Printed
on
recycled
paper
DRAFT
Characterization
and
Evaluation
of
Landfill
Leachate
September
2000
Submitted
to:

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
2800
Crystal
Drive
Arlington,
VA
22202
Submitted
by:

Science
Applications
International
Corporation
11251
Roger
Bacon
Drive
Reston,
Virginia
20190
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
W6­
0068
SAIC
Project
No.
06­
5240­
08­
9957­
000
Work
Assignment
No.
2­
14
September
2000
i­
1
Draft
INTRODUCTION
This
report
results
from
a
broad­
based
effort
to
collect
and
review
data
on
landfill
leachate.
This
effort
included
the
following:

 
A
review
of
existing
scientific
literature
on
landfill
leaching
processes
and
the
factors
that
influence
leachate
generation
and
characteristics.

 
A
quantitative
analysis
of
leachate
generation
rates
in
landfills
managing
various
types
of
waste.

 
Development
of
a
comprehensive
database
describing
the
physical
properties
and
chemical
characteristics
of
leachate
from
landfills
managing
various
types
of
waste.

 
Detailed
case
studies
describing
the
operation
and
environment
of
example
landfills
representing
the
various
types
included
in
the
characterization
database.

The
report
is
organized
as
follows:

 
Section
1
provides
information
on
the
mobility
of
inorganic
and
organic
constituents
that
may
be
present
in
waste,
primarily
based
on
review
of
the
scientific
literature.

 
Section
2
presents
the
results
of
the
quantitative
analysis
of
the
available
data
on
leachate
generation
rates.

 
Section
3
discusses
the
properties
and
characteristics
of
landfill
leachate.
This
discussion
includes
presentation
of
summary
statistics
from
the
characterization
database
for
various
categories
of
landfill.
It
further
compares
these
characteristics
across
landfill
types,
based
on
the
empirical
data
and
the
scientific
literature.

 
Section
4
summarizes
the
landfill
case
studies.

 
Section
5
is
the
bibliography
of
sources
reviewed
from
the
literature.
September
2000
i­
2
Draft
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
SECTION
1.
MOBILITY
OF
INORGANIC
AND
ORGANIC
CONSTITUENTS
1.1
Inorganic
Mobility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
2
1.1.1
Trends
in
Solubility
of
Metal
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
3
Soluble
Compounds
pH
Control
Oxidation­
Reduction
Potential
(
redox
potential)
and
Electron
Activity
1.1.2
Behavior
of
Specific
Elements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
13
Copper,
Cadmium,
and
Lead
Arsenic
and
Selenium
Chromium
Mercury
1.2
Organic
Mobility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
19
1.2.1
Effects
of
pH
on
Leachability
Of
Organics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
20
Acid
Leachable
Organics
Alkali
Leachable
Organics
Polyfunctional
Organics
SECTION
2.
LEACHATE
GENERATION
QUANTITIES
IN
LANDFILLS
2.1
Information
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
3
2.2
Values
of
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratio
and
Leachate
Generation
Rate
Found
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
4
2.2.1
Summary
of
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
4
2.2.2
EPA
Office
of
Water
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
5
Operational
Status
Landfill
Type
Precipitation
2.2.3
Use
of
Other
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
11
SECTION
3.
LEACHATE
COMPOSITION
AND
PROPERTIES
3.1
Characterization
Database
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
2
3.2
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
4
3.2.1
Overall
Composition
of
MSW
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
4
Trace
Inorganics
Organics
3.2.2
Temporal
Variability
in
MSW
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
7
Stages
of
a
MSW
Landfill
Significance
of
Phases
Towards
Leaching
3.2.3
Factors
Affecting
Contaminant
Mobility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
8
pH
Redox
Potential
and
Sulfate
Organic
Content:
Overview
BOD
and
COD
Volatile
Fatty
Acids
and
COD
Alkalinity
Summary
of
Significant
Findings
for
Indicator
Parameters
in
MSW
Landfill
Leachate
September
2000
i­
3
Draft
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(
continued)

SECTION
3.
LEACHATE
COMPOSITION
AND
PROPERTIES
(
continued)
3.3
Construction
and
Demolition
Debris
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
21
3.3.1
Overall
Composition
of
C&
D
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
21
General
Parameters
Trace
Inorganics
Organics
3.3.2
Temporal
Variability
and
Indicator
Parameters
in
C&
D
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
22
pH
Redox
and
Sulfate
Alkalinity
COD
and
BOD
3.4
Industrial
Codisposal
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
26
General
Parameters
Trace
Inorganics
Organics
3.5
Hazardous
Waste
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
28
General
Parameters
Trace
Inorganics
Organics
3.6
Comparison
of
Leachate
Composition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
30
3.6.1
Overview
of
Factors
Affecting
Leaching
Medium
Composition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
30
Infiltrating
Liquid
Waste
Composition
Landfill
Operations
3.6.2
Comparison
of
Factors
Affecting
Leaching
Medium
Composition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
32
Composition
of
Infiltrating
Liquid
Waste
Composition
Landfill
Operations
3.6.3
Comparison
of
Factors
Affecting
Contaminant
Mobility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
33
pH
Redox
Potential
and
Sulfate
TOC,
COD,
and
BOD
Alkalinity
3.6.4
Comparison
of
Other
Major
Physical
and
Chemical
Parameters
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
39
3.6.5
Comparison
of
Trace
Inorganics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
43
3.6.6
Comparison
of
Organic
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
49
3.7
Summary
Statistics
for
Captive
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
52
3.7.1
Paper
Mill
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
52
3.7.2
Combustion
Waste
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
52
3.7.3
Foundry
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
54
SECTION
4.
QUANTITATIVE
LANDFILL
CASE
STUDIES
SECTION
5.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
September
2000
i­
4
Draft
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(
continued)

APPENDIX
A:
REVIEW
OF
STATE
LANDFILL
LEACHATE
DATA
AVAILABILITY
APPENDIX
B:
RELEVANT
CONVERSION
FACTORS
APPENDIX
C:
LIQUID­
TO­
SOLID
RATIOS
AND
LEACHATE
GENERATION
RATES
REPORTED
IN
LITERATURE
APPENDIX
D:
LIQUID­
TO­
SOLID
RATIOS
AND
LEACHATE
GENERATION
RATES
CALCULATED
FROM
CASE
STUDIES
APPENDIX
E:
LEACHATE
QUANTITY
DATABASE
APPENDIX
F:
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
ANALYSIS
AND
ADJUSTMENT
OF
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN
LEACHATE
CHARACTERIZATION
DATA
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
1­
2.
Metal­
Salt
Speciation
Under
Oxidizing
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
10
Table
1­
3.
Metal­
Salt
Speciation
Under
Reducing
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
11
Table
1­
4.
Leaching
characteristic
as
a
function
of
acidity
of
the
contact
solution
and
the
L/
S
ratio.
1­
12
Table
1­
5.
Compounds
Whose
Leachability
Changes
In
Acidic
Media
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
22
Table
1­
6.
Compounds
Whose
Leachability
Changes
in
Alkaline
Media
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
25
Table
1­
7.
Compounds
More
Leachable
in
Acidic
and
Alkaline
Media
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
26
Table
2­
1.
Summary
of
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratios
for
all
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
4
Table
2­
2.
Summary
of
Leachate
Generation
Rates
for
all
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
5
Table
2­
3.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Operational
Status
from
Office
of
Water
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
6
Table
2­
4.
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratios
by
Operational
Status
from
Office
of
Water
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
6
Table
2­
5.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Landfill
Type
from
Office
of
Water
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
7
Table
2­
6.
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratios
by
Landfill
Type
from
Office
of
Water
Data.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
7
Table
2­
7.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Precipitation
Rate
from
Office
of
Water
Data.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
9
Table
3­
1.
Composition
of
MSW
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
6
Table
3­
2.
Behavior
of
Indicator
Parameters
in
MSW
Landfill
Leachate:
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
20
Table
3­
3.
Composition
of
C&
D
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
22
Table
3­
4.
Composition
of
Industrial
Codisposal
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
27
Table
3­
5.
Composition
of
Hazardous
Waste
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
29
Table
3­
6.
Composition
of
Paper
Mill
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
53
Table
3­
7.
Composition
of
Combustion
Waste
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
54
Table
3­
8.
Composition
of
Foundry
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
55
Table
4­
1.
Landfill
Case
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
2
September
2000
i­
5
Draft
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Figure
1­
1.
Solubilities
of
metal
hydroxides
as
a
function
of
pH
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
7
Figure
1­
2.
Solubilities
of
metal
hydroxides
and
sulfides
as
a
function
of
pH
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
8
Figure
1­
3.
Simplified
pe­
pH
diagram
for
the
system
As­
O­
H2O
at
25b
C
and
one
atm.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
14
Figure
1­
4.
Simplified
pe­
pH
diagram
for
the
system
Se­
O­
H2O
at
25bC
and
one
atm.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
15
Figure
1­
5.
pe­
pH
diagram
for
the
system
Cr­
O­
H2O
at
25bC
and
one
atm.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
16
Figure
1­
6.
pe­
pH
diagram
for
the
system
Hg­
S­
O­
H2O
at
25bC
and
one
atm
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
17
Figure
1­
7.
Stability
regions
of
mercury
species
in
the
sulfur
carbonate
water
system
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
18
Figure
1­
8.
Volatile
concentration
and
solubility.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
19
Figure
1­
9.
Semi­
volatile
concentration
and
solubility.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
20
Figure
1­
10.
Volatile
concentration
and
Kow
values.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
21
Figure
2­
1.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Landfill
Type
and
Operational
Status.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
8
Figure
2­
2.
Liquid
to
Solid
Ratio
by
Landfill
Type:
Both
Active
and
Inactive.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
8
Figure
2­
3.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Precipitation
Rate
and
Operational
Status.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
10
Figure
2­
4.
Liquid
to
Solid
Ratio
by
Precipitation
Rate:
Both
Active
and
Inactive.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
11
Figure
3­
1.
Cumulative
Frequency
of
pH
in
Wisconsin
MSW
Landfills
by
Age
Group
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
11
Figure
3­
2.
pH
Observed
in
Wisconsin
MSW
Landfills
by
Age
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
12
Figure
3­
3.
pH
Trends
for
Individual
Landfills
(
increasing)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
13
Figure
3­
4.
pH
Trends
for
Individual
Landfills
(
decreasing
or
varying)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
13
Figure
3­
5.
Relationship
between
VFA
and
COD
in
Landfill
Leachate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
17
Figure
3­
6.
COD
Observed
in
Wisconsin
MSW
Landfills
by
Age
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
18
Figure
3­
7.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
pH
by
Landfill
Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
34
Figure
3­
8.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Sulfate
by
Landfill
Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
35
Figure
3­
9.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC)
by
Landfill
Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
36
Figure
3­
10.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
by
Landfill
Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
37
Figure
3­
11.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
BOD)
by
Landfill
Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
37
Figure
3­
12.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
BOD/
COD
Ratio
by
Landfill
Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
38
Figure
3­
13.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Alkalinity
by
Landfill
Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
38
Figure
3­
15.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Other
Parameters
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
41
Figure
3­
16.
Trace
Inorganics
Found
in
the
Highest
Concentrations
in
Hazardous
Waste
Landfills
3­
44
Figure
3­
17.
Trace
Inorganics
Found
in
the
Highest
Concentrations
in
Both
Hazardous
Waste
and
Industrial
Codisposal
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
46
Figure
3­
18.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Other
Trace
Inorganics
by
Landfill
Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
47
Figure
3­
19.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Organics
by
Landfill
Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
49
September
2000
1­
1
Draft
1.
MOBILITY
OF
INORGANIC
AND
ORGANIC
CONSTITUENTS
Leachate
characteristics
are
a
function
of
the
constituents
contained
in
the
disposed
wastes
and
the
waste
management
environment.
The
mobility
of
both
inorganic
and
organic
constituents
is
dependent
upon
many
interrelated
factors.
These
factors
include
most
importantly
the
waste
type,
waste
management
unit,
and
climate
of
the
intended
disposal
unit.
Physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
type
may
increase
or
decrease
the
mobility
of
constituents.
For
example,
a
cementitious
solidified
waste
is
less
likely
to
release
toxic
constituents
because
those
constituents
are
bound
within
the
cementitious
matrix.
On
the
other
hand,
a
granular
waste
such
as
combustion
ash
residues,
may
be
more
likely
to
release
toxic
constituents
due
to
increased
surface
area
and
a
matrix
that
allows
more
easily
for
dispersibility.

The
waste
management
environment
will
also
contribute
to
the
mobility
or
immobility
of
certain
constituents.
Effects
of
co­
disposal
with
other
wastes,
the
chemical
characteristics,
and
rainfall
may
all
play
a
part
in
the
leaching
of
constituents
from
wastes.

Regardless
of
the
waste's
physical
form
or
disposal
environment
there
are
a
number
of
observed
and
theoretical
chemical
relationships
that
are
considered
underlying
or
basic
to
the
discussion
of
leaching.
These
relationships
are
discussed
in
the
following
sections.
Inorganic
mobility
and
the
chemical
factors
that
tend
to
increase
or
decrease
mobility
are
explored
in
the
Section
1.1.
The
mobility
of
organics
is
discussed
in
Section
1.2.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
discussion
is
theoretical;
however,
real­
world
examples
are
provided.
While
certain
conditions
may
increase
the
mobility
of
certain
constituents,
those
conditions
in
conjunction
with
other
factors
may
yield
different
results.
Therefore
the
following
discussion
is
meant
to
act
as
a
basis
for
initial
consideration
of
how
certain
waste
types
may
behave
in
a
given
waste
management
scenario.
September
2000
1­
2
Draft
1.1
Inorganic
Mobility
Inorganic
constituent
mobility
has
been
well
studied
for
a
select
group
of
wastes;
however,
the
speciation
concepts
have
been
well
explored
for
a
wide
variety
of
inorganic
constituents.
These
concepts
and
real­
world
examples
are
discussed
below.

Determining
which
inorganic
waste
constituents
will
dissolve
and
be
leached
from
waste
depends
on
a
multitude
of
factors.
Factors
affecting
solubility
of
inorganic
contaminants
reviewed
for
this
discussion
include
acid­
base
equilibria,
oxidation­
reduction
reactions,
coordinated
metal­
anion
pair
solubility,
and
pH.
Metals
described
below
include
barium,
beryllium,
chromium,
cobalt,
nickel,
arsenic,
selenium,
cadmium,
antimony,
mercury,
and
lead.

To
summarize
metal
speciation
and
mobilization
in
waste
environments,
the
following
categories
will
be
used
in
combination
to
describe
the
conditions
under
which
chemical
species
become
mobile:
(
1)
oxidizing,
(
2)
reducing,
(
3)
acidic,
(
4)
neutral,
and
(
5)
basic.
Acid­
base
equilibria,
solubility,
oxidation­
reduction,
and
pH
were
chosen
because
they
are
the
most
influential
factors
affecting
mechanisms
related
to
leaching.
However,
though
these
factors
control
many
dissolution
and
mobilization
mechanisms
(
i.
e.,
precipitation
reactions,
complexation,
adsorption,
chemisorption,
passivation,
ion
exchange,
molecular
transport),
this
study
is
based
on
simple
solutions
containing
one
cation­
anion
pair
at
specified
redox
and
pH
conditions.
Reaction
rates
are
not
included
in
this
discussion.

To
compare
solubilities
of
metals,
experimentally
measured
or
estimated
solubility
values
were
collected
for
the
compounds
of
metals
with
the
following
anions:

°
sulfides
°
phosphates
°
hydroxides
°
chlorides
°
oxides
°
carbonates
°
sulfates
°
cyanides.

These
compounds
were
chosen
because
they
represent
some
common
waste
forms
in
which
metals
occur
and
they
demonstrate
a
distinct
gradient
in
solubility.
By
examining
trends
in
the
pH
and
redox
effects
that
contribute
to
metal
dissolution
and
mobility,
the
conditions
that
cause
metal
release
and
environmental
transport
in
a
waste
management
scenario
may
be
described.
Because
most
metals'
behavior
varies
similarly
under
most
conditions,
a
general
discussion
of
solubility
is
followed
by
metal
specific
discussions.
September
2000
1­
3
Draft
1.1.1
Trends
in
Solubility
of
Metal
Species
To
discuss
the
solubility
of
a
metal
and
to
understand
the
processes
regulating
dissolved
ion
concentrations,
all
possible
ionic
and
covalent
species
present
in
the
system
should
be
considered.
However,
for
this
study,
solubility
trends
are
discussed
with
regard
to
simple
systems.
Some
examples
of
metal
solubility
and
mobility
from
actual
waste
studies
are
also
provided.

One
of
two
values
was
used
to
observe
the
solubilities
of
metal
compound,
experimental
or
estimated
values
derived
using
solubility
product
constants
(
Ksp).
Published
experimental
values
were
used
whenever
they
were
available.
When
deriving
solubility
using
Ksp,
it
was
assumed
that
the
metal
compound
undergoes
a
dissociation
when
it
dissolves,
and
the
undissociated
compound
does
not
contribute
to
the
concentration
in
the
solution.
This
can
introduce
a
negative
bias,
to
varying
degrees,
in
the
solubility
estimate.
Table
1­
1
provides
some
metal
compound
solubilities.
Experimental
and
estimated
solubilities
are
indicated.

Some
general
observations
about
soluble
inorganic
species
in
water
are
demonstrated
by
the
following
representation
of
increasing/
decreasing
solubility:

least
soluble
most
soluble
sulfides
<
phosphates<
hydroxides
<
oxides
<
carbonates
<
sulfates
<
cyanides
<
chlorides
Soluble
Compounds
 
Metal­
halide
(
Cl­,
Br
­,
I­
)
salts
are
generally
soluble
(
except
for
Ag+,
Hg2+,
Pb2+)

 
Nitrates,
perchlorates,
and
acetates
are
soluble
(
except
for
acetates
of
Ag+
and
Hg2+
which
are
moderately
soluble)

 
Sulfates
are
soluble
(
except
for
Sr2+,
Ba2+,
Pb2+,
not
soluble)
(
Ca2+
and
Ag+
are
moderately
soluble)

Additionally,
Benefield
et
al.
(
1982)
show
that
extensive
systematic
treatment
of
equilibria
using
Ksp,
pH
and
acid­
base
equilibria
in
conjunction
with
redox
can
be
used
to
graphically
represent
metal
compound
speciation
over
a
range
of
pH
and
Eh
(
volts).
This
becomes
increasingly
complex
as
the
number
of
metal­
anion
pairs
increases
in
the
matrix.
September
2000
1­
4
Draft
Table
1­
1.
Solubilities
of
Metal­
Anion
Compounds
in
Water
Metal
Anion
Species
Compound
g/
L
Solubility
Rating
Experimental/
Estimated
Value
Antimony
Sulfide
Sb2S3
1.75E­
03
M
Experimental
Chloride
SbCl3
2390*
H
Experimental
Arsenic
Sulfide
As2S3
6.65E­
04**
L
Experimental
Sulfide
AsS5
1.36E­
03
M
Experimental
Oxide
As2O3
1.77E+
01**
H
Experimental
Barium
Phosphate
Ba3(
PO4)
2
4.27E­
04
L
Estimated
Hydroxide
Ba(
OH)
2
3.98E+
01
H
Estimated
Sulfite
BaSO3
1.07E­
01**
M
Experimental
Sulfate
BaSO4
1.01E­
02**
M
Experimental
Beryllium
Oxide
BeO
4.17E+
02
H
Experimental
Cadmium
Hydroxide
Cd(
OH)
2
1.57E­
03
L
Experimental
Oxide
CdO
2.43E­
03**
M
Experimental
Carbonate
CdCO3
2.72E­
05
L
Estimated
Cyanide
Cd(
CN)
2
2.47E­
03
M
Experimental
Chromium
Sulfate
Cr2(
SO4)
3
860*
H
Experimental
Cobalt
Sulfide
Co2S3
2.58E­
23
L
Estimated
Hydroxide
Co(
OH)
3
3.18E­
03
M
Experimental
Carbonate
CoCO3
1.06E­
04
L
Estimated
Copper
Sulfide
CuS
2.18E­
13
L
Experimental
Sulfide
Cu2S
6.70E­
15
L
Estimated
Hydroxide
Cu(
OH)
2
2.10E­
07**
L
Experimental
Oxide
CuO
1.40E­
08
L
Experimental
Oxide
Cu2O
8.60E­
05
L
Experimental
Cyanide
CuCN
1.60E­
08
L
Estimated
Chloride
CuCl
4.32E­
02
M
Estimated
Chloride
CuCl2
637*
H
Experimental
September
2000
1­
5
Draft
Table
1­
1.
Solubilities
of
Metal­
Anion
Compounds
in
Water
(
continued)

Metal
Anion
Species
Compound
g/
L
Solubility
Rating
Experimental/
Estimated
Value
Lead
Sulfide
PbS
7.70E­
04**
L
Experimental
Phosphate
Pb3(
PO4)
2
6.81E­
07
L
Estimated
Hydroxide
Pb(
OH)
2
9.90E­
04
L
Estimated
Oxide
PbO
1.41E+
00**
H
Experimental
Carbonate
PbCO3
1.70E­
03
M
Experimental
Sulfate
PbSO4
4.07E­
02
M
Experimental
Chloride
PbCl2
4.49E+
00
H
Estimated
Mercury
Sulfide
HgS
1.25E­
05
L
Experimental
Hydroxide
Hg2(
OH)
2
4.31E­
07
L
Estimated
Hydroxide
Hg(
OH)
2
5.90E­
02
M
Experimental
Oxide
HgO
2.58E­
02**
M
Experimental
Carbonate
Hg2CO3
1.30E­
03
M
Estimated
Sulfate
HgSO4
3.90E­
01
M
Experimental
Sulfate
Hg2SO4
2.75E+
00
H
Estimated
Cyanide
Hg(
CN)
2
9.30E+
01
H
Experimental
Chloride
Hg2Cl2
4.25E­
06*,**
L
Experimental
Chloride
HgCl2
65.0
H
Experimental
Nickel
Sulfide
NiS
beta
9.08E­
12
L
Estimated
Hydroxide
Ni(
OH)
2
1.27E­
02
M
Experimental
Carbonate
NiCO3
9.25E­
02
M
Experimental
Cyanide
Ni(
CN)
2
5.92E­
02
M
Experimental
H
=
Highly
soluble
M
=
Moderately
soluble
L
=
Slightly
soluble
to
insoluble
*
g/
L
calculated
from
wt%
assuming
no
loss
in
volume
when
the
salt
was
dissolved
in
water
**
Mean
of
two
reported
values
Source:
compiled
by
SAIC
from
the
sources
listed
in
Section
5
of
this
report.
September
2000
1­
6
Draft
pH
Control
pH
largely
controls
metal
containment
in
a
solid
matrix
influenced
by
a
solvent.
Predicting
any
constituent's
solubility
as
a
function
of
pH
must
be
done
carefully.
Though
redox
conditions
largely
influence
solubility,
the
solubility
of
some
metals
is
more
dependent
on
pH
than
on
redox
potential
(
e.
g.,
Pb).

Generally,
metal
cations
are
more
soluble/
mobile
at
low
pH.
Some
metal
anionic
species
are
more
soluble
at
high
pH.
Adsorption
of
metal
cations
and
anions
generally
increases
as
pH
increases
thus
reducing
solubility.
Metal
hydroxides
and
oxides
have
low
solubility
in
the
range
of
pH
7.5­
11,
as
depicted
in
Figures
1­
1
and
1­
2
(
Conner,
1990).
At
higher
pH
(>
12),
in
the
absence
of
a
strong
reducing
agent,
metal
hydroxides
may
become
soluble.
Greater
effects
on
solubility
of
certain
metals
occur
at
extreme
low
and
high
pH
(<
2
and
>
12),
respectively.
Solubility
over
"
transition"
pH
ranges
(
5­
9)
varies
for
most
metal
compounds
and
is
more
dependent
on
the
overall
influence
of
the
waste
environment.
Amphoteric
metals
(
e.
g.,
chromium,
lead)
have
higher
solubility
at
both
low
and
high
pH.

Anions
of
weak
bases
become
more
soluble
at
low
to
mid­
range
pH
(
e.
g.,
carbonates,
sulfides,
and
phosphates).
It
is
generally
observed
that
hydrolysis
occurring
under
strongly
alkaline
conditions
leads
to
the
precipitation
of
salts,
and
hydrolysis
(
hydrogen
bonding/
protonation)
occurring
under
acidic
conditions
leads
to
the
solubilization
of
salts.
Hydrolyzed
metals
at
low
to
mid­
range
pH
act
as
weak
acids,
thus
acidifying
the
solution
and
increasing
the
solubility
of
slightly
soluble
salts
(
Benefield,
Judkins,
and
Weand,
1982).

pH
greatly
influences
the
reactions
that
occur
at
the
surface
of
solids
in
contact
with
the
solvating
solution
via
the
charge
induced
on
solid
and
particle
surfaces.
Charged
surfaces
in
turn
influence
hydration,
adsorption,
and
complexation
reactions.
Thus
the
influence
of
the
electro­
chemical
environment
as
a
function
of
pH
and
redox
potential
should
be
observed
together
when
predicting
the
stability
boundaries,
considering
all
possible
metal
cation
and
anion
species.

Oxidation­
Reduction
Potential
(
redox
potential)
and
Electron
Activity
In
simple
and
multi­
component
systems,
the
solubility
gradient
for
many
metals
is
largely
dependent
on
the
electro­
chemical
environment
of
solid
and
liquid
phases
(
redox)
in
conjunction
with
pH.
The
solubility
of
polyvalent
metals
is
more
complex
than
for
metals
that
have
a
strong
tendency
to
exist
in
one
oxidation
state
in
solution,
when
bonded,
and
during
chemical
reactions
(
i.
e.,
Cu,
Zn,
Cd,
Pb,
Ba,
Co,
Ni).
Dissolution
mechanisms
are
complex
because
a
variety
of
redox
influencing
chemical
species
may
exist
at
all
ranges
of
pH.
Furthermore,
some
metals
are
capable
of
anionic
speciation
and
demonstrate
different
solubilities
and
amphoteric
properties
over
varying
pH
(
As,
Se,
Sb,
Cr).
September
2000
1­
7
Draft
Figure
1­
1.
Solubilities
of
metal
hydroxides
as
a
function
of
pH
(
Adapted
from
Connor,
1990).

6
9
10
11
12
8
7
pH
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.0
10
100
Solubility
(
mg/
L)

Fe+
3
Cu
Ni
Cd
Fe+
2
Ag
Pb
Zn
Metal
Hydroxides
September
2000
1­
8
Draft
Metal
Hydroxides/
Sulfides
Figure
1­
2.
Solubilities
of
metal
hydroxides
and
sulfides
as
a
function
of
pH
(
Adapted
from
Connor,
1990).
September
2000
1­
9
Draft
In
addition
to
the
metals
that
have
more
than
one
valence
state,
other
species
in
their
elemental
or
ionic
form
(
such
as
sulfur)
have
more
than
one
valence
state
which
also
influences
the
redox
process.
Metals
such
as
Cu
and
Cd,
even
though
they
have
mainly
one
oxidation
state,
can
be
strongly
influenced
by
redox
processes.

In
order
to
use
the
electrical
potential
to
assess
the
likelihood
of
a
reaction
proceeding
in
the
direction
of
metal
dissolution,
the
species
required
for
redox
processes
must
be
available
in
the
system.
In
addition,
since
redox
reactions
involve
the
transfer
of
electrons,
the
use
of
electron
activity
(
pe)
is
used
as
an
approach
(
Drever,
1997).
The
activity
of
electrons
does
not
correspond
to
a
concentration,
but
the
tendency
of
the
system
to
provide
electrons
to
any
electron
acceptor.
Redox
potential
is
a
measure
of
the
electrical
charge
required
for
a
reaction
involving
a
redox
pair
to
proceed
in
the
direction
of
oxidation
or
reduction.
Thus
a
conventional
means
of
discussing
redox
reactions
can
be
done
by
using
pe­
pH
and
Eh­
pH
diagrams
which
conveniently
display
solubility
transition
boundaries
based
on
speciation.

Oxidizing
conditions
are
characterized
by
the
redox
potential
of
the
system
such
that
the
dissolution
of
the
metal
species
of
concern
is
favored
in
the
ionic
environment,
indicated
by
a
positive
electrical
potential.
Some
natural
oxidizing
species
include
iron
(
III)
oxide,
manganese
dioxide,
and
dissolved
oxygen
recharge
water.
Oxidizers
found
in
wastes
include
peroxides,
dichromates,
and
nitric
acid.
Some
reducing
species
are
iron(
II)
hydroxide
and
sulfides.

Knowledge
of
the
redox
potential
of
a
system
allows
estimation
of
the
possible
speciation
of
the
metal
and
its
leachability
at
varying
pH.
This
area,
however,
needs
much
more
investigation
in
complex
systems
to
understand
what
species
are
being
affected
by
the
overall
redox
potential
of
a
system.
In
the
following
discussion,
observations
were
made
according
to
oxidation
state
classifications
(
e.
g.,
+
1,
+
2,
+
3,
etc.).

The
+
2
metals
(
Cu,
Zn,
Cd,
Pb,
Ba,
Co,
and
Ni)
tended
to
show
similar
trends
in
solubility
along
pH
and
redox
gradients.
The
+
2
metals
are
generally
more
soluble
in
oxidizing
conditions
and
less
soluble
under
reducing
conditions.

Two
metals
have
unique
oxidation
states
of
+
3
and
+
5,
arsenic
and
antimony.
Information
was
available
for
arsenic.
Selenium
is
shown
together
with
arsenic
in
the
tables
that
follow,
because
both
form
anionic
species
over
a
range
of
conditions.
However,
Se
and
As
solubilities
are
influenced
differently
by
adsorption
at
varying
pH.

In
general,
amphoteric
metals
in
high
pH
environments
are
capable
of
being
reduced
and
forming
soluble
metal
anions
from
their
higher
oxidation
state
complexes
(
e.
g.,
As,
Sb).
The
contrary
holds
true
as
well.
Amphoteric
metals
complexed
at
a
low
oxidation
state
are
capable
of
being
oxidized
and
solubilizing
the
metal
ion
at
low
pH.
However,
the
mobility
of
these
species
is
higher
in
acidic
environments.
Chromium
and
mercury
behave
uniquely
compared
to
other
metals
due
to
their
complex
redox
chemistry
at
varying
pH.
September
2000
1­
10
Draft
Soluble
Moderately
Soluble
Tables
1­
2
and
1­
3
show
metal
solubilities
at
general
pH
ranges
under
oxidizing
and
reducing
conditions.
These
tables
are
only
a
general
guide
and
may
not
predict
the
true
solubility
of
a
compound
in
a
complex
environment.
Metal
solubility
and
mobility
information
obtained
from
studies
on
simple
systems
is
presented
in
Tables
1­
2
and
1­
3
in
conjunction
with
information
obtained
from
leaching
studies
of
actual
wastes
(
e.
g.,
fly
ash,
bottom
ash,
municipal
waste
combustion
ash)
that
supports
these
conclusions.

Table
1­
2.
Metal­
Salt
Speciation
Under
Oxidizing
Conditions
Acidic
­
Oxidizing
Neutral
­
Oxidizing
Basic
­
Oxidizing
­
CrO4
2­
and
CrO7
2­
form
stable
and
mobile
anion
­
all
salts
of
Pb2+,
Cu2+,
Cd2+,
Ba2+,
Co2+,
Ni2+

­
As5+,
SeO4
2­

­
salts
of
Hg
­
Pb2+
salts
­
salts
of
Hg
­
Cu2+,
Cd2+,
Pb2+
at
high
pH
(>
12)

­
anionic
species
of
As
­
salts
of
Hg
­
Gradient
to
higher
pH:
the
salt
solubilities
of
Pb2+,
Cu2+,
Cd2+,
Ba2+,
Co2+,
Ni2+
are
limited
by
the
formation
of
carbonates
and
hydroxides.

­
SeO3
2­

Source:
compiled
by
SAIC
from
the
sources
listed
in
Section
5
of
this
report.
September
2000
1­
11
Draft
Soluble
Moderately
Soluble
Table
1­
3.
Metal­
Salt
Speciation
Under
Reducing
Conditions
Acidic
­
Reducing
Neutral
­
Reducing
Basic
­
Reducing
­
When
no
sulfide
is
present,
salts
of
Cd2+,
Ba2+,
Co2+,
Pb2+

­
Cr(
OH)
3
3+

­
salts
of
As
and
Sb
remain
soluble
until
strong
reducing
conditions
are
achieved.

­
salts
of
Ni2+
when
no
sulfide
is
present
­
with
increase
in
pH
the
solubilities
of
Pb2+,
Cu2+,
Cd2+,
Ba2+,
Co2+,
Ni2+
salts
are
limited
by
the
formation
of
carbonates
and
hydr/
oxides.

Source:
compiled
by
SAIC
from
the
sources
listed
in
Section
5
of
this
report.

According
to
de
Groot
et
al.
(
1989)
pH
is
the
main
factor
in
controlling
leachability
[
in
fly
ash],
as
illustrated
in
Table
1­
4.
The
elements
present
in
the
form
of
anionic
species
(
for
example,
As,
Sb,
Se,
Mo
and
V)
behave
similarly.
In
contrast
with
literature
information,
limited
solubility
of
anions
at
high
pH
(>
11)
has
been
observed.
The
metals
Pb,
Cu,
Cd,
and
Zn
show
minimum
solubility
at
high
pH.
To
verify
the
pH
dependence
of
all
major
elements
normally
found
in
fly
ash
extracts
at
pH
4
and
liquid
to
solid
(
LS)
ratio
of
5,
have
been
performed.
By
stepwise
increase
of
the
pH,
by
adding
calcium
oxide,
the
relation
between
pH
and
element
concentrations
in
the
solution
has
been
established.
Trace
elements
such
as
As,
Sb,
Se,
Mo,
and
V
show
a
characteristic
maximum
at
neutral
pH
and
a
decrease
in
concentration
towards
lower
and
higher
pH.
September
2000
1­
12
Draft
Table
1­
4.
Leaching
characteristic
as
a
function
of
acidity
of
the
contact
solution
and
the
L/
S
ratio.

Concentration
in
Leachate
Trace
elements
form
of
anion
L/
S=
5
pH
Observed
solubility
Formation
of
insoluble
compounds
Decrease
As,
Sb,
Se,
Mo,
V
>
7
minimum
With
calcium
or
precipitation
/
sorption
as
barium
arsenate.
<
7
minimum
Solid
phases
,
arsenic
oxide,
antimony
oxide,
molybdenum
oxide,
vanadium
oxide
Pb,
Cu,
Cd,
Zn
>
11
minimum
Hydroxide
compounds
Mg
>
8
limited
Magnesium
hydroxide
Maximum
As,
Sb,
Se,
Mo,
V
7
Al
6­
7
minimum
Caused
by
gibbsite
formation
10
maximum
Related
to
pozzolanic
activity
>
11
minimum
Ettringite
formation
(
3
CaO.
Al2O3.3CaSO4.31
H2O
)
Si
10
minimum
12
maximum
Increase
Ca
high
limited
Calcium
sulfate
SO4
high
limited
Calcium
sulfate
Source:
compiled
by
SAIC
from
the
sources
listed
in
Section
5
of
this
report.

Comans
and
Meima
(
1987)
show
that
the
Ca
chemistry
of
municipal
solid
waste
bottom
ash
can
exert
a
strong
influence
on
the
leaching
of
potential
contaminants.
Leaching
of
the
heavy
metals
Cd,
Cu
and
Pb
is
probably
controlled
by
(
hydr)
oxide
or
carbonate
minerals.
The
solubility
minimum
for
these
heavy
metals
lies
between
pH
8
and
9,
and
the
solubility
may
increase
as
pH
rises
or
decreases
from
the
pH
of
minimum
solubility.
September
2000
1­
13
Draft
1.1.2
Behavior
of
Specific
Elements
Copper,
Cadmium,
and
Lead
(
Drever,
1997)

The
expected
behavior
of
these
metals
in
the
environment
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
Under
oxidizing
conditions
at
low
pH,
they
are
all
soluble
and
mobile.
As
the
pH
rises,
their
concentrations
tend
to
decrease,
first
because
of
adsorption
(
particularly
for
Pb
and
Cu),
and
then
because
of
the
limited
solubility
of
carbonates
and
oxides/
hydroxides.
Under
reducing
conditions,
if
sulfur
is
present,
all
should
be
immobilized
as
sulfides.
If
sulfur
is
absent,
for
Cd
and
Pb
the
solubility
control
will
be
the
same
as
under
oxidizing
conditions;
Cu
should
be
insoluble
at
all
pH
values.
Adsorption
is
generally
less
important
in
soil
under
reducing
conditions
because
the
most
important
substrates
in
soil
for
adsorption,
Fe
and
Mn
oxyhydroxides,
tend
themselves
to
dissolve.

Arsenic
and
Selenium
(
Drever,
1997)

Under
oxidizing
conditions,
the
dominant
form
of
arsenic
is
the
+
5
oxidation
state,
which
is
present
as
arsenic
acid
and
its
anions
(
arsenate),
corresponding
closely
to
phosphoric
acid
and
phosphate
species.
For
selenium,
the
dominant
form
under
oxidizing
conditions
is
selenate,
which
is
closely
analogous
to
sulfate.
As
conditions
become
reducing,
As
(
V)
is
reduced
to
As
(
III)­
arsenious
acid
and
arsenite
anions.
When
sulfate
reduction
occurs,
As
precipitates
as
a
sulfide;
if
sulfur
is
absent,
it
remains
in
solution
as
arsenious
acid
or
an
arsenite.
Elemental
arsenic
should
be
a
stable
species
under
highly
reducing
conditions.
For
selenium,
selenite
species
(
analogous
to
sulfite)
occur
at
intermediate
redox
levels,
followed
by
elemental
selenium
and
hydrogen
selenide
(
analogous
to
hydrogen
sulfide)
species
under
strongly
reducing
conditions.
Both
arsenic
and
selenium
may
be
incorporated
into
iron
sulfides
under
reducing
conditions.
Figures
1­
3
and
1­
4
present
pe­
pH
diagrams
for
arsenic
and
selenium,
respectively.
September
2000
1­
14
Draft
Figure
1­
3.
Simplified
pe­
pH
diagram
for
the
system
As­
O­
H2O
at
25b
C
and
one
atm.
Total
activity
of
sulfur
species
=
10­
2.
Solubility
is
defined
as
a
dissolved
As
species
activity
of
10­
6.
(
Adapted
from
Drever,
1997)

1.0
0.5
0
­
0.5
Eh
(
v)
20
15
10
5
0
­
5
­
10
pe
12
2
HAsO4
2­
H3AsO4
H2AsO4
­

H3AsO3
As
4
8
6
10
pH
AsO4
3­

As
2
S
3
H
2
AsO
3
­
HAsO3
2­

AsS
Arsenic
September
2000
1­
15
Draft
Figure
1­
4.
Simplified
pe­
pH
diagram
for
the
system
Se­
O­
H2O
at
25bC
and
one
atm.
Solubility
is
defined
as
a
dissolved
Se
activity
of
10­
6.
(
Adapted
from
Drever,
1997)

1.0
0.5
0
­
0.5
Eh
(
v)
20
15
10
5
0
­
5
­
10
pe
12
2
SeO
4
2­
H2SeO3
HSeO3
­

SeO4
2­

Seelemental
HSe­

H2Se
4
8
6
10
pH
Selenium
Chromium
(
Drever,
1997)

Under
highly
oxidizing
conditions,
the
hexavalent
form
(
chromate)
is
stable
as
an
anion.
It
is
not
strongly
adsorbed
(
adsorption
edge
at
about
pH
7)
and
is
therefore
mobile
in
the
environment.
Under
intermediate
and
reducing
conditions,
Cr
(
III)
is
the
stable
oxidation
state.
It
is
insoluble
in
the
neutral
and
alkaline
pH
ranges.
It
is
soluble
(
largely
as
Cr(
OH)
2+)
under
acid
conditions.
In
general,
Cr
(
III)
species
are
strongly
adsorbed.
Figure
1­
5
presents
a
pe­
pH
diagram
for
chromium.
September
2000
1­
16
Draft
Figure
1­
5.
pe­
pH
diagram
for
the
system
Cr­
O­
H2O
at
25bC
and
one
atm.
Solubility
is
defined
as
a
dissolved
Cr
activity
of
10­
6.
(
Adapted
from
Drever,
1997)

1.0
0.5
0
­
0.5
Eh
(
v)
20
15
10
5
0
­
5
­
10
pe
12
2
HCrO4
­

4
8
6
10
pH
CrO4
2­

Cr2O3
Cr3­

Cr(
OH)
2­
Chromium
Mercury
The
chemistry
of
mercury
in
the
environment
is
highly
complex.
The
common
soluble
form
is
the
oxidized
(
mercuric)
Hg2+
ion
and
its
hydrolysis
product
Hg(
OH)
2
(
neutral
species),
with
the
reduced
(
mercurous)
Hg2
2+
dication
being
less
important.
Elemental
mercury
has
a
large
stability
field.
The
elemental
form
is
volatile
and
slightly
soluble
in
water.
Mercury
sulfide
is
not
mobile
except
in
extreme
alkaline
conditions.
Figure
1­
6
presents
a
pe­
pH
diagram
for
mercury.
(
Drever,
1997).
September
2000
1­
17
Draft
Figure
1­
6.
pe­
pH
diagram
for
the
system
Hg­
S­
O­
H2O
at
25bC
and
one
atm.
Solubility
is
defined
as
a
dissolved
Hg
activity
of
10­
6.
Total
activity
of
sulfur
species
=
10­
2.
The
diagram
is
the
same
in
the
absence
of
S
species,
with
the
HgS
(
cinnabar)
field
replaced
by
Hg
(
metal).
In
the
presence
of
chloride,
the
Hg2
2+
may
be
replaced
by
the
insoluble
mercurous
chloride
(
calomel).
(
Adapted
from
Drever,
1997)

2
1
0
­
1
­
2
2
4
6
10
14
8
12
Eh
(
v)
HgCO3
Hg
HgS
Hg
Hg2
2+
Hg2SO4
HgS2
2­
HgO
pH
Mercury
In
a
metal­
contaminated
site,
mercury
exists
in
mercuric
form
(
Hg2+),
mercurous
form
(
Hg2
2+),
elemental
form
(
Hg0),
or
alkylated
form
(
e.
g.,
methyl
and
ethyl
mercury).
Hg2
2+
and
Hg2+
under
oxidizing
conditions
are
more
stable
than
metallic
mercury.
Under
mildly
reducing
conditions,
both
organically
bound
mercury
and
inorganic
mercury
compounds
may
be
degraded
to
elemental
mercury
that
can
be
converted
readily
to
methyl
or
ethyl
mercury
by
biotic
and
abiotic
processes.
Methyl
and
ethyl
mercury
are
the
most
toxic
forms
of
mercury.
The
alkylated
mercury
compounds
are
both
volatile
in
air
and
soluble
in
water
(
Smith,
1995).

Mercury
(
II)
forms
relatively
strong
complexes
with
Cl­
and
CO3
­
2.
Mercury
(
II)
also
forms
complexes
with
other
inorganic
ligands
such
as
F­,
Br­,
I­,
SO4
­
2,
S­
2,
and
PO4
­
3.
The
insoluble
HgS
is
formed
under
mildly
reducing
conditions
(
Smith,
1995).
The
stability
of
some
mercury
compounds
under
various
Eh
and
pH
conditions
is
shown
in
Figure
1­
7.
September
2000
1­
18
Draft
Figure
1­
7.
Stability
regions
of
mercury
species
in
the
sulfur
carbonate
water
system.
Hg
=
0.001
M;
S
=
0.1
M;
C
=
0.1
M.
(
From
USEPA,
1984.
Mercury
Health
Effects
Update:
Health
Issue
Assessment,
Final
Report.
EPA/
600/
8­
84/
019F.)

1.0
0.5
0
­
0.5
Eh
(
v)
20
15
10
5
0
­
5
­
10
pe
12
2
Hg2+

4
8
6
10
pH
Hg(
OH)
2
0
Hg
metal
Hg
2
2+

HgS
cinnabar
Hg
September
2000
1­
19
Draft
1.2
Organic
Mobility
The
mobility
of
organic
constituents
has
received
less
study
than
the
behavior
of
inorganics;
however,
there
is
a
theoretical
body
of
work
that
addresses
the
behavior
of
many
organic
compounds.
For
the
purposes
of
this
discussion,
organic
counpounds
included
in
the
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
(
HWIR)
organics
list
were
evaluated
to
explored
for
potential
mobility
using
both
theoretical
and
real­
world
examples.
The
relationship
of
chemical
properties
to
leachate
characteristics
is
best
identified
by
properties
such
as
octanol­
water
coefficients,
pH,
and
solubility.

For
many
organic
compounds,
solubility
often
determines
the
leachate
concentration.
The
solubility
of
some
volatile
constituents
have
been
found
to
indicate
that
increasing
solubility
is
related
to
increasing
leachate
concentration
(
Pavelka
et
al.,
1993).
Alcohol
constituents
and
halogenated
hydrocarbons,
ketones,
and
aromatics
were
found
to
follow
this
trend.
Figure
1­
8
shows
the
relationship
for
solubility
and
leachate
concentration.
Figure
1­
9
indicates
a
strong
correlation
of
leachate
concentrations
and
solubility
of
the
semi­
volatile
constituents.

Figure
1­
8.
Volatile
concentration
and
solubility.
(
Adapted
from
Pavelka
et
al.,
1993)

100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Isobutyl
Alcohol
Butyl
Alcohol
Methanol
1,1
Dichloroethane
Benzene
1,2
Xylene
1,3
Xylene
Toluene
Trichloroethne
Chloroform
1,1,1
Trichloroethane
Methyl
Chloride
Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
Methyl
Ethyl
Ketone
Acetone
Chemical
Solubility
(
mg/
L)
10
100
10
1000
10000
1000000
Leachate
Concentration
(
ug/
L)
September
2000
1­
20
Draft
Figure
1­
9.
Semi­
volatile
concentration
and
solubility.
(
Adapted
from
Pavelka
et
al.,
1993)

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
10­
3
10­
1
10
103
105
105
104
103
102
10
100
10­
1
Chemical
Solubility
(
mg/
L)
Leachate
Concentration
(
ug/
L)

1.2.1
Effects
of
pH
on
Leachability
Of
Organics
Many
organic
compounds
can
become
more
leachable
if
they
are
exposed
to
an
acidic
or
alkaline
leachant.
The
leachability
of
an
organic
in
a
neutral
(
pH
=
7)
aqueous
leachant
can
be
estimated
by
the
organic's
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
(
Kow).
However,
new
species
can
be
formed
from
some
organics
in
acid
or
alkali,
usually
cationic
or
anionic
forms
of
the
organic,
with
different
Kow
and
different
leachability.
The
Kow
of
a
chemical
should
be
related
to
the
leachate
concentration
in
an
inverse
way.
Since
the
Kow
is
a
measure
of
a
chemical
hydophobicity,
the
more
hydrophobic
a
chemical
is,
the
less
soluble
it
should
be.
Pavelka
et
al.
(
1993)
found
that
with
volatile
constituents
leachate
concentrations
decreased
as
Kow
increased.
Two
distinct
groups
were
identified
by
the
study:
alcohols;
and
halogenated
hydrocarbons,
aromatics
and
ketones.
The
semi­
volatile
constituents
were
also
found
to
behave
similarly
to
the
volatiles
(
Figure
1­
10).
Constituents
with
low
Kow
values
were
characterized
as
having
high
leachate
concentrations
(
e.
g.,
phthalic
acid,
phenol,
and
aniline).
September
2000
1­
21
Draft
Figure
1­
10.
Volatile
concentration
and
Kow
values.
(
Adapted
from
Pavelka
et
al.,
1993).

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
104
103
102
10
100
Log
KOW
Leachate
Concentration
(
ug/
L)

0
2
4
6
8
·
10
Acid
Leachable
Organics
In
general,
amines
(
R­
NH2,
R­
NH­
R,
R­(
R­)
N­
R),
amides
(
R­
C(=
O)
NH­
R),
and
other
nitrogencontaining
organics
can
form
very
water­
soluble
salts
in
the
presence
of
strong
acids
like
hydrochloric,
nitric,
phosphoric,
or
sulfuric.
The
amine
or
amide
nitrogen
becomes
protonated,
forming
a
cation
that
is
much
more
water
soluble
than
the
neutral
compound.

Table
1­
5
lists
compounds
that
react
with
strong
acid­
containing
leaching
media,
changing
their
leachability
and
environmental
mobility.
Most
of
the
compounds
become
protonated,
forming
a
more
mobile
cation.
Note,
however,
that
two
compounds
in
Table
1­
5,
endothall
and
the
sodium
salt
of
fluoroacetic
acid
are
already
very
water
leachable
salts.
(
Endothall
is
the
disodium
salt
of
a
dicarboxylic
acid.)
In
the
presence
of
acid,
they
are
rendered
neutral,
and
become
less
mobile
in
acidic
media.
September
2000
1­
22
Draft
Table
1­
5.
Compounds
Whose
Leachability
Changes
In
Acidic
Media
CAS
#
Chemical
Acid
Mobility
145­
73­
3
Endothall
Less
mobile
62­
74­
8
Fluoracetic
acid,
sodium
salt
Less
mobile
53­
96­
3
Acetylaminofluorene,
2­
More
mobile
79­
06­
1
Acrylamide
More
mobile
116­
06­
3
Aldicarb
More
mobile
92­
67­
1
Aminobiphenyl,
4­
More
mobile
504­
24­
5
Aminopyridine,
4­
More
mobile
61­
82­
5
Amitrole
More
mobile
62­
53­
3
Aniline
More
mobile
2465­
27­
2
Auramine
More
mobile
225­
51­
4
Benz[
c]
acridine
More
mobile
92­
87­
5
Benzidine
More
mobile
357­
57­
3
Brucine
More
mobile
86­
74­
8
Carbazole
More
mobile
106­
47­
8
Chloroaniline,
p­
More
mobile
5344­
82­
1
Chlorophenyl
thiourea,
1­
o­
More
mobile
50­
18­
0
Cyclophosphamide
More
mobile
2303­
16­
4
Diallate
More
mobile
226­
36­
8
Dibenz(
a,
h)
acridine
More
mobile
224­
42­
0
Dibenz[
a,
j]
acridine
More
mobile
194­
59­
2
Dibenzo[
c,
g]
carbazole,
7H­
More
mobile
91­
94­
1
Dichlorobenzidine,
3,3'­
More
mobile
60­
51­
5
Dimethoate
More
mobile
60­
11­
7
Dimethylaminoazobenzene,
p­
More
mobile
119­
93­
7
Dimethylbenzidine,
3,3'­
More
mobile
122­
09­
8
Dimethylphenethylamine,
alpha,
alpha­
More
mobile
119­
90­
4
Dimethyoxybenzidine,
3,3'­
More
mobile
122­
39­
4
Diphenylamine
More
mobile
122­
66­
7
Diphenylhydrazine,
1,2­
More
mobile
51­
79­
6
Ethyl
carbamate
More
mobile
96­
45­
7
Ethylene
thiourea
More
mobile
151­
56­
4
Ethyleneimine
(
aziridine)
More
mobile
52­
85­
7
Famphur
More
mobile
640­
19­
7
Fluoracetamide,
2­
More
mobile
302­
01­
2
Hydrazine
More
mobile
123­
33­
1
Maleic
hydrazide
More
mobile
91­
80­
5
Methapyrilene
More
mobile
16752­
77­
5
Methomyl
More
mobile
101­
14­
4
Methylenebis,
4,4'­
(
2­
chloroaniline)
More
mobile
1615­
80­
1
N,
N­
Diethylhydrazine
More
mobile
86­
88­
4
Naphthyl­
2­
thiourea,
1­
More
mobile
134­
32­
7
Naphthylamine,
1­
More
mobile
September
2000
1­
23
Draft
Table
1­
5.
Compounds
Whose
Leachability
Changes
In
Acidic
Media
(
continued)
CAS
#
Chemical
Acid
Mobility
91­
59­
8
Naphthylamine,
2­
More
mobile
54­
11­
5
Nicotine
More
mobile
88­
74­
4
Nitroaniline,
2­
More
mobile
99­
09­
2
Nitroaniline,
3­
More
mobile
100­
01­
6
Nitroaniline,
4­
More
mobile
55­
86­
7
Nitrogen
mustard
More
mobile
126­
85­
2
Nitrogen
mustard
N­
Oxide
More
mobile
99­
55­
8
Nitro­
o­
toluidine,
5­
More
mobile
56­
57­
5
Nitroquinoline­
1­
oxide,
4­
More
mobile
55­
18­
5
Nitrosodiethylamine
More
mobile
62­
75­
9
Nitrosodimethylamine
More
mobile
924­
16­
3
Nitrosodi­
n­
butylamine
More
mobile
10595­
95­
6
Nitrosomethylethylamine
More
mobile
1116­
54­
7
N­
Nitrosodiethanolamine
More
mobile
621­
64­
7
N­
Nitrosodi­
n­
propylamine
More
mobile
86­
30­
6
N­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
More
mobile
4549­
40­
0
N­
Nitrosomethyl
vinyl
amine
More
mobile
59­
89­
2
N­
Nitrosomorpholine
More
mobile
615­
53­
2
N­
Nitroso­
N­
methylurethane
More
mobile
100­
75­
4
N­
Nitrosopiperidine
More
mobile
930­
55­
2
N­
Nitrosopyrrolidine
More
mobile
103­
85­
5
N­
Phenylthiourea
More
mobile
297­
97­
2
O,
O­
Diethyl
O­
pyrazinyl
phosphorothioate
More
mobile
152­
16­
9
Octamethylpyrophosphoramide
More
mobile
108­
45­
2
Phenylenediamine,
 
More
mobile
106­
50­
3
Phenylenediamine,
p­
More
mobile
25265­
76­
3
Phenylenediamines
(
N.
O.
S.)
More
mobile
109­
06­
8
Picoline,
2­
More
mobile
23950­
58­
5
Pronamide
More
mobile
107­
10­
8
Propylamine,
 
More
mobile
110­
86­
1
Pyridine
More
mobile
50­
55­
5
Reserpine
More
mobile
57­
24­
9
Strychnine
More
mobile
62­
55­
5
Thioacetamide
More
mobile
79­
19­
6
Thiosemicarbazide
More
mobile
62­
56­
6
Thiourea
More
mobile
137­
26­
8
Thiram
More
mobile
95­
80­
7
Toluenediamine,
2,4­
More
mobile
823­
40­
5
Toluenediamine,
2,6­
More
mobile
496­
72­
0
Toluenediamine,
3,4­
More
mobile
95­
53­
4
Toluidine,
o­
More
mobile
106­
49­
0
Toluidine,
p­
More
mobile
Source:
compiled
by
SAIC
from
the
sources
listed
in
Section
5
of
this
report.
September
2000
1­
24
Draft
Alkali
Leachable
Organics
Phenols
(
Ar­
OH)
and
imides
(
R­
C(=
O)
NHC(=
O)­
R)
are
the
two
organic
functional
groups
represented
on
the
HWIR
list
that
can
form
an
ionic
species
in
the
presence
of
an
alkaline
leachant.
They
are
both
weak
acids,
capable
of
giving
up
a
proton
in
the
presence
of
hydroxide,
to
form
an
organic
anion,
which
is
much
more
soluble
than
the
neutral
species.

Table
1­
6
lists
compounds
that
react
with
strong
alkali­
containing
leaching
media,
changing
their
leachability
and
environmental
mobility.
Most
of
the
compounds
lose
a
proton,
forming
a
more
mobile
anion.
Note,
however,
that
four
compounds
in
Table
1­
6,
all
acid
salts,
are
already
very
water
leachable.
In
the
presence
of
alkali,
they
are
rendered
neutral,
and
become
less
mobile
in
alkaline
media.

Polyfunctional
Organics
Organics
with
multiple
functional
groups,
including
one
that
can
be
protonated
in
acid
leachant,
and
one
that
can
lose
a
proton
in
alkaline
leachant,
will
be
more
leachable
in
both
acids
and
alkalis.
There
are
at
least
ten
such
compounds
on
the
list.
They
are
listed
in
Table
1­
7.
(
A
number
of
drugs
and
antineoplastic
agents
on
the
list
have
not
been
included,
considering
their
low
probability
of
occurrence
in
significant
concentrations
in
industrial
hazardous
wastes.)
September
2000
1­
25
Draft
Table
1­
6.
Compounds
Whose
Leachability
Changes
in
Alkaline
Media
CAS
#
Chemical
Alkali
Mobility
[
54­
11­
5]
Nicotine
salts
Less
mobile
51­
75­
2
Nitrogen
mustard
hydrochloride
salt
Less
mobile
302­
70­
5
Nitrogen
mustard
N­
Oxide,
HCl
salt
Less
mobile
636­
21­
5
Toluidine
hydrochloride,
o­
Less
mobile
106­
51­
4
Benzoquinone,
p­
More
mobile
88­
85­
7
Butyl­
4,6­
dinitrophenol,
2­
sec­
(
Dinoseb)
More
mobile
59­
50­
7
Chloro­
m­
cresol,
p­
More
mobile
95­
57­
8
Chlorophenol,
2­
More
mobile
108­
39­
4
Cresol,
 
More
mobile
95­
48­
7
Cresol,
o­
More
mobile
106­
44­
5
Cresol,
p­
More
mobile
131­
89­
5
Cyclohexyl­
4,6­
dinitrophenol,
2­
More
mobile
120­
83­
2
Dichlorophenol,
2,4­
More
mobile
87­
65­
0
Dichlorophenol,
2,6­
More
mobile
94­
75­
7
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid,
2,4­
(
2,4­
D)
More
mobile
56­
53­
1
Diethylstilbestrol
More
mobile
105­
67­
9
Dimethylphenol,
2,4­
More
mobile
534­
52­
1
Dinitro­
o­
cresol,
4,6­
More
mobile
51­
28­
5
Dinitrophenol,
2,4­
More
mobile
64­
18­
6
Formic
Acid
More
mobile
130­
15­
4
Naphthoquinone,
1,4­
More
mobile
88­
75­
5
Nitrophenol,
2­
More
mobile
100­
02­
7
Nitrophenol,
4­
More
mobile
13256­
22­
9
N­
Nitrososarcosine
More
mobile
87­
86­
5
Pentachlorophenol
More
mobile
108­
95­
2
Phenol
More
mobile
108­
46­
3
Resorcinol
More
mobile
58­
90­
2
Tetrachlorophenol,
2,3,4,6­
More
mobile
108­
98­
5
Thiophenol
More
mobile
95­
95­
4
Trichlorophenol,
2,4,5­
More
mobile
88­
06­
2
Trichlorophenol,
2,4,6­
More
mobile
93­
76­
5
Trichlorophenoxyacetic
acid,
2,4,5­
(
245­
T)
More
mobile
93­
72­
1
Trichlorophenoxypropionic
acid,
2,4,5­
(
Silvex)
More
mobile
81­
81­
2
Warfarin
More
mobile
Source:
compiled
by
SAIC
from
the
sources
listed
in
Section
5
of
this
report.
September
2000
1­
26
Draft
Table
1­
7.
Compounds
More
Leachable
in
Acidic
and
Alkaline
Media\

CAS
#
Chemical
Acid
Mobility
Alkali
Mobility
591­
08­
2
Acetyl­
2­
thiourea,
1­
More
mobile
More
mobile
2763­
96­
4
Aminomethyl­
3­
isoxazolol,
5­
More
mobile
More
mobile
115­
02­
6
Azaserine
More
mobile
More
mobile
541­
53­
7
Dithiobiuret
More
mobile
More
mobile
148­
82­
3
Melphalan
More
mobile
More
mobile
70­
25­
7
Methyl­
nitro­
nitrosoguanidine
(
MNNG)
More
mobile
More
mobile
50­
07­
7
Mitomycin
C
More
mobile
More
mobile
759­
73­
9
N­
Nitroso­
N­
ethylurea
More
mobile
More
mobile
684­
93­
5
N­
Nitroso­
N­
methylurea
More
mobile
More
mobile
62­
44­
2
Phenacetin
More
mobile
More
mobile
Source:
compiled
by
SAIC
from
the
sources
listed
in
Section
5
of
this
report.
September
2000
2­
1
Draft
2.
LEACHATE
GENERATION
QUANTITIES
IN
LANDFILLS
Various
processes
affect
the
rate
of
leachate
generation
and
its
composition.
The
four
factors
listed
below
represent
the
ones
most
significantly
affecting
leachate
quantity
(
Lu
et
al.,
1985):

°
Quantity
of
water
at
landfill
surface.
This
includes
effects
such
as
climate
(
e.
g.,
precipitation),
topography
(
e.
g.,
stormwater
runon),
and
irrigation
(
e.
g.,
leachate
recirculation).

°
Landfill
surface
conditions.
Not
all
of
the
water
hitting
the
landfill
surface
will
percolate
through
the
landfill.
Water
can
also
evaporate
(
influenced
by
climate
and
cover
material),
or
run
off
(
influenced
by
cover
material
and
topography).
Indirectly,
some
of
these
effects
are
determined
by
whether
the
landfill
is
active
or
inactive
with
a
cap.

°
Refuse
effects.
Most
of
the
landfills
examined
in
the
literature
have
been
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
However,
there
are
differences
both
within
MSW
and
between
different
waste
types
(
e.
g.,
industrial,
hazardous,
C&
D).
These
include
moisture
retention
effects
and
permeability.

°
Underlying
soil.
Similarly
to
refuse
effects,
the
moisture
retention
and
permeability
of
underlying
soil
affects
the
rate
at
which
leachate
migrates
to
the
ground
water.
This
principally
influences
the
quantity
of
leachate
entering
the
subsurface
rather
than
the
quantity
of
leachate
generated
by
the
landfill.

Two
relative
metrics
of
leachate
generation
are
reported
most
frequently
in
the
literature:
leachate
generation
per
unit
landfill
area
and
liquid
to
solid
(
L/
S)
ratio.
Leachate
generation
is
commonly
reported
as
a
field
observation
while
L/
S
is
commonly
reported
as
a
laboratory
or
experimental
leaching
metric.
These
two
metrics
have
significant
differences
and
are
not
easily
related
to
or
correlated
with
one
another.
As
discussed
later
leachate
generation
per
unit
area
and
time
are
a
relatively
consistent
benchmark
among
landfills.
Field
observations
of
L/
S
ratios
range
more
widely
than
leachate
generation
values
and
where
reported
are
often
calculated
on
differing
bases.
Most
often,
however,
L/
S
ratios
are
reported
as
the
abscissa
(
x­
axis)
in
leaching
experiments
or
methods
development
studies.

L/
S
ratios
are
of
particular
interest
in
such
studies
because
of
their
significance
for
the
design
and
interpretation
of
laboratory
leaching
tests.
Specifically,
leaching
tests
require
the
addition
of
liquid
to
a
solid
(
usually
waste)
matrix.
Comparing
the
quantity
of
liquid
added
per
unit
of
solid
material
in
the
test
procedure
to
L/
S
ratios
observed
in
actual
landfills
is
critical
to
interpreting
test
results.

From
a
practical
standpoint,
L/
S
ratio
can
be
calculated
by
dividing
the
total
leachate
generated
over
a
period
of
time
by
the
total
quantity
of
waste
in
the
landfill.
The
total
quantity
of
leachate
September
2000
2­
2
Draft
generated
is
dependent
on
time,
since
liquid
could
percolate
through
the
landfill
indefinitely
and
also
at
different
rates
due
to
the
factors
described
above.
For
an
active
landfill,
both
the
leachate
generation
rate
and
the
waste
quantity
are
dynamic
(
i.
e.,
leachate
generation
changes
as
the
landfill
is
expanded,
while
waste
volume
increases
daily).
For
a
closed
landfill,
the
waste
volume
is
constant
but,
as
time
goes
on,
the
cumulative
quantity
of
leachate
generated
from
the
landfill
increases.
For
purposes
of
this
analysis
we
have
defined
L/
S
as
the
ratio
of
annual
mass
of
leachate
generated
by
a
landfill
or
landfill
cell
to
the
cumumlative
mass
of
waste
disposed
in
that
landfill
or
landfill
cell.
The
analysis
that
follows
serves
(
1)
to
identify
values
of
leachate
generation
rates
and
L/
S
ratios
found
in
the
literature
and
other
case
studies,
and
(
2)
to
quantitatively
evaluate,
using
a
database
of
approximately
250
landfills
developed
by
EPA's
Office
of
Water,
the
way
a
number
of
factors
influence
leachate
generation
rate.
September
2000
2­
3
Draft
2.1
Information
Sources
Four
types
of
information
sources
are
presented
here:
(
1)
recent
data
from
EPA's
Office
of
Water's
effluent
guidelines
development
work,
(
2)
data
previously
developed
from
EPA's
Subtitle
D
survey
from
the
1980s,
(
3)
data
from
the
literature,
and
(
4)
data
taken
from
various
case
studies.
Each
of
these
sources
presents
data
representing
different
landfill
designs,
waste
types,
climate,
etc.,
allowing
for
an
examination
of
the
various
factors
influencing
generation
rate.
The
four
data
sources
are
discussed
below.

Effluent
guidelines
for
the
landfills
point
source
category
were
proposed
on
February
6,
1998
(
63
Federal
Register
6425).
In
developing
these
standards,
EPA's
Office
of
Water
collected
data
specific
to
landfills
using
a
questionnaire
(
among
other
data
sources),
with
1992
as
the
base
year.
Approximately
250
landfills
are
represented
in
the
survey
results,
representing
hazardous,
municipal,
and
Subtitle
D
landfills.
These
data
are
presented
in
Appendix
E.

For
comparison
to
the
data
obtained
from
EPA's
Office
of
Water,
another
large
scale
database
available
is
the
distribution
of
Subtitle
D
landfills
collected
by
EPA
in
the
late
1980'
s.
These
data
are
still
used
by
EPA,
for
example
in
the
Monte
Carlo
framework
of
the
hazardous
waste
identification
rule
(
64
Federal
Register
63382,
November
19,
1999).
These
data
predominantly
represent
private
or
captive
industrial
landfills
(
i.
e.,
landfills
managing
waste
from
a
single
industrial
plant
or
several
industrial
plants
owned
by
the
same
company).
Complete
landfill
dimension
data
are
available
for
approximately
500
landfills.
As
an
estimate
to
determining
leachate
generation
rate,
each
landfill
is
identified
with
1
of
97
climatic
areas
of
the
U.
S.,
which
correspond
to
a
fixed
infiltration
rate
through
a
"
look­
up"
table.
The
infiltration
rates
are
calculated
using
various
assumptions
and
the
HELP
model.

Data
from
individual
sites
from
the
literature
are
extracted.
Although
in
most
cases
the
researchers
did
not
make
the
investigation
of
L/
S
ratio
or
leachate
generation
rate
a
principal
effort,
sufficient
information
exists
from
these
sources
to
calculate
this
quantity.
Specifically,
five
papers
were
identified
that
allowed
the
calculation
of
L/
S
ratios
for
thirteen
different
sites,
while
three
papers
were
used
in
calculating
normalized
leachate
generation
rates
(
rate
per
area)
at
eight
sites.
These
sites
were
exclusively
municipal
landfills.
Appendix
C
presents
the
citations
and
more
detailed
data
concerning
these
sites.

Finally,
SAIC
has
initiated
the
collection
of
data
from
"
case
studies."
These
data
are
from
various
sources
including
past
EPA
programs
and
more
current
information
from
states
where
leachate
characteristics
from
a
single
landfill
are
identified.
Appendix
D
presents
the
data
in
a
"
site­
by­
site"
format.
September
2000
2­
4
Draft
2.2
Values
of
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratio
and
Leachate
Generation
Rate
Found
2.2.1
Summary
of
Data
Tables
2­
1
and
2­
2
present
an
overview
of
the
data
from
the
sources
discussed
above.
Table
2­
1
summarizes
liquid
to
solid
(
L/
S)
ratios,
which
are
calculated
as
annual
leachate
generation
(
in
volume
per
year)
divided
by
total
waste
accumulated
(
in
volume),
resulting
in
units
of
1/
years
(
or
years­
1).
The
calculated
liquid
to
solid
ratios
are
fairly
consistent
between
the
four
various
data
sources
(
i.
e.,
within
the
same
order
of
magnitude),
and
they
are
all
much
less
than
the
L/
S
ratio
of
20:
1
used
in
the
TCLP.
The
TCLP
laboratory
procedure
uses
a
L/
S
ratio
of
20:
1.
As
shown
in
Table
2­
1,
the
quantity
of
leachate
generated
in
a
fixed
period
of
time
(
one
year),
as
compared
to
the
quantity
of
waste
in
the
landfill,
is
much
less
than
20:
1
(
with
differences
of
two
or
more
orders
of
magnitude).
Therefore,
if
anything,
the
20:
1
ratio
is
representative
of
the
quantity
of
leachate
generated
after
hundreds
of
years.

In
Table
2­
2
provides
leachate
generation
rates
are
provided
for
the
various
sources.
These
data
are
calculated
as
leachate
generation
(
in
gallons
per
day)
divided
by
landfill
area
(
in
acres),
resulting
in
units
of
gallons/
acre­
day.
The
median
generation
rates
between
sources
are
similar.
These
summaries
demonstrate
that
the
values
obtained
from
one
source
are
of
the
same
magnitude
as
data
obtained
from
other
sources.

Table
2­
1.
Summary
of
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratios
for
all
Sources
Source
of
Data
Number
of
Data
Points
Liquid
to
Solid
Ratio
(
years­
1)
Additional
Data
Analysis
Performed
Median
Range
(
10th
to
90th
Percentiles)

Office
of
Water
234
0.012
0.0004
to
0.23
Landfill
type,
operational
status,
and
precipitation
HWIR/
HELP
487
0.06
0.02
to
0.13
None
(
data
set
lacks
flexibility)

Case
Studies
6
0.05
0.0003
to
0.15
Operational
status
Literature
13
0.04
0.003
to
1.9
Operational
status
TCLP
­­
20
­­
For
comparison
September
2000
2­
5
Draft
Table
2­
2.
Summary
of
Leachate
Generation
Rates
for
all
Sources
Source
of
Data
Number
of
Data
Points
Leachate
Generation
Rate
(
gallons/
acre­
day)
Additional
Data
Analysis
Performed
Median
Range
(
10th
to
90th
Percentiles)

Office
of
Water
252
290
1
to
2,100
Landfill
type,
operational
status,
and
precipitation
HWIR/
HELP
487
410
70
to
1,100
None
Case
Studies
8
320
40
to
2,100
Operational
status
Literature
8
130
30
to
620
Operational
status
2.2.2
EPA
Office
of
Water
Data
Operational
Status
When
a
landfill
is
closed,
cover
materials
are
placed
over
it
to
reduce
infiltration.
These
materials
include
natural
soil,
clay,
synthetics,
and/
or
vegetation.
Several
studies
in
the
literature
have
shown
that
infiltration
rate
is
in
fact
reduced
after
a
landfill
is
closed
in
this
way
(
these
cases
are
in
Appendices
C
and
D).
Table
2­
3
shows
data
extracted
from
the
Office
of
Water
database
for
active
and
inactive
cells,
showing
a
similar
reduction.
This
table
presents
leachate
generation
rate
in
units
of
gal/
ac­
day.

Table
2­
4
presents
L/
S
ratios
using
two
different
computational
methods.
All
data
are
from
the
Office
of
Water
survey.
In
the
first
set
of
data,
the
L/
S
ratio
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
landfill's
leachate
generation
rate
(
given
in
units
of
gal/
ac­
d)
by
average
cell
depth.
In
the
second
set
of
data,
the
L/
S
ratio
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
leachate
flow
rate
(
in
gal/
d)
by
the
total
waste
volume
(
in
units
of
cubic
yards).
The
purpose
of
this
comparison
is
to
show
if
certain
data
elements
in
the
survey
yield
vastly
different
results,
which
would
imply
some
level
of
inconsistency
in
the
data.
As
shown
in
Table
2­
4,
however,
the
data
are
consistent.
September
2000
2­
6
Draft
Table
2­
3.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Operational
Status
from
Office
of
Water
Data
Type
of
Landfill
Number
of
Data
Points
Leachate
Generation
Rate
(
gallons/
acreday
Statistical
Significance
A
Median
Range
(
10th
to
90th
Percentile)

Active
191
500
30
to
3500
Active
and
inactive
rates
are
statistically
different
at
95th%
significance
level
Inactive
127
67
0
to
1000
A.
Statistical
significance
was
determined
using
the
t­
test
for
differences
between
two
population
means.

Table
2­
4.
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratios
by
Operational
Status
from
Office
of
Water
Data
Type
of
Data
Number
of
Data
Points
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratio
(
years­
1)
Statistical
Significance
A
Median
Range
(
10th
to
90th
Percentile)

Normalized
leachate
flow/
landfill
depth
active
178
0.014
0.00044
to
0.17
Active
and
inactive
rates
are
statistically
different
inactive
97
0.005
0.00040
to
0.049
Leachate
flow/
landfill
volume
active
B
185
0.016
0.00034
to
0.22
Statistical
significance
not
determined
inactive
B
49
0.0067
0.00051
to
0.41
A.
Statistical
significance
was
determined
using
the
t­
test
for
differences
between
two
population
means
at
the
95%
level.
B.
"
Inactive"
indicates
a
landfill
with
only
inactive
cells.
"
Active"
indicates
a
landfill
with
at
least
one
active
cell;
it
may
or
may
not
also
have
inactive
cells.

Landfill
Type
The
three
categories
of
landfills
used
in
this
analysis
of
the
Office
of
Water
survey
are
municipal,
Subtitle
D,
and
hazardous.
These
same
distinctions
were
used
in
developing
the
proposed
effluent
guidelines.
It
should
be
noted
that,
in
order
to
provide
a
sufficient
sample
size
for
analysis,
the
latter
two
categories
are
broader
than
those
discussed
in
Section
3
of
this
report.
Specifically,
Subtitle
D
landfills
include
non­
hazardous
industrial
waste
landfills
(
both
codisposal
and
monofill)
and
construction
and
demolition
(
C&
D)
landfills.
Hazardous
waste
landfills
include
both
commercial
Subtitle
C
landfills
and
captive
hazardous
waste
landfills
from
various
industries.

Leachate
generation
rates
and
L/
S
ratios
may
vary
due
to
differences
in
landfill
type.
Tables
2­
5
and
2­
6
present
data
for
these
parameters
based
on
distinctions
between
hazardous,
industrial,
and
municipal
landfills,
and
their
operational
status.
Figures
2­
1
and
2­
2
display
the
data
in
graphical
form.
The
data
show
that
differences
are
apparent
between
active
and
inactive
landfills
for
each
landfill
type.
Differences
between
landfill
types,
however,
are
not
as
apparent.
September
2000
2­
7
Draft
Table
2­
5.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Landfill
Type
from
Office
of
Water
Data
Type
of
Landfill
Number
of
Data
Points
Leachate
Generation
Rate
(
gallons/
acre­
day)
Statistical
Significance
A
Median
Range
(
10th
to
90th
Percentile)

Hazardous
active
33
493
11
to
2600
Active
and
Inactive
rates
are
not
statistically
different
inactive
43
88
0
to
1400
Municipal
active
122
500
33
to
2300
Different
at
a
95th%
significance
level
inactive
69
58
0
to
840
Subtitle
D
active
36
509
8
to
5400
Different
at
a
95th%
significance
level
inactive
15
100
0
to
500
All
(
from
Table
2­
3)
active
191
500
30
to
3400
Different
at
a
95th%
level
inactive
127
67
0
to
1000
A.
Statistical
significance
was
determined
using
the
t­
test
for
differences
between
active
and
inactive
population
means.

Table
2­
6.
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratios
by
Landfill
Type
from
Office
of
Water
Data.

Type
of
Landfill
Number
of
Data
Points
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratio
(
years­
1)
Statistical
Significance
A
Median
Range
(
10th
to
90th
Percentile)

Hazardous
61
0.008
0.00038
to
0.41
L/
S
ratio
for
Subtitle
D
landfill
is
statistically
higher
than
population
as
a
whole
Municipal
132
0.010
0.00036
to
0.098
Subtitle
D
41
0.060
0.0012
to
0.62
All
(
from
Table
2­
1)
234
0.012
0.00038
to
0.23
A.
Statistical
significance
was
determined
using
the
t­
test
for
differences
between
two
population
means
at
the
95%
level.
September
2000
2­
8
Draft
Figure
2­
1.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Landfill
Type
and
Operational
Status.

1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cumulative
Distribution
Leachate
Generation
Rate
(
gal/
acre­
day)

Haz­
Active
Haz­
Inactive
MSW­
Active
MSW­
Inactive
Sub­
Active
Sub­
Inactive
Source:
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfills
Point
Source
Figure
2­
2.
Liquid
to
Solid
Ratio
by
Landfill
Type:
Both
Active
and
Inactive.

1.0E­
06
1.0E­
05
1.0E­
04
1.0E­
03
1.0E­
02
1.0E­
01
1.0E+
00
1.0E+
01
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cumulative
Distribution
Liquid
to
Solid
Ratio
(
l/
kg­
yr)
Hazardous
MSW
Subtitle
D
S
ource:
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfills
P
oint
S
ource
September
2000
2­
9
Draft
Precipitation
Leachate
generation
rates
and
L/
S
ratios
also
vary
due
to
differences
in
landfill
location.
Tables
2­
7
and
2­
8
present
data
for
these
parameters
based
on
distinctions
between
precipitation.
Distinctions
are
also
made
between
active
and
inactive
cells.
Figures
2­
3
and
2­
4
display
the
data
in
graphical
form.

Figure
2­
3
shows
that
leachate
generation
rate
increases
with
increasing
precipitation
in
inactive
landfills.
Figure
2­
4
shows
that
L/
S
ratio
also
increases
with
increasing
precipitation.

Table
2­
7.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Precipitation
Rate
from
Office
of
Water
Data.

Amount
of
Precipitation
Number
of
Data
Points
Leachate
Generation
Rate
(
gallons/
acre­
day)
Statistical
Significance
A
Median
Range
(
10th
to
90th
Percentile)

<
40
inches
active
83
340
4
to
1800
Different
at
a
95th%
significance
level
inactive
50
40
0
to
720
40
to
60
inches
active
84
610
46
to
2600
Different
at
a
90th%
significance
level
inactive
53
92
0
to
700
>=
60
inches
active
24
970
33
to
5600
Different
at
a
95th%
significance
level
inactive
24
200
0
to
1350
All
active
191
500
30
to
3500
Different
at
a
95th%
significance
level
inactive
128
67
0
to
1000
A.
Statistical
significance
was
determined
using
the
t­
test
for
differences
between
two
population
means.
September
2000
2­
10
Draft
Table
2­
8.
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratio
by
Precipitation
Rate
from
Office
of
Water
Data.

Amount
of
Precipitation
Number
of
Data
Points
Liquid­
to­
Solid
Ratio
(
years­
1)
Statistical
Significance
A
Median
Mean
Standard
Deviation
<
40
inches
192
0.0095
0.062
0.19
Precipitation
is
significant
for
active
landfills
(
at
a
90%
level).

Precipitation
is
not
significant
for
inactive
landfills.
40
to
60
inches
208
0.015
0.10
0.31
>=
60
inches
68
0.022
0.26
0.50
All
(
from
Table
2­
1)
234
0.012
0.11
0.31
A.
Regression
analysis
was
performed
to
examine
the
relationship
between
precipitation
and
leachate
generation.
Because
of
the
significant
differences
found
between
active
and
inactive
landfills,
the
analysis
was
performed
separately
for
each
group.
In
both
cases,
precipitation
was
found
not
to
be
a
very
strong
predictor
of
leachate
generation
(
i.
e.,
the
coefficient
of
determination,
R2,
was
on
the
order
of
0.01).
For
active
landfills,
however,
the
relationship
between
precipitation
and
leachate
generation
still
was
found
to
be
statistically
significant
at
the
90
percent
level
(
i.
e.,
based
on
analysis
of
variance
of
the
regression
and
significance
tests
on
the
regression
estimators).
The
relationship
was
not
significant
for
inactive
landfills.
These
results
suggest
that,
for
active
landfills,
precipitation
does
influence
leachate
generation,
although
other
factors
appear
to
have
a
more
substantial
effect.
Further
analysis
would
be
required
to
isolate
the
effects
of
these
other
factors.

Figure
2­
3.
Leachate
Generation
Rates
by
Precipitation
Rate
and
Operational
Status.

1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cumulative
Distribution
Leachate
Generation
Rate
(
gal/
acre­
day)

<
40"
­
A
ctive
<
40"
­
Ina
ctive
40­
60"
­
Active
40­
60"
­
Ina
ctive
>
60"
­
A
ctive
>
60"
­
Ina
ctive
Source:
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfills
Point
Source
September
2000
2­
11
Draft
Figure
2­
4.
Liquid
to
Solid
Ratio
by
Precipitation
Rate:
Both
Active
and
Inactive.

1.0E­
06
1.0E­
05
1.0E­
04
1.0E­
03
1.0E­
02
1.0E­
01
1.0E+
00
1.0E+
01
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cumulative
Distribution
Liquid
to
Solid
Ratio
(
l/
kg­
yr
<
40"

40­
60"

>
60"

Source:
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfills
Point
Source
2.2.3
Use
of
Other
Data
Other
data
sources
were
investigated
to
verify
or
supplement
the
data
from
the
EPA
Office
of
Water
data
set.
As
shown
in
Tables
2­
1
and
2­
2,
these
other
data
sets
presented
results
of
similar
magnitude,
and
therefore
confirm
the
reasonableness
of
the
EPA
Office
of
Water
data.

These
data
sources
could
also
be
used
in
identifying
the
effect
of
parameters
such
as
landfill
operation
on
L/
S
ratio
and
leachate
generation
rate.
The
Office
of
Water
data
showed
that
the
values
of
both
variables
are
lower
for
inactive
landfills
than
for
active
landfills.
Similar
anecdotal
conclusions
are
available
from
the
literature
and
case
study
information
in
the
Appendices
C
and
D.
September
2000
3­
1
Draft
3.
LEACHATE
COMPOSITION
AND
PROPERTIES
This
section
presents
summary
statistics
on
leachate
composition
from
the
characterization
database
developed
in
conjunction
with
this
report.
It
also
discusses
some
of
the
more
fundamental
of
these
characteristics
based
on
the
available
literature
on
contaminant
leaching
processes.
Where
the
data
are
sufficient
to
do
so,
it
compares
leachate
characteristics
across
landfill
types.

This
section
begins
with
a
description
of
the
characterization
database
and
the
sources
combined
to
create
the
database
(
Section
3.1).
It
then
presents
summary
statistics
and
discusses
leaching
processes
for
several
types
of
landfills.
Municipal
solid
waste
(
MSW)
landfills
and
leachate
characteristics
are
discussed
first
(
in
Section
3.2)
because
of
the
extensive
body
of
literature
available.
Sections
3.3
through
3.5
discuss
the
leachate
characteristics
of
three
other
types
of
landfill
that
are
well­
represented
in
the
database.
These
landfill
types
are
as
follows:

°
Construction
and
demolition
debris
(
C&
D)
landfills,
°
Industrial
codisposal
landfills
(
these
are
a
set
of
older
landfills
that
have
managed
multiple
types
of
waste
from
multiple
generating
sites
throughout
their
history,
including
non­
hazardous
industrial
waste,
hazardous
waste,
and
municipal
solid
waste),
and
°
Commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills
(
Subtitle
C
landfills).

Section
3.6
presents
comparative
statistics
for
these
four
types
of
landfills,
with
discussion
of
the
apparent
fundamental
differences.
Section
3.7
presents
summary
statistics
for
other
types
of
landfills
represented
in
the
database.
The
landfills
discussed
in
Section
3.7
all
are
captive
landfills
managing
waste
from
a
single
industrial
plant
or
several
industrial
plants
owned
by
the
same
company.
Statistics
in
Section
3.7
are
presented
according
to
the
waste
generating
industry.
September
2000
3­
2
Draft
3.1
Characterization
Database
An
integral
part
of
this
study
was
the
development
of
a
comprehensive
database
of
landfill
leachate
characteristics.
The
search
for
data
to
incorporate
into
the
database
encompassed
industry
and
Federal
and
State
government
sources.
Data
were
accepted
into
the
database
if
they
met
the
following
criteria:

°
They
represented
leachate
characteristics
on
an
individual
sample
basis.
°
They
included
at
least
some
information
regarding
the
type
of
landfill
from
which
the
data
were
taken.
°
They
were
from
a
reliable
source.
°
They
were
available
in
an
electronic
form
that
could
be
incorporated
into
the
database
without
extensive
modification
or
manual
data
entry.

The
search
for
data
did
not
attempt
to
employ
any
statistical
sampling
approach.
That
is,
the
data
are
not
necessarily
a
representative
sample
by
geographic
region,
landfill
type,
or
any
other
criterion.
The
database
simply
includes
all
of
the
readily
available
data
that
met
the
acceptance
criteria
above.

Each
of
the
data
sets
resulting
from
the
search
was
combined
into
a
single
electronic
database
that
accompanies
this
report.
The
resulting
database
(
entitled
LEACH
2000)
includes
data
for
conventional
pollutants,
metals,
and
organics
in
leachate
from
a
variety
of
landfill
types.
The
LEACH
2000
data
is
the
basis
for
the
summary
statistics
presented
in
the
sections
below.
In
order
to
represent
typical
landfills
of
each
type,
rather
than
extreme
conditions,
the
summary
statistics
presented
in
this
report
exclude
statistical
outliers
found
in
the
data.
These
statistical
outliers
(
with
the
exception
of
certain
outliers
in
the
Wisconsin
data
set,
discussed
below),
however,
have
been
retained
in
the
electronic
database
to
allow
for
possible
future
investigation
of
their
sources.
The
following
paragraphs
describe
the
specific
data
that
was
collected
and
incorporated
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.

Two
data
sets
were
obtained
from
industry
sources:
data
representing
60
MSW
landfills
from
Browning
Ferris
Incorporated
(
BFI)
and
data
from
a
1992
Chemical
Waste
Management
(
CWM)
study
of
leachate
quality.
The
CWM
study
includes
data
from
47
landfills,
including
commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills,
industrial
codisposal
landfills,
and
MSW
landfills.

Two
data
sets
also
were
obtained
from
previous
EPA
research
efforts.
The
first
was
a
set
of
data
for
21
C&
D
landfills
compiled
by
ICF
Incorporated
for
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste.
The
second
was
the
EPA
Office
of
Water
database,
discussed
in
Section
2,
which
was
derived
from
data
collecting
during
development
the
effluent
guidelines
for
landfills.
The
EPA
Office
of
Water
database
includes
characterization
data
for
35
landfills
of
various
types.
Twenty­
three
of
these
landfills
could
be
conclusively
identified
according
to
type
(
21
MSW
landfills
and
two
commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills).
The
remaining
Office
of
Water
landfills
could
be
categorized
as
managing
Subtitle
D
(
either
industrial
or
C&
D)
waste
or
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste,
but
it
could
not
be
determined
whether
they
were
captive
to
a
specific
industry
or
accepted
waste
on
a
commercial
basis
from
multiple
generating
sources.
Data
from
this
latter
set
of
landfills
are
included
in
the
electronic
database
accompanying
this
report,
but
are
not
included
in
the
summary
statistics
provided
in
the
remainder
of
this
section.
September
2000
3­
3
Draft
To
locate
data
from
state
government
sources,
contact
was
initiated
with
cognizant
agencies
in
all
50
states.
In
general,
limited
automated
data,
other
than
capacity
summary
data,
were
found.
The
summary
table
describing
the
leachate
data
collection
programs
in
each
state
is
presented
in
Appendix
A.
Data
from
two
states,
however,
were
available
for
combining
into
the
LEACH
2000
database.
The
first
data
set,
from
the
State
of
Florida,
comprises
leachate
characterization
data
for
65
MSW
landfills.
The
second
data
set
represents
70
landfills
from
the
State
of
Wisconsin.
The
Wisconsin
data
includes
39
MSW
landfills,
18
paper
mill
landfills,
6
combustion
ash
landfills,
and
7
landfills
of
other
types.

In
analyzing
the
Wisconsin
data,
certain
patterns
of
statistical
outliers
were
discovered.
These
patterns
were
consistent
with
intermittent
misreporting
of
analytical
units.
Therefore,
a
detailed
analysis
was
undertaken
to
identify
and
correct
data
points
in
the
Wisconsin
data
suspected
of
having
this
problem.
This
analysis
is
described
in
detail
in
Appendix
F.
Separate
data
tables
have
been
included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database
representing
the
original
and
adjusted
Wisconsin
data.
The
Wisconsin
data
included
in
the
combined
data
table
in
LEACH
2000
and
used
in
this
report
represent
the
adjusted
data.

Another
relevant
characteristic
of
the
Wisconsin
data
is
that,
for
a
number
of
landfills,
it
was
possible
to
identify
the
date
of
first
operation.
The
Wisconsin
data,
therefore,
were
instrumental
in
the
analysis
of
temporal
variability
in
fundamental
leachate
characteristics
in
MSW
landfills
presented
in
Sections
3.2.2
and
3.2.3.
September
2000
3­
4
Draft
3.2
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
The
discussion
of
MSW
leachate
and
leaching
processes
in
this
report
is
more
extensive
than
that
for
other
types
of
landfills
for
several
reasons.
First,
prior
scientific
review
of
MSW
landfills
has
been
extensive.
Second,
the
data
available
for
MSW
landfills
in
the
characterization
database
are
more
extensive
than
for
any
other
type
of
landfill.
Third,
EPA
has
traditionally
viewed
the
MSW
landfill
as
the
default
mismanagement
scenario
for
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
in
the
TCLP
analysis
the
leaching
medium
is
intended
to
simulate
those
acids
present
in
an
MSW
landfill),
so
leaching
processes
in
these
landfills
are
of
particular
interest.
Finally,
the
discussion
of
leaching
processes
in
MSW
landfills
provides
a
basis
for
the
comparison
of
leachate
from
different
types
of
landfills
in
Section
3.6.

Section
3.2.1
provides
a
general
overview
of
the
composition
of
MSW
leachate,
based
primarily
on
the
extensive
data
available
in
the
characterization
database.
Later
sections
discuss
both
the
circumstances
under
which
these
parameters
are
known
to
change
in
value
and
the
significance
of
these
parameters
to
accelerating
or
inhibiting
the
leaching
of
toxic
constituents.
Section
3.2.2
discusses
temporal
changes
known
to
occur
in
a
MSW
landfill
and
how
this
affects
the
composition
and
properties
of
leachate
generated
over
time.
Section
3.2.3
isolates
parameters
which
can
be
variable
in
MSW
leachate
and
which
are
known
to
affect
contaminant
mobility.

3.2.1
Overall
Composition
of
MSW
Leachate
Municipal
solid
waste
(
MSW)
landfills
receive
waste
primarily
from
residential,
commercial,
and
institutional
sources.
Some
MSW
landfills
may
receive
quantities
of
construction
and
demolition
debris,
non­
hazardous
industrial
waste,
and
even
hazardous
waste
from
household
sources
or
other
exempt
small­
quantity
generators.
The
quantities
of
these
types
of
waste,
however,
typically
are
small
compared
to
the
quantities
of
municipal
waste
managed.
Several
specific
examples
of
MSW
landfill
operations
may
be
found
in
Section
4
of
this
report
(
case
studies
6,
9,
11,
15,
and
18
through
22).

In
part
because
of
the
large
number
of
sources
and
resulting
heterogenous
nature
of
the
waste,
MSW
leachate
is
a
complex
mixture
of
inorganic
and
organic
constituents.
The
specific
composition
of
MSW
leachate
also
varies
both
spatially
(
within
a
single
landfill
and
between
landfills)
as
well
as
temporally.
While
research
has
identified
some
of
the
reasons
for
this
variability,
it
is
useful
to
first
identify
what
some
of
these
parameters
are
and
the
values
that
can
be
expected
in
landfill
leachate.
The
data
presented
in
Table
3­
1,
below,
are
from
the
more
than
200
MSW
landfills
represented
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.

As
discussed
in
Section
3.1
above,
although
a
large
number
of
MSW
landfills
are
represented,
they
do
not
necessarily
constitute
a
statistically
representative
sample
of
MSW
landfills
by
geographic
region
or
any
other
criterion.
Nevertheless,
these
MSW
landfills
do
represent
a
variety
of
locations,
ages,
and
other
factors
which
are
expected
to
result
in
variation
between
landfills.
Such
variation
results
from
the
many
factors
affecting
leachate
composition
which
will
be
discussed
in
Sections
3.2.2
and
3.2.3.
Specifically,
these
and
other
sections
focus
on
explaining
the
conditions
wherein
low,
high,
or
median
values
will
most
likely
be
encountered.

The
constituents
included
in
Table
3­
1
(
and
similar,
subsequent
tables
for
other
types
of
landfills
in
other
sections
of
this
report)
represent
the
parameters
most
frequently
analyzed
for
in
the
September
2000
3­
5
Draft
characterization
data
included
in
the
LEACH
database.
They
are
not
a
complete
set
of
all
the
constituents
for
which
data
are
available
in
the
database.
Constituents
not
included
in
the
tables
have
fewer
samples
from
which
to
draw
statistics
than
those
constituents
represented
in
the
tables.

Table
3­
1
organizes
constituents
into
three
categories:
major
physical/
chemical
parameters
(
e.
g.,
pH,
chemical
oxygen
demand
(
COD),
major
anions),
trace
inorganics
(
e.
g.,
RCRA
metals),
and
organics.
The
paragraphs
below
discuss
the
available
characterization
data
for
MSW
landfills
in
each
of
these
categories.

General
Parameters
Parameters
commonly
analyzed
in
wastewaters
are
also
commonly
analyzed
in
MSW
leachate.
Unfortunately,
data
for
other
parameters
known
to
be
critical
in
leaching
assessments,
such
as
oxidation­
reduction
potential,
are
not
well
represented
in
the
characterization
data
or
the
scientific
literature.
Conventional
pollutants
for
which
data
are
available
include
pH,
alkalinity,
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD),
chemical
oxygen
demand
(
COD),
total
organic
carbon
(
TOC),
and
common
anions.
Typical
ranges
for
these
pollutants
cover
several
orders
of
magnitude
even
with
a
single
landfill.

Trace
Inorganics
The
inorganics
most
frequently
detected
in
MSW
leachate
are,
in
order
of
detection
frequency:
manganese,
boron,
barium,
zinc,
aluminum,
nickel,
arsenic,
chromium,
copper,
and
lead.
These
constituents
were
detected
in
more
than
50
percent
of
the
MSW
landfill
leachate
samples.

Organics
Most
organic
compounds
such
as
volatiles,
semivolatiles,
pesticides,
PCBs,
herbicides,
and
insecticides
are
detected
in
MSW
landfill
leachate
with
less
frequency
than
other
parameters
such
as
metals.
For
example,
a
four­
year,
six
landfill
Waste
Management
Inc.
study
analyzed
leachate
samples
for
these
parameters
and
found
the
following
frequency
of
detection
as
follows:

°
Volatiles:
10
percent
°
Semivolatiles:
2
percent
°
Pesticides:
3
percent
°
PCBs:
0
percent
°
Herbicides:
5
percent
°
Insecticides:
6
percent.

These
figures
may
be
misleading
with
regard
to
certain
specific
organic
compounds
because
they
are
an
average
of
relatively
frequently
detected
compounds
and
many
other
compounds
detected
rarely
or
not
at
all.
Both
the
Waste
Management
study
and
the
data
compiled
in
Table
3­
1
show
that
certain
specific
organic
compounds
are
detected
with
some
frequency.
For
example,
in
the
LEACH
2000
database,
acetone,
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
phenol,
and
xylene
are
detected
in
greater
than
50
percent
of
the
samples.
The
Waste
Management
study
similarly
found
toluene
(
79
percent),
m­
&
p­
cresol
(
79
percent),
methyl
ethyl
ketone
(
71
percent),
phenol
(
67
percent),
acetone
(
63
percent),
xylene
(
63
percent),
and
methylene
chloride
(
58
percent)
in
greater
than
50
September
2000
3­
6
Draft
percent
of
the
samples.
In
general,
however,
organic
compounds
are
detected
much
less
frequently
than
metals
in
MSW
leachate.

Table
3­
1.
Composition
of
MSW
Landfill
Leachate
Analyte
N
%
Detected
5th
%
ile
10th
%
ile
Median
Mean
90th
%
ile
95th
%
ile
MAJOR
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS
(
mg/
L,
except
pH
in
Standard
Units)
Alkalinity
3,697
96.5
182
304
2,080
2,689
5,470
7,220
B.
O.
D.
4,645
94.2
7.05
16.9
536
2,548
7,276
11,800
Calcium
839
99.5
32.9
73.4
220
466
860
1,516
Chloride
4,392
99.4
19.2
43
704
5,024
2,800
4,610
C.
O.
D.
4,252
95.5
35
93
1,200
4,709
9,550
15,000
Cyanide
1,429
31.3
0.005
0.006
0.018
4.10
0.166
0.71
Fluoride
1,041
91.7
0.11
0.15
0.4
6.93
1.9
14.9
Iron
4,284
98.0
0.31
0.97
17.0
308
259
530
Magnesium
829
99.8
13
25
155
511
320
430
Nitrogen
3,482
93.1
0.45
1.2
145
7,367
625
901
pH
6,965
100.0
5.88
6.20
7
7.05
7.94
8.29
Sodium
2,321
98.5
18
49
539
2,290
1,910
3,010
Sulfate
2,930
87.6
6
11
92.7
314
514
1,000
T.
O.
C.
1,444
99.6
8.6
21
282
1,534
3,850
7,270
TRACE
INORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
Aluminum
366
86.1
73
160
800
15,046
24,700
107,000
Antimony
710
25.5
3
4
13
70.0
190
360
Arsenic
2,444
71.1
4
6
20
441
100
260
Barium
1,779
93.4
50
84
405
866
1,700
2,800
Beryllium
653
11.2
0.3
0.5
4
39.5
55
143
Boron
764
96.5
190
490
4,500
87,541
16,000
27,000
Cadmium
2,351
31.5
0.5
1
10
28.3
79
110
Chromium
2,776
63.0
9
10
51
235
341
592
Copper
2,064
57.1
7.4
10
33
139
200
384
Lead
2,539
50.2
2
4
21
133
250
500
Manganese
2,371
97.4
51
99
744
6,076
15,000
37,000
Mercury
2,078
18.0
0.09
0.14
0.59
7.15
4.6
16
Nickel
1,889
80.9
20
30
120
679
489
740
Selenium
1,754
18.2
1
1.7
10
58.5
180
310
Silver
1,830
17.8
1
2
11.3
53.7
56
110
Thallium
632
12.2
1
2
15
149
516
815
Zinc
2,282
89.6
14
24
160
5,103
2,300
7,300
ORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
1,1­
Dichloroethane
1,768
39.9
1.5
2.2
19
66.1
122
195
1,1­
Dichloroethene
1,155
1.9
0.6
1
15.5
134
176
251
Acenaphthene
677
8.7
1
1
6.15
11.22
32
55
Acetone
815
61.7
16
33
770
3,299
9,200
12,000
Benzene
2,169
52.3
1
1.7
6.69
32.5
51
117
Chloroethane
1,771
19.9
2
3
12
24.1
50
100
Ethylbenzene
1,897
65.8
2
4.43
34
1,502
150
290
Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
844
44.4
4
10
120
3,631
970
1,740
Naphthalene
1,190
46.7
2.40
3.90
16.6
48.1
120
256
Phenol
1,624
71.9
10
17
190
45,900
4,100
34,000
Trichloroethylene
1,845
20.6
0.604
1
7.51
22.9
53
86.4
Vinyl
Chloride
1,952
20.7
0.9
1.1
6.6
2,409
70
542
Xylene
2,285
68.0
3
5.8
53.3
1,452
239
390
Source:
Characterization
data
from
the
more
than
200
MSW
landfills
included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
September
2000
3­
7
Draft
3.2.2
Temporal
Variability
in
MSW
Landfill
Leachate
Stages
of
a
MSW
Landfill
The
quality
and
rate
of
leachate
generation
at
a
landfill
changes
over
time.
This
is
caused
by
changes
in
the
dimensions
of
the
waste
inside
the
landfill,
its
potential
for
oxidation
or
degradation,
etc.
These
changes
in
leachate
quality
in
turn
affect
the
mobility
of
toxicants.

The
municipal
waste
landfill
has
been
described
as
an
anaerobic
microbial
process
during
much
of
its
active
life,
a
process
which
can
be
modeled
or
conceptualized
as
a
batch
digester
with
inputs
of
refuse
and
moisture
and
outputs
of
gas
and
leachate.
Pohland
(
1986)
has
described
the
municipal
waste
landfill
in
five
phases.

°
Phase
I:
Initial
Adjustment.
This
period
represents
the
beginning
of
the
operating
life
of
the
landfill
where
refuse
is
initially
placed
and
moisture
enters
the
cell.

°
Phase
II:
Transition.
This
period
represents
the
beginning
of
leachate
generation
(
i.
e.,
the
available
moisture
exceeds
the
capacity
of
the
surrounding
soils
or
refuse
itself).
The
landfill
changes
from
aerobic
conditions
to
anaerobic
microbial
stabilization.
This
is
due
to
the
presence
of
carbon
dioxide
rather
than
oxygen
in
surrounding
gas.
With
this
change
from
aerobic
to
anaerobic
conditions,
critical
electron
accepting
molecules
change
from
oxygen
to
nitrates
and
sulfates
and
an
overall
reducing
environment
is
encountered.
The
increased
moisture
also
enhances
microbial
activity.
Metabolic
by­
products
such
as
volatile
organic
fatty
acids
and
alcohols
appear
in
the
leachate
and
increase
its
organic
strength
(
Farquhar,
1989).

°
Phase
III:
Acid
Formation.
Volatile
organic
fatty
acids
become
predominant
in
the
leachate,
with
the
continuation
of
conditions
described
for
Phase
II.
Nutrients
such
as
nitrogen
and
phosphorous
are
released
and
utilized
in
support
of
the
growth
of
biomass.
Decreases
in
pH
are
observed
in
the
leachate
as
a
result
of
the
presence
of
the
organic
acids.

°
Phase
IV:
Methane
Formation
(
or
methanogenic).
Nutrients
continue
to
be
consumed
and
intermediates
such
as
volatile
organic
fatty
acids
are
converted
to
methane
and
carbon
dioxide.
This
gives
several
results.
First,
the
leachate
organic
strength
is
reduced
and
gas
generation
increases.
As
a
result
of
the
decrease
in
fatty
acids,
the
pH
changes;
the
pH
becomes
representative
of
a
bicarbonate
buffered
system
rather
than
the
organic
acid
buffered
system.
The
landfill
continues
to
represent
a
reducing
environment,
with
oxidation­
reduction
potential
at
the
lowest
level.

The
methanogenic
phase
of
a
MSW
landfill
is
expected
to
be
best
demonstrated
under
the
following
conditions
(
Ehrig,
1983):
Moisture
content
A50%;
Temperature
>
15bC
(
60bF);
Good
buffering
capacity
of
leachate:
alkalinity
2,000
mg/
L
as
CaCO3,
and
ratio
of
volatile
fatty
acids
to
alkalinity
@
0.8
September
2000
3­
8
Draft
°
Phase
V:
Final
Maturation.
In
this
phase,
nutrient
availability
may
become
limiting
due
to
the
consumption
of
the
readily
available
organic
constituents
in
the
waste
and
leachate;
microbially
resistant
organic
materials
may
be
slowly
converted.
As
a
result
of
the
decrease
in
activity,
measurable
gas
production
decreases.
Oxygen
and
oxidized
species
may
reappear
with
a
corresponding
increase
in
oxidation­
reduction
potential.

Significance
of
Phases
Towards
Leaching
While
five
steps
in
an
MSW
landfill
life
are
listed
above,
anaerobic
activity
is
only
present
in
two
of
them
(
phases
III
and
IV).
These
are
the
times
of
a
landfill's
life
which
are
most
dynamic,
and
therefore
of
interest
to
many
researchers.
The
phases
are
chronological
but
the
corresponding
length
of
time
for
each
stage
is
site­
specific.
However,
researchers
(
Ehrig,
1983;
Farquhar,
1989)
have
generally
found
this
period
to
be
relatively
short
(<
10
years
or
even
as
little
as
several
months)
as
compared
to
the
length
of
time
that
the
landfill
is
actively
accepting
wastes
(
e.
g.,
20
years
or
more)
or
generating
leachate
(
many
years
following
closure).
These
sitespecific
factors
influencing
the
time
for
these
stages
to
proceed
include
landfilling
procedures,
the
nature
of
the
wastes,
the
quantity
of
moisture
entering
the
landfill,
and
closure
conditions
(
Pohland,
1986).
Additionally,
individual
cells
within
a
landfill
may
be
at
different
stages
and
exhibit
different
phenomenon,
such
that
the
overall
landfill
becomes
a
complex
characterization
of
the
above
processes.

The
different
stages
of
activity
within
a
landfill
result
in
differences
in
certain
indicator
parameters.
For
example,
the
presence
of
organic
fatty
acids
and
varying
values
of
oxidationreduction
potential
were
described
in
general
terms
for
these
different
stages.
The
variation
of
these
parameters
are
discussed
below.
Not
only
are
these
parameters
indicative
of
conditions
within
a
landfill,
but
they
result
in
differences
in
mobility,
precipitation,
and
speciation
of
metals
in
the
waste
and
leachate.
Pohland
(
1986)
lists
many
factors
that
are
associated
with
the
different
stages
listed
above.
Of
particular
interest
are
parameter
ratios,
such
as
the
ratio
of
BOD
to
TOC
,
for
which
the
value
of
the
ratio
changes
as
do
values
of
the
parameters
themselves.

Some
of
these
factors,
such
as
changes
in
pH,
are
well­
studied
factors
which
are
known
to
affect
the
leaching
behavior
of
metals
such
as
lead.
Other
factors,
such
as
total
solids,
may
indeed
be
reflective
of
the
different
stages
in
landfill
life
but
have
little
impact
on
the
mobility
of
contaminants.

3.2.3
Factors
Affecting
Contaminant
Mobility
Researchers
have
historically
analyzed
MSW
landfill
leachate
for
a
wide
variety
of
parameters,
and
a
wide
body
of
literature
exists
with
these
results.
However,
their
reasons
for
research
have
been
equally
varied,
including
wastewater
treatment
concerns
and
methane
gas
generation
concerns.
While
these
areas
of
study
can
supplement
and
provide
critical
input
to
work
regarding
contaminant
leaching
processes,
it
also
means
that
parameters
that
are
often
presented
in
the
literature
may
or
may
not
have
relevance
to
contaminant
leaching.
Unfortunately,
because
leaching
fundamentals
is
such
a
complex
topic
it
is
difficult
or
impractical
to
conclude
that
a
given
parameter
is
`
unimportant.'
Nevertheless,
this
section
attempts
to
isolate
several
parameters
that
are
known
or
suspected
of
the
most
significant
affects
of
the
mobility
for
toxic
metals
and
other
contaminants
of
concern
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
September
2000
3­
9
Draft
The
effect
of
extract
properties
upon
contaminant
mobility
has
been
researched
for
a
wide
variety
of
wastes
and
even
for
industrial
processes
such
as
liquid­
liquid
extraction.
A
number
of
factors
affect
the
degree
of
mobilization
or
fixation
of
contaminants
in
the
waste.
Usually
several
factors
are
in
operation
simultaneously
(
e.
g.,
in
the
case
of
microbial
activity
in
MSW
leachate).
Conner
(
1990)
listed
many
factors
in
their
application
to
hazardous
waste
stabilization
processes;
not
all
of
these
factors
are
relevant
to
environmental
leaching
phenomena.
Other
researchers
have
suggested
additional
factors.
Some
of
these
major
factors
as
applied
to
MSW
landfill
conditions
include
the
following:

°
pH.
The
solubility
of
metal
species
as
a
function
of
pH
is
well
studied
in
the
physical
sciences
as
well
as
the
waste
treatment
literature.
For
example,
when
studying
a
single
species
such
as
lead
hydroxide,
the
concentration
of
lead
in
solution
is
lowest
at
pH
9.5
(
Conner,
1990).

°
Redox
potential
(
oxidation
reduction
potential).
The
presence
of
strong
oxidants
or
reductants
can
change
the
valence
state
of
metals
such
as
chromium
and
arsenic.
This
in
turn
affects
their
speciation
and
their
solubility.
High
values
indicate
an
oxidizing
environment;
low
or
negative
values
represent
a
reducing
environment.
Chemical
species
are
often
stable
in
one
area
of
pH
and
redox
potential;
changes
in
one
or
both
of
these
variables
may
result
in
a
different
species
being
stable
and
creating
a
driving
force
for
conversion
between
the
species
(
Conner,
1990).
Redox
also
affects
the
presence
of
anionic
species
such
as
sulfate/
sulfite,
which
differ
in
their
solubilities
towards
metals.

°
Organic
leachant
composition
(
e.
g.,
total
volatile
acids).
Leachants
such
as
EDTA
and
acetic
acid
are
generally
believed
to
be
more
aggressive
than
distilled
water
(
Van
der
Sloot,
1997).
This
is
due
to
the
presence
of
acid
as
well
as
its
buffering
capacity
to
counter
the
effects
of
alkalinity
and
hold
the
pH
at
this
lower
value.
Metal
species
may
be
complexed
with
dissolved
organic
carbon
and
affect
mobility.

°
Biological
Oxygen
Demand
°
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
°
Ratio
of
Biological
Oxygen
Demand
to
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
°
Total
alkalinity
°
Sulfate
and
sulfide.
The
presence
of
anionic
species
such
as
sulfate
and
sulfite
differ
in
their
solubilities
towards
metals.

These
factors
are
discussed
in
greater
detail
below.
These
are
the
parameters
which
are
known
to
be
present
in
leachate,
and
which
also
affect
mobility
of
contaminants.
Field
leachate
is
a
complex
mixture
of
parameters
and
while
some
factors
are
well
studied
and
their
importance
has
previously
been
isolated
(
such
as
some
of
these
above
factors),
other
parameters
present
may
exert
synergistic
effects,
no
effects,
or
even
countering
effects
towards
contaminant
leaching
behavior.
September
2000
3­
10
Draft
Additional
parameters
are
present
in
landfill
leachate
at
levels
different
than
ambient
conditions,
or
change
over
time,
but
their
effect
on
contaminant
leaching
is
not
well
known
or
not
well
studied.
Such
factors,
listed
below
but
could
include
others,
are
not
extensively
discussed
in
this
report.

°
Conductivity.
An
increase
in
conductivity
indicates
an
increase
in
ionic
strength
of
the
solution.
For
some
ionic
species,
the
effect
is
an
increase
in
solution
concentration
(
Frampton,
1998).
°
Total
Organic
Carbon
°
Ratio
of
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
to
Total
Organic
Carbon
°
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
°
Nitrate
°
Ammonia
°
Ratio
of
Ammonia
to
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
°
Total
phosphate
°
Total
solids
°
Chloride.
Chloride
may
form
stable
soluble
complexes
with
certain
metals,
such
as
cadmium.

pH
In
the
literature,
low
leachate
pH
has
been
associated
with
increased
microbial
activity
and
therefore
are
an
indication
of
additional
processes
occurring:
organic
acid
formation,
increases
in
alkalinity,
changes
in
oxidation­
reduction
potential,
etc.
Higher
values
of
pH
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
7)
are
generally
associated
with
more
mature
landfills
with
less
bioactivity.

Poland
(
1986)
identifies
an
early
stage
of
a
landfill
where
pH
is
low
due
to
acid
formation
(
e.
g.,
4.7
to
7.7),
rising
above
7
in
later
stages.
Data
from
Ehrig
(
1983)
support
this
assessment.
Specifically,
pH
values
between
4.5
and
6
were
most
often
found
in
the
first
two
years
of
landfill
operation;
after
approximately
two
years
the
lowest
pH
values
were
no
lower
than
6.
The
highest
pH
values
from
Ehrig
(
1983)
were
8
to
9.

Data
from
Farquhar
(
1989)
also
show
that
relatively
young
landfills
have
lower
pH.
Leachate
from
landfills
of
less
than
5
years
exhibit
typical
pH
of
5
to
6;
this
rises
to
7.5
after
20
years.
Time
series
data
from
a
single
cell
in
a
South
African
landfill
shows
a
similar
trend,
with
a
value
of
5.9
after
five
months
increasing
to
7.8
after
42
months
(
Ross,
1990).

MSW
landfill
leachate
data
from
the
LEACH
2000
database
also
show
a
correlation
between
pH
and
landfill
age.
Specifically,
the
Wisconsin
data
included
in
the
database
allow
identification
of
landfill
age.
Using
data
for
Wisconsin
MSW
landfills,
Figure
3­
1
presents
cumulative
frequency
distributions
of
pH
for
MSW
landfills
in
various
age
categories.
The
median
(
50th
percentile)
pH
shifts
upwards
for
landfills
of
age
2
and
older.
Approximately
20
percent
of
landfills
less
than
2
years
old
had
leachate
pH
less
than
6.
However,
for
landfills
between
2
and
9
years
old
only
approximately
5
percent
of
landfills
exhibit
pH
less
than
this
value.
The
frequency
of
lower
pH
(
i.
e.,
pH
of
5
or
lower)
is
very
infrequent
for
any
landfill
age
(
a
maximum
of
approximately
3
percent),
and
conclusions
regarding
the
effect
of
landfill
age
at
this
low
range
are
difficult
to
make.
September
2000
3­
11
Draft
At
the
other
pH
extreme,
pH
values
above
8
were
most
common
in
the
landfills
of
age
6
to
9
years
according
to
the
Wisconsin
data
(
approximately
10
percent
of
the
cases).
For
the
remaining
landfills
(
aged
5
years
or
less),
approximately
5
percent
of
the
landfills
had
pH
values
above
8.

Figure
3­
1.
Cumulative
Frequency
of
pH
in
Wisconsin
MSW
Landfills
by
Age
Group
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Cumulative
Distribution
pH
Year
0
Year
1
Years
2­
5
Years
6­
9
Using
the
same
data,
it
is
possible
to
perform
regression
analysis
of
pH
versus
age
to
further
examine
the
relationship
between
pH
and
landfill
age.
While
the
relationship
does
not
explain
all
of
the
observed
variation
in
pH,
the
trend
is
statistically
significant
at
the
1
percent
level.
Figure
3­
2
shows
the
scatter
plot
of
pH
versus
age
for
the
Wisconsin
MSW
landfills
with
the
regression
line
indicated.
Further
examination
of
Figure
3­
2
further
supports
the
observation
that
low
pH
is
more
frequent
in
young
landfills.
Observations
below
pH
of
6
become
less
frequent
for
landfills
older
than
approximately
5
years
(
see
the
detail
expanded
in
Figure
3­
2).
September
2000
3­
12
Draft
Figure
3­
2.
pH
Observed
in
Wisconsin
MSW
Landfills
by
Age
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Year
pH
Detail
show
n
below
Detail
from
above
5.25
5.5
5.75
6
6.25
6.5
6.75
7
7.25
7.5
7.75
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Year
pH
R
squared
=
0.08
Significant
at
1%
September
2000
3­
13
Draft
A
review
of
time
series
data
at
individual
landfills
appears
to
indicate
that
the
trends
seen
in
the
overall
data
hold
true
for
many
individual
landfills,
but
not
all.
Figures
3­
3
and
3­
4
present
trend
lines
based
on
regression
analysis
of
pH
versus
age
for
each
of
the
individual
landfills
represented
in
the
Wisconsin
data.
More
than
half
of
the
individual
landfills
display
statistically
significant
increasing
trends
(
Figure
3­
3).
Statistically
significant
trends
could
not
be
found
for
three
landfills.
The
other
landfills
displayed
trends
that
were
decreasing
or
variable
(
Figure
3­
4)

Figure
3­
3.
pH
Trends
for
Individual
Landfills
(
increasing)

5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Year
pH
Brow
n
(
other
sample
pts)
Marathon
Mar­
oco
Monroe
Outagamie
Sauk
Superior
Mocassin
Mike
Superior
Cranberry
Creek
Superior
Seven
Mile
Creek
Vernon
WMWI
Pheasant
Run
(
other
sample
pts)
WMWI
Ridgeview
(
sample
pts
22&
42)
WMWI
Valley
Trail
Winnebago
Figure
3­
4.
pH
Trends
for
Individual
Landfills
(
decreasing
or
varying)

4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Year
pH
Abbotsford
Door
Brow
n
(
sample
pt
95)
Dane
Juneau
Lincoln
WMWI
Timberline
Trail
WMWI
Pheasant
Run
(
sample
pt
285)
WMWI
Ridgeview
(
sample
pts
23&
61)
September
2000
3­
14
Draft
Redox
Potential
and
Sulfate
While
a
theoretically
important
parameter
in
identifying
the
stability
of
individual
metal
species,
and
therefore
mobility,
redox
potential
is
not
often
reported
in
the
literature.
Further,
the
analytical
measurement
can
be
prone
to
significant
error.
In
one
study
(
Chian,
1977),
analysis
for
redox
potential
was
made
immediately
following
collection,
and
then
frequently
for
a
twelve
day
period.
After
24
hours
the
measurement
was
100
mV
higher
(
i.
e.,
representing
a
more
oxidizing
environment)
than
immediately
following
sampling,
even
under
refrigerated
conditions.
Redox
potential
showed
the
largest
dependence
on
analysis
time
of
any
of
the
parameters
measured.
This
study
shows
that
reports
of
redox
potential
in
the
literature
may
or
may
not
be
reflective
of
the
actual
conditions
in
the
leachate
depending
on
whether
the
analysis
occurs
in
the
field
or
following
delivery
to
a
laboratory.

One
study
(
Chian,
1977)
identified
redox
potential
as
a
function
of
landfill
age.
The
results
were
plotted
with
pH
and
showed
that
as
pH
increased,
redox
potential
increased.
As
discussed
above,
different
researchers
have
found
that
pH
rises
slightly
as
a
landfill
ages.
During
the
early
years
of
a
landfill
life
(<
2
years),
redox
potential
ranges
from
­
200
to
150
mV.
Later
(
5
to
15
years),
the
upper
end
of
the
range
is
still
150
mV
while
the
range
has
narrowed
somewhat.
Low
values
of
redox
potential
have
been
cited
as
due
to
a
high
degree
of
anaerobiosis
in
the
landfill,
while
higher
readings
reflect
a
steady­
state
situation.
Low
redox
potential
values
are
associated
with
reducing
conditions,
high
values
with
oxidizing
conditions.

These
data
are
consistent
with
information
from
Pohland
(
1986).
In
the
second
phase
of
a
landfill
(
initial
formation
of
leachate),
the
redox
potential
ranges
from
40
to
80
mV.
The
third
phase
(
acid
formation)
and
fourth
phase
(
gas
formation)
show
the
lowest
values
of
redox
potential:
­
240
to
80
in
Phase
III
and
­
240
to
­
70
in
Phase
IV.
Redox
potential
in
Phase
V
is
reported
as
97
to
163.

Based
on
these
two
studies
by
Pohland
(
1986)
and
Chian
(
1977),
low
redox
values
(
reducing
conditions)
are
most
likely
to
be
present
during
the
acid
generation
and
methane
formation
phases
of
a
landfill,
with
redox
potential
reaching
its
lowest
value
in
the
methane
generation
phase.
Therefore,
in
cases
where
such
redox
data
are
not
available
it
may
be
possible
to
extrapolate,
qualitatively,
what
these
conditions
may
be
based
on
other
properties
indicative
of
Phase
II
and
Phase
III
behavior.

Sulfate
concentration
is
one
possible
parameter
to
use
as
a
surrogate.
Chian
(
1977)
presents
sulfate
concentration
data
as
a
function
of
landfill
age,
plotted
as
the
ratio
sulfate
to
chloride
concentration.
This
trend
is
compared
to
trends
in
pH
and
redox
potential
over
time.
As
the
landfill
ages,
the
sulfate/
chloride
ratio
decreases,
redox
potential
increases,
and
pH
increases.
The
decrease
in
the
sulfate/
chloride
ratio
is
attributed
to
anaerobic
conditions
where
sulfate
is
reduced
to
sulfide.
There
is
an
inverse
correlation
between
redox
potential
and
sulfate
concentration
which
is
explained
by
Chian
(
1977)
as
low
ORP
readings
(
reducing
conditions)
correspond
to
falling
sulfate
levels.
In
addition
to
its
indication
of
reducing
conditions,
the
presence
of
sulfides
may
result
in
lower
metal
solubilities.
Species
of
cadmium,
copper,
lead,
mercury,
nickel,
and
zinc
are
insoluble
in
their
sulfide
form
(
Conner,
1990).
Conversely,
sulfate
forms
are
much
more
soluble.
September
2000
3­
15
Draft
Ehrig
(
1983)
has
presented
data
for
sulfate
concentration
as
a
function
of
landfill
age
in
laboratory
scale
experiments,
where
the
acid
formation
and
methane
fermentation
stages
are
condensed
to
a
period
of
days
rather
than
years,
as
well
as
from
an
operating
landfill.
For
the
laboratory
scale
study,
in
comparing
these
results
to
other
parameters,
the
highest
sulfate
concentrations
were
present
early,
followed
by
a
drop
in
concentration
for
the
remainder
of
the
study
period.
The
time
of
the
drop
corresponded
to
a
rise
in
pH
and
lagged
the
fall
in
concentration
of
COD
and
BOD
(
as
discussed
below).
These
results,
therefore,
are
similar
to
the
Chian
(
1977)
results
that
show
decreasing
sulfate
levels
over
time
and
increasing
pH
over
time.
Because
sulfur
is
still
present
in
the
system,
the
sulfur
would
likely
be
converted
to
sulfide
as
sulfate
concentrations
fall.

The
operating
landfill
data
presented
in
Ehrig
(
1983)
suggest
similar
findings.
Sulfate
concentration
decreases
from
approximately
1,300
mg/
L
at
the
beginning
of
the
study
(
when
the
landfill
is
1
½
years
old)
to
less
than
100
mg/
L
after
6
½
years.
The
fall
is
sulfate
concentrations
parallel
the
fall
in
COD
and
BOD
levels,
and
a
rise
in
pH.

Similar
results
are
available
from
Farquhar
(
1989)
which
summarizes
data
from
previous
studies,
showing
the
effect
of
landfill
age
on
parameters
including
sulfate;
the
data
were
presented
in
tabular
format
grouping
the
landfill
ages
into
five
or
ten
year
increments:
0
to
5
years,
5
to
10
years,
10
to
20
years,
and
greater
than
20
years.
As
expected,
landfills
greater
than
20
years
had
the
lowest
levels
of
sulfate
(<
100
mg/
L).
Conversely,
these
parameters
exhibited
the
highest
levels
in
the
range
of
0
to
5
years
(
500
to
2,000
mg/
L)
and
decreasing
in
the
range
of
5
to
10
years
(
200
to
1,000
mg/
L).

Organic
Content:
Overview
The
organic
content
of
leachate
is
measurable
by
several
parameters,
including
volatile
fatty
acids,
chemical
oxygen
demand
(
COD),
and
biological
oxygen
demand
(
BOD).
Volatile
fatty
acids
(
e.
g.,
acetic
acid)
are
the
product
of
biological
activity.
Chemical
oxygen
demand
is
a
test
to
quantify
the
oxidizable
contents
of
a
wastewater
and
represents
the
ultimate
value
of
the
oxygen
that
the
wastewater
could
consume
in
oxidizing
species
that
are
present
as
reduced
species.
Biological
oxygen
demand
is
indicative
of
the
degree
to
which
the
contents
of
the
water
is
amenable
to
biological
activity.
It
is
measured
by
adding
oxygen
and
bacteria
and
allowing
equilibration
for
five
days.
The
ratio
of
BOD
to
COD
can
not
be
greater
than
1;
values
close
to
1
indicate
that
biological
degradation
is
favorable
while
values
much
less
than
1
indicate
that
some
oxidizable
material
is
not
biodegradable
(
Stephenson,
1998).

Each
of
these
parameters
are
indicator
parameters,
which
do
not
measure
any
one
species
or
compound
but
a
class
of
compounds.

BOD
and
COD
The
measurement
of
the
ratio
of
BOD
to
COD
in
landfill
leachate,
as
well
as
absolute
values
of
these
parameters,
is
provided
by
several
researchers.
Ehrig
(
1983)
measures
these
parameters
in
landfills
aged
up
to
7
years.
In
one
landfill,
these
parameters
behaved
similarly
such
that
elevated
levels
of
COD
generally
corresponded
to
instances
of
elevated
levels
of
BOD,
and
elevated
levels
of
the
ratio
between
BOD
and
COD.
Specifically,
these
levels
were
elevated
and
stayed
at
these
levels
from
year
1
½
(
initial
measurement)
until
year
3,
with
the
exception
of
a
September
2000
3­
16
Draft
sharp
dip
and
rise
shortly
after
measurements
began.
Following
year
3
there
was
a
gradual
decrease
in
the
values
of
these
parameters
to
year
6
½
when
the
activity
was
at
its
lowest.
Interestingly,
the
behavior
of
pH
in
this
same
period
of
time
was
a
gradual
increase
from
6
to
approximately
8.

The
results
of
the
single
landfill
study
by
Ehrig
(
1983)
correlate
well
to
results
from
many
landfills
presented
in
the
same
paper
as
generated
using
data
from
a
variety
of
previous
studies
(
mostly
from
studies
initiated
in
the
United
States)
and
from
data
from
landfills
in
Germany.
The
effect
of
age
on
COD
measurements
shows
a
very
uniform
steady
state
concentration
of
COD
after
year
8
(
approximately
3,000
to
5,000
mg/
L).
Prior
to
this
year
the
data
are
much
more
scattered
with
many
of
the
values
higher
than
this
(
as
consistent
with
the
single
landfill
study)
but
several
of
the
values
lower
(
ranging
from
100
to
40,000).
Similar
results
are
obtained
in
a
laboratory
scale
experiment,
where
concentrations
of
BOD
and
COD
are
initially
high
(
approximately
10,000
to
15,000
mg/
L
for
BOD
and
15,000
to
25,000
for
COD)
but,
together
with
the
BOD
to
COD
ratio,
drop
following
a
rise
in
pH.

The
findings
of
Ehrig
(
1983)
are
consistent
with
the
data
presented
by
Pohland
(
1986).
Pohland
(
1983)
indicated
that
the
ratio
of
BOD
to
COD
increases
during
Phases
II
and
III
of
the
landfill
life
(
transition
and
acid
formation),
then
drops
in
later
phases
(
e.
g.,
gas
production).
Absolute
values
of
biological
oxygen
demand
and
chemical
oxygen
demand
have
similar
behavior,
in
that
these
values
increase
in
Phases
II
and
III
and
drop
in
later
phases.

Similar
results
are
available
from
Farquhar
(
1989)
which
summarizes
data
from
previous
studies,
showing
the
effect
of
landfill
age
on
parameters
such
as
COD
and
BOD;
the
data
were
presented
in
tabular
format
grouping
the
landfill
ages
into
five
or
ten
year
increments:
0
to
5
years,
5
to
10
years,
10
to
20
years,
and
greater
than
20
years.
As
expected,
landfills
greater
than
20
years
had
the
lowest
levels
of
BOD
and
COD.
Conversely,
these
parameters
exhibited
the
highest
levels
in
the
range
of
0
to
5
years
and
decreasing
in
the
range
of
5
to
10
years.

While
the
above
sources
suggest
that
relatively
young
municipal
waste
landfills
have
higher
levels
of
BOD,
COD,
and
BOD/
COD
ratios,
conflicting
data
are
available
from
Waste
Management's
study
of
leachate
generated
from
six
of
its
municipal
waste
landfills,
each
varying
in
age
and
characteristics.
In
comparing
the
average
values
of
organic
indicator
parameters
(
BOD,
TOC,
and
COD)
to
the
start
date
of
the
landfill,
no
clear
trends
are
apparent.
Average
levels
of
COD
and
BOD
are
highest
in
the
oldest
landfill,
a
finding
in
contradiction
to
the
Farquhar
(
1989)
and
Ehrig
(
1983)
results.
However,
average
values
from
the
Waste
Management
data
are
relatively
low
in
comparison
to
the
data
from
these
two
previous
papers.
The
average
values
of
COD
from
Waste
Management
ranged
from
227
to
4,645
mg/
L;
Ehrig
(
1983)
identifies
the
range
of
3,000
to
5,000
mg/
L
as
typical
of
long
term
steady
state
conditions.

Volatile
Fatty
Acids
and
COD
The
correlation
of
volatile
fatty
acid
concentration
to
COD
concentration
was
also
demonstrated
by
Ehrig
(
1983),
who
used
the
result
to
theorize
that
the
volatile
fatty
acids
are
responsible
for
the
chemical
oxygen
demand
(
see
Figure
3­
5).
Specifically,
samples
with
low
COD
also
had
low
concentrations
of
volatile
fatty
acids,
a
correlation
which
was
generally
linear
over
a
range
of
0
to
COD
of
60,000
mg/
L.
September
2000
3­
17
Draft
Figure
3­
5.
Relationship
between
VFA
and
COD
in
Landfill
Leachate
(
from
Ehrig,
1984)

Information
from
Pohland
(
1986)
support
this
correlation
to
an
extent.
Specifically,
COD
concentration,
TOC
concentration,
and
volatile
fatty
acid
concentrations
all
increase
during
the
acid
formation
phase
of
the
landfill.
During
the
methane
fermentation
phase,
the
volatile
fatty
acid
concentration
decreases
because
of
its
bioconversion
to
methane;
COD
and
TOC
similarly
decrease.
These
matching
trends
are
due
to
the
overlap
of
volatile
acids
as
analytically
measured
by
each
of
these
three
parameters.
However,
later
in
the
life
of
a
landfill
volatile
fatty
acids
are
essentially
absent.
This
decline
in
COD
is
confirmed
using
time
series
data
from
Wisconsin
(
Figure
3­
6)
however
these
data
do
not
proceed
long
enough
(
i.
e.,
beyond
20
years)
to
evaluated
hypotheses
regarding
the
later
stages
of
landfill
life.
COD
and
TOC
measurements,
while
low,
are
non­
zero
due
to
the
presence
of
higher
molecular
weight
residual
organics.
Together,
the
Ehrig
(
1983)
and
Pohland
(
1986)
data
imply
that
high
values
of
COD
are
the
result
of
high
values
of
volatile
fatty
acids,
but
lower
values
of
COD
may
reflect
negligible
concentrations
of
volatile
fatty
acids.
September
2000
3­
18
Draft
Figure
3­
6.
COD
Observed
in
Wisconsin
MSW
Landfills
by
Age
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
0
5
10
15
20
Year
COD
(
mg/
L)
R
squared
=
0.01
Significant
at
1%

Characterization
of
volatile
fatty
acids
has
been
conducted
by
several
researchers
and
summarized
by
Frampton
(
1998).
During
the
acid
generation
phase,
volatile
fatty
acids
can
comprise
up
to
87
percent
of
total
organic
carbon
in
MSW
landfill
leachate.
Following
this
period,
other
sources
of
organic
carbon
dominate
including
fulvic
acid,
humic
acid,
and
high
molecular
weight
(>
10,000)
organic
compounds.

The
significance
of
volatile
fatty
acids
towards
contaminant
leaching
has
been
the
focus
of
leaching
test
development,
including
which
acids
should
be
incorporated
into
the
test
fluid
and
their
effects
on
leaching.
Volatile
fatty
acids
such
as
acetic
acid
can
form
stable
(
and
soluble)
complexes
with
metal
cations
(
Frampton,
1998).
In
contrast,
when
analyzing
for
metals
in
a
mixture
of
low
molecular
weight
(
volatile
fatty
acids)
and
higher
molecular
weight
(>
500)
organic
molecules
following
ultrafiltration,
the
metals
magnesium,
calcium,
and
zinc
were
associated
with
the
low
molecular
weight
organic
fraction
(
Chian,
1977).
This
shows
that
volatile
fatty
acids
may
be
more
significant
than
higher
molecular
weight
species
in
mobilizing
metals.

Alkalinity
Alkalinity
reflects
the
acid
neutralizing
capacity
of
an
aqueous
solution,
measured
as
the
equivalent
sum
of
the
bases
that
are
titratable
with
strong
acid
to
an
equivalence
point.
It
represents
the
sum
of
all
such
bases,
such
as
hydroxides
(
OH­),
carbonate
(
CO3
2­),
bicarbonate
(
HCO3
­),
and
other
anions
that
may
be
present
to
react
with
excess
protons
(
H+)
(
Stumm,
1981).
Therefore,
alkalinity
is
used
as
an
indication
of
the
buffering
capacity
and
the
ability
of
a
solution
to
maintain
a
pH,
rather
than
to
identify
the
exact
anionic
species
in
a
solution.

The
general
behavior
of
alkalinity
in
a
landfill
over
time
is
expressed
by
Pohland
(
1983).
The
highest
levels
of
alkalinity
are
found
in
the
acid
formation
phase
of
the
landfill,
Phase
III.
This
is
due
to
the
formation
of
volatile
acid
which
results
in
dissolution
of
bicarbonate.
As
volatile
acids
September
2000
3­
19
Draft
are
removed
due
to
their
conversion
to
methane
and
carbon
dioxide,
residual
alkalinity
determines
the
resulting
pH
of
the
system.
If
alkalinity
is
relatively
high
the
pH
of
the
system
becomes
controlled
by
the
anions
contributing
to
alkalinity;
low
alkalinity
makes
the
system
more
susceptible
to
changes
affecting
pH.

Ehrig
(
1983)
also
presents
information
regarding
alkalinity.
The
ratio
of
volatile
fatty
acid
concentration
to
alkalinity
is
presented,
and
observed
that
gas
production
is
initiated
when
the
ratio
drops
below
0.8
(
i.
e.,
the
landfill
enters
Phase
IV),
which
occurred
in
the
sixth
year
of
landfill
activity.
Unfortunately,
this
paper
does
not
present
the
actual
values
of
alkalinity
as
well.
As
shown
above,
volatile
fatty
acid
concentration
drops
in
Phase
IV,
but
based
on
data
by
Farquhar
(
1989)
and
the
above
discussion
by
Pohland
(
1983)
alkalinity
decreases
over
time
as
well.
High
pH
values
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
7)
were
also
correlated
with
low
ratios
of
volatile
fatty
acids
to
alkalinity,
showing
that
high
levels
of
volatile
fatty
acids
are
associated
with
low
pH.

Farquhar
(
1989)
presents
information
regarding
alkalinity
as
a
function
of
time
(
years
of
landfill
operation).
Values
are
highest
(
10,000
to
15,000
mg/
L)
in
the
period
0
to
5
years.
Values
steadily
decrease
over
the
ranges
5
to
10
years,
10
to
20
years,
and
greater
than
20
years
where
the
value
is
less
than
500
mg/
L.
Data
reflecting
the
first
10
years
of
MSW
landfill
operations
from
Wisconsin
do
not
indicate
any
significant
decline
in
alkalinity
but
his
pattern
may
be
more
visible
in
later
stages
of
landfill
development.

This
decrease
in
alkalinity
over
time
may
be
the
result
of
simple
mass
balance
effects:
additional
alkalinity
is
no
longer
generated
by
bioactivity,
and
it
is
removed
continuously
in
leachate.
Therefore
its
concentration
in
leachate
decreases.

Summary
of
Significant
Findings
for
Indicator
Parameters
in
MSW
Landfill
Leachate
Many
researchers
have
found
temporal
differences
for
certain
parameters
present
in
MSW
landfill
leachate.
These
findings
are
summarized
in
Table
3­
2
and
reflect
the
body
of
literature
discussed
above.
Some
of
these
parameters
may
or
may
not
have
a
direct
affect
on
contaminant
leaching.
For
example,
high
COD
by
itself
may
not
significantly
affect
mobility.
However,
high
COD
levels
are
indicative
of
the
acid
generation
phase
of
an
MSW
landfill
where
many
different
effects
are
happening
simultaneously.
One
or
a
combination
of
these
other
parameters,
however,
may
be
indicative
of
contaminant
mobility.
September
2000
3­
20
Draft
Table
3­
2.
Behavior
of
Indicator
Parameters
in
MSW
Landfill
Leachate:
Summary
Parameter
Result
pH
Initially
low
(
5
to
6)
due
to
the
presence
of
organic
acids
forming
during
biodegradation.
As
these
acids
are
removed
by
additional
bioprocesses
and
converted
to
gas,
pH
rises
slightly
(
to
8)
to
reflect
new
equilibrium
conditions
by
residual
alkalinity.

Redox
potential
Lowest
during
the
acid
generation
phase;
values
of
­
200
mV
are
encountered
(
reflective
of
reducing
conditions).
These
levels
rise
slightly
during
gas
production
and
remain
above
zero
for
the
remainder
of
landfill
life.

Sulfate
concentration
may
be
a
surrogate
indicator
of
redox
potential
if
redox
potential
is
not
measured.
Sulfate
concentrations
decrease
over
time
from
up
to
2,000
to
<
100
mg/
L;
they
convert
to
sulfides
under
the
reducing
conditions
of
the
acid
generation
phase.
Alternatively,
the
measurements
can
be
used
in
conjunction
to
assess
bioactivity.

BOD
and
COD
Indicative
of
bioactivity.
These
parameters
typically
display
a
peaking
behavior
(
initially
low,
rising,
then
low.
High
levels
of
each
parameter
indicate
acid
production;
during
gas
production
the
levels
fall.
Additionally,
the
ratio
of
BOD
to
COD
is
indicative.
High
ratios
indicate
organic
acid
production,
where
most
of
the
organic
matter
is
biologically
active.
This
ratio
also
exhibits
peaking
behavior.

Volatile
Fatty
Acids
and
COD
Volatile
fatty
acids
have
been
shown
to
be
a
significant
source
of
COD
in
MSW
landfill
leachate.
Their
presence
demonstrates
biological
activity
(
acid
formation)
in
MSW
landfills.
Other
sources
contribute
to
COD
such
as
nonbiodegradable
organic
material.

Alkalinity
Highest
during
acid
formation
phase;
bioactivity
creates
species
contributing
to
acid
content
(
e.
g.,
formation
of
organic
acids)
and
alkalinity
(
e.
g.,
formation
of
bisulfide
ion);
alkalinity
is
also
increased
by
acids
solubilizing
carbonate
ion
(
which
contributes
to
alkalinity).
Alkalinity
drops
over
time,
perhaps
due
to
the
elimination
of
acid
generation
and
subsequent
`
washing
out'
of
the
ions.
September
2000
3­
21
Draft
3.3
Construction
and
Demolition
Debris
Landfills
Construction
and
demolition
debris
(
C&
D)
landfills
are
less
studied
in
the
literature
than
municipal
waste
landfills.
Based
on
the
available
literature,
however,
the
cycle
of
a
MSW
landfill
(
e.
g.,
acid
formation,
methane
fermentation)
may
occur
with
less
intensity
or
not
at
all
in
a
C&
D
landfill.
Section
3.3.1
provides
a
general
overview
of
the
composition
of
C&
D
landfill
leachate
based
on
the
data
available
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
Section
3.3.2
discusses
the
information
available
on
temporal
changes
in
C&
D
landfill
environments.

3.3.1
Overall
Composition
of
C&
D
Landfill
Leachate
C&
D
landfills,
in
general,
receive
materials
associated
with
land
clearing
(
soil,
rock,
trees),
exterior
structure
demolition
(
concrete
and
asphalt
rubble,
roofing,
brick),
interior
structure
demolition
(
painted
wallboard,
framing,
piping),
and
similar
materials
(
Townsend,
1998).
Two
specific
examples
of
C&
D
landfill
operations
may
be
found
in
Section
4
of
this
report
(
case
studies
8
and
13).
Section
4
also
includes
an
example
of
a
landfill
receiving
a
mixture
of
MSW
and
C&
D
wastes
(
case
study
17).

The
data
presented
in
Table
3­
3,
below
are
from
the
22
C&
D
landfills
represented
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
As
discussed
in
Section
3.1
above,
these
landfills
do
not
necessarily
constitute
a
statistically
representative
sample
of
C&
D
landfills
by
geographic
region
or
any
other
criterion.
As
with
the
MSW
landfill
leachate
data
presented
in
Table
3­
1,
the
constituents
included
in
Table
3­
3
represent
the
parameters
most
frequently
analyzed
for
in
the
characterization
data
included
in
the
database.
Constituents
are
organized
into
three
categories:
major
physical/
chemical
parameters,
trace
inorganics,
and
organics.
The
paragraphs
below
discuss
the
data
for
C&
D
landfill
leachate
in
each
of
these
categories.

General
Parameters
For
C&
D
landfills,
data
are
available
for
most
of
the
parameters
commonly
analyzed
in
wastewaters.
Unfortunatly,
data
are
unavailable
for
some
parameters
critical
to
leaching
analyses,
particularly
oxidation­
reduction
potential.
Of
the
analytes
for
which
data
are
available,
alkalinity,
chloride,
chemical
oxygen
demand,
iron,
nitrogen,
and
sodium
are
the
most
highly
variable.
Magnesium
is
rarely
detected
in
C&
D
landfill
leachate.

Trace
Inorganics
A
number
of
inorganics
are
found
in
C&
D
landfill
leachate.
Inorganics
detected
in
50
percent
or
more
of
samples
are,
in
order
of
detection
frequency:
barium,
boron,
manganese,
aluminum,
zinc,
copper,
lead,
chromium,
arsenic,
cadmium,
and
mercury.

Organics
Organic
species
are
less
frequently
analyzed
in
C&
D
landfill
leachate
than
other
constituents.
When
organics
are
sampled,
they
are
less
frequently
detected
than
other
parameters
such
as
metals.
Only
phenol,
xylene,
and
acetone
were
detected
in
more
than
50
percent
of
the
C&
D
landfill
leachate
samples.
The
available
acetone
data,
furthermore,
consist
only
of
nine
samples.
September
2000
3­
22
Draft
Table
3­
3.
Composition
of
C&
D
Landfill
Leachate
Analyte
N
%
Detected
5th
%
ile
10th
%
ile
Median
Mean
90th
%
ile
95th
%
ile
MAJOR
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS
(
mg/
L,
except
pH
in
Standard
Units)
Alkalinity
94
98.9
54.5
110
1,450
2,202
4,540
5,300
B.
O.
D.
45
91.1
5.7
9
40
110
170
320
Calcium
35
97.1
44
96.4
205
237
480
578
Chloride
107
100.0
8
13
400
603
1,400
1,630
C.
O.
D.
90
97.8
24
32
438
1,661
3,730
11,200
Cyanide
30
50.0
0.01
0.011
0.022
0.0665
0.3
0.34
Fluoride
14
92.9
0.05
0.05
0.22
0.63
0.52
5
Iron
54
66.7
4.92
8.6
33.5
89.5
320
680
Magnesium
46
4.4
0.0003
0.0003
0.00465
0.00465
0.009
0.009
Nitrogen
15
100.0
1.59
28.8
156
160
380
400
pH
90
100.0
6.20
6.33
6.90
6.90
7.35
7.70
Sodium
69
100.0
17
20
191
356
953
1,430
Sulfate
65
96.9
21
26
99
289
770
1,000
T.
O.
C.
30
96.7
6.1
15
180
296.68621
620
1080
TRACE
INORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
Aluminum
18
83.3
100
130
200
676
590
6,350
Arsenic
48
54.2
5
8
32.5
34.9
75
77.3
Barium
27
100.0
100
100
300
638
1,000
1,500
Beryllium
7
14.3
20
20
20
20
20
20
Boron
2
100.0
1,400
1,400
2,650
2,650
3,900
3,900
Cadmium
68
50.0
0.2
2
10
73.1
30
54
Chromium
51
56.9
5
5
18
35.8
100
120
Copper
55
72.7
5.2
7.15
35
75.9
170
465
Lead
68
60.3
2.9
4
40
122
220
360
Manganese
64
100.0
80
620
3450
9,416
17,000
22,000
Mercury
24
50.0
10
20
50
63.8
100
170
Selenium
42
14.3
2
2
3
3.3
5
5
Silver
41
17.1
9
9
10
14.9
30
30
Zinc
41
80.5
10
23
91
575
1,420
2,600
ORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
1,1­
Dichloroethane
23
26.1
0.048
0.048
5.9
7.47
17
17
1,1­
Dichloroethene
19
5.3
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
Acenaphthene
16
18.8
2
2
3
3
4
4
Acetone
9
66.7
31
31
155
992
5,100
5,100
Benzene
23
30.4
0.8
0.8
2.7
3.71
7
7
Chloroethane
23
21.7
5
5
18
82.1
353
353
Ethylbenzene
23
47.8
0.8
1.9
18
26.3
61
79
Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
11
27.3
8.9
8.9
59
106
250
250
Naphthalene
19
21.0
1.4
1.4
5.9
19.0
63
63
Phenol
25
56.0
2.6
11
36.5
323
700
2,990
Trichloroethylene
27
25.9
2
2
6
848
3,000
3,000
Vinyl
Chloride
5
40.0
3
3
12.5
12.5
22
22
Xylene
24
58.3
2.3
5.6
69.5
95.2
210
270
Source:
Characterization
data
from
the
22
C&
D
landfills
included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.

3.3.2
Temporal
Variability
and
Indicator
Parameters
in
C&
D
Landfills
As
presented
above,
the
stages
of
activity
in
a
MSW
landfill
are
well
researched.
These
stages
include
a
leachate
generation
phase,
an
acid
generation
phase,
a
gas
fermentation
phase,
and
a
steady­
state
maturation
phase.
Corresponding
time
stages
of
C&
D
landfills
have
not
been
September
2000
3­
23
Draft
postulated.
However,
several
researchers
provide
time
series
data
for
C&
D
wastes
which
allow
for
the
opportunity
to
draw
parallels
between
these
different
landfills.
For
MSW
landfills,
the
following
factors
are
indicative
of
the
onset
of
biological
activity:

°
Increase
in
COD
and
BOD
°
Increase
in
alkalinity
°
Drop
in
sulfate
and
rise
in
redox
potential
°
Drop
in
pH
and
increase
in
volatile
acids
Such
indications
of
biological
activity
have
been
monitored
by
Townsend
(
1998).
Findings
indicate
that
some
of
these
effects
are
evident
in
C&
D
waste
leachate.
Not
all
of
the
above
indications
were
present,
which
may
be
indicative
that
different
types
or
degrees
of
biological
activity
was
taking
place.
Findings
for
each
parameter
are
discussed
below.

pH
Research
has
found
that
the
individual
components
comprising
C&
D
wastes
affect
pH
in
different
ways.
Significant
findings
include
the
following:

°
The
pH
from
a
lysimeter
consisting
exclusively
of
concrete
was
a
constant
11
to
12
over
time.
In
contrast,
the
pH
from
lysimeters
containing
only
wood,
cardboard,
or
wallboard
were
relatively
constant
4
to
6
over
time.
This
compares
to
a
time
dependence
of
pH
in
a
lysimeter
with
a
more
typical
mix
of
C&
D
waste,
where
pH
was
initially
10­
11
then
dropping
to
7
(
Townsend,
1998).

°
This
influence
of
materials
on
pH
is
consistent
with
previous
lysimeter
tests
in
1980
by
other
researchers
and
reported
in
Townsend
(
1998);
in
this
1980
test
the
pH
of
a
lysimeter
containing
high
masonry
C&
D
mix
was
7.45
while
the
pH
of
a
lysimeter
containing
high
wood
mix
was
6.9.

These
findings
suggest
that
contributions
to
high
pH
include
concrete,
while
the
presence
of
organic
material
in
the
landfill
contributes
to
lower
pH.
The
temporal
dependence
of
pH
was
suggested
as
an
indication
of
biological
activity
(
Townsend,
1998).

Redox
and
Sulfate
Townsend
(
1998)
conducted
lysimeter
tests
for
C&
D
waste
and
its
individual
components.
In
all
cases,
redox
potential
was
initially
high
(
100
to
400
mV)
and
decreased
over
time
to
below
zero.
The
lowest
values
were
found
for
the
`
typical'
mixture,
followed
by
wallboard,
concrete,
cardboard,
and
wood.
These
results
demonstrate
that
reducing
conditions
can
be
present,
but
can
not
necessarily
determine
the
source
of
such
conditions
in
a
C&
D
landfill.

Townsend
(
1998)
reports
sulfate
levels
in
lysimeters
from
typical
mixtures
of
C&
D
wastes
ranged
from
600
to
850
mg/
L
and
were
shown
to
result
almost
exclusively
from
discarded
wallboard.
In
tests
using
lysimeters
filled
with
discrete
wastes
(
wallboard,
concrete,
wood,
cardboard),
sulfate
levels
in
lysimeters
containing
only
wallboard
were
elevated
and
relatively
erratic
over
time,
ranging
between
800
to
1,200
mg/
L.
In
sharp
contrast,
sulfate
was
practically
absent
from
lysimeters
containing
only
cardboard,
wood,
and
concrete.
The
sulfate
September
2000
3­
24
Draft
concentrations
reported
by
Townsend
(
1998)
did
not
significantly
decrease
during
the
study
period
of
the
lysimeter
tests,
unlike
in
MSW.
However,
Townsend
did
report
the
qualitative
presence
of
sulfide
odor
in
the
leachate,
indicative
of
the
reducing
conditions
present
in
biological
activity.
Therefore,
both
sulfate
and
sulfide
can
be
present
in
C&
D
landfill
leachate
simultaneously,
due
to
the
large
source
of
mobile
sulfate
available
and
the
reducing
conditions
which
convert
some,
but
not
all,
to
sulfide
in
the
leachate.
These
findings
were
confirmed
in
the
field
during
ground
water
monitoring
of
two
C&
D
landfills
in
Wisconsin.
Sulfate
was
elevated
above
background
in
both
cases,
while
sulfide
odor
was
apparent
in
one
downgradient
well
(
Svavarsson,
1994).
These
data
support
the
above
laboratory
findings
regarding
the
mobility
of
sulfate
and
its
partial
conversion
to
sulfide.

Alkalinity
In
an
MSW
landfill,
alkalinity
was
shown
to
be
time­
dependent,
increasing
during
the
acid
generation
phase.
Lysimeter
tests
of
C&
D
wastes
provided
the
following
results:

°
For
a
lysimeter
containing
`
typical'
C&
D
waste,
there
was
an
overall
rise
in
alkalinity
from
100
to
300
mg/
L
as
CaCO3.
This
was
attributed
to
biological
activity
as
well
(
due
to
the
formation
of
bisulfide
ion
that
contributes
to
alkalinity);
the
alkalinity
of
lysimeters
containing
exclusively
high
organic
components
(
wallboard,
cardboard,
wood)
increased
over
time
from
20
to
200,
while
the
alkalinity
of
a
lysimeter
containing
exclusively
concrete
under
unsaturated
conditions
was
a
constant
300
mg/
L
as
CaCO3
over
time.

°
The
absolute
values
of
alkalinity
from
Townsend
(
1998)
are
different
than
conducted
in
previous
lysimeter
tests
in
1980
and
reported
in
Townsend
(
1998);
in
this
1980
test
the
alkalinity
of
a
high
masonry
C&
D
mix
was
70
mg/
L
as
CaCO3
while
the
alkalinity
of
a
high
wood
mix
was
350
mg/
L
CaCO3.

These
findings
suggest
that
sources
of
alkalinity
in
a
C&
D
landfill
include
organic
material,
due
to
decomposition.
Concrete
is
an
additional
source.

COD
and
BOD
In
an
MSW
landfill,
COD
was
shown
to
be
time­
dependent,
increasing
during
the
acid
generation
phase.
Lysimeter
tests
by
Townsend
(
1998)
suggest
similar
increases
for
C&
D
waste.
In
tests
of
typical
C&
D
waste,
COD
concentrations
changed
over
time,
showing
a
peaking
behavior
indicative
of
biological
activity.
Examination
of
individual
materials
showed
that
the
presence
of
cardboard
and
wood
provided
the
most
significant
contributions.
A
lysimeter
containing
exclusively
cardboard
gave
the
most
pronounced
behavior,
with
a
rise
from
50
to
1,600
mg/
L
before
dropping
again.
Changes
of
COD
for
a
lysimeter
filled
with
wood
were
less
pronounced,
while
changes
for
lysimeters
containing
only
concrete
or
wallboard
were
small
or
negligible.
Other
experiments
of
typical
C&
D
wastes
in
lysimeters
by
Townsend
(
1998),
however,
showed
contradictory
behavior,
showing
a
drop
in
COD
from
500
mg/
L
to
near
zero
in
unsaturated
conditions.

As
presented
in
Ehrig
(
1983)
and
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
3.2.3
above,
the
ratio
of
BOD
to
COD
is
an
indication
of
biological
activity
in
MSW
landfills.
A
ratio
of
0.6
to
0.8
indicated
that
September
2000
3­
25
Draft
biological
activity
was
present;
a
ratio
less
than
0.2
corresponded
to
the
portion
of
the
landfill
life
cycle
of
mature,
low
bio
activity.
Leachate
data
from
two
C&
D
waste
landfills
by
Waste
Management
provide
analyses
for
these
parameters
over
a
two
year
period
(
WMX,
1993).
In
one
landfill
(
Michigan
site),
COD
ranged
from
420
to
4700
mg/
L
(
decreasing
over
time),
with
BOD
to
COD
ratio
less
than
10
percent.
At
a
second
landfill
(
Massachusetts
site),
COD
ranged
from
150
to
1,300
mg/
L
(
trend
indefinite),
with
BOD
to
COD
ratios
of
40
to
70
percent.
These
results
imply
that
bioactivity
occurred
at
one
of
the
sites
(
the
Massachusetts
site),
even
though
levels
of
COD
are
higher
at
a
site
with
little
apparent
bioactivity
(
the
Michigan
site).
These
results
indicate
that
COD
does
not
always
indicate
bioactivity
at
C&
D
sites,
or
additional
case
studies
are
needed.
September
2000
3­
26
Draft
3.4
Industrial
Codisposal
Landfills
The
industrial
codisposal
landfills
in
this
report
are
a
set
of
21
sites
included
in
the
data
set
obtained
from
Chemical
Waste
Management
(
CWM).
These
landfills
are
older
than
the
others
represented
in
the
CWM
data
set,
with
typical
opening
dates
in
the
1950'
s
and
1960
and
as
early
as
1927.
Although
detailed
operating
histories
are
not
available
for
these
landfills,
they
all
have
received
a
wide
variety
of
wastes
throughout
their
lives,
including
industrial
non­
hazardous
waste,
hazardous
waste,
and
residential
and
commercial
(
i.
e.,
municipal
waste).
It
is
believed
that
most
of
these
landfills
began
operation
receiving
industrial
waste
(
hazardous,
nonhazardous
or
both)
and
at
some
point
began
accepting
MSW
commercially.
Most
of
these
landfills
currently
are
closed.
It
is
unknown
how
those
that
are
currently
open
are
regulated
(
e.
g.,
it
is
unknown
if
they
are
permitted
under
Federal
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
regulations
or
under
state
Subtitle
D
non­
hazardous
waste
regulations).

Because
of
the
wide
mixture
of
wastes
received
and
because
their
operating
histories
are
rather
different
than
most
modern
MSW,
C&
D,
or
commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills,
these
industrial
codisposal
landfills
are
treated
as
a
separate
category
in
this
report.
A
previous
study
of
this
group
of
landfills
also
confirmed
that
leachate
from
these
landfills
is
different
from
leachate
from
either
purely
MSW
landfills
or
purely
hazardous
waste
landfills
(
Gibbons,
et
al.,
1992).

Because
of
the
rather
distinct
nature
of
landfills
in
this
category,
no
scientific
literature
is
available
examining
temporal
variability
or
leaching
processes
in
industrial
codisposal
landfills.
This
section,
therefore,
provides
only
a
general
overview
of
the
composition
of
leachate
from
such
landfills.
The
data
presented
in
Table
3­
4,
below
are
from
the
21
industrial
codisposal
landfills
represented
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
The
constituents
included
in
Table
3­
4
represent
the
parameters
most
frequently
analyzed
for
in
the
characterization
data
included
in
the
database.
Constituents
are
organized
into
three
categories:
major
physical/
chemical
parameters,
trace
inorganics,
and
organics.
The
paragraphs
below
discuss
the
data
for
industrial
codisposal
landfill
leachate
in
each
of
these
categories.

General
Parameters
Common
physical
and
chemical
parameters
are
frequently
monitored
in
industrial
codisposal
landfill
leachate.
The
available
data
show
most
of
these
parameters
to
be
less
highly
variable
in
industrial
codisposal
landfills
than
in
MSW
or
C&
D
landfills.

Trace
Inorganics
Metals
and
other
inorganics
are
frequently
detected
in
industrial
codisposal
landfill
leachate.
Those
analytes
detected
in
50
percent
or
more
of
samples
are,
in
order
of
detection
frequency:
aluminum,
boron,
zinc,
manganese,
nickel,
barium,
lead,
chromium,
copper,
arsenic,
and
cadmium.

Organics
Certain
organic
species
are
frequently
detected
in
industrial
codisposal
landfill
leachate.
Those
species
detected
in
more
than
50
percent
of
samples
include:
acetone,
ethylbenzene,
naphthalene,
phenol,
and
xylene.
September
2000
3­
27
Draft
Table
3­
4.
Composition
of
Industrial
Codisposal
Landfill
Leachate
Analyte
N
%
Detected
5th
%
ile
10th
%
ile
Median
Mean
90th
%
ile
95th
%
ile
MAJOR
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS
(
mg/
L,
except
pH
in
Standard
Units)
Alkalinity
267
97.8
700
1,850
6,050
7,271
12,800
19,600
B.
O.
D.
206
99.0
75
186
1,435
6,042
13,700
23,700
Calcium
52
100.0
29.2
40.5
122
199
310
1,010
Chloride
175
100.0
58.9
135
1,970
3,019
5,900
6,560
C.
O.
D.
262
98.9
160
473
4,180
9,365
19,800
37,500
Cyanide
153
47.7
0.007
0.014
0.04
0.3031822
0.16
0.325
Fluoride
102
97.1
0.14
0.232
0.68
1.79
4.2
6
Iron
314
100.0
1.81
3.06
19.8
226
820
1,670
Magnesium
41
100.0
39.1
51.1
262
227
382
397
Nitrogen
206
85.0
0.24
0.5
512
730
1,500
1,920
pH
455
100.0
5.63
5.90
7.01
6.84
7.47
7.59
Sodium
53
100.0
9.1
46.5
757
1,093
2,570
3,380
Sulfate
168
89.3
8.44
15.6
95.5
419
1,800
2,090
T.
O.
C.
520
99.6
14.6
31
1,720
5,724
14,200
23,800
TRACE
INORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
Aluminum
4
100.0
2,140
2,140
73,350
160,960
495,000
495,000
Antimony
150
19.3
4
10
220
535
1,730
1,800
Arsenic
189
73.5
3.5
6
40
212
690
830
Barium
63
93.6
84
140
535
1,877
3,330
8,550
Beryllium
144
9.0
1
1
6
104
387
702
Boron
8
100.0
3,920
3,920
6,470
7,584
18,900
18,900
Cadmium
192
51.6
2
3.7
14
57.4
103
290
Chromium
196
80.1
13
27
226
1,040
900
1,740
Copper
164
75.0
15
21
52
139
260
378
Lead
193
80.3
11
15
139
403
600
1,200
Manganese
162
98.8
60
79.4
1,295
11,059
46,250
52,600
Mercury
188
17.6
0.2
0.2
0.6
1.25
2.2
5
Nickel
166
94.0
50
80
396
7,002
1,450
3,980
Selenium
183
16.9
2
2.6
8
32.4
28
37
Silver
186
19.9
2
9.6
30
45.5
110
150
Thallium
146
19.9
36
46
230
623
1,090
1,650
Zinc
164
99.4
99
160
985
10,946
17,900
47,000
ORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
1,1­
Dichloroethane
210
26.2
15.9
33.5
245
717
1,650
3,360
1,1­
Dichloroethene
210
1.9
8.3
8.3
74
272
932
932
Acenaphthene
157
33.1
3.7
5.29
11.25
24.9
71
86.9
Acetone
56
80.4
150
213
5,820
11,648
22,000
58,900
Benzene
210
30.0
5.51
7.1
179
2,127
617
758
Chloroethane
206
4.9
12
13.8
25
56.7
180.5
259
Ethylbenzene
209
65.6
19.4
44
822
1,756
3,360
5,570
Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
15
26.7
11
11
48.7
101
295
295
Naphthalene
159
75.5
6.57
13.2
165
342
832
1,185
Phenol
331
77.0
28
67.3
1,200
606,304
19,000
1,300,000
Trichloroethylene
210
11.0
4.34
4.4
170
802
2,030
3,110
Vinyl
Chloride
210
16.7
10.2
102
302
824
2,440
3,000
Xylene
70
70.0
20
22.3
541
1,103
2,020
3,540
Source:
Characterization
data
from
the
21
industrial
codisposal
landfills
included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
September
2000
3­
28
Draft
3.5
Hazardous
Waste
Landfills
The
hazardous
waste
landfills
discussed
in
this
section
are
commercial
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfills
that
may
receive
hazardous
wastes
from
multiple
industrial
sources
and
sites.
While
much
of
the
waste
received
by
the
these
landfills
is
expected
to
meet
the
regulatory
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
the
specific
form
and
properties
of
this
waste
is
likely
to
be
dependent
on
the
generating
industry.
Therefore,
the
types
and
variety
of
wastes
received
by
these
commercial
facilities
will
be
dependent
on
the
range
and
nature
of
industrial
facilities
contributing
to
the
landfill.
The
literature
search
conducted
for
this
report
found
no
information
examining
temporal
variability
or
behavior
of
indicator
parameters
in
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate.
This
section,
therefore,
provides
only
a
general
overview
of
the
composition
of
leachate
from
such
landfills.

The
data
presented
in
Table
3­
5,
below,
are
from
the
17
commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills
represented
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
As
discussed
in
Section
3.1
above,
these
landfills
do
not
necessarily
constitute
a
statistically
representative
sample
of
commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills
in
terms
of
industries
served,
types
of
hazardous
waste
received,
geographic
location,
or
any
other
criterion.
The
constituents
included
in
Table
3­
5
represent
the
parameters
most
frequently
analyzed
for
in
the
characterization
data
included
in
the
database.
Constituents
are
organized
into
three
categories:
major
physical/
chemical
parameters,
trace
inorganics,
and
organics.
The
paragraphs
below
discuss
the
data
for
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate
in
each
of
these
categories.

General
Parameters
As
for
industrial
codisposal
landfills,
the
available
data
show
most
of
the
common
physical
and
chemical
parameters
to
be
less
highly
variable
in
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate
than
in
leachate
from
MSW
or
C&
D
landfills.

Trace
Inorganics
Metals
and
other
inorganics
are
frequently
detected
in
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate.
Those
analytes
detected
in
50
percent
or
more
of
samples
are,
in
order
of
detection
frequency:
boron,
zinc,
arsenic,
barium,
nickel,
manganese,
chromium,
copper,
aluminum,
cadmium,
selenium,
and
lead.
Certain
of
these
metals,
including
some
that
are
among
the
most
frequently
detected
(
e.
g.,
arsenic,
barium,
and
chromium),
are
part
of
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
hazardous
waste.

Organics
Organic
species
are
frequently
monitored
in
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate,
more
frequently,
in
fact,
than
many
other
analytes.
Those
species
detected
in
more
than
50
percent
of
samples
include:
1,1­
dichloroethane,
acetone,
methyl
isobutyl
ketone,
naphthalene,
phenol,
and
trichloroethylene.
September
2000
3­
29
Draft
Table
3­
5.
Composition
of
Hazardous
Waste
Landfill
Leachate
Analyte
N
%
Detected
5th
%
ile
10th
%
ile
Median
Mean
90th
%
ile
95th
%
ile
MAJOR
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS
(
mg/
L,
except
pH
in
Standard
Units)
Alkalinity
138
100.0
538
777
2,385
2,838
5,600
6,750
B.
O.
D.
306
98.0
68
174
1,770
2,639
5,144
6,820
Calcium
98
100.0
18.9
28
351
616
1,600
3,400
Chloride
342
100.0
96
180
1,390
7,212
25,900
31,100
C.
O.
D.
433
100.0
379
650
3,010
4,279
9,130
11,000
Cyanide
321
66.0
0.06
0.09
8.35
14.1
18
47.4
Fluoride
202
99.0
0.2
0.3
2.1
20.4
26.15
62.9
Iron
449
97.8
0.76
1.2
15.3
250
450
1,050
Magnesium
95
96.8
8.35
14.8
150
186
358
575
Nitrogen
304
62.8
0.11
0.405
43.3
168
271
357
pH
2,017
100.0
3.17
4.63
7.37
7.46
9.7
11.8
Sodium
273
99.3
90
238
4,040
6,563
18,800
22,100
Sulfate
275
94.6
12.9
22.6
725
3,656
9,275
11,750
T.
O.
C.
833
99.9
43.3
150
3,310
3,945
8,870
10,600
TRACE
INORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
Aluminum
50
66.0
90
120
921
22,299
12,000
52,000
Antimony
172
24.4
12
20
155
457
1,500
1,800
Arsenic
463
90.7
9
19.8
1,500
42,806
131,000
173,000
Barium
319
89.7
53
71
150
345
820
1,200
Beryllium
172
14.5
1
1.1
3
6.06
20
25
Boron
68
95.6
340
510
3,660
20,774
70,000
98,000
Cadmium
477
57.4
1.2
4.3
52.5
12,332
1,800
19,000
Chromium
443
69.8
15
24
140
1,286
1,830
5,600
Copper
320
67.8
16
27
170
1,079
2,200
6,100
Lead
423
50.8
7
9
100
807
590
1,400
Manganese
321
88.5
29
60
1,300
19,304
55,700
110,000
Mercury
444
36.3
0.22
0.3
3
54.8
50
110
Nickel
314
88.9
55.2
76
1,200
3,363
7,900
14,800
Selenium
467
56.3
8
12
110
256
300
900
Silver
392
23.7
2.7
6.8
10
19.3
38
58
Thallium
138
9.4
6.7
10
56
92
190
260
Zinc
355
92.4
30
54
458
7,640
11,100
38,000
ORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
1,1­
Dichloroethane
953
52.6
13
28.7
950
31,403
13,700
32,000
1,1­
Dichloroethene
952
24.8
6.72
28.7
990
22,428
5,630
60,900
Acenaphthene
220
5.9
4.55
23
84
191,220
2,390
2,480,000
Acetone
82
85.4
110
181
5350
24,221
54,800
84,100
Benzene
952
27.9
5.22
8.84
81.6
3,949
1,970
5,500
Chloroethane
948
8.8
6.51
45
602
11,188
5,070
7,370
Ethylbenzene
946
39.2
12.8
19.5
170
135,832
20,200
728,000
Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
49
61.2
46
64
938
26,108
53,500
300,000
Naphthalene
235
59.6
3.82
4.8
39
85,647
918
2,375
Phenol
551
90.9
75.9
197
21,000
9,189,721
272,000
1,550,000
Trichloroethylene
955
59.7
16.6
33.75
1,775
91,896
48,050
220,000
Vinyl
Chloride
952
36.1
23.3
96.6
1,755
9,697
22,400
34,700
Xylene
103
41.8
13
14
81
915
2,770
4,800
Source:
Characterization
data
from
the
17
commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills
included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
September
2000
3­
30
Draft
3.6
Comparison
of
Leachate
Composition
This
section
presents
a
comparison
of
leachate
characteristics
for
the
four
types
of
landfills
discussed
in
the
previous
sections.
Section
3.6.1
provides
an
overview
of
major
factors
that
theoretically
influence
the
composition
of
leachate.
Section
3.6.2
qualitatively
compares
the
four
types
of
landfills
in
terms
of
these
factors.
Section
3.6.3
presents
a
detailed
quantitative
comparison
of
the
four
types
of
landfills
with
regard
to
the
major
indicator
parameters
that
affect
contaminant
mobility
(
i.
e.,
those
factors
introduced
and
discussed
in
Section
3.2.3,
such
as
pH).
Sections
3.6.4,
3.6.5,
and
3.6.6
examine
the
comparative
statistics
by
landfill
type
for
other
major
physical
and
chemical
parameters,
trace
inorganics,
and
organics,
respectively.

3.6.1
Overview
of
Factors
Affecting
Leaching
Medium
Composition
The
composition
of
the
leaching
medium
is
determined
in
large
part
by
the
chemical
properties
(
elemental
and
chemical
composition)
and
physical
properties
(
e.
g.,
particle
size,
porosity)
of
the
waste.
The
leaching
medium
refers
to
the
liquid
contacting
the
waste.
For
example,
in
the
TCLP
analysis
the
leaching
medium
is
an
aqueous
solution
of
organic
and
mineral
acid,
intended
to
simulate
those
acids
present
in
an
MSW
landfill.
In
turn,
the
leaching
medium
affects
the
mobility
of
the
contaminants
in
the
wastes.

In
general,
there
are
three
factors
influencing
the
composition
of
leachate:
(
1)
composition
of
infiltrating
liquid;
(
2)
composition
of
waste
disposed;
and
(
3)
the
site­
specific
operations
of
the
waste
management
unit.
As
shown
below,
there
is
much
variability
in
these
three
areas
both
within
a
single
landfill
and
from
one
landfill
to
another;
this
variability
contributes
to
variability
in
the
resulting
leachate.

Infiltrating
Liquid
Moisture
can
be
present
in
a
landfill
both
from
the
waste
itself
(
e.
g.,
wet
refuse)
and
from
precipitation
or
other
sources
of
water
percolating
or
entering
the
landfill
cell.
These
latter
sources
of
water
result
from
precipitation,
run­
on,
and
ground
water.
Each
of
these
sources
can
result
in
differences
in
the
composition
of
this
infiltrating
water.

Precipitation
often
has
acidic
properties
and
can
be
sources
of
both
acidity
and
anionic
compounds
to
the
landfill.
Acidic
components
in
rainwater
include
carbonic
acid
(
from
natural
dissolution
of
carbon
dioxide),
sulfuric
acid
(
from
typically
man­
made
sources
of
sulfur
dioxide),
and
nitric
acid
(
from
oxides
of
nitrogen)
(
Wark,
1981).

The
composition
of
runon
is
affected
by
the
composition
of
the
precipitation
and
further
affected
by
organic
matter
in
the
surrounding
vegetation.
Finally,
ground
water
may
enter
a
waste
management
unit
if
the
unit
is
constructed
below
the
water
table
or
in
cases
where
the
water
table
has
seasonal
or
yearly
fluctuations.
The
most
extreme
example
of
ground
water
affecting
the
leaching
medium
is
in
cases
of
acid
mine
drainage,
where
sulfuric
acid
from
sulfides
in
the
ore
body
result
in
increased
mobility
of
metals.

The
quantity
of
the
infiltrating
liquid
has
an
important
effect
on
leachate
quantity
and
leachate
quality.
The
quantity
of
infiltrating
liquid
is
affected
by
the
climatic
conditions
of
the
site
and
September
2000
3­
31
Draft
the
presence
of
controls
to
limit
these
affects.
For
example,
a
slurry
wall
or
an
engineered
liner
will
serve
to
keep
ground
water
away
from
the
landfill,
and
a
cap
(
at
closure)
will
reduce
the
quantity
of
precipitation
entering
the
landfill.
Similarly,
the
design
of
the
surrounding
area
with
regard
to
slopes
and
vegetation
will
affect
the
contribution
of
runon
to
the
moisture
loading
of
the
landfill.

Waste
Composition
The
composition
of
the
waste
itself
affects
the
composition
of
the
leachate
in
several
ways.
First,
the
refuse
may
have
some
moisture
or
readily
mobile
constituents
which
immediately
affect
leachate
composition.
Conversely,
the
waste
may
not
have
residual
moisture
and
be
able
to
adsorb
surrounding
moisture
and
associated
aqueous
contaminants.
Variations
in
the
wastes
disposed
within
a
landfill
or
between
different
landfills
result
in
differences
in
the
mobility
of
these
constituents.

Second,
biological
processes
within
a
landfill
may
transform
some
of
the
constituents
within
the
waste
into
readily
mobile
species.
The
type
and
density
of
bacterial
populations
and
propensity
of
the
waste
to
degrade
will
affect
the
biological
processes.
These
biological
processes
are
not
constant,
but
can
go
through
cycles
of
low
and
high
activity
as
discussed
in
the
sections
on
MSW
and
C&
D
landfills.
This
results
in
temporal
variation
in
leachate.

Finally,
the
physical
properties
of
the
waste
(
e.
g.,
porosity,
particle
size)
affect
mass
transfer
phenomena
between
the
waste
and
leachate
and
affect
the
magnitude
of
the
value
of
the
properties
in
the
leachate.
Leachate
may
flow
through
the
waste
as
channels
due
to
the
large
size
of
waste
materials,
and
the
moisture
(
degree
of
saturation)
will
vary
throughout
the
landfill
(
Ehrig,
1983).
The
waste
itself
may
exhibit
adsorptive
or
ion­
exchange
properties,
influencing
leachate
composition
in
ways
that
may
not
be
able
to
be
correlated
with
other
parameters.

Landfill
Operations
Landfill
operations
can
affect
the
other
two
factors
identified
above.
For
example,
the
waste
entering
a
landfill
is
influenced
by
waste
screening
and
approval
procedures.
The
type
of
liquid
entering
a
landfill
is
influenced
by
several
of
the
design
criteria
specified
above
such
as
run­
on
controls
and
water
table
interactions,
but
also
by
leachate
collection
and
recycling
techniques
practiced
by
the
individual
landfill.
Other
properties
are
affected
by
the
location
of
the
landfill:
its
climatic
location
influences
the
quantity
and
frequency
of
precipitation
as
well
as
the
ambient
temperature
which
is
an
important
factor
in
any
biological
processes
present
in
the
landfill.

Leachate
properties
are
also
affected
by
specific
waste
management
practices.
Other
important
operating
properties
include
the
degree
to
which
biological
degradation
is
encouraged
through
practices
such
as
waste
spreading
and
the
type
of
daily
cover
employed.
The
type
of
equipment
used
in
compacting
affects
infiltration;
the
compaction
of
the
waste
affects
its
mass
transfer
properties,
subsequently
affecting
how
liquid
moves
through
and
around
the
landfilled
materials.
In
MSW
landfills
in
particular,
compaction
also
can
result
in
an
overall
anaerobic
environment
in
the
landfill.
Low
compaction
will
allow
increased
oxygen
within
the
landfill,
and
subsequently
influence
the
type
and
duration
of
biological
activity
(
Ehrig,
1983).
September
2000
3­
32
Draft
Data
from
Ehrig
(
1983)
demonstrate
how
landfill
operating
practices
influence
leachate
composition.
An
MSW
landfill
operating
by
spreading
waste
as
a
thin
layer
had
very
different
COD
and
BOD
leachate
characteristics
than
a
landfill
operating
with
thick
(
2
m)
layers,
or
a
landfill
operating
with
thick
layers
together
with
leachate
recirculation.
The
thin
layers
resulted
in
the
lowest
levels
of
BOD
and
COD
in
the
leachate
throughout
the
life
of
the
landfill,
indicating
higher
methane
gas
production.
Leachate
recirculation
also
decreased
BOD
and
COD
levels
in
the
leachate.

3.6.2
Comparison
of
Factors
Affecting
Leaching
Medium
Composition
There
can
be
significant
differences
in
all
three
of
the
factors
discussed
above
among
landfill
types.
These
differences
are
discussed
below.

Composition
of
Infiltrating
Liquid
In
most
cases,
the
composition
of
the
liquid
infiltrating
will
be
similar
for
most
types
of
landfills
(
i.
e.,
the
liquid
will
resemble
rainwater).
Differences
in
infiltrating
liquid
are
more
likely
to
be
linked
to
climate
and
location
than
to
landfill
type.
Potential
differences
among
landfill
types,
however,
occur
with
water
resulting
from
the
waste
itself,
as
well
as
the
quantity
of
liquid
infiltrating
through
the
unit.
These
factors
are
discussed
under
waste
composition
and
landfill
operations.

Waste
Composition
The
most
obvious
differences
among
the
types
of
landfills
discussed
here
is
in
the
wastes
disposed.
These
differences
affect
not
only
the
type
of
toxic
constituents
available
to
leach,
but
also
the
leaching
solution
generated
within
the
landfill.
These
factors
include
the
following:

°
The
waste
may
have
some
moisture
and
generate
leachate
immediately,
or
conversely
may
not
have
residual
moisture
and
be
able
to
adsorb
surrounding
moisture
and
associated
aqueous
contaminants.
C&
D
wastes
are
expected
to
contain
little
moisture
and
therefore
are
not
expected
to
immediately
generate
leachate
(
Townsend,
1998).
In
contrast,
MSW
is
expected
to
be
wetter
with
moisture
contents
of
25
percent
(
Ehrig,
1983).
The
moisture
content
of
wastes
in
industrial
codisposal
landfills
and
commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills
would
be
highly
dependent
on
the
mixture
of
industries
utilizing
the
specific
landfill.

°
Biological
processes
within
the
landfill
may
transform
some
of
the
constituents
within
the
waste
into
readily
mobile
species
and
generate
time
dependent
profiles
of
indicator
parameters.
As
discussed
above
for
MSW
landfills,
the
combination
of
waste
composition
and
landfill
conditions
results
in
biological
activity
which
affects
levels
of
indicator
parameters.
The
levels
of
organic
matter
in
MSW
range
from
50
to
70
percent;
in
contrast,
biodegradable
levels
of
organics
in
C&
D
landfills
are
expected
to
be
lower
(
Thompson,
1998).
The
degradable
fraction
of
waste
in
industrial
codisposal
landfills
and
commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills
is
likely
to
be
lower
than
that
in
MSW.
Certain
industries,
however,
may
generate
highly
biodegradable
organic
wastes.
The
presence
of
such
wastes
in
large
September
2000
3­
33
Draft
quantities
may
increase
the
likelyhood
of
organic
processes
occurring
in
these
types
of
landfills.
The
presence
of
toxic
constituents
(
particularly
metals)
in
hazardous
waste
landfills,
however,
may
inhibit
certain
biological
processes.

°
Wastes
may
release
different
contaminants
in
the
short
and
long
term,
including
both
toxic
and
indicator
parameters.
Such
differences
in
waste
composition
result
in
differences
in
the
gross
parameters
of
leachate.
For
example,
C&
D
wastes
include:
gypsum
(
sources
of
calcium
and
sulfate),
wood
wastes
(
similar
in
composition
to
fractions
of
MSW),
and
concrete
and
similar
materials
(
sources
of
dissolved
minerals).
Hazardous
waste
landfills
will
contain
larger
quantities
of
toxic
constituents,
creating
the
potential
for
long­
term
release
of
these
constituents.

°
The
physical
properties
of
the
waste
(
e.
g.,
porosity,
particle
size)
affect
mass
transfer
phenomena
between
the
waste
and
leachate.
C&
D
waste,
for
example,
is
expected
to
be
larger
or
bulkier
than
other
types
of
waste
with
potentially
less
surface
area
available
for
leaching
and
perhaps
a
greater
opportunity
for
channelized
flow.

Landfill
Operations
There
are
expected
to
be
differences
in
the
operation
of
different
landfill
types.
For
example,
localities
generally
require
compaction
of
the
waste
and
daily
cover
(
e.
g.,
six
inches
of
soil)
for
an
MSW
landfill.
In
comparison,
a
variety
of
design
and
operating
requirements
concerning
C&
D
landfills
were
reviewed
by
ICF
(
1995),
including
ground
water
monitoring
and
location
standards.
These
data
are
from
the
early
1990s
so
that
requirements
may
have
changed
since
that
time.
Nineteen
states
require
offsite
(
commercial)
facilities
to
provide
six
inches
of
daily
cover
(
i.
e.,
consistent
with
MSW
requirements).
An
additional
26
states
require
cover
at
a
less
frequent
interval
(
i.
e.,
less
stringent
than
MSW
requirements).
Therefore,
45
states
require
some
type
of
cover
for
C&
D
landfills
during
operation,
with
most
requiring
intermittent
cover.
Detailed
data
on
state
requirements
for
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfills
is
not
available,
but
the
available
information
suggests
that
these
requirements
are
highly
variable
depending
on
the
state.
Hazardous
waste
landfill
operations
are
likely
to
be
the
most
consistent
because
these
landfills
are
stringently
regulated
under
federal
requirements,
which
include
cover,
monitoring,
and
runon
and
run­
off
controls.

The
differences
in
cover
application
are
significant
because
cover
impacts
oxygen
conditions
in
a
landfill,
and
even
the
method
of
applying
cover
influences
biological
processes
in
a
landfill
(
as
discussed
above
in
Section
3.6.1
for
MSW
landfills).
High
acid
production
and
gas
generation
in
an
MSW
landfill
relies
on
low
oxygen
conditions
(
Pohland,
1986).
Cover,
along
with
run­
on
controls,
control
the
quantity
of
infiltrating
liquid
and
may
affect
infiltrating
liquid
characteristics.
September
2000
3­
34
Draft
3.6.3
Comparison
of
Factors
Affecting
Contaminant
Mobility
Sections
3.2.3
and
3.3.2
discussed
several
factors
or
indicator
parameters
that
are
significant
for
contaminant
mobility.
This
section
uses
data
from
the
LEACH
2000
database
to
compare
the
following
of
these
significant
parameters
among
landfill
types:

°
pH
°
Redox
potential
and
sulfate
°
Alkalinity
°
TOC,
BOD,
and
COD
pH
Figure
3­
7
presents
a
graphical
comparison
of
pH
among
landfill
types.
C&
D
landfills
show
the
narrowest
range
of
pH,
while
hazardous
waste
landfills
show
the
greatest
variation.
The
majority
of
MSW
leachate
observations
show
a
relatively
consistent
pH,
but
with
significant
instances
of
both
high
and
low
values.
Industrial
codisposal
landfills
also
show
a
relatively
consistent
pH,
but
with
more
instances
of
low
pH
than
MSW
landfills
and
far
fewer
instances
of
high
pH.
As
discussed
in
previous
sections,
the
narrower
range
of
pH
in
the
C&
D
scenario
is
indicative
of
a
more
constant
leaching
scenario
over
time,
unlike
more
dynamic
conditions
in
a
MSW
landfill
where
high
concentrations
of
organic
acids
are
followed
by
a
general
increase
in
pH.
These
pH
data
are
consistent
with
a
comparison
of
C&
D
landfill
leachate
with
MSW
landfill
leachate
from
at
least
one
other
source.
Specifically,
data
for
25
C&
D
landfills
(
from
Waste
Management)
showed
a
pH
range
of
between
6.1
and
8,
compared
to
data
for
152
MSW
landfills
showed
a
pH
range
of
much
wider
range
(
from
4
to
>
12)
with
a
median
only
slightly
higher
(
about
6.9
for
C&
D
versus
7.1
for
MSW).

The
available
literature
provides
little
insight
into
the
pH
profiles
seen
here
for
hazardous
waste
and
industrial
codisposal
landfills.
The
wide
variation
seen
for
hazardous
waste
landfills,
however,
may
be
due
to
variations
in
waste
composition.
Hazardous
waste
landfills
may
receive
highly
alkaline
or
highly
acidic
wastes.
September
2000
3­
35
Draft
Figure
3­
7.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
pH
by
Landfill
Type
Redox
Potential
and
Sulfate
Unfortunately,
only
limited
data
(
approximately
10
total
observations)
are
available
for
oxidation­
reduction
potential
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
As
discussed
previously,
sulfate
may
be
a
surrogate
indicator
for
oxidation­
reduction
potential,
because
sulfates
convert
to
sulfides
under
reducing
conditions.
Figure
3­
8
compares
sulfate
concentrations
among
the
landfill
types.
MSW
leachate
and
hazardous
waste
leachate
shows
the
highest
maximum
sulfate
concentrations
and
also
the
greatest
variability.
For
MSW
landfills
this
variability
is
consistent
with
the
observation
in
section
3.2.3
that
sulfate
concentrations
typically
decrease
over
time
in
MSW
landfill
leachate,
reflecting
changes
in
pH
and
redox
potential.
Data
are
not
available
to
indicate
whether
the
sulfate
profile
for
hazardous
waste
landfills
is
related
to
changes
over
time
or
other
factors.
In
the
case
of
C&
D
landfill
leachate,
sulfate
levels
never
drop
below
approximately
10
mg/
L.
This
is
consistent
with
the
conclusion
in
Townsend
(
1998)
that
sulfate
levels
were
higher
in
C&
D
waste
lysimeter
leachate
than
in
MSW
landfill
leachate.
September
2000
3­
36
Draft
Figure
3­
8.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Sulfate
by
Landfill
Type
TOC,
COD,
and
BOD
Figures
3­
9
through
3­
11
compare
the
four
landfill
types
in
terms
of
several
indicators
of
organic
content
and
biological
activity:
total
organic
carbon
(
TOC),
chemical
oxygen
demand
(
COD),
and
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD).
Figure
3­
9
shows
that
TOC
is
highest
in
hazardous
waste
and
industrial
codisposal
landfills.
TOC
levels
in
MSW
and
C&
D
landfills
are
similar
in
the
low
end,
but
a
larger
percentage
of
MSW
landfills
may
have
high
TOC.

As
shown
in
Figure
3­
10,
while
hazardous
waste
and
industrial
codisposal
landfills
generally
have
higher
levels
of
COD,
MSW
landfills
display
the
greatest
variability
in
COD.
As
discussed
in
section
3.2.3,
COD
has
been
shown
to
be
correlated
with
volatile
fatty
acid
(
VFA)
concentration
in
MSW
landfills.
Therefore,
the
variability
in
COD
(
and,
by
inference,
VFA)
is
consistent
with
an
early,
acid­
generating
stage
(
i.
e.,
high
COD
and
VFA)
followed
by
less
active
stages
(
i.
e.,
low
COD
and
VFA).
Hazardous
waste
and
industrial
codisposal
landfills
have
a
more
constant
distribution
of
COD,
suggestive
of
less
variability
in
behavior.
C&
D
landfills
generally
show
lower
levels
of
COD
than
other
types
of
landfills.

Figure
3­
11
shows
that
BOD
levels
in
C&
D
landfills
are
generally
much
lower
than
those
in
other
landfills.
This
result
is
consistent
with
lower
COD
levels
and
with
the
expectation
of
lower
biological
activity
in
these
landfills.
Figure
3­
12,
which
shows
BOD/
COD
ratios,
sheds
additional
insight
into
biological
activity
for
each
landfill
type.
As
discussed
in
Section
3.2.3,
BOD/
COD
ratios
closer
to
1
indicate
that
biological
degradation
is
favorable.
At
the
median,
BOD/
COD
ratios
are
lower
in
C&
D
landfills
than
in
other
types
of
landfills.
In
fact,
BOD/
COD
ratios
are
lower
in
all
but
a
small
percentage
(
20
percent)
of
C&
D
landfills.
Interestingly,
September
2000
3­
37
Draft
BOD/
COD
ratios
in
relatively
inactive
(
BOD/
COD
less
than
0.5)
MSW
landfills
are
much
lower
than
ratios
in
similarly
inactive
hazardous
waste
landfills.
In
more
active
landfills
(
about
35
percent
of
landfills
of
both
types),
ratios
are
somewhat
higher
in
MSW
landfills
than
hazardous
waste
landfills.

Figure
3­
9.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC)
by
Landfill
Type
Figure
3­
10.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
by
Landfill
Type
September
2000
3­
38
Draft
Figure
3­
11.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
BOD)
by
Landfill
Type
Figure
3­
12.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
BOD/
COD
Ratio
by
Landfill
Type
Alkalinity
Figure
3­
13
compares
alkalinity
in
each
of
the
four
landfill
types.
The
distributions
shown
are
similar
in
shape
to
those
for
COD,
with
MSW
landfills
showing
the
greatest
variability.
This
may
indicate
that
organic
decomposition
plays
a
role
in
alkalinity,
at
least
in
MSW
landfills.
September
2000
3­
39
Draft
Figure
3­
13.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Alkalinity
by
Landfill
Type
September
2000
3­
40
Draft
3.6.4
Comparison
of
Other
Major
Physical
and
Chemical
Parameters
This
section
presents
data
on
the
other
major
parameters
that
were
not
covered
in
the
previous
section.
Many
of
the
remaining
parameters
for
which
extensive
data
are
available
are
the
major
anions.
As
shown
in
Figure
3­
14,
the
following
of
the
remaining
parameters
show
roughly
similar
distributions:

°
calcium
°
chloride
°
fluoride
°
sodium
Each
of
these
constituents
is
found
in
generally
higher
concentrations
in
hazardous
waste
landfills
They
are
found
in
generally
lower
(
with
the
exception
of
calcium)
and
non­
varying
concentrations
in
C&
D
landfills.
MSW
landfills
are
generally
between
these
two
extremes,
but
show
the
greatest
variation,
although
this
may
be
due
to
the
much
larger
sample
size
for
MSW
landfills.

Figure
3­
15
shows
parameters
that
do
not
fit
this
pattern.
As
shown
in
Figure
3­
15,
cyanide
concentrations
are
substantially
higher
in
hazardous
waste
landfills
than
in
all
other
types
of
landfills.
Iron
concentrations
are
roughly
similar
across
the
landfill
types,
although
highest
at
the
median
in
C&
D
landfills.
Nitrogen
is
lowest
in
hazardous
waste
landfills.
Magnesium
is
rarely
detected
in
C&
D
landfills
and,
when
detected,
is
found
only
at
very
low
levels.

Figure
3­
14.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Parameters
Found
in
Higher
Concentrations
in
Hazardous
Waste
Landfills
September
2000
3­
41
Draft
Figure
3­
14.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Parameters
Found
in
Higher
Concentrations
in
Hazardous
Waste
Landfills
(
continued)
September
2000
3­
42
Draft
Figure
3­
15.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Other
Parameters
September
2000
3­
43
Draft
Figure
3­
15.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Other
Parameters
(
continued)
September
2000
3­
44
Draft
3.6.5
Comparison
of
Trace
Inorganics
This
section
compares
concentrations
among
the
landfill
types
for
those
trace
inorganics
(
e.
g.,
metals)
for
which
a
large
number
of
observations
are
available.
As
shown
in
Figure
3­
16,
the
following
constituents
are
found
in
generally
higher
concentrations
in
hazardous
waste
landfills
than
in
other
types
of
landfills:

°
arsenic
°
cadmium
°
copper
°
nickel
°
selenium
As
shown
in
Figure
3­
17,
the
following
constituents
are
found
in
higher
concentrations
in
both
hazardous
waste
and
industrial
codisposal
landfills:

°
chromium
°
lead
°
zinc
Figure
3­
18
shows
cumulative
distributions
for
other
trace
inorganics.
Observations
for
these
remaining
constituents
are
as
follows:

°
Aluminum
is
found
in
higher
concentrations
in
hazardous
waste
and
MSW
landfills
than
in
C&
D
landfills
(
the
data
for
aluminum
for
industrial
codisposal
landfills
are
insufficient
to
draw
any
conclusions).

°
Barium
is
found
in
higher
concentrations
in
MSW
and
industrial
codisposal
landfills.

°
Boron
is
found
in
high
concentrations
in
a
percentage
(
about
20
percent)
of
hazardous
waste
landfills,
but
at
the
highest
maximum
concentrations
in
a
MSW
landfills
(
the
data
for
boron
for
C&
D
and
industrial
codisposal
landfills
are
insufficient
to
draw
any
conclusions).

°
Manganese
exceeds
1,000
µ
g/
L
for
the
majority
of
C&
D
landfills,
but
the
highest
maximum
concentrations
are
found
in
hazardous
waste
landfills.

°
Mercury
is
infrequently
dectected
(
less
than
20
percent
of
the
time)
in
MSW
and
industrial
codisposal
landfills.
When
detected,
mercury
is
found
in
higher
concentrations
in
hazardous
waste
and
C&
D
landfills
than
in
other
types
of
landfills.

°
Antimony,
beryllium,
silver,
and
thallium
are
infrequently
detected
in
landfills
of
any
type.
Therefore,
graphs
for
these
constituents
are
not
presented
here.
September
2000
3­
45
Draft
Figure
3­
16.
Trace
Inorganics
Found
in
the
Highest
Concentrations
in
Hazardous
Waste
Landfills
September
2000
3­
46
Draft
Figure
3­
16.
Trace
Inorganics
Found
in
the
Highest
Concentrations
in
Hazardous
Waste
Landfills
(
continued)
September
2000
3­
47
Draft
Figure
3­
17.
Trace
Inorganics
Found
in
the
Highest
Concentrations
in
Both
Hazardous
Waste
and
Industrial
Codisposal
Landfills
September
2000
3­
48
Draft
Figure
3­
18.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Other
Trace
Inorganics
by
Landfill
Type
Note
for
aluminum:
industrial
codisposal
data
consist
of
only
4
observations.

Note
for
Boron:
data
for
industrial
codisposal
and
C&
D
consist
of
only
8
and
2
observations,
respectively.
September
2000
3­
49
Draft
Figure
3­
18.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Other
Trace
Inorganics
by
Landfill
Type
(
continued)
September
2000
3­
50
Draft
3.6.6
Comparison
of
Organic
Species
Comparison
of
organics
concentrations
is
difficult
because
few
individual
organic
species
are
analyzed
and
detected
across
all
types
of
landfills.
For
C&
D
landfills,
in
fact,
the
number
of
organics
data
points
is
insufficient
to
draw
conclusions
with
any
confidence.
Figure
3­
19,
however,
compares
concentrations
for
those
specific
organic
species
that
are
detected
with
frequency
(
greater
than
25
percent
of
the
time)
in
all
landfill
types.
Based
on
Figure
3­
19,
most
species
appear
to
follow
the
following
pattern:
highest
concentrations
in
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate,
second
highest
concentrations
in
industrial
codisposal
landfill
leachate,
and
lowest
concentrations
in
MSW
landfill
leachate.
Possible
exceptions
appear
to
be
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
napthalene,
and
xylene
which
may
be
higher
in
certain
industrial
codisposal
landfills.

Figure
3­
19.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Organics
by
Landfill
Type
Note:
for
all
organic
species,
data
for
C&
D
landfills
consist
of
less
than
15
observations
September
2000
3­
51
Draft
Figure
3­
19.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Organics
by
Landfill
Type
(
continued)

Note:
for
all
organic
species,
data
for
C&
D
landfills
consist
of
less
than
15
observations
September
2000
3­
52
Draft
Figure
3­
19.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Organics
by
Landfill
Type
(
continued)

Note:
for
all
organic
species,
data
for
C&
D
landfills
consist
of
less
than
15
observations
September
2000
3­
53
Draft
3.7
Summary
Statistics
for
Captive
Landfills
Included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database
are
a
number
of
landfills
that
do
not
fit
the
landfill
categories
discussed
at
length
in
preceding
sections.
These
landfills
are
captive
landfills
that
manage
waste
from
a
single
industrial
plant
or
several
industrial
plants
owned
by
the
same
company.
Detailed
data
are
not
available
on
the
operating
practices
of
all
of
these
landfills,
but
it
is
believed
that
some
may
be
monofills
(
i.
e.,
they
manage
primarily
a
single
type
of
waste).
Even
those
captive
landfills
that
are
not
monofills,
however,
would
be
expected
to
be
distinctly
different
and
possibly
exhibit
less
variation
in
leachate
characteristics
than
the
landfills
discussed
above.

Captive
landfills
are
discussed
in
this
section
according
to
the
waste
generating
industy
to
which
they
belong.
The
number
of
captive
landfills
of
any
given
type
represented
in
the
database
is
small.
Furthermore,
all
of
these
captive
landfills
are
in
the
State
of
Wisconsin.
Therefore,
the
sample
presented
here
cannot
be
considered
statistically
representative
on
a
geographic
basis.
As
a
result,
only
limited
efforts
have
been
made
to
draw
conclusions
about
these
classes
of
landfills
or
compare
across
landfill
types.
The
sections
below
focus
instead
on
presenting
summary
statistics
drawn
from
the
available
data
for
each
type
of
landfill.

3.7.1
Paper
Mill
Landfills
The
LEACH
2000
database
includes
data
for
18
landfills
that
are
operated
by
paper
mills.
Such
landfills
would
be
expected
to
receive
primarily
sludge
and
other
waste
from
the
paper
making
process.
Leachate
from
paper
mill
landfills,
therefore,
would
be
expected
to
contain
high
levels
of
biodegradable
organic
materials.
Section
4
of
this
report
provides
two
specific
examples
of
paper
mill
landfill
operations
(
case
studies
5
and
12).

Table
3­
6
presents
the
available
data
for
paper
mill
landfills.
As
expected,
TOC
levels
in
paper
mill
landfill
leachate
are
higher
than
those
for
other
types
of
landfills.
In
addition,
BOD
and
COD
levels
are
less
variable
and
generally
higher
than
those
for
other
types
of
landfills.
With
the
exception
of
boron,
median
metals
concentrations
are
similar
to
those
for
MSW
landfills.
Organic
species
are
infrequently
detected
in
the
available
data
for
paper
mill
landfills.

3.7.2
Combustion
Waste
Landfills
The
LEACH
2000
database
includes
data
for
six
landfills
that
are
operated
by
coal­
fired
electric
utility
power
plants.
Such
landfills
would
be
expected
to
receive
primarily
ash,
flue
gas
desulfurization
sludge,
and
other
wastes
from
the
electricity
generating
process.
Leachate
from
these
landfills,
therefore,
would
be
expected
to
contain
non­
combustible
inorganics
with
few
combustible
organics.
Leachate
might
also
be
expected
to
be
alkaline
because
of
the
characteristics
of
coal
fly
ash.
Section
4
of
this
report
provides
several
specific
examples
of
combustion
waste
landfill
operations
(
case
studies
2,
3,
4,
7,
and
14).

Table
3­
7
presents
the
available
data
for
combustion
waste
landfills.
As
expected,
median
and
high­
end
pH
levels
are
higher
than
those
for
other
types
of
landfills.
BOD
and
COD
levels
are
low
compared
to
those
for
MSW
landfills.
With
the
exceptions
of
boron
and
manganese,
median
September
2000
3­
54
Draft
inorganics
concentrations,
however,
are
not
substantially
different
than
those
for
MSW
landfills.
Organic
species
are
rarely
analyzed
in
the
available
data.

Table
3­
6.
Composition
of
Paper
Mill
Landfill
Leachate
Analyte
N
%
Detected
5th
%
ile
10th
%
ile
Median
Mean
90th
%
ile
95th
%
ile
MAJOR
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS
(
mg/
L,
except
pH
in
Standard
Units)
Alkalinity
1,479
99.9
113
264
1,575
2,630
7,050
9,000
B.
O.
D.
1,446
89.9
3
6.15
64.5
1,498
3,012
7,465
Calcium
363
100.0
25
47.6
168
253
441
625
Chloride
2,412
99.5
5
9.5
122
247
620
875
C.
O.
D.
2,089
97.2
14
29
386
2,720
7,743
15,400
Cyanide
30
46.7
0.003
0.004
0.0225
0.453
0.09
6
Fluoride
26
61.5
0.021
0.036
0.21
1.75
7.25
17
Iron
1,857
98.7
0.25
0.7
15
187
120
240
Magnesium
171
100.0
9.1
31
105
478
1,850
2,610
Nitrogen
1,075
99.7
0.36
0.82
65.5
347
980
2,000
pH
2,552
100.0
5.80
6.10
6.90
7.02
8.00
8.40
Sodium
601
100.0
13
20
130
884
1,200
2,300
Sulfate
1,668
95.4
8
13
80
221
600
1,000
T.
O.
C.
42
95.2
5.37
6.46
178
878
3,750
4,050
TRACE
INORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
Aluminum
48
93.8
14
28
160
1,100
3,050
3,780
Arsenic
253
61.7
3
5.40
18.2
82.7
130
450
Barium
321
93.5
24
43.5
300
722
1,650
2,250
Boron
684
81.6
65
100
680
2,973
5,300
7,400
Cadmium
163
32.5
0.221
0.3
10
48.6
40
110
Chromium
323
48.6
2
3
15
95.2
101
150
Copper
161
65.2
7.8
10
32
275
200
1,000
Lead
152
36.8
1.42
2.90
17.5
218
270
490
Manganese
384
99.2
59
100
1,330
5,627
12,300
22,000
Mercury
212
25.9
0.05
0.06
0.2
0.628
1.9
3
Nickel
105
70.5
13
18
59
93.2
180
230
Selenium
139
20.9
1
2
7.3
42.0
136
320
Silver
107
21.5
1.4
1.5
10
18.5
40
74
Zinc
170
76.5
7
10
35
147
205
420
ORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
1,1­
Dichloroethane
90
3.3
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.63
2.60
2.60
Acenaphthene
27
3.7
1,900
1,900
1,900
1,900
1,900
1,900
Benzene
90
6.7
0.24
0.24
1.19
1.68
3.4
3.4
Ethylbenzene
90
11.1
0.28
0.29
1.35
3.31
12.2
22
Naphthalene
62
21.0
1.1
1.1
5.60
82.1
140
720
Phenol
26
19.2
9.2
9.2
150
179
490
490
Trichloroethylene
89
6.7
0.68
0.68
17
58.3
280
280
Vinyl
Chloride
86
1.2
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
Xylene
123
14.6
0.19
0.28
2.1
27.9
14
440
Source:
Characterization
data
from
the
18
paper
mill
landfills
included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
September
2000
3­
55
Draft
Table
3­
7.
Composition
of
Combustion
Waste
Landfill
Leachate
Analyte
N
%
Detected
5th
%
ile
10th
%
ile
Median
Mean
90th
%
ile
95th
%
ile
MAJOR
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS
(
mg/
L,
except
pH
in
Standard
Units)
Alkalinity
145
100.0
35
41
120
313
505
1,732
B.
O.
D.
88
42.1
0.21
2
9.6
22.9
48.8
130
Calcium
66
100.0
28.2
38
236
278
540
570
Chloride
71
98.6
1.7
7.38
52
139
354
960
C.
O.
D.
106
69.8
4.1
5
12
126
210
580
Fluoride
2
100.0
0.15
0.15
0.26
0.26
0.37
0.37
Iron
114
84.2
0.02
0.05
1.3
5.40
13.5
28
Magnesium
45
95.6
4.45
5.7
53.5
114
100
110
Nitrogen
13
23.1
0.76
0.76
0.81
0.857
1
1
pH
158
98.7
5.80
6.36
7.70
8.10
11.45
12.09
Sodium
58
100.0
25
56
290
265
430
480
Sulfate
146
100.0
154
373
1,285
1554.7728
2400
3900
TRACE
INORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
Arsenic
19
63.2
2
3.1
8.15
34.8
80
140
Barium
48
85.4
12
16
74
99.7
202
260
Boron
145
97.9
240
1,840
20,500
36,951
99,000
130,000
Cadmium
60
73.3
0.566
1.6
4.42
5.71
9.6
14.7
Chromium
44
79.6
2
4
10.9
72.4
134
600
Copper
18
55.6
3
5.5
35
48.0
122
175
Lead
38
47.4
1
1.5
5.85
11.6
30
60
Manganese
50
94.0
11
53
6,400
5,987
13,000
14,000
Mercury
24
25.0
0.2
0.2
0.55
0.95
3
3
Nickel
14
85.7
12
32
103.5
149
360
510
Selenium
117
94.0
2.4
3.8
19.5
111
99.5
170
Silver
19
10.5
0.2
0.2
10.1
10.1
20
20
Zinc
43
90.7
109
210
377
1,003
1,100
1,700
ORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
Phenol
5
20.0
24
24
24
24
24
24
Source:
Characterization
data
from
the
six
electric
utility
landfills
included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.

3.7.3
Foundry
Landfills
The
LEACH
2000
database
includes
data
for
three
landfills
that
are
operated
by
foundries.
Such
landfills
would
be
expected
to
receive
metal­
bearing
waste
from
production
and
pollution
control
processes.
Leachate
from
these
landfills,
therefore,
would
be
expected
to
be
relatively
high
in
metals
and
contain
few
combustible
organics.
Section
4
of
this
report
includes
a
specific
example
of
a
foundry
landfill
operation
(
case
study
16).

Table
3­
8
presents
the
available
data
for
foundry
landfills.
As
expected,
BOD
levels
are
lower
than
those
for
MSW
landfills.
With
the
possible
exception
of
nickel,
however,
metals
levels
are
not
significantly
different
from
those
in
MSW
landfills.
Median
fluoride,
sodium,
and
sulfate
concentrations
are
substantially
higher
than
those
in
MSW
landfills.
September
2000
3­
56
Draft
Table
3­
8.
Composition
of
Foundry
Landfill
Leachate
Analyte
N
%
Detected
5th
%
ile
10th
%
ile
Median
Mean
90th
%
ile
95th
%
ile
MAJOR
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS
(
mg/
L,
except
pH
in
Standard
Units)
Alkalinity
101
99.0
118
128
180
185
250
290
B.
O.
D.
76
56.6
2
2
7
52.0
150
277
Chloride
97
100.0
110
160
445
524
770
911
C.
O.
D.
101
99.0
18.5
22
104
175
382
530
Cyanide
5
40.0
0.015
0.015
0.0235
0.0235
0.032
0.032
Fluoride
44
100.0
1.1
1.62
3.85
3.74
5.5
5.8
Iron
88
94.3
0.04
0.06
0.2
0.744
1.83
3.26
Nitrogen
7
100.0
0.06
0.06
0.64
0.943
3
3
pH
119
98.3
6.69
7.01
7.80
8.01
9.78
9.90
Sodium
101
99.0
240.5
325
854
921
1,505
1,980
Sulfate
101
100.0
390
530
1,580
1,686
2,799
3,130
TRACE
INORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
Arsenic
12
16.7
1
1
9
9
17
17
Barium
15
80.0
8
24
35
37.8
60
69
Cadmium
69
36.2
0.19
0.2
10
12.3
27
41.3
Chromium
14
35.7
1.8
1.8
20
197
910
910
Copper
16
37.5
6
6
14.5
616
3,600
3,600
Lead
81
35.8
2.1
2.4
30
138
290
300
Manganese
25
80.0
20.7
45
227
478
1050
1860
Mercury
24
16.7
0.080
0.080
0.2
0.245
0.5
0.5
Nickel
16
25.0
5.7
5.7
805
954
2,200
2,200
Selenium
12
8.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Silver
12
16.7
0.5
0.5
10.2
10.2
20
20
Zinc
17
35.3
10
10
32.5
40.7
110
110
ORGANICS
(
µ
g/
L)
Acetone
10
80.0
17
17
63
60.9
100
100
Benzene
16
43.8
0.2
0.2
0.33
14.9
100
100
Ethylbenzene
16
25.0
0.2
0.2
1.75
25.9
100
100
Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
10
10.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
Naphthalene
19
21.0
1
1
435
418
800
800
Phenol
12
8.3
190
190
190
190
190
190
Xylene
27
25.9
0.2
0.2
5
131
500
500
Source:
Characterization
data
from
the
three
foundry
landfills
included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
September
2000
4­
1
Draft
4.
QUANTITATIVE
LANDFILL
CASE
STUDIES
Upon
initiating
this
study
it
was
hoped
that
a
comprehensive
database
integrating
landfill
operations
and
permitting
data
with
leachate
generation
data
and
leachate
composition
data
could
be
found
or
created.
The
collection
of
data
on
leachate
generation
and
composition
met
with
some
success,
as
discussed
in
Sections
2
and
3.
No
comprehensive
electronic
databases,
however,
were
located
containing
information
on
landfill
permitting,
design,
and
operations,
much
less
linking
this
information
with
leachate
generation
or
composition
data.

Therefore,
to
present
a
holistic
overview
of
landfill
design
and
operations
in
combination
with
leachate
quantity
and
quality,
this
report
relies
on
detailed
case
studies.
This
section
presents
22
quantitative
case
studies
highlighting
pertinent
data
for
several
types
of
landfills.
The
landfill
types
(
and
number
of
each
type)
represented
in
the
case
studies
are
as
follows:
municipal
solid
waste
(
MSW)
(
10),
ash
(
6),
construction
and
demolition
(
C&
D)
(
3),
paper
mill
sludge
(
2),
foundry
(
1)
and
Subtitle
D
(
1).
The
Subtitle
D
landfill
accepted
nearly
the
same
quantity
of
industrial
waste
as
it
did
municipal
waste.
In
addition,
one
facility
operated
a
MSW
and
C&
D
landfills
for
which
data
was
obtained.

Each
case
studies
integrates
landfill
operational
data
(
size,
construction
and
controls,
location,
waste
acceptance
and
quantities)
with
leachate
quantity
and
quality
data,
in
a
front
and
back
display,
to
provide
an
exemplary
cross­
section
of
U.
S.
landfills.
Table
4­
1
provides
the
index
for
the
case
studies.

Data
was
compiled
using
available
data
sources.
These
sources
included,
but
were
not
limited
to,
EPA
site
visit
reports
as
part
of
the
Office
of
Water
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Point­
Source
Category
for
Landfills:
Regulatory
Docket,
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
report
entitled,
Field
Evaluation
of
the
Comanagement
of
Utility
Low­
Volume
Wastes
with
High­
Volume
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
(
August,
1997)
and
an
file
review
at
the
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
These
data
were
supplemented,
when
possible,
via
personal
communication.
September
2000
4­
2
Draft
Table
4­
1.
Landfill
Case
Studies
Case
Study
No.
Name
Location
Type
Data
As
Recent
As:

1
Shrewsbury
Shrewsbury,
MA
Incinerator
ash
monofill
1993
2
Limestone
Jewett,
TX
Combustion
ash
monofill
1996
3
Pawnee
Brush,
CO
Combustion
ash
monofill
pre­
1997
4
Pleasant
Prairie
Pleasant
Prairie,
WI
Combustion
ash
monofill
1997
5
Wisconsin
Tissue
Mill
Vinland
Site
Vinland,
WI
Paper
mill
sludge
monofill
1997
6
Superior
Emerald
Park
Muskego,
WI
Municipal
1999
7
Wisconsin
Electric
and
Power
Co.
Caldonia
Caledonia,
WI
Combustion
ash
monofill
1997
8
Ingles
Mountain
Radford,
VA
Construction
and
demolition
debris
(
C&
D)
1999
9
La
Crosse
County
La
Crosse,
WI
Municipal
1997
10
Superior
Greentree
Kersey,
PA
Subtitle
D
1999
11
Marathon
County
Ringle,
WI
Municipal
1999
12
Mead
Paper
Chillicothe,
OH
Paper
mill
sludge
monofill
1993
13
Mormon
Hollow
Road
Wendell,
MA
Construction
and
demolition
debris
(
C&
D)
1999
14
Northern
States
Power
Woodfield
Ashland,
WI
Combustion
ash
monofill
1997
15
WMWI
Timberline
Trail
Bruce,
WI
Municipal
1997
16
Waupaca
Foundry
Waupaca,
WI
Foundry
1997
17
Westside
Three
Rivers,
MI
Municipal
and
construction
and
demolition
debris
(
C&
D)
1999
18
Winnebago
County
Sunnyview
Oshkosh,
WI
Municipal
1997
19
Superior
Savannah,
GA
Municipal
1994
20
Northwoods
Sanitary
Rice
Lake,
WI
Municipal
1997
21
Vernon
County
Viroqua,
WI
Municipal
1997
22
Tangipahoa
Parish
Independence,
LA
Municipal
1994
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
Shrewsbury

Landfill

ID:
Lat:


42.215784


Long:


71.781533
Worcester

County,


MA.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Public

Water

Supply
EPA

SDWIS

System
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

June

28,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s63925)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
3
Not
constructed
6.6
847,000
4
Not
constructed
8.0
825,000
Totals
36.6
2,933,000
Averages
9.2
733,250
Section/
Cell
Status
Area
(

acres)

Design
Capacity
(

yd
³
)
Closed
with
geomembrane
cover
(

full)
1
10.5
469,000
2
Active
(

60%
of
capacity)

11.5
792,000
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
Totals
Wastes
Accepted
Constituents
Average
Daily
Quantity
(

tons)

Percentage
of
Total
byWeight
Incinerator
Residue
Air
Pollution
Control
Hopper
Ash
Bottom
Ash
Fly
Ash
Sifting
and
Riddlings
N/

A
N/

A
31.5
287
24.5
7
1.37
0.27
351.64
9
82
7
2
<

0.4
<

0.08
100
Street
CleaningWaste
WWTPWastes
LANDFILL
CASE
1:

SHREWSBURYASH
MONOFILL
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Quantity
Summary
(

based
on
1993
Data)
Quarter
Dates
Precipitation
(

inches)

Leachate
Quantity
(

gal.)
1
2
3
4
Totals
January
 
March
April
 
June
July
 
September
October
 
December
10.4
8.15
14.09
13.84
46.48
2,884,122
2,784,440
1,547,656
3,726,163
10,942,381
Daily
Average
32,406
30,598
16,822
40,502
30,061
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Shrewsbury
Residue
Landfill
Address:

640
Hartford
Tnpk
(

US
20)
Shrewsbury,

MA
01545
Owner/

Operator:

Town
of
Shrewsbury/

Wheelabrator
Millbury
Inc.

and
A.

J.

Letourneau
Dispose­

All
Company
Ownership
status:

Commercial
Facility
contact:

Steve
Sibinich,

Director
EH&

S
Compliance
508­

791­

8900
Alfred
Confalone,

Manager
Discharge
permit
no.:

120
State
permit
no.:

BWP
SW09
Landfill
type:

Incinerator
ash
landfill
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Network
of
slotted
polyvinyl
chloride
piping
placed
into
a
sand
drainage
blanket
Number
of
sections:

Four
(

4)
Status:

Section
1
 
closed,

Section
2
 
active,

Sections
3
and
4
 
not
constructed
Liner
type:

Two
feet
of
compacted
clay
overlain
by
a
geomembrane
consisting
of
60
mil
HDPE
Cover
type:

Six
inch
daily
soil
cover
Operational
period:

1989
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Fly
and
bottom
ash,

residual
wastes
(

such
as
bar
screenings
and
grit),
and
street
cleaning
wastes
Overall
location
area:

45
acres
Total
permitted
area:

36.6
acres
Total
landfill
capacity:

2,933,000
yd
³
Nature
of
waste:

Incinerator
residue,

street
cleaning
waste,

waste
water
treatment
plant
(

WWTP)

waste
Annual
landfilled
quantity:

155,000
tons
(

1993)
Total
cumulative
landfilled
quantity:

944,200
tons
(

as
of
1993)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

Approximately
0.044
L/

kg
Annual
leachate
generation:

10,942,381
gallons
(

1993)
Average
annual
precipitation:

46.48
inches
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
4.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
90th
MAX
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
BOD
16
22
36
77
151
COD
17
37
247
649
800
TDS
17
2700
8590
9540
48500
pH
(

su)

17
6
6.5
8.1
8.3
Nitrate/

Nitrite
1
14
14
14
14
Total
Phenols
1
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.34
Total
Sulfide
(

Iodometric)

1
80
80
80
80
Alkalinity
4
59
77.3
84
114
Acidity
4
16
23.5
20
46
Sulfate
4
136
131
145
175
FOG
6
0.8
47.3
16
250
Specific
Conductivity
4
10900
11000
11700
12300
TSS
16
10
62.6
137
350
TRACE
CONTAMINANTS
Metals
Antimony
1
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
Barium
5
1.16
2.82
2.6
6.99
Beryllium
1
0.0672
0.0672
0.0672
0.0672
Boron
14
0.05
0.274
0.328
2.15
Cadmium
6
0.007
0.0372
.02
0.172
Calcium
5
1400
3570
2300
11400
Chloride
5
3760
9250
4890
29900
Chromium
1
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.022
Copper
15
0.02
0.122
0.377
0.47
Europium
1
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
Fluoride
1
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
Iridium
1
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
Iron
5
2.53
3.51
4.41
5.56
Lead
8
0.009
10.3
0.28
81.4
Magnesium
4
4.78
4.90
6.03
6.29
Manganese
5
1.41
4.28
4.09
12.7
Molybdenum
11
0.01
0.0762
0.06
0.536
Nickel
5
0.035
0.104
0.184
0.201
Niobium
1
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
Platinum
1
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.46
Potassium
5
426
1130
975
2950
Samarium
1
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
Scandium
1
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
Silicon
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
Silver
3
0.015
0.0187
0.015
0.03
Sodium
5
655
1750
1440
4890
Strontium
1
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
Sulfate
4
136
130.5
145
175
Sulfur
1
628
628
628
628
Tantalum
1
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
Zinc
11
0.03
0.164
0.596
0.652
Data
Source
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfill
Point
Source
Category:

Shrewsbury
Site
Visit
Report,

April
5,

1995.
Identification
Name:

Limestone
Station
Ash
Landfill
Address:

Jewett,

TX
75846
Owner/

Operator:

Houston
Power
and
Light
Ownership
status:

Captive
EPA
ID:

TXD987978210
Landfill
types:

Industrial
(

Coal
combustion
ash)
Permitting
status:

Active
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
Type
of
LCS:

Impermeable
trench
surrounding
landfill
to
intercept
stormwater
runoff
and
leachate.
Number
of
cells:

20
Waste
acceptance:

Coal
combustion
ash
and
low­

volume
solid
waste
Overall
location
area:

380
acres
Permitted
area:

Unknown
Cell
dimensions:

Cells
1,

2
,3,

4,

and
6
total
68
acres.

Peak
landfill
height
approximately
120
feet
above
grade.
Cell
capacity:

Unknown
Run­

on/

off
controls:

Diversion
ditches
carry
runoff
to
a
sedimentation
pond.
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

50
feet
of
alluvium
(

sand,

silt,

and
clay),
underlain
by
20
feet
of
sand,

underlain
by
600
feet
of
interbedded
muds,

sands,

and
lignite
deposits.
Depth
to
aquifer:

Approximately
5
 
10
feet
below
liner.
Special
Practices:

None
noted.
LandfilledWaste
Nature
of
waste:

Coal
combustion
waste
(

fly
ash,

bottom
ash,

flue
gas
desulfurization
sludge)

comanaged
with
low­

volume
solid
wastes.
Annual
Total
cumulative
landfilled
quantity:
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

Unknown
quantity
landfilled:

1,790,000
tons
(

1996)
19.7
million
tons
of
coal
combustion
waste
through
1996
Average
leachate
generation:

No
data.
Average
annual
precipitation:

32
inches
Leachate
Quantity
LANDFILL
CASE
2:

LIMESTONE
COMBUSTION
ASH
MONOFILL
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
HPL

Limestone

Ash

Landfill
Lat:


31.4225


Long:


96.255556
Limestone

County,


TX.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

22,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s61542)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
Landfill
Type/

Area
Cell(

s)

Status
Liner
LCS
Cover
Operational
Period
Coal
combustion
ash/

380
acres
1,

2,

3
4,

6
5
6
 
20
Closed
Active
Proposed
3­

foot
thick
compacted
clay
Impermeable
trench
surrounding
landfill
(

stormwater
and
leachate)

3­

foot
clay
cap
overlain
by
topsoil
None
N/

A
1986
 
(

?)
(?)

 
Present
N/

A
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
Wastes
Accepted
Quantity
in
1996
(

tons)

Percentage
of
TotalWeight
Fly
ash
840,000
47
Bottom
ash/

boiler
slag
397,000
22
Flue
gas
desulfurization
500,000
28
sludge
Mill
rejects
36,500
2
Water
treatment
pond
12,710
<

1
sludges
Cooling
tower
sludge
480
<

1
Filter
bed
media
10
<

1
Spent
demineralizer
resin
5
<

1
beads
Sandblast
grit
100
<

1
Cooling
tower
fill
40
<

1
Refractory
brick
5
<

1
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
3.
Leachate
Composition
Data*

PARAMETER
Concentration
(
ug/
l)

OBS
10th
50th
90th
MAX
%
Detect
Avg
DL
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
IC
1
8,540
8,540
8,540
8,540
100
Unknown
DOC
1
22,600
22,600
22,600
22,600
100
Unknown
pH
(
SU)
1
8.38
8.38
8.38
8.38
100
Unknown
Eh
(
mV)
1
­
332
­
332
­
332
­
332
100
Unknown
EC
(
us/
cm)
1
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
100
Unknown
INORGANICS/
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Aluminum
1
640
640
640
640
100
Unknown
Arsenic
1
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
100
Unknown
Barium
1
191
191
191
191
100
Unknown
Boron
1
28,700
28,700
28,700
28,700
100
Unknown
Bromine
1
101,000
101,000
101,000
101,000
100
Unknown
Cadmium
1
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
100
Unknown
Calcium
1
749,000
749,000
749,000
749,000
100
Unknown
Chloride
1
1,312,000
1,312,000
1,312,000
1,312,000
100
Unknown
Chromium
1
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
100
Unknown
Copper
1
<
10
<
10
<
10
<
10
100
Unknown
Fluoride
1
<
2,000
<
2,000
<
2,000
<
2,000
100
Unknown
Iron
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
Unknown
Lead
1
<
5
<
5
<
5
<
5
100
Unknown
Magnesium
1
19,500
19,500
19,500
19,500
100
Unknown
Manganese
1
563
563
563
563
100
Unknown
Molybdenum
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
Unknown
Nickel
1
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
100
Unknown
NO2
1
<
2,000
<
2,000
<
2,000
<
2,000
100
Unknown
NO3
1
<
300
<
300
<
300
<
300
100
Unknown
Potassium
1
84,500
84,500
84,500
84,500
100
Unknown
PO4
1
<
500
<
500
<
500
<
500
100
Unknown
Selenium
2
ND
­­
128
128
50
Unknown
Silicon
1
5,800
5,800
5,800
5,800
100
Unknown
Silver
1
<
1
<
1
<
1
<
1
100
Unknown
Sodium
1
742,000
742,000
742,000
742,000
100
Unknown
Strontium
1
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
100
Unknown
Sulfur
1
721,000
721,000
721,000
721,000
100
Unknown
SO3
1
<
5,000
<
5,000
<
5,000
<
5,000
100
Unknown
SO4
1
2,051,000
2,051,000
2,051,000
2,051,000
100
Unknown
S203
1
13,900
13,900
13,900
13,900
100
Unknown
Vanadium
1
4.51
4.51
4.51
4.51
100
Unknown
Zinc
1
116
116
116
116
100
Unknown
*
Based
on
samples
of
seepage
from
landfill
to
leachate/
runoff
drainage
ditch.

Data
Source
Field
Evaluation
of
the
Comanagement
of
Utility
Low­
Volume
Wastes
with
High­
Volume
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products:
LS
Site.
Electric
Power
Research
Institute.
Final
Report,
August
1997.
Fly
ash
46,000
6.8
Boiler
slag
50
<

0.1
Water
treatment
wastes
(

thickener
sludge)

569,000
84.0
Cooling
tower
sludge
20,000
3
High­

quality
holding
basin
sludge
30
<

0.1
Wastewater
treatment
sludge
(

brine
decant
pit
sludge)

36,000
5.3
Refractory
brick
200
<

0.1
Miscellaneous
wastes
4,000
0.6
Exhibit
1.

Waste
Data
Wastes
Accepted
Quantity
(

cubic
yards/

year)

Percentage
of
TotalWeight
LANDFILL
CASE
3:

PAWNEE
ASH
MONOFILL
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
Pawnee

Ash

Landfill
Lat:


40.206448


Long:


103.696114
Morgan

County,


CO.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

22,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s62935)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Leachate
Quality
Data
Source
Name:

Pawnee
Station
Ash
Landfill
Address:

14940
County
Road
24
Brush,

CO
80723
Owner:

Public
Service
Company
of
Colorado
Ownership
status:

Captive
EPA
ID:

COD98028025
NPDES
ID:

COG600195
Landfill
type:

Industrial
(

Coal
combustion
ash)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

None
Number
of
cells:

1
Liner
type:

2­

foot
compacted
locally
derived
fine
sand
to
clay.
Operational
period:

1980
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Coal
combustion
ash
and
low­

volume
solid
wastes
Overall
location
area:

20
acres
Permitted
area:

20
acres
Landfill
dimensions:

Landfill
excavated
to
42
feet
below
ground
level.

Maximum
thickness
approximately
40
feet.
Landfill
capacity:

Unknown
Run­

on/

off
controls:

None
identified
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Dune
sand,

overlying
less
than
24
feet
of
residual
soil
(

very
fine
sand
and
silt
with
up
to
30
percent
clay),

overlying
bedrock
at
50
 
75
feet
below
the
ground
surface.
Depth
to
aquifer:

Water
table
is
above
the
excavated
depth
of
the
landfill.
Special
practices:

Surface
water
from
precipitation
and
natural
dewatering
of
sludge
waste
collects
in
a
topographic
low
area
of
the
landfill.
Nature
of
waste:

Coal
combustion
waste
(

fly
ash,

bottom
ash,

and
boiler
slag)

comanaged
with
low­

volume
solid
wastes.
Average
annual
quantity
landfilled:

Approximately
675,000
yd
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

Unknown
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

Unknown
Average
leachate
generation:

No
data
(

leachate
not
collected)
Average
annual
precipitation:

15
inches
rain,

60
inches
snow
No
data
are
available
for
leachate
as
generated.

Data
are
available,

however,

in
the
EPRI
report
characterizing
2:

1
distilled
water
extracts
from
waste
as
managed
in
the
landfill.
Field
Evaluation
of
the
Comanagement
of
Utility
Low­

VolumeWastes
with
High­

Volume
Coal
Combustion
By­

Products:

PA
Site.

Electric
Power
Research
Institute.

Draft
Report,

August
1997.
3
Landfill
Type/

Area
Cell(

s)

Status
Liner
LCS
Cover
Operational
Period
Coal
combustion
ash/

163
acres
1
Closed
Closed
Compacted
soil
only
None
2­

foot
clay
cap
overlain
by
6
inches
topsoil
1980
 
1986
2
5­

feet
thick
clay
over
compacted
soil
None
1985
 
1991
Closed
None
1988
 
1994
3
Active
None
None
1994
 
Present
4
5
 
25
Permitted,
not
yet
developed
N/

A
N/

A
N/

A
N/

A
5­

feet
thick
clay
over
compacted
soil
5­

feet
thick
clay
over
compacted
soil
2­

foot
clay
cap
overlain
by
6
inches
topsoil
2­

foot
clay
cap
overlain
by
6
inches
topsoil
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
Wastes
Accepted
Quantity
(

cubic
yards/

year)

Percentage
of
TotalWeight
Fly
ash
5,000
14.4
Economizer
Ash
300
0.9
Bottom
Ash
and
Boiler
Slag
29,000
83.2
Low­

volumeWaste
Basin
75
0.2
Metal
CleaningWaste
Basin
100
0.3
Coal
Pile
Runoff
Basin
Sludge
150
0.4
Wastewater
Treatment
Sludge
200
0.6
Cooling
Tower
Basin
Sludge
20
<

0.1
Scrap
Ferrous
Metal
and
1
<

0.1
Sludge
Sludge
Waste
Sulfite
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
LANDFILL
CASE
4:

PLEASANT
PRAIRIE
ASH
MONOFILL
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
WEPCO

Pleasant

Praire

Ash

Landfill
Lat:


42.533217


Long:


87.902379
Kenosha

County,


WI.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

22,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s61858)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Pleasant
Prairie
Ash
Landfill
Address:

8000
95
Street
Pleasant
Prairie,

WI
53201
Owner:

Wisconsin
Electric
Power
Company
Ownership
status:

Captive
EPA
ID:

WID000711176
NPDES
ID:

WI0043583
Landfill
type:

Industrial
(

Coal
combustion
ash)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

None
Number
of
cells:

25
Waste
acceptance:

Coal
combustion
ash
and
low­

volume
solid
wastes
Overall
location
area:

163
acres
Permitted
area:

163
acres
Landfill
dimensions:

Each
cell
approximately
6
acres.

Maximum
thickness
of
closed
estimated
25
feet.
Landfill
capacity:

Unknown
Run­

on/

off
controls:

Retention
and
drainage
ditches
from
which
runoff
evaporates
or
into
the
ground.
Underlying
geology/

Less
than
1
foot
of
topsoil
(

silty
clay
and
silt
loam),

underlain
(

till,

clay,

silt,

sand,

and
some
gravel),

underlain
by
bedrock
(

105
 
120
feet
below
ground
surface).
Depth
to
aquifer:

Approximately
2
 
8
feet
below
base
of
waste.
Special
practices:

Bottom
ash
and
boiler
slag
spread
in
cell
base,

fly
ash
and
low­

volume
solids
placed
on
top,

spread,

and
compacted
following
the
addition
of
treated
cooling
tower
water
for
dust
suppression.
Nature
of
waste:

Coal
combustion
waste
(

fly
ash,

bottom
ash,

and
boiler
slag)

comanaged
with
low­

volume
solid
wastes.
Average
annual
quantity
landfilled:

35,000
yd
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

595,462
(

through
mid­

1997)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

Unknown
Leachate
generation:

Unknown
(

leachate
not
collected)
Average
annual
precipitation:

33
inches
cells
infiltrates
by
glacial
soil
type:

drift
yd
3
3
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
3.
Leachate
Composition
Data*

PARAMETER
Concentration
(
ug/
l)

OBS
MIN
Average
MAX
%
Detect
Avg
DL
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
TDS
Unknown
2,130,000
2,716,000
3,200,300
Unknown
Unknown
Alkalinity
Unknown
49,000
451,000
1,284,000
Unknown
Unknown
pH
(
SU)
Unknown
9.22
11.5
12.59
Unknown
Unknown
EC
(
us/
cm)
Unknown
2,961
4,305
6,600
Unknown
Unknown
INORGANICS/
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Arsenic
Unknown
1
10
28
Unknown
Unknown
Barium
Unknown
10
5,320
24,100
Unknown
Unknown
Boron
Unknown
1,060
3,250
5,970
Unknown
Unknown
Cadmium
Unknown
<
3
70
71
Unknown
Unknown
Calcium
Unknown
1,670
161,000
530,000
Unknown
Unknown
Chloride
Unknown
12,890
56,000
160,490
Unknown
Unknown
Chromium
Unknown
<
3
0
16
Unknown
Unknown
Copper
Unknown
2
20
53
Unknown
Unknown
Fluoride
Unknown
209
430
880
Unknown
Unknown
Iron
Unknown
10
230
890
Unknown
Unknown
Lead
Unknown
2
10
20
Unknown
Unknown
Magnesium
Unknown
10
1,200
8,290
Unknown
Unknown
Manganese
Unknown
5
710
3,790
Unknown
Unknown
Molybdenum
Unknown
520
1,070
1,620
Unknown
Unknown
NO3
Unknown
90
1,000
3,670
Unknown
Unknown
Potassium
Unknown
19,380
52,800
115,500
Unknown
Unknown
Selenium
Unknown
2
860
12,850
Unknown
Unknown
Silver
Unknown
1
0
2
Unknown
Unknown
Sodium
Unknown
388,000
732,000
1,263,000
Unknown
Unknown
SO4
Unknown
694,000
1,446,000
1,952,000
Unknown
Unknown
Zinc
Unknown
10
30
77
Unknown
Unknown
*
Data
shown
are
based
on
summary
data
for
aqueous
samples
from
four
leachate
head
wells
taken
between
1978
and
1997.
Because
the
individual
sample
data
and
number
of
observations
were
not
reported,
50th
and
95th
percentile
values
could
not
be
determined.

Data
Source
Field
Evaluation
of
the
Comanagement
of
Utility
Low­
Volume
Wastes
with
High­
Volume
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products:
P4
Site.
Electric
Power
Research
Institute.
Final
Report,
July
1997.
LANDFILL
CASE
5:

WTM
VINLAND
SITE
PAPER
MILL
SLUDGE
MONOFILL
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

WTM
Vinland
Site
Paper
Mill
Sludge
Monofill
Address:

US
Highway
45
and
County
Truck
Highway
GG
Vinland,

WI
Owner:

Wisconsin
Tissue
Mills
(

WTM)
Ownership
status:

Captive
Facility
contact:

Bernie
Kopp,

VP­

Tech
Development,

414­

725­

7031
State
license
no.:

03131
Landfill
type:

Industrial
(

Pulp/

paper
sludge)
Permitting
status:

Closed
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
Number
of
phases:

Two
(

2)
Status:

Closed
Liner
type:

5­

feet
of
compacted
clay
Final
cover:

Clay
overlain
by
top
soil
Operational
period:

February
1988
to
June
1997
Waste
acceptance:

Pulp
and
paper
mill
sludge
from
WTM
plants
Overall
location
area:

160
acres
Permitted
area:

37
acres
Total
permitted
capacity:

1,710,300
yd
³
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Surface
soils
are
silty
clay
underlain
by
bedrock
at
100
feet
below
the
surface
Nature
of
waste:

Pulp
and
paper
mill
sludge
from
WTM
plants
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

1,481,515
tons
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

1,500,000
yd
³
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.03
L/

kg
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

8,522,600
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

29.7
inches
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
WTM
Vinland
Sludge
Landfill
­
Lat:

44.11187
Long:

88.54369
Winnebago
County,

WI.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
28,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s48657)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
1
2
1
 
6
1
 
6
Feb.

1988
to
April
1993
Aug.

1992
to
June
1998
Design
Capacity
(

yd
)
3
535,500
944,400
Phase
Modules
Status
Liner
Operational
Period
Closed
Closed
5
feet
compacted
clay
Quantity
(

gallons)

12,044,510
9,221,200
10,734,880
11,932,680
11,609,500
Year
1994
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Quantity
Data
1993
1995
1996
1997
Year
Wastes
Type
Quantity
(

tons)

Volume
(

yd
)
3
Paper
mill
sludge
86,874
82,530
1988
121,689
120,186
1989
159,171
157,204
1990
184,053
151,484
1991
176,370
138,874
1992
191,204
172,256
1993
186,238
177,370
1994
191,050
218,986
1995
184,866
176,063
1996
122,081
105,047
1997
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
4.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
95th
Max
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

125
250
740
4680
6000
100%
BOD
(

mg/

l)

70
7.8
1400
9100
11000
100%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

122
35.1
92
969.5
1500
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

99
4.96
660
12000
16000
100%
Conductivity
(

Micromho)

123
1588
2290
6930
10051
100%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

125
808
1400
5720
7700
100%
Nitrate
Nitrogen
(

mg/

l)

2
0.135
0.355
0.6025
0.63
100%
Nitrite
plus
Nitrate
(

mg/

l)

9
0.048
0.13
0.568
0.68
89%
Nitrogen,

Ammonia
(

mg/

l)

8
61.3
120
186.5
190
100%
Nitrogen,

Kjeldahl
(

mg/

l)

23
11.88
120
247
430
96%
pH
(

su)

123
6.352
6.88
7.535
7.96
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

123
39
240
1200
1700
100%
TDS
(

mg/

l)

3
9
45
2344.5
2600
67%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

119
8.8
65
2240
6300
100%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Antimony
1
140
140
140
140
100%
Arsenic
12
12.5
22
42.7
46
92%
Barium
15
0.482
480
1560
1700
93%
Cadmium
4
0.27
1
1.185
1.2
75%
Chromium
8
0.014
19
83.25
92
88%
Copper
10
0.009
12.35
63.75
84
90%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

121
0.19
6.2
270
310000
100%
Lead
6
0.029
14.54
52.75
57
83%
Magnesium
(

mg/

l)

2
0
0
0
0
0%
Manganese
21
0.15
81
2900
4800
100%
Mercury
2
0
0
0
0
0%
Nickel
12
0.0424
68.5
238
260
92%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

99
0.017
0.53
1.73
110
100%
Selenium
3
0.78
3.9
20.19
22
67%
Silver
2
1.2
6
11.4
12
50%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

9
145.2
210
438
450
100%
Zinc
13
0.0224
31
390
390
92%
Organics
1,1,1­

Trichloroethane
1
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
100%
1,2,4­

Trimethylbenzene
7
0.584
0.82
2.3
2.3
100%

1,3,5­

Trimethylbenzene
4
0.305
0.405
0.759
0.81
100%
Benzene
3
0.676
1.1
46.91
52
100%
Benzoic
Acid
2
262
590
959
1000
100%
Bis(

2­

ethylhexyl)

Phthalate
(

Dehp)

1
18
18
18
18
100%
Chloroform
2
5.338
23.41
43.741
46
100%
Dichloromethane
1
21
21
21
21
100%
Di­

n­

butyl
Phthalate
1
80
80
80
80
100%
Ethylbenzene
7
0.392
0.72
15.24
21
100%
Hexachlorobutadiene
1
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
100%
Isopropylbenzene
1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
100%
m,

p­

xylene
3
0.538
0.57
1.947
2.1
100%
m­

cresol
1
1000
1000
1000
1000
100%
Naphthalene
5
3.84
7.7
9.58
10
100%
N­

butylbenzene
8
0.788
2.45
5.665
5.7
100%
N­

propylbenzene
1
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
100%
o­

xylene
1
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
100%
p­

isopropyltoluene
2
0.52
1
1.54
1.6
100%
Phenolics
1
5
5
5
5
100%
sec­

butylbenzene
3
1.04
1.6
2.32
2.4
100%
Styrene
4
0.758
1.15
3.285
3.6
100%
tert­

butylbenzene
2
1.025
1.325
1.6625
1.7
100%
Toluene
8
1.17
8.25
262.05
380
100%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
MSW
11,479
122,265
318,892
431,878
430,334
Foundry
7
18,985
75,848
79,022
107,621
Wastewater
treatment
wastes
4,738**

6,565
4,524
594
1,945
Petro
contaminated
soils
102,732
217,352
196,961
299,596
Demolition
waste
29,350
40,765
41,539
44,003
Shredder
fluff
(

used
as
daily
cover)

13,671
16,675
24,012
20,222
Miscellaneous
8,150
10,346
8,863
11,221
*

Filling
began
in
November
of
1994
**

Identified
only
as
"

special
waste"
Waste
Type
Quantity
(

tons)
1995
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
1994*

1996
1997
1998
LANDFILL
CASE
6:

SUPERIOR
EMERALD
PARK
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
New
Holstein
Kiel
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
Superior
Emerald
Park
Landfill
­
Lat:

43.9301
Long:

88.0696
Calumet
County,

WI.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
21,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s40236)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Phase
Status
Liner
Operational
Period
Final
Cover
1
Closed
Active
5
feet
of
compacted
clay
and
60
mil
geomembrane
Active
Active
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
2
3A
3B
December
1994
to
1997
1996
to
present
Mid­

1997
to
present
Late
1998
to
present
2
feet
of
clay
2
feet
of
clay
(

West
slopes
only)
N/

A
Quantity
(

gallons)

212,900
2,789,400
1,932,900
1,776,000
3,188,000
Year
1995
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Quantity
Data
1994
1996
1997
1998
I
Name:

Superior
Emerald
Park
Landfill
Address:

W124
S10629
South
124th
Street
Muskego,

WI
53150
Owner:

Superior
Ownership
status:

Commercial
Facility
contact:

Gene
Kramer,

General
Manager,

414­

529­

1360
State
license
No.:

03290
Landfill
type:

Municipal
SolidWaste
(

MSW)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
with
1­

foot
drainage
layer
Number
of
phases:

Three
(

3)
Status:

Portions
of
phases
2
and
3
are
active
Liner
type:

5
feet
of
compacted
clay
and
60
mil
geomembrane
Cover
type;

6
inch
daily
cover
of
shredder
fluff
Operational
period:

November
1994
to
present
Permitted
to
accept:

Municipal,

biomedical,

contaminated
soil,

demolition,

wastewater
treatment
(

WWT)

sludge,

and
foundry
wastes
fromWaukesha
and
Milwaukee
counties
Overall
location
area:

300
acres
Permitted
area:

35
acres
Total
permitted
capacity:

3,550,360
yd
³
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Silt
and
clay
loams
underlain
by
gravel
and
dolomite/

shale
bedrock
Special
practice:

Began
re­

circulating
leachate
in
August
of
1998.
Nature
of
waste:

MSW,

WWT
sludge,

and
contaminated
soil
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

2,675,780
tons
(

as
of
January
1999)
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

2,725,876
yd
³
(

as
of
January
1999)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.004
L/

kg
Average
leachate
generation:

2,420,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

31.6
inches
dentification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
4.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

7
820
2160
3390
3600
100%
BOD
(

mg/

l)

19
560.4
1600
3442
5440
100%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

7
116.8
280
707.4
750
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

11
660
1600
3550
3580
100%
Conductivity
(

Micromho)

17
1590.8
4200
5676
6460
100%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

6
759.5
1070
2297.5
2400
100%
Nitrogen,

Ammonia
(

mg/

l)

7
10.508
37.4
83.94
84
100%
Nitrogen,

Kjeldahl
(

mg/

l)

18
22.8
48.5
124.05
130
100%
pH
(

su)

18
6.197
6.705
9.255
12.4
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

6
20
60.5
105.25
110
100%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

19
31.2
82
236.8
280
100%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Arsenic
3
16.8
20
20.9
21
100%
Barium
3
442
650
866
890
100%
Boron
(

mg/

l)

3
1.992
2.76
3.966
4.1
100%
Cadmium
3
4.7
8.3
14.33
15
100%
Chromium
5
10
11
29.8
32
100%
Copper
3
6.64
12
334.2
370
100%
Cyanide
(

mg/

l)

6
0.11
0.1945
0.78625
0.88
100%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

7
15.44
55
206.1
243
100%
Manganese
6
470
570
985
990
100%
Nickel
6
36
54
140
160
100%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

18
0.0585
0.155
0.4685
0.8
100%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

7
67.44
160
317.9
347
100%
Zinc
6
20.5
116
450
540
100%
Organics
1,1,1­

Trichloroethane
5
7.56
35
86.6
93
100%
1,1­

Dichloroethane
7
7.02
21
62.8
73
100%
1,2,4­

Trimethylbenzene
5
8.02
19
26
27
100%
1,2­

Dichloroethane
1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
100%
1,3,5­

Trimethylbenzene
4
2.46
7.5
11
11
100%
Benzene
4
4.32
7.6
9.775
10
100%
Benzoic
Acid
2
2560
3200
3920
4000
100%
Bis(

2­

ethylhexyl)

Phthalate
(

Dehp)

1
10
10
10
10
100%
Bromomethane
2
19.98
91.1
171.11
180
100%

Chloroethane
3
16
24
25.8
26
100%
Chloroform
1
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
100%
Chloromethane
4
23.7
82
375
420
100%
cis­

1,2­

dichloroethene
4
6.74
16.5
55.4
62
100%
Dichlorodifluoromethane
5
3.26
19
101
120
100%
Dichloromethane
7
186.8
390
2850
3600
100%
Diethyl
Phthalate
3
20.2
21
48.9
52
100%
Ethylbenzene
5
36.8
58
92.8
100
100%
Fluorotrichloromethane
3
12.72
50
113
120
100%
Isopropylbenzene
2
1.85
3.25
4.825
5
100%
m,

p­

xylene
4
46.3
73.5
108.5
110
100%
m­

cresol
3
190
510
3921
4300
100%
Methyl
tert­

butyl
Ether
(

mtbe)

3
16.2
33
66.3
70
100%
Naphthalene
2
5.66
5.9
6.17
6.2
100%
N­

butylbenzene
1
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
100%
N­

propylbenzene
2
2.67
3.75
4.965
5.1
100%
o­

cresol
1
22
22
22
22
100%
o­

xylene
3
15.4
17
36.8
39
100%
p­

cresol
1
480
480
480
480
100%
p­

dichlorbenzene
3
3.12
5.6
5.78
5.8
100%
Phenol
3
166
310
454
470
100%
Phenolics
5
822
1200
2014
2200
100%
p­

isopropyltoluene
4
4.02
5.25
5.67
5.7
100%
Styrene
4
3.63
8.75
80.7
93
100%
Tetrachloroethylene
2
5.29
6.05
6.905
7
100%
Toluene
7
109.6
280
464
470
100%
Trichloroethene
6
4.15
8.7
27
31
100%
Vinyl
Chloride
3
10.08
18
18.9
19
100%
Xylenes
2
83.2
104
127.4
130
100%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September1999)
Combustion
ash/

sludge
20,000
82,335
108,421
194,419
220,334
192,578
105,189
Lightweight
aggregate
plant
waste
 
 
 
 
79
5,715
5,136
Waste
Type
Quantity
(

tons)
1991
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
1990
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
LANDFILL
CASE
7:

WEPCO
CALEDONIAASH
MONOFILL
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
WEPCO
Caldonia
Ash
Landfill
­
Lat:

42.8246
Long:

87.9371
Racine
County,

WI.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
21,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s41382)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

WEPCO
Caledonia
Ash
Monofill
Address:

8719
Douglas
Avenue
Caledonia,

WI
53108
Owner:

Wisconsin
Electric
Power
Company
(

WEPCO)
Ownership
status:

Captive
Facility
contact:

Timothy
Muehlfeld,

Project
Manager,

414­

221­

2345
State
license
no.:

03232
Landfill
type:

Industrial
(

Combustion
ash)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
Number
of
phases:

Eighteen
(

18)
Status:

Phase
8
active
Liner
type:

5
to
6
feet
of
compacted
clay
(

Phases
1
 
4,

6
and
8)
Cover
type:

1
to
2
feet
compacted
clay,

rooting
zone
and
topsoil
(

Phases
1
 
4
and
6)
Operational
period:

October
1990
to
present
Estimated
year
of
closure:

2013
(

as
of
1997)
Waste
acceptance:

Coal
combustion
ash
and
lightweight
aggregate
plant
waste
from
WEPCO
plants
Permitted
area:

45
acres
Total
permitted
capacity:

4,050,000
yd
³
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Silty
clays
underlain
by
dolomite
bedrock
Special
practices:

Began
using
leachate
as
dust
suppressant
and
compression
aid
in
September
of
1993
Nature
of
waste:

Utility
plant
ash/

sludge
and
lightweight
aggregate
plant
waste
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

938,206
tons
(

as
of
January
1997)
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

869,825
yd
³
(

as
of
January
1997)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.034
L/

kg
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

8,417,471
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

29.1
inches
1
Closed
October
1990
to
1993
1994
2
3
Closed
November
1993
to
1996
Early
1997
4
Closed
December
1994
to
1997
Mid
1998
5
Unknown
6
Closed
February
1997
to
1998
Early
1999
7
Unknown
8
Active
May
1999
to
present
N/

A
9
 
18
Proposed
Final
Cover
Installed
Phase
Status
Operational
Period
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
Physical/

Chemical
Properties
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

23
102
130
529
660
100%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

14
22.3
33
75.95
87
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

21
0
4
35
110
52%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

16
230
827
1388
1400
100%
Nitrogen,

Ammonia
(

mg/

l)

1
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
100%
Nitrogen,

Kjeldahl
(

mg/

l)

2
0.081
0.405
0.7695
0.81
50%
pH
(

su)

22
8.11
10.6
12.495
12.8
100%
Specific
Conductance
(

umho/

cm)

22
1650
2965
4352.5
4360
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

23
414
980
2400
2400
100%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

22
11.2
170
4877.5
7960
95%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Barium
2
197
225
256.5
260
100%
Boron
(

mg/

l)

22
6.66
16
30.85
35
100%
Calcium
(

mg/

l)

14
78.3
110
264.5
310
100%
Chromium
2
42
130
229
240
100%
Copper
2
3.5
5.5
7.75
8
100%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

22
0.002
2.1
18.85
26
86%
Magnesium
(

mg/

l)

12
0.004
3.5
22.85
30
83%
Molybdenum
12
1.8
2.4
6.49
7.7
100%
Potassium
(

mg/

l)

12
42.6
68
93.5
110
100%
Selenium
22
14
25.5
79.55
810
100%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

12
184.4
310
430
430
100%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
LANDFILL
CASE
8:

INGLES
MOUNTAIN
C&

D
LANDFILL
Pulaski
Radford
city
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
Ingles
Mountain
Debris
Landfill
­
Lat:

37.119745
Long:

80.590338
Radford
city
County,

VA.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
02,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s47534)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Identification
Name:

Ingles
Mountain
C&

D
Landfill
Address:

3070
First
Street
Radford
VA
24141
Owner:

New
River
Resource
Authority
(

NRRA)
Ownership
status:

Commercial
Facility
contact:

Fred
Hilliard,

540­

674­

1677
State
agency
contact:

Kate
Glass,

Inspector,

540­

562­

6700
State
permit
no.:

526
State
discharge
permit:

RP0100
(

expired
September
30,

1994)
Landfill
type:

Construction
&

Demolition
Debris
(

C&

D)
Permitting
status:

Inactive
since
1997
and
preparing
for
full
closure
(

as
of
August
1999)
Type
of
LCS:

French
drain
system
in
which
debris
and
sanitary
leachates
are
comingled
Status:

Inactive
(

not
accepting
waste)
Liner
type:

1
foot
of
compacted
clay
liner
Cover
type:

The
facility
has
not
undergone
final
closure
but
has
installed
a
30
mil
synthetic
cover
Operational
period:

September
1989
to
May
1997
Regulatory/

permitting
Permitted
to
accept
only
construction
waste,

debris
waste,

demolition
waste,
controls:

land
clearing
debris,

tires,

white
goods,

and
bulk
household
items
Waste
acceptance:

Accepts
non­

hazardous
debris,

consisting
of
stumps
and
trees,

construction
and
demolition
debris,

pallets
not
suitable
for
mulching,

and
appliances
which
cannot
be
recycled
Overall
location
area:

20
acres
Permitted
area:

4.08
acres
Landfill
capacity:

92,000
yd
³
Landfill
dimensions:

600
x
510
feet
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Intensely
faulted
and
folded
sedimentary
rock
Depth
to
aquifer:

34
feet
Special
practices:

Debris
and
sanitary
leachates
are
comingled
Nature
of
waste:

Household
debris
(

50%),

demolition
debris
(

20%),

miscellaneous
(

30%)
Average
annual
landfilled
quantity:

6,815.2
tons
Total
cumulative
landfilled
quantity:

Approximately
67,000
tons
(

over
two
years
of
capacity
remaining)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

Approximately
0.056
L/

kg
Annual
quantity
generated
(

1993):

992,100
gallons
Annual
precipitation
(

1993):

49.11
inches
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
1.

Leachate
Composition
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
90th
MAX
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
BOD
1
13000.0
13000.0
13000.0
13000.0
COD
1
305000.00
305000.00
305000.00
305000.00
TDS
1
1430000.0
1430000.0
1430000.0
1430000.0
pH
1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
Ammonia
1
850.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
Nitrate/

Nitrite
1
950.00
950.00
950.00
950.00
Total
Phosphorus
1
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
Total
Phenols
1
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
Total
Sulfide
1
29000.0
29000.0
29000.0
29000.0
TRACE
CONTAMINANTS
Metals
Arsenic
1
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
Barium
1
321.0
321.0
321.0
321.0
Boron
1
5780.0
5780.0
5780.0
5780.0
Cadmium
1
9.40
9.40
9.40
9.40
Calcium
1
194000.00
194000.00
194000.00
194000.00
Cerium
1
254.00
254.00
254.00
254.00
Chloride
1
104000.00
104000.00
104000.00
104000.00
Erbium
1
8.90
8.90
8.90
8.90
Europium
1
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
Fluoride
1
3300.00
3300.00
3300.00
3300.00
Gadolinium
1
19.70
19.70
19.70
19.70
Indium
1
94.20
94.20
94.20
94.20
Iridium
1
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
Iron
1
2090.00
2090.00
2090.00
2090.00
Lithium
1
15.50
15.50
15.50
15.50
Lutetium
1
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
Magnesium
1
67100.00
67100.00
67100.00
67100.00
Manganese
1
1280.00
1280.00
1280.00
1280.00
Mercury
1
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
Molybdenum
1
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
Neodymium
1
36.70
36.70
36.70
36.70
Niobium
1
304.00
304.00
304.00
304.00
Platinum
1
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
Rhenium
1
86.7
86.7
86.7
86.7
Scandium
1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Silicon
1
6300.0
6300.0
6300.0
6300.0
Sodium
1
134000.0
134000.0
134000.0
134000.0
Strontium
1
5380.0
5380.0
5380.0
5380.0
Terbium
1
131.0
131.0
131.0
131.0
Thulium
1
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Uranium
1
73.6
73.6
73.6
73.6
Zirconium
1
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
Organics
Pesticides
Dalapon
1
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Disulfoton
1
7.91
7.91
7.91
7.91
MCPA
1
561.00
561.00
561.00
561.00
MCPP
1
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
2,4,5­

TP
1
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Data
source
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfill
Point
Source
Category:

Ingles
Mountain
Sampling
Event,

October
18,

1994.
LANDFILL
CASE
9:

LA
CROSSE
COUNTY
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
La
Crosse
County
Landfill
­
Lat:

43.84
Long:

91.2137
La
Crosse
County,

WI.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
21,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s41692)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

La
Crosse
County
Landfill
Address:

6500
State
Road
16
La
Crosse,

WI
54601­

1830
Owner:

La
Crosse
County
Ownership
status:

Municipal
Facility
contact:

Brian
Tippetts,

SW
Manager,

608­

785­

9572
State
license
no.:

03253
Landfill
type:

Municipal
SolidWaste
(

MSW)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
Number
of
phases:

Six
(

6)
Status:

Phases
1
 
3
are
active
Liner
type:

5
feet
or
4
feet
of
compacted
clay
and
60
mil
HDPE
Operational
period:

December
31,

1999
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Non­

hazardous
municipal,

commercial,

industrial,

demolition
wastes
and
combustion
ash
Permitted
area:

25.3
acres
Total
permitted
capacity:

1,867,400
yd
³
(

1,471,100
yd
³
waste
only)
Estimated
year
of
closure:

2020
(

estimated
as
of
1997)
Special
practices:

MSW
leachate
is
stored
with
C&

D
leachate
Nature
of
waste:

Municipal,

commercial,

industrial,

demolition
wastes
and
ash
from
a
resource
recovery
facility
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

223,305
tons
(

as
of
Jan.

1997)
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

314,700
yd
³
(

as
of
Jan.

1997)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.13
L/

kg
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

4,540,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

30.8
inches
Phase
Status
Liner
Operational
Period
EstimatedWaste
Capacity
(

yd
)
3
1
Active
Active
5
feet
of
compacted
clay
and
60
mil
HDPE
geomembrane
Active
Constructed
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
2
3
4
December
1991
to
present
1993
to
present
Mid­

1996
to
present
N/

A
5
6
Proposed
Proposed
4
feet
of
compacted
clay
and
60
mil
HDPE
geomembrane
107,650
166,600
286,000
335,700
363,100
212,050
MSW
135
270
1991*
MSW
33,119
66,238
1992
Combustion
ash/

sludge
9,956
7,367
MSW
32,256
49,884
1993
Combustion
ash/

sludge
9,840
7,282
MSW
37,173
55,760
1994
Combustion
ash/

sludge
10,285
7,611
MSW
35,020
52,530
1995
Combustion
ash/

sludge
10,151
7,613
MSW
34,960
52,440
1996
Combustion
ash/

sludge
10,410
7,703
*

Operations
began
December
31,

1991
Year
Waste
Type
Quantity
(

tons)

Volume
(

yd
)
3
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
Quantity
(

gallons)

4,580,000
3,050,000
3,410,000
2,860,000
5,050,000
5,380,000
7,430,000
Year
1993
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Quantity
Data
1992
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
4.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

57
70
1468
4112
5480
100%
Bod
(

mg/

l)

148
2.01
118
4729.7
15467
95%
COD
(

mg/

l)

147
111.9
984.7
6921.4
23342
100%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

56
419
1625
4741.3
5975
100%
pH
(

su)

149
6.474
7.06
7.41
7.67
100%
Specific
Conductance
(

umho/

cm)

149
3112
11450
20000
20000
99%
TDS
(

mg/

l)

2
14.64
49.6
88.93
93.3
100%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

146
10
30.7
294.5
1362
99%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Antimony
7
0
0
708.7
1000
29%
Arsenic
37
0
10
50
110
84%
Barium
6
445
630
1140
1200
100%
Boron
(

mg/

l)

4
0.31
0.72
1.9335
2.1
100%
Cadmium
60
0
0.25
40.5
60
50%
Chromium
37
0
45
246
430
57%
Copper
37
0
0
84
460
32%
Cyanide
(

mg/

l)

31
0
0
0
0.016
3%
Fluoride
(

mg/

l)

37
0.54
0.88
1.728
4.58
100%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

48
0
3.55
103.85
257.45
85%
Lead
60
0
0
230
270
25%
Manganese
14
13.2
1605
20272
47500
93%
Mercury
38
0
0
0.315
1.8
16%
Molybdenum
5
0.004
0.02
0.0368
0.041
80%
Nickel
39
0
99
862
2820
72%
Nitrogen,

Ammonia
(

mg/

l)

33
2.75
287
679.6
925
97%
Nitrogen,

Kjeldahl
(

mg/

l)

15
0.974
218
626.9
664
100%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

25
2.264
3.12
4.448
7.5
100%
Potassium
(

mg/

l)

5
229.6
268
849.8
909
100%
Silver
7
0
0
2.66
3.8
14%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

48
64.31
989.2
3974
4832.15
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

100
33.47
216.5
577.55
1140
95%
Sulfide
(

mg/

l)

67
0
3.48
11.94
23
88%
Zinc
115
54.4
141
11220
23700
95%
Organics
1,1,1Trichloroethane
52
0
0
21.61
130
8%
1,1,2,2­

Tetrachloroethane
44
0
0
0
22.68
2%
1,1,2­

Trichloroethane
52
0
0
0
8.48
2%
1,1­

Dichloroethane
52
0
0
26.26
122
33%
1,1­

Dichloroethylene
44
0
0
5.3655
150.5
9%
1,2,3­

Trichlorobenzene
33
0
0
2.592
96.66
6%
1,2,3­

Trichloropropane
33
0
0
0
28.98
3%

1,2,4­

Trichlorobenzene
36
0
0
1.42
97.78
6%
1,2,4­

Trimethylbenzene
33
0
0
36.95
82.94
48%
1,2­

Dichloropropane
52
0
0
0
4.22
2%
1,3,5­

Trimethylbenzene
33
0
1.5
39.752
88.65
61%
1,3­

Dichloropropane
33
0
0
0
14.34
3%
2,2­

Dichloropropane
33
0
0
0
4.78
3%
Benzene
52
0
0
4.97
5.96
33%
Bromobenzene
33
0
0
16.32
32.59
39%
Bromomethane
52
0
0
52.36
160
21%
Butylbenzene,

N­

33
0
0
11.466
95.52
18%
Butylbenzene,

sec­

33
0
0
4.868
39.23
18%
Butylbenzene,

tert­

33
0
0
4.394
47.15
21%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

58
237.3
2193
11192
12566
100%
Chlorobenzene
52
0
0
0.6345
3.27
6%
Chloroethane
52
0
0
0
3.98
4%
Chloromethane
52
0
0
13.197
48
10%
cis­

1,2­

dichloroethene
44
0
0
2.5145
18.22
9%
cis­

1,3­

dichloropropene
49
0
0
2.384
12
14%
Dibromochloromethane
52
0
0
0
27.13
2%
Dichlorodifluoromethane
43
0
0
41.04
97.4
40%
Dichloromethane
47
0
0
75.53
144.7
15%
Ethylbenzene
52
0
3.99
35.14
72
65%
Fluorotrichloromethane
52
0
0
18.9
56
6%
Hexachlorobutadiene
36
0
0
3.525
63.42
6%
Isopropylbenzene
33
0
0
3.158
10.3
15%
m­

dichlorobenzene
54
0
0
0
36.86
2%
Naphthalene
35
0
3.07
36.075
57.05
57%
n­

propylbenzene
33
0
0
17.214
44.73
27%
o­

chlorotoluene
33
0
0
0.61
2.39
9%
o­

dichlorobenzene
54
0
0
3.317
44.32
9%
p­

chlorotoluene
33
0
0
15.858
42.69
18%
p­

dichlorobenzene
54
0
0.645
36.577
55.03
52%
Phenolics
6
41.95
319.5
629.5
696
100%
p­

isopropyltoluene
33
0
0
9.436
62.11
39%
Styrene
33
0
0
29.58
65.09
15%
Tetrachloroethylene
49
0
0
150.28
676
10%
Toluene
52
0
18.13
445.6
523.5
73%
trans­

1,2­

dichloroethene
42
0
0
0
0.35
2%
trans­

1,3­

dichloropropene
49
0
0
4.198
17.39
8%
Tribromomethane
52
0
0
0
1.4
2%
Trichloroethylene
(

TCE)

45
0
0
18.134
30
31%
Vinyl
Chloride
52
0
0
33.869
52.5
27%
Xylenes
52
0
12.8
137.63
300
71%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
Phase
Cell(

s)

Status
Liner
A
1
 
4
Closed
Active
Single
60
mil
synthetic
liner
with
3
feet
of
clay
5
1
 
3
1
1
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
B
C
D
E
1
 
5
Double
60
mil
synthetic
liner
with
3
feet
of
clay
LANDFILL
CASE
10:

SUPERIOR
GREENTREE
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
Superior
Greentree
Landfill
_
Lat:

41.30089
Long:

78.66528
Elk
County,

PA.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
21,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s48824)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Superior
Greentree
Landfill
Inc.
Address:

635
Toby
Rd.
Kersey,

PA
15846
Owner:

Browning­

Ferris
Industries
Ownership
status:

Commercial
Facility
contact:

Thaddeus
Sorg,

Site
Manager,

814­

265­

1744
EPA
ID:

PAD987374535
NPDES
ID:

PA0103446
Landfill
type:

Subtitle
D
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
double
leachate
collection
system
Number
of
cells:

Fifteen
(

15)
Status:

11
cells
are
active
and
4
cells
are
closed
(

as
of
January
1994)
Liner
type:

Double
synthetic
liner
(

60
mil)

with
3
feet
of
clay
or
single
synthetic
liner
(

60
mil)

with
3
feet
of
clay
Operational
period:

September
1986
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Accepts
non­

hazardous
industrial
wastes
(

residual
wastes),

municipal
solid
wastes
(

MSW),

industrial
wastewater
treatment
plant
sludges,

municipal
treatment
plant
sludges,

construction
and
demolition
debris,

asbestos,

and
incinerator
ash;

No
yard
waste
Overall
location
area:

1,336
acres
Total
permitted
area:

91
acres
Special
practices:

Sludge
is
dried
and
placed
in
a
rolloff
container
and
disposed
of
in
the
Greentree
Landfill.

Annual
dewatered
sludge
landfilled:

125
tons
Nature
of
waste:

MSW
(

60%)

and
residual/

industrial
(

40%)
Average
annual
landfilled
quantity:

320,000
tons
Total
cumulative
landfilled
quantity:

Approximately
2,500,000
tons
(

as
of
January
1994)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.014
L/

kg
(

as
of
January
1994)
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

9,700,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

43
inches
Exhibit
2.

Leachate
Quantity
Data
Year
1995
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999*
Quantity
(

gallons)

11,169,582
9,543,541
12,214,560
8,989,795
6,652,559
4,742,044
*

Quantity
for
January
through
March
only.
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
90th
MAX
Amenable
Cyanide
1
13
13.00
13
13
BOD
29
698
151000.00
916400
1680000
COD
32
1458
852000.00
223300
4470000
TDS
32
3701
2972000.00
4730400
7050000
pH
(

su)

32
6.701
7.10
7.691
8
Nitrate/

Nitrite
21
0.44
1.60
300
400
Total
Cyanide
7
8.4
12.00
22.4
26
Total
Nitrogen
17
4240
26900.00
181840
225000
Total
Phenols
31
23
310.00
1370
1600
Total
Phosphorus
9
0.02
0.06
0.264
1
TOC
32
928.5
217000.00
638400
1390000
TSS
29
86.4
54000.00
179600
254000
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Aluminum
28
89.47
204.00
570.6
1610
Antimony
15
4.9
11.50
22.7
38
Arsenic
28
10.57
18.00
43.07
51
Barium
32
630.5
1190.00
2423
3400
Berylium
2
0.21
0.25
0.29
0.3
Boron
31
1600
3590.00
8100
19500
Bromide
15
1300
8600.00
12840
19300
Cadmium
10
0.76
2.85
14.29
16
Calcium
14
182000
216500.00
477700
495000
Cerium
1
878
878.00
878
878
Chloride
32
630
533500.00
1135000
1610000
Chlorine
4
53
80.00
212
260
Chromium
30
17.92
25.45
53
70
Chromium
(

VI)

11
0.015
0.03
5.5
15
Cobalt
7
7.06
13.10
60
60
Copper
15
4.4
12.10
31.2
40
Europium
1
7.58
7.58
7.58
7.58
Flourene
1
29
29.00
29
29
Fluoride
29
0.316
240.00
400
490
Gold
3
211
211.00
219
221
Holmium
1
93.8
93.80
93.8
93.8
Iron
32
15520
29750.00
176800
242000
Iron
Dissolved
17
1240
3200.00
24900
193000
Lead
13
3
6.00
9.88
17
Lithium
8
109.2
125.00
147.3
162
Magnesium
32
126200
174000.00
213800
231000
Manganese
32
2732
13000.00
28310
38300
Mercury
5
0.314
0.35
0.498
0.59
Molybdenum
6
15.85
64.60
90
100
Nickel
32
91
153.50
315
400
Niobium
1
198
198.00
198
198
Phosphorus
18
41
425.00
1130
1300
Potassium
14
137200
2475000.00
3140000
3260000
Ruthenium
1
283
283.00
283
283
Scandium
1
5.73
5.73
5.73
5.73
Selenium
4
9.04
16.90
20.77
21.1
Silicon
11
464
541.00
870
6840
Silver
6
0.45
3.50
17.95
32
Sodium
14
474400
527500.00
630500
665000
Strontium
11
1280
1830.00
3330
3370
Sulfate
20
39740
147000.00
244800
310000
Sulfide
7
285
1550.00
10200
13600
Sulfite
10
2000
5350.00
53750
87500
Sulfur
11
15200
17200.00
103000
108000
Tantalum
1
121
121.00
121
121
Thallium
10
2
12.05
16.81
17.8
Tin
4
18.84
41.20
102.06
123
Titanium
8
3.5
17.25
26.88
33.6
Vanadium
11
7
10.50
160
160
Yttrium
6
3.25
3.45
5.05
6.2
Zinc
31
37.3
104.00
180
740
Organics
Acenaphthene
1
8.6
8.60
8.6
8.6
Acetophenone
9
11.4054
25.68
37.5682
59.441
Aetone
16
167.5
695.00
2500
3300
Aldrin
1
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
Alpha
BHC
1
1.4
1.40
1.4
1.4
Alpha­

Terpinol
9
80.739
122.31
148.7012
168.022
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
11
149
182.00
201
203
Benzene
7
4
6.00
8.42
8.9
Benzo
Perylene
1
17
17.00
17
17
Benzoic
Acid
11
1822.63
8181.08
15882.6173
21558.09
Benzyl
Alcohol
1
20.919
20.92
20.919
20.919
Bis(

2­

Ethylhexyl)

Ether
5
0.76
4.00
4.8
5
Bis(

2­

Ethylhexyl)

Phthalate
3
2.48
4.40
38.48
47
Butyl
benzyle
phthalatte
1
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Chlorobenzene
5
1.04
2.00
2
2
Chloroethane
3
3
7.00
51.8
63
Chrysene
1
15
15.00
15
15
Dichlorodiflouromethane
1
1
1.00
1
1
Diethyl
ether
8
56.5818
63.63
143.36868
156.6446
Diethyl
phthalate
10
7.27
24.00
55.7623
190
Dimethoate
1
3.5
3.50
3.5
3.5
Dimethyl
Phthalate
1
10
10.00
10
10
Dimethyl
sulfone
1
27.0762
27.08
27.0762
27.0762
Di­

n­

Butyl
Phthalate
1
58
58.00
58
58
Endosulfan
1
81.5
81.50
81.5
81.5
Endosulfan
Sulfate
2
0.656
3.12
5.584
6.2
Endrin
1
0.1
0.10
0.1
0.1
Ethylbenzene
19
21.8
33.00
44.2
47
Gamma
BHC
4
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Heptachlor
1
0.052
0.05
0.052
0.052
Hexane
extractable
material
11
7
12.00
16
18
Hexanoic
acid
11
4578.86
16695.42
61054.68
69055.55
Isophorone
10
14.6606
16.77
20.81519
25.3979
m
­

xylene
1
31.8684
31.87
31.8684
31.8684
MCPA
2
435.3
468.50
501.7
510
MCPP
1
158
158.00
158
158
Methylene
chloride
19
8
34.05
728
1800
N­

Dodecane
1
15.103
15.10
15.103
15.103
N,

N­

Dimethylformadine
2
71.5665
85.60
99.6265
103.134
Naphthalene
3.68
35.30
63
63
o
&

p­

xylene
1
15.4406
15.44
15.4406
15.4406
o­

Cresol
2
41.7831
152.26
262.7439
290.364
p­

Cresol
13
23.6
490.00
2320
16065
p­

Cymene
1
10.138
10.14
10.138
10.138
p­

Dimethylaminoazobenzene
1
38.389
38.39
38.389
38.389
Phenanthrene
1
36
36.00
36
36
Phenol
21
12.251
56.00
675.8818
850.92
Styrene
1
24.39
24.39
24.39
24.39
Tetrachloroethylene
3
1.3
2.90
13.38
16
Tetrahydrofuran
13
309
735.00
2440
3500
Toluene
27
32.7304
100.00
462
3398.9908
Trans­

1,2­

Dichloroethane
3
14.0856
4
14.63
15.271
15.431
Trichloroethylene
2
5.73
7.05
8.37
8.7
Tripropyleneglycol
methyl
ether
1
1136.44
1136.44
1136.44
1136.44
Vinyl
chloride
5
1.72
10.43
12.93956
14.2326
Xylene
21
21
97.00
140
160
1­

Propanol
6
603.5
2350.00
4500
5600
1,1­

Dichloroethane
9
2.8
14.00
21.11446
21.5723
1,2­

Dibromo­

3­
chloropropane
2
0.204
0.22
0.236
0.24
1,

2­

Dichlorobenzene
2
0.71
0.75
0.79
0.8
1,

2­

Diphenylhydrazine
1
1.7
1.70
1.7
1.7
1,

4­

Dichlorobenzene
7
4.4
4.40
8.64
9
1,4­

Dioxane
10
162.362
3
214.73
367.2307
385.3
2­

Butanone
31
365
4000.00
17581.4
818746.5
2­

Hexanone
9
62.7224
126.22
172.676
220
2­

Picoline
1
107.329
107.33
107.329
107.329
2­

Propanol
9
6.6
2400.00
5600
14000
2­

Propanone
11
2594.37
7274.82
11367.89
83857.9408
2­

Propenal
1
78.31
78.31
78.31
78.31
2,

4­

D
3
1.88
2.20
4.28
4.8
2,

4­

Dimethylphenol
3
13.6
28.00
32.8
34
4­

Methyl­

2­

pentanone
27
38.1
185.00
631.0493
1000
4,

4­

DDT
2
0.0214
0.03
0.0326
0.034
Data
Source
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfill
Point
Source
Category:

Greentree
Site
Visit
Report,

September
28,
1994.
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Quantity
Data
Year
1995
1994
1996
1997
1998
Volume
(

gallons)

2,499,913
4,498,375
4,934,779
6,249,000
7,339,642
LANDFILL
CASE
11:

MARATHON
COUNTYAREA
B
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
Marathon
County
Landfill
­
Lat:

44.89416
Long:

89.4383
Marathon
County,

WI.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
28,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s48757)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Identification
Name:

Marathon
County
Area
B
Landfill
Address:

R18500­

B
Ringle
Avenue
Ringle,

WI
54471­

9762
Owner:

Marathon
County
Ownership
status:

Municipal
Facility
contact:

Jim
Pellitteri,

SolidWaste
Manager,

715­

446­

3339
State
license
no.:

03338
Landfill
type:

Municipal
SolidWaste
(

MSW)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
Number
of
phases:

Three
(

3)
Status:

Phases
1and
2
are
active
Liner
type:

4
feet
of
compacted
clay,

60
mil
HDPE
liner,

and
geotextile
Estimated
year
of
closure:

2005
Operational
period:

November
1993
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Municipal
and
commercial
solid
waste,

sludge,

foundry
wastes
demolition
wastes,

and
paper
mill
ash
Overall
location
area:

532
acres
Permitted
area:

Approximately
25
acres
Total
permitted
capacity:

1,427,000
yd
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Loamy
soils
underlain
by
granite
bedrock
Depth
to
aquifer:

70
feet
Nature
of
waste:

MSW,

commercial,

sludges,

foundry,

demolition,

and
ash
(

from
Weyerhaeuser
Co.)
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

630,086
tons
(

as
of
January
1999)
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

1,031,530
yd
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.042
L/

kg
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

5,104,300
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

30
inches
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
3
3
(

as
of
January
1999)

MSW
and
commercial
7,079
88,831
80,523
91,023
93,537
89,972
Sludges
11,183
17,591
19,139
19,370
20,600
18,601
Foundry
sand
85
1,943
2,456
112
0
0
Demolition
139
15,164
12,616
12,505
15,694
13,029
Ash
173
3,084
3,557
3,755
3,734
3,590
Waste
Type
Quantity
(

tons)
1994
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
Phase
Status
Liner
Operational
Period
Design
Area
(

acres)
1A
1B
2
3
Active
Active
Active
Proposed
4
feet
of
compacted
clay,
60
mil
HDPE
liner,
and
geotextile
November
1993
to
present
February
1995
to
present
December
1996
to
present
7.25
2.8
7.5
6.7
 
7.8
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
4.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

14
739
2050
5570
7000
100%
BOD
(

mg/

l)

22
72.2
475
2275
6200
100%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

14
158
500
1535
1600
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

14
437
1100
11700
13000
100%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

14
334
1250
3810
4200
100%
Nitrogen,

Ammonia
(

mg/

l)

12
51.1
89
241
340
100%
Nitrogen,

Kjeldahl
(

mg/

l)

1
110
110
110
110
100%
pH
(

su)

22
6.4
6.64
7.195
7.3
100%
Specific
Conductance
(

umho/

cm)

22
699
3500
7600
7700
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

14
64.6
110
1730
4200
100%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

22
19.2
185
19550
35000
100%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Antimony
3
0
0
21.6
24
33%
Arsenic
3
8.6
43
184.3
200
67%
Barium
3
752
2000
5690
6100
100%
Beryllium
3
10
14
50.9
55
100%
Boron
(

mg/

l)

12
0.246
2.05
4.2
4.2
92%
Cadmium
14
0
0
106.35
120
43%
Chromium
3
23
71
214.1
230
100%
Cobalt
3
36
180
396
420
67%
Copper
3
15.2
24
434.4
480
100%
Fluoride
(

mg/

l)

3
0.0596
0.17
0.863
0.94
100%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

14
9.11
69.5
645.5
730
100%
Lead
14
0
0
289
510
29%
Manganese
14
1358
5250
38350
39000
93%
Mercury
14
0
0
1.985
2.7
29%
Nickel
3
8
40
292
320
67%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

11
0.56
2
35.5
58
100%
Selenium
14
0
0
42.01
110
14%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

14
82.2
355
628
680
100%
Thallium
3
168
840
1344
1400
67%
Vanadium
3
202
690
1599
1700
100%
Zinc
3
42
110
1181
1300
100%
Organics
1,1,1­

Trichloroethane
14
0
0
27.5
34
29%
1,1­

Dichloroethane
14
0.84
13
54.75
71
86%
1,2,4­

Trimethylbenzene
4
1.53
5.3
8.645
9.2
75%
1,2­

Dichloroethane
14
0
0
0.168
0.48
7%
1,3,5­

Trimethylbenzene
4
0
0
3.06
3.6
25%
2­

Hexanone
12
0
1.5
639
1200
50%
4­

Methyl­

2­

pentanone(

MIBK)

12
7.83
70
252
340
100%

Acetone
12
142
760
6050
11000
100%
Benzene
14
0
3.2
5.35
6
64%
Benzoic
Acid
3
0
0
1800
2000
33%
Bis(

2­

ethylhexyl)

Phthalate
(

DEHP)

5
0
0
39
45
40%
Bromochloromethane
14
0
0
0.168
0.48
7%
Carbon
Disulfide
12
0
0
15.345
22
33%
Chlorobenzene
14
0
0
1.085
3.1
7%
Chloroethane
14
0
0
11.405
22
14%
Chloroform
14
0
0
2.08
2.6
21%
cis­

1,2­

dichloroethene
14
0
0.5
25
38
50%
Dichlorodifluoromethane
11
0
0
3.3
4.8
18%
Dichloromethane
14
0
14.5
178
230
79%
Diethyl
Phthalate
5
0
0
82.6
100
40%
Di­

n­

butyl
Phthalate
5
0
0
31.2
39
20%
Ethylbenzene
14
4.7
24
46.25
56
100%
Fluorotrichloromethane
14
0
0
1.745
2.2
14%
Isophorone
5
0
0
43.2
54
20%
Isopropylbenzene
4
0
0
3.145
3.7
25%
m,

p­

xylene
14
14.45
71.5
150
150
100%
m­

cresol
(

3­

methylphenol)

3
852
2100
2460
2500
100%
Methyl
Ethyl
Ketone
(

MEK)

12
88.6
825
9290
16000
100%
Methyl
Tert­

butyl
Ether
(

MTBE)

10
0
0
1.334
2
20%
n­

propylbenzene
4
0
0
1.445
1.7
25%
o­

cresol
(

2­

methylphenol)

5
0
0
23.6
26
40%
o­

xylene
14
4.77
25
44.7
46
100%
p­

chloro­

m­

cresol
5
0
0
113.9
140
40%
p­

cresol
2
206.1
914.5
1711.45
1800
100%
p­

dichlorobenzene
14
0
0
5.29
6.2
36%
Phenol
5
20.8
130
918
1100
80%
Phenolics
1
1800
1800
1800
1800
100%
p­

isopropyltoluene
4
6.18
9.7
24.45
27
100%
Tetrachloroethylene
14
0
0
3.99
4.9
29%
Tetrahydrofuran
12
275
625
923
1000
100%
Toluene
14
50.2
345
1012.5
1500
100%
Trichloroethylene
(

TCE)

14
0
0
8.66
9.7
36%
Vinyl
Chloride
14
0
0
8.465
11
21%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
LANDFILL
CASE
12:

MEAD
PAPER
MILL
MONOFILL
Chillicothe
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
Mead
Paper
Mill
Monofill
­
Lat:

39.32908
Long:

82.98049
Ross
County,

OH.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
28,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s53127)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Mead
Paper
Monofill
Address:

401
South
Paint
Street
Chillicothe,

OH
45601
Owner:

Mead
Paper
Ownership
status:

Captive
Facility
contact:

Elden
Fink,

Environmental
Manager,
740­

772­

3111
ext.

3475
State
agency
contact:

Steve
Ryan,

Ohio
EPA
(

Southeast
District
Office)
740­

385­

8501
EPA
ID:

OHD043730209
NPDES
ID:

OH0104507
Landfill
type:

Industrial
(

Pulp
and
paper
sludge)
Permitting
status:

Closed
(

February
1993)
Type
of
LCS:

Leachate
is
collected
in
two
gravity
flow
sumps
and
stored
Number
of
cells:

One
(

1)
Status:

Closed
Final
cover
type:

Geonet
and
20
mil
PVC
overlain
by
18
inches
of
soil
and
6
inches
of
top
soil
Operational
period:

1974
to
1990
(

16
years)
Waste
acceptance:

Accepted
pulp
sludge
(

mixture
of
clay,

lime,

and
cellulose),

fly
ash
and
bark
from
Mead's
Chillicothe
mill
Special
practices:

During
LF's
operation,

leachate
used
in
spray
fields
at
the
landfill;
in
1990,

leachate
was
collected
and
treated,

leachate
was
sprayed
back
onto
the
landfill
during
heavy
rains;

in
1993,

leachate
spraying
ceased
 

completely
Nature
of
waste:

Pulp
sludge
thickened
with
bark
and
fly
ash
Average
annual
quantity
landfilled:

300,000
wet
tons
of
sludge
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

Approximately
4,200,000
tons
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

Approximately
0.006
L/

kg
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

Approximately
8,200,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

38.4
inches
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
1.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
90th
MAX
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
BOD
1
120
120
120
120
COD
1
1420
1420
1420
1420
TDS
1
5790
5790
5790
5790
pH
1
7
7
7
7
Nitrate/

Nitrite
1
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
Total
Phenols
1
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
Total
Phosphorus
1
4.53
4.53
4.53
4.53
Total
Recoverable
Oil
&

Grease
1
9.47
9.47
9.47
9.47
Total
Sulfide
(

Iodometric)

1
25.8
25.8
25.8
25.8
TOC
1
500
500
500
500
TSS
1
104
104
104
104
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Aluminum
1
405
405
405
405
Arsenic
1
53.8
53.8
53.8
53.8
Barium
1
2050
2050
2050
2050
Bismuth
1
127
127
127
127
Boron
1
736
736
736
736
Calcium
1
599000
599000
599000
599000
Chloride
1
952
952
952
952
Chromium
+

6
1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Cobalt
1
27.9
27.9
27.9
27.9
Fluoride
1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Iron
1
13800
13800
13800
13800
Lithium
1
754
754
754
754
Magnesium
1
388000
388000
388000
388000
Manganese
1
7090
7090
7090
7090
Nickel
1
35.3
35.3
35.3
35.3
Phosphorus
1
4670
4670
4670
4670
Potassium
1
386000
386000
386000
386000
Silicon
1
13100
13100
13100
13100
Sodium
1
495000
495000
495000
495000
Strontium
1
3850
3850
3850
3850
Sulfur
1
19200
19200
19200
19200
Titanium
1
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
Zinc
1
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
Organics
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
1
53.2
53.2
53.2
53.2
Dicamba
1
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Dichlorprop
1
7.09
7.09
7.09
7.09
Dinoseb
1
4.88
4.88
4.88
4.88
MCPA
1
551
551
551
551
p­

Cymene
1
35.3
35.3
35.3
35.3
Picloram
1
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.97
Toluene
1
12.992
12.992
12.992
12.992
2­

Propanone
1
167.781
167.781
167.781
167.781
2,4­

D
1
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
2,4­

DB
1
9.48
9.48
9.48
9.48
2,4,5­

T
1
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
2,4,5­

TP
1
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
Data
source
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfill
Point
Source
Category:

Mead
Pre­
Sampling
Event,

February
4,

1994.
LANDFILL
CASE
13:

MORMON
HOLLOW
ROAD
C&

D
LANDFILL
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
Mormon

Hollow

Road

Demolition

Landfill
Lat:


42.5668


Long:


72.4091
Franklin

County,


MA.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

28,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s52593)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Mormon
Hollow
Road
Demolition
Landfill
Address:

Mormon
Hollow
Road
P.

O.

Box
202
Wendell,

MA01379
Owner:

DB
Enterprises,

Inc.
Ownership
status:

Commercial
Facility
contact:

Dean
Bennett,

President,

978­

544­

8006
Don
Adams,

Delta
Engineers,

607­

724­

1367
ext.

20
State
agency
contact:

Mark
Haley,

MA
DEP,

413­

755­

2253
State
permit
no.:

DL0319003
Landfill
type:

Construction
and
Demolition
Debris
(

C&

D)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Primary
(

top
liner)

and
secondary
(

bottom
liner)

LCS
Number
of
cells:

Five
(

5)
Status:

Active
Liner
type:

Double­

lined
with
two
layers
of
chlorosulfonated
polyethylene
(

hypalon)

with
18
inches
of
gravel
between
each
layer
Operational
period:

June
1990
to
present
Regulatory
permitting
controls:

Permitted
to
accept
non­

hazardous
construction
and
demolition
debris
Waste
acceptance:

Does
not
accept
glass,

metal
containers,

plastic
buckets,

yard
waste,
leaves,

lead­

acid
batteries,

white
goods,

whole
tires,

clean
unpainted
wood
Overall
location
area:

20
acres
Permitted
area:

8
acres
Landfill
dimensions:

130
feet
(

deep),

720
feet
(

long),

500
feet
(

wide)
Permitted
capacity:

99
tons
(

268
yd
³
)

per
day
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Bedrock
overlain
by
6
feet
of
compacted
clay
Nature
of
waste:

C&

D
debris
(

consisting
of
waste
building
materials)

and
limited
quantities
of
state
regulated
non­

hazardous
waste
(

i.

e.

soils
contaminated
with
virgin
petroleum
products)
Quantity
landfilled
(

1993):

36,400
tons
Cumulative
landfilled
quantity:

129,255
tons
(

as
of
March
1999)
Cumulative
landfilled
volume:

350,259
yd
³
(

as
of
March
1999)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.013
L/

kg
Average
annual
quantity
generated:

Approximately
450,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

44.4
inches
Cell(

s)

Status
1
Closed
(

full)
2
3
4
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
5
Closed
(

full)
Closed
(

full)
Closed
(

full)
Subsection
5a
 
Active
Subsection
5b
 
not
prepared
to
receive
waste
Subsection
5c
 
not
prepared
to
receive
waste
Cover
Final
cover
of
hypalon
underlying
18
inches
silty
sand
and
clay
Intermediate
cover
of
12
inches
of
soil
Intermediate
cover
of
12
inches
of
soil
Intermediate
cover
of
12
inches
of
soil
N/

A
N/

A
N/

A
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
2.

Leachate
Composition
Data
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
PARAMETER
OBS
10th
50th
90th
MAX
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
BOD
1
67
67
67
67
COD
1
489
489
489
489
TDS
1
2720
2720
2720
2720
Solids
20
1300000
3700000
5120000
5400000
pH
(

SU)

21
6.2
6.9
7.4
7.68
Nitrate/

Nitrite
1
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
Nitrate
17
116.8
1800
7560
9900
Nitrite
8
12.8
19
325.6
936
Total
Cyanide
1
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
Total
Phenols
1
89
89
89
89
Total
Sulfide
(

Iodometric)

1
27
27
27
27
TOC
1
189
189
189
189
TSS
1
22
22
22
22
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Antimony
1
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
Arsenic
1
29.8
29.8
29.8
29.8
Barium
1
147.41
147.41
147.41
147.41
Boron
1
16250
16250
16250
16250
Calcium
1
280660
280660
280660
280660
Chloride
1
299
299
299
299
Chromium
1
9.88
9.88
9.88
9.88
Copper
1
28.64
28.64
28.64
28.64
Europium
1
9.88
9.88
9.88
9.88
Fluoride
1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Germanium
1
126.6
126.6
126.6
126.6
Gold
1
41.52
41.52
41.52
41.52
Iridium
1
75.35
75.35
75.35
75.35
Iron
1
5429.8
5429.8
5429.8
5429.8
Lead
1
28.06
28.06
28.06
28.06
Magnesium
1
138820
138820
138820
138820
Manganese
1
7151.5
7151.5
7151.5
7151.5
Neodymium
1
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
Niobium
1
80.62
80.62
80.62
80.62
Phosphorus
1
590.62
590.62
590.62
590.62
Potassium
1
74175.2
74175.22
74175.22
74175.22
Ruthenium
1
133.98
133.98
133.98
133.98
Samarium
1
111.78
111.78
111.78
111.78
Scandium
1
8.22
8.22
8.22
8.22
Selenium
1
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
Silicon
1
8265.17
8265.17
8265.17
8265.17
Sodium
1
365380
365380
365380
365380
Strontium
1
2904.6
2904.6
2904.6
2904.6
Sulfur
1
386573
386572.9
386572.9
386572.9
Thorium
1
146.06
146.06
146.06
146.06
Thulium
1
19.09
19.09
19.09
19.09
Titanium
1
5.85
5.85
5.85
5.85
Zinc
1
102.11
102.11
102.11
102.11
Organics
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
1
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
Chloroform
2
7.49
9.05
10.61
11
Disulfoton
1
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
Methylene
chloride
1
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
MCPA
1
490
490
490
490
MCPP
1
490
490
490
490
Toluene
1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
Trichloroethane
1
143.925
143.925
143.925
143.925
Trichlorofluoromethane
1
54
54
54
54
TPHC
4
2130
3300
4890
5100
1,1­

Dichloroethane
2
5.54
6.5
7.46
7.7
1,1­

Dichloroethene
2
13.4
15
16.6
17
1,1,1­

Trichloroethane
1
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
Vinyl
chloride
4
20.8
25
34.1
38
1,4­

Dioxane
1
57.29
57.29
57.29
57.29
Data
Source
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfill
Point
Source
Category:

Mormon
Hollow
Site
Visit
Report,

October
4,

1994.
LANDFILL
CASE
14:

NORTHERN
STATES
POWER
WOODFIELD
ASH
MONOFILL
Ashland
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
NSP

Bayfront

Ash

Landfill
Lat:


46.584722


Long:


90.898611
Ashland

County,


WI.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

21,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s44837)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Northern
States
PowerWoodfield
Ash
Monofill
Physical
address:

Front
Street
Ashland,

WI
54806
Owner:

Northern
States
Power
(

NSP)
Ownership
status:

Captive
Facility
contact:

LeroyWilder,

Jr.,

Coordinator,

715­

839­

2691
State
license
no.:

03233
Landfill
type:

Industrial
(

Combustion
ash)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
with
drainage
blanket
and
geotextile
Number
of
phases:

Five
(

5)
Status:

Phases
1
and
2
are
active;

Phases
3
 
5
have
not
been
constructed
Liner
type:

5
feet
of
compacted
clay
Cover
type:

No
final
caps
or
covers
Operational
period:

March
1994
to
present
Permitted
wastes:

Wood
ash
and
coal
ash
from
NSP
plants
Overall
location
area:

240
acres
Permitted
area:

9
acres
Total
permitted
capacity:

255,000
yd
³
(

includes
waste
and
intermediate
cover)
Estimated
year
of
closure:

2009
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Surface
soils
are
clay
to
clay
loams
underlain
by
sandy
till
and
sandstone
bedrock
at
a
depth
250
feet
Depth
to
aquifer:

120
feet
(

confined)
Nature
of
waste:

Coal
and
wood
combustion
ash
from
NSP
Bay
Front
Plant
Average
annual
quantity
landfilled:

15,500
tons
Average
annual
volume
landfilled:

15,900
yd
³
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

67,184
tons
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

69,172
yd
³
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.05
L/

kg
Average
leachate
generation:

Approximately
975,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

30
inches
Year
Quantity
(

tons)

Volume
(

yd
)
3
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998*

7,833
12,079
14,119
18,000
15,153
12,841
13,421
12,835
16,300
13,775
*

as
of
October
1998
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Quantity
Data
Year
1995
1994
1996
1997
1998
Quantity
(

gallons)

12,000
834,000
2,196,000
978,000
863,000
Phase
Status
Liner
Operational
Period
1
Active
Active
5
feet
of
compacted
clay
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
2
3
March
1994
to
present
January
1994
to
present
Proposed
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
4.

Leachate
Composition
Data
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
PARAMETER
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

12
548.9
2603.5
3825.25
4345
100%
BOD
(

mg/

l)

26
3.5
22.3
157.5
210
100%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

12
120.7
489
1237
1435
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

12
56.7
309.5
2408.5
2700
100%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

11
69
97
299.5
359
100%
pH
(

su)

26
7.32
9.29
12.3975
12.44
100%
Specific
Conductance
(

umho/

cm)

23
242.848
3120
20090
23300
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

12
665.5
5401.453
8952.041
9740
100%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

26
6.1
80.4
303.25
431.2
100%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Arsenic
2
14
70
133
140
50%
Barium
7
35.472
140
258
300
100%
Boron
(

mg/

l)

12
0.01
0.17665
17.32
38
83%
Calcium
(

mg/

l)

3
19.76
28
42.4
44
100%
Chromium
2
4
20
38
40
50%
Fluoride
(

mg/

l)

2
0.172
0.26
0.359
0.37
100%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

12
0.246
1.625
7.825
11.4
100%
Lead
12
0
0
43.5
60
33%
Magnesium
(

mg/

l)

2
4.66221
5.52345
6.492345
6.6
100%
Manganese
5
8.448
54.5
71.8
73
100%
Mercury
7
0
0.2
2.46
3
57%
Phenol
1
24
24
24
24
100%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

21
0.02
2.7
4
4.4
95%
Potassium
(

mg/

l)

2
1807.9
3619.5
5657.55
5884
100%
Selenium
12
5.54
62
3260
7000
100%
Silver
7
0
0
14
20
14%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

2
264.4
510
786.3
817
100%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

2
264.4
510
786.3
817
100%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
LANDFILL
CASE
15:

WMWI
TIMBERLINE
TRAIL
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Quantity
Data
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
Quantity
(

gallons)

1,524,597
1,124,259
1,643,438
3,922,523
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
WMWI

Timberline

Trail

Landfill
Lat:


45.45364


Long:


91.35843
Rusk

County,


WI.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

21,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s41762)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

WMWI
Timberline
Trail
Landfill
Address:

P.

O.

Box
160
Bruce,

WI
54819
Owner:

Waste
Management
ofWisconsin
(

WMWI)
Ownership
status:

Commercial
Facility
contact:

Scott
O'Neill,

Site
Manager,

715­

868­

7000
State
license
no.:

03455
Landfill
type:

Municipal
SolidWaste
(

MSW)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
Number
of
phases:

Five
(

5)
Status:

Portions
of
phases
1
 
4
are
active
Liner
type:

4
feet
of
compacted
clay,

60
mil
geomembrane,

and
geotextile
Cover
type:

Daily
cover
of
petroleum
contaminated
soil
Estimated
year
of
closure:

2006
(

as
of
January
1997)
Operational
period:

January
5,

1995
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Municipal
(

MSW),

asbestos,

petroleum
contaminated
soil,
demolition,

coal
combustion
ash,

foundry,

and
other
non­

hazardous
wastes
Overall
location
area:

160
acres
Permitted
area:

27
acres
Total
permitted
capacity:

2,933,000
yd
Depth
to
aquifer:

25
feet
Special
practice:

Operate
a
bio­

remediation
facility
on­

site
(

store
bio­

waste
in
landfill
prior
to
treatment).
Nature
of
waste:

MSW,

asbestos,

petroleum
contaminated
soil,

demolition,
coal
combustion
ash,

foundry
and
other
non­

hazardous
wastes
including:

filters,

wood
blocks,

pre­

treatment
sludge
and
recycling
rejects
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

630,086
tons
(

as
of
January
1997)
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

777,495
yd
³
(

as
of
January
1997)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.024
L/

kg
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

2,054,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

32
inches
3
Phase
Status
Liner
Operational
Period
1
Active
Active
4
feet
of
compacted
clay,
60
mil
geomembrane,

and
geotextile
Active
Active
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
2
3
4
Jan.

1995
to
present
Nov.

1997
to
present
Nov.

1996
to
present
5
Proposed
Sept.

1998
to
present
Year
Quantity
(

tons)

Volume
(

yd
)
3
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
1995
1996
118,244
264,644
1997
76,859
183,834
232,590
357,830
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
4.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

7
290
825
2319.4
2410
100%
BOD
(

mg/

l)

49
273.6
2760
7165.6
8800
96%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

7
43.98
172
411.1
439
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

7
291.6
1720
6166
6340
86%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

7
283.2
1180
2679
2970
100%
Nitrate
Nitrogen
(

mg/

l)

3
0
0
0.0477
0.053
33%
Nitrogen,

Ammonia
(

mg/

l)

3
57.36
97.2
116.82
119
100%
Nitrogen,

Kjeldahl
(

mg/

l)

3
84.92
117
128.7
130
100%
pH
(

su)

49
5.362
6.26
6.906
7.04
100%
Specific
Conductance
(

umho/

cm)

49
794
2290
4160
4710
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

7
8.58
26.5
84.77
91.1
86%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

49
30.8
150
1692.4
20500
100%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Barium
6
0
328.5
5425
6870
67%
Beryllium
4
0
0
38.76
45.6
25%
Cadmium
7
0
1.2
3.32
3.5
57%
Chromium
6
14.45
35.45
1546.5
2020
100%
Cobalt
4
19.5
68.9
979.92
1140
75%
Copper
6
0
19.5
3919.5
5210
67%
Fluoride
(

mg/

l)

2
0.248
0.44
0.656
0.68
100%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

7
21.512
107
1693.4
2330
100%
Lead
5
0
0
184.8046
231
40%
Manganese
7
5328
21400
31680
32100
100%
Mercury
7
0
0
1.96
2.8
14%
Nickel
6
44.9
78.2
2377.5
3120
100%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

47
0.3332
0.92
3.814
5.76
100%
Potassium
(

mg/

l)

2
38.11
64.15
93.445
96.7
100%
Selenium
6
0
0
9.95
11.4
33%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

7
44.7
140
366.4
367
100%
Vanadium
4
0
31.25
3103.375
3640
50%
Zinc
6
62.75
643.5
9905
12600
100%
Organics
1,1,1­

Trichloroethane
7
4.2
32
123.8
140
86%
1,1­

Dichloroethane
7
0
25
60.9
63
57%
1,1­

Dichloroethylene
7
9
55
193.2
240
86%

2­

Hexanone
7
0
32
179
200
57%
4­

Methyl­

2­

pentanone
(

mibk)

7
50.4
190
247
250
86%
Acetone
7
126
2500
5930
6500
86%
Arsenic
6
4.15
10.9
75.3
88.9
83%
Benzene
7
0
0
4.4
5
29%
Carbon
Tetrachloride
7
0
0
28
40
14%
Chloroethane
7
0
10
25.8
30
57%
Chloromethane
7
0
0
2.8
4
14%
cis­

1,2­

dichloroethene
7
0
0
6.1
7
29%
Dichlorodifluoromethane
7
0
0
1.4
2
14%
Dichloromethane
7
144
720
1606
1900
100%
Diethyl
Phthalate
2
4.5
22.5
42.75
45
50%
Ethylbenzene
7
0
9
35.7
39
57%
Fluorotrichloromethane
7
0
0
25.1
35
29%
Methyl
Ethyl
Ketone
(

MEK)

7
566
4400
8470
8500
100%
Methyl
Tert­

butyl
Ether
(

MTBE)

7
0
0
3.7
4
29%
Naphthalene
7
0
0
5.6
8
14%
o­

dichlorobenzene
7
0
0
0.7
1
14%
p­

dichlorobenzene
7
0
0
2.4
3
29%
Phenol
2
338
610
916
950
100%
Phenolics
1
818
818
818
818
100%
Styrene
7
0
2
21
27
57%
Tetrachloroethylene
7
0
3
6.4
7
57%
Tetrahydrofuran
7
268
570
1156
1300
100%
Toluene
7
96.8
310
1088
1400
100%
Trichloroethylene
(

tce)

7
0
5
17.8
22
57%
Vinyl
Chloride
7
0
0
11.2
13
29%
Xylenes
7
22.8
68
178
190
86%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
Year
1994
1995
1996*
Quantity
(

gallons)

2,109,698
2,931,857
945,648
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Quantity
Data
*

Quantity
for
January
through
March
only
Year
Waste
Type
Quantity
(

tons)

Volume
(

yd
)
3
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
Foundry
waste
221,886
119,197
185,633
164,360
160,916
137,506
1994
1995
1996
Phase
Status
Liner
Operational
Period
Final
Cover
1A
Closed
Closed
5
feet
of
compacted
clay
Active
Active
1B
2
3A
April
1994
to
Late
1996
1995
to
Late
1998
August
1995
to
present
Late
1996
to
present
6
inches
compacted
clay,

30
inch
rooting
zone,
6
inch
top
soil
N/

A
3B
Proposed
1
foot
compacted
clay,

30
inch
rooting
zone,
6
inch
top
soil
N/

A
EstimatedWaste
Capacity
(

yd
)
3
274,000
267,800
792,000
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LANDFILL
CASE
16:

WAUPACA
FOUNDRY
MONOFILL
Waupaca
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
Waupaca
Foundry
Landfill
­
Lat:

44.353624
Long:

89.12038
Waupaca
County,

WI.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
20,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s43716)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Waupaca
Foundry
Monofill
Address:

Granite
Valley
and
Elm
Valley
Roads
Waupaca,

WI
54981
Owner:

Waupaca
Foundry,

Inc.
Ownership
status:

Captive
Facility
contact:

Jeffrey
Loeffler,

Environmental
Coordinator,

715­

258­

6611
State
license
no.:

03412
Landfill
type:

Industrial
(

Foundry)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
with
1­

foot
drainage
layer
and
geotextile
Number
of
phases:

Three
(

3)
Status:

Phase
2
and
3A
are
active
Liner
type:

5
feet
of
compacted
clay
Operational
period:

April
1994
to
present
Estimated
year
of
closure:

2004
(

as
of
Jan.

1997)
Waste
acceptance:

Accepts
only
high
volume
foundry
waste
fromWaupaca
Foundry
including
system
sand,

slag,

WWT
cakes,

core
sands,

cleaning
room
wastes
and
refractories
Permitted
area:

19.5
acres
Total
permitted
capacity:

1,493,000
yd
³
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Surface
soils
include
sandy
loams
underlain
by
granite
bedrock
at
100
feet
Special
practices:

In
August
of
1995,

began
re­

using
leachate
as
dust
suppressant
on
waste
prior
to
landfilling
Nature
of
waste:

Foundry
system
sand,

slag,

WWT
cakes,

core
sands,
cleaning
room
waste
and
refractories
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

526,716
tons
(

as
on
January
1997)
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

462,782
yd
³
(

as
of
January
1997)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.033
L/

kg
(

based
on
1995
data)
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

2,520,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

32
inches
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
4.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

17
180
230
284
300
100%
BOD
(

mg/

l)

17
0
0
14
26
47%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

17
156
230
548
740
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

17
26.4
42
101.2
110
100%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

17
280
350
570
610
100%
Nitrogen,

Ammonia
(

mg/

l)

3
0.098
0.25
0.34
0.35
100%
Nitrogen,

Kjeldahl
(

mg/

l)

4
0.748
1.15
2.745
3
100%
pH
(

su)

17
7.26
7.57
7.802
7.81
100%
Specific
Conductance
(

umho/

cm)

17
1860
2300
2880
3200
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

17
326
570
1200
1200
100%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

17
5.6
12
298
530
100%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Barium
3
35
55
67.6
69
100%
Cadmium
5
0
0
0.464
0.58
20%
Chromium
3
1.088
1.8
3.42
3.6
100%
Copper
3
4.48
8
17.9
19
100%
Cyanide
(

mg/

l)

3
0.003
0.015
0.0303
0.032
67%
Fluoride
(

mg/

l)

5
1.552
4.6
5.68
5.8
100%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

5
0.284
0.58
2.72
3.1
100%
Lead
17
0
3.4
49.2
94
82%
Manganese
5
372
800
1080
1100
100%
Nickel
3
1.72
2.2
5.35
5.7
100%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

3
0.102
0.17
0.404
0.43
100%
Potassium
(

mg/

l)

3
5.1
7.1
8.9
9.1
100%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

17
248
400
506
730
100%
Zinc
3
20.2
25
101.5
110
100%
Organics
1,3,5­

Trimethylbenzene
4
0
0
0.102
0.12
25%
Benzene
4
0
0
0.2805
0.33
25%
Dichloromethane
4
0
0
0.136
0.16
25%
Isopropylbenzene
4
0
0
0.187
0.22
25%
Methyl
tert­

butyl
Ether
(

mtbe)

4
0
0
0.2635
0.31
25%
Naphthalene
4
0
0
0.3145
0.37
25%

Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
LANDFILL
CASE
17:

WESTSIDE
RECYCLINGAND
DISPOSAL
LANDFILL
2Mile
Radius
1Mile
Radius
Westside
Landfill
­
Lat:

41.918709
Long:

85.710514
St.

Joseph
County,

MI.
This
computer
representation
has
been
compiled
by
the
U.

S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(

EPA)

fromsources
which
have
supplied
data
or
information
that
has
not
been
verified
by
the
the
EPA.

This
data
is
offered
here
as
a
general
representation
only,

and
is
not
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes
without
verification
by
an
independant
professional
qualified
to
verify
such
data
or
information.

The
EPA
does
not
guarantee
the
accuracy,

completeness,

or
timeliness
of
the
information
shown,
and
shall
not
be
liable
for
any
loss
or
injury
resulting
from
reliance
upon
the
information
shown.
Albers
Projection
LEGEND
Basin
Boundary
USGS
Catalog
Unit
County
Boundary
1990
Population
Density
Per
Sq
Mi
Under
10
10
­

100
100
­

1,000
1,000
­

3,000
3,000
­

6,000
6,000
­

10,000
10,000
­

20,000
Over
20,000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Miles
Produced
September
02,

1999
BySITEPLUS
(

Req
s45356)
U.

S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Name:

Westside
Recycling
and
Disposal
Facility
Address:

60050
Roberts
Road
Three
Rivers,

MI
49093
Owner:

Waste
Management
of
Michigan,

Inc.
Ownership
status:

Commercial
Facility
contact:

Eric
Shafer,

Site
Operator,

616­

279­

5444
EPA
ID:

MID985634583
Landfill
types:

Subtitle
D
and
Construction
and
Demolition
Debris
(

C&

D)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Network
of
drains
overlain
on
the
liners
in
each
landfill;

leachate
is
conveyed
through
force
mains
to
an
on­

site
above
ground
aeration
tank
Number
of
landfills:

Four
(

4)
Regulatory
permitting
controls:

Permitted
to
operate
a
Type
II
 
sanitary
waste
landfill
and
a
Type
III
construction
and
demolition
landfill
by
the
Michigan
Department
of
Natural
Resources
MIDNR)
Waste
acceptance:

Customer
must
prepare
a
waste
analysis
plan
and
perform
any
necessary
analysis
required
by
WMX
or
the
MIDNR
to
properly
identify
the
waste
stream
prior
to
acceptance
at
the
landfill
for
disposal
Overall
location
area:

220
acres
Permitted
area:

122.5
acres
Permitted
capacity
(

active
landfill):

7.8
million
yd
³
(

Type
II
Sanitary)
Run­

on/

off
controls:

1
foot
of
intermediate
clay
cover
placed
on
the
outside
slopes
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

30
feet
of
sand
and
gravel
Depth
to
aquifer:

16
feet
Nature
of
waste:

Cells
1
 
13:

municipal
waste,

non­

hazardous
industrial
waste,
asbestos,

sewage
sludge
(

Type
II)
C&

D
LF:

construction
and
demolition
waste
(

Type
III)
Average
annual
volume
landfilled:

Cells
8
 
13:

1,014,000
yd
³
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

Cells
1
 
4:

1,900,000
yd
³
Cells
8
 
13:

2,750,000
yd
³
C&

D
LF:

265,000
yd
³
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

3,650,000
tons
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.007
L/

kg
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

6,000,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

35.2
inches
Leachate
Quantity
Landfill
Type/

Area
Cell(

s)

Status
Liner
LCS
Cover
Operational
Period
Type
II
(

Sanitary)/
17
acres
Closed
Closed
None
None
2
feet
compacted
clay,
topsoil,

vegetative
cover
1960
 
1986
1
 
4a
Single
30­

mil
PVC
liner
LCS
1985
 
1994
Primary
LCS
and
leak
detection
system
4b
Not
yet
constructed
None
5
 
7
8
 
13
Active
N/

A
Not
yet
constructed
Composite
cap
of
PVC
liner
and
one
foot
compacted
clay
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
Type
II
(

Sanitary)/
32.5
acres
Double
30­

mil
PVC
liner
Primary
LCS
and
secondary
leak
detection
system
Type
II
(

Sanitary)/
67
acres
Double
composite
liner
Start:

July
1993
Type
III
(

C&

D)/
6
acres
Active
30­

mil
PVC
liner
LCS
None
Start:

1989
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
2.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
90th
MAX
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
COD
1
14
14
14
14
TDS
1
466
466
466
466
pH
2
7.003
7.015
7.027
7.03
Nitrate/

Nitrite
1
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Arsenic
1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Barium
1
92.2
92.2
92.2
92.2
Boron
1
97.4
97.4
97.4
97.4
Calcium
1
126000
126000
126000
126000
Chloride
2
7264.3
36213.5
65162.7
72400
Fluoride
1
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
Iron
1
4960
4960
4960
4960
Magnesium
1
28600
28600
28600
28600
Manganese
1
1600
1600
1600
1600
Potassium
1
3010
3010
3010
3010
Silicon
1
3270
3270
3270
3270
Sodium
1
15000
15000
15000
15000
Strontium
1
200
200
200
200
Sulfur
1
9850
9850
9850
9850
Zinc
1
16
16
16
16
Organics
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
2
60101.2
300500.1
540900.1
601000
Dalapon
1
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
Dicamba
1
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
Dichlorprop
1
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
Dinoseb
1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Methylbenzene
1
110
110
110
110
m­

xylene
1
51
51
51
51
p­

xylene
1
50
50
50
50
Picloram
1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Toluene
1
520
520
520
520
2,4­

D
1
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
2,4­

DB
1
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
2,4,5­

T
1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2,4,5­

TP
1
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
Data
Source
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfill
Point
Source
Category:

Westside
Site
Visit
Report,

May
26,

1995.
LANDFILL
CASE
18:

WINNEBAGO
COUNTY
SUNNYVIEW
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
Winnebago

County

Sunnyview

Landfill
Lat:


43.947004


Long:


88.539705
Winnebago

County,


WI.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

20,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s62229)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Winnebago
County
Sunnyview
Landfill
Address:

100West
County
Road
Y
Oshkosh,

WI
54901
Owner:

Winnebago
County
Ownership
status:

Municipal
Facility
contact:

Henry
Sommer,

Superintendent,

414­

424­

0793
State
license
no.:

03175
Landfill
types:

Municipal
SolidWaste
(

MSW)

and
Industrial
(

Paper
mill
sludge)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
Number
of
phases:

MSW/

sludge
landfill
 
Six
(

1
 
6)
Sludge
landfill
 
Four
(

A
 
D)
Status:

Phases
1
 
4
(

MSW/

sludge)

and
A
 
D
(

sludge)

are
active
Liner
type:

Double­

lined;

5
feet
and
3
feet
of
clay
with
a
granular
drainage
blanket
between
the
two
liners
Operational
period:

January
1989
to
present
Proposed
year
of
closure:

2010
Waste
acceptance:

MSW/

sludge
landfill
 
municipal,

commercial,

and
industrial
solid
waste
Sludge
landfill
 
pulp/

paper
mill
sludge
Overall
location
area:

213
acres
Permitted
area:

MSW/

sludge
landfill
 
74
acres
Sludge
landfill
 
28
acres
Cell
dimensions:

MSW/

sludge
landfill
 
400
feet
wide
by
1,100
feet
long
Sludge
landfill
 
200
feet
wide
by
800
feet
long
Total
permitted
capacity:

MSW/

sludge
landfill
 
7,783,500
yd
³
Sludge
landfill
 
1,260,100
yd
³
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Surface
soils
are
silty
clay
to
clay
underlain
by
dolomite
bedrock
Nature
of
waste:

Municipal,

commercial,

and
industrial
solid
waste
including:

garbage,

refuse,

combustible
and
noncombustible
demolition
wastes,

brush,

trees
and
pulp/

paper
mill
sludge
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

2,037,153
tons
(

as
of
January
1997)
Average
annual
quantity:

226,400
tons
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

3,287,010
yd
³
(

as
of
January
1997)
Average
annual
volume:

365,200
yd
³
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.029
L/

kg
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

16,484,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

29.5
inches
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data*
MSW
Pulp/

paper
mill
sludge
1,315,170
721,983
2,630,340
656,670
Wastes
Type
Cumulative
Quantity
(

tons)

Cumulative
Volume
(

yd
)
3
*

As
of
January
1997
Phase
Status
Liner
Design
Capacity
(

yd
)
3
1
 
4
Active
5
feet
of
clay
overlain
by
a
drainage
blanket
and
3
feet
of
clay
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
5
 
6
A
 
D
Landfill
Type
MSW/

sludge
Sludge
Constructed
Active
6,276,716
(

MSW)
641,937
(

sludge)
1,260,100
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

153
305
775
5018.4
8020
100%
BOD
(

mg/

l)

335
0
106
8047.5
22650
68%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

154
19
57.5
903.6
1260
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

262
0
24
5024.6
25402
69%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

155
457.2
1200
4683.9
9400
100%
Nitrite
plus
Nitrate
(

mg/

l)

103
0
1
8.69
14
83%
Nitrogen,

Ammonia
(

mg/

l)

109
0
0.14
265.6
333
67%
Nitrogen,

Kjeldahl
(

mg/

l)

103
0.262
0.94
327
400
90%
pH
(

su)

339
6.3
6.9
8
8.7
100%
Specific
Conductance
(

umho/

cm)

337
700
1740
7642
12000
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

154
3.13
150.5
1075
3400
92%
Sulfite
(

mg/

l)

10
0
0
1
1
20%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

336
7
55
329.25
716
96%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metal
Arsenic
16
0
16.5
167
500
69%
Barium
16
100
480
1400
1700
88%
Cadmium
20
0
0
11.25
16
20%
Chromium
16
0
0
74.75
89
13%
Copper
16
0
15
112.25
149
75%
Cyanide
(

mg/

l)

16
0
0.0055
0.067
0.067
56%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

131
0.21
10
201.5
322
99%
Lead
20
0
0
7.65
115
15%
Manganese
131
0.04
225
2760
6800
91%
Mercury
20
0
0
0.405
0.5
20%
Nickel
16
0
57
280
310
75%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

235
0.04
1.1
2.43
15
95%
Potassium
(

mg/

l)

16
34.5
98
187.25
239
100%
Selenium
16
0
0
9.235
34
13%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

105
15
51
998.4
58000
100%
Zinc
16
0
52.5
1042.5
1440
75%
Organics
1,1,1­

Trichloroethane
32
0
0
0.5835
21.2
9%
1,1­

Dichloroethane
32
0
0
3.965
6.4
13%
1,2,4­

Trimethylbenzene
10
0
0.425
19.2
21
50%
1,2­

Dichloroethane
32
0
0
0
0.42
3%
1,3,5­

Trimethylbenzene
10
0
0
8.13
8.4
30%
2,4­

Dimethylphenol
6
0
0
10.5
14
17%
2­

Methylnaphthalene
6
0
0
8.375
9.5
33%
Acetone
12
0
0
123.3
274
8%

Anthracene
6
0
0
1.5
2
17%
Benzene
32
0
0
5.665
11
19%
Benzoic
Acid
6
0
139
1155
1400
67%
Bis(

2­

ethylhexyl)

Phthalate
(

Dehp)

6
0
0
17.25
23
17%
Butylbenzene,

n­

10
0
0
1.9885
3.1
20%
Carbon
Disulfide
12
0
0
10.35
23
8%
Chlorobenzene
32
0
0
0.54
1.9
6%
Chloroethane
32
0
0
4.685
12
9%
Chloroform
32
0
0
0.72
83.4
6%
Chloromethane
32
0
0
0
4.7
3%
cis­

1,2­

Dichloroethene
30
0
0
0.936
1.1
13%
Cresols
4
306
845
1332.5
1400
100%
Dichlorodifluoromethane
24
0
0
14.45
18.4
8%
Dichloromethane
32
0
0
4.6
9.8
13%
Diethyl
Phthalate
6
0
2.85
78.75
100
50%
Di­

n­

butyl
Phthalate
6
0
0
5.1
6.8
17%
Endosulfan
Sulfate
4
0
0.0065
0.03425
0.038
50%
Endrin
4
0
0.00465
0.00981
0.0099
50%
Ethylbenzene
32
0
0
35.55
56
22%
Heptachlor
4
0
0
0.007735
0.0091
25%
Isophorone
6
0
0
5.925
7.9
17%
Isopropylbenzene
10
0
0
4.565
4.7
30%
m­

cresol
(

3­

methylphenol)

2
188
224
264.5
269
100%
Methyl
Tert­

butyl
Ether
(

mtbe)

26
0
0
1.725
3
8%
m­

xylene
2
0.34
1.7
3.23
3.4
50%
Naphthalene
30
0
0
56.15
69
27%
n­

propylbenzene
10
0
0
3.015
3.6
30%
o­

cresol
(

2­

methylphenol)

2
0.72
3.6
6.84
7.2
50%
o­

dichlorobenzene
32
0
0
0
0.3
3%
o­

xylene
2
0.18
0.9
1.71
1.8
50%
p­

dichlorobenzene
32
0
0
10.9
42
13%
Phenanthrene
6
0
0
6
8
17%
Phenol
6
0
0
129.225
170
33%
Phenolics
101
0
0.021
219
686
61%
p­

isopropyltoluene
10
0
1.8
9.84
12
50%
Styrene
26
0
0
0
0.8
4%
Tetrahydrofuran
12
0
0
750.1
771
33%
Toluene
32
0
0
80.4
300
41%
Trichloroethylene
(

tce)

32
0
0
169.75
508
13%
Vinyl
Chloride
32
0
0
1.725
5.9
13%
Xylenes
26
0
0
113.5
130
27%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
LANDFILL
CASE
19:

SUPERIOR
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
Superior

Landfill
Lat:


32.02723


Long:


81.26884
Chatham

County,


GA.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

21,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s61854)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Superior
Landfill
Address:

3001
Little
Neck
Road
Savannah,

GA
31419
Tel:

912­

927­

6113
Owner/

Operator:

Superior
(

aWaste
Management
Company
since
1991)
Ownership
status:

Commercial
Facility
contact:

Mike
Cooper,

912­

927­

6113
State
agency
contact:

Harold
Gillespie,
GA
Environmental
Protection
Division,
404­

362­

2692
EPA
ID:

GA0001896810
State
permit
no.:

025­

070D
Landfill
type:

Municipal
SolidWaste
(

MSW)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Sump/

riser
Number
of
cells:

8
(

upon
completion)
Status:

Only
1
active
cell
Liner
type:

Clay
and
synthetic
liners
(

geonet
also)
Cover
type:

6
inch
daily
cover
Operational
period:

March
1994
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Accepts
residential,

commercial,

and
industrial
waste
such
as
contaminated
soils
and
process
wastes,

asbestos,

POTW
sludges,

and
municipal
incinerator
ash
Overall
location
area:

742
acres
Permitted
area:

90
acres
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Tight,

fine
sand
underlain
with
an
8
 
14
inch
marine
clay
layer
Special
practices:

Currently
vertically
expanding
an
unlined
26­

acre
cell.
Nature
of
waste:

Residential
or
commercial
(

75
 
80%),

industrial
waste
(

20
 
25%)
Average
annual
quantity
landfilled:

Unknown
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

147,000
tons
(

March
 
October
1994)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.027
L/

kg
Annual
leachate
generation:

1,014,500
gallons
(

only
8
months
of
leachate
collection)
Average
annual
precipitation:

50.7
inches
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
1.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
90th
MAX
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
BOD
6
1090.00
1135.00
1340.00
1340.00
COD
6
1450.00
1520.00
1600.00
1600.00
TDS
6
2400.00
2420.00
2590.00
2590.00
pH
6
6.92
7.00
7.04
7.04
Nitrate/

Nitrite
6
1.07
1.15
2.02
2.02
Total
Organic
Carbon
(

TOC)

6
584.00
674.00
692.00
692.00
Total
Phenols
6
1230.00
1265.00
1310.00
1310.00
Total
Phosphorous
6
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
Total
Sulfide
(

Iodometric)

6
7.80
10.65
16.00
16.00
Total
Suspended
Solids
6
27.00
203.00
223.00
223.00
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Aluminum
6
55.70
74.10
92.50
92.50
Arsenic
6
13.60
16.60
16.80
16.80
Barium
4
0.20
0.30
0.33
0.33
Boron
6
1760.00
1790.00
1860.00
1860.00
Cadmium
6
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.10
Calcium
6
330000.00
333000.00
352000.00
352000.00
Chloride
6
264.00
277.50
283.00
283.00
Hexavalent
chromium
6
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.06
Fluoride
6
0.13
0.40
0.45
0.45
Iron
6
90600.00
93550.00
97700.00
97700.00
Lead
6
78.80
114.40
150.00
150.00
Magnesium
6
89200.00
90550.00
94500.00
94500.00
Manganese
6
4580.00
4615.00
4900.00
4900.00
Nickel
6
15.00
17.20
18.10
18.10
Potassium
6
73000.00
75300.00
76300.00
76300.00
Silicon
6
4280.00
4300.00
4430.00
4430.00
Sodium
6
261000.00
264500.00
275000.00
275000.00
Strontium
6
1370.00
1395.00
1440.00
1440.00
Sulfur
6
3630.00
4005.00
4470.00
4470.00
Yttrium
6
2.50
2.80
4.50
4.50
Zinc
6
10.20
13.10
19.60
19.60
Organics
Acetophenone
6
10.64
10.64
10.64
10.64
Alachlor
4
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Alpha­

Terpinol
6
43.16
44.36
47.20
47.20
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
6
15.40
69.00
73.00
73.00
Benzoic
Acid
6
6957.72
7411.37
8903.46
8903.46
Chlorothalonil
4
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
Diallate
A
4
2.16
4.56
6.95
6.95
Diallate
B
4
40.50
40.50
40.50
40.50
Diethyl
ether
6
84.759
89.643
98.142
98.142
Dioxathion
4
35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
Diphenyldisulfide
4
14.00
14.50
46.00
46.00
Disulfoton
4
14.00
14.50
46.00
46.00
Ethylbenzene
6
30.748
32.997
34.509
34.509
Gamma­

BHC
4
0.19
0.25
0.33
0.33
Hexamethylphosporamide
4
7.06
7.14
7.40
7.40
Hexane
extractable
material
4
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.00
Hexanoic
acid
6
4939.19
5842.33
6963.05
6963.05
MCPA
4
58.00
79.60
328.00
328.00
MCPP
4
73.00
243.50
933.00
933.00
Naled
4
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
p­

Cresol
6
677.59
767.40
935.41
935.41
Phenol
6
426.10
578.03
1228.84
1228.84
Phosphamidon
E
4
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.00
Propachlor
4
0.70
0.81
1.48
1.48
Terbuthylazine
7
10.10
11.30
12.50
12.50
Toluene
6
361.35
382.26
385.16
385.16
Trichlorofluoromethane
6
3182.72
3182.72
3182.72
3182.72
Tripropyleneglycol
methyl
ether
6
1138.16
1177.10
1328.03
1328.03
Vinyl
chloride
6
15.12
19.08
21.36
21.36
1,2­

Dibromo­

3­
chloropropane
10
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
1,4­

Dioxane
6
10.67
12.06
13.45
13.45
2­

Butanone
6
2792.24
3325.35
3597.29
3597.29
2­

Propanone
6
968.99
1592.17
2223.35
2223.35
2,4­

D
4
1.90
12.65
23.40
23.40
2,4­

DB
4
5.00
9.10
14.20
14.20
2,4,5­

T
4
0.30
0.60
0.80
0.80
2,4,5­

TP
4
0.30
11.50
40.10
40.10
4­

Chloro­

3­

Methylphenol
6
188.22
188.22
188.22
188.22
4­

4­

Methyl­

2­

pentanone
6
321.885
396.312
429.714
429.714
Data
Source
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfill
Point
Source
Category:

Superior
Sampling
Event,

May
25,

1995.
LANDFILL
CASE
20:

NORTHWOODS
SANITARY
LANDFILL
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
Northwoods

Sanitary
Lat:


45.4514


Long:


91.6433
Barron

County,


WI.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

28,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s51856)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Northwoods
Sanitary
Landfill
Address:

1750
24th
Street
Rice
Lake,

WI
54686­

8735
Owner:

Northwoods
Ownership
status:

Commercial
Facility
contact:

Gregory
Snider,

President,

715­

458­

4565
State
license
no.:

03212
Landfill
type:

Municipal
SolidWaste
(

MSW)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
with
1­

foot
drainage
blanket
Number
of
phases:

Three
(

3)
Status:

Phase
1
and
2
active
Liner
type:

5
feet
of
clay
and
60
mil
HDPE
geomembrane
Estimated
year
of
closure:

2011
(

as
of
January
1997)
Operational
period:

October
1993
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Municipal
solid
waste
Permitted
area:

10.5
acres
Total
permitted
capacity:

500,000
yd
³
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Sandstone/

quartzite
bedrock
overlain
by
loam
Depth
to
aquifer:

40
 
200
feet
Nature
of
waste:

Municipal
solid
waste
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

29,010
tons
(

as
of
January
1997)
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

136,521
yd
³
(

as
of
January
1997)
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:
Average
annual
leachate
generation:

1,300,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

32.2
inches
Exhibit
2.

Leachate
Volume
Data
Year
1995
1994
1996
1997
1998*
Volume
(

gallons)

1,298,900
1,231,200
1,320,900
N/

A
698,600
Year
Wastes
Type
Quantity
(

tons)

Volume
(

yd
)
3
Exhibit
1.

Waste
Data
MSW
0.25
4,151
13,737
1.17
19,534
64,646
1994
1995
1996
MSW
MSW
MSW
11,122
52,340
1993*
*

Began
operations
in
October
of
1993
*

Quantities
for
January
through
June
only.
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Composition
Data
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
PARAMETER
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

11
1400
2520
4406.5
4463
100%
BOD
(

mg/

l)

42
370.8
2165
6181.5
8580
100%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

11
379
773
1185
1220
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

11
1400
7600
13750
13800
100%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

11
1700
2330
3475
3890
100%
Nitrogen,

Ammonia
(

mg/

l)

11
99
263
375
398
100%
Nitrogen,

Kjeldahl
(

mg/

l)

3
264.2
325
328.6
329
100%
pH
(

su)

45
6.572
7.2
7.68
9.91
100%
Specific
Conductance
(

umho/

cm)

10
3670
6284
10235
11000
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

3
108.8
144
183.6
188
100%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

45
171.4
324
543.2
636
100%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Benzene
2
6.13
6.25
6.385
6.4
100%
Cadmium
3
0
0
1.26
1.4
33%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

11
75.2
268
350.5
387
100%
Manganese
3
6.832
11.2
2818.12
3130
100%
Mercury
3
0
0
0.0027
0.003
33%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

8
1.01
2.05
4.495
5.3
100%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

3
769.2
770
779.9
781
100%
Organics
1,1­

Dichloroethane
2
7.83
12.35
17.435
18
100%
1,2,4­

Trimethylbenzene
2
13.4
15
16.8
17
100%
1,3,5­

Trimethylbenzene
2
0.73
3.65
6.935
7.3
50%
cis­

1,2­

dichloroethene
1
38
38
38
38
100%
Ethylbenzene
2
58.1
62.5
67.45
68
100%
m,

p­

xylene
2
131
135
139.5
140
100%
Methyl
Tert­

butyl
Ether
(

MTBE)

2
0.97
4.85
9.215
9.7
50%
o­

xylene
2
49.1
49.5
49.95
50
100%
Toluene
2
292
460
649
670
100%
Vinyl
Chloride
2
0.97
4.85
9.215
9.7
50%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
LANDFILL
CASE
21:

VERNON
COUNTY
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
Vernon

County

Landfill
Lat:


43.519727


Long:


90.908213
Vernon

County,


WI.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

20,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s59502)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Vernon
County
Municipal
Landfill
Address:

Route
3
Box
247B
Viroqua,

WI
54665
Owner:

Vernon
County
Ownership
status:

Municipal
Facility
contact:

George
Nettum,

Chairman,

608­

634­

2900
State
license
no.:

03268
Landfill
type:

Municipal
SolidWaste
(

MSW)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
with
1­

foot
sand
drainage
layer
Number
of
phases:

3
Phases
composed
of
9
modules
Status:

Phase
1
(

modules
1
and
2)

 
active
Phase
2
(

module
1)

 
active
Liner
type:

Composite
(

5
feet
compacted
clay
and
60
mil
HDPE
geomembrane)
Operational
period:

October
1993
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Residential,

commercial,

non­

hazardous
industrial
wastes
from
Vernon
County
Overall
location
area:

158
acres
Permitted
area:

10
acres
Max
waste
depth:

25
feet
Total
permitted
capacity:

314,942
yd
³
(

283,448
yd
³
of
waste)
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Silty,

well­

drained
loess
underlain
by
clays,

pebbles
and
dolomite
bedrock
Depth
to
aquifer:

180
feet
Nature
of
waste:

Garbage,

refuse,

animal
carcasses,

asbestos,

and
demolition
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

25,804
tons
Total
cumulative
volume
landfilled:

50,825
yd
³
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.027
L/

kg
Average
leachate
generation:

186,176
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

32.5
inches
Phase
Status
Operational
Period
EstimatedWaste
Capacity
(

yd
)
3
1
Active
Active
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
2
3
October
1993
to
present
Early
1996
to
present
Late
1998
to
present
Proposed
Proposed
Modules
1
2
1
2
 
3
1
 
4
32,376
33,699
25,272
56,870
135,231
Exhibit
2.

Waste
Data
Petro
contaminated
soil
783
783
Year
Waste
Type
Quantity
(

tons)

Volume
(

yd
)
3
MSW
2,368
7,852
7,366
4,736
15,704
14,732
1994
1995
1996
7,435
14,870
1993
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
3.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
95th
MAX
%

Detect
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
Alkalinity
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

7
800
1300
3230
3500
100%
BOD
(

mg/

l)

26
2.5
55
745
940
92%
Chloride
(

mg/

l)

8
226.2
861
2422.5
3000
100%
COD
(

mg/

l)

9
127.94
850
1447.2
1500
100%
Hardness
(

mg/

l
as
CaCO3)

8
658
865
2530
3300
100%
Nitrite
plus
Nitrate
(

mg/

l)

5
0
0
31.868
39.7
40%
pH
(

su)

24
6.693
7.425
8.2325
8.96
100%
Specific
Conductance
(

umho/

cm)

23
338.8
1515.67
8548
8731
100%
Sulfate
(

mg/

l)

5
3.6
24.5
287.2
349
80%
TSS
(

mg/

l)

28
10.8
59.5
530.6
7400
96%
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Antimony
5
0
3.6
6.82
7.2
60%
Arsenic
5
15.04
22
56.6
58
100%
Barium
5
626
910
1596
1670
100%
Beryllium
5
0
0
3.2
4
20%
Cadmium
5
0
0
2
2.5
20%
Chromium
5
10.006
63
299
350
100%
Cobalt
5
0
0
38.29
46
40%
Copper
5
0
0
15
16
40%
Fluoride
(

mg/

l)

4
0.003
1.545
18.533
21.26
75%
Iron
(

mg/

l)

8
3.42
19
65.325
65.5
100%
Lead
4
0.508
3.845
11.25
12
100%
Manganese
4
1118
3650
29950
34300
100%
Mercury
5
0
0
3.2
4
20%
Nickel
4
16.2
59.5
128.75
140
75%
Phosphorus
(

mg/

l)

26
0.0935
0.4635
4.5
5.8
96%
Selenium
4
3.6
13
19.1
20
75%
Silver
4
0
0
1.955
2.3
25%
Sodium
(

mg/

l)

4
303.82
260410
562500
570000
100%
Vanadium
4
0
7
27.6
30
50%
Zinc
4
60.94
97.9
142.5
150
100%
Organics
1,1,1­

Trichloroethane
5
0
0
2.08
2.6
20%
1,1­

Dichloroethane
5
0
0
113.2
141
40%
1,2,4­

Trimethylbenzene
5
0
0
2.44
2.7
40%

1,2­

Dichloroethane
5
0
0
0.4
0.5
20%
1,3,5­

Trimethylbenzene
5
0
0
0.9
1
40%
Benzene
5
0
0
4.9
6
40%
Chloroethane
5
0
0
2.48
3.1
20%
Chloromethane
5
0
0
6.24
7.6
40%
cis­

1,2­

dichloroethene
5
0
0
4.56
5.7
20%
Ethylbenzene
5
0.6
3.4
5.72
6.1
80%
Isopropylbenzene
5
0
0
1.62
2
40%
m,

p­

xylene
5
0
1.3
7.82
8.9
60%
Methyl
Tert­

butyl
Ether
(

MTBE)

5
0
0
2.78
3.2
40%
Naphthalene
5
0
1.7
1.9
1.9
60%
o­

xylene
5
0.32
1.8
4.64
5.2
80%
p­

dichlorobenzene
5
0.08
1.2
7.04
8.1
80%
p­

isopropyltoluene
5
0
0
2.14
2.6
40%
Styrene
5
0
0
4.24
5.3
20%
Toluene
5
0.08
4
69.94
70
80%
Data
Source
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
File
review
conducted
by
SAIC
(

September
1999)
LANDFILL
CASE
22:

TANGIPAHOA
PARISH
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
2


Mile

Radius
1

Mile

Radius
Tangipahoa

Regional

Solid

Waste

Facility
Lat:


30.7003


Long:


90.575
S

t.


Helena

County,


LA.
This

computer

representation

has

been

compiled

by

the

U.

S.
Environmental

Protection

Agency

(

EPA)


from

sources

which

have
supplied

data

or

information

that

has

not

been

verified

by

the
the

EPA.



This

data

is

offered

here

as

a

general

representation
only,


and

is

not

to

be

used

for

commercial

purposes

without
verification

by

an

independant

professional

qualified

to

verify
such

data

or

information.



The

EPA

does

not

guarantee

the
accuracy,


completeness,


or

timeliness

of

the

information

shown,
and

shall

not

be

liable

for

any

loss

or

injury

resulting

from
reliance

upon

the

information

shown.
Albers

Projection
LEGEND
Basin

Boundary
USGS

Catalog

Unit
County

Boundary
1990

Population

Density

Per

Sq

Mi
Under

10
10


100
100


1,000
1,000


3,000
3

,000


6,000
6

,000


10,000
10,000


20,000
O

ver

20,000
0

0

.1
0

.2
0

.3
0

.4
0

.5
0

.6
0

.7
0

.8
0

.9
1
Miles
Produced

September

28,


1999
By

SITEPLUS

(

Req

s53978)
U.

S.


Environmental

Protection

Agency
Identification
Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
LandfilledWaste
Leachate
Quantity
Name:

Tangipahoa
Parish
Landfill
Address:

57510
Hano
Road
Independence,

LA
70443
Owner:

Tangipahoa
Parish
Council
Ownership
status:

Municipal
Facility
contact:

Buddy
Till,

Landfill
Manager,

504­

878­

6332
Charles
Hedges,

Consultant
(

Delta
Engineers)
NPDES
ID:

LA0078921
State
permitnNo.:

P­

0127
Landfill
type:

Municipal
SolidWaste
(

MSW)
Permitting
status:

Active
Type
of
LCS:

Standard
Number
of
cells:

Five
(

5)
Status:

Cell
4
is
active
Liner
type:

3­

feet
of
compacted
clay
(

cells
1
 
4)
Final
cover
type:

2­

feet
of
compacted
clay
(

temporary
site
and
cells
1
 
3)
Operational
period:

1981
to
present
Waste
acceptance:

Accepts
only
non­

hazardous
municipal
solid
waste
and
limited
amounts
of
construction
&

demolition
(

C&

D)

debris
Overall
location
area:

100
acres
Permitted
area:

44
acres
Cell
dimensions:

500
ft
long
by
700
ft
wide
by
40
ft
deep
(

cell
4)
Run­

on/

off
controls:

Run­

on
control,

run­

off
control
(

designed
for
25­

yr,

24­

hr
storm
event)
Underlying
geology/

soil
type:

Impervious
clay
Depth
to
aquifer:

3
feet
Nature
of
waste:

Municipal
or
commercial
non­

hazardous
solid
waste
(

70%),

yard
wastes
(

15%),

agricultural
waste
(

other
than
pesticides)

(

10%),

C&

D
debris
(

3%)

and
sewage
sludge
(

2%)
Average
annual
quantity
landfilled:

45,760
tons
Total
cumulative
quantity
landfilled:

569,264
tons
Liquid
to
solid
ratio:

0.007
L/

kg
Average
annual
quantity
generated:

1,092,000
gallons
Average
annual
precipitation:

66
inches
Exhibit
1.

Landfill
Construction
and
Controls
Phase
Status
Liner
Operational
Period
Final
Cover
Temporary
site
Closed
Naturally
occurring
clay
base
1
2
3
4
Active
3
feet
of
compacted
clay
1981
to
1984
1984
to
1986
1986
to
1988
1989
to
1993
1993
to
present
2
feet
of
compacted
clay
N/

A
Leachate
Quality
Exhibit
2.

Leachate
Composition
Data
PARAMETER
Concentration
(

ug/

l)
OBS
10th
50th
90th
MAX
PHYSICAL/

CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
BOD
2
131.4
153
174.6
180
COD
2
1109
1545
1981
2090
TDS
1
5400
5400
5400
5400
pH
(

su)

2
7
7
7
7
Nitrate/

Nitrite
2
1
1
1
1
Total
Phenols
2
127.6
146
164.4
169
Total
Phosphorus
2
5.3
6.5
7.7
8
Total
Sulfide
(

Iodometric)

1
76
76
76
76
TOC
2
168.8
208
247.2
257
TSS
2
5806
14470
23134
25300
TRACE
ELEMENTS
Metals
Aluminum
2
50380
111100
171820
187000
Arsenic
2
9.5
19.1
28.7
31.1
Barium
2
1208
1760
2312
2450
Beryllium
2
1.79
4.15
6.51
7.1
Boron
2
2550
3910
5270
5610
Cadmium
1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
Calcium
2
142500
184500
226500
237000
Cerium
1
1900
1900
1900
1900
Chloride
2
398.4
728
1057.6
1140
Chromium
2
98.36
210.2
322.04
350
Cobalt
2
49.7
50.9
52.1
52.4
Copper
2
67.7
138.5
209.3
227
Fluoride
2
1.1
1.5
1.9
2
Iron
2
100980
184100
267220
288000
Lanthanum
1
681
681
681
681
Lead
2
90.06
216.7
343.34
375
Magnesium
2
83990
99550
115110
119000
Manganese
2
2036
3620
5204
5600
Mercury
2
0.391
0.955
1.519
1.66
Neodymium
1
937
937
937
937
Nickel
2
103.92
148.4
192.88
204
Phosphorus
2
125400
223000
320600
345000
Silicon
2
63180
91100
119020
126000
Sodium
2
458500
792500
1126500
1210000
Strontium
2
736.6
787
837.4
850
Sulfur
2
11583
19635
27687
29700
Vanadium
2
174.4
476
777.6
853
Yttrium
3
106.68
397
583.4
630
Titanium
2
80.35
91.75
103.15
106
Zinc
1
1360
1360
1360
1360
Zirconium
1
124
124
124
124
Organics
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
2
652
2900
5148
5710
Biphenyl
1
200
200
200
200
Disulfoton
1
14
14
14
14
Ethylbenzene
2
15.5705
16.8325
18.0945
18.41
Hexane
extractable
material
1
26
26
26
26
Hexanoic
acid
1
20.834
20.834
20.834
20.834
MCPA
1
201
201
201
201
Methylene
chloride
1
10.686
10.686
10.686
10.686
OCDD
2
1238.33
5576.85
9915.37
11000
p­

cresol
2
22.4832
48.376
74.2688
80.742
Terbuthylazine
1
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
Toluene
2
37.5793
48.1845
58.7897
61.441
Tripropyleneglycol
methyl
ether
2
991.1637
1235.0985
1479.0333
1540.017
m­

xylene
1
13.803
13.803
13.803
13.803
1234678­

HPCDD
2
36.528
126.96
217.392
240
12
34678­

HPCDF
1
56
56
56
56
123678­

HXCDD
1
0.174
0.174
0.174
0.174
123789­

HXCDD
1
0.464
0.464
0.464
0.464
2­

Butanone
2
75.6861
90.9305
106.1749
109.986
2­

Propanone
2
105.1182
109.859
114.5998
115.785
2,4,5­

T
1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Data
Source
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfill
Point
Source
Category:

Tangipahoa
Site
Visit
Report,

February
4,

1994.
September
2000
5­
1
Draft
5.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benefield,
L.
D.;
J.
F.
Judkins;
and
B.
Weand.
Process
Chemistry
for
Water
and
Wastewater
Treatment.
Prentice­
Hall,
New
Jersey,
1982.

Chian,
E.
and
F.
DeWalle.
Evaluation
of
Leachate
Treatment
Volume
I:
Characterization
of
Leachate.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
September
1977.
EPA­
600/
2­
77­
186a.

Comans,
N.
J.
and
J.
A.
Meima.
"
Modelling
Ca­
Solubility
in
MDWI
Bottom
Ash
Leachates."
Environmental
Aspects
of
Construction
with
Waste
Materials.
Elsevier
Science,
1994.

Conner,
Jesse
R..
Chemical
Fixation
and
Solidification
of
Hazardous
Wastes.
Van
Nostrand
Reinhold,
New
York,
1990
Drever,
James
I.
The
Geochemistry
of
Natural
Waters,
Surface
and
Groundwater
Environments.
Prentice
Hall,
Inc.,
New
Jersey,
1997.

Gibbons,
Robert
D.;
David
Dolan;
Helen
Keough;
Kevin
O'Leary;
and
Rich
O'Hara.
A
Comparison
of
Chemical
Constituents
in
Leachate
from
Industrial
Hazardous
Waste
and
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills.
Presented
at
the
Fifteenth
Annual
Madison
Waste
Conference,
September
23­
24,
1992.
Department
of
Engineering
Professional
Development,
University
of
Wisconsin
­
Madison.

de
Groot,
G.
J,
Wijkstra,
J.,
Hoede,
D.,
and
van
der
Sloot,
H.
A.
"
Leaching
Characteristics
of
Selected
Elements
as
a
Function
of
the
Acidity
of
the
Contact
Solution
and
the
Liquid/
Solid
Ratio."
Environmental
Aspects
of
Construction
with
Waste
Materials.
Elsevier
Science,
1994.

H.
Ehrig.
"
Quality
and
Quantity
of
Sanitary
Landfill
Leachate."
Waste
Management
and
Research,
1,
53­
68.
1983.

J.
Frampton.
Leaching
Potential
of
Persistent
and
Bioaccumulative
Toxic
Substances
in
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills.
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1998.

G.
Farquhar.
"
Leachate:
Production
and
Characterization."
Canadian
Journal
of
Civil
Engineering,
16,
317­
325.
1989.

Fergusson,
J.
E.
Inorganic
Chemistry
and
the
Earth,
Chemical
Resources,
Their
Extraction,
Use
and
Environmental
Impact.
Pergamon
Press,
New
York,
1982.

Harris,
Daniel
C.
Quantitative
Chemical
Analysis.
W.
H.
Freeman
and
Co.,
New
York,
1991.
September
2000
5­
2
Draft
Huang,
O'Melia,
and
Morgan.
Aquatic
Chemistry,
Interfacial
and
Interspecies
Processes.
American
Chemical
Society,
Washington,
D.
C.,
1995.

ICF.
Construction
and
Demolition
Waste
Landfills.
Prepared
for
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste.
February
1995
draft
report.
EPA
530­
R­
95­
018;
NTIS
PB95­
208906.

Pavelka,
C.;
R.
C.
Loehr;
and
B.
Haikola.
"
Hazardous
Waste
Landfill
Leachate
Characteristics."
Waste
Management,
13(
8),
573­
580.
1993.

Pohland,
F.
and
S.
Harper.
Critical
Review
and
Summary
of
Leachate
and
Gas
Production
from
Landfills.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
August
1986.
EPA/
600/
2­
86/
073.

W.
Ross.
"
Factors
Influencing
the
Chemical
Characteristics
of
Landfill
Leachate."
Water
SA,
16(
4),
275.
October
1990.

van
der
Sloot,
H.;
L.
Heasman;
and
Ph.
Quevauviller.
Harmonization
of
Leaching/
Extraction
Tests.
Elsevier
Science,
1997.

Stephenson,
R.
and
J.
Blackburn.
The
Industrial
Wastewater
Systems
Handbook.
Lewis
Publishers,
1998.

Stumm,
W.
and
J.
Morgan.
Aquatic
Chemistry:
An
Introduction
Emphasizing
Chemical
Equilibria
in
Natural
Waters.
2nd
Edition.
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
1981.

Svavarsson,
G.
and
P.
Fauble.
Investigation
of
Groundwater
Impacts
at
Construction
and
Demolition
Waste
Landfills.
Presented
at
the
17th
International
Madison
Waste
Conference,
September
21
to
22,
1994,
Department
of
Engineering
Professional
Development,
University
of
Wisconsin­
Madison.

Townsend,
T.
Characterization
of
Leachate
from
Construction
and
Demolition
Waste
Landfills.
Florida
Center
for
Solid
and
Hazardous
Waste
Management,
State
University
System
of
Florida,
August
1998.
Report
No.
98­
4.

Wark,
K.
and
C.
Warner.
Air
Pollution:
Its
Sources
and
Control.
2nd
Edition.
Harper
&
Row,
1981.

WMX.
Construction
and
Demolition
(
C
&
D)
Landfill
Leachate
Characterization
Study.
December
1993.
September
2000
5­
3
Draft
Additional
Works
for
Further
Study
During
review
of
literature
for
this
report
several
authors
cited
reports
that
appeared
to
discuss
critical
issues
in
more
detail.
Such
sources
are
listed
below
and
represent
literature
that
can
be
obtained
and
reviewed
to
better
investigate
these
areas.

Baccini,
P.;
G.
Henseler;
R.
Figi;
and
H.
Belevi.
"
Water
and
Element
Balances
of
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills."
Waste
Management
and
Research,
5,
483­
499.
1987.

Ehrig,
H..
Microbial
Decomposition
in
Sanitary
Landfills
with
Different
Conditions
of
Operation.
EAS
81
 
5th
Eurpoean
Sewage
and
Refuse
Symposium
22,
26
June
1981.
(
Expected
to
discuss
certain
areas
of
MSW
aging
referenced
in
the
1983
work.)

Farquhar,
et
al.
"
Temporal
Characterization
of
MSW
Leachate."
Canadian
Journal
of
Civil
Engineering,
19,
668­
679.
1992.
(
Expected
to
continue
MSW
aging
research
described
in
the
1989
work.)

Francis,
A.
J.;
C.
J.
Dodge;
and
J.
B.
Gillow.
Nature,
356,
140­
142.
1992.
(
Expected
to
discuss
volatile
fatty
acids
and
their
influence
on
contaminant
leaching.)

Johannsen,
Ole
and
Dale
Carson.
"
Characterization
of
Sanitary
Landfill
Leachates."
Water
Research,
10,
1129­
1134.
1976.

Hem,
J.
D.
Study
and
Interpretation
of
the
Chemical
Characteristics
of
Natural
Water.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
Water
Supply
Paper
2254.
1992.
(
Expected
to
discuss
speciation
and
solubility
including
for
sulfides.)

McGinley,
P.
and
P.
Kmet.
Formation,
Characteristics,
Treatment,
and
Disposal
of
Leachate
from
MSW
Landfills.
Bureau
of
Solid
Waste
Management,
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Madison,
1984.
(
Expected
to
discuss
volatile
fatty
acids
and
their
influence
on
contaminant
leaching.)

Wigh,
Richard
J.
Comparison
of
Leachate
Characteristics
from
Selected
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Test
Cells."
Project
Summary.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
September
1984.
EPA­
600/
S2­
84­
124.
(
Expected
to
provide
additional
data
regarding
temporal
variability
of
MSW
leachate.)
*

Comprehensive
leachate
data
collection
program
September
2000
A­

1
DRAFT
APPENDIX
A.

REVIEW
OF
STATE
LANDFILL
LEACHATE
DATA
AVAILABILITY
State
Facility
Type
Contact
Data
Quality
Availability
AK
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Heather
Stockard
Solid
Waste
Management
Handful
of
LF's
collect
leachate.

Several
pages
of
data
in
each
quarterly
monitoring
reports
FOIA
AL
Non­

Hazardous
Andy
Baker
DEM/

Land
Division
No
reporting
requirement
Small
amount
of
data
for
over
200
facilities
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
Subtitle
C
Michael
Champion
DEM
­

Haz.

Waste
Section
No
reporting
requirement
and
very
limited
data
for
the
only
Subtitle
C
LF
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
AR
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Rhonda
Sharp
Poll.

Control
&
Ecology/

Office
of
Pub.
Affairs
Data
on
file
at
office
but
no
published
reports
or
electronic
formats,

~

50
LF's
and
1
Subtitle
C
LF
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
AZ
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

Technical
Staff
Solid
Waste
Section
Limited
monitoring
data
but
not
compiled
24
hour
notice
for
file
review
CA
Non­

Hazardous
Bart
Simmons
State
requires
leachate
data
from
LF's
To
receive
published
data
Subtitle
C
Bill
Veile
EPA/

Hazardous
Waste
State
requires
monthly
leachate
recovery
reports
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
CO
Non­

Hazardous
Glenn
Mallory
Solid
Waste
Management
Division
State
collects
data
on
five
LF's
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
State
Facility
Type
Contact
Data
Quality
Availability
*

Comprehensive
leachate
data
collection
program
September
2000
A­

2
DRAFT
Subtitle
C
Tanell
Roberts
Haz.

Materials
&

Waste
Mgmt.

Division
State
does
not
collect
leachate
data
N/

A
CT
Ash
(

no
Subtitle
C)

John
England
DEP
State
requires
quarterly
reports
for
three
ash
LF's
with
data
on
file
at
office
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
DE
Non­

Hazardous
Dennis
Murphy
Solid
Waste
Branch
Leachate
data
from
five
LF's
in
electronic
format
Data
through
Delaware
Solid
Waste
Authority
and
need
written
request
(

FOIA)
Subtitle
C
Alex
Ritberg
Hazardous
Waste
Branch
Collect
data
from
one
double­

lined
LF
on
bi­

annual
basis
FOIA
or
side­

step
FOIA
by
copying
thru
EPA
Region
3
FL
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

Lisa
Martin
DEP/

Bureau
of
Solid
and
Hazardous
Waste
State
requires
leachate
reporting,

279
active
nonhazardous
LF's
with
178
of
this
total
being
C&

D
LF's
To
receive
~

10
mb
of
data
in
electronic
format
and
1
1993
report
GA
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

Pete
Dasher
DNR/

Solid
Waste
Program
Data
on
file
for
only
a
handful
of
the
state's
~

100
LF's;

overall
no
reporting
requirement
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
Municipal
Harold
Gillespie
DEP
(

Land
Protection)

Limited
data
(

only
some
groundwater
data);

stated
that
the
best
source
of
data
was
the
facility
On­

site
file
review
at
regional
office
HI
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
George
Tabil
Office
of
Solid
Waste
Data
submitted
if
specified
in
permit,

13
active
and
15
closed
LF's
Contact
each
LF
for
data
State
Facility
Type
Contact
Data
Quality
Availability
*

Comprehensive
leachate
data
collection
program
September
2000
A­

3
DRAFT
IA
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

Doc
Holiday
Leachate
data
available
by
permit
number
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
ID
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Phil
Ferguson
DEQ
State
collected
limited
leachate
data
FOIA
IL
Non­

Hazardous
Sar
Rastaberg
EPA/

Landfills
Section
Data
collected
by
state
but
no
published
reports/

summaries
or
electronic
formats,

database
to
be
constructed
within
the
year
FOIA
Subtitle
C
Sean
Chisek
EPA/

Haz.

Waste
State
does
not
require
leachate
monitoring
until
post­

closure,

3
Subtitle
C
LF's
Contact
each
LF
for
limited
data
IN
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Ghodrat
Hiadari
DNR/

Solid
Waste
Report
leachate
data
quarterly
or
annually
but
not
compiled,

do
not
require
leachate
characterization,
~

50
Non­

Haz
LF's
and
1
closed
Subtitle
C
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
KS
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

Joe
Kronan
DHE/

Bureau
of
Waste
Mgmt.

Annual
analysis
reporting,

reports
on
file
at
office
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
Call
Phil
Rosewicz
for
additional
information
KY
Non­

Hazardous
(

No
Subtitle
C)

Mary
Gowens
DEP/

Division
of
Waste
Management
Require
quarterly
reports
which
include
leachate
volume
and
characterization
data,

33
LF's
Contact
Maria
Wood
at
(

502)
564­

6716
ext.

210
for
file
review
or
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
*

LA
Non­

Hazardous
Brett
LeBlanc
DEQ/

Solid
Waste
Division
Require
annual
leachate
data
reports
for
213
parameters,

currently
only
one
report
and
no
data
in
electronic
format
To
receive
LF
report
Copy
additional
data
at
office
State
Facility
Type
Contact
Data
Quality
Availability
*

Comprehensive
leachate
data
collection
program
September
2000
A­

4
DRAFT
Subtitle
C
Narendra
Dave
DEQ/

Haz.

Waste
Division
Two
active
LF's
required
to
report
quarterly,

files
contain
large
amount
of
data
but
no
published
reports
or
electronic
formats
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
MA
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Abdul
Turray
DEP
Contact
initiated
C&

D
Mark
Haley
DEP
­

Western
Region
Hardcopy
files
for
each
landfill
within
each
region
including
limited
waste
and
leachate
quality
On­

site
file,

however,

was
able
to
fax
limited
data
regarding
one
specific
landfill
MD
Non­

Hazardous
Edward
Dexter
Department
of
Environment/

Solid
Waste
Require
annual
reporting
of
leachate
volumes
and
characterization
data
for
the
43
LF's,

files
date
back
to
early
1980'

s,

files
are
not
organized
Send
written
request
to
Public
Information
Acts
Section
(

FOIA)
Subtitle
C
Amin
Yazdanian
Department
of
Environment/

Hazardous
Waste
Require
semi­

annual
data
reports,

no
active
and
2
closed
LF's
FOIA
ME
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Bill
Butler
DEP
Contact
initiated
*

MI
Non­

Hazardous
Becky
Kocsis
DEQ/

Waste
Management
Quarterly
reporting
required,
Districts
(

10
total)

hold
leachate
data
Send
written
requests
(

and
in
some
cases
need
FOIA)

to
district
offices
­

method
varies
from
district
to
district
State
Facility
Type
Contact
Data
Quality
Availability
*

Comprehensive
leachate
data
collection
program
September
2000
A­

5
DRAFT
*

Subtitle
C
Dee
Montgomery
DEQ/

Waste
Management
Annual
reporting
required
since
1982,

data
centralized
and
on
file,

leachate
data
focuses
on
characterization,

wide
range
of
facilities
­
petroleum,

chemical
manufacturing,

auto,
commercial
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
*

MN
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Shelly
Burman
Pollution
Control
Agency/

Envi.
Outcomes
Leachate
reporting
data
required
containing
constituent
concentrations
To
receive
leachate
data
in
report
format
*

MO
Non­

Hazardous
Tom
Roscetti
DEQ/

Solid
Waste
Mgmt.
Program
No
longer
require
leachate
data
reports,

some
of
43
LF's
data
on
file
at
office
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
Subtitle
C
Rob
Morrison
DEQ/

Haz.
Waste
Mgmt.

Program
Require
reporting
from
the
only
active
LF,

also
office
has
data
for
at
least
2
more
closed
LF's,

data
not
compiled
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
MS
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Milton
Brumfield
DEQ/

Off
of
Poll.

Control
Leachate
data
(

volumes
and
constituents)

reported
monthly
if
required
by
permit,

data
entered
into
USEPA
PCS
database,

approximately
20
Subtitle
D
and
1
Subtitle
C
On­

site
file
review
and
copy,
Subtitle
C
data
at
LF
MT
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Pat
Crowley
Office
of
Solid
Waste
Program
Limited
data
because
few
LF's
collect
leachate
data,

not
published
or
electronic
On­

site
file
review
and
copy,
soon
to
be
compiled
NE
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

Ralph
Martin
DEC/

Land
Quality
Div.

Volume
and
constituent
data
on
file
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
State
Facility
Type
Contact
Data
Quality
Availability
*

Comprehensive
leachate
data
collection
program
September
2000
A­

6
DRAFT
NV
Munic.

Ed
Wojcik
Clark
County
Health
District
State
has
only
one
LF
generating
leachate
(

Apex),
Clark
County
collects
leachate
data
on
this
LF,

data
not
compiled
in
report
or
electronic
format
Send
written
request
to
Records
Office
($

0.60/

pg)

or
call
for
file
review
appointment
Subtitle
C
Greg
Lovato
DEP
State
collects
data
on
the
only
HW
LF
(

US
Ecology),

Quarterly
reporting
since
4/

97,

all
leachate
is
F039,

on
file
at
office
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
or
send
written
request
*

NH
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

David
Russo
Solid
Waste
Section
Leachate
data
required
monthly
from
approximately
eight
LF's
Contact
Ariel
Parent
at
(

603)
271­

2900
in
the
Public
Information
Office
for
file
review
*

NJ
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Gary
Torres
Industrial
Users
Unit
Elenaor
Kurkoski
LF
Coord
NP
Source
State
has
database
of
leachate
data
since
1993
of
non­

urban
facilities,

not
much
QA/

QC
documentation,

hard
to
link
waste
and
leachate
Have
old
data
integrated
in
all
NJPDES
monitoring,

new
data
goes
to
POTW,

she
will
try
and
identify
new
cells
for
case
study.

Alternatively
contact
Bureau
of
Permits
Mgmt.

for
archival
data
NM
Non­

Hazardous
(

No
Subtitle
C)

Jerry
Bober
Environment
Dept./

Solid
Waste
Bureau
No
data
­

reporting
not
required
N/

A
NY
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Robert
Bhenof
Contact
initiated
NC
Contact
initiated
State
Facility
Type
Contact
Data
Quality
Availability
*

Comprehensive
leachate
data
collection
program
September
2000
A­

7
DRAFT
ND
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Kevin
Solie
Division
of
Waste
Mgmt.

Some
data
with
permit
files
Send
letter
requesting
data
to
Division
Director
or
copy
at
office
*

OH
Non­

Hazardous
Annette
Dehavilland
DEQ/

Solid
&

Infectious
Waste
Division
Require
annual
data,

setting
up
database
in
next
few
years,

no
published
data
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
Subtitle
C
Shannon
Neighbors
DEQ/

Northwest
District
Office
Office
requires
the
only
Subtitle
D
LF
(

Envirosafe)
in
the
state
to
report
quarterly,

80
to
90%

K061
waste
To
receive
data
OK
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Don
Barrett
DEQ/

Waste
Mgmt.

Div.

Only
1
Subtitle
C
LF
in
state,

require
quarterly
reporting
of
leachate
data,

raw
data
including
characterization
and
volumes
on
file
at
office,

no
reporting
requirement
and
limited
data
for
40+
nonhazardous
LF's
FOIA
or
file
review
at
$

0.15/

pg
OR
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Bruce
Decelye
Waste
Mgmt.
Division
(

Salem
Region)

Salem
regional
office
collects
substantial
amounts
of
leachate
data
which
is
subsequently
entered
into
USEPA
Office
of
Water's
STORET
database
(

probably
groundwater,

not
leachate,

data)

FOIA
*

PA
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Terry
Killian
Land
Recycling
&

Waste
Mgmt.

Chemical
analysis
data
on
file
from
~

75
LF's,
several
Subtitle
C
LF's
but
no
commercial
facilities
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
*

RI
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

Chris
Schaffler
Waste
Management
Data
collected
quarterly
from
six
LF's,

one
LF
manages
80%

of
state
waste
Contact
Technical
Assistance
at
(

401)

222­

6822
for
file
review
and
send
request
in
writing
State
Facility
Type
Contact
Data
Quality
Availability
*

Comprehensive
leachate
data
collection
program
September
2000
A­

8
DRAFT
SC
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
John
Litton
Dept.

of
Health
and
Environmental
Control
1
Subtitle
C
LF
with
limited
leachate
data
SD
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

Rassool
Ahadi
Waste
Mgmt.
Program
Data
not
collected
by
state
Contact
each
facility
for
leachate
data
TN
Contact
initiated
TX
Non­

Hazardous
Arten
Avakian
TNRCC/

Municipal
Solid
Waste
No
reporting
requirement
and
no
central
repository,
limited
data
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
Subtitle
C
Terese
Jimenez
TNRCC/

Industrial
&
Haz.

Waste
Data
held
by
each
LF
group,

no
centralized
system
and
no
published
reports
or
databases
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
UT
Non­

Hazardous
Philip
Burns
Division
of
Solid
&

Haz.
Waste
Limited
data
with
only
one
LF
(

Salt
Lake
County)
analyzing
leachate,

considered
atypical
leachate
Contact
Salt
Lake
County
LF
directly
for
leachate
analysis
Subtitle
C
Ed
Costomiris
Division
of
Solid
&

Haz.
Waste
Limited
data
available
but
no
reports
or
databases
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
VT
Contact
initiated
State
Facility
Type
Contact
Data
Quality
Availability
*

Comprehensive
leachate
data
collection
program
September
2000
A­

9
DRAFT
VA
Subtitle
D
&
monofills
Hassan
Vakili
DEQ/

Waste
Program
No
leachate
sampling
requirements
for
~

80
LF's,
no
database
or
published
reports
Examine
permit
and
then
obtain
data
from
regional
offices
C&

D
Katherine
Glass
DEQ
Roanoke
Regional
office
No
database
exists;

only
data
required
to
report
and
available
in
permitting
documents
including:
waste
quantities
and
unit
characteristics.

Little
to
no
leachate
quality
data.

File
review
at
regional
office
WA
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Kip
Eagles
Department
of
Ecology/

Solid
Waste
Office
does
not
collect
data,

County
Health
Departments
collect
non­

hazardous
LF
data
N/

A
WV
Non­

Hazardous
(

no
Subtitle
C)

Greg
Rode
Water
Resources
State
does
not
collect
leachate
data,

limited
data
possibly
included
in
USEPA's
PCS
database
On­

site
file
review
and
copy
*

WI
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Jack
Connelly
DNR/

Waste
Management
Alt.

Diane
Stocks
Semi­

annual
reporting
required,

very
extensive
database
of
leachate
quality
data
from
1970'

s
to
present,

2
reports
with
leachate
data
To
receive
two
reports
containing
leachate
data,
possible
to
query
extensive
database
by
site
or
leachate
type
but
need
written
request
WY
Hazardous
and
Non­

Hazardous
Ken
Schreuder
Solid
&

Haz.

Waste
Division
State
currently
has
no
leachate
data
N/

A
September
2000
B­
1
DRAFT
1
APPENDIX
B.
RELEVANT
CONVERSION
FACTORS
Tons/
Cubic
Yards
Conversion
Sheet*
(
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
permitting
material)

1.
Municipal
solid
waste
As
delivered
Domestic
425
Commercial
375
Industrial
300
Bulky
400
Trees
and
brush
300
Demolition
1,250
Liquids
8.34
lbs/
gal
Compacted
in
place
1,000
Facility
receiving
only
demolition
waste
1,400
2.
Municipal
wastewater
sludge
8.34
lbs/
gal
3.
Municipal
incinerator
ash
As
delivered
­
uncompacted
1,500
In
field
­
compacted
2,700
4.
Pulp
and
papermill
sludge
As
delivered
­
uncompacted
1,800
In
field
­
compacted
2,200
5.
Utility
ash
­
fly
and
bottom
As
delivered
­
uncompacted
2,200
In
field
­
compacted
2,400
6.
Foundry
wastes
As
delivered
­
uncompacted
2,600
In
field
­
compacted
3,000
*
units
are
lbs./
cu
yd
unless
otherwise
noted
September
2000
B­
1
DRAFT
1
APPENDIX
B.
RELEVANT
CONVERSION
FACTORS
Tons/
Cubic
Yards
Conversion
Sheet*
(
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
permitting
material)

1.
Municipal
solid
waste
As
delivered
Domestic
425
Commercial
375
Industrial
300
Bulky
400
Trees
and
brush
300
Demolition
1,250
Liquids
8.34
lbs/
gal
Compacted
in
place
1,000
Facility
receiving
only
demolition
waste
1,400
2.
Municipal
wastewater
sludge
8.34
lbs/
gal
3.
Municipal
incinerator
ash
As
delivered
­
uncompacted
1,500
In
field
­
compacted
2,700
4.
Pulp
and
papermill
sludge
As
delivered
­
uncompacted
1,800
In
field
­
compacted
2,200
5.
Utility
ash
­
fly
and
bottom
As
delivered
­
uncompacted
2,200
In
field
­
compacted
2,400
6.
Foundry
wastes
As
delivered
­
uncompacted
2,600
In
field
­
compacted
3,000
*
units
are
lbs./
cu
yd
unless
otherwise
noted
September
2000
C­
1
Draft
APPENDIX
C.
L/
S
RATIOS
AND
LEACHATE
GENERATION
RATES
REPORTED
IN
LITERATURE
Data
summary:
Readily
available
articles
from
the
literature
were
searched
to
identify
information
regarding
leachate
generation
rates
from
actual
landfills.
Typically,
three
pieces
of
data
were
required
to
calculate
a
L/
S
ratio
or
a
normalized
leachate
generation
rate:
(
1)
total
quantity
of
leachate
generated
in
a
period
of
time
(
e.
g.,
annually),
(
2)
landfill
area,
and
(
3)
waste
volume
or
average
depth.
Five
articles
were
found
with
sufficient
data
to
calculate
one
or
more
of
these
parameters.
All
focused
on
MSW
landfills.

°
Eighteen
L/
S
ratios
from
six
references
are
available.
The
median
of
the
reported
values
is
approximately
0.03/
yr;
the
range
is
from
0.003
to
1.91/
yr.

°
Eight
normalized
leachate
generation
rates
from
three
data
sources
are
also
available.
The
median
of
these
values
is
approximately
130
gal/
ac­
d;
the
range
is
27
to
620
gal/
ac­
d.

These
data
serve
as
a
way
to
compare
the
Office
of
Water
data
to
"
actual"
cases.
Additionally,
they
provide
a
way
to
identify
trends
in
the
data.
Trends
observed
from
these
data
sources
are
as
follows:

°
The
highest
L/
S
ratios
(
0.5
to
2/
yr
from
Reference
1)
are
generated
from
relatively
small
quantities
of
waste,
no
more
than
350
MT.
In
Reference
5,
the
highest
L/
S
ratio
was
also
generated
from
the
smallest
landfill.
Very
high
leachate
generation
rates
would
otherwise
be
required
for
large
quantities
of
waste.

°
Operational
status
was
specified
from
only
one
data
source
(
Reference
2),
which
presented
data
on
two
closed
landfills.
The
site
with
the
synthetic
cap
generated
less
leachate
than
the
site
with
only
a
clay
cap
(
130
versus
210
gal/
ac­
d).
Other
references
did
not
specify
if
the
landfill
being
studied
was
active
or
closed
so
further
analysis
would
be
difficult.

Reference
1:
Richard
J.
Wigh,
"
Comparison
of
Leachate
Characteristics
from
Selected
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Test
Cells,"
Project
Summary.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
September
1984.
EPA­
600/
S2­
84­
124.

Data:
Four
test
cells
had
measurement
data,
giving
L/
S
ratio
directly
(
L/
S:
annual
leachate
generation
[
L/
yr]
divided
by
mass
of
dry
waste
in
landfill
[
kg]).
The
tests
were
conducted
in
Boone
County
KY,
Sonoma
County
CA,
and
Cincinnati
OH
using
municipal
solid
waste.
Cell
1
(
KY):
L/
S=
0.57/
yr,
mass
of
refuse=
286,000
kg,
maximum
depth
of
2.56
m
Cell
2
(
CA):
L/
S=
1.91/
yr,
mass
of
refuse=
352,000
kg,
maximum
depth
of
2.62
m
Cell
3
(
KY):
L/
S=
0.58/
yr,
mass
of
refuse=
2,113
kg,
maximum
depth
of
2.56
m
Cell
4
(
OH):
L/
S=
0.99/
yr,
mass
of
refuse=
1,855
kg,
maximum
depth
of
2.4
m
Precipitation:
The
average
rainfall
at
the
Kentucky
and
Ohio
sites
is
41
inches
per
year.
The
average
rainfall
at
the
California
site
is
30
inches
per
year.
September
2000
C­
2
Draft
Reference
2:
Nancy
Ragle,
John
Kissel,
Jerry
Ongerth,
Foppe
DeWalle.
"
Composition
and
Variability
of
Leachate
from
Recent
and
Aged
Areas
within
a
Municipal
Landfill."
Water
Environment
Research
67:
238­
242
(
March/
April
1995).

Data:
Two
sites
had
data,
both
from
a
MSW
landfill
near
Seattle
WA.
One
site
was
"
old"
and
one
was
"
new."
At
these
sites
the
leachate
generation
rate
and
L/
S
ratio
were
calculated
from
the
available
data.
Old
site:
L/
S=
0.0047/
yr,
L=
1094
L/
hr,
area
is
21.8
ha,
mass
of
refuse
2.04x106
ton,
unlined
with
clay/
membrane
cap.
Leachate
generation
rate
is
130
gal/
ac­
d.
New
site:
L/
S=
0.0052/
yr,
L=
3409
L/
hr,
area
is
41.3
ha,
mass
of
refuse
5.7x106
ton,
synthetic
liner
and
leachate
collection
system
with
clay
cap.
Leachate
generation
rate
is
210
gal/
ac­
d.

Precipitation:
The
rainfall
at
the
study
location
was
reported
as
54
inches
per
year.

Reference
3:
Ole
Johannsen
and
Dale
Carson,
"
Characterization
of
Sanitary
Landfill
Leachates."
Water
Research
10:
1129­
1134
(
1976).

Data:
One
site
had
data,
a
MSW
landfill
near
Seattle
WA,
which
may
or
may
not
be
the
same
one
identified
in
reference
2.
The
leachate
generation
rate
and
L/
S
ratio
were
calculated
from
the
available
data.
L/
S=
0.096/
yr,
L=
20,000
m3/
month,
area
is
120
ha,
volume
of
refuse
is
2.5
x106
m3,
maximum
fill
height
is
15
m.
Leachate
generation
rate
is
590
gal/
ac­
d.

Precipitation:
The
rainfall
at
the
study
location
was
reported
as
49
inches
per
year.

Reference
4:
P.
Baccini,
G.
Henseler,
R.
Figi,
and
H.
Belevi,
"
Water
and
Element
Balances
of
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills,"
Waste
Management
and
Research
5:
483­
499
(
1987).

Data:
Several
sites
were
investigated
and
leachate
generation
rates
developed
for
MSW
landfills.
L/
S
ratios
were
approximately
0.025
to
0.05/
yr
(
mass
water
per
mass
MSW).
Leachate
generation
rates
were
not
given.

Precipitation:
Not
presented.

Reference
5:
James
Lu,
Bert
Eichenberger,
Robert
Steams.
Leachate
from
Municipal
Landfills:
Production
and
Management.
Noyes
Publications,
Park
Ridge
NJ,
1985.

Data:
Five
MSW
landfill
sites
were
investigated;
some
of
the
landfills
contained
mixtures
of
industrial
wastes
(
no
more
than
30
percent).
Waste
volumes,
L/
S
ratios,
and
leachate
generation
rates
had
to
be
calculated
from
available
data.
Site
1:
L/
S=
0.0033/
yr,
refuse
volume
(
est)=
3.09x106
yd3,
average
depth
of
33
ft,
58
acre.
Leachate
generation
rate
is
100
gal/
ac­
d.
Site
2:
L/
S=
0.0065/
yr,
refuse
volume
(
est)=
0.81x106
yd3,
average
depth
of
20
ft,
25
acre.
Leachate
generation
rate
is
120
gal/
ac­
d.
Site
3:
L/
S=
0.034
to
0.073/
yr,
refuse
volume
(
est)=
32,000
yd3,
average
depth
of
20
ft,
1
acre.
Leachate
generation
rate
is
620
gal/
ac­
d.
Site
4:
L/
S=
0.0038
to
0.0092/
yr,
refuse
volume
(
est)=
0.14x106
yd3,
average
depth
of
8
ft,
11
acre.
Leachate
generation
rate
is
27
gal/
ac­
d.
Site
5:
L/
S=
0.0041
to
0.017/
yr,
refuse
volume
(
est)=
0.23x106
yd3,
average
depth
of
20
ft,
7
acre.
Leachate
generation
rate
is
74
gal/
ac­
d.

Precipitation:
Not
presented.
September
2000
C­
3
Draft
Reference
6:
"
Management
of
Used
Fluorescent
Lamps:
Preliminary
Risk
Assessment,"
Final
Report.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
May
14,
1993.

Data:
Report
presented
data
on
waste
input
and
leachate
generation
for
an
MSW
landfill
sampled
by
NUS
in
1987
and
four
Wisconsin
MSW
landfills
reported
in
Gordon,
et.
al.,
1984.
L/
S
ratios
were
calculated
from
these
data.
Data
on
areas
were
not
presented,
so
normalized
leachate
generation
could
not
be
calculated.
SM
Landfill:
L/
S=
0.059/
yr
,
mass
of
refuse=
536,350,000
kg
Brown
Co.
E.
Landfill:
L/
S=
0.019,
mass
of
refuse=
93,294,000
kg
Eau
Claire
Co.
Landfill:
L/
S=
0.055,
mass
of
refuse=
56,599,000
kg
Marathon
Co.
Landfill:
L/
S=
0.026,
mass
of
refuse=
93,122,000
kg
Delafield
Landfill:
L/
S=
0.0097,
mass
of
refuse=
82,766,000
kg
Precipitation:
Not
presented.
September
2000
D­
1
Draft
APPENDIX
D.
L/
S
RATIOS
AND
LEACHATE
GENERATION
RATES
CALCULATED
FROM
CASE
STUDIES
Data
Summary:
SAIC
is
assembling
case
studies
for
landfills
using
data
from
states,
previous
EPA
studies,
etc.
In
some
cases,
these
case
studies
include
the
data
elements
discussed
in
Appendix
A:
(
1)
total
quantity
of
leachate
generated
in
a
period
of
time
(
e.
g.,
annually),
(
2)
landfill
area,
and
(
3)
waste
volume
or
average
depth.
These
data
were
used
to
calculate
L/
S
ratios
or
leachate
generation
rates
for
the
site.

A
total
of
eight
sites
were
identified
in
which
sufficient
data
were
available
to
characterize
leachate
generation
rate,
L/
S
ratio,
or
both.
Unlike
the
data
from
Appendix
A,
these
sites
are
predominantly
non­
MSW
landfills.
These
data
serve
as
a
way
to
compare
the
Office
of
Water
data
to
"
actual"
cases.
Additionally,
they
provide
a
way
to
identify
trends
in
the
data.
Trends
observed
from
these
data
sources
are
as
follows:

°
Leachate
generation
was
monitored
at
a
single
site
over
a
period
of
10+
years,
from
prior
to
cap
placement
to
following
cap
placement.
A
noticeable
drop
in
leachate
generation
rate
was
observed.
L/
S
ratio
necessarily
decreases
as
well.

°
The
two
sites
with
the
highest
L/
S
ratios
(
0.15/
yr
from
the
Radford
VA
site
and
the
Chillicthe
OH
site)
have
very
different
landfill
volumes:
300,000
and
34,000
yd3.
This
is
useful
in
comparing
to
the
Appendix
A
finding
that
high
L/
S
ratios
were
found
only
in
very
small
landfills.
This
finding
may
help
to
identify
that
a
"
high"
L/
S
ratio
would
be
over
0.15/
yr.

Case
Study
Name
Waste
and
Landfill
Characteristics
Waste
Volume
and
Leachate
Generation
Rate
Calculated
L/
S
Ratio,
1/
yr
Calculated
Leachate
Generation
Rate,
gal/
ac­
d
Reference
Western
Berks,
Berks
County
PA
Closed
and
capped
(
PVC/
clay)
hazardous
waste
cell
Waste:
104,800
yd3
Area:
2.3
acres
Leachate
prior
to
cap
(
4­
year
avg):
1.7
x106
gallons/
yr
Leachate
following
cap
(
7­
yr
avg):
260,000
gallons/
yr
prior
to
cap:
0.080
after
cap:
0.012
prior
to
cap:
2,100
after
cap:
320
Pre­
petition
to
Delist
Hazardous
Waste
Leachate
Generated
from
Site
A­
1­
3
at
the
Western
Berks
Refuse
Authority,
November
1997
(
submitted
to
EPA
Region
3).

Gum
Springs
Landfill
K088
monofill
Waste:
78,734
tons/
yr
(
4­
year
average,
range
from
970
to
187,592
tons/
yr)
Area:
Not
available
Leachate:
2,005,700
gal/
yr
(
4­
year
average,
range
from
1,151,623
to
5,191,567
gal/
yr)
average
0.11
(
range
from
0.0
to
0.15)
­­­
Reynolds
Gum
Springs
Landfill
K088
study,
Attachment
II,
5/
29/
97
Case
Study
Name
Waste
and
Landfill
Characteristics
Waste
Volume
and
Leachate
Generation
Rate
Calculated
L/
S
Ratio,
1/
yr
Calculated
Leachate
Generation
Rate,
gal/
ac­
d
Reference
September
2000
D­
2
Draft
EPA
Report,
"
Site
13"
unspecified
location
Closed
and
capped
hazardous
waste
cell
Waste:
88,600
MT
Area:
Not
available
Leachate:
18,000
to
28,000
L/
yr
(?)
0.0003
­­­
"
Composition
of
Leachates
from
Actual
Hazardous
Waste
Sites",
SAIC,
c.
1986.

Ingles
Mountain
Debris
Landfill,
Radford
VA
Active
C&
D
landfill
Waste:
about
34,000
yd3
Area:
3.25
acres
Leachate:
1
x106
gallons/
yr
0.15
880
Office
Of
Water
Docket
for
the
Landfill
Point
Source
Category
(
W­
97­
17),
Presampling
Site
Visit
Report
Modern
Landfill,
York
PA
Active
MSW
Landfill
Waste:
total
quantity
not
available.
Area:
167
acres
Leachate:
1.2
to
2.4
x106
gallons/
yr
­­­
39
Office
Of
Water
Docket
for
the
Landfill
Point
Source
Category
(
W­
97­
17),
Presampling
Site
Visit
Report
Frey
Farm
Landfill,
Lancaster
PA
Active
MWC
ash
cell
Waste:
About
400,000
ton
Area:
6
acres
Leachate:
420,000
gallons/
yr
0.005
200
Office
Of
Water
Docket
for
the
Landfill
Point
Source
Category
(
W­
97­
17),
Presampling
Site
Visit
Report
Mead
Paper
Depot
Landfill,
Chillicothe,
OH
Closed
industrial
waste
landfill
(
pulp
sludge
and
fly
ash)
Waste:
300,000
yd3
Area:
Not
available
Leachate:
8.8
x106
gallons/
yr
0.15
­­­
Office
Of
Water
Docket
for
the
Landfill
Point
Source
Category
(
W­
97­
17),
Presampling
Site
Visit
Report
Mormon
Hollow
Road
Demolition
Landfill,
Wendell
MA
C&
D
waste
landfill
with
both
active
and
capped
cells
Waste:
Not
available
Area:
8
acre
Leachate:
960,000
gallons/
yr
­­­
340
Office
Of
Water
Docket
for
the
Landfill
Point
Source
Category
(
W­
97­
17),
Presampling
Site
Visit
Report
Turnkey
Recycling
and
Environmental
Enterprises,
Gonic
NH
MSW/
C&
D
Landfill
with
both
active
and
capped
cells
Waste:
Not
available
Area:
46
acres
closed,
50
acres
active
Leachate:
1.8
x106
gallons/
yr
from
closed
section,
5.5
x106
gallons/
yr
from
active
section
­­­
closed:
110
active:
310
Office
Of
Water
Docket
for
the
Landfill
Point
Source
Category
(
W­
97­
17),
Presampling
Site
Visit
Report
September
2000
E­
i
Draft
APPENDIX
E.
LEACHATE
QUANTITY
DATABASE
Source:
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Landfills
Point
Source
Category
308
Questionnaire
Data
Dictionary
The
primary
data
used
in
this
analysis
consist
of
information
extracted
from
responses
to
an
Office
of
Water
survey.
The
paragraphs
below
identify
and
explain
the
specific
data
elements
used.
Where
appropriate,
the
specific
survey
question
number
from
which
the
data
were
extracted
is
identified.
A
table
presentation
of
the
data
follows
the
dictionary.

Precip_
Cat
A
category
assigned
based
on
the
precipitation
reported
in
Question
A.
59
(
see
"
Precip",
below),
where
1
indicates
less
than
40
inches/
year,
2
indicates
40
to
60
inches/
year,
and
3
indicates
60
or
more
inches/
year.

SURVEYID
An
identification
code
assigned
to
individual
survey
responses.

SUBCAT
Indicates
the
type
of
landfill:
municipal
,
Subtitle
D
(
non­
MSW),
or
hazardous
waste.

Unit_
No
A
number
indicating
the
specific
landfill
being
described
when
a
survey
response
covers
more
than
one
landfill.

Leach_
Vol_
Active
The
average
leachate
production
rate
for
the
active
landfill
area
in
gallons/
acre­
day
during
the
operating
periods
between
1988
and
1992
(
Question
A.
52).

Leach_
Vol_
Inactive
The
average
leachate
production
rate
for
the
inactive
or
closed
landfill
areas
in
gallons/
acre­
day
during
the
operating
periods
between
1988
and
1992
(
Question
A.
53).

Precip
The
average
annual
precipitation
during
1988
through
1992
(
Question
A.
59).

LS_
Ratio_
BODF
The
liquid
to
solid
ratio
calculated
based
on
average
daily
flow
and
past
waste
inflows
to
the
unit.

Stream_
No
An
identification
number
assigned
to
each
wastewater
stream
generated
by
activity
associated
with
the
landfill
(
Table
A­
1).
Information
about
wastewater
streams
identified
as
landfill
leachate
(
see
below)
was
extracted
and
used
in
this
analysis.
September
2000
E­
ii
Draft
Source
A
code
identifying
the
source
of
the
wastewater
stream.
The
first
two
characters
identify
the
landfill
number
(
see
"
Unit_
No",
above).
The
final
two
characters
identify
the
source
type.
Only
wastewater
streams
with
the
final
two
characters
"
2L",
indicating
landfill
leachate,
were
used
for
this
analysis
(
Table
A­
1).

Daily_
Min_
Flow
The
minimum
daily
flow
of
landfill
leachate
in
1992
in
gallons
(
Table
A­
1).

Daily_
Max_
Flow
The
maximum
daily
flow
of
landfill
leachate
in
1992
in
gallons
(
Table
A­
1).

Daily_
Ave_
Flow
The
average
daily
flow
of
landfill
leachate
in
1992
in
gallons
(
Table
A­
1).

Estimated
Indicates
whether
the
data
provided
in
the
previous
three
data
elements
are
based
on
actual
measurements
("
A")
or
estimates
("
E")
(
Table
A­
1).

No_
Cells
The
total
number
of
cells
included
in
the
landfill
(
Question
A.
30.
a).

No_
Cells_
Active
The
number
of
active
cells
included
in
the
landfill
(
Question
A.
30.
b).

No_
Cells_
Inactive
The
number
of
inactive
cells
included
in
the
landfill
(
Question
A.
30.
c).

Past_
Waste_
Volume
The
total
volume
of
waste
landfilled
(
Question
A.
32,
total
row).

Future_
Waste_
Volume
The
total
future
landfill
capacity
(
Question
A.
32,
total
row).

Waste_
Units
A
code
indicating
the
units
in
which
the
previous
two
data
elements
are
expressed
(
e.
g.,
"
CYD"
indicates
cubic
yards)
(
Question
A.
32).

Length
The
typical
cell
length
(
Question
A.
37.
a).

Width
The
typical
cell
width
(
Question
A.
37.
a).

Dim_
Units
A
code
indicating
the
units
in
which
the
previous
two
data
elements
are
expressed
(
e.
g.,
"
FET"
indicates
feet)
(
Question
A.
37.
a).

Depth
The
typical
cell
depth
(
Question
A.
37.
b).
September
2000
E­
iii
Draft
Dep_
Units
A
code
indicating
the
units
in
which
the
previous
data
element
is
expressed
(
e.
g.,
"
FET"
indicates
feet)
(
Question
A.
37.
b).

Total_
Area
The
total
area
of
the
landfill,
based
on
"
Length,"
"
Width,"
and
"
Depth,"
above.
September
2000
F­
1
Draft
APPENDIX
F.
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
ANALYSIS
AND
ADJUSTMENT
OF
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN
LEACHATE
CHARACTERIZATION
DATA
Among
the
data
collected
for
inclusion
in
the
LEACH
2000
database
was
a
data
set
from
the
State
of
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
(
DNR)
with
characterization
data
for
approximately
70
landfills.
In
examining
this
data
set,
certain
patterns
of
statistical
outliers
were
discovered.
These
patterns
were
consistent
with
intermittent
misreporting
of
analytical
units.
Wisconsin
DNR
staff
was
contacted
about
this
possible
explanation
for
the
outliers.
The
DNR
staff
agreed
that
the
data
points
did
appear
questionable
(
and,
in
some
cases,
physically
impossible)
and
that
misreporting
of
analytical
units
at
the
laboratory
or
reporting
facility
level
was
a
possible
explanation.
The
DNR,
however,
did
not
have
sufficient
resources
to
investigate
the
data
points
in
question
and
verify
that
misreporting
had
occurred.

So
that
the
Wisconsin
data
set
could
be
incorporated
into
the
LEACH
2000
database
as
accurately
a
possible,
a
detailed
analysis
was
undertaken
to
identify
and
correct
data
points
suspected
of
having
a
problem
with
reporting
of
analytical
units.
This
appendix
describes
the
procedures
used
in
and
adjustments
made
as
a
result
of
this
analysis.
Two
related
misreporting
problems
were
suspected
in
the
Wisconsin
data.
These
problems
were
addressed
using
the
techniques
below,
identified
as
"
Approach
1"
and
"
Approach
2."
The
Wisconsin
data
set
adjusted
as
a
result
of
these
approaches
is
contained
in
the
"
Source_
WI_
New"
and
"
Leach
Combined"
tables
of
the
LEACH
2000
database.
The
original
Wisconsin
data
set,
unadjusted
by
either
Approach
1
or
2
has
been
maintained
in
the
database
in
the
table
"
Source_
WI."

Approach
1
One
suspected
problem
was
a
pattern
of
data
points
reported
as
being
in
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
L)
that
appeared
to
actually
be
in
micrograms
per
liter
(
µ
g/
L).
This
problem
resulted
in
data
points
that
were
not
only
questionably
high,
but
physically
impossible
(
e.
g.,
magnesium
levels
of
greater
than
1,000,000
mg/
L,
which
would
correspond
to
concentrations
greater
than
100
percent).
This
problem
appeared
to
effect
every
data
point
that
was
originally
reported
in
the
Wisconsin
data
set
to
be
in
mg/
L.
A
possible
explanation
for
this
pervasive
problem
would
be
if
all
of
the
data
originally
recorded
in
mg/
L
were
converted
to
µ
g/
L
without
changing
the
field
identifying
the
analytical
units.

To
add
confidence
that
this
problem
was
the
result
of
consistent
misreporting,
summary
statistics
were
generated
for
all
constituents
that
were
reported
in
mg/
L
in
the
Wisconsin
data
set.
For
nearly
all
these
constituents,
the
Wisconsin
data
set
included
at
least
one
observation
that
appeared
to
be
a
physical
impossibility
(
e.
g.,
concentration
in
excess
of
100
percent).
The
Wisconsin
summary
statistics
for
these
constituents
also
were
compared
to
summary
statistics
for
the
same
constituents
from
all
other
data
sources
included
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.
In
all
cases,
the
Wisconsin
data
had
maxima,
means,
and
minima
that
were
approximately
three
orders
of
magnitude
greater
than
the
corresponding
statistics
from
the
other
data
sources.
This
result
was
taken
as
sufficient
evidence
that
a
pervasive
misreporting
problem
had
occurred
for
all
data
points
originally
identified
as
in
mg/
L.
All
of
these
data
points,
therefore,
were
divided
by
1,000
September
2000
F­
2
Draft
to
convert
them
to
the
correct
units.
This
conversion
resulted
in
summary
statistics
much
more
similar
to
those
from
the
other
data
sources,
as
shown
for
a
sample
constituent
in
Table
F­
1,
below.
Table
F­
2
lists
all
of
the
constituents
that
were
converted
in
this
manner.

Table
F­
1.
Effect
of
Adjustments
Using
Approach
1:
Summary
Statistics
for
Alkalinity
from
Various
Data
Sources
(
mg/
L)

Data
Source
Minimum
Mean
Maximum
Original
Wisconsin
Data
Set
1,260
2,602,000
44,400,000
Converted
Wisconsin
Data
Set
1.26
2,602
44,400
All
Other
Data
Sets
1.00
3,621
110,000
Table
F­
2.
Constituents
in
Wisconsin
Data
Set
Adjusted
Using
Approach
1
ALKALINITY,
BICARBONATE
(
MG/
L
AS
CACO3)
ALKALINITY,
CARBONATE
(
MG/
L
AS
CACO3)
ALKALINITY,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
AS
CACO3)
ALKALINITY,
TOTAL
FILTERED
(
MG/
L
AS
CACO3)
AMMONIA,
UNIONIZED
PERCENT
OF
TOT.
T­
PH
CAL
(
MG/
L)
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(
MG/
L,
5
DAY
­
20DEG
C)
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(
MG/
L,
6
DAY
­
20DEG
C)
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND,
(
MG/
L,
5
DAY
DISSOLVED)
BORON,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
B)
BORON,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
B)
CALCIUM,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
CA)
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
CA)
CARBON,
TOTAL
ORGANIC
(
TOC)
(
MG/
L
AS
C)
CARBONATE
ION
(
MG/
L
CO3)
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND,
FILTERED
(
MG/
L)
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND,
UNFILTERED
(
MG/
L)
CHLORIDE,
TOTAL
OR
DISSOLVED
IN
WTR
SMPL
(
MG/
L
CL)
CYANIDE,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
CN)
FLUORIDE,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
F)
FLUORIDE,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
F)
FORMALDEHYDE
(
MG/
L)
HARDNESS,
CALCIUM
(
CA)
(
MG/
L
AS
CACO3)
HARDNESS,
MAGNESIUM
(
MG)
(
MG/
L
AS
CACO3)
HARDNESS,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
AS
CACO3)
HARDNESS,
TOTAL,
FILTERED
(
MG/
L
AS
CACO3)
IRON,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
FE)
IRON,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
FE)
MAGNESIUM,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
MG)
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
MG)
MOLYBDENUM,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
MO)
NITRATE
NITROGEN,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITRATE
NITROGEN,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITRITE
NITROGEN,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITRITE
NITROGEN,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITRITE
PLUS
NITRATE,
DIS.
1
DET.
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITRITE
PLUS
NITRATE,
TOTAL
1
DET.
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITROGEN,
AMMONIA,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITROGEN,
AMMONIA,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITROGEN,
KJELDAHL,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITROGEN,
KJELDAHL,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
NITROGEN,
ORGANIC,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
AS
N)
OIL
&
GREASE
(
FREON
EXTR­
GRAV
METH)
TOT
REC
(
MG/
L)
PHOSPHATE,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
AS
PO4)
PHOSPHORUS,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
P)
POTASSIUM,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
K)
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
K)
SODIUM,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
NA)
SODIUM,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
NA)
SOLIDS,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L)
SOLIDS,
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L)
SOLIDS,
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
(
MG/
L)
SULFATE,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
SO4)
SULFATE,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
SO4)
SULFIDE,
DISSOLVED
(
MG/
L
S)
SULFIDE,
TOTAL
(
MG/
L
S)
SULFITE
(
MG/
L
SO3)
TANNIN
AND
LIGNIN,
COMBINED
(
MG/
L)
1
Excluding
data
from
the
EPA
Office
of
Water,
which
was
not
available
at
the
time
this
test
was
performed.

September
2000
F­
3
Draft
Approach
2
The
other
suspected
misreporting
problem
in
the
Wisconsin
data
set
did
not
appear
in
a
similar
consistent
pattern.
Certain
individual
data
points,
or
series
of
data
points
taken
from
a
period
of
dates,
were
approximately
three
orders
of
magnitude
lower
than
other
data
points
for
the
same
constituent
at
the
same
landfill.
For
some
parameters,
this
degree
of
variation
alone
might
not
be
sufficient
to
suspect
a
reporting
problem
(
i.
e.,
the
variation
could
be
due
to
legitimate,
natural
changes
in
leachate
concentration).
For
many
of
these
data
points,
however,
the
reported
concentrations
also
were
several
orders
of
magnitude
below
typical
analytical
detection
limits
(
e.
g.,
lead
concentrations
in
the
range
of
0.01
µ
g/
L).

These
questionable
data
points
did
not
occur
in
obvious
patterns.
That
is,
they
were
not
limited
to
a
few
landfills
or
a
particular
period
in
time.
When
these
suspiciously
low
data
points
occurred
at
a
given
landfill
during
a
given
time
period,
however,
they
appeared
to
occur
across
constituents.
For
example,
frequently,
at
landfill
"
x"
on
date
"
y"
all
metals
concentrations
would
be
three
orders
of
magnitude
lower
than
their
previous
or
subsequent
concentrations.
A
possible
explanation
for
this
phenomenon
would
be
if
a
group
of
analytical
results
actually
measured
in
mg/
L
were
inadvertently
misreported
as
being
in
µ
g/
L.
This
problem
could
occur
intermittently
at
different
reporting
facilities
at
different
points
in
time.

In
part
because
no
clear
pattern
existed
to
these
questionable
data
points,
no
one
method
would
be
sufficient
to
detect
and
correct
them.
To
detect
where
this
misreporting
problem
might
occur,
a
series
of
statistical
and
rational
criteria
were
established.
All
of
the
Wisconsin
data
were
evaluated
according
to
the
following
criteria:

1.
Statistical
outlier
with
respect
to
the
full
data
set:
data
points
met
this
criterion
if
they
were
determined
to
be
outliers
based
on
a
statistical
test
(
Tukey's
method
as
found
in
Tukey,
"
Exploratory
Data
Analysis,"
1977,
pp
42­
44)
that
compared
them
to
the
full
set
of
LEACH
2000
data
from
all
data
sources1
for
that
constituent.

2.
Reported
concentration
lower
than
typical
analytical
detection
limits:
data
points
met
this
criterion
if
they
were
more
than
an
order
of
magnitude
below
reasonable
analytical
detection
limits.
Because
detection
limits
can
vary
from
lab
to
lab,
the
detection
limits
used
for
this
test
were
Practical
Quantitation
Limits
(
PQLs)
for
ground­
water
monitoring
as
reported
in
40
CFR
264,
Appendix
IX.
For
constituents
with
no
PQL
in
Appendix
IX,
the
"
typical"
detection
limit
was
assumed
to
be
the
median
detection
limit
reported
for
all
observations
for
that
constituent
in
the
LEACH
2000
database.

3.
Outside
control
limits
specific
to
the
facility
and
constituent:
data
points
met
this
criterion
if
their
moving
average
with
the
previous
or
subsequent
data
point
fell
outside
statistical
September
2000
F­
4
Draft
control
limits
established
(
using
the
method
described
in
Gilbert,
"
Statistical
Methods
for
Environmental
Pollution
Monitoring,"
1987,
pp.
193­
200)
for
the
full
series
of
data
for
that
constituent
at
that
landfill.

4.
Detection
limit
lower
than
typical
analytical
detection
limits:
a
data
point
met
this
criterion
if
a
detection
limit
was
reported
and
was
more
than
an
order
of
magnitude
below
the
typical
detection
limits
described
in
criterion
(
2),
above.

5.
Correlated
with
other
questionable
data
points:
a
data
point
met
this
criterion
if
it
occurred
on
the
same
date
as
another
data
point
meeting
criterion
(
1)
or
(
2),
above.

Criterion
(
1)
and
criterion
(
2)
were
considered
the
"
major"
criteria.
It
was
considered
sufficient
evidence
that
a
units
misreporting
problem
was
present
if
a
data
point
met
one
of
the
major
criterion
and
any
other
criterion,
major
or
minor.
It
also
was
considered
sufficient
evidence
that
a
units
misreporting
problem
was
present
if
a
data
point
met
all
three
of
the
minor
criteria.
When
these
conditions
were
met,
concentrations
were
adjusted
by
three
orders
of
magnitude
(
either
up
or
down,
depending
on
whether
they
were
high
or
low
outliers).
Data
points
were
not
adjusted,
however,
if
this
adjustment
would
result
in
an
outlier
problem
at
the
other
end
of
the
distribution.
For
example,
if
multiplying
a
seemingly
low
concentration
by
1,000
would
result
in
a
concentration
that
would
be
a
high
outlier
by
criterion
(
1),
the
data
point
was
not
adjusted.

A
total
of
920
observations
were
adjusted
as
a
result
of
Approach
2.
These
data
points
are
identified
in
the
LEACH
2000
database
with
a
"
1"
in
the
"
QA
Adjusted?"
field
of
the
"
Source_
WI_
New"
table.
Table
F­
3,
below,
shows
the
effect
of
these
adjustments
for
an
example
constituent.

Table
F­
3.
Effect
of
Adjustments
Using
Approach
2:
Summary
Statistics
for
Lead
before
and
After
Conversion
Data
Source
PQL
Minimum
Percent
of
Obs.
<
0.1
µ
g/
L
Percent
of
Obs.
<
1
µ
g/
L
Percent
of
Obs.
<
10
µ
g/
L
Original
Wisconsin
Data
Set
10
µ
g/
L
0.0018
µ
g/
L
9%
13%
47%

Converted
Wisconsin
Data
Set
0.18
µ
g/
L
0%
0.2%
37%
