EPA-6QO/2-76-255
September 1976
Environmental Protection Teclimlogy Sms
EVALUATION OF LINER MATERIALS
EXPOSED TO LEACHATE
Second Interim Report
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repairer prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-255
September 1976
EVALUATION OF LINER MATERIALS EXPOSED TO LEACHATE
Second' Interim Report
by
Henry E. Haxo, Jr.
Richard M. White
Matrecon, Inc.
Oakland, California 94608
Contract 68-03-2134
Project Officer
Robert Landreth
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental' Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that-the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. '
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was: created because of increasing
public and government; concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air,i foul, water, and.spoiled
land are .tragic testimony, to the deterioratipn of our natural environment
The complexity of that environment and the. interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-
ment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant
discharges from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publi-
cation is one of the products of that research; a most vital communica-
tions link between the researcher and the user community.
Although the information contained herein is preliminary, it will
provide a guide and insight to the effects that happen after limited
exposure. This information and data could be useful for design purposes
if not taken out of context.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents available information covering the first year's r
exposure of liner materials to sanitary landfill leachate. Included in the
report are descriptions of the monitoring and dissassembly of the generators
to recover the liner specimens, the results of the testing of the exposed
liners, and a discussion of the results.
The year's exposure did not result in losses of impermeability in any
of the liners. There were losses, however, in the compressive strength of
the admix liner materials. There were some losses in the physical;properties
of some of the polymeric membranes and swelling of most of these membranes.
The seams of several lost strength, with the heat-sealed seams holding up
best as a group.
Among the polymeric membranes, the crystalline types of polyethylene,
polypropylene, and polybutylene sustained the least change during the year's
exposure. . However, these liners, or films, are prone to puncture and tear
and are generally difficult to handle in the field. The thermoplastic mem-
branes, chlorinated polyethylene, chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon),
and polyvinyl chloride, tended to swell the most. The vulcanized rubbery
liner materials, e.g.. butyl and EPDM, changed little during the exposure
period but had the lowest initial seam strength.
The data presented must be considered as preliminary in an ongoing
project; it is .premature at this point to make estimates of the service life
of the various materials or to make relative comparisons among them for use
in a given installation without consideration to costs and to the specifics
of the installation.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer.
Forward....
Figures -
Tables i i."!!...!.!!!.!!!..
Abbreviations and Symbols '.'.'.'.'.
Acknowledgment.' 1X
I. Introduction and Objectives ; ^
II. Summary of Work ] ] 3
III. Observations After a 1 Year Exposure to Leacnate......... 5
IV. Recommendations 7
V. Experimental Work 8
Monitoring Generators During the First Year 8
Disassembly of Generators and Recovery of Liners 12
Refuse After 1 Year of Operation of the Generators.'.".'.".' 15
Measuring the Effects on Liner Materials of Exposure
to Leachate , 6
VI. Discussion....
Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate for 1 Year .'." 19
Permeability and Water Absorption of Liners '.'. 27
Performance of Equipment and Materials of Construction.' 33
Appendix.
Supplement of Selected Data from "First Interim Report",
44
-------
FIGURES
Number
Schematic drawing of leachate generator and cell in which
the liner materials are being exposed to leachate under
conditions simulating sanitary landfills.
Base of leachate generator with membrane barrier.
10
Placement of the liner materials in the leachate genera-
tion and exposure cells in Building 165, Richmond Field
Station. ..<,... ° ''
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Monitoring of Simulated Landfills and Leachate Quality 13
* *
2 Monitoring Data for Generators 13-24 just Before
Dismantling 14
3 Information on the Refuse in Generators 17
i - :
4 Changes in Properties of Asphalt in Admix Materials
and Membranes during a 1 Year Exposure to Landfill i
Leachate 22
5 Effect Upon the Properties of Polymeric Membrane Liners
of a 1 Year Exposure to Leachate from Simulated
Sanitary Landfills 24
6 Absorption of Leachate by Chlorinated Polyethylene Liner 25
7 Permeability of Admix Liner Materials 28
8 Moisture Vapor Transmission Through Polymeric Membranes 30
9 Water and Leachate Absorption by Polymeric Liners 32
A-l Properties of Polymeric Membrane Liners After a 1 Year
Exposure to Leachate from Simulated Sanitary Landfills 35
A-2 Properties of Polymeric Membrane Liners After a 1 Year
Exposure to Leachate from Simulated Sanitary Landfills 36
A-3 Properties of Admix Liners After a 1 Year Exposure to
Leachate from Simulated Sanitary Landfills 37
A-4 Properties of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Membranes After a
1 Year Exposure to Leachate Generated in a Simulated
Sanitary Landfill - Buried Membrane Specimens 38
A-5 Properties of Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene (Hypalon)
Membranes After a 1 Year Exposure to Leachate in a
Simulated Sanitary Landfill - Buried Membrane Specimens 39
vix
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
Number
A-6 Properties of Chlorinated Polyethylene (CPE) Membranes
After a 1 Year Exposure to Leachate Generated in
Simulated Sanitary Landfills - Buried Strip Specimens
A-7 Properties of Butyl and Ethylene Propylene Rubber Membranes
After a 1 Year Exposure to Leachate Generated in
Simulated Sanitary Landfills - Buried Strip Specimens
A-8 Properties of Miscellaneous Polymeric Membranes After a
1 Year Exposure to Leachate Generated in Simulated ^ ^
Sanitary Landfills °
A-9 Properties of Miscellaneous Polymer Compositions After a ^
1 Year Exposure to Leachate
S-l "Properties of Polymeric Liner Membrane Installed as
Barriers" (from Table I, First Interim Report) 44
S-2 "Strength of Seams of Polymeric Liner Materials"
(from Table II, First Interim Report) 45
S-3 "Properties of Admix Liners Mounted as Barriers"
(from Table III, First Interim Report) 47
S-4 "Properties of Polymeric Liner Membrane Buried in
Leachate Generators*' (from Appendix A, First Interim
Report) 48
viii
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND .SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
ppi
psi
ipm
PVC
PE
CPE
EPDM
THF
TVA
COD
SERL
TCE
pounds per inch
pounds per square inch
inches per minute
Polyvinyl chloride
Polyethylene
Chlorinated polyethylene
Ethylene propylene rubber
Tetrahydrofuran
Total volatile acids
Chemical oxygen demand
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of
California, Berkeley, CA
Trich lore thy lene
NOMENCLATURE FOR LOCUS OF FAILURE IN ADHESIVE TESTING
AD
AD-AD
AD-LS
BRK
DEL
LS
NT
OR
Failure within the adhesive
Failure between two coats of adhesive
Failure between adhesive and liner surface
Break of liner material outside of the seam
Delamination of the liner material
Failure at liner surface
No test (too weak to test)
Failure of the reinforcing fabric
FACTORS FOR CONVERTING DATA IN U.S. CUSTOMARY UNITS TO SI METRIC UNITS
Mils to millimetres (mm)
Factor
x2 .54x10
_p
Pounds per square inch (psi) to megapascals (MPa) x6.895x!0
~
Pound per inch (ppi) to kilo Newtons per metre
(kN/m) xl. 75 1x10
Pound (force) to Newtons , x4.448
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Robert E. Landreth for his support and
guidance in this project. They also wish to acknowledge the guidance of
Dr. Clarence Golueke and Stephen Klein of the Sanitary Engineering Research
Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, Cali-fornia, who were res-
ponsible for the. analyses and characterization of the leachate.
x
-------
SECTION- I
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The use of impervious material's to line sanitary landfills appears' to
be a- promising method for intercepting and controlling leachate generated in
a fill to prevent it from polluting surface and ground water. Although there
is a wide range of materials (Ref. 1-3) that appear to be potentially
useful for this purpose, information available regarding the effects of
leachate on them is very limited, even for relatively short periods of
exposure.
In an effort to learn about and to assess the status of technology re-
garding liners as it might be applied to the lining of landfills, this
project was undertaken with the following objectives:
^i 1. To determine the effects of exposure to leachate from compacted
^ municipal refuse on the physical properties of lining materials
(excluding soils and clays) that are believed to be potentially
useful for the lining of sanitary landfills.
2. To estimate the effective life of liner materials when exposed
to prolonged contact with leachate under conditions comparable to
those encountered in a sanitary landfill.
3. To determine the effects of exposure for 12 and 24 months to
sanitary landfill leachate on the physical properties of the 12
liner materials mounted in the bases of the simulated sanitary
1. Haxo, H.E., and R.M. White. First Interim Report - EPA Contract
68-03-2134, "Evaluation of Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate,"
November 27, 1974.
2. Haxo, H.E. "Assessing Synthetic and Admix Materials for Lining
Landfills," Proceedings of Research Symposium; Gas and Leachate from
Landfills - Formulation, Collection, and Treatment - Rutgers Univ^-
sity, March 25 and 26, 1975. US-EPA Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH 45268 EPA-600/9-76-004, pp 130-158, March 1976.
3. Geswein, A.J. "Liners for Land Disposal Sites -An Assessment."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report SPA/530/SW-137
March 1975.
-------
landfills and on the 42 smaller specimens buried in the sand placed
above the mounted liners.
4. To analyze the costs of these materials for lining sanitary
landfills. This analysis will include liner costs, installation
costs, and the benefits from longer durability.
The First Interim Report (Ref. 1) described the overall technical
approach that was taken, the construction of the simulated sanitary land-
fills, the selection of liner materials, the loading of the cells with
ground refuse, characterization of the refuse, and bringing the cells to
field capacity. In that report the various liner materials were discussed
individually and the bases for selecting the twelve primary materials being
tested were presented. Results of tests of properties of the various
materials before exposure to leachate were presented, and they form the
basis for assessing the effects of leachate over the exposure period. Also
presented were data on the costs of various materials used in the lining of
ponds, lagoons, pits, etc.
In this, the Second Interim Report, the results of a 1 year exposure
of liner materials to leachate are presented. The monitoring of the genera-
tors is described, and the analyses of leachate generated in the simulated
sanitary landfills over the 1 year period are reported. Also described is
the overall operation of the simulated landfills and the performance of the
materials that were employed in fabricating the apparatus used in this
project. Permeability of the various materials to water and leachate is
discussed.
1. Haxo, H.E., and R.M. White. First Interim Report - EPA Contract
68-03-2134, "Evaluation of Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate,"
November 27, 1974.
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY OF WORK
Specimens of 12 liner materials that had been mounted as barriers at
the base of simulated landfills were removed and tested after a 1 year
exposure to the leachate generated in these cells. These materials consist
of:
Six Polymeric Liner Membranes -
Butyl rubber
Chlorinated polyethylene (CPE) ,
Chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon) J
Ethylene propylene rubber (EPDM)
Polyethylene (PE)
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) */
Four Admix Materials -
Hydraulic asphalt concrete
Paving asphalt concrete
Soil asphalt
Soil cement
Two Asphaltic Membranes -
A blown asphalt (canal lining asphalt)
Emulsified asphalt on fabric
The polymeric materials, all commercial products, were mounted with
seams either made by the supplier or made in accordance with the recommended
practice of the respective supplier.
The four admix materials and the blown asphalt membrane were formed-in-
place in accordance with recommended practice. The membrane of emulsified
asphalt was supplied by the manufacturer in sheet form, and a test specimen
was cut from that sheet. Normally, it too would be formed-in-place.
In addition, the 42 secondary specimens of membrane liners, many of
which incorporated splices, were recovered and tested after a 1 year ex-
posure to leachate. These had been buried in the sand above the primary
liners in the bases of the cells and thus had both faces exposed to
leachate.
-------
The monitoring of the generators during the first year consisted of:
1. Adding 2 gallons of tap water and collecting the leachate
produced. Each addition was equal to 1 inch of water entering
the landfill. The amount of water and leachate were recorded.
2. Every 4 weeks the leachate from each of the generators was
subjected to the following tests: hydrogen ion concentration (pH),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), total solids, and volatile solids.
Total volatile acids were measured twice, and then this test was
dropped.
3. Chromatographic analyses were made 5 times during the year for
individual acids: acetic, propionic, isobutyric, and butyric acid.
4. Attempts were made to maintain a hydraulic head of 1 foot on the
liners.
5. Measurements were made, of the temperature and the consolidation
of the refuse in each of the generators.
After about 8 to 9 months of operation, "U" tubes were placed in the
lines to maintain a head of 1 foot on each, of the liners and a continuous
collection of leachate was set up.. This was made possible by fabricating
the collection bags of polybutylene replacing the bags of polyethylene that
failed at the seams in relatively short times.
-------
SECTION III
OBSERVATIONS AFTER A 1 YEAR EXPOSURE OF LINERS TO LEACHATE
1. The admix liners containing asphalt, although losing drastically in their
compressive strength, maintain their impermeability to'leachate. The
asphalt itself became,softer, indicating possible absorption of organic
components from the leachate.
2. During the year's monitoring of the cells, in only three of the cells
did the leachate enter the base below the.liners. Two of these liners, soil
asghalt_and paving_ asphalt concrete, leaked whereas the leakage in' the
/' third was caused by a failure of the epoxy sealing compound around the
periphery of the specimen.
3. The soil cement lost some of its compressive strength; however it
hardened considerably during the exposure period-and cored like a Portland
cement concrete. Its permeability decreased somewhat.
4. Inhomogeneities in the admix materials, which probably caused the leak-
age in the paving asphalt and soil asphalt liners, indicate the need for
considerably thicker materials in practice.
Note: 2 to 4-inch-thick liners were selected for this experiment to
give an accelerated test and were designed with an appropriately
sized aggregate.
s 5. The asphaltic membranes withstood the leachate for 1 year, although they
did swell slightly. There was no indication of disintegration or dissolving
of the asphalt. y
6. All of the polymeric liner materials withstood a 1 year exposure to
the leachate, although several, e.g. chlorinated polyethylene and Hypalon,
swelled,appreciably.N Swollen liners softened but did not'lose tensile
tear, or puncture resistance. Preliminary tests of the exposed liners now
^in progress indicate some increaae_in_penneabilityf probably because of
* swelling. The values will be reported wherTcompleted.
7. Variation among polymeric membrane liners based upon a given polymer
occurred which may reflect variations in polymer source, compound composi-
tion, and possibly methods of manufacture.
8. The seams of the polyvinyl chloride, Hypalon and chlorinated poly-
ethylene liners deteriorated in strength. The polyethylene retained its
strength best.
-------
9. The quality of the leachate in all 24 of the cells was similar, indi-
cating that the initial composition of the refuse was controlled and that
the comparison among the liner materials would be valid. These leachates
had relatively high COD values, i.e. 40,000 to 50,000 ppm, and high organic
acids, i.e. approximately 20,000 ppm, at the time the twelve simulated
landfills were dismantled.
10. The design of the simulated landfills was effective, giving anaerobic
conditions in the generators to yield satisfactory leachate and means of
exposing and retrieving liner test specimens. The use of polybutylene bags
and "U" tubes allowed continual drainage of the generators, yet retained a
1-foot head of leachate above the liner surface.
11. All of the materials of construction, except the epoxy resin used for
sealing the liners in the bases, showed no significant deterioration. The
epoxy resin had been selected on the basis of its rapid cure and its past
use in engineering construction. However, this resin was not specifically
designed for chemical resistance. More chemically resistant materials have
now been developed.
12. The epoxies used to coat the concrete bases showed no signs of
softening or other deterioration.
-------
SECTION IV
RECOMMENDATIONS
.1. Extend the exposure period for at least 1 additional year for a total
exposure period of 3 years.
2. Determine the basic composition features of polymeric liner materials
before and after exposure to leachate. The compound formulation, particu-
larly the polymer, filler, and plasticizer contents of a liner, is an im-
portant factor in the long-term performance of a given liner.
3. Investigate the permeability of various materials under highly swollen
conditions, such as may be encountered in long-term exposure to leachate.
4. Develop simpler tests for assessing the effectiveness of potential
liner materials for sanitary landfills; explore the effectiveness of
immersion tests of liner materials in leachate.
5. Collect information on plastic and rubbery materials which may have been
exposed to leachate in sanitary landfills.
-------
SECTION V
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
MONITORING THE GENERATORS DURING THE FIRST YEAR
The 24 simulated sanitary landfills in which the liner material speci-
mens were being exposed were erected in an unheated wooden frame building
(No. 165) at the Richmond Field Station of the University of California,
Berkeley. The windows of the building remained open. This Station is on
the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay in Richmond,California. The tem-
perature in this building is relatively cool and uniform, ranging from
10 to 20°C (50 to 68°F), a temperature likely to be encountered at the
base of landfills. The design and construction of these simulated landfills
are described fully in Figures 1 and 2. The arrangement of the generators
in the building is shown in Figure 3.
During the first year of exposure of the liner materials to leachate
(November 1974 - November 1975), the following measures were taken in moni-
toring the generators:
a. Two gallons of tap water were added on a biweekly basis (equals
1 inch of water per 2 weeks or 26 inches per year).
b. The leachate was collected on a biweekly basis.
c. Ambient and temperatures in the refuse of 4 of the generators
were measured biweekly.
d. On a 4-week basis, the leachate was analyzed for the following:
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
PH
Total solids
Volatile solids
Total volatile acids as acetic acid (this was discontinued
after 2 months as individual acids were analyzed.)
e. Five sets of analyses were made of the individual volatile acids.
All analyses of the leachate were made by personnel of the Sanitary
Engineering Research Laboratory of the University of California.
-------
4URLDDED REPLftE
COMPACTED TO 8 FT.
TUICKNE5S, /
LEACHATE DRAIN F-E.OM REFUSE-
TO COLLttTIOM
\
\
t>
I
DffAIH ROCK 9" THICK
50IL COVER
WFT. THICX
POLYET14YLENE LIHER
REFUSE COLUfflW-
4PIRiL-V7ELD PIPE,
24." DIA. » 10 FT. HIQU
-MAS Tit
5AND
LINES SPECIMEN
-CACT EPOXY RE*ia
-GRAVEL
LEACHATE DRAIN THRU LINER
TO COLLECTION BA(j
Figure 1 - Schematic drawing of leachate generator
and cell in which the liner materials are
being exposed to leachate under conditions
simulating sanitary landfills.
-------
S~ IYICMDK.ANC. LHMC.K.
.A ---
IZ. INCHE6
Figure 2 - Base of leachate generator with membrane barrier.
-------
2k-KQHTR SET:
Poly-
vinyl
Chloride
PVC
17
Bfchyl-
ene Propy-
ene Rubber
Paving
Asphalt
Concrete
2,c
Hydraulic
Asphalt
Concrete
2"
Etaulsion
Asphalt
on
Fabric
"Cat"
Blown
Asphalt
Soil
Asphalt
k"
12-MONTH_SET
13
Paving
Asphalt
Concrete
Soil
Asphalt
U"
Cat \ / Qnulsion
Blown J I Asphalt
Asphalt I \ on
Fabric
Formed in steel rings
and placed in bases
Compacted in place
Poured in Cut from
place prefab sheet
Poly-
Vinyl
Chloride
PVC
17
21 22
/ Butyl \ / Hypalon \
Ethyl-
ene Propy-
lene Rubber
EPDM
18
REAR DOOR
Figure 3 - Placement of the liner materials in the leachate generation and exposure
cells in Building 165, Richmond Field Station. Cell numbers shown above
the circles. Cells containing strip specimens are indicated by a-. Matrecon
serial numbers for membrane liners are indicated in appropriate circles.
Thickness of concrete and modified soil liner also shown in appropriate circles.
11
-------
Average values of the data obtained during the first year of monitor-
ing the 24 generators are reported in Table 1. Typical of the data obtain-
ed for the leachate from individual generators is that shown in Table 2 for
Generators 13 through 24 just prior to their being dismantled to recover the
liners.
The temperature observed in the refuse of the 4 generators very closely
equalled ambient temperature (10 to 20 C). Temperatures in the refuse
exceeding ambient were only observed during the first few days after the
cells were loaded with refuse. By the time the thermocouples had been
placed in the cells, the temperatures had already fallen to ambient.
During the year the height of the refuse decreased due to consolidation.
Measurements were made which indicated an approximate 7% consolidation during
the first year.
During the course of the year the method of collecting the leachate
was changed. Initially, the leachate was allowed to accumulate in the cells
and to pond on the liners at various heights, although efforts were made to
keep the height between 1 and 2 feet. Later, "U" tubes were installed at
a height of 1 foot and the leachate was drained continually, leaving a head
of 1 foot on the liners at all times. In making this change the collection
bags were changed from polyethylene to polybutylene because of the superior
seams which could be obtained by heat-sealing polybutylene. The polyethylene
bags failed at the heat-sealing seams when kept under constant stress and
continuous draining could not be performed with these bags.
It was recognized early that a large amount of organic acids was being
generated in the anaerobic decomposition of the refuse. Several of these
organic acids can interact with organic compositions such as the membrane
and asphaltic liners in the study; butyric acids> in particular have adverse r
effects on many rubbery and plastic materials. Consequently, analyses were
made for individual organic acids.
DISASSEMBLY OF GENERATORS AND RECOVERY OF LINERS
Twelve of the 24 leachate generators and exposure cells containing the
test liner specimens were dismantled in November 1975 and the liner speci-
mens recovered for laboratory testing. This was done 52 weeks after the
refuse in the columns had been brought to field capacity and'leachate began
ponding on the liners.
The major problem faced in dismantling and recovering the exposed lin-
ers was to perform the operations without damaging the liner specimens. The
individual filled columns weighed approximately 3000 pounds, broken down as
follows: , Pounds
Steel pipe 400
Refuse + water 1690
Soil cover - 1 2/3 ft. 800
Rock, 1/3 foot 150
Total 3040
12
-------
TABLE 1. MONITORING OF SIMULATED LANDFILLS AND LEACHATE QUALITY5
Item
Week of leachate
generation
Ambient temp, C
Total solids, %
Volatile, %
Nonvolatile , %
COD, g/liter
pH
TVA as acetic acid,g/l
Individual Acids:
Acetic, g/1
Propionic, g/1
Isobutyric, g/1
Butyric, g/1
Consolidation of
refuse, cm.
1974
12-10 1-6 2-3
2 5 10
9.5 10.5
3.49 3.38 3.58
__
__
46.1 58.4 45.1
5.51 5.50 5.30
10.5 10.6
1.45
1.58
0.33
2.39
. ._
Date
1975 .
.3-3 3-31 4-29 5-27 6-23 7-21
14 18 22 26 30 34
15.5 12.0 19 18 15 18
3.54 3.43 3.66 3.35 3.20 3.27
1.99 1.90 1.91
1.36 1.30 1.36
43.5 46.0 45.4 ..47.5 48.7 49.0
5.21 5.24 5.16 5.16 5.13 5.07
15.7
2.00 3.32
1.55 -- 3.38
0.50 ~ 1.17
2.52 7.79
' 5.0 7.3
8-18 10-15
38 46
16 19
3.20
1.82 -
1.38
43.8 46.6
5.03 5.06
24.33
6.18
2.42
0.59
6.20
9-9 10.6
11-10
50
14
3.31
1.95
1.36
45.9
5.05
11.25
2.87
0.81
6.93
12.5
12-8
54
17
3.34
1.84
1.50
45.8
5.14
16.0
Data are averages over 24 cells
-------
Gen.
no. Liner material
13 Paving asphalt concrete
14 Hydraulic asphalt concrete
15 Soil cement
16 Soil asphalt
17 "Cat" blown asphalt
18 Emulsified asphalt, on
fabric
Averages
19 Polyethylene
20 Polyvinyl chloride
21 Butyl rubber
22 Chlorosulfonated PE
23 Ethylene propylene rub-
ber (EPDM)
24 Chlorinated PE (CPE)
Averages
Leachate collected below liners:
13 Paving asphalt concrete
14 Hydraulic asphalt concrete
16 Soil asphalt
Ash. %
Total
3.6
2.7
3.4
4.4
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.9
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.12
3.5
2.7
2.9
Volatile
2.1
1.7
2.1
1.7
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.9
-1.9
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.6
pH
5.05
5.05
5.00
5.05
5.07
5.05
5.04
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.10
5.06
5.10
5.77
5.05
COD
9/1
49.5
42.3
43.5
43.1
45.2
56.8
46.7
33.6
48.9
45.3
52. 6
49.3
39.8
44.9
49.9
31.1
27.1
Volatile acids, g/1
Acetic
18.6
12.0
14.6
12.2
10.8
10.6
13.13
13.2
8.1
8.8
12.1
7.3
6.7
9.37
6.5
4.6
6.9
ProDionic
9.2
2.7
3.3
3.6
3.0
3.5
3.38
3.2
1.6
2.6
3.1
2.0
1.6
2.35
1.7
0.6
1.1
Isobutyric
1.1
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.4
0.9
1.01
0.7
0.2
0.6
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.60
0.3
0.2
0.8
Butyric
9.7
6.8
8.6
7.4
7.5
7.0
7.84
7.3
5.2
5.5
7.1
5.3
5.6
6.02
5.7
4.4
4.5
Rock
level
cm.
-16.0
-12.0
-13.0
-17.0
-14.0
-17.5
-14.9
- 3.0
- 3.0
- 3.0
- 2.5
- 7.5
- 5.5
- 4.1
-
-
-
Leachate collection
Nov. 10
6.36
6.82
6.36
6.38
6.27
5.55
6.82
5.91
6.82
6.36
6.82
6.36
0.91
0.45
0.45
Nov. 11-17
8.30
15.19
11.06
21.05
17.01
18.62
17.91
18.41
13.83
20.47
17.24
21.77
0.27
-
-
, Kg.
Total
b
15.84
b
22.46
17.42
b
27. 3£
23.28
27.69
22.43
24.73
24.32
20.65
26.83
24.06
28.13
24.79
1.18
0.45
0.45
Ambient temperature 10 Nov. = 14 C. ''
Total includes the leachate collected below the liner.
-------
Equipment to raise the columns of waste, etc., was not available at the
Richmond Field Station, so it was necessary to use a private rigging firm.
They fabricated a split collar with horizontal pins which could be bolted to
the steel pipe containing the refuse somewhat above the center of gravity.
Using a 4-ton forklift truck an individual column was lifted at the pins,
tilted after it had cleared the base, a steel cover placed over the opening
of the column to prevent refuse -from falling out, and then removed from the
building.
Both the columns and the bases were removed from the building without
problem. The bases had been cast on butyl rubber sheeting which had been
placed on the floor of the building and, thus, they could be lifted off the
floor and moved away.
To prepare for dismantling, we did the following:
1. Stopped the addition of water 2 weeks prior to dismantling.
2o Allowed the leachate to drain thoroughly from the refuse.
3. Removed the soil and rock cover from the columns.
4. Detached all bolts, bags, tubing, etc.
The dismantling proceeded without incident except where the entire con-
tents of one of the steel columns slipped out of the pipe in the poly-
ethylene casing. This gave us the opportunity to inspect the full depth
of the refuse in the generator (see below),.
After removing the sand and buried specimens by hand and washing out
with a hose, the polymeric membranes were photographed arid cut out of the
bases, as were the blown asphalt and emulsified asphalt membranes. The admix
liner specimens were tested for air leaks by flooding the liner with water
and pressurizing the space below the liner and observing the bubbles. Six
2-inch cores (2 near the center and 4 in the periphery) were then cut with
a diamond core drill from each of the liners except the soil asphalt. The
top part of the soil asphalt had become almost a soft mud which disintegrated
within the drill. No full length intact cores could be obtained of this
material, but as the lower portion was firmer than the top, partial cores
were obtained for testing.
REFUSE AFTER I YEAR OF OPERATION OF THE GENERATORS
A shredded municipal refuse from Palo Alto, California, was used in
filling the generators. It was loaded and compacted into the generators in
20-pound aliquots in a manner to minimize variation among the generators to
approximately 1500 pounds per cubic yard at a water content of 30%. Details
regarding the loading of the generators and the refuse are given in the
First Interim Report (Ref. 1). During the year the level of the refuse in
1. Haxo, H.E., and R.M. White. First Interim Report - EPA Contract
68-03-2134, "Evaluation of Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate,"
November 27, 1974.
15
-------
the column fell. It was found that during this period of time the refuse
consolidated ca 7%.
When being loaded, 1 row of generators could not be compacted as
much as the other 3 rows because of interference of a rafter. The
refuse in this row of generators did not consolidate as greatly as that in
the other generators. However, with time the rate of consolidation increased
in this row of generators. '
When the generators were dismantled, the refuse was inspected and a
photographic record made. The appearance of the refuse showed that it had
deteriorated very little during the course of the year. Pieces of news-
paper could be read and colors were retained in both paper and pieces of
fabric". Organic material, leaves, twigs, etc., also showed little damage.
Pieces of plastic and metal (aluminum, tin cans,;pennies, etc.) were little
changed. However, pieces of rubber, such as rubber bands, were highly
swollen and some pieces of what appeared to be polyvinyl chloride, such as
used in wallets, had become extremely hard. The moisture content of the
refuse taken from the generators was found to be about 60%.
Facts regarding the refuse in the generators are given in Table 3.
MEASURING THE EFFECTS ON LINER MATERIALS OF EXPOSURE TO LEACHATE
The effect of landfill leachate upon liner materials is being assessed
in 2 .ways:
/ 1. Measuring the amount of leachate which passes through a liner as
a function of exposure time.
J 2. Measuring the changes in physical properties of the liner on com-
ponents of the liner as a function of exposure time.
The exposure cells which simulate landfills were designed to act as
large permeameters with the liners sealed at the bases so that any leachate
which passes through the liners can be collected and measured. The purpose
of the liner is to prevent passage of the leachate, so leakage through the
? liner is an indication of failure.
Exposure to leachate can result in property changes with exposure, due
J to swelling, dissolving, or deteriorations of the liner material. The
physical properties of the liner specimens, after 1 year exposure to
leachate, were measured using the following tests:
POLYMERIC MEMBRANE LINERS:
Hardness, ASTM D2240
Puncture resistance, Fed. Test Method Std. No. 101B, Method 2065
Seam strength, in peel, ASTM D413, and in shear (1" x 2" lap seam)
Tear strength, ASTM D624, Die C
Tensile strength and elongation at break, ASTM D412
Thickness
16
-------
TABLE 3. INFORMATION ON THE REFUSE IN GENERATORS:
ESTIMATED REFUSE CONTENT OF A SINGLE GENERATOR
(Average Values)
Amount of shredded refuse as received , Ib
Water added to aid compaction, Ib
Water" added to bring refuse to field capacity, Ib
Total, Ib
Total
950
440
312
1692
Moisture
118
440
312
820
Calculated moisture content of refuse at field
capacity, % 43.5
Initial volume of refuse in a generator, cu ft 25.1
Density at time refuse reached field capacity, Ib/cu yd 1820
Density at time refuse reached field capacity, Ib/cu ft 67.4
Moisture content of refuse taken from generator 17 after
1 year of operation, % 59.5
a
Shredded refuse received containing about 12.1% moisture was added in lifts
of 20 pounds each. The first few lifts of 30 pounds could not:be compacted;
therefore, size of lifts was reduced to 20 pounds and about 1 gallon of
water added to each.
17
-------
Water absorption or extraction at RT and 70°C, ASTM D570
Water vapor permeability, ASTM E96-66, Procedure BW
ADMIX LINERS:
Coefficient of permeability: Back-pressure permeameter (Ref. 2)
Compressive strength: ASTM D1074
Density and voids content: ASTM D1184 and D2041
Viscosity of asphalt: California Division of Highways 348
Water swell: California Division of Highways 305
The results are presented in the Appendix. The original properties of all
of the liner materials are given in the First Interim Report (Ref. 1).
1. Haxo, H.E., and R.M. White. First Interim Report - EPA Contract
68-03-2134, "Evaluation of Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate,"
November 27, 1974.
2. Vallerga, B.A., and R.G. Hicks. £. Materials 3 (1) 73-86, "Water
Permeability of Asphalt Concrete Specimens Using Back-Pressure
Saturation," 1968.
18
-------
SECTION VI
DISCUSSION
LINER MATERIALS EXPOSED TO LEACHATE FOR 1 YEAR
One year's exposure to leachate resulted in no significant change in
the water permeability of any of the liners. The changes in physical
properties which were observed were small except for some losses in seam
strength. The following general observations can be made about the types
of liner materials:
1. The admix liner materials generally lost substantially in com-
pressive strength, particularly the soil asphalt (See Appendix B).
2. The asphalt membranes absorbed leachate slightly, but otherwise
changed little during exposure.
3. The polymeric membranes swelled to varying degrees and lost
slightly in tensile and hardness but generally retained puncture
and tear strengths.
4. Seam strengths were significantly lower in almost all cases
except the heat-sealed seams.
Admix Liners
f
This group of materials includes the following 4 liners:
1. Paving asphalt, 2 inches thick
2. Hydraulic asphalt concrete, 2 inches thick
3. Soil cement, 4.5 inches thick
4. Soil asphalt, 4 inches thick.
The 2 asphalt concrete specimens were compacted in molds as circular
discs, 22 inches in diameter, and sealed in the bases with an epoxy resin.
The soil cement and soil asphalt specimens were compacted in place in the'
bases and sealed with epoxies. The placement and composition of these ma-
terials are described in the First Interim Report (Ref. 1)
1. Haxo, H.E., and R.M. White. . First Interim Report - EPA Contract
68-03-2134, "Evaluation of Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate,"
November 27, 1974.
19
-------
During the year the paving asphalt concrete and the soil asphalt
liners leaked (see Table 2). Neither the hydraulic nor the soil cement liners
actually leaked through the liners; however, there was leakage through the
epoxy sealant around the hydraulic asphalt. Permeability measurements made
of cores of the admix liners (see Appendix B) had low water permeability,
in some cases lower than had been measured for unexposed specimens. This
may reflect absorption of leachate by the admix material which would tend
to reduce voids. When the sand was removed, both of the asphalt concretes
looked undeteriorated with no gumminess or solutioning of the surface, as
did the asphaltic membranes.
Paving Asphalt Concrete - The voids content of the exposed concrete was
slightly less than measured before exposure, possibly indicating swelling of
the binder. It seems unlikely that enough leachate could have passed
through the liner for fines filtering out to account for the decrease in
voids. The permeabilities measured on the cores bracket the range found
earlier; permeability of some of the cores was very low. Compressive
strength was much lower than the original. Only 15% of original compressive
strength was retained after 12 months exposure to leachate vs. 80% retained
after 24 hours in water at 60°C (see Appendix B). The extracted binder was
softer than before exposure, as shown by the decrease in viscosity which
may account for part of the loss of compressive strength.
Hydraulic Asphalt Concrete - The voids content of the exposed material
was slightly less than measured before exposure, possibly indicating some
swelling of the binder. Permeability was very low, one core giving the
same permeability as obtained on the unexposed concrete, and another being
even lower. As with the asphalt concrete liner, only 13% of original com-
pressive strength was retained after 12 months exposure to leachate vs. 86%
retained after 24 hours in water at 60°C. The extracted binder softened
even more than in the asphalt concrete, as shown by decrease of viscosity.
Soil Asphalt - The soil asphalt had almost completely disintegrated
structurally and great difficulty was encountered in obtaining core samples
for tests. It was not possible to recover intact cores, so the test results
obtained may not be typical for the entire liner. The voids content was
high, ranging from 18 to 32 on the 3 cores measured, compared to 10.3 to
10.5 on the cores tested before exposure. In spite of the high voids,
the permeability was much lower than for unexposed cores. Compressive
strength was very low on the exposed material and must have been near zero
in the portions of the liner where cores could not be obtained. The vis-
cosity of the extracted binder was higher than before exposure, but was
still very low, possibly reflecting loss of the low molecular fraction used
to cut-back the asphalt.
Soil Cement - Excellent core samples were cut from the exposed soil
cement liner showing continuation of cure during the year's exposure to
leachate. Satisfactory cores could not be cut from the original unexposed
soil cement; it was necessary to use molded test specimens for permeability
and compressive strength measurements.
20
-------
The compressive strength of the soil cement was 62% of the original
value, in the preliminary testing of the soil cement, molded test specimens
retained 69% on 24 hour immersion in water at 60°c. specimens
The soil cement liner did not leak in the exposure cell during the year
In laboratory testing water permeability of the cores of the exposed liner '
was7lower than that of an unexposed molded specimen, 1.5 x 10~S and 4 0 x
10 cm/sec vs. 1.5 x 10 cm/sec.
Asphalt Membranes
TVo types of asphalt membranes were tested. One was a blown asphalt
similar to that used in canal linings and the second was an emulsified
asphalt placed on a non-woven fabric. The preparation and composition of
these liner materials are described in the First Interim Report (Ref 1)
Both of these materials showed no deterioration during the course of 1
year's exposure. They absorbed a small amount of leachate, the blown
asphalt 2.9% and the emulsified asphalt 4.8%.
Bituminous Seal - The catalytically oxidized canal lining asphalt had
the same softening point after 12 months exposure to leachate as before
exposure. The viscosity at 25°C was slightly higher at O.OS sec"* shear
rate but was much higher at the slow shear rate, 0.001 sec"1, indicating a
high shear susceptibility.
Emulsified Asphalt on Nonwoven Fabric - The asphalt extracted from
the fabric plus asphalt emulsion liner, like that extracted from the asphalt
concrete and hydraulic asphalt concrete liners, was lower in viscosity after
slow°r^ Tom*6 ^lleachate ^an ^fore exposure. The viscosity at the
slow rate, 0.001 sec , was substantially unchanged, indicating a lower
shear susceptibility than for the original.
Asphalt Extracted from Liners
Under service conditions where the asphalt composition is exposed to
air, the contained asphalt will harden due to oxidation. This is true of
paving and roofing asphalts and eventually results in failure of the materi-
al As a component of a buried liner at the bottom of a landfill the
asphalt is in an anaerobic environment in contact with leachate which con-
tains dissolved organic constituents. In this situation the asphalt can
be expected to remain the same or to soften. The 3 liners made with paving
consistency asphalt all softened as shown in Table 4, which may indicate
absorption of organic compounds or possibly a degradation by anaerobic
bacteria.
1. Haxo, H.E., and R.M. White. First Interim Report - EPA Contract
68-03-2134, "Evaluation of Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate,"
November 27, 1974.
21
-------
TABLE 4. CHANGES IN PROPERTIES OF ASPHALT IN ADMIX MATERIALS AND MEMBRANES
DURING 1 YEAR OF EXPOSURE TO LANDFILL LEACHATE
Material
Asphalt
concrete
Hydraulic
asphalt
concrete
Soil
asphalt
Bituminous
seal
Fabric and
asphalt
Viscosity at 25 C,
Sliding Plate Viscometer,
MP
At shearrate of
0.05 sec :
Original
After 1 year
Change
% change'
At shear rate of
0.001 sec :
Original
After 1 year
Change
% change
Penetration at 25°C:
, Original
After 1 year
Change
% change
Voids Ratio (volume voids/
volume solids x 100) :
Original
After 1 year
Change
14.5
8.8
-5.7
-39
20.0
15.3
-4.7
-23
29
32
+3
HO
6.4
4.2
-2.1
9.7
3.3
-6.4
-66
14.5
4.3
-10.2
-70
34
52
+18
+53
2.9
1.9
-1.0
0.02°
0.04
+0.02
+100
0.14
0.40
+0.26
+186
538
390
-148
-28
10.4
26.1
+15.7
8.5
10.4
+1.9
+22
19.3
117
+97.7
+506
36
34
-2
-6
~
4.5
2.9
-1.6
-36
6.0
5.9
-0.1
-2
46
55
+9
+20
See Appendix B for details regarding compositions.
b
Correct value. Viscosity of extracted binder for unexposed soil asphalt reported
in error as 0.2 MP in Table III of First Interim Report.
c
Calculated from viscosity.
22
-------
Polymeric Membranes
The six polymeric membranes mounted in the bases of the generators were:
Butyl rubber
Chlorinated polyethylene (CPE)
Chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon)
Ethylene propylene rubber. (EPDM)
Polyethylene (PE)
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
The changes in the physical properties of these membranes during the
first year's exposure to leachate are presented in Table 5. Overall, the
change in the physical properties of the membranes was relatively minor.
They all tended to soften, probably due to the absorption of leachate. On
the other hand, there was a substantial loss in seam strength in the poly- ^
vinyl chloride, the Hypalon, and the chlorinated polyethylene liners. The
seam strength of the butyl and EPDM liners decreased less but they had
lower strength prior to exposure. The polyethylene maintained the highest
seam strength reflecting the fact that it was heat-sealed.
Of the 6 polymeric membranes, the polyethylene film best maintained
overall properties during the exposure period. It also absorbed the least
amount of leachate. However, this liner material has low puncture resist-
ance . The butyl and EPDM liners changed somewhat more in physical proper-
ties than did the polyethylene during the exposure period. In particular,
they maintained their stress-strain properties and did not soften; they
retained their respective seam strengths, but their original values were
low. The 3 remaining membranes, PVC, Hypalon, and CPE, were about equal; .
they all tended to soften and lose in hardness, tensile properties and in ] -J
seam strength, even though they had good initial values. These latter J
materials are all thermoplastic and unvulcanized.
In addition to the 6 primary liner specimens, 42 secondary specimens
of membrane liners and other polymeric compositions were buried in the sand
and exposed to leachate. The membrane specimens were in the form of strips
2 1/8" x 20" which incorporated at one end a lap seam adhesive joint
approximately 2" x 2" which could be tested in peel and in shear. Thus,
various adhesive systems were tested.
The buried specimens included the following compositions:
1. Samples of all of the primary liner materials which were mounted
in the bases of the generators with the same adhesive systems plus
additional adhesive systems.
2. Additional liner materials of the same 6 polymers but varying
in source, thickness, and fabric reinforcement.
3. Additional polymers which are potentially useful as liners,
i.e. neoprene, polybutylene, and polypropylene.
23
-------
TABLE 5. EFFECT OH THE PROPERTIES3 OF POLYMERIC MEMBRANE LINERS
OF 1 YEAR OF EXPOSURE TO LEACH ATE FROM SIMULATED SANITARY LANDFILLS
: -. fPate in, y s Customary UnitO
Exposure
Item ' 'Time, Years Polyethylene'
Liner Ho,
Generator No.
Thickness, mils
Tensile strength, psi.
Elongation at break, *
Tensile set, %
S-200b, psi
Tear strength (Die C) , ppi
Hardness (Duro A - 10 sec.)
Puncture resistance0
force , pounds
Elongation, in.
Volatiles at 105°c
Seam -strength
peel, ppi
Shear, ppi
See page 16 for list of test
21
'
19
0 11-12
1 11
0 2145
1 2465
0 505
1 560
0 422
1 432
0 1260
1 1205
0 390
1 496
0 98
1
0 13.9
1 14.8
0 0.76
1 0.80
1 0.02
0 15.6
1 10.3d
0 20.2
1 11.4
procedures .
Polyvinyl
chloride
17
20
20-21
21
2580
2350
280
330
73
57
1965
1550
335
450
76
64
25.8
30.1
0.69
0.70
3.55
40
5 1
-17.2
25.6 . :
Butyl .
21
61-65
64
. 1435
1395
395
410
17
14
690
685 .
180
202
51
50.5
44.8
49.5
1.22
1.20
2.02
3.8
30.0
42.0
==^===
Chloro-
sulfonated
polyethylene
32-36
38
1765
1640
250
300
111
106
1520
1245
300
305
79
64
32.9
57.0
0.60
0.88
12.76
30.0
3.4
50
40.2
====:
Ethylene
propylene
rubber
16
49-53
51
1475
1455
410
435
16
12
760
740
181
195
54
51.5 .
39.4
40.1
1.44
1.18
5.54
2.5
2.0
14.6
24.3
==^===
Chlorinated
polyethylene
. 12
24
31-32
35
2270
1810
410
400
429
208
1330
1090
255
320
85
65.5
47.0
49.8
1.04
0.98
6.84
10.0
5.1
57
35
^Rate of penetration of probe 20 inches per minute.
Seam in the polyehtylene liner used in the steel column
Tabs in the liner specimens mounted in base were too short.
24
-------
4. A series of five pieces of gasket sheeting of different rubber
compostions and molded slabs of 2 thermoplastic rubbers.
The results of the tests of these specimens are presented in Appendixes
C - H, which also include the detailed data on the primary liners. These
additional specimens allow us to make comparisons between materials from
different sources, different constructions and different thicknesses, as
well as exposure to 1 side and both sides of the test specimens. We also
can test various adhesive systems which have been suggested by the suppliers.
The overall physical properties of the buried specimens compare with
those of the mounted liners. There are variations, however, among the lin-
ers based upon a given type of polymer, as can be seen by inspection of the
data. Of particular interest are variations in the leachate absorption by
different liners of the same polymer. In the case of PVC, the absorption
varies from .37% to 6.7%; in the case of the Hypalon, the variations are
from 8.7% to 21%. EPDM varies from 5.1% to 9%.
In the case of chlorinated polyethylene membranes from the same sup-
plier, we observe the effect of one-side exposure, thickness and reinforce-
ment, as shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6. ABSORPTION OF LEACHATE BY CHLORINATED POLYETHYLENE LINER
Thickness, mils . , , _ Leachate
Sils^ed Reinforced Exposure absorbed in j. year/ %
31
31
31
16
35
35
40
18
.7
.6
.2
No
NO
Yesa
No
1
2
2
2
side
sides
sides
sides
6
9
12
10
.84
.52
.37
.35
a
Nylon.
The seven miscellaneous polymeric compositions buried in the sand for
exposure to the leachate were:
2 Thermoplastic rubbers based on ethylene and propylene
5 Gasket sheeting materials of the following:
Natural rubber
Styrene butadiene rubber (SBR)
Urethane rubber
Neoprene, solid sheeting
Neoprene, sponge
Their properties after 1 year's exposure to leachate are given in
Appendix H; properties prior to exposure are presented in the First Interim
25
-------
Report (Ref. 1), Appendix A.
The 2 thermoplastic rubbers absorbed some leachate, the softer rubber
of the 2 absorbed more (3.98%) and dropped in hardness about 15 points, i e
from 62 to 47, compared with 1.79% absorption and no change in hardness for"
the harder rubber. Materials of this type may be useful for fabricating
liners as they are tough and can be heat-sealed.
The gasket materials absorbed leachate to varying degrees, from 2.0%
for the urethane rubber to more than 44% for the neoprene sponge. In spite
of the relatively low swell of the urethane it lost substantially in ten-
sile and tensile modulus (S100, S200, and S300). The natural rubber vul-
canizate also lost in tensile strength, modulus and hardness as did SBR but
to a lesser extent. The solid neoprene gasket material swelled and softened
but retained strength and tensile modulus; the sponge became very soft and
flabby, indicating the potentially high level to which neoprene might swell
(In the assembled generators only a small area of the neoprene gasket is
exposed to leachate as the sponge is collapsed. There was little evidence
that the leachate actually entered the seal.)
These data show that absorption of leachate increases when 2 sides
of a liner are exposed to leachate, when reinforcement is used, and when a
thinner membrane is used. These results are important when developing tests
for evaluating various liner materials.
The data on the strengths of the seams in the various strip specimens
indicate that there are, in some cases, better adhesive systems than were
used in the primary specimens mounted in the bases, in the case of PVC,
use of the tetrahydrofuran (THF) with 2 of the PVC strip specimens yielded
substantial improvement over the seam made by the manufacturer of the PVC
liner., With the Hypalon, the seam made with the supplier's cement in the
primary liner was not as good as that made in the strip specimen, which
indicates that even in the laboratory major variations can occur in the use
of cements. The adhesive system used with the chlorinated polyethylene,
i.e. 50-.50 toluene-THF gave somewhat lower values than a Fuller cement,
SC-1155. The adhesion values for the butyl liner were somewhat less than
measured on the strip specimens, although the same cement was used. The
factory seam incorporated in the EPDM liner did not give as good values as
a cement preparation designed for this type liner by another supplier.
Overall, the heat-sealed seams held up best to exposure to leachate,
although some cements and solvent washes have held up. Solvent washes are
difficult to handle in the field.
In reviewing the results for both the membrane liners and the strip
specimens, it is quite apparent that the crystalline polymers based upon
ethylene, propylene, and butylene withstand exposure to leachate best.
1. Haxo, H.E., and R.M. White. First Interim Report - EPA Contract
68-03-2134, "Evaluation of Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate,"
November 27, 1974.
26
-------
Their properties show less change, they absorb only minor amounts of leach-
ate and they maintain good seams when they are heat-sealed. However, they
are all hard and would be difficult to handle in the field Also, they are
probably prone to puncture and tear as simple thin films
PERMEABILITY AND WATER ABSORPTION OF LINERS
The basic purpose of a liner for a landfill is to control the flow of
leachate and prevent its entrance into the surface and/or ground water sys-
tem. Consequently, permeability to water arid dissolved ingredients is its
most important property
To assess the permeability of liner materials the test cells were
specifically designed and constructed as large permeameters to measure any
flow of leachate which might occur through the liner materials. Individual
liners were sealed so that leachate could enter the space below the liner
only through the liner specimen. In addition, laboratory measurements of
water permeability were made of the materials before exposure to the
leachate and, in some cases, after exposure to the leachate. (Additional
measurements are still underway.)
The water permeability of the admix liners was determined on unexposed
and exposed liner materials using a back-pressure permeameter (Ref. 1).
Test results are presented in Table 7. During the exposure period, leach-
ate permeated through 2 of the admix materials,, the paving asphalt con-
crete and the soil asphalt. When the generators were dismantled and the
liners retrieved, the liners were flooded and the bases pressurized to
show the points of leakage. In the case of the paving asphalt concrete,
there was a general leakage in the center of the specimen, but none at the
periphery. Very little air passed through the soil asphalt, although there
were some bubbles on the edges. Tests of cores of these specimens showed
that the overall permeability of these materials was equal, if not lower
than that of unexposed specimens, indicating possible filling of voids.
The tests also showed inhomogeneity in the samples and the need to make
thicker liners than were used in the test.
The other 2 admix materials, hydraulic asphalt concrete and soil
cement, did not leak during the test and on laboratory testing were some-
what more impermeable than they had been before exposure to leachate (see
Table 7). ' .
In the case of the 2 asphalt concretes, there was an apparent reduc-
tion in voids contents and a reduction in the asphalt viscosity and an in-
crease in penetration. It would appear that the asphalt may have absorbed
organic components from the leachate.
1. Vallerga, B.A. and R.G. Hicks. J. Materials 3 (1) 73-86, "Water
Permeability of Asphalt Concrete Specimens Using Back-Pressure
Saturation," 1968
27
-------
TABLE 7. PERMEABILITY OF ADMIX LINER MATERIALS
Admix material
Paving
1 asphalt
concrete
Hydraulic
asphalt
concrete
Soil
cement
Soil
asphalt
Thickness, inches
Leachate collected below
liner during monitoring
period:
Total cumulation, kg
Week leakage began
Coefficient of perme-
ability , cm/sec:
2.2
2.4
4.5
4.0
12.26 . ^ _ 3.24. . b none
(,not thru liner)
20th
~8
29th
~9
12.1
1st
~6d
Initial value
After 1 year's
exposure to land-
fill leachate
1.2 x 10 3.3 x 10 1.5 x 10 1.7 x 10
7.4 x 10~7 <3-. "x 10~10 1.5 x 10~8f 1.3 x lo"8
9.3 x 10~9 3i-5 x 10~9 4.0 x 10°7g 2.8 x lo"8
3.0 x 10"10
See Appendix B for details regarding composition.
On dismantling of generator, leak was found to be in epoxy seal.
£
Back Pressure Permeameter (Ref. 4) tests made on cores cut from compacted
liner specimen.
d . > - .
Molded test specimen. Cores satisfactory for.testing could, not be cut
from the compacted liner specimen.
£
Value for core specimens cut from liner.
Top section of Core 3.
Bottom section of Core 4.
28
-------
In the case of soil asphalt, the reverse took place with an increase
in voids content and a hardening of the asphalt. As the asphalt in this
material is a cut-back asphalt containing lower molecular weight hydro-
carbons, it is possible that this admixture lost some of the lower molecu-
lar weight components.
We conclude, after 1 year of exposure to leachate, that the water
permeability of the 4 admix materials has dropped. As pointed out above,
the strength of these materials has been considerably reduced. It is
anticipated that further changes will take place during subsequent exposure
to leachate but they will be slow, suggesting that longer exposure periods
be used.
Attempts were first made to measure the water permeability of the 2
asphalt membranes, one based upon blown asphalt and the other on emulsified
asphalt, using the back-pressure permeameter. However, this equipment did
not yield reliable information on materials having coefficients of permea-
bility less than 10 cm/sec. This was true also of the polymeric membrane
liners discussed below. We have been unable to measure the permeability of
either of these 2 asphaltic materials in a satisfactory manner. A major
problem in testing these materials has been their creep in the cells during
exposure with loss of seal.
With respect to the polymeric membranes, the transmission of moisture
and other dissolved materials depends largely upon diffusion activated flow.
This is in contrast to the capillary flow that is encountered in the admix
materials. This, of course, assumes no pinholes in the materials. Permea-
tion by diffusion will be far slower than that by capillary flow. Consequent-
ly, the permeabilities of these materials will be several orders of
magnitude lower than that of the admix materials. The asphalt membranes are
also in this class. ,
As with the asphaltic membranes, we were unsuccessful in using the
back-pressure permeameter to measure the permeability coefficients. The
amounts of water which passed through the test specimens were much too low to
get measurable values in reasonable time. We then measured water permeability
of the polymeric membranes using the BW procedure described in ASTM Test
Method E96-66. In this method a container, with a test specimen sealed on
the top, is partially filled with water, inverted, and allowed to remain with
air blowing across the specimen. The loss of moisture through the membrane
over extended periods of time is measured and reported as the water vapor
transmission. This method is intended for evaluating membrane materials in
applications in which one side of the membrane is wetted and where the
hydraulic head is relatively unimportant. The moisture transfer is
governed by capillary and water vapor diffusion processes. The procedure,
therefore, simulates a possible condition of a liner in a landfill.
Tests were made of specimens of the liner materials mounted in the
bases of the generators and the results are reported in Table 8 in metric
perms for films of one centimeter thickness. These results rate the 6
liner membranes as follows, from the least permeable to the most permeable:
29
-------
Ul
o
TABLE 8. MOISTURE VAPOR TRANSMISSION THROUGH POLYMERIC MEMBRANES
Test Method: ASTM E-96-66 Procedure BW - Modified9
Item
Liner no.
Thickness, mils
, cm
Hypalon
6
36
0.0915
Butyl
7
66
0.168
CPE
12
32
0.081
EPDM
16
52
0.132
PVC
17
21
0.053
PE
21
10
0.0267
Test time, days
Rate of water vapor transmission WVT:
g/m2/24 h
Water vapor permeance -
water vapor transmission per mm Hg (WVT/dS> P)
Metric perms
Water vapor permeability,
permeance x thickness in cm:
Metric perms x
thickness in cm
40.5 45 45 40 17.5
0.825 . 0.26 0.61 0.58 3.69
0.062 0.0195 0.046 0.0435 0.277
34
1.28
0.096
Oo0057 0,0033
.0037 0.0057 0.015
0.0026
In this procedure, the water cup with the membrane specimen cover is inverted to wet the specimen.
It is intended for those applications in which one side is wetted under conditions where the
hydraulic head is relatively unimportant and moisture transfer is governed by capillary and water
vapor diffusion forces (from E-96). Test conditions: Temperature - Room temperature (68 - 78°F).
Relative humidity varied 26 - 47% over a period of 7 months, averaging 37%. Surface area of
specimen - 15.2 cm (0.00152 m ).
-------
Polyethylene
Butyl
Chlorinated polyethylene
Ethylene propylene rubber
Hypalon
Polyvinyl chloride
Also related closely to the permeability of materials is the absorption
of water. Small absorptions of water can drastically increase the permea-
bility of a material. The absorption of water is diffusion dependent as
well as related to the relative polarity of the polymer and water. The
absorption can thus result in significant swelling of a liner and a signifi-
cant increase in its permeability to water and possibly to dissolved
components. The structure and composition of the polymeric membrane can
greatly affect its swelling by water as may the ion content of the permeat-
ing fluid as reported for neoprene compositions (Ref. 1). It can be seen
in Table 9 that the leachate, with its dissolved organic and inorganic com-
ponents can cause additional swelling in some cases and reduction in
others, e.g. neoprene. The ultimate swelling of a material is determined
by (1) the relative polarity and molecular weight of a polymer, (2) the
level to which the polymer is crosslinked, and (3) various compounding in-
gredients, particularly the plasticizers and fillers that are used.
In Table 9, the water and leachate absorptions by various polymeric
liner materials are presented. The data include the water absorption after
2 hours at 100°C, water absorption after 1 year in water, and leachate
absorption after 1 year's exposure. The materials which have shown the
lowest amount of swell are polyethylene, polybutylene, and polypropylene,
in which cases the absorptions are a few tenths of a percent, with the
leachate being absorbed slightly more than water. These results would
predict the low water transmission which was found for the polyethylene in
the moisture vapor transmission shown in Table 8.
The 2 materials which show a relatively high absorption of both water
and leachate are the 2 rubbery polymers which are unvulcanized, chlorinated
polyethylene (CPE) and chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon). In addition,
there is a significant variation among the Hypalon liners from the various
suppliers.
Among the vulcanized rubbers, butyl, EPDM, and neoprene, the butyl is
significantly lower in absorption of both leachate and water, although the
water absorption by ethylene propylene rubber is very close to that of
butyl. The neoprene, which swelled the most of all the materials in water,
swelled considerably less in the leachate, which is probably a reflection
of the ion content of the leachate (Ref^ 1) and possibly the oil resistance
of the neoprene.
1. Murray, R.M., and D.C. Thompson. "The Neoprenes," E. I. duPont de
Nemours and Co., pp 70-71, 1963.
31
-------
TABLE 9. WATER AND LEACHATE ABSORPTION BY POLYMERIC LINERS
Butyl rubber
Chlorinated polyethylene
(CPE)
Chlorosulfonated polyethylene
(Hypalon)
Ethylene propylene rubber
(EPDM)
Neoprene
Polybutylene
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polyvinyl chloride
Liner
no.
7a
22
24
12b
13Sb
23
3
4S
6S*
14S
8
16a
18
.25
26
9
20
2ia
27
10
11
15
a
17a
19
Water- 100'
2 h
0.17
0.23
0.10
2.93
12.96
6.68
4.19
5.16
7.17
15.26
0.36
0.47
0.58
0.23
0.29
1.71
0.24
1.10
0.95
2.40
2.15
0.92
C Water-RT Leachate
1 year 1 year
1.60
1.70
1.10
13.10
. 19.60
15.50
17.40
18.00
9.20
11.20
1.40
4.80
1.50
1.60
22.7
0.25
0.20
0.28
1.85
1.85
2.10
1.85
0.60
1.78
2.32
1.0
9.0
12.4
10.3
20.0
19.0
13.64
8.71
5 .95
5.50
__
5.59
8.99
8.73,
0.33
0.25
0.40
;6.72
5.0
4.64
3.29
0.75
Liners mounted in generator bases.
S=fabric supported liner.
32
-------
The polyvinyl chloride liner materials varied among the suppliers and
swelled significantly more in the leachate than they did in water.
Samples of membrane liners have been immersed in tap water for 3 years
and, in most cases, continue to swell. In others, the swelling has
levelled off. It is anticipated that a similar behavior will be encountered
in the swelling caused by leachate. Therefore, it appears desirable to
extend the leachate exposure period to at least 3 years in order to
determine whether;the swelling will continue. There is a possiblity that
unvulcanized polymers which are chemically compatible with water may swell
to the point where they dissolve.
After 1 year's exposure to leachate none of the materials under test
has reached the condition where they will not serve as a barrier for the
leachate that is being generated. On the other hand, high levels of swell-
ing or extended periods of exposure may 'eventually cause some of the ma-
terials to become quite permeable. Longer exposure times will be necessary
to determine this.
PERFORMANCE OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION
The overall design of the simulated sanitary landfills shown in Figure
1 has worked out well during the first year of operation. Basically, it
consists of a leachate generator made of a 10-foot-high, 2-foot-diameter
steel pipe, mounted on a concrete base in which the liner specimens are
mounted and sealed to prevent by-passing by the leachate.
The conditions existing at the surface of the liners has simulated well
the anaerobic conditions which a liner would encounter at the bottom of a
sanitary landfill containing municipal refuse. During the year the tem-
perature ranged from 10 to 20 C. The anaerobic conditions existed during
almost the entire exposure period, except perhaps the first few days. The
sealing of the pipes to the base, using neoprene sponge and butyl caulk,
was airtight and showed no indication of leakage when the generators were
dismantled.
The leachate drained well through the refuse; there was no stoppage in
the refuse or in the sand above the liner. The column containing the refuse
was removed with relative ease from the base without damage to the liner or
to the buried specimens which had been placed in the sand above the liner.
It had been planned to use standpipes to indicate the level of the
leachate within the generators and to drain from the generators on a bi-
weekly basis. It was found, however, that there was considerable variation
in the head that existed above the liners and, consequently, we changed the
method of draining and collecting the leachate.to maintain a constant head
of 1-foot of leachate on the liner. A "U" tube was installed in the line
so that a 1-foot head of leachate could be maintained on the liner and at
the same time the leachate could drain continually from the generators into
plastic bags. This was made possible through the use of bags made of poly-
butylene which could remain full over a period of time without failing.
We had initially started with polyethylene bags, but found that they failed
33
-------
at the heat-sealed seams in a relatively short time.
We found that the polyethylene used to line the 2-foot steel pipes
"
cct n
contact with the steel plpes as there was very little rust generated except
near the top of the pipes where air was available. The epoxy coatina
(Concres.ve 1170) used to cover the interior of the concrete bases showed
staSd? S°ftening ^ °f fa±1Ure fr°m ^ C°nCret- *» coating hoover,
The epoxy resin (Concresive 1217) used in preparing the rings for seal-
ing the uners in place swelled at the surface and disintegrated in 2 cells
during the exposure period causing a leakage in 1 base (the hy"Jrau"lic
concrete llner) , but did not fail completely in the second. Sis particular
epoxy resin was selected because of its rapid cure, but we now find that
epoxies of thxs type are sensitive to moisture and to off-ratios when
si±T9 f6 I ^T- ^e SUPPller
-------
01
TABLE
SECTION XII
APPENDIX
A-l. PROPERTIES3 OF POLYMERIC MEMBRANE LINERS AFTER 1 YEAR OF
LEACHATE FROM SIMULATED SANITARY LANDFILLS
Polyethylene
Liner no.
Generator no.
Thickness, mils
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, %
S-100C, psi
S-200 , psi
S-300 , psi
Tear strength (Die C) , ppi
Hardness (Durometer A)
Inst. rdg.
10 sec. rdg.
Puncture resistance , Ibs
Elongation, mm
Seam strength
Peel, ppi
Shear, ppi
Volatiles - air at RT, %
105°C, %
Ash, %
With
21
19
11
2470
490
365
1210
1360
1590
520
70.5
70
14.8
0,80
e
11.4
0.336
0.023
0.23
Across
2460
625
500
1010
1050
1120
472
Polyvinyl
chloride
With Across
17
20
21
2480 2190
320 340
55 59
1180 980
1680 1420
2310 1960
489 408
67.5
64
30.1
0.70
5.1
25.6
4.14
3.55
7.93
Butyl
rubber
With
7
21
64
1350
425
13
270
630
1010
202
55
50.5
49.5
0.20
2.9
42
2.02
5.70
Across
1400
390
14
320
740
1140
202
EXPOSURE TO
Chloro-
sulfonated
Polyethylene
With Across
6
22
38
1500
300
106
480
1035
1480
282
67
64
57.0
0.88
3.4
40.2
12.76
2.42
1780
300
105
710
1455
1780
324
Ethylene-
propylene
rubber
With
16
23
51
1450
430
12
320
770
1110
196
53
51.5
40.1
1.18
2.0
24.3
5.54
5.83
Across
1460
440
12
300
710
1035
193
Chlorinated
polyethylene
With Across
12
24
35
2090
350
208
1020
1450
1860
374
70
65.5
49.8
0.98
5.1
35
6.84
14.89
1530
450
207
460
730
1030
262
See page 16 for list of test procedures.
b
See also Appendix G.
Stress at 100, 200, and 300% elongation, respectively.
a
Rate of .penetration: 20 inches per minute.
Not enough tab to test.
-------
TABLE A-2.
PROPERTIES OP POLYMERIC MEMBRANE LINERS AFTER 1 YEAR OF EXPOSURE
TO LEACH ATE FROM SIMULATED SANITARY LANDFILLS
Item
Liner no.
Generator no.
Thickness, mm
Tensile strength, MPa
Elongation at break, *
Tensile set, %
S-100C, MPa
S-200°, MPa
S-300C, MPa
Tear (Die C) , kN/m
Hardness - Inst. rdg.
(Duro A) 10 sec. rdg.
Puncture resistance , M
Elongation, mm
Seam strength
Peel, kN/m
Shear, kN/m
Volatiles - air at RT, %
105°C, %
Ash, 1
Polyethylene
With Across
21
19
0.279
17 .03
490
365
8.34
9.38
10.96
91.05
70.5
70
65.83
20.3
e
2.00
0.336
0.023
0.23
16.96
625
500
6.96
7.24
9.72
82.65
::::
Polyvinyl
chloride
With
17
20
0.533
17.10
320
55
8.14
11.58
15.93
85.62
67.5
64
133.88
17.8
0.89
4.48
4.14
3.55
7.93
Across
15.10
340
59
6.76
9.79
13.51
71.44
Butyl
rubber
Wi th Across
7
21
1.103
9.31 9.65
425 390
13 14
1.86 2.21
4.34 5.10
6.96 7.86
35.37 35.37
55
50.5
220.18
30.5
0.51
7.35
2.02
5.70
Chloro-
sulfonated
polyethylene
With
6
22
0.965
10.34
300
105
3.31
7.14
10.20
49.38
67
64
253.54
22.4
0,60
7.04
12.76
2.42
Across
12.27
300
105
4.90
10.03
12.27
56.73
Ethylene-
propylene
rubber
With
16
23
1.29
10.00
430
12
2.21
5.31
7.65
34.32
53
51.5
178.36
30.0
0.35
4.25
5.54
5.83
Across
10.07
440
12
2,07
4.89
7.14
33.79
Chlorinated
polyethylene
With Across
12
24
0.89
14.41
350
208
7.03
10.00
12.82
65.49
70
65.5
221.51
24.9
0.89
6.13
6.84
14.89
10.55
450
207
3.17
5.03
7.10
45.88
::::
See page 16 for list of test procedures.
b
See also Appendix G.
Stress at 100, 200, and 300% elongation, respectively.
a
Rate of penetration: 0.508 m per min.
Not enough tab to test.
-------
PROPERTIES OF ADMIX LINERS AFTER 1 YEAR OF EXPOSURE TO LEACHATE FROM SIMULATED SANITARY LANDFILLS
OJ
Core
Item no.
From generator no.
Thickness, cm (in.)
Density, g/cm3 (Ufa/ft3)
Voids ratio (vol. voids/
vol. solids x 100) 3
4
6
Average
Water content, g water
per 100 g dry 3
4
6
Average
Water soluble solids
extracted, %
4
-
Average -
Compressive strength.
MPa (psi)
Fraction of original
strength retained
Q
Coefficient of permea- 1
bility, cm/sec. 2
Properties of extracted
asphalt: Viscosity slid-
ing plate @ 25°C, HP
@ 0.05 see.
@ 0.001 sec."
Penetration @ 25 C (calc.
from viscosity)
Softening point C ( F)
Asphalt
concrete
13
5.9 (2.3)
2.406 (105.2)
4.3
4.4
4.0
4.2
0.99
0.61
1.39
1.00
0.008
--
2.92 (423)
15
7.4 x 10"^
9.3 x 10
8.8
15.3
32
Hydraulic
Core asphalt
no. concrete
14
6.3 (2.5)
2.389 (149.1)
1 1.5
3 3.4
5 0.75
6 2.0
1.9
1 0.55
3 0.47
5 0.40
6 0.39
0.45
1 0.007
3 0.006
- .
^0.01
2.41 (349)
13
4 3.5 X ID'*
2 <3 x 10
3.3
4.3
52
Core Soil Core Soil d Bituminous
no. cement no. asphalt seal
15
10 (3.9)
.
1
3
9
_
-
1
3
9
: :: :
i
3
9
-
8.19 (1188)
62 -
3 top-1.5 x 10"^ 2
4 bot.4..0 x 10 3
_ _
-
-
"
16 1,7
12 (4.7)
1.973 (123.1)
28.8
17.8
31.8
26.1
10.3
7.7
10.7
9.6 2.6
0.17
0.08
0.17
0.14
0.10 (15)
1.2
1.3 x Hf*
2.8 x 10
0.04 10.4
0.40 117
390 34
89 (192)
Fabric + £
asphalt emulsion
18
--
~~
4.8
~~
2.9
5.9
55
Composition: 7.1 asphalt; 100 aggregate.
Composition: 9.0 asphalt; 100 aggregate.
CComposition: 95 soil; 5 Kaolin clay,- 10 Type V cement; 8.8 water.
Composition: 7.0 SC-800 liquid asphalt; 100 aggregate.
6Composition: Catalytically blown asphalt layer 4.7 kg/m (8.7 pounds per square yard).
Composition: Asphalt from emulsion spread on polypropylene nonwoven fabric-4.8 kg/m (8.9 Ib. per square yard).
9Core taken from area at center of liner which leaked during exposure period.
-------
TABLE A-l*. PROPERTIES 07 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) MEMBRANES AFTER 1 YEAR OF
CJ
03
FXPOSUHE
TO LEACHATE GENERATED IN A
SIMULATED SANITARY
LANDFILL, BURIED MEMBRANE SPECIMENS
Specimen no.
Item
Generator no.
Thickness, mils
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, $
Tensile set, £
S-100C psi
3-200 psi
S-300C psi
Tear strength (Die C) ppi
Duro A - Inst. Rdg.
10 Sec. Bdg.
Puncture resistance (Bate of penetration: 20 in. per minute):
Force, Ib
Elong . , in
Volatiles at 105°C3 %
Seam adhesive system
Seam strength:
Peel, ppi
Locus of failure
Shear, ppi
Locus of failure
1O
19
33-8
2550
325
73
1230
1770
2320
509
77
72.5
Ul.5
0.26
6.72
THF
10. 1*
LS
81.8
BRK
11
19
30.9
2780
1*00
98
1220
17UO
2260
1*32
79-5
75.5
1*5-1
0-38
5.0
THF
10.2
LS
>65.3
BRK
15
19
11
2000
225
26
ll*90
I960
I»60
78
73
36
0.35
U.61*
Solvent 6079
Cement L-1552
2.1
AD
>9-5
BRK
17
19
20
2660
350
61*
1200
1700
2360
385
77
72
21*
0.1*0
3.29
>
>
2.2
AD
>30.6
BRK + AD
15-1
19
21.7
271*5
1*00
87
1270
171*5
2220
too
77
71
29-8
0.1*1*
1.22
>
>
4-9
AD
>36.2
BRK
19-?
19
21.1
2860
1*00
87
1295
1790
. 2320
336
785
72
23.8
0.1*5
0.37
THF
3-0
LS
_____
Liner
17
20
21
2350
330
57
1550
1+50
61*
30.1
3-55
Mfgr
5.1
25.6
See Page 16 for test procedures.
Matrecon liner material number plus number indicating seam variation.
Stress at 100%, 200%, snd 300$ elongations, respectively.
-------
TABLE A-5. PROPERTIES8 OF CHIOROSULFONATED POLYETHYLENE (HYPALON) MEMBRANES AFTER 1 YEAR OF
^_ _. _n. «... mi-, 1-.. * n-nnrr a mrrn OrtHTTmft TTV T AMTYFTTT BURIED MEMBRATTE SPECIMENS
.
Generator no.
Thickness, mils
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, %
S-1OO, psi
S-2OO, psi
S-300, psi
Tear strength (Die C), ppi
Duro A - Inst. rdg.
10 Sec. rdg.
Puncture resistance (Rate of Penetration:
Force, lb
Elongation, in
Volatiles at 105°C, $
Seam adhesive system
Seam strength:
Peel, ppi
Locus of failure
Shear, ppi
3.1
20
87
11*15
675
29!*
200
260
320
158
6U.5
61
20 in. per minute):
29.0
0.85
21. lU
Heat Seal
"""""
3.2
>
86.7
675
291*
280
380
1*50
172
66
62.0
30.0
0.88
18.78
6079
L1552
2.6
18.0
AD
Specimen
l*.l
no.
1*.2
1*1.9 1*0.8
920/790 960/llUO
625
267
21*0
290
188
72
68.5
25.9
O.U2
18.72
Heat Seal
0(NT)
AD
600
265
260
295 .
1 V
208
70.5
67.0
27.0
0.38
19-32
6079
L1552
0(NT)
AD
O(NT)
AD
6
1*0
i860
275
91* '
690
lt*70
250
71
68.5
1*6
0.36
' 11*. 52
Cement
280Z
17
AD
BRK
11*
39-5
1230/3080
150
26
111*0
197
65.5
62.5
1*5.6
0.30
8.71
TCE
2.1
AD-LS
15-95
AD-LS
Liner
38
161*0
300
106
12l*5
305
79
57
12.76
Cement
280Z
3-1*
1*0
aSee Page 16 for test procedures.
bMatrecon liner material number plus number indicating seam variation.
cStress at 10O&, 200&, and 300$ elongations, respectively.
-------
Item
Generator no.
Thickness, rails
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, i,
S-100 , psi
S-200, psi
S-300, psi
Tear strength, ppi' (Die C)
Duro A - Inst. rdg.
10 sec. rdg.
Puncture resiatance (Rate
of Penetration 20 ipm) ;
Force, Ib
Elongation, in
Volatiles at 105°C, %
Seam adhesive system
Seam strength:
Peel, ppi
Locus of failure
Shear, ppi
Locus of failure
TABLE A-6.
PROPERTIES8 OF CHLORINATED POLYETHYLEHE (CPE) MEMBRANES AFTER 1 YEAR OF EXPOSURE
TO LEACHATE GENERATED IN SIMULATED SANITARY LANDFILLS, BURIED STRIP SPECIMENS
. Specimen no.
22
35-9
2000
375
202
990
1380
1780
258
73.5
(6
1.3.8
o.Uo
9.38
Fuller
SC-1556
2.2
AD-LS
1*6.0
AD-LS
22
36.1
191.0
350
178
990
1380
1780
306
67
1*2.0
0.39
9.50
50
Toluene
50- THF
2.1*
LS
56.0
LS
22
35.0
2005
350
185
980
11*20
1830
21*6
66
1*1*. 0
0.51
10.22
60 TCE
1*0
Toluen^
3.0
LS
51.0
LS
22-
'35.9
181*0
325
178
980
11*05
1830
267
76
68.5
1*5.0
0.53
8.99
Fuller .
SC-1551*
8.3
AD
1*8.1
AD-LS
24
1*0.2
1020/
3110
150
81
930
278
65
57.5
59
0.20
12.78
Fuller
SC-1556
3.8
AD-LS
>122
BRK-
AD-LS
21*
1*0.2
980/3230
175
77
930
372
65
58.5
61
0.21
11.1*1*
50
Toluene
50 THF
2.5
LS
57.6
BK
21*
1*0.9
1020/
200
150
71*
980
356
61*
57
60.5
0.17
12.18
60 TCE
1*0
Toluene
1.2
LS
LS
13.1*
21*
1*0.9
1120/
3220
150
68
I06p
1*1*9
65.5
59
60
0.21
13.09
Fuller
SC-1551*
5-8
AD-LS
>57.7
BK-AD
23.1
23
18.0
2360
325
78(7).
1670
2220
2360
169
75
69
23.0
0.1*1
11.32
Fuller
SC-1556
1.0
AD-LS
23.2
18.0
2290
300
173
161*0
2200
2290
333
77
70.5
23.6
0.1*1*
10.78
50
Toluene
50 THF
It. 8
LS
>30.9
BK
23-3
18 2
2180
300
168
121*0
1730
2180
306
76.0
. 69.5
2l*.2
0.1*1*
. 10.90
60 TCE
1*0
Toluene
2.7
LS
>32.5
BK
23.1*
18 5
201*0
300
169
1160
1600
201*0
300
77
71
21*. 6
o Us
8.1*0
Fuller
SC-1551*
5.1*
AD-LS
>33-6
BK
12
1810
1*00
208
1090
320
65-5
1*9.8
6.81*
50
Toluene
50 THF
5.1
35
See Page Ib for test procedures. "
Katrecon liner material number plus number indicating seam variation.
cStress at 10Cfs, 20O& and 300% elongations, respectively.
-------
TABLE A- 7.
Item
b
Specimen no.
Generator base no.
Thickness, mils
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, «
S-100C, psi
S-200 , psi
S-300 , psi
Tear strength, ppi (Die C>
Duro A - Inst. rdg.
10 sec. rdg.
Puncture resistance (Rate
of Penetration 20 ipm)
Force, Ib
Elongation, in
Volatiles at 105 F, %
Seam adhesive system
Seam strength
Peel, ppi
Locus of failure
Shear i ppi
Locus of failure
PROPERTIES3 OF BUTYL AND ETOYLENE PROPYLENE RUBBER MEMBRANES AFTER 1 YEAR EXPOSURE TO
?*° r.°LTED IN SIMULATED SAN1TARY LANDFILLS, BUR!ED STRIP SPECIMENS . -
65
1360
450
270
600
211
49
44
41.0
0.58
1.54
Cement
8800
3.7
AD-LS
37;3
AD-LS
Butyl Rubber
22
74.8
1300
575
65
320
480
620
169
57.5
43.2
0.60
2.32
Cement
8800
5.1
AD
27.3
AD-LS
24
21
95.5
1470
425
7
340
720
1120
207
60.5
55
58.2
1.0
Cement 8800
+Tape
AD-LS
37.2
AD-LS
7*
21
64
1395
410
14
685
202
50.5
49.5
2.02
Cmt. 8800
Tape +. Sealant
2 9
37.2
8
1780
575
25
300
720
1130
240
59
54.5
53.6
0 60
5.95
>
7.3
AD
45.0
AD.
16 25
23
1140
475
11
240
530
780
197
52
49
42.1
0.69
5.50
Solvent 374
Cmt. MAG 1265
2.1
AD-LS
15.95
AD-LS
24
65.5
1610
525
22
390
820
1160
117
64.5
60
45.3
0.56
5 . 59
Cmt. 8800 w/cold
Tape -t- Sealant
8.0
AD-LS
42.3
AD-LS
26
18
34.5
1660
425
7
340
820
1290
88
57
54
26.3
0.59
8.99
>
5.6
AD
41.3
AD
16*
23
51.0
1477
410
12
740
195
51.5
40'. 1 .
5.54
Mfgr.
2.0
24.3
aSee Table 4 for test procedures.
bMatrecon liner material number.
cStress at 100%, 200%, and 300% elongations, respectively.
Mounted liner.
-------
TABLE A-8.
PROPERTIES OF MISCELLANEOUS POLYMERIC MEMBRANES AFTER 1 YEAR OF
EXPOSURE TO LEACHATE GENERATED IN SIMULATED SANITARY LANDFILLS
to
< Neoprene
Poly- Poly-
butylene propylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene liner of steel pipe containing refuse liners in base
Bottom Middle Top
b
Specimen no.
Generator base no.
Thickness, mils
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, 4
Tensile set, ft
S-100C, psi
S-200 , psi
S-300 , psi
Tear strength (Die C) , ppi
Duro A - Inst. rdg.
LO sec. cdg..
Puncture resistance
Irate of penetration 20 ipm} :
Force , Ib
Elongation, in
Volatiles at 105°F, %
Seam adhesive system
Seam strength
Peel, ppi
Locus of failure
Shear, ppi
Locus of failure
9
20
71.7
1620
350
2
340
910
147
180
60. S
57
55.9
0.60
8.73
Cement
N-100
4.9
AD-LS
62.2
AD-LS
20
19
9.8 - '
5330
350
220
2220
3070
4440
800
80.5
80
21.2
0.33
0.335
Heat Seal
"10. a
I£
27
17
10
6560
825
595
3040
3120
3200
480
83
82
20.5
0.34
0.40
Heat
With Across With
21 21
11
2618 2436 2400
500 500 450
1273 1125 1360
1420 1165 1500
1635 1200 1730
520 475
70.5
69.5
21.8
0.25
Seal
10.3
Across With Across With
21 21
19
H
1700 2210 1080 2470
475 420 335 490
365
1040 1320 980 1210
1060 1430 990 1360
1145 1680 1040 1590
490 520 500 520
-___ 70.5
70
14.8
0.36
Heat Seal
11.4
Across
2460
625
500
1010
1050
1120
472
See page 16 for list of test procedures.
Matrecon liner material number.
Stress at 1001, 2005, and 300% elongations, respectively.
-------
TABLE A-9. PROPERTIES OF MISCELLANEOUS POLYMER COMPOSITIONS
AFTER 1 YEAR OF EXPOSURE TO LEACHATE
U)
Specimen number
Generator base
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, %
S-100 , psi
S-200 Psi
S-300 . Psi
Duro A, instant reading
10 sec. reading
Volatiles at 105°C,%
TPRa Natural*
1600 1900E rubber
28 29 30
17 18 18
1280
650
- - 6
100
150
210
54 90.5 34.5
47 87.5 34.5
3.98 1.79 4.09
Styrene13
butadiene
31
18
820
200
12
530
820
-
71.5
68
5.36
Ore thane13
rubber
32
18
1390
550
19
440
560
635
82
77
2.21
Neoprene11
33
17
1000
575
11
90
.- 170
270
31
31
8.94
Neoprenec
sponge
34
18
100
250
58
50
80
-
-
-
44.45
TPR=Thermoplastic rubber, ethylene propylene block polymer, in a molded slab.
b
Sheet gasket materials.
°Neoprene sponge used to make airtight seals between flanges of the steel columns and the bases.
-------
TABLE S-l. PROPERTIES OF POLYMERIC LINER MEMBRANES INSTALLED AS BARRIERS (FROM TABLE I,"FIRST INTERIM REPORT')
I tcm
Cell nOi
Liner no.
Thickness, mils
Water absorption, %
2 h @ 100°C
7 days @ 25°C
70 days @ 25°C
a - .
Puncture resistance, 1 ipm
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
A .
Puncture resistance, 20 ipm
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
Scan strength .
Peel, ppi "'
Shear, ppi
Hardness (Duro A)
Inst. rdg.
10 sec. rdg.
Direction of test (re grain)
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at breaJc, 4
Tensile set, %
S-100*', psi
S-200^, psi
S-300 , psi
Tear strength , ppi
Polyethylene
1,19
21
10-12
0.61
0.38
13.9
0.76
15.6
20.2
98
98
. with Across
1700 2590
177 667
1270=- 1030
1470 1050
1680 1120
415 360
Poly vinyl
chloride
2,20
17
20-21
2.15
0.95
25.8
0.69
4.0
37.2
81
76
With Across
2640 2520
270 290
68 77
1260 1130
2080 1850
352 317
Butyl-rubber .
3,21
7
61-65
0.17
0.18
0.52
33.5
1.14
44.8
1.22
3.8
30
-»-
55
51
With Across
1440 1430
360 430
15 18
350 290
770 610
1230 1000
180 180
Hypalon, with
nylon scrim
4,22
6
32-36-
7.17
2.04
4.52'
29.5
1.01
32.9
0.60
30"
50
ei
79
Hi th Across
1920 1610
250 250
115 106
1000 860
1710 1330
320 280
Ethylene-
propylene-
diene (EPDM)
rubber
5,23
16
49-53
0.47
0.61
1.90
31.6
.1.3S
39.4
1.44
2.5
14.6
57
54
with Across
1510 1440
420 400
13 19
350 350
760 760
1120 L120
' ' 181 181
Chlorinated
polyethylene
6,24
12
31-32
2.93
1.43
5.31
33.8
1.03
47.0
1.04
10
57
65
87
With Across
2460 2080
300 520
199 230
1220 520
1320 840
2460 1200
270 240
Method 2065, Fed. Test Methods 101.
b
Stress at 100, 200, and 30O4 elongation, respectively.
CASTM D624, Die C.
-------
TABLE S-2. STRENGTH OF SEAMS3 OF POLYMERIC LINER MATERIALS (FROM TABLE II. "FIRST INTERIM REPORT")
Material
Polyethylene*
Polyvinylchloride
Polyvinylchloride
Polyvinylchloride
Polyvinylchloride*
Polyvinylchloride
Chlorinated
polyethylene
Chlorinated
polyethylene*
Chlorinated
polyethylene
Matrecon
Liner &
Joint
No.
21*
10
11
15
17*-1
19 -1
23 -1
3
12*-1
13-1
Buried
in
Cell
No. Thickness, mi
1,19 10-12
1,19 32
1,19 30
11,17 10
2,20* 20-21
1.19 22
5,23 15-16
5,23
4,22 31-32
6,24 36-38
1 ... Method of Seaming
**Heat seal
Solvent Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
Solvent THF
Solvent 6079 + Cement L-1552
Solvent 6079 + Cement L-1552 (factory)
Solvent 6079 + Cement L-1552
Cement SC-1556
Solvent 60 Trichloroethane: 40 THF
Cement SC-1556
Cement SC-1556
i
Strength
ppi
>15.6
13.0
13.3
14.6
5.0
2.0
4.0
5.9
8.6
1.0
9.5
6.5
6 4
2.0
10
3.9
7
10
10
2
6. a
Peel Test
Locus of
Failure
LS-at heat seal
LS-LS
AD-LS
AD-LS
AD-LS
AD- AD
AD- AD
AD- AD
AD
AD-LS
AD
AD
AD-LS (Adh hard)
AD-LS
AD
AD
AD-LS (Adh hard)
AD-LS (Adh hard)
AD
AD
AD-LS
Strength
Ppi
>20.2
>30
>64.5
>54
19.6
27.2
37.2
>39.5
>35.6
>29.6
>27
>30.4
>30.4
38.6
57
50
48
>200
>218
127
170
Shear Test
Locus of
Failure
No BRK
NO BRK and LS
BRK
BRK
BRK
BRK and AD-AD
AD AD
BRK
BRK
BRK
BRK ,
BRK
BRK
AD-LS
BRK and AD
- BRK and AD
. AD-LS (Adh hard)
BRK
BRK and AD
AD
BRK
-continued-
-------
'TABLE S-2 (continued)
CTl
. ' . Katrecon
Liner &
Joint
Material . "No.
Hypalon
Hypalon, nylon
reinforced
Hypalon with
nylon scrim
Hypalon, reinforced
Butyl rubier
Butyl rubber
Butyl rubber
EPDM rubber
EPDM rubber
EPDM rubber
Neoprene
3-1
2
4-1
2
6*
14
7*
"24
22
26
8
25
16
18*
9
Buried
in
Cell . - . -
No. Thickness, mil Method of Seaming
2,20
2,20
2,20
2,20
4,22*
3,21
3,21*
3,21
3,21
12,18
8,17
6,24
5,23
5,23
2,20
31
33-34
32-36
32-39
61-65
99-100
72-75
35
62-65
49-53
60
Heat seal (factory)
Solvent 6079 + Cement L-1552
Heat seal (factory)
Solvent 6079 + Cement L-1552
"Cement 2802
Solvent Trichlorethylene
"Cement 8800
Cement 8800 + cold seal tape
Cement 880O .
Cement 8800 + cold seal tape
Cement 8800
Cement 8BQO + cold seal tape
Solvent 374 + Cement MAG 1265
"Solvent 374 + Cement MAG (factory)
Cement H-100
Peel Test
Strength
ppi
>20.8
2
>24
0
30
1
3.8
3.3
6.5
6.0
4.5
6.8
2.5
5.4
12.4
Locus of
Failure"
BRK
AD-AD and AD-LS
DEL
AD-AD-r\o test
BRK and DEL
AD
AD-LS (Tacky)
AD-LS (Tacky)
AD-LS (Tacky) -
AD
AD- (Tacky)
AD- (Tacky)
AD-LS
AD-LS
AD-LS
Shear Test
Strength
ppi .
>26.2
17
>61
0
>50
50.5
30
41.5
32.5
45.5
37
33
14.6
44.5
85
Locus of
Failure3
BRK
PiD-LS
BRK
AD-AD
BRK
AD
AD-LS
AD-LS
AD-LS
AD
- no test
(Tacky)
(Tacky)
(Tacky)
AD- (Tacky)
AD- (Tacky)
AD-LS
BRK and AD-LS
AD
* Material being tested as barrier in leachate generator/exposure cells.
"Splice system used Ln barrier.
Except for the factory-made seams and the heat-seal seams, all
splices are 2 inch lap seams.
Locus of failure - code:
BRK = Break of'liner material outside of the seam
DEL = Delamination of the liner material
OR = Failure of the -reinforcing-fabric
AD = Failure within the adhesive
AD-AD = Failure between two coats of adhesive
LS = Failure at liner surface
M>-LS = Failure between adhesive and liner surface
-------
TABLE S-3.
PROPERTIES OF ADMIX LINERS MOUNTED AS BARRIERS (FROM TABLE III, "FIRST INTERIM REPORT")
Admix Material Asphalt
Cell No.
Particle size distribution of aggregate
Passing 4 mesh, %
Passing 8 mesh, %
Passing 16 mesh, %
Passing 30 mesh, %
Passing 50 mesh, %
Passing 100 mesh, %
Passing 200 mesh, %
Soil tests
Sand equivalent
Liquid limit
Plastic limit
Plasticity index
Asphalt tests
Penetration at 25°C
Penetration (extracted) asphalt
Softening point C ( F) Q
Viscosity, capillary at 60 C, cSt
Viscosity, sliding plate at 25 C, at
0.05 sec" , MP Q
Viscosity, sliding plate at 25 C, at
0.001 sec , MP
Microductility at 25 C, ram
Tests on barrier specimens
Thickness of barrier, inch
Density, g./cm
Density, Ib/ft
Void ratio (vol. voids/vol. solids) , %
Water swell, mil
Coefficient of permeability, cm/sec (Ref. 4) 1.2
Compressive strength, psi h
Compressive strength after 24 h immersion
% strength retained
a
Concrete
7,13
90.7
61.0
45.1
30.1
19.4
11.2
6.6
68
44
14.5
20.0
40
2.2
2.387
149.0
6.4
,>
2805
2230
80
Hydraulic b
Asphalt Concrete
8,14
89.4
67.1
50.9
33.7
21.5
12.4
7.2
68
62
9.7
14i5
76
2.4
2.416
150.8
2.9
3.3 x ID*9
2712
2328
86
Soil Cement
9,15
: 88.9
70.8'
53.7
'38.8
29.2
20.8
15.0
27
17.6
non-plastic
non-plastic
4.5
2.169
135.4(dry)
1.5 x lo"6g
1910
1323
69
Bituminous Fabric + £
Soil *sphaltd Seal6 Asphalt Emulsion
10,16 11,17 12,18
' 79. '2 '
55'.8
39.9 . ~
27.3
1 18.5
13.4
11.4 ~ "
31
17.0
non-plastic
non-plastic
0.20 8.5 4.5
0.14 19.3 6.0
72 29
4 0.3 0.3
2.228 - ~ ~
10 . 4 0
17 , Q -9
1...7 x 10"3 <10 <10
1218
184 ~ ~
15
Composition: 7.1 asphalt; 100 aggregate
Composition: 9.0 asphalt; 100 aggregate
Composition: 95 soil: SKaolin clay: 10 type 5 cement: 8.8 water
Composition: 7.0 SC-800 liquid asphalt; 100 aggregate
ecomposition: Catalytically blown asphalt layer 4.7 kg/m
(8.7 pounds per square yard)
Composition: Asphalt from emulsion spread on polypropylene
nonwoven fabric-4.8 kg/m (8.9 Ib. per square yard)
Measured on molded specimen
hAsphalt Cement and Hydraulic Asphalt Cement immersed in water at 60 C,
Soil Asphalt and Soil Cement at R.T.
Ref. 4 Vallerga and Dicks J. Materials, 3^ (1) 73 (1968)
-------
TABLr: S-4. PROPERTIES OF POLYMERIC LINER MEMBRANES BURIED IN LEACHATE GENERATORS
(FROM APPENDIX A, "FIRST INTERIM REPORT")
00
Item
Cell' P.O. a
Liner no.
Thickness, mils
v a to r oi so r r> i i o n , '2
2 h j lorr'c
7 davs 5 :5°C
70 days .3 25°C
Puncc-jre resistance , 1 ipra
Kax. force, Ib
Elongation, in
Puncture resistance , 20 ipm
Max. fores, Ib
Elongation, in
Harc.-ioss (Duro A)
Inst. rcg.
10 sec. rdg.
Direction of test (re grain)
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, %
Stress <2 lOOo, psi
200"^, psi
300 5, psi
Tear strength , ppi
Polyethylene
If 19
21
10-12
0.61
0. 38
__
13.9
0.76
97
97
With Across
1700 2590
320 690
177 667
1270 1030
1470 1050
1680 1120
415 360
Polyethylene*
Collection bags
35
11
0.16
~~""~
'
95
95
With Across
2610 2290
510 670
500 667
1520 1220
1540 1240
1680 1280
Polypropylene
11, 17
27
9-12
0.24
0.29
___
16.9
0.48
95
95
With Across
2000 6590
520 860
430 710
1360 2650
1340 2760
1360 2740
898 775
Polybutylene
1, 19
20
8-10
0.41
9.8
0.32
98
98
With Across
2950 5770
225 410
132 248
2210 2310
2730 3280
4710
500 544
A : : .
b
Method 2065, Fed. Test Methods 101
°ASTM D624, Die C
Used in making leachate collection bags
-continued-
-------
\o
Item
a
Cell no.
Liner no.
Thickness, rails
Water absorption, ^
2 h @ 100 CQ
7 days @ 25 C
70 days @ 25 C
Puncture resistance , 1 ipm
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
b
Puncture resistance , 20 ipm
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
Hardness (Duro A)
Inst. rdg.
10 sec. rdg.
Direction of test (re grain)
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, %
Stress @ 100^, psi
300%, psi ,.
Tear strength , ppi
TABLE S-4 (continued)
Polyvinyl- Polyvinyl- Polyvinyl-
chloride chloride chloride
1,19
1 2 10
20 30-31 32
1.10
__^_ 0.42
87 86 87
81 82 82
With .Across With Across With Across
1610 1540 1970 1900 3400 2840
210 260 230 280 280 300
15 20 34 46 108 130
1200 1040 1030 980 . 1680 1340
1480 1380 2610 2080
_ 2840
390 380
^
-Polyvinyl-
chloride
1,19
11
30
0.95
0.54
34 8
0 92
40.2
0 67
87
With Across
3230 2800
300 310
116 132
1520 1330
2390 1930
3230 2720
380 370
^ ^
Polyvinyl-
chloride
11,17
15
10
2.40
1.52
9.65
0.67
12.8
0.61
77
72
With Acro'ss
2360 2630
200 300
35 82
1680 1230
2360 1880
290 270
__ -
Polyvinyl-
chloride
.^^
2,20 11,17
17
20-21
2.15
0.95
----
25.8
0.69
81
76
With Across
26*40 2520
270 290
68 77
1260 1130
2080 1850
352 317
Polyvinyl-
chloride
1,19
19
22
0.91
0.30
24.0
0.71
80
72
With Across
2780 2260
330 340
97 105
1150 1060
1890 1590
2620 2170
295 275
aUnderline = installed as barrier
bMethod 2065, Fed. Test Methods 101
CASTM D624, Die C
Used in making leachate collection bags
-continued-
-------
TABLE S-4 (continued)
Item
Cell no.3
Liner no.
Thickness, mils
Water absorption, $
z h e 100 c
7 days @ 25°c
70 days @ 25°C
Puncture resistance , 1 ipm
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
Puncture resistance , 20 ipm
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
Hardness (Duro A)
Inst . rdg .
10 sec. rdg.
Direction of test (re grain)
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, %
Stress @ 100%, psi
200%, psi
300*, psi
Tear strength , ppi
Chlorinated
polyethylene
5,23
23
15-16
6.68
3.15
22.8
0.92
67
85
With Across
2510 1160
325 300
173 86
750 480
1700 740
2370 1130
240 190
Chlorinated
polyethylene
6,24 4,22
12
31-32
2.93
1.43
5.31
33.8
1.03
47.0
1.04
85
77
With Across
2460 2080
300 520
199 230
1220 520
1820 840
2460 1200
270 240
Chlorinated
pdlye thy lene
6,24
13
36-38
13.0
6.49
13.7
83.6
0.54
70.2
0.31
79
76
With Across
960 '
70 250
162
strip- 890
ped 920
fiber
516 476
Hypalon
2,20
3
31
4.19
2.36
7.31
17.6
1.18
25.4
1.16
86
83
Wi th Acros s
1710 1430
580 640
370 380
670 520
850 620
1030 760
290 270
Hypalon ,
nylon
reinforced
2,20
4
33-34
5.16
2.80
8.66
33.5
0.53
30.6
0.24
82
81
Wi th Across
1020 1050
420 170
350 170
720 950
820
850
303 365
Hypalon with
nylon scrim
4,22 4,22
6
32-36
7.17
2.04
4.52
29.5
1.01
32.9
0.60
81
79
With Across
1920 1610
250 250
115 106
1000 ' 86O
1710 1330
320 280
Hypalon,
supported
3,21
14
32-39
15.3
4.08
7.13
41.9
0.51
67.9
0.41
76
73
With Across
1750
150
1750
stripped
fiber
333
1560
160
1540
Underline = installed as barrier
b
Method 2O65, Fed. Test Methods 101
CASTM D624, Die C
Used in making leachate collection bags
-continued- '
-------
TABLE S-4 (continued)
Ul
Item
a
Coll no.
Liner no.
Thickness, rnilu
Wd te r absorption , 1
2 h 5 100°C
7 days 3 25°C
70 days 3 25°C
b , .
Puncture res a 3t.l:ice , 1 ipm
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
Puncture resistance , 20 ipm
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
Hardness (Duro A)
Inst. rdg.
10 sec. rdg.
Direction of tost (re grain)
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, %
Stress @ 1001, psi
2001, psi
3001, psi
Tear strength , ppi
Butyl
rubber
3,21,3,21
7
61-65
0.17
0.18
0.52
33.5
1.14
44.8
1.22
55
51
With Across
1440 1430
360 430
15 18
350 290
770 610
1230 1000
180 180
Butyl
rubber
3,21
24
99-100
0.10
0.24
64.9
1.24
60
57
With Across
1500 1500
360 430
15 18
330 250
750 620
1240 1020
205 216
Butyl
rubber
3,21
22
72-75
0.23
0.44
47.7
1.24
58
54
With Across
1170 870
620 525
73 48
290 230
430 370
580 510
144 140
EPDM
rubber
12,18
26
35
0.29
0.48
30.0
1.25
63
61
With Across
1890 1820
460 490
12 13
330 300
850 760
1350 1240
168 173
EPDM
rubber
8,17,6,24
8,25
62-65
0.36
0.34
0.74
43.5
1.33
56.9
1.46
61
56
With Across
1900 1850
560 600
26 24
280 290
610 620
990 1000
230 240
EPDM
rubber
5,23,5,23
16,18
49-53
0.47
0.61
1.90
31.6
1.38
39.4
1.44
57
54
With Across
1510 1440
420 400
13 9
350 350
760 760
1120 1120
181 181
Underline = installed as barrier
Method 2065, Fed. Test Methods 101
CASTM D624, Die C
Used in making leachate collection bags
-continued-
-------
TABLE S-4 (continued!
Ul
to
Iten
Coll no.a
Liner no.
Thic!-:.-,ass, mils
v:;i«r iibso-r-tio:;, \
2 h } 102-^.
7 days 3 :5°C
70 days ^ ;5°c
b
Punccut"'.; resistance? , 1 ion
Max.. fcrc-3, I'o
Elongation, in
b
Puncture resistance , 20 ipra
Max. -orco, Ib
Elo::gaticr., in
Harihi.jss (D;;ro A)
Inst. rdc; .
10 'sec. re:.;.
Direction of test (re grain)
Tensile strer.cth, psi
Elonr;atior, at break, %
Tensile set, 1
Stress 3 lOO-o, psi
200'', , os i
300 :j osi
c
Tear strcnQt ^ D[?i
Styrene-
Natural butadiene
rubber rubber
12,18 12,18
30 . 31
146-148 130
_- -_
_
.
50 88
50 86
With Across With Across
2870 850
775 150
14 6
75 780
] An _ _ _
07/\ _ _ _
Urethane
rubber
12 ,18
32
47-62
78
75
Wich Across
8010 '
620
4 ---.-.
620
pin ~
O.LU
» nort
±&Q\J
3QT
J^f.
Asphalt-
impregnated
fiberglass
3,21
5
64-75
1.73
1.56
L0.3
5.7
0.14
8.7
0.16
78
67
With Ac
760 33U
4 3
Art _ _
H\j
Underline = installed as barrier
Method 2065, Fed. Test Methods 101
CASTM D624, Die C
*Used in making leachate collection bags
-------
TABLE S-4 (continued)
(Ji
Item
a
Cell no.
Liner no.
Thickness, mils
Water absorption, %
_ ., ^-O_
2 h @ 100 CQ
7 days @ 25 C
70 days @ 25 C
b
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
Puncture resistance , 20 ipm
Max. force, Ib
Elongation, in
Hardness (Duro A)
10 sec. rdg.
Direction of test (re grain)
Tensile strength, psi
Elongation at break, %
Tensile set, %
Stress @ 100%, psi
300%, psi
Tear strength , ppi
Neoprene foam Thermoplastic
Neoprene . Neoprene gasket rubber
2,20 H,17 - I2'18 U'17
9 33 34 28
60 125-137 245-248 71-76
1 71
1.80
7.88
33.5
1.05
58 7
1.16
64
71 ' l« - "
66 49
Wi th Across With Acros s
2320 2090 1500 1280 65
340 340 720 675 220
11 13 27 23 36
640 560 110 94 37
1320 1150 190 160 &2
2060 1830 270 250
220 210 104 87 14
Thermoplastic
rubber
12,18
29
67-76
88
87
:
Underline = installed as barrier
bMethod 2065, Fed. Test Methods 101
CASTM D624, Die C
*Used in making leachate collection bags
-continued-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT
(Please read Instructions on the reverse
DATA
before completing)
Jl. REPORT NO. [T "
EPA-600/2-76-255
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EVALUATION OF LINER MATERIALS EXPOSED TO LEACHATE
Second Interim Report
7. AUTHOR(S)
Henry E. Haxo, Jr.
Richard M. White
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Matrecon, Inc.
2811 Adeline Street
Oakland, California 94608
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
, : . .
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION? NO.
5. REPORT DATE
September 1976 (Issuing
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
date)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DC618
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2134
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Interim 11/74 - 11/75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ' II
.... . . . > .
ure of liner materials to sanitary landfill leachate. Included in the report are des-
criptions of the monitoring and disassembly of the generators to recover the liner
specimens, the results of the testing of the exposed liners, and a discussion of the
results.
The year's exposure did not result in losses of impermeability in any of the liners.
There were losses, however, in the compressive strength of the admix liner materials.
There were some losses in the physical properties of some of the polymeric membranes
and swelling of most of these membranes. The seams of several lost strength, with the
heat-sealed seams holding up best as a group.
Among the polymeric membranes, the crystalline types of polyethylene, polypropylene,
and polybutylene sustained the least change during the year's exposure. However,
these liners, or films, are prone to puncture and tear and are generally difficult to
handle in the field. The thermoplastic membranes, chlorinated polyethylene, chloro-
sulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon), and polyvinyl chloride, tended to swell the most.
The vulcanized rubbery liner materials, e.g. butyl and EPDM, changed little during the
exposure period but had the lowest initial seam strength.
The data presented must be considered as preliminary in an ongoing project; it is pre-
mature at this point to make estimates of the service life of the various materials
or to make relative comparisons among them for use in a given installation without
consideration to costs and to the specifics of the installation.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Linings, Leaching, Refuse Disposal,
Pollution, Decomposition reactions, Plastic
solid waste management
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
64
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
54
------- |