1. Project Overview

2. 2
Table of Contents
Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................................. 3
Project Background................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose and Objectives............................................................................................................. 3
Contributing Consultants .......................................................................................................... 3
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 5
Review of Waste Characterization Studies..................................................................................... 5
Explanation of Tables 1, 2 and 3 .............................................................................................. 8
Table 1: MSW Components 8
Table 2: Non-MSW Components 9
Table 3: Total Waste Stream Components 9
Comparison of the Missouri WCS to the Unweighted Averages of Other WCS ..................... 9
Review of Beneficial Use Programs and Policies......................................................................... 10
Key Beneficial Use Websites.................................................................................................. 12
Regulations vs. Policy............................................................................................................. 15
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 15
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 15
List of Tables
Table 1. MSW Components
Table 2. Non-MSW Components
Table 3. Total Waste Stream Components
Table 4. Summary of States with Beneficial Reuse Programs
Table 5. Allowable Uses of Materials to be Beneficially Reused
List of Attachments
Attachment 1. Approved Beneficial Uses by Waste Stream
Attachment 2. State Definitions of Beneficial Use
Attachment 3. State Beneficial Use Policies
Attachment 4. List of States with Beneficial Use Ordinances
Attachment 5. Beneficial Use State Contacts
Attachment 6. States that Have Regulations with Beneficial Use Components

3. 3
Introduction and Overview
Project Background
St. Louis County retained URS Corporation (URS) to provide assistance to the Department of Health
(DOH), Solid Waste Management Program (SWMP) to review, update and/or suggest new County
regulatory guidelines for evaluating the recovery and beneficial reuse of materials currently being
landfilled. St. Louis County requested the development of an application process and guidelines for a
new solid waste beneficial reuse program.
The basic components of the project are to:
Identify potential reuse opportunities given the County’s specific waste streams and applicable
(current and anticipated) markets.
Utilize collective industry knowledge and best practices analysis to develop a risk-based program
to enable maximum utilization of identified reuse opportunities.
Review and suggest revisions/additions to County ordinance intended to establish consistency
between regulations/ statutes and a new reuse program.
Purpose and Objectives
The 11 tasks that comprise this project are designed to achieve the key objectives listed above. The
approach includes validating what is already known and/or suspected about the county’s waste
stream; investigating and learning more about the nuances of that waste stream and 3) completing the
investigation in a timely and cost-effective fashion.
One objective of the study is to recognize both readily available and potentially developable target
markets, based on research gained from other state and county programs. Ongoing communication
will take place between URS and the DOH, SWMP to develop and/or enhance the solid waste
program in the County so that it will be more conducive to increased and innovative reuse
possibilities.
Another key element of the project is to conduct waste characterization studies at designated
collection points or transfer stations in St. Louis County. Based on the waste sorts conducted, the
local percentages of waste materials (paper, plastic, tires, special waste, etc.) will be compared to the
waste stream categories estimated by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other
counties/states similar in size and demographics to St. Louis County.
This first section (Task 1 narrative) provides an overview of waste stream characterization based on a
cursory review of 23 waste stream studies available from counties, states and EPA similar in
population to that of St. Louis County. In addition data was compiled on national beneficial reuse
programs. A database was developed of the types of waste materials that are part of other beneficial
reuse programs with a description of the application processes used. This database will be used when
evaluating how to improve or develop a beneficial reuse program for the County.
Contributing Consultants
Environmental Data Services contributed to the development of the Waste Characterization Studies
evaluated under Task 1, Literature Review.

4. 4
TASK 1 LITERATURE REVIEW

5. 5
Literature Review
For this task, URS collected and reviewed information related to waste characterization of the
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream. URS also conducted a national overview of beneficial use
programs that other states/cities have adopted to recycle waste stream components, in the residential,
commercial, industrial and institutional sectors. The wastes evaluated were non-hazardous MSW.
Review of Waste Characterization Studies
Characterizing the composition of waste is a process that has progressed over the past 25 years, but is
not yet uniform and results in findings that are “a snapshot in time” and may not reflect conditions at
all times.
The accompanying tables represent waste characterization studies (WCS) that were conducted over a
16 year span throughout the United States. Each of these studies found different percentages in waste
component categories.
The 2005 St. Louis County Solid Waste Management Plan, written by R.W. Beck, used the 1999
Missouri Waste Composition Study, prepared by Dennis Siders of the Midwest Assistance Program.
The 1999 study and the follow-up 2008 Missouri Waste Composition Study, which used the same
methodology, are used in this review to compare to other WCS included in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
URS identified eight metropolitan areas that have demographics similar to St. Louis County. A
search was conducted to find WCS for the eight counties. The results are listed below:
1. Allegheny County/Pittsburgh: The MSW composition for Allegheny County, PA is included in
Table 1. The composition was similar to the Missouri studies; however, it includes 6.1% yard waste
and 11.5% non-MSW materials. This tends to skew the percentages of the other materials. A visual
characterization of bulky materials and construction and demolition debris (C&D) loads was not done
in the Allegheny County WCS.
2. Franklin County/Columbus: This study was part of the State of Ohio WCS in 2004. The MSW
composition was similar to the Missouri studies. Yard waste was 8.1% of the total MSW, which
skewed the other numbers.
3. Hennepin County/Minneapolis: Two WCS were found for Hennepin County. The 2007 study
was included as a comparison for an R W Beck study of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The
2012 study was conducted as a feasibility study for a waste to energy project. The material
categories were slightly different, but the percentages of waste materials between the studies were
similar.
4. Milwaukee County/Milwaukee: Milwaukee County was part of the State of Wisconsin WCS
that was conducted in 2009. However, geographical areas were not published as part of the report;
therefore, no results were found for Milwaukee County. There are detailed breakdowns for
residential, multifamily, industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI), and C&D waste percentages in
the Wisconsin WCS.

6. 6
5. Shelby County/ Memphis: The only WCS found for Tennessee covered Cedar Ridge Landfill in
Lewisburg, TN and Bi-County Landfill in Montgomery County. Neither of these sites is near
Memphis. The Tennessee WCS was conducted by Tennessee State University. The data is found in
Table 1.
6. Marion County/Indianapolis: The Indiana WCS sampled waste in the Newton County Landfill
(urban), Bartholomew County Landfill (suburban), the Daviess County Landfill (rural) and the
Adams County Transfer Station (rural). Waste from Indianapolis was not part of the study. The
results from the Indiana WCS are listed in Tables 1 and 3.
7. Hamilton County/Cincinnati: This study was part of the State of Ohio WCS in 2004. The
results are listed in Table 1and were similar to the Missouri studies in the St. Louis area.
8. Jefferson County/Louisville: No WCS were found for Jefferson County or the City of Louisville.
The Louisville solid waste management plan did not contain any waste composition data.
Variables in the methodology used for each of the studies listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 are described
below. The percentage of waste components identified in each of these studies shows significant
variation.
MSW vs. Bulky Items: The waste stream arriving at landfills and transfer stations is composed of
MSW (residential, commercial, and institutional waste) and other wastes including, bulky items
(furniture), brush and stumps, industrial and C&D wastes.1
The Missouri studies defined MSW as
waste that was, or could be, placed in a plastic, tall kitchen (i.e., 13 gallon) trash bag. The 2008 WCS
defined non-MSW into two categories: “Other” which included municipal sewage sludge,
unidentified sludge, commercial yard waste and stumps and special waste which includes bulky items
(furniture, mattresses, large fixtures, etc.), asbestos, contaminated soil, exit signs and electronic
waste. The MSW waste was measured separately from the non-MSW categories. Most other studies
either omitted the bulky items from the sorting process or counted the bulky items if they arrived at
the waste facility in a packer truck. Presented in Tables 1 and 2 are the MSW and the industrial,
C&D, bulky, electronic waste and contaminated soil categories used in the Missouri studies,
respectively.
Sample Selection: The selection of waste to be sorted and recorded varies between studies. The
Missouri Waste Composition studies (1999 and 2008) used a random sampling technique; the
Indiana, Kansas, and Pennsylvania studies used similar methodologies. The California, Iowa, and
Washington studies used a stratified random sampling methodology from numerous subgroups to
develop a waste composition profile for each subgroup. Other methodologies were not clearly
described.
1
In the Missouri studies industrial waste included: industrial (Ind) Cardboard, Ind. Paper, Ind. Food, Ind.
Metal, Ind. Wood, Ind. Plastic, Ind. Textiles, Ind. Rubber, and Foundry Sand.

7. 7
The Missouri studies randomly selected plastic bags filled with trash (approximately 25 bags per
sample, weighing 180-220 pounds). Most of the studies listed in the table used grab samples (a
portion of the waste scooped up by a backhoe) weighing 200-250 pounds.
Number of Samples Sorted: The number of samples sorted and the total weight of those samples
varied greatly. The 1999 Missouri Waste Composition Study included 632 MSW samples (40 from
the City of St. Louis) and the 2008 Missouri Waste Composition Study included 238 samples (164
from the St. Louis South Transfer Station and 16 from the O’Fallon Transfer Station). The California
study included 751 samples and the Washington study included 530 samples. Other WCSs included
significantly fewer samples.
Geographical Area Covered: The composition of solid waste varies slightly from one
geographical area to another. The greatest differences seem to be between rural and urban areas.
The Missouri studies found MSW at lower percentages and C&D waste in higher percentages in
urban areas as compared to rural areas. The percentage of industrial waste seemed to be similar in
both urban and rural areas.
Seasonal Differences: Waste composition changes slightly from one season to the next. For
example, fruits and vegetables waste is more abundant in the summer, packaging waste increases
during the holidays, and C&D waste decreases during the winter. The Missouri studies included
three seasonal sorts, other WCSs included two, and in some cases one sort.
Changes Over Time: The WCS results summarized on Tables 1-3 were based on studies
conducted over a 16 year span. The Missouri studies were conducted nine years apart. For the
Missouri studies, the MSW composition changed during that time period. Percentages of newsprint,
metal cans, and glass bottles were considerably lower in the second study. The percentage of plastics
increased. The other studies for locations outside of Missouri were conducted from 2003
(Pennsylvania) to 2012 (Indiana). The later studies showed a decline in newsprint, glass and metal
cans, as a percent of the total MSW.
Recycling rates and volumes have changed over the past 10 years and this affects the percentage of
MSW that remains in the waste stream. In St. Louis County, providing a single stream recycling
system and a 65 gallon roll-out cart for recyclables to residential customers has increased recycling
significantly and therefore the remaining percentage of each waste stream has changed.
Waste Component Categories: Each WCS used a different mix of waste component categories and
sub categories.
Missouri MSW 7 major categories and 29 sub categories
Missouri non-MSW 5 major categories and 30 sub categories
Washington 12 major categories and 130 sub categories
California 10 major categories and 85 sub categories
Atlanta 7 major categories and 39 sub categories
EPA 2 major categories and 15 sub categories

8. 8
Wisconsin 9 major categories and 75 sub categories
King County C&D 12 major categories and 70 sub categories
Iowa 9 major categories and 72 sub categories
Kansas 9 major categories no sub categories
Pennsylvania 6 major categories and 38 sub categories
It is difficult to compare results when the waste component categories are so different. In compiling
Tables 1 and 3, several categories were combined to allow a comparison to the Missouri studies that
were conducted in the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County and the surrounding counties.
Banned Items: Some waste streams are banned from landfills. In Missouri, yard waste, lead acid
batteries, whole tires, and white goods are banned and therefore not part of the waste stream. Some
other states allow these items and they were counted and listed as a part of MSW. Yard waste was a
significant portion of the waste stream in the Washington, California, Atlanta, EPA, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, and Kansas studies.
Statistical Interpretations: Only three of the studies (Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Iowa) listed
statistical reliability and each statistical formula was slightly different. The methodology for
measuring statistical relevance (confidence level and sampling error) on a waste sort varies;
therefore, it is difficult to predict reliability based on statistical formulas.
Explanation of Tables 1, 2 and 3
Table 1: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Components
The waste component categories in column A were used in the Missouri waste sorts conducted in
1996-1998. Columns B-F presents the results from both statewide and local sorts. The unweighted
average is represented in column G.
Columns I-Y represents other MSW characterizations conducted outside of Missouri between 2003
and 2012. Waste component categories from these studies were combined with similar waste
component categories to approximate the waste component categories used in the Missouri study.
The unweighted average is represented in column Z.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document “Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 2011 Facts and Figures” (published May 2013) was used as the source of the waste
percentages in column AB. The waste percentages are based on national data gathered from
industry associations, key businesses, and similar industry sources, and supported by government
data from sources such as the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, EPA estimates
tons of materials and products generated, recycled, or discarded. Other sources of data, such as waste
characterizations and surveys performed by governments, industry, or the press, supplement these
data. At the local or state level, the data in this report can be used to develop approximate estimates
of MSW generation in a defined area. That is, the data on generation of MSW per person nationally
may be used to estimate generation in a city or other local area based on the population in that area.
While the national average data are useful as a checkpoint against local MSW characterization data,

9. 9
any differences between local and national data should be examined carefully as there are many
regional variations (e.g., local and regional availability of suitable landfill space, proximity of
markets for recovered materials, population density, commercial and industrial activity, and climatic
and groundwater variations). In addition, it is important note that EPA’s definition of MSW does not
include industrial non-hazardous waste, agricultural wastes, oil and gas wastes, mining wastes,
construction and demolition debris and municipal sludges.2
Table 2: Non-MSW Components
This table presents the percentage of wastes landfilled that were not part of the MSW stream. The
Missouri percentages were estimated by visual characterizations at Rock Hill Landfill (1999), Weber
Landfill (1999), Weber Landfill (2008) and the IESI Landfill (formerly Weber in 2012). A total of
10,603 waste loads were visually examined and percentage of wastes estimated. The percentages
represent 100% of non-MSW.
The King County, Washington C&D study was a visual characterization of 421 loads of waste.
It is difficult to compare waste percentages because the waste component categories were defined
differently.
Table 3: Total Waste Stream Components
All solid waste percentages are listed in Table 3 according to the waste categories used by the
Missouri studies. Major categories were: MSW, C&D Waste, Industrial Waste, and Special Waste.
Most WCS did not characterize the entire waste stream. In most studies, the samples were taken
from compacting trash trucks; these vehicle types do not account for all waste delivered to landfills or
transfer stations. Some studies included C&D, but only if the wastes were delivered in a compacting
truck. Some studies looked at industrial waste, but did not list the methodology used to determine if
the waste was from an industrial source.
The format for Table 3 follows the waste component categories used in the Missouri studies. The
data from each WCS was analyzed and condensed into the Missouri categories that were used in the
St. Louis area. The reassignment of waste component categories is not perfect, but decisions were
made to categorize the waste as accurately as possible based on the methodology used in each WCS.
Comparison of the Missouri WCS to the Unweighted Averages of Other WCS
Waste sorts and visual waste characterizations provide a snapshot in time of what is present in the
waste stream based on random sampling; however, when reviewing and analyzing data, it is
important to understand that waste sorts and visual characterizations only reflect an estimation of
waste streams present in a single moment in time. They will not necessarily predict the actual waste
composition for any other time period. The variables described above, differences in performance of
2
MSW Characterization Methodology, U.S. EPA, pp. 8,
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm.

10. 10
sorting personnel in implementing WCS methodologies, and management decisions on the ground all
contribute to differences that make it very difficult to compare one WCS to another. It is also
difficult to compare the Missouri waste stream components to the unweighted average waste stream
components, because the Missouri studies have included evaluation of many special wastes including
sludge, bulky items, stumps, sand and asbestos that are typically not included in other WCS.
Inclusion of these waste streams reduces the MSW percentage of the total waste stream, when
compared to the unweighted averages for the other WCS. Regardless of these shortcomings, waste
sorts and visual waste characterizations provide the invaluable opportunity to garner a general
understanding of waste components in the waste stream.
Review of Beneficial Use Programs and Policies
URS examined existing local, state and federal programs and guidelines related to beneficial use,
based upon publically available information from internet searches. URS reviewed the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) 2006 Beneficial Use
Survey Report which was published in 2007 (2007 Beneficial Use Report) to study how states
evaluate requests for the beneficial use of solid waste. The focus of the study was large volume non-
hazardous wastes or byproducts from commercial, industrial or manufacturing processes that would
generally be disposed of in landfills. ASTSWMO conducted an initial survey in 2000 and updated it
in 2007. ASTSWMO has not conducted any further surveys, so the 2007 Beneficial Use Report is
the most current information published. The 2007 Beneficial Use Report highlighted several changes
in state policies from the survey results published in 2000, which are highlighted below:
In 2000, 52% of the reporting States indicated that once a material was approved for beneficial
use it was exempt from further solid waste regulation.
In 2006, that percentage increased to 79%.
While not evaluated in the 2000 Report, 71% of States reporting in 2006 indicated that materials
cease to be considered waste when used beneficially.
Since 2000, only one more state reported having a formal or informal beneficial use program.
In 2006, 21% of the states charged a fee for a beneficial use application, up from 15% in 2000.
In both studies, the key barriers to beneficial use were related to the potential for human or
ecological risk.
The 2007 Beneficial Use Report indicates that beneficial use is increasing primarily for coal
combustion byproducts, foundry sands and construction and demolition debris. While State
programs have improved, risk assessment concerns and staff limitations continue to be
problematic.

11. 11
Presented in Table 4 is a compilation of the states that reported beneficial use programs in 2007 with
links to their websites.
URS also evaluated the Beneficial Use State Resource Locator (BUSRL) website to update the
results from the 2007 study.3
The BUSRL website was developed and is maintained by the National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences and received funding from EPA under the National Compliance
Assistance Centers program. Presented in Table 5 is a summary table of the allowable beneficial uses
of waste material, by state. This data was compiled by sorting the BUSRL website by waste stream
and then tabulating the results. The results in Table 5 suggest that the states with the greatest number
of allowable waste streams for beneficial use are New York, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Additionally, the data in Table 5 shows that the states of Missouri, Connecticut, Washington and
West Virginia do not have beneficial use programs. URS also compiled the following information
found on the BUSRL website:
Approved beneficial uses by waste type and the states that have approved each material
(Attachment 1).
State definitions of what beneficial use means (Attachment 2).
State specific special use policies (Attachment 3).
Links to and copies of state specific ordinances or applications for beneficial use
determinations or approvals (Attachment 4).
Links to state websites and contacts for more information on the beneficial use program in
each state (Attachment 5).
Links and copies of regulations or policies that codify the process for approval and use of
waste streams for beneficial use (Attachment 6).
URS uploaded copies of key reference documents compiled from the database searches discussed
above to a URS/St. Louis County document repository created for this project. These documents are
then available during future phases of this project including the evaluation of recoverable wastes with
markets and the development of best management practices for ordinances, policies and program
metrics related to beneficial use of industrial waste.
3
BUSRL website: http://www.envcap.org/statetools/brsl.

12. 12
Key Beneficial Use Websites
URS also reviewed links on each State’s summary of beneficial use practices found on the BUSRL
website and identified additional websites that were consistently referenced that provide additional
information on information on beneficial reuse programs. The name and link to each website is
outlined below with a description of the purpose of each website, based on the information posted
there. These key websites include:4
Northeast Waste Management Officials
Association:(http://www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/bud.cfm)
o The NEWMOA states support the reuse of non-hazardous waste materials as a way to
reduce the amount of material sent to disposal facilities and increase sustainability. At
the same time, states are also concerned about the potential environmental impacts of
these alternative uses. In response, many states have established programs to accept
and review proposed projects.
Industrial Resources Council: (http://www.industrialresourcescouncil.org/)
o The Industrial Resources Council’s website is an information portal to help project
designers, engineers, landscapers and other professionals achieve sustainability goals.
Whether you are interested in greener highways, greener buildings, or greenscaping,
the IRC members have industrial materials appropriate for your needs.
o The site is organized so the viewer can develop a basic understanding of industrial
materials, what applications each of these materials is appropriately used in, and
where to find technical information about each material in each application. The site
also provides industry resources and references for additional information.
U.S. EPA Industrial Materials Recycling: (http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/index.htm)
o Beneficial use of industrial materials is a key part of EPA's Sustainable Materials
Management (SMM) effort. Through an SMM approach, EPA is helping change the
way our society protects the environment and conserves resources for future
generations. Building on the familiar concept of Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, SMM is
a systems approach that seeks to reduce materials use and their associated
environmental impacts over their entire life cycle, starting with extraction of natural
resources and product design and ending with decisions on recycling or final disposal.
This approach helps to identify waste materials, such as industrial materials as
4
Information on the purpose of each of the key Beneficial Use websites was taken directly from the
information posted there.

13. 13
commodities that can be utilized to grow key industries and associated jobs. As a
commodity product, these materials will help the U.S. from draining virgin resources,
including fossils fuels, minerals and precious metals.
Construction & Demolition Recycling Association (http://www.cdrecycling.org/)
o The function of this group is to “promote and defend the environmentally sound
recycling of the more than 325 million tons of recoverable construction and
demolition (C&D) materials that are generated in the United States annually. These
materials include aggregates such as concrete, asphalt, asphalt shingles, gypsum
wallboard, wood and metals.”
Foundry Industry Recycling Starts First”
(http://www.afsinc.org/government/AFSFirst.cfm?ItemNumber=7887&navItemNumber=528)
o AFS-FIRST is your source for information on recycling foundry sands and other metal
casting byproducts. AFS-FIRST is an independent non-profit association that is the
successor organization to Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today (FIRST). The
organization exists to educate foundries, end users, government agencies and other
stakeholders about the benefits of using foundry byproducts.
American Coal Ash Association
(http://acaa.affiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=2?
o ACAA members share a common interest in recycling coal combustion products as
valuable materials that support environmental sustainability, minimize the need for
disposal, generate revenues, and reduce liability. Our members are active at national,
regional, state, and local levels.
Dry wall recycling: http://www.cdrecycling.org/drywall-recycling
Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board: http://www.swmcb.org/about-solid-waste-
management-coordinating-board
o The goals of the SWMCB are to increase the efficiency and environmental
effectiveness of the Region's solid waste management system and save taxpayer
dollars. Member counties use the SWMCB as the regional forum through which
collaborative opportunities that cost-effectively improve waste management outcomes
are identified and implemented.
Recycling Markets Database: http://www.recyclingmarkets.net/markets/index.html?us=
o Searchable database of over 12,000 Consumers, Brokers, Dealer/Processors and
Collectors of Recyclable Materials.
CalRecycle: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/

14. 14
o CalRecycle's vision is to inspire and challenge Californians to achieve the highest
waste reduction, recycling and reuse goals in the nation. Through innovation and
creativity, sound advancements in science and technology, and efficient programs that
improve economic vitality and environmental sustainability, we build a stronger
California.
Institute for Self Reliance: http://www.ca-ilg.org/post/sample-commercial-recycling-
ordinance
o The Institute for Local Government promotes good government at the local level with
practical, impartial, and easy-to-use resources for California communities.
During the process of researching additional information found on each state’s beneficial use page,
URS observed that one method used to encourage beneficial reuse is to create a Waste Exchange
where parties looking for feedstock or alternatives disposal of waste materials can post a notice about
the availability of waste. Some of these exchanges are set up so the generator and end user remain
anonymous. Examples of several key states that reported waste exchanges are noted below:
California
Iowa
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Texas
Vermont
In addition, US EPA posted a list of waste exchanges in each of the states on their website.5
URS’ research also found that there are many states with beneficial use applications for industrial
waste. The list is provided below and links for the details on each state’s programs can be found in
Attachment 4.
5
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/exchstat.htm.
California
Illinois
Kansas
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri (tires)
Montana

15. 15
Nebraska (to identify land application or
other non-disposal methods for petroleum
contaminated soils)
New Hampshire (for waste-derived
products)
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Regulations vs. Policy
Attachment 6 provides links to the states that have policies or regulations incorporating beneficial use
of industrial waste. Sometimes the states incorporate permits by rule, if an applicant meets the
criteria in the regulation, they are permitted to implement the beneficial use without completing any
specific approval requirements. Other states have outlined the process for an applicant to submit a
beneficial use determination application that then requires a specific authorization prior to
implementation. Samples of both the regulations and BUD applications were posted to the URS/St.
Louis County document repository site.
Conclusion
The Literature Review of Beneficial Use programs including data on policies, acceptable uses, waste
streams implemented, state contacts, waste exchanges and ordinances yielded a wealth of information
that will assist St. Louis County in developing its own program using the experience and examples of
the other states, while incorporating specifics to maximize local waste generation characteristics.

16. 16
Bibliography
1. State Database for Beneficial Use Determinations: http://www.envcap.org/statetools/brsl/
2. Connecticut Approval Process:
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/permits_and_licenses/waste_general_permits/bud_guid.pdf
3. Beneficial Use Portal:
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/permits_and_licenses/waste_general_permits/bud_guid.pdf
4. U. S. EPA Waste Characterization website:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm
5. ASTSWMO 2006 Beneficial Use Survey Report, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials, November 2007.
6. Industrial Materials Recycling Database: http://www.epa.gpv/osw/conserve/imr/indet.htm
7. Northeast Waste Management Officials Association: http://www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/bud.cfm
8. Construction and Demolition Recycling Association: http://www.cdrecycling.org/
9. Shingle Recycling: http://www.shinglerecycling.org/content/literature
10. US EPA Industrial Materials Recycling Website: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/index.htm
11. Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today:
http://www.afsinc.org/government/AFSFirst.cfm?ItemNumber=7887&navItemNumber=528
12. Concrete Recycling: http://www.cdrecycling.org/concrete-recycling
13. Drywall Recycling: http://www.cdrecycling.org/drywall-recycling
14. Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board: http://www.swmcb.org/about-solid-waste-
management-coordinating-board
15. Gypsum Association: http://www.gypsum.org/
16. Recycling Markets Database: http://www.recyclingmarkets.net/markets/index.html?us=
17. Cal Recycle: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/
18. Institute for Self Reliance: http://www.ca-ilg.org/post/sample-commercial-recycling-ordinance
19. Iowa Regulations: Iowa Administrative Code 567 Chapter 108
20. http://compostingcouncil.org/admin/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Illinois.pdf
21. Iowa Waste Exchange:
http://www.iowadnr.gov/Environment/LandStewardship/WasteManagement/IowaWasteExchangeIWE
.aspx
22. Kansas Reuse of Tires: http://www.kdheks.gov/kdsi/publications/Tire_fact_sheet.pdf
23. Kentucky Energy & Environment Cabinet Tire Grant Awards:
http://eec.ky.gov/Lists/News%20Releases%202/Division%20of%20Waste%20Management%20annou
nces%202013%20grant%20recipients.pdf
24. Massachusetts Beneficial Use of Asphalt, brick and rubble:
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/recycle/reduce/using-or-processing-asphalt-pavement-
brick-and-concrete-.html
25. Mid-Atlantic Consortium of Recycling and Economic Development Officials (MACREDO):
http://macredo.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi