UnrtadStates
Office of
Soiid Waste
on erf Current Practices it
Facilities
of Unerand leak Deteclfon Designs,
Rates, Response Action
iriagement of liquids in Landfills
-------
COMPILATION OF CURRENT PRACTICES AT LAND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
SUMMARY OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION DESIGNS,
ACTION LEAKAGE RATES, RESPONSE ACTION PLANS, AND
MANAGEMENT OF LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Headquarters
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared by:
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
1505 Planning Research Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
EPA Contract No. 68-W9-0041
Work Assignment No. H20-13
January, 1992
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12;}
77 West Jackson Sci'1*1. . '• ,.;:
Chicago, IL 60604-3^J
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of
Solid Waste, by PRC Environmental Management Inc. in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-
W9-0041, Work Assignment No. H2013. Kenneth Shuster served as the EPA Work Assignment
Manager with assistance from Chris Rhyne and Wil Kouns. The PRC Environmental Management
Inc. team included Jim Styers, Dave Phillips, and Mark Evans.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 FACILITIES INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION 2
2.1 Selection of Candidate Facilities 2
2.2 List of Survey Facilities 3
3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 6
3.1 Liners and Leak Detection Systems 6
3.1.1 Liner and Leak Detection Designs 7
3.1.2. Action Leakage Rates 18
3.1.3 Response Action Plans 20
3.2 Liquids in Landfills 22
3.2.1 Prohibitions on Bulk, Noncontainerized, or Free Liquids 23
3.2.2 Restrictions on Biodegradable Absorbents 24
3.2.3 Testing Requirements for Absorbent-Treated Liquid Wastes 24
3.2.4 Special Requirements for Absorbents Used to Clean Up Spills 24
Appendices
A ACRONYMS
B LAND DISPOSAL QUESTIONNAIRE
C RCRIS/HWDMS LIST OF OPERATING HAZARDOUS WASTE
LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
D DETAILED INFORMATION ON FACILITIES INCLUDED IN SURVEY
D.I DESIGNS OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
D.2 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL SURVEY RESULTS
FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
D.3 EXAMPLES OF RESPONSE ACTION PLANS FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 List of Survey Facilities 4
2 Summary of Designs Utilized for Landfills, Surface Impoundments,
and Waste Piles 8
3 Summary of Liner System Designs Utilized for Landfills, Surface Impoundments,
and Waste Piles 10
4 Summary of Drainage Layer Designs Utilized for Landfills, Surface Impoundments,
and Waste Piles 12
5 Summary of LDS Design Specifications Utilized for
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, And Waste Piles 13
6 Summary of LDS Performance Standards for Landfills, Surface Impoundments,
and Waste Piles 16
7 Summary of Trigger Levels for Response Actions 19
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of a nationwide evaluation of hazardous waste land
disposal facility permits/Part B permit applications regarding liners, leak detection systems, and
the treatment of liquids and use of absorbents at landfills. The findings of this report will support
the development of final U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations in these areas.
4 The evaluation was conducted in January, 1991 by phone interviews of all ten EPA
Regions, by visits to eight regions, and by information supplied by a ninth region. The focus of
this evaluation was to identify current designs and operational practices of land disposal facilities
vis-a-vis rules proposed by EPA in 1986 and 1987' in order to 1) identify current practices to
determine consistency with the proposed rules and to identify good/new concepts, 2) gather
information on field experiences, 3) identify potential problems and conflicts, and help in
evaluation of technical and economic impacts. The designs and operational practices of facilities
included in this evaluation are summarized by this report.
Section 2.0 of this report describes how the evaluation was conducted and lists the
facilities included in the study. Section 3.0 of the report summarizes the evaluation findings. The
appendices include: acronyms (Appendix A); a sample evaluation questionnaire (Appendix B);
RCRIS/HWDMS list of "operating" hazardous waste land disposal facilities (Appendix C); and
detailed information on facilities evaluated by this report (Appendix D).
1 Proposed in the Federal Register on:
May 29, 1987 — Liners and Leak Detection Systems [52 FR 20218]
March 28, 1986 and April 17, 1987 — Double Liners and Leachate Collection and
Removal Systems [51 FR 10706 and 52 FR 12566]
December 24, 1986 and June 24, 1987 — Disposal of Containerized Liquids and
Sorbents in landfills [51 FR 46824 and 52 FR 23695]
1
-------
2.0 FACILITIES INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION
EPA prepared a questionnaire (Appendix B) that was used as a guide in gathering
information on certain disposal facilities. The questionnaire inquired about the design and
operation of liners and leak detection systems associated with landfills, surface impoundments,
and waste piles. This qustionnaire also inquired about: materials used to construct the liners and
leak detection systems; the performance of leak detection systems; how facilities manage leachate;
action leakage rates (ALRs) established for the land disposal units; and facility response action
plans (RAPs).
In addition, the questionnaire included information on how hazardous waste landfills
manage liquid wastes. Specifically, the questionnaire asked about restrictions imposed on landfills
managing hazardous wastes containing free liquids, and about the types of absorbents used in
treating wastes and cleaning up spills. In addition, the questionnaire asked about the types of tests
facilities use in evaluating the performance of sorbent-treated wastes and the biodegradability of
absorbents.
2.1 Selection of Candidate Facilities
EPA identified potential facilities for the evaluation from a list of all 256 "operating"
RCRA hazardous waste land disposal facilities contained in RCRIS/HWDMS (Appendix C).
Potential candidate facilities operate hazardous waste landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles,
or some combination of these units. Land treatment units were not evaluated, so the 25 facilities
with only land treatment disposal units were eliminated from consideration. Also eliminated were
seven of the remaining facilities that continue to operate pending the conclusion of the permit
denial process (i.e., those facilities with "permit denied" or with "intent to deny") and 27 of the
remaining facilities where Part B permit applications were requested but not received. This left
197 candidate facilities.
With the goal of evaluating about 50 facilities (about 25% of the total), a list of candidate
facilities was randomly selected from the remaining 197 facilities. This list was then refined,
after discussions between EPA Headquarters and the regions and during the regional visits, by
deleting facilities that either were closing/closed or that withdrew their permit applications. The
deleted facilities were replaced by facilities having "new" land disposal units. All remaining
facilities with landfills were evaluated regarding their management of liquid wastes.
-------
The chosen facilities were not intended to represent a scientifically rigorous sample of
operating hazardous waste land disposal facilities, but rather, to provide a good representation of
the management of liquids in landfills, and the newer land disposal unit designs and operations,
which is appropriate since the double liner/leak detection system rules under consideration will
only apply to new (including retrofitted) units.
2.2 List of Survey Facilities
Ultimately, useful information from 41 facilities (21% of the total) was obtained and
summarized in this report. These facilities are shown in Table 1. This list contains 29 facilities
with landfills, 15 with surface impoundments, and 3 with waste piles. The list also included a
good mix of commercial (24) and noncommercial (17) facilities.
At the 41 facilities, a total of 105 land disposal units were evaluated: 64 landfills, 38
surface impoundments, and-3 waste piles.
-------
Region
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
EPA ID*
NJD002385730
NYD049836679
NYD066832023
NYD080336241
PRD980594618
WVD004325353
WVD004341491
PAD004344222
ALD000622464
FLD057231821
TND003337292
ALD001221902
ALD008161176
IND078911146
OHD045243706
ILD000805812
ILD980700728
MND000686196
ILDO10284248
IND980503890
ILD006278170
TXD069452340
TXD008123317
LAD008I61234
TXD000835249
LAD008080681
LAD000777201
ARD213820707
OKD990695991
KSD070902952
UTD991301748
Table 1
List of Survey Facilities2
Name/Location Unit Types Commercial
Dupont E.I. DeNemours & Co., Deepwater LF Y
Chem Waste Management Chemical Services, Model City LF Y
General Electric - Noryl Products Dept., Waterford LF N
BFI/CECOS International Inc., Niagra Falls LF Y
Union Carbide Caribe.Inc. LF N
Union Carbide Corp., Sisterville Plant SI N
American Cyanamid Co., Willow Plant SI N
Bethlehem Steel Corp., Johnstown Plant LF N
Chem Waste Management, Emelle LF Y
American Cyanamid Co. SI N
Olin Chemicals Corp., Charlestown SI N
CIBA GEIGY Corp., Mclntosh LF Y
AKZO Chem American SI N
Adams Center Landfill LF Y
Envirosafe of Ohio LF, WP Y
Peoria Disposal LF Y
BFI/CECOS International, Inc. LF Y
Burlington Northern Tie Plant WP N
CID Landfill LF Y
Heritage Environmental Services LF Y
Allied-Signal Inc., Metropolis SI N
Texas Ecologists Inc. LF Y
Dupont E.I. De Nemours & Co., Victoria LF N
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chem Co. (Stauffer) SI Y
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal LF Y
Olin Corporation LF N
Chem Waste Management, Lake Charles LF Y
U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal LF, SI N
Agricultural Minerals Corp., Verdigris SI N
Chem Waste Management of Kansas, Inc. LF Y
USPCI Grassy Mountain Facility LF, SI Y
-------
Table 1
List of Survey Facilities (continued)2
Region
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
EPA IDff
UTD982598898
MTD000716787
CAD0000633164
CAT000646117
CAT980675276
CAT980011646
CAT080011653
NVT330010000
IDD073114654
ORD089452353
Name/Location
Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Burlington Northern Paradise Tie Plant
IT Corp. Imperial Valley (GSX Corp.)
Chem Waste Management, Kettleman
IT Corp. Petroleum Waste Inc. (GSX Corp.)
PG&E Morro Bay Power Plant
PG&E Moss Landing Power Plant
U.S. Ecology Inc. Chem Site
Envirosafe Services of Idaho
Chem Waste Management of Northwest
Unit Types
LF
WP
LF
LF, SI
LF
SI
SI
LF
LF.SI
LF.SI
Commercial
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
2 41 Facilities were included in the survey. 29 facilities have
landfills, 15 facilities have surface impoundments, and 3 facilities
have waste piles. 24 facilities were commercial.
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This section of the report summarizes the findings of the evaluation with respect to the
following issues: designs of liners and leak detection systems, leak detection sensitivity,
establishment of action leakage rates, submittal and content of response action plans, and the
management of liquids in hazardous waste landfills. A brief review of the proposed EPA
requirements affecting each issue precedes discussion of the findings. Appendix D.I contains
detailed information about the liner and leachate collection and removal systems (LCRS)/leak
detection system (LDS) designs for 28 facilities with a total of 57 landfill units, 12 facilities with a
total of 34 surface impoundments, and 3 facilities with a total of 3 waste piles. Appendix D.2 also
contains information on LDSs as well as management of liquids in landfills. Appendix D.3
contains examples of facility response action plans.
3.1 Liners and Leak Detection Systems
Background
RCRA as amended by HSWA set forth minimum technological requirements for hazardous
waste landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles in sections 3004(o) and 3015. The EPA
codified these requirements in the July 15, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 28702). The minimum
technological requirements require certain landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles to
have two liners and leachate collection system above the liner (for landfills) and between the
liners. In the March 28, 1986 Federal Register. EPA proposed minimum criteria for the design of
liners and LCRS. The liner design criteria required: a flexible membrane liner (FML) for the top
liner, and a bottom liner consisting of either a compacted soil material liner (permeability less
than or equal to IxlO"7 cm/sec) or a composite liner (FML over a compacted soil liner).
In the May 29, 1987 Federal Register. EPA proposed rules requiring new landfills, surface
impoundments, and waste piles treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste to utilize an
approved leak detection system. The proposal specified minimum design criteria for leak
detection systems for these units. The minimum design criteria consisted of: a bottom slope of the
drainage layer of 2% or more; granular drainage layer hydraulic conductivity of 1 cm/sec or more;
granular drainage layer thickness of to 12 inches or more; synthetic drainage layer hydraulic
transmissivity of 5x10"* m2/sec or more; and sump capacity and daily monitoring requirements.
The design must be capable of detecting a top liner leak of 1 gal/acre/day (gpad) or more within
-------
one day after the leak occurs. These proposed leak detection criteria were based on the use of a
composite bottom liner for landfills and surface impoundments, and therefore would alter the
March 28, 1986 (51 FR 10706) proposal to eliminate the compacted soil material bottom-liner
option.
3.1.1 Liner and Leak Detection Designs
Six types of liner and drainage system designs were identified for hazardous waste
landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles. Table 2 summarizes the types of designs used.
Twenty-four facilities comprising 34 landfill units incorporate a liner-drainage layer
design consisting of two liners and a primary LCRS above the top liner and a secondary LCRS
between the top and bottom liners. The secondary LCRS is generally designated as the LDS by
these facilities. Sixteen of the facilities have composite bottom liners. Five facilities comprising
19 landfill units used three liners with two drainage layers. These designs had a primary LCRS
above the uppermost liner and the secondary LCRS (also designated as the LDS) either above an
intermediate or bottom liner system. Finally four facilities comprising four landfill units utilized
a design with three liners and three drainage layers. In these designs the primary LCRS was again
located above the top liner. However, an additional drainage layer was located between the top
liner and intermediary liner, besides the drainage layer located above the bottom liner system.
Three of the facilities specified the drainage layer above the bottom liner as the LDS.
Four combinations of liners and drainage layers were identified for 1 hazardous waste
surface impoundments. The most prevalent design (six facilities with 26 impoundments)
incorporated two liners and one drainage layer. The single drainage layer was located between the
liners and served as the LDS. Two facilities designed impoundments with two liners and two
drainage layers. The drainage layer above the top liner served as the primary LCRS while the
drainage layer between the liners functioned as the LDS. Although identified as impoundments
by the facilities, these impoundments are similar to landfills. Three facilities used impoundments
with three liners with either one or two drainage layers present. The three facilities did not
originally design the impoundments with the three liners, but were apparently retrofitting the
impoundments to meet minimum technological requirements.
-------
Table 2
Summary of Designs Utilized for
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, and Waste Piles
No. of
Liner
Systems
1
2
2
3
3
3
No. of
Drainage
Layers
1
1
2
1
2
3
No. of Facilities / No. of Units
Landfills
—
—
20/34
—
5/19
4/4
Surface
Impoundments
—
6/26
2/2
1/1
2/4
Waste Piles
1/1
—
2/2
—
—
—
-------
Only 3 facilities with waste piles designs were included in the evaluation. Two facilities
had piles equipped with two liners and two drainage layers. These designs specified a LCRS
above the top liner and another LCRS (also functioning as the LDS) beneath the top liner. The
other facility had a waste pile with only one liner system with a LCRS located above the liner.
The types of liner system designs utilized by land disposal facilities were analyzed. Table
3 summarizes data on liner system designs used by facilities with hazardous waste landfills,
surface impoundments, and waste piles.
Landfill facilities were almost evenly divided in their use of FML liners and composite
(FML over soil) liners for their top liner system. FML types used by landfill facilities included
high-density polyethylene (HOPE), polyvinylchloride (PVC), and chloro-sulfanated polyethylene.
The FML's width ranged from 30 to 100 mils, with 60 mils specified most often. Those facilities
using a composite liner for their top liner specified compacted clay (permeability less than IxlO'7
cm/sec) as the soil component. The thickness of the clay ranged from 18 in. to 4.5 feet. The
thickness of the soil component was not restricted at most facilities. In addition, some facilities
were using bentonite mats as the soil component of their composite top liner. These bentonite
mats were constructed of a geotextile and bentonite. One facility reported the permeability of
their bentonite mat as IxlO'9 cm/sec.
Landfill facilities were equally divided in their use of FML liners and composite (FML
over soil) liners for their intermediary liner system. The thickness of the soil component for
intermediary composite liners ranged from 1 to 3 feet.
The majority of landfill facilities (24) utilized composite bottom liner systems. Twenty-
three of the 24 landfill facilities specified 3 ft. of clay with permeability less than or equal IxlO'7
cm/sec as the soil component.
Several landfill facilities also specified sand blankets underneath the bottom liner system
to function as an underdrain and relieve ground-water pressure on their liner foundation.
The majority of surface impoundment facilities (8) used single FMLs as their top liner.
The thickness of these FMLs ranged from 36 to 100 mils. Two facilities accounting for 18
impoundments used composite top liners. The thickness of the soil component (clay) was 18
inches. There was no information to determine whether any restrictions existed on the thickness
-------
Table 3
Summary of Liner System Designs Utilized for
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, and Waste Piles
Unit
Landfill
Surface
Impoundment
Waste Pile
Liner System
Top
Intermediary
Bottom
Top
Intermediary
Bottom
Top
Bottom
No. of Facilities/No, of Units
Single FML
14/25
5/19
2/2
8/14
2/4
3/6
2/2
—
Composite*
(FML Over
Soil)
16/32
4/4
24/51
2/18
1/1
7/25
—
3/3
Soil Only
—
—
2/4
1/1
—
2/2
—
—
* Includes FML over bentonite mats.
10
-------
of the soil component. One facility used a soil liner as the top liner at its impoundment. The soil
liner consisted of 5 feet of compacted and enhanced soils.
Most surface impoundment facilities in the evaluation 7 out of 12 used composite bottom
liners. The soil component was generally 3 feet of clay having permeability less than or equal to
IxlO'7 cm/sec. Two facilities using a soil liner as the bottom liner specified clay or compacted and
enhanced soils ranging from 3 to 10 feet thick, respectively. The other three facilities used single
FML liners.
All three waste pile facilities used composite bottom liners. The soil component of these
composite liner systems was at least 3 feet thick for each pile. Two of the waste piles having top
liners specified a single FML as the top liner.
Table 4 summarizes the various drainage layer designs utilizing granular materials (e.g.,
sand, gravel, or crushed stone), geonet (e.g., TensarRor PolynetR), or a combination of granular
materials and geonet identified by the evaluation.
Most landfill facilities (12) used granular materials for their top LCRS located above the
top liner system. The majority of landfill facilities (12 out of 21) used geonet in their LDS.
Those landfill facilities (6) using a combination of granular materials and geonet in their LCRSs
and LDSs specified a layer of granular materials at the landfill bottom and geonet on the
embankments or sidewalls.
Although most surface impoundment facilities (5) in the evaluation used only granular
materials in their LDS, the margin over those facilities using geonet (3) or a combination of geonet
and granular materials (3) was small.
All three waste pile facilities specified granular materials for the piles' LCRS. The two
facilities with waste piles having LDSs specified only granular materials or geonet for the piles'
LDS.
The evaluation reviewed the designs of LDS for hazardous waste landfills, surface
impoundments, and waste piles. Table 5 summarizes the LDS design specifications utilized by
facilities with landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles (those specifications that were
11
-------
Table 4
Summary of Drainage Layer Designs Utilized for
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, and Waste Piles
Unit
Landfill
Surface
Impoundment
Waste Pile
Drainage Layer
Top LCRS
LDS
Second LDS
Top LCRS**
LDS
Second LDS
Top LCRS
LDS
No. of Facilities/No, of Units
Granular
12/19
9/13
—
2/2
5/11
—
3/3
1/1
Geonet
8/26
12/39
4/4
—
3/19
2/4
1/1
Both*
6/6
5/5
—
—
3/3
—
—
—
* Facilities using both granular and geonet drainage materials generally specified granular
drainage materials on the unit's bottom and geonet drainage materials on the unit's
embankments or sidewalls.
**
Units equipped with a top LCRS are disposal impoundments.
12
-------
Table 5
Summary of LDS Design Specifications Utilized for
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, and Waste Piles
Specification
Minimum Bottom Slope
<1%
1%
2%*
2.5%
3%
4%
5%
Not Specified
Granular Layer Hydraulic
Conductivity
1 cm/s*
1 x 10-' cm/s
1 x 10'2 cm/s
Not Specified
Granular Layer Thickness
12 inches*
<12 inches
Not Specified
Synthetic Drainage Layer
Transmissivity
5x10- m2/s*
>5 x lO^rnVs
<5x KTmVs
Not Specified
No. of Facilities/No, of Units
Landfills
—
1/1
18/44
1/2
1/1
1/1
—
7/8
—
3/3
3/3
11/13
12/16
—
2/2
3/3
3/12
2/3
13/26
Surface
Impoundments
1/1
2/2
4/11
—
1/15
4/4
—
1/2
5/9
3/4
4/8
3/4
1/1
1/1
1/3
4/18
Waste Piles
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2/2
—
—
—
2/2
—
—
1/1
—
—
—
1/1
13
-------
Table 5 (continued)
Summary of LDS Design Specifications Utilized for
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, and Waste Piles
Specification
Minimum Layers of Synthetic
Drainage Net Specified
1
2
3
Other
Not Specified
Thickness of Net Specified
No. of Facilities/No, of Units
Landfills
—
1/1
—
—
19/43
—
Surface
Impoundments
—
1/3
—
—
3/17
2/2
Waste Piles
—
—
—
—
1/1
—
Specification proposed in May 29, 1987, Federal Register [52 FR 20218].
14
-------
proposed for LDSs by USEPA in the May 29, 1987 Federal Register [52 FR 20218] are identified
by astericks).
Most facilities (22 out of 30 that specified) reported a minimum bottom slope of 2% for
their LDSs. Minimum bottom slopes ranged from 1 to 4% for landfills and from less than 1 to 5%
for surface impoundments.
Twelve facilities utilizing granular materials for their landfills or surface impoundments
LDSs specified the hydraulic conductivity of the granular materials. Eight of these facilities
indicated that the hydraulic conductivity of the materials was IxlO'2 cm/sec or greater. Four other
facilities identified the hydraulic conductivity of their granular materials as 1x10"' cm/sec.
Nineteen facilities specified the thickness of their LDS granular materials. Sixteen of
these facilities indicated that the thickness of the LDS granular materials was 12 inches. Two
other facilities used less than 12 inches of granular materials in their LDS, but these facilities also
employed geonet in their LDS designs. Only one facility specified less than 12 inches for a LDS
composed entirely of granular materials.
Most facilities using geonet in the unit's LDS (18 out of 28) did not specify the
transmissivity of the geonet. Four facilities did indicate that the transmissivity of the geonet used
in their LDS was greater than or equal to SxlO"1 m2/sec. Other transmissivities identified ranged
from 6x10-" to SxlO"* m2/sec.
Very few facilities specified the minimum number of layers of geonet used in their LDS.
Two facilities indicated that 2 layers of geonet would be used for their LDSs, while two other
facilities specified the thickness of geonet in their LDSs.
Very few facilities also specified any LDS performance standards (e.g., the size of the leak
the LDS could measure or the shortest time the system could detect a leak). Table 6 summarizes
LDS performance standards for hazardous waste landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles.
Only four landfill facilities specified the minimum leak detection capability of their LCRS
serving as the leak detection system. These detection capabilities ranged from 1 gallon per acre-
day (gpad) to 15 gpad. Some minimum leak detection capabilities are specified in terms of the
amount of time necessary to determine if a leak is present. These detection capabilities ranged
15
-------
Table 6
Summary of LDS Performance Standards for
Landfills, Surface Impoundments, and Waste Piles
Specification
Leak Detection Sensitivity
1 gpad*
Other
Not Specified
Leak Detection Time
1 day*
Other
Not Specified
No. of Facilities/No, of Units
Landfills
1/1
1/1
26/55
—
2/4
26/53
Surface
Impoundments
—
—
12/34
—
3/10
9/24
Waste Piles
—
—
3/3
—
—
3/3
* Specification proposed in May 29, 1987, Federal Register [52 FR 20218].
16
-------
from 25 minutes to 7.4 hours for landfills depending on the time it took for complete saturation of
the drainage layer or the travel time to the furthest sump.
Three surface impoundment facilities identified the minimum leak detection capability of
their impoundments. These detection capabilities ranged from 3.4 hours to 50 days depending on
the time for saturation of the drainage layer or based on the travel time through the drainage layer
to the furthest sump.
Seventeen landfill facilities specified the maximum leachate levels allowed in the leak
detection system. Twelve landfill facilities specified maximum leachate levels in the leak
detection system that correspond to 1 ft. head on the upper liner. Two landfill facilities specified
the maximum level as one foot in the leak detection system. One landfill facility designated the
maximum leachate levels using both methods described above. Two other landfill facilities
defined the maximum leachate levels allowed in their leak detection system as specific levels (i.e.,
inches) of fluids in their sumps. Only one impoundment facility specified the maximum level in
the LDS as 1 foot head.
Only 3 landfill facilities specified the minimum removal capacity for their landfill LDS.
The removal capacities were 3.6 gallons per minute (gpm) for one landfill leak detection system,
76 gpm for each cell for another system, and 623 gpad for another landfill leak detection system.
Most landfill facilities were required to monitor their leak detection systems daily (e.g.
inspecting the leak detection sumps). Some facilities were required to monitor their leak detection
systems weekly and after storm events.
More than half of the landfill facilities in the evaluation were required to analyze leachate
removed from their land disposal units. The analysis performed on the leachate ranged from
testing for pollutant indicator parameters (such as pH, specific conductance, total organic carbon
(TOC), total halogenated organics (TOX), total dissolved solids (TDS)) to testing for 40 CFR Part
261 Appendix VIII constituents. Facilities were also required to test leachate in accordance with
their waste analysis plans. Some facilities were not required to test their leachate if they chose to
manage it as hazardous waste.
One facility obtained a surface impoundment retrofitting variance under section 3005(j)
of RCRA. This impoundment is situated on top of 15 feet of clay with one rubber liner
17
-------
(unspecified thickness) and a leak detection system consisting of lysimeters and sumps. The
sumps are located 20 feet, below the impoundment with riser pipes to the surface. The facility
monitors the lysimeters and sumps to determine whether the impoundment is leaking. Any
leachate is analyzed for fluorides and pH.
3.1.2. Action Leakage Rates
Background
In the May 29, 1987 Federal Register. EPA proposed that owners and operators of
landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles must establish an Action Leakage Rate (ALR)
for these units. The ALR is the rate of leakage into the LDCRS that triggers a response action on
the part of the owner/operators. EPA proposed an ALR in the range of 5 to 20 gallons per acre
per day.
On May 29, 1987, EPA also proposed that facilities should determine a value representing
a rapid and extremely large leak (RLL). The RLL is the maximum design leakage rate that the
LDCRS can remove under gravity flow conditions without exceeding specified limits of fluid
head in the LDS. Leaks over the RLL were proposed to also require response actions on the part
of the owner or operator of the unit.
Most facilities included in the evaluation did not specify ALRs for land disposal unit. Of
the 37 facilities with leak detection systems included in the evaluation, seven facilities had
established ALRs for their land disposal units. These facilities measured flow into the LDS (to
determine if the ALR was exceeded) and compared liquid flow rates to two trigger levels: a daily
average ALR, evaluated on a weekly basis; and a daily maximum ALR. Table 7 summarizes the
number of facilities and units that have established trigger levels (i.e., action leakage rates,
intermediate leakage rates, and rapid and extremely large leakage rates) that initiate response
actions.
The majority of facilities with landfills did not establish trigger levels for the units. There
were 29 facilities with landfills in the evaluation (with 59 landfills); of these facilities, eight (with
25 landfills) had established ALRs. Six facilities (including 14 landfills) that had developed ALRs
had also developed a three-tiered scheme including intermediate leakage rates (ILRs) and RLLs
for the landfills at their facilities. One facility with a landfill designed with three liners (two
18
-------
Table 7
Summary of Trigger Levels for Response Actions
Trigger Level
Action Leakage Rate
Intermediate Leakage
Rate
Rapid and Extremely
Large Leakage Rate
No. of Facilities/No, of Units
Landfills
7/25
5/13
5/13
Surface
Impoundments
3/24
3/24
3/24
Waste Piles
—
—
—
19
-------
composite liners and one FML) specified trigger levels (ALRs, ILRs, and RLLs) for the LCRS
beneath the landfill's primary composite liner and for the LDS above the FML (bottom-most liner
of the landfill).
The values for trigger levels varied widely between landfill units at different facilities.
ALRs for landfills examined in the study ranged from 5 gpad to 114 gpad. Values for ILRs
ranged form 156 gpad to 890 gpad. RLLs ranged from 1500 to 8900 gpad.
The majority of the facilities with surface impoundments evaluated in the study did not
specify trigger levels. Of the 15 facilities with surface impoundments with a LDCRS
(representing 36 impoundments), only three facilities established trigger levels; however, these
three facilities accounted for 24 surface impoundments.
All three surface impoundment facilities with trigger levels established ALRs, ILRs, and
RLLs for the impoundments. Two of these facilities (nine surface impoundments) had both a
daily average ALR of 20 gpad (calculated weekly) and a daily maximum ALR of 50 gpad. ILRs
for these units ranged from 300 to 890 gpad: RLLS ranged from 1500 to 8900 gpad.
None of the three waste piles in the evaluation had any trigger levels.
3.1.3 Response Action Plans
Background
In the May 29, 1987 Federal Register EPA proposed regulations requiring owners and
operators of facilities to submit response action plans (RAPs) to address accumulations of liquids
into the leak detection systems of landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles (52 FR 20218).
A RAP was proposed to address two situations: leakage rates into the leak detection system above
the RLL, and leakage rates below the RLL but above the ALR for the unit. For leakage rates
above the ALR but below the RLL, the RAP can be developed after detection of leaks in this
range. A RAP for leakage rates above the RLL must be approved prior to the acceptance of
waste. The May 29, 1987 proposal requires the owner/operator of a surface impoundment,
landfill, or waste pile to develop a RAP that will:
(1) characterize the reason for leakage;
20
-------
(2) assess current conditions of the double liner system;
(3) assess the potential for migration out of the unit;
(4) review various responses and their effectiveness; and
(5) recommend a response.
According to the data obtained from the evaluation, only a limited number of landfills
have submitted RAPs. Seven facilities with landfills have submitted RAPs that will address
leakage from 25 landfills.
In general, no response actions were required at landfills if the leakage rate for the unit
was below the ALR. An exception was one facility RAP that required any damage to the liner
system that resulted in leak rates under the ALR be repaired. Another facility RAP also called
for reporting requirements if a daily leakage rate was more than 50 percent higher than the
previous day's rate.
The facilities with landfills had similar response actions specified for leakage rates above
the ALR but below the ILR (if an ILR was specified). All of the facilities required verbal
notification to EPA and the implementing state agency within a specified timeframe (typically one
day). Additional action was required for all but one of the facilities if the leakage rate exceeded
the ALR for two consecutive monitoring periods. This additional action included: written
notification to EPA and the state, increasing the pumping rate and monitoring rate to every day or
every other day; and submitting a written report to EPA and the state within 60 days on the
progress of efforts to reduce the leakage rate to below the ALR and proposed future actions. The
RAPs from four facilities also specified that any visible damage to the liner must be repaired.
One facility's RAP specified that leachate collected must be analyzed for total organic carbon,
total dissolved solids, and pH.
Response actions were similar for leakage rates from landfills that were above the ILR but
below the RLL. All of the landfill RAPs specified verbal notification to EPA and the state if the
ILR was exceeded (usually within one day). Six of the facilities (including 13 landfills) were also
required to perform the following if the ILR was exceeded for two consecutive monitoring
periods: provide written notice to EPA and the state within seven days; increase pumping and
monitoring frequency to a daily or every-other-day basis; and repair any visible leaks to the liner
system. The facilities were also required to provide for a third-party assessment by a registered,
professional engineer if the leakage rate continued to exceed the ILR. Four facilities were
21
-------
required to remove standing water from the landfill. Another facility was required to stop
receiving waste within 10 feet of the side slope liner. One facility was required to analyze the
leachate collected from the LCRS. Finally, all facilities were required to document any damage to
the liner system and provide a written report to EPA and the state within 60 days on actions taken
so far and proposed future actions.
Response actions for facilities with landfills were more variable for leakage rates above the
landfill's RLL. All of the facilities (except one) were required to notify EPA and the state,
increase the pumping and monitoring frequency at the landfill, and provide written notice if the
leakage rate exceeded the RLL for more than two consecutive pumping events. All of the
facilities were also required to provide for an assessment of the liner system by a registered,
professional engineer if the leakage rate exceed the RLL for additional sampling events (usually
one). Four facilities were required to remove standing water from their landfills. Three facilities
were required to analyze the leachate from the LCDRS. Three facilities were required to cease
receiving wastes; two of these facilities were required to achieve leakage rates below the ALR.
Repairs of visible damage to the liner system were required at four facilities. Two facilities were
required to regrade the slopes of the landfill if the leakage rate could not be reduced below the
RLL. One facility was required to remove waste from within 10 feet of the sidewalls. All of the
facilities were required to document any damage to the liner system and to submit reports to EPA
and the state after sixty days describing actions taken so far and proposed future actions.
Facilities with surface impoundments had RAPs very similar to the RAPs for landfills.
Three facilities examined in the evaluation, inclusive of 24 surface impoundments, had RAPs. All
of these facilities also had landfills: in all three cases, the RAPs for the landfills and surface
impoundments were nearly identical. One facility was required by its RAP to lower the level of
waste in its three surface impoundments if the leakage rate exceeds the RLL.
No waste piles included in the study had submitted RAPs.
3.2 Liquids in Landfills
Background
The U.S. EPA has developed several rulemakings to restrict the placement of liquids in
landfills. In the May 19, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 33154), EPA promulgated regulations that
22
-------
included limitations on the placement in a landfill of both bulk or non-containerized and
containerized liquid wastes or waste containing free liquids. EPA later issued regulations
clarifying the definition of the term "free liquids" in the April 30, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR
18370). In the April 30, 1985 notice, EPA stated that the absence or presence of free liquids in a
containerized or bulk waste would be determined by whether a sample of the waste would pass the
Paint Filter Liquids Test (EPA Test Method 9095).
Subsequent to the initial rulemakings, EPA has proposed additional conditions pertaining
to the disposal of liquids in landfills in response to Section 3004(c) of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. On December 24, 1986 (51 FR 46824), EPA proposed to
prohibit the disposal of most containers holding free liquids unless the free liquids had been
solidified by the use of an absorbent. EPA specified that the absorbent must not be biodegradable
(defined as 71 percent total organic carbon; EPA recommended the use of the Mebius Test for
determining TOC) and the absorbent/waste mixture must not release liquids as determined by the
Liquids Release Test (EPA Test Method 9096). EPA later clarified its position on the use of
absorbents by stating the free liquids may be removed through solidification (i.e., experiencing a
chemical change such as stabilization using pozzolanic materials) or the addition of an absorbent
(52 FR 23695).
Nearly all of the facilities included in the study had some sort of restrictions on the
placement of liquids in landfills. Based on information obtained from Regional offices, only five
facilities (consisting of eight landfills) did not have explicit restrictions on the placement of
liquids in landfills. These restrictions include outright prohibitions on the placement of bulk
liquids and free liquids in the landfill, restrictions on the use of biodegradable absorbents, testing
requirements for absorbent-treated liquid wastes, and requirements for absorbents used to clean
up spills. These restrictions will be discussed in the following sections.
3.2.1 Prohibitions on Bulk, Noncontainerized, or Free Liquids
Nearly all the landfills evaluated are prohibited from receiving wastes containing free
liquids. Six facilities had landfill permits or permit applications that did not specifically reference
a prohibition on the receipt of wastes containing free liquids.
In general, only a few facilities were operating landfills that had permit conditions or
permit applications that referenced specific prohibitions on the placement of bulk or non-
23
-------
containerized liquids in the landfill. Six facilities had landfills that were prohibited from
receiving both bulk and non-containerized liquids.
3.2.2 Restrictions on Biodegradable Absorbents
Several facilities were restricted from using biodegradable absorbents. Fourteen facilities
had restrictions on the types of absorbents that could be used to treat liquid wastes. The most
common restriction involved specification of a list of acceptable absorbents: This occurred at
eight facilities (covering 14 landfills). Other absorbents specified in permits or permit
applications included pozzolanic materials (four facilities), cement (three facilities), and cement
kiln dust (three facilities). Other absorbents that were permissible for wastes destined for the
landfills included in the study were fly ash, clays, and caliche.
Three facilities were required to test the absorbent to determine if it was biodegradable.
These facilities were required to test the absorbent for its total organic carbon (TOC) content.
One facility was not allowed to use absorbents containing over one percent TOC; the other two
facilities were required to test the absorbent for TOC using the Mebius Test, although no
acceptable TOC percentage limits were specified.
3.2.3 Testing Requirements for Absorbent-Treated Liquid Wastes
For most facilities in the evaluation, the presence of free liquids was determined by testing
the waste. A total of seven different tests were specified. The most commonly required test used
to detect free liquids was the Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFLT); this procedure was required at 19
facilities and 36 landfills. The load bearing Capacity Test was required at four facilities
(including five landfills). The Stabilization Evaluation Test (SET) was required to measure the
effectiveness of absorbents at two facilities. Other methods required for absorbent-treated wastes
were the Liquids Release Test (LRT), a compaction test (with a maximum liquid loss limit of 5
percent), moisture content, and an Unconfined Compressive Strength Test (UCS).
3.2.4 Special Requirements for Absorbents Used to Clean Up Spills
Most of the facilities examined did not have any special requirements for absorbents used
to clean up spills. One facility was required to maintain supplies of oil dry, vermiculite, and fly
ash to clean up spills. Two facilities were required to maintain supplies to clean up spills, but
24
-------
specific absorbents were not stipulated. One facility was required to use an "appropriate
stabilization agent", but no specifics were provided in the information collected.
25
-------
APPENDIX A
ACRONYMS
-------
ACRONYMS USED IN TEXT
ALR
DALR
DEC
DEQ
DHS
FML
FR
GPAD
GPD
HWDMS
HOPE
ILR
KDHE
LCRS
LCS
LDCRS
LDS
LF
LRT
PFLT
PLCS
PVC
RAP
RCRA
RCRIS
RLL
SET
SI
SLCS
TDS
TOC
UCS
UCST
WAP
WP
Action Leakage Rate
Daily Average Leakage Rate
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
California Department of Health Services
Flexible Membrane Liner
Federal Register
Gallons per Acre per Day
Gallons per Day
Hazardous Waste Data Management System
High Density Polyethylene
Intermediate Leakage Rate
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Leachate Collection and Removal System
Leachate Collection System
Leachate Detection Collection and Removal System
Leachate Detection System or Leak Detection System
Landfill
Liquids Release Test
Paint Filter Liquids Test
Primary Leachate Collection System
Polyvinylchloride
Response Action Plan
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Information System
Rapid and Extremely Large Leak
Stabilization Evaluation Test
Surface Impoundment
Secondary Leachate Collection System
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
Waste Analysis Plan
Waste Pile
-------
APPENDIX B
LAND DISPOSAL QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
LAND DISPOSAL QUESTIONNAIRE
FACILITY NAME:
RCRAID:
UNIT TYPE: LSJ M\ W (Circle Only One)
UNIT NAME or NUMBER (As referenced in the permit or Part B).
(One Unit Only)'
Number of Units (Sis, LFs, WPs) with Double-Liner Designs at this facility (A separate "Land Disposal
Questionnaire" should be filled out for each of these units)'".
Is there a map that shows the latitude and longitude of the facility? Yes EH No EU
If yes, what is the latitude and longitude at some point near the center of the facility?
Latitude
Longitude
Degrees
Minutes
Seconds
Degrees Minutes
What is the latitude and longitude reported on the Part A?
Latitude
Seconds
Degrees Minutes
Seconds
Longitude
Degrees Minutes
LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Any restrictions on "biodegradable' sorbents? Yes EH No EH
If yes, how is "biodegradable" defined?
1%, 3% 10%, or other max TOC (or "non-C" carbon)? Yes EH No EH
If yes, specify:
Seconds
List of acceptable sorbents (e.g., bentonite/clays/diatomaceous earth, based on their silicon-aluminum
structure; fly ash; rice hulls; cement kiln dust)? Yes EH No EH
*You may use one questionnaire for a number of units that have the exact same design.
-------
FACIUTY:
UNIT:
If yes, list:
List unacceptable sorbents (e.g. saw dust, wood fibers, wood pulps; corn cobs; poultry feathers)?
Yes d No CU
If yes, list:
Tests required: Mebius test (to measure TOG)? Yes CU No CU
ASTM (Methods G21-70 & G22-76) microbial activity tests:
Resistance to fungal and bacterial growth? Yes CU No CU
ASTM polymeric absorbent test? Yes LJ No LJ
Other test? YesCU No ED
If yes, specify:
Any testing required for sorbent-treated liquid wastes? Yes LJ No CU
If yes, is it the Paint Filter Liquids Tests? CU Liquids Release (Pressure) Test? CU or other test? CD
Specify:
If Liquids Release (Pressure) Test, are any parameters specified?
Test duration (e.g., 10, 20, or 30 minutes)? Yes CD No CU
If yes, specify: ___________
Test pressure (e.g., 45 or 50 psi; or based on waste density and depth)? Yes CU No I
If yes, specify: ______ _______
Sample size (e.g., 100 grams)? Yes CU No CU
If yes, specify:
Sample column height (e.g., 10 cm)? Yes CU No CU
If yes, specify: .
White or colored filter paper specified?
If LRPT, what is test criteria (moisture/wet spot on filter paper, liquid passing through, change in weight of
filter paper, etc)?
-------
FACILITY:
UNIT:
Are there any special requirements for absorbents (pillows, booms, etc.) used to clean up spills?
Yes C] No CH
If yes, specify:
Sketch the liner system design, showing any specifications for:
• Material type (e.g., recompacted clay, HOPE, Hypalon, gravel, synthetic mesh)
• Thickness (e.g., mils for synthetics, inches for gravel, or feet for clay); specific number, minimum or
maximum [esp. maximum for clay layer of top composite liner]
• Permeability or transmissivity [max for clays/soils, minimum for gravels and synthetic mesh]
• Slope (minimum and/or maximum)
• Location of leak detection system when 3 or more liners
For example
Minimum 6 mil HOPE LINER
Minimum 12 inches :
Minimum 10'1cm/s Gravel LDS/LCRS
Minimum 2% Slope
Minimum 6 mil HDPE *
Recompacted Clay: LINER
Minimum 3 feet
Maximum I0'7cm/s
Length of run or distance between drainage tile or sumps specified? Yes No CH
Minimum leak detection capability (design performance standard; e.g., capable of detecting a leak of one
gallon/acre/day, or lOgpad, within one day) specified? Yes CH No d]
If yes, what is specified? __ _ __ ^ _
Minimum removal capacity (gallon/minute) specified? Yes No
If yes, what is specified? __
Maximum level of leachate in Leak Detection System specified (e.g., one foot head)? Yes I I No CH
-------
FACILITY:
UNIT:
(CONTD.)
If yes, what is specified?
Is this a design performance standard? An operational standard? Or both?
Is a composite liner being allowed for the top liner? Yes CU No LJ
If yes, is the thickness of the liner restricted (e.g., clay layer may not exceed 3 feet)? Yes d No
Restricted to what thickness?
Is a composite bottom liner being specified? Yes D No CH
Is there a construction QA Plan for liners? Yes CH No CU For leak detection system? Yes LJ No L-J
Is the quality of leachate (e.g., Appendix IX analysis) required to be analyzed? Yes CH No CH
What frequency of monitoring/inspection is specified (e.g., daily monitoring/weekly analysis/monthly
reporting during the active life; weekly/monthly/quarterly during post-closure)?
Action Trigger level specified? Yes C3 No CD
If yes, what is it?
Response actions specified? YesCH Nodi
If yes, describe: (or attach pertinent sections of Part B)
-------
APPENDIX C
RCRIS/HWDMS LIST OF OPERATING HAZARDOUS WASTE
LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
-------
PAGE
DATA REQUEST KOR EPA/OSH/OPPI/IMS
PREPARED BY DPRA. REQUEST NUMBER R901207
DATA SOURCES: HUMS VERSION 6.5 AND RCRXS VERSION 2.0.0
AS OF 12/18/90
OPERATXNB LANJ DISPOSAL FACILITIES
REGION
01
02
f
03
FACILITY ID
CTD0006 04488
CTD00116S703
CTD001433711
CTD002393416
CT0003935905
ME0990813479
NJD00217327*
NJ000217394*
NJD002194843
NJ0002383730
NJ004S445483
NY00004J1994
NTD000818419
NYD001701382
NYD04381570S
NYD049836t7f
NYD066832023
NYD080336241
NY0980S34390
PR0091017228
PRD980S94618
VID980S36080
DED002329738
MD00007313S6
RD000309351S
HDD069396711
PAD002289700
PAD002330163
PAD004344222
PAD030068282
PAD08S690S92
PAD980707624
PA0981110760
PAD990753089
PAT440012177
PA5213820892
VAD000731133
VAD003160015
V AD 980832834
UVD000800441
WVD004325353
WVD004336343
WVD004341491
HVD005005509
HVD056866312
WVD980SS488S
FACILITY NAHI
CECOS TREATMENT CORP
HATERBURY BUCKLE CO INC
GENERAL ELECTRIC
POWER SEMICONDUCTORS INC
PRATT t WHITNEY
HE METAL FINISHING SXLVEX
AMERICAN CYANAMXO COMPANY
DUPONT E X DE NEMOURS ft CO POMPTON LAKES
XNT'L FLAVORS ft FRAGRANCES-UNION BEACH
DUPONT E X DE NEMOURS ft CO DEEPUATER
AMERADA HESS CORP - PT. READ. RACK
UNXV OF ROCHESTER
CIBA-6EI6Y
MOOONA CREEK DEVEL. C MAJESTIC HEAVXN6)
FRONTIER CHEMICAL HASTE PROCESS
CUM CHEMICAL SERVICES
6ENERAL ELECTRIC - NORYL PRODUCTS OEPT
CECOS INTERNATIONAL INC.
PVS CHEMICAL INCORP. (NEM fORK)
COMMONWEALTH OIL REFININ6 COMPANY INC
UNION CARBIDE CARIBE, INC.
HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CttlP.
STAR ENTERPRISE
HAWKINS POINT DISPOSAL SITS NO 2
S C H CORP-ADRIAN JOYCE UOUKS
ALLIED CHEMICAL - BALTIMORE
ATLANTIC REFXNXNB AND MARK^TXNS CORP
EAST PENN HANUFACTURXN6 CO INC
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP- JOHNS fOHN PLT
MOLYCORP INC UASHXN6TON PL,'
UASTE CONVERSION INC
ENVIROSAFE SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA INC
SOLIOTEK OF PENNSYLVANIA
GENERAL BATTERY CORP
GENERAL BATTERY ALSACE TUN LANDFILL
U S ARMY - TOBYHANNA DEPOT
COLONIAL PIPELINE CO
ROYSTER CO
VEGA PRECISION UBS
SHARON STEEL CORP-FAIRMONT COKE WORKS
UNION CARBIDE CORP SISTERSVXLLE PLANT
PPG INDUSTRIES-NATRIUM PLANT
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO - WILLOW PUNT
RHONE POULENC AG CO INSTITUTE
MOBAY CHEM CO
UNION CARBIDE CORP HOLZ IH."OUNDMCHT
PERMIT STATUS
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL COMPLETE
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL RECEIVED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL COMPLETE
APPL RECEIVED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL COMPLETE
INTENT TO DENT
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT DENIED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL RECEIVED
APPL COMPLETE
APPL REQUESTED
APPL RECEIVED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
TYPE OF UNIT COMMERCIAL
WP,,, Y
i.LF.
,31..
.SI,,
,31, LF,
,31,,
,31,,
.SI,,
• SI,,
•SI.LF, Y
,*,LT
UO
W™» t »
.31, LF,
,SI,,
,31., Y
.SI.LF.LT Y
,31, LF,
, SI.LF, Y
,31,,
,31,,
,SI,LF,
,,.LT
..LF.LT
,,LF, Y
WP.SI,,
WP,,,
WP,,,LT
HP,,,
..LF,
,81,,
HP,,, Y
WP.SI.LF,
,,LF,
HP,,,
»LF.
UP,,,
,,,LT
HP,,,
,31,.
,,LF.
,31, LF,
,31,,
,31.,
, SI.LF,
HP, SI,.
,31,,
-------
PACE
DATA REQUEST ?OR EPA/03H/OPP1/IHS
PREPARED BT OPRA. REQUEST NUMBER R901207
DATA SOURCES: HWDMS VERSION t.5 AM) RCRIS VERSION 2.0.0
AS OF 12/1B/90
OPERATZN6 LAM) DISPOSAL FACILITIES
RESIGN FACILITY ID FACILITY NAT1E
03 HVD980555239 OLIN CORP - HOUNDSYILLE PLANT
0* AL000062246* CHER HASTE
ALD000827154 H*T CHEMICALS INC
ALD001221902 CIBA 6EZ6T CORPORATION
ALD003397569 AMERICAN CAST IRON PRPE CO.
ALDOQ4009320 HUNT OIL CO TUSCALOOSA REFINERY
ALD0040190M nONSANTO CO ANNISTON FACILITY
ALD00816117* AKZO CHEfl AHER (STAUFFER)
ALD008188708 OLIN CORP/MCINTOSH PLT
ALD05721 Mil LEE BRASS CO
FL0004092639 GULF COAST RECYCLIN8, INC.
FL0043A604S1 GATES ENERGY PRODUCTS INC
' FLDOS7231821 AMERICAN CYANAHID CO
FL61700244U USN AIR STAT JACKSONVILLE
FL9170024M7 USN PUBLIC WORKS CTR
CAD00332»98S MERCK * CO INC
CAD0*0690737 OLIN CHEMICALS 6RP • AUGUSTA PLANT
GAD07033057* CNB INC
CAD991275124 SO-GREEN CORP
CA7170023694 USMC LOGISTICS BASE 55S
CA8S70024606 LOCKHEEO-CEORGZA CO USAF PLT M
KYD000615898 ASHLAND PETROLEUM CO LANDFILL
KYD003924198 El OUPONT DE NEMOURS A CO.
KYD04573530S FLORIDA TILE
KYD991277112 NEWPORT STEEL CORP WILDER ."LANT
HS00044*S77S WOODSHAFT
HS0007027S*S KOPPERS INDUSTRIES. INC.
MS0008186587 MORTON INTERNATIONAL. INC.
MSOOS4179403 CHEVRON
(130079461406 AMERADA HESS CORP
MSD083S43009 ROGERS RENTAL « LANDFILL CWPANY
HS09806000M INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
NCD00181036S SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORPORATION
SC0046503132 STOLLER CHEM CO/MIL DIV
SC0048372023 LOCKHEED GEORGIA CO/CHARLESTON PLT
SC0067002147 GENERAL ELEC CO/FLORENCE P'.T
SC007037598S 6SX
SC0990704«70 WOLVERINE BRASS
TND003337292 OLIN CHEMICALS CORP
TND003376928 TN EASTMAN DIV EASTMAN KODAK
TND042205971 SANYMETAL PRODUCTS INC
TND069080513 UNIVERSAL FASTENERS INC
TND09505001* YALE SECURITY, INC.
TN0890090004 US DOE K-2S SITE
TN3890090001 US DOE Y 12 PLANT
05 ILD000647139 BRIGHTON LANDFILL
PERMIT STATUS TYPE OF UNIT COMMERCIAL
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL RECEIVED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
HP., i
,31, LF, Y
.SI..
WP.SI.LT. Y
HP.,.
,,.LT
HP.SI.LF,
,SI,,
.SI.LF,
UB
*P» * •
WP...
HP.SI.LF,
.SI,,
HP. 31,,
.SI..
.SI,.
.31, LF,
WP,,,
HP, SI,, Y
,31,,
,31, LF,
..LF.
»SI>,
.SI,,
,,LF.
,SI,,
.SI,,
.31, LF,
WP,,,
.,,LT
,,,LT
.SI.,
, SI.LF.
HP, SI,, Y
.31,,
,31,,
,,LF, Y
HP, SI,.
.51,,
HP, SI,, Y
,SI,.
,SI',,
.31,,
.51,,
WP,,LF,
,,LF,
-------
DATA REQUEST ?OK EPA/03H/OPPI/IH3
PREPARED BY DPRA, REQUEST NUMBER R901207
DATA SOURCES: HVOKS VERSION 6.5 AND RCRXS VERSION 2.0.0
AS UF 12/16/90
OPERATING LANU DISPOSAL FACILITIES
REGION FACILITY ID
05 ILOOC0805812
ILD005263157
ILOOOS4768S2
IL0006278170
I LD 006 2806 06
IL0010284248
ILD980503213
IL0980700728
IND000717959
IND000772707
IND016584641
IND072036114
, IND077305916
IND078911146
IND082287632
IND980503775
IND 9805 03890
MID000724724
HID 00 080 96 32
HID048090633
MID980568711
MID9S061743S
MID9906S7964
MND0006S6071
MND000686196
MND006156590
MND041 775008
UNO 980824890
OH0000724088
OHD000810242
OHD000816843
OH0000817114
OH004S243706
OHD055522429
OH0068901610
OH0980700942
OH0981529688
06 ARD049658628
AR0213820707
LAD000618256
LAD000757385
LAD000777201
LAD001700756
LA0008080350
LAD008080681
LAD00808650*
FACILITY NAME
PEORIA DISPOSAL CO
NORTHWESTERN STEEL t HIRE 'JO
MARATHON OIL CO ROBINSON Ri FINERY
ALLIED CORP METROPOLIS HORKS
LACLEOE STEEL CO ALTON HOR.-.S
CIO-LANDFILL
INLAND METALS REFININ6 CO INC
BROHNING FERRIS IND OF ILLINOIS INC
6ENERAL BATTERY CORP
HILLCUTT LDFL
MIDWEST STEEL CO
ALLEGHENY LUDLUH STEEL COR.-*
6ARY DEVELOPMENT CO INC
ADAMS SAN LDFL
INGRAM RICHARDSON CO
HERITA6E ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HERITAGE ENVIRON SERV INC ILMD
DOH CHEMICAL CO MICHIGAN OIV MIDLAND LOC
DOM CORNIN6 CORP MIDLAND PuT
HAYNE DISPOSAL INC SITE 12
FORD MOTOR CO ALLEN PARK CUT MINE
DOH CHEMICAL CO SALZBURG LANDFILL
LAKE STATES HOOD PRESERVING
KOCH REFINING CO
BURLINGTON NORTHERN TIE PLANT
FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORP
NORTH STAR STEEL CO
FMC CORP NORTHERN ORDNANCE DZV
EAGLEBROOK OF OHIO INC
RMI CO SODIUM PLT
COMMERCIAL OIL SERVICE INC
KOPPERS COMPANY INC
ENVIROSAFE SER OTTER CREEK RO
ERIEUAY INCORPORATED
TELEOYNE MONARCH RUBBER PUNT 1
ECOLOTEC INC
AMOCO PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS INC
MOUNTAIN PINE PRESSURE TREfNGt
US ARMY PINE BLUFF ARSENAL
CECOS INTERNATIONAL. INC.
IT CORPORATION OF LOUISIANA
CHEMICAL HASTE MANAGEMENT INC
MONSANTO COMPANY
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION
OLZN CORP LAKE CHARLES PLT RESIDUE BUR
PP8 INDUSTRIES INC.
PERMIT STATUS
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT DENIED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
DRAFT PERMIT
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT DENIED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
TYPE OF UNI1
HP.SI.LF,
,,LF,
,31,, LT
,31,,
HP.,,
,31, LF,
HP, SI..
,,LF,
UP...
,.LF.
,31, LF.
,,LF,
..LF.
,,LF.
.SI..
..LF,
,,LF,
,31,,
,,LF,
,.LF.
,.LF.
..LF.
.SI..
,,,LT
HP...
..LF.
HP,,.
,,LF,
HP,,,
HP,,,
,51,,
UP, SI,.
HP.SI.LF,
UP,,,
,31,,
HP..,
,31,,
,31,,
,31, LF,
.SI.LF.
UP..LF.
, SI.LF.
,31,,
,31,, LT
HP.SI.LF.
.SI..
r COMMERCIAL
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-------
PACE
DATA REQUEST KOR EPA/OSW/OPPI/IMS
PREPARED BT OPRA. REQUEST NUMBER R901207
DATA SOURCES: HHDM3 VERSION 6.5 AND RCRXS VERSION 2.0.0
AS UF 12/18/90
OPERATZN6 LANU DISPOSAL FACILITIES
REGION FACILITY 10 FACILITY NAME
PERMIT STATUS TYPE OF UNIT COMMERCIAL
06 LAD00816U34
LAD008175390
LAD008187080
LA003*! 99802
LAD05602*391
LAD 0571 17*3*
LAD062666S*0
LA0065«8S»*6
LAD0819997Z*
LA0990683716
, LA48000US87
NMD0003332U
KMDO*8918817
WW8901 39084
OK0000396549
OKOOO*99822S
OKD007233836
OK0045349982
OK0037705972
OKD058078775
CKD0654 38376
OK0091598870
OKD980879712
OK0990695991
OKD990750960
TXD000449397
TXD000741702
TXD0007S1107
TXD0007S1172
TXD00076123*
TXB000761262
TXD000778621
TXD000782698
TXB000807839
TXD00083S249
TXD001700806
TXD006451090
TXD007330202
TX000736598*
TXD00737899S
TXD008013*68
TXD008081101
TXD008091290
TXD008092793
TXD0080H1M
TXD008097S29
HHONE-POULENC BASIC CHEM CO
AMERICAN CTANAMIO FOHTIER fLANT
DOW CHEMICAL USA LOUISIANA OZV
CHEVRON CHEMICAL CO*
B P OIL. INC.
6EOR6ZA-SULF
PIONEER CHLOR ALKALI CO INC
STAR ENTERPRISE
MARATHON OIL CO LOUISIANA HEFZNZNS OZV
CONOCO INC LAKE CHARLES RE.- INERT
US NASA MICHOUD ASSEMBLY
6IANT REFINERY
NAVAJO REFININ8 CO
US DOE WASTE INSTALLATION HI LOT PLANT
KERR-MCSEE REFN6 CORP
OKMUL6EE REFINERY
CONOCO INC PONCA CITY
ALPHA OIL COMPANY
TOTAL PETROLEUM CORP
SUN REFNQ 8 MKTNB TULSA RE^NRT
US POLLUTION LONE MOUNTAIN
OKLAHOMA REFININS COMPANY-CYRIL PLANT
HAYSTACK FACILITY
A6RICULTURAL MINERALS CORP VERDI6RIS PLT
SINCLAIR OIL CORP
QUANEX CORP 6ULF STATES OZY
JCS CO INC
JERRELL B THOMPSON INC
BP CHEMICALS INC
CHEMICAL HASTE M6T OF CORPUS CHRIST!
CHEMICAL HASTE MGtTT BAYOU i-'ARHS
ATCHZSON TOPEKA 8 SANTA FE RR
EXXON CO-BAYTOUN REFINERY A CHEMICAL
SOUTHWESTERN REFINZN8 CO
6ULF COAST HASTE DISPOSAL AUTH
MONSANTO CO
CNB BATTERIES INC
TEXAS EASTMAN COMPANY
E-SYSTEMS INC
TEXACO REFN6 A MKTN6
FINA OIL 8 CHEM CO-COSOEN CHEM
E I OUPONT DE NEMOURS
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM COUP
DOW CHEMICAL CO
ETHYL CORPORATION
STAR ENTERPRISE
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT DENIED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMIT DENZED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
APPL RECEZVED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
APPL COMPLETE
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
.SI., Y
,SI,,
..LF,
.SZ.LF.LT
.SI..LT
.SI..
.SI..
...LT
rSIt.LT
.SI.LF.LT
.SI.,
,,,LT
.SI..LT
,.LF.
.SZ..LT
.SZ.LF.LT
.SI.LF.LT
.SI..LT
,,,LT
,,.LT
WP.SI.LF, Y
.SI..LT
.SZ.LF.LT
.SI..
...LT
.SZ..LT
HP, SI,,
HP, SI,,
.SI.LF,
..LF, Y
.SI.LF.
,SI..
...LT
,..LT
..LF.LT Y
.SI.LF.
HP,,,
.SZ.LF,
,31,,
,,.LT
HP,, LF.LT
,SI..
,31.,
..LF.
.SI.LF,
,SI,,LT
-------
PAGE
DATA REQUEST fOR EPA/OSH/OPPI/IHS
PREPARED BT OPRA. REQUEST NUMBER R901207
DATA SOURCES: HHDMS VERSION 4.5 AND RCRZS VERSION 1.0.0
AS OP 12/18/90
OPERATINS LAW) DISPOSAL FACILITIES
REGION FACILITY 10 FACILITY NAME
PERMIT STATUS TYPE OF UNIT COMMERCIAL
06 TXD00811S441
TXD008119414
TXD00812JJ17
TXDO 10794097
TXD026040709
TXD026896290
TXD02707065S
, TXD04151S420
TXD047467113
TXD04821064S
TXDOS0309012
TXDOS1161990
TXDOS42S6391
TXDOS5141J78
TXD0571 11403
TXD058260977
TXD0596SS339
TXD065099UO
TXD 06* 349770
TXD066342SS9
TXD 066 36 8879
TXD0672S5973
TXD069450278
TXD069452340
TXD072181381
TXD078432457
TXD082688979
TXDOB8474663
TXD 98062*77*
TXD 980744107
TXD981905292
TXD 99070968*
TXD99070996*
TXD 990797714
TX321 3820738
07 IAD000830018
KSO 08741 86 9S
n00030712822
NE00006871S6
08 C009913004M
HT0000716787
rtTD00081809*
f1TD010380574
UTD09311919*
UTD991301748
UT37502112S9
CELANESE EN6INEERIN6 RESINS
STRUCTURAL HETALS INC
E I DUPONT OE NEMOURS
UNION OIL OF CALIF
NOECHST CELANESE CHEMICAL UROUP. INC.
SHELL OIL CO ODESSA REFINEitY
MOOD INDUSTRIES
UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS ANU PLASTICS CO.
USX
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO SHEENY REFINERY
AMOCO CHEMICALS CO
CHAMPLIN REFN6 » CHEM
CHEVRON OIL COf
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TX INC
KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP
MOBAY CORPORATION
DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORP nCKES PLANTS
FINA OIL 1 CHEMICAL CO
TYLER PIPE INDUSTRIES INC
CHAPARRAL STEEL CO
H J SMITH HOOD PRESERVING CO
SHELL CHEMICAL CO DEER PARK COMPLEX
HOECHST CELANESE CORP
TEXAS ECOL06ISTS INC
AMOCO OIL COMPANY LAND FAR.1 1 2
HOECHST CELANESE CHEMICAL UROUP, INC.
LYONDELL PETROCHEMICAL
KOCH REFINING CO
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO BORCfR REFINERY
ENVIROSAFE SERVICES OF TEXAS INC
LONE STAR • ROT AC, INC
STANDARD INDUSTRIES
DIAMOND SHAMROCK
MOBIL OIL CORP
US ARMY RED RIVER ARMY OEPUT
DEXTER CO
TOTAL PETROLEUM INC
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORP
3AFETY-KLEEM CORP 5-065-01
HIGHWAY 3* LAND OEVCLOPMENf CORP
BURLINGTON NORTHERN PARADISE TIE PLANT
CONOCO LANDFARH
EXXON BILLINGS REFINERY
PETROCHEH RECYCLING (FORMERLY EKOTEK)
USPCI GRASSY MOUNTAIN FACILITY
DUGUAY PROVING GROUNDS - Ut ARMY
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL COMPLETE
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL COMPLETE
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
DRAFT PERMIT
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT DENIED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
.SI.LF.
,,LF,
.SI.LPf
.SI..
.SI.LF.
.SI..LT
HP,,.
,,LF,
..LF.
.SI..LT
..LF.
HP, SI,.
...LT
.SI.LF.
.SI..LT
HP, SI..
...LT
,SI..
.SI.LF.
..LF,
>SI.,
HP. SI.LF.
.SI..
.SI.LF*
...LT
.SI..
...LT
...LT
, SI.LF.
HP..LF,
..LF.
.SI.LF.
.SI..LT
,.LF.
HP, SI..
..LF,
,31,, LT
HP,..
HP...
.SI.LF.
HP.SI..LT
...LT
...LT
HP...
.SI.LF.LT
,SI..
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-------
PACE
DATA REQUEST .-'OR EPA/03W/OPPZ/ZM3
PREPARED BY OPSA. REQUEST NUMBER R901207
DATA SOURCES: HWDMS VERSION 6.5 AND RCRZS VERSION 2.0.0
AS UP 12/16/90
OPERATZN6 LANU DISPOSAL FACILITIES
RESIGN FACILITY ID FACILITY NAME
PERMIT STATUS TYPE OF UNIT COMMERCIAL
oa
09
10
UYD9913010M
AZD00900S422
AZTQ00623702
CAD000633164
CAD009H4919
CA002074812S
CAOOA5595551
' CAO 9806752 7*
CAT000646117
CAT0800U562
CAT0800 11646
CAT0800116S3
CAT080011695
CA71 70024775
HIT160010005
NVT330010000
IOD0731 14654
ORO 089452 353
MAD009242314
WA0009250364
UA0009275082
MA0009276197
WAD027S30S26
MA0041337130
WA0069548154
MAO 980978464
AMOCO PIPELINE TANK FARM
HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO USAF PIT 44
INTL BUSINESS MACHINES COH:»
CSX CORP IMPERIAL FACILIfY
CHEVRON USA INC RIOU1ONO RSFINERT
CASMALZA OSPL
WOTEN AVIATION SERVICES ZNC
6SX SERVICES PETROLEUM HASTE INC
CHEMICAL HASTE MSMT - KETT1.EMAN
PGIE HUMBOLOT BAY POWER PUNT
PG»E MORRO BAY POWER PLANT
PStE MOSS LANDING POWER PLANT
PStE PITTS8URC POWER PLANT
MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD
CHEVRON USA INC HAWAIIAN RSFINERY
US ECOLOGY INC CHEH SITE
ENVZROSAFE SERVICES OF IDAHO- SITE B
CHEM WASTE MGMT OF THE NORfHWEST INC
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP
B P OIL COMPANY- FERNDALE ilEFINERY
SHELL OIL CO- ANACORTES
TEXACO REFINING ft MARKETING INC
BAY ZINC COMPANY INC
BOEING CO- AUBURN
ARM PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO CHERRY PT REF
GRANT COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT DENIED
DRAFT PERMZT
APPL REQUESTED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT DENIED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
PERMIT ISSUED
PERMZT ISSUED
APPL RECEIVED
...LT
,SZ,,
.SI.,
iSZ.LF.LT Y
...LT
.SZ.LF.LT Y
.SI.,
,.LF, Y
.SZ.LF.LT Y
,51,,
,31,,
,SZ..
,31,,
•SZ.LF.
WP.SZ..LT
,,LF, Y
WP. SZ.LF. Y
.SZ.LF.LT Y
WP,.,
WP,SZ,,LT
.,,LT
,.,LT
WP,,,
WP,,,
,31,, LT
.SZ.LF,
-------
APPENDIX D
DETAILED INFORMATION ON FACILITIES
INCLUDED IN SURVEY
-------
APPENDIX D.I
DESIGNS OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
-------
SUMMARY OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
FOR LANDFILLS
F (ditty Nine
Dupont-
Deepwater, NJ
(see Pf D-8)
Chem Waste
M( ml • Model
City. NY
(see pf . D-9)
GE - Watertbrd,
NY
(•ee pi. D-IO)
BFI/CECOS •
Niagara F.ll»,
NY (Landfill
No. 6)
(Kept D-ll)
BSC-
'ohnstown, PA
(seepg. D-12)
Chem Waste
Mgmt - Emelle.
AL
(KC pg. D 13)
CIBA-GHGY -
Mclnloah, AL
(Undfill No. 1)
(tee pt. D-14)
CIBA-GHGY •
Mclntoah. AL
(Landfill No. 2)
(>eep|. D 15)
Adamt Center
Landfill. IN
(seepg. D- 16)
Envimufe of
Ohio
(ieepg. D-17)
Peorta Disposal,
IL Undfill C-l
(.eepg. D-18)
Top LCRS
Granular
Thickneas,
Perm, (emit)
24* gravel,
IxlO1
12' «tone
12- gravel. 0.5
12- stone
12- itone
12" unspecified
type
(bottom only)
12* unspecified
type
(bottom only)
12" sand. IxlO'
12' sand. IxlO1
(bottom only)
12* unspecified
type
18* sand
12* sand
Synthetic
Tranmtssivky
(orf/a)
Oeonet, IxlO1
Geonet (sides)
Geonet (sides)
Geonet (side)
Top Liner System
FML Only
Thkkwsa,
Type
45 mil Hyptloa
50 mil PVC
BOmilHDPE
60 mil HOPE
FML Over Soil
Thickness. Type
80 mil HOPE
18' clay
80 mil HOPE
JO* clay
80 mil HOPE
4'6* clay
60 mil liner
unspecified
1 '6* chalk
80 mil HOPE
unspecified,
prefabricated
benlonile mat
60 mil HOPE
18* clay
80 mil HOPE
24* clay
Leak Detection System
Granular
Thickneas,
Perm, (cm/a)
6* gravel
6* sand
Permeability not
identified
12* itone
(bottom only)
12* unspecified
type
(bottom only)
12" unspecified
type
(bottom only)
12* sand. IxlO1
(bottom only)
12* sand. IxlO'
(bottom only)
12* (ravel,
IxlO1
(bottom only)
12* gravel
Permeability not
identified
12* sand
Permeability not
identified
Synthetic
TrmamMvity
(»Va)
Poh/net, 1 x W
(2 layen)
Geonet (tides)
trmmmissivity not
identified
Geonet (sides)
transmissivity not
identified
Geonet (sides)
truumisaivity not
identified
Geonet (sides)
transmissivity not
identified
Geonet
(sidewalk)
Iranamissivity not
identified
Geonet,
Iransmissivity not
identified
Second Liner System
FML Only
Thickness.
Type
FML Ortr Soil
Thkkneaa, Type
Second LDS
Granular
Thickneaa,
Perm, (cm/*)
Synthetic
Truumbatrity
(mV.)
Bottom Liner System
FML Only
Thkknesa,
Type
FML Ofer Soil
Thickness, Type
45 mil Hypaloo
36* clay
HT'cm/s
80 mil HOPE
36* clay
10-' cm/i
80 mil HOPE
36* clay
KT'cm/s
80 mil HOPE
4'6* clay
I0'cm/s
50 mil PVC
36* clay
I0'cm/s
60 mil
unspecified
36* clay
I0'cm/s
36* clay
IxlO'cm/s
60 mil HDI'E1
60 mil HOPE
36* clay
Ixlfr'cm/s
60 mil HOPE
36* clay
1x10 'cm/s
60 mil HOPE
36' clay
1x10 'cm/s
60 mil HDPE
36* clay
Soil Only
Thickness,
Type
D-l
-------
SUMMARY OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
FOR LANDFILLS (Continued)
Facility Name
feoria Disposal,
IL Undfill C-2
tee pg . D-19)
BFI/CECOS. IL
(MC Pf . D-20)
CID Landfill. IL
(seepf. D-21)
Heritage
Environmental
Service*. IN
(KC pg. D-22)
Texas
Bcologifiti, Inc.,
TX (S cells)
(see pg. D-23)
Dupont- Victoria
TX
(see pg. D-24)
Gulf Coast
Wule Disposal,
TX
(see pg. D-25)
Olin
Corporation, LA
(MC pg. D 26)
Chem Warte
Mgmt - Lake
Charle*. LA
(CelU 6 and 7)
(tee pg. D-27)
U.S. Army Pine
Bluff Anenal,
AR (H.W.
MgmL Landfill
Facility)
(•ee pg. D-28)
Top LCRS
Granular
Thkkneaf.
Perm. (cm/s)
12* unspecified
type
12* gravel.
UIO'
12* waihed rivei
rock. UIO1
Unspecified
Ihickneu, gravel
24* aand,
permeability not
identified
12* gravel, 1.6
12* und,
permeability not
identified
Synthetic
TranamMrfty
-------
SUMMARY OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
FOR LANDFILLS (Continued)
FadUty Name
U.S. Army Pine
Bluff Arsenal,
AR(HW
Landfill. No.. 1
42)
(see p(. D-29)
Chan Waste
Mgmt. of
Kansas
(•ee pg. D-30)
USPCI - Grassy
Mountain, UT
(Landfill No S)
(.eepg. D-31)
l-nvirocare of
Utah. Inc.
(«e PI. D-32)
IT Corp. -
Imperial Valley,
CA(LC-1,LC-
2. and LC-3)
(see n. D-33)
Chem Waste
Mgmt-
Kenleman Hills,
CA (7 cells)
(see pg. D 34)
IT Coip.
Petrokum
Waste. CA
(Landfill 28)
(•ee p|. D-35)
ITCoip
Petroleum
Waste. CA (10
other landfill
cells)
(see P|. D-36)
Top LCRS
Granular
TUckneM.
Perm, (cm/s)
12- sand,
permeability not
identified
12- sand
(bottom), IxlO'
Synthetic
TranamiMvtty
(mtVs)
Geonel (sides).
SxlO4
Tensor DN-I,
transmissivity not
identified
TemarDN-l.
SxlO4
Drainage net,
transmissiviry not
identified
Geonet,
transmissivity not
identified
HOPE drainage
net, IxlO4
HOPE drainage
net. 6xl04
Top Liner System
FMLOnty
Thickness,
Typt
30 mil Hypilon
80 mil HOPE
80 mil HOPE
80 mil HOPE
60 mil HOPE
FML Over Soil
Thickness, Type
60 mil HOPE
18- clay
40 mil PVC
36' clay
80 mil HOPE
36" clay
Leak Detection System
Granular
Thickness,
Perm, (crn/i)
12' sand.
permeability not
identified
Synthetic
Tranamiaairity
(m'/a)
Geonet, S x 104
TensarDN-l.
Irensminivity not
identified
Tcmar DN-1.
5x10*
Drainage net,
transmissivity not
identified
Geonel.
transmissivity not
identified
HDPE Drainage
net1. IxlO4
HDI'E Drainage
net1, 6x10*
Second Liner System
FMLOnly
Thickness,
Type
60 mil HDPE
60 mil HDPE
40 mil PVC
80 mil HDPE
FML Over Soil
lUckncaa, Type
60 mil HDPE
36' clay
1x10 'cm/i
Second LDS
Granular
Thickness,
Perm, (cm/a)
Synthetic
TnnamiasMty
(m'/a)
Geonet. SxlO4
Tensar DN-3.
SxlO4
Teroar DN-1.
SxlO4
Bottom Liner System
FMLOnly
Thickness.
TV!*
40 mil HDPE
FML Over Soil
Thickness. Type
60 mil HDPE
36' clny
IxlO 'cm/s
60 mil HDPE
36' clny
1x10 'cm/a
60 mil HDPE
36" clay
IxlO 'cm/s
60 mil HDPE
36' clny
IxlO 'cm/s
40 mil PVC
36" clay
80 mil HDPE
36" clay
IxlO'cm/s
Soil Only
Thickness.
Type
36- clay
IxlO 'cm/s
D-3
-------
SUMMARY OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
FOR LANDFILLS (Continued)
Facility Name
U.S. Ecoloiy.
Inc. • Nev«d.
ChemSile
(•ee p|. D-37)
Enviromfe
Service* of
Idaho (Tranche!
Suid 14)
(•ee p|. D-38)
Chem Warte
Mgmt of
Northwest. OR
(L-12and I, 13)
(see pg. D-39)
Top LCRS
Granular
ThlekneM,
Perm, (cm/a)
Synthetic
TraumiaaVity
fan1/.)
Tenur DN-3,
7x10*
Top Liner System
FML Only
Thicknoi,
Type
gO mil HOPE
80 mil HOPE
FML Over Soil
Thicknen, Type
60 mil HDPE
18'clny
Leak Detection System
Granular
Thlekneaa,
Perm, (cm/.)
12* travel.
IxlO1 (Trench 5)
1x10' (Trench
M)
Synthetic
Tranamiaaivity
-------
SUMMARY OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Facility Name
Union Carbide
Corp. -
Siilerville. WV
(•ee PI D 40)
American
Cyantmid Co. -
Willow. WV
(•ee pg. D-41)
American
Cyanimid Co ,
FL
(ree pg. D-43)
Olin Chemical.
Corp. -
Charleilown.
TN
(see p(. D-44)
AKZO Chem
American, AL
(.ee pg. D 45)
Allied Signal
Inc. -
Metropolis, IL
(•ee p|. D-46)
Rhone- Poulenc
Batic Chemical
Co. (SuufTer),
IA (2 impound-
ment*)
(.ee pf . D-47)
Agricultural
MinerabCorp •
Verdigria. OK
(tee Pl. D-48)
USPCI Grany
Mountain
Facility. UT
(•ee p(. D-49)
Top LCRS
Granular
ThickneM,
Perm, (on/.)
12* "and. IxlO1
4' 78 gravel
4" concrete «nnd
4* 78 gravel
Synthetic
Trajumlsalvily
(maVa)
Top Liner System
FMLOnly
TUckoe«,
Type
100 mil HOPE
80 mil HOPE
45 mil Hypalon
36 mil Hypalon
36 mil Hypalon
60 mil HOPE
80 mil HOPE
FML Over Soil
Thicknew, Type
Soil IJner only
3 ' compacted .oil
1 ' enhanced soil
1* compacted soil
Leak Detection System
Granular
TUckneM.
Perm, (cm/a)
12- land, no
permeability
identified
12' .and. IxlO'
(bottom only)
1* travel
(gravel -r
drainage net =
IxlO'l
4" concrete
sand, 1x10'
8* gravel. IxtO'
Thick/lew not
identified1,
gravel 1x10'
Alternative
Syitem
10* .and.
Permeability not
identified
6" sand (bottom
only).
permeability not
identified
Synthetic
TruumMrfcy
(mVa)
4mm thick
HOPE drainage
net (.idea only)
Permeability
6x10' cm/.
T Mirafi 140N
drainage net
Alternative
System
Filtration cloth
(.idea only),
tnui.mi..ivity not
identified
Tensar DN-3
Drainage net,
SxlO1
Second Liner System
FMLOnly
ThickneM,
Type
100 mil HOPE
FML Over Soil
Thicknem, Type
30 mil Hypalon
1' clay
Second LDS
Granular
Thlckneaa,
Perm, (em/a)
Synthetic
TranamMvity
(m'/a)
Geonet,
Tranamiasiv ity
not identified
Bottom Liner System
FMLOnly
TUekneaa,
Type
Thicknea. not
identified,
polyethylene
20 mil PVC
FML Over SoO
Thickneaa, Type
100 mil HOPE
24" clay
1x10 'cm/.
80 mil HOPE
24' clay
30 mil PVC
'IhickneM, clay
not identified
ThickneM of
FML not
identified, rubber
15' clay
20 mil PVC
Clay thickneo
not identified.
Clay IxtO 'cm/.
Soil Only
ThickneM,
Type
V enhanced
soil
Ixl 'cm/a
5 ' compacted
toil
IxlO'cm/.
3' clay
D-5
-------
SUMMARY OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS (Continued)
FadUtyName
ChemWute
Mfmt-
Kettleman, CA
(IS impound-
ment*)
(see pf. D-50)
Envirosafe
Service* of
Idaho
(Evaporation
Pondi 2 and 3)
(see P(. D 51)
Environre
Service! of
Idaho
(Evaporation
Pond land
Collection Ponds
1.2. and 3)
(see p(. 1) 52)
Chem Waste
Mgml. of
Noilhweat. OR
(Surface
Impoundments
P-A, P-B, and
P-C)
(»ee p(. D-53)
Top LCRS
Granular
Thlckneaa.
Perm, (cm/a)
Synthetic
Transmit vfcy
(•naVa)
Top Liner System
FML Only
Thickness,
Tm
80 mil HOPE
60 mil HOPE
FML Ortr Soil
Thiekneaa, Type
60 mil HOPE
IV clay
80 mil HOPE
l'6'clay
Leak Detection System
Granular
TUckneaa.
P«rm. (em/a)
12- |nwel.
IxlO'
12" travel.
1x10'
Synlhrfk
TranambaMty
(m'/a)
Geonet Drainafe
layer
2 layen of
geonet, 3x10'
Second Liner System
FMLOnly
Thickneaa,
Type
60 mil HOPE
FML Over Sofl
Thickneaa, Type
Second LDS
Granular
ThiekiMM,
Perm, (cm/a)
Synthetic
fa»».*t UlLt i ilaiJi •»
iraUumiOTTvy
(mVa)
Geonel, 3x10*
Bottom Liner System
FMLOnly
Thicknea*.
Type
40 mil HOPE
FML Over Soil
Thiekneaa. Type
60 mil HOPE
3' clay
60 mil HOPE
3' clay
1x10 'cm/a
60 mil HOPE
3' cl»y IxlO'
cm/s
Soil Only
Thickneaa,
Type
LDS u located beneath second liner system.
D-6
-------
SUMMARY OF LINER AND LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
FOR WASTE PILES
Facility Name
Envirowfe of
Ohio
(ice pf. D 54)
Burl iiif ton
Northern Tie
Plant, MN
(we pg. D 55)
Burlington
Northern Tie
Plant • Paradise.
MT
(«cc pg. D 56)
Top LCRS
Granular
Thickneaa,
Perm, (cm/a)
6' land.
Permeability not
identified
6" gravel
18' land
Permeability not
identified
12* pea gravel
12' land,
Permeability not
identified
Synthetic
Tranamlaatvity
(maVa)
Top Liner System
FMLOnly
Thlckneaa,
Type
80 mil HOPE
100 mil HOPE
FML Over Soil
1hJekne», Type
Leak Detection System
Granular
Thlckneaa,
Perm, (cm/a)
ThkkncM not
identified, aand
Synthetic
Trattmiaaivfty
(m'/a)
Synthetic
drainage grid,
Tnmsmisiivity
not identified
Second Liner System
FML Only
Thickneaa,
Type
FML Over Soil
Thkknem, Type
Second LDS
Granular
Thicbwaa,
Perm, (em/a)
Synthetic
TranamlMvity
(mV»)
i
Bottom Liner System
FMLOnly
Thickneaa,
Type
FML Over Sofl
Thlckneaa, Type
80 mil HOPE
V clay
100 mil HOPE
4' clay
40 mil HOPE
J- clay
Soil Only
Thlekneaa,
Type
D-7
-------
Dupont - Decpwater, NJ
(Landfill)
K*v:
My/»>0n
'
, — Ac.*
D-8
-------
Chem Waste Management - Model City, NY
(Landfill)
D-9
-------
General Electric - Waterford, NY
(Landfill)
«rACT nraitcncM
(UM.OAOMC AMCAS ONLY)
(IWICM)—
UCACHA1C COUXCMN
(MUM-OFF) SYSTEM
nun / «anr qnPF oamrrnnn nFTAJL
GENERAL^ ELECTRIC
SH.ICONE PRODUCTS DIVISION WAIEHfORO. NEW YORK. 12188
LANDFILL NO 6
BOTTOM LINER SYSTEM
D-10
-------
Bn/CECOS - Niagara Falls, NY
(Landfill No. 6)
y
D-ll
-------
Bethlehem Steel Corporation - Johnstown, PA
(Landfill)
C«S
• 'PROTECTIVE COVER
I' DMAINA9F MATERIAL
aCOHEMMANE
' 1'UMT PERMEMHJTT SOIL
•EOTEXTILE
•EOMEIMRANE
LEACHATE COLLECTION
DETAIL A
LEACHATE COLLECTION /DETECTION PIPE TRENCHING
MOTEXTILE
f EOMEMMANE
DETAIL B
JUNCTION BETWEEN BASE AND SIDE LINE
NTS.
Wt 0€T»IL
NOTES: I.-KEMOVE MMNME HCT IN
••CAS •HEWE BOTTOM ONAIMME (EMM
CONTACTS SIOE LINEII SYSTEM
TYPICAL LINER CROSS - SECTION
N.T.S
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
D-12
-------
'RAL
LK
Chen Waste Management - Emelle, AL
(Landfill)
-SYNTHETIC UNER
-TRANSMISSIVE FABRIC
COMPACTED CHALK
LINER
FINAL SLOPE
CONFIGURATION
2.5
STRUCTURAL-
FILL
PRIMARY SYNTHETIC UNER
^3.0* COMPACTED CHALK LINER
CTED CHALK UNER
SECONDARY SYNTHETIC UNER
&^^^
5* MIN
/
^ \
i
/l/l=l/lfe v 1111= *
s A i /•*r~^\Ti /^k r A A '
-V SAND
I
II
t
-1.5
i
"== '
COMP/
r
-1* 5
TYPICAL SECTION A-A'
SCALE IN FEET
0 10 20
L-T SAND BLANKET DRAIN
D-13
-------
?
n
«-
-il
=>
I
n
a
5P
tl
I
<*
fe
-------
CIBA-GEIGY Corporation - Mclatosh, AL
(Landfill No. 2)
, T •K??'~Ti- atctc-eiiiu'~ *»l2«~
IW ° * (*t «O»C «t
\* (><•/ LINER SYSTEM ON BASE OF LAND VAULT
•
.^MMC-^
/ CM« *M«
•ViV LINER SYSTEM ON 5lOt SLOPE OF LAND VAULT
s^K KJU •* • r {i.t ••• >1
LEACHATE COLLECTION
LEAK ^DETECTION PIPE
i •« c»«irT»aMM«ji mi« » S«-'C-A
tflAM&TiON AT IX Of Sidl
D-15
-------
Adams Center Landfill, IN
(Landfill)
D-16
-------
Envirosafe of Ohio
(Landfill)
D-17
-------
Peoria Disposal, IL
(Landfill C-1)
u?*s
prio^vy liA^T
(_D$-
•L£
/
•-. •: -^ -T::.T/-
/' . / X. ////*'//.<
////// / / /
-3
D-18
-------
Peoria Disposal, IL
(Landfill C-2)
/ / / •-• / / /
' / ' •
'2 Ft
D-19
-------
BFI/CECOS, IL
(Landfill)
^-crt5
J-op Kr>Cr
CD5
./
J.'ncr
7
/
= 10
D-20
-------
CID Landfill, IL
(Landfill)
•Pop U'
/ / /
' /
S /
Key s
D-21
-------
Heritage Environmental Services, IN
(Landfill)
cover
^K5/LDS
g^
HOPE lir-,e-r
- 1 9- '''-'
ax-
ci r <9 (
HDPE. If
D-22
-------
Texas Ecologists, Inc., TX
(5 Cells)
HUE* KA9RIC
. /
-------
Dupoat - Victoria, TX
(Landfill)
D-24
-------
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal, TX
(Landfill)
etosnmmc umr
(APfHOX.)
D-25
-------
Olin Corporation, LA
(Landfill)
r o
P f^VlCA 1155
" — MieA.pi
D-26
-------
Chen Waste Management • Lake Charles, LA
(Cells 6 and 7)
' r mi CT nj.
"5?
-------
U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR
(Hazardous Waste Management Landfill Facility)
~
D-28
-------
U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR
(Hazardous Waste Landfills Nos. 1 aad 2)
Sand (Primary tsochato Cothction f
Synthetic lintr (SO mil tnidmtadi
—Sand (Secondary Ltacnatt CollKtioi
Compacted tow-ptrmmtility sail
^— Scorify & Compact 8* of in-situ so
CELL BOTTOM UNER AND FINAL COVER SYSTEM DETAILS
NO SCALE
D-29
-------
Chem Waste Management of Kansas, Inc.
(Landfill)
D-30
-------
USPCI - Grassy Mountain, UT
(Landfill No. 5)
I- WOVEN
iTEXTILE FABRIC
1ETEX 400
APPROVED
AL)
MARY 60 MIL.
E LINER
3NDARY 60 MIL.
: LINER
2'-O" SOIL PROTECTIVE :£.»$
•: I •..•..L.A.XE.R ' &£*$•
.^VXV^VXVrf^XV.^
./
. — -. I
3'-0" CLAY =-£EB^
*K ^^jjj^
TERTIARY DRAINAGE NET
TENSAR DN-1 (OR APPROVED EQUAL)
-TERTIARY 80 MIL.
HOPE LINER
PRIMARY DRAMAGE NET
—TENSAR DN-1 (OR APPROVED EQUAL)
SECONDARY DRAINAGE NET
~ TENSAR DM-3 (OR APPROVED EQUAL)
i€?-Z-^-£^if-4 NOTE:
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF HOPE LINER.
SU6GRADE WILL BE GRADED EVENLY
SO AS TO BE FREE OF VOIDS AND SUOI
BREAKS IN GRADE. CLAY SURFACE WK.1
CLEARED OF ALL MATERIALS THAT MAI
PUNCTURE LINER.
>r
C^W^o
D-31
-------
Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
(Landfill)
l.'-^.V. VcV-c':»ti . ''.Vita
X ' }-£MAr*J-- L U.V
* *
z'o'SOI. PROTECTIVE COVER i tertiary
^
- — - — ~*\-
-^ «/i- .
»- l^g?
D-32
-------
IT Corp. - Imperial Valley, CA
CLC-1, LC-2, and LC-3)
18" SOIL COVER
GEOCOMPOSITE* (PRIMARY LCRS)
80 MIL HOPE TEXTURED LINER
GEOCOMPOSITE* (SECONDARY LCRS)
80 MIL HOPE TEXTURED LINER
3' MIN. COMPACTED CLAY LINER
(LOWER COMPONENT OF
COMPOSITE BOTTOM LINER)
NATIVE CLAY
* GEOCOMPOSITE CONSISTS
OF A DRAINAGE NET WITH
GEOTEXTILE FUSED TO
BOTH SIDES
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE Da-l
TYPICAL LINER SYSTEM
CROSS SECTION
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS LC-2 5 LC-3
IT CORPORATION IMPERIAL VALLEY FACILITY
D-33
-------
Chem Waste Management - Kettlentan Hills, CA
(7 Cells)
WASTE FILL
—Primary leochaie collection pipe
Drain rock
-(Clow I Type A gravtl)
r— SecomJonr leochote collection
»70 , '••rwafct:?:.-^
'' min. protective toil cover <••<•
GeotntHe
Geonet droinoge layers
!*•* mil HOPE geomernbrones
3 s^coooory compocrto cloy Intr
(K I* 10" cm/MC)
,12* wid« collection trench* .'
MH/ rmr
LEC
6»ot»
——- G«or*
. HOP!
D-34
-------
IT Corp. Petroleum Waste, CA
(Landfill 28)
MARY L^ftS
fcM4^
ClAI
D-35
-------
IT Corp. Petroleum Waste, CA
(10 Other Landfill Cells)
CuxATCD ArT
EtOW <>F OM«T
HD?E
D-36
-------
U.S. Ecology, Inc. - Nevada Chem Site
(Landfill)
f,—X *6-
D-37
-------
Envirosafe Services of Idaho
(Trenches 5 and 14)
HOPE V
C- f A" 10
fbr
D-38
-------
Chem Waste Management of Northwest, OR
(L-12 and L-13)
V ' / / / /
IO
D-39
-------
Union Carbide Corp. - SUtervllle, WV
(Surface Impoundment)
:ey.
,4DPS
D-40
-------
American Cyanamid Co. - Willow, WV
(Surface Impoundment)
PRIMARY LINER
PE DRAINAGE NIT
SO MIL NDPl SECONDARY I INEN
_WASTE
«' PCHrOMTIU
CLAY PIPCS
I'hAINAGC MflNA
V
liHAINAGC MEDIA
P^5*^,. ^^.r*T.c."!-. .ra „-, ~... -.ff -^ -.
S^S^fSi^V&iSs^iSt^^^^^^^^^
n«Bi^^^>S^%*^* • •
lilt A-'W
PREPARED SUB-BASE
TYPICAL SECTION OF
HATE COLLEOTIOW/REMOVAL AND LEAK MONITORING
AND LINER SYSTEM
SCALE W= I'-O"
NOTE
DRAINAGE MEDIA LAYERS ARE
TO HAVE A MINIMUM
PERMEABILITY OF I > IO"1
1 CLrMTMM 9MOWM IS AmMlllMATl QUMTCff VOWT Of
«• LCIWrM Of tt.it. CLEMfiONS VILI %WlT OCKMOCMT
-------
American Cyanamid Co. - Willow, WV (continued)
(Surface Impoundment)
Z4" HOPE PIPE FOR PUMP
24 ' HOPE PlPf f 'H I'l
*<..
^ ' ,BOMIL HOPE PRIMARY LINER
'HOPE DRAINAGE NET
**• 80 MIL. HOPE SECONDARY LIUtH
2 MIN BENTONITE BLANKET
-
SUMP PUMP
DETAIL, ATTACHI
1ACHATE COLLECTION/REMOVAL AND LEAK MONITORBNG DKTAOL
SCALE 3/a" * I'-O"
GENERAL NOTES
I. ALL SYNTHETIC LINER MATERIAL WILL BE HOPE.
2 DRAINAGE NET WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF HDPE, HAVING
OF A THICKNESS OF 4 MM AND MINIMUM TRANSMISSIVITY
OF6XIO-*
DRAINAGE MEDIA HAS TRANSMISSIVITY EQUAL TO OR GREATER
THAN 6XIO-* C1'S.
D-42
-------
American Cyanamtd Co., FL
(Surface Impoundment)
D-43
-------
Olin Chemicals Corp. - Charlestown, TN
(Surface Impoundment)
BOTTOM 'LINER SECTION
(NO KALI)
1ANO OH OKAVIL
•HIOOI TO PWOTtCT
•ve «i«t »mo!» TO
COVCHINO WITH WASTI.
fMOULO »t ILO'CO TOW«"»O
OKAIMf TV* _,"l« A-4O '.3.VC*
ONA.NAC.I ZONIfl
.4" »VC flft O»AIN» MK'OMATCO .»ITM
M«ro«ATioN« DOWN TV*'JVM* AND
IO.VC* OffAINASX ZONCSA.NO
UNOtftOMAIN IVITtMr
i- s'r^vvfco
• ••I GKAVIL
co.-icmrt IANO
• -• 3KAVCL
• UNO" C3utCCTO»
. N ^. ~* ^. ^ .x^ •', * v
• ' ''• V-'-''"*;f-''/V'^'>T''"•/• • «NM»NC«O
23
I
"-f-
1 0
.L.
"i
[^^>
VV^/N -v v<; ^^u^
. '. ' •• . • -J .O ,•«•*. .- »•! anAvtL
• .-. . f^*/ X,<(3^ I euyj CNMANCCO so:u
/ .< .' ^ / • x ••• • .' <
1 v lv • '.• "* "'» • « f tN'ftru
•^ 'J. A, j\ X x x ^ •:• * sr COMP>ACTCO
1 | * NATIVC SOIL
1 | K •< 1 KIO4 CM SKC
1 1
«ITICTO» LCACHATI
uowtit «c L 'A^iiirir
TjLIS" TO • «•
* • •CNTCNITX-
SCAL
I 0 .
-tUH'ACI MUST •! KALO r
DOCK IXISTS AT TM.l LIVIL
-UNOCMOWAIN IV1TIM . '
i> LATCMAL O"»AIN» IPACCO IVCNLV NOHTM *O SOUTH
.O IN TM«
«. TNI MAXIMUM «LCP* »OH TNt COVIM ALLOWIO «r *CftA 1» It IMOH4 :l |VI*r.|
UNLCM IT CAN M SHOWN TNAT POOLINa AND (MOtlON WILL ••
MINIMIZia.
MNCNCt AMI •uaaiiTio ir SLOPII OHIATI* THAN IOIHOM): IIVIMT.)
AltC f CINO CONSIOCHIO . CONSTRUCTION OP IINCHU OOI3 '
NOT MIM ••ACTIC AL CON«OIHINa TNI COVIK Olf ION : MOW! VIM,
SLOW* ON THI OMOIM OP • |NO*|: IIVINTI CAN Of NIK ALLY ••
MAINTAINIO WITH MINIMUM MOMON.
1. THI MNTONITI UMO PO* COVm CONCTItUCTION OOM NOT NIIO TO •!
CHIMICALLV f TABILIIIO MNCI IT WILL NOT •• CONTACTIO •» HAIAHOOU*
WASTI*.
D-44
-------
AKZO CHEM American, AL
(Surface Impouadmeot)
in »C X4.fTJttJ.SP)
2 fur Hrp*u>« Luc*.
(- *'-•"
fl'Jt7
SS'-o*
\\ _^_
-/f'-e'-
|'-o* Conner ejjuf
D-45
-------
Allied-Signal lac. - Metropolis, IL
(Surface Impoundment)
D-46
-------
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemical Co. (Stauffer), LA
(2 Impoundments)
D-47
-------
Agricultural Minerals Corp. (Agrico) - Verdigris, OK
(Surface Impoundment)
60 n»( HOPE.
Z'PVC:
PIPE fbff LEACHATE
4COLLECTION
ROCK
/.ALL PIPE W&Af»F>c& WITH
CLOTH
. Potato BOTTOM
.EAST :76
% F&* fr>
DITCH
D-48
-------
USPCI Grassy Mountain Facility, UT
(Surface Impoundment)
- '"' f* *.* ' ' '' ' "S S Jfj
XKXXKXXXX
( < y f . ^ ( r r ( f r.' ^f ' ' (-
xxy.xy.xnc.
»^AA
T * >
D-49
-------
Chen Waste Management - Kettlemaa, CA
(15 Impoundments)
LEACHAtE
cente
tad of
COLLECTION SYSTEM
PVC pipe location at
of pond ...-1 \
pi* location at. .
pond ••-• > .
pit* location at I dup «;^
' »IU long «Ump;
Geottxtiit fabric
6 ot/«q. yd
Geonet drainage laytr
UW'SR SECTION
I" = 5
>60*io% mi, HDpE geommnbrom
•3* tteoridary clay lintr '
Geotexttle fabric
Geonet drainage
HDPE geomembi
D-50
-------
Envirosafe Services of Idaho
(Evaporation Ponds 2 and 3)
<£^^mmg&
^^X^^'^^' X ^^^^^^^^^^^
'
D-51
-------
Envirotafc Services of Idaho
(Evaporation Pond 1 and Collection Ponds 1, 2 and 3)
D-52
-------
Chem Waste Management of Northwest, OR
(Surface Impoundments P-A, P-B, and P-C)
H-pPE, h'
D-53
-------
\
f> ~
q
'
\
M
g;
a
-------
Burlington Northern He Plant, MN
(Waste Pile)
•5e>*^& " 3M- ir->
( — Cs Tr\
\
7''
D-55
-------
Burlington Northern Tie Plant - Paradise, MT
(Waste Pile)
D-56
-------
APPENDIX D.2
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL SURVEY RESULTS
FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
REGION II
Dupont Chambers
Works, NJ (landfill)
Chemical Waste
Management,
Model City, NY
(landfill)
GE Waterford
North Central
Plateau Cell, NY
#6 (landfill)
BFI CECOS, Niagra
Falls, NY
(SCMF - landfill)
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
Weekly removal
of liquid in
secondary
leachate sumps
Maximum
Leachate Levels
InLDS
Leachate level
over upper liner
5 12 in.;
cessation of use
if detected on
lower liner
Secondary LCS
pumped dry
daily (1 ft)
Max level = 1
foot in sumps
Action Trigger Levels
ALR = 93 gpad
ILR = 600 gpad
RLL = 5600 gpad
Permit ALR - 114 gpad
RAP ALR = 50 gpd
No RAP
Analysis of
Leachate
Indicator para-
meters until
steady state;
specific
conductance,
TOC, TOX, TDS;
Appendix IX
when available
Liquids In Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids
Biodegradable
Absorbents
No bulk or non-
containerized
hazardous waste
containing free
liquid; no non-
hazardous waste
liquids
No noncontainerized
liquids or wastes
containing free
liquids; none on
biodegradable
No bulk or non-
containerized liquids;
free liquid only after
PFLT; none on
biodegradable
No bulk or non-
containerized liquids
or wastes containing
free liquids
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent-Treated
Liquid Wastes
No liquids per the
PFLT for
containerized,
solidified bulk, or
treated wastes
PFLT; compaction
test - maximum
liquid loss limit of
5%
PFLT
PFLT
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
None
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
BFI CECOS
Niagara Palls, NY
Landfill No. 6
(landfill)
Union Carbide
Corporation, Ponce,
PR (landfill)
REGION III
Union Carbide
Sisterville plant,
WV (surface
impoundment)
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
Weekly removal
of liquid in
secondary
leachate
collection
system
Maximum
Leachate Levels
InLDS
Action Trigger Levels
Analysis of
Leachate
Monthly - pH.
specific conduc-
tance
Quarterly - pH.
specific conduc-
tance, priority
pollutant VOCs
Annually - pH.
specific
conductance,
priority pollutant
organic* (VOCs,
semivolatilcs,
pesticides, PCBs)
priority pollutant
metals
Liquids in Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids;
Biodegradable
Absorbents
No bulk liquids or
wastes with free
liquids (as
determined by
PFLT);
no containerized
waste allowed
—
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent-Treated
Liquid Wastes
PFLT
PFLT
Surface
impoundment
liquids/sludges must
be stabilized with
cement kiln dust and
caliche
Tests:
(1) PFLT
(2) Moisture content
- either 12-24% or
16-30% (wet basis)
(3) UCS (> 20 psi
after 8 days)
—
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
None
—
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
American
Cyanamid, WV
Incinerator Ash
Disposal Impound-
ment (surface
impoundment)
BSC Johnstown
Secure Landfill, PA
(landfill)
REGION IV
ChemWaste
Management,
Emelle, AL
(landfill)
American
Cyanamid,
FL, (surface
impoundment)
Olin-Charteston,
Charleston, TN
(surface
impoundment)
CIBA Geigy, AL
Hazardous Waste
Land - vault *1
(landfill)
CIBA Geigy, AL
Hazardous Waste
Land - vault #2
(landfill)
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
Maximum
Leachate Levels
InLDS
30 cm (lo top of
sump); both a
design and
performance
standard
Action Trigger Levels
Analysis of
Leachate
Analysis in
accordance with
WAP
Yes (no specifics
provided)
Yes
Liquids In Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids
Biodegradable
Absorbents
—
None
—
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent-Treated
Liquid Wastes
—
None
—
PFLT
PFLT
PFLT
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
—
None
—
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
AKZO Chem
American, AL
New Brine Mud
Pond (surface
impoundment)
REGION V
Adams Center
Landfill, IN
(landfill)
Envirosafe of Ohio
(wastepile)
Envirosafe of Ohio
(landfill)
Peoria Disposal Cell
C-l Landfill, IL
(landfill)
Peoria Disposal Cell
C-2 Landfill, IL
(landfill)
BFI - CECOS, IL
(landfill)
Burlington
Northern Tie Plant,
M N (waste pile)
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
Maximum
Leachate Levels
InLDS
< 1 foot in
primary system
(design
performance
standard)
1 foot
(operational
standard)
Ifoot
(operational
standard)
1 foot (both
design and
operational
standard)
Action Trigger Levels
Yes; pump leachale at
any detectable level in
sump; submit RAP
Yes; pump sumps if
hazardous constituents
are detected; submit
RAP
Yes; pump sumps if
leachate detected
Yes; pump sumps
None; but pump leachate
as necessary
None/leachate is pumped
to a POTW from sump)
Analysis of
Leachate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes; hazardous
constituents
Yes
Yes
Yes; submit
results to state
and EPA
Yes
Liquids in Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids;
Biodegradable
Absorbents
Must use cement
kiln dust as sorbent
Must use pozzolan
cement; must use
Mebius Test to
measure TOC
Must use pozzolan
cement; use Mebius
Test to measure
TOC
Must use pozzalime;
use Mebius Test to
measure TOC
Must use pozzalime;
use Mebius Test to
measure TOC
None, but must
perform biological
treatment of
creosote-
contaminated soils
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent-Treated
Liquid Wastes
PFLT
Load-bearing
capacity test
PFLT
PFLT
PFLT
PFLT
PFLT and load-
bearing test (2
ton/ft*)
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
Maintain and
inspect supply of
oil dry,
vermiculite, and
fly ash
Yes; supply for
spills
Yes; supply for
spills
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
CID Landfill, IL
(Area IV landfill)
Heritage
Environmental
Services, IN
(landfill)
Allied-Signal, Inc.,
IL (surface
impoundment)
REGION VI
Texas Ecologists,
Inc. (landfills - 5
units)
Dupont Victoria
plant, TX southeast
(landfill - several
cells)
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
primary - 74
gpm
secondary - 3.6
gpm
76 gpm per cell
Maximum
Leachate Levels
inLDS
1-foot head in
LDS (design
and operational
standard)
4 inches in LDS
(Both design
and operational
standard)
Action Trigger Levels
None, but must collect
and treat leachate from
sumps
None, but must remove
liquid in cell daily
pH85
fluorides > 5 ppm;
lower level in pond and
fix leak in rubber liner -
install more lysimeters
Analysis of
Leachate
Yes
Yes
Yes; pH and
fluorides
Yes; Appendix
VIII
Liquids in Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids
Biodegradable
Absorbents
Must use cement or
pozzolan
PFLT
Acceptable
sorbents - cement
kiln dust for wastes
scheduled for
solidification; also fly
ash; restricted
biodegradable
sorbents not
specified, but must
not be capable of
reacting dangerously,
by being
decomposed or
ignited by the liquid
Restrictions on
biodegradable
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent-Treated
Liquid Wastes
PFLT
Load-bearing
capacity test;
Stabilization
evaluation test
PFLT
PFLT
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
Yes; inspect
supplies weekly
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
Stauffer Chemical
Company, LA
(surface
impoundments - 2
units)
Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal, TX;
hazardous waste
disposal Cell H
(landfill)
Olin Corporation
Lake Charles, LA
(settlement
agreement landfill)
ChemWaste
Management Lake
Charles, LA
(landfill cells 6 A 7,
- 2 units)
Pine Bluff Arsenal,
AR (hazardous
waste management
facility landfill)
Pine Bluff Arsenal,
AR (hazardous
waste landfills #1 &
#2 - 2 units)
Pine Bluff Arsenal
(surface
impoundment)
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
623gpad =
secondary
collection
system capacity
Maximum
Lcachate Levels
InLDS
1-foot head in
LDS
(operational
standard)
primary LCRS
• 3.15 inches
1-foot head
(both design
and operational
standard)
12-inch
maximum in
LDS (design
and operational
standard)
Action Trigger Levels
Leachate levels
monitored monthly;
leachate will be collected
and disposed of offsite
Leachate recovery weekly
and after storms
Leachate recovery weekly
and after storms
Analysis of
Leachate
Appendix VIII
Liquids in Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids;
Biodegradable
Absorbents
—
Wastes with visible
liquids are not
accepted; returned
to generator
Wastes must have a
total solids content
of at least 30% (SW
-846)
—
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbenf-Treated
Liquid Wastes
—
PFLT
PFLT
Liquids Release Test
—
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
—
Contain spill
with appropriate
stabilization
agent and place
in drum
\
—
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
Agrico Chemical
Company, OK
(surface
impoundment)
REGION VII
Chemical Waste
Management, KS
(landfill)
REGION Mil
USPCI Grassy
Mountain, UT
(surface
impoundment)
USPCI Grassy
Mountain, UT
(landfill)
Envirocare of Utah
(landfill)
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
3.4 hours
(assuming head
of 1 foot and
slope (min.) of
0.0114)
Upper - 15 gpad
Lower - 10 gpad
Igpad
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
Maximum
Leachate Levels
inLDS
1-foot head on
top liner
(operational
standard)
1-foot head on
top liner
(operational
standard)
Action Trigger Levels
Close inflow values;
remove liquid from sump
LCRS
ALR * 5 gpad
ILR - 156 gpad
RLL « 1,560 gpad
LDS
ALR = 5 gpad
ILR * 156 gpad
RLL - 1,560 gpad
No trigger levels, but
within 72 hours of
•presence of liquid
notification" must notify
executive secretary,
submit RAP within 10
days
No trigger levels, but
within 72 hours of
"presence of liquid
notification* must notify
executive secretary,
submit RAP within 10
days
None, but within 72
hours of "presence of
liquid notification* must
notify executive
secretary, submit RAP
within 10 days
Analysis of
Leachate
Fingerprint
analysis
Fingerprint
analysis
Liquids in Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids;
Biodegradable
Absorbents
—
Must use fly ash
and/or other
stabilization agent
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent -Treated
Liquid Wastes
—
PFLT (or presence
by visual inspection)
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
—
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
Burlington
Northern Tie Plant,
MT (wastepile)
REGION IX
IT Imperial Valley,
CA (landfills LC-1,
LC-2 and LC-3 - 3
units)
Chemical Waste
Management, CA -
Kettleman (landfills
- 7 units)
Chemical Waste
Management, CA -
Kettleman (surface
impoundments - IS
units)
IT Petroleum
Waste, Inc., CA
(landfill)
IT Petroleum
Waste, Inc., CA
(landfill - 10 units)
PG&E - Morrow
Bay, CA; metal
cleaning wastes
(surface
impoundments - 3
units)
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
Maximum
Leachale Levels
InLDS
1-foot head in
LDS (both
design and
operational
standard)
1- foot head in
LDS (design
performance
standard)
1-foot head in
LDS (design
performance
standard)
Action Trigger Levels
None, but pump leachate
into 55-gallon drums for
off-site treatment; notify
state if leak is detected
LDCRS
ALR - 29 gpad
ILR - 890 gpad
RLL - 8900 gpad
LDCRS
ALR = 29 gpad
ILR - 890 gpad
RLL = 8900 gpad
ALR « 5 gpad
Pump out liquid daily -
notify EPA, state within
7 days
ALR - 5 gpad
Pump out liquid within 7
days, notify EPA, state
Analysis of
Leachale
TOC
TDS
PH
color
TOC
TDS
PH
color
Liquids in Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids;
Biodegradable
Absorbents
—
TOC « 1% (max)
TOC - 1% (max)
No free liquids
—
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent-Treated
Liquid Wastes
—
PFLT
PFLT
—
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
—
—
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
PG&E - Morrow
Bay, CA; Oil-Wafer
Separator (surface
impoundment)
PG&E - Moss
Landing, CA; Metal
Cleaning Wastes
Units 1 & 2
(surface
impoundment - 2
PG&E - Moss
Landing, CA; Metal
Cleaning Waste
Units (surface
impoundments - 3
units)
PG&E - Moss
Landing, CA; Oil
Sludge Pond
(surface
U.S. Ecology, Inc.,
NV (landfill)
REGION X
Envirosafe Services
of Idaho; Trench 14
(landfill)
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Detection of
leak in 118.6
minutes (time
for saturation of
drainage layer)
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
Maximum
Leachate Levels
inLDS
Action Trigger Levels
ALR = 20 gpad (avg)
SO gpad (max)
ILR « 300 gpad
RLL - 1500 gpad
Analysis of
Leachate
Yes
Yes; parameters
based on
knowledge of
waste disposed of;
not required if
leachate is
managed as
hazardous waste
Liquids in Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids;
Biodegradable
Absoifcents
—
—
—
No liquids permitted
in landfill
Acceptable soibents
include clays, lime-
bearing pozzolanic
materials, and
cement
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent-Treated
Liquid Wastes
—
—
—
PFLT
Load-bearing
strength test - using
packed penetrometer
to illustrate change
over time (i.e., a
chemical reaction); 1
ton/ft2 over 24-hr
period
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
—
—
—
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
Envirosafe Services
of Idaho; Trench 5
(landfill)
Envirosafe Services
of Idaho;
Evaporation Ponds
2 & 3 (surface
impoundments - 2
units)
Envirosafe Services
of Idaho;
Evaporation Pond 1
and Collection
Ponds 1, 2, 3
(surface
impoundments - 4
units)
Chem Waste
Management of
Northwest, OR; P-
A, P-B, and P-C
(surface
impoundments - 3
units)
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Detection of
leak in 25
minutes (time
for saturation of
drainage layer)
Detection of
leak in 20 hours
(time for
saturation of
drainage layer)
Detection of
leak in SO days
(time for
saturation of
drainage layer)
Detection of
leak in 14 hours
(based on travel
time through
geonet to
furthest sump)
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
Maximum
Leachate Levels
InLDS
Action Trigger Levels
ALR = 20 gpad (avg)
50 gpad (max)
ILR = 300 gpad
RLL = 1500 gpad
ALR « 20 gpad (avg)
50 gpad (max)
ILR * 300 gpad
RLL «= 1500 gpad
ALR •= 20 gpad (avg)
50 gpad (max)
ILR - 300 gpad
RLL = 1500 gpad
ALR - 20 gpad (avg)
50 gpad (max)
ILR - 600 gpad
RLL '4000 gpad
Analysis of
Leachate
Yes; parameters
Ddsco on
knowledge of
waste disposed of;
not required if
leachate is
managed as
hazardous waste
Yes; parameters
based on
knowledge of
waste disposed of;
not required if
leachate is
managed as
hazardous waste
Yes; parameters
based on
knowledge of
waste disposed of;
not required if
leachate is
managed as
hazardous waste
Yes; parameters
based on
knowledge of
waste disposed of;
not required if
leachate is
managed as
hazardous waste
Liquids in Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids;
Biodegradable
Absorbents
Acceptable sorbents
include clays, lime-
bearing pozzolanic
materials, and
cement
—
—
—
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent-Treated
Liquid Wastes
PFLT
Load-bearing
strength test - using
packed penetrometer
to illustrate a change
over time (i.e., a
chemical reaction); 1
ton/ft2 over 24-hr
period
—
—
—
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
—
—
—
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
Facility Name
Chem Waste
Management of
Northwest, OR; (L-
13, and L-12)
(landfills - 2 units)
Leak Detection, Collection, and Removal
Minimum Leak
Detection
Capability
Capable of
detecting leak in
7.4 hours (travel
time through
geonet to
furthest sump)
Minimum
Removal
Capacity
Maximum
Leachate Levels
inLDS
Action Trigger Levels
ALR = 20 gpad (avg)
ILR = 300 gpad (max)
ILR = 300 gpad
RLL = 1500 gpad
Analysis of
Leachale
Yes; parameters
based on
knowledge of
waste disposed of;
not required if
waste is managed
as a hazardous
waste
Liquids In Landfills
Restrictions on Free
Liquids;
Biodegradable
Absorbents
Testing
Requirements for
Absorbent-Treated
Liquid Wastes
PFLT
Stabilization
Evaluation test
Requirements
for Absorbents
Used to Clean
Up Spills
-------
APPENDIX D.3
EXAMPLES OF RESPONSE ACTION PLANS
FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES
General Electric - Waterford
Chem Waste Management - Model City
Chem Waste Management of Kansas
Chem Waste Management - Kettleman
IT Corp. - Petroleum Waste
Chem Waste Management of Northwest (impoundments)
Chem Waste Management of Northwest (landfill cells)
Envirosafe Services of Idaho
-------
General Electric - Waterford
-------
MONTHLY / QUARTERLY
SAMPLING EVENTS
INSPECTION
WEEKLY MEASUREMENTS OF UOUIO VOLUME REMOVED
ntOU SICS SUMP AND DETERMINE DAILY LEAKAGE
RAIE (OIR) IN CAUONS PER ACRE PER DAY (gpod)
RECORD
YTS
I
DETERMINE 30 DAY
DAILY AVC. LEAKAGE RAH
OALR (T )
FIGURE 1
RESPONSE_ACTION
FLOW CHART
NOTIFY DEC WITHIN 3 WORKING DAYS
SUBMIT PROPOSED RESPONSE AC PONS
WITHIN 7 DAYS
NO
1
t
INCREASE PUMPING
TO TWCC A WEEK.
REVIEW OPERATIONS
INCREASE SICS AND LEACHATE COLLECTION
PUMPING TO EVERY DAY
EVALUATE OPERATIONS AND LINER SYSTEM
INSTALL LARGER CAPAOTY
PUMP. CONTINUE WITH
DAILY PUMPING
SAMPLE AND ANALYTIC
DETERMINE IF IPTL'S
HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED (S,)
RE-SAMPLE AND ANALYZE
FOR CONFIRMATION S
CONTINUE WITH INCREASED
PUMPING AND MONITORING
WHEN OALR < 39 «pod
RETURN TO NORMAL
OPERATIONS
INVESTIGATE CHANGING
OPERATING PRACnCTS TO
REDUCE THE LEAK Ad
TO LESS THAN 2M gpod
RE-SAMPLE AND ANALYTE
FOR CONFIRMATION S
OPERAHNG PHACnO5 TO
MINIMIZE PRECIPITA'ON
INHLTRAT1ON INTO
CEU. AND PART1AUY
aOSE THE LANDHLL
NOTIFY DEC WITHIN
3 WORKING DAYS
INITIATE OPERATIONS REVIEW
AND FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
OF LANDFILL TO IDENTIFY
CAUSE OF ELEVATED VOLUME
AND INDICATOR PARAMETER
CONCENTRATIONS
CONTINUE WITH INCREASED
PUMPING AND MONITORING
WHEN OALR < S3 apod
RETURN TO NORMAL
OPERATIONS
CLOUGH. HARBOUR
ASSOCIATES
m
2.
p.
i.
»*»» I* T . I1IO9
-------
Chem Waste Management - Model City
-------
6.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS
6.1 General
The response actions required to respond to various flow rates
in the SLCS sumps of each cell of SLF 12 are provided in this
section. As discussed in Sections 3.0-5.0 and summarized in
Table 6-1, three trigger level flow rates; the ALR, the ILR,
and the RLL have been selected. The cell-specific ALRs shown
in Table 3-1 are based strictly on the calculations presented
in Appendix C. A common unit-specific RLL of 5,600 gpad was
selected for all cells based on the cell with the lowest
calculated SLCS sump yield (Table 4-1). A common unit-
specific ILR of 600 gpad was also selected based on
approximately 10 percent of the selected unit-specific RLL.
All trigger flow rates shown in Table 6-1 are provided on a
cell-specific basis in Tables 3-1, 4-1 and 5-1 in gallons per
day, which will ease operational procedures and directly
indicate the category of leakage, and appropriate response
actions.
The following procedure is required for monitoring of the
SLCS:
o Each SLCS sump will be monitored at least once every 7
days for the presence of liquids. Pumpable amounts of
liquids contained in the sump will be removed,quantified,
and recorded. If the sump is monitored or if liquids are
removed more frequently, the inflow will be determined
for each pumping event. The inflow value will be
determined by adding the liquid volumes removed with the
time interval between pumping events divided by the
number of days between pumping events. The pumped amount
of liquid will be divided by the days since the previous
pumping event to establish a daily average inflow.
20
-------
However, the inflow value compared against trigger levels
outlined in this RAP will be the weekly average value.
o The responses for each trigger level are listed
sequentially in the subsequent text and should be
followed in the order presented. For any sequence, if
the averaged flow rate in the SLCS drops below the ALR,
no further actions are required.
6.2 Flow Rates at or Below the ALR of 93 GPAD
1. Routine monitoring should continue. No further action
is required.
6.3 Flow Rates Between the ALR of 93 GPAD and the ILR of 600
GPAD
1. Verbally notify the EPA and the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) within 3 working days
if the average flow to an SLCS for two consecutive weeks
exceeds the ALR, if not clearly attributable to an
operational disturbance (e.g., equipment or power
failures).
2. Increase monitoring and pumping frequency from the SLCS
sumps of the cell involved, if pumpable quantities are
present, to every day until flow decreases below the ALR.
Also, verify that the automatic removal of liquid from
the PLCS sumps is functioning as designed.
3. If the average flow is between the ALR and the ILR for
seven consecutive additional daily pumping events,
provide written notification within 14 days to EPA and
DEC and implement the following steps:
21
-------
a. Remove all standing water, if any, from the surface
of the landfill.
b. Examine any exposed portions of the cell liner.
c. Repair any observed damage.
d. Document location, type, and extent of liner damage,
if any.
4. If a leak cannot be found and the elevated flow rate
continues after any required repair of the exposed liner(s),
review existing analytical data and investigate alternative
sources of liquid. Prepare a written report describing
actions taken to date and proposed future responses and
submit to the EPA and DEC within 60 days.
6.4 Flow Rates Between the ILR of 600 GPAD and the RLL of 5.600
GPAD
1. Verbally notify the EPA and DEC within 3 working days if the
average flow to an SLCS sump for one pumping event exceeds
the ILR, if not clearly attributable to an operational
disturbance.
2. Increase monitoring and pumping frequency from the SLCS sumps
of the cell involved, if pumpable quantities are present, to
every day until flow decreases below the ALR. Also, verify
that the automatic removal of liquid from the PLCS sumps is
functioning as designed.
3. If the flow is between the ILR and the RLL for three
additional daily consecutive pumping events, provide written
notification to EPA and DEC within 14 days and implement the
following steps:
22
-------
a. Remove all standing water, if any, from the surface of
the landfill.
b. Examine any exposed portions of the cell liner.
c. Repair any observed damage.
d. Document location, type, and extent of liner damage,
if any.
4. If flow continues to exceed the ILR for an additional two
daily pumping events after the above actions have been
taken, provide third party inspection by a registered
professional engineer, and investigate alternative sources
of liquid. Review available analytical and pumping data
for the cell to identify any trends.
5. If the leak cannot be located, and/or the flow continues
to exceed the ALR after any exposed liners have been
repaired as necessary, investigate alterative sources of
liquid. Prepare a written report describing actions taken
to date and proposed future responses and submit to EPA
and DEC within 60 days for approval.
6.5 Flow Rates Greater than the RLL
1. Verbally notify the EPA and DEC within 3 working days if
the average flow to an SLCS sump for one pumping event
exceeds the RLL, if not clearly attributable to an
operational disturbance.
2. Increase pumping and monitoring frequency from the SLCS
sumps to every day, if pumpable quantities are present,
until flow decreases below the ALR. Also, verify that the
automatic removal of liquid from the PLCS sumps is
23
-------
functioning as designed.
3. If the average flow exceeds the RLL for two consecutive
daily pumping events, provide written notification to EPA
and DEC within 14 days and implement the following steps:
a. Test a sample of the liquid obtained from the SLCS
for constituents listed in Table 6-2.
b. Remove all surface standing water adjacent to and
inside SLF 12.
c. Examine any exposed portions of the cell liner.
d. Repair any observed damage.
e. Document location, type, and extent of liner damage,
if any.
f. Verify that the waste surface is sloping away from
the landfill side slopes. If necessary, regrade
waste or place soil to achieve a minimum l percent
slope away from the landfill side.
4. If flow continues to exceed the RLL for an additional two
daily pumping events after the above actions have been
taken, provide third party inspection by a registered
professional engineer, and investigate alternative sources
of liquid. Document location, type, and extent of liner
damage, if any, in a written report to EPA and DEC.
Review available analytical and pumping event data for the
cell to identify any trends.
5. If flow continues to exceed the RLL for three additional
days, a total of 7 days after first exceedance of RLL,
24
-------
temporarily stop placing waste into the affected cell
until repairs to the lining system or other appropriate
actions are completed, and flows to the SLCS sump have
decreased to below the ALR. Prepare a written report
describing actions taken to date and proposed future
responses and submit to EPA and DEC within 60 days for
approval.
25
-------
Chem Waste Management of Kansas
-------
July 1990 -21- 903-3086
7.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS FOR THE LDCRS
7.1 General
The actions required to respond to various flow rates in the LDCRS
are provided in this section. For all flow rates, the following
procedures are required for monitoring the LDCRS:
o During the post-closure period, the LDCRS sump will be
monitored at least weekly for the presence of fluids.
During this time, pumpable amounts of liquids contained
in the strap will be removed, as required, to ensure that
fluid levels will be maintained within twelve (12) inches
above the rim of the sump. The liquid quantity removed
during each pumping event will be documented. Inflow
will be determined by dividing the liquid volume removed
by the number of days elapsed since the previous pumping
event.
Three trigger level flow rates have been established for monitoring
the LDCRS. These are the Action Leakage Rate (ALR), the Rapid and
Large Leak (RLL) and an intermediate value between the ALR and the
RLL, referred to herein as the Intermediate Leakage Rate (ILR).
The responses that shall be implemented if a trigger level flow
rate occurs are listed sequentially and should be followed in the
order presented. For any sequence, if the flow rate in the LDCRS
drops below the ALR, no further actions beyond routine monitoring
are required. The flow rates for the ALR, the ILR, and the RLL are
listed on Table 5 as a function of the area of the cell.
7.2 Flow Rates at or Below the ALR (5 opadl
Routine monitoring should continue. No action is required.
7.3 Flow Rates Between the ALR (5 goad) and the ILR (156 croadl
1. Verbally notify the EPA and KDHE within one working day
if flow to the LDCRS sump exceeds the ALR.
2. Provide written notification to EPA and KDHE within 7
days of the time that the ALR is exceeded, and implement
the following steps.
Colder Associates
-------
July 1990 -22- 903-3086
3. Increase monitoring and pumping frequency from both LCRS
and LDCRS sumps to every other day, if pumpable
quantities are present, until flow decreases below the
ALR.
4. Investigate alternative sources of liquid.
5. Prepare a written report describing actions taken to date
and proposed future responses and submit to the EPA and
KDHE within 60 days for approval.
7.4 Flow Rates Between the ILR f!56 goad) and the RLL (1560 cmadl
1. Verbally notify EPA and KDHE within one working day if
flow to the LDCRS sump exceeds the ILR.
2. Provide written notification to EPA and KDHE within 7
days of the time that the ILR is exceeded and implement
the following steps.
3. Sample for parameters listed in Table 6.
4. Increase monitoring and pumping frequency from both the
LCRS and LDCRS sumps, if pumpable quantities are present,
to every day until flow decreases below the ALR.
5. Remove all standing water, if any, from around the
landfill perimeter.
6. If flow continues to exceed the ILR for an additional
pumping event, provide third party inspection by a
registered professional engineer and investigate
alternative sources of liquid.
7. Prepare a written report describing actions taken to date
and proposed future responses and submit to the EPA and
KDHE within 60 days for approval.
7.5 Flow Rates Greater than the RLL (1.560 gpad^
1. Verbally notify the EPA and the KDHE within one working
day if flow to the LDCRS sump exceeds the RLL.
2. Provide written notification to EPA and KDHE within 7
days of the time that the RLL is exceeded and implement
the following steps.
3. Sample for parameters listed in Table 6.
Colder Associates
-------
July 1990 -23- 903-3086
4. Increase pumping and monitoring frequency from both the
LCRS and LDCRS sumps to every day, if pumpable quantities
are present, until flow decreases below the ALR. For
flows between the ALR and RLL, Sections 7.3 and 7.4
apply, as appropriate.
5. Remove all standing water, if any, from around the
landfill perimeter.
6. If flow continues to exceed the RLL for an additional
pumping event, provide third party inspection by a
registered professional engineer, and investigate
alternative sources of liquid.
7. Prepare a written report describing actions taken to date
and proposed future responses and submit to EPA and KDHE
within 60 days for approval.
Colder Associates
-------
July 1990 -24- 903-3086
8.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS FOR THE LDS
8.1 General
The actions required to respond to various flow rates in the LDS
are provided in this section. In any event, the flow rates
measured in the LDCRS take precedence over flow rates measured in
the LDS with respect to federal and state regulatory compliance.
For all flow rates, the following procedures are required for
monitoring the LDS:
o During the post-closure period, the LDS will be monitored
at least weekly for the presence of fluids. During this
time, any liquid that will drain from the sump will be
removed and the quantity will be documented. Outflow
will be determined by dividing the liquid volume removed
by the number of days elapsed since the previous
monitoring event.
Three trigger level flow rates have been established for monitoring
the LDS. These are the Action Leakage Rate (ALR), the Rapid and
Large Leak (RLL) and an intermediate value between the ALR and the
RLL, referred to herein as the Intermediate Leakage Rate (ILR).
The responses that shall be implemented if a trigger level flow
rate occurs are listed sequentially and should be followed in the
order presented. For any sequence, if the flow rate in the LDS
drops below the ALR, no further actions beyond routine monitoring
are required. The flow rates for the ALR, the ILR, and the RLL are
listed on Table 5 as a function of the area of the cell.
8.2 Flow Rates at or Below the ALR f5 croad)
Routine monitoring should continue. No action is required.
8.3 Flow Rates Between the ALR and the ILR
1. If the flow rate from the LDS exceeds the ALR, then
monitor the LDCRS. If the flow rate in the LDCRS is less
than its respective ALR, then increase monitoring and
removal of accumulated liquids from the LDS. If the flow
rate in the LDCRS exceeds its respective ALR, then
implement the following steps.
Colder Associates
-------
July 1990 -25- 903-3086
2. Verbally notify the EPA and KDHE within one working day.
3. Provide written notification to EPA and KDHE within 7
days of the tine that the ALR is exceeded.
4. Increase monitoring and pumping frequency from the LCRS,
LDCRS, and the LDS sumps to every other day, if pumpable
quantities are present, until flow decreases below the
ALR.
5. Investigate alternative sources of liquid.
6. Prepare a written report describing actions taken to date
and proposed future responses and submit to the EPA and
KDHE within 60 days for approval.
8.4 Flow Rates Between the ILR (156 crpadl and the RLL f!560 gpadl
1. If the flow rate from the LDS exceeds the ILR, then
monitor the LDCRS. If the flow rate in the LDCRS is less
than its respective ILR, then monitor the LDS according .
to procedures listed under Section 8.3, as appropriate.
If the flow rate in the LDCRS exceeds its respective ILR,
then implement the following steps.
2. Verbally notify EPA and KDHE within one working day.
3. Provide written notification to EPA and KDHE within 7
days of the time that the ILR is exceeded.
4. Increase monitoring and pumping frequency from the LCRS,
LDCRS and the LDS sumps, if pumpable quantities are
present, to every day until flow decreases below the ALR.
5. Sample for parameters listed in Table 6.
6. Remove all standing water, if any, from around the
landfill perimeter.
7. If flow continues to exceed the ILR for an additional
monitoring event, provide third party inspection by a
registered professional engineer and investigate
alternative sources of liquid.
8. Prepare a written report describing actions taken to date
and proposed future responses and submit to the EPA and
KDKE within 60 days for approval.
Colder Associates
-------
July 1990
-26-
903-3086
8.5 Flow Rates Greater than the RLL (1.560 qpad)
1. If the flow rate from the LDS exceeds the RLL, then
monitor the LDCRS. If the flow rate in the LDCRS is less
than its respective RLL, then monitor the LDS according
the procedures listed under Sections 8.4, 8.3 or 8.2 as
appropriate. If the flow rate in the LDCRS exceeds its
respective RLL, then implement the following steps.
2. Verbally notify the EPA and the KDHE within one working
day.
i
3. Provide written notification to EPA and KDHE within 7
days of the time that the RLL is exceeded.
4. Sample for parameters listed in Table 6.
5. Increase pumping and monitoring frequency from the LCRS,
LDCRS, and the LDS sumps to every day, if significant
quantities are present, until flow decreases below the
ALR. For flows between the ALR and RLL, Sections 8.3 and
8.4 apply, as appropriate.
6. Remove all standing water, if any, from around the
landfill perimeter.
7. If flow continues to exceed the RLL for an additional
monitoring event, provide third party inspection by a
registered professional engineer, and investigate
alternative sources of liquid.
8. Prepare a written report describing actions taken to date
and proposed future responses and submit to EPA and KDHE
within 60 days for approval.
COLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
Charles F. Cobb
Project Engineer
MTF:grd
3086-RPT.JUL/903-3086/CRD
Michael T. reeney, P.E.
Associate ^—'
Colder Associates
-------
July 1990 903-3086
TABLE 1
CONSTRUCTION WATER QUANTITIES
FLOW QUANTITY
SOURCE fcrpacn
Geonet/Geotextiles .
-------
July 1990
903-3086
TABLE 2
FLOW RATES RESULTING FROM
CONSOLIDATION/COMPRESSION OF LINING
SYSTEM COMPONENTS
SOURCE
Gravel Drain
Geosynthetics
Primary Clay Liner
Secondary Clay Liner
FLOW QUANTITY
fcroad)
38
>38
Colder Associates
-------
July 1990 903-3086
TABLE 3
LIQUID QUANTITIES THAT MAY ENTER THE LDCRS OR THE LDS
FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE THE GEOMEMBRANE
FLOW QUANTITY
SOURCE
Consolidation of
Underlying Clay Layer <1
Inflow from Groundwater 0
Inflow from Precipitation (LDS only)
-------
July 1990 903-3086
TABLE 4
LDCRS DESIGN CAPACITY (RLL)
LIMITING
FLOW RATE AREA RLL
(GALLONS/DAY) (ACRES) (goad)
4,368 2.8 1,560
NOTE: Limiting flow rate is from capacity calculations
presented in Appendix IV.
Colder Associates
-------
July 1990 903-3086
TABLE 5
TRIGGER LEVEL FLOW RATES FOR THE LDCRS AND THE LDS
LDCRS LDS
fgpad) fqpad)
ALR 5 5
ILR 156 156
RLL 1,560 1,560
Colder Associates
-------
Chem Waste Management - Kettleman
-------
6.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS
6.1 GENERAL
The actions required to respond to various flow rates in the LDCRS are
provided in this section. These flow rates, as presented in Ta-
ble 6-1, are a function of the impoundment area.
For all flow rates, the following procedure is required for monitoring
the LDCRS. Each LDCRS sump will be inspected at least once every 7
days for the presence of fluids. Pumpable amounts* of liquids con-
tained in the sumps will be removed and the liquid quantity measured.
The responses for each trigger level are listed sequentially and
should be followed in the order presented. For any sequence, if the
flow rate in the LDCRS drops below the ALR, no further actions are
required. Daily inflow flow rates are determined by dividing the
volume pumped from the LDCRS sump by the number of days between
pumping events.
6.2 FLOW RATES AT OR BELOW 29 GPAD (THE ALR)
Routine monitoring should continue. No action is required.
6.3 FLOW RATES BETWEEN AND 29 GPAD AND 890 GPAD2
1. Verbally notify the EPA. RWQCB, and DHS within one working day if
flow to the LDCRS sump exceeds the 29 gpad.
1. An amount that can be removed by pumping using a Grundfos Model SP
4-8 or larger pump.
2. 890 GPAD is equal to 10 percent of the RLL (8900 gpd).
PJ2 2424105C.OOD 18 Rev. 0 07/03/88
-------
Table 6-1
CELL SPECIFIC ALRs AND RLLs
ALR ALR ALR RLL
Area (gallons per (gallons (gallons (gallons
(acres) acre per day) per day) per week) per day)
1.9 29 58 406 8900
PJ2 2424105C.OOD 19 Rev. 0 07/03/88
-------
2. If flow is between 29 gpad and 890 gpad for two consecutive
pumping events, provide written notification to EPA, RWQCB, and
DHS.
3. Increase pumping frequency to every other day. if pumpable
quantities are present, until flow decreases below the ALR.
4. Examine the exposed side slope liner.
5. Repair any observed damage.
6. Document location, type, and extent of liner damage, if any.
7. If a leak cannot be found and the flow continues after the
exposed side slope liner has been repaired, if necessary, inves-
tigate alternative sources of liquid. Prepare a written report
describing actions taken to date and proposed future responses,
and submit to the EPA, RWQCB. and DHS within 60 days for approv-
al.
5.4 FLOW RATES BETWEEN 890 GPAD AND 8900 GPD (the RLL)
1. Verbally notify the RWQCB. EPA. and DHS within one working day if
flow to the LDCRS sumps exceeds the ALR.
2. If the flow is between 800 and 8900 gpd for two consecutive
pumping events, provide written notification to EPA, RWQCB. and
DHS and implement the following steps.
3. Increase the LDCRS sump pumping frequency to every day, if
pumpable quantities are present, until flow decreases below the
29 gpad.
4. Examine the exposed side slope liner.
PJ2 2424105C.OOD 20 Rev. 0 07/03/88
-------
5. Repair any observed damage.
5. Document location, type, and extent of liner damage, if any.
7. If flow continues to exceed 29 gpad for an additional 1-week
monitoring period, provide third party inspection by a registered
professional engineer and investigate alternative sources of
1iquid.
8. If the leak cannot be located and/or the flow continues to exceed
29 gpad after the primary liner has been repaired, if necessary,
investigate alternative sources of liquid. Prepare a written
report describing actions taken to date and proposed future
responses, and submit to the EPA, RWQCB, and DHS within 60 days
for approval.
6.5 FLOW RATES GREATER THAN 8900 GPAD (THE RLL)
1. Verbally notify the EPA. RWQCB, and DHS within one working day if
flow to the LDCRS sumps exceeds the ALR.
2. If the flow exceeds the RLL for two consecutive pumping events
provide written notification to the EPA. RWQCB. and DHS and
implement the following steps.
3. Test the liquid removed from the LDCRS sumps for constituents
listed in WDR Tables 1 through 5. These tables are included in
Appendix A.
4. Increase the LDCRS sump pumping frequency to every day. if
pumpable quantities are present, until flow decreases below
29 gpd.
5. Examine the exposed side slope liner.
PJ2 2424105C.OOD 21 Rev. 0 07/03/88
-------
5. Repair any observed damage.
". Document location, type, and extent of liner damage, if any.
8. If flow continues to exceed 29 gpad for an additional pumping
event, provide third party inspection by a registered profession-
al engineer, and investigate alternative sources of liquid.
9. Temporarily stop placing liquid into the impoundment until
repairs to the lining system or other appropriate actions are
completed, and flows to the LDCRS sumps have decreased to below
29 gpad.
10. Document location, type, and extent of liner damage, if any, in a
written report to the EPA, RWQCB, and DHS.
11. If the leak cannot be located and/or the flow continues to exceed
29 gpad after the primary liner has been repaired, if necessary,
prepare a written report describing actions taken to date and
proposed future responses, and submit to the EPA. RWQCB, and DHS
within 60 days for approval.
PJ2 2424105C.OOD 22 Rev. 0 07/03/88
-------
IT Corp. - Petroleum Waste
-------
Date: 01/20/89
Revision No. 2
Run-on and Runoff Control Systems Inspection and Maintenance
Facility personnel will perform the following maintenance activities for both
run-on and runoff systems weekly and after storms of 0.5 inches or more in 24
hours:
• Repairing any areas where local -erosion has occurred.
• Maintaining vegetation by reseeding eroded/repaired
areas.
• Removing sediment or debris from drainage channels and
properly disposing of removed solids.
Maintenance of Wind Dispersal Controls
If the inspection of wind dispersal control measures indicate that dust gen-
eration in the active working area of the landfill is a problem, then facility
personnel will be responsible for applying appropriate dust control measures,
such as those mentioned in Section 3.2.4.3.
Interim Soil Cover Maintenance
Any damaged areas of the interim cover will be repaired with clean soil.
Final Cover Maintenance
During the post-closure care periods, a survey of the final covers will be
made annually to determine if settlement or subsidence occurred. In addition,
maintenance of the final covers will be performed as described in
Section 2.14.5.
3.2.4.8 Response to Leachate Accumulation
The following actions will be taken in response to the discovery of fluid at
greater than five gallons/acre of lined area/day in the secondary LCRS collec-
tion sump:
PWI:PARTB-S3 3.2-45
-------
Date: 01/20/89
Revision No. 2
• A sample of the fluid will be obtained from the stand-
pipe in the sump. The sample will be preserved for
subsequent analysis of TOC, IDS and verification of
pH. Color and pH of the leachate will be determined in
the field.
• Fluid will be pumped out daily (if applicable) and the
volume recorded.
• The facility manager and/or his designated technical
staff will evaluate the analytical data and rate of
fluid generation and determine if the fluid results
from a liner failure or some other cause. If it is
determined that the fluid is leachate, then alternative
remedial measures will be developed and IT
Environmental Affairs will discuss the recommended
remedial measure with regulatory agencies.
• Any leachate collected by the primary and secondary
LCRS sump will be transferred to the Stabilization/-
Treatment Unit by tank trucks.
Within seven days of discovery of fluid at greater than five gallon/acre of
lined area/day irr the secondary LCRS, facility management will notify the EPA
Regional Administrator, the RWQCB, the DHS and appropriate local government
agencies. All analytical data will be retained until closure of the landfill.
3.2.4.9 Response to Run-on/Runoff Control Damage
The procedure for restoration and repair of run-on and runoff structures will
be as follows:
• During inspection, all berms, drainage swales and
ditches needing repair will be determined.
• Remedial measures will be developed.
• Repairs will be executed under facility management
supervision and inspected.
3.2.4.10 Response to Liner Damage
In the event that the liner is damaged, it will be reported immediately to the
facility manager. Notification of the damaged liner will be made as soon as
possible to the IT Environmental Affairs office, who will in turn notify
PWI:PARTB-S3 3.2-46
-------
Date: 01/20/89
Revision No. 2
appropriate persons. A synthetic liner contractor will be contacted to repair
the liner. Until the liner repair is completed, a temporary polyethylene
cover will be placed over the damaged area to prevent dust and moisture from
entering, and all waste placement activity will be moved a minimum of 50 feet
away from the damaged area.
3.2.4.11 Response to Interim or Final Cover Damage
If any significant settling (changes in slope so that drainage structures do
not function properly or mass movement results vary in slope instability),
erosion, or loss of vegetative cover of the final cover is discovered during
inspections, the facility manager will be responsible for development of
necessary remedial measures. These measures may include the following:
• Regrading slopes to maintain drainage, and replacing
cover material.
• Replacing the topsoil, fertilizing and seeding the
affected area. Replanting if drought or disease
destroys the vegetative cover.
j
• Establishing erosion controls pending establishment of
vegetative cover.
Remedial measures to maintain the integrity of the cover system(s) will be
done by operations personnel as directed by site management. All remedial
measures will be inspected by the site engineer.
3.2.4.12 Record Keeping and Reporting
The record keeping and reporting procedures applicable to the operation of the
landfill are discussed in Section 3.5.
PWI:PARTB-S3 3.2-47
-------
Chem Waste Management of Northwest (impoundments)
-------
7.0 RESPONSES
The actions required to respond to various flow rates to the LDCRS sumps
are provided in this section.
For all flows, the following procedure is required for the LDCRS. Each
LDCRS sump will be inspected once every 7 days for the presence of
leachate. Pumpable quantities2 of fluids contained in the LDCRS sump
will be removed and the quantity of fluids determined. If present,
additional inflow to the LDCRS sump will be measured and pumpable quan-
tities removed.
The actions for each response level are listed sequentially and should
be followed in the order presented. If a leak is located and/or flow to
the LDCRS sump drops below the ALR, no further action is required.
7.1 FLOW RATE LESS THAN THE ALR (20 gpad)
Under normal operating conditions, flows into the LDCRS are expected to
be less than 20 gpad, the amount defined previously as the ALR. No
action is required for flows less than the ALR.
7.2 FLOW RATES BETWEEN THE ALR (20 gpad) AND 600 gpad
1. Verbally notify the EPA and DEQ within 1 working day of the sump
inspection if flow to the LDCRS sump exceeds 20 gpad.
2. If the flow is between 20 to 600 gpad for two consecutive 1-week
monitoring periods provide written notification to EPA and DEQ and
implement the following steps.
2. Quantities which can be removed by pumping using a Grundfos Model
SP 4-8 or equivalent submersible pump.
PJB 233-10.01A 15
-------
3. Begin pumping from the intermediate leachate collection and removal
system (ILCRS) sump.
4. Increase pumping frequency from the LDCRS to every other day until
flow decreases below 20 gpad.
5. Examine the exposed side slope liner and repair any observed damage.
6. Document location, type, and extent of liner damage, if any.
7. If a leak cannot be found and flow continues to exceed the ALR for
an additional 1-week period, prepare a written report describing
actions taken to date and proposed future responses, and submit to
the EPA and DEQ within 60 days.
7.3 FLOW RATES BETWEEN 600 gpad AND THE RAPID AND LARGE LEAK (LDCRS
SUMP CAPACITY, 4,000 gpd3)
1. Verbally notify the EPA and DEQ within 1 working day of the sump
inspection if flow to the LDCRS sump exceeds 20 gpad.
2. If the flow is between 600 gpad and 4,000 gpd for two consecutive
monitoring periods, provide written notification to EPA and DEQ and
implement the following steps.
3. Increase pumping frequency from the LDCRS and ILCRS sump to every
day until flow decreases below the ALR.
5. Examine the exposed side slope liner.
6. Repair any observed damage.
3. The upper bound 4,000 gpd represents the design capability of the
secondary leachate collection system to remove leakage and is
independent of the cell size. This represents a leak defined by
EPA as a rapid and large leak (RLL).
PJB 233-10.01A 16
-------
7. Document location, type, and extent of liner damage, if any.
8. If flow continues to exceed the ALR for an additional 1-week moni-
toring period, provide third party assessment by a registered pro-
fessional engineer.
9. If a leak cannot be located or the flow continues to exceed the ALR
for 1 week after the primary liner has been repaired, prepare a
written report describing actions taken to date and proposed future
responses. Submit this report to EPA and OEQ within 60 days for
approval.
7.4 FLOW RATES GREATER THAN 4,000 gpd
1. Verbally notify the EPA and DEQ within 1 working day of the sump
inspection, if flow to the LOCRS sump exceeds 20 gpad.
2. If the flow exceeds 4,000 gpd for two consecutive monitoring
periods, provide written notification to EPA and OEQ and implement
the following steps.
3. Increase pumping frequency to every day from LDCRS and ILCRS sumps
until flow decreases below the ALR.
4. As soon as possible reduce the liquid level within the impoundment
in increments until flow drops below the ALR. Reduction in the
impoundment liquid level should not exceed 1 foot per week in order
to enable sequential investigation of the side slope line. As the
impoundment liquid level is lowered, measure LDCRS flow rates until
flow decreases below the ALR. Complete steps 5 through 7.
5. Examine the exposed side slope liner.
6. Repair any observed damage.
PJB 233-10.01A 17
-------
7. Document location, type, and extent of liner damage, if any.
8. If flow continues to exceed the ALR for an additional 1-week moni-
toring period, provide third party assessment by a registered pro-
fessional engineer.
9. Repair any observed damage.
10. If flow continues to exceed the RLL, take the pond out of service
within 1 year and repair the damaged liner or close the impoundment.
11. If continued operation is planned, document location, type, and
extent of liner damage in a written report to EPA and DEQ.
PJB 233-10.01A 18
-------
Chem Waste Management of Northwest (landfill cells)
-------
L_I2 ^
6.0 RESPONSES
The actions required to respond to various flow rates to each of the
secondary leachate collection sumps are provided 1n this section. These
flow rates, discussed below, are a function of the cell areas. For
example, the flow rate in Cell 2 would have to be approximately two
times the flow rate in Cell 1 to cause an equivalent response. Specific
quantities for each cell are presented 1n Table 1.
Table 1
CELL-SPECIFIC ALRs AND
MAXIMUM SECONDARY SUMP CAPACITY
Area
1
2
Area
(acres)
1.93
3.75
ALR
(gallons per day)
38
75
ALR
(gallons per week)
266
525
Maximum
Sump
Capacity
1,500
1,500
For all flows, the following procedure 1s required for the secondary
leachate system.
Each secondary leachate collection sump will be Inspected at least once
every 7 days for the presence of leachate. Pumpable quantities of
leachate contained 1n the sump will be removed and the quantity of
leachate determined. If present, additional Inflow to the sump will be
measured and pumpable quantities removed.
The responses for each trigger level are listed sequentially and should
be followed 1n the order presented. If a leak is located and flow to
4. Quantities which can be removed by pumping using a Grundfos Model
SP 4-8 or equivalent submersible pump.
PJB 233-04. 05C
4/17/87
16
-------
the secondary collection sump drops below the AIR no further action is
required.
6.1 FLOW RATE LESS THAN THE ALR (20 gpad)
Under normal operating conditions, flows into each secondary leachate
collection system are expected to be less than 20 gpad, the amount
defined previously as the ALR. Of the total 20 gpad, approximately
5 gpad is estimated to be the result of construction water.
Increased flows related to rainfall events indicate damage to the pri-
mary lining system located on the landfill side slopes. Since the waste
and intermediate cover will slope away from the landfill side slope, and
thus direct runoff and any seepage toward the center of the landfill,
the only significant flows are expected to occur as a result of damage
located above the elevation of the waste surface. This assumption can
be verified by observing Inflow rates following precipitation. If flow
increases in direct response to rainfall or snow melt, the leak probably
1s located in the primary lining system above the top surface of the
waste. If there is a lag time of 2 to 3 days or longer, the leak proba-
bly 1s located 1n the side slope primary lining system below the top
surface of the waste.
The actions required to respond to flows between 5 and 20 gpad are:
1. Determine if the flow rate varies with precipitation.
2. If the flow rate varies with precipitation, examine the exposed side
slope Uner and repair any damage.
3. Document location, types, and extent of liner damage.
4. No other action is required.
PJB 233-04.05C 17
4/17/87
-------
6.2 FLOW RATES BETWEEN THE ALR (20 gpad) AND 300 gpad
Flows between 20 and 300 gpad indicate possible damage to the liner
system. The required actions are listed below.
1. Verbally notify the EPA and DEQ within 1 working day if flow to the
secondary leachate collection sump exceeds 20 gpad.
2. If the flow 1s between 20 to 300 gpad for two consecutive 1-week
monitoring periods provide written notification to EPA and DEQ and
implement the following steps.
3. Increase pumping frequency to every other day from both primary and
secondary sumps until flow decreases below 20 gpad.
4. Examine the exposed side slope Uner and repair any observed damage.
5.- Document location, type, and extent of Uner damage.
6. If a leak cannot be found and the flow continues after the exposed
side slope liner has been repaired, investigate alternative sources
of liquid. Prepare a written report describing actions taken to
date and proposed future responses, and submit to the EPA and DEQ
within 60 days for approval.
6.3 FLOW RATES BETWEEN 300 gpad AND THE RAPID AND LARGE LEAK (SECONDARY
SUMP CAPACITY, 1,500 gpd5)
1. Verbally notify the EPA and DEQ within 1 working day if flow to the
secondary leachate collection sump exceeds 20 gpad.
5. -The upper bound 1,500 gpd represents the capability of the
secondary leachate collection system to remove leakage and is
independent of the cell size. This represents a leak defined by EPA
as rapid and large.
PJB 233-04.05C IB
4/17/87
-------
2. If the flow 1s between 300 qpad and 1.500 god for two consecutive
monitoring periods provide written notification to EPA and DEQ and
implement the following steps.
3^ Stop waste placement within 15 feet of the side slope liner until a
leak has been located, other appropriate actions have been taken, or
flow to the secondary leachate collection system sump has decreased
below the ALR.
4^ Increase pumping frequency to every day from both the primary and
secondary sumps until flow decreases below the ALR.
5± Remove all standing water from within the landfill Including from
within temporary retention basins.
6.. Examine the exposed side slope Uner.
7^ Repair any observed damage.
8^ Document location, type, and extent of Uner damage, 1f any.
9^ If flow continues to exceed the ALR for an additional 1-week
monitoring period, provide third party Inspection by a registered
professional engineer and Investigate alternative sources of liquid.
10^ If a leak cannot be located or the flow continues to exceed the ALR
after both the I00-m1l and primary liners have been repaired,
prepare a written report describing actions taken to date and
proposed future responses and submit to EPA and OEQ within 60 days
for approval.
6.4 FLOW RATES GREATER THAN 1,500 gpd
1. Verbally notify the EPA and DEQ within 1 working day if flow to the
secondary leachate collection sump exceeds 20 gpad.
PJB 233-04.05C 19
4/17/87
-------
2. If the flow exceeds 1.500 gpd for two consecutive monitoring periods
provide written notification to EPA and DEQ and Implement the fol-
lowing steps.
3^ Stop waste placement within 15 feet of the side slope liner until a
leak has been located, other appropriate actions have been taken, or
flow to the secondary leachate collection system sump has decreased
below the ALR.
4^ Increase pumping frequency to every day from both the primary and
secondary sumps until flow decreases low the ALR.
5._ Remove all standing water from within the landfill including from
within temporary retention basins.
6^ Examine the exposed side slope Uner.
]_._ Repair any observed damage.
8^ Document location, type, and extent of Uner damage, if any.
9^ If flow continues to exceed the ALR for an additional 1-week
monitoring period, provide third party Inspection by a registered
professional engineer, and Investigate alternative sources of
liquid.
10^ Examine the primary Uner 5 feet on either side of the damage to the
protective Uner from the elevation of the damage to the top
elevation of waste.
11. Repair any observed damage.
PJB 233-04.05C 20
4/17/87
-------
12^ Temporarily stop placing waste Into the affected cell until repairs
to the lining system or other appropriate actions are completed, and
flows to the secondary sump have decreased to below 20 gpad.
13L. Verify that the waste surface is sloping away from the landfill side
slopes. If necessary, regrade waste or place soil to achieve a min-
imum 1 percent slope away from the side slope.
14^ Document location, type, and extent of liner damage 1n a written
report to EPA and DEQ.
15^ If a leak cannot be located or the flow continues to exceed the ALR
after both the 100-mil and primary liners have been repaired,
prepare a written report describing actions taken to date and
proposed future responses and submit to EPA and DEQ within 60 days
for approval.
PJB 233-04.05C 21
4/17/87
-------
Envirosafe Services of Idaho
-------
Date: October 30, 1937
Revision No. : Q
The magnitude of leakage estimated for the ALR for each disposal
unit is 21 gal/day/acre (gpad). This value is comprised of tne
following:
Source Estimate Flow Rate (GPAD)
Leakage Through the 20
Primary Liner and
Construction Water
Measurement Error 1
(Detection Sensitivity)
ALR = 21
6.0 Responses
Actions required for response to established flow rates in each of
the LDCRS are provided within this section. Anticipated flow rates
within the LDCRS are a function of the disposal unit surface area.
The specific ALR values for each of the disposal units are presented
in Table 6.1. The responses for each trigger level are listed
sequentially and will be followed in the order listed. If a leak is
located and flow to the LDCRS sump drops below the ALR, no further
action is required.
For all LDCRS, the following steps are required:
• Inspect each LDCRS sump of active units weekly for the
presence of liquids. Analyze (average) the monitoring data
" on a gallons per day basis.
D.20-21
1908B
-------
Date: Octooer 30, 1937
Revision No.: 0
• Inspect the LDCRS sumps of closed units monthly during tr.e
facility operating life for the presence of liquids.
Analyze (average) the monitoring data on a quarterly basis.
• Remove oumpable quantities of liquid collected within the
LDCRS sump. The pumpaole level varies based on unit
construction and the installed sump pump, but will normally
be a liquid level exceeding 12 inches.
• Measure the quantity of liquid removed from the LDCRS sump.
• Compare "averaged" leakage rate to the ALR in Table 6.1.
6.1 Flow Rates Less Than the ALR
V
Flow rates less than ALR are predicted for normal daily operating
conditions. For landfill trenches, if flow rates increase during a
rainfall event it may indicate that defects are present in the side
slopes of the primary liner. If the flow rate increase lags the
rainfall event in the landfill trench by a few days, this situation
may indicate that defects are present in the base (floor) of the
primary liner. The above assumptions may be confirmed by observing
inflow rates during occurance of the rainfall event. A defective
surface impoundment will experience an instantaneous response to
rainfall events. Increased flows in the LDCRS's may indicate
defects to the side slopes of the primary lining system above the
initial (prerainfall) water surface.
Actions in response to "averaged" leakage rates between 0 and the
ALR in surface impoundments are as follows:
D.20-22
19083
-------
Date: October 30, 1987
Revision No.: Q
• Determine if the flow race varies with precipitation. If
the flow rate varies *'ith precipitation, observe the flow
to determine if a lag time exists.
• If a lag time exists, the most prooable leakage source is
below the water surface.
• If the flow rate increase is instantaneous, the leakage
source is at the liner anchor trench or at the elevation of
the water surface.
• Isolate the leakage source by examining the exposed line_r
surfaces and repair any damage. For leakage that
potentially originates below the water surface, continue to
monitor the sump to ensure ALR is not exceeded.
• Document the location, types, and extent of liner damage
( if any).
• No further action is required.
Actions in response to "averaged" leakage rates between 0 and ALR in
landfill trenches are as follows:
• Determine if the flow rate varies with precipitation. If
the flow rate varies with precipitation, observe the flow
to determine if a lag time exists.
• If a lag time exists, the most probable leakage source is
"on the liner base (floor).
D.20-23
1908B
-------
Date: October 30, 1987
Revision No.: 0
• If che flow rate increase is instantaneous, -he leakage
source is at the liner anchor trencn or at the elevation of
the waste face.
• Isolate the leakage source by examining the exposed liner
surfaces and repairing any damage. For leakage that
potentially originates between the liner base (floor) and
the waste face, continue to monitor the sump to ensure ALR
is not exceeded.
• Document the location, types, and extent of liner damage
( if any) .
• No further action is required.
»
6. 2 Flow Rates Between the ALR and 300 GPAD.
Flow rates between the ALR and 300 gpad in the LDCRS connote
possible damage to the primary liner. The required actions for both
surface impoundments and landfill trenches are as follows:
• If the "averaged" leakage rate exceeds the ALR, notify the
Regional Administrator in writing within 7 calendar days of
this determination.
• Review and assess operating practices.
• Increase the pumping rate or frequency for both primary and
LDCRS sumps until the flow decreases below the ALR.
• Examine the exposed side slope liner and repair any
observed damage.
D.20-24
1908B
-------
Date: October 30, 1987
Revision No.: 0
• Document the location, type, and extent of liner damage.
• Report in writing to the Regional Administrator on the
effectiveness of the response action, as soon as practical
after the response has been in place for 60 days.
• If a leak cannot be found and the flow continues after the
exposed side slope liner has been repaired, investigate
alternative sources of liquid. Prepare a written report
describing the actions taken to date and the proposed
future responses, and submit to the Regional Administrator
within 60 days for approval.
6.3 Flow Rates Between 300 GPAD and the Rapid and Extremely
Large Leak Rate (RELLR)
Flow rates in surface impoundments LDCRS between 300 gpad and the
rapid and extremely large leak require response actions as follows:
• If the "averaged" leakage rate exceeds the 300 gpad, but is
less than RELLR, notify the Regional Administrator in
writing within 7 calendar days of this determination.
• Review and assess operating practices.
• Inspect LDCRS sump every business day and increase the
pumping rate or frequency.
• Cease placing liquid waste in the impoundment until the
-leakage source has been located, other appropriate actions
have been taken, or flow to the LDCRS sump has decreased
below the ALR.
D.20-25
1908B
-------
Date: October 30, 1987
Revision No.: 0
• Gradually transfer liquids from within the surface impound-
ments until the leakage rate drops below the ALR. This
will provide an indication of the approximate elevation of
the leak. Accept liquid wastes and operate impoundment at
this reduced maximum level.
• Examine the exposed portions of the liner.
• Repair any observed damage.
• Document the location, type, and extent of liner damage (if
any).
• If the flow continues to exceed the ALR for an additional
1-week monitoring period, provide third party inspection by
a registered engineer.
• Analyze liquid for unanticipated waste constituents.
• Report in writing to the Regional Administrator on the
effectiveness of the response action, as soon as practical
after the response has been in place for 60 days.
• If a leak cannot be located or the flow continues to exceed
the ALR after the primary liner has been repaired, prepare
a written report describing the actions taken to date and
the proposed future responses, and submit to the Regional
Administrator within 60 days for approval.
D.20-26
19083
-------
Date: Octooer 30, 1987
Revision No.: 0
Flow rates in the landfill trenches between 300 goad and the rapid
and extremely large leak rate require response actions as follows:
• If the "averaged" leakage rate exceeds 300 gpad, but is
less than the RELLR, notify the Regional Administrator in
writing within 7 calendar days of this determination.
• Review and assess operating practices.
• Inspect LDCRS sump every business day and increase pumping
rate or frequency for both primary and LDCRS sumps until
flow decreases below the ALR.
• Cease placing wastes within 10 feet of the side slope liner
; until the leakage has been located, other appropriate
actions have been taken, or the flow to the LDCRS sump has
decreased below the ALR.
• Remove all standing water from within the landfill,
including water from within temporary runoff collection
areas.
• Examine the exposed portions of the liner.
• Repair any observed damage.
• Document the location, type, and extent of liner damage (if
any).
• "If the flow continues to exceed the ALR for an additional
1-week monitoring period, provide third party inspection by
a registered engineer.
D.20-27
1908B
-------
Date: October 30, 1987
Revision No.: 0
• Report in writing to the Regional Administrator on the
effectiveness of the response action as soon as practical
after the response has been in place for 60 days.
• If a leak cannot be located or the flow continues to exceed
the ALR after the primary liner has been repaired, prepare
a written report describing the actions taken to date and
the proposed future responses and submit to the Regional
Administrator within 60 days for approval.
6.4 Flow Rates Greater Than Rapid and Extremely Large Volumes
of Leakage (1,500 gpd)
Flow rates greater than 1,500 gpd require that corrective actions be
taken for landfill trenches as follows:
• If the "averaged" leakage rate exceeds the RELLR, notify
the Regional Administrator in writing within 7 calendar
days of this determination.
• Review and assess operating practices.
• Inspect LDCRS sump every business day and increase the
pumping rate or frequency for both the primary and LDCRS
sump until flow decreases below the ALR.
• Stop waste placement within 10 feet of the side slope liner
until the leakage has been located, other appropriate
actions have been taken, or flow to the LDCRS sump has
-decreased below the ALR.
D.20-28
1908B
-------
Date: October 30, 1987
Revision No.: 0
• Remove all standing water from within the landfill,
including water from within temporary runoff collection
areas.
• Examine the exposed side slope liner.
• Repair any observed damage.
• Document the location, type, and extent of liner damage (if
any).
• If the flow continues to exceed the ALR for an additional
1-week monitoring period, provide third party inspection by
a registered professional engineer.
»
• Examine the primary liner 5 feet on either side of the
damage from the elevation of the damage to the top
elevation of waste.
• Repair any observed damage.
• Temporarily stop placing waste into the affected disposal
unit (or subcell) until repairs to the lining system or
other appropriate actions are completed, and flows to the
LDCRS sump have decreased to below the ALR.
• Verify that the waste surface is sloping away from the
landfill sideslopes toward the temporary runoff collection
areas. If necessary, regrade and compact waste or place
-cover soil to achieve a minimum 2 percent slope to promote
runoff and minimize infiltration.
D.20-29
1908B
-------
Date: Octooer 30, 1937
Revision No.: 0
• Report in writing to the Regional Administrator on tne
effectiveness of tr.e response action as soon as practical
after the response has been in place for 60 days.
• If a leak cannot be located or the flow continues to exceed
the ALR after the primary liner has been repaired, prepare
a written report describing the actions taken to date and
the proposed future responses, and submit to the Regional
Administrator within 60 days for approval.
Flow rates greater than 1,500 gpd require that corrective actions be
taken for surface impoundments as follows:
• If the "averaged" leakage rate exceeds the RELLR, notify
the Regional Administrator in writing within 7 calendar
days of this determination.
• Inspect LDCRS sum? every business day and increase the
pumping rate or frequency.
• Dewater surface impoundment until flow to the LDCRS sump is
less than the ALR. Operate impoundment at this reduced
maximum level.
• Isolate the leakage source by examining the exposed liner
surfaces.
• Repair any observed damage.
• "Document the location, type, and extent of liner damage (if
any) .
D.20-30
1908B
-------
Date: October 30, 1937
Revision No.: Q
• Report in writing to the Regional Administrator on the
effectiveness of the response action as soon as practical
after the response has oeen in place for 60 days.
• If a leak cannot be located, prepare a written report
describing the actions taken to date and the proposed
future responses and submit to the Regional Administrator
within 60 days for approval.
D.20-31
1908B
------- |