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

-------