PB95-208906
530-R-95-018
CONSTRUCTION AND
DEMOLITION WASTE
LANDFILLS
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
by
ICF Incorporated
Contract No. 68-W3-0008
February 1995
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report ***
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
BACKGROUND ES-1
COMPOSITION OF C&D WASTE ES-1
C&D LANDFILL LEACHATE QUALITY ES-2
STATE REGULATIONS ES-3
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
REGULATORY BACKGROUND 1-1
FOCUS ON C&D LANDFILLS 1-1
SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT 1-2
CHAPTER 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES 2-1
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE C&D WASTE COMPOSITION 2-1
COMPONENTS OF C&D WASTE 2-2
COMPONENTS OF C&D WASTE THAT ARE POTENTIALLY "PROBLEMATIC" 2-4
SUMMARY 2-12
REFERENCES 2-15
CHAPTER 3. LEACHATE QUALITY ANALYSIS 3-1
METHODOLOGY 3-1
RESULTS 3-4
SUMMARY 3-10
CAVEATS AND LIMITATIONS 3-10
REFERENCES 3-12
ATTACHMENT 3-A. OTHER STUDIES OF C&D LANDFILL LEACHATE 3-13
ATTACHMENT 3-B. C&D LANDFILL LEACHATE DATABASE 3-18
CHAPTER 4. STATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
DEMOLITION LANDFILLS 4-1
OVERVIEW OF STATE REGULATORY SCHEMES FOR C&D LANDFILLS 4-1
LOCATION STANDARDS 4-3
GROUND-WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 4-4
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS 4-8
OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS 4-9
ATTACHMENT 4-A. STATE REGULATORY CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR C&D
LANDFILLS 4-12
ATTACHMENT 4-B. STATE GROUND-WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ... 4-15
ATTACHMENT 4-C STATE LINER REQUIREMENTS 4-26
ATTACHMENT 4-D. CLASSIFICATION OF STATE WASTE RESTRICTIONS 4-28
February 7,1995 Draft Report
-------
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 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 Cub. A consent agreement
was reached in January 1994, and EPA is now fulfilling the remainder of the HSWA mandate by regulating
non-municipal facilities that may receive CESQG wastes. 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.
COMPOSITION OF C&D WASTE
Information on the composition of C&D waste is presented below. Most of this information was
compiled from the literature by the National Association of Demolition Contractors (NADC); a small
number of other readily available sources were used as well. These source documents provide only
snapshots of the C&D waste stream in specific locations and at specific points (e.g., generation) rather
than providing a complete cradle-to-grave picture of C&D wastes nationwide, or of the portion landfilled.
C&D waste is generated from the construction, renovation, repair, and demolition of structures
such as residential and commercial buildings, roads, and bridges. The composition of C&D waste varies
for these different activities and structures. Overall, C&D waste is composed mainly of wood products,
asphalt, drywall, and masonry; other components often present in significant quantities include metals,
plastics, earth, shingles, insulation, and paper and cardboard.
C&D debris also contains wastes that may be hazardous. The source documents identify a number
of wastes that are referred to using such terms as "hazardous," "excluded," "unacceptable," "problem,"
"potentially toxic," or "illegal." It is not necessarily true that all of these wastes meet the definition of
"hazardous" under Subtitle C of RCRA, but they provide an indication of the types of hazardous wastes
that may be present in the C&D waste stream. They can be divided into four categories:
Excess materials used in construction, and their containers. Examples: adhesives and
adhesive containers, leftover paint and paint containers, excess roofing cement and roofing
cement cans;
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report * ES-1
-------
Waste oils, grease, and fluids. Examples: machinery lubricants, brake fluid, form oil, engine
oil;
Other discrete items. Examples: batteries, fluorescent bulbs, appliances; and
Inseparable constituents of bulk items. Examples: formaldehyde present in carpet, treated or
coated wood.
Some of these components are excluded from C&D landfills by state regulations.
C&D LANDFILL LEACHATE QUALITY
Construction and demolition landfill leachate sampling data were collected from states and from
the general literature by NADC. Leachate sampling data for 305 parameters sampled for at one or more
of 21 C&D landfills were compiled into a database.
Of the 305 parameters sampled for, 93 were detected at least once. The highest detected
concentrations of these parameters were compared to regulatory or health-based "benchmarks," or concern
levels, identified for each parameter. Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) were used as the benchmarks if available. Otherwise,
health-based benchmarks for a leachate ingestion scenario were identified; these were either reference
doses (RfDs) for non-carcinogens, or 10"6 risk-specific doses (RSDs) for carcinogens. Benchmarks were
unavailable for many parameters because they have not been studied sufficiently.
Of the 93 parameters detected in C&D landfill leachate, 24 had at least one measured value above
the regulatory or health-based benchmark.1 For each of the parameters exceeding benchmarks (except
pH), the median leachate concentration was calculated and compared to its benchmark. The median value
was first calculated among the samples taken at each landfill, and then across all landfills at which the
parameter was detected. Due to anomalies and inconsistencies among the sampling equipment used at
different times and at different landfills, non-detects were not considered in determining median values;
i.e., the non-detects were discarded before calculating both individual landfill concentration medians and
medians across landfills. Thus, the median leachate concentrations represent the median among the
detected values, rather than the median among all values. The median concentration among all values
would in most cases have been lower than those calculated here.
Based on (1) the number of landfills at which the benchmark was exceeded and (2) a comparison
between the median detected concentration and the benchmark, seven constituents emerge as being
potentially problematic. They are listed in the table below. Also shown are the number of landfills at
which the constituent was sampled, the number of landfills at which the constituent was detected, the
number of landfills at which the constituent was detected above its benchmark, and the ratio of the median
detected concentration to the benchmark.
For three of the seven parameters listed in the table (iron, manganese, and TDS), the benchmarks
are secondary MCLs (SMCLs), which are set to protect water supplies for aesthetic reasons (e.g., taste)
rather than for health-based reasons. None of the remaining four parameters exceeds its benchmark by a
factor of 10 or more, indicating that concentrations in ground water where monitoring wells or drinking
water wells may be located are likely to fall below the health-based benchmarks.
1In the case of pH, the "exceedances" were actually pH values below the regulatory range.
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report *** ES-2
-------
C&D LANDFILL LEACHATE - POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC CONSTITUENTS
Constituent
1,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Cadmium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Total dissolved solids
No. Landfills
Sampled
9
9
19
20
18
14
18
No. Landfills
Detected
3
4
14
20
15
14
17
No. Landfills >
Benchmark
3
3
12
19
13
13
15
Ratio of
Median to
Benchmark
4
3
2
37
4
59
4
Conclusions regarding C&D landfill leachate quality must be viewed with an understanding of the
data limitations. The most important limitation is that the 21 landfills represented in this report comprise
just over one percent of the approximately 1,800 C&D landfills in the United States. Thus, the
representativeness of the sample is questionable. Other limitations are discussed in the body of the report.
STATE REGULATIONS
State statutes and regulations for C&D landfills were summarized, and similarities and differences
between current state requirements for C&D landfills and federal requirements for MSWLFs were
evaluated. The following summarizes the key findings:
All states regulate off-site C&D landfills to some extent Thirteen states require off-site
C&D landfills to meet state MSWLF requirements (in many states, these requirements are
not as stringent as the federal MSWLF requirements found in 40 CFR Part 258), while
the remaining 37 have developed separate regulations that are specific to off-site C&D
landfills.2
Only seven states exempt on-site C&D landfills from regulatory requirements. Of the
remaining 43 states, 11 require on-site C&D landfills to meet state sanitary landfill
requirements (in many states, these requirements are not as stringent as 40 CFR Pan
258), 8 have developed separate regulations applicable to only on-site landfills, and the
remaining 24 have extended the regulations for off-site landfills to on-site landfills.
Sixteen states mandate location restrictions, ground-water monitoring, and corrective
action for off-site C&D landfills. These requirements, however, vary in stringency relative
to 40 CFR Pan 258. For example, only two states have location restrictions, ground-
2Ohio expects to have specific C&D management requirements effective by the end of 1995.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report *** ES-3
-------
water monitoring, and corrective action requirements for off-site C&D landfills that are
at least as stringent as 40 CFR Part 258.
The most common 40 CFR Part 258 location restrictions that states apply to C&D
landfills relate to: airports and bird hazards, wetlands, and floodplains. Several states
have moved beyond federal requirements and prohibit the siting of on-site (eight states)
and off-site (nine states) C&D landfills in floodplains. Fewer states have adopted the 40
CFR Part 258 requirements regarding faults, seismic zones, and unstable areas.
A majority of states impose additional location restrictions on C&D landfills. The most
common additional restrictions are: near ground and surface waters, and near endangered
species habitats.
Twenty-nine states (nearly 60 percent) require off-site C&D landfills to monitor ground
water. Of these 29 states, 5 have requirements substantially similar to 40 CFR Pan 258,
while 24 have requirements that are less stringent.3 The remaining 21 states do not
require ground-water monitoring requirements. Of these 21, however, 12 "may" require
ground-water monitoring if the regulatory authority deems it necessary.
Twenty-four states (nearly 50 percent) require on-site C&D landfills to monitor ground
water. Of these 24, only 4 have requirements substantially similar to 40 CFR Part 258,
while 20 have requirements that are less stringent The remaining 26 states do not
require ground-water monitoring. Of these 26, 9 states "may" require ground-water
monitoring if the regulatory authority deems it necessary.
Twenty-two states have corrective action requirements for off-site C&D landfills. These
states either require the permit applicant to submit a corrective action plan with the
permit application, or require the facility owner/operator to submit a plan after a release
to ground water is detected.
Sixteen states have corrective action requirements for on-site C&D landfills. Again, these
states either require the permit applicant to submit a corrective action plan with the
permit application, or require the facility owner/operator to submit a plan after a release
to ground water is detected.
States also have mandated permit, design and operating, post-closure, and financial
assurance requirements for both on-site and off-site C&D landfills. The most common of
these is permitting requirements. Respectively, 45 and 38 states require off-site and on-
site C&D landfills to obtain a permit Thirty-four states require some post-closure time
period for off-site landfills (11 require at least 30 years and 23 require less than 30 years).
Additionally, 33 states require off-site C&D landfills to obtain financial assurance for
closure, while 32 require it for post-closure care.
Twenty-four states prohibit all hazardous wastes from disposal at off-site C&D landfills.
In addition, three and four states require that only inert waste and C&D waste be
3Ohio currently does not have ground-water monitoring, but monitoring is expected to be pan of C&D
management regulations that should be finalized by the end of 1995.
4Ohio requires a permit for C&D landfills.
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report *** ES-4
-------
disposed, respectively. Fourteen states do not specifically prohibit disposal of all
hazardous wastes at off-site C&D landfills. In general, the regulations for these states
note that only waste specified in permit may be accepted, or only "regulated" or
"controlled" hazardous waste is prohibited. Finally, five states do not specifically identify
any restrictions on waste disposal at off-site C&D landfills.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ** ES-5
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents information on construction and demolition (C&D) waste 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 over 1,800 C&D waste 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 all 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 are 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 1991 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
non-municipal facilities receiving CESQG wastes to have adequate ground-water monitoring, corrective
action requirements, and location restrictions.
FOCUS ON C&D LANDFILLS
CESQGs currently send their wastes to many different types of Subtitle D waste management units
other than MSWLFs, including the following:
Commercial Subtitle D industrial waste landfills;
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report »* 1-1
-------
On-site Subtitle D industrial waste management units such as landfills, surface
impoundments, land treatment units, and waste piles; and
C&D waste landfills.
EPA believes that the only waste management units that may be impacted significantly by this
rulemaking are the C&D landfills. The Agency believes that most of the 10 to 20 commercial Subtitle D
industrial waste landfills in existence today already have adequate ground-water monitoring, corrective
action requirements, and location restrictions. EPA also believes that CESQGs currently disposing of
their wastes in on-site Subtitle D waste management units will simply start sending the hazardous portion
of their waste stream off site, at relatively low cost.
On the other hand, the rulemaking will have an impact on C&D landfills. C&D landfills are
therefore the focus of this report.
SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
This report examines C&D waste characteristics, C&D landfill leachate quality, and state
regulations addressing C&D waste management facilities.
Chapter 2 discusses the composition of C&D wastes, including any hazardous materials or
constituents that are found;
Chapter 3 presents information on the quality of C&D landfill leachate, based on
sampling data taken from landfills around the country; and
Chapter 4 presents a detailed summary of state regulations pertaining to C&D facilities.
It identifies states that have regulations related to ground-water monitoring; corrective
action; location restrictions; and facility design, operation, closure, andA>r post closure
care; and provides the specifics of those requirements.
The first two chapters are based predominantly on information supplied to EPA by the National
Association of Demolition Contractors (NADC), supplemented with a small number of other readily
available studies. The chapter on state regulations is based on original research performed for this report.
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report *** 1-2
-------
CHAPTER 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES
This chapter presents information on the composition and characteristics of the C&D waste
stream based on four source documents:
The National Association of Demolition Contractors's (NADCs) C&D Waste
Characterization Database: Volume 1 - Compilation of Report Excerpts (1994);
NADCs C&D Waste Characterization Database: Volume 1 - Compilation of Articles
(1994);
Hawaiian's Construction and Demolition Debns Disposal Issues: An Alachua County
Perspective (1994); and
Lambert and Domizio's Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal: Management
Problems and Alternative Solutions (1993).
The source documents provide only snapshots of the C&D waste stream in specific locations (e.g.,
Vermont) and at specific points (e.g., at generation) rather than providing a complete cradle-to-grave
picture of the nationwide C&D waste stream, or of the portion that is landfilled. This report reflects that
segmented characterization of the waste stream and includes waste characterization information based on
generated wastes. In some areas, a large portion of the complete C&D waste stream may be recycled,
burned, left on site, or illegally disposed (Apotheker, 1990; Piasecki et al., 1990; Spencer, 1991; Lambert
and Domizio, 1993; McGregor et al., 1993); thus, the characterizations presented in this report may be
somewhat different from those of the landfilled portion of the waste stream. In Vermont, for example,
only about one-third of the waste stream went to landfills in 1989 (Spencer, 1991).
The first section of this chapter discusses factors that influence C&D waste composition and
characteristics. The second section provides information on components and their proportions in the
C&D waste stream. The final section focuses specifically on the components and constituents of C&D
waste that the source documents characterize using the terms "hazardous," "excluded," "contaminants,"
"chemical constituents that could affect the use of the waste as fuel," "special," "unacceptable," "problem,"
"potentially toxic," "nonhazardous restrictive," or "illegal." Throughout this chapter these components are
referred to as "problematic." These "problematic" wastes are not necessarily wastes that are classified as
hazardous under RCRA Subtitle C
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE C&D WASTE COMPOSITION
C&D wastes are categorized in a variety of ways, and each category produces wastes with different
composition and characteristics. For example, road C&D waste differs from bridge waste, which differs
from building waste. Whereas road C&D generates large quantities of just a few different waste items
(mainly asphalt and concrete), building C&D generates many different waste items in smaller amounts
(with wood as the largest single item). Within the category of building C&D waste, the size and type of
the building (e.g., an apartment building versus a single-family house) affects the composition of the waste.
Even for one building type (e.g., a single-family house), the waste generated depends on the activity
conducted (i.e., new construction, renovation, or demolition). For example, construction generally
produces "clean," unaltered, and separate waste items (e.g., unpainted wood, new concrete) (MVC, 1992).
*** May 4, 1995 Draft Report * 2-1
-------
In contrast, demolition wastes may include more items that have been altered or mixed (e.g., wood painted
with lead-based paint, concrete with hazardous waste spilled on it) (MVC, 1992).
Thus, three main factors affect the characteristics of C&D waste (MVC, 1992):
Structure type (e.g., residential, commercial, or industrial building, road, bridge);
Structure size (e.g., low-rise, high-rise); and
Activity being performed (e.g., construction, renovation, repair, demolition).
Additional factors that influence the type and quantity of C&D waste produced include (MVC,
1992; McGregor et al., 1993):
Size of the project as a whole (e.g., custom-built residence versus tract housing);
Location of the project (e.g., waterfront versus inland, rural versus urban);
Materials used in construction (e.g., brick versus wood);
Demolition practices (e.g., manual versus mechanical);
Schedule (e.g., rushed versus paced); and
Contractors' "housekeeping" practices.
Other factors do not affect the type and quantity of C&D waste produced, but do affect the type
and quantity reported in the source documents and therefore in this report These include:
How state regulations define what is and is not acceptable as C&D waste;
Where in the waste stream the C&D waste is measured (e.g., generation point, recycling
station, landfill); and
How the C&D waste is measured (e.g., by volume or weight).
The next section provides information on the components of C&D waste and their proportions in
the waste stream.
COMPONENTS OF C&D WASTE
Overall, C&D waste streams are comprised mainly of wood products, asphalt, drywall (gypsum)5,
and masonry (e.g., concrete, bricks). Other notable components include metals, plastics, earth, shingles,
and insulation. In one county, waste identified by the source document as "hazardous" has been estimated
to comprise 0.4 percent of construction waste by weight (Triangle J Council of Governments, 1993)6; this
is discussed further in the final section of this chapter. Table 2-1 provides a complete list of components
of C&D wastes mentioned in the source documents. The bold print denotes the "problematic"
components, i.e., components that the source documents refer to as "hazardous," "excluded,"
"contaminants," "chemical constituents that could affect the use of the waste as fuel," "special,"
"unacceptable," "problem," "potentially toxic," "nonhazardous restrictive," or "illegal."
In general, wood comprises one-quarter to one-third of the C&D waste stream. Other
generalizations are hard to make because (1) different studies address different segments of the nation's
5 Drywall is excluded from some C&D landfills because anaerobic breakdown of gypsum produces
hydrogen sulfide.
6 Hazardous waste percentage estimate is for the 1990 Orange County, North Carolina construction
waste stream (SCS Engineers, 1991 as cited in Triangle J Council of Governments, 1993).
May 4, 1995 Draft Report * 2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1
COMPONENTS OF C&D WASTE
ASPHALT
paving
shingles
PAINT
paint containers and waste
paint products
WALL COVERINGS
drywall (gypsum)
plaster
EARTH
din
sand, foundry
soil
PAPER PRODUCTS
cardboard
fiber-board, paperboard
paper
WOOD
cabinets
composites
millends
pallets, shipping skids, and crating
lumber
particle board
plywood
siding
trees: limbs, brush, stumps, and tops
veneer
ELECTRICAL
fixtures
winng
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
brake fluid
form oil
fuel tanks
oil filters
petroleum distillates
waste oils and greases
WOOD CONTAMINANTS
adbesives and resins
laminates
paintings and coatings
preservatives
sta ins/varnishes
other chemical additives
INSULATION
building
extruded polystyrene (rigid)
fiberglass (bat)
roofing
./tASONRY AND RUBBLE
bricks
cinder blocks
concrete
mortar, excess
porcelain
rock
stone
tile
METAL
aluminum (cans, ducts, siding)
brass
fixtures, plumbing
flashing
gutters
mercury from electrical switches
iron
lead
nails
pipe (steel, copper)
sheet metal
steel (structural, banding, decking,
rerod)
studs, metal
wire (e.g., copper)
PLASTICS
buckets
pipe (PVC)
polyethylene sheets
styrofoam
sheeting or bags
laminate
ROOF MATERIALS
asbestos shingles
roofing, built up
roofing cement cans
roofing shingles
roofing tar
tar paper
VINYL
siding
flooring
doors
windows
MISCELLANEOUS
adhesives and adhesive cans
aerosol cans
air conditioning units
appliances ("white goods")
batteries
carpeting
caulk (tubes)
ceding tiles
driveway sealants (buckets)
epoxy containers
fiberglass
fines
fireproofing products (overspray)
floor tiles
furniture
garbage
glass
lacquer thinners
leather
light bulbs, fluorescent and HID
light bulbs, other
linoleum
organic material
packaging, foam
pesticide containers
rubber
sealers and sealer tubes
sheathing
silicon containers
solvent containers and waste
street sweepings
textiles
thermostat switches
tires
transformers
water treatment plant lime sludge
Source: Summarized from NADC, !994a and 1994b; Hanraban, 1994; and Lamben and Domizio, 1993.
-------
C&D waste stream (e.g., road and bridge waste may be excluded from some studies; information in another
study may be for waste from construction only or demolition only) and (2) C&D waste composition varies
greatly from one category to another. The graphs and tables in this section provide examples of the
composition of portions of the C&D waste stream. Note that they vary with location (e.g., Florida versus
Vermont) and category of waste (e.g., construction versus demolition). Viewed together, they provide a
good overall picture of the North American C&D waste stream, and show important differences among
different categories of C&D waste.
C&D Waste Including Road and Bridge Waste (Vermont)
Figure 2-1 provides a picture of the composition of Vermont's complete C&D waste stream by
weight, based on a comprehensive C&D generation study. Asphalt comprises approximately one-half of
the waste stream, wood one-quarter, and concrete one-sixth (Cosper et al., 1993).
C&D Waste Excluding Road and Bridge Waste (Florida)
Figure 2-2 provides an example of the composition by volume of the C&D waste stream received
at a C&D recycling facility in Florida. Although the source document (Cosper et al., 1993) states that the
facility accepts "the complete C/D waste stream," it appears that the facility receives the complete building
C&D waste stream, but does not receive wood or bridge waste, because asphalt is not listed as a
component of the waste. Approximately one-third of the waste volume is wood (Cosper et al., 1993).
Drywall comprises one-sixth and paper and cardboard together comprise one-sixth of the total volume
(Cosper et al., 1993).
Construction-only Waste Versus Demolition-only Waste
Approximately one-third of the construction waste volume in Toronto is wood, and masonry and
tile comprise less than one-sixth of the construction waste (Figure 2-3) (THBA, 1991). Demolition waste
is also comprised of approximately one-third wood (in the U.S.), but concrete makes up over one-half of
demolition waste (Figure 2-4) (Chatterjee-U.S. Army as cited in SPARK, 1991).
C&D Waste by Housing Type
Table 2-2 compares residential construction waste to commercial construction waste in the Twin
Cities, Minnesota. Wood comprises one-fifth to one-third of the waste stream in both cases. Concrete,
brick, and steel waste are greater from commercial construction than from residential, as would be
expected.
COMPONENTS OF C&D WASTE THAT ARE POTENTIALLY "PROBLEMATIC"
Hazardous wastes comprise a small percentage of the C&D waste stream (McGregor et al., 1993),
and can potentially cause adverse effects to human health and ecosystems (Lambert and Domizio, 1993).
For example, inhalation of urea formaldehyde (a resin used in insulation and as a wood preservative) has
caused a health syndrome called "ultra-sensitive allergies" in demolition workers (Lambert and Domizio,
1993). Creosote (a wood preservative) can potentially leach into ground water and discharge into surface
water, possibly adversely affecting drinking water or aquatic life if concentrations reach high enough levels
(Lambert and Domizio, 1993).
This section describes the "problematic" components and constituents of C&D waste and, where
information was available (i.e., for treated and coated wood), the proportion of those constituents in the
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report 2-4
-------
FIGURE 2-1
COMPOSITION OF C&D WASTE STREAM IN VERMONT (BY WEIGHT; 1989 DATA)
(Source: C.T. Donovan Associates, 1990)
14% 260/
Concrete 26/0
Wood
5% Metals
Illl = Illl = Illl = Illl = Illl = Illl = III! = mi s
= II
b 1111 = UH = 1111
= mi = mi = mi = mi = mi = mi = mi = mi = mi = mi = |
i = mm mm mm mm IHI_= mm HII_= mm mi = 1111 =
9% Other
H" ^ mi=mi s iiir^f^^^ii;.pJiiFJi^J!ii=ji^gir=ilr=~Tii'r=~lyr
^?L^m^JL^5««li^^ mmmmtSr
46%
Asphalt
FIGURE 2-2
COMPOSITION OF THE BUILDING C&D WASTE STREAM IN FLORIDA (BY VOLUME)
(Source: Wood, 1992 «s cited in Cosper et al., 1993)
Wood
^ Paper & Cardboard
Concrete & Brick
Plastics
Metals
Shingles
Earth
Drywall & Plaster
Insulation ?v Carpet Remnants
Other
-------
FIGURE 2-3
COMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE IN TORONTO (BY VOLUME)
(Source: THBA, 1991)
Wood
Asphalt
^
^ [SX^
Corrugated Cardboard r\vj Plastic & Foam
Fiberglass
Other Packaging
k ' I Metals
Other Waste
Drywall
FIGURE 2-4
COMPOSITION OF U.S. DEMOLITION WASTE
(Source: Chatterjee-U.S. Army, as cited in SPARK, 1991)
By Volume
By Weight
Wxxj Products
Concrete
Brick&Ooy
Melds
Other
February 7, 1995 Draft Report
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-2
COMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE BY CONSTRUCTION TYPE
IN THE TWIN CITIES IN MINNESOTA (BY VOLUME) (Source: Lauer, 1993)
Waste Type
Wood
Crates & pallets
Cardboard
Paper packaging
Concrete & block
Brick
Drywall
Electrical wire
Shingles
Fiberboard
Steel
Plastic sheeting and bags
Polystyrene insulation
Overspray from Greproofing products
Residential Construction
20-35%
~
5-15%
<1%
1-8%
10-20%
<1%
1-8%
1-8%
<1%
<1%
~
Commercial
Construction
20-30%
1-5%
5-10%
-3%
10-20%
1-5%
5-10%
-2%
~
1-8%
-3%
-3%
0-5%
Notable other materials (comprising < 1% each)
carpet scrap
solvent containers
epoxy containers
silicone containers
plastic laminate
<1%
~
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Possible "problem materials"
driveway sealants
adhesive containers
caulking containers
paint cans (including frozen or damaged)
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
-
<1%
<1%
<1%
~ Indicates that the waste was not listed under that category.
February 7,1995 Draft Report
2-7
-------
waste item. Table 2-3 lists "problematic" components and constituents of C&D waste. These "problematic"
wastes are not necessarily wastes that are classified as hazardous under RCRA Subtitle C. Some may be
"problematic" simply because they are recyclable (e.g., cardboard) or because they are outside the definition
of C&D waste as defined by a particular jurisdiction (e.g., garbage).
It is also important to note that wastes that some jurisdictions exclude from C&D landfills or recycling
centers are sometimes brought to the C&D disposal areas nonetheless. In some cases these wastes are
detected and rejected (Cosper et al., 1993; Lauer, 1993), but in other cases they may not be screened out
(Gates et al., 1993), and evidence shows that they are found in C&D landfills (Piasecki et al., 1990).
For discussion purposes, the "problematic" C&D wastes are divided into four categories:
Excess hazardous materials used in construction and their containers;
Waste oils and greases and other fluids from machinery;
Other discrete items; and
Incidental constituents that are inseparable from bulk C&D wastes (e.g., wood treatment
chemicals).
Excess Potentially Hazardous Materials
Construction activities can produce excess "hazardous" materials and "empty" containers containing
small quantities of "hazardous" materials. (The source, McGregor et al., 1993, does not define "hazardous,"
so these wastes may or may not be defined as hazardous under RCRA Subtitle C) Adhesives and adhesive
containers, leftover paint and paint containers, and excess roofing cement and roofing cement cans are a few
examples. In some cases construction workers dump leftover paints or solvents on the ground (McGregor et
al., 1993). Others may use sawdust, kitty litter, or masking tape to "dry" up empty paint cans and solvent
containers (McGregor et al., 1993). "Hazardous" wastes may be disposed of in a dumpster, left at the
construction site for a cleanup contractor, self-hauled to a landfill, or returned to the shop7 (McGregor et
al., 1993). Table 2-4 characterizes the 46 pounds of wastes referred to as "hazardous" from construction of
a typical 1,850 square-foot single-family residence in Portland, Oregon. Assuming that the total waste weight
produced by construction of some 1,810 square-foot houses in Oregon is typical, the 46 pounds would
comprise less than 1 percent by weight of the total construction waste (including recycled waste), and less than
10 percent of the landfilled waste.
Machinery Lubricants
Waste oils, greases, and machine fluids are also generated by C&D activities. Examples include brake
fluid, form oil, and engine oil (McGregor et al., 1993).
Based on a survey of twenty builders and subcontractors in Oregon, (many of whom are
conditionally-exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs)), some CESQGs want more
information on how and where to dispose of small quantities of hazardous wastes (McGregor et
al., 1993).
February 7, 1995 Draft Report *** 2-8
-------
TABLE 2-3
"PROBLEMATIC" COMPONENTS OF C&D WASTE
IDENTIFIED BY THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS
Waste Item
Source
CONTAINERS AND EXCESS
aerosol cans
adhesives
caulk
coatings
concrete & concrete products
containers with liquids
driveway sealants
drums and containers
fuel tanks
joint compound
lacquer thinners
paints
pesticides
resins
roofing cement
sealers
solvents
10
3,6,10
6,8,10
10
10
7
6
2
2,11
10
15
3,6,7,10,11,15
15
10
10
10
10
MACHINERY LUBRICANTS & FUEL
brake fluid
form oil
oils and greases, waste
oil filters
10
10
10
15
INSEPARABLE CONSTmJENTS OF BULK ITEMS
asbestos
formaldehyde (in carpeting)
lead
lead flashing
1A3.1 1,12,14,17
2
13
16
Waste Item
lead solder
petroleum constituents, teachable from
asphalt or roofing tars
sulfate (in gypsum drywall)
wood, pressure-treated
Source
16
16
16
9
WOOD CONTAMINANTS
Paints and Coatmgs
acrylic, acrylic paints
lead-based paints
mercury-based paints
pigments in paints containing:
lead, arsenic, or chromium
pigments in paints containing:
lead, arsenic, banum,
cadmium, zinc, mercury, or chromium
water-based paint
alkyd
alkyd urea
polyvtnyl acetate
polyurethane
polyesters
nitrocellulose
ethyl cellulose
butyrate
vinyl (PVA/PVC)
epoxy (reaction products of
epichlorohydnn & polyhydnc
phenols)
melamine
polystyrene
styrene/butadiene
lead
stains
varnishes
1,4,13,18
1,4,11,12,14
12,14
4
16
13
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
1,4,13
1,4,13
*** February 7,1995 Dratt Report *
2-9
-------
Waste Item
Source
WOOD CONTAMINANTS
Preservatives
arsenic & arsenic-containing
water-soluble preservatives
chromium & chromium-contain-
ing water-soluble preservatives
acid copper chromate (ACC)
copper zinc chloride (CZC)
arsenates
chromated copper arsenate (CCA)
ammomacal copper arsenate (ACA)
ammomacal copper zinc arsenate
coppenzed chromated zinc
arsenate (CuCZA)
copper
creosote
pentacblorophenol
petroleum distillates, ignitable
wood preservatives
copper napbthenate (in creosote or
petroleum)
copper-8-quinolinolate
tributylun oxide
1,4,16
1,4,16
18
18
18
13,18
18
18
18
18
16
1,4,12,14
1,12,14,16
12
10
18
18
18
Adhesives/Resins
formaldehyde
glues
phenol-formaldehyde resins
urea
urea formaldehyde resins
melamine formaldehyde
resorcinol formaldehyde
isocyanates
epoxy
polyvmyl acetate
casein
hot melts (containing polyesters,
potyamides, or ethylene vinyl
acetate)
13,16
4
1,4,13,18
13,18
1,4,18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Waste Item
Source "
Lamm?***
naphthalene
melamine/paper
phenol/paper
polyvmyl chloride
polyester
phenol/melamme/paper
13,16
18
18
18
18
18
Other Chemical Additives
ammonia
borates
phosphates
polyesters
sulfates
ammonium sulfate
waxes
18
18
18
18
18
18
OTHER PROBLEMATIC ITEMS
appliances or "white goods"
batteries
cardboard
carpeting
corrugated container board
CFCs in conditioning systems
fiberglass
furniture
garbage
mercury-containing switches, bulbs
PCBs in transformers and capacitors
tires
unrecognizable pulverized or shredded
waste components
23,5
5,7,8,15
7
2,3
2
17
11
2,3,5
2^
1,2,15,17
1A3.15
2,5,7
2
II
February 7, 1995 Draft Report ***
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-3 (continued)
NOTES:
(1) Identified as hazardous material found within C&D material (Lambert and Domizio, 1993).
(2) Excluded by NYDEC (Piasecki et al., 1990).
(3) High priority substances that should be excluded (Piasecki et al., 1990).
(4) Construction wood contaminants: chemically contained non-wood materials (Federle, 1992).
(5) Materials unacceptable at Kimmins C&D Recycling Facility (Woods 1992 as cited in Cosper et al.,
1993).
(6) Materials that may be considered problem materials (Lauer, 1993).
(7) Problem materials (Gates et al., 1993).
(8) Items detected and rejected (Gates et al., 1993).
(9) Potentially toxic material (O'Brien/Palermini, 1993).
(10) Hazardous wastes generated from new construction (McGregor et al., 1993)
(11) Contaminants in construction waste and demolition debris (Apotheker, 1990)
(12) Potential hazards (per the Vermont Hazardous Waste Regulations, a material is defined as
hazardous if it is corrosive, toxic, flammable, or reactive) (Spencer, 1991).
(13) C&D wood waste that may contain nonhazardous restrictive materials. In this report "restrictive
materials" were defined as nonhazardous material present in some types of C&D waste that may
restrict end uses for the waste once it is recycled (Spencer, 1991).
(14) An innocent-looking pile of debris may be illegally laced with these (Woods, 1992).
(IS) Wastes that are legally considered hazardous according to state and federal regulations have been
observed. Materials of concern that have been observed at C&D sites include the following
(Hanrahan, 1994).
(16) Hazardous constituents contained in C&D materials (Hanrahan, 1994).
(17) Special and hazardous wastes (SPARK, 1991).
(18) Chemicals in wood products that may affect their use as fuel (ERL, 1992).
** February 7,1995 Draft Report * 2-11
-------
TABLE 2-4
"HAZARDOUS" WASTE GENERATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
IN PORTLAND, OREGON
(Source: McGregor et al. 1993)
Waste Generated
Sealers/caulking
tubes
Adhesives
Resins
Joint compound
Aerosol cans
Total
Quantity
(pounds)
15
5
1
10
15
46
Percent of
Hazardous Waste
(by weight)
33
11
2
21
33
100
Other Discrete Items
Other discrete items may be problematic for a variety of reasons and may be excluded from C&D
landfills by state or county regulations. Batteries and fluorescent light bulbs may be excluded because they
contain heavy metals (lead and mercury, respectively). Other items, such as cardboard, may be excluded
because they are recyclable. As noted above, supposedly "excluded" items are found at C&D landfills, although
some items are spotted and rejected during visual inspections (Cosper et al., 1993; Lauer, 1993; Piasecki et
al., 1990).
Inseparable Constituents of Bulk Items
Many C&D wastes contain inseparable hazardous constituents. Examples include carpeting that can
leach formaldehyde and treated or coated wood and wood products. Extensive information is available on
wood treatments and coatings and their constituents. Wood products may leach hazardous constituents into
ground water or release them into the air during landfill fires. In some states, fire suppression capabilities
are not required at C&D landfills, and C&D landfill fires have occurred in a number of states (Connelly et
al., 1991 as cited in Hanrahan, 1994). Table 2-5 provides the information available from the source documents
on the concentrations of some of the "problematic" constituents found in wood products. The proportion of
the chemical constituent to the wood product ranges from less than 10 parts per million (ppm) for
pentachlorophenol in pallets and skids, to 20 percent for creosote in railroad ties, utility poles, pilings, and
docks.
SUMMARY
As noted earlier, this report characterizes segments of the C&D waste stream based on information
provided in the source documents. Much information on the waste composition is based on generated C&D
wastes, which may differ from the composition of landfilled C&D wastes. Additionally, various factors affect
the characteristics of C&D waste that were reported, including structure type and size, and the activity being
performed.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report «
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-5
AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN WOOD PRODUCTS
(Source: ERL, 1992)
Wood Product
pallets and skids,
(hardwood/softwood)
pallets, plywood
pallets, glued
painted wood, lead-based paint
painted wood, acrylic-based
paint
painted wood, "metallic"
pigments
plywood, interior grade
plywood, exterior grade
oriented strandboard
waterboard
"Aspenite"
overlay panels
plywood/PVC laminate
particleboard
particleboard with PVC
laminate
hardboard
fencing and decks: pressure
treated southern pine
fencing and decks: surface
treated
Chemical Constituent
pentachlorophenol
lindane dimethyl pbthalate
copper-8-quinolmolate
copper naphthenate
phenolic resins
epoxy
lead
acrylic acid, styrene, vinyl toluene,
nitnles
aluminum powder, copper acetate,
phenyl mercuric acetate, zinc
cbromate, titanium dioxide, copper
.ferrocyanide
urea formaldehyde (UF) resins
phenol formaldehyde (PF) resins
phenol formaldehyde resins, or
PF/isocyanate resins
urea formaldehyde resins or
phenolic resins
phenol formaldehyde resins
urea formaldehyde
polyvmyl chlonde
urea formaldehyde resins
UF resins with polyvinyl chlonde
phenolic resins
CCA or ACA
CCA or ACA
Amount of
Chemical(s) in
Wood Product
< 10 ppm
2-4%
2-4%
1400-20,000 ppm
(before 1950)
<0.01%
<0.01%
2-4%
2-4%
2-4%
5-15% UF
2J% PF, 2% wax
4-8%, sometimes up
to 10%
2J%UF
10% PVC
5-15% UF
4.5% UF
10% PVC
1.5%
1-3%
1-3%
Note
a
a
b
c
c
d
d
e
e
***
February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
2-13
-------
Wood Product
utility poles, laminated beams,
freshwater pilings, bridge
umbers, decking, fencing
railroad ties, utility poles
freshwater pilings, docks
marine pilings, docks
Chemical Constituent
pentachlorophenol
creosote containing 85% PAHs
creosote - coal tar
creosote/chlorpyrifos
Amount of
Cbemical(s) in
Wood Product
1.2-1.5%
14-20%
15-20%
15-20%
Note
f
g
d
e
f
g
Hardwood pallets are used primarily in the eastern U.S.; softwood and plywood pallets are used primarily in the
western U.S.
Lead level is highly dependent on the age of the paint; before 1950 lead comprised as much as 50% of the
paint film. Legislation in 1976 reduced standard to 0.06% by weight.
Plywood may be surface-coated with fire retardants, preservatives and insecticides, or pressure-treated with
CCA.
May be sealed with polyurethane or other sealant to prevent offgassing of formaldehyde.
Dominant wood preservative; actual levels will be lower due to evaporation or leaching after treatment.
Restricted use due to industry change and concern over dioxm linkage; not permitted for residential uses.
Losses after treatment estimated to be 20-50% over 10-25 years; not recommended for residential use.
Overall, C&D waste streams are comprised mainly of wood products, asphalt, drywall, and
masonry. Other notable components include metals, plastics, earth, shingles, and insulation. Most of the
source documents did not provide information on the percentage of C&D waste that is "hazardous."
Those that did indicated that "hazardous" waste comprised a small percentage of the total C&D waste
stream (e.g., 0.4 percent of construction waste in one county in North Carolina). The source documents
did not define "hazardous" or other "problematic" wastes as wastes that are classified as hazardous under
RCRA Subtitle C.
The source documents did note that although C&D wastes have traditionally been considered inert
and harmless, they have become an issue of concern in the 1990s. This is largely because some C&D
wastes that were previously considered harmless are now considered to be "toxic" or to contain "hazardous"
materials, such as wood that is coated with lead paint (Piasecki et al., 1990; Lambert and Domizio, 1993).
"Problematic" wastes cited by three or more of the reports or articles in the source documents are:
adhesives, caulk, paint, wood preservatives, formaldehyde resins, stains and varnishes, appliances, batteries,
mercury-containing switches and lights, PCB-containing transformers and capacitors. Again, these
"problematic" wastes may or may not qualify as hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C. More attention
has also focused on C&D landfills because they may be used to dump hazardous wastes illegally (Piasecki
et al., 1990; Lambert and Domizio, 1993).
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report *"
2-14
-------
REFERENCES
Hanrahan, Pegeen. Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Issues: An Alachua County Perspective.
Alachua County Environmental Protection Department. May 1994.
Lambert, Geri, and Domizio, Linda. Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal: Management Problems
and Alternative Solutions. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. February 1993.
National Association of Demolition Contractors. C&D Waste Characterization Database: Volume 1 -
Compilation of Report Excerpts. Prepared by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. FaUs Church, VA.
February 18,1994. Includes excerpts from the following reports:
Davidson, Thomas A. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Workshop an the Potential for
Recycling Demolition Debris. Prepared for the National Science Foundation. June 22, 1978.
Wilson, David G., Davidson, Thomas A., and Ng, Herbert T.S. Demolition Wastes: Data
Collection and Separation Studies. Prepared for the National Science Foundation. December 1979.
Thome-Kozmiensky, Karl J. (EF-Verlag fur Energie- und Umwelttechnik GmbH). Recycling
International (Volume 3). 1986.
Piasecki, Bruce W., Ray, Joel, and Golden, Patrick (American Hazard Control Group). Managing
Construction and Demolition Debris: Trends, Problems and Answers. Prepared for the Associate
Building Contractors of the Triple Cities, Inc. and General Building Contractors of New York
State. March 1990.
C.T. Donovan Associates, Inc. (Burlington, Vermont). Recycling Construction and Demolition
Waste in Vermont: Final Report. Prepared for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources,
Recycling and Resource Conservation Section, Waterbury, Vermont. December 1990.
SPARK Construction Waste Sub-Committee of the Science Council of British Columbia.
Construction Waste Management Report. Prepared for the Construction Sector Committee of the
Science Council's Strategic Planning for Applied Research Knowledge in conjunction with the
National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program. January 1991.
Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association (THBA). Making a Molehill out of a Mountain II.
June 1991.
Donohue/JRP Asia Pacific Ltd. (in association with Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.). Study on
Recycling of Construction Waste Received at Landfills: Final Report. Prepared for the Hong Kong
Government Environmental Protection Department. September 1991.
Federle, Mark O. (Department of Civil and Construction Engineering). Analysis of Building
Construction Recycling Efforts in Iowa. Prepared for the Engineering Research Institute at Iowa
State University. 1992.
European Demolition Association (The Netherlands). Demolition and Construction Debris. Circa
1992.
*** May 4,1995 Draft Report 2-15
-------
Mac Viro Consultants, Inc. (Ontario). Preliminary Study of Construction and Demolition Waste
Diversion Constraints and Opportunities. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
March 1992.
Environmental Risk Limited (ERL). Wood Products in the Waste Stream Characterization and
Combustion Emissions: Volume 1. November 1992.
C.T. Donovan Associates, Inc. Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste in Rhode Island.
Prepared for Rhode Island Governor's Office of Housing, Energy and Intergovernmental
Relations. December 1992.
Cosper, Stephen D., Hallenbeck, William H., Brenniman, Gary R. Construction and Demolition
Waste: Generation, Regulation, Practices, Processing and Policies. Prepared for the Illinois
Department of Energy and Natural Resources. January 1993.
Lauer, Pamela W. (Innovative Waste Management). Construction Materials Recycling Guidebook.
Prepared for the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area. March 1993.
Gates, Betsy, Latham, Cathy, Nelson, Wayne, and Washington, Darrell. Non-Mixed Municipal
Solid Waste Composition and Volume Metropolitan Area 1990-1991. Prepared for the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency Metropolitan Council. Spring 1993.
O'Brien & Associates/Palermini & Associates. Residential Remodeling Waste Reduction
Demonstration Project. June 1993.
Triangle J Council of Governments. Construction and Demolition Debris Reduction and Recycling:
A Regional Approach. Prepared for the Office of Waste Reduction, North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. June 1993.
Palermini & Associates (Portland, Oregon). Construction Industry Recycling Project: Final Report.
Prepared for the Portland METRO Solid Waste Department. July 1993.
McGregor, Mark, Washburn, Howard, and Palermini, Debbi. Characterization of Construction Site
Waste. Presented to the Portland METRO Solid Waste Department July 1993.
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (Falls Church, Virginia). What's in a Building? Demolition
Age. October 1993.
National Association of Demolition Contractors. C&D Waste Characterization Database: Volume 1 -
Compilation of Articles. Prepared by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Falls Church, VA February 18,
1994. Includes the following articles:
Spencer, Robert Recycling Opportunities for Demolition Debris. Biocycle. November 1989.
Apotheker, Steve. Construction and Demolition Debris - The Invisible Waste Stream. Resource
Recycling. December 1990.
Spencer, Robert. Taking Control of C&D Debris. Biocycle. July 1991.
*
May 4, 1995 Draft Report *** 2-16
-------
Lambert, Geri (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). Construction and
Demolition Waste Disposal: Management Problems and Alternative Solutions. Prepared for the
Northeast Waste Management Official's Association. October 1991.
Woods, Randy. C&D Debris: A Crisis is Building. Waste Age. January 1992.
Rebeiz, K.S. Recycling Plastics in the Construction Industry. Waste Age. February 1992.
Lee, Benjamin. New-Style MRFs Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste. Solid Waste &.
Power. October 1992.
Schlauder, Richard M., and Brickner, Robert H. (Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.). Setting
Up for Recovery of Construction and Demolition Waste. Solid Waste & Power. January/February
1993.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ** 2-17
-------
CHAPTER 3
LEACHATE QUALITY ANALYSIS
This chapter summarizes available information on construction and demolition (CAD) debris
landfill leachate. The methodology is discussed first, followed by the results of the analysis.
METHODOLOGY
This analysis is based on construction and demolition debris landfill leachate sampling data
presented in two documents assembled by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) for the National
Association of Demolition Contractors (NADC). One document, "C&D Waste Landfills, Leachate Quality
Data, Volume 1, Specific State-by-State Responses," presents the results of GBB's efforts to obtain
leachate data from state officials. The second document, "C&D Waste Landfills, Leachate Quality Data,
Volume 2, Copies of Reports, Articles, and Other Related Data," is a compilation of several reports
germane to C&D landfill leachate quality.
In addition to the information compiled by NADC, other studies of C&D debris landfill leachate
have been performed. Selected studies are reviewed, and the results compared to this study, in Attachment
3-A.
The methodology for using NADCs data as a basis for characterizing C&D landfill leachate
quality comprised the following steps:
Selecting C&D landfills to include in the analysis;
Developing a C&D landfill leachate database;
Compiling parameter-specific regulatory and health-based "benchmarks" to use as a basis
for screening potential risks;
Screening out parameters that were never detected in C&D landfill leachate, or that never
exceeded the benchmark;
Calculating median values (using only detected values) for each parameter detected at a
concentration above the benchmark; and
Calculating the ratio of the parameters' median concentrations to the benchmarks.
Each step is discussed below.
Selecting C&D Landfills
The two reports prepared for NADC by GBB present leachate sampling data for numerous
landfills in many states. While much of the information is landfill-specific, some is presented in different
formats such as average parameter concentrations across landfills in a given state, or as ranges of
concentrations across groups of landfills. To develop the leachate database for this report, only landfill-
specific sampling data were used. Thus, this report is based on leachate sampling data for 21 C&D
landfills, listed in Table 3-1. For ease in reviewing the database in Attachment 3-B, the abbreviated
database code for each landfill is also presented in Table 3-1.
February 7,1995 Draft Report ** 3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1
LANDFILLS FROM WHICH LEACHATE DATA WERE EXTRACTED FOR ANALYSIS
Landfill Name
GDI, Colorado
Deep River Bulky Waste Landfill, Connecticut
Cuilford Bulky Waste Landfill, Connecticut
Groton Bulky Waste Landfill, Connecticut
Glastonbury Bulky Waste Landfill, Connecticut
IT! Trucking Terminal site, Connecticut
D & M site, Connecticut
Armetta Property, Connecticut
Iowa #4 site, Iowa
Iowa #5 site, Iowa
Brandywine/Cross Trails Rubble Landfill, Maryland
Unnamed Kentucky site from 1991 WMNA study, Kentucky
Unnamed Massachusetts site from 1991 WMNA study, Massachusetts
Unnamed Michigan site from 1991 WMNA study, Michigan
SKB Rich Valley Waste Management Facility, Minnesota
110 Sand & Gravel site, New York
Blydenburg Cleanfill, New York
South Carolina Landfill #1, South Carolina
Sanifill, Inc. site (high in 3-site range), Texas
Sanifill, Inc. site (low in 3-site range), Texas
Mt. Olivet Landfill, Washington
Database Reference
CO
CT-1
CT-2
CT-3
CT-4
CT-5
CT-6
CT-7
IA-1
IA-2
MD
KY
MA
MI
MN
NY-1
NY-2
SC
TXHI
TXLO
WA
Developing a C&D Landfill Leachate Database
Leachate sampling data for the 21 landfills were entered into a database, Attachment 3-B. The
database contains sampling data for a total of 305 parameters analyzed for at least once. A blank entry in
the database indicates that the parameter was not sampled for at that landfill. In many cases, a parameter
was sampled for but not detected at a landfill. Non-detects were handled in one of two ways:
If a detection limit (say, "X") was given by GBB, "
-------
If no detection limit was given, "ND" was entered in the database.
As data were taken from many different landfills (and thus many different sampling laboratories),
there were cases in which different names were used to address the same parameter. The differing
nomenclatures used by different landfills were reconciled so that all synonyms were joined into one
parameter row. In addition, some samples were identified as "total" and others as "dissolved." To be
conservative, the "total" values were entered into the database.
Compiling Regulatory and Health-based Benchmarks
The next step was to identify parameter-specific benchmarks, or concern levels, to use as a basis
for determining whether the parameter concentrations in leachate are high enough to pose potential risk.
Safe Drinking Water Act National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards were used as the
benchmarks if these were available; these are referred to in the remainder of this report as Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs).8 Both are
enforceable drinking water standards. While MCLs are health-based, SMCLs are based on other factors
such as aesthetics. Both MCLs and SMCLs are also based on the availability of treatment technologies
and other factors such as availability of data and analytical methods.
For parameters without MCLs or SMCLs, health-based benchmarks for a leachate ingestion
scenario were compiled as follows:
Reference doses (RfDs) were compiled for non-carcinogens. EPA calculates RfDs by
dividing animal toxicity values by suitable scaling or uncertainty and modifying factors.
The RfDs used in this study were taken from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) or Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). The RfDs (mg/kg-day)
were then converted to benchmark concentrations in drinking water using EPA's standard
exposure assumptions (daily intake of two liters per day, average body weight of 70 kg, and
exposure duration of 365 days per year over 70 years).
Risk-specific doses (RSDs) were calculated for carcinogens based on cancer slope factors
(CSFs). A CSF is a measure of the carcinogenic potency of low doses of carcinogens.
CSFs represent the upper-bound confidence limit estimate of the excess cancer risk for
individuals experiencing a given exposure over a lifetime. EPA calculates CSFs from dose-
response curves, which are based on human epidemiological and/or animal bioassay data.
For this study, CSFs given in IRIS or HEAST were used, and the standard exposure
assumptions listed above, to calculate the drinking water concentration that would
correspond to an excess lifetime cancer risk of 10~*.
Many of the parameters detected in C&D landfill leachate have not been studied sufficiently to allow an
RfD or a CSF to be developed. For these parameters, no benchmarks were available for this study.
Screening Out Parameters
In this step, the maximum observed value of each parameter was simply compared to its regulatory
or health-based benchmark. Parameters that were never observed in C&D landfill leachate at levels above
their respective benchmarks were screened out, the rationale being that if the undiluted leachate is "safe to
8Where available, existing MCLs or SMCLs were used; otherwise, proposed values were used.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 3-3
-------
drink," no further analysis is needed. Also excluded from further consideration were parameters that were
sampled for but never detected in landfill leachate.
Calculating Median Leachate Concentrations
For each parameter with at least one exceedance over the benchmark, the median leachate
concentration was calculated across all landfills at which the parameter was sampled. Medians, rather than
averages, were calculated in order to reduce the effect of single, anomalous values.
When calculating the median value for each parameter, the median value for each landfill was first
calculated, and then the median value across all landfills was calculated. For example, if parameter X was
sampled once at Landfill A, once at Landfill B, and six times or at six locations at Landfill C, the median
concentration was calculated based on the Landfill A sample, the Landfill B sample, and the median
among the Landfill C samples. Thus, each landfill is represented only once for each parameter, and each
landfill is weighted equally.
Due to anomalies and inconsistencies among the sampling equipment used at different times and
at different landfills, non-detects were not considered in determining median values. In other words, for
those parameters for which a median was calculated, the non-detects were discarded before calculating
both individual landfill concentration medians and medians across all landfills. Thus, the median leachate
concentrations calculated for this analysis represent the median among the detected values, rather than the
median among all values. The median concentration among all values would in most cases have been
lower than those calculated here.
Comparing Medians to Benchmarks
The median value for each parameter was then compared to the benchmark for that parameter, if
one was available. The results are expressed as the ratio of the median leachate concentration to the
benchmark.
RESULTS
As discussed above, the leachate database contains sampling data for 305 parameters analyzed for
at one or more of 21 construction and demolition landfills. Of these 305 parameters, 93 were detected at
least once. The other 212 parameters, almost all organics, were never detected, and are listed in Table 3-2;
many of them were sampled for at only one or two landfills, and often only once or twice at those sites.
All 93 parameters that were detected at least once are listed in Table 3-3, along with the number
of landfills at which the parameter was sampled, the number of landfills at which the parameter was
detected, the maximum and minimum values for each parameter (here, including non-detects), and the
relevant benchmark, if available. Maximum concentrations above the benchmark are shaded. For pH, the
minimum pH level below the benchmark range is shaded.
Table 3-4 focuses on the parameters whose maximum concentrations exceeded their benchmarks
(i.e., the parameters shaded in Table 3-3). For each parameter, Table 3-4 repeats the number of landfills
at which the parameter was sampled and detected, but also shows the number of landfills at which the
benchmark was exceeded. Table 3-4 also provides the median value of each parameter across all landfills,
each parameter's benchmark, and the ratio of the medians to benchmarks. Again, due to anomalies and
inconsistencies among sampling equipment, non-detects were not considered in determining median values.
The results are discussed below.
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report *** 3-4
-------
TABLE 3-2
PARAMETERS ANALYZED FOR BUT NEVER DETECTED
Aceioiutnie
nrjuitroao-ar-n-piopy Famine
<"/\cciyiamiDoni
cnorm idcnyoe
Eitnuopipenduie
Nitrotopyroliome
ACfyjOluEJlIC
jjnyl ctter
£tny imetnic rylatc.
ae.EU.-aHL.
riuyj puai
4-AmiOC
Poipnegyi
Hepuctiior
Hepiacmor epoxioe
Tneaantnreii&
k ^e* utwayaftrr n* ^f
Hex&cDJ orobuta OICBC.
AIwCLQIr
ricxftc nlorocydopeauaiene
CUOTOpOCDC
hinyl cyiniae
Pynaiac
tcaionxuiiuoroineu
i ,^-iJictiioroctaeae
lodamcOumc
i, -jJicaigroeinftne
uictuorotluonnncuune"
Suiioccpp
TTDD
isoann
TCDr
1,2,4,^-TetncuorobenzeDB
i,i.i,z-ietnci
1,1,2,2-TelrKbJofXKUuate
i.z-mcnioiopropme.
Meuuciyoaiinle
Bis(Z-coloro-l'
JlCDiOm|)iOpC'DC
Meunpyruene
letiaflyaroturm
-Metnylcalomtluciie
o-Tauudiae
-1, j-uicuoroprapenc
Metnyi meuacryutc
p~liJimcuiy iamino)azopcnzcne
Metnyl meume sullonate
Z-Metnyl
1,1, I-T
r uuttcuiy ioenzt> jminraceoe
Z,4.3-TnenloTopnenol
i-napotnyunune
nuuoroprapuic
'ncuoiMnniura
unncuiyi pnuuiiaie
i,i,z-Tncl
o, 0,0- J netnyl
vmyj
\jBioropr
Vinyl cMondc
p-N
Ui-»-octyt patbuate
Di-n-octyl phtEOiir
Antimony
M -Mtrojoai-a-untytamine
. rAKAMtTER
Toul Sctued Soliox
eooosuintt suinie
juyscae
***
February 7, 1995 Draft Report
«*»
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-3
FREQUENCY OF DETECTION, RANGE, AND BENCHMARK FOR DETECTED PARAMETERS
(Concentrations in usfl)
PARAMETER
ORGANICS
Acenaphthenc
Acetone
alpha-BHC
Benzol?
Beozoie acid
Carbon disulfide
Chlorocthanc
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-DichIoroethane
1 ,2 Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Diehloroetbene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dieldnn
Dielbyl phthalate
Disulfoton
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone (methyl butyl ketone)
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methylene chlonde
2-Methylphcnol (o-cresol)
4-Methyl-2-pentaaone
4-Methylpheool (p-cresol)
Naphthalene
Phenol
Styrene
Tetraehloroethene
Toluene
Tnchloroethene
Tnchloronuoromethanc
2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyaeetic acid
Xylene (total)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Banum
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Cyanides (total)
Iron
Filtered Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity
f LANDFILLS
SAMPLED
7
6
6
9
4
5
9
9
9
2
9
9
9
4
6
7
3
4
9
5
6
9
7
6
5
7
8
5
9
9
9
5
4
8
1
16
13
5
2
19
16
5
4
18
12
6
20
2
18
7
15
12
9
14
12
4
IS
13
t LANDFILLS
DETECTED
1
4
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
3
5
1
2
3
2
2
4
2
5
1
1
4
3
2
2
4
1
12
13
1
2
14
9
2
1
14
9
4
20
2
15
7
4
7
9
1
2
2
15
13
MAXIMUM
3
5100
0.12
27
910
15
353
3
43
1.4
26
6.2
3
4
0.065
16
096
16
IS
4.8
2500
60
130
250
5700
63
2990
1.1
4.8
240
20
20
0.53
85
6350
120
8000
2 1
3900
2050
250
4920
60.9
620
340
38
172000
11000
2130
460000
9
170
618000
5
30
96
8630
6520000
MINIMUM
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1400
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
240
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
BENCH
VALUE
2000
4000
0.006
5
4000
100
5
4000
7
100
0002
30000
1
4000
700
20000
5
1000
20000
100
5
1000
5
10000
SO
10000
50-200
50
2000
4
5
100
1000
200
300
15
2
100
50
100
200
5000
(MARK
SOURCE
RfD
RfD
l(T-6 RSD
MCL
RfD
MCL
MCL
RfD
MCL
MCL
10--6 RSD
RfD
RfD
RfD
MCL
RfD
MCL
RfD
RfD
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
RfD
MCL
MCL
SMCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
SMCL
MCL
SMCL
Action Level
MCL
MCL
MCL
SMCL
RfD
SMCL
ND = Not Detected
RfD = Reference Dose
10*-6 RSD = 10--6 Risk-specific Dose
-------
TABLE 3-3 (cont)
FREQUENCY OF DETECTION, RANGE, AND BENCHMARK FOR DETECTED PARAMETERS
(Concentrations in ug/1)
PARAMETER
Ammonia
Ammonia. Nitrogen
Bicarbonate
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (5-day)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (20-day)
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chlorides
Dissolved Oxygen (X)
Fluoride
Hardness by Calculation
Manganese
Nitrate
Nitrate/Nun te
Nitnte
Organic Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Oil and Crease
Oxidation- Reduction Potential
pH
Total Phcnolics
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Sodium
Solids, volatile
Specific Conductance (h)
Sulfates
Surfactants
Tanzuo
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogens
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
f LANDFILLS
SAMPLED
3
14
2
14
5
7
18
20
I
3
10
14
14
I
10
7
3
7
2
18
4
2
S
3
12
2
12
16
1
1
18
7
3
16
3
» LANDFILLS
DETECTED
3
13
2
13
S
7
17
20
1
2
10
14
10
1
6
7
3
6
2
18
3
1
4
3
12
2
12
14
1
1
17
7
3
IS
3
MAXIMUM
480000
184000
7950000
320000
83000
600000
11200000
2400000
48
5000
2420000
- 258000
13000
290
47
11000
300000
50000
580
8
4900
3900
3890
1600
1510000
380000
25000
2700000
1100
120000
8400000
1080000
910
43000000
630
MINIMUM
ND
ND
2090000
ND
5000
ND
ND
ND
03
ND
150000
ND
ND
290
ND
70
3730
ND
ND
6.2
ND
ND
ND
100
ND
170000
220
ND
ND
120000
ND
ND
740
ND
ND
BENCHMARK
VALUE
250000
2000
SO
10000
10000
1000
65-85
250000
500000
SOURCE
SMCL
SMCL
SMCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
~
SMCL
SMCL
SMCL
ND = Not Detected
RfD = Reference Dose
IOA-6 RSD = 10"-6 Risk-specific Dose
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report **
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-4
FREQUENCY OF DETECTION ABOVE BENCHMARK
AND COMPARISON OF MEDIANS TO BENCHMARKS
(Concentrations in ug/1)
PARAMETER
« LANDFILLS
SAMPLED
* LANDFILLS
DETECTED
f LANDFILLS
> BENCHMARK
MEDIAN*
BENCHMARK
VALUE
SOURCE
MEDIAN/
BENCHMARK
ORGANICS
Acetone
alpba-BHC
1 ,2-DicbIoroelbane
Dieldnn
Methylene chlonde
Tnchloroethene
INORGANICS
AliimiMiim
Arsenic
Banum
^7*H|]HllMTt
Chromium
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
6
6
9
6
9
9
4
1
3
1
4
3
1
16
13
19
16
12
20
18
IS
12
IS
1
12
13
14
9
9
20
IS
4
^
15
1
1
3
1
3
1
230
0 12
19
006S
152
32
1
3
1
12
3
2
19
13
1
2
1
245
195
340
10 5
45
245
11003
ss
OS
so
135
4000
0.006
5
0.002
5
5
RfD
10--6 RSD
MCL
10--6 RSD
MCL
MCL
50-200
SO
2000
5
100
200
300
IS
2
100
5000
SMCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
SMCL
Action Level
MCL
MCL
SMCL
0.058
20
3 8
33
3
06
4.9 (1 2 Mm)
0.39
0.17
2 1
045
0.12
37
37
025
05
0.027
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Chlorides
Fluoride
Manganese
Nitrate
Sulfates
Total Dissolved Solids
20
3
14
14
16
18
20
2
14
10
14
n
4
1
13
1
6
IS
110000
2700
2925
520
119000
1770000
250000
2000
SO
10000
250000
500000
SMCL
SMCL
SMCL
MCL
SMCL
SMCL
044
1.4
59
0.052
0.48
35
Medians of detected values only
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report *«
3-8
-------
Organics
The frequency of detection of organics was generally low compared to metals and conventional
parameters. Of the 34 organics listed in Table 3-3, only 8 were detected at half or more of the landfills at
which they were sampled: acetone, benzole acid, cis-1,2-dichloroethane, ethylbenzene, 4-methylphenol,
phenol, 2,4,5-T, and xylenes. Six organics exceeded their respective benchmarks at least once, including
acetone, alpha-BHC, 1,2-dichloroethane, dieldrin, methylene chloride, and trichloroethene.
Of the six organic constituents found above their benchmarks, Table 3-4 shows that four (acetone,
alpha-BHC, dieldrin, and trichloroethene) were detected above their benchmarks at only one landfill.
While this is noteworthy, these constituents are not subject to further assessment here because their
exceedances cannot be considered representative.
The median leachate concentrations (among the detected values) of both of the remaining
constituents -- 1,2-dichloroethane and methylene chloride - exceed their benchmarks. Neither of them
exceeds its benchmark by a factor of 10 or more, however. Assuming that a 100-fold reduction in
concentration is achieved between the leachate and a downgradient drinking water well (as would be likely,
based on the dilution attenuation factor [DAF] of 100 developed for the Toxicity Characteristic
rulemaking), the concentrations would fall well below the benchmarks at the point of exposure. Even if a
smaller DAF of 10 is applied (as may be applicable at a monitoring well located closer to the landfill),
neither constituent would exceed its benchmark. Again, these medians only account for detected values.
Had the non-detects been included, the median concentrations of all but one of the organics would have
been in the non-detect range.
Inorganics
Most of the inorganics listed in Table 3-3 were detected at half or more of the landfills at which
they were sampled: aluminum, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, iron, lead,
magnesium, nickel, potassium, vanadium, and zinc. The 11 constituents exceeding their benchmarks
included aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc.
As shown in Table 3-4, seven inorganics were detected above their benchmarks at more than one
landfill: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, iron, lead, and nickel. The median leachate concentrations
exceed the benchmarks for only three of these inorganics, however: cadmium, iron, and lead. None of the
median leachate concentrations exceeds its benchmark by a factor of 100 or more, and iron is the only
constituent whose median exceeds its benchmark by a factor greater than 10. Iron was detected at all 20
landfills at which it was sampled, and was detected above its benchmark at least once at 19 of them.
Excluding the few non-detects, the median concentration of iron in leachate is 37 times higher than its
drinking water standard, which is a secondary MCL based on taste.
Conventional Parameters
As would be expected, all of the conventional parameters were detected at most, and often all, of
the sites at which they were analyzed. The conventional parameters with maximum concentrations
exceeding their respective benchmarks included chlorides, fluoride, manganese, nitrate, sulfates, and total
dissolved solids (TDS). Only chlorides, manganese, sulfates, and TDS exceeded their benchmarks at more
than one landfill. Of these four parameters, only manganese and TDS have medians above the benchmark.
The median level of manganese exceeds its SMCL (by 59 times), while the median level of TDS exceeds its
SMCL by over three times. In addition to these parameters, more than one landfill had a measured pH
value outside of the range of the SMCL for pH.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 3-9
-------
SUMMARY
Leachate sampling data for 305 parameters sampled for at one or more of 21 C&D landfills were
compiled into a database, shown in Attachment 3-B. Of these 305 parameters, 93 were detected at least
once. Almost all of the 212 parameters that were never detected were organics; most of the inorganic and
conventional parameters sampled for were detected one or more times.
Of the 93 parameters detected in C&D landfill leachate, 24 had at least one measured value above
the regulatory or health-based benchmark.9 For each of the parameters exceeding benchmarks (except
pH), the median leachate concentration was calculated and compared to its benchmark. Due to anomalies
and inconsistencies among the sampling equipment used at different times and at different landfills, non-
detects were not considered in determining median values. Thus, the median leachate concentrations
represent the medians among the detected values, rather than the median among all values. The median
concentrations among all values would in most cases have been lower than those calculated here.
Based on (1) the number of landfills at which the benchmark was exceeded and (2) a comparison
between the median detected concentration and the benchmark, seven parameters emerge as being
potentially problematic. The list of these seven parameters, shown below, was developed by eliminating
from the original list of 24 parameters (1) any parameter that was detected at only one landfill (this was
determined to be not representative) and (2) any parameter whose median leachate concentration did not
exceed its benchmark.
organics
1,2-dichloroethane
methylene chloride
inorganics
cadmium
iron
lead
conventional parameters
manganese
total dissolved solids (TDS)
For three of the seven parameters listed above (iron, manganese, and TDS), the benchmarks are
secondary MCLs (SMCLs), which are set to protect water supplies for aesthetic reasons (e.g., taste) rather
than for health-based reasons. None of the remaining four parameters exceeds its benchmark by a factor
of 10 or more, indicating that concentrations in ground water where ground-water monitoring or drinking
water wells may be located are likely to fall below the health-based benchmarks.
CAVEATS AND LIMITATIONS
All conclusions made from the data presented in this report should be tempered by the following
weaknesses in the samples used to calculate some of the leachate characteristics:
9In the case of pH, the "exceedances" were actually pH values below the regulatory range.
February 7, 1995 Draft Report ** 3-10
-------
First, the sample size is much smaller than the universe of C&D landfills nationwide. The
21 landfills represented in this report comprise just over one percent of the approximately
1,800 C&D landfills in the United States. Thus, the representativeness of the sample is
questionable.
Many of the parameters discussed in this report were only sampled at one or two landfills,
and such data cannot be considered representative of 1,800 landfills.
The medians calculated in this report do not account for non-detects. Although the
medians would be more meaningful if the non-detects could he factored in, this report
attempts to capture the impact of the non-detects by presenting both the frequency of
detection and the frequency of detection above benchmarks.
Some landfills do not characterize (or give an incomplete characterization of) the waste at
their sites. Thus, in some cases, the respondents' assertions that their landfills are
comprised of C&D wastes is tbe only basis for including the landfill in the database.
The data relied upon were assembled recently by only one organization, using limited data
gathering techniques.
February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 3-11
-------
REFERENCES
National Association of Demolition Contractors. C&D Waste Landfills, Leachate Quality Data, Volume 1,
Specific State-by-State Responses. Prepared by Gershman, Brickner & Bration, Inc. Falls Church, VA,
February 18, 1994.
National Association of Demolition Contractors. C&D Waste Landfills, Leachate Quality Data, Volume 2,
Copies of Reports, Articles, and Other Related Data. Prepared by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Falls
Church, VA, February 18, 1994.
U.S. EPA. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. Annual Update. Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Cincinnati, OH, 1992. OHEA
ECAO-CIN-821.
U.S. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
U.S. EPA. Summary of Data on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate Characteristics. Office of Solid
Waste. Prepared by NUS Corporation. July 1988.
* February 7, 1995 Draft Report *"* 3-12
-------
ATTACHMENT 3-A
OTHER STUDIES OF C&D LANDFILL LEACHATE
-------
ATTACHMENT 3-A
OTHER STUDIES OF C&D LANDFILL LEACHATE
This attachment summarizes the results of selected studies of C&D landfill leachate and compares
them to the results of the analysis presented in Chapter 3 of this report (rhe "NADC/ICF analysis").
THE WMX REPORT
This section compares the results of the NADC/ICF analysis with those of the 1993 Construction
and Demolition (C&D) Landfill Leachate Characterization Study published by WMX Technologies,
Incorporated (the "WMX report"). The WMX report evaluated leachate from four landfills (in Kentucky,
Michigan, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin) for all or part of a three-year period (1991 to 1993).10
Samples from the four landfills were analyzed for 219 organics, 19 inorganics, and 13 conventional
parameters.11 The NADC/ICF analysis evaluated 21 landfills, including the 1991 results from WMX's
Kentucky, Michigan, and Massachusetts landfills. Because the NADC/ICF analysis was based on data
compiled from various studies, there were significant differences in the parameters sampled for at the 21
landfills. In total, the NADC/ICF analysis covered 242 organics, 26 inorganics, and 37 conventional
parameters.12
As the remainder of this section will show, the results of the NADC/ICF analysis and the WMX
report are quite similar. Below, the two studies are compared in terms of the following factors:
The number and percent of parameters detected;
Parameters detected at concentrations exceeding regulatory and/or health-based
benchmarks; and
Parameters that are potentially problematic (i.e., detected at more than one landfill and
have median leachate concentrations above a benchmark).
This information is summarized in Table 3A-1 and discussed in the remaining sections.
Organics
In both the NADC/ICF and WMX reports, the percent of organics detected in C&D leachate was
low compared to inorganics and conventional parameters. In the NADC/ICF analysis, 14 percent of the
organics sampled for were detected (34 out of 242), compared to 15 percent (33 of 219) in the WMX
report.
10 Results from an Ohio landfill sampled in 1991 and included in an earlier WMX report were
discarded because WMX later discovered that steel mill slag had been used in the leachate collection
system and had contaminated the leachate.
11 Although iron was categorized as a conventional parameter by the WMX report, it is counted here
as an inorganic parameter to be consistent with the NADC/ICF analysis.
12 This includes some double-counting of parameters because similar parameters were reported
differently in different studies. For example, nitrate and nitrite were reported separately in one study but
together in another study, so the ICF analysis counts three separate categories: nitrate, nitrite, and
nitrate/nitrite.
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report ** 3-14
-------
TABLE 3A-1
COMPARISON OF NADC/ICF AND WMX STUDIES8
Parameter
Type
Organics
Inorganics
Conventional
parameters
Total
Number of
parameters
detected/sampled
NADC/ICF
34/242
(14%)
23/26
(88%)
36/37
(97%)
93/305
(30%)
WMX
33/219
(15%)
11/19°
(58%)
13/13
(100%)
57/251
(23%)
Parameters with maximum concentrations
exceeding benchmarks
NADC/ICF analysis
acetone
alpha-BHC
1 ,2-dlchloroethane
dieldrin
methylene chloride
trichloroethene
aluminum
arsenic
barium
cadmium
chromium
cyanide
iron
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
chlorides
fluoride
manganese
nitrate
pH (below range)
sulfates
TDS
24
WMX Report
acetone
alpha-BlIC
1,2-dichloroethane
dieldrin
methylene chloride
trichloroethene
DEIIP
disulfoton
cadmium
iron
lead
chorides
sulfates
TDS
14
Parameters that are potentially "problematic"
(ratio of median leachate concentration to
benchmark)1
NADC/ICF analysis
1,2-dichloroethane (4)
methylene chloride (3)
cadmium (2)
iron (37)
lead (4)
manganese (59)
TDS (4)
7
WMX Report
1,2-dichloroethane (4)
methylene chloride (7)
DEIIP (3)
dieldrin (66)
disulfoton (3)
iron (6)
lead (29)
TDS (4)
sulfates (1)
9
a Parameters in bold exceeded human health-based benchmarks (MCLs, RfDs, RSDs, or action levels); unbolded parameters exceeded aesthetic-based
benchmarks (SMCLs).
b "Potentially problematic" parameters are those (1) detected at more than one landfill and (2) with median leachate concentrations above a benchmark.
Median leachate concentrations are calculated based on detected values only.
c Here we include iron as an inorganic, although WMX had categorized iron as a conventional parameter.
-------
The maximum concentrations of six organics exceeded benchmarks in the NADC/ICF analysis.
Those six organics plus an additional two [di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and disulfoton] were exceeded in the
WMX Report. The maximum leachate concentration of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was five times its MCL,
and disulfoton was found at levels six times its RfD. In both reports, all of the benchmarks exceeded by
organics were based on human health (i.e., primary MCLs, action levels, reference concentrations, or 10"6
risk-specific concentrations for carcinogens) rather than aesthetics.
In the NADC/ICF analysis, parameters were considered "potentially problematic" if they were (1)
detected at more than one landfill and (2) had median leachate concentrations above a benchmark (with
the median concentrations calculated based on detected values only). Using these criteria, organics that
are potentially problematic in each study, and the ratios of their median leachate concentrations to their
benchmarks, are shown in Table 3A-1. The list is somewhat longer for the WMX study, but the
magnitude of the exceedances (one ratio is greater than 10 but none is greater than 100) are similar.
Inorganics
Both the absolute number and the percentage of inorganics detected were higher in the
NADC/ICF analysis (88 percent; 23 out of 26) than in the WMX report (58 percent; 11 out of 19). Three
inorganics (cadmium, iron, and lead) had maximum concentrations above benchmarks in both reports.
The NADC/ICF analysis found an additional eight parameters above their benchmarks, some of which are
health-based and some of which are based on aesthetics.
Inorganic constituents that are potentially problematic for the two studies are similar: iron and
lead for both studies, plus cadmium only for the NADC/ICF study. Overall, the ratios of the median
leachate concentrations to the benchmarks for the inorganic constituents are similar.
Conventional Parameters
In both reports, all of the conventional parameters sampled for were detected, with the single
exception of total settled solids (sampled for in the NADC/ICF analysis). The maximum concentrations of
three parameters (chlorides, sulfates, and TDS) exceeded benchmarks in both reports (benchmarks are all
SMCLs), with an additional four exceeding benchmarks in the NADC/ICF analysis only (only one, nitrate,
has a health-based benchmark).
The only potentially problematic conventional parameter common to both studies is TDS, whose
median leachate concentration exceeds its SMCL by a factor of 4 in both studies. The other two
constituents are manganese (NADC/ICF study only) and sulfates (WMX study only). The benchmarks for
all three parameters are SMCLs, and the median leachate concentrations are less than 100 times the
benchmark for all three constituents.
OTHER REPORTS
We also reviewed the results of other readily-available information on C&D landfill leachate,
including (1) eight summaries of various studies provided in the WMX report, and (2) two other reports.
The eight summaries are:
"Demolition Disposal-Problems and Alternative Solutions: Draft Report" (By
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection [MADEP], 1991)
"Migration of Contaminants in Groundwater at a Landfill: A Case Study" (By Nicholson,
Cherry, & Reardon - University of Waterloo, 1983)
February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 3-16
-------
"The Water Pollution Potential from Demolition Waste Disposal" (By Ferguson & Mall -
University of Massachusetts, 1980)
1989 Pennsylvania C&D Leachate Samples (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, unpublished)
Four Maryland C&D Landfills: 1989 and 1990 samples
"Demolition Landfills-How Much Regulation is Needed?" (By Connelly, Pugh, and
Mitchell - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1991)
"Properties of Leachate from Construction/Demolition Waste Landfills (By Norstrom,
Williams, and Pabor, 1991)
"C&D Debris: A Crisis is Building" (Waste Age article by Randy Woods, 1992)
The two additional reports are:
Hanrahan, Pegeen. Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Issues: An Alackua
County Perspective. Alachua County Environmental Protection Department. May 1994.
Lambert, Geri, and Domizio, Linda. Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal:
Management Problems and Alternative Solutions. Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. February 1993.
Much of the information on leachate from C&D landfills provided in these summaries and reports
is already covered in the NADC/ICF analysis presented in Chapter 3. Information that was not covered in
the NADC/ICF analysis is generally consistent with the findings presented in Chapter 3:
C&D landfill leachate in Pennsylvania exceeded SMCLs for iron, manganese, sulfates, and
TDS (study summarized in WMX report).
The Spencer Landfill in Maryland measured pH levels as low as 4.96, which is well outside
of the SMCL range of 6.5 to 8.5 (study summarized in WMX Report).
Connelly et al. (1991, as cited in WMX report) analyzed the leachate quality of two
landfills in Wisconsin (Barrett Landfill and Mad-Prairie Landfill). Chloride and iron
concentrations exceeded SMCLs.
The parameters that exceeded benchmarks above (chloride, iron, pH, manganese, sulfates, and TDS) also
exceeded benchmarks in the NADC/ICF analysis.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 3-17
-------
ATTACHMENT 3-B
C&D LANDFILL LEACHATE DATABASE
-------
ATTACHMENT 3-B
NOTES
ND = Not Detected
NA = Sampled but Not Available
(a) Measured in mV.
(b) Measured in standard pH units.
(c) Measured in micro umhos/cm.
(d) Measured in ul/1.
(e) Estimated value.
(f) Concentration is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit.
(g) No non-detection limits were given for this landfill. Also, no descriptions of any parameter
concentrations which fell below benchmarks were given.
(h) A range for each parameter over the three Texas sites were given. These two columns represent
the two known values, the high concentration found and the low concentration found.
(i) Quantitated value falls above the limit of the calibration curve and dilution should be run.
(j) Indicates an estimated value when result is less than specified detection limit
-------
LANDFILL CODE
PARAMETER CO |CT-1(1) |CT-1(2) |CT-1<3) |CT-1(4) |CT-2(1) |CT-2(2) |CT-2(3) |CT-3(1) |CT-3(2) |CT-3(3) |CT-3(4)
ORGANICS
Acenaphthena
Acetone
Acetonltrlle
Acetophenono
2-Acetylamlnofluorane
Acroleln
AcrytonltrllB
Aldrln
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordano
alpha-Endosuttan
4-Amlnoblphenyt
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramlle
Aroclor/PCB 1016
Aroclor/PCB 1221
Aroclor/PCB 1232
Aroclor/PCB 1242
Aroclor/PCB 1248
Aroclor/PCB 1254
Aroclor/PCB 1260
Benzene
Benzo-a-anthracene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Benzo-b-fluoranthene
8enzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo-g.h-perytene
Benzo-fl.h.l-perylene
Benzo-k-perylene
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
beta-BHC
beta-Endosulfan
Bls(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Ble(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bls(2-chlorolBopropyl)ether
Bls(2-chloro-1-methyl)ether
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phlhalate
Bromodlehloromethane
Bromolorm
Bromomethane
-------
LANDFILL CODE
PARAMETER
4-Bromophenyt-phenylether
Butyl benzyl phthalale
Carbon dlsuHlde
Carbon tetrachlorlde
Carbonate
Chlordane
4-ChloroanlllnB
p-Chloroanlllne
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzllate
2-Ghloro-1,3-butadlana, Chloroprane
Chlorodlbrornomethane
2-CriloroethylVlnyt Ether
Chtoroelhane
Chloroform
Oiloromethane
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloranaphthalene
2-ChlorophenoJ
3-Chloropropene. Allyl Chloride
Chryeene
m-Cresol
Cumene
2,4-D
4,4-DDD
4.4-ODE
4.4-DDT
delta-BHC
Dl-a-butyl phthalate
Dlallata
Dl-a-octyl phthalate
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthrBcene
Dlbenzofuran
Dlbromochloromathane
1 ,2-Dlbromo-d-chloropropane
Dlbromomethana
1.2-Olbromoethane
Dlchloroacetonltrlle
1.2-Dlchlorobenzene
1.3-Dlchlorobenzene
1.4-Dtehlorobenzene
3-3-Dlctilorobenzldlne
CO
CT-1J1)
CT-1(2)
CT-1(3)
CT-1(4)
CT-2(1)
CT-2(2)
CT-2(3)
CT-3(1)
CT-3(2)
CT-3{3)
CT-3(4)
-------
LANDFILL CODE
PARAMETER
trans-1 ,4-Dlohloro-2-butene
Dlchlorodlfluoromathane
1.1-Oichloroethane
eis-1 ,2-Dlchloroelhane
1,2-Olchloroethane
1.1-Dlchloroethene
1.2-0lchloroethene
cle-1 ,2-Dlehloroothene
trans-1 ,2-Dlchloroethene
Dichlorofluoromethane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2.6-OlchIorophenol
1 ,2-Olchloropropane
1 ,3-Dlchloropropane
2.2-Dlehloropropane
1 ,1-Olchloropropene
cls-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3-Dlchloropropene
2.3-Dlchloro-1-propene
Dleldrln
Dlethyl phthalate
Dimethoale
p-{Dlmethylamlno)azobenzene
7/1 2-Dlmethy1benz(a)anthracene
3,3-Dlmethylbenzldlne
Dlmethylphenethylamlne
2.4-Olmethylphanol
Dimethyl phthalate
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
1.3-Olnltrobenzene
4.6-Dlnllro-2-methylphenol
2.4-Dlnltrophenol
2.4-Olnltrotolu8ne
2.6-Dlnltrotoluene
Dl-n-octyl phthalate
Dlnoseb, DNBP
1.4-Dlomene
Dlphenylamlne
Dlsulfoton
Endosullan 1
Endosullan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrln
CO
CT-K1)
CT-1<2)
CT-1(3)
CT-1(4)
CT-2(1)
CT-2(2)
CT-2{3)
CT-3(1)
CT-3(2)
CT-3(3)
CT-3(4)
-------
LANDFILL CODE
PARAMETER
Endrln aldehyde
Endrln ketona
Ethytbenzene
Ethyl ether
Ethylmethacrylate
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Ethyl parathlon
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Hexachlorobenzene '
Hexaohlorobutadlene
Hexachlorocyclopentadlene
Hexaohloroethane
Hoxaehlorophene
Hexachloropropene
2-Hexanone
Hx-CDD
HxCDF
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
lodomethane
Isobutanol
Isodrln
Isophorone
2-lsophorone
Irasafrole
Kepone
Llndane
Methacryonltrlle
Methapyrllene
Methoxychlor
3-Methylcholanthrene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketono(MEK)
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methane sultanate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Methyl parathlon; Parathlon mehtyl
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
(3&4)-Methylphenol
CO
CT-I(I)
CT-1(2)
CT-1(3)
CT-1(4)
CT-2(1)
CT-2(2)
CT-2(3)
CT-3(1)
CT-3(2)
CT-3(3)
CT-3(4)
-------
LANDFILL CODE
PARAMETER
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqulnone
1-Naphthylamlne
2-Naphthylamlne
2-Nltroanlllne
3-Nilroanlllne
4-Nltroanlline
Nitrobenzene
S-Nltro-o-toluldlne
2-Nllrophenol
4-Nltrophenol
4-Nltroqunlnollne-l -oxide
N-Nltro8od!ethytamlne
N'NItroso-dl-n-propylamlne
N-Nltrosodlphenylamlne
N-Nltrosodl-a-butylamlne
N-Nltrosomorphollne
N-Nltroeoplperldine
N'Nitrosopyrolldlne
PeCDD
PeCDF
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentaohloronltrobenzene
Pentaehlorophenol
Phenacetln
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Total Phenollce
Phenolphthaleln Alkalinity
p-Phenylemedlamlne
Phorate
2-Pleollne
Pronamlde
Proplonltrlle. Ethyl cyanide
Pyrene
Pyrldlne
Safrole
Sllvex. 2.4.6-TP
Styrene
CO
CT-1(1)
CT-K2)
CT-1(3)
CT-1(4)
CT-2(1)
CT-2(2)
CT-2(3)
CT-3(1)
CT-3(2)
CT-3(3)
CT-3(4)
-------
LANDFILL CODE
PARAMETER
Sulfotepp
TCDD
2.3,7.8-TCDD
TCDF
1 ,2,4,6-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 .1 ,1.2-Tetrachloroethane
1 .1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetrahydrofuran
Thlonadn
Toluene
o-Toluldine
Toxaphene
1 ,2.4-Trlchlorobenzene
1,1.1-Trlchloroethane
1 .1 ,2-Trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethene
Trlchlorofluoromethane
2,4.6-Trlchlorophenol
2.4.6-Trlchlorophenol
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane
1,1 ,2-Trlchlorotrlfluoroethane
o.o.o-Trlethyl phosphorothloate
2.4.6-T. 2.4.5-Trlchlorophenoxyacetlo acid
sym-Trlnitrobenzene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene (total)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Cyanides (total)
CO
CT-I(I)
0
160
0
0
30
0
CT-1(2)
0
300
0
0
20
0
CT-1(3)
0
200
0
0
110
0
CT-1(4)
0
200
10
0
40
340
CT-2(1)
0
60
10
0
50
0
CT-2(2)
.
0
100
0
0
30
0
CT-2(3)
0
100
10
0
60
20
CT-3(1)
0
400
20
10
60
0
CT-3(2)
0
300
0
0
30
0
CT-3(3)
20
BOO
10
40
620
0
CT-3(4)
0
100
10
0
50
300
-------
LANDFILL CODE
PARAMETER
Iron
Filtered Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nlckal
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Ammonia. Nitrogen
Bicarbonate
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (5-day)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (20-day)
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chlorides
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
Fluoride
Hardness by Calculation
Manganese
Nitrate
Nitrate/Nitrite
Nitrite
Organic Nitrogen
Total KJoldahl Nitrogen
OH and Grease
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (a)
pH(b)
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Sodium
Solids, volatile
Specific Conductance (c)
Sullates
CO
60
16000
4800
81000
<6000
66700
10
<1000
7.2
64000
611
118000
CT-K1)
36000
60
0
0
10
360000
3000
46000
83000
45000
23000
400000
2200
0
0
2000
6.7
20000
770
95000
CT-1(2)
68000
50
0
0
0
300000
3000
11000
6000
60000
120000
420000
6300
0
3
700
6.7
82000
780
21QOO
CT-1(3)
33000
100
0
0
0
170000
4800
24000
47000
30000
100000
250000
3500
0
0
6.6
24000
840
55000
CT-1(4)
28000
70
0
0
0
4200
65000
68000
120000
2600
0
3
800
6.4
CT-2(1)
7800
40
0
60
0
0
70
190000
1400
40000
70000
350000
45000
3300QO
4100
800
47
2200
6.0
34000
670
64000
CT-2(2)
6600
40
0
0
0
0
80
6700
18000
120000
60000
280000
2800.
400
1
1800
7.0
32000
540
07000
CT-2(3)
14000
70
0
0
0
240000
200
2100
7600
67000
25000
250000
060
1400
33
2400
0.3
31000
450
08000
CT-3(1)
200
60
0
50
0
0
70
500000
100
<1000
70000
30000
21000
440000
70
4600
13
1100
7.3
61000
070
42000
CT-3(2)
400
40
0
0
0
440000
0
<1000
20000
13000
17000
720000
80
5300
17
000
6.0
78000
220
36000
CT-3(3)
33000
40
0
0
0
650000
0
24000
0
20000
600000
2100
3000
20
320
7.0
54000
1000
44000
CT-3(4)
14000
40
0
0
260000
40
16000
16000
18000
250000
3100
5100
IB
320
6.7
33000
080
58000
-------
LANDFILL CODE
PARAMETER
Tannin
Total Dissolved Solids
Tola) Organic Carbon
Tola) Organic Halogens
Total Settled Solids (d)
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
CO
<6000
CT-H1)
480000
150000
CT-1(2)
610000
160000
CT-1(3)
500000
110000
CT-1(4)
550000
100000
CT-2(1)
440000
440000
CT-2(2)
460000
78000
CT-2(3)
270000
300000
CT-3(1)
700000
5000000
CT-3J2)
700000
3600000
CT-3(3)
630000
1900000
CT-3J4)
720000
2400000
-------
PARAMETER |CT-4(1) |CT-4(2) |CT-4(3) |CT-4(4) |CT-4(6) |CT-4(6) |CT-6(1) |CT-S(2) |CT-«(1) |CT-6<2) |CT-7(1) |CT-7(2)
pRGANICS
Acenaphthena
Acetone
Acetonllrile
Acetophenona
2-Acetylamlnofluoren0
Acroleln
Acrylonltrile
Aldrln
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordana
alpha-Endosulfan
4-Amlnoblphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Aroclor/PCB 1016
Aroclor/PCB 1221
Aroclor/PCB 1232
Aroclor/PCB 1242
Aroclor/PCB 1248
Aroclor/PCB 1264
Aroclor/PCB 1260
Benzene
Benzo-a-anthrecene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Benzo-b-fluoranthone
Benzo(k)nuoranthena
Benzo-g.h-perylene
Benzo-g,h.l-perylene
Benzo-k-perylene
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
beta-BHC
beta-Endosulfan
Bls(2-chloro8thoxy)methana
Bls(2-chloroethyl)ether
Ble(2-chlorolBOpropyl)ether
Bla(2-ohloro-1 -methyl)ether
Ble(2-«thylhexy1)phthalate
Bromodlchloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
.
-------
PARAMETER
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon dlsulflde
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonate
Chlordane
4-Chloroanlllne
p-Chloroanlllne
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzllate
2-Chloro-1,3-butadlene, Chloroprene
Chlorodlbromomethane
2-Chloroethyt Vinyl Ether
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropene. Ally! Chloride
m-Cresol
Cumena
2.4-D
4.4-DDD
4.4-DDE
4.4-DDT
delta-BHC
Dl-a-butyl phthalate
Dlallate
Dl-a-octyl phthalate
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dlbenzofuran
Dlbromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dlbromo-d-chloropropane
Dlbromomethane
1 ,2-Dlbromoethane
Dlchloroacetonltrlle
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
3-3-Dlehlorobenzldlne
CT-4J1)
CT-4(2)
CT-4(3)
CT-4(4)
CT-4(B)
CT-4(8)
CT-5(1)
CT-6(2)
CT-6(1)
CT-e<2)
CT-7(1)
CT-7(2)
*~"
-------
PARAMETER
trans- 1 ,4-Dlehloro-2-butena
Dlchlorodlfluoromelhane
1,1-Dichloroethana
cls-1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
1.1-Olchloroelhene
1.2-Dlchloroelhene
cls-1 ,2-Olchloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Olchloroethene
Dlchlorafluoromethane
2.4-Olchlorophenol
2,6-Dlehlorophenol
1,2-Olchloropropane
1 ,3-Dlchloropropane
2.2-Dlchloropropane
1 ,1-Dlehtoropropene
cls-1 ,3-Olchloropropene
trans- 1 ,3-Olchloropropene
2,3-Dlchloro-1 -propane
Dlaldrln
Dlethyl phlhalate
Dlmelhoata
p-(Dlinethylamlno)azobenzene
7/12-Dlmethylbenz(a)anthracene
3.3-Dlmethylbanzldlne
DImethylphenethylamlna
2,4-Dlmelhylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Dl-n-butyl phlhalate
4,6-Olnltro-2-methytphenol
2.4-Dlnltrophenol
2,4-Dlnltrotoluene
2,6-Dlnltrotoluene
Dl-n-octyl phthalate
Dlnoseb. DNBP
Dlphanylamlna
Dlsulloton
Endoiullan 1
Endosulfan II
Endrln
CT-4(1)
CT-4(2)
CT-4(3)
CT-4(4)
CT-4(6)
CT-4(8)
CT-S(1)
CT-5(2)
CT-6(1)
CT-«{2)
CT-7(1)
CT-7(2)
-------
PARAMETER
Endrln aldehyde
Endrln ketone
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl other
Ethyhnethacrylate
Ethyl methane eullonate
Ethyl parathlon
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor
rteplachlor epndde
Hexaehlorabenzene
Haxaehlorobutadlene
Hexachlorocyelopentadlem
Hexachloroethane
Haxachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
2-Hexanone
Hx-CDD
HxCDF
lndeno(1 ,2.3-«d)pyrene
lodomelhane
Isobutanol
leodrln
Isophorone
2-leophorone
leoaafrole
Undane
MethacryaniUlla
Methapyrllena
Methoxychlor
3-Methytcholanthrene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl mettiane eullonate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Methyl parathlon; Parathlon mohtyl
4-Methy)-2-pentanone
2-Melhylphenol
(3&4)-Methylphenol
CT-4{1)
CT-4{2)
CT-4(3)
CT-«(4)
CT^{6)
CT-4(q
CT-5(1)
CT-5(2)
CT-6(1)
,
CT-^(2)
CT-7(1)
CT-7(2)
-------
PARAMETER
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
1.4-Naphthoqulnone
1-Naphthylamlne
2-Naphthylamlne
2-Nltroanlllno
3-Nitroanlline
4-NHroanilino '
Nitrobenzene
5-Nltro-o-tolulcllne
2-Nltrophenol
4-Nltrophenol
4-Nltroqunlnoline-1-oxlde
N-Nltrosodlethylamlne
N-Nltrosodlmethylamlna
N-Nltrosodlmethylethylamlne
N'NIlroBO-dl-n-propylamlne
N-Nitrosodlphenylamine
N-NUroBodl-a-butylamlne
N-Nltrosomorphollne
N-Nitrosoplperldine
N'NItrosopyrolldlne
PeCDD
PeCDF
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Penlaehloronltrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenaeetln
Phenanthrane
Phenol
Total Phenollca
Phenolphthaleln Alkalinity
p-Phenytemedlamlne
Phorate
2-Plcollne
Pronatnlde
Proplonltrlle. Ethyl cyanide
Pyrldlne
Safrole
SIIV6X.2.4.6-TP
Styrene
CT-4(1)
CT-4(2)
CT-4(3)
CT-4(4)
CT-4(6)
CT-4(6)
CT-5(1)
.
CT-5(2)
CT-6(1)
CT-6(2)
CT-7(1)
CT-7(2)
-------
PARAMETER
Sulfotepp
TCDD
2.3.7.8-TCDD
rcoF
1 ,2.4.6-Tolrachtorobenzene
1,1.1 .2-Telrachtoroethane
1 .1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroothane
Tetrachloroethena
2.3.4.6-Talrachlorophenol
Tetrahydrofuran
Chlonazln
Toluene
o-TduFdlne
Toxaphene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.1.1-Trlchloroathana
1.1.2-Trlehloroelhana
Trlehloroethena
2.4.5-Trlehloraphenol
2,4,6-Trlchlorophenol
1.2.3-Trlchloropropane
1 .1 ,2-Trlchlorotrlfluof oethana
o.o.o-Trlethyl phoBphorothtoate
2.4.5-T. 2.4.5-Trlchlorophenoxyacfltio acid
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene (total)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Haxavalant Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Cyanides (total)
CT-4(1)
0
400
20
0
80
0
CT-4(2)
0
200
0
0
20
0
CT-4(3)
0
200
10
10
40
40
CT-4(4)
20
CT-4(6)
1
CT-4(6)
CT-S(1)
0
300
0
0
20
0
CT-5(2J
0
100
10
0
40
90
CT-6(1)
CT-6(2)
CT-7(1)
10
0
60
CT-7(2)
30
120
440
-------
PARAMETER
Iron
Filtered Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zlno
CT-4(1)
13000
80
0
0
CT-4(2)
64000
70
0
0
CT-4(3)
14000
80
0
0
CT-4(4)
3600
CT-4(6)
120
CT-4(6)
CT-S(1)
2600
40
0
0
0
CT-5(2)
70
0
0
0
0
CT-6(1)
300
CT-6(2)
2000
CT-7(1)
1100
40
90
240
CT-7(2)
10000
360
170
2600
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Ammonia. Nitrogen
Bicarbonate
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD
i
1
S-day)
20-day)
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chlorides
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
Fluoride
Hardness by Calculation
Manganese
Nitrate
Nitrate/Nitrite
Nitrite
Organic Nitrogen
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
Oil and Grease
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (a)
pH(b)
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Sodium
Solids, volatile
Specific Conductance (c)
Sulfates
Surfactants
320000
400
21000
60000
110000
33000
320000
3400
0
8
1600
6.8
20000
670
26000
240000
1100
10000
29000
36000
30000
720000
6600
5
6
600
6.7
28000
810
65000
260000
800
<1000
32000
60000
37000
250000
3400
100
7
200
6.7
31000
810
140000
304000
440
<1000
40000
30000
3130
2800
5
320
6.5
33000
760
75000
450
0000
24000
39500
3200
<100
0
6.6
21000
46000
670
<6
600
280000
600
28000
60000
68000
15000
280000
6800
0
0
70
6.7
17000
610
40000
68000
300
35000
8000
300000
1100
100
9
600
6.2
11000
630
200000
620000
17000
1800
7.2
38000
8.0
760000
2000
330000
80000
1200
40
6
6000
24000
1200000
11000
880000
140000
1500
440
14
11000
26000
-------
PARAMETER
Tannin
Total Dissolved Solids
Tola! Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogens
Total Settled SolidB(a)
Total Suspended Sollde
Turbidity (NTU)
CT-4(1)
440000
260000
CT-4<2)
680000
6600
CT-40)
630000
140000
CT-4(4)
510000
18000
CT-4(S)
521000
CT-4
-------
PARAMETER
ORGANtCS
Acanaphthene
Acetone
Acetonltrile
Aeetophenona
2-Acetylamlnofluorane
Aeroleln
Acrylonltrile
Aldrln
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
alpha-Endosulfan
4-Amlnoblphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramlte
Aroelor/PCB 1018
Aroclor/PCB1221
Aroclor/PCB1232
Aroclor/PCB1242
Aroclor/PCB1248
Aroclor/PCB1254
Aroclor/PCB1260
Benzene
Benzo-a-anthracene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Benzo-b-fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo-g.h-perytene
Benzo-g.h.l-perylane
Benzo-k-perylene
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
beta-BHC
beta-EndoBullan
Bl8(2-chtoroethoxy)methane
Ble(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bls(2-«hlorolBopropyl)ether
Bls(2-chloro-1-methy1)ether
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodlchloromethane
Bromolorm
Bromomethane
CT-7(3)
IA-1
<10
-------
PARAMETER
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon dlsulfide
Carbon tetrachlorlde
Carbonate
Chlordane
4-Chloroanlllne
p-Chloroanlllne
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzllate
2-Chloro-1,3-butadlene, Chloroprene
Chlorodlbromomelhane
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethana
4-Chloro-3-methytphenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropene. Ally! Chloride
Chrysene
m-Cresol
Cumene
2.4-D
4.4-ODO
4.4-DDE
4.4-ODT
delta-BHC
Dl-a-butyl phlhalate
Dlallate
Ol-a-oelyl phthalate
Dlbanzo(alh)anthraeene
Dlbenzofuran
Dlbromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dlbromo-d-chloropropane
1 ,2-Olbromoethane
Dlchloroacetonltrlle
1 ,2-Olchlorobenzene
1 ,3-Olehlorobenzene
1 ,4-Olchlorobenzene
3-3-Dlchlorobenzldlne
CT-7(3)
IA-1
<10
<10
<0.3
<0.1
<10
<1
<1
10.6
<1
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
<10
<1
<10
<10
<10
<20
IA-2
<10
<10
<0.3
<0.1
<10
<1
<1
353
<1
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.05
-------
PARAMETER
trans- 1 ,4-Dlchloro-2-butena
DIcMorodlfluoromethane
1.1-Olchloroethane
cle-1 ,2-Olchloroethano
1.2-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dlohloroethena
1,2-Dlchloroethene
cla-1.2-Olchloroethane
trans- 1 .2-Dlchloroethene
Dlchlorofluoromelhana
2.4-Dlchlorophonol
2.6-Dlchlorophenol .
1 ,2-Dlchloropropane
1 ,3-Dlchloropropane
2.2-Dlchtoropropane
1,1-Dlchloropropeno
cla-1 ,3-Dlchloropropene
trana-1 .3-Dlchloroproparra
2.3-OlcMoto-l-firopene
Dleldrln
Dlethyl phlhatate
Dlmethoate
p-{Dlmethylamlno)azobenzene
7/12-Olmethy)benz(a)anthracena
3.3-Dlmethytbenzldlne
Dlmathylphanathylamlna
2.4-Olmalhylphanel
Dimethyl phlhalate
Ol-n-butyl phlhalate
1.3-Dlnnrobenzene
4.8-Olnltro-2-malhylphanol
2.4-Olnnrophenol
2.4-Olnltrotoluane
2.8-Olnltrotaluene
Ol-n-ocly)phthalata
Olnoseb. DNBP
1,4-Dlomane
Dlsulfbton
Endotulfan 1
Endoiullan II
Endoaulfan aulfate
Endrln
CT-7(3)
IA-1
6.2
1.4
<0.4
<1
<1
<10
<1
<1
<1
<0.06
<10
<10
<10
-------
PARAMETER
Endrin aldehyde
Endrln ketone
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl ether
Bhylmethacrylate
Ethyl methane eulfonate
Ethyl parathlon
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor
Heptachlorepoxide
Hexachlorobenzen'e
Hexaehlorobutadlene
Hexachloroeyclopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
2-Hexanone
Hx-COD
HxCDF
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
lodomethane
Isobutanol
Isodrln
2-leophorone
Isoaafrole
Methacryonitrlle
Methapyrllene
Methoxychlor
3-Methylcholanthrene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methane sulfonate
Methyl parathlon; Parathlon mehtyl
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
(3A4)-Methylphenol
CT-7(3)
A-1
<0.05
2.6
<10
<10
<0.06
<0.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.05
24.4
<10
<10
<10
A-2
<0.05
1.9
<10
<10
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.05
<6
<10
<10
<10
MD(1)
<0.6
-------
PARAMETER
4-Methylphencri
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphlhoqulnona
1-Naphthytamlne
2-Naphthytamlne
2-Nltroanlllne
3-Nltroanlllne
4-Nllroanillne
Nitrobenzene
6-Nltro-o-toluldlne
2-Nllrophenol
4-Nltrophenol
4-Nltroqunlnollne-1-oxlde
N-Nltrosodlethylamlne
N-Nltrosodlmethylamlne
N-Nltrosodlmethylelhylamlne
N'Nltron>-dl-n-propylamtne
N-Nltrosodlphenylamlne
N-Nllrosodl-a-bulylamlne
N-Nltrosomorphollne
N-Nitrosoplperldlne
N'NItrosopyrolldlne
PeCDD
PeCDF
reniacnioroDenzene
Pentaehloroethane
Pentachloronltrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenaeetln
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Total Phenolloe
Phenolphthaleln Alkalinity
p-Phenytemedlamlne
Phorate
2-Pleollne
Pronamlde
Proplonltrlle. Ethyl cyanide
Pyreno
Pyrldlne
Safrole
SHvex.2.4.6-TP
Styrene
CT-7(3)
IA-1
<10
<60
<60
<20
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
IA-2
<10
<60
<60
<20
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
MD(1)
MO (2)
MO (3)
MO (4)
KY
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<600
-------
PARAMETER
Sulfotepp
TCOD
2,3.7.8-TCDD
TCDF
1 ,2,4.5-Tetrachlorabenzene
1 , 1 ,1 .2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 .2.2-Tetnchloroa thane
Tetnwhloroelhena
2.3,4.6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetrahydraluran
Thionazln
Toluene
o-Toluldlne
Toxaphene
1 ,2.4-Trlehlorolianzane
I.M-Trtehtoroethane
1.U-Trhihtoio«lhane
Trlchtoroethene
Trfchtorafluoromathane
2.4.6-Trlchlorophenol
2,4,a-TrtcMoiopt\enol
1 ,2.3-Trlchloropropana
1 .1 .2-Trlchtorotrllliioraethane
o.o.o-Trlelhyl ptiospliorerthloate
2,4,6-T, 2,4.6-Trichlorophanoxyaeaitle acid
sym-Trinltrobenzene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chtoflde
Xytene (total)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Cyanides (total)
CT-7(3)
20
60
200
IA-1
<1
4.8
30.3
<0.1
<10
<1
<1
32
-------
PARAMETER
ran
Altered Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Ammonia. Nitrogen
Bicarbonate
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (5-day)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (20-day)
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chlorides
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
Fluoride
Hardness by Calculation
Manganese
Nitrate
Nitrate/Nitrite
Nitrite
Organic Nitrogen
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
OH and Grease
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (a)
pH(b)
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Sodium
Solids, volatile
Specific Conductance (c)
Sulfates
Surfactants
CT-7(3)
SSOO
110
100
610
1050000
2000
605000
110000
1800
240
10
5000
24500
IA-1
49100
13
05
<50
1 10000
<10
403
18400
170000
130000
153000
<1000
23500
6.0
3900
1300
170000
IA-2
48500
40
05
99
3020
<10
135
<1000
15000
14000
39800
<1000
17900
70
<3000
<1000
380000
MD(1)
46000
<200
120000
-------
PARAMETER
Tannin
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogens
Total Settled Sollde(d)
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (MTU)
CT-7»3)
3460000
245000
IA-1
6100000
IA-2
140000
MD(1)
1006000
630
MD|2)
MD{3)
MD(4)
KY
1200000
62000
860
3BOOOO
MA
6500000
1000000
910
01000
Ml
3000000
160000
740
<10000
MN(1)
1700000
<4000
MN(2|
6740000
21000
-------
PARAMETER |MN(3) |MN(4) |MN(6) |MN(6) |MN(7) |MN(8) |NY-1(1) |NY-1(2) |NY-1(3) |NY-1(4) |NY-1(5) |NY-1(6)
ORQANICS
Acenaphlhene
Acetone
Acetonltrlle
Acetophenone
2-Acetylamlnofluorene
Acroleln
Acrylonltrlle
Aldrln
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
alpha-Endosultan
4-Amlnoblphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramlte
Aroclor/PCB 1016
Aroclor/PCB 1221
Aroclor/PCB 1232
Aroclor/PCB 1242
Aroclor/PCB 1248
Aroclor/PCB 1264
Aroclor/PCB 1260
Benzene
Benzo-a-anthracene
Benzo-a-pyrane
Benzo-b-fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo-g.h-perylene
Benzo-g.h.l-perylene
Banzo-k-perylene
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
beta-BHC
beta-Endosulfan
Bl8(2-chloroetrioxy)methano
Bls(2-chloroethyl)ethBr
Bls(2-chlorol80propyl)ether
Bleff-chloro-l-rnethyQetner
Bls(2-«thylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodlchloromethane
Bramoform
Bromomethana
-
<10
26Q)
<0.054
<0.64
<0.54
<0.1
<10
<0.54
<0.64
<0.64
<0.64
<0.54
<1.1
<1.1
0
^1 0
<1.0
^1 0
^1 tO
-------
PARAMETER
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon dlsulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonate
Chlordane
4-Chloroanlllne
p-Chloroanlllne
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzllate
2-Chloro-1.3-butadlena. Chloroprene
Chlorodlbromomathane
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
Chloroelhana
Chloroform
Chloromethane
4-Chloro-3-methytphenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropeno. Ally) Chloride
Chryeene
m-Cresol
Cumena
2.4-0
4.4-ODD
4.4-DDE
4.4-ODT
delta-BHC
Dl-a-butyl phthalate
Dlallate
Dl-a-oetyl phthalate
Dlbenzo(alh)anlhracene
Dlbenzofuran
Dlbromochloromethane
1 .2-Dlbromo-d-chloropropane
Dlbromomethane
1.2-Dlbromoethane
Dlchloroaeetonltrlle
1 ,2-Dlehlorobenzene
1.3-Dlchlorobanzene
1.4-Dlehlorobenzene
3-3-Dlchlorobenzldlne
MN(3)
MN(4)
MN(6)
MN(8)
MN(7)
MN(8)
NY-1(1)
<10
<10
<6
<5
<0.1
<10
<5
<5
NO
<10
<5
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.1
<0.11
<0.11.
<0.10
<0.54
<10
<10
<5
<10
<10
<10
<20
NY-1(2)
<10
<10
<5
<5
<10
<6
<10
<5
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.11
<0.11
<0.10
<0.056
<10(f)
<10
<5
<10
<10
<10
<20
NY-1(3)
<10
<10
<5
<6
<10
<6
<10
<6
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.1
<0.052
<10
<10
<5
<10
<10
<10
<20
NY-1(4)
<10
<10
<5
<5
<10
<6
<5
<6
<5
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.11
<0.051
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
NY-1(6)
<2
<2
<2
<0.1
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.11
<0.1
<2
<2
<2
-------
PARAMETER
trans- 1 ,4-Dlchloro-2-biitene
Dlchlorodlfluoromethane
1.1-Dlchloroethana
els-I.Z-Dlchloroethane
1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
1.1-Dlchloroethane
1.2-Dlehloroethene
cla-1 ,2-Dlchloroethene
lrane-1 ,2-Dlchloroelhene
Dlehloronuoromethane
2.4-Dlchlorophenol
2,6-Olchloropheno)
1 ,2-Dlchloropropane
1.3-Dlchloropropane
2.2-Dlohloropropane
1.1-Dlehloropropane
cla-1 ,3-Olchlw opropene
lrana-1 ,3-Dlchloropropana
2.3-Dlchloro-l-propene
Dleldrin
Dlethyl phlhalata
Dlmethoate
p-(Olmethylacnlno)azobenzena
7/12-Dlmethylbenz(a)anthrac8ne
3.3-Dlmethylbenzldlna
Dlmethylphenethytamlne
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Ol-n-butylphthalato
1,3-Dlnltrobenzena
4,6-Dlnltro-2-methylphenol
2.4-Dlnltrophenol
2,4-Olnltrotoluene
2.6-Dlnltrotoluena
Dl-n-octyt phthalata
Dlnoteb. DNBP
1.4-Dlomene
Dlphanylamlna
Dlsulfbton
Endosultan 1
Endosullan II
Entfosulfan eullate
Endrln
MN(3)
MN(4)
MN(6)
MN(8)
MN(7)
MN(8)
NY-K1)
<5
<5
<5
<5
<6
<10
<6
<5
<6
<0.11
<10
<10.
<10
<10
<60
<50
<10
<10
<10
<0.64
<0.11
<0.10
<0.11
NY-1(2)
<5
-------
PARAMETER
Endrln aldehyde
Endrln ketone
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl ether
Elhylmethacrylate
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Ethyl parathlon
Fatnphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Hexachlorobenzehe '
Hexachlorobutadlene
Hexachlorocyclopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
2-Hexanone
Hx-CDD
HxCDF
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
lodomethane
leodrln
2-leophorone
leosafrole
Llndane
Methacryonltrile
Methapyrllene
Methoxychlor
3-Methylcholanthrene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methane eullonate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Methyl parathlon; Parathlon mehtyl
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
(3&4)-Methylphenol
MN(3)
MN(4)
MN(5)
MN(6)
MN(7)
MN(B)
NY-1(1)
<0.1
<0.11
<5
<10
<10
-------
PARAMETER
4-Methytphenol
Naphthalene
1.4-Naphthoqulnone
l-Naphthylamlne
2-Naphthylamlne
2-Nltroanlllne
3-Nllroanlllna
4-Nltroanllina
Nitrobenzene
6-Nltro-o-toluldlne
2-Nltrophenol
4-Nltrophenol
4-Nltroqunlnollne-1-oxlde
N-Nltrosodlethylamlne
N-NltroBodlmethylamlne
N-Nltrasodlmethylethylamlne
N'NItroso-dl-n-propylamlne
N-Nltrosodlphenylamlne
N-Nltrosodl-a-bulytamlne
N-Nltrosomorphollne
N-Nitrosoplperldlne
N'Nilrotopyrolldlne
PeCDO
PeCDF
Pentaohlorobenzena
Penlachloroethane
Pentachloronltrobenzene
Penlaohlorophenol
Phenacetln
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Total Phenollcs
Phenolphthaleln Alkalinity
p-Phenylemedlamlne
Phorate
2-Pleollne
Pronamlde
Proplonltrile. Ethyl cyanide
Pyrene
Pyrldlne
Safrole
Sllvex. 2.4.6-TP
Styrene
MN(3)
MM (4)
MM (5)
MN(6)
MN(7)
MN(8)
NY-1(1)
<10
<10
<60
<50
-------
PARAMETER
Sultotepp
TCDD
2,3.7,8-TCDD
TCDF
1 ,2.4.6-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,1 .1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 .1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2,3,4,8-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetrahydroluran
Thlonazln
Toluene
o-Toluldlne
Toxaphene
1 ,2,4-Trlchlorobenzene
1.1.1-Trlchloroethane
1.1.2-Trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethene
Trlchlorofluoromethane
2.4.6-Trlchlorophenol
2.4.6-Trlchlorophenol
1 ,2.3-Trlchloropropane
1 .1 ,2-Trlchlorotrlfluoroethane
0.0.0-Trlethyl phosphorothloate
2.4.6-T. 2.4.6-Trlchlorophenoxyacetlo acid
sym-Trlnltrobenzene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene (total)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Areenlo
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Haxavalent Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Cyanides (total)
MM (3)
<2
NA
0.2
<10
10
MN(4)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MN(S)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MN(6)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MM (7)
5
100
<0.1
<1
<10
MN(8)
2
160
<0.4
<4
<10
NY-1(1)
<5
<5
<5
<1.1
<10
<10
<5
<5
<60
<10
0.12
<10.
<10
<5
2800
<40
20.7
383
<2
<5
01 .5(0)
<50
192(0
7.3(0
48.5
38
NY-1(2)
-------
PARAMETER
Iron
Filtered Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Ammonia. Nitrogen
Bicarbonate
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (6-day)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (20-day)
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chlorides
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
Fluoride
Hardness by Calculation
Manganese
Nitrate
Nitrate/Nitrite
Nitrite
Organic Nitrogen
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
OH and Qrease
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (a)
pH(b)
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Sodium
Solids, volatile
Specific Conductance (c)
Sulfates
Surfactants
MN(3)
220
<1
280000
<0.2
13000
<10
770000
820
620000
NA
460000
12000
<250
<260
440
NA
230000
170000
MM (4)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
230000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MN(6)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
NA
180000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.8
NA
NA
MN(6)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
110000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.9
NA
NA
MN(7)
9500
<0.2
130000
<0.2
14000
10
670
990
280000
110000
100000
3100
280
<3
176
7.1
100000
730000
MN(8)
14000
<0.2
160000
0.3
16000
30
790
<60
340000
230000
100000
3900
910
<3
168
6.9
95000
910000
NY-1(1)
9000 (e)
<2
225000
<0.02
109
302000
4.6 B
<5
<16
16.5(0
<22
1800000
170000
26000
162.000
1100000
1300000
1100000
4120
<300
290
120000
32.6
7.2
666000
3550
29000
135
NY-1(2)
14000
<4.2
180000
<0.2
67.8
270000
6
<5
<10.0
62.7(0
47.9
1100000
81000
130000
160000
540000
600000
620000
3300
1300
3730
34.6
7.1
530000
6000
200000
<25
NY-t(3)
8140 (e)
<2
213000
<0.02
45.9
309000
2.2(0
<5
<16
14.6(0
<9.3
940000
91000
67000
180.000
630000
680000
690000
1800
750
16320
45.5
6.3
622000
400
320000
<26
NY-1(4)
22000
<2
89000
<0.2
<14
120000
<5
<14
<4
<40
91
130000
730
68000
100000
60000
61000
160000
2600
610
19000
35.6
6.2
230000
465
66000
<100
NY-I(S)
730
2.9
14000
<0.2
6300
<5
<10
<37
110000
<500
38000
41000
38000
180000
92
550
37900
7.3
19000
1940
76000
<100
NY-1(6)
62600
<10
203000
<0.2
<500
<4
<10
100
1600000
120000
187000
980000
840000
1400000
4680
<100
250000
6.9
1660
400000
1100
-------
PARAMETER
Tannin
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogens
Total Settled Solids (d)
Tola) Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
MM (3)
4800000
65000
MM (4)
NA
NA
MN(5)
NA
4000
MM (6)
NA
320000
MN(7)
2000000
23000
MN(B)
2500000
51000
NY-1(1)
4000000
340000
87000
110
NY-1(2)
2400000
180000
65
NY-10)
1900000
160000
14
NY-1(4)
350000
6100
5.8
NY-1(6)
220000
2800
10
NY-1(6)
3700000
200000
-------
PARAMETER
ORQANIOS
Acenaphthene
Acetone
Acetonltrlle
Acetophenone
2-Acetylamlnofluorene
Acroleln
Acrylonilrile
Aldrln
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
alpha-Endosullan
4-Amlnoblphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramlte
Aroelor/PCB 1016
Aroclor/PCB 1221
Aroclor/PCB 1232
Aroclor/PCB 1242
Aroclor/PCB 1248
Aroclor/PCB 1264
Aroclor/PCB 1260
Benzene
Benzo-a-anthracene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Benzo-b-fluoranthene
Benzo-g.h-perylene
Benzo-g.h.l-perytene
Benzo-k-perylene
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
beta-Endosulfan
Bla(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bls(2-chloroethyt)ether
Bl8(2-chlorol8opropyl)ether
Ble(2-chloro-1-methyl)ether
Bla(2-«thylhexyl)phthalate
NY-1(7) |NY-1(8) |NY-1(9) |NY-1(10) |NY-1(11) |NY-1(12) |NY-1(13) |NY-1(14) |NY-1(15) |NY-1(16) |NY-1(17) |NY-1(1B)
<10
<10
<10
<2
-------
PARAMETER
4-Bromophenyl-phenylelher
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon dlaulflde
Carbon tetrachlorlda
Carbonate
Chtordane
4-Chloroanlllne
p-Chloroanllina
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobeniilata
2-Chloro-1.3-butadl0na. Chloroprane
cniorooiDrornonieinane
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
Chloroethane
Chloromelhane
4-Chloro-3-methylprienol
4-Chlorophanyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthatane
3-CMoropropene. Ally) Chloride
Chryeene
m-Crenl
Cumene
2.4-0
4.4-ODD
4.4-ODE
4.4-DDT
delta-BHC
Dl-a-bulylphthalate
Dlallate
Dl-a-octylphthalale
Dlbenzo(a.h)anthrBoene
Dlbenzohiran
Plbromochloromethane
1 .2-Dlbiomo-d-chloropropane
Dlbromomethane
1.2-Dibiomoethane
Dlchloroacetonltrlle'
1 ,2-Dlchterobeniene
1 .3-Dlohlorobenzene
1 ,4-Olehlorobenzene
3-a-Olchlcrobenzldlne
NY-1(7)
<1
NY-1(8J
<1
NY-1(9)
3
NY-1(10)
<1
NY-I(II)
<6
NY-1(12)
<6
NY-1(13)
<6
NY-1(14)
<20
NY-H1S)
<10
NY-1(16)
<5
NY-1(17)
<5
NY-1(1«)
1
-------
PARAMETER
trans- 1 ,4-Dlehloro-2-butene
Dlchlorodlfluoromethane
1,1-Dlchloroethane
cle-1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
1.2-Dichloroelhane
1.1-Dichloroethene
1.2-Diehloroelhene
clB-1 ,2-Oichloroethene
Iran 8-1 ,2-Diehloroethena
Dlchloronuoromethane
2,4-Dlchlorophenol
2.6-Olchlorophenol
1 ,2-Dlehloropropane
1.3-Dlchloropropane
2,2-Dlchloropropane
1.1-Dlchloropropene
elB-1.3-Dlehloropropane
Iran 8-1 ,3-Olchloropropene
2.3-Dlchloro-l-propene
Dleldrln
Dielhyl phthalate
Dlmelhoata
p-(Dlmethylamlno)a»>benzene
7/12-Olmethylbenz(a)anthracene
3.3-Dlmathylbenzldlne
Dlmethytphenelhytamlne
2,4-Dlmethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
1.3-Dlnltrobenzene
4,6-Dlnllro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dlnltrophenol
2.4-Dlnltrotoluene
2.8-Dlnltrotoluene
Dl-n-octyl phthalate
Dlnoseb. DNBP
Dlphenylamine
ntjH iifjktdu*
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrln
NY-1(7)
<1
<1
NY-K8)
3
<5
NY-I(B)
<1
<5
NY-I(IO)
<1
<6
NY-1(11)
<5
<2Q
NY-1(12)
<5
<10
NY-1(13)
<5
<5
.
NY-1(14)
<20
<5
NY-1(16)
<10
<5
NY-1{16)
<5
<5
NY-1(17)
<5
NY-I(IS)
<5
-------
PARAMETER
Endrln aldehyde
Endrln kelona
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl ether
Ethylmethacrylate
Ethyl methane sultanate
Ethyl parathlon
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Hexachlorobenzehe '
Hexachlorobutadlene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexaohloroethane
Hexaehlorophene
Hexachlorapropena
2-Hexanone
Hx-CDD
HxCDF
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
lodomathane
leobutanol
leodrln
leophorone
2-tsophorono
leosafrole
Kepone
Llndane
Methacryonltrlle
Methapyrllene
Methoxychlor
3-Methyteholanthrene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl methaerylate
Methyl methane sultanate
2-Methylnaphlhalene
Methyl parathlon; Paralhlon mehtyl
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
(3&4HMethy)phenol
NY-1J7)
NY-1(8)
NY-1(0)
NY-1(10)
NY-1(1 1)
NY-1(12)
NY-1(13)
.
NY-1(14)
NY-I(IS)
NY-1(16)
NY-1(17)
NY-1(18)
-------
PARAMETER
4-Mnthylphenol
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqulnone
1-Naphthylamlne
2-Naphthylamlne
2-Nltroanlllne
3-Nllroanlllne
4-Nllroanlllne
Nitrobenzene
6-NHro-o-toluldlne
2-Nltrophenol
4-Nitropheno!
4-Nltroqunlnollne-1-oxlde
N-Nltrosodlethylamlne
N-Nitrosodlmethylamlna
N-Nltro»odlmethylethylamlne
N'NItroso-dl-n-propylamlne
N-NltroBodlphenylainlne
N-Nltrosodl-a-butylamlne
N-Nllrosomorphollne
N-Nltrosoplparldlna
N'NItrosopyrolldlne
PeCDO
PeCDF
Pentachlorobanzene
Pentaehloroethane
Pentachloronltrobenzene
Pentachlorophonol
Phenaeetln
Phananthrene
Phanol
Total Phenollcs
Phenolphthalaln Alkalinity
p-Phenylamfldlamlne
Phorate
2-Plcollne
Pronamlde
Proplonltrlla. Ethyl cyanide
Pyrldlne
Safrole
Sllvex, 2.4,6-TP
Slyrene
NY-I(T)
<10
30
NY-1(8)
<10
<2
NY-1(9)
<10
<10
NY-I(IO)
<2
<20
NY-1(1 1)
<10
NY-1(12)
64
NY-1(13)
.
61
NY-1(14)
330
NY-1(1S)
37
NY-1(18)
NY-1(17)
NY-1(1S)
-------
PARAMETER
Sulfotepp
TCDD
2,3.7.8-TCDD
TCDF
1 ,2.4.5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,1 .1 ,2-Tetrachloroathane
1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroathene
2.3.4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Telrahydrofuran
Thlonazln
Toluene
o-Toluidlne ' '
Toxaphene
1 ,2,4-Trlchlorobenzene
1.1.1-Trlehloroethane
1.1.2-Trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethena
Trlchlorofluoromethane
2.4.5-Trlehlorophenol
2,4.6-Trlchlorophenol
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane
1 . 1 ,2-Trlchlorotrlfluoroethane
o.o.o-Trlelhyl phosphorothloate
2.4,5-T, 2,4.5-Trlchlorophenoxyacetlc acid
eym-Trlnltrobenzene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene (total)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Cobalt
Cyanide
Cyanldea (total)
NY-I(T)
<1
<1
380
<8
<4
<26
<60
-------
PARAMETER
Iron
Filtered Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Ammonia. Nitrogen
Bicarbonate
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (6-day)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (20-day)
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chlorides
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
Fluoride
Hardness by Calculation
Manganese
Nitrate
Nitrate/Nitrite
Nitrite
Organic Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Oil and Grease
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (a)
pH(b)
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Solids, volatile
Specific Conductance (c)
Sulfates
NY-1(7)
30000
<4
230000
<0.4
292000
<4
<10
<3S
398000
3470
100000
200000
800000
7300
<100
120000
6.7
460000
2700
622000
1100
NY-1(8)
12000
<5
110000
<0.4
210000
<5
<15
<3S
440000
16280
200000
160000
600000
31000
400
140000
6.8
77000
4460
870000
27
NY-1(9)
14000
-------
PARAMETER
Tannin
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogens
Total Settled Solids (d)
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
NY-I(T)
1570000
16000
NY-1(8)
1150000
60000
NY-1<9)
1810000
63000
NY-1{10)
3064000
88000
NY-1(11)
4340000
220000
NY-1(12)
4180000
260000
NY-1(13)
4340000
360000
NY-1(14)
6000000
460000
NY-I(IS)
3800000
620000
NY-l(ie)
3800000
380000
NY-1(17)
4300000
32000
NY-t(18)
4300000
400000
-------
PARAMETER
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Butyl benzyl phlhalate
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tatrachlorlde
Carbonate
Chlordane
4-Chloroanlllne
p-Chloroanlllne
Chlorobenzena
Chlorobenzllata
2-Chloro-1.3-butadlene. Chloroprana
Chlorodibromomethane
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethar
Chloroethana
Chloroform
Chloromathana
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chlorophanyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropana, Ally! Chloride
Chrysana
m-Cresol
Cumene
2.4-D
4.4-DDD
4.4-DDE
4.4-DDT
delta-BHC
Dl-a-butyl phthalata
Dlallata
Dl-a-oclyl phthalata
Dlbenzo(a.h)anthraeana
Olbanzohiran
Dlbromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dlbromo-d-chloropropane
Dlbromomathana
Dlehloroacatonltrlla
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dlehlorobenzana
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
3-3-Dlehlorobenzldlne
NY-1(19)
<5
NY-1(20)
NY-1(21)
NY-1(22)
NY-1(23)
NY-1(24)
NY-2(1)
NY-2{2)
NY-?[31
1
'
NY-2(4) |
SC(g)
TXLO(h)
0
-------
PARAMETER |NY-1(10) |NY-1(20) |NY-1{21) |NY-1(22) |NY-1(23) |NY-1(24) |NY-2(1) |NY-2(2) |NY-2(3) |NY-2(4) |SC(g) |TXLO(h)
OR8ANICS
Acenaphlhene
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
2-Acetylamlnofluorene
Aeroleln
Aerylonllrlle
Aldrln
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
alpha-Endosulfan
4-Amlnobiphenyt '
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramlte
Aroclor/PCB 1016
Aroclor/PCB 1221
Aroclor/PCB 1232
Aroclor/PCB 1242
Aroclor/PCB 1248
Aroclor/PCB 1254
Aroclor/PCB 1260
Benzene
Benzo-a-anthracene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo-g.h-perylene
Benzo-fl.h.l-perylene
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
bela-BHC
beta-EndoBullan
Bls(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bls(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bls(2-chlorol80propyl)ether
Bl8(2-chloro-1-methyl)ether
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodlchloromethane
-------
PARAMETER
Iran 8-1 ,4-Dlchloro-2-butene
Dlchlorodlfluoromethane
1.1-Dlchloroethane
cls-1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
1 ,2-Olchloroathane
1.1-Dlehloroethene
1.2-Dlchloroethene
cls-1 ,2-Olehloroethene
Iran 8-1 ,2-Dlchloroelhene
Dlehlorofluoromelhane
2,4-Dlehlorophenol
2.6-Dlehlorophenol
1,2-Dlchloropropane '
1 ,3-Dlchloropropane
2.2-Dlchloropropane
1 ,1-Dlehloropropene
cls-1 ,3-Olehloropropene
trans-1 .3-Dlchloropropene
2.3-Dlchloro-1-propene
Dleldrln
Dlelhyl phthalata
Dlmethoate
p-4Dlmethylainlno)azobenzene
7/12-Olmethytbenz(a)anthracene
3,3-Dlmethylbenzldlne
Dlmethytphenethylamlne
2.4-Dlmelhylphenol
Dimethyl phthalata
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
1 .3-Olnltrobenzana
4,e-Dlnltro-2-mathytphanol
2.4-Dlnltrotoluene
2.6-Dlnltrotoluane
Dl-n-octyl phthalate
1,4-Dlomene
Dlphenytamlne
DltuKoton
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrln
NY-l(lfl)
-------
PARAMETER
Endrln aldehyde
Endrln fcetone
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl ether
Ethylmethacrytate
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Ethyl parathlon
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptaehlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Hexachlorobenzen'e
Hexachlorobuladiene
Hexaehlorocyclopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
2-Hexanone
Hx-CDD
HxCDF
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
lodomethane
Icobutanol
Isodrln
Iraphorone
2-leophorone
leosafrole
Kepone
Llndane
Methacryonitrile
Methapyrilene
Methoxychlor
3-Methylcholanlhrena
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone(MEK)
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methane sultanate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Methyl parathlon; Parathlon mehtyl
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
(3&4)-Methylphenol
NY-1(19)
NY-1(20)
NY-1(21)
NY-1(22)
NY-1(23)
NY-1(24)
NY-2(1)
NY-2(2)
NY-2(3)
/
NY-2{4)
SC(g)
TXLO(h)
-------
PARAMETER
4-Methytphenol
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqulnone
1-Naphlhylamlne
2-Naphthylamlne
2-Nltroanlllne
3-Nltroanlllne
4-Nitroanlllne
Nitrobenzene
S-Nltro-o-toluldina
2-Nltrophenol
4-Nltrophenol
4-Nltroqunlnollne-1-oxlde
N-Nltroeodlethyiamlne
N-Nitrosodlmethylamlne
N-Nltrosodimethylelhylamlne
N'NItroso-dl-n-propylainine
N-Nltrosodlphenylamlne
N-Nltrosodl-a-butylamlne
N-Nltrosomorphollne
N-Nltrosoplperldlne
N'NItrosopyrolldlna
PeCDD
PeCDF
Pentachlorobenzene
Pantachloroethane
Pantachloronltrobanzana
Pentachlorophenol
Phanacetln
Phananthrena
Phanol
Total Phanollca
Phandphthalain Alkalinity
p-Phenylemedlamlne
Phorate
2-Plcollne
Pronamlde
Proplonltrlle. Ethyl cyanide
Pyrene
Pyrldlne
Safrola
Sllvex,2.4.6-TP
Styrene
NY-1(10)
NY-1(20)
NY-1(21)
NY-1(22)
NY-1(23)
NY-1(24)
NY-2(1)
11
NY-2(2)
13
NY-2(3)
32
NY-2(4)
<10
SC(g)
TXLO(h)
700
0
-------
PARAMETER
Sulfotepp
TCDD
2.3.7.8-TCDD
TCDF
1 ,2.4.6-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,1 .1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 .1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2,3,4.6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetrahydrofuran
Thlonazln
Toluene
o-Toluldlne
Toxaphene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.1,1-Trlchloroethane
1.1.2-Trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethene
Trlchlorofluoromethane
2.4.5-Trlchlorophenol
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane
1 .1 .2-Trichlorolrinuoroethana
o.a,o-Trlethyl phosphorothloate
2.4.5-T. 2.4.6-Trlchlorophenoxyacetio acid
sym-Trlnltrobanzene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene (total)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Cyanides (total)
NY-1(19)
<5
<5
<60
41
22
<16
8.6
NY-1(20)
<20
NY-1(21)
54
NY-1(22)
7
NY-K23)
<2
NY-1(24)
<2
NY-2(1)
.
NY-2(2)
NY-2(3)
<1
2050
<1
NY-2(4)
<1
SC(g)
120
11
70
51
TXLO(h)
17
1500
1400
20
100
180
140
<100
-------
PARAMETER
Iron
Filtered Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Ammonia. Nitrogen
Bicarbonate
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (6-day)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (20-day)
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chlorides
Dissolved Oxygen ()
Fluoride
Hardness by Calculation
Manganese
Nitrate
Nitrate/Nitrite
Nitrite
Organic Nitrogen
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
OH and Grease
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (a)
pH(b)
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Solids, volatile
Specific Conductance (c)
Sulfatea
Surfactants
NY-I(IO)
4600
20
<0.2
10
28
460000
210000
1000000
1400000
090
170
670000
100000
NY-1(20)
esoo
<20
37000
210000
630000
1800
<100
680000
440000
NY-1(21)
14000
12
250000
300000
580000
4600
400000
383000
NY-1(22)
32000
<2
170000
7400
340000
NY-1(23)
7100
<2
100000
110
200000
NY-1(24)
230
<2
44000
1600
18000
NY-2(1)
123
2
1020
238
,
300000
120
<30
78500
100000
4.8
340000
7810
130
6.0
26700
1060
211000
NY-2(2)
03400
669
5200
17600
663000
1170
136000
202400
143000
3.8
840000
268000
<10
6.6
100000
2010
225000
NY-2(3)
17520
25
40230
77830
648000
1170
124000
200000
77600
46
2420000
21000
<10
62
40200
1000
310000
NY-2(4)
1400
11
122000
112000
1480000
10600
06400
508000
1150000
0.3
17000
60
6.8
233000
1600
11700
SC(g)
6400
680
2400000
6000
620
2700000
TXLO(h)
20000
240
220
82000
<2
118000
<1
<10
1700
1710000
30000
2080000
100000
148000
3080000
125000
<100
607000
1000
4000
ND
18000
66
2600
256000
2820
<40000
-------
PARAMETER
Tannin
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogens
Total Settled Solids (d)
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
NY-1(10)
4300000
380000
NY-1(20)
4600000
450000
NY-1(21)
1400000
240000
NY-1(22)
NY-1(23)
NY-1(24)
NY-2(1)
702000
<1000
0.74
NY-2(2)
1428000
82000
3.0
NY-2(3)
1110000
105000
25
NY-2(4)
2040000
19000
7
SC(g)
8400000
TXLO(h)
2412000
76000
1000000
-------
PARAMETER
ORGANICS
Acanaphthena
Acetone
Aeetonltrlle
Acetophenone
2-Acetylamlnofluorene
Aerolein
Acrylonltrile
Aldrln
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
alpha-Endoeullan
4-Amfnoblphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramlte
Aroclor/PCB 1016
Aroclor/PCB 1221
Aroclor/PCB 1232
Aroclor/PCB 1242
Aroclor/PCB 1248
Aroclor/PCB 1254
Aroclor/PCB 1260
Benzene
Benzo-a-anthracene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Benzo-b-fluoranthene
Benzoftyfluoranthene
Benzo-g.h-perylene
Benzo-g.h.l-perytene
Benzo-k-perylene
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
beta-BHC
beta-EndoBulfan
Bls(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bls(2-chloroethyt)ether
Blt(2-chlorolBopropyl)ether
Bls(2-chloro-1-methyl)ether
Bls(2-ethylhexyi)phthalate
Bromodlchloromethane
Bromotarm
Bromomethane
TXHI(h)
WA(1)
<10
00
<10
<1
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
190
<60
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.3
<2.5
O.1
WA(2)
<10
450
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
010
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<3
<25
<31
WA(3)
<10
150
<10
<1
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
210
<60
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.3
<2.5
<3.1
WA(4)
470(1)
<1
<0.3
<2.5
<3.1
-------
PARAMETER
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon dlsulfide
Carbon letrachlorlde
Carbonate
Chlordane
4-Chloroanlllne
p-Chloroanlllne
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzllate
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene, Chloroprene
Chlorodfbromomethane
2-Ghloroethyl Vinyl Bher
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropene. Allyl Chloride
Chrysene
m-Cresol
Cumeno
2.4-D
4.4-DDD
4.4-DDE
4.4-DDT
delta-BHC
Dl-a-butyl phthalate
Dlallate
Dl-a-octyl phthalate
Dlbenzo(alh)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dlbromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dlbromo-d-chloropropane
Dlbromomethane
1.2-Dlbromoethane
Dlchloroacetonltrlle
1.2-Olchlorobenzene
1.3-Dlehlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
3-3-Dlchlorobenzldlne
TX HI (h)
0
WA(1>
<10
<10
1.8
<0.9
<30
<0.9
<2.7
<3.3
<1.1
0.8
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.7
<10
<10
<10
<50
WA(2)
<10
<10
<12
<9
<30
<9
<27
<33
<11
08
<20
-------
PARAMETER
trana-1 .4-Dlchloro-2-butene
Dlchlorodinuoromelhane
1.1-Dlchloroethano
cls-1 ,2-Olehloroethane
1.2-Olchloroethane
1.1-Dlehloroethene
1.2-Dlehloroelhene
cle-1,2-Dlchloroethene
trana-1 ,2-Oichloroethene
Dlchlorofluoromethane
2.4-Olchlorophenol
2,6-Dlchlorophenol
1.2-Dlchloropropana
1 ,3-Olchloropropane
2,2-Dlchloropropane
1 ,1 -Olehloropropane
elB-1 ,3-Dlehloropropene
lrana-1 ,3-Dlchloropropene
2.3-Olehloro-l-propene
Dleldrln
Dlethyl phlhalate
Dlmethoate
p-
-------
PARAMETER
Endrin aldehyde
Endrln ketone
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl ether
Ethylmethacrylate
Ethyl methane eulfonate
Ethyl parathlon
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor .
Heptaehlor epoxlde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
Hexaehlorocyclopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
2-Hexanone
Hx-CDD
HxCDF
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
lodomethane
Isobutanol
Isodrln
Isophorone
2-lsophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
Llndane
Methacryonltrlle
Methapyrllene
Methoxyehlor
3-Methylcholanthrene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methane sulfonate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Methyl parathlon; Parathlon mehtyl
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
(3&4)-Methylphenol
TXHI(h)
WA(1)
0.80)
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
<20
<3.3
<3.2
<10
<10
<3.3
14
<10
<3.5
130
WA(2)
<8
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
<20
<33
<32
<10
<10
<33
80
<10
<35
36
WA(3)
-------
PARAMETER
4-Methylphanol
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqulnone
1-Naphthytamlna
2-Naphlhytamlna
2-Nllroanlllne
3-NHroanlltno
4-Nllroanlllne '
Nltrobeiuane
&-Nllro-o-toluldlne
2-Nltrophenol
4-Nltrophenol
4-Nltroqunlnollhe-1^oxlde
N-Nlliosodlettiylamlna .
N-Nltrosodlmethylethylamlna
N'NItroso-dl-n-propytamlne
N-Nltrosodlphenylamlne
N-Nltrowdl-a-4>uty1amfno
N-Nltrotomorphollna
N-Nltrowplparldlna
N'NttrasopyiolMlne
PaCDD
PaCOF
Pentaehlorobanzene
Pentaehloroethane
Pentachloronllrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacelln
Phenanlhrene
Phenol
Total Phenollca
Phenolphthaleln Alkalinity
p-Phanylemedlamfne
Phorato
2-Pteollne
ProplonfUile, Ethyl cyanide
Pyrane
Pyrldlne
Satrole
S1IVOX.2.4.6-TP
Styrane
TXHI(h)
2990
0
WA(1)
1600
3.8(0
<50
<50
<50
-------
PARAMETER
Sulfotepp
TCDD
2.3.7.8-TCOD
TCOF
1 ,2.4.5-Tetiachlorobenzene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene1
2,3,4,8-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetrahydroturan
Thlonazln
Toluene
o-Toluldlne
Toxaphene
1 ,2,4-Trlchlorobenzene
1.1.1-Trlchloroethane
1.1.2-Trlehloroethane
Trlchloroethene
Trlchlorofluoromethane
2.4.6-Trlchlorophenol
2.4.6-Trlctitorophenol
1 ,2,3-Tt IchloropiopanB
1,1 ,2-Trlchtorolrinuoroethane
0,0.0-Trlethyl phoaphorothloate
2,4,5-T, 2.4,6-Trichlorophenoxyacetlo add
sym-Tclnltrobenzeno
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene (total)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Areenlc
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Hexavatent Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Cyanides (total)
TXHI(h)
76
8000
3900
30
250
4920
490
<100
WA(1)
<2.7
<0.5
1
<10
-------
PARAMETER
ran
Filtered Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
TXHI(h)
172000
11000
2130
192000
0
618000
<1
30
8630
WA(1)
30
10
17
WA(2)
30
20
24
WA(3)
30
60
1420
WA(4)
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Ammonia. Nitrogen
Bicarbonate
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (5-day)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (20-day)
Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chlorides
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
Fluoride
Hardness by Calculation
Manganese
Nitrate
Nitrate/Nitrite
Nitrite
Organic Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
OH and Qrease
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (a)
pH(b)
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Sodium
Solids, volatile
Specific Conductance (c)
Sulfataa
Surfactants
8520000
184000
7050000
320000
678000
11200000
240000
400
1616000
4900
13000
ND
47000
7.3
3890
1290000
6860
<40000
60000
.
40000
40000
-------
PARAMETER
Tannin
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogena
Total Settled Solids (d)
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
TXHI(h)
4270000
1080000
43000000
WA(1)
<100
WA12)
<100
WA(3)
<100
WA(4)
-------
CHAPTER 4
STATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILLS
In a 1992 study, EPA estimated that approximately 1.800 off-site C&D landfill facilities were in
operation across the SO states.1 In another study conducted in 1994, EPA estimated that the number of C&D
landfills in operation nationwide approximated 2,775. This estimate included, however, approximately 930 C&D
landfills in the State of Georgia alone. The State includes in this figure a substantial number of on-site landfills
used solely for the disposal of construction and land-clearing debris generated in the construction of new homes
Discounting the Georgia estimate leaves approximately 1,845 C&D landfills in operation, or nearly the same
number estimated in the 1992 study.2 Both estimates compare to the approximate 5,000 or more permitted
MSWLFs.
Another source of disposal for C&D waste is in on-site facilities. Typically, these sites are used only
for the disposal of C&D waste generated at that site and are closed following completion of the activity.
Because these sites are on privately-owned land and receive only waste generated at that site, little data exists on
the number of these facilities nationwide. In fact, in EPA's 1994 study only one other state aside from Georgia
could estimate the number of on-site landfills in that state. That number was one landfill.3
This chapter summarizes existing state statutes and regulations for C&D landfills. Specifically, the
chapter focuses on similarities and differences between current state requirements for C&D landfills and Federal
requirements for MSWLFs found at 40 CFR Part 258. This comparison enables EPA to gauge whether existing
state requirements for C&D landfills are sufficient to protect human health and the environment.
To summarize existing state requirements, EPA gathered information on the most recent state C&D
landfill requirements from state solid waste statutes and regulations presented in publications by The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc.4 EPA summarized these state requirements vis-a-vis their relationship to 40 CFR Pan
258. In summarizing, EPA differentiated between the requirements for on-site and off-site facilities, respectively.
The first section of this chapter provides an overview of state regulatory classification schemes for C&D
landfills. The second, third, and fourth sections, respectively compare state location standards, ground-water
monitoring requirements, and corrective action requirements for C&D landfills with the requirements found at 40
CFR Part 258. The final section briefly discusses other requirements, such as permits and financial assurance,
that states may have for C&D landfills.
OVERVIEW OF STATE REGULATORY SCHEMES FOR C&D LANDFILLS
States use a variety of schemes to classify and subsequently regulate C&D landfills. A breakdown of
the schemes the 50 states use for both on-site and off-site C&D landfills is found in Attachment 4-A. These
schemes can be divided into the following four categories:
1 "Construction Waste and Demolition Debris Recycling ... A Primer," Gershman, Brickner and Bratton, Inc.,
October 1993.
2 "List of Industrial Waste Landfills and Construction & Demolition Waste Landfills," EPA/OSW, September
1994.
3 Ibid.
4 Ohio has a definition for construction and demolition debris and a requirement for a C&D debris disposal
facility license. However, the State currently does not have regulations for C&D debris management and permitting
requirements but expects regulations to be finalized by the end of 1995.
***
February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 4-1
-------
States that require all C&D landfills to meet state sanitary landfill requirements. A total
of 11 states currently require both on-site and off-site C&D landfills to meet state sanitary
landfill requirements or requirements that are substantially similar to state sanitary landfill
requirements. These states are: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island. State sanitary landfill
requirements are not always as stringent as the requirements in 40 CFR Pan 258.
States that regulate all C&D landfills as a landfill unit separate from sanitary landfills. A
total of 24 states currently have separate, specific requirements for all C&D landfills, regardless
of where sited. These states' requirements may also vary depending on the size of the landfill,
the type of waste received, etc. These variations are identified in Attachment 4-A. These
states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,
Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio5,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
States with separate requirements for on-site and off-site C&D landfills. In addition to the
24 states that regulate all C&D landfills as a landfill unit separate from sanitary landfills, eight
states have defined further separate requirements applicable to on-site and off-site C&D
landfills. These states are: Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, and West Virginia.
States that exempt on-site C&D landfills from regulation. A total of seven states exempt all
on-site C&D landfills from regulatory requirements. These states are: Colorado, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah. Five of these states have specific
requirements for off-site facilities, while two currently require off-site facilities to meet state
sanitary landfill requirements.
The following three sections discuss specific state requirements regarding location restrictions, ground-
water monitoring, and corrective action in comparison to 40 CFR Pan 258. Overall, 16 states have requirements
for off-site C&D landfills in all three of these categories. These states are as follows:
California Connecticut
Delaware Georgia
Illinois Kentucky
Michigan Nevada
New Jersey New Mexico
New York Pennsylvania
Rhode Island Virginia
West Virginia Wisconsin
Most of these states' requirements, however, are less stringent than 40 CFR Pan 258. For example,
many of these states require ground-water monitoring, but not the same frequency or parameters identified in 40
CFR Pan 258. Additionally, many of these states do not list all of the six specific location restrictions found at
40 CFR Pan 258. Two of these states, however, have requirements in all three categories for off-site C&D
landfills that are at least as stringent as 40 CFR Pan 258. These states are Michigan and Nevada. Thus, relative
to 40 CFR Pan 258, these states have all six specified location restrictions, the same or more stringent ground-
water monitoring frequencies and parameters, and the same or more stringent corrective action requirements.
5 Ohio expects to have specific C&D management requirements effective by the end of 1995.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 4-2
-------
LOCATION STANDARDS
This section compares state location standards for C&D landfills to 40 CFR Part 258 and identifies
other, common restrictions states may require.
Comparison of State Requirements to EPA's MSWLF Requirements
EPA's MSWLF regulations (40 CFR Pan 2S8) place restrictions on facilities located in or near the
following six areas: airports, floodplains, wetlands, faults, seismic impact zones, and unstable areas. The
specific language relating to these six areas is found in Table 4-1.
This section highlights similarities and differences between current, mandatory state C&D landfill
location restrictions and the Federal restrictions for MSWLFs. Table 4-1 indicates the number of states with
mandatory C&D landfill restrictions that are substantially similar to or more stringent than 40 CFR Pan 258
(e.g., some states prohibit C&D landfills in floodplains altogether, while Federal requirements only require that
special consideration be given to not restricting flood flows)6. The number of states is divided into
requirements for on-site and off-site C&D landfills.
TABLE 4-1
States That Currently Have Location Restrictions Similar to
or More Stringent than 40 CFR Part 258
40 CFR Part 258 Requirement
Facilities located within 1) 10,000 feet of any airport runway end used by
turbojet aircraft, or 2) 5,000 feet of any airport runway end used only by piston-
type aircraft must demonstrate that the facility does not pose a bird hazard to
aircraft New facilities within a five-mile radius of any airport runway used by
turbojet or piston-type aircraft must notify the airport and the FAA.
FacUities located in 100-year floodplains must not restrict 100-year flood flow,
reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain, or result in solid
waste washout that poses a hazard to human health or the environment
Facilities may not be located in wetlands, unless they successfully make several
demonstrations to the Director of an approved state.
Facilities are banned within 200 feet of faults mat have experienced
displacement since the Holocene Epoch. Facilities in approved states may
receive variance from mis restriction.
In approved states, facilities may be located in a seismic impact zone if they are
designed to resist the maximum horizontal acceleration in Unified material for
the site
Landfills located in unstable areas must demonstrate mat engineering measures
have been incorporated into the unit's design to ensure that the integrity of the
structural components (e.g., liners, ieachate collection systems, final cover
systems, run-on/run-off systems) will not be disrupted.
Number of States
On-Site
Facilities
16
32
(8 prohibitions)
20
6
3
11
Off-Site
Facilities
21
35
(9 prohibitions)
25
10
4
14
6 Ohio expects to have specific C&D management requirements effective by the end of 1995.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-3
-------
Table 4-1 reveals a high degree of consistency between state C&D landfill location restrictions and
Federal MSWLF location restrictions regarding airports, floodplains, and wetlands. This same level of
consistency, however, does not apply to faults, seismic impact zones, and unstable areas. In general, although
states may not include mandatory restrictions in their regulations, permit writers may incorporate them in facility
permits. This chapter evaluates only requirements listed in statutes or regulations.
Other State Location Requirements
In addition to the location restrictions specified in 40 CFR Part 258, numerous states list other
mandatory location restrictions for on-site and off-site C&D landfills. Examples of these additional requirements
and the number of states requiring them include:
Restrictions near ground and/or surface waters (18);
Restrictions near habitats of endangered or threatened species (5);
Restrictions near historically or archaeologically significant areas (4);
Restrictions near residences (4); and
Restrictions near Federal or state parks (3).
Other location criteria mentioned less frequently include restrictions within certain distances from schools,
hospitals and highways, as well as prohibitions on sites near shoreland or over natural resources.
GROUND-WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The level of ground-water monitoring required at C&D landfills varies significantly from state to state.
State ground-water monitoring requirements can be grouped into the following four categories:
States without ground-water monitoring requirements. This category includes states that
either specifically exempt C&D landfills from ground-water monitoring requirements or do not
reference such a requirement in the regulations.
States that "may" require ground-water monitoring. This category encompasses states that
"may" require ground-water monitoring, usually at the regulatory authority's discretion, based
on a review of the submitted site, facility design, and facility operation plans. If ground-water
monitoring is required, the regulations reference ground-water monitoring requirements for
other classes of landfills or indicate that procedures are to be incorporated into the permit.
States with ground-water monitoring requirements that are less stringent than 40 CFR
Part 258. This category includes states that require ground-water monitoring in all cases;
however, the requirements are less stringent than those found in 40 CFR Part 258. For
example, monitoring frequency and the number of parameters to be monitored may be reduced,
or only background monitoring is required, while assessment monitoring may be required at the
regulatory authority's determination. This category also includes: (1) states that require
monitoring, but determine the frequency, procedures, and parameters based on a review of the
permit application; and (2) states that may grant variances from mandatory monitoring based on
site-specific characteristics.
States with ground-water monitoring requirements that are substantially similar to 40
CFR Part 258. This category encompasses states that adopt, by reference, EPA's ground-
water monitoring requirements for MSWLFs, and states that although not specifically
referencing 40 CFR Part 258, have similar requirements for frequencies, procedures (mandatory
background and assessment monitoring), and parameters.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 4-4
-------
Attachment 4-B lists states by each of these categories. Figure 4-1 summarizes these requirements.
FIGURE 4-1
State C&D Landfill Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements
On-Srte C&D Landfills
Off-Site C40 Landfills
(9)
(9)
(24)
Not Mandatory [g%j Not Mandatory, State 'May* Require
Required, Less Stringent Than 40 CFR Part 258 | | Required, Similar to 40 CFR Part 258
Of the four categories of requirements, most states require ground-water monitoring that is less stringent
than 40 CFR Part 258 (20 states have this requirement for on-site facilities, while 24 states have it for off-site
facilities). Only four and five states have ground-water monitoring requirements for on-site and off-site C&D
landfills, respectively, that are substantially similar to 40 CFR Part 258. Each of these categories is discussed in
greater detail below.
States Without Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements
States Without Ground-Water
Monitoring Requirements
Op-Site C&D Landfills Only
Colorado
New Jersey
Tennessee
Hawaii
New Mexico
West Virginia
Kentucky
Oregon
Seventeen states do not require ground-water
monitoring for on-site C&D landfills. Additionally,
nine of the 17 states also do not require ground-water
monitoring for their off-site C&D landfills. Again,
these states' regulations either specifically exempt
these facilities from ground-water monitoring
requirements, or do not reference such requirements.
States That "May" Require Ground-Water
Monitoring
Several states also do not mandate ground-
water monitoring at C&D landfills. Rather, these
states permit the regulatory agency to require ground-
water monitoring at its discretion. Generally, the
permit applicant submits information related to the site
and facility, which the regulatory agency reviews. Should the agency require ground-water monitoring based on
the review, either the regulations reference monitoring requirements or, in most cases, the agency specifies the
Both On-Site and Off-She C&D Landfills
Florida
Louisiana
Utah
Idaho
Mississippi
Vermont
Indiana
Montana
Washington
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report ***
4-5
-------
requirements tailored to the facility in the facility
permit. Nine states may designate ground-water
monitoring for on-site facilities, while 12 states may
designate requirements for off-site facilities.
North Dakota
Off-Site C&D Landfills Only
Hawaii
Oregon
Tennessee
States With Ground-Water Monitoring
Requirements That Are Less Stringent Than 40
CFR Part 258
Forty percent of the states (20) mandate
ground-water monitoring for both on-site and off-site
C&D landfills7. An additional four states mandate
ground-water monitoring for off-site C&D landfills
only. Each of these state's ground-water monitoring
requirements are less stringent than EPA's requirements for MSWLFs found at 40 CFR Part 258. For the most
pan, these states have developed their own requirements relating to frequency, parameters to be tested, and types
of monitoring (i.e., background and/or assessment monitoring). These requirements differ significantly from state
to state. Attachment 4-B details the requirements. The following is 'a summary of these requirements:
States That "May" Designate Ground-Water
Monitoring Requirements
Both On-Site and Off-Site C&D Landfills
Alabama
Arkansas
North Carolina
Arizona
Minnesota
Texas
Background Monitoring. Six
states (California, Connecticut,
Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina,
and Wyoming) do not provide in
their regulations procedures
detailing their background
monitoring requirements. In
general, states determine these
procedures on a case-by-case basis
or through the use of guidance.
States With Ground-Water
Monitoring Requirements That Are Less
Stringent Than 40 CFR Part 258
Both On-Site and Off-Site C&D Landfills
California
Maine
Missouri
Ohio
Sooth Carolina
Wisconsin
Connecticut
Illinois
Maryland
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Sooth Dakota
Wyoming
Delaware
Iowa
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Off-Site C&D T-andCTk Onlv
Colorado
New Mexico
Kentucky
New Jersey
Assessment Monitoring. All of
the states, with the exception of
Virginia, do not detail assessment
monitoring procedures in their
regulations. Typically, the
regulatory authority determines the
procedures for assessment
monitoring, such as frequency and
parameters to be tested, following
the detection of a parameter above the background level.
Background Frequency of Monitoring. For those states providing details in their regulations,
ten require quarterly monitoring at least in the first year (two require less frequent monitoring
in succeeding years). Three states require background monitoring at least semi-annually, while
one state requires it annually. Another state requires some parameters to be monitored
quarterly and others annually. Six states allow the regulatory authority to determine the
frequency of background ground-water monitoring.
Ohio currently does not have ground-water monitoring but monitoring is expected to be a requirement when
C&D management regulations are finalized by the end of 1995.
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report ***
4-6
-------
Background Parameters. Fifteen states list in their regulations background parameters to be
tested. The number of parameters to be tested vary from state to state. In general, states
require that owners/operators monitor for several of the metals and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) found in Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 258. In addition, the states require that
owner/operators monitor for various characterization parameters, such as color, pH, odor, and
turbidity.
Table 4-2 lists the states that include background parameters in their regulations.
TABLE 4-2
State Background Ground-Water Monitoring Parameters
State
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Missouri
New Jersey
Facility
Type
(On-Site/
Off-Site)
Off-Site
Both
Off-Site
Both
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
Both
Off-Site
Parameters for Background Monitoring
Temperature, conductivity, pH, chloride, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia as nitrogen,
sulfate, dissolved iron, cadmium, lead, mercury, dissolved zinc and manganese,
total alkalinity, COD, TOC, calcium, sodium, potassium, and magnesium.
Conductivity, TDS, TOC, chloride, pH, COD, and total iron.
51 organic chemicals found at 40 CFR 141 40 (1988) and any other organic
chemical for which a ground-water quality standard has been adopted pursuant to
Section 14.4 of die Act or Section 8 of the Illinois Ground Water Protection Act.
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, IwJ, mercury, magpeshim, zinc, copper,
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-dichloroethane, tnchloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroemylene, paradichlorobenzene, chloride, field test for
specific conductance and pH, ammonia, nitrogen, iron, COD, temperature, total
organic halogen, and phenols.
Chloride, COD, TDS, specific conductance, pH, iron, sodium, arsenic, barium,
cadmium, lead, mercury, nitrate, selenium, silver, pH, calcium, magnesium,
potassium, sulfate, bicarbonate, carbonate, TOC, and chromium.
Conductivity, temperature, pH, depth to ground water, acidity, iron, TOC, COD,
and chloride.
pH, alkalinity, hardness, chloride, specific conductance, nitrate. COD, arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, zinc, lead, mercury, and volatile priority pollutants.
pH, alkalinity, temperature, specific conductance, nitrate nitrogen (as nitrogen),
TDS, chloride, iron, manganese, sulfate, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium
(total & Cr*6), copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc; all of
the organic compounds included in EPA Method 624, as amended, and methyl
ethyl ketone, xylenes, methyl isobutyl ketone, and acetone.
All metals found in Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 258, but none of the VOCs listed.
1\rrbidity, color, odor, iron, mercury, arsenic, barium, cadrniurri, chromium
(hexavalent Cr**), cyanide, fluoride. lead, selenium, silver, ABS/LAS (Alkyl-
Benzene-Sulfonate & Linear-AIkyl-Sulfonate) or similar methylene blue reactive
substances contained in synthetic detergents, chloride, copper, hardness (as
CaCOg), iron, manganese, nitrogen (including NO3-N and NH^-N), phenolic
compounds (as phenol), sodium, sulfate, TDS, zinc, COD, BOD, TOC; scan for
volatile organics, acid extractables, base neutral extractables. and pesticides/PCBs.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-2 (continued)
State Background Ground-Water Monitoring Parameters
State
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin
Facility
Type
(On-Sfte/
Off-Site)
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
Both
Parameters for Background Monitoring
In the first year and every seventh year, the parameters are identical to those
in Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 258
After first year, parameters are: iron, manganese, nitrate, chloride, phenols,
sulfate, ammonia, pH, conductance, TOC, COD, calcium, TDS, temperature,
elevation, hardness, alkalinity, magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
listed
water
pH, COD, and conductivity.
chloride, sulfate, COD, pH, specific conductance, TOC, total organic halogen, iron,
and sodium.
Hardness, sodium, chloride, iron, lead, conductance, pH, TOC, and TOX.
VOC. and metals - -nilar to 40 CFR Pan 258
States With Mandatory Requirements Substantially Similar to 40 CFR Part 258
Some states that require C&D landfill < to monitor ground water either adopt the 40 CFR Pan 258
rec Jirement? by reference, or have their own requirements that are substantially similar to 40 CFR Pan 258, i.e.,
bo'.r. background and assessment monitoring procedures are listed and the parameters to be tested include most if
not all of the parameters listed in 40 CFR Pan 258 Appendices I and n.
In particular, four states require both on-site and off-site C&D landfills to monitor ground water
according to the procedures identified in 40 CFR Par. 258. These states include:
Michigan
New Hampshire
Nevada
Rhode Island
In addition, one state, West Virginia, requires that only off-site C&D landfills to monitor ground water according
to the procedures identified in 40 CFR Pan 258.
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the ground-water monitoring requirements discussed above, 40 CFR Pan 258 also requires
MSWLFs to perform corrective action activities if contamination is detected by monitoring procedures. Within
90 days of finding ground-water contamination at a MSWLF, the owner/operator of said facility must initiate an
assessment of corrective action measures ((40 CFR 258.56(a)).
Presently, 16 states have corrective action measures for both on-site and off-site C&D landfills. In
addition to these states, six states require corrective action measures for then- off-site C&D landfills only. These
states take one of three approaches to corrective action:
A corrective action plan must be submitted with the permit application. This plan probably
discusses steps to be taken following a release.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-8
-------
The facility owner/operator must
develop a corrective action plan
following a release to ground water
and submit it to the regulatory
authority for approval.
The regulatory authority may
require the facility owner/operator
to undertake corrective action
measures as necessary, typically
following the regulatory authority's
review of submitted ground-water
monitoring data.
OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS
States With Required Corrective Action
Measures
Both On-SHe and Off-Site C&D Landfills
Alaska
Delaware
Maryland
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
California
Georgia
Massachusetts
Nevada
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Iowa
Michigan
New York
Virginia
Off-Site C&D Landfills Only
Hawaii
New Jersey
Illinois
New Mexico
Kentucky
West Virginia
In addition to the requirements discussed
above, states also mandate additional requirements for both on-site and off-site C&D landfills. Table 4-3
provides the total number of states that address permits, design and operating criteria, closure and post-closure,
and financial assurance in their regulations.8
TABLE 4-3
States With Additional Mandatory Requirements for C&D Landfills
Requirement
Permits
A permit is required
Facility is permitted-by-rute
No permit or permit-by-rule required
Design and Operating Criteria
Six inches of daily cover
Liner
Leachate collection system
24 inches of final cover
Less than 24 inches of final cover
Post-Closure Period
At least 30 years
Less than 30 years
On-Site
Faculties
38
3
9
14
15
13
29
7
10
18
Off-Site
Facilities
45
3
2
19
22
18
38
6
11
23
e
0 Currently, Ohio requires a permit for C&D landfills and prohibits the disposal of hazardous waste in a C&D
landfill. Because Ohio's C&D management regulations have not been finalized, it is unclear what other requirements
will be included in the regulations.
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report ***
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued)
States With Additional Mandatory Requirements for C&D Landfills
Rcfluimnciit
Financial Assurance
For Closure
For Post-Closure
For Corrective Action
Waste Restrictions
All hazardous waste prohibited
Regulations do not specifically prohibit all
hazardous waste
Only inert waste can be disposed
Only C&D waste can be disposed
No waste restrictions identified
OS-Site
Facilities
23
22
11
16
13
3
4
14
Off-Site
Facilities
33
.32
15
. 24
14
3
4
5
Table 4-3 indicates the following:
Permits. A majority of states require both on-site and off-site C&D landfills to obtain a
facility permit (38 states require permits for on-site landfills, while 45 require permits for off-
site landfills). Twenty percent of states (nine) do not require on-site facilities to obtain a
permit nor do these states permit these facilities by rule.
Final Cover. The most common mandated design and operating requirement is the
requirement that facilities provide at least 24 inches of final cover material. Thirty-eight states
mandate this requirement for off-site C&D landfills, while an additional six states mandate final
cover of less than 24 inches. Twenty-nine states mandate 24 inches of final cover for on-site
facilities, while seven mandate less than 24 inches.
Daily Cover. Nineteen states require off-site facilities to provide at least six inches of cover
on a daily basis while the facility is in operation. An additional 26 states require off-site
landfills to provide cover, at some time period less frequent than daily (e.g., weekly, monthly,
semi-annually). Fourteen states require on-site facilities to provide at least six inches of cover
on a daily basis, while 24 additional states require cover less frequently than daily.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-10
-------
Liners9. Twenty-two states require a liner for off-site C&D landfills. Fifteen of these 22
states also extend these liner requirements to on-site C&D landfills. The type of material
required for off-site facilities is as follows:
Ten states require a soil/clay liner. Five of these states require a hydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10"7, two require 1 x 10"6, two require 1 x 10 , and two do not
specify a hydraulic conductivity maximum.
Five states require a composite liner. Two states require a hydraulic conductivity of 1
x 10~7, one state requires 1 x 10"6, and the remaining two do not specify a hydraulic
conductivity maximum.
Seven states review liner requirements on a case-by-case basis, typically allowing the
owner/operator to select a liner with state approval based on site-specific
characteristics.
For the IS states requiring liners for on-site landfills:
Five require a soil/clay liner;
Four require a composite liner; and
Six review liner requirements on a case-by-case basis.
Leachate Collection Systems. Eighteen and 13 states require some form of leachate collection
system for off-site and on-site C&D landfills, respectively.
Post-Closure Period. In sum, 34 states require some time period for post-closure care for off-
site facilities. Of these 34 states, 11 require that the post-closure period be at least 30 years,
while 23 require a period of less than 30 years, typically five years or less. Twenty-eight states
require some time period for post-closure care for on-site facilities: ten require at least 30
years, while 18 require less than 30 years.
Financial Assurance. With regard to financial assurance, over 60 percent of states require
some form of financial assurance for both closure and post-closure for off-site facilities. Nearly
one-half of the states require financial assurance for on-site facilities. Finally, IS states require
financial assurance for corrective action for off-site C&D landfills, while 11 do for on-site
facilities.
Waste Restrictions10. Twenty-four states specifically state in their regulations that aU
hazardous wastes are prohibited from disposal at off-site C&D landfills. In addition, three and
four states require that only inert and C&D waste, respectively, be accepted for disposal at off-
site C&D landfills. A total of 14 states do not specifically prohibit all hazardous waste from
disposal at C&D landfills. For example, these states may prohibit only "regulated" or
"controlled" hazardous waste, or they may require that "only waste listed in permit may be
disposed." Finally, five states do not list any waste restrictions. With regard to on-site C&D
landfills, 16 prohibit disposal of all hazardous waste, three require that only inert waste be
disposed, and four require that only C&D waste be disposed. Finally, 13 states do not
specifically prohibit all hazardous waste and 14 states do not list any waste restrictions for on-
site C&D landfills.
Attachment 4-C discusses liner requirements in greater detail.
10 Attachment 4-D discuss waste restrictions in greater detail.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 4-11
-------
ATTACHMENT 4-A. STATE REGULATORY CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR C&D LANDFILLS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Oil-Site
Off-Site
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (C/DLF) regardless of where sited.
State sanitary landfill requirements apply to all C&D landfills; no specific C&D
requirements.
State sanitary landfill requirements apply to all C&D landfills, specific C&D requirements
pending
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (Class III, IV) regardless of where sited.
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (Class III) regardless of where sited.
Exempt
State sanitary landfill requirements apply
to off-site C&D landfills; specific
off-site C&D landfill requirements pending.
Separate classification for all C&D landfills (Special Waste) regardless of where sited.
However, requirements substantially similar to state sanitary landfill requirements
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (Dry Waste) regardless of where sited.
Specific on-site C&D landfill requirements.
Srwcifif f₯vmin"mmf!c armivtn sill fT&T) lanHfil
Exempt
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements
Is (C&D) regardless of where sited.
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements
(Demolition).
State sanitary landfill requirements apply to all C&D landfills; specific C&D landfill
Specific on-site C&D landfill requirements
(Inert Waste).
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements
(Inert Waste).
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (C&D) regardless of where sited.
Specific classification for all C&D landfills regardless of where sited, requirements
substantially similar to state sanitary landfills requirements
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (C&D) regardless of where sited.
Specific on-site C&D landfill requirements;
facilities permit-by-rule
Exempt
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements;
facilities less than one acre are
registered permit-by-rule, facilities
greater than one acre are permitted.
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements
(Type ID).
***
February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-12
-------
State
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
On-Site
If facility is less than one acre in size, it is
exempt. If facility is between one and six
acres in size, must meet separate
requirements for C&D landfills (Chapter
404). If facility is greater than six acres,
must meet state sanitary landfill
requirements
Off-Site
If facility is less than six acres, must meet
separate C&D landfills requirements
(Chapter 404). If facility is greater than six
acres, must meet state sanitary landfill
requirements
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (Rubble) regardless of where sited.
State sanitary landfill requirements apply to all C&D landfills, no specific C&D landfill
requirements
Specific on-site C&D landfill requirements
(Type ID).
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements
CTypein).
If facility is less than 15,000 cubic yards in size and operates for less than 12 months, it is
permitted by rule regardless of where sited. All other facilities must meet specific C&D
landfill requirements (Demolition)
Exempt
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements
(Rubbish).
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (Demolition) regardless of where sited
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (Class U) regardless of where sited.
Separate classification for C&D landfills regardless of where sited, requirements substantially
similar to state sanitary landfill requirements
State sanitary landfill regulations apply to all C&D landfills. State sanitary landfills
requirements vary for facilities receiving greater than 20 tons per day.
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills regardless of where sited. Less stringent
requirements apply if facility receives only inert demolition debris
Specific on-site C&D landfill requirements
(Class ID).
Exempt
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements
(Class III); requirements vary, however,
for small-scale Class HI landfills.
Separate classification for C&D landfills
(Class C); requirements substantially
similar to state sanitary landfill
requirements.
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills regardless of where sited. Requirements
vary depending on whether facility is greater than three acres in size.
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (Demolition) regardless of where sited.
Specific classification for all C&D landfills (Special Use); requirements substantially similar
to state sanitary landfills requirements.
When new regulations become effective, specific requirements will apply to all C&D landfills
regardless of where sited.
Separate classification for C^P landfills (Type IV); requirements substantially similar to state
sanitary landfill requirements.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-13
-------
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
On-Site
Exempt
Specific on-site C&D landfill requirements.
Off-Site
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements.
State sanitary landfill requirements apply to all C&D landfills; no specific C&D
requirements.
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills regardless of where sited.
All C&D landfills may be issued a general permit based on certain requirements, otherwise,
all state sanitary landfill requirements apply
Exempt, if less man one acre hi size.
Specific requirements apply to all other
C&D landfills (Class IV)
Specific requirements apply to all
C&D landfills (Class IV).
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills (Type IV) regardless of where sited
Exempt
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements.
All C&D landfills permitted by rule regardless of where sited.
Specific requirements for all C&D landfills (Construction, Demolition, and Debris) regardless
of where sited.
Specific requirements for apply to inert and demolition landfills regardless of where sited.
Construction waste is co-disposed with MSW.
opeciuc ui>*5uc ixxu i&iiuiui icquirenicnis
(Class D-2, D-3).
Specific off-site C&D landfill requirements
(Class D-l).
Specific requirements apply to C&D landfills regardless of where sited. Requirements vary
depending on type of facility: (1) inert waste only, (2) one-time disposal, (3) less than
50,000 cubic yards, and (4) greater than 50,000 cubic yards.
Specific requirements apply to all C&D landfills regardless of where sited.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-14
-------
ATTACHMENT 4-B. STATE GROUND-WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The exhibit below summarizes, for each state, the state's ground-water monitoring requirements for both
on-site and off-site C&D landfills. The categories are divided as follows:
Category (1) State has DO ground-water monitoring requirement. This category includes states
that either specifically exempt C&D landfills from ground-water monitoring
requirements or do not reference such a requirement in the regulations for C&D
landfills
Category (2) State "may" require ground-water monitoring. This category encompasses states
that "may" require ground-water monitoring, usually at the regulatory authority's
discretion, based on a review of the submitted site, facility design, and facility
operation plans. If ground-water monitoring is required, the regulations reference
ground-water monitoring requirements for other classes of landfills or indicate that
procedures are to be incorporated into the permit.
Category (3) State requires ground-water monitoring and the requirements are substantially
similar to 40 CFR Part 258. This category encompasses states that adopt, by
reference, EPA's ground-water monitoring requirements for MSWLFs. This category
also encompasses states that do not specifically reference 40 CFR Pan 258, but have
similar requirements for frequencies, procedures (mandatory background and
assessment monitoring), and parameters, although not every parameter is similar to
those listed in 40 CFR Pan 258.
Category (4) State requires ground-water monitoring, but the requirements are less stringent
than 40 CFR Part 258. This category includes states that require ground-water
monitoring in any case. However, the state's requirements for ground-water
monitoring are not as stringent as those listed at 40 CFR Pan 258. For example,
monitoring frequency may be less often, the parameters to be monitored may be fewer
in number, or only background monitoring is required and assessment monitoring may
be required at the determination of the regulatory authority. This category also
includes states that require ground-water monitoring, but determine the frequency,
procedures, and parameters to be monitored based on a review of the permit
application. Also included are states that may grant a variance for mandatory
monitoring to C&D landfills based on site-specific characteristics.
The frequencies and parameters for states classified as Category 4 (states with mandatory ground-water
monitoring requirements that are less stringent than 40 CFR Pan 258) also are listed in the exhibit.
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-15
-------
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Facility Type
(On-Site/
Off-Site)
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Category
(1)
/
(2)
/
/
/
/
(3)
(4)
/
/
/
/
Ground* Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Semi-annually or quarterly
Parameters determined by Regulatory board
for each management unit
Quarterly
(1) temperature, (2) conductivity, (3) pH,
(4) chloride, (5) nitrate, nitrite and
ammonia as nitrogen, (6) sulfate, (7)
dissolved iron, cadmium, lead and mercury,
(8) dissolved zinc and manganese, (9) total
alkalinity, (10) COD, (11) TOC, (12)
calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium
Assessment
Frequency and parameters determined by
board
Monitoring performed in accordance with the schedule in the facility plan and/or permit to
construct
Frequency approved by Department
Specific conductivity, TDS, TOC, chloride,
pH. COD, total iron and other parameters
specified by Department
*** February 7,
Iraft Report ***
-------
State
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Facility Type
(On-Slte/
Off-Site)
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
On-Sile
Off-Site
Both
Category
(1)
/
/
/
/
(2)
/
(3)
(4)
/
/
/
Ground- Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Assessment
Groundwater monitoring procedures follow state guidance found in "Manual for
Ground water Monitoring, September 1991"
Quarterly
Parameters determined by background
monitoring
Semi-annually for leachate samples
Once every 2 years for 5 1 organic
chemicals found at 40 CFR 141 40 (1988)
and any other organic chemical for which a
ground-water quality standard has been
adopted pursuant to Section 14.4 of the Act
or Section 8 of the Illinois Ground Water
Protection Act
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-17
-------
State
Iowa
Kansas
Facility Type
ff*. mfr« J
(On-Stte/
Off-Site)
Both
Both
Category
(1)
(2)
/
(3)
(4)
/
Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Quarterly for the first year, scmi-annually
thereafter
Check first year for. arsenic, barium.
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
magnesium, zinc, copper, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, 1 ,2-dichloroethane,
trichloroelhylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethylene, paradichlorobenzene
After first year for: chloride, field test for
specific conductance and pH, ammonia,
nitrogen, iron, COD, temperature, and any
additional parameters deemed necessary
Check annually for total organic halogen,
phenols and any additional parameters
deemed necessary by the department
Assessment
If a release is detected, additional
sampling or a ground-water quality
assessment plan may be required by the
department
*** February 7, Iraft Report ***
-------
State
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Facility Type
(On-Site/
OfT-SUe)
On-Sile
Off-Site
Both
Both
Category
U)
/
/
(2)
(3)
(4)
/
/
Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Semi-annually
Quality characterization parameters.
chloride, COD, TDS, specific conductance,
pH, iron, sodium, arsenic, barium,
cadmium, lead, mercury nitrate, selenium,
silver, pH, calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sulfate, bicarbonate, carbonate
Monitoring parameters: (a) chloride, COD,
TDS, TOC, specific conductance, pH, iron,
sodium (b) arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, nitrate, selenium
Reduce monitoring to Group (a) parameters
if 4 consecutive quarterly monitoring
periods show no exceedances
,
Quarterly
Conductivity, temperature, pH, depth to
ground water, acidity, iron, TOC, COD and
chloride
Assessment
Assessment plan required if parameters
listed at 40 CFR 302 4, Appendix A
(October 1988) arc detected
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report ***
4-19
-------
State
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Facility Type
ff^ dlA i
(On-Site/
Off-Site)
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Category
(1)
/
(2)
/
(3)
/
(4)
/
/
Ground* Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Frequency not specified
Background parameters: pH, alkalinity,
hardness, chloride, specific conductance,
nitrate, COD, arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, zinc, lead, mercury, volatile
priority pollutants and other pollutants
specified by the department
Frequency established in permit - at
minimum semi-annually
Indicator parameters: pH, alkalinity,
temp* "iture, specific conductance, nitrate
nitrogen (as nitrogen), TDS. chloride, iron.
manganese, sulfate; Inorganics: arsenic,
bm him, cadmium, chromium (total &
Ci '"), copper, cyanide, lead, mercury,
selenium, silver and zinc; all of the organic
compounds included in EPA Method 624,
as amended, and methyl ethyl ketone,
xylenes, methyl isobutyl ketone and
acetone; unknown peaks shall be identified;
any additional priority pollutants as set
forth under 40 CFR Part 141, as amended,
or required by the department
Assessment
If contamination occurs, department will
select assessment frequency and
parameters on a case-by-case basis
If chemical levels exceed background
limits, Department determines assessment
actions
*** February 7, *>raft Report ***
-------
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Facility Type
(On-Slte/
Off-Site)
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Category
(1)
/
(2)
(3)
/
J
(4)
/
/
Ground* Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Frequency is quarterly for some parameters
and annually for others.
Metals to be monitored are similar to those
listed in 40 CFR Part 258, however, no
VOCs are identified
Assessment
To be determined by the regulatory
authority
No references to frequency or parameters
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-21
-------
State
New Jersey
Facility Type
(On-Site/
Off-Site)
On-Site
Off-Site
Category
(1)
/
(2)
(3)
(4)
/
Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Monitor annually for background
parameters and quarterly for detection
parameters
Background parameters' turbidity, color,
odor, mercury, arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium (hexavalent Cr+6), cyanide,
fluoride, lead, selenium, silver, ABS/LAS
(Alkyl-Benzene-Sulfonate & Linear-Alkyl-
Sulfonale) or similar methylene blue
reactive substances contained in synthetic
detergents, chloride, copper, hardness (as
CaC03), iron, manganese,, nitrogen
(including NO3-N and NH4-N), phenolic
compounds (as phenol), sodium, sulfate,
TDS, zinc, COD, BOD, TOC; scan for
volatile organics, acid extractables, base
neutral extractables, and pesticides/PCBs
Detection parameters chlonde, lead, iron.
phenol compounds as phenol, TDS, sulfate.
COD, BOD, TOC and others added by
director based on site and waste
characteristics
Sites may be waived from requirements
based on site location, operations, geology
and ground-water flow
Assessment
If background levels are exceeded,
operator must develop a monitoring
program more comprehensive than
background testing
*** February 7,
Draft Report
***
-------
State
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Facility Type
(On-Slte/
Off-Site)
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Category
(1)
/
/
(2)
/
/
/
(3)
(4)
/
/
/
/
Ground- Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Monitor quarterly in first year and annually
every seventh year for a list of parameters
similar to Appendix I 40 CFR Pan 258.
Monitor quarterly after first year for iron,
manganese, nitrate, chloride, phenols,
sulfate, ammonia, pH, conductance, TOC,
COD, calcium, TDS, temperature, water
elevation, hardness, alkalinity, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium.
At least quarterly: once per year for
background parameters, 3 times per year
for routine parameters; may be reduced to
semi-annuaily after first year
No parameters specified
Regulations not finalized
Quarterly
Background parameters: pH, COD and
conductivity
Assessment
May be required if background
monitoring indicates that significant
contamination has occurred
If contamination is detected, expanded
parameter analyses are required
Regulations not finalized
If parameters are detected, department
and operator shall determine additional
monitoring requirements
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-23
-------
State
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Facility Type
(On-Site/
Off-Site)
Both
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Category
(1)
/
(2)
/
/
(3)
/
(4)
/
/
/
Ground- Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Quarterly
Detection parameters, chloride, sulfate,
COD, pH, specific conductance, TOG, total
organic halogen, iron and sodium
Assessment
If parameters are detected, assessment
plan must be prepared by hydrogeology
expert; parameters for plan must be
submitted to department for approval
No specific mention of frequency or parameters
Quarterly
Sampling and analytical techniques must
conform with: "Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater,
16th ed., 1985," "EPA Methods, Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, 1983," "Techniques of Water
Resource Investigation of the U.S.
Geological Survey, (1982)," methods for
monitoring published in 56 PR 3,578-3.597
(1/30/91) & 56 PR 30,266-30,281 (7/1/91),
"National Handbook of Recommended
Methods for Water-Data Acquisition, GSA-
GS edition," and "Manual of Analytical
Methods for the Analysis of Pesticide in
Humans and Environmental Samples, 1980"
*** February 7, Draft Report ***
-------
State
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Facility Type
(On-Site/
Off-Site)
Both
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Category
(1)
/
/
/
/
(2)
(3)
/
(4)
/
/
/
Ground- Water Monitoring Requirements For States In Category (4)
Background
Frequency. Quarterly for first year, after
firsl year: annually for List 1 and semi-
annual ly for List 2
Background Parameters: List 1: hardness,
sodium, chloride, iron, lead List 21
specific conductance, pH, TOG, TOX
Quarterly monitoring
VOC's and metals similar to 40 CFR Part
2S8
Assessment
Assessment program needed in case of a
significant in listed parameters
Phase II of program is substantially
similar to 40 CFR 258, Appendix I.
Phase III of program is substantially
similar to 40 CFR 258, Appendix II
Determined on a case-by-case basis
following review of Increase in
background parameter by regulatory
authority.
Baseline, routine and detection monitoring will be specified by the department on a case-by-
case basis
*** February 7, 1995 Draft Report ***
4-25
-------
ATTACHMENT 4-C. STATE LINER REQUIREMENTS
Twenty-two states require their off-site C&D landfills to include a liner in the landfill's design. In
addition, IS of these states extend these requirements to on-site C&D landfills. The liner requirements for these
states fall into three main categories:
(1) Soil/Clay. States require a soil/clay liner material to be compacted to a certain depth.
(2) Composite. States require a compacted soil/clay liner with a synthetic liner overlaying the
earthen material.
(3) Site-specific. States allow owner/operators to select a liner material from a list of materials
specified in the regulations and approve or disapprove of this selection based on a case-by-case
review of the site-specific characteristics.
The exhibit below lists those states requiring liners for off-site landfills and the material required. States that
extend these requirements to on-site landfills are highlighted.
Descriptions of States With Site-Specific Requirements:
Colorado requires that the engineer's report and operating report contain they type and quantity
of material that the owner/operator proposes to use for the liner.
Georgia requires owner/operator to submit proposed liner from those specified in the State's
"Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Liner Design System Criteria, September 1991."
Michigan requires C&D landfills to contain either a liner or a natural soil barrier. Liners can
consist of: 1) compacted soil, 2) a composite design, 3) a flexible membrane at least 30 mils
thick, or 4) other materials which possess demonstrated durability, permeability and resistance
to sunlight and chemicals. Natural soil barriers must fulfill requirements for thickness and
hydraulic conductivity which serve to impede the flow of leachate out of the fill interior. The
choice of liner design appears to be at the discretion of the owner/operator.
New Hampshire allows landfills accepting only C&D debris to use single liners. In landfills
where waste characteristics cannot be determined (or where the waste poses a risk to ground
water) double liners may be required. Allowable liners either consist of recompacted soil or a
geomembrane at least 60 mils thick.
South Carolina's regulations do not specify the type or quantity of liner.
South Dakota requires either soil liners or flexible membrane liners with a thickness of 30
mils. Liner configuration and components are determined on a case-by-case basis.
Virginia C&D landfill liners may be made of: 1) compacted clay, 2) a flexible membrane at
least 30 mils thick, or 3) other clay/soils with similar thickness and hydraulic conductivity
required for clay liners. Owners/operators seem to be able to choose which type of liner they
wish to install.
February 7,1995 Draft Report *** 4-26
-------
STATE LINER REQUIREMENTS FOR C&D LANDFILLS
Soil/Clay
State
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
New Jersey (*)
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas (**)
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Maximum Hydraulic
Conductivity
1 xlff6
1 x Iff7
1 xlff7
not specified
1 x 1(T7
1 x Iff5
IxKT5
1 x Iff7
1 x Iff6
1 x Iff7
10 States Total
Composite
State
Massachusetts
Nevada
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Maximum Hydraulic
Conductivity
not specified
1 x Iff7
1 x Iff7
1 xlff*
not specified '
'
5 States Total
Site-Specific
Colorado
Georgia
Michigan
New Hampshire
South Carolina
South Dakota
Virginia
7 States Total
* If New Jersey C&D landfills are located in unstable area, then liners must be double composite with a geomembrane liner
in contact with a clay/admixture liner below it.
** Composite liners with a flexible membrane are required for C&D waste disposal in trenches, excavation areas and other
unprotected sites.
February 7,1995 Draft Report ***
4-27
-------
ATTACHMENT 4-D. CLASSIFICATION OF STATE WASTE RESTRICTIONS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Facility Type
(On-Slte/
Off-Site)
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
All Hazardous
Waste Prohibited
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Regulations Don't
Specifically Prohibit
All Hazardous Waste
/
/
/
/
/
Only Inert Waste
Can Be Disposed
/
Only C&D Waste
Can Be Disposed
/
No Waste
Restrictions
Identified
/
/
/
/
/
/
*** February 7, ")raft Report ***
-------
State
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Facility Type
(On-Slle/
Off-Site)
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
Both
All Hazardous
Waste Prohibited
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Regulations Don't
Specifically Prohibit
All Hazardous Waste
S
/
/
/
Only Inert Waste
Can Be Disposed
./
/
Only C&D Waste
Can Be Disposed
/
/
No Waste
Restrictions
Identified
/
/
/
*** February 7,1995 Draft Report
4-29
-------
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Facility Type
(On-Site/
Off-Site)
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
On-Site
Off-Site
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
All Hazardous
Waste Prohibited
/
/
/
/
/
Regulations Don't
Specifically Prohibit
All Hazardous Waste
/
/
/
/
/
/
Only Inert Waste
Can Be Disposed
/
Only C&D Waste
Can Be Disposed
/
No Waste
Restrictions
Identified
/
/
/
/
/
*** February 7, *)rafl Report ***
------- |