# 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 I NTRODUCTION



# 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

S ECTION 

# 1. M OBILITY OF 

# I NORGANIC AND 

# O RGANIC 

# C ONSTITUENTS



# 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 Mobilit y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19

1.2.1 Effects of pH on Leachability Of Organics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20

Acid Leachable Organics

Alkali Leachable Organics

Polyfunctional Organics

S ECTION 

# 2. L EACHATE 

# G ENERATION 

# Q UANTITIES IN 

# L ANDFILLS



# 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

S ECTION 

# 3. L EACHATE 

# C OMPOSITION AND 

# P ROPERTIES



# 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 Mobilit y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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)

S ECTION 

# 3. L EACHATE 

# C OMPOSITION AND 

# P ROPERTIES 

# (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

S ECTION 

# 4. Q UANTITATIVE 

# L ANDFILL 

# C ASE 

# S TUDIES



# S ECTION 

# 5. B IBLIOGRAPHY

# September 2000 i-4 Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

A PPENDIX 

# A: R EVIEW OF 

# S TATE 

# L ANDFILL 

# L EACHATE 

# D ATA 

# A VAILABILITY



# A PPENDIX 

# B: R ELEVANT 

# C ONVERSION 

# F ACTORS



# A PPENDIX 

# C: L IQUID



# - TO 

# -S OLID 

# R ATIOS AND 

# L EACHATE 

# G ENERATION 

# R ATES 

# R EPORTED IN



# L ITERATURE



# A PPENDIX 

# D: L IQUID



# - TO



# - SOLID 

# R ATIOS AND 

# L EACHATE 

# G ENERATION 

# R ATES 

# C ALCULATED FROM



# C ASE 

# S TUDIES



# A PPENDIX 

# E: L EACHATE 

# Q UANTITY 

# D ATABASE



# A PPENDIX 

# F: Q UALITY 

# A SSURANCE 

# A NALYSIS AND 

# A DJUSTMENT OF 

# S TATE OF 

# W ISCONSIN



# L EACHATE 

# C HARACTERIZATION 

# D ATA



# 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: Summar y . . . . . . . . . . 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-H

2 

# O at 25 b C and one atm. . . . . . . . 1-14

Figure 1-4. Simplified pe-pH diagram for the system Se-O-H

2 

# O at 25 b C and one atm. . . . . . . . . 1-15

Figure 1-5. pe-pH diagram for the system Cr-O-H

2 

# O at 25 b C and one atm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16

Figure 1-6. pe-pH diagram for the system Hg-S-O-H

2 

# O at 25 b C 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 Landfills3-44

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. M OBILITY OF 

# I NORGANIC AND 

# O RGANIC 

# C ONSTITUENTS



# 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 + 

# , Hg 2+ 

# , Pb 2+ 

# )

` Nitrates, perchlorates, and acetates are soluble (except for acetates of Ag + 

# and Hg 2+ 

# which

are moderately soluble)

` Sulfates are soluble (except for Sr 2+ 

# , Ba 2+ 

# , Pb 2+ 

# , not soluble) (Ca 2+ 

# 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 Sb

2 

# S

3 

# 1.75E-03 M Experimental

Chloride SbCl

3 

# 2390* H Experimental

Arsenic Sulfide As

2 

# S

3 

# 6.65E-04** L Experimental

Sulfide AsS

5 

# 1.36E-03 M Experimental

Oxide As

2 

# O

3 

# 1.77E+01** H Experimental

Barium Phosphate Ba

3 

# (PO

4 

# )

2 

# 4.27E-04 L Estimated

Hydroxide Ba(OH)

2 

# 3.98E+01 H Estimated

Sulfite BaSO

3 

# 1.07E-01** M Experimental

Sulfate BaSO

4 

# 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 CdCO

3 

# 2.72E-05 L Estimated

Cyanide Cd(CN)

2 

# 2.47E-03 M Experimental

Chromium Sulfate Cr

2 

# (SO

4 

# )

3 

# 860* H Experimental

Cobalt Sulfide Co

2 

# S

3 

# 2.58E-23 L Estimated

Hydroxide Co(OH)

3 

# 3.18E-03 M Experimental

Carbonate CoCO

3 

# 1.06E-04 L Estimated

Copper Sulfide CuS 2.18E-13 L Experimental

Sulfide Cu

2 

# S 6.70E-15 L Estimated

Hydroxide Cu(OH)

2 

# 2.10E-07** L Experimental

Oxide CuO 1.40E-08 L Experimental

Oxide Cu

2 

# O 8.60E-05 L Experimental

Cyanide CuCN 1.60E-08 L Estimated

Chloride CuCl 4.32E-02 M Estimated

Chloride CuCl

2 

# 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 Pb

3 

# (PO

4 

# )

2 

# 6.81E-07 L Estimated

Hydroxide Pb(OH)

2 

# 9.90E-04 L Estimated

Oxide PbO 1.41E+00** H Experimental

Carbonate PbCO

3 

# 1.70E-03 M Experimental

Sulfate PbSO

4 

# 4.07E-02 M Experimental

Chloride PbCl

2 

# 4.49E+00 H Estimated

Mercury Sulfide HgS 1.25E-05 L Experimental

Hydroxide Hg

2 

# (OH)

2 

# 4.31E-07 L Estimated

Hydroxide Hg(OH)

2 

# 5.90E-02 M Experimental

Oxide HgO 2.58E-02** M Experimental

Carbonate Hg

2 

# CO

3 

# 1.30E-03 M Estimated

Sulfate HgSO

4 

# 3.90E-01 M Experimental

Sulfate Hg

2 

# SO

4 

# 2.75E+00 H Estimated

Cyanide Hg(CN)

2 

# 9.30E+01 H Experimental

Chloride Hg

2 

# Cl

2 

# 4.25E-06*,** L Experimental

Chloride HgCl

2 

# 65.0 H Experimental

Nickel Sulfide NiS beta 9.08E-12 L Estimated

Hydroxide Ni(OH)

2 

# 1.27E-02 M Experimental

Carbonate NiCO

3 

# 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 100Solubility(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 DraftSolubleModerately 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

- CrO

4 2- 

# and CrO

7 2- 

# form stable and mobile anion

-all salts of Pb 2+ 

# , Cu 2+



# , Cd 2+ 

# , Ba 2+ 

# , Co 2+ 

# , Ni 2+



# -As 5+ 

# , SeO

4 2-



# -salts of Hg -Pb 2+ 

# salts

-salts of Hg -Cu 2+ 

# , Cd 2+ 

# , Pb 2+ 

# at high pH

(>12)

-anionic species of As

-salts of Hg

-Gradient to higher pH: the

salt solubilities of Pb 2+ 

# , Cu 2+



# , Cd 2+ 

# , Ba 2+ 

# , Co 2+ 

# , Ni 2+ 

# are

limited by the formation of

carbonates and hydroxides.

-SeO

3 2-



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

# September 2000 1-11 DraftSolubleModerately Soluble 

# Table 1-3. Metal-Salt Speciation Under Reducing Conditions

Acidic - Reducing Neutral - Reducing Basic - Reducing

-When no sulfide is

present, salts of Cd 2+



# , Ba 2+ 

# , Co 2+ 

# , Pb 2+



# -Cr(OH)

3 3+



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

-salts of Ni 2+ 

# when no

sulfide is present -with increase in pH the

solubilities of Pb 2+ 

# , Cu 2+



# , Cd 2+ 

# , Ba 2+ 

# , Co 2+ 

# , Ni 2+ 

# 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.Al

2 

# O

3 

# .3CaSO

4 

# .31 H

2 

# O )

Si 10 minimum

12 maximum

Increase Ca high limited Calcium sulfate

SO

4 

# 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-H

2 

# O at 25 b 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 HAsO

4 2- 

# H

3 

# AsO

4



# H

2 

# AsO

4 -



# H

3 

# AsO

3



# As

4 8 6 10

pH AsO

4 3-



# As

2 

# S

3



# H

2 

# AsO

3 - 

# HAsO

3 2-



# AsS 

# Arsenic

# September 2000 1-15 Draft Figure 1-4. Simplified pe-pH diagram for the system Se-O-H

2 

# O at 25 b C 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- 

# H

2 

# SeO

3



# HSeO

3 -



# SeO

4 2-



# Se

elemental



# HSe



# H

2 

# Se

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-H

2 

# O at 25 b C 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 HCrO

4 -



# 4 8 6 10



# pH CrO

4 2-



# Cr

2 

# O

3 

# Cr

3-



# Cr(OH) 2- 

# Chromium



# Mercury

The chemistry of mercury in the environment is highly complex. The common soluble form is

the oxidized (mercuric) Hg 2+ 

# ion and its hydrolysis product Hg(OH)

2 

# (neutral species), with the

reduced (mercurous) Hg

2 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-H

2 

# O at 25 b C 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 Hg

2 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) HgCO

3



# Hg HgS

Hg Hg

2 2+ 

# Hg

2 

# SO

4



# HgS

2 2- 

# HgO

pH 

# Mercury



# In a metal-contaminated site, mercury exists in mercuric form (Hg 2+ 

# ), mercurous form (Hg

2 2+ 

# ),

elemental form (Hg 0 

# ), or alkylated form (e.g., methyl and ethyl mercury). Hg

2 2+ 

# and Hg 2+ 

# 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 CO

3 -2 

# . Mercury (II) also forms

complexes with other inorganic ligands such as F-, Br-, I-, SO

4 -2 

# , S -2 

# , and PO

4 -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 Hg 2+



# 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 1000000Leachate 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 10 3 

# 10 5 

# 10 5



# 10 4



# 10 3



# 10 2



# 10

10 0



# 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).

· · · · ·

·

· · ·

· ·

· · · ·

·

· 10 4



# 10 3



# 10 2



# 10

10 0



# Log K

OWLeachate 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. L EACHATE 

# G ENERATION 

# Q UANTITIES IN 

# L ANDFILLS



# 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 (10 th 

# to 90 th 

# Percentile)

Active 191 500 30 to 3500 Active and inactive rates are statistically

different at 95 th 

# % 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 (10 th 

# to 90 th 

# 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 (10 th 

# to 90 th 

# 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 95 th 

# %

significance level

inactive 69 58 0 to 840

Subtitle D active 36 509 8 to 5400 Different at a 95 th 

# %

significance level

inactive 15 100 0 to 500

All (from

Table 2-3) active 191 500 30 to 3400 Different at a 95 th 

# %

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 (10 th 

# to 90 th 

# 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 DistributionLeachate 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 DistributionLiquid 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 (10 th 

# to 90 th 

# Percentile)

<40

inches active 83 340 4 to 1800 Different at a 95 th 

# %

significance level

inactive 50 40 0 to 720

40 to 60

inches active 84 610 46 to 2600 Different at a 90 th 

# %

significance level

inactive 53 92 0 to 700

>= 60

inches active 24 970 33 to 5600 Different at a 95 th 

# %

significance level

inactive 24 200 0 to 1350

All active 191 500 30 to 3500 Different at a 95 th 

# %

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, R 2 

# , 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 DistributionLeachate Generation Rate (gal/acre-day) 

# < 40" -A ctive

< 40" -Inactive

40-60" -A ctive

40-60" -Inactiv e

> 60" -A ctive

> 60" -Inactive



# 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 DistributionLiquid 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. L EACHATE 

# C OMPOSITION AND 

# P ROPERTIES



# 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 (μg/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 (μg/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 Formati on. 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 A 50%;

Temperature > 15 b C (60 b F); Good buffering capacity of leachate: alkalinity 2,000

mg/L as CaCO

3 

# , 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 (50 th 

# 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 DistributionpH 

# 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

YearpH



# 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

YearpH



# 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

YearpH



# 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

YearpH



# 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 11⁄2 years old) to less than 100 mg/L after 61⁄2 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 11⁄2 (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 1⁄2 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

YearCOD (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 (CO

3 2- 

# ), bicarbonate

(HCO

3 - 

# ), 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 3-21 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 (μg/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 (μg/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 CaCO

3 

# . 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 CaCO

3 

# 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 CaCO

3 

# while the alkalinity of a high wood mix was 350 mg/L CaCO

3 

# .

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 (μg/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 (μg/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 (μg/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 (μg/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 μg/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 (μg/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 (μg/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 (μg/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 (μg/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 (μg/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 (μg/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. Q UANTITATIVE 

# L ANDFILL 

# C ASE 

# S TUDIES



# 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 19942MileRadius1MileRadiusShrewsburyLandfillID:Lat:42.215784Long:71.781533WorcesterCounty,MA.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDPublicWaterSupplyEPASDWISSystemBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedJune28,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs63925)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and Controls3Not constructed6.6 847,0004Not constructed 8.0825,000Totals36.6 2,933,000Averages 9.2 733,250Section/CellStatusArea(acres)DesignCapacity (yd3)Closed withgeomembranecover (full)110.5 469,0002Active (60%of capacity)11.5 792,000Exhibit 2. Waste DataTotalsWastesAcceptedConstituentsAverage DailyQuantity (tons)Percentage ofTotal by WeightIncinerator ResidueAir Pollution Control Hopper AshBottom AshFly AshSifting and RiddlingsN/AN/A31.528724.571.370.27351.6498272<0.4<0.08100Street Cleaning WasteWWTP WastesLANDFILL CASE 1: SHREWSBURY ASH MONOFILLExhibit 3. Leachate Quantity Summary (based on 1993 Data)QuarterDatesPrecipitation(inches)LeachateQuantity(gal.)1234TotalsJanuary–MarchApril–JuneJuly–SeptemberOctober–December10.48.1514.0913.8446.482,884,1222,784,4401,547,6563,726,16310,942,381DailyAverage32,40630,59816,82240,50230,061IdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Shrewsbury Residue LandfillAddress: 640 Hartford Tnpk (US 20)Shrewsbury, MA 01545Owner/Operator: Town of Shrewsbury/Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. and A.J. LetourneauDispose-All CompanyOwnership status: CommercialFacility contact: Steve Sibinich, Director EH&S Compliance 508-791-8900Alfred Confalone, ManagerDischarge permit no.: 120State permit no.: BWP SW09Landfill type: Incinerator ash landfillPermitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Network of slotted polyvinyl chloride piping placed into a sanddrainage blanketNumber of sections: Four (4)Status: Section 1—closed, Section 2—active, Sections 3 and 4—notconstructedLiner type: Two feet of compacted clay overlain by a geomembrane consisting of60 mil HDPECover type: Six inch daily soil coverOperational period: 1989 to presentWaste acceptance: Fly and bottom ash, residual wastes (such as bar screenings and grit),and street cleaning wastesOverall location area: 45 acresTotal permitted area: 36.6 acresTotal landfill capacity: 2,933,000 yd3Nature of waste: Incinerator residue, street cleaning waste, waste water treatment plant(WWTP) wasteAnnual landfilled quantity: 155,000 tons (1993)Total cumulative landfilled quantity: 944,200 tons (as of 1993)Liquid to solid ratio: Approximately 0.044 L/kgAnnual leachate generation: 10,942,381 gallons (1993)Average annual precipitation: 46.48 inchesLeachate QualityExhibit 4. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th50th90thMAXPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICSBOD 16 22 36 77 151COD 17 37 247 649 800TDS 17 2700 8590 9540 48500pH (su) 17 6 6.5 8.1 8.3Nitrate/Nitrite 1 14 14 14 14Total Phenols 1 4.34 4.34 4.34 4.34Total Sulfide(Iodometric)1 80 80 80 80Alkalinity 4 59 77.3 84 114Acidity 4 16 23.5 20 46Sulfate 4 136 131 145 175FOG 6 0.8 47.3 16 250SpecificConductivity4 10900 11000 11700 12300TSS 16 10 62.6 137 350TRACE CONTAMINANTSMetalsAntimony 1 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131Barium 5 1.16 2.82 2.6 6.99Beryllium 1 0.0672 0.0672 0.0672 0.0672Boron 14 0.05 0.274 0.328 2.15Cadmium 6 0.007 0.0372 .02 0.172Calcium 5 1400 3570 2300 11400Chloride 5 3760 9250 4890 29900Chromium 1 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022Copper 15 0.02 0.122 0.377 0.47Europium 1 0.298 0.298 0.298 0.298Fluoride 1 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38Iridium 1 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01Iron 5 2.53 3.51 4.41 5.56Lead 8 0.009 10.3 0.28 81.4Magnesium 4 4.78 4.90 6.03 6.29Manganese 5 1.41 4.28 4.09 12.7Molybdenum 11 0.01 0.0762 0.06 0.536Nickel 5 0.035 0.104 0.184 0.201Niobium 1 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15Platinum 1 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46Potassium 5 426 1130 975 2950Samarium 1 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13Scandium 1 0.0505 0.0505 0.0505 0.0505Silicon 1 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0Silver 3 0.015 0.0187 0.015 0.03Sodium 5 655 1750 1440 4890Strontium 1 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0Sulfate 4 136 130.5 145 175Sulfur 1 628 628 628 628Tantalum 1 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14Zinc 11 0.03 0.164 0.596 0.652Data SourceEffluent Guidelines for Landfill Point Source Category: Shrewsbury SiteVisit Report, April 5, 1995.IdentificationName: Limestone Station Ash LandfillAddress: Jewett, TX 75846Owner/Operator: Houston Power and LightOwnership status: CaptiveEPA ID: TXD987978210Landfill types: Industrial (Coal combustion ash)Permitting status: ActiveLandfill Construction and ControlsType of LCS: Impermeable trench surrounding landfill to interceptstormwater runoff and leachate.Number of cells: 20Waste acceptance: Coal combustion ash and low-volume solid wasteOverall location area: 380 acresPermitted area: UnknownCell dimensions: Cells 1, 2 ,3, 4, and 6 total 68 acres. Peak landfillheight approximately 120 feet above grade.Cell capacity: UnknownRun-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 600feet of interbedded muds, sands, and lignitedeposits.Depth to aquifer: Approximately 5–10 feet below liner.Special Practices: None noted.Landfilled WasteNature of waste: Coal combustion waste (fly ash, bottom ash, flue gasdesulfurization sludge) comanaged with low-volume solidwastes.AnnualTotal cumulative landfilled quantity:Liquid to solid ratio: Unknownquantity landfilled: 1,790,000 tons (1996)19.7 million tons of coal combustion waste through 1996Average leachate generation: No data.Average annual precipitation: 32 inchesLeachate QuantityLANDFILL CASE 2: LIMESTONE COMBUSTION ASH MONOFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusHPLLimestoneAshLandfillLat:31.4225Long:96.255556LimestoneCounty,TX.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember22,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs61542)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and ControlsLandfill Type/AreaCell(s) StatusLinerLCS CoverOperationalPeriodCoal combustionash/380 acres1, 2, 34, 656–20ClosedActiveProposed3-foot thickcompacted clayImpermeable trenchsurrounding landfill(stormwater andleachate)3-foot clay capoverlain by topsoilNoneN/A1986–(?)(?)–PresentN/AExhibit 2.Waste DataWastes AcceptedQuantity in 1996(tons)Percentage ofTotal WeightFly ash 840,000 47Bottom ash/boiler slag 397,000 22Flue gas desulfurization 500,000 28sludgeMill rejects 36,500 2Water treatment pond 12,710 <1sludgesCooling tower sludge 480 <1Filter bed media 10 <1Spent demineralizer resin 5 <1beadsSandblast grit 100 <1Cooling tower fill 40 <1Refractory 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 ByProducts: LS Site. Electric Power Research Institute. Final Report, August 1997.Fly ash 46,000 6.8Boiler slag 50 <0.1Water treatment wastes(thickener sludge) 569,000 84.0Cooling tower sludge 20,000 3High-quality holding basinsludge 30 <0.1Wastewater treatment sludge(brine decant pit sludge) 36,000 5.3Refractory brick 200 <0.1Miscellaneous wastes 4,000 0.6Exhibit 1.Waste DataWastes AcceptedQuantity(cubic yards/year)Percentage ofTotal WeightLANDFILL CASE 3: PAWNEE ASH MONOFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusPawneeAshLandfillLat:40.206448Long:103.696114MorganCounty,CO.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember22,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs62935)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityLeachate QualityData SourceName: Pawnee Station Ash LandfillAddress: 14940 County Road 24Brush, CO 80723Owner: Public Service Company of ColoradoOwnership status: CaptiveEPA ID: COD98028025NPDES ID: COG600195Landfill type: Industrial (Coal combustion ash)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: NoneNumber of cells: 1Liner type: 2-foot compacted locally derived fine sand to clay.Operational period: 1980 to presentWaste acceptance: Coal combustion ash and low-volume solid wastesOverall location area: 20 acresPermitted area: 20 acresLandfill dimensions: Landfill excavated to 42 feet below ground level. Maximumthickness approximately 40 feet.Landfill capacity: UnknownRun-on/off controls: None identifiedUnderlying geology/soil type: Dune sand, overlying less than 24 feet of residual soil (veryfine sand and silt with up to 30 percent clay), overlyingbedrock 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 ofsludge waste collects in a topographic low area of the landfill.Nature of waste: Coal combustion waste (fly ash, bottom ash, andboiler slag) comanaged with low-volume solidwastes.Average annual quantity landfilled: Approximately 675,000 ydTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: UnknownLiquid to solid ratio: UnknownAverage leachate generation: No data (leachate not collected)Average annual precipitation: 15 inches rain, 60 inches snowNo data are available for leachate as generated. Data are available, however, in the EPRI reportcharacterizing 2:1 distilled water extracts from waste as managed in the landfill.Field Evaluation of the Comanagement of Utility Low-Volume Wastes with High-Volume CoalCombustion By-Products: PA Site. Electric Power Research Institute. Draft Report, August 1997.3Landfill Type/AreaCell(s) StatusLinerLCS CoverOperationalPeriodCoal combustionash/163 acres1ClosedClosedCompacted soil onlyNone2-foot clay cap overlainby 6 inches topsoil1980–198625-feet thick clayover compacted soilNone1985–1991ClosedNone1988–19943ActiveNone None1994–Present45–25Permitted,not yetdevelopedN/A N/A N/A N/A5-feet thick clayover compacted soil5-feet thick clayover compacted soil2-foot clay cap overlainby 6 inches topsoil2-foot clay cap overlainby 6 inches topsoilExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and ControlsWastes AcceptedQuantity(cubic yards/year)Percentage ofTotal WeightFly ash 5,000 14.4Economizer Ash 300 0.9Bottom Ash and Boiler Slag 29,000 83.2Low-volume Waste Basin 75 0.2Metal Cleaning Waste Basin 100 0.3Coal Pile Runoff Basin Sludge 150 0.4Wastewater Treatment Sludge 200 0.6Cooling Tower Basin Sludge 20 <0.1Scrap Ferrous Metal and 1 <0.1SludgeSludgeWaste SulfiteExhibit 2. Waste DataLANDFILL CASE 4: PLEASANT PRAIRIE ASH MONOFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusWEPCOPleasantPraireAshLandfillLat:42.533217Long:87.902379KenoshaCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember22,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs61858)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Pleasant Prairie Ash LandfillAddress: 8000 95 StreetPleasant Prairie, WI 53201Owner: Wisconsin Electric Power CompanyOwnership status: CaptiveEPA ID: WID000711176NPDES ID: WI0043583Landfill type: Industrial (Coal combustion ash)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: NoneNumber of cells: 25Waste acceptance: Coal combustion ash and low-volume solid wastesOverall location area: 163 acresPermitted area: 163 acresLandfill dimensions: Each cell approximately 6 acres. Maximum thickness of closedestimated 25 feet.Landfill capacity: UnknownRun-on/off controls: Retention and drainage ditches from which runoff evaporates orinto 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-volumesolids placed on top, spread, and compacted following the addition oftreated cooling tower water for dust suppression.Nature of waste: Coal combustion waste (fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag) comanagedwith low-volume solid wastes.Average annual quantity landfilled: 35,000 ydTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 595,462 (through mid-1997)Liquid to solid ratio: UnknownLeachate generation: Unknown (leachate not collected)Average annual precipitation: 33 inchescellsinfiltratesby glacialsoil type: driftyd33

# 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, 50 th 

# and 95 th 

# percentile values could not be determined.



# Data Source

Field Evaluation of the Comanagement of Utility Low-Volume Wastes with High-Volume Coal Combustion ByProducts: P4 Site. Electric Power Research Institute. Final Report, July 1997.LANDFILL CASE 5: WTM VINLAND SITE PAPER MILL SLUDGE MONOFILLIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: WTM Vinland Site Paper Mill Sludge MonofillAddress: US Highway 45 and County Truck Highway GGVinland, WIOwner: Wisconsin Tissue Mills (WTM)Ownership status: CaptiveFacility contact: Bernie Kopp, VP-Tech Development, 414-725-7031State license no.: 03131Landfill type: Industrial (Pulp/paper sludge)Permitting status: ClosedType of LCS: StandardNumber of phases: Two (2)Status: ClosedLiner type: 5-feet of compacted clayFinal cover: Clay overlain by top soilOperational period: February 1988 to June 1997Waste acceptance: Pulp and paper mill sludge from WTM plantsOverall location area: 160 acresPermitted area: 37 acresTotal permitted capacity: 1,710,300 yd3Underlying geology/soil type: Surface soils are silty clay underlain by bedrock at 100 feetbelow the surfaceNature of waste: Pulp and paper mill sludge from WTM plantsTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 1,481,515 tonsTotal cumulative volume landfilled: 1,500,000 yd3Liquid to solid ratio: 0.03 L/kgAverage annual leachate generation: 8,522,600 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 29.7 inches2MileRadius1MileRadiusWTMVinlandSludgeLandfill-Lat:44.11187Long:88.54369WinnebagoCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember28,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs48657)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and Controls121–61–6Feb. 1988 to April 1993Aug. 1992 to June 1998Design Capacity (yd )3535,500944,400PhaseModulesStatusLinerOperational PeriodClosedClosed5 feet compacted clayQuantity (gallons)12,044,510 9,221,200 10,734,880 11,932,680 11,609,500Year1994Exhibit 3. Leachate Quantity Data19931995 1996 1997YearWastes TypeQuantity (tons)Volume (yd )3Paper mill sludge 86,874 82,530 1988121,689 120,186 1989159,171 157,204 1990184,053 151,484 1991176,370 138,874 1992191,204 172,256 1993186,238 177,370 1994191,050 218,986 1995184,866 176,063 1996122,081 105,047 1997Exhibit 2.Waste DataLeachate QualityExhibit 4. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 95th Max % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsAntimony 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%Organics1,1,1-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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September 1999)MSW 11,479 122,265 318,892 431,878 430,334Foundry 7 18,985 75,848 79,022 107,621Wastewater treatment wastes 4,738** 6,565 4,524 594 1,945Petro contaminated soils 102,732 217,352 196,961 299,596Demolition waste 29,350 40,765 41,539 44,003Shredder fluff (used as daily cover) 13,671 16,675 24,012 20,222Miscellaneous 8,150 10,346 8,863 11,221*Filling began in November of 1994**Identified only as “special waste”Waste TypeQuantity (tons)1995Exhibit 2. Waste Data1994*1996 1997 1998LANDFILL CASE 6: SUPERIOR EMERALD PARK MUNICIPAL LANDFILLNewHolsteinKiel2MileRadius1MileRadiusSuperiorEmeraldParkLandfill-Lat:43.9301Long:88.0696CalumetCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember21,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs40236)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyPhaseStatusLiner Operational PeriodFinal Cover1ClosedActive5 feet of compacted clayand 60 mil geomembraneActiveActiveExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and Controls23A3BDecember 1994 to 19971996 to presentMid-1997 to presentLate 1998 to present2 feet of clay2 feet of clay(West slopes only)N/AQuantity (gallons)212,900 2,789,400 1,932,900 1,776,000 3,188,000Year1995Exhibit 3. Leachate Quantity Data19941996 1997 1998IName: Superior Emerald Park LandfillAddress: W124 S10629 South 124th StreetMuskego, WI 53150Owner: SuperiorOwnership status: CommercialFacility contact: Gene Kramer, General Manager, 414-529-1360State license No.: 03290Landfill type: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Standard with 1-foot drainage layerNumber of phases: Three (3)Status: Portions of phases 2 and 3 are activeLiner type: 5 feet of compacted clay and 60 mil geomembraneCover type; 6 inch daily cover of shredder fluffOperational period: November 1994 to presentPermitted to accept: Municipal, biomedical, contaminated soil, demolition, wastewatertreatment (WWT) sludge, and foundry wastes from Waukesha andMilwaukee countiesOverall location area: 300 acresPermitted area: 35 acresTotal permitted capacity: 3,550,360 yd3Underlying geology/soil type: Silt and clay loams underlain by gravel and dolomite/shale bedrockSpecial practice: Began re-circulating leachate in August of 1998.Nature of waste: MSW, WWT sludge, and contaminated soilTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 2,675,780 tons (as of January 1999)Total cumulative volume landfilled: 2,725,876 yd3 (as of January 1999)Liquid to solid ratio: 0.004 L/kgAverage leachate generation: 2,420,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 31.6 inchesdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityLeachate QualityExhibit 4. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsArsenic 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%Organics1,1,1-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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September1999)Combustion ash/sludge 20,000 82,335 108,421 194,419 220,334 192,578 105,189Lightweight aggregate plant waste — — — — 79 5,715 5,136Waste TypeQuantity (tons)1991Exhibit 2.Waste Data1990 1992 1993 19941995 1996LANDFILL CASE 7: WEPCO CALEDONIA ASH MONOFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusWEPCOCaldoniaAshLandfill-Lat:42.8246Long:87.9371RacineCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember21,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs41382)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: WEPCO Caledonia Ash MonofillAddress: 8719 Douglas AvenueCaledonia, WI 53108Owner: Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO)Ownership status: CaptiveFacility contact: Timothy Muehlfeld, Project Manager, 414-221-2345State license no.: 03232Landfill type: Industrial (Combustion ash)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: StandardNumber of phases: Eighteen (18)Status: Phase 8 activeLiner 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 presentEstimated year of closure: 2013 (as of 1997)Waste acceptance: Coal combustion ash and lightweight aggregateplant waste from WEPCO plantsPermitted area: 45 acresTotal permitted capacity: 4,050,000 yd3Underlying geology/soil type: Silty clays underlain by dolomite bedrockSpecial practices: Began using leachate as dust suppressant andcompression aid in September of 1993Nature of waste: Utility plant ash/sludge and lightweight aggregateplant wasteTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 938,206 tons (as of January 1997)Total cumulative volume landfilled: 869,825 yd3 (as of January 1997)Liquid to solid ratio: 0.034 L/kgAverage annual leachate generation: 8,417,471 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 29.1 inches1 Closed October 1990 to 1993 199423 Closed November 1993 to 1996 Early 19974 Closed December 1994 to 1997 Mid 19985 Unknown6 Closed February 1997 to 1998 Early 19997 Unknown8 Active May 1999 to present N/A9–18 ProposedFinal CoverInstalledPhase Status Operational PeriodExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and ControlsLeachate QualityExhibit 3. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPhysical/Chemical PropertiesAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsBarium 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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September 1999)LANDFILL CASE 8: INGLES MOUNTAIN C&D LANDFILL



# P u l a s

k i R a d f o r d c i t y2MileRadius1MileRadiusInglesMountainDebrisLandfill-Lat:37.119745Long:80.590338RadfordcityCounty,VA.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember02,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs47534)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationName: Ingles Mountain C&D LandfillAddress: 3070 First StreetRadford VA 24141Owner: New River Resource Authority (NRRA)Ownership status: CommercialFacility contact: Fred Hilliard, 540-674-1677State agency contact: Kate Glass, Inspector, 540-562-6700State permit no.: 526State 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 comingledStatus: Inactive (not accepting waste)Liner type: 1 foot of compacted clay linerCover type: The facility has not undergone final closure but has installed a 30 mil syntheticcoverOperational period: September 1989 to May 1997Regulatory/permitting Permitted to accept only construction waste, debris waste, demolition waste,controls: land clearing debris, tires, white goods, and bulk household itemsWaste acceptance: Accepts non-hazardous debris, consisting of stumps and trees, constructionand demolition debris, pallets not suitable for mulching, and appliances whichcannot be recycledOverall location area: 20 acresPermitted area: 4.08 acresLandfill capacity: 92,000 yd3Landfill dimensions: 600 x 510 feetUnderlying geology/soil type: Intensely faulted and folded sedimentary rockDepth to aquifer: 34 feetSpecial practices: Debris and sanitary leachates are comingledNature of waste: Household debris (50%), demolition debris (20%), miscellaneous (30%)Average annual landfilled quantity: 6,815.2 tonsTotal cumulative landfilled quantity: Approximately 67,000 tons (over two years of capacity remaining)Liquid to solid ratio: Approximately 0.056 L/kgAnnual quantity generated (1993): 992,100 gallonsAnnual precipitation (1993): 49.11 inchesLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityLeachate QualityExhibit 1. Leachate CompositionPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th50th90thMAXPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICSBOD 1 13000.0 13000.0 13000.0 13000.0COD 1 305000.00 305000.00 305000.00 305000.00TDS 1 1430000.0 1430000.0 1430000.0 1430000.0pH 1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1Ammonia 1 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0Nitrate/Nitrite 1 950.00 950.00 950.00 950.00TotalPhosphorus1 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0Total Phenols 1 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0Total Sulfide 1 29000.0 29000.0 29000.0 29000.0TRACE CONTAMINANTSMetalsArsenic 1 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4Barium 1 321.0 321.0 321.0 321.0Boron 1 5780.0 5780.0 5780.0 5780.0Cadmium 1 9.40 9.40 9.40 9.40Calcium 1 194000.00 194000.00 194000.00 194000.00Cerium 1 254.00 254.00 254.00 254.00Chloride 1 104000.00 104000.00 104000.00 104000.00Erbium 1 8.90 8.90 8.90 8.90Europium 1 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40Fluoride 1 3300.00 3300.00 3300.00 3300.00Gadolinium 1 19.70 19.70 19.70 19.70Indium 1 94.20 94.20 94.20 94.20Iridium 1 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00Iron 1 2090.00 2090.00 2090.00 2090.00Lithium 1 15.50 15.50 15.50 15.50Lutetium 1 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40Magnesium 1 67100.00 67100.00 67100.00 67100.00Manganese 1 1280.00 1280.00 1280.00 1280.00Mercury 1 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33Molybdenum 1 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60Neodymium 1 36.70 36.70 36.70 36.70Niobium 1 304.00 304.00 304.00 304.00Platinum 1 228.0 228.0 228.0 228.0Rhenium 1 86.7 86.7 86.7 86.7Scandium 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Silicon 1 6300.0 6300.0 6300.0 6300.0Sodium 1 134000.0 134000.0 134000.0 134000.0Strontium 1 5380.0 5380.0 5380.0 5380.0Terbium 1 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0Thulium 1 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8Uranium 1 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6Zirconium 1 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9OrganicsPesticidesDalapon 1 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31Disulfoton 1 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91MCPA 1 561.00 561.00 561.00 561.00MCPP 1 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.002,4,5-TP 1 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23Data sourceEffluent Guidelines for Landfill Point Source Category: Ingles MountainSampling Event, October 18, 1994.LANDFILL CASE 9: LA CROSSE COUNTY MUNICIPAL LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusLaCrosseCountyLandfill-Lat:43.84Long:91.2137LaCrosseCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember21,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs41692)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: La Crosse County LandfillAddress: 6500 State Road 16La Crosse, WI 54601-1830Owner: La Crosse CountyOwnership status: MunicipalFacility contact: Brian Tippetts, SW Manager, 608-785-9572State license no.: 03253Landfill type: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: StandardNumber of phases: Six (6)Status: Phases 1–3 are activeLiner type: 5 feet or 4 feet of compacted clay and 60 mil HDPEOperational period: December 31, 1999 to presentWaste acceptance: Non-hazardous municipal, commercial, industrial, demolition wastes andcombustion ashPermitted area: 25.3 acresTotal permitted capacity: 1,867,400 yd3 (1,471,100 yd3 waste only)Estimated year of closure: 2020 (estimated as of 1997)Special practices: MSW leachate is stored with C&D leachateNature of waste: Municipal, commercial, industrial, demolition wastes and ash from a resourcerecovery facilityTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 223,305 tons (as of Jan. 1997)Total cumulative volume landfilled: 314,700 yd3 (as of Jan. 1997)Liquid to solid ratio: 0.13 L/kgAverage annual leachate generation: 4,540,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 30.8 inchesPhaseStatusLiner Operational PeriodEstimated Waste Capacity (yd )31ActiveActive5 feet of compacted clayand 60 mil HDPE geomembraneActiveConstructedExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and Controls234December 1991 to present1993 to presentMid-1996 to presentN/A56ProposedProposed4 feet of compacted clayand 60 mil HDPE geomembrane107,650166,600286,000335,700363,100212,050MSW 135 270 1991*MSW 33,119 66,238 1992Combustion ash/sludge 9,956 7,367MSW 32,256 49,884 1993Combustion ash/sludge 9,840 7,282MSW 37,173 55,760 1994Combustion ash/sludge 10,285 7,611MSW 35,020 52,530 1995Combustion ash/sludge 10,151 7,613MSW 34,960 52,440 1996Combustion ash/sludge 10,410 7,703*Operations began December 31, 1991YearWaste TypeQuantity (tons)Volume (yd )3Exhibit 2.Waste DataQuantity (gallons)4,580,000 3,050,000 3,410,000 2,860,000 5,050,000 5,380,000 7,430,000Year1993Exhibit 3. Leachate Quantity Data19921994 1995 19961997 1998Leachate QualityExhibit 4. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsAntimony 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%Organics1,1,1Trichloroethane 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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September 1999)PhaseCell(s) StatusLinerA1–4ClosedActiveSingle 60 mil synthetic liner with 3 feet of clay51–311Exhibit 1. Landfill Construction and ControlsBCDE1–5Double 60 mil synthetic liner with 3 feet of clayLANDFILL CASE 10: SUPERIOR GREENTREE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusSuperiorGreentreeLandfill_Lat:41.30089Long:78.66528ElkCounty,PA.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember21,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs48824)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Superior Greentree Landfill Inc.Address: 635 Toby Rd.Kersey, PA 15846Owner: Browning-Ferris IndustriesOwnership status: CommercialFacility contact: Thaddeus Sorg, Site Manager, 814-265-1744EPA ID: PAD987374535NPDES ID: PA0103446Landfill type: Subtitle DPermitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Standard double leachate collection systemNumber 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 clayOperational period: September 1986 to presentWaste acceptance: Accepts non-hazardous industrial wastes (residual wastes), municipal solidwastes (MSW), industrial wastewater treatment plant sludges, municipaltreatment plant sludges, construction and demolition debris, asbestos, andincinerator ash; No yard wasteOverall location area: 1,336 acresTotal permitted area: 91 acresSpecial practices: Sludge is dried and placed in a rolloff container and disposed of inthe Greentree Landfill. Annual dewatered sludge landfilled: 125 tonsNature of waste: MSW (60%) and residual/industrial (40%)Average annual landfilled quantity: 320,000 tonsTotal 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 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 43 inchesExhibit 2. Leachate Quantity DataYear19951994 1996 1997 19981999*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 QualityExhibit 3. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th50th90thMAXAmenable Cyanide 1 13 13.00 13 13BOD 29 698 151000.00 916400 1680000COD 32 1458 852000.00 223300 4470000TDS 32 3701 2972000.00 4730400 7050000pH (su) 32 6.701 7.10 7.691 8Nitrate/Nitrite 21 0.44 1.60 300 400Total Cyanide 7 8.4 12.00 22.4 26Total Nitrogen 17 4240 26900.00 181840 225000Total Phenols 31 23 310.00 1370 1600Total Phosphorus 9 0.02 0.06 0.264 1TOC 32 928.5 217000.00 638400 1390000TSS 29 86.4 54000.00 179600 254000TRACE ELEMENTSMetalsAluminum 28 89.47 204.00 570.6 1610Antimony 15 4.9 11.50 22.7 38Arsenic 28 10.57 18.00 43.07 51Barium 32 630.5 1190.00 2423 3400Berylium 2 0.21 0.25 0.29 0.3Boron 31 1600 3590.00 8100 19500Bromide 15 1300 8600.00 12840 19300Cadmium 10 0.76 2.85 14.29 16Calcium 14 182000 216500.00 477700 495000Cerium 1 878 878.00 878 878Chloride 32 630 533500.00 1135000 1610000Chlorine 4 53 80.00 212 260Chromium 30 17.92 25.45 53 70Chromium (VI) 11 0.015 0.03 5.5 15Cobalt 7 7.06 13.10 60 60Copper 15 4.4 12.10 31.2 40Europium 1 7.58 7.58 7.58 7.58Flourene 1 29 29.00 29 29Fluoride 29 0.316 240.00 400 490Gold 3 211 211.00 219 221Holmium 1 93.8 93.80 93.8 93.8Iron 32 15520 29750.00 176800 242000Iron Dissolved 17 1240 3200.00 24900 193000Lead 13 3 6.00 9.88 17Lithium 8 109.2 125.00 147.3 162Magnesium 32 126200 174000.00 213800 231000Manganese 32 2732 13000.00 28310 38300Mercury 5 0.314 0.35 0.498 0.59Molybdenum 6 15.85 64.60 90 100Nickel 32 91 153.50 315 400Niobium 1 198 198.00 198 198Phosphorus 18 41 425.00 1130 1300Potassium 14 137200 2475000.00 3140000 3260000Ruthenium 1 283 283.00 283 283Scandium 1 5.73 5.73 5.73 5.73Selenium 4 9.04 16.90 20.77 21.1Silicon 11 464541.00 870 6840Silver 6 0.45 3.50 17.95 32Sodium 14 474400 527500.00 630500 665000Strontium 11 1280 1830.00 3330 3370Sulfate 20 39740 147000.00 244800 310000Sulfide 7 285 1550.00 10200 13600Sulfite 10 2000 5350.00 53750 87500Sulfur 11 15200 17200.00 103000 108000Tantalum 1 121 121.00 121 121Thallium 10 2 12.05 16.81 17.8Tin 4 18.84 41.20 102.06 123Titanium 8 3.5 17.25 26.88 33.6Vanadium 11 7 10.50 160 160Yttrium 6 3.25 3.45 5.05 6.2Zinc 31 37.3 104.00 180 740OrganicsAcenaphthene 1 8.6 8.60 8.6 8.6Acetophenone 9 11.4054 25.68 37.5682 59.441Aetone 16 167.5 695.00 2500 3300Aldrin 1 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84Alpha BHC 1 1.4 1.40 1.4 1.4Alpha-Terpinol 9 80.739 122.31 148.7012 168.022Ammonia as Nitrogen 11 149 182.00 201 203Benzene 7 4 6.00 8.42 8.9Benzo Perylene 1 17 17.00 17 17Benzoic Acid 11 1822.63 8181.08 15882.6173 21558.09Benzyl Alcohol 1 20.919 20.92 20.919 20.919Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Ether 5 0.76 4.00 4.8 5Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate3 2.48 4.40 38.48 47Butyl benzyle phthalatte 1 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41Chlorobenzene 5 1.04 2.00 2 2Chloroethane 3 3 7.00 51.8 63Chrysene 1 15 15.00 15 15Dichlorodiflouromethane 1 1 1.00 1 1Diethyl ether 8 56.5818 63.63 143.36868 156.6446Diethyl phthalate 10 7.27 24.00 55.7623 190Dimethoate 1 3.5 3.50 3.5 3.5Dimethyl Phthalate 1 10 10.00 10 10Dimethyl sulfone 1 27.0762 27.08 27.0762 27.0762Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 1 58 58.00 58 58Endosulfan 1 81.5 81.50 81.5 81.5Endosulfan Sulfate 2 0.656 3.12 5.584 6.2Endrin 1 0.1 0.10 0.1 0.1Ethylbenzene 19 21.8 33.00 44.2 47Gamma BHC 4 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15Heptachlor 1 0.052 0.05 0.052 0.052Hexane extractablematerial11 7 12.00 16 18Hexanoic acid 11 4578.86 16695.42 61054.68 69055.55Isophorone 10 14.6606 16.77 20.81519 25.3979m -xylene 1 31.8684 31.87 31.8684 31.8684MCPA 2 435.3 468.50 501.7 510MCPP 1 158 158.00 158 158Methylene chloride 19 8 34.05 728 1800N-Dodecane 1 15.103 15.10 15.103 15.103N,N-Dimethylformadine 2 71.5665 85.60 99.6265 103.134Naphthalene 3.68 35.30 63 63o & p-xylene 1 15.4406 15.44 15.4406 15.4406o-Cresol 2 41.7831 152.26 262.7439 290.364p-Cresol 13 23.6 490.00 2320 16065p-Cymene 1 10.138 10.14 10.138 10.138pDimethylaminoazobenzene1 38.389 38.39 38.389 38.389Phenanthrene 1 36 36.00 36 36Phenol 21 12.251 56.00 675.8818 850.92Styrene 1 24.39 24.39 24.39 24.39Tetrachloroethylene 3 1.3 2.90 13.38 16Tetrahydrofuran 13 309 735.00 2440 3500Toluene 27 32.7304 100.00 462 3398.9908Trans-1,2-Dichloroethane 3 14.0856414.63 15.271 15.431Trichloroethylene 2 5.73 7.05 8.37 8.7Tripropyleneglycol methylether1 1136.44 1136.44 1136.44 1136.44Vinyl chloride 5 1.72 10.43 12.93956 14.2326Xylene 21 21 97.00 140 1601-Propanol 6 603.5 2350.00 4500 56001,1-Dichloroethane 9 2.8 14.00 21.11446 21.57231,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane2 0.204 0.22 0.236 0.241, 2-Dichlorobenzene 2 0.71 0.75 0.79 0.81, 2-Diphenylhydrazine 1 1.7 1.70 1.7 1.71, 4-Dichlorobenzene 7 4.4 4.40 8.64 91,4-Dioxane 10 162.3623214.73 367.2307 385.32-Butanone 31 365 4000.00 17581.4 818746.52-Hexanone 9 62.7224 126.22 172.676 2202-Picoline 1 107.329 107.33 107.329 107.3292-Propanol 9 6.6 2400.00 5600 140002-Propanone 11 2594.37 7274.82 11367.89 83857.94082-Propenal 1 78.31 78.31 78.31 78.312, 4-D 3 1.88 2.20 4.28 4.82, 4-Dimethylphenol 3 13.6 28.00 32.8 344-Methyl-2-pentanone 27 38.1 185.00 631.0493 10004, 4-DDT 2 0.0214 0.03 0.0326 0.034Data SourceEffluent Guidelines for Landfill Point SourceCategory: Greentree Site Visit Report, September 28,1994.Exhibit 3. Leachate Quantity DataYear19951994 1996 1997 1998Volume (gallons)2,499,913 4,498,375 4,934,779 6,249,000 7,339,642LANDFILL CASE 11: MARATHON COUNTY AREA B MUNICIPAL LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusMarathonCountyLandfill-Lat:44.89416Long:89.4383MarathonCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember28,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs48757)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationName: Marathon County Area B LandfillAddress: R18500-B Ringle AvenueRingle, WI 54471-9762Owner: Marathon CountyOwnership status: MunicipalFacility contact: Jim Pellitteri, Solid Waste Manager, 715-446-3339State license no.: 03338Landfill type: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: StandardNumber of phases: Three (3)Status: Phases 1and 2 are activeLiner type: 4 feet of compacted clay, 60 mil HDPE liner, and geotextileEstimated year of closure: 2005Operational period: November 1993 to presentWaste acceptance: Municipal and commercial solid waste, sludge, foundry wastesdemolition wastes, and paper mill ashOverall location area: 532 acresPermitted area: Approximately 25 acresTotal permitted capacity: 1,427,000 ydUnderlying geology/soil type: Loamy soils underlain by granite bedrockDepth to aquifer: 70 feetNature of waste: MSW, commercial, sludges, foundry, demolition, and ash (fromWeyerhaeuser Co.)Total cumulative quantity landfilled: 630,086 tons (as of January 1999)Total cumulative volume landfilled: 1,031,530 ydLiquid to solid ratio: 0.042 L/kgAverage annual leachate generation: 5,104,300 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 30 inchesLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate Quantity33(as of January 1999)MSW and commercial 7,079 88,831 80,523 91,023 93,537 89,972Sludges 11,183 17,591 19,139 19,370 20,600 18,601Foundry sand 85 1,943 2,456 112 0 0Demolition 139 15,164 12,616 12,505 15,694 13,029Ash 173 3,084 3,557 3,755 3,734 3,590Waste TypeQuantity (tons)1994Exhibit 2.Waste Data19931995 1996 19971998Exhibit 1. Landfill Construction and ControlsPhaseStatusLiner Operational PeriodDesign Area(acres)1A1B23ActiveActiveActiveProposed4 feet of compacted clay,60 mil HDPE liner,and geotextileNovember 1993 to presentFebruary 1995 to presentDecember 1996 to present7.252.87.56.7–7.8Leachate QualityExhibit 4. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsAntimony 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%Organics1,1,1-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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September 1999)LANDFILL CASE 12: MEAD PAPER MILL MONOFILLChillicothe2MileRadius1MileRadiusMeadPaperMillMonofill-Lat:39.32908Long:82.98049RossCounty,OH.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember28,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs53127)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Mead Paper MonofillAddress: 401 South Paint StreetChillicothe, OH 45601Owner: Mead PaperOwnership status: CaptiveFacility contact: Elden Fink,Environmental Manager,740-772-3111 ext. 3475State agency contact: Steve Ryan, Ohio EPA(Southeast District Office)740-385-8501EPA ID: OHD043730209NPDES ID: OH0104507Landfill type: Industrial (Pulp and paper sludge)Permitting status: Closed (February 1993)Type of LCS: Leachate is collected in two gravity flow sumps and storedNumber of cells: One (1)Status: ClosedFinal cover type: Geonet and 20 mil PVC overlain by 18 inches of soil and 6 inches oftop soilOperational period: 1974 to 1990 (16 years)Waste acceptance: Accepted pulp sludge (mixture of clay, lime, and cellulose), fly ashand bark from Mead’s Chillicothe millSpecial practices: During LF’s operation, leachate used in spray fields at the landfill;in 1990, leachate was collected and treated, leachate was sprayed backonto the landfill during heavy rains; in 1993, leachate spraying ceased` completelyNature of waste: Pulp sludge thickened with bark and fly ashAverage annual quantity landfilled: 300,000 wet tons of sludgeTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: Approximately 4,200,000 tonsLiquid to solid ratio: Approximately 0.006 L/kgAverage annual leachate generation: Approximately 8,200,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 38.4 inchesLeachate QualityExhibit 1. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th50th90thMAXPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESBOD 1 120 120 120 120COD 1 1420 1420 1420 1420TDS 1 5790 5790 5790 5790pH 1 7 7 7 7Nitrate/Nitrite 1 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69Total Phenols 1 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52Total Phosphorus 1 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53Total Recoverable Oil & Grease 1 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47Total Sulfide (Iodometric) 1 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8TOC 1 500 500 500 500TSS 1 104 104 104 104TRACE ELEMENTSMetalsAluminum 1 405 405 405 405Arsenic 1 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8Barium 1 2050 2050 2050 2050Bismuth 1 127 127 127 127Boron 1 736 736 736 736Calcium 1 599000 599000 599000 599000Chloride 1 952 952 952 952Chromium +6 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Cobalt 1 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9Fluoride 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4Iron 1 13800 13800 13800 13800Lithium 1 754 754 754 754Magnesium 1 388000 388000 388000 388000Manganese 1 7090 7090 7090 7090Nickel 1 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3Phosphorus 1 4670 4670 4670 4670Potassium 1 386000 386000 386000 386000Silicon 1 13100 13100 13100 13100Sodium 1 495000 495000 495000 495000Strontium 1 3850 3850 3850 3850Sulfur 1 19200 19200 19200 19200Titanium 1 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9Zinc 1 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3OrganicsAmmonia as Nitrogen 1 53.2 53.2 53.2 53.2Dicamba 1 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41Dichlorprop 1 7.09 7.09 7.09 7.09Dinoseb 1 4.88 4.88 4.88 4.88MCPA 1 551 551 551 551p-Cymene 1 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3Picloram 1 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97Toluene 1 12.992 12.992 12.992 12.9922-Propanone 1 167.781 167.781 167.781 167.7812,4-D 1 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.152,4-DB 1 9.48 9.48 9.48 9.482,4,5-T 1 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.642,4,5-TP 1 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26Data sourceEffluent Guidelines for Landfill Point Source Category: Mead PreSampling Event, February 4, 1994.LANDFILL CASE 13: MORMON HOLLOW ROAD C&D LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusMormonHollowRoadDemolitionLandfillLat:42.5668Long:72.4091FranklinCounty,MA.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember28,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs52593)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Mormon Hollow Road Demolition LandfillAddress: Mormon Hollow RoadP.O. Box 202Wendell, MA 01379Owner: DB Enterprises, Inc.Ownership status: CommercialFacility contact: Dean Bennett, President, 978-544-8006Don Adams, Delta Engineers, 607-724-1367 ext. 20State agency contact: Mark Haley, MA DEP, 413-755-2253State permit no.: DL0319003Landfill type: Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Primary (top liner) and secondary (bottom liner) LCSNumber of cells: Five (5)Status: ActiveLiner type: Double-lined with two layers of chlorosulfonated polyethylene(hypalon) with 18 inches of gravel between each layerOperational period: June 1990 to presentRegulatory permitting controls: Permitted to accept non-hazardous construction and demolitiondebrisWaste acceptance: Does not accept glass, metal containers, plastic buckets, yard waste,leaves, lead-acid batteries, white goods, whole tires, cleanunpainted woodOverall location area: 20 acresPermitted area: 8 acresLandfill dimensions: 130 feet (deep), 720 feet (long), 500 feet (wide)Permitted capacity: 99 tons (268 yd3) per dayUnderlying geology/soil type: Bedrock overlain by 6 feet of compacted clayNature of waste: C&D debris (consisting of waste building materials) and limitedquantities of state regulated non-hazardous waste (i.e. soilscontaminated with virgin petroleum products)Quantity landfilled (1993): 36,400 tonsCumulative landfilled quantity: 129,255 tons (as of March 1999)Cumulative landfilled volume: 350,259 yd3 (as of March 1999)Liquid to solid ratio: 0.013 L/kgAverage annual quantity generated: Approximately 450,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 44.4 inchesCell(s) Status1Closed (full)234Exhibit 1. Landfill Construction and Controls5Closed (full)Closed (full)Closed (full)Subsection 5a – ActiveSubsection 5b – not prepared to receive wasteSubsection 5c – not prepared to receive wasteCoverFinal cover of hypalon underlying 18 inches silty sand and clayIntermediate cover of 12 inches of soilIntermediate cover of 12 inches of soilIntermediate cover of 12 inches of soilN/AN/AN/ALeachate QualityExhibit 2. Leachate Composition DataConcentration (ug/l)PARAMETEROBS 10th 50th 90th MAXPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESBOD 1 67 67 67 67COD 1 489 489 489 489TDS 1 2720 2720 2720 2720Solids 20 1300000 3700000 5120000 5400000pH (SU) 21 6.2 6.9 7.4 7.68Nitrate/Nitrite 1 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24Nitrate 17 116.8 1800 7560 9900Nitrite 8 12.8 19 325.6 936Total Cyanide 1 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9Total Phenols 1 89 89 89 89Total Sulfide (Iodometric) 1 27 27 27 27TOC 1 189 189 189 189TSS 1 22 22 22 22TRACE ELEMENTSMetalsAntimony 1 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8Arsenic 1 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8Barium 1 147.41 147.41 147.41 147.41Boron 1 16250 16250 16250 16250Calcium 1 280660 280660 280660 280660Chloride 1 299 299 299 299Chromium 1 9.88 9.88 9.88 9.88Copper 1 28.64 28.64 28.64 28.64Europium 1 9.88 9.88 9.88 9.88Fluoride 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Germanium 1 126.6 126.6 126.6 126.6Gold 1 41.52 41.52 41.52 41.52Iridium 1 75.35 75.35 75.35 75.35Iron 1 5429.8 5429.8 5429.8 5429.8Lead 1 28.06 28.06 28.06 28.06Magnesium 1 138820 138820 138820 138820Manganese 1 7151.5 7151.5 7151.5 7151.5Neodymium 1 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6Niobium 1 80.62 80.62 80.62 80.62Phosphorus 1 590.62 590.62 590.62 590.62Potassium 1 74175.2 74175.22 74175.22 74175.22Ruthenium 1 133.98 133.98 133.98 133.98Samarium 1 111.78 111.78 111.78 111.78Scandium 1 8.22 8.22 8.22 8.22Selenium 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7Silicon 1 8265.17 8265.17 8265.17 8265.17Sodium 1 365380 365380 365380 365380Strontium 1 2904.6 2904.6 2904.6 2904.6Sulfur 1 386573 386572.9 386572.9 386572.9Thorium 1 146.06 146.06 146.06 146.06Thulium 1 19.09 19.09 19.09 19.09Titanium 1 5.85 5.85 5.85 5.85Zinc 1 102.11 102.11 102.11 102.11OrganicsAmmonia as Nitrogen 1 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67Chloroform 2 7.49 9.05 10.61 11Disulfoton 1 4.42 4.42 4.42 4.42Methylene chloride 1 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2MCPA 1 490 490 490 490MCPP 1 490 490 490 490Toluene 1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1Trichloroethane 1 143.925 143.925 143.925 143.925Trichlorofluoromethane 1 54 54 54 54TPHC 4 2130 3300 4890 51001,1-Dichloroethane 2 5.54 6.5 7.46 7.71,1-Dichloroethene 2 13.4 15 16.6 171,1,1-Trichloroethane 1 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8Vinyl chloride 4 20.8 25 34.1 381,4-Dioxane 1 57.29 57.29 57.29 57.29Data SourceEffluent Guidelines for Landfill Point Source Category: Mormon Hollow SiteVisit Report, October 4, 1994.LANDFILL CASE 14: NORTHERN STATES POWER WOODFIELD ASH MONOFILLAshland2MileRadius1MileRadiusNSPBayfrontAshLandfillLat:46.584722Long:90.898611AshlandCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember21,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs44837)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Northern States Power Woodfield Ash MonofillPhysical address: Front StreetAshland, WI 54806Owner: Northern States Power (NSP)Ownership status: CaptiveFacility contact: Leroy Wilder, Jr., Coordinator, 715-839-2691State license no.: 03233Landfill type: Industrial (Combustion ash)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Standard with drainage blanket and geotextileNumber of phases: Five (5)Status: Phases 1 and 2 are active; Phases 3–5 have not been constructedLiner type: 5 feet of compacted clayCover type: No final caps or coversOperational period: March 1994 to presentPermitted wastes: Wood ash and coal ash from NSP plantsOverall location area: 240 acresPermitted area: 9 acresTotal permitted capacity: 255,000 yd3 (includes waste and intermediate cover)Estimated year of closure: 2009Underlying geology/soil type: Surface soils are clay to clay loams underlain by sandy till andsandstone bedrock at a depth 250 feetDepth to aquifer: 120 feet (confined)Nature of waste: Coal and wood combustion ash from NSP Bay Front PlantAverage annual quantity landfilled: 15,500 tonsAverage annual volume landfilled: 15,900 yd3Total cumulative quantity landfilled: 67,184 tonsTotal cumulative volume landfilled: 69,172 yd3Liquid to solid ratio: 0.05 L/kgAverage leachate generation: Approximately 975,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 30 inchesYearQuantity (tons)Volume (yd )3Exhibit 2. Waste Data19941995199619971998*7,83312,07914,11918,00015,15312,84113,42112,83516,30013,775*as of October 1998Exhibit 3. Leachate Quantity DataYear19951994 1996 1997 1998Quantity (gallons)12,000 834,000 2,196,000 978,000 863,000PhaseStatusLiner Operational Period1ActiveActive5 feet of compacted clayExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and Controls23March 1994 to presentJanuary 1994 to presentProposedLeachate QualityExhibit 4. Leachate Composition DataConcentration (ug/l)PARAMETER OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsArsenic 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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September 1999)LANDFILL CASE 15: WMWI TIMBERLINE TRAIL MUNICIPAL LANDFILLExhibit 3. Leachate Quantity DataYear1995 1996 1997 1998Quantity (gallons)1,524,597 1,124,259 1,643,438 3,922,5232MileRadius1MileRadiusWMWITimberlineTrailLandfillLat:45.45364Long:91.35843RuskCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember21,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs41762)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: WMWI Timberline Trail LandfillAddress: P.O. Box 160Bruce, WI 54819Owner: Waste Management of Wisconsin (WMWI)Ownership status: CommercialFacility contact: Scott O’Neill, Site Manager, 715-868-7000State license no.: 03455Landfill type: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: StandardNumber of phases: Five (5)Status: Portions of phases 1–4 are activeLiner type: 4 feet of compacted clay, 60 mil geomembrane, and geotextileCover type: Daily cover of petroleum contaminated soilEstimated year of closure: 2006 (as of January 1997)Operational period: January 5, 1995 to presentWaste acceptance: Municipal (MSW), asbestos, petroleum contaminated soil,demolition, coal combustion ash, foundry, and other non-hazardouswastesOverall location area: 160 acresPermitted area: 27 acresTotal permitted capacity: 2,933,000 ydDepth to aquifer: 25 feetSpecial practice: Operate a bio-remediation facility on-site (store bio-waste in landfillprior to treatment).Nature of waste: MSW, asbestos, petroleum contaminated soil, demolition,coal combustion ash, foundry and other non-hazardouswastes including: filters, wood blocks, pre-treatmentsludge and recycling rejectsTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 630,086 tons (as of January 1997)Total cumulative volume landfilled: 777,495 yd3 (as of January 1997)Liquid to solid ratio: 0.024 L/kgAverage annual leachate generation: 2,054,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 32 inches3PhaseStatusLiner Operational Period1ActiveActive4 feet of compacted clay,60 mil geomembrane, andgeotextileActiveActiveExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and Controls234Jan. 1995 to presentNov. 1997 to presentNov. 1996 to present5ProposedSept. 1998 to presentYearQuantity (tons)Volume (yd )3Exhibit 2. Waste Data19951996118,244264,644199776,859183,834232,590 357,830Leachate QualityExhibit 4. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsBarium 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%Organics1,1,1-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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September 1999)Year1994 1995 1996*Quantity (gallons)2,109,698 2,931,857 945,648Exhibit 3. Leachate Quantity Data*Quantity for January through March onlyYearWaste TypeQuantity (tons)Volume (yd )3Exhibit 2. Waste DataFoundry waste221,886119,197185,633164,360160,916137,506199419951996PhaseStatusLiner Operational PeriodFinal Cover1AClosedClosed5 feet of compacted clayActiveActive1B23AApril 1994 toLate 19961995 to Late 1998August 1995 to presentLate 1996 to present6 inches compacted clay, 30 inch rooting zone,6 inch top soilN/A3BProposed1 foot compacted clay, 30 inch rooting zone,6 inch top soilN/AEstimated Waste Capacity (yd )3274,000267,800792,000Exhibit 1. Landfill Construction and ControlsLANDFILL CASE 16: WAUPACA FOUNDRY MONOFILLWaupaca2MileRadius1MileRadiusWaupacaFoundryLandfill-Lat:44.353624Long:89.12038WaupacaCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember20,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs43716)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Waupaca Foundry MonofillAddress: Granite Valley and Elm Valley RoadsWaupaca, WI 54981Owner: Waupaca Foundry, Inc.Ownership status: CaptiveFacility contact: Jeffrey Loeffler, Environmental Coordinator, 715-258-6611State license no.: 03412Landfill type: Industrial (Foundry)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Standard with 1-foot drainage layer and geotextileNumber of phases: Three (3)Status: Phase 2 and 3A are activeLiner type: 5 feet of compacted clayOperational period: April 1994 to presentEstimated year of closure: 2004 (as of Jan. 1997)Waste acceptance: Accepts only high volume foundry waste from Waupaca Foundryincluding system sand, slag, WWT cakes, core sands, cleaning roomwastes and refractoriesPermitted area: 19.5 acresTotal permitted capacity: 1,493,000 yd3Underlying geology/soil type: Surface soils include sandy loams underlain by granite bedrock at100 feetSpecial practices: In August of 1995, began re-using leachate as dust suppressant onwaste prior to landfillingNature of waste: Foundry system sand, slag, WWT cakes, core sands,cleaning room waste and refractoriesTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 526,716 tons (as on January 1997)Total cumulative volume landfilled: 462,782 yd3 (as of January 1997)Liquid to solid ratio: 0.033 L/kg (based on 1995 data)Average annual leachate generation: 2,520,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 32 inchesLeachate QualityExhibit 4. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsBarium 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%Organics1,3,5-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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September 1999)LANDFILL CASE 17: WESTSIDE RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusWestsideLandfill-Lat:41.918709Long:85.710514St.JosephCounty,MI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder1010-100100-1,0001,000-3,0003,000-6,0006,000-10,00010,000-20,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember02,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs45356)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteName: Westside Recycling and Disposal FacilityAddress: 60050 Roberts RoadThree Rivers, MI 49093Owner: Waste Management of Michigan, Inc.Ownership status: CommercialFacility contact: Eric Shafer, Site Operator, 616-279-5444EPA ID: MID985634583Landfill types: Subtitle D and Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Network of drains overlain on the liners in each landfill; leachateis conveyed through force mains to an on-site above groundaeration tankNumber of landfills: Four (4)Regulatory permitting controls: Permitted to operate a Type II—sanitary waste landfill and aType III construction and demolition landfill by the MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources MIDNR)Waste acceptance: Customer must prepare a waste analysis plan and perform anynecessary analysis required by WMX or the MIDNR to properlyidentify the waste stream prior to acceptance at the landfill fordisposalOverall location area: 220 acresPermitted area: 122.5 acresPermitted capacity (active landfill): 7.8 million yd3 (Type II Sanitary)Run-on/off controls: 1 foot of intermediate clay cover placed on the outsideslopesUnderlying geology/soil type: 30 feet of sand and gravelDepth to aquifer: 16 feetNature 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 yd3Total cumulative volume landfilled: Cells 1–4: 1,900,000 yd3Cells 8–13: 2,750,000 yd3C&D LF: 265,000 yd3Total cumulative quantity landfilled: 3,650,000 tonsLiquid to solid ratio: 0.007 L/kgAverage annual leachate generation: 6,000,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 35.2 inchesLeachate QuantityLandfill Type/AreaCell(s) StatusLinerLCS CoverOperationalPeriodType II (Sanitary)/17 acresClosedClosedNone None2 feet compacted clay,topsoil, vegetative cover1960–19861–4aSingle 30-milPVC linerLCS1985–1994Primary LCS andleak detectionsystem4bNot yetconstructedNone5–78–13ActiveN/ANot yetconstructedComposite cap of PVCliner and one footcompacted clayExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and ControlsType II (Sanitary)/32.5 acresDouble 30-milPVC linerPrimary LCS andsecondary leakdetection systemType II (Sanitary)/67 acresDoublecomposite linerStart: July 1993Type III (C&D)/6 acresActive 30-mil PVC linerLCSNoneStart: 1989Leachate QualityExhibit 2. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 90th MAXPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESCOD 1 14 14 14 14TDS 1 466 466 466 466pH 2 7.003 7.015 7.027 7.03Nitrate/Nitrite 1 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34TRACE ELEMENTSMetalsArsenic 1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1Barium 1 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.2Boron 1 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4Calcium 1 126000 126000 126000 126000Chloride 2 7264.3 36213.5 65162.7 72400Fluoride 1 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17Iron 1 4960 4960 4960 4960Magnesium 1 28600 28600 28600 28600Manganese 1 1600 1600 1600 1600Potassium 1 3010 3010 3010 3010Silicon 1 3270 3270 3270 3270Sodium 1 15000 15000 15000 15000Strontium 1 200 200 200 200Sulfur 1 9850 9850 9850 9850Zinc 1 16 16 16 16OrganicsAmmonia as Nitrogen 2 60101.2 300500.1 540900.1 601000Dalapon 1 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3Dicamba 1 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4Dichlorprop 1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7Dinoseb 1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1Methylbenzene 1 110 110 110 110m-xylene 1 51 51 51 51p-xylene 1 50 50 50 50Picloram 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4Toluene 1 520 520 520 5202,4-D 1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.82,4-DB 1 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.42,4,5-T 1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.22,4,5-TP 1 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5Data SourceEffluent Guidelines for Landfill Point Source Category: Westside Site VisitReport, May 26, 1995.LANDFILL CASE 18: WINNEBAGO COUNTY SUNNYVIEW MUNICIPAL LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusWinnebagoCountySunnyviewLandfillLat:43.947004Long:88.539705WinnebagoCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember20,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs62229)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Winnebago County Sunnyview LandfillAddress: 100 West County Road YOshkosh, WI 54901Owner: Winnebago CountyOwnership status: MunicipalFacility contact: Henry Sommer, Superintendent, 414-424-0793State license no.: 03175Landfill types: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Industrial (Paper mill sludge)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: StandardNumber of phases: MSW/sludge landfill — Six (1–6)Sludge landfill — Four (A–D)Status: Phases 1–4 (MSW/sludge) and A–D (sludge) are activeLiner type: Double-lined; 5 feet and 3 feet of clay with a granular drainage blanket betweenthe two linersOperational period: January 1989 to presentProposed year of closure: 2010Waste acceptance: MSW/sludge landfill — municipal, commercial, and industrial solidwasteSludge landfill — pulp/paper mill sludgeOverall location area: 213 acresPermitted area: MSW/sludge landfill — 74 acresSludge landfill — 28 acresCell dimensions: MSW/sludge landfill — 400 feet wide by 1,100 feet longSludge landfill — 200 feet wide by 800 feet longTotal permitted capacity: MSW/sludge landfill — 7,783,500 yd3Sludge landfill — 1,260,100 yd3Underlying geology/soil type: Surface soils are silty clay to clay underlain by dolomite bedrockNature of waste: Municipal, commercial, and industrial solid wasteincluding: garbage, refuse, combustible and noncombustible demolition wastes, brush, trees andpulp/paper mill sludgeTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 2,037,153 tons (as of January 1997)Average annual quantity: 226,400 tonsTotal cumulative volume landfilled: 3,287,010 yd3 (as of January 1997)Average annual volume: 365,200 yd3Liquid to solid ratio: 0.029 L/kgAverage annual leachate generation: 16,484,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 29.5 inchesExhibit 2. Waste Data*MSWPulp/paper mill sludge1,315,170721,9832,630,340656,670Wastes TypeCumulative Quantity (tons)Cumulative Volume (yd )3*As of January 1997PhaseStatusLiner Design Capacity (yd )31–4Active5 feet of clay overlain by adrainage blanket and 3 feetof clayExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and Controls5–6A–DLandfill TypeMSW/sludgeSludgeConstructedActive6,276,716 (MSW)641,937 (sludge)1,260,100Leachate QualityExhibit 3. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalArsenic 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%Organics1,1,1-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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted by SAIC(September 1999)LANDFILL CASE 19: SUPERIOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusSuperiorLandfillLat:32.02723Long:81.26884ChathamCounty,GA.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember21,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs61854)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Superior LandfillAddress: 3001 Little Neck RoadSavannah, GA 31419Tel: 912-927-6113Owner/Operator: Superior (a Waste Management Company since 1991)Ownership status: CommercialFacility contact: Mike Cooper, 912-927-6113State agency contact: Harold Gillespie,GA Environmental Protection Division,404-362-2692EPA ID: GA0001896810State permit no.: 025-070DLandfill type: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Sump/riserNumber of cells: 8 (upon completion)Status: Only 1 active cellLiner type: Clay and synthetic liners (geonet also)Cover type: 6 inch daily coverOperational period: March 1994 to presentWaste acceptance: Accepts residential, commercial, and industrial waste such as contaminatedsoils and process wastes, asbestos, POTW sludges, and municipal incineratorashOverall location area: 742 acresPermitted area: 90 acresUnderlying geology/soil type: Tight, fine sand underlain with an 8–14 inch marine clay layerSpecial 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: UnknownTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 147,000 tons (March–October 1994)Liquid to solid ratio: 0.027 L/kgAnnual leachate generation: 1,014,500 gallons (only 8 months of leachate collection)Average annual precipitation: 50.7 inchesLeachate QualityExhibit 1. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th50th90thMAXPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESBOD 6 1090.00 1135.00 1340.00 1340.00COD 6 1450.00 1520.00 1600.00 1600.00TDS 6 2400.00 2420.00 2590.00 2590.00pH 6 6.92 7.00 7.04 7.04Nitrate/Nitrite 6 1.07 1.15 2.02 2.02Total Organic Carbon(TOC)6 584.00 674.00 692.00 692.00Total Phenols 6 1230.00 1265.00 1310.00 1310.00Total Phosphorous 6 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03Total Sulfide (Iodometric) 6 7.80 10.65 16.00 16.00Total Suspended Solids 6 27.00 203.00 223.00 223.00TRACE ELEMENTSMetalsAluminum 6 55.70 74.10 92.50 92.50Arsenic 6 13.60 16.60 16.80 16.80Barium 4 0.20 0.30 0.33 0.33Boron 6 1760.00 1790.00 1860.00 1860.00Cadmium 6 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10Calcium 6 330000.00 333000.00 352000.00 352000.00Chloride 6 264.00 277.50 283.00 283.00Hexavalent chromium 6 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06Fluoride 6 0.13 0.40 0.45 0.45Iron 6 90600.00 93550.00 97700.00 97700.00Lead 6 78.80 114.40 150.00 150.00Magnesium 6 89200.00 90550.00 94500.00 94500.00Manganese 6 4580.00 4615.00 4900.00 4900.00Nickel 6 15.00 17.20 18.10 18.10Potassium 6 73000.00 75300.00 76300.00 76300.00Silicon 64280.00 4300.00 4430.00 4430.00Sodium 6 261000.00 264500.00 275000.00 275000.00Strontium 6 1370.00 1395.00 1440.00 1440.00Sulfur 6 3630.00 4005.00 4470.00 4470.00Yttrium 6 2.50 2.80 4.50 4.50Zinc 6 10.20 13.10 19.60 19.60OrganicsAcetophenone 6 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64Alachlor 4 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25Alpha-Terpinol 6 43.16 44.36 47.20 47.20Ammonia as Nitrogen 6 15.40 69.00 73.00 73.00Benzoic Acid 6 6957.72 7411.37 8903.46 8903.46Chlorothalonil 4 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28Diallate A 4 2.16 4.56 6.95 6.95Diallate B 4 40.50 40.50 40.50 40.50Diethyl ether 6 84.759 89.643 98.142 98.142Dioxathion 4 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00Diphenyldisulfide 4 14.00 14.50 46.00 46.00Disulfoton 4 14.00 14.50 46.00 46.00Ethylbenzene 6 30.748 32.997 34.509 34.509Gamma-BHC 4 0.19 0.25 0.33 0.33Hexamethylphosporamide 4 7.06 7.14 7.40 7.40Hexane extractablematerial4 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.00Hexanoic acid 6 4939.19 5842.33 6963.05 6963.05MCPA 4 58.00 79.60 328.00 328.00MCPP 4 73.00 243.50 933.00 933.00Naled 4 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00p-Cresol 6 677.59 767.40 935.41 935.41Phenol 6 426.10 578.03 1228.84 1228.84Phosphamidon E 4 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.00Propachlor 4 0.70 0.81 1.48 1.48Terbuthylazine 7 10.10 11.30 12.50 12.50Toluene 6 361.35 382.26 385.16 385.16Trichlorofluoromethane 6 3182.72 3182.72 3182.72 3182.72Tripropyleneglycol methylether6 1138.16 1177.10 1328.03 1328.03Vinyl chloride 6 15.12 19.08 21.36 21.361,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane10 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.221,4-Dioxane 6 10.67 12.06 13.45 13.452-Butanone 6 2792.24 3325.35 3597.29 3597.292-Propanone 6 968.99 1592.17 2223.35 2223.352,4-D 4 1.90 12.65 23.40 23.402,4-DB 4 5.00 9.10 14.20 14.202,4,5-T 4 0.30 0.60 0.80 0.802,4,5-TP 4 0.30 11.50 40.10 40.104-Chloro-3-Methylphenol 6 188.22 188.22 188.22 188.224-4-Methyl-2-pentanone 6 321.885 396.312 429.714 429.714Data SourceEffluent Guidelines for Landfill Point Source Category: Superior Sampling Event, May25, 1995.LANDFILL CASE 20: NORTHWOODS SANITARY LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusNorthwoodsSanitaryLat:45.4514Long:91.6433BarronCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember28,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs51856)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Northwoods Sanitary LandfillAddress: 1750 24th StreetRice Lake, WI 54686-8735Owner: NorthwoodsOwnership status: CommercialFacility contact: Gregory Snider, President, 715-458-4565State license no.: 03212Landfill type: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Standard with 1-foot drainage blanketNumber of phases: Three (3)Status: Phase 1 and 2 activeLiner type: 5 feet of clay and 60 mil HDPE geomembraneEstimated year of closure: 2011 (as of January 1997)Operational period: October 1993 to presentWaste acceptance: Municipal solid wastePermitted area: 10.5 acresTotal permitted capacity: 500,000 yd3Underlying geology/soil type: Sandstone/quartzite bedrock overlain by loamDepth to aquifer: 40–200 feetNature of waste: Municipal solid wasteTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 29,010 tons (as of January 1997)Total cumulative volume landfilled: 136,521 yd3 (as of January 1997)Liquid to solid ratio:Average annual leachate generation: 1,300,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 32.2 inchesExhibit 2. Leachate Volume DataYear19951994 1996 1997 1998*Volume (gallons)1,298,900 1,231,200 1,320,900 N/A 698,600YearWastes TypeQuantity (tons)Volume (yd )3Exhibit 1. Waste DataMSW0.254,15113,7371.1719,53464,646199419951996MSWMSWMSW11,122 52,3401993**Began operations in October of 1993*Quantities for January through June only.Leachate QualityExhibit 3. Leachate Composition DataConcentration (ug/l)PARAMETER OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsBenzene 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%Organics1,1-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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September 1999)LANDFILL CASE 21: VERNON COUNTY MUNICIPAL LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusVernonCountyLandfillLat:43.519727Long:90.908213VernonCounty,WI.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember20,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs59502)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Vernon County Municipal LandfillAddress: Route 3Box 247BViroqua, WI 54665Owner: Vernon CountyOwnership status: MunicipalFacility contact: George Nettum, Chairman, 608-634-2900State license no.: 03268Landfill type: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: Standard with 1-foot sand drainage layerNumber of phases: 3 Phases composed of 9 modulesStatus: Phase 1 (modules 1 and 2) — activePhase 2 (module 1) — activeLiner type: Composite (5 feet compacted clay and 60 mil HDPE geomembrane)Operational period: October 1993 to presentWaste acceptance: Residential, commercial, non-hazardous industrial wastes fromVernon CountyOverall location area: 158 acresPermitted area: 10 acresMax waste depth: 25 feetTotal permitted capacity: 314,942 yd3 (283,448 yd3 of waste)Underlying geology/soil type: Silty, well-drained loess underlain by clays, pebbles and dolomitebedrockDepth to aquifer: 180 feetNature of waste: Garbage, refuse, animal carcasses, asbestos, and demolitionTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 25,804 tonsTotal cumulative volume landfilled: 50,825 yd3Liquid to solid ratio: 0.027 L/kgAverage leachate generation: 186,176 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 32.5 inchesPhaseStatusOperational PeriodEstimated Waste Capacity (yd )31ActiveActiveExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and Controls23October 1993 to presentEarly 1996 to presentLate 1998 to presentProposedProposedModules1212–31–432,37633,69925,27256,870135,231Exhibit 2.Waste DataPetro contaminated soil783783YearWaste TypeQuantity (tons)Volume (yd )3MSW2,3687,8527,3664,73615,70414,7321994199519967,435 14,8701993Leachate QualityExhibit 3. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th 50th 95th MAX % DetectPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESAlkalinity (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 ELEMENTSMetalsAntimony 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%Organics1,1,1-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 SourceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources File review conducted bySAIC (September 1999)LANDFILL CASE 22: TANGIPAHOA PARISH MUNICIPAL LANDFILL2MileRadius1MileRadiusTangipahoaRegionalSolidWasteFacilityLat:30.7003Long:90.575St.HelenaCounty,LA.ThiscomputerrepresentationhasbeencompiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromsourceswhichhavesupplieddataorinformationthathasnotbeenverifiedbythetheEPA.Thisdataisofferedhereasageneralrepresentationonly,andisnottobeusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutverificationbyanindependantprofessionalqualifiedtoverifysuchdataorinformation.TheEPAdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracy,completeness,ortimelinessoftheinformationshown,andshallnotbeliableforanylossorinjuryresultingfromrelianceupontheinformationshown.AlbersProjectionLEGENDBasinBoundaryUSGSCatalogUnitCountyBoundary1990PopulationDensityPerSqMiUnder10101001001,0001,0003,0003,0006,0006,00010,00010,00020,000Over20,00000.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91MilesProducedSeptember28,1999BySITEPLUS(Reqs53978)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyIdentificationLandfill Construction and ControlsLandfilled WasteLeachate QuantityName: Tangipahoa Parish LandfillAddress: 57510 Hano RoadIndependence, LA 70443Owner: Tangipahoa Parish CouncilOwnership status: MunicipalFacility contact: Buddy Till, Landfill Manager, 504-878-6332Charles Hedges, Consultant (Delta Engineers)NPDES ID: LA0078921State permitnNo.: P-0127Landfill type: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)Permitting status: ActiveType of LCS: StandardNumber of cells: Five (5)Status: Cell 4 is activeLiner 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 presentWaste acceptance: Accepts only non-hazardous municipal solid waste and limitedamounts of construction & demolition (C&D) debrisOverall location area: 100 acresPermitted area: 44 acresCell 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 stormevent)Underlying geology/soil type: Impervious clayDepth to aquifer: 3 feetNature of waste: Municipal or commercial non-hazardous solid waste (70%), yardwastes (15%), agricultural waste (other than pesticides) (10%), C&Ddebris (3%) and sewage sludge (2%)Average annual quantity landfilled: 45,760 tonsTotal cumulative quantity landfilled: 569,264 tonsLiquid to solid ratio: 0.007 L/kgAverage annual quantity generated: 1,092,000 gallonsAverage annual precipitation: 66 inchesExhibit 1. Landfill Construction and ControlsPhaseStatusLiner Operational PeriodFinal CoverTemporarysiteClosedNaturally occurringclay base1234Active3 feet of compactedclay1981 to 19841984 to 19861986 to 19881989 to 19931993 to present2 feet of compactedclayN/ALeachate QualityExhibit 2. Leachate Composition DataPARAMETERConcentration (ug/l)OBS 10th50th90thMAXPHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESBOD 2 131.4 153 174.6 180COD 2 1109 1545 1981 2090TDS 1 5400 5400 5400 5400pH (su) 2 7 7 7 7Nitrate/Nitrite 2 1 1 1 1Total Phenols 2 127.6 146 164.4 169Total Phosphorus 2 5.3 6.5 7.7 8Total Sulfide (Iodometric) 1 76 76 76 76TOC 2 168.8 208 247.2 257TSS 2 5806 14470 23134 25300TRACE ELEMENTSMetalsAluminum 2 50380 111100 171820 187000Arsenic 2 9.5 19.1 28.7 31.1Barium 2 1208 1760 2312 2450Beryllium 2 1.79 4.15 6.51 7.1Boron 2 2550 3910 5270 5610Cadmium 1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1Calcium 2 142500 184500 226500 237000Cerium 1 1900 1900 1900 1900Chloride 2 398.4 728 1057.6 1140Chromium 2 98.36 210.2 322.04 350Cobalt 2 49.7 50.9 52.1 52.4Copper 2 67.7 138.5 209.3 227Fluoride 2 1.1 1.5 1.9 2Iron 2 100980 184100 267220 288000Lanthanum 1 681 681 681 681Lead 2 90.06 216.7 343.34 375Magnesium 2 83990 99550 115110 119000Manganese 2 2036 3620 5204 5600Mercury 2 0.391 0.955 1.519 1.66Neodymium 1 937 937 937 937Nickel 2 103.92 148.4 192.88 204Phosphorus 2 125400 223000 320600 345000Silicon 2 63180 91100 119020 126000Sodium 2 458500 792500 1126500 1210000Strontium 2 736.6 787 837.4 850Sulfur 2 11583 19635 27687 29700Vanadium 2 174.4 476 777.6 853Yttrium 3 106.68 397 583.4 630Titanium 2 80.35 91.75 103.15 106Zinc 1 1360 1360 1360 1360Zirconium 1 124 124 124 124OrganicsAmmonia as Nitrogen 2 652 2900 5148 5710Biphenyl 1 200 200 200 200Disulfoton 1 14 14 14 14Ethylbenzene 2 15.5705 16.8325 18.0945 18.41Hexane extractable material 1 26 26 26 26Hexanoic acid 1 20.834 20.834 20.834 20.834MCPA 1 201 201 201 201Methylene chloride 1 10.686 10.686 10.686 10.686OCDD 2 1238.33 5576.85 9915.37 11000p-cresol 2 22.4832 48.376 74.2688 80.742Terbuthylazine 1 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3Toluene 2 37.5793 48.1845 58.7897 61.441Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether 2 991.1637 1235.0985 1479.0333 1540.017m-xylene 1 13.803 13.803 13.803 13.8031234678-HPCDD 2 36.528 126.96 217.392 24012 34678-HPCDF 1 56 56 56 56123678-HXCDD 1 0.174 0.174 0.174 0.174123789-HXCDD 1 0.464 0.464 0.464 0.4642-Butanone 2 75.6861 90.9305 106.1749 109.9862-Propanone 2 105.1182 109.859 114.5998 115.7852,4,5-T 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1Data SourceEffluent Guidelines for Landfill Point Source Category: Tangipahoa Site VisitReport, February 4, 1994.

# September 2000 5-1 Draft 5. B IBLIOGRAPHY



# 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 . 2 nd 

# Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 1981.

Svavarsson, G. and P. Fauble. Investigation of Groundwater Impacts at Construction and

Demolition Waste Landfills . Presented at the 17 th 

# 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 . 2 nd 

# 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 — 5 th 

# 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 programSeptember 2000 A-1 DRAFTAPPENDIXA.REVIEW OFSTATELANDFILLLEACHATEDATAAVAILABILITYState Facility Type Contact Data Quality AvailabilityAK Hazardousand NonHazardousHeather StockardSolid WasteManagementHandful of LF’s collect leachate. Several pages ofdata in each quarterly monitoring reportsFOIAAL NonHazardousAndy BakerDEM/Land DivisionNo reporting requirementSmall amount of data for over 200 facilitiesOn-site file review and copySubtitle C Michael ChampionDEM - Haz. WasteSectionNo reporting requirement and very limited data forthe only Subtitle C LFOn-site file review and copyAR Hazardousand NonHazardousRhonda SharpPoll. Control &Ecology/Office of Pub.AffairsData on file at office but no published reports orelectronic formats, ~50 LF’s and 1 Subtitle C LFOn-site file review and copyAZ NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)Technical StaffSolid Waste SectionLimited monitoring data but not compiled 24 hour notice for file reviewCA NonHazardousBart Simmons State requires leachate data from LF’s To receive published dataSubtitle C Bill VeileEPA/ Hazardous WasteState requires monthly leachate recovery reports On-site file review and copyCO NonHazardousGlenn MallorySolid WasteManagement DivisionState collects data on five LF’s On-site file review and copyState Facility Type Contact Data Quality Availability*Comprehensive leachate data collection programSeptember 2000 A-2 DRAFTSubtitle C Tanell RobertsHaz. Materials & WasteMgmt. DivisionState does not collect leachate data N/ACT Ash (noSubtitle C)John EnglandDEPState requires quarterly reports for three ash LF’swith data on file at officeOn-site file review and copyDE NonHazardousDennis MurphySolid Waste BranchLeachate data from five LF’s in electronic format Data through Delaware SolidWaste Authority and needwritten request (FOIA)Subtitle C Alex RitbergHazardous WasteBranchCollect data from one double-lined LF on bi-annualbasisFOIA or side-step FOIA bycopying thru EPA Region 3FL NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)Lisa MartinDEP/ Bureau of Solidand Hazardous WasteState requires leachate reporting, 279 active nonhazardous LF’s with 178 of this total being C&DLF’sTo receive ~10 mb of data inelectronic format and 1 1993reportGA NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)Pete DasherDNR/Solid WasteProgramData on file for only a handful of the state’s ~100LF’s; overall no reporting requirementOn-site file review and copyMunicipal Harold GillespieDEP (Land Protection)Limited data (only some groundwater data); statedthat the best source of data was the facilityOn-site file review at regionalofficeHI Hazardousand NonHazardousGeorge TabilOffice of Solid WasteData submitted if specified in permit, 13 active and15 closed LF’sContact each LF for dataState Facility Type Contact Data Quality Availability*Comprehensive leachate data collection programSeptember 2000 A-3 DRAFTIA NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)Doc Holiday Leachate data available by permit number On-site file review and copyID Hazardousand NonHazardousPhil FergusonDEQState collected limited leachate data FOIAIL NonHazardousSar RastabergEPA/Landfills SectionData collected by state but no publishedreports/summaries or electronic formats, databaseto be constructed within the yearFOIASubtitle C Sean ChisekEPA/Haz. WasteState does not require leachate monitoring untilpost-closure, 3 Subtitle C LF’sContact each LF for limiteddataIN Hazardousand NonHazardousGhodrat HiadariDNR/Solid WasteReport leachate data quarterly or annually but notcompiled, do not require leachate characterization,~50 Non-Haz LF’s and 1 closed Subtitle COn-site file review and copyKS NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)Joe KronanDHE/Bureau of WasteMgmt.Annual analysis reporting, reports on file at office On-site file review and copyCall Phil Rosewicz foradditional informationKY NonHazardous(No SubtitleC)Mary GowensDEP/Division of WasteManagementRequire quarterly reports which include leachatevolume and characterization data, 33 LF’sContact Maria Wood at (502)564-6716 ext. 210 for filereview or On-site file reviewand copy*LA NonHazardousBrett LeBlancDEQ/Solid WasteDivisionRequire annual leachate data reports for 213parameters, currently only one report and no datain electronic formatTo receive LF reportCopy additional data at officeState Facility Type Contact Data Quality Availability*Comprehensive leachate data collection programSeptember 2000 A-4 DRAFTSubtitle C Narendra DaveDEQ/Haz. WasteDivisionTwo active LF’s required to report quarterly, filescontain large amount of data but no publishedreports or electronic formatsOn-site file review and copyMA Hazardousand NonHazardousAbdul TurrayDEPContact initiatedC&D Mark HaleyDEP -Western RegionHardcopy files for each landfill within each regionincluding limited waste and leachate qualityOn-site file, however, was ableto fax limited data regardingone specific landfillMD NonHazardousEdward DexterDepartment ofEnvironment/ SolidWasteRequire annual reporting of leachate volumes andcharacterization data for the 43 LF’s, files dateback to early 1980's, files are not organizedSend written request to PublicInformation Acts Section(FOIA)Subtitle C Amin YazdanianDepartment ofEnvironment/ HazardousWasteRequire semi-annual data reports, no active and 2closed LF’sFOIAME Hazardousand NonHazardousBill ButlerDEPContact initiated*MI NonHazardousBecky KocsisDEQ/WasteManagementQuarterly reporting required,Districts (10 total) hold leachate dataSend written requests (and insome cases need FOIA) todistrict offices - method variesfrom district to districtState Facility Type Contact Data Quality Availability*Comprehensive leachate data collection programSeptember 2000 A-5 DRAFT*Subtitle C Dee MontgomeryDEQ/WasteManagementAnnual reporting required since 1982, datacentralized and on file, leachate data focuses oncharacterization, wide range of facilities -petroleum, chemical manufacturing, auto,commercialOn-site file review and copy*MN Hazardousand NonHazardousShelly BurmanPollution ControlAgency/Envi.OutcomesLeachate reporting data required containingconstituent concentrationsTo receive leachate data inreport format*MO NonHazardousTom RoscettiDEQ/Solid Waste Mgmt.ProgramNo longer require leachate data reports, some of43 LF’s data on file at officeOn-site file review and copySubtitle C Rob MorrisonDEQ/Haz.Waste Mgmt. ProgramRequire reporting from the only active LF, alsooffice has data for at least 2 more closed LF’s, datanot compiledOn-site file review and copyMS Hazardousand NonHazardousMilton BrumfieldDEQ/Off of Poll. ControlLeachate data (volumes and constituents) reportedmonthly if required by permit, data entered intoUSEPA PCS database, approximately 20 SubtitleD and 1 Subtitle COn-site file review and copy,Subtitle C data at LFMT Hazardousand NonHazardousPat CrowleyOffice of Solid WasteProgramLimited data because few LF’s collect leachatedata, not published or electronicOn-site file review and copy,soon to be compiledNE NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)Ralph MartinDEC/Land Quality Div.Volume and constituent data on file On-site file review and copyState Facility Type Contact Data Quality Availability*Comprehensive leachate data collection programSeptember 2000 A-6 DRAFTNV Munic. Ed WojcikClark County HealthDistrictState has only one LF generating leachate (Apex),Clark County collects leachate data on this LF, datanot compiled in report or electronic formatSend written request toRecords Office ($0.60/pg) orcall for file review appointmentSubtitle C Greg LovatoDEPState collects data on the only HW LF (USEcology), Quarterly reporting since 4/97, allleachate is F039, on file at officeOn-site file review and copy orsend written request*NH NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)David RussoSolid Waste SectionLeachate data required monthly from approximatelyeight LF’sContact Ariel Parent at (603)271-2900 in the PublicInformation Office for filereview*NJ Hazardousand NonHazardousGary TorresIndustrial Users UnitElenaor KurkoskiLF Coord NP SourceState has database of leachate data since 1993 ofnon-urban facilities, not much QA/QCdocumentation, hard to link waste and leachateHave old data integrated in allNJPDES monitoring, new datagoes to POTW, she will tryand identify new cells for casestudy. Alternatively contactBureau of Permits Mgmt. forarchival dataNM NonHazardous(No SubtitleC)Jerry BoberEnvironment Dept./SolidWaste BureauNo data - reporting not required N/ANY Hazardousand NonHazardousRobert Bhenof Contact initiatedNC Contact initiatedState Facility Type Contact Data Quality Availability*Comprehensive leachate data collection programSeptember 2000 A-7 DRAFTND Hazardousand NonHazardousKevin SolieDivision of Waste Mgmt.Some data with permit files Send letter requesting data toDivision Director or copy atoffice*OH NonHazardousAnnette DehavillandDEQ/Solid & InfectiousWaste DivisionRequire annual data, setting up database in nextfew years, no published dataOn-site file review and copySubtitle C Shannon NeighborsDEQ/Northwest DistrictOfficeOffice requires the only Subtitle D LF (Envirosafe)in the state to report quarterly, 80 to 90% K061wasteTo receive dataOK Hazardousand NonHazardousDon BarrettDEQ/Waste Mgmt. Div.Only 1 Subtitle C LF in state, require quarterlyreporting of leachate data, raw data includingcharacterization and volumes on file at office, noreporting requirement and limited data for 40+ nonhazardous LF’sFOIA or file review at $0.15/pgOR Hazardousand NonHazardousBruce DecelyeWaste Mgmt.Division (Salem Region)Salem regional office collects substantial amountsof leachate data which is subsequently entered intoUSEPA Office of Water’s STORET database(probably groundwater, not leachate, data)FOIA*PA Hazardousand NonHazardousTerry KillianLand Recycling& Waste Mgmt.Chemical analysis data on file from ~75 LF’s,several Subtitle C LF’s but no commercial facilitiesOn-site file review and copy*RI NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)Chris SchafflerWaste ManagementData collected quarterly from six LF’s, one LFmanages 80% of state wasteContact Technical Assistanceat (401) 222-6822 for filereview and send request inwritingState Facility Type Contact Data Quality Availability*Comprehensive leachate data collection programSeptember 2000 A-8 DRAFTSC Hazardousand NonHazardousJohn LittonDept. of Health andEnvironmental Control1 Subtitle C LF with limited leachate dataSD NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)Rassool AhadiWaste Mgmt.ProgramData not collected by state Contact each facility forleachate dataTN Contact initiatedTX NonHazardousArten AvakianTNRCC/ Municipal SolidWasteNo reporting requirement and no central repository,limited dataOn-site file review and copySubtitle C Terese JimenezTNRCC/ Industrial &Haz. WasteData held by each LF group, no centralized systemand no published reports or databasesOn-site file review and copyUT NonHazardousPhilip BurnsDivision of Solid & Haz.WasteLimited data with only one LF (Salt Lake County)analyzing leachate, considered atypical leachateContact Salt Lake County LFdirectly for leachate analysisSubtitle C Ed CostomirisDivision of Solid & Haz.WasteLimited data available but no reports or databases On-site file review and copyVT Contact initiatedState Facility Type Contact Data Quality Availability*Comprehensive leachate data collection programSeptember 2000 A-9 DRAFTVA Subtitle D &monofillsHassan VakiliDEQ/Waste ProgramNo leachate sampling requirements for ~80 LF’s,no database or published reportsExamine permit and thenobtain data from regionalofficesC&D Katherine GlassDEQRoanoke Regional officeNo database exists; only data required to reportand available in permitting documents including:waste quantities and unit characteristics. Little tono leachate quality data.File review at regional officeWA Hazardousand NonHazardousKip EaglesDepartment ofEcology/Solid WasteOffice does not collect data, County HealthDepartments collect non-hazardous LF dataN/AWV NonHazardous(no SubtitleC)Greg RodeWater ResourcesState does not collect leachate data, limited datapossibly included in USEPA’s PCS databaseOn-site file review and copy*WI Hazardousand NonHazardousJack ConnellyDNR/WasteManagementAlt. Diane StocksSemi-annual reporting required, very extensivedatabase of leachate quality data from 1970's topresent, 2 reports with leachate dataTo receive two reportscontaining leachate data,possible to query extensivedatabase by site or leachatetype but need written requestWY Hazardousand NonHazardousKen SchreuderSolid & Haz. WasteDivisionState currently has no leachate data N/A

# September 2000 B-1 DRAFT 1 A PPENDIX 

# B. R ELEVANT 

# C ONVERSION 

# F ACTORS



# 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 A PPENDIX 

# B. R ELEVANT 

# C ONVERSION 

# F ACTORS



# 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 A PPENDIX 

# C. L/S R ATIOS AND 

# L EACHATE 

# G ENERATION 

# R ATES 

# R EPORTED IN 

# L ITERATURE



# 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 2.04x10 6 

# 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 5.7x10 6 

# 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 m 3 

# /month, area is 120 ha, volume of refuse is 2.5 x10 6 

# m 3 

# , 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)=3.09x10 6 

# yd 3 

# , 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)=0.81x10 6 

# yd 3 

# , 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 yd 3 

# , 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)=0.14x10 6 

# yd 3 

# , 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)=0.23x10 6 

# yd 3 

# , 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 A PPENDIX 

# D. L/S R ATIOS AND 

# L EACHATE 

# G ENERATION 

# R ATES



# C ALCULATED FROM 

# C ASE 

# S TUDIES



# 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 yd 3 

# . 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 yd 3



# Area: 2.3 acres

Leachate prior to cap (4-

year avg): 1.7 x10 6



# 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 yd 3



# Area: 3.25 acres

Leachate: 1 x10 6 

# 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 x10 6



# 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 yd 3



# Area: Not available

Leachate: 8.8 x10 6



# 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 x10 6



# gallons/yr from closed

section, 5.5 x10 6 

# 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 A PPENDIX 

# E. L EACHATE 

# Q UANTITY 

# D ATABASE



# 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 A PPENDIX 

# F. Q UALITY 

# A SSURANCE 

# A NALYSIS AND 

# A DJUSTMENT OF



# S TATE OF 

# W ISCONSIN 

# L EACHATE 

# C HARACTERIZATION 

# D ATA



# 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 (μg/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 μg/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 μg/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 μg/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 sources 1 

# 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 μg/L Percent of

Obs.

<1 μg/L Percent of

Obs.

<10 μg/L

Original Wisconsin Data Set

10 μg/L 0.0018 μg/L 9% 13% 47%

Converted Wisconsin Data Set 0.18 μg/L 0% 0.2% 37%