United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-85/100 Dec. 1985
&ERA Project Summary
Assessment of Synthetic
Membrane Successes and
Failures at Waste Storage and
Disposal Sites
Jeffrey M. Bass, Warren J. Lyman, and Joseph P. Tratnyek
Data from 27 lined facilities provided
by five vendors is analyzed to determine
the factors which contributed to suc-
cess or failure of the liner at those
facilities. The sites studied included a
wide variety of wastes handled, liner
types, geographic locations, facility
ages, facility sizes, etc. Based on the
definitions used in this study, the 27
facilities selected by the vendors had a
total of 12 "failures" at 10 sites. At four
or five of these sites ground-water
contamination apparently resulted from
the failures.
Two main elements of success at
lined sites are considered to be: (1) a
proper philosophical and conceptual
approach; and (2) the extensive use of
quality assurance programs in all facets
and stages of a facility's operation.
Three appendices are provided in the
full report: Appendix A, Vendor Ques-
tionnaire; Appendix B, Vendor Sum-
mary Reports; and Appendix C, Sum-
mary Information on each site.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
to announce key findings of the re-
search project that is fully documented
in a separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
This study was designed to supplement
existing information on liner performance
using an approach that involved an in-
depth evaluation of the factors leading to
both "successes" and "failures" at a
limited number of case study sites.
A novel aspect of the approach used by
Arthur D. Little, Inc., in its study was the
use (under subcontract) of experts from
companies (referred to as vendors) in the
liner industry. Five such vendors agreed
to provide information on lined facilities
with which they had been associated.
Each vendor was asked to select between
4 and 7 sites and to include both "suc-
cesses" and "failures" within that group.
Altogether, a total of 27 case histories
were obtained; most of the sites selected
by the vendors were waste impound-
ments of one kind or another, but not all
would be considered hazardous waste
sites.
Essentially all of the information pro-
vided to Arthur D. Little, Inc. by these
vendors was in the form of a question-
naire response for each site (along with
supporting drawings, design specifica-
tions, etc.) and a summary report. Ven-
dors were asked to supply as much detail
as possible, but were told that they were
under no obligation to supply information
that was not in their files or was not easily
ascertainable. Data and summary reports
on the 27 facilities supplied by the five
vendors are analyzed in the full report.
Approach
The general approach that was used to
obtain and analyze the data on lined
-------
disposal sites and liner system perform-
ance involved five steps:
Step 1—Identification of, and prelim-
inary negotiation with, pro-
spective vendors;
Step 2—Design of questionnaire to be
used (by vendors) for each site
chosen;
Step 3—Issuance of subcontracts and
instructions to vendors;
Step 4—Receipt of vendor reports and
data preparation (by Arthur D.
Little, Inc.), including computer
encoding of textual answers to
each question; and
Step 5—Review of all data and vendor
reports (by several Arthur D.
Little, Inc. technical special-
ists) to identify factors contrib-
uting to successes and fail-
ures.
It was agreed from the beginning that
the identities of all vendors, as well as the
identities of all site owners and other
companies involved in work at the site,
would be held confidential. This rule, and
the use of Arthur D. Little, Inc. as an
intermediary between the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
vendors, made it possible for the EPA to
benefit from the experience of the vendors
without gaining access to proprietary
(uncoded) information. The process also
encouraged the vendors to provide de-
tailed and honest assessments for their
selected sites, especially if there had
been problems.
Overview of Sites in Survey
Table 1 provides summary information
on the 27 liner sites for which data were
collected. Table 2 provides summary
information on the liner systems used at
each site. The abbreviations used for the
flexible membrane liners (FMLs) are as
follows:
No. of
Abbr. Polymer Type Sites
CIM Chevron Industrial
Membrane (not a FML)
(composition unknown)
1
CPE
HOPE
CSPE
PO
PVC
Chlorinated
polyethylene (OR = oil
resistant)
High density
polyethylene
Chlorosulfonated
polyethylene
Polyolefin
Polyvinyl chloride
5
7
6
1
9
The suffixes (R) and (U) placed after the
FML abbreviations in Table 2 stand for
'reinforced', and 'unreinforced', respec-
Table 1. Summary Information on Liner Sites
Site ID
V1-1
VI -2
VI -3
VI -4
VI -5
V1-6
V2-1
V2-2
V2-3
V2-4
V3-)
V3-2
V3-3
V3-4
V3-5
V4-1
V4-2
V4-3
V4-4
V4-5
V4-6
V4-7
V5-1
V5-2
V5-3
V5-4
V5-5
Site
Location
South
South
Southeast
East
South
fast central
South
Midwest
West
East
North
North
Midwest
North
North
Canada
South
Southwest
North
East
East
West
West
Soutwest
West
West
West
Principal A ctivity
at Site
Petroleum product storage
Petrochemical storage
Waste management
Waste management/
landfill
Chemical plant
Chemical plant
Paper mill
Paper mill
Chemical plant
Chemical plant
Dredge spoil disposal
Sanitary Landfill (type II)
Wastewater treatment
Landfill
Paper mill
Uranium mining
Petroleum refinery
Electric power plant (coal)
Waste management/
landfill
Waste management/
disposal
Chemical plant
Electric power plant
Petroleum refinery
Uranium mill
Petroleum refinery
Nat. gas compressor station
Chemical plant
Type of
Lined Facility
Reservoir
Reservoir
Landfill
Landfill
Surf. Impd.
Landfill
Aeration basin
Aeration basin
Surf. Impd.
Landfill
Surf. Impd.
Landfill
Lagoon
Landfill
Surf. Impd.
Reservoir
Reservoir
Evap. pond
Landfill
Lagoons
Lagoons
Surf. Impd. (8)
Surf. Impd. (4)
Surf. Impd.
Surf. Impd.
Surf. Impd.
Surf. Impd.
Material
Contained
Oil field brine
Oil field brine
Incinerator wastes
Solid wastes
Liquid chemical wastes
Solid wastes, chemicals
Wastewater
Wastewater. pulp liquor
Liquid, with salts
Chemical process sludge
Dredge spoil
Solid waste (some chem.)
Domestic sewage
Solid waste (munic. and ind.)
Waste sludge and liquids
Water, with metals, organics
Oil field brine
Wastewater
Drummed chemical wastes
Landfill leachate
Liquid chemical wastes
Water; wastewater; flyash
Process Liquids
Wastewater
Liquids
Cooling tower blow down
Process water (with organics)
Date
Installed
3/81
10/82
11/80
9/80
7/80
6/81
-/73
5/72
3/71
8/74
4/83
7/77
9/82
-/75
9/82
9/83
11/83
8/83
7/82
12/80
6/80
9/81
10/80
6/79
8/78
-/74
-/74
Status
(12/83)
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Closed
Open
Closed
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Closed
Open
Open
Problems
with
Liner
..
Yes
--
-•
--
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
-•
Yes
--
--
-
--
--
-
—
--
Yes
Yes
--
Yes
--
-------
lively. A reinforced FML is one that
incorporates (usually bonded between
two polymer sheets) an open fabric or
scrim, typically made of polyester or
nylon. HOPE and PVC liners are usually
not reinforced, while CSPE and, to a
lesser extent, CPE are usually reinforced.
All of the FMLs commonly used today to
line waste treatment or disposal sites are
well represented by the sites selected for
this study.
Categories of Failure
In evaluating lined facility case studies
it is important to have a thorough under-
standing of the various ways in which a
liner may fail. First, there is the problem
of defining "failure" in a practical man-
ner. In a strict sense, one might limit the
scope to ultimate failure of the liner, i.e.
events that are directly related to leakage
of fluids through the liner. Examples
would include punctures, tears, and/or
seam failures in critical sections of the
liner system. Ultimate failures, however,
generally result from various stages of
preliminary failure including, for example,
poor materials, poor workmanship (espe-
cially during liner installation) and poor
design. Philosophical failures, relating to
a variety of misconceptions (about liners)
and motives, also are potential forerun-
ners of ultimate failures.
In the current study, no rigid classifica-
tion scheme for failures was used (or
really needed). However, two general
types of failure that were differentiated
were:
1. Failure before operation: This is
defined as a condition of the liner
which required non-routine correc-
tive measures to make the liner
suitable for use as designated (e.g.,
a tear or puncture caused by con-
struction equipment).
2. Failure during operation: This is
defined as a condition of the liner
which causes (or threatens to
cause) ground-water contamina-
tion, or which otherwise causes
operations to cease because of
observed abnormalities (e.g., "whale-
backs," algal curl, preliminary
chemical attack).
Success is defined as the converse of
failure, i.e., non-routine corrective meas-
ures are not required, the liner does not
leak, and operations are not shut down.
Evaluation of Failures at
Study Sites
There were twelve problems, at ten
sites, described in the vendors' reports
that fit the definition of "failure" des-
cribed in the previous subsection. Table 3
provides a summary description of these
failures and the apparent reasons for
them based on the data in the vendor
reports. As a consequence of these
failures, pollutants were apparently re-
leased to the environment (i.e., the soil-
ground-water system under the site) at
Table 2. Summary Information on Liner Systems
Single (S) or
Double (D)
Site ID Liner
Primary Primary Total
Liner Liner Surface Exposed (E) Monitoring
Material* (mil) Area (ac) or Buried (B) System
Layers in
Liner System**
(bottom to top)
Problems
Air with
Vents Liner
V1-1
OR-CPE(R)
36
10
VI -2
V1-3
V1-4
V1-S
VI -6
V2-1
V2-2
V2-3
V2-4
V3-1
V3-2
V3-3
V3-4
V3-S
V4-1
V4-2
V4-3
V4-4
V4-5
V4-6
V4-7
V5-1
V5-2
V5-3
V5-4
1/5-5
S
S
S
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
D
S
D
D
S
S
3D. JS
S
S
D
Triple
CSPE(R)
PVC(U)
PVCfU)
PVC (U). CSPE (?)
PVC (U)
CSPE(R)
CSPE(R)
CSPE(U)
CSPE(R)
PO(R)
PVC (U)
PVC(U)
Soil Sealant
Asphalt-concrete
HDPEfU)
HDPE(U)
HDPEfU)
HDPEfU)
HDPEfU)
HDPE(U)
HDPEfU)
CPEfU). CPE(U)
CPE fU)/PVC fU)
CPEfU)
PVCfU)
2xCPE(ft).PVC(U)
36
30
30
20,36
30
30
30
30
30
30
20
20
4 in.
5 in.
100
100
80
80
SO
WO
80
20,30
20/10
30
20
30,20
22
2
10
1
2
120
8
2.3
4.3
42
75
8
25
2
18
18.5
88
6
3.2
0.3
66
1.5
13
0.7
1.4
0.7 i.
B No Gr/GeoTex/S&G/GeoTex/FML/ Yes
Soil cement
£ Yes Comp Clay/S/FML Yes Yes
B No Lime Rk/S/FML/S/Lime Rk No
B No Comp Soil/FML/Soil No
E Yes Compclay/S/FML/S/FML Yes
B No Old Fill/Clean fill/FML/clay Yes
E No Comp clay and limestone/FML Yes Yes
£ No Comp soil/S&G/FML No Yes
E No Comp Sub-base/FML No Yes
B Yes Comp Fill/FML/S/G No
B Yes Prepared limestone/FML/Stone No Yes
B Yes Comp Clay/FML/S No Yes
B No Comp Soil/FML/S No
B Yes Comp Sand/Liner/S No Yes
E Yes Comp. Soil/Asphalt 12 lifts) No
E Xes Comp Sand/FML No
E Yes Comp Clay/S/FML Yes
E No Comp Subgrade/FML Yes
E (sides) Yes Clay/S/Comp Soil/FML/Comp Soil Yes
B Yes Comp clay/FML/Comp clay No
E Yes Comp Soil/FML No
E (sides) No Subgrade/FML/S (bottom only) No
E(CIMonly) Yes Subgrade/CPE/Soil/Concrete/CIM No(?) Yes
B Yes Nat. Soil/FML/Nat. Soil No Yes
B Yes Nat. Soil/FML/Nat. soil/soil cement No
B Yes Comp Soil/Clay/S/FML/Nat. Soil No (?) Yes
E Yes Compfill/CPE/G/PVC/CPE/? No(?)
* See text for explanation of terms.
**Comp = compacted; FML = flexible membrane liner; G ~ gravel; GeoTex = geotextile; Gr = ground; Nat = natural; rk = rock; S = Sand
-------
Table 3. Summary Description of "Failures" at Case Study Sites
Site ID Nature of "Failure" How Detected
Apparent Cause
Other Contributing Factors
VI-2
V2-1
V2-2
V2-3
V3-1
V3-2
V3-4
V5-1
V5-2
V5-4
Five holes found in liner caused by Monitoring
owner-operating personnel; minor well
brine loss
Chemical attack of liner at liquid
surface
Whale-backs
Visual
Visual
Liner ripped
(at Holes and tears in liner
(b) Escape of dredge material
(c) Tear in liner panel
Visual
Visual
Visual
Visual
Chemical pollutants showed up in Leak
collection drain water collected Monitor
below liner
Pollutants showed up in
monitoring wells around site
Liquids found in leak detector
Monitoring
well
Leak detector
Physical damage to liner prior
to being put into service
Visual
Fluid intrusion into
monitoring well
Monitoring
well
Carelessness by owner-operating
personnel
Attack or dissolution by oil-based
defoamer
Gas generation under liner; no
allowance made for gas venting in
design
Tank truck slipped down slope
Liner placed between layers of
coarse rock
Liner placed over coarse rock
Waves entered construction area
and scraped liner against dike
Apparent blockage of leachate
collection drain; backup of
leachate; movement through
crack in liner (?)
Unknown; possible breakup of
soil sealant liner
Probable failure of sealing of
concrete joints with PVC strips
and spray-on liner, CIM
Unknown, but suspect
carelessness
Membrane rupture at five,
uniformly-spaced positions;
tears probably by D-4 cat tractor
used to spread soil cover over
liner
-Lack of clear operating procedures.
-Possible lack of concern
(speculative).
-Use of oil-based defoamer not
anticipated, thus not in original
test program.
-Inadequate control of operations.
-Inadequate study of soils and
hydrogeology at site; presence of
organic matter (in soil) had, however,
been noted.
-Site used before for disposal of
organic sludges.
-No fence around site.
-Liner exposed.
-Poor design.
-Poor control of operations.
-Poor communication between
contractor, installer and engineer.
-Job awarded to low bidder
(speculative).
-Poor design (subgrade too coarse).
-Poor control during installation.
-Wet and windy weather.
-Poor bonding at seams,
appurtenance (?)
-Poor control of installation
practices; used "Honor Camp"
youth to install FML.
-Undersized collection drain (?);
due to poor design (?).
-Unknown; possible failure to fully
test soil sealant for this type of
application.
-Process for selecting liner unclear.
-No way to physically test liner
once in use.
-Concrete installer, against explicit
instructions, used curing
compound that inhibited proper
bonding of CIM to concrete.
-Poor design; improper information
supplied on CIM; owner suggested
use of CIM.
-Poor installation; lack of
knowledgeable supervision.
-Questionable cooperation between
contractors.
-Job awarded to low bidder
(speculative).
-High winds and cold temperatures
during construction (took 11
months).
—Operator of tractor let soil cover get
too thin.
-Poor control of installation.
-------
four or five sites (V1 -2, V3-1, V3-2, V3-4,
and V5-4), and one site was permanently
removed from service (V2-2).
Other problems noted by the vendors,
not all of which were connected with
sites which had "failures," included the
following:
• Installer had difficulty placing liner
over geotextile fabric (V1 -1);
• Inability to easily test degree of soil
compaction in field (V1 -3);
• Failure to conduct waste-liner compat-
ibility tests (various sites);
• Indications that constructed facilities
might be used for unplanned uses
(thus not anticipated in the design)
(V1-5);
• Gas generation between limestone
and effluent; careful venting required
(V2-1);
• Difficulty in repairing aged liner mater-
ial (V2-1);
• Inadequate corrective measures taken
due to desire for cheap solution (V2-2);
• One vendor reported problems with
asphalt cracking (at other sites) in
response to freeze-thaw cycles (see
V3-5 data);
• Earthwork contractor had to be re-
moved from job due to poor work
(V4-2);
• Differential settlement in subgrade
caused initial clay liner to crack (V4-5);
and
• Mud and water in site caused difficulty
in welding seams (V4-7).
Evaluation of Successes at
Study Sites
Finding the reasons for success is more
difficult than finding the reasons for
failure. Since success is the absence of
failure, it is essentially asking why every-
thing went right. Clearly, no one action
can be credited with a resulting success
as, by contrast, it could for a failure. More
commonly, success will follow from an
understanding of the potential problems
associated with liner installation and use,
and the subsequent planning to avoid as
many problems as can reasonably be
perceived in advance, and to quickly
identify and correct other problems as
they arise.
In providing a synthesis and independ-
ent evaluation of the apparent reasons for
success at the study sites, we have
developed several hypotheses which we
believe are reasonable and consistent
with the cases actually studied. There is,
however, no way to prove the hypotheses
based on the data gathered for these
sites, but future case studies could be
used to test them.
First, success is more likely to follow if
the responsible individuals have the
proper philosophical and conceptual ap-
proach. If they understand that what they
are doing is important and that the
process of designing, installing, and using
a lined facility involves many technical
factors that will likely present problems,
then they are more likely to proceed with
due diligence. A key element of the proper
philosophical approach is: (1) to assume
that there will be problems; (2) to examine
the possible consequences of those prob-
lems and/or "failures"; and then (3) to
take the appropriate steps (e.g., design
changes, quality control procedures) to
avoid or minimize the problems.
Second, this approach must be applied
to all stages or facets of the liner system
including:
• Liner system design
• Liner material selection
• Site preparation
• Liner installation
• Facility operation (including liner main-
tenance)
• Facility closure (for RCRA landfills
requiring covers)
Within each of these areas, the gener-
alized approach must be applied within
the framework of a formal quality as-
surance (QA) program. It is worth noting
that the vendors reported that at least 23
of the 27 sites had some sort of a quality
assurance program; no data were provid-
ed on the other four sites. It is difficult to
judge the coverage of the QA programs
used in the study sites, but about 17 sites
(each) specifically mentioned the use of a
QA program for: (a) liner manufacture, (b)
liner fabrication, and (c) liner installation.
If a detailed QA program were developed
and followed for each of the steps listed
above, the "success" rate would likely be
increased.
Finally, there are a number of more
specific items that appear to be related to
success and deserve special mention
even if they are partly covered by good QA
programs, These are listed under Con-
clusions, below.
Conclusions
The nature of the "failures" noted
included chemical attack of the liner (1 or
2 sites), physical tears or punctures (5
sites), problems with field seaming or
other liner installation activities (1 to 3
sites), and large gas bubbles, called
"whale-backs," under the liner (1 site).
Some of the contributing factors, if not
causes, for the failures noted in our case
studies include the following:
• Failure to control operations (at an
operating site) so as to safeguard the
liner;
• Poor (or inadequate) design work in
general;
• Failure to use an independent, quali-
fied design engineer;
• Poor (or inadequate) installation work
in general;
• Poor (or inadequate) communication
and cooperation between companies
working on an installation job;
• The use of untrained and/or poorly
supervised installers;
• Failure to conduct (or adequately con-
duct) waste-liner compatibility tests;
• Adverse weather conditions during
installation;
• Use of old dump site, with contam-
inated soil, as site for lined facility;
• Selection of companies (for liner job)
by processes that did not help ensure
that good materials and workmanship
would result;
• Selection of liner material by process
not involving detailed bid specifica-
tions prepared by design engineer, not
liner manufacturer); and
• Facility age (more failures were associ-
ated with the older sites).
Two main elements of success at lined
sites are considered to be: (1) a proper
philosophical and conceptual approach;
and (2) the extensive use of quality
assurance programs in all facets and
stages of a facility's construction and
operation. The desired philosophical ap-
proach requires that the responsible
individuals (owner, designer, general con-
tractor, installer, etc.) understand the
importance of what they are doing and
appreciate the complexities (and assoc-
iated technical problems) that will be
attended. A key element of this approach
is: (1) to assume that there will be
problems; (2) to examine the possible
consequences of those problems; and
then (3) to take the appropriate steps (e.g.,
design changes, quality control plans) to
avoid or minimize the problems.
Success is also more likely to result if
the general approach described above is
-------
applied to all stages or facets of a liner
system including design, material and
contractor selection, site preparation,
liner installation, facility operation, and
closure. Within each of these areas, the
generalized approach should be applied
within the framework of a formal quality
assurance program.
Other factors noted as contributing to
success included:
• Overdesign of a system;
• Presence of a knowledgeable custom-
er;
• Bidding to specifications;
• Selection of qualified companies;
• Cooperation amongst companies on
liner job;
• Conducting waste-liner compatibility
tests;
• Simplicity of design; and
• Good weather.
Recommendations
The purpose of this section is to provide
a brief summary of what appear to be the
most important areas for future work that
will help ensure safe and reliable opera-
tions at lined RCRA facilities. Recom-
mendations of four different types are
included:
• Research projects
• Education
• Quality assurance; planning and imple-
mentation
• Preparation of guidance documents
Research Projects
This study analyzes the factors which
contribute to success and failure at lined
facilities, but does not provide a statistical
basis for determining the actual signif-
icance of these factors. A statistically
valid study could be conducted using the
experience gained in conducting the
present study to verify the conclusions of
the present study and quantify the signif-
icance of failure and success factors at
liner sites. The study could address the
following questions, among others:
• Are older facilities more likely to
experience failure? By what mechan-
isms?
• Are larger facilities more likely to
experience failure? By what mechan-
isms?
• How do QA/QC programs at various
levels contribute to success?
• How are the various success and
failure factors evident at sites which
have experienced problems? At sites
which have not experienced problems?
• What is the apparent "success" rate
for FML installations of various types?
• How well do RCRA-designed sites
perform in comparison with non- or
pre-RCRA sites?
Only two sites in this study did not use a
flexible membrane liner (FML) as the
primary liner. Consequently, little was
learned in general about the reasons for
success and failure for other types of
liners such as soil cement, asphalt, and
spray-on. Additional research, including
more case studies focusing on facilities
with such liners, would be desirable.
Vendor V3 provided a number of more
specific research recommendations cov-
ering such areas as seaming technology,
leachate hydraulics, FMLdurability under
hydraulic stress, long-term waste-liner
compatibility tests, and an evaluation of
accelerated leachate-liner compatibility
tests. Vendor V1 suggested that devel-
opment of a set of consistent quality
standards for FMLs, and the development
of test protocols by which related FML
properties would be measured.
Education
This report describes how important
the proper philosophical and conceptual
approach is to "success" for a lined site.
To help foster the desired approach, a
conscious effort should be made to con-
tinue educating concerned parties (indus-
try, design engineers, installers, etc.)
about the issues, problems, and solutions
relating to the installation and use of
lined facilities. This can be done by a
variety of means including regional work-
shops, conferences where technical pa-
pers can be presented, and report publica-
tion. All of these are currently being done
to some extent, and it is strongly recom-
mended that education continue to be
emphasized.
In addition to the above, it is recom-
mended that the EPA prepare a special
annotated bibliography of important re-
ports and publications covering liners. A
significant amount of information is avail-
able, but few people are generally aware
of it. Newsletters (which could be dis-
tributed free or as part of recently init-
iated trade journals on geomembranes)
that covered EPA activities related to
liners would also be welcome.
Quality Assurance:
Planning and Implementation
Much higher assurance of success will
be associated with facilities built and
operated within the framework of one or
more quality control or quality assurance
(QA) programs. These programs should
cover all stages of a facility's life: design,
material selection, site preparation, liner
installation (including thorough seam
integrity inspection), facility operation and
closure.
It is recommended that guidance in the
preparation and implementation of quality
assurance programs be prepared. This
guidance should be as detailed as pos-
sible, and backed up by examples and the
availability of technical consulting from
the EPA or its contractors.
Preparation and use of QA plans should
also be considered as a regulatory require-
ment for a RCRA permit.
Preparation of Guidance
Documents
The EPA has prepared over a dozen
Technical Resource Documents (TRDs) as
well as other reports providing guidance
on many aspects of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal. This
study showed that such documents are
very important for lined installations, and
that guidance documents should be pre-
pared or updated to cover (or expand their
coverage on) subjects such as the fol-
lowing:
• Operating procedures that safeguard
the liner system;
• Writing bid specifications for liner
materials or installations;
• Best use of geotextiles in liner sys-
tems;
• Methods to evaluate potential for gas
generation in subsoils;
• Acceptability of using old disposal ar-
eas for new RCRA sites;
• Obtaining coordination and coopera-
tion from the several companies in-
volved in a liner job;
• Sealing FMLs around appurtenances;
• Specifications for selection and prepa-
ration of subgrade materials to be used
under FMLs; also need to describe
methods to test this subgrade (after
placement) for proper density and
moisture content; and
• Methods to test the completeness of
seam closures in a liner installation.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1986/646-l 16/20727
-------
Jeffrey M. Bass, Warren J. Lyman, and Joseph P. Tratnyek are with Arthur D.
Little. Inc., Cambridge. MA 02140.
Mary Ann Curran is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Assessment of Synthetic Membrane Successes
and Failures at Waste Storage and Disposal Sites," (Order No. PB 85-245
6377AS; Cost: $16.95, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
4
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S2-85/100
OC00329 PS
u 5 '-NVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
------- |