United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA/600/2-85/100
August 1985
Research and Development
v-xEPA
Assessment of
Synthetic Membrane
Successes and
Failures at Waste
Storage and
Disposal Sites
-------
EPA/600/2-85/100
August 1985
ASSESSMENT OF SYNTHETIC MEMBRANE SUCCESSES AND
FAILURES AT WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL SITES
by
Jeffrey M. Bass
Warren J. Lyman
Joseph P. Tratnyek
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, MA 02140
Contract No. 68-03-1771
Project Officer:
Mary Ann Curran
Land Pollution Control Division
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
T " ': " • ' ~ :> ~ ' ' ','-''•,
?','•'.! ••'. -}--;;r;jc:^ :;i -;ej,, Scorn 1870
Chicago. IL 6C604
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial
products and practices frequently carry with them the increased generation
of solid and hazardous wastes. These materials, if improperly dealt
with, can threaten both public health and the environment. Abandonded
waste sites and accidental releases of toxic and hazardous substances to
the environment also have important environmental and public health
implications. The Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory assists
in providing an authoritative and defensible engineering basis for
assessing and solving these problems. Its products support the policies,
programs and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
permitting and other responsibilities of State and local governments and
the needs of both large and small businesses in handling their wastes
responsibily and economically.
This report describes factors which contributed to synthetic liner
failure or success in lined storage and disposal facilities and will be
useful to hazardous waste site designers, owners, operators and liner
installers as well as regulatory agencies. For further information,
please contact the Land Pollution Control Division of the Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory.
David G. Stephan, Director
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
-------
ABSTRACT
Data from 27 lined facilities provided by five vendors is
analyzed to determine the factors which contributed to success or
failure of the liner at those facilities. The sites studied included
a wide variety of wastes handled, liner types, geographic locations,
facility ages, facility sizes, etc. Based on the definitions used in
this study, the 27 facilities selected by the vendors had a total of
12 "failures" at 10 sites. At four or five of these sites groundwater
contamination apparently resulted from the failures. Some of the
contributing factors, if not causes, for the failures noted include
the following:
o Failure to control operations (at an operating site) so as
to safeguard the liner;
o Poor (or inadequate) design work in general;
o Failure to use an independent, qualified design engineer;
o Poor (or inadequate) installation work in general;
o Poor or inadequate communication and cooperation between
companies working on an installation job;
o The use of untrained and/or poorly supervised installers;
o Failure to conduct (or adequately conduct) waste-liner
compatibility tests;
o Adverse weather conditions during installation;
o Use of old dump site, with contaminated soil, as site for
lined facility;
o Selection of companies (for liner job) by processes that did
not help ensure that good materials and workmanship would
result;
o Selection of liner material by process not involving
detailed bid specifications (prepared by design engineer,
not liner manufacturer);
o Facility age (more failures were associated with the older
sites).
Two main elements of success at lined sites are considered to be:
(1) a proper philosophical and conceptual approach; and (2) the
extensive use of quality assurance programs in all facets and stages
of a facility's operation. Other factors noted as contributing to
success included:
o Overdesign of system;
o Presence of a knowledgeable customer;
o Bidding to specifications;
o Selection of qualified companies;
o Cooperation amongst companies on liner job;
o Conducting waste-liner compatibility tests;
o Simplicity of design, and
o Good weather.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword -j -j -j
Abstract -jv
Tables v-j
Figures vj
Acknowledgments VII
1. Introduction 1
Background 1
The Current Study 2
Report Overview 3
Vendor and Site Coding 3
Caveats 4
2. Conclusions Summary 5
Factors Contributing to Failure 5
Factors Contributing to Success 6
3. Recommendations Summary 8
Research Projects 8
Education 9
Quality Assurance: Planning and Implementation 9
Preparation of Guidance Documents 10
4. Approach 11
5. Overview of Sites in Survey 13
Liner Sites 13
Liner Systems 16
6. Discussion of Survey Findings 20
Preview 20
Categories of Failure 20
Evaluation of Failures at Study Sites 26
Evaluation of Successes at Study Sites 37
7. Recommendations for Future Research 45
Recommendations Suggested by Problems at
Specific Site 45
Vendors Comments on Recommended Research 45
References 49
Appendices
A. Vendor Questionnaire A-l
B. Vendor Summary Reports B-l
C. Summary Information on Each Site C-l
-------
TABLES
1. Summary Information on Liner Sites 14
2. Summary Information on Liner Systems 17
3. Classification of the Principal Failure Mechanisms
for Cut-and-Fill Reservoirs [Kays, 1977] 23
4. Failure Categories [Matrecon, 1982] 24
5. Failure Mechanisms of Impoundments Lined with
Geomembranes [Woodward-Clyde, 1984] 25
6. Summary Description of "Failures" at Case Study Sites 27
7. Comments on Reasons for Success at Individual Sites 38
8. Research Topics Suggested by Specific Sites 46
FIGURES
1. Hierarchy of Failures Modes 21
2. Frequency Distribution of Number of Companies
Involved in Liner Installation Jobs 31
3. Schematic Diagram (Hypothetical) of Interaction
Between Groups or Companies Involved
in a FML Installation Job 32
4. Correlation of Facility Age with Failures 34
5. Correlation of Facility Size with Failures 35
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, using data supplied by five
subcontractors. These subcontractors are companies or
individuals active in the liner technical community (e.g.,
as installers or fabricators). By mutual agreement the
identities of these subcontractors are being kept
confidential. We gratefully acknowledge the data and
insight they provided to us for this program. We also
acknowledge the guidance given by our Project Officer, Mary
Ann Curran.
VII
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has oversight responsibility for the
land impoundment and disposal of hazardous wastes. A major objective of the
EPA's regulations promulgated under the authority of RCRA is the protection of
groundwater; more specifically, the prevention of groundwater contamination by
liquid wastes or waste leachates which may enter the ground at hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal facilities (TSDFs).
To this end, the EPA has promulgated regulations for the permitting of
land impoundment and disposal facilities that place a heavy emphasis on the
use of a liner system under the wastes . A liner system is intended to act as
a barrier to downward pollutant migration. The barrier may consist of a
compacted layer of clay, a flexible membrane (plastic) liner (FML), asphalt,
cement or suitable soil sealant. The EPA indirectly mandates the use of FMLs
for landfill liners because they are the only materials perceived as being
able to "... prevent wastes from passing into the liner during the active
life of the facility" (U.S. EPA, 1982).
Other components of a liner system may include: a drain system above the
primary barrier to collect leachate (mandatory for landfills); a second
barrier layer with a leak detection system [drain] between it and the primary
layer; a smooth, compacted subgrade with a gas vent layer; a soil or sand
covering over the primary liner; and one or more geotextile fabrics to act as
a separator between soil types or as a cushion to a FML.
The EPA has for some time understood the important role that such liner
systems are required to play, and over the last ten years has carried out a
number of research programs designed to improve the design of liner systems
(with a special focus on waste-liner compatibility) and to evaluate the past
performance of liner systems. Reports of particular interest in this regard
include those by Matrecon, Inc. (1982), Haxo e_t al. (1982), Haxo et al.
(1983), Lyman et al. (1983), RTI (1983), Schwope ejt al. (1983), and TRW
(1983). Many issues related to liner design and use (as stipulated in the July
1982 regulations [US EPA, 1982]) were reviewed in a Regulatory Reform
Analysis undertaken by the EPA in 1983; the findings of this study are
summarized in a report by Earth Technology Corp. (1984).
*These regulations were published in the Federal Register on July 26, 1982
and became effective on January 26, 1983 (U.S. EPA, 1982).
-------
The evaluation of past performance of synthetic liners from actual site
installations has been specifically covered in the reports by EMCON Associates
(1983a, 1983b), and indirectly covered in the surveys reported by Lyman £t al.
(1983) and TRW (1983). The latter two studies, in particular, focus|d on an
analysis of actual or potential failure modes for synthetic liners. These
failure modes might be associated, for example, with poor design, improper
installation, or changing operations at the facility.
Also of interest is the report by Mitchell and Spanner (1984) for the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While the report has some focus on the
potential use of FMLs at uranium tailings ponds, it also contains: (a) a
discussion of failure modes (based on case history studies) ; (b) liner
compatibility data from tests using a simulated tailings environment; (c) an
evaluation of seam inspection techniques; and (d) an evaluation of leak
detection systems.
The four case studies of double-lined facilities reported by Montague
(1981, 1982a, 1982b), while interesting, have been the subject of controversy.
Data on volume flow rates and chemical composition of leak detection system
fluids were used to conclude that the primary liner had failed in each case.
In one instance, the site owner has claimed that the data only reflected the
fact that rain had saturated the soil in the leak detection layer during the
construction period before the primary liner had been put in place, and that
the soil had suffered some cross contamination from a neighboring disposal
site.
THE CURRENT STUDY
The current study was designed to supplement the existing information
using a different approach that involved an in-depth evaluation of the factors
leading to both "successes" and "failures" at a limited number of case study
sites. A companion study, using the same general approach, was simultaneously
carried out by Woodward-Clyde (1984).
A novel aspect of the approach used by Arthur D. Little, Inc., in its
study was the use (under subcontract) of experts from companies (referred to
as vendors) in the liner industry. Five such vendors agreed to provide
information on lined facilities with which they had been associated. Each
vendor was asked to select between 4 and 7 sites and to include both
"successes" and "failures" within that group. Altogether, a total of 27 case
histories were obtained; most of the sites selected by the vendors were waste
impoundments of one kind or another, but not all would be considered hazardous
waste sites.
In order to encourage maximum disclosure of information, especially where
"failure" was involved, it was agreed that the identities of the vendors and
the individual sites described would be held confidential by Arthur D. Little,
Inc. Essentially all of the information provided to Arthur D. Little, Inc. by
The TRW study addresses installation practices for both clay and
synthetic liners.
-------
these vendors was in the form of a questionnaire response for each site (along
with supporting drawings, design specifications, etc.) and a summary report.
Vendors were asked to supply as much detail as possible, but were told that
they were under no obligation to supply information that was not in their
files or was not easily ascertainable. Data and summary reports on the 27
facilities supplied by the five vendors are analyzed in this report.
REPORT OVERVIEW
Section 2 and Section 3 provide summary conclusions and recommendations,
respectively. Additional details on recommendations for future research are
given in Section 7.
Section 4 provides a brief discussion of the approach used in this study,
outlines the important subject areas covered by the questionnaire, and
describes the nature of the responses received.
Section 5 provides a number of summary tables allowing a rapid comparison
of the 27 sites covered in this report.
Section 6 includes analyses of the data submitted to Arthur D. Little,
Inc. and a discussion of the factors that may have contributed to the
"successes" and "failures".
Section 7 gives a detailed discussion of recommendations for future
research or action.
Appendix A provides a copy of the questionnaire that formed the basis for
each vendor's submission of data for each site.
Appendix B gives the summary, letter-style report requested from each of
the five vendors. These reports contain their own conclusions and
recommendations based upon the totality of the vendor's experience, not just
the few selected case studies described in this report.
Appendix C provides a summary description of each of the 27 sites.
VENDOR AND SITE CODING
As noted above, the names of all vendors and sites are being held
confidential by mutual consent of Arthur D. Little, Inc. and the vendors. The
reader will thus find all such names and sites have been coded in this report
and in the appended vendor reports. The five vendors are referred to as VI,
V2, V3, V4 and V5. The sites described by a particular vendor are designated
by numbers following the vendor code, e.g. site V2-3 is the third site
described by vendor V2. In addition, the names of any other companies
involved with a site (e.g., as general contractor, design engineer, resin
manufacturer) are being held confidential.
-------
CAVEATS
The reader should be aware of several weaknesses in the data base used
for this report which may limit the extraction of statistically valid
summaries, or of generalities which can be applied to the liner systems
currently being installed at hazardous waste sites.
o Data were collected for 27 sites selected by the vendors to reflect
factors which contribute to failure or success of liner systems.
The sites therefore cannot be considered a statistically valid
sample of all in-place liner systems, and there is likely to be some
disproportionate representation of key variables (e.g., location,
age, liner material type versus failure).
o Several of the sites cannot be considered as hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal sites. The types of liquids or
wastes contained include, for example, municipal and industrial
waste water, oil field brines, municipal solid waste, power plant
ash, in addition to hazardous chemical wastes.
o The amount of information provided by the vendors for each site was
highly variable. Since the vendors could only be asked to provide
information from their own files, many questions went unanswered if
the data were unavailable.
o There was also some variability in the quality of the data provided.
Some responses came complete with numerous detailed blueprints;
others had hand drawn sketches or no diagrams at all. There were
some minor inconsistencies in the data, and a few instances when
vendor pride in their product or service may have resulted in some
loss of objectivity in the assessments reported on the
questionnaires.
The caveats listed above are not considered to detract in a major way
from the value of the information collected and reported herein. On the
contrary, this study has proved to be a valuable learning exercise and should
be followed by similar studies in the future. However, use of information
from this report should be consistent with the limitations of the data base as
described above.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY
This study included an evaluation of data from 27 lined waste
impoundments constructed between 1971 and 1983. All data used in the study
were provided by five subcontractors (referred to as vendors) and were
supplied in the form of questionnaire responses with supporting documents and
letter-style reports. The purpose of the analyses carried out by Arthur D.
Little, Inc. was to evaluate the apparent reasons for successes and failures
in the liners at these sites. Because the study was based on a limited number
of sites, and because the vendor-supplied data were at times incomplete, some
care must be used in drawing overly broad conclusions. (See Section 1 for
more discussion of such limitations.)
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO FAILURE
The vendors had been requested to supply data on a variety of sites
including some that had had problems and others that were clearly successes.
In our analysis, we defined a "failure" in the pre-operational period as any
condition of the liner which required non-routine corrective measures to make
the liner suitable for planned operations. A failure during operations was
defined as any condition of the liner which caused (or threatened to cause)
groundwater contamination, or otherwise caused operations to cease because of
observed abnormalities.
Based on the above definitions, the 27 facilities selected by the vendors
had a total of 12 "failures" at 10 sites. At four or five of these sites
groundwater contamination apparently resulted from the failures. While
corrective actions were taken at all sites, one was unable to be repaired
sufficiently for operations to continue. At 4 of the 10 sites with failures,
the failure was of such a relatively minor nature (and without release of
pollutants to the environment) that, after liner repair, they could be
considered qualified successes. Thus, 21 of the 27 sites analyzed could be
considered complete or qualified successes, based on available data.
The nature of the "failures" noted included chemical attack of the liner
(1 or 2 sites), physical tears or punctures (5 sites), problems with field
seaming or other liner installation activities (1 to 3 sites), and large gas
bubbles, called "whale-backs", under the liner (1 site).
In our analysis to identify the causes of these failures we recognized
not only the immediately-preceding action (e.g., subsoil gas generation in
high water table area leading to "whale-backs"), but prior categorical or
process failures that might be associated, for example, with poor design, lack
-------
of quality control, or communications failures between companies. We also
recognized that even these categorical failures may be preceded by
philosophical or conceptual failures wherein misconceptions or lack of concern
about liner systems are a root cause of some subsequent failure. This type of
analysis thus recognizes a hierarchy of failure modes with one type of failure
potentially leading to another (i.e., a propagation of errors) until some
ultimate failure (e.g., a rip in the liner) occurs. (Section 6 provides
further discussion of this failure mode analysis.)
Some of the contributing factors, if not causes, for the failures noted
in our case studies include the following:
o Failure to control operations (at an operating site) so as to
safeguard the liner;
o Poor (or inadequate) design work in general;
o Failure to use an independent, qualified design engineer;
o Poor (or inadequate) installation work in general;
o Poor or inadequate communication and cooperation between companies
working on an installation job;
o The use of untrained and/or poorly supervised installers;
o Failure to conduct (or adequately conduct) waste-liner compatibility
tests;
o Adverse weather conditions during installation;
o Use of old dump site, with contaminated soil, as site for lined
facility;
o Selection of companies (for liner job) by processes that did not
help ensure that good materials and workmanship would result;
o Selection of liner material by process not involving detailed bid
specifications (prepared by design engineer, not liner
manufacturer);
o Facility age (more failures were associated with the older sites).
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SUCCESS
Success was defined in this study as the converse of failure, i.e.,
non-routine corrective measures were not required, the liner did not leak, and
operations were not shut down. Finding the reasons for success is more
difficult than for failure; it is essentially asking why everything went
right. Clearly, no one action can be credited with a resulting success as, by
contrast, it could for a failure. Thus, in providing a synthesis and
independent evaluation of the apparent reasons for success at the study sites
it is necessary to hypothesize to some extent.
Two main elements of success at lined sites are considered to be: (1) a
proper philosophical and conceptual approach; and (2) the extensive use of
quality assurance programs in all facets and stages of a facility's
construction and operation. The desired philosophical approach requires that
the responsible individuals (owner, designer, general contractor, installer,
etc.) understand the importance of what they are doing and appreciate the
complexities (and associated technical problems) that will be attendant. A
key element of this approach is: (1) to assume that there will be problems;
(2) to examine the possible consequences of those problems; and then (3) to
-------
take the appropriate steps (e.g., design changes, quality control plans) to
avoid or minimize the problems.
Success is also more likely to result if the general approach described
above is applied to all stages or facets of a liner system including design,
material and contractor selection, site preparation, liner installation,
facility operation, and closure. Within each of these areas, the generalized
approach should be applied within the framework of a formal quality assurance
program. It is worth noting that at least 23 of the 27 sites in this study
had some form of a quality assurance program for one or more critical
operations (primarily liner manufacture, fabrication and installation),
although the quality of these programs could not be assessed from the data
submitted by the vendors.
Other factors noted as contributing to success included:
o Overdesign of system;
o Presence of a knowledgeable customer;
o Bidding to specifications;
o Selection of qualified companies;
o Cooperation amongst companies on liner job;
o Conducting waste-liner compatibility tests;
o Simplicity of design, and
o Good weather.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
The purpose of this section is to provide a brief summary of what appear
to be the most important areas for future work that will help ensure safe and
reliable operations at lined RCRA facilities. Recommendations of four
different types are included:
- Research projects
- Education
Quality assurance: planning and implementation
Preparation of guidance documents
RESEARCH PROJECTS
This study analyzes the factors which contribute to success and failure
at lined facilities, but does not provide a statistical basis for determining
the actual significance of these factors. A statistically valid study could
be conducted using the experience gained in conducting the present study to
verify the conclusions of the present study and quantify the significance of
failure and success factors at liner sites. The study could address the
following questions, among others:
o Are older facilities more likely to experience failure? By what
mechanisms?
o Are larger facilities more likely to experience failure? By what
mechanisms?
o How do QA/QC programs at various levels contribute to success?
o How are the various success and failure factors evident at sites
which have experienced problems? At sites which have not
experienced problems?
o What is the apparent "success" rate for FML installations of various
types?
o How well do RCRA-designed sites perform in comparison with non- or
pre-RCRA sites?
Only two sites in this study did not use a flexible membrane liner (FML)
as the primary liner. Consequently, little was learned in general about the
reasons for success and failure for other types of liners such as soil cement,
8
-------
asphalt, and spray-on. Additional research, including more case studies
focusing on facilities with such liners, would be desirable.
Vendor V3 provided a number of more specific research recommendations
(listed in Section 7 and Appendix B) covering such areas as seaming
technology, leachate hydraulics, FML durability under hydraulic stress,
long-term waste-liner compatibility tests and an evaluation of accelerated
leachate-liner compatibility tests. Vendor VI suggested that development of a
set of consistent quality standards for FMLs, and the development of test
protocols by which related FML properties would be measured.
EDUCATION
Section 6 of this report describes how important the proper philosophical
and conceptual approach is to "success" for a lined site. Key elements of
this approach are: (1) to assume that there will be problems; (2) to examine
the consequences of those problems and/or "failures"; and then (3) to take the
appropriate steps to avoid or minimize the problems. To help foster the
desired approach, a conscious effort should be made to continue educating
concerned parties (industry, design engineers, installers, etc.) about the
issues, problems, and solutions relating to the installation and use of lined
facilities. This can be done by a variety of means including regional
workshops, conferences where technical papers can be presented, and reports
publication. All of these are currently being done to some extent, and it is
strongly recommended that education continue to be emphasized.
In addition to the above, it is recommended that the EPA prepare a
special annotated bibliography of important reports and publications covering
liners. A significant amount of information is available, but few people are
generally aware of it. Newsletters (which could be distributed free or as
part of recently-initiated trade journals on geomembranes) that covered EPA
activities related to liners would also be welcome.
QUALITY ASSURANCE: PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Much higher assurance of success will be associated with facilities built
and operated within the framework of one or more quality control or quality
assurance (QA) programs. These programs should cover all stages of a
facility's life: design, material selection, site preparation, liner
installation (including thorough seam integrity inspection), facility
operation and closure.
It is recommended that guidance in the preparation and implementation of
quality assurance programs be prepared. This guidance should be as detailed
as possible, and backed up .by examples and the availability of technical
consulting from the EPA or its contractors.
Preparation and use of QA plans should also be considered as a regulatory
requirement for a RCRA permit.
-------
PREPARATION OF GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The EPA has prepared over a dozen Technical Resource Documents (TRDs) as
well as other reports providing guidance on many aspects of hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal. This study showed that such documents are
very important for lined installations, and that guidance documents should be
prepared or updated to cover (or expand their coverage on) subjects such as
the following:
- Operating procedures that safeguard the liner system;
- Writing bid specifications for liner materials or installations;
- Best use of geotextiles in liner systems;
- Methods to evaluate potential for gas generation in subsoils;
- Acceptability of using old disposal areas for new RCRA sites;
- Obtaining coordination and cooperation from the several companies
involved in a liner job;
- Sealing FMLs around appurtenances;
- Specifications for selection and preparation of subgrade materials
to be used under FMLs; also need to describe methods to test this
subgrade (after placement) for proper density and moisture content.
- Methods to test the completeness of seam closures in a liner
installation.
10
-------
SECTION 4
APPROACH
The data on lined disposal sites and liner systems described in this
report were obtained from five subcontractors (referred to herein as
'vendors'). The general approach that was used to obtain and analyze these
data involved five steps:
Step 1 - Identification of, and preliminary negotiation with,
prospective vendors;
Step 2 - Design of questionnaire to be used (by vendors) for
Neach site chosen;
Step 3 - Issuance of subcontracts and instructions to vendors;
Step 4 - Receipt of vendor reports and preparation (by Arthur D.
Little, Inc.) of summary reports on each site, including
computer encoding of textual answers to each question;
Step 5 - Review of all data and vendor reports (by several
Arthur D. Little, Inc. technical specialists) to identify
factors contributing to successes and failures.
It was agreed from the beginning that the identities of all vendors, as
well as the identities of all site owners and other companies involved in work
at the site, would be held confidential. This rule, and the use of Arthur D.
Little, Inc. as an intermediary between the EPA and the vendors, made it
possible for the EPA to benefit from the experience of the vendors without
gaining access to proprietary (uncoded) information. The process also
encouraged the vendors to provide detailed and honest assessments for their
selected sites, especially if there had been problems.
The first step in our approach was not without problems. At one point we
were negotiating with seven vendors, each of whom had a variety of sites to
offer and special concerns that had to be dealt with. New potential vendors
were added as some from the initial list dropped out. In final negotiations,
the number of sites to be covered by each vendor was adjusted to be consistent
with the total budget available for subcontractor work.
The questionnaire that was designed for use in this program is shown in
Appendix A.
11
-------
In the issuance of instructions to the selected vendors (Step 3 in the
list above), they were told that the sites studied were to be selected
according to the following criteria:
1) The site had a liner which failed, or encountered difficulties that
were corrected, or was considered a notable success;
2) Good information on the site was available to complete the
questionnaire;
3) The site was used to dispose of or store hazardous materials; and
4). The sites together represented a variety of liner types, materials
contained, and/or facility sizes.
In responding to the questionnaires for each site, the vendors were
instructed to answer as many questions as possible based on information which
was on file or readily obtainable. In addition to completed questionnaires
for each site, the vendors were requested to supply supplementary information
(e.g., reports, site location drawings, blueprints, specification sheets)
whenever possible. The vendors were also asked to prepare a short summary
report containing conclusions (regarding factors relating to successes and
failures) and recommendations. The vendors' summary reports are reproduced
(in coded form) in Appendix B of this report.
The fourth step in our approach involved a preliminary review of the data
submitted by the vendors and the preparation of summary reports (for each
site) for subsequent review by in-house technical specialists. In the
subsequent review process (Step 5) , each technical specialist was asked to
focus on one or more specific areas related to their expertise (e.g., liner
selection process; site design and location; liner installation; waste-liner
compatibility testing). The principal findings of these technical specialists
are given in Section 6 of this report.
12
-------
SECTION 5
OVERVIEW OF SITES IN SURVEY
LINER SITES
Table 1 provides summary information on the 27 liner sites for which data
were collected. A brief discussion is provided below.
Geographic Location
All sites are in the United State except for one in Canada. The number
of sites in generalized locations in the United States is as follows:
North: 5 East 4
South: 5 East central: 1
Southwest: 2 West: 6
Southeast: 1 Midwest: 2
Principal Activity at Site
A range of activities is evident from the list in Table 1. The number in
generalized categories are:
Waste treatment/disposal site: 8 Petroleum Storage: 2
Chemical plant: 6 Electric power plant: 2
Petroleum refinery: 3 Uranium mill or mine: 2
Paper mill: 3 Gas compressor station: 1
Type of Lined Facility
Seven (7) of the lined sites were landfills for solid wastes or drummed
wastes. The remaining twenty (20) sites were surface impoundments classified
by the vendors as follows:
Classification No.
Surface impoundment 10
Reservoir (wastewater) 4
Lagoon 3
Aeration basin 2
Evaporation pond 1
13
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY INFORMATION ON LINER SITES
Site ID
Vl-1
Vl-2
Vl-3
Vl-4
Vl-5
Vl-6
V2-1
V2-2
V2-3
V2-4
V3-1
V3-2
V3-3
V3-4
V3-5
V4-1
V4-2
V4-3
V4-4
V4-5
V4-6
V4-7
V5-1
V5-2
V5-3
V5-4
V5-5
Site
Location
South
South
Southeast
East
South
East central
South
Midwest
West
East
North
North
Midwest
North
North
Canada
South
Southwest
North.
East
East
West
West
Southwest
West
West
West
Principal Activity
at Site
Petroleum product storage
Petrochemical storage
Waste management
Waste management/landfill
Chemical plant
Chemical plant
Paper mill
Paper mill
Chemical plant
Chemical plant
Dredge spoil disposal
Sanitary Landfill (type II)
Wastewater treatment
Landfill
Paper mill
Uranium mining
Petroleum refinery
Electric power plant (coal)
Waste management/landfill
Waste managmeent/disposal
Chemical plant
Electric power plant
Petroleum refinery
Uranium mill
Petroleum refinery
Nat. gas compressor station
Chemical plant
Type of
Lined Facility
Reservoir
Reservoir
Landfill
Landfill
Surf. Impd.
Landfill
Aeration basin
Aeration basin
Surf. Impd.
Landfill
Surf. Impd.
Landfill
Lagoon
Landfill
Surf. Impd.
Reservoir
Reservoir
Evap . pond
Landfill
Lagoons
Lagoons
Surf. Impd. (8)
Surf. Impd. (4)
Surf. Impd.
Surf . Irnpd .
Surf. Impd.
Surf. Impd.
•
Material Date
Contained Installed
Oil field brine
Oil field brine
Incinerator wastes
Solid wastes
Liquid chemical wastes
Solid wastes, chemicals
Wastewater
Wastewater, pulp liquor
Liquid, with salts
Chemical process sludge
Dredge spoil
Solid Waste (some chem.)
Domestic sewage
Solid waste (munic. and ind.)
Waste sludge and liquids
Water, with metals, organics
Oil field brine
Wastewater
Drummed chemical wastes
Landfill leachate
Liquid chemical wastes
Water; Wastewater; fly ash
Process Liquids
Wastewater
Liquids
Cooling tower blow down
Process water (with organics)
3/81
10/82
11/80
9/80
7/80
6/81
-/73
5/72
3/71
8/74
4/83
7/77
9/82
-/75
9/82
9/83
11/83
8/83
7/82
12/80
6/80
9/81
10/80
6/79
8/78
-/74
-/74
Status
(12/83)
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Closed
Open
Closed
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Op°n
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Closed
Open
Open
Problems
with
Liner
—
Yes
—
—
--
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
--
Yes
--
«
--
--
--
--
--
"•
Yes
Yes
--
Yes
—
-------
The ten (10) surface impoundments that were not more specifically categorized
served as temporary storage sites for liquid wastes.
Contained Materials
All of the materials which were to be contained within the lined sites
were waste liquids, sludges, and/or solids. (Only one of the eight lagoons at
site V4-7 was for fresh water.) In most cases the vendors were unable to
supply detailed informaton on the composition of these wastes. It is clear
that a variety of inorganic and organic chemicals were present in these
wastes. However, it is not clear which wastes would be considered hazardous
under the current RCRA regulations.
Date Installed
The dates (month/year) shown in Table 1 generally reflect the time when
the site work and installation were completed. In many cases initial steps in
the site work were completed several months (years in a few cases) prior to
the dates shown. The number installed in each year are as follows:
Year No. Year No. Year No.
'71 1 '76 0 '80 6
'72 1 '77 1 '81 3
'73 1 '78 1 '82 4
'74 3 '79 1 '83 4
'75 1
Thus, nearly two-thirds of the selected sites were completed in the '80s, and
have been in operation for three years or less.
Status
Of the 27 sites, three are currently closed (Vl-6, V2-2 and V5-3).
Problems With Liner
The last column in Table 1 has a "yes" if the vendor described one or
more problems that could be considered a liner "failure", even if the problem
was subsequently repaired. The nature and cause of these failures are
discussed in Section 6.
According to this summary, there were ten (10) sites that experienced
failures and seventeen (17) that did not. Note that this success/failure
ratio should be considered more a reflection of the vendors efforts to provide
data on a variety of types of sites (including some that were successes and
failures) than a reflection of all sites currently existing in the US. It is
also possible that some of those for which no problems were reported could
have current (unknown) or future problems. However, it is the experience of
many people that, if problems are going to show up, they will do so within
one to two years after installation. This clearly does not hold for such
failures as hidden liner leaks under a landfill (which might take many years
15
-------
to detect), but probably is valid for many of the common "failures" associated
with liner installation and exposed liners.
LINER SYSTEMS
Table 2 provides summary information on the liner systems used at each
site. A brief discussion is given below.
Single vs Double Liner
Most of the sites (approx. 20) had only a single impermeable layer in the
liner system. Some of the sites had both a flexible membrane liner (FML) and
a layer of compacted clay, with or without a drain layer (leak detection
system) in between. Such systems, along with others that had two FMLs, are
listed in Table 1 as having a double liner. One site had a triple FML
system.
Primary Liner Material
Flexible membrane liners (FMLs) were used at 25 of the 27 sites. Site
V3-4 used a soil sealant applied at a rate of 25 tons per acre and mixed to a
depth of 4 inches. Site V3-5 used 5 inches of asphalt cement. Top layers of
soil cement were used at two sites (Vl-1 and V5-3). A spray-on liner (called
Chevron Industrial Membrane [CIM]) was used at site V5-1.
The abbreviations used for the flexible membrane liners are as follows:
Abbr. Polymer Type No. of Sites
CIM Chevron Industrial Membrane 1
(not a FML) (composition unknown)
CPE Chlorinated polyethylene 5
(OR = oil resistant)
HDPE High density polyethylene 7
CSPE Chlorosulfonated polyethylene 6
PO Polyolefin 1
PVC Polyvinyl chloride 9
The suffixes (R) and (U) placed after the FML abbreviations in Table 2
stand for 'reinforced', and 'unreinforced', respectively. A reinforced FML is
one that incorporates (usually bonded between two polymer sheets) an open
fabric or scrim, typically made of polyester or nylon. HDPE and PVC liners
are usually not reinforced, while CSPE and, to a lesser extent, CPE are
usually reinforced.
All of the FMLs commonly used today to line waste treatment or disposal
sites are well represented by the sites selected for this study.
Primary Liner Thickness
Amongst FML liners, those made of HDPE are usually the thickest. This
extra thickness is required, in part, to prevent problems during field seaming
16
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY INFORMATION ON LINER SYSTEMS
Single (S) or Primary
Double (D) Liner _..
Site ID
Vl-1
Vl-2
Vl-3
Vl-4
VI- 5
Vl-6
V2-1
V2-2
V2-3
V2-4
V3-1
V3-2
V3-3
V3-4
V3-5
V4-1
V4-2
V4-3
V4-4
V4-5
V4-6
V4-7
V5-1
V5-2
V5-3
V5-4
V5-5
* See
** Com
Liner
S
S
S
S
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
D
S
D
D
S
S
3D, IS
S
S
D
Triple
text for
> - compac
Material
OR-CPE(R)
CSI'E (R)
PVC (U)
PVC (U)
PVC (U), CSPE (?)
PVC (U)
CSPE (R)
CSPE (R)
CSPE (U)
CSPE (R)
PO (R)
PVC (U)
PVC (U)
Soil Sealant
Asphal t -concrete
HOPE (U)
HOPE (U)
HDPE (U)
HDPE (U)
HDPE (U)
HDPE (U)
HDPE (U)
CPE (U), CPE (U)
CPE (U)/PVC (U)
CPE (U)
PVC (U)
2xCPE (R), PVC (U)
Primary
Liner
Total
Surface
(mil) Area (ac)
36
36
30
30
20,36
30
30
30
30
30
30
20
20
4 in.
5 in.
100
100
80
80
80
100
80
20, 30
20/10
30
20
30,20
explanation of terms.
ted; FML » flexible membrane liner;
10
22
2
10
1
2
120
8
2.3
4.3
42
75
8
25
2
18
18.5
88
6
3.2
0.3
66
1,5
13
0.7
1.4
0.75
G - grav
Layers in ^ Problems
Exposed (E) Monitoring Liner System Air with
or Buried (B) System
B
E
B
B
E
B
E
E
E
B
B
B
B
B
E
E
E
E
E (sides)
B
E
E (sides)
E (CIM only)
B
B
B
E
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
el; GeoTex - geotextlle; Gr
(Bottom to top) Vents Liner
Gr/GeoTex/S&G/GeoTex/FML/Soll cement
Coup Clay/S/FML
Lime Rk/S/FML/S/Lime Rk
Comp Soil/FML/Soil
Comp clay/S/FML/S/FML .
Old Fill/Clean fill/FML/clay
Comp clay and limes tone/FML
Comp soil /S&G /FML
Comp Sub-base /FML
Comp Fill/FML/S/G
Prepared limestone/FML/Stone
Corap Clay/FML/S
Comp Soil/FML/S
Comp Sand/Llner/S
Comp. Soil/Ashpalt (2 lifts)
Comp Sand /FML
Comp Clay/S/FML
Comp Subgrade/FML
Clay/S/Comp Roil/FML/Comp Soil
Comp clay/FML/Comp clay
Comp Soil/FML
Subgrade/FML/S (bottom only)
Subgrade/CPE/Soil/Concrete/CIM
Nat. Soil/FML/Nat. Soil
Nat. Soil/FML/Nat. soil/soil cement
Comp Soil/Clay/S/FML/Nat. Soil
Comp fill/CPE/G/PVC/CPE/?
• ground; Nat " natural; rk - rock; S - Sand
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No (?)
No
No
No (?)
No (?)
--
Yes
--
--
--
"
Yes
Yes
Yes
»
Yes
Yes
--
Yes
""
--
--
--
—
--
--
•••
Yes
Yes
—
Yes
-------
of HDPE which involves a welding process using heat. The other FML materials
can be seamed with solvents in the field; the range of thicknesses shown is
10-36 mil. Bottom liner thickness of less than 30 mil would be considered
marginally low or too low for a hazardous waste facility that would be
permitted under current RCRA rules.
Liner Surface Area
Table 2 shows that the sites selected had liner surface areas ranging
from 0.3 to 120 acres. The amount of field seaming required increases as the
lined surface area increases. The number of facilities in four size ranges is
as follows:
Size No.
< 1 acre 3
1-10 acre 14
11-100 acre 9
>100 acre 1
Exposed vs Buried Liner
This column in Table 2 indicates whether all (or a portion) of the
primary liner was left exposed, to wastes or the environment, after
installation or were covered with soil (buried). Exposed liners may be
susceptible to damage from the environment (wind, sun, waves, ice, hail, heat,
cold), animals, vehicles and other factors. Thirteen (13) of the sites had
all or part of the primary liner remaining exposed after installation. In
some cases (e.g., site V4-4), the exposed sides were to be covered as the
landfill height was raised.
Monitoring System
Seventeen (17) of the selected sites had some form of monitoring system
designed to allow detection of primary liner failure. The systems involved
ranged from simple perimeter drains, to drain systems in double lined
facilities, to external monitoring wells. Without such monitoring systems,
primary liner leaks are likely to go undetected unless liquid levels (in
surface impoundments) drop dramatically or off-site wells are contaminated.
Layers in Liner System
A well-designed liner system, especially one for hazardous waste
containment, may contain several layers or elements. Table 2 shows the range
of liner systems represented by the sites selected for this study. There is
no standard design for a liner system; each site/waste combination must be
given special consideration. The use of geotextiles (typically nonwoven,
porous fabrics made of polyester or other synthetic fibers) is quickly gaining
in popularity today. They can help separate soil layers of different particle
size (e.g. sand from gravel), provide a cushion layer next to the FML to help
prevent punctures, help in or act as drainage layers and gas venting layers,
and act as a lubrication layer next to a FML which may be pulled over the
subgrade. Only site Vl-1 in our survey reports the use of geotextiles.
18
-------
Air Vents
Air vents are necessary if a FML is to be left exposed to the air; they
help equalize the air pressure above and below the FML and thus prevent lift
during windy periods. Some systems require gas vents to allow gases generated
under the liner by natural causes (e.g., methane from decomposition of organic
matter) to escape. Eight (8) of the sites in this study had some kind of air
or gas vent.
19
-------
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION OF SURVEY FINDINGS
PREVIEW
Section 6 provides an in-depth discussion of the apparent reasons for the
"successes" and "failures" noted at the 27 sites evaluated in this study. To
a large extent, the discussion is limited to findings from these sites alone,
although some generalities (including extracts from the vendors' summary
reports) are provided.
The following subsection describes categories of failure in a general way
(without reference to the specific sites in this study) in order to set the
stage for the subsequent evaluation of actual failures in the third
subsection.
The last subsection of Section 6 provides a discussion of the reasons for
the successes at the sites studied.
CATEGORIES OF FAILURE
In evaluating lined facility case studies it is important to have a
thorough understanding of the various ways in which a liner may fail. First,
there is the problem of defining "failure" in a practical manner. In a strict
sense, one might limit the scope to ultimate failure of the liner, i.e. events
that are directly related to leakage of fluids through the liner. Examples
would include punctures, tears, and/or seam failures in critical sections of
the liner system.
However, our previous study of liner failures (Lyman et al., 1983) showed
that the question of failure mode could be given a much broader definition.
The definition encompasses all of the actions and processes that lead to
ultimate failure and leakage. This approach thus recognizes various stages of
preliminary failure including, for example, poor materials, poor workmanship
(especially during liner installation) and poor design. Philosophical
failures, relating to a variety of misconceptions (about liners) and motives,
were also recognized as being potential forerunners of ultimate failures. A
diagram showing such a hierarchy of failure modes is shown in Figure 1. The
downward-pointing arrows between boxes in the Figure imply a connection
between types of failure, i.e., one type of failure leading to another, a
propagation of errors.
There were several examples in the current case study in which an
ultimate failure could reasonably be linked (based on the vendor's submission)
20
-------
PHILOSOPHICAL / CONCEPTUAL "FAILURE"
l-i
PROCESS "FAILURE"
I
Design Manufacture Site
— Site — Sheet — Si
Liner — Seams — D
Prep. Installation
nbgrade — Seams
rains — Cover
4
CATEGORICAL "FAILURE"
Non-Waste Factors
Weather and Subgrade and Operation
Aging Fill, etc. Maintenan
' ^
Waste Factors
and — Incompatibility
:e — 2-phase systems
;
i
PRELIMINARY FML "FAILURE"
Shrinking
Swelling
Extraction
Softening
Elongation
Abrasion
Fatigue
Creep
Compression
Delamination
Embrittlement
Blisters
Mud/Algal Curl
Chemical Attack
"Whale back"
ULTIMATE FML "FAILURE"
Pinholes
Punctures
Tears
Permeation
Dissolution
Seam Failure
Crack due to :
- Flex stress
- Chemical Stress
- Embrittlement
Figure 1. Hierarchy of Failure Modes
21
-------
to prior failure modes. At site V2-1, for example, an ultimate failure
reported was the permeation and/or dissolution of the liner at the air-liquid
interface of the impoundment. This was attributed to chemical attack
(preliminary failure) by an oil-based defoamer discharged to the system
without prior evaluation of the possible consequences (operational failure).
There may have been conceptual failures here in that the designers and
operators of the system were insufficiently sensitive to the need to consider
appropriate designs and operational controls that would have prevented the
harmful chemical from entering the impoundment in the first place.
Other categorization schemes used in discussion of liner failure modes
are shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Table 3 shows the scheme used by Kays (1977)
in his discussion of cut and fill reservoirs; some of the items listed in this
table belong in the "categorical failure" category shown in Figure 1. Kays
dedicates a whole chapter of his book to the discussion of liner failure
mechanisms; the reader is referred to this work for further information.
Haxo (Matrecon, 1983) provides a different listing of failure modes under
the general categories of physical, biological and chemical (Table 4). Haxo's
report provides descriptions of all of these mechanisms which will not be
repeated here. Haxo's list introduces, beyond those provided in Table 3,
failure mechanisms specifically related to chemical factors. For example, a
waste (especially liquids containing organic chemicals) may act as a solvent
and actually dissolve a flexible membrane liner (FML); weaker solvents may
just permeate and swell the liner.
Woodward-Clyde (1984) used the scheme shown in Table 5 in their
evaluation of liner site case histories. Of these, seaming (a subheading
under defective installation) was found to be the most frequent problem area.
In the current study, no rigid classification scheme for failures was
used (or really needed). However, two general types of failure that were
differentiated were:
1). Failure before operation; This is defined as a condition of the
liner which required non-routine corrective measures to make the
liner suitable for use as designated, (e.g., tear or puncture caused
by construction equipment)
2). Failure during operation; This is defined as a condition of the
liner which causes (or threatens to cause) groundwater
contamination, or which otherwise causes operations to cease because
of observed abnormalities (e.g., "whale-backs," algal curl,
preliminary chemical attack).
Success is defined as the converse of failure, i.e., non-routine corrective
measures are not required, the liner does not leak, and operations are not
shut down.
Identifying the reasons for specific liner failures, and categorizing
them according to some scheme, is not particularly difficult since there is
usually a specific happening (e.g., a tear) for which certain facts and causes
22
-------
TABLE 3 CLASSIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL
FAILURE MECHANISMS FOR CUT-AND-FILL RESERVOIRS
Supporting structure problems
The underdrains
The substrate
Compaction
Texture
Voids
Subsidence
Holes and cracks
Groundwater
Expansive clays
Gassing
Sluffing
Slope anchor stability
Mud
Frozen ground and ice
The appurtenances
Porosity
Holes
Pinholes
Tear strength
Tensile strength
Extrusion and Extension
Rodents, other animals,
and birds
Insects
Weed growths
Weather
General weathering
Wind
Ozone
Wave erosion
Seismic activity
Lining problems
Mechanical difficulties
Field seams
Fish mouths
Structure seals
Bridging
Operating Problems
Cavitation
Impingement
Maintenance cleaning
Reverse hydrostatic
uplift
Vandalism
Source: Kays (1977)
23
-------
TABLE 4 FAILURE CATEGORIES
Physical Biological Chemical
Puncture Microbial attack Ultraviolet attack
Tear Ozone attack
Creep Hydrolysis
Freeze-thaw cracking Ionic species attack
Wet-dry cracking Extraction
Differential settling Ionic species incom-
patibility
Thermal stress Solvents
Hydrostatic pressure
Abrasion
Source: Matrecon (1982)
24
-------
TABLE 5. FAILURE MECHANISMS OF IMPOUNDMENTS LINED WITH GEOMEMBRANES
Failure of Geomembrane
Manufacturing defects
Weathering
Physical
Chemical
Mechanical
Defective Installation
Storage
Transportation
Placement
Seaming
Appurtenances
Placement of cover materials
Damage by Contact
Puncture
Vegetation
Shocks
Gas and Liquid Damage
Gas uplift
Wind
Waves
Liquid uplift
Overtopping
Geotechnical Problems
Slope instability
Sloughing of cover material
Subsidence
Differential settlement
Expansive clays
Other Failure Mechanisms
Vandalism
Seismic activity
Source: Woodward-Clyde (1984)
25
-------
may be quite evident. By contrast, identifying the reasons for success is
more difficult since there is an absence of any specific, adverse event. In a
simple manner, the reasons will often be directly associated with steps that
were taken to prevent problems, or to identify and correct problems as they
arise. These steps will be part of a quality control system, although the
liner manufacturer, installer and user may not use this exact phrase. These
quality control steps are any actions based upon the premises that problems
and/or mistakes can occur, and that reasonable steps must be taken to prevent
and/or correct problems when they occur.
EVALUATION OF FAILURES AT STUDY SITES
There were twelve problems, at ten sites, described in the vendors'
reports that fit the definition of "failure" described in the previous
subsection. Table 6 provides a summary description of these failures and the
apparent reasons for them based on the data in the vendor reports. As a
consequence of these failures, pollutants were apparently released to the
environment (i.e., the soil-groundwater system under the site) at four or five
sites (Vl-2, V3-1, V3-2, V3-4 and V5-4), and one site was permanently removed
from service (V2-2).
The following observations are made with respect to these failures:
1. Pre- vs post-operational and Detection; At three sites, (V2-3, V3-1
and V5-2) the failures were pre-operational; all were detected visually.
At the other seven sites (Vl-2, V2-1, V2-2, V3-2, V3-4, V5-1, and V5-4)
the failure was noted in the operational phase of the site; detection of
failure was predominantly by monitoring well or leak detection system (5
sites) vs visual observation (2 sites). However, of those sites where
failures were noted in the operational phase, it is likely that four of
them were related to "preliminary" failures (e.g., inadequacies in design
or installation) in the pre-operational phase (sites V2-2, V3-2, V3-4,
and V5-4). Poor control of operations was a contributing factor at three
sites (Vl-2, V2-1 and V3-1).
2. Nature of "Failure":
(a) Chemical attack - present at site V2-1, possible at site V3-4;
(b) Physical tear or puncture - a cause at five sites (Vl-2, V2-3, V3-1
(twice), V5-2 and V5-4);
(c) Poor installation or seaming: present at site V3-2, possible at
sites V3-4 and V5-1; problems during installation were also a
contributing factor at 3 other sites (V3-1, V5-2 and V5-4);
(d) Whale-backs - present at site V2-2.
3. Weather as a Factor: Of the sites that had "failures", poor weather
was a probable contributing factor at two (V3-1 and V5-2). In addition,
three other sites that did not report any failures (V4-2, V4-4, and V4-5)
mentioned weather as an adverse factor during installation. Altogether,
weather was an adverse factor at 5 of the 27 sites.
26
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF "FAILURES" AI CASE STUDY SITES
Site ID
Nature of "Failure"
How Detected
Apparent Cause
Other Contributing Factors
VI-2
V2-1
V2-2
V2-3
V3-1
V3-2
Five holes found in liner
caused by owner-operating
personnel; minor brine loss
Chemical attack of liner at
liquid surface
Whale-backs
Monitoring
well
Visual
Visual
Liner ripped
Visual
a) Holes and tears in liner Visual
b) Escape of dredge material Visual
c) Tear in liner panel Visual
Chemical pollutants showed Leak
up in drain water collected Monitor
below liner
Carelessness by owner-operating
personnel
Attack or dissolution by oil-
based defoamer
Gas generation under liner; no
allowance made for gas venting
in design
Tank truck slipped down slope
Liner placed betweeen layers
of coarse rock
Liner placed over coarse rock
Waves entered construction
area and scraped liner
against dike
Apparent blockage of leachate
collection drain; backup of
leachate
Lack of clear operating procedures.
Possible lack of concern (speculative).
- Use of oil-based defoamer not anticipated,
thus not in original tpst program.
Inadequate control of operations.
- Inadequate study of soils and hydro-
geology at site; presence of organic
matter (in soil) had, however, been
noted.
- Site used before for disposal of organic
sludges.
- No fence around site.
Liner exposed.
- Poor design.
Poor control of operations.
Poor communication between contractor,
installer and engineer.
Job awarded to low bidder (speculative).
Poor design (subgrade too coarse).
Poor control during installation.
Wet and windy weather.
Poor bonding at seams, appurtenance (?).
Poor control of installation practices;
used "Honor Camp" youth to install FML
Undersized collection drain (?); due to
poor design (?).
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF "FAILURES" AT CASE STUDY SITES (continued)
Site ID
Nature of "Failure"
How Detected
Apparent Cause
Other Contributing Factors
V5-1
oo
V5-2
V5-4
Pollutants showed up in Monitoring Unknown; possible bieakup of
monitoring wells around site well soil sealant liner
Liquids found in leak detector Leak detector Probable failure of sealing of
concrete joints with PVC strips
and spray-on liner, CIM
Physical damage to liner Visual
prior to being put into service
Fluid intrusion into Monitoring
monitoring well Well
Unknown, but suspect
carelessness
Membrane rupture at five,
uniformly-spaced positions;
tears probably by D-4 cat
tractor used to spread soil
cover over liner
Unknown; possible failure to fully test
soil sealant for this type of application
Process for selecting liner unclear.
No way to physically test liner once in use.
Concrete installer, against explicit instruc-
tions, used curing compound that inhibited
proper bonding of CIM to concrete.
Poor design: improper information supplied
on CIM; owner suggested use of C'IM.
Poor installation: lack of knowledgeable
supervision.
Questionable cooperation between contractors.
Job awarded to low bidder (speculative).
High winds and cold temperatures
during construction (took 11 months).
Operator of tractor let soil cover get
too thin.
Poor control of installation.
-------
4. Construction in Old Dump Site Areas - The failure at one site (V2-2)
was clearly related to the use of an old dump site for the new lined
facility. The ground was contaminated with organics and had a high water
table; gas generated by the decay of the organic matter was trapped below
the liner and resulted in the "whale-backs". Two other sites (V2-4 and
V5-3) were also constructed in areas with contaminated soils although no
subsequent problems were noted. None of the three sites had gas vents.
5. Waste-Liner Compatibility Testing: Waste-liner compatibility
testing appears to have been conducted for only four sites (V2-2, V2-4,
V3-4 and V2-l[?]). As noted in #2 above, chemical attack was possibly
responsible for the failure at site V3-4; thus, there may have been some
inadequacies in the tests conducted. At a number of other sites the
liner (or resin) manufacture provided assurances of compatibility based
upon past experience or in-house data (sites Vl-1, V2-3, V5-2, V5-3,
V5-4, V5-5).
Other problems noted by the vendors, not all of which were connected with
sites which had "failures", included the following:
o Installer had difficulty placing liner over geotextile fabric
(Vl-1);
o Inability to easily test degree of soil compaction in field (Vl-3);
o Failure to conduct waste-liner compatibility tests (various sites);
o Indications that constructed facilities might be used for unplanned
uses (thus not anticipated in the design) (Vl-5);
o Gas generation between limestone and effluent; careful venting
required (V2-1);
o Difficulty in repairing aged liner material (V2-1);
o Inadequate corrective measures taken due to desire for cheap
solution (V2-2);
o One vendor reported problems with asphalt cracking (at other sites)
in response to freeze-thaw cycles (see V3-5 data);
o Earthwork contractor had to be removed from job due to poor work
(V4-2);
o Differential settlement in subgrade caused initial clay liner to
crack (V4-5);
o Mud and water in site caused difficulty in welding seams (V4-7).
Discussion of Special Issues
Untrained Installers —
The use of untrained installers was evident at several sites. Apparently
the site owners or general contractors see this as one easy place to control
costs by using low wage earners or, as in the case of sites V2-3 and V3-4,
using employees of the site owner. The vendors' responses to question V.C.6
of the questionnaire indicate that, in their opinion, the installers were not
qualified at three sites (V2-2, V3-2 and V5-1 [for the CIM]), and that at an
additional five sites (V2-1, V2-3, V2-4, V3-1 and V3-3) only the installation
supervisor(s) was(were) qualified.
29
-------
Independent Design Engineer —
According to the vendors' responses, for 13 of the 27 sites the site
owner acted as the design engineer: Vl-5, Vl-6, V2-1, V2-2, V2-4, V3-1, V3-2,
V4-2, V4-3, V4-5, V4-6, V5-4, and V5-5 (the underlined sites are recorded as
having failures). This apparent failure by nearly half the sites to use
independent (and presumably qualified and certified) design engineers is a
cause for concern. (It is possible that some of the owner-designers used
outside consultants or design engineers without the knowledge of our vendors.)
Number of Companies Involved in Site Work —
The number of independent companies involved in the design, manufacture
and installation of each lined site ranged from 4 to 8; Figure 2 provides a
histogram showing the breakdown. These companies play several roles as shown
in Figure 3. The interaction between all these companies, the site owner and
the regulatory agencies is a potential problem area. Although communication
or cooperation problems were only mentioned for two sites (V3-1 and V5-2),
there are many places for problems to arise when so many interests are
involved. Who, for example, has overall responsibility for quality control?
Who provides what warranties to whom? How reliable is each component; How
important is it to use a "team" of companies that has worked together in the
past?
Process for Selecting Companies —
It appears that a bidding process was used at eleven or more sites as
part of the contractor, liner manufacturer, and liner installer selection
process. Furthermore, it appears that low price was the deciding factor in
the selection at about seven of these sites. Whether or not these low bidders
all proposed to adequately meet a set of bid specifications is not known. The
degree of detail and quality of any bid specification package is also not
known. This emphasis on low cost is understandable, but is an area for
concern if it appears that liner quality is being sacrificed.
In the cases where a bid process was not used, the selection often
focused on: the special qualities of an established team
(manufacturer/fabricator/installer); prior experience of the company(ies) with
the site owner; prior experience related to the type of installation being
built; selection by an existing on-site contractor; and, in one case, the
properties of the liner material being sold (HDPE).
Process for Selecting Liner Material—
It appears that liner specifications were prepared for between 11 and 16
of the sites studied, either by the design engineer, a consultant, or the
owner. In at least eight instances, the vendors' responses made it clear that
such specifications were used in conjunction with the solicitation of
competitive bids. (A bid process was involved for at least 5 other sites, but
the basis for the bids could not be ascertained from the vendors' responses.)
The eleven sites were: Vl-1, Vl-4, Vl-5, V2-4, V4-2, V4-3, V4-4, V4-7, V5-2,
V5-3, and V5-4; other possibilities were V2-2, V2-3, V3-2, V3-5 and V5-5
(underlined sites reported as having "failures").
It is important that liner selection follow from a process that includes:
(1) the preparation of detailed specifications by a qualified design engineer;
30
-------
10 -I
9 ~
-------
OJ
NJ
Owner/
Operator
Regulatory
Agencies
Design
Engineer
General
Contractor
Resin
Manufacturer
Sheet
Manufacturer
Liner
Fabricator
Installation
Supervisor
Installers
(crew)
Raw
Materials
Supplier
Other Raw
Materials
Suppliers
Testing
Laboratories
Earthmoving
Contractor
Figure 3. Schematic Diagram (Hypothetical) of Interaction Between Groups or Companies
Involved in a FML Installation Job.
-------
and (2) bids by companies who promise to meet those specifications.
(Waste-liner compatibility testing is also required, at least as a
confirmatory step.) At the 10 (or more) sites where such a process was
apparently not used, there is cause for concern with regard to the
appropriateness of the liner that was selected. Vendors' responses indicated
that "prior history", general contractor preference, owner preference, and
informal interviews were the basis for liner selection in some of these other
cases.
Facility Age—
It is not clear that failures correlated with facility age in the sites
studied although, as seen in Figure 4, there were failures at 3 of the oldest
facilities, and at 7 of the 10 facilities installed prior to 1980. It is
possible that this higher tendency for failures at older sites can be
attributed: (1) to the (assumed) use of less appropriate designs, materials
and installation practices at older sites; (2) to the (assumed) paucity of
related experience by the manufacturing and installing companies in those
early years; and/or (3) just to the fact that there has been more time for
failures to show up.
Facility Size —
Facility size correlates with failure rate in our selection of sites
although the significance of this correlation is unclear. As shown in Figure
5, there were noted failures at both large and small facilities. If, however,
it is assumed that vendor V4 had a bias against selection of problem sites (no
failures were noted at any of the 7 sites selected for this study), and the V4
sites are not considered in the facility size/failure correlation, then all 5
(5 of 7 including V4) sites larger than 20 acres had failures and 7 of the
10 (7 of 15 including V4) sites greater than 6 acres had failures. While a
strong correlation may not be a general rule, the necessity for added
planning, care, quality control, etc. with large facilities is fairly evident.
Monitoring Systems —
Seventeen (17) of the 27 sites had some form of monitoring system to
detect failures in the primary liner. Figures 4 and 5 indicate the sites with
monitoring. Seven of the sites with monitoring systems had failures, but, as
noted above (see Table 6), the monitoring system was involved in the
identification of the failure at only 5 sites. Still, it is possible that if
our vendors had selected a higher percentage of sites with monitoring systems,
more failures might have been identified. In any case, the necessity for some
type of monitoring system at RCRA-permitted sites is quite clear.
Field Seam Repairs —
According to the vendors' reports, all field seams were checked for
integrity. (Only sites V3-4 and V3-5 which did not use FMLs are excluded.)
In most cases the vendors explicity said 100% of the seams were checked by one
or more means, e.g., visual, air lance, feeler gauge or ultrasonic device.
However, the adequacy of the inspection can be questioned in several cases.
Apparently only visual inspection was used at sites V3-2 and V3-3; and at
sites V5-2, V5-3, V5-4 and V5-5 only visual plus feeler gauge inspection was
used. No details were provided on the inspection methods used at some sites
(e.g., V5-1).
33
-------
6 1
5 '
H 4
FIGURE 4
CORRELATION OF FACILITY AGE WITH FAILURES
V4-
Vl-f
Vl-4
Vl-3 Vl-1
V4-7
Vl-6 V3-3 V4-
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
YEAR INSTALLED
Vn-m = site identification number
= failure noted
= site has monitoring system
34
-------
FIGURE 5
CORRELATION OF FACILITY SIZE WITH FAILURES
6 1
V4-6\ Vl-5\ Vl-3 V2-2 Vl-1 V1-2NJV2-1
0-.9 1-1.9 2-5.9 6-9 10-19 20-29 -30
FACILITY SIZE (acres)
Vn-m = site identification number
= failure noted
= site has monitoring system
35
-------
The vendors' experience showed that repairs were generally necessary on
0.5% to 2% of the seams (by length). At one site it was 8% (V4-4). These
data indicate that 100% checking of field seams is clearly necessary.
Vendors Comments on Causes for Failures
The coded summary reports from the five vendors are provided in Appendix
B. They contain discussions of causes for liner failures based upon the
vendors' overall experience. Extracts from their summaries are provided
below.
Vendor VI —
[See comments under discussion of success in the following
subsection]
Vendor V2 —
[Comments limited to specific sites studied; See Appendix B]
Vendor V3 --
Causes for liner failures include:
o Inadequate pre-selection testing of the liner
o Inadequate quality assurance programs
o Inadequate leachate control systems above the membrane liner
o Liner contact with poorly selected and placed gravel drains
o Use of heavy construction equipment
o Leakage around vertical risers
o Ineffective membrane seams.
Vendor V4 —
Causes for liner failures include:
o Chemical incompatibility
o Low mechanical strength resulting in poor tear and puncture
resistance
o Poor seaming
o Soil conditions (compactability, stability, etc.) play an important
role
o Failure to conduct waste-liner compatibility testing.
Vendor V5 —
o In almost all cases, failures have been mechanical in nature
o Reservoir level management a cause in one case
o Ultraviolet attack has caused several failures for exposed liners
o One failure linked to improper compounding of resin for liner.
36
-------
EVALUATION OF SUCCESSES AT STUDY SITES
Introduction
In a previous subsection, success was defined as the converse of failure,
i.e. non-routine corrective measures were ^not required, the liner did not
leak, and operations were not shut down. Using this strict definition,
seventeen of the study sites were considered successes as of the time of data
collection (late 1983).
However, it also seems fair to broaden the definition of success to
include sites where problems did occur but were identified and corrected
without any attendant release of pollutants to the environment. This would
allow sites V2-1, V2-3, V5-2 and V5-1 to be considered qualified successes.
(Site V5-1 did release pollutants through its primary liner, but they were
detected in a leak detection system.) Thus, a modified success rate of 21 of
the 27 sites might be cited. This would have to be qualified with the caution
that not all failures may have been identified at each site, and that failures
could occur in the future at any of these sites.
Finding the reasons for success is more difficult than finding the
reasons for failure. Since success is the absence of failure, it is
essentially asking why everything went right. Clearly, no one action can be
credited with a resulting success as, by contrast, it could for a failure.
More commonly, success will follow from an understanding of the potential
problems associated with liner installation and use, and the subsequent
planning to avoid as many problems as can reasonably be perceived in advance,
and to quickly identify and correct other problems as they arise.
Comments on Reasons for Success at Individual Sites
Table 7 lists a number of specific comments on success for 23 of the 27
sites where either the vendors made a pertinent comment or where some other
comment seemed appropriate. This part of the site questionnaire (i.e.,
Section IX of questionnaire) did appear to attract a number of self-serving
statements by the vendors. These have been placed in quotes in Table 7.
Vendor Comments on Causes for Success
The summary reports from the five vendors are provided verbatim in
Appendix B. They contain discussions of causes for liner successes based upon
the vendors overall experience. Extracts from their summaries are provided
below.
This report is based only on the data reported to us by the five vendors.
No attempt was made to estimate how many "failures", of what severity,
existing or in the future, may remain undetected.
37
-------
TABLE 7. COMMENTS ON REASONS FOR SUCCESS AT
INDIVIDUAL SITES
Site ID Comments (by Vendor or A. D. Little, Inc.)
Vl-1 - Overdesign of liner system
uvci.ucsj.gu uj. J.J.11CZ. system
Not a difficult job; no chemicals of concern
Used geotextiles, soil cement
Vl-2 - After holes repaired, "proper education of
engineer and owner" led to success
- Not a difficult job
- Established team used
- Standards imposed by State Railroad Commission
Good design
Vl-3 - "Excellent construction weather and coordination
of all principals involved"
- "Good design and proper installation"
- Prior history of similar application
Vl-4 - "Quality PVC specified, proper design
engineering, and a quality installation"
Used established team
Bid to specs of design engineer; bids reviewed
by design engineer
Vl-5 - "Quality lining system properly designed and
installed"
- Knowledgeable customer
Bid to specs
Vl-6 - "Designed and installed with good fundamental
engineering practices, and competent and
experienced installation personnel"
- Established team
- Knowledgeable customer
V2-1 - Problem (of chemical attack) solved by
switching to non-oil-based defoamer
Repairs to liner include installation of cover
strip at liquid level
V2-2 - [None identified]
~(Continued)
38
-------
TABLE 7. COMMENTS ON REASONS FOR SUCCESS AT
INDIVIDUAL SITES (continued)
*
Site ID Comments (by Vendor or A. D. Little, Inc.)
V2-3 - Close cooperation between all parties that
installed liner
V2-4 - Knowledgeable owner
- Close liason by companies on installation
- Site study of soils, hydrology
- Waste-liner compatibility tests conducted
V3-1 - Site study done
V3-2 - [None identified]
V3-3 - Reasonable level of care in design and work
V3-4 - [None identified]
V3-5 - [None identified]
V4-1 - "Thickness, puncture resistance and chemical
resistance of liner"
- Relatively few companies involved
- Relatively standard installation
V4-2 - "Thickness, puncture resistance and chemical
resistance of liner"
- Relatively few companies involved
- Some care given to design
V4-3 - "Thickness, puncture resistance and chemical
resistance of liner"
- Relatively few companies involved
- Some care given to design
- Past experience (?)
V4-4 - "Thickness, puncture resistance and chemical
resistance of liner"
- Relatively few companies involved
- Some care given to design
(Continued)
39
-------
TABLE 7. COMMENTS ON REASONS FOR SUCCESS AT
INDIVIDUAL SITES (continued)
*
Site ID Comments (by Vendor or A. D. Little, Inc.)
V4-5 - "Thickness, puncture resistance and chemical
resistance of liner"
Some care given to design
V4-6 - Relatively few companies involved
V4-7 - "Thickness, puncture resistance and chemical
resistance of liner"
Some care given to design
- Simple system
V5-1 - CPE performed well
V5-2 - Liner repaired satisfactorily and now functions
successfully
V5-3 - Good cooperation of companies on team
V5-4 - Good cooperation amongst companies
- Relatively simple system
Good design (?)
V5-5 - Knowledgeable owner (?)
Regulatory intervention (?)
- Good weather (?)
Good cooperation amongst companies
Comments in quotes are by vendor and appear partially
self-serving. Quotes may not use exact wording of vendors, but
are reasonably close.
40
-------
Vendor VI —
The key elements of a successful liner system are:
- Proper design engineering
Proper material selection
- Proper earthwork preparation
- Proper lining installation
- Proper maintenance of the lining system
Vendor V2 —
[Comments limited to specific sites studied; see Appendix B.]
Vendor V3 —
In general, the successful installations are those with the least
complex design, and having an "as-built" condition most similar to
the design plans.
Vendor V4 —
Need more focus on:
- Liner material (especially chemical compatibility)
Puncture resistance
Seaming (good technique, good quality control program).
Vendor V5 —
Use of double lined system.
Synthesis
In providing a synthesis and independent evaluation of the apparent
reasons for success at the study sites, we have developed several hypotheses
which we believe are reasonable and consistent with the cases actually
studied. There is, however, no way to prove the hypotheses based on the data
gathered for these sites, but future case studies could be used to test them.
First, success is more likely to follow if the responsible individuals
have the proper philosophical and conceptual approach (cf. Figure 1). If they
understand that what they are doing is important and that the process of
designing, installing and using a lined facility involves many technical
factors that will likely present problems, then they are more likely to
proceed with due diligence. A key element of the proper philosophical
approach is indeed: (1) to assume that there will be problems; (2) to examine
the possible consequences of those problems and/or "failures"; and then (3) to
take the appropriate steps (e.g., design changes, quality control procedures)
to avoid or minimize the problems.
Second, this approach must be applied to all stages or facets of the
liner system including:
41
-------
Liner system design
- Liner material selection
Site preparation
Liner installation
Facility operation (including liner maintenance)
Facility closure (for RCRA landfills requiring covers)
Within each of these areas, the generalized approach must be applied
within the framework of a formal quality assurance (QA) program. It is worth
noting that the vendors reported tjjjat at least 23 of the 27 sites had some
sort of a quality assurance program ; no data were provided on the other four
sites. It is difficult to judge
the coverage of the QA programs used in the study sites, but about 17 sites
(each) specifically mentioned the use of a QA program for: (a) liner
manufacture, (b) liner fabrication; and (c) liner installation. If a detailed
QA program were developed and followed for each of the steps listed above, the
"success" rate would likely be increased.
Finally, there are a number of more specific items that appear to be
related to success and deserve special mention even if they are partly covered
by good QA programs.
Overdesign —
In the face of uncertainty, it is always possible to add an extra margin
of safety by overdesigning a liner system. This might involve the use of an
extra (2nd or 3rd) impermeable layer, an extra thick FML, judicious use of
geotextiles above and below FML, extra protective soil or sand cover over FML,
etc.
Knowledgeable Customer —
Several vendor reports mentioned that the presence of a knowledgeable
customer was a significant factor in the success. Perhaps this should be a
warning to site owners not to place complete faith in their design engineer or
general contractor (etc.) since the latter may, if given the motive and
opportunity, put their own self interests ahead of the site owner's. If
owners completely abrogate themselves from any oversight role or
responsibility in a liner job, or show ignorance about the basics of liner
systems, then they may - intentionally or not - be taken advantage of. A
liner system prone to failure could easily result.
Bidding to Specifications —
Additional assurances of success will come if, at key stages (e.g., FML
material selection, earthwork preparation, FML installation), detailed
specifications are prepared by independent, qualified engineers, and then
companies are requested to submit bids for work which will meet these
specifications. If, by default or otherwise, a company is chosen by some
other method, and the job specifications lack detail or reflect the vendor's
standard 'product' specifications, then an inadequate system may result.
Based on response to question V.C.7 of questionnaire,
42
-------
Obviously, any quality assurance program used should involve steps that ensure
that the products and services purchased for the liner system meet the
agreed-upon specifications.
Selection of Qualified Companies —
In spite of the obviousness of this statement (i.e., the need to select
qualified companies for the liner job), there can be much controversy over the
means by which experience and reputation are judged. Simple yardsticks using
years of experience and total square feet (of FML) installed might be used in
conjunction with references and an examination of the company's financial
stability. Most important might be one or more good references relating to
performance in similar types of jobs. Care must be taken that such criteria
do not unfairly exclude smaller, newer companies (which may have been
started by very experienced employees from established firms) which may be
willing to offer more attractive prices or services. General reputation, past
performance and financial assets are a better indication than the type or
duration of warranty of a company's willingness and ability to correct obvious
defects related to poor materials and workmanship.
Cooperation Amongst All Parties —
As noted earlier in this section, it is common for five to eight
companies - excluding the site owner - to be involved in the design and
construction of a lined impoundment. Good coordination and cooperation
amongst these companies can help ensure success. Situations where one company
takes on (adequately) more than one role, e.g., as manufacturer fabricator and
installer of the FML, clearly appear more attractive in this regard since less
inter-company interaction is required. Perhaps equally attractive are teams
of companies, e.g., a resin manufacture, sheet maker and fabricator, who have
demonstrated by past examples that they can work well together. Both of these
situations exist in the current FML market place.
Waste-Liner Compatibility Testing —
Proper evaluation of the compatibility of the waste (or leachate) with
the liner material is crucial if assurances of long-term containment are
desired. These tests, at a minimum, must evaluate the change in physical
properties (dimensions, weight, strength, elongation, etc.) as a function of
time for at least four months. (Shorter tests may be used in an initial
screening process to select a FML for confirmatory tests.) Unfortunately,
there is at present no agreed-upon way to interpret the data from these tests
so that "acceptable" and "unacceptable" liners can be simply identified.
Use of Geotextiles —
It is becoming increasingly evident that geotextiles, nonwoven mats of
porous fabric, can play a variety of beneficial roles in liner systems. They
can act as a cushion and lubricant under an FML (providing protection against
pinholes as well as assisting in gas venting), as a separator between layers
of different particle size, and as a stabilizer under loadbearing dirt layers
(e.g., ones that must bear truck traffic.
Simplicity of Design —
More than one vendor mentioned simplicity (i.e., of liner site design) as
a factor in success. This would presumably include, for example, keeping the
43
-------
number of appurtenences (around which a FML must be laid) small, and keeping
their size small and the shape simple.
Good Weather —
Having good weather for site preparation and FML installation need not be
completely a matter of luck. First, the appropriate season (dry, warm) can be
selected for such work. Second, clear rules can be agreed upon in advance
between the site workers and the owner (or general contractor) that no work be
done on days when wind, precipitation, temperature or soil moisture values
fall outside set limits.
44
-------
SECTION 7
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED BY PROBLEMS AT SPECIFIC SITES
Table 8 provides a listing of research topics suggested either directly
by the vendors or indirectly by the information they supplied based on
problems noted at individual sites. Of the 15 topics listed, ten are
recommendations for additional guidance documents on a variety of subjects
such as the use of geotextiles, TSDF operations to safeguard liners, and
design of drain systems for TSDFs. Some of these subjects are covered, in
whole or in part, by EPA reports currently available or in preparation.
Three of the recommendations in Table 8 relate to the need for much more
information on the use of soil sealants (e.g., soil cement), spray-on
membranes, asphalt and concrete as integral parts of liner systems. Although
the current RCRA regulations look more favorably on FMLs (at least for
landfills), there may be many instances where these other products might
provide a valuable component of a liner system.
VENDORS COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED RESEARCH
The summary reports of the five vendors are provided in Appendix B. Two
contain recommendations for future work based upon the vendor's overall
experience in addition to the recommendations based on their experience at the
specific sites used in this study. Extracts from their summaries are provided
below.
Vendor VI
Determine consistent quality standards for membrane liner materials;
test protocols would also have to be revised and standardized.
Vendor V3
Need a study of [field] seaming techniques that would evaluate
effectiveness of various techniques for various membrane materials;
other variables in study would be application environment, waste
characteristics, budget requirements; seaming techniques to include
welding, solvent bonding, double seaming, overlap seams, etc.
Develop improved methodologies for estimating the rate of leachate
movement through waste disposal facilities.
45
-------
TABLE 8 RESEARCH TOPICS SUGGESTED BY SPECIFIC SITES
Site Suggested Research Topic
Vl-1 - Use of geotextiles at lined impoundments; prepare
Technical Resource Document that describes materials,
ways to use, benefits, problems, etc.
Vl-2, - Guidance document for operating procedures at TSDFs
V2-1 focusing on steps necessary to protect (and check the
integrity of) the liner. Include discussion of
pretreatment of wastes to eliminate liquids that may
attack liner.
Vl-3 - Need to develop simple field test to determine if soil
adequately compacted [and dried] for subsequent field
seaming of FML without use of boards (under seam).
Vl-4 - Prepare guidelines on how to write bid specifications
for liner system.
Vl-5 - [None]
Vl-6 - Possible need for special guidance in selection of FMLs
to be used as caps.
V2-2 - Provide guidance on methods to evaluate potential for
gas generation in subsoils.
V2-2, - Provide guidance on acceptability of using old dump
V2-4 sites for new TSDFs.
V2-3 - [None]
V3-1 - Provide guidance on how to get (ensure ?) proper
coordination and cooperation between different
companies on liner job.
V3-1 - Provide specifications for subgrade materials that are
acceptable for base material under FMLs.
V3-2 - Prepare design manual covering hydraulics of leachate
collection, proper drain design, materials,
construction methods, etc. Discuss causes of drain
failure, remedial action alternatives.
(Continued)
46
-------
TABLE 8 RESEARCH TOPICS SUGGESTED BY SPECIFIC SITES (continued)
Site Suggested Research Topic
V3-2 - Provide guidance on best ways to seal FMLs around
appurtenances.
V3-3 - [None].
V3-4 - Obtain more information (of all types) on soil
sealants: materials, use, experience (more case
histories), problems, etc.
V3-5 - Obtain more information (via case histories) on asphalt
liners.
V4-1 to - [None].
V4-7
V5-1 - Obtain more information (of all types) on spray-on
liners, both those used on soil and those used on
cement.
V5-1 - Provide guidance on how to seal concrete (especially
joints) used for TSDF impoundments.
V5-2 to - [None].
V5-5
47
-------
Characterize membrane liner behavior under a range of hydraulic
conditions (especially under high hydraulic head).
Construct field-scale models of synthetic membrane liners and
monitor over several years. Study to include measurement of actual
leakage rates in addition to liner durability.
Investigate the use of liner-compatible drain systems; look at need
for specially-selected gradations of stone and use of filter
fabrics.
Perform life-cycle seam study to evaluate effect of both leachate
and time on seams; especially important to include adhesive seams.
Prepare a pre-construction questionnaire, similar to the one used
for this study, for joint completion by designer and owner. Purpose
would be to make them aware of key considerations in design,
construction, operation and closure stages of lined site.
Conduct experiments on seam creep.
Evaluate techniques for connecting (sealing) liners to appurtenant
structures; establish standard design methodology.
Investigate the performance characteristics of combined FML- soil
liner systems. Develop appropriate design technology.
Standardize seam tests; evaluate each with respect to their validity
for particular types of seams.
Perform accelerated leachate-liner compatibility tests and compare
results to actual "field-aged" [and field-exposed] liners. Develop
predictive relationships based on the results.
48
-------
REFERENCES
Earth Technology Corp., Jan. 1984. Revised Draft Final Land Dispoal
Liner/Locational Analysis Project. Report prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Wastes, Washington, DC.
EMCON Associates (San Jose, CA), 1983a. Field Verification of Liners
from Sanitary Landfills. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Draft Final Report
on Contract No. 68-03-2824.
EMCON Associates (San Jose, CA), 1983b. Field Assessment of Site
Closure, Boone County, Kentucky.. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Draft Final
Report on Contract No. 68-03-2824/02.
Haxo, H.E., Jr., R.M. White, P.O. Haxo, and M.A. Fong, 1982.
Evaluation of Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati,
OH. NITS No. PB 83-147-801. Final Report on Contract No. 68-03-2134.
Haxo, H.E., Jr., R.S. Haxo, N.A. Nelson, P.O. Haxo, R. M. White and S.
Dakessian, 1983. Liner Materials Exposed to Hazardous and Toxic Wastes.
Final Report on EPA Contract 68-03-2173. In preparation.
Kays, W.B., 1977. Construction of Linings for Reservoirs, Tans and
Pollution Control Facilities, Wiley Interscience, Johy Wiley and Sons,
Inc. New York.
Lyman, W.J., K.R. Sidman, J. P. Tratnyek, M. Damani, J.H. Ong, A.D.
Schwope, and J.M. Bass, 1983. Expected Life of Synthetic Liners and
Caps. Draft Final Report by Arthur D. Little, Inc., prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Matrecon, Inc., 1983. Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal
Facilities. SW-870 (Revised), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory.
Mitchell, D.H. and G.E. Spanner, 1984. Field Performance Assessment
of Synthetic Liners for Uranium Tailings Ponds; A Status Report. Report
No. PNL-5005 (Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute),
prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Materials Safety and Safeguards, Division of Waste Management, under
Contract DE-ACD6-76RLO 1830.
49
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Montague, P., 1981. Four Secure Landfills in New Jersey - A Study of
the State of the Art in Shallow Burial Water Disposal Technology. Draft,
Department of Chemical Engineering and Center for Energy and
Environmental Studies, School of Engineering/Applied Science, Princeton,
NJ 08544.
Montague, P., 1982a. Secure Landfills—Some Lessons from New Jersey
Hazardous Waste Research Program, Department of Chemical Engineering and
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton, NJ 08544.
Montague, P., September 1982b. Hazardous Waste Landfills; Some
Lessons from New Jersey. Civil Engineering - ASCE. 52(9);53-56.
RTI, 1983. Performance of Clay Caps and Liners. Draft report
prepared by Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC., for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Wastes,
Washington, DC.
Schwope, A.D., W.J. Lyman, J.M. Bass and J.H. Ong, 1983. Analysis of
Flexibile Membrane Liner Chemical Compatibility Tests. Draft Report by
Arthur D. Little, Inc., prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
TRW, 1983. Assessment of Technology for Constructing and Installing
Cover and Bottom Liner Systems for Hazardous Waste Facilities. Draft
Report prepared by TRW, Redondo Beach, CA, for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Wastes, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1982. Hazardous Waste Management System: Permitting
Requirements for Land Disposal Facilities. Federal Register
4J(143):32273-32372 (July 26, 1982).
Woodward-Clyde, 1984. Assessment of Synthetic Membrane Successes and
Failures for Waste Disposal Facilities to the Land. Draft report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
50
-------
APPENDIX A
VENDOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Each vendor supplying information for this program was asked to
respond to each item in the attached questionnaire using information
from their own files.
The major sections of the questionnaire are as follows:
I. General Information
II. Principals Associated with the Liner Manufacture,
Fabrication, Installation, Selection
III. Detailed Site Information and Design
A. Local Geology, Hydrogeology
B. Facility Description
C. Site Preparation
D. Regulatory Issues
IV. Liner Selection
V. Liner Installation
A. Liner Layout
B. Field Seams
C. Other Installation Factors
VI. Lined Facility Operations and Performance
VII. Identified Problems and Corrective Action
VIII. Contained Material
IX. Comments on Successes
A-l
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
LINED WITH PRE-FORMED SYNTHETIC MATERIAL
Completed by: ____^___^ Telephone: ( )_
(name)
Date:
(company)
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name of site owner/operator (to be coded).
2. Location (city, state, country) (to be coded).
3. Principal activity at site (e.g., chemical plant, waste disposal, ...).
4. Purpose for lined facility (e.g., landfill, surface impoundment,
reservoir, ...).
5. Date of installation; dates, if more than one.
6. Status of lined facility (operating/closed).
7. Climatic zone - tropical, temperate, etc.
8. Weather during installation of lined facility.
9. Climatic conditions at the facility - average temperature and extremes,
humidity, precipitation, number of sun days, prevailing wind and speed,
etc.
II. PRINCIPALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LINER MANUFACTURE, FABRICATION,
INSTALLATION, SELECTION
1. Please identify the companies (if known) that fulfilled the following
functions:
a) Design Engineer (or Consultant)
b) Installer
c) Liner Fabricator
d) Sheeting Compounder/Fabricator
e) Resin Manufacturer
f) Testing of Liner (e.g., waste compatibility)
g) Physical Testing of Liner (for strength, etc.)
h) General Contractor
i) Other(s) (specify role)
[These company names will be coded.]
A-2
-------
2. Describe the extent to which these companies interacted on this job.
3. Describe the reasons for selection of the above companies (e.g.,
established team, recognized for high quality work, low cost, worked with
them in the past on similar or dissimilar matter, etc).
4. Other comments on principals involved.
III. DETAILED SITE INFORMATION AND DESIGN
A. Local Geology, Hydrogeology
1. Was a study conducted of the local soils and/or hydrogeology? If yes,
please describe the extent of the study on an attached sheet.
2. Types of:
a. In situ soils at site - organic, previously polluted, other (specify)
b. Underlying rock - solubility, sensitivity to acids, other (specify)
c. Geologic structure - existing cavities, cracks, other (specify)
d. Cover material
e. Vegetation - grass, trees, other (specify)
3. Permeability of in situ soils.
4. Depth to groundwater.
5. Groundwater flow rate and direction, level and fluctuation.
6. General topology of land surface - mountainous, hilly, flat, other
(specify).
7. Site elevation.
8. Other details you feel are important.
B. Facility Description
1. Provide simple overall plan showing adjacent facilities, buildings, roads,
rivers, orientation with respect to north, etc.
2. Geometric configuration - rectangular, square, circular, other (draw
sketch).
3. Size of disposal site: surface area, depth, volume.
4. Typical cross section of site.
5. Height of liquid storage - free board height, maximum operating depth.
A-3
-------
6. Sidewall slopes (ratio or percent) - subgrade and finished grade.
7. How and by whom was this geometry selected - were the selections of
geometry and orientation affected by operational considerations, by design
considerations such as wind-generated waves, topographical considerations,
other (please specify)?
8. Position of bottom with respect to orginal ground surface
a. Was there excavation of bottom?
b. If yes, attach typical cross sections of the facility showing
original ground surface.
9. Site selection - why, how, and by whom was the site selected?
10. Was a conceptual design made? If yes, by whom?
11. Provide a summary of conceptual design to include:
a. Design criteria
b. Type of lining system - double liner with our without intermediate
drainage liner over compacted clay, liner over geotextile (give type,
polymer, mass per unit area), other (specify)
c. If drainage system, give specifications of aggregate, pipe,
geotextile, and indicate location
d. Subgrade specifications - type of material, method of compaction
e. Earth cover specifications
12. Is the facility single- or double-lined?
13. Surface area of liner.
14. Is the liner exposed or buried?
15. Describe the layers above and below the liner(s) e.g., description of
material and thickness, attach a diagram if many layers are involved.
16. Describe the extent to which drains and vents were part of the liner
system. Attach a diagram if possible.
17. Is there a monitoring system under the liner? If so, what type?
18. Describe any other important or special design specifications for the site.
19. Provide other details you feel are pertinent.
C. Site Preparation
1. Describe preparation of the subgrade (e.g., compaction, chemical
treatment, vegetation removed, raked subgrade, type of equipment).
A-4
-------
2. Describe quality control and tests used to verify subgrade quality.
3. Describe preparation of sidewalls.
4. Describe quality control and tests used to verify sidewall quality.
5. Subgrade conditions at time of installation - was there excessive
moisture, loose aggregate, other (specify)?
6. Were there unusual construction problems?
D. Regulatory Issues
1. What permits were obtained for the facility? and from whom?
2. Describe special requirements made by regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA,
state environmental agency).
IV. LINER SELECTION
1. Identify liner material selected - brand, base polymer type - PVC, HOPE,
CPE, CSPE, butyl rubber, other.
2. Thickness in mils.
3. Was the sheet material reinforced? If yes, give scrim characteristics:
a. Count (number of yarns per unit width)
b. Linear density (in tex or denier)
c. Polymer (polyester or polypropylene)
4. What were the manufacturing/fabrication (if any) characteristics?
a. Roll width
b. Size of blankets or panels-
c. Method of factory seaming
d. Seam width
e. Are seams covered by a cap strip?
5. Provide physical/mechanical specification data for the liner. (Attach
specification sheet)(e.g., tensile strength, elongation at break, water
adsorption, etc.)
6. Was the liner pre-tested? If so, for how long and under what conditions?
7. Provide information on extent of any waste-liner compatibility tests that
were conducted (attach details on type, duration of tests, and results).
A-5
-------
8. If compatibility tests were conducted, who interpreted the data, on what
basis, and provided subsequent conclusion/guarantees? (Who conducted the
compatibility tests should be listed in Section II - Principals.)
9. Describe the process by which the liner was selected. (Were design or
performance specifications prepared? By whom? Were competitive bids
solicited? To what extent did all the bidders propose to meet the design
or performance specifications? To what extent was the liner selection
based on price?) Who selected the liner?
10. Describe the key elements of any guarantee or warranty associated with the
liner. (Who provided it?)
11. Do you feel the best liner was selected? (Comments welcome.)
V. LINER INSTALLATION
A. Liner Layout
1. How many liner panels were used?
2. What size panels were used?
3. Describe the layout of the panels.
4. Were layout drawings available? (Attach available drawings.)
B. Field Seams
1. Describe the number and location of field seams required. Provide a
seaming plan with field and factory seams; indicate location of cap
strips, if any.
2. How many linear feet of field seams were used?
3. What type or style of field seam was used? (Attach diagram.)
4. Describe the procedure used for field seaming - equipment, material,
technique - hot air or hot wedge seaming, adhesive seaming, other
(specify).
5. What method(s) was used for inspecting and testing the field seams?
6. What percentage of the field seams were inspected?
7. How many leaks were identified/repaired (If details not available, provide
a rough estimate, number identified/repaired to total number of seams, or
a percentage).
8. What was the time lag between layout of the panels and field seaming?
A-6
-------
9. What problems were encountered during field seaming?
10. Other comments on field seams?
C. Other Installation Factors
1. What was the construction schedule? What was the actual construction time?
2. Were there any unusual construction problems?
3. Were the panels inspected after layout? Describe any penetrations through
the lining system - concrete structure, pipe, other (specify). Attach
drawings.
4. Describe earth cover procedures
a. Depth of cover
b. Method of compaction
c. Equipment used
d. Slope compaction and/or horizontal compaction
e. Selected material
f. Size of largest stones
g. Use of a geotextile beneath the cover; if any, give type, polymer,
and mass per unit area
5. Were there manufacturing representatives available during installation?
Were they present during installation?
6. Was the installation crew experienced?
7. Was there a quality assurance program? If yes, describe the program
(visual inspection, non-destructive testing of seams, destructive testing
of seams on cut-off samples, field test seams on cut-off samples) for each
of the following areas:
a. Manufacturing plant
b. Fabrication plant
c. Site installation
d. Post installation - coupon monitoring program, other (specify).
8. Who provided the quality assurance program - owner, designer? Who was
responsible?
9. Were there special provisions in the quality assurance program - coupon
tested in laboratory?
10. Describe any other aspects of the installation that you feel were
important (equipment, skill level of personnel used, weather factors,
cooperation between contractors, inspection and acceptance, etc.).
A-7
-------
VI. LINED FACILITY OPERATIONS AND PERFORMANCE
1. Describe, if possible, the "normal" operations at the lined facility
(after installation).
2. Are there any aspects of the operations that may affect (or have affected)
liner serviceability?
3. How long has the site been in operation? If closed, what was the
operation life?
4. How long are these operations expected to continue?
5. Are there (or were there) any procedures in effect to periodically inspect
and test the liner, or in any other wasy to assess its potentiual for
continued serviceability? (If yes, please provide details.)
VII. IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
For each identified problem, we would appreciate the following type of
information: (Supply details on attached sheets, if necessary).
1. Date problem was reported or identified.
2. How was problem first identified/detected (monitoring wells, leak
detection system, visual inspection, etc.)?
3. Describe the nature of the problem (i.e., what physically happened, what
damage resulted, alleged cause, where it occurred).
4. Describe the significance of the problem (e.g., waste escaped, reduced
service life, etc.).
5. Ascribe, if possible, the identified problem to prior "failures" (e.g., to
poor design, wrong liner materials, poor installation practices, etc.).
6. What prior action(s), if taken, would h,ave prevented the identified
problems? Are these actions reasonable and part of "good engineering
practice"?
7. What corrective action was taken (if any) after the problem was identified?
8. If failure occurred, was it repaired?
9. If repaired:
a. How was it repaired - removal of substance, replacement of liner,
installation of geotextile, other (specify)?
b. When was it repaired?
c. What difficulties, if any, were encountered?
d. Was there a repair design? If so, by whom?
A-8
-------
10. Has improvement in projects eventually built been observed?
11. What additional corrective action should have been taken?
12. Were any samples of the affected liner removed from the site for
laboratory testing? (If yes, supply details - What, how long, under what
test conditions, etc.?)
13. Was there any special investigation?
14. Is the liner still functioning?
15. Other comments on problems.
VIII. CONTAINED MATERIAL
1. Describe the type of material contained in the lined facility - liquid,
solid, slurry, sludge, other (specify). Give a general description.
2. What is the chemical composition, if known, of the contained material?
a. What are the known chemicals, their concentrations and proportions.
b. What is the source of information - owner, independent testing
laboratory, regulatory agency?
c. What is the correlation of the material actually being handled with
the design composition? What materials was the lined facility
designed to handle?
3. What are the physical characteristics - shape, temperature, flow
conditions, in the case of liquids such as current or flow velocity
(describe agitators, causing current, if any).
IX. COMMENTS ON SUCCESSES
1. Describe key aspects of the liner (its selection, installation, use, etc.)
and this facility that may be considered a success with regard to
providing a long-term facility for the intended purpose.
2. If the liner is still functioning, give some possible reasons - lessons
learned from previous accidents, careful design and installation, other
(specify).
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
VENDOR SUMMARY REPORTS
Each vendor supplying case study data for this
program was also required to submit a summary,
letter-style report. Their reports were to provide
their own opinions, based on data from the case studies
as well as other projects they had knowledge of, on the
factors relating to "success" and "failure" for
synthetic liner installations. They were also asked to
provide recommendations for future research and
development that would lead to better liner systems in
the future.
Each of the five vendor reports is reproduced
verbatim on the following pages. The only changes made
(by Arthur D. Little, Inc.) have been the substitution
of appropriate codes for company names and sites, and
the removal of salutations or other personal comments.
B-l
-------
SUMMARY REPORT BY VENDOR VI
(January 16, 1984)
The following information is in response to your inquiry of the
synthetic membrane liner assessment project and is to be accepted as
Task III, the analysis of data, and Task IV, areas for research.
Analysis of Data
The following points can be made upon analysis of the data
previously submitted which would lead to a successful installation of
a flexible membrane liner system for liquid containment and pollution
control:
1. Proper Design Engineering As the initial step, it is the
most critical. A total assessment of the project must be made,
including the wastes to be contained, the site selection, and
subsurface strata involved. From this information, the potential
solutions can then be analyzed.
2. Proper Material Selection A critical factor is that the
material selected must not only be compatible with the effluent to be
contained. Other factors to be concerned with include longevity of
the material, resistance to ultraviolet degradation if applicable,
resistance to microbacterial attack, the seamability of the material,
elongation, temperature extremes, puncture resistance, conditions
anticipated during installation, groundwater, seismic action, and
subsurface conditions. Failures can occur if the above mentioned
items are not addressed.
3. Proper Earthwork Preparation As a flexible membrane liner
system in itself is not a load bearing system, it is imperative that
the subsurface preparation be of sufficient quality to effect long
service life. This includes proper compaction of the bottom and
sideslopes to in most instances a minimum of 95% proctor. The surface
preparation should be smooth and free of objects which could puncture
the lining system. If groundwater is present methods should be
instituted to correct the problem. If gases are present methods need
to be utilized to vent them off. As the final step before installa-
tion of the lining system, the owner, engineer, and installation
contractor should approve and verify that the earthwork preparation is
satisfactory.
4. Proper Lining Installation As the last step a lining system
installation it should be realized that even the best lining system,
properly engineered and designed, with proper earthwork preparation,
and utilizing the best lining system available will be unsatisfactory
and lead to a failure if the material is not properly installed. Poor
workmanship and quality control is a major cause of liner failures and
B-2
-------
is a justification for utilization of an experienced lining
installation contractor. As no two installations are similar, it is
important to have experienced personnel to adjust to the nuances and
conditions of each particular installation and to insure the lining
system integrity is maintained. In most cases the total lining
project will proceed more smoother and quicker and any problems which
might occur can be either precluded or handled more efficiently and
effectively. A specification requirement of a minimum amount of
installation experience should be incorporated.
5. Proper Maintenance o_f_ the Lining System As minor
unintentional damage does occasionally occur, it is a good practice to
have operating personnel be familiar with maintenance procedures for
attending to minor damage to the lining system. In many cases where
minor damage has occurred and not been corrected, major problems have
developed to the stage where major repairs and replacements have been
necessary. The materials and procedures for affecting repairs should
also be taken into consideration during the material selection process
as in all cases minor repairs and maintenance will be required.
Areas for Research
As it is our feeling that the industry in itself has done a
relatively poor job in policing itself, we would highly recommend that
research be directed to determining consistent quality standards for
membrane liner materials. These tests and subsequent standards would
enable objective comparisons of materials. Presently, current testing
methods and standards are not totally applicable in determining the
serviceability, applicability, and longevity of membrane liners in
service applications. In many cases engineers and owners look only at
physical specifications for liner materials without regard to the
application and serviceability. As of this writing, there are no
definitive standards present in the market place which would enable
someone without considerable experience in flexible membrane liner
systems to determine the best material for individual applications.
With the present popularity and need for quality membrane lining
systems, it can be observed where many new materials are being
marketed and installed without proper qualifications for application
which can only lead to more problems in the future.
B-3
-------
SUMMARY REPORT BY VENDOR V2
(December 22, 1983)
Case History V2-1; Conclusions and Recommendations
This large, multi-cell, lined pond installation in the
Southeastern part of the United States has been successfully operating
for over ten (10) years. Part of the success of this installation is
due to the extensive pre-testing of the liner material and its ability
to handle the effluent present, as well as to properly vent
anticipated gas generation. The careful analysis of the different
materials suitable for the job, along with their seamability and the
effectiveness of their adhesive systems also contributed to the
success of this installation.
An unexpected chemical attack problem occurred when a defoamer,
used in extremely small quantities, was changed from water base to oil
base. Although present in the effluent in only parts per million,
this oil based defoamer floated to the surface and plated out at the
liquid level around the perimeter of the ponds. Over a period of
time, this provided a very concentrated attack on the Hypalon lining
material at the liquid level of the ponds.
Once the problem was identified, a switch back to a water based
defoamer prevented further damage from occurring, and in fact allowed
the membrane liner to recover to a large degree from the damage
previously inflected.
The repair program to cover severe damage at the liquid level
around the perimeter of the ponds has shown that the lining material
can be successfully cleaned and seamed even after six to seven years
to field exposure.
Our recommendations, based on the experience of this Case
History, are as follows:
1. Even if a chemical compatibility test is run prior to the
selection of a membrane, careful controls on the constituents in the
effluent must be maintained to prevent possible unforeseen damage.
2. A concentrated attack at the liquid level of an accumulation
of trace chemicals can cause serious problems over a long period of
time. Most chemical immersion studies will not reflect this potential
for damage, as the sample is small and any harmful chemicals are
quickly exhausted into the liner, thus preventing further damage.
B-4
-------
3. Routine maintenance and inspection of the flexible membrane
lining material is essential to detect damage in its early stages, so
that corrective action can be taken before a major disaster occurs.
4. Use of multiple cells allows one or more of the cells to be
taken out of service for inspection and repair without shutting down
the entire system. It is always desirable to construct large
installations with multiple cells. This not only allows one or more
cells to be taken out of service without shutting down the facility,
but also facilitates the location of any damage and minimizes the
adverse affects on the environment.
Case History V2-2 Conclusions and Recommendations;
This 1971 installation in the north Midwest was made before the
full effects of gas generation under a membrane liner were clearly
understood. Once the gas collection had started under the liner, it
was not possible to correct the basic error in the slope of the pond
bottom that was responsible for the failure.
This is a classic example of the need to properly design a
flexible membrane lining installation prior to installation and use.
Basic errors in the earth work, resulting in a flat pond bottom that
would not vent collective gases, could not be overcome by emergency
repair methods.
Our recommendations, based on the experience from the Case
History, are as follows:
1. All liquid container ponds should have a sloped bottom. The
slope should be a minimum of 1-J to 2% from the lowest point up toward
the sloping berms of the pond to enable generated gas to move out and
up the slopes for venting.
2. Reuse of an unlined or clay-lined pond where organic
materials have been stored should be treated as a gas generating
potential problems.
3. It is virtually impossible to correct a gas generating bubble
problem without completely re-excavating and re-sloping the earth
work.
4. Gas vents around the perimeter of a pond are only effective
if the bottom and slopes direct the gas toward the vent system.
5. Cutting the liner to relieve gas pressure only compounds the
problem, as it releases more organic fluids into the soil with
resultant increased gas generation.
B-5
-------
Case History V2-3; Conclusions and Recommendations:
This Case History analyzed a successful waste liquid impoundment
in Northern California. Unsupported Hypalon membrane was installed in
the initial pond in 1971, and has performed very well since that time.
Factors contributing to this successful installation are as
follows:
1. The effluent had been clearly identified, and performance in
similar effluents had been well documented prior to the installation.
2. Unsupported Hypalon was used over a compacted sand base. The
unsupported material gave maximum ability for the membrane liner to
adjust to minor settling experienced.
3. The only significant damage to the membrane liner was due to
mechanical damage from a tank truck that slipped down one bank of the
pond, damaging the lining material. However, due to the thermoplastic
nature of the Hypalon, it was possible to clean up the surface,
removing any surface cure and affect film tearing bonds using
Hypalon-to Hypalon adhesive even after a number of years of exposure.
4. Excellent outdoor weathering of lining material in an
industrial environment has enabled the liner to continue performing
over a 12 year period.
Our recommendations derived from this Case History include
careful analysis of the effluent anticipated, and testing of the
membrane in this or similar effluents is extremely important. The use
of unsupported material with its ability to elongate and conform to
settling, can be an important factor in long-term successful
performance. With slopes of 3:1 or less, an unsupported membrane can
provide excellent performance, in spite of lower tensile and tear
properties.
The chemical, physical, and geographical requirements of each
installation should be carefully considered, and a flexible membrane
lining material selected to provide the optimum performance under the
conditions expected.
Case History V2-4; Conclusions and Recommendations:
This successful installation of a series of landfill cells,
beginning in 1974, is an excellent example of good engineering,
material analysis, planning and management of the landfill operation
for hazardous wastes.
Close cooperation between the resin supplier, who was also the
customer, the manufacturer, fabricator and installer of the landfill
liner, all contributed to the success of this operation.
B-6
-------
The careful selection of the complete team by a sophisticated
owner/user provided the utmost in reliability, without the "cost
squeeze" produced by awarding the contract to the lowest bidder,
regardless of experience and qualifications.
The conclusions to be derived from this case history are as
follows:
1. All installations of flexible membrane liners for the
containment of hazardous waste, either as landfill or liquid
containment, should be based on a comprehensive analysis of all of the
participants.
2. A continuity of responsibility starting with the resin
manufacturer, and including the manufacturer, fabricator, installation
contract, and maintenance function should be carefully coordinated.
Usually the manufacturer of the flexible membrane lining material will
assume the overall responsibility for performance, providing that
approved, experienced and certified contractors approved by the
manufacturer are used throughout the installation process.
B-7
-------
SUMMARY REPORT BY VENDOR V3
(January 1984)
I. Introduction
Preceding this report was the survey of five sites entitled
"Assessment of Synthetic Membranes for Waste Disposal Facilities to
the Land" ([Vendor V3], 1983). That survey provides a detailed
summary of the waste and membrane characteristics at five waste
disposal sites. Conclusions can be derived from that survey regarding
critical factors affecting the success and failure of synthetic
membrane operations at specific installations. More generalized
conclusions can be formulated using the overall experience of our
scientists and engineers who are involved on a daily basis in all
phases of liner design, testing and construction supervision. The
following section draws on that experience, in addition to the site
survey in describing those factors most critical to the overall
project success at a synthetic membrane installation. These critical
factors provide a framework for the recommendations presented in
Section III relating to improvements in membrane system design,
installation and related tasks.
II. Success and Failure Factors
The basic criteria upon which the success of any particular
design is evaluated relates to its primary function. For this
analysis, it is assumed that the primary motive for inclusion of a
liner system to a land disposal facility design is the retardation, or
prevention, of waste water (leachate) movement into surrounding
groundwater systems. Secondary functions of the liner may include:
Chemical modification of the leachate, traffic and equipment support,
among others. Although a membrane may be able to successfully perform
all secondary functions, it is likely to be considered a failure if
the primary function can not be performed.
We have identified the following factors as important contrib-
utors to the failure of synthetic membrane liners:
1. Inadequate pre-selection testing of the liner. Often the
liner is laboratory tested under conditions which are vastly different
from the in-place environment. Specifically, leakage tests are often
conducted at hydraulic gradients which are less than that expected in
the field. Also, pre-selection testing is based on manufacturers'
tests which may be biased towards their materials. Manufacturers'
tests are quality control oriented and do not relate specifically to
performance.
B-8
-------
2. Inadequate quality assurance programs were established. The
quality assurance program should include well defined standards of
visual, destructive and non-destructive tests. None of the five sites
included in the Assessment Survey had a quality assurance program of
this sort.
3. Inadequate leachate control systems above the membrane liner.
We have seen that failure of the leachate control systems (i.e.
gravity drainage piping or pumped systems) often precedes the actual
failure of the liner. The control system is designed to accommodate X
gpm of leachate at a specified head. However, when the actual
leachate generation rate exceeds X, excessive hydraulic heads may
develop and induce seepage through and/or tearing of the liner (i.e.,
hydraulic or structural failure). This is especially possible in
combination with factor 4, below.
4. Liner contact with poorly selected and placed gravel drains.
Puncture of the membrane occurs when the interfacing drain layers are
either too heavy for the membrane, placed haphazardly or are
characterized by excessively sharp edges. Although the resulting
punctures are small enough that they may not impact the liner
significantly during normal operating conditions, problems develop as
factor 2, above, comes into play.
5. Use of heavy construction equipment. Several cases have been
reported which suggest that use of heavy equipment before adequate
support is developed into the liner system is a major failure factor.
Often this occurs if the liner construction proceeds at variable rates
at a single site. Without adequate direction, the contractor may haul
his equipment over a less-complete portion of the landfill
unknowingly.
6. Leakage around vertical risers. Manhole risers from
underdrain systems and monitoring wells protrude through the liner.
This can lead to problems because of the inability to obtain an
effective bond between the membrane and riser. As seepage between the
two occurs, the separation distance increases and a major failure path
is formed.
7. Ineffective membrane seams. Whenever the largest dimension
of the covered area exceeds the "as-manufactured" width of the
membrane panels, seaming is required. This may occur in the field or
factory. Although factory seaming is superior, most often field
seaming is used because of transportation and construction problems
associated with large, pre-seamed panels. Field seams are susceptible
to problems associated with poor weather conditions, inadequate
supervision, inexperienced seamers, etc.
The factors leading to success are intimately related to the
failure factors mentioned above. Successful installations have been
able to limit, or eliminate, the six failure factors identified
B-9
-------
previously. In general the successful installations are those with
the least complex design and those having an "as-built" condition most
similar to the design plans. Although poorly designed or constructed
sites are often not labeled failures, this is likely more attributable
to inadequate or absent monitoring systems at these sites.
III. Research Recommendations
1. Initiate a study, similar to the present one, which considers
only the variation of seaming techniques. Each of the synthetic
membrane installations investigated as a part of this study had some
problem with seam construction or operation. This is obviously a key
problem, but has not been studied in sufficient detail under the broad
concerns of the present study. As a product of the proposed study, a
design matrix could be developed indicating the compatibility between
the different seaming techniques and membrane materials, application
environments, waste characteristics, budget requirements, etc.
2. Develop improved methodologies for estimating the rate of
leachate movement through the waste disposal facility. The leachate
volume expected to contact the liner on a monthly or daily basis
should be a major consideration in the design of the bottom liner. In
addition, the total volume of leachate and maximum rate of leachate
movement to the liner should be considered during the design.
However, the current methodology for these predictions is severely
lacking. The two most widely referenced methods, the Water Balance
Method, EPA/530/SW-168/, and the HSSWDS (Hydrologic Simulation on
Solid Waste Disposal Sites) Model, EPA-SW-868, should be considered
unverified and extremely approximate. Until accurate predictions of
the leachate generation rate are available, overly conservative
designs will be required to prevent flooding of the leachate control
system and waste migration through the liner.
3. Characterize the membrane liner behavior under a range of
hydraulic conditions. Currently, laboratory tests are often performed
at a specific head, (for example, the equivalent of one foot of
water), if at all. However, actual operating conditions may vary
significantly, especially in the case of failure of the leachate
control system.
This investigation would allow the development of a
head-discharge relationship for the membrane, valid over a broad range
of operation. The information could be used (in combination with 2,
above) in a computer model to simulate the dynamic, rather than
static, transport processes through the liner. Ultimately, improved
predictions of migration through the membrane in field conditions
would result. This would be used in both the landfill design and
analysis phase.
B-10
-------
4. Construct field scale models of synthetic membrane liners and
monitor over several years. Although the EPA has sponsored several
field scale landfill models, these have emphasized the chemical
composition of leachate rather than the volumetric leakage through
liners. As such, little effort has been expended to use these models
as a predictive tool for leakage through synthetic membranes.
5. Investigate the use of liner compatible drain systems. Heavy
stones and sharp-edged gravel in the drain systems at two of the
survey sites punctured the liner. The investigations proposed here
would evaluate the use of filter fabrics and specially selected
gradations of stone and gravel as non-puncturing drains and filters.
6. Perform a life-cycle seam study to evaluate the effect on
seams of both leachate and time. This would be an especially
important study for the bonding quality of adhesive seams which are
known to be time dependent. Studies of this type have been performed
on liners, but not on seams.
7. The five site surveys identified seams as the weakest link in
the synthetic liner containment system. Research into possible
alternative seaming techniques for especially critical applications
(i.e., hazardous waste disposal sites) should be initiated. Possible
techniques for investigation include double seaming, overlapping seams
and double liner seams.
8. A pre-construction questionnaire, similar to the one used in
this survey, should be developed for circulation to liner designers.
Joint completion of the questionnaire by the designer and owner would
be mandatory to obtaining a construction permit from regulatory
agencies. The questionnaire would serve the purpose of making the
designer and owner aware of design, construction, operation and
closure considerations.
9. Experimentally investigate the problem of seam creep.
10. Evaluate appropriate connection techniques between liners and
appurtenant structures and establish a standardized design
methodology.
11. Investigate the performance characteristics of combination
synthetic membrane/soil liner systems. Develop the appropriate design
technology.
12. Standardize seam tests for liner applications. The tests
should be evaluated with respect to their validity for particular
types of seams.
B-ll
-------
13. Perform an accelerated leachate study and compare results to
actual "field-aged" liners. Based on the comparisons, develop a
predictive relationship between the inner properties from the
accelerated study and in-situ liner operations.
In the accelerated study, large quantities of leachate would be
forced through the liner and seams to simulate the volume of an
extended field life, fifty years for example. The study would
evaluate the effluent quality to assess the liners long-term pollutant
attenuation characteristics. We have performed similar studies for
bentonite and asphaltic liners and slurry walls.
B-12
-------
SUMMARY REPORT BY VENDOR V4
(March 12, 1984)
The following is the final analysis of the seven subject projects
which we submitted. The projects picked were based on a variety of
applications, length of time in service, and service conditions.
[Site V4-1]
This project is located in an area of extreme cold temperature
and sandy soil conditions. The project was initially lined with 36
mil reinforced Hypalon. When we arrived at the site, Hypalon seams
had separated and large areas of the Hypalon liner had delaminated.
The project was subjected to extreme cold temperatures (-40°F)
routinely and heavy ice loadings.
We believe that the cause of the problems were different
contraction rates between the scrim and Hypalon material, and the
inability of the Hypalon to resist the impact of ice loads. In
addition, the slopes were non-compactable sand which would have
contributed to stressing the liner.
The solution to the problem was the installation of 100 mil HDPE
liner. The material is not laminated and consequently cannot
experience the delamination problems of a multi-ply Hypalon. The
material has extremely high puncture resistance, two times that of any
other synthetic liner material, and did not puncture under the heavy
ice loading. HDPE has a greater ability to elongate and thus
compensate for non-compacted soil conditions.
Clearly, the design problems which had to be considered in this
project were extremely cold temperatures, the consequent ice problems,
and poor soil conditions on the side slopes.
[Site V4-2]
This project is located in a subtropical area with clay and sand
soil conditions. The impoundment is used for storing brine water from
a deep well fuel storage facility. This project was initially lined
with 36 mil reinforced EPDM. The project was in service for
approximately 6 years. M9st of the failures of the liner were in the
seam area.
We believe the brine liquid had a small amount of alphatic
hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and crude petroleum products
which concentrated at the liquid surface causing the liner to fail.
It appeared that the seam area failed due to the incompatible chemical
attack. This would allow liquids to escape to the soil and create a
deteriorated subgrade condition. The deteriorated subgrade condition
would then cause additional stresses on the EPDM liner and propagate
the initial failure.
B-13
-------
The solution was the installation of a 100 mil HDPE liner. The
thickness allowed for differential settlement without jeopardizing the
integrity of the liner. The HDPE material was compatible with the
chemical loading (hydrocarbons) and consequently would last the
anticipated service life.
The problems associated with this project were chemical
resistance and elongation of the material.
[Site V4-3]
This project is located in an arid area. The soil conditions
were rocky with well graded sands. The only liner material installed
at this site was HDPE. Water in the area is an expensive commodity.
It is critical to the area that contaminated water from the power
plant not pollute the aquifers below.
Based on careful evaluation of liner materials and installation
systems as related to the types of containment expected and required
service life, HDPE manufactured and installed by [V4] was chosen. The
thickness ranges from 60 mil to 100 mil depending on service
requirements. The owner chose to up-grade their liner thickness in
order to gain the system security required.
[Site V4-4]
This project is located in the Continental zone and is a Class 1
hazardous waste site. The soils are sand and clay layers. Cell #4 of
this project used clay only as a liner. Cell #5 used clay and a
Hypalon liner. Cells #6 and #7 are lined with a clay and HDPE. We
believe this project has followed the evaluation of the lining market
over the past few years. Clay was thought to be an acceptable liner
until it was discovered that chemical waste would cause clay to
become porous and crack. Hypalon is known to be a liner material with
limited chemical resistance. Currently, HDPE as a liner material has
the widest range of chemical resistivity and highest puncture
resistance. These properties combined with good elongation, high
tensile strength, and good UV resistance provide good liner service
life in an industry which now demands better liner performance.
The design problem associated with this site is a wide range of
chemicals in contact with the liner and an unknown end resultant
chemical at times. It should be noted that Cell #6 was a 60 mil HDPE
liner and Cell #7 was an 80 mil HDPE liner. The reason the client
went to a thicker material was the operation problems with the 60 mil
HDPE and a need to increase the puncture resistance.
B-14
-------
[Site V4-5]
This project lies in the Continental zone. The soils were clays
in the area [V4] was to work in. The original liner was a 10 foot
clay embankment. The holding basins were built over the existing
landfill area. This area was experiencing differential settlement and
the clay liner cracked. Consequently, the leachate being held for
treatment started leaking.
The solution to the problem was the installation of an 80 mil
HDPE liner. The material (HDPE) would be able to take the wide range
of unknown chemicals encountered from the combined industrial and
municipal waste site. The 80 mil thickness was chosen because of the
expected differential settlement. HDPE has high elongation properties
which would allow for differential settlement. The material would be
able to bridge the cracks in the clay and not allow leaks to develop.
[Site V4-6]
The project lies in the Temperate zone. The soil the liner was
applied to was sandy. The major problem with this project was the
chemicals to be contained. Initially, a Hypalon liner was installed.
It is our understanding from the client that this liner failed due to
chemical incompatibility in a short period of time.
The solution to the problem was the installation of a 100 mil
HDPE liner. The HDPE had the chemical resistance required and offered
a long term solution.
[Site V4-7]
This project is located in a semi-arid region with clay and sandy
soil. The only liner material installed at this site is HDPE. Water
in the area is an expensive commodity. It is critical to the area
that contaminated water not reach the aquifers below. Irrigation is
widespread in the region for farming.
Based on careful evaluation of liner materials and installation
systems as they relate to the type of pollutants expected and required
service life, HDPE manufactured and installed by [V4] was chosen. The
thickness utilized for this project was 80 mil HDPE.
Summary
In reviewing all,of the above projects, it has become apparent
that liners fail for different reasons. The principal reasons are
chemical incompatibility, low mechanical strength resulting in poor
tear and puncture resistance, and poor seaming. Soil conditions such
as compactibility and stability play an important role in liner
integrity. In all cases, testing between the failed liner material
and waste to be contained was not performed prior to construction.
B-15
-------
We would make the following recommendations when selecting a
liner system:
1. Liner Material - Compatibility testing should be performed
between the liner material and waste to be contained. In those cases
where the waste stream is unknown, the liner material with the widest
range of chemical resistance should be chosen.
2. Puncture Resistance - This design parameter is often
underestimated. Loads due to construction of the liner system such as
placement -of a soil cover, operation of the facility such as ice
and/or wave action, and maintenance of the facility such as mechanical
clean-out or hydraulic cleaning can apply point stress loads. There
are many unknowns and changed parameters made in this area. From past
history it is evident that in general thin liners have not
demonstrated adequate puncture resistance and must be upgraded.
3. Seaming - Some seaming methods utilized different materials
than the base. These must be checked as they relate to chemical
compatibility. This is the area the human element is introduced
during construction. We recommend a requirement of at least 100% bond
strength of a seam. This allows all the other values listed for a
material to be equal to its seam strength. The key to seaming is a
tough Quality Control program. We recommend both destructive and
non-destructive testing in the field during construction. We also
recommend that the non-destructive test be on 100% of the weld seams
and the destructive testing be checked by an off-site laboratory.
B-16
-------
SUMMARY REPORT BY VENDOR V5
(March 3, 1984)
1. Overall conclusions of success and failure factors;
The five representative ponds which were submitted to your office
can be considered representative and typical of the seven hundred
plastic lining jobs completed by [Company UU]. When considering all
of [Company UU] plastic lining jobs the predominate purposes are water
pollution control and water conservation. Pollution control
predominates in dollar magnitude of business performed since 1969.
Prior to 1969 the principal lining materials used clay (Bentonite),
PVC and Polyethylene plastic sheets.
Agriculturalists soon began to recognize the value of imploying
conservation practices in their irrigation reservoirs. The importance
of conservation becoming more noticeable as the ground water was
increasingly being tapped as the primary source of water for the
irrigation water supply. The attendant pumping power bills became a
monthly reminder to the individual farmers.
The use of plastic membranes after WWII became a viable economic
alternate to the natural clays.
The ponds installed by the company have demonstrated a very high
success ratio of performance. This statement is made considering all
the reservoirs, lakes and ponds installed and also considering all of
the types of natural and plastic membranes which have been installed.
Plastic as well as natural membranes installed by [Company UU]
have on occasion failed in the purpose intended. The failure in
almost all cases was mechanical in nature although there was one
notorious chemical failure. The mechanical failures are caused by
punctures, flooding (washouts) and erosion of the side slope cover
material which allows ultraviolet attack. The puncture failures,
occurring after completion of the lining, result from grazing stock,
rodents, pole penetration when persons are boating or rafting, or by
persons making repair or additions to pipelines under the membrane, or
repairs to inlet and outlet structures. Puncture failures occurring
before the pond is put into service normally are caught; however, this
has been shown to be not always the case.
Reservoir water level management has, on several occasions, been
the cause of membrane ruptures.
B-17
-------
Ultraviolet attack has caused at least twenty to thirty failures
in the ponds constructed by the company. These occurred because of
design failure, side slopes to steep, and lack of maintenance (not
keeping dirt cover over the membrane on the side slopes). The clients
were warned of this inevitability prior to beginning lining
installation.
There was one chemical failure of which this company was aware.
The material was a 30 mil RCPE. The climate at the site was coastal
with a relatively high humidity. The design required the top liner to
be left uncovered. This liner was inhibited from ultraviolet attack.
Just prior to putting the liner into service, which was two months
after contract completion, the owners engineer made a routine
inspection. He observed several field seam separations. His comment
"he could separate the lap joint like removing a wet postage stamp".
The field seams were redone three additional times, each time under
careful supervision of chemists and engineers of the resin
manufacturer. Six months following the third reseaming, the CPE film
between the reinforcing threads vaporized leaving particles attached
to the threads.
Shortly thereafter the sheeting manufacturers, who also
compounded the mix, admitted they had made a mistake when they
compounded the CPE. It was admitted that PVC resins had been combined
with CPE resins and the combination in the end product had very high
hydroscopic properties. Our tests showed up to 46% water absorption
had occurred. The pond was redone using chlorosulfonated polyethylene
(Hypalon).
2. Recommendations:
(a). In selecting membranes for a pond, do not place PVC in
close proximity (touching) to a CPE membrane.
The plasticizer used in compounding PVC will migrate to the CPE.
This will result in a brittle PVC liner and a very soft CPE liner at
the contact area.
(b). Membrane system design is a function of the allowable
concentration of pollutants over an arbitrarily designated period of
time.
If the conclusive criteria is set at zero pollution, then more
than two impervious liners may be required. The liners above the
lower two must be on a platform which will allow for their relatively
easy replacement. My personal assessment of the pollution control
programs would indicate that EPA policy decisions must be tempered by
the economic factors facing our industrial, mining and manufacturing
and agribusiness complexes who are competing with all countries on the
world market. Competitive strangulation of our industrial sectors is
self liquidating to the United States population.
B-18
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY DATA
This Appendix presents a one-page data summary for each of the 27
facilities analyzed in this report. The summary includes basic
information on facility operation and liner characteristics, including
a generalized schematic diagram of the liner system. The first page
of the Appendix is a key describing the information given on each line
of the summary sheet. Question marks are used to indicate entries
which are unclear based on data provided by the vendors. Comments
given on the last line of the summary sheet and in the Problems
section reflect the Vendor's assessment of system performance and are
independent of the analyses presented in the body of the report.
C-l
-------
SITE: Identifier
PURPOSE: Operational Type of Site
WASTE: Type; Composition
YEARS OPERATIONAL: Years
PROJECTED OPERATION: Years or Period
FACILITY: Shape; area
LOCATION: Place
vent
liquid
waste
mover layer
.embrane
2nd membrane
geotextile
monitor
drain,
sump
COVER: Material placed on liner
no
PERMEABILITY: Measure or Soil
Type
GROUNDWATER: Level under membrane or
site
LAND: Basic topography and area
description
LINER MATERIAL: Type; thickness; reinforcement; number
BASE: Material under liner
SUBSOIL: Material under base
COMPATIBILITY: Type of test on liner material
SEAMS: Factory type; linear feet in field, type of joint, test type
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: Contractors all types (regulatory bodies)
PROBLEMS: General description
PREOPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
APPURTENANCES
CONSTRUCTION
Describe or comment
on problems or lack
COMMENTS:
installation
operation to date
C-2
-------
SITE: Vl-1 LOCATION: Southern U.S.
PURPOSE: Brine storage (petroleum) reservoir
WASTE: Brine (no data) w. trace hydrocarbons
YEARS OPERATIONAL: three years
PROJECTED OPERATION: operating; indefinite
FACILITY: Two rectangular cells; 10 acres total
pipe
vents
\ t
no
monitor
soil cement
ORCPER
geotextile
sand and gravel
PERMEABILITY: Unknown
GROUNDWATER: Near or at
groundwater
LAND: previous marsh, flat
sump
COVER: Soil cement (8")
BASE: sand and gravel (6")
SUBSOIL: compacted; unknown
LINER MATERIAL: ORCPER; 36 mil; reinforced
COMPATIBILITY: Tests unknown -Manufacturer's recommendation
SEAMS: Dielectric factory; 5,500 LF field; filled adhesive; 100% test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 6(?)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
APPURTENANCES
No problems
2nd pond lining system
for this marsh area
No problems
No problems
No problems reported
No data provided
CONSTRUCTION Finished ahead of schedule;
some problem placing liner
over geotextile fabric
COMMENTS:
Successful installation
Operational without problems
after 3 years
C-3
-------
SITE: Vl-2 LOCATION: Southern USA
PURPOSE: Brine storage (petroleum) reservoir
WASTE: Brine (no data)
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 1 year
PROJECTED OPERATION: operating; indefinite
FACILITY: Rectangular; 22 acres (2,000,000 bbls)
pipe vents
I monitor
CSPE
6" sand (on side walls?)
compacted clay
COVER: None (exposed liner)
BASE: Sand
SUBSOIL: Compacted clay
drain
PERMEABILITY: Unknown
GROUNDWATER: 16'
LAND: Raw land, flat, clayey
LINER MATERIAL: CSPE; 36 mils; reinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: Unknown
SEAMS: Dielectric factory; 26,000 LF field; filled adhesive; 100%
test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 6 (1)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
No problems
Cut & fill (none)
None (no repairs)
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION Finished ahead of
schedule; ground
water at low end
COMMENTS:
Successful installation
OPERATIONAL
Operator carelessness
No problems
5 holes in liner by
operator
No problems
No problems
Monitor detected leak,
liner patched, successful
operation after 1 year
C-4
-------
SITE: Vl-3
PURPOSE: Landfill
WASTE: Solid waste from incineration
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 3 years
PROJECTED OPERATION: Operating; indefinite
FACILITY: Two rectangular cells, 2 acres total
LOCATION: Southeastern U.S.
i
no vents
t .-A
1©
• /"
V solid .*'•'/
\ ::::•:/-
T no drain
611 1 "i m*= fork
611 _ ___ j
sand
~— 4" sand
PERMEABILITY: extremely
permeable but unknown
GROUNDWATER: ?
LAND: Flat; cleared
no monitor
COVER: Sand and rock
BASE: Sand
SUBSOIL: Rock and sand
LINER MATERIAL: PVC; 30 mil; unreinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: Unknown
SEAMS: Solvent factory; 2250 LF field, solvent weld; 100% test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 5 (?)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failure
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS No problems
SITE none, uncompacted soil
LINER none, seam boards
required
APPURTENANCES pipe penetrations
required boots
CONSTRUCTION finished ahead of
schedule
COMMENTS: Successful installation
OPERATIONAL
no problems
reported
Operational w/o
problems after 3 yrs
C-5
-------
SITE: Vl-4
PURPOSE: Solid waste landfill
WASTE: Solid waste
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 3 years
PROJECTED OPERATION: Operational; indefinite
FACILITY: irregular area; 10 acres
LOCATION: Eastern U.S.
refuse
W 1 leachate
collector, sump
COVER: Selected native soil PERMEABILITY: ?
BASE: Compacted clean soil GROUNDWATER: ?
SUBSOIL: Typical (?) LAND: Cleared; flat
LINER MATERIAL: PVC; 30 mil; unreinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: Unknown
SEAMS: Solvent factory; 6,200 LF field; solvent weld; 100% test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 5(?)
PROBLEMS:
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
No problems
No problems
Blowing sand during
seaming
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION None; finished ahead
of schedule
COMMENTS: Successful installation
OPERATIONAL
No problems
Operational w/o
problems after 3 yrs
C-6
-------
SITE: Vl-5 LOCATION: Southern U.S.
PURPOSE: Chemical Waste Holding Reservoir
WASTE: Liquid chemical wastes; composition unknown
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 3 yrs.
PROJECTED OPERATION: Operating; indefinite
FACILITY: Rectangular; 2 ponds; 1 acre total
air/gas vents
monitor
line
COVER: Exposed CSPE
BASE: Sand
SUBSOIL: Clayey
PERMEABILITY: Unknown
GROUNDWATER: Unknown
LAND: Flat, reservoirs prior
prepared
LINER MATERIAL: PVC,20 mil, unreinforced
CSPE^no information^30 mil.
COMPATIBILITY: Unknown
SEAMS: PVC, solvent factory; 50 LF field, solvent; 100% test
CSPE ? ; 750 LF field, CSPE filled adhesive; ?
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 7 (?)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
OPERATIONAL
SITE
LINER
No problems
Prepared prior
No problems
No problems
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION Finished ahead of
COMMENTS:
schedule
Successful installation
Operating success-
fully after 3 yrs.
C-7
-------
SITE: Vl-6 LOCATION: East Central US
PURPOSE: Solid waste landfill (chemical plant)
WASTE: Unidentified solid chemical waste
YEARS OPERATIONAL: June 1981 installed (?)
PROJECTED OPERATION: Secured and abandoned
FACILITY: Irregular area; 2 acres
pipe vents
COVER: fill
BASE: clay
A
(
J_
,
~\
^\V solid
? ) \
' J \ wastes
^ \
monitor
*l Io clay
: L PVC
I* -loar, f-MI
landfill
PERMEABILITY: ?
GROUNDWATER: ?
SUBSOIL: Previously polluted waste LAND: Hilly, near river, old
landfill waste site
LINER MATERIAL: PVC; 30 mil; unreinforced, single
COMPATIBILITY: Unknown
SEAMS: Dielectric factory; 1,000 LF field, solvent weld; 100% test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 5 (?)
PROBLEMS:
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
PREOPERATIONAL
No problems
No problems
No problems
OPERATIONAL
No problems
APPURTENANCES Vert, pipes required
booting
CONSTRUCTION Finished ahead of
schedule
COMMENTS: Successful installation
Operated successfully and
presumed holding after 3 years (?)
C-l
-------
SITE: V2-1 LOCATION: Southern U.S.
PURPOSE: Impoundment for aeration treatment
WASTE: Paper mill liquid with defoamer; clear
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 11 years
PROJECTED OPERATION: 20 years; operating
FACILITY: Shape?; 120 acres
no c
monitori
CSPE
compacted clay and
limestone
COVER: None (exposed)
BASE: Previously failed bentonite
liner and limestone
SUBSOIL: Fissured limestone
PERMEABILITY: ?
GROUNDWATER: ?
LAND: Flat; scrub pine grove
area
LINER MATERIAL: CSPE; 30 mil; reinforced 8x8 nylon scrim; single
COMPATIBILITY: Yes (?)
SEAMS: Bodied adhesive factory; 25 miles Field; bodied adhesive; 100%
test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 4 (?)
PROBLEMS: Potential for gas generation due to reaction between
limestone & effluent was a design problem
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
APPURTENANCES
PREOPERATIONAL
No problems
No problem
Some weak seams;
poor cure; suspect
field seams capped
OPERATIONAL
No problems
No problem
Damage at liquid level
(oily defoamer - not in
compatibility test)
CONSTRUCTION Longer than schedule
to complete
COMMENTS:
Difficulties in construction
Compatibility failure due to
untested material
C-9
-------
SITE: V2-2
PURPOSE: Aeration basin
WASTE: Paper pulp liquor
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 2 months
PROJECTED OPERATION: closed
FACILITY: Oval with cross dike; about 8 acres
LOCATION: Mid-Western U.S.
f
no vents
CSPE
3" sand and gravel
compact subsoil
COVER: None (exposed)
BASE: Sand and gravel
no monitors, drains
PERMEABILITY: ? Sandy
GROUNDWATER: 0-5'
SUBSOIL: Sand-organic/limestone/ LAND: Hilly near river; previously
shale used; sat'd w. organic sludge
LINER MATERIAL: CSPE; 30 mil; reinforced 16x8 nylon scrim; single
COMPATIBILITY: 6 months of test pond with aerator
SEAMS: Bodied adhesive factory; 6,000 LF; bodied adhesive; 100% test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 5 (1)
PROBLEMS: Operational problems not resolved fully
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
APPURTENANCES
CONSTRUCTION
PREOPERATIONAL
No problems
Bottom near water table
Test pond incompatibility
w. organic constituents
1-2% seams repaired
No problems
COMMENTS:
Normal installation process
OPERATIONAL
No problems
Gas generation
Whales and gas pressure
rupture
Lack of vents
Lack of lagoon bottom slope
Trapped gas; not repaired due
to cost; closed after 2 months
C-10
-------
SITE: V2-3 LOCATION: Western U.S.
PURPOSE: Evaporation of waste
WASTE: Liquid - 15% ferrous chloride /I,5% HC1
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 12J years
PROJECTED OPERATION: Operating; over 20 years
FACILITY: Lagoon A; 100,000 ft2
no vents
f
CSPE
compacted sub-base
no monitor
or drains
COVER: None PERMEABILITY: Sand-very permeable
BASE: Compacted subsoil GROUNDWATER: 17'
SUBSOIL: ? (Sand) LAND: Flat, on river
LINER MATERIAL: CSPE; 30 mil; unreinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: Against similar effluent (known chemicals), verified by Manufacturer
SEAMS: Bodied adhesive factory; 1,000 LF, bodied adhesive; 100%
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 3 (?)
PROBLEMS: External
PREOPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS No problems No problems
SITE No problems No problems
LINER No problems Rip due to truck
APPURTENANCES - No problems
CONSTRUCTION No problems No problems
COMMENTS: Successful installation Preventive maintenance required
(fence to keep trucks off);
repaired tears by cap stripping
vjith new CSPE strips
C-ll
-------
LOCATION: Eastern U.S.
SITE: V2-4
PURPOSE: Sludge landfill
WASTE: Chemical process sludge (unknown composition)
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 9 years
PROJECTED OPERATION: Closed after filling
FACILITY: Phase 1: irregular trapezoidal; 186,137 ft2
1
no vents
sludge
\
nitor 1
T
;^J— 8" gravel
. •/
• > • * * M /ft i
tw- 4 sand
• • * • * t
COVER: - Sand and gravel
BASE: Backfill
PERMEABILITY: ?
GROUNDWATER: ?
SUBSOIL: ?, polluted w/organic
material
LAND: Gently rolling; previously
polluted with organic mat'Is
excavated
LINER MATERIAL: CSPE; 30 mil; reinforced 8x8 nylon scrim, single (phase 1)
COMPATIBILITY: Yes, by owner
SEAMS: Bodied solvent adhesive; 2600 LF, bodied adhesive; 100% test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 3 (1)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
No problems
No problems
No leaks
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION
Rain
COMMENTS: Successful installation
OPERATIONAL
No
problems
Containment successful
after 9 years
C-12
-------
SITE: V3-1
PURPOSE: Dredge material disposal
LOCATION: Northern U.S.
WASTE: Harbor & river dredgings; analyzed (contains oils, greases, heavy
metals, cyanide, etc. Not classified as hazardous). Heavy stones.
YEARS OPERATIONAL: Less than 1 yr.
PROJECTED OPERATION: Operating up to 10 years
FACILITY: Triangular; 42 acres
no vents
sludge
no drain
in T
stone
external
monitoring
wells
polyolefin
prepared limestone
no liner on bottom
COVER: Stone (1-50 Ibs.)
BASE: Prepared limestone and
loose aggregate bottom
SUBSOIL: Silty sand/sandy clay
PERMEABILITY: ?
GROUNDWATER: ?
LAND: Adjacent to lake shoreline
LINER MATERIAL: polyolefin; 30 mil; reinforced w. polyester yarn; single
COMPATIBILITY: None
SEAMS: Heat weld factory; 1300 LF, thermal weld, 100% test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 6 (1)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
APPURTENANCES
CONSTRUCTION
No problems
No problems
Tears from stones
No problems
Underwater placement
of liners - took 2 yrs.
COMMENTS: No problems
OPERATIONAL
Miscommunication
Some external handling
problem; tearing
Unusual
Operational problems worked
out; successful operation
after less than 1 year.
C-13
-------
SITE: V3-2
LOCATION: Northern U.S.
PURPOSE: Sanitary landfill, Type II
WASTE: Municipal solid waste, some petrochemical based, leachate details
unknown
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 6 1/2 years
PROJECTED OPERATION: Operating, closure starting; 10 years
FACILITY: Two cells, 75 acres
no vents
solid waste
2' sand I
PVC
6" compacted clay
external
monitorii
wells
leachate
collector, *
monitor
COVER: Sand
BASE: Clay 95% density
SUBSOIL: Isabella loam
PERMEABILITY: Low to high
(0.0017'/day to
21.8'/day)
GROUNDWATER: At liner
LAND: High; natural drainage away from
site
LINER MATERIAL: PVC; 20 mil; unreinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: None, no pretest
SEAMS: Solvent factory; ? LF; adhesive; 100% visual
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 4 (1)
PROBLEMS: Operational problems still exist
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
APPURTENANCES
CONSTRUCTION
No problems
High groundwater
dewatering lines to
lower to 8' under liner
No problems
No problems
Inexperienced crew
COMMENTS: Installation considered successful
OPERATIONAL
Inexperienced to save money
Poorly anchored?
Poor bonding at manholes and
seams suspected
Leachate collector may be
blocked
Failing - leakage detected
C-14
-------
SITE: V3-3 LOCATION: Midwestern U.S.
PURPOSE: Domestic wastewater stabilization pond (primary pond)
WASTE: Domestic sewage; no industrial
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 1 year
PROJECTED OPERATION: 20 years; operating
FACILITY: Primary pond; irregular rectangular; 8 acres
no vents
-~-U—u»
/ PV
sand
no drains, T
monitor f
PVC
compacted soil
COVER: Sand
BASE: Graded subsoil
SUBSOIL: Sandy soil (brown silty fine
sand to silty clay)
LINER MATERIAL: PVC; 20 mil; unreinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: ?
SEAMS: ?, 100% visual
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 4 (1)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS No problems
SITE No problems
LINER Wrinkles in liner
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION Longer than schedule
PERMEABILITY: Sandy soil
GROUNDWATER: ?
LAND: ? near wooded area
OPERATIONAL
No problems
COMMENTS: Successful installation
Successful after 1 year (state
spec 1000/gal/ac/day max allow
leakage)
C-15
-------
SITE: V3-4
PURPOSE: Refuse landfill
WASTE: Municipal and industrial solid waste
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 8 years (?)
PROJECTED OPERATION: Functioning in part
FACILITY: Irregular; about 25 acres
LOCATION: Northern U.S.
no vents
solid waste
\ \
drain
COVER: Sand
BASE: ?
SUBSOIL: Coarse to fine sand/clay
12-18" sand
-179/soil
compacted sand fill
external
monitorin
' wells
no monitor
PERMEABILITY: 10
GROUNDWATER: 2'
ciu/sec
LAND: Flat terrain; near housing,
highway & population center
LINER MATERIAL: Dowell M-179 soil sealant, 25 T/acre, 4" thick blended with
sand; single (Note: this is not a homogeneous lined site;
M-179 abuts a bentonite lined portion)
COMPATIBILITY: Yes
SEAMS: M-179 butting bentonite liner
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 3 (1?)
PROBLEMS: Seepage
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
PREOPERATIONAL
No problems
9
Dry sand needed
for blending
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION On schedule
OPERATIONAL
No problems
9
Subject to metal ion affects;
seepage problems & mechanical
rupture
9
COMMENTS: Successful installation
Contamination in wells noted;
Not successful due to seepage
C-16
-------
SITE: V3-5 LOCATION: Northern U.S.
PURPOSE: Overflow storage of liquid sludge
WASTE: Liquid & sludge (non-toxic); 40% solids from paper pulp mill
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 1 year
PROJECTED OPERATION: Indefinite; operational
FACILITY: Rectangular; 30 million gals.
external
monitoring
liquid and sludge / f wells
5" asphaltic-
concrete
I
no drains,
monitor
COVER: None (exposed) PERMEABILITY: 10 to 10~5 cm/sec
BASE: GROUNDWATER: 20'-25'
SUBSOIL: Sands and silty sands LAND: Hilly; near river and flood plain
LINER MATERIAL: Asphaltic-concrete; 2 layers overlapped to make 5"
COMPATIBILITY: 10~7 perm requirement
SEAMS: ?, visual inspect
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 2 (2)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS No problems No problems
SITE No problems No problems
LINER No problems Freeze cracking (?)
easily repaired if occurs
APPURTENANCES No problems • No problems
CONSTRUCTION No problems No problems
COMMENTS: Successful installation Successful after 1 year
C-17
-------
SITE: V4-1 LOCATION: Saskatchewan, Canada
PURPOSE: Holding pond and monitoring pond
WASTE: Liquid containing heavy metals and organics
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 6 months
PROJECTED OPERATION: 20 years
FACILITY: Two rectangular cells, 18 acres
no vents
no *
drains *
HDPE
compacted sand
failed CSPE
monitor
COVER: None (exposed)
BASE: Sand
SUBSOIL: Glacial till
PERMEABILITY: ?
GROUNDWATER: ?
LAND: Rolling hills, glacial till
LINER MATERIAL: HDPE; 100 mil; unreinforced; single (NOTE: HDPE placed over
existing CSPE liner)
COMPATIBILITY: None
SEAMS: 7600 M field; lap weld; 100% untrasonic test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 5 (1)
PROBLEMS: Replaced previous 36 mil CSPE liner which failed.
PREOPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
No problems
No problems
Penetration
repaired (?)
No problems
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION No problems
COMMENTS: Successful installation
Successful after 6 months
C-18
-------
SITE: V4-2 LOCATION: Southern U.S.
PURPOSE: Holding pond
WASTE: Brine from petroleum operation and some organics
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 4 months
PROJECTED OPERATION: 20+ years
FACILITY: Rectangular; 804,000 ft2
J_
drain
monitor
2* compacted clay
COVER: Exposed
BASE: Clay liner
SUBSOIL: Previously polluted
PERMEABILITY: ?
GROUNDWATER: 0 (?)
LAND: Flat
LINER MATERIAL: HOPE; 100 mil; not reinforced; double (HDPE, clav)
COMPATIBILITY: None
SEAMS: 14,300 LF field, extrusion weld, 100% ultrasonic test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 4 (?)
PROBLEMS: Preoperations troubled
PREOPERATIONAL
OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS Poor performance;
disputes
SITE Wet weather and
high wind, flooding
LINER 1% seams repaired
APPURTENANCES ?
CONSTRUCTION Walk-out; not on
schedule
COMMENTS: Problem plagued
Successful (?)
after 4 months
C-19
-------
SITE: V4-3 LOCATION: Southwestern U.S.
PURPOSE: Evaporation pond; power station
WASTE: Process water (less than 205°F at discharge; 110°F max for liner)
YEARS OPERATIONAL: less than 1 year
PROJECTED OPERATION: 20+ years
FACILITY: irregular; 3,826,000 ft2
vents
/ ^HDPE
J ——• compacted subgrade
no drains,%
monitors T
COVER: Exposed
BASE: Compacted subgrade
SUBSOIL: Silty or clay sand
PERMEABILITY: ?
GROUNDWATER: None
LAND: Hilly
LINER MATERIAL: HOPE; 80 mil; not reinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: None (?)
SEAMS: 71,000 LF field, extrusion weld; 100% ultrasonic test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 5 (?)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
No problems
No problems
No problems
LINER
APPURTENANCES No problems
No problems
CONSTRUCTION
None; on schedule
over 2 years
COMMENTS: Successful installation
Successful after
less than 1 year
C-20
-------
SITE: V4-4
PURPOSE: Hazardous waste landfill
WASTE: In drums; wide variety; no info.
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 1 year
PROJECTED OPERATION: 6 additional months
FACILITY: Square, 262,500 ft2
LOCATION: Northern U.S.
vents
2* compacted^
- so11 g
I J ~~*~
" f m , .
external
monitoring
wells
•HDPE
compacted soil (5'-7.5')
6" sand
• existing clay liner
monitor
COVER: Slopes exposed PERMEABILITY: ?
BASE: Compact soil and sand GROUNDWATER: 10-28'
SUBSOIL: Silty clay on glacial till LAND: Hilly
LINER MATERIAL: HDPE; 80 mil; not reinforced; double
COMPATIBILITY: None
SEAMS: 9300' total; field extrusion weld; 100% ultrasonic test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 4 (3?)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
No problems
Water
3% seams repaired
No problems
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION Moisture & low temp
problems. Construction
delayed 7 months
COMMENTS: Successful installation
Successful operation after
one year
C-21
-------
SITE: V4-5 LOCATION: Eastern U.S.
PURPOSE: Leachate collection and neutralization
WASTE: Leachate and liquid slurry from landfill
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 3 years operating
PROJECTED OPERATION: 10+ years
FACILITY: Rectangular; 141,500 ft*
no vents
external
monitoring
wells
no drains,
monitors
f
2' compacted clay
HOPE
compacted clay
COVER: Compacted clay
BASE: Compacted clay
SUBSOIL: ?
PERMEABILITY: ?
GROUNDWATER: ?
LAND: Hilly, existing landfill
LINER MATERIAL: HOPE; 80 mil; unreinforced; double
COMPATIBILITY: None
SEAMS: 3200 LF field; extrusion weld; 100% ultrasonic test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 3 (2?)
PROBLEMS: HDPE over old clay site which cracked due to settling
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
PREOPERATIONAL
No problems
No problems
3% seams repaired;
penetrations repaired
OPERATIONAL
No problems
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION
Rains delayed construction
COMMENTS: Successful installation
Successful after 3 years
C-22
-------
SITE: V4-6 LOCATION: Eastern U.S.
PURPOSE: Treatment pond
WASTE: Unknown comp., liquid from chem plant
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 3j years operational
PROJECTED OPERATION: 10+ years
FACILITY: Rectangular; 11,600 ft2; one side wall is vertical
no vents
HDPE
compacted subgrade
leak
detector
COVER: Exposed
BASE: Sand backfill
SUBSOIL: ?
PERMEABILITY: ?
GROUNDWATER: ?
LAND: Hilly
LINER MATERIAL: HDPE; 100 mil; not reinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: None
SEAMS: ?; extrusion weld; 100% ultrasonic test
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 3 (0)
PROBLEMS: Hypalon in basin previously failed
PREOPERATIONAL
OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS No problems
SITE ?
LINER 2% seams repaired;
penetrations repaired
APPURTENANCES ?
CONSTRUCTION Longer than schedule
COMMENTS: Successful installation
No problems
Successful after 3.5 years
C-23
-------
SITE: V4-7 LOCATION: Western U.S.
PURPOSE: Settling basin and holding ponds
WASTE: Fly ash, slurry process water, no identified organics present
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 2 years operational
PROJECTED OPERATION: 30+ years
FACILITY: 8 impoundments, 2,874,442 ft2 total area
no vents
~_^-—^/
no drain,;:
monitor r
•12" sand
- HDPE
COVER: PERMEABILITY: ?
BASE: Excavated subsoil GROUNDWATER: ?
SUBSOIL: ? LAND: Irrigated area, flat
LINER MATERIAL: HDPE; 80 mil; unreinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: None
SEAMS: 92,600 LF field; extrusion weld; 100% ultrasonic
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 4 (2?)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS No problems
SITE Mud & water in pond
LINER 1% seams repaired; None
repairs made to liner
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION No problems
COMMENTS: Minimal problems; installation Successful after 2 years
successful
C-24
-------
SITE: V5-1 LOCATION: Western U.S.
PURPOSE: Settling ponds
WASTE: Petroleum refining liquid coke slurry (122-132°F)
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 3 years
PROJECTED OPERATION: ?
FACILITY: 3 1-acre ponds, 1 5-acre pond; more than one type of construction
5 acre pond 1 acre ponds
no vents (?) $ no vents (?)
2-11'
_L
sand
CPE
2CIM on 4" concrete
4" silty sand
CPE
monitor
COVER: None (?) CIM; CPE covered
BASE: Silty sand
| monitor
PERMEABILITY: Upper soil v. permeable
GROUNDWATER: 150-200'
SUBSOIL: Sandy silt & clay LAND: Near intermittent river
LINER MATERIAL: CPE/CIM CPE 2° m±1/CIM ^reinforced CPE
CPE 30 mil
COMPATIBILITY: None
SEAMS: 5250'; 7270' solvent weld; visual (?)
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 6 (2)
PROBLEMS: Many in fabrication and use
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
APPURTENANCES
No problems
No problems
CIM, trouble
CPE, none
OPERATIONAL
No problems
No problems
CIM failed; repair failed
CPE functional
CONSTRUCTION CIM mixing difficult
poor concrete cure and
CIM bonding
COMMENTS: Failure
Failure
C-25
-------
SITE: V5-2
PURPOSE: Impoundment
WASTE: Uranium process water, composition unknown
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 4.5 years
PROJECTED OPERATION: On demand
FACILITY: Two cells; 100' x 5600' rectangle
LOCATION: Southwestern U.S.
extei
monit
wells
no drains,
monitors
COVER: Soil
BASE: Natural soil
SUBSOIL: Sand, gravel, loam
CPE (slope)
PVC (bottom)
PERMEABILITY: Silty sand (?)
GROUNDWATER: ? not encountered
LAND: Sloping terrain
LINER MATERIAL: CPE - slopes; 20 mil; unreinforced; single
PVC - bottom; 10 mil; unreinforced
COMPATIBILITY: Pretest (?) unknown
SEAMS: 117,000 LF field, solvent; visual and feeler gage
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 6 (?)
PROBLEMS: Unclear
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS Poor cooperation
SITE ?
OPERATIONAL
LINER
APPURTENANCES
0.5% seam repaired;
bottom damaged
No problems?
CONSTRUCTION Longer than schedule
high winds & cold
COMMENTS: Troubled construction, damaged
liner repaired
Functional (?)
after 4.5 years
C-26
-------
SITE: V5-3
PURPOSE: Impoundment
WASTE: Refinery liquid, unknown composition
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 5 years
PROJECTED OPERATION: Closed
FACILITY: Rectangle; 240'xl24'; 5/8 acre
LOCATION: Western U.S.
soil (top 3" mixed with
Portland cement)
CPE
COVE^R:
BASE: 30 mil PVC liner
SUBSOIL: Natural soil
PERMEABILITY: Silty sand
GROUNDWATER: 15-150'
LAND: Flat
LINER MATERIAL: CPE; 30 mil; unreinforced; single
COMPATIBILITY: None
SEAMS: 3800' field; solvent seal; feeler gage
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 5 (1)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
OPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
APPURTENANCES
CONSTRUCTION
No problems
No problems
0.5% seam repair
No problems
No problems
No problems
COMMENTS: Successful installation
Functional, but closed
after 5 years
C-27
-------
SITE: V5-4
PURPOSE: Impoundment
WASTE: Cooling water for natural gas compressor
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 9 years operational
PROJECTED OPERATION: Indefinite
FACILITY: Square ponds; 1.35 acres
LOCATION: Western U.S.
COVER: Soil
PERMEABILITY: Silty sand
BASE: clay GROUNDWATER: Adjacent farm wells 500'
SUBSOIL: Native soil LAND: Slopes
LINER MATERIAL: PVC; 20 mil; unreinforced; double; sprayed asphalt on slope
COMPATIBILITY: ?
SEAMS: ?; solvent; feeler gage
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 4 (1)
PROBLEMS: Leak in liner repaired
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
SITE
LINER
No problems
No problems
0.5% seams repair
tractor perforations
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION No problems
COMMENTS: Successful installation
OPERATIONAL
No problems
No problems
Leak repaired
No problems
No problems
Failure (mechanical)
C-28
-------
SITE: V5-5 LOCATION: Western U.S.
PURPOSE: Impoundment
WASTE: Process water containing chlorinated hydrocarbons (?)
YEARS OPERATIONAL: 9 years operational
PROJECTED OPERATION: Indefinite
FACILITY: Triangular; 0.75 acre
no vents?
drain,
monitor
COVER: None (?)
BASE:- Sand
SUBSOIL: Excavated soil
PERMEABILITY: Sandy clay
GROUNDWATER: Not encountered
LAND: Flat
LINER MATERIAL: Triple liner - CPE 30 mil reinforced
- PVC 20 mil unreinforced
- CPE 30 mil reinforced 10x10 fiber
COMPATIBILITY: None (?)
SEAMS: ?; solvent sealing; feeler gage
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 3 (1)
PROBLEMS: No incipient failures
PREOPERATIONAL
PARTICIPANTS
OPERATIONAL
SITE
LINER
No problems
No problems
0.5% seams repaired
No problems
APPURTENANCES No problems
CONSTRUCTION No problems
COMMENTS: Successful installation
Functioning after 9 years
C-29
&U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986/646-116/20796
------- |