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

-------