collection systems (LCSs). Run-on and/or run-off controls were
mentioned for only three sites. Six sites apparently had some type of final cover, but only two had
more than a thin soil cover. For four sites, no environmental controls were mentioned in the source
documents.
• Many of the landfills are characterized by environmental settings that could facilitate the release and
transport of contaminants, including shallow ground water, complex ground-water flow conditions,
and highly permeable subsoils. Many landfills had ponds, streams, or wetlands either on site or
within close proximity; one site was located in a 100-year floodplain.
Although this study demonstrates that specific C&D waste landfills can lead to ground-water and surface water
contamination, the Agency believes that it has insufficient data, at this point, to require more than the statute requires
(i.e., ground-water monitoring, corrective action, and location restrictions). The Agency made a concerted effort to
identify C&D damage cases by contacting 32 state agencies and was able to identify only 11 cases where there was a
high probability that damages were associated with C&D wastes. The Agency's limited data (11 damage cases out of a
total of approximately 1,800 C&D facilities) makes it difficult for the Agency to determine whether C&D facilities are
posing sufficient risk to human health and the environment to warrant additional controls beyond those required by the
statute.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents information on environmental contamination thai has resulted from the operation of
construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfills. These are landfills that receive materials generated predominantly
from the construction or destruction of structures such as buildings, roads, and bridges. There are currently about 1,800
C&D debris landfills operating in the United States.
This report was written in support of a rulemaking currently being developed by the U.S, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This chapter provides a background discussion of this rulemaking. and then discusses the
purpose and organization of this report.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), passed in 1976, required the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to promulgate standards and guidelines for the management of solid wastes. In response to this mandate,
EPA promulgated regulations for the management of hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA, and for non-
hazardous wastes under Subtitle D. The Subtitle C standards applied to ail facilities generating more than 1.000 kg mo
of hazardous wastes, but conditionally exempted from full regulation facilities generating less than this amount. Subtitle
D guidelines address the management of all other solid wastes, such as municipal wastes and non-hazardous industrial
wastes {including construction and demolition wastes).
In 1984, Congress passed the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), which made several changes
to RCRA. One important change was the creation of two categories of small quantity hazardous waste generators:
generators of 100 to 1,000 kg/mo, and generators of less than 100 kg mo. HSWA added specific provisions for the first
category, but gave EPA discretion as to whether to promulgate new requirements for the second. EPA has since defined
generators of less than 100 kg'mo as conditionally-exempt small quantity generators, or CESQGs, CESQGs arc
responsible for the proper management of their wastes, but are not required to comply with many of the Subtitle C
regulations specified for larger hazardous waste generators.
Another important change imposed by HSWA was the addition of Section 4010 to Subtitle D, requiring EPA
to promulgate revised criteria addressing the management of household hazardous wastes and hazardous wastes from
small quantity generators. EPA responded in October 199! by promulgating the revised Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
(MSWLF) Criteria (40 CFR Part 258). This partially fulfilled the HSWA mandate by addressing household hazardous
wastes and CESQG wastes that are disposed in MSWLFs. After a consent agreement with the Sierra Club on January
28, 1994, EPA is now fulfilling the remainder of the HSWA mandate by regulating CESQG wastes that are disposed in
non-municipal facilities. The final rule must be signed by the EPA Administrator by May 15,1995. The rule will
require facilities receiving CESQG wastes to have adequate ground-water monitoring, corrective action requirements,
and location restrictions.
FOCUS ON C&D LANDFILLS
Many different types of Subtitle D waste management units other than MSWLFs may receive CESQG wastes
and may therefore be affected by this rulemaking. including the following:
• Commercial Subtitle D industrial waste landfills;
• On-site Subtitle D industrial waste management units such as landfills, surface impoundments, land
treatment units, and waste piles; and
C&D debris landfills.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
1-8
EPA believes that the only waste management units that may be impacted significantly by this rulemaking are the C&D
landfills. C&D landfills are therefore the focus of this report.
PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The purposes of this study were to (1) determine whether the disposal of C&D debris in landfills has led to
contamination of ground water, surface water, or ecological resources; and (2) examine whether these environmental
damages can be attributed to specific aspects of the site such as the types of waste received, design and operating
practices, and environmental setting/location.
The remainder of this report comprises three chapters.
• Chapter 2 discusses the criteria and information sources used to select sites to include in the study;
• Chapter 3 presents 11 damage cases; and
• Chapter 4 summarizes the types of damages found at these landfills, discusses the possible link
between these damages and site operation, design, and location, and presents the conclusions of the
study.
May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
CHAPTER 2. IDENTIFYING DAMAGE CASES
To compile documentation of environmental impacts resulting from C&D waste landfills, the Agency used four
sources of information:
• Existing studies of C&D waste landfills;
• Materials available through the Superiund program;
• Representatives of EPA regions; and
• Representatives of state and county environmental agencies.
In reviewing information available from these sources, EPA applied certain criteria to select sites to serve as damage
cases. EPA's criteria for identifying damage cases are presented below, followed by a discussion of each information
source. Using these criteria and information sources, EPA identified 11 sites that document the occurrence of
environmental contamination from C&D landfills. These damage cases are presented in Chapter 3.
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING DAMAGE CASES
The Agency considered three major factors in judging whether a site is an appropriate damage case for this
analysis. First, EPA included only those facilities that received predominantly C&D waste, with or without
conditionally-exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) waste mixed in. However, if evidence suggested that the site
also received significant quantities of municipal, industrial, or hazardous wastes, it was excluded.
Second, the use of the site as a C&D landfill had to be the only potential source of the observed contamination.
The site was excluded if it was located near another potential source of contamination (e.g., municipal solid waste
landfill, leaking underground storage tank). The site was also excluded if it had a previous use (e.g., mine) that could
have contributed to the contamination.
Finally, there had to be documented evidence of ground-water contamination, surface water contamination, or
ecological damage at the site. "Contamination" was defined as an increase in constituent levels above background, or an
exceedance of an applicable regulatory standard or criterion attributable to releases from the site. Ecological damage to
aquatic communities was assumed to have occurred if surface water concentrations exceeded EPA's Ambient Water
Quality Criteria, which are designed to be protective of aquatic communities. Terrestrial ecological damage would have
been assumed to have occurred if the information source documented impacts to terrestrial flora or fauna at the site, but
none of the source documents provided that information.
EXISTING STUDIES
EPA reviewed several existing studies of C&D waste generation and management. Two of these studies were
particularly useful in providing background information helpful to this effort, such as the number of C&D waste landfills
in each state, whether or not C&D landfills are monitored, and whether or not ground-water contamination has been
documented. These two studies are:
• Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Issues: An Alachua County Perspective (Hanrahan,
1994); and
• Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal: Management Problems and Alternative Solutions
(Lambert and Domizio, 1993).
These reports helped to focus the Agency's search for documented damage cases.
*** May 18, 1995 DRAFT DOCUMENT -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR CITE ***
-------
2-10
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Superfund databases were examined to determine whether they included any C&D waste landfills. This was
performed in two steps, discussed below.
National Priorities List
The first step was to examine sites that have been listed (or are being proposed for listing) on the National
Priorities List (NPL). EPA performed a keyword search of the [** to be added **] to identify all sites with
"construction" as a site activity-waste source. This resulted in the identification of 14 sites that were listed on the NPL as
of February 1991, and 9 additional sites that have been proposed for listing since then.
EPA obtained and reviewed Records of Decision (RODs) for each of the 14 sites on the NPL. Because RODs
have not yet been written for most of the other sites, EPA obtained and reviewed the sites' Preliminary Assessments (a
preliminary review of available information performed on all sites investigated under the Superfund program) and other
available documentation instead.
Based on a review of the documentation for these sites, none were judged to be acceptable as damage cases for
this analysis. All of the sites have received a wide variety of wastes in addition to C&D waste, including municipal,
industrial, and/or hazardous wastes, and it was not possible to attribute the environmental contamination to the C&D
component of the waste.
CERCLIS Characterization Database
Sites listed on the NPL represent only a fraction of sites investigated under the Superfund program. Over
30,000 sites identified through various means have received Preliminary Assessments under Superfund. Some of these
sites have been found to require no further action, while others are being investigated in more detail for possible
inclusion on the NPL. All sites that have received Preliminary Assessments are listed in the CERCLA Information
System (CERCLIS). To determine whether any sites in CERCLIS are C&D waste landfills, the CERCLIS
Characterization Database1 was searched to identify sites with the following characteristics:
• The site contains a landfill associated with the construction industry in which C&D waste was
disposed;
• Ground-water, surface water, and/or ecological damage has been documented at the site, and the site
has not been deemed innocuous or low priority; and
• The landfill is not a municipal landfill or one that has received hazardous waste.
No facilities were found in the CERCLIS Characterization Database that met all of these criteria.
EPA REGIONS
All of the EPA regional offices were contacted to obtain information on contamination resulting from C&D
waste sites in their regions. Since C&D waste landfills fall under the purview of Subtitle D of RCRA, and Subtitle D
'CERCLIS itself could not be searched because it does not identify the type of site; i.e., there was no way to determine
which sites are C&D debris landfills. The CERCLIS Characterization Database, was used instead; this database contains
detailed information for eight percent of the approximately 30,000 sites in CERCLIS.
May 18,1995 DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR CITE
***
-------
2-11
programs are administered by the states rather than EPA, the regions were unable to provide the needed information.
Instead, they identified state contacts to call directly. A list of the EPA regional contacts is provided in Appendix A.
Some of these contacts noted that because C&D landfills are not regulated or monitored in some states, information on
damages is simply unavailable.
STATE AND COUNTY AGENCIES
State and county environmental agencies in 32 states were contacted to obtain information on contamination
from C&D landfills. State contacts were originally identified from a list of participants attending EPA's Industrial
Subtitle D Workshop in March 1993, representing 11 states. Additional state and county contacts were added based on:
• Information from EPA regional contacts;
• EPA's review of site-specific ground-water monitoring data provided by states to the National
Association of Demolition Contractors (NADC); and
• A list of state agencies surveyed by the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department
(Hanrahan, 1994) regarding C&D waste disposal.
A list of state and county contacts who provided relevant information to EPA is presented in Appendix A.
Although a large number of states were contacted, only three — New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin —
identified C&D waste landfills that met the criteria listed above, for a total of 11 damage cases:
• Prior to 1988, C&D disposal facilities in New York State were exempt from solid waste permitting
requirements if they operated less than one year. The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) investigated nine C&D sites, prompted by public suspicion of hazardous
waste disposal, probability of significant environmental or public health impacts, and levels of public
concern. Preliminary Site Assessments (PSAs) were conducted to determine (1) if wastes at the site
included hazardous wastes (as defined by the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR)
Part 371) and (2) the impact of the site on human health and the environment. NYSDEC used the
information obtained from the PSAs in revising/enhancing the New York Code (6 NYCRR Part 360)
on solid waste management facilities in 1988. PSAs were ultimately written for only eight sites,
because an ongoing investigation prevented a site assessment at the ninth. Four of the eight
investigated C&D sites met the criteria listed above and were used as damage cases.
« Virginia has conducted ground-water monitoring at C&D landfills since 1988. Downgradient wells
(as close to the waste management unit boundary as feasible) are compared to initial background
levels (pre-1988) and to upgradient wells. If a statistically significant elevation (or decrease, in the
case of pH) in a target parameter is observed during Phase I, Phase II monitoring is triggered. Nine
target parameters are monitored for Phase I: chloride, hardness, iron, lead, pH, sodium, specific
conductance, total organic carbon (TOC), and total organic halides (TOX). The Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) provided EPA with a list of 10 C&D facilities for which Phase II
monitoring has been triggered. EPA reviewed the available information for all 10 sites, but only 5
sites both met the criteria listed above and had sufficient information available to serve as damage
cases.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources document, Investigation ofGroundwater Impacts
at Demolition Landfills (1994), provided information on contamination at two demolition landfills
sufficient to identify those sites as damage cases. Wisconsin has required ground-water monitoring at
C&D sites since 1988.
*** May 18,1995 DRAFT DOCUMENT -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR CITE ***
-------
2-12
Very few damage cases were found for potentially four reasons. First, about half of the 50 states do not have
sufficient documentation to identify damage cases. In some of these states, ground-water monitoring is not conducted at
C&D landfills (Hanrahan, 1994). In some cases, ground-water monitoring is conducted only on a case-by-case basis, so
information is not available for all C&D landfills (Hanrahan, 1994). In a few cases, monitoring that might provide
information on damages is underway, but has begun so recently that results are not yet available.
Second, in approximately one fourth of the 50 states, potential damage cases could not be specifically attributed
to C&D waste because of one or more of the following reasons:
• C&D wastes are disposed of in municipal landfills rather than in separate C&D landfills;
• C&D landfills are located near other possible sources of contamination (e.g., leaking underground
storage tanks, municipal landfills);
• Site history information indicates a previous use of the site that could have contributed to the damage
(e.g., use as an asphalt plant, a mine, etc.), or the state may have no information on the history of the
site; and/or
• Sites have been in existence since the 1940s or 50s, and it is possible that non-C&D wastes were
dumped in large quantities in the early years, when the sites were unregulated.
Third, other states identified sites where damages may have been attributable to C&D wastes, but unusual
circumstances existed, and these cases were not used. For example, damages at one site resulted from pumping water
through a landfill to extinguish a landfill fire, and the state representative did not believe it was representative of a
typical site.
Lastly, in eight states that regulate C&D waste separately from other landfilled wastes, ground-water
monitoring is conducted at all C&D landfills and contamination has not been found (Hanrahan, 1994). In seven of these
eight states, liners are required while in six of the eight states, leachate collection systems are required at some or all of
the C&D landfills.
*** May 18,1995 DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR CITE ***
-------
CHAPTER 3.
DAMAGE CASES
This chapter presents a summary of each of the 11 damage cases identified using the methodology and sources
discussed in Chapter 2. The names and locations of the damage cases are given in Exhibit 3-1.
EXHIBIT 3-1. C&D DEBRIS LANDFILL DAMAGE CASES
NAME
LOCATION
NEW YORK STATE
Fair Street C&D Site
Garofalo C&D Site
Moran C&D Site
Route 52-Hills Holding Corp.
Patterson
Islip
Philmont
Fallsburg
VIRGINIA
Cox's Darbytown Road Landfill
Crippen Stump Dump
Furnace Road Debris Landfill
Qualla Road Landfill
Schuylkill Debris Landfill
Henrico County
Fairfax County
Lorton
Chesterfield County
Prince George County
WISCONSIN
Janesville Demolition Waste Landfill
Terra Engineering Demolition Waste Landfill
Janesville
Dane County
The damage case summaries are arranged in a standard format.
"Media Affected" identifies whether the damages are associated with ground water, surface water, or
ecological receptors.
"Overview of Site/Site History" discusses the location and size of the site, its opening and (if applicable)
closing date, any enforcement actions that have been taken, the purpose of the site investigation(s), and the
number of people living near the site, if that information is available.
"Facility Operations" discusses the types of waste received, plus any information available on filling
operations (e.g., use of daily cover). In most cases, information on filling operations was unavailable.
"Facility Design" presents available information on the presence of engineered controls such as liners,
leachate collection systems, run-on/run-off controls, and final cover. Information on facility design was very
incomplete for virtually all of the damage cases.
May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-14
"Site Environment and Hydrogeology" summarizes site characteristics related to the transport of
contaminants in the environment. Factors addressed, when available, include soil and bedrock composition
and hydraulic conductivity, depth to ground water, direction of ground-water flow, and use of the aquifer for
drinking water supplies. Surface water resources are also discussed, including (where relevant) the location of
on-site or off-site surface water bodies and the use of surface water for drinking water supplies and other uses.
This section also addresses the presence of wetlands, floodplains, and other sensitive environments.
"Summary of Environmental Damages" discusses ground-water contamination, surface water
contamination, and ecological damages at the site. Constituents that are detected in ground-water or surface
water above applicable state and federal standards are identified, and their maximum detected concentrations
are given. The following state and federal standards were used:
Federal drinking water standards. EPA compared ground-water contaminant concentrations to
federal drinking water standards: maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and secondary maximum
contaminant levels (SMCLs). MCLs are federally enforceable standards set by EPA that apply to any
water system in the U.S. that serves more than 25 people. MCLs are set based both on human health
considerations and on technological and economic feasibility. SMCLs are based on aesthetic
considerations (e.g., taste and odor), and are not federally enforceable.
Ambient Water Quality Criteria. EPA compared surface water contaminant concentrations to
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the protection of aquatic life. AWQC for the protection
of aquatic life are designed to protect aquatic communities (excluding the benthic community, which
can aiso be exposed through sediments).
New York State Water Quality Standards. For New York C&D sites, EPA compared ground-water
and surface water contaminant concentrations to New York State water quality standards. New York
State classifies its water bodies according to their "best uses" and provides a different set of water
quality standards for each classification. Class B standards are designed to protect surface waters for
swimming, fish survival, and fish propagation; Class C standards to protect for fish survival and
propagation; and Class D standards to protect for fish survival (but not fish propagation). In addition,
all non-saline ground waters in New York State are classified as GA and are protected for use as
drinking water.
This section also identifies whether the contamination was found in on-site or off-site resources. This is of
particular importance because exceedances found on site may not indicate that off-site ground-waters or surface
waters are at risk, to the interest of brevity, "negative" monitoring results are not presented in this section (i.e.,
it does not identify all of the constituents that were monitored for, but not detected, at the site).
"Discussion" summarizes the environmental damages and discusses whether a link might exist between the
damages and attributes of the site such as the types of waste received, operation, design, and location. This
section also identifies any corrective actions that have been recommended or taken at the site.
"Source" simply identifies the information source(s) used to prepare the damage case summary.
The remainder of this chapter presents the damage case summaries. The implications of these damage cases
are discussed in Chapter 4.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-15
FAIR STREET C&D SITE Patterson, New York
Media Affected: Ground Water, Surface Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The Fair Street Site landfill comprises approximately 3 acres of a 19.5-acre plot in Patterson, New York.
Unpermitted dumping of C&D waste began in late 1987 and lasted until mid-February of 1988. Complaints of odors from
the site were received in 1988 and 1989. Judgments were issued against the landfill operators to pay for closure.
It is estimated that more than 10,000 people live within three miles of the site, with the nearest residential
community located approximately one-third of a mile away. The majority of the Town of Patterson is not on public water
supply; instead, certain residential complexes operate private wells for their residents.
Facility Operations
The site was used primarily as a C&D dump from late 1987 until mid-February 1988. The landfill consists of 40
to 80 percent wood and wood products, 10 to 40 percent ash, brick, tires, concrete, carpet, metal, glass, and asphalt, and 10
to 20 percent oily silt and silty sand. An estimated five percent of the waste is non-C&D material, including household
hazardous wastes such as fiirniture polish and engine degreaser.
C&D material was used to level the existing topography, which included filling a natural drainage channel that
formerly connected two wetlands on the northeastern and southwestern portions of the property. The landfill operator
installed a culvert pipe beneath the landfill, allowing surface water to flow between these two wetlands.
Facility Design
A thin layer of clayey-silt soil averaging about one foot in thickness was placed as cover material. The PSA
reported that the cover was inadequate in many sections of the landfill.
The landfill has no liner system and does not appear to have run-on or run-off controls. Surface water runoff was
found to be percolating below the ground surface at the landfill, and a malodorous pond containing leachate was found near
the landfill. Discharge from the buried culvert was foamy and discolored.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
Three small wetlands are located on the property. As discussed above, wetlands on the northeastern and
southwestern portions of the property are connected by a culvert pipe that runs beneath the landfill. The southwestern
wetland is topographically the lowest point on the property. It is connected to a wetland located off site, across Interstate
84, by a second culvert pipe that runs beneath the highway. Surface water and sediment from the site ultimately flow through
this road culvert, discharging into a series of wetlands connected to Middle Branch Reservoir.
A very thin layer of soil and residual glacial till material overlie bedrock at the Fair Street site. Overburden soils
are 25 percent gravel, 40 percent sand, 33 percent silt, and 2 percent clay. The shallow bedrock is strongly fractured and
faulted. The nature of the discontinuities greatly influences the direction of local ground-water flow. The average hydraulic
conductivity was determined to be 3.1 x 10"4 centimeters per second (cm/sec). The ground water in the shallow bedrock is
an unconfined water table and likely discharges to the local wetland areas west and southwest of the site.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-16
Summary of Environmental Damages
Surface water and sediment
samples were taken at a drainage ditch
northeast of the site, at a point near the
effluent of the landfill culvert, and at
wetlands at the northeastern and
southwestern parts of the site. Surface water
samples showed the presence of inorganics
at levels above the New York State Class D
standard for surface water and/or EPA's
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC)
for the protection of aquatic life; these are
shown in Table 1. Some unidentified
semivolatile organics were detected in the
surface water samples.
Numerous semivolatile organics
were found at parts-per-million levels in
sediment samples, most notably potynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs) and alkanes.
Ground-water samples taken
downgradient of the landfill, but within the
property boundary, revealed the presence of
inorganic compounds at levels above New
York State Class GA ground-water
standards and/or EPA's drinking water
standards (primary or secondary MCLs).
These are shown in Table 2. (Note:
Aluminum and iron also exceeded standards in the downgradient wells. These are not shown on the table because their
concentrations were highest in the upgradient well.) In addition, some unidentified semivolatile organics were detected in
many of the wells. No off-site ground-water samples were taken, so it could not be determined whether or not contamination
migrated off site.
Discussion
According to the preliminary site assessment (PSA), contamination of surface water, sediments, and ground water
on the property of this site is possibly attributable to migration of constituents from the landfill. The PSA found oil and
hazardous constituents in the fill but was unable to document the presence of hazardous waste as defined by New York State.
Household hazardous waste was present, however.
The landfill cap was inadequate in many places, and there was no liner or leachate collection system. Surface water
runoff percolated below the ground surface at the landfill, and runoff and leachate flowed into an interconnecting system of
wetlands. The aquifer is characterized by fractured and faulted bedrock, possibly facilitating movement of constituents in
ground water.
The PSA recommends that the landfill be (1) properly closed, in accordance with New York regulations, and (2)
capped, to limit infiltration and provide surface water drainage control.
TABLE 1
SURFACE WATER CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING NYS
CLASS D STANDARDS AND/OR FEDERAL AWQC
Contaminant
antimony
cadmium
copper
cyanide
iron
zinc
Highest
Detected Level
C^R/I)
56a
12
199"
61a
195,000
591
Class D
Standard
fc*E/l)
w_
23C
76C
22
300
1,152C
Fresh
Chronic
AWQC
foa/0
30b
4"
44"
5
1,000
390d
a The value was estimated in the source document.
b Antimony AWQC is proposed.
c Class D value was calculated in the source document based on
formula (6NYCRR 703.5) using an estimated hardness value
of 466 ppm.
d EPA calculated the AWQC value using an estimated hardness
value of 466 ppm.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-17
TABLE 2
GROUND-WATER CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING
NYS AND/OR FEDERAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Contaminant
magnesium
manganese
sodium
TDS
Highest
Detected Level
(MM
128,000
46,700
276,000
2,850,000
Class GA
Standard
teg/1)
35,000"
300
20,000
500,000
MCL
tee/1)
._
„
„
SMCL
tes/i)
—
50
500,000
a Value is New York State "guidance value."
Source
Final Preliminary Site Assessment: Fair Street C&D Site; New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC); November 1991.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document
***
-------
3-18
GAROFALO C&D SITE Islip, New York
Media Affected: Ground Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The Garofalo C&D landfill was operated illegally by the Garofalo Carting Company (the Company) on land owned
by Pilgrim State Psychiatric Center (PSPC) in Islip, New York. In 1978 the Company was confronted by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) concerning illegal dumping and excavating on land owned
by the PSPC. The Company has been fined and repeatedly ordered to clean up the site, but has not complied with the
sanctions.
The Garofalo site is located in a densely populated section of Long Island. Approximately 10,000 people reside
within three miles of the landfill, including 1,200 people at the PSPC located immediately south of the site. Several schools
are located within one mile of the site.
Facility Operations
The Garofalo C&D landfill was cited for violations under the New York State Environmental Conservation Law,
Article 27, in 1986. Testing found the landfill material to be comprised of 10 to 60 percent sandy soil with lesser amounts
of silt, and mechanically crushed wood, metal, plastic, bricks, concrete, whole trees and brush, large timbers, pilings, railroad
ties, chain link fencing, rugs, plastic, and fiberglass sheeting. In 1989, approximately 100 syringes with needles and some
intravenous tubing were found on PSPC property, near the landfill site.
Facility Design
Five test pits excavated at the site revealed no engineered cover material. We assume that there is no liner or
leachate collection system, but the PSA did not specifically discuss these features.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
The landfill is located in the Upper Glacial geologic unit, which extends to at least 90 feet below the land surface.
The unit is comprised of coarse to fine sand and medium to fine gravel, with less than five percent silt. The soils are highly
permeable, with hydraulic conductivities ranging from 1.46x 10"'to6.55x 10"' centimeters per second (cm/sec). Average
annual precipitation for the region is 43.4 inches per year, 21 inches of which is available for infiltration.
The landfill is located in a primary recharge area to the Upper Glacial aquifer, which is hydraulically connected
to two other aquifers (the Magothy Formation and the Lloyd Sand of the Raritan Formation). Both the Upper Glacial and
the Magothy aquifers are pumped for domestic and industrial uses in the vicinity of the site. Two municipal well fields are
located about 1.25 miles and 3 miles from the site. The aquifer system has been designated a "Sole Source Aquifer" by the
U.S. EPA under the provisions of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Although wetlands are located near the site, they are isolated from the landfill by road systems. It is not likely that
surface water run-off will reach any rivers or creeks due to topographic and human-built borders.
Summary of Environmental Damages
Ground-water monitoring at the perimeter of the landfill detected seven inorganic contaminants at elevations that
exceed the New York State Class GA standards for ground water. The levels of these contaminants, as well as the level of
total dissolved solids (TDS), are compared to Class GA standards and EPA drinking water standards (MCLs and SMCLs)
in Table 1.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-19
TABLE 1
GROUND- WATER CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING
NYS AND/OR FEDERAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Contaminant
chromium
iron
lead
magnesium
manganese
sodium
zinc
IDS
Highest
Detected
Level
foR/1)
134
130,000
90
94,900
33,200
178,000
391
1,630,000
Class GA
Standard
(Utfl)
50
300
25
35,000
300
20,000
300
500,000
MCL
0/R/I)
100
..
15a
„
«
—
—
._
SMCL
tea/I)
..
300
._
50
„
500
500,000
a Value is action level for lead at the tap.
Discussion
Ground water at the perimeter of the landfill was found to contain several contaminants at levels above their
drinking water standards.
Municipal well fields are located about 1.25 to 3 miles from the site. Off-site ground-water monitoring was not
conducted as part of this study. According to the investigators, data from this one round of sampling do not conclusively
determine whether or not the C&D landfill is affecting ground-water quality near the site.
No disposal of hazardous waste (as defined in 6NYCRR Part 371) was documented during the PSA. The PSA
recommended closing the Garofalo C&D site, and capping it to reduce infiltration and provide surface water control.
Source
Final Preliminary Site Assessment: Garofalo C&D Site; New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC); November 1991.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-20
MORAN C&D SITE Philmont, New York
Media Affected: Ground Water, Surface Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The Moran C&D site is a landfill comprising 1.75 acres of a 12-acre lot in Philmont, New York. The landfill
received processed C&D waste from April 1988 until November 1988. From the summer of!988 until its closure, there
were numerous complaints of noise and illegal dumping. A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) inspection of the site indicated that approximately 10,000 tires were buried at the bottom of the valley. The site
caught fire in April 1989. The fire was controlled but not extinguished due to high internal temperatures. During the fire
fighting efforts, a temporary impoundment was constructed along the southern edge of the Moran property to contain the fire
water run off. In March 1990 the fire broke out again. Once again the fire was controlled but not extinguished. As of
November 1991, the site was still smoldering.
The site is located in close proximity to the most populated section of the Village of Philmont. The population
within a one-mile radius is estimated to be 1,875. There are five residences in close proximity to the landfill.
Facility Operations
The landfill consists primarily of C&D waste with a low percentage of solid waste and non-hazardous industrial
waste. The filled materials are approximately 70 percent charred, partially decomposed wood pallets and construction
lumber. Other materials included armored electrical cable, steel and copper pipes, thin plastic sheeting, concrete rubble,
carpet, and a crushed drum. The fill materials are in a sand, silt, and clay matrix that comprises 15 percent of the fill by
volume. Additional solid waste at the site includes approximately 10,000 tires.
NYSDEC site inspections noted numerous violations of Departmental rules and regulations during the landfilling
operation. The improper operation of the site also resulted in several complaints from citizens regarding odors, additional
traffic, noise, etc.
Facility Design
The site was originally a narrow valley or gorge between two north-south oriented ridges. This valley was about
100 feet deep and bounded by a steep bank on the west side and a vertical rock cliff on the east side. The average thickness
of the fill in the central portion of the site is 50 feet with a range from 10 to 95 feet. The fill is covered by 18 inches of soil
cover that generally supports grass.
A three- to four-foot "leachate control berm" composed primary of soil materials separates the flat section of the
Moran property from the broader base of the valley to the south. Run off (not leachate) accumulates on the site behind this
berm and ultimately infiltrates into the ground.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
The geologic units at the site consist of a glacial till, an alluvial sand and gravel unit, and shale/phyllite and
greywacke bedrock. The glacial till is comprised of 41 percent sand, 24 percent gravel, and 35 percent silt and clay. Its
average hydraulic conductivity is 9.3 x 10"6 centimeters per second (cm/sec). The alluvial unit is 80 percent sand, 2 percent
gravel, and 18 percent silt and clay, and its average hydraulic conductivity is 6.95 x 10"4 cm/sec. The bedrock is intensely
folded and tilted and has an average hydraulic conductivity of 1.1 x 10"3 cm/sec.
Ground water occurs in both the glacial till and bedrock, both of which are sources of drinking water for the
residents of Columbia County. Both units typically have low yields that can only satisfy small requirements such as those
needed for domestic supplies. The overburden recharges the bedrock. The presence of two ponds on the adjacent property
south of the site also suggest that these may also receive recharge from the overburden system.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-21
Poorly drained glacial till, which is found in many flat areas in this region, has created many wetlands. Two
freshwater wetlands exist within one mile of the site. As mentioned above, there are also two small ponds on private
property immediately south of the site.
Summary of Environmental Damages
Three sediment samples and two surface water samples were taken during the PSA. Sediment samples were taken
at the northern property boundary in an area frequently characterized by seeps, and both sediment and surface water samples
were taken from the on-site run-off pond next to the leachate control berm, and a pond located beyond the leachate control
berm on an adjacent property south of the site.
Sediments sampled in the off-site pond contained a part per billion (ppb) concentration of di-n-octyl phthalate, and
sediments in the on-site run-off pond contained six polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs) below the reporting limit.
Sediment metal concentrations of lead and mercury exceeded the sediment criteria used by the NYSDEC Division of Fish
and Wildlife in the northern seep area; zinc and arsenic exceeded these criteria in two locations (the northern seep area and
the on-site and off-site pond, respectively); and manganese exceeded the sediment criteria in all three locations.
Both surface water locations had
concentrations of inorganics above NYSDEC water
quality standards for Class C surface water and/or
federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC)
(see Table 1). Concentrations were highest in the
off-site pond.
Ground-water samples were taken at
bedrock (deep) and overburden (shallow) wells at
two upgradient locations and four downgradient
locations (two within the fill and two downgradient
of the fill but within the property boundary).
According to the source document, comparing
metals results in one of the upgradient wells to the
on-site shallow wells indicates that the site
contributes dissolved metals to ground water.
Constituents whose concentrations exceeded NYS
Class GA ground-water standards or federal
TABLE 1
SURFACE WATER CONTAMINANTS
EXCEEDING NYS CLASS C STANDARDS
AND/OR FEDERAL AWQC
Contaminant
aluminum
iron
zinc
Highest
Detected
Level
Cfgfl)
1,670
2,720
51
NYS
Class C
Standard
O'g/l)
100
300
30
AWQ
C
a
-------
3-22
drinldngwaterstandards(prirr]aryorsecOTdary
MCLs) are shown in Table 2.
It is also noteworthy that area
residents complained of a rotten egg
odor as well as a variety of symptoms
(e.g., eye and respiratory irritation)
similar to the known health effects of
hydrogen sulfide. Ambient air quality
samples found hydrogen sulfide levels
up to 11 parts per billion.
Discussion
The PSA found contamination
of on-site and off-site surface water and
sediments with metals at concentrations
exceeding applicable standards. The site
was also found to contribute dissolved
metals to ground water. Many metals
exceeded applicable standards in on-site
ground-water monitoring wells; no off-
site monitoring was conducted. Area
residents complained of a rotten egg
odor as well as a variety of symptoms
similar to the known health effects of hydrogen sulfide.
Based on the PSA and previous sampling, the site investigators recommended that the site be closed, and that
ground-water quality and flow direction be monitored to identify seasonal variations and long-term trends in ground-water
quality.
TABLE 2
GROUND-WATER CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING
NYS AND/OR FEDERAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Contaminant
aluminum
iron
lead
magnesium
manganese
sodium
Highest
Detected
Level
tea/1)
13,500
24,200
24"
127,000
20,300
167,000
Class GA
Standard
tea/0
„
300
25
35,000
300
20,000
MCL
tes/l)
_.
„
15"
„
—
SMCL
teg/i)
50-200
300
„
—
50
—
a Value is reported as estimated value in source document.
b Value is action level for lead at tap.
Source
Final Preliminary Site Assessment: Moran C&D Site; New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation; November 1991.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-23
ROUTE 52 - HILLS HOLDING CORPORATION SITE Fallsburg, New York
Media Affected: Ground Water, Surface Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The Route 52 - Hills Holding Corporation Site is a landfill comprising 8 acres of a 26.4-acre lot located in
Fallsburg, New York. The landfill began C&D operation in the summer of 1988 as an exempt C&D debris site. The debris
was deposited on a hillside between a pond and the Neversink River. The landfill was closed by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in October 1988.
There are 12 public wells within a 3-mile radius of the site that supply water to approximately 12,000 people year
round, with as much as a fivefold increase in the summer months. A house is located on the property east of the pond and
west of the landfill, and another residence is located adjacent to the site about 200 feet to the north.
Facility Operations
The waste present in the landfill is composed mainly of oily-appearing soil, wood and lumber products, concrete,
brick, steel re-bar, carpet, glass, plastic sheeting, wires, rags, telephone cable, and steel pipes. Disposal of refuse and
unpermitted burning were noted at the site. In September 1988, the disposal of four five-gallon pails with roofing compound
was observed at the site. The compound was referred to as a New York State hazardous waste by the source document.
The pails were removed from the landfill and placed in an overpack drum.
Facility Design
The PSA revealed a one-foot-thick silty sand and gravel cover material. There does not appear to be any liner or
leachate collection system at the site. Leachate was observed by state officials to be emanating from the northeast corner
of the landfill into the Neversink River. Berms have been constructed at some areas of the landfill.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
The Neversink River, a major tributary to the Delaware River, flows southward past the site about 100 feet from
the eastern side of the landfill. The Neversink River is classified as a Class B waterway. A five-acre pond exists along the
western side of the landfill. An area of approximately 10 feet by 20 feet of shallow standing water with wetland vegetation
lies between the Neversink River and the landfill's southeast comer.
Surface drainage is poor and flows to the Neversink River. Surface water run-off and associated sediments from
all but the northern third of the landfill area are bounded by natural levees or man-made berms on the site. Surface water
and sediments from the northern third of the site enter the Neversink River via intermittent streams or a drainage ditch on
an adjacent residential property. A small quantity of run-off enters the on-site pond.
Two unconsolidated units overlie weathered bedrock at the site. The lower unit is a glacial till comprised of 35
percent gravel, 40 percent sand, 20 percent silt, and 5 percent clay. The average hydraulic conductivity is 2.9 x 10"4
centimeters per second. The upper unit is comprised of alluvial soils, described as loose brown fine silty sand. These
overburden materials overlie highly weathered and fractured bedrock at depths ranging from 6 inches to 12 feet. The
bedrock has a hydraulic conductivity of 9.0 x 10'3 to 7.5 x 10"4 cm/sec. The ground-water movement within the overburden
and shallow bedrock is affected by the on-site pond, which causes a local radial flow pattern eastward toward the Neversink
River. The shallow ground water in the bedrock is believed to be hydraulically connected to the overburden. Therefore,
landfill leachate can potentially recharge the local aquifer system.
Summary of Environmental Damages
May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-24
Surface water samples were taken from
theNeversink River upstream of the site, adjacent
to the site, and in a public access fishing area
downstream of the site; from the on-site pond west
of the landfill; and from an effluent stream south of
the landfill. Concentrations of inorganic
constituents in the Neversink Raver adjacent to the
site were elevated compared to samples taken
upstream. Many inorganics exceeded their Class
B surface water standard or EPA's Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) in the river sample
adjacent to the site (Table 1). Only vanadium
exceeded its Class B standard in the pond surface
water samples. Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PNAs) were detected in sediment
samples in the Neversink River and in a wet area
southwest of the landfill.
Six ground-water monitoring wells were
installed, one background well and the remainder
positioned around the landfill at locations likely to
intercept ground-water contamination.
Concentrations of inorganics were significantly
higher in samples from three downgradient wells
compared to the upgradient well. Many inorganic
constituents exceeded Class GA ground-water
standards and/or federal drinking water standards
(primary or secondary MCLs) in downgradient
wells. These are shown in Table 2.
Prior to the PSA, a private laboratory
contamination from carbon tetrachloride.
TABLE 1. NEVERSINK RIVER SURFACE WATER
CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING NYS CLASS B
STANDARDS AND/OR FEDERAL AWQC
Contaminant
copper
iron
lead
vanadium
zinc
Highest
Delected
Level
CHS/1)
30
24,000
70C
26
156
Class B
Standard
(MK/1)
2 a
300
0.23a
14
30
Fresh
Chronic
AWQC
(MS/1)
2 "
1,000
0.23"
__
18 b
a Class B value was calculated in the source document
based on formula (6NYCRR 703.5).
b EPA calculated the AWQC value using an estimated
hardness value of 1 2.6 ppm (the hardness value was
calculated in the PSA).
c The value is reported in the source document as
"estimated."
sampled the adjacent residence's well water and found low levels of
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-25
TABLE 2
GROUND-WATER CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING
NYS AND/OR FEDERAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Contaminant
aluminum
barium
beryllium
chromium
iron
lead
magnesium
manganese
nickel
sodium
zinc
TDS
Highest
Detected Level
C"S/l)
51,200"
1,290
5
151"
90,500
90
55,200
36,300
1ST
73,200
364
812,000
Class GA
Standard
tee/1)
„
1,000
3b
50
300
25
35,000"
300
„
20,000
300
500,000
MCL
a
-------
3-26
COX'S DARBYTOWN ROAD LANDFILL Henrico County, Virginia
Media Affected: Ground Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The 100-acre site is located in Henrico County, Virginia, adjacent to a road and two miles from the Richmond
International Airport runway. According to an engineering company working for the landfill, the shallow aquifer in the area
of the landfill receives only limited use. Although the exact opening date of the landfill is unknown, the landfill received a
permit on June 20, 1989 for its third parcel (a 34-acre area) to accept wastes; the other two parcels had already been
receiving demolition wastes. According to the source documents, the landfill has accepted only construction, demolition,
and debris wastes.
Facility Operations
The site is permitted to accept only construction, demolition, and debris wastes, including construction debris,
demolition debris, broken brick, block, concrete rubble, brush, tree trimmings, stumps, and leaves. Excluded are municipal
solid waste (any putrescible waste), industrial waste, liquid waste, and hazardous waste. According to the 1989 site
investigation, the site apparently also accepted tires.
Facility Design
The design of the landfill required a one-foot liner of on-site soil with a permeability of less than 1 x 10~6
centimeters/second a leachate collection system of PVC pipe for each cell, a collection manhole for each cell, and a pump
and haul process to a treatment facility. A1988 memo from the Wiley and Wilson engineering firm noted that where existing
sand pits were located, the pits would be filled with non-organic waste material consisting of broken concrete, bricks, broken
pavement, and soil up to an elevation of one foot below the bottom of the landfill and then covered with a one-foot liner layer.
The design included a 100-foot wide buffer strip around the perimeter of the entire landfill with a 50-foot buffer strip on the
inside boundaries of the adjoining sections of the landfill. Ground-water monitoring is conducted at one upgradient and three
downgradient wells.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
The shallow aquifer lies 1 to 14 feet below the ground surface in the area of the landfill, but the landfill design
required at least 3 feet between the seasonal high ground-water elevation and the bottom of the landfill, including a one-foot
liner. It is unclear whether the landfill design is in violation of this requirement. A nearly impermeable marl layer serves
as a confining layer to the deeper aquifer. The site apparently has gently sloping topography.
In the shallow aquifer, the dominant ground-water flow direction at the site is northward. The ground-water
velocity ranges from 5.6 x 10^ cm/sec at the eastern portion of the site to 8.8 x 1O'6 cm/sec at the western portion of the site.
The hydraulic gradient ranges from 0.012-0.019 ft/ft at the site. Little is known about the deeper aquifer except that it is
virtually confined by an overlaying marl.
Summary of Environmental Damages
May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-27
A1989 site inspection revealed
waste slopes exposed due to lack of
sufficient cover, a breach of the 50-foot
bufTer zone between wastes and the edge
of the property, and leachate seeps that
did not leave the site.
1993 monitoring results
indicated statistically significant
increases in specific conductance and
total organic carbon (TOC) in
downgradient on-site wells when
compared to an upgradient well. In
addition, pH was found to be unusually
low during the 1991 monitoring.
Discussion
TABLE 1. GROUND- WATER PARAMETERS EXCEEDING
BACKGROUND LEVELS AND FEDERAL DRINKING
WATER STANDARDS
Parameter
TOC (ug/1)
conductance
(umhos/cm)
Parameter
pH
Highest
Detected
Level
57,000
2758
Lowest
5.98
Background
Level
21,200
170
Background
6.6
MCL
._
--
MCL
—
SMCL
_.
-
SMCL
6.5-8.5
According to the 1993 Annual
Report, data gathered from ground-water
monitoring indicate that contamination may be occurring in the ground water at Cox's Darbytown Road Landfill. The facility
was moved into the Phase II monitoring program because specific conductance and TOC were significantly higher in
downgradient wells than in the upgradient/background well. The source documents do not address whether or not the
contamination extends off site.
Sources
1993 Annual Report, Cox's Darbytown Road Landfill, Inc. Prepared by Joyce Engineering, Inc., June 1994.
1st Quarter Phase I Sampling Event Results, Cox's Darbytown Road Landfill, Inc. Prepared by Joyce Engineering,
Inc., May 1994.
2nd Quarter Water Monitoring Analyses, Cox's Darbytown Road Landfill, Inc. Prepared by Joyce Engineering,
Inc., July 1990.
Chemical Analytical Report, Central Virginia Laboratories and Consultants, May 1994.
Commonwealth of Virginia, Solid Waste Disposal Site Inspection Report of Darbytown Landfill, September 5,
1989.
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health Permit to M & M Wrecking Company, Inc., for a Sanitary
Landfill, July 3,1975.
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Waste Management, Application for Permit to M & M Wrecking
Company, Inc., October 28, 1987.
Memorandum from Linda K. Lightfoot to Berry F. Wright, Virginia Department of Waste Management, November
20,1987.
Memorandum from Wiley & Wilson to Berry F. Wright, Jr., Virginia Department of Waste Management, January
13,1988.
Memorandum from Wiley & Wilson to Berry F. Wright, Jr., Virginia Department of Waste Management, January
20,1988.
***
May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-28
Memorandum from John F. Deal to Dr. W. Gulevich, Virginia Department of Waste Management, August 19,
1987.
Memorandum from S.B. Cox, Inc. to Hassan Vakili, Virginia Department of Waste Management, January 8,1993.
Memorandum from Edward Hollos, Joyce Engineering, Inc., to Howard Freeland, Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, June 30,1994.
Memorandum from Harry Gregori, Virginia Department of Waste Management, to S. B. Cox, Inc., June 21,1991.
Solid Waste Facility Permit, June 20,1989.
Solid Waste Facility Permit, July 26,1988.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-29
CRIPPEN STUMP DUMP Fairfax County, Virginia
Media Affected: Ground Water, Surface Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The Crippen Stump Dump is located in a residential area in the Dranesville District of Fairfax County. The site
consists of 66 acres and is separated from the surrounding residences by 50-foot fire breaks and rows of white pine trees
acting as screens. The landfill is divided into two areas, separated by Green Branch. The main area, in the northwest portion
of the site, is accessible by a bridge over Green Branch, and the supplementary area, in the southeast, is used when the
northwest portion is inaccessible. Sixty-seven homes are located within 1,000 feet of the landfill and rely on private ground-
water wells for drinking water.
A landfill fire broke out on December 19, 1986, and had not yet been extinguished as of April 1987.
Facility Operations
The Crippen Stump Dump accepts inert debris such as C&D debris, large stumps, boards, and scrap metal. Loads
may not contain more than 10 percent paper and cardboard. Asbestos, household trash, and hazardous materials are
prohibited. An on-site operator is supposed to inspect material after it has been dumped, and place unacceptable wastes in
a separate bulk container for proper disposal. However, a site inspection in 1987 found that asbestos had been illegally
accepted, and the landfill was cited for not having a spot checker to inspect loads. Also, trucks have been stored on site in
violation of the landfill's zoning permit.
Daily cover is applied to minimize litter and scavenging.
Facility Design
The Crippen Stump Dump is unlined and we assume that there is no leachate collection. Local soil and subsoil
are used as cover. Ground-water and surface water monitoring are conducted.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
The landfill is underlain by brown silty sand to depths of 0 to 8 feet, and brown sand silt to depths of approximately
15 to 30 feet, where decomposed rock lies. Uncompacted permeabilities were not found in the source documents. Silty sand
stockpiled at the site for use as cover has a permeability of 1.3 x 10'6 cm/sec when recompacted to 93.6 percent.
The ground water is used for drinking water by local residents. Ground water is an average of 5 feet from the
ground surface, ranging from 1 to 3 feet near the stream, and 55 feet at one monitoring well. The source documents note
that the flow from the northwest portion of the site appears to be south or east toward Green Branch, which bisects the
property in a southwest to northeast direction.
Summary of Environmental Damages
In 1986 the landfill was found to be in noncompliance with its permit due to steep slopes. A 1990 inspection found
erosion had exposed solid waste and created leachate seeps flowing into Green Branch. The landfill received a Notice of
Violation for (1) filling to provide proper maintenance of erosion controls and (2) foiling to protect county and state waters
from pollution.
According to a source document, stream monitoring opportunities exist in Green Branch, above and below the
landfill and in two conduit systems. Two surface water samples were reported. Their location was not specifically stated,
but it seems likely that the samples were from Green Branch, above and below the landfill. Whether the samples were on
or off site is unknown. A1988 source document noted that the surface water data indicate "no apparent problems," but that
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-30
the pH and alkalinity of the already acidic stream was low, and that the stream is losing the ability to buffer itself. The pH
was 6.2 at sampling site SI (apparently the background sample) and the pH was 4.4 at sampling site S2.
Four wells, apparently on site, are used for ground-
water monitoring. In 1985, elevated levels (above MCLs)
of cadmium, iron, and lead, as well as low pH, were
reported in ground-water monitoring wells (Table 1).
Discussion
Elevated levels of inorganics and low pH have
been found in the ground water, probably on site, but the
source documents noted the potential for off-site migration
of ground water from the northeast portion of the landfill.
It is unclear whether the landfill is further reducing the
alkalinity of an already-low-alkalinity stream that bisects the
Crippen property.
Sources
TABLE 1. GROUND- WATER
CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING FEDERAL
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Contaminant/
Parameter
cadmium
iron
lead
manganese
Parameter
PH
Highest
Detected
Level
(A
-------
3-31
Letter from Mack Crippen, Jr., Stump Dump Inc., to Robert Forman, Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste,
Department of Health, Commonwealth of Virginia, November 17,1986.
Letter from Fred Miller, Law Engineering Testing Company, to Stump Dump, Inc., May 16,1986.
Letter from Randy McFarland, Regional Geologist, to Robert Forman, State Department of Health, Commonwealth
of Virginia, January 31,1985.
Letter from Lock Crippen, Stump Dump, Inc., to Kenton Chestnut, Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
Commonwealth of Virginia, March 25, 1986.
Letter from Robert Forman, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Commonwealth of Virginia, to M.S. Crippen,
Jr., June 11,1986.
Letter from Dean Starook, Department of Waste Management, Commonwealth of Virginia, to John Watt, The
Crippen Companies, February 12,1990.
Letter and data summary from William Bukevicz, Dewberry and Davis (engineering firm), to Lock Crippen, Stump
Dump Landfill, December 21, 1988.
Letter from John Watt, The Crippen Companies, to Dean Starook, Department of Waste Management,
Commonwealth of Virginia, February 16,1990.
Letter from Mary Holden, Stump Dump, Inc., to Air Pollution Control Division, Fairfax County Health Department,
February 9,1987.
***
May 18,1995 Draft Document
-------
3-32
FURNACE ROAD DEBRIS LANDFILL
Lorton, Virginia
Media Affected:
Ground Water, Surface Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The Furnace Road Debris Landfill, also called the Lorton Landfill, is a 264-acre C&D landfill located off of Furnace
Road near Shirley Memorial Highway in Fairfax County, Virginia. It has operated as a C&D landfill since it was originally
permitted in 1981. The landfill is located in a "mixed use area" near the District of Columbia's Lorton Landfill, the Lorton
Correctional Institution, and the Fairfax County Energy Recovery Facility. It is also downgradient of a residential
subdivision, which is separated from the landfill by vacant land and a gas line easement.
Facility Operations
The landfill accepts construction debris such as dirt, wood, and concrete, with small amounts of paper, plastic, and
miscellaneous metal items such as reinforcing steel, strapping, structural steel, and piping. The landfill also accepts tires.
Non-hazardous soil contaminated with petroleum products is disposed as daily cover at the landfill. This soil must be
regularly sampled, and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations must be less than 50 parts per minion (ppm), total
organic halides (TOX) less than 100 ppm, total benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) less than 10 ppm, and
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) must result in less than 5 mg/1 of arsenic and lead.
Facility Design
There does not appear to be a liner for the landfill. Leachate is collected in a plugged siltation pond. Ground-water
monitoring has been conducted since 1981, when the landfill was originally permitted.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
Shallow ground water in Coastal Plain sediments is underlain by a deeper bedrock aquifer. Depth to ground water
is less than 13 feet in some places. The flow direction and rate were not mentioned in the source documents. Ground water
in the area is naturally high in iron.
Stormwater drains to Giles Run, a tributary
to the Occoquan and Potomac Rivers. Two smaller
tributaries run from the landfill to Giles Run.
Summary of Environmental Damages
The main problem in surface water is
elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria, which do
not appear to be related to the landfill. However,
hardness and total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in
some on-site surface water samples also exceed
recommended levels due to the influence of
TABLE 1. SURFACE WATER CONTAMINANTS
EXCEEDING RECOMMENDED LEVELS
Contaminant
hardness
TDS
Highest
Detected Level
Cue/l)
500,000
1,125,000
Recommended
Level
(we/1)
100,000
250,000
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-33
leachate, according to a 1988 memo from the
Dewberry and Davis engineering firm (Table
1). There are no AWQC for hardness or TDS.
GI
TABLE 2
IOUND-WATER CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING
FEDERAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Contaminant
iron
manganese
Highest
Detected
Level
(Mtfl)
69,600
1,980
MCL
C"g/l)
—
SMCL
teg/0
300
50
Four ground-water wells were used
to monitor contamination, two wells that a
source document assumes to be background,
and two apparently downgradient of the fill,
but within the property boundary. Elevated
levels of iron, manganese, total organic carbon
(TOC), TOX, and hardness and slightly
elevated levels of total dissolved solids (TDS)
have been found in the ground water at various
times. Table 2 shows the contaminants that
exceeded federal drinking water standards
(MCLs or SMCLs).
Discussion
According to the source documents, leachate from the landfill is contributing to elevated levels of contaminants
in ground water and surface water. A 1985 memo from Randy McFarland, Regional Geologist, to John Clayton noted that
much of the leachate generated in the landfill probably migrates in shallow ground water, discharges at springs, and flows
on the surface to Giles Run. He also noted that some portion of the leachate probably migrates from the sediments down
through the bedrock to the deeper aquifer. According to McFarland, the main problem in the bedrock aquifer is that metals
and hardness are elevated, probably because naturally-occurring metals (e.g., iron) are mobilized in dissolved forms by
leachate-associated acids. McFarland also commented that the shallow ground water has the same problems as the bedrock
ground water. In addition, a 1988 memo from Dewberry and Davis to George Neal noted that hardness and total dissolved
solids (TDS) in surface water were elevated above recommended levels due to influence of the leachate.
Another source document noted that some of the ground-water contamination is directly attributable to specific
C&D wastes. According to a 1994 memo from Dewberry and Davis to Burwin Reed, TOC in the ground water is elevated
due to the decomposition of wood buried in the landfill, TOX levels are elevated probably due to the decomposition of
construction debris such as asphalt, and hardness levels are elevated due to the breakdown of wood and concrete in the
landfill. However, EPA believes that the petroleum-contaminated soils permitted for use as daily cover may contribute to
TOX levels in the ground water.
However, two other source documents indicate that the damage to the environment is not significant. A 1989 memo
from Dewberry and Davis reported "no significant problems, overall." In 1993, a Professional Engineer certified that, based
on his review of documents, drawings, and reports regarding the Furnace Road Landfill, "it is not an open dump and does
not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment" and "it appears that the leachate and
residues from this solid waste fecility do not pose a threat of contamination or pollution of air, surface water, or groundwater
in a manner constituting an open dump or resulting in substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment." This appears to be standard language used in a Petition for Variance to extend C&D landfill permits.
Sources
Biospherics Incorporated, Table of surface water and ground-water sampling data for W.H. Gordon Assoc., Inc.,
October 26,1984.
Memorandum from William Bukevicz, Associate, Dewberry and Davis (engineering firm), to Burwin Reed, Lorton
Landfill, January 14,1994.
Memorandum from William Bukevicz, Associate, Dewberry and Davis (engineering firm), to Burwin Reed, Lorton
Landfill, July 7,1993.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-34
Memorandum from William Bukevicz, Director, Environmental Laboratory, Dewberry and Davis (engineering
firm), to Burwin Reed, Wiser Brothers, Inc., July 20,1990.
Memorandum from William Bukevicz, Director, Environmental Laboratory, Dewberry and Davis (engineering
firm), to George Neal, Wiser Brothers, Inc., December 20, 1988.
Memorandum from Elaine Schaeffer, Director, Environmental Services, County of Fairfax, to Burwin Reed, Lorton
Landfill, March 17,1988.
Memorandum from Ulysses B. Brown, Jr., Solid Waste Compliance Manager, Office of Waste Resource
Management, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, to Terre Sulock, Production
Manager, EnviroCraft Corporation, May 31,1994.
Memorandum from Janice Durbecq, Landfill Administrator, Public Utilities Branch, Department of Environmental
Management, Commonwealth of Virginia, County of Fairfax, to Elmer Wiser, Wiser Brothers, Inc., October 11,
1989.
Memorandum from Randy McFarland, Regional Geologist, Commonwealth of Virginia, State Water Control
Board, to John Clayton, Fairfax County Health Department, February?, 1985.
Memorandum from William Bukevicz, Director, Environmental Laboratory, Dewberry and Davis (engineering
firm), to Burwin Reed, Wiser Brothers, Inc., February 8, 1990.
Memorandum from Elmer Wiser, Lorton Landfill, to William Woodfin, Department of Waste Management, January
12,1993.
Solid Waste Management Permit, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health, August 18,1981.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document
-------
3-35
QUALLA ROAD LANDFILL Chesterfield County, Virginia
Media Affected: Ground Water, Surface Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The Qualla Road Landfill is an active 33-acre C&D landfill located in a mainly agricultural area in Chesterfield
County, Virginia. The landfill opened in 1983 with an 11-acrearea, and 22 acres were added in 1988. To date, 16 of those
22 acres have received waste. The facility is owned by a private farmer and leased to Sanifill, Inc. The landfill capacity is
estimated to be 1.523 million cubic yards over a design life of 12 years.
Two fires have been reported at the landfill, one in 1990 and one in 1993. Both were quickly extinguished.
Facility Operations
The Qualla Road Landfill accepts C&D waste, brick, concrete rubble, brush, tree trimmings, and stumps.
Approximately 40 percent of the waste at the site is land-clearing debris, which is currently disposed on approximately ten
unlined acres. The remaining 60 percent is building material and demolition waste and is disposed on approximately six
lined acres. Prohibited wastes include hazardous waste, liquids, garbage, refuse, agricultural waste, industrial waste, paper
products, asbestos, fly ash, bottom ash, sludge, tires, white goods, leaves, and metal scrap. According to the permit, six
inches of daily cover must be applied.
Facility Design
The Qualla Road Landfill has been permitted in sections, and the facility design varies depending on when a section
was permitted Theoriginal 11 acres probably were unlined. As of 1987, at least five feet between the cell bottoms and the
seasonal high ground-water table were required. Of the 22 acres added in 1988,10 acres are unlined, 6 acres are equipped
with a compacted soil bottom liner (permeability of 1 x 10'6 cm/sec) and a leachate collection system, and the remaining 6
acres have not yet been put to use. As of 1994, leachate must be discharged to an underground storage tank to be ultimately
pumped and hauled to a waste treatment plant. Run-on and run-off controls, and a ground-water interceptor were also
described for portions of the landfill in the 1994 design.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
Soils under the landfill consist of a 2- to 4-foot upper layer of lean to fat clays and elastic sill, underlain by silty sand
and sandy silt soils to depths of 20 to 50 feet. Ground water in the area is found 10 to 38 feet below the ground surface. The
general movement of ground water is to the west (toward Reedy Branch), with a gradient of 0.03 to 0.08 feet/feet. Lateral
flow is about 3.5 x 10^ to 3.8 x lO"4 centimeters per second (cm/sec) and vertical flow is about 9.7 x 10'5 cm/sec. Rainfall
is estimated at 42 inches a year.
The landfill drains into Swift Creek (to the north) and Reedy Branch (to the west), a tributary to Swift Creek. The
original 11 acres were located within the 100-year flood plain of Swift Creek. A flowing stream, possibly fed by discharge
through the ground water from a pond at the southern edge of the site, was located on the site prior to the 1987 proposed
expansion.
Summary of Environmental Damages
May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
TABLE 1
SURFACE WATER
CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING
FEDERAL AWQC
Contaminant
/Parameter
iron
lead
Parameter
pH
Highest
Detected
Level
(MS/0
252,000
113
Lowest
5.6
Fresh
Chronic
AWQC
0*8/1)
1,000
T
AWQC
6.5-9
a EPA calculated the AWQC value
using a reported measured hardness
value of 196 ppm.
3-36
In 1987, debris was protruding from the original landfill
adjacent to Swift Creek, and the relief was too steep to retain soil
covering. The source documents attested that the presence of a
stream within the boundaries of the proposed landfill expansion was
"unacceptable" and could present "erosion and sediment control
problems." A 1987 Request Analysis and Recommendation also
noted that "unless actions are taken to stabilize the existing fill area,
siltation of Swift Creek itself may occur" and that "due to the
significant topographic relief of the proposed landfill area, the
potential for siltation of the adjacent property and streams, including
Swift Creek, appears to be even greater than that of the existing
landfill." A 1993 inspection found leachate emanating from the
landfill that "had the potential for discharging off-site." The
leachate break was immediately repaired.
Surface water samples have been taken from two sampling
sites, but it is unclear whether the sampling was conducted on or off
site. Surface water monitoring found iron, lead, and acidity levels
exceeding freshwater chronic AWQC protective of aquatic life
(Table 1).
Ground-water monitoring has been conducted on site at
one upgradient and three downgradient wells. For each well,
samples are compared to background data for that well (i.e., based
on samples taken earlier). In addition, samples from downgradient wells are compared to the background data from the
upgradient well. In 1992, ground-water monitoring found elevated levels of lead, manganese, and total organic carbon
(TOC) in a downgradient well compared to the upgradient background level. In addition, the lead, manganese, total
dissolved solids (TDS), and specific conductance exceeded the background mean for that downgradient well.
Ground-water monitoring has also shown iron and
manganese levels to exceed federal drinking water standards
(secondary MCLs) (Table 2).
Discussion
Schnabel Environmental Services, the company
that performs ground-water monitoring at Qualla Road
Landfill, concluded in 1993 that the data do not indicate that
the landfill poses a "substantial threat to human health or the
environment." However, monitoring has indicated
exceedances of AWQC in surface water (whether on or off
site is unknown) and on-site exceedances of federal drinking
water standards in ground water.
Sources
General Testing Corporation, Laboratory Reports, dated November 25, 1992, February 12, 1993, April 13, 1993,
July 21,1993, and March 17,1994.
Letter from Kenton Chestnut, Jr., Division of Regulation, Department of Waste Management, Commonwealth of
Virginia, to Lane Ramsey, County Administrator, Chesterfield County, Virginia, February 5, 1990.
Letter from William Gilley Division of Regulation, Department of Waste Management, Commonwealth of Virginia,
to Paul Robins, Qualla Road Landfill, January 12, 1990.
TABLE 2. GROUND- WATER
CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING VIRGINIA
PROTECTION LEVELS AND FEDERAL
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Contaminant
iron
manganese
Highest
Detected
Level
0*8/1)
103,000
4,600
MCL
0*8/0
—
SMC
L
0*8/1)
300
50
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-37
Letter from Carl Benson, Schnabel Environmental Services, to Jim Leiper, Sanifill, October 5,1993.
Letter from Schnabel Environmental Services, to Chuck Hurt, J.K. Timmons & Associates, February 27, 1992.
Letter from Schnabel Environmental Services, to Jim Leiper, Sanifill, April 8,1992.
Letter from Stephen Werner, Hatcher-Sayre, Inc. to Paul Robins, Qualla Road Landfill, December 11,1990.
Letter from A.M. Tope, Hydrogeologist, State Water Control Board, Commonwealth of Virginia, to Berry Wright,
Department of Waste Management, Commonwealth of Virginia, May 15,1987.
Letter from Scott Bullock, Department of Environmental Quality, Commonwealth of Virginia, to Gregory
Cekander, Sanifill, February 2,1994.
Memorandum from Scott Bullock, Department of Environmental Quality, Commonwealth of Virginia, to Timothy
Torrez, Qualla Road Landfill, January 12,1994.
Memorandum from Charles Plott, Landfill Manager, Qualla Road Landfill, to Robert Timmons, Department of
Environmental Quality, Commonwealth of Virginia, April 28, 1993.
Memorandum to the file, from Berry Wright, Department of Waste Management, Commonwealth of Virginia,
August 25,1987.
Memorandum from Charles Plott, Landfill Manager, Qualla Road Landfill, to Robert Timmons, Department of
Environmental Quality, Commonwealth of Virginia, May 10,1993.
Memorandum from J.A. Adams to Berry Wright, Department of Waste Management, Commonwealth of Virginia,
July 23,1987.
Qualla Road Landfill Design Report, March 31, 1994.
Request Analysis and Recommendation, Linwood Belcher, Matoaca Magisterial District, January 20,1987.
Sanifill, Groundwater Monitoring Data, for Robert Timmons, Department of Waste Management, Commonwealth
of Virginia, November 11, 1993.
Solid Waste Facility Permit, Permit Amendment Number 516, February 1, 1988.
Solid Waste Management Permit, Department of Waste Management, Commonwealth of Virginia, January 14,
1988.
***
May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-38
SCHUYLKILL DEBRIS LANDFILL
Prince George County, Virginia
Media Affected:
Ground Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The Schuylkill Debris Landfill comprises approximately seven acres near the western edge of the Appomattox
River in Prince George County. The landfill received its permit to accept C&D wastes in November 1984 and closed in
1988. It was owned and operated by the U.S. Army Quartermaster Center and Fort Lee. A few leachate seeps were
discovered in 1992, but they led to no obvious visual signs of contamination.
Facility Operations
The landfill is a permitted debris facility. An October 1989 questionnaire revealed that the facility has accepted
wood, stumps, brick, concrete, and other inert construction and demolition debris material.
Facility Design
The source document provides no information on facility design.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
The source document provides no information on site environment or hydrogeology.
TABLE 1. GROUND-WATER CONTAMINANTS
EXCEEDING FEDERAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
a
Contaminant
beryllium
iron
lead
sulfate
TDS
Parameter
pH
Highest
Detected Level
(ME/0
6
33,500
56
465,000
670,000
Lowest
4.22
MCL
(MR/1)
4
„
15a
—
MCL
—
SMCL
foB/1)
300
—
250,000
500,000
SMCL
6.5-8.5
MCL is action level for lead at the tap.
Summary of Environmental
Damages
A Response Record from
August 6, 1992 indicated that the local
water supply smelled and tasted badly.
However, during the same investigation,
the almost adjacent Appomattox River
showed no signs of contamination from
the landfill.
Various ground-water
monitoring records over 1991 and 1992
indicate levels of beryllium, iron, lead,
sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS)
above federal drinking water standards
(primary or secondary MCLs) at least
several times over the course of the
monitoring (Table 1). .Also, pH was
consistently low in the series of ground-
water results, often below 5. The
location of the monitoring wells (i.e.,
whether they are on site or off site) was
not reported in the available source documents. Monitoring wells at Virginia landfills that reported the well locations
generally were located within the landfill owner's property boundaries.
Discussion
Ground-water contamination has occurred at the landfill, but the source documents do not specifically state whether
the landfill is the cause of the contamination. Because no information is readily available on site geology or facility design
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document
-------
3-39
and location, it is not possible to further evaluate the cause of damages at the Schuylkill Debris Landfill. It is also unknown
whether off-site contamination has been documented, because the location of the monitoring wells was not presented in the
source document.
Sources
Laboratory Report, Schuylkill, Montgomery Laboratories, December 16,1992.
^
Memorandum from Thomas L. Kowalski, Environmental Inspector, to Department of Waste Management File,
Decembers, 1992.
Memorandum from Jonathan P. Adams, Lieutenant, U.S. Army, to Richard Burton, Department of Environmental
Quality, April 7,1994.
Memorandum from William M. Munson, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, to Linda Lightfoot, Department of Waste
Management, October 11, 1989.
Solid Waste Management Permit, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health, December 11,1984.
1st Quarter Groundwater Analysis, Environmental Laboratories, Inc., April 30,1992.
2nd Quarter Groundwater Analysis, Environmental Laboratories, Inc., July 23,1992.
May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-40
JANESVILLE DEMOLITION WASTE LANDFILL
Janesville, Wisconsin
Media Affected:
Ground Water
Overview of Site/Site History
The Janesville Demolition Landfill is a six-acre site located in Janesville, Wisconsin, just east of the Rock River.
This site was never licensed and began to accept demolition waste in 1981 until its closure in 1992. The site was open to
the residents of Janesville and Rock County.
Facility Operations
The landfill received demolition waste from 1981 to 1992. A sign at the site identified concrete, broken pavement,
untreated/unpainted wood, and brush as acceptable materials, but a wide variety of waste may have been accepted. An
attendant inspected all incoming loads to the landfill.
Facility Design
After the site was closed, two feet of compacted clay was placed on the site to mitigate infiltration of surface water
and precipitation. Ground-water monitoring is conducted using one upgradient and four downgradient wells. The source
document does not mention any other engineering controls such as liners, leachate collection systems, or run-on/run-off
controls.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
The landfill is located in the drainage basin of the Rock River, which flows south. The landfill lies in a large sand
and gravel quarry, which is still partly active. Logs from monitoring well installation indicate that the soils are comprised
mostly of sand and gravel, with some clay and rock fragments as well. Samples from the bottom of the deepest well were
predominantly silt.
The underlying bedrock is St. Peter
Sandstone, which is underlain by other sandstone
layers. These sandstones make up the principal
aquifer in this area and provide residents with
potable water. The ground-water flow is generally
from the northeast to the southwest with a strong
westward component due to the influence of the
Rock River, which is about 1,200 feet west of the
site. The depth to ground water in the wells varies
from 37 to 75 feet. The large component of sand
and gravel in the area suggests that ground water
could be moving rapidly.
inches.
The total annual precipitation is about 32
TABLE 1. GROUND- WATER CONTAMINANTS
EXCEEDING FEDERAL DRINKING WATER
STANDARDS
Contaminant
chloride
manganese
sulfate
total dissolved
solids (TDS)
Highest
Detected
Level Cug/1)
430,000
710
1,900,000
3,780,000
MCL
0
-------
3-41
Table 1. According to the source document, levels of sulfate, chloride, and manganese were above the Wisconsin Public
Welfare Standards. The high sulfate levels were attributed to gypsum, a common component of wallboard. Phenolic, a
common constituent of tree and vegetative decay products, was detected once in one of the downgradient wells slightly above
reporting limits.
Discussion
Adverse on-site ground-water quality impacts from demolition waste disposal were documented at this landfill.
Off-site ground-water monitoring was not conducted.
Source
Investigation of Groundwater Impacts at Demolition Waste Landfills, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
June 1994.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-42
TERRA ENGINEERING
DEMOLITION WASTE LANDFILL
Dane County, Wisconsin
Media Affected:
Overview of Site/Site History
Ground Water
The Terra Engineering Demolition Landfill is about 4.1 acres in size. It is located in a drained marshy area in Dane
County near the city of Madison, Wisconsin. This site was licensed in 1971 for demolition waste only, and one owner has
operated the site since 1972. The company expects to be able to fill at the present rate for at least 10 more years.
FaCiUty Operations
Since 1972, the site has been filled only with waste materials from the company's construction and demolition
projects. The main fill materials have been reinforced and unreinforced concrete, wood, masonry, brick, asphalt pavement,
glass, steel and metal pieces, and brush. Some asphalt and scrap metal has been sorted out for the company to sell or reuse.
Facility Design
No information is presented in the source document about the design of the landfill.
Site Environment and Hydrogeology
The landfill is in a drained marshy area bounded on the north and east by drainage ditches. Surface water is routed
around the fill on the southern end of the site. The land slopes towards the southeast.
TABLE 1. GROUND-WATER CONTAMINANTS
EXCEEDING FEDERAL DRINKING WATER
STANDARDS
Contaminant
chloride
iron
manganese
sulfate
TDS
Highest
Detected
Level
0*8/1)
380,000
6,400
1,400
600,000
3,340,000
MCL
0*8/0
._
__
__
—
SMCL
0*8/1)
250,000
300
50
250,000
500,000
The glacial material underlying the site is
undifferentiated glacial deposits consisting of ground
moraine. The unconsolidated material below the
surface includes layers of brown sand, silt, and clay,
along with some sand seams and sand and gravel
lenses. About 100 feet below these unconsolidated
deposits lies Trempealeau and Franconia sandstone
bedrock, which is underlain by Cambrian sandstone
down to Precambrian crystalline bedrock. The
Cambrian sandstone acts as the principal aquifer for
most Dane County residents.
Ground water is close to the surface at the
site; the measured depth to ground water is between
2.5 and 10 feet. Regional movement of ground water
deep in the sandstone aquifer is southwest towards the
Yahara River, which is three miles away. Locally,
there is a definite eastward gradient. The ground-
water flow is very complex due to the heterogeneous
nature of the glacial deposits.
Summary of Environmental Damages
Five ground-water monitoring wells were installed at the site, one within the demolition debris and the others
sidegradient to the fill. All wells were sampled periodically for two years. One of the sidegradient wells had elevated levels
of manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS); the other three sidegradient wells were generally unaffected. The
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
3-43
well installed within the demolition debris had elevated levels of many inorganics; five were detected at levels above federal
drinking water standards (primary or secondary MCLs). These are shown in Table 1.
Discussion
Adverse on-site ground-water quality impacts from demolition waste disposal were documented at this landfill.
Off-site ground-water monitoring was not conducted.
Source
Investigation of Groundwater Impacts at Demolition Waste Landfills; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources;
June 1994.
*** May 18,1995 Draft Document ***
-------
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter discusses the findings and conclusions of this study. It begins by summarizing the ground-water,
surface water, and ecological damages observed at the 11 case study sites, and discussing the factors that might have
contributed to those damages. The implications of these findings are then discussed.
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Exhibit 4-1 summarizes information pertaining to each damage case. Included on the exhibit are each site's
operating dates, design and operating characteristics, environmental setting, nature of the contamination, and any
corrective actions that were recommended and/or taken.
• Operating dates are given when available.
• Information on design and operations was incomplete in most of the source documents.
• Many of the source documents were quite detailed with respect to environmental setting
characteristics such as topography and hydrogeology, but they did not address the relationship
between environmental setting and observed damages. Exhibit 4-1 presents the site characteristics
that are potentially relevant.
. The environmental contamination column identifies the media contaminated, whether the
contamination was on site or off site, and the constituents involved. If the source document was
unclear as to whether the contamination was on or off site, it was assumed to be on site. The exhibit
focuses on contamination above applicable state or federal standards or criteria; if contamination did
not exceed standards or criteria, increases above background levels are reported. Terrestrial
ecological damages are not included in this exhibit because none were reported at any of the sites.
• Corrective actions listed in the last column include actions that have been recommended or
implemented at the site.
The results are discussed below.
Environmental Contamination
This section summarizes the nature of the ground-water and surface water contamination found at the sites.
Again, no terrestrial ecological damages were reported.
Ground Water
All 11 sites reported ground-water contamination within the property boundary; none reported ground-water
contamination off site. This does not mean that there was no off-site contamination. Rather, in most cases, ground-
water monitoring was not performed beyond the site boundary.
Although most of the sites were monitored for a wide range of organic and inorganic constituents, virtually all
of the contamination was associated with inorganics. A small number of sites reported slight
May 18,1995 Draft Document
-------
Doyle, Liz
From: Kathryn Nelson [knelson@LMNArchitects.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 1:17 PM
To: Kathleen Turner (turnkat@uw.edu); Doyle, Liz; lizjdoyle@gmail.com; Ken Wheaton
(wheaton.kr@gmail.com); Trefethen, Daniel B (daniel.b.trefethen@boeing.com);
annpool@uw.edu; brinka@uw.edu; ehoffrance@kellerrohrback.com;
kaskaskiavic@yahoo.com; Sofia Leung (sofialeu@uw.edu); mary.s.whittaker@boeing.com;
janschueller@comcast.net; ngersh@uw.edu; Jessica King (jlking40356@gmail.com)
Subject: Preparing for June Cabinet Meetings and Leadership Orientation
Attachments: DRAFT Chapter Cabinet Minutes Feb 201 S.docx; DRAFT Division Cabinet Minutes Feb
2013.docx; DRAFT Joint Cabinet Minutes Feb 2013.docx; Chapter Cabinet agenda draft.docx;
Division Cabinet agenda draft.docx; SLA Joint Cabinet agenda draft.docx
Hello,
A heads up about this Monday June 10th 4:00-5:30 get together. All of you are welcome and might be very interesting to
those of you who are a little more new to the chapter (how things work, how motions are passed, what's really "hot"
within the SLA Ha etc.).
Liz and I certainly will be there.
Best,
Kathryn
From: Ann Koopman [mailto:a.koopman@verizon.net1
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 1:07 PM
To: Leadership - Private
Subject: [sla-leadership] Preparing for June Cabinet Meetings and Leadership Orientation
All Chapter and Division Leaders:
We're looking forward to seeing you at the Leadership Orientation and the Cabinet meetings on Monday, June 10, in San
Diego. Leadership orientation is from 4:00 to 5:30; it is open to ALL SLA members. We encourage you to invite your
membership chairs and committee members, because the program will feature membership recruitment, retention and
engagement. We'll also have an inspiring talk from Phil Blair, President and CEO of Manpower, San Diego. His new book
on volunteerism as a career strategy ties right in with the benefits of volunteering for SLA.
Please review the attached draft agendas for the Cabinet meetings, and the draft minutes from February's meetings
in Dallas.
If you wish to bring up business, introduce a motion, or otherwise get on the agenda, PLEASE NOTIFY your cabinet
chair (Debbie or Ann) as soon as possible.
• The Chapter and Division Cabinet meetings will start at 6:00 p.m., followed immediately by the Joint Cabinet
meeting.
• All Chairs/Chairs-Elect and Presidents/Presidents-Elect are expected to attend.
• Each unit may have up to two voting delegates; other unit members may attend as non-voting guests. If the
expected delegate(s) cannot attend, the unit Chair/President may appoint another unit member as a
substitute delegate.
-------
The final agendas and minutes will be posted to the Chapter and Division wikis.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Ann Koopman, Division Cabinet Chair
Debbie Schachter, Chapter Cabinet Chair
You are currently subscribed to sla-leadership as: knelson@lmnarchitects.com.
To unsubscribe click here: http://sla.lvris.net/u?id=186533.68b223fb2c49918d32aadcc8b9c63115&n=T&l=s1a.
leadership&o=l 7155522
(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
or send a blank email to Ieave-17155522-186533.68b223fb2c499isd32aadcc8b9c63ll5@,sla.lvris.net
------- |