£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/K-92/002
April 1992
Technology Transfer
Seminars-
Design, Operation and
Closure of Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
Presentations
May 11-12, 1992
May 14-15, 1992
May 18-19, 1992
May 20-21, 1992
June 15-16, 1992
June 18-19, 1992
June 22-23, 1992
June 25-26, 1992
July 8-9, 1992
July 29-30,1992
August 17-18, 1992
August 20-21, 1992
August 26-27, 1992
Omaha, NE
Dallas, TX
New York, NY
Boston, MA
Atlanta, GA
Nashville, TN
Denver, CO
Chicago, IL
Honolulu, HI
San Juan, PR
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Philadelphia, PA
-------
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strives to provide accurate, complete, and useful
information. However, neither EPA nor any person contributing to the preparation of this
document makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the usefulness or effectiveness
of any information, method, or process disclosed in this material. Nor does EPA assume any
liability for the use of, or for damages arising from the use of, any information, methods, or
process disclosed in this document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-11-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Speakers v
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria 1
Daniel J. Murray, Jr.
Landfill Siting Restrictions 13
Gregory N. Richardson and John A. Bove
Landfill Design Criteria 25
Gregory N. Richardson and John A. Bove
Landfill Operations 51
Peter H. Thompson, Dirk R. Brunner, and Roy A. Koster
Landfill Gas 69
Peter H. Thompson, Dirk R. Brunner, and Roy A. Koster
Ground-Water Monitoring at Landfills 81
David K. Kreamer
Detection Characterization and Remediation at Landfills 141
David K. Kreamer
Closure and Post-Closure Care 169
Gregory N. Richardson and John A. Bove
Financial Assurance Criteria 201
Gregory N. Richardson and John A. Bove
Special Wastes 215
Peter H. Thompson, Dirk R. Brunner, and Roy A. Koster
Appendix A A-l
-ill-
-------
SPEAKERS
John A. Bove
Mr. Bove earned his BS in civil engineering and his MS in civil engineering at Drexel University.
He has played a significant role in the use and development of geosynthetics used in modern lined
landfills. He currently serves on the Executive Subcommittee for the ASTM D-35 Committee on
Geosynthetics. Mr. Bove has been involved with geosynthetics since performing graduate studies
on air and water transmissivity of geotextiles. He has been responsible for the design and
construction quality assurance for over 20 MSW, mixed waste, and hazardous waste landfills across
the United States. He previously built and managed one of the pioneering geosynthetics testing
laboratories. A geotechnical engineer by training, Mr. Bove also has provided foundation designs
for major high rises, dewatering plans for excavations, and stability analyses for earth structures.
Dirk R. Brunner
Mr. Brunner received his BS in civil engineering from Clarkson College of Technology, and his MS
in engineering from the University of Maine. He specializes in technical development, evaluation,
and management of wastes by land disposal and corrective measures to mitigate effects of
mismanaged wastes. He has extensive experience with state and U.S. EPA solid waste regulations
and the related permitting and regulatory process. He has conducted in-depth research in the area
of solid waste land disposal and has contributed his expertise to regulatory and guidance document
development for the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Office of Research and Development.
Mr. Brunner has directed or reviewed the design and preparation of technical specifications and
plans for several landfills and RCRA storage and disposal facilities.
Roy A. Roster
Mr. Koster earned both his BS and MS in civil engineering from the University of Maine. He has
more than 20 years of environmental engineering experience, including 18 years in the field of solid
waste management. This expertise has included landfill siting, design, permitting, monitoring,
operational guidance, and/or closure of over 50 waste facilities. Design experience has included
secure landfills with clay and geomembrane liners, leak detection systems, and methane gas
management control systems. Closure activities include both landfills and RCRA Subtitle B waste
impoundments. Mr. Koster also has directed multidisciplinary teams of ABB-ES personnel on
many projects.
-v-
-------
David K. Kreamer
Dr. Kreamer earned his BS in chemistry and his MS in hydrology from the University of Arizona.
He also received his Ph.D. in hydrology with a minor in geoscience from the University of Arizona.
Dr. Kreamer is currently Associate Professor and Director of the Water Resources Management
Graduate Program at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. He has performed research in the
areas of ground-water hydrology, ground-water pollution, and the migration and fate of
contaminants in the environment. He has extensive drilling and field experience, which includes
the construction and installation of several wells. Dr. Kreamer has taught many courses on design
and construction of monitoring wells and sampling methods. He also has given many national
workshops and preparations for U.S. EPA, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the National
Water Well Association, among others.
Daniel J. Murray. Jr. ____^_
Mr. Murray has a BS in civil engineering from Merrimack College in North Andover,
Massachusetts, and will be receiving his MS in civil engineering from Northeastern University in
Boston, Massachusetts, in mid-1992. He is an environmental engineer with EPA's Office of
Research and Development in the Center for Research Information (CERI) in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dan's areas of responsibilities with CERI's Technology Transfer branch include environmental
monitoring and assessment; nonpoint source water pollution, with emphasis on urban stormwater
and combined sewer overflow control; control of toxic pollutant discharges from municipal
wastewater treatment plants; and hazardous and solid waste landfills.
Mr. Murray started with the U.S. EPA in 1977, working in both Region 5 and Region 1 until 1987.
In 1987, he began working for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority in Boston where he
worked in the industrial pretreatment and combined sewer overflow programs. In 1990, he returned
to the U.S. EPA when he took his current position with CERI. Since early 1990, Mr. Murray has
managed several technology transfer projects for CERJ including a series of ten, two-day seminars
on the design and construction of hazardous waste landfill covers.
Gregory N. Richardson
Dr. Richardson earned his BS at California State University at Los Angeles. He also earned his
MS in civil engineering and his Ph.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles. He has
directed waste containment and geosynthetic design projects over the past decade for clients that
include U.S: EPA, New York State Department of Environmental Control, the CECOS Division
of Browning Ferris Industries (BFI), and the Industrial Fabric Association International (IFAI).
Dr. Richardson's background in geosynthetics dates back to 1976. He was a founding member of
the ASTM D-35 Committee on Geosynthetics and was instrumental in establishing the
Geosynthetics Research Institute at Drexel University in 1988. In 1990, Dr. Richardson co-
authored a book on the design ot'geotextiles for IFAI.
-VI-
-------
Peter H. Thompson
Mr. Thompson received his BA in earth and environmental sciences from Wesleyan University, and
his MS in water resource engineering from the University of New Hampshire. He has more than
10 years of experience in geology and 3 years of experience in environmental engineering and
ground-water hydrology. As an engineer and project manager, Mr. Thompson's responsibilities
have included the design and construction of new secure landfill facilities and closure of older
facilities, installation of vadose zone (soil water) monitoring systems, landfill gas management, and
solid waste facility siting.
-V11-
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL CRITERIA
Daniel J. Murray, Jr., P.E.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH
I. MAJOR PROVISIONS
II. STRUCTURE OF REGULATIONS
A. Self-Implementing
B. Flexibility in Approved States
1. Location
2. Operation
3. Design
4. Ground-Water Monitoring
5. Corrective Action
6. Closure/Post-Closure
7. Financial Assurance
C. Applicability
D. Effective Dates
E. Small Landfill Exemption
III. LOCATION RESTRICTIONS
IV. OPERATING CRITERIA
V. DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Landfills in Approved States
B. Landfills in Unapproved States
VI. GROUND-WATER MONITORING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
VII. CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
VIII. POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS
IX. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
-1-
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
LANDFILL CRITERIA
SUBTITLE D
40 CFR PART 258
&EPA
MAJOR PART 258 PROVISIONS
• LOCATION RESTRICTIONS
• OPERATING CRITERIA
• DESIGN CRITERIA
• GROUND-WATER MONITORING AND
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
• CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
REQUIREMENTS
• FINANCIAL ASSURANCE CRITERIA
-3-
-------
STRUCTURE OF RULE
STANDARDS ARE SELF-IMPLEMENTING
OWNERS/OPERATORS IMPLEMENT IN STATES DEEMED
INADEQUATE AND CITIZENS ENFORCE
RULE REQUIRES DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE
DOCUMENTATION MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE TO STATES UPON
REQUEST
RULE ALLOWS ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN
APPROVED STATES
ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS
ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULES
EXAMPLES OF FLEXIBILITY IN
APPROVED STATES
LOCATION
DELAY OF CLOSURE FOR EXISTING MSWLFS THAT CAN'T MAKE
DEMONSTRATIONS
OPERATION
ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER
DESIGN
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS IN LIEU OF COMPOSITE LINER
GROUND-WATER MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULES, MONITORING FREQUENCIES AND
MONITORING PARAMETERS
-4-
-------
EXAMPLES OF FLEXIBILITY IN
APPROVED STATES (CONT.)
CORRECTIVE ACTION
DETERMINE THAT CLEAN-UP OF A PARTICULAR CONSTITUENT
IS NOT NECESSARY
CLQSURE/POST-CLOSURE
ALTERNATIVE COVER DESIGN AND ALTERNATE SCHEDULES
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS
APPLICABILITY
APPLIES TO HEW^XfSTING, AND LATERAL
|^PASfS|0jSl|OF MSWLFS THAT RECEIVE
HOUSEHOLD WASTE ON OR AFTER
OCTOBER 9,1993
APPLIES TO MSWLFS THAT RECEIVE SEWAGE SLUDGE OR
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION ASH
APPLIES TO ASH MONOFILLS
DOES NOT APPLY TO SLUDGE MONOFILLS
-5-
-------
APPLICABILITY (CONT.)
DOES NOT APPLY TO MSWLFS THAT CEASE
RECEIPT OF WASTE BY OCTOBER 9,1991
MSWLF UNITS THAT RECEIVE WASTE AFTER
OCTOBER 9,1991 BUT STOP RECEIVING WASTE
BEFORE OCTOBER 9,1993 MUST COMPLY WITH
SPECIFIED CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ONLY
(258.60 (a))
EFFECTIVE DATES OF REQUIREMENTS
EFFECTIVE DATE REQUIREMENT
OCTOBER 9,1993 LOCATION RESTRICTIONS
OPERATING CRITERIA
DESIGN CRITERIA
CLOSURE/POST CLOSURE CARE
APRIL 9,1994 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
OCTOBER 9,1994 - GROUND-WATER MONITORING
OCTOBER 9,1996 AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
-6-
-------
SMALL LANDFILL EXEMPTION
THERE ARE 2 CASES IN WHICH AN OWNER/
OPERATOR OF A SMALL LANDFILL (RECEIVES
LESS THAN 20 TPD ON AVERAGE) MAY BE
EXEMPTED FROM THE FOLLOWING
REQUIREMENTS:
DESIGN
GROUND-WATER MONITORING
CORRECTIVE ACTION
SMALL LANDFILL EXEMPTION CCONT.)
TWO CASES:
NO EVIDENCE OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION AND 3
CONSECUTIVE MONTHS SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
INTERRUPTION
NO EVIDENCE OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION AND NO
PRACTICABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE AND LESS
THAN 25 INCHES ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
IF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION FOUND,
ALL REQUIREMENTS APPLY
-7-
-------
LOCATION RESTRICTIONS (SUBPART B)
RESTRICTED IN OR NEAR:
AIRPORTS
FLOODPLAINS
WETLANDS
FAULT AREAS
SEISMIC IMPACT ZONES
UNSTABLE AREAS
UNITS RESTRICTED IN OR NEAR:
AIRPORTS
FLOODPLAINS
UNSTABLE AREAS
OPERATING CRITERIA (SUBPART C)
• PROCEDURE FOR EXCLUDING
HAZARDOUS WASTE
• DAILY COVER
• DISEASE VECTOR CONTROL
• EXPLOSIVE GASES CONTROL
• AIR CRITERIA
• ACCESS CONTROL
• RUN-ON/RUN-OFF CONTROLS
• SURFACE WATER REQUIREMENTS
• LIQUIDS RESTRICTIONS
• RECORD-KEEPING
-8-
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA FORfNEWlMSWLF UNITS
(SUBPART D)
• DESIGN OPTION IN APPROVED STATES
IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DESIGN APPROVED BY THE
DIRECTOR OF AN APPROVED STATE THAT ENSURES THAT
MCLS WILL NOT BE EXCEEDED IN THE UPPERMOST
AQUIFER AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF COMPLIANCE
THE RELEVANT POINT OF COMPLIANCE MUST NOT BE
MORE THAN 150 METERS FROM UNIT BOUNDARY AND
MUST BE ON PROPERTY OF OWNER/OPERATOR
DESIGN CRITERIA FOREIHMSWLF UNITS
• DESIGN IN UNAPPROVED STATES
WITH A COMPOSITE LINER CONSISTING OF AN UPPER FLEXIBLE
MEMBRANE LINER AND A LOWER SOIL LAYER AT LEAST 2 FEET
THICK AND A LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
THE RELEVANT POINT OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE COMPOSITE
DESIGN IS AT THE UNIT BOUNDARY
-9-
-------
GROUND-WATER MONITORING AND
CORRECTIVE ACTION (SUBPART E)
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR GROUND-WATER
MONITORING
• NEW UNITS MUST COMPLY BEFORE WASTE
ACCEPTANCE
• EXISTING UNITS AND LATERAL EXPANSIONS
MUST COMPLY WITHIN 5 YEARS
SELF IMPLEMENTING SCHEDULE - DEPENDS ON PROXIMITY
TO DRINKING WATER INTAKE
DIRECTOR OF AN APPROVED STATE MAY SET ALTERNATIVE
SCHEDULE - 50% WITHIN 3 YEARS; 100% WITHIN 5 YEARS.
GROUND-WATER MONITORING AND
CORRECTIVE ACTION (SUBPART E)
ESTABLISH GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
DETECTION MONITORING
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OVER BACKGROUND
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OVER GROUND-WATER
PROTECTION STANDARD
CORRECTIVE ACTION
-10-
-------
CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS (SUBPART F)
PREPARE CLOSURE PLAN
INSTALL FINAL COVER
DESIGNED TO:
MINIMIZE INFILTRATION
MINIMIZE EROSION
CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS CCONT.)
FINAL COVER CONSISTS OF:
• INFILTRATION LAYER
MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF EARTHEN MATERIAL THAT HAS A
PERMEABILITY LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THE PERMEABILITY OF
ANY BOTTOM LINER SYSTEM OR NATURAL SUBSOILS PRESENT,
OR A PERMEABILITY NO GREATER THAN I X 105 CM/SEC,
WHICHEVER IS LESS
• EROSION LAYER
MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES EARTHEN MATERIAL
CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH
• APPROVED STATE MAY ALLOW AN
ALTERNATIVE COVER
-11-
-------
POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS
(SUBPART F)
PREPARE POST-CLOSURE PLAN
POST-CLOSURE CARE MUST BE
CONDUCTED FOR 30 YEARS
TIME PERIOD MAY BE REDUCED OR
INCREASED BY APPROVED STATE
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
(SUBPART G)
• APPLIES TO ALL ENTITIES
(INCLUDING INDIAN TRIBES), EXCEPT
STATES AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
• REQUIRES DEMONSTRATION OF
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR:
CLOSURE
POST-CLOSURE CARE
CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR KNOWN RELEASES
-12-
-------
LANDFILL SITING RESTRICTIONS
Gregory N. Richardson, Ph.D., P.E. and John A. Bove, P.E.
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Raleigh, NC
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Applicability of Location Restrictions
1. Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Units
2. New Units and Lateral Expansions
B. Fatal Flaw Concept
II. AIRPORT RESTRICTIONS (258.10)
A. Airport Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Restriction
B. FAA Notification
III. FLOODPLAIN RESTRICTIONS (258.11)
IV. WETLAND RESTRICTIONS (258.12)
A. No Violation of Existing Standards
1. State Water Quality Standards
2. Toxic Effluent Standards
3. Protected Species
4. Protection of Marine Sanctuary
B. No Degradation of Wetlands
1. Erosion, Stability, and Migration of Soils
2. Impact on Fish, Wildlife, and Habitats
3. Potential Catastrophic Release
C. No Net Loss of Wetlands
D. Clean Water Act Section 404
V. FAULT AREAS (258.13)
A. Holocene Fault Criteria
B. Geologic Reference
-13-
-------
VI. SEISMIC IMPACT ZONE (258.14)
A. Acceleration Restriction
B. Tectonic Considerations
1. Edge Plate Tectonics
2. Intra-Plate Tectonics
C. Demonstrate Design Features
VII. UNSTABLE AREAS (258.15)
A. Unstable Area Restriction
B. Unstable Area Types
1. Poor Foundation Conditions
2. .Susceptible to Mass Movement
3. Karst Terrane
VIII. SUMMARY
-14-
-------
LANDFILL SITING
RESTRICTIONS
(40 CFR Part 258 Subpart B)
Gregory M, Richardson, Ph.D., P,E,
John A. Bove, P.E,
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Raleigh, North Carolina
Applicability of
Location Restrictions
New Units and
Existing Unit Lateral Expansions
258.10 Airport Safety
258,11 FJoodplains
258.12 Wetlands
258.13 Fault Areas
258.14 Seismic Impact
258,15 Unstable Areas
-15-
-------
258.10 Airport Safety
* 10,000 Feet from Runway Used
by Turbojet Aircraft
• 5,ooo feet from Runway Used by
Piston-Type Aircraft
• Notify Airport and FAA if MSWLF Is
Closer than 5 Miles
258.1 Q Airport Safety
"Unless" The Operator Can
Demonstrate That the
MSWLF Will Be Operated
So That Birds Will Not
Pose a Hazard to Aircraft
-16-
-------
|^!f>*i :^v
-------
* , ^ ** ^ \ v - :'^: 4sj ?r
"Unless" * No Practical
ThatDo Not lnvolv|Weifg|Wds
* The Owner Can pemonstratg That tWe
MSWLF Will Np£ i ,t ,
• Violate State Water Quality 1
Standards
• Violate Totfic Effluent Standards
• Jeopardize Endangered Species
• Violate Marine Sanctuaries
258.12 Wetlands
f»
No Degradation
of Wetlands"
Erosion, Stability, and Migration Potential
of Native Soils and Fill Materials
Impact on Fish, Wildlife, and Habitats from
Release of Solid Waste
Impact of Catastrophic Release
Demonstrate Ecological Resources
Protected
-18-
-------
258.12 Wetlands
"No Net Loss of Wetlands11
* Required by 404 of Clean Water Act
• Demonstrate
• Maximum Avoidance of Impact
• Minimize Unavoidable impact
• Offset Unavoidable impacts
• Wetlands Restoration
• Wetlands Creation
258.12 Wetlands
"Clean Water Act Section 404"
Development of Wetlands Category
System Underway.
When Completed, Mitigation Sequence
(Avoidance, Minimization, and
Compensation) Will Be Required for
High Value Wetlands.
-19-
-------
258.13 Fault Areas
No New MSWLF Unit or
Lateral Expansion within 200
Feet of Fault Having
Experienced Movement within
Hoiocene Epoch
Fault Areas
11 Unless" Owner Demonstrates
That a Setback Distance
of Less Than 200 Feet
Will Prevent Damage to
the Unit
-20-
-------
258.14 Seismic Impact Ion*
No New MSWLF Unit or Lateral
Expansion in Seismic Impact Zone,
Seismic Impact Zone = Area Having a
10% or Greater Probability of Maximum
Ground Acceleration In Hard Rock
Exceeding 0.10 g in 250 Years
258.14 Seismic Impact Zone
11 Unless" Owner Can Demonstrate
That Important Design
Features (Liner,
Leachate Collection
System, Surface Water
Control) Are Protected
from Seismic Damage
-21-
-------
V - " "" ," <•"
258.14 Seismic Impact Zone
Tectonic Considerations
258.14 Seismic impact Zone
Non-West Coast
^^'• ''•'
"•'' ' '
• Edge Plate Peak Acceleration a
Function of Fault Length and
Attenuation Relationship
Intra Plate Peak Acceleration a
Function of Historical Events and
Attenuation Relationship
Reference Probabilistic Bedrock
Acceleration Study by Algermissen
with USGS
-22-
-------
268.15 Unstable Areas
No New MSWLF Units or Lateral
Expansions Located in
Unstable Areas
Poor Foundation Conditions
Susceptible to Mass Movements
Karst Terrane
258.16 Closure of Existing Units
Existing MSWLF Units That
Cannot Meet the Airport,
Floodplain, and Unstable Area
Criteria Must Close by
October 9,1996
Unless
-23-
-------
LANDFILL DESIGN CRITERIA
Gregory N. Richardson, Ph.D. P.E. and John A. Bove, P.E.
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Raleigh, NC
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Applicable and Relevant Regulations
B. Key Design Criteria
1. Point of Compliance Concept
2. Composite Liner Default
3. Leachate Head Limit
II. POINT OF COMPLIANCE CONCEPT
A. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
B. Point of Compliance
1. Limited by State Buffers
2. Detection at Property Line
C. Contaminant Transport Models
1. Advective
2. Diffusion
III. COMPOSITE LINER DEFAULT
A. Advantages of Composite Liner
1. Clay Exposure
2. Leakage
B. Clay Liner Objectives
1. Soil Clods
2. Compaction Effort/Type
3. Permeability Criteria
4. Lift Interface
C. Geomembrane Objectives
1. CQA Program
2. Bedding Requirements
3. Geomembrane Placement
4. Geomembrane Seaming
5. Seam Testing/Sampling
D. Small Landfill Exemption (258.1)
-25-
-------
IV. LEACH ATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
A. Geonet Versus Granular
B. 1. Design Considerations
2. Mounding
3. Lateral Pipes
4. Sumps
C. Stormwater/Leachate Separation
D. Biological Clogging
1. Research Data
2. Design Modifications
-26-
-------
LANDFILL DESIGN
CRITERIA
(40 CFR Part 25$ Subpart D)
Gregory NL Richardson, Ph.&» WE.
John A, BQV&, p.E,
Hazert ^nd Sawyer, RC,
Raleigh, North Carolina
Key Subtitle D
Design Criteria
• Performance Standard Liner
!
• Composite Liner
• Small Landfill Exemption
30 cm Maximum Leachate
-27-
-------
£ C'' "• 4sS.?vt ;
Standard Liner
• Maximum Contaminant
Level-MCL
• Point of Compliance
258.40 Design Criteria
Maximum Contamination
Levei - Table 1
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
MCL fmg/l) ;
0.005
1.0
0.005
Vinyl Chloride
0.002
-28-
-------
n Criteria
of Compliance (POC)
Shall Be No More Than 150 Meters
from the Waste Management Unit
Boundary and Shall Be Located on
Land Owned by the Owner of the
MSWLF Unit.
258.40 Design Criteria
Point of Compliance
Must Consider
• Hydrogeologic Characteristics of Facility
• Volume/Physical/Chemical
Characteristics of the Leachate
• Quantity/Quality/Flow Direction of
Ground Water
• Proximity/Usage of Ground-Water Users
-29-
-------
Ftoiirt of
Must Consider
Availability of Alternative
Drinking Water
• Quality of Existing Ground Water
« Public Health, Safety, Welfare
• Practicable Capability of Owner
Additional Concerns*
Point of Compliance
• State Buffer Criteria
-------
258.40 Design Criteria
Contaminant Transport
Models
Advective Transport
Molecular Diffusion
Soil Suction
Advective Transport
Flux
Leachate
Subsoil
i = Hydraulic
H Gradient
H+T
T
(No Suction)
-31-
-------
Diffusion
Leachate
(constant c0)
t-0
Concentration (c)
258.40 Design Criteria
Composite Liner Components
Two-Foot Compacted Clay
<1x10"7 cm/sec Hydraulic
Conductivity
• 30- Mi I Geomembrane
(60-Mil if HOPE)
-32-
-------
Clav Liner
Composite Liner
Leachate
A = Area of Entire
Liner
FML
Area < Area of Entire
Liner
Leakage Rate
for Composite Liner
Q
a
h
K<|
= Leakage (M3/S)
= Area of Hole (M2)
= Head of Liquid (M)
= Hydraulic Conductivity (M/S)
-33-
-------
RATIO BETWEEN LEAKAGE RATES THROUGH GEOHEMBRAME ALONE AND COMPOSITE LINER
10 - •
n-10 ,n-»
ks -.
GEOMEMBRANE ALONE
COMPOSITE LINER
a • area of hole In geomembrane
I 1 1- H 1
n~7
10'JU 10"s 10'8 10'' 10"° 10"3 10'* 10"J 10
Hydraulic conductivity of the soil underlying the geomembrane (m/s)
Critical Clay Liner
Construction Objectives
• Destroy Soil Clods
Eliminate Lift Interfaces
Protect Compacted Lift
Meet Moisture-Density
Criteria
-34-
-------
Destruction of
Soil Clods
• Sufficiently High Water
Content
• High Compaction Energy
• Kneading Compaction
.=>
I
c
n
I
a
U
I
5 10 15 20 25
Molding Water Content (%)
0.2-in. Clods
0.75-in. Clods
10 15 20 25
Molding Water Content (%)
-35-
-------
15 19 23 27
Molding w {%)
12 16 20
Molding Water Content (%)
(Y.)
a max
0.95(7,,)
o max
Zero Air Voids
Acceptable
Range.
opt
-------
Elirrtfrrate
Lift Interface
Scarify Surface
• Use Deep, Footed Roller
Protect
Compacted Lift
• Minimize Dessication
Don't Allow to Freeze
-37-
-------
Liner Needs
• Construction Quality Assurance
'
• Proper Subgrade Preparation
, -, ..XO ""'"•, *, ,,, , - "," - -*. «^5: "* ,-
• Seam Testing
• Proper Weather
Elements of
CQA Program
• Responsibility and Authority
• CQA Personnel Qualifications
Inspection Activities
Sampling Strategies
• Documentation
-38-
-------
Construction Quality
Assurance (CQA)
A Planned System of Activities
Performed by the Owner to Assure
That the Facility Is Constructed as
Specified In the Design.
Preconstruction
CQA Meeting
• Review Specs and CQA Plan
• Verify Qualifications
• Define Acceptance
• Agree on Repair Method
-39-
-------
UP SEAM WITH CUM TAPE
FML BEDDING CONSIDERATIONS
o Adequate Compaction
90% modified Proctor
95% standard Proctor
o Surface free of rocks, roots, water
o Smooth roll subgrade
o No dedication cracks
o Chemically compatible herbicide
FML PANEL PLACEMENT
o Unfold/roll per delivery ticket
o Minimize 'sliding' of FML
o Limit to 1 days seaming
o Confirm panel overlap
o Inspect for defects
FML SEAMING
o Clean membrane
o Acceptable weather
o Firm foundation
o Qualified seamer
o Seam testing
TONGUE and GROOVE SPLICE
SHEAf TEST
PEEL TEST
I I
Figure 3.7 Seam Strength Test
Figure 3.6 Configurations of Field Geomembrano Seobs
-40-
-------
SAMPLING CRITERIA
o 100%
o Judgemental
o Statistical
CONTINUOUS (100%) TESTING
o Visual
o NOT
o DT on all startup seams
NOT SEAM TESTS
o Air lance
o Vacuum box
o Pressurized dual seam
o Mechanical point stress
o Electronic
JUDGEMENTAL TESTING
o Dirt/debris evident
o Excessive grinding
o Moisture
,1 Purpose, Scope, and Applicability
Small Landfill Exemption
» <20 Tons MSW Daily
• 3 Month Annual Interruption
• No Practical Alternative and
Less than 25 Inch Precipitation
-41-
-------
Less than 25-Inch Precipitation
258.40 Design Criteria
Leachate Collection System
That Is Designed and
Constructed to Maintain Less
than 30-cm Depth of Leachate
Over the Liner.
-42-
-------
Leachate Collection
System Considerations
•"X &--!«Ws vj;^ SN* . •*
Collector'- ' •
x>^"s" , -
Collection Laterals
^\\\ ^ •••••.'•
Sump Design
• Stormwater/Leachate Separation
• Biological Clogging
Area Collector System
• Granular Layer
• Minimum 12-Inch Thick
• Minimum Hydraulic Conductivity
of 1 x1Q'1 cm/sec
Geonet of Equivalent Transmissivity
-43-
-------
• Savings of Airspace
• Readily Available
Disadvantages of Geonet
Limited Hydraulic Storage Capacity
Potential Stability Problem
Time-Dependent Properties
Less Protection of Liner
Collection Laterals
0 Perforated Pipe Network
* Increases Rate of Leachate Removal
* Lateral Spacing a Function of
B Area Collector Permeability
m Slope of Liner
H Mounding Height (3Q cm)
-44-
-------
INFLOW
1 1 I 1111111
DRAINAGE LAYER
max
L/C
t3n
a . tan a I 2
— + 1 - V tan cc +
c c
where
c
k
q
= q/k
= permeability
= inflow rate
Perforated Collection
Pipe Design
* Obtain Pipe Flow from
Mounding EQ
* Using Flow and Slope, Obtain
Pipe Size
* Check Pipe Strength and
Obtain Deflection
-45-
-------
Considerations
• Gravity or Pumped Sump
• Penetration ol Liner
M Site Topography
* MSWLF Used tor Stormwater
Retention?
Stormwater/Leachate
Separation
0 Not Required by 258
* If Not Provided, Then
Unit is Designed for Stormwater
Retention
*
30-cm Head Is Exceeded During
Significant Storms
Stormwater is Treated as Leachate
-46-
-------
l^k ^V**^^f% **\* sv *\ vr ,* -jf^
-benn
•temp, drain pipe
* •
ii^iia^^^
!lilli2!lll__
Cross-section at Manholes
-47-
-------
Biological Clogging
• Impacts Sand Drains and
Geonets
• Dramatic Flow Reductions Are
Quickly Effected
• May Lead to Perched Leachate
* Backflushing Typically Required
Total Direct Count
Nov.
Aug. $»fL
-48-
-------
£
o
a
Ul
at
LU
a.
0.6
0.5 I !•
t 0.3
a NJ-4slte
• DE-3 sits
100 200 300
VOLUME PASSED (Liters)
400
-49-
-------
LANDFILL OPERATIONS
Peter H. Thompson, Dirk R. Brunner, P.E. and Roy A. Koster, P.E.
ABB Environmental Services
Portland, ME
I. WASTE IDENTIFICATION/RESTRICTION
A. Requirements
1. Detect and prevent attempts to dispose of regulated hazardous wastes and
PCBs, and other excluded wastes.
a. Hazardous wastes are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA, except
for excluded wastes (MSW, ashes of fossil fuel combustion) and
small generator quantities, and include characteristic and listed
wastes.
b. PCBs are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
c. Other excluded wastes include bulk and non-containerized liquid
wastes except small, household-type containers and leachate and/or
gas condensate liquids returned to the landfill.
B. Purpose of the Requirements
1. Protection of human health and the environment.
a. Safety of personnel on site.
b. Compatibility with other wastes and materials with which landfill is
constructed.
c. Leachate treatability.
d. Ground-water protection.
2. Reduce risk to landfill operators.
a. Explosions.
b. Health risk of exposure to chemicals.
3. Discourage illegal dumping; increase risk of detection and penalty to haulers.
C. Procedures for Inspection and Protection
1. Training.
a. Regulations.
b. Recognition and identification of excluded wastes.
c. Safe handling of hazardous wastes and PCBs.
d. Health and safety procedures (OSHA).
2. Source controls.
a. Receive only wastes from household sources or from sources at
which waste has been previously screened.
b. Identify potential sources (generators/haulers) of excluded wastes.
c. Establish program with generators of potentially excluded wastes to
segregate these wastes and dispose of separately.
d. Require sources of potentially excluded wastes to provide
characteristic testing results (i.e., TCLP) for wastes.
-51-
-------
3. Random/focused inspections.
a. Select random loads for visual inspection after dumping but prior to
placement in landfill, transfer station, etc.
b. Focus inspections on loads more likely to have inappropriate wastes
(commercial and industrial haulers, wastes delivered in drums or
other containers not normally used for MSW disposal, etc.)
c. Unidentified wastes which could be an excluded waste should only
be handled by properly trained personnel using appropriate
techniques.
d. Unidentified wastes suspected of being hazardous should be handled
and stored as hazardous waste until proven otherwise.
4. Wastes which may require inspection.
a. Non-MSW type waste.
b. Wastes in drums or other container not normally used for disposal
of MSW.
c. Wastes with DOT or other descriptive labels.
d. Sludges and liquids.
e. Soils or rags which could be contaminated with hazardous substances
or PCBs.
5. Recordkeeping of inspections.
a. Date and time wastes received.
b. Name of hauling firm and driver.
c. Source of wastes.
d. Vehicle identification number.
e. Observations made.
6. Notification of proper authorities if hazardous wastes or PCBs delivered to
site.
a. Appropriate State Director or EPA Administrator.
b. Waste received, source.
c. Steps being taken to remove and dispose of wastes.
D. Management of Inappropriate Wastes
1. Waste in possession of hauler; hauler retains, proof is on hauler to show that
waste meets criteria for disposal in landfill.
2. Waste in possession of landfill.
a. Waste is responsibility of landfill operator and must be managed
according to appropriate regulations.
b. Screen, store, and/or test waste as appropriate in accordance with
appropriate protocol.
c. Treat, store, or dispose of in accordance with RCRA and applicable
state regulations.
II. COVER MATERIAL
A. Requirements
1. Minimum daily covering of wastes with suitable cover.
-52-
-------
B. Purpose of Requirements
1. Control.
a. Disease vectors.
b. Fires.
c. Odors.
d. Blowing litter.
e. Scavenging.
2. Other potential benefits.
a. Control infiltration (with some covers).
b. Control gas migration (with some covers).
c. Provide vehicle access.
C. Methods of Covering
1. Soil.
a. 6-inch sandy loam (minimum).
b. Compacting.
c. Coarseness versus permeability.
d. Disposal of capacity loss.
2. Alternate covers.
a. Must show meet intent of 6-inch soil cover.
b. Geotextiles.
c. Foams.
d. Sludges.
3. Exemptions.
a. Extreme climatic conditions.
III. RUN-ON/RUN-OFF CONTROL
A. Requirements
1. Control run-on from the peak discharge of a 25-year storm.
2. Collect and control volume of 24-hour, 25-year storm.
B. Purpose of Requirements
1. Prevent discharge of pollutants from the landfill into water or wetlands in
violation of Clean Water Act regulations.
2. Prevent water from running onto the landfill and thereby causing erosional
problems or infiltrating into the wastes and creating additional leachate.
C. Methods of Control
1. Perimeter ditches.
2. Berms on landfill surface.
3. Siltation fences, hay bales, etc.
4. Sedimentation basins.
5. Mulch, jute matting.
-53-
-------
IV. SAFETY
A. Requirements
1. Restrict public access to site and dumping areas.
2. Prevent illegal dumping.
3. Control exposure of public and landfill operators to hazards.
B. Access
1. Install fence or other barriers to control access to site.
2. Signs and/or barriers to control public access to working face of landfill.
3. Traffic control.
C. Gas
1. Monitoring of structures.
2. Venting of areas in which gas could accumulate.
3. Entry procedures to control access to manholes or other areas in which gas
could accumulate.
-54-
-------
i^^^^^T7^^T ,1KI^ ; f? n*?v|M II Erl I Id IIO
^Ss.y^i^W.^v'..^. T.'.'V'o I".. V......'.... . .„...„
\ ;^:F^^ x \ ^. -», ^
^^^^%itf daily covering of waste
S Inches of earthen material
of alternative materials
s
Temporary waivers from daily cover
Landfill Operations
Cover Material
Purpose of Requirements
TO CONTROL
• Disease vectors (rodents, insects, birds)
41 Fires
• Odors
• Blowing litter
0 Scavenging
-55-
-------
Cover Material
Potential lenefitSv : S,;;;||?^,s
\
c ..
\.
• Control infiltration
• Control gas migration
• Provide vehicle access
• Aesthetic appearance
Uutffffi
Cover Material
Methods of Covering
* Soil 6-inch (minimum) earthen
material (soil)
* Placement and compaction
* Coarseness vs. permeability
PROS: Potentially Orts/te
CONS: Disposal capacity loss
-56-
-------
» ,.
Daily
24
Volume 20
16
SJ SoHVoiume ,"
10
20
50
200
400
800
Disposal Rate In Cubic Yards per Day
Landfill Operations
Cover Material
Alternate Daily Cover Systems
• Performance
• Must meet intent of 6-inch soil cover
* Possible options
• Geotextiles
• Polymer bonded materials
m Foams
• Sludges
M Other
-57-
-------
Cover Material
Exemptions
» Alternative covers: Approval by director
in approved state
• Based on performance demonstration
* Temporary waivers: Approval by
director in approved state
• Based on demonstration of extreme
seasonal climactic conditions
Landfill Operations
RuivOn/RurhQff Control
Requirements
* Control run-on from the peak
discharge of a 25-year storm
• Collect and control run-off waters
from a 24-hour, 25-year storm
-58-
-------
Kt ^
i-Off Control
»ose of Requirements
s \ O«i •O, » s /• •.'A':. v . * % \
^ of pollutants from
the landfill including discharge into
Or wetlands in violation of
Water Act regulations
water from running onto the
landfill
B May cause erosion problems
• Can create additional leachate
Landfill Operations
Run-On/RurHDff Control
Methods of Control
Perimeter ditches
Berms on landfill surface
* Siltation fences, hay bales, etc.
• Sedimentation basins
-59-
-------
rainfall intensity
-60-
-------
Genera I Req u i rements
• Restricted public access
• Prevent illegal dumping
•X v^
• Control exposure to potential
hazards
Landfill Operations
Safety
Access Restrictions
• Perimeter fences
• Natural barriers
• Signs and/or barriers to control
public access to/from working face
of landfill
• Traffic control
-61-
-------
Landfill Gases
EXPLOSION/ ASPHYXIATION RISK <
* Monitoring .
*^ ••«•> •*••
* Areas susceptible to accumulation
* Venting
• Confined space entry procedures
Landfill Operations
Safety
Training
* OSHA (Occupational Safety and
Health Administration)
* First aid
>
• Emergency response
-62-
-------
l^n^ll option* s ^ ;.
Waste Identification/Restriction
• Detect and prevent disposal of regulated
x hazardous wastes and RGBs
• Other excluded wastes include bulk and
non-containerized liquid wastes except small,
household-type containers
Landfill Operations
Waste Identification/Restriction
Purpose of Requirements
• Protection of human health and the environment
• Safety of personnel on site
• Compatibility w/ other wastes and materials
• teachate treatability
• Ground-water protection
* Reduce risk to landfill operators
fl Explosions
B Health risk of exposure to chemicals
* Discourage illegal dumping
-63-
-------
^|'?!
Purpose for Inspection and Detection
. I ." . ," V •• * \% -.^\\ v •• •• ' •• XV X^ A .»•.•: .t.fe i^..^
^
• Training - ^ >t, ,H.fe
•• v. •. s •••• .. •.^'' " '•fV XN •• ^ ••
Source Controls ' v v _^ ^.1. >; ?VK* Vj
Random/focused
Specific wastes which may require
Inspection
Recordkeeping of inspections
Landfill Operations
Waste Identification/Restriction
training ; "
• Regulations
* Recognition and identification of
excluded wastes
* Safe handling of hazardous wastes
and PCBs
* Health and safety procedures (OSHAJ
-64-
-------
htif ication/RestricWon
Receive only wastes from household sources or from
>: sources at which waste has been previously screened
• Identify potential sources (generators/haulers) of
excluded wastes
• Establish program with generators of potentially
excluded wastes to segregate these wastes and
dispose of separately
Require sources of potentially excluded wastes to
provide characteristic testing results (i,e,» TCLP) for
wastes
Landfill Operations
Waste Identification/Restriction
Random/Focused Inspections
* Select random loads for visual inspection after dumping but
prior to placement in landfill, transfer station, etc.
* Focus inspections on loads more likely to have inappropriate
wastes (commercial and industrial haulers)
• Unidentified wastes which could be an excluded waste should
only be handled by properly trained personnel using
appropriate techniques
• Unidentified wastes suspected of being hazardous should be
handled and stored as hazardous waste until proven
otherwise
-65-
-------
lift May Require Inspectio
s.s,x\ •• »v?rfC^*s ^,v. . ,-.-• ^,» to - ...^^
rt^mSB^S^ Wiisposai of lew
•. v s\ s^s ^ ^ \ "" SX S^^ "• "" C" s X •, ''^
Whites with §OT or other ciescriptive
• Soils or rags whSch could be contaminated
with hazardous substances or PCBs
Waste Identification/Restriction
MotifIcatiori and Management
0 If hazardous wastes or PCBs delivered to the
site: notify appfoprfate State Director or EPA
Administrator
* Wa$t$ remains in possession of hauler; proof
is on hauler to show that waste meets criteria
for disposal
• Waste in possession of landfill: must be
managed according to appropriate regulations
Treat, store, or dispose of in accordance
with RCRA and applicable State regulations
-66-
-------
l^&Vdkf ejilng of Inspections
x , 4to and time wastes received
J^-atf *.;s& »***"# t : - ^ *^*v -
r _ .,Tr:._ of hauling firm and driver
• Source of wastes
^ \ v\% ^ -
• Vehicle identification number
s s •*
• Observations made
Landfill Operations
Cover Material
Requirements
• Minimum daily covering of waste
with 6 inches of earthen material
• Approval of alternative materials
• Temporary waivers from daily cover
-67-
-------
LANDFILL GAS
Peter H. Thompson, Dirk R. Brunner, P.E. and Roy A. Koster, P.E.
ABB Environmental Services
Portland, ME
I. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
A. Biological Decomposition of Wastes
1. Biological Processes
2. Landfill Gas Composition
3. Landfill Gas Generation Cycles
B. Landfill Gas Characteristics
1. Properties of Major Constituents
a. Methane
b. Carbon Dioxin
c. Hydrogen Sulfide
2. Migration of Landfill Gases
3. Explosive Potential
a. Monitoring
b. Confined Spaces
c. Safety Procedures
II. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION
A. Passive Collection Systems: Design Considerations
1. Perimeter Systems
2. Interior Systems
B. Active Collection Systems: Design Considerations
1. Active Life Phase
2. Closure Phase
3. Post-closure Phase
C. Gas Treatment
1. Pilot Studies
a. Objectives
b. Implementation
c. Case Study
2. Treatment Options
a. Atmospheric Release
b. Flaring
c. Energy Recovery
i. Gas Quality
ii. Gas Processing
d. Permits
-69-
-------
Waste Decomposition
• Biological processes
Landfill gas composition
"• •. v
"• "•
\ ^ s -.
Landfill gas generation cycles
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas Generation
• Organic content
• Time since waste placement
• Temperature and moisture content
» Aerobic vs, anaerobic conditions
-------
- • ^-r - *;$:v::;:> ; ^vgfc;;:W:TlJl^^pi
• Aerobic tql*dW8»n$ V>\¥ ^»' ;fc^1fe^?S^^
" - " " " •• ,^ •• N^ ^\;> ^ ^ ^^O: ^^iC^
; .Organics * O2 4-»r CQ^ n**^ ^ ^ ^^^^
" -" s "^ ^% - %" % \%v-i % \^H°"t.% -*v-f^> Ax
^ ^j
XL
o/ ~
I,- /
ivy^v
-A
TIME AFTER PLACEMENT
f
v ••
IV
^
40%
r"~
t — a
; \
^
<•
(
!
•»
-72-
-------
If i 11 Gas Characteristics
constituents
;ij Colorless, odorless
\," \""- " 4-\\|^>v-- -> - " -"
• U ghtfer thain air
combustible (10% -15%)
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas Characteristics
Properties of major constituents
• Carbon dioxide (CO
• Colorless, odorless
• Heavier than air
• Non-combustible
-73-
-------
, . * *
Propertes of major comtlujihts5
••. -v.-. ;. ^\ if •> '• •. O ••>:•• '• •••••••\ N V \--
'
• Hydrogen sulfide
• Colorless
• Rotten egg odor
• IDLH s 300 ppm
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas Characteristics
Migration of landfill gases
• Explosive potential
• Monitoring
• Confined spaces
• Safety procedures
-------
^SSM^t^^^\f \
:i^i^^lf>,^^;;^^•X^^^^<^M>A^V^^<<<^^^<^<^^K•A^^^^^^ •A-WOW*AW^M>AM^
^
day or Synthetic Cap
;(Low Permeability)
Qay Soil, Frozen or
Saturated Soil, or Pavement
(Low Permeability) xv
Sand andGravel.Soil:
(ffigh. Permeability)
wX>j
Landfill Gas
Extensive Vertical Migration
frrrfffftrrfffrr*frtSrAwrffS*r.*f.'fA*
Clay or Synthetic Liner
-(Low Permeability)
Sand and Gravel Cap
(High Permeability)
ftl
-15-
-------
Landfill Gas
Typical Gas Monitoring Pr
,Soim*6MOON,IWO.
4-MinlraonBon.
Landfill Gas
Typical Gas Monitoring Probes
-76-
-------
,, , „•„ *
as Collection
,- *
ecollection systems
,— —^,~ systems
*WO'*^ ; % *
• Interior systems
Passive Gas Control System
(Renting to Atmosphere)
Gas Vent
Top Layer
Drain Layer
Low-Permeabilily
FML/Soil Layer
Vent Layer
Waste
-77-
-------
Gas
Lartdfill Gas Collection
* Active collection systems
Design considerations
• Active life phase
• Closure phase
• Post-closure phase
Landfill Gas
Interior Gas Collection/Recovery System
Source: Emcom, 1981.
-78-
-------
X^ 4-PVCLaioal'
Gas Collection Bentoniieor
Concrete
4-pVCPipe-
Crashed Stone
Pufuidlcd Pipe
Cap-
ov
Source: SCS, 1980
3
!
-24-Di«.
Landfill Gas
Treatment Options
• Atmospheric release
* Flaring
» Energy recovery
• Gas quality
• Gas processing
Applicable permits
-79-
-------
^ T'T -^tir ^ r?*3;
v-\" ^
f- •. V
V
\?X\ % -x
V i
^', s%
*.» 1
*XN
s *
11 ^
•• •," ^
". 1
\ s
\'
" - i
-
-; %"
Air —
Inlet
Cm
" — -
I
P
km
terete E
Stack
&— Flame Detector
iSparic Airestor
.. 0 -. ••
iSelf-Actnating Valve
./OVBlower :
ase Concrete Base
i
';• SOOKK ABB-BS. 1990.
^ % -.\*x
GasF
Control Panel
t~ Waste Gas
Inlet Valve
i
pom
LandfiU
••
tX\ !>
i ( Propane J
s
11 ^•-s
'• ^
V
* "* \
w1-
^
^.
""
s '"•1
\ =:
\ •«
•» <••.
•I
"••••.
• s^
-V
s
-80-
-------
GROUND-WATER MONITORING AT LANDFILLS
David K. Kreamer, Ph.D.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, NV
I. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS
A. Applicability
1. Where System is Required
2. Exceptions
B. New Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Units
C. Existing or laterally Expanding
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Units
II. WELL SELECTION AND INSTALLATION
A. Numbers and Location
1. Potential Pollutant Movement
2. Individual Well Placement
3. Network Design
B. Individual Well Construction and Design
1. Drilling
2. Screen, Casing, and Joints
3. Filter Pack and Grouting
4. Surface Considerations, Well Capping, Protection
C. Other Well Considerations
1. Documentation
2. Decontamination
3. Development
4. Sedimentation
5. Incrustation
6. Corrosion
7. Maintenance
8. Perched Water
9. Cost
10. Abandonment
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
A. Sampling Methods Vadose Zone
-81-
-------
B. Sampling Methods Wells
1. Water Quality
a. Bailer
b. Submersible Pumps
c. Bladder Pumps
d. Driven Samplers
2. Ground-Water Elevations
3. Aquifier Parameters
4. Other Sampling Considerations (e.g. Frequency, Location)
IV. DETECTION MONITORING
A. To Establish Background and Detect Migration of Hazardous Chemical Constituents
B. Appendix I Indicator Parameters
B. At Least Semi-Annual Background
V. STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS
VI. ASSESSMENT MONITORING
A. Notification
B. Appendix II Parameters
C. Characterization
D. Additional Wells
E. Protection Standard Development
-82-
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING AT LANDFILLS
(40 CFR PART 258 SUBPART E)
DAVID K. KREAMER, Ph. D.
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GRADUATE PROGRAM
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS
APPLICABILITY
SYSTEM OF MONITORING WELLS
REQUIRED AT:
NEW MSWLF UNITS
LATERAL EXPANSIONS OF
MSWLF UNITS
EXISTING MSWLF UNITS
-83-
-------
EXCEPTIONS
SMALL COMMUNITY EXCEPTIONS
(NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW
SUB PART E)
LIMITED WAIVERS
LIMITED WAIVERS
OWNERS OR OPERATORS MUST
DEMONSTRATE "THAT THE MSWLF
UNIT IS LOCATED ABOVE A
HYDROLOGIC SETTING THAT WILL
PREVENT HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
MIGRATION TO GROUND WATER
ii
-84-
-------
LIMITED WAIVERS (CONT)
NO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
DURING ACTIVE LIFE OF THE UNIT
DURING FACILITY CLOSURE
THROUGHOUT POST-CLOSURE PERIOD
(258.50 b)
LIMITED WAIVERS (CONT)
DEMONSTRATED TO DIRECTOR
OF AN APPROVED STATE
-85-
-------
WHEN?
NEW MSWLF UNITS:
MUST HAVE GROUNDWATER
MONITORING SYSTEMS IN PLACE
PRIOR TO ACCEPTING WASTE
WHEN?
EXISTING OR LATERALLY EXPANDING
MSWLFS:
<0> DEPENDS ON MSWLF LOCATION
RELATIVE TO DRINKING WATER INTAKE
^ PHASED APPROACH ALLOWABLE WITH
APPROVAL
-86-
-------
WHEN?
EXISTING OR LATERALLY
EXPANDING MSWLFS (CONT):
MUST HAVE GROUND WATER
MONITORING SYSTEMS IN PLACE
BY OCTOBER 9,1996 AT LATEST
GROUND WATER MONITORING SYSTEM
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF APPROPRIATELY
LOCATED WELLS
ABLE TO YIELD GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
FROM UPPERMOST AQUIFER
REPRESENTATIVE BACKGROUND QUALITY
(258.51 b)
-87-
-------
GROUND WATER MONITORING SYSTEM
REPRESENTATIVE GROUNDWATER
QUALITY PASSING RELEVANT POINT
OF COMPLIANCE AS SPECIFIED BY
THE DIRECTOR OF AN APPROVED
STATE
(258.51 b)
GROUND WATER MONITORING
SYSTEM
ADDITIONAL VADOSE ZONE
MONITORING IS ALLOWED
"PAY ME NOW OR PAY ME LATER"
-88-
-------
GROUND WATER MONITORING
SYSTEM
<> EACH MSWLF UNIT SHOULD HAVE
SEPARATE GROUNDWATER
MONITORING SYSTEM
-<>- IN SOME CASES, MULTI-UNIT
SYSTEMS ARE APPROVABLE
WELL NUMBERS AND LOCATION
POTENTIAL POLLUTANT MOVEMENT
0- INDIVIDUAL WELL PLACEMENT
<>- NETWORK DESIGN
-89-
-------
CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT
PROCESSES
• MASS TRANSPORT
— advection
— diffusion
— dispersion
• CHEMICAL MASS TRANSFER
— radioactive decay
— sorptlon
— dissolution/precipitation
— acid-base reactions
— complexatlon
— hydrolysis/substitution
— redox reactions (blodegradatlon)
• BIOLOGICALLY MEDIATED MASS
TRANSFER
— biological transformations
-90-
-------
A Summary of che Proceeaaa Important In Dissolved
Concaminant Transport and Th«lr I apace on Contaminant Spreading
Process
Definition
lapacc on Transport
MASS TRANSPORT
1. Advtctlon
2. Diffusion
}. Dispersion
Havenent of aass a> a
consequence of ground
water flow
Hast spreading due to
aolacular diffusion In
tracion gradients.
Fluid mixing due Co
effaces of unresolved
hecerogenelcles In cha
permeability dlscrlbution.
Hose Itsportanc way of
cransporelng mass away
from source.
An attenuation
•achanisa of second
order In Boat flow
syscens where adveccion
and dispersion doainate.
An accenuacion
•achanisa chat reduces
clon In cha plume.
However. It spreads to a
greater extant than
predicted by advectlon
alone.
CHEMICAL MASS TRANSFER
4. Radioactive
decay
5. Sorptlon
Irreversible decline In
the activity of a
radlonuclide through a
nuclear reaction.
Partitioning of a
contaminant becvean Che
ground water and mineral
or organic solid* In the
aquifer.
An imporcanc mechanisa
for contaminant attenua-
tion when che half-life
for decay Is comparable
to or less than the
residence time of Che
flow aystea. Also adds
coarplexity in production
of daughter products.
An Important mechanism
that reduces the rate at
which the contaminants
are apparently moving.
Hakes 1C more difficult
to remove contamination
at a slca.
NRC (1989)
Process
Definition
Impact en Transport
Dissolution/ The process of adding
precipitation contaminants to or
removing them 'from
solution by reactions
dissolving or creating
various solid*.
7. Acld-baee
reacclons
I: Complexacion
Hydrolysis/
substitution
10.
Redo*
reactions
(blodagra-
datlon)
Reactions involving a.
transfer of protons (H*>
Combination of cations
and aniona to form s
more complex Ion.
Reaction of •
halogenated organic
compound vlth vatar or •
component Ion of water
(hydrolysis) or with
another anlon
(aubatlcuclon).
••actions that involve a
transfer of eleccrona and
Include eleaencs vlth more
Chan one oxidation state.
Contaminant precipitation
is an Important
attenuation mechanism
that can control the
concentration of
contaminant In solution.
Solution concentration la
mainly controlled
•Ichsr at che source or at
a reaction front.
rfalnly an Indirect
control on contaminant
transport by controlling
the pH of (round water.
An Important mechanism
resulting In Increased
solubility of metals In
ground wacar. If
(daorptlon Is not
enhanced. Major Ion
conplaxatlon will In-
crease che quantity of a
solid dissolved In
solution.
Often hydrolysis/
substitution reactions
make an organic compound
more susceptible to
blodagradaclon and more
soluble.
An extremely Important
family of reactions in
retarding contaminant
spread through the
precipitation of metala.
BIOLOGICALLY MEDIATED MASS TRANSFER
11. Biological
transforma-
tlons
Reactions Involving the
degradation of organic
compounds and whose
rate is controlled bj
the abundance of the
microorganisms, and
redox conditions.
Important mechanism for
contaminant reduction, but
can lead to undesirable
daughter products.
-------
POTENTIAL POLLUTANT MOVEMENT
-<>- AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID
MOVEMENT
<> NON AQUEOUS PHASE
LIQUIDS - NAPL's
NON AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID
MOVEMENT
LIGHT NON AQUEOUS
PHASE LIQUIDS
<> DENSE NON AQUEOUS
PHASE LIQUIDS
-92-
-------
500
400
300
200
100
— n-ALKANES
— AROMATICS
OLEFINS
-- CYCLO-ALKANES
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 15
NUMBER OF C-ATOMS
.PETROL .
KEROSENE
,GASOIL/DIESELFUEL
HEATINGOIL
Solubility of hydrocarbons in water (Somers,
1974).
-93-
-------
ground surface
GroundWater
Flow
Groundwater ^
Zone
DISSOLVED
CONTAMINANTS
IMPERVIOUS
DNAPL SMORT-CIRCUmNG THROUGH A WELL
-94-
-------
WELL NUMBERS AND LOCATION
POTENTIAL POLLUTANT MOVEMENT
INDIVIDUAL WELL PLACEMENT
-0 NETWORK DESIGN
INDIVIDUAL WELL PLACEMENT
VERTICAL (TRADITIONAL)
ASLANT DRILLED
HORIZONTAL DRILLED
FUTURE TECHNIQUES
-95-
-------
WELL NUMBERS AND LOCATION
POTENTIAL POLLUTANT MOVEMENT
INDIVIDUAL WELL PLACEMENT
NETWORK DESIGN
NETWORK DESIGN
NUMBER, SPACING AND DEPTH BASED
ON SITE - SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS
EACH MONITORING SYSTEM MUST BE
CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE BY
- QUALIFIED GROUNDWATER SCIENTIST OR
- DIRECTOR OF AN APPROVED STATE
-96-
-------
MONITORING WELLS
-«- DRILLING
<> SCREEN, CASING AND JOINTS
GROUTING AND FILTER PACKS
SURFACE CONSIDERATIONS,
WELL CAPPING, PROTECTION
-97-
-------
Auger, rotary tod ca«le-te«1 drilling techniques • advantages and disadvantages for
(on! I rue t t«i> of •onltorlng .till
T,ot Advantages
Augir • Minimal damage to aquifer •
. Ho drilling fluids required
•
• Auger flights act as temporary
casing, stablllilng hole for
Mil construction •
• COCK) technique for unconsoll-
dated deposits
• Continuous core can be collected
by Hi re-line Mthod
lotiry • Quick and efficient Mthod •
• Eictllent for large and saiall
dtaMler holes •
• No depth limitations
• Can be used In consolidated
and unconsolldated deposits
•
• Continuous core can be
collected by Mire-line Mthod
Cable Tool • Mo limitation M Mil depth
. Limited amount of drilling
fluid required
• Can be used In both consoli-
dated and unconsolldated
deposits
• Can be used In areas Mhere
lost circulation Is a problem
• tood llthologlc control
• effective technique In boulder
envlronMnts
Cannot be used In consolldiled
deposits
LUIted to Mils less than ISO feet
In depth
Nay ha»e to abandon holes If
boulders are encountered
Requires drilling fluids vhlch
alter nater chevlstry
Results In a eud cake on the
borehole ml), requiring
addition!) Mil devclop«nt, and
potentially causing changes In
cheitslry
loss of circulation can develop
In fractured and high-peraeablllty
•tlenal
H*y have to abandon holes If
boulders are encountered
tinted rigs and experienced
personnel available
Slow and Inefficient
Difficult to collect core
Air. Weler
or Drilling Fluid
1
Auger
Flight
•
[
r4
I
*
I
3
S
\
1
^ -
Cable •
Drill Sltnt
Drill Bit
I
—! B
n
H?c^
Hollow-Stem Auger
Direct Rotary
Cable Tool
A c*noptu>l coapirlion of I (it hollow-icti «
-------
WELL CASING AND SCREEN MATERIAL
• FLUORINATED ETHYLENE
PROPYLENE (FEP)
• POLYTETRAFLUORETHYLENE (PTFE)
OR TEFLON
• POLYVINYLCHLORIDE (PVC)
• ACRYLONITRILE BUTADIENE
STYRENE (ABS)
• POLYETHYLENE
• POLYPROPYLENE
• KYNAR
• STAINLESS STEEL
• CAST IRON & LOW-CARBON STEEL
• GALVANIZED STEEL
-99-
-------
Mel) casing and screen Material - advantages and
Advantages
Fluortnated Ethyl me •
Propylene (FEP)
Polytetrafluoro«thylene
(P1FE) or Teflon
Polyvlnylchlorlde (PVC) •
AcrylonltrlU Butadltnt •
Styreni (ABS)
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Kynar
Stainless Stetl
Cast Iron t Low-Carbon
Steel
Galvanized Steel
Good chealcal resistance to
volatile organlcs
Good chealcat resistance to
corrosive environments
lightweight
Hlgh-lapact strength
Resistant to awst chemicals
Lightweight
Resistant to weak alkalis,
alcohols, aliphatic hydro-
carbons .and oils
Moderately resistant to strong
acids and alkalis
Lightweight
Lightweight
• Lightweight
• Resistant to •Ineral acids
• Moderately resistant to
alkalis, alcohols, ketones and
esters
High strength
Resistant to post chevtcals
and solvents
High strength
Good cheilcal resistance to
volatile organlcs
High strength
• High strength
disadvantages in noniloring wells.
Disadvantages
• Lower strength than steel and
Iron
• Weaker than nost plastic Material
• Weaker than steel and Iron
• More reactive than P1FC
• Deteriorates when In contact
with ketones, esters, and
aromatic hydrocarbons
• low strength
• Less heat resistant than PVC
• Lower strength than steel and
Iron
• Not comonly available
• low strength
• More reactive than PUE. but less
reactive than PVC
• Not commonly available
• low strength
• Deteriorates when in contact with
oxidizing acids, aliphatic hydro-
carbons, and aronatk hydrocarbons
• More reactive than PTfE, but less
reactive than PVC
• Not coononly available
• Poor chealcal resistance to ketones,
acetone
• Not coamonly available
• May be a source of chrofiiuB In low
pH environments
• May catalyze some organic reactions
• Rusts easily, providing highly
sorpttve surface for «any netals
• Deteriorates In corrosive
environments
• May be a source of zinc
• If coating is scratched, will rust,
providing a highly sorptive surface
for nany netals
-100-
-------
Typical Design Components of a
Ground-water Monitoring Well
Locking casing cap
Vent hole
Protective casing
Ground surface
Inner casing cap
Lock
Drainhole
Well casing
Annular seal
Filter pack
Completion depth
Surface seal
Water table
Borehole
Well intake
Plug
-101-
-------
Types of Well Intakes
Si
oSl
£=3 zzzi
Bridge slot screen
£13 £=1
/\ i v
£=3 £13
£Z3 £Z3
£=3 £13
Shutter-type
screen
Slotted casing
Continuous slot
wire-wound screen
Types of Joints Typically Used Between
Casing Lengths
iJ
Li
d. Threaded casing
(joined by threaded couplings)
e. Bell-end casing
(joined by solvent welding)
f. Plain square-end casing
(joined by heat welding)
-102-
-------
Types of Joints Typically Used Between
Casing Lengths
coupling
a. Flush-joint casing
(joined by solvent welding)
b. Threaded, flush-joint casing
(joined by threading casing
together)
c. Plain square-end casing
(joined by solvent welding.
with couplings)
Segregation of Artificial Filter Pack Materials
Caused by Gravity Emplacement
Fine portion
of filter pack
Coarse portion
of filter pack
Well intake
-103-
-------
Tremie-Pipe Emplacement of Artificial
Filter Pack Materials
Well Intake
Sand
Borehole wall
Filter pack material
Potential Pathways of Fluid Movement in the
Casing-Borehole Annulus
s
Annular seal •
Filter pack
— Bridging
•Void
a) Between casing b) Through seal
and seal material material
c) By bridging
-104-
-------
MONITORING WELLS
-0 CASED IN A MANNER MAINTAINING
BOREHOLE INTEGRITY
0 MAINTAINED TO MEET DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS
OTHER WELL CONSIDERATIONS
0- DOCUMENTATION
•<>- DECONTAMINATION
DEVELOPMENT
-0 SEDIMENTATION, INCRUSTATION,
CORROSION AND MAINTENANCE
-105-
-------
WELL DOCUMENTATION
* BORING RECORDS
* GEOPHYSICAL DATA
* SAMPLING RESULTS
* WELL DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION
* LOCATION
CONSIDERATIONS OF A
DECONTAMINATION PROGRAM
* Location
* Equipment requiring decontamination
* Frequency
* Cleaning technique / solutions
* Effluent disposal
* Quality control
* Type of contaminant
-106-
-------
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION
* Drill bits, bailers, samplers, clamps,
tremie pipes, etc.
* Heavy equipment, such as drill rigs
and support trucks
* Porous equipment cannot be
decontaminated
FREQUENCY OF EQUIPMENT
DECONTAMINATION
Drilling equipment decontaminated
between boreholes to prevent
cross-contamination
Sampling equipment decontaminated
between each sampling event
-107-
-------
QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES
* Equipment blank collection
* Wipe testing
Both provide "after the fact"
information for evaluating
contaminant removal
MECHANICAL PROCESSES FOR
WELL REHABILITATION
* OVERPUMPING
* SURGING
* JETTING
* AIR DEVELOPMENT
* BRUSHING OR SCRAPING
* BAILERS
-108-
-------
Nell development techniques - advantages and disadvantages.
Overpaying
Backwash Ing
Mechanical Surging
Advantages
• Minimal tlm ind effort
required
• No new fluids Introduced
• Remove fluids introduced
during drill Ing
• Effectively rearranges filter •
pack
• Breaks down bridging In filter •
pack
• No new fluids Introduced •
• Effectively rearranges filter •
pack
• Greater suction action and •
surging than backwashlng
• Breaks down bridging In filter
pack
• No new fluids Introduced
Disadvantage*
Does not effectively remove
fine-grained sediments
Can leave the lower portion of
large screen Intervals undeveloped
Can result In a large volume of
water to be contained and disposed
Tends to push fine-grained
sediments into filter pack
Potential for air entrapment if
air Is used
Unless combined with pumping or
balling, does not remove drilling
fluids
Tends to push fine-grained
sediments Into filter pack
Unless combined with pumping or
balling, does not remove drilling
fluids
High Velocity Jetting
• Effectively rearranges filter
pack
• Breaks down bridging In filter
pack
• Effectively removes the mud
cake around screen
Foreign water and contaminants
introduced
Air blockage can develop with
air Jetting
Air can change water chemistry
and biology (Iron bacteria) near
well
Unless combined with pumping or
balling, does not remove drilling
fluids
-109-
-------
Diagram of a Typical Surge Block
(Driscoll, 1986)
Pipe,
Rubber flap
Pressure-relief hole
Rubber disc
Steel or wooden disc
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO
WELL MAINTENANCE NEEDS
* DESIGN
* INSTALLATION
* DEVELOPMENT
* BOREHOLE STABILITY
* INCRUSTATION
* AQUIFER TYPE
-110-
-------
CHEMICALS USED FOR
WELL REHABILITATION
* ACIDS AND BIOCIDES
* INHIBITORS
* CHELATING AGENTS
* WETTING AGENTS
* SURFACTANTS
OTHER WELL CONSIDERATIONS
PERCHED WATER
^COST
<> ABANDONMENT
-111-
-------
Table 23. Suggested Hem* for Unit Coat In Contractor Pricing Schedule
Item Pricing Baal»
•Mobilization lump sum
•Site preparation lump sum
•Drilling to specified depth per lineal loot or per hour
•Sampling each
•Material supply
surface casing per lineal foot
well casing per lineal foot
end caps each
screen per lineal foot
filter material per lineal foot or per bag
bentonite seal(s) per lineal foot
. grout per lineal foot or per bag
casing protector each
•Support equipment
water truck and water lump sum
bulldozer per hour
•Decontamination lump sum
•Standby per hour
•Field expenses per man day or lump sum
•Material installation per hour or lump sum
•Well development per hour or lump sum
•Demobilization lump sum
•Drilling cost adjustment for variations in depths ± per foot
COST OF REHABILITATION
VERSUS ABANDONMENT
ACTUAL COST OF REHABILITATION
DIFFICULT TO CALCULATE
-112-
-------
WELL ABANDONMENT OBJECTIVES
* ELIMINATE PHYSICAL HAZARDS
* PREVENT GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
* CONSERVE AQUIFER YIELD
AND HYDROSTATIC HEAD
* PREVENT INTERMIXING OF
SUBSURFACE WATER
WELL ABANDONMENT
PROCEDURES
* PARTIALLY TO COMPLETELY
FILL WELL WITH GROUT
* REMOVAL / NON-REMOVAL OF
CASING
-113-
-------
USING PLUGS TO ISOLATE
HYDRAULIC ZONES
* PERMANENT BRIDGE SEALS
* INTERMEDIATE SEALS
* SEALS AT UPPERMOST AQUIFER
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
<> VADOSE ZONE SAMPLING
METHODS
-114-
-------
SAMPLING METHODS - WELLS
WATER QUALITY
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
<>• AQUIFER PARAMETERS
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
(e.g. FREQUENCY, LOCATION)
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING
BAILERS
<> SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS
^ BLADDER PUMPS
-<> DRIVEN SAMPLERS
-115-
-------
STEP
Hydrologic
Measurements
Well Purging
Sample Collection
Filtration/
Preservation
Field Determinations
Reid Blanks/
Standards
Sampling Storage/
Transport
GOAL
Establishment of nonpumping
water level.
Removal or isolation of stagnant
H20 which would otherwise bias
representative sample.
Collection of samples at land
surface or in well-bore with
minimal disturbance of sample
chemistry.
Filtration permits determination of
soluble constituents and is a
form of preservation. It should be
done in the field as soon as
possible after collection.
Field analyses of samples will
effectively avoid bias in
determinations of parameters/
constituents which do not store
well: e.g., gases, alkalinity, pH.
These blanks and standards will
permit the correction of analytical
results for changes which may
occur after sample collection:
preservation, storage, and
transport.
Refrigeration and protection of
samples should minimize the
chemical alteration of samples
prior to analysis.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Measure the water level to ±0.3
cm (±0.01 ft).
Pump water until well purging
parameters (e.g., pH, T, IT1, Eh)
stabilize to ± 10% over at least
two successive well volumes
pumped.
Pumping rates should be limited
to —100 mL/min for volatile
organics and gas-sensitive
parameters.
Filter: Trace metals, inorganic
anions/cations, alkalinity
Do not filter: TOC, TOX, volatile
organic compound samples. Filter
other organic compound samples
only when required.
Samples for determinations of
gases, alkalinity and pH should
be analyzed in the field if at all
possible.
At least one blank and one
standard for each sensitive
parameter should be made up in
the field on each day of
sampling. Spiked samples are
also recommended for good QA/
QC.
Observe maximum sample
holding or storage periods
recommended by the Agency.
Documentation of actual holding
periods should be carefully
performed.
Bgur* 2.16. Generalised ground-water sampling protocol
-116-
-------
SAM'LING DEVICES:
o MOST ACCURATE AND REPRODUCIBLE; BLADDER PUMPS
o MOST RELIABLE AND EASY TO DIAGNOSE MALFUNCTION
o DEDICATION TO THE WELL AVOIDS CROSS-CONTAMINATION AND
FIELD DECONTAMINATION
E STORAGE: Kent and Payne, 1988
0 CHILL WITH WATER, ICE OR MECHANICAL REFRIGERATION
IMMEDIATELY.
o TRANSPORT RAPIDLY AND OBSERVE CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURES.
o ARTIFICIAL ICE-PACKS ALONE DON'T WORK.
CONCLUSIONS:
o SAMPLING ERRORS CAN BE CONTROLLED IF LOCATION, SAMPLING-POINT
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE DONE PROPERLY.
o PURGING IS THE SINGLE-MOST IMPORTANT STEP IN SAMPLING.
o SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE PHASED
AND REFINED AS DETAIL REQUIRES.
o ANALYTICAL ERRORS CAN BE CONTROLLED WITH PROPER QA/QC.
0 "NATURAL" VARIABILITY CAN BE ESTIMATED WITH QUARTERLY SAMPLING;
SEASONAL VARIATIONS MAY TAKE YEARS OF SUCH SAMPLING TO RESOLVE.
-------
SUMMARY OF METHODS TO MEASURE HYDRAULIC HEAD
Method
Appllcitlon
Reference
Sttel Tape
Saturated zone. Moit
precise Mthod.
Noncontinuous MitureMnti.
Slow.
Carbtr ind Koopman
(1968}
METHODS TO MEASURE
HYDRAULIC HEAD
Electric Probe
Saturated lone. Frequent
measurements possible.
Staple to use. Adequate
precision.
Drlscoll (1986)
• STEEL TAPE
• ELECTRIC PROBE
AIRLINE
Air Line
Saturated tone. Continuous
measurements. Useful for
pumping tests. Limited
accuracy.
Orlscoll (1986)
Pressure Saturated or unsaturated
Transducer zone. Continuous or
frequent Measurements.
Rapid response to changing
pressure. Permanent
record. E«penslvt.
Carbar and Koopman
(1968)
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
ACOUSTIC SOUNDER
TENSIOMETRY
• ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY
• THERMOCOUPLE PSYCHROMETRY
Acoustic
Sounder
Saturated zone. Fitt;
permanent record.
[•precise.
Tenslometry Saturated or unsaturated
zone. Laboratory or field
method. Useful range Is 0
to 0.85 bars capillary
pressure. Direct
measurement. A Kidely used
Mthod.
Davis and OeWlest
(1966)
Cassel and Klute
(1986);
Stannard (1986)
Electrical Unsaturated zone.
Resistivity Laboratory or field method.
Useful range Is 0 to IS
bars capillary pressure.
Indirect Measurement.
Prone to variable and
erratic readings.
Campbell and Gee
(1986):
Rehm et al. (1987)
• THERMAL DIFFUSIVITY
Thermocouple Unsaturated zone.
Psychrometry Laboratory or field method.
Useful range 10 to 70 bars
capillary pressure.
Interference from dissolved
solutes likely in calcium-
rich Hastt.
Ravi ins and
Campbell (1986)
Thermal Unsaturated zone.
Dlffuitvlty Laboratory or field method.
Useful range 0 to 2.0 ban
capillary pressure.
Indirect measurement.
Phene and Bealt
(1976)
-------
Mulllpl* Poll
Samplvi •
Multiple ¥»•!!•
Slngl* Borchol*
Mulllpl* W«ll«
Multiple 8o»*hol««
MULTI-LEVEL MONITOR WELL DESIGN
MULTIPLE-PORT SAMPLER
NESTED SAMPLER/SINGLE
BOREHOLE
NESTED SAMPLER/MULTIPLE
BOREHOLES
• Servant.
-rihar Pack**
A conceptual co»p>rl>on ol lhr«« •ulll-l«»*l
d««l(n«.
Hultl-lcvtl Bonltorlnq Mel) design - id»inl«gss and dlsadvintigei.
Wulllpl* Port
Siaplcr
• Itrgc nunhrr of stapling
lonct per borehole
• Sviller volune of witer
required for purging thin
12 ind II
• lover drilling costs than I)
Polentlil For cross contmlnitIon
imng ports
Potent III (or smpllng ports
beeon Ing plugged
Speed) unpllng tools required
Nested Simpler/
Single Borehole
• Lmer drilling costs thin II
« low potent III for screens
becoming plugged
• Potent III for crost contulnitlon
iinong screen Intervals
t Number of n»pllng Intervils
United to three or four
• lirger volume of niter required
lor purging thin II or II
• Higher Instillitlon costs
Nested Simpler/
Multiple Boreholes
• Potentlil for cron-
eontaiilnil Ion alnlalted
• Voliitnc of wtter required for
pur<|lnc) miller thin 12
• I ox imiillillon coils
• in* pnlrntlil for screens
hrrnmtnq pluqqed
• Higher drilling costs
-------
LU
>
UJ
LU
CO
UJ
2
UJ
>
O
c
LU
ID
U.
Q
<
UJ
-L
O
_J
D
<
-------
March 26 ?7 28 29 30
Triar-dufiim
Mrnlel o( i network of
-121-
-------
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ I// \ \
\ \ \ L£ Truo \ o
\ \ v Flow Direction^ °v
\ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ ^
\ \ \ \ v \
\\ \ \ \ " \
\ \ \ \ -^ " \
\ \ \ \ \ \ 4, \v
\ \ x \ *j, \ V1"00""01 \
\ \ e \ \ Flow Direction \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ B*sedon \
\ \ \ \\ \ V--e-c \
\^;\\^
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\
N\\\\ \\ \ <^C'
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Hltcilculitloo o( §roundv«t«r-(lov dlric(lon> c«u*td
by unr«eognlnd h«t• ro|*n« 1 cy
DRIVEN SAMPLERS
GENERALLY NOT AN
ACCEPTABLE MONITORING
WELL
-122-
-------
51010 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 196 / Wednesday. October 9. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Figure 5
Ground-Water Monitoring and Corrective Action
Ground-Water
Monitoring Program
Install Monitoring System
(258.51)
Establish Sampling and
Analysis Program (258.53)
Detection
Monitoring (258.54)
Begin Semi Annual
Detection Monitoring for
Appendix I Constituents
Is
There a
Statistically
Significant Increase
in Appendix I
Constituents?
Assessment Monitoring (258.55)
• Sample for All Appendix II Constituents
• Set Ground-Water Protection Standard for Detected
Appendix II Constituents
• Resample for Detected Appendix II Constituents and All
Appendix I Constituents Semi-Annually
- Repeat Annual Monitoring for All Appendix II Constituents
• Characterize Nature and Extent of Release
Continue/Return to Detection
Monitoring
Is
There a
Statistically
Significant Increase
in Appendix II
Constituents Over
Ground-Water
Protection
tandard
Are All
Appendix II
.Constituents
Below
Background''
Corrective
Action
Assess Corrective
Measures (258.56)
Evaluate Corrective
Measures and Select
Remedy (258.57)
Implement Remedy
(258.58)
Continue Assessment
Monitoring
BILUNO CODE MW-M-C
-123-
-------
DETECTION MONITORING
ESTABLISH BACKGROUND AND
DETECT MIGRATION OF HAZARDOUS
CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS
^APPENDIX 1 INDICATOR
PARAMETERS
^ AT LEAST SEMI - ANNUAL
BACKGROUND SAMPLING
-124-
-------
Appendix I to this Part 258—
Constituents for Detection
Monitoring 1
Common name *
Inorganic Constituents:
(1) Antimony „ (ToIaJ)
(2) Arsenic _ (Total)
(3) Barium „ (Tptal)
(4) Beryllium (Total)
(5) Cadmium ~ {Total)
(6) Chromium „.... (Total)
(7) Cobalt „ - (Total)
(8) Copper _.._ (Total)
(9) Lead (Total)
(10) Nickel _.... (Total)
(11) Selenium .(Total)
(12) Silver » _ (Total)
(13) Thallium - (Total)
(14) Vanadium (Total)
(15) Zinc (Total)
Organic Constituents:
(16) Acetone....... _ 67-54-1
(17) Acrylonitrile 107-13-1
(18) Benzene 71-43-2
(19) Bromochloromethane 74-97-5
(20) Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4
(21) Bromoform; Tribromomelhane.... 75-25-2
(22) Carbon disulfide _ 75-15-0
(23) Carbon tetrachloride 58-23-5
(24) Chlorobenzene 108-90-7
(25) Chioroethane; Ethyl chloride 75-00-3
(26) Chloroform; TrichJoromethane.... 67-66-3
(27) Dibromochloromethane; Chlor-
odibromomethane 124-48-1
(28) 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane;
DBCP 96-12-8
(29) 1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene
dibromide; EDB._ 106-93-4
(30) • o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dich-
lorcbenzene 95-50-1
(31) p-Dichlorobonzene; 1,4-Dichlor-
obenzene -. 106-46-7
(32) trans-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene 110-57-6
(33) 1.1-Dichloroethane; Ethylidene
chloride 75-34-3
(34) 1.2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene
dichloride ™ _. 107-06-2
.(35) 1.1-Oichloroethylene; 1,1-Oich-
loroetheno; Vinylidene chloride 75-35-4
(36) cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; ci»-
1.2-Dichloroethene „ „ 156-59-2
CAS RN'
o
•c o r: <»
I- .•>. ®
.£.£>•
x
-125-
-------
DETECTION MONITORING
APPENDIX 1 INDICATOR PARAMETERS
47 VOLATILE COMPOUNDS AND
15 METALS
DIRECTOR OF AN APPROVED STATE
MAY DELETE ANY INDICATOR
CONSTITUENT IF NOT REASONABLY
EXPECTED
DETECTION MONITORING
APPENDIX 1 INDICATOR PARAMETERS
DIRECTOR OF AN APPROVED STATE
MAY ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVE LIST
OF INORGANIC INDICATORS
DIRECTOR MAY ALSO SPECIFY AN
ALTERNATE SAMPLING FREQUENCY
(NO LESS THAN ANNUAL)
-126-
-------
DETECTION MONITORING
0- IF INDICATOR CONSTITUENTS
DETECTED AT A STATISTICALLY
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL:
- PROCEED WITH ASSESSMENT
MONITORING
- NOTIFY STATE DIRECTOR
DO NOT PROCEED TO ASSESSMENT
MONITORING
CONTAMINATION DEMONSTRATABLY
FROM ANOTHER SOURCE
•> ERROR IN SAMPLING, ANALYSIS
STATISTICAL EVALUATION
NATURAL VARIATION IN
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
-127-
-------
DECISION TO NOT PROCEED TO
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
BASED ON CERTIFICATION BY
A QUALIFIED GROUNDWATER
SCIENTIST
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
<> ANNUAL SAMPLING
FULL LIST OF APPENDIX II
PARAMETERS
-128-
-------
Appendix II to this Part 258—List of Hazardous Inorganic and Organic Constituents;
Common Name '
Acanaphthene ..__...„.._... . _..._
Acenaphthyleno .... . ...... „..,.
Acetone ....._._._. ._..._.„„.„..._„.....„...._...._ „..„
Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide. _ 1
Acetophenone _ „. .
2-Acetytaminofluorene; 2-AAF__.._._
Acrolein _„. „ .
Aaytonltrfle __ „ _..
«i jj_
Altyl chloride „ _ _..
4-Amlnobiphenyl. „
Anthracene .~ _. _._ .. .. „ „. .. . „.
Antimony. _ _ „
Barium „.. _
Benzene
Banzotalanthracene; Benzanthracene „ . .
BenzoCblfluoranthene
Bonzotklfluoranthene _ _ _
Benzotghilperytene „
Banzo[a]pyrene _
Benzyl alcohol
Beryllium. . . _.
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC _
delta-BHC
CAS RN •
83-32-9
208-96-8
67-64-1
75-05-fl
98-66-2
53-96-3
107-02-6
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-05-1
92-67-1
120-12-7
(Total)
(Total)
(Total)
71-43-2
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-06-9
191-24-2
50-32-8
100-51-6
(Total)
319-64-6
319-65-7
319-66-8
Chemical abstracts service index name *
Acenaphthylene, 1,2-dihydro-...
Acenaphthylene
2-Propanone _
Acotonitrile
Ethanone, 1-phenyf- .
Acetamida, N-8H-fluoren-2-yl-..
2-Propenal ... .
2-Propenenitrile
_ _
1 ,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene. 1 ,2,3,4, 1 0, 1 0-hexachtoro-
1 ,4,4a,5,a.8a-hexahydro- (1 a,4a,4a/3,5a.6a,8a0)-
1-Propene, 3-chloro- — — __ _
[1 V-Blphenyll^-amine -
Antimony
Arsenic „.„
Barium
Benzene
BenzCelacephenanthryldne. ...
BenzoCalpyrene
porvUium
-
Cyclohexane. 1, 2,3,4, 5,6-hexachloro-, (1a,2a.3£,4-
Sug-
gested
meth-
ods'
8100
8270
8100
8270
8260
8015
8270
8270
8030
8260
8030
8260
8080
8270
8010
8260
8270
6100
8270
6010
7040
7041
6010
7060
7061
6010
7080
6020
6021
6260
8100
8270
8100
8270
8100
8270
8100
8270
6100
8270
8270
6010
7090
7091
8080
8270
8080
8270
8080
8270
POL (jig/
200
10
200
10
100
100
10
20
5
100
5
200
0.05
10
5
10
20
200
10
300
2000
30
500
10
20
20
1000
2
0.1
5
200
10
200
10
200
10
200
10
200
10
20
3
50
2
0.05
10
0.05
20
0.1
20
-129-
-------
51034 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Common Name a
Bis(2-chloro6thy1) ether Dichloroethyl ether
B!s-(2-cMoro-1-methylethyl) ether; 2,2'-Dichlorodiisopropy1
ether; DCIP, See note 7
Bis(Z-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Bromochloromethane* Chlorobromomethane
Bromodichloromethane; Oibromochloromethane _
Bromoform; Tribromometnane
4-Bromophenyt phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl phthalate
Cadmium .„
Carbon bisulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane . „
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate „„
p-Chloro-m-cresol; 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride
Chloroform; Trtehloromethane
2-Chloronaphthalene _ _
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether .
Chloroprene _
Chromium _
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
m-Cresol; 3-methylphenol...
o-Cresol; 2-methylphenol....
p-Cresol; 4-methylphenol ..
2,4-D; 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
4,4'-DDD ......
4,4 '-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Diallate....
CAS RN 3
58-89-9
111-91-1
111-44-4
108-60-1
117-81-7
74-97-5
75-27-4
75-25-2
101-55-3
B5-68-7
(Total)
75-15-0
56-23-5
See Note 8
106-47-8
10S-90-7
510-15-6
59-50-7
75-00-3
67-66-3
91-58-7
95-57-8
7005-72-3
126-99-8
(Total)
218-01-9
(Total)
(Total)
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
57-12-5
94-75-7
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
Chemical abstracts service index name *
Cyclohexane, 1.2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1a,2a,3/3,4a,5a,6/3(-
Ethane, 1 ,1 l-tmethylenebis(oxy)]bist2-chloro-
Propane, 2,2'-oxybis[1-chloro- -
1 2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester.
Methane, bromochloro- ;
Methane bromodichloro*
Methane, Uibromo- ..
1, 2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl phenylmethyl ester
4,7-Methano-1 H-indene, 1 ,2,4.5.6,7,8,8-octachloro-
2,3,3a,4,7,7a-hexahydro-.
Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chloro-a-(4-chlorophonyl)-a-hydroxy-,
ethyl ester.
Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl-
Ethane, chloro-
1 ,3-Butadiene 2-chloro-
Cobalt
Phenol, 3-methyl-
Phenol, 2-methyl-
Phenol, 4-methyl-
Cyanide
Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-,S-(2,3-dichlorc-2-pro-
penyl) ester.
Sug-
gested
meth-
ods*
6080
8270
8110
8270
8110
8270
8110
8270
8060
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8110
8270
8060
8270
6010
7130
7131
8260
8010
8021
8260
8000
8270
8270
8010
8020
8021
8260
8270
8040
8270
8010
8021
8260
8010
6021
8260
8120
8270
8040
8270
8110
8270
8010
8260
6010
7190
7191
8100
8270
6010
7200
7201
6010
7210
7211
8270
8270
8270
9010
8150
8080
8270
8080
8270
8080
8270
8270
PQL^g/
0.05
20
5
10
3
10
10
10
20
0.1
5
1
0.2
5
2
15
5
25
10
5
10
40
50
1
too
1
0.1
10
0.1
50
20
2
2
0.1
5
10
5
20
5
1
10
0.5
0.2
5
10
10
5
10
40
10
50
20
70
500
10
200
10
70
500
10
60
200
10
10
10
10
200
10
0.1
10
0.05
10
0.1
10
10
-130-
-------
federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 51035
Common Name*
DibenzCa,h]anthrac8ne...__. _ _. ...................
CSbenzoturnn , .,,„ „„_, „ „,„,„„,
Dibfornochloromethane; Chlorodibfomomethane ....
1,2-Qbromo-3-chloroDropane; DBCP~~....._ ..................
1 2-Dlbremoethane; Elhytene dribromtde; EDB .„ _. _.,
Di-n-butyl phthalate.. ._ „ .. _ . .. . „
o-DichlorobenzGne; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
fn-pWllnmharcjij^a; 1,a.nichlcrob«izene...,, .,.,...,., ,.,„
p-Diohlofobenzene; 1,4-Dlchlorobenzane _._ . „
3,3'-Dtctilorobenzidine „. . .
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene _. ..
DJchlorodifluoromethane; CFC 12; _
1.1-Dichloroethana; Ethytdidene chloride..
1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride ..
1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1.1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene chloride...
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene _
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene trans- 1.2-Dichloroethene
2,4-Dichlofophenol _ _„ _
2,6-Dichlorophenol _ „ .
1,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene dichloride _
1,3-Oichloropropane; Trimethytene dichloride „
2,2-Dtahloropropane; Isopropylidene chloride
1,1-0ichloropropene._
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropf opone
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Dieltiyl phthalate ._ .
0,0-Diethyl 0-2-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate; Thionazin-.. _
DimathoatA T ,„.,,..
p-(Dimethylamino)a2Obenzene
7,12-OimethylbenzCalanthracene
CAS RN •
53-70-3
132-64-9
124-40-1
96-12-8
106-93-4
84-74-2
95-50-1
541-73-t
106-46-7
91-94-1
110-57-6
75-71-6
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-59-2
156-60-5
120-83-2
87-65-0
78-87-5
142-28-9
594-20-7
563-58-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
297-97-2
60-51-5
60-11-7
57-97-6
Chemical abstracts service Index name '
Methane dibromochloro- .
Propane 1 ,2-dlbrome-3-chlofO- .... ...
Ethane 1,2-dibromc-
1.2-Beraenecficarboxyltc acid, dibutyt ester „..„.. _„
Benzene, 1,3-Oichloro-
Benzene 1 4-dlchloro- . . ...
[1 1 '-Blphenyll-4 4'-diamine 33'-dichloro-
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-. (E)-
Methane dichlorodilluoro-
Ethane 1 1-dichloro- .t, ..-,
Ethene, 1,1-dichloro- -...
Ethane 1^-dichloro-, (Z)-
Ethene 1^-dichloro- (E)-
Phenof 2 4-dichloro-
Propane 1,2-dichlorc-
Propane 1 ,3-dichlorc-
Propans 2 2-dichloro- ..
1 -Propone 1 3-dichloro- (Z)-
1-Propene 1 3-dichloro- (E)-
2,7.3,6-Dimethanonaphth[2,3-b]oxirene. 3,4,5,6,9,9-hexa,
crilofo-1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,7a-octahydro-, (1aa,2^,2aa.3/3,
6/3,6ao.7/3,7aa)-.
1 2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid diethyl ester
Phosphofothioic acid 0 0-diethyl 0-pyrazinyl ester
Phosphorodithlolc add 0 0-dimethyl S-[2-(methylamino)-2-
oxoethyl] ester.
Benzenamine, N N-dlmethyl-4-(pheny!azo)-
Berutalanthracena. 7.12-dimethvl-
Sug-
gested
meth-
ods'
8100
8270
8270
8010
8021
8260
8011
8021
8260
8011
8021
8260
8060
8270
8010
8020
8021
8120
8260
8270
8010
6020
8021
8120
8260
8270
8010
8020
8021
8120
8260
8270
8270
8260
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8040
8270
8270
8010
8021
8260
8021
8260
8021
8260
8021
8260
8010
8260
8010
8260
8080
8270
8060
8270
8141
8270
8141
8270
8270
8270
PQL <^9/
200
10
10
1
0.3
S
0.1
30
25
0 1
10
5
5
10
2
5
0.5
10
5
10
5
5
0.2
10
5
10
2
5
0.1
15
5
10
20
100
0.5
5
1
0.5
5
0.5
0.3
5
1
0.5
5
0.2
5
1
0.5
5
5
10
10
0.5
00'
k
0.3
5
0.5
15
0.2
5
20
to
5
10
0.0
10
5
10
5
20
3
20
10
10
-131-
-------
51036 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
—Continued
Common
2,4-Dimethylphenol; m-Xylenol..
Dimethyl phthalate
Name2
:::::::::::
4,6-Dtnrtro-o-cresol4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol -
Dinoseb; DNBP; 2-sec-ButyM,6
Endosullan 1 „...
Endrin
Ethylbenzene _
Ethyl methacrylate „
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur „„.
Fluoranttiena _
Fluorene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene .. . .
Hexachlorocyclcpentadiene
Hexachloroethane_ „
Hexachloropropene
2-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketor
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
isobutyl alcohol „. „
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole „ „
Kepone _
6
CASRN'
119-93-7
105-67-9
131-11-3
99-65-0
534-52-1
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
88-85-7
117-84-0
122-39-4
298-04-4
959-98-8
33213-65-9
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
100-41-4
97-63-2
62-50-0
52-85-7
206-44-0
86-73-7
76-44-8
1024-57-3
1 18-74-1
B7-68-3
77-47-4
67-72-1
1888-71-7
591-78-6
193-39-5
78-83-1
465-73-6
78-59-1
120-58-1
143-50-0
Chemical abstracts service index name *
C1,1'-Biphenyll-4,4l-diamine, 3,3 '-dimethyl-
Phenol, 2.4-dimethyl-
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester
Benzene, 1 ,3-dinHro-
Phenol, 2-methyl-4.6-dinitro._ _
Phenol. 2.4-dinitro- ~
Benzene, 1 -methyl-2,4-dinitro-
Benzene, 2-methyl-1 ,3-dinltro- ~
1 2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester -
Benzenamine N-phenyl- -
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] ester..
6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9, 10,1 0-hexa-
chloro-1 ,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide,
6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6.7,8,9,10.10-hexa-
chloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3 oxide, (3o,5aa,6/3,9/3,
9aa)-.
6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8.9,10,10-hexa-
chloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-.3-3-dioxide.
2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth[2,3-b]oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9-hexach-
loro-1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,7a-octahydro-, (1ao, 2fl£a0.3a,6a,
6aj3,7/J,7ao)-.
1,2,4-Methenocyclopenta[cd]pentalene-5-earboxaldehyde,
2,2a,3,3,4,7-hexachlorodecahydro-. (1 a.2/3,2a^,4/3,
4a/J,50.6afl,6b/3,7Ff)-.
Phosphorothioic acid, 0-[4-[(dimethylamino)sulfonyl]phenyl]
0,0-dimethyl ester.
4,7-Methano-1 H-indene. 1 .4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-3a,4,7,7a-
tetrahydro-.
2,5-Methano-2H-indenor. 1 ,2-b]oxirene, 2,3,4,5,6,7.7-heptach-
loro-1a,1b,5,5a,6,6a-hexahydro-. (1aa, 1b/3, 2a, So, 5a/3,
60, 6aa).
1 3-Butadiene 11234 4-hexachloro-
1 3-Cyclopentadiene 12345 5-hexachloro-
1,4,5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene,1, 2,3,4,10,10- hexacnloro-
1,4,4a,5,8,Ba hexahydro- (1 a,4a.4a^,5/3,e^,8a/3)-.
1,3,4-Melheno-2H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalen-2-one,
1,1a,3,3a,4,5,5,5a,5b,6-decachlorooctahydro-.
Sug-
gested
meth-
ods'
8270
8040
8270
8060
8270
8270
8040
8270
8040
8270
8090
8270
8090
8270
8150
B270
8060
8270
8270
8140
8141
8270
6080
8270
8080
8270
8080
8270
8080
8270
8080
8270
8020
6221
8260
8015
8260
8270
8270
8270
61 00
8270
8100
8270
8080
8270
8080
8270
8120
8270
8021
8120
8260
8270
8120
8270
8120
8260
8270
8270
6260
8100
8270
8015
8240
8270
8260
8090
8270
8270
8270
PQLfug/
10
5
10
5
10
20
150
50
150
50
0.2
10
0.1
10
1
20
30
10
10
2
0.5
10
0.1
20
0.05
20
0.5
10
0.1
20
02
10
2
0.05
5
5
10
10
20
20
200
10
200
10
0.05
10
1
10
0.5
10
0.5
5
10
10
5
10
0.5
10
10
10
50
200
10
50
100
20
10
60
10
10
20
-132-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 51037
—Continued
Common Name *
Lead
MethacrylonKrila... .._
Methapyrilene , '.
Mathoxychlor.. ... . .„.
Methyl bromide* Bromomethane
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane
3-Methylcholanthrene
Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone
Methyl Iodide; lodomethane
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methanesulfonate „
2-Methylnaphthalene
Methyl parathion; Paralhion methyl _
4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane
Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane
Naphthalene
1 ,4-NaphthOQuinone
1-Naphthylamfne .. .
2-Naphthylamine
Nickel™.
o-Nitroaniline; 2-Nitroaniline
m-Nitroaniline; 3-Nitroanlle
p-Nltroaniline; 4-Nitroaniline ...
Nitrobenzene
o-Nitrophenol; 2-Nitrophenol
p-Nitrophenol; 4-Nitrophenol
N-Nttrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine ....
N-Nitrosodimethylamine . ..
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodipropylamine' N-Nitroso-N-dipropylamine' Di-n-pro-
pylnitrosamine.
N-Nitrosomethylethelamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Parathion
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol _
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene _
Phenol
p-Phenylenediamlne
Phorate
CAS RN «
(Total)
(Total)
126-98-7
91-80-5
72-43-5
74-83-9
74-87-3
56-49-5
78-93-3
74-88-4
80-62-6
66-27-3
91-57-6
2S8-00-0
108-10-1
74-95-3
75-09-2
91-20-3
130-15-4
134-32-7
91 -59-8
(Total)
88-74-4
99-09-2
100-01-6
98-95-3
88-75-5
100-02-7
924-16-3
55-18-5
62-75-9
86-30-6
621-64-7
1 0595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
99-55-8
56-38-2
608-93-5
82-68-8
87-06-5
62-44-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
106-50-3
298-02-2
Chemical abstracts service index name "
Lead _
Mercury -
2-Propenenttrile 2-methyl- ...
1,2-Ethanediamine, N.N-dimethyl-N'^-pyridinyl-NI/a-thlenyl-
methyl)-.
Benzene 1 1'-(2,2 2 trichloroethylidene)bis[4-methoxy-
Methane bromo-
Methane, chlorc-
BenzCJlaceanthrylene 1 2-dihydro-3-methyl-
2-Butanone
Msthane iodc-
Naphthalene 2-methyl-
Phosphorothioic acid 0 0-dimethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl) ester
2-Pentanone 4-methyl- .
Methane dibromo-
Methane dichloro-
Nsphthalene ,
Nickel
Benzenamine 2-nitro-
Benzenamine 3-nitro- .~
Phenol 4-nitro- '•
1-Butanamine N-butyl-N-nltroso-
Meth&namine N-methyl-N-nltroso-
Ethanamino N-methyl-N-nitroso-
Pyrrolidine 1-nttcoso-
Phosphorothioic acid 0 0-diethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl) ester
Phenol pentachlorc- -
Acetamide N-(4-ethoxyphenl)
Phenol
1 4-Benzefiediamine .
Phocphorodithioic acid, 0, 0-diethyl S-[(ethylthio)methyl] ester.
Sug-
gested
meth-
ods1
6010
7420
7421
7470
6015
8260
8270
8060
8270
8010
6021
8010
8021
8270
8015
6260
8010
8260
8015
8260
8270
8270
8140
8141
8270
8015
8260
6010
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8021
8100
8260
8270
8270
8270
8270
6010
7520
8270
8270
8270
8090
8270
8040
8270
8040
8270
8270
8270
8070
8070
8070
8270
8270
8270
8270
8141
8270
8270
8270
8040
8270
8270
8100
8270
8040
8270
8140
8141
8270
POL (jig/
400
1000
10
2
5
100
100
2
10
20
10
1
0.3
10
10
100
40
10
2
30
10
10
0.5
1
10
5
100
15
20
10
5
0.2
10
0.5
200
5
10
10
10
10
150
400
50
50
20
40
10
5
10
10
50
10
20
2
5
10
10
20
40
10
0.5
10
10
20
5
50
20
200
10
1
10
2
0.5
10
-133-
-------
51038 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
—Continued
Common Name "
^Atonium
Silver
Silver 2 A 5-TP _
Sulfide
1.24.5-Tetrachtorob9nzene -
1 1 1 2-Tetrach(oroelhane . .. - _.._ . ..
1 .1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane _
Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene' Perchloroethylene
2,3,4 ,6-Tetrachloropnenol „
Thallium __«-. .
Tin _._
Trillin"" JIM ,
o-Tohjidine ... ._
Toxaphene — ,
1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene _ __
1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchlorotorm
1,1.2-Trichloroethane...-
Trichtoroethytena; Trtchloroethene
Trichtoronuoromethana; CFC-1 1
2,4,5-Trichtorophenol..._
2,4,6-TricNorophenol _
1,2.3-Trichloropropane_
0,0.0-Triethy) phosphorothioate
sym-Trinitrobenzene „
Vanadium _. ..._ _
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride; Chtoroethene
Xylene (total)
Zinc
CASRN"
See Note 9
23950-58-5
107-12-0
129-00-0
94 ~sg-f
(Total)
(Total)
93-72-1
100-42-6
18496-25-8
93-76-5
95-94-3
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
(Total)
(Total)
108-88-3
95-53-4
See Note 10
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
96-18-4
126-68-1
99-35-4
(Total)
108-05-4
75-01-4
See Note 1 1
(Total)
Chemical abstracts service index name •
Benzamide, 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)-
Propanenitrile .- . . .. .- — —
Pyrene
1 3-Benzodioxole, 5-(2-propenyl)-
Selenium .. ..._.
Silver .
Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4,5-tricnlorophenoxy)-...
Benzene, ethenyl- -.«. .— «.. «.._..»...-«..
Sulfide .
Acetic acid (2 4 fMrichlorophenoxy)- ,,., , ,...,,..,,
Benzene, 1 ,2,4,5-tetrachloro- ... _.
Flhane, 1 1,1 2-tetrachlofo-,, „,_ .., , -,.-.,.-
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-
Ethene tetrachloro-
Phenol, 2,3,4 6-tetrachtorc-
Thallium......... _..«......__ „ ..«.-._
Tin
Benzene methyl- - . . « -
Benzene, 1,24-trichloro- —
Ethane 1 1 1-trichloro- . . .
Ethane 1 1 2-trichloro-
Methane, Ulchlorofluoro-
Phenol 2 4 5-trichloro-
Phenol 2 4 6-trichloro-
Benzene, 1 3 5-trinltro-
Ethene chloro-
Zinc
Sug-
gested
meth-
ods'
8080
8270
8270
8015
8260
8100
8270
8270
6010
7740
7741
6010
7760
7761
8150
8020
8021
8260
9030
8150
8270
8010
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8270
6010
7640
7841
6010
8020
8021
8260
8270
8080
8021
8120
8260
8270
8010
8021
8260
8010
8260
8010
8021
8260
8010
8021
8260
8270
8040
8270
8010
8021
8260
8270
8270
6010
7910
7911
8260
6010
8021
8260
8020
8021
8260
6010
7950
7951
POL (pg/
SO
200
10
60
150
200
10
10
750
20
20
70
100
10
2
1
0.1
10
4000
2
10
5
0.05
5
0.5
0.1
5
0.5
0.5
5
10
400
1000
10
40
2
0.1
5
10
2
0.3
0.5
10
10
0.3
OJ
5
02
5
1
02
5
10
0.3
5
10
5
10
10
5
15
10
10
80
2000
40
50
2
0.4
10
5
0.2
5
20
50
O.S
-134-
-------
POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
SUBSET OF WELLS
OTHER CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
ALTERNATE SAMPLING
FREQUENCY
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
IF APPENDIX II DETECTED -
OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST
NOTIFY STATE DIRECTOR
<> CONTINUE MONITORING
AT LEAST SEMIANNUALLY
-135-
-------
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
IF APPENDIX II DETECTED -
OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST
<> ESTABLISH BACKGROUND AND
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
STANDARD (GWPS) FOR EACH
DETECTED PARAMETER
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
GWPS MUST BE MCL OR
BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION
FOR THE DETECTED CONSTITUENT
-136-
-------
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
IF APPENDIX II DETECTED AND THEN
LATER NOT FOUND ABOVE BACKGROUND
^ CONFIRM BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION
OR BELOW FOR 2 CONSECUTIVE SAMPLING
EVENTS
^ NOTIFY STATE
^ RETURN TO DETECTION MONITORING
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
IF APPENDIX II DETECTED AND SUBSEQUENT
MONITORING FOUND TO BE A STATISTICALLY
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OVER GWPS
NOTIFY STATE DIRECTOR AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS
CHARACTERIZE EXTENT AND NATURE OF
CONTAMINATION
- BEST EFFORT MUST BE MADE
- INCLUDES PLUME DELINEATION OFF-SITE
-137-
-------
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
IF GWPS EXCEEDED (CONT)
INSTALL ADDITIONAL WELLS IF
NECESSARY, (INSTALL AT LEAST
ONE AT FACILITY BOUNDARY IN
DIRECTION OF CONTAMINANT
MIGRATION)
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
IF GWPS EXCEEDED (CONT)
IF PLUME IS OFF-SITE, OWNER OR
OPERATOR MUST NOTIFY
INDIVIDUALS WHOSE LAND
OVERLIES PLUME
-138-
-------
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
IF GWPS EXCEEDED (CONT)
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
SELECT APPROPRIATE REMEDY
- PLACE IN OPERATING RECORD
- NOTIFY STATE DIRECTOR
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
REMEDIATION NOT NECESSARY IF:
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATED BY
MULTIPLE SOURCES AND CLEANUP OF
MSWLF PLUME WON'T REDUCE RISK
GROUNDWATER IS NOT, AND WILL NOT
BE DRINKING WATER
-139-
-------
ASSESSMENT MONITORING
REMEDIATION NOT NECESSARY IF;
^ REMEDIATION IS NOT TECHNICALLY
FEASIBLE
UNACCEPTABLE CROSS -MEDIA
IMPACT WOULD RESULT FROM
REMEDIATION
-140-
-------
DETECTION CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION AT LANDFILLS
David K. Kreamer, Ph.D.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, NV
I. RELEASE CHARACTERIZATION
A. Ground-Water Flow
B. Non-Aqueous Phase Row
C. Soil Vapors
D. Solid Phase Sampling (Soil)
II. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
A. Excavation
1. Haul Off-site to an Approved Location
2. Treat (on-site, off-site)
B. Ground-Water Containment
1. Hydraulic Barriers: Interceptor Trenches, Well
2. Barrier Walls
C. Soil Washing and Flushing
D. Phase Separation and Pumping
1. Physical Separation
2. Air Stripping
3. Granular Activated Carbon
4. Air Sparging
E. Aquifer Sparging and Vapor Extraction Techniques
F. Thermal Treatment
1. Soils
2. Steam, RF, Others
G. Bioremediation
H. Other Techniques
III. MEASURES ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Information for several parts of this presentation relied on the work of others. Dr. Kreamer would
like to extend particular thanks to:
James W. Mercer J. Michael Henson Robert Hinchee
Michael J. Barcelona Ronald C. Simms Richard Johnson
-141-
-------
-\xv >*r"!.;'!|fr*11 a*"*^**-* lp*11 *•***"* • • %*•» /\IML/
BEliDlATION At LANDFILLS
* ^IjCFf Part 258 Subpart E)
^%S-- '•NS\\\'-\'.% "- S ™ *
David K. Kreamer, Ph.D.
- \ X Xx \"
Water Resources Management
Graduate Program
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
RELEASE
CHARACTERIZATION
-143-
-------
FLOW
NON-AQUEOUS
PHASE FLOW
-144-
-------
SOIL PHASE
SAMPLING (SOIL)
-145-
-------
REMEDIATION
BIOREMEDIATION
SOIL WASHING AND FLUSHING
EXCAVATION
CHEMICAL AND THERMAL TREATMENT
AQUIFER SPARGING AND VACUUM EXTRACTION
PHASE SEPARATION AND PUMPING SYSTEMS
REMEDIATION
0 FOCUSED FS
0 INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES
0 BENCH AND PILOT SCALE STUDIES
0 FORMAL FS
0 SELECTION AND DESIGN
0 IMPLEMENTATION
0 MONITORING
0 CLOSURE, IF APPROPRIATE
-146-
-------
REMEDIATION
EXCAVATION
• DIGGING AND TRUCKING
-PROBLEMS
COST AND DISPOSAL
FIXATION / ENCAPSULATION
0 ENCAPSULATION
0 CEMENT SOLIDIFICATION
0 LIME SOLIDIFICATION (SILICATE)
0 THERMOPLASTIC
0 ORGANIC POLYMER
0 SELF - CEMENTING
0 CLASSIFICATION
0 VITRIFICATION
0 SORBENTS
0 DEEP WELL INJECTION
-147-
-------
FIXATION
CHANGES PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF WASTE (BECOMES LESS WATER
SOLUBLE AND TOXIC) AND DECREASES
SURFACE AREA OF POLLUTANTS AVAIL-
ABLE FOR LEACHING
BACKHOE KEYS TRENCH
INTO BEDROCK
BACKFILL
PLACED MERE
T ,
SLURRY LEVEL -
OHOUNO / t
WATER / ^-BENTONITE SLURRY XOACKFILL
"VU ' ^ "~/ SLOUGMS
FORWARD
-148-
-------
PROBLEMS WITH SLURRY WALLS
DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE DESIGN
PERMEABILITY
DIFFICULT TO PREVENT UNDER FLOW
LEADS TO LOSS OF CONTAINMENT
CONTAMINANT MO6JLJZATJON - SOIL FLUSHING
Wtt«f
Acidic Solutions
BASJC Solutions
Surfactants
Chelaton Solutions
-149-
-------
• FT1"1!! ^,._ —»-. r=3fc=r~
:I»iii\£;i.^£
-------
Domestic
Well
Underground
Tank
Extraction Walls with
Radius of lnflu*nc«*
Plan Vlaw
PROBLEMS WITH PUMP-AND-
TREAT TECHNOLOGIES
MATRIX DIFFUSION
DESORPTION
RESIDUAL SATURATION (IMMISCIBLE
FLUID)
LEADS TO LONG CLEAN UP TIME FRAMES
-151-
-------
O.
:D
a
OFF
MAX
z
O
H
<
cc
H
Z
Ul
O
z
O
O
CZISATOM
of rvMPMO
(0.0*41*47)
TIME ->-
a.
OfF
MAX
c
h-
-------
ASSUMPTIONS
WHAT YOU DON'T OBSERVE CANNOT BE REMEDIATED
ALL OBSERVATIONS ARE TIME DEPENDENT
HYDROGEOLOGY PROVIDES THE BASIS FOR JUDGING
REPRESENTATIVENESS AND THE BASIS FOR ANY
CHEMICAL INTERPRETATION
OBJECTIVES INCLUDE A CONTROLLED DATA
COLLECTION EFFORT
MODERATE
FAST
MODERATE
-153-
-------
TREATMENT METHODS
0 PHYSICAL TREATMENT
0 CHEMICAL TREATMENT
0 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
0 THERMAL TREATMENT
0 FIXATION / ENCAPSULATION
PHYSICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
0 AERATION
0 AMMONIA STRIPPING
0 CARBON ADSORPTION
0 CENTRIFUGATION
0 DIALYSIS
0 DISTILLATION
0 ELECTRODIALYSIS
0 ENCAPSULATION
0 EVAPORATION
-154-
-------
PHYSICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(CONT)
0 FILTRATION
0 FLOCCULATION SETTLING
0 FLOTATION
0 REVERSE OSMOSIS
0 SEDIMENTATION
0 AIR STRIPPING
0 GRAVITY (OIL / WATER)
0 ULTRAFILTRATION
0 STEAM STRIPPING
0 MICROWAVE
PHYSICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(CONT)
0 FREEZE CRYSTALLIZATION
0 MAGNETIC SEPARATION
0 COAGULATION
0 DETONATION
0 OIL / WATER SEPARATION
0 RESIN ADSORPTION
0 PHOTOLYSIS
0 EQUALIZATION
0 TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENT
-155-
-------
RF HEATING SYSTEM
Transition section
RF power feed point
Vapor barrier
Concrete pad
Pea gravel
Vapor collection
manifold
Electrodes
IN SITU HEATING
• INVOLVES HEATING CONTAMINATED
SOILS TO VAPORIZE HYDROCARBONS
- For example using radio-frequency
electromagnetic energy
-156-
-------
Unventilated Soil
Soil Water
Evaporation = Condensation
Rate Rate
From Valsatjj diiO llntioduaun. IfHJ? (
Ventilated Soil
High Evaporation
Rate
-157-
hom Vuls,ird| ana llnt>oJt.-.n.'>, 19U/(modilied)
-------
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
0 ACTIVATED SLUDGE
0 AERATED LAGOON
0 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
0 ANAEROBIC FILTERS
0 TRICKLING FILTERS
0 WASTE STABILIZATION POND
0 ROTATING BIOLOGICAL DISC
0 BIOLOGICAL SEEDING
0 COMPOSTING
0 ENZYMATIC
THERMAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
0 INCINERATION
0 PYROLYSIS
0 FLARING
0 MOLTEN SALT
0 PLASMA REDUCTION
0 WET AIR OXIDATION
0 FLUIDIZED BED
0 MULTIPLE HEARTH
0 ROTARY KILN
0 CATALYTIC OXIDATION
-158-
-------
EMERGING THERMAL
TECHNOLOGIES
0 MOLTEN SALT
0 PLASMA SYSTEMS
0 WET OXIDATION
- SUPER CRITICAL WATER
0 HIGH - TEMPERATURE FLUID WALL
0 CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATION
0 FLUIDIZED - BED INCINERATION
0 MOLTEN GLASS
BIOREMEDIATION
Utilization of microbial processes in • controlled
environment to remove • variety of compounds from
• location where they are unwanted.
-159-
-------
BIOREMEDIATION
Requires integrated approaches from several disciplines:
• Microbiology
• Hydrogeology
• Engineering
MICROBIAL ECOLOGY OF SUBSURFACE
• 1 x 10* to 1 x 10* microbes/gm soil
(lower in pristine environments)
• >90% of microbes attached to solids
• metabolically active
• metabolically versatile
• oxic and anoxic conditions
-160-
-------
EVALUATION PHASE
Toxicity
Limiting nutrients or electron acceptor
Analogue addition
Numbers of microbes present
GROWTH CONDITIONS
Microorganisms require carbon, nitrogen.
phosphorous, and other inorganics
Also require a Terminal Electron Acceptor
oxygen, nitrate, (denitrification)
sulfate. nitrate (nitrate reduction).
carbonate, organics (fermentation)
Naturally-occurring microorganisms
LABORATORY EVALUATIONS
• Based of collection of subsurface core materials
• Number of heterotrophic and specific
compound-degrading bacteria present
• Disappearance of parent compound
• Nutrient mixture that best supports removal
nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, other nutrients
geochemistry may support without additions
• Electron acceptor evaluation and consumption
• GC/MS of daughter products
• Determination of removal rates and final enumeration
-161-
-------
METHODS FOR MICROBIAL ENUMERATION
PURPOSE: To ensure system is not toxic: requisite
organisms are present; show subsequent
increase. Not to predict activity or rates
Plate Counts:
Standard microbiological technique:
habitat-simulating
Most Probable Number (MPN):
Statistical counting technique in
liquid medium
Acridine Orange Direct Count (AODC):
Stain microorganisms - count
via microscopy. Not a viable count
Cell components:
Fatty acids
Toul Lipid Phosphate
DNA
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF BlORESTORATION CLAIMS
• Reduction in Substrate Concentration - Mass Balances
• Increase in Biornass/Activity
• Production of Catabolites
• Consumption of Terminal Electron Acceptors
• Adaptation/Acclimation Phenomena
• Biodegradation Kinetics
• All factors relative to appropriate abiotic controls
-162-
-------
ADAPTION/ACCLIMATION
An observed increase in the rate of biodegradation
after some period of exposure of the microbial community
to a chemical.
U)
u
I
u
TIME
A - ADAPTATION TIME
MICROBIAL ADAPTATION
When adaptation occurs, the rate of removal is not
f overned by an intrinsic property of the microbes.
but Is foverned by the physical processes controlling
the availability of nutrients - principally oxygen.
Allows for mathematical models
-163-
-------
Aerobic Biodegradation - Respiration
7'/20.
6 C0,+ 3 H,O
3.1 lbO,/lbCKH
6' "C
6
9^0:
6 C0,+ 7 H,O
3.5,lb 0,/lb CJH
6" '14
OXYGEN SUPPLY
s
Water
AJr Saturated
Pure Oxygen Saturated
500 mg/ 1 Hydrogen Peroxide
AJr
Oxygen Suppty
to Carrior/lb Oxygen
100.000
25.000
5.000
4
S
-164-
-------
Oxygen Concentration in Vadose Zone Before Venting
10
20 30
Distance (feet)
40 50
60 70 80 90
10 -
20 -
30 -
40 -
50 -
60 -
70
10%
IX
IK
Vent
Well #7
IR
• M
10
IT
IY
Oxygen Concentration in Vadose Zone After Venting
Distance (feet)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7O 8O 90
10 -
20 -
j 30-
I
40 -
50 -
60 -
70
IX IU IS
15%
10%
I Y I COA
10%5/0
-165-
-------
REMEDY SELECTED
^IMPLEMENT
ESTABLISH CORRECTIVE ACTION
GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND
TAKE ANY NECESSARY INTERIM
MEASURE
REMEDY SELECTED
IF DURING REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION
A REQUIREMENT FOR THE REMEDY
CANT BE MET
^ OBTAIN CERTIFICATION FROM QUALIFIED
GROUNDWATER SCIENTIST
^ NOTIFY STATE DIRECTOR
^ IMPLEMENT ALTERNATE MEASURE
-166-
-------
REMEDY SELECTED
^CORRECTIVE ACTION CONTINUES
UNTIL COMPLIANCE WITH GWPS IS
MET FOR 3 CONSECUTIVE YEARS
-167-
-------
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
Gregory Richardson, Ph.D., P.E. and John A. Bove, P.E.
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Raleigh, NC
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Minimum Final Cover
B. Written Closure Plan
C. Closure Implementation
II. CLOSURE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. Infiltration Layer
1. Limiting Permeability
2. Long-term Survivability
3. Cover Stability
4. Construction Considerations
5. Compaction of Clay
B. Water Elevated Erosion
1. Universal Soil Loss Equation
2. Sideslope Swales
C. Wind Erosion
D. Landfill Gas
1. Penetration Details
2. Penetrations
III. POST-CLOSURE CARE
A. Post-Closure Care Requirements
1. Required Post-closure Care
2. Post-closure Monitor
3. Key Monitoring Parameters
4. Elements in Monitoring Program
B. Ground-Water Monitoring
1. Well Design
2. Interbedded Aquifer
C. Leachate Generation
1. Quantity
2. Concentration
-169-
-------
D. Gas Concentration
1. Monitoring Wells
2. Generation Rate
E. Subsidence Monitoring
1. Measurement
2. Allowable
F. Surface Erosion
G. Air Quality
-170-
-------
CLOSURE AND
POST-CLOSURE CARE
(40 CFR Part 258 Subpart F)
Gregory H. Richardson, Ph.D., P.E,
John A. Bove, P,E,
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C,
Raleigh, North Carolina
258.60 Closure Criteria
Final Cover System
Must Be Designed to
Minimize Infiltration and Erosion
18-Inch (Minimum)
Infiltration Layer
• 6-Inch (Minimum)
Erosion Layer
-171-
-------
258,60 Closure Criteria
infiltration Layer
• Has a Permeability Less than or
Equal to the Permeability of Any
Bottom Liner or Natural Subsoils,
No Greater than 1 x 10"5 cm/sec
Figure 1. Area (shaded) of net evaporation in the U.S.
(derived from NOAA data).
-172-
-------
258.60 Closure Criteria
Alternative Cover Systems
That Provide Equal or Greater
Service Can Be Approved
258.60 Closure Criteria
Prepare Written Closure Plan
• Description of Final Cover
and Methods/Procedures to
Install the Cover
• Largest Area of Final MSWLF
• Maximum Inventory of Waste
• Schedule for Completing Closure
-173-
-------
258.60 Closure Criteria
Closure Implementation
• 30 Days after Final Waste
* 1 Year after Most Recent Waste if
Additional Capacity Exists
• Extensions Can Be Granted
• Complete Closure Within 180 Days
Record Notation on Deed
Closure Design
Considerations
Infiltration Layer
Water Related Erosion
• Wind Related Erosion
• Landfill Gas
• Subsidence
-174-
-------
Infiltration Layer Design
(Moisture Barrier)
Limiting Permeability Criteria
Long-Term Survlvablllty
Cover Stability
Construction Considerations
• Infiltration Analysis
Long-Term Survivability
impact of Freezing
Impact of Water Balance
-175-
-------
Depth contours are in feet.
(1 ft = 30.5 cm)
Figure 2. Maximum anticipated depths of freezing.
(Spangler and Handy, 1982)
Cover Stability
• Impact of Geomembrane
interface Friction Tests
Alternate Geomembranes
• Impact of Infiltration
• HELP Model Analysis
-176-
-------
• dralnag* layir
geo membrane
//\\
geomembrane anchor
low-p«rm«ablllly soil
• geomembrane
Interface Friction Tests
• 12-Inch Direct Shear
Dry and Soaked
Low Normal Loads
• Alternate Tilt-Table Test
• No ASTM Standards
-177-
-------
Cell Component: FLEXIBLE H£MBB*.ME Lmu
Required Material Properties Range Test Standard
YIELD STM
fcUl Hit K-M
& -is*
BOO-ffMPM
Analyals Procedure:
P(FIRBMCE Fl
-------
Minimize Puncture of
Geomembrane
• Maximum Soil Particle <0.75 inch
• Geotextile Cushion
• Limit Equipment
• Depth of Cover Soil
• Low Pressure Tracks
Compaction of Clay
• Requires Sound Working Bench
• Minimum 12-Inch Soil
Over Waste
• Proof Roll for Soft Spots
• Impact of Equipment 'Bounce1
-179-
-------
Infiltration Analysis
• Composite Barrier CAP
• HELP Version 3
B Leakage Equation
• Clay Barrier - HELP
• Geomembrane Barrier
Leakage Equation
Water Related Erosion
• Universal Soil Loss
Equation
• Sideslope Swales
• Hardened Covers
-180-
-------
TABLE 5. API'ROXIMATE VALUES OF FACTOR K FOK
_ USDA TEXTURAL CLASSES11
Organic matter content
Texture class
0.5>
Snnd
Fine sruul
Very fine sund
I^nmy sand
I/lnmy fine r.niul
l^n/ny vi y fine sanil
5(\ndy lonm
Fine sandy loiun
Vpry fitir siuidy lonjn
Sill IOMI
Silt
r.nndy cUy loim
Clay loom
Sllty clay loam
Sandy clay
Sllty clay
Clay
0.05
.16
.1.2
.21
.35
.30
.28
.37
.25
0.03
.lli
.36
.21.
.30
.In
.1.2
.52
,?5
.25
.32
.13
.23
0.13-0.29
0.02
.10
.08
.16
.29
.33
Ji2
.21
.21
.26
.12
.19
The values shown are estimated averages of broad
rajiges cT specific-soil values. When a texture is
near the borderline of tuo texture classes, use
the average of the two K values.
= 1 >
rll
.N .
&-:•:
30 200 300 400 500
Slops Length (Feel)
Fi|. 2 9. Chan for dclcrminnion of lopogiapliK f*
COO
on. LS
Water Loss
(Universal Soil Loss Equation)
_ RKSLp
X = Soli Loss
R « RairtfaH Erosion Index
K = Soil Erodibility Factor
S sa Slope Gradient Factor
L « Slope Length Factor
0 =s Crop Management Factor
p ss Erosion Control Practice
-181-
-------
Wind Erosion
X' a I'K'C'L'V
X' = Annual Wind Erosion
I' = Field Roughness Factor
K' = Soil Erodibility Index
C' = Climate Factor
L' = Field Length Factor
V = Vegetative Cover Factor
Landfill Gas Considerations
• Penetration Details
• Impact of Penetrations
-182-
-------
gas vent
" perforated pipe - ' CO £? O .4
Figure 10-1. Cover with gas vent outlet and vent layer.
waste
Subsidence Considerations
• Localized
Strain in Barrier
Potential Reinforcement
* Global
-183-
-------
258.61 post-Closure
Post-Closure Care
Requirements
• ±30 Year Post-Closure Period
• Prepare Written Post-Closure
Monitoring Plan
• Noilly State at Start and Completion
of Post*Giosure Period
258.61 Post-Closure
Required Post-Closure Care
1 * ^^^^^™»-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
• Maintain Integrity and Effectiveness
• Repair Subsidence, Erosion
• Prevent Ru n*0n/R«n~Gff Erosion
• Maintain and Operate Leachate
Collection
» Monitor Ground Water
• Maintain and Operate Gas
-184-
-------
258.61 Post-Closure
Written Post-Closure
Monitoring Plan
• Describe Monitoring Plan
• Describe Maintenance Program
identify Facility Contact
Describe Planned End Uses
of Site
Key Monitoring Parameters
Ground Water
• Leachate Generation
• Gas Concentration
• Subsidence
• Surface Erosion
» Air Quality
-185-
-------
Elements in Monitoring
Program ^^
Detection
Allowable Level Criteria
• Remediation Plan
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Key Monitoring Variables
Maximum GW Elevation
Leakage Monitoring
-186-
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Groundwater Monitoring Well
Weil Design
• PVC for inorganic contaminant
• Stainless steel for organic cont.
• Screen based on local geology
Well Placement
• Isolation of target aquifer
• Proper development of well
Sampling Frequency
• Background quality = monthly
• Post-operation = quarterly
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Leakage Monitoring
Base Index Parameters
Temperature, Specific Conductance,
pH, Color, Odor, and Turbidity
Waste Dependent Parameters
Identify maximum mobility
-187-
-------
Typical Well Configuration
8- 00 LOWING PROTECTIVE -
STEEL CAP
Sat VENTED PVC HELL CASWC CAP —
LOO
T*n> STEEL PROTECTIVE CASING
S'/i'.LONG
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
REINFORCED CONCRETE CAP —
MIN.Z'P.ABUS «/ •« REBAR
ON 6* CENTERS
CONCRETE PLUG EXTENDING IS1
DO»N BOREHOLE BELO» CAP
<-SCH.«p PVC FLUSH JOINT CASING
CEUENT/BENTOWTE GROUT .°UACEO •-•
Br SIDE PISCHARCE TREMIE PIPEi
94 LBS. PORTLArJO CEMENT
S LBS. POM1ERED SENTOMTE
6 GALS. JAFF.R
ILB. CALCIUU CHLOR^IE
BENTOMTE ratLET SE1L-
TAUPED AND HYDRATEO
FK SAMD FILTER
SAND PACK. CONSISTING OF
BASHED > GRADED SILICA SAND.
SIZED FOR THE AQUIFER AND
PLACED 8T TREUE PIPE
FACTORT SLOTTED OR CONTMUOUS HIRE
SCREEN SIZED FOR AQUIFER CRAM
SIZE DISTRIBUTION
TALPtECE OR SECKUENT CUP
CENTRALIZED 1SPACEO AS REQ'OJ
PVC END CAP (THREADED!
BOTTOU OF BOREHOLE —
Monitoring Interbedded Aquifer
123 12
Sand(K = lX10-2 cm/sec)
Layer 1
Sand (K=lxlO~3 cm/sec)
Layers
-188-
-------
LEACHATE GENERATION
Key Monitoring Variables
Quantity vs Time
Concentration vs Time
Cell Leakage
LEACHATE GENERATION
Quantity vs Time
Volume Reduction with Time
Action Leakage Rate (ALR)
• Based on 2 mm hole in PFML
• 5 to 20 gal/acre/day
Initials leak reporting
Rapid and Large Leakage (RLL)
• Serious ceil failure
• 2000 to 10,000 gal/acre/day
• Defines failure of facility
-189-
-------
LEACHATE GENERATION
• Concentration vs Time
Increase Concentr
Impact of Biological Growth?
Cell Leakage
Groundwater Monitoring
Direct Leakage Monitors
• Secondary collector
• External Lysimeters
Leachate Generation with Time
Increase Concentration with Time li ^
^v
-190-
-------
Impact of Biological Growth
UJ
S
cc
UJ
0.
I 5 T
TIME
External Lysimeters
30 T
ToPumo.
Tube for Applying
Pressure/Vacuum
Backfill-
5 to 10 cm
Bentonne Seal r
in
• To Samwe Colleaion
-DiscnargeTuoe
. 15 cm oiameter Hole
Backfilled witn Silica Sana
• Plastic Pioe
-Porous CUD
-191-
-------
GAS CONCENTRATION
Typical Generation Rates
RCRA = Very Low Rate
MSW = 900+ Liters Per Dry Kg
- CERCLA = Waste Specific
GAS CONCENTRATION
Underground Gas Monitoring
Simplified Well Design
Maximum 25% LEL
Sampling Frequency = Twice a Day
When Soil is Saturated or Frozen
Impact of Synthetic Liner
-192-
-------
GAS CONCENTRATION
Gas Removal Alternatives
Passive Vents
• minimum 1/acre
• increased density limited
quantity
Active Systems
by air
Typical Gas Well
8' DIA. STEEL PIPE
"STEEL PIPE CAP W/
HINGE & LOCK
P.V.C. PIPE CAP
DO NOT CEMENT
CONC. BENTONITE SEAL
I' DIA. SCH. 40 P.V.C. PIPE
W/ 3/I6' DIA. (WIN.) SCREEN
HOLES
PEA GRAVEL PACK
P.V.C. END CAP
DIA.
MIN. BORE DIA.
-193-
-------
Gas Generation vs Time
100-1
I
Ill
^
a
20 40 60 80 100 120
SUBSIDENCE MONITORING
Measurement of Subsidence
Survey Monument Grid
Aerial Photography
Annual Subsidence Check
-194-
-------
SUBSIDENCE MONITORING
Allowable Subsidence
Differential Strains
(inflection points)
Clay = > 1% Maximum Strain
FML = > 10% Maximum Strain
Clay component will govern
SUBSIDENCE MONITORING
Remediation of Local Subsidence
Repair Below Low Permeable Barrier
Potential Use of Lightweight Fills
Avoid Roof Ponding Mechanism
-195-
-------
SURFACE EROSION
Anticipated Erosion
.5% Area Annually
Increases With Slope
SURFACE EROSION
Additional Problems
Biotic Intrusion
Volunteer Vegetation
Drought Endurance
-196-
-------
SURFACE EROSION
Remediation Measures
Hardened Cap
• Geosynthetic Matting
AIR QUALITY MONITORING
Monitoring Techniques
• Passive, Using Collection Media
Grab, Evacuated Vessel
- Active, Pump and Sampler
-197-
-------
AIR QUALITY MONITORING
Common Air Contaminants (MSW)
Methane
- Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Threshold Limits of Air Contaminants
Threshold Limit Values of Selected Air Contaminants"
Contaminant TLV
Dust 1 mg/mj
Carbon monoxide 50 ppm
Asbestos 0.2 to 2 fibers/cm-1 (depending on asbestos type)
Benzene 10 ppm
Coal dust 2 mglm3
Cotton dust 0.2 mg/m3
Grain dust 4 mg/mj
Hydrogen sulfide 10 ppm
Nuisance particulates 10 mg/m3
Phenol 5 ppm
Vinyl chloride 5 ppm
Wood dust
Hard wood 1 mg/mj
Soft wood 5 mg/mj
•'Values of TLV obtained from [he American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hyeienists 11987V
-198-
-------
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
Gregory Richardson, Ph.D., P.E. and John A. Bove, P.E.
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Raleigh, NC
REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA. 1991. Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. Seminar
Publication EPA 625/4-91/025, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC,
20460.
2. U.S. EPA. 1987. Geosynthetic Design Guidance for Hazardous Waste Landfill Cells and
Surface Impoundments. EPA/600-S2-87/097, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, 45268.
3. USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Section 4, Hydrology. In: National Engineering
Handbook, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 631 pp.
4. Gilbert, P.A. and W.L. Murphy. 1987. Prediction/mitigation of subsidence damage to
hazardous waste landfill covers. EPA/600/2-87/025 (PB87-175386). Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S.
EPA.
5. Seed, R.B., J.K. Mitchell, and H.B. Seed. 1990. Kettlemam Hills waste landfill slope
failure. II: Stability analyses. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 116, No. 4: 669-
691.
6. Zimmie, T.F. and C. La Plante. 1990. The effect of freeze-thaw cycles on the permeability
of a fine-grained soil. Proceedings, 22nd Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Drexel University.
7. U.S. EPA. 1989. Technical guidance document: Final covers on hazardous waste landfills
and surface impoundments. EPA/530-SW-89-047.
8. U.S. EPA. 1988. U.S. EPA guide to technical resources for the design of land disposal
facilities. EPA Guidance Document: Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and
Surface Impoundments. EPA/530-SW-88-047.
9. Schroeder, P.R., J.M. Morgan, T.M. Walski, and A.C. Gibson. 1984a. Hydrologic
Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model: Vol. I. User's Guide for Version 1.
EPA/530-SW-84-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 120 pp.
10. Schroeder, P.R., A.C. Gibson, and M.D. Smolen. 1984b. Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) Model: Vol. II. Documentation for Version 1. EPA/530-SW-84-010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 256 pp.
11. Schroeder, P.R., R.L. Peyton, and J.M. Sjostrom. 1988a. Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) Model: Vol. III. User's Guide for Version 2. Internal Working
Document. USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
-199-
-------
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE CRITERIA
Gregory N. Richardson, Ph.D., P.E. and John A. Bove, P.E.
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Raleigh, NC
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Applicability
B. Effective Date
II. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR CLOSURE (258.71)
A. Closure Cost Estimate
1. Basis for Cost Estimate
2. Duration of Coverage
B. Closure (Cover) Cost Variables
1. Infiltration Layer
2. Erosion Control Layer
III. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR POST-CLOSURE CARE (258.72)
A. Post-closure Cost Estimate
1. Basis for Cost Estimate
2. Duration of Coverage
B. Post-closure Care/Monitoring Elements and Cost
1. Maintain Integrity of Cap
2. Maintain/Operate Leachate System
3. Monitor Ground-Water
4. Maintain/Operate Gas Monitoring System
IV. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION (258.73)
A. Corrective Action Cost Estimate
1. Basis for Cost Estimate
2. Duration of Coverage
B. Corrective Action
-201-
-------
V. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISMS (258.74)
A. Trust Fund
B. Surety Bond
C. Letter of Credit
D. Insurance
E. Corporate Financial Test
F. Local Government Financial Test
G. Corporate Guarantee
H. Local Government Guarantee
I. State Approved Mechanism
J. State Assumption of Responsibility
K. Multiple Financial Mechanisms
-202-
-------
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
CRITERIA
(40 CFR Part 258 Subpart G)
Gregory N, Richardson, PN.D., WL
John A, Bove, RE.
Hazen and Sawyer, P.O.
Raleigh, North Carolina
258.70 Applicability
Financial Assurance Criteria
0 Not Applicable to State or
Federal
s
Effective April 9,1994
-203-
-------
258.71 Closure
Financial Assurance
for Closure
Detailed Cost Estimate, in
Current Dollars, for Third
Party to Close the Largest
Area of the MSWLF Requiring
Final Cover
258.71 Closure
Closure Cost Estimate
to Reflect
• Most Expensive Closure Ever
Required
• Annual Adjustment for Inflation
• Adjustment for Physical Change
of Unit
-204-
-------
258.71 Closure
Financial Assurance
Provided Until
Closure Certified by
Independent Registered
Engineer
Record Notation on Deed to
Landfill Property
Closure Cost Estimate Includes
• Working Bench Over Waste
• Infiltration Layer
Soil Barrier
Geomembrane
Erosion Layer/Devices
Agricultural Planting
-205-
-------
Infiltration Layer Costs
• Soil Layer • Geomembrane
• Clay • HOPE
$9 to $20/cu yd $-40 to $.60/sq ft
• On-Site • Tenure or
$2 to $6/cu yd Bonded
Add $.2/sq ft
Erosion Layer Costs
Top Soil Layer
$8to$12/cuyd
Agricultural Seeding
$1200 to $2500/Acre
Erosion Devices
• Rip-Rap in Swales
Down-Pipes at Swales
Commonly $1000/Acre
-206-
-------
258.72 Post-Closure
Financial Assurance
for Post-Closure Care
Detailed Cost Estimate, In Current
Dollars, for Independent Third
Party to Conduct Post-Closure
Care for MSWLF Unit, Including
Annual and Periodic Costs
30&T2 Post-Closure
Post-Closure Care
Cost to Reflect
Most Expensive Cost Estimate
Annual Adjustment for Inflation
Adjustment for Physical Change
of Unit
-207-
-------
258,72 Post-Closure
Financial Assurance
Provided Until
• Certification by Independent, Third
Party Professional Engineer That
Post-Closure Monitoring Program
Is Completed
• Acceptance of Certification by
State
Post-Closure
Monitoring/Care Includes
• Maintain Integrity of CAD
• Make Repairs to Cover
• Maintain Run-Off Systems
• Maintain/Operate Leachate Systems
• Monitor Ground Water
• Maintain/Operate Gas Monitoring
System
-208-
-------
Costs for Maintaining
Cap integrity
• Annual Erosion
• Minimum 15% Area Annually
$250 to $500/Acre
• Run-Off Systems
• Clean Out Swales and Sediment
Ponds Every Other Year
$200 to $300/Acre
Costs to Maintain/
Operate Leachate System
• Maintenance May Include
Hydro-Flushing of Leachate
Collection Lines
• Operation Will Include
• Leachate Treatment Cost
• Repair of Lift Stations, etc.
• Costs Are Very Site Specific
-209-
-------
Costs for Ground-Water
Monitoring
0 Monitoring Weil Installation/Repair
• $3000 to $6000 per Well
* Semi-Annual Testing of Wells
• Sampling and Report
• Laboratory Tests for Indicators
m Minimum $2000/Weli/Year
• Control Chart May increase Sampling
• Must Comply with Subpart E
Costs to Maintain/
Operate Gas Monitoring
• Repair of Damaged Wells
• Inexpensive Monitoring
• 25% LEL Criteria
Site-Specific Costs - but Low
-210-
-------
258.73 Corrective Action
Financial Assurance for
Corrective Action
i-
Detailed Cost Estimate, in
Current Dollars, for Third Party
to Perform Corrective Action in
Accordance with Program
Required by 258.58
258.73 Corrective Action
Corrective Action
Cost to Reflect
Annual Adjustment for inflation
• Changes to Unit
• Changes to Corrective Action
-211-
-------
258.73 Corrective Action
Corrective Action Financial
Assurance Provided Until
Certification by Qualified
Ground-Water Scientist That
Remedy Has Been Completed
• Acceptance of Certification by
State
258.74 Mechanisms
Financial Assurance
Mechanisms
Trust Fund
• Surety Bond
Letter of Credit
Insurance
-212-
-------
258,74 Mechanisms
Financial Assurance
Mechanisms [Reserve]
• Corporate Financial Test
• Local Government Financial Test
• Corporate Guarantee
• Local Government Guarantee
25SJ4 Mechanisms
Financial Assurance
Mechanisms
• State Approved Mechanisms
• State Assumption of
Responsibility
Multiple Financial
Mechanisms
-213-
-------
SPECIAL WASTES
Peter H. Thompson, Dirk R. Brunner, P.E. and Roy A. Koster, P.E.
ABB Environmental Services
Portland, ME
I. INCINERATOR ASH
A. Sources
1. Incinerator Types
2. Flue Gas Treatment Products
B. Characteristics
1. Chemical
a. Metal Partitioning During Combustion
b. Fly Ash Bulk Chemistry
c. Bottom Ash Bulk Chemistry
d. Leachable Metal Fractions; Fly Ash Versus Bottom Ash
e. Combined Ash
2. Physical
a. Particle Size Distribution
b. Physical Properties
C. Placement in Landfill
1. Blowing
2. Compaction
3. Compatibility With Municipal Solid Waste
a. Leachate Character
b. Monofills
c. Co-disposal
II. SEWAGE SLUDGE
A. Sources
1. WWTP
2. Domestic
B. Characteristics
1. Chemical
2. Physical
C. Placement in Landfill
1. Water Content
2. Compaction
3. Compatibility With Municipal Solid Waste
4. Co-disposal
-215-
-------
III. MEDICAL WASTES
A. Sources
B. Characteristics
1. Chemical
2. Physical
C. Placement in Landfill
D. Training
1. OSHA Requirements
2. First Aid and Emergency Response
-216-
-------
Special Wastes
Incinerator Ash
Chemical Characteristics
Metal partitioning during combustion
Flue gas treatment residues
Fly ash bulk chemistry
Bottom ash bulk chemistry
teachable metal fractions
Special Wastes
Incinerator Ash
Sources
• Incinerator types
• Modular and mass burn
• RDF
• Bottom ash
• Fly ash
-217-
-------
Special Wastes
Elemental Partitioning During Combustion
• Bottom Ash
Q Fly Ash
n Flue Gas
C S Ft 01 Fe Cu Hg Cd Zn Pb
Special Wastes
Concentration Ranges for Metals
in Fly and Bottom Ash (NUS, 1987)
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Fly Ash (mg/kg)
15-750
<5 -2,210
13,960-370,000
21 - 1,900
187-2,380
900-87,000
200 - 26,000
<1-35
10-1,960
2,800 - 152,000
Bottom Ash (mg/kg)
1-24.6
1-46,0
5,900 - 69,500
13-520
80-10,700
1,000 - 133,000
110-5,000
<2
9-226
200-12,400
-218-
-------
Special Wastes
Fly and Bottom Ash
Bulk Chemistry
Major Components;
* Si02 1
• CaO
* Fe20a V 20% - 40%
0 Na2O
Special Wastes
Incinerator Ash
Physical Characteristics
Particle size distribution
Density
Hydraulic properties
Engineering properties
-219-
-------
Special Wastes
Incinerator Ash
Physical Characteristics
Particle Size
* Bottom 0,05 mm-40 mm
* Fly 0.001 mm - 0,1 mm
Density
+ Combined ash 80 ib/ft3«110 Ib/ft3
Hydraulic Conductivity
• K s 10"5cm/seo -
Special Wastes
Incinerator Ash
Engineering Properties
• Moderate to high friction angles
• Stable material
• Good drainage
Fine particles can clog
filter materials
-220-
-------
Special Wastes
Fly Ash
Flue Gas Treatment Residues
CaO (Calcium oxide - lime)
FIyash:pH>11,0
Increases metal leaching
Special Wastes
Incinerator Ash
Placement in Landfill
• Blowing
• Compaction
* Compatibility with MSW
Leachate character
Monofills
Co-disposal
-221-
-------
Soured :-%':•*. -.^?v..^
._„„__ ^^^^;L^^^^^^^^^^^JLL^~^^^^^
'Vx"sT^i^V*\* \ ^ s^-\\V" -::-^^ ^Vt?§KS^
of Treatment
• Domestic (Septage)
• Untreated
Special Wastes
Sewage Sludge
Characteristics
• Chemical / Biological
• 90% organic/10% inorganic
m High in nutrients
• Biologically active
• Physical / Engineering
• Dewateredi passes paint filter test
• Low strength / poor stability
-222-
-------
Special Wasted
Sewage Sludge
Placement In Landfill
* Water content (15% - 30% Solids)
• Compaction
• Co-disposal
Special Wastes
Medical Wastes
Sources
• Hospitals
• Clinics
-223-
-------
Special Wastes
Medical Wastes
Characteristics
• Physical
• Packaging and markings
* Biological/Chemical
Pathogens
Treated vs. untreated wastes
Special Wastes
Medical Wastes
Placement in Landfill
• Public and worker safety
• Risk perception
• Segregation and dedicated disposal
• Cover requirements
-224-
-------
APPENDIX A: FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS
Gregory N. Richardson
A-l
-------
FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS
Gregory N. Richardson
1. INTRODUCTION
This session discusses material and design considerations for
flexible membrane liners (FMLs) within solid waste facilities
constructed to satisfy 6NYCKR Part 360. It highlights some
of the problems encountered in applying the 1-dimensional
regulatory liner profile to actual 3-dimensional landfill
"bathtub" systems. Under Part 360, the minimum acceptable
liner profiles for municipal solid waste landfills are as
follows (360-2.13):
Primary Leachate Collector (24-inch @ 10"3 cm/sec)
Primary Composite Liner (18-inch *(see note.) + FML)
Secondary Leachate Collector (12-inch @ 10"2 cm/sec)
Secondary Composite Liner (24-inch @ 10"7 cm/sec + FML)
The soil component of the primary composite liner is required
to achieve less than IxlO"7 cm/sec permeability only in the
upper 6-inches. To minimize potential compaction induce
damage to the secondary composite liner, the lower 12-inches
of the soil component in the primary composite must only
achieve IxlO"5 cm/sec, permeability. For slopes greater than
25%, the primary liner consists of only an FML and a geonet
can be used to construct the secondary leachate collection-
system. These concessions are made due to slope stability
considerations as discussed later in this session.
COMPOSITE LINERS: CLAY VERSUS FML
The reliance within Part 360 on composite liners composed of
a synthetic FML overlying a lower permeability soil is an
extension of EPA's minimum technology guidance for hazardous
waste containment systems. The advantages of a composite
liner have been clearly established and will be discussed
herein.
Understanding the basic hydraulic mechanisms for ^ synthetic
liners and clay liners is very important in appreciating the
advantages of a composite liner. Clay liners are controlled
by Darcy's law (Q = kiA) . In clay liners, the factors that
most influence liner performance are hydraulic head and soil
permeability. Clay liners have a higher hydraulic
conductivity and thickness than do synthetic liners.
Additionally, leachate leaking through a clay liner will
* upper 6 inches @ 10 ~7 cm/sec, lower 12 inches 9 10 ~5 cm/sec
A-3
-------
undergo chemical reactions that reduce the concentration of
contaminants in the leachate.
Leakage through a synthetic liner is controlled by Pick's
first law, which applies to the process of liquid diffusion
through the liner membrane. The diffusion process is similar
to flow governed by Darcy's law except it is driven by
concentration gradients and not by hydraulic head. Diffusion
rates in membranes are very low in comparison to hydraulic
flow rates even in clays. In synthetic liners, therefore, the
factor that most influences liner performance is penetrations.
Synthetic liners may have imperfect seams or pinholes, which
can greatly increase the amount of leachate that leaks out of
the landfill.
EPA's rationale for favoring a composite liner system is based
both on increasing the efficiency of the liquid collection
systems and to reduce the potential for leakage out of the
liner system. A laboratory evaluation of the reduced leakage
rates afforded by composite liners was funded by EPA in the
late 80's. Table 1 is extracted from this study and clearly
shows that a composite liner will reduce leakage orders of
magnitude when compared to an FML resting on a drainage media.
The key requirement in this improved performance from
composite liner is that both components of the liner must be
in intimate contact. Thus the introduction of a geotextile
beneath the FML will destroy the composite action of the two
components and result in a significant increase in leakage.
Accordingly, the use of a geotextile beneath an FML to
increase the puncture resistance of the FML is dangerous.
3. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Synthetics are made up of polymers-natural or synthetic
compounds of high molecular weight. Under Part 360, the only
restrictions on the selection of a polymer are 1) the FML must
have a minimum thickness of 60 mils,2 ) the FML must have a
permeability less than IxlO'12 cm/sec, and 3) . The FML must
not chemically react with the anticipated leachate. Different
polymeric materials may be used in the construction of FMLs:
Thermoplastics-polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Crystalline thermoplastics-high density polyethylene
(HOPE), linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE)
Thermoplastic elastomers-chlorinated polyethylene (CPE) ,
chlorylsulfonated polyethylene (CSPE)
Elastomers-neoprene, ethylene propylene diene monomer
(EPDM)
A-4
-------
Typical compositions of polymeric geomembranes are depicted in
Table 2. As the table shows, the membranes contain various
admixtures such as oils and fillers that are added to aid
manufacturing of the FML but may affect future performance. In
addition, many polymer FMLs will cure once installed, and the
strength and elongation characteristics of certain FMLs will change
with time. It is important therefore to select polymers for FML
construction with care. Chemical compatibility, manufacturing
considerations, stress-strain characteristics, survivability, and
permeability are some of the key issues that must be considered.
3 .1 CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY
The chemical compatibility of a FML with waste leachate is an
important material consideration. Chemical compatibility and
EPA Method 9090 tests must be performed on the synthetics that
will be used to construct FMLs. (EPA Method 9090 tests are
discussed in more detail in Session Five.) Unfortunately,
there usually is a lag period between the time these tests are
performed and the actual construction of a facility. It is
very rare that at the time of the 9090 test, enough material
is purchased to construct the liner. This means that the
material used for testing is not typically from the same
production lot as the synthetics installed in the field.
The molecular structure of different polymers can be analyzed
through differential scanning calorimeter or thermogravimetric
testing. This testing or "fingerprinting" can ensure that the
same material used for the 9090 test was used in the field.
Figure 1 was provided by a HDPE manufacturer, and the
fingerprints depicted are all from high density polyethylenes.
Chemical compatibility of extrusion welding rods with
polyethylene sheets is also a concern.
3 . 2 MANUFACTURING CONSIDERATIONS
FML sheets are produced in various ways:
Extrusion-HDPE
Calendaring-PVC
Spraying-Urethane
In general, manufacturers are producing high quality
geomembrane sheets. However, the compatibility of extrusion
welding rods and high density polyethylene sheets can be a
problem. Some manufacturing processes can cause high density
A-5
-------
polyethylene to crease. When this material creases, stress
fractures will result. If the material is taken into the
field to be placed, abrasion damage will occur on the creases.
Manufacturers have been working to resolve this problem and,
for the most par, sheets of acceptable quality are not being
produced.
STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS
Table 3 depicts typical mechanical properties of HDPE, CPE,
and PVC. Tensile strength is a fundamental design
consideration. Figure 2 shows the uniaxial stress-strain
performance of HDPE, CPE, and PVC. As 600, 800, 1,100, and
1,300 percent strain is developed, the samples fail. When
biaxial tension is applied to HDPE, the material fails at
strains less than 20 percent. In fact, HDPE can fail at
strains much less than other flexible membranes when subjected
to biaxial tensions common in the field.
Another stress-strain consideration is that high density
polyethylene, a material used frequently at hazardous waste
facilities, has a high degree of thermal coefficient of
expansion - three to four times that of other flexible
membranes. This means that during the course of a day
(particularly in the summer), 100-degrees Fahrenheit (°F)
variations in the temperature of the sheeting are routinely
measured. A 600-foot long panel, for example, may grow 6 feet
during a day.
3 . 3 SURVIVABIL1TY
Various test may be used to determine the survivability of
unexposed polymeric geomembranes (Table 4). Puncture tests
frequently are used to estimate the survivability of FMLs in
the field. During a puncture test, a 5/16 steel rod with
rounded edges is pushed down through the membrane. A very
flexible membrane that has a high strain capacity under
biaxial tension may allow that rod to penetrate almost to the
bottom of the chamber rupture. Such a membrane has a very low
penetration force but a very high penetration elongation, and
may have great survivability in the field. High density
polyethylenes will give a very high penetration force, but
have very high brittle failure. Thus, puncture data may not
properly predict field survivability.
3 .4 PERMEABILITY
Permeability of a FML is evaluated using the Water Vapor
Transmission test (ASTM E96). A sample of the membrane is
placed on top of a small aluminum cup containing a small
A-6
-------
amount of water. The cup is then placed in a controlled
humidity and temperature chamber. The humidity in the chamber
is typically 20 percent relative humidity, while the humidity
in the cup is 100 percent. Thus, a concentration gradient is
set up across the membrane. Moisture diffuses through the
membrane and with the liquid level in the cup is reduced. The
rate at which moisture is moving through the membrane is
measured. From that rate, the permeability of the membrane
is calculated with the simple diffusion equation (Pick's first
law) . It is important to remember than even if a liner is
installed correctly with no holes, penetrations, punctures,
or defects, liquid will still diffuse through the membrane.
A final comment must be made regarding the Part 360
requirement for 10~12 cm/sec permeability in the FML. Table 5
lists WVT data for Typical FML's. The water vapor permeance
is defined as the WVT divided by the pressure difference
across the FML. Permeability is then defined as the product
of the permeance and thickness of the FML. Table 5 lists
equivalent permeabilities for common FML's. If the FML must
have less than IxlO'12 cm/sec permeability, then a polyethylene
liner will be required.
TABLE 5 FML PERMEABILITY
(Data from Haxo, 1989)
Polymer
Thickness
Mils
WVT(1)
am'2 d-l
Permeability(2)
cm/sec
CPE
CSPE
EPDM
LDPE
HDPE
PVC
30
38
30
38
38
30
30
100
20
30
.32
.55
.60
.41
.25
.05
.0177
.006
3.0
1.8
2xlO"12
4X10'12
4X10-J2
3x10 "
1.6X10"12
3.2X10"13
lxlo"3-u
1X3X10 u
1X3X10"1}
1X3X10"11
(1) igm'2 d"1 = 1.07 gallon/acre/day
(2) 1 metric perm mil = 2.167xlO"12 cm/sec
A-7
-------
4. DESIGN ELEMENTS
A number of design elements must be considered in the
construction of flexible membrane liners: (1) 6NYCRR Part 360
guidance, (2) stress considerations, (3) structural details,
and (4) panel fabrication.
4 .1 6NYCRR PART 360 GUIDANCE
Part 360 establishes minimum values for the components within
the landfill liner. For the FML component, these minimum
values are:
• 60 mil minimum thickness, and
Permeability less than IxlO"12 cm/sec.
Thus the basic design will begin with these values
4.2 STRESS
Stress considerations must be considered for side slopes and
the bottom of a landfill. For side slopes, self-weight (the
weight of the membrane itself) and waste settlement must be
considered; for the bottom of the facility, localized
settlement and normal compression must be considered.
The primary FML must be able to support its own weight on the
side slopes. In order to calculate self-weight, the FML
specific gravity, friction angle, FML thickness, and FML yield
stress must be known (Figure 3).
Waste settlement is another consideration. As waste settles
in the landfill, a downward force will act on the primary FML.
A low friction component between the FML and underlying
material, putting tension on the primary FML. A 12-inch
direct shear test is used to measure the friction angle
between the FML and underlying material.
An example of the effects of waste settlement can be
illustrated by a recent incident at a hazardous waste landfill
facility in California. At this facility, waste settlement
led to sliding of the waste, causing the standpipes (used to
monitor secondary leachate collection sumps) to move 60 to 90
feet downs lope in 1 day- Because there was a very low
coefficient of friction between the primary liner and the
geonet, the waste (which was deposited in a canyon) slid down
the canyon. There was also a failure zone between the
secondary liner and the clay. A two-dimensional slope
stability analysis at the site indicated a factor of safety
greater than one. A three-dimensional slope stability
A-8
-------
analysis of the canyon landfill indicated a factor of safety
greater than one. A three-dimensional slope stability
anaylsis, however, showed the safety factor had dropped below
one. Three-dimensional slope stability analyses should
therefore be considered with canyon and trench landfills.
Since more trenches are being used in double FML landfills,
the impact of waste settlement along such trenches should be
considered. Figure 4 is a simple evaluation of the impact of
waste settlement along trenches on the FML. Settlements along
trenches will cause strain in the membrane, even if the trench
is a very minor ditch. Recalling that when biaxial tension
is applied to high density polyethylene, the material fails
at a 16 to 17 percent strain, it is possible that the membrane
will fail at a moderate settlement ratio.
Another consideration is the normal load placed on the
membranes as waste is piled higher. Many of the new materials
on the market, particularly some of the linear low density
polyethylene (LLDPE) liners, will take a tremendous amount of
normal load without failure. The high density polyethylenes,
on the other hand, have a tendency to high brittle failure.
4 . 3 STRUCTURAL DETAILS
Double liner systems are more prone to defects in the
structural details (anchorage, access ramps, collection
standpipes, and penetrations) than single liner systems.
4.3.1 Anchorage
Anchor trenches can cause FMLs to fail in one of two way:
by ripping or by pulling out. The pullout mode is
easier to correct. it is possible to calculate pullout
capacity for FMLs placed in various anchorage
configurations (Figure 5) . In the "V" anchor
configuration, resistance can be increased by increasing
the "V" angle. A drawback to using the "V" design is
that it uses more space. The concrete trench is rarely
used. Typical calculations for these anchorage
configurations are given in Figure 6.
No rigorous solution exists for a common soil backfilled
anchorage trench. In general a trench 12-inches wide by
12 to 18-inches deep will be sufficient to develop the
full tensile capacity of the FML. Trenches larger than
this will only lead to a tearing failure in the membrane.
A-9
-------
4.3.2 Ramps
Most facilities have access ramps (Figure 7), which are
used by trucks during construction and by trucks bringing
waste into the facility. Figure 8 depicts a cross section
of a typical access ramp. The double FML integrity must
be maintained over the entire surface of the ramp.
Because ramps can fail due to traffic-induced sliding,
roadway considerations, and drainage, these three factors
must be considered during the design and construction of
access ramps.
The weight of the roadway, the weight of a vehicle on the
roadway, and the vehicle braking force all must be
considered when evaluating the potential for slippage due
to traffic (Figure 9). The vehicle braking force should
be much larger than the dead weight of the vehicles that
will use it. Wheelloads also have an impact on the
double FML system and the two leachate collection systems
below the roadway. Trucks with maximum axle loads (some
much higher than the legal highway loads) and 90 psi
tires should be able to use the ramps. Figure 10
illustrates how to verify that wheel contact loading will
not damage the FML. Swells or small drains may be
constructed along the inboard side of a roadway to ensure
that the ramp will adequately drain water from the
roadway. Figure 11 illustrates how to verify that a ramp
will drain water adequately. The liner system, which
must be protected from tires, should be armored in the
area of the drainage swells. A sand subgrade contained
by a geotextile beneath the roadway can prevent local
sloughing and local slope failures along the side of the
roadway where the drains are located. The sand subgrade
tied together with geotextile layers forms, basically,
long sandbags stacked on top of one another.
4.3.3 Vertical Standpipes
Landfills have two leachate collection and removal
systems (LCRSs) : a primary LCRS and a secondary LCRS.
any leachate that penetrates the primary system and
enters the secondary system must be removed. Vertical
standpipes are used to access the primary leachate
collection sumps. As waste settles over time, downdrag
forces can have an impact on standpipes. Those downdrag
forces can lead to puncture of the primary FML beneath
the standpipe.
A-10
-------
To reduce the amount of downdrag force on the waste pile,
standpipes can be coated with viscous or low friction
coating. Standpipes can be encapsulated with coefficient
of friction that helps reduce the amount of downdrge
force on the waste piles. Figure 12 illustrates how to
evaluate the potential downdrag forces acting on
standpipes and how to compare coatings for reducing these
forces.
Downdrag forces also affect the foundation or subgrade
beneath the standpipe. If the foundation is rigid,
poured concrete, there is a potential for significant
strain gradients. A flexible foundation will provide a
more gradual transition and spread the distribution of
contact pressures over a larger portion of the FML than
will a rigid foundation. To soften rigid foundations,
encapsulated steel plates may be installed beneath the
foundation as shown in Figure 13.
4.3.4 Standpipe Penetrations
The secondary leachate collection system may be accessed
by either a sidewall standpipe that penetrates the
primary liner above the waste mass, or by a sump gravity
drain pipe that lies below the landfill containment
system (Figure 14) . Both standpipes have key operational
weaknesses. The sidewall standpipe must be accessible
at the surface so that a pump can be lowered to the sump.
Because there is a possibility that the sump pipe could
be struck at the surface, it should not be attached in
any manner to either liners. The gravity drain line lies
beyond the secondary liner so that failure of this line
would result in release of leachate to the environment.
For this reason, a double-wall pipe is recommended
between the sump and the catchbasin.
4.3.5 Wind Damage
During the installation of FMLs, care must be taken to
avoid damage from wind. Figure 15 shows maximum wind
speeds in the United States. Designers should determine
if wind will affect an installation and, if so, how many
sandbags will be needed to anchor the FML panels as they
are being placed in the field. Figure 16 shows how to
calculate the required sandbag spacing for FML panels
during placements. Wind-uplift pressure must be known
to make this calculation. Using the data in Table 5, the
uplift pressures acting on the membranes may be
calculated. Note that 6NYCRR Part 6 does not allow FML
placement in winds exceeding 20 mph.
A-ll
-------
4 . 4 PANEL FABRICATION
The final design aspect to consider is the FML panel layout
of the facility. Three factors should be considered when
designing a FML panel layout: (1) seams should run up and down
on the slope, not horizontally; (2) the field seam length
should be minimized whenever possible; and (3) when possible,
there should be no penetration of a FML below the top of the
waste.
6NYCKR Part 360 specifically requires that field seams should
be oriented parallel to the line of the maximum slope, that
the number of field seams- should be minimized in corners and
irregularly-shaped locations, and that no horizontal seams
should be less than 5-feet from the toe of the slope toward
the inside of the cell.
Panels must be properly identified to know where they fit in
the facility. Figure 17 depicts the panel-seam identification
scheme used for this purpose. This numbering scheme also
assures a high quality installation, since seam numbers are
used to inventory all samples cut from the FML panel during
installation. The samples cut from the panels are tested to
ensure the installation is of high quality. Quality assurance
and the panel-seam identification scheme are discussed in more
detail in Session VI.
REFERENCES
Brown, K. W. et al, Qualification of Leak Rates Through Holes in
Landfill Liners, EPA Grant Nol. CR810940, EPA Office of Research
and Development, 1987.
Haxo, H.E., 1983. Analysis and Fingerprinting of Unexposed and
Exposed Polymeric Membrane Liners. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual
Research Symposium., Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste, U.S. EPA
600/8-83/108.
Haxo, H.E., 1988, Lining of Waste Containment and Other Impoundment
Facilities, EPA/600/2-88/052.
Knipschield, F.W. 1985. Material, Selection, and Dimensioning of
Geomembranes for Groundwater Protection, Waste and Refuse. Schmidt
Publisher, Vol. 22.
Richardson, G.N. and R. M. Koerner, 1988, Geosynthetic Design
Guidance for Hazardous Waste Landfill Cells and Surface
Impoundments, EPA/600/52-87/097.
A-12
-------
TABLE 1 CALCULATED FLOW RATES (tf3 YR ) FOR A RANGE OF
HOLE SIZES IN FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS OVER SOILS
OF DIFFERENT CONDUCTIVITIES. THE VALUES ARE GIVEN
FOR THREE HEADS
K,*L
sat
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
(e
x
x
X
X
»/
10
10
10
10
s)
-4
_5
-ft
_7
0.
19.
4.
0.
0.
08
30
30
54
066
Hole
0.
H -
31
4
0
0
diameter (cm)
16
0.3 M
.50
.88
.60
.072
0.64
43
6
0
0
.20
.28
.77
.095
1.
50
7
0
0
27
.60
.30
.89
.107
1,
3.
3.
3.
3.
30
40
40
40
40
10
10
10
10
10
-1
-4
-5
-6
-7
42.30
12.80
1.66
0.20
H - 1.0 M
126.10
87.80
14.. 80
1.83
0.22
2,286.00
128.00
18.70
2.29
0.28
6,748.00
147.00
21.40
2.61
0.32
10.0 M
3.40 x 10 "
3.40 x 10
3.40 x 10"l
• /
3.40 x 10 '
167.0
84.6
14.3
1.8
438.0
123.1
15.6
1.9
1,030.00
153.50
18.80
2.30
1,170.00
171.30
21.00
2.60
Table 2. Basic Composition of Polymenc Geomemdrane
Composition of Compound Type
(pans bv weignt)
Component
Polymer or alloy
Oil or piasticizer
Fillers:
Carbon BlacK
Inorganics
Antidegradants
Crosslinkmg system:
Inorganic system
Sulfur system
Crossiinked
100
5-40
5-40
5-40
1-2
5-9
5-9
Thermoplastic
100
5-55
5-40
5-40
1-2
•-
--
Semicrystalline
100
0-10
2-5
"
1
"
Source: Haxo. H. E. 1986. Quality Assurance of Geomemoranes Used as Linings for Hazardous Waste Containment. In: Geotextiles anu
Geomemoranes. Vol. 3. No. 4. Lonaon. England.
A-13
-------
Table 3 Typical Mechanical Properties
HOPE
CPE
PVC
Density, grrvcm3
Thermal coefficient of expansion
Tensile strengtn, psi
Puncture. ib/mil
>.935
12.5 x 10-5
4800
2.8
1.3 - 1.37
4 x 10-5
1800
1.2
1.24 - 1.3
3 x 10-5
2200
2.2
Table 4 Test Methods for Unexposed Polymeric Geomembranes
Prooeny
Membrane Liner Without Fabric Reinforcement
Thermooiastic
Crossimked
Semicrystailme
Fabric Reinforced
Analytical Properties
voiatiles
Extractaoies
Asn
Soecific gravity
MTM-l«
MTM-1*
MTM-1»
MTM-2»
MTM-2»
MTM-2»
MTM-1*
(on seivage ana
'emforceo sneeong)
MTM-2»
(on selvage ana
remtorcea sneeting)
ASTM 0297, Section 34 ASTM 0297. Section 34 ASTM 0297. Section 34 ASTM 0297. Section 34
(on seivage)
ASTM 0792. Methdd A ASTM 0297. Section 15 ASTM 0792. Method A ASTM 0792. Method A
(on seivage)
Thermal analysis:
Differential scanning
caionmetry (OSC) NA
T'nermoqravimetry
iTGA) Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
Physical Properties
Thickness • total
Coating over fabric
Tensne properties
Tear resistance
Modulus of elasticity
Hardness
Puncture resistance
Hydrostatic resistance
Seam strength:
in shear
in peei
Ply adhesion
ASTM 0638
NA
ASTM 0882.
ASTM 0638
ASTM 01004
(modified!
NA
ASTM 02240
Durd A or 0
FTMS 1018.
Method 2065
NA
ASTM 0882. Method A
(modified)
ASTM 0413. Macn
Method Type i
(modified)
NA
ASTM 0412
NA
ASTM 0412
ASTM 0624
NA
ASTM 02240
Ouro A or 0
FTMS 1018.
Method 2065
NA
ASTM 0882. Method A
(modified)
ASTM 0413. Macn
Method Type 1
(modified)
NA
ASTM 0638
NA
ASTM 0638
(modified)
ASTM 01004
OieC
ASTM 0882. Method A
ASTM 02240
Ouro A or 0
FTMS 1018.
Method 2065
ASTM 0751. Method A
ASTM 0882. Method A
(modified)
ASTM 0413. Macn
Method Type i
(modified)
NA
ASTM 0751, Section 6
Optical method
ASTM 0751, Method A
and B (ASTM 0638 on
selvage)
ASTM 0751, Tongue
metnco (modified)
NA
ASTM 02240 Ouro A
or 0 (seivage only)
FTMS 1018.
Methods 2031 and 2065
ASTM 0751. Method A
ASTM 0751. Method A
(modified)
ASTM 0413. Mach
Method Type 1
(modified)
ASTM 0413. Macn
Method Type 1
ASTM 0751, Sections
39-42
Environmental and Aging
Effects
Ozone craoung
Environmental stress
cracking
Low temperature testing
Tensile properties at
eievateo temperature
Dimensional stability
ASTM 01149
NA
ASTM 01790
ASTM 0638 (moaified)
ASTM 01204
ASTM 01149
NA
ASTM 0746
NA
ASTM 01693
ASTM 01790
ASTM 0746
ASTM 01149
NA
ASTM 02136
ASTM 0412 (modified) ASTM 0638 (modified) ASTM 0751 Method 8
(modified)
ASTM 01204
A-14
ASTM 01204
ASTM 01204
-------
Table 5 Wind-Uplift Forces, PSF (Factory Mutual System)
Height Wind Isotach. mph
Moove -
Grouna
(ft)
0-15
30
50
75
City. Suburban Areas. Towns, ana Wooded Areas
70
10"
10
12
14
SO
11
13
15
18
90
14
17
19
22
100
17
21
24
27
110
20
25
29
33
Flat. Open Country,
70
14
16
ia
20
80
18
21
24
26
or Open Coastal Belt >
90
23
27
30
33
100
29
33
37
40
1 500 ft from Coast
110
35
40
44
49
120
14
48
35
35
'Uplift pressures in PSF
A-15
-------
iao°c. aoo
28-
24-
20-
I 16
u_
73 12
X
A \
; o
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 30 90 100110120
Time (mm)
Figure 1 Comparison of "fingerprints" of exothermic peak
shapes.
4000
3000 -
Z 2000 1 ^—
1000
To3860PSI 311180%
500
Figure i FML stress-strain performance
(uniaxial-Koerner, Richardson; biaxial-Steffen).
A-16
-------
.Call Component: Ftixiw-e MIMBRAME LiueB
lT>jt.i.
- Liuea
AilUTY »f f ML f» *U*
«IM o' ]
» 7».5 l»/n
F • 70.^ £«* Vs" T«.U to'
• ll.i l»/rr
(tt <^>.i.*im.tt FML. Ttu^iit STat96 ^
/V) OBTIkiu L^»»gt.r.o-» FML YHI.P $TUE'»*i
pt
. ««"»/,» - !«.
Of
| Example No. «.M
Cell Component: PLEKI&LE MtM&axu£ LiwtR
Consideration:
4Ta*.>u-»
•J FHL frn«' -Z « 16" *•*"
to Oar*.>j LlM.y.«». •6r»>^" i
f?|vrM <>T« Alia
Example No.
A-17
\ "
-------
•V ANCHOR
CONCRETE ANCHOR
Figure -5 Farces and variables —anchor analysis.
Cell Component: Fi.e«.6ie
llUh
Consideration:
Required Material Properties
.SW/fMl. f»>«Ti«fc*
5*0. faicTiMj AM<;L£
Range
11-7.'
ZS-J8*
Test
Analysis Procedure:
(»"> PlF'Mt
r ln^K> , L
>•«. fo^T— j
"V
j««»3.R « 3.IO
Design Ratio:
References:
Standard
r»u it^u , S
Example:
^\ iuft*-i '•
-------
18' Typical
FML-1
FML—
Figure 9 Cross section of typical access ramp.
Figure 7 Geometry of typical ramp.
Cell Component: R ».Mp
Consideration:
Required Material Properties
5-.-LCR
Range
Za • »>'
14 • :f
Test
Standard
Analysis Procedure:
PR •• p^!*""^^^
r. *r>
Co.-.— -/
Design Ratio:
00-.M- 5.0 —
References:
Example:
Son
liuetw no' -n
^«o •i.lat***.:
4" S- S*
f( ' IJ^AH.uS fl«
-------
Cell Component: I?A
Consideration:
-ic -»»a.y-« tvi«.T i*,M
Required Material Properties
FML i'.w»«t««iv
Range
Test
Standard
Analysis Procedure:
.-*<
Required Material Properties
Range
\0 CM/iiC
Ti *
Test
Standard
Analysis Procedure:
(A
Design Ratio:
References:
Example:
«?iV£kj:
*^iNirAc£ ULkT*a
Swri ^' 8** >.• TVU»'.<
A_• UAlt«J««0 * .4A«»€»
X-BA,nrAU.- 3,u/.^«
5 ».4
CO E-ir.x«r» n»-J <^M^.T« ^ teg « P,
<7u»r sil-J
' *.Jno'4t
l.tfnii
| Example No. 4.2.
A-20
-------
Cell Component;
Required Material Properties Range Test Standard
Analysis Procedure:
Design Ratio:
References:
Ve».e i.'"''7;
kl..»«« OM T.I i
Example:
- DtBTM ,2 -
"")
>/£ ' 0.35
555 n,«>
l\
j^tvUUGC CWM IQ* I
cDNuim ntxi —«
100 ooo o» e. fv '
Example No. 4. 4
figure |T^ Evaluation of potential downdrag forces on standpipes with and without coating.
FML
Figura l^ Details of standpipe/dram.
A-21
-------
Primary FML
Weld
Secondary FML
*• v> »
-A * » w
' r *- ,3*
i> a * ' •
7
t«vl
\
A-22
-------
Cell Component: Ftt^.txt Mt^ftaAut
s^eiwq r«« fxiL/fMt. pAi-ti^ oj».«c cvxii-ii-r
Required Material Properties Range Test Standard
Fiuoi* M«-««A^fe
• Uu.r un^HT J-2anr Diu«C£'F'C DATA «A SrFtHl-»l ^S ^.1
' l?»r«««mi<.P«'A PA
•4o-JAL £.'«€-». U,U.SrliO Cf'^i.2)
V.... 'iO—,
• FflLOiPTH -~Z 0 — '20 Fr
. 5»kjo«Aei • e° lb- © 1 Pla 10 I,.PT
' Hei^ur T. FM • -2ofT off ' la fr
li*) DETCQ^IMC Dc«>cu MA»I»*UM Uiuo S^cco VM.«o
Vu-» •-££"""* 1~I?£F ^^4.4^1
(«•) DtTta-.ut U.~o Jp-iirr P«e»*i«t P „
P»t*fcjat ,P»F' ^f^^'
^f^ I'Mtc«r«.»T..^
U.U»-SOM»» ^*^
^^-^, - ( "S* T^6'-t«r )
1
1
1
1
DtFtw -2o*r ^ II PSr1"
O FT -» I4»ir
10 t, ~ lip,.
-?o ,T ~ Saib/,, p,r -- 7.i, 5,iCT
Oft— 3oH. /\4 Pi« 5.T s,pT
liOFf" Soib/.iF-ir S^i,,r
-2opT. :*• 7.3/lo.fl- O 7T Ml^
J CT ^ 5.~T/i».0 - <3 ^7 p,j^
Example No. 6;.l
Figure 15 Calculation of required sandbag spacing for FMUFMC panels.
i [ W- - ~T^- ___ ____^ ^"^^ /-/^ i
i| ,. A^ /T^L i — !T" — "— " J
! ^^i^. T r^-< >?/+**
\ -:/£ /^^^J^^ ^^...C. /\
fe^-v- ' /^
^^^^-w-
Figure 1 £ Design maximum wind soeeas.
A-23
-------
A
[\ @
__ N
© X\
V
©
©
©
(§> /
/ %
t
1 ! II
I |
i i
I i
__ ^JL ___!__-. .1 ___ 1_ i_ ___J
^« Toe of Slope /^\
©
0
1 T 1 T T
i :
0 ©1010 0 I ©
t i i i i
itii
^ A A A A A ^.
X
s
12
NZ.
/ -^
/ QJ)
©
®
(Ta)
xs 0
© Nv
X!
k
4
Zi
/
/
L.
£
Panel Number
/\ Seam Number
Figure 17 Panel-seam identification scheme.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFRCE:1992-648-003/41802
A-24
------- |